Part 14

I am for peace in reality as in name. From the bottom of my heart I am for peace, and I welcome all that makes for peace. With deep-felt satisfaction I remember that no citizen who drew his sword against us has suffered by the hand of the executioner. In just association with this humanity will be the triumph of Equal Rights, when the promises of the great Declaration are all fulfilled, and our people are united, as never before, in the enduring fellowship of a common citizenship. To this end there must be Reconciliation. Nor can I withhold my hand. Freely I accept the hand that is offered, and reach forth my own in friendly grasp. I am against the policy of hate; I am against fanning ancient flames into continued life; I am against raking the ashes of the Past for coals of fire yet burning. Pile up the ashes; extinguish the flames; abolish the hate!

And now, turning to the Democratic party, I hold it to all the covenants solemnly given in the adoption of a Republican platform with Horace Greeley as candidate. There can be no backward step.

WATCHWORD FOR THE CANVASS.

With no common sympathy I observe that Mr. Hendricks, a leading Democrat, whom I knew and esteemed in the Senate, has recently announced his acceptance of the Constitutional Amendments with their logical results. He proposes, as a proper key-note to the popular movement now swelling to a sure triumph, “Just Laws and Public Virtue.” This is a worthy aspiration, entirely fit for the occasion. My watchword is, “The Unity of the Republic, and the Equal Rights of All, with Reconciliation.” Such is my heart-felt cry; and wherever my voice can reach, there do I insist upon all these, humbly invoking the blessings of Divine Providence, which, I believe, must descend upon such a cause.

* * * * *

Accept my best wishes for yourselves personally, and for the people you represent.

And believe me, Gentlemen,

Your faithful friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

To Dr. AUGUSTA, WILLIAM H. A. WORMLEY, and others.

LETTER TO SPEAKER BLAINE.

AUGUST 5, 1872.

July 31, 1872, Mr. Blaine addressed a letter to Mr. Sumner through the newspapers, arraigning him as recreant both to party and principle, in the position taken by him on the Presidential question in his recent Letter to Colored Citizens. Mr. Sumner responded as follows:--

WASHINGTON, August 5, 1872.

DEAR SIR,--I have seen the letter addressed to me by you through the public prints, and I notice especially, that, while animadverting upon my support of Horace Greeley, you say not one word in vindication of that compound of pretensions known as Grantism in contradistinction to Republicanism, which you would install anew in the Government.

You are greatly concerned about the company I keep. To quiet your solicitude, I beg leave to say, that, in joining the Republicans who brought forward an original Abolitionist, I find myself with so many others devoted to the cause I have always served that I had not missed you until you hastened to report absence; nor had I taken account of the “Southern Secessionists,” who, as you aver, are now coöperating with me in support of this original Abolitionist, except to rejoice, that, if among former associates some like yourself hesitate, their places are supplied from an unexpected quarter.

You entirely misunderstand me when you introduce an incident of the past, and build on it an argument why I should not support Horace Greeley. What has Preston Brooks to do with the Presidential election? Never, while a sufferer, did anybody hear me speak of him in unkindness; and now, after the lapse of more than half a generation, I will not unite with you in dragging him from the grave, where he sleeps, to aggravate the passions of a political conflict, and arrest the longing for concord. And here is the essential difference between you and me at this juncture. I seize the opportunity to make the equal rights of all secure through peace and reconciliation; but this infinite boon you would postpone.

Seven years have passed since the close of our Civil War; but, unhappily, during all this period a hostile spirit has continued to exist between the contending sections, while the rights of colored fellow-citizens have been in perpetual question. Seven years mark a natural period of human life. Should not the spirit be changed with the body? Can we not after seven years begin a new life, especially when those once our foes repeat the saying, “Thy people shall be my people, and thy God my God”?

I declare my preference for an original Abolitionist as President, and you seek to create a diversion by crying out that Democrats will support him. To which I reply, So much the better. Their support is the assurance that the cause he has so constantly guarded, whether of Equal Rights or Reconciliation, is accepted by Democrats; and this is the pledge of a true union beyond anything in our history. It is a victory of ideas, without which all other victories must fail.

To intensify your allegation, you insist that I am ranged with Jefferson Davis and Robert Toombs; but, pardon me, nobody knows how the former will vote, while Robert Toombs is boisterous against Horace Greeley, and with him are Stephens, Wise, and Mosby. This is all very poor, and I mention it only to exhibit the character of your attempt.

In the same spirit you seek to avoid the real issue by holding up the possibility of what you call a Democratic Administration; and you have the courage to assert, as within my knowledge, that by the election of Horace Greeley “Congress is handed over to the control of the party who have persistently denied the rights of the black man.” You say that I know this. Mr. Speaker, I know no such thing, and you should be sufficiently thoughtful not to assert it. I am entirely satisfied that a canvass like the present, where the principles declared at Cincinnati are openly accepted on one side and not contested on the other, must result in a larger number of Congressional Representatives sincerely devoted to the rights of the colored citizen than ever before.

The Democrats will be pledged, as never before, to the ruling principle that All Men are Equal before the Law, and also to the three Constitutional Amendments, with the clause in each empowering Congress to enforce the same by appropriate legislation. But besides Democrats, there will be Liberal Republicans pledged likewise, and also your peculiar associates, who, I trust, will not betray the cause. Senators and Representatives calling themselves Republicans have been latterly in large majority in both Houses; but the final measure of Civil Rights, to which you refer, though urged by me almost daily, has failed to become a law, less, I fear, from Democratic opposition than from Republican lukewarmness and the want of support in the President.

The great issue which the people are called to decide in November is on the President, and nobody knows better than yourself that the House of Representatives, chosen at the same time, will naturally harmonize with him. So it has been in our history. Now harmony with Horace Greeley involves what I most desire. With such a President, Congress will be changed. For the first time since the war the Equal Rights of All will have a declared representative at the head of the Government, whose presence there will be of higher significance than that of any victor in war, being not only a testimony, but a constant motive-power in this great cause.

Opposition, whether open hostility or more subtle treachery, will yield to the steady influence of such a representative. Therefore in looking to the President I look also to Congress, which will take its character in large measure from him. In choosing Horace Greeley we do the best we can for the whole Government,--not only in the Executive, but in the Legislative branch,--while we decline to support nepotism, repayment of personal gifts by official patronage, seizure of the war powers, indignity to the Black Republic,--also, the various incapacity exhibited by the President, and the rings by which he governs,--none of which can you defend. You know well that the rings are already condemned by the American people.

For myself, I say plainly and without hesitation, that I prefer Horace Greeley, with any Congress possible on the Cincinnati Platform, to President Grant, _with his personal government and his rings_,--a vote for whom involves the support of this personal government, _with prolonged power in all the rings_. There must be another influence and another example. The Administration, in all its parts, is impressed by the President. Let his soul be enlarged with the sentiment of justice, quickened by industry, and not only the two Houses of Congress, but the whole country, will feel the irresistible authority, overspreading, pervading, permeating everywhere. Therefore, in proportion as you are earnest for the rights of the colored citizen, and place them above all partisan triumph, you will be glad to support the candidate whose heart has always throbbed for Humanity. The country needs such a motive-power in the White House; it needs a generous fountain there. In one word, it needs somebody different from the present incumbent; and nobody knows this better than Speaker Blaine.

The personal imputation you make upon me I repel with the indignation of an honest man. I was a faithful supporter of the President until somewhat tardily awakened by his painful conduct on the island of San Domingo, involving seizure of the war power in violation of the Constitution, and indignity to the Black Republic in violation of International Law; and when I remonstrated against these intolerable outrages, I was set upon by those acting in his behalf. Such is the origin of my opposition. I could not have done less without failure in that duty which is with me the rule of life. Nor can I doubt that when partisan sentiments are less active you will regret the wrong you have done me. Meanwhile I appeal confidently to the candid judgment of those who, amidst all present differences of opinion, unite in the great objects, far above Party or President, to which my life is devoted.

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE HONORABLE SPEAKER BLAINE.

RETROSPECT AND PROMISE.

ADDRESS AT A SERENADE BEFORE HIS HOUSE IN WASHINGTON, AUGUST 9, 1872.

The serenade was given under the auspices of the colored men of the District, on the occasion of the Senator’s departure for Boston,--and the crowd in attendance is reported to have been “one of the largest ever gathered in Washington for a similar object.” On presentation by Dr. Augusta as “the tried and true friend of the African race,” Mr. Sumner said:--

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

I am touched by this voluntary expression of friendship, and beg to thank you from the heart.

In seeing you on this occasion I think of you only as personal friends among whom I have lived more than twenty years. During this considerable period changes have occurred of incalculable importance to the country, but especially to the colored people. When I entered upon my public duties here Slavery was in the ascendant, giving the law to all the usages of life. The colored man was degraded. He was not allowed to testify in court; he was shut out from the public schools; he was excluded from the public conveyances, and thrust away from the ballot-box. But here in the National Capital all these terrible wrongs have ceased. The court-room, the school-house, the horse-car, and the ballot-box are all open, never to be closed. Revolutions do not go backward. Therefore you may rest secure in what has been won. Of this be sure, Slavery will never be revived, nor will you be restrained or limited in any of these rights you now enjoy. [_Applause, and three cheers for Mr. Sumner._]

Most sincerely do I congratulate you on these signal triumphs, so little to be expected when I first became acquainted with you. And when we consider the brief period in which they have been accomplished, I am sure you will unite with me in hope and trust for the future. [_Cries, “We will!”_]

It is my duty, however, to remind you that the work is not yet completed. This will be only by the enactment of a Civil Rights Bill which shall relieve the citizen, whoever he may be, from any exclusion or discrimination on account of his color. Only then will be established that Equality before the Law to which now, for the first time in our history, all political parties are distinctly pledged. Here there can be no question. [_Applause._] It is in the platforms of all. Of the early passage of such a law I do not doubt. Then will you have all the assurance of your rights that can be found in the Constitution and law. But that law will be the cap-stone. [_Applause._]

I shall not disguise from you that something more will be needed. There must be a constant, watchful, public opinion behind, to see that these are enforced in letter and spirit. Here there must be no failure in awakening and invigorating this public opinion. You can do much,--I would almost say you can do everything. How constantly have I urged, in public speech and in all my intercourse with you, that our colored fellow-citizens must insist upon their rights always, by petition, by speech, and by vote! Above all, never vote for any man who is not true to you. Make allegiance to you the measure of your support. [_Cheers._] So doing, all parties will seek your vote. [_Cheers._] You will be felt, and your cause will be irresistible.

Please accept these few words as my acknowledgment of your kindness this evening. [_Cries, “Go on!”_] From long acquaintance you know something of my sympathies. [_A voice, “I do!”_] Always from the beginning I have sought to serve you, and always to the end shall I seek to serve you. To your cause my life is dedicated, and nothing can turn me from it, nothing can tempt me or drive me from its support. [_Loud applause._]

FREDERICK DOUGLASS AND PRESIDENT GRANT.

LETTER TO HON. ANDREW D. WHITE, PRESIDENT OF CORNELL UNIVERSITY, AUGUST 10, 1872.

WASHINGTON, August 10, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am surprised by a statement purporting to proceed from you, which I find under the telegraphic head, to the effect that I have misrepresented facts with regard to Frederick Douglass.

In making this allegation you defend the Commissioners to San Domingo, and allege that Mr. Douglass was well treated by them. I have never said the contrary, nor have I ever alluded to the treatment he received from them. Not a word or hint can be found on the subject in anything written or spoken by me.

My allusion was to the exclusion of Mr. Douglass from the common table of the mail-packet on the Potomac, almost within sight of the Executive Mansion, simply on account of color,--and I added, that the President, on whose invitation he had joined the Commission, never uttered a word in rebuke of this exclusion, and when entertaining the returned Commissioners at dinner carefully omitted Mr. Douglass, who was in Washington at the time, and thus repeated the indignity. On this you are represented as remarking, that General Sigel was also omitted, but that, in fact, Mr. Douglass and General Sigel had already left for their homes (forgetting that Mr. Douglass continued in Washington); and you do not allow yourself to doubt, that, had they been in town, they would have been included in the invitation. Your apology clearly shows your opinion that they ought to have been invited; but please not to forget that there was a reason for inviting Mr. Douglass that did not exist in the case of General Sigel. The General was white, and he had suffered no indignity on board a mail-packet which it was in the power of the President to rebuke by example.

But you are mistaken in the facts, as appears by the newspapers of the time. The Commissioners reached Washington on the evening of March 27th. They were entertained at dinner by the President March 30th. On the day before the dinner Mr. Douglass presided at the Convention to nominate a Delegate to Congress from the District of Columbia, and on taking the chair made a speech. Mr. Chipman was nominated against Mr. Douglass, who made another speech thanking his supporters for their votes. To gratify the friends of Mr. Douglass, there was an understanding that he should succeed Mr. Chipman as Secretary of the District. These things show that Mr. Douglass was not only in Washington, but conspicuously so, presiding at a public Convention, and being voted for as a candidate for Congress.

But we are not left to inference. Mr. A. M. Green, of Washington, who at the Convention nominated Mr. Douglass for Congress, assures us that he did not leave town till some days later. Mr. Green further states, in a note dated August 10th, now before me, that about this time he and another friend called on Mr. Douglass, in relation to his appointment by the President as Secretary of the District; that Mr. Douglass, while thanking them for their earnestness in his behalf, assured them that he had no hope of success; that he had “new evidence of the conservative character or tendency of the Administration, which warranted him in the opinion that we could not succeed”; and Mr. Green says that Mr. Douglass added these words: “I was not only neglected without any rebuke for the offence from the President, but the Commissioners have been invited to dine with the President, and the same spirit of neglect has been exhibited in that respect also.” Mr. Green adds, that recently, while on the way to the National Colored Convention at New Orleans, Mr. Douglass, in conversation with Mr. Downing and himself, “referred in a complaining spirit to this circumstance.”

I have also before me a note, dated August 10th, from Mr. Wormley, so well known for his excellent hotel in Washington, who says that he asked Mr. Douglass, shortly after his return, if he dined with the President and the Commissioners, to which he answered, “No, and for the good reason that I was not invited”; and then he added, “It is no use to deny it, but I feel it sorely.” This was at Mr. Douglass’s office. On another occasion, at his son’s house, referring to the same thing, he said to Mr. Wormley, “I felt it keenly.”

Mr. Gray, recently of the Legislative Council of the District, nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, now a School Trustee, assures me that Mr. Douglass spoke to him of his omission by the President with the same feeling that he exhibited to Mr. Green and Mr. Wormley. These witnesses are all colored, but even without the new law nobody would question their testimony. I add my own acquaintance with the case. At my house, Mr. Douglass, while speaking not unkindly, said that he felt the President’s neglect in not inviting him to dine, which was more noticeable, as he had gone to San Domingo at the express invitation of the President, and on his return was insulted on board the Potomac mail-packet. He added, that an invitation from the President would have been a proper rebuke to those who had insulted him.

I will add, that it is a matter of common notoriety that Mr. Douglass did not disguise his feelings on account of this Presidential incident.

Such are the facts and the evidence. I think that you will see, my dear Sir, that, if there is any misstatement, or, as you express it, “perversion of facts,” it is not on my part.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

GREELEY OR GRANT?

SPEECH INTENDED TO BE DELIVERED AT FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, SEPTEMBER 3, 1872.

LIBERAL REPUBLICAN HEAD-QUARTERS, BOSTON, August 24, 1872.

MY DEAR SIR,--I am directed by the Liberal Republican State Committee to communicate to you a vote of which the following is a copy:--

“_Voted_, That the Chairman, in the name of the Liberal Republican State Committee, invite the Hon. Charles Sumner to address his constituents on Public Affairs in Faneuil Hall, at the earliest day that may suit his convenience.”

Allow me to add my earnest personal wishes that you will be able to comply with the request. “The great soul of the world is just,” and the sober second thought of the people of Massachusetts will, I doubt not, sustain you in the position you have taken in favor of Reform and Reconciliation, and therefore of the election of Greeley and Brown.

Very faithfully yours,

F. W. BIRD.

HON. CHARLES SUMNER.

BOSTON, August 30, 1872.

DEAR SIR,--I have been honored by your communication of August 24th, inviting me in the name of the Liberal Republicans of Massachusetts, to speak in Faneuil Hall. It is with inexpressible pain and regret that I feel constrained to decline this flattering opportunity.

I had confidently hoped, on returning home, to meet my fellow-citizens in that venerable forum, so dear to us all, and to speak once more on great questions involving the welfare of our country; but recurring symptoms of a painful character warn me against any such attempt. My physician advises that I must not for the present make any public effort, and he prescribes rest. Valued friends, familiar with my condition, unite with the excellent physician.

In submitting most reluctantly to these admonitions, I cannot renounce the privilege of communicating with my fellow-citizens, and therefore hand you a copy of what, with the blessing of health, I hoped to say. In the House of Representatives undelivered speeches are sometimes ordered to be printed. You may follow this precedent with mine, or do with it as you please. Meanwhile accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HON. FRANCIS W. BIRD, Chairman, etc.

SPEECH.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,--It is on the invitation of the State Committee of Liberal Republicans that I have the honor of addressing you. I shall speak directly on the issue before us. If I am frank and plain, it will be only according to my nature and the requirement of duty at this time. But nothing can I say which is not prompted by a sincere desire to serve my country, and especially to promote that era of good-will, when the assent of all shall be assured to the equal rights of all.

THE TWO CANDIDATES.

At the approaching Presidential Election the people are to choose between two candidates. By the operation of our electoral system, and the superadded dictation of National Conventions, the choice is practically limited to President Grant and Horace Greeley; so that no preference for another can be made effective. One of these must be taken. Preferring Horace Greeley, I have no hesitation in assigning the reasons which lead me to this conclusion.