Part 19

I confess a true pleasure in learning that the colored people are at last rising to take the good cause into their own hands, because through them its triumph is certain. But they must be in earnest. They must insist and labor, then labor and insist again. Only in this way can indifference, which is worse even than the stubbornness of opposition, be overcome. The open foe can be met. It is hard to deal with that dulness which feels no throb at the thought of opening to all complete equality in the pursuit of happiness.

Permit me to remind you, Gentlemen, that, living at the national capital, you have a peculiar responsibility. In the warfare for Equal Rights you are the advance guard, sometimes the forlorn hope. You are animated to move forward, not only for your own immediate good, but because through you the whole colored population of the country will be benefited. What is secured for you will be secured for all,--while, if you fail, there is small hope elsewhere. Do not forget--and let this thought arouse to increased exertion--that your triumph will redound to the good of all.

The District of Columbia is the place where all the great reforms born of the war have begun. It is the experimental garden and nursery where all the generous plants have been tried. Emancipation, colored suffrage, the right of colored persons to testify, and the right to ride in the street-cars,--all these began here, and I remember well how they were all encountered.

On the abolition of Slavery we were solemnly warned that riot, confusion, and chaos would ensue. Emancipation took place, and not a voice or sound was heard except of peace and gladness. I was soberly assured by eminent politicians, that if colored persons were allowed to vote there would be massacre at the polls. Then, again, colored testimony was deprecated,--while it was insisted that the street-cars would be ruined, if opened to colored persons. But all these changes, demanded by simple justice, have been in every way beneficent. Nobody would reverse them now. Who would establish Slavery again? Who would drive the colored citizen from the polls? Who would exclude him from the court-room? Who would shut him from the street-cars? And now the old objections are revived, and made to do service again, in order to defeat the effort for common schools,--being schools founded on the very principle of Equal Rights recognized in the elective franchise, in the court-room, and in the street-car. If this principle is just for all the latter,--and nobody says the contrary now,--why hesitate to apply it in education? How often we are enjoined to train the child in the way he should go! Why, then, compel him in those tender years to bear the ban of exclusion? Why, at that early period, when impressions are received for life, impose upon him the badge of inferiority? He is to be a man; therefore he must be trained to that self-respect without which there can be no true manhood. But this can be only by removing all ban of exclusion, and every badge of inferiority from color.

As the old objections are revived, so again do I present the great truth announced by our fathers in the Declaration of Independence, “that all men are created equal.” Admitting this principle as a rule of conduct, the separation of children in the public schools on account of color is absolutely indefensible. In abolishing it we simply bring our schools into conformity with the requirements of the Declaration.

To the objection that this change will injure the schools, I reply that this is contrary to experience in other places, where the commingling of children according to the genius of republican institutions has been found excellent in influence. And I further reply by insisting now, as I always do, upon that justice to an oppressed race which has been too long delayed, and which never fails to be a well-spring of strength and happiness, blessing all who help it and all who receive it.

Feeling as I do on this question, you will understand that I cannot see without regret any opportunity neglected of advancing the cause, especially among colored fellow-citizens. On this they should be a unit. Wherever the question presents itself, whether in Congress, or the Legislative Chambers of the District, or the popular assembly, there should be a solid vote against every discrimination on account of color. It is easy for lawyers and politicians to find excuses according to their desires; but no fine-spun theory or technicality should be allowed to prevail against the commanding principle.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen,

Your faithful friend,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HENRY PIPER, Chairman.

BOSTON: ITS PROPER BOUNDARIES.

LETTER TO HON. G. W. WARREN, OF CHARLESTOWN, ON THE ANNEXION TO BOSTON OF THE SUBURBAN TOWNS, OCTOBER 4, 1873.

COOLIDGE HOUSE, October 4, 1873.

DEAR MR. WARREN,--I should be glad to meet your friends in a conference on the question, How Boston shall be rounded so as to be in reality itself. I cannot meet with you, but I unite in your purpose, as I understand it, and especially with regard to Charlestown.

I doubt if the future Boston will be content until it holds and possesses all the territory which hugs the harbor bearing its name, so that in Boston harbor nobody shall land except in Boston.

Evidently Boston should contain all Bostonians, which it does not now. I know no better way of accomplishing this result than by widening the circle of its jurisdiction.

But there is a stronger reason. Every capital is a natural focus of life, politically, socially, and commercially; and every person living in this natural focus properly belongs to the capital. So it is with London, Paris, and Vienna,--each of which is composed of suburbs and faubourgs grouped about the original city; and so in reality it is with Boston,--for the places about the city, though called by different names, are parts of the same unity, which needs nothing now but a common name.

A capital may be artificial or natural. The artificial body is that formed by original unchangeable boundaries. The natural body is that combination, cluster, or expansion which changes with the developments of time and to meet the growing exigencies.

With these views, I find the various processes of annexion only a natural manifestation, to be encouraged always, and to be welcomed under proper conditions of population and public opinion. I say “annexion” rather than “annexation.” Where a word is so much used, better save a syllable,--especially as the shorter is the better.

Ever sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

This letter appeared just previously to the vote on the annexion to Boston of Charlestown, West Roxbury, Brighton, and Brookline,--which was taken on the first Tuesday of October, 1873, with a favorable result as to the first three municipalities.

YELLOW FEVER AT MEMPHIS AND SHREVEPORT: AID FOR THE SUFFERERS.

REMARKS BEFORE THE BOARD OF TRADE AT BOSTON, OCTOBER 24, 1873.

At a meeting in aid of the sufferers by yellow fever in Memphis (Tennessee) and Shreveport (Louisiana), held at the rooms of the Board of Trade in Boston, at which the Mayor, Hon. Henry L. Pierce, presided, after remarks by Mr. Pierce and Hon. Alexander H. Rice, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. MAYOR,--I have come less for speech than to show by my presence here the sincere interest I feel in the present meeting. For what can I say to prompt the generosity of Boston merchants? They understand this call, and their hearts have already answered it.

It is hard to hear of suffering anywhere without longing to relieve it. But happily now all impediment of distance is removed; and such are the facilities of communication that before the set of sun your contributions will brighten the faces of those distant sufferers. Do not think of distance. It is nothing. If Boston should be startled by hearing to-day that pestilence had appeared in one of our new-found possessions, as in Charlestown,--or even in Brookline, which will not be annexed,--we should feel the ties of neighborhood. But Memphis and Shreveport are neighbors by telegraph and steam, and the grander ties of a common country, which the ancient Roman orator called the “great charity comprehending all.”[228] Besides, there is that other more touching neighborhood which springs from suffering,--for I do not forget the divine hymn which teaches that

“Our neighbor is the suffering man, Though at the farthest pole.”[229]

In these latter days, my friends, distress has come less from pestilence than from conflagration. The Fire Fiend has been more active than the other demon, and property has suffered more than life. Such are the favoring conditions of climate and the general security of health in our country, that we are rarely disturbed by contagion. But it has come at last with the “reaper whose name is Death.”

To arrest this contagion, to help those exposed to its ravages, we perform a simple duty, as when we direct water upon the bursting blaze. Pestilence is a conflagration, and human life is the sacrifice. In this illustration I bring home to Boston merchants the urgency of the present call. Too well you know the terrible scene, when your magnificent and well-filled warehouses, borrowed in style and form from Venetian palaces, were seized and devoured by the flames. But other flames, not less vindictive, are now seizing and devouring fellow-men, our fellow-countrymen, in fair and beautiful places where all smiles but the benefactor Health. Let us do what we can to help the benefactor resume his sway.

At the close of Mr. Sumner’s remarks, measures were taken for the immediate receiving of subscriptions.

THE CASE OF THE VIRGINIUS.

LETTER TO THE CUBAN MASS MEETING IN NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 15, 1873.

The Virginius, a steamer sailing from New York under American colors, was seized on her way from Jamaica to Cuba by a Spanish cruiser, the Tornado, on the ground that she was carrying men and munitions of war to the Cuban insurgents, and a large number of those on board were summarily executed by order of the Spanish authorities in that island. The intelligence caused much excitement, especially in the City of New York, which was the centre of Cuban interests in this country. An indignation meeting was held in that City, which was countenanced by persons of high character and position, and addressed by Hon. William M. Evarts and others in speeches of great intensity. Mr. Sumner, taking a view of the case which the sober second thought of the people approved, but which was not in accord with the passions of the hour, answered an invitation to attend the meeting by the following letter:--

BOSTON, November 15, 1873.

GENTLEMEN,--It is not in my power to be with you at your meeting to ask for justice in Cuba.

Allow me to add, that, longing for immediate Emancipation in this neighboring island, where Slavery still shows its infamous front, and always insisting that delay is contrary to justice, I do not think it practicable at this moment, on existing evidence, to determine all our duties in the recent case where civilization has received a shock.

It is very easy to see that no indignation at dreadful butchery--inconsistent with the spirit of the age, but unhappily aroused by an illicit filibustering expedition from our own shores, kindred to that of the Alabama, for which England has been justly condemned in damages--can make us forget that we are dealing with the Spanish nation, struggling under terrible difficulties to become a sister Republic, and therefore deserving from us present forbearance and candor. Nor can we forget the noble President, whose eloquent voice, pleading for humanity and invoking our example, has so often charmed the world. The Spanish Republic and Emilio Castelar do not deserve the menace of war from us.

If watchwords are needed now, let them be: Immediate Emancipation and Justice in Cuba!--Success to the Spanish Republic!--Honor and Gratitude to Emilio Castelar! and Peace between our two Nations! Bearing these in mind, there will be no occasion for the belligerent preparations of the last few days, adding to our present burdensome expenditures several millions of dollars, and creating a war fever to interfere with the general health of the political body.

I am, Gentlemen,

Your faithful servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE COMMITTEE.

THE SUPPLEMENTARY CIVIL-RIGHTS BILL AGAIN: IMMEDIATE ACTION URGED.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 2, 1873.

MR. PRESIDENT,--If the Senate has no business before it, I think it cannot do better than to proceed to the consideration of Senate bill No. 1, the Bill Supplementary to the Civil-Rights Act.[230] It is a well-known bill, and I do not see how it will require any debate. I think its reading will be enough. Its terms are expressive; the bill proves itself. I move that the Senate proceed to its consideration.

Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, objecting, that on the introduction of this bill, the day before, Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, who was not now in his seat, had expressed an earnest desire that it should be referred to a committee, a feeling in which he himself sympathized, “especially because the constitutional question which was prominent in the former debate on it had been submitted to the consideration of the Supreme Court of the United States, and its decision promulgated since the Senate last met,”--

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner replied:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--This bill has been before a committee. What the committee did in the way of consideration I know not; I had not the honor of being a member of it. But afterward, as all know, this bill was completely, most thoroughly, considered and canvassed in this Chamber. Never in the history of our legislation was any bill more considered; never has any bill been more minutely matured. Why, then, refer it to a committee? I do not say that Senators propose delay, but it is obvious that such a reference will cause delay.

Now, Sir, I am against delay in the enactment of this measure. It should pass promptly. It is a great act of justice, to which, as I understand, the political parties of the country, in solemn convention, are pledged. Why, then, wait? Why charge a committee with this burden? Why continue on the country the burden of the injustice which this bill proposes to relieve?

We are reminded of a recent decision of the Supreme Court. I have yet to learn how that decision has any practical bearing on the present bill. I do not believe that it touches it. Why, then, interpose this delay? Why not go forward promptly, swiftly, according to the merits of this measure, and give it, like a benediction, to the land? Here are our colored fellow-citizens, many millions strong, all of whom have votes, and all unite in asking it. Your table has literally groaned under petitions presented from month to month, from year to year; and unless the bill is speedily passed, I predict that your table will groan again with similar petitions, and justly,--for our colored fellow-citizens ought to exercise that great right of petition in favor of this measure until it is finally adopted.

I am sorry that the suggestion has been made. I had hoped that there would be nothing but welcome and consideration for a measure so truly beneficent, and which is absolutely needed to crown and complete the great work of Reconstruction.

Mr. Ferry reiterating his objections, with the remark that this bill had “in its principle been considered by the Supreme Court of the United States,” and its constitutionality “substantially decided against,” and to Mr. Sumner’s inquiry, “When, and on what occasion?” responding,--

“In the New Orleans Slaughter-house cases; and I have read in the newspapers of the country during the recent vacation what purported to be the opinion of the Supreme Court; and if the paper which I read was the opinion of the Supreme Court, that court, by a majority, holds in principle that the bill which the Senator has presented is a violation of the Constitution of the United States,”--

Mr. Sumner rejoined:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I would not fail in any courtesy to any Senator, especially in any courtesy to the Senator from Vermont, for whom I have all kindness and honor, but I think Senators will agree that nothing passed yesterday between us by which I am in any way constrained, so that I may not ask the Senate to proceed at once with this bill. If I could see the question as my friend from Connecticut sees it, he may be assured that I should not press the bill. I do not see it so; but I do see that this bill is now on our table numbered _One_: it is the first bill of the Calendar. I see also that at this time the Senate has no business before it; and should I not fail in duty, if I did not ask the Senate to proceed during this unoccupied time with a bill which I regard as so important, and which is actually the first in order, being foremost among all bills?

But my friend from Connecticut reminds me of a recent decision of the Supreme Court. For that Court I have great respect. Personal and professional familiarity with the Court, and study of its judgments running now for much more than a generation, incline me always to deference when its decisions are mentioned; but if I understood my friend, he relies upon a newspaper report. Sir, I have read the judgment of that Court, communicated to me by one of its members in an official copy; and I have no hesitation in saying that the Senator is entirely mistaken, if he supposes that by a hair’s breadth it interferes with the constitutionality of the bill which I now move.

Sir, there is no such lion in our path. It exists only in the imagination of my friend,--or in the desire, which he has so often manifested, to interfere with the adoption of this measure. But the Senator is mistaken if he supposes that I charge upon him any indifference to Human Rights. Never, in any debate, has any word fallen from me which that Senator can so misinterpret. I know too well his heart, his excellent and abounding nature, his New-England home, to attribute to him any such indifference. But I do know full well, for the Senator has often declared it, that he acts under interpretations of the Constitution which it seems to me belong to the period anterior to the war rather than since the war. It seems to me--I may be mistaken, but I cannot help saying it--that the Senator has not yet recognized that greatest of all victories by which a new interpretation is fixed upon the National Constitution, so that hereafter all its sentences, all its phrases, all its words, shall be interpreted broadly and emphatically for Human Rights. How often have I been obliged to say this! But the Senator forgets that victory. There is his error. Most sincerely, most ardently, do I trust that the Senate will never forget it; I hope we shall duly act upon it, and celebrate it in our acts.

Sir, I have been betrayed into these remarks simply by way of answer to what has been said by my friend. I had hoped that this bill might be proceeded with without debate. I had trusted that this benign measure was so clear and refulgent with justice that no Senator would rise in his place to oppose it. I had indulged the longing that those especially in favor of amnesty for all would adopt that other greater and more comprehensive principle of justice for all. Strange, Sir, that the sensibilities of so many are aroused in favor of amnesty, and yet those same Senators are so dull when the rights of men are presented! I, Sir, am anxious to see universal amnesty; but with it must be asserted also universal justice. Our colored fellow-citizens must be admitted to complete equality before the law. In other words, everywhere, in everything regulated by law, they must be equal with all their fellow-citizens. There is the simple principle on which this bill stands. Who can impugn it? Who can throw upon it the shadow of question? Sir, if the Constitution of the United States does not sanction a bill like this, then forthwith should we proceed to amend that Constitution, and make it more worthy of our regard. Much as has been done, this bill must also be added to the trophies of Congressional action; this bill must be enumerated among the great results of our recent legislation. Terrible war will then have been a beneficent parent.

I hope, Sir, there can be no question on the subject.

The motion was not agreed to.

OUR PILGRIM FOREFATHERS.

SPEECH AT THE DINNER OF THE NEW-ENGLAND SOCIETY IN NEW YORK, DECEMBER 22, 1873.

After the customary toasts, _The Day we celebrate_, and _The President of the United States_, the President of the Society, Mr. Elliot C. Cowdin, in announcing the _Third Regular Toast_, said,--

“I give you, Gentlemen, _The Senate of the United States_.

“We are happy to greet, on this occasion, the senior in consecutive service, and the most eminent member of the Senate, whose early, varied, and distinguished services in the cause of Freedom have made his name a household word throughout the world,--the Honorable Charles Sumner.”

“On rising,” says the official report, “Mr. Sumner was received with great cheering,--the members of the Society standing, waving handkerchiefs, and in other ways expressing lively satisfaction.”

Mr. Sumner responded:--

MR. PRESIDENT AND BROTHERS OF NEW ENGLAND:--

For the first time in my life, I have the good fortune to enjoy this famous anniversary festival. Though often honored by your most tempting invitation, and longing to celebrate the day in this goodly company, of which all have heard so much, I could never excuse myself from duties in another place. If now I yield to well-known attractions, and journey from Washington for my first holiday during a protracted public service, it is because all was enhanced by the appeal of your excellent President, to whom I am bound by the friendship of many years in Boston, New York, and in a foreign land. (_Applause._) It is much to be a brother of New England, but it is more to be a friend (_applause_); and this tie I have pleasure in confessing to-night.

It is with much doubt and humility that I venture to answer for the Senate of the United States, and I believe the least I say on this head will be the most prudent. (_Laughter._) But I shall be entirely safe in expressing my doubt if there is a single Senator who would not be glad of a seat at this generous banquet. What is the Senate? It is a component part of the National Government. But we celebrate to-day more than any component part of any government. We celebrate an epoch in the history of mankind,--not only never to be forgotten, but to grow in grandeur as the world appreciates the elements of true greatness. Of mankind, I say: for the landing on Plymouth Rock, on the 22d of December, 1620, marks the origin of a new order of ages, by which the whole human family will be elevated. Then and there was the great beginning.