Qass. Book tHli COPYRIGHT DEPOSIT ilargc^aper CDition AMERICAN STATESMEN EDITED BY JOHN T. MORSE, JR. IN THIRTY-TWO VOLUMES VOL. XXX. THE CIVIL WAR CHARLES SUMNER Ox <^-^s> mf- 6 EBITIO , Zmttitm &>tm*mm CHARLES SUMNER MOORFIELD STOREY BOSTON AND NEW YORK HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN AND COMPANY <3Ebe fiitoew&e p»res$, CambriDoe M DCCCC Eys JPoie ^unbreb Copic? pnnteb dumber. X. TWO COPIES RECEIVED, Library of Congjre»*B Offlae of the Waglster of Copyrights, SbCOND OOP^, COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY MOORFIELD STOREY COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY HOUGHTON, MIFFLIN & CO. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED o o. CONTENTS CHAP. PAGE I. Bikth and Education 1 II. European Experience 17 III. Professional Life 27 IV. Entrance into Public Life .... 34 V. Election to the Senate 65 VI. First Years in the Senate .... 86 VH The Repeal of the Missouri Compromise . 101 VIII. The Brooks Assault 131 IX. The Results of the Assault .... 154 X. The Triumph of the Republican Party . 165 XI. Secession vs. Compromise .... 178 XII. Emancipation 197 XIII. The Trent Affair 208 XIV. The End of Slavery 217 XV. The Critical Period of the CmL War . 235 XVI. Reconstruction and Equal Rights . . 255 XVII. The Last Year of the War . . .271 XVIII. Reconstruction again 282 XLX. The Struggle with President Johnson . 302 XX. Alaska : the Alabama Claims : the Impeach- ment 338 XXI. Financial Reconstruction: Foreign Rela- tions 352 XXII. Grant's Administration : the Alabama Claims 362 XXIII San Domingo and the Contest with Grant 379 XXIV. Civil Rights: Grant's Renomination . . 401 XXV. The Last Session 426 Index 433 ILLUSTRATIONS Charles Sumner Frontispiece From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the State Department at Washington. Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston Public Library. The vignette of Mr. Sumner's home, corner of Ver- mont Avenue and H Street, Washington, D. C, is from a drawing after a photograph. Page George S. Boutwell facing 84 From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the State Department at Washington. Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston Public Library. John A. Andrew facing 192 From a photograph in the possession of Mr. Francis J. Garrison, Boston. Autograph from the Chamberlain collection, Boston Public Library. Facsimile op Charles Sumner's Handwriting facing 388 Letter written from Washington, D. C, December 29, 1870, to William Lloyd Garrison. From the Garrison MSS., Boston Public Library. Henry Wilson facing 400 From a photograph by Brady in the Library of the State Department at Washington. Autograph from the William Lloyd Garrison MSS., Boston Public Library. CHARLES SUMNER CHAPTER I BIRTH AND EDUCATION Charles Sumner came of typical Massachusetts stock. His family on both sides was of English origin, but his ancestors left England very soon after the landing of the Pilgrims, and dwelt in the neighborhood of Boston for nearly two centuries before his birth. Roger Sumner, his lineal ancestor in the eighth generation, died and was buried at Bicester in Oxfordshire. William, the only son of Roger, came to America about 1635, and settled in Dorchester, which adjoined Boston on the south. He became at once a land- owner and was made a freeman in 1637. He was admitted to the church in 1652 ; was a deputy to the General Court, a selectman, a commissioner to try small causes, and in other ways showed himself an active and public-spirited citizen. He brought three children with him from England, and two more were born afterward. Roger, his second son, was born in England. He married Mary Josselyn, of Lancaster, in Massachusetts, and became an in- 2 CHARLES SUMNER habitant of that town in 1660, but when Lancaster was destroyed by the Indians he removed to Milton, where he died. George, the third son of William, was the ancestor of Increase Sumner, a justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, and governor of the Commonwealth. William, the fourth son of Roger, had many children, of whom one, Seth, was married twice. A son of the first marriage was the grandfather of Major-General Edwin V. Sumner, who commanded a corps in the Army of the Potomac under McClellan and Burn- side. A son of the second marriage, Job, was the father of Charles Pinckney Sumner, and the grand- father of Charles Sumner. The Sumners had been for the most part farm- ers, but Job was resolved to obtain a liberal educa- tion, and entered Harvard College in November, 1774, at the age of twenty. The shots fired at Concord and Lexington changed the current of his ambition, and in May, 1775, he joined the Ameri- can army at Cambridge. He was a lieutenant at Bunker Hill and during the siege of Boston, and his conduct in several actions earned him a com- mission as captain, given him by vote of Congress in 1779, to date from July 1, 1776. He was com- missioned a major in 1783, and was second in com- mand of the force which protected New York dur- ing the evacuation by the British in that year. It was from soldiers under his command that Wash- ington received the last salute of the revolutionary army. After the war, on July 7, 1785, the cor- BIRTH AND EDUCATION 3 poratlon of Harvard College gave him the degree of A. M., as a member of his class, by a vote which recited that he had " during the war behaved with reputation as a man and as an officer." In 1785 he was appointed a commissioner to settle the ac- counts between the Confederation and the State of Georgia, and he resided in Georgia until he died. He is said to have been a candidate for governor, and to have been defeated by only a few votes. He was apparently a man of the world, who lived expensively and entertained freely. He died in New York of a fever, in his thirty-sixth year, and was buried in St. Paul's churchyard on Broadway, where stands his tombstone, erected by the Society of the Cincinnati. His son, Charles Pinckney Sumner, was born in Milton, and brought up on a farm. He went to Phillips Academy at Andover, and graduated at Harvard College in 1796, where he formed a friend- ship with Joseph Story which exercised an important influence on his son's career. After graduating he taught school for a while, but in 1799 he entered the office of Josiah Quincy, and in 1801 was ad- mitted as an attorney. He took an active interest in politics as a supporter of Jefferson, and his first political speech, made in 1804, was an argument against disunion. He was clerk of the House of Representatives in 1806-7 and 1810-11. He was married in 1810, and in 1819 he accepted the office of deputy sheriff, having been unsuccessful in prac- tice. From 1825 till just before his death in 1839 4 CHAELES SUMNER he was the sheriff of Suffolk County, and while his political activity ended when he became sheriff, he was interested in the temperance question and in the anti-Masonic movement, though he had been a Mason. He was an anti-slavery man in feel- ing, though not prominent in the agitation. He delivered a number of public addresses at various times, but was not conspicuous as an orator. He was high-minded, courageous, scholarly, extremely conscientious and faithful in the discharge of every duty, but formal, reserved, grave, and stern ; somewhat narrow also, and without his father's social charm. He foresaw the inevitable result of the agitation against slavery, and in 1820 said : " Our children's heads will some day be broken on a cannon-ball on this question." It is from him that Charles Sumner may well have derived his unbending conscience and his intense earnest- ness. Charles Pinckney Sumner married Kelief Jacob of Hanover in Massachusetts, a descendant from Nicholas Jacob, who came to America in 1633, and after settling in Watertown, removed to Hingham in 1635. Her grandfather was a man of property and one of the Committee of Public Safety at the time of the ^Revolution, but the family were gener- ally farmers of the solid New England type. Her father was evidently in narrow circumstances, and before her marriage she supported herself by her needle. She was a woman of even temper and great good sense, who probably did much to temper BIRTH AND EDUCATION 5 her husband's austerity in the family life. She had nine children, and died in 1866 at the age of eighty- one. Such was the ancestry of Charles Sumner. He and his twin sister Matilda, the first children of their parents, were born on January 6, 1811, at the corner of Revere and Irving streets in Boston. His childhood was in no way remarkable ; he was educated in the schools of Boston, and was an amiable, quiet, refined, and studious boy. Among his schoolmates at the Pubbc Latin School were Robert C. Winthrop, who was older, and Wen- dell Phillips, who was younger than himself. He won several prizes for translations from Latin, for a Latin poem, and for an English theme ; but while taking respectable rank, he seems to have been more remarkable for knowledge acquired by general reading than for striking ability. Though apparently never ill his health was not robust, and having little inclination for sports he early acquired the tastes and habits of a scholar. His father at first did not intend to give him a college education, and it is a little curious that Sumner himself, in later years the champion of peace, wished to enter the military academy at West Point. His application for a cadetship failed, and the father's opportune appointment as sheriff, with a larger income, enabled the son to enter Harvard College in September, 1826. Lovers of specula- tive inquiry may be interested to consider what sort of a soldier was thus lost to the country. 6 CHARLES SUMNER Sumner's college class was not so rich in distin- guished men as its brilliant predecessor, the famous class of '29, and he was among the youngest mem- bers. He devoted his time to history, literature, and the classics, in which he excelled, but his dislike for mathematics and physics prevented his taking high rank, and abandoning this ambition he gave himself up to the studies that he loved. A classmate tells us that he was "one of the best declaimers in the class," showing " a great degree of earnestness with an entire freedom from any effort to make a dash." " It was the same type of subdued eloquence, inseparable from the man," which he afterward displayed, and already he was self-possessed and easy on the stage. He received minor parts at college exhibitions and Commence- ment, and he won a second Bowdoin prize by an essay on " The Present Character of the Inhabit- ants of New England," which, we are told, showed copious reading and immense industry, but lacked condensation and clearness. He was fond of dis- cussion, persistent and possibly somewhat aggres- sive in argument. Socially he was frank, kindly and genial, but possessed a native dignity which became him well. His life at college was a period of healthy and natural growth before anything had occurred to awaken strong feeling. The year after Sumner's graduation was spent at home. He took time to decide what his work in life should be, and meanwhile, rising early and working late, he read the classics, poetry, BIRTH AND EDUCATION 7 general literature and history, and attacked mathe- matics with better success than in college. He taught school for a few weeks, wrote an essay on commerce for a prize offered by a Boston society, of which Daniel "Webster was the president, and received the award from his hands. This success gratified his friends and we may suppose gave him a certain reputation. Except that, in natural sym- pathy with his father, his feelings were enlisted against Freemasonry, he seems to have taken little interest in public questions during this year, which was spent in desultory labor. At this time he saw little of society ; he was pondering carefully the question of his future occupation, and it was after much deliberation and with many misgivings that he decided to study law. Sumner entered the Harvard Law School in September, 1831, where he was brought under the influence of Judge Story, who had been sitting on the Supreme Bench of the United States for twenty years and was just beginning the series of treatises which gave him his great international re- putation. Story's enthusiasm and personal charm made him a stimulating teacher. As an old friend of Sumner's father he took a kindly interest in the son, which ripened into friendship, and Sumner was soon a constant visitor at his house. Simon Green- leaf, who was appointed a professor about six months before Sumner left the school, also became his friend, and the two eminent lawyers inspired him with the strongest devotion to his profession. 8 CHARLES SUMNER Sumner remained in the Law School until the end of December, 1833, applying himself to study with ardor and persistency. For the first time he felt a definite ambition, for the first time his work satisfied and inspired him. He wrote to one of his classmates : " A lawyer must know everything. He must know law, history, philosophy, human nature ; and if he covets the fame of an advocate he must drink of all the springs of literature, giving ease and elegance to the mind and illus- tration to whatever subjects it touches." His plan of life was : " Six hours, namely, the fore- noon, wholly and solely to law ; afternoon to clas- sics ; evening to history, subjects collateral and assistant to law, etc. . . . Recreation must not be found in idleness or loose reading." Possessed with this theory he read law, classics, history, literature, rising early and working late, until his inflamed eyes and clouded complexion showed the effects of excessive labor. Yet he was never ill and seemed independent of sleep and ex- ercise. He treated his mind as a reservoir and into it steadily pumped learning of every kind, which his strong memory retained. He became librarian of the school, and was given a room in Dane Hall, where he acquired a remarkable fa- miliarity with the books under his charge. He won a Bowdoin prize by an essay on the sub' ject, " Are the most important Changes in Society effected Gradually or by Violent Revolutions ? " He wrote two articles for the " American Monthly BIRTH AND EDUCATION 9 Review," and before lie left the Law School be- came a contributor to the " American Jurist." His style gained in clearness and conciseness, but his writings were more learned than original. The impression which he made upon his contemporaries at this time was very pleasant. Thus President Quincy's daughter, Mrs. Waterston, speaks of seeing at one of her mother's receptions, "the tall spare form and honest face of Charles Sum- ner," and adds : " This youth, though not in the least handsome, is so good-hearted, clever, and real, that it is impossible not to like him and believe in him." Judge Story's son, William "W., who was some eight years younger than Sumner, writes : " He used to come to our house some two or three even- ings in the week, and to his long conversations I used to listen night after night with eager pleasure. His simplicity and directness of character, his en- thusiasm and craving for information, his lively spirit and genial feeling, immediately made a strong impression on me. My father was very fond of him, and treated him almost as if he were a son ; and we were all delighted to welcome him to our family circle. He was free, natural, and naive in his simplicity, and plied my father with an ever- flowing stream of questions, and I need not say that the responses were as full and genial as heart and mind could desire. . . . He was at this time totally without vanity, and only desirous to acquire knowledge and information on every subject. . . . 10 CHARLES SUMNER Though he was an interesting talker, he had no lightness of hand. He was kindly of nature, in- terested in everything, but totally put off his balance by the least persiflage ; and if it was tried on him his expression was one of complete astonishment. He was never ready at a retort . . . and was at this time almost impervious to a joke. He had no humor himself and little sense of it in others, and his jests, when he tried to make one, were rather cumbrous. But in ' plain sail- ing ' no one could be better or more agreeable." Another characteristic is described by a friend, who says : " A peculiar lif e-and-death earnestness characterized even then all that Sumner did and said." His years at the Law School gave him a definite ambition, and for the first time he distinguished himself from his fellows and showed promise of future eminence, while the favorable opinion of Judge Story and Mr. Greenleaf gave him a repu- tation at the very outset of his career. In those days the community was small, and the world out- side was ready to welcome a man who made his mark at Cambridge. In January, 1834, after leaving the Law School, Stunner entered the office of Benjamin Rand, an eminent lawyer of Boston, where he continued to write for the " Jurist," becoming one of its editors in May. In February he went to Washington for a month, making on his way short visits in Phila- delphia and New York. Through the introduc- BIRTH AND EDUCATION 11 tions of Judge Story, Sumner enjoyed on this trip rare opportunities to become acquainted with the distinguished men of the day. A letter from Pro- fessor Greenleaf introduced him to Chancellor Kent, and it is amusing to find Kent saying that he " thought Jackson would ruin us ; wanted to go to Washington, but if he went should be obliged to see much company, call upon Jackson and dine with him, perhaps, all of which he could not con- sent to do." This was a time when men took political differences seriously, and did not condone in social intercourse conduct which they condemned in public speech. It is amusing, also, to find Sum- ner writing: "Kent's conversation is lively and instructive, but grossly ungrammatical." During this visit he saw much of Judge Story ; was introduced to President Jackson ; met the judges of the Supreme Court at their Sunday din- ner, he being the only guest ; secured what he " may almost call a place in the court ; " dined repeat- edly with Horace Binney ; made the acquaintance of Henry Wheaton and Francis Lieber, afterward his intimate friend ; and heard many distinguished lawyers address the Supreme Court. The country was convulsed at the time by the removal of the deposits from the Bank of the United States, and the debates in Congress were especially interesting. "Webster gave Sumner a card admitting him to the floor of the Senate, so that he heard the greatest orators of the country, — Webster, Clay, and Cal- houn, for once on the same side. It was a memo- 12 CHARLES SUMNER rable visit, and it would seem that in scenes of such excitement, and under the influence of such men, the political instincts of Sumner must have been aroused. Yet he wrote to his father : " Calhoun has given notice to-day that he will speak to-mor- row on Mr. Webster's bank bill. I shall probably hear him, and he will be the last man I shall ever hear speak in Washington. I probably shall never come here again. I have little or no desire ever to come again in any capacity. Nothing that I have seen of politics has made me look upon them with any feeling other than loathing. The more I see of them the more I love law, which I feel will give me an honorable livelihood." To see what manner of man he then was we may borrow the eyes of a young lady who saw him in Philadelphia, a daughter of Mr. Peters, the reporter : — " He was then a great, tall, lank creature, quite heedless of the form and fashion of his garb ; ' un- sophisticated,' everybody said, and oblivious to the propriety of wearing a hat in a city, going about in a rather shabby fur cap ; but the fastidiousness of fashionable ladies was utterly routed by the wonder- ful charm of his conversation, and he was carried about triumphantly and introduced to all the dis- tinguished people, young and old, who then made Philadelphia society so brilliant. No amount of honeying, however, could then affect him. His simplicity, his perfect naturalness, was what struck every one, combined with his rare culture and his BIRTH AND EDUCATION 13 delicious youthful enthusiasm. . . . Every one was sorry when he left town, and from that time his name was really a household word with us. There was a sweetness and tenderness of character about him, and an entire unworldliness, that won all hearts, while his delightful culture completed the charm." A witness of the opposite sex describes him as "modest and deferential, attracting attention by his remarkable attainments and manly presence." After his return, Judge Story offered him the position of an instructor in the Law School, but he declined it, and in September, 1834, was admitted to the bar. For a little more than three years he practiced law in Boston, forming a partnership in November, 1834, with George S. Hillard. Pro- fessor Greenleaf kept a desk in the rooms, and Judge Story was a frequent caller, with others then prominent in literary or legal life. Sumner was not the man to acquire a large general prac- tice. He lacked the readiness and quick percep- tion essential to success before juries, and he had not yet shown any great power as a speaker. He had a number of suits which he conducted with success, but his arguments were learned essays rather than that forcible presentation of the case which is most effective in getting a judgment. Indeed, his copious learning was rather an incum- brance in active practice, since he was disposed to overestimate the value of what had cost him so much labor, and to rely on quotations rather than on his own ideas, often better suited to the 14 CHARLES SUMNER immediate occasion. The defect which Doctor Holmes points out in saying that he had " little imagination, wit, or sense of humor" was a se- rious handicap, the outward sign of that great dis- qualification, the inability to put oneself in an- other's place. He stood ready to undertake any work which came, but could not seek business, and apparently did not attract clients. He did as well, probably, as most young lawyers, but the reputa- tion which he brought from the school and the commendations of his friends led him to expect more, and he was naturally disappointed. Yet he was always occupied. The literary work for which he was fitted sought him constantly. In January, 1835, he became an instructor in the Law School, during Judge Story's absence, and again in 1836-37. He was substantially in charge of the school at one time, and though he did not fail as a teacher, he was not brilliantly successful. In 1835 Judge Story selected him to report his de- cisions in the Circuit Court, of which he published three volumes. He assisted Greenleaf in his Maine Digest, and prepared the index for Story's " Equity Jurisprudence." He was an editor of the " Jurist," and a constant contributor to it, but dealt more with the literary aspects of the law than with prac- tical questions. He helped Dunlap in revising for the press his work on " Admiralty Practice," and he prepared the forms which are added to it. He wrote for the " North American Review," and delivered some lectures, but they were essays BIRTH AND EDUCATION 15 on legal subjects which gave him no popular re- putation. During these years he did not make any effort to enter general society, but he enlarged his ac- quaintance with eminent men and made some life- long friendships. His connection with the "Ju- rist " brought him into correspondence with leading lawyers all over the country and with foreign writers on jurisprudence. He became intimate with Cornelius C. Felton, afterwards the President of Harvard University, Henry W. Longfellow, and Henry R. Cleveland, a company of scholars who met with Hillard and Sumner almost weekly, calling their society " The Five of Clubs." His circle was not large, but it was of the best, and his associates were mostly older than he. Devoted to his work, he showed little interest in the questions of the day, while his friends were tak- ing part in politics. He became acquainted with Dr. "William Ellery Channing, and later felt his influence strongly, but as yet his sense of public duty was not awakened. Winthrop and Hillard went to the legislature, and Phillips, his intimate friend, had already won reputation as a speaker, but he was still absorbed in law and literature. Only two references to slavery are found in his published letters. On February 24, 1834, in writ- ing to his parents of his journey from Baltimore to Washington, he says : " For the first time I saw slaves, and my worst preconception of their appearance and ignorance did not fall as low as 16 CHARLES SUMNER their actual stupidity. They appear to be nothing more than moving masses of flesh, unendowed with anything of intelligence above the brutes. I have now an idea of the blight upon that part of our country in which they live." Nearly two years later, on January 9, 1836, he writes to Lieber, then in Columbia, S. C. : " You are in the midst of slavery. . . . What think you of it ? Should it longer exist ? Is not eman- cipation practicable? We are becoming aboli- tionists at the North fast ; the riots, the attempts to abridge the freedom of discussion, Governor McDuffie's message, and the conduct of the South generally have caused many to think favorably of immediate emancipation, who never before inclined to it." Sumner had subscribed to the " Liberator " in 1835, and had read it since, but these letters show only a languid interest in the question. Nor was it sympathy with the sufferings of slaves, but indignation at the attempts to impair the liber- ties of white men, which roused him, and began to change the kindly scholar into the insistent and uncompromising foe of slavery. CHAPTER II EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE Sumner had long felt an overmastering desire to visit Europe, and in 1837 lie determined to go, although his friends with few exceptions counseled against the journey, as an interruption of his pro- fessional career. His own funds were insufficient, but Judge Story and two other friends lent him what he needed, and with excellent letters of intro- duction he sailed on December 8, 1837. He was well prepared for his new experiences. He had learned to be nice in his dress, and the impression which he made upon strangers may be gathered from the description of him given by one who met him just before he started. " He appeared with a right royal presence, his countenance characterized by a genuine warmth and great readiness; in a word it was that of a highly bred, well-informed gentleman of a somewhat older school than I was in the way of meeting." He was "handsomely dressed, erect, easy, conscious of his strength." The " shabby fur cap " of a few years before had disappeared with all that it implied. The years which he spent in Europe enlarged his horizon, added to his knowledge, filled his 18 CHARLES SUMNER memory with a wealth of associations, and made him a citizen of the world. No other American had been received so cordially or offered such opportunities. In a biography intended to pre- sent Sumner as a statesman and to show what influence he exerted upon the government of his country, there is room only for such a sketch of his journey as will indicate what it contributed to the education with which he entered public life. It was now that he established personal relations with leading foreigners, and gained an influence which later was of great value in the conduct of our foreign affairs. Landing at Havre, he spent five months in France, almost entirely in Paris. He was then in England for ten months, again for four weeks in Paris, and then made a tour through France to Italy, where he remained five months ; thence to Germany, where he saw the principal cities, stay- ing in Vienna, Berlin, and Heidelberg, about a month in each. He saw the Rhine and the Low Countries, and in March, 1840, returned to Lon- don for about three weeks, after which he sailed for home. His journey was an unbroken success. His spectacles were rosy, and Europe was full of enchantment for him. In Paris he called at once on his correspondent Foelix, editor of the " Revue Etrangere," but only to find his own knowledge of French insufficient for conversation. Therefore he took lodgings on the unfashionable side of the Seine, studied with EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 19 two teachers, and supplemented their instruction by attending lectures at the Sorbonne and the Ecole de Droit, and by visiting the theatres, where he followed the play with book in hand. In less than a month he was able to engage in a conver- sation on American politics and make himself understood in French. Early in March he took lodgings near the boulevards, and presented his letters of introduction. His life in Paris was no vacation; about the middle of April he wrote to Greenleaf that he had heard " one hundred and fifty or two hundred lectures on all branches of jurisprudence, belles-lettres, and philosophy," that is to say, " two or three lectures of an hour or more each " every morning, delivered by the great scholars and scientific men of France. In the hospitals he saw the best surgeons of the day at work ; at the theatres and the opera he enjoyed Grisi, Lablache, Dejazet, Mars ; he visited the museums, the galleries, and the historic places ; he attended the Chambers of Deputies and Peers, and from a reserved tribune in the former heard a great debate and saw the statesmen of France. He made the acquaintance of leading lawyers and was given especial privileges in the courts. He studied French procedure in operation, talked with the judges, learned to know their system of law, heard arguments by the most eminent advocates, and watched important trials. He went into society and met many eminent persons, — Cousin, Demetz, the Due de Broglie, Michel Chevalier, Madame 20 CHARLES SUMNER Murat, Pardessus, David. He saw and had a long conversation with Sismondi. Nor did he forget to study the people, in the streets and at the fetes. The knowledge which he thus gained of the French language was of great service during the civil war, when, as chairman of the Senate committee on foreign relations, he wished to talk freely with foreign ministers. When on May 29, 1838, he left Paris for England, he was not twenty-eight and had as yet no reputation. Of his attitude towards English society he wrote to Judge Story : " Since I have been here I have followed a rigid rule with regard to my conduct ; I have not asked an introduction to any person; nor a single ticket, privilege, or anything of the kind from any one ; I have not called upon anybody (with one exception) until I had been first called upon or invited." None the less he was received everywhere and given a rare opportunity to see everything and know everybody, so that a brief statement of his doings in England becomes almost a catalogue of names and places. His first interest was in his profession, and there was scarcely an eminent lawyer or judge whom he did not meet. He went the circuits, was the guest of the bar, attended their dinners and mingled with barristers on terms of close acquaintance, and sat on the bench. He stayed with Lord Brougham and became familiarly acquainted with him. He was the guest of Denman, Vaughan, Parke, Alder- son, Langdale, Coltman, and other judges, and EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 21 in his letters to Judge Story and Greenleaf he de- scribes every judge and every prominent lawyer. With the attorney-general, Campbell, with Follett, Talfourd, Rolfe, Wilde, Crowder, Sir Frederick Pollock, Dr. Lushington, Charles Austin, Hay- ward, Adolphus, and many others he established cordial relations, and his ten months in England gave him a more extended acquaintance with Eng- lish lawyers than he had with those of his own country. Of literary men he met Carlyle, Wordsworth, Macaulay, Sydney Smith, Hallam, Parkes, Senior, Grote, Jeffrey, Rogers, Whewell, Landor, Leigh Hunt, Theodore Hook, Thomas Campbell, and others. Among his associates were Monckton Milnes, Robert Ingham, Basil Montagu, John Kenyon. He was the guest of Lord Durham, Inglis, Cornewall Lewis, Hume, and Roebuck among political leaders, and of Lords Fitzwilliam, Lans- downe, Wharncliffe, Leicester, Holland, and Car- lisle among the peers. Lord Morpeth, the son of the Earl of Carlisle, became his close friend and a constant correspondent in later years. Miss Mar- tineau, Mrs. Shelley, Mrs. Grote, Mrs. Norton, the Duchess of Sutherland, Joanna Baillie, Mrs. Jame- son, and Lady Blessington were among the ladies whose acquaintance he made, and as Mrs. Parkes, the granddaughter of Dr. Priestley, wrote : " It was said, after Mr. Sumner's northern journey, that he made the acquaintance of all the principal Whig families going north and of the Tories on his re- 22 CHARLES SUMNER turn. V He was wondrously popular, almost like a meteor passing through the country. Young, agreeable, full of information and animation, he enchanted every one ; and he bore the ovation well and modestly." He witnessed the coronation of Queen Victoria and heard her first speech from the throne. In Parliament he heard Peel, Sheil, O'Connell, Lord John Russell, Lord Lyndhurst, Lord Brougham, Sir Edward Sugden, and other leaders of the day. He was toasted at various public dinners and replied with success. He even rode to hounds, with an immunity from dis- aster which is not the least remarkable fact in his foreign experience. There is abundant testimony from independent sources to Sumner's brilliant success in English society and to the reasons for it. Mr. Abraham Hayward spoke of his " entire absence of preten- sion," and said : " Sumner's social success at this early period, before his reputation was established, was most remarkable. He was a welcome guest at most of the best houses both in town and coun- try, and the impression he uniformly left was that of an amiable, sensible, high-minded, well-in- formed gentleman." Lady Wharncliffe wrote : " I never knew an American who had the degree of social success he had ; owing, I think, to the real elevation and worth of his character, his genuine nobleness of thought and aspiration, his kindliness of heart, his absence of dogmatism and oratorical display, his genuine EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 23 amiability, his cultivation of mind, and his appre- ciation of England without anything approaching to flattery of ourselves or depreciation of his own country." These statements of English people show that Sumner must have possessed very unusual attractions for men and women of intelligence, cul- tivation, and character. He carried good letters, but he presented very few, and letters at best only offer an opportunity. A man is liked or disliked for himself, not for his introductions. He left England on March 22, 1839, for a month in Paris. Here he showed that his sojourn in England had not affected his love for America. General Cass, the American minister, thought that the American position on the northeastern boundary question should be stated, as it was not understood in Europe, and at his request Sumner prepared for " Galignani's Messenger " an elabo- rate article, conciliatory in tone, which added to his reputation on both sides of the water. He next visited Italy, and spent three months in Rome, studying Italian literature, and learning to speak Italian fluently if not with entire correct- ness. Here first awoke the love of art from which in later years he derived much pleasure, and he became the warm friend of Crawford the sculptor. In Florence he met some Italian men of letters and saw something of Florentine society. He visited Venice and Milan, and entered Germany early in October. He spent a week in Munich, and a 24 CHARLES SUMNER month in Vienna, where Prince Metternich received him graciously and, contrasting the youth of Amer- ica with the age of Europe, said : " Mais laissons nous jouir de notre vieillesse." Thence by Prague, Dresden, and Leipsic, he came to Berlin, where he made the acquaintance of Raumer, Ranke, Hum- boldt, and Savigny, and was well received by the Crown Prince. During five weeks in Heidelberg he studied German industriously, learning to un- derstand and to converse "tolerably." He saw much of Mittermaier and Thibaut, and still ambi- tious to be a jurist he made the most of his opportu- nities to meet these great teachers of the law and the other scholars at Heidelberg. He next made the trip down the Rhine, saw Cologne, Brussels, and Antwerp, and returned to London, March 17, 1840. His final fortnight in London was full of pleasure. In his last letter to Hillard before sail- ing he wrote : " London is more bewitching than ever," and breaks off with "I must now go to breakfast with Sydney Smith: to-morrow with Rogers : next day with dear Sir Robert Inglis : the next with Milnes." It is not strange that he was loath to exchange a life so full of charm for the work of a lawyer in Boston. Judge Story, Mr. Greenleaf, and other friends expressed their doubts and advised his return. They told him that they wished to have him as a colleague at the Law School, but he replied that he needed a larger income than the school could offer. To Longfellow he wrote on November 10, EUROPEAN EXPERIENCE 25 1839 : " I now begin to think of hard work, of long days filled with uninteresting toil and humble gains. I sometimes have a moment of misgiving when I think of the certainties which I abandoned for travel and of the uncertainties to which I return. But this is momentary, for I am thoroughly con- tent with what I have done. ... I hope people will not say that I have forgotten my profession and that I cannot live contented at home. Both of these things are untrue. I know my profession better now than when I left Boston, and I can live content at home." But the misgivings of his friends were well founded. Sumner was by nature a stu- dent and a scholar, with little aptitude for the life of a practicing lawyer. By perseverance he might have overcome some of his disqualifications, but his journey only widened the breach between him and his office. He had learned to love a fuller and freer life. If his trip did not fit him better for the law, however, it completed his preparation for the part which he was to take in the affairs of his country. It is strange, however, that he still had no pre- vision of what awaited him. During his years in Europe the slavery question had become a burning issue. On the day of his departure Wendell Phil- lips, his intimate friend, delivered the speech in Faneuil Hall which made him famous ; yet Sum- ner's letters do not refer to it and betray no inter- est in political questions, dealing only with the pri- vate life of his friends, and with literary subjects. 26 CHARLES SUMNER He talks with Sismondi of slavery ; doubtless he discussed it with Miss Martineau, the Duchess of Sutherland, and others who strongly opposed it ; but his own feelings are not expressed, and his own zeal is not aroused. CHAPTER III PROFESSIONAL LIFE On May 3, 1840, Sumner landed in New York, and in September he resumed practice in earnest. He brought out the third volume of Story's Reports and was engaged in several cases, some involving the validity of patents. He was retained with Hillard by the British consul in actions against British officers who had searched American ships suspected of being slavers. He did his best to prove that his professional enthusiasm was not dampened by his foreign experience, but not with entire success. To Lieber he wrote : " My mind, soul, heart, are not improved or invigorated by the practice of my profession ; by overhauling papers, old letters, and sifting accounts in order to see if there be anything on which to plant an action. The sigh will come for a canto of Dante, a rhap- sody of Homer, a play of Schiller. But I shall do my devoir.' 1 '' Yet he was not less devoted to America by reason of his attachment to his foreign friends, and in reply to a suggestion that, after making a fortune, he might like to settle in Eng- land, he wrote : " I never expect to be rich. . . . If I were so, however, I should prefer to live among 28 CHARLES SUMNER my own kindred, near the friends to whom I have grown and in sight of objects that have become as dear as they are familiar. Believe me when I say that I have no hankering after England or Eng- lish people." He found the society of Boston very pleasant, and was welcomed cordially in a circle which in- cluded Judge Story, Jeremiah Mason, Washington Allston, Dr. Channing, Rufus Choate, Prescott, Bancroft, Longfellow, Felton, Dr. Howe, the Nor- tons, and others. In short, in 1840-41 he led an agreeable but not very productive life, enlarging his acquaintance, and devoting himself to his pro- fession. When the Harrison campaign of 1840 deeply stirred the whole community, he did not share the excitement, and it is not entirely certain how he voted, though probably for Harrison. His letters to his brother George just before and just after the election prove him a very early opponent of the spoils system, but singularly indifferent to the issues of the contest. The influence of his father and Judge Story, both Democrats, and the example of the conservative men with whom he lived may have promoted this apathy ; but whatever the cause, at thirty Sumner was a cultivated and scholarly gentleman, with slight interest in politics. His ambition was not active, and the success for which he hoped was purely professional. He could not, however, live among men and not concern himself in their problems. He was PROFESSIONAL LIFE 29 essentially unselfish, and one is struck, in read- ing his letters between 1841 and the summer of 1845, with the breadth of his sympathies, the warmth of his feelings, the catholicity of his tastes. He corresponded constantly with his friends on both sides of the ocean. He interested himself in all their projects, lent them cordial assistance, rejoiced in their success, and was ever ready to praise them generously. He spoke ill of none, and showed no trace of jealousy nor of the selfishness, indolence, or preoccupation which leads men to neglect the calls of private or public duty. To help Crawford he raised the money to buy his Orpheus for the Boston Athenaeum, and secured him many commissions. He brought substantial aid to Horace Mann in his struggle to improve the methods of education in Massachusetts. He was strongly interested in Dr. Howe's work for the blind. He rejoiced in the success of Longfellow's poems, of Hillard's oration before the Phi Beta Kappa society at Cambridge, of Prescott's " Con- quest of Mexico," and in his letters he recounts with sincere delight the praises which they received. Dr. Howe, who was one of Sumner's warmest friends, wrote to him : — " I know not where you may be or what you may be about; but I know what you are not about. You are not seeking your own pleasure or striving to advance your own interests ; you are, I warrant me, on some errand of kindness — some work for a friend or for the public." 30 CHARLES SUMNER It was thus intellectually impossible for Sumner not to be interested in every great question which divided the community, and soon we find in his letters decided views on slavery and the questions arising from anti-slavery agitation. He was drawn into the contest gradually, and only by his sense of public duty. After the treaty of 1841 between Great Britain, Russia, Austria, and Prussia for the suppression of the slave trade, the slavers often hoisted the American flag to avoid arrest and search. Any vessel belonging to the treaty powers might easily defy their authority if this ruse protected it against search, and England therefore claimed the right to stop and examine suspected vessels. If they were found to be American, no right to interfere with them was asserted. This claim led to a diplomatic discussion, and Sumner supported the English con- tention in two careful articles. On the same side were Kent, Story, Prescott, and Ruf us Choate ; but Webster, then secretary of state, took the opposite view, and England tacitly waived her claim. About this time a number of slaves on the way from Hampton Roads to New Orleans in the brig Creole mutinied, and carried the vessel into Nas- sau. There by English law the slaves became free, and the British government refused to surrender them. Mr. Webster maintained that, as their free- dom was won by mutiny, the British government was bound by the comity of nations to aid the offi- cers of the ship in asserting their authority and not PROFESSIONAL LIFE 31 to interfere with the status of persons on board. Dr. Channing in a vigorous pamphlet attacked this position, and Sumner, who assisted in preparing it for the press, was strongly enlisted in support of Dr. Channing, and expressed his views in con- versation, in letters, and in the press. He followed with admiration and sympathy the course of John Quincy Adams in his heroic and persistent struggle for the right of petition. He was as yet only a student, but his study of the questions which constantly arose was rapidly pre- paring him to act. When the Boston " Advertiser " took the ground that slavery was a local institution concerning only the inhabitants of the slave States, Sumner replied on January 10, 1843, saying : — " The opponents of slavery in the free States recognize the right of all States to establish within their own borders such institutions as they please ; and they do not seek, either through their own legis- latures or through Congress, to touch slavery in the States where it exists. But while they abstain from all political action in these States, they do not feel called upon to suppress their sympathy for the suffering slave, nor their detestation of the system which makes him a victim. . . . Slavery is, on sev- eral grounds, distinctly within the jurisdiction of the United States, of which the free States are a part. It is a national evil, for which to a large extent the nation and all its parts are responsible, and which to a large extent the nation may remove." 32 CHARLES SUMNER As legitimate subjects of discussion in the free States he named slavery in the District of Colum- bia, slavery in the territories, the slave trade be- tween our own ports, the rendition of fugitive slaves, the laws of the slave States abridging the rights of colored persons who were citizens of the free States, the conditions to be made on admitting new States, and the amendment of the Constitu- tion. " It cannot be doubted," he said, " that the Con- stitution may be amended so that it shall cease to render any sanction to slavery. The power to amend carries with it the previous right to inquire into and discuss the matter to be amended, and this right extends to all parts of the country over which the Constitution is spread, — the North as well as the South." This is a clear statement of the lines within which Sumner's action against slavery was always con- fined. Early in 1844 he undertook to edit Vesey's Ee- ports, in twenty volumes with original notes, agree- ing to prepare a volume every two weeks. This was a tremendous undertaking, under which his health broke down. In 1843 and 1844 he suffered from despondency, and after completing four vol- umes of the Reports, he became seriously ill in June, 1844. In July his friends thought that he was dying of consumption, the disease which had proved fatal to others of his family. At the end of the month, however, he began to recover, and PROFESSIONAL LIFE 33 regained his strength so rapidly that in November we find him trying an important patent case against Franklin Dexter, which he won after eleven days of trial and an argument of ten hours. His spirits did not immediately revive with his strength, for we find him in August writing to Dr. Howe : — " Since my convalescence I have thought much and often whether I have any just feeling of grati- tude that my disease was arrested. Let me con- fess to you that I cannot find it in my bosom. . . . Why was I spared? For me there is no future, either of usefulness or happiness." His illness doubtless helped to keep him a spec- tator during the great campaign of 1844. He had no sympathy with the Whigs in their position on the tariff, but he shared the views of men like Adams and Giddings on the slavery question, and regarding this as the important issue he hoped for the election of Clay. Late in 1844 he resumed his work upon Vesey, of which a part had been edited by others during his illness, and completed it in the spring of 1845. With this his career as a lawyer practically closed. He had reached the threshold of his public life. CHAPTER IV ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE Sumner's opportunity came when he was invited to deliver the annual oration in Boston on the Fourth of July, 1845. He accepted the invitation, and his oration gave him at once a new position in the community. He stated his subject thus : " What in our age are the true objects of national ambition — what is truly national honor, national glory ; what is the true grandeur of nations ? " The political situation at the time gave the subject " an urgent interest," for wars with Mexico about Texas, and with England over the northwestern boundary were then threatened. "Mexico and England," he said, " both avow the determination to vindicate what is called the national honor ; and our government calmly contemplates the arbit- rament of war, provided it cannot obtain what is called an honorable peace." Hence he was brought to consider the question, " Can there be in our age any peace that is not honorable, any war that is not dishonorable? " His oration was an argument against war, in which its horrors, its failure to accomplish its ob- jects, its wickedness, its waste, its absurdity, were ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 35 all set forth. A speech in praise of peace would doubtless have passed unchallenged, but Sumner's method excited warm opposition. Seeking to be clear, he spoke to an audience as he thought to himself, without reserve or regard for the feelings of others. He stated the truth as he saw it, never thinking that the truth upon a public question could offend any one. The address was carefully prepared : it was enriched with quotations and il- lustrations from the history and literature of every nation and every time, and inspired throughout with a lofty purpose and sincere moral enthusiasm. Its statements were true and its arguments sound. It was more rhetorical perhaps than suits the taste of to-day, but its views were in harmony with those of Franklin, whose famous saying, "There never was a good war or a bad peace," has left no stain on his reputation for rare wisdom. But among Sumner's auditors were officers of the army, navy, and state militia, while the Wash- ington Light Guard, in full uniform, sat directly before him. These gentlemen, conscious of their becoming raiment, were irritated when they heard the orator say : " Peaceful citizens volunteer as sol- diers, and affect in dress, arms, and deportment ' the pride, pomp, and circumstance of glorious war ; ' " and when he spoke of such warriors as men " closely dressed in padded and well-buttoned coats of blue ' besmeared with gold,' surmounted by a huge mountain cap of shaggy bear-skin, with a barbarous device typical of brute force, a tiger painted on oilskin, tied to their backs." 36 CHARLES SUMNER The regular officers felt themselves personally insulted by his questions : " What use is the stand- ing army of the United States ? What use is the navy of the United States ?" Not even the famous passage, which showed that the annual cost of the battleship Ohio would support four institutions like Harvard College, found favor in their ears, and their criticism of the speaker was sharp. The oration was received on both sides of the ocean with every variety of approval and disap- proval, but all agreed that Sumner had shown rare courage, high purpose, and marked eloquence. From that time he was strong in the support of generous youth. He had learned his own power as an orator, until then not suspected ; he had found that there was an audience ready to sympa- thize with his highest aims, and he stepped at once into the position of a recognized leader. While he was delivering his address in the Tre- mont Temple, the convention was assembling in Texas to ratify her annexation to the United States, and to frame her constitution. The great contest which was to end in the civil war was just beginning. "The hour and the man "were both come. A brief review may recall the political situation. From the adoption of the Missouri Compromise in February, 1821, until January, 1836, slavery ex- cited no serious discussion in Congress. The wise, however, knew that the conflict between freedom and slavery was irrepressible. On May 1, 1833, ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 37 Andrew Jackson, fresh from crushing nullification, wrote : " The tariff was only the pretext, and dis- union and a Southern Confederacy the real object. The next pretext will be the negro or slavery question." The great political parties ignored the issue, but forces were at work beyond their control. Lundy and Garrison began an agitation which led to the formation of anti-slavery societies. In a convention held at Baltimore in 1826, eighty-one such societies were represented, of which seventy- y three were in slaveholding communities. In Janu- ary, 1831, Garrison began to publish " The Liber- ator " in Boston. In November the New Enoland Anti-Slavery Society was founded. In 1833 the New York Anti-Slavery Society was formed, and a convention at Philadelphia established the Ameri- can Anti-Slavery Society. These societies took the ground that slavery was wrong and should at once be abolished ; that the existing States had the exclusive right to legislate within their own limits, but that Congress had and should exercise the power to suppress the slave trade between the States, and to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia and in the territories. A single sen- tence from the declaration of principles adopted by the American Society summed up their position : — " We also maintain that there are at the pre- sent time the highest obligations resting upon the people of the free States to remove slavery by moral and political action, as prescribed in the Constitu- tion of the United States." 38 CHARLES SUMNER Thus a few private citizens of little influence and small means undertook to grapple with a gigantic evil, supported by the political, social, and business powers of the country. They were individually pure, kindly, law-abiding, actuated only by a lofty patriotism : they saw the wrong clearly and they spoke very plainly. This force operating steadily upon the conscience of the country began to make itself strongly felt about twelve years after the Missouri Compromise. In August, 1831, occurred the slave insurrection in Virginia led by Nat Turner, in which some sixty- one white persons were killed. It was promptly suppressed, but it left all over the South a sense of insecurity, " a suspicion, " as one Southern speaker said, " that a Nat Turner might be in every fam- ily," and that the materials for insurrection "were spread through the land, and were always ready for a like explosion." While, therefore, the methods of the abolitionists were peaceful and lawful, they were none the less irritating to the slaveholders, both because they felt the difficulty of defending slavery on moral grounds, and because they dreaded the effect of agitation upon their slaves. Many Southern men were opposed to slavery ; but the majority of the people, everywhere, were willing to acquiesce in a system which it seemed im- possible to change without a disastrous disturbance of business and political relations. Many thought with Edward Everett that " the great relation of servitude in some form or other, with greater or ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 39 less departure from the theoretic equality of men, is inseparable from our nature ; " that " it is a condi- tion of life as well as any other, to be justified by morality, religion, and international law ; " and that it was right " to abstain from a discussion which by exasperating the master can have no other effect than to render more oppressive the condition of the slave ; and which if not abandoned there is great reason to fear will prove the rock on which the Union will split." To these men the abolition- ists seemed reckless incendiaries, endangering the Union and inviting general calamity without bene- fit to the slaves. The abolitionists held meetings and circulated papers attacking slavery. Their meetings were broken up, their houses were sacked, their presses were destroyed, their buildings burned. Garrison was dragged through the streets of Boston, Love- joy was killed in Illinois, and anti-slavery agitation was met by mob violence in almost every Northern State. These demonstrations were encouraged by the press, and in many cases by respectable citi- zens, though such violence was an admission that the abolitionists were breaking no law. They were mobbed, because they could not be prosecuted. Southern postmasters took anti-slavery publications from the mails. The Postmaster-General, Amos Kendall, admitted that this was illegal, but de- clined to condemn his subordinates for their acts, saying : " By no act or direction of mine, official or private, could I be induced knowingly to aid in 40 CHARLES SUMNER giving circulation to papers of this description, directly or indirectly." The anti-slavery men sent petitions to Congress praying for such action against slavery as Congress had power to take, and these led to the struggle over the right of petition, in which John Quincy Adams won a new claim to the gratitude of his coun- trymen. The Twenty-fourth Congress, on May 26, 1836, after prolonged and bitter contest, adopted the rule, that all petitions, memorials, or papers relating in any way to slavery, be laid on the table without being debated, printed, read, or referred, and that no action be taken thereon. Against this rule Mr. Adams waged unrelenting war until, in the second session of the Twenty-eighth Congress, it was abandoned. The legislatures of the Southern States called upon the Northern States to pass laws which should make anti-slavery agitation criminal, but such efforts to abridge the rights of citizens fed the flame of abolition, and attempts to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law intensified the popular feeling on both sides. The laws of Southern States, under which free colored men were imprisoned who were employed in vessels visiting their harbors, caused great indignation, which was very much increased when Samuel Hoar, sent by Massachusetts to test the validity of such imprisonment, was expelled from South Carolina. The practical result of the abolition movement from 1830 to 1845 was to create wrath on both sides, to enlist against slav- ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 41 ery many excellent men who opposed it because it wronged the slaves, and many others because it endangered the rights of free citizens. The slave- holders, dreading discussion, undertook to prevent it, and hence attacked freedom of speech, the right of petition, the inviolability of private correspond- ence, and finally the right to a hearing in court. There was no escape from their dilemma. They could not prevent the discussion of slavery with- out depriving their fellow citizens of constitutional rights. They could not permit it without exposing slavery to the force of public opinion, which must inevitably destroy it. From the beginning the supporters of slavery saw that they must keep their power in the Senate, where States counted, not voters. Hence they re- sisted the admission to the Union of any free State, unless at the same time a slave State was added; and Texas, large enough for several States, natu- rally tempted them. No sooner was its independ- ence proclaimed in 1836 than Mr. Calhoun declared in favor of annexing it. Slavery had been abol- ished in Mexico in 1829, when Texas was a part of that country ; but Texas had been settled largely by emigrants from the Southwestern States, who took their slaves with them, so that slavery existed there when it became independent. The election of President Harrison in 1840 delayed the agitation for annexation, but in 1843 President Tyler's ad- ministration was found friendly to the scheme, and the movement began in earnest. Mr. Upshur, the 42 CHARLES SUMNER secretary of state, in August, 1843, wrote to our diplomatic representative in Texas that "few calamities could befall this country more to be deplored than the abolition of slavery in Texas ; " and three months later he said: " We regard annex- ation as involving the security of the South." Mr. Calhoun succeeded Mr. Upshur in March, 1844, and on April 12 he concluded a treaty of annexation, which was defeated in June, after a discussion which aroused great public excitement. The election of 1844 resulted in the choice of Mr. Polk, upon a platform which favored annexation at the earliest possible moment. President Tyler in his annual message urged immediate action, and at the next session of Congress a joint resolution annexing Texas was passed, receiving the Presi- dent's approval on March 2, 1845. Every friend of slavery regarded the result as a great victory ; every friend of freedom was cast down. The Whig party as a whole had opposed the measure, while the Democrats supported it. It was in the autumn of 1845, after the annexa- tion of Texas and before the struggle over her admission as a State, that Charles Sumner entered the arena. The friends of slavery had succeeded in moving him, when the abolitionists had failed. His attitude was described by himself a few years later : — " I have ever entertained a strong attachment for the Constitution and the Union. I am a Con- stitutionalist and a Unionist, but have felt it to ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 43 be our duty at the North, according to the words of Franklin, to step to the ' very verge of the Con- stitution in discouraging every species of traffic in our fellow men.' ... In the autumn of 1845, when the question arose of the annexation of Texas with a slaveholding constitution, I spoke at a meeting called in Faneuil Hall to oppose it. This was the first political meeting in which I had ever taken any part ; nor had I ever before sought to express in public my opposition to slavery. In short, there had never before been any occasion in which I was disposed to participate. I had no relish for the strife, nor did I coincide in views with those who conducted the anti-slavery move- ment." The autumn of 1845 was a critical time. As the free States had a majority in the House, many "Whig leaders felt that the admission of Texas as a slave State could be prevented. Early in that year the Massachusetts legislature had denied the law- fulness of the annexation, and had declared the opposition of the State to the extension of slavery. The most conservative classes supported this posi- tion. Up to this time the Whigs of Massachusetts had been substantially united. When, however, the resolution of annexation had passed, differences at once appeared. The Whig leaders desired to take up other questions, as was indicated by Mr. Win- throp's toast on the Fourth of July, " Our Coun- try, however bounded ; " but the younger members of the party, led by Charles Francis Adams, John 44 CHARLES SUMNER G. Palfrey, Henry Wilson, E. R. Hoar, R. H. Dana, Jr., and others were determined to oppose the admission of Texas with a slave constitution. Sumner was made a member of a state committee appointed to organize the opposition. In the work of this committee, he took an active part, and drew the resolutions presented at a meeting in Faneuil Hall, on November 4, 1845. These reso- lutions, which were his first contribution to the anti-slavery contest, are characteristic. His whole argument, unchanged thereafter during his life, rested on his first proposition : that " the Govern- ment and Independence of the United States are founded on the adamantine truth of Equal Rights and the Brotherhood of All Men, declared on the 4th of July, 1776, a truth receiving new and con- stant recognition in the progress of time, and which is the great lesson from our country to the world." Among the other recitals appear in immediate sequence the following : " And lohereas the slave- holders seek annexation for the purpose of increas- ing the market of human flesh and for extending and perpetuating slavery ; — " And whereas by the triumph of this scheme, and by creating new slave States within the limits of Texas, the slaveholders seek to control the po- litical power of the majority of freemen represented in the Congress of the Union." The first statement presents the view and uses the language of the abolitionists, the second the argument which appealed to the Whigs as a po- ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 45 litical party. The resolutions were a vigorous pro- test against annexation on every moral and po- litical ground, and Sumner supported them in a temperate speech, important only as being the first public statement of his opposition to slavery. The movement failed of its immediate object, for in the December following Texas was admit- ted as a slave State. But its political conse- quences were far-reaching, for it divided the Whigs of Massachusetts into two parties, some- times called the " Conscience Whigs " and the "Cotton Whigs," and the breach constantly widened until the birth of the Republican party. Sumner appreciated the situation fully. In No- vember, 1845, he wrote : " The spirit of anti- slavery promises soon to absorb all New England. Massachusetts will never give her vote for another slaveholder. The cotton lords will interfere, but they will at last be borne away by the rising tide." Events moved rapidly, and annexation was speedily followed by the Mexican war. General Taylor's advance into Mexican territory led to a slight skirmish; whereupon the President sent a message to Congress saying that " war exists, and, notwithstanding all our efforts to avoid it, exists by the act of Mexico herself," and asking for money. An appropriation bill, reciting that " by the act of the Republic of Mexico a state of war exists be- tween that government and the United States," was passed, with only fourteen dissenting votes in the House and two in the Senate. John Davis of 46 CHARLES SUMNER Massachusetts voted against it in the Senate, and in the House, J. Q. Adams, with all the other Mas- sachusetts members present except two, of whom one was Robert C. Winthrop. The Whigs who voted for the bill were con- demned by many leaders of the party, and nowhere more strongly than in Massachusetts. Winthrop, whose inherited position and natural abilities had early given him prominence, was especially criti- cised and his action was contrasted with that of Adams. This feeling was first expressed publicly in an editorial written by Charles Fran- cis Adams in the "Daily Whig." The "Ad- vertiser," the recognized champion of the Whig organization, replied, and then at the request of friends Sumner took part in the discussion, but with reluctance, for his relations with Winthrop had been pleasant, and he did not enjoy personal criticism. He felt strongly, however, and once enlisted he wrote as he felt. He expressed for Winthrop the "personal regard, justly due to his accomplishments and his many virtues," but condemned his vote and questioned his motives, saying : " I cannot doubt the integrity of his character; but I fear that some thoughts little worthy of a Christian statesman have intruded upon his mind. I fear that he was unwilling to be found alone in the company of truth ; or that he would not follow truth in the company of those few men who bore the stain of anti-slavery ; or that the recollection of the unpopularity of those who ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 47 opposed the late war with England frightened him from his propriety." The " Advertiser " retorted, and Sumner in the " Courier " repeated his condemnation. These articles were not signed, but Sumner wrote to Winthrop avowing his authorship, and expressing his hope that differences on a public question would not affect their private relations. Winthrop replied that Sumner had done him injustice, and ap- parently had intended to be personally offensive ; adding that he regretted the disturbance of their relations, and hoped that changed circumstances might reestablish them. Sumner's reply was so characteristic that a few words may be quoted : " In the great public ques- tions, on which we are for the moment separated, I had hoped, perhaps ignorantly and illusively, that an honest, conscientious, and earnest discus- sion, such as the magnitude of the occasion seemed to require, might be conducted without the sug- gestion of personal unkindness on either side. . . . But the act with which your name has been so unhappily connected is public property. Espe- cially is it the property of your constituents, whose conscience you represented. I do feel, my dear sir, that holding the sentiments on this subject which I do, and which seem to be general in our commu- nity, it was a duty to direct them distinctly, une- quivocally, and publicly against the act." After this note was written, and before Winthrop replied, Sumner published a third article, in which 48 CHARLES SUMNER he said that Winthrop's vote had " given his sanc- tion to one of the most important acts, as it is unquestionably the most wicked act, in our his- tory," and after describing the terrible concomi- tants and consequences of war, proceeded : " All this misery has the sanction of your vote, Mr. Winthrop. Every soldier is nerved partly by you. . . . Surely this is no common act. It cannot be forgotten on earth ; it must be remembered in heaven. Blood ! blood ! is on the hands of the re- presentative from Boston. Not all great Neptune's ocean can wash them clean." It is not surprising that Winthrop, in reply, charged Sumner with not only criticising his acts, but attacking his motives, and with proceeding " upon the offensive assumption that under some in- fluence of ambition or moral cowardice " he had "knowingly and deliberately committed an un- worthy and wicked act." He declined further personal relations with one who had questioned his ^ integrity, adding, "My hand is not at the ser- vice of any one who has denounced it with such ferocity as being stained with blood." With this letter the correspondence ended, and for twenty years they never spoke to each other. Sumner continued his strictures, and the discussion widened the breach in the Whig party. Space is given to this incident only for the light which it throws upon Sumner's character and methods. It is impossible not to share Win- throp's feeling, that Sumner's language was incon- ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 49 sistent with the continuance of their personal relations. With many men, the desire to retain such relations in private, while making such attacks in public, would imply insincerity. But Sumner really thought that such language might properly be used where men of equal integrity differed on a public question ; that he could discuss whether his opponent was governed by expediency or coward- ice, and that his opponent would regard it as an impersonal question of general human interest. This inability to realize his adversary's feelings led him often to use strong expressions appro- priate to the action attacked, and as often to be surprised that his words were considered offensive. His nature was affectionate and kindly, and he was absolutely sincere, but he lacked the sense of humor, and this perhaps explains why he so innocently gave such bitter offense. Living the life of a student, and much alone, he occupied in thought the historical standpoint; he applied to current events and contemporary men the historical treat- ment, and what he thought in his closet he said openly, unconscious apparently that no living man wished to anticipate the adverse verdict of history. The controversy with Winthrop changed his personal relations with many whose friendship he had valued, but who sympathized with his adver- sary. Many such ruptures ensued, especially hard for Sumner to bear, both because as a bachelor he stood more in need of friends, and because he enjoyed his social relations. But keenly as he felt 50 CHARLES SUMNER the coldness of former friends, it never affected his public action. Sumner's next noteworthy speech was delivered before the Phi Beta Kappa Society, at Cambridge, on August 27, 1846, just after his last letter from Mr. Winthrop. In this he " took advantage of the occasion to express himself freely, especially on the two great questions of slavery and war," but his address was in form a tribute to John Pickering, Judge Story, Washington Allston, and William Ellery Channing, four members of the society who had lately died. He sheltered himself behind these names in the hope of saying what he thought without offending his hearers ; and his success was triumphant. Emerson wrote in his journal : " At Phi Beta Kappa, Sumner's oration was marked with a certain magnificence which I do not well know where to parallel ; " and Everett said : "It was an amazingly splendid affair. I never heard it surpassed ; I don't know that I ever heard it equaled." In September, 1846, for the first time he went to a caucus, and on the 23d attended as a delegate the Whig state convention. It was his first ap- pearance as a member of a political organization. The convention was controlled by those who wished to unite the party on economic and other issues of general policy. The anti-slavery Whigs were determined to array it against slavery. The man- agers had arranged that Winthrop should address the convention, but loud calls from the floor brought ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 51 up Sumner, and in a powerful speech he contended that it was " the duty of Whigs, professing the principles of the fathers, to express themselves openly, distinctly, and solemnly against slavery — not only against its further extension, but against its longer continuance under the Constitution and laws of the Union." He added, "While it is their duty to enter upon this holy warfare it should be their aim to temper it with moderation, with gentleness, with tenderness towards slaveholders. These should be won if possible, rather than driven, to the duties of emancipation. But eman- cipation should always be presented as the car- dinal object of our national policy." Winthrop, in reply, emphasized the questions upon which the Whigs were united, the tariff, care of the pub- lic money, internal improvements ; and the two speeches brought the views of the two factions into sharp contrast. The resolutions were then presented, and the anti-slavery Whigs offered an amendment expressing the views of Sumner, which was defeated after a heated debate. Sumner's speech gave him a new position. It was a time when anti-slavery utterances were rare, and his temperate but unequivocal decla- ration of principles came with the ring of sin- cerity from one who thought only of his cause and not of his own fortunes. It appealed to a rapidly growing party who were tired of compromise and anxious to attack slavery vigorously, and it won for Sumner many friends among the young. The 52 CHARLES SUMNER effect of the debate may be read in Whittier's poem, " The Pine Tree," written immediately after reading it. Winthrop was a candidate for reelection in the autumn of 1846, and on October 25 Sumner, in an open letter, arraigned him with increased severity for his vote on the Mexican war bill. Those Whigs, who were dissatisfied with Winthrop, decided to nominate a candidate against him, and their convention, in which Charles Francis Adams presided, and John A. Andrew was chairman of the committee on nominations and resolutions, se- lected Sumner. The suggestion, however, having been made that his attacks on Winthrop had been prompted by a desire to succeed him, Sumner felt that he could give no color to this suspicion and declined the nomination, saying : " I have never on any occasion sought or desired public office of any kind. I do not now. My tastes are alien to offi- cial life." Dr. S. G. Howe was then nominated, but Winthrop was elected by a large majority. Sumner took a prominent part in the campaign and made a speech justifying the opposition to the Mexican war. This must interest all, who believe that a patriot is not always bound to sup- port the government of his country in war, for it quotes from speeches of Chatham, Burke, Fox, and Englishmen like these during the American Revolution, in which the true duty of a patriot is defined by men whose sincere patriotism has never been doubted. ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 53 Thus in a single year, from a private citizen little interested in politics, Sumner had become an anti-slavery leader in Massachusetts. He could not be half-hearted, and already in January, 1847, friends were counseling moderation. He continued to practice law, but his heart was in the contest for freedom. During 1847 he wrote in the newspapers against the war and against slavery. On Febru- ary 4, in Faneuil Hall, he urged the immediate with- drawal of our troops from Mexico. A fortnight later he delivered a lecture on " White Slavery in the Barbary States," in which, while painting the horrors of white slavery, he made it clear that it was not the color of the victim which made slavery abominable, and answered the familiar pro-slavery arguments by showing that when used by Algerines their fallacy was evident. He dealt solely with the slavery of whites, only alluding to the fact that the Algerines still had many black slaves enduring the same hardships. It was an adroit and very effective object lesson. The year 1847 was important politically as the year preceding a presidential election. The Mexi- can war was in successful progress and its oppo- nents were strongly aroused. Sumner had pre- pared some resolutions against it in the spring, though his authorship was unknown, and these with slight amendments had been adopted by the legis- lature. He offered substantially the same resolu- tions at a Whig meeting in Boston. They declared the war unconstitutional, unjust, and detestable, 54 CHARLES SUMNER opposed further expenditure for it, called for the withdrawal of our troops, and opposed the annex- ation of any territory either by conquest or indi- rectly as indemnity. Sumner and C. F. Adams supported them, but they were laid on the table. Sumner, however, was placed at the head of the delegation, numbering more than one hundred mem- bers, which was sent by the meeting to the state convention. On September 29, when the convention met Daniel Webster was present, a candidate for the next presidential nomination and seeking the in- dorsement of his own State. In a speech to the convention, he took ground against the extension of slavery, but was evidently averse to affirmative anti-slavery action. The resolutions declared the unalterable opposition of Massachusetts to any acquisition of territory unless on condition that slavery should be prohibited therein ; but the anti- slavery forces were not satisfied, and John G. Pal- frey, a member of Congress, offered a resolution, prepared in conference with Sumner and others, " that the Whigs of Massachusetts will support no men for the office of president and vice-president but such as are known by their acts or declared opinions to be opposed to the extension of slavery." This was done, as Sumner subsequently stated, " in the hope of making opposition to the extension of slavery a political test at the next presidential election." Adams and Sumner supported Palfrey, and Winthrop opposed because the resolution would ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 55 divide the party and elect a Democratic president. The convention followed Winthrop, but the pur- pose of the minority was not affected. Palfrey's resolution contained the principle upon which a new party was soon to be founded, and in his speech Sumner said : " Be assured, sir, what- ever the final determination of this convention, there are many here to-day who will never yield support to any candidate for presidency or vice- presidency who is not known to be against the ex- tension of slavery, even though he have received the sacramental unction of a ' regular nomination.' We cannot say, with detestable morality, ' Our party, right or wrong.'' The time has gone by when gentlemen can expect to introduce among us the discipline of a camp. Loyalty to principle is higher than loyalty to party." This contest ended the struggle within the Whig party. The time was ripe for independent action. When Congress met in December Winthrop was the Whig candidate for Speaker, and was elected, though Giddings, Palfrey, and Tuck, anti- slavery Whigs, refused to support him. Palfrey was attacked sharply in Massachusetts for voting against Winthrop and also for voting against re- moving the postmaster of the House, who was a Democrat, and Sumner warmly defended both votes, stating the true principle of civil service reform most concisely. "It is proper that with a change of policy, as in- dicated by a change of parties, the important func- 56 CHARLES SUMNER tionaries, who may impress their peculiar opinions upon the country, should be changed. But it is not just or proper that the humbler office-holders, who cannot in any way influence those matters on which parties hinge, should be driven with every political change from the duties to which they have just become accustomed, and in this way, perhaps, be deprived of their daily bread." Early in 1848 the Mexican war was ended by the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, which ceded to the United States New Mexico and Upper Cali- fornia in return for a payment of fifteen million dollars. Should this new area be free or slave soil ? This question had been raised early in the war. The President in his message of August 8, 1846, asking for an additional appropriation, indicated that the war would result in a change of bound- aries, and when the appropriation bill came before the House David Wilmot, a Democrat, offered as an amendment the famous " Wilmot Proviso," prohibiting slavery forever in any territory acquired from Mexico. This gave rise to a contest between the House and the Senate which lasted through two sessions of Congress. The result left the question undecided, and when the new territory, nearly as large as the thirteen original States, became ours, the presidential campaign of 1848 had begun. The territory came to us free. Should it remain so ? This was the most important question before the country. Whigs and Democrats alike recog- nized that a decided position would alienate some ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 57 of their followers, for there was serious disaffec- tion in both parties. The Democratic convention nominated Lewis Cass, who had declared against the Wilmot Pro- viso, on a platform which did not deal with the question, but denied the power of Congress to interfere with or control the domestic institutions of the States. The Whig convention was even more diplomatic. It nominated General Taylor, at once a successful general and a Southern slave- holder, and adjourned without adopting any plat- form, — silent on the great question of the day. A resolution in favor of the Wilmot Proviso was voted down. Taylor was put forward as " the people's candidate," "without regard to party limits or party questions," and he claimed " the right to look to the Constitution and the high inter- ests of " the country " and not to the principles of a party " for his " rules of action." The Whig party thus sought to evade the real issue and to achieve party success by ignoring principles. Clay and Webster, themselves candidates, felt the igno- miny of the situation and did not disguise their feelings. Lowell in the " Biglow Papers " stated Taylor's position thus : — "Ez to my princerples, I glory- In hevin' nothin' o' the sort ; I aint a Wig, I aint a Tory, I 'm jest a canderdate, in short." To the conscientious opponents of slavery this surrender by the Whig party was the signal for 58 CHARLES SUMNER immediate revolt, announced by Charles Allen and Henry Wilson in the convention itself. In Massachusetts the result had been anticipated. A conference of representative anti-slavery Whigs held in May decided that if the party nominated Taylor or any candidate whose opposition to the extension of slavery was not assured, they would oppose the nominees and call a state convention. A call was issued so soon as the result was known, and on the list of signers Charles Francis Adams was first and Sumner second. The convention, at Worcester, was attended by five thousand people. Sumner was very active in all the preliminary steps, and his speech at the convention was eloquent and inspiring. " In the coming contest," he said, " I wish it understood that I belong to the party of free- dom, — to that party which plants itself on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. I hear the old political saw, that 'we must take the least of two evils.' . . . For myself, if two evils are presented to me I will take neither. . . . There are matters legitimately within the range of expediency and compromise. . . . But the question before the country is of another character. This will not admit of com- promise. It is not within the domain of expediency. To be wrong- on this is to be wholly wrong. . . . But it is said that we shall throw away our votes and that our opposition will fail. Fail, sir ! No honest, earnest effort in a good cause can fail. It ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 59 may not be crowned with the applause of men ; it may not seem to touch the goal of immediate worldly success, which is the end and aim of so much in life. But it is not lost. . . . Fail ! . . . Did the three hundred Spartans fail when in the narrow pass they did not fear to brave the innumer- able Persian hosts, whose very arrows darkened the sun? Overborne by numbers, crushed to earth, they left an example greater far than any victory, and this is the least we can do. Our example will be the mainspring of triumph hereafter. It will not be the first time in history that the hosts of slavery have out-numbered the champions of freedom. But where is it written that slavery finally prevailed ? " These words, uttered at the outset of Sumner's political career, state the rule of his life. They express the feelings, too, of those who led the great- est independent movement in our history, and give their reply to the argument by which all such move- ments are discouraged. Sumner threw himself into the contest with enthusiasm. At Buffalo, on August 9, a national convention nominated Martin Van Buren and Charles Francis Adams. Sumner, though not a delegate, was present and prominent in the coun- cils. He presided at a ratification meeting in Faneuil Hall, where he said that " a new party " had been formed whose leading principle was op- position to the extension of slavery and to its longer continuance wherever the national government was 60 CHARLES SUMNER responsible for it, thus early stating the position soon to be taken by the Republican party. In the following campaign he was very active. He headed the list of delegates from Boston to the state convention of the Free-Soil party, and was made the chairman of the state campaign com- mittee. During the campaign he spoke all over Massachusetts, and his speeches added greatly to his reputation. Sometimes he spoke for three hours at a time without wearying his hearers, if we may judge from contemporary testimony, and such at- tention is the best proof of eloquence. The Free-Soilers nominated him for Congress against Winthrop, and in accepting the nomination he said : " It has been my desire and determination to labor in such fields of usefulness as are open to every private citizen, without the honor, emolu- ment, or constraint of office. I would show by example (might I so aspire !) that something may be done for the welfare of our race without the sup- port of public station or the accident of popular favor." Defeat was certain, but he felt bound to lead the forlorn hope, and his letter may well be commended to all who doubt the wisdom of inde- pendent action or feel uncertain as to the duty of a private citizen. After his nomination and before his acceptance Longfellow wrote in his diary : — " Sumner stands now, as he himself feels, at just the most critical point of his life. Shall he plunge irrevocably into politics, or not ? That is the ques- ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 61 tion, and it is already answered. He inevitably will do so, and after many defeats will be very distinguished as a leader. . . . From politics as a career he still shrinks back. When he has once burned his ships, there will be no retreat. He already holds in his hands the lighted torch." He was defeated, but the campaign gave him wide influence and national reputation. He had met or corresponded with Free-Soilers in other States, and was recognized as the most eloquent among the leaders in Massachusetts, while he had acquired a strong hold upon men in every part of that State. But the loss of friends continued, and while some thought of Sumner charitably, others shared the views of a former friend who wrote : " You and I never can meet on neutral ground. I can contem- plate you only in the character of a defamer of those you profess to love, and an enemy to the per- manency of the Union." The year 1848 was a year of hope. All over the civilized world men believed that the old heaven and the old earth were passing away. It was a period of moral and political enthusiasm, and no one sym- pathized with the feeling of the hour more keenly than did Sumner. He hailed the revolution in France and the similar outbreaks in other countries as parts of a great movement for freedom, of which the anti-slavery agitation in America was another part. He anticipated its speedy triumph, but as we look around us his millennium still seems remote. Such hopes as his belong to youth. The old are apt 62 CHARLES SUMNER to question whether man does improve, and whether history will not repeat itself indefinitely. The year 1849 was quiet, politically. The Free- Soil party kept its organization, and Sumner called its annual convention to order with a brief speech, adapting the splendid " Uhi libertas ibi patria " by saying, " Where liberty is, there is my party." As chairman of a committee he prepared an address to the people of Massachusetts in which the party was " explained and vindicated," and which put the Free-Soil argument with a power and directness well fitted to arouse public opinion. Sumner had laid aside the florid diction of his early orations, and spoke with unfaltering conviction in deadly earnest. He said of his cause : " It can no longer be avoided or silenced. To every man in the land it now says with clear, penetrating voice, ' Are you for freedom, or are you for slavery ? ' and every man in the land must answer this question when he votes." The Free-Soil position was stated thus : " Wher- ever we are responsible for slavery, we oppose it. Our opposition is coextensive with our responsi- bility. In the States slavery is sustained by local law. . . . We are not responsible for it there. . . . But slavery everywhere under the Constitution of the United States, everywhere under the exclu- sive jurisdiction of the national government, every- where under the national flag, is at our own par- ticular doors. . . . Nor will this responsibility cease so long as slavery continues to exist in the District of Columbia, in any territories of the United States, ENTRANCE INTO PUBLIC LIFE 63 or anywhere on the high seas, beneath the protect- ing flag of the Republic." The campaign of 1849, though involving only state and local offices, cemented the Free-Soil organiz- ation, and kept the national issue clearly before the people. The direct appeal to the New England conscience developed anti-slavery feeling, with the important result that the Free-Soilers and Demo- crats began to combine and thus elected many members of the state legislature. Sumner fostered this inevitable union as a step in the formation of the new party. It was by skillfully using the bal- ance of power that the Free-Soilers accomplished results. With the Whigs they sent John P. Hale to the Senate from New Hampshire, and with the Democrats they chose Salmon P. Chase senator from Ohio. These signal victories presaged that breaking down of party lines which made the Re- publican 'party possible. During the years after his Fourth of July ora- tion Sumner often lectured in various towns throughout New England. The lyceum was then in its glory, with its opportunities for educating public opinion. In May, 1849, he spoke before the American Peace Society on the " War System of the Commonwealth of Nations," his last studied argument against war. In the same year he argued strongly before the Supreme Court of Massa- chusetts, that under the state constitution no dis- crimination on account of race or color could be made between children entitled to the benefit of 64 CHARLES SUMNER the common schools. The court held otherwise, but the discrimination was removed by statute a few years later. His professional practice does not seem to have grown during the years from 1845 to 1849. He was learning to realize his true voca- tion, and in obedience to the strong impulses of his nature was changing from a lawyer into a political reformer. Gradually, half unconsciously and at first with great reluctance, he was recogniz- ing his real work in life. CHAPTER V ELECTION TO THE SENATE The friends of slavery had hoped to extend the area of slave territory by the annexation of Texas, but they were doomed to bitter disappointment. Gold was discovered in California early in 1848, and an enormous immigration followed. Among the newcomers were many from the free States who had no love for slavery, and many from the slave States who, expecting to enrich themselves by their own toil, had no wish to compete with slave labor. There came also such throngs of lawless adven- turers that a strong government became necessary, and thus California was occupied by a large anti- slavery population demanding stable government. When, after the election of General Taylor, the second session of the Thirtieth Congress met in De- cember, 1848, President Polk's message stated that California and New Mexico were still subject to the provisional governments created during the war, but that the condition of affairs was such as to require the immediate establishment of perma- nent governments. Thus the question, which the Whig party had endeavored to evade, confronted its representatives as soon as the victory was won. 66 CHARLES SUMNER The President suggested that the line of the Missouri Compromise should be extended to the Pa- cific, to which there should be no serious objection, since the climate and soil of these regions were such that slavery could not exist there. This argument, afterwards so often reiterated, assumed that slaves could be used only in a climate like that of the South- ern States, and in such agricultural labor as they performed there. This was a pure assumption and was not accepted by either side. Douglas offered bills admitting California as a State and organizing Minnesota, Nebraska, and New Mexico as territories. The bill admitting Califor- nia said nothing about slavery, but left the inhab- itants to deal with it as they chose, and they seemed distinctly opposed to it. Shortly after the session began Mr. Benton presented to the Senate a petition from the people of New Mexico assembled in con- vention, asking for the establishment of a civil government, and saying : " We do not desire to have domestic slavery within our borders ; and until the time shall arrive for our admission into the Union as a State, we desire to be protected by Congress against their introduction among us." The proposition of Douglas did not satisfy the Southern slaveholders, who wished to carry their slaves into the newly acquired territory for which they had fought the war, and were not willing to be deprived of this right by the action of the local population ; nor did it please the anti-slavery men, who had insisted upon the power and duty ELECTION TO THE SENATE 67 of Congress to exclude slavery from this territory whatever the wishes of the local population, and were not likely to recede at the moment when such a population begged to be protected against slavery. The anti-slavery men were determined and aggressive. Though the House refused Palfrey permission to introduce a bill abolishing all laws concerning slavery and the slave trade in the Dis- trict of Columbia, a motion made by Gott of New York instructing the committee on the District of Columbia to bring in a bill forbidding slavery in the District was passed by a majority of ten votes, though it was afterwards reconsidered, and the committee on territories was instructed to bring in bills organizing California and New Mexico as territories, with provisions prohibiting slavery. Nor were the friends of slavery idle. In the hope of uniting the South against the North, Calhoun prepared an address which was signed by forty members of Congress and which indicated the ques- tions on which battle was shortly to be joined. It was an attack on the North for its aggressions on the South, asserting that the North had systemati- cally disregarded its obligation to return fugitive slaves, insisting that slaveholders had a constitu- tional right to carry their slaves into the territories, which Congress had denied, and stating the position of the slavery party in these words : " We hold that the federal government has no right to extend or restrict slavery, no more than to establish or abolish it ; nor has it any right to distinguish be- 68 CHARLES SUMNER tween the domestic institutions of one State or section and another, in order to favor the one or dis- courage the other." This address pointed out the danger that slavery would be abolished by constitu- tional amendment, and that thus the owners of slaves would be driven from the country. There- fore it urged a union of Southerners to protect themselves and their property. Calhoun's attempt was defeated by Southern opposition. Indeed, for the moment slavery was losing ground, even in its own territory. A con- vention in Kentucky, composed of delegates from twenty-four counties, pronounced it " injurious to the prosperity of the Commonwealth, inconsistent with the fundamental principles of free govern- ment, contrary to the natural right of mankind, and adverse to a pure state of morals," and de- clared " that it ought not to be increased, and that it ought not to be perpetuated in the Common- wealth." A Richmond newspaper announced that " two thirds of the people of Virginia are open and undisguised advocates of ridding the State of slav- ery." The like feeling was gaining ground in Missouri and other border States, and making a lodgment even further South. A strong pro-slav- ery man wrote : " Maryland, Virginia, North Caro- lina, Tennessee, Kentucky, and Missouri are per- vaded with a feeling of hostility to the institution." Such were the conditions just before the strug- gle of 1850. The last session of the Thirtieth Congress left ELECTION TO THE SENATE 69 the territorial question untouched. President Tay- lor, who entered office without a policy, undertook in the absence of Congress to deal with California as its people wished, — a course which seemed nat- ural to a man of simple and direct character, un- familiar with politics. He suggested to the people that they organize their own government, adopt a constitution, and then seek admission as a State. A convention was called by the military governor, a constitution prohibiting slavery was adopted, the people accepted it and chose officers, the legisla- ture met on December 15, and a few days later the state government was turned over to the offi- cers thus elected. The result was entirely satisfac- tory to Taylor, and he wished to proceed in the same way with New Mexico. The Thirty-first Congress met on December 3, and after a long contest Howell Cobb was chosen Speaker of the House. The President's message at once introduced the unsettled question by stat- ing that California and probably New Mexico would shortly apply for admission to the Union. The action of California had increased the diffi- culty of the situation for the South, and slavery was clearly losing ground. On December 31 the anti-slavery leaders renewed the motion passed by the House at the last session, which instructed the committee on territories to bring in bills organizing California and New Mexico with slavery prohibited. On the other side Mason introduced a new fugi- tive slave law, while Benton brought in a bill fix- 70 CHARLES SUMNER ing the boundaries of Texas and authorizing the payment of a considerable sum to that State for the release of her claims outside these limits. The Southern leaders began to threaten loudly that the passage of the anti-slavery measures would make secession inevitable. The student of history will find much that is instructive in their violent lan- guage, for their threats were not mere idle bluster. The great mass of the Southern people indeed was not affected, but the purpose of the leaders was genuine, and the experience of the country in 1861 and on other occasions has shown how easy it is for a body of determined men, controlling a politi- cal organization and aided by the press, to carry the people into a movement which they do not favor. A disorganized majority in such a case is like a mob against a regiment. It is not surprising that the cry of disunion produced an effect on men in every walk of life, and that a strong sentiment was created in favor of some compromise. Under these circumstances, on January 29, 1850, Henry Clay brought forward his famous proposition of compromise, embodied in eight resolutions, which proposed to admit Califor- nia without reference to slavery ; to establish ter- ritorial governments in the other territory taken from Mexico, without permitting or excluding slav- ery ; to fix the western boundary of Texas on the Rio Grande ; to pay a certain amount of her debt for the relinquishment of her claims beyond that boundary ; to declare inexpedient the abolition of ELECTION TO THE SENATE 71 slavery in the District of Columbia ; to forbid the importation of slaves into the District to be sold there or carried to other markets ; to pass a more stringent fugitive slave law, and to declare that Congress had no power to prohibit the slave trade between States. This meant the abandonment of the TVilmot Proviso, to which the legislatures of all the free States save Iowa stood committed; it intrenched slavery in the District of Colum- bia ; sanctioned the interstate slave trade ; enabled the owner to recover fugitive slaves more easily ; left a large territory, then free, open to the attacks of slavery ; and in return only recognized the fact that the population of California had made it a free State. The new Fugitive Slave Law empow- ered a commissioner of the United States, without a jury, to deliver a man into slavery upon the evi- dence of two witnesses that a slave had escaped, and an affidavit of identity, which was required to contain " a general description of the person so escaping with such convenient certainty as may be." The alleged slave was not allowed to testify, and thus a man could be deprived of his liberty upon evidence which would not have been ad- mitted, and by a procedure which would not have been legal, if he had been charged with the slight- est misdemeanor. The bill contained other severe provisions. It is unnecessary to repeat the his- tory of the struggle in Congress. The measures, at first defeated as a whole, were afterward passed separately, and substantially as Clay proposed them. 72 CHARLES SUMNER Thus the South won a victory more fatal to its cause than defeat could have been. The most important feature of the struggle, so far as it affected Sumner, was the course of Webster. In his famous speech of March 7, 1850, avowedly for " the preservation of the Union," Webster supported the compromise, declaring that he would not vote to exclude slavery from Cali- fornia and New Mexico because it was already ex- cluded by nature, and he would not " reenact the will of God." He sustained the new Fugitive Slave Law " with all its provisions to its fullest extent." He condemned the opponents of the law and all agitators against slavery with unsparing violence, and instead of standing as the representative of freedom he became in the eyes of many the apolo- gist of slavery. The speech alienated members who had looked to him for guidance, and caused the deepest sorrow and indignation among anti- slavery men. It was a powerful influence in break- ing up the Whig party, and it ojaened the door of the Senate to Sumner. President Taylor opposed the compromise, firmly believing that California should be admitted at once with the constitution adopted by her citizens, and that New Mexico should be allowed to follow. An open rupture between him and leading Southern Whigs was imminent, when his sudden death, on July 9, 1850, made Millard Fillmore president. Fillmore appointed Webster secretary of state, and from that time the whole power of the adminis- ELECTION TO THE SENATE 73 tration was used in favor of the compromise. Win- throp was appointed senator in Webster's place, and this created a vacancy in the House, for which Samuel A. Eliot was nominated by the Whigs and Sumner by the Free-Soilers. Webster's great in- fluence held the social and commercial powers of Boston to their party allegiance, and Eliot was elected in time to vote for the compromise mea- sures. The Free-Soilers of Massachusetts threw their whole influence against the compromise from the outset, and Sumner took a prominent part in the movement. On February 27 in Faneuil Hall they passed resolutions, drawn by a committee of which he was a member, insisting that Congress must prohibit slavery in the territories without conces- sion. They tried hard to make the legislature declare against the compromise, but the Whigs, who were in control, stood by Webster. Sumner's feeling is apparent in his correspondence. In Feb- ruary he wrote to his brother : " The bluster of the South is, I think, subsiding, though as usual the North is frightened and promises to give way. I hope to God they will stand firm. There is a small body at Washington who will not yield, — the Free- Soilers." After Webster's speech : " Webster has placed himself in the dark list of apostates." In May : " I am sick at heart when I observe the apostasies to freedom. There is one thing needful in our public men, — backbone." It was late in September when the contest in 74 CHARLES SUMNER Congress ended, and its members returned to face the issues of the autumn campaign. In Massa- chusetts the question was, whether or not the State should approve the compromise and the course of Webster. On one side was the Whig organiza- tion, dominated by Webster and represented by Winthrop, who was a candidate for reelection to the Senate. The merchants and manufacturers, the capitalists, the leaders of the several great pro- fessions, men like Rufus Choate and B. R. Curtis, men of letters like Ticknor, Everett, and Prescott, with all the influence which such a combination could command, were enlisted in its support, and they made their disapproval of their opponents felt in business and in society. On the other side were Charles Francis Adams, Josiah Quincy, Horace Mann, Palfrey, Dana, Theodore Parker, Samuel Hoar and his sons, Emerson, Lowell, Whittier, Sumner, Henry Wil- son, and a host of others who represented the moral forces of Massachusetts. Perhaps nothing better illustrates their feeling than Emerson's re- mark about Webster : " Every drop of blood in this man's veins has eyes that look downward." The Fugitive Slave Law created intense indigna- tion throughout the North, which was increased by attempts to enforce it. Knowing that public opin- ion was against them, those who were charged with its execution moved with a haste and secrecy abso- lutely inconsistent with Anglo-Saxon ideas of lib- erty, and every time that a human being was seized ELECTION TO THE SENATE 75 and hurried back to slavery under the forms of law, but without any real opportunity to defend himself, men were taught to hate slavery. In Massachusetts this feeling was especially strong. Meetings were held all over the State, the most important, per- haps, being that at Faneuil Hall " for the denun- ciation of the law and the expression of sympathy and cooperation with the fugitive." At the Free-Soil convention held on October 3, Sumner was a member of the committee on reso- lutions, and was reelected to the state committee. A question of practical politics was at once pre- sented. There were in both great parties strong opponents of slavery, who sympathized with the Free-Soilers, though unwilling to abandon their party. As Sumner writes after his defeat by Eliot : " A leading and popular Whig said to me on the morning of the election, ' I must go and vote against you, though I will say I should rather at this moment see you in Congress than any per- son in Boston; but I stick to my party.' " The bitter feeling of the Whig leaders drew the party line on that side very sharply. On the other hand the Democrats, some from sympathy with the Free-Soil movement, others perhaps because they saw an opportunity to overthrow the Whig domina- tion, were willing to cooperate with the Free-Soilers. In September, 1849, the Democratic state conven- tion had pronounced against " slavery, in every form and color." The question was whether Demo- crats and Free-Soilers, united upon the great issue 76 CHARLES SUMNER of the campaign, should act together. Similar cooperation in other States had won important vic- tories for freedom, and Henry Wilson, chairman of the Free-Soil state committee, favored it in Massa- chusetts. At a meeting of prominent Free-Soilers to consider its expediency, Adams, Palfrey, Dana, Samuel Hoar, and others opposed coalition, while Wilson and others favored it. It was finally de- cided that no action should be taken committing the party, but that each member should be at lib- erty to act according to his own sense of propriety. Sumner wrote to Wilson, saying : — " I see no objection in point of principle to unions in towns, and also in counties, such as took place last autumn. . . . But it seems to me a step of questionable propriety for our state com- mittee or any number of Free-Soilers to enter into an arrangement or understanding with the Demo- crats as to the disposition of offices. As at present advised I should be unwilling to be a party to any such bargain." It was impossible at such a time to keep men who thought alike from acting together. The Democrats had accepted the principles of the Free-Soilers, and the latter accepted their votes. In towns and senatorial districts the combination was general and the campaign was thorough and intense. Sumner spoke in various parts of the State, but his most important speech was made at Faneuil Hall on November 6. Of it he himself says : " It is sometimes said to have made Mr. ^ ELECTION TO THE SENATE 77 Sumner senator. More than anything else it de- termined his selection by the Free-Soil party shortly afterwards as their candidate. On the other hand it was often pronounced ' treasonable,' and in sub- sequent discussions at Washington, sometimes in newspapers and repeatedly in the Senate, it was employed to point the personalities of slave mas- ters and their allies." It put into clear and strong words what anti-slavery men were think- ing ; reflected the intense feeling of the hour, and showed the people a leader with courage and ability to speak for them. He began by stating his position on the coalition as follows : — " At the outset let me say that it is because I place freedom above all else that I cordially con- cur in the different unions or combinations through- out the Commonwealth. . . . The friends of free- dom may arbitrate between both the old parties, making freedom their perpetual object, and in this way contribute more powerfully than they other- wise could to the cause which has drawn us to- gether." He denounced the monstrous provisions of the Fugitive Slave Law, and declared it unconstitutional for reasons which he stated at length. His counsel to resist it was often brought up against him, and should be quoted : — " / cannot believe that this bill will be executed here. . . . But let me be understood ; I counsel no violence. There is another power stronger than 78 CHARLES SUMNER any individual arm which I invoke : I mean that irresistible public opinion, inspired by love of God and man, which, without violence or noise, gently as the operations of nature, makes and unmakes laws. Let this public opinion be felt in its might, and the Fugitive Slave bill will become every- where among us a dead letter. No lawyer will aid it by counsel, no citizen will be its agent ; it will die of inanition, like a spider beneath an exhausted receiver. " It rests with you, my fellow citizens, by word and example, by calm determination and devoted lives, to do this work. From a humane, just, and religious people will spring a public opinion to keep perpetual guard over the liberties of all within our borders. ... It shall prevent any slave hunter from ever setting foot in this Commonwealth. . . . I would not touch his person. Not with whips and thongs would I scourge him from the land. The contempt, the indignation, the abhorrence of the community, shall be our weapons of offense. Wherever he moves he shall find no house to re- ceive him, no table spread to nourish him, no wel- come to cheer him. . . . Villages, towns, and cities shall refuse to receive the monster." In answer to the argument of the Whigs that the compromise ended the slavery contest, he said : — " We are told that the slavery question is set- tled. Yes, settled — settled, — that is the word. Nothing, sir, can be settled which is not right. ELECTION TO THE SENATE 79 Nothing can be settled which is against free- dom." His declaration of principles may be quoted, as the people of Massachusetts in effect made it their platform when they sent Sumner to the Senate. " We demand, first and foremost, the instant repeal of the Fugitive Slave bill. " We demand the abolition of slavery in the Dis- trict of Columbia. " We demand of Congress the exercise of its time-honored power to prohibit slavery in the ter- ritories. " We demand of Congress that it shall refuse to receive any new slave State into the Union. " We demand the abolition of the domestic slave trade, so far as it can be constitutionally reached, but particularly on the high seas under the na- tional flag. " And generally we demand from the national government the exercise of all constitutional pow- ers to release itself from responsibility for slavery. " And yet one thing further must be done. The slave power must be overturned, so that the na- tional government may be put openly, actively, and perpetually on the side of freedom." A few extracts from a single other passage are always pertinent : " The friends of freedom cannot lightly bestow their confidence. They can put trust only in men of tried character and inflexible will. Three things at least they must require : the first is backbone ; the second is backbone ; and 80 CHARLES SUMNER the third is backbone. When I see a person of upright character and pure soul yielding to a tem- porizing policy, I cannot but say, He waiits back- bone. When I see a person talking loudly against slavery in private, but hesitating in public and failing in the time of trial, I say, He wants back- bone. When I see a person leaning upon the ac- tion of a political party and never venturing to think for himself, I say, He wants backbone. When I see a man careful always to be on the side of the majority, and unwilling to appear in a mi- nority, or, if need be, to stand alone, I say, He wants backbone. Wanting this they all want that courage, constancy, firmness, which are essential to the support of principle. Let no such man be trusted." The campaign resulted in the triumph of the coalition. There was indeed no choice for gover- nor ; but the combined Democrats and Free-Soil- ers had a majority in the legislature. Never had the Whig party of Massachusetts known so crush- ing a defeat. From the outset the object of the Free-Soilers had been to elect a senator, and now, when the victory was won, Sumner was their choice. The newspaper organ of the party said that this was "because, while true as the truest to Free- Soil principles, he was supposed to be less obnox- ious than any prominent Free-Soiler in the State to the Democratic party. He was never identified with any of the measures of the Whig party, ex- cept those relating to slavery. He never entered ELECTION TO THE SENATE 81 a Whig state convention except to sustain the sen- timent, not of the Whig party alone, but of Massa- chusetts against the annexation of Texas and the Mexican war." Sumner's confidential letters, and the contempo- rary judgment of those who knew him best, forti- fied by the opinion of political opponents, leave no doubt that he had never desired the place. To Charles F. Adams, with whom he was in the clos- est relations, he wrote : " My dreams and visions are all in other directions. In the course of my life I have had many, but none have been in the United States Senate. In taking that post I must renounce quiet and repose forever ; my life hence- forward would be in public affairs. I cannot con- template this without repugnance." But from his associates in Massachusetts, from Free-Soilers else- where, from leaders like Chase and Giddings in Washington, came a pressure which he could not resist, and when the Free-Soil members of the legislature by unanimous vote, or according to an- other account by eighty-four votes out of eighty- five, selected him as their candidate, he consented to stand. The failure to elect the state officers by the peo- ple threw the election into the legislature, and the Free-Soilers and Democrats at separate caucuses chose committees to determine how the votes of the two parties should be cast. It was decided that the Democrats should name the state officers with some exceptions, and also the senator for the short 82 CHARLES SUMNER term which expired March 4, 1851, while the Free-Soilers should name the senator for the long term of six years. The belief, however, that Sum- ner was more acceptable to the Democrats than any other Free-Soiler proved unfounded. His ad- vanced position on the slavery question, and espe- cially his speech against the Fugitive Slave Law, made some Democrats very reluctant to accept him, lest they might hazard their relations with the na- tional organization by helping to elect a man whom the Democratic journals of Boston described as " a disunionist." He secured a two thirds vote in the Democratic caucus and his nomination was made unanimous with only a few dissenting votes, but after the other officers had been elected by the combined votes of Free-Soilers and Democrats, it was found that enough Democrats in the House to prevent his election refused to vote for him. There followed a struggle from January 14 till April 24, 1851. During the contest he was op- posed bitterly by the Whigs, who denounced the coalition as an iniquitous conspiracy, and, smart- ing under their recent defeat, spared no pains to take from the Free-Soilers the prize of victory. Webster exerted all his influence and seems to have been joined by Lewis Cass, who represented a certain number of Democrats. Caleb Cushing led the Democratic opposition in the House, and it often seemed that this combination would be suc- cessful. But the Democrats did not feel satisfied with their position in refusing to carry out their ELECTION TO THE SENATE 83 agreement after all their own candidates had been elected, and they attempted to meet the difficulty by offering to vote for some other Free-Soil candi- date like Stephen C. Phillips. Governor Boutwell urged a change, and some of Sumner's own sup- porters were inclined to accept the suggestion. Sumner himself wrote to Wilson : " In this mat- ter, I pray you, do not think of me. . . . Aban- don me, then, whenever you think best, without notice or apology. The cause is everything. I am nothing." The Free-Soilers, however, stood firm, believing Sumner their best man, and also fearing that a change might give the Democrats an excuse for breaking the compact. Failing with his supporters, his opponents next sought some concession from Sumner himself. He was asked by the editor of the " Times," a Democratic journal of Boston, to write a letter modifying his speech against the Fugitive Slave Law, so as to make it easier for the Democrats to support him. He declined, and when the editor asked him how he would like to see that speech reprinted in the " Times," replied that nothing would give him greater pleasure. The speech was published the next day, with the statement that it contained Mr. Sumner's deliberate opinions and the expression of a hope that the Democratic mem- bers of the legislature would read it, " and then consider whether it is not their duty to vote for some other person." The Free-Soil organ accepted the issue, and likewise published the speech, s 84 CHARLES SUMNER adopting every word of it with enthusiastic ap- proval. Individual Democrats and committees urged him to give some assurance that he would not agitate the slavery question in the Senate, or would give other questions precedence ; but he replied that he had not sought the office, and if it came to him, it must come to an absolutely independent man whose opinions were known, and who would go to the Senate resolved to assert them. This inflexible determination of Sumner's sup- porters, with considerable pressure from the con- stituencies, finally triumphed, and so many of Sum- ner's opponents yielded as to secure his election. The New York " Tribune," then in close alliance with the Whig party, thus spoke of his victory : — " We do not know the man who has entered the Senate under auspices so favorable to personal in- dependence as Mr. Sumner. He has not sought the office, has not made an effort for its acquisi- tion. No pledge has he given to any party or any person upon any question or measure." Sumner received the news of his election at the house of Mr. Adams, " with as perfect calm- ness and absence of any appearance of excitement as was possible. There was no change in his face or in his manner, and the latter was one of per- fect quiet and self-possessed dignity." On the same day Longfellow writes : " He is no more elated by his success than he has been depressed by the failure heretofore, and evidently does not desire the office." ELECTION TO THE SENATE 85 All over the State and the country the result was hailed with the greatest enthusiasm by the oppo- nents of slavery. It was justly regarded as a signal victory for freedom. It was the unique beginning of a remarkable public career. The next campaign in Massachu- setts presented for approval the result of the coali- tion. Winthrop was the candidate of the Whigs for governor, while the Democrats renominated Governor Boutwell. Sumner took no part in the contest, both because the propriety of his own elec- tion was involved, and because he desired to shun further personal conflict with Winthrop. The excitement was intensified by the feeling over the Fugitive Slave Law, and again the coalition car- ried the State. Boutwell was reelected by the legislature, and those Democrats who had refused to support Sumner were defeated. When, there- fore, he took his seat in the Senate on Decem- ber 1, 1851, he went there the fully accredited representative of Massachusetts. CHAPTER VI FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE The anti-slavery cause had two unfaltering sup- porters in the Senate before Sumner entered it, John P. Hale of New Hampshire and Salmon P. Chase of Ohio. Hale had great ability and cour- age, firm principles, and a caustic wit which made him a power in debate, but as compared with Sum- ner he was critical, not aggressive. The character of Chase is well known. He had far more skill as a politician than Sumner, and, though he was an earnest and uncompromising Free-Soiler, the con- test was to him more like a game. William H. Seward was still identified with the Whigs, though his speeches showed a clear grasp of the situation and did much to create and develop anti-slavery feel- ing. Sumner brought into the Senate a new force. In the language of Von Hoist, " The rigid fidelity to principle and the fiery-spirited moral earnest- ness of abolitionism, united to the will and capacity to pursue political ends with the given political means, received in him their first representative in the Senate." He was no politician in the ordinary sense. He saw clearly what was right, and he de- voted his life with absolute singleness of purpose FIKST TEARS IN THE SENATE 87 and unwavering courage to the pursuit of the ends which his conscience approved. To intense convic- tion he added a certain lightness of heart, a serene confidence of ultimate success. It was not so much that he weighed and disregarded the obstacles and the personal consequences which daunted other men, as that they did not present themselves to him. His gaze was fixed on a distant goal, and he did not stoop to look at what lay in the path. When Congress met in December, 1851, more than a year had elapsed since the passage of the compromise measures, and meanwhile the Admin- istration and the leaders of both parties — Clay and Webster agreeing with Cass, Buchanan, and Douglas — had exerted all their influence to unite the country in support of the compromise. The great material and political forces of the nation, with too much assistance from the church, were all arrayed on the same side. In January, 1851, forty- four members of Congress, headed by Clay, issued a manifesto written by Alexander H. Stephens, declaring that they would support no man for any prominent office who was not known to condemn disturbance of the compromise and further agita- tion of the slavery question. Never was there a more determined effort to "cry ' Peace ' when there is no peace." Never was clearer proof of Sumner's rule that " nothing can be settled which is not right." In both Houses petitions for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law were presented, and the law was bitterly denounced 88 CHARLES SUMNER by Giddings, Horace Mann, Hale, and others, while Senator Butler of South Carolina declared his con- viction that the attempt to prevent agitation of the slavery question was absolutely idle. The abuses attending the attempts to recover fugitive slaves kept the public excited. Free persons were seized and deported as slaves. Murders, mob violence, and lawlessness on both sides aroused the deepest indignation. The rescue of Shadrach in February, 1851, while under arrest in Boston as a fugitive slave, led the President to issue a proclamation calling upon all well-disposed citizens to aid in enforcing the law, and the secretaries of war and of the navy issued instructions in aid. Mr. Clay introduced resolutions calling for information, to which the President responded by a special mes- sage reciting the facts and his action, upon which ensued a bitter debate in the Senate. Nor was it only at the North that the compro- mise had failed. In South Carolina a convention declared in May, 1851, that " the State of South Carolina cannot submit to the wrongs and aggres- sions which have been perpetrated by the federal government and the Northern States without dis- honor and ruin, and that it is necessary for her to release herself therefrom, whether with or without the cooperation of the Southern States." Like feeling was strong in Mississippi ; but the majority of the Southern people were not ready for seces- sion, and all attempts to secure action in this di- rection failed. An active minority, however, re- fused to regard the compromise as final. FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 89 It was easier to stay the rising tide than to stop the discussion of slavery by paper proclamations, in the face of events like these. It was the indig- nation excited by the Fugitive Slave Law — the public resolve that it should be repealed — which sent Charles Sumner to the Senate, and which he went there to express. When he took his seat the exasperation on both sides was steadily growing, and the final contest was beginning. He made his entrance upon the stage just as Henry Clay was retiring, for the latter never entered the Senate after the first day of the session. On the same day with Sumner, Hamilton Fish of New York and Benjamin F. Wade of Ohio also entered the Senate. Chase was already his friend, and his relations with the families of Seward and Fish were cordial from the beginning. He took a chair on the Democratic side next to Chase. Be- fore him sat Butler of South Carolina, and behind Chase was John J. Mason of Virginia. Cass, who presented his credentials, was an old friend, and Sumner was received very pleasantly by other senators, by the diplomatic corps, and by many residents, so that he found himself amid agreeable surroundings. The social antipathies of Boston were not felt in the capital, and Boston heard of his " triumphant success in Washington, social and otherwise." In the arrangement of commit- tees he was placed at the foot of those on revo- lutionary claims and on roads and canals, which 90 CHARLES SUMNER gave him scant opportunities. His first speech was made upon a resolution of welcome to Kossuth, when he came to this country after the failure of the Hungarian revolution. It was a graceful trib- ute to the great Magyar, and in it he took ground against any departure from our policy of non-inter- vention in the affairs of other nations, a position which many strong supporters of freedom disap- proved. His next appearance was in support of a bill granting land to the State of Iowa " in aid of the construction of certain railroads," a position which made him friends in the West and Southwest, but was used against him at home. Cheaper ocean postage and other questions of general interest engaged his attention, but it was not until the end of May that he said anything even remotely relat- ing to slavery. He felt it wise to become familiar with his colleagues and his surroundings, with the rules and atmosphere of the Senate, and to show that he was not " a man of one idea," — a fanatic at once unreasonable and unpractical. Indeed, nothing could have injured Sumner's influence in the Senate or gratified his enemies more than his rushing prematurely into a debate, or endeavoring to interject a speech against slavery into a discus- sion of some other subject. He did not, however, forget the cause to which he owed his election. He meant to be heard before the session closed, but at his own time, and not until the necessary preparation had been completed. FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 91 His silence was misinterpreted. Before the ses- sion was three months old the Whig journals began to taunt their opponents with Sumner's failure to attack slavery. Garrison, at an anti-slavery meeting, introduced a resolution condemning him, and Phillips, though opposing it and expressing his implicit confidence in Sumner, said, " I think his course at Washington impolitic and wrong." Other friends assured him of their perfect faith, but none the less impressed on him the importance of breaking his silence. As he wrote to John Jay : — " Had I imagined the impatience of friends, I would have anticipated their most sanguine de- sires. ... I fear nothing. I am under no influ- ences which can interfere with this great duty. From the time I first came here I determined to speak on slavery some time at the end of June or in July, and not before unless pressed by some prac- tical question. No such question has occurred, and I have been left to my original purposes." It soon became apparent that an opportunity to speak would not readily be given to him. On May 26 he presented a memorial against the Fugitive Slave Law, but on seeking to say a few words he was interrupted by the president, and only allowed to proceed on his assurance that he did not propose to enter into any discussion. He simply announced his purpose to address the Senate at a later day, when he hoped for a hearing. The two great parties held their national con- 92 CHARLES SUMNER ventions in June, and, differing on other questions, declared their support of the compromise and their opposition to any agitation of the slavery question in almost identical language. Under these circum- stances Sumner was obliged to make his own op- portunity, and when for this purpose he offered, on July 27, a resolution requesting the commit- tee on the judiciary to consider the expediency of reporting a bill for the immediate repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, both parties were determined to prevent his speaking. Sumner's appeal to the courtesy of his associates fell on deaf ears, and his motion was defeated, even Hamilton Fish voting against it. This action made it very doubtful whether Sum- ner would be allowed to deliver his speech. Mason told him that he might have an opportunity " next term," but not at the current session. Politicians of both parties were anxious that he should not speak before the presidential election, and es- pecially that he should not be able to put certain senators on record as to the Fugitive Slave Law. His failure increased the anxiety of his friends at home, and he was thus between two fires. But he never changed his purpose, and in the last days of the session he secured the floor in the only way possible. The Civil and Diplomatic appropriation bill was under consideration, when Hunter of Vir- ginia moved an amendment for the payment of un- usual expenses in executing the laws of the United States. Sumner, who was prepared, at once moved FIRST YEARS IN THE SENATE 93 the following amendment, " provided that no such allowance shall be authorized for any expenses in- curred in executing the act of September 18, 1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, which said act is hereby repealed," and upon this he made a speech which occupied nearly four hours. It stands in his works under the title so often quoted, " Freedom National, Slavery Sectional." This speech and its reception by his opponents are full of instruction. It is far from bein 280 CHARLES SUMNER of dealing with them ; that with a view to the same ends the insurgent prisoners in our hands ought to be placed under the control and in the keeping of officers and men who have themselves been pris- oners in the hands of the insurgents and have thus acquired a knowledge of their mode of treating Union prisoners." A few days later Sumner moved as a substitute a series of resolutions, which declared that retaliation, always harsh, was allow- able only where it was likely to effect its object and within narrow limits, and that, while the treat- ment of our officers and soldiers in rebel prisons was cruel, " any attempted imitation of rebel bar- barism in the treatment of prisoners " was imprac- ticable, useless, and immoral ; " that it could have no other result than to degrade the national char- acter and the national name, and to bring down upon our country the reprobation of history." His final resolution declared the determination of the United States to end the barbarous treatment of prisoners by ending the rebellion. He expanded his argument in a speech, and a long debate ensued in which many leading Repub- licans — "Wade, Howard, Chandler, Howe, Gratz Brown, Harlan, and others — favored the original resolutions, while the Democrats with some Repub- licans opposed. Sumner spoke again, saying : — " The committee . . . propose that Congress shall instruct the President to enter upon a system of retaliation, where we shall imitate as precisely as possible rebel barbarism, and make our prisons THE LAST YEAR OF THE WAR 281 the scenes of torments we here denounce. Why, sir, to state the case is to answer it. . . . What civilization forbids cannot be done. Your enemy may be barbarous and cruel, but you cannot be barbarous and cruel. The rule is clear and un- questionable. . . . Even if you make up your minds to do this thing, you cannot. The whole idea is impracticable. The attempt must fail be- cause human nature is against you." The opposition was effective, and upon Sumner's motion the resolution was so modified as to susr- gest only retaliation " in conformity with the laws and usages of war among civilized nations." Thus amended it passed the Senate, but was never acted upon by the House. In thus opposing the indig- nation of the country Sumner showed the moral courage and the enlightened humanity which never failed him. Of these he gave another proof when he moved to amend a joint resolution authorizing a contract with the artist Powell for a picture to be placed in the Capitol, by adding : " Provided, That in the national Capitol, dedicated to the na- tional Union, there shall be no picture of a victory in battle with our fellow citizens." This found little or no support, and was rejected without division, but his action on these two mat- ters helped to teach many that his course towards slavery was dictated by hatred of the crime and not by personal bitterness against slaveholders. CHAPTER XVIII RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN The question of reconstruction, heretofore dis- cussed as a question of the future, now became pressing, and the struggle, which had begun at the last session in the case of Arkansas, was renewed over a resolution to recognize a state government in Louisiana. The first issue was, whether the President by military order, or Congress by law, should control reconstruction ; the second was, whether the right of suffrage should be given to the colored men in the seceded States. Every- thing else was really matter of detail. The issue between Congress and the President had first to be fought out, and it was in effect settled at this session of Congress. To John Bright Sumner wrote, on January 1, 1865 : — " The President is exerting every force to bring Congress to receive Louisiana under the Banks government. I do not believe Louisiana is strong enough in loyalty and freedom for an independent State. ... I have discussed it with the President, and have tried to impress on him the necessity of having no break between him and Congress on such questions." RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 283 That the reader may understand the discussions, the history of reconstruction in Louisiana may be sketched briefly. In December, 1863, President Lincoln had issued a proclamation proposing a plan of reconstruction. He offered all persons in the seceded States, with certain exceptions, pardon and restoration of property, except slaves, upon their taking an oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and proclamations with reference to slaves. He declared that whenever persons who had taken this oath, equal in number to one tenth of the votes cast at the presidential election of 1860, and qualified to vote by the laws of the State in force at the time of secession, should establish a state government republican in form and recognizing the freedom of the negroes, this government would be recognized as that of the State. This proclamation was discussed in the President's annual message of December, 1863. In accordance with it, and under orders issued by General Banks, which in effect allowed only male white citizens to vote, elections were held in Loui- siana early in 1864, at which state officers and dele- gates to a constitutional convention were chosen. Only some eleven thousand voters, including sol- diers, took part in the elections, and a much smaller number voted when the constitution was submitted to the people in September, 1864. The orders of Banks were not to be reconciled with constitutional principles, and while the State was the scene of hostile operations any fair and free expression of 284 CHARLES SUMNER the popular will was impossible. The govern- ment thus established rested on military force and did not really represent the people of Louisiana. Meanwhile, Congress took up the subject, and after long deliberation passed an act in July, 1864, providing for conventions in the seceded States and for reconstruction by a majority of the voters ; but the President withheld his signature, and it failed to become a law. He refused his approval, partly because he did not wish to set aside the govern- ments which had been organized in Arkansas and Louisiana under his proclamation, "thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens, who have set up the same, as to further effort." The result was to leave him in control of reconstruc- tion. This bill, as it passed the House, made the per- petual prohibition of slavery in the constitution of each reconstructed State an essential condition, but it gave the suffrage only to " white male citi- zens." The Senate committee reported it with an amendment striking out the word " white," but subsequently abandoned the amendment as endan- gering the bill. Sumner and four others voted for the amendment, and he then tried to amend the bill so as to give the Emancipation Proclamation the force of a statute. Defeated in this he voted for the bill, because it asserted the power of Con- gress over the terms of reconstruction and assured the freedom of the slaves, waiving for the last time his objection to any reconstruction without RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 285 equal suffrage. Soon afterward he took his final position, that there could be no just and lasting reconstruction unless the negroes were given the vote, and thereafter he never wavered. The refusal of the President to sign the act passed by Congress, and his attempt to effect re- construction by proclamation and military order upon terms fixed by himself without the consent of Congress, had irritated some of the Republican leaders, and there were many who, like Sumner, felt that his plan was objectionable in itself. An issue was thus created between the President and many of his own supporters, which made the strug- gle in Congress especially interesting. The contest of the session began on February 18, 1865, with the introduction of a resolution from the committee on the judiciary, recognizing the government of Louisiana as the legitimate government of the State. Sumner opposed it, because the government thus established was " not republican in origin or form," and because it furnished "no secur- ity for the rights of colored persons." When it was taken up on February 23, he moved a sub- stitute, which declared that neither the people nor the legislature of any seceded State should elect senators or representatives in Congress, until the President should declare by proclamation that armed hostility to the government had ceased therein, nor until the people had adopted a consti- tution in harmony with the Constitution and laws of the United States, and Congress had by law 286 CHARLES SUMNER declared the State entitled to representation. This substitute was defeated, but Sumner continued to antagonize the resolution, and in the press of busi- ness at the close of the session his determination to discuss the subject fully, and his refusal to per- mit a vote, prevented action upon it. He was charged with making obstructive motions, and re- plied that he thought the measure dangerous, and was justified in opposing it with all the weapons in the arsenal of parliamentary warfare. In the course of the discussion Sumner offered an amendment to the resolution, providing that it should not take effect " except upon the funda- mental condition that within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any other rights, on account of color or race, but all persons shall be equal before the law," and requir- ing the assent of the legislature to this fundamen- tal condition. He made no extended speech, but he took the same ground in regard to the origin of the government that he had taken in discuss- ing the similar organization in Arkansas. For the same reasons he opposed the admission of Mr. Segar as senator from Virginia, saying: " It is in vain that senators say that Virginia, now in war against the Union, is entitled to represen- tation on this floor, when you have before you the inexorable fact that the greater part of the State is at this moment in the possession of an armed rebellion, and that other fact, repeated by the news- papers of the land, that the body of men who have RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 287 undertaken to send a senator to Congress are little more than the common council of Alexandria." In support of his theories as to the position of the States in rebellion and the true method of re- construction, he offered two sets of resolutions during the session. The first in substance declared that the seceded States were not to be regarded as States in determining whether the constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery had been ratified. The other asserted that it was the duty of the United States by act of Congress to reestablish republican governments in the States whose gov- ernments had been vacated ; that the governments, to be republican, must rest on the consent of the governed, and that all persons must be equal before the law ; that no government " founded on military power or having its origin in military orders " could be republican. The defeat of the attempt to secure recognition for the governments of Arkansas and Louisiana established the control of Congress over the whole subject of reconstruction. In this contest Sumner opposed the President, and when we consider what the governments favored by Lincoln really repre- sented and upon what a slender foundation they rested, whether of numbers or character, it is clear that Sumner was not only right as a matter of prin- ciple, but practically wise in refusing to support them. If the power of the President to prescribe the conditions of reconstruction had been conceded, it is hard to say what evil might not have been 288 CHAKLES SUMNER done by President Johnson. Sumner's attitude in this debate was supported by the anti-slavery sen- timent of the country, and it doubtless secured the establishment of equal suffrage without regard to color. His course was fiercely attacked, and the President criticised it freely. Indeed many be- lieved that the difference would lead to a breach of their friendly relations. Mr. Lincoln, however, was too magnanimous not to respect Mr. Sumner's right to differ with him on a public question, and he invited him to join the President's party at the inauguration ball. Sumner accepted, and his ap- pearance with the President on this occasion effec- tually silenced all doubts as to their friendship.// Until Lincoln's death their intercourse continued to be constant and cordial. In the Senate Sumner had avoided making any extended speech, for he recognized the difficulty of speaking without saying something that might be misinterpreted by the President ; but in a letter to John Bright, written just after the session closed, he spoke freely : — "I insist that the rebel States shall not come back except on the footing of the Declaration of Independence, with all persons equal before the law and government founded on the consent of the governed. In other words, there shall be no discrimination on account of color. If all whites vote, then must all blacks ; but there shall be no limitation of suffrage for one more than the other. It is sometimes said, 'What; let the freedman, yesterday a slave, vote ? ' I am inclined to think RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 289 that there is more harm in refusing than in con- ceding the franchise. . . . Without their votes we cannot establish stable governments in the rebel States. Their votes are as necessary as their mus- kets ; of this I am satisfied. Without them the old enemy will reappear, and under the form of law take possession of the governments, choose magistrates and officers, and, in alliance with the Northern democracy, put us all in peril again, postpone the day of tranquillity, and menace the national credit by assailing the national debt. To my mind the nation is now bound by self-interest — ay, self-defense — to be thoroughly just." At the special session of the Senate, which began on March 4, 1865, Sumner offered again substan- tially the same resolutions, which he had offered as a substitute for the resolution recognizing the gov- ernment of Louisiana, and his policy, though at the time attacked by many leading Republicans, became, before another session, the accepted policy of the Republican party. This special session terminated on March 11, 1865, but Sumner as usual remained in Wash- ington, seeing much of the President. ^/ When Mr. Lincoln was at the headquarters of the army, whither he went on March 23, Sumner by his invitation joined the party, and remained with it for several days, returning with it to Washington on April 9. During a part of the time Mr. John- son, the Vice-President, was in the neighborhood, and Mr. Sumner learned how much Mr. Lincoln 290 CHARLES SUMNER disliked him, — a feeling which he was at little pains to conceal. Lee's surrender was announced to Sumner by a message from the White House ; but after a day or two of rejoicing the assassination of the Presi- dent came like a thunderbolt to change joy into profound grief, and to work a revolution in the political situation. Sumner heard the news shortly after the assassination occurred, and he went at once to the bedside of the President, where he re- mained till the end. One witness, who described the scene shortly after midnight, said : " Senator Sumner was seated on the right of the President's couch, near the head, holding the right hand of the President in his own. He was sobbing like a woman, with his head bowed down almost on the pillow of the bed on which the President was lying." He attended the meeting of senators and representatives in "Washington, and drew the reso- lutions which they adopted. He did what was possible for Mrs. Lincoln, and on leaving "Wash- ington she sent him her husband's cane, with a note in which she said : " Your unwavering kind- ness to my idolized husband and the great regard he entertained for you prompt me to offer for your acceptance this simple relic." These reminiscences show his relations with President Lincoln, and that differences upon questions of policy never impaired their mutual confidence and respect. Sumner did not realize the consequences which were to flow from Mr. Johnson's accession. "Writ- RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 291 ing to Mr. Bright on April 18, he said : " Our government will continue tranquilly according to the requirements of fundamental law. It is prob- able that the policy towards leading rebels will be modified. President Lincoln was so essentially humane and gentle that he could not make up his mind to any severity, even to Jefferson Davis. . . . President Johnson is in a different mood." In a letter of April 25, he said : " I have seen a good deal of the new President, and have con- versed on questions of business and of general policy. . . . On Saturday the chief justice and myself visited him in the evening, especially with the view of conversing on negro suffrage. Suffice it to say that he is well disposed, and sees the rights and necessities of the case, all of which I urged earnestly. Both of us left him light- hearted." A week later he writes, after another interview : " Last evening I had a long conver- sation with him mainly on the rebel States, and how they shall be tranquillized. Of course my theme is justice to the colored race. He accepted this idea completely, and indeed went so far as to say, " There is no difference between us.". . . He deprecates haste ; is unwilling that States should be precipitated back ; thinks there must be a period of probation, but that meanwhile all loyal people without distinction of color must be treated as citizens, and must take part in any proceedings for reorganization." In repeated interviews Sumner presented his 292 CHARLES SUMNER views, and he left Washington well assured that Johnson agreed with him, and that the battle for equal rights was won. On June 1 he delivered in Boston a eulogy upon President Lincoln, and, possessed with the impor- tance of persuading the country that negro suffrage was essential to lasting reconstruction, he availed himself of this opportunity to urge his views. The speech did full justice to Lincoln's great character- istics, and dwelt especially upon the consecration of his life to the principles embodied in the Declara- tion of Independence, of which the orator said: " The inevitable topic to which he returned with most frequency, and to which he clung with all the grasp of his soul, was the practical character of the Declaration of Independence in announcing the lib- erty and equality of all men. No idle words were there, but substantial truth, binding on the con- science of mankind." His entire harmony with Lincoln in devotion to human rights, is made absolutely clear by the tone in which he quoted from Lincoln's speeches and the admiration which he expressed. He firmly believed in the words of Lincoln : " This is a world of compensations ; and he who would be no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for them- selves, and, under a just God, cannot long retain it." Their fellow countrymen will do well to burn these words upon their hearts. Three days earlier, the President had disap- RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 293 pointed the country by his proclamation of May 29 in regard to North Carolina, and this act may have added something to Mr. Sumner's speech. It certainly changed the whole political horizon. Johnson, in accepting the nomination for the vice- presidency, had denounced treason as " worthy of the punishment of death," and after he suc- ceeded to the presidency he frequently repeated: " Treason is a crime and must be punished as a crime." His treatment of the South seemed sure to be more vigorous than that which Mr. Lincoln proposed, and the impression which he conveyed to Sumner and Chase as to his views upon negro suffrage was confirmed by his public statements to various delegations. Therefore, when on May 29 he issued a proclamation of amnesty, and another providing for reconstruction in North Carolina by a convention to be chosen only by persons qualified to vote before secession, thus excluding all colored men from the electorate, he astopished and greatly disappointed the loyal States. By some his change of position has been attributed to the persuasion of Southern men, for whom he had the instinctive respect of one who had held an inferior social po- sition among them ; by others to the influence of Seward and the Blairs. It is possible also that his public declarations were intended to assure his hear- ers of his general sympathy with their purposes and of his honest intention, rather than to announce a fixed policy. He was not a master of accurate state- ment, and his speeches can be explained consist- 294 CHARLES SUMNER ently with his subsequent action. He may have thought that in following substantially the policy of Lincoln he was pursuing a safe course, which the country would approve, and in that case it is easy to understand how the attacks upon him might seem to him unjust, and operating upon a man of strong will, violent temper, and little edu- cation might drive him to the indefensible line of action which he afterwards adopted. President Johnson will probably be regarded by the historian as a patriotic man of pure intentions, but who could brook no opposition and was entirely unfit- ted for his great office. But whatever the verdict upon him in foro conscientice, his course endan- gered the whole results of the war. He had the will and it was not yet certain that he had not also the power to adopt a policy which would have left the negroes only the name of freedom and have given reconstruction into the hands of disloyal men. Sumner felt that unless this policy was defeated, the battles which had been won for equal rights must be fought again. So soon, therefore, as the proclamation of May 29 disclosed the President's purpose, he strove at once by letter and speech to kindle an opposition. He wrote to members of the Cabinet, members of Congress, and other men of influence, urging the importance of arresting the President's course and the necessity of giving the f reedmen suffrage. A petition from colored men of Savannah was sent to him for presentation to the President, and in a published letter he said : " It RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 295 is impossible to suppose that Congress will sanc- tion governments in the rebel States which are not founded on ' the consent of the governed.' This is the corner-stone of republican institutions. Of course by the ' governed ' is meant all the loyal cit- izens without distinction of color. Anything else is mockery." For a few months Sumner found little support. There was, indeed, a meeting in Boston to demand equal suffrage ; but the Cabinet expressed no sym- pathy with Sumner's views, some members, like Seward, being in active sympathy with the Presi- dent, while others, like Stanton, were disinclined to make an issue with him. Sumner wrote of them on August 11 : " The attorney-general [Speed] is the best of the Cabinet ; but they are all courtiers, unhappily, as if they were the counselors of a king." Among the Republican leaders in Congress some doubted the power of prescribing the conditions of suffrage in the Southern States ; others, like Fes- senden and Wilson, felt it wiser to persuade than to oppose the President ; others again, like Stevens and Wade, thought opposition hopeless. Outside of Congress there was the same division of opinion. Governor Morton of Indiana, Governor Andrew of Massachusetts, and several of the leading newspa- pers opposed Sumner's attitude. Some of the old abolitionists, and Horace Greeley, in the "Tri- bune," their weight for equal suffrage, but among prominent Republicans, Sumner, almost alone, in- 296 CHARLES SUMNER sisted that there should be no reconstruction unless impartial suffrage was allowed; that until the col- ored men were secured not only their freedom, but also absolute political equality before the law, the seceded States should not reenter the Union. To Mr. Schleiden, on June 27, he wrote : " On the suffrage question the President has changed. Shortly after I left Washington Southern influ- ences proved too strong. The ascendency is with the Blairs. I have a letter from a member of the Cabinet, telling me of a strong pressure on the President to enforce the Monroe Doctrine as a safety valve now, and to divert attention from do- mestic questions." Then, as always, a " vigorous foreign policy " was the favorite resort of those whose domestic policy had failed, and whose power was therefore threatened. To Dr. Lieber, on August 14, he said: "All my first impressions were for the writing and reading qualification ; but on reflection it seemed to me impracticable. Of course any rule must apply to the whites as well as to the blacks. Now you cannot get votes of Congress to disfranchise, which you must do in imposing this qualification. Providence has so arranged it that the work shall be done completely, because it must be done. Be- sides, there are very intelligent persons, especially among the freedmen, who cannot read or write. But we need the votes of all, and cannot afford to wait." Again, on August 21 : " The true policy of the RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 297 administration is as plain as noonday. No path was ever clearer, and how they could get away from it is astonishing. (1.) Refer the whole ques- tion of reconstruction to Congress where it belongs. What right has the President to reorganize States ? (2.) Meanwhile, by good government through mil- itary officers, to lead public opinion in the right direction. (3.) To obey the existing laws of Con- gress, which expressly exclude from public service any person who has sustained the rebellion. (4.) To obey the Constitution, which refuses to make any distinction of color. (5.) To redeem the pro- mises of the Declaration of Independence instead of openly setting them at defiance. Why the Cabi- net have not insisted upon these plain rules is very strange. I have been invited to preside at the coming Republican State Convention for Massa- chusetts. At any other time I should not do it ; but I shall now, in order to speak the voice of Massachusetts." He carried out this purpose, and on September 14 made a speech to the convention, which Mas- sachusetts received with cordial approval. It was a discussion of the conditions to be observed in re- construction, with no criticism of the President or of those who agreed with him, — a statement of what could and ought to be done. At the outset he said : — " When last I addressed my fellow citizens, at the close of the late presidential canvass, ... I said to friends near me, 'This is my last anti- 298 CHARLES SUMNER slavery speech.' I so thought at the time ; for I anticipated the speedy downfall of the rebellion, carrying with it slavery. I was mistaken. Neither the rebellion nor slavery is yet ended. The rebel- lion has been disarmed ; but that is all. Slavery has been abolished in name ; but that is all. . . . The work of liberation is not yet completed. Nor can it be, until the equal rights of every person once claimed as a slave are placed under the safeguard of irreversible guaranties. "It is essential . . . that all men should be hailed as equal before the law ; and this enfran- chisement must be both civil and political. Unless this is done, the condition of the freedman will be deplorable. Exposed to every brutality, he will not be heard as a witness against his oppressor. Compelled to pay taxes, he will be excluded from all representation in the government. Without this security, emancipation is illusory. ... It is impartial suffrage that I claim, without distinction of color, so that there shall be one equal rule for all men. And this, too, must be placed under the safeguard of constitutional law." He counseled against any reliance on oaths or pardons and against the too prompt removal of political disabilities, saying of the Confederates : — " I would not be harsh. There is nothing humane that I would reject. Nothing in hate. Nothing in vengeance. Nothing in passion. I am for gentle- ness. I am for a velvet glove ; but for a while I wish the hand of iron." But it was not yet time RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 299 to trust them : " Therefore, we turn from recent rebels to constant loyalists. This is only ordinary prudence. As those who fought against us should be for the present disfranchised, so those who fought for us should be at once enfranchised. . . . " All these guaranties should be completed and crowned by an amendment of the Constitution of the United States, especially providing that here- after there shall be no denial of the electoral fran- chise or any exclusion of any kind on account of race or color, but all persons shall be equal before the law." These quotations indicate his position, but give no idea of his speech, which was very effective. The Massachusetts convention applauded and in- dorsed it, and by contrast we may note the posi- tion of Pennsylvania, as it appeared to Thaddeus Stevens, whose views were not less radical than those of Sumner, and whose courage was undoubted : — " I am glad you are laboring to avert the Presi- dent's fatal policy. I wish the prospect of success were better. I have twice written him, urging him to stay his hand till Congress meets. Of course he pays no attention to it. Our editors are generally cowardly sycophants. I would make a speech, as you suggest, if a fair occasion offered. Our views (Reconstruction and Confiscation) were embodied in our resolutions [in the Republican State Con- vention, recently held] at Harrisburg, amidst much chaff. Negro suffrage was passed over, as heavy and premature. Get the rebel States into a terri- 300 CHARLES SUMNER torial condition, and it can be easily dealt with. That, I think, should be our great aim. Then Congress can manage it." The President's plan of reconstruction was sim- ple. In each State he appointed a provisional governor, and provided for a constitutional con- vention to frame a state government under which there should be held elections for state officers and for members of Congress. Under the proclama- tion of amnesty all white men in the Southern States might vote and hold office on taking an oath to support the Constitution, except those belonging to certain specified classes who could be pardoned and restored to their rights on special application to the President. On the other hand colored men were denied all "right to vote or hold office. Men who had shown their sympathy with secession by their acts were appointed provisional governors, and thus given the power to direct the course of reconstruction. It was not to be expected that those who had held slaves for years and had lost them suddenly by what seemed to them an arbi- trary and unjust act should be ready at once to treat them as citizens. The passions which had brought on the war had not been quenched by the bitter struggle of four years, and it was not in human nature that the defeated should at once become loyal. The radical vice of the President's plan was that it placed the freedmen and the loyal minority of whites absolutely in the power of the disloyal majority. It opened to men but lately in RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN 301 rebellion the pathway to power in the national government through an alliance with the Demo- cratic party in the North, while it assured them control of their own section. The conventions and legislatures organized under the President's proclamation annulled the ordi- • nances of secession, ratified the Thirteenth Amend- i ment, and declared the Confederate debt invalid, but uniformly excluded negroes from all rights as citizens, and passed statutes designed to keep them in subjection to the whites, restoring slavery in fact, if not in name. Assured of the President's sup- port and of their own restoration to power, they took little pains to conceal their feelings, and as a result the Southern Unionists found themselves in danger, while the colored people were exposed to outrages of every kind. CHAPTER XIX THE STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON Such were the conditions which confronted the Thirty -ninth Congress on December 4, 1865. Sum- ner reached Washington two days earlier, and at once called on the President. Some weeks before this he had sent him a telegram, which began : "As a faithful friend and supporter of your ad- ministration, I most respectfully petition you to suspend for the present your policy towards the rebel States," and gave with necessary brevity his reasons, which were those of his speech to the Republican convention. He had not criticised Mr. Johnson personally, and he called upon him as a leader of the party which had made him president. He thus described his interview and his relations with the administration : — " I found him changed in temper and purpose. How unlike that president who only a few days after arrival at power made me feel so happy in the assurance of agreement on the great question. No longer sympathetic, or even kindly, he was harsh, petulant, and unreasonable. Plainly his heart was with ex-rebels. For the Unionist, white or black, who had borne the burden of the day, he STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 303 had little feeling. He would not see the bad spirit of the rebel States, and insisted that the outrages there were insufficient to justify exclusion from Congress. ... I left the President that night with the painful conviction that his whole soul was set as flint against the good cause, and that by the assassination of Abraham Lincoln the Rebellion had vaulted into the presidential chair. Jefferson Davis was then in the casemates at Fortress Mon- roe, but Andrew Johnson was doing his work." On the first day of the session Sumner opened his campaign by introducing six bills and a num- ber of resolutions. The bills were : to secure equal suffrage in the District of Columbia; to secure the presence of colored jurors upon the panel at the trial of cases in which the rights of colored persons were involved ; to prescribe a form of oath which should be required of every voter or officer in the seceded States ; to forbid the de- nial in those States of rights, civil or political, on account of race or color, and to make all persons " equal before the law, whether in the court room or at the ballot box ; " to enforce the Thirteenth Amendment by making it a crime to " claim any right to control the services " of any person in con- travention of its provisions. This last bill gave the federal courts jurisdiction of offenses committed by or against persons of African descent, and of all suits to which such persons should be parties, and it annulled all state laws or customs making any distinction of rights on account of race or color. 304 CHARLES SUMNER Another bill contained a complete scheme of reconstruction. It was carefully drawn, but its exact provisions are not material. In effect it gave Congress the control of reconstruction, insured equal suffrage, prevented all distinctions of race or color, and disfranchised the leaders of the rebellion. A set of resolutions presented the same ideas in a different form. Another resolution proposed the amendment to the Constitution which he had previously offered, apportioning representatives ac- cording to the number of voters in each State, while a third declared the Thirteenth Amendment ratified by the action of the loyal States. Thus Sumner placed before Congress and the country his method of dealing with the existing situation. On December 19, in answer to a resolution of the Senate, the President sent the reports of Gen- erals Grant and Schurz as to the condition of the seceded States, and accompanied them by a mes- sage in which he expressed his belief " that sec- tional animosity is surely and rapidly merging itself into a spirit of nationality, and that represen- tation, connected with a properly adjusted system of taxation, will result in a harmonious restoration of the relations of the States to the national Union." The report of General Grant, made after a brief tour, expressed the belief that the Southern States were in good faith accepting the results of the war, and were anxious to resume their relations with the Union, and said nothing to indicate that* the STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 305 colored race was in any way ill treated. General Schurz, whom the President had sent to examine into the conditions at the South, had reached exactly opposite conclusions. After the President's message and General Grant's report had been read, Mr. Sumner called for the reading of General Schurz's report. Some senators objecting on ac- count of its length, Sumner said : — " It is a very important document. . . . We have a message from the President which is like the whitewashing message of Franklin Pierce with regard to the enormities in Kansas. Such is its parallel. I think the Senate had better at least listen to the opening of Major-General Schurz's report." The phrase " whitewashing " provoked some of the President's supporters, and Mr. Doolittle of Wisconsin urged Sumner to withdraw or at least to qualify it, but he refused, disclaiming any " re- flection on the patriotism or the truth of the Pre- sident," but insisting that the adjective properly described the message. The remark was the first shot in the impending war, and caused an extended discussion in the press and elsewhere. Sumner's attitude was strongly criticised by some as injudi- cious and as likely to provoke unhappy dissension, but the more positive men recognized and rejoiced in the justice of the phrase, and applauded it. On the following day Sumner spoke upon Mr. Wilson's bill to establish the civil rights of the negroes in the rebel States, beginning thus : — 306 CHARLES SUMNER " When I think of what occurred yesterday in this chamber, when I call to mind the attempt to whitewash the unhappy condition of the rebel States, and to throw the mantle of official oblivion over sickening and heart-rending outrages, ... I feel that I ought to speak of nothing else." He then showed the real condition of the South by many quotations from letters written by officers, travelers, and citizens, from speeches of Southern men, and from official documents. The testimony was overwhelming. The case thus presented may be judged from one or two quotations, which are specimens of the whole : — " This is precisely what ninety-nine in every hundred of the men, women, and children believe sincerely as to the situation to-day : first, that the South of right possesses, and always possessed, the right of secession; secondly, that the war only proved that the North was the strongest ; thirdly, that negro slavery was and is right, but has been abolished by the war. " All expect the negro will be killed in one way or another by emancipation. The policy of those who will eventually become the leaders here at the South is, for the present, to accept the best they can get, to acquiesce in anything and everything, but to strain every nerve to regain the political power and ascendency they held under Buchanan. This, they believe, cannot be postponed longer than up to the next presidential election. They will do all in their power to resist negro suffrage, to STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 307 reduce taxation and expenditures, and would attack the national debt if they saw any reason to believe repudiation possible. They will continue to assert the inferiority of the African, and they would to- day, if possible, precipitate the United States into a foreign war, believing they could then reassert and obtain their independence. . . . On the whole, looking at the affair from all sides, it amounts to just this : If the Northern people are content to be ruled over by the Southerners, they will con- tinue in the Union, if not, the first chance they get they will rise again." "The former masters exhibit a most cruel, re- morseless, and vindictive spirit toward the colored people. In parts where there are no Union soldiers I saw colored women treated in the most outrageous manner. They have no rights that are respected. They are killed, and their bodies thrown into ponds or mud holes. They are mutilated by having ears and noses cut off." The evidence collected in this speech and the re- port of General Schurz justified Sumner's descrip- tion of the President's message, and from that time the President steadily lost ground in public opinion. It was a process of education, and Sumner's posi- tion was sustained by evidence of Southern feeling daily brought to the North by the press and pri- vate correspondence. Men were reluctant to re- alize that a conflict with their own President must be won before the results of the war were finally assured, and they would gladly have closed their 308 CHARLES SUMNER eyes to the facts, fearing disturbance of business, loss of office and political power, — in a word, trou- ble, of which they had had enough. But the facts were too strong and the unsettled question of the day, as always, had "no respect" for their "re- pose." The rapid change in public opinion is perhaps shown by the history of the very bill upon which Mr. Sumner made his speech. In the debate which followed Mr. Trumbull and other leading Republicans expressed the hope that the measure was unnecessary, that the South would change its laws in good faith so as to secure the rights of the freedmen, and that the conditions were exaggerated by Mr. Sumner. By general consent Mr. Wilson's bill was laid aside ; but on January 5, 1866, only some two weeks later, Mr. Trumbull himself introduced a bill to prevent any discrimination in civil rights on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery. On the same day he introduced a bill giving to the Freed- men's Bureau jurisdiction wherever there were freedmen or refugees, and empowering it to pro- tect freedmen against hostile discrimination on account of race or color. This was fiercely op- posed by the congressmen from the slave States which had not seceded, and by some Republicans, but it passed both houses by large majorities. The President vetoed it on February 19, and the Sen- ate failed to pass it over his veto, though his veto message contained no argument which had not been presented when the bill was under consideration. STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 309 The first vote in the Senate was thirty-seven to ten ; on the question of passing it over the veto it was thirty to eighteen. Congress was not yet fully enlisted in the struggle with the President. Opinion was forming rapidly, however, as is shown by the fate of Mr. Trumbull's Civil Eights bill, introduced on the same day with his Freed- men's Bureau bill. This was a bill to prevent any discrimination in civil rights on account of race or color; and it was reported by the committee on the judiciary, with an amendment declaring " all persons born in the United States and not sub- ject to any foreign power " " to be citizens of the United States, without distinction of color." After a full debate, in which the measure was supported upon the grounds already urged by Sumner, the bill passed both Houses. On March 27 the Presi- dent refused his approval, but Congress passed the bill over his veto on April 9, and thus made appar- ent the position which the Republican party would take as to the state governments erected under the President's proclamation. Later in the session an- other bill enlarging the powers of the Freedmen's Bureau, and extending the period of its existence, was passed over the President's veto. In the ex- cited debate over these measures Sumner took no part, content with the arguments of his associates. After his speech of December 20, he made no fur- ther attacks on the President's policy. The state legislature of Florida, chosen under the President's proclamation, had elected Mr. Mar- i 310 CHARLES SUMNER vin senator, but when his credentials were pre- sented Sumner objected, calling attention to the composition of the legislature in which Confeder- ate officers largely predominated, and to the state constitution which disfranchised negroes. The credentials were laid on the table, and the case was never moved again. In this case, as in Mr. Segar's, Sumner's objections settled the case against the state government organized by executive ac- tion. On February 5 the Senate took up a resolution, which had passed the House, in favor of an amend- ment to the Constitution providing that represent- atives should be apportioned among the States according to the population, " excluding Indians not taxed," with the proviso : " That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons therein of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation." This was strongly supported by many Republican leaders, including Thaddeus Stevens, who usually sympathized with Sumner but was a more practical politician. Sum- ner was absolutely opposed to this proposition and put forth all his energies to defeat it. He spoke against it on February 5 and 6, 1866, very elab- orately and effectively. This speech and the oth- ers which he made during the debate are upon a high plane, discussing the question with earnest- ness and dignity, but without personal feeling. The elevation of tone is made more striking by STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 311 comparison with the speeches of other senators, notably Mr. Fessenden, who was in charge of the measure, and spoke at times with acrimony. The real nature of the proposition which Sumner was combating was well stated by Mr. Cowan of Pennsylvania, who sympathized with the President, and opposed the amendment. He said : " This committee proposes in this amendment to sell out four million (radical count) negroes to the bad people of those States for ever and ever. In con- sideration of what ? . . . For about sixteen mem- bers of Congress. Has there ever been before, sir, in the history of this or any other country, such a stupendous sale of negroes as that?" Sumner opposed it on various grounds. He said that after Congress had been " carefully expunging from the statute-book the word ' white,' " it was proposed to insert in the Constitution itself a distinction of color, and to make another of those fatal com- promises with human rights which had fastened slavery upon the country. His demand was for enfranchisement as the necessary complement of emancipation, without which it must fail, and he added : " By enfranchisement I mean the estab- lishment of the equal rights of all, so that there shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or political, founded on color, and the promises of the fathers shall be fulfilled." He proved from historical sources what was meant by " a republican form of government " as used in the Constitution, and that its essence was 312 CHARLES SUMNER expressed by James Otis in his famous " Taxation without representation is tyranny." In reply to Fessenden he showed that representation did not mean representation of communities, but of indi- viduals. Upon these points his speeches are a mag- azine of learning. His postulate was thus stated: "A state which, in the foundation of its gov- ernment, sets aside ' the consent of the governed,' which imposes taxation without representation, which discards the principle of equal rights, and lodges power exclusively with an oligarchy, aris- tocracy, caste, or monopoly, cannot be recognized as a ' republican form of government,' according to the requirement of American institutions." His principal speech is unnecessarily long, yet it is stimulating and refreshing. The quotations with which he seemed to overload this and other elaborate speeches served at least one purpose: they created an atmosphere removed from the political struggles of the day, and placed the reader in association with the great men of successive ages, so that it was easier to recognize as eternal the principles which such even united in accepting, and to see the baser arguments of the moment in their true relation. He gave the figures which showed the proportion of negroes in the total population of the South, and argued that no government could be called re- publican where political rights were denied to so large a portion of the people. He met the argu- ment drawn from laws which impose educational STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 313 and other qualifications as follows : " Let me be understood. What I ask especially is impartial suffrage, which is, of course, embraced in universal suffrage. What is universal is necessarily impar- tial. For the present, I simply insist that all shall be equal before the law, so that in the enjoyment of this right there shall be no restriction not equally applicable to all." He dwelt upon the value of the ballot as assuriDg peace and reconciliation, as an educational influ- ence, as a means of defense to the negro ; and he claimed also that it was necessary for the safety of the country. He said : " It is idle to expect any true peace while the freedman is robbed of this transcendent right, and left a prey to a vengeance too ready to wreak upon him the disappointment of defeat. The country, sympathetic with him, will be in perpetual unrest. With him it will suf- fer ; with him alone can it cease to suffer. . . . He is our best guaranty. Use him. If he votes now, there will be peace. Without this you must have a standing army, which is a sorry substitute for justice. Before you is the plain alternative of the ballot box or the cartridge box : choose ye between them." The whole speech, with its array of authority, had, perhaps, as much effect on public opinion as any that Mr. Sumner ever made. Its temperate and earnest statements carried conviction to many who hesitated, and educated the public to accept negro suffrage. The resolution which he opposed 314 CHARLES SUMNER did not receive the necessary votes in the Senate, and the proposed amendment failed. During the debate Sumner explained the difference between this proposition and his own proposal for appor- tioning representatives according to voters and not according to population. His proposition in no way prevented Congress from securing impartial suffrage, or brought into the Constitution any re- cognition of color as a reason for inequality of rights, and he offered simultaneously a series of resolutions declaring the duty of Congress to secure equal rights for the freedmen. He proposed the rule adopted in Massachusetts and urged by him in the constitutional convention of 1853. There was nothing inconsistent, therefore, in Sumner's opposition to the amendment. The defeat of the resolution left the question un- settled, and paved the way for the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments. The result was received with much regret by many of Sumner's associates, who held him responsible. The President also was excited, and on the day after Sumner's speech, speaking to a delegation of colored men, he criti- cised it with some feeling, dwelling upon his own service to their cause, and expressing his unwill- ingness to adopt a policy likely to result in race conflicts. He was more violent in a speech from the steps of the White House on February 22, when he classed Stevens, Sumner, and Wendell Phillips with Davis, Toombs, and Slidell, as opposed to the Union and anxious to destroy our institutions. STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 315 This was the first attack by the President on Re- publicans by name, and it increased the growing hostility. The amendment to the Constitution was defeated on March 9, and three days later a bill for the admission of Colorado was taken up. Sumner op- posed it, partly because the population was small and decreasing, and it seemed to him unfair that so small a body should be given an equal voice with New York in the Senate. But chiefly he urged that the Constitution of the State allowed only white citizens to vote. He took an active part in the discussion of the bill and offered an amend- ment providing that the State should not be ad- mitted except upon the condition, accepted by a majority of the voters, that there should be no de- nial of suffrage or of any other right on account of race or color. This was finally defeated and the bill was passed. The President vetoed it, and on a motion to assign it for further consideration Sumner announced his purpose to sustain the veto ; but the bill was never taken up and fell with the session. The desire to increase the Republican vote in the Senate caused the pressure for the admission of the State, and this probably explains the Presi- dent's opposition. Sumner met this argument char- acteristically, saying : — " Tell me not that it is expedient to create two more votes in this chamber. Nothing can be ex- pedient that is not right. If I were now about to 316 CHARLES SUMNER pronounce the last words that I could ever utter in this chamber, I would say to you, Senators, do not forget that right is always the highest expediency. You can never sacrifice the right without suffering for it." Later in the session the question was raised again on a bill to admit Nebraska. Mr. Sumner moved the same condition as in the case of Colorado, but the motion was lost. The bill passed, but was not signed by the President, and the session closed with the question still open. Upon a resolution declar- ing Tennessee entitled to representation, Sumner made the same point and undertook to attach the same condition ; but his amendment was defeated, and the resolution passed and was signed by the President. The Republican leaders were not satisfied to leave the question of suffrage as it was left by the defeat of the proposed constitutional amendment, and on April 30, 1866, Mr. Stevens reported a new resolution, proposing the first form of what, after many changes of language and some of substance, was afterwards adopted as the Fourteenth Amend- ment. Wilson, in his " Rise and Fall of the Slave Power," says that the committee on reconstruc- tion had adopted a much more sweeping amend- ment, which forbade any discrimination as to civil rights, and, after July 4, 1876, as to suffrage, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, but that this failed because the Republi- can representatives from New York, Illinois, and STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 317 Indiana were afraid that the adoption of negro suf- frage by the Republicans might defeat the party at the next election in those States. This shows that Sumner's associates were themselves in agree- ment with him, but feared their constituents, so that the differences which appeared in the debate were more apparent than real. The amendment as finally drawn avoided the objection made by Mr. Sumner to the earlier one, in that it did not recognize the right of a State to deny the suffrage to any citizen on account of color. On this point it conformed more nearly to his idea of apportion- ing representatives according to voters, while it left Congress at liberty to prevent any discrimina- tion inconsistent with a republican form of gov- ernment. It also contained two other things which he had proposed and considered vital : the declara- tion that the national debt should not be questioned, nor any debt incurred in aid of the rebellion paid ; and the exclusion from office of all persons who, having as federal or state officers sworn to sup- port the Constitution of the United States, had afterwards taken part in or aided the rebellion. Satisfied on these points, he did not speak, but voted for the amendment. It was one step to- wards the goal which he had in view, and it left the way open. He would have preferred to take the final step at once, but did not decline to make the advance for which his associates were ready. So far as it provided for reducing the representa- tion of a State the amendment has thus far been of no effect. 318 CHARLES SUMNER The net result of the session was that the ques- tion of equal suffrage had been thoroughly dis- cussed, that the doubts as to the power of Congress to impose it upon the States were gradually dis- appearing, that the necessity of requiring it was becoming clearer, that nothing had been done af- fecting the control of Congress over the question, and that an amendment had been defeated, which would have placed in the Constitution a recognition of the power to deny political rights on account of color. The session also made it clear that Congress would control reconstruction, that the freed men would be protected by law against oppression, and that no state governments organized and controlled by disloyal men would be recognized. The Presi- dent's plan had failed, and the situation which con- fronted Congress at the beginning of the session had been changed for the better. To John Bright, on May 21, Sumner wrote : "I am sure there can be no tranquillity or security here until complete justice is rendered to the negro. ... I confess I can see nothing but ' agitate and convert ' until the franchise is extended." Besides these matters, other things also engaged Sumner's attention during this session. When the trial of Jefferson Davis was impending, a bill was introduced to remove the disqualification of jurors who had formed an opinion founded on common notoriety, public rumor, or newspaper statements. Sumner doubted the wisdom of this, saying : " I shrink from any change in the law to meet an indi- STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 319 vidual case, even though of transcendent impor- tance." The bill was not passed. On the legal question whether a senator could be elected by a plurality of the votes cast in the joint assembly of a state legislature, he argued that a majority was necessary ; and he contended that on this question the senator whose title to a seat was involved could not vote. In these positions Fessenden supported him. He spoke on the subject of relieving the Supreme Court from the undue accumulation of cases ; he discussed the power of Congress to establish quaran- tine regulations ; he urged with success an amend- ment to the consular and diplomatic appropriation bills giving a higher rank to our foreign ministers ; he reported from a special committee bills to au- thorize the metric system of weights and measures, and supported them with a careful and instructive speech ; and he did his best to prevent the contract with Vinnie Ream for a statue of Mr. Lincoln. His speeches on this question were sensible and direct, and the statue, which he failed to prevent, stands a monumental proof of his wisdom. As he said, the artist might as well have contracted " to furnish an epic poem or the draft of a bankrupt bill." At the very end of the session the House passed, unanimously, a bill amending our neutrality laws. It was dictated by hostility to England, and it re- pealed the provisions against the fitting out in this country of military expeditions against nations 320 CHARLES SUMNER with which the United States was at peace. In the Senate Sumner had it sent to his committee, resolved to let it sleep there. Some of its friends decided to move that the committee be discharged, whereupon Sumner armed himself with books and kept his seat from seven at night till seven in the morning on the last night of the session, that no advantage might be taken of his absence. At eleven in the morning the motion to take up the bill was made, but Sumner announced that he should speak for the rest of the session, and the motion was not pressed. He was determined that no provocation should induce this nation to aban- don the true position of a neutral ; and in the same spirit he carried a bill through the Senate to pay an award made to a British subject, saying that " our own country should be kept firm and constant in the attitude of justice." While Sumner was at the head of the committee on foreign relations our peace was not to be disturbed by any hasty or ill-considered legislation, and his countrymen had come to rely upon him. It is not strange that we find him writing to Mr. Bright in May : " Curiously, I too have fallen into the doctor's hands. He finds my brain and nervous system overtaxed ; and, suffering from my original injuries as a predisposing cause, I long for rest, and yet every day I grind in my mill." When we consider all that he did, it is only won- derful that he did not suffer more. As Sumner was afterward charged with allow- STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 321 ing his personal feeling to interfere with the con- duct of public business, it is interesting to note that, though he thought Seward largely responsible for the President's course, his personal relations with his old associate remained undisturbed during the whole struggle between Congress and the Pre- sident, and until Sumner's death. /This enabled him quietly to stifle some rather extraordinary j^ro- positions of Seward's, such as an attack on Ecua- dor for failing to pay an award promptly. The feeling at this time upon the tariff, since a great issue, is thus stated in a letter to Mr. Bright on May 21, 1866 : " On protection and free trade there does not seem to be any general feeling. The question will be settled for some time by the neces- sities of our position without much reference to principles. My own people, originally strong pro- tectionists, are silent now. It is Pennsylvania which is clamorous, and the balance of parties in this important State makes the question one of political power." This is a succinct statement of a great historical truth. After the adjournment the President, in a series of absurd and intemperate speeches made appar- ently in the hope of securing popular support at the autumn elections, violently attacked Congress and its policy, and charged it with endeavoring " to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony, and union," calling it a body " hanging on the verge of the government, as it were, a body called, or which assumes to be, the Congress of the United States, 322 CHARLES SUMNER while in fact it is a congress of only a part of the States." Then followed his extraordinary elec- tioneering tour, described in the political slang of the day as " swinging round the circle," from a phrase used in one of his speeches. His conduct and language were so indecent and so unworthy of his high office that later they were made one of the grounds for his impeachment. Thus the issue was made very clear. On the one hand the policy of the President was to admit the Southern States, with the leaders of secession in control, and with loyal men, white and black, substantially at their mercy, — the whites because they were in a hopeless minority among a bitterly hostile population, the blacks because they were entirely without political power. To sustain his policy the President exerted all his prerogatives ; by pardons he restored prominent Confederates to power, and by removals and appointments he used the whole patronage of the government to build up a party which should support him. Thus encouraged, the governments established by him in the South made no concealment of their bitter feeling toward the North, nor of their determina- tion to keep the colored race, deprived of civil and political rights, in a state of vassalage hardly distinguishable from slavery. Their legislation as to the negroes was barbarous, and their spirit was proved by a series of outrages which kept this unhappy race in abject terror. On the other hand Congress and the party of which Sumner STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 323 was the most prominent leader were determined that there should be no reconstruction, unless the civil and political rights of loyal men in the South were established beyond possible doubt, and that the supporters of secession should not be admitted to office or power until they had become loyal in fact as well as in name. The whole result of the civil war, the whole future of the country were at stake, and upon the question between the oppos- ing policies the autumn campaign was fought. During this campaign Sumner spoke in Boston. He stated the issue clearly, pointing out that the President denied to Congress and claimed for him- self the whole power to legislate upon the question of reconstruction. He dwelt upon the vices of the President's policy, showed its deplorable results in the actual condition of the South, repeated the arguments in favor of a reconstruction which should be real and permanent, and insisted that the fun- damental conditions of reunion were "emancipa- tion, enfranchisement, equality, and education," which it was the duty of Congress to impose, thus insuring the results of the war and proper security for the future. He spoke of the President's weak- ness, held him responsible for the death of colored men recently slain at Memphis, New Orleans, and elsewhere, and placed him next to Jefferson Davis /> as the country's " worst enemy." Some two weeks later Mr. Sumner was married to Mrs. Hooper, a lady then twenty-eight years of age, and a daughter-in-law of Samuel Hooper, a 324 CHARLES SUMNER representative in Congress from Boston. His mar- riage prevented his taking any further part in the campaign, and opened to him a prospect of great happiness. These hopes were disappointed, and his brief married life ended in a separation, fol- lowed later by a divorce procured by him. In a biography which deals only with Mr. Sumner as a statesman it is not necessary to do more than mention these facts. The second session of the Thirty-ninth Congress met on December 3, 1866. The elections had re- sulted in Republican victories, and the policy of the President had been condemned. His opponents returned fully assured of popular support, and with ample power to adopt any measure which their judgment approved. On the third day of the session Sumner, according to his practice, pre- sented his views on reconstruction in the form of resolutions. These asserted the power and duty of Congress to control reconstruction, and insisted that in establishing a new republican government " Congress must follow implicitly the definition supplied by the Declaration of Independence," and, " after excluding all disloyal persons, take care that new governments are founded on the two fundamental truths therein contained : first, that all men are equal in rights ; and secondly, that all just government stands only on the consent of the governed." He had the satisfaction at this session of seeing these doctrines adopted. His persistence, as before and afterwards, was finally rewarded, and STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 325 impartial suffrage became the accepted principle of his party. The first step was taken when, on December 13, 1866, a bill giving the suffrage to colored men in the District of Columbia passed the Senate. Sum- ner said nothing until the third day of the debate, when he explained briefly why he voted against an amendment giving women the suffrage, and against another imposing an educational qualifica- tion. Of the first he said : " That question I leave untouched, contenting myself with the remark that it is obviously the great question of the future, — at least one of the great questions, — which will be easily settled whenever the women in any consid- erable proportion insist that it shall be settled," an observation fraught with practical wisdom. Of the second: "In voting against an educational test, I do not mean to say that under other circum- stances such test may not be proper. But I am against it now." His reason was thus stated: " To my mind nothing is clearer than the present necessity of suffrage for all colored persons in the disorganized States. It will not be enough if you give it to those who read and write ; you will not in this way acquire the voting force needed there for the protection of the Unionists, whether white or black." This bill passed the House, was vetoed, and passed over the veto. The next day Mr. Wade moved to take up the bill for the admission of Nebraska, which had failed at the last session. Sumner again opposed it, be- 326 CHARLES SUMNER cause the proposed constitution gave only white men the right to vote. Gratz Brown offered the proviso which Sumner had offered at the previous session, and in the debate some of his Republi- can associates, impatient at Sumner's opposition, became quite angry. Sumner in reply was cour- teous and gentle, but inflexible in his resolution that no new State should be admitted " with the word ' white ' in its constitution." " It passes my comprehension," he said, " how we can require equal rights in the rebel States, when we deliber- ately sanction the denial of equal rights in a new State completely within our jurisdiction and about to be fashioned by our hands." Some Republi- cans wished the State admitted to strengthen the party in the Senate, and various reasons were given for the inconsistency which Sumner pointed out, such as the insignificant number of negroes in Nebraska, and the fact that the enabling act under which Nebraska had been organized as a State did not require impartial suffrage. The debate lasted several days until interrupted by the holiday recess, during which Sumner stirred up much opposition by letters. When the discussion was resumed an amendment, offered by Mr. Edmunds, was adopted, making the act take effect upon the fundamental condition that there should be "no abridgment or denial of the exercise of the elective franchise or of any other right to any person by reason of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed." The bill passed the Senate on January 9, was amended in STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 327 the House by requiring the assent of the Nebraska legislature, and became a law after a veto. The bill to admit Colorado was amended by adding the same proviso, and was passed without debate. On the next day the Senate passed a bill, already passed by the House, forbidding the denial of suf- frage in the Territories on account of race or color. Thus another step was taken and Congress again adopted Sumner's view. The final battle occurred when a bill " to provide for the more efficient gov- ernment of the insurrectionary States " passed the House and was laid before the Senate. This cre- ated five military districts in the South without any requirement as to suffrage and with no exclu- sion of those who had supported the Confederacy. The Senate began the discussion on February 15, 1867, when great differences of opinion were de- veloped. What followed was thus narrated by Sumner to Bright : — " I do not know that I have mentioned to you how the requirements of universal suffrage in the new constitutions came to be readjusted in our reconstruction bill. The bill as it came from the House was simply a military bill. In the Senate several amendments were moved in the nature of conditions of restoration. I did not take much in- terest in them, as I preferred delay, and therefore was content with anything that secured this, be- lieving that Congress must ultimately come to the true ground. In the confusion which ensued a cau- cus of Republican senators was called. Then Mr. 328 CHARLES SUMNER Sherman moved that all the pending propositions be referred to a committee of seven. Of this com- mittee he was chairman ; I was a member. In the committee I insisted that the existing governments should be declared invalid; adopted. Then that the States in question be designated simply ' rebel States ; ' adopted. Then that in the new constitu- tions there should be no exclusion from suffrage on account of color. This was voted down ; only one other member of the committee sustaining me, Mr. Sherman being strongly averse. When the com- mittee reported their bill to the caucus, I stated my objections and moved my amendment in an enlarged form, to the effect that in the new constitutions all citizens with a proper residence should be voters. In moving it I simply said that it was in our power to decide this question, and to supersede its discus- sion in the Southern States ; that if we did not de- cide it every State and village between here and the Rio Grande would be agitated by it. It was dinner time and there was impatience for a vote, which was by the ayes, standing and being counted, and then the noes. There were two counts, seventeen ayes to fifteen noes ; so this important requirement was adopted. Mr. Sherman, as chairman of the com- mittee, was directed to move the amended bill as a substitute for the pending measure, and it was passed by the usual Republican majority. That evening in caucus some few saw the magnitude of the act, and there was corresponding exultation. Wilson wished to dance with somebody. I have STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 329 given you this narrative because it concerns an important event, and will show you how business with us is sometimes conducted." The bill was passed after an all-night session at an early hour in the morning, and finding its pas- sage sure, Sumner, tired out, left before the vote. Thus was won the great battle for equal rights. It is interesting in reading the debates on this and other questions of reconstruction to observe that, though they were often hot and not infrequently acrimonious, the differences were those of honest men. His oj>ponents were often exasperated by Sumner's persistence and his somewhat tedious re- iteration of arguments drawn from the principles of our government ; but no one can doubt their sincerity. At no period in the history of our gov- ernment have the debates in Congress been con- ducted upon a higher plane or been less marred by the kind of argument known as " buncombe," than when Sumner, Fessenden, Grimes, Trumbull, and their associates were seeking to settle the questions growing out of the civil war. Ever on the watch against any encroachment upon liberty, Sumner at this session called atten- tion to the system of peonage in New Mexico, and a bill to abolish and forever prohibit it was passed. After the question of suffrage was decided, the most important act of the session was the Tenure of Office law. The President had used the offices so openly to buy support, to punish his opponents and reward his friends, that Congress felt it necessary 330 CHARLES SUMNER to check the abuse. To this end a bill was reported which required the consent of the Senate to the removal of any officer whose appointment was sub- ject to confirmation. It gave the President, during the recess, power to suspend such officers, but made it his duty to give his reasons to the Senate at its next session, when, if the Senate failed to concur, the officer was reinstated. Sumner tried to make it more sweeping, by providing that the consent of the Senate should be necessary to the appointment of a large number of officers, where it was not required by existing law, and by limiting the terms of such officers appointed after July 1, 1866. He contended that these subordinates were as much entitled to protection as were those to whom the bill applied, and that the additional labor imposed upon the Senate was not to be weighed against the duty of preventing injustice. He urged his amendment persistently, but was de- feated. In one of his speeches he said : — " I return, then, to my proposition, that the duty of the hour is protection to the loyal and patriotic citizen. But when I have said this, I have not completed the proposition. You may ask, Protec- tion against whom ? I answer plainly, Against the President of the United States. There, sir, is the duty of the hour. . . . There was no such duty on our fathers, there was no such duty on recent pre- decessors in this chamber, because there was no President of the United States who had become the enemy of his country." For these words he STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 331 was called to order, but lie insisted upon his lan- guage and the point of order was overruled. Later he used yet more pointed language : " Do not for- get that we stand face to face with an enormous and malignant usurper, through whom the Eepublic is imperiled, — that Republic which, according to our oaths of office, we are bound to save from all harm." Mr. Reverdy Johnson, in reply, suggested that this expression of opinion disqualified Sumner to sit on any impeachment of the President; but Sumner repudiated this idea at once, saying : " What right have I to know that the President is to be impeached ? How can I know it ? And let me add, even if I could know it, there can be no reason in that why I should not argue the measure directly before the Senate, and present such con- siderations as seem to me proper, founded on the misconduct of that officer." It was quite apparent already that the contest between President and Congress might result in extreme measures. Mr. Sumner supported a proposed amendment to the Constitution, making the term of the presi- dent and vice-president six years, and making the president ineligible for reelection. He wished even to abolish the electoral college for reasons thus stated : — " Such an amendment would give every indi- vidual voter, wherever he might be, a positive weight in the election. It would give minorities in distant States an opportunity of being heard in determining who shall be chief magistrate. Now 332 CHARLES SUMNER they are of no consequence. ... I know nothing that would contribute more to bring all the people . . . into one united whole, than to make the Pre- sident directly eligible by their votes." In a letter to W. W. Story during this session, Sumner expressed his views of the political situa- tion : — " Congress is doing pretty well ; every step is forward. The next Congress, which will probably meet on the 4th of March, will be still better in- spired. All that is possible will be done to limit the executive power. It is possible that the Presi- dent may be impeached. If we go forward and supersede the sham governments set up in the rebel States, we encounter the appointing power of the President, who would put in office men who sym- pathize with him. It is this consideration which makes ardent representatives say that he must be removed. Should this be attempted, a new ques- tion will be presented." The expiring Congress, feeling it unsafe to leave the President un watched during the usual recess, provided that the new Congress should meet on March 4, and the session beginning on that day lasted till the 30th of the month. On March 7 Mr. Sumner presented the usual resolutions em- bodying his views as to the work which demanded the attention of Congress. His requirements were : the vacation of the existing state governments ; the creation of provisional governments, from which every disloyal influence should be excluded; the STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 333 establishment of free public schools ; and measures to secure a piece of land for every head of a family among the freedmen. A few days later he moved the consideration of the resolutions and a debate ensued, in which Sherman, Fessenden, Freling- huysen, and other Republicans indicated dissent. Sumner felt that without education or land the freedmen would be at the mercy of their former masters, and he thought it of the first importance to provide the machinery for the creation of new state governments. He urged his resolutions ear- nestly and claimed that the power to give the negroes land was found in the necessity of the case. He failed to point out any constitutional way in which Congress could take land from its owners and give it to the freedmen, and it is not surprising that his resolutions never came to a vote. In the heat of argument he reminded his opponents that they had differed from him before and had insisted that steps were unconstitutional or impossible which they had afterward supported. This line of argument was made more irritating by his Democratic opponents, who taunted the Republicans with the fact that what he proposed was always eventually done. Perhaps the experience to which they alluded made him more impatient than hitherto, for as a rule he was singularly courteous in debate. His criti- cism was a serious matter to less known men, backed as he was by a strong body of supporters all over the country who followed his lead implicitly, and it is not stransre that some of those whom he con- 334 CHARLES SUMNER demned were aggrieved by his tone, and that their resentment weakened his position in the Senate. It is probable that dislike, created in these days of his domination, helped his removal from the com- mittee on foreign relations a few years later. A bill to amend the reconstruction act was in- troduced almost as soon as the new Congress met, and in the debate Sumner insisted that a majority of the registered voters in each State should vote on the question of holding a convention, and that voting at all popular elections should be by ballot. The latter proposition was defeated. He himself offered as an amendment the proviso : " That the Constitution shall require the legislature to estab- lish and sustain a system of public schools open to all without distinction of race or color." By making it a condition that no seceded State should be admitted whose Constitution did not con- tain this clause, he hoped to secure public and im- partial education in the South. He thought that the power under which all other conditions were imposed warranted this one, and of its wisdom and necessity he entertained no doubt. The Senate divided equally upon his amendment and it was lost, to his bitter disappointment. In advocating it he explained his plan of reconstruction, which was to make the States adopt constitutions which would insure good government and equal rights. His policy was far-reaching and deserved success. In following him so far as to require impartial suf- frage, Congress was doubtless influenced by the STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 335 necessity of creating a loyal electorate, and secur- ing the lives, the rights, and the property of loyal men, white and black. In the light of all that has happened since, many think the policy unwise which at once changed the slaves into citizens. No one should criticise the legislation adopted unless he has studied the con- dition of the Southern States at the close of the war, and has realized the difficulties which beset any course. It is easy to point out the evils which negro suffrage caused, but far greater evils would probably have occurred had negro suffrage been refused. A community just conquered, demoralized by a long war, prostrated by the loss of property and lives, sullen, disloyal, and filled with hatred and contempt for the new freedmen and their own loyal white neighbors, was a hotbed in which trouble of every kind found root easily and grew rapidly. No law could prevent it. Only the slow passage of years, the death of those too old to learn, the birth of a new generation, the replacement of men born slaves by men born free, could make these commu- nities peaceful and prosperous. Friction between the two races in their new relation was inevitable. It was clear that the slavery question would never be settled until the negroes were recognized as citi- zens, equal before the law with their white neigh- bors. Had President Johnson's reconstruction pre- vailed, they would have remained virtually slaves. The laws passed by his legislatures were skillfully devised to secure this result, and the consequence 336 CHARLES SUMNER would have been disorder and bloodshed. Politi- cians needing votes would have sought to get them by giving the suffrage to the negroes, and they would have offered in this way a constant tempta- tion to agitators. It was better to cut deep at once, to extirpate the cancer utterly, and having done all that law could do by giving the freedmen equal rights, to let them gradually learn, as they must, how to use them. No people can learn self-government while governed by others. Years were needed more than laws. It was to hasten this process that Sumner insisted on education, and he seems wiser than his opponents. His terms would not have irritated the masters more than those imposed, while they would have given the freedmen the one thing needed to fit them for their places as citizens. The conditions which the war left, no matter what the legislation, required as representatives of the government the most honest, wise, and patient men that could be obtained ; men whom freedmen and masters could trust and respect, and who could understand and deal considerately, if firmly, with a stricken community. Instead the government was represented by mere adventurers, ignorant, foolish, corrupt, and wholly unfitted for their work. No matter what the policy, it must fail if admin- istered by such men. Without brains and charac- ter no form of government is good. With these absent and every element of disorder present, it is not strange that the reconstructed States were STRUGGLE WITH PRESIDENT JOHNSON 337 unhappy. But in considering the course of Sum- ner and his associates, we may well pause before we attribute to a policy, in itself just, evils which sprang inevitably from the condition of the com- munity, and which were increased by the men who were placed in power during reconstruction. This first session of the Fortieth Congress ad- journed on March 30, but before the resolution of adjournment was adopted there was a struggle between those who wished to adjourn till the fol- lowing December and those who were afraid to trust the President so long. Among the latter was Sumner, who urged the importance of not leaving the loyal men without protection, and spoke of the President as follows : — "You must not forget that the President is a bad man, the author of incalculable woe to his country, and especially to that part which, being most tried by war, most needed kindly care. Search history, and I am sure you will find no elected ruler who, during the same short time, has done so much mischief to his country. He stands alone in bad eminence." Repeated differences between the houses resulted in adjournment till the first Wednesday in July, when, in the absence of a quorum, the presiding officers were to adjourn their respective houses without day. CHAPTER XX ALASKA : THE ALABAMA CLAIMS : THE IMPEACH- MENT The Senate held a special session for executive business from the 1st to the 20th of April, at which the treaty for the purchase of Alaska was ratified. Sumner first learned of the treaty late in the even- ing of Friday, March 29, at the State Department. It was signed on the morning of the 30th and on the same day it was sent to the Senate. The com- mittee on foreign relations reported it favorably, Mr. Fessenden alone dissenting. On April 9 Sumner spoke for three hours in favor of rati- fication and the treaty was ratified, only Mr. Fes- senden and Mr. Morrill voting in the negative. The injunction of secrecy was removed, and Sumner was requested to write out his speech, which had been made from scanty notes. After the adjourn- ment he devoted some six weeks to informing himself and to amplifying his speech, which when finished was a miracle of information on the sub- ject of Alaska, gathered from sources of every kind, of which many were in foreign languages, and some in Russian were translated for his use. It was he who gave the name of Alaska to the ALASKA 339 whole territory. He wrote to John Bright on April 16, 1867 : — " The Russian treaty tried me severely ; ab- stractedly I am against further accessions of terri- tory, unless by the free choice of the inhabitants. But this question was perplexed by considerations of politics and comity and the engagements already entered into by the government. I hesitated to take the responsibility of defeating it." In a note to the speech as published in his works he says : " Mr. Sumner was controlled less by desire for more territory than by a sense of the amity of Russia, manifested especially during our recent troubles, and by an unwillingness to miss the opportunity of dismissing another European sovereign from our continent, predestined, as he believed, to become the broad, undivided home of the American people." His influence doubtless carried the treaty ; or, to speak more accurately, his opposition would have killed it. In his speech he did not allude to the doubts of which he wrote to Mr. Bright, but spoke of the cession as an extension of republican insti- tutions. He was doubtless satisfied by the fact that there was practically no population to consult. To use his own words : " The immense country is without form and without light, without activity and without progress. ... Its life is solitary and feeble. Its settlements are only encampments or lodges." He estimated the number of Russians and Creoles at about 2500, the number of abori- 340 CHARLES SUMNER gines within the jurisdiction of the Fur Company at about 8000, and of those outside at between 40,000 and 50,000, and these he compared to our Indians. It was clearly impossible to ask or obtain the consent of so insignificant and scattered a pop- ulation, with no national life and no relation to government. He, however, took occasion to guard against further annexation, saying : — " This treaty must not be a precedent for a sys- tem of indiscriminate and costly annexation. Sin- cerely believing that republican institutions under the primacy of the United States must embrace this whole continent, ... I cannot disguise my anxiety that every stage in our predestined future shall be by natural processes, without war, and I would add even without purchase. There is no territorial aggrandizement worth the price of blood. Only under peculiar circumstances can it become the subject of pecuniary contract. Our triumph should be by growth and organic expansion in obedience to ' preestablished harmony,' recognizing always the will of those who are to become our fellow citizens. All this must be easy, if we are only true to ourselves." As the pressure of domestic difficulties was gradually relieved, the questions growing out of England's course during the war began to receive attention, and negotiations were begun looking to a settlement. The English government saw its mistake, and aware of the latent exasperation in the United States became anxious to remove a THE ALABAMA CLAIMS 341 source of danger to international peace. Sumner's speeches during the war had made perfectly appar- ent the grounds of our feeling, but England did not realize that we proposed to make claims as a nation on account of losses caused by her action. Sumner took a deep interest in this question and his attitude upon it never changed. His cor- respondence shows the development of the contro- versy. Thus he wrote to Mr. Bright on August 8, 1865 : " General Grant was here last week. . . . He cared little whether England paid ' our little bill ' or not ; upon the whole, he would rather she would not, as that would leave the precedent of her conduct in full force for us to follow, and he wished it understood that we should follow it. He thought that we should make more out of the ' precedent ' than out of the ' bill,' and that Boston especially would gain. ... I need not say that I dissented from his policy most resolutely. I told him that our true object should be to bring the two countries into relations of harmony and good-will ; that this could not be done if one nation was watch- ing an opportunity to strike, and the other was standing on guard ; that the truest statesmanship was to remove all questions, and to that end I wished the precedent rejected." On December 25, 1865, he wrote to George Be- mis : " Sir F. Bruce, at dinner Saturday evening, said to me that England would fight before she would pay a dollar or consent to arbitration." On December 24, 1866, almost exactly one year 342 CHARLES SUMNER after saying that England would never arbitrate, Sir F. Bruce told Sumner that he had left with Seward a letter from Lord Stanley "accepting arbitration in the ' Alabama ' case," and asked whether this country would, upon this basis, " pro- ceed to a general settlement of reciprocity, fisher- ies, and everything else." On May 27, 1867, Sumner wrote to Mr. Bright : " I have just perused the correspondence between Mr. Seward and Lord Stanley on the ' Alabama ' claims. There is a deadlock, the legacy of Lord Russell. The British government offers arbitra- tion, but insists upon excluding the fundamental question on which our claims rest — namely, the right, morally and legally, of the recognition of the rebels as belligerents on the ocean. We are willing to arbitrate, provided the whole case is submitted. I think that the correspondence, when published, will rally the whole country. . . . Thus far I have avoided saying anything on this ques- tion in the Senate, because I was anxious to secure time for an amicable adjustment. The next Con- gress will debate it fully, unless meanwhile in some way it is settled." Sumner took no pains in his correspondence to disguise the views which he was soon to express publicly. Congress convened in July, 1867, in accordance with the resolution of the last session. The Re- publican senators in caucus voted to do no business during this session except such as was necessary to THE ALABAMA CLAIMS 343 secure the execution of the reconstruction laws already passed. Their decision was embodied in a rule of the Senate and prevented Mr. Sumner from bringing forward legislation on the subject of suf- frage and other measures which he had much at heart. Sumner vigorously opposed the adoj)tion of the rule, insisting that there was public busi- ness of great importance which the Senate had no right to neglect, and repudiating the claim that he was bound as a senator by the decision of the Re- publican caucuses. His opposition was unavail- ing, but his argument for individual independence deserves attention. He justly characterized the caucus as " a meeting of friends for consultation and harmony, where each gives up something with a view to a common result, but no man gives up a principle, no man gives up anything vital." The opposing view makes the caucus a convenient in- strument by which the minority of a legislative body controls the majority, and dominates the con- science and judgment of the best members. The principal measure of the session was a bill to strengthen the reconstruction laws and to limit the power of the President. When this bill was under discussion, Mr. Sumner offered an amend- ment, that " every constitution in the rebel States shall require the legislature to establish and main- tain a system of public schools open to all without distinction of race or color." This was excluded under the rule. He offered another amendment, " that no person shall be disqualified as member of 344 CHARLES SUMNER any board of registration by reason of race or color." In advocating this he expressed his belief that under the existing law a colored person might be a senator of the United States. This amend- ment was rejected by a tie vote, but at a later stage of the bill was adopted. Other amendments were excluded under the rule. He endeavored to obtain consideration for a bill, introduced by him at the last session, to secure the franchise to colored citizens all over the country, which he had advocated by letter during the recess. Again the rule proved a barrier, nor would the Senate suspend it on his motion. He succeeded, however, by unanimous consent, in bringing up his bill to prevent the exclusion of any person from office in the District of Columbia on account of race or color, and, amended in form, this was passed. The President refused to sign it, and as Congress adjourned before the expiration of ten days from its passage it failed to become a- law. It was again brought forward by Mr. Sumner and passed at the December session, but by the refusal of the President to sign it and the adjournment of Congress for the holidays, it again failed. It had a like experience once more in the session which ended March 4, 1869, but it finally became a law by the signature of President Grant. At every stage of its checkered career Mr. Sumner was its sponsor and persistent advocate. An attempt by him on July 19, 1867, to strike the word " white " from the naturalization laws was referred to a com- THE ALABAMA CLAIMS 345 mittee, and not reported till February, 1869, too late for consideration. The adjourned session of Congress met on No- vember 21, and during the holiday recess Sumner moved into his new house on the corner of Vermont Avenue and Lafayette Square, which was his home till his death. He gathered here the books, auto- graphs, and works of art which he had collected during his life, and while he was in Washington entertained freely. He was a most agreeable host, and at his table were to be met the most interest- ing men of the time. Here, for example, Dickens met his great admirer Stanton, who paid him a high compliment when he said : " During the war I always kept ' Pickwick ' under my pillow. Often and often I went to bed with my mind so full of anxiety after bad news of battles or campaigns that sleep seemed impossible, but two chapters of ' Pickwick ' never failed to divert my thoughts so that I could sleep, and it was the only book in the language that would do it." Seward was a frequent guest; and, unmindful of his previous misadventures as a prophet, tempted fate again by saying : "In thirty years Mexico will be the cap- ital of the United States." Here Mr. Evarts, coming to dinner on Sunday, after a day's work upon the answer of the President to the articles of impeachment, excused his breach of the com- mandment by saying : " Is it not written that if thine ass falleth into a pit, it is lawful to pull him out on the Sabbath day ? " Here Motley was a 346 CHARLES SUMNER frequent guest while a candidate for the English mission. Here the diplomatic corps were constantly welcomed, and political opponents like Caleb Crush- ing and William Beach Lawrence engaged in liter- ary and diplomatic discussion. Here Emerson and Agassiz made him visits. It was a pleasant house, and, when he first occupied it, he was at the very height of his reputation and power on both sides of the ocean. In the brief session which began on November 21, little was done ; but it is amusing to find Sumner opposing a resolution to fix the final adjournment one half hour before the beginning of the regular session, on the ground that in that half hour the President might make appointments and suspen- sions which, under the Tenure-of-office Act, might stand till the close of the next session. The regular session of Congress began on Decem- ber 2, 1867, and was at first uneventful. In Febru- ary Sumner opposed the admission of Mr. Thomas, senator-elect from Maryland, because he had per- mitted and aided his minor son to join the Con- federate army, which was such aid to the rebellion as should prevent his taking the oath of office. It was a strict construction of the law, but it pre- vailed. In August the President had removed Secre- tary Stanton, whose presence in the Cabinet was regarded by the Republican leaders as a great safeguard. The feeling against the President had been gathering force for some time, and now led THE IMPEACHMENT M7 his opponents in the House to propose his im- peachment, but the House would not direct it. On January 13, 1868, the Senate refused to concur in the suspension of Stanton, and on February 21 the President removed him in direct violation of the Tenure-of-office Act. Mr. Stanton refused to go, acting upon the advice, among others, of Sum- ner, who, hearing of the President's action, wrote from his desk in the Senate : " Stick, Stanton, stick." The President, after trying in vain to make General Grant take the place, appointed General Lorenzo Thomas secretary of war ad interim. For a time it seemed that Mr. Stanton would be expelled by force, and that the President would obtain control of the army through a plastic person of his own choice. Congress was excited to immediate action, and on February 24 the House voted to present articles of impeachment. Thaddeus Stevens, advanced in years and feeble in health, but looking the ideal Roman, announced this action to the Senate with singular impressive- ness, as if he were discharging a sad duty, though it was a result for which he had long labored, and the element of personal triumph could not have been absent from his mind. The Senate began its sessions as a court of im- peachment on March 5, and from then until May 11, when the final votes were taken, the trial was its chief business. The principal charge was the removal of Mr. Stanton, but some of Mr. John- son's scandalous and violent language in attacking 348 CHARLES SUMNER Congress was made the ground of a distinct article. The examination of the witnesses was conducted mainly by General Butler for the prosecution, and by Mr. Evarts for the defense. The former lost his sense of proportion and, as he admitted, con- ducted himself as if he were trying a criminal case in a Middlesex County court room. He forgot that his success depended upon winning the doubt- ful senators like Fessenden, Trumbull, and Grimes, and these were alienated by his methods, while they were much impressed by the argument of Judge Curtis for the defense. The managers in- sisted that the proceeding was in its nature polit- ical, while the counsel who defended the President sought to make it absolutely judicial, and invoked the rules which would govern a trial that might result in the punishment of the offender and not merely in his removal from office. Remember- ing that the law provides adequate machinery for the punishment of offenders, while impeachment is designed to relieve the people from the dan- gers attending the abuse of official power, a strong argument may be made for the former view. It is the danger to the country, rather than the guilt of the defendant, which the prosecution must establish. The balance of power was held by three or four lawyers, who felt that they were sit- ting as judges and who tried the question of the President's guilt or innocence with strictness. The counsel for the defense addressed them in lan- guage which commanded their respect, while they THE IMPEACHMENT S49 had no sympathy with the looser methods and theo- ries of the prosecution. It was training and tem- perament which separated these men from their associates and saved the President. This is not the place to describe the events of the trial, but no one who heard it can forget the won- derful impression which the brief argument of Mr. Groesbeck made upon the Senate and the audience. Beginning at noon, his voice an hour later had become so husky as to be almost inaudible. An earlier recess was taken on that account, and when he began again his voice gradually cleared, until during the last hour he addressed a crowded but absolutely still chamber. No senator wrote on his desk, no page was summoned, no conversation could be heard in gallery or cloak room, and a silence prevailed almost unknown in the Senate, while every one listened with rapt attention to each word that the speaker uttered. It was an oratori- cal feat which had no parallel at that trial, and few in the experience of the Senate. At the outset the question arose whether Senator Wade, the president pro tempore of the Senate, could take the oath as a member of the court of impeachment, since in the event of the President's conviction he would succeed to the office. Sumner showed that there was no authority for the objec- tion, and paid Mr. Wade this high compliment : — " Put in one scale these interests, so dear to the heart of the patriot, and in the other all the per- sonal temptations which have been imagined, and 350 CHARLES SUMNER I cannot doubt that, if the senator from Ohio holds these scales, the latter will kick the beam." A few weeks later the chief justice, presiding, threw the casting vote, when the Senate was equally divided on some question of procedure or evidence. Sumner would not let this claim of right pass unchallenged, and argued that the right to " preside " gave no right to vote. He gathered copious authority in support of his contention, which he sustained also by comparison with the provision giving the vice-president the right to preside and give the casting vote ; at the same time he took occasion to speak most pleasantly of Chief Justice Chase. After the vote the different senators prepared their opinions upon the case, and Mr. Sumner stated his views at some length, taking the ground that the proceeding was a remedy against political offenders. He insisted that the acts charged were to be interpreted by the President's whole course in office, and that " if on any point you entertain doubts the benefit of those doubts must be given to your country," whose safety is the supreme law. Seeing clearly the danger to which all the great interests of the country were exposed while the President continued in office, he voted without hesitation for conviction, and while it is now clear that no especial harm was done during the brief remnant of Mr. Johnson's term, and many feel that a dangerous precedent was avoided, we may here- after find that a not less dangerous precedent was THE IMPEACHMENT 351 established, and learn to consider the doctrine of Sumner the safer for the country. After the trial Congress returned to reconstruc- tion, and Sumner made a strong speech, repeating his argument in favor of the right to impose fun- damental conditions when States are admitted to the Union. Congress adopted this view, and a bill was passed admitting Arkansas upon the funda- mental condition that there should never be in the State any denial of suffrage or of any other right on account of race or color, except to " Indians not taxed." A few days later an act admitting North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Ala- bama, and Florida was passed, with fundamental conditions that they should not deprive " any citi- zen or class of citizens of the State of the right to vote by the constitution thereof," and should ratify the Fourteenth Amendment, and with some further requirements. The same policy was pur- sued with the other States, and in 1870 Virginia, Mississippi, and Texas were admitted upon similar fundamental conditions. By various letters at this time Sumner encour- aged the election of colored men to Congress, be- lieving that nothing could so effectually establish their absolute equality as citizens, and that such a conspicuous example was worth more than speeches or statutes. His advice was soon taken, and he had the pleasure of welcoming a colored senator from Mississippi. CHAPTER XXI FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION : FOREIGN RELATIONS The civil war left a legacy of debt and finan- cial disturbance which has been ever since a pro- lific source of trouble. During the year 1867 and early in 1868 the plan of paying the bonds of the United States in the demand notes called " green- backs " was supported by various politicians. Mr. Sherman, chairman of the Senate committee on finance, had maintained in the Senate the right to do this. In May, 1868, the Republican National Convention had passed a resolution in favor of paying all debts of the government "in the utmost good faith, . . . not only according to the letter, but to the spirit of the laws " under which they were contracted. This, however, like many another cam- paign declaration, was not too definite, and when a bill to fund the national debt came before the Senate Mr. Sumner on July 11, 1868, expressed his views fully. He stated as the two objects of our policy the reduction of taxes and the substitu- tion of specie for unconvertible paper, and claimed that these objects could only be attained by keeping the public faith "above all question or suspicion." From this impregnable ground he attacked the FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION 353 propositions to tax the bonds, and to pay them in irredeemable paper, showing that both were clear violations of public faith. The speech was a wel- come reinforcement to the cause of public honesty, and increased Sumner's strength with conservative men. A few days after this speech a bill containing some extraordinary provisions came before the House. The recent triumph over the Confederate armies and our great military strength did not tend to foster discretion in Congress. Questions had arisen as to the effect of naturalization in this coimtry. Foreign governments took the ground that no one could, as against the country of his birth, assume a foreign citizenship, and upon this theory they arrested our naturalized citizens, held them to military service, and otherwise treated them as still their own subjects. It must be ad- mitted that then, as since, many of these natural- ized citizens were more interested in the affairs of their native land than in those of the United States, and that they used our citizenship only as a shield against the consequences of seditious enterprises. They were foreigners in feeling and conduct while successful in their plots, and became citizens of this country only when they failed. But the un- friendly course of European governments had left a feeling here which induced sympathy with their disaffected subjects and made many Americans will- ing to seize any pretext for aiding them. Promi- nent in this class were certain Irish Fenians, whose 354 CHARLES SUMNER purposes were actively hostile to England. General Banks, the chairman of the committee on foreign affairs of the House, though he came into public life as a vigorous opponent of the foreigners and Catholics among us, now espoused their cause, and seemed bent on committing this country to a reck- less policy. He had carried through the House a bill which, as Sumner wrote to Mr. Bright, " was Seward's work," asserting the American doctrine that any man may assume a new citizenship and thereby dissolve his old allegiance. To this was added a section empowering the President, when any citizen was arrested by any foreign govern- ment in denial of this right, to suspend commercial relations with such government and to arrest and detain any citizen of such government found within our jurisdiction. Mr. Sumner reported a substitute for this pro- vision, directing the President, when any natural- ized citizen should be arrested, to report the cir- cumstance to Congress for its action, and taking from him all power of reprisal. He supported this in a speech exposing the absurdity and barbarism of the House bill, saying : — " Suppose the law is passed, and the authority conferred upon the President. Whom shall he seize ? What innocent foreigner ? What trustful traveler ? What honored guest ? It may be Mr. Dickens, or Mr. Trollope, or Rev. Newman Hall, or it may be some merchant here on business, guilt- less of any wrong and under the constant safeguard FOREIGN RELATIONS 355 of the public faith. Permit me to say, sir, that, the moment you do this, you will cover the country with shame, of which the present bill will be the painful prelude." Mr. Conness, himself of Irish birth, in reply charged Sumner with indifference to the rights of foreign-born citizens who happened to be white and not black. But Sumner met the charge completely by recalling his position at the time of the Know-Nothing excitement, thereby well illustrating how he who resists the folly of the hour is sure to find in time that his course is vin- dicated and his influence increased. The bill had passed the House by a vote of 104 to 4, men like Garfield, who had opposed it vigor- ously, voting for it. Eighty or more others did not vote. Sumner kept it in committee for two months and then led in opposing its monstrous provisions. The result was that his substitute was carried in the Senate by a vote of 30 to 7, though an amend- ment was passed against his opposition, which au- thorized the President to use all methods except war to effect the release of any American citizen unjustly arrested by a foreign government. These votes in House and Senate show the feeling of the hour, which Sumner resisted. Without this con- temporary record it would be impossible to believe that such a measure could pass the House of Re- presentatives. At this session treaties with Germany and Ba- varia were ratified which recognized our claim, and these were followed by like treaties with the 356 CHARLES SUMNER other European powers, so that the rights of our naturalized citizens were established on a sure foundation. The Kepublican convention of Massachusetts unanimously nominated Sumner for reelection to the Senate, by a resolution which approved his course in the warmest language. This nomination was ratified by the legislature, and he was elected in the following January by an almost unanimous vote. After his nomination he made one speech, delivered at Cambridge, in which he stated the issue of the campaign thus : " Shall the men who saved the Republic continue to rule it, or shall it be handed over to rebels and their allies ? " and the statement was the only argument needed in those days. He insisted that the defeat of Grant meant the nullification of the reconstruction acts, declared by the Democratic convention to be " un- constitutional, revolutionary, and void." On the financial question he went further, and urged the possibility and the duty of resuming specie pay- ments on July 4, 1869. He repeated his argu- ment against any breach of the contract with the public creditor, and concluded with propositions that cannot too often be repeated : — " A republic is where every man has his due. Equality of rights is the standing promise of Na- ture to man. ... In harmony with the promise of Nature is the promise of our fathers, recorded in the Declaration of Independence. It is the two- fold promise; first, that all are equal in rights; FOREIGN RELATIONS 357 and, secondly, that just government stands only on the consent of the governed, — being the two great political commandments on which hang all laws and constitutions. Keep these truly and you will keep all. Write them in your statutes ; write them in your hearts. This is the great and only final settlement of all existing questions." Sumner had taken no part in nominating Grant. From a statement published by Mr. Forney it would appear indeed that in November, 1867, he opposed his nomination, in a conference held to consider the situation, when General Babcock and other close friends of Grant favored it. Sumner doubted his qualities as a civil administrator, but the popu- lar feeling made the nomination inevitable, and Sumner did not publicly dissent. In November he wrote to Dr. Lieber : " Grant will be our President with infinite opportunities. I hope and believe he will be true to them." During the summer of 1868 President Johnson appointed Reverdy Johnson minister to England, and in a letter to Mr. Bright, Sumner thus spoke : — " He hopes to settle all outstanding questions. I think he will be successful on the naturalization question. But I do not see signs of accord on the other question." This passage is quoted because it was afterwards suggested that Sumner had misled Bright into thinking that Johnson fully represented the feeling in this country on the Alabama question. The last session of the Fortieth Congress began on December 7, 1868. 358 CHARLES SUMNER The most important action at this session was the adoption by Congress of the Fifteenth Amend- ment. Although impartial suffrage had been re- quired in the Southern States by the fundamental conditions imposed on their readmission, it was deemed wise to secure it in the States which had not seceded, and to place the result of the war be- yond the reach of legislative action by constitutional amendment. Accordingly, after much discussion of the exact phraseology, the amendment was adopted by Congress on February 25, 1869. Its ratifica- tion by the States was announced a little more than a year later. To the policy of this amendment Mr. Sumner was strongly opposed. He was satisfied that Congress had power to secure impartial suffrage by legisla- tion, and he thought that to propose the amendment was to admit that the power did not exist. If after Congress had made this admission the States should fail to ratify the amendment, the opportunity to se- cure equal rights would be lost. He thought that the proposal therefore exposed the cause to great and unnecessary peril. He urged these views upon the Senate with great persistency, and he presented them again in a speech against the amendment, wherein he spoke with great sadness and strong feeling, seeming to consider that his opponents were defending wrong by throwing doubt upon the power of Congress under the Constitution. He failed to convince them, and their practical wisdom was proved by the ratification of the amendment, GRANT'S CABINET 359 while his fears were not realized. In the result he rejoiced as heartily as any one. This was the session of Congress preceding the inauguration of a new administration, but the usual struggle over the new cabinet did not occur. General Grant, possibly from his experience in the army, had conceived a profound distrust of politi- cians, and at the outset evidently expected to con- duct his administration without consulting the lead- ers of the party which had elected him. He seemed to regard his Cabinet as his staff, and was governed largely by personal considerations in selecting it. Yet he soon came under the influence of politi- cians belonging to the very class which he at first distrusted, with results unfortunate alike to the country and to himself. Sumner's manners and methods never could have attracted Grant, and the attitude of the two men towards public questions was radically different even when they agreed in opinion. Sumner was suggested for secretary of state, but he never countenanced the idea. He felt, as he wrote to Dr. Lieber just after the elec- tion : " The headship of the first committee of the Senate is equal in position to anything in our gov- ernment under the President ; and it leaves to the senator great opportunities." General Grant never spoke to him on the sub- ject or consulted him about the Cabinet, though their relations were pleasant. Sumner was not, however, confident that Grant would be a success- ful president, and his doubts were shared by other 360 CHARLES SUMNER leading statesmen. He wrote to Whittier on Feb- ruary 26, 1869 : " Stanton says that lie hears of declarations by Grant in favor of economy, re- trenchment, and the collection of the revenue, but nothing about the rights of man to be maintained in all their fullness ; but I hope for the best." At this session the treaties negotiated by Rev- erdy Johnson with Lord Clarendon relating to naturalization, the San Juan boundary question, and the Alabama Claims were sent to the Senate. Sumner took pains to ascertain the views of Gen- eral Grant, who showed his feeling that the settle- ment of the main questions pending with England should be left for the new administration. The consideration of the Claims treaty was accordingly postponed. Sumner tried to prepare Mr. Bright for adverse action, in a letter of January 19, 1869: — " I finish this letter at my seat in the Senate. Last evening I met General Grant at dinner and conversed with him briefly on the new treaties. I would not commit him, and do not think that he has any very precise policy. He did not seem to object to the naturalization and San Juan negotia- tions, but I think he had a different feeling with regard to the Claims convention. He asked why this could not be allowed to go over to the next administration ? This morning I called up the sub- ject in my committee. There was nothing but general conversation, in the course of which it was remarked that Great Britain had never appreciated FOREIGN RELATIONS 361 the wrong, the terrible wrong done to us, not only in the cases of the ships destroyed, but also in driving our commerce from the ocean. You know that I have never disguised the opinion that the concession of belligerent rights was wrongful." In 1867 Mr. Seward negotiated a treaty with Denmark by which the United States were to buy the island of St. Thomas for 17,500,000, if the inhabitants by vote consented to the transfer. When the treaty was first sent to the Senate, at the session beginning December 2, 1867, this assent had not been obtained nor were the papers which Mr. Sumner at once called for sent to the Senate for several weeks. Meanwhile the impeachment of the President had been voted, and the treaty was laid over till the next winter. It was now consid- ered. General Raasloff, one of the Danish minis- ters and a most attractive man, who came to Wash- ington in order to urge its ratification, was kindly treated by Sumner and others, and given every opportunity to present his case ; but the commit- tee on foreign relations was unanimously opposed to the project, and in this represented the opin- ion of the country. Consideration for Raasloff, to whom failure meant political ruin, induced them to keep the treaty in committee until after the in- auguration of Grant, when it was laid upon the table, the entry in the records being that " this was equivalent to a rejection and was a gentler method of effecting it." This action accorded with the opinion of the new President. CHAPTER XXII GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION: THE ALABAMA CLAIMS Sumner's last term in the Senate began on March 4, 1869, when General Grant was inau- gurated. The oldest senator in continuous ser- vice, he occupied a place of great consideration and influence. The cause to which he had devoted his life had triumphed, and equality of rights seemed established in this country under the protection of the Constitution. Having been in opposition dur- ing the larger part of his senatorial career, he was now in full sympathy with the party in power and among its recognized leaders. His former associ- ates, Chase and Seward, were no longer Republi- cans, which made his position in the party more conspicuous. There was no man in public life whose career had been so long, so distinguished, so consistent, as his, or who to so great an extent led the conscience of the country. Emerson wrote at this time : " Wherever I have met with a dear lover of the country and its moral interests, he is sure to be a supporter of Sumner. Sumner's moral instinct and character are so exceptionally pure that he must have perpetual magnetism for honest GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 363 men ; his ability and working energy such that every good friend of the Republic must vote for him." This position, won by the constant labors and sacrifices of eighteen years, was exceptional, and he might well look forward to a period of dig- nified repose, free from the strain of active political contest and from the fearful anxieties of the strug;- gle with slavery, — a period in which his experience and accumulated wisdom would make his counsels respected, and in which he could exert a strong in- fluence in the conduct of the government. These anticipations were not to be realized. His last term of service was to be marked by a series of conflicts with his own party associates, more bitter to him than any he had known, and was to be sad- dened by personal differences which clouded the rest of his life. At first his relations with the administration were most cordial. Hamilton Fish, who after Elihu Washburne's brief service of a week became secretary of state, was an old and intimate friend. With Judge Hoar, the attorney-general, his friend- ship was even closer ; while Mr. Boutwell, the sec- retary of the treasury, was, among leading Repub- licans, the one most uniformly in sympathy with Sumner. Indeed, there was no one in the Cabinet with whom he was not on pleasant terms, though some of its members were little known to him. The President's first choice for secretary of the treasury was Alexander T. Stewart of New York, but after his nomination it was found that he was 364 CHARLES SUMNER ineligible under the law of 1789, which provided that no incumbent of this office should " directly or indirectly be concerned in carrying on the business of trade or commerce." Mr. Sherman at once introduced a bill to repeal this provision, asking unanimous consent to its immediate con- sideration. Mr. Sumner objected, and when, a little later, the President sent a message urging legislation which would exempt Mr. Stewart from the prohibition and Mr. Sherman introduced a bill for this purpose, Sumner repeated the objec- tion. He thus prevented instant action, and on reflection the proposed legislation was abandoned. It is doubtful if some of Mr. Sumner's more conspicuous services were followed by so many private letters of thanks as was this simple action. There is, however, reason to think that General Grant was irritated thereby, though his feeling was not manifested. The diplomatic appointments were the subject of much conference between Mr. Fish and Mr. Sum- ner, but it does not appear that Sumner's wishes were always regarded. He recommended Mr. Motley as minister to England, but the appoint- ment was probably due to other considerations. The Johnson-Clarendon treaty for the settle- ment of our claims against England came before the Senate at its special session. Eeverdy John- son's effusive expressions of good- will towards England and a desire that the new administration should deal with the question created a feeling GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 365 against ratification, and the committee on foreign relations unanimously agreed in an adverse report. Sumner, however, had sounder reasons for opposing the treaty, and on April 13, 1869, he stated them, putting the case of the United States against Eng- land in its extreme form and in severe terms. The treaty, he said, did not settle the pending questions ; " it is nothing but a snare." His reason was that it was only an ordinary " claims conven- tion," providing for the adjustment of individual claims on both sides, but leaving untouched the great wrong to the United States as a nation. Therefore, he said, " it cannot be for the interest of either party " that it be ratified, since both desired a final settlement. He claimed that our real grievance lay in the concession to the rebels of ocean belligerency, when they had no ships, no ports, no prize courts, and were in fact not belligerents at sea. This en- abled the Confederacy to build and equip ships of war and to buy munitions in England, in short it made England a Confederate arsenal, and saved blockade runners from being treated as pirates. He dwelt on the negligence which allowed the Ala- bama to escape, and on the shelter accorded to her in English ports, which made her in fact an English ship warring upon us under English protection. He recalled the fact that the proclamation of neutrality was signed on the very day that Mr. Adams landed in Liverpool, and claimed that the offense was far worse because England departed 366 CHARLES SUMNER from her settled policy of hostility to slavery in thus helping men who were fighting to estab- lish it. " The blockade runners," he said, " were kin- dred to the pirate ships. . . . When, after a long and painful siege, our conquering troops entered Vicksburg, they found Armstrong guns from England in position ; and so on every field where our patriot fellow citizens breathed a last breath were English guns and munitions of war, all testifying against England. The dead spoke also — and the wounded still speak." Individual losses were trifling compared with the national losses caused by England's conduct. Among these he counted the loss of our carrying trade, the injury to our shipbuilding interest, and the expense of the war during the period by which England's action prolonged it. Mr. Sumner stated his own position thus : " For several years I have carefully avoided saying anything on this most irritating question, being anxious that negotiations should be left undis- turbed to secure a settlement which could be ac- cepted by a deeply injured nation. The submission of the pending treaty to the judgment of the Sen- ate left me no alternative. It became my duty to consider it carefully in committee, and to review the whole subject. If I failed to find what we had a right to expect, and if the just claims of our country assumed unexpected proportions, it was not because I would bear hard on England, but GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 367 because I wish most sincerely to remove all pos- sibility of strife between our two countries ; and it is evident that this can be done only by first ascertaining the nature and extent of difference. In this spirit I have spoken to-day. . . . The at- tempt to close this great international debate with- out a complete settlement is little short of puerile." Notwithstanding its few pacific words the speech seemed hardly calculated to promote a settlement. England had reluctantly consented to arbitrate, and now her most conspicuous friend among Amer- ican statesmen replied that her concession was idle, and that the claims of the United States exceeded in character and magnitude anything that her statesmen had imagined possible. In it Sumner took no new position ; his opinions had already been stated fully, and in fact our government had taken the same ground ; but the English had not realized what we meant. As Sumner wrote to Lieber somewhat later : " I have made no demand, not a word of apology, not a dollar ! nor have I menaced, suggested, or thought of war. . . . My object was simply to expose our wrongs as plainly, but as gently, as possible. ... To my mind our first duty is to make England see what she has done to us." Sumner accomplished this object completely. He instructed England, and he satisfied America. The people of the United States felt that his pre- sentation of the case was adequate. The admin- istration, the Senate, and the public approved his 368 CHARLES SUMNER words. The treaty was rejected by a unanimous vote, and Sumner acquired a controlling influence in the settlement of the controversy. In England the speech was received with indignation by the public, with sorrow by some of his friends, and with resentment by others. He was regarded as an enemy of England. Even John Bright com- plained, and the Duchess of Argyll wrote : " For the first time I am silenced when you are spoken about. I understood you through the war. I do not now." After the first feeling of wrath subsided, how- ever, England awoke to the fact that the questions growing out of her course during the civil war must be settled ; that the grievance of this coun- try was real and its sense of wrong deep, and that such a feeling was a danger not to be ignored. The result was the Joint High Commission. Two years later Sir Stafford Northcote wrote to Mr. Sumner, after reading the speech again : " Though I must own your speech was somewhat sharp, I verily believe that it taught us a valuable lesson in that respect, and that we may say of it, fidelia vulnera amcnitis" Mr. Sumner's course was justified by the event, and the words, which seemed likely to prevent an adjustment, paved the way to a real settlement as he intended. His views were met in the later treaty, his positions were maintained by our coun- sel at Geneva, and if the arbitrators rejected our claims for " indirect damages," it is one thing to GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 369 lose after a fair trial, and quite another to be denied a trial altogether. It was not money but the recognition by England that her course was at least questionable which was desired. England's consent to arbitrate all our claims was such a recog- nition and was what we asked. That conceded, reconciliation was substantially accomplished. During the early months of the new administra- tion the secretary of war, General Rawlins, a close friend of the President, endeavored to secure the recognition of the insurgent Cubans as belligerents. The President was inclined to follow this advice, and Mr. Sumner exerted all his influence against it. Not only did the conditions fail to justify it, but premature recognition would have embarrassed us seriously in our controversy with England. Backed by Mr. Fish and Judge Hoar, Sumner's arguments prevailed, and were repeated publicly when at a later day the question became more pressing. Mr. Fish consulted him freely upon the instruc- tions to Mr. Motley, especially as to the difficulty of making the proclamation of belligerency a ground for claim against England, while it was still uncertain whether the President would not recognize the Cubans as belligerents. Sumner was determined that our position against England should not be affected by any such consideration, and succeeded in having the instructions so drawn as to present the case against England substan- tially in accordance with his speech upon the John- son-Clarendon treaty. His relations with the ad- 370 CHARLES SUMNER ministration at this time were stated by Mr. Fish himself in a dispatch to a New York newspaper, which he dictated : — " Mr. Sumner, as chairman of the Senate com- mittee on foreign relations, was consulted con- stantly during the preparation of these instructions ; and when they were completed he not only ex- pressed his entire approval of the course Mr. Mot- ley was intended to pursue, but signified that the policy thus marked out was as firm and vigorous as our foreign relations would now justify. In fact at no time has Mr. Sumner been in closer accord or in more direct sympathy with the policy of President Grant than at present, and rumors of disagreement are entirely unfounded." Evidently the secretary of state saw that there was danger even in a rumor that Sumner disap- proved the policy of the department. Sumner left Washington shortly after June 15, entirely satisfied with the situation, for he wrote to Motley on that day: "England must listen and at last yield. I do not despair of seeing the debate end, (1) in the withdrawal of England from this hemisphere, (2) in remodeling maritime international law. Such a consummation would place our Republic at the head of the civilized world." Indeed at that time the cession of Canada, in satisfaction of our claims, was suggested by Mr. Fish to the English minister, who replied, as Sum- ner writes in a private letter, that " England did GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 371 not wish to keep Canada, but could not part with it without the consent of the population." After leaving Washington Sumner visited Mr. Fish, among others, and continued to urge vigor- ous action in the negotiations with England. At his suggestion Caleb Cushing was consulted in drawing the instructions to Mr. Motley, which were sent on September 25, and were described by Lord Clarendon as " Mr. Sumner's speech over again." On September 22 Mr. Sumner presided at the Republican convention in Massachusetts, and made a speech upon the political situation, in which he reasserted the positions which he had taken already on reconstruction, finance, and the pending ques- tions with England. He spoke also of our rela- tions with Spain and Cuba, dealing with the pro- blem which has confronted the country steadily for years, and which has now taken a new phase, admitting that the Spanish power was "an an- achronism," and that the day of European colonies had passed in this hemisphere, but contending that " the true course of the United States " was " to avoid involving ourselves in any way," that the sound rule was " non-intervention, except in the way of good offices." He said that by interna- tional law " nations are not left to any mere ca- price. There is a rule of conduct which they must follow, subject always to just accountability where they depart from it." Under that law " belli- gerence is a ' fact ' attested by evidence. If the \ 372 CHARLES SUMNER ' fact ' does not exist, there is nothing to recognize. The fact cannot be invented or imagined, it must be proved. No matter what our sympathy, what the extent of our desires, we must look at the fact." In speaking of the question with England, he said : " Sometimes there are whispers of territorial compensation, and Canada is named as the consid- eration. But he knows England little, and little also of that great English liberty from Magna Charta to the Somerset case, who supposes that this nation could undertake any such transfer. And he knows our country little, and little also of that great liberty which is ours, who supposes that we could receive such a transfer. On each side there is impossibility. Territory may be conveyed, but not a people. I allude to this suggestion only because, appearing in the public press, it has been answered from England." He expressed his belief, however, that eventually a union between Canada and the United States would come by mutual desire. During this autumn he delivered his lecture on " Caste " before audiences all over the Eastern States. It was intended as an appeal to public opinion against the prejudice of race and in favor of equal rights. His conclusion indicates what his attitude would have been on some later issues : — " To those who find peril in the growing multi- tudes admitted to citizenship I reply, that our Republic assumed these responsibilities when it declared the equal rights of all men, and that just government stands only on the consent of the gov- GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 373 erned. Hospitality of citizenship is the law of its being. ... If the Chinese come for labor only, we have the advantage of their wonderful and docile industry. If they come for citizenship, then do they offer the pledge of incorporation in our Re- public, filling it with increase. Nor is there peril in the gifts they bring. As all rivers are lost in the sea, which shows no sign of their presence, so will all peoples be lost in the widening confines of our Republic, with an ocean-bound continent for its unparalleled expanse, and one harmonious citizenship, where all are equal in rights, for its gentle and impartial sway." In November, shortly before the reassembling of Congress, Mr. Fish wrote him that Mr. Thornton, the British minister, had expressed the anxiety of his government to settle the pending question, and had asked for some intimation as to terms. " I answered," wrote Mr. Fish, " somewhat vaguely ; but he evidently wished ... to obtain something more definite, — which I was not willing to give, until I could have the opportunity of consulting with you to know what your committee and the Senate will agree to. When will you be here? Will you either note what you think will be suffi- cient to meet the views of the Senate and of the country, or will you formulate such a proposition ? " In such cordial relations with the administration Sumner began the session of Congress which opened on December 6, 1869. Mr. Fessenden's death during the recess had left a vacancy in the com- 374 CHARLES SUMNER mittee on foreign relations, which was filled by Mr. Schurz, who was from this time in close accord with Mr. Sumner. The reconstruction question came again before the Senate in January, 1870, when a long debate occurred on a bill to admit Virginia. Sumner, believing that the reconstructed government was in the hands of disloyal men, urged investigation. An amendment was moved, that action by the legis- lature of Virginia at any time, rescinding its rati- fication of the Fifteenth Amendment, should exclude the State from representation in Congress and re- mand it to its provisional government. Governor Morton of Indiana and Mr. Sumner supported this, insisting that Congress would always have the power to enforce the conditions on which the States were admitted. Sumner said : " No one of these States, by anything that it may do hereafter, can escape from that far-reaching power." If this position can be maintained, a question may arise as to the power of Congress over the recent action of certain Southern States, by which the right of suffrage is taken from ignorant colored men but preserved to equally ignorant white men. The amendment was lost ; but fundamental con- ditions were attached to the bill, imposing the test oath on state officers and securing impartial suf- frage, equal eligibility to office, and equal school privileges. "Good faith" in the adoption of a republican state constitution, and in the ratifica- tion of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments, GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 375 was also made " a condition precedent to represen- tation of the State in Congress." Sumner took part in the debate, supporting every proposition calculated to insure a loyal government and abso- lute equality of rights, but not voting for the bill, even as amended, because he felt that it endan- gered the rights and security of loyal people. Mississippi was admitted at this session upon the conditions already imposed on Virginia. The pas- sage of this act was followed by the admission of Mr. Revels, a colored man, as one of the senators from Mississippi, an event which Sumner hailed as forever setting at rest the question of equal rights. With this session the reconstruction period practi- cally ended, and though the battle for equal rights was not yet over, the recognition of the principle in the reconstruction legislation was due to Sum- ner's untiring persistency. At this session he struck another blow at dis- crimination on account of color, when a bill was pending to amend the naturalization laws so as to prevent certain election frauds. Much to the disgust of Mr. Edmunds, who was in charge of the bill, he offered an amendment striking the word " white " from all statutes relating to natural- ization. The session was approaching its end, and the amendment meant a discussion, for it opened our citizenship to the Chinese as well as to men of African descent. Hence, doubtless, Mr. Edmunds considered it ill-timed, and opposed it. Mr. Sum- ner answered that he had twice tried to pass his 376 CHARLES SUMNER amendment as a separate bill and would not forego this opportunity. The amendment was at first adopted, whereupon a proviso excluding Chinese was moved. The debate continuing, Sumner was attacked by Conkling for pressing his amendment. The day was July 4, and Sumner did not fail to take advantage of the coincidence in reply, quot- ing the Declaration of Independence, and continu- ing : — "The great, the mighty, words of this clause are that these self-evident, unalienable rights belong to ' all men.' It is ' all men,' and not a race or color, that are placed under protection of the Declara- tion. . . . But the statutes of the land assert the contrary, — they declare that only all zvhite men are created equal." Sumner's amendment was finally rejected, on account of the feeling against the Chinese ; but an amendment extending the privilege of naturaliza- tion to persons of African birth or descent was adopted, and the bill passed. It certainly was strange that among all nations of color, preference should be given expressly to the African, so lately deemed the lowest among the races of men. Sumner firmly believed that financial reconstruc- tion was essential to repair the wounds of the war, and amid the contest over the admission of Vir- ginia he introduced a bill to authorize the re- funding of the national debt, " to extend banking facilities, and to establish specie payments." This he supported in a careful speech, and afterwards GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION 377 in debates upon this and other financial measures he took an active part. These speeches were direct and business-like discussions of the subject, entirely- free from the tone into which he was sometimes betrayed when speaking on questions of human rights. His plans involved refunding at a lower rate of interest by the issue of long-time bonds, substituting for the " greenbacks " an equal amount of national bank notes so distributed as to provide for the necessities of districts where the currency was insufficient, and direct legislation looking to the resumption of specie payments. He recognized those evils which still confront us, and his reme- dies might have avoided much subsequent trouble. Some of his recommendations, indeed, were in sub- stance adopted shortly afterwards ; but the replace- ment of the " greenbacks " by bank circulation properly distributed and secured, though recognized as necessary by the best financial authorities, is still to come. Always in favor of everything that aided educa- tion and the diffusion of knowledge, he made an elaborate speech in favor of one-cent postage, which must remain a permanent contribution to the dis- cussion of postal systems and a convincing argu- ment for the lowest rates. When Mr. Fessenden's death was formally announced in the Senate he spoke of him in terms of cordial appreciation, showing that their sharp differences had not af- fected his respect for his eminent associate. He opposed the continuance of the income tax as a 378 CHARLES SUMNER war tax no longer needed, unequal and vexatious. By sheer persistence lie secured a pension for Mrs. Lincoln in spite of a unanimous report against it from the committee. These were among his mis- cellaneous labors. CHAPTER XXIII SAN DOMINGO AND THE CONTEST WITH GRANT The most important contest of the session in its effect on Sumner personally arose over the treaty for annexing San Domingo. This part of Hayti had long been torn by the feud between Baez and Cabral, rivals for the presidency and alternately successful. In 1868 Baez was in control, but Ca- bral threatened his supremacy. When out of power Baez had sought aid from the United States. Now, being in office, he sent an envoy to this country in the hope of gaining support, and reso- lutions for the annexation of San Domingo, or a protectorate, were introduced in the House during Mr. Johnson's administration, but were not dis- cussed. After General Grant's accession Baez applied to him, and he was persuaded that the annexation of San Domingo was desirable. He kept the nego- tiations in his own hands and selected his secre- tary, General Babcock, as his representative. In May a man-of-war was sent to the several Domin- ican ports in order to learn the popular feeling, and in July General Babcock was dispatched with instructions, signed by Mr. Fish, to inquire as to 380 CHARLES SUMNER the island, its resources, and the condition of its affairs. Secretary Robeson placed a man-of-war at his service, instructed if necessary to give him " the moral support of its guns ; " and in September, acting absolutely without authority, Babcock exe- cuted with Baez a treaty of annexation involving the payment by this country of 11,500,000 for de- fraying the debt of San Domingo. Babcock signed as the aide-de-camp of the President, and his pro- tocol stated that the President " promises privately to use all his influence in order that the idea of annexing the Dominican republic to the United States may acquire such a degree of popularity among members of Congress as will be necessary for its accomplishment." The President ratified his action and sent him back to San Domingo in November, backed by three men-of-war. There he made two treaties, one for the annexation of San Domingo and one for a lease of Samana Bay, and in behalf of the President guarantied San Domingo against foreign interference until the treaties were ratified. Bab- cock forthwith declared his intention to take pos- session of Samana Bay and to raise the American flag there, and he instructed the naval commander to protect the government of San Domingo against any attack, especially from Hayti. This meant that the navy should keep Baez in power against Cabral until the bargain by which Baez sold his country was ratified by the United States. These instructions were confirmed by Secretary Robeson, SAN DOMINGO 381 who kept a large force in the waters of San Do- mingo and directed the admiral in command, not only to "protect" the "Dominican government against any power attempting to interfere with it," but to " visit Samana Bay and the capital and see the United States power and authority secure there." He was directed also to notify the govern- ment of Hayti that the United States would pro- tect San Domingo, and the peremptory order was added : " If the Haytians attack the Dominicans with' their ships, destroy or capture them." The navy of the United States was thus placed at the disposal of Baez, to protect him against his own subjects as well as foreign enemies, while war was threatened against Hayti, a friendly power ; and these things were done without authority from Congress. The country was in no mood for annexing a hot- bed of revolution with a population like that of San Domingo. The rejection of the St. Thomas treaty was fresh in the public mind, and the argu- ments against the annexation of San Domingo were much stronger. But even had annexation been desirable, the manner of securing the treaty, the doubts as to the authority of Baez, the absence of popular consent, the extraordinary proceedings of Babcock, and the arbitrary use of the navy, added much to the opposition. Had President Johnson done these things, he could not have escaped im- peachment. But the great popularity of Grant, the public confidence in his honesty, and the feel- 382 CHAKLES SUMNER ing that his training had not fitted him to un- derstand the illegality of his action, made men indulgent to his errors ; nor was the Republican party inclined to quarrel a second time with a president of its own selection. Sumner's first knowledge of these transactions was in January, 1870, when President Grant called at his house one evening while he was at dinner with J. W. Forney and B. P. Poore, one the sec- retary of the Senate, the other a well known news- paper correspondent. They were both present at the interview which followed. The President made some reference to treaties about San Domingo, but gave no clear idea of their terms or object. He said that they would come before the committee on the judiciary, and therefore he wished to see Mr. Sumner as its chairman, a mistake in the name of the committee, which indicated General Grant's lack of familiarity with the Senate. Sumner turned the conversation to Governor Ashley of Montana, of whose removal he wished to speak, but the President brought it back to the treaties and made some inquiry intended to ascertain Sumner's atti- tude towards them. Sumner's reply, as he repeated it to Mr. Schurz next day, was : " Mr. President, I am an administration man, and whatever you do will always find in me the most careful and candid consideration." The President afterwards claimed that Sumner promised his support, and it is prob- able that he misunderstood Sumner's language, interpreting what was said by his own strong SAN DOMINGO 383 wishes and not anticipating opposition. It is in- credible, however, that Mr. Sumner pledged him- self to support the treaties without having seen them, and with no knowledge of their contents. In such matters he was extremely cautious, and where the " Black Republic " was concerned he would have been especially so ; for to preserve its independence was to him a matter of great impor- tance. Nor would he ever have consented to any treaty which annexed territory without the consent of the inhabitants. 1 The attitude which he had just taken on the annexation of St. Thomas, his political creed, the whole habit of his life, were such as to make the alleged promise impossible. Sumner was a man of his word and absolutely truthful. It is therefore of no slight importance that, from the moment of the interview until the treaties were rejected, he never by word or act indi- cated the least consciousness of any pledge to sup- port them, while on the contrary his opposition was frank and consistent. It is impossible to resist the conclusion that this opposition to a scheme which the President had at heart seemed to him, with his ideas of military discipline, like rank insubordi- nation. Experience has shown that a president bent upon enlarging the country's boundaries is apt to take a deeper personal interest in the project than in questions of domestic policy, and to treat opposition as personal disloyalty. To Grant this was especially easy, for he felt that, as the head of 1 See his remarks upon the annexation of Canada, ante, p. 372. 384 CHARLES SUMNER the Republican party, he had a right to command its members, and he was peculiarly impatient of resistance. Finding Sumner opposed he became irritated, and in his irritation gave to the interview at Sumner's house a character which it did not deserve. It became a subject of bitter contro- versy ; but its importance was exaggerated. Had no interview occurred the President would have been equally indignant at Sumner's attitude. When the treaties were referred to the committee on foreign relations, the first meeting, on January 18, 1870, made it clear that the committee would report against them. Only one member said any- thing in their favor. At Sumner's suggestion the committee proceeded deliberately, so that their ac- tion might be taken with due respect to the Presi- dent, and Sumner withheld his own opinion for a while that each member might act upon his own judgment. During the consideration he learned from the assistant secretary of state, and after- wards by inquiry at the Navy Department, how our navy had been employed and by what means the treaties had been secured. He was shocked at the discovery that " we were engaged in forcing upon a weak people the sacrifice of their country." From that moment his position was taken. He did not call upon the President and state his views, be- cause, as he afterwards said in the Senate : " On carefid reflection at the time I did not regard it as expedient. I thought it more gentle and consider- ate to avoid discussions with him, being assured SAN DOMINGO 385 that he would ascertain the judgment on annexa- tion through the expression of public sentiment in the newspapers and various reports." The opposition angered the President, and he exerted all his influence to carry his point. He sent two messages to the Senate urging ratifica- tion, on March 14 and on May 31. He argued with members of the committee ; he visited the Cap- itol, and interviewed senators. In a word he did all that General Babcock had pledged him to do, and his influence, especially with the new Southern senators, was very great. Mr. Fish urged Sumner not to oppose the President, and the efforts of the administration continued up to the final vote. On March 15 the treaties were reported adversely, Senators Harlan and Morton dissenting from the report in which Sumner, Patterson, Schurz, Cam- eron, and Cassidy joined, though Cameron re- served the right to vote for ratification in certain events. Mr. Ferry moved that the debate be in open ~^ session, but the motion was defeated upon Sumner's >"' suggestion that, though he favored open sessions, it was unwise to change an established rule when it might seem to be done with reference to a particu- lar treaty. Sumner opened the debate in a speech of four hours, in which he discussed the whole sub- ject, but " expressed confidence in the President's entire honesty." No partisan of the President who heard it ever complained of its tone, while several spoke of it in terms of admiration. He opposed on obvious grounds, such as the difficulty of dealing V 386 CHARLES SUMNER with the population, the likelihood of our being tempted into further annexation, the chronic rebel- lion existing there, the expense and trouble, and the wrong to the colored man involved in taking away the independence of Hayti. After a debate run- ning through some weeks the treaty was laid aside until June 29, when after a brief discussion the vote was taken on June 30, and the Senate being equally divided the treaty was rejected. The day after the vote Mr. Motley was removed from his place as minister to England. This was clearly meant as a punishment of Sumner, who was Motley's friend, and had favored his appointment. The President's friends learned his purpose and some protested against the removal before it was made. Senator Wilson wrote an urgent letter against it, saying : " His removal will be re- garded by the Republicans of Massachusetts as a blow not only at him, but at Mr. Sumner." The tone and manner of the removal, and the testimony from contemporary witnesses, leave little doubt that Mr. Wilson was right. Till then Mr. Sumner had said or done nothing to indicate any hostility to the President, and though indignant at an act which seemed intended to influence impro- perly the action of senators, he now gave no public expression of his feeling. He could not, however, fail to recognize in the act a meaning which was apparent to the President's own supporters. In letters to intimate friends he spoke of it, but more in sorrow for Motley than in wrath on his own account. SAN DOMINGO 387 Sumner's first public speech after the adjourn- ment of Congress was in Faneuil Hall, where he presided at a meeting held to ratify the state nom- inations, and urged the voters of Massachusetts to maintain the Republican party, saying : " So long as anybody assails the Declaration of Independ- ence the Republican party cannot cease its patri- otic labors." The speech contained no reference to the administration or to the treaties, and no hint of any difference with the President. At the next session the President in his annual message reiterated his conviction that the interests of the country demanded the ratification of the San Domingo treaties, and he recommended the appoint- ment of commissioners to negotiate a new treaty for the acquisition and an appropriation for their expenses. He said : " I now firmly believe that the moment it is known that the United States have entirely abandoned the project of accepting as a part of its territory the island of San Domingo, a free port will be negotiated for by European na- tions in the Bay of Samana, — a large commercial city will spring up, to which we shall be tributary without receiving corresponding benefits, and then will be seen the folly of our rejecting so great a prize." Thirty years have elapsed since these words were written, and no great foreign city has sprung up on the Bay of Samana. The cry is ancient that acquisitions, useless or worse to us, are much de- sired by other nations, but experience has never proved it true. 388 CHAKLES SOIXER An attempt was made at the outset of the ses- sion to change the committee on foreign relations, in order to get a body more favorable to the pro- ject. The first suggestion was to drop Sumner or Schurz, but it was decided to leave them and to substitute Conkling for Patterson. The commit- tee thus changed was reported to the caucus, but Sumner objected and the change was abandoned. The first move was made by Sumner, who, on December 9, offered a resolution calling for all the correspondence and instructions relating to the former treaty, the directions given to our naval officers, and other information. On December 12 Senator Morton offered resolutions authorizing the President to appoint a commission with authority to inquire into matters bearing upon annexation. The latter resolution was taken up first and pressed to a vote, without reference to a committee which was refused. It was treated by its supporters as a resolution of inquiry, and the commission con- templated by it was very different from that which the President wanted. It was an attempt to tem- porize. Sumner opposed it vigorously on Decem- ber 21, pointing out that it was unnecessary, since the President already had power to appoint com- missioners and money enough in the secret service fund to pay their expenses. He argued that the only effect of the resolution was to commit the country, and that it was offered for this purpose. He discussed the history of the rejected treaty, criticised Baez, and condemned the use of the [Ckarles Sumner to William Lloyd Garrison] p* •«? f a. c * * ' / ^^W On J SAN DOMINGO 389 navy, which had been employed to keep Baez in power that he might sell his country. He did not attack the President personally, but he criticised the course of the administration, and described the whole project as an attempt to deprive a feeble people of their independence by methods unjusti- fiable in law or morals. He spoke evidently with strong feeling, and his speech, though in form merely an attack upon a policy, was in effect an arraignment of the President. He was absolutely right in his positions, but his language and manner were unfortunate, and he excited a feeling which made it harder to attain his object. His opening sentence was : — " The resolution before the Senate commits Con- gress to a dance of blood. It is a new step in a measure of violence. Already several steps have been taken, and Congress is now summoned to an- other." Addressing the Vice-President, he said : — " Go to the President, I ask you, and address him frankly with the voice of a friend to whom he must hearken. Counsel him to shun all approach to the example of Franklin Pierce, James Buch- anan, and Andrew Johnson ; tell him not to allow the oppression of a weak and humble people ; ask him not to exercise war powers without au- thority of Congress; and remind him, kindly, but firmly, that there is a grandeur in justice and peace beyond anything in material aggrandizement, beyond anything in war. ... I am not insensi- 390 CHARLES SUMNER ble to the commercial and material prosperity of my country. But there is something above these. It is the honor and good name of the Republic, now darkened by an act of wrong. If this terri- tory so much coveted by the President were infi- nitely more valuable than it is, I hope the Senate would not be tempted to obtain it by trampling on the weak and humble." This speech led to sharp replies, and Sumner answered, repeating what he had in fact said to the President in the interview at his house, and declaring that his " language was precise, well-con- sidered, and chosen in advance." It was entirely characteristic of Sumner that he did not see how his words were calculated to irritate the President. At the close of his last speech during the debate he insisted : " I said nothing to arraign Grant," and disclaimed any disposition to do so. But it was impossible for him to feel so strongly as he did without making his feeling apparent, even though his language was impersonal. His words were those of one outraged at a wrong and determined to expose it as a matter of duty, though not willing to call names. The President recognized and un- doubtedly exaggerated Sumner's feeling ; he felt himself attacked, and from that moment his hos- tility to Sumner was settled. The debate became very bitter, and Sumner was sharply criticised by Conkling, Edmunds, Carpen- ter, Chandler, and others, who attributed his atti- tude to personal resentment. It is certainly true SAN DOMINGO 391 that he was indignant with the President for treat- ing his opposition as a personal matter, and his indignation undoubtedly affected his speech. It is not true that any personal feeling led him to oppose the treaty, or to condemn the acts by which Baez was supported and the treaty negotiated. The President's purpose and methods were bad, and Sumner was sure to oppose them, though his language might have been more persuasive. When Sumner made this speech he was familiar with the facts disclosed by the records of the State and Navy Departments ; but the country was igno- rant of them, so that the justice of his criticisms was not apparent. His resolution of December 9 was intended to elicit these facts, and after the passage of Morton's resolution it was taken up on January 4, and passed without a division. Another resolution, calling for orders and facts relating to the naval force then in the waters of San Domingo, was also passed on February 15, and the answer to these brought out the whole history which had inspired Sumner's speech. Meanwhile Morton's resolution was taken up in the House on January 9, under a suspension of the rules, and was passed the next day, General Butler leading for the administration. It was, however, amended by a provision that it should not be considered as committing Congress to the policy of annexation, whereby its real purpose was de- feated. The Senate at once passed it as amended and the commission was appointed. Their report \ 392 CHARLES SUMNER was in line with the President's recommendation, but led to no action. A contest with the administration involving so much personal bitterness, and the disturbance of long-established relations, was a serious strain upon Sumner. Age and unremitting labor began to tell upon his strength. During much of the session he suffered from some difficulty in his throat or lungs, which gradually weakened him until, on February 18, he had an attack of angina pectoris, his old trouble, which was very severe, and kept him from the Senate for a week. His condition after this attack is described by Wendell Phillips : — "The doctors say the only policy is rest; the more he "11 take, the better health, and the better chance of life prolonged. I argued and prayed, so did we all. . . . The Russian minister said to me, ' Make him rest — he must. No man in Wash- ington can fill his place, — no man, no man. We foreigners all know he is honest. We do not think that of many.' " Sumner's relations with Mr. Fish had continued unchanged, notwithstanding the controversy over San Domingo, and on December 23, after his speech in the Senate, Sumner dined at Fish's house. On January 9, 1871, the President sent to the Sen- ate the papers relating to the recall of Motley, among which was a letter, in which Motley alluded to the statement that he was removed on account of Sumner's opposition to the treaty. Fish's reply was that this rumor originated " in a source bitterly, SAN DOMINGO 393 personally, and vindictively hostile to the Presi- dent," clearly indicating Sumner, and continued : — " Mr. Motley must know — or, if he does not know it, he stands alone in his ignorance of the fact — that many senators opposed the San Do- mingo treaty openly, generously, and with as much efficiency as did the distinguished senator to whom he refers, and have nevertheless continued to enjoy the undiminished confidence and the friendship of the President, — than whom no man living is more tolerant of honest and manly differences of opinion, is more single or sincere in his desire for the public welfare, or more disinterested or regardless of what concerns himself, is more frank and confiding in his own dealings, is more sensitive to a betrayal of confidence, or would look with more scorn and contempt upon one who uses the words and the assurances of friendship to cover a secret and determined purpose of hostility." These words were absolutely without excuse, and conveyed a charge against Mr. Sumner unwar- ranted by any statement of facts made by Mr. Fish or his defenders. No one else, who had known Mr. Sumner so long and so well as Mr. Fish had done, would have believed Mr. Sumner capable of duplicity, nor can any motive for it be suggested. The object of duplicity is to deceive, and Mr. Sum- ner's opposition to the treaty was open, so soon as he understood its provisions. Nothing could be gained by a promise of support broken at once, and it is perfectly clear that no promise was ever 394 CHARLES SUMNER given. The whole nature, training, experience, and standards of Grant and Sumner made it easy for them to misunderstand each other. Mr. Fish had no such excuse for misrepresenting him, and it is charitable to believe that he did not, in writing to Motley, fully appreciate how his words would read if published. At all events he understood afterward what they meant ; for three days later, though nothing but the publication of the letter had occurred to change his relations with Mr. Sumner, he sent Mr. Patterson to inquire how Mr. Sumner would receive him if he called upon public business. Sumner replied : " That should the secretary come to my house he would be received as an old friend, and that at any time I should be at his service for consultation on pub- lic business ; but that I could not conceal my deep sense of personal wrong received from him abso- lutely and without excuse." Fish accordingly called, and the two had a frank and full conversation upon the Alabama claims ; but a few days later Sumner refused to recognize Fish at dinner. The Forty-first Congress expired on March 4, and its successor met on the same day and re- mained in session until May 27. In the debate on the Morton resolution in December, Conkling had indicated that Sumner was to be removed from the chairmanship of the committee on foreign rela- tions, and this was done when the committees were elected at the beginning of the new Congress. SAN DOMINGO 395 Howe, Nye, and Pool, a majority of the caucus committee, reported a list of committees, putting Cameron in Sumner's place and making Sumner chairman of the committee on privileges and elec- tions. Sherman and Morrill of Vermont, the other members of the committee, dissented. In private conversation, Howe said that Sumner had offended the President by the tone of his opposition to the San Domingo treaty. In the caucus he said that, as a majority of the Senate favored annexation, the committee should be constituted in sympathy with this feeling. After some debate in the caucus the report was adopted, though Trumbull, the Morrills, Ferry of Connecticut, Wilson, Logan, Schurz, and others opposed it. Hamlin, Edmunds, Conkling, Chandler, Howe, Carpenter, and the strong per- sonal following of the President were in the ma- jority. When the report was moved in the Senate on March 10, Schurz opposed it. Howe, replying, paid a high compliment to Sumner's " management of the affairs of that committee in the years that have passed," and even said: "If senators insist upon it, I will admit that the senator from Massa- chusetts could, under happier circumstances, fill it better than anybody else." After a debate, which was one long testimonial to his fitness and which exposed the wrong that was done him, the report was adopted. The Senate refused to stand by Sumner, but yielded to execu- tive influence and removed him. It is not pro- posed to discuss the reasons which, in the contro- 396 CHARLES SUMNER versy over the matter, were subsequently alleged to justify this action. These were afterthoughts, not suggested at the time, and disproved when they were brought forward. The only reason alleged in the discussion was that Sumner's personal re- lations with the President and secretary were not good, whereby the public business might suffer. The charge, made later by Mr. Fish, that Sumner had delayed action on treaties, was disproved by the Senate records, when the injunction of secrecy was removed. It is not proposed, however, to discuss Mr. Fish's action. For the purposes of this biography it is enough to chronicle the fact that Sumner's opposition to the San Domingo treaty, in which he was fully supported by the opinion of the country, led to his removal at the instance of the administration from the place which he adorned. The whole chapter illustrates the condition of our politics at the time, and is not pleasant reading for a patriotic American. The press and the public condemned the act of the Senate, and it is perhaps sufficient to record the judgment of Mr. Blaine, then the speaker of the House, as given years afterward. He was not naturally in sympathy with Sumner, though in active opposition to some of his opponents : — " Many senators were compelled, from their sense of obedience to the decision of the majority, to commit an act against their conceptions of right, against what they believed to be justice to a polit- ical associate, against what they believed to be SAN DOMINGO 397 sound public policy, against what they believed to be the interest of the Republican party." Mr. Sumner's "bearing was distinguished by dignity and magnanimity. He gave utterance to no com- plaints, and silently submitted to the unjustifiable wrong of which he was a victim." The Joint High Commission to consider all pending questions between Great Britain and this country was then in session, and Sumner was re- moved from his position at the very crisis when a question which he had made his own came up for settlement. Mr. Blaine's statement is true. He bore himself with dignity and made no complaint, simply excusing himself from service on the new committee. The documents called for by his reso- lutions of January and February were sent to the Senate, and the facts which had led him to oppose the President were thus laid before the country. On March 24 he introduced a series of resolutions reciting these and calling for the withdrawal of our naval forces from San Domingo pending negotia- tions, and for the disavowal of the threats uttered by our naval officers to the government of Hayti and of all hostile action taken by them upon the island. The employment of our navy to maintain Baez was condemned " as morally wrong," as a violation of international law, as " an infraction of the Constitution of the United States and a usur- pation of power not conferred upon the President," and as " unauthorized violence utterly without sup- port in law or reason, and proceeding directly from 398 CHARLES SUMNER that kingly prerogative which is disowned by the Constitution of the United States." Against a vigorous attempt to prevent it, Sumner gained the floor and delivered a speech, which had been prepared carefully and was far stronger than his previous one, because it was more temperate and impersonal. He now proved his facts by the official records, and the severity lay in the facts and the law. He declared that " the navy of the United States, acting under orders from Wash- ington, has been engaged in measures of violence and of belligerent intervention, being war without the authority of Congress." This he certainly established, and he made it evident how little the administration had regarded the legal limitations of executive power, and with what reckless violence the attempt at annexation had been conducted. He told the story of the Dominican adventurers who were trying to sell their country, and the case of Mr. Hatch, an American citizen, who was arrested and imprisoned to prevent his using his influence against annexation, because, said Baez, "a few weeks' restraint would not be so incon- venient to him as his slanderous statements might become to the success of General Grant's policy in the Antilles." The most direct attack upon Grant was this : — " It is difficult to see how we can condemn, with proper, whole-hearted reprobation, our own domes- tic Ku-Klux with its fearful outrages, while the President puts himself at the head of a powerful SAN DOMINGO 399 and costly proceeding operating abroad in defiance of international law and the Constitution of the United States. . . . Nor should I do otherwise than fail in justice to the occasion, if I did not declare my unhesitating conviction, that, had the President been so inspired as to bestow upon the protection of Southern Unionists, white and black, one half, nay, sir, one quarter, of the time, money, zeal, will, personal attention, personal effort, and personal intercession, which he has bestowed on his attempt to obtain half an island in the Carib- bean Sea, our Southern Ku-Klux would have ex- isted in name only, while tranquillity reigned everywhere within our borders." This was inserted on the morning of the speech, and might better have been omitted. A debate followed, in which Sumner was attacked personally by the President's friends, and ably defended by Schurz. On April 5 the President sent the report of the commission to Congress with a special message. Morrill of Vermont replied to it, and then the San Domingo project was abandoned, as it was found impossible to get the necessary support in Con- gress. Again Sumner had helped to keep the country right, though at terrible cost to himself. Shortly after this Sumner spoke in favor of a measure to stop the outrages of the Ku-Klux Klan, standing in this case with many who had opposed him ; but after the defeat of the San Domingo proposition the most important work of the session 400 CHARLES SUMNER was the treaty of Washington. His relation to the questions pending with England and the know- ledge that the country was behind him gave him an influence unaffected by his removal from the chairmanship of the committee. He conferred with the English commissioners often and freely, and in the Senate he made the leading speech in support of the treaty. He offered, indeed, certain amendments, to secure immunity for private pro- perty on the ocean and other ameliorations of war, but he did not press them. The new treaty was in substantial harmony with his views, and thus the result of the session was gratifying to him. His health called for rest, and he spent the sum- mer and autumn in visits and literary labors. During this autumn General Butler made his first attempt to win the Republican nomination for governor of Massachusetts. His campaign was extraordinary, and the prospects of his success were at one time so good that Sumner and Wilson were induced to throw their influence against him, which was done by the publication of a statement, prepared by Sumner and assented to by Wilson, in which they expressed their regret at his course, and their opinion that " his nomination as governor would be hostile to the best interests of the Com- monwealth and the Republican party." The hos- tility of the administration had not yet weakened Sumner's influence in Massachusetts, and it was believed that his action defeated Butler, who from this time was his enemy. Xe^r+'trz, 0~Z^€^ CHAPTER XXIV CIVIL RIGHTS: GRANT'S RENOMINATION The second session of the Forty-second Congress began in December, 1871. An attempt was made to reconcile the President and Sumner, but the President did not receive it favorably, though he had become reconciled to General Butler and was much under his influence. It does not appear that Sumner was cognizant of the effort. The lines were forming for the campaign of 1872, and the question of the President's renomination was beginning to press. On December 21 Sum- ner proposed a constitutional amendment making the President ineligible for reelection, with a reso- lution which was in itself a stump speech in favor of the proposition. This amendment had been reported by the judiciary committee of the Senate in 1867. As the preamble of Sumner's resolution recited, it had been three times recommended by President Jackson ; President Harrison, in accept- ing his nomination, had supported it ; Henry Clay had urged it ; the Whig party in 1844 had made it a plank in their platform ; Senator Wade had proposed it at the end of his senatorial term, and De Tocqueville had dwelt on the danger arising 404 CHARLES SUMNER A point of order was overruled, and then the amendment was defeated by one vote. Sumner renewed his motion when the bill was reported to the Senate, and on January 15 supported it by an elaborate speech, which put the argument largely on moral grounds, ignoring those legal objections which led the Supreme Court in after years to de- clare the act unconstitutional. He easily showed that evils existed, and that the civil rights of colored men were not recognized in the South. He insisted that if the Civil Eights Act was constitutional, this supplemental measure was equally so, and that since the Thirteenth and Fourteenth amendments had made the colored man a citizen, well-settled law compelled innkeepers and common carriers to treat him as such. He argued against the preju- dice of color, placing himself on Rousseau's propo- sition : " It is precisely because the force of things tends always to destroy equality that the force of legislation should always tend to maintain it ; " aud he contended that before rebels were restored to rights and privileges which they had forfeited, they should be compelled to give their colored fel- low citizens the equal rights which belonged to them, thus making his amendment a condition of amnesty. It is impossible to do more than indi- cate his line of argument. He contended for what was right, and relied on arguments which appealed to moral convictions, but which were not calculated to meet the constitutional doubts of men who, like himself, were in favor of equal rights, but who CIVIL RIGHTS 405 were unwilling to exceed their power. In fact, the constant reiteration of moral considerations, whose force is admitted, inevitably irritates men who are considering a legal question, nor is the irritation diminished if the argument is presented in sono- rous phrase. Mr. Sumner's amendment was adopted by the casting vote of the Vice-President, but the amended bill was defeated. On May 8 another amnesty bill came from the House, and Sumner again moved to amend by striking out all after the enacting clause and in- serting his bill. This was lost by the casting vote of the Vice-President. Sumner then moved it as an addition, and it was adopted by the same vote. The bill thus amended failed, as had its predecessors. On May 10 Sumner again intro- duced his bill with some slight changes. On May 21, when a bill to extend the provisions of the so-called " Ku-Klux Act " was pending, and an all-night session was ordered, Sumner, who was unwell, left the Senate. In his absence, on motion of Carpenter, his civil rights bill was taken up and passed, amended by inserting a substitute, which did not provide against discrimination in schools, churches, cemeteries, or juries, and which was in other respects imperfect. A protest was made against this action in Sumner's absence, and he was sent for by friends, but arrived too late. An amnesty bill was under consideration, which he tried to amend by adding his bill, but his amend- ment was rejected and the bill passed, Sumner 406 CHARLES SUMNER protesting. He then moved a reconsideration of the vote which had been taken, but without suc- cess, and after a vigorous speech, in which he charged that the rights of the colored race had been sacrificed by the Republican majority in the Senate, the discussion closed. The amnesty bill became a law; the civil rights bill was not con- sidered in the House. Three days before the ses- sion ended he moved his bill as an amendment to the civil appropriation bill, but it was ruled out of order, and so Congress adjourned without action on the subject. The next session Sumner was unable to attend, but on the first day of the Congress which met on December 1, 1873, he again intro- duced his bill, in a new draft, but the same in effect. The debates just alluded to show that Sumner's mind was tired and that ill health was telling upon him. He could not discuss the question to which he had devoted his life without repeating himself. His brain worked in channels which had been worn deep by use, and he could not escape from the lines of thought, or even the phrases, with which he had grown so familiar. In his contest with younger men like Carpenter and Conkling, and among associates of whom some were inclined to treat him with scant respect, there was something pathetic in his efforts to make them feel what was so clear and so vital to him. From this discussion no one can get any just idea of Sumner's power. It is a sick and weary man, animated by high pur- FRENCH ARMS 407 pose and with indomitable resolution, struggling against obstacles of which his own weakness was not the least. The form remained, the will and purpose were there, the vigor and life were begin- ning to fail. None the less Mr. Sumner took a leading part during the session in other matters. He felt keenly the methods and practices which discredited the administration, and it was not in his nature to let them pass unchallenged. On February 12, 1872, he introduced a resolution for a select com- mittee to investigate the sales of ordnance stores made by the government during the Franco-Ger- man war, and said that the United States had fallen under the suspicion of violating the neutrality laws, and that therefore there should be an investigation. This led to a long and sharp debate, for any re- flection on the government during Grant's admin- istration was at once resented by his supporters, who felt that his renomination was at stake. The fact undoubtedly was that during this war large amounts of arms and ammunition were sold by the War Department to agents of the French govern- ment, and were sent to France. The only author- ity for this lay in the statute authorizing the sale of arms and munitions of war, which were " dam- aged or otherwise unsuitable ; " but the arms sold were of our best, and ammunition was manufac- tured at our arsenals for the purpose. The original purchasing agents were Kemington & Co. ; but after their admitted relations with the French 408 CHARLES SUMNER government made further sales to them imprudent, later ones were made to a small country lawyer, who lived in Ilion, where the Kemingtons were established in business. The sales amoimted to 425,000 arms and 54,000,000 cartridges, and the amount of money involved was more than $4,000,- 000. The circumstances were suspicious, the trans- action was illegal, and there was good reason to suspect corruption ; therefore the demand for an investigation was manifestly proper. The debate was very animated, Sumner and Schurz speaking for the investigation, while Carpenter, Conkling, Edmunds, Morton, Frelinghuysen, and others defended the "War Department. Sumner and Schurz were charged with want of patriotism, with laying the United States open to claims from Germany, and with being " emissaries and spies " of foreign nations. Schurz took the more active part, and carried off the honors of the debate. Sumner closed the case, on February 28, with a dignified and able presentation of the facts and the law. It attacked no one and was free from per- sonality, but it left no doubt that an investigation must be had. The supporters of the administra- tion did not dare to prevent it, and his resolution passed, the preamble having been laid on the table with his consent. In reply to attack he said, "The objection of Senators is too much like the old heathen cry, ' Our country, right or wrong.' Unhappy words, which dethrone God and exalt the Devil ! I am FRENCH ARMS 409 for our country with the aspiration that it may be always right ; but I am for nothing wrong. When I hear of wrong, I insist at all hazards that it shall be made right, knowing that in this way I best serve my country and every just cause." The opponents of the investigation next under- took to stifle it by appointing a committee, upon which was placed no Republican who favored the inquiry and only one Democrat. Sumner, attacked by angina pectoris and disabled for a fortnight, declined to serve on the committee, and Schurz was denied a seat on it, though permitted to attend its sessions and examine the witnesses. Both were invited to testify and Sumner came, but protested against being examined. He was then subpoenaed and submitted to examination, but under protest because the confidential communications on which he had acted were privileged, and because the com- mittee was made up, in violation of parliamentary law, from persons who did not favor the inquiry. He was entirely willing to testify, though treated with scant courtesy by members who resented his protest. The report, in which all the Republican members joined, exonerated the "War Department, and so accomplished the result for which the committee was organized ; but no impartial person can read the evidence and feel satisfied with this conclusion. The report was discussed in the Senate, but with- out final action, and the episode remained as one count in the indictment which many Republicans 410 CHARLES SUMNER were framing against the forces of -which the Pre- sident was at once the leader and the instrument. President Grant had used his appointing power very freely to benefit his relatives and personal friends, and he was surrounded and influenced by politicians who did not command the public con- fidence. In the San Domingo affair he had shown an obstinacy, a disregard of law, and an impa- tience of opposition, which had shaken the confi- dence of many ; and the corruption in the depart- ments and among his close friends, which in his second administration led to scandals without pre- cedent in our history, was beginning to be generally suspected. At the same time it was clear that the power of the executive would be used to compass his renomination and election, as it had been used in behalf of the politicians whom he favored. The Republican party as a whole was so much swayed by the prejudices and passions of the war, Grant's personal popularity was so great, the Democratic party was so thoroughly discredited, that the chance of successfully opposing him either in the Republi- can convention or at the polls was very slight, but many Republicans felt it a public duty to oppose him, and among these were the very best of the Republican leaders, as for example, Trumbidl and Schurz. A convention of Republicans opposed to Grant was called to meet at Cincinnati on May 1, and the movement was supported by influen- tial newspapers like the New York "Tribune," the Chicago " Tribune," the Cincinnati " Commer- GRANT'S RENOMINATION 411 cial," and others. It was rich in leaders, its prin- ciples were sound, it was entirely patriotic, the need for it was imperative, but it was unfortunate in its choice of a candidate, and its chance of per- manent influence was lost when its nominations were made. The Republicans who had taken prominent part against Grant had expended some of their influence in so doing. A man of unques- tioned character and ability was needed, who would command the respect of the country, and who had not been weakened by political antagonisms. Such a man was Charles Francis Adams, but unhappily he spoke of the new movement somewhat con- temptuously and seemed indifferent to the ques- tions at issue. Sumner's name was suggested, but not with his approval, and finally the choice fell upon Horace Greeley, a man of unquestioned abil- ity, high character, and intense earnestness, but erratic and impulsive. His personal peculiarities and his foibles invited ridicule, and the people hardly treated him as a serious candidate. The movement therefore failed, though Greeley was also nominated by the Democrats and received more than four ninths of the popular vote, which showed the strength of the opposition to Grant. Sumner was urged to join this political move- ment before the convention at Cincinnati ; but though in cordial sympathy with the opposition to Grant and in close relations with Trumbull and Schurz, he was reluctant to leave the Republican party and hoped that Grant might be defeated in 412 CHARLES SUMNER the Republican convention. He indeed sent to Mr. F. W. Bird a draft of the platform, which, so far as it demanded the equal rights of all, and declared that emancipation and enfranchisement were finally and forever secure, was in substance adopted ; but he refused to declare his position until after the convention had adjourned. Against many and urgent appeals fi*om both sides he preserved abso- lute silence when the prospects of the new move- ment were brightest, but after its failure, and when Grant's election seemed certain, he took his posi- tion. His reasons for hesitation were given in a letter to Mr. Bird written late in May : — " Nor have I ever given a hint to a human being as to my future course. My right hand has never spoken it to my left. Of this I shall not speak until I can see the whole field, and especially the bearing on the colored race. I mean to fail in nothing by which they may be helped ; therefore all stories as to what I shall do, or shall not, are inventions. Nobody will know my position sooner than yourself. I honor you constantly. But I seek two things : (1) the protection of the colored race, and (2) the defeat of Grant." It was hard for him to sever his political relations with his party and especially with men like his col- league Wilson, who had been his warm supporter when he was first elected and who had been in sub- stantial harmony with him during their long asso- ciation in the Senate. His feelings were stated in the speech by which he attempted to defeat the GRANT'S RENOMINATION 413 nomination of Grant, making his opportunity un- expectedly on May 31 by moving to postpone the consideration of an appropriation bill. He spoke to a full Senate, and among the listeners were three members of the Cabinet and the President's private secretaries. It was published under the title of " ^Republicanism v. Grantism," and it was the in- consistency between these which Sumner tried to show. He began thus : — " I have no hesitation in declaring myself a mem- ber of the Eepublican party, and one of the strait- est of the sect. I doubt if any senator can point to earlier or more constant service in its behalf. I began at the beginning, and from that early day have never failed to sustain its candidates and to advance its principles. ... To such a party, with which so much of my life is intertwined, I have no common attachment. Not without regret can I see it suffer ; not without a pang can I see it changed from its original character, for such a change is death. Therefore do I ask, with no common feel- ing, that the peril which menaces it may pass away. I stood by its cradle ; let me not follow its hearse." He then pointed out that the party had become " the instrument of one man and his personal will," recounting the history of the San Domingo treaty. The general tenor of the speech may be gathered from a part of the introductory statement : — " Not only are Constitution and law disregarded, but the presidential office itself is treated as little more than a plaything and a perquisite. . . . 414 CHARLES SUMNER Here the details are ample, showing how from the beginning this august trust has dropped to be a per- sonal indulgence, where palace cars, fast horses, and seaside loiterings figure more than duties ; how personal aims and objects have been more promi- nent than the public interest ; how the presiden- tial office has been used to advance his own family on a scale of nepotism dwarfing everything of the kind in our history, and hardly equaled in the corrupt governments where this abuse has most prevailed ; how in the same spirit office has been conferred upon those from whom he had received gifts or benefits, thus making the country repay his personal obligations ; how personal devotion to him- self, rather than public or party service, has been made the standard of favor ; how the vast ap- pointing power conferred by the Constitution for the general welfare has been employed at his will to promote his schemes, to reward his friends, to punish his opponents, and to advance his election to a second term ; how all these assumptions have matured in a personal government, semi-military in character and breathing the military spirit." The speech amplified fully the details of this general outline. It condemned the President un- sparingly, and its charges were true, though it was possible to put a much more charitable inter- pretation upon the facts than Sumner adopted. Grant's unfitness and the dangers involved in his reelection were clear to Sumner, and he determined to make them equally clear to the country. Yet GRANT'S RENOMINATION 416 it was an ineffectual speech. It was too elaborate, too much encumbered with historical matter. It dealt too much in generalities and sweeping accu- sations. If it had recognized President Grant's services and his good qualities, it would have carried more weight. From the standpoint of the practical politician it was a failure, — the attempt and not the deed, which " confounds." Grant was not a Caesar, as Sumner painted him. There was no fear that he would overthrow our form of gov- ernment. The real peril was that unchecked cor- ruption would lower the public standards, and un- dermine that respect for the traditions of honorable government upon which free institutions rest ; and this danger was realized. Sumner's speech provoked bitter replies in the Senate and adverse criticism from all supporters of the Republican party. He must have been dis- appointed in its effect and pained to see the un- swerving allegiance of the party to an unfit man. Nothing is harder to bear than the sense of hope- less failure, coming at a dangerous crisis to a man who knows that he is right, but is wholly unable to impress his convictions on others. Many friends, even while recognizing his sincerity, could not but feel that his vision was distorted by his personal wrongs, and that his judgment was consequently at fault. Among these were George William Curtis, Mrs. Child, Whittier, Phillips, and others, whose doubts were especially disappointing. Gar- rison bitterly attacked him in successive articles. 416 CHARLES SUMNER Many of these lived to learn that Sumner was right, and perhaps to regret all the more keenly that he did not present his argument more effec- tively. Though he had opposed Grant he had not yet de- clared his readiness to support Greeley ; but after the Republican convention had unanimously nomi- nated Grant, the next step was necessary. He was urged by Republicans to remain silent, by the friends of Greeley to speak, and finally, on July 29, he announced his decision in a reply to a re- quest for advice from a committee of colored men. He dwelt upon Grant's indignity to the colored race in San Domingo and his neglect to help them by supporting the civil rights bill ; he repeated the charges of his speech ; he contrasted the training of Greeley and Grant and their careers, and finding in Greeley a lifelong Republican and a consistent friend of the negro, he advised them to support him, declaring that he proposed to do so. Immediately after the publication of this letter Mr. Blaine, then the speaker of the House, wrote to him an open letter, charging him with being false both to his party and his principles, and pointing out that he was in singular alliance with Confederates and allies of Preston S. Brooks. Sumner replied effectively and somewhat tartly : " 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 GRANT'S RENOMINATION 417 so many others devoted to the cause I have always served, that I had not missed you until you hastened to report absence. . . . You entirely misunder- stand 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 con- cord." In this letter he met the charge that a Demo- cratic victory would mean a reaction against the rights of the colored race, asserting that, with Greeley and a Congress elected upon the Demo- cratic platform, equal rights would be safe. The session, with its sharp personal conflicts, and the strain attending the severance of his rela- tions with the administration and his party, had overtaxed his strength, and when it closed he found himself with a feeble and irregular heart, and other indications of exhaustion. He was in no condition for a presidential campaign, in which his feelings were so much enlisted, and his physicians advised Europe. He took this advice, and sailed on September 3. He was anxious to make one speech in Faneuil Hall before he left, but under medical advice he abandoned the idea, deterred 418 CHARLES SUMNER not by the fear of death, but by the danger of paralysis or some form of mental disability. He accordingly wrote his speech, and it was pub- lished about the time of his departure. It began : " While recognizing party as an essential agency and convenience, I could not allow it to restrain my conscience against what seemed the require- ments of public good ; " and then stated the argu- ments for Greeley and against Grant simply and directly. He said that his first inclination was not to vote at all, but that his doubts were removed when the Democratic party accepted a Republican plat- form, " the best ever adopted, with a Republican candidate who was the most devoted Republican ever nominated, thus completely accepting the re- sults of the war, and offering the hand of recon- ciliation." The speech does not appear to have produced any new effect upon the public mind. His opposition to Grant had long been declared, and it was easy to misrepresent his motives. On reach- ing England he learned, to his great surprise and annoyance, that he had been nominated as the De- mocratic candidate for governor of Massachusetts, and he at once cabled a positive refusal. He spent a month in Paris, meeting American friends, and many distinguished Frenchmen. He devoted himself to the galleries, and to buying works of art, books, bronzes, china ; but he could not forget the abuse of which he had been the tar- get, and to which he alluded sadly in his letters. Returning to London he was entertained pleasantly GRANT'S RENOMINATTON 419 by old and new English friends, but lie and they alike felt that it was his last visit, and there was evidently that undercurrent of sadness which inev- itably attends the partings of later life. He passed a night with John Bright, who wrote of the visit : " There was great gentleness in all he said, with a sadness and a melancholy, which left upon us the impression that he felt himself seriously ill, and that his work of life was nearly ended." The trip seemed to help him, but his health was by no means restored, and he was urged to prolong his stay. His sense of duty, however, called him back to the Senate, and he sailed on November 14, reaching New York on the 26th and Washing- ton on the 29th, the day of Mr. Greeley's death, which was a serious shock to him. When the session opened he was so ill that he asked to be excused from service on committees, and from December 19 until the following March he was not in his seat at all, nor did he after December 18 take any part in the business of the Senate. On the opening day of the session he offered the following bill : — " Whereas the national unity and good-will among fellow citizens can be assured only through oblivion of past differences, and it is contrary to the usage of civilized nations to perpetuate the memory of civil war : Therefore, — Be it enacted, That the names of battles with fellow citizens shall not be continued in the Army Register, or placed on the regimental colors of the United States." 420 CHARLES SUMNER He attempted without success to press his civil rights bill and his bill to secure equality in the schools of the District, and spoke briefly on minor topics. In his eulogy of his former associate, Gar- rett Davis, and in some remarks prepared to be spoken of Horace Greeley there was an apparent recognition that his own end was near, and a gen- tle kindliness which was pathetic. Smarting from the wounds inflicted by former friends he felt the beauty and the uses of charity. Such was his work for the session. The bill just quoted provoked an unexpected re- sponse. Already in 1862 and 1865 he had intro- duced similar propositions without exciting adverse criticism, and his purpose was clearly reasonable. His position cannot be stated better than in these words of Carl Schurz in his eulogy : — " Let the dead man have a hearing. This was his thought : No civilized nation, from the republics of antiquity down to our days, ever thought it wise or patriotic to preserve in conspicuous and durable form the mementos of victories won over fellow citizens in civil war. Why not? Because every citizen should feel himself with all others as the child of a common country, and not as a defeated foe. All civilized governments of our days have instinctively followed the same dictate of wisdom and patriotism. . . . " Should the son of South Carolina, when at some future day defending the Republic against some foreign foe, be reminded by an inscription on THE BATTLE-FLAG BILL 421 the colors floating over him that under this flag the gun was fired that killed his father at Gettys- burg ? Should this great and enlightened Repub- lic, proud of standing in the front of human pro- gress, be less wise, less large-hearted, than the ancients were two thousand years ago, and the kingly governments of Europe are to-day ? . . . " Do you want conspicuous mementos of your victories ? They are written upon the dusky brow of every freeman who was once a slave ; they are written on the gate-posts of a restored Union ; and the most glorious of all will be written on the faces of a contented people, reunited in common national pride." Now it happened that in December, 1872, the legislature of Massachusetts was holding an extra session. A country member introduced a resolu- tion condemning the senator's bill, and the com- mittee to which it was referred gave him a private hearing. On the last day of the session this reso- lution was reported by half the committee, and after a debate, in which Sumner's purpose was wholly misrepresented by those who favored the resolution, it was passed. The legislators feared the anger of the veterans, and this fear carried the resolution. As adopted it described Sumner's bill " as an insult to the loyal soldiery of the nation " and as "meeting the unqualified condemnation of the people of the Commonwealth." This astonished Sumner, who wrote : " I cannot understand this tempest. The resolution which is 422 CHARLES SUMNER treated so severely is an old inhabitant. I have already brought it forward in substance twice be- fore this last motion. ... I know that I never deserved better of Massachusetts than now. It was our State which led in requiring all safeguards for liberty and equality ; I covet for her that other honor of leading in reconciliation." His own bill was not taken up in the Senate, for he wished to take part in the debate and his health rendered this impossible. The leaders of Massa- chusetts, however, rallied to his support, and when the new legislature met in January, 1873, an at- tempt was made to have the resolution of censure rescinded. A very strong petition was presented, supported by energetic speech and action ; but the movement failed, owing largely to the efforts made by members of the previous legislature, who wished not to be discredited so promptly and who argued that one legislature could not reverse an expression of opinion by another. Party feeling, fear of " the soldier vote," desire to propitiate the administra- tion, carried the day, and it was a year before the legislature of Massachusetts removed the blot which the legislature of 1872 had placed upon the good name of the State. Such action from his own State, coming when he was prostrated by disease and discouraged by the political situation, naturally hurt Mr. Sumner, but did not change his purpose. He was deter- mined to persuade Massachusetts, and wrote : " How a cultivated heathen could differ from me I THE BATTLE-FLAG BILL 423 do not understand. History is full of examples to sustain me ; only the sea and tiger are as blind and senseless in ferocity as party hate. I long to state the case." Unhappily his strength was not sufficient for the undertaking. During the whole winter he suf- fered from recurring attacks of angina pectoris with constant nervous pains, sleeplessness, and gen- eral weakness. From the time when he left the Senate in December until May he was substantially confined to the house, and employed himself in reading and chatting with his visitors, keeping his mind as free from disturbing thoughts as possible. He wrote one or two brief letters for publication favoring equal civil rights, but he was substantially withdrawn from public life. He was naturally de- pressed in spirits by his sickness, and there was nothing in the political situation or prospect to encourage him. Even men in full health were saddened by the acts and tendencies of the day. At a time when his great and unselfish services should have surrounded him with respect and honor, it was hard to feel that his influence was weakened, and that the legislature of his own State was hostile. Nor was it so much the condemnation of himself as the uncivilized attitude of the Commonwealth which depressed him. The change which the four years of Grant's administration had wrought in the character of the Republican party, and in his own position, was bitter to the taste. Add to this 424 CHAELES SUMNER the death of old friends like Seward, Chase, and Greeley, the paralysis of Wilson, the retirement of others from public life, and it is not surprising that he felt the increasing isolation of advancing years. A host of friends were busy in writing him letters of regard and sympathy, and these were very pleasant, but his position was inevitably lonely. When the Senate met in special session on March 4, 1873, he went to present the creden- tials of Governor Boutwell, his new colleague, but he was not invited to the caucus of the Republicans, and was substantially without party relations. No- thing was neglected that could make him feel the consequences of opposing the President. Sumner refused to visit Europe again, as his friends advised, and reached Boston on August 2, feeling very much better. He spent the autumn there and in visits, writing occasional letters upon public questions. He grew stronger for a while, so that he could enjoy the society of his friends ; he went to the Sat- urday Club and other like social organizations ; he occasionally spoke briefly, avoiding controversial topics and leaving on all who met him an impres- sion of gentleness and kindliness. He renewed early acquaintances, some of whom had been es- tranged from him by political differences, and it seemed as if, having abandoned the consideration of political questions, he returned to the simple friendliness of his youth. It was the pleasant even- ing of his life, his last visit to his native State. He LAST VISIT TO MASSACHUSETTS 425 was cordially received, and the general expression of respect and regard, which met him everywhere, made him feel that he was appreciated at home and dispelled the sense of injustice and wrong which had clouded the previous winter. He learned on her own soil that Massachusetts did not con- demn him and that the resolution of the legislature did her as much injustice as it did him. He was assured on every hand that his reelection to the Senate was certain, and he returned to his seat refreshed in body and cheered in mind by touching again his native earth. CHAPTER XXV THE LAST SESSION Sumner had borne himself during this period with entire dignity. He had made no complaints, had in no way discussed his party relations, but had simply, so far as his health permitted, pro- ceeded as before. His absence from the Senate and the known condition of his health had per- mitted exasperation to subside, so that on his return he found his associates disposed to welcome him with cordiality. He was not recognized as a Re- publican, owing to the opposition of the senators who assumed to represent the administration, and as a member of the Democratic party he was given inferior places on two unimportant committees. He was again where he stood when he entered the Senate, with such influence only as came from his personal character and arguments. He showed how great was the improvement in his health by at once introducing several measures, including his civil rights bill; the bill to secure equality in the schools of the District ; a bill for the payment of the French spoliation claims ; a bill to hasten specie payments; a proposition for the election of the president by popular vote for THE LAST SESSION 427 one term ; and one for international arbitration. His programme indicated no sense of failing power or desire to avoid controversy ; it showed, on the contrary, a resolute determination to deal with all the more important questions before the country. On the second day of the session he moved to take up his civil rights bill, saying that it had been well considered and would require no debate. Objection was made and a reference urged. Sum- ner asked for speedy action, but the Senate refused. Later a motion to refer it to the committee on the judiciary was made, which Sumner opposed. He recited the action repeatedly taken on the bill by the committee since its first introduction in May, 1870, and urged that the committee could not fur- ther enlighten the Senate, which itself had fully debated and indeed passed the bill. He appealed personally to Edmunds, to join him in supporting the measure, saying : " My desire, the darling desire, if I may say so, of my soul, at this moment, is to close forever this great question, so that it shall never again intrude into these chambers, — so that hereafter in all our legislation there shall be no such words as ' black ' or ' white,' but that we shall speak only of citizens and of men." Finally, on a promise from Mr. Frelinghuysen, in which Edmunds joined, that the bill should be reported promptly, Sumner consented to the refer- ence. It was his last speech on the subject. Be- fore the bill was reported, he died ; but after his death it passed the Senate with some changes, and 428 CHARLES SUMNER ultimately became the law, only to be declared un- constitutional by the Supreme Court, which con- strued the Fourteenth and Fifteenth amendments strictly, thereby justifying Sumner's objection to the wording of these amendments and his advo- cacy of more sweeping language when they were under discussion in Congress. He lived to urge and to see enacted every law which Congress had the power to pass in aid of equal rights and against distinctions of color. He proposed and pressed nearly to enactment, the act which he considered necessary to complete the work, and its ultimate failure came from causes beyond his control. All that man could do he did for the cause so near to his heart. This year for the first time he felt that he could leave the Senate and attend the New England din- ner in New York on December 22, and there he made his last speech outside the Senate. It was a brilliant occasion, and he was welcomed with the warmest demonstrations by the whole audience. The genuine enthusiasm of the distinguished com- pany made Mr. Sumner feel again that his coun- trymen were not alienated, and it was a pleasant memory during the few weeks of life that remained to him. The rest may be told briefly. After the holiday recess and his attempt to pass the civil rights bill Sumner continued in apparently good health until the beginning of March. He busied himself in editing his speeches on the civil rights bill, and THE LAST SESSION 429 in the preparation of his Works. He was pre- pared to support the nomination of Caleb Cushing for chief justice, believing him well fitted for the position and likely to be sound on questions involving equal rights. When his name was with- drawn and that of Chief Justice Waite was sub- stituted, he made in executive session a speech upon the office and its requirements, with very in- teresting reminiscences of Marshall and others whom he had known. He spoke on some other matters briefly. The legislature of Massachusetts rescinded in February, 1874, its resolution of cen- sure, and the record of this action was delivered to him on March 6. This was a great gratification, and was the theme of many pleasant letters. His attitude towards the world at this time may be given in the words of a friend : — " I saw him frequently and familiarly during the last four months of his life, and wish to give my testimony to the gentleness and kindliness of his temper during all that time, and to the fact that he uttered no word of harshness or censure in my hearing concerning any human being." The clouds which had shadowed the last years had disappeared ; he was at peace with mankind, and his work was done. His comrades in the great battle were passing away, and he was not loath to lay down his burden. Early in March the attacks of angina pectoris began to recur. On March 6 he spoke for the last time in the Senate on the bill for the centennial exhibition at Philadelphia. On 430 CHARLES SUMNER the 10th he visited the Senate, where Senator Bout- well presented the resolution of the Massaclrasetts legislature, and remained there some time talking with friends, but complaining of pain. At six o'clock Henry L. Pierce and B. P. Poore found him writing letters, and remained to dine with him. Almost immediately after they left he had a severe attack of pain, followed by others, which were deadened by injections of morphine, and from that time he slowly sank till his death on the afternoon of March 11. E. R. Hoar, Carl Schurz, and others of his friends were with him during the day, and to Judge Hoar he said several times : " You must take care of the civil rights bill, — my bill, the civil rights bill, — don't let it fail ; " and his last message was : " Judge, tell Emerson how much I love and revere him ; " and so passed away the man of whom Emerson said that he had " the whitest soul of any man I ever knew." It would be easy to fill a volume with extracts from the eulogies which were pronounced after his death, but it may be permitted to preserve at least a few words from E. R. Hoar, who held his hand as he died : — " Wherever the news of the event spreads through this broad land, not only in this city among his associates in the public councils, not only in the old Commonwealth of which he was the pride and ornament, but in many quiet homes, in many a cabin of the poor and lowly, there is to-day inexpressible tenderness and profound sorrow." THE LAST SESSION 431 Charles Sumner was a great man in his absolute fidelity to principle, his clear perception of what his country needed, his unflinching- courage, his perfect sincerity, his persistent devotion to duty, his indifference to selfish considerations, his high scorn of anything petty or mean. He was essen- tially simple to the end, brave, kind, and pure. In his prime he was a very eloquent speaker, and his unbending adherence to the highest morality gave him insight and power in dealing with great ques- tions and a strong hold upon the moral forces of the country. As Emerson said, he was for many years the " conscience of the Senate." He was a man of great ability but not of the highest intellectual power, nor was he a master of style. He was not incisive in thought or speech. His orations were overloaded, his rhetoric was often turgid, he was easily led into irrelevance and undue stress upon undisputed points. His untiring indus- try as a reader had filled his memory with associa- tions which perhaps he valued unduly. Originally modest and not self-confident, the result of his long contest was to make him egotistical and dogmatic. There are few successful men who escape these pen- alties of success, the common accompaniment of increasing years. A man who is trying to produce definite results naturally and properly wishes to know how far he has succeeded. No one aims at a mark without caring to discover whether his shot hits, and the speaker or writer who is seeking to influence public opinion must know whether his 432 CHARLES SUMNER words tell, in order to guide his future action. From this proper interest the transition to egotism is easy. Sumner's naively simple nature, his con- fidence in his fellows, and his lack of humor com- bined to prevent his concealing what many feel but are better able to hide. From the time he entered public life till he died he was a strong force constantly working for right- eousness. He had absolute faith in the principles of free government as laid down in the Declaration of Independence, and he gave his life to secure their practical recognition. They were not to him glittering generalities, but ultimate, practical truths, and in this faith Lincoln and Sumner were one. To Sumner more than to any single man, except possibly Lincoln, the colored race owes its emanci- pation and such measure of equal rights as it now enjoys. To Sumner more than to any single man the whole country owes the prevention of war with England and France when such a war would have meant the disruption of the Union. Such men are rare in the public life of any nation, and when we depart from the principles which they believe and practice we may well trem- ble for the permanence of our government, for, as Lowell said, this will endure only " so long as the ideas of the founders remain dominant." INDEX INDEX Abolitionists, begin with Lundy and Garrison, 37 ; form anti-slavery societies, 37 ; their platform, 37, 38; accused by South of inciting negroes to insurrection, 38; perse- cution of, in North, 39 ; petition Congress, 40; denounce Sumner for slowness to attack slavery, 91, 92. Adams, Charles Francis, opposes ad- mission of Texas, 43 ; denounces Winthrop's vote for Mexican war, 46; presides over convention of Conscience Whigs, 52; supports Sumner's resolutions against Mex- ican war, 54; supports Palfrey's resolutions at Whig convention of 1847, 54 ; signs call for Free-Soil convention, 58 ; nominated for vice- presidency, 59 ; opposes compro- mise of 1850, 74 ; opposes coalition with Democrats, 76; suggests testi- monial to Sumner in 1856, 155; elected to Congress, 162 ; sup- ports compromise measures in 1861, 189; has breach with Sumner on this point, 189 ; opposes issuing of letters of marque, 241; warns Russell of consequences of failure to stop Laird rams, 243; speaks contemptu- ously of movement against Grant, 411. Adams, John Quincy, his course in Congress admired by Sumner, 31; fights for the right of petition, 40 ; votes against Mexican war bill, 46; quoted by Sumner with regard to emancipation, 202. Adolphus, John Leycester, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Agassiz, J. L. R., visits Sumner, 346. Alabama, beginning of secession in, 180. Alaska, acquired by United States, 338, 339. Alderson, Baron Edward Hall, enter- tains Sumner, 20. Allen, Charles, bolts Taylor's nomi- nation, 58. Allston, Washington, in Boston soci- ety of 1840, 28; his death, 30. "American Jurist," contributions of Sumner to, 8, 10, 14. Andrew, John A., at convention of Conscience Whigs, 52; appoints delegates to Peace Conference, 192; applauds Wilkes's action in Trent affair, 209 ; opposes renomination of Lincoln, 271 ; reluctant to antag- onize Johnson in 1865, 295. Anti-Masons, connection of C. P. Sum- ner with, 4, 7. Argyll, Duchess of, complains to Sum- ner of his speech against ratification of Johnson-Clarendon treaty, 368. Argyll, Duke of, meets Sumner in 1857, 159; entertains him in 1859, 164 ; regrets Sumner's denuncia- tion of England, 252. Arkansas, reconstruction of, under Lincoln, 269 ; refusal of Congress to recognize, 269. Ashley, James M., removed from governorship of Montana by Grant, 382. Atchison, David R., urges South to hold Kansas at all costs, 134. Austin, Charles, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Babcock, General Orville E., sent by Grant to investigate San Domingo, 379 ; makes treaties to annex it, 380; prepares to defend Baez gov- ernment by force, 380. 436 INDEX Baez, Buenaventura, President of San Domingo, proposes annexation, 379; makes treaties with Babcock, 380 ; supported by United States navy, 380; criticised by Sumner, 388, 398. Baillie, Joanna, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Bancroft, George, in Boston in 1840, 28. Banks, Nathaniel P., his share in reconstruction of Louisiana, 283 ; introduces bill to authorize Presi- dent to protect American citizens by reprisals, 354. Bates, Edward, gives United States marshals instructions to execute the Fugitive Slave Law, 198. Bates, Joshua, writes to Seward op- posing issue of letters of marque, 240, 241. Bell, John, candidate for presidency in 1860, 176. Belper, Lord, visited by Sumner in 1859, 164. Benjamin, Judah P., on necessity of counteracting personal liberty laws, 126. Benton, Thomas H., presents petition of New Mexico against slavery, 66; introduces bill to compensate Texas, 09. Bigelow, John, applauds Wilkes's action in Trent affair, 209; advocates Sumner's reelection to Senate, 232. Binney, Horace, entertains Sumner, 11. Bird, F. W., sent a platform by Sum- ner for use in Republican conven- tion, 412. Blaine, James G., on reasons for Sum- ner's deposition from committee on foreign affairs, 396 ; charges Sum- ner with alliance with Confederates, 416. Blair, Montgomery, disapproves Wilkes's action in Trent affair, 209. Blessington, Lady, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Border States, favorable to emanci- pation in 1850, 68 ; importance of retaining, in 1861, 185, 197; policy of Lincoln toward, 197, 198; es- trangement of, risked by Sumner, 202 ; furnish troops to Union army ( 204 ; unquestionably saved by 1863, 235. Boston, society in, 14-16, 28 ; Anthony Burns case in, 109, 110; last visit of Sumner to, 424. Boston Latin School, studies of Sum- ner at, 5. Bout well, George S., urges coalition of Democrats and Free-Soilers on some other than Sumner, 83 ; Dem- ocratic candidate for governor, elected over Winthrop, 85 ; secre- tary of treasury, 363 ; elected to Senate, 424; presents resolutions of Massachusetts rescinding censure of Sumner, 430. Breckinridge, John C, candidate for President in 1860, 176. Bright, John, entertains Sumner in 1857, 159 ; writes to Sumner against issue by United States of letters of marque, 240 ; informs Sumner of English feeling, 247; the firmest friend of the North, 248; said to have been misled by Sumner as to Reverdy Johnson's mission, 357 ; prepared by Sumner for rejection of Johnson treaties, 360 ; indignant at Sumner's speech on rejection of Johnson-Clarendon treaty, 368; on Sumner's sadness on his last English visit, 419. Broglie, Due de, met by Sumner in Paris, 19. Brooks, Preston S., assaults Sumner in Senate, 145, 146; announces in- tention of killing Sumner if neces- sary, 146; not dealt with by Senate, 149; report of House committee upon, 149; fined in Circuit Court, 150; censured by House, 150 ; re- signs and is reelected, 150; given dinner by constituents, 150; praised by Davis and Mason, 151 ; generally approved by the South, 151, 152; Sumner's opinion of, 155, 417; his death, 158. Brougham, Lord, becomes acquainted with Sumner, 20; heard by Sumner in Parliament, 22. Brown, B. Gratz, favors resolution to INDEX 437 retaliate on Southern prisoners, 280; offers proviso to strike out " white " from Nebraska constitu- tion, 326. Brown, John, his career in Kansas, 156; his raid in Virginia, 170. Brown, Joseph E., opposes secession, 180. Brown-Se"quard, Dr., his treatment of Sumner for spinal trouble, 161. Bruce, Sir Frederick, tells Sumner England will fight rather than pay Alabama claims, 341; tells Sumner England has accepted arbitration, 342. Buchanan, James, agrees with Clay and Webster as to finality of com- promise, 87; elected President, 157; approves Lecompton constitution, 167 ; recommends admission of Kan- sas as a slave State, 168; incompe- tent in 1860, 182; his message on secession, 183; vacillates regarding Fort Sumter, 183; urges compro- mise, 1S4 ; hesitation of secession- ists to attack, for fear of offending Democrats, 185 ; tells Sumner that Massachusetts ought to adopt Crit- tenden resolutions, 190. Burns, Anthony, recaptured as a fugi- tive slave, 109, 110, 118. Butler, Andrew P., admits failure of attempts to prevent agitation, 88 ; has seat near Sumner, 89 ; claims superior patriotism for South, 111, 113 ; denounces Sumner for refusal to carry out Fugitive Slave Act, 111, 112 ; asks Sumner if he would advise Massachusetts to pass a Fu- gitive Slave Act, 126 ; virulent at- tack upon, by Sumner, 139-142 ; his death, 158. Butler, General Benjamin F., calls slaves "contraband of war," 198; fails in conducting impeachment of Johnson, 348 ; leads House to pass resolution for San Domingo Com mission, 391; prevented from get- ting Republican nomination in Mas- sachusetts by Sumner and Wilson, 400 ; becomes an enemy to Sumner, 400; gains influence over Grant, 401. Cabral, , rival of Baez for presi- dency of San Domingo, 379. Calhoun, John C, heard in Senate by Sumner, 12; demands annexation of Texas, 41; makes treaty of annexa- tion, 42; in 1849, issues address de- manding union of South to secure rights of slaveholders, 67. California, settlement and first con- stitution of, 65, 69 ; admitted to Union in 1850, 70, 71. Cameron, Simon, replies to Butler's suggestion as to " contraband of war," 198 ; opposes annexation of San Domingo, 385. Campbell, Baron John, meets Sum- ner in 1838, 21. Campbell , Thomas, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Canada, Confederate raid from, into Vermont, 279 ; cession of, in pay- ment of Alabama claims suggested by Fish, 370, 372. Canning, George, quoted by Sumner in 1863, 251. Carlisle, Earl of, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21. Carlyle, Thomas, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Carpenter, Matthew H., attributes Sumner's attack on Grant to per- sonal feeling, 390 ; votes for Sum- ner's removal from chairmanship, 395 ; moves to take up Sumner's civil rights bill, 405; defends War Department against Schurz and Sumner, 409. Cass, Lewis, requests Sumner to write article on American boundary claims, 23 ; nominated for President, 57; tries to prevent Massachusetts Democrats from voting for Sumner, 82 ; tries to suppress agitation, 87 ; condemns Sumner's Kansas speech, 142; resigns from Buchanan's Cabi- net, 183. Casserly, Eugene, opposes annexation of San Domingo, 385. Caucus, Sumner's views on, 343. Cavour, Count, meets Sumner in 1859, 163. Chandler, Zachariah, favors bill to retaliate on Southern prisoners, 438 INDEX 280; attacks Sumner for criticising Grant, 390; favors removal of Sum- ner from chairmanship, 395. Chanuing, William Ellery, his influ- ence over Sumner, 15 ; in Boston society in 1840, 28; attacks Web- ster's course in Creole case, 31; his death, 49. Chase, Salmon P., elected to Senate by a coalition, C3; urges Sumner to accept Free-Soil nomination for Senate, 81 ; more of a politician than Sumner, 86; friendly with Sumner, S9 ; offers resolutions against execu- tive sessions, 9S; writes "Appeal of Independent Democrats," 106; at- tacked by Douglas, 106; approves Sumner's speech advocating resist- ance to Fugitive Slave Act, 121 ; votes for repeal of Fugitive Slave Act, 127 ; visited by Sumner in 1S55, 128 ; considers threats of disunion idle, 179; opposes compromises in 1861, 194; at dinner to discuss Trent affair, 212 ; offers to resign, 236 ; approves plan to issue letters of marque, 241 ; approves Sumner's de- nunciation of England, 252 ; agrees with Sumner regarding national bank bill, 26S ; hopes for Republican nomination in 1864, 271; his ap- pointment to succeed Taney urged by Sumner, 27S; appointed by Lin- coln, 27S; admits negro to bar, 278; bust of, placed in Supreme Court room, 279; visits Johnson to urge negro suffrage, 291 ; gives a casting vote in impeachment case, 350 ; his right to do so questioned by Sum- ner, 350 ; not a Republican in 1S69, 362. Chevalier, Michel, met by Sumner in Paris, 19. Child, Lydia Maria, disapproves of Sumner's attack on Grant, 415. Chinese, excluded from naturaliza- tion, 376. Choate, Rufus, in Boston society in 1S40, 28; favors English claim of right to search slaves, 30 ; leads Massachusetts Whigs in 1850, 74. Civil Service, appointments in, accord- ing to merit advocated by Sumner, 55 ; attempt to regulate in 1863, 237 ; Sumner's bill to improve, in 1864, 267; regulated by Tenure of Office Act, 329, 330. Clarendon, Lord, entertains Sumner in 1859, 164 ; negotiates treaties with Reverdy Johnson, 360; on Motley's instructions, 371. Clark, Daniel, offers amendment to Crittenden resolutions, 187. Clay, Clement C, abuses Sumner, 112. Clay, Henry, voted for in 1844 by Sumner, 33 ; humiliated by Taylor's nomination, 57 ; introduces compro- mise in 1S50, 70; signs manifesto against renewal of agitation, 87 ; in- troduces resolutions on Shadrach case, 88 ; retires from Senate, S9; favors ineligibility of President for reelection, 401. Clayton, John M., on the severity of the Kansas slave code, 133. Cleveland, Henry R., member of "Five of Clubs," 15. Cobb, Howell, elected Speaker, 69. Cobden, Richard, meets Sumner in 1857, 159 ; on hostility of three fourths of Commons to North in 1861, 210 ; informs Sumner of Eng- lish feeling, 247; displeased with Sumner's speech against England, 252. Colfax, Schuyler, defeats bill to per- mit negroes to carry mails, 224 ; as Vice-President appealed to by Sumner to dissuade Grant from San Domingo project, 3S9 ; gives casting votes for and against Sum- ner's civil rights bill, 405. Colorado, proposal to admit, in 1S66, with white suffrage, 315, 316; with negro suffrage in 1867, 327. Coltmau, Justice Thomas, entertains Sumner, 20. Compromise of 1850, 70, 71 ; supported by manifesto of leaders in 1S51, S7 ; claimed by Douglas to have repealed Missouri Compromise, 104, 105. Conkling, Roscoe, attacks Sumner for pressing amendment to naturaliza- tion act, 376 ; proposal to put, on committee on foreign relations, 388 ; attacks Sumner for defaming INDEX 439 Grant, 390 ; announces that Sumner will be removed from chairmanship of committee on foreign relations, 394; votes for his removal, 395; de- fends War Department against Sumner and Schurz, 408. Conness, John, charges Sumner with indifference to rights of white for- eigners, 355. Constitution, Sumner's view of, in re- lation to slavery, 32, 94; its relation to Fugitive Slave Law, 94, 95 ; 120- 122 ; in relation to personal liberty laws, 121, 122 ; proposed amendment of, in 1861, 194 ; in relation to eman- cipation, 202. 226 ; in relation to secession, 217-219 ; in relation to reconstruction, 257-259, 287, 323 ; thirteenth amendment to, 259-261 ; in relation to power of Congress to abolish slavery by law, 260 ; four- teenth amendment to, 304, 310-314, 316, 317 ; in relation to Tenure of Office Act, 330; desire of Sumner to amend presidential term in, 331, 401; power of Congress to impose conditions on States, 351 ; fifteenth amendment to, 358 ; in relation to civil rights bill, 404. Corruption, suspicion of, under Grant's administration, in War De- partment, 407, 408 ; denied by ex- amining committee of Senate, 409. Corwin, Thomas, chairman of com- mittee in 1861, 186 ; defeats resolu- tion pledging United States to pro- tect slave property, by casting vote, 187 ; makes treaty by which the United States shall lend Mexico enough to satisfy France, 220. Cousin, Victor, met by Sumner in Paris, 19. Cowan, Edgar, moves to exclude ne- groes from voting in District, 264 ; attacks proposed fourteenth amend- ment, 311. Cranworth, Lord, meets Sumner in 1859, 159. Crawford, Thomas, friendly with Sumner, 23 ; aided by Sumner, 29. Creole, case of, 30. Crittenden, J. J., introduces compro- mise resolutions, 187 ; presents petition from Massachusetts in favor of his measures, 192 ; intro- duces resolution declaring object of war, 200. Crowder, Richard B., meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Cuba, question of recognizing belli- gerency of insurgents in, 369, 371. Curtis, Benjamin R., supports com- promise in 1S50, 74 ; on the Dred Scott case, 165 ; his argument in Johnson impeachment case, 348. Curtis, George William, asks Sumner his opinion of Brooks, 155 ; doubts Sumner's judgment in attacking Grant in 1872, 415. Cushing, Caleb, leads Democratic opposition to Sumner's election in 1851, 82 ; applauds Wilkes's action in Trent affair, 209 ; visits Sumner in Washington, 346 ; consulted re- garding Motley's instructions, 371 ; mentioned for chief justice inlS74, 429. Dana, Richard H., Jr., leader of Con- science Whigs, 44 ; Free-Soiler in 1850, 74 ; opposes coalition with Democrats, 76 ; suggests testimonial to Sumner in 1856, 155. David, Pierre Jean, met by Sumner in Paris, 20. Davis, Garrett, eulogized by Sumner, 420. Davis, Henry Winter, opposes recog- nition of Liberia and Hayti, 222 ; opposes renomination of Lincoln, 271. Davis, Jefferson, approves Brooks's assault on Sumner, 150, 151 ; intro- duces resolutions on non-interven- tion with slavery in the territories, 171 ; elected president of Confeder- ate States, 182 ; said in England to have created a nation, 219 ; impris- oned in 1865, 303 ; proposed bill to alter qualifications of jurors in his trial, 318. Davis, John, votes against Mexican war bill, 45. Davis, Reuben, offers resolution in 1861 on duty of federal government to protect slave property, 186, 187. 440 INDEX Dawes, Henry L., on Sumner's share in nomination of Johnson, 273. Demetz, Frederic Auguste, met by Sumner in Paris, 19. Democratic party, nominates Cass in 1848, 57 ; coalesces with Free-Soil- ers in Massachusetts and Ohio, 63 ; adopts Free-Soil principles in Mas- sachusetts, 75 ; coalesces with Free- Soilers and carries legislature, 7G- 80 ; reluctant to support Sumner, 82 ; finally agrees to elect him senator, 83, 84 ; ceases coalition with Free-Soilers after failures of 1853, 100 ; not so great a hindrance to freedom as Whig party, 125 ; successful in election of 1856, 157 ; divides on question of Lecompton constitution, 1G7, 170 ; expectation of help from, by South, 181 ; its platform and defeat in election of 1864, 272; discredited after war, 410 ; nominates Horace Greeley in 1862, 411 ; willingness of Sumner to cooperate with, 417, 418. Denman, Lord Thomas, entertains Sumner, 20. Denmark, negotiates treaty to sell St. Thomas to United States, 361. De Tocqueville, Alexis, meets Sumner in 1857, 159. De Witt, Alexander, signs Address of Independent Democrats, 106. Dexter, Franklin, in suit against Sum- ner, 33. Dickens, Charles, visits Sumner in Washington, 345. Diplomatic history, negotiations con- cerning right of search to enforce slave trade, 30 ; Creole case, 30, 31 ; negotiations relative to annexation of Texas, 42 ; treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, 56 ; arbitration of San Juan boundary, 195 ; the Trent affair, 208-214 ; English demands, 210 ; chance for a diplomatic vic- tory seen by Sumner, 210, 211 ; Seward's reply, 214 ; plan to keep European nations from intervention in Mexico, 220, 221 ; treaty to sup- press slave trade, 223 ; dangers of mediation in 1862, 241 ; dealing regarding " Laird rams," 242, 243 ; seizure of the Florida by the Wa- chusett, 277, 278; Alaska treaty, 338, 339 ; negotiations regarding war claims on England, 341-343 ; treaties regarding rights of Ameri- can naturalized citizens, 355, 356 ; mission of Reverdy Johnson to Eng- land, 357, 360 ; Clarendon-Johnson treaties rejected by Senate, 360, 364-368 ; rejection of treaty for purchase of St. Thomas, 361 ; ap- pointment of Joint High Commis- sion on Alabama claims, 368, 369 ; Geneva arbitration, 368, 369 ; ques- tion of recognition of Cuban belli- gerency, 369 ; query as to cession of Canada, 370 ; negotiations leading to treaties annexing San Domingo, 379-381, 397 ; treaty of Washington, 400. District of Columbia, slave trade abolished in, 71 ; emancipation in, urged by Sumner in 1S61, 205 ; passage of bill to emancipate in, 205-207 ; attempt of Sumner to carry bill to allow negroes to testify in, 224 ; attempts of Sumner to secure negro suffrage in, 2G4 ; equal rights for negroes secured in, 264, 344 ; bill to give negroes suffrage in, 325. Dixon, Archibald, offers amendment to Nebraska act repealing Missouri Compromise, 103. Dixon, James, dissents from Sumner's theory of state suicide, 219. Dodge, Augustus C, introduces bill to organize Nebraska, 102. Doolittle, James S., on Sumner's con- trol over the Senate, 263 ; urges Sumner to withdraw term "white- washing " applied to Johnson's mes- sage, 305. Douglas, Stephen A., offers bills or- ganizing new Territories and admit- ting slavery, 66 ; announces finality of Compromise, 87 ; reports Kansas- Nebraska bill, 104 ; his reasons, 105, 106; denounces Chase and Sum. ner, 106 ; denounces protest of New England clergy, 108 ; reads report on Kansas, 136 ; denounces Emi- grant Aid societies, 137 ; his abusive INDEX 441 language in debate, 137 ; bitter ridi- cule of, by Sumner, 140, 142 ; makes abusive reply, 142, 143 ; bitter re- tort of Sumner to, 143, 144; declines to interfere during Brooks's attack on Sumner, 147 ; speaks against Lecompton constitution, 160, 167 ; his debates with Lincoln, 169; at- tacked by Sumner as candidate for presidency, 176. Dred Scott decision, 165 ; quoted in 18G4 to prevent granting suffrage to negroes, 263 ; ignored by Chase in admitting negro to practice before Supreme Court, 278. Durham, Lord, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21. Ecuador, proposal of Seward to pun- ish, in 1866, 321. Edmunds, George F., offers amend- ment to compel equal suffrage in Nebraska, 326 ; opposes Sumner's amendment to strike out " white " from naturalization acts, 375 ; at- tacks Sumner for criticising Grant, 390 ; favors removal of Sumner from chairmanship, 395 ; defends War Department against Sumner, 408 ; asked by Sumner not to pre- vent action on the civil rights bill, 427. Edmundson, Henry A., prepared to aid Brooks in beating Sumner, 147 ; not censured by House, 149, 150. Election of 1840, indifference of Sum- ner in, 28 ; position of Sumner in election of 1844, 33 ; election of 1848, 56-61; election of 1S52, 96, 97 ; election of 1856, 155, 157 ; con- gressional election of 1858, 169, 170; election of 1860, 176, 177 ; elections of 1862, 234 ; election of 1864, 271- 277 ; congressional elections of 1866, 324 ; election of 1872, 410-417. Eliot, Samuel A., Whig candidate elected to Congress over Sumner, 73. Emancipation, held by Sumner to be the inevitable end of war, 198, 199 ; considered necessary to gain Euro- pean sympathy, 199 ; urged by Sum- ner after Bull Run, 200; disavowed by Crittenden resolution, 200; de- manded publicly by Sumner in 1861, 201, 202; urged by Sumner in con- nection with confiscation bill, 225, 226 ; continually pressed upon Lin- coln by Sumner, 229; Lincoln's pro- clamation declaring, 230 ; Sumner's share in causing, 230; bill to aid it in Missouri, 237 ; introduction of amendments to Constitution abolish- ing slavery, 259-261; completed by fifteenth amendment, 261; attempt of Sumner to hasten by congressional enactment, 269 ; how far gamed by Sumner, 432. Emerson, Ralph Waldo, on Sumner's Phi Beta Kappa oration, 50 ; his bit- ter remark on Webster in 1850, 74; on significance of Brooks's assault on Sumner, 153 ; visits Sumner in Washington, 396 ; on Sumner's moral leadership in 1869, 3G2; Sum- ner's last message to, 430. England, Sumner's visit to, in 1838, 20-23, 24 ; danger of war with, over Oregon question, 34; visited by Sumner in 1857, 159 ; and again in 1S59, 163, 164 ; expectation of South- ern leaders to coerce, through cotton, in 1861, 180 ; considers Seward hos- tile, 208 ; recognizes Southern bel- ligerency, 208 ; demands reparation in Trent affair, 209, 210 ; ready for war, 210 ; sneers at Sumner's speech, 216 ; intervenes in Mexico, 220 ; makes treaty to abolish slave trade, 223; building of Confederate cruisers in, 236 ; mediation by, agitated in Parliament, 241 ; effect of Emanci- pation Proclamation upon, 242 ; strained relations with, in 1862, 242, 243; letters of Sumner to, ur- ging neutrality, 243-248 ; Sumner's speech on errors of, 24S-252 ; indig- nation in, at Seward's speech, 252 ; Sumner's justification of his attack upon, 253 ; denounces seizure of Florida by Wachusett, 277; wishes to settle claims arising out of war, 340; willing to negotiate, but reluc- tant to arbitrate, 341, 342; makes Johnson-Clarendon treaties, 360, 364 ; indirect claims against, state 442 INDEX by Sumner, 365-367 ; indignant at Sumner's language, 368 ; recognizes American claims by consenting to arbitrate, 309 ; mission of Motley to, 370, 371; last visit of Sumner to, 418, 419. Evarts, William M., his special mis- sion to England in 1863, 245 ; anec- dote of, at Sumner's house, 345; conducts defence of Johnson in im- peachment, 348. Everett, Edward, on inevitableness of slavery, 38, 39 ; on Sumner's Phi Beta Kappa oration, 50 ; supports compromise in 1850, 74; elected to Senate, 97 ; presents petition of New England clergy against Nebraska bill, 108 ; applauds seizure of Mason and Slidell, 209. Felton, Cornelius C, his friendship with Sumner, 15, 28. Ferry, Orris S., moves that debate on San Domingo treaty be in open ses- sion, 3S5; opposes removal of Sum- ner from his chairmanship, 395. Fessenden, William P., disagrees with Sumner's theory of state suicide, 219; bitterly opposes Sumner's amendment to national bank bill, 268 ; prefers to persuade rather than oppose Johnson, 295 ; has charge of fourteenth amendment resolution in Senate, 311 ; opposes plan to give land to freedmeu, 333 ; votes against Alaska treaty, 33S; failure of Butler to impress in impeachment case, 348 ; his death, 373 ; eulogized by Sumner, 377. Fillmore, Millard, becomes President, and appoints Webster secretary of state, 72 ; issues proclamation in Shadrach case, 88. Financial History, speech of Sumner on legal tender issue in 1862, 220; attempt of Sumner to exempt na- tional banks from state taxation, 267, 268 ; establishment of new mint, 268; proposal to pay bonds in greenbacks, 352; proposal to tax bonds, 353; specie payment urged by Sumner, 356 ; bill of Sumner to refund the debt and retire green- backs, 376, 377 ; debate on income tax, 377. Fish, Hamilton, enters Senate, 89 ; friendly with Sumner, 89; votes against proposal to repeal Fugitive Slave Act, 92; secretary of state, his relations with Sumner, 363 ; con- sults Sumner regarding diplomatic appointments, 364 ; opposes recogni- tion of Cuban belligerency, 369 ; consults Sumner regarding Motley's instructions, 369; 370; suggests ces- sion of Canada, 370 ; consults Sum- ner as to feeling of Senate regarding Alabama claims, 373 ; signs Bab- cock's instructions, 379 ; urges Sum- ner not to oppose Grant, 385 ; on good relations with Sumner, 392; writes letter bitterly accusing Sum- ner of duplicity, 393; breaks off re- lations with Sumner, 394; says that Sumner delayed action on treaties, 396. Fitzwilliam, Lord, entertains Sumner in 1S38, 21. Florida, prepares for secession in 1S60, ISO; refusal of Congress to recognize reconstructed government of, 309, 310. Floyd, John B., aids secession from Buchanan's Cabinet, 183 ; resigns, 184. Follett, Sir William Webb, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Forney, J. W., says Sumner opposed nomination of Grant, 357; dines with Grant and Sumner, 382. Forster, William E., meets Sumner in 1857, 159. France, Revolution of 1848 in, ap- plauded in United States, 61 ; recog- nizes belligerency of Confederacy, 208 ; intervenes in Mexico to secure payment of debt, 220; resolutions condemning, defeated by Sumner in Senate, 238, 239 ; offers to mediate, 241 ; menacing language of Sumner against, 250 ; illegal sales of arms to, during Franco-German war, 407, 408. Freedmen, their condition after war, 264, 266 ; creation of Bureau to pro- tect, 265, 266 ; oppressed by recon- INDEX 443 structed Southern States, 301, 306, 307 ; bills to protect, introduced by Sumner in 1SG5, 303 ; bill to protect civil rights of, passed, 308, 309 ; ne- cessity of giving suffrage to, 312, 313 ; attempt of Sumner to secure land and free education for, 332- 334, 343 ; Sumner's efforts to se- cure complete equality for, by bis civil rights bill, 402-406, 420, 426- 428. Free-Soil party, called for by vote of Conscience Whigs in Massachusetts, 58; formed at Buffalo convention, 59; its campaign in Massachusetts, 60; continues activity in 1849, 62; begins to combine with Democrats and Whigs in different States, 63; denounces Webster and the com- promises, 73, 74 ; plans coalition in Massachusetts with Democrats, 75- 77 ; its platform in 1850, 79 ; urges Sumner for senator, 80, 81 ; refuses to drop Sumner in order to please Democrats, 83 ; renews coalition in 1851, 85 ; determines to act alone, in 1852, and nominates Hale and Ju- lian, 96 ; casts small vote, 97 ; loses ground in Massachusetts, 99, 100 ; members of, publish " Appeal of In- dependent Democrats," 106; joins Republican party, 122. Frelinghuysen, Frederick T., opposes proposal to give land to freedmen, 333 ; defends War Department against Sumner, 408 ; promises Sum- ner not to prevent action on the civil rights bill, 427. Fremont, John C, Republican candi- date in 1856, 157 ; his order emanci- pating slaves annulled, 198. French Spoliation Claims, Sumner's report on, 267. Fugitive Slave Law, passed in 1850, its terms, 71 ; stirs indignation in North, 74, 75 ; denunciation of, by Sumner, 77-S0; agitation against, in 1851, 87, 88; Shadrach rescue under, 88 ; attacked by Sumner in Senate, 92, 94, 95; agitation against, after Burns case, 110, 118; blocked by personal liberty acts, 121, 122; at- tempt to repeal defeated, 126, 127 j enforced during war, 198 ; repealed in 1864, 261. Garfield, James A., votes for bill au- thorizing President to protect citi- zens by reprisals on foreigners, 355. Garrison, William Lloyd, publishes " Liberator," 37 ; mobbed in Boston, 39 ; introduces resolutions condemn- ing Sumner for his silence in the Senate, 91 ; attacks Sumner bitterly in 1872, 415. Georgia, movement for disunion in, 180. Germany, visit of Sumner to, in 1839- 1840, 23, 24. Giddings, Joshua R., his views sympa- thized with by Sumner, 33 ; votes against Winthrop for speaker, 55; urges Sumner to accept Free-Soil nomination for Senate, 81 ; re- nounces Fugitive Slave Law, 88 ; signs " Appeal of Independent Democrats," 106; reward offered for his head in Virginia, 174. Gladstone, William Ewart, meets Sumner, 159, 164; proclaims success of South, 242; bitter comment of Sumner on, 245. Gott, Daniel, moves to forbid slavery in District of Columbia, 67. Grant, Ulysses S., proposal to nomi- nate in 1864, 271 ; sends optimistic report of state of South in 1865, 304, 305 ; not anxious that England should pay Alabama claims, 341 ; attempt of Johnson to appoint sec- retary of war, 347 ; candidate for presidency in 1868, 356, 357 ; dis- trusts politicians and selects Cabinet independently, 359 ; incompatible with Sumner, 359 ; not trusted by Sumner from outset, 359, 360 ; wishes Johnson treaties left to be considered by new administration, 360 ; his Cabinet, 363 ; wishes law changed so as to permit Stewart to be secretary of treasury, 363, 364 ; favors recognition of Cuban belli- gerency, 369 : wishes annexation of San Domingo, 379 ; sends Babcock to investigate, 379 ; authorizes Bab- cock to make treaties of annex- 444 INDEX ation, 3S0 ; his popularity enables him to escape censure, 381 ; asks Sumner to support treaties, 382 ; his ignorance of the Senate, 382 ; afterwards says Sumner promised support, 3S2 ; considers opposition as insubordination and disloyalty, 383, 3S4 ; sends messages urging rati- fication, and uses personal influ- ence, 385; not attacked in Sumner's speech against annexation, 385,386; removes Motley to punish Sumner, 386 ; renews argument for annexa- tion of San Domingo, 387 ; attacked by Sumner in speech on San Do- mingo, 389 ; becomes bitterly hos- tile to Sumner, 390 ; sends papers concerning Motley's removal to Sen- ate, 392 ; bitterly attacked by Sum- ner in Senate, 398 ; sends another San Domingo message, 399 ; refuses to be reconciled to Sumner, 401 ; comes under Butler's influence, 401 ; argument against his reelection by Sumner, 402 ; uses patronage to benefit friends, 410 ; his popularity makes renomination inevitable, 410 ; [- movement against, in Republican party, 410 ; determination of Sum- ner to oppose, 412 ; arraigned by Sumner as danger to the country, 413-415 ; extravagance of Sumner's attack on, 415, 416. Greeley, Horace, favors permitting secession in 1S60, 184 ; urges re- election of Sumner, 234 ; opposes renomination of Lincoln, 271 ; de- mands negro suffrage in 1865, 295 ; nominated for President in 1872, 411 ; intention of supporting him announced by Sumner, 416, 418 ; his death, 419. Greenleaf , Simon, teaches in Harvard Law School, 7 ; introduces Sumner to Kent, 11 ; assisted by Sumner, 14 ; advises Sumner to return from England, 24. Grimes, James W., favors bill to au- thorize privateering, 239 ; opposes Freedman's Bureau bill, 266 ; his attitude in impeachment trial, 348. Groesbeck, William S., his argument in Johnson impeachment, 349. Grote, George, met by Sumner in 1883, 21. Grote, Mrs. Harriet Lewin, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Hale, John P., elected to Senate by a coalition, 63 ; strong in debate but not aggressive, 86 ; denounces Fu- gitive Slave Act, 88 ; nominated for presidency, 97 ; fails of reelection to Senate, 101 ; his speech on Trent affair, 214. Hallam, Henry, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Halleck, Henry W., orders that fugi- tive slaves be not received, 204. Hamlin, Hannibal, his renomination in 1S64 not prevented by Sumner, 272, 273 ; favors removal of Sumner from his chairmanship, 395. Hammond, James H., predicts a bloody fight in Congress, 172 ; pre- dicts success to South from cotton power, 180. Harcourt, William Vernon, denounces and sneers at Lincoln, Seward, and Sumner in Trent affair, 216. Harlan, James, favors bill to retali- ate on Confederate prisoners, 280; favors annexation of San Domingo, 385. Harrison, William Henry, voted for by Sumner in 1840, 28 ; favors in- eligibility of President for reelec- tion, 401. Harvard College, gives Job Sumner honorary degree, 2 ; studies of C. P. Sumner at, 3 ; studies of Sumner at, 5-10 ; cost of, compared by Sum- ner to a warship, 36. Harvard Law School, studies of Sum- ner at, 7 ; services of Sumner as in- structor in, 14 ; position in, declined by Sumner, 24. Hatherton, Lord, visited by Sumner in 1859, 164. Hawthorne, Nathaniel, meets Sumner in Rome, 163. Hayti, recognition of, secured by Sum- ner, 221, 222; San Domingo pro- tected against by Grant's order, 380, 381. Hayward, Abraham, meets Sumner in INDEX 445 1838, 21 ; on Sumner's social suc- cess, 22. Hendricks, Thomas A., taunts Repub- licans with subservience to Sum- ner, 262. Hill, Joshua, on civil rights bill, 403. Hillard, George S., law partner of Sumner, 13 ; member of " Five of Clubs," 15 ; elected to legislature, 15 ; delivers Phi Beta Kappa ora- tion, 29. Hoar, E. Rockwood, leader of Con- science Whigs, 44 ; describes Sum- ner's appearance, 231 ; attorney- general under Grant, 3G3 ; opposes recognition of Cuban belligerency, 369 ; with Sumner the day before his death, 430 ; his eulogy of Sum- ner, 430. Hoar, Samuel, expelled from South Carolina, 40 ; Free-Soiler in 1850, 74 ; opposes coalition with Demo- crats, 76. Holland, Lord, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21. Holmes, Oliver Wendell, on Sumner's lack of humor, 14. Hook, Theodore, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Hooper, Mrs., her marriage to Sum- ner, 323, 324. House of Representatives, petition contest in, 40 ; passes Mexican war bill, 45 ; division of Conscience and Cotton Whigs in, 55 ; struggle in over Wilmot Proviso, 56 ; passes bill to organize Territories without slavery, 67 ; speakership struggle in, 69 ; agitation in, against Fugitive Slave Law, 88 ; passes Kansas-Ne- braska bill, 107 ; appoints commit- tee to investigate Brooks assault, 149 ; censures Brooks and Keitt but declines to expel them, 150 ; adopts report declaring territorial government of Kansas fraudulent, 157 ; defeats bill to admit Kansas under Lecompton constitution, 168; adopts English bill as compromise, 169 ; passes bill to admit Kansas under free constitution, 171 ; ap- points special committee on state of Union, 186 ; discusses elaborate compromise reports, 188 ; passes Crittenden resolution on object of war, 200 ; resolves against return- ing of slaves by soldiers, 201, 205 ; thanks Wilkes in Trent affair, 209; rejects bill to permit negroes to carry mails, 224 ; passes bill to aid emancipation in Missouri, 237; re- jects proposal to allow negro suf- frage in Montana, 263 ; passes act amending neutrality laws, 319 ; im- peaches Johnson, 347 ; passes bill to authorize reprisals on foreigners for seizures of American citizens, 353, 354. Houston, Samuel, on needlessness of Nebraska bill, 105. Howard, Jacob M., favors resolutions to retaliate on Southern prisoners, 280. Howe, Dr. S. G., in Boston in 1840, 28; praises Sumner's unselfishness, 29 ; candidate of Conscience Whigs against Winthrop, 52. Howe, Timothy O., favors bill to re- taliate on Confederate prisoners, 289 ; reports committees excluding Sumner from his chairmanship, 395 ; argues that he has offended Presi- dent and blocks annexation, 395. Humboldt, Alexander von, visited by Sumner, 24. Hume, Joseph, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21. Hunt, Leigh, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Hunter, R. M. T., moves payment of unusual expenses in executing United States laws, 92. Hyatt, Thaddeus, refuses to testify before congressional committee on John Brown, 171. Illinois, campaign of 1858 in, 169. Impeachment, of Johnson, suggested in 1867, 332 ; carried out in 1869, 347 ; conduct of, 347-351 ; ques- tions at issue in, 348, 350 ; position of chief justice in, 350. Ingham, Robert, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Inglis, Sir Robert, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21, 24. 446 INDEX Italy, visit of Sumner to, in 1839, 23. Iverson, Alfred, says war in 1860 is impossible, 181. Jackson, Andrew, loathing of Kent for, 11 ; presentation of Sumner to, 11; says slavery question is at bot- tom of nullification, 37, 187 ; quoted by Sumner in 1861, 187 ; favors in- eligibility of President for reelec- tion, 401. Jacob, Relief, marries C. P. Sumner, 4 ; mother of Charles Sumner, 4, 5. Jameson, Mrs. Anna, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Jeffrey, Francis Lord, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Johnson, Andrew, introduces Critten- den resolution on object of war into the Senate, 200; governor of Ten nessee, 227 ; nominated for vice- president in place of Hamlin, 272 ; disliked by Lincoln, 289 ; assures Sumner of entire agreement with his views, 291; leads public to ex- pect severity toward South, 293 ; issues amnesty proclamation, 293 ; reasons for his apparent change of purpose, 293 ; his policy criticised, 294 ; opposition to, divided in 1865, 294-296 ; Southern pressure on, de- scribed by Sumner, 296 ; appealed to in vain by Stevens, 299 ; his plan of reconstruction, 300 ; visited by Sumner, 302 ; definite rupture of Sumner with, 303 ; sends Grant's and Schurz's reports on condition of South to Congress, 304 ; his mes- sage denounced by Sumner as " whitewashing," 305 ; discredited by Schurz's report, 307 ; vetoes Freedman's Bureau bill, 308 ; vetoes civil rights bill, 309 ; makes violent speeches against opponents in Con- gress, 314 ; vetoes bill to admit Col- orado, 315 ; does not sign bill to admit Nebraska, 316 ; signs resolu- tion admitting Tennessee, 316 ; at- tacks Congress in a series of inde- cent speeches, 321, 322 ; uses pat- ronage to build up support, 322, 329 ; bitter attack of Sumner upon, 323 ; vetoes bill for negro suffrage in district, 325; necessity of re- straining by Tenure of Office bill stated by Sumner, 330, 331 ; fear of Congress to leave him without su- pervision, 337 ; refuses to sign bill to prevent exclusion of negroes from office in district, 344 ; removes Stanton, 346 ; violates Tenure of Office Act, 347 ; tries to expel Stan- ton by force through Grant and Thomas, 347 ; impeached by the House, 347 ; trial of, 348-351 ; ap- points Reverdy Johnson minister to England, 357. Johnson, Reverdy, insists, in 1864, that negroes are not citizens, 263 ; says that Sumner's opinions disqualify him to sit on impeachment of John- son, 331 ; appointed minister to England, 357; negotiates treaties with Great Britain, 360 ; his effu- siveness toward England arouses prejudices against treaties, 364. Jones, James C, threatens disunion if Fugitive Slave Act be not en- forced, 111. Josselyn, Mary, ancestor of Sumner, 1. Julian, George W., nominated for vice-president, 96. Kansas, organization of, proposed, 104, 105 ; not really inhabited at all, 105 ; left to settle slavery ques- tion, 131 ; purpose of North to set- tle with Free-Soilers, 132 ; invaded by Missourians, 132, 133 ; controlled by sham elections, 133 ; adopts pro- slavery code, 133 ; Northern set- tlers of, form Topeka constitution, 133, 134; narrow escape from civil war in, 134 ; state government formed in, 135 ; attitude of Presi- dent Pierce toward, 135, 136 ; be- ginning of violence in, 137 ; guerrilla warfare in, 156 ; election of Lecomp- ton convention in, 165, 166 ; carried by free-state men, 160 ; attempt to force Lecompton constitution on, 167, 168 ; rejects Lecompton con- stitution in 1858, 168 ; struggle over, in Congress, 169 ; rejects Le- compton constitution again under provisions of English bill, 169 j abol- INDEX 447 ishes slavery and draws up a new constitution, 170. Kansas-Nebraska bill, early stages in formation of, 10'2-104 ; its final form as reported by Douglas, 104. Keitt, L. M., ready to aid Brooks in beating Sumner, 147 ; censured by House, 149, 150 ; resigns and is reelected, 150. Kendall, Amos, his attitude on aboli- tion matter in the mails, 39. Kent, James, visited by Sumner, 11 ; comments of Sumner on, 11 ; sup- ports English claim to right of search, 30. Kentucky, emancipation convention in, 68. Kenyon, John, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Know-Nothing party, origin of, 123 ; carries Massachusetts, 123 ; serves useful purpose in breaking up Whig party, 124 ; divides on slavery ques- tion in 1855, 128. Kossuth, Louis, tribute of Sumner to, 90. Ku-Klux, measures against, 399, 405. Landor, Walter S. , met by Sumner in 1S3S, 21. Langdale, Baron Henry B., entertains Sumner, 20. Lansdowne, Lord, entertains Sumner in 183S, 21. Lawrence, William Beach, visits Sum- ner in Washington, 34G. Leicester, Lord, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21. Lewis, George Cornewall, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21. Liberal Republicans, oppose Grant's renomination, 410 ; unable to secure a leader, 411 ; make a blunder in naming Horace Greeley, 411 ; con- nection of Sumner with, 411-416, 418. "Liberator," fails to arouse Sumner, 16. Liberia, recognition of, 222. Lieber, Francis, acquaintance of Sum- ner with, 11 ; informs Sumner of plan to request Lincoln to withdraw in 1864, 271. Lincoln, Abraham, his debates with Douglas, 169 ; elected President, 176, 177 ; his election the signal for disunion, 179 ; his attitude on com- promises, 193 ; inaugurated, 194 ; regrets rejecting Sumner's advice in a diplomatic appointment, 195 ; sends message on San Juan arbitra- tion, 195 ; annuls Fremont's eman- cipation order, 198 ; wisdom of his policy, 198 ; agrees with Sumner as to necessity of abolishing slavery, 199 ; urged by Sumner to act in 1861, 199, 200 ; teUs Sumner he is not yet ready to act, 203 ; urges colonization, 204 ; consults with Sumner about offering federal aid to state emancipation, 205 ; urged by Sumner not to delay signing bill for abolition in the district, 207 ; in signing, points out certain flaws in bill, 207 ; doubtful about Trent affair, 209 ; urged by Sumner to surrender Mason and Slidell, 210, 211 ; wishes to confer personally with Lyons, 212 ; his desire for peace, 213 ; sends papers on Trent affair to Senate, 214 ; sneered at by English, 216 ; submits Corwin's Mexican project to Senate, 220 ; suggests recognition of Hayti and Liberia, 221 ; announces ratification of slave trade treaty, 223 ; appoints military governors, 227 ; continues to be urged by Sumner, 229 ; issues emancipation proclamation, 230 ; Sumner's judgment on, 230 ; re- fuses to accept resignations of Sew- ard and Chase, 236 ; recommends federal aid to emancipation in Mis- souri, 237 ; urged by Seward not to issue letters of marque, 243 ; adopts idea of forcing neutrality through English courts, 245 ; shown Cob- den's and Bright's letters, 247 ; his theory of reconstruction, 255, 256 ; Republican opposition to his renom- ination, 271 ; efforts to secure his withdrawal, 271 ; Sumner's opinion of, in 1864, 272, 273, 274 ; hesitates to appoint Chase chief justice, 278 ; urges recognition of Louisiana under Banks's governorship, 282 ; issues 448 INDEX reconstruction proclamation, 2 S3 ; vetoes congressional reconstruction bill, 284 ; stirs up opposition in Congress, 2S5 ; his policy criticised, 287 ; continues on good terms with Sumner, 288 ; visits army with Sumner, 289 ; his dislike for John- son, 289 ; his assassination, 290 ; his gentleness toward rebels de- scribed by Sumner, 291 ; eulogized by Sumner, 292 ; proposal to con- tract for a statue of, 319 ; like Sum- ner in his faith in equal rights, 432. Lincoln, Mrs. Mary Todd, thanks Sumner for his kindness after Lin- coln's assassination, 290 ; a pension secured for by Sumner, 378. Logan, John A., opposes removal of Sumner from his chairmanship, 395. Longfellow, Henry W., forms friend- ship with Sumner, 15, 28, 29 ; on Sumner's probable career in poli- tics, 00, 61 ; on Sumner's lack of elation on being elected to Senate, 84 ; praises Sumner's Kansas speech, 145; suggests testimonial to Sum- ner in 1856, 155. Louisiana, beginnings of secession in, 180 ; reconstructed under Lincoln's rule by Banks, 282-284. Lovejoy, Elijah P., killed in 1838, 39. Lowell, James Russell, Free-Soil leader in 1850, 74. Lundy, Benjamin, 37. Lushington, Dr. Stephen, meets Sum- ner in 1838, 21 ; and again in 1857, 159; entertains him in 1859, 164. Lyndhurst, Lord, heard by Sumner in Parliament, 22. Lyons, Lord, his instructions in Trent affair, 208. Macaulay, Thomas B., met by Sumner in 1838, 21. McDougall, James A., introduces reso- lutions condemning French inter- vention in Mexico, 238, 239. Mann, Horace, aided by Sumner, 29; Free-Soil leader in 1850, 74; denounces Fugitive Slave Law, Martineau, Harriet, met by Sumner in 1838, 21, 26. Marvin, William, refused admission as senator from Florida, 310. Mason, James M., introduces Fugitive Slave Law, 69; sits near Sumner, 89; accuses Sumner of insulting Senate, 112; haughty reply of Sumner to, 115, 116; denounces Sumner after his Kansas speech, 143; moves that Senate elect committee of inquiry after Brooks assault, 148; praises Brooks, 150; moves commitment of Hyatt, 171; calls up Crittenden compromise for a final vote, 188 ; captured by Wilkes in 1861, 208 ; his surrender demanded by Eng- land, 209. Mason, Jeremiah, acquainted with Sumner, 28. Massachusetts, sends Hoar to test South Carolina seaman laws, 40 ; opposes annexation of Texas, 43; controversy in, between Conscience and Cotton Whigs, 46-55 ; formation of Free-Soil party in, 58-60 ; strug- gle of Free-Soilers in against com- promise, 73, 74 ; election of 1850 in, 75-80 ; carried by Free-Soil and Democratic coalition, 80; senatorial election in, 80-84; campaign of 1851 in, 85; carried by Whigs in 1852, 97, 98; constitutional convention of 1853 in, 99, 100; carried by Whigs in 1853, 100 ; rejects new constitution, 100 ; urged by Sumner to counter- act Fugitive Slave Law, 119 ; passes personal liberty acts, 121 ; carried by Know-Nothings in 1854, 123 ; cam- paign of 1855 in, 128 130 ; denounces Brooks's assault on Sumner, 152 ; carried by Republicans in 1856, re- elects Sumner to Senate, 157 ; Re- publican campaign of 1860 in, 176; urged by Sumner not to repeal per- sonal liberty acts, 191 ; petition from, in favor of Crittenden resolutions, 193 ; campaign of 1862, in for Sum- ner's reelection, 233-235 ; reelects Sumner to Senate in 1868, 356 ; Re- publican nomination in, withheld from Butler by Sumner's influence, 400 ; censures Sumner for opposing INDEX 449 registration of victories over South, 421, 422 ; finally rescinds the cen- sure, 422, 429. Mayflower, Sumner's comparison of, with the Jamestown slave-ship, 275. Metternich, Prince, receives Sumner in 1839, 24. Mexico, danger of war with in 1845, 34 ; war with, brought on, by Polk and Taylor, 45 ; defeated in 1847, 53 ; makes peace, 56 ; intervention of France, England, and Spain in, 220 ; attempt of Corwin to get United States to lend it enough to pay creditors, 220 ; intervention of France in, condemned in Senate, 239. Milnes, Monckton, meets Sumner in 1838, 21, 24. Mississippi, secession party in, during 1S50, 88 ; prepares for secession in 1S60, 180 ; completion of recon- struction in, 375. Missouri, forms associations to keep free-state emigrants out of Kansas, 132 ; ruffians from, control territorial elections, 132, 133 ; its slave code adopted by Kansas, 133 ; invasions from, into Kansas continue, 137 ; bill to aid emancipation in, 237. Missouri Compromise, temporarily removes slavery from politics, 3G ; its repeal proposed in 1854, 103, 104. Mittermaier, Karl Joseph, visited by Sumner, 24. Montagu, Basil, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Montana, organized without negro suffrage, 263. Morpeth, Lord, becomes friend of Sumner, 21. Morrill, Justin H., replies to Grant's San Domingo message, 399. Morrill, Lot M., in debate on bill to organize Montana, 263 ; ignorant of any attempt by Sumner to secure nomination of Johnson, 273 ; votes against Alaska treaty, 338 ; opposes removal of Sumner from his chair- manship, 395. Morton, Oliver P., unwilling to oppose Johnson in 1SG5, 295 ; favors power of Congress to impose conditions on States admitted to Union, 374 ; fa- vors annexation of San Domingo, 385 ; offers resolution for a commis- sion to investigate San Domingo, 388 ; defends War Department against Sumner, 408. Motley, John Lothrop, meets Sumner in Rome, 163; entertains him in England, 164 ; visits Sumner in Washington, 345 ; appointed minis- ter to England, 3G4 ; his instructions, 369, 370, 371 ; removed from office to punish Sumner, 386. Murat, Madame, met by Sumner in Paris, 19. Napoleon III., offers to mediate in 1862, 241 ; denounced by Sumner for his Mexican policy, 250, 251. Naturalization, privilege of, secured to negroes by Sumner, 375, 376. Nebraska, uninhabited by white men in 1854, 105 ; failure of attempt to admit as a State in 1866, 316 ; ad- mitted as a State with negro suf- frage, 326, 327. Negro suffrage, attempt of Sumner to secure in Montana, 263 ; defeated in District of Columbia, 264 ; attempt of Sumner to secure in reconstruc- tion act of 1864, 284 ; and again in 1865, 286 ; its necessity to secure rights of freedmen, 288, 289; advo- cated by Sumner in speeches and otherwise in 1865, 292, 294-299; bills to secure introduced by Sumner in 1S65, 303 ; proposed amendment to secure by indirection, opposed by Sumner, 310-314 ; attempt of Sum- ner to secure in Colorado, 315; and in Nebraska and Tennessee, 316 ; altered popular opinion toward, 324, 325; secured in District, 325; in Nebraska, and Colorado, 326, 327 ; in the Territories, 327; secured in reconstruction act, 328 ; attempt of Sumner to secure in North, 344. New Mexico, petitions against allow- ing slavery, 66 ; peonage abolished in, 329. North, indifferent to slavery in 1831, 38 ; persecution of abolitionists in, 39, 40; begins to be forced into op. 450 INDEX posing slavery, 41; opposes exten- sion of slavery into Territories, 66, 67; attacked by Calhoun, 67; ap- plauds Sumner's reply to Butler, 116; passes personal liberty laws, 121, 122; its union against South predicted by Sumner, 128; sends emigrants to Kansas, 132 ; indig- nant at Brooks's assault on Sum- ner, 152, 153 ; expected by South to fall into anarchy, 181 ; blamed by Buchanan for secession, 183 ; appalled at secession movement, calls for compromise, 184 ; fear of disunionists of uniting by too vigor- ous action, 185 ; compromise dis- cussion in, 189-194 ; expects Eng- lish sympathy, 208 ; angry at English attitude, 208 ; enthusiastic over Trent capture, 209 ; favors reten- tion of envoys, 210 ; applauds Sum- ner's speech against England, 248- 253 ; impressed by Sumner's speech on condition of South, 307. "North American Review," contribu- tions of Sumner to, 14. North Carolinia, process of recon- struction in, 293. Northcote, Sir Stafford, on Sumner's Claims speech, 368. Norton, Mrs. Caroline E. S., meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Nye, James W., favors removal of Sumner from his chairmanship, 395. O'Connell, Daniel, heard by Sumner in 1838, 22. Otis, James, quoted by Sumner in 1866, 312. Palfrey, John G., leader of Conscience Whigs, 43 ; at Whig convention, offers resolutions against support- ing any pro-slavery candidate, 54 ; votes against Winthrop for speaker, 55 ; tries in vain to introduce bill to abolish all laws regarding slavery, 67 ; leader of Free-Soilers in cam- paign of 1850, 74 ; opposes Free-Soil and Democratic coalition, 76. Palmerston, Lord, meets Sumner in 1857, 159. Pardessus, Jean Marie, met by Sumner in Paris, 20. Paris, visit of Sumner to, in 1838, 18- 20 ; and in 1839, 23 ; third visit of Sumner to, in 1857, 158 ; fourth visit in 1858, 161, 163 ; last visit of Sumner to, 418. Parke, Baron James, entertains Sum- ner, 20. Parker, Theodore, opposes compro- mise of 1850, 74. Parkes, Joseph, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Patterson, James W., opposes annex- ation of San Domingo, 385 ; pro- posal to drop from committee on foreign relations, 388 ; acts as inter- mediary between Fish and Sumner, 394. Peace Conference of 1861, 182, 192, 194. Peel, Sir Robert, heard by Sumner in Parliament, 22. Personal Liberty Acts, their consti- tutionality, 121, 122 ; debated in Senate, 126. Pettit, John, abuses Sumner in 1855, 112. Phillips, Stephen C, suggested aB senatorial candidate in 1851 instead of Sumner, 83. Phillips, Wendell, schoolmate of Sum- ner, 5 ; gains reputation before Sumner, 15 ; delivers speech in Faneuil Hall, 25; criticises Sumner's slowness to attack slavery in Senate, 91 ; willing to allow secession in 1S60, 184 ; urges reelection of Sum- ner, 234 ; denounced by Johnson, 314 ; on Sumner's breaking health, 392 ; disapproves of Sumner's attack on Grant, 415. Pickering, John, eulogized by Sumner, 50. Pierce, Franklin, his first presidential message, 102 ; favors Kansas-Ne- braska bill, 104 ; declines to inter- fere in Kansas, 133 ; sends special message on Kansas, recognizing Border Ruffian government, 135 ; sends documents, 136 ; his Kansas message compared with Johnson's of 1865, 305. i INDEX 451 Pierce, Henry L., visits Sumner shortly before his death, 430. Polk, James K., sends message an- nouncing Mexican war, 45 ; asks for appropriation to buy territory, 56 ; his message urging organiza- tion of new Territories with Mis- souri Compromise line, 65, 66. Pollock, Sir Frederick, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Pool, John, favors removal of Sumner from his chairmanship, 395. Poore, Ben : Perley, dines with Grant and Sumner, 382 ; visits Sumner shortly before his death, 430. Prescott, William, in Boston in 1840, 28 ; writes " Conquest of Mexico," 29 ; favors English contention for right of search, 30 ; supports Com- promise Whigs in 1850, 74. Privateering, bill to permit, passed by Congress, 239-241 ; not employed by Lincoln's administration, 241. Quincy, Josiah, Free-Soil leader in 1850, 74 ; suggests testimonial for Sumner in 1856, 155. Raasloff, General, urges ratification of St. Thomas treaty, 361. Rand, Benjamin, studies of Sumner in his office, 10. Ranke, Leopold von, visited by Sum- ner, 24. Raumer, Frederick L. G. von, visited by Sumner, 24. Rawlins, General J., tries to secure recognition of Cuban belligerency, 369. Ream, Vinnie, attempt of Sumner to prevent contract with, for a statue of Lincoln, 319. Reconstruction, plan of, foreshad- owed in Sumner's theory of state suicide, 217-219 ; failure of bill to establish temporary governments, 227 ; begun by Lincoln's appoint- ments of military governors, 227, 228 ; Lincoln's theory of, 255 ; Sumner's desire to delay, 255, 256 ; Sumner's article upon, in 1863, 256- 258 ; Sumner's resolutions upon, in 1864, 259 ; its process in Arkansas, 269 ; carried through in Louisiana, 283 ; passage of reconstruction act by Congress in 1864, 284 ; act vetoed by Lincoln, 285 ; further attempt to act upon in Congress in 18G5, 285, 286 ; Johnson's policy regard- ing, 293; amnesty proclamation, 293; process of reconstruction in North Carolina, 293 ; carrying out of John- son's plan, 300, 301 ; Freedman's Bureau and Civil Rights acts, 30S, 309 ; passage of fourteenth amend- ment, 316, 317 ; passage of recon- struction act, 327-329 ; proposal of Sumner to amend so as to include compulsory education, 334 ; discus- sion of wisdom of congressional policy, 335-337 ; passage of act ad- mitting States on condition of ratify- ing fourteenth amendment, 351 ; ad- mission of Virginia and Mississippi, 374, 375 ; amnesty act, 406. Reeder, Andrew H., governor of Kan- sas, 132 ; lacks courage to annul elections in 1855, 133. Republican party, causes for, 117 ; its formation in North, 117 ; formed in Massachusetts, 118, 122 ; nominates Fremont in 1856, 157 ; in election of 1858, 170; doubts wisdom of Sumner's speech on slavery in 1859, 175 ; succeeds in election of 18G0, 176 ; disregards threats of secession 178, 179 ; panic struck in 1861, 184 ; variety of policies suggested by, 185 ; depressed in 18G2, 233 ; loses ground in elections, 234 ; leaders of, ask dismissal of Seward, 230 ; oppo- sition in, to Lincoln's renomination, 271, 272, 274 ; substitutes Johnson for Hamlin, 272, 273 ; leaders of, doubtful how to act regarding Johnson, 295 ; becomes settled on policy of carrying through recon- struction, 309 ; successful in elec- tion of 1866, 324 ; votes to do no- thing in Congress, in 1S67, except push reconstruction, 342, 343 ; re- fusal of Sumner to be bound by caucus rule of, 343 ; national con- vention pledges to pay debt of gov- ernment, 352 ; nominates Grant in 1868, 357 ; popularity of Grant 452 INDEX among masses of, 410 ; movement in, against Grant's renomination, 410 ; successful in election of 1S72, 411 ; reluctance of Sumner to leave, 411-412 ; denounces Sumner, 415, 416 ; depraved character of, under Grant's second term, 423, 424 ; ex- cludes Sumner from caucus, 424, 426. Revels, Hiram R., a negro admitted as senator from Mississippi, 375. Robeson, George W., authorizes Bab- cock to use navy to protect Baez government in San Domingo, 3S0, 381. Rock, J. S., a negro admitted to bar of Supreme Court, 278. Rockwell, Julius, presents in Senate petition for repeal of Fugitive Slave Act, 110; refuses to answer Butler's question, 111 ; Republican candi- date for governor in Massachusetts, 129. Roebuck, John Arthur, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21. Rogers, Samuel, met by Sumner in 1838, 21, 24. Rolfe, Robert M. [Baron Chan- worth], meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Russell, Lord John, heard by Sumner in 1838, 22 ; meets Sumner in 1857, 159 ; sends dispatch demanding re- lease of Mason and Slidell, within seven days, 209 ; rejects Seward's argument on Trent affair, 214 ; his irritating tone, 242 ; his controversy with Adams over Laird rams, 242, 243 ; apparently expects war, 253. Russia, offers mediation, 241 ; friend- ly relations with, 247 ; cedes Alaska, 338. St. Thomas, treaty for acquisition of, rejected by the Senate, 361. San Domingo, rivalry of Baez and Cabral over, 379 ; treaty for annex- ation of, made by Baez with Bab- cock under Grant's instructions, 379, 380 ; intervention of American navy in, 380, 381 ; ratification of treaty with, urged by Grant, 382, 383, 3S7 ; treaty of annexation re- jected, 386 ; appointment of com- mission to investigate, 391 ; further debate upon behavior of Grant toward, 397-399 ; plan to annex, abandoned, 399. Savigny, Frederick Karl, visited by Sumner, 24. Schurz, Carl, sends report describing bad condition of South in 1S65, 305, 307 ; member of committee on for- eign relations, 374 ; opposes annexa- tion of San Domingo, 385 ; opposes removal of Sumner from his chair- manship, 395 ; defends Sumner in debate, 399 ; attacked for support- ing Sumner in demanding investiga- tion of government sales of arms, 408 ; invited to testify before com- mittee of investigation, 409; op- poses reelection of Grant, 410 ; his eulogy of Sumner, 420 ; with Sum- ner on the day of his death, 430. Scott, Winfield, approves Sumner's motion relative to names of victories on Union flags, 228. Secession, threatened seriously in 1850, 70 ; again threatened in 1851, 88 ; threats of, in 1S60, despised by North, 178, 179 ; carried out by South in 1860-61, 179-182. Segar, Joseph, his admission as sena- tor from Virgiuia opposed by Sum- ner, 286. Senate, visited by Sumner during de- bates on bank bill, 11, 12; passes Mexican war bill, 45; Free-Soil members of, in 1851, 86, 87 ; de- bate in, on Shadrach case, 88 ; Sum- ner's beginnings in, 89, 90 ; refuses to permit Sumner to speak on Fugi- tive Slave Law, 92; Sumner's speech in, on Freedom and Slavery, 92-95; debate in, on Sumner's speech, 95 ; debate in, on executive sessions, 98 ; bill to organize Ne- braska introduced into, 102 ; final introduction of Kansas-Nebraska bill into, 103, 104 ; bitter debates in, on bill, 106-109 ; debate in, between Sumner and Butler, 111-116 ; de- bate in, on personal liberty acts, 126; first debate in, on Kansas, 136 ; debate on majority report of committee on territories, recogniz- INDEX 453 ing fraudulent government, 136, 137 ; Sumner's speech in, on the crime against Kansas, 138-142 ; vir- ulent debate in, between Sumner, Douglas, and Cass, 142-145 ; Brooks assaults Sumner in, 145-147 ; ap- points unfriendly committee to in- vestigate affair, 148 ; declines to take any action, 149 ; passes tariff of 1857, 156 ; first debate in, on Lecompton constitution, 167 ; passes bill to admit Kansas under Lecomp- ton constitution, 169 ; compromises with House, 169 ; passes pro-slavery resolutions, 171 ; Sumner's speech in, on " barbarism " of slavery, 172-175 ; debates Crittenden com- promise, 187, 188 ; passes amend- ment to Constitution, 194 ; passes Crittenden resolution on object of war, 200 ; passes act prohibiting re- turn of fugitive slaves by soldiers, 204, 205 ; debates bill to emancipate slaves in district, 205, 206 ; discusses Trent affair, 213, 215 ; debates Sum- ner's resolutions on state suicide, 219 ; rejects proposal to protect Mexico against European interven- tion, 220, 221 ; debates bill to send representatives to Hayti and Libe- ria, 222 ; ratifies treaty to suppress slave trade, 223 ; passes bill to per- mit negroes to carry mails, 223 ; re- jects bill to permit negroes to tes- tify in District, 224 ; passes confis- cation bill, 226, 227 ; admits West Virginia with gradual emancipation proviso, 227 ; debates bill to aid emancipation in Missouri, 237 ; de- bates resolutions censuring French intervention in Mexico, 233 ; de- bates bill to issue letters of marque, 239-241 ; passes resolutions against mediation, 241 ; struggle in, over repeal of Fugitive Slave Act, 260 ; reluctant to pass act to permit negroes to testify in federal courts, 262 ; control of Sumner over, 262, 263 ; does not insist upon negro suffrage in Montana, 263 ; defeats negro suffrage in District of Colum- bia, 264 ; debate in, on Freedman's Bureau, 266 ; debates national banks, 267, 268 ; refuses to recog- nize reconstructed government of Arkansas, 269 ; passes resolution to retaliate for treatment of Northern prisoners, 279-281 ; debates reports on condition of South, 304-307 ; de- bates proposed fourteenth amend- ment, 310-314 ; rejects negro suf- frage in Colorado, 315 ; miscellane- ous business in, 318, 319 ; kept by Sumner from considering bill to amend neutrality laws, 319, 320 ; debates negro suffrage in new States and in Territories, 326, 327 ; debate in, on reconstruction act, 327-329 ; debates Tenure of Office Act, 330, 331; debates Sumner's pro- posal to give land to freedmen, 333; ratifies Alaska treaty, 338-340 ; re- fuses to concur in removal of Stan- ton, 347 ; sits in impeachment of Johnson, 347-351 ; impressed by arguments for defense, 348, 349 ; discussion of its action, 350, 351 ; debates bill to authorize reprisals on foreigners, 353-355 ; passes Sumner's substitute, 355 ; rejects treaty to purchase St. Thomas, 361 ; prevented by Sumner from passing act to alter qualifications for secre- tary of treasury, 364 ; rejects John- son-Clarendon treaties, 364-368 ; de- bates bills to admit Virginia and Mississippi, on conditions, 374, 375 ; debates amendment of naturaliza- tion acts, 375, 376 ; reports unfavor- ably upon San Domingo treaties, 384, 385 ; debates annexation, 385, 386 ; rejects treaty, 386 ; refuses to change committees to please Grant, 388 ; debates proposal to appoint a commission to investigate San Do- mingo, 388-391 ; removes Sumner from committee on foreign relations, 394-397 ; violent speech of Sumner in, on San Domingo intrigue, 397- 399 ; ratifies treaty of Washington, 400 ; debates and rejects Sumner's civil rights bills, 402-401) ; debates amnesty bills, 403, 405, 406 ; passes defective civil rights bill, 405; de- bates proposal to investigate war department, 408 ; Sumner's speech 454 INDEX in, on Grant, 413-415 ; finally passes Sumner's civil rights bill, 427, 428. Senior, Nassau W., met by Sumner in 1S38, 21. Seward, William H., his position in the Senate in 1851, 86 ; friendly with Sumner, 89 ; predicts that no new party will rise, 97 ; approves Sumner's speech against enforce- ment of Fugitive Slave Act, 121 ; votes for repeal of Fugitive Slave Act, 127 ; moves admission of Kan- sas under Topeka constitution, 137 ; moves committee of inquiry on Brooks's attack on Sumner, 148 ; makes speech on " irrepressible con- flict," 170 ; reward offered for his head in Virginia, 174 ; laughs at threat of secession in 1860, 178 ; active in suggesting compromises in 1860, 185 ; discusses compromise with Sumner, 190, 191 ; offers con- siderable concessions to South, 191 ; states purpose of war to foreign representatives, 197 ; considered to be hostile to Eugland, 208 ; sends conciliatory message on Trent affair, 209 ; his policy explained by Sum- ner to Cobden, 212 ; his good will toward England asserted by Sum- ner, 213 ; his narrow view of rea- sons for surrender of envoys, 214 ; sneered at by English, 216 ; at- tempt of Republicans to force his dismissal, 236 ; wishes to issue let- ters of marque, 240 ; approves Sum- ner's speech against England, 252 ; favors Johnson's reconstruction policy, 295 ; continues on good terms with Sumner, 321 ; his corre- spondence with Stanley on Alabama claims, 342 ; at Sumner's house, predicts annexation of Mexico, 345 ; negotiates treaty for annexation of St. Thomas, 361 ; no longer a leader in 1869, 362. Shannon, Wilson, prevents civil war with difficulty in Kansas, 134. Sheil, Richard Lalor, heard by Sum- ner in Parliament, 22. Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Sherman, John, disagrees with Sum- ner's theory of state suicide, 219; opposes repeal of Fugitive Act of 1793, 261 ; begs Sumner not to in- sist on anti-slavery amendment to civil appropriation bill, 262 ; moves appointment of committee on re- construction, 328 ; opposes proposi- tion to enforce negro suffrage, 328 ; opposes proposition to give land to freedmen, 333 ; introduces bill to repeal provision of law rendering Stewart ineligible to Treasury De- partment, 364 ; opposes removal of Sumner from his chairmanship, 395. Sherman, William Tecumseh, proposal to nominate for President in 1S64, 271. Sismondi, J. C. L. de, his conversation with Sumner in 1838, 20, 26. Slavery, early references of Sumner to, 15, 16, 25, 31 ; proper method of attacking it stated by Sumner, 31, 32 ; not a subject of public contro- versy before 1836, 36 ; indifference of North to, 38 ; becomes a political question, 41 ; question of its exist- ence in new Territories, 56, 57 ; lec- ture of Sumner on, in 1855, 127, 128 ; cautious attitude of Lincoln toward, at outbreak of war, 197, 19S ; impatience of Sumner to at- tack, 198, 199. See Emancipation. Slave trade, treaty of 1S41 for sup- pression of, 30 ; question of enforce- ment of, by England against Ameri- can vessels, 30. Slidell, John, his comments on Brooks's assault on Sumner, 147 ; captured by Wilkes in 1861, 208; his release demanded by England, 209. Smith, Gerrit, signs Appeal of Inde- pendent Democrats, 106. Smith, Sydney, met by Sumner in 1838, 21, 24. South, its real basis for action in 1833 said by Jackson to be slavery, and not the tariff, 37 ; alarmed by Turner insurrection, 38 ; calls upon North to suppress abolitionists, 40 ; imprisons free seamen, 40 ; demands equality with North in Senate, 41 ; INDEX 455 demands right to carry slaves into Territories, 66 ; attempt of Calhoun to unite, in opposition to North, 67 ; lack of general enthusiasm in, over slavery, 68 ; threatens secession in 1850, 70 ; controls country in 1S53, 101 ; leaders of, adopt bullying manners, 113 ; claimed by Butler to have carried through Revolution, 113 ; urged by Atchison to save Kansas, 134, 135 ; applauds Brooks's attack on Sumner, 150-152 ; adopts extreme views of rights of slave- holders, 171 ; its threats of seces- sion despised in 1860, 178, 179 ; pro- cess of secession in, 179-1S4 ; plans of leaders of, to control North and Europe through cotton, ISO ; ex- pects North to break up in anarchy, 181 ; Union men in, overridden, 181, 182 ; forms Southern Confed- eracy, 182 ; Buchanan's attitude toward, 183 ; unwilling to accept any compromises in 1861, 194 ; belli- gerency of, recognized by England and France, 208 ; sends emissaries to England and France, 208 ; aid received from England by, 248-250; its treatment of Northern prisoners, 279 ; magnanimous attitude of Sum- ner toward, 281 ; reconstruction of, under Johnson, 300 ; passes acts op- pressing negroes, 301 ; reports of Grant and Schurz on condition of, 304-307 ; controlled by former rebels, 322, 323 ; discussion of work- ing of congressional reconstruction in, 335-337 ; bill of Sumner against registering names of victories over, 419. South Carolina, expels Hoar, 40 ; con- vention in, threatens disunion, 8S ; claimed by Butler to have surpassed Massachusetts in Revolution, 111 ; its proposed neutrality in 1779 ex- posed by Sumner, 114 ; process of secession in, 179, 182 ; sends com- missioners to treat for surrender of Sumter, 183 ; fires on Star of the West, 184. Spain, intervenes in Mexico, 220 ; considered an anachronism by Sum- ner, 371. Speed, James, Sumner's opinion of, in 1S65, 295. Spencer, Lord, visited by Sumner in 1859, 164. Spoils system, used by Johnson, 329; employed by Grant, 386, 410. "Springfield Republican," opposes reelection of Sumner in 1862, 233. Stanhope, Lord, visited by Sumner in 1859, 164. Stanley, Lord, negotiates with Seward about arbitrating Alabama claims, 342. Stanly, Edward, military governor of North Carolina, 227. Stanton, Edwin M., not inclined to oppose Johnson's reconstruction policy, 295; meets Dickens at Sum- ner's house, 345; removed by John- son, 346 ; his removal not concurred in by Senate, 347 ; again removed by Johnson, 347 ; urged by Repub- licans to refuse to submit, 347 ; speaks hopefully of Grant's policy on entering presidency, 360. Stanton, Frederic P., calls Kansas legislature to act concerning Le- compton constitution, 168. Stephens, Alexander H., writes mani- festo against agitation of slavery questions after the compromise, 87 ; thinks North will fall into anarchy in case of stoppage of cotton exports from South, 181 ; elected vice-presi- dent of Confederacy, 182. Stevens, Thaddeus, thinks opposition to Johnson hopeless, 295; consults with Sumner on plan of action, 299, 300 ; favors fourteenth amendment, 310 ; denounced by Johnson as an enemy of the Union, 314 ; reports a new fourteenth amendment, 316; presents articles of impeachment against Johnson, 347. Stewart, Alexander T., when nomi- nated by Grant for Treasury Depart- ment, found to be ineligible, 363; attempt to remove disqualification by law, 364. Story, Joseph, teaches in Harvard Law School, 7; his friendship with Sum- ner, 7 ; plied by Sumner with ques- tions, 9 ; gives Sumner letters to 456 INDEX eminent men at Washington, 11 ; offers Sumner position in Law School, 13 ; selects Sumner to report his decisions, 14; lends Sumner money to go to Europe, 17; advises him to return, 2-4; supports English claim to right of search, 30; his death, 50. Story, William W., describes Sumner as a law student, 9, 10 ; meets him in Rome, 163. Sugden, Sir Edward, heard by Sumner in Parliament, 22. Sumner, Charles, ancestry, 1-5; birth and childhood, 5 ; studies in Boston Latin School, 5 ; wishes to enter West Point, 5; studies at Harvard, 6 ; his early intellectual and social habits, 6 ; spends a year in literary studies, 6, 7 ; enters Harvard Law School, 7 ; begins intimacy with Judge Story, 7 ; studies with avidity, 8 ; gains prizes, 8 ; his youthful agreeableness, sincerity, and mod- esty, 9 ; takes everything seriously, 10; begins to feel ambition to excel in the law, 10 ; enters office of Rand, 10; makes a journey to New York, Philadelphia, and Washington, 10; visits Chancellor Kent, 11; sees dis- tinguished people at Washington, 11; not attracted by political life, 11, 12; his social freshness and charm, 12, 13 ; practices law in Bos- ton, 13 ; discussion of his abilities as a lawyer, 13; overburdened with learning, 13; hampered by lack of imagination, 14 ; teaches in Harvard Law School, 14; publishes legal arti- cles, 14, 15 ; makes a circle of cul- tured friends, 15 ; indifferent to politics, 15 ; takes slight interest in slavery and abolitionism, 16; bor- rows money to go to Europe, 17 ; his increased impressiveness of ap- pearance and manner, 17 ; greatly in- fluenced by his foreign experiences, 18 ; places visited by him, 18; learns French and hears lectures in Paris, 18, 19 ; sees all the sights, 19 ; meets leading lawyers, 19; encounters eminent men in society, 19, 20; in England adopts a dignified attitude, 20; visits eminent judges and law- yers, 20, 21 ; meets leading literary and political figures, 21; his great popularity, 22; returns to Paris, 23; writes account of American bound- ary claims, 23 ; in Rome learns Ital- ian, 23 ; makes new friends, 23 ; visits Germany, 23 ; received by Metternich, 24 ; meets eminent his- torians and jurists, 24 ; again plunges into London society, 24 ; decliues to teach in Harvard Law School, 24; returns to Boston zealous for work, 25; really a student, 25; continues to ignore slavery, 25, 26 ; resumes practice, 27 ; enjoys Boston society, 2S ; indifferent in campaign of 1840, 28 ; his breadth and kindliness of nature at this time, 29 ; his unself- ishness, 29 ; supports English claim of right of search of slave traders, 30; attacks Webster's position on Creole case, 31; admires J. Q. Adams's career in Congress, 31 ; adopts attitude of Liberty party toward slavery, 31 ; edits Vesey's Reports, 32 ; suffers from ill health and despondency, 32, 33 ; regains strength and resumes practice, 33 ; completes his legal labors, 33. Anti-Slavery Whig Leader. De- livers oration " on true grandeur of nations," 34; denounces war and praises peace, 35 ; angers officers of army and navy by his language, 35, 3G ; becomes at once conspicuous, 36 ; takes part in meeting to protest against admission of Texas, 42, 43 ; does not seek occasion, 43; mem- ber of committee of " Conscience Whigs," 44; writes resolutions of protest against extension of slave territory, 44, 45 ; prophesies success of anti-slavery Whigs, 45 ; writes severe criticism on Winthrop, call- ing him cowardly, 46 ; writes to Winthrop expressing hope for con- tinued friendly relations, 47 ; pub- lishes bitter attack on Winthrop, 48 ; his acquaintance dropped by Win- throp, 48 ; unable to realize feelings of opponents, 49 ; treats living men as if they were mere historical fig- INDEX 457 ures, 49 ; frequently loses friends, 49 ; his oration before the Phi Beta Kappa society, 50 ; attends Whig state convention of 1846, 50 ; makes speech urging anti-slavery action, 51, 52 ; renews attack on Winthrop, 62 ; declines to be candidate against him, 52 ; justifies opposition to Mex- ican war, 52 ; neglects law for polit- ical writing, 53; delivers lecture on " White Slavery in Barbary States," 53 ; offers resolutions against war at Whig meeting in Boston, 53 ; at state convention supports Palfrey's motion not to support any candidate not opposed to extension of slavery, 54 ; his argument, 55 ; defends Pal- frey's action in Congress, 55 ; op- poses spoils system, 55. Member of Free-Soil Party. Signs call for convention of anti-slavery Whigs, 58 ; defends a third party as necessary, 58, 59 ; attends Buffalo convention, 59 ; active in Free-Soil campaign, GO ; nominated for Con- gress against Winthrop, 60 ; his career predicted by Longfellow, 60, 61 ; defeated in election, 61 ; be- comes known as a leading Free- Soiler, 61 ; loses many friends, 61; rejoices in revolution of 1848, 61 ; speaks at Free-Soil convention of 1849, 62 ; states position of Free-Soil party, 62, 63 ; lectures in New Eng- land towns, 63; argues before state Supreme Court against color line in schools, 63 ; does not increase legal practice, 64; nominated for Con- gress against Eliot, 73 ; opposes compromise measures, 73 ; disheart- ened at Webster's 7th of March speech, 73; at Free-Soil convention of 1S50, 75; attitude of anti-slavery Whigs toward, 75 ; doubtful about Free-Soil and Democratic coalitions, 76 ; his speech at Faneuil Hall, 76- 80; on coalitions, 77; on proper way to nullify Fugitive Slave Law, 77, 78 ; repeats demands of Free-Soilers, 79 ; denounces lack of backbone in leaders, 79, 80 ; candidate of Free- Soilers for the Senate, 80; does not seek the place, 81 ; unanimously nominated in caucus, 81 ; reluctance of Democrats to support, 82 ; de- nounced by the Whigs, 82 ; worked against by Cass and Cushing, 82 ; willing to withdraw in favor of some other Free-Soiler, 83; refuses to modify his Fugitive Slave Law speech to please Democrats, 83 ; his speech published by both friends and enemies, 83 ; declines to pledge anything to satisfy Democrats, 84; finally elected, 84 ; receives news of success without elation, 84; declines to take part in contest against Win- throp, 85. In the Senate. His Free-Soil col- leagues, 86 ; brings a new moral element into the Senate, 86 ; never notices obstacles, 87 ; his relations with various senators, 89; has social success in Washington, 89 ; on minor committees, 89 ; eulogizes Kossuth, but opposes auy change from tradi- tional non-intervention, 90 ; sup- ports land grants to Iowa, 90 ; pur- posely delays mentioning slavery, 90 ; his silence jeered at by Whigs and complained of by abolitionists, 91; announces purpose to speak in due time, 91 ; prevented from speak- ing on Fugitive Slave Law, 91, 92 ; finally moves an amendment against paying expenses under Fugitive Slave Act, 92 ; delivers a long speech, 93-95; does not attack Southerners personally, 93 ; argues against constitutionality of slavery in Territories, 94 ; holds Fugitive Slave Law unconstitutional, 94 ; an- nounces purpose not to obey it, 95 ; at Free-Soil state convention, 96 ; does not take part in campaign, 98 ; complained of by Free-Soilers, 98 ; in Senate opposes executive sessions, 98 ; on good terms with Southerners, 98 ; elected to state constitutional convention, 99 ; favors district sys- tem of representation, 99; urges abolition of color distinctions, 99 ; takes part in campaign for adoption of constitution, 100; offers amend- ment to Nebraska bill to preserve the Missouri Compromise, 104 ; signs 458 INDEX " Appeal of Independent Demo- crats," 106; his speech against the Nebraska bill, 107 ; does not exas- perate opponents, 107 ; again speaks before final passage, 107 ; defends right of clergy to protest, 108 ; pre- dicts end of compromise, 109 ; de- nounced as responsible for Burns riot, 110 ; defends Massachusetts from charge of treason, 111, has per- sonal controversy with Butler and Mason, 111, 112; violently abused by Mason and others, 112 ; feels called upon to crush claims of South to su- perior patriotism, 113 ; on relative shares of Massachusetts and South Carolina in the Revolution, 114, 115 gives Mason the he direct, 115, 116 gains hatred of the South, 11G pleases the North by his courage, 116; at Republican state convention in Massachusetts, 118 ; describes the Burns case, 118, 119 ; urges legisla- tion to protect fugitive slaves, 119, 120 ; urges refusal to obey the Fugi- tive Slave Law in spite of the Con- stitution, 120; in this really preaches revolution, 120, 121 ; applauded by Chase and Seward, 121 ; his consti- tutional doctrine on the Fugitive Slave clause, 121, 122 ; left stranded by Know-Nothing movement, 124 ; declines to support new party, 124 ; in Senate offers resolutions on gen- eral matters, 125, 126 ; speaks against Fugitive Slave Law, 126; delivers lecture on the " Anti-Slavery Enter- prise," 127 ; travels in West, 128 ; expects a new Northern party, 128 ; takes part in Massachusetts cam- paign for Republicans against Know- Nothings, 129 ; foresees trouble from Kansas disorders, 136 ; has brief de- bate with Douglas, 137 ; delivers speech "The Crime against Kan- sas," 138-142 ; makes two elaborate attacks on enemies, 139 ; his attacks on Butler and Douglas, 140, 141 ; virulently replied to by Cass and Douglas, 142, 143 ; retorts on Doug- las with extreme bitterness, 143, 144 ; justified in his language by the provocation, 144, 145 ; assaulted by Brooks, 146 ; various testimony re- garding assault upon, 146, 147 ; suf- fers severely from injuries, 154 ; discourages any testimonials, 155; writes letters during campaign, 155 ; does not feel animosity toward Brooks, 155 ; tries vainly to return to Senate, 156 ; reelected almost unanimously to Senate, 157 ; visits France in search of health, 158; renews social successes, 158, 159; cheered in mind, and hopes for re- covery, 159 ; returns to Senate, 159 ; does not take part in or listen to debates, 160 ; again obliged to sail for Europe, 160 ; writes letter to constituents, 161 ; treated by Brown- Sequard by the moxa, 161 ; suffers from angina pectoris, 162 ; cheered by hopes of improvement, and by news from America, 162 ; his reasons for not resigning, 163 ; visits Rome, 163 ; meets Cavour, 163 ; in London, his social engagements, 163, 164 ; returns to Senate, 164, 170 ; takes slight part in active business, 171 ; delivers speech on " Barbarism of Slavery," 171-174 ; warned to be- ware of assassination, 172 ; ignores feelings of his opponents, 172, 173; quotes slaveholders to prove his point, 174 ; his speech considered unwise by Republicans, 175; speaks at Cooper Institute in campaign of 1860, 176 ; in Massachusetts state campaign, 176 ; predicts overthrow of slave power, 177 ; repeats that disunion threats are ridiculous, 178 ; opposes any compromise in 1861, 189 ; disagrees with Adams on this point, 189; abstains from debate, 189 ; urges North not to concede an inch, 189-193 ; repudiates " Peace Conference," 190 ; tells Buchanan Massachusetts will never adopt Crit- tenden compromise, 190 ; opposes repeal of personal liberty laws, 191 ; pleads with Seward not to favor concessions, 191 ; says all concession has done harm, 192 ; again attacks Crittenden compromise, 193; be- comes chairman of committee on foreign relations, 194; urges ap- INDEX 459 pointment of fit men, 195 ; reports in favor of arbitration with England, 195 ; narrowly escapes a mob in Bal- timore, 196 ; addresses Massachu- setts troops, 196 ; from beginning of war desires extinction of slavery, 198; foresees this as necessary end of the war, 199 ; thinks emancipation will conciliate Europe, 199 ; confers with Lincoln and urges early action, 199, 200 ; refuses to vote on Critten- den resolution, 200 ; introduces bills to punish treason, 200 ; in Massachu- setts state convention makes public demand for emancipation, 201 ; not urgent for instant action, 202; favors compensation for loyal slaveholders, 202; considered impolitic by con- servatives, 202 ; repeats same argu- ment in a lecture at Cooper Insti- tute, 203 ; reassured by Lincoln, 203 ; criticises Halleck's order to exclude fugitive slaves, 204 ; suggests legis- lation to prevent return of fugitives, 204 ; suggests abolition in the Dis- trict, 205 ; consults with Lincoln on plan for gradual abolition, 205 ; jus- tifies compensation, 206 ; urges Lin- coln not to delay signing, 207 ; on news of Trent affair says surrender is necessary, 209 ; urges Lincoln to avoid conflict by giving up Mason and Slidell, 210 ; reads letters from Cobden and Bright, 210 ; points out results of war with England, 211; on Seward's and Lincoln's attitude, 212, 213 ; tries to prevent discussion of Trent case in Senate, 213 ; makes speech on Trent correspondence, 214, 215 ; calls it a triumph of Amer- ican principles, 215 ; sneered at by English, 216 ; gains reputation in international law, 216 ; introduces resolutions on status of seceded States, 217 ; argues for state suicide and consequent end of slavery, 218 ; his logic faulty, 219 ; finds himself without support in Senate, 219 ; his argument on legal tender notes, 220 ; favors assuming interest on Mexican debt to satisfy France, 220 ; intro- duces bill to recognize Hayti and Liberia, 221, 222 ; declines medal from Hayti, 222 ; reports bill to carry out treaty to suppress slave trade, 223 ; introduces bill to allow negroes to carry mails, 223 ; makes efforts to give negroes rights as wit- nesses, 224; argues on constitution- ality of emancipation under war power, 225, 226; votes against ad- mission of West Virginia, 227 ; op- poses bill to establish temporary governments in seceded States, 227 ; introduces resolutions against mili- tary governors, 228 ; introduces re- solution against putting names of victories on regimental colors, 228 ; satisfied with results of session, 229 ; continues to press Lincoln to eman- cipate slaves, 229 ; never loses con- fidence in Lincoln, 230 ; the recog- nized leader of anti-slavery in the country, 231 ; his impressive person- ality, 231 ; arguments for his reelec- tion, 232 ; opposed as too radical, 233 ; nominated by Republican con- vention, 233 ; in campaign defends himself, 234 ; reelected to Senate, 234 ; introduces various bills, 236 ; favors enlistment of negroes, 237 ; opposes gradual emancipation bill for Missouri, 237, 238 ; opposes re- solutions against French in Mexico, 239 ; opposes privateering, 239, 240 ; fails to prevent passage of act, 240 ; tries to prevent action under it, 240; persuades Lincoln not to issue let- ters, 241 ; introduces resolutions against offers of mediation, 241 ; continually corresponds with Eng- lish friends, 243 ; warns Cobden of danger of war, 243 ; complains to Duchess of Argyll of England's un- friendly attitude, 244 ; describes his part in urging United States to act in English courts against privateers, 245; announces inevitable end of war in emancipation, 245 ; on impos- sibility of compromise, 246 ; on bit- terness toward England, 246 ; la- ments growth of militarism, 247 ; on dangers of a general foreign war, 247 ; prepares a speech on England's attitude, 248 ; rehearses unfriendly acts on England's part, 248-252; 460 INDEX denounces the Alabama, 250; de- nounces the policy of Napoleon, 250, 251 ; convicts England of inconsis- tency, 251 ; denies that in fact the Confederate States are a nation, 251, 252 ; his speech criticised in England, 252 ; justifies his conduct to Cobden, 253, 254 ; wishes to post- pone reconstruction, 255 ; in 18C3 writes article against Lincoln's mili- tary government, 25G ; thinks it the duty of Congress to interpose, 258 ; offers resolutions on necessity of protecting freedmen in reconstruc- tion, 259 ; proposes emancipation amendment to Constitution, 2G0 ; insists that Congress can abolish by statute, 260 ; succeeds in carrying repeal of Fugitive Slave Acts, 2G1; introduces bills to benefit free ne- groes, 2G2 ; his power over the Sen- ate at this time, 2G2, 2G3 ; opposes white suffrage in Montana territorial bill, 2G3 ; fails to secure negro suf- frage in District, 264 ; other efforts to secure equal rights for negroes, 264 ; carries through bill establishing Freedman's Bureau, 265, 266 ; makes report on French Spoliation Claims, 267 ; introduces bill to reform the civil service, 267 ; opposes subjecting national banks to state taxation, 268 ; secures establishment of mint in Oregon, 268 ; his ideas on tariff duties, 268 ; opposes recognition of Arkansas under Lincoln's recon- struction, 269 ; sums up work of Congress, 270 ; takes no part in movement against Lincoln, 271 ; does not see how Lincoln can be forced to withdraw, 272 ; story of his having advocated nomination of Johnson probably fictitious, 273 ; explains to Cobden the reasons for distrust of Lincoln, 274 ; speaks in campaign on " party spirit," 274 ; contrasts Mayflower with slave-ship, 275 ; shows impossibility of peace between North and South, 276 ; on results of election, 277 ; defends seizure of Florida, 277 ; urges ap- pointment of Chase to chief -justice- ship, 278 ; secures admission of negro lawyer to bar, 278 ; opposes bill for bust of Taney, 278, 279; prevents fortification of Northern border, 279 ; opposes proposal to retaliate for abuses on Northern prisoners, 280, 281 ; opposes paintings in Capitol of victories over Confederates, 2S1 ; dis- cusses reconstruction with Lincoln, 282 ; tries to secure negro suffrage in reconstruction act of 1864, 284 ; opposes recognition of Louisiana government as legitimate, 285; con- tinues to demand negro suffrage, 286; opposes admission of a senator from Virginia, 286 ; offers resolu- tions on reconstruction, 287 ; his course justified, 287, 28S; does not quarrel personally with Lincoln, 288 ; explains his position to Bright, 288, 289 ; remains in Washington after session, 289 ; at deathbed of Lincoln, 290 ; his kindness to Mrs. Lincoln, 290 ; expects cooperation from Johnson, 291 ; delivers eulogy upon Lincoln, 292; begins to stir up opposition to Johnson's reconstruc- tion policy, 294 ; discouraged by lack of support, 295 ; thinks the Southern element controls Johnson, 296 ; justifies universal suffrage, 296 ; announces necessity of congressional action, 297 ; makes speech demand- ing unrestricted equal rights, 297- 299 ; sends telegram to Johnson urging him to pause, 302 ; has final interview with Johnson, 302, 303 ; introduces bills to protect civil rights of negroes, 303, 304 ; calls President's report on the South "whitewashing," 305; stirs up feel- ing by the phrase, 305 ; explains the real condition of the South, 306, 307 ; takes no part in debate on civil rights bill, 309 ; objects to admission of a senator from Florida, 310 ; op- poses proposed fourteenth amend- ment on ground that it permits States to exclude blacks from suf- frage, 310-313 ; bases argument on nature of Republican government, 312 ; shows that only through negro suffrage can there be peace, 313; denounced by the President, 314 ; INDEX 461 opposes bill to admit Colorado, 315; opposes admission of Nebraska, 31G ; unable to prevent admission of Ten- nessee with white suffrage, 316 ; sat- isfied with fourteenth amendment as adopted, 317 ; opposes bill to re- move disqualifications from jurors in case of Davis, 318 ; argues that a majority vote is necessary to election of a senator, 319 ; his attitude on minor matters, 319; succeeds in blocking bill to abolish neutrality laws, 320; suffers from nervous ex- haustion, 320; continues on good terms with Seward, 321; on basis for protectionist agitation, 321 ; de- nounces Johnson's policy, 323; his marriage and subsequent separation, 323; in Thirty-ninth Congress offers new resolutions on reconstruction, 324; opposes woman suffrage, 325; opposes any educational qualifica- tion, 325; blocks admission of Ne- braska until act is amended to allow negro suffrage, 326 ; doscribes his success in placing negro suffrage in the reconstruction bill, 328; exas- perates opponents by his tedious- ness, 329; secures abolition of peon- age, 329 ; wishes to extend scope of Tenure of Office Act, 330; denounces Johnson as a usurper, 331; wishes to revise presidential term and elec- tion, 331, 332 ; sums up progress, wishes impeachment of Johnson, 332; urges some method of giving the freedmen land and education, 332, 333; stirs up dislike by his masterfulness, 333, 334; urges free schools in South, 334, 336; afraid to trust Johnson, 337; favors ratifi- cation of Alaska treaty to please Russia, 338, 339; hopes it will not prove a precedent, 340; thinks only way to secure permanent peace is to have England pay claims, 341 ; tells Bright arbitration must cover the whole case, 342 ; struggles against narrow caucus rule of Senate, 343; again tries to force equal education upon South, 343 ; unable to carry bill to secure suffrage to blacks all over country, 344; his further attempts to secure legal equality in small matters, 344 ; moves into a new house in Washington, his guests, 345 ; opposes admission of Senator Thomas from Maryland, 346 ; urges Stanton to refuse to resign, 347 ; his tribute to Wade's incorruptibility, 349 ; argues against right of chief justice to vote in case of tie in im- peachment proceedings, 350 ; his argument for conviction of John- son, 350 ; argues in favor of right of Congress to impose conditions on States, 351 ; encourages election of negroes to Congress, 351 ; argues against payment of debt in green- backs, 352, 353 ; opposes bill to au- thorize President to make reprisals upon countries arresting American citizens, 354 ; succeeds in carrying a substitute through Senate, 355 ; re- elected to Senate, 356; in campaign urges necessity of Republican rule and resumption of specie payments, 356; his plea for equal rights, 356; neither favors nor opposes Grant's nomination, 357 ; his comment on Reverdy Johnson as minister to England, 357 ; opposes fifteenth amendment as unnecessary and dangerous, 358 ; does not wish a Cabinet position under Grant, 359 ; early doubts Grant's ability, 359, 360; discusses Johnson's English treaties with Grant, 360 ; secures rejection of treaty to buy St. Thomas, 361 ; his influential position in the Senate at opening of Grant's term, 362; a recognized Republican leader, 362 ; looks forward to period of repose, 363 ; on good terms with members of Cabinet, 363 ; objects to proposal to alter law in order to ad- mit Stewart as secretary of trea- sury, 364; has little influence on diplomatic appointments, 364 ; op- poses Johnson treaty as inadequate, 365 ; enlarges on catalogue of Eng- lish infractions of neutrality, 365- 367 ; his motives in stating extreme claims, 367; supported by Senate, 368 ; amazes both friends and ene- mies in England, 368; his course 462 INDEX justified by events, 368 ; succeeds in preventing recognition of Cuban belligerency, 369 ; consulted by Fish as to Motley's instructions, 369, 370; his extravagant expectations of Eng- land's yielding, 370; again urges vigorous action, 371 ; his speech be- fore Massachusetts Republican con- vention, 371, 372; announces true policy in Cuban question, 371 ; does not expect cession of Canada, 372 ; his argument for equal rights in lec- ture on caste, 372, 373; urges that if Virginia rescind ratification of fifteenth amendment it be reduced to provisional government, 374 ; re- joices at admission of a colored sen- ator from Mississippi, 375 ; moves to strike out " white " from natu- ralization laws, 375 ; introduces bill to refund national debt, 376, 377 ; favors one-cent postage, 377 ; various other acts, 377, 378 ; visited by Grant to urge support of San Domingo treaties, 3S2 ; question of his having promised support, 382, 3S3 ; impos- sibility of his having pledged him- self, 3S3; secures deliberate consid- eration of treaties, 384; discovers means employed to get treaties, 384 ; opposes consideration in open ses- sion, 385 ; his speech against ratifi- cation, 3S6 ; does not resent removal of Motley, 386; in Massachusetts campaign makes no reference to San Domingo, 387 ; failure of attempt to remove from committee on foreign relations, 388 ; offers resolutions calling for correspondence relating to treaty, 388 ; opposes plan to ap- point a commission, 388; his lan- guage exasperating and censorious, 389 ; does not realize that he will irritate Grant, 390 ; bitterly attacked by various senators, 390 ; suffers in health from this quarrel, 392 ; ac- cused by Fish and Motley of treach- ery to Grant, 393 ; severs friendly relations with Fish, 394 ; removed by Senate, from position at head of committee on foreign affairs 395, 396; makes no complaint, 397; in- troduces resolutions calling for re- moval of navy from San Domingo, 397; his speech denouncing Grant's action, 398, 399 ; favors measure to repress Ku-Klux, 399; his influence in favor of treaty of Washington, 400 ; uses influence to prevent But- ler's nomination in Massachusetts, 400 ; unaware of attempt to recon- cile him with Grant, 401 ; introduces amendment making President in- eligible for reelection, 401, 402 ; his efforts to secure passage of civil rights act, 402—106; his argument for equal rights as beyond matters of feeling, 403; argues against color prejudice, 404 ; insists on purely moral aspect, 404, 405 ; his bill fails repeatedly, 405, 406 ; shows failing health and lack of originality in de- bate, 406; introduces resolutions to investigate sales of arms during Franco-German war, 407 ; attacked as unpatriotic, 408; testifies before investigating committee, 409 ; un- willing to take lead in liberal Re- publican movement, 411 ; reluctant to leave Republican party, 411; his ideas adopted in Republican plat- form, 412 ; his speech declaring op- position to Grant, 412-415 ; arraigns Grant for party despotism, 413 ; and for corruption in office, 414 ; his speech exaggerated and a failure, 415; bitterly criticised by leading Republicans, 415 ; finally decides to vote for Greeley, 416 ; assailed by Blaine in an open letter, 416 ; his reply, 416, 417; his health giving way, visits Europe, 417 ; leaves speech to be printed, 418 ; decliues Democratic nomination in Massa- chusetts, 418 ; sadness of his last meeting with English friends, 418, 419 ; returns to Washington, but is unable to serve on committees, 419 ; offers bill to prevent names of bat- tles in civil war from being honored, 419 ; his other share in business, 420 ; his bill condemned by the Mas- sachusetts legislature as an insult to the soldier, 421, 422; suffers from continued ill health and de- pression, 423 ; embittered by altered INDEX 463 character of Republican party, 423 ; isolated by deaths of old friends, 424 ; excluded from Republican cau- cus, 424 ; renews social life in Bos- ton, avoiding political discussion, 424; on returning to Senate finds himself without a party, 426 ; intro- duces a large number of bills, 426 ; unable to secure immediate consid- eration of civil rights bill, 427 ; asks Edmunds to help him, 427 ; attends New England dinner in New York, 428 ; his subsequent activity in Sen- ate, 428, 429 ; his speech on chief justiceship, 429 ; gratified at re- scinding of censure by Massachu- setts, 429 ; his last speech, 429 ; his last illness and death, 430 ; summary of his character, 431 ; discussion of his eloquence, 431 : his egotism in later life, 431, 432; his belief in principles of democracy, 432. Personal traits. General estimate, 431, 432 ; ambition, 8, 25, 60, 81 ; courage, 110, 113, 116, 236; dig- nity, 80, 83, 84, 115, 386, 394, 397, 426 ; eloquence, 6, 35, 50, 60, 61 ; egotism, 431 ; generosity, 22, 29, 155, 228, 278-281, 419; honesty, 383, 393 ; invective, power of, 139- 144 ; kindliness, 290, 424, 429 ; lack of humor, 10, 14 ; lack of imagina- tion, 48, 49, 415 ; legal ability, 13 ; masterfulness, 262, 333 ; modesty, 13, 20, 22 ; moral force, 6, 86, 362 ; naturalness, 9, 12, 432 ; personal appearance, 12, 17, 231 ; prolixity, 312, 406 ; social charm, 6, 9, 12, 17, 22, 89, 98, 321, 345, 362 ; wideness of culture, 5, 6, 8, 9, 13. Political views. Abolitionists, 43 ; Alabama claims, 341, 342, 360, 365- 367, 370, 400; Alaska treaty, 339, 340 ; Andrew Johnson, 303, 323, 330, 337, 350 ; caucus, congressional, 343 ; civil service reform, 55, 195, 237, 267, 330 ; compromises in 1861, 189- 194 ; Cuban belligerency, 369, 371 ; debt, payment of, 352, 376, 377 ; dis- union, 178, 217, 218 ; emancipation, 198, 199, 201-207, 225-227, 229, 230, 237, 259, 260, 269, 277 ; England's policy during civil war, 243-247, I 248-254, 367 ; equal civil rights for negroes, 223-225, 237, 255, 262, 264- 266, 278, 303, 309, 312, 333, 344, 351, 375, 402-406, 420, 426-428, 430; equality of mankind, 44, 61, 99, 297, 324, 356, 372, 374, 387, 432; Eu- rope, attitude toward, 320, 353-355 ; expansion, 340 ; fifteenth amend- ment, 358; Florida affair, 277; fourteenth amendment, 310, 317 ; French spoliation claims, 267, 426 ; Free-Soil party, 58, 62, 76, 79, 80, 97 ; Fugitive Slave Law, 77-79, 94, 95, 111, 112, 116, 118-122, 191, 204, 227, 261, 262 ; Hayti, recognition of, 221, 222 ; Kansas, troubles in, 138- 142, 173 ; Kansas-Nebraska bill, 107, 108 ; Know-Nothing party, 124, 128, 129 ; legal-tender notes, 220 ; lib- eral Republi can movement, 411-418 ; Liberia, recognition of, 221, 222 ; Massachusetts and South Carolina in the Revolution, 111, 113; media- tion, in civil war, 241 ; Mexican war, 46-48, 52-55 ; Mexico, French intervention in, 220, 238, 239, 250, 251 ; national banks, 267, 268 ; negro education, 333-335, 343 ; negro suf- frage, 263, 264, 2S4, 286, 288, 291, 292, 294-296, 303, 310-313, 315, 325- 328, 334, 344 ; party politics, 27, 28, 55, 78, 273-275, 316, 400 ; popular sovereignty, 176 ; presidential term, 331, 401 ; privateering, 239-241, 243 ; reconstruction, 228, 255-258, 269, 284-289, 304, 306, 307, 310, 323, 328, 332, 351, 356, 374; retaliation for Southern treatment of prisoners, 280; Republican party, 411-413; St. Thomas treaty, 361 ; San Do- mingo treaties, 384-390, 397-399; senatorial elections, 319 ; slavery, 15, 16, 26, 31, 32, 51, 53, 62, 93, 114, 127, 172-175, 234, 275, 329; slave trade, 223 ; tariff, 268, 321; Texas, 43, 44 ; Trent affair, 209-213, 215 ; war, 34-36, 63, 196 ; woman suffrage, 325. Sumner, Charles Pinckney, father of Charles Sumner, his education, and career in Massachusetts politics, 3, 4 ; his character, 4 ; predicts slavery struggle, 4 ; connected with anti- Masonic movement, 4. 464 INDEX Sumner, General Edwin V., relative of Charles Sumner, 2. Sumner, Increase, relative of Charle3 Sumner, his career, 2. Sumner, Job, grandfather of Charles Sumner, his education, and career in revolutionary army, 2, 3. Sumner, Matilda, twin sister of Charles Sumner, 5. Sumner family, its history in England and America, 1-5. Sutherland, Duchess of, meets Sum- ner in 1838, 21, 26 ; and again in 1857, 159. Talfourd, Sir Thomas Noon, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. Taney, Roger B., his death, 278; pla- cing of his bust in Supreme Court room prevented by Sumner, 278. Taylor, Zachary, brings on Mexican war, 45 ; nominated for President, 57 ; considers himself a People's candidate, 57 ; wishes to organize new Territories as States, 69 ; strongly opposes compromise mea- sures, 72; his death, 72. Tennessee, attempt of Sumner to secure negro suffrage in, 316. Tennyson, Alfred, visited by Sumner in 1859, 164. Territories, question of slavery in, 56 ; organization of, urged by Polk, 65; difficulties in war of settlement of, 66-68 ; admission of, as States urged by Taylor, 69 ; negro suffrage in, 327. Texas, its boundary question causes danger of war with Mexico, 34 ; agitation for its annexation, 41 ; an- nexed through endeavors of Calhoun and Tyler, 41,43; opposition to its admission, in Massachusetts, 43-45; admitted as a State, 45; question of its boundaries in 1849, 69, 70, 71. Thibaut, Anton Friedrich Justus, visited by Sumner, 24. Thomas, General Lorenzo, attempt of Johnson to make secretary of war, 347. Thomas, Francis, prevented by Sum- ner from entering Senate from Maryland, 346. Thompson, Jacob, aids secessionists in 1860, from Buchanan's Cabinet, 183. Thornton, Sir Edward, British minis- ter, anxious to settle Alabama ques- tion, 373. Ticknor, George, a Compromise Whig in 1850, 74. Toombs, Robert, describes with ap- proval Butler's assault on Sumner, 146, 147. Trumbull, Lyman, called a traitor by Douglas, 137 ; votes against Critten- den resolution, 200 ; calls civil rights bill unnecessary, 308 ; later introduces similar bills himself, 308; his attitude in impeachment trial, 348 ; opposes removal of Sumner from his chairmanship, 395 ; opposes reelection of Grant, 410. Tuck, Amos, votes against Winthrop for speaker, 55. Turner, Nat, leads slave insurrection, 38. Tyler, John, favors annexation of Texas, 41 ; secures it in 1845, 42. Upshur, Abel P., calls abolition in Texas a calamity, 42. Van Buren, Martin, nominated for President by Buffalo convention, 59. Vaughan, Sir Charles Richard, enter- tains Sumner, 20. Vermont, Confederate raid into, 279. Victoria, her coronation witnessed by Sumner, 22. Virginia, anti-slavery feelings in, 168 ; John Brown raid in, 170 ; calls Peace Conference, 182 ; recognition of reconstructed government of, op- posed by Sumner, 286, 287 ; debate on its admission in 1870, 374. Wade, Benjamin F., elected to Senate, 89 ; opposes Lincoln's renomination, 271 ; favors bill to retaliate for Southern treatment of prisoners, 280 ; thinks opposition to Johnson hopeless, 295 ; moves to take up bill for admission of Nebraska, 325; question of his fitness to sit in im- INDEX 465 peachment, 349 ; tribute of Sumner to, 349, 350 ; favors ineligibility of President for reelection, 401. Wade, Edward, signs •' Address of In- dependent Democrats," 106. Waite, M. R., appointed chief jus- tice, 429. War, Sumner's arguments against, 34- 3G, 03. War of Rebellion, military situation in, during 18G1-1863, 235, 236. War of Revolution, 2. Washburne, Elihu, secretary of state for a week, 363. Waterston, Mrs., describes Sumner as a law student, 9. Webster, Daniel, presents a prize to Sumner, 7 ; admits Sumner to floor of Senate, 11 ; opposes English claim to right of search, 30; de- mands surrender of Creole muti- neers, 30 ; attacked by Channing and Sumner, 31 ; at Whig Conven- tion of 1847, endeavors to get united support of Massachusetts Whigs, 54; humiliated by Taylor's nomination, 57 ; makes 7th of March speech, 72 ; appointed secretary of state, 72 ; his influence in Boston, 73; com- ments of Sumner on, 73; bitter re- mark of Emerson on, 74 ; works against Sumner in election of 1S50, 82 ; announces finality of compro- mise, 87. Weed, Thurlow, considers threat of disunion a mere game, 179; shows political advantage of offering com- promises, 190. Welles, Gideon, approves Wilkes's seizure of Mason and Slidell, 209 ; opposes plan to issue letters of marque, 241. West Virginia, admitted to Union, 227. Wharncliffe, Lady, describes Sumner's social success in England, 22. Wharncliffe, Lord, entertains Sumner in 1838, 21. Wheaton, Henry, acquaintance of Sumner with, 11. Whewell, William, met by Sumner in 1838, 21. Whig party, considered anti-slavery by Sumner in 1844, 33 ; division in, on question of continuing opposition to Texas, 43^15; splits in Massachu- setts over Mexican war, 41-55 ; struggle in state convention of 1846, 50-52; carried by conservative ele- ment, 51; Massachusetts conven- tion of, in 1847, 53-55 ; nominates Taylor in 1848, 57 ; votes down Wilmot Proviso, 57 ; bolt from in Massachusetts, 58 ; joins with Free- Soilers in New Hampshire, 63 ; liable to be disrupted by Taylor's territorial policy, 72 ; bitterness of, against Free-Soilers, 75; defeated by Free-Soil and Democratic coali- tion, 80; again defeated in 1851, 85; its position in campaign of 1852, 96; beaten in election, 97 ; regains con- trol of Massachusetts, 97; carries Massachusetts in 1853, and rejects new constitution, 100 ; practically dead in 1853, 101 ; members of, refuse to join Republican party, 122 ; joins Know-Nothing move- ment, 123-125 ; reasons for its co- hesion, 124 ; a greater hindrance to freedom than Democratic party, 125. Whittier, John Greenleaf, impressed by Sumner's speech in Whig con- vention, 52 ; Free-Soil leader in 1850, 74; writes poem to C. S., 116; praises Sumner's Kansas speech, 145; opposes war to prevent seces- sion, 184; urges reelection of Sum- ner, 234 ; disapproves of Sumner's attack on Grant, 415. Wigfall, Louis T., predicts ruin to English monarchy if cotton export be blocked, 181. Wilde, Sergeant Thomas, meets Sum- ner in 1838, 21. Wilkes, Captain Charles, seizes Mason and Slidell, 20S; approved by Welles, thanked by House, 209 ; judgment of Seward upon his con- duct, 214 ; Sumner's opinion on, 215. Wilmot, David, offers anti-slavery proviso, 56. Wilmot Proviso, 56. Wilson, Henry, leader of Conscience 466 INDEX Whigs, 44 ; announces purpose to bolt, 58 ; Free-Soil leader in 1850, 74 ; urges coalition with Democrats, 76 ; on formation of Republican party, 118; joins Know-Nothing party, his justification, 123 ; elected to Senate, 124 ; states facts of Brooks*s attack on Sumner, 148 ; advises Kansas free-state men to vote, 166 ; introduces bill to abolish slavery in the District, 205 ; his efforts to secure equal pay for negro soldiers, 264; prefers to persuade rather than oppose Johnson, 295; introduces civil rights bill, 305 ; on original form of fourteenth amend- ment, 316 ; protests against removal of Motley, 386 ; opposes removal of Sumner from his chairmanship, 395 ; prevents Butler from getting Republican nomination for governor of Massachusetts, 400 ; suffers from paralysis, 424. Winthrop, Robert C, schoolmate of Sumner, 5 ; elected to legislature, 15 ; gives toast " Our country, however bounded," 43 ; votes for Mexican war bill, 46 ; denounced by Sumner, 46, 47 ; tells Sumner his criticisms are offensive, 47 ; again accused by Sumner, 48; renounces Sumner's acquaintance, 48 ; again assailed by Whigs, 52 ; refusal of Sumner to run against, for Congress, 52 ; re- elected in spite of a Whig bolt, 52 ; opposes Palfrey's resolutions at Whig state convention, 54 ; elected Speaker of House, 55 ; reelected to Congress over Sumner, 55 ; ap- pointed to Senate to fill Webster's place, 73; candidate for Senate in election of 1850, 74 ; defeated for governor in 1851, 85 ; declines to join Republicans, 12S, 129. Woman suffrage, Sumner's opinion on, 325. Wordsworth, William, meets Sumner in 1838, 21. ELECTROTYPED AND PRINTED BY H. O. HOUGHTON AND CO. dfflbe Iftrtietjiibe ftregg CAMBRIDGE, MASS., U. S. A. JLut <> cl 7 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS nilltHlllt ■