YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

1936

From Portrait by Wright, 185(j.

^r/^^ y2*/£~^M^

LIFE OF
CHARLES SUMNER

BY

WALTER G. SHOTWELL

NEW YORK
THOMAS Y. CROWELL & COMPANY
PUBLISHERS

Copyright, 1910,
By WALTER G. SHOTWELL.

Published October, 1910.

Cb'U27C

PREFACE
I suppose it will be conceded that the most interesting period
of the history of the United States is that leading up to, covered
by, and following the Civil War. The nation " conceived in lib
erty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created
equal," in its brief existence of fourscore years had made an un
exampled growth in population and material prosperity. It had
gathered about it the pride and the hopes of millions of patri
otic people. The questions for solution were whether the na
tion could continue to exist and whether the fundamental
principle of its organization could be maintained. These were
great questions.
In the discussion of them it was natural that great interest
should be shown and that as the contest warmed great passions
should be enlisted. The battles of the period were all fought
in Congress and on the stump before they were transferred to
the field. They developed a race of orators and statesmen,
commencing with Webster, Calhoun and Clay and ending with
Lincoln, Sumner and Douglas, that has never been equalled.
I purpose to write the life of one of these men.

CONTENTS CHAPTER I page
Birth — Ancestry — Father and Mother  1
CHAPTER n
Youth of Sumner — Early School Days — Father made Sheriff  7
CHAPTER III
Enters Harvard College — Dislike for Mathematics — Deportment —
Popularity — Friends— Excursion to Lake Champlain— Societies —
Class Standing  11
CHAPTER IV
Undecided as to Profession — Prize Essay — Work of Year after Gradua
tion—Enters Harvard Law School — Industry — Friendship of
Professors  18
CHAPTER V
Law Practice— Editing "The Jurist" — Otlier Publications — Instruc
tor in Law School— "The Five of Clubs"  27
CHAPTER VI
Trip to Europe— Opposition of Friends— Motives for taking it— Voy
age — France — Learning French — Schools — Courts — Assemblies. . 32
CHAPTER VH
London— The Clubs— Parliament— The Courts— The Judges— Society
 Macaulay, Cariyle, Hallam — Services for Friends— Circuits-
London again  46
CHAPTER VIII
Paris again — Employment — North East Boundary — Journey to Rome
 Father's Death — Studies — Greene — Crawford — Florence —
Venice  80
V

Vi CONTENTS
CHAPTER IX page
Through Austria — Vienna — Metternich — Berlin — Savigny — Heidel
berg, Mittermaier — Thibaut— London again — Home — Retrospect
of Trip  90
CHAPTER X
Friends— Campaign of 1840— Resumes Work— Office of Hillard &
Sumner— Phillips Match Case— Right of Search— Practice-
Unprofessional Studies  97
CHAPTER XI
, In Society — Friends — The Misses Ward — Howe — Howe's Marriage —
Longfellow, Prescott, Bancroft, Story, Allston, Channing, Adams
—Their Influence— His Habits  '.  108
CHAPTER XII
International Questions — "The Caroline" — " The Creole" — Slavery
— "Somers" Mutiny — Law School— Edits Vesey Jr. — Sickness
— Sister Mary's Death — At Work again  123
CHAPTER XIII
Chosen Orator for July 4, 1845 — The Occasion — The Oration on "The
True Grandeur of Nations '' — The Dinner — Estimates of Oration
— Judge Story's Death — Sumner's Tribute  140
CHAPTER XIV
Judge Story's Professorship not Sought — First Speech against Slavery
— A Lyceum Lecturer — Article on Pickering — The Beta Kappa
Oration — Place as an Orator  157
CHAPTER XV
Cause of Universal Peace — Prison Discipline — Boston Prison Dis
cipline Society — Equal Rights of Colored Children in Schools —
Diversions  :  169
CHAPTER XVI
Admission of Texas — Mexican War — Opposition — Nominated for Con
gress — Declines— Whig Conventions — Dissatisfaction with Old
Parties — Anti-Slavery Party — Sumner a Speaker — Again declines
Nomination for Congress — Chairman of State Committee of Free
Soil Party  180

CONTENTS vii
CHAPTER XVII page
Loss of Friends — Effect on Sumner — New Friendships  203
CHAPTER XVIII
Compromise of 1850— Webster's Seventh of March Speech— The Co
alition of Free-Soilers and Democrats — Sumner a Candidate for
Senator — Elected — Acceptance  216
CHAPTER XIX
Leaving Boston— First Days in Washington — Welcome to Kossuth —
Aid to Railroads — Anxiety to speak on Slavery — Secures Hearing
— The Speech — George returns from Europe — Vacation  237
CHAPTER XX
Session 1852-3 — Member of Massachusetts Constitutional Convention
—Campaign of 1853 — Coalition defeated — Nebraska Debate —
Joins Republican Party — Lectures on Granville Sharp  270
CHAPTER XXI
Session of 1854-5 — Toucey Bill — Lectures before Anti-Slavery As
sociations — Visits South and West — Passmore Williamson —
Election of 1855  296
CHAPTER XXn
Stormy Session of 1855-6 — Banks, Republican, made Speaker — Kansas
Troubles — Applies for Admission — Sumner's Speech — The
Replies — Sumner's Rejoinder  306
CHAPTER XXIII
Assault upon Sumner by Brooks — Action of Congress — Resignation —
Re-election of Brooks — South approves Assault — North aroused
— Later careers of Brooks, Keitt and Butler  329
CHAPTER XXIV
Nature of Sumner's Injuries— Goes to Silver Springs, to Philadelphia,
to Cresson Springs— Public Interest in Sumner — Public Reception
at Boston — Re-elected— To Europe in search of Health— Paris —
France — England — Travels and Friends — Home again — In Wash
ington—Unable for Duty— To Europe again — Medical Treat
ment  342
CHAPTER XXV
Home again — Friends— In Senate — Speech on "Barbarism of
Slavery "—Campaign of 1860  384

viii CONTENTS
CHAPTER XXVI page
No Compromise— Secession— Baltimore Mobs— Emancipation  402
CHAPTER XXVII
"Trent" Affair — Sumner urges Release of Mason and Slidell— His
Speech — Appearance and Position— Emancipation again Advo
cated — Other Questions  425
CHAPTER XXVIII
Campaign of 1862— Third Election to Senate— Session of 1862-3 —
Advocates Enlistment of Colored Troops — Compensated Eman
cipation  446
CHAPTER XXIX
Dangers from England and France — Sumner's work in preserving
Peace — Correspondence — Speech on Foreign Relations — Article
on Franklin and Slidell  458
CHAPTER XXX
Emancipation — Passage of XlVth Amendment — Equal Rights —
Repeal of Fugitive Slave Law — Sumner's Persistency — Other
Measures  473
CHAPTER XXXI
Reconstruction under Lincoln — No Bust for Chief Justice Taney —
Negro Suffrage — Freedmen's Bureau — Retaliation — Relations to
President Lincoln — Lincoln's Death  492
CHAPTER XXXII
Reconstruction under Johnson — His Character — Sumner for Equal
Rights — XlVth Amendment — Sumner and President Johnson —
Eulogies on Colleagues  524
CHAPTER XXXIII
Death of Sumner's Mother — Her Character— His Marriage  555
CHAPTER XXXIV
Lecture "One Man Power against Congress" — Johnson against
XlVth Amendment— Election of 1866— Tenure of Office Bill-
Reconstruction — Purchase of Alaska.  559

CONTENTS ix
CHAPTER XXXV page
" Prophetic Voices concerning America " — Lecture, " The Nation" —
Leaving Old Home in Boston — Divorce — New Home in Wash
ington — Habits — Visitors  584
CHAPTER XXXVI
Impeachment of President Johnson — Sumner's Opinions  592
CHAPTER XXXVII
New Political Issues — Campaign of 1868 — Grant Elected — Sumner
Re-elected Senator — A. T. Stewart for Secretary of Treasury —
Fish, Secretary of State— Motley  605
CHAPTER XXXVIII
Eulogies on Thaddeus Stevens and Wm. P. Fessenden — Undertakes
Edition of his Works — Changes in Naturalization Laws — Equal
Rights — Reconstruction Completed  617
CHAPTER XXXIX
Financial Measures — One Cent Postage — Chinese Indemnity Fund —
Claims against England — In Harmony with Grant's Administra
tion  629
CHAPTER XL
Continued Interest in Republican Party — Grant's Scheme to Annex
San Domingo — Sumner's Opposition— Sickness — Removal from
his Committee — Defeats Annexation  648
CHAPTER XLI
Gratitude of Haiti — The Civil Rights' Bill — Sale of Arms to France —
Liberal Republican Movement — Speech against Grant — Opposes
his Re-election  674
CHAPTER XLII
Last Trip to Europe — The Battle Flag Bill — Resolution of Censure —
Sickness  694
CHAPTER XLIII
Returns to Work — Last Summer at Boston — In Senate Again —
Attends Dinner of New England Society of New York — Last
Days— Death— Eulogies  705
Index  .,...,..,,..,..,.,..,,.,.. 725

PORTRAITS
Charles Sumner in 1856, at the Height of his
Earlier Career. From the Painting bt
Wight. Frontispiece
Charles Sumner in 1873. From a Photograph
by Allen. To face page 694

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

CHAPTEE I
BIRTH  ANCESTRY  FATHER  MOTHER
Charles Sumner was born in the city of Boston, January
sixth, 1811, the child of Charles Pinckney, and Eelief Jacobs,
Sumner. It was a twin birth, the other child being Matilda.
The house in which they were born is no longer standing. It
was in May, now Eevere Street and occupied a part of the
present site of the Bowdoin School. This continued to be the
home of the family until 1825 or 1826 when they removed to
what was then No. 53 Hancock Street, later No. 33. These
houses Mr. Sumner did not own, but in 1830 he purchased No.
20 Hancock Street and this continued to be the home of the
family until 1867. There were born to the same parents, after
the two that have been mentioned, seven children, Albert,
Henry, George, Jane, Mary, Horace and Julia, the last being
the only one to survive her brother Charles.
The Sumner family were from Oxford County, England,
where their ancestor, William, who first came to America was
born in 1604 near Bicester. He settled at Dorchester, Mass., in
1635. From him Charles Sumner was descended in the seventh
generation, the intervening ancestors in the direct line of de
scent being Eoger, William, Seth, Job and Charles Pinckney.
Physically the Sumners were large, broad-shouldered, deep-
chested men, noted for their fine personal appearance as well
as for strength, activity and power of endurance. Gener
ally they were farmers and landowners. Increase Sumner
was a member of the family. He was honored by the State of
Massachusetts with a seat on her Supreme Bench and the office
of Governor. His predecessors in the latter office, Adams and
Hancock, had been crippled with age and the gout, but as
Sumner in 1797 passed from the Old South Church, after the
election sermon, his form caught the eye of an old apple woman
who with honest admiration exclaimed : " Thank God, we have
at last got a Governor that can walk " ! Major-General Edwin

% LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
V. Sumner, who served with distinction in the Mexican and
Civil Wars, was the grandson of Seth Sumner. The family has
shown a taste for intellectual pursuits. From 1723 a long line
of them appears enrolled among the students of Harvard.
Job, the grandfather of Charles, was there pursuing his stud
ies at the commencement of the Eevolution but the news of Lex
ington appealed so strongly to the boy, that he enlisted in the
army, where he continued until the close of the war, attaining
the rank of Major. He served at Bunker Hill, at the siege of
Boston, on Lake Champlain, at West Point and New York. At
West Point he commanded the guard over Major Andre a part
of the time he was under sentence of death. He never re
turned to College, but in consideration of his part in the war,
he was, two years after its close, voted by the authorities of
the College the degree of Master of Arts, which entitled him to
registration among the alumni. In 1785 he was appointed by
Congress a commissioner to adjust the accounts between the Con
federation and the State of Georgia, in which capacity he served
until his death in 1789. He was voted for as Governor of
Georgia by the Legislature of that State, but failed of an elec
tion by a few votes. He was stricken with a fever in the South
and having partially recovered started for home, but suffered
a relapse complicated with other disorders and died, on the way,
in New York City, at the age of thirty-five. He was buried in
St. Paul's Churchyard on Broadway. He was borne to his
grave by eight officers of the Eevolutionary War, attended by a
regiment of artillery. His funeral was attended by the Vice-
President, Secretary of War and the Senators and Eepresenta-
tives in Congress of Massachusetts, New York being then the
seat of government. He was five feet, ten inches tall, stoutly
built, quick in action, a frank, generous, soldierly man, fond of
society and his friends, faithful to his trusts, a friend of edu
cation and a lover of good books. He left an estate in land
and government securities valued at about twelve thousand
dollars. At the time of his death his son, Charles Pinckney Sumner,
the father of Charles Sumner, was a student at Phillips Acad
emy at Andover, Mass., Dr. Seth Sumner, the brother of Major
Sumner, became his guardian. Several letters from the father,
still preserved, show his solicitude for the education and right
training of the boy, from whom according to the means of
travel of that day he was so widely separated. This education
under the care of his uncle went on without interruption after
his father's death. Charles Pinckney remained at Phillips
Academy until 1792 when he entered Harvard College where

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 3
he graduated in 1796. He was a classmate of John Pickering,
the author of Pickering's Greek Lexicon — the same John Pick
ering who was commemorated by Charles Sumner in a bio
graphical sketch published in the Law Eeporter of June, 1846,
and in his oration on " The Scholar, the Jurist, the Artist and
the Philanthropist," delivered at Harvard College in August
of the same year. A friendship also sprang up between Charles
Pinckney Sumner and Joseph Story during their college days,
though the latter was two years behind him in the course. It
continued unbroken until the death of Mr. Sumner.
The year after Charles Pinckney Sumner's graduation he
spent in teaching and the next in a visit to the West Indies.
He then commenced the study of law and was admitted to the
bar in 1801. He commenced the practice of his profession in
Boston. Though well read and an industrious man he did not
succeed. His business was confined to the collection of small
bills and office work and it was only with the closest economy
that it yielded his family a subsistence. He had no influential
antecedents to open a place for him and was perhaps wanting
in that vigor and versatility of intellect which fits men for the
more lucrative kinds of practice.
His want of success led him to seek other employment. He
was twice chosen Clerk of the House of Eepresentatives of
Massachusetts, first for 1806-7 and again for 1810-11. During
the last term his friend Joseph Story was Speaker of the House
and resigned to become a Justice of the Supreme Court of the
United States. He left the bar in 1819 to accept the place of
Deputy Sheriff of Suffolk County, which paid him less than a
thousand dollars a year and he retained this office until 1825
when Governor Lincoln appointed him Sheriff. His income
from this office was from two to three thousand dollars a year
and he held it by successive appointments for thirteen years
and seven months and until within a few days of his death.
He was by this means enabled to maintain his family in greater
comfort and at last to leave an estate worth fifty thousand
dollars. He was the friend of temperance and the public schools. He
was an ardent opponent of Masonry and having when a young
man belonged to the order and become a master-mason he in
curred much ill-will among its members by an exposure of the
secrets which he had thus learned. While Sheriff he witnessed
the pro-slavery riots of Boston. It was during this time that
a woman's anti-slavery meeting was entered and dispersed by a
mob of men, while its president was leading it in prayer. Dur
ing the same time William Lloyd Garrison was seized and after

4 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
his clothes had been torn from his body and his hat was cut
in pieces he was dragged through the streets of Boston with a
rope about his neck until he was rescued by his friends and
hurried to the Leverett Street Jail to save him from further
violence. Charles Pinckney Sumner, witnessing such outrages,
became a strong anti-slavery man. In his school days he had
shown opposition to both slavery and war. At a college exhibi
tion in 1795 he read an original poem wherein he expressed
the wish that both should cease. He retained his views on
these subjects through life and taught them to his children. He
did not, however, unite with the Abolition movement. After
his appointment to the office of Sheriff in 1825 he studiously
held aloof from political discussions, considering them incom
patible with the duties of his position. But his known sym
pathy with the anti-slavery movement caused some of the
opposition to his last appointment.
To the duties of his office he devoted himself with scrupulous
exactness. He made a study of the law on the subject in Eng
land and America and published an article in the Jurist
pointing out some differences. At one time when he learned
that the Supreme Court of Massachusetts was about to an
nounce a decision, casting what he considered an undue re
sponsibility upon Sheriffs in making a levy, hoping before its
publication to change the view of the Court he addressed to the
Judges a voluminous written argument against it, but with
out effect. He was the last Sheriff of Suffolk County to wear
the antique dress, like that worn by this officer in England.
It is said to have comported well with his dignified bearing.
He was of medium height, erect and being slender he ap
peared taller than he was in reality. He was not a handsome
man, but was neat in his dress and in the care of his person.
He was scholarly in his tastes and an extensive reader of good
books. History was his favorite pastime and he read it care
fully with the aid of maps and charts. He was himself an oc
casional writer of both prose and verse. He loved knowledge
and enjoyed cultivated society. He counted among his friends
many of the best people of Boston. He was a model of courtly
dignity, scrupulously polite, bowing low, touching his hand to
his hat and waving it back to his side. He was rigidly con
scientious and fearless in the discharge of duty. To the
appeals of a culprit kinsman who once sought his kindly inter
ference he sternly answered, " The law must take its course."
On another occasion, as Sheriff, he read the riot act to a mob,
amid a shower of bricks.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 5
When his opinions were once formed they were seldom
changed, regardless of what others might wish he would do
what he thought was right. He was faithful in his friendships
and remembered a kindness with gratitude. But in his last
years he became rigid and cheerless, seldom smiling or entering
into the mirth of others and little disposed to form new as
sociates or to adopt new ways or to be influenced by thoughts
of the convenience of others. As a father he felt a deep inter
est in the welfare of his children. He had received a good
education himself and he wished to give one to them. He per
sonally superintended their instruction and sought to infuse
them with a love for knowledge. But his sombre disposition
little accorded with the cheerful moods of children; he was
exacting and required prompt obedience in tasks that he as
signed them, so that while courting their company his course
commanded respect for him rather than love and familiarity.
Charles Pinckney Sumner was married in 1810 to Belief
Jacobs. She was born in 1785 and was descended in the sev
enth generation from Nicholas Jacobs, a native of England,
who settled in Massachusetts in 1633. On her mother's side
she traced her lineage to William Hersey who came from Eng
land to Massachusetts in 1635. On the same side she was also
descended from Governor William Bradford. Her father, David
Jacobs, Jr., died in 1799, when she was only fourteen years
of age. He was a farmer and belonged to a family of farmers,
mostly living in Plymouth county, Massachusetts. Belief Ja
cobs was in Boston earning a livelihood by sewing, when she first
became acquainted with Charles Pinckney Sumner. They were
fellow boarders at the house of Adams Bailey. They were
married in their own home, the house in May Street which
they had previously rented and furnished and in which eight
of their children were afterwards born.
In person Mrs. Sumner was large, though not fleshy. She
had a fine constitution and throughout her long life enjoyed ex
cellent health. She was abundantly educated in those arts
which contribute to the comfort and happiness of a home. The
time in which she lived and the circumstances of her childhood
had in this respect contributed to the natural bent of her
character. During the first fifteen years of her married life,
though her husband's income was small and their family large,
her prudence and economy enabled them to live comfortably
without becoming involved in debt. She never received any
other education than that of the common school but her native
good sense insured her respect in any society. Her excellent
judgment, appreciative disposition and cheerfulness of temper
always recommended her.

6 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
She was a kind-hearted motherly woman devoted to her
children, sympathizing with their trials, but anxious to rear
them to habits of integrity and usefulness. She wished them to
excel but taught them that success was to be expected from toil
and not genius and that no good thing would be withheld from
them that walk uprightly. She appreciated the responsibilities
of life, was conscientious in the discharge of her duties, a con
sistent Christian, supporting sorrow with calmness and success
with sobriety. Her neighbors spoke of her as " an excellent,
kind person " ; and her pastor in her last years said : " Mrs.
Sumner was a woman of retiring simplicity of life, but of
strong and heroic traits of character and those who knew her
could trace in the Senator's noblest characteristics a direct in
heritance from her."
The best testimonial of her sterling qualities is that of her
husband, her daily companion for twenty-nine years, who by his
will, after only equalizing some small advancement to his chil
dren, gave her their home for life and all the remainder of his
large estate absolutely, confiding as he said, "in her disposi
tion to carry into effect his wishes and in her affection for
their children, and that she will from time to time and finally
by her last will make such disposition of the property given
her as justice and the condition of the children shall require."
The sequel showed that his confidence was not misplaced for
in her hands the estate was doubled in value and then went
to their surviving children in equal shares. She survived her
husband twenty-seven years and died at the age of eighty-one.

CHAPTER II
THE YOUTH OP SUMNER  EARLY 'SCHOOL DAYS  FATHER MADE
SHERIFF
The childhood and youth of Sumner were passed in Boston
and its vicinity. It was then a much smaller place than now
and its population was more democratic, its citizens associat
ing upon terms of greater familiarity. Its property was then
more equally distributed, instances of poverty and of great
wealth being less common. Its people have always been marked
for intelligence. Then as now the influence of its excellent
schools and Harvard College, its favorite seat of learning, in
the adjoining suburb of Cambridge was noticeable. The child
ish rambles of Sumner extended about both places. During his
boyhood he made occasional visits to his mother's relatives at
South Hingham and to his father's at Dorchester, one we find
to Nantasket Beach. It is not probable they ever extended
farther, until, in his nineteenth year, with some college friends,
he made an excursion on foot to Lake Champlain.
He was not a playful child, nor was he venturesome or mis
chievous, he was rather of a quiet disposition, obedient and
willing to perform the tasks assigned to him. A childish in
cident, however, is related, which shows he was then, as later
in life, tenacious of his rights. Some larger boys one day
caught a stick with which he was playing and tried to wrest it
from him. But the stick was his ; he would not let it be forced
away. The harder they pulled the more firmly he clung to it,
until at last one of the boys seizing a stone commenced to
pound his hands with it to make him let go, but to no avail.
He would not yield. They hammered harder, but he kept his
hold, until the blood finally appearing from the wounds on
his hands, they saw it and ran away frightened, leaving him in
the possession of his stick.
The first school he attended was a private one taught by
Hannah B. Jacobs, his mother's maiden sister, in an upper
room in his father's house. The school was small and furnished
only the most elementary instructions. He next entered the
West Writing School taught for the public by Benjamin Holt
in a building at the corner of Hawkins and Chardon streets.
7

8 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Here he remained until ten years of age, receiving instruction
in the ordinary branches and manifesting no more . than ordi
nary capacity. He was at the same time instructed in writing
by a special master. His father's means being limited, it was
his intention at this time to give Charles only such an educa
tion as would fit him for a place in some store, where he could
support himself and perhaps render some aid to the family.
He was not therefore to be taught Greek and Latin. But a
circumstance occurred which changed his father's intention.
Charles with a few pennies, which he had earned, purchased
some elementary Latin books from an older boy and commenced
to study them. He surprised his father one day by presenting
himself books in hand before him and requesting him to hear
his recitation. The father was so touched by the seeming in
stinct of the child that he determined to allow him to com
mence the study of Latin and Greek.
In August, 1821, at ten years of age he entered the Boston
Latin School. This institution has long been held in high es
teem by the friends of substantial and accurate scholarship. It
was established in colonial days and many eminent men have
been among its pupils. Its course of study at this time was
the one usually pursued in preparatory schools, save that it
was longer, comprehending more than was required for ad
mission to Harvard. Its principal instructors were Benjamin
Gould,- its Master, and Ludwick P. Leverett, the teacher of
Latin. The latter, a very thorough teacher, afterwards became
the author of Leverett's Latin Lexicon. It was to his well-
directed efforts that Sumner owed much of his proficiency in
Latin and Greek. He continued under the instructions of these
teachers until 1826, the prescribed course of study requiring
five years. There were in the school at this time, though in
different classes, two boys with whom he was afterwards to be
conspicuously associated, — to one as the apologist of slavery
and to the other as its determined opponent. They were Bob
ert C. Winthrop and Wendell Phillips. Sumner's standing in
his class, though respectable did not indicate any remarkable
talent. In 1823 he received a prize for his good conduct. In
1824 he took a third prize for Latin translations and in 1826
he took second prizes for a Latin poem and an English theme.
At his graduation he received one of the six Franklin medals
which were presented to his class.
His superiority appeared more in conversation than in his
recitations. His taste for reading, which afterwards became
marked, was acquired at this time. He occupied many of his
leisure hours in this way. He read with interest books which

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER g
are thought suitable for adults. And he read them so carefully
as to be able to discuss their contents with persons older than
himself in a way which sometimes excited the wonder of his
playmates. In 1825, at the age of fourteen, he had read enough
English History to be able to write with accuracy a compend
ium of it, eighty pages long, covering the whole period from
the Conquest by the Bomans to 1801. The next year he read
Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire,
a copy of which had been given him as one of his prizes at the
Latin School. He also read a history of Greece.
One of his playmates at the Latin School relates a story
which illustrates his proficiency in Geography. This was not
among the requirements for admission to the Latin School nor
was it in its prescribed course of study. An ill-natured teacher
thought to put him down one day for his ignorance of it.
Sumner boldly declared he would answer any question the
teacher could ask him. The teacher hunted out what he sup
posed to be a very difficult question and put it to him and he
answered it correctly without a moment's hesitation.
In personal appearance Sumner was at this time tall and
slender, awkward in his movements, with a face not handsome.
His constitution owing to the rapidity of his growth was not
strong and caused his friends some anxiety. He cared little for
sports and seldom took part in them. He was retiring in his
disposition, studious and found diversion chiefly in books.
Without much humor he was yet a great talker and his kindly
disposition made him a favorite with his playmates. He was
liked by his teachers, submitted cheerfully to their discipline,
obeying their rules and performing the tasks assigned him
promptly. He was correct in his deportment, had no bad
habits, did not swear and discouraged profanity in others. He
was thoughtful, considerate and conscientious.
On the sixth day of September, 1825, Governor Levi Lincoln
appointed his father Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts.
This event changed the father's circumstances. He was now
placed in a position of comparative affluence and the rigid
economy which had thus far regulated his family was no longer
imperative. He always remembered the appointment with grat
itude and ten years afterward characterized Governor Lincoln
as his greatest earthly benefactor. The event coming as it did
at such an opportune time in the life of the son, just before
finishing his course at the Latin School, and with the certain
prospect of the continuance of good fortune for some years to
come, changed the father's purpose as to the career of his son.
A month before, we find him seeking admission for him to a

10 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
military school at Middletown, Conn., where, by his labor he
might defray his own expenses. About this time he asked the
Secretary of War to appoint him to a cadetship in the Military
Academy at West Point, where his relative, Edwin V. Sumner,
had graduated. Both were probably suggested by his limited
means for the views of neither father nor son on the subject of
war would have induced them to seek a military education for
him. While the father wished to give all his nine children a
useful education, before this appointment came to him he
frankly confessed his means enabled him to think only of use
fulness. To this appointment and the incident of the Latin books,
Charles Sumner owed his education and to that education
the achievements of his life. Without these things, mere ac
cidents as they seem, he might have been a clerk or a respectable
merchant, but the talents which gave him eminence, buried
in a counting-room would have been lost. It is touching to
reflect how much in this world depends on little things, Colum
bus, heart-sick, burdened with poverty and oppressed with dis
appointments, abandoning Spain in despair, when he stopped
at a convent to beg for bread and, attracting the attention of
the prior, was enabled to secure the interposition of the Queen
in fitting out an expedition to discover America; Shakespeare
apprehended in poaching upon his Lordship's game-preserve,
and Stratford lost an indifferent wool-comber, but the world
gained an immortal poet.

CHAPTEE III
ENTERS HARVARD COLLEGE  DISLIKE FOR MATHEMATICS — DE
PORTMENT  POPULARITY  FRIENDS — EXCURSION TO LAKE
CHAMPLAIN' — SOCIETIES — PRIZES AND STANDING
And so it was settled that Charles should go to Harvard Col
lege. He entered September first, 1826. Time has wrought
many changes in the college since then. Its undergraduates
have more than quadrupled in number and there has been a
corresponding increase in the faculty. Some of its halls then
standing still remain but they have been refitted and are now
the least valuable part of its property, its best buildings having
since been erected. It now ranks as the oldest and one of the
wealthiest seats of learning in the land. It was then Harvard
College ; it is now Harvard University. The schools of theology,
medicine and law, though some steps had been taken towards
their establishment, may be said to be the work of later years.
Many of the names which have given luster to its faculty have
since been added, — Story, Greenleaf, Parsons, Quincy, Everett,
Felton, Longfellow, Holmes, Agassiz. They were men of high
culture and broad intelligence and have stamped their character
upon the institution. The course of study is enlarged and its
requirements are more exacting but more reasonable. Its stu
dents are no longer required to continue studies for which they
have neither taste nor capacity. Since the school days of Sum
ner the elective system has been introduced which offers them
greater freedom in the choice of studies suited to their purpose,
without injury to their class standing.
The old system was ill-suited to such minds as his. Sumner
had no taste for mathematics. His want of capacity for such
studies created a dislike for them and the necessity of mastering
them imposed by the requirements of the course increased this
dislike to a feeling of disgust. During a recitation one day, the
Professor asked him a question, when with characteristic candor
he replied, " I don't know. You know I don't pretend to know
anything about mathematics." " Mathematics, Sumner ! Math
ematics ! " exclaimed the teacher, " Don't you know the differ
ence? This is not mathematics. This is physics." A laugh
from the class followed, at Sumner's expense. The farther he
11

12 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
advanced in the mathematical course, the greater his difficulties
became. At last, in preparing his recitations he is said to have
accustomed himself to commit whole problems and demon
strations to memory, being unable to follow the course of reason
ing. The examinations he of course dreaded. In 1829 writing
to a classmate, he said: "Brown went home and escaped the
mathematical examination. That I attended. All I can say
about myself is, gratia Deo, I escaped with life."
This deficiency of Sumner affected his position in his class.
A high standing in our American colleges depends more upon
making a fair recitation every time in every study, than upon
making a brilliant recitation sometimes in some study. When
Sumner entered college he had hopes of reaching distinction in
his class and he strove to do so, but this deficiency in mathe
matics soon blasted these hopes and thenceforward he studied
such textbooks as he liked and neglected others.
But notwithstanding his carelessness of class standing he was,
as a student, industrious and obedient to the rules of the college.
He allowed himself little time for rest and recreation and was
usually to be found in his room at work. There were of course
some playful exceptions. Once during his Freshman year, with
his classmate Bemis, he left the college, without permission, to
go to the Brighton cattle show. Upon arriving at the fair,
among the first persons the boys met were their fathers, who
had likewise been classmates at college. Upon being asked by
their fathers how they came there and why they had broken the
college rules by leaving without permission, they apologized for
their conduct by saying that they wished to come to the fair and
thought there could be no harm in doing so as they would miss
no recitation by their absence. The fathers made no farther
objection but advised them to return at once. Mr. Sumner,
however, taking young Bemis aside asked him how Charles
stood in mathematics. "Very well, indeed, sir," said he, with
unquestionable fidelity to his classmate. " I am glad to hear
it," said Mr. Sumner. " He is doing better than I did. I let
drop the links and lost the chain and have never been able to
take it up again."
We find also one other breach of the college rules, more a
joke, however, than a defiance of authority. The rules pre
scribed the dress of an undergraduate and among other things,
if a summer vest was worn it was to be white. Sumner wore a
buff-colored one. He was warned by the college authorities that
he was violating the rule. He replied that his vest was white or
near enough so to comply with the regulation, and continued
to wear it. The admonition was repeated again and again but

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

13

Charles maintained that his was a substantial compliance with
the rule. At last the authorities gave it up, not, however, until
they had vindicated their offended authority by adding a small
fine to his term bill by way of punishment.
Sumner was a favorite with his classmates. At this early
age he showed that polite consideration for the feelings of others
which became characteristic of him in maturer years. He was
upright and honorable in his conduct and was disposed to put
the same construction upon the motives of others. There was
nothing morbid in his disposition; he enjoyed a well-timed
joke, would willingly play a game of chess or cards and was
always ready to do a kindness for a friend. It would be hard
to find one more devoted to his friends than he was. As he had
always lived in Boston and had been five years in the Latin
school, his circle of acquaintances in college was larger than
that of most of his classmates. He did not confine his friend
ship to one class. With little distinction he mingled with the
members of every class both in their rooms and in their recre
ations. For what is known as society he cared nothing and
though his connections in Boston and Cambridge afforded him
opportunities for entering it, unlike most boys he does not seem
to have cared to improve them. He preferred to be with those
who had aspirations and sympathies like his own.
His most intimate college friends were John W. Brown,
Jonathan F. Stearns, Charlemagne Tower, Thomas Hopkinson,
John B. Kerr and Barzillai Frost. The first two were his
chums, Stearns in his freshman and Brown in sophomore and
senior years. The former afterwards entered the ministry, the
latter studied law. Of them all, he was most intimate with
Brown. His buoyant spirits, his energy amounting almost to
violence, his independence of thought and action, his wayward
disposition, delighting in the works and the character of Byron,
had a peculiar fascination for Sumner. They remained friends
through life, corresponding after graduation, together again at
the Law school, members of the same bar, Sumner after Brown's
death in 1860 writing a sympathetic tribute to his memory.
In his junior year together with three classmates he made an
excursion on foot to Lake Champlain. This is the first evidence
of that love of travel which afterwards developed itself. It
seems like the first promptings of a restless energy characteristic
of the family.
The boys started on the fourteenth of July, 1829, going first
to Amherst where they arrived, weary and foot-sore on the
evening of the third day and immediately refreshed themselves
with the prayer in the college chapel. Afterwards they viewed

14 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the college buildings and enjoyed the fine prospect of the sur
rounding country from the chapel tower. The next morning
they started to ascend Mt. Holyoke and having lost their
way, in the by-paths of the mountain, they turned their faces
directly towards the summit, pushing through brambles, clam
bering over rocks, crawling around precipices, often in danger
of their lives until they reached the top at last. Their efforts
were rewarded by the magnificent prospect which lay before
them, " with river of silver, winding through meadows of gold."
From Mt. Holyoke they went to Deerfield and Bloody-Brook,
scenes of Indian warfare and massacre, thence to Bennington,
passing the night on the battlefield of the Eevolution where
the cause of the colonists began to brighten. Pursuing their
way, they reached Ticonderoga at last, having travelled two
hundred and three miles in nine days. On their return they
passed through Saratoga to Albany, pausing at the former
place to view the scenes of Burgoyne's defeat and surrender. At
Albany, Sumner parted company with Babcock, the last of his
companions, the others, Frost and Munroe, unable to keep up,
having long before been left behind. From Albany Sumner
pursued his journey alone to New York, travelling by boat and
stopping on the way a few hours at both Catskill and West
Point. This was his first view of the Hudson, then as now famed as
one of the most beautiful rivers of the world. He found it
even thus early carrying on its broad, still flowing waters,
crowds of tourists, among hills and valleys and mountains of
surpassing loveliness. Its shores are dotted with scenes of his
toric interest recaUing the struggles of the settlers with the
Indians and later with the British. The whole region is en
veloped in a halo of legend and song such as gathers around
no other part of our country.
Sumner kept a journal of his trip in which he records the
events and impressions of each day. It is fullest when dwell
ing upon these scenes made memorable by the struggles of the
colonists with enemies who were loath to give up such a fair
possession. Extracts from this journal were afterward pub
lished in a Boston paper, the first of his writings to appear
in print save an essay on the English Universities, which ante
dated the other by a few months.
This essay was read to " The Nine," a college society which
he together with eight of his classmates organized in their
senior year. It was a secret association for mutual improve
ment, receiving its name from the number of its members and
meeting weekly in one of their rooms. In his Junior year

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 15
Sumner became a member of another society, " The Hasty Pud
ding Club."
In his Senior year he contended for the Bowdoin prize,
given for excellence in English composition. The subject as
signed was, " The present Character of the Inhabitants of New
England as resulting from the Civil, Literary and Eeligious
Institutions of the First Settlers." His essay was signed, " A
Son of New England." He received the second prize, thirty
dollars, and invested it in books. Among them was a copy
of Shakespeare's Works which he kept afterwards upon his
table, ready for use. On the day of his death it was found
there open with his mark between the pages, where he had just
noted with his pencil the passage in " Henry, the Seventh."
" Would I were dead, if God's good will were so,
For what is in this world but grief and woe."
At the Junior Exhibition of his class, he performed the part
of the " orator " in a Greek dialogue. At the Senior Exhibition
and also at commencement, he had parts in conferences, his
being respectively, "Bonaparte as a statesman and soldier,"
and " The Religious Notions of the North American Indians."
He seems to have been dissatisfied with the places assigned him
on these occasions and wished to decline them and would prob
ably have done so but for the earnest protest of his father.
Though the places were not such as his classmates thought he
deserved, they were probably all his standing warranted.
In his class Sumner excelled in the humanities and in dec
lamation and composition. His performances of that time
resembled his later works, though marked with less strength
and accuracy in the use of words. In public speaking he had
the same earnest yet subdued manner which afterward seemed
to impress his audiences with the thought that he had a greater
power in reserve than he cared to wield. In proficiency in the
languages he had few equals among his classmates. He was
well instructed in the rudiments of these studies in the Latin
School and the high rank he took in them at his entrance to
college, he maintained through the course. He entered so much
into the spirit of them that many passages of the books he read
were impressed upon his memory and were ready for use when
a happy opportunity for quotation occurred. The fluency and
diction of his translations impressed his classmates. He en
joyed these studies but his proficiency in them was the result
of careful study.
His diligence, in such studies as he enjoyed, is illustrated by
something which occurred in his sophomore year. In the

16 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
months of February and March, he attended lectures delivered
by Professor Ticknor on French Literature. Sumner took such
an interest in them that at the close of each lecture he wrote out
so much of it as he could remember and then at the end added
an index to the whole course. His notes were so voluminous
as to occupy one hundred and fifty pages of his notebook.
Such industry produced its natural result and had it not been
for his failure in mathematics it is fair to conclude that he
would have been among the first scholars of his class. It is im
possible now to tell what his class standing really was, the
scales by which it is determined having been lost or destroyed.
His class contained forty-eight members and he probably stood
between the twentieth and twenty-fifth.
Because he did not take a higher position, he has been pointed
to as an illustration of the error, as pernicious as it is erroneous,
that boys of high standing are never heard of after they leave
college. The records of every college disprove this. The re
sult attained by a careful examination of the records of five
of the most celebrated of our American colleges is that "the
conclusion is irresistible that the vast majority of the scholars,
the writers, the clergymen, the lawyers and the statesmen who
have gained distinction by the work of their life have first won
distinction in the college recitation and lecture room. A like
conclusion was reached by Macaulay after an examination of
the records of the English Universities of Oxford and Cam
bridge. " It seems to me," he says, " that there never was a
fact proved by a larger mass of evidence or a more unvaried
experience than this, that men who distinguished themselves
in their youth above their contemporaries almost always keep
to the end of their lives the start which they have gained — the
general rule is beyond all doubt that the men who were first in
the competition of the schools have been first in the competi
tion of the world." The college life of Sumner proves the same
fact. He displayed in college the same moral qualities, the
same proficiency in writing and speaking, the same love of liter
ature as he afterwards displayed in the Senate. The same traits
of character which gave him eminence among his classmates
gave him eminence among men and in public life.
He was never extravagant. When years afterwards in the
Senate he was asked by a friend, why he did not adopt a more
luxurious manner of life, he replied, " the nation cannot afford
to give me more than six thousand dollars a year and I cannot
afford to spend more than she gives." He was not extravagant
in college. His four annual term bills average leps than two
hundred dollars each. He was always of steady purpose.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 17
Though unexpected obstacles might make tlie attainment of
his object more difficult, whatever he undertook he would spare
no effort to do. His love of reading which appeared so strong
in the Latin School, became stronger during his college course.
He spent much of his time in this way, reading widely and
well, his memory, always remarkable, enabling him, with little
effort, to retain whatever he wished. His favorite author was
Shakespeare, from whose writings he was continually quoting
from memory. In his senior year he commenced to keep a com
mon-place book, copying into it extracts chiefly from the old
English authors and from the current literature of the day. He
continued to keep this book ; and many of the quotations in his
public efforts of a later day are taken from this source. The
extent of his reading was remarked by his classmates and not
without reason, for at his graduation he had, perhaps, a larger
acquaintance with books than any member of his class.

CHAPTER IV
UNDECIDED AS TO PROFESSION — PRIZE FOR ESSAY ON COMMERCE
 WORK OF YEAR AFTER GRADUATION  ENTERS LAW SCHOOL
 INDUSTRY  FRIENDSHIP OF PROFESSORS STORY AND ASH-
MUN  ADMITTED TO BAR  VISITS WASHINGTON — CHAR
ACTER
Sumner graduated at Harvard College August twenty-fifth,
1830. His attachments to the place and to his classmates were
strong and he believed his regret at the separation was greater
than that of most of the members of his class. This feeling of
regret was increased by the uncertainty of his future course.
His friends had chosen their professions but he had not.
Brown, Tower and Hopkinson, those with whom he was most
intimate, had chosen the law and this was his preference, but
the fear of natural unfitness and of failure, caused him many
misgivings and left him, at last, undecided. He mistrusted his
ability to reach the position he desired in the profession. In
these difficulties his father gave him no assistance, but seemed
determined to leave him to the freedom of his own choice. He
expressed no wish and gave him no advice, doubtless having in
mind his own career and thinking that the question was one
of immediate concern to Charles alone and that if left entirely
to himself he would be more laborious in the pursuit of the
profession he chose. But this silence troubled Charles who per
haps misconstrued it. One of his reasons for hesitating to
choose any profession, was a desire, almost morbid, to save his
father any farther expense on his account. For this reason he
sought, though unsuccessfully, the position of usher in the
Boston Latin School.
The first year after his graduation was spent at home pur
suing a course of private study. We find him taking a sterner
view of life. With real candor, he wrote to his classmate:
" Tower, you and I are both young and the world is all before
us. You are ambitious I know, and I am not ashamed to con
fess, though ' by that sin fell the angels,' that I also am guilty.
We are then fellow laborers in the same field, we are both strik
ing our sickles at the same harvest. Its golden sheaves are all
pointing to you. You have been laborious and I have not I
18

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 19
have trod the primrose and you the thorny path. — There is no
railway to fame. Labor, labor must be before our eyes, nay
more, its necessity must sink deep in our hearts. This is the
most potent alchemy to transmute lead to gold."
During this winter the Boston Society for the Diffusion of
Useful Knowledge offered a prize to the minor who would pro
duce the best essay on a subject relating to trade, commerce or
manufactures. The essay was to be presented to the committee
by January first, 1S31. A short time before the day specified
Sumner determined to contest for it and accordingly prepared
and presented an essay on Commerce. On the first day of
April following he was declared the successful competitor. The
decision was announced by the President of the Society, Daniel
Webster, at the close of a lecture, on the evening of that day.
Sumner was asked to come forward and receive the prize, Lie-
ber's Encyclopedia Americana, valued at thirty dollars. He did
so and was taken by the hand by Mr. Webster and kindly com
plimented and assured that his country had a pledge of him.
As has already been remarked, Sumner revealed in college a
talent for composition and declamation and in such work
ranked among the best in his class. He was now showing a de
cided interest in these subjects and his letters of the time con
tain frequent allusions to the oratorical displays he witnessed
and to the triumphs of the orators. It was the gradual awak
ening of the latent spirit of the coming man. He was espe
cially attracted to the great orator of the Boston of that day,
" the huge leviathan of New England," as he called him, Daniel
Webster. More than four years before, Mr. Webster delivered
in Faneuil Hall his eulogy on Adams and Jefferson. Sumner,
then a mere boy in the Latin School, wedged his way into the
throng, just in time to hear the supposed speech of John
Adams, considered by those who heard it, the finest passage
of the oration. It left an enduring impression on the boy.
In the October previous to taking the prize for his essay on
Commerce, he had gone on two successive evenings to Faneuil
Hall to hear Mr. Webster discuss the tariff question and about
the same time he went to Salem to hear his argument in the
trial of Joseph J. Knapp for the murder of Stephen White.
These, however, were diversions. At the beginning of the
year, fearful that he might be tempted to waste his time, Sum
ner prescribed a course of study for himself. He thus de
scribed it to a classmate, "a course of mathematics, Juvenal,
Tacitus, a course of modern history, Hallam's Middle Ages,
Eoseoe's " Leo " and " Lorenzi " and Eobertson's " Charles
Fifth," with indefinite quantities of Shakespeare, Burton, Brit-

20 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ish Poets, etc., and writing an indefinite number of long letters.
I have doomed myself to hard labor and I shall try to look upon
labor as some great lawyer did, as pleasure — ' Labor ipse volup-
tas '," Sumner showed that he was not afraid of labor, by vol
untarily undertaking the study of mathematics. Though so lit
tle to his taste, he studied them faithfully, during part of the
year devoting four hours each day to geometry alone. With
such application he succeeded, but he still found them a dis
agreeable study. " I am now digging among the roots of Alge
bra," he wrote to a friend, " and believe your opinion will bear
me out, when I say that these roots when obtained are but
bitter." He, however, completed the course he prescribed. He read
besides, in Latin, Persius ; and in English, a number of books,
among which was the " Correspondence of Gilbert Wakefield
with Charles James Fox, chiefly on subjects of Classical Liter
ature." But at the close of the year he looked back with dis
satisfaction. " The latter part of this year," he wrote, " has
been given up to unprofitableness. I have indeed studied or
passed my eyes over books, but much of my time and almost my
whole mind have been occupied with newspapers and politics."
Freemasonry was then agitating the public and this subject,
which he was attracted to by his father's interest in it, he gave
too much time.
But the commencement of another year brought a change.
He determined to study law and on the first of September, 1831,
he entered the Law School of Harvard College. Newspapers
and politics were dismissed. The latter he so much forgot as
shortly afterwards to congratulate a Professor upon his election
to the State Senate, not knowing that he had just been defeated.
His choice of the profession of law was made after much hesi
tation and without enthusiasm, but his ideal was high and he
determined to be satisfied with no inferior position.
He wrote to his classmate Stearns : " I had rather be a toad
and live upon dungeon's vapor than one of those lumps of flesh
that are christened lawyers and who know only how to wring
from quibbles and obscurities that justice which else they never
would reach, who have no idea of the law beyond its letter, nor
of literature beyond their term Eeports and statutes. If I am
a lawyer I wish to be one, who can dwell upon the vast heap of
law matter as the temple in whieh the majesty of right has
taken its abode, who will aim beyond the mere letter at the
spirit, the broad spirit of the law and who will bring to his aid
a liberal and cultivated mind. Is not this an honest ambition?
If not, reprove me for it. A lawyer is one of the best or worst

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 21
of men, according as he shapes his course. He may breed
strifes or he may settle the dissensions of years. But when 1
look before me and above me and see the impendent weight, —
molem ingentem et perpetuis liumeris sustinendam, — I incon
tinently shrink back. Book peers above book and one labor of
investigation is gone through with only to show a greater one, —
' what man has done, man can do ' and in these words is a full
fountain of hope. And here again Burke, ' There is nothing in
the world really beneficial that does not lie within the reach of
an informed understanding and a well-directed pursuit. There
is nothing that God has judged for us that he has not given us
the means to accomplish, both in the natural and moral world.'
What a sentiment, how rich in expression, how rich in truth.
But such results cannot be accomplished without labor, sys
tematic and well directed. I am determined that if health is
continued to me, lack of study shall not be laid to my charge.
Study is my talisman."
Sumner divided his time, forenoon to law, afternoon to
classics and evenings to history and subjects auxiliary to law.
Two o'clock in the morning was his usual hour for retiring to
rest. He roomed at number ten, Divinity Hall, and later in
Dane Hall, retired parts of the college, working hard, allowing
himself little time for rest and recreation, having few associates,
taking little exercise, seldom out of his room at nights. This
severe application troubled his friends, who feared that his con
stitution could not sustain such drafts as he made upon it, a
tendency to consumption being hereditary in his family.
Though his course of reading while in the Law School was
large, he gave especial attention to the prescribed studies, read
ing carefully the notes and many of the cases referred to in
his textbooks. He continued his habit of common-placing and
copied into his note-book the definitions given in some parts of
Blackstone's Commentaries. His teachers were impressed with
his remarkable memory and the facility with which he recalled
the results of his reading.
In 1832 he was appointed librarian of the Law School and in
this capacity he soon became so familiar with the library as to
be able to find any book on its shelves, in the dark. The text
books in it he familiarized himself with, so that he could give a
summary of the contents of almost every one of them, together
with a brief biographical sketch of the author. It was owing
to these circumstances that even thus early, his assistance was
occasionally sought by practising attorneys in the preparation
of their briefs. He continued librarian during the remainder
of his course at the Law School. The last year he prepared a

22 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
catalogue of the library with a brief sketch of its origin and
growth, for which he was paid by the corporation.
In 1832, Sumner competed successfully for another Bowdoin
prize. From a number of subjects proposed, he chose this:
" Are the most Important Changes of Society effected Gradually
or by Violent Eevolutions " ? He chose this subject because
his previous historical reading would enable him to discuss it
intelligently without special preparation or interruption to his
prescribed studies. His performance, more than fifty pages in
length, was commenced about a fortnight previous to the day
specified for its presentation and was written in the intervals of
time at his command. It bears the marks of haste and is not
superior to the performances of young men of his age. He
argued that the most important changes of society are effected
gradually and that such revolutions are to be encouraged, but
that violent ones are not.
He was also during the last year of his connection with the
Law School an occasional contributor to periodicals. An
article in the American Monthly Eeview on " Impeachments "
and another in the American Jurist, a review of a lecture by
Professor Parke on Courts of Equity were favorably spoken of
at the time. The latter is referred to by Judge Story in a
note to his " Equity Jurisprudence ", with the remark that he
" knew not where to refer the reader to pages more full of
useful comment and research ".
Sumner was at this time the president of a temperance
society established among the students. It seems to have been
a trait of his character to be strongly attracted by any move
ment which could surround itself with the charm of novelty.
Previous to this he had warmly supported the anti-masonic
movement ; later in life we find him equally earnest in the cause
of universal peace, universal freedom and universal suffrage.
Age had no charm for him. For one situated as he was destined
to be it was perhaps well; but for men in ordinary times it
should have more.
Sumner's application while a student at the Law School soon
attracted the attention of his professors, Joseph Story and John
H. Ashmun. The former, the author of works on commercial
and constitutional law, was also one of the Justices of the Su
preme Court of the United States. He and Sumner's father
while students together at Harvard had been friends. This
friendship, never interrupted, first brought Charles to Story's
attention. There has seldom been a more beautiful relation be
tween teacher and pupil than that which thus commenced. It
was interrupted only by death. The simplicity and purity of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 23
Sumner's character, his appreciative disposition, his enthusi
asm, his love for knowledge, the extent of his reading and his
capacity to retain what he read, his ambition in his chosen pro
fession, the earnest effort he made to realize it, all appealed to
Story's love for young men. He came to regard Sumner al
most as a son. He directed his studies, advised his reading,
welcomed him to his home, his fireside and his confidence.
If Story sent books from Washington for distribution, it
was Sumner's hand which delivered them. If Story's place at
the Law School was vacant it soon became Sumner's duty to
fill it. If Story's son wanted a playfellow, it was Sumner who
was always willing to interest or instruct him. After Sumner
was in his grave and this boy, man-grown, was left to record the
friendship, it is touching to read his recollection of it, which
seems so tenderly to draw aside the veil from this scene of
happy boyhood, hallowed by the touch of death. Everything
about it seems sacred, the books they exchanged, the passages
they read, the stories they told, their amusements, all are
tinged with that tenderness which only the grave can add,
mingled with thoughts of childhood and innocence and friend
ship and fidelity. As Sumner over the grave of Story, the
father, wrote his " Tribute of Friendship ", so Story, the son,
over the grave of Sumner added his " In Memoriam ". The
influence of Story on Sumner's character was handed on by
Sumner to Story's son. It is difficult to measure this influence.
Sumner's respect and admiration for Story now were almost
boundless. For many years he was his ideal and a better ideal
for an ambitious young man it would be difficult to find.
Joseph Story was born at Marblehead, Mass., in 1779,
graduated from Harvard College in 1798, was admitted to the
bar and rapidly rose to eminence in his profession. In 1809 he
entered Congress, but declined a re-election and was returned
to the Legislature of Massachusetts of which he became Speaker
in 1811 and then resigned this office to become one of the
Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States. This posi
tion he filled until his death in 1845. He ranks as one of the
ablest men that ever had a place upon the bench. He was a
man of great industry and of unusual mental vigor. Besides
the great work of his office he was the author of numerous trea
tises, and published reports of his decisions on the circuit, and
was the leading spirit in organizing and conducting the Law
School of Harvard College. As a jurist and exponent of con
stitutional law he stood in the front rank, not only in his own
country, but also in Europe. And as a lecturer and the author
of occasional addresses he showed high literary ability. But

24 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
with all his great work, he never lost his naturalness, his ap-
proachableness, his eager thirst for knowledge and his vivacity
of spirits which made him so attractive to young men. His
ready wit and the contagious heartiness of his laugh were as
marked as the purity and high purpose of his life.
Sumner's controlling ambition from the time he had studied
law sufficiently to fix a plan in life, until 1845, was to be a
jurist. He never appears to have been fitted or disposed to en
gage in wrangling disputes at the bar. Guided by Story's ex
ample, his aspiration was to occupy the position of a judge or
a professor in the Law School; and be known as Blackstone,
Puffendorf and Kent are known.
Much friendship was also shown by Professor Ashmun for
Sumner. Ashmun being younger than Story, his relation to
Sumner approached nearer to intimacy. Sumner seeing him
approach one day quietly remarked to a fellow student that he
was going to get a compliment from the Professor. When he
came up Sumner politely offered him a chair, and after the
usual salutations and a little other talk, commenced : " There is
a lawyer down at the Cape who says he can beat any man in the
State pleading, but that Ashmun "- And then, with a look of
despondency, added: "But as for me I can't plead. I don't
know anything about it ". And then stopped for the expected
compliment. But the Professor answered : " No, you don't
know anything. And what is more, you never will ".
Ashmun's health, though he was a young man, was even at
this time broken. He died soon after of consumption, Sumner
alone being with him at the time of his death, his nurse for
the night. During the same period Sumner met with a nearer
loss by death. His twin sister Matilda died March sixth, 1830,
also of consumption. Professor Ashmun was succeeded by
Simon Greenleaf.
Sumner left the Law School in December, 1833. He in
tended to leave earlier, but remained at the suggestion of Judge
Story. He wished to gain a more accurate knowledge of the
practice and for this purpose in January, 1834, he entered the
law office of Band & Fisk in Boston. Benjamin Band under
whose immediate tuition he was, had a high standing at the bar
for judgment, integrity and learning, qualities which make an
able counsellor, but he does not seem to have aspired to dis
tinction in court practice. He was an intimate friend of Judge
Story whose calls at the office during the unoccupied portion
of their time were always occasions when Sumner became a
willing listener to the conversation. Sumner gave attention
chiefly to the details of office work. He also continued his con-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER •>-.
tributions to the American Jurist and, in the following May,
became one of its editors. He was admitted to the bar in Sep
tember, 1834, at Worcester, there being no court in session at
that season of the year in Boston competent to grant admis
sions. From the middle of February to the beginning of April,
1834, Sumner's studies in the law office were interrupted by a
visit to Washington, undertaken at the suggestion of Judge
Story. He devoted his attention while there chiefly to the
Supreme Court, but also gave some to Congress. The former
was then the scene of discussion of questions which have since
been appealed to other tribunals and are now incorporated in
our political history. In the Senate, in 1852, when advocating
the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law, Sumner, in referring to
this visit, said : " Among the memories of my youth are happy
days when I sat at the feet of this tribunal, while Marshall pre
sided, with Story by his side ".
Congress then had under discussion the National bank ques
tion, which attracted so much attention, during Jackson's Ad
ministration. Neither before nor since have there been three
such men there to discuss any question as Webster, Calhoun
and Clay who were there then in their prime. Sumner ad
mired the attainments of all of them, but especially the graceful
and forcible eloquence of Clay. A card from Mr. Webster
secured him a seat on the floor of the senate whenever he
wished to occupy it.
Judge Story opened the way for him to every circle and
enabled him to make some valuable acquaintances. Sumner
met the Beporters, Wheaton and Peters, he dined with the
Judges of the Supreme Court and received marks of attention
from Chief Justice Marshall, whose greatness and simplicity
impressed him. He there met for the first time, Eufus Choate
and Francis Lieber. With the latter he became an intimate
friend and a frequent correspondent. On his return home he
stopped a few days in Philadelphia, visiting the Eeporter,
Peters, at his home and enjoying some other hospitalities. In
passing through New York on his journey to Washington he
had been introduced by a letter from Professor Greenleaf to
James Kent, the author of the Commentaries on American Law.
He returned to his profession with more love for it and a
greater dislike for politics, little thinking what an arena
Washington was to be for him. On leaving there, he wrote to
his father : " 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

26 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
any feeling other than loathing. The more I see of them the
more I love law which I feel will give me an honorable liveli
hood. Mr. Peters, who has treated me with great friendship,
told me when I was remarking to him as above, that before
1840 I should come on to Washington (if I were willing) to
argue some causes in the Supreme Court. This anticipation,
flattering of course, was dictated undoubtedly by Judge Story's
friendly recommendation of me. However, I do not presume
to indulge any such anticipations. When indulged by others I
let them pass for what they are worth."
Sumner's personal appearance at this time presented a re
markable contrast to that of his maturer years. He was six
feet and three inches tall; but weighed only a hundred and
twenty pounds. He was stooped in his carriage and awkward
in his movements, sprawling rather than sitting in a chair.
His hair was of dark brown color, his eyes blue but usually
inflamed . by excessive use, his features were rough, his com
plexion sallow and indicated a want of sufficient exercise.
Nothing redeemed his face from ugliness, but a beautiful set of
teeth and a winning smile which generally secured for him a
favorable impression at the first introduction.
He was careless of his general appearance and gave little
attention to dress, in this respect differing from his taste in
later years when he became somewhat particular in the choice
of clothes. He had little imagination, no humor and cared
nothing for athletic games. He was conscientious in his con
duct, but not religious ; he believed in God, but seemed to have
doubts, which later in life were removed, of the divinity of
Christ. He had decision of character and steadiness of purpose
to accomplish a desired end. His qualities of mind and heart
easily secured him friends. His hearty laugh, his appreciative
disposition, his kindliness, always ready to do a favor for a
friend, the charm of his conversation, his scholarly aspirations,
his freedom from sham, his real worth, were qualities which
recommended him among men.
To women he seenied to be indifferent. He would at any
time turn his back upon the loveliest girl to talk to some man
who could tell him something of interest. This trait of his
character was so noticeable that his friends would occasionally
lay wagers with sprightly and interesting girls that they could
not keep him at their side a quarter of an hour. Notwithstand
ing every art they could employ the girls usually lost their bets.
Men he liked best, though he appreciated sensible and intel
ligent women not, however, because they were women, but be
cause they had traits of character which he admired.

CHAPTER V
LAW PRACTICE  EDITING THE JURIST  OTHER PUBLICATIONS 
INSTRUCTOR IN HARVARD LAW SCHOOL  THE FIVE OF
CLUBS
Immediately upon his admission to the bar, Sumner com
menced the practice of his profession in Boston. His first case
was the defence of a man indicted for sending another a chal
lenge to fight a duel. The trial attracted some attention and
resulted in the man being cleared. A newspaper of the fol
lowing day in noticing it characterized Sumner as " a young
gentleman more deeply read in the law than any other in
dividual of similar age ". He was associated in the case with
George S. Hillard, who was near his own age but had been ad
mitted to the bar about a year earlier. In the November fol
lowing Sumner and Hillard formed a partnership under the
firm name of " Hillard & Sumner ". Their office was at No. 4
Court Street. Sumner roomed in the same building with
Luther S. Cushing, later the author of " Cushing's Manual of
Parliamentary Practice ". He took his meals at a restaurant.
Hillard had literary tastes and a genial disposition and to
gether they attracted many visitors to their office. Story and
Greenleaf were among the number; the latter placed a desk
there calling it " our office " and there he met the clients he
served during his connection with the Law School.
But visitors were more numerous than clients. Sumner's
success was not what he desired nor such as his laborious prep
aration for the profession had justified him in expecting.
The number of his cases was not large and the amount involved
in many of them was small. The Jurist and the Law School
occupied a considerable portion of his time. Of the former he
continued to be one of the editors and in the latter he became
an instructor and during a great part of the year spent each
alternate day in Cambridge, in that work. These were serious
obstacles to professional success, for clients are quick to observe
such division of attention. They prefer an attorney who is
always to be found at his desk, ready to serve them with single
ness of purpose. Sumner thus easily drifted away from his
office. It was his ambition to be a Judge, an author or a
27

28 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
teacher, in his profession, rather than a practitioner and he came
to prefer such work as the Jurist and the Law School required.
His associates in the work of editing the Jurist were Hillard
and Cushing. It was as its name indicates a legal periodical,
published monthly in Boston and always maintained a good
standing in the estimation of the Bar of the State. It numbered
at this time among its contributors some men who have since
gained a wide reputation, as writers upon legal subjects, —
Simon Greenleaf, author of the " Law of Evidence ",
Theophilus Parsons, author of the " Law of Contracts ",
Theron Metcalf also the author of a work on " Contracts "
and Willard Phillips, author of a work on " Insurance ".
A large share of the work of editing the Jurist fell to
Sumner. It is not now possible to determine, with accuracy,
his contributions, but many of them are distinguishable, the
longer ones being marked with his initials, and the shorter ones,
by references to them in his correspondence and by peculiarities
of style. They are all carefully written and show the author's
familiarity with literature, but one thing is noticeable of them,
they are not upon strictly legal subjects. He preferred to write
upon the literature of the law rather than upon the law itself.
His articles are historical sketches of libraries and law schools,
reviews of legal publications, propositions for legal reform,
rather than upon the law of real property, agency, promissory
notes, etc.
His ability and industry now recognized, were sought for in
other directions. During 1835 and 1836 he edited " Andrew
Dunlap's Admiralty Practice ". The author, the U. S. District
Attorney for Massachusetts, had just completed the text of the
work when he was seized by disease with such .violence that he
was compelled to resign his office and almost entirely refrain
from labor. He was deeply interested in his book and longed
to complete it. His inability to do so led him to ask the as
sistance of Sumner, whose fitness for the work he recognized.
Sumner promptly undertook it but found it an arduous task.
The text had to be revised, the notes written, the practical
forms added, the index prepared and the work carried through
the press. Much of it had to be done under the jealous eye of
the author who now felt that this book would be his only claim
to the consideration of posterity. Sumner gave his time freely
to the work. The practical forms which are a considerable and
valuable part of the book, he contributed to it himself. Where
they could be found, he selected them from other books, others
he adopted from those which had been approved in actual prac
tice, some he prepared himself. They are now the standard

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 29
forms used in admiralty practice. The work was so great that
the book was not given to the public until almost a year after
the death of Mr. Dunlap. The preface he dictated four days
before his death and in grateful and complimentary terms he
then acknowledged the assistance of Sumner.
During the same period Sumner prepared for Judge Story
the index to his " Equity Jurisprudence ", which he was about
to publish. In 1835, Judge Story also appointed him Reporter
for the U. S. District Court over which he presided. In this
capacity, he published three volumes of Judge Story's decisions,
known as " Sumner's Reports ". They appeared in 1836, 1837
and 1841. He also delivered lectures at various times, but they
were chiefly upon subjects suggested by his work in the Law
School, as The Constitution of the United States, The Law of
Bailments, etc. He was an occasional contributor to the North
American Review.
Sumner commenced to give instruction in the Harvard Law
School in January, 1835. He supplied the place of Judge
Story, during the portion of the year he was occupied upon the
bench of the Supreme Court at Washington. Sometimes Pro
fessor Greenleaf was also obliged to be absent during the same
season upon professional business, he having left an extensive
practice in Maine to assume the duties of his professorship. At
such times the whole responsibility of the Law School fell upon
Sumner. In discharging his duties he gave instructions both
by recitations and by lectures. The textbooks were the first
two volumes of " Kent's Commentaries " and " Starkie on Evi
dence ". The volumes he used show signs of careful and
thorough study. They are considerably worn and contain many
references in pencil on the margin. This is especially true of
the first volume of " Kent's Commentaries ", which treats of
the law of nations, of the Constitution of the United States, and
the sources of municipal law. These were ever afterwards
favorite subjects of study with Sumner. Little is now remem
bered of his method of instruction and this is evidence that it
was respectable for he was daily exposed to a comparison with
Story and Greenleaf.
This list of his employments shows that Sumner, then hardly
twenty-five years of age, was a thoroughly industrious and capa
ble young man. If work in the courts did not come to him, he
was willing to take that which did, even though it brought small
returns in money. He was faithful to his early ideals. Work
was still his talisman. He was extending his acquisition of
knowledge and widening his influence and adding to his fame.
He was cultivating his power as a writer and speaker and lay-

30 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ing deep and broad a foundation for the future. His habits
continued good, he allowed no time for evil associations, he kept
himself busy.
As usual he had a circle of warm friends about him. He
and his college classmates had drifted apart but new occupa
tions had brought new associations and new friends. Though
the number of them was not larger than falls to the lot of
others, his devotion to them was a marked trait of his character.
It would be difficult to find another, whose time was so care
fully husbanded, who was so willing to lay aside his own work
to entertain or assist friends. This made his friendship valua
ble even to a man of prominence and wide influence like Judge
Story, who was frequently burdened with work which Sumner
could do as well as he. Professor Greenleaf found his friend
ship equally valuable.
But theirs was also valuable to him. Association with
them corrected his ideals and communicated to him the lofty
aspirations by which they were inspired. Their wide acquaint
ance among influential men opened up new avenues of acquaint
ance to him. His experience in Washington in 1834, when
Judge Story brought him to the notice of such men as Chief
Justice Marshall and Mr. Webster, was repeated in 1836, when
he made a tour visiting Providence, New York, Albany, Sara
toga, Niagara Falls, Montreal and Quebec, returning by way
of Portland. At New York, he dined with Judge Kent, the
author of " Kent's Commentaries ", at his home and visited the
suburbs of the city with him. He also met the widow of Gover
nor De Witt Clinton and was introduced by her to her brother-
in-law, Judge Ambrose Spencer, then living in Albany at an
advanced age.
Of this visit he wrote: "While in Albany, I saw Judge
Spencer, who received me kindly because he understood I was
Judge Story's friend; also Johnson, the reporter, who is one
of the most agreeable and gentlemanly men I ever met. In
deed I had reason to think of Judge Story and be grateful to
him every step ".
At Quebec he met Judge Sewell, the Chief Justice of Lower
Canada and Judge Gaston, the famous North Carolinian. He
also made the acquaintance at this time of Thomas Brown, a
young English advocate, with whom he afterwards corre
sponded and to whom he was to be indebted for kindness when
he visited Europe.
The friendships Sumner now formed were lasting. Francis
Lieber, whose acquaintance he bad made in 1834, was one of his
most frequent correspondents. This correspondence continued

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 31
until Lieber's death in 1872. He was a native of Berlin, but
came to this country while still a young man and remained
until his death, occupying professorships in various colleges.
He was a voluminous writer and was always engaged in some
literary work. His best known productions are " Civil Liberty
and Self-Government " and his " Political Ethics ". He was
an enthusiast in his literary work but sometimes in his search
for materials made serious drafts upon the time of his friends.
Sumner, however, was always willing to assist him in securing
materials, in the publication of his books and in procuring a
favorable reception for them from the public. He in turn
frequently aided Sumner with material for his speeches and
was ever his staunch supporter in his public career.
Sumner and four of his friends in Boston and Cambridge,
at this time formed an association which they called the " Five
of Clubs ". The members were Sumner, Henry R. Cleveland,
Cornelius C. Felton, George S. Hillard and Henry W. Long
fellow. They were near the same age, Sumner, the youngest,
being twenty-six and Longfellow, the oldest, thirty. They were
all talented young men of pure lives and high aspirations and
with the exception of Hillard were all unmarried. Cleveland
was a teacher, of a refined and sensitive nature, and a grace
ful writer, but he died six years later. All the others lived to
justify their early promise; Longfellow became a great poet;
Felton, president of Harvard College and an author; Hillard,
an able lawyer and a legal writer of note ; all are known as men
of letters and made an impression upon their generation and
left national reputations. In all the annals of literature
there can hardly be found an association more beautiful than
that of these young men.
They usually met each Saturday afternoon, at the room of
one of their number to discuss the literature of the day, for
eign travel, their own studies and to spend an hour in friendly
conversation. Each of them submitted to the others, his
article or book or poem, for comment and criticism, before it
was given to the public. Longfellow and Cleveland had
travelled extensively in Europe; and the others longed to do so
and were interested in everything that was said of the scenes
of their subjects of study. A table spread with a few delicacies
gave an additional interest to their meetings. Their conversa
tion was interesting and instructive, nothing coarse, and the
direst company would have been jovial under the influence of
the hearty laugh and joyous spirit of Felton.

CHAPTER VI
TRIP TO EUROPE — DISADVANTAGES  OPPOSITION OF FRIENDS 
MOTIVES FOR TAKING IT  VOYAGE  FRANCE  LEARNING
FRENCH — SCHOOLS  COURTS  ASSEMBLIES
For years Sumner had longed to make a trip to Europe.
While a student in the Law School, he almost completed an
arrangement with a gentleman by which his expenses for such
a trip were to be borne, in consideration of services to be ren
dered on his return. Later when bantered by Mr. Greenleaf
about " the perfect woman he was some day to wed ", or rallied
by his friends about settling down in life, he would answer, " I
am married to Europa ". It was not, however, until 1837, that
his wish to visit Europe became a settled purpose.
Such a trip may easily be made an appropriate conclusion
to a college course. It is an excellent preparation, for one, who
aspires to a professorship in some school or to the pursuit of
letters or to a life of elegant ease. In no other place can a
knowledge of a modern language be so well obtained as in the
country where it is spoken. You there hear it used continually,
with its different forms of expression and pronunciation and
you can so locate yourself that you must learn to speak the lan
guage or have no communication with others. A knowledge of
it thus becomes imperative and it is then more readily acquired.
An acquaintance with the people, their manners, institutions
and literature follows easily a knowledge of their language.
Such attainments are accomplishments to be desired by any
one. But they should present to one situated as Sumner was
another consideration, — whether a professional man, to acquire
them, would be justified in quitting his office and his business,
for two years, after having fairly commenced his career. The
law is a jealous mistress. To succeed, one must be willing to
dedicate to her not only his days and nights, but he must do
it with every energy which he can command. Clients cannot
be dismissed and recalled at pleasure. To establish oneself
well in the legal profession generally requires years of labo
rious exertion. Before such a possession is bartered away for
graceful, but unnecessary accomplishments, the consequences
32

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 33
should be carefully calculated. So far as Sumner's law practice
was concerned, his determination to spend two years in Europe
was a mistake.
His friends generally discouraged it. He was much hurt
at President Quincy of Harvard bluntly telling him, that all
the good Europe would do, would be to teach him to wear a
mustache and carry a cane. Some were afraid he would be
spoiled by foreign airs and manners; others thought that the
continued novelty and excitement of so long a stay in Europe
would wean him from the profession to which he had been
devoted so short a time. Whatever the cause may have been,
the fact is unquestioned, that Sumner never afterwards actively
engaged in the practice of law. His friends, however, yielded.
They saw his desire to go was so great that he would be cast
down if not permitted to carry out his purpose.
For an absence of two years in Europe about five thousand
dollars was required to defray his expenses. Of this sum his
professional savings had been scarcely one-third. His friends
Judge Story, Samuel Lawrence and Richard Fletcher kindly
loaned him the balance. To secure him a favorable reception
in Europe, friends were ready to give him letters of introduc
tion. Of these he had altogether about fifteen — to some of the
most influential persons in England and on the Continent.
They also gave him such counsel and information as they could
to advance the purpose of his trip. Lieber wrote out for him
a number of rules to guide him. The friends who at first dis
couraged his trip, when he had determined to go, generously
furnished him every means in their power to make it profitable.
The discouragements he met with, made Sumner feel the
responsibility of the step he was taking. He wrote to Professor
Greenleaf the day before he sailed : " It is no slight affair to
break away from business which is to give me my daily bread
and pass across the sea to untried countries, usages and lan
guages. And I feel now pressing with a mountain's weight, the
responsibility of my step. But I go abroad with the firmest
determination to devote myself to self-improvement from the
various sources of study, observation and society; and to re
turn an American. Gladly will I receive any of those accom
plishments or modifications of character, which justly proceed
from an extended survey of the human family, I pray fervently
that I may return with benefits on my head ; and that the affec
tation of character and indifference to country which are
thought sometimes to proceed from travel may not reach me.
All this is in the unknown future, which I may not penetrate.
To the candid judgment and criticism of my friends, I shall

34 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
submit myself on my return ; and I shall esteem it one of the
highest duties of friendship to correct me and to assist in
bringing me back to the path of sense and simplicity, if it shall
be found that I have departed from it. Do not let it be said
then that I shall be spoiled by Europe, but rather suggest that
I shall return with an increased love for my country and ad
miration for its institutions and an added capacity for per
forming my duty in life. My standard of knowledge and
character must be elevated and my own ambition have higher
objects. If this is not so then I shall have seen Europe in vain
and my friends may regret their generous confidence in me."
Again in his journal of the day he set sail he wrote : " And
a sad time it was, full of anxious thoughts and doubts with
mingled gleams of glorious anticipations. I thought much of
the position which I abandoned for the present ; the competent
income which I forsook; the favoring tide whose buoyant
waters were bearing me so well, which I refused to take even
at its ebb ; then I thought of the advice and warnings of many
whose opinions I respect. The dear friends I was to leave be
hind all came rushing before me ; and affection for them was a
new element in the cup of my anxieties. But on the other hand,
the dreams of my boyhood came before me, the long-pondered
visions, first suggested by my early studies, and receiving new
additions with every step of my progress ; my desire which has
long been above all other desires, to visit Europe ; and my long
cherished anticipations of the most intellectual pleasure and the
most permanent profit. Europe and its reverend history, its
ancient races, its governments handed down from old times, its
sights memorable in story; above all its present existing in
stitutions, laws and society, and its men of note and mind, fol
lowed in the train, — and the thought of these reassured my
spirits. In going abroad at my present age, and situated as I
am, I feel that I take a bold, almost a rash, step. One should
not easily believe that he can throw off his clients and then
whistle them back, ' as a huntsman does his pack '. But I go
for purposes of education and to gratify longings which prey
upon my mind and time. * * * The course which my studies
have taken has also made it highly desirable, that I should have
the advantage derived from a knowledge of the European lan
guages, particularly French and German, and also a moderate
acquaintance with the laws and institutions of the Old World
more at least than I can easily gain at home. In my pursuits
lately I have felt the want of this knowledge, both of the
languages, particularly German, and of the Continental juris
prudence. I believe then that by leaving my profession now, I

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 35
make a present sacrifice for a future gain ; that I shall return
with increased abilities for doing good and acting well my part
in life."
These passages reveal his motives. The solution is found in
the aspiration which Sumner was known to have at this time.
He wished to occupy a professorship in the Law School such
as Judge Story then occupied and be known to posterity as a
writer on legal subjects. He wished to study law as a science,
not to practice it as a trade, to be instrumental in reducing its
principles to something like symmetry and in bringing the mass
of the common-law into smaller compass. He wished to have
the civil and criminal law both codified as the latter has been
since, in many of the States.
Upon the subject of codification he was enthusiastic. In
1836 he was appointed by the Legislature of Massachusetts
with Judge Story and others a Committee to report on tbe
advisability of such a reform in that State. Though declining
to act as a member of the Committee for fear of the imputation
of the undue influence of Judge Story, which might arise from
their friendly relations, he advocated the reform in the Jurist
and sought the contributions of Professor Mittermaier, an
eminent German law-writer, in presenting similar views to the
public. He wished to talk on this subject with its advocates in Eu
rope. He wished to know these men and to know them inti
mately. He wished to see them in their schools, hear their
lectures, enter with them into the spirit of their work. He
wished to see their methods of instruction, to know in what they
excelled and introduce their reforms into his own country. He
wished to see parliaments and assemblies where laws were made
and the courts where they were administered and note wherein
they differed from similar institutions of his own country. He
intended by this means to fit himself for a life-work.
After several appointments and as many disappointments,
Sumner at last fixed his time of sailing, in the early part of
December, 1837. During November, he made a hurried trip
to Portland, Maine, to procure some promised letters of intro
duction; and another to Washington to be made the bearer of
dispatches, an appointment which would give him some ad
vantages. He sailed by the Albany on December eighth
from New York. The evening previous, until late, he spent in
writing farewell letters to friends. He had received many from
them assuring him of their regard, bidding him God-speed and
reminding him of the honorable career which awaited him on

36 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
his return. As the vessel sailed slowly down the harbor and
out to sea, he stood thoughtfully on deck, watching receding
objects till one after another disappeared and he was left alone,
with all he loved behind, with nothing before but his own
bright anticipations, now overshadowed with the gloomy fore
bodings of his friends.
He then went below. Here different experiences awaited
him. During the next four days he suffered from that sick
ness, which some one has humorously said makes a man feel
at first afraid he will die, but afterwards, afraid he won't. At
the end of that time he had so far recovered as to be able to
read when propped up in his berth and at the expiration of a
week he could go below to his meals. During the remainder
of his voyage he spent his time, in reading, studying French
and reviving his knowledge of chess and whist, accomplish
ments of his college days which he had put aside for sterner
tasks. The voyage was a prosperous one and on the evening of
December twenty-fifth, land was sighted. Sumner was then
in the English Channel and the dream of years was realized !
"My mind," he wrote, "has felt a thrill under the associa
tions of these waters; it is my first experience of the rich
memories of European history. On my left now are the chalky
cliffs of England — Plymouth, from which the Pilgrim ances
tors of New England last started to come to our bleak places ;
also the Isle of Wight, consecrated by the imprisonment of the
royal Charles; and the harbor of Portsmouth, big with the
navies of England. On my right is la belle France and the
smiling province of Normandy ; and the waters which now bear
this American ship are the same over which Cassar with his
frail boats, and afterwards William of Normandy passed to
the Conquest of England. Their waves dash now with the same
foamy crests as when these two conquerors timidly entrusted
themselves to their bosom. Civilization, in the mean time,
with its attendant servants — commerce, printing and Christian
ity — has been working changes in the two countries on either
side ; so that Csesar and William, could they re-visit the earth,
might not recognize the lands from which they passed or which
they subdued. The sea receives no impress from man."
Owing to adverse winds, the Albany did not come to anchor
at Havre until December twenty-eighth. Sumner then went
on shore and spent the remainder of the day in viewing the city.
The next morning he started for Rouen, talking on the road
to the driver as best he could, with his imperfect French. He
now felt the need of the language to be able to appreciate the
objects of interest about him and he was determined to use

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 37
it and thereby extend his knowledge of it, at every opportunity.
The next day was spent in Rouen, a considerable part of it in
viewing the Cathedral, the wonder of the North of France,
built before the Conquest, when the knowledge of the arts and
sciences seems to us to have been in its infancy ; and yet it
appears, to the traveller to-day, as great an achievement in
architecture as it must have been to its builders. He also
visited the Hotel de Ville. In its library, he was struck with a
manuscript he saw, made on parchment by an obscure monk,
before the discovery of the art of printing. The work was a
collection of the music used in their service, of no substantial
value, and yet the labor of transcribing it consumed thirty years
of time — almost a whole human life, wasted!
Anxious to see at their height the great gambling hells, which
were to be abolished throughout France on the first of January,
Sumner set out for Paris on the morning of December thirty-
first and reached there at twilight in the evening, — in time to
see the dens, in their greatest pride, fade away before the law.
In the journal which he commenced with his voyage and con
tinued for four months he has recorded the scene :
" I went about ten o'clock to Frascati's, — the great " hell " of
Paris. Passing through an outside court, and then a short
entry, we entered an antechamber, where there were a large
number of servants in livery who received our hats and outside
garments, no one being allowed to enter the gambling saloon
with either. The hats already hanging up and in the custody
of the servants seemed innumerable, and yet the servants had.
no numbers or marks by which to indicate to whom each hat
belonged, trusting entirely to recollecting the countenance.
The door of the saloon was then opened; and the first table
of gamblers was before us — men young, middle-aged and old,
with the bloom of youth yet mantling the face and with the
wrinkles and gray hair of age. This table was a roulette, I be
lieve. It was about the size of a common billiard table, and it
was completely surrounded by a double and triple row of
persons; the first row sitting, and the others standing. Among
those sitting were two or three women of advanced age, and
moving about the room were several younger, undoubtedly
Cyprians, possessing considerable personal attractions."
"Passing into the next saloon through an open door, we
found a larger table, with players more intent and more numer
ous, where the game turned upon cards. The silver and gold
spread on the table was a vast amount, and I saw one man, with
a lip that quivered and a hand that trembled, stake his double
handful of gold on a single throw, — amounting to many hun-

38 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
dred dollars. Little wooden rakes or hoes were used to draw
the money in. The third saloon had a table where the chance
turned upon dice."
" It was a scene which I am glad to have witnessed. ¦ The
excitements of gambling have been said to be strong; and I
can understand how persons have been drawn by its fascinations
within the terrible maelstrom. They try once for experiment,
and are seduced by a momentary success, or excited by a loss
and observing others perhaps winning large sums, they are
finally absorbed in the whirling vortex. Several of the friends
that I went with ventured several francs, and alternately lost
and won. I am free to confess that I felt the temptation but
I restrained my hand. To-night being the last night, the rooms
were very full, the gamblers wishing to have their last game.
We left sometime before midnight, thinking that there might
be some disturbance at that time, when the transforming wand
of the law would exercise its power. I, however, walked the
boulevards, which were splendidly illuminated by the shop win
dows till long after midnight, as well as thronged by people;
and at twelve o'clock I stood before Frascati's. The people
were retiring from within, and as the women came out they
were subjected to the sneers and jeers of a considerable crowd
who had collected in the street about the gateway. A few of
the police were present who at once interfered to prevent the
uproar; and in a few minutes three horsemen rode into the
crowd, and speedily dispersed them. Such was the last night of
Frascati, and my first night in Paris."
During his first weeks in Paris, Sumner pursued indus
triously the study of the French language. He had studied it
while in college and could read it with some accuracy, but he
had thus far made little effort to learn to speak it. He re
frained from presenting the letters of introduction which he had
to various persons in Paris and he declined invitations into
society, until he could use the language. He engaged lodging
in a quiet part of the city so that he would have a place where
he could hear nothing else spoken and so be compelled to talk
French or have no communication with those about him. Here
he engaged two teachers with whom he could take lessons and
converse at different hours of the day. When he went for a
walk, he would take the child of one of his teachers to talk to ;
he conversed with people he met by the way. " My rule," he
wrote, " is to practise upon everybody, to take every opportu
nity to speak the language, even if it be but a word, for every
time of trial gives me assurance and also adds to my stock of
words and phrases."

Life Of Charles sumner 39
He frequented reading-rooms and public lectures in the
schools of medicine and law. He also attended theatres, pur
chasing at the door a copy of the play so that he could follow
the performance and thus familiarize himself with the sound
of the spoken language. Of course he made rapid progress in a
study pursued so persistently. He had entered France on De
cember twenty-eighth and on January twelfth, he recorded in
his journal, on returning from a lecture at the law school, that
he could understand nearly all the lecturer said. On February
fourteenth, after an evening spent in the society of some friends
he again recorded that all were kind enough to remark that he
had gained a great deal of French and were astonished at his
progress. " I just begin to enjoy conversation," said he, " and
the sensation is delightful." Thenceforward he was frequently
in society and soon became at ease in the use of the language.
Whatever furnished self-improvement seemed to have an at
traction for him. As he drifted into the dock at Havre, with
the tide and a gentle wind, he marked the "noble work con
trived for the reception of vessels and bearing the inscription
of ' An. IX Bonaparte 1° Consul ' ", the labor of this great man
meeting him on the threshold of France. At Paris he ascended
the monument in the Place Vendome, conceived and built by
Napoleon, and he recorded in the journal of the day: "It is
composed of the cannon taken at Austerlitz. There is a genius
characteristic of Napoleon in making the conquered cannon
into a monument of victory; and the monument is a most
beautiful one. It is an imitation of the pillar of Trajan at
Rome of which it preserves the proportions on a scale larger
by a twelfth."
He visited the Hospice des Enfants Trouves, since discon
tinued, and of it he wrote: "This is the receptacle of the
foundlings of Paris ; and upwards of one hundred are left here
each week, making more than six thousand during the year.
The argument for such establishments is that they prevent in
fanticide by furnishing an asylum for infants. There is a
little box with a green cushion, about large enough for an
infant, which opens on the street; into this the child is put by
the parent or other person entrusted with it, and at the same
•time the box is turned round, a bell being made to ring by the
act of turning, and the little thing is received into its new
asylum. If the infant is well it is very soon put out to nurse
in the country. There were about one hundred and fifty in the
Hospice. It was a strange sight to see so many children all of
an age, ranged in rows, in their little cradles. There was a
large number with sick eyes, and many with other complaints.

40 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
The curtains of many were drawn aside that I might see them.
In one cradle I observed that the countenance was pallid and
the mouth open, and I said to my attendant, ' File est morte.'
The attendant doubted, and thought that she perceived a
breath from the mouth. I touched the cheek ; and it was very
evident that the poor child was dead, — it was as cold as marble.
It was melancholy to see even an infant that had died without
any attendant affectionately watching; and who breathed its
last, with the curtains of its little cradle closed against all
sight." But the schools and the courts seemed to be the most attract
ive places to Sumner and there he spent much of his time,
after learning the language. During his stay in Paris he at
tended about one hundred and fifty lectures, delivered in the
schools by many of the most eminent teachers in France. His
journal and letters abound in references to them, describing
most of the lecturers and their manner and method and his
estimate of their merits. He usually attended one or two of
these lectures each forenoon. The manner of giving instruction
seemed to be of especial interest to him and to obtain informa
tion upon this subject he did not confine himself merely to the
schools of law, his own profession, but those of medicine and
the sciences were equally to his purpose. The hospitals which
gave Paris especial advantages for the study of medicine and
hence attracted the most gifted men in the profession and
large numbers of students, often found him there, joining a
class and with it following the professor through the different
wards, witnessing the surgical operations performed and all
kinds of diseases treated and explained to the class, which he
still attended, to hear the lecture following, in the lecture room.
Everywhere it was work and activity for him from early
morning until late at night, his bedtime usually being about
midnight or one A. M. He wrote to Judge Story at the end
of his first six weeks in Paris : " All my hours are occupied
far into the watches of the night. So far as labor is con
cerned, I should much prefer to be again in my office dealing
with clients and familiar law books. Travelling with my de
sires and determination is no sinecure. I am obliged to hus
band all my minutes."
Having learned the language so he could use it with some
facility, during the first two months of his stay in Paris, he
then left his comfortable but retired room in the Latin quarter
of the city and found lodging on one of the Boulevards, where
he could see more of the life of the metropolis. His letters of
introduction, several in number, not thus far used he now

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 41
hastened to present. Foelix, the editor of a law magazine and
the author of a work on the Conflict of Laws, he had been
brought into contact with by his work upon the Jurist and
they had exchanged letters before Sumner went to Europe.
Immediately upon arriving in Faris, he had .sought him out.
He found him living quietly with two maiden sisters, one of
them well read in the law, able to converse in English and an
accomplished assistant of her brother in his editorial work.
Foelix was a Prussian by birth but being banished from his
native country for political causes, he had come to Paris and
was naturalized as a citizen. He was enthusiastic upon the
subject of codification and absorbed in the work of his peri
odical. Sumner was frequently in his company, while in Paris,
and by him he was introduced to many men of eminence and
otherwise shown much kindness.
Sumner carried a letter of introduction from Dr. Channing
to Baron de Gerando, a lecturer in the law school, a Councillor
of State, a Peer, and also a writer of some note. Lewis Cass
was then our French Minister and he and his wife, being
wealthy, entertained handsomely. Being the bearer of dis
patches from his government, Sumner was brought at once into
contact with him. George Ticknor, who had been Professor
of French and Spanish Literature at Harvard, while Sumner
was in College, with his wife, a most accomplished and attract
ive woman, was also in Paris during the first two months of
Sumner's stay. With all these he dined. He thus enlarged
his circle of acquaintances. These were his means of access
to French Society, few enough it would seem. But he had been
accustomed to the best society which Cambridge and Boston
afforded and with his ambition to learn and his enthusiastic
appreciation of all that was pure and good he needed only
to have an entrance and thenceforward his own merit opened
the avenues he desired.
It is interesting to note how he succeeded. He met, upon
friendly terms, Cousin, the writer upon ethics and philosophy,
was called upon by him and with him discussed the merits of
the writers upon, kindred subjects in the United States. Sis-
mondi, the historian, and Pardessus, the writer upon Commer
cial and Maritime Law, both received him kindly. He was
entertained by Demetz, a Judge and afterwards the founder
of the Reform School for boys at Mettray, where Sumner again
met him in 1857 and was impressed by his remark that ' he had
renounced his position as Judge, thinking there was something
more for him to do than to continue rendering judgments of
courts ; that he had the happiness of being a Christian and that

42 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
it was of much more importance to him what the good God
would think of him than what men thought."
He was presented to Madame Murat, ex-queen of Naples, the
sister of Napoleon and widow of his great Captain of Cavalry.
His journal notes : " She is now at Paris to prosecute a claim
against the Government for the Palais de l'Elysee Bourbon.
She is full sixty, but appears to be forty-five. She received me
quite cordially in her bedroom where there were already three
or four ladies, and, in the true French style, was pleased to
compliment me on my French; when, indeed, I spoke wretch
edly, — not speaking as well as I might, for I felt a little awe
at the presence in which I found myself. She is rather stout,
with a free, open, pleasant countenance and ready smile. Pres
ently some Marquis or other titled man was announced and
she said, ' C'est terrible ' and rose and passed to the salon,
where she received him. Her countenance had the roundness
which belonged to Napoleon, but none of his marble-like grav-
ity." Sumner also saw and heard Dupin, the first lawyer of
France, then President of the Chamber of Deputies, and also
saw Guizot and Thiers, the historians. The newspapers oc
casionally noticed his presence at a trial or a lecture ; and at a
public banquet he attended, the presiding officer noticed his
presence in some complimentary remarks, which were applauded
by the company.
Sumner spent much of his time during the last two months
in Paris at the Assemblies and the courts. At the former,
through the kindness of Gerando, himself a Peer, he was hon
ored with a seat in the box in the Chamber of Peers. And in
the Chamber of Deputies, through the kindness of another
friend, he was given a seat in the reserved tribune. With
these opportunities for hearing and seeing, he could closely
observe the proceedings. He was impressed with the dignity
and moderation in partisanship which characterized the de
bates and the apparent regard for the public welfare.
But he was still more interested in watching the operation
of the Code Napoleon in the courts. He was enthusiastic in
its praise. He observed closely the procedure in the courts.
At this time he contemplated writing a book on the compar
ative procedures in the courts of England, France and the
United States. He thought the French bar inferior in learning
to our own and their literature of the law confined almost
exclusively to commentaries on their Code and the Roman law.
And his impression was that the French nation was behind our
own in its courts and laws.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 43
To Judge Story he wrote : " At present I am attending the
courts. Indeed a French court is a laughable place. To me it
is a theatre and all the judges, advocates and parties ' merely
players.' In those particulars in which they have borrowed
from the English law, they have got hold of about half the
English principle and forgotten the rest. Thus they have
juries. These they imported from England; but with them,
none of the regulations by which the purity of our verdicts is
secured. * * * There was nothing like cross-examination ; and
I have reason to believe that this test of truth is entirely un
known to the French procedure. All the questions were put by
the presiding judge, who, however, took no notes of the answers :
and the questions were general, such as names and times being
altered would apply to all cases. * * * Papers of all kinds are
admitted. You will see from these words that the duties of
the judge and advocate are infinitely abridged; the lawyer giv
ing his chief attention to his pleading and the presiding judge
putting a series of questions which have been digested before
hand. Neither judge nor lawyer is obliged 'to watch the cur
rent of the heady fight,' as with us, where almost every word
of testimony makes its way against the serried objections of
opposing counsel."
His journal of March sixteenth and seventeenth contains a
description of a trial which he attended at Versailles, in the
company of his friend, Lcdru, one of the attorneys for the de
fendant : " The prisoner," he wrote, " was a young man of
eighteen, who was charged with killing his mistress. It seems
that the two, according to a French fashion, tired of life, agreed
mutually to kill each other. The pistol of the prisoner took
effect and the girl was killed; but hers did not take effect.
The prisoner then tried to kill himself but was finally arrested
before he had consummated his project. * * * The first step
was the reading of the act of accusation or indictment by the
clerk. The names of all the witnesses were then called. They
were very numerous and were all sent into an adjoining room.
Among them was the mother of the prisoner and also the
mother of the deceased. The prisoner himself was first exam
ined very minutely by the judge and detailed all the important
circumstances of his life, his education and of his final com
mission of the offence, with which he was charged. He gave all
the particulars fully. This examination was conducted en
tirely by the senior judge. The prisoner cried while telling his
story, and did not speak loud enough to be distinctly heard by
the jury. He was then removed from the witness stand. The
judge next read the examination of the prisoner on his first

44 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
apprehension, and then the testimony given by physicians at
the first examination. Witnesses were then introduced one by
one ; * * * by the judge. The few questions put by counsel on
either side were through the mouth of the judge; and there
were not half a dozen during the whole trial, and to, perhaps,
thirty witnesses. The first set of witnesses proved the previous
character of the accused; the second set the same of the de
ceased. Next came the doctors and then the persons who found
the body and the prisoner. Members of the jury asked ques
tions when they pleased; and all or nearly all, had a little
piece of paper on which to make notes. The examination of
witnesses was completed the first day, and the court adjourned
at about five o'clock in the afternoon. The jury separated
without any injunction not to converse on the subject of the
trial; but on the adjournment mingled among the crowd."
" March seventeenth. At ten o'clock the court again con
vened. One of the morning papers contained a full report of
the doings of yesterday. My friend the counsel of the prisoner,
anticipating it last night, enjoined upon his servant to bring
from Paris a dozen copies of the paper containing the report
to distribute among the jury. I told him he would commit a
crime, according to English and American law, — ' Embracery ' ;
but he laughed at the idea. This forenoon the Procureur-
General first spoke, then the counsel for the prisoner; then
again the Procureur, and again the counsel for the prisoner.
I understood that they had a right to speak as many times as
they chose, the counsel for the prisoner always having the last
word. In the arguments there was nothing such as I have been
accustomed to ; everything was different. The defence was
theatrical, brilliant, French. The counsel grasped the hand of
his client, and worked the whole audience into a high pitch of
excitement. At the close of his argument he called upon his
client to promise in the face of the court and of God, that, if
he were restored to liberty, by the verdict of the jury he would
hasten to precipitate himself upon the tomb of the unfortunate
girl he had destroyed and pray for forgiveness; and the pris
oner, by way of response, stretched his hand to his counsel,
who seized it with a strong grasp, saying at once, ' J'ai fini.'
Women screamed and fainted, strong men yielded, and tears
flowed down the cheeks of the jury and even the grim coun
tenances of the half dozen police, or gendarmes who sat by the
side of the prisoner, elevated and within the observation of all
the audience. The arguments concluded, the judge sitting
(and the jury sitting) read a very succinct statement of the
case, and the law which bore upon it. This occupied perhaps

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 45
five or ten minutes. The jury then retired and within less than
ten minutes returned. The prisoner, in the meantime, had
been conducted to a room out of the court room. The jury
rendered their verdict, ' Not Guilty ' ; the prisoner was then
brought in and the judge communicated the decision to him,
dismissing him with an impressive admonition. The greatest
excitement prevailed in the court room when the verdict was
announced. Women, and men too, cried for joy. So much for
a French criminal trial ! "
These things show the employment of Sumner during his
stay in France. He left May twenty-ninth, 1838, for London.
He had learned to speak the French language with considerable
freedom and resolved to study it further in England and make
it a permanent acquisition. He had seen the courts and schools,
assemblies and theatres, he had visited the cathedrals and spent
some time in her famous art galleries and in viewing her pub
lic monuments and works. But perhaps the most interesting
of all to him was the opportunity he enjoyed of seeing and be^
coming acquainted with many of her scholars and eminent men.
With some of them he afterwards corresponded. To the recol
lections of this brief life in Paris, he ever after turned, as a
solace, during his after years of toil.

CHAPTER VII
LONDON  THE CLUBS  PARLIAMENT  THE COURTS  JUDGES,
DENMAN, LITTLEDALE AND OTHERS  SOCIETY, MACAULAY,
CARLYLE, HALLAM — SERVICES FOR FRIENDS  ON THE CIR
CUITS — BROUGHAM — LONDON AGAIN
An important part of the life of Sumner is his first visit to
England. No biography of him would be complete without a
considerable mention of it. It was different from the visit of
most Americans to England, so many undertake it from motives
of simple pleasure and are satisfied with a hurried view of the
places that are usually seen by tourists. But it must be kept
in mind that Sumner's purpose was different. He sought solid
instruction, not mere rest from labor ; and permanent improve
ment, not the mere amusement of an idle hour. No part of his
early education was more fruitful of results. He saw England
as few young Americans have ever been permitted to see it and
the taste it gave him of the real life of the eminent Judges
and barristers and Lords and Commoners, men high in author
ity, created with him a different view of office and bigh position
from that he had before entertained. It is fortunate that we
have so full a record of his daily occupations and experiences
as has been preserved to us by his letters. They give the reader
delightful glimpses of English private life in places not easily
accessible to travellers and thus have a value apart from our
interest in the story of Sumner's life.
He reached England on the thirty-first day of May, 1838, and
remained until March twenty-second, 1839, almost a year.
He came from Calais by way of the river Thames, directly to
London. " My friends, English and American," he wrote, " ad
vised me to take this route, and enter London by the gate of
the sea; and I feel that the advice was good. I waked up in
the morning on board the small steamer and I found her scud
ding along the shores of Kent. There were England's chalky
cliffs full in sight, — steep, beetling, inaccessible, and white.
Point after point was turned, and Godwin's Sands — where was
buried the fat demesne of old Duke Godwin, the father of
Harold — were left on the right. We entered the Thames;
passed smiling villages, attractive seats and a neat country on
the banks and thousands of vessels floating on the river. For
46

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 47
eighty miles there was a continuous stream of vessels; and as
we gradually approached the city then did the magnitude and
mightiness of this place become evident. For five miles on
either side the banks were literally lined with ships, their black
hulls in gloomy array, and their masts in lengthening forests.
We were landed at London Bridge, and my eyes recognized at
once ' London's column pointing to the skies,' and, as I drove
up to lodgings, St. Paul's. When I landed I first supposed
myself in the centre of the city; but I subsequently found that
I had hardly reached this point, when, driving two miles, I
was set down at Tavistock Hotel, in Covent Garden."
He engaged permanent lodgings near Parliament and the
Courts. He brought letters of introduction from Judge Story,
Emerson and others to Justice Vaughan, Carlyle, Wordsworth,
Lords Jeffrey, Denman and Fitzwilliam and two or three
other persons of less note. He presented some of these letters
promptly upon his arrival in London. Of four clubs the Alfred,
Garrick, Athenseum and Travellers, he was shortly after elected
an honorary member. This was a qualified membership, en
titling him during his temporary residence to the privileges of
the club.
Here he mostly took his meals and wrote many letters. He
was enabled by the persons to whom he bore letters to make
friends besides those he met at the clubs, until with the broad
ening circle, before his departure, he numbered among his ac
quaintances most of the great names of the England of that
day. It must always be remembered that he bore letters to
only a few of those he met. His letters hardly numbered more
than a dozen ; while he counted his friends by hundreds. The
letters could have laid those to whom they were addressed un
der only the most moderate obligations to him, an invitation
to dine or some similar courtesy and then the acquaintance
need have been pursued no farther. But as shown by his let
ters Sumner's invitations to dine were more than he could
accept. If he had not himself attracted the persons he met,
his circle would have been narrow, for he scrupulously re
frained from asking for any introductions at all. But it is
some tribute to his own personality that when he returned to
the Continent he was told by those amply able to judge that
he "had seen more of England and its society not only than
any foreigner but even than a native." So great an authority
as Lord Denman, then Chief Justice of England, wrote him
on leaving : " No one ever conciliated more universal respect
and good will."
Sumner's earliest acquaintances in London were among the

48 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
members of the bar. Pleasant glimpses we get of him as he
describes his visits to Parliament. First in the company of a
little knot of barristers, he dropped into the House of Com
mons one evening about ten o'clock and found that body en
gaged in the dull discharge of routine business, — so dull that,
in humorous amazement he records that he actually dropped
asleep under its Gallery. But he quickly corrects the impres
sion this might give of his interest in that body, by relating his
next experience, when, through the courtesy of one of its mem
bers, he was admitted to the floor of the House and with this
advantage sat through a night's debate on the Irish Municipal
Corporation Bill.
He thoughtfully estimated the successive speakers. There
was the polished, graceful, self-possessed, candid, or apparently
candid, Peel, with rather a want of power; and the diminu
tive, rickety Lord John Russell, wriggling around, playing with
his hat, seemingly unable to dispose of his hands or his feet,
his voice small and thin, but notwithstanding all this a house
of upwards of five hundred members, hushed to catch his
slightest accents. You listened and you felt that you heard a
man of mind, of thought and of moral elevation. Then came
Sheil, breaking forth with one of his splendid bursts, full of
animation in the extreme, in gesture and glow like Sturgis, in
voice like John Randolph, screaming and talking in octaves
and yet the House listening and cheering. Sugden, the author
of the " Law of Vendors ", authority wherever, the world over,
the Common Law finds a home, tried to speak, but his voice for
the whole half hour he was on the floor was drowned by calls
for the question and the uproar of the members and the Gal
lery, so that Sumner heard not a word he uttered. Then the
accomplished O'Connell, with his rich voice, more copious and
powerful than Clay's, charmed the House to silence. Campbell,
afterwards Lord Chief Justice was there. And Follett spoke,
already Sumner's friend, and the leader of the English bar,
Sumner thought, better than all the rest. Was it partiality for
his friend or his profession that made him think so ? Sumner
was attached to both.
He was impressed with what he saw of the English bar. He
was introduced by the Chief Justice, Lord Denman, to whom
he brought a letter of introduction. He was at once received
among them upon friendly terms and was impressed with what
seemed to him the unusual freedom of their intercourse, never
addressing one another with the prefix " Mr." but always sim
ply, " Follett ", " Campbell ", " Wilde ", dining together at the
Inns of Court, many of them lodging there, frequenting the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 49
clubs together and travelling in company on the Circuit. They
appeared to Sumner like a well-regulated family, a band of
brothers. It was to them that he owed his admission to the
clubs. Lodging among them, a well-read lawyer himself, well
educated, accustomed to good society and its amenities, eager
to learn of their courts and to know those who presided and
practised there and able to impart a similar knowledge of our
own courts, with his youth and versatility he easily became
an accession to their society. He thus found opportunity to
see them in public and in private. He knew most of the Judges
and was invited to dine with them and repeatedly, during
trials, occupied, by their invitations, a seat at their side on the
bench. The relations of the bench and the bar were more
cordial than he had been accustomed to see. Each seemed
more the helper of the other. Good-will, graciousness and
kindness prevailed between them. To him, as he wrote, noth
ing could be imagined more pleasant than the life of an Eng
lish Judge, with the English bar always standing between him
and the litigants to soften the asperities of his position.
The practice of the law had its humorous side. Straying into
the committee room of the House of Lords one morning, Sum
ner found several attorneys busy examining witnesses as to the
feasibility of a proposed railroad. He at once recognized Sir
Charles Witherell by the careless and slovenly dress, by which
he had repeatedly heard him described. The witness was a
plain farmer also apparently careless of his appearance. The
question was asked, by Sir Charles, whether the proposed
road would not do considerable business in carrying articles of
fashion. " Well, as to articles of fashion, Sir Charles, I do not
think they much concern either you or me," was the quick re
sponse. The committee laughed heartily and Sir Charles joined
them. To Judge Story he wrote of the courts and judges and of the
bar. " Most of the judges go to court in the morning on horse
back, with a groom on another horse behind; and they are
notorious as being very poor riders — though the fate of Twys-
den has been latterly unknown, he having fallen from his horse
on the route and then declared that no Lord Chancellor should
ever make him mount again. In winter the court opens at ten
o'clock ; and they continue sitting till between four and five, —
often till seven. Between one and two they leave the bench and
retire to their room, where they eat a sandwich and drink a
glass of wine from a phial ; this takes five or ten minutes only.
The judges have not separate seats, as with us; but all sit on
one long red-cushioned seat, — which may with propriety be

50 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
called the bench, in contradistinction to the chair, which is the
seat of a professor. I shall begin with the common law, and,
of course, with the Queen's Bench."
"You know Lord Denman, Chief Justice of the Queen's
Bench, intellectually better than I; but you do not know his
person, his voice, his manner, his tone, — all every inch the
judge. He sits the admired impersonation of the law. He is
tall and well made with a justice-like countenance : his voice
and the gravity of his manner, and the generous feeling with
which he castigates everything departing from the strictest line
of right conduct, remind me of Greenleaf more than any other
man I have ever known. I wish you could have listened to
Lord D., as I did on the circuit, when he sentenced some of
the vicious and profligate wretches brought before him. His
noble indignation at crime showed itself so naturally and
simply that all our bosoms were warmed by it ; and I think his
words must have gone like iron into even the stony hearts of
the prisoners. And yet I have seen this constitutional warmth
find vent on occasions when it should have been restrained; it
was directed against the Attorney-General, who was pressing
for delay in a certain matter with a pertinacity rather peculiar
to him. Lord D. has to a remarkable degree, the respect of
the bar; though they very generally agree that he is quite an
ordinary lawyer. He is honest as the stars, and is willing to
be guided by the superior legal learning of Patterson. In con
versation, he is gentle and bland; I have never seen him ex
cited. His son, who will be the future Lord Denman, is what
is here called a nice person."
" Littledale is rather advanced in life ; I should call him
seventy. He has the reputation of great book-learning; but he
seems deficient in readiness or force, both on the bench and in
society. I heard old Justice Allen Park say that Littledale
could never get a conviction in a case where there was any ap
peal to the feelings. He has not sat in banc this term, but has
held the Bail Court."
" Patterson is the ablest lawyer on the Queen's Bench, — some
say the first in all the courts. As I have already written you,
he is unfortunately deaf, to such a degree as to impair his use
fulness, though by no means to prevent his participating in the
labors of the bench. He is deeply read and has his learning at
command. His language is not smooth and easy, either in
conversation or on the bench ; but it is always significant, and to
the purpose. In person he is rather short and stout, and with
a countenance that seems to me heavy and gross ; though I find
that many of the bar think it quite otherwise. I heard Warren

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER gj
— author of ' Ten Thousand a Year ' and ' Law Studies ' —
say that it was one of the loveliest faces he ever looked upon ;
perhaps he saw and admired the man in his countenance. I
have heard many express themselves about him with the greatest
fondness. He has a very handsome daughter."
" Turn next to the Common Pleas. There is, first, Lord
Chief Justice Tindal. He sits over his desk in court, taking
notes constantly, — occasionally interposing a question, but in
the most quiet manner. His eyes are large and rolling; in
stature he is rather short. His learning, patience and fidelity
are of the highest order. He is one of the few judges who
study their causes on their return home. His manner is sin
gularly bland and gentle, and is, perhaps, deficient in decision
and occasional sternness. Sergeant Wilde is said to exercise a
very great influence over him ; indeed scandal attributes to him
some of the ' power behind the throne greater than the throne '.
Upon Tindal devolves the decision of all interlocutory matters
in his court, the other judges seldom interposing with regard
to them, or, indeed, appearing to interest themselves about
them. He is one of the kindest men that ever lived.
" Then comes Vaughan. He became a sergeant sometime in
the last century and was the youngest ever known. At one
period his practice was greater, perhaps, than of anybody
ever known in the courts. His income was some fifteen thou
sand pounds. About 1820 his leg was broken very badly by a
cartman, who ran against him as he was driving in a gig. After
being confined to his bed for three months, he at length ap
peared in court on the shoulders of his servants; and had a
hole cut in the desk before him for his leg ; and by permission
of the court addressed the jury sitting. His business at once
returned to him. In 1820, he was made a judge, it is said at
the bar, by the direct command of George IV, who was moved
to it by his favorite physician, Sir Henry Half ord ; which gave
occasion to the saying in the bar benches that 'Vaughan was
made a judge by prescription'. He is reputed to have the
smallest possible allowance of law for a judge ; but he abounds
in native" strength and sagacity, and in freedom of language.
With him the labors of the judge cease the moment he quits
the bench. I doubt if he ever looks into a cause at chambers.
In his study he once showed me four guns, and told me with
great glee that, by sending a note to Sergeant Wilde, he per
suaded him not to make any motion on a certain day, and got
the Court of Common Pleas adjourned at twelve o'clock; he at
once went fifteen miles into the country, and before four o'clock
had shot a brace of pheasants, the learned judge sitting on

52 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
horseback when he fired, as from his lameness he was unable
to walk. He is fond of Shakespeare and often have we inter
changed notes during a long argument of Follett or Wilde,
while I was sitting by the side of the latter in the Sergeants'
row, the burden of which has been some turn or expression
from the great bard, the crowd supposing he was actively tak
ing minutes of the argument, while he was inditing some
thing pleasant for me to which I never failed to reply. His
present wife when young was eminently beautiful, so that Sir
Thomas Lawrence used her portrait in some imaginary pieces.
He has several children, one of whom, his eldest son, graduated
at the University with distinguished honor, and has been
recently called to the bar : I think him a young man full of
promise. Vaughan though not a man of book-learning himself
respects it in others."
Sumner thus describes the trial of a case before the House
of Lords : " I have not spoken of arguments before the Lords.
I have attended one and sat in conversation with the Attorney-
General, Lushington, and Clark, the reporter. The Chancellor
sat at the table below the woolsack; the benches of the Lords
were bare ; only two unfortunate members, to whom by rotation
it belonged to tend-out in this manner, were present in order
to constitute the quorum. These happened to be, as Dr. Lush
ington explained to me, Lord Sudely, who is quite skilled in
architecture, and Lord Mostyn, who is a great fox-hunter.
There they sat from ten o'clock in the morning till four in the
afternoon, with their legs stretched on the red benches and
endeavoring by all possible changes of posture to wear away the
time. The Attorney-General told me that ' it would be thought
quite indecorous in either of them to interfere by saying a
word '. You have asked about the character of the judges, I
should not omit that of the Lord Chancellor (Cottenham). He
did not once open his lips, I think, from the beginning to the
end of the hearing. I am astonished at the concurrent expres
sions of praise which I hear from every quarter. He has been
all his days a devoted student of the law; and I believe of
nothing else."
Perhaps it was after a day before this court, and having in
mind such judges as Lord Sudely and Lord Mostyn, that an
eminent English barrister once told Sumner that he always
drank porter before an argument in order to bring his under
standing down to a level with the judges.
Sumner breakfasted with Lord Chief Justice Denman, whose
invitations to dinner, owing to other engagements, he was
obliged to decline. He dined with Lord Wharncliffe. He at-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 53
tended a great ball at Lord Fitzwilliam's, starting from his
lodgings at eleven o'clock in the evening, but the press of car
riages was so great there, that he did not reach the door until
one. There was the elite of England's nobility. He remarked
that the only untitled name he heard was that of the Chancellor
of the Exchequer, who bore the rather suggestive one, Spring
Rice. It seemed as if he had fallen in fairyland, with the
whirl of beautiful women and well-dressed men about him,
Lord and Lady, waiting as submissively as himself to be pre
sented. He attended a collation by the Bishop of London and
was asked by the Bishop to take wine with him. He was in
vited to the banquet of the Lord Mayor of London and his
health was proposed by the late Lord Mayor, in a compli
mentary speech, to which he made an impromptu reply, draw
ing cheers from his audience and afterwards congratulations
from his friends. He attended the coronation of Queen
Victoria, with its gorgeousness and suggestions of feudal glory
and was at a grand fete given in honor of the event at Lans-
downe House.
The invitations to these places were all voluntary. Sumner
as scrupulously refrained from asking for them as he had for
introductions. The numerous invitations he received enabled him to meet
and, in many instances, to know well men of wider reputation
than most of those who bore the English titles. His letters,
especially to Hillard, abound in descriptions of the literary
people he saw. It was in the great names of English Literature,
whose writings they had discussed at the meetings of the Five
of Clubs and in their private walks and talks that Hillard was
most interested. He wanted to hear from Sumner how these
men looked and talked and acted, his estimate of them from a
close point of view. The glimpses Sumner gives us of them
are delightful; Bulwer, radiant with jewellery and incased in
ruffles, with his high-heeled boots and flaming blue cravat,
strutting about the club ; Pool, the author of " Paul Pry ", sit
ting very quietly, eating moderately, using few but choice
words, often hitting off clever things ; Lockhart, the son-in-law
and biographer of Sir Walter Scott, fretting about, saying lit
tle and still less that was worth remembering. He saw the
banker-poet Rogers, often in company, but never liked him till
he breakfasted with him at his own home. Then he found him,
as a converser, unique, the world not giving him credit enough
for his great and peculiar power, in this line ; terse, epigram
matic, dry, infinitely to the point, full of wisdom, sarcasm and
cold humor, saying the most ill-natured things and doing the

54 life of Charles sumner
best; to be alone with him, enjoying his paintings and rare
art treasures, and still more his frank talk of the society and
poets and poetry of the quarter of a century that had passed
before him, he alone of all unchanged, — -" seldom ", he adds,
" have I enjoyed myself more ".
Here is his first glimpse of Macaulay, the historian, whom he
afterwards met frequently : " During the dinner at Lord Lans-
downe's, I was addressed across the table, which was a large
round one, by a gentleman with black hair and round face,
with regard to the United States. The question was put, with
distinctness and precision, and in a voice a little sharp and
above the ordinary key. I did not know the name of the gentle
man for some time, till by and by, I heard him addressed by
some one, as ' Macaulay '. I at once asked Lord Shelburne, who
sat on my right, if that was Thomas Babington Macaulay, just
returned from India, and was told that it was. At the table
we had considerable conversation, and on passing into the draw
ing-room it was renewed. He is now nearly or about forty,
rather short, and with a belly of unclassical proportions. His
conversation was rapid, brilliant and powerful; by far the best
of any in the company, though Mr. Senior was there and
several others of no mean powers. I expect other opportunities
of meeting him. He says that he shall abandon politics, not
enter Parliament, and addict himself entirely to literature."
Sumner carried a letter from Ralph Waldo Emerson to
Thomas Carlyle. He wrote to Hillard : " I heard Carlyle lec
ture the other day ; he seemed like an inspired boy ; truths and
thoughts that made one move on the benches came from his
apparently unconscious mind, couched in the most grotesque
style, and yet condensed to a degree of intensity, if I may so
write. He is the Zerah Colburn of thought ; childlike in man
ner and feeling, and yet reaching by intuition, points and
extremes of ratiocination which others could not so well ac
complish after days of labor, if indeed they ever could. I have
received a very kind note inviting me to pass an evening with
him, but another engagement prevented my accepting."
Later, he wrote : " Another morning was devoted to Carlyle.
His manners and his conversation are as unformed as his style
and yet, withal, equally full of genius. In conversation he
piles up thought upon thought, and imagining upon imagin
ing, till the erection seems about to topple down with its weight.
He lives in great retirement, I fear almost in poverty. To him
London and its mighty maze of society are nothing; neither
he nor his writings are known. Carlyle said the strangest thing
in the history of literature was his receipt of fifty pounds from

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 55
America, on account of his 'French Revolution' which had
never yielded him a farthing in Europe and probably never
would. I am to meet Leigh Hunt at Carlyle's."
" I have often," he wrote, " met Hallam, the historian, at the
Athenaeum. I was standing the other day by the side of a
pillar, so that I was not observed by him, when he first met
Phillips, the barrister who visited America during the last
summer; and he cried out, extending his hand at the same
time : ' Well, you are not tattooed really ! ' Hallam is a plain,
frank man, but is said to be occasionally quite testy and rest
less. Charles Babbage, himself one of the most petulant men
that ever lived, told me that Hallam once lay awake all night
till four o'clock in the morning, hearing the chimes and the
watchman's hourly annunciation of them. When he heard the
cry, ' Four o'clock and a cloudy morning ', he leaped from his
bed, threw open his window, and, hailing the terrified watch
man, cried out : ' It is not four o'clock ; it wants five minutes
of it ! ' and after this volley at once fell asleep."
Again : " A few evenings ago I dined with Hallam. He is a
person of plain manners, rather robust, and wears a steel watch-
guard over his waistcoat. He is neither fluent nor brilliant in
conversation; but is sensible, frank and unaffected. After
dinner we discussed the merits of the different British histo
rians, Gibbon, Hume and Robertson. Of course Gibbon was
placed foremost."
" Said Barry Cornwall to me yesterday while he held in his
hand a lovely little boy : ' Have you any such beautiful pictures
as this ? ' What fine sentiment comes from married folks !
And, indeed, a lovely child is a beautiful picture. I loved the
poet more after he had put me that close question. His gentle
countenance, which seemed all unequal to the energy which
dictated ' The sea ! The sea ! ' was filled with joyous satisfac
tion and love ; and he hugged the boy to his bosom."
And so these charming sketches run on ; many of them show
the good heart of Sumner, revealed in the comment he makes
upon what he saw. They all show a tender regard for his
friends. He was enjoying England himself, but he was care
ful by long and almost daily letters to share the pleasures and
profits of his trip with those who had sympathized with his
ambition to see these countries or had aided him to it in a more
substantial way. Judge Story, his ever faithful friend and
mentor and his excellent wife, both loving him hardly less than
their own son, Professor and Mrs. Greenleaf, scarcely behind
them in affectionate regard, Hillard and Longfellow and
Lieber, his early and constant friends, as well as the members

56 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
of his own family, all had abundant proof of this kind of his
unchanging affection for them.
His letters from England alone, that have been preserved,
cover about one hundred and forty closely printed octavo pages.
And some others that are known to have been written have not
been found. They were all written, in the abandon of friend
ship, with the freshness and enthusiasm of youth, and with no
view to publication. He never reclaimed any of them and his
only care seemed to be lest they should fall into unfriendly
hands and the freedom with which they were written should
be abused. Those who received them handed them to others
and by this means they were read by a wide circle of friends.
While in London he was useful to some of his friends in
other ways. Francis Lieber had just completed his " Political
Ethics " and was desirous of having it published in England.
Sumner undertook to accomplish this for him and succeeded in
making a satisfactory arrangement. He also volunteered to
distribute copies of it to influential friends of his own and
to have it reviewed in some of the leading periodicals. He pro
cured a publisher for Judge Story's " Equity Pleadings " and
had Prescott's " Ferdinand and Isabella ", then just issued,
reviewed and sought in other ways to gain for it a
favorable reception in England and Scotland. All these serv
ices were gratefully acknowledged ; and his efforts for a recogni
tion of Prescott, whom he had not known before, was the com
mencement of a lasting friendship.
His letters abound in evidence of his interest in affairs at
home. In his quiet hours there often passed over him thoughts
of his deserted law office and of the trains of business cut short
which seemed a little while before to be bearing him on to fame
and fortune. He wrote of Dane Hall and the Law School, the
hardly confessed hope of his future, of the pretty firesides in
Cambridge, where he had always found a welcome seat, where
rare intelligence presided and " the merry laugh went round ".
Whatever interested these friends interested him, — far away, —
their marriages, the births of their children or the death of one
of them. How he sorrowed with them ! Hillard's only child
had died, a little boy, two years old. The news reached Sumner
a month later after an all-night's ride from Holkham to Lon
don. He could not rest till he had written. The joyous letters
he had sent to him, all unconscious of his sorrow, how they
would seem to flout his grief. He tenderly sought to smooth
away the sorrow of the parents, with thoughts of the society
there would be to them, of the richest kind, in the cherished
image of the dear one whose body had been taken away, his own

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 57
pure spirit mingling with the goodness and greatness that had
gone before, he escaping the toils and trials, which would, per
haps, if he had lived to encounter them, have made him mourn
that he was born ; and he reminded them of the gratitude they
owed to God for casting such a sunbeam across their path even
though followed by the darkness of their present sorrow.
Why should Sumner's' friends not love him, with all his kind
ness and consideration for them? Their letters to him were
full of congratulations upon the success he was everywhere
meeting. They felt themselves honored in the representative
they had abroad and they wrote him to go on and see every
thing he could and then come home and in the quiet walks of
his former days, tell them all about his journey. They planned
his future for him, in the office and in the school, both he and
they little thinking how different it would be. Underneath all
the hope expressed, there was a lurking fear that he might be
spoiled, by all this novelty and excitement, for the practical,
work-a-day life of home. But he went on following the present
with all his ardor, delving into the rich mines of English life
and story, content to take care of the future when it came.
He had invitations from the judges to attend them upon all
the circuits. The social season of London was closing, the
people of wealth and position from all parts of the kingdom,
who habitually come there during the winter months, to enjoy
some recreation away from their estates, amid the gayeties of
the metropolis, were departing. A number of them invited
Sumner to visit their country seats. With Parliament and the
courts closed, the theatres empty, the clubs deserted, his friends
gone and the hot season of the year at hand, the city could have
few attractions, while the country with its pure air, with per
sons and places full of interest easily drew him away.
He left London on the twenty-fourth day of July, 1838, and
remained away till the fourth day of November following. The
intervening months were as industriously employed as any
since he had left home. His route lay westward into Corn
wall, thence North, through the western counties, into Scot
land, spending three weeks there and a week in Ireland, and
returning to London from the North through the eastern
counties. On the way he was introduced to many people of
eminence and was entertained at some of the most considerable
houses of the kingdom.
The season of the year was the best that could be chosen for
this trip. As he started away, the trees were in full leaf, the
meadows and cultivated gardens were green and fields, whiten
ing for the harvest, were nodding in the sunshine. The journey

58 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
was performed mostly by coach and private conveyance, over
excellent roads. The varying landscape he passed was beauti
ful. The occasional ruggedness of the scenery, everywhere
softened by centuries of the civilizing work of man, the fertile
farms and broad estates, never monotonous, seldom mounting
to the ruggedness of a hill or mountain, but rolling quietly
away ; the busy marts of trade and manufactures, interspersed
between with neat country villages ; grim, castled halls frown
ing from some eminence; pretty cottages, with prim little
gardens hedged in, and well kept out-buildings, peeping out of
every shaded dell; still flowing rivers winding through quiet
fields, and around all the white-capped waves of the ocean, dash
ing themselves against a rugged and rocky coast, altogether
made one of the most beautiful pictures that the human eye
could witness.
Sumner went first to Guildford where he met the Home Cir
cuit and dined with Lord Denman and the bar, then to Win
chester and Salisbury, stopping at the latter place to see the
cathedral. He visited Old Sarum and Stonehenge, peculiar
relics of antiquity, supposed to be remains of an ancient temple
and altar of the Druids. Thence he went to Exeter and then
to Bodmin, where he met the Western Circuit. At Bodmin he
found Follett and Wilde, two leaders of the London bar, there
on business. Together with Sumner they were the guests of
the bar, at a banquet where his health was proposed and he
made an impromptu response. He saw much of these two
men in England and was entertained by both of them. They
deserve more than a passing notice.
William Webb Follett was then only forty years of age,
youthful in appearance and manner, and a most lovable person.
As a speaker he was fluent, graceful and distinct with an
agreeable voice ; uniformly bland, courteous and conversational
in style. He seemed to have a genius for the law ; in stating a
legal proposition or arguing a case he was at home. Yet, as
was unusual, he was equally successful in that very different
kind of oratory, parliamentary eloquence. Calls for him were
frequent upon the floor of the House and he was listened to
with marked attention. He had carefully mastered the ele
ments of the law, but his knowledge of other subjects, politics
as well, seemed to be superficial. His practice at this time was
large; Sumner thought he had an annual income of fifteen
thousand pounds and it was generally allowed that he would be
made Lord Chancellor upon the accession of his party to power,
so great was his popularity. But he died at the early age of
forty-seven, having been successively a Member of Parliament,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 59
Solicitor-General and Attorney-General. Had his health been
spared he would doubtless have reached the highest places in his
profession. He was a singularly kind, considerate aud obliging
man and these traits contributed greatly to his success. Sumner
received many courtesies from him and was attached to him.
Thomas Wilde, the other of these friends, was then fifty-six
years of age. Sumner wrote of him : " After his entrance to the
profession, he was guilty of one of those moral delinquencies
which are so severely visited in England. I have heard the
story, but have forgotten it. In some way he took advantage
of a trust relation, and purchased for himself. He was at once
banished from the Circuit table. A long life of laborious in
dustry, attended by the greatest success, has not yet placed him
in communication with the bar ; and it is supposed that he can
never hope for any of those offices by which talent and success
like his are usually rewarded. I think it, however, not im
probable that the government, in their anxiety to avail them
selves of his great powers, may forget the past; but society
will not. He does not mingle with the bar, — or if he does, it
is with downcast eyes and with a look which seems to show
that he feels himself out of place. He is the most industrious
person at the English bar ; being at his chambers often till two
o'clock in the morning, and at work again by six o'clock. His
arguments are all elaborated with the greatest care; and he
comes to court with a minute of every case that can bear upon
the matter in question. In the Common Pleas he is supreme,
and is said to exercise a great influence over Lord Chief Justice
Tindal. He once explained to me the secret of his success; he
said that he thoroughly examined all his cases and, if he saw
that a case was bad, in the strongest language he advised its
adjustment ; if it was good he made himself a perfect master of
it. He is engaged in every cause in the Common Pleas. In
person he is short and stout, and has a vulgar face. His voice
is not agreeable; but his manner is singularly energetic and
intense, — reminding me in this respect of Webster more than
any other person at the English bar. If you take this into con
sideration in connection with his acknowledged talents and his
persevering industry, you will not be at a loss to account for
his great success. I have been told that he was once far from
fluent; but now he expresses himself with the greatest ease.
His language has none of the charms of literature; but it is
correct, expressive, and to the purpose. In manner, to his
friends, he seems warm and affable. To me he has shown much
volunteer kindness. I have conversed with him on some points
of professional conduct, and found him entertaining very ele-

60 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
vated views. He told me that he should never hesitate to cite
a case that bore against him, if he thought court and the
opposite counsel were not aware of it at the moment."
Notwithstanding the prediction of the fatal consequences of
Wilde's early mistake, his talents and industry did at last reap
their merited reward ; After he was fifty-eight years of age, he
became successively Solicitor-General, Attorney-General, Chief
Justice and finally Lord Chancellor ; and was then raised to the
Peerage. From Bodmin, Sumner passed farther into Cornwall to visit
the High Sheriff at his castle, and then he returned to the
coast, to Plymouth, to view the spot, always of interest to him
as the point of departure of the Pilgrims on their passage to
the bleak shores of Massachusetts ; now one of the great naval
arsenals of the kingdom. Here a barge was placed at his dis
posal, so that he could visit the ships in port and an officer was
also detailed by the Commander of the largest vessel, to show
him the shipyards.
From Plymouth, through Devon, he passed to Taunton in
Somerset, where he spent two days, the guest of Sydney Smith,
master of English wit and literature, at his pretty cottage,
Combe Flory. He had met Smith in London, where they be
came friendly, and he was invited to visit him at home. Here,
with this prince of conversation, was entertainment. On leav
ing, his host gave him a book to remind him of his visit and
also a list of his essays published in the Edinburgh Review
and elsewhere, characterizing the essays as containing " liberal
sentiment expressed always with some wit ". Sumner urged
Hillard to publish an American edition of these essays. Such
an edition has since been issued.
Sumner met the Western Circuit again at Wells and was
there the guest of the bar. From Wells he went to Bristol and
Chester. Here Justice Vaughan, who was then holding court
called him to'his side on the bench. From Chester he went to
Liverpool, where Baron Alderson, of the Northern Circuit
was holding the assizes. He had never met him, but he brought
letters of introduction from Justice Vaughan, Lord Brougham
and others.
There has been frequent opportunity in these pages to note
the friendly relation of members of the English bar to each
other. There seemed to exist among them the tie of a guild or
fraternity, an introduction to whose circle gave to the recipient
whatever of courtesy and kindness the membership could con
tribute. Sumner met many men of other .professions in Eng
land to whom he was indebted for kindness, but the narration of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

61

his journey shows that he was under the greatest obligation to
the bar. The members seemed to vie with one another, while he
was on the Circuits, in passing him on from place to place, and
in opening each avenue of interest to him, toasting and feast
ing and introducing him, though knowing him only as an
untitled member of the bar. They recognized in him a quiet,
self-respecting, appreciative American of their profession.
The same tie exists among lawyers in the United States, but
this kindly feeling is not so prevalent. It is to be regretted
that in America so little time is given to the amenities of the
profession. There is so much " vim, vigor and victory " and so
little of quiet, friendly communion; the hustler fills so large
a place and the equally industrious man, who often does more
and better work, with less noise and friction, attracts so little
notice ! How the homely wisdom of poor Oliver Goldsmith is
to be envied, going off with some friends, to the green fields
with a biscuit in his pocket, to spend a " shoemaker's holi
day", in the shade of a tree or on the bank of some stream.
If it were to obtain oftener among members of the bar how
many of the hard places it might soften and how much of bit
terness and needless asperity it might remove ! Conflict is an
essential part of the business of the profession, but much of the
bitterness it engenders is unnecessary.
Sumner found no end of good cheer in Liverpool. The first
day he attended a banquet given by the city authorities to the
judges; the second clay he dined with the judges to meet the
bar; the third with the Mayor of the city; the fourth with the
bar. " I have a thousand things to say to you," he wrote to
Judge Story, " about the law, circuit life and the English
judges. I have seen more of all of them probably than ever
fell to the lot of a foreigner." At a banquet in Liverpool, in
responding to a toast proposed by Baron Alderson, he attracted
the attention of Robert Ingham, the Member of Parliament for
South Shields, and he was invited to become his guest at his
town and country homes, during the sitting at Newcastle of
the British Association for the Advancement of Science.
Thither we went on the twenty-second of August, 1838. On a
headland jutting out upon the German Ocean, with its waves
lashing the rocky coast, stood Westhoe Hall, the seat of his host.
It overlooked Tynemouth Priory, whose sturdy but graceful
arches were the witnesses of the centuries since the Conquest.
Robert Ingham was one of the purest and best of men, a
Member of Parliament for a quarter of a century, not brilliant,
but a sensible, conscientious representative of the people.
Sumner attended the meetings of the British Association as his

62 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
guest during the week they continued. The intervals of the
meetings were pleasantly spent with Ingham and his friends.
As showing the style of English country life, his host invited
fourteen gentlemen to meet Sumner and to spend the evening
at Westhoe Hall and there they all remained the whole night.
During the banquet at the close of the meetings of the As
sociation, he was called out by the President, the Bishop of
Durham, proposing the health of the distinguished foreigners
present and singling him out by some complimentary remarks.
He responded in a short speech, which was reported in the New
castle papers. It was afterwards copied into the Boston papers.
Thus in other ways the news of his success abroad reached the
Boston public.
At the adjournment of the Association, by the invitation of
the Bishop of Durham, he accompanied him in his carriage to
his house, Auckland Castle. This is the seat of the most power
ful Bishop of England. He remained there two days and then
went to visit the Recorder of Newcastle at Harperly Park.
Here he spent two days more, riding with the young ladies on
horseback, enjoying excursions over the country and the visits
in the neighborhood, — delightful days, when all were young —
with spirits buoyant and happy and care thrown away. They
entertained him with their tales of the chase and of their mail
rides and the leaps of their horses over fences and ditches, in
the fox-hunts common in the locality. His own curiosity was
easily aroused to attempt the sport himself.
Two days more he spent with the Member of Parliament for
Northumberland, at Oakwood, on the Tyne, twelve miles from
Newcastle and then he went to shoot grouse with Archdeacon
Scott on the moors of Whitfield Rectory. The venerable Arch
deacon loaned him a hunting shirt and a pair of rough shoes
and thus clad, in his company, for the clergy in England are
skilled in the sports of the field, they started out for a hunt on
the moors and fells. The dogs started several coveys of grouse
and partridges, but Sumner and the Archdeacon maintained
that both their guns missed fire and, hence only, they failed,
through the whole day, to bring down a single bird. This mis
chance is not to be wondered at, in Sumner's case, of whom it
is not recorded that he ever shot a gun before, but it is damag
ing to the reputation for sportsmanship of a clergyman of the
Established Church. It is not mentioned that the Archdeacon
killed anything, but it is recorded with due solemnity, in the
Gamebook of Whitfield Rectory, that Sumner killed one hare.
From Whitfield Rectory, on the Archdeacon's horse and at
tended by his groom, Sumner splashed, through showers of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

63

rain over the moors and valleys of Northumberland, to
Brougham Hall. This was the country seat of Henry, Lord
Brougham, former Lord Chancellor of England. Joseph Parkes
had introduced them in London and the acquaintance which
followed, renewed again in 1857, was a pleasant one to Sumner.
He was asked to visit Brougham Hall, when on the Circuits,
and reached there, wet and tired, about the middle of the
afternoon of September sixth. As soon as he made known the
discomforts of his trip, he was shown to his apartments and en
joyed a complete change of clothing. Who has not felt the
warmth and glow that dry clothes and comfortable enter
tainment bring over one's spirit, after such a trip? The very
fatigue of the journey seemed to give way to a pleasurable
sensation of health and vigor, produced by the exercise of
riding in the open air.
The evening, and the next day, Sumner spent with Lord
Brougham. His mother was still living and had her home
with him. She was an interesting lady, eighty-six years of
age and a niece of the historian Robertson. Lord Brougham
was one of the marked men of his generation.
He was born in Edinburgh in 1779, of an ancient Westmore
land family and was educated at the high school and uni
versity of his native city. Before graduation he received high
credit for proficiency in scientific studies. As a boy he was
very ambitious and of great activity both of mind and body,
but was inclined to be more diffuse than exact in his studies.
He read law and commenced to practise in Edinburgh and, by
his earnestness and vigorous fighting propensities, soon became
prominent, especially in the defence of a class of cases then
very common, suits for libel. He was one of the founders of
the Edinburgh Review and continued for twenty years to be
one of its regular contributors. He early removed to London
and there reached the highest rank in his profession. He be
came Lord Chancellor in 1830 and continued to hold the office
until 1834. He died in 1868, eighty-nine years of age.
He was a man of great concentration and industry, of re
markable attainments and besides the work of his profession
and his office was the author of several books of permanent
value. But it is as an orator and a member of the House of
Lords that he is best remembered. He advocated the abolition
of slavery and the dissolution of the Canning Ministry and was
active in the cause of popular education and in political and
legal reforms. As an orator, he was intensely in earnest, the
fire of his spirit revealed in his eye, his arms swinging easily
but forcibly and his long index finger seeming to point out with

64 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
striking directness the wrong which he condemned. Sumner
heard his closing speech for the emancipation of the slaves.
It is difficult to tell the effect of that speech upon Sumner's
fortunes. It was one of the crowning, by some thought to be
the greatest, effort of Brougham's life. It left a deep impres
sion upon Sumner and reminding him of his own country,
suffering from the same cause, it was probably one of the
controlling incidents of his life.
Brougham Hall had been the seat of Lord Brougham's
family for centuries and though his life was largely passed in
Edinburgh and London, here for years he spent the vacations
of the courts and Parliament, not in polite idleness, but in
secluded application, to the cultivation of literature. Here his
books were mostly written. Sumner found him then engaged
upon a translation, from the original Greek, of Demosthenes'
oration for the crown. It was an ideal spot for the cultiva
tion of literature, such a one as would have delighted Sir
Walter Scott, — a courtyard surrounded with battlements, long
halls and airy rooms. The library was a beautiful apartment,
with panels of old oak and a rich ceiling of the same ma
terial, emblazoned with numerous heraldic escutcheons in gold,
a beautiful bow window commanding the fair lawn and terraces
about the house and the distant mountains, in whose bosom lay
the far-famed lakes of England. Here Sumner sat, while his
host dashed off more letters than the ten the law allowed him
to frank.
A friend, an old clergyman, came in soon and together they
dined, Lord Brougham's mother presiding at the table, with
an apparent touch of motherly pride, in the greatness of her
son. After dinner the three gentlemen sat until late at night,
engaged in conversation, or rather the other two in listening to
the torrent of Lord Brougham's about his contemporaries, his
anecdotes of them, about America and Americans and books.
He had one habit that Sumner characterized as "bad and
vulgar beyond expression, — I mean swearing ". He added ;
" I have dined in company nearly every day since I have been
in England, and I do not remember to have met a person who
swore half so much as Lord Brougham; — and all this in con
versation with an aged clergyman ! "
The next morning Sumner took his departure. Lord
Brougham already had his books down, ready for work. He
franked a letter for Sumner to Hillard, thanked him for his
visit, shook him cordially by the hand, apologized for not ac
companying him to the door, and before he had left the library,
Lord Brougham's head was down, absorbed in his work.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

65

From Brougham Hall, Sumner went to Keswick to see the
poet Wordsworth, where on September 8, he wrote Hillard:
"I have seen Wordsworth! Your interest in this great man,
and the contrast which he presents to that master-spirit
(Brougham) I have already described to you, induce me to
send these lines immediately on the heels of my last. How odd
it seemed to knock at a neighbor's door and inquire, ' Where
does Mr. Wordsworth live? Think of rapping at Westminster
Abbey and asking for Mr. Shakespeare or Mr. Milton ! I found
the poet living as I could have wished, with worldly comfort
about him and without show. His house was not large or so
elegant as to draw the attention from its occupant; and more
truly did I enjoy myself, for the short time I was under his
roof, than when in the emblazoned halls of Lord Brougham.
The house is situated on the avenue leading to Rydal Hall;
and the poet may enjoy, as if they were his own, the trees of
the park and the ancestral cawing of the rooks that almost
darkened the air with their numbers. His house and grounds
are pretty and neat; and he was so kind as to attend me in a
turn round his garden, pointing out several truly delightful
views of the lakes and mountains. I could not but remark to
him, however, that the cawing of the rooks was more interest
ing to me than even the remarkable scenery before us. The
house itself is unlike those in which I have been received lately ;
and in its whole style reminded me more of home than any
thing I have seen in England. I took tea with the poet, and,
for the first time since I have been in this country, saw a circle
round a table at this meal; and, indeed, it was at six o'clock,
when always before in England I have been preparing for
dinner. I mention these little things in order to give you a
familiar view of Wordsworth. I cannot sufficiently express to
you my high gratification at his manner and conversation. It
was simple, graceful and sincere. * * * I felt that I was con
versing with a superior being; yet I was entirely at my ease.
He told me that he was sixty-nine, — at an age when, in the
course of nature, the countenance loses the freshness of younger
years, but his was still full of expression. Conversation turned
on a variety of topics; and here I have little to record; for
there were no salient parts, though all was sensible, instructive
and refined."
Sumner carried a letter of introduction to Wordsworth
from Washington Allston, the artist. Professor Cleaveland of
Bowdoin had given him a letter to Sir David Brewster. He
had expected to see Southey at Keswick, but he was absent
making a tour of the Continent. At Wordsworth's house, how-

66 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ever, he met and dined with Southey's daughter. From Kes
wick he went to Melrose, where Sir David Brewster lived. He
was an experimental philosopher and author of a life of Sir
Isaac Newton.
Sept. 12, 1838, Sumner wrote: " I am now the guest of Sir
David Brewster, and am writing in my bedroom, which looks
upon the Tweed and Melrose Abbey and the Eildon Hills.
Abbotsford is a short distance above, on the opposite side;
while the cottages of Lockhart, and that fast friend of Scott,
Sir Adam Ferguson, are within' sight. I spent the whole of
to-day in rambling with Sir David about Melrose, noting all the
spots hallowed by Scott's friendship or genius, and finally pay
ing my pilgrimage to his tomb at Dryburgh Abbey. At dinner
we had Sir Adam Ferguson himself and Mr. Todd, — the latter
a Scottish Judge, and an old friend of Sir Walter, as well as
Sir Adam. I need not say to you how inexpressibly interesting
was the whole day, passed in such company, — observing house
after house in whose hospitality Sir Walter had taken pleas
ure, and whose plantations he had watched; then regarding
with melancholy interest, the simple sod, in the midst of some
venerable ruins, which covers his precious dust. And what a
crown was it, of the whole day, to dine among his chosen friends,
- — to hear their simple, heart touching expressions of regard,
and the numerous narrations, all untold in print which serve
to illustrate his character and genius."
From Melrose Sumner went to Craig Crook Castle, the home
of Lord Jeffrey, then the managing editor of the Edinburgh
Review, where he spent a portion of a day. He reached
Edinburgh on September twentieth, and here and in the
neighborhood he spent nine days. During this time he re
ceived constant attention from Lord Jeffrey and his nephew,
Thomas Brown, whom Sumner had met in Canada during his
tour in 1836. Brown shortly after that visited Boston and there
the acquaintance ripened into intimacy. It is unnecessary
to add that the best circles of Edinburgh were opened to Sum
ner, when his own ability to make friends was supported by
Lord Jeffrey. He had written Sumner in advance, rather dis
paragingly of his prospect, regretting that all the lawyers were
off on their vacation, shooting grouse. But the sequel showed
his fears were groundless, for Sumner was entertained every
evening of his stay, saying nothing of breakfasts, and was
besides obliged to decline many invitations. Sumner liked
Lord Jeffrey.
He wrote to Hillard : " Jeffrey against all the world ! while
in Edinburgh I saw much of him and his talent, fertility of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 67
expression and unlimited information (almost learning) im
pressed me more and more. He spoke on every subject, and
always better than anybody else. Sydney Smith is infinitely
pleasant, and instructive too ; but the flavor of his conversation
is derived from its humor. Jeffrey is not without humor, but
this is not a leading element. He pleases by the alternate ex
ercise of every talent ; at one moment by a rapid argument, then
by a beautiful illustration, next by a phrase which draws a
whole thought into its powerful focus, while a constant grace
of language and amenity of manners with proper contributions
from humor and wit, heighten these charms. I have been
fortunate in knowing as I have known, — aye, in knowing at
their hearths — the three great men of the Edinburgh Re
view — Smith, Brougham and Jeffrey. But there is a fourth,
— John A. Murray, the present Lord Advocate of Scotland.
It was Murray who gave the motto, at which Sydney Smith
laughed, — 'Judex damnatur cum nocens absolvitur,' — from
Publius Syrus, though he was innocent of having read
Syrus." From Edinburgh Sumner went to visit his friend, the
nephew of Lord Jeffrey, Thomas Brown, at his home, Lanfire
House, near Kilmarnock, Ayrshire. He remained there five
days, recalling former scenes and making new friends, reading
in the library or enjoying the beautiful prospects from its win
dows, rambling about the woods, extending for more than a
mile on either side of the house, or riding about the estate, so
extensive that one might go twenty miles without passing be
yond its limits. Here amid Highland scenery he also enjoyed
the festivities of a Highland wedding.
In the contrast between the life of Brown and his uncle,
Lord Jeffrey, there is illustrated a fact too often overlooked by
Americans. Brown was an easy-going young man of ability
but without a definite aim in life. He was well educated and,
as a son of the sister of Lord Jeffrey might be expected to be,
of fine literary taste and on intimate terms with such men as
Talfourd, the eminent barrister, essayist and judge of Edin
burgh. He had travelled much, was an easy conversationalist,
full of anecdote and a delightful companion. He spent a good
deal of his time in Edinburgh and London at the clubs, of
which he was a member, in dignified and elegant idleness.
On the other hand his noble uncle, Lord Jeffrey, was a toil
ing barrister and author, the chief editor of the Edinburgh
Review in its best days. He opened a new era in English
Literature and rose to the rank of an eminent Scottish Judge.
As a reviewer he has had no superior. He was the early, and, to

68 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the end of his life, the intimate friend of Carlyle, whom he
found a struggling young author of talent, but without a read
ing public, and he opened the columns of the " Review " to him
and assisted him to recognition; he first saw and criticised
privately and published the inimitable article on " Burns."
Carlyle recognized the debt and after they were all gone he
permanently associated Lord Jeffrey's name with those of his
wife and father in his volume of " Reminiscences ".
He has given us this description of him : " Jeffrey rose into
higher and higher professional repute. * * * I honestly ad
mired him * * * was always glad to notice him, when I strolled
into the courts, and eagerly enough stepped up to hear if I
found him pleading; a delicate, attractive, dainty little figure,
as he merely walked about, much more if he were speaking;
uncommonly bright black eyes, instinct with vivacity, intelli
gence, and kindly fire; roundish brow, delicate oval face, full
of rapid expression, figure light, nimble, pretty, though small,
perhaps hardly five feet in height, wore his black hair closely
dipt." It is sad to notice, in contrast, the later picture Carlyle gives
us of him, — burdened with the cares of his judicial office, in
ill health, the vivacity and grace of his early days gone, wear
ing out and breaking down, how it brought back the pregnant
remark of Talfourd, on a career at the bar : " A life of success
though a life of excitement is also a life of constant toil in
which the pleasures of contemplation and society are sparingly
felt and it sometimes leads to a melancholy close."
The life of Lord Jeffrey illustrates a fact we sometimes for
get, that the nobility of Great Britain are by no means an idle
class. Their lives are frequently full of strenuous exertion.
In their great houses, upon their extensive estates, with the
number of their servants and dependants around them, neces
sary to the successful and profitable management of their prop
erty, they often approach a style of living akin to royalty. But
it has been well said that a great estate is no sinecure if it is
to be kept great. The heads of these houses are often perplexed
with cares that the quiet passer little heeds nor long remembers.
The most of the enjoyment falls to the lot of the young mem
bers of their families, like Sumner's friend Brown, who had
not yet come to the care of the estates. But they are usually
trained to good habits and a correct mode of life, in anticipa
tion of future responsibilities and usefulness.
Brown's father and mother were still living. She reminded
Sumner of her brother Lord Jeffrey. She manifestly had
some of his tastes, for Sumner remarked that the walls of the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 69
library at Lanfire House were full of books from the floor to
the ceiling.
Sumner reluctantly left this delightful retreat. He went to
Dumbarton, nestling on the river Clyde, at the foot of the
famous fortress-crowned rock that gave its name to the town.
Like a great frowning Gibraltar it seemed to have protected
the town from the feuds of former years.
Talfourd had taken for the summer Glenarbuck Cottage,
about four miles from Dumbarton. Sumner visited and dined
with him there. He was invited to be his guest while at Dum
barton, but this he had declined and having spent a day wander
ing over his wild grounds and along the Clyde, he pursued his
way to Strachur Park, on Loch Fyne, opposite Inverary. This
was the home of Murray, the Lord Advocate of Scotland. It
was in the heart of the Highlands, on one of those lovely sheets
of water that give a charm to the scenery. It was surrounded
by mountains whose ragged forms were mirrored at his feet in
the clear waters of the loch. He crossed Loch Lomond and by
the moon's light rowed over Loch Katrine; and visited the
island of the " Lady of the Lake," embalmed all of them, in
scenes of Scott's minstrelsy.
" No pathway meets the wanderer's ken
Unless he climb with footing nice,
A far projecting precipice
The broom's tough roots his ladder made.
The hazel saplings lent their aid ;
And thus an airy point he won,
"Where, gleaming with the setting sun,
One burnished sheet of living gold,
Loch Katrine lay beneath him roll'd,
In all her length far winding lay
"With promontory, creek, and bay,
And islands that empurpled bright
Floated amid the livelier light,
"Where mountains that like giants stand
To sentinel enchanted land."
Sumner reached Stirling, a city like Dumbarton, on October
seventh. The fortress crowning the eminence two hundred and
twenty feet above the plain in which the city stands, was built
centuries before, and around it, more than any other in Scot
land, rolled the waves of Highland warfare. Its pride ante
dated the union of the two kingdoms. _
From Stirling he went to Glasgow and then crossing the
Irish Sea he spent some days in Dublin, the guest of Lord
Morpeth then Chief Secretary, but afterwards Lord Lieutenant
of Ireland. This was the beginning of a lifelong friendship.

70 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
From Dublin he returned to England, reaching Yorkshire
on October twenty-first. He spent the next two weeks in visit
ing at three of the most famous country seats in the kingdom,
— Wortley Hall, the seat of Lord Wharncliffe; Wentworth
House, the seat of Earl Fitzwilliam and Holkham House, the
seat of Earl Leicester.
" I have passed three agreeable nights at Wortley," he wrote
Judge Story. " Before I came here, Lord Morpeth told me that
I should find Wentworth magnificent and Wortley comfortable.
And you may conceive an English Peer's idea of comfort when
I tell you that Wortley Hall is a spacious edifice, built by the
husband of Lady Mary Wortley Montagu. I do not know an
edifice like it in the United States, with extensive domains.
Wharncliffe Park, which belongs to it, contains of itself eight
een hundred acres, in which the deer are ranging. Everything
about it is elegant."
Sumner reached Wentworth House on the evening of October
twenty-fourth after dark, as the family were going in to din
ner. He was at once shown to his room, by the groom of the
chambers, and having dressed got into the dining-room just
after the disappearance of fish and found a place reserved for
him by the side of Lady Charlotte, the eldest daughter of his
host, Lord Fitzwilliam. There were twenty-five or more at
table. In the chapel that evening at prayers there were about
fifty servants constituting the household establishment. The
house and estate once belonged to the great Earl of Strafford
and many of the books in the library contained his autograph.
There too were all the papers of Edmund Burke, — his letters,
essays and unpublished manuscripts.
It should be added here that Lord Fitzwilliam at whose seat,
Wentworth House, Sumner was now visiting was the descend
ant and legal representative of Thomas Wentworth, the Earl of
Strafford of the reign of Charles I, who as Lord Deputy of
Ireland had governed that country with great administrative
ability, but at the same time with almost intolerable severity
and whose "thoroughness " was again called into requisition to
suppress the Scots who had revolted against the King. In the
struggle of the Commons against the King, Strafford was im
peached, condemned to death and beheaded. Among the art
treasures of Wentworth House, was an original portrait of the
great Earl by Vandyke, which Sumner admired. His " won
derful features" were thus preserved to posterity on the es
tates he had founded and in the halls once familiar with his
presence. At Wentworth Sumner was invited by Mr. Thompson to

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

71

spend a day, before going to Holkham House, at his home Fair
field Lodge near York, whence he could visit the famous Min
ster. He had already seen Salisbury and Durham cathedrals.
He confessed that these famous structures made a deep im
pression upon him. As he expressed it he was when looking at
them " in communion with no single mind, — bright and gifted
though it be, — but with whole generations ", and the voiceless
walls seemed to speak, and the olden time, with its sceptred
palls, to pass before him. He accepted Mr. Thompson's invi
tation, but in viewing York Minster he was to be disappointed.
He saw it on a rainy day, when it was inconvenient to be out
and the view of its height and proportions was obscured, so
the pleasure, he had experienced on viewing Salisbury and
Durham cathedrals, was lost.
Farther along the road to Holkham he stopped at Boston,
" not famous Boston," he wrote, " where I first drew the breath
but the small place on the distant coast of Lincolnshire,
whence John Cotton, ' whose fame was in all the churches ',
went to settle our New England." He saw the old parsonage
which Cotton had left for the woods of America and tapped at
the back door, with a venerable triangular knocker, the same
doubtless the hands of the Puritan preacher had known before
he forsook the soft cushion of the Established Church and that
"fine Gothic pile", the parish church of Boston, built in the
time of Edward III, on which so many centuries had since
shed their sunshine and pelted their storms.
Sumner reached Holkham House on the first of .November,
1838. The owner of the estate, Thomas William Coke, Earl
of Leicester, had inherited it from his uncle, who was a de
scendant of Edward Coke, Lord Chief Justice of England, and
author of the Commentaries upon Littleton. The present Earl,
was eighty-six years old though he lived to be ninety. He had
a long and distinguished Parliamentary career and was the
friend of America. He moved for the recognition of the In
dependence of the Colonies and accounted this act in his Par
liamentary career the proudest event of his life. He was the
warm friend of Fox and in early life of Brougham. His mon
arch, George IV, visited him at Holkham and familiarly called
him " Tom ", and Fox, " Charles ". But withal he was an
enthusiastic farmer and devoted much time upon his estate to
the improvement of agriculture and was reputed to be "the
first farmer of England". His seat, where Sumner was now
his guest, was one of the most famous in England.
"This house," Sumner wrote Hillard, "has not the fresh
magnificence of Chatsworth (the princely residence of the Duke

72 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
of Devonshire), the feudal air of Raby and Auckland castles, or
the grand front of Wentworth; but it seems to me to blend
more magnificence and comfort, and to hold a more complete
collection of interesting things, whether antiques, pictures or
manuscripts, than any seat I have visited. The entrance hall
is the noblest I have ever seen; and the suite of apartments is
the best arranged for show and comfort that can be imagined.
With the doors open you may look through a vista of eleven
spacious rooms ; and these of the most agreeable proportions and
adorned by the choicest productions of the pencil " (by Titian,
Claude, Vandyke, Raphael, Da Vinci and Rubens among
others). From Holkham, Sumner went to London, reaching there
November fourth, 1838, and at once found himself among
friends and in the social whirl of the metropolis. " Put two
Bostons, two New Yorks, two Philadelphias and two Baltimores
together," he wrote, and you may have an idea of London.
" The extent and variety of the life of the place is truly won
derful. Among banks it is the clearing-house of the world ; in
commerce and letters, it is its capital. Nowhere else is there
such an accumulation of learning and ability and wealth. Its
extent is so vast and its life so complicated that one might
spend his life there and still feel that he did not know the half
of it." Sumner had spent two months there before and he was
now to remain four more, not to see it all, but to see some
persons and things of especial interest to him.
Soon after his return he had an opportunity of seeing Wind
sor Castle, the residence of Queen Victoria. In a letter to
Hillard, he described life, in the house of the Queen, as he
saw it. His description deprives it of a good deal of the pomp
and circumstance, which the ordinary magazine articles have
thrown around it.
" My day at Windsor," he wrote, " would furnish a most in
teresting chapter of chit-chat. I had the pleasure of making
the acquaintance, at Lord Morpeth's table, of Mr. Rich, the
member for Knaresborough, and the author of the pamphlet,
" What will the Peers do ? " He is one of the gentlemen of the
bedchamber of the Queen; or as they are called under the
virgin queen, gentlemen-in-waiting. He was kind enough to
invite me to visit him at Windsor Castle, and obtained special
permission from her Majesty to show me the private rooms. I
went down to breakfast where we had young Murray, the head
of the household, Lord Surrey, etc. Lord Byron, who, you
know, was a captain in the navy, is a pleasant rough fellow,
who has not many of the smooth turns of the courtier. He

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

73

came rushing into the rooms where we were, crying out, " This
day is a real sneezer; it is a rum one indeed. Will her Maj
esty go out to-day?" Lord Surrey hoped she would not,
unless she would ride at the "slapping pace" at which she
went the day before, which was twenty miles in two hours.
You understand that her suite accompany the Queen in her
equestrian excursions. Lord Byron proposed to breakfast with
us; but they told him that he must go upstairs and breakfast
with the " gals ", — meaning the ladies of the bedchamber and
maids of honor, Countess Albemarle, Lady Byron, Lady Little
ton, Miss Cavendish, etc."
During the early days of December, Sumner visited Oxford
and while there was the guest of Sir Charles Vaughan and
occupied a room in the University. Returning to London on
December thirteenth, after four days spent at Oxford, he left on
the fourteenth to spend as many days at Cambridge. Here he
dined with some of the Professors and in Trinity College with
some of the undergraduates and Fellows, thus meeting many
members of different degrees in the University. He was in
terested in the courses of study and in the discipline. Some
of the tutors wrote out for him the requirements for degrees
in some of the courses, which he preserved for use on his re
turn home. He remarked the thoroughness of the examina
tions which he believed could not be passed without having
completed the course according to the requirements. From
Cambridge he went to Milton Park to spend Christmas and a
portion of the holidays as the guest of Lord Fitzwilliam. He
had been specially invited when visiting his Lordship at his
other seat, Wentworth House, to visit Milton Park at this
time, to enjoy an English fox-hunt. He wrote his impressions
of this great national sport to Hillard.
" I am passing," he wrote, " my Christmas week with Lord
Fitzwilliam, in one of the large country-houses of Old England.
I have already written you about Wentworth House. The
place where I now am is older and smaller; in America, how
ever, it would be vast. The house is Elizabethan. Here I
have been enjoying fox-hunting, to the imminent danger of
my limbs and neck ; that they still remain intact is a miracle.
His Lordship's hounds are among the finest in the kingdom,
and his huntsman is reputed the best. There are about eighty
couples; the expense of keeping them is about five thousand
pounds a year. In his stables there are some fifty or sixty hun
ters that are only used with the hounds, and of course are unem
ployed during the summer. The exertion of a day's sport is so
great that a horse does not go out more than once in a week,

74 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
I think I have never participated in anything more exciting
than this exercise. The history of my exploit will confirm this.
The morning after my arrival I mounted at half-past nine
o'clock a beautiful hunter and rode with Lord Milton about
six miles to the place of meeting. There were the hounds and
hunters and whippers-in, and about eighty horsemen, — noble
men and gentry and clergy of the neighborhood, all beautifully
mounted, and the greater part in red coats, leather breeches
and white top-boots. The hounds were sent into the cover, and
it was a grand sight to see so many handsome dogs, all of a
size, and all washed before coming out, rushing into the under
wood to start the fox. We were unfortunate in not getting a
scent immediately, and rode from cover to cover; but soon the
cry was raised ' Tally-ho ! ' — the horn was blowed — the dogs
barked — the horsemen rallied — the hounds scented their way
through the cover on the trail of the fox and then started in
full run. I had originally intended only to ride to cover to see
them throw off, and then make my way home, believing myself
unequal to the probable run; but the chase commenced, and I
was in the midst of it; and being excellently mounted, nearly
at the head of it, never did I see such a scamper ; and never did
it enter into my head that horses could be pushed to such
speed in such places. We dashed through and over the bushes,
leaping broad ditches, splashing in brooks and mud and pass
ing over fences as so many imaginary lines. My first fence I
shall not readily forget. I was near Lord Milton, who was
mounted on a thoroughbred horse. He cleared a fence before
him. My horse pawed the ground and neighed. I gave him
the rein, and he cleared the fence; as I was up in the air for
one moment, how was I startled to look down and see that
there was not only a fence but a ditch I He cleared the ditch
too. I have said it was my first experiment. I lost my balance,
was thrown to the very ears of the horse, but in some way or
other contrived to work myself back to the saddle without
touching the ground (see some of the hunting pictures of
leaps, etc.). How I got back I cannot tell, but I did regain my
seat and my horse was at a run in a moment. All this you
will understand passed in less time by far than it will take to
read this account. One moment we were in a scamper through
a ploughed field, another over a beautiful pasture, and another
winding through the devious paths of a wood. I think I may
say that in no single day of my life did I ever take as much
exercise. I have said I mounted at nine and a half o'clock.
It wanted twenty minutes of five when I finally dismounted,
not having been out of the saddle more than thirty seconds

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 75
during all this time, and then only to change my horse, taking
a fresh one from a groom who was in attendance. During
much of this time we were on a full run."
" The next day had its incidents. The place of meeting for
the hounds was fourteen miles from the house. Our horses
were previously led thither by grooms and we rode there in a
carriage and four, with outriders, and took our horses fresh.
This day I met with a fall. The country was very rough and
the fences often quite stiff and high. I rode among the fore
most, and in going over a fence and brook together, came to the
ground. My horse cleared them both and I cleared him, for
I went directly over his head. Of course he started off, but was
soon caught by Milton and a parson, who had already made
the leap very successfully. * * * * Every day that I
was out it rained, — the first day incessantly, — and yet I was
fully unconscious of it, so interested did I become in the sport.
Indeed sportsmen rather wish a rain because it makes the
ground soft. We generally got home about five o'clock; and I
will give you the history of the rest of the day that you may see
how time passes in one of the largest houses in England. Din
ner was early because the sportsmen returned fatigued and
without having tasted a morsel of food since early breakfast.
So after our return, we only had time to dress ; and at five and
one-half o'clock assembled in the library, from which we went in
to dinner. For three days I was the only guest here, — during
the last four we have had Professor Whewell, — so that I can de
scribe to you what was simply the family establishment. One
day I observed that there were only nine of us at the table and
there were thirteen servants in attendance. Of course the serv
ice is entirely of silver. You have in proper succession, soup,
fish, venison' and the large English dishes besides a profusion
of French entrees with ice-cream and ample dessert, — Madeira,
sherry, claret, port and champagne. We do not sit long at
table"; but return to the library, which opens into two or three
drawing-rooms and is itself used as the principal one, where we
find the ladies already at their embroidery, and also coffee.
Conversation goes languidly. The boys are sleepy, and Lord
Fitzwilliam is serious and melancholy; and very soon I am
willing to kill off an hour or so by a game of cards. Some
times his Lordship plays, at other times he slowly peruses the
last volume of Preseott's " Ferdinand and Isabella ". About
eleven o'clock I am glad to retire to my chamber, which is a very
large apartment, with two large oriel windows looking out
upon the lawns where the deer are feeding. There I find a
glowing fire ; and in one of the various easy-chairs sit and muse

76 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
while the fire burns, or resort to the pen, ink and paper which
are carefully placed on the table near me."
On December twenty-eighth, Sumner was back in London
again. On January sixth, 1839, he made an excursion to Strat-
ford-on-Avon to spend a day among the scenes familiar in the
early and later life of Shakespeare. He visited Kenilworth and
Warwick Castles in the same neighborhood and extended his
excursions as far as Birmingham. The remainder of his time
till March twenty-second he spent in London. He had spent
his time there before mostly with members of the bar and the
judges; but now his acquaintance became more general and to
this period must be referred the rich fund of reminiscence
which London always recalled to him. His associations were
with literary men, orators and statesmen, as well, of course, as
members of his own profession. His letters do not indicate
that he was much attracted to the fair sex, but occasional refer
ences reveal that he was not insensible to female beauty. Take,
for instance, the description he gives of a dinner with the four
granddaughters of Richard Brinsley Sheridan, daughters of
his son Thomas, the poet.
" One of the pleasantest dinners," he wrote Hillard, " I ever
enjoyed was with Mrs. Norton. She now lives with her uncle
Mr. Charles Sheridan, who is a bachelor. We had a small com
pany, — Old Edward Ellice ; Fonblanque, whose writings you so
much admire; Hayward; Phipps, the brother of the Marquis
Normanby; Lady Seymour, the sister of Mrs. Norton; and
Lady Graham, the wife of Sir John Graham ; and Mrs. Phipps.
All of these are very clever people; Ellice, whose influence is
said, more than that of all other men, to keep the present
ministry in power ; Fonblanque is harsh-looking, rough in voice
and manner, but talks with the same knowledge and sententious
brilliancy with which he writes. But the women were by far
more remarkable than the men. I unhesitatingly say that they
were the four most beautiful, clever and accomplished women I
have ever seen together. The beauty of Mrs. Norton has never
been exaggerated. It is brilliant and refined. Her countenance
is lighted by eyes of the intensest brightness and her features
are of the greatest regularity. There is something tropical in
her look; it is so intensely bright and burning, with large, dark
eyes, dark hair and Italian complexion. And her conversa
tion is so pleasant and powerful without being masculine, or
rather it is masculine without being mannish ; there is the grace
and ease of the woman with a strength and skill of which any
man might well be proud. Mrs. Norton is about twenty-eight
years old and is I believe a grossly slandered woman. She has

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 77
been a woman of fashion and has received many attentions,
which doubtless she would have declined had she been brought
up under the advice of a mother; but which we may not
wonder she did not decline, circumstanced as she was. It will
be enough for you, and I doubt not you will be happy to
hear it of so remarkable and beautiful a woman, that I be
lieve her entirely innocent of the grave charges (of improper
intimacy with Lord Melbourne, the Prime Minister) that have
been brought against her. I count her one of the brightest in
tellects I have ever met. I whisper in your ear what is not to
be published abroad, that she is the unaided author of a tract
which has just been published on the 'Infant Custody Bill'
and purports to be by Pearce Stevenson, Esq, nom de guerre.
I think it is one of the most remarkable things from the pen of
a woman. The world here does not suspect her, but supposes
that the tract is the production of some grave barrister. It is
one of the best discussions of a legislative matter I have ever
read. I should have thought Mrs. Norton the most beautiful
woman I have ever seen, if her sister had not been present. I
think that Lady Seymour is generally considered the more
beautiful. Her style of beauty is unlike Mrs. Norton's; her
features are smaller and her countenance lighter and more
English. In any other drawing-room she would have been
deemed quite clever and accomplished, but Mrs. Norton's claim
to these last characteristics are so pre-eminent as to dwarf the
talents and attainments of others of her sex who are by her
side. Lady Seymour has no claim to literary distinction. The
homage she receives is offered to her beauty and her social posi
tion. Lady Graham is older than these; while Mrs. Phipps is
younger. These two were only inferior in beauty to Mrs.
Norton and Lady Seymour. In such society you may well sup
pose the hours flew on rosy pinions. It was after midnight
when we separated."
In the same vein was the description Sumner gave of the
speech of the young Queen Victoria at the opening of Parlia
ment. Through the kindness of Lord Morpeth, he was ac
commodated with a place at the bar, — he thought it the best
place occupied by any person not in court dress. Prince Louis
Bonaparte was behind him. He enjoyed the sight, as at the
coronation, of the peeresses as they took their seats in full
dress, resplendent with jewels and costly ornaments. The room
of the House of Lords was not large and made them all seem
within a short distance of him, so that his view was good.
When the Queen entered with the crown, which seemed too
heavy for one so young, on her head, she was attended by the

78 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
great officers of state and there were great guns sounding and
trumpets blowing, which added to the scene. She took her seat
with quiet dignity, and with a voice not audible by those at any
distance directed the House of Commons to be summoned. But
she retained all eyes ; her face was flushed with excitement, her
hands moved nervously on the golden arms of the throne and
her gloves could not conceal the trembling fingers. She was a
Queen, but her little, ill-suppressed nervousness showed she had
still the heart of a woman and vindicated her relationship to us
all. Yet she bore herself well — Sumner thought these little
things were not noticeable to the audience generally, and they
delighted him with her far more than if she had sat as if cut
in alabaster.
The Commons came thundering in and after they had been
seated and quiet was restored, her Majesty commenced reading
her speech, which the Lord Chancellor had handed her. At
first her voice was inaudible. It was not till she was a third
through that she spoke sufficiently loud for him to understand
what she said. But after that every word came to him in such
silvery accents, with a voice so sweet and finely modulated,
every word distinctly pronounced and with such just regard
for its meaning, that Sumner thought he had never heard any
thing better read in his life. After it was over he could but
agree with Lord Fitzwilliam's ejaculation to him, " How beau
tifully she performs ! " In the evening the House of Lords
met for business and Sumner heard the Lord Chancellor read
the speech again and he remarked how unlike that of the girl
Queen was the reading of her Lord Chancellor.
As Sumner's stay in England drew to a close, he bade good
bye to many pleasant acquaintances and on the night of March
twenty-second crossed the English Channel to Boulogne.
During his travels in England he heard some estimates of his
countrymen which he records as mutually interesting to them
and to himself. Sydney Smith wrote him that he had a great
admiration for Americans, that he was pleased with their
honesty, simplicity and manliness and that he had met a great
number, who were agreeable and enlightened. Samuel Rogers,
the poet, in speaking of them to an English friend, admitted
that they were generally very agreeable and accomplished men,
but insisted that there was too much of them, that they took
up too much of the time of the English. In a still different
vein is an incident that Sumner himself met with. He was at
a dinner with Mr. William Theobald, the author of a legal
treatise on " Principal and Surety ", where he was invited to
meet Rogers, Kenyon, Hayward, Courtenay, Mrs. Shelley and

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 79
some others. Sumner talked a good deal with Mrs. Shelley,
whom he found to be a very nice, agreeable person, of great
cleverness. She said that the greatest happiness of a woman
was to be the wife or mother of a distinguished man. But what
amused Sumner most of all, was an expression that broke
from her unawares. They were speaking of travellers who vio
lated social ties and published personal sketches, when forget
ting he was an American, she broke out : " Thank God !
I have kept clear of those Americans." Sumner did not seem
to observe what she said and she soon after atoned for it.
As he was leaving England he recorded his impressions of her
people. What is called society there he thought was better
educated, more refined and more civilized than what is called
society in the United States. He insisted that what he called
society must not be confounded with individuals, that he knew
persons in America, who would be an ornament to any circle,
but that there was no class of Americans that would compare
with the circle which constituted English society, that the dif
ference in education in England, where everybody understood
French and Latin and Greek, was very much against the Ameri
cans. He thought the true pride of America was in her mid
dle and poorer classes, in their general health and happiness,
and freedom from poverty ; in their opportunities for education
and for rising in the social scale. He agreed with Charles
Buller, who was best pleased with all below the " silk-stocking
classes."

CHAPTER VIII
TO PARIS AGAIN  EMPLOYMENT THERE  NORTHEAST BOUNDARY
— JOURNEY TO ROME  COMPANIONS  HIS FATHER'S DEATH
— STUDIES  GREENE, CRAWFORD  FLORENCE— VENICE
Sumner reached Boulogne on the morning of March 23,
1839, and at once proceeded by coach to Paris. On the road he
travelled with an English Member of Parliament, who, mis
taking him for an Englishman, talked very freely about the
Americans. Sumner, with sly humor, enjoyed the thrusts, that
were being made at his countrymen, and forbore to correct
him. He remained in Paris until April 20th: "I am here," he
wrote, "simply en route for Italy; but I could not be in this
charming place without reviving some of my old acquaintances,
and once more enjoying the splendid museums and galleries
and sights." He attended the operas and theatres and revived
his recollections of the beautiful buildings and streets by re
visiting most of them. One day he passed at Versailles where
with melancholy interest he saw the exquisite conception of
Joan of Arc, sculptured by poor Mary of Orleans, whom he had
seen a year before, a bright, beautiful and interesting princess.
Lord Morpeth had commended him to Lord Granville, the
English Minister at Paris, by whom he was kindly received.
General Cass, our Minister, to whom, on leaving home, it will
be remembered he had been made a bearer of dispatches, also
showed him some attentions. Lord Brougham was there. He
was attached to Sumner, as Sumner was to him, and many were
the hours they passed pleasantly together. Thorn's balls were
then among the great attractions in Paris and invitations were
eagerly sought. It illustrates Sumner's opportunities, when
Lord Brougham addressed him a note asking Sumner to get
him an invitation, which he did.
Sumner found some serious employment to occupy him dur
ing his stay in Paris. The question of the Northeastern
Boundary, between Maine and Canada, had assumed alarming
proportions and threatened- war between the United States and
England. The trouble arose from the equivocal marks of the
original surveys, made at an early day when they were of little
importance. It was finally settled by the Treaty of Washington
80

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 81
negotiated in 1842, by Mr. Webster and Lord Ashburton, in
which the original lines were abandoned and an arbitrary one
established by mutual agreement. When Sumner came to Paris
there was a feeling with General Cass and the members of his
legation that the American argument was not understood in
England and upon the Continent. There was a wish to have
some one prepare and publish a careful statement of it. Gen
eral Cass did not care himself to undertake this and others to
whom application was made declined the task. The choice
finally fell on Sumner and he undertook the work.
. He wrote an elaborate article that was published in " Gal-
ignani's Messenger ", the longest ever till then published in
that journal. It had a circulation of eight or ten thousand on
the Continent and a thousand copies were ordered, to dis
tribute to Members of the English Parliament. Mr. Hume,
then a Member, was so much interested in the article that he
undertook to distribute these copies. Sumner also wrote about
thirty letters on the subject to persons of prominence in Eng
land, of his acquaintance, and was besides able to interest Lord
Brougham. This work gained Sumner some fame at home. The State of
Maine had originally been part of Massachusetts; hence her
people were familiar with the merits of the controversy.
Sumner's article was reprinted and discussed in the Boston
papers and commented on among public men. An incident,
connected with the discussion, threatened an interruption of the
friendship between Sumner and Lord Brougham. Some con
versation of Sumner with one Walsh, in Paris, touching the
views of Lord Brougham, as expressed about that time to
Sumner, were misrepresented and were printed in disparage
ment of the remarks of his Lordship in the House of Peers.
Lord Brougham complained of this to Sumner, who promptly
published a contradiction of Walsh's article and condemned it
as false. This was entirely satisfactory to Lord Brougham and
the affair served at last to cement their friendship.
Sumner left Paris for Lyons, by the mail coach on April
twentieth and, after a short rest there, travelled on in the same
tedious way to Marseilles. He embarked there for Rome, on
May third, 1839. At the commencement of his voyage, he fell
in with three young Frenchmen of rank, with whom he travelled,
not without profit to himself, till he reached Rome. They
placed their money in the hands of one of their number to pay
their bills. Selected probably for his superior thrift, it was re
markable with what nicety he drove their joint bargains, aided
by the humorous but shrewd wisdom of his companions. They

82 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
epoke French among themselves. This was an advantage to
Sumner ; for he was obliged to speak it too, and thus revive and
extend his knowledge of the language. All their excursions, at
the various places stopped at, along the road, were made to
gether; — together they passed two days at Genoa, wandering
among its palaces and groves and enjoying its paintings; to
gether from Leghorn they made a delightful trip to Pisa,
climbing to the top of its leaning tower and admiring the
cathedral. They were together at the dirty little seaport,
Civita Vecchia, and at the beautiful Bay of Naples, "with its
waters reflecting the blue of heaven and its delicious shores
studded with historical associations," together they went to
Pompeii, treading the beautiful mosaics; and together they
wondered at the frescoes and marbles of its houses, and strolling
among the columns and arches of its Forum, they asked them
selves where, among living cities, could such things be found as
adorned this child of the ages? They climbed Vesuvius and
" saw the furnace-like fires which glowed in its yawning cracks
and seams." They visited Capua, " shorn of all its soft tempta
tions and with difficulty found a breakfast of chocolate and
bread where Hannibal's victorious troops wasted with luxury
and excess." Thence they drove, passing over the Pontine
Marshes and the Alban Hills, to Rome, where they arrived on
the twenty-first of May. Here they separated.
At Rome the tidings of his father's death reached Sumner.
He died on April twenty-fourth, after a lingering illness of
some weeks, sixty-three years of age. A life of confinement,
with the cares of a large family, on an income much of the time
small, with few relaxations and no considerable success, af
flicted by poor health, towards its close, had rendered him cold
and cheerless and somewhat rigid and exacting. He had few of
the traits which attract the hopeful moods of the young. His
life could furnish little to satisfy their dreams and dazzling am
bitions. He had, at the last, too little sympathy for such senti
ments. But he was a just man, scrupulously honest, in every
business transaction. A tinge of suspicion never touched his
integrity. Everything he did was with the greatest exactness.
Even his scholarship was of this character. It was thorough
and systematic. He was as fearless as he was conscientious.
There must be no shrinking from the performance of any duty.
The right must be maintained and he was willing to be first to
support it. But it would be asserted without unnecessary rough
ness ; for he was always a gentleman and maintained a just re
gard for the feelings of others. Taken for all in all, his was a

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 83
careful, painstaking, conscientious life, with little in it for
self. Sumner in childhood had been repelled by his father's cheer
less moods. As he grew older the breach seemed to widen and
after his admission to the bar, partly in consequence of this,
he did not live at home. Yet there was no open rupture, only
a coldness and want of sympathy, between them. Charles was
obedient and a son in whom the father had sufficient cause for
pride. But his aspirations were high — higher probably than
the father thought time would justify. He saw life more so
berly. The father did not approve his trip abroad and did not
aid it. On leaving for Europe, Charles had remonstrated with
his father, against his strictness with his children, and urged
him to give greater opportunities, than he was, to those that re
mained at home. The suggestion was not kindly received. While
he was in Europe, his brother Henry had been made deputy-
sheriff, by the father's appointment, and Charles expressed his
regret, wishing something better for his younger brother.
The circumstance was irritating to the father, in his condition
of health. Charles wrote once to him, from Europe, but his
letter was not answered and he did not write again. Consider
ing his toils and sacrifices, the father probably felt that these
apparent criticisms were unjust to him. Coming under such
circumstances, his father's death was peculiarly sad to Charles.
It grew sadder with his years. The traits that before repelled
him dwindled in importance and the real merit of the father
grew upon him. He felt that he had not given him the con
sideration he deserved.
And how often it is that death brings unavailingly back to
our remembrance kind words that might have been spoken but
were not. Charles thought that it would have gladdened the
heart of the father to know that the best he could do, striven
for manfully, was at least understood and appreciated in the
spirit it was done, — that it would have soothed his last hours,
with life all behind, reflecting on its trials and its sacrifices, to
know, ere he went away, that those nearest to him felt the
worth of the long days' work ; and that it was not thrust aside
and overlooked, in the wish for something more that he had not
been able to do.
He was cast down by the news. But the friends at home,
in the same letters that conveyed the intelligence of his father's
death, urged him to let it make no change in his plans. The
father had always managed his business and property with such
care, that there was really little for any one to do, in settling
up his affairs. The education of his younger brothers and sis-

84 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ters was a matter of more concern to him. But he reflected
that his mother was there and that her good judgment, aided
by the advice of friends, would accomplish all that he could
hope to do. She knew his wishes. So he concluded to follow
the advice given him and finish his trip according to his orig
inal plan.
He spent the summer in Rome, remaining there until the
middle of August. His time was employed differently from
what it had been in England, where he had devoted most of it
to making acquaintances, seeing society, the courts, cathedrals
and universities and great country seats. In Rome many of his
letters of introduction were unused, he saw little of society and
had only a few friends. George W. Greene, the U. S. Consul
at Rome, was one of them.
" My habits," he wrote, " were simple. Rose at half-past six
o'clock, threw myself on my sofa, with a little round table near,
well covered with books, read undisturbed till about ten,, when
the servant brought, on a tray, my breakfast, — two eggs done
sur le plat, a roll and a cup of chocolate ; some of the books were
pushed aside enough to give momentary place to the tray.
The breakfast was concluded without quitting the sofa; rang
the bell and my table was put to rights, and my reading went
on till five or six o'clock in the evening, without my once rising
from the sofa. At five or six, got up, stretched myself and
dressed to go out; dined in a garden under a mulberry tree,
chiefly on fruits, salads and wines, with the occasional injec
tion of a soup or steak ; the fruits were apricots, green almonds
and figs; the salads, those of the exception under the second
declension of nouns in our old Latin Grammar ; the wines, the
light, cooling, delicious product of the country. By this time
Greene came to me, — in accomplishments and attainments our
country has not five men his peers, — and we walked to the
Forum or to San Pietro, or out of one of the gates of Rome.
Many an hour have we sat upon a broken column or a rich cap
ital, in the Via Sacra or the Colosseum, and called to mind what
has passed before them, weaving out the web of the story they
might tell ; and then leaping centuries and seas, we have joined
our friends at home and, with them, shared our pleasures. Af
ter an ice-cream, we parted ; I to my books again ; or sometimes
with him to his house where, over a supper, not unlike the din
ner I have described, we continued the topics of our walk. This
was my day's round, after I had seen the chief of those things
in Bome that require midday, so that I was able to keep the
house." Sumner revived his knowledge of Latin. But the aequisi-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 85
tion of the Italian was the primary object and it was to this
that he devoted himself with such diligence, lie soon acquired
it. Before he left Italy, he had read the most famous works of
the language in the original. This was a great source of pleas
ure to him. However faithful a translation may be, there is
always much of the beauty of the original lost to one who can
not read the work in the language the author left it. He also
learned to talk the language; so he could understand all that
was said to him in a conversation and likewise make himself
understood. The fellow travellers he met and the servants in
the hotels where he stopped, after leaving Rome, used the lan
guage with him, instead of French, the common one among
strangers, thus unintentionally complimenting his Italian. He
always maintained his familiarity with French and Italian and
made frequent use of both in later life.
Among the artists he met in Rome, and the one to whom he
became most attached was Thomas Crawford, a native of New
York. He was then obscure and unknown to fame, struggling
for perfection and recognition in his chosen profession. He
was a man of talent and industry and became one of the famous
American artists. He designed and executed the statue of
Liberty that crowns the dome of the National Capitol at Wash
ington and the equestrian statue of Washington on the State
House grounds in Richmond, Va. He was then poor and
down-hearted and dispirited, at his want of success. Sumner,
with his quick appreciation for struggling merit, became his
enthusiastic friend, encouraged him to go on and sought by
every means to secure for him the recognition he deserved. He
praised his work, gave him an order for a bust of himself and
wrote enthusiastically of him to Hillard and other friends at
home, urging them to try to secure orders for him. Orders
did come afterwards in abundance; and when Sumner visited
Europe again in 1857, he found Crawford in the full realiza
tion of fame, but, as sometimes happens, too sick to enjoy it.
He was fading away, in the blight of a slow disease, and died a
few months later, at the age of forty-four, his life_ probably
shortened, and his career ended too soon, by early disappoint
ments. Among Sumner's pleasant experiences at Rome, was an ex
cursion he made with his friend Greene to the convent of
Palazzuola, situated on the site of Alba Longa, amid precipices
and impenetrable forests, overlooking the beautiful Alban Lake.
Its situation was so inaccessible that no vehicle could approach
within two miles of it. It was a delightful refreshment dur
ing the heated season of the year to lounge in its spacious halls,

86 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
to wander in the shade of its rocks and trees and to bathe in the
waters of its lake. They remained here several days, having
had assigned to them three apartments each, a bedroom, a
cabinet and an antechamber. Sumner's antechamber was
vaulted and covered with arabesques. The arched ceilings and
the walls of the other two rooms were painted so as to resemble
the stone walls of a hermit's cell, while at the post of his bed,
hung the beads and the crucifix of a monk. The libraryof the
monastery contained about a thousand volumes in Latin and
Italian, all ancient works in parchment. To examine such a
library was a treat to the lover of curious books. Sumner took
them down one by one, some of them he found bottom upwards
and apparently with the dust of centuries upon them. The
librarian told him there were no manuscripts but he found
more than a dozen. The standard work on geography repre
sented England as composed of seven kingdoms. America as
belonging to Spain, with Boston as the capital and Vera Cruz
as the chief commercial centre.
The convent belonged to monks of the Franciscan order, one
of the most rigid of the Roman Church. They wore neither
hats nor stockings and only sandals on their feet. The rest of
their dress consisted of a coarse woollen cloak or robe. They
subsisted by charity. " One of their number," Sumner wrote,
"lately was begging for corn of a farmer, who was treading
out with oxen the summer's harvest. The farmer in derision,
and as a way of refusing, pointed to a bag, which contained a
load for three men and told the monk he was welcome to that
if he would carry it off. The monk invoked St. Francis, stooped
and took up the load and quietly carried it away. The aston
ished farmer followed him to the convent and required the re
turn of his corn. His faith was not great enough to see the
miracle. It was given up but, the story coming to the ears of
the governor of the town, he summarily ordered the restoration
of the corn to the convent."
The time Sumner had allowed for his stay in Rome passed
quickly. His days were absorbed with study and his evenings
with one or two congenial friends. The middays on account
of their heat at this season were not the best for sight-seeing;
but the mornings and evenings sufficed. Removed from care,
absorbed with books and friends, sweet peaceful days, — he
always remembered those three months in Rome as one of the
delightful periods of his life.
From Rome he went to Florence, passing four days and a
half on the road, a journey now with the aid of railroads easily
made in an afternoon. But then it was made by coach. Among

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 87
his travelling companions was Signor Ottavio Gigli, with whom
he became well acquainted. He was a young scholar, of about
Sumner's age, engaged in literary pursuits and well acquainted
in Rome and Florence. At the latter place he introduced
Sumner to several authors of note. The friend in Florence,
whom Sumner most enjoyed was Horatio Greenough, an Ameri
can sculptor, then in the full tide of his career. He was en
gaged upon a statue of Washington and a bas-relief, " The
Rescue ", both for the Capitol. Sumner admired both, es
pecially the latter.
" It is intended to represent," he wrote, " the surprise of a
white settlement by the Indians. On the ground is a mother
clasping her child, in order to save it from the uplifted toma
hawk of an Indian who stands over her, but whose hand is
arrested, by a fearless settler, who is represented on a rock,
so that the upper half of his body appears above the Indian. * *
The woman is on the ground, so that she does not conceal the
Indian, who is naked, except an accidental fold about his loins,
and the settler, who appears above the savage, restraining his
fury, is dressed in a hunter's shirt and cap. The passions are
various, — the child, the mother, the father, the husband, the
savage, the defender, etc. ; all the various characters being
blended in the group." The piece as completed now adorns the
east front of the Capitol at Washington.
Sumner ranked Greenough as a man of eminence in his pro
fession, superior to any other artist then living. He was a man
of infinite pains. His " Washington " was on his hands eight
years and " The Rescue " fourteen. " They build for im
mortality," Sumner wrote " who calmly dedicate to a work so
much time." Sumner also met Powers, another American
sculptor, at Florence, and spent some time at his studio. He
did not, however, admire his work so much. But wherever he
went, his heart still turned to Crawford. He sought to interest
others in him. At his solicitation, Gigli promised to visit him
and write of his work, in some Italian journals.
From Florence, Sumner went to Venice, stopping by the
way successively at Bologna, Ferrara, Rovigo and Padua. At
Venice, he spent a week, plying her watery ways, while the
gondoliers timed the strokes of their oars to the music of their
songs. As he stepped into his boat one day a little boy asked
him if he should not go along and sing Tasso. It was an en
chanting place and he gave himself up to the enjoyment of it.
He attended the theatres and operas and strolled under the ar
cades of the great Piazza. He had brought letters to some of
the influential people but they were left undisturbed in his port-

88 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
folio. His time was too short and the beauties of the ancient
and decaying capital too attractive to neglect them, for the ac
quaintance of an hour.
He left Venice on the thirtieth of September, 1839, for Milan,
passing on the way through Padua, Verona, Brescia and Ber
gamo, travelling by coach two nights and a day. The first
part of the journey was through a blinding rain. " All that
night," he wrote, "we rode in the midst of a tremendous
storm. It is exciting to rattle over the pavements of villages,
towns and cities in the dead of nights; to catch, perhaps, a
solitary light shining from the room of some watcher, ' like
a good deed in a naughty world ; ' and when you arrive at the
gates of a city, the postilion winds his horn, and the heavy
portals are swung open, it seems like a vision of romance. Nor
is it less exciting in earlier evening, when the shops and streets
are bright with light, and people throng the streets, to dash
along." Sumner had tasked himself, while in Italy to six
hours' study of the language each day and he continued it
through his days of journeying. If his companions were weary
or tedious, or the scenery uninteresting, his book was at hand
and he turned to it. He was ready to lay it aside when any
thing of interest appeared.
It is curious to note the books he read while in Italy.
" Dante," Tasso's " Gerusalemme," Boccaccio's " Decameron,"
Politian's " Rime," the tragedies of Alfieri, the principal
dramas of Metastasio, Lanzi's " Stonia Pittorica," Machiavelli's
"Principe", Tasso's " Aminta ", Guarini's "Pastor Fido ",
some of Monti, of Pindemonte, of Parini, Botta's histories,
Boccrescio's " Corbaccio " and " Fiammetta ". These were read
before he left Rome. After that he read : Manzoni's " Promissi
Sposi ", Petrarch's " Rime ", Ariosto, all of Machiavelli except
his tract on " War ", Guicciardini's " Storia ", Manzoni's trag
edies and " Rime ", the principal plays of Niccolini, Nota and
Goldoni, the autobiography of Alfieri. Besides this he read the
newspapers, American, English, French and Italian that came
in his way.
Sumner reached Milan on the morning of October second and
remained there until the sixth. At noon of that day, Sunday,
he left by the mail coach for Munich, going by way of the
Stelvio Pass, over the Alps to Innsbruck. A friend whose ac
quaintance he made in Milan offered him a seat in his private
carriage, for the journey to Munich, a distance of about five
hundred miles, but he put aside the tempting offer and chose
instead the slower and less luxurious public conveyance that he
might mingle more with people along the road and pick up their

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 89
language and customs. The road led him through the mag
nificent scenery of the Alps, surpassing any he had seen before.
It lay through the region of the glaciers and perpetual snow.
At midnight they halted for a little sleep at Santa Maria, a
thousand feet below the summit. Though twelve hours before
he had left the plains of Lombardy, glowing with the warmth
and sunshine of a beautiful autumn day, he slept that night,
amid sharp winter, in an inn, with double windows, under
heavy coverings on his bed, to which he added the weight of his
cloak. And yet he was so bitter cold, that before morning he
was glad to warm himself, by ascending the mountain on foot.
He reached the highest point, eight thousand nine hundred
feet above the sea, and crossed the Italian boundary just as the
morning sun was gilding the tops of the mountains.
It was here, with dazzling glaciers near, that he bade fare
well to Italy. The boundary was marked by a column, inscribed
on one side " Regno Lombardo ", on the other " Tyrolese Aus
tria ". He had passed it some distance when the thought came
to his mind that he was leaving Italy; he hurried back to the
border line, "looked in vain for those beautiful fields which
seemed Elysian" to memory, said to himself that he should
never see them again and taking off his hat made a last salute.
His sole companion was " an elderly, learned, lean, pragmatical
German ". He heard his parting words and at once turned in
the contrary direction and doffing his straw hat that covered his
head, ejaculated ; " Et moi je salue l'Allemagne.*'
" And yet," Sumner wrote to Greene, " I must again go to
Italy. Have I left it forever? How charming it seems in my
mind's eye ! Pictures, statues, poetry, all come across my soul
with ravishing power. Where do these words come from?
They are of the thousand verses that are hymning through my
mind with a music like that of the 'Dorian flutes and soft
recorders'. All this is your heritage; to me is unchanging
drudgery, where there are no flowers to pluck by the wayside,
no green sprigs, fresh myrtle, hanging vines, — but the great
grindstone of the law. There I must work. Sisyphus ' rolled
the rock reluctant up the hill ', and I am going home to do the

CHAPTER IX
THE JOURNEY THROUGH AUSTRIA  VIENNA  METTERNICH 
BERLIN  SAVIGNY  HEIDELBERG, MITTERMAIER, THIBAUT
— LONDON AGAIN — HOME  RETROSPECT OF TRIP
Sumner turned his face to the North. The prim little vil
lages of the Tyrol, nestling among spurs of the Alps, with an
air of antiquity about them, as his coach descended the mount
ains and whirled through them, looked like pictures of happy
homelife. Nothing could be cleaner. Groups of happy children
played in their streets, contented old men sat, in the peaceful
autumn days, by the cottage doors. Laughing girls with fresh,
German complexions and comely figures stole quiet glances at
the strangers. At one of the stops of the coach, a fair Tyrolese,
a little more daring and perhaps more fun-loving than the
others, invited Sumner, through an interpreter, to waltz with
her, to the music of some wandering Hungarians. Whether he
accepted her challenge, he did not record. Perhaps not know
ing how to waltz, he put it so, being too chivalrous to say that
he declined.
He reached Innsbruck, Wednesday morning at ten o'clock,
having spent three days and three nights on the journey from
Milan. During this time he slept only three hours and a half
out of the coach. He passed a day at Innsbruck and then
journeyed on by the mail-coach a day and a half to Munich.
Here he spent a week. A lady of his acquaintance from Bos
ton was there. Sumner remarked that she was all French in
her affectations and aped Continental ways in her dress and
manners, particularly in her hair. She appeared at table in
the dress of a dinner party making a contrast with the simple
costume of some English gentlefolks who were there, among
them Disraeli and his wife. The conversation had turned to
" Vivian Grey ", when she remarked, " There is a great deal
written in the garrets of London." " I assure you," answered
Disraeli, " ' Vivian Grey ' was not written in a garret."
Sumner enjoyed Munich. He visited the king's gallery of
sculpture and also sought out the paintings and frescoes upon
which the city prided itself. One of the large frescoes by
Cornelius represented Orpheus begging Eurydice of Plato. The
group, especially the representation of Cerberus, impressed
90

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 91
Sumner as admirable. Knowing that Crawford was modelling
an " Orpheus ", he sent him a careful description of this fresco
thinking it might furnish him some suggestions. Sumner had
predicted that if Crawford completed his " Orpheus " as com
menced it would be one of the best works of modern times. It
was completed and Sumner's prediction has been verified. Af
ter its completion Sumner raised a subscription to procure a
marble copy of it from Crawford to be placed in the city of
Boston. But of this mention will be made in a future connec
tion. Sumner left Munich on the twentieth of October. Another
day and night in the stage brought him to Passau. With an
English friend, he here hired a little gondola and in it they
dropped gently down the Danube, with the current, seventy
miles to the city of Linz. The delightful ride, on the smooth
gliding surface of the river, between banks at every turn open
ing up beautiful scenery, was a grateful respite from the dusty
jolting of the coach. At Linz, they hired a carriage and in two
days and a half, on the twenty-fifth day of October, 1839, they
entered Vienna.
Sumner remained in Vienna a month, occupied, most of his
time, in seeing the city and in studying the language. He went
little into society and made few acquaintances. He was, how
ever, invited by Prince Metternich, then First Minister of
Austria, to a reception at his palace. This he attended and
was received with consideration. The Prince inquired particu
larly about America and showed much interest in the country.
He asked if he knew the Austrian Minister and requested Sum
ner to call upon him when in Washington.
The Prince was of a noble family and in early life repre
sented his country as Ambassador at Paris, where he met the
Emperor Napoleon. He became his warm admirer. Soon af
ter his return from Paris he was made First Minister, and after
the battle of Wagram he showed his capacity for management
by bringing about the marriage of Napoleon to Marie Louise.
He continued in office till 1848 and then resigned. When Sum
ner met him he was still in his prime, a large, fine-looking man
and very affable.
AVith the kindness of some other friends and the favor of the
Prince, Sumner felt the way was open for him to see much of
society in Vienna. It was then the " most select home of
aristocracy". But he left the city almost immediately. A
night and a day of dismal riding brought him to Prague. Here
he viewed its famous bridge and tower and the palace of its
kings. Then another day and night brought him to Dresden,

92 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
where the beautiful paintings reminded him of Italy. From
Dresden to Leipsic he travelled by railroad, the only travelling
he did in this way while in Europe. One of the railway car
riages was named " Washington ", — a name, he remarked, that
seemed to have a charm about it, wherever he went. Irving,
when travelling upon the Continent, noticed on one occasion,
that he was received as a person of no consequence, until his
host discovered that his first name was " Washington ", when
inferring, from this circumstance, that he bore some relation
ship to the Father of his Country, he was thenceforth treated
with marked consideration.
Another day and night from Leipsic brought Sumner to
Berlin, where he remained until January ninth, 1840. Theo
dore S. Fay was then Secretary of Legation from the United
States at Berlin. He was a young man near Sumner's age,
quiet and unassuming in deportment, and of a lovable disposi
tion. He was possessed of some literary ability and the author
of several volumes, one of which he then had in press. Between
Sumner and Fay there grew up a lasting friendship. It was
useful to Sumner during his month's stay in Berlin, for Fay
had access to the best circles of the Prussian capital. He in
troduced Sumner both at Court and to the Professors of the
university and thus his stay was made profitable and pleasant.
In a few weeks Sumner could write : " I know everybody, and
am engaged every day." He had seen all the distinguished
Professors and had received some of them in his room. He
knew Raumer and Ranke, the historians ; of these he preferred
Ranke, who had the most vivacity, humor and, as Sumner
thought, genius. His " History of the Popes " was widely
known and read and was being translated into English. Alex
ander von Humboldt, then engaged upon his " Cosmos ", re
ceived him kindly. He was the reputed head of conversers in
Germany and in this respect Sumner described him to- his
friends as, like Judge Story, " rapid, continuous, unflagging,
lively, various ". He had read Prescott's " Ferdinand and Isa
bella " and he and Ranke both spoke in the highest terms of it
to Sumner. Humboldt was also an admirer of Edward Everett
of Boston.
But the Professor, in the university, of whom Sumner gave
the fullest description was Savigny. Sumner's still nourished
ambition for a career in the Harvard Law School, would make
this natural. Savigny was, at this time, at the head of the
law department of the University of Berlin and Sumner con
sidered him, by common consent, the leading authority on juris
prudence in Germany and, in truth, upon the whole Continent.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

93

He was of noble birth and from early manhood had been a
Professor of Law in various universities. From 1842 to 1848
he was Minister of Justice of the Empire. But his title to
fame rests principally on his published works, particularly his
work " On Obligations ".
In personal appearance and manner Sumner thought he re
sembled Webster, more than any person he had ever seen. He
was taller and not quite so stout, but there was the same dark
face and hair and eyes; as he sat by Sumner and he caught
his voice, he was startled by the resemblance to the Massachu
setts Senator's. Savigny and Humboldt belonged to the society
of Berlin, and were sought for, in the court and diplomatic
circles, a distinction the other professors did not enjoy.
Sumner had looked forward to an acquaintance with Savigny.
He was one of the European authorities upon the question of
codification. More than twenty years before he had published
a reply to Thibaut's argument in favor of a code. In Paris,
Sumner was told, that he had modified his views upon this sub
ject, but when he came to converse with him he was sorry to
find that his informants were mistaken. He was as firm as
ever in his opposition to codes. He listened kindly to Sumner's
views on the subject, but when done, seemed unshaken in his
own conclusions. He had read Judge Story's work on the
" Conflict of Laws " and expressed his surprise that he was not
on the Massachusetts committee to codify the Criminal Law,
not reflecting that his other more important duties would pre
vent him. from taking an appointment that would involve so
much labor.
Through the kind offices of his friend Fay, Sumner met most
of the foreign Ministers resident at Berlin and the diplomatic
corps. He was kindly received by the Crown Prince and Prince
William, both of whom became Emperors of Prussia, and their
princesses. The Crown Prince seemed very cordial and in
quired about the summers of New England and thought they
must be magnificent. Sumner answered that he had thought
so too, till he had been in Italy. But after all, Ranke, Hum
boldt, Savigny, great names still among the Germans, the ele
gant historian of the Popes, the author of Cosmos and the mas
ter of German jurisprudence, — these were the men Sumner
admired ! He knew them all !
From Berlin Sumner went to Leipsic, Weimar, Gotha,
Frankfort and then to Heidelberg. He remained five weeks at
Heidelberg, studying, reading and talking German. He en
joyed the ancient town beautifully located on the river Neckar,
in the province of Baden, noted for its castle, the largest in

94 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Germany, falling into decay, but rendered more attractive by
the tints of its fading glory, and for its university, the oldest
in Germany, founded in 1356, a worthy rival of that of Berlin.
It had a greater reputation abroad, owing to the foreign stu
dents, who were attracted in great numbers to it, by the cheap
ness of living. Sumner humorously wrote that he had a hun
dred dollars and doubted not he was the richest person in the
place. Professor Thibaut called him their "grand seigneur."
Sumner always felt at home when near a great university.
He had been so constantly about Harvard. It is curious to
note how his travels tended to Oxford, Cambridge, the Parisian
Lecture Rooms, Berlin and Heidelberg and how he coveted an
acquaintance among their professors. There is little mention to
be found, in his letters, or diary of the trip, of the great states
men of Europe. In the little that is said of them, there is still
less of their character as statesmen, but the mention is mostly
of them as men or as the owners of great houses or large es
tates. But his letters abound in references to books and schools.
" You have thrown out some hints," he wrote Professor Green
leaf, " with regard to my occupying a place with you and the
Judge at Cambridge. You know well that my heart yearns
fondly for that place." His thoughts were all of a career in the
Law School and as a law writer. A career in statesmanship
seemed to be as far as any from him. How little he realized
what the future had in store for him !
While editing the Jurist he had been brought into con
tact with Professor Mittermaier of Heidelberg. They had ex
changed letters on subjects of mutual interest and the Profes
sor had been asked to contribute to the Jurist. They now
met for the first time and Sumner became intimate with him
and his family. He had three bright boys for whom Sumner
formed an attachment; one, the assistant of his father, died
soon after Sumner's return from Europe, and in the corre
spondence, which was still continued with the father, he unbos
omed his grief.
At Mittermaier's house Sumner met Professor Thibaut then
near the end of his life. He was the most eminent advocate
of codification in Europe. His father was a soldier and the
son was designed for the same profession, but after one short
campaign he abandoned it for his studies. As a young man,
he was strong, finely formed, with a handsome face and head,
enthusiastic in his studies and equally so in athletics. He be
came one of the first scholars in the university. After taking
his degree he became successively Professor of Law atKehl, Jena
and Heidelberg. Sumner considered him second in attainments

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 9{,
only to Savigny. He early advocated a code for Germany and
finally secured the adoption of one. Sumner considered himself
fortunate, in being able to discuss the subject of codification
with the beads of the two great schools, for and against it, Thi
baut and Savigny. He heard their views from their own lips
and had the honor of receiving calls from both of them in his
room. The practice of duelling was then at its height in the uni
versity. Sumner saw three duels with swords. The swords
were first taken to a grindstone where they were ground sharp.
With these weapons the combatants then met in an assembly-
room where the students in large numbers were congregated,
smoking and drinking. A doctor was also in attendance who
very coolly smoked all the while. Thus attended, the combat
proceeded, often with serious results. In one of them a com
batant lost his nose, it being cut off by his antagonist at one
blow. It was afterwards sewed on by the doctor for him ; but
he brushed it off twice in the night.
The practice of smoking was universal. " Everybody in Ger
many smokes," Sumner observed ; " I doubt not, I am the
only man above ten years old now in the country who does not."
It was unpleasant for him, who did not use tobacco in any
form. He often found himself shut up in a carriage where
every one was smoking. It will readily be imagined how dis
tasteful this was to him, when it is remembered he could hardly
endure the confinement of a coach without the smoke. In his
earlier days he was obliged to ride on the outside.
From Heidelberg, Sumner went down the Rhine to Cologne,
thence to Brussels, Antwerp, London, where he arrived on the
seventeenth of March and remained till the fourth of April.
This was longer than he at first intended. His purpose was to
stay only a few days, long enough to see two or three friends
and arrange for his passage home. But how could he resist?
" I am already," he wrote, " after twenty-four hours' presence,
nailed for to-morrow to see the Duchess of Sutherland in her
magnificent palace; for the next day to dine with Parkes to
meet Charles Austin ; the next to breakfast with Sutton Sharpe,
to meet some of my friends of the Chancery bar, then to dine
with the Earl of Carlisle ; and the next day with Bates. Mor
peth wishes me to see the Lansdownes and Hollands, but I de
cline." The time slipped away. He knew so many people; had
formed such pleasant acquaintances and there was still so much
of interest to him in London, that it was hard to break away.
London is more bewitching than ever," he wrote. " Have al-

J 6 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ready seen many people, — the Lansdownes; Duke and Duchess
of Sutherland (the most beautiful woman in the world) ; Mrs.
Norton, Lady Seymour (both very beautiful) ; Hayward; Syd
ney Smith; Senior; Fonblanque; Milnes; Milman; the Grotes;
Charles Austin (more brilliant than ever) ; the Wortleys, etc.
But I must stop. I must now go to breakfast with Sydney
Smith ; to-morrow with Rogers ; next day with dear Sir Robert
Inglis ; the next day with Milnes." This is a formidable list of
well known people and shows Sumner's popularity in England.
His last dinner was with Hallam, where were Milman, Bab
bage, Hayward, Francis Horner, etc. He parted with many
friends and received the most affectionate good wishes. Lady
Carlisle and Ingham shed tears in parting with him.
He engaged passage for New York by the " Wellington "
and embarked at Portsmouth, having as a fellow passenger
Dr. J. G. Cogswell who was in Europe to place a grandson of
John Jacob Astor in school and to make purchases for the
newly projected Astor Library of New York, of which he had
been chosen Librarian. Other fellow passengers were N. P.
Willis, his wife and her sister. He reached New York on May
third, 1840, after an absence of two years and five months.
The journey cost him something more than five thousand
dollars. But it was one of the most profitable periods of his life,
hardly less so than his years in college. He had studied and
mastered successively the French, Italian and German lan
guages. He had seen the great countries of Europe and mingled
with their people. He had visited their great universities,
made the acquaintance of their professors and saw their methods
of instruction. He had seen the most famous art treasures of
the world, the finest architecture of the present and the remains
of the greatest of the past. But above all he had seen and heard
and known many of the greatest men then living and whose
names are now historic. He had before read their works and
knew them, but what was this as compared with seeing the au
thors, meeting them in their homes and talking with them, face
to face, so that every mention of them thereafter was to awaken
a train of pleasant memories. It was largely due to the culture
of those two years and a half that Sumner came afterwards to
be known as the most accomplished man in the American
Senate.

CHAPTER X
WELCOME HOME — CAMPAIGN OF 1840 — RESUMES WORK — OF
FICE OF HILLARD AND SUMNER  PHILLIPS MATCH CASE —
RIGHT OF SEARCH  PRACTICE  UNPROFESSIONAL STUDIES
From New York, Sumner went directly to the family resi
dence in Boston. This was to be his future home.
A warm welcome awaited him. There had always been a
strong affection between him and his mother and the death of
his father seemed to make the tie even stronger than before.
He was her eldest son, bearing his father's name, the best edu
cated and the most substantial of all her children. She felt that
she must look to him, as her adviser and mainstay. His sisters,
Mary and Julia, had grown to be young women, during his
absence. The loving expectancy with which they had hoped to
entwine his life with theirs reached out to him at the thresh
old. His former law partner, Hillard, who alone had kept the
office at Number Four Court Street, in his absence, was re
joiced at the prospect of dividing its confinement as well as
its cares and labors. Sumner was a warm-hearted, genial, com
panionable man and a host of friends were glad to welcome
him back. In homes where he had been familiar, as in Judge
Story's and Professor Greenleaf's, he was received, as before, al
most as one of the family.
The first weeks after his arrival were occupied with renewing
acquaintances, calling upon friends and talking over the ex
periences of his trip. He felt little inclination to return to work
at once, for his studies abroad, in Italy and Germany, had
been so laborious that he needed rest and time to gather his
thoughts home from his trip. The attorneys and judges were
soon to be off on their summer's vacation and the courts being
closed, little could be done then in a law office. During
August, he spent a few days at Nahant, a seaside resort about
fourteen miles from Boston, where he dined with William H.
Prescott. Later in the same month he drove in a gig to Lan
caster, a small village near Worcester, with Felton, who went
to spend Sunday with his wife. On the way they stopped at
Concord and dined with Ralph Waldo Emerson. When Sumner
went to Europe, Emerson had given him a letter of introduc
tion to Thomas Carlyle and each enjoyed this opportunity of
97

98 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
exchanging their recollections of him. Emerson was a constant
correspondent of Carlyle. Sumner afterwards recalled Emer
son's two interesting children, a boy and a girl, the latter
playfully called by her father his " honeycomb".
The year of Sumner's return, from Europe, 1840, will ever
be memorable for one of the most remarkable campaigns in
the history of American politics. The Whigs had been out of
office for twelve years and were correspondingly hungry; the
Democrats having been as long successful were now under the
control of a President who was a consummate political leader
and they bore themselves with confident superiority. The
Whigs nominated as their candidate William H. Harrison and
the Democrats renominated Martin Van Buren. Harrison
could be paraded as a "military hero," for he had about a
quarter of a century before, been a soldier in the war of 1812,
and in some skirmishes with the Indians, notably at Tippe
canoe, had borne himself creditably. He could also pose as a
political martyr, for he had been rather roughly recalled from a
foreign mission, by Jackson to make a place for one of his
favorites. At the time of his nomination he was living quietly
on his farm in Ohio.
Corruption in public office was rampant. Van Buren was
from the State of New York. Unfortunately the Collector of
Customs at New York City had been found to be a defaulter
to the amount of $1,125,000, and the United States District
Attorney for the State of New York was $72,000 short. Harri
son was the very man to be called, like Cineinnatus, from his
plough to save the nation. There probably never was a political
campaign of more noise and less sense than that which fol
lowed. Half the nation seemed to be turned loose to follow
brass bands, in processions, and sing the doggerel of campaign
song books. The Democrats in derision pointed to Harrison as
a rough farmer, tilling his own land, living in a log cabin and
drinking hard cider. The Whigs returned the taunt by saying,
that Van Buren was living in a mansion, surrounded by thugs
and jobbers and eating out of " gold spoons ". The jibe of the
Democrats was at least unfortunate. Thenceforward a log
cabin, mounted on wheels, its sides decorated with coon-skins
and a cider barrel at the door, the whole drawn by numerous
teams of horses, swelled every procession. The cabin and cider
barrel adorned every badge. They were the drawing symbols of
a plain, honest life and the whole nation seemed to be marching
to the tune of "Tippecanoe and Tyler too". Eloquence too
was plentiful. A meeting was appointed in some grove, the
people gathered in long processions, an ox was roasted whole,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 99
to feed the assembled multitude and they were addressed by
such orators as Henry Clay and Tom Corwin of the West and
Daniel Webster of the East. The famous passage of Webster's ;
" It did not happen to me to be born in a log-cabin, but some
of my brothers and sisters were", so familiar now to every
schoolboy, was one of the products of the campaign.
Yet Sumner, at thirty years of age, was a silent witness of all
this. The circumstance shows how little interest he then felt
in the great arena in which his life was to be cast. Thus far
he had taken no active part in politics. His father's inclination
had been to the Whig party and this naturally was his. It was
also natural for him to be repelled by the cries of corruption
then raised against the Democrats and to be attracted by the
pledges of the Whigs to reform the public service. The superior
culture of such men as Daniel Webster, John Quincy Adams
and Edward Everett, appealed strongly to the educated young
men of Boston, in the choice of a party. Sumner probably
voted for Harrison ; but he had been abroad for two years and
love of country rather than of any party was his predominant
feeling, and it is not certainly known how he voted. He en
joyed many of the ludicrous phases of the campaign; but
deprecated so much strife and faction as he saw. " There is so
much passion," he wrote, " and so little principle, so much de
votion to party and so little to country in both parties, that I
think we have occasion for anxiety."
With the return of September, Sumner settled down to work
in his office. The partnership with Hillard had never been
dissolved, but as he had done all the work during Sumner's ab
sence, he was allowed all the earnings. Sumner was resolved
to be diligent. He wished to earn money and pay the debt he
had contracted by his trip to Europe. He declined an invita
tion to deliver the Phi Beta Kappa oration at Bowdoin Col
lege, because it would require time that he could not now afford
to lose from his business. He was punctually in his office from
nine o'clock in the morning until six in the evening, with only
the interval of an hour for dinner. He was at work upon the
third volume of " Sumner's Reports," of Judge Story's decis
ions in the U. S. Circuit Court, which he got ready for the press
by the middle of December. This with his professional en
gagements occupied his time. He did not appear in the trial
of many cases. The practice of the firm of Hillard and Sum
ner does not seem ever to have been large. But his preparation
for a trial was elaborate. He read widely and made numerous
citations of authorities, in support of the positions he took in

100 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the trial of his cases. He was always inclined to be more pro
fuse than exact.
They had several friends who were instrumental in bringing
them business. Rufus Choate, then in the enjoyment of well
deserved fame as an advocate, had his office in the same build
ing with theirs and occasionally dropped into their rooms, to
indulge his fondness for the society of young men and his taste
for talk upon literary subjects. Sumner's brief estimate of
Choate, whose fame is fast becoming traditional, is interesting
as the contemporary judgment of one who often witnessed his
efforts. " His position here," he wrote, " is very firm. He is the
leader of our bar, with an overwhelming superfluity of business,
with a strong taste for books and learned men, with great
amiableness of character, with uncommon eloquence and untir
ing industry." Choate and Webster procured Hillard and
Sumner's employment in the boundary dispute between Massa
chusetts and Bhode Island. William W. Story was a student
in their office and his father, Judge Story, when not absent from
home engaged in his duties as a judge of the Supreme Court
of the United States, frequently dropped in on them. They
sometimes got clients who came to them because they thought
that Judge Story's friendship for them might influence his
judgment in their favor. Professor Greenleaf still kept a desk
in the office and there met the clients he served. He procured
their employment occasionally, notably in a suit brought to
contest the patent right of the Phillips friction match, a litiga
tion which was in court in more than one form and continued
through four years. Professor Greenleaf withdrew from it
early, leaving the responsibility of it with them.
In this case Sumner took an unusual interest. The stake
at issue was large and the question a close one. It was to be
tried before Judge Story in the United States Courts. A suit
was brought to enjoin the use of the patent on a friction match,
on the ground of the prior knowledge and use of the invention,
by Sumner's client. Another suit was also brought, by his
client, to recover damages for the invasion of his right to the
invention. Depositions were taken by Sumner at various places
and the testimony became very voluminous. The suit to enjoin
the defendant was not tried until December, 1843, and the
damage case not until 1844, in November. Judge Story de
cided the injunction ease against Sumner's client. In the
damage case they were more successful. It was tried to a jury
and Sumner's client recovered a verdict. Judge Story ruled
upon several important questions, in the trial of this case,
against Sumner's client ; and he was annoyed at Sumner's per-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 101
sistency, in pressing them. But the jury seems to have thought
more favorably of the case than the Judge. A motion to set
aside the verdict was made, but, pending its hearing, the case
was settled. Sumner took a leading part in the trial and it is
considered his principal effort at the bar. He was opposed by
Franklin Dexter, one of the ablest attorneys in Boston.
Another professional engagement that interested Sumner
grew out of the right claimed by Great Britain to search Amer
ican vessels. The slave trade had been abolished by England
and all her vessels were forbidden from engaging in the traffic.
She had a perfect right to search her own vessels, and see that
the laws of England were not violated by her subjects; and she
freely exercised this right. But some of her vessels still en
gaged in the traffic. To elude detection, such vessels when
pursued would sometimes hoist the American flag and, under
it, claim immunity from search. To break up this practice
England adopted the rule and claimed the right to board every
vessel upon the high seas, suspected and, by an examination of
her papers, determine whether she was an English vessel or not.
The result was that many American vessels were overhauled
and detained and subjected to annoyances. A similar claim on
the part of England had before this resulted in a war between
the two countries, and this threatened to renew it. During the
continuance of the practice, British vessels that had made these
searches occasionally put into the port of Boston and were
sued for damages by the owners of the vessels they had detained.
The British consul retained Hillard and Sumner to defend
them. Sumner took a deep interest in these cases and made a
careful study of the international law upon the subject. With
a view to influencing public opinion he wrote and published in
the Boston Advertiser an elaborate argument in support of
the right of " inquiry " as he called it. This article was replied
to through the press and he published a rejoinder.
The subject has an additional interest here. It was another
event in Sumner's life that called his attention to the enor
mities of the slave trade and aided in establishing his convic
tions early. The debate he heard in the House of Commons,
upon the bill to abolish slavery in England, and his association
with Lord Brougham, will be remembered in the same connec
tion. These things, with the study they induced him to give
the subject of slavery, prepared him afterwards to take the tide
at its flood that led him on to fame and fortune. He had the
deep conviction of leadership at a time when other men faltered.
He was prepared to go right on, while they hesitated, to debate
and by debating to be convinced that he was right.

102 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
But these were suits of exceptional interest with Hillard and
Sumner. Their practice had nothing unusual, in either its char
acter or its extent. It was not better than that of other young
men and indeed was hardly so good. It consisted generally of
making collections, of defending persons charged with petty
crimes, before magistrates, and of writing depositions, where
complaint was sometimes made that Sumner was not content
to let the attorneys ask questions, but insisted upon asking
some himself, so as to see that the witness told the whole truth.
Sometimes like other young men they had other more impor
tant business. Once we know he charged a fee of six hundred
dollars and his client agreed that it was no more than he had
earned; a good fee even for these latter days. But such pay
came seldom. His heart was not in his lawsuits. He felt that
while by these things he was earning a living, his mind and
heart were not being improved or invigorated.
He was ambitious ; he was plunging nightly into history and
biography ; his thoughts were busy with the great and, in most
cases, now impossible exemplars of history. He had a strong
desire to fix his own name permanently in the remembrance of
posterity. He felt that he was not accomplishing this, that
none of the work he was doing, in his profession, could give him
any enduring fame, that it might be well enough, for one who
was intent merely on gaining a livelihood, but that he, with his
ideals, with the resolutions he had formed for lofty endeavor
and noble achievements, ought not to be satisfied with it.
At this time Sumner did not seem to desire public office. The
sacrifice of personal independence, which he thought it involved,
was distasteful. His thoughts were more of books and author
ship and literary distinction. In 1842, a vacancy occurred in
the office of Reporter of the decisions of the Supreme Court of
the United States. He had some experience of this kind, in re
porting the decisions of Judge Story upon the circuit. The
judge desired to secure his appointment to fill this vacancy.
At his suggestion Sumner considered the matter and while de
clining to seek the office he expressed his willingness to accept it,
if it was offered to him. But he did not secure the appointment.
It was made in the absence of Judge Story from Washington
and unexpectedly. It would not have been a very fortunate
appointment. Sumner was not a sufficiently accurate and
painstaking and technical lawyer, and the other members of
the court probably felt so and hence forestalled his appointment.
But it was a disappointment to him and Judge Story, though it
was fortunate for Sumner. The position is a permanent one
with a moderate salary and would, in all probability, have occu-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 103
pied his time, giving him in return for it a comfortable living in
a place of some dignity, till the productive period of his life was
past. Had he obtained it, we would probably have known him
by the print of his name upon the volumes he reported, but
the enduring work he did in the Senate and his orations and
published writings would have been lost. A kindlier Providence
than he then saw, withheld it from him.
This was a turning period in Sumner's life. His wish for
a place in the Law School at Harvard was not so strong as it
had been. His vision of distinction as a jurist or judge or
writer on legal subjects was vanishing. His attention was being
attracted more to practical men and measures aside from the
law. He had thoughts of authorship in general literature, of
history and kindred subjects. He was interested in educational
reform. His friendships and associations aided to draw his
attention to this subject. Lieber was a teacher in the South.
Samuel G. Howe, in whose company he spent much of his
leisure time, during the years following his return from Europe,
was the superintendent of an institute for the education of
the blind. Longfellow was a professor in Harvard. Seeing
the greater culture of the higher classes in England, he urged
raising the standard at Harvard. President Quincy, in an ad
dress before the Board of Overseers, afterwards urged that the
requirements for graduation be increased and, though Sumner
was unable to be present and witness the deliberations, upon
the question, owing to a severe cold, he promptly wrote the
President congratulating him upon the advanced stand he
had taken.
Sumner's days now were occupied in his office, but his nights,
often till one or two o'clock, were spent in reading. His favor
ite subjects were history and biography, but he did not allow
such books to exclude other and lighter ones. He cultivated
a taste for whatever was catholic, in literature, and was, as
he desired to be, a well-read man. He continually made
notes of readings, in books kept for permanent use, thus pre
serving data and copies of passages which he admired and
incidents, which might be used, in his own productions, by
way of illustration. The notes which he thus made, were
frequently used in his productions after he became a Senator.
Much credit is to be given to his European trip for his
love of reading. For years he had looked forward to such a
journey and he secured it under such difficult circumstances
as made him anxious to profit by it. He read history and
biography carefully as one means of preparation for it. How
could he hope for any great profit from his trip, without know-

104 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ing the history of the countries he was to visit, where their
great battles were fought, what were the turning events,
what were their great names and for what were they cele
brated? These were wide subjects and gave scope for endless
study. How could he meet and mingle with their eminent
men, without being able to talk intelligently of what they
talked about? How could he carry letters of introduction
to such men without knowing something of their careers — if
a Judge, of his decisions; if a Member of Parliament, of his
politics ; if an author, of his books ? How could he hope to be
successful in the society of these countries without being
intelligent? These were questions that were suggested to
him. To make this trip profitable, as he intended it should
be, required preparation, by way of wide and careful reading,
and such reading created a taste for good books.
After his return he was stimulated to pursue his reading
further; for then he had seen London and her Tower and
Parliament and courts and schools; Scotland, with her Lochs
and Highlands, her ruined abbeys, her Abbotsford and Edin
burgh; Paris and Versailles; Genoa, with her walls, "her
mural crown, studded with towers;" Rome and Florence and
Venice, with their treasures of art and architecture ; Germany
and Holland. He had seen and was acquainted with many
of the greatest men in Europe. Every history of these countries
he took up, referred to persons or places he knew and had
seen. Therefore he plunged into books, with a new interest.
The going to Europe had required of him constant study
and preparation and had enlarged his reading. Seeing Europe
had added interest to what he saw and stimulated him to
read more widely of the persons and places he had visited.
His heart still turned to these countries. " Give me
fifteen hundred dollars a year," he wrote Longfellow, " and I
will hie away to Florence, where in sight of what is most
beautiful in art and with the most inspiring associations about
me, I will feed on the ambrosia of life nor find the day long
which I can give undisturbed to the great masters of human
thought. Stop ! Say nothing of this or my professional
chances will be up." It is a fact that in his office he was
inclined to talk too much about Europe to persons who came
in on business. It gave the impression that his heart was not
in his work and was thought to have an unfavorable effect
upon his practice.
Sumner had numerous correspondents among his friends in
Europe, — Hayward, Professors Whewell and Mittermaier,
Ingham, Lords Morpeth and Penman and Greenough and Craw-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 105
ford and others. Some of them he heard from only occasionally
and from others, Ingham, Mittermaier, Morpeth and Crawford,
the letters were frequent. The latter had been his most
intimate friends. Professor Mittermaier and Sumner corre
sponded in German and made exchanges of books. In 1841
both Ingham and Lord Morpeth were candidates for seats in
the House of Commons, though both failed of election; Sum
ner watched the campaign with interest and regretted their
defeat. Instead of Ingham, Milnes, another of Sumner's
friends, was elected.
Lord Morpeth shortly after his defeat, came to the United
States and spent several months travelling in the West and
South and extending his journey into Canada. Sumner gave
him letters to friends in other cities and met him in Boston
and introduced him, went with him to places of interest and
showed him many attentions. Longfellow, Sumner's friend,
had him to dine, with Allston and Prescott, the evening of his
arrival. And Sumner gave a dinner for him at the Tremont
House. These attentions were kindly remembered by Lord
Morpeth. The year after his return from Europe, Sumner rendered
a service for his friend Crawford. It will be remembered
that he had admired his " Orpheus ", a bas-relief upon which
he was engaged, when Sumner was in Rome. In 1841, he raised
a subscription of twenty-five hundred dollars to purchase it,
for the Boston Athenasum. Crawford gratefully acknowledged
the kindness, by executing a bust of Sumner and presenting
it to him. To awaken public interest in the " Orpheus," Sum
ner wrote an article, published in the Boston papers, the
Democratic Review and Advertiser, in which he narrated the
legend that furnished the subject for the study and gave a
description of the work and its merits.
The " Orpheus " was not finished at the time it was ordered
and did not reach Boston till 1843. On opening the box,
Sumner was much disappointed to find it had been broken in
the passage. But it was restored, so that the break was scarcely
noticeable. It was not open to general exhibition, until the
summer of 1844, though during the preceding winter it was
privately exhibited to a few persons of some' art attainments.
They praised it enthusiastically and Sumner conveyed this
intelligence to Crawford. In June, 1844, it was opened to the
public with an exhibition, planned by Sumner, of all Crawford's
works then in Boston, making the " Orpheus " the central piece.
The bust of himself was included in the collection. He was
not satisfied with the lights which the Athenamm afforded and

106 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
to show the work to better advantage, he had a temporary
booth built and fitted up adjoining the Athenaeum, for the
exhibition. It was all done by Sumner to awaken an interest
in Crawford and his work as 'an artist. Sumner felt that he
was not appreciated as his ability deserved. The purpose was
accomplished and Crawford's reputation as an artist was
established in Boston. The "Orpheus" still remains there
a monument to the beautiful relation of two men, each now
celebrated, but both then young and struggling for position.
Crawford never forgot the kindness thus done him, at a
time when he needed such help. His principal works, his
bronze statue of Beethoven, executed for the Boston Music
Hall, his colossal equestrian statue of Washington on the
grounds of the State Capitol at Richmond, Va., and his stat
uary in marble and bronze for the National Capitol at Wash
ington, were all executed at a later period. Before he died
orders came to him in abundance and his fame as one of the
greatest of American artists is now secure. But to the end,
his heart went out in gratitude for the help and encourage
ment that thus came, in the days of struggle. Writing to
George Sumner, the brother of Charles, he declared that he
had placed this friendship nearer his heart than any other
in the United States except only that for his own family.
George was at this time in Europe. His travels were pro
tracted beyond what Charles thought to be for his good
and he did not hesitate to say so. His time was not idled
away. He visited Holland and England and made a careful
study from original sources of the early lives and character
of the first Puritan settlers of New England. He recorded
the result of his studies, and his manuscripts have since been
deposited with the Massachusetts Historical Society and are
referred to now with confidence, by writers upon the Puritan
period of American history. George's tastes were more ex
clusive than Charles'. Politics and history interested him,
but for general literature he had less fondness and he was
disposed to overlook the merits of men of a more imaginative
turn of mind than himself. He visited Rome and met and
liked Crawford. But he preferred Paris to London and crit
icised Charles for his too great fondness for England and some
of his English friends. Charles replied to him in a letter
which reveals a good deal of his own character.
"You enjoy conversation," he wrote, " on . politics, statistics
and history. Do you sufficiently appreciate talent out of this
walk? For instance, Kenyon does not care a pin for these
topics; but he is exuberant with poetry and graceful anec-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 107
dote; so that I must count him one of the most interesting
men I have ever met. And I remember breakfasts at his
house which were full of the most engaging conversation. . . .
I like to find good in everything ; and in all men of cultivated
minds and hearts, thank God, there is a good deal of good to be
found. In some it shows itself in one shape, and in some in
another; some will select your favorite themes, while others
enjoy ideality and its productions manifold." . . .
" This world is full of harshness. It is easier to censure
than to praise ; the former is a gratification of our self-esteem ;
while to praise seems, with minds too ambitious and un
generous, a tacit admission of superiority. It is a bane of
society wherever I have known it, — and here in Boston as
much as in London, — a perpetual seeking for something which
will disparage or make ridiculous our neighbors. Their
conduct is canvassed, and mean and selfish motives are at
tributed to them. Their foibles are dragged into day. I
do not boast myself to be free from blame on this account;
and yet I try to find what is good and beautiful in all that
I see, and to judge my fellow creatures as I would have them
judge me."

CHAPTER XI
in society  friends— the misses ward  howe  julia ward
— howe's marriage — longfellow — the prescotts —
bancroft  wm. w. story  allston  channing  adams
 their influence on sumner  literary projects of
friends — habits — why not married
During the years succeeding his trip to Europe, Sumner
was popular in Boston society. He had a fine presence and the
easy address, which comes of familiarity with good company^
besides the reputation for scholarly attainments which always
counted for much in Boston. His sister Mary was then a
beautiful young woman, tall, well-formed and graceful, a good
dancer and of a lovely disposition, — the fairest of all his sisters.
She was a great favorite with Charles and he took much pleas
ure in acting as her escort. At the time of his return, she
was eighteen years of age and apparently in perfect health,
though she died four years later, after a lingering illness of
consumption. Julia, too, the youngest of the family, was thir
teen years old and was soon in society. The best homes in
Boston were open to them. They attended parties and recep
tions together and the usual gatherings of young people. At
that time horseback riding was a favorite amusement and
his letters contain occasional references to excursions made, in
this way, in the company of young ladies.
After his death, his sister Julia wrote : " It seems but yes
terday that I was the happy, careless schoolgirl, recounting
eagerly to his kindly, sympathetic ear at dinner the experiences
of the morning at school, or going to him for help in my
Latin lessons." While she was a student at Mr. Emerson's pri
vate school for young ladies, in Boston, the tragedian Macready
played, in Boston, and Charles took her, night after night, to see
his performances. It was the first really fine acting she had
seen and it opened to her the wonderful beauties of Shakespeare.
She never forgot the debt she owed him, to have thus opened a
new world of delight. He had met and dined with Macready,
was familiar with the plays and enthusiastic in pointing out
the excellences in the interpretation of them. Sumner corre
sponded with Macready after his return to Europe.
In January and February of 1814, he visited his brother
Albert in New York a#d spent a few days in Philadelphia. In
108

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 109
New York he met and dined with Halleck, Cogswell and Theo
dore Sedgwick and was again kindly received by Chancellor
Kent. He wrote to Hillard that he had " had some pleasant
dinners, seen some handsome women and been to two balls."
It was on this visit to New York that he became acquainted
with three sisters, Misses Ward, who lived on Bond Street near
his brother Albert's residence. He was much attracted by their
wit and beauty and might have easily conceived a tender senti
ment for one of them. But this, his circumstances, poor and in
debt, with little income, compelled him to conceal. They were
then beautiful, bright, vivacious girls, fond of society and music,
prettily supporting one another, in their sallies of wit and
laughter, and generally the centre of a circle of admirers.
" The Three Graces " was the designation they acquired with
Sumner and his friends. They were daughters of Mr. Samuel
Ward, a banker of New York. Their mother, Julia Rush Ward
was the author of some poems of merit. She was the daughter
of Mr. B. C. Cutler, an eminent citizen of Boston.
" The Three Graces " spent the following summer in Dor
chester, a suburb of Boston. Sumner wrote Lieber : " The
three Misses Ward — -a lovely triumvirate — are summering in
Dorchester." He spent much time in their company. The
following September he was again in New York, looking up
evidence for his friction match case, but in his report to his
partner of the progress he was making, among the dusty and
dreary records of the clerk's office, he quietly mentions, facts
of interest to him, that he had dined with Mr. Samuel Ward,
his first day there, and that on the next day he dined with
the Misses Ward !
And how all roads lead to New York ! In August, 1842, he
writes to Longfellow, then in Europe : " I have been away on a
short journey with my two sisters, Mary and Julia, and have
enjoyed not a little their enjoyment of life and new scenes.
Howe started in company. We went to Springfield; thence
made an excursion to Chicopee; thence to Lenox and Stock-
bridge, where I left the girls to ramble about, while Howe
and I started on a journey to New York, including Hell
Gate, where we passed the chief of our time. The ' Three
Graces ' were bland and lovely."
Sumner and Dr. Samuel G. Howe were fast friends then
and they continued so for many years. There were times in
Sumner's life when Howe was his greatest confidant. His
opposition to slavery, at a later day, estranged many of his
friends, but it never affected Howe. He was in full sym
pathy with Sumner's purpose to destroy it and during this

HO LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
period their friendship continued, more cordial than before.
In 1846 Howe allowed himself to be nominated for Congress,
by the opponents of slavery and the Mexican war, when there
was no prospect for an election.
He was a high-minded man, devoted to philanthropic pur
poses and pursuits and very like Sumner in many of his
thoughts of life. He was ten years Sumner's senior. In his
young manhood, he had spent seven years, as a soldier in aid
of Greece, in her struggle against the Turks, for independence ;
and had narrowly escaped death from one of their scimeters.
He was in Paris in July, 1830, on his way home, when the
French people rose in revolution against Charles the Tenth
and drove him from his throne. Still by instinct the champion
of the oppressed, he joined the cause of Lafayette and the
people against the arbitrary rule of their King. His dis
regard of danger attracted the attention of Lafayette, who
urged him not to expose himself, in this struggle that should
be reserved for Frenchmen, but to save his life for the aid
of his own country. Reaching home he studied medicine and
quickly rising in his profession he was made Superintendent
of the Boston Institution for the Blind. He devoted himself
to this work with his characteristic enthusiasm. Beside
his work for his own Institution he visited other states and
sought to interest them in the establishment of similar found
ings. At this time Sumner and Howe were much in each other's so
ciety. They took frequent horseback rides and made excursions
together to places near Boston. Sumner frequently passed the
night with Howe at the Institution for the Blind, where they
talked far into the nights, of European travel, of books and
friends. Two years later Howe married Julia Ward, one of
the " Three Graces." Sumner's friend Crawford married an
other. The third became Mrs. Maillard. Julia Ward Howe
became the author of several books, " Passion Flowers ",
" Words for the Hour ", a volume of reminiscences. Her best
known poem is her " Battle Hymn of the Republic ".
This hymn has since been set to music and is now sung as
one of our national anthems.
Mrs. Howe was no less firm in her friendship for Sumner
than her husband. During his years of struggle against
slavery, they never ceased to uphold his hands. And when
Brooks assaulted him in the Senate Chamber for words uttered
in his speech on the " Crime against Kansas ", she promptly
condemned the outrage in a poem published in the " New
York Tribune." No words of sympathy came to Sumner

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER HI
more welcome than hers. When he published the complete
edition of his works he incorporated this poem in them as a
note to the speech.
Howe had taken the place in the "Five of Clubs" made
vacant by Cleveland, who was wasting away with disease and
soon to die. The Club continued its meetings, at the homes
of its members. They met to talk of the events of the week,
of new books and their own literary projects and to read and
discuss a poem or an article that any of them had written for
the press. They never doubted the fidelity of the members
to one another and usually asked their criticism upon their
productions, before they were given to the public. The meet
ings were furnished with refreshments, but they were spar
ingly used. Good cheer was plenty. They were bright in
telligent men, all well educated and capital conversers. The
cheery laugh and abounding good spirits of Felton never
failed to touch a responsive chord in the others. Besides
Sumner and his partner Hillard there were Howe, and Felton,
then Professor of Greek at Harvard and afterwards its
President, and Henry W. Longfellow, the poet, then Harvard's
Professor of Modern Languages and Literature.
Sumner and Longfellow were close friends. Longfellow was
born at Portland, Maine, the son of an attorney; and grad
uated at Bowdoin. After graduation he had commenced the
study of law with his father, but being called to a professor
ship in Bowdoin he had fitted himself for the place, by three
years study in Europe. In 1835, he was called to Harvard.
He was four years Sumner's senior and still unmarried. He
had his rooms in the house in Cambridge then owned by Mrs.
Craigie, fronting on the road from Harvard College to Mt.
Auburn Cemetery. It was a commodious structure, surrounded
by ample grounds, looking out upon the winding river Charles,
with Brighton hills and Brookline in the distance. Even
then it was an ancient dwelling and like an old man gracing
his age, with the honors of well-spent years, it numbered among
its claims to consideration that it had been the home of
Everett the orator, Sparks the historian, and Worcester the
lexicographer, and the additional fact that it was the head
quarters of General Washington in the Revolutionary War.
Thither Washington's wife had come to visit him, properly
attended all the way from Virginia, in a coach drawn by four
horses, with a liveried postilion astride of each, according
to the elaborate ceremonial of the day. And there Martha
Washington, with her inimitable grace, had enlivened the
dreary winter of 1775-6, by dispensing touches of Virginia

112 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
hospitality. Longfellow afterwards purchased the house and
it continued to be his home for the remainder of his life, with
his name and fame thus adding another attraction to the
place. From this house Sumner wrote his brother George, still
in Europe, in 1841: "It is Sunday and I am Longfellow's
guest. One of my pleasures is of a Saturday afternoon to
escape from Boston and find shelter here. We dine late, say
between five and six o'clock. Felton adds to the hilarity.
We talk of what we have seen abroad, of cities visited, persons
seen, and the trophies of art and of old time, while all the
poets and masters, in all the languages, are at hand in
Longfellow's well chosen library. I think you never knew
my friend. When you return (if that event ever takes place)
you will find great satisfaction and sympathy in his society."
After Sumner's return from Europe, he became more
intimate with Longfellow than he had been. Longfellow had
travelled and studied in Europe and while he cared little for
law and less for politics, and statistics about war and the
conduct of prisons, subjects which were attracting Sumner's
attention, both friends were enthusiastic over art and literature.
They delighted to sit together and talk over some gallery of
pictures or the works they had seen of some old master and
together revive their recollections of them. Here a library of
old books and there a road, a river or some mountain fastness,
which each had seen, was recalled as an afterglow of European
travel. Longfellow, with more settled purpose than Sumner,
was then far advanced in his literary career. He had already
published his " Hyperion " and " Voices of the Night " and.
some translations from Spanish poetry. But Sumner at this
time, with little prospect of professional or political distinction,
was only beginning to turn his thoughts towards literature.
Books and magazines constantly furnished new topics of con
versation. Sumner's Saturday visits to the " Craigie House " were
frequently extended over Sundays, their employments keeping
them apart, during the other days of the week. His tall portly
form, swinging easily up the walk, among the shrubbery, is
still remembered. He always found a welcome, and his sister
Julia recalled that he occasionally came home, bringing a new
poem from Longfellow's pen, which he read to them with fine
effect, for he read poetry well.
In 1843 Longfellow married Fanny Appleton, the "Mary
Ashburton " of his " Hyperion ", a lady of great sweetness and.
elevation of character as well as beauty of person. She was

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 113
the daughter of Nathan Appleton, twice a Member of Congress,
from Boston. Her stepmother was a second cousin of Sumner.
And thus the tie between Sumner and Longfellow was strength
ened by the event which so often separates bachelor friends.
Sumner was present at their wedding. With her character
istic sweetness of disposition, the new wife sought to keep green
her husband's bachelor friendship. Soon after the marriage
Sumner wrote: "At Craigie Castle, the Longfellows dispense
an easy and graceful hospitality, — always glad to enjoy the
society of their friends at dinner or tea as it may happen." So
" Craigie House " continued for Sumner a retreat where he
went to find rest from the vexations of his long days of service.
Another house that Sumner often visited during these years
was the home of William H. Prescott, the historian. Sumner
had never met Prescott before going to Europe, but while there
the history of " Ferdinand and Isabella " appeared. It at
tracted attention in the circles where Sumner moved. He was
enthusiastic in his admiration of it and took occasion fre
quently to recommend it to friends and interested himself in
having it reviewed favorably in England. His letters to friends
at home frequently referred to its success and some of these
being shown to Prescott he had been led to acknowledge Sum
ner's kindness. An acquaintance followed Sumner's return to
Boston, which afterwards ripened into a warm friendship.
The Prescott family united three generations under one
roof, Judge Prescott and his wife and their son William H.
Prescott, and his wife and two children. Judge Prescott, the
son of General Prescott of Battle of Bunker Hill fame, had been
a member of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, when Sum
ner's father was Sheriff. He was an eminent lawyer and judge,
as well as a citizen distinguished in private life for his learn
ing, his good sense and his uprightness. He was now verging
upon eighty years of age, but still in the enjoyment of good
health; and he continued, with almost unabated interest in
events around him, till stricken with paralysis, shortly before
his death, in 1844.
William H. Prescott, Sumner's friend was a genial, warm
hearted man, scholarly in his tastes, full of kindness and con
sideration for the feelings of others, willing to do a favor or
suffer an inconvenience, above little considerations of self and
incapable of meanness. After graduating at Harvard he had
entered upon the study of law, but, with an intervening trip to
Europe, he abandoned it for the pursuit of literature which,
notwithstanding an impaired vision, owing to the total loss of
one eye and organic weakness in the other, he pursued with

114 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
signal success. Reflecting upon his career, was influencing
Sumner to think of a similar one for himself.
Sumner was fond of the Prescotts and was in the habit of
calling there on Sunday evenings, frequently, at such times,
supping with the family. They were attached to him. His
want of affectation, his love of knowledge and his good sense
quickly found a response in such natures as the Prescotts',
father and son. They invited him to their family parties,
where he met Franklin Dexter, one of the leaders of the Boston
bar, and his wife, a daughter of Judge Prescott. Sumner's
presence on such occasions seemed to impose no restraint on
the others. He joined heartily in the amusements of the hour,
played " blind man's buff ", etc.
Sumner was prompt to acknowledge this kindness of the Pres
cotts. When Lord Morpeth visited Boston in 1841, William
H. Prescott was one of the select number invited to meet him
at Longfellow's rooms the evening of his arrival. This recep
tion was arranged for by Sumner and Longfellow together.
When Sumner afterwards gave a dinner, in his honor, at the
" Tremont House ", Prescott was again one of the guests. He
liked Morpeth and after that assisted Sumner in entertaining
him. And when he left Boston, Sumner and Prescott attended
him to the railroad station to bid him good-bye.
In the spring of 1842, Sumner and Prescott visited New
York together. Prescott went to visit Washington Irving and
invited Sumner to accompany him. He and Irving, each with
out the knowledge of the other, had been engaged the previous
fall and winter, in writing upon the " Conquest of Mexico ".
They had before trenched upon one another's ground, Irving
in his " Life of Columbus " and Prescott in his " Ferdinand
and Isabella ". Discovering that they were about to do so
again, Irving generously gave up the theme to Prescott and
furnished him what materials he had already gathered. Irving
having been lately nominated and confirmed Minister from the
United States to Spain, Prescott desired to see him before his
departure on his mission, to interest him in procuring some
materials for this history, from the Spanish archives. The
visit was a delightful one. Sumner and Prescott both came
back full of the praises of Irving and the reception he gave
them. Each was disposed to rally the other upon his enthu
siasm, over their host, and the sayings and doings to which they
had been parties. Sumner insisted that Prescott was fairly
" Boz-ed " — a word that had lately been coined to express the
enthusiasm created by Dickens on his recent tour in the United
States.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER H5
Through Prescott, Sumner became acquainted with other
authors, George Bancroft, Jared Sparks and George Ticknor.
Bancroft had just issued the third volume of his history of
the United States. He was Collector of the Port at Boston,
at the time, and a Democrat. Boston, under the influence of
such leaders as Webster, John Quincy Adams, Choate and
Everett, was strongly Whig ; and to be a Democrat there, meant
to be, in a measure, ostracized. Even George Bancroft did not
altogether escape tbis ban, though, from his literary eminence,
he might reasonably have hoped to do so. But Sumner was
not much in politics then and did not let such considerations
influence his friendships. Bancroft frequently dropped into
Hillard and Sumner's office to chat and there he always found
a welcome and congenial company, Hillard, his partner, and
William W. Story, their student, were hardly behind Sumner,
in their love for good books.
Their office was an attractive place. Story reveals how their
thoughts, "when business would allow, sometimes when it
would not allow," would steal away from the law to revel in talk
of poetry and fiction and history and how they delighted in
anecdotes about some old judge, or the bar, some great argu
ment or celebrated trial, — the literature of the law rather than
the law itself. They enjoyed the rich conversation of Choate
and Dexter and Judge Story, and of old Jeremiah Mason,
Webster's great rival at the bar, blunt, hard-headed, full of
rich experiences of former days on the New Hampshire cir
cuits. Those were delightful days to which their thoughts af
terwards often reverted. They all had a taste for literature.
Two of them afterwards abandoned the law, Story for liter
ature and sculpture, and Sumner for public life. Story, in
1847, published his " Treatise on the Law of Sales " which he
dedicated to Sumner.
The first sentence of quaint introduction, read, like a vale
dictory to the law. " Sir Edward Coke, in the preface to the
eighth part of his Reports says : ' As naturalists say that there
is no kind of fowl of the wood, or of the plain, that doth not
bring somewhat to the building of the Eagle's nest — some cin
namon, or things of price, some juniper or thing of lesser value;
so ought every man, according to his power, place and capacity,
to bring something to the adorning of our great Eagle's nest,
our own dear country;' and these presents I have brought to
that great Eagle's nest, the law."
A year after the publication of this book, Story went to Italy
to live and that continued to be his home. He published the
" Life and Letters " of his father, Judge Story, and two vol-

116 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
umes of poems, besides some minor works. But he is best
known as a sculptor. His statues of his father and Chief Jus
tice Marshall and some of his imaginative pieces take a high
rank. He died in Italy in 1895 surviving Sumner more than
twenty-one years.
' Another American artist whose friendship Sumner enjoyed,
during this period was Washington Allston. He lived in Cam
bridge and was a graduate of Harvard, but had studied art in
Italy and France. While in Europe he had become acquainted
with Wordsworth and Coleridge and, when Sumner went to
England, he commended him to these friends. After Sumner's
return, he was frequently at Allston's house and was much in
terested in his work as an artist. In all his efforts to aid Craw
ford and in raising the subscription for the purchase of the
" Orpheus ", Sumner constantly consulted Allston, who heartily
seconded his plans. He counted on his aid in mounting it and
in arranging the exhibition of Crawford's works, but, before the
" Orpheus " arrived, Allston was dead. Sumner commemorated
him in his oration delivered before the " Phi Beta Society " of
Harvard in 1846, on " The Scholar, the Jurist, the Artist and
the Philanthropist ", one of the most finished productions of
his life.
Sumner had an acquaintance with Daniel Webster and John
Quincy Adams. They were Boston men and he therefore had
abundant opportunity to see them in private and hear them in
public and to be familiar with their careers, which during the
closing years of Webster's life, especially after his speech on
the Seventh of March, 1850, were the subject of much discus
sion and comparison. Sumner's frequent allusions to them in
his letters show that he was observing these great men carefully.
He always admired the great intellect and the grand presence
and magnificent oratory of Webster, never equalled in modern
times. But he thought Webster tacked too much on the ques
tion of slavery and lacked moral strength. He did not like
Adams' apparent disregard of parliamentary forms in Congress,
but he delighted in the moral courage of the man, as he stood,
year after year, on the floor of the House, defying slavery and
defending the right of the people to petition their Representa
tives. His opponents sought to deny the right of petition, by
preventing those against slavery being either read or discussed
in Congress. Sumner's letters, even thus early, show that much
as he admired Webster, he admired Adams more. Later in life
he came to know both of these men better. He saw them, con
versed with them and letters were exchanged, upon such sub
jects as are likely to bring a constituent in contact with his

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 117
Representatives, but his relation to them could never be called
intimate. The man who more than any other, at this time, influenced
Sumner's views upon public questions was William E. Chan-
ning, the Philanthropist commemorated in Sumner's Phi Beta
Kappa oration. He was by profession a minister, but is much
better known as a writer upon moral questions. After grad
uating from Harvard, in the class with Judge Story, he had
spent some time as a tutor in a private family in Virginia.
Here and on a visit later to the West India Islands he had an
opportunity to observe slavery in practice and he became un
alterably opposed to it. He was outspoken in his opposition,
condemned it in public addresses and wrote a book, the most
extensive published work of his life, setting out his objections
to it. He had also studied the question of peace and war and
took the same position upon this subject. that Sumner after
wards did in his oration on " The True Grandeur of Nations ".
The high ethical ground that Channing assumed and the elo
quence and fearlessness with which he sustained his views made
a lasting impression. He died, in 1842, cut off in the full tide
of usefulness, at sixty-two years of age. His last public appear
ance was to make an address to the citizens of Lenox, Massa
chusetts, on the occasion of celebrating the anniversary of
British emancipation in the West Indies.
Sumner had known Channing for years. Notwithstanding
the disparity in their ages they had been intimate friends and
had many points of likeness. They were both well educated,
graduates of the same college and both had a strong taste for
literary pursuits. They both cared little for wealth, but had a
generous ambition to be useful men. Each felt a deep interest
in their common country, a pride in her hard beginning and
her growing power and yet neither could be said then to belong
to any political party. Doubtless they both voted the Whig
ticket, but with no enthusiasm and without any effort to give
direction to the votes of others. Channing had a fascination
for young men. He appealed to conscience, pointed out a great
future for them and an ideal life, motives for action generally
stronger in young men than in those of advanced years.
When he died, Sumner characterized him as " one of the
purest, brightest, greatest minds of his age ". And he added :
" He has been my friend and I may almost say idol, for nearly
ten years. For this period I have enjoyed his confidence in
no common way. Both his last treatises he read to me in manu
script and asked my advice with regard to their publication,
and mv criticism."

118 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Speaking of his eloquence four years later, Sumner said:
"With few of the physical attributes belonging to the orator,
he was an orator of surpassing grace. His soul tabernacled in
a body that was little more than a filament of clay. He was
small in stature ; but when he spoke, his person seemed to dilate
with the majesty of his thoughts. * * * His voice was soft and
musical, not loud or full in tone; and yet, like conscience, it
made itself heard in the inmost chambers of the soul. His
eloquence was gentleness and persuasion, reasoning for relig
ion, humanity and justice. * * * His eloquence had not the
character and fashion of forensic effort or parliamentary debate.
It mounted above these, into an atmosphere unattempted by
the applauded orators of the world. Whenever he spoke or
wrote, it was with the loftiest purpose, as his works attest, —
not for public display, not to advance himself, not on any ques
tion of pecuniary interest, not under any worldly temptation,
but to promote the love of God and man. Here are untried
founts of truest inspiration. Eloquence has been called action;
but it is something more. It is that divine and ceaseless energy,
which saves and helps mankind. It cannot assume its highest
form in personal pursuit of dishonest guardians or selfish con
tentions for a crown, not in defence of a murderer, or invective
hurled at a conspirator. I would not overstep the proper mod
esty of this discussion, nor would I disparage the genius of the
great masters; but all must join in admitting that no rhetorical
skill or oratorical power can elevate these lower, earthly things
to the natural heights on which Channing stood, when he
pleaded for Freedom and Peace."
These passages are valuable as revealing the direction of Sum
ner's thoughts and studies at this time. They show his near
ness to Channing and his familiarity with the great orators of
other days, Demosthenes, Webster and Burke, and that he was
reflecting upon their speeches and the true springs of eloquence.
It will be seen hereafter how much the eloquence of Adams and
Channing became models for Sumner. In his best efforts in
public life, as his " Freedom, National ; Slavery, Sectional ", or
the " Crime against Kansas ", the fearless pugnacity of Adams
unites with the high ethical tone of Channing and both upon
the Senate and the country they made an impression that has
rarely been equalled. Sumner united some of the distinguish
ing traits of both these men. He was as scholarly in his tastes
and as carefully educated as either of them. He was hardly
less industrious, though a man of less method, than Adams. He
knew no fear ; when he had resolved that a course was right, he
dared to pursue it. Even John Quincy Adams never stood be-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 119
'fore the slave power and dealt such blows as Sumner in his
speech on the " Crime against Kansas " and Channing never
lashed the dogs of War as Sumner did in his " True Grandeur
of Nations " delivered before the city authorities and people of
Boston. Still it was the work of both these men that fell, in
large measure, to Sumner, after they were gone. He took it up
and never faltered.
Sumner saw the work of Adams in Congress, after he left the
White House, without a parallel, in American history. Adams
then had all the benefit of his great learning and experience,
and the prestige, his reputation for both gave him, and yet,
having filled the highest places, he came to this later work, un-
warped by any ambition for promotion. He unselfishly de
voted what was left of his life, eighteen years of unremitted
effort, to the cause of universal freedom and his country's ad
vancement. This was a unique object lesson. Channing upon
another stage, but with scarcely less singleness of purpose, de
voted himself to the same causes. He was more an idealist than
Adams. His training had made him so ; and he was so by con
stitution. They both supported one another. Adams, from
his place in the House of Representatives, fought their common
fight before the nation. But could he have maintained his
place in Congress to make this fight, during the long years he
did, if some one as eloquent as Channing had not advocated
that cause in Boston? Sumner was in a position where he
could see and appreciate the work of both. He was nearer to
Channing and more intimate with him, felt his work more, but
he admired the larger influence of Adams from his higher place.
When Channing's manuscripts were submitted to Sumner,
he was glad to aid him with criticisms or suggestions. Sum
ner was always interested in the literary projects of his friends.
No kindlier encouragement came to Hillard upon his literary
efforts than Sumner extended. He delivered the Phi Beta
Kappa oration at Harvard on August 24, 1843, and the week
before we find Sumner writing his friend George W. Greene,
at home from his consulate at Rome, urging him to be present
and promising him something "refined and brilliant in the
audience and the orator ". After it was delivered and printed,
we find him writing to Howe, then absent, that they were " all
surrounded by Hillard's glory ". " His oration has been pub
lished; and the press and all who read it express the warmest
admiration," etc. A new poem from Longfellow's pen he
heralded to his friends as an occasion to be anticipated. Long
fellow, Lieber, Prescott and Bancroft were then in the full tide
of authorship. Sumner saw most that all of them wrote during

120 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
these years, before it reached the public. He was disposed like
his father to say agreeable things to others. He was the last of
men to wound any one's feelings by criticism needlessly severe.
This trait, with his generosity of time in assisting his friends
in any way they asked and his good judgment in literary mat
ters led them to consult him freely in their work. He took the
kindest interest, criticised proofs, wrote reviews and gave them
references from his own readings and sometimes made searches
in the libraries for matter for them. To Lieber, especially, who
was teaching in the South, where he did not have access to
large collections of books, it was an advantage he appreciated
to have such a friend as Sumner in Boston.
For the company of his friends, in a social way, Sumner's
fondness continued. He enjoyed good living with moderation,
and frequently with Howe or some other dropped into a cafe,
in the evening after the day's work was done and took some re
freshment, ices, strawberries or oysters in season and occasion
ally a glass of hock or claret, thus mingling good fare and good
talk with the news of the day. It was still the society of gentle
men. Strong drinks he did not use. Saloons he did not visit.
For any exhibition of drunkenness or an approach to it in con
dition he always had the utmost disgust. In his case it was the
survival of the European or English habit as he had grown
familiar with it abroad, in the best circles, of using a light
stimulant of wine in the same way as tea and coffee, or a cup
of cocoa. It was still the England of Johnson and Goldsmith
and Garrick, with the coffee-house and light table-talk, surviv
ing, that he enjoyed.
Upon his return from Europe, he had taken the place in the
Society of the Cincinnati, formerly filled by his grandfather
and now made vacant by the death of his father. The Society
was originally founded in 1783 by the officers of the American
army of the Revolutionary War for patriotic and benevolent
purposes. Major Job Sumner, the grandfather, was the orig
inal member, then the father and now by his death Charles,
being the oldest son, was entitled to the succession. He at
tended its annual banquet. The rank appealed to his pride in
a career of honorable service. But with the Brook Farm com
munity, headed by George Ripley, he does not seem to have felt
much sympathy. His younger brother Horace was at one time
a member of this band of social reformers. Charles rather
humorously wrote : " Horace has commenced as a fanner. He
is with Mr. Ripley eight miles from Boston. He picks to
matoes, cucumbers, beans, upsets a barrel of potatoes, cleans
away chips, studies agriculture, rakes hay in a meadow and is

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 121
pleased with his instructors and associates." Yet it was a nat
ural craving for companionship in the case of both brothers
that led them into these organizations.
Sumner was beginning to feel his lonely position. His
friends Cleveland, Hillard, Longfellow, Howe, Prescott, those
with whom he was most intimate were now all married and
gathered about firesides of their own. Sumner frequently
dropped in among them and shared their homes and seemed to
rejoice in their happiness. And yet we know it was not without
a vein of sadness. Of one of his friends he wrote : " I think
he will be married very soon. What then will become of me?
It is a dreary world to travel in alone." To Crawford : " Long
fellow is most happily married, I am most unhappily single."
To Lieber ; " Longfellow is to be happy for a fortnight in the
shades of Cambridge ; then to visit his wife's friends in Berk
shire ; then his own in Portland. I am all alone, — alone. My
friends fall away from me." To Lieber again, three months
later, Oct. 6, 1843 ; " I am more and more desolate and alone.
I wish you and your dear wife lived here. You would allow
me to enter your house and be at home; to recline on the sofa,
and play the part of a friend in the house. I lead a joyless
life, with very little sympathy." We might quote farther, ex
pressions of the same kind, but these are sufficient. That same
month William W. Story was married. The question is natur
ally asked ; why did not Sumner marry at this time in his life ?
He was a refined, companionable man, of pure life and good
habits, fond of the pleasures of taste and society and was well
qualified to do his part towards making a happy home. How
ever it may have been at other periods, at this he enjoyed the
society of young ladies. It would have been natural for him
to join his fortunes to those of some of the accomplished young
women he met.
His circumstances undoubtedly had much to do with pre
venting it. The general practice of the law, without a fixed sal
ary from some company or other employer, furnishes to a young
practitioner, at best, a precarious income. Though the end of
the year shows fees earned, he could not generally have fore
told, at its beginning, where they were to come from, — a con
dition not very encouraging to a young man contemplating
matrimony. Sumner's trip to Europe had interrupted his pro
fessional career, consumed all his savings and left him about
five thousand dollars in debt. This debt continued unpaid for
several years. This shows that he was not making money rap
idly. His father's will, by leaving all the property to his mother
for life left him with no improvement of his fortunes from that

122 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
source. He felt poor and with his pride and sensitiveness,
shrank from asking another to share such a home as he could
furnish. His ambition too, had its influence. He purposed to achieve
an honorable position and leave something behind him that
would be worthy of remembrance. And to accomplish this he
was willing to sacrifice much of his own personal comfort and
happiness. It is certain that while his mother lived he did not
feel the want of a home as he might have done. He was de
voted to her and she to him. His father was dead, his brothers
were gone and he was left to take their places, with his sisters,
in the family circle. But this was not to last always. When
later Mary and his mother were dead, and Julia was married
and gone, and he was left alone, to encounter sickness and
broken political friendships and the hard lines of public life,
then, but not till then, was the cup of his loneliness to be full.
This of course he could not then foresee, but he did feel that
the mother and sisters, in their lonely position, had claims upon
him which he could not disregard, either by bringing another
into the home or by severing himself from it.

CHAPTER XII
INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONS  "THE CAROLINE*
 SLAVERY AGAIN  THE " SOMERS " MUTINY — SERVICES
FOR EDUCATION  AT THE LAW SCHOOL  EDITS VESEY JR. 
SICKNESS  HIS SISTER MARY'S DEATH  AT WORK AGAIN
There were grave questions of international law arising be
tween the United States and England during the years 184-1-3,
in which Sumner took an interest. During the years 1835-7,
preceding his trip to Europe, he had given instruction in the
Law School on the Law of Nations. The first volume of
" Kent's Commentaries " was used as a textbook but with his
customary fulness of preparation he had studied the subject
widely in other authors. The knowledge of the subject thus
acquired made international questions of peculiar interest to
him afterwards.
A quick succession of perplexing questions had made war
imminent between the United States and England. In 1837
there had arisen a rebellion in Canada. It was suppressed, but
the rebels sought refuge in New York, just across the Niagara
river. There they found support and encouragement and made
accessions to their numbers. They procured a vessel called the
" Caroline ", in which they made incursions and carried sup
plies from Navy Island, in the Niagara river, to their friends
in Canada. Some Canadians finally determined to destroy this
vessel and for this purpose crossed over to Navy Island, which
was British territory, where they expected to find the vessel
at her accustomed anchorage. But on reaching Navy Island,
they found she was not there but was moored to the American
shore and outside the British boundaries. They, however, per
severed in their purpose of destruction and boarding her there
cut her loose from the shore, fired her and turned her adrift,
when she floated over the falls and was lost. In the melee, one
man, named Durfree was killed, by the assailants.
In 1840, Alexander McLeod came from Canada to New York
and in a blatant moment, boasted that he had been in the in
cursion that destroyed the " Caroline " and that he was the
slayer of Durfree. He was at once arrested and was afterwards
indicted for murder. Pending his trial, the British govern
ment interfered and demanded his release and assumed the
123

124 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
responsibility for the invasion, justifying it as necessary for the
protection of her territory. She insisted that McLeod could
not be held to answer for an act committed under the authority
of his country any more than a soldier could be tried for mur
der when the deed was committed in battle against her public
enemy. A flare of excitement, with talk of war followed. Sumner
promptly took the side of Great Britain and declared that his
country was wrong. He so wrote his friends, giving his reasons.
Mr. Webster, who was then Secretary of State, insisted that Mc
Leod could only be discharged by the courts and directed the
Attorney-General of the United States to appear before the
courts of New York and make this defence for McLeod and
demand his release. But the Supreme Court of the State of
New York when McLeod was brought before it upon a writ of
habeas corpus, declined to release him. The feverish state of
the public mind towards England, growing out of disputes about
slavery and the North-Eastern boundary, the suspense attending
the protracted proceedings in McLeod's case, the determined
position of New York and the threatening attitude of England,
gave for a time, an alarming aspect to the situation. It after
wards became ludicrous, when, upon McLeod's trial, an alibi
was proven for him and he was acquitted.
The case of the " Creole " followed close upon the exciting
stage of McLeod's trouble. The " Creole " was a vessel that
sailed, in 1841, from Virginia to New Orleans, with a cargo of
slaves. On the way, the slaves rose in insurrection, killed their
master, threw the crew of the vessel into irons and put into the
English port of Nassau, in the West India Islands. There the
slaves were freed and the vessel was allowed to continue its
course deprived of its cargo. The occurrence recalled other oc
casions when slaves belonging to people of the South had been
liberated under similar circumstances. The Southern mind
was at once aroused in defence of their " peculiar institution ".
During the discussion of the case in Congress, Joshua R.
Giddings of Ohio, introduced a series of resolutions, since
known from the name of their author as the " Giddings
Resolutions", which sought to define the limits of slavery in
the United States. They declared that slavery could have
no existence outside of the States that permitted it, that an
owner by taking his slaves into other free States or Territories
or upon the high seas, by that act gave them their freedom and
that therefore the slaves upon the " Creole " were only freeing
themselves from an unlawful detention. The reading of the res
olutions aroused a storm of indignation in the House, then

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 125
strongly pro-slavery in its sympathies. A resolution was at
once introduced and passed, condemning the conduct of Gid
dings as unwarranted and unwarrantable and as deserving the
severest condemnation of the people of the country and of Con
gress in particular. Giddings at once resigned his seat, but was
immediately re-elected by an overwhelming majority, with in
structions from his district to present his resolutions again and
press them to a vote.
The House did not allow the resolutions to be introduced
again, but Mr. Webster, as Secretary of State, presented the
" Creole " matter to Lord Ashburton, who was then in the
United States as Special Plenipotentiary from Great Britain, to
negotiate a treaty defining the north-eastern boundary of the
United States. Mr. Webster insisted upon the return of the
slaves that had escaped from the " Creole " and a treaty regula
tion which would prevent a recurrence of such troubles. The
difficulty was finally adjusted by a reference of the matter under
the provisions of the Treaty of Washington for the return of
fugitives from justice.
Webster's dispatches upon this question surprised and startled
many people in New England and among this number was
Sumner. Dr. Channing was still living and he thought the
doctrines of these dispatches committed the whole Union to the
defence of slavery, at home and abroad, and were so pernicious
that they should at once be combated. He wrote a pamphlet
upon the subject, " The Duty of the Free States." Before its
publication, he submitted it to Sumner and Hillard and his son,
William F. Channing, for their criticism. Sumner took a deep
interest in it and made numerous suggestions, furnished him
materials, and he and Hillard read the proofs as it was passing
through the press. Sumner maintained that the slaves on the
" Creole " had a right to their freedom and that the English
government was bound, by its own laws, to recognize this. He
approved the doctrines of the " Giddings Resolutions " and
maintained that Giddings was entitled to his opinions whether
right or wrong, and, as a Representative, to express them in
Congress and that he should not have been censured.
To Lord Morpeth, he wrote: "You will see how rapidly this
question of slavery moves in the country. The South seems to
have the madness which precedes great reverses. I agree with
Mr. Giddings in his resolutions. Indeed they are the exact
reverse of Mr. Calhoun's famous resolutions, adopted by the
senate three years ago; and from Mr. Calhoun's I most
thoroughly dissent. Thank God! the Constitution of the
United States does not recognize man as property. It speaks of

126 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
slaves as persons. Slavery is a local institution, drawing its
vitality from State laws ; therefore when the slave-owner volun
tarily takes his slave beyond the sphere of the State laws,
he manumits him. This was the case with the owner of the
" Creole " ; and Mr. Giddings, in asserting the freedom of
those slaves under the Constitution of the United States, laid
down a constitutional truth. But suppose it were not true in
point of constitutional law, still Mr. Giddings had a perfect
right to assert it; and the slaveholders in voting to censure
him, have sowed the wind. I fear the reaping of the whirl
wind." Mr. Jacob Harvey, a gentleman of Irish birth, living in New
York city, had made the acquaintance of Sumner, while on a
visit to his brother Albert, who was then residing there. Know
ing Sumner's familiarity with the law of nations he wrote him
for his opinion of the "Creole " affair. Sumner answered him
at some length. In this letter Sumner took the position that
England could not deliver up the slaves who were not impli
cated in the mutiny and murder by which the government of the
ship was overthrown because she had laid down a rule not to
recognize property in human beings after the date of her Eman
cipation Act. He argued that she could not lend her machinery
of justice to execute laws she had already pronounced un
christian and immoral any more than she would to enforce a
contract of prostitution or concubinage. He admitted the case
of the slaves who had participated in the mutiny and murder
was not so clear, but that, nevertheless, the New England courts
had decided that a slave, who came to their soil, by the consent
of his master, thereby became entitled to his freedom and so
when taken upon the high sea, beyond the boundaries of the
States where slavery was legalized, he was remitted to his nat
ural right to freedom and was justified in using whatever force
was necessary to overcome the power which deprived him of it.
But if they were guilty as claimed, he argued, then their crime
was piracy and so it became the duty of England to retain and
try them under her own law forbidding piracy and not send
them to the United States, to be tried under our law.
From these letters it will be seen how decidedly Sumner had
taken his stand in opposition to slavery. He was long before
this a subscriber and reader of The Liberator, the anti-slavery
paper published by William Lloyd Garrison in Boston. It was
the first paper he ever subscribed for ; but he did not agree with
many of its teachings. It was too radical in its theories and
too violent in its utterances to meet his unqualified approval.
He believed that slavery was wrong, a great national disgrace

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 127
and that it should be abolished. He was deeply in earnest upon
this subject. His heart was full of it. Upon hardly any other
subject do his letters so abound in references as this.
But Garrison thought that a republic that permitted slavery
constituted a league with hell; that it leagued every person
who countenanced it or took any part in its affairs with the
slaveholder and made all accountable for his wrongs. Hence
Garrison taught that all who opposed slavery must refuse to vote
or hold office or have anything whatever to do actively with the
conduct of the government, that the most they could do was to
passively submit to its laws. He inculcated this doctrine with
burning earnestness and sometimes in violent language.
Sumner, on the contrary, believed that it was the duty of
all good citizens, by their votes as well as their voices, to unite
in correcting the wrong and in placing men in office who were
thoroughly in sympathy with their cause and that it was the
duty of anti-slavery men to accept office, to promote their com
mon purpose. Though entertaining these widely different
views, Sumner did not quarrel with Garrison and his followers,
nor they with him. Each retained the respect and confidence of
the other. It was only a difference of methods ; their cause was
the same. But, in the light of subsequent events, it will hardly
be disputed now that Sumner's method was more practical
than Garrison's.
Sumner already viewed with apprehension the growing
sentiment in the South for more territory, out of which to carve
slave states. In 1843, he wrote Dr. Howe, then travelling in
Europe: "We fear some insidious movements in favor of
Texas. The South yearns for that immense cantle of territory
to carve into great slaveholding States. We shall witness in
this Congress an animated contest on this matter. * * * I
wish that our people and Government would concern them
selves with what we have now. Let us fill that with knowledge
and virtue and love of one's neighbor; and let England and
Russia take the rest, — I do not care who. There has been a
recent debate in Congress, in which Mr. Charles Ingersoll said
he would go to war rather than allow England to occupy
Cuba. I say : ' Take Cuba, Victoria, if you will ; banish thence
slavery; lay the foundation of Saxon freedom; build presses
and school-houses ! ' What harm can then ensue to us ? Mr.
Ingersoll proceeds on the plan of preparing for war. He
adopts the moral of the old fable of iEsop, — which, you know,
I have always thought so pernicious, — where the wild boar was
whetting his tusks, though no danger was near, that he might
be prepared for danger. I wish our country would cease to

128 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
whet its tusks. The appropriations of the navy last year were
nine million dollars. Imagine half — nay, a tithe — of this sum
given annually to objects of humanity, education and litera
ture ! I know of nothing in our Government that troubles me
more than this thought. And who can talk so lightly of war?
One year of war would break open and let loose all the im
prisoned winds, now happily imprisoned by that great Aeolus —
Peace — and let them range over the world."
Thus he placed universal emancipation and universal peace
before him as the great objects to be sought for in our ever-
widening civilization. Both causes, it will hereafter be seen,
were to be strangely influential in moulding his own fortunes.
But such a thought had probably never thus far occurred to
him. His interest in them seemed to come only from his
thoughtful reading and pbservation and his convictions upon
these subjects, — so deep that he could not repress an expression
of them, when he saw how generally they were ignored. Thus
far his earnestness and the intensity of his convictions were
known only to his intimate friends. To them he spoke and
wrote freely his opinions and to them they were well known.
But to the public who knew him, if it knew him at all, only as
a struggling young attorney, of scholarly tastes and attain
ments, giving of his time largely to writing for a law magazine
and hearing recitations in the Law School, what mattered it
what his opinions were upon subjects occupying so little of the
commercial mind as war and slavery ? It was reserved for the
future to develop the importance of these subjects, both to him
and them.
It is apparent how much Sumner was occupied at this time
with subjects outside of his profession and yet involving ques
tions of international law. Another subject of this kind, that
he took much interest in, attracted public attention at the time,
though it is now almost forgotten. It was known as the
Somers Mutiny. The U. S. brig of war Somers had sailed
for the coast of Africa, under the command of Alexander
Slidell Mackenzie. The " Mackenzie " was added to his name
by an act of the Legislature of New York. He was a brother of
John Slidell who with Mason, was a Confederate Commissioner
to England and other European countries during the American
Civil War. The crew of the Somers was partly composed of
cadets from the U. S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, Md.,
among whom was Philip Spencer, a son of John C. Spencer,
then Secretary of War in President Tyler's Cabinet. During
the voyage, a mutiny arose among the crew, headed by young
Spencer and two others, Small and Cromwell. Their purpose

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 129
was to kill the officers, take possession of the ship and turn
pirates. The mutiny was discovered and the leaders of it were
arrested and thrown into irons, but it threatening to break out
again, Mackenzie called a council of his officers and they recom
mended that the safety of the vessel required that the leaders
be hung. Spencer, Small and Cromwell were accordingly hung
at the yard-arm.
Upon the return of the vessel to the United States, the
matter was the subject of an investigation by a court martial.
The position and influence of Spencer's father made the situa
tion a dangerous one for Mackenzie. Sumner was appealed to
by the friends of Mackenzie to write and publish a defence of
the action of the officers, to aid in keeping public sentiment
right in Boston. This he did in a strong article in the North
American Review, taking the position that the executions were
justifiable on the ground of self-defence, that it was not a
question alone, what the actual danger was, but whether the
officers, in the reasonable and proper use of their faculties, had
just ground, from the circumstances, for believing, that their
own lives and the safety of the ship required this action. His
position was approved by Judge Story and by Judge Prescott,
the father of the historian.
Mackenzie was acquitted by the court martial. He never
ceased to remember with gratitude the kindness of Sumner.
He was a man of culture and the author of some books of merit.
He promptly wrote Sumner a letter acknowledging his obliga
tion and later visited Boston and again thanked him. They
were entertained together by Longfellow. Sumner was later
entertained by him and his wife at their home, in Tarrytown,
on the Hudson River. When he died, a few years later, there
was among his papers a sealed note, to be opened by his wife,
after he died, in which he requested some one to communicate
to Sumner, in his name, his thanks for his friendship and to
add an expression of his high appreciation of it. At the in
stance of Mrs. Mackenzie, this message was communicated to
Sumner by Commodore Perry.
This incident in Sumner's life has a sequel to it. In 1851,
Sumner was at Saratoga. He had recently been elected to the
U. S. Senate. He and John Slidell, then a Senator from
Louisiana, were invited by a mutual friend to dine together;
but Slidell at once excused himself and declined the invitation.
In defending his breach of courtesy afterwards, he admitted the
obligation he was under to Sumner for the chivalrous defence
of his dead brother, but justified himself, on the ground
that Sumner, in a public speech, had invoked upon Massachu-

130 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
setts a spirit of such inhospitality to slaveholders, as would
prevent any of them from ever setting foot within the state.
Slidell declared he would never break bread with a man who
entertained such sentiments.
With Sumner's growing interest in slavery and war it was
natural that he should take an added interest in the Presiden
tial election of 1844. The Democrats had nominated Polk and
the Whigs, Clay. Tho former wore threatening war with Mex
ico and the annexation of Texas; tho latter wore opposing both.
Sumner watched the struggle with interest but took no public
part in it. He voted for Clay and hoped he would be elected
and was much disappointed at his defeat. But it was tho in
terest of a scholar or philanthropist that Sumner felt; not that
of a partisan. Party ties wore never very strong with him and,
thus far, he could hardly be said lo havo any.
In December, 18 14, he was tho Whig candidate in his ward
for member of the School Committee. The ward was entitled
to two members and his party was in the majority; though his
colleague was elected, be was defeated. He had become much
interested in the cause of education and this induced him to
allow the use of his name. Ho does not, however, seem to havo
felt much interest in tho contest. Ho and bis friend Howe wore
in active co-operation with their friend Horace Mann in his
efforts to promote the cause of popular education in Boston, and
if elected Sunnier would probably havo lent his inlhience to
theirs to conform tho city schools more to European models.
One service he undertook for the cause of education, at this
time, that afterwards seriously embarrassed him. He was
chairman of a committee appointed to secure an appropriation
from tho legislature of Massachusetts to rebuild the state
normal schools at West field and Bridgewaler. Ho discharged
this duty with his accustomed ardor and fidelity, distasteful
as the task was to him of approaching the members of tho legis
lature for this purpose, lie mot from them a cool reception
aud only after considerable oll'ort and many discouragements
was his committee able to secure a grudging appropriation of
five thousand dollars and this coupled with 1he condition that
the memorialists raise an equal amount. Tho towns contrib
uted one lliousaud dollars each; and tho other throe thousand
dollars the commit tec undertook to raise by private sub
scriptions. To hasten tho buildings, Sumner injudiciously agreed to
raise five thousand dollars upon his own personal note, taking
the contributions of the towns when collected in part payment.
Thus money, that might have boon easily raised with the ex-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 131
citement of securing new buildings, was left to be raised after
the buildings were completed and the enthusiasm gone.
Sumner found himself a year afterwards, when the note came
due, without funds to meet it and three years later it was still
unpaid. He had cause of complaint against some members of
the committee who did not properly support him. The private
subscriptions, to anticipate which the note was partly given,
were slow in being paid and some were not paid at all. It
would have been better to allow the schools to continue in the
buildings they had, though unsuitable, until the money was
actually in hand. But with the aid of Mr. Waterston, another
member of the committee, who was always with Sumner faith
ful to the enterprise, the whole difficulty was at last adjusted.
He performed another service for the public in 1845. The
Boston Athena?um was to be removed to its site on Beacon
Street and he was appointed upon a committee to determine the
plan of the new building. He was much interested in the
work of the committee. He wrote to Crawford and his brother
George, telling them his objections to numerous plans sub
mitted, giving them his ideas of what the building should be
and asking them for suggestions. He wished especially to
secure a large, hospitable, vestibule hall and stairway and
having admired the stairs leading to the Vatican on the right
of St. Peter's at Rome as " of such exquisite proportions that
you seemed to be borne aloft on wings," he had George send
him their width, height and breadth. His interest in archi
tecture while in Europe and his acquaintances there were other
wise useful to him in his work upon the committee.
In 1844 Sumner was elected a corresponding member of the
New York Historical Society and to a membership in the
American Antiquarian Society of Worcester, Mass. The
former honor he owed to his friend John Jay of New York.
Hillard, about the same time, was made a member of the Mas
sachusetts Historical Society. The result of George Sumner's
investigations, in Europe, into the history of the Puritans while
in Leyden, which he had embodied in a monograph of thirty-
two pages, appeared in the collections of the last named society
published, in 1845. It is a valuable contribution to the early
history of the Puritan fathers, — Charles pronounced it the
most interesting they had ever published. It is repeatedly
referred to, with commendation, by Palfrey in his History of
New England. George was a discriminating, scholarly man,
fairly described by Charles as, "sagacious, learned, humane,
interested in all the institutions, which are the fruit and token
of civilization in the true sense of that word."

132 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Judge Story had suffered a protracted illness, in the early
part of the year 1843. During his sickness, Sumner took his
place in the Law School and performed half the work there,
in lecturing and hearing recitations. He tried to keep up the
work of his law office, at the same time, but in doing so found
himself a very busy man, the lectures requiring, for their prep
aration, a great deal of attention. He continued his residence
in Boston, and the daily trips to Cambridge made an addi
tional draft. He was thus occupied for eight months. During
this period he withdrew entirely from society, declining all
invitations, except the hospitalities of one or two intimate
friends. But on the tenth of April, 1844, he commenced another task
that taxed him still more severely. He undertook for two
thousand dollars to edit and annotate the Chancery Reports of
Francis Vesey, Jr., in twenty volumes furnishing the manu
script at the rate of a volume each fortnight, — as fast as fifty-
seven printers could print it. In the notes, he was to bring the
learning upon the questions decided down to date with a full
reference to all the English and American authorities. It was
a herculean task and well-nigh proved fatal to him. As it
progressed he realized the hopeless drudgery of his undertaking
and plead for more time, but the publishers were inexorable and
he struggled on with his load, working till two o'clock in the
morning, until the completion of the fourth volume, when he
broke down and suffering from a slow, nervous fever, brought
on by too great work and confinement and too little exercise,
he was obliged to stop. This was about the first of June ; and
he was not able to resume work until the middle of November.
During June and the first half of July, he was confined to
the house, unable to do anything more than write one or two
letters to his brother George. About this time, his disease took
a more serious turn and for the next two weeks he was com
pletely prostrated, with a raging fever and delirium, and for
several weeks the physicians despaired of his recovery. But
by July thirty-first, he had so far improved as to be able to dic
tate another letter to George. The vigor of his constitution
gradually asserted itself and he was soon able to drive out. On
the sixteenth of August, he dictated a letter to Howe that
describes the progress of his disease :
" You will find me a wreck. When I wrote you, July first, I
seemed nearly well ; but in a few days the ship was struck again,
and the bolt, it was said, had pierced the hull. I became very
weak after passing through the various stages of a fever.
During the season of my strength I raged about my room for

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 133
half the nights, invoking sleep (which once descended upon
me so gently), in every way. One of those nights I was filled
with the idea that I had a long interview with you, and I in
quired in the morning if you had not been at the house the
night before. As my strength wasted I kept to my bed. It
was only afterwards that I knew that, at this time, all my
friends (except Longfellow) abandoned all hope of my re
covery. Even Hillard, who held out long, confessed that when
he saw me bereft of strength and almost speechless, he went
away thinking with all others that my end was at hand. Mean
while I knew nothing of this anxiety. Felton laughed jollily
each day at my bedside, and Hillard and Longfellow, the only
other persons I saw, said nothing to excite my observation.
But the strength of my constitution conquered; though the very
day on which I felt within me the instinct of recovery, Dr.
Jackson solemnly told me that my case was incurable and that
if I should live I never should be able to do anything. To this
I replied that I did not shrink from the idea of death; but to
pass through life doing nothing, performing no duty, perhaps
' a driveller and a show ' — this was more than I could bear.
He replied, ' Perhaps the vigor of your constitution will con
quer all.' Since then I have been gaining strength slowly, but
each day. I am driven out nine or ten miles daily. As I meet
friends, I observe the astonishment with which they regard me,
apparently as one risen from the dead. Ben Pierce said to me
in his artless manner, ' Well ! I never expected to see you
again.' "
" For such a signal recovery another person would feel un
bounded gratitude. I am going to say what will offend you, but
what I trust God will pardon. Since my convalescence I have
thought much and often whether I have any just feeling of
gratitude that my disease was arrested. Let me confess 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."
He was very much worried for fear he would come out of his
sickness a confirmed invalid. To Longfellow he wrote, on
August twenty-eighth : " Dr. Jackson insists that my condition
is ' very serious ', and commends me to great care of myself.
Perhaps he is right, and my future life is to be that of a halting
invalid. At the thought of this — not at the idea of death, for
of this I am careless — shadows and thick darkness descend
upon me." And this thought seems to have pursued him for
weeks. He recurs to it repeatedly in his letters, as the one fate
most to be dreaded. He did not fear death. He was despond
ent. And, indeed, this was not an uncommon state of his mind,

134 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
during these years, both before and after this sickness. He was
dissatisfied with what he had been able to accomplish and with
his prospects in life. He felt that it was so far short of what he
had aimed at, that his career was a failure. He could welcome
death as a release from toil and the responsibility which he
felt life imposed, — especially when it brought no recompense
in honor or recognized usefulness. And to live and drag out
the miserable existence of a constant sufferer, of no use to his
friends or humanity, but a care and charge to others, — the
thought of this was worse than the prospect of death !
But he was willing to confess that his sickness had some com
pensations. His friends were very attentive to him. While his
disease was at its worst, only Hillard, Longfellow and Felton
were admitted to his room, but many others called to inquire
after his health and sent presents of woodcocks, plovers and
other delicacies to tempt his appetite. As he grew better others
were admitted to his room and helped to lighten his hours.
Bancroft had been nominated, by the Democrats, against his
wish, for Governor, and he came with a humorous proposition
to appoint Sumner " one of his aides-de-camp ". But when the
election was over he found he had no offices to fill. When
Sumner was able to drive out, numerous invitations came to
him for visits during his convalescence.
He gratefully mentioned this kindness in a letter to George :
" I cannot forbear alluding, however, to the great kindness, in
terest and sympathy which I have received from quarters from
which I had little occasion to expect them. Blessed be the
kindly charities of life ! They sweeten existence and come with
healing even to the suffering invalid. Better than before I
know now the affection and tenderness which grace the lives of
many, from whom I did not expect, to such an extent, these
soft virtues. Let me extract from my sickness a moral : It
may not be unprofitable, if it serves to elevate humanity in my
mind, and to inspire love and attachment for my fellow-men."
On the twenty-eighth of August, he had so far recovered as to
be able to undertake a journey to Pittsfield, where he went by
invitation to spend a couple of weeks with Mr. Nathan Apple-
ton's family, who were summering there. They thought the
bracing air of the woody hills of Berkshire would hasten his
recovery. Hillard accompanied him and remained a week;
and Howe, just arrived from Europe, hastened there to see
him. He spend his days, at Pittsfield, as much as possible in
the open air, riding horseback and in the carriage and making
repeated excursions to Lenox and Stockbridge and other neigh
boring villages. At Lenox he was the guest of Mr. Samuel

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 135
Ward and there he met the Austins, the Sedgwicks and Mrs.
Butler (Fanny Kemble). This gifted woman was then making
her home there and, in the parlor of the Sedgwicks, he heard
her read " Macbeth," and sing, and enjoyed the charm of her
conversation. This picture, he gives us, of his life at Pittsfield and Lenox.
On Saturday he went with Edward Austin in an open buggy
to view the farms. Afterwards they looked on while the girls
and others enjoyed the sport of archery. " The next day was
Sunday, and I was perplexed whether or not to use Mr. New
ton's horse, as I presumed the master never used him on Sun
day. But my scruples gave way before my longing for the best
of exercise. I left Pittsfield as the bell was tolling for church
and arrived at Lenox sometime before the second bell. I sat
in Miss Sedgwick's room ; time passed on. Mrs. Butler pro
posed to accompany me back to Pittsfield on horseback. I
stayed to the cold dinner, making it a lunch; time again
passed on, from the delay in saddling the horses. We rode the
longest way, and I enjoyed my companion very much. I did
not reach home till four and a half o'clock. Meanwhile the
whole house had been filled with anxiety on my account."
But with all this pleasure, he did not forget to repeatedly
intercede with the Governor of the Commonwealth, whom he
met there, to appoint his friend Luther S. Cushing, a judge of
the Common Pleas Court. And Cushing shortly afterwards
received the appointment.
From Lenox, Sumner went to Newport, where his brother
Albert had a cottage, hoping that the ocean breezes would sup
plement the benefits he had received from the Berkshire Hills.
Here he resorted again to his favorite exercise of horseback
riding, spending the days, as much as possible, in the open air
and the nights in sleep. He soon felt the effects of both in an
abundant return of health. On September thirtieth, he wrote
Howe : " I am so well that I begin to tire of my intellectual
inactivity and yearn to plunge again into my affairs. I shall
be with you at the beginning of next week well mended."
But sad tidings from Julia cut his visit at Newport short.
The word was -that Mary was failing rapidly and they feared
the end was near.
He hurried home to see their worst fears realized. She passed
away on Friday morning, October eleventh, 1844, and was
buried the following Sunday afternoon.
Two days later, in communicating the intelligence to George,
Charles wrote : " I was recalled from Newport, where I was
passing my time in exercise in the open air, by the tidings of

136 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the progress of Mary's disease. I found her weak, very weak,
— almost voiceless. Her beautiful countenance was sunken;
and the sharp angles of death had appeared even before the
breath had departed. She lingered on, however, — sometimes
in considerable pain — and we feared with each protracted day
new suffering. She herself wished to die ; and I believe that we
all became anxious at last that the Angel should descend to
bear her aloft. From the beautiful flower of her life, the leaves
had all gently fallen to the earth ; and there remained but little
for the hand of death to pluck. During the night preceding
the morning on which she left us, she slept like a child, and
within a short time of her death, when asked if she were in pain,
she said : ' No : angels are taking care of me ! ' "
For more than two years she had been in failing health. Her
disease finally developed into consumption, to which the family
had an hereditary tendency, and, during the summer and fall
of 1844, it made rapid progress. She and Charles were both
sick at the same time, confined to their rooms at home, and the
care of them was a severe experience to their mother and Julia.
The burden of it fell on the mother. While Charles' disease
was at its worst, she nursed him and then, as he improved, she
turned to Mary, who was sinking rapidly. For some weeks
Mary was taken to Springfield and Waltham, hoping that a
change would prove beneficial, but with the gleams of hope and
seeming improvement, peculiar to this disease, which charms its
victims, while it steals its coils about them, she faded away and
soon came home to die.
Her death was a sad stroke to Charles. She was his favorite
and the most beautiful of his sisters. She had a lovely disposi
tion. Having reached young womanhood, while he was in
Europe, when he returned to enter upon the most enjoyable
years of his young manhood, he found her a delightful com
panion. She was tall, finely formed and graceful, with a clear-
cut Grecian face, enjoying society and deservedly popular. He
found much pleasure and pride in their association. Her un
expected sickness, coming just as life was opening before her,
with so much promise of happiness both for herself and others,
the long, slow but irresistible decline, as irresistible and pitiless
as fate, which he was doomed to watch with so much solicitude
and yet feel himself powerless to avert, his descent into the very
valley of the shadow, at her side, to be afterwards rescued, just
as the final blow descended upon her, to be hurried home to see
her laid away, where the winds of winter were already sweeping
the grave of her young life, to go back to their old home that
hardly seemed home without her and then be obliged to turn

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 137
to his own solitary ceaseless task, with this dark background of
thought, — was a sad experience. He always regarded it as
one of the saddest of his life. The familiar figure, in life's
opening hardly conscious of its own beauty, the quiet, sweet
disposition, spreading its gentle, womanly spirit over his life,
was gone. And yet, not gone; — for it lingered, in memory,
forever !
With the beginning of November, he was back at his work
again. His " friction-match " case, which has already been
noticed, was his first serious employment. The suit for damages
was tried to a jury and resulted in a verdict for his client. In
the argument of it, Sumner spoke ten hours, — arguments were
longer then than now. Closing this business, he resumed work
on his edition of Vesey. When his sickness overtook him, he
was obliged to give it up and the publishers employed others to
continue his work. In this way the fifth volume was edited
by J. C. Perkins, of Salem, Sumner hoping that with this
assistance he would be able to continue the others. And he did
finish the sixth. But then he again broke down and, during
his sickness, the seventh to the twelfth volumes inclusive were
edited by Mr. Perkins and Mr. Charles B. Goodrich. Sumner
finished the others. It occupied him fully for the next six
months and before it was finished, he was compelled to realize
again the drudgery of his task. One feature he added to it,
unusual then and still so in law books ; he inserted sketches of
the lives of the judges and others whose names appeared in the
reports. He soon fell back into his old habit of working late into the
night. Writing to his brother George, on December thirty-first,
he said : " It is now almost midnight, — an hour after the time
when my physicians sentenced me to bed. In truth, however, I
am not very regardful of their injunctions. These late hours, —
the crown of the night — are the choicest of the twenty-four for
labor, for reading and thought ; and I feel guilty of a wasteful
excess when I sacrifice them to sleep." He withdrew from
society and avoided assemblages of people, but he relaxed this
rigorous life, during the holidays, to dine one day with Mr.
Webster and enjoy a turbot, a tribute sent to him from Eng
land. On the third day of June, 1845, he wrote Lieber, that
his edition of Vesey's Reports was finished. It was dedicated
to Judge Story, as a token of gratitude and admiration, which
the judge gracefully acknowledged.
This was Sumner's first venture in authorship, if we except
his contributions to law magazines and periodicals. With this
latter sort of writing he had considerable experience. Com-

138 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
menacing with his labors, as one of the editors of the Jurist,
before he went to Europe, he continued it after his return, by
numerous contributions to the Law Reporter and an occa
sional one to the North American Review. The Law Reporter
was edited by Peleg W. Chandler, one of Sumner's friends, an
attorney whose office was at Number Four, Court Street.
Sumner wrote reviews of " Story's Bills of Exchange " and
of the reports of New Hampshire and Maine, of " Wedgewood's
U. S. Statutes " and " Perkins' Brown's Chancery Reports,"
articles on "The Eightieth Birthday of Chancellor Kent,"
"The University of Heidelberg," "The Number Seven,"
" Punishment and Prisons," etc. His contributions to the
Reporter, like those in the Jurist, show him to have had more
interest, in the literature of the law, than in the law itself;
and, indeed, many of his articles for these periodicals would
now hardly be classed as matter for a legal publication. But
they all show his wealth of learning, his wide reading, his mar
vellous memory and his easy, flowing style.
Too much importance can hardly be given the effect of his
work on these legal periodicals on Sumner's career. He was
estimated a good writer among his classmates in college, but
his performances there do not rank as of any permanent im
portance. But the daily practice of writing, given by his posi
tion as one of the editors of the Jurist, formed his style
upon the severe model of clear, pure, practical English, at a
very early period of his life. It taught him thoroughly what
was good English and made him quick to recognize and ap
preciate it, when it appeared in the form of new books, as in the
histories of Prescott and Bancroft. And it taught him the
ways and habits of editors of newspapers and periodicals and
gave an intimate acquaintance with those of Boston, his home
city, and of his State. All through his after-life these things
were of great advantage to him. He could promptly write a
creditable review of a book or a friendly notice of a man and
secure their publication ; and thus bring either to the favorable
notice of the public and, what was frequently of more impor
tance, of the editors. This ability of Sumner, with his prompt
ness to use it, in behalf of his friends, made his friendship,
even in these early days, valuable with such men as Prescott
and Bancroft, Longfellow and Whittier, and Emerson and
Story. And theirs was powerful for him. It was such men as these
that opened the door of his extraordinary career as a traveller
in England and even on the Continent. The people he met
there were also quick to recognize and appreciate such ability.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 139
They felt that what he saw and heard would in all probability
reach, in some form, a wider audience and they were, therefore,
more willing to extend his opportunities for information, as
well as pleasure.
It is not to be understood that these beautiful friendships,
that have been mentioned, sprung from selfish considerations.
Far from it ! They were, by far the greater part, owing to the
charming personality of the men, who formed and cherished
them, and the disinterested affection, I may also add, they en
tertained for one another. But notwithstanding, in reviewing
Sumner's life, the practical lessons to be drawn from it must
not be overlooked. They loved and therefore they helped one
another and this was one of Sumner's ways of helping them.
He then expected his own career to be made by his pen.
It was not till May, 1845, that he made his first public ad
dress before a popular audience. It was on the occasion of a
meeting of the Boston Prison Discipline Society, held in Park
Street Church. The secretary of the society read the annual
reports in which he took strong grounds against the system of
solitary confinement, as pursued in the Pennsylvania Peni
tentiary, at Philadelphia. Howe and Sumner were present.
Both had taken some interest in the subject, which was then
more discussed than now. When they heard this system, as
they thought, unjustly assailed, Howe arose in its defence ; and
Sumner followed him with a few impromptu remarks. The
discussion their remarks provoked, led to the appointment of a
committee, which included both Howe and Sumner, to visit
the Philadelphia prisons and make a detailed report, from
actual observation, of their operation. 'The results of his ob
servation Sumner embodied in an article published two years
later, in the Christian Examiner, upon the occasion of the
erection of a new jail in Boston. He then urged with some
earnestness the adoption of the system of separate confinement
of criminals as pursued in the penitentiaries and some of the
jails of Pennsylvania.

CHAPTER XIII
CHOSEN ORATOR FOR JULY 4, 1845 — THE OCCASION  THE ORA
TION ON " THE TRUE GRANDEUR OF NATIONS "  THE PUB
LIC DINNER — ESTIMATES OF THE ORATION— JUDGE STORY'S
DEATH — SUMNER'S TRD3UTE
In 1845, Sumner was cho'sen to deliver the Fourth of July
oration before the authorities and citizens of Boston. The
occasion had been regularly celebrated, with this oration and
other appropriate exercises, each year since the close of the
Revolutionary War. In no other place had more been made of
the occasion than in Boston. It had early been recognized by
the mother country as the most rebellious and defiant city of
the colonies and repressive measures were there soonest tried
to reduce her to subjection, but the more repressive the
measures, the higher rose the spirit of resistance among her
people. It was in her harbor that the British tea was thrown
overboard. This tea was treated by the colonists as the first
appearance of articles of their consumption, on which they were
to be taxed without representation. On her streets, in the Bos
ton Massacre, the first blood of the struggle was shed, and in
her neighborhood, at Lexington and Concord, were the earliest
skirmishes of the Revolution ; and, on her Bunker Hill, the first
organized battle, between the raw militia of the colonists and
the disciplined troops of Great Britain, was fought. In the war
which followed Massachusetts furnished one soldier for every
three enlisted.
Such facts supplied much inspiration for a Fourth of July
oration. Among a people, who have always felt a just pride in
them, a sympathetic audience was always to be found. The
orators selected for the occasion, had usually been men of about
Sumner's age. It was a good opportunity for a young man to
show the material that was in him ; for to the large audience,
before which he appeared, there was to be added the much
larger, to which the printed address afterwards went ; it being
the custom for the city to publish the orations, after their
delivery. Sumner was notified of his appointment on April twenty-
fourth. At first, probably mistrusting his fitness for the place
140

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 141
he was disposed to decline it. But Hillard, Howe, Peleg W.
Chandler and other friends urged him to accept it and he did.
He then encountered some difficulty in the choice of a subject.
Almost three years before, in acknowledging the receipt of a
copy of his Fourth of July oration from Rev. Edgar Bucking
ham, Sumner wrote:
" I thank you very much for the oration you were so good
as to send me. I admire the frankness and spirit with which
you turned the celebration of the Fourth of July to an occasion
for moral improvement. I wish that forever this day might
be set apart throughout the whole country as the National Sab
bath, to be employed in earnest inquiry into the real condition
of public affairs, and in strengthening the foundations of moral
principles and of concord. It should not be ushered in by the
sound and smoke of cannons. Let it be a day of peace, and of
those thoughts that flow from peace."
The orator had turned aside from the ordinary review of the
events which led up to the struggle and the events of the war
and the customary eulogy of the valor of the American troops,
which has made the name of Fourth of July oratory synonymous
with fulsome and spread-eagle speech, to the existing condition
of the country and some growing evils, for which a remedy
should be found. Among these he instanced slavery, a part of
the oration which, Sumner wrote him, he particularly liked and
hoped would be "responded to by the universal heart of the
North." An incidental protest too, against devoting the day
to thoughts of war and military glory, instead of moral and
intellectual improvement, attracted the attention of Sumner,
when in search of a subject and probably determined his choice.
The title of his oration was "The True Grandeur of Na
tions". It was in fact, an eloquent plea for universal peace.
This was a subject, as we have already seen, that had interested
Sumner for years. His letters contained frequent references
to it, as called forth by occasion, and whenever he expressed
himself he showed how deep were his convictions. The annexa
tion of Texas which was then being much discussed, as a pend
ing national question, and which was consummated the same
summer, then threatened, and was shortly after followed, by
the Mexican War, inspired by the hardly concealed purpose,
on the part of its chief supporters, of acquiring more territory,
out of which to carve slave states, gave at the time a very
practical turn to the thoughts in Sumner's oration. There was
also talk of war, growing out of the Oregon boundary troubles,
with England,

142 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
The occasion was all that any one could wish. The day
dawned a beautiful one, and was ushered in, with the booming
of cannon, the ringing of bolls and the firing of crackers by
boys in the streets and upon tho Common. The city was gayly
decorated with flags and bunting and ils streets were soon alive
with its population, in holiday attire, and with people, who had
come in from the surrounding country, to unite in the celebra
tion. The U. S. battle-ship Ohio, then stationed in tho harbor,
was also decorated with Hags to tho water's edge and fired
guns at intervals. An ell'ort had boon made to make the mili
tary display greater than ever before. The U. S. troops sta
tioned at the neighboring fori ilioal ions, the crow of the Ohio
and the local militia, had all boon invited to participate.
Promptly at ten and one-half o'clock the procession headed
by Sumner and the Mayor, followed by the city council, the
military and naval organizations, in full uniform, with bris
tling bayonets and arms gloaming in the sunshine, attended by
bands of martial music, marched from the City Hall to Tre-
mont Temple, where the exercises were held. The hall was soon
filled by an audience of two thousand people. A choir of a
hundred voices, composed of children, selected from the public
schools, all dressed in while, occupied the rear of the stage,
while the front was occupied by distinguished men. The mili
tary occupied the front seals. After an invocation by the min
ister, the reading of the Declaration of Independence and a
song by the choir, Sumner was introduced.
As he stepped out upon the stage, and, as it afterwards
proved, into public life, ho appeared the embodiment of manly
beauty. Ho stood six feet three inches in height, weighing about
one hundred and seventy-five pounds. In his earlier years he
had grown rapidly and was tall and very slender and somewhat
stooped, but this had now disappeared and bo stood before his
audience erect, handsomely proportioned, a splendid specimen
of vigorous manhood. lit; wore a dress-coat, with brass buttons
after the fashion of that time, with white waistcoat and
trousers. lie commenced his oration, in a measured tone of
voice, yet loud enough to be hoard throughout the hall:
" In accordance with uninterrupted usage, on this Sabbath of
the Nation, we have put aside our daily cares, and seized a res
pite from the never-ending toils of life, to meet in gladness and
congratulation, mindful of tho blessings transmitted from the
Past, mindful also, I trust, of our duties to the Present and the
Future." "All hearts turn first to tho Fathers of tho Republic. Their
venerable forms rise before us, in the procession of successive

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 143
generations. They come from the frozen rook of Plymouth,
from the wasted bands of Raleigh, from tho heavenly com
panionship of l'cnn, from the anxious councils of the Revolu
tion, — from all those holds of sacrifice, where in obedience to
tho spirit of their ago, (hoy scaled their devotion to duty with
llioir blood. They say to us their children ; Cease to vaunt what
you do, and what has boon done for you. Learn to walk meekly
and to think humbly. Cultivate habits of self-sacrifice. Never
aim at what is not right, persuaded that wilhout this, every
possession and nil knowledge will become an evil and a shame.
and may those words of ours be over in your minds! Strive to
increase the inheritance wo have bequeathed to you, — bearing in
mind always, that, if wo excel you in virtue, such a victory will
bo to us a mortification, while defeat will bring happiness. In
this way you may conquer us. Nothing is more shameful for a
man than a claim to esteem, not on his own merits, but on the
fame of his ancestors. The glory of the fathers is doubtless to
their children a most precious treasure; but to enjoy it without.
transmission to the next general ion, and without addition is tho
oxl remo of ignominy. Following those counsels, when your days
on earth are finished, you will come to join us and we shall
receive you as friend receives friend; but if you negleot our
words, expect no happy greeting from us."
" Honor to the memory of our fathers! May the turf lie
lightly ou their sacred graves ! Not in words only, but in deeds
also, lot us testify our reverence for their name, imitating what
in them was lofty, pure and good, learning from them to bear
hardship and privation. May we, who now reap in strength
what they sowed in weakness, augment the inheritance we have
received ! To this end we must not fold our hands in slumber,
nor abide content with the past. To each generation is ap
pointed its peouliar task; nor does the heart which responds to
the cull of duty find rest except in the grave."
With this general introduction and brief reference to the
past, he turned to the future. There was no further reference
to the Revolution or the past of the Republic or the career of the
Colonists, except only one or two and these tlie briefest, and
by way of illustrating his argument. Once he referred to the
peaoonble example of William Penn in his treatment of the In
dians, in whose footprints smiled " the (lowers of prosperity ",
his people " unmolested and happy, wliile (sad but true con
trast !) other colonies, acting upon the policy of the world,
building forts and showing themselves in arms, were harassed by
perpetual alarm, and pierced by the sharp arrows of savage
Avar." Again he insisted that Washington did not rise " to a

144 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
truly heavenly stature ", when crossing the Delaware, through
ice, to capture Trenton, nor when victorious over Cornwallis at
Yorktown, but when " in noble deference to justice, refusing the
kingly crown." He laid ours as he did other history under
tribute to illustrate his argument, but for this only he looked to
the past ; his interest was with the future. The question before
him was : " What can we do to make our coming welcome to our
fathers in the skies and draw to our memory hereafter the
homage of a grateful posterity ? " He proposed to consider
" what in our age are the true objects of national ambition, —
what is truly National Honor, National Glory ? "
He was prompt to declare that this question was of urgent
interest from transactions in which they were then involved.
"By an act of unjust legislation, extending our power over
Texas," he declared, "peace with Mexico is endangered, —
while by petulant assertion of a disputed claim to a remote ter
ritory beyond the Rocky Mountains, ancient fires of hostile
strife are kindled anew on the hearth of our mother country.
Mexico and England both avow the determination to vindicate
what is called the National Honor ; and our Government calmly
contemplates the dread Arbitrament of War, provided it cannot
obtain what is called an honorable peace."
" Far from our nation and our age be the sin and shame of
contests hateful iu the sight of God and all good men, having
their origin in no righteous sentiment, no true love of country,
no generous thirst for fame, ' that last infirmity of noble minds '
but springing manifestly from an ignorant and ignoble passion
for new territory, strengthened, in our case, in a republic, whose
star is Liberty, by unnatural desire to add new links in chains
destined yet to fall from the limbs of the unhappy slave ! In
such contrasts God has no attribute which can join with us.
Who believes that the national honor would be promoted by a
war with Mexico or a war with England ? " . . . "A war with
Mexico would be mean and cowardly, with England it would be
bold at least, though parricidal."
As the orator proceeded, he warmed to his subject, his voice
became clearer and louder, rising and falling in easy cadences,
filling the hall and holding the undivided attention of his great
audience; his gestures, apparently unstudied, were free and
emphasized his meaning; his manner uniformly gave the im
pression of sincerity and deep earnestness and occasionally, as
he recounted the horrors and wastefulness of war, amounted to
intensity. He spoke for two hours, entirely from memory, unaided by
notes, except for figures and statistics. The oration seemed

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 145
to impress the audience as unusual and worthy of an attentive
hearing, once or twice, as when he intruded upon the politics
of some of his hearers, by attacking the course of the adminis
tration, in the annexation of Texas, or made an illustration of
the likeness of a wild beast, which one of the military organiza
tions present, wore as a device, a stir of disapproval appeared ;
but it quickly gave place to respectful deference to the manifest
sincerity and candor of the speaker.
He dwelt first on the brutal and debasing character of war,
the misery it entailed, cutting the peaceful bands of commerce
that bind mankind together, man to man and nation to nation,
and scattering, as a pestilence, the earth, with death and wasting
despair. He condemned it as utterly insufficient to settle any
question of justice or injustice, of right or wrong. He then
considered the prejudices by which it is sustained, — the belief in
its necessity, the practice of nations and even of Christian
ministers in upholding it, " the point of honor," and the pride
of country. He emphasized the preparation for war, in time of
peace, as wasteful and unnecessary. He inquired in succession
of what use was the army, the fortifications and the militia?
He denounced with unsparing words the maxim "in time of
peace prepare for war." He bade all hail the day when Peace,
with its blessings of intellectual and moral supremacy, would
dawn upon the world and the nations learn war no more !
The climax of the oration was reached when he drew a com
parison between the literary and charitable institutions of Mas
sachusetts and the battleship Oh io, then lying in the harbor, and
other U. S. war vessels. His audience was familiar with the
good work, which these institutions had done, in the community,
and knew something of the extent of their endowments; but
few of them knew the costs of construction and of the main
tenance of the battleship. They were, therefore, not prepared
for the comparison he made and the practical lesson he drew
from it. of the cost of war. It made a decided impression.
"Within cannon range of this city stands an institution of
learning," he said, " which was one of the earliest cares of our
forefathers, the conscientious Puritans. Favored child in an
age of trial and struggle, carefully nursed through a period of
hardship and anxiety, — endowed at the time by the oblations of
men like Harvard, — sustained from its foundation by the pa
rental arm of the Commonwealth, by a constant succession of
munificent bequests, and by the prayers of good men, — the
University of Cambridge now invites our homage as the most
ancient, most interesting and most important seat of learning
iu the land, — possessing the oldest and most valuable library,

146 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
one of the largest museums of mineralogy and natural history,
— with a School of Law, which annually receives into its bosom
more than one hundred and fifty sons from all parts of the
Union, where they listen to instruction from professors whose
names are among the most valuable possessions of the land, —
also a School of Divinity, fount of true learning and piety, —
also one of the largest and most flourishing Schools of Medicine
in the country, — and besides these, a general body of teachers,
twenty-seven in number, many of whose names help to keep the
name of the country respectable in every part of the globe, where
science, learning and taste are cherished, — the whole presided
over at this moment by a gentleman (Hon. Josiah Quincy) early
distinguished in public life by unconquerable energy and mas
culine eloquence, at a later period by the unsurpassed ability
with which he adminstered the affairs of our city, and now, in a
green old age, full of years and honors, preparing to lay down
his present high trust. Such is Harvard University, and as
one of the humblest of her children, happy in the memories of
a youth nurtured in her classic retreats, I cannot allude to her
without an expression of filial affection and respect."
" It appears from the last Report of the Treasurer that the
whole available property of the University, the various accu
mulation of more than two centuries of generosity, amounts to
$703,175." " Change the scene, and cast your eyes upon another object.
There now swings idly at her moorings in this harbor a ship
of the line, the Ohio, carrying ninety guns, finished as late as
1836, at an expense of $547,888,— repaired only two years
afterwards, in 1838, for $233,012, with an armament which has
cost $53,945, — making an aggregate of $834,845, as the actual
outlay at this moment for that single ship, — more than $100,-
000, beyond all the available wealth of the richest and most
ancient seat of learning in the land! Choose ye, my fellow-
citizens of a Christian State, between the two caskets, — that
wherein is the loveliness of truth, or that which contains the
carrion of death."
" I refer to the Ohio because this ship happens to be in our
waters; but I do not take the strongest case afforded by our
Navy. Other ships have absorbed larger sums. The expense of
the Delaware, in 1842, had reached $1,051,000."
" Pursue the comparison still further. The expenditures of
the University during the last year, for the general purposes of
the College, the instruction of the undergraduates ; and for the
Schools of Law and Divinity, amounted to $47,935. The cost
of the Ohio for one year of service, in salaries, wages and provi-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 147
sions is $220,000,— being $172,000 above the annual expendi
tures of the University, and more than four times as much as
those expenditures. In other words for the annual sum lavished
on a single ship of the line, four institutions like Harvard Uni
versity might be supported."
" Furthermore, the pay of a captain of a ship like the Ohio is
$4,500, when in the service, — $3,500, when on leave of absence,
or off duty. The salary of the President of Harvard University
is $2,235, without leave of absence and never off duty."
" If the large endowments of Harvard University are dwarfed
by comparison with a single ship of the line, how must it be with
other institutions of learning and beneficence, less favored by
the bounty of many generations? The average cost of a sloop
of war is $315,000, — more probably than all the endowments of
those twin stars of learning in the Western part of Massachu
setts, the Colleges at Williamstown and Amherst, and of that
single star in the East, the guide to many ingenuous youth, the
Seminary at Andover. The yearly expense of a sloop of war in
the service is about $50,000, more than the annual expenditures
of these three institutions combined."
" I might press the comparison with other institutions of
beneficence, — with our annual appropriations for the Blind,
that noble and successful charity which sheds luster upon the
Commonwealth, amounting to $12,000, and for the Insane, an
other charity dear to humanity, amounting to $27,844."
" Take all the institutions of Learning and Beneficence, the
crown jewels of the Commonwealth, schools, colleges, hospitals,
asylums, and the sums by which they have been purchased and
preserved are trivial and beggarly, compared with the treasures
squandered within the borders of Massachusetts in vain prep
arations for War,— and upon the Navy Yard at Charlestown,
with its stores on hand, costing $4,741,000, — the fortifications
in the harbors of Massachusetts, where untold sums are already
sunk, and it is now proposed to sink $3,875,000 more, — and the
Arsenal at Springfield, containing in 1842, 175,118 muskets,
valued at $2,099,998, and maintained by an annual appropria
tion of $200,000, whose highest value will ever be, in the judg
ment of all lovers of truth, that it inspired a poem which in in
fluence will be mightier than a battle, and will endure when
arsenals and fortifications have crumbled to earth. Some of
the verses of this Psalm of Peace relieve the details of statistics,
while they happily blend with my argument."
" 'Were half the power that fills the world with terror,
Were half the wealth bestowed on camps and courts,

148 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Given to redeem the human mind from error,
There were no need of arsenals or forts ;
The warrior's name would be a name abhorred,
And every nation that should lift again
Its hand against a brother on his forehead
Would wear forever more the curse of Cain.' "
Sumner came directly to the answer of the question pro
pounded in his subject, The True Grandeur of Nations, when
near the close of his oration, he said : " The True Greatness of
a Nation cannot be in triumphs of the intellect alone. Litera
ture and art may enlarge the sphere of its influence ; they may
adorn it ; but in their nature they are but accessories. The True
Grandeur of Humanity is in the moral elevation, sustained, en
lightened and decorated by the intellect of man. The surest
tokens of this grandeur in a nation are that Christian Benefi
cence which diffuses the greatest happiness among all, and that
passionless, god-like Justice which controls the relations of the
nation to other nations, and to all the people committed to its
charge. ..."
" Oh, let it not be in the future ages as in those we now con
template ! Let the grandeur of man be discerned, not in bloody
victory or ravenous conquest but in the blessing he has secured,
in the good he has accomplished, in the triumphs of Justice
and Beneficence, in the establishment of Perpetual Peace ! "
Sumner did not claim that all wars were wrong; for he ex
cepted defensive wars, occurring when a nation was unjustly
assailed and no recourse was left it, but self-defence or destruc
tion. He believed that, however wrong on the part of the ag
gressor, it was the duty of the nation thus assailed to defend
itself. But he fearlessly maintained that every act of aggression
by one nation upon another, on some frivolous pretext, but in
reality for the acquisition of territory, that did not rightfully
belong to it, was morally wrong. He maintained that a nation,
like an individual, was answerable for it, in the sight of God
and all good men.
The illustrations that he had in mind were the prospective
wars with Mexico and England, growing out of our claims in
Texas and Oregon. He thought both claims were without right
ful foundations and that Texas was sought to secure the exten
sion of slavery, to which he was unalterably opposed. The
Oregon dispute was soon afterward settled by peaceful negotia
tions. But Texas was annexed and the Mexican War followed,
it became a slave state, a part of her territory was incorporated
in Kansas, also sought to be made a slave state; other parts

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 149
went to make up New Mexico, Indian Territory and Colorado,
ominous locations ; the parent territory became one of the
seceding Confederate States and sustained with her blood and
treasure the War of the Rebellion, a consummation, which even
the anxious eye of Sumner did not then foresee, in its entirety.
But he saw enough to condemn the project unsparingly. Orig
inally a part of Mexico and for only a few years maintaining
a disputed and uncertain independence, he believed the United
States should not be permitted to become embroiled in the
troubles of Texas so as to create a pretext for her annexation.
To take what did not belong to a man, merely by right of
superior strength, he believed to be robbery; and he did not
esteem it anything less when accomplished by the aggregation
of men composing a nation. The numbers engaged could not
change the morality of the act in his eyes and for such cause
he would not silently see the treasure of the nation consumed.
He thought the maintenance of such a war establishment as the
United States then had, in time of peace, when no enemy was
near, encouraged her to seek such occasions to show her strength
and should be abolished ; and the treasure thus expended saved
for the promotion of intelligence, righteousness and religion.
His speech was an eloquent plea for universal peace, a condi
tion generally considered to be far beyond the reach of living
generations; but it was an urgent appeal to all that is best in
our nature to lend its aid to this cause. The oration revealed
a lofty nature, filled with the love of justice, and morality,
a cultured mind, stored with the rich fruits of hard study, a
high ideal, placing its standard far in advance of the position
of its own generation and a determined purpose to bring civ
ilization up to it. It was an earnest of Sumner's life-work.
But the oration did not meet with universal approval. At
the public dinner, given in Faneuil Hall, immediately after the
exercises in Tremont Temple, the feeling of dissent, that had
so far been hardly concealed, broke out and composed the
burden of the responses, to a number of the toasts. The officers
of the military and naval organizations, that had taken part in
the parade, at first hesitated, but finally consented to be present
at the dinner. Sumner had made some unrelished allusions
to them. Referring to the militia he had, for example, said :
" And when the youth becomes a man, his country invites his
services in war and holds before his bewildered imagination, the
prizes of worldly honor. . . . The contagion spreads beyond
those subjects to positive obligation. Peaceful citizens volun
teer to appear as soldiers, and affect in dress, arms and deport
ment, what is called the ' pride, pomp and circumstance of

150 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
glorious war.' The ear-piercing fife has to-day filled our streets
and we have come to this church, on this National Sabbath, at
tended by the thump of drum and with the parade of bristling
bayonets." This and some similar allusions were resented by
the soldiers. Having been invited to be present and take part,
these references were regretted by some of the audience.
This may have influenced some of the speakers at the dinner.
Sumner's friend, John G. Palfrey, led off in the dissent, and
he was followed by Robert C. Winthrop, who closed by an
nouncing this toast, afterwards somewhat notorious : " Our
country, bounded by the St. John's and the Sabine, or however
otherwise bounded or described ; and be the measurements more
or less, still our country to be cherished in all our hearts, to be
defended by all our hands." Others followed ; some of them ap
proaching coarseness in their allusions to the oration ; and even
these received unmistakable evidence of approbation from their
hearers. • Sumner sat by Winthrop and heard all, apparently
without resentment and with hardly any perceptible embarrass
ment. In his own thoughts, he probably felt content to leave
the issue with the larger audience, by which he hoped his effort
would live to be tried.
At the close, Peleg W. Chandler, who presided, sought "to
pour oil on the troubled waters," by some good-humored refer
ences to the oration and the toasts, that caused a little merri
ment and restored a better feeling. He then announced the
toast : " The orator of the day ! However much we may differ
from his sentiments, let us admire the simplicity, manliness
and ability with which he has expressed them." Sumner re
sponded briefly, saying he would not follow with one word the
apple of discord, he seemed to have thrown into the exercises of
the occasion, and closed by adding that, however much they
might differ as to the principles he had advocated, he was sure
there was one sentiment they would all approve and that was
admiration for the youthful choristers, who had gladdened the
occasion, with the music of their voices. He proposed the toast :
"The youthful choristers of the day! May their future lives
be filled with happiness, as they have to-day filled our hearts
with the delight of their music ! "
The dignity with which he bore himself, the absence of all
appearance of resentment and the tact with which he turned
discussion from himself helped to disarm criticism and left a
favorable impression upon those present at the dinner, though
he had not retracted any of his previously expressed convictions.
The impression made by the oration upon the general public
was a remarkable one. The demand for printed copies was un-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 151
precedented. Eight editions of it were issued in America and
two in England, within a year, making about ten thousand
copies that came from the press in that time. Other editions
have since been printed. It was distributed as a tract by the
Peace Societies of Boston, Philadelphia, Liverpool and London ;
and it is still printed for this purpose. In this and other ways
copies of it were distributed systematically to many newspapers
in America and Great Britain and to many of their leading
statesmen and publicists. Many of the newspapers to which it
was sent, noticed it and some of them printed extracts from it,
in their columns; the religious papers generally approved its
doctrines while the secular ones generally criticised them as im
practicable ; but all that discussed it agreed in commending the
learning and eloquence which it displayed.
The same remarkable character of the oration was attested
by private communications which Sumner received. But many
of these frankly expressed dissent. Old Jeremiah Mason,
always original and always to the point, bluntly told him that
" an anti-war society is as little practicable as an anti-thunder-
and-lightning society."
William H. Prescott wrote, he could not go along with him
in the expression of the sentiment, " There can be no war that is
not dishonorable ", when he remembered Marathon, Morgarten,
Bannockburn, Bunker Hill, the wars of the Low Countries, —
all those wars which have had and which are yet to have free
dom for their object. " I can't acquiesce in your sweeping de
nunciation, my good friend." He added, " I admire your moral
courage in delivering your sentiments so plainly in the face of
that thick array. ... I may one day see you on a crusade to
persuade the great Autocrat to disband his millions of fighting
men, and little Queen Vic to lay up her steamships in lavender !
You have scattered right and left the seeds of a sound and en
nobling morality, which may spring up in a bountiful harvest,
I trust, — in the millennium; but I doubt."
John A. Andrew, afterwards the War Governor of Massa
chusetts, wrote, in different vein : " You will allow me to say
that I have read the oration with a satisfaction only equalled by
that with which I heard you on the fourth of July. And while
I thank you a thousand times for the choice you made of a topic,
as well as for the fidelity and brilliant ability which you brought
to its illustration, (both to my mind, defying the most carping
criticism), I cannot help expressing also my gratitude to Prov
idence, that here in our city of Boston, one has at last stepped
forward to consecrate to celestial hopes the day — the great day

152 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
— which Americans have at best heretofore held sacred only to
memory." Judge Story wrote thanking him for a copy of it and added :
" I have read it with uncommon interest and care, as you might
well suppose, as well on your own account as from the various
voices of fame which succeeded the delivery. It is certainly a
very striking production, and will fully sustain your reputation
for high talents, various reading and exact scholarship. There
are a great many passages in it which are wrought out with an
exquisite finish and elegance of diction and classical beauty. I
go earnestly and heartily along with many of your sentiments
and opinions. They are such as befit an exalted mind and an
enlarged benevolence. But from the length and breadth of
your doctrine as to war, I am compelled to dissent. In my judg
ment, war is under some (although I agree, not under many)
circumstances, not only justifiable but an indispensable part of
public duty."
" I have spoken in all frankness to you because I know that
you will understand your friends too well to wish them to sup
press their own opinions; but be assured that no one cherishes
with more fond and affectionate pride the continual advance
ment of your professional and literary fame than myself, and
no one has a deeper reverence for your character and virtues.
Believe me, as ever, most truly and affectionately."
It will be noticed that these are expressions from men of
world-wide reputation upon the effort of a young gentleman
hardly past thirty-four years of age on his first studied appear
ance before a popular audience. Sumner received many other
letters from persons, at home and abroad. Perhaps no oration
in the history of modern literature ever had a success at once so
immediate and so permanent.
It influenced the course of Sumner's life. Until the fourth
of July, 1845, he had not known the powers of oratory he pos
sessed, but that day brought a revelation to him as well as to
the public. For several years, a disposition to despondency
and dissatisfaction with himself and with his past in life had
been growing upon him; but now he was taught that he had a
work to do and a talent for it; and his sadder moods became
less frequent, His relation to the public was changed; atten
tion had been attracted to him and there was a desire to hear
farther from him. It was the first of a series of brilliant ora
tions that established his fame and carried him to a seat in the
U. S. Senate. With strict propriety, Sumner, twenty-five years
later, nearing the close of life and gathering, his works together,
in permanent form, placed this oration first in the collection.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 153
Whatever he had written or said before, he was willing to let
pass into oblivion, but with this oration he designated that his
work commenced.
The same year that marked Sumner's appearance before the
public in his " True Grandeur of Nations," witnessed the loss
of his earliest and best friend. Judge Story died on September
tenth, 1845, at the age of sixty-six, stricken down in the full
tide of his usefulness. He had. been thirty-four years a judge of
the U. S. Supreme Court and sixteen years a professor in the
Law School at Harvard. Two days before the commencement
of his illness, he was in court and pronounced the decision, in a
complicated case. After his death, another was found among
his papers, ready for delivery. Eight days after he was stricken,
he was dead. He was buried in Mount Auburn cemetery at
Cambridge where were already laid his children who had pre
ceded him. He died as became a Christian, with a prayer on
his lips that his Father would take him to himself.
This closed a friendship that had lasted from the time of
Sumner's earliest recollection, through the years of a generation,
without a jar. Though the disparity of their ages may suggest
such a relation between them as that of father and son, in
reality it was a closer relation than this ordinarily is. The
abounding life and vivacity of the judge, his hearty sympathy
with the young, in their .troubles and triumphs and ambitions,
and the glamour of his official position, with the respect it in
spired, had attracted Sumner very early in life and for many
years be had seen in Judge Story his ideal of a man. In college ;
in the law school, as a student and later as an instructor; in
his private reading and his recreations ; in his thoughts of Eu
rope, in securing the means for his trip and in opening the
doors of society and the avenues for improvement while abroad ;
and still later, in his efforts at the bar and in literature, Sumner
had always found in Judge Story his faithful mentor and
friend. Step by step he had followed him with more than a
father's care.
But he was destined never to see the good seed he had sown
ripen into its full harvest. It is a touching thought that, where
Sumner's work commenced, this faithful friend's ended. The
last letter of importance Judge Story wrote, was the one we have
quoted ; and the touching words at its close, comes through the
lapse of years like a parting benediction: "be assured that no
one cherishes with more fond and affectionate pride the con
tinual advancement of your professional and literary fame than
myself, and no one has a deeper reverence for your character
and virtues," and then the last word of parting, destined to be

154 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the last word between them, " affectionately," — summing up in
that one word the measure he felt for the relation thus closed.
The second production in Sumner's Works and the one imme
diately following the fourth of July oration is a beautiful
tribute to Judge Story which Sumner wrote for the Boston
Advertiser, of September sixteenth, 1845, " I have just re
turned," it commences, "from the funeral of this great and
good man. Under that roof where I have so often seen him in
health, buoyant with life, exuberant in kindness, happy in
family and friends, I have stood by his mortal remains sunk in
eternal rest, and gazed upon those well-loved features, from
which even the icy touch of death had not effaced all the living
beauty. The eye was quenched and the glow of life extin
guished ; but the noble brow seemed still to shelter, as under a
marble dome, the spirit that had fled. And is he dead, I asked
myself, — whose face was never turned to me, except in affection,
— who has filled the civilized world with his name, and drawn to
his country the homage of foreign nations — and who was of
activity and labor that knew no rest, — who was connected with
so many circles by duties of such various kinds, by official ties,
by sympathy, by friendship and love, — who according to the
beautiful expression of Wilberforce, ' touched life at so many
points,' has he, indeed, passed away? "
In early life Judge Story had a strong taste for a literary
career but yielding to necessity he entered upon the study of
law. It is related that when struggling to master the dry pages
of Coke's Commentaries upon Littleton, the first textbook
placed in his hands, he gave way in despair; and covering his
face with his hands at the prospect in life that confronted him
he shed a copious baptism of tears upon his open book. From
this unpromising entrance on the law, he rose to be a judge of
the highest court in the country, the leading professor in Har
vard Law School and the author of one of the most widely
celebrated series of Law-books known to the common law. It
was upon these three relations of judge, author and teacher
that Sumner dwelt.
He recalled with astonishment the extent of his work, the
written judgments he pronounced upon the Circuit and his
works as an author, comprising twenty-seven volumes and his
opinions pronounced in the Supreme Court, filling a large
measure of thirty-four more, administering the law in all its
branches, civil and criminal and displaying everywhere a mas
tery of it. Hethought there was much in Judge Story's char
acter as a public official that was appreciated by those who saw
his work, but which could not be preserved, — his courtesy, his

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 155
quickness of perception and his promptness in the dispatch of
business. His mind seemed to grasp at once the controlling
questions in a case and thus often to anticipate the slower move
ments of the attorneys. And when he came to decide he was
careful to assign reasons for each position he took, so as to make
it clear that it was not the judge, but the law that disposed
of it.
Sumner recalled the fact that as a legal writer, Lord Camp
bell had declared in the course of a debate, in the English House
of Lords, that Judge Story had a greater reputation " than any
author England could boast since the days of Blackstone," and
that his works had been reviewed with praise in all of the
countries of Great Britain, as well as in France and Germany.
As a teacher he instanced his exquisite faculty of interesting
the young and winning their affections, that he had often seen
him surrounded by a group of them, all intent upon his earnest
conversation and freely interrogating him on matters of in
terest; in the lecture-room he was overflowing with learning
and unrelaxing in effort, yet patient and gentle. He had grown
to be a living example of love for the law, which seemed to
grow warmer with his accumulating years. As evidence of his
success he mentioned the fact that larger classes of law students
were gathered to his classes in Harvard than to any other
similar school in England or America.
Sumner recalled by way of comparison to him some of the
great lawyers he had known in Europe, Dupin and Pardessus of
France ; Thibaut, " with flowing silvery locks, who was so dear
to Germany " ; and Savigny, " so stately in person and peculiar
in countenance whom all the continent of Europe delights to
honor " ; but, he added, " my heart and my judgment, un
trammelled, fondly turn with new love and admiration to my
Cambridge teacher and friend. Jurisprudence has many arrows
in her quiver, but where is one to compare with that which is
now spent in the earth ? "
The influence of Judge Story upon Sumner's character can
hardly be over-estimated. It was of incalculable benefit, for
him, to have daily in example and in intimate association a man
of Judge Story's pure life and large attainments and wonderful
industry; with the aid of his advice and direction. Take as
an instance of this training the beautiful truth he inculcated,
referred to by Sumner as a reminiscence of his college days,
that " No man stands in the way of another," that the world
is so broad and its opportunities so numerous, that no one's suc
cess need interfere with any one else's. How much of an an
tidote to bickering and jealousy there is in it ! It may not have

156 LlfE OF CHARLES SUMNER
been altogether to the earnestness with which Judge Story en
forced this lesson upon his group of youthful hearers, that
Sumner owed it, but it is certain that one of the strongest and
most lovable traits of his character was his loyalty to his friends
and the earnestness with which he seconded all their efforts for
advancement, without jealousy and without envy, and with
never a thought disclosed that he might himself be crowded
out. This is a single illustration of what this association
brought to Sumner. What the rest was we can imagine.

CHAPTER XIV
JUDGE STORY'S PROFESSORSHIP NOT SOUGHT  FIRST SPEECH
AGAINST SLAVERY  AS A LYCEUM LECTURER  ARTICLE ON
PICKERING  PHI BETA KAPPA ORATION  PLACE AS AN
ORATOR.
The place, which Sumner had aspired to for many years,
Judge Story's professorship in the Law School, was now vacant.
Sumner's desire for it had been more than a passing wish. It
had been a guiding motive and a stimulant in his studies and
a cherished ambition of his life to fill this place worthily and
from it with voice and pen exert a wide influence in teaching
and systematizing the law. In this ambition he had been en
couraged by Judge Story and also by Professor Greenleaf. But
how we all change ! The long wished for place remained vacant
a year and yet Sumner did not apply for it. He frankly admit
ted that if it were offered him, the chances were that he would
decline it. For several years he had been growing away from it.
He had become interested in public affairs and in literature;
and those things were giving a new direction to his life. He
now wished for greater independence than he could have in the
service of conservative Harvard; he was ambitious for a wider
fame than was there in prospect.
On the evening of November 4, 1845, he attended a meeting
in Faneuil Hall, called to devise means to resist the admis
sion of Texas as a slave state. Sumner prepared the reso
lutions that were adopted, the first political resolutions he ever
prepared ; and he supported them by a speech, the first political
speech he ever delivered. Texas was asking admission to the
Union with a constitution, prohibiting her Legislature from
passing any law to emancipate the slaves or to abolish her slave
trade with other states. The resolutions prepared by Sumner
condemned the annexation as an extension of slavery involving
the free, as well as the slave states, in the two greatest national
crimes, Slavery and War. Copies of the resolutions were sent
to every Senator and Representative in Congress. They called
upon them to resist the consummation of the movement to the
utmost at every stage. The President of the meeting, Charles
Francis Adams, made a speech on taking the chair and he was
followed by John G. Palfrey, Sumner, Wendell Phillips, Henry
157

158 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
B. Stanton, Hillard, William H. Channing and William Lloyd
Garrison. In this, his first public utterance upon the question of slavery,
Sumner's opposition to it is pronounced. He declared that
the horrors of the " middle passage " when Africans stolen and
carried by sea far from their homes, pressed on shipboard, into
spaces of smaller dimensions for each, than a coffin, were be
lieved to be of less deadly consequence than those attending the
wretched coffles driven from the exhausted Northern Slave
States to the sugar plantations farther South; one quarter
part were said often to perish in those removals; and yet it
was an extension of the coffle system that was proposed in the
scheme for the admission of Texas. He insisted that this
should be considered well, the inauguration of a new slave
trade, secured by constitutional guaranties. He was determined
that it should not take place with his consent ; but on the con
trary should meet his vigorous opposition. If such an extension
of the slave trade was to take place Massachusetts should wash
her hands of all participation in the guilt of it.
He warned her Representatives that they must not yield to
dalliance with slavery. The seductive influence of' the pro-
slavery atmosphere of Washington, which had for many years
been diffused by the statesmen of the South, was well known
in Boston. This was to be resisted and only men who could
withstand its fatal influence should be sent there.
The depth of Sumner's feeling upon the question of slavery
is shown by an incident which occurred about this time. He
had been invited to lecture before the New Bedford Lyceum and
had accepted, but before the date fixed for his lecture, he
learned that colored persons were excluded from the privileges
of the course. He at once wrote a letter to the committee de
clining the appointment. It seemed to him, to found such a
discrimination on difference of complexion, was contrary to the
divine injunction, " Do unto others as you would have them do
unto you." He closed his letter to the committee with these
words : " In lecturing before a Lyceum which has introduced the
prejudice of color among its laws, and thus formally reversed
an injunction of highest morals and politics, I might seem to
sanction what is most alien to my soul and join in disobedience
to the command which teaches that the children of earth are all
of one blood. I cannot do this." Shortly after, the obnoxious
rule was rescinded, and Sumner then delivered his lecture.
The lecture lyceum played an important part in Sumner's
career. It was a means of entertainment quite common in Mas
sachusetts. A society would be organized in a community and

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 159
a committee would be thus appointed to secure a course of
lectures for a winter season. The lecturers were paid, the
money to defray the expense being raised by charging an ad
mission. The fame of Sumner's oration on The True Grandeur
of Nations, distributed by the friends of peace to the news
papers and noticed and portions of it published by many of
them, had carried his name abroad and created a general desire
to see and hear him. To the work of preparation . for these
lectures, both in matter and delivery, he brought his usual
thoroughness, carefully writing and re-writing and amending
them and practising their delivery, before they were presented.
to the audience. His earnest and easy style of speaking and his
attractive personal appearance, as well as the freshness of the
matter and interest of the subjects chosen for his lectures, made
him a popular lecturer.
During the four years, from 1846 to 1850, he filled many ap
pointments of this kind, speaking in almost every part of the
State. The Lyceums were frequently connected with churches
and had a membership composed of educated Christian people,
with a bent for moral and intellectual reforms, but not bound
together by any political tie. These audiences were peculiarly
susceptible to such reforms, as the abolition of slavery and war,
in which he was interested. His lectures gave him a large ac
quaintance over the State, with this class of people and was the
origin of that strong hold which he acquired and retained over
them as long as he lived.
His subjects were " The Employment of Time " and " White
Slavery in the Barbary States " ; the former lecture was deliv
ered for the first time before the Boston Lyceum in February,
1846, and the latter before the Boston Mercantile Library
Association, a year later; both were delivered many times
afterward and were never entirely laid aside until his election
to the Senate. For this event, they aided materially in paving
the way.
The former lecture was an earnest effort to teach the young
the value of time and the importance of a just distribution of
it between labor, self-improvement and rest. He draws the
lessons of it largely from the lives of Franklin, Gibbon, Cob
bett and Scott, holding them up in succession as examples of
what can be accomplished by men, in moderate circumstances,
or even in poverty, by the judicious and industrious husbandry
of time.
" Time," he said, " is the measure of life on earth. ... Its
divisions, its days, its hours, its minutes, are fractions of this
heavenly gift. Every moment that flies over our heads takes

1G0 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
from the future, and gives to the irrevocable past, shortening by
so much the measure of our days, abridging by so much the
means of usefulness committed to our hands. . . . Waste or
sacrifice of time is, then, waste or sacrifice of life itself; it is
partial suicide."
He computed that the loss of one single hour each day for a
year amounts at its end to thirty-six working days, allowing
ten hours to the day, — sufficient when applied to the study of a
new language or an unexplored field of history to make an im
portant acquisition in the accumulation of knowledge. He in
stanced a French jurist who had composed a learned and im
portant work "in the quarter hours that draggled between
dinner ordered and dinner served ".
He gave curious examples of the division of their time made
by numerous men, well-known to fame: Lord Coke, six hours
for sleep, six to the study of law, four to prayer, the rest to
Nature; Sir William Jones, six to law, seven to slumber, ten to
the world and all to Heaven. He instanced Napoleon and
Alexander Von Humboldt as only allowing four hours, out of
the twenty-four, to sleep; while Judge Story, given as a high
example of what may be wrought by wakeful diligence, who
had accomplished more than any one within the circle of his"
individual observation, retired always at ten o'clock, to rise at
seven, allowing nine hours for sleep. It would have been in
teresting for us to have had Sumner's judgment upon the whole
matter, but this he discreetly withheld, contenting himself by
saying that different constitutions require different amounts of
sleep, even the same individual in youth and old age requiring
more than when in middle life.
An occasional passage of this lecture gives us an insight into
Sumner's own habits and opinions. In speaking of the time
when literary men have done their best work he says it may
be doubted if the student can be weaned from those habits
which lead him to continue his work far into the night, so that
from time immemorial he has been said to " consume the mid
night oil " and his productions marked by peculiar care to
" smell of the lamp." And he adds : " They who confess them
selves among the slaves of the lamp say that there is an ex
citement in study, increasing as the work proceeds, which
flames forth with new brightness at the close of the day and in
the stillness of those hours when the world is wrapped in sleep
and the student is the sole watcher." Sumner's habit of work
ing late in the night had already been formed and it continued
with him through life.
In another passage he warns his hearers against the tendency

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 161
to absorption in one pursuit. The mere man of business, he
insists, is " a man of one idea ", which has its root in no gener
ous or humane desires, but in selfishness. He lives for himself
alone, and though he may send his freight to the farthest quar
ters of earth, his real horizon is restricted to the narrow circle
of his own personal interests. He would not, he added, weaken
the just attachment to the business of one's choice, but he re
called the advice of Goethe to every one, to read daily a short
poem and, in this spirit, he would refine and elevate business
by enlarging the intelligence, widening the observation and
awakening new sympathies. He points his argument with the
examples of Ben Jonson, working as a bricklayer, with a trowel
in his hand and a book in his pocket, of Burns, "wooing his
muse as he followed his plough on the mountain-side " and of
Franklin beginning those studies which made him immortal
while a toiling printer's boy, straitened by small means.
Summer's lecture upon White Slavery in the Barbary States
was first delivered before the Boston Mercantile Library Asso
ciation on February 17, 1847, and was afterwards given before
many other lyceums of the State. It was a carefully prepared
monogram on the origin, history and character of slavery as it
existed in the States of Northern Africa. In the sensitive state
of the public mind upon the question of slavery in the United
States, it would have been suicidal for a lyceum lecturer to at
tempt to discuss this subject before an audience. He would
have encountered the prejudice of a large class of his patrons.
Sumner sought to evade this and yet teach an instructive lesson
upon a subject in which he had become interested, by laying the
scene of his lecture in Africa instead of America. He was
better enabled to bring the enormities of slavery home to his
audience by this example, beca'use the people of the Barbary
States were black, while their slaves were white people who had
been the unhappy victims of piratical excursions. The prey of
Barbary seamen was often vessels upon voyages to and from
America; and our own countrymen were thus frequently en
slaved. The United States government repeatedly paid large sums
for the ransom of its citizens. But the pirates continued to in
crease and finally became so much of an annoyance to our
commerce that war was declared and in a short naval campaign,
distinguished by the victories of Decatur and Bainbridge, a
treaty was extorted from the Dey of Algiers, stipulating that
henceforth no Americans should be made slaves. But the
distinction of abolishing slavery there, was reserved for an
English Admiral, Lord Exmouth.

162 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
In 1846, John Pickering, one of Sumner's friends, died. His
father was the Secretary of State in the Cabinet of President
Washington at the time of the son's graduation from Harvard,
in 1796. The next year the son, through his father's influence
was made Secretary of Legation to Portugal, where he remained
two years, and then for two more he was private secretary to
Mr. King, our Minister to England, with his residence in
London. Upon his return to Massachusetts he read law with
Hon. Samuel Putnam, at Salem, afterwards a judge of the
Supreme Court of the State, who was also the legal preceptor
of Judge Story. Pickering was three times a Representative
and as often a Senator in the Legislature of Massachusetts, and
was for sixteen years the City Solicitor of Boston, besides filling
the vacancy, on the commission to revise the statutes, caused
by the death of Professor Putnam. He was a frequent con
tributor to the American Jurist and the Law Reporter.
But this was only one side of the life of this laborious man.
Along with his legal pursuits, by a careful husbandry of his
time, he pursued the study of philology and became the master
of nine different languages, five of which he spoke. He studied
the Indian languages of North America and devised an alpha
bet for them. But his best known work was his Greek-English
Lexicon, still the standard in use in American colleges. He
was elected Professor of Hebrew and other Oriental languages
and later to the chair of Greek Literature in Harvard. But he
declined both. His name was twice proposed in the public
prints for President of the University. But he continued to
the last, a modest, hard-working lawyer.
Although he was many years Sumner's senior, kindred tastes
as well as the common experiences of foreign travel had made
them friends. Upon Pickering's death, Sumner commemorated
him in a carefully prepared article, published in the Law
Reporter of June, 1846. It is one of the best sketches of
its kind he ever produced. He enforced again by the example
of Pickering, the two thoughts he had kept uppermost in his
lecture on the Employment of Time, the importance of the
careful husbandry of the passing moments of life and the neces
sity of avoiding the absolute absorption of one's self in the
single business of his choice. Sumner showed that Pickering
was a painstaking, laborious attorney, absorbed in the business
of his office, during the working hours of the day, and arose to a
high rank at the bar; but he emphasized how much he was
able to accomplish for humanity and his own fame by the oc
cupation of his hours of leisure in useful studies.
Sumner commemorated Pickering on another occasion.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 163
When he was invited to deliver the address on the anniversary
of the Phi Beta Kappa Society of Harvard University in
August, 1846, he made it the occasion of his oration on The
Scholar, the Jurist, the Artist, and the Philanthropist, com
memorating under these heads his former friends, Pickering,
Story, Washington Allston and William Ellery Channing.
They had all been members of the Phi Beta Kappa Fraternity
and graduates of Harvard. It was customary to issue a cata
logue of the Fraternity every four years, marking with a star
the names of those members who had died. These names were
all so starred in the catalogue of the year.
The audience before which the oration was delivered was a
brilliant one. The First Church of Cambridge was filled with
the culture and beauty of the old university town and its
friends. Edward Everett, the graceful and impressive orator,
then just returned from his mission to the Court of St. James,
was present to assume his duties as President of Harvard, and
the retiring President, Josiah Quincy, was there, now laying
aside the robes of office, after years of distinguished service in
the National House of Representatives, in the Mayoralty of
Boston and at the head of his Alma Mater. The venerable John
Quincy Adams was there to grace by his presence, for the last
time, this anniversary of his college fraternity, and William
Kent, the newly elected successor to Judge Story in the Law
School, the Governor of Virginia, Congressmen, poets and his
torians. And those nearer to Sumner were there, Longfellow,
Prescott, Howe and his accomplished wife, who, " for the first
quarter of an hour did not dare to look at him, dreading mistake
or failure and who was then completely surprised and carried
away, who had no idea he could do anything like it." Perhaps
a sight of her and a touch of his old admiration reached Sumner.
There too was his mother and sister to witness his triumph.
He was dressed with his usual care. He had been too much
under the influence of Daniel Webster not to appreciate the
value of this. And his handsome figure never appeared to
better advantage. He spoke for two hours, easily and forcibly,
without the aid of notes or manuscript, apparently all thought
of himself lost in his interest in his theme. Once he turned
to address the President of the University and seemed to forget
his audience and for some minutes with his back to them con
tinued speaking to him alone. But his delivery was so effective
that fifty years afterwards persons still living could recall
distinctly certain passages and the peculiar emphasis he gave
them. It is considered by some his greatest oratorical triumph.
The production excels any of his others in style and finish, and

164 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the subject being of permanent interest it will probably con
tinue to be one of the most popular of his orations. In the
edition of his works he prefaced it with this sentiment from
Schiller ; " Give the world beneath your influence a direction
towards the good, and the tranquil rhythm of time will bring
its development."
As the title of his oration was The Scholar, the Jurist, the
Artist, the Philanthropist, so his theme was Knowledge, Jus
tice, Beauty, Love, " the comprehensive attributes of God," as
he declared ; and he used the lives of his four friends as threads
on which to string a discussion of these subjects. His aim was
not so much to commemorate the men as to advance the objects
they had so successfully served. Speaking of Pickering, he
paid this tribute to the uses and the graces of scholarship:
" He knew that scholarship of all kinds would gild the life
of its possessor, enlarge the resources of the bar, enrich the voice
of the pulpit, and strengthen the learning of medicine. He
knew that it would afford a soothing companionship in hours of
relaxation from labor, in periods of sadness, and in the evening
of life; that when once embraced, it was more constant than
friendship, — attending its votary, as an invisible spirit, in the
toils of the day, the watches of the night, the changes of travel
and the alternations of fortune or health."
In speaking of Story's love for literature and the fact that he
would frequently turn aside from the sterner studies of the law
to cultivate the love of poetry and polite letters, he likened
him, in this, to Seldon, Somers, Mansfield and Blackstone in
England, and L'Hopital and D'Aguesseau in France, and he
ventured the assertion that it would not be easy to mention a
single person winning the highest place in the profession of
the law, who was not a scholar also.
In this address he fixed for us his definition of the term,
Jurist. It is interesting to us because we know that during
many of the years of his early manhood it was Sumner's am
bition to be one. He described him as a "student and ex
pounder of jurisprudence as a science, — not merely lawyer or
judge, pursuing it as an art" — who examines every principle
in the light of science, and, while doing justice, seeks to widen
and confirm the means of justice hereafter by reducing his pro
fession to an exact science, — such men as Grotius, Pothier,
Coke and Kent, expounders of the law and therefore higher
than lawyers and not to be confounded with such men as Dun
ning, and Pinkney, mere practitioners, though the one be
the acknowledged leader of Westminster Hall and the other of
the American Bar.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 165
In his treatment of the part of his subject devoted to Wash
ington Allston, the artist, Sumner's love of the beautiful in
life and in art becomes easily apparent. It is not often in a
young man that this trait comes out in such marked degree.
And it shows how unerringly Sumner's attention had already
been fixed on the pure and the good and how earnestly he looked
forward to the enlargement of their influence.
" Allston," he said, " was a good man, with a soul refined by
purity, exalted by religion, softened by love. In manner he was
simple, yet courtly, — quiet, though anxious to please, — kindly
to all alike, the poor and the lowly not less than the rich and
great. As he spoke in that voice of gentlest utterance, all were
charmed to listen; and the airy-footed hours often tripped on
far toward the gates of morning, before his friends could break
from his spell. His character is transfigured in his works . . .
Allston was a Christian artist; and the beauty of expression
lends uncommon charm to his colors. All that he did shows
purity, sensibility, refinement, delicacy, feeling rather than
force. His genius was almost feminine. As he advanced in
years, this was more remarked. His pictures became more and
more instinct with those sentiments which form the true glory
of Art. . . . He looked down on the common strife for
worldly consideration. With impressive beauty of truth and ex
pression he said, Fame is the eternal shadow of excellence,
from which it can never be separated.' Here is a volume,
prompting to noble thoughts and action, not for the sake of
glory, but for advance in knowledge, virtue, excellence."
It was, however, in Channing that Sumner found the master
spirit that had exerted most influence in shaping his own
thoughts of reform. We have already seen in his oration on
The True Grandeur of Nations how firmly he had set his face
against war and slavery. This was largely an inheritance from
Channing, who though a minister, serving a Boston congrega
tion, had given much time to these subjects and seems to have
had a peculiar attraction for young men. In the mention of
him, which Sumner reserved to the last in his oration, although
his death had been the first of the four, an opportunity was
presented for a renewed discussion of the inhumanity of war
and slavery. Sumner did not let it go unheeded.
In recalling with what earnestness Channing had discussed
them and witb what success, Sumner was led to speak of the
style of his oratory. What he said has already been quoted in
these pages as showing the models upon which he formed his
own ideal of an orator.
In the contemplation of such exemplars well might Sumner

16g LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
exclaim in closing his oration : " In their presence, how truly do
we feel the insignificance of office and wealth, which men so
hotly pursue ! What is office ? and what is wealth ? Expres
sions and representatives of what is present and fleeting only,
investing the possessor with a brief and local regard. Let this
not be exaggerated ; it must not be confounded with the serene
fame which is the reflection of generous labors in gTeat causes.
The street lights within the circle of their nightly glimmer,
seem to outshine the distant stars, observed of men in all lands
and times, but gas-lamps are not to be mistaken for celestial
luminaries. They who live for wealth, and the things of this
world, follow shadows, neglecting realities eternal on earth and
in heaven. After the perturbations of life, all its accumulated
possessions must be resigned, except those only which have been
devoted to God and mankind. What we do for ourselves
perishes with this mortal dust; what we do for others lives
coeval with the benefaction. Worms may destroy the body, but
they cannot consume such a fame."
The success of the oration was instantaneous. At the dinner
of the Society held after the exercises in the church, John
Quincy Adams offered the toast : " The memory of the Scholar,
the Jurist, the Artist, the Philanthropist ; and not the memory,
the long life of the kindred spirit who has this day embalmed
them all." And in a letter dated two days later, after con
gratulating Sumner on his oration, he wrote : " Casting my
eyes backward no farther than the 4th of July of last year,
when you set all the vipers of Alecto a-hissing by proclaiming
the Christian law of universal peace and love, and then easting
them forward, perhaps not much farther, but beyond my own
allotted time, I see you have a mission to perform. I look from
Pisgah to the Promised Land ; you must enter upon it." The
old anti-slavery warrior doubtless realized that in Sumner the
cause had found a new champion, but he could hardly have
realized the weight of the blows this new champion was destined
to deal his ancient enemy on the floor of Congress.
Edward Everett wrote Sumner : " Should you never do any
thing else, you have done enough for fame ; but you are, as far
as these public efforts are concerned, at the commencement of
a career destined, I trust, to last for long years, of ever in
creasing usefulness and honor." Chancellor Kent, to whom one
of the pamphlet copies of the oration was sent, pronounced it
one of the most splendid productions, in point of diction and
eloquence, he had ever read. This was high praise, from high
authority. It was appreciated by Sumner. He valued the
friendship of these men. His transparent nature made him

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 167
ever ready to accord just praise to others and to value theirs of
himself as a frank acknowledgment of his merit.
Sumner's place in Boston as a public orator was now estab
lished. His work as a lyceum lecturer had satisfied his au
diences. His oration on The True Grandeur of Nations had
awakened an unusual interest in him and attracted general
public attention, but there was still a doubt whether it was not
a fortunate effort upon a favorite subject that furnished no just
estimate of the man. Even taken at its best, this oration lacked
the smoothness and finish of the " The Scholar, the Jurist, the
Artist, and the Philanthropist." The standard, at Cambridge,
where the influence of the college was felt, was high and the
audiences critical in their estimates of new men, but Sumner
had fairly satisfied them. However much in the future they
doubted the soundness of his views on slavery and the rights
of the colored race they did not afterwards question his ability
as an orator. He now took his position among them as an ac
ceptable speaker, much sought for on public occasions and a
child of their own, in whom they felt a just pride.
This distinction he laboriously earned. At this time of his
life he wrote out his orations in full before delivery and after
carefully criticising them himself and receiving suggestions
from friends, he memorized them. He was careful of details
in delivery that would contribute to the effect of an address.
In the absence of Longfellow and his wife, from Cambridge,
we find him taking advantage of the retirement of their house,
to memorize and practise the delivery of some of them. He
could there speak aloud without being heard. He followed this
manner of preparing an address for many years, — even after he
became a Senator and after his fame was established in Wash
ington. He was equally careful in the revision of his orations for
publication. Felton made a playful reference to it, when
Sumner was revising his True Grandeur of Nations for the
press. Owing to the convenience of Felton's house to the Har
vard College library, where he wished to obtain works of refer
ence, Sumner used a room there as a convenient place to work.
Felton wrote to Longfellow: "You have no idea, what an
arsenal of peace my house has become ; Lives of William Penn,
sermons on war, tracts of the American Peace Society, journals,
anti-everything, Scriptural arguments, estimates of the cost of
navies and armies, besides a great many smaller arms, the pis
tols, hand grenades, cutlasses and so forth of the Peace Es
tablishment, are arranged in every part of the house, upstairs,
downstairs, in the attics and in the cellars."

168 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Sumner's diligence in revision did not always impress people
so good-naturedly as it had Felton. In publishing the edition
of his orations and addresses in 1850, he made so many changes,
even upon the third proof, that his printers remonstrated vigor
ously and told him they could not bear the extra expense and
that he must thereafter finish his revision before handing his
manuscript to the printer. But the reproof did not cure the
habit. For in the final revision of his works, which he was
making at the time of his death, he was as exacting as ever and
still making numerous changes. A comparison of almost any
oration in this with the same one in the earlier editions will
illustrate my meaning. The changes, I think, in some instances
did not add to the value of the works. They sometimes de
tracted from their freshness and made them appear unnatural
and labored to those at least who had known them in their
earlier form. But the great idealist was still to the last reach
ing out after excellence that he felt as constantly eluding his
grasp.

CHAPTER XV
origin of sumner's interest in the cause of universal
peace  interested in the subject of prison disci
pline — the boston prison discipline society  equal
rights of colored children in the public schools 
diversions
In 1848, a friend suggested to Sumner that his interest in
his favorite reforms had been imputed by some to a desire for
public notice. Sumner felt hurt at this imputation. He
replied at some length explaining the real origin of his interest.
The explanation is interesting as a matter of personal history.
His attention had been attracted to the question of universal
peace by an oration of President Quincy delivered in old South
Church, Boston, when he was scarcely nine years of age. It
was at a meeting of the American Peace Society. The lecture
made a deep impression upon the youthful mind of Sumner by
showing the appalling waste of life and property war involved.
While in the reading of after years he was attracted by the
glamour of military glory, the good seed sowed by this lecture
seemed never to have been choked out. Shortly after he left
college, this early impression was deepened by a lecture of
William Ladd, in the old Cambridge Court House. As this con
viction grew upon Sumner and the notes of years of reading
accumulated in support of it, he did not hesitate to express in
conversation his abhorrence of war. As an illustration, while in
Paris, he was asked by M. Victor Foucher, to read a part of the
manuscript of his treatise upon the law of nations. Upon
returning it with his criticisms, Sumner called his attention to
the portion of his work that placed war among the recognized
arbitraments for the determination of questions between
nations. While admitting the truth of this position, Sumner
urged him to combat it as barbarous and unchristian.
Within a month after his return from Europe, Sumner was
attracted by a notice in a newspaper of a meeting of the Amer
ican Peace Society and attended. It was held in a small room
under Marlboro Chapel, with scarcely a dozen persons present.
Sumner was placed upon its Executive Committee and there
after became one of its active members. But his part for peace
consisted in attendance upon its meetings and work upon its
169

170 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
committees, until 1845, when being pressed to deliver the Muni
cipal Oration, he unburdened his mind of the accumulation of
years of study and thought upon this subject.
It could hardly be expected that he would escape criticism
altogether, after this bold assault upon such a time-honored
institution as war, with its well paid armies of apologists. He
was frequently called upon to defend his positions. But he
did it as fearlessly as he had announced them. His public
orations that followed, as the one on " The Scholar, the Jurist,
the Artist, and the Philanthropist," and another, on "Fame
and Glory," showed that his conclusions were not hastily
formed and that he would take no step backward. They both
reiterated the conclusions expressed in his Municipal Oration.
In 1849, he was invited to address the American Peace Society
at its annual meeting and he delivered an elaborate oration.
His purpose was to show that as all human trials of right, be
tween individuals, by mere physical prowess, had been abolished
so war ought also to be abolished, in the settlement of disputes
between nations. The address was replete with learning and
abounded in historical quotations to sustain his position; but
it lacked the eloquence and the exuberant diction of the others.
In the fall of 1849, Sumner was appointed chairman of a
committee to secure a proper representation of the United
States at a Peace Congress to be held in 1850 at Frankfort-on-
the-Main. He prepared the address of the committee to the
people of the United States, urging upon them systematic
work in the appointment of delegates and in securing some con
gressional action upon the subject. The address was also
signed by the secretaries Elihu Burritt and Amasa Walker,
Sumner was chosen a delegate to the Congress but felt con
strained by lack of means to decline the place. Public interest
in the subject was, however, beginning to wane. In the United
States it was soon completely overshadowed by the slavery
question and in Europe there was a reaction against it.
With this address, Sumner's public work in the cause of
universal peace may be said to have ended. His election to the
Senate and absorption in the slavery question, with the other
duties of his office withdrew him entirely from this work. But
his convictions remained unchanged and he never hesitated to
express them upon proper occasions. One of the provisions of
his will set apart a fund for an annual prize to be given the
student of Harvard College for the best dissertation on uni
versal peace and the methods by which war may be permanently
superseded. And he added in his will, after this provision, these
words: "I do this in the hope of drawing the attention of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 171
students to the practicability of organizing peace among na
tions, which I sincerely believe may be done. I cannot doubt
that the same modes of decision, which now prevail between
individuals, between towns and between smaller communities
may be extended to nations."
But it seems strange that any one would consider the cause
of universal peace at the time Sumner was engaged in it a fruit
ful field for gathering fame. The little meeting under Marlboro
Chapel of a few enthusiastic friends of humanity almost
objects of merriment to a more numerous, though perhaps a
less thoughtful public, was hardly a company into which an
ambitious young man, bent on fame, would find his way. The
whole story of Sumner's connection with the peace question
shows how utterly without foundation such an imputation was.
Those who knew Sumner, his sincerity and disinterestedness,
with his crowning wish to be useful, in permanently improving
the condition of his fellow-men, knew how unjust it was.
Sumner scouted the thought that it was done for any purpose
of popularity. "I have little sympathy with office-seekers, —
I might add with self-seekers, in any way," he wrote. " My
own fixed purpose has always been to lead a life without office.
This has been a cherished idea. I would teach, if I might so
aspire, by example, that a useful and respectable career may be
spent without dependence upon popular favor and without the
possession of what you have called ' power.' " And then, as if
reminded that it was his own motives, that were assailed, he
continued: "In the expression of my opinions I have hoped
to show a proper regard for those from whom I differ. Well
aware that where freedom of thought exists, difference must
ensue, I have always desired that these should be tempered
by mutual kindness and forbearance so that we might all at
least ' agree to disagree.' In this spirit while leaving others to
determine their course towards me, I have endeavored, on my
part to allow no debates of opinion to interfere with any
pleasant personal relations ; and though sometimes condemning
or criticising the public conduct of men, I trust that I have
never failed to do homage to their unquestioned virtues."
Sumner's interest in the subject of prison discipline, a sub
ject considerably more discussed then than now, was not alto
gether of his choosing. His friend Howe had urged it upon
him. Howe had made a study of the subject, which was being
agitated by Prison Discipline Societies in nearly all the large
cities of the United States and Europe, and he was a convert
to what is known as the Pennsylvania system, which enforced
the entire separation of the prisoners from one another, as

172 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
contradistinguished from the Auburn system which required
them to labor together during the day, only separating them
at night. The Boston Prison Discipline Society was holding its
annual meeting, during the last week of May. Its President
was Dr. Francis Wayland, its Secretary Rev. Louis Dwight and
its Treasurer, Samuel A. Eliot. Dr. Wayland was an excellent
man, but being absorbed in his duties as President of Brown
University, gave little attention to the society. Mr. Eliot was
a merchant, the Treasurer of Harvard College, but knew little
of the subject of prison discipline, had no training as a public
speaker, and little taste for controversy. But he was thor
oughly loyal to Dwight, the only paid officer of the society, a
man of limited ability and rather slow of comprehension, nar
row and opinionated, who had been educated for tbe ministry,
but devoted his time to this work, kept the office, solicited con
tributions to it and prepared its annual reports. In fact
Dwight was the Society. He was a firm believer in the Auburn
system. In his annual reports, he had pretty uniformly aired
his views, treating the Pennsylvania system and its separation
of the prisoners, in the main, rather unfairly.
Howe had noticed this and called Sumner's attention to it.
By an arrangement he and Sumner attended the annual meet
ing of the society held in 1845 in Park Street Church and de
termined that, if the Secretary pursued his usual course, they
would publicly remonstrate. The customary report of the
Secretary was read, with its customary strictures on the Penn
sylvania system, and according to previous arrangement, the
motion had been made to adopt it, when Sumner, seated two
or three pews to the left of the platform mounted the rail of
his pew, passed quickly over the backs of the intervening ones
till he stood in front of the President, with a bundle of papers
in his hand. Hardly addressing the President, who did not
seem to know who he was, Sumner proceeded without ceremony
to tear the views of the Secretary to pieces. For full half an
hour, to the annoyance of the Secretary and the surprise of the
audience at this unexpected breach in the customary routine
of the programme, Sumner poured forth an accumulation of
facts and figures to disprove the Secretary's position, and show
his want of fairness. The Secretary, in his dull, inconclusive
way, undertook to reply, but the audience was with Sumner and
compelled a reference of the report to a committee to revise and
modify it, with power to visit Philadelphia, in the name of the
Society and ascertain on the spot the true character of the sys
tem Dwight had condemned.
Howe, Sumner, Eliot, Horace Mann, Walter Channing,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 173
Dwight, George T. Bigelow and J. W. Edmonds were appointed
as the committee. Howe, Sumner, Eliot and Dwight visited
Philadelphia and examined the prison on three successive days.
Dwight was sullen and silent, taking little interest in what he
saw, while Sumner was alert, prying into everything, bent on
knowing about the prison and its workings and the results.
He plied the directors with questions and finally took Dwight
to task before them for having misrepresented some of the
facts. Howe prepared the report of the committee and he and
Sumner sought to have it embodied in the report of the Society
for the following year; but Dwight was strong enough to pre
vent this.
The following January, Sumner published an article in the
Christian Examiner, setting forth the merits of the separate
system. Boston was about to build a new jail and he was anx
ious that she should show the same superiority in her prisons
that she did in her schools and colleges. And he was especially
anxious to correct the erroneous impressions, about the Penn
sylvania system, created by Dwight's reports. Another anni
versary of the Prison Discipline Society was approaching and
he and Howe were determined to down Dwight. The article
opens with a tribute to Miss Dix, who was devoting her life
unselfishly to the visitation of the charitable and penal insti
tutions of the Northern and Middle States, and it did not close
without a notice of Dwight who, he insisted, had never failed to
present all the evils of the separate system, particularly as ad
ministered in Philadelphia, sometimes even drawing on his
imagination for facts, while he carefully withheld the testimony
in its favor.
At the anniversary of the Society in May, 1846, Sumner, dis
appointed at not getting a hearing through a report, again
presented the subject to the meeting and supported it at
length, with a vigorous speech, closing with a motion for the
appointment of a committee to examine the reports and the
course of the Society and see if something could not be done
to extend its usefulness. Sumner was appointed on the com
mittee which was to make its report at the next anniversary
of the Society. Meantime the controversy was attracting pub
lic attention. Sumner's speech was printed in the papers and
commented on. It was reprinted in Liverpool, in a pamphlet;
and from England, France and Germany came letters attesting
interest in the controversy. De Tocqueville, the author of
Democracy in America, who had been interested in the subject
and for that reason had visited many of our prisons using both
systems, wrote Sumner that he was " surprised and pained " at

174 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the course of the Society. At home it called forth an able pam
phlet on the subject by Francis C. Gray.
Meantime the anniversary of 1847 came. Sumner for him
self and Hillard and Dr. Wayland presented a report of the
committee. It closed with a series of resolutions which de
clared that the Society was not the pledged advocate of any
system and that its reports should impartially set forth the
merits of all, deprecating anything in the former reports that
may have pained the directors of the Eastern Pennsylvania
Penitentiary and asking the management of the Society to
organize a new system that should enlist the co-operation of its
individual members. The adoption of the resolutions was op
posed and the consideration of them was adjourned from May
25th to the evening of May 28th, when Sumner made a speech
supporting them. The discussion thus opened was followed up
by adjournments to June second, fourth, ninth, eleventh,
sixteenth, eighteenth and twenty-third. Attracted by the
contest, the meetings held in Tremont Temple, were largely
attended, sometimes as many as two thousand people being
present, and the audiences partook largely of the feeling of
the speakers. They were supported, besides Sumner, by Howe,
Hillard, Rev. Francis Parkman and Henry H. Fuller, they
were opposed by Eliot, Dwight, Gray, Bradford Sumner, Rev.
George Allen, Dr. Walter Channing and J. F. Stephenson.
On the evening of June 18th Sumner spoke again. It was the
intention that, as Chairman of the committee reporting the reso
lutions, he should, with this speech, review and close the debate.
But it had acquired too great momentum to be so suddenly and
so decorously stopped. This speech shows something of the
accrimony of the debate.
Commencing, Sumner said : " Mr. President, I approach this
discussion with regret, feeling that I must say something which
I would gladly leave unsaid. I shall not, however, decline the
duty which is cast upon me. In its performance I hope to be
pardoned, if I speak frankly and freely; I trust it will be
gently and kindly. I will borrow from the honorable Treas
urer, with his permission, something of his frankness, with
out his temper. As I propose to adduce facts, I shall be grate
ful to any gentleman who will correct me where I seem to be
wrong. For such a purpose I will cheerfully yield the floor,
even to the Treasurer, though his sense of justice did not suffer
him, while on the floor, to give me an opportunity of correcting
a misstatement he made of what I said on a former occasion."
Referring to the fact that Nathaniel Willis, a near relative
of the Secretary, had moved a resolution that it was not ex-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 175
pedient to discuss this subject at the anniversary meeting, he
said : " It was at the anniversary meeting, however, that I was
determined to discuss the subject, being assured that in the
presence of a wakeful public, the will of one or two individuals
could not control the course of the Society. Accordingly I took
the floor and proceeded to speak, when I was strangely encoun
tered by the Secretary, who ejaculated : ' Mr. President, the an
nual meeting was interrupted in this manner last year ; there are
gentlemen present who are invited by the committee of arrange
ments to address us.' On this remarkable fragment of a speech
I made no comment at the time. I shall make none now, but
I cannot forbear quoting the words of the able editor of the
Law Reporter with regard to it. ' It would seem,' he says, ' that
the addresses at the public meetings of this Society are all cut
and dried beforehand, made to order, — a fact that might as
well have been kept back, under the circumstances, for the credit
of all concerned.' Notwithstanding this interference, I pro
ceeded to expose the prejudiced and partisan course of the
Society and its consequent loss of credit, concluding with a
motion for a committee to consider its past conduct and the
best means of extending its usefulness. The motion though
opposed at the time, was adopted. It is the report of that com
mittee which is now before you."
" This report, when offered to the Society, was first opposed
on grounds of form. It is now opposed on other grounds,
hardly more pertinent, though not of form only. Thus at
every step have honest efforts to elevate the character of the
Society, and to extend its usefulness, been encountered by op
position. Under the auspices of the Treasurer and Secretary,
the Society shrinks from examination and inquiry. Like the
sensitive leaf, it closes at the touch. Nay, more, it repels all
endeavor to wake it to new life. It seems to have adopted, as
its guardian motto, that remarkable epitaph which for more
than two centuries has preserved from examination and intru
sion the sacred remains of the greatest master of our tongue : —
" ' Good friend, for Jesus' sake forbear
To dig the dust enclosed here !
Blest be the man that spares these stones,
And curst be he that moves my bones ! ' "
In urging the adoption of a resolution, asking that a new
system should be adopted by the management of the Society so
as to enlist the co-operation of the individual members, Sumner
showed his entire want of appreciation of this management of
the Society. "Look at our grandiose organization," he said.

176 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
" We have a President with forty Vice-Presidents, — or borrow
ing an illustration from Turkey, 'a pacha with forty tails.'
Then we have a large body of foreign correspondents, whose
names we print in capitals, — ' fancy men ' as they have been
called, because they are for show, I suppose, like our Vice
Presidents. Then there are scores of Directors, and a Board
of Managers. Now I know full well, that of these very few
interest themselves so much in our Society as to attend its
sessions. At the meeting last year for the choice of officers
there were ten present. We ten chose the whole array of
Vice-Presidents and all. And then, too, the Secretary politely
furnished us printed tickets bearing their names and his own.
Certainly, sir, something should be done to mend this matter.
We must cease to have so many officers, or they must partici
pate actively in the duties of the Society."
"Look at our annual income. Notwithstanding the special
pleading of the Treasurer, I must insist that this is upwards of
$3,000." "But what does it accomplish? On looking at its journal
for the last three years, it appears that the chief business of the
Managers, who have met some three or four times in the year,
only has been to vote a salary of seventeen hundred dollars to
the Secretary, with fuel and rent for his office sometimes and
also to vote a vacation for four months in the country during
our pleasant summers."
So the debate ran on. It was about midnight of June 23rd
when it closed. Dwight was crushed ; but Eliot was as pompous
as ever. The audience, more interested in witnessing the con
test than in the vote, were beginning to leave, when an unex
pected motion to lay the question on the table prevailed; and
so the whole matter went over for that year. But the society
was discredited. It never held another public meeting. It con
tinued in existence for a few years longer, supported mainly by
Dwight's friends, to furnish him a livelihood and when he died,
it died with him. The officers recommended its dissolution for
the reason that no suitable successor to Dwight could be found.
Amusing as much of this controversy seems, it is important
as showing the earliest development of a strong point in Sum
ner's character. For the first time, he then showed his ability
to maintain himself in a sustained and heated controversy.
Save his studied addresses he had been enured thus far only to
books and friends, and an occasional decorous contest of the
court-room. But now for the first time was seen his ability to
give as well as take blows, in the free discussions of a delibera
tive body.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 177
Another good work that Sumner sought to promote about
this time, more nearly allied to his efforts against slavery, was
his effort to prevent colored children being longer excluded
from the white schools in Boston. With Robert Morris, a col
ored attorney, he brought suit for Sarah C. Roberts, a colored
child, against the city, for damages for refusing her the privil
eges of the white schools. The contest had been going on for
some years, in the School Committee, before it found its way
into the courts. Attorneys had submitted opinions upon the
question to the Committee, the newspapers had discussed it,
but the Committee was still divided.
It was urged that, as there were not so many colored as white
children, to require their separation was to compel the colored
to travel long distances, and often suffer other inconveniences,
to reach a school. In this case a little girl only five years old,
was compelled, if she attended a colored school, to travel 2,100
feet and pass on the way five white schools; while the nearest
white school was only 900 feet from her door. This was a
hardship that was not to be disregarded by the parents of a
child, so tender in years, during the severe winters of Boston.
Another instance was given of a respectable colored man of East
Boston, separated from the mainland by water and having no
colored schools, where he lived, who was compelled to pay the
ferry tolls for his three children, a severe tax upon the small
means of a poor man, and then see his children travel a long
distance in all kinds of weather, likewise a severe tax upon their
strength. And all this was done that children in a country
where schools were free, might enjoy the privileges of an edu
cation. Besides, it was urged that the separation degraded the
colored children and placed them under the ban of a caste, that
was alike unjust to them and contrary to the spirit of our in
stitutions. Sumner in opening his argument, before the Supreme Court
of Massachusetts, said " It would be difficult to image any case
appealing more strongly to the best judgment of the court,
whether you regarded the parties or the subject. On the one
side was the city of Boston, strong in wealth, influence, char
acter; on the other a little child of degraded color, of humble
parents and still within the period of natural infancy, but
strong from her very weakness, and from the irrepressible sym
pathies of good men, which by a divine compensation come to
succor the weak." This little child, he said, asked at the hands
of the court her personal rights. So doing she called upon it
to decide a question which concerned the personal rights of
other colored children — which concerned the Constitution and

178 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
laws of the Commonwealth, which concerned the common
schools of New England and likewise the Christian character of
the community.
Sumner then proceeded to make a careful argument in sup
port of his position. He insisted that the Declaration of Inde
pendence holding that all men are created equal was embodied
in substance in the bill of rights of the constitution of Massa
chusetts. He argued that this provision, of necessity secured
to all children of the State the same educational advantages,
that it was a violation of the fundamental law of the State for
the School Committee of Boston to fix just two primary schools
in that great city, where colored children might receive instruc
tion, while the city was dotted all over with schools for the
education of those of a more fortunate color. He then showed
that this declaration of the Constitution had been embodied in
the statutes of the State and the decisions of the Courts, that
within the language of all there was nowhere any room for the
discrimination that was being made. He dwelt upon the evil
results to follow the creation of an aristocracy by law. He made
his argument more a discussion of the intrinsic merits of the
question than is customary in arguments to a court, with a
view to its being read by the general public. It was some time
afterwards distributed as a tract in other states where an effort
was being made to abolish the discrimination against colored
children in the schools.
In closing, he reverted to his own experience, when at the
Law School in Paris, he had sat for weeks on the same benches
with colored pupils listening to the lectures of De Gerando and
Rossi and could see no feeling shown towards them except of
companionship and respect. And again at the Convent of
Palazzolo, on the shores of the Alban Lake in Italy, where
"amidst scenes of natural beauty enhanced by historical as
sociations," he had seen a native of Abyssinia mingle familiarly
with the Franciscan friars whose scholar he was. " Do I err,"
he asked, " in saying that the Christian spirit shines in these
examples ? "
But the court refused the relief sought and sustained the dis
crimination made by the School Committee. Sumner always
regretted that they thus refused the opportunity of establishing
a precedent upon the question of schools, as the court had al
ready done upon the subject of slavery. But five years later
the Legislature of Massachusetts advanced to the position Sum
ner had taken, by enacting a law declaring that race, color or
religious opinion should make no distinction in the admission
of any child to the public schools of the State and making the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 179
School Committee excluding a child, for such reason, from any
public school, liable to him for damages. And this has ever
since remained the law of Massachusetts. As in other instances
Sumner was now only in advance of the public.
For a member of the bar, a profession proverbially conserv
ative, he was singularly free from devotion to anything merely
because it was established. But it is probable that we should
now class him among reformers instead of among lawyers.
Much of his time was given to the reforms he had interested
himself in and he was much in the company of their advocates.
The law was fast losing its charms. William Kent, Judge
Story's successor in the Law School, and others of his friends,
remembering how enthusiastic he had been in his legal studies
aud what an ornament, one, of his literary tastes, had promised
to be to the profession, saw the change with regret and kindly
remonstrated with him about it. But he knew better than they
his reasons for it.
His success in the law had not met his expectations. He did
not often appear in court in the trial of cases. And his fees
were not large. It is estimated that his yearly earnings, in his
profession, did not exceed $1,000 to $2,000, a year, not more
than sufficient for his personal expenses, though boarding, with
out charge at the family home. What law business he did was
carefully done ; but it was mostly work in his office for clients,
who sought his advice or assistance in the settlement of es
tates and in making collections. These things he naturally felt
were beneath the deserts of one who had spent such years in
toilsome preparation as he had. It was galling to see young
men, of much less desert, but of more fortunate connections,
distancing him in the race for business.
His experience as a Lyceum Lecturer had been an attractive
one and his public addresses had been notably successful. They
opened up to him new fields of pleasure and usefulness and
were a new spur to his ambition. The delightful friendships,
the public recognition, the consciousness of a widened influence
and the hope of a larger fame, in this new field, were all unit
ing to draw him away from the law, a profession whose active
practice he had to confess had never been attractive to him.
At his office his friends still dropped in upon him and they
rarely found him too busy to spend an hour in discussing the
newest book or latest poem. He still spent his evenings at
home, reading far into the night, — so late as to draw from
Horace Mann, who was solicitous for his health, the remark
that he yielded obedience to all God's laws of morality, but
thought be was exempt from every obligation to obey his laws
of physiology.

CHAPTER XVI
ADMISSION OF STATE OF TEXAS  MEXICAN WAR  SUMNER'S OP
POSITION TO IT  NOMINATED FOR CONGRESS  DECLINES 
DELEGATE TO WHIG CONVENTIONS — SPEECH FOR ACTION
AGAINST SLAVERY  WHITTIER'S POEM, " THE PINE TREE "
 WINTHROP RE-ELECTED  CANDIDATES OF OLD PARTIES
FOR PRESIDENT UNSATISFACTORY  VAN BUREN NOMINATED
BY THE ANTI-SLAVERY PEOPLE  SUMNER A CAMPAIGN
SPEAKER  AGAIN NOMINATED FOR CONGRESS AND AGAIN
DECLINES  CHAIRMAN OF STATE COMMITTEE OF FREE SOIL
PARTY
On the 29th day of December, 1846, the State of Texas was
admitted into the Union, with a pro-slavery constitution. This
was another victory for slavery. It gave her two more votes in
the Senate and six more in the House. The friends of Freedom
had resisted, but in vain. Slavery was then dominant every
where. She had a submissive President and a well-trained
representation in both the Senate and the House. By a skilful
manipulation of the votes she could furnish, for the tariff and
the internal improvements desired by the North, and the ad
vantages in training, by reason of the longer terms of service
usually accorded her statesmen, she had a compact and efficient
organization for the advancement of her interests. Her repre
sentatives in Washington were frequently men of large property,
who had been accustomed to spend their summers on their plan
tations, with the easy life of country gentlemen and their win
ters in city homes, fond of society and pleasure, and everywhere
dispensing an easy hospitality. They frequently brought their
slaves to the capital and entertained handsomely and thus ruled
the society of Washington. To enjoy their favor was to have
social recognition in abundance, but their disfavor often made
life in the capital unpleasant. So far, the South had not ex
perienced political adversity. She knew what she wanted and
how to get it.
The consciousness of this power naturally made Southern
statesmen bolder. When they had added Texas as a new State
to the Union, they were not satisfied with her boundaries as
defined, by the river Nueces, but they coveted the country be
tween that river and the Rio Grande. United States troops,
180

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 181
under General Taylor, were sent to occupy it. Mexico resisted
this encroachment upon her territory and the Mexican War fol
lowed. Congress was asked to vote the necessary supplies and a
bill was promptly introduced which declared :
" Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of
war exists between that Government and the United States, —
"Be it enacted, etc., That for the purpose of enabling the
Government of the United States to prosecute said war to a
speedy and successful termination, the President be, and he is
hereby authorized to employ the militia, naval and military
forces of the United States, and to call for and accept the ser
vices of any number of volunteers, not exceeding fifty thousand,
and that the sum of ten millions of dollars be and the same is
hereby appropriated for the purpose."
This bill was passed by overwhelming majorities in both
Houses of Congress and was promptly approved by the Pres
ident. The administration was in favor of this defensive war.
But of the Massachusetts delegation in the House only two
voted for it, one of these was Robert C. Winthrop, who repre
sented Sumner's own district. He was a personal friend of
Sumner, about his own age, and they had known each other
from childhood. They had been at the Boston Latin School
together and together again at Harvard. After leaving
Harvard, their paths had diverged. Winthrop had been
elected to the State Legislature and later became Speaker.
Later still, he was sent to Congress and now he was a prospec
tive candidate for Speaker of the House ; coming thus early and
continuously to public life, with good ability and a fine pres
ence, he had developed into an able and graceful speaker. He
was descended from one of the Puritan Governors of the Colony
and living in a city where ancestry always counted for much,
he numbered among his friends and relatives many of the best
people of his district. As would be expected from these sur
roundings, Winthrop was an agreeable, companionable gentle
man. He was always careful to observe the amenities of life
and Sumner himself was indebted to him for many courtesies,
often met him in society, had dined with him in Washington
and was familiar in his home in Boston.
With his strong anti-slavery convictions, Sumner, however,
was chagrined at Winthrop's vote, on the Mexican War Bill.
He had publicly denounced the annexation of Texas as an un
just aggression of slavery. And now that we should be plunged
into a war, for the acquisition of the territory of a neighboring
friendly nation, and an offensive war too, which Sumner be
lieved to be wrong, was, as he felt, the perpetration of a national

182 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
crime. There was a considerable party of people in Boston who
felt as he did. Boston was the home of William Lloyd Garrison,
the leader of the anti-slavery men of the country ; and there he
published his paper, The Liberator, which advocated the_ aboli
tion of slavery, even at the sacrifice of the Union. Quincy, a
suburb of Boston, was the home of John Quincy Adams, who
had been sustained for years as the member for that district in
the House of Representatives, where almost alone he had defied
the slave-power and was now the recognized champion of Free
dom upon the floor. So that the anti-slavery movement in
Boston at that time had some strength and some ability to make
itself felt.
But still it must be admitted there was a decided majority of
the voters of Boston against it. Her seamen had a considerable
carrying trade with the South and her merchants had many
customers there. They felt that the interest of this trade and
the tariff which was to be regarded as an off-set in the North to
slavery in the South, both of which appealed to their pockets,
were to be placed above this merely moral issue. Daniel Web
ster was the ruling spirit and he, with such men as Nathan
Appleton and George Ticknor, intensely conservative, satisfied
with the present order of things, which guaranteed their su
premacy and opposed to any change, which might result in
bringing new men to the front, were still easily able to control
Boston. And so it was to continue yet awhile. But influences
were at work which were soon to bring about a revolution in
sentiment. The excitement following the declaration of war, caused Win
throp's vote to be overlooked, for two months after it was cast.
Charles Francis Adams, in the Whig, was the first to call atten
tion to it. It was then taken up by other papers and an ex
tended and somewhat acrimonious discussion followed, some
justifying it, and others condemning it. Sumner did not at
first enter into the discussion, but being pressed by his friends,
Adams and Howe, who knew from conversation, how he re
garded the vote, he took up the discussion and wrote three
articles, which were published anonymously, but whose author
ship he did not attempt to conceal from Winthrop.
On the 25th of October, 1846, Sumner addressed Winthrop
an open letter. He carefully disclaimed any feeling, other than
that of good will, mingled with recollections of pleasant social
intercourse with him and insisted upon discussing his vote
merely as an official act for which he was responsible to the
people who had elected him and whose Representative he was.
He also declined to discuss it, according to any scale of party

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 183
expediency, but only asked whether it was Right or Wrong. He
argued that Congress alone had power to declare war and that
without the passage of this act, which his vote sanctioned, the
war could have no legal existence, that it was thus created and
legalized and the means were thus furnished to continue an un
just and cowardly attack by a strong nation upon a weak one,
merely with intent to rob it of its territory. He insisted that
the preamble of the law, reciting that " by the act of the
Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists," was a " brazen false
hood, and that, through him, his constituents were made to
declare unjust and cowardly war, with superadded falsehood,
in the cause of slavery." To Winthrop's apology that he simply
voted with the majority of the Whigs, Sumner answered
"These majorities cannot make us hesitate to condemn such
acts and their authors. Aloft on the throne of God, and not
below in the footprints of a trampling multitude, are sacred
rules of Right, which no majorities can displace or overturn."
He insisted that the rules of right and wrong are the same for
nations as for individuals and that as Winthrop would not lie,
in his private life, so he ought not by his official vote to involve
his constituents and his country in falsehood. He appealed to
him to remember that he represented the conscience of Boston
and the churches of the Pilgrims and urged him upon his return
to Congress to lose no time in righting the wrong he had com
mitted. " It were idle to suppose," Sumner wrote, " that the soldier
or officer only is stained by this guilt. It reaches far back and
incarnadines the Halls of Congress; nay, more, through you,
it reddens the hands of your constituents in Boston." Again :
" Blood ! Blood ! is on the hands of the Representative from
Boston. Not all great Neptune's ocean can wash them clean."
These expressions were especially offensive to Winthrop. He
insisted that his vote had been conscientiously given and that it
was unfair to employ such language towards him. He declined
any further communications with Sumner and refused his hand,
saying : " his hand was not at the service of any one who had
denounced it with such ferocity, as being stained with blood."
Coining, as all this did, on the eve of Winthrop's re-election, it
was freely discussed as one of the issues in the campaign. The
canvass of his votes and speeches in Congress, where they
touched upon the slavery question, gave him a disagreeable
prominence. Winthrop was a sensitive man and in his speeches
in the campaign resented Sumner's action and referred to his
strictures in no complimentary terms. The affair caused a com
plete rupture of their friendly relations and for fifteen years

184 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
they did not speak or even recognize one another when they met.
Each pursued his own way upon the question of slavery and it
is curious to note with what results.
During his absence upon a lecturing tour in Maine, Sumner
was nominated for Congress. The feeling against Winthrop
among anti-slavery men had become so strong, that they would
not vote for him. It could do no good and would show no more
consistency to vote for either of the other candidates, the
Democrat or the Independent. Besides anti-slavery men felt
that the time had come for them to act independently of the
old parties and unite, as a separate organization, upon the one
issue of slavery. A meeting was held in Tremont Temple on
the evening of October 29, 1846. It was called to order by Dr.
Howe. Charles Francis Adams was elected President and John
A. Andrew, afterwards the War Governor of Massachusetts was
chairman of the committee to propose a candidate and draft
resolutions. Sumner when privately approached had repeatedly refused
to allow the use of his name as a candidate. Besides his un
willingness to enter public life he did not desire his criticism of
Winthrop to be weakened, by the imputation that it was inspired
by an unworthy ambition for his place. Mr. Andrews made a
speech before the meeting, in support of the nomination, in
which he said : " this nomination has been made upon the entire
responsibility and sense of duty of this committee, — not only
without the knowledge, approbation, or consent of Mr. Sumner,
but in the face of his constant, repeated and determined refusal,
at all times, to allow his name even for a moment, to be held at
the disposal of friends for such a purpose." They felt, how
ever, that Sumner was the logical candidate and they hoped to
overcome his scruples against standing for the place. But
Sumner was determined; and upon his return from Bangor,
two days later, by an open letter, he declined to allow the use of
his name ; and that of Dr. Howe was substituted.
At the Whig primary in 1846, Sumner was chosen one of the
delegates from Boston to the State Convention. The Conven
tion was held in Boston. A caucus of the Boston delegation was
held at the United States Hotel, the evening preceding the Con
vention, at which the differences between the older and younger
Whigs became apparent. The older leaders desired that there
should be no split in the party and urged that the delegation
should stand together, in the convention, for a platform which
would put forward the old issues of the tariff and internal im
provements and keep back those of slavery and State rights,— a
platform which would be broad enough to unite both wings of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 185
the party, North and South. The younger Whigs believed that
the moral issues were of paramount importance and should be
put forward.
The same difference appeared in the Convention, the next
day. It had been arranged that after the business of the Con
vention had been transacted about which there was little con
troversy, the selection of officers and candidates, that Robert C.
Winthrop should introduce the other business, that of drafting
the platform, in a carefully prepared speech, counselling mod
eration and an adherence to the landmarks of the party. But
the younger Whigs, advised in advance of this programme, be
fore Winthrop could be brought forward, called loudly from
different parts of the hall for Sumner. He responded to the
call and advanced to the platform and spoke earnestly upon the
anti-slavery duties of the Whig party, urging the Convention
not to lose sight of the great responsibilities of the hour, but to
act firmly and take high ground upon the question of slavery.
When Sumner stopped, Winthrop followed him, with his speech
as previously arranged and showed some feeling in his manner,
towards Sumner.
By this time the committee on resolutions, which had retired
before the call was made for Sumner, was ready to report.
Its report was not satisfactory to the anti-slavery Whigs and
an amendment was offered by Stephen C. Phillips, embodying
their views. In offering his amendment he supported it by a
brief speech, which was answered by Linus Child, and he was
in turn replied to by Charles Francis Adams, all showing some
feeling. Each of the speeches was loudly applauded by their
respective supporters. By this time the convention was in an
uproar and bid fair to disband in confusion. Lawrence, Win
throp and Child were seen in anxious consultation, and imme
diately Fletcher Webster left the hall. He soon returned and
after a whispered conversation, Lawrence went out.
In a few minutes Lawrence was seen, returning with Daniel
Webster on his arm. The sight of the aged statesman with his
marvelous presence and manner, such as perhaps no other man
ever had, around which was now gathered the halo of his great
name, was enough to set a Whig convention in Boston wild with
enthusiasm. On the arm of Lawrence, Webster walked slowly
up the' aisle the whole length of the hall, to the platform. The
delegates mounted upon their seats, waving their hats and
handkerchiefs and shouted themselves hoarse. It was a scene
long to be remembered.
The debate upon the amendment to the platform ceased upon
the appearance of Mr, Webster. When he reached the stage

186 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
and took his seat, after order was restored, the debate was
resumed. But the fate of the amendment was already sealed.
His appearance at the decisive moment, with Mr. Lawrence,
whose opposition was already known, Mr. Webster's own views
upon the necessity of a union of all the Whigs, so often ex
pressed and emphasized, something in his manner now, which
told where he stood, the encouragement it gave the opposition
and the embarrassment it caused the supporters of the amend
ment, were too much. Besides, the country delegates were
compelled to leave, to catch the trains for their homes. This
operated against the anti-slavery men, for they were generally
in favor of the amendment, while the Boston delegates, a large
proportion of the Convention, were generally opposed to it.
And the amendment was lost.
Mr. Webster, thus far, had not spoken a word. But after the
vote was taken, he made a short speech to the Convention and
again aroused it to the highest enthusiasm. He urged the im
portance of a union of all the Whigs, saying : " Others rely on
other foundations and other hopes for the welfare of the
country ; but for my part, in the dark and troubled night that
is upon us, I see no star above the horizon promising light to
guide us, but the intelligent, patriotic, united Whig party of
the United States."
Sumner had referred to Webster in addressing the Conven
tion and had urged him to espouse the cause of Freedom, and
add the title of Defender of Humanity to the other titles he
had already earned — Defender of the Constitution and De
fender of Peace, — assuring him that he would thereby add to
the fame that was already his. Two days later he addressed Mr.
Webster a letter in which, after expressing his high regard for
him, he again pressed him to declare himself against the ag
gressions of the slave power. To this letter, ten days later,
Mr. Webster replied that he had ever cherished a high respect
for Sumner's character and talents and had seen with pleasure
the promise of his future eminence, but confessed that in politi
cal affairs they entertained a difference of opinion and took a
different view of the line of duty most fit to be pursued.
John G. Whittier, on the other hand, after reading the report
of Sumner's speech and the other proceedings of the Conven
tion, sent him his poem, " The Pine Tree," in autograph.
" Lift again the stately emblem on the Bay State's rusted shield,
Give to Northern winds the Pine Tree on our banner's tattered fields ;
Sons of men who sat in council with their Bibles round the board,
Answering England's royal missive with a firm " Thus saith the Lord "
Rise again for home and freedom ! — set the battle in array ! 
What the fathers did of old times we their sons must do to-day."

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 187
'Tell us not of banks and tariffs — cease your paltry, pedler cries, —
Shall the good State sink her honor that your gambling stocks may rise?
Would you barter man for cotton ? That your gains may sum up higher,
Must we kiss the feet of Moloch, pass our children through the fire?
Is the dollar only real? — God and Truth and Right a dream?
Weighed against your lying ledgers must our manhood kick the beam?
* * * Where's the man for Massachusetts? Where's the voice to apeak
her free?
Where's the hand to light up bonfires from her mountains to the sea?
Beats her Pilgrim pulse no longer ? Sits she dumb in her despair? —
Has she none to break the silence ? Has she none to do and dare ?
0 my God! for one right worthy to lift up her rusted shield,
And to plant again the Pine Tree in her banner's tattered field ? "
Little did Whittier then see the future of the young man he
addressed and how fully he was to realize, in him, the wish of
that hour !
But it was too early then for any one to see far into the future
upon the question of slavery. The election came. Winthrop
had 5,980 votes; Howe only 1,334; Homer (Democrat), 1,688;
Whiton (Independent), 331. The issue which Winthrop repre
sented and the fight made against him by the anti-slavery men,
attracted to him a good many votes from the Democrats, who
had no chance of electing their candidate, and he was trium
phantly elected. The large vote he received was an apparent
vindication of his vote on the Mexican War bill as well as his
record upon the slavery question. Sumner's efforts to the con
trary seemed futile.
But the end was not yet ; and the subsequent careers of Win
throp and Sumner present a curious contrast in the anti-
slavery contest. Winthrop, in 1847, was a candidate for
Speaker of the House and his course in Congress and in the
last campaign having satisfied the Southern wing of his party
he was elected, though the anti-slavery Whigs, Giddings, Pal
frey and Tuck voted against him. Two years later he was again
returned to Congress and was again a candidate for Speaker
and was again opposed by the anti-slavery Whigs, now increased
in number to nine; but this time he was defeated by Howell
Cobb of Georgia, the candidate of the extreme pro-slavery men.
In July, 1850, Winthrop was appointed by the Governor of
Massachusetts to fill the vacancy in the Senate caused by the
resignation of Daniel Webster; and he was a candidate for
the full term succeeding, but was defeated. In 1851, he was a
candidate for Governor and was again defeated. There his
political career ended.
He had favored the annexation of Texas, with a pro-slavery
constitution, had voted for the Mexican war and had supported

188 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
it, he had refused to assist in excluding slavery from the Ter
ritories and favored President Taylor's policy of non-interven
tion, he had approved the course of Webster in his seventh of
March speech and had fought the efforts of the anti-slavery
men of Massachusetts to check the encroachments of the slave
power. They had come to regard him as the leader of the pro-
slavery influence of the State and they therefore marked him
for defeat. They triumphed in the election of Sumner to the
Senate and Winthrop's official career ended where Sumner's
began. Sumner's ended with his death.
Winthrop lived till 1894 and maintained his reputation to the
end as a refined and scholarly gentleman. Being an accom
plished speaker, he was frequently called upon to deliver ad
dresses upon commemorative occasions. As a lecturer, he also
gained a wide reputation and in Boston was ranked second only
to Wendell Phillips. But he was not, after 1851, known as a
factor in politics. He spent the balance of his life devoted to
literature and scholarly pursuits.
In January, 1847, Sumner argued before the Supreme Court
of Massachusetts, an application for a discharge, made by some
volunteers, in a regiment enlisted for the Mexican war. The
regiment was organized, upon the proclamation of the Governor
of Massachusetts, under the act of Congress authorizing the
President to call for 50,000 volunteers. The application for
discharge was made on behalf of some minors, who repented
their too hasty enlistment. It was based upon the unconstitu
tionality of the Act of Congress, and the question whether a
minor is bound by a contract of enlistment. Sumner argued
earnestly, and especially desired the court to hold, that the act
was unconstitutional, but the court, while deciding the case in
favor of his clients, placed its decision upon the ground of the
minority of the applicants.
To give expression to their feeling and, if possible, to enlist
public sentiment with them, the opposition in Boston to the
war, called a mass meeting, to be held in Faneuil Hall, on
February 4, 1847. They urged the withdrawal of the United
States troops from Mexico. The speakers were Sumner, James
Freeman Clarke, John M. Williams, Theodore Parker, Elizur
Wright and Walter Channing. They were young men and some
of them afterwards became famous. But the men who were
older and were recognized as leaders in Boston were not there.
Some of them were pro-slavery in their sympathies and favored
the war ; others while questioning the justice of it, did not care
to antagonize the popular enthusiasm which our victorious army
had aroused. The meeting did not prove a very enthusiastic

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 189
one. The speakers were repeatedly interrupted by persons in
the audience, some recognized as volunteer soldiers, who tried
to drown their voices. Sumner's speech was mainly a parallel
between the condition of our people in the war for independ
ence and that of the Mexicans in the present war, — a train
of thought which he afterwards enlarged upon in some other
addresses. However dark the prospect had so far seemed to the friends
of freedom in Boston, they were not disposed to be discouraged.
They had at least the consciousness of a good cause. Their in
terest in politics was not prompted by a desire for office, but by
an abiding conviction that slavery was wrong and a blot upon
the fame of their country that should be removed. They there
fore persevered.
On the 5th of September, 1847, Sumner attended the primary
of the Whigs in Washingtonian Hall, Boston, for the choice
of delegates to the State Convention. He introduced a series
of resolutions declaring the Mexican war one of aggression and
conquest and therefore a national crime and rendered more
hateful, as seeking to extend and strengthen the slave power;
and that for the sake of the constitution which it violated and
the treasure which it wasted and the innocent lives which it
cost, our troops should be at once recalled. They declared
against the acquisition of any more territory and insisted
that if any more was acquired, slavery should be forbidden in
it. Sumner, Charles Francis Adams and J. S. Eldredge spoke
in favor of them ; James T. Austin and William Hayden against
them. A motion to lay them on the table finally prevailed. It
was too soon for the Whigs of Boston to be thus frank upon the
question of slavery. But the name of Sumner was placed at the
head of the list of delegates to the State Convention chosen at
the primary.
The Whig Convention was held at Springfield on September
29. Daniel Webster was present and addressed the convention
and a resolution was adopted indorsing and recommending him
to the National Convention as a candidate for President.
While this resolution was pending, John G. Palfrey moved an
amendment to it, that the Whigs of Massachusetts would sup
port no man for President or Vice-President, who was not
known by his acts and declared opinions to be opposed to the
extension of slavery. Webster, as was already well known, was
hedging upon this question and seeking for the vote of both
wings of the party. But this amendment was not aimed alto
gether at him. It was the outcome of a conference among the
anti-slavery Whigs, who felt aggrieved at the Southern mem-

190 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
bers of the party, who would not support any one for office who
was not known to be favorable to slavery. The anti-slavery men
hoped by pursuing the same course to secure concessions to
themselves or at least to show the futility of undertaking to
longer unite two such discordant elements. Palfrey, Sumner,
Charles Francis Adams, William Dwight and Charles Allen
spoke in favor of the amendment and Winthrop and John C.
Grey against it. The amendment was lost.
Sumner closed his speech to the convention, full of earnest
ness, with these words : " Be assured, sir, whatever the final de
termination of this convention, there are many here to-day who
will never yield support to any candidate for the Presidency or
Vice-Presidency, who is not known to be against the extension
of slavery, even though he have freshly received the sacramental
unction of a ' regular nomination.' We cannot say with delect
able morality, ' our party right or wrong '. The time has gone
by when gentlemen can expect to introduce among us the disci
pline of the camp. Loyalty to principle is higher than loyalty
to party. The first is a heavenly sentiment, from God; the
other is a device of this world. Far above any flickering light
or battle lantern of party is the everlasting sun of Truth, in
whose beams are the duties of men."
Sumner was disappointed at the vote of the convention. It
was taken late in the evening, when the light in the hall was not
good ; and though the amendment was declared lost, there were
some who questioned the correctness of the count. The " Con
science Whigs," as the anti-slavery members of the party were
now called, left the convention dissatisfied and debating what
course to pursue, some were for submitting, others for bolting.
Sumner was for some months in correspondence with Thomas
Corwin of Ohio, whose vigorous speech in the United States
Senate, in opposition to the Mexican war, met his hearty ap
proval. He desired an organized, independent movement of
anti-slavery men of all parties and favored the nomination of
Corwin for President.
Corwin himself at first favored independent action. But by
October, 1847, he had changed his mind and was back in the
ranks of the Whig party to stay and to uphold its waning for
tunes to the end. He was growing old and had been an orator
of rare power and dramatic talent. His efforts in Congress and
on the stump had gathered around him multitudes of admirers
in the party. They had honored him with a seat in Congress,
the Governorship of Ohio and the seat in the Senate he now
occupied. These were high places; and he could not find
it in his heart to break these associations of a lifetime. Who

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 191
would now blame him for it! He was afterwards Secretary
of the Treasury, a member of Congress and Minister to
Mexico. It was left to younger men, of fewer political attach
ments and perhaps of sterner mould, to bear the brunt of the
fight that was now opening. Sumner regretted the defection of
Corwin from them, as well as the failure to establish an anti-
slavery test for office in the Whig convention.
It was left to the great parties to compel, by their action, a
break with the anti-slavery forces. The Democrats in Balti
more, in May, 1848, nominated Lewis Cass for President, who
had lately by his vote against the Wilmot Proviso given satis
factory evidence to pro-slavery men of his loyalty to them. The
Whig convention met in Philadelphia, in June, and nominated
Zachariah Taylor, himself a slaveholder and the successful
general of the Mexican war. How could anti-slavery men con
scientiously vote for either? Webster had few votes and no
chance of the nomination at Philadelphia. The nomination of
Taylor was a foregone conclusion, but when it came it caused
a scene in the convention. Charles Allen and Henry Wilson of
Boston, both delegates, as soon as the result was announced,
arose in the convention and, amid great confusion, declared
they would not support the candidate. Wilson insisted that
Taylor did not represent the sentiment of the party and that he
would do all he could to defeat the ticket. The declaration was
met by a storm of hisses, but it found some approving spirits, in
the convention as well as out of it.
That day's work gave birth to the party that destroyed
slavery. The new movement was at first known as the Free
Soil, and afterwards as the Republican, Party. The dissatisfied
Whigs, anticipating what was likely to, and really did happen,
in the nomination of Taylor had prepared in advance a call
for a mass convention of persons of all parties who were dis
satisfied with the nomination of Cass and Taylor to meet at
Worcester, on June 28, and take such action as the occasion
demanded and to co-operate with the other Free States in a
convention for the same purpose. Charles Francis Adams'
name stood first of those who signed this call and Sumner's
next. Sumner was active in procuring speakers and making
preparations for the convention. As many as five thousand per
sons assembled at Worcester in answer to the call and the City
Hall, where they had arranged to meet, being too small to ac
commodate them, they adjourned to the Commons. Samuel
Hoar of Concord was made chairman and Dr. Howe one of the
vice-presidents, and Allen, Wilson, Joshua R. Giddings, Chas.
F. Adams, Sumner and E. Rockwood Hoar, were among the

192 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
speakers. The speakers were all deeply in earnest and united
firmly in renouncing former party ties and in favoring the
nomination of candidates for President and Vice-President,
to represent those who were opposed to the extension of
slavery. Sumner's speech was short. He dwelt upon the power that
the advocates of slavery had acquired in our polities. He re
minded them that the great men of our Revolution had all
deplored the evils of slavery and that the Constitution had
placed it where it was believed to be in the course of ultimate
extinction. But it had not been extinguished. It was reaching
out for more territory out of which to make more slave States.
It was insisting that it should be legalized in places where it was
supposed to have been forever excluded. It had proposed a new
test for office, that would have excluded Washington, Jefferson
and Franklin from the public service, placing its ban on every
one, who dared to pronounce it wrong. It had lately, he re
minded them, dictated to both parties their nominees for Pres
ident. Sumner especially deplored the combination which had
accomplished the ' nomination of Taylor, " an unhallowed
union — conspiracy, let it be called — between two remote sec
tions : between the politicians of the Southwest and the politi
cians of the Northeast — between the cotton planters and flesh-
mongers of Louisiana and Mississippi and the cotton-spinners
and traffickers of New England, — between the lords of the lash
and the lords of the loom." He argued that the triumph of
either party would be a victory for slavery and insisted that the
only course left for anti-slavery men was to nominate a ticket
of their own and thus the slave power would be confronted with
the power of freedom.
" But it is said," he exclaimed, rising to his full height, " 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 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. It helps
to strengthen the weak, — to arm the irresolute with proper
energy, — to animate all with devotion to duty, which in the end
conquers all. Fail ! Did the martyrs fail, when with precious
blood they sowed the seed of the church ? Did the discomfited
champions of Freedom fail, who have left those names in his
tory that can never die ? Did the three hundred Spartans fail,
when in the narrow pass, they did not fear to brave the innu
merable Persian hosts, whose very arrows darkened the sun?
Overborne with numbers, crushed to earth, they left an ex-

LltfE OF CHARLES SUMNER 193
ample 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 outnumbered the champions of Freedom. But where is it
written that Slavery finally prevailed ? "
The convention adopted resolutions and an address to the
people, and chose six delegates at large to the National Conven
tion, called to meet at Buffalo on August ninth. Charles
Francis Adams headed the list of these delegates. Delegates
were afterwards chosen to represent each congressional district.
R. H. Dana was chosen in Sumner's district, Sumner was not a
delegate but concurred, in the choice of Dana to represent his
district and of Adams as their State representative. He was a
cordial and enthusiastic worker in the cause, unselfish in his
devotion to it and loyal in the support of his friends. He, how
ever, attended the convention at Buffalo and was pressed to
speak but declined.
Salmon P. Chase was the chairman of this convention and
Joshua R. Giddings, David Dudley Field, Preston King and
Samuel J. Tilden were among the delegates. It was an un
usual gathering. It lacked in large measure, the place-seekers
and the customary scrambling for office, while an unaccustomed
religious air pervaded many of its meetings, showing that more
than usual, the people of principle and men who would repre
sent principle were there.
Martin Van Buren was nominated for President and
Charles Francis Adams for Vice-President. No question could
be made of the sincerity of Adams. But there was some doubt
of the real purpose of Van Buren in joining the movement
and accepting the nomination. He had already filled the office
of President and had well earned the distinction of being one
of the shrewdest politicians the country had produced. This
new move proved again his title to this distinction. Daniel
Webster appreciated the situation, when he said, a few weeks
later : " If Van Buren and I were to find ourselves together
under the Free-Soil flag, I am sure that with his accustomed
good nature, he would laugh. . . . That the leader of the
Democratic party should so suddenly have become the leader
of the Free-Soil Party would be a joke to shake his sides and
mine." But it was not altogether a joke with Van Buren. Cass was
now the candidate of the Democratic party, — the party Van
Buren had so often guided to victory. Between Van Buren and
Cass there was an old grudge. Cass had allowed himself to be
received upon his return from the Ministry to France in 1842,

194 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
with great popular demonstrations, as a candidate for Pres
ident ; and in the Democratic convention of 1844, had allowed
himself to be voted for by the pro-slavery wing of his party,
who were seeking to punish Van Buren, also a candidate, for
opposing the annexation of Texas, and who did accomplish his
defeat, by the nomination of Polk. Besides, the Van Buren
faction of the New York Democracy had sent a contesting
delegation to the Baltimore convention that nominated Cass and
if admitted their votes could have defeated him. Afraid to
exclude them entirely, for New York, with her large electoral
vote, could decide the election, — the convention had offered to
admit both delegations, with an equal division of the vote. But
the Barn-Burners, as Van Buren's wing was called, who repre
sented the New York anti-slavery Democrats, had spurned this
proffered compromise and returned to their homes. The
Hunker wing had remained, but afraid of the effect of their
votes in the election, if it should be said that they had nom
inated Cass, they refrained from voting and his nomination was
made without the participation of New York.
The Van Buren wing, upon their return home, had issued a
call for a State convention to be held at Utica on the 22d day
of June. But before this day came, the widespread dissatis
faction, with the candidates of both parties and the call for
the Buffalo convention of August ninth had absorbed the atten
tion of those who were dissatisfied and all other movements were
merged in that. Sumner had preferred Corwin or Webster as
the candidate and Judge McLean had been approached, but each
after dallying with the movement, had drawn away from it.
But Van Buren, seeing an opportunity to square some old
accounts had expressed his willingness to stand. He was sup
ported by the compact organization of the New York Barn
burners and was nominated. Sumner, frank of nature him
self, was ready to take men at their word and welcome new
recruits to a good cause from every side. He heartily accepted
the result.
On the evening of August twenty-second, he presided at a
meeting in Faneuil Hall to receive the report of the delegates
to the Buffalo convention and to ratify the nominations. On
taking the chair he made a brief speech. He said that the meet
ing was in the interest of Freedom whose cause was in danger,
that the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence
were assailed and that a body of men whose principles were un
known to the framers of the Constitution, the slave power, had
seized the government and now controlled both parties, that
Whigs and Democrats were but rival factions of one party — the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 195
slave party, that at Baltimore the delegations of the most im
portant State of the Union known to be in favor of the Wilmot
Proviso had been refused admission to the convention, while at
Philadelphia the Proviso itself was stifled amid cries of " Kick
it out," that Cass was nominated at Baltimore, pledged against
its whole principle, while at Philadelphia, Taylor, a slave
holder, was nominated without any platform; but at Buffalo
men of all parties united in opposition to slavery. In speaking
of the candidates, he said that some like himself had once voted
against Van Buren, the Democrat, and he regarded some
portions of his career with anything but satisfaction, and that
others of those present had doubtless voted against Adams, the
Whig, but that these differences were forgotten now. " Time
changes," he said, " and we change with it. He has lived to
little purpose, whose mind and character continue through the
lapse of years, untouched by these mutations. It is not for the
Van Buren of 1838 that we are to vote, but for the Van Buren
of to-day."
Sumner took an active part in the campaign, speaking at the
principal places in Massachusetts, beginning at Plymouth. He
gave one week to Maine and, though he was invited to take part
in the campaign in other States and to speak in New York,
Philadelphia and Brooklyn, he declined. His speech ordinarily
occupied three hours in the delivery and though it was some
times past midnight when he closed, he kept the attention of
his hearers to the end. Contemporary chroniclers are uniform
in their testimony of the beauty and winning power of the
speech. Though his cause was not popular, in the twenty-eight
places that he spoke in Massachusetts, he was never rudely in
terrupted, but once, and this was at Cambridge, the scene of so
many pleasant associations of his youth, where a considerable
sprinkling of students from the South and from the aristocratic
and conservative families of Boston, reflected their home sen
timents. Here he was interrupted with some yells and hisses.
But he met them promptly and by singling out and shaming the
ringleaders, he quelled the disturbance. The sounds grated
harshly on the refined and sensitive ears of Longfellow, who
was present and thought he saw the loss of Sumner to the
literary career he had coveted for him.
Others saw it differently. To them it was the appearance of
a new man, in the political arena, representing a new party.
He was estimated to be the ablest speaker of his party and
widened his fame as an orator. His addresses so far had been
before colleges or societies for the promotion of some reform,
or in lecture lyceums, where privileged classes of superior

196 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
culture had heard him. But now he came before tbe plain
people of his State. Others, perhaps, like Charles Allen, who
was elected to Congress from the Worcester district, drew larger
numbers of converts to the cause. This was owing to the re
moteness of the influence of Webster and of aristocratic Boston,
where party lines were more sharply drawn. And something
must be granted to Sumner even in Worcester, for he spoke
there in the convention and in the campaign. But by common
consent he drew the most admiration and won the first place in
the estimation of his party.
In October Sumner was nominated for Congress in the First
Massachusetts district. He was not present at the convention,
but had authorized a delegate, if his name was mentioned as a
candidate, to publicly announce his declination to accept any
political office. Notwithstanding, he was nominated by ac
clamation and the committee in notifying him of it, urged that
a political crisis had come which called upon every man to
forego his personal wishes. He accepted the nomination in a
letter dated October 26, 1848. Referring to his own wish he
said: " The member of the convention who spoke for me, at my
special request, did not go beyond the truth. I have never held
political office of any kind, nor have I ever been a candidate
for any such office. It has been my desire and determination
to labor in such fields of usefulness as are open to every private
citizen, without the honor, emoluments or constraint of office."
" You now bid me renounce the cherished idea of my life,
early formed and strengthened by daily experience, especially
by circumstances at the present moment. In support of this
request you suggest that a political crisis has come which calls
upon every man to forego his personal wishes. Upon serious
deliberation, anxious to perform my duty, I feel myself unable
to resist this appeal. In my view a crisis has arrived, which
requires the best efforts of every citizen, nor should he hesitate
with regard to his peculiar post. Happy to serve in the cause
he should shrink from no labor and no exposure."
The Presidential election took place on November seventh.
In Massachusetts, Taylor had 61,072 votes ; Van Buren 38,133
and Cass 35,284. By dividing the Democratic vote, the Free-
Soil party had made Taylor's success easy. In New York
where the electoral vote was much larger and the issue conse
quently much more important, the same result was brought
about. Taylor had 218,603 votes; Van Buren 120,510 and
Cass 114,318. The vote of New York controlled the election
and Taylor won. The Whigs of that State, both pro- and anti-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 197
slavery, mistrusted Van Buren. They had fought too many
battles with him to be easily cajoled. William H. Seward, who
possessed the unbounded confidence of the anti-slavery men,
on the stump, seconded by Horace Greeley, in the editorial
chair, with Thurlow Weed to organize the campaign, made a
combination perhaps never equalled; and they fought a most
earnest fight for General Taylor. But while Van Buren, as he
was shrewd enough to anticipate, could get few Whig votes, he
hopelessly divided his old companions in victory, the Demo
crats, defeated Cass and squared one of his political accounts.
He was then ready to return to his first love and ever after, to
the day of his death, in 1862, continued a consistent Democrat.
The election in Massachusetts for State officers and members
of Congress took place the week after the Presidential election.
Little time remained for farther work. Sumner had been made
chairman of the State Committee of the Free-Soil party. Two
days after the Presidential election he prepared, and the com
mittee adopted, an address to the voters of the State. After
congratulating them upon the fact that almost 40,000 had de
clared their adhesion to their party and that they were not now
the third party, he urged them in the next election, by greater
efforts, to make themselves the first. " Ours is the cause of
truth, of morals, of religion, of God. Let us," he wrote, " be
united in its support ! ' A stout heart, a clear conscience, and
never despair.' These were the last words addressed in writing
by John Quincy Adams to a person deeply interested in our
movement." The address urged them to apply these words to
themselves. It was signed by Sumner as chairman, and by the
other members of the committee; and it is interesting to note
among the names of these members of the committee, then
mere politicians for the sake of principle; J. A. Andrews,
afterwards War Governor of Massachusetts; John G. Whittier,
the poet ; E. Rockwood Hoar, later a Congressman ; and Amasa
Walker, the Political Economist.
Sumner's nomination for Congress had been, as he himself
expressed it, "like a forlorn hope." The party had been or
ganized only six months before the election. Until the Presi
dential election, the estimate of the vote it would poll could be
little better than conjecture. The large vote it received, with
the older politicians and political speakers working against it,
with their compact organizations, and only the younger men
in its favor, and they little known to fame or influence, showed
how strong a dislike there was among the plain people to the
principles and bullying attitude of the slave power. In the two
great States of New York and Massachusetts, it had a larger

198 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
vote than the Democratic party. In Sumner's district, it poled
at the Presidential election 1,909 votes as against 8,427 for
Taylor and 2,997 for Cass. This was in conservative Boston.
But in the week following, these figures were materially
changed. At the Congressional election then held, Sumner
increased the vote of his party from 1,909 to 2,336, a fact
which showed something for his personal influence and popu
larity. Winthrop had 7,726 and Hallett 1,460. Winthrop was
elected ; but Sumner was second.
The election of 1848 had a great influence upon the political
fortunes of the country. Prior to that time, there had been a
great deal of discussion of the slavery question, both in Congress
and before the people. Many good people had deplored the
existence of slavery and by constant agitation had done what
they could to arouse public sentiment against it. But till now
there had been no organized political movement against it, no
independent effort, when the people were squarely appealed to,
by their votes to curb its power. Always before, this feeling of
opposition had been hushed up with threats of disunion, or so
complicated with other issues that the anti-slavery question
was hardly recognizable. But now, for once, Freedom had ob
tained a hearing and the people had spoken with emphasis, and
it was found how considerable a number of voters was ready to
join a party under this battle-cry alone. Its success gave a
bolder tone to its voice and confidence to its advocates. Hence
forward it was to be a distinct force in politics, becoming con
stantly more powerful till it finally triumphed.
For Sumner the influence of the election was no less decisive.
He could be fairly said to have earned the title of leader of the
party in Massachusetts. True, there was Charles Francis
Adams, who had been the candidate for Vice-President on the
ticket with Van Buren. But he was the editor of The Daily
Whig, and his duties had confined him to his paper. And there
was Charles Allen, of Worcester, who had been carried into
Congress on the top wave of the movement. But Sumner's
fame as a speaker had outreached all the others. And his chair
manship of the committee had brought him into prominence
and into intimate relations with the workers of the party. The
people liked the fearlessness, the earnestness, the absence of
self-seeking and the high moral tone of the man. The move
ment was partly a rebellion against the leadership of men in
politics, who, in their care for themselves and the offices gave too
little heed to the needs of their constituents and the rights of
humanity. Sumner was more according to their ideal than the
men they had been supporting for high places.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 199
He was honest. This was the tower of his strength. He
made it the rule of his life to see where the right lay and then
pursue it. And he voiced the sentiment of many good people
when he wrote on July 6, 1849: "The National Government
has been for a long time controlled by Slavery. It must be
emancipated immediately." He hailed the promise now of a
North which would spurn the " mockery of a Republic with
professions of Freedom on its lips, while the chains of slavery
clanked in the Capitol."
As chairman of the State Committee of the Free-Soil party,
Sumner called the State Convention to order in Worcester on
September 12, 1849. He had arranged for speakers to address
the convention. Among them were Charles Francis Adams,
Charles Allen, Anson Burlingame and Edward L. Keyes.
Stephen C. Phillips, of Salem, was nominated for Governor.
He was a wealthy merchant who had previously been a Whig
and had been sent by his party to Congress. John Mills, for
merly a Democrat, of Springfield, was nominated for Lieuten
ant-Governor. Sumner was made chairman of a committee to
report an address and resolutions, to be published to the people
of the State, setting forth the principles and purposes of the
party. The committee was composed of one member from each
county of the State. John G. Whittier was the member from
Essex. Sumner prepared the address and read it to the convention.
It occupied more than an hour in the reading. It was an
elaborate and carefully prepared vindication of the principles
of the Free-Soil party. It insisted that the old political issues
of the Bank, the Sub-treasury, the Public Lands and even the
Tariff were all obsolete. Quoting from both Clay and Polk,
the leaders of their respective parties, he showed that both
Whigs and Democrats occupied the same ground upon the
Tariff and that Webster for the Whigs, and Walker for the
Democrats, were both pleading for its withdrawal from the list
of issues, so that the industries of the country might not further
suffer from the uncertainty caused by its discussion; that the
great issue now was, Are you for Freedom or are you for
Slavery? He regretted that we had drifted away from the
sentiment of the great men who had achieved our independence
and organized our government, and that from being anti-
slavery we had now become a pro-slavery nation. The address
then enumerated the usurpations of the slave power :
The Slave States were far inferior to the Free States, in
population, wealth, education, libraries and resources of all
kinds, and yet they had taken to themselves the lion's share of

200 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
honor and profit under the Constitution. They had held the
Presidency for fifty-seven years, while the Free States had
held it for twelve only.
Early in the century, when the District of Columbia was
occupied as a National Capital, the slave power succeeded in
defiance of the spirit of the Constitution and even of the express
words of one of its amendments,, in securing for slavery, within
the district the countenance of the government. Until then
slavery existed nowhere on land within the exclusive jurisdic
tion of the nation.
It secured for slavery another recognition in the Territory
of Louisiana, purchased from France.
It placed slavery under the sanction of the government in
the Territory of Florida, purchased from Spain.
It was able, after a severe struggle, to compel the government
to receive Missouri into the Union with a pro-slavery con
stitution. It instigated and carried on a war in Florida, mainly to
recover fugitive slaves.
It wrested Texas from Mexico to extend slavery and finally
secured its admission as a State with a constitution making
slavery perpetual.
It next plunged the country into a war with Mexico to gain
new lands for slavery.
It compelled the government to refuse to acknowledge the
republic of Hayti, where slaves had become freemen and had
established an independent nation.
It compelled the government to stoop before the British
queen to secure compensation for slaves who had asserted and
achieved their freedom on the Atlantic Ocean and afterwards
sought shelter in Bermuda.
It compelled the government to seek the negotiation of
treaties for the surrender of fugitive slaves.
It joined in declaring the foreign slave trade piracy, but in
sisted upon legalizing the coast-wise slave trade.
It had rejected for years petitions to Congress against
slavery, thus denying the right to petition.
It had imprisoned and sold into slavery colored citizens of
Massachusetts. It had insulted and exiled, from Charleston and New Or
leans, the representatives of Massachusetts, who were sent to
those places as commissioners of the State to protect her colored
citizens. In the formal dispatches of John C. Calhoun, as Secretary

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 201
of State, it had made the Republic appear as the vindicator of
slavery. It had put forth the doctrine that slavery could go to all
newly acquired territories and have the protection of the flag.
In defiance of the declared desire of the Fathers to gradually
extinguish slavery, it. had successively introduced into the
Union, Kentucky, Tennessee, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
Missouri, Arkansas, Florida and Texas as slaveholding States
to fortify its political power and make the government lend it
new sanction.
By such steps, he argued, the national government had been
perverted from its original purposes, its character changed and
its power subjected to slavery. This should not have been per
mitted to befall a government nursed by Freedom into strength
and quickened by her into those activities which are the highest
glory of a nation.
The Address then asked the question, Shall slavery be ex
tended into the territories of California and New Mexico and
they be admitted as slave States ? It insisted that a direct pro
hibition by law was necessary to prevent this. It defined the
position of the Free-Soil party towards these accumulated and
threatened aggressions — that it was pledged to the prohibition
of slavery in the Territories and wherever else the national
government was responsible for it, that the District of Colum
bia was national territory and must be cleared of it, that the
nation must be made to stand openly, actively and perpetually
on the side of freedom and that while it might have no power
to abolish it in the States where it already existed it should
be made to step to the very verge of its authority in this direc
tion. This, with cheap postage, the Address added, and an
economical administration of the government, abolishing un
necessary officers and electing the others, as far as practicable,
by the people, the improvement of our rivers and harbors and
free public lands, enough for homes for actual settlers, were
the principles of the Free-Soil party.
The Address was violently attacked by the Daily Atlas and
other Whig papers of the State. In one issue the Atlas ques
tioned a statement of the Address that Washington had de
clared his sympathy with the work of the Anti-slavery Societies
and that in any movement for the abolition of slavery his vote
should not be wanting. Sumner, then in New York, wrote in
reply to the denial of the truthfulness of these statements, an
open letter, quoting numerous writings of Washington to sus
tain his position. The attitude of the press towards the Free-
Soil party and its advocates had been peculiarly personal. The

202 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
increasing circulation of the Whig, the anti-slavery organ,
edited by Charles Francis Adams, which Sumner had assisted
in establishing and to whose columns he was a frequent con
tributor, was disturbing the older papers, as the large vote of
the Free-Soil party was disturbing the Whig politicians. They
referred to Sumner, Adams and Palfrey as "The Mutual
Admiration Society," " Charles Sumner & Co." Sumner they
called " a transcendental lawyer," Palfrey was " Judas,"
Adams, "a political huckster," etc. This bitterness of the
Whigs naturally made political combinations between the Free-
Soilers and Democrats easy.
The State was Whig in politics. This party had, therefore,
everything to lose by a change in party lines, as then existing.
The Democrats, on the contrary, had everything to gain and
hence were willing to let events take their course and even help
along dissensions among the Whigs. In the election of 1849
therefore, the most important feature was the combination
made between the Free-Soilers and Democrats. They elected,
in this way, thirteen Senators and one hundred and thirty
Representatives, in the State. The Free-Soil vote of the previ
ous year had been kept well up and the results secured were
suggesting to thoughtful men that these combinations could
be made useful in the future.

CHAPTER XVII
FRIENDS DROPPING AWAY  THE CAUSE  EFFECT ON SUMNER —
NATHAN APPLETON, ABBOT LAWRENCE, THE TICKNORS
GONE  BUT NOT LONGFELLOW, HOWE, BANCROFT, PRES
COTT. KENT  NEW FRIENDS
The years from 1845 to 1S50 were eventful ones in the
private life of Sumner. Judge Story was dead and with him
was gone one of the strongest ties that bound Sumner to Har
vard and the quiet student life of his youth and early man
hood. Professor Greenleaf was in failing health. He resigned
his professorship in 1S4S and died in 1853. Their places in
the Law School were filled. The old, familiar faces about the
college were disappearing and new ones were taking their
places. Sumner felt the distance between him and Cambridge
increasing. The friends of his own age were changing also. Their paths
were diverging. Most of them were not interested in slavery
and were not willing to go to the lengths upon this subject that
he went. They thought him extravagant and visionary, in his
views. He was too much of an idealist for their practical eyes.
The subject which occupied so much of his time and thoughts
was distasteful to them, slavery was unpopular in the circles
where they moved and they did not wish to be compromised
with it. It was far away from them, out of their sight and
they knew little and cared less about it, while the good will of
their own community brought bread and butter to them and
their families and was much more important.
Sumner's controversy with Winthrop about his vote on the
Mexican war bill has already been mentioned. It alienated
many of his friends. He and Winthrop, being young men, of
about the same age, always living in Boston and educated
together, had many mutual friends. But Winthrop had the
advantage of Sumner, in this : he was the member of Congress
and controlled the appointments to the Federal offices in his
district. This naturally attached a wide circle to his interest.
Sumner had no political prestige, except such as in a private
station, his talents gave him. The controversy in the papers
was long and acrimonious and was renewed in their speeches.
On the part of Winthrop it became personal. Sumner was care-
:?03

204

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

ful not to allow it to be so on his part. He wrote his brother
George, still in Europe, that if he met Winthrop, who was ex
pected in Paris, he should not allow it to make any difference in
his treatment of him, that he had no feeling towards Winthrop
personally, but of kindness, and would not if it were otherwise,
wish his relatives to take up his controversy.
John Quincy Adams died in Washington during the progress
of the controversy. When the aged statesman was stricken
with paralysis in his seat in the House, Winthrop being Speaker,
had him carried to the Speaker's room, where he lay till he
died, two days later. With his abounding courtesy, Winthrop
was unremitting in his care of him and offered many civilities
during the progress of the funeral to the friends. Charles
Francis Adams, the son, could not forget this. He had till
then been the editor of The Whig and had written some
caustic criticisms of Winthrop's vote, but touched with this
kindness and occupied with the settlement of his father's affairs,
he felt he could no longer take part in the controversy and
soon gave up the management of the paper. During the
interval between his father's death and his retirement from
The Whig, some two months, Sumner edited the paper. He
was urged to become the permanent editor, but declined.
Palfrey and Howe, who had taken some part in the criticism
of Winthrop, had long before disappeared from the controversy,
and on the retirement of Adams, Sumner was left alone to end
it and to inherit the accumulated ill-will reserved for the last
champion of the fight. Having entered it reluctantly and only
after it had been commenced by others, and upon their solicita
tion, he had received more than his share of the ill-feeling it
engendered. When later he went into the movement to organize the Free-
Soil party and appeared upon the stump, championing its cause
with all the earnestness he did, he touched Boston society at
another tender point. He was striking at the success of the
Whig party and around it gathered much in which Boston took
a just pride. The massive eloquence of Daniel Webster and
his great career as a statesman ; the more ornate, if less power
ful oratory of Choate and Winthrop and Everett ; the charming
society of George Ticknor and his accomplished wife (he had
been Minister to Spain) ; the accumulated capital of the Boston
merchants and manufacturers in their commerce with the cot
ton planters of the South; the youth and beauty, the best
society and the pleasantest homes, for a quarter of a century,
had gathered about the Whig party. It had given offices and
honors to her citizens. There is no surer way to cause a separa-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 205
tion of pleasant lifetime acquaintances than to join and persis
tently advocate a new political party, hostile to one that has
long held sway in a community. Sumner had dared to do this
and he encountered the customary storm.
He did it fully realizing the consequence to himself. " I do
not say that I can," he wrote his brother George, "but I do
strive in what I do, to think as little as possible of what others
may think of it and of its influence on my personal affairs. In
such a mood, criticism unfavorable and hostile, neglect and
disfavor, lose something of their sting. What is it to an earnest
laborer, whether one or ten societies recognize him by their
parchment fraternization, or whether reviews frown or smile?
And yet it cannot be disguised that praise from the worthy is
most pleasant and that all tokens of kindly recognition are valu
able. But it is not for these that we live and labor."
And a little later, just after the election of 1848, he wrote
George again : " You will see that the Free-Soil party comes out
second best; it is no longer the third party. I have spoken a
great deal, usually to large audiences and with a certain effect.
As a necessary consequence I have been a mark for abuse. I
have been attacked bitterly; but I have consoled myself with
what John Quincy Adams said to me during the last year of his
life : ' No man is abused whose influence is not felt.' "
But strive against it as he would, Sumner realized his isola
tion. He had no wife and no children to occupy Mis thoughts
or afford him relaxation. His home was with his mother, who
was growing old and lived very quietly. It was not convenient
for him to entertain his friends there. In the years following
his return from Europe, he had been a general favorite and
was much sought for in society, and with his social disposition
he had become accustomed to pleasure and relaxation. He was
fitted to be a good fellow, was not ascetic in his tastes, enjoyed
good fare and was not averse to a glass of wine. He was a
good talker and having travelled much and read more could
sustain his part in company. To feel that he was cut off from
many of the homes where he had been so welcome before, bore
heavily upon his sensitive nature. Riding one day in a car
riage with Richard H. Dana, Jr., down Beacon Street, one of
the centres of Boston's best social life, he said sadly : " The
time was when there was hardly a home within two miles of
this place, at which I was not a welcome guest. Now hardly
one is open to me." Dana, too, had felt the burden of social
ostracism, but being surrounded by an interesting family, it
bore less heavily upon him.
The " Five of Clubs " was now little more than a memory.

206

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

Cleveland having died in 1843, Howe had taken his place, but
its members, save Sumner, were all married and had families.
They had no regular meetings. Each was absorbed with his
own work ; Howe with the Asylum for the Blind, Felton and
Longfellow with their professorships. Hillard and Sumner oc
cupied offices together at Number Four, Court Street; but
there was a want of the old cordiality between them. Hillard
had come under the influence of the Tieknors. But there had
been no break. When he went to Europe, in 1847, he left
his will with Sumner and wrote him an affectionate farewell, in
which he referred to their happy relations of other years and
admitting they had not been so cordial of late and had differed
in politics, he begged Sumner not to remember it unkindly, that
he had been subjected to other influences and, at most, it was
only an honest difference of opinions, to which each was en
titled. " I have never loved you the less," he added, and * * *
" I write these words for you to think upon in case we should
never meet again." But upon his return Hillard took other
offices. Sumner and Felton differed radically. Felton did not
undertake to conceal his disapproval of Sumner's course in
politics; and they parted.
One of the houses where Sumner had long been intimate
was that of Nathan Appleton, a distant connection by mar
riage. He was a wealthy merchant, the father-in-law of Longfellow,
had repeatedly represented Boston in Congress and was a man
of considerable influence. But he was an uncompromising
Whig and ready to follow where his party led. He had been a
loyal friend of Sumner till his controversy with Winthrop, but
took offense at that and again at the statement in Sumner's
speech at the organization of the Free-Soil party in Worcester
in 1848, that Taylor's nomination had been the result of a
conspiracy between the lords of the lash of Louisiana and the
lords of the loom of New England. Seeing the drift of Sum
ner's course in the controversy with Winthrop and before, he
had at first sought to win him back. " I have regretted," he
wrote, " your course the last two years but more in sorrow than
in anger. I have regretted to see talents so brilliant as yours
and from which I had hoped so much for our country, take a
course in which I consider them worse than thrown away." But
after the Worcester speech, considering the reference to the
" lords of the loom " to be partly to himself, he desired a retrac
tion of it. He called upon Sumner to produce the proof to
sustain such a charge ; and he did. An acrimonious letter from
Mr. Appleton followed, which terminated their friendship.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 207
In defending the language of the Worcester speech, Sumner
had referred to a conversation with Abbot Lawrence, at his
house, before the Philadelphia convention, in which Mr. Law
rence had expressed himself to him as favorable to Taylor's
nomination and had said that he did not think Webster could be
nominated, or, if nominated, could be elected and had named
other prominent Massachusetts Whigs, among them Nathan
Appleton, who were of the same opinion; and that Mr. Law
rence had permitted and promoted the use of his name as a
candidate for Vice-President on the ticket with Taylor, and all
the while Webster was being held up as the candidate of the
State for the nomination for President. During the campaign,
Sumner had also made use in his speeches of a letter of Law
rence, who was a prominent manufacturer, another of the
" lords of the loom " to prove that the tariff was not the cause of
the existing depression in business. Lawrence had authorized
The Atlas to say that Sumner had perverted the language
of the letter and Sumner called upon him for an explanation.
All this angered Lawrence and he wrote him a caustic letter,
in which, without undertaking to give the explanation Sumner
had asked, he proceeded to condemn Sumner's Worcester speech
and his course upon the slavery question. " I could name," he
wrote, " scores and scores of men whom you have honored your
whole life who regret and condemn the course you have taken."
And again, after the election, to an overture of Sumner for a
renewal of their friendship, he wrote: "You and I can never
meet on neutral ground. I can contemplate you only in the
character of a defamer of those you profess to love, and an
enemy to the permanency of the Union."
The evidence shows that Sumner was right in believing
there was an arrangement among some of the Massachusetts
Whigs to nominate Lawrence for Vice-President on a ticket
with Taylor and thus ignore Webster, who was the ostensible
candidate of the State. Lawrence was voted for, and it was
thought would have been nominated, but for the defection of
Henry Wilson and Charles Allen of the Massachusetts delega
tion, who, it will be remembered, both arose in the convention,
after Taylor's nomination was announced and declared it did
not represent the Whig party, and Allen added that he would
do all he could to defeat the ticket. So John Tyler was nomi
nated for Vice-President and Massachusetts got nothing. But
after the election Lawrence was made Minister to England. I
think, however, in this sweeping charge of disloyalty to Web
ster some men, like Rufus Choate were included who were en
tirely innocent. Webster felt his defeat keenly and the guilty

208 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
as well as the innocent regretted the incident. The discussion
of it, however, was calculated to produce intense feeling and
do little good.
Among others that it offended were the Tieknors. They were
very loyal to Webster and hesitated to believe that any one in
Massachusetts could be otherwise. They regretted that his last
days were to be embittered by the thought that his friends were
untrue to him. They were leaders in the society of Boston and
exerted much influence in determining who were to be received
in their set. Their loss was a severe one to Sumner. George
Ticknor had been a professor in Harvard, was the author of a
History of Spanish Literature, had travelled much and was
wealthy. His wife was a brilliant woman. Both were fond of
society and they entertained a great deal. Their home was the
centre of the kind of society that Sumner enjoyed, where books
and art and public men and measures were discussed and what
was refined and gentle held sway. They united with others to
carry politics into society. It so resulted that Sumner was
almost banished from the social life of Boston for a number of
years. Feeling became so great that if he went into society, he was
likely to meet with persons, who by turning their backs upon
him, by cold looks and slighting remarks, often purposely loud
enough for him to hear them, and by such other annoyances,
made it so unpleasant that he did not care to go again. The
young people of Boston at that time were accustomed, if they
danced, or even if they did not, but enjoyed a social gathering,
to meet at some public hall for an evening's enjoyment. But
the social pressure became so great that Sumner gave this up
too. Even when his friends invited him to smaller and
more select parties, to avoid the unpleasant meeting of persons
who would not speak, they were obliged to choose the company
he was to meet, with care.
But party feeling, warm as it became, was not able to control
the social life of some homes where Sumner was familiar.
Notable among these was Longfellow's. Though Longfellow's
wife was the daughter of Nathan Appleton, who had shown so
much feeling towards him on account of his deflection from
the beaten path, Sumner's habit of taking Sunday dinner at
the Craigie House, their home in Cambridge, going thither
after church and remaining for a social chat of two or three
hours, suffered no interruption. The occupants of the Craigie
House were far too high in their ideals to let a political differ
ence control their friendships. Sumner continued, as before,
to take his European friends, when in Boston, there to call,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 209
and when they had invited company that they knew he would
enjoy, they did not hesitate to make him one of the number.
Through all the years their friendship continued the same, till
terminated by death, and it impresses us still as one of the
most beautiful friendships in history.
That with the Howes continued unbroken. They were in
complete sympathy with Sumner's political course. And at
their apartments in the Asylum for the Blind, Julia Ward,
now Mrs. Howe, presided with the same grace that had exerted
so strong a charm over Sumner's earlier years. There he found
pleasant society to which he was always one of the most wel
come. In her girlhood she was, it will be remembered, one of
the " Three Graces ", and the sentiment of those days, when
the colors of life's picture were brightest, clung around her
still with softening tints as the struggle became more stern and
lonely to him. She was an accomplished musician and her
husband's earlier career had been full of interest. Sumner
delighted to spend an evening with them and thus break the
solitude of his bachelor life.
The awakening of Sumner's taste for music belongs to this
time of his life. He had resorted to the opera a good deal in
earlier years, in company with his sister Julia. When cut off
from society he found a new pleasure in it. It seemed, as he
expressed it, as if he had found a new sense. He went very
frequently and did not often let an opportunity go unimproved
to hear a prima donna. He never became a musician himself,
but he was very fond of music. In Washington, at any unusual
musical entertainment, when his Senatorial duties would per
mit, his place was seldom vacant. It became a common source
of recreation to him.
During the long winter evenings he plunged into his books
and read late into the night. Some of his friends remonstrated
that such hours, as he kept, must result in breaking down his
health. But he confessed to them that he felt lonesome. They
were happy in their homes with their wives and their families,
while he was deprived of this source of pleasure. He admitted
that he envied them the happiness they enjoyed. They rallied
him about remaining single, and he enjoyed this raillery, in fact
seemed rather to encourage it; but the old excuse remained,
he did not think his income sufficient, his mother needed his
company; and perhaps his thoughts wandered tenderly back to
other days when, with a kindlier fortune, a happiness such as
these nearer friends enjoyed might have come to him.
One of the homes he most enjoyed was that of George Ban
croft, the historian. He was a Democrat and hence did not

210 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
have the feeling of his Whig friends, whose party was being
split up with dissensions about slavery. It will be remembered
that up to this time, the anti-slavery Whigs had been making
combinations in Massachusetts with the Democrats so as to
help one another with their elections. Bancroft and his wife
were interested in the slavery discussions and were fond of
Sumner. He frequently spent an evening at their house and
watched the progress of the History of the United States, upon
which Bancroft was engaged, reading the proofs of the volumes
before their publication. He did a similar service for Long
fellow and Prescott. Mrs. Bancroft was a kind, motherly
woman to whom Sumner was much attached. But Bancroft
went to Europe in 1846, as Minister to England. Sumner cor
responded with them and enjoyed their letters. They cautioned
him not to be too extreme in his political views and discussed
them with his European friends, who were eager for news of
him. But Sumner had in turn to correct the erroneous impres
sions of some of his English friends, which they seemed to have
received from the Bancrofts.
Lord Morpeth wrote him not to be quixotic, even in so right
eous a cause, and Sumner in answer wTote that his position was
simply that "the Federal Government should make all legal
and constitutional efforts for the removal of this monster evil,"
but he was careful to add, that he was not one of those who at
tacked the Constitution and the Union and would destroy both
to destroy slavery. He reminded Morpeth that he was not in
good standing with the Abolitionists, because he fell so far
short of their views, but admitted that he could not see with
complacency this curse unchecked in its career in his native
land. He urged Morpeth to jar Prescott a little, who seemed
to be so indifferent about it.
Morpeth did not enjoy letter-writing, yet he was still loyal to
Sumner and seemed to take an almost brotherly interest in his
success. But Sumner's correspondence with European friends
was not so frequent as it had been. He had an occasional letter
from Lady Montagu, who still maintained her kindly interest
in him. Richard Cobden, Robert Ingham, Joseph Parkes,
John Kenyon and Professor Whewell also wrote him occasion
ally from England; Professor Mittermaier and Dr. Julius
wrote from Germany; George W. Greene from Rome, others
as Earl Fitzwilliam and Earl Wharncliffe, commended their
friends to him by letters of introduction, when they were about
to visit Boston. They all showed their continued friendly in
terest, reminding him of their pleasure in his former visit and
hoped he would come to Europe again. And he took pleasure

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 211
when they or their friends were in Boston in taking them to
such homes of his friends as Longfellow's and Prescott's.
Prescott like Longfellow never allowed politics to interfere
with his friendship for Sumner. But, unlike Longfellow's,
his view differed radically from Sumner's. He belonged to the
intensely conservative class then numerous in Boston and, in
deed, generally in the North, who while admitting slavery was
wrong, still insisted it was none of their business, that it be
longed to the South and it was her duty to destroy it, that the
North had suffered too much disturbance on account of it al
ready. Prescott and Longfellow both had summer homes, out
of the city and Sumner was in the habit of visiting at both.
He and Prescott occasionally took a trip together — to Wash
ington and to New York. Prescott being unable to write by
reason of his defective sight, Sumner then acted as his sec
retary. Their relations were too pleasant to be disturbed by
politics, for which Prescott confessedly cared little.
And some, other than Sumner's literary friends, refused to
participate in the disposition to cut him for his politics. Of
these was William Kent, the son of Chancellor James Kent of
New York. They appreciated him for other reasons and would
not let this one flaw, as they considered it, destroy their ap
preciation of so much beside, that they saw good in him. Kent
was for two years after the death of Judge Story, a lecturer in
the Harvard Law School, the place Sumner had once coveted;
and while there he and Sumner had formed a lasting friend
ship. He left Cambridge in 1847, but continued to correspond
with Sumner. He called him, in one of his letters, his " warm
hearted, but politically considered, most erring friend," ad
mitted the generous and noble motives in his career and tried
to reclaim him to the Whigs. But Sumner was not to be re
claimed. He was too firmly convinced he was right and felt
hurt that Kent should have thought so lightly of his convic
tions. Kent answered: "Rightly considered, what I wrote was
proof of esteem, like Parson Thwackum's birching of Tom Jones.
Had you been an ordinary philanthropist, a common abolition
ist, a mere ranting patriot, like some of your friends, I should
never have troubled myself about you. * * * Now, my dear
Charlie, believe that you have a most affectionate friend in me.
I will fret and carp no more. Ride your hobbies all over the
cote gauche. I will get out of the way when the fit is on you,
and always be, yours truly and faithfully."
It argues something for Sumner's decision of character that
he was able to see one friend after another drop away from

212 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
him, or criticise his course as wrong, and still go calmly on to
the accomplishment of his great purpose, sinking all thoughts
of himself and of his own comfort, in the attainment of what
he had dedicated himself to accomplish. He loved the society
of his friends and he was sensitive to the slights that were
thrust at him, but he was bent on doing his duty as he saw
it, and for this he was willing to put aside other considerations,
waiting for a later time to bring him the plaudit that he
thought would follow. "To the motto on my seal, ' Alteri
saeculo '," John Quincy Adams had written him, " add,
Delenda est servitus ". Unlike Adams, Sumner lived to see
the service for another generation become the work of his
own. While Sumner lost many friends, by his political course he
also gained some new ones. It brought him into close relations
with John Quincy Adams, whose warfare for freedom was draw
ing to a close. He had retired from the Presidency in 1829,
sixty-two years of age, a time in life when most men consider
their life work done and their laurels gathered. But Adams
the next year accepted a seat in Congress and there for eighteen
years he worked out the greatest part of his career. He had
occupied the highest office in the gift of his country, his fame
was secure, his position with his constituents in the Quincy
District was also secure and so without ambition and without
fear, the Scylla and Charybdis of so many political careers he
was left, with great ability and with unparalleled industry to
devote himself to the anti-slavery cause. It can truly be said
that no slave-holder ever held the whip over him. His atten
tion was first attracted to Sumner by his oration on " The
True Grandeur of Nations ". But it was after Sumner en
listed in the anti-slavery cause that they became intimate.
From that time to the close of his life, Sumner saw and con
versed with him frequently, during the vacations of Congress,
when at his home in Quincy.
Some of this intimacy was brought about by Sumner's as
sociations with his son, Charles Francis Adams. He was four
years Sumner's senior. They had known each other for a
long time but their intimacy sprang from their activity in the
anti-slavery campaigns. They, with others, had purchased a
Boston newspaper, The Whig, that they might have a
means of reaching the public. The editing of this paper
brought them much together. Sumner was a frequent con
tributor and the controversy with Winthrop, on his part, was
carried on through its columns. In the absence of Adams,
Sumner was its editor. They were thus brought closely to-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 213
gether and a similarity of tastes resulted in a lasting friend
ship and compensated Sumner for the loss of other friends. It
was fruitful of great results to both. Adams was instrumental
in placing Sumner in the Senate ; and it was largely on Sum
ner's recommendation that Adams became Minister to Great
Britain, during the Civil War, in which position he gained a
lasting fame. The Adams family was the most prominent one
in Massachusetts and while not distinguished for some popular
traits, their marked ability, their industry and their sturdy
honesty, with the prestige of their history, made their influence
at the time an important one.
Another friend who came to Sumner in the same way was
Henry Wilson. This friendship too was lasting. From 1855
to 1873, Wilson was Sumner's colleague in the Senate. From
a poor boy, the son of a farm laborer, apprenticed first to a
farmer and then to a shoemaker, by name Jeremiah Jones
Colbait, which he had changed to Henry Wilson by the Legis
lature, he arose through successive grades to the second place
in the Republic. He was elected Vice-President on the ticket
with Grant. He had been a member of the Legislature and a
State Senator and was now one of the foremost champions of
the anti-slavery cause. He had gone out of the convention,
offended at the nomination of Taylor and promptly joined the
Free-Soil Party and became Chairman of its State committee,
in 1849, to succeed Sumner. He was the editor of a Free-Soil
paper, the Boston Republican, from 1849 to 1850, and in 1851
he was the unsuccessful candidate of the party for Congress
and in 1853 the unsuccessful candidate of his party for Gov
ernor. The mere statement of these facts shows how close his
course lay to Sumner's and how firm their friendship was.
Prominent among Sumner's new friends should be mentioned
Joshua R. Giddings, for twenty years the Representative in
Congress of the North-east Ohio district and next to John
Quincy Adams, the greatest early champion of Freedom in the
House. Adams had said to Sumner, as he lay on his sick bed in
Quincy, after he was stricken with the paralysis that later, at
Washington, closed his life, that he looked to Giddings with
more interest than to any other member of the House. Sum
ner had sent Giddings a copy of his oration on " The Scholar,
the Jurist, the Artist and the Philanthropist." Giddings ac
knowledged it in a complimentary letter, the first that passed
between them. Sumner met him first, at the convention to
organize the Free-Soil Party, held in Worcester in 1848, where
they both spoke and again when Giddings came to Boston to

214 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
attend the funeral of John Quincy Adams. It is a curious
fact that ostracism on account of his political creed was carried
so far in the House, that Giddings was denied a place on the
Congressional committee to attend the remains of his venerable
colleague to their last resting place, though they had together,
bravely and almost alone, for many years, borne the storm of the
unpopularity of the anti-slavery cause in the Capitol. But he
went privately to pay his debt at the grave of his friend. From
this time until Gidding's death in 1864, he and Sumner, when
not together in Washington, maintained a cordial correspond
ence. Until his election to the Senate, Sumner relied on him
for information of what was transpiring at Washington and
asked his advice about political movements at home.
Such were some of Sumner's more intimate new made
friends, but by no means all of them. He was also making a
wide circle of acquaintances in his campaign work, among the
members of his party, in the places where he spoke; and his
chairmanship of the State Committee of the Free-Soil Party in
1848, contributed largely to the same result. He had thereby
of necessity become acquainted with the leaders of his party
in every county of the State. This acquaintance was often
slight, but such persons coming to Boston, frequently dropped
into his office and a passing acquaintance often ripened into
a lasting friendship. Such anti-slavery men as resided in Bos
ton often brought him business, as well as their good will. It
was so in the case of the Adams family.
But, generally speaking, his politics did not contribute to
his professional success. Clients who furnish the most business
are not usually much engaged in politics, especially politics
of his kind, that furnished no material advantage and was be
sides unpopular. They could easily see that Sumner's thoughts
were not absorbed with his law office and he did not get the
business because they thought it would not receive his best
attention. With feeling running against the anti-slavery men
in Boston, some thought to gratify their dislike, by inaugu
rating a systematic boycott against the members of the unpopu
lar party. They withheld from them their own business and
sought to influence others to do likewise. The prominence of
Sumner in the party, made him a shining mark for their dis
like. His professional income at this time was not more than
sufficient for his own personal expenses, and they were mod
erate, — only the ordinary expenses of an unmarried attorney,
with a modest office and a summer's vacation.
Sumner devoted much of his time in 1850 to an edition of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 215
his Speeches and Addresses which was published in Boston in
two volumes. A third volume, of more recent addresses, in
cluding his speech on the Crime against Kansas was issued in
1856. Before their publication he made a careful revision of
them.

CHAPTER XVIII
THE COMPROMISE OF 1850  WEBSTER'S SEVENTH OF MARCH
SPEECH  THE ELECTION  COALITION OF FREE-SOILERS AND
DEMOCRATS  SUMNER A CANDIDATE FOR SENATOR  THE
LONG CONTEST — SUMNER ELECTED  HIS ACCEPTANCE OF
THE OFFICE
The year 1850 was an eventful one for Massachusetts.
Henry Clay had been returned to the United States Senate, in
the hope that he might present some measure that would pacify
the constantly rising animosity between the North and the
South and he again established his right to be called "the
great pacificator". The territory that we had acquired by
the war with Mexico and out of which the South had hoped
to gain more slave states had proved a disappointment to that
section. The discovery of gold in California had caused a
large influx of population, mostly from the North into this
part of the newly acquired territory. It was now seeking ad
mission with a constitution prohibiting slavery. This had an
gered the South. Clay introduced a series of resolutions to
pacify this feeling. They provided for the admission of Cali
fornia, without slavery, and as the North had been insisting
upon the prohibition of slavery in all the territory acquired
from Mexico, a second resolution provided governments for
this territory without prohibition or permission of slavery, — a
concession to the South. Another concession to the South was
the allowance of $10,000,000 to Texas in aid of the payment
of her debt. As a counter concession to the North, the slave-
trade, — the buying and selling but not the holding of slaves —
was to be prohibited in the District of Columbia. As an off
set to this, a law for the apprehension of fugitive slaves was to
be enacted. As proposed, it had two provisions in it that were
especially obnoxious to the North ; first, it provided no trial by
jury of the right of the alleged slave to his freedom, and, sec
ond, it allowed the U. S. commissioner, who had the sole power
of deciding upon his right to freedom, a fee of Ten dollars in
case of a conviction and only Five dollars, if freed, thus offer
ing the judge a bribe for conviction.
At the beginning of the session Robert C. Winthrop, of Bos
ton was defeated, as has been mentioned in his race for the
216

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 217
Speakership of the House by Howell Cobb, of Georgia. Cobb
was elected by a plurality, but not by a majority of the vote
cast. This was the first time that a speaker had been so
elected; and, by anti-slavery men it was regarded as another
encroachment of the South. As the Session wore away the
people watched with new interest the debate on the compromise
measures. One after another of the leaders of the section had
spoken, — Clay and Cass, Benton and Douglas, Jefferson Davis
and R. M. T. Hunter, John P. Hale and William H. Seward,
Thos. Corwin and Salmon P. Chase. These were great men and
they have a permanent place in history. One incident gave
the debate in the Senate a dramatic interest. John C. Calhoun,
the veteran champion of the South was passing away. He
prepared his last set speech, on these resolutions and attempted
to deliver it on March fourth, but his strength failed and he
had to have it read for him. Within a month he was dead.
New England waited for the voice of Daniel Webster. She
had waited for it often, to lift her head in triumph after he
had spoken. He had never spoken otherwise than for free
dom, from the time when he had bid the distant generations
hail and farewell at Plymouth Rock and hurled his bolts at the
South in his reply to Hayne, down to this hour. He was by
conviction and training a religious man. Some of the most
effective passages in his orations had been spoken when he
paused in the course of his argument to make some graceful
acknowledgment of the obligations of religion and of the
wisdom and goodness of God. Once, at least, in the Girard
Will case, he had appeared as the champion of the Christian
ministry and his argument had become a classic. How could
New England believe that he would now prove false to these
pledges ! First came intimations that he was hesitating in his
lifelong course, that he was dallying with slavery and that
he was not right upon the Compromise. The few who heard
the report did not believe it. But on the seventh of March,
1850, he delivered the speech that has ever since been known
by the date of its delivery and has made that day memorable.
While from a literary standpoint, it is one of the least inter
esting of all his speeches, the reproach it has brought upon its
author has made it one of the best known. The worst fears of
the friends of freedom were realized.
The speech coming from some of the extreme pro-slavery
men of the South would not have attracted attention. But
Webster had deliberately said that all Christendom was " bound
by everything which belonged to its character and to the
character of the present age, to put a stop to this inhuman

218 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
and disgraceful traffic." How could New England believe that
Daniel Webster who had spoken so decidedly upon this question
and who had never abated one jot of his deliberately formed
opinion would now say:
" There are thousands of religious men, with consciences as
tender as any of their brethren at the North who do not see
the unlawfulness of slavery, and there are more thousands,
perhaps, that, whatsoever they may think of it in its origin,-
and as a matter depending upon natural right, yet take things
as they are, and, finding slavery to be an established relation
of society in which they live, can see no way, in which, let their
opinions on this abstract question be what they may, it is in
the power of the present generation to relieve themselves from
this relation. And candor obliges me to say, that I believe they
are just as conscientious, many of them, and as religious
people, all of them, as they are at the North who hold different
opinions." In this same speech, he said: "I wish it to be distinctly
understood that according to my view of the matter, this Gov
ernment is solemnly pledged, by law and contract, to create new
States out of Texas, with her consent, when her population
shall justify and call for such a proceeding, and, so far as
such States are formed out of Texas territory lying south of
36° 30', to let them come in as slave States. That is the
meaning of the contract which our friends the Northern Democ
racy, have left us to fulfil; and I for one mean to fulfil it,
because I will not violate the faith of the Government."
He then proceeded to prove the proposition that all the
territory of the United States was irrevocably fixed as free or
slave, — part of it by the pledge of the Government in its pre
vious compromises and part of it by the laws of physical geog
raphy which would prevent slave labor from being profitably
employed in such hilly and mountainous territory, as California
and New Mexico. It was in this connection that out of defer
ence to the feelings of the South whom it might offend he
declared that if " a proposition were now here to establish a
government for New Mexico, and it was moved to insert a
provision for a prohibition of slavery, I would not vote for it."
Such passages as this were calculated to astonish his constit
uents in New England, where they had not yet reached the
conclusion that the whole of their country had been irrevocably
partitioned between slavery and freedom.
But when he turned from these things to criticise the whole
North, because she did not sufficiently bestir herself in the
business of hunting down and returning fugitive slaves to

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 219
their former masters and " insisted that the South had been
injured in this respect and the North had been too careless,"
the surprise of New England was still greater. It was only
equalled when he proceeded a little further on to criticise the
legislatures of the North for memorializing Congress on the
abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia and the States ;
and emphatically said he " should be unwilling to receive from
the Legislature of Massachusetts any instruction to present res
olutions expressive of any opinion whatever on the subject of
slavery as it existed at that moment in the States." He went
out of his way in the course of his argument to compliment
Hillard, Sumner's former law-partner, for opposing such reso
lutions in the Senate of Massachusetts.
His next attack was upon the Abolition Societies. " He did
not think them useful. He thought their operations for the last
twenty years had produced nothing good or valuable."
These were strange things for Daniel Webster to say. His
Boston — his ever faithful Boston — was ready to follow him
even to this length. But the balance of the State would not.
By a very large majority, the newspapers of the State, outside
of Boston, condemned the speech. In Boston the Whig papers
were still loyal to him. It was estimated that only six out of
seventy of the newspapers of New England approved the
speech. About the same proportion of the people were against
it. His admirers still seeking as of old, to show their loyalty
to him, sought by circulating memorials, approving its doc
trines, to stem the popular tide against it. These memorials
when presented to him, drew forth a series of letters in an
swer to them, that confirmed the people in their belief in his
apostacy and in their judgment of the speech. Daniel Webster
no longer represented Massachusetts. Proud as his position had
been in the confidence of her people he had forfeited it. So
far they would not go even with him. He doubtless felt all he
said of the dangers of the further agitation of the slave question
to the Union whose preservation had been the cherished object
of his political life ; but he had grown old and somewhat out of
touch with the public and this sentiment of fear for the
Union, for which, in his childhood, he was taught his father
had toiled, through the fire and blood of a seven years' revolu
tionary war and which he shrunk from no danger and no hard
ship to serve, and to which he had dedicated so much of his own
labor through so many years now drawing to their close, had
grown out of its due proportion. The history of the years from
1861 to 1865 has indeed proved how well his fears were
founded. But fear for the Union had ceased to have its former

220 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
power with younger men now coming to control. They had
made up their minds to heed it no longer, but to be true to their
consciences and bear what came. They felt that too much had
been yielded already to slavery and that the North could go no
farther without a sacrifice of its manhood.
The sands of Webster's term in the Senate were fast running
out. The Legislature was to be elected this year that would
choose his successor. With all the effort his friends were mak
ing to prepare the way for his re-election, he doubtless saw that
his return would be doubtful and was glad to escape the trial
by accepting the position of Secretary of State in Fillmore's
cabinet, where his lately expressed opinions were not unpopular.
The election came and Webster's worst fears were realized.
The Whigs were defeated. The part Sumner took was much
the same as in the two previous campaigns. The demand for
him as a speaker continued to grow with his increasing fame.
The Free-Soil and the Democratic parties united upon can
didates for the Legislature and for Congress, in all the counties
of the State except Middlesex. The result was a victory for the
combination, giving them a majority of ten over the Whigs in
the Senate and a majority of fifty-four in the House. There
was much rejoicing at the result. It was fairly regarded as a
rejection of the Compromise and of Webster's speech. True, by
retiring before the storm into Fillmore's cabinet, he was not a
candidate, but Robert C. Winthrop had been appointed his suc
cessor by the Governor, at Mr. Webster's suggestion, and had
entered the Senate in time to vote for the Compromise. The
Free-Soilers at once took up the gage thus thrown down and
freely insisted that he stood for all Webster did and that a vote
against him was a vote against the Compromise and Webster
and his views on the slavery question. It is certain that without
the indignation aroused by the Compromise and by Webster's
abandonment of his lifelong convictions upon the slavery
question, the result would not have been possible.
The consequences were not less far-reaching. Without the
election resulting as it did, no way would probably ever have
opened for Sumner to enter the Senate. He might have been
known among scholars as an accomplished orator and he might
have had a permanent place as the author of some historical
work ; but this would have been far short of the fame he gained
in his seat, in the Senate, by his efforts against slavery. What
his loss might have been to the country is harder to measure.
Whether the country was ripe for the changes he did so much
to bring about and whether, if he had not, others would have
reaped the same fields, may fairly be questioned. Others were

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 221
there before him and still others came afterward to the Senate
to represent the same cause; but faithful as they were and much
as they accomplished, they lacked the fearless and aggressive
leadership of Sumner. Without these qualities being developed
in some one else, the same help of the Senate at least would
have been wanting in the days of struggle.
What attracted especial attention to Sumner and probably
made him the choice of his party for Senator was his speech
on " Our Immediate Anti-Slavery Duties " delivered at a Free-
Soil meeting, held in Faneuil Hall a few days before the elec
tion of 1850. The Fugitive Slave Law had only recently been
enacted and its provisions were imperfectly understood by the
public. Sumner's speech was the first discussion of it before
the people. It was an earnest and emphatic denunciation of the
provisions of the law and it was Sumner's purpose by the speech
to render it so odious and awaken such a feeling against it as to
make its enforcement in Boston impossible. The speech
touched a popular chord and aroused immense enthusiasm.
The audience at its close proposed and gave, with a will, three
cheers for Charles Sumner. It is more popular in its tone,
more direct and emphatic in its purpose and is more spon
taneous, — smells less of preparation, than any of his other
speeches. After expressing his approval of the combination of Free-
Soilers with the Whigs to elect Mann and Fowler to Congress
and with the Democrats, in the senatorial and legislative dis
tricts, to secure control of the State Legislature, he congratu
lated them on the admission of California as a State, with a
constitution prohibiting slavery and the abolition of the slave
trade in the District of Columbia. He then proceeded to
discuss the Fugitive Slave law. He insisted that, denying the
person apprehended a trial by jury, it was unconstitutional;
that it was also unconstitutional because of the unprecedented
and tyrannical powers it conferred upon the petty office of U.
S. commissioner, providing him a fee of Ten dollars for a
conviction and only Five dollars for an acquittal of the
prisoner, virtually offering a bribe to the judge. It permitted
him to convict the prisoner and consign him to perpetual bond
age, upon mere ex parte affidavits, taken, perhaps, in a distant
state, so as to deny the accused the right to face and cross-
examine the witnesses produced against him. Sumner signifi
cantly said, that, while he was a commissioner, himself and
might be called upon to sit in such a case, he could not forget
that he was a man, although he was a commissioner, and that
he would not dishonor the home of the Pilgrims and of tbe

222 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Revolution by admitting, — nay, by believing that this bill
would be executed in Massachusetts. He invoked an irresist
ible public opinion to prevent it and to prohibit any slave-
hunter from ever setting his foot in the Commonwealth.
It was a powerful arraignment of the law, into which the
speaker threw his whole force. " And yet," he said, " in the
face of these enormities of legislation, — of Territories organ
ized without the prohibition of slavery, and of this execrable
Fugitive Slave Bill" (he refused to call it a Law) " — in the
face also of slavery still sanctioned in the District of Columbia,
of the Slave Trade between domestic ports, under the flag of
the Union, and of the Slave Power still dominant over the
National Government, we are told that the slavery Question is
settled. Yes, settled, — settled, — that is the word. Nothing, sir,
can be settled which is not right. Nothing can be settled which
is contrary to the Divine Law. Nature and all the holy senti
ments of the heart repudiate any such false, seeming settle
ment." " Amidst the shifts and changes of party, our Duties remain,
pointing the way to action. By no subtile compromise or ad
justment can men suspend the commandments of God. By no
trick of managers, no hocus-pocus of politicians, no mush of
concession, can we be released from this obedience. It is, then,
in the light of duties that we are to find peace for our country
and ourselves. Nor can any settlement promise peace which is
not in harmony with these everlasting principles from which
our duties spring."
He demanded the immediate repeal of the Bill, the abolition
of slavery in the District of Columbia, the prohibition of it in
the Territories, the refusal to receive into the Union any new
slave States, the abolition of the slave trade on the high seas
and the exercise of all its constitutional powers by the National
Government to relieve itself of its responsibility for slavery
everywhere. And he insisted that the slave Power be over
turned and the National Government be put openly, actively
and perpetually on the side of Freedom. He demanded that
this Power, which in the game of office and legislation, had
always won should now be suppressed.
He emphatically said, as to the men to be chosen for office:
" Admonished by experience, of timidity, irresolution and weak
ness in our public men, particularly at Washington, amidst the
temptations of ambition and power, 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

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 223
backbone; and the third is backbone. My language is homely;
I hardly pardon myself for using it; but it expresses an idea
which must not be forgotten. When I see a person of upright
character and pure soul yielding to a temporizing policy, I
cannot but say, He wants backbone. When I see a person talk
ing loudly against slavery in private, but hesitating in public,
and failing in the time of trial, I say, He ivants backbone.
When I see a person who co-operated with anti-slavery men and
then deserted them, I say, He wants backbone. When I see a
person leaning upon the action of a political party and never
venturing to think for himself, I say, He wants backbone.
When I see a person always careful to be on the side of the
majority and unwilling to appear in a minority, 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."
"For myself, fellow-citizens, my own course is determined.
The first political convention which I ever attended was in the
spring of 1845, against the annexation of Texas. I was at the
time a silent and passive Whig. I had never held political
office, nor been a candidate for any. No question ever before
drew me to any active political exertion. The strife of politics
seemed to me ignoble. A desire to do what I could against
slavery led me subsequently to attend two different State Con
ventions of Whigs, where I co-operated with eminent citizens
in endeavor to arouse the party in Massachusetts to its anti-
slavery duties. A conviction that the Whig party was disloyal
to Freedom and an ardent aspiration to help the advancement
of this great cause, has led me to leave that party and dedicate
what of strength and ability I have to the present movement.
To vindicate Freedom and oppose Slavery so far as I may con
stitutionally, — with earnestness, and yet I trust without un-
kindness on my part, — is the object near my heart."
At the time of the coalition between the Free-Soilers and the
Democrats for the election of a Legislature, there was an un
derstanding between them that the Democrats, in case of suc
cess, should have the state officers to be elected and the Free-
Soilers should have the Senatorship. No names were, however,
decided on for the offices. The candidates were to be chosen
later, by the respective parties. Earlier in the campaign several
names were mentioned for the Senatorship, Stephen C. Phillips,
Sumner, Charles Francis Adams. The first was this year, and
had been in 1849, the unsuccessful candidate of his party for
Governor, and felt that the honor should have come to him.
After Sumner's nomination he wrote to him pathetically, " I re-

224 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
joice in the conviction that this, while it is the severest is the
last of my political trials and though it is far from being such
a close of a public career as is desirable I derive satisfaction
from the thought that your race begins, where mine ends, and
that a high destiny awaits you." It was the sad confession of
failure in the career he had coveted and makes his seem like
the lives of so many good men in politics, who have deserved a
better fortune than came to them. Adams did not expect the
Senatorship. He and Palfrey had not entered heartily into the
movement for a combination with the Democrats, as Sumner
had, and hence could not expect a favorable consideration.
Adams, besides, had been prominent as a Whig before he joined
the Free-Soil movement and was on that account still more
unacceptable to the Democrats now. Sumner had never been
much of a Whig and the little part he had taken in their coun
cils, was to advance the anti-slavery cause. He had never held
an elective office. As the campaign progressed, the choice for
Senator tended more and more to Sumner. After his Faneuil
Hall speech, there was little mention of any one else.
He had never regarded himself as a candidate. The first
information he had, of a fixed purpose on the part of others to
so consider him, came to him through a note, left at his door,
by Seth Webb, Jr., the morning after the election, telling him
the result and adding : " You are bound for Washington this
winter." Whittier had met him before this during the sum
mer, at Lynn, and one evening as they loitered by the sea, had
predicted the success of the combination and that he would be
the Senator. Sumner had told him that he did not think it pos
sible, that there were others better fitted for it, and besides,
that he did not especially desire it, that his ambition lay in
other fields. But Whittier urged him not to forbid the use of
his name as a candidate, insisted upon his peculiar qualifica
tions and predicted a large future for him if elected. Years
after, at the close of one of Sumner's fiercest struggles in the
Senate, in a poem addressed " To C. S.," Whittier reminded
him of this prediction.
After the result of the election was fully known and the con
trol of the State was found to have come into the hands of the
coalition, the trend of public opinion continued steadily
towards Sumner for Senator, without any effort of his friends
to work it up. There came to be a conviction, with the public,
of his fitness to represent the general feeling of the State upon
the new issues. " I think," one of the leaders wrote him, " you
are nearer my ideal of a Free-Soiler of this time than anybody
else; so does the whole Free-Soil heart of New England. And

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 225
you may depend that the actual triumph of just such a man as
you are will give a heavier blow to the conspirators against
Freedom and do more to fortify the general trust in the ulti
mate ascendency of uncompromising right, than that of any
other living being. You cannot escape from your position."
Charles Francis Adams wrote him from Washington, of the
difficulties as he saw them, of an alliance with the Democrats,
but added : " If our friends decide to risk themselves in that
ship, I trust we may get a full consideration for the risk, and
the only full consideration that we can receive is in securing
your services in the Senate. If anything can be done with that
iron and marble body, you may do it. You know how hopeless I
think the task."
Adams was at the time Sumner's most intimate political
friend and, in replying Sumner wrote fully and frankly his
feelings upon the Senatorship : " I appreciate your generosity
and am proud of your confidence. I am not entirely insensible
to the honor that post would confer, though I do not feel this
strongly, for I have never been accustomed to think highly of
political distinction. I feel that it would to a certain extent be
a vindication of me against the attacks to which in common
with you and others of our friends, I have been exposed. And I
am especially touched by the idea of the sphere of usefulness
in which it would place me. But notwithstanding these things
I must say that I have not been able to bring myself to desire
the post or even to be willing to take it. 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 forever quiet and repose ; my
life henceforward would be in public affairs. I cannot con
template this without repugnance. It would call upon me to
forego those literary plans and aspirations which I have more
at heart than any merely political success. Besides, even if I
should incline to this new career, there are men in our ranks,
my seniors and betters, to whom I defer sincerely and com
pletely. Mr. Phillips by various titles should be our candidate.
If he should be unwilling to take the place, then we must look
to you. In seeing you there I should have the truest satisfac
tion. You are the man to split open the solid rock of the
United States Senate. I shrink unfeignedly from the work.
For this I have never ' filled my mind.' "
Sumner maintained this position to the close of the contest.
It had no purpose of self-seeking with him. The cause was
everything and he insisted even with his own prospect of the
office before him, that the promotion of that must be kept

226 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
steadily in view and whoever could best serve it, ought to have
the place. He mistrusted his own fitness for it and he did not
believe he should fill it, if he could not fill it best. He steadily
refused to seek the place before his nomination by the caucus.
Others must determine the question of his fitness. But after
he had been chosen by the caucus and his success thus became
welded to that of the cause, he met with his supporters several
times in council and discussed plans with them and received
and made suggestions and did what he could to promote their
success. But when the contest was protracted and his success
seemed doubtful, he urged them whenever they pleased, and
without consulting him, to abandon the effort to elect him and
unite on any one else whose prospects were better. His course
showed the absence of self-seeking and the ideals with which he
entered public life. The sequel will show that he maintained
them to the close.
The letters he received from anti-slavery friends in other
States helped to confirm him in his determination to stand for
the place. Chase and Giddings both wrote him from Washing
ton, insisting that he could not refuse to be a candidate and
reminding him of the pleasure it would give the friends of Free
dom to see him in the Senate. John Jay wrote from New
York : " I trust most sincerely you are to occupy the seat which
Webster, in bygone days has filled so worthily, but where in
the hour of temptation, he betrayed the Commonwealth which
had trusted and honored him." Joshua Leavitt also wrote
him from New York that he wished for his election both for
his own sake and that of the cause, that it would be, " a worthy
rebuke of cotton arrogance pronounced in earnest and sealed
by action in the name of the good old Commonwealth." Other
letters from other States also showed that Free-Soilers were
disposed to treat his candidacy as the test of the strength of the
opposition to the cringing attitude of Northern statesmen, to
the South. Upon this issue Sumner was already firmly com
mitted. His dissent from the recent course of Webster in his
seventh of March speech was a familiar illustration.
At the election held in Massachusetts, in November, 1850,
none on the State tickets were elected. The constitution then
required the successful candidates to have a majority of all the
votes cast, a mere plurality not being, as now, sufficient. In
case of the failure of the people to elect, it devolved upon the
Legislature to make a choice from the three candidates for the
office who at the general election had received the highest num
ber of votes. The Free-Soilers and the Democrats having
together a majority and having formed a coalition controlled

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 227.
the Legislature. It was agreed by them that the Democrats
should have the Governor, State Treasurer and the United
States Senator for the short term, — the balance of Webster's
term, expiring March fourth, 1851, and that the Free-Soilers
should have the United States Senator for the next full term.
This gave the control of the State Government to the Demo
crats. It was left to the respective parties, to determine whom
they would nominate for the offices assigned to them, the other
party agreeing to unite in electing them. Henry Wilson, Free-
Soiler, was chosen President of the Senate, and N. P. Banks,
Democrat, Speaker of the House.
At a caucus of the Free-Soilers held on January seventh,
1851, Sumner was unanimously nominated for Senator for the
long term. E. L. Keys, in communicating the result to him,
wrote : " We have sworn to stand by you, to sink or swim with
you, at all hazards. If you shall fail us in any respect, may God
forgive you : — we never shall." The Daily Commonwealth, the
organ of the Free-Soilers in speaking of the reason for this
selection for Senator, said : " Mr. Sumner was selected as the
candidate for the Senate, because, while true as the truest to
Free-Soil principles, he was supposed to be less obnoxious than
any other prominent Free-Soiler in the State to the Democratic
party. He was never identified with any of the measures of the
Whig party, except to sustain the sentiment, not of the Whig
party alone, but of Massachusetts, against the annexation of
Texas and the Mexican War."
After the nominations were made, the Legislature proceeded
to a choice, electing George S. Boutwell, Governor; Henry W.
Cushman, Lieutenant-Governor and Robert Rantoul, Senator
for the short term, all Democrats, according to the previous
agreement. On the fourteenth of January, the House voted
for Senator, for the long term; whole number of votes, 381,
necessary to a choice, 191, Charles Sumner 186, R. C. Win-
. throp 167, scattering 28, blanks 3. A second ballot was taken
the same day, with the same result. Sumner had all the Free-
Soil votes, 110, and 76 Democratic votes. The Free-Soilers
insisted that they had taken the candidates of the Democrats
without pledge and without question and that having selected
their own candidate, they would never desert him. On Jan
uary twenty-second, the Senate elected Sumner : whole number
of votes 38, necessary to a choice 20, for Charles Sumner 23,
for Robert C. Winthrop 14, for Henry W. Bishop 1. The only
question that now remained was, whether Sumner could get
enough votes in the House to elect him.
The anger of the Free-Soilers at their desertion by the House

228 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Democrats was hardly concealed. They had carried out, to the
letter, the arrangement on their part, and at the crucial point,
they had been deserted by their Democratic allies. Some were
for renouncing all farther communication with them and ar
ranging for an alliance with the Whigs to run the Democrats
out, the next year; others were for the resignation of every
fruit of the alliance thus far gathered by the Free-Soilers ; others
still were for demanding of Governor Boutwell and his Demo
cratic colleagues the surrender of the offices they had acquired
by the coalition. But the more sturdy leaders, with cooler
heads and greater steadiness of purpose, like Henry Wilson,
were determined not to break with their allies, but hold them to
their promises and meanwhile insist that they had made choice
of their candidate and would adhere to him, to the end, and
would have no other. They knew that all their allies were not
unfaithful and that those that were steadfast, ought not to be
charged with the faults of the faithless. These counsels finally
prevailed and for more than three months, they steadily refused
to hear any proposition of surrender or compromise. They
freely said and firmly insisted that Sumner was their first, last
and only choice.
The ballots were taken, sometimes more than one on the same
day and sometimes with intervals of weeks. There were twenty-
six in all, in the House. Sometimes Sumner was within one
vote of an election and again he lacked as many as twelve. As
the contest dragged its weary length along, both sides became
tired of it, but neither would yield. The Free-Soilers felt that
they were only asking their right and that having chosen their
candidate, with due reference to his acceptability to the Demo
crats, they ought not to yield. The " Hunker " Democrats, or
" Indomitables," as they were called, who had thus far refused
to vote for Sumner, saw the folly of their position and that they
ought not to have taken it, but did not like to recede. They
offered to compromise on any other man and named Wilson.
He promptly declined.
The opposition among the Democrats was led by Caleb Cush
ing. He had been present at the caucus of his party and had
voted to abide by the candidate for whom two-thirds would
vote. Sumner having received more than that number, Cushing
had then joined another caucus called to oppose his election on
the ground that the choice of so pronounced an anti-slavery
man would injure their standing with the national organization
of their party. He called Sumner " a one-ideaed abolition
agitator." Later in the canvass, when his followers faltered
and Sumner's election seemed probable, he sought to escape

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

229

from his position by asking of him a pledge that, if elected, he
would not give undue prominence in the Senate, to the slavery
question. But Sumner declined to give any such pledge and
also declined to have any communication with Cushing about
politics. To a friend who asked him to write something he could use
to quiet the charge that he was a Disunionist, Sumner wrote
" You know well that I do not seek or desire any political office,
that I am not voluntarily in my present position as candidate,
and that prescribing to myself the rule of non-intervention, 1
have constantly declined doing anything to promote my elec
tion, and have refused pledges or explanations with regard to
my future course beyond what are implied in my past life, my
published speeches and my character."
The Whig papers did everything they could to aid their party,
in the Senate and House, to prevent his election. They hurled
almost every epithet at the coalition of the Democrats and
Free-Soilers and insisted that such a bargain and sale of the
offices as had been made was an indictable offence and ought to
be so punished. They published extracts from Sumner's
speeches, prominently printed with hostile comments, almost
daily. His speeches were charged with being " treasonable " and
himself as being a " disunionist ". The Whigs believed that if
an election could be prevented, by this Legislature, the next
year would enable them to recover the State and choose a Sena
tor from their own party and part of their plan was to encour
age the House to hold out in its opposition to Sumner. Even
the Democratic press was not friendly to him. The editor of
the Times called upon him and asked him to modify some of
his utterances on the slavery question, especially in his recent
Faneuil Hall speech, on " Our Immediate Anti-Slavery
Duties." This he declined to do. The editor then asked him
how he would like to have that speech printed, so that it might
be read by the members of the Legislature. Sumner replied
that nothing would give him greater pleasure. It accordingly
appeared the next day in the Times, with this comment :
" Mr. Sumner avows that what is called his Faneuil Hall
speech contains his calm, deliberately formed, and well matured
opinions — opinions by which his actions would be governed in
the event of his election to the office of United States Senator.
* * * We hope that every Democratic member of the Legis
lature will read the speech of the man for whom they are asked
to vote, and then consider whether it is not their duty to vote
for some other person."
The Commonwealth, the Free-Soil organ, then printed it with

230 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the defiant introduction : " We treat our readers to-day to the
noble speech of Charles Sumner at that great " treasonable "
meeting in Faneuil Hall. We are proud of it and of the man
who made it. We give it as it was reported by Dr. Stone for
the Traveller, and as it was copied into the Times. The
apologists for slavery have heaped abuse on Mr. Sumner for
this speech, and garbled it to serve their base purposes; but
here it stands. Not a glorious word of it shall be rubbed out.
We ask any member of the Legislature, whatever may be his
politics or party, as a man, as a son of New England, and as an
admirer of Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Han
cock and Samuel Adams, to read this speech, and tell us how
he can do a better thing than to vote for its author next Wed
nesday. Here you have the intellect and heart of a man — a
man for the times, a man for Massachusetts ! "
A little later, closing an appeal to the Free-Soilers to stand
firmly by their choice, the Commonwealth said : " One pecul
iarity attending this election is, that it involves a true issue
of principle. * * * The election of such a man as Charles Sum
ner in the room of such a man as Daniel Webster may be con
strued to be quite as much a complete disavowal of the late
conduct of the one as a sanction of the system advocated by the
other. Herein it is not difficult to trace the real causes as well
of the extraordinary opposition on the one side as of the tena
cious adherence on the other."
Sumner himself as the weeks rolled away and ballot after
ballot was taken, with still no election, despaired of success
and fearing that the Free-Soilers, by persisting in voting for
him alone, as their candidate, and refusing to consider any
proposition for a change, were emperilling their prospect of
success and, perhaps, sacrificing all the fruits of their hard-
earned victory, wrote to Wilson, February 22, 1851 : " Early in
life I formed a determination never to hold any political office,
and, of course, never to be a candidate for any. My hope was
(might I so aspire!) to show, that, without its titles or emolu
ments, something might be done for the good of my fellow-men.
Notwithstanding the strength of this determination often de
clared, I have, by the confidence of the friends of Freedom in
Boston, more than once been pressed into the position of can
didate ; and now by the nomination of the Free-Soil and Demo
cratic members of the Legislature of Massachusetts, contrary to
desires, specially made known to all, who communicated with
me on the subject, I have been brought forward as their can
didate for the Senate of the United States."
" Pardon me, if I say, that personal regrets mingle with

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 231
gratitude for the honor done me. The office of Senator, though
elevated and important, is to me less attractive than other and
more quiet fields. Besides there are members of our party, to
whom I gladly defer as representatives of the principles we
have at heart."
" I trust therefore that the friends of Freedom in the Legis
lature will not, on any ground of delicacy towards me hesitate
to transfer their support to some other candidate, faithful to
our cause. In this matter, I pray you, do not think of me. I
have no political prospects which I desire to nurse. There is
nothing in the political field which I covet. Abandon me, then,
whenever you think best without notice or apology. The cause
is everything ; I am nothing."
Sumner asked Wilson to communicate the contents of this
letter, in some proper way, to the Free-Soil members of the
Legislature; which he did. But there was a feeling among
them, that he better represented their cause than any one else,
that he was really more acceptable to the Democrats than any
one they could name and that to abandon him now would be
half a confession of defeat. They also knew that, with his
courage and power of speech, he was best qualified to stand for
them in the Senate. They, therefore, resolved to persevere.
Wilson and his colleagues could see that the " Indomitables "
were hardly longer indomitable and that they were already
seeking an escape from their position, that to hold on just a
little longer must, in all probability, result in success. A clause,
in the Bill of Rights of the constitution of Massachusetts,
allowed the people to meet in mass convention and instruct
their Representatives how to vote. In some instances this was
done, the only occasion when this right was ever known to be
exercised. This furnished some of the opposition a pretext for
changing their votes. Others, seeing the risk to hold out to the
close of the session and go before the people for re-election, with
this record, after the pledges that had been made, the Free-
Soilers being ready to unite with the Whigs to compass their
defeat, were glad to escape from their position; and so on one
pretext or another the " Indomitables " found their way into
the ranks.
On April twenty-third, another ballot was taken, — the eight
eenth. The result was announced : whole number of votes 387,
necessary to a choice 194; Charles Sumner 194, Robert C. Win
throp 167, scattering 26. On the announcement it appeared
that Sumner was elected and, for a few minutes, the rejoicing
of his supporters was unbounded. But the correctness of the
count was challenged. One ballot that had Sumner's name

232 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
printed upon it, had also the name of John Mills written upon
it, in pencil, below his. The opposition insisted, that it should
be counted for Mills and not thrown out as it had. been, thus
making one more vote necessary to a choice. Three other
ballots were taken the same day, with the same result, Sum
ner each time lacking one vote of an election. The Free-Soilers
were on tiptoe with excitement; they felt that success was at
hand, and still they were afraid to rejoice. Success had seemed
within their reach so often and yet it had so far eluded their
grasp !
On April twenty-fourth another ballot was taken, without
success. Sumner was two votes short. At this stage Sidney
Bartlett, a Whig, moved that thereafter the voters be required
to place their ballots in separate envelopes, that the envelopes
should all be uniform, that where two votes should be found
in the same envelope, if for the same person only one should
be counted, if for different persons both should be thrown
out. The members had previously been required to give their
votes while passing in front of the Speaker's chair, their names
being called and checked when they deposited their ballot. The
purpose of the motion was thought to be to secure changes
against Sumner; but it had the contrary effect. Being secret,
it enabled some persons, without being known, to vote for
Sumner. Perhaps they were Whigs, perhaps Indomitables, —
just who, was never known, though different claims have since
been made for the distinction. The result announced was:
whole number of votes 384, necessary to a choice 193, Charles
Sumner 193, Robert C. Winthrop, 166, scattering 25. Thus
on that day nearly four months after the voting commenced
and on the twenty-sixth ballot, in the House, Sumner was
elected Senator.
It was a notable election; a struggle for the seat of Daniel
Webster, in the Senate, while he was still living, upon an issue
which was already dividing the country, and drawn out by its
closeness for weary weeks and months ! It attracted general
attention. The dignity with which Sumner bore himself
through it and his constant refusal to make any promise or
pledge or to modify his previously expressed opinions, though
votes were offered in exchange, raised the people's estimate of
him. To a Democrat who had called upon him for this purpose,
he said: "If by walking across my office I could secure the
Senatorship, I would not take a step." He was not to be
swerved by self interest. This sentiment found a response
among the plain people. It can fairly be concluded now that
any other course would have lost him votes. His power was in

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 233
his leadership of a conscience party. No sacrifice of principle
for votes could have strengthened that leadership. So without
sacrifice of conviction and without pledges other than were to
be implied from his past life, Sumner came to the office of
Senator. But it must not be inferred that he had been indifferent to
the result. As we have seen he met his supporters in caucus
more than once, and was at all times during the contest ready
to give them his advice. But his position was that the cause
was everything; while he was nothing, — that no mere personal
ambition should be allowed to interfere with its success, — that
all should unite and work and, if need be, sacrifice for it.
The result was received with various feelings. Most of the
members of the House were tired and glad to have the long con
test ended, many of the Free-Soilers were jubilant, seeing in
this unusual victory an earnest of something to be done to check
the onward march of Slavery; others still were questioning.
It was a new departure in the politics of Massachusetts.
Would it bring the same honor and renown to the Common
wealth that Webster and his party had done? Time showed.
It marked the closing of tbe period, when love of the Union and
compromises for its support predominated under the great
leadership of Webster; and it marked the beginning of the
period of the Civil War when men believed that compromise
could be carried too far — that Union and Universal Freedom
ought to be made to stand together. With the heat of battle,
they finally welded these two principles into constitutional law.
In the evening a ratification meeting was held in State Street
at which speeches were made by Henry Wilson, Joseph Lyman
and Thomas Russell. After the meeting the crowd marched
to Sumner's house, but he had left the city. It then proceeded
to the home of Charles Francis Adams who addressed them.
They afterwards went in a body to the home of R. H. Dana Jr.
who being absent, was represented by his father. He said that
he had " kept his bed until noon through illness ; but on learn
ing the news of the election of Mr. Sumner he suddenly be
came better."
Sumner first heard the news, while dining at the house of
Charles Francis Adams, in Mt. Vernon Street within a minute's
walk of the State House. He was very intimate with the family
and dined with them, on an average as often as once a week.
He had been there the day before, when his election was an
nounced and the ballot afterwards being corrected, left him one
short of a majority. Knowing that another ballot would be
taken on the twenty-fourth, and that the result must be very

234 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
close, he came there again, so that he with Adams might
promptly hear the result. A little son of Mr. Adams' brought
them the news, about three o'clock in the afternoon, while they
were dining; and another son, then about sixteen years of age,
seated beside Mr. Sumner at the table was the first to con
gratulate him. He did not seem at all elated, or show any sign
of rejoicing. In a few minutes a number of friends, learning
he was there called to offer their congratulations and were re
ceived in the library. A proposition to have a public demon
stration, at his own home in the evening, he put aside, being
unwilling that a victory for a cause should assume any ap
pearance of a personal triumph.
He soon left the house and the city, going to Longfellow's
home in Cambridge where he passed the evening, with him and
Palfrey and Lowell, and spent the night, away from the excite
ment caused by his election. In his diary of that day, Long
fellow wrote of Sumner : " He is no more elated by his success
than he has been depressed by the failure heretofore and evi
dently does not desire the office." Sumner, in fact, mistrusted
his ability to meet the expectations of his friends and to dis
charge the duties of the office, according to his own ideal. What
if he should fail, after all the hopes that had been held out by
his party to the people ! To a young friend who said to him ;
" This is too good ; I fear you will die before taking your seat ; "
Sumner thoughtfully replied, "Perhaps that will be the best
thing for me."
To John Bigelow, then associated with Bryant on the New
York Evening Post, he wrote : " Every heart knoweth its own
secret, and mine has never been in the Senate of the United
States, nor is it there yet. Most painfully do I feel my inability
to meet the importance which has been given to this election
and the expectation of enthusiastic friends, but more than this,
I am impressed by the thought that I now embark on a career,
which promises to last for six years, if not indefinitely, and
which takes from me all opportunity of study and meditation
to which I had hoped to devote myself. I do not wish to be a
politician." But his friends refused to participate in his misgivings. The
newspapers in commenting upon his election, recognized the
independence of his position in the Senate, unfettered as he
would be by pledges and promises. The London Times, in a
leader, interpreted the election of Sumner, "the most active
and able representative" of the cause of the Free-Soilers, as
showing the strength of feeling in Massachusetts against the
Fugitive Slave Law and as an emphatic declaration that the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 235
law at least in its existing form, was not to remain unassailed,
Congratulations came to him from every side, — from Bryant,
Bigelow, Epes Sargent and Neal Dow; from Chase, Giddings,
Jay and Burritt. John G. Whittier wrote: "I rejoice that
unpledged, free and without a single concession or compromise
thou art enabled to take thy place in the Senate. I never knew
such a feeling of real heart pleasure and satisfaction as is mani
fested by all except inveterate Hunkers in view of thy election.
The whole country is electrified by it. Sick abed, I heard the
guns, Quaker as I am, with real satisfaction." John Van Buren
wrote : " I was as much pleased with seeing your frank as I was
with the inside of your note. Independent of the fact that it
proves your election to the United States Senate, the inscrip
tion ' Free. Charles Sumner,' seems to me mighty pretty read-
ing." Sumner gratefully acknowledged the assistance of his
friends. Henry Wilson especially had been unwearied in his
efforts. He was chiefly instrumental in bringing about a
coalition with the Democrats to secure the election of members
of the Senate and House, and after the election he had been no
less diligent in holding the Democrats to their pledges of sup
port. He possessed large capacity for organization and a cool
head as well as an honest heart. In the darkest days of the
struggle he never despaired. When others were ready to give
up and adopt measures to punish the recalcitrant Democrats,
his better judgment restrained them. When thoughts of an
other candidate and of a compromise were suggested, his
warning voice said : " No, Sumner is our candidate ; his choice,
was our right, and we will have no other." He was tireless in
his efforts and his judgment was good. In this campaign he
developed the ability and the traits of leadership which five
years later made him Sumner's colleague in the Senate. Writ
ing to him, on the day after the election, from Craigie House,
Sumner gratefully said : " To your ability, energy and fidelity,
our cause owes its present success. For weal or woe, you must
take the responsibility of having placed me in the Senate of
the United States." And in the same letter he placed it upon
record, that all Wilson did was done without the suggestion of
any selfish consideration and without any thought of personal
advancement. Having received .from the Secretary of the Commonwealth
his certificate of election, Sumner on the fourteenth day of May,
addressed to the Senate and House of Representatives of Mass
achusetts a formal letter of acceptance of the office. In it he
recognized that he owed his first duty to the cause of Liberty;

236 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
but as he had, during the contest been charged with being a Dis
unionist and a Sectionalist, he took this occasion to correct the
false impression that had been sought to be given out by his op
ponents. He declared himself in favor of the Union and against
any effort to destroy it and as opposed to all sectionalism
whether of the North to carry Freedom into the Slave States, or
of the South to carry the evils of slavery into the Free States or
the sectional domination of slavery over the National Govern
ment. He declared his belief in a Union so firm that no part
could be permanently lost from its well-compacted whole and
that it could be separable only by a crash which would destroy
the whole. He bespoke the candid judgment of his constituents
to promote the general welfare, assuring them that true politics
and right which are a law alike to individuals and communities
are the same for the lowly and the great.
Referring more directly to the office, he said : " The trust
conferred on me is one of the most weighty which a citizen can
receive. It concerns the grandest interests of our own Com
monwealth, and also of the Union in which we are an indissol-
uable link. Like every post of eminent duty, it is a post of
eminent honor. A personal ambition, such as I cannot con
fess, might be satisfied to possess it. But when I think what
it requires, I am obliged to say that its honors are all eclipsed
by its duties."
" Your appointment finds me in a private station, with which
I am entirely content. For the first time in my life I am called
to political office. With none of the experience possessed by
others to smooth the way of labor, I might well hesitate. But
I am cheered by the generous confidence which, throughout a
lengthened contest, persevered in sustaining me, and by the
conviction, that, amidst all seeming differences of party, the
sentiments of which I am the known advocate, and which led
to my original selection as a candidate, are dear to the hearts
of the people throughout this Commonwealth. I derive, also,
a most grateful consciousness of personal independence from the
circumstance, which I deem it frank and proper thus pub
licly to disclose and place on record, that this office comes to
me unsought and undesired.
" Acknowledging the right of my country to the services of
her sons wherever she chooses to place them and with a heart
full of gratitude that a sacred cause is permitted to triumph
through me, I now accept the post of Senator."

CHAPTER XIX
REGRETS AT LEAVING BOSTON  FIRST DAYS AT WASHINGTON AND
IN THE SENATE  WELCOME TO KOSSUTH — AID TO RAIL
ROADS IN IOWA  EULOGY ON RANTOUL  ANXIETY TO BE
HEARD ON SLAVERY  SECURES A HEARING  THE SPEECH,
" FREEDOM, NATIONAL ; SLAVERY, SECTIONAL "  HIS
BROTHER GEORGE RETURNS FROM EUROPE  SUMNER'S
VACATION  TAKES NO PART IN CAMPAIGN
In the campaign of 1851, the same coalition was made be
tween the Free-Soilers and Democrats, as had been made the
previous year and with similar results. The Legislature, both
House and Senate, were again in the control of the coalitions,
but the majorities were not so large as they had been the prev
ious year. Some congressional districts were lost, where the
coalition had before elected their candidates. The first use
Sumner made of his frank was in distributing documents, to
promote the re-election of John G. Palfrey to Congress. But
Palfrey was defeated. Sumner did not do so much speaking
as he had done the previous year. He was busy making prep
aration for his removal to Washington, by putting his affairs
at home in such shape that they would not suffer by his ab
sence. Besides, he did not wish to have another contest with
Winthrop who was still taking part in politics though defeated
for election to the Senate. Sumner entertained for him per
sonally a kindly feeling and sincerely regretted his political
course. To carry a personal controversy further, after the
events of the last year, might seem like seeking a quarrel for its
own sake, than which nothing could have been farther from
Sumner. He wished that Winthrop might still be induced to join the
anti-slavery movement, where his ability and his popularity
would have found a wide field for usefulness. But this was
destined never to be. Winthrop had gone too far now, to be
willing to retrace his steps, he had been prominent as a Whig
and his opinions had been given such wide publication that they
could only be retracted with some sacrifice of personal pride;
besides others had the places he coveted. To join the new
party would seem like commencing his political life over again.
It was a source of regret, to his friends, that he was not induced
237

238

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

to make the sacrifice so that a new and, perhaps, larger career
might have been opened to him. Sumner did not forget his
many good qualities. He hoped that friendly feelings would
yet prevail between them. He was always disposed to look
charitably on his political antagonists and, while tenacious of
his convictions, he did not believe that they should interfere
with private friendships. And besides the weight of social
ostracism, he was often made by others to feel, during his
long career, made him careful not to do the same injustice
to others.
He went to Washington the week before Congress opened.
In leaving Boston there were three separations he felt keenly,
— from his mother and sister at the old home, from the Long-
fellows at Cambridge and from the Howes, at the Blind
Asylum. Many were the happy hours he had passed in these
quiet places, where love and sympathy had never failed him.
When others had insisted on misconstruing his efforts against
slavery, had snubbed him in public, and privately closed their
doors against him, he always found these places of retreat open.
His quiet home, with the books he loved, his frequent evenings
with the Howes, his Sunday dinners at Longfellow's, with the
congenial talk and companionship, the joyful part of his
bachelor life, — these things had formed ties whose strength he
did not appreciate, until they were about to be broken. The
thought of the separation made him sad.
From New York he wrote to Howe : " Three times yesterday
I wept like a child, — I could not help it; first in parting with
Longfellow, next in parting with you, and lastly as I left my
mother and sister. I stand now on the edge of a great change.
In the vicissitudes of life I cannot see the future ; but I know
that I now move away from those who have been more than
brothers to me. My soul is wrung and my eyes are bleared with
tears. God bless you ever and ever, my noble, well-tried, and
eternally dear friend ! "
To Longfellow he wrote: "I could not speak to you as we
parted, my soul was too full; only tears would flow. Your
friendship and dear Fanny's have been among my few treas
ures, like gold unchanging. For myself I see with painful
vividness the vicissitudes and enthrallments of the future, and
feel that we shall never more know each other as in times past.
Those calm days and nights of overflowing communion are
gone. Thinking of them and of what I lose I become a child
again. From a grateful heart I now thank you for your true
and constant friendship. Whatever may be in store for me, so
much at least is secure ; and the memory of you and Fanny will

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 239
be to me a precious fountain. God bless you both, ever dear
friends, faithful and good ! Be happy and think kindly of me."
A little later Longfellow answered : " Your farewell note
came safe and sad ; and on Sunday no well-known footsteps in
the hall, nor sound of cane laid upon the table. We ate our
dinner somewhat silently by ourselves, and talked of you far
off, looking at your empty chair."
One source of Sumner's feeling of loneliness at parting from
these home friends was the untried future that stretched out
before him and the dread of his responsibilities. Daniel Web-
sters, from his place in the Senate, had occupied a large meas
ure of public attention. His massive eloquence would have
attracted attention anywhere. And yet Sumner had succeeded
after a short interval, to his place, by a contest, in which Web
ster and his friends were defeated. Naturally Sumner would
be contrasted with him. Every effort he was to put forth
for the cause he represented must be made before an audience
utterly unsympathetic. The leader of the New England anti-
slavery men could hope for no sympathy from the United
States Senate in his effort for this cause. And yet the cause
was the very one he was commissioned to represent. No one
had blazed the way for him. John Quincy Adams and Joshua
R. Giddings had been pioneers in that work in the House, but
it may fairly be said there was none before Sumner in the
Senate. When he took his seat, on the first day of December, 1851,
the only two Free-Soilers in the Senate were Hale of New
Hampshire and Chase of Ohio, the former elected by a
coalition of Free-Soilers with Whigs, and the latter by a coali
tion of Free-Soilers with Democrats. Neither of them had
been there long, — Hale, four years; Chase, but two. Though
both were able and earnest men, neither had acquired distinc
tion for aggressive leadership of the anti-slavery cause in the
Senate. Seward was also there, but he still maintained his
affiliation with the Whigs. Wade entered the Senate the same
day as Sumner. The cause was still in need of an earnest,
aggressive man, of singleness of purpose, who could attract
national attention and from his place in the Senate awaken
the North to a realization of the enormities of slavery
and its aggressions and the dangers 'that lay in them to the
country. It is a singular fact that as he entered upon his duties, Mr.
Benton said to him : " You have come upon the stage too late,
Sir; all our great men have passed away. Mr. Calhoun and
Mr. Clay and Mr. Webster are gone. Not only have the great

2-10 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
men passed away, but the great issues too, raised from our form
of government, and of deepest interest to its founders and their
immediate descendants, have been settled also. The last of
these was the National Bank, and that has been overthrown
forever. Nothing is left you, sir, but puny sectional questions
and petty strifes about slavery and fugitive slave laws involving
no national interests."
What a strange prediction this was, in the light of subsequent
history ! And yet, perhaps, it was not a strange prediction for
one to make then, who had passed the thirty years prior in the
public service! Calhoun was dead. He had died the year
previous, in Washington, at his post as Senator. Webster had
resigned, a few months before to enter Fillmore's cabinet, an
old man worn out, destined to die a year later. Clay was in his
seat, in the Senate for the last time, the day Sumner entered.
They were the giants of their day. All gone ! The National
issues of the formative period of the Government over which
they had struggled, were many of them settled, — Nullification,
the constitutionality of a Tariff and of Internal Improvements.
The national boundaries had been defined and new territory
had been acquired. But some of the issues over which they had
struggled and now considered settled, we know were far from
it, — the perpetuity of slavery, the right of Secession, the indis
solubility of the Union. How such issues as the Bank, the
Tariff and Internal Improvements dwarf in comparison with
them. The work of these statesmen should not be belittled.
They fostered, maintained and strengthened the Government
until it learned its own powers and a great majority of its peo
ple appreciated its blessings. But the work of the statesmen of
the succeeding period, — the period commencing with the en
trance of Sumner and his anti-slavery co-laborers upon public
life, — the period of the Rebellion, of Emancipation and Recon
struction — was destined to be, beyond all comparison, the most
eventful in our history. And when Clay, the " great compro
miser " with slavery went out of the Senate, on that day another,
greater than he, came in, — a man who knew no compromise
with slavery, who always fought his battles against it to a finish,
and was always for a clean victory or a defeat.
Sumner was conducted before the presiding officer, to take
the oath of office by Lewis Cass, his oldest personal acquaint
ance among the Senators. Their friendship extended back to
the days in Paris, when they had prepared for publication a
discussion of the question of our North Eastern Boundary,
then in dispute with England. By a curious chance, Sumner
chose for his seat on the floor of the Senate, the chair just

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 241
made vacant by Jefferson Davis, when he entered Fillmore's
cabinet. It was beside the seat of Chase, which fact led to its
selection, and was immediately behind the seat of Butler of
South Carolina, one of the most extreme apologists of slavery.
It was on the Democratic side of the floor ; there was no anti-
slavery side then, and Sumner had been elected, partly ly
Democratic votes. In the distribution of appointments to
committees, he was placed at the foot of two unimportant ones,
— the committee on Revolutionary Claims and the committee
on Roads and Canals.
His social reception at Washington was more cordial than he
expected. His familiarity all his life, with intellectual people,
his friendly manner and fondness for conversation, united with
a certain novelty in his position in the Senate and a reputation
for oratory that preceeded him, assisted in opening a way for
him. He was already acquainted with Chase and during the
remaining four years of his term they were intimate. He soon
became intimate with the New York Senators, Seward and
Fish, and their families. Even the Southern Senators, to his
surprise met him cordially, and with one of them, at least,
Soule, of Louisiana, whom he regarded as the most brilliant
man in the Senate, eloquent even in a language he could not
speak distinctly, he entered upon a sincere and lasting friend
ship. He also became intimate at the French, English and
Spanish embassies. His ability to speak French and his ac
quaintance with the wife of the Spanish Ambassador, a Boston
lady, his large acquaintance in Europe, especially in England,
and his recollection of days of travel, naturally attracted him
to these houses. Since his return from Europe, few foreigners
of distinction had come to Boston, from England, who did not
bring letters to him ; and after he became a Senator fewer still
came to Washington without meeting him.
News of his social success in Washington was not long in
reaching Boston, where the eyes of many were upon him.
There was great fear with some, that the attractions of society
and the blandishments of the Southern members would seduce
him from the settled purpose of his election. Slavery had been
so resourceful, that Northern men had grown distrustful of the
ability of their representatives to withstand it. There was
some foundation for this distrust and there was much of it
without foundation. The influence of the South in Washington
society was greater than it should have been ; but people thought
it greater than it was. There were good men, Giddings,
Chase, Hale and their circle of friends over whom it had
no power. Sumner was well on his guard for it. He knew the

242 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
work he w.as sent to do, but he thought he could succeed better
by having a social standing at the Capitol, so that he might
have an opportunity to influence men by private conversation.
He felt he could not acquire this acquaintance and confidence,
by at once and without hesitation pitching into the favorite
opinions of his associates and thereby, perhaps, making it im
possible for him ever to acquire position among them. He
preferred to gain their good opinion first.
Sumner was at this time in the prime of manhood. He was
forty years of age. The unshapeliness and slenderness of
his youthful days had disappeared and his frame had filled out
broadly so as to make him tower like a tribune among men.
He had not yet acquired the weight he did in later life. His
wealth of dark brown hair, not even tinged with gray, but worn
according to the fashion of the time, a little long, hung full
about his forehead. His clear blue eyes and open countenance
showed the enthusiasm of young manhood. His mouth and
nose were large but well shaped and his features clean cut,
showing lines of intelligence, noble aspirations and thoughtful,
student-life, not yet graven by age into furrows. To fill out a
face inclined to t>e long, he wore, as he did most of his life,
short side-whiskers. His face was otherwise smoothly shaved.
He always dressed in the fashion, but with good taste, and was
scrupulously clean. He was withal noticeably fine looking,
bearing with him the marks of a well-bred, temperate, intel
lectual man, absorbed in the purpose of his life, approaching
the earnestness of an enthusiast. His friendly smile, easily
provoked, seeming to invite others, his hearty laugh, his
naturalness, his friendly greeting won him acquaintances in
many directions. A leader of the New England Abolitionists,
with some reputation for eloquence sent to Washington to
represent an apparently hopeless cause, he was the most inter
esting new figure in the Senate.
There was from the first, among his colleagues a good deal
of curiosity to hear him; and the opportunity was not long
wanting. The Hungarian patriot, Louis Kossuth, had escaped
from Poland into Turkey and was there in friendly exile. The
President was authorized by Congress, at its previous session
to employ a ship of war to receive him and his fellow exiles
and convey them to the United States. One of the best ships
of the Navy, the Mississippi, was detailed for this service. On
the homeward voyage she touched in England, where for a few
weeks, by brilliant speeches, Kossuth invoked the aid of her
people for his oppressed country, and created a great en
thusiasm. The vessel was soon to arrive in New York and the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 243
question arose what form his welcome should take. Mr. Web
ster, the Secretary of State, thought that having been invited
and brought, as the guest of the nation, some Congressional
recognition of the event would be proper. Following this sug
gestion, a resolution had been introduced on the first day of the
session, by Foote of Mississippi providing for his reception and
entertainment; but some objection being made to its form, it
was withdrawn. On December eighth, Mr. Seward introduced
a resolution that " Congress, in the name and on behalf of the
people of the United States, give to Louis Kossuth a cordial
welcome, to the Capitol and to the country." An amendment
was moved to this resolution, that "while welcoming Kossuth
and his associates, it was due to candor to declare that it was
not the purpose of Congress to depart from the settled policy,
which forbids all interference with the domestic concerns of
other nations."
It was on this resolution and amendment that Sumner arose
to speak on December ninth, but it being late in the day, he
gave way to a motion to adjourn. The consideration of the
resolution was resumed the next day and Sumner spoke. After
recognizing the importance of the resolution as calculated to
create, combine and inspire sentiments for Freedom both in our
own and foreign countries, he said he was ready to vote for it,
without the amendment. He argued that we could not afford
to do things by halves, that the invitation having in the name
of Freedom, been extended to Kossuth and the hearts of the
people, being open to receive him, Congress could not now turn
its back upon him. He insisted it was a duty they owed, not
only to the last Congress, but to their guest himself. He
referred to the great and brilliant service of Kossuth for the
cause of Freedom and Equality, and said he saw " in him more
than in any other living man the power which may be exerted
by a single, earnest, honest soul in a noble cause." He could
find nothing in the law of nations, which forbade us to welcome
an exile to freedom ; he would seek no precedent for that.
But while he recognized the greatness of the guest, the charm
of his eloquence and the popularity of his cause, he could agree
in his behalf, to no belligerent intervention by our nation in the
affairs of Europe. He insisted that such a thing was neither,
upon the face of the resolution proposed by Seward, nor in any
way to be implied, from anything contained in its terms. He
wished to be distinctly understood as favoring no such interven
tion. While he inculcated no " frigid isolation " of ourselves, —
while he hoped that we would never close our ears to the
cry of distress and that we would never cease to swell

244 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
with indignation at' the oppression of tyranny, — while he
would offer sympathy to all, in every land, who struggled
for human rights, yet, nevertheless, against every pressure,
against all popular approaches, against all solicitations, against
all blandishments, he would uphold, with steady hand, the
peaceful neutrality of the Nation. And still, with these con
victions he could not join, in the amendment, proposing a
declaration of non-intervention, in the resolution. To an act
of courtesy and welcome, it attached a most ungracious con
dition. " A generous hospitality will not make terms or condi
tions with a guest!" he exclaimed, "and," he added, "such
hospitality, I trust, Congress will tender to Louis Kossuth."
The proposed amendment was lost, but the resolution offered
by Seward, welcoming Kossuth to the capital and the country,
in the name of the people, was passed, by a vote of thirty-three
to six, in the Senate, was concurred in by the House, and ap
proved by the President.
Kossuth became the Nation's guest and was welcomed by
Daniel Webster, as Secretary of State, at New York, in a
notable speech. He visited Washington and made a tour of the
country, speaking in the principal cities. Sumner met him
repeatedly in Washington. The charm of the man and the
success of his eloquence was greater than ever before. He was
received everywhere with unbounded enthusiasm and aroused
for his oppressed and dismembered country, the deepest sym
pathy. The enthusiasm for his cause, was so sweeping that it
threatened for a time to become a national issue, whether our
Nation should interfere or not. A charm still gathers about
his name; and his visit is remembered, as one of the brighest
episodes in our history, and one of the most impressive in the
history of eloquence. But after the first wave of excitement
had passed, the sober second thought of the people prevailed.
The country lost none of its admiration for Kossuth or of its
sympathy for his unfortunate country, but it was seen that the
armed intervention he advocated would not be granted by our
people and would probably be unavailing if it were. ,
Sumner had struck the true note, in his speech, the one that
finally prevailed, welcome without stint, to a noble and eloquent
man, admiration for his work, sympathy for struggling human
ity everywhere, — but no belligerent intervention, by our nation,
in the tangled web of European politics. His speech was a
clean cut expression of national duty and a generous tribute to
a pure patriot and a good man ; but it in no way committed us
to a cause that was already hopeless. Just at the beginning of
his career, it was well-timed for Sumner ; and it was well-timed

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 345
for the country. It helped him in the estimation of his fellow
Senators, to whom he had been represented as an agitator and
an enthusiast, a man of one idea. It showed that lie was not
as represented, that on one subject at least, he was careful, con
servative and sensible. Thoughtful men generally approved
his course. It satisfied the people of Massachusetts, especially
of Boston, always of a strongly conservative tendency ; and it
helped to correct the false impression of Sumner which many
of the newspapers of the Whig party had sought to convey
during the contest for the Senatorship.
Rufus Choate, one of his Whig opponents, in acknowledging
the receipt of a copy of the speech, in a characteristic letter
wrote : " I thank you for the copy of your beautiful speech, and
for the making of it. All men say it was a successful one, par-
liamentarily expressing it ; and I am sure it is sound and safe,
steering skilfully between cold-shoulderism and inhospitality,
on the one side and the splendid folly and wickedness of co
operation, on the other. Cover the Magyar with flowers, lave
him with perfumes, serenade him with eloquence, and let him
go home alone, — if he will not live here. Such is all that is
permitted to wise states, aspiring to the ' True Grandeur.'
" I wish to Heaven you would write to me de rebus Con-
gressus. How does the Senate strike you ? The best place this
day on earth for reasoned and thoughtful, yet stimulant public
speech. Think of that. Most truly yours, — in the Union. — "
But there were voices of dissent from Sumner's speech, —
not many, it is true, and not loud. It is a curious fact, that
some of them came from his closest friends. They did not
agree with his views of non-intervention. Wilson was one of
them and Howe was another. It would hardly be expected that
one of the revolutionary tendencies of Howe, would have much
fear of granting the assistance sought by Kossuth. When a
young man he had found his way to Greece to take part in her
revolution and again he went to Paris, where in active sym
pathy with Lafayette, he took part in the convulsions of the
city against Charles the Tenth. The consequences which might
follow such a step as intervention by our country in the affairs
of Hungary would have little terror for him. His sympathy
for human suffering and for the oppressed everywhere, carried
him readily over questions of state policy. But he was loyal to
Sumner. He wrote him chidingly, yet pleasantly, saying he
would not have believed, that one who had gone so fearlessly
into the Broad Street riot, where they had first become ac
quainted, would now hesitate to lend his vote and his voice to
help this oppressed people. Wilson agreed with him. He wel-

246 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
corned Kossuth to Boston and entered heartily into his mission.
Other Free-Soilers agreed with Howe and Wilson. But the
excitement was short-lived; and within a few months serious
thought of intervention disappeared.
Sumner continued faithful in his attendance upon the ses
sions of the Senate, watching its proceedings closely and ex
tending his acquaintance, but he did not take much part in the
public work. He did not think it would be becoming in him
to do so and such part as he did take he wished to be entirely
distinct from the slavery question. But he was determined that
the session should not close without being heard upon it. He
wanted to make sure of his ground, to learn the rules of pro
ceeding and debate and when he did speak deliver one hard
telling blow.
On January twenty-seventh, 1852, he spoke upon a bill,
under consideration in the Senate, granting public land to the
State of Iowa in aid of the construction of railroads within
that State. He had made some study of the subject, which led
him to believe that such aid should be granted. He advanced
the argument that the National Government owed a debt to
the States having this land within their borders. There were
many million acres of it, and all exempt from taxation. The
burden of protecting and improving it was a tax upon the
States, where it happened to lie. New people moved into the
State, crime had to be suppressed ; the school enumeration in
creased and new schoolhouses had to be built ; canals and roads
were opened and the taxable property had to pay for them.
Such things all gave permanent improvement to the country
and enhanced the value of all the adjacent land. But it laid a
great burden upon the owners of private property. Sumner
estimated that there had been, up to January first, 1849 ; 289,-
961,954 acres of the public land proclaimed for sale, that is,
surveyed and placed upon the market, and that it had remained
upon the market, for an average of twenty-five years, before it
was actually sold. All this time it was receiving protection
and development, but paying nothing. He placed the actual
cost of this protection, at the low rate of one cent per acre each
year, while it probably should have been two or three cents a
year. But at this low rate of one cent, it amounted in twenty-
five years to $72,490,475, an immense sum, clearly illustrating
the amount the National Government was actually debtor to
the States which embraced the land. He argued that tardy
justice required, when opportunity presented, as it did then,
that the Nation make reasonable grants of the land, in aid
of these improvements. " Coming from different States and

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 247
opposite sections we are all," he said, " Senators of the Union,
and our constant duty is without fear or favor to introduce into
the national legislature the principle of justice."
He could see no more appropriate object of such a grant
than the building of good roads. " It would be difficult to
exaggerate the influence of roads as means of civilization," he
said. " Where roads are not civilization cannot be ; and civil
ization advances as roads are extended. By roads, religion and
knowledge are diffused ; intercourse of all kinds is promoted, —
producer, manufacturer and consumer are all brought nearer
together, — commerce is quickened, — markets are created, —
property, wherever touched by these lines, as by a magic rod,
is changed into new values, — and the great current of travel,
like that stream of classic fable or one of the great rivers in
our own California, hurries in a channel of golden sand. The
roads together with the laws of ancient Rome, are now better
remembered than her victories. The Flaminian and Appian
ways, once trod by such great destinies, still remain as benefi
cent representatives of ancient grandeur. Under God the
roads and the schoolmaster are two chief agents of human im
provement. The education begun by the schoolmaster is ex
panded, liberalized and completed by intercourse with the
world; and this intercourse finds new opportunities and in
ducements in every road that is built."
The argument of Sumner attracted attention. It was a new
view of the subject; and the subject was one of present and
growing importance to the country. Government aid to roads
and railroads had always met with opposition. The building
of the National Road, from Baltimore westward, over the
mountains, in the face of steady and persistent opposition had
been one of the triumphs of the statesmanship of Henry Clay,
for which the people of Wheeling, through whose city it passed
had erected to him a monument. Railroads were only begin
ning to be built; our country was large and its wants growing.
To build them would require the expenditure of millions.
Should the National Government establish the precedent of
furnishing this aid ? True it was not money, but public lands
they now asked, yet the public lands had a value and Sumner
was in favor of giving such aid.
But the question of the disposition of the public lands was as
interesting as that of internal improvements. The Senators
from many of the other states, having none of this land, within
their boundaries, thought it should be preserved to be sold. The
debate continued from day to day until the seventeenth day of
February when Sumner's argument was assailed by Hunter of

248 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Virginia, who with Underwood of Kentucky was particularly
radical in opposition to the bill. When Hunter ceased speak
ing, Sumner arose to restate his argument and call attention to
the fact that if wrong it should be answered, that Hunter had
only claimed he had overstated the figures but nowhere denied
that they were figures even if overstated and had not even
attempted to answer them. The debate still continuing, an
effort was made to amend the bill, by providing that portions
of the public land should be distributed to each of the thirteen
original states and to Maine, Vermont, Tennessee and Kentucky
in the proportion of one acre to each inhabitant, according to
the last census to be used for purposes of education and in
ternal improvements. Sumner opposed this amendment.
The Senators from the West and Southwest appreciated the
service Sumner had done them in this debate and felt under ob
ligation to him. It was valuable aid from an unexpected source.
His argument attracted a good deal of attention, in the Senate,
and over the country, — especially in the West where most of the
lands lay. In Massachusetts it was made the occasion of
criticism of Sumner by the Whigs and of a resolution on the
subject, in the Legislature. The Whig papers in Boston took
it up against him and criticised his course. But the Free-
Soilers were satisfied with it. They were largely composed of
young men and controlled by conscience more than by questions
of finance. They had sent Sumner to the Senate and were loyal
to him. At this time he was in consultation or correspondence
with many of them and appreciated their advice and confidence.
One of their leaders was Robert Rantoul, Jr., who was elected
to Congress, the previous fall, by the same coalition of Free-
Soilers and Democrats as had placed Sumner in the Senate. He
had also been chosen, by the same coalition, to fill the unexpired
term of Webster in the Senate, an interval of a few weeks
expiring next March 4, and had he lived, he would probably
have become Sumner's colleague, after the next election.
He died at Washington, while serving his first term in the '
House. He belonged to one of the substantial families of
Beverly, was an able lawyer, had been carefully educated to
his profession and of such tastes as led him to continue his
literary studies in connection with the law. He had at the
time of his death, in contemplation, the preparation of a his
tory of France. His father before him had filled important
positions, had been a Member of the Legislature, Collector of
Revenue at Boston, and United States District Attorney for
Massachusetts, so that, by training and experience, the son had
been fitted for a public career. But it was ended all too soon,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 249
at the early age of forty-six, suddenly, after a brief illness, — so
brief that Sumner did not know of his sickness, till he heard
he was dying. His interest in the anti-slavery cause, his posi
tion in Congress, his ability to maintain himself, in public
speech, made him one whose death at the time, was a loss.
Two days after his death in a eulogy in the Senate, Sumner
said of him : " There was no topic within the wide range of
national concern, which did not occupy his thoughts. The
resources and needs of the West were all known to him and
Western interests were like his own. As the pioneer, resting
from his daily labors learns the death of Rantoul, he will feel
a personal grief. The fishermen on the Eastern coast, many of
whom are dwellers in his District will sympathize with the
pioneer. These hardy children of the sea, returning in their
small craft from late adventures, and hearing the sad tidings,
will feel that they too have lost a friend. And well they may.
During his last fitful hours of life, while reason still struggled
against disease, he was anxious for their welfare. The speech
which he had hoped soon to make in their behalf, was then
chasing through his mind. Finally in broken utterances, he
gave to them his latest thoughts. The death of such a man, so
sudden in mid career is well calculated to arrest attention
and to furnish admonition."
After enumerating the good causes, — public improvements,
particularly railroads, common schools, temperance, etc., for
which he had struggled, Sumner said : " There is another
cause that commanded his early sympathies and some of his
latest endeavors, to which had life been spared, he would have
given the splendid maturity of his powers. Posterity cannot
forget this ; but I am forbidden by the occasion to name it here.
Sir, in the long line of portraits on the walls of the Ducal
Palace at Venice, commemorating its Doges, a single panel
where a portrait should have been is shrouded by a dark cur
tain. But this darkened blank, in that place, attracts the be
holder more than any picture. Let such a curtain fall to-day
upon this theme."
The reference was to slavery, — the first Sumner made to it
in the Senate. But even this slight allusion in the sensitive
condition of the Senate, caused such irritation, that Sumner's
colleague, John Davis, gave it as his reason for not speaking on
the resolutions and allowing the vote upon them to be taken at
once. But the slavery question could not be kept out of the Con
gressional Record. Frown on it, resolve against it, compromise
it as they might, still it seemed to be the one subject that always

250 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
appeared. The mention of it was almost sure to provoke a
scene. Members were tired of it. They felt that little good
could come of farther discussion of it. They ruled it out of
order, but the people sent new men, who would bring it to the
attention of Congress again and insist upon discussing it.
During his first winter in Washington, Sumner was asked
to present to the Senate a memorial asking for the release of
Drayton and Sayres, master and mate of the schooner Pearl,
who had been convicted and imprisoned for the crime of trans
porting slaves. This was the first work in the anti-slavery
cause that Sumner was asked to do in Washington. It is an
interesting episode in anti-slavery history and on this account,
aside from Sumner's connection with it, is worth preserving.
On the morning of the sixteenth of April, 1848, the people of
Washington were surprised, with the intelligence that seventy-
six slaves had escaped on board the Pearl, a vessel, that had been
quietly lying in the river and sailing down the Potomac, were
then hurrying off to Freedom. The news and the thought that
their own property might thus easily flee away, caused much
excitement among the slave-holders of the city. Other vessels
were immediately dispatched in pursuit, the Pearl was over
hauled and the slaves with Drayton and Sayres were brought
back to the city. Upon landing, the offending master and
mate were met on the wharf by a mob that threatened to
lynch them. The police however succeeded in getting them to
the jail, when the mob surrounded the building and learning
that Joshua R Giddings was there in consultation with the
prisoners, as their attorney, they demanded that he be at once
expelled or they would cause bloodshed. And the jailer obliged
him to retire.
The case of the offending master and mate was promptly
brought before a grand-jury and one hundred and fifteen in
dictments were found against them. Horace Mann, then a Rep
resentative in Congress from Massachusetts, at Sumner's re
quest, defended them, on their trial, Sumner assisting him with
authorities. They were, however, convicted and were sentenced
to pay fines amounting to more than twenty thousand dollars
and were remanded to jail till the fines and costs were paid.
They had already lain in jail more than four years. Some good
people in Boston, among them Wendell Phillips, united in a
petition to Congress asking for their release and sent it to
Sumner for presentation in the Senate. Sumner, feeling that
such a petition presented to a body of such sentiments would
only raise a new storm against Drayton and Sayres, took the
liberty to withhold it and applied to President Fillmore, in

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 251
their behalf, for a pardon. The President questioned his power
to grant a pardon in such a case, part of the fines being payable
to the owners of the slaves abducted; and so the matter rested
for some months. Upon Sumner pressing the matter farther,
the President asked him to furnish some authorities in
support of his power to grant a pardon in such cases. Sumner
thereupon prepared a brief upon this question, which the Presi
dent submitted to the Attorney-General. He sustained the view
of Sumner as to the power of the President to grant the pardon,
but expressly refrained from expressing any opinion as to the
propriety of granting it in these cases.
Soon after, the Whig Convention nominating General Scott
for President, thus defeating Fillmore, the pardons were
granted. The President informed Sumner, by a note that he
had signed them, when Sumner fearing that the prisoners
would be arrested on other charges, went to the jail, in a car
riage and placing them in charge of a friend, they were driven
under the darkness of night to Baltimore, where they arrived
in time to take the early train for the North and were soon in
a Free State and out of danger.
By some persons Sumner was criticised for not following the
request of the petitioners and presenting their prayer to Con
gress. Such a course they thought would have given publicity
to the application and would have aroused indignation at the
treatment of the prisoners, and would also have provoked a
discussion of the slavery question in Congress. But whatever
of benefit it might have brought in this way, would the chance
of the good have justified the additional suffering it would
have entailed on Drayton and Sayres? Sumner thought it
would not and the prisoners, when he visited the jail for the
purpose of consulting them, agreed with him. They felt they
had suffered enough already for the cause, without additional
martyrdom being placed upon them. Wendell Phillips frankly
admitted the wisdom of Sumner's course.
It was not the intention of either the Whigs or Democrats to
have any discussion of the slavery question during this ses
sion of Congress. The Compromise measures, which were to
settle everything, and on which Webster had made his fatal
seventh of March speech, had been passed only the previous ses
sion, after a long and anxious debate. The recollection of it
was too fresh for them to permit this Compromise to be at
tacked thus early. Both parties in their National Platforms,
during the summer of 1852, while Congress was still in ses
sion, had declared the question settled and were pledged against
any attempt to reopen it. They both hoped to be rid of it

252

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

during the coming campaign. They were determined that
whoever attempted to open it, should be put down if possible.
This did not bode well for Sumner, who had been sent to the
Senate to do this very thing and because of his especial capacity
for it. But he was not a party to the Compromise, and the
pledges of others to sustain it, did not bind him. He was there
fore determined to discuss it.
On the 26th day of May, he offered in the Senate, the pe
tition of some residents of Massachusetts, of the Society of
Friends for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. This law
was enacted as a part of tbe Compromise. He had read only a
part of it, the prayer of the petition, setting out in respectful
terms, that they asked the repeal of the law, because of its in
justice to a long oppressed race and especially because it placed
them in jeopardy of the penalties of a law, which they could not
conscientiously obey. He was prefacing his motion for a refer
ence of the petition to the proper committee with the remark :
" This memorial is commended by the character of the religious
association from which it proceeds, — men who mingle rarely in
public affairs, but with austere virtue seek to carry the Chris
tian rule into life;" when he was abruptly stopped by the
Presiding officer, Mr. King, of Alabama, who called him to
order, telling him that he had no right to say anything more
than state the contents of the memorial and move its reference,
that more than this was out of order. Yet Sumner had ob
served that it was the constant practice, upon any other sub
ject to do just as he was doing. Upon being assured that it
was not his purpose to make a speech on the subject of slavery,
the Senate allowed him to proceed. He then completed his
statement, but gave notice that at some appropriate time he
proposed to address the Senate upon this question.
He moved to refer the petition to the Committee on the Judi
ciary. A discussion of the motion arose. Finally on motion
of Badger of North Carolina, the memorial was laid on the
table. Without saying much about it, except to his most intimate
friends, Sumner felt discouraged by the prospect. Senators
knew he wished to speak on the subject, but they were resolved,
and openly made their boasts, that he should not be allowed
to do so. He felt that he could not expect to change their
convictions by what he would say, but he insisted that he should
be allowed the right of free discussion, in the place to which
he had been elected. Almost pleadingly he reminded them,
that thus far during the session, he had forborne to obtrude
his views upon them, that it was only justice he asked, that

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 253
both sides should be heard and he hoped they would hear him
patiently, while he candidly and courteously presented the
views of another portion of the country differing from theirs.
On the 27th day of July, Sumner made another attempt to
be heard. He offered a resolution in the Senate instructing the
Judiciary Committee to consider the expediency of reporting
a bill repealing the Fugitive Slave Law and gave notice that he
would ask to be heard on the next day. Accordingly the next
day, July 28th, he called up the Resolution and asked the Senate
for leave to speak upon it.
" In allowing me this privilege," he said, " this right, I
may say, you do not commit yourselves in any way to the prin
ciple of the resolution ; you merely follow the ordinary usage
of the Senate, and yield to a brother Senator the opportunity
which he craves, in the practical discharge of his duty, to ex
press convictions dear to his heart, and dear to large numbers
of his constituents. For the sake of these constituents, for
my own sake, I now desire to be heard. Make such disposition
of my resolutions afterwards, as to you shall seem best ; visit
upon me any degree of criticism, censure or displeasure; but
do not refuse me a hearing. ' Strike, but hear.' "
A debate ensued, all the speakers except one, being opposed
to taking up the resolution. They assigned the want of time
and danger to the Union as the reasons. When the vote was
taken, there were only ten in its favor; while thirty-two voted
against it. Sumner was deliberately denied the privilege of
speaking. He now saw that if he spoke at all, it would have to
be as a matter of right, at a time when the Senate under its
rules could not stop him. He must therefore watch for such a
time and find it, or go back to his constituents, at the close of
the session, unheard and, perhaps, discredited.
His constituents did not understand his silence. How was
it possible for plain people, — farmers at work in the fields, or
the smith at his forge, or the fisherman toiling at his oar, to
know the rules of the Senate ? Who would explain his silence
to them ? And yet they were the people around whose hearths,
the newspapers were daily read in hope of learning of some of
the powerful strokes 'for Freedom, they had been accustomed
to hear from him on the platform and at the hustings. Would
they think, that he, who had talked to them of the need of more
backbone and whom they, had supported because he was thought
to have this essential qualification, had been seduced from the
path of duty. And yet these were people whose good opinion
Sumner valued. Such thoughts troubled him.
In certain quarters in Massachusetts, there was already dis-

254 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
satisfaction with his silence. The Free-Soilers, the party which
had really placed him in the Senate, were men usually of high
moral purposes, but intent on the one object before them and
so absorbed in it, that they were apt to forget all other con
siderations. They were often impracticable. They were ex
acting in their claims upon public officials and inclined to be
pessimistic and to believe that men in office were not faithful
or honest. When their confidence in a man was once shaken
they were unreasonable in their opinion of him and usually
loud in expressing it. This was a hard party to serve. As their
servant, Sumner felt during his first winter in Washingtonthat
his position was a hard one. He feared they were requiring
more of him than human skill could accomplish.
Sumner's Free-Soil constituents were frequently taunted
on the subject of his silence, by the Whigs on one side and by
the non-voting Abolitionists, on the other. Of course the Whigs
after fighting his election, wished him to fail. This would con
firm their estimate of him, when they said before his election
that he was unfit for the place. They had abundant means of
calling attention to his silence and giving publieity to his course,
for they controlled the leading newspapers of the State. These
papers had generally pursued a disparaging course towards him.
For example, in the Iowa land debate, they gave prominence,
in their accounts of it, to the views of his adversaries and to
what was said in criticism of Sumner, while they gave no space
to his remarks or to his arguments. In a note to an edition of
his speeches which he was then publishing, Winthrop called
disparaging attention to Sumner's silence. Another Whig
made a reference to it, in a speech in the State Senate, so
pointed and offensive that Wilson left the chair to reply to it.
Such thrusts were common in conversation.
The non-voting Abolitionists were even worse than the
Whigs. While it must be conceded they meant well to the anti-
slavery cause, they had such a disagreeable way of showing it,
that it may fairly be questioned whether they did not do the
cause more harm than good. They stubbornly refused to help
it by their votes, yet after their more sensible anti-slavery
friends, by working and managing and voting had secured a
victory, they presumptuously rushed in to take charge of who
ever was thus elected assuming to direct him in everything and
if he did not at once bow to their nod, they proceeded to dis
card him and proclaim him untrue. Just at this time they were
busy denouncing Sumner.
William Lloyd Garrison, at a meeting of the Norfolk County
Anti-Slavery Society, held at Dedham, offered a resolution,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 255
criticising Sumner for his silence for four months. But the
resolution was successfully opposed by others, who knew the
reasons for his silence, from correspondence and who approved
his course. Among its opposers was Wendell Phillips. He
spoke against the resolution and said that the man who delivered
that City Oration and who not being aware of the sacrifice he
was making for his principles, yet had stuck to them as he did
after finding it out, and who had afterward advanced to the
prison discipline and anti-slavery struggles and maintained
himself as he had done, had earned the right to be trusted,
farther than men could see his steps or know his reasons and
that he proposed to trust him to the end of the session.
Richard H. Dana, Jr., best characterized the situation, how
ever, when he wrote Sumner : " There are some men who think
that nothing is doing, unless there is a gun firing or a bell
ringing. They are superficial persons in whom is no depth of
root; they are easily offended. The work we have to do is a
long one ; there is no pending question. Patience and judgment
and preparation are as necessary as zeal and more rare."
The effect, however, of all this carping criticism of the Whigs
and the non-voting Abolitionists was to the disadvantage of
Sumner, who had not yet an established reputation as a states
man to give confidence to his supporters. It made his position
difficult, and it stirred up opposition to him in his own party.
But in the main, while many of the party did not understand
his course, they continued loyal to him. The leaders, however,
realized that they could not be depended on to continue this
support indefinitely. Voters had been attracted from the old
parties, by the promises held out by the new and these promises
must be fulfilled. They advised him that to let the session
close, without speaking would destroy confidence in him and
weaken his position with the people and would injure the
party, for whose success they were all anxious.
What Sumner feared was that he might not be able to speak.
He realized now that the Senate would not consent to hear him.
He realized also that he could not be heard as of right and
without the consent of the Senate except on the appropriation
bill when it came up for consideration. Some of the Senators,
like Soule, had expressed to him privately, a desire to hear his
views, but the discipline of the party was so great upon this
question, that upon July 27 and 28, when he had asked the
privilege of speaking, these very Senators had voted with the
majority against hearing him. Upon any other question this
courtesy would not have been denied him. Some of them urged
him to ask leave to print his speech, in the Record without

256 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
delivering it; others had begged that he would not press the
Senate to a vote on slavery, at this session and thus embarrass
some supporters of General Scott, like Seward, by compelling
them to record their position. But Sumner's answer was that
he would speak and, God willing, he would press the question
to a vote, even if he were left alone. This being known, he
feared the consideration of the appropriation bill would be
postponed till the last day of the session to prevent him being
heard, and thus compel him to either not speak at all or if he
did, to not be heard fully. He might prevent the passage of the
bill and thereby cause an extra session. Sumner, however, was
a man not easily turned from his purpose. He knew he had a
right to be heard, and he determined he would be heard, even
at the risk of an extra session.
But as he did not wish to take before the country the respon
sibility for an extra session, he kept his purpose of speaking on
the appropriation bill a secret, except from a few close friends,
upon whom he laid the injunction of secrecy. To prevent its
being suspected, he cleared away the evidence of preparation,
removed the books and papers from his desk and gave attention
to the routine work of the Senate. He, however, pressed his
preparation vigorously, at all times when the Senate was not in
session, knowing that no work now would be lost, that the time
was approaching when he must be heard.
At last that time came. The appropriation bill was reported
to the Senate, on the nineteenth day of August, but it was not
until August twenty-sixth, within three days of the close of
the session, that any item of the bill was reached for considera
tion, to which his speech would be relevant. His purpose was,
when the clause was reached, providing for the expense of the
United States Courts in executing the Fugitive Slave Law, to
move to strike out every appropriation for the execution of it
and ask that the law itself be repealed. On the twenty-sixth
day of August, Hunter, of Virginia, on recommendation of the
Committee, moved to amend the bill, as follows :
" That where the ministerial officers of the United States
have or shall incur extraordinary expenses in executing the
laws thereof, the payment of which is not specifically provided
for, the President of the United States is authorized to allow
the payment thereof under the special taxation of the District
or Circuit Court of the District in which the said services have
been or shall be rendered, to be paid from the appropriation for
defraying the expenses of the Judiciary."
This was Sumner's opportunity and he promptly seized it and
offered the following amendment to the one offered by Hunter :

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 257
"Provided that no such allowance shall be authorized for
any expenses incurred in executing the Act of September 18,
1850, for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, which
said Act is hereby repealed."
On this he took the floor and spoke. In commencing he did
not conceal the exultation he felt, in having at last secured this
opportunity to discuss slavery and the Fugitive Slave Law.
" Here is a provision for extraordinary expenses," he said,
" incurred in executing the laws of the United States. Extra
ordinary expenses ! Sir, beneath these specious words lurks the
very subject on which by a solemn vote of this body, I was
refused a hearing. Here it is no longer open to the charge of
being an ' abstraction,' but actually presented for practical
legislation; not introduced by me, but by the Senator from
Virginia, on the recommendation of an important committee
of the Senate ; not brought forward weeks ago, when there was
ample time for discussion, but only at this moment, without
any reference to the late period of the session. The amendment
which I offer proposes to remove one chief occasion of these
extraordinary expenses. Beyond all controversy or cavil it is
strictly in order. And now, at last, among these final crowded
days of our duties here, but at this earliest opportunity, I am to
be heard, — not as a favor, but as a right. The graceful usages
of this body may be abandoned but the established privileges
of debate cannot be abridged. Parliamentary courtesy may be
forgotten, but parliamentary law must prevail. The subject
is broadly before the Senate. By the blessing of God it shall
be discussed."
He referred to the responsibility he assumed in attacking an
institution engrafted as slavery had been upon the constitution
and laws of the country. In the existing distemper of the
public mind and at the present juncture no man, he said, could
enter upon the service which he now undertook, without per
sonal responsibility such as could be sustained only by the sense
of duty which, under God, is always one's best support. But he
was willing to be held responsible for this act before the Senate
and the country and for every word which he was about to utter.
He was painfully convinced of the unutterable wrong and woe
of slavery and he believed that according to the true spirit of
the Constitution it could find no place under our National
Government. " I have never been a politician," he said. " The slave of
principle I call no party master. By sentiment, education and
conviction a friend of human rights in their utmost expansion,
I have ever most sincerely embraced the Democratic Idea, — not.

258 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
indeed, as represented or professed by any party but accord
ing to its real significance as transfigured in the Declaration
of Independence and in the injunctions of Christianity. In
this idea I see no narrow advantage merely for individuals or
classes, but the sovereignty of the people, and the greatest
happiness of all secured by equal laws. I shall hold fast always
to this idea and to any political party which truly embraces it."
He reminded them that he would not forget the amenities
which belong to debate and which especially became the Sen
ate. It was the institution of slavery which he assailed, not
its apologists. It was this wrong which he condemned without
fear and without favor but as without impeachment of any
person. Coming to the question of slavery he said that at the thresh
old he encountered the objection that there had been a final
settlement in principle and substance of this question and that
all discussion of it was closed, that both the old political parties
in their conventions had recently united in this declaration ; and
yet this was the very subject which was palpitating in every
heart and burning on every tongue. He insisted that such
party declarations were tyrannical. They curtailed the power
of legislation and trampled upon the right of free speech. On
slavery as on every other subject he claimed the right to be
heard. In words almost prophetic he added : " The movement
against slavery is from the Everlasting Arm. Even now it is
gathering its forces, soon to be confessed everywhere. It may
not be felt yet in the high places of office and power, but all
who can put their ears humbly to the ground will hear and com
prehend its incessant and advancing tread."
For a long time the demands and the threats of the South
had been growing. As it reached out for more territory, of
which to make slave states, it became intolerant of opposition.
The refusal of its demands was met with prompt threats of se
cession and complaints that the North was not fair to the
South, that while the North had its tariff, largely favorable to
its manufactures, it was ready to wrest from the South its
cheap slave labor without which the rice and cotton fields
could not be tilled with profit. Whoever advocated the aboli
tion of slavery was, therefore, charged by the slave power
as being a sectionalist, as wishing to drive the South out and
break up the Union. Accordingly an anti-slavery party was a
sectional party, but a pro-slavery party was a national party.
To be an ant t-slavery Whig was to be a Sectional Whig; but.
to be a pro-slavery Whig was to be a National Whig. " Anti-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 259
slavery "had become a term of reproach in the North, as well
as in the South. Both the Whig and Democratic parties as
pired to be " National " parties and they had accordingly both
become pro-slavery. It was Sumner's hope to remove from the
friends of Freedom, the opprobrium of this term " sectional ".
This was- the title of his speech : " Freedom, national ;
slavery, sectional." He sought to show, first. The true relation
of slavery to the National Government, that there was no
national power under the Constitution by which it could be
supported, and, second, The character of the legislation for the
rendition of fugitives from service, The Fugitive Slave Law,
that it was unconstitutional and offensive to the principles of
our Government.
To show that slavery had no support in the Constitution, he
quoted from the decisions of Lord Mansfield and the Supreme
Court of Mississippi and the Court of Appeals of Kentucky,
where it was held that if slavery existed at all, it must be
by virtue of positive enactment, that a condition of perpetual
bondage was so contrary to human rights and the law of nature
that it could only be created by express enactment, that no
form of implication could support it. He then showed that
slavery was nowhere mentioned in the Constitution and that all
its provisions made slavery impossible, as a National institution.
It could only be derived by interpretation, which the authorities
cited forbade and he farther insisted that by no fair interpreta
tion could it be allowed. The preamble recites that the people to
promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of Liberty
* * * do ordain and establish this Constitution." So the pur
pose of its enactment was in opposition to slavery. The con
temporary declarations in the Convention of its framers con
firmed this. Gouverneur Morris who "never would concur in
upholding domestic slavery ; " Elbridge Gerry, who wanted to
be " careful not to give any sanction to it ; " Oliver Elsworth
who thought " the morality and wisdom of slavery were consid
erations belonging to the States themselves; Roger Sherman
who was opposed to recognizing slaves as property; and James
Madison who "thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution
the idea that there could be property in men ; " — all showed
they designedly omitted giving any sanction to the existence
of slavery in the Constitution. Jurisdiction over the subject of
slavery was recognized as belonging exclusively to the States
and the framers did not intend that the Constitution should
countenance it or the national government be in any way re
sponsible for its existence. In the Massachusetts convention to
ratify the Constitution, General Heath had said that by adopt-

260 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ing it, they did nothing to hold the blacks in slavery or to
partake of other men's sins for it; and this seemed to be the
sentiment of the convention.
He argued that the political acts of a nation, like statutes in
pari materia, ought to be construed together. The Declaration
of Independence should be read with the Constitution, each
to throw light upon the construction to be given to the other.
It commences with the self-evident truth, that " all men are
created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with
certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness, that to secure these rights gov
ernments are instituted among men." Notice that the rights
for which the Colonists were struggling were the liberty and
equality which belonged to them as to all men. After the war
for these principles had successfully closed the Continental
Congress in an address to the States confirmed the doctrine of
the Declaration by saying, " it had ever been the pride and
boast of America that the rights for which she contended were
the rights of human nature." The Constitution by refusing to
recognize slavery confirmed the same universal right to liberty
and equality as the Declaration and the Address.
The rule of interpretation handed down from the English
Common Law, not to be neglected in determining whether
slavery found any support in the Constitution, was that in any
question under this instrument, " every word must be con
strued in favor of Liberty. Slavery was not to be supported
by interpretation or by implication unless clearly within the
intention of the framers. In cases of doubtful construction,
the doubt was to be resolved in favor of liberty. Following
this rule of construction, the Supreme Court of the United
States refused to recognize slaves as property or otherwise than
as persons, saying that the power over slavery belonged to the
States respectively, it was local in its character and in its effects
(15 Peters 507).
Thus from every point of view, Sumner concluded, that
slavery was not a National, but a Sectional, institution. Free
dom alone was National.
Such a construction of the Constitution and of the powers of
the National Government, he argued, was confirmed by the
history and prevailing sentiment of the time of their formation.
When that Government was organized there was not a slave
anywhere within the National territory. The great men who
organized it, Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Jay and Jefferson,
Patrick Henry, " the orator of liberty " and William Pinkney,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 261
"the acknowledged head of the American Bar," all concurred
in condemning it.
One of the earliest acts of the first Congress under the Con
stitution was to ratify the Ordinance of 1787, forever prohibit
ing slavery in the North West Territory, thus saving this broad
tract to freedom. Abolition societies of Virginia and Penn
sylvania alike petitioned this same Congress in behalf of the
slaves. Franklin, then eighty-four years of age, set his name as
president of one Society to the petition from his State, asking
Congress to " step to the very verge of the power vested in it for
discouraging every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow
men." The policy then was, not the nationalization of slavery,
but the denationalization of it. In the conventions to consider
the Constitution, several of the States expressed fears for the
indefiniteness of some of its provisions and in accordance with
their suggestions, the first Congress presented to the States for
adoption this clause, which afterwards being ratified, became
the Tenth Amendment ; " The powers not delegated to the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States are reserved to the States respectively or to the people."
Thus not having provided for slavery in the Constitution, in
express terms, or by any fair implication, they went farther
and reserved all authority over every such question to the
State. So there being no power in the National Government
to create a system of slavery, all national legislation upholding
it was unconstitutional and void.
Sumner also called attention to the fact that on the recom
mendation of the first Congress, another Amendment had been
added to the Constitution : " No person shall be deprived of
life, liberty or property without due process of law." He argued
that the force of this Amendment, as a safeguard of Freedom
was greater as shown by its history than even its emphatic
language showed. As originally recommended, it read : " No
freeman ought to be deprived of his life, liberty or property
but by the law of the land." But Congress had rejected it in
this form and refused to confine this great bill of rights to
freemen alone, but had extended it to every person, " whether
Caucasian, Indian or African, — from the President to the
slave." They forbade liberty to be taken from any one, except
by some regular process of the law, as indictment or present
ment. The application of these principles, he_ argued, the funda
mental principles of the Republic, if carried out in the spirit
of their adoption, would abolish slavery everywhere from
National territory, make it impossible upon the high seas, under

262 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
our flag, stop it in the District of Columbia, prevent the sanc
tion of Congress to the admission of slave States, the Govern
ment to support slavery or to hunt slaves.
"And yet," he said "politicians of the hour undertake to
place these convictions under formal ban. The slave masters
few in number, amounting to not more than three hundred and
fifty thousand, according to the recent census, have succeeded
in dictating the policy of the National Government, and have
written slavery on its front. The change which began in the
desire for wealth, was aggravated by the desire for political
predominance. Through slavery the cotton crop increased,
with its enriching gains ; through slavery, States became part
of the Slave Power. And now an arrogant and unrelenting
ostracism is applied, not only to all who express themselves
against slavery, but to every man unwilling to be its menial. A
novel test for office is introduced, which would have excluded all
the Fathers of the Republic, — even Washington, Jefferson and
Franklin ! "
"This single fact reveals the extent to which the National
Government has departed from its true course and its great
examples. For myself, I know no better aim under the Consti
tution than to bring the Government back to the precise posi
tion on this question it occupied on the auspicious morning of
its first organization by Washington, — * * * that the sentiments
of the Fathers may again prevail with our rulers, and the Na
tional Flag may nowhere shelter slavery."
Sumner then passed to the second branch of his subject, the
nature of the provision for the rendition of fugitives from
service, the Fugitive Slave Law.
He argued from the Debates in the Convention that when the
Constitution was framed no such power was claimed for Con
gress as was exercised in the passage of this law. The subject
of the recovery of fugitive slaves was brought before the Con
vention once, about the time of its adjournment and then the
proposition to give Congress power over the subject was
promptly objected to and it was as promptly withdrawn. It was
proposed to amend the clause for the surrender of fugitives from
justice to make it also include the surrender of slaves as well
as criminals. When the amendment was withdrawn, the clause
for the surrender of criminals was unanimously adopted as it
now appears in the Constitution. The clause for the surrender
of persons bound to service had no reference to slavery and
was adopted without debate and without opposition. The claim
of the slaveholders that this clause referred to slaves and was
adopted by way of compromise was, as shown by the Debates,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 263
absolutely without foundation. The States in ratifying the
Constitution did not make such a claim in their Convention
nor did the men who had assisted to frame it.
The first assumption of the power to pass such a law, appeared
in the Act of Congress of 1793, when it was tacked on to a law
for the reclamation of criminals. In this apparently accidental
manner, without attracting attention, it crept into the Statutes.
More than a quarter of a century elapsed, before it was success
fully enforced. In 1801 and again in 1817, an effort was made
to secure more effective legislation on the subject; but both at
tempts failed. It was not until 1850 that the first really effi
cient legislation, in the Fugitive Slave Law, was enacted.
Speaking of this law, for whose repeal he was arguing, Sum
ner declared: "There is no safeguard of Human Freedom
which the Monster Act does not set at nought. It commits
this great question ' of a man's liberty ' not to a solemn trial,
but to summary proceedings. It commits it not to one of the
high tribunals of the land, but to the unaided judgment of a
petty magistrate. It commits it to a magistrate appointed, not
by the President with the consent of the Senate, but by the
Court, holding office, not during good behavior, but merely dur
ing the will of the Court and receiving not a regular salary,
but fees according to each individual case. It authorizes
judgment on ex parte evidence, without the sanction of a
cross-examination. It denies the writ of Habeas Corpus, ever
known as the Paladium of the citizen. Contrary to the declared
purposes of the framers of the Constitution, it sends the fugitive
back ' at the public expense '. It bribes the Commissioner by
a double stipend to pronounce against Freedom. If he dooms
a man to slavery, the reward is ten dollars ; but saving him to
freedom, his dole is five. It visits with penalties the faithful
men and women who render to the fugitive slave the succor and
shelter which religion requires to be given to the poor and the
oppressed. According to the experience of all civilized nations
there should be an end to the right to bring a suit fixed by
statutes of limitation, but this act permits proceedings against
those enjoying freedom without any reference to the lapse of
time." Sumner insisted that the law was a usurpation by Congress of
powers not granted by the Constitution, that it was not within
the express powers granted, nor could it be fairly implied
from any general grant, that the law was also unconstitutional
because it deprived the person apprehended of the right of
trial by jury, the Constitution providing that " no person shall
be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of

264 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
law," in other words, as interpreted, without a regular suit at
law, with trial by jury. It further provided that, " in suits at
common law where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty
dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved," and he
maintained that a suit to recover a fugitive was within the
purview of this clause, for a man's freedom was above all price
and hence without doubt of more than twenty dollars in value.
He drew a parallel between the Fugitive Slave Law and the
British Stamp Act, that had excited the revolt of the Colonies
against the Mother country, showing that the same disregard
of the provisions of the British constitution, the same denial
of the right of trial by jury existed in both. And he insisted
that the same injustice in the one had provoked the same re
sistance as it must in the other, that neither could be enforced.
" In the face of an awakened community, where discussion
had free scope, no men though supported by office and wealth
could long maintain injustice. The Stamp Act was discussed
and understood. Its violation of constitutional rights was
exposed. In the charnel-house of history, with unclean things
of the Past it rots. Thither the Slave Act would follow."
This law, he argued, could not be enforced and, if not, it
should be repealed. It lacked the essential support of the public
conscience in the States where it was to be enforced. This was
the life of every law and without it a statute could be only empty
words. The law that could be enforced only by the bayonet,
was no law. The attempts to enforce it had been signal failures.
At Buffalo, the fugitive was knocked, by a log of wood, against
a red hot stove and his trial commenced, while the blood still
oozed from his wounded head. At Syracuse, an unexpected mob
surrounded the prisoner and rescued him. The same thing
occurred in Boston, at the first attempt to execute the law, when
a crowd of colored men forced their way into the court-room,
rescued the prisoner and allowed him to escape to Canada. In
another instance when a slave-hunter appeared in the city to
reclaim a fugitive and his wife, by some of the first citizens,
they were secreted and conveyed on board a vessel and sent to
England. In still a third case, the slave was arrested on the
pretext that he was a criminal, only after a deadly struggle,
tried, with the weight of the Administration at Washington
against him, to make it a test case, in a court-house girdled with
chains, convicted and escorted to the vessel, that was to return
him to slavery, by three hundred armed policemen, while the
pulpit and the people of Boston trembled with indignation at
the unaccustomed sight. At Harrisburg, the fugitive was shot ;
at Christiana, the slave-hunter was shot. At New York every

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 265
attempt to enforce the law was attended with strife. A law
that produced no better results should be at once repealed.
Sumner produced an autograph letter of Washington that had
never before been made public. He was writing to a friend in
the North desiring his good offices in the return of a fugitive
slave woman to whom her mistress, Lady Washington, was
attached. _ But he enjoined upon him caution in what he did,
that nothing should be done for her recovery that " would ex
cite a mob or riot * * * or even uneasy sensations in the minds of
well-disposed citizens." The fugitive was never returned. And
Washington never made any farther effort for her recovery —
an example of forbearance, in strange contrast with the spirit
of this law and of the attempts made to enforce it !
What then was to be the remedy, for the loss by the South of
its fugitive slaves? Sumner insisted that the Nation had no
power to legislate on this subject, that it was exclusively within
the jurisdiction of the States, that each State must determine
for itself the precise extent of its obligation and that in any
law passed by them the fugitive slaves must not be denied the
right of trial by jury and of the writ of habeas corpus; that they
must be allowed to face and cross-examine the witnesses against
them and to testify themselves and to produce evidence in
their own behalf.
Sumner occupied three hours and forty-five minutes in
the delivery of the speech. The Senate gave him good attention
and no one sought to interrupt him. The speech was unex
pected but when the word was passed around that he was speak
ing, the galleries and the floor were soon occupied with persons
who wished to hear what he had to say. His colleague John
Davis was behind the Speaker's chair when the vote was taken
on Sumner's amendment. It was strange doctrine to him.
Mr. Seward was also absent and did not vote. Mr. Web
ster came in during the speech and remained quietly listening
for an hour or more. No one knows what thoughts were pass
ing through his mind, but it would have been interesting
to see the fitful shadows come and go as the old statesman sat
listening to the words of the young man who had dragged his
own record to the bar of his constituents and had been returned
to the Senate to teach the Nation these very principles of Lib
erty and Equality that he had betrayed. Already the man to
whom he was listening was fulfilling the prediction, that he
had made of him when a boy, that his country had a pledge
of him.
The Senate did not intend to have a discussion of slavery
precipitated upon it, so close to its adjournment. Clemens of

266 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Alabama, who first secured the floor after Sumner, expressed
the hope that none of his friends would reply to Sumner's
speech, that "the barking of a puppy never did any harm."
But the feeling of the pro-slavery Senators was aroused. Bad
ger of North Carolina undertook to reply to Sumner at length.
To prove what he claimed was the pernicious influence of Sum
ner, in inciting the people to acts of violence, he quoted largely
from his speech in Faneuil Hall, on November 6, 1850, in which
he had arraigned the Fugitive Slave Bill. This led Hale of
New Hampshire, in answering him, to remark that the quota
tions were the best part of Badger's speech. Weller of Cali
fornia argued that Sumner's course was calculated to bring
upon him the blood of murdered men, that whoever " counsels
murder is himself a murderer." Twenty Senators took part in
the debate but only two, Chase and Hale, defended Sumner's
position. It continued until seven p. M. when it was inter
rupted by Mr. Hunter asking that the consideration of the Ap
propriation Bill be proceeded with by the Senate. When the
vote was taken on the amendment proposed by Sumner there
were only four in its favor, Chase, Hale, Sumner and Wade;
while forty-seven voted against it. Twelve years later Sumner
reported to the Senate and without difficulty carried the repeal
of this same law.
The speech revealed to the Senate the character of Sumner.
Often before anti-slavery men had appeared in Congress but
they hesitated before the superior numbers of the opposition and
almost without exception had allowed themselves to be cajoled
or driven from the field. With some of them there was an ap
parent want of sincerity, a half apologetic maintenance of their
views. With Hale who was one of the earliest and bravest,
there was a disposition to speak lightly of his cause in private
conversation, which, with a certain want of aggressiveness in
public, gave his colleagues reason to doubt his sincerity. Now
the pro-slavery people realized that they had a man to meet in
public life, who meant what he said, who never spoke slight
ingly of his cause, who had no doubt he was right, who did not
wait for supporters, who belonged to no party and would
recognize no party whip and who without fear and without
compromise, would fight and if defeated would fight again and
still fight on until he was victorious. Here was a man they
could not control, a man who had the gift of eloquence, that
from his vantage ground in the Senate, gave him a peculiar
power of reaching the people. It was this feeling, admitted by
them in private, that aroused their violent antipathy to Sumner
at a later day.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 267
One of the apparent faults, which even his friends must ad
mit in Sumner's character, was his egotism. He had the most
absolute confidence in his own convictions; he did not doubt
that he was right in his conclusions and he could not see how
others could have opinions different from his and still be sin
cere. He was intolerant of opposition and aggressive towards
those who did not agree with him. He insisted upon pushing
his own measures to the front and upon discussing them fully.
This often caused friction and created feeling among his
colleagues and it was often urged against him as a weakness.
His enemies made much of it. But what would Charles Sumner
have been in the Senate without it. If he had been of a doubt
ing, hesitating character, questioning his own convictions and
deferring to those of others, stopping to be agreeable and
waiting the pleasure of his colleagues to present his own meas
ures, what would he have accomplished in the Senate in 1851
and the succeeding years? It was this largely that made him
what he was, — the fearless, constant and, finally, successful
leader. His times demanded a man not only of his talents,
but of his faults also.
His speech satisfied the expectations of his friends. It was
what they had looked for when he was elected. The anxiety
of some, for fear he had been captured by the society of the Cap
itol and in consequence had lost his enthusiasm for the cause,
and the apprehension of others, who knew him better and ap
preciated his circumstances and feared that he might not be
able to get an opportunity to be heard, alike were turned to a
feeling of congratulation over the success he had scored. Wil
son, when he read it, pronounced it " glorious " and at once
wrote Sumner how pleased he was that God had given him the
power to aid in placing such a man in the Senate. William Cul
len Bryant, with a touch of sarcasm, declared the speech was the
only thing which preserved the character of this Senate. Others
thought it the ablest of all Sumner's speeches ; while still others,
pro-slavery in sentiment, declared it would do more mischief
than any speech ever made in the country. Several hundred
thousand copies were distributed in America ; it was translated
into German and two or more editions appeared in England.
It had not secured the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law. Such
a result could not be hoped for now. But it was an able
presentation of the anti-slavery side of the question, delivered
from a position, where it would command attention, printed
and circulated under the Nation's frank. It arrested public
attention and called a halt in the onward march of events. It
also became a mine of argument for the opponents of slavery.

268 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
After the delivery of the speech, Sumner continued in his
seat for the remainder of the day's session. In the farther con
sideration of the Appropriation Bill, it was proposed to amend
it, so as to allow the widow of Andrew J. Downing, Superin
tendent of Public Grounds, in Washington an additional al
lowance, equal to a year's salary, in consideration of her re
linquishment of all claim for her deceased husband's models
and drawings designed for the Government. Upon this amend
ment Sumner spoke briefly.
Four days later the Session closed. His brother George had
returned from Europe after eleven years absence. He came on
to Washington during the session and he and Charles occupied
rooms together. Their separation had been a long one but
there had been little diminution in the warmth of their affec
tion. Age and attainments had added to their appreciation of
one another. They had kept up a frequent correspondence and
by the exchange of thoughts and opinions had maintained an
interest in each others plans. Charles had been disturbed at
George's protracted absence and felt that he was not using pre
cious years to the best advantage. But George had been study
ing the languages and institutions of European countries and
came home thoroughly equipped on these subjects. The
Secretary of State, Mr. Webster, wished to avail himself
of this knowledge and offered him an appointment in his de
partment, but in the stress of feeling upon the slavery ques
tion asked some pledge of a difference of political views from
his brother Charles, which George felt would be unbecoming
in him to grant and in consequence declined the appointment.
George had a high sense of honor and was a careful student of
men and events, was more conservative than Charles and had
little sympathy for the anti-slavery views of his brother, but he
lacked his aggressiveness, his all absorbing industry and his
high ideals.
Sumner, as became customary with him afterwards, tarried
at the close of the session in Washington. He did not return
to Boston till shortly before the Free-Soil State Convention,
held at Lowell on September 15. He spoke there briefly, urg
ing the necessity for a third political party devoted to the cause
of Freedom. He was received by the convention with enthu
siastic demonstrations. But he soon went to Newport to visit
his brother Horace and remained there till late in the fall. He
took little or no part in the campaign.
In this he made a mistake. The Free-Soilers had hoped with
the aid of Democratic votes, to carry the State and secure
the seat of John Davis in the Senate and also to elect a Legis-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 269
lature and several Members of Congress. They failed every
where except in the election of one Member of Congress. In
some Districts the majorities against them were exceedingly
small. Wilson lacked one hundred votes of an election to
Congress; Adams, four hundred; and two others, only two
hundred each. The failure of these friends, by such narrow
margins, caused some criticism of Sumner's course, at party
headquarters, and it found its way into certain journals. But
it did not spread widely enough to affect his standing with the
masses. He was tired of politics. He had seen so much at Washington
and besides he was not a politician. For his seat in the Senate
he had, as yet, little attachment and probably did not care
whether he was to continue in it or not. He held it more as a
duty that had been laid upon him, which he was to carry
through and terminate with honor, than as a prize to be cov
eted. It had not been a bed of roses for him, but a toilsome
road, fraught with criticism and care, involving a separation
from his friends and his books. In time these things changed.
He lost much of his love of retirement, made warm friends at
Washington among his associates, enjoyed the applause of his
fellow men, liked to stand in the forefront of the battle and
wield a political influence. Perhaps some misgivings at the
results of this campaign and of his course in it troubled him;
for after this he took an active part in campaigns and recog
nized his party's claim upon him.

CHAPTER XX
SESSION OF 1852-3  MEMBER OF MASSACHUSETTS CONSTITU
TIONAL CONVENTION  CAMPAIGN OF 1853  COALITION
DEFEATED  SUMNER'S ISOLATION  NEBRASKA DEBATE —
ITS EFFECT  PETITION TO REPEAL FUGITIVE SLAVE LAW —
THE DEBATE  RECEPTION AT HOME  JOINS THE REPUB
LICAN PARTY  LECTURE ON GRANVILLE SHARP
During the session of Congress commencing December 1,
1852, and ending March 4, 1853, there was no general discus
sion in the Senate of the slavery question. The Presidential
campaign had just closed and the session being short, each side
was content to let it rest for the present. Sumner was diligent
in his attendance upon the meetings of the Senate, but did not
take much part in the discussions. He spoke twice only ; once,
advocating a bill authorizing the President to appoint Super
intendents for the Armories, who did not belong to the Army;
and once against secrecy in the proceedings of the Senate. He
was still excluded from a place on the Committees of the Senate
because "he teas outside of any healthy political organization."
He was not a controlling factor in its deliberations. He had not
been in the Senate long enough to acquire that readiness in its
current business which he displayed after the advent of his
party to power in 1861. Seward urged him to greater activity
in this direction and his friends at home thought he could thus
remove the imputation of his enemies that he was a man of one
idea. But he still felt ill at ease in the Senate. " You may be
curious, dear William," he wrote Story at Rome, " to know
how I regard my Senatorial life. Very much as I anticipated.
My earnest counsel to all would be to avoid public life, unless
impelled by some overmastering conviction or sentiment which
could best find utterance in this way. Stirely, but for this I
would not continue in it another day. To what the world calls
its honors I am indifferent ; its cares and responsibilities are
weighty and absorbing. I no longer feel at ease with a book ; if
I take one to read my attention is disturbed by some important
question which will tramp through my mind. How often I
think with envy of you at Rome enjoying letters and art ! No
stfch days for me ! At Washington I have much social kindness,
270

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 271
beyond anything I have known of late in Boston. With most of
the Southern men my relations have been pleasant, while with
Soule I have been on terms of intimate friendship. Here in
Boston, Hunkerism is very bitter; Webster's friends are im
placable. The Courier, which is their paper, has attacked
Dana and myself; and others like to show their spite also. The
Webster dementia has not yet passed away."
To another correspondent he wrote : " On the floor of the
Senate I sit between Mr. Butler of South Carolina, the early
suggester of the Fugitive Slave Bill and Mr. Mason of Vir
ginia, its final author, with both of whom I have constant and
cordial intercourse. This experience would teach me if I needed
the lesson to shun harsh and personal criticism of those from
whom I differ." But we shall see that this friendly relation did
not continue long.
During his absence from Massachusetts, the second conven
tion was called to revise the Constitution of the State. The
existing one was framed in 1780 and a convention had been
called to revise it in 1820. The proposition for its revision now
came from and was carried by a coalition of the Free-Soilers
and the Democrats. Its purpose was to change the basis of
representation in the Legislature and secure some minor
changes. The basis of representation was not satisfactory to
the Free-Soilers and Democrats. As it was, it permitted the
cities, the centres of Whig strength, to vote for the whole num
ber of members to which they were separately entitled. For in
stance, Boston was entitled to forty-four members. If any one
of them were elected, the whole forty-four were reasonably sure
to be. As the city of Boston was almost certainly Whig, this
gave her an immense power in legislation. Certain districts of
the city were Free-Soil and certain others Democratic. If the
city was districted both of these parties might hope to elect
some members. But under the existing plan of voting a
general ticket, there was no hope of the Democrats or Free-
Soilers electing a member, while the Whigs maintained their
present majority in the city.
The manner of choosing members of the Convention per
mitted districts to elect citizens of the State who were not
residents of the district. Wilson who was the leading spirit of
the coalition, and whose influence was felt everywhere, was
diligent in suggesting the names of prominent Free-Soilers and
even Democrats, who had no hope of an election in their home
districts, to other districts and advising their nomination where
he knew they were strong. This would secure greater certainty
of their election and likewise the services of abler men in the

272 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Convention, than might otherwise be chosen. In this way the
name of Sumner was suggested to the Marshfield district and he
was nominated and elected in his absence. It was Webster's
home district and he was elected over Webster's son Fletcher,
who was the candidate of the Whigs. It was not according to
Sumner's wish. For the sitting of the Convention would
occupy his vacation for rest and recreation and he had already
planned a visit to the West where he had never been. But he
gave up his cherished trip and consented to serve, feeling that
it was a duty he owed to his party and his friends.
In point of ability, the Convention well represented the
State. Among its members were Rufus Choate, George S.
Boutwell, Henry Wilson, Henry Dawes, Robert Rantoul, Sr.,
Marcus Morton, afterwards Chief Justice of the State, R. H.
Dana, Jr., Geo. S. Hillard, Simon Greenleaf, B. F. Butler, N.
P. Banks, afterwards Speaker of the House of Representatives,
and others hardly less prominent. Adams was a candidate, but
was not elected. Palfrey failed of a nomination. It began its
sessions in Boston on May fourth.
The work of the Convention upon the different parts of the
Constitution was apportioned to separate committees. Sumner
was made chairman of the committee on the Bill of Rights.
He was also a member of the committee to draft the proposi
tions to be submitted to a vote of the people. He prepared a
clause, providing how other conventions to revise the Constitu
tion, in the future, might be called, which was adopted. He
was diligent in his attendance at the sessions of the Convention
and in the work of his committees. The committee on the Bill
of Rights, of which he was made chairman, held twenty ses
sions, more, as Sumner believed, than any other committee.
When its work was completed Sumner made its report to the
Convention, accompanying it with an address in which he
reviewed the work of the committee, set forth the reasons for
the changes they had made and reviewed the origin and history
of the Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution.
In a convention numbering among its members so many
able speakers it was natural that there should be much good
speaking. The palm of eloquence in its deliberations, was gen
erally conceeded to Rufus Choate, then in the full tide of his
professional success and ever one of the most accomplished men.
But Sumner had his admirers. They regretted, however, that
he did not mix more freely in the miscellaneous debates of the
Convention and observed that he seemed diffident about speak
ing, except on important questions, after the most careful
preparation. Among experienced legislators, this would be con-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 273
sidered a virtue, in a young member. He addressed the Con
vention in favor of a provision, that in the organization of the
volunteer military companies of the Commonwealth, there
should be no distinction on account of color or race. He spoke
again on the absorbing question of the Convention, the repre
sentative system, and its proper basis. The latter speech was
longer than the limit fixed by the Convention allowed, but by
unanimous consent, he was permitted to continue. He advo
cated the abolition of the general ticket system theretofore al
lowed to cities, and thought the members should be distributed
to towns according to the number of voters, but where, by reason
of population, a town was entitled to more than one member,
the town should be divided into districts so that no voter should
be allowed to vote for more than one member. The Convention
favored and adopted the abolition of the general ticket, but
reduced the representation of the cities below their numerical
proportion and continued the non-representation of small towns
during a part of the decade, except when they provided other
wise themselves, by a union with other towns. No one ad
vocated the existing system. Though the views of Sumner did
not all prevail, he readily acquiesced in the work of the Conven
tion. He especially favored the abolition of the general ticket
system and regarded this change as a distinct improvement on
the old practice.
Among other changes incorporated in the proposed Consti
tution, there was a limitation of the judicial term to ten years,
after the expiration of existing terms. It also proposed the
election of judges of probate and made other offices, heretofore
filled by appointment of the Governor of the Commonwealth,
elective ; and it submitted to the people a proposition to forbid
the appropriation of public money to the support of sectarian
schools. The Convention adjourned on the first day of August, 1853.
It remained for its work to be approved by a vote of the people.
At first this seemed to be easy of accomplishment. The Free-
Soilers held their convention and nominated Wilson for Gov
ernor and there was hope of his election, by a coalition with the
Democrats. The campaign opened vigorously, Sumner entered
into it with earnestness. He spoke for the Constitution and
Free-Soilers, to large audiences at seventeen places — 'Spring
field, Lowell, Fall River, Worcester, Marshfield, among the rest,
— closing at Boston. His audiences were large and attentive,
and by reason of the constitutional element in the discussion, he
was heard more than he had been, by men of other parties. In
this, the Constitutional Convention was an advantage to him.

274 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Both in the Convention and on the stump this fall, he extended
his acquaintance and made the impression upon his hearers
that he was not only a reformer, but a sagacious and practical
man of affairs and a scholarly gentleman, not a mere crank, on
the slavery question, as he had been held up by the Whigs. His
speech on the stump satisfied his hearers. We are told that he
usually spoke two hours and a half and that his audiences con
tinued with him to the end.
As the campaign progressed, however, dangers appeared for
the success of the Constitution and the coalition. Adams who
had been defeated and Palfrey who had not been made a can
didate, both came out against the Constitution; the former in
a speech and the latter in a public letter, which was reprinted
and sent broadcast over the State. They were both well known
as Free-Soilers. The Whigs had already declared in their
platform against it, and this unexpected defection encouraged
them ; on the eve of the election, Caleb Cushing who had been
made the Attorney-General in President Pierce's cabinet, also
appeared in a letter, in which the Democrats were given to
understand that there must be no more of the coalition with
Free-Soilers, that this heresy must be trampled out and that
any violation of this edict meant exclusion from office under
the new administration. The Catholics were against the Con
stitution because of their threatened exclusion from a division
of the school tax and the cities because of the reduction of their
representation. This was altogether more than the Constitu
tion could bear and the coalition went down with it, under
more than five thousand majority, as against ten thousand by
which they had carried the proposition for a Convention. The
Whigs elected the Governor and the Legislature. In their mad
glee over the result they went so far as to open still wider their
breach with the anti-slavery men. Little did they then think
that the next election would witness their utter defeat, soon to
be followed by the breaking up of the party and the placing of
Wilson, the defeated candidate of the Free-Soilers for Governor,
in the Senate as Sumner's colleague.
Sumner's position was more isolated than ever. He was de
nominated a Senator without a party and he was called upon to
Tesign his seat because he was without support among the people
of his State. His friends were told that their party was dead
and that they themselves were dupes. They were met in the
streets by cold looks and by taunting treatment. Wilson felt it
keenly, by reason of his prominence in the movement and to
avoid the reception he met with, on the crowded thoroughfares,
he chose the less frequented streets to reach his place of busi-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 275
ness. Boston was especially intolerant of the new party and
showed much ill-feeling towards its leaders. At the close of
the Constitutional Convention, at a dinner given in commemo
ration of the embarkation of the Pilgrims, Sumner had given
expression to his own feeling of isolation in the response to his
toast. After briefly referring to the Puritan triumph under
Cromwell and their subsequent weight of poverty and exile
and the still later influence of their example in America, he
said: " And these outcasts, despised in their own day by the proud
and great, are the men whom we have met in this goodly num
ber to celebrate, — not for any victory of war, — not for any
triumph of discovery, science, learning or eloquence, — not for
worldly success of any kind. How poor are all these things by
the side of that divine virtue which amidst the reproach, the
obloquy and the hardness of the world made them hold fast to
Freedom and Truth ! Sir, if the honors of this day are not a
mockery, if they do not expend themselves in mere self-gratula-
tion, if they are a sincere homage to the character of the Pil
grims, — and I cannot suppose otherwise, — then it is well for us
to be here. Standing on Plymouth Rock at their great anni
versary, we cannot fail to be elevated by their example. We see
clearly what it has done for the world, and what it has done for
their fame. No pusillanimous soul here to-day will declare
their self-sacrifice, their deviation from received opinions, their
unquenchable thirst for liberty an error or illusion. From
gushing multitudinous hearts we now thank these lowly men
that they dared to be true and brave. Conformity or compro
mise might, perhaps, have purchased for them a profitable peace,
but not peace of mind ; it might have secured place and power,
but not repose ; it might have opened present shelter, but not a
home in history and in men's hearts till time shall be no more.
All must confess the true grandeur of their example, while in
vindication of a cherished principle, they stood alone, against
the madness of men, against the law of the land, against their
king. Better the despised Pilgrim, a fugitive for freedom, than
the halting politician, forgetful of principle ' with a Senate at
his heels '."
Even this expression, touching as it seems now, in the
light of his position, was made the occasion of criticism.
Nothing an anti-slavery man could say, then satisfied the carp
ing apologist of slavery. But John G. Whittier, always ready
with encouragement for the good, saw Sumner's speech differ- •
ently and wrote that its tone and bearing were unmistakable
and yet unobjectionable, though when he first read the toast

276 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
assigned to him, — The Senate of the United States, — he
thought it a very unpromising text !
But events were fast crowding on that were to work a revolu
tion in public sentiment even in conservative Boston. Sumner
was in his seat at the opening of the next session of Congress.
On the 14th day of December, 1853, a bill was introduced in
the Senate to organize the Territory of Nebraska. It con
tained no reference to slavery; but the Territory was com
prehended in that from which the Missouri Compromise of
1820 forever excluded slavery. It lay north of longitude 36°
30'. The bill was referred to the Committee on Territories of
which Stephen A. Douglas was chairman. On the 4th day
of January, 1854, the Committee reported this bill back, but
with an amendment, declaring that the States formed out of
this Territory should be admitted into the Union with or with
out slavery as they should desire. An amendment was offered
to this bill by a Kentucky member, that the existing prohibition
of slavery should not be construed so as to apply to the Terri
tory contemplated by this act or any other Territory of the
United States, but that the citizens of the several States or
Territories should be at liberty to take and hold their slaves
within any of the Territories of the United States or of the
States to be formed therefrom. Sumner thereupon offered an
amendment that nothing in this act should be construed to
abrogate the Act of 1820, whereby slavery was forever prohib
ited in that territory. On January 24th, Douglas from the
Committee submitted a new bill as a substitute, whereby the
Territory was divided into two, Kansas and Nebraska, and it
was formally declared that the prohibition of slavery in them
was superseded by the Compromise of 1850. Thus the question,
suggested by Sumner's amendment, was squarely made, whether
the Compromise of 1820 was to be declared repealed and all the
territory of the United States, comprehended in the Louisiana
Purchase, was to be opened to slavery.
This was a startling proposition presented to the Free States
and to the opponents of slavery. The compact that was made
bv the Slave States, to secure the admission of Missouri, with
slavery, was now proposed to be repudiated at the very time
when it was becoming effective in favor of freedom, by reason
of the rush of emigration Westward. It had stood as one of
the "Landmarks of Freedom" for a generation. People had
come to regard it as one of the impassible barriers that had been
set to slavery. But slavery to which concession after concession
had been made, to secure these compromises, proposed to make
a complete repudiation and having received the benefits of the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 277
comtract to repudiate the burdens it had assumed to get them.
It proposed to make the territory hitherto reserved to Freedom
all slave. The people of the Free States paused apd asked
themselves if such a thing could be true.
Douglas was a bold and enterprising man. Having once
committed himself to the proposition he pressed it vigorously.
The bill was introduced in the Senate on January 23. On the
next day when it had just been laid upon the desks of the
Senators, he pressed its consideration on the Senate, and only
after debate was it postponed till January 30, six days, when
it was to be the special order, till brought to a vote. This was
haste. Anti-slavery men felt that a matter of such importance
should be considered with more deliberation. The country had
no opportunity in so short a time to be made acquainted with
its provisions. But its advocates did not wish a general dis
cussion of it, believing they had nothing to gain by such a
course; while its opponents were determined the people should
understand it.
Sumner and Chase, at once issued an address to the coun
try, signed by themselves and a few Representatives, styling
themselves Independent Democrats. It was written by Chase
and set forth, in strong language, the danger of the hour and
the necessity for prompt action on the part of the people to
prevent their Representatives in Congress from passing the
bill and thus consummating another encroachment of slavery.
The address was circulated largely and did much to awaken
the people to the importance of the occasion. But the country
is large and it takes time to reach the people widely scattered
in their homes and impress upon them the necessity for action.
With inferior mail facilities it took more time then than now.
The people awoke slowly but the gravity of the situation im
pressed thinking men. It brought Abraham Lincoln from the
retirement of his practice as a country lawyer. As the debate
proceeded in Congress, the country became deeply interested.
In some sections the ministers by agreement on a certain sab
bath, preached a sermon against it in their churches. It was
thus made a moral question and as much as possible divorced
from party connections. Only a short time before the country
had been assured that the compromise of 1850 adjusted the
slavery question forever and yet within a few months the
South was presenting, with increased boldness, and demanding
greater concessions than ever before. Thoughtful people might
well ask themselves what all these compromises were worth
procured at the expense of so much trouble and contention.
In opening the debate, Douglas referred in severe terms to the

278 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
address that had been issued by the " Independent Democrats "
and directed much of his speech, coarse in its terms, to Sumner
and Chase, who had been the only members of the Senate to
sign it. Douglas was recognized as a candidate for the Presi
dency and his conduct was supposed to be influenced by his
effort to get the votes of the South. As soon as he closed, Chase
was on his feet to reply to the personal references to himself.
He was followed by Sumner who spoke briefly only admitting
his responsibility for the address, calling attention to the im
portance of the measure and protesting against the " galloping
speed " with which it was being pressed for passage, before the
people could be heard. But both Sumner and Chase reserved
their real speech on the question till a later time. Thus opened
the great Nebraska Debate which was to occupy the attention
of the country for months and whose ultimate issue was to be
the Civil War.
Three weeks later, Sumner spoke again and fully on the ques
tion. At the outset, in his speech, he declined to make any
answer to the epithets Douglas had used towards him and Chase.
The issue contained in the bill he thought too great to be
dwarfed by any personal consideration. Nor would he take
time to argue the question whether the prohibition in the law
of 1820, had been repealed by the law of 1850. He merely
suggested that the compromise of 1850 did not pretend in
terms to touch this prohibition, that the Territories it re
lated to, Utah and New Mexico, were not to be affected during
their existence as Territories, but when they came to be admit
ted as States; that during all the discussion of the act of 1850
no one mentioned it as affecting this Territory ; and it expressly
said it was not to change the resolution annexing Texas, where
in the prohibition of the Missouri Compromise was expressly
reaffirmed. But Sumner made two points in his speech explicitly and he
enforced them with all his power; First, This bill was an in
fraction of solemn obligations assumed beyond recall by the
South on the admission of Missouri as a slave State ; Second it
was an unjustifiable departure from the original Anti-slave
policy of our fathers.
In establishing his first proposition, he went at length into
the history of the Compromise of 1820 ta show that it was dis
tinctly a measure originating with the Slave States and voted
for by their Representatives, in both Houses to secure what
they sought, the admission of Missouri as a slave State. They
plighted their solemn faith that the covenant then made by
them should be faithfully kept. On the part of the North, it

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 279
had been; while the South now refused to execute it. He
scouted the idea that it was not a binding contract. He said a
subtile German had declared that he could find heresies in the
Lord's Prayer and he believed it was only in this spirit that any
flaw could be found in the obligations of this compact.
In support of his second proposition, he followed the same
course of reasoning that he had in his speech on the Fugitive
Slave Law, but pursued it with less particularity than before.
He insisted that there had been three stages in our National
development, first, when the policy of the Government had been
all for Freedom ; second, when only half so ; third, when all
was grasped by Slavery, that as late as 1820, John W. Taylor a
Representative from New York, who openly advocated the pro
hibition of slavery in the Territories and its restriction in Mis
souri was elected Speaker of the House, while such a man now
was disqualified for a National office. He insisted that only a
man of known pliancy to slavery, could now be elected to such
a place. With Douglas in his mind as a candidate for the Presidency,
he said: "The race of men, 'white slaves of the North,' de
scribed and despised by a Southern Statesman, is not yet
extinct there. It is one of the melancholy tokens of the power
of slavery, under our political system and especially through
the operations of the National Government, that it loosens and
destroys the character of Northern men, exerting its subtile in
fluences even at a distance, — like the black magnetic mountain
in the Arabian story, under whose irresistible attraction, the
iron bolts which held together the strong timbers of the stately
ship, floating securely on the distant wave, were drawn out
till the whole fell apart, and became a disjointed wreck. Alas ;
too often those principles which give consistency, individuality,
and form to the Northern character, which render it staunch,
strong and seaworthy, which bind it together as with iron, are
sucked out, one by one, like the bolts of the ill-fated vessel,
and from the miserable loosened fragments is formed that
human anomaly, a Northern man with Southern principles,
Sir, no such man can speak for the North."
The term of Sumner's colleague, John Davis, had expired and
Edward Everett had been elected to his place. He came to the
Senate with a wide reputation, for scholarship and graceful
oratory. As President of Harvard College, where Sumner's
affections were deeply rooted, he and Everett had been brought
much into contact and had enjoyed friendly relations. But
there was a wide difference between them. Sumner represented
the extreme anti-slavery men of the States, while Everett was

280 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the champion of the aristocratic, conservative and commercial
Whigs. He was the friend and editor and biographer of Daniel
Webster. He was not of an aggressive temperament. He had
been educated for the ministry and deprecated controversy;
was a man before whom Disunion could be held up with all
its terrors and he, like Douglas, had hopes of the Presidency.
Sumner and Everett probably came together, with the deter
mination unexpressed, that there should be no break between
them and yet no intimacy. At the beginning of the session
and of his term, Everett had objected, in the Whig caucus, to
Sumner receiving a place on any committee of the Senate, say
ing that, while he wished to continue his friendly relations with
him, he was unwilling to see any action that would recognize
him as a Whig. Sumner was accordingly excluded, though
Seward and Chase were both given places.
After some effort to discover the feeling of his constituents
as to the Nebraska Bill, Everett had opposed it by a speech in
the Senate, not vigorously but in well-turned phrase. He reit
erated the same argument that Webster had made on the Com
promise of 1850, as to California. He could not see that the
legislation was vital to Nebraska, for, whatever the fate of the
bill, he thought the climatic and physical conditions were such
as to forever exclude slavery from this Territory.
Sumner was prepared for this argument. In answering him
he said he felt obliged kindly but most strenuously to dissent
from this view. There was Missouri, he said, with Illinois on
the east and Nebraska on the west, all covering nearly the same
spaces of latitude, and resembling each other in soil, climate
and natural production. But mark the contrast ! By the ordi
nance of the North West Territory Illinois became a free state,
while Missouri had more than eighty-seven thousand slaves.
Climatic and physical conditions had not determined the dif
ference, but the laws of man; and the simple question was
whether Nebraska should be preserved in the condition of Illi
nois or surrendered to that of Missouri.
Sumner felt that the passage of this bill was meant to open to
slavery not merely Kansas and Nebraska, but all the Territories
comprised within the Louisiana Purchase, in other words, all be
tween the British possessions on the North and the Rocky Moun
tains on the west. In this view it concerned an immense region
larger than the original Thirteen States, vying in extent with
all the Free States, "stretching over prairie, field and forest,
interlaced by silver streams, skirted by protecting mountains,
and constituting the heart of the North American continent,
only a little smaller than the three great European countries

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 281
combined, — Italy, Spain and France — each of which in succes
sion had dominated over the globe." It was for such a territory,
he said, they were legislating and establishing rules of polity
which would determine its future character. According to the
existing law this territory was guarded against slavery by the
law of 1820, enacted preparatory to the admission of Missouri
as a State. It was now proposed to set aside this prohibition.
This sweeping aspect of the bill impressed the people of the
North. True the bill only applied to Kansas and Nebraska in
terms, but if the prohibition of 1820, applying to them, was
destroyed, by the act of 1850, it must be destroyed as to every
acre of land which the law of 1820 protected. So that notwith
standing the haste with which Douglas had pressed its passage,
the bill continued before Congress, with little interruption, for
six months. Remonstrances against it came from various
sources and were presented to both Houses. The clergy
preached against it and held meetings to devise means to defeat
it Those of New England sent a memorial signed by more
than three thousand ministers. It was presented to the Senate
by Edward Everett, Sumner's colleague. It awakened some
feeling, — Douglas and Mason especially taking exception to
this interference of the ministry with political affairs. They
criticised the form of the remonstrance, which commenced with
the words, "In the name of Almighty God and in His pres
ence." When the bill came up for final passage in the Senate on the
25th day of May, Everett had tendered his resignation as Sena
tor and was detained from the session by sickness. In his
absence, late at night, it fell to Sumner's lot to present
separate, remonstrances from some citizens of New York,
from the Society of Friends, from the Baptists of Mich
igan and Indiana and one hundred and twenty-five remon
strances from clergymen of different denominations in New
England. He had already done all he could to prevent the pas
sage of the bill, had opposed it from the beginning, had ap
pealed to his colleagues, reasoned with them, spoken against it,
appealed to the people to exert their influence with their Rep
resentatives against it. But with all his efforts, its passage now
seemed certain. Standing almost alone, with the darkness of
night without and the consummation of this wrong before him,
knowing that nothing he could say or do would avert it, his
words had a sad and almost prophetic meaning :
" It is now midnight," he said. " At this late hour of a ses
sion drawn out to unaccustomed length, I shall not fatigue
the Senate by argument. There is a time for all things and

282 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the time for argument has passed. The determination of the
majority is fixed; but it is not more fixed than mine. The
bill, which they sustain, I oppose. On a former occasion I met
it by argument which though often attacked in debate, still
stands unanswered and unanswerable. At the present time I
am admonished that I must be content with a few words of
earnest protest against the consummation of a great wrong.
Duty to myself and also to the honored Commonwealth of
which I find myself the sole representative in this immediate
exigency, will not allow me to do less.
" But I have a special duty which I would not omit. Here
on my desk are remonstrances against the passage of this bill,
some placed in my hands since the commencement of the debate
to-day, and I desire that these voices direct from the people
should be heard. With the permission of the Senate I will offer
them now." * * *
" With pleasure and pride I now do this service and at this
last stage, interpose the sanctity of the pulpits of New England
to arrest an alarming outrage, believing that the remonstrants
from their eminent character and influence as representatives
of the intelligence and conscience of the country, are peculiarly
entitled to be heard, — and further, believing that their remon
strances while respectful in form, embody just conclusions
both of opinion and fact. Like them, Sir, I do not hesitate to
protest against the bill yet pending before the Senate as a
great moral wrong, as a breach of public faith, as a measure
full of danger to the peace, and even existence of our Union.
And, Sir, believing in God as I profoundly do, I cannot doubt
that the opening of an immense region, to so great an enormity
as slavery, is calculated to draw down upon our country His
righteous judgments."
He then referred to the criticism of the clergymen for taking
part in the controversy and of the wording of their remon
strance. He reminded Senators that there was a time when
New England was governed more by the prayers of the clergy
men than by the acts of the Legislature and that in remon
strating " in the name of Almighty God," they only obeyed the
scriptural injunction, " do all in the name of the Lord."
"Si/r," he continued, "the bill you are about to pass is at
once the worst and best upon which Congress ever acted. * * *
" It is the worst bill inasmuch as it is a present victory of
Slavery. In a Christian land and in an age of civilization, a
time-honored statute of Freedom is struck down, opening the
way to all the countless woes and wrongs of human bondage.
Among the crimes of history, another is soon to be recorded

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 283
which no tears can blot out and which in better days will be
read with universal shame. * * *
" There is another side to which I gladly turn. Sir, it is the
best bill on which Congress ever acted ; for it annuls all past
compromises with Slavery and makes any future compromises
impossible. Thus it puts Freedom and Slavery face to face and
bids them grapple. Who can doubt the result? It opens wide
the door of the future, when at last, there will really be a
North, and the Slave-Power will be *broken, — when this
wretched Despotism will cease to dominate over our Govern
ment, no longer impressing itself upon everything at home and
abroad, — when the National Government will be divorced in
every way from Slavery, and according to the true intention of
our fathers, Freedom will be established by Congress every
where, at least beyond the local limits of the States. * * *
" Sorrowfully I bend before the wrong you commit. Joy
fully I welcome the promises of the future."
As Sumner had predicted, the bill passed by a large majority
in each House. He had solemnly warned them : " Not in this
way can peace come. In passing such a bill as is now threat
ened, you scatter from this dark midnight hour, no seeds of
harmony and good-will, but broad cast through the land,
dragon's teeth which haply may not spring up in direful crops
of armed men, yet, I am assured will fructify in civil strife
and feud."
This prediction seemed to be fulfilled sooner than he ex
pected. On May twenty-fourth, Anthony Burns, a negro was
seized in Boston as a fugitive slave on the claim of a citizen
of Virginia and was confined by the Marshal in one of the
rooms of the Court House. On the evening of May twenty-
sixth, after a meeting of Abolitionists in Faneuil Hall, a
mob attacked the guards and one of them, James Batchelder,
was killed. The affair created a great sensation in Washington,
where the impression made by Sumner's speech on the public
mind wrought up over the consideration of the bill, was still
fresh. By some of the frenzied defenders of Slavery, the
tragedy in Boston was attributed to the influence of Sumner's
speech upon his constituents. A moment's thought would have
shown that there could be no connection between the two
events; for the speech was made so late that the report of it
could not have reached Boston, by the means of communica
tion they then had.
But Slavery was unreasonable. It was entering upon that
career of madness which was to end in its destruction. Feeling
was running high. Threats of violence and lynching were

284 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
freely made against Sumner and the editors of some of the
city papers were evidently not caring if this result did follow.
They held him up as an example of the mercy of the slave
holders who permitted him to go unharmed on the streets of
Washington, while by his speeches in the Senate, he incited
mobs to riot and murder, if a citizen of the South went to
Boston to reclaim his property. They told him if legal rights
could only be secured at the point of the bayonet in Boston,
he would have to *ralk more circumspectly in Washington.
The suggestion was made that the feeling against him and
" his infamous gang might be allowed to descend to personal
violence." He was insulted and threatened in the restaurant
where he took his meals. A conspiracy was proposed in
Alexandria to seize him as a hostage for the return of the
slave Burns, still in Boston, to inflict personal violence upon
him, to put a bullet through his head; and he was warned
to leave Washington. But Sumner disregarded them. If
harm came to him, he quietly said to solicitous friends, it
would find him at his post.
Dispatches from Washington to the New York Times and
other papers communicated to friends his danger. They were
apprehensive lest the feeling they knew the death of Batchelder
created, would be visited on him. Joseph R. Hawley, then a
young editor of Hartford, since a General in the war of the
Rebellion and a Governor and U. S. Senator of Connecticut,
offered to go on to Washington and be at hand armed and ready
to protect him, if violence should be offered. But Sumner
declined. A month later a bill was introduced in the Senate to pension
the widow of Batchelder. Sumner and Seward submitted a
minority report against it, which was prepared by Sumner.
Batchelder was an ordinary truckman who had three times
volunteered his services to assist the Marshal in executing the
Fugitive Slave Law. The minority report insisted that there
was no precedent for a pension except for service in the army
or navy, in neither of which he was, and that none should be
granted to persons injured in the execution of this law. But
the bill carried.
One of the exciting battles in the anti-slavery war was ended
with the vote on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Apparently it
had been fought to no purpose. Slavery, as usual, had been
successful. True there had been an increase in the number
of anti-slavery votes, both in the House and Senate, but what
did Slavery care; she had never counted her votes the same,
from year to year. The result in this respect was not unusual.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 285
Nor was it unusual that she had to fight for her victory. She
had been doing this for years; and she had fought no harder
now than for the Compromise of 1850. And she had become so
strong that she could be insulting to her opponents and yet
successful. She had reached her highest power in extent
of territory.
And yet, with all this, she was weaker than she had been for
many years. The anti-slavery men had made a distinct ad
vance, not in a material way, but in the hold they had gained
on the popular mind. At last conservative and thinking men
were becoming convinced that the slave power must be con
trolled. The mercantile classes of Boston were accepting this
view. As evidence of it, a petition for the repeal of the Fugitive
Slave Law, placed in the Merchants Exchange, in Boston, had
received nearly three thousand signatures, many of them of
persons who had been vigorously opposing Sumner's work.
And Massachusetts had sent to the Senate, to fill the place of
Edward Everett, who had resigned, Julius Rockwell; and for
the first time Sumner had a colleague who would vote with him.
There were favorable signs also in other States. The admin
istration party had been defeated in the President's own State,
New Hampshire. Connecticut had sent a Free-Soiler to the
U. S. Senate. Anti-slavery men had grown largely in numbers
in the North. So the fight that Sumner and Chase had led in
defence of the Missouri Compromise was not in vain.
• The feeling against slavery having been once aroused was not
so easily allayed. When the Merchants Exchange petition
was brought from Boston, for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave
Law, it was presented in the Senate by Rockwell and, after
reading it, with a few remarks, he moved that it be referred to
the Judiciary Committee. A controversy at once arose which
continued for some days. Here was another evidence of the
distinct advance of anti-slavery sentiment in Congress. In
the Senate such petitions had often been treated uncere
moniously; frequently, by motion, without reading and with
out reference to any committee, being laid upon the table,
never to be heard of again. With all the feeling that this one
provoked, no attempt was made to stifle it now.
In the House, there had been in force what was known as
the " Gag Rule." It provided that all petitions on the subject
of slavery should be referred to the appropriate committees
without reading. Year after year, John Quincy Adams had
moved the repeal of this rule' and had insisted on debating
the question. Year after year he had been defeated. But
defeat had no terrors for him, when he believed he was right.

286 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
If the rule was continued the next year he renewed the fight
to repeal it; and it was at last repealed. The friends of Free
dom could hail these things as the light of returning day.
After the petition presented by Rockwell had been read
and the motion made to refer it to the Judiciary Committee,
Jones of Tennessee took the floor. The petition showed that
not only had the apprehension of Burns been resisted, with
fatal results, but that there had been no diminution of the
popular feeling against the law and that public sentiment was
becoming stronger than ever in favor of its repeal and was
demanding it as essential to the public peace in the North.
Jones insisted that such petitions and the speeches that sup
ported them were inciting people over the country to riots and
the shedding of innocent blood, while the real authors of the
trouble were keeping themselves at a safe distance. This
brought Rockwell to his feet in defence of the petition. He
was followed by Jones again, and Broadhead of Pennsylvania.
Sumner and Massachusetts were the especial objects of their
invective. Sumner's midnight speech, at the close of the debate
on the Kansas-Nebraska Bill still angered them. They in
sisted that such petitions and speeches would soon end in the
disruption of the Union, and that the repeal of the Fugitive
Slave Law would have the same tendency.
Sumner promptly replied. He dismissed the claim that the
repeal of this law would destroy, the Union, by saying that if
the Union dejiended for its existence on any such poor pretext
it ought to continue no longer. He admitted that many of
the signers of this petition were supporters of the Compromise
of 1850; and he reminded Senators that the change as shown
was only typical of the change in the community. Once the
upholders of the law, they now, after seeing its workings de
manded its repeal. Representatives of the conservative,
mercantile classes had placed themselves in the front of this
movement. So far as the speakers had arraigned him per
sonally he said he did not care to speak. He had always been
opposed to this law openly and sincerely and he was opposed to
it still and he could only repeat what he had often said in
giving his reasons for its repeal. But these were considerations
personal to himself. For Massachusetts who had been attacked
with him he did not feel the same indifference. He referred
briefly to her record in the Revolutionary War and reminded
them that near this very Court House, where Burns was con
fined, the first blood had been spilt in the conflict for Indepen
dence and that among those early victims was one of the de
spised race. He insisted that the Senate receive the petition

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 287
and he warned them that there was a plant that was said to
grow when trodden upon. By denying the right of petition,
they provoked the very spirit they would repress.
Sumner's speech was followed by a debate, seldom equalled
in anger and excitement. Butler of South Carolina, Mason of
Virginia, Clay of Alabama, Mallory, Dixon and Petit, the most
extreme apologists of slavery, all took part. They were
especially venomous towards Sumner who thus far, while he
had not spared slavery, had declined to exchange personalities
with its advocates. They probably thought they could attack
him with impunity and bully him into silence. All sorts of
epithets were applied to his speech.
Butler called it a " species of rhetoric intended to feed the
fires of fanaticism in his own State " ; "a fourth of July
oration ", " vapid rhetoric " and added : " If sectional agitation
is to be fed, by such sentiments, such displays and such things
as come from the honorable gentleman near me, I say we ought
not to be in a common confederacy, and we should be better
off without it."
He admitted that the return of fugitive slaves had perhaps
better have been left to the State than to the United States
officers. But he doubted whether, if it had been left to the
States, they would have returned the fugitives. And he turned
to Rockwell and asked if it were so left, after trial by jury or
other proper mode, Massachusetts would return a fugitive.
Rockwell made no answer. He thereupon turned to Sumner
and with a good deal of impetuosity, demanded : " Will this
honorable Senator tell me that he will do it ? " To which
Sumner replied : " Does the honorable Senator ask me if I
would personally join in sending a fellow man into bondage?
Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing ? " The an
swer angered Butler and he retorted : " You stand in my
presence a co-equal Senator and tell me that it is a dog's office
to execute the Constitution of the United States." To which
Sumner replied : " I recognize no such obligation," meaning
that he felt under no obligation to assist in the return of a
fugitive slave. But the Southerners insisted on construing
what he had said, as meaning that he, a Senator under oath to
obey the Constitution, recognized no obligation to obey it. At
best with his words capable of the construction he gave them
and Sumner so explaining them, their conduct in persistently
misinterpreting them was mere pettifogging. This incident
gave the personal turn to the debate.
Mason followed Butler, declaring that "the dignity of the
American Senate had been rudely, wantonly, grossly assailed

288 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
by a Senator from Massachusetts," denouncing Sumner for
having had the hardihood to call " a gentleman from Virginia,"
because he had gone to Boston to recover his property, " a slave
hunter" and bragged that the law had done its office in
Boston and this too in the presence of a mob, incited by Sum
ner and his associates, who sat in the Senate and kept them
selves aloof from danger, while they excited others to treason
and deserved for themselves a traitor's doom. Then turning to
Sumner, he broke out : " Why, Sir, am I speaking of a fanatic,
one whose reason is dethroned ? Can such a one expect to make
impressions upon the American people, from his vapid, vulgar
declamation here, accompanied by his declarations that he
would violate his oath now recently taken ? "
These gentlemen who were ringing the changes on the viola
tion of oaths were soon to be conspicuous in Rebellion against
the Constitution and laws of the country, they had sworn to
support. They were followed in the debate by Petit of Indiana, who
consumed the balance of the day arguing that the view taken
by the Abolitionists of the Declaration of Independence, " made
it a self evident lie," etc., and illustrated his argument to
prove that all men could not be equal, by saying that Sumner
was no more the equal of Webster than "the jackal was the
equal of the lion or the buzzard the equal of the eagle." The
President of the Senate twice interposed, to call him to order.
Before he finished his speech the Senate adjourned for the day
and the consideration of the question went over till June
twenty-eighth, the intervening day being occupied with other
business. Petit then concluded, affecting to believe that Sum
ner had declared he did not regard the sanctity of his oath.
When Petit closed a motion was made to lay on the table, but
Sumner claimed the privilege of answering the assaults that had
been made upon him. Other Senators also opposed these efforts
to stifle the debate and the motion was lost. Mallory of Florida
and Clay of Alabama then both spoke in the same vein, gibing
at Sumner as holding himself irresponsible to the obligations of
either law or honor, referring to him as a " miscreant," or " a
serpent " who ought to be " robbed of his fangs."
When Sumner gained the floor he declined to bandy per
sonalities. He did not mention them except to suggest that
for the honor of the Senate, such exhibitions should not occur.
But he said he was reminded by them, as he was sure other
Senators were, of the remark of Jefferson, that a man must be
a prodigy, who could retain his manners and morals undepraved
by the sight of the commerce between master and slave. While

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 289
these Senators were speaking he was sure " the Senate chamber
must have seemed to them a plantation well stocked with slaves,
over which the lash and the overseer had full swing." He
replied to Mason's complaint of his calling the master of
Burns " a slave hunter," by saying that a blush was the sign of
virtue and he was glad to see one, which even his plantation
manners could not conceal, mantling the cheek of the honor
able Senator.
Sumner objected to the comparison Senators made of the
South with the North, in the Revolution, and the claim they
made that Independence had been won by the Southern States.
He insisted this was not the first time they had made such com
parisons. Butler at this point arose and said he had never done
such a thing or attempted it, that he thought such talk in bad
taste. But Sumner, begging his pardon, insisted that he had
profusely dealt in such comparisons and referred him to an
instance of it. Butler admitted that he had made the statement
and undertook to explain it. Sumner proceeded to show that
of the Continental troops in the Revolution, the North had con
tributed 172,465, but the South only 59,336, in other words 3
to 1 ; while of militia the ratio was 4 to 1 and that this disparity
was caused by slavery ; it having been necessary for the citizens
of the South to remain at home, to prevent uprisings among
the negroes; that Massachusetts alone had contributed 83,062
troops, or more than all the South together, and thirteen times
more than South Carolina.
Sumner had grown tired of the too boastful spirit of the
South towards the North. Parting with Butler, he said : " I
had almost forgotten his associate-leader in the wanton personal
assault upon me in this long debate, — I mean the veteran
Senator from Virginia (Mason) who is now directly in my eye.
With imperious look, and in the style of Sir Forcible Feeble,
that Senator undertakes to call in question my statement, that
the Fugitive Slave Act denies the writ of Habeas Corpus; and
in doing this, he assumes a superiority for himself, which, per
mit me to tell him now in this presence, nothing in him can war
rant. Sir, I claim little for myself; but I shrink in no respect
from any comparison with the Senator, veteran though he be.
Sitting near him as has been my fortune since I had the honor
of a seat in this chamber, I have come to know something of his
conversation, something of his manners, something of his at
tainments, something of his abilities, something of his char
acter, ay, sir, and something of his associations; and while I
would not disparage him in any of these respects, I feel that I
do not exalt myself unduly, that I do not claim too much for

290 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the position which I hold or the name which I have established,
when I openly declare, that as a Senator of Massachusetts, and
as a man, I place myself at every point in unhesitating com
parison with that honorable assailant. And to his peremptory
assertion, that the Fugitive Slave Act does not deny the Habeas
Corpus, I oppose my assertion, peremptory as his own, that it
does, — and there I leave that issue."
The personal character of the debate will be seen from these
quotations. They illustrate the intensity of the feeling that
existed in Congress on the slavery question and the difficulties
with which anti-slavery men contended. It is important for
the reader to understand these personal encounters of Sumner'
and the part he took in them for it was for what he said of
Mason and Butler and South Carolina, that Brooks attempted
to justify his assault on Sumner in the Senate Chamber, at a
later day.
The debate being closed, the motion for a reference of the
petition to the Judiciary Committee carried. But this Com
mittee reported against the prayer of the petition and the
Senate adopted their report. Later in the session Sumner
sought to introduce a bill for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave
Law, but the Senate after much wrangling, Tefused him leave.
No progress was made in anti-slavery legislation but the anti-
slavery vote in the Senate had increased from four to ten.
The pro-slavery members were not accustomed to such oppo
sition as Sumner was making to their schemes of territorial ex
pansion. He had been elected as an opponent of slavery. He
had no political ambition, unless it was to link his name with
the destruction of this institution. The ordinary baits the
South had been using, political preferments, such as the Presi
dency, had no attraction for him. An incident related by him
self illustrates his feeling. During this session an eminent
supporter of the Nebraska Bill said to him: "I would not go
through all that you do on this nigger question for all the offices
and honors of the country." To which Sumner promptly
replied, " Nor would I, — for all the offices and honors of the
country." In relating it, he added : " Not in such things are
the inducements to this warfare. If I have been able to do
aught in any respect not unworthy, it is because I thought
rather of those commanding duties which are above office and
honor." But he had a strong desire for fame of a more enduring sort
than office gave. His efforts in the Senate were always pre
pared as for a great occasion, he put aside personalities which
appealed to the galleries but he felt there was nothing to be lost

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 291
by telling his Southern colleagues he was as good as they were
and would brook no airs of superiority. It was a manly self-
respect he asserted and it found an answering response at
home. It was after this debate that Whittier wrote the poem already
referred to reminding him of the evening, when they had
loitered by the sea at Lynn and he had foretold Sumner's elec
tion to the Senate. He now saw the large future, which he then
predicted, fulfilled in his actual life.
Until this debate Sumner maintained pleasant relations with
the Southern Senators, but from this time forward their in
timacy ceased and few of them recognized him socially. Their
feeling towards him was bitter. Threats were made of expelling
him from the Senate, and with the votes they controlled there
was some reason to fear such a result. It must be confessed
that Sumner was not without feeling. He wrote to Howe
during this session: "This Congress is the worst, — or rather
promises to be the worst since the Constitution was adopted ;
it is the ' Devil's Own.' "
The letters written him from Massachusetts, show that the
debates of the session had been followed with interest and that
the political tide was turning his way. One of his former
opponents wrote him : " Differing with you as I do in political
sentiments and having no other connection with public affairs
than what pertains to every citizen, I desire, nevertheless, to
express to you, what I believe to be the general feeling among
all classes of reflecting minds here, an admiration for the
dignified and gentlemanly bearing with which you have gone
through the contest and rebuked this ruffian onslaught, and to
say, moreover, that we should, I have no doubt, all unite, from
all sides as one man, in sending you back to the Senate, should
the maniac threats of expulsion by any possibility be carried
into effect."
Some of his friends referred to his conduct or expressions in
a speech on one occasion and others to something on another
occasion as seeming especially admirable to them. But they all
agreed that his course during the stormy scenes of the session
had admirably represented the sentiment of the State. One
had cried, " Just the thing ! " when he read his answer to
Butler, inquiring whether he would aid in sending back a
fugitive slave ; another thought that it was his reply to Mason
that had made him think for once in his life that a Southern
gentleman had been "squeezed through the little end of the
horn." Wendell Phillips " liked and entirely approved the self-

292 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
respect with which he put his own opinion side by side with the
Virginian's and left it."
An old man, formerly a Member of Congress, wrote him :
" Your contest in the Senate brought vividly to my recollection
similar scenes which many years since I saw J. Q. Adams pass
ing through. And now how miserably insignificant and mean,
to the eyes of the intelligent and honorable of the whole civilized
world, do these rascally pigmies look! and how 'the old man
eloquent' looms up! Truth is mighty; never fear, — sometime
or other she will take care of you; nay, she is doing it now
with all who can see, and even with multitudes of your oppon
ents who see plainly enough but dare not speak. In one respect
you have beaten ' the old man ' even. You have kept your
temper better than he used always to do."
The revolution of political feeling in the State was fast tend
ing to break up old party ties. A new party was being organ
ized, the Republican. The Abolitionists were going into it as a
body and there was a drift towards it, from both the Whigs and
the Democrats, many of whom were dissatisfied with the tem
porizing policy of the old parties on the slavery question. Early
in the summer, the Republicans bid fair to carry the State.
The leaders were eager for Sumner to join them. He was
urgently pressed by the Provisional State Chairman, John A.
Andrew, to be present and address tbe State Convention to be
held at Worcester on September seventh. They felt that his
presence after the exciting scenes in which he had taken part
in Congress and the desire of the people to see and hear him
would draw many to the Convention, if he would consent to
speak. He consented and promised his sympathy and support
to the new movement.
Sumner received a flattering reception, when he appeared
before the Convention. He was still a young man, only forty-
three years of age, in the prime of mental vigor and manly
strength, his face still unseamed by age or suffering. And yet
he bore with him the laurels of a victor. For had he not gone
forth from these scenes a few years before the representative
of a few Abolitionists ; and was he not now returning to a State,
driven by the stern march of events, to his position ? When he
came into the Convention, the audience received him standing
and with cheers. He was conducted to the platform and the
Convention suspended other business to hear him speak. His
subject was the duty of Massachusetts in this new crisis and
how it should be discharged, — what to do and how to do it. He
recited the recent encroachments of slavery in the arrest of
Burns and the appearance of the slave-hunter in the streets of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 293
Boston, and the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, the de
struction of a time-honored landmark of Freedom pledged to
perpetuity by slavery, for benefits long ago received, and ever
since actually enjoyed. He urged the necessity for a union of
the men of all parties, opposed to slavery, that they should
throw aside old ties and join heartily under the one banner of
the Republicans, to withstand the encroachments of the South.
His two objects were; first, to vindicate the necessity for a
new party; second, to prevent the enforcement of the Fugitive
Slave Law in Massachusetts by convincing his fellow citizens
that being against conscience and the Constitution, they should
refuse to lend any aid to its enforcement. Concluding he bade
them be of good cheer and to hope. He knew the difficulties
too well that lay between them and success, how little there was
even in public life to tempt an honest man who wished, by some
thing he had done, to leave the world better than he found it.
But still, to hope ! Already more than half the people of the
Commonwealth wished to be rid of slavery. Let them not
scatter their votes, but unite in one firm organization, without
thought of compromise ; and the triumph of Freedom would be
realized, not only in Massachusetts, but in the whole country.
The speech was received with great enthusiasm. It was one
of Sumner's telling efforts that met the wants of the hour, like
his Faneuil Hall speech of November sixth, 1850, that was said
to have made him Senator. The speech was made before the
days of the telegraph and the Boston Traveller ran a special
train from Worcester to Boston, a distance of forty miles, in
one hour, — a great feat of railroading then, — to lay it before
the people without delay.
The Convention nominated Henry Wilson for Governor and
Increase Sumner for Lieutenant-Governor; John A. Andrew
was made chairman of the State Executive Committee. The
party started with high hopes. But the efforts made by the old
party journals and leaders, especially the Whig, to keep their
voters in line, caused its defeat. This was accomplished by
keeping alive and stirring up old party animosities against the
Free-Soilers, of whom the new party was largely composed.
Voters at first favorably impressed, were thus kept from joining
it. The " American Party " better known as the " Know-
Nothing", whose cardinal principle was hostility to foreign-
born citizens, especially Catholics, and which was an oath,
bound, secret organization, was largely the outcome. Voters
would not support the old parties, after the Nebraska legisla
tion ; their prejudices kept them from voting with the Republi
cans, and they satisfied their desire for a change by seeking ref-

294 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
uge in Know-Nothingism. The movement became general.
Wilson joined it. The result was, the Republicans poled only
six thousand votes while the Know-Nothings elected their State
ticket and a legislature and thereby later made Wilson a United
States Senator. The next year Know-Nothingism disappeared
and the Republican party came to the front. Know-Nothingism
was the path from both the old parties to the new.
Sumner had no patience with Know-Nothingism and refused
to encourage it by his voice or his vote. Its principles were
distasteful to him. He was opposed to secrecy in political
affairs ; and he thought this country should be an asylum for the
oppressed of all nations, that a party organization could not
be permanent that placed opposition to citizens because they
were foreign born, among its cardinal principles. The peculiar
turn political events had taken in Massachusetts led him to re
frain from taking any part in the campaign after his speech
before the Republican convention.
His only other public appearance during this vacation of
Congress was on November 13, 1854, when he delivered an
address to the Mercantile Library Association of Boston, in
troductory to its annual course of lectures. The association
was composed of two thousand young men, engaged in mercan
tile pursuits, having a large library and organized for the
moral and intellectual improvement of its members. He chose
for his subject the " Position and Duties of the Merchant, illus
trated by the life of Granville Sharp " and he sought to show
by the life of this good merchant, the author of English Eman
cipation, how much good can be accomplished and how much
fame can be gathered by the well directed efforts and only the
small means of a merchant's clerk.
It is interesting to note how instinctively in hours of re
laxation, Sumner turned to books. They were his recreation
for respite from toil and care. His official duties were often
distasteful, the pressure of office seekers for places, the habitual
ill-humor now of the Southern Members made his position dis
agreeable. Life until his entrance to the Senate had been so
different. His separation from his books he felt as one of the
hardships of his position and he sometimes regretted the change.
There is no -more fruitful and certain source of recreation
than the reading of good books. They enter into the life of
the busy and anxious man and steal care away before he is
aware. Nowhere else can such relief be found. If he loses
himself in the crowd on the street or seeks the solitude of the
woods or the sea still the never ending cares of life come back
to him constantly. In ceaseless waking thoughts, when every-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 295
thing is silent and he is left alone, they make the night cheer
less. But let the weary man settle down to the reading of a
good book and how soon his thoughts are far away, absorbed in
the scenes of its pages, bringing change and rest, the old sad
visions crowded out by the new and the good.

CHAPTER XXI
SESSION OF '54—5  TOUCEY BILL  LECTURES BEFORE ANTI-SLAV
ERY ASSOCIATIONS- — VISITS THE SOUTH AND WEST  PASS-
MORE WILLIAMSON  ELECTION OF 1855
After the long season of storm, in the last session of Con
gress there was a tacit agreement on all sides to let slavery rest
for a while. During the session of 1854-5, this quiet was hardly
broken. Sumner occupied himself with other questions. He
introduced a resolution against the enforced contributions from
sailors for the support of Hospitals and he spoke on a bill to
secure to seamen, in case of wreck, the wages already earned.
Once late in the session the slavery question came up in the
discussion of a bill introduced by Toucey of Connecticut, a
Democrat, on February twenty-third, providing for the re
moval to the Federal Courts of all causes for damages brought
in the State Courts against United States officers, for acts done
in the discharge of any duty under the laws of Congress.
There was no mention in the bill, of slavery, or the Fugitive
Slave Law. It was introduced and its passage was insisted
on as a matter of little interest. But Chase, who was a
thorough lawyer at once caught its purpose to promote the
apprehension of fugitive slaves; and he promptly opposed its
passage. The anti-slavery men asked for time that it might
be fully discussed, but the slavery men as usual pressed its.
passage and as usual it was rushed through. Slavery under
stood its purpose, was in favor of it and had the votes to pass
it. Why should it favor discussion? February twenty-third
was Friday ; and this was a day of the week devoted, according
to the usage of the Senate, to the consideration of private
bills. " Our day of justice," Sumner called it. Upwards of
seventy-five bills were on the calendar for consideration. But
everything of a routine character was made to wait on slavery ;
and this bill was allowed to consume the entire day. Wade in
his pungent style, nettled its advocates by calling attention to
the increased anti-slavery vote of the North. Wilson made his
maiden speech in the Senate upon it. But Seward spoke best.
Sumner secured the floor at midnight. He reminded the
Senate that once before he had been compelled to speak at this
late hour or be silent in the presence of the encroachment of
296

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 297
slavery. " It is hardly," he remarked, " an accidental conjunc
tion which constantly brings slavery and midnight together."
Finding that the liberty of free colored persons was often en
dangered by the operation of the Fugitive Slave Law, several
of the Northern states had passed laws to protect them from
this danger by insuring them the protection of trial by jury
and the writ of habeas corpus. Some States also prohibited the
use of their county jails and volunteer militia, in the enforce
ment of the law. The advocates of the bill inveighed against
these laws; but Sumner defended them and insisted that the
attempts to enforce the law had only resulted in riots and blood
shed and disturbance of business and that already three states
by formal resolution had demanded its repeal and two courts
had declared it unconstitutional; and yet this bill was intro
duced to bolster up this infamous law.
Rush of Texas interrupted him to say that if the officers
appointed to execute the law were to be left unprotected, the
law should be repealed. Sumner answered that he proposed to
make that very motion before he sat down, as he had already
done twice before, and he would press it to a vote. Benjamin of
Louisiana and Butler of South Carolina, the latter already
showing the lateness of the hour in his too frequent cups, could
not be silent. Sumner closed by moving the repeal of the
Fugitive Slave Law and called for the yeas and nays. Butler
thereupon arose and asked Sumner the very question he had
asked him once before and which Sumner had answered then
so pointedly, whether, if the law were repealed, Sumner would
recommend the State of Massachusetts to pass a law to deliver
up fugitives from slavery. To which Sumner promptly an
swered : No ! Butler, after some foolish talk about the right of
a man with such opinions to a seat in the Senate and a rejoinder
by Sumner, said he knew Sumner was not a tactician and that
he would not take " advantage of the infirmity of a man, who
did not know half his time what he was talking about," — a fling
which coming from Butler whose condition was apparent, and
referring to Sumner, whose abstinence was well known, pro
voked laughter from the Senate.
The vote on Sumner's motion, to amend the pending bill so
as to make it a bill for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law,
was, yeas 9, nays 30. But the Toucey bill passed. Only for
this one day was the harmony of the session disturbed by
slavery. The session closed on the third day of March, 1855.
During the previous fall a course of lectures was organized
in Boston and in New York for the discussion of slavery. This
fact marks a distinct advance in anti-slavery warfare. That

298 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
such a thing was possible in these two cities shows how much
the cause had grown in popularity since Sumner delivered his
lecture in 1847, seven years before, on " White Slavery in the
Barbary States," so as to get a hearing for his subject by mask
ing it in that form. Now on a fair count the voters of his
state against slavery were in the majority and this majority
had two representatives in the United States Senate. Sumner
was asked to deliver the opening lectures in the New York and
Boston courses, but, owing to a severe cold, he was compelled
to decline both, though he had accepted the Boston invitation.
He afterwards delivered the concluding lecture in each course.
Sumner's note to the Boston committee declining their first
invitation shows us his care in keeping engagements. He
wrote; "It is my habit to keep my engagements. Not for a
single day have I been absent from my seat in the Senate during
the three sessions in which duty has called me there ; and never
before in the course of numerous undertakings to address public
bodies, at different times and in different places, has there been
any failure through remissness or disability on my part."
Sumner delivered the concluding lecture of the Boston course
in March, after the adjournment of Congress. During his
unoccupied time he had been making careful preparation for
this appearance; the course being one in whose success he
felt a deep interest. The lecture was delivered in Tremont
Temple, which was crowded to overflowing. On the stage be
side him sat two children, whose release from their owner in
Virginia, with that of their mother, he had negotiated for, dur
ing the previous winter, at the instance of the father, who had
escaped from slavery and afterwards purchased his own free
dom and now, through Sumner, that of his family. The chil
dren were very light, almost white, in appearance, and their at
tractive faces, with the fate they had so narrowly escaped, were
well calculated to arouse the fathers and mothers of a Northern
audience against slavery.
Sumner had not yet given away, in his speeches, the present
effect he could have with an audience, for the permanent in
fluence he might afterwards have with those who would read
what he said. Later in life he lost some of his effectiveness, by
the attention he paid to how his speeches would read when
printed. This lecture was delivered to a cultured audience and was
received with such favor that he was called upon to deliver it
again in the same hall a few days later. The call for it was such
that he afterwards delivered it in many other places in Mas
sachusetts, — including Worcester, Lowell and Lynn, — and in

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 299
the principal cities of New York, — at Auburn, where he was the
guest of Seward, who introduced him to the audience as " the
statesman on whose shoulders the mantle of John Quincy Adams
had fallen, — the young man eloquent," at Albany, Syracuse,
Utica and Rochester. He was asked to deliver it in several of
the Western States, but declined. On May ninth he delivered it
in Metropolitan Theatre in New York city and the demand for
it was so great that he delivered it the next night in Brooklyn,
where Henry Ward Beecher presided; and then in Nib! o's Thea
tre, New York. It was printed in The Tribune of New York,
The National Era in Washington and The Independent.
This was Sumner's first appearance in New York city. The
Tribune spoke thus of his " Three Days oration," as it was
called : " That a lecture should be repeated in New York is
a rare occurrence. That a lecture on anti-slavery should be
repeated in New York, even before a few despised ' fanatics ' is
an unparalleled occurrence. But that an anti-slavery lecture
should be repeated night after night to successive multitudes,
each more enthusiastic than the last, marks the epoch of a revo
lution in popular feeling ; it is an era in the history of Liberty.
Niblo's Theatre was crowded last evening long before the
hour of commencement. Hundreds stood through the three
hours' lecture."
Sumner's subject was " The Anti-Slavery Enterprise ; its
Necessity, Practicability and Dignity." He sometimes opened
his address with the striking presentation of some thought. The
opening of this one, at Metropolitan Theatre, illustrates my
meaning. " History," he said " abounds in vicissitudes. From weak
ness and humility, men ascend to power and place. From defeat
and disparagement, enterprises are borne on to recognition and
triumph. The martyr of to-day is gratefully enshrined on the
morrow. The stone that the builders rejected is made the head
of the corner. Thus it always has been and ever will be."
He then referred to the few years before when a Female Anti-
Slavery Society, sitting in a small room of an upper story in an
obscure building in Boston, was insulted and then driven out
of doors by a frantic crowd politely termed at the time " gentle
men of standing and property " and to William Lloyd Garrison,
insulted and threatened and dragged through the streets until
he was rescued and thrown into jail for protection, in contrast
with this mighty assembly, counted by thousands, ruffled only
by generous competition to participate in the occasion. " Here
is a great change," he continued, " worthy of notice and mem
ory, for it attests the first stage of victory."

300 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
The purpose of Sumner's lecture was to show the legal and
political condition of the slaves in the South, the necessity for
the anti-slavery enterprise and to answer the arguments made
against it. Quoting from the laws of several slave States,
he showed that human beings were held merely as chattels,
in other words as personal property. The slave had no rec
ognition in law, as a soul capable of happiness here and of
immortality hereafter. " The slave " he said, " may seem to
have a wife, but he has not, for his wife belongs to his master.
He may seem to have a child, but he has not, for his child is
owned by his master. He may be filled with the desire of
knowledge, opening to him the gate of joy on earth and in
heaven; but the master may impiously close all these gates."
A wrong so transcendent, he insisted should be righted. " Free
dom and Slavery can hold no divided empire; nor can there
be any true repose, until Freedom is everywhere established."
To the favorite argument of the South that Noah's curse against
Canaan made him the servant of servants unto his brethren,
he answered that this malediction did not change Canaan to a
chattel, much less his posterity ; that the African could neither
be proven to be the descendant of Canaan, nor all slave masters
to be the descendants of Shem or Japheth. While he admitted
that the New Testament contained many injunctions for mas
ters and servants, conditions that must always exist, he insisted
that nowhere, in the spirit of the teachings of Christ, could
they find any authority for slavery, whereby a human soul was
reduced to the condition of an ox.
The first step necessary to the practicability of emancipation,
he argued, was to openly confront it. When soberly studied
men would unite in applying the remedy to such an assemblage
of unquestionable wrongs as slavery would be found to be.
If the question be determined by absolute justice, compensation
should be made to the slaves and not to the masters upon free
dom being granted. Still he was disposed to consider the
question of compensation to the master, for freedom to the
slave one of expediency, to be determined by the exigencies of
the hour, though such he confessed was his anxiety for the dis
appearance of slavery that he would not hesitate to build a
bridge of gold " if necessary for the retreating fiend." The as
sumption that slave labor was more profitable than free had
been exploded by the census ; and the arguments that the slaves
were not prepared for freedom was as foolish as the refusal of
the mother to let her son enter the water, until he first knew
how to swim. Its danger to master or slave could not be plead,
in the face of numerous instances, where as in Jamaica or the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

301

Barbadoes, the disproportion in numbers was greater than in
this country, and yet emancipation there had been attended
with no danger. If with all the wrongs of the slave, his wife
ravished from his arms, his child swept to the auction block, the
fruits of his labor appropriated by another, the master still slept
secure, why should he be less so in the presence of his slave with
all these wrongs righted. "The highest safety is in doing
right." The dignity of the enterprise, he argued, was vindicated by
the loftiness of the cause of freedom throughout all ages and
the numbers of human beings now sought to be benefitted.
It could not be belittled by the hard names and personal dis
paragement heaped upon its advocates. It had ever been the
lot of goodness and virtue in this world to be reviled and tra
duced. It was not the eminent, the rich and powerful, the
favorites of fortune and of place who most promptly welcome
the truth which brings change in the existing order of things,
but those in poorer condition.
In conclusion, he reminded them that there were according
to the census reports only 347,525 slaveholders and yet this
oligarchy ruled the Republic, determined its policy and disposed
of its offices. Their first duty was the overthrow of this oli
garchy. The Fugitive Slave Law by an aroused public senti
ment must also be made a dead letter. For his own part, long
ago, he said he had made up his mind to have nothing to do with
its execution. " I know not if our work will be soon accom
plished. * * * But better strive in this cause, even unsuc
cessfully, than never strive at all. The penalty of indifference
is akin to the penalty of opposition, — as is well pictured by the
great Italian poet, when, among the saddest on the banks of the
Acheron, rending the air with outcries of torment, shrieks of
anger and smiting of hands, he finds the troop of dreary souls
who had been ciphers in the great conflicts of life." And, he
insisted, that above all things there should be unity among the
friends of Freedom, unity even as among the enemy there was
unity. A lesson must be learned from them. As with them
slavery was the mainspring of political life, from which eman
ated all power and all authority and among them all differences
were swallowed up in the one idea, so must it be with the
friends of Freedom. They must unite in a compact political
association, knit together by instincts of a common danger, de
termined to enfranchise the Government, powerful in numbers,
wealth and intelligence, but more powerful still in an inspiring
cause. Wherever it was delivered, this address did good for the anti-

302 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
slavery cause. It met the arguments against emancipation and
while there was manifest the speaker's indignation at the wrongs
of slavery, he did not descend to abuse of the slave masters. It
was the institution he attacked, not men. The recent uprising
at the North against slavery, enabled him to find candid hearers,
worthy of the preparation he had made to present the case fairly
before them. When he had finished, he declared that he had
found the people prepared as never before to welcome the truth
and that the country was approaching a crisis on the slavery
question when Freedom would, triumph or the Union would be
dissolved. For a number of years, Sumner had been wishing to visit the *
West and South. It will be remembered he had foregone this
trip to serve as a member of the Convention to revise the Con
stitution of Massachusetts, in 1853. He wished to see slavery
as it appeared at home. So the last of May he set out and, in
the course of his trip, he visited eleven free and three slave
states. He visited his friend Horace Mann, then President of
Antioch College at Yellow Springs, Ohio, and his colleague in
the Senate, Salmon P. Chase, at Cincinnati. Then crossing
into Kentucky, he visited Cassius M. Clay, at his home near
Lexington. This was in the heart of the famous Blue Grass
Region, one of the finest farming districts of the country. Its
soil was fertile, having been freshly reclaimed from trackless
forests, and its surface was rolling and easily tilled. To this,
civilization had added excellent roads and all the improvements
necessary to make desirable farms. It was dotted here and
there with country mansions of aristocratic landlords, nestling
among groves of native oak, surrounded with every conven
ience that would make home happy. It was a region as famed
for fine stock as it was for generous welcome and abounding
hospitality. The visit was one long to be remembered.
Sumner had met Clay at a public reception, tendered to John
P. Hale, in Boston, in 1853. He was subsequently invited by
Clay to visit him in Kentucky. Clay's home, called White Hall,
was surrounded by a fine grove containing almost every variety
of native trees and some exotics. The immediate grounds about
the mansion house, on the estate, contained thirty acres. Clay
was engaged in the breeding of thorough-bred short-horn cattle
and Southdown sheep. Sumner enjoyed the open-hearted hos
pitality and was pleased with the trees and flocks of sheep and
herds of cattle. He continued his visit for several days.
While there, Clay, who was a pronounced Abolitionist him
self, knowing Sumner's curiosity to see the condition of slaves,
on a plantation, took him to the estate of his brother Brutus

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 303
J. Clay, near Paris, one of the finest farms in the country,
where there were more than a hundred slaves owned. The
slave families occupied separate houses built of hewed logs,
mortared between, mostly of two rooms, one above the other.
Each house had a yard in front and a garden behind and was
surrounded by a post and rail fence. They were neatly white
washed, with such additions to some of them, as the taste of
the occupants dictated; and the supply of winter's wood was
carefully piled up for each. Upon the whole, they presented
an air of neatness and comfort that Sumner had evidently not
expected. Cassius M. Clay showed the negro quarters to
Sumner, politely anticipating his curiosity; and they went
alone so that he might feel free to ask any questions he desired.
Sumner did not ask many, and it is remembered that he was
slow to express any opinions or impressions of his own. When,
however, a little colored boy ran ahead to open the gates for
them and looked back smiling, Sumner's exclamation, as he
tossed him a coin, was, " Poor boy ! " Seemingly the thought
was, " Still with all these creature comforts, these poor people,
at last, are only slaves ! "
But he saw other things that proved to him, that even physi
cal comfort was by no means a uniform condition. At Lex
ington, on the steps of the Court House, he saw a slave put up
and sold at auction and made to open his mouth and show his
teeth, like a horse, for the satisfaction of bidders. At another
place he was left to sit in his stage and wait while the driver
" assisted to whip a nigger ". And still again, while he ate his
meal he was compelled to witness a poor slave girl staggered
under the blow of a clenched fist. Upon the whole, his opinion
of slavery was confirmed by what he saw. A fact that im
pressed him, as much as any other, was that owing to prejudice
and the limited disposition in the South to read, the Southern
people knew less about the real condition of the slaves, than
the people of the North.
He visited, at Lexington, the home and grave of Henry Clay ;
and at Nashville, those of Andrew Jackson, stopping by the way
to see the Mammoth Cave. He went down the Cumberland and
Ohio rivers to Cairo and up the Mississippi to St. Louis and
St. Paul, stopping by the way to visit friends at several places.
He was on the Great Lakes, as far north as Marquette.
He spent a fortnight in the forests of the iron mountains
on the shores of Lake Superior, cut off in those solitudes from
all communication with the civilized world. As he left the
harbor on a steamer bound for the head of the Lake, he re
marked that he had not seen the newspapers for two weeks and

304 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
was ignorant of all that had transpired in the outer world, dur
ing this time. A fellow traveller handed him the dailies from
the principal cities. As his eye ran hurriedly over them, he
caught the intelligence that Passmore Williamson had been
thrown into jail in Philadelphia for a contempt of court in a
slave case. He turned from one paper to another to gather the
details of the case.
Williamson was an unpretending citizen, Secretary of a com
mittee of an Abolition Society. He had informed a slave
mother and her two children that having been brought, by their
master, into a State where slavery did not exist, they were by
law, free. They had accordingly escaped from their master and
he was unable to recover them or even learn their whereabouts.
He had asked of the United States District Court a writ of
habeas corpus against Williamson, commanding him to produce
the bodies of the mother and children before the Court. The
writ was allowed. But Williamson having been brought into
Court answered that he did not have them in his custody, did
not know their whereabouts and could not therefore comply
with the order of the Court. He was, however, found guilty of
contempt and sent to jail.
As Sumner gathered the details of this outrageous judgment,
he hesitated a little and then inquired the name of the island
the steamer was just passing. While seated on the deck of the
" North Star ", that beautiful Sabbath morning, where the
rocky outlines of Granite Island and the mountains of the
mainland were mirrored in the clear waters of Lake Superior
and where everything the eye rested on was emblematic of peace
and purity and freedom, he wrote a thrilling letter to William
son in Moyamensing Prison.
" From beginning to end, from side to side," he wrote, " and
in every aspect, this transaction can be regarded only as a clear,
indubitable, and utterly unmitigated outrage. The new-fangled
doctrine, that a master can voluntarily import his alleged
slave — of course with all the revolting incidents of slavery — into
the Free States is not more odious than preposterous. It is
scouted, by reason, and disowned by universal jurisprudence.
You were right in disregarding it. In stepping forward to
remind persons claimed as slaves on this pretext that all such
claim is baseless, you did a good work. It was this knowledge
which filled them with confidence to regain their God-given
liberty. And for this it appears that you have been brought
before a man, ' dressed in a little brief authority ' who has
cast you into prison."
"It is a privilege to suffer for truth; and I envy not the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 305
meanness of that soul which would hesitate to prefer your
place within the stone walls of a prison to the cushioned bench
of the magistrate by whose irrational and tyrannical edict you
have been condemned."
Sumner did not hesitate to hold up the wrongs of slavery.
He believed that this was one of the ways to right them.
He returned home through the Lakes, stopping at Saratoga
and the White Mountains and reached Boston during the first
week of September. He had been absent more than three
months. Before going he had hesitated between the choice of
this tour through his own country and a trip to Europe. But
feeling that the information he would acquire by a trip South
and West would be more useful to him, he had chosen it. He
afterwards felt that this choice was wisely made.
The campaign was attracting attention in Massachusetts,
when he returned. The Know-Nothings were active again and
voters, dissatisfied with the Whig and Democratic parties, were
still deserting them. Sumner clung to the hope of uniting all
anti-slavery men in the new Republican party and to make its
cardinal principle, opposition to slavery. He continued to
have no faith in the principles of Know-Nothingism. He did
not believe that a party with such principles as an oath-bound
secrecy and hostility to foreign born citizens or to the mem
bership of any particular religious denomination could be long
continued in power. Such principles would have excluded
William of Orange from participation in the political fortunes
of England, Napoleon from those of France and Hamilton
from those of America. And yet these were the primary prin
ciples of Know-Nothingism. Its opposition to slavery, he be
lieved was merely to catch votes.
During the campaign he spoke for the Republicans, in the
principal towns and cities of the State. He urged men of all
parties to unite, in this one, in enduring opposition to slavery.
In his speeches he boldly condemned Know-Nothingism. As
his term in the Senate was drawing to a close and this party
was in control of the State government and bade fair to con
tinue its ascendency for the next year, when the Senator would
be chosen, while his course was a courageous one, his friends,
many of them at least, feared it was not discreet. But he
believed that a public man should not be a mere follower of
others in politics, but a leader, and he went forward. His cour
age might have cost him his seat. There was some talk of an
ticipating the election of his successor by having the present
Legislature make the choice, but other counsels prevailed. His
danger, however, continued ; for the Know-Nothings were again
successful in electing a Governor and a Legislature.

CHAPTER XXII
stormy session of congress  banks, republican, made
speaker — kansas troubles  applies for admission 
sumner's speech — the replies to it — sumner's re
joinder
The session of Congress which commenced on the third day
of December, 1855, was a memorable one. The election had
shown a feeling of unrest prevalent in the country and a dis
satisfaction with the courses of the two old political parties.
The South had returned a delegation to Congress thoroughly
loyal to slavery, but many districts in the North had sent anti-
slavery men. When Congress opened, the change became ap
parent. N. P. Banks of Massachusetts, a pronounced anti-
slavery man and a Republican, was the candidate for Speaker
from the North and William Aiken of South Carolina was the
candidate of the South and each represented the rival feelings
of the different sections upon the slavery question. Ballot after
ballot became necessary before a choice was made and it was not
till the second day of February, 1856, on the one hundred and
thirty-third ballot, that Banks was elected. It was significant
that the candidates came from the States they did, Massachus
etts and South Carolina. It was significant that every vote
Banks received was from the North and that his opponent had
the solid vote of the South except only one Cullen's of Dela
ware. Davis of Maryland declined to vote for either candidate.
For the first time it was the South compactly arrayed against
the North, section against section. It was an ominous attitude.
For the first time in the history of the country there was a
national official elected by one section. But Banks' election
had a deeper meaning than this. For the first time in the
country's history, the anti-slavery men had scored a national
triumph. All their victories, till now, had been local, a mem
ber of Congress, a Governor, occasionally a U. S. Senator. But
now they had become so strong that their party assumed na
tional proportions. One of the most important offices of the
nation was filled by a man of that conviction and because he
was so. Sumner wrote Charles Francis Adams : " I was present
when he was conducted to his chair. It was a proud historic
306

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 307
moment. For the first time during years there seemed to be a
North. I fancied I saw the star glittering over his head."
The causes for this change in public opinion were to be
found in the course of the Democratic party controlled by the
South. The Missouri Compromise, the established landmark
of Freedom, that had been fixed with much labor and had
grown sacred with age, had been repealed to open the way for
the extension of slavery. This had been followed by the Kan
sas-Nebraska Bill establishing these Territories, and opening
them to settlement, by people of the South with their slaves,
and emigrants from the North, and permitting the settlers to
determine for themselves, whether they should be slave or
free. The effect of this legislation was to make the Territories
slave. They were to continue so, unless the anti-slavery men,
by a vote at some subsequent time could wrest them away from
slavery. These successive encroachments had angered the anti-
slavery people of the North; and they determined, notwith
standing this legislation to make Kansas a free state. Kansas
was the debatable ground, for if it was won for Freedom, Ne
braska would certainly follow. The South was just as de
termined to make Kansas a slave state. This constant agitation
had embittered the two sections.
The New England Emigrant Aid Co. had been incorporated
in Massachusetts. Its object and its methods were perfectly
legitimate. It proposed to promote emigration, from the New
England states, by furnishing information about Kansas to
persons likely to emigrate, to cheapen to them the cost of trans
portation thither and, by the building of saw and flour mills,
hotels, and school-houses to enable them to become finally fixed,
in permanent homes. Its influence and its means were limited.
It is estimated that not more than fifteen hundred persons
were induced by it to become residents of the Territory. The
South, watching with jealousy every movement of the North
towards colonization and remembering how California had
recently slipped from its grasp, professed not to be able to see
any legitimate purpose in the Emigrant Aid Co. It knew that
the settlers thus furnished would almost certainly be against
slavery. The Company, therefore, became the object of bitter
denunciations. Kansas was of vital importance to slavery. It was within
the same parallels as Missouri and could raise the same crops.
Missouri was a slave State. Kansas then included a large part
of what is now Colorado. It was the gateway of the North to
New Mexico and Utah. New Mexico then included Arizona;
and Utah included Nevada, To control Kansas, therefore,

308 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
meant to control what is now six States and Territories. Kan
sas would restore the equality, to the South, in the Senate,
which had been lost by the admission of California; it would
also put the South in the way to acquire ten votes more. No
set of statesmen ever saw a proposition more clearly or knew
better how they could wield the advantage that would be gained,
if they could only reach it, than those of the South. And this,
with a will, they set themselves to accomplish.
To secure Kansas to slavery, the South resorted to the boldest
frauds. It conceived the plan of having persons go there and
stake off claims to desirable land, remain perhaps a few days in
tents, call themselves residents of the Territory so as to be able
to return and vote, whenever occasion and the interests of
slavery should require, and then return to their homes in slave
states. The nearness of the Territory to Missouri, a slave state,
rendered this plan of counting votes for slavery peculiarly prac
ticable. One Atchison, who had been a U. S. Senator from
Missouri and was for several sessions President pro tem of the
Senate, and another, Stringfellow, were especially prominent,
frequently leading bands, under arms, from Missouri to Kansas
to accomplish such purposes; and, under their leadership were
often committed gross outrages, against the rights of citizenship
and property, sometimes amounting to the shedding of inno
cent blood.
Four sons of John Brown had early settled in the Territory ;
and the father soon after left his little farm among the Adiron-
dacks and followed them. The father and sons were sworn en
emies of slavery. The old man had early in life declared his
unalterable opposition to it. Whether his primary object in
emigrating to the Territory was to make it a permanent home
or simply to assist in saving it to Freedom, can never, perhaps,
be certainly known. But such spirits could not long remain
undiscovered, amid the stirring scenes into which they were
cast. Two of the sons, while quietly attending to their work in
the fields were seized by a band of Missourians, under the com
mand of a certain Pate, who delivered then into the hands of
some Federal troops. On horseback these troops drove them on
foot, manacled, without any legal charge against them, over the
burning prairie ; and before the sun had set, the younger John
Brown was a raving maniac. And yet, against the perpetrators
personally of the deed the father seemed to entertain no thought
of revenge. "What God does is well done"; "Vengeance is
mine ; I will repay saith the Lord " ; such texts seemed to con
sole him as against the men who did these things. But he was
dreadfully in earnest, in his warfare against the institution

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER ;)(I9
that he held accountable for these wrongs. He was overcome
with emotion and shed tears when he undertook to recount
them before the Legislature of Massachusetts.
A mere narration of some other events in Kansas will show
the lengths Slavery was willing to go. A. M. Reeder of Pennsyl
vania, a Democrat, had been appointed by President Pierce,
Governor of the Territory. At the time of his selection, there
was no question about his loyalty to Southern interests. In
November, 185-1, Missourians to the number of seventeen hun
dred under the lead of Atchison came armed into the Territory
and participated in the election of Whitfield to Congress. A
little later, in March, 1855, they came from Missouri armed
to the number of five thousand, and, marching to the polls,
where the election of members of the Legislature was being held
they demanded with weapons in their hands that they be al
lowed to vote and they were permitted to do so. Governor
Reeder issued certificates to a majority of the members thus
chosen, but, becoming convinced of the magnitude of the out
rage, he refused, finally, to recognize the Legislature or the
validity of its acts. He was thereupon removed by President
Pierce, who was in full sympathy with the South, and Wilson
Shannon of Ohio was appointed, in his place. This Legislature
was worthy of its origin. In two months it enacted eight hun
dred and twenty-three pages of statutes. How this could be
done so quickly was incredible, till it was discovered that they
had re-enacted the statutes of Missouri almost wholesale, with
out in some places even changing the word " State " to " Ter
ritory ", where it occurred. But its enactments upon the sub
ject of slavery, it made worse. It was made a criminal offence
to declare openly or in writing that slavery did not legally exist
in the Territory.
The Free-Soilers refused to recognize the validity of these
elections. They knew that there were only about three thou
sand legal voters in the Territory and that of the six thousand
votes counted for the Legislature, only eight hundred were cast
by actual settlers. They organized an independent movement
and chose Governor Reeder their Representative in Congress
and sent him to Washing! on, to contest the election of Whit
field. At the same time carefully abstaining from recognizing
the validity of the enactments of the Legislature and yet, desir
ing to avoid any appearance of resistance to Federal authority,
they deemed it best to apply for admission as a State, rather
than create a rival Legislature. They accordingly chose dele
gates to a Constitutional Convention to meet at Topeka. The
Missourians assuming that, by these acts, the Federal authority

310 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
had been defied, under pretext of assisting a pro-slavery Sheriff,
in the execution of a warrant, marched into the Territory,
twelve hundred strong, and with arms, threatened the destruc
tion of the town of Lawrence. This town had been founded
mainly by settlers from New England, under the auspices of
the Emigrant Aid Co., and was the stronghold of the Free-
Soilers. The insurgents encamped opposite the town; but find
ing it fortified and defended, its inhabitants armed with
Sharpe's rifles, they retired. They were still in the Territory
committing depredations, when Congress assembled in Decem
ber. But notwithstanding these threats, the Constitutional
Convention met at Topeka, drafted a constitution prohibiting
slavery and the question of its adoption was submitted to the
people, in December, and it was adopted. The next month they
chose State officers and a Legislature and the Legislature met
and elected two U. S. Senators and applied for admission as a
State. But farther than this they did not exercise the functions
of their offices. They still carefully abstained from any act
that could be construed as a resistance of Federal authority,
knowing the President's hostility.
President Pierce, acting as it was understood, under the
inspiration of his Secretary of War, Jefferson Davis, afterwards
President of the Confederacy, had already sent Federal troops
into the Territory, under the pretence of preserving the peace
and sustaining the National authorities ; but already committed
to the projects of the South and being now in the full tide of a
campaign for renomination, he was in reality thus using his
power, to aid the South, in its efforts for supremacy, in the
Territory. The Free-Soilers were, in his eyes, traitors and
their acts revolutionary; the Legislature they ignored was to
him a lawfully elected and organized body and he threatened
to enforce obedience to its enactments at the point of the
bayonet. On the twenty-fourth day of January, 1856, he sent
a special message to Congress, calling attention to the condi
tion of affairs in Kansas. Here appeared again his usual
method of apologizing for the conduct of the insurgents, ap
proving all the acts of the slaveholders and condemning the
efforts of the Free-Soilers. The message brought the whole
matter lawfully to the attention of Congress. The Administra
tion proceeded to place the Federal troops in Kansas at the
service of Governor Shannon, who was in sympathy with the
South. The eyes of the Nation were upon Kansas, where
the opening scenes of the Civil War were being enacted.
A week after the President's message was received, on Feb
ruary second, the House being organized by the election of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 3H
Banks, Speaker, the question of Kansas came up for considera
tion. Whitfield and Reeder were present, rival claimants for
a seat, each insisting that he was the lawfully elected Repre
sentative, each fresh from the field of strife and aggressive in
the cause he represented. There was little disposition on the
part of the House to postpone a question of such importance.
After some discussion it became apparent that the means at
hand furnished little aid in the solution of the question and
against the protest of the Southern members a committee was
appointed to go to Kansas and make a personal investigation
of the condition of affairs in the Territory. Here was a second
triumph of the Free-Soilers and a second defeat of the Admin
istration. The committee consisted of Howard of Michigan,
Sherman of Ohio and Oliver of Missouri. Sherman was then
a young man, thirty-three years of age, serving his second term
in Congress, destined to an unbroken public career extending
over a period of forty-two years. Howard and Sherman were
Republicans and Oliver was a Democrat.
The committee proceeded promptly to the Territory and
entered upon a searching investigation, examining large num
bers of witnesses and reducing their testimony to writing. It
was determined to get, what conservative people all over the
North desired, an accurate knowledge of the real cause of the
troubles in Kansas. Eight weeks were consumed in the in
vestigation, the committee holding its sittings in the towns of
Lawrence, Lecompton, Topeka and Leavenworth and on the
first day of July, 1856 it presented its report to the House, in
which Howard and Sherman joined, Oliver offering a dissent.
They found that the history of the organization of the Territory
had been one continual scene of violence and disorder, — such
that no adequate picture of it could be given without appearing
extravagant, that aid societies had been organized, both North
and South, to promote emigration in the interest of the rival
parties, which were not in their plan and purpose illegal, but
that unlawful armed bands of marauders had repeatedly come
into the Territory from Missouri, intimidating the settlers,
committing depredations, terrorizing election officers, in great
numbers casting illegal votes at many elections and that the
Legislature assuming to act in that capacity and pass laws for
the government of the people was, by reason of frauds in the
choice of its members, an illegal body.
In the meantime events had been hastening to a crisis in the
Senate. A week after the proclamation of the President to the
people of Kansas, in consequence of which the United States
troops were placed at the service of Governor Shannon, in an-

312 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
swer to a call by the Senate, the President sent with a special
message, the papers in his possession, giving information of the
events in the Territory. Thereupon a short and acrimonious
debate ensued between Wilson and Hale for the Free-Soilers
and Butler, Jones, Toombs and Toucey for the Democrats. The
latter showed ill-temper and applied some coarse epithets to the
Free-Soilers and they were answered by Wilson and Hale in the
same spirit. It was noticed that there was an increased tension
between the two parties. Intercourse was less frequent and
what there was, less cordial than ever before. The talk of
secession and disunion was more common and more bold. It
was apparent that a storm was gathering. But there was still
a disposition to await the report of the Committee on Territor
ies to which the message and documents had been referred.
This committee reported on the twelfth day of March. Doug
las, the chairman, on the loud call of Butler, instead of send
ing the report to the Clerk's desk as was customary, to be read
by the Clerk, advanced to the desk and read it facing the
Senate. It was concurred in by four members of the com
mittee. When he finished, Senator Collamer advanced and
read a dissenting report signed by himself alone. His position
showed something of heroism.
Ten years later in a eulogy upon Collamer, Sumner, describ
ing this scene, said : " The reports of the committees were us
ually handed in and ordered to be printed ; but now at the im
passioned call of the Senator from South Carolina, the report
of the Committee, whitewashing incredible outrages, was read
by the Chairman at the desk of the Secretary of the Senate.
The Chairman left his seat for this purpose, and stood face to
face with the Senate. For two hours the apology for that usur
pation which had fastened a Black Code upon an inoffensive
people, sounded in this chamber, while the partisans of slavery
gloated over the seeming triumph. There was a hush of silence,
and there was sadness also with some, who saw clearly the un
pardonable turpitude of the sacrifice. Mr. Collamer followed
with a minority report signed by himself alone, which he read
at the desk of the Secretary, standing face to face with the
Senate. Jesse D. Bright was at the time our President, but he
had installed in the chair on that momentous occasion none
other than that most determined artificer of treason and drill
sergeant of Rebellion, John Slidell, who sat behind like Mephis-
topheles looking over the shoulder of Truth, while the patriot
Senator, standing before, gravely unfolded the enormities that
had been perpetrated. Few then present now remain, but none
then present can fail to recall the scene. The report which Mr.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 313
Collamer read belongs to the history of the country. But the
scene comes clearly within the domain of Art. In the long life
of our departed friend it was his brightest and most glorious
moment, — beyond anything of honor or power, whether in the
cabinet or on the bench. For what is office, compared to the
priceless opportunity nobly employed, of standing as a buttress
for human rights."
The majority report covered up the crimes of the ruffian
marauders from Missouri and attributed all the ¦ troubles in
Kansas to the Free-Soil settlers and especially to the work of the
New England Emigrant Aid Co. As soon as the reports were
read Sumner took the floor and briefly defended the company
saying that though it sent emigrants to Kansas it had a right to
do so and though it hated slavery, it had a right to do so, that
it had offended no law and been guilty of no misconduct and
that every attempt to show otherwise would fail.
Stephen A. Douglas the author of the majority report was
the most difficult and disagreeable opponent of the anti-slavery
men. He was born in Vermont. A poor boy, of meager edu
cation, at the age of twenty he had gone to Illinois, then the
extreme western frontier. Almost penniless, when he landed,
with characteristic energy, the same day he clerked a sale to
acquire the means of present support. With such energy did
he enter upon his life, in this new field, that at the age of
twenty-two, he was Attorney-General of Illinois, Secretary of
State at twenty-seven, Supreme Judge at twenty-eight, a Mem
ber of Congress at thirty and at thirty-nine in the U. S. Senate
and a candidate for the Presidency. And he continued to be a
candidate for the Presidency until his death in 1861, at the age
of forty-eight. His promotion was characteristic of the man.
Rather below medium height, but handsomely and compactly
built, so as to justify the pet name, " Little Giant ", with which
his admirers dubbed him, he had a constitution that could stand
an immense amount of hard work and mental anxiety. He
had great power as a debater ; no one could see a point quicker,
make more of it for himself or turn it against his adversary
more adroitly and, if the case was against him, no one could
muddle it more effectually so as to obscure its real merit. He
was by nature an orator, ready of utterance, quick at repartee ;
and in that style of speaking, which resembles a physical
combat, he had no equal. But at this time of his life he was in
tolerant of opposition, coarse and sometimes insulting towards
his political adversaries and unscrupulous in his methods. Of
all the "bullies" that defended slavery in Congress, at this
time, none deseryed the title more than Douglas.

314 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Anti-slavery people of the North found fault with their Con
gressmen because they did not meet these pro-slavery statesmen
more in their own manner. Nothing pleased them better than
the spirit of Joshua R. Giddings, who, in answer to one of their
blustering challenges to a duel, accepted and chose rifles as
the weapons, at thirty paces. Many thought Northern States
men lacking in spirit; and there was a growing disposition
among anti-slavery men in Congress to show more fight. As
pro-slavery Members realized this, they grew more insolent. In
answer to Sumner's comments on the report of the committee,
Douglas was promptly on his feet to threaten the penalties of
treason against him and the Free-Soilers of Kansas. In the
debate which followed he pounced upon his Republican col
league who had only recently come to the Senate, applied in
discriminate epithets to him and impeached the motives of
himself and the other anti-slavery Senators. Trumbull an
swered him savagely and closed by declaring that he would
never permit him there or elsewhere to make an assault upon
him without meeting it with the best power God had given him.
When Douglas turned again to Sumner to charge him with
having gone to his seat or spoken to him privately, during the
consideration of the KaDsas-Nebraska Bill to secure a post
ponement of the debate that he might gain time to circulate
a libel against him — the protest of the Free-Soilers written by
Chase and distributed broadcast- — Sumner denied that he had
ever gone to his seat for any such purpose and insisted that he
had only exercised his right and been governed by a sense of
duty when he arose in his place and asked for delay, because he
desired it for a proper discussion of that question. To his as
persion that in this he was guilty of conduct unworthy a
gentleman, Sumner replied that he would leave it to the Sen
ate to determine whether Douglas was a proper judge on such
a subject. A week later Trumbull was attacked by Douglas again. In
reiterating his insulting references to the Republicans, he in
sisted that they were in favor of an amalgamation of the races
to which Wilson and Collamer replied. Clay of Alabama and
Butler of South Carolina spoke in the same vein. In all their
speeches Massachusetts and the New England Aid Company
were special objects of their spleen and the old taunt was thrown
at the Republican members of fawning upon Southern states
men to procure social prestige and standing, in the society of
the Capitol.
Five days after the reading of the report by Douglas, he in
troduced a bill authorizing the people of Kansas to form a Con-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 315
stitution preparatory to their admission as a State, when they
should be found to have the requisite population. Seward at
once offered a substitute providing for the immediate admission
of Kansas as a State under the Constitution already formed
by the Topeka Convention. This Constitution prohibited
slavery. But the bill introduced by Douglas provided for a
new Convention, he, of course, favoring a pro-slavery Constitu
tion or at least an opportunity for such a one to be adopted.
Several Senators had already spoken on these bills — Douglas,
Butler, Clay, Jones, Hale and Collamer. Sumner sought to
speak as early as May second, but did not get the floor until
May nineteenth.
Several of the speeches were coarsely personal. Jones of Ten
nessee called Hale, " the Devil's Own." Clay said Hale was
ambitious of a kicking." Douglas called Trumbull his col
league a " traitor " ; the Republicans with him were uniformly
" black ", and the Free-Soilers of Kansas " rebels " and " revo
lutionists ". Benjamin called them " conspirators ". The Free-
Soilers answered in the same vein. To the assertion of Douglas
that they were in favor of amalgamation, Wilson retorted that
" such emanations were usually coming from men with the
odor of amalgamation upon them " and called him and his
Democratic colleagues who urged the passage of his bill
"lieutenants of Atchison, the chieftain of the Border Ruffian
Democracy ".
For several years Butler had been insulting in his references
to Sumner. In 1854, he had called Sumner a " plunging
agitator ", and a " rhetorical advocate ", and referred to certain
remarks he had made in a speech in the Senate as wanting in
" common prudence or common delicacy " and to certain dis
tinctions of Sumner as " sickly ", and other remarks as " un
true " and that he was actuated by " pseudo philanthropy ", a
" philanthropy that proposes much and does nothing with a
long advertisement and a short performance ", as " actuated
by criminal ambition and heartless hypocrisy " ; called his
State, Massachusetts, an " anti-nigger State " and declared that
" at the time of the passage of the law in Massachusetts abolish
ing slavery, pretty nearly all the grown negroes disappeared
somewhere ; and as the historian expresses it, the little negroes,
left there, without father or mother, and with hardly a God,
were sent about as puppies, to be taken by those who would
feed them ", when as a matter of fact, slavery had not been abol
ished by the passage of a law in Massachusetts, but by a decision
of the Supreme Court, whose announcement could not have been
anticipated so a? to permit the transportation of the grown

316 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
slaves. Six months later Butler accused Sumner of " flagrantly
misrepresenting history ", * * * " by vapid rhetoric ". As late
as February 23, 1855, lie referred to Sumner in debates as a man
who " did not know half his time exactly what he was about."
The episode between himself and Sumner, when he asked Sum
ner, if he would return a fugitive slave; to which Sumner re
torted, " Is thy servant a dog that he should do this thing ", and
the subsequent perversions of Sumner's answer to mean that he,
a Senator, sworn to do so, would not obey the Constitution and
laws of the United States, have already been mentioned and
need not be repeated. This perversion had been tauntingly
thrown at Sumner with pettifogging frequency.
It will thus be seen that when Sumner on the nineteenth day
of May, 1856, arose to speak on the bill, introduced by Douglas,
and on the substitute moved by Seward, for the admission of
Kansas, as a State, he was under many provocations from his
opponents. Much also could be allowed for the excitement
prevailing in the country and especially in Congress over the
troubles in Kansas. Probably never in the history of the
country did political excitement run higher; for Southern
statesmen had not yet reconciled themselves to schemes of se
cession and the North had not yet settled to the grim deter
mination to prevent disunion. Both were in the angry mood
for having everything their own way. Sumner was firm in his
determination that no more laurels should be gathered for
slavery, if he could prevent it. His speech, by reason of the
importance of the crisis, in which it represented the highest
wave of excitement, and the interest aroused in it by the assault
which followed, is the most memorable of all Sumner's produc
tions. What he said of slavery as an institution was of course
much the same as what he had already said and need not on
this account be repeated but what he said of the attempt now
made to admit Kansas as a slave State and especially his
references to Butler and Douglas are important in the light of
what followed.
After referring to the wickedness which he hoped to expose,
being aggravated by the motive which prompted it, the desire
for a new slave State, he said :
" Before entering upon the argument, I must say something
of a general character, particularly in response to what has
fallen from Senators who have raised themselves to eminence
on this floor in championship of human wrong; I mean the
Senator from South Carolina (Butler) and the Senator from
Illinois (Douglas) who though unlike as Don Quixote and
Sancho Panza, yet like this couple sally forth in the same ad-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 317
venture. I regret much to miss the elder Senator from his seat ;
but the cause against which he has run a tilt, with such ebulli
tion of animosity, demands that the opportunity of exposing
him should not be lost; and it is for the cause I speak. The
Senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry,
and believes himself a chivalrous knight, with sentiments of
honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom
he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always
lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is
chaste in his sight: I mean the harlot Slavery. For her his
tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in
character, or any proposition be made to shut her out from the
extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner
or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this Senator.
The frenzy of Don Quixote in behalf of his wench Dulcinea del
Toboso is all surpassed. The asserted rights of slavery which
shock equality of all kinds, are cloaked by a fantastic claim of
equality. If the slave States cannot enjoy what, in mockery of
the great fathers of the Republic, he misnames Equality, under
the Constitution; — in other words, the full power in the
National Territories to compel fellow men to unpaid toil, to
separate husband and wife, and to sell little children at the
auction block, — then, sir, the chivalric Senator will conduct the
State of South Carolina out of the Union! Heroic knight!
Exalted Senator ! A second Moses come for a second
exodus ! * * *
" As the Senator from South Carolina is the Don Quixote,
so the Senator from Illinois (Douglas) is the squire of slavery,
its very Sancho Panza ready to do its humiliating offices. This
Senator in his labored address vindicating his labored report, —
piling one mass of elaborate error upon another mass, — con
strained himself as you will remember to unfamiliar decencies
of speech. Of that address I have nothing to say at this mo
ment, though before I sit down I shall show something of its
fallacies." * * *
Sumner then spoke; first, of the crime against Kansas;
second, of the apologies for it ; third, of the remedy for it.
Referring to the Nebraska Bill which had opened the Terri
tory to Slavery and enrolled upon the statute book the Douglas
doctrine of "popular sovereignty," giving opportunity for the
trouble that now existed, he said that if that bill had been
allowed to go over to another congress, so that the people could
have been heard against it, they would have defeated it. He
declared it was a swindle — a swindle on the part of the South
that had already enjoyed its share of the Missouri Compromise ;

318 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
a swindle of those whose share was yet untouched; as a bill of
peace it was a swindle to the whole country ; it was a swindle of
a Territory cheated of protection against slavery. Sumner then
went over in detail a history of the outrages committed in
Kansas, the invasion from Missouri to elect a Congressman in
November, 1854 and again to elect a Legislature in March,
1855, and again to elect a Congressman in October, 1855, the
invasion and threatened assault upon the town of Lawrence,
the proclamation of Governor Shannon calling for troops, an
swered only by more companies of marauders from the border
counties of Missouri and still another invasion from Missouri in
December, 1855, on the occasion of voting, on a Constitution
for Kansas, the Territory in a condition of anarchy, the citizens
under arms, outrages committed sometimes amounting to
murders and everything said or done in this vast circle of crime
radiating from one idea that Kansas must be made a slave
State and this to be accomplished, first, by outrages of all kinds,
driving anti-slavery people out of the Territory, second, by
deterring others from coming, and third, by obtaining com
plete control of the Territorial government. He said that while
the first two purposes had failed, the third had so far succeeded.
He commented at length on the disgraceful character of the
laws that had been enacted to fasten slavery upon the Territory.
He passed rapidly over the apologies which were made for
these crimes, the idea that the recognition by Governor Reeder
of a Legislature elected by such palpable frauds could clothe it
with the mantle of legality, that the President had no power to
arrest such proceedings, that in justification of it there existed
an oath-bound secret society pledged to make Kansas a Free
State when there was only an honorable movement with this
end in view, not in conflict with the laws of the country. Much
effort had been made by the apologists for these outrages, to
justify them by attacking the Emigrant Aid Company of New
England. This Sumner declared was infamous. The continued
assaults upon this society had led its members to desire to have
the false impression thus given of its aims and purposes re
moved, by some person of influence, who knew better what it
was, than its enemies. Several gentlemen prominent in its
organization and conduct had been in correspondence with
Sumner for some months. They expected of him a refutation
of the calumnies that had been uttered against them. He had
urged upon them to lay aside the tone of apology, which they
were so wont to fall into, in speaking of the society and plant
themselves boldly on the legality of the enterprise. One of the
managers, J. M. S. Williams, came on to Washington to talk

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 319
over the subject with Sumner, before he spoke, and was present
at the delivery of the speech, and Sumner afterwards gave the
manuscript of it to him.
Sumner said that it had been grossly assailed, that it was an
association of sincere benevolence, faithful to law, whose only
fortifications were hotels, school-houses and churches, whose
only weapons were saw-mills, tools and books, and whose mis
sion was peace and good will, and if he would consult his own
feelings he would dismiss the attack that had been made upon
it with the ineffable contempt it deserved. He declared that
men did organize to rear churches and to make pins, to build
schools and to sail ships, to construct roads and to manufacture
toys, to spin cotton and to print books, to guard infancy in its
weakness and old age in its decrepitude and womanhood in its
wretchedness; to complain that this prevailing principle had
been applied to emigration was to complain of Providence and
the irresistible tendencies implanted in man.
Sumner insisted that organized colonization had been en
couraged in Greece and Rome, as well as in modern times, that
Spain had sanctioned an association of Genoese merchants who
first introduced slaves to this continent, that France licensed the
Jesuits who colonized the regions of Canada and the Great
Lakes and that it was under the auspices of Emigrant Aid Com
panies that the Pilgrims came to Plymouth, the Adventurers
to Virginia and Oglethorpe and his companions to Georgia,
and that at the present day similar associations were still direct
ing emigrants hither. For a long time the tide of emigration
had steadily set from the North to the South, and especially
from New England to the West, and when it became a question
whether the tempting fields of Kansas were to be occupied for
Freedom or for Slavery, organization was enlisted to stimulate
this colonization thither. The first company for this purpose
had been organized before the passage of the Nebraska Bill.
But afterwards it had been rechartered and reorganized and it
then became the mark for the shafts of the enemies of Freedom.
He said : " It is not true that men have been hired by the
Company to go to Kansas; for every emigrant going under its
direction himself provides the means for his journey. Of
course, sir, it is not true, as is complained by the Senator from
South Carolina, with that proclivity to error which marks all
his utterances, that men have been sent by the Company with
one uniform gun, Sharpe's rifle, for it has supplied no arms of
any kind to anybody. It is not true that the Company has
encouraged any fanatical aggression upon the people of Mis
souri; for it counsels order, peace, forbearance. It is not true

320 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
that the Company has chosen its emigrants on account of
political opinions, for it asks no question with regard to the
opinion of any whom it aids and at this moment stands ready
to forward those from the South as well as the North. * * *
It is not true that the Company has sent persons merely to con
trol elections and not to remain in the Territory; for its whole
action, and all its anticipation of pecuniary profits are founded
on the hope of stocking the country with permanent settlers. * *
" Sir, to men on earth it belongs only to deserve success not
to secure it ; and I know not how soon the efforts of Massa
chusetts will wear the crown of triumph. But it cannot be that
she acts wrong for herself or her children when in this cause
she encounters reproach. * * * What belongs to the faithful
servant she will do in all things and Providence shall determine
the result."
This vindication of the Emigrant Aid Company did not stop
the criticism of it that had been noticeable in the Congressional
debates. But the information Sumner furnished of its plan of
work and its purposes, together with the explanation of what
it had already accomplished, as shown by the records of the
society, showed how perfectly groundless the complaints of
Southern statesmen were against it. The country saw it was
pure declamation and the society felt that it had been suitably
vindicated. At this point in his speech, Sumner yielded to a motion to
adjourn, having spoken three hours. He resumed his speech
the next day, speaking of the remedies for the situation.
The recommendation of the President of an increased ap
propriation to enforce obedience to the laws, " whether Federal
or local," he characterized as tyranny, for he insisted there were
no local laws except those produced by the usurpation of Mis
souri hirelings, who had gone into the Territory and assumed
the place of citizens.
He was no less unsparing in his criticism of what he denom
inated the remedy of folly.
" It comes," he said, " from the Senator from South Carolina
(Butler), who at the close of a long speech, offered it as his
single contribution to the adjustment of this question and who
thus far stands alone in its support. It might, therefore, fitly
bear his name, but that which I now give to it is a more sug
gestive synonym."
" This proposition nakedly expressed, is, that the people of
Kansas should be deprived of their arms." * * *
" Really, sir, has it come to this ? The rifle has ever been
the companion of the pioneer, and, under God, his tutelary

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 321
protector against the red man and the beast of the forest.
Never was this efficient weapon more needed in self defence than
in Kansas ; and at least one article of our National Constitution
must be blotted out before the complete right to it can be in
any way impeached. And yet such is the madness of the hour,
that in defiance of the solemn guarantee in the Amendments to
the Constitution, that ' the right of the people to keep and bear
arms shall not be infringed,' the people of Kansas are arraigned
for keeping and bearing arms and the Senator from South
Carolina has the face to say openly on this floor that they should
be disarmed — of course that the fanatics of slavery, his allies
and constituents, may meet no impediment. Sir, the Senator
is venerable with years ; he is reputed to have also worn at home,
in the State he represents, judicial honors, and he is placed here
at the head of an important Committee occupied particularly
with questions of law; but neither his years, nor his position
past or present, can give respectability to the demand he makes
or save him from indignant condemnation, when to compass the
wretched purpose of a wretched cause he thus proposes to
trample on one of the plainest provisions of Constitutional
Liberty." Senator Douglas had proposed a third remedy, to authorize
the Legislature, as soon as a census taken by its authority and
the Governor's, disclosed a sufficient population to constitute a
Congressional District, to provide by law for calling a conven
tion to form a constitution and apply for admission as a State.
This, Sumner said, meant injustice and civil war. It provided
for maintaining indefinitely the same state of anarchy that
then prevailed. It placed the control of the whole matter in the
usurping legislature that then existed and others to be elected,
under the laws that it had passed, depriving of citizenship, on
the one hand, all the friends of Freedom, who would not swear
to support the Fugitive Slave Bill, and on the other hand cloth
ing with the right to vote all others who presented themselves
with a fee of one dollar whether from Missouri or not.
But as the true remedy, Sumner urged the prompt passage of
the bill, moved by Seward as the substitute for that of Douglas,
and providing for the immediate admission of Kansas as a
State. This he urged, as a remedy for the existing troubles,
and the only protection they could hope for against other and
greater ones that threatened. He urged it as a measure of
justice to the people who ought to have a right to create their
own government for themselves. He insisted that in admitting
them, with the Constitution they had already formed for them
selves, they only followed the precedent established in the ad-

322 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
mission of Michigan and that to require them to have such a
population, as the bill proposed by Douglas provided for, was
to place a condition upon Kansas that only three States ful
filled, while fifteen others had fallen short, which three States
with Senators then on the floor did not fulfil and which three
colonies at the formation of the Union could not meet, viz.,
have a population of 93,000. Such a requisition laid upon
Kansas was unjust, especially in view of conditions then exist
ing in the Territory. She did then have a population, as he
estimated, of from 50,000 to 60,000, and eight States had been
admitted whose population did not equal 60,000. So that there
was no reason which could be drawn from precedent or from
justice to forbid the immediate admission of Kansas with
the Constitution she had already formed for herself.
Sumner spoke feelingly of the attitude that had been main
tained by the Administration towards Kansas. Referring to
the period of the American Revolution and our struggles with
the Mother Country, he affirmed that there was hardly a com
plaint contained in the enumeration in the Declaration of
Independence against the King of Great Britain that could not
be urged with as much justice by the people of Kansas against
the President. He had " sent swarms of officers to harrass their
people," he " had combined with others to subject them * * *
and given his assent to acts of pretended legislation " ; he " had
waged war against them," " excited domestic insurrection," and
" to their repeated petitions had answered only by repeated
injury." And, as the tyranny of the King had been renewed
in the President, so Sumner urged, upon the floor of the Senate
had been renewed the butt of sorry jest and supercilious as
sumption against the petitions of Kansas that had met the
prayers of our fathers to the British Parliament.
" With regret," here he said, " I come again upon the Senator
from South Carolina (Butler) who omnipresent in this debate,
overflows with rage at the simple suggestion that Kansas has
applied for admission as a State, and with incoherent phrase,
discharges the loose expectoration of his speech now upon her
Representative and then upon her people. There was no ex
travagance of the ancient Parliamentary debate which he did
not repeat ; nor was there any possible deviation from truth
which he did not make with so much of passion, I gladly add,
as to save him from the suspicion of intentional aberration.
But the Senator touches nothing which he does not disfigure,
• — with error sometimes of principle, sometimes of fact. He
shows an incapacity of accuracy in stating the Constitution or
in stating the law, whether in detail of statistics or diversions

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 323
of scholarship. He cannot ope his mouth but out there flies
a blunder. Surely he ought to be familiar with the life of
Franklin, and yet he refers to this household character, while
acting as the agent of our fathers in England, as not above
suspicion: and this was done that he might give point to a
false contrast with the agent of Kansas, — not knowing that,
however the two may differ in genius and fame, they are
absolutely alike in this experience, that Franklin when en
trusted with the petition from Massachusetts Bay, was assaulted
by a foul-mouthed speaker where he could not be heard in de
fence, and denounced as ' thief ' even as the agent of Kansas is
assaulted on this floor and denounced as ' forger.' And let
not the vanity of the Senator be inspired by the parallel with
the British Statesman of that day ; for it is only in hostility to
Freedom that any parallel can be found."
" But it is against the people of Kansas that the sensibilities of
the Senator are particularly aroused. Coming as he announces
' from a State,' — aye, Sir, from South Carolina — he turns with
lordly disgust from this newly formed community, which he
will not recognize even as ' a member of the body politic' Pray,
Sir, by what title does he indulge in this egotism? Has he
read the history of the ' State ' which he represents ? He can
not surely forget its imbecility from slavery, confessed through
out the Revolution, followed by its more shameful assumption
for slavery since. He cannot forget its wretched persistence in
the slave trade, as the very apple of its eye, and the condition
of its participation in the Union. He cannot forget its Con
stitution which is republican only in name, confirming power in
the hands of the few, and founding the qualification of its
legislators on ' a settled freehold estate of five hundred acres of
land and ten negroes.' And yet the Senator to whom this
' State ' has in part committed the guardianship of its good
name, instead of moving with backward treading steps to cover
its nakedness, rushes forward in the very ecstacy of madness
to expose it, by provoking comparison with Kansas. South
Carolina is old; Kansas is young. South Carolina counts by
centuries, when Kansas counts by years. But a beneficent
example may be born in a day ; and I venture to declare, that
against the two centuries of the older ' State ' may be set al
ready the two years of trial, evolving corresponding virtue, in
the younger community. In the one is the long wail of Slavery ;
in the other, the hymn of Freedom. And if we glance at special
achievement, it will be difficult to find anything in the history
of South Carolina which presents so much of heroic spirit, in
an heroic cause as shines in that repulse of the Missouri in-

324 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
vaders by the beleaguered town of Lawrence, where even the
women gave their effective efforts to Freedom. The matrons
of Rome who poured their jewels into the treasury for the
public defence, the wives of Prussia who with delicate fingers
clothed their defenders against the French invasion, the mothers
of our own Revolution who sent forth their sons covered with
prayers and blessings to combat for human rights did nothing
of self sacrifice truer than did these women on this occasion.
Were the whole history of South Carolina blotted out of ex
istence from its very beginning down to the day of the last
election of the Senator to his present seat on this floor, civiliza
tion might lose — I do not say how little, but surely less than
it has already gained by the example of Kansas, in that valiant
struggle against oppression, and in the development of a new
science of emigration. Already in Lawrence alone are news
papers and schools, — and throughout this infant Territory there
is more of educated talent, in proportion to its inhabitants,
than in his vaunted ' State.' Ah, Sir, I tell the Senator that
Kansas, welcomed as a Free State, 'a. ministering angel shall
be ' to the Republic, when South Carolina, in the cloak of dark
ness which she hugs, ' lies howling.' "
" The Senator from Illinois (Douglas) naturally joins the
Senator from South Carolina, and gives to this warfare the
superior intensity of his nature. He thinks that the National
Government has not completely proved its power, as it has never
hanged a traitor, — but if occasion requires, he hopes there will
be no hesitation, and this threat is directed at Kansas and even
at the friends of Kansas throughout the country. Again occurs
a parallel with the struggles of our fathers; and I borrow the
language of Patrick Henry when to the cry of the Senator of
' Treason ! Treason ! ' I reply, ' If this be treason make the
most of it.' Sir, it is easy to call names ; but I beg to tell the
Senator, that if the word ' traitor ' is in any way applicable to
those who reject a tyrannical usurpation whether in Kansas or
elsewhere then must some new word of deeper color be invented
to designate those mad spirits who would endanger and degrade
the Republic, while they betray all the cherished sentiments of
the Fathers and the spirit of the Constitution, that slavery may
have new spread. Let the Senator proceed. Not the first
time in history will a scaffold become the pedestal of honor.
Out of death comes life and the traitor whom he blindly exe
cutes will live immortal in the cause."
"Among these hostile senators is yet another, with all the
prejudice of the Senator from South Carolina, but without his
generous impulses who from his character before the country,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 325
and the rancor of his opposition, deserves to be so named: I
mean the Senator from Virginia (Mason) who as author of
the Fugitive Slave Bill, has associated himself with a special
act of inhumanity and tyranny. Of him I shall say little, for
he has said little in this debate, though within that little he has
compressed the bitterness of a life absorbed in support of
Slavery. He holds the commission of Virginia, but he does
not represent that early Virginia, so dear to our hearts which
gave us the pen of Jefferson, by which the equality of men was
declared, and the sword of Washington by which Independence
was secured; he represents that other Virginia, from which
Washington and Jefferson avert their faces, where human beings
are bred as cattle for the shambles and a dungeon rewards the
pious matron who teaches little children to relieve their bond
age by reading the Book of Life. It is proper that such a
Senator representing such a State, should rail against Free
Kansas." " Such as these are natural enemies of Kansas and I intro
duce them with reluctance, simply that the country may un
derstand the character of the hostility to be overcome."
Such as these he said were the powers necessary to be over
come to bring Freedom to Kansas. This was the duty that was
now laid upon Congress; and to be accomplished, it must lay
aside all machinations of candidates and party politics and
turning from the slave oligarchy so long in control of the Re
public dedicate itself to this great work. Except for slavery it
would not dare to refuse this act of justice, law and order. But
the slave power dared anything ; and it could be conquered only
by the united masses of the People. To them, therefore, he ap
pealed. Already public opinion was gathering and the indig
nant utterance was finding expression through the press, and in
daily conversation, wherever men met. Against every man,
whether in office or out of it, whose hand had been set to the re
moval of the ancient Landmark of Freedom, the imprecation of
the People would be laid. They would unite once more with the
Fathers of the Republic in just condemnation of Slavery. For
this, Kansas stood forth patiently waiting, but with no uncer
tain issue. She offered herself for admission to the Union but
only as a Free State.
In conclusion he pointed out that the contest beginning in
Kansas, would soon be transferred from Congress to the people
about to vote for a Chief Magistrate of the Republic. And he
appealed to the ballot-box of the Union to protect the ballot-
box of Kansas and the voters, while rejoicing in their own rights

326 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
everywhere, to help guard the equal rights of their distant
fellow citizens.
He closed near three p. m. having spoken altogether five
hours. And soon as he was seated the effect of his speech was
apparent. Cass was the first on his feet to reply. He had heard
it he said " with equal regret and surprise " — a speech " the
most un-American and unpatriotic that ever grated on the
ears of the members of this high body." Douglas followed,
coarse in personalities. " He seems to get up a speech as in
Yankee-land they get up a bed-quilt * * * made of old calico \
dresses of various colors ; " growing virtuous, " We have another
dish of the classics served up — classic allusions, each one only
distinguished for its lasciviousness and obscenity, — each one
drawn from those portions of the classics which all decent pro
fessors in respectable colleges cause to be suppressed as unfit for
decent young men to read. Sir, I cannot repeat the words. I
should be condemned as unworthy of entering decent society, if
I repeated those obscene, vulgar terms which have been used at
least a hundred times in that speech." Again, " The senator
from Massachusetts had his speech written, printed, committed
to memory, practised every night before the glass with a negro
boy to hold the candle and watch the gestures, and annoying the
boarders in the adjoining rooms until they were forced to quit
the house." Mason followed : " I am constrained to hear here
depravity, vice, in its most odious form, uncoiled in this pre
sence, exhibiting its loathsome deformities in accusation and
vilification against the quarter of the country from which I
come ; and I must listen to it because it is a necessity of my posi
tion, under a common government, to recognize as an equal
politically one whom to see elsewhere is to shun and despise."
The " classic allusions " and " vilification " to which the ref
erences are made have been quoted and the reader can see
for himself what foundation there was for these thrusts. It
was not unusual for Southerners by laughing and talking in an
undertone among themselves, making trifling allusions to what
was said and in such ways to annoy an anti-slavery speaker.
Sumner experienced this while speaking and he had asked the
sergeant at arms to preserve order, when he was in turn called
to order by them for not addressing his request to the presid
ing officer. When Mason closed, Sumner's patience was ex
hausted and. he was on his feet again.
Reminded of the friendly relations that had existed between
himself and Cass both in Europe and America, he declined to
enter into a controversy with him, regretting that Cass had so
far forgotten them as to meet his argument with abuse.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 327
He said ; " Mr. President, — Throe Senators have spoken ;
one venerable in years with whom I have had associations of
personal regard longer than with anybody now within the
sound of my voice, the Senator from Michigan; another the
Senator from Illinois and a third the Senator from Vir
ginia." " To the Senator from Illinois I should willingly yield the
privilege of the common scold, — the last word; but I will not
yield to him in any discussion with me, the last argument or
the last semblance of it. He has crowned the outrage of this
debate by venturing to rise here and calumniate me. He has
said that I came here, took an oath to support the Constitution,
and yet determined not to sujDport a particular clause in that
Constitution. To this statement I give to his face the flattest
denial. When it was made previously on this floor by the absent
Senator from South Carolina, I then repelled it." * * *
" Sir, this is the Senate of the United States, an important
body under the Constitution, with great powers. Its members
are justly supposed, from years, to be above the intemperance of
youth, and from character to be above the gusts of vulgarity.
They are supposed to have something of wisdom and something
of that candor which is the handmaid of wisdom. Let the
Senator bear these things in mind and remember hereafter that
the bowie-knife and bludgeon are not proper emblems of sena
torial debate. Let him remember that the swagger of Bob
Acres and the ferocity of the Malay cannot add dignity to this
body. The Senator infused into his speech the venom swel
tering for months, — aye for years; and he has alleged matters
entirely without foundation, in order to heap upon me some
personal obloquy. I will not descend to things which dropped
so naturally from his tongue. I only brand them to his face as
false. I say also to that Senator, and I wish him to bear it in
mind, that no person with the upright form of man can be al
lowed — " (hesitating)
Douglas. " Say it."
Sumner. " I will say it, — no person with the upright form
of man can be allowed, without violation of all decency to switch
out from his tongue the perpetual stench of offensive person
ality. Sir, that is not a proper weapon of debate, at least on
this floor. The noisome squat, and the nameless animal to
which I now refer is not the proper model for an American
Senator. Will the Senator from Illinois take notice ? "
Douglas. " I will — and therefore will not imitate you, Sir."
Sumner. " I did not hear the Senator."
Douglas. " I said if that be the case, I would certainly never

328 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
imitate you, in that capacity, — recognizing the form of the illus
tration." Sumner. " Mr. President, again the Senator switches his
tongue and again he fills the Senate with its offensive odor.
But I drop the Senator."
" There was still another, the Senator from Virginia, who is
now also in my eye. That Senator said nothing of argument
and therefore there is nothing of that to be answered. I simply
say to him that hard words are not argument, frowns are not
reasons nor do scowls belong to the proper arsenal of parlia
mentary debate. The Senator has not forgotten that on a
former occasion I did something to exhibit the plantation
manners which he displays. I will not do any more now."
From these personal parts of Sumner's speech, and they
have all been given, the reader can judge whether there was any
thing said of Butler and South Carolina or even of Douglas and
Mason that would justify the assault that was soon after made
on Sumner by Preston S. Brooks of South Carolina. He
claimed that the words quoted were a libel upon Butler and
South Carolina. Having the language before him the reader
can judge of this question for himself.
The speech, however, has a merit, independent of this cir
cumstance. It was one of the greatest efforts of Sumner's
life and it was a large influence in the election which followed,
and so among the factors in the destruction of slavery.

CHAPTER XXIII
THE ASSAULT UPON SUMNER BY PRESTON S. BROOKS — ACTION OF
CONGRESS  RESIGNATION AND RE-ELECTION OF BROOKS —
APPROVAL OF THE ACT BY THE SOUTH  FEELING AROUSED
BY IT IN THE NORTH  DEATHS OF BROOKS, KEITT AND
BUTLER
By the speeches Sumner had made against slavery he had in
curred the settled displeasure of the Southern men in Congress.
He was the most fearless and outspoken of the Free-Soilers.
His speeches were carefully prepared, attractive and widely cir
culated and read. When delivered in the Senate, by reason of
the exhaustive treatment of the subject they might seem cumber
some but not so to intelligent readers by the fireside at home.
They were peculiarly effective in arousing public sentiment.
Naturally at this latest protest against the extension of slavery
the Southern Members felt resentment; and the bitterness they
freely expressed not unnaturally found a disordered mind to
give it effect.
John A. Bingham, a Representative of Ohio, who had heard
the speech and seeing, in the faces of the Southerners, the dis
pleasure with which it was received, warned Sumner of the
danger of personal injury he was encountering. His colleague
Wilson and Representatives Schuyler Colfax and Anson G.
Burlingame, sharing the same feeling of apprehension, at the
close of the session, proposed to accompany him home. But
Sumner always slow to believe harm of others, laughingly put
aside their fears and quietly slipped away by himself. Subse
quent events, however, showed that they were right in their
apprehension for his safety. A plot to waylay him on his
way to the Capitol on the two succeeding days failed of exe
cution only by reason of his taking unaccustomed routes. But
the miscarriage of their plots only delayed the execution of the
purpose. Preston S. Brooks the assailant was a Representative of
South Carolina. He was an attorney by profession and the son
of an attorney. He came from an obscure District in the
western part of the State, living in the little village of Ninety-
six in the midst of a region of rich plantations, where to this
day the current of the world's vigorous life seldom reaches. He
329

330 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
was a very large, powerfully built man, more than six feet in
height, somewhat slovenly in his dress, wearing his clothes
large and hanging loosely about his spare frame, the collar
of his shirt carelessly rolled and held in place by a four-in-hand
tie dangling on his bosom, his hair long after the manner of
Southerners of that day. He was retiring in his disposition,
having few intimates and taking little part in the proceedings
of the House. In fact the one act in his Congressional career
that rescues his name from oblivion is the brutal assault he
made on Sumner. Except for this, he would not be remem
bered outside of his District and hardly there. Sumner did
not know him at all and, therefore, private considerations could
have had nothing to do with his conduct. He was distantly
connected with Senator Butler, his father having been Butler's
cousin and so he claimed the right to avenge an alleged libel
upon him and his State, contained in Sumner's speech. Brooks
represented the extreme passion and prejudice of the South,
whose feeling against Sumner had been provoked to violence by
his persistent and telling agitation against Slavery. His con
federates were Representatives Keitt of South Carolina and
Edmundson of Virginia.
The testimony of what occurred was taken under oath by a
Congressional Committee. It thus appeared that Bingham, who
had warned Sumner at the close of the session of Tuesday, had
no ground for his apprehensions, but his own conclusions drawn
from the looks and conduct of Southern Members and their
friends and the expressions of Douglas and Mason during the
debate. Brooks had been a listener to Sumner's speech on the
first day, but had not heard the part delivered on the second,
though he had heard it discussed by Southern men and women,
at hotels and in the lobbies of the Capitol and thus received ex
aggerated reports of what had been said, in his absence. He had
not read any of it, though while making the assault he said he
had. His mind was inflamed with the thought that he would
be doing his section a service by assaulting and punishing
Sumner for the words he had spoken.
He lay in wait for Sumner for an hour or more at the Penn
sylvania Avenue approach to the Capitol before the opening of
the Senate on the day succeeding the speech, but Sumner had
gone in by another way and he missed him. There he met
Edmundson and they talked of his purpose and together they
waited till the lateness of the hour persuaded them that their
longer stay would be in vain. They met again there at the same
hour on the next day and again they waited, but Sumner had
gone earlier to the Senate and they were again disappointed.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 331
Brooks told Edmundson that he would attack Sumner there if
he walked to the Capitol, but if he drove he would hurry up the
steps and meet him, in the Rotunda, or on the other side of the
Capitol, where the carriages were accustomed to stop. But Ed
mundson, nicely calculating the chances of this knightly en
counter thus planned, reminded him that the labor of ascending
the steps to reach the proposed place of attack would necessarily
exhaust him and unfit him for the assault ; and that plan was
accordingly abandoned. So the two went into the Capitol to
gether, parting in the Rotunda, Edmundson going to the House
and Brooks to the Senate.
The Senate remained in session but a few minutes to hear
the eulogy of Senator Geyer of Missouri on the death of Repre
sentative Miller of the same State, when out of respect for the
deceased, it adjourned at 12.45 p. M., the House having
adjourned fifteen minutes earlier. Sumner after the adjourn
ment of the Senate, remained in his seat writing. To several
persons who came to him he excused himself with the state
ment that he wished to complete some work for a mail that was
about closing. He sat close up to his desk with his feet and
legs well under it. Being a large man and the desk small
for him, he could not rise without first pushing his chair back
so as to release his legs. His head was well down over the desk
intent on the work before him and he did not see what was
passing about him.
Brooks reached the Senate before its adjournment and stood
leaning against the side of the entrance to the main-aisle not
more than twenty feet from Sumner's chair and behind him.
When the Senate adjourned, the most of the Senators passed
out. Brooks then entered the Chamber and seated himself
across the aisle, but nearer Sumner. Seeing a lady present, he
asked an officer of the Senate to get her out, but the officer see
ing no reason for doing so, declined. Brooks then went out of
the Chamber to Edmundson and proposed that he should send
in for Sumner to come out, but Edmundson suggested that
Sumner would probably only send for Brooks to come in and
so interfere with his other plans. Brooks therefore returned
to the Chamber. Edmundson remained at the entrance while
Keitt stood waiting behind the Vice-President's chair.
Brooks passed directly to Sumner's chair. Sumner did not
notice his presence till he heard some one call his name, when
looking up he caught the words ; " I have read your speech over
twice carefully; it is a libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler
who is a relative of mine " — and while he was still speaking and
apparently without finishing the sentence, the tall powerfully

332 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
built stranger raised a heavy cane and struck him with all his
force over the head. Sumner threw up his arms and endeavored
to protect himself but the first blow blinded him and Brooks
continued to rain blow after blow upon his head as hard and
as fast as he could, wounding also Sumner's arms and his
hands. Sumner was pinioned down, with the desk fastened to the
floor and his chair, holding his legs so that he was completely
at the mercy of his assailant. He was entirely unarmed, and
besides had no opportunity to use a weapon. But being a
powerful man, in the agony of his struggles, he wrenched the
desk from its fastenings and staggered forward endeavoring
to escape the blows. He could not see his assailant who had
grabbed him by the collar and standing above him in the de
scending aisle, continued the blows even after the cane was
broken and Sumner had fallen senseless and bleeding at his feet.
His arm was stayed at last and he was forced away from Sum
ner by Representatives Morgan and Murray of New York, who
though fifty feet away and standing with their backs turned,
upon their attention being attracted, had promptly rushed to
Sumner's rescue. Senator Crittenden of Kentucky hurried to
his assistance from another direction, openly and emphatically
condemning the conduct of Brooks. Keitt ran to the assistance
of Brooks and threatened to strike Crittenden crying to him,
" Let them alone. G — d d — n you ! " Edmundson rushed in to
Brooks' assistance from another direction. And cries were
heard: "Don't interfere!" "Go it, Brooks!" "Give the
d — d Abolitionist h — 1 ! " etc. Keitt like Brooks was armed
with a cane, which he flourished as he came forward, threaten
ing those who interfered and he kept his hand upon a pistol
ready for use.
Toombs of Georgia at the commencement of the assault stood
in front of the Vice-President's chair in plain view, talking to
Governor Gorman of Minnesota. They observed the assault
from its commencement. Gorman started to interfere but
Toombs stood still. He made no effort to protect Sumner, after
wards stating that he approved the assault ; but seeing the dan
ger that Crittenden, a Southern Senator, had encountered in his
effort to rescue Sumner, he went to his protection. Slidell, of
Louisiana, and Douglas were near at hand in an ante-room, en
gaged in conversation, when a messenger rushed up and an
nounced that some one was assaulting Mr. Sumner. Neither
attempted to interfere. Slidell afterwards said that he heard
of the assault without "any particular emotion; for his own
part he confessed he felt none, that he had no associations or

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 333
relations of any kind with Sumner and had not spoken to him
for two years." Yet Slidell it was who had thanked Sumner
five years before for his " chivalrous and zealous " defence of
his brother, the captain of the Somers, against the charge of
wrongfully hanging the son of the Secretary of War and his co
conspirators. Sumner in a measure lost consciousness with the first blow
and when he recovered he was lying in the aisle of the chamber
with his head supported on the knee of Mr. Morgan. Dazed
and half unconscious as he was, he thought he saw his assailant
standing, still gazing intent upon him, supported on either side
by Douglas and Toombs. As to Douglas, who had not left the
anteroom, he was mistaken. While Sumner was being assisted
from the Chamber to a sofa in the lobby, by Mr. Morgan and
James W. Simonton, a reporter for the New York Times, and
others, he recognized Slidell retreating before him. His wounds
were dressed by a physician who was hastily summoned and he
was removed by his colleague Wilson and Representative Buf-
fington in a carriage, still only partially conscious, to his room.
Upon examination it was found that he had received num
erous wounds, two principal gashes, one over each ear and a
little back, each about two inches long and laying the flesh
open to the bone. Others more or less severe to the number of
twenty or more were on different parts of the head and arms and
hands. Blood flowed copiously from the wounds, especially
from those on the head, so that his coat and waistcoat and the
collar and bosom of his shirt were, in places, saturated. So
much had flowed upon the shoulders of his coat that it soaked
through the broadcloth and padding of the shoulders and ap
peared through the lining. " He was covered with blood," ac
cording to General Webb, afterwards Minister to Brazil, as he
" never saw man covered before." Another witness, William J.
Leader, though belonging to a different political party, de
clared that " it was one of the most cold-blooded, high-handed
outrages ever committed and that had not Mr. Sumner been
a very large and powerfully built man it must have resulted in
his death." The hands and cuffs of Mr. Morgan who supported
his head were covered with his blood.
The weapon with which he was assaulted was a walking-stick
made of gutta-percha, one inch in diameter at the larger end
and tapering to five-eighths, at the smaller. It was broken
with the weight of the. blows. Owing to its weight, when used
by a powerful man, it was a murderous weapon. The physical
condition of Sumner and the masses of his full head of hair,
which he wore long at the time, probably saved his life.

334 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Promptly the morning after the assault, Wilson arose in his
place in the Senate and recited the circumstances of the as
sault, but having done this much he left it for other Senators
to decide what measures should be taken. The Free-Soilers
were largely in the minority and it had been agreed among
them that it should be left to the opposition to propose a remedy
and that Sumner's friends would do nothing more than state
the case unless it should appear that the Democrats would pro
pose nothing. After Wilson's statement, a short silence fol
lowed and the Presiding officer was calling for other business,
when Seward arose and moved the appointment by the Chair
of a committee of five to inquire into the circumstances of the
assault and report a statement of the facts and their opinion
thereon to the Senate. Wilson seconded it. Mason moved to
amend so that the Senate instead of the Presiding officer would
select the committee and the motion thus amended was carried.
Seward and Wilson, the movers, who, according to all rules,
should have been selected, were excluded from the committee
and those chosen were all from the opposition. Two of the
five were from the Slave States; another was Cass. The com
mittee reported that the Senate had no power to arrest or pun
ish a Member of the House and that all they could do was to
complain to that body. A copy of the affidavits taken by the
committee and of their report was ordered sent to it.
When the testimony of Sumner was read, giving his recol
lection of the conduct of Toombs, Slidell and Douglas during
the assault, it called forth explanations from them and Butler
who had in the meantime returned to Washington. They ap
proved the conduct of Brooks. This brought the Free-Soilers
to their feet.
Wade said that he proposed to vindicate the right of free
speech, though he had to come armed to do so.
Wilson said it was " a brutal, murderous and cowardly as
sault." To which Butler ejected, " You are a liar ! " This
furnished its own comment upon the conduct of Brooks, when
seeking to justify his act, by the language used by Sumner of
Butler. In the House on the day after the assault, Campbell of Ohio,
moved the appointment of a committee by the Speaker to in
vestigate and report the facts with such resolutions as in its
judgment would vindicate the House. Campbell with four
others were appointed, three Northern Free-Soilers and two
Southern Democrats, all able men. This committee was sin
cere in its efforts to investigate the circumstances of the assault.
It invited Brooks to be present and ask the witnesses any ques-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 335
tions he desired. It took the testimony of Sumner at his rooms,
he being unable to attend the sittings, and it called other wit
nesses to the facts, before it, and subjected them all to an ex
amination under oath, both sides being represented. It occupied
five days with the investigation and on the sixth made reports
to the House. The majority reported that it was an unpro
voked outrage in violation of the privileges of both the Senate
and the House and of the provision of the Constitution which
declared that a member "for any speech or debate in either
house shall not be questioned in any other place." It con
cluded with a resolution for the expulsion of Brooks and of
censure of Keitt and Edmundson. It was signed by the three
Free-Soilers, Campbell of Ohio, Spinner of New York and
Pennington of New Jersey. The minority composed of Cobb of
Georgia and Greenwood of Arkansas reported that the House
had no jurisdiction of the case and declined to express any
opinion on the facts.
The House refused to adopt the report of Cobb and Green
wood, by a vote of sixty-six yeas and one hundred and forty-five
nays. The resolution of expulsion was lost, yeas one hundred
and twenty-one, nays ninety-five, it not having received the
necessary two-thirds vote. Keitt was censured; Edmundson
was not.
As soon as the vote on the resolution of expulsion was taken,
Brooks arose and with some difficulty obtained permission to
address the House. Giddings opposed it, but finally yielded to
the persuasion of friends and withdrew his objection. Brooks
then proceeed in a braggart speech in which he insinuated that
" a blow struck by him then, would be followed by a revolution,
which would result in subverting the foundations of the Gov
ernment and in drenching the Hall of Congress in blood," ad
mitted that he had committed the assault " very deliberately "
and insinuated that if Sumner had resisted he would have
killed him. He closed by declaring that he was no longer a
member of the House. He had already placed his resignation
in the hands of the Governor of his State to take effect when he
announced it himself in Congress. By this means he prevented
any farther action being taken against him by the House.
Mason and Butler sat near him in the House while he spoke
and when he finished and walked out of the door he was
met by Southern women who were present to congratulate him.
Keitt also resigned, to -procure the indorsement of his constit
uents, upon his conduct. Both were promptly re-elected, with
substantial unanimity and were back in their places in the

336 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
House within a few days, completely purged of the political
consequences of their deeds.
The criminal punishment inflicted was hardly less a farce.
A complaint was made against Brooks alone and he was in
dicted by the Grand Jury. He appeared in court, attended by
a coterie of Southern friends, among whom were Mason and
Butler, admitted the assault, but sought to justify it in a speech
likening himself to husbands who defend their wounded honor.
He was fined three hundred dollars and discharged without
imprisonment. Sumner took no part in the prosecution, ex
cept when subpoenaed to appear and testify before the Grand
Jury. He disclaimed all responsibility for it, realizing that
any punishment would be inadequate for the injuries he had
received and the hopelessness of expecting proper consideration
for the case from the courts of the District, as then constituted.
But Sumner never held Brooks personally responsible. He
considered him as the irresponsible agent of slavery which he
regarded as the guilty principal deserving the punishment.
During his long years of suffering, no one heard him speak
unkindly of Brooks, but as soon as he reached his rooms after
the assault, he declared that whenever he was able to return to
the Senate he would renew the warfare against slavery. Years
after, when one day walking in the Congressional Cemetery at
Washington, his companion, George William Curtis, called his
attention to a cenotaph of Brooks, which Sumner had not be
fore noticed. His only remark was, " Poor fellow ! Poor fel
low ! " To the question then asked by Curtis, " How did you
feel about Brooks ? " He replied : " Only as to a brick that
should fall upon my head from a chimney. He was the uncon
scious agent of a malign power."
The feeling aroused by the assault was tremendous. The
opinion has been ventured that no other event except a na
tional victory or defeat was ever attended in this country with
so fciuch excitement. It was not regarded simply as the assault
of pne/man upon another, whatever prominence might be given
to tW principals. The parties were treated as two rival powers,
Freedom and Slavery, and the assault as the attitude of the
contending forces towards each other. Before the assault af
fairs in Kansas had arrested the attention of the country, as a
condition bordering closely upon civil war ; but the South op
posed all discussion of the slavery question. Now the North
felt that the South was determined to suppress, by the bludgeon,
the right of free thought and free speech. Though it was never
proved, the conviction was wide spread, at the time, that the act
of Brooks was the result of a conference of Southern statesmen

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 337
whereat it was determined that the North must be silenced by
an example, made of Sumner. The act of an obscure Repre
sentative, whose name was hardly known beyond his own Dis
trict in staining the floor of the Senate Chamber with the blood
of a Senator, who sat quietly writing at his desk, sent a wave
of passion over the country.
When Sumner's colleague Wilson followed Wade in answering
the speeches of Toombs and Slidell approving the assault, by
pronouncing it " brutal, murderous and cowardly ", this lan
guage incensed Brooks and he soon after by the hand of Joseph
Lane of Oregon, later, on the ticket with John C. Breckenridge
of Kentucky, a candidate for Vice-President, sent Wilson a
challenge to a duel.
A few days later, in a debate on" the Kansas bill, Butler un
dertook to reply to Sumner's speech. His answer abounded in
personalities. With much unction he said that against the
complaints of his friends, he had " kept up an intercourse with
Sumner which was calculated to give him a currency far beyond
what he might have had." This speech brought Wilson to his
feet who, after ridiculing " the piny wood doctrine — the planta
tion idea " that Butler could give Charles Sumner social stand
ing anywhere, then proceeded at length to enumerate the in
stances and quote the language of Butler in his speeches, to show
that ever since Sumner entered the Senate, he had been wilfully
insulting and aggravating towards him.
In the House the display of feeling was greater than in the
Senate. Burlingame, one of the Boston members denounced the act
" in the name of that fair play which bullies and prize-fighters
respect" and said that in a place hitherto sacred against vio
lence he had smote Sumner as Cain smote his brother.
For this language Brooks sent a challenge to Burlingame,
which was accepted. Campbell, who had the arrangement of
the preliminaries, fixed the Clifton House, Canada, as the place
of meeting; and Burlingame, late at night, left Washington to
keep the appointment, but he was recalled, Brooks having de
clined. His excuse was that in the excited state of feeling, in
the North, it would be unsafe for him to pass through it to
reach Canada.
But the large vote for expulsion made Southerners feel they
had gone too far. The Northern and Western members were
harmonious. Instead of the usual self-confident one, South
erners adopted an apologizing tone in meeting the indignation
awakened by the deed. Public feeling and the fear that it

338 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
might influence the National election, in which they hoped
again to be successful were having an effect upon them.
These considerations were, however, little felt in the South
land. There the feeling was one of general congratulation.
There may have been individuals who hesitated to adopt the
act, actuated by opposition to slavery or abhorrence of the
deed or cautioned by the clouds that seemed to be gathering,
which their less thoughtful neighbors had not observed ; but if
so they were silent in the presence of the uniform and uncon
trollable rejoicing of their neighbors that the wilful spirit of
interference with their institution had at last been rebuked by
physical force. The act of Brooks was generally indorsed, in
the States that were afterwards in rebellion.
Within a week after the 'assault some South Carolinians to
show their appreciation of his act presented Brooks with a
cane bearing the inscription, " Hit him again." Another cane
was presented to him by the students of the University of Vir
ginia. The attitude of the newspapers of the South was frankly
stated by The Richmond Examiner when it said that they
" applauded the conduct of Brooks without condition or limi
tation, that their approbation was entire and unreserved."
But the South was not more united in the support of Brooks
than the North was in support of Sumner. The Legislature
of Massachusetts, the Ministers of Boston and the Abolition
Convention at Syracuse, New York, condemned it. There was
a monster meeting held in New York city, which was ad
dressed by William Cullen Bryant and others. William M.
Evarts presented the resolutions, which after narrating the
facts declared that there was nothing " in the meditation, the
preparation or the execution of this outrage by Brooks which
should qualify the condemnation with which they pronounced
it, brutal, murderous and cowardly." Two meetings were held
in Boston, one at Chapman's Hall, addressed by Wendell Phil
lips; another at Faneuil Hall addressed by the Governor of
Massachusetts, and others; one at Cambridge addressed by
Felton, Sparks, Longfellow and others. Meetings in condemna
tion of the act were also held at Canandaigua, N. Y., Provi
dence, R. I., and Concord, Mass.
The address of Ralph Waldo Emerson at the Concord meet
ing contained a discriminating tribute to Sumner: "I think,
Sir," he said, "if Mr. Sumner had any vices, we should be
likely to hear of them. They have fastened their eyes like
microscopes, now for five years, on every act, word, manner and
movement, to find a flaw, — and with what result? His oppo-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 339
nents accuse him neither of drunkenness, nor debauchery, nor
job, nor peculation, nor rapacity, nor personal aim of any kind.
No ; but with what ? Why, beyond this charge which it is im
possible was ever sincerely made, that he broke over the pro
prieties of debate, I find him accused of publishing his opinion
of the Nebraska conspiracy in a letter to the people of the
United States, with discourtesy. Then that he is an Abolition
ist, as if every sane human being were not an Abolitionist, or a
believer that all men should be free. And the third crime he
stands charged with is, that his speeches were written before
they were spoken; which of course must be true in Mr. Sum
ner's case, — as it was true of Webster, of Adams, of Calhoun,
of Burke, of Chatham, of Demosthenes, of every first-rate
speaker tbat ever lived. It is the high compliment he pays to
the intelligence of the Senate and of the country. When the
same reproach was cast upon the first orator of ancient times
by some caviller of his day, he said, ' I should be ashamed to
come with one unconsidered word before such an assembly.' "
"Mr. Chairman, when I think of these most small faults as
the worst which party hatred could allege, I think I may bor
row the language which Bishop Burnet applied to Sir Isaac
Newton, and say that Charles Sumner ' has the whitest soul I
ever knew.' "
Sumner's European friends were astonished at the assault
and declared that it revealed a condition of things in the United
States inexplicable to Englishmen. And right well it might.
It was a decided jar to the people of the North. The whole
affair, in its inception, its execution and its conclusion in the
South, furnished an object lesson of the political condition of
the country as caused by slavery that had not been realized
before. While the proceedings for the expulsion of Brooks were pend
ing, in the House, the National Conventions had been held.
The Republicans had united on the issue between the North
and the South. For President they had nominated John C.
Fremont, a young man with a career having all the interest of
fiction, an ideal candidate for a new party. The Democrats had
nominated James Buchanan; and the pro-slavery wing of the
American party nominated Fillmore. The contest was a warm
one. The assault of Brooks and his later brag that a blow by
him would dissolve the Union, entered into the campaign. The
Republicans declared that they did not want a Union that was
held together at the pleasure of one man. Sumner thus became
an issue in the campaign and there was an unprecedented de
mand for copies of his speech. It became a campaign docu-

340 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ment and was circulated by the hundred thousand. It was
printed in the newspapers and there were large pamphlet edi
tions at Washington, New York and Boston and San Fran
cisco. It appeared in German and Welsh and was reprinted in
London. It may not be amiss to follow the other parties to this tragedy
a step farther. Brooks lived to return to Congress, at its next
session, and to make a speech for slavery. But he did not live
to see the close of the session. His manner and appearance
changed ; his black hair turned gray, he seemed nervous and ill-
at-ease, casting furtive glances about him wherever he went, as
if fearful of retribution, silent and dissatisfied ; men and women
of the North, who had mingled with him before, now avoided
him ; he had no associates except from his own section. The
notoriety he had acquired became distasteful to him; he con
fessed he was tired of appearing as the prince of bullies. Sum
ner narrowly escaped death at his hands, and his vacant
chair in the Senate Chamber reminded him while he lived
of the suffering he had caused. Remorse for his deed seemed
to seize him and affect his health. But it did not last long.
Near the close of January, 1857, he contracted a cold and after
a brief illness, so brief that it was not known to the public, it
took the form of a violent croup, or inflammation of the throat
and he died suddenly a terrible death, struggling and gasping
for breath, gripping his throat and apparently trying to tear it
open. No physician was at hand to afford him relief.
The news of his death went out among his associates in
Washington, and over the country, and recalled the wounds in
flicted upon Sumner, still less than a year old, with the circum
stances fresh in men's minds. A feeling seemed -to prevail
that the same Power which apparently had avenged this wrong
might also avenge the wrongs of the slaves.
Two days after his death, eulogies were pronounced upon
Brooks in the House, but in them there was, with one exception
ill-starred and in bad taste, no reference to the assault upon
Sumner. The same day he was buried from the House, in the
Congressional Cemetery at Washington, where a cenotaph
remains to mark the spot. Two weeks later his body was re
moved to its final resting-place in the Baptist Churchyard at
Edgefield, South Carolina, the place of his birth. Here with a
public funeral, a eulogy, with civil and military display, it was
laid in the family lot beside that of his father and mother and
other relatives. Over it rises a monument to his memory, the
most conspicuous in the cemetery, though there also lies the
body of Pickens, the Governor of South Carolina, when the first

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 341
gun of the Confederacy was fired upon Fort Sumter. The
shaft has on it the sentence from Keitt's Congressional eulogy ;
" Earth has never pillowed upon her bosom a truer son, nor
Heaven opened wide her gates to receive a manlier spirit ! "
And so with marked honor, was laid to rest by the South this
champion of her peculiar institution. It was an example to her
young men, who in defence of the same cause, later sought glory
upon other fields.
A little later, on the 25th of May, 1857, Butler died at hia
home in South Carolina. Keitt lived to take an active and vin
dictive part in the Rebellion and died in battle in 1864, having
lived long enough to see the Confederacy his hands had con
tributed to form, crumbling to pieces. He lies to-day buried, in
an unmarked spot, near Saint Matthew, South Carolina, only
one county intervening between his grave and that of Brooks.
Of them all, Edmundson alone survived the Civil War.

CHAPTER XXIV
NATURE OF SUMNER'S INJURIES  GOES TO SILVER SPRINGS, TO
PHILADELPHIA, CAPE MAY AND CRESSON SPRINGS  HONORS
 PUBLIC INTEREST IN HIM  PUBLIC RECEPTION AT
BOSTON
At first Sumner's wounds seemed to heal readily. He was in
the prime of life, of vigorous constitution, with good habits, so
that everything favored a speedy recovery. When he reached
his rooms, after his wounds were dressed, and he had recovered
consciousness, he was able to converse and while his wounds
were painful and the shock to his system very noticeable, no
permanent results were apprehended. The next day, Thursday,
he was able to sit up and move about his apartments and he
wished to go to the Senate, but was dissuaded from doing so.
His condition was not materially different on Saturday and
Sunday; but on the fourth day, Monday, unfavorable symp
toms appeared. That night he was feverish, unable to sleep ;
the wounds on his head pained him severely. The glands of his
neck became swollen and the tendons sore to the touch, with
evidence of inflammation. The next day the large wound on
the right side of the head which had been closed with collodion
was opened and it discharged a tablespoonful of pus. This
afforded him relief from pain and enabled him, under the in
fluence of an opiate, to get some sleep. The next three days,
his condition was critical, there being danger of blood poison
and erysipelas. But this wound was kept open and poulticed
and the symptoms became more favorable. The wounds on the
left side of the head healed promptly, and to all appearances
naturally. After the opening and poulticing those on the right
side healed also.
His vacant chair in the Senate troubled him. He had rep
resented Massachusetts there for more than five years, — years
of excitement and hard work, with few rewards. He had been
one of a small but diligent minority. All this time, his chair
had never been vacant a day. He had been, in the Senate, the
leader of the little band of anti-slavery men, in the old dark
days. But now the prospect seemed to be changing. Slavery
had over-reached itself ; the scenes in Kansas and in the Senate
Chamber had brought a revulsion of feeling in the North; a
342

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 343
new political party was organizing whose paramount issue was
opposition to slavery. For years Sumner had wished for such a
party and had been laboring with all his power to create it.
There seemed to be a promise of its success. With all this in
prospect it was hard for him to suffer enforced idleness. The
sands of his term were slipping away and the time for the elec
tion of his successor was approaching; he wished to strike
slavery again from his vantage ground in the Senate and show
his fidelity and his power. His physician seeing this frame of
mind had to caution him against its effect upon his shattered
health. Southern statesmen saw the effect the assault was having
in the North and feared that Brooks had gone too far. There
was a disposition among them to heal it over and hush it up.
They made light of Sumner's injuries, insisted that they were
insignificant and that there was no reason why he should not be
in his place in the Senate. Prominent in this was Butler. In
his reply to Sumner's speech, he referred to his absence and
said that, judging from Dr. Boyle's statement, he could see no
reason why he was not present in his seat, that his wounds were
insignificant, that if he were an officer in the army and absented
himself from duty under such circumstances he would be
cashiered. Again Butler returned to it tauntingly, attributing
his absence to his regard for his personal appearance, " being
rather a handsome man," evidently hoping that such speeches
would hasten his appearance or at least make light of his
absence. In Sumner's condition of nervous and physical
prostration such things only worried him and retarded his
recovery. Dr. Boyle's services had proven unsatisfactory, not so much
from a want of professional ability or even fidelity, but because
of his apparent Southern sympathies and surroundings. He
offered to go Brooks' bail when arrested ; he was the landlord of
Edmundson; and he furnished a statement of Sumner's con
dition to be read in the Senate, which though not untruthful
had a tendency to mislead because it was entrusted by the doctor
to Butler to present. He was later the physician of Brooks.
Just as Sumner was in his most critical condition, when his life
for three days seemed to hang in the balance, his brother George
arrived in Washington, and the unsatisfactory surroundings of
Dr. Boyle becoming known to him, he discontinued his em
ployment and Dr. Harvey Lindsly was employed in his stead,
and Dr. Marshal S. Perry of Boston, happening to be in the
city, was called in consultation. When Butler made his first
statement, that nothing prevented Sumner's presence in the

344 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Senate, Dr. Lindsly, the same day, made a written certificate
that Sumner was not able then to be in the Senate, nor would he
be for some time to come, and that his advice to him was to go
at once away from Washington and its excitement and seek
quiet, in the open air.
As the wounds on Sumner's head healed, violent neuralgic
pains appeared periodically about the base of the brain and neck
and the paroxysms of pain were succeeded by a feeling of heavy
pressure, — as Sumner described it, as of fifty-six pound pres
sure, — upon the head and spinal cord, attended with a feeling
of extreme weakness and incapacity for any exertion, either
mental or physical. When attempting to walk there was faint-
ness and want of strength and his gait was uncertain and tot
tering like that of an old man of eighty years of age. From
this condition there was for a long time hardly any improve
ment, but it was attended with alternations of hope and disap
pointment. For years health was to seem always just within
his grasp and yet always eluding him.
To keep him as quiet as possible and prevent the bad effects
of excitement visitors were excluded, during the first week,
from his room. After that he was permitted to see callers. His
own party were diligent in their attentions, but the Democrats
remained away. During the first four weeks he was in bed
twenty-two hours each day. Somewhat improved he went,
about the middle of June, to Silver Springs, the country home
of F. P. Blair, in Maryland, but near Washington, where he
remained till the fifth of July. Here he suffered a relapse and
his life was again despaired of; some symptoms led to the
belief that insanity or partial paralysis was the threatening
danger. While at Silver Springs he was in Washington only
once and then to appear before the Grand Jury under service
of a writ of the United States Court. When he returned to
Washington on July fifth, it was to arrange to go North, to
escape the heat. He left there on July seventh, the same day
that Brooks plead guilty to the indictment, going by invitation
to Philadelphia, to spend some time at the homes of J. T. and
W. H. Furness. Here he was under the care of Dr. Casper
Wister. Dr. Wister advised him to go to the mountains where he
would have a high altitude and a cooler atmosphere, but he
yielded to the friendly persuasions of the family of James T.
Furness to go with them to their cottage at Cape May. Here
they hoped the cooling breeze and salt air would restore him
to something of the vigor he had enjoyed at his old home by the
6ea, to which his heart still turned. But they were disap-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 345
pointed. He did not have sufficient strength to either walk by
the sea or enjoy bathing. He could only spend his time lying
upon a sofa or sitting in an arbor, looking out upon the water.
The heat during the day often became insufferable and so on
August third he went to Cresson, Pa., in the mountains, where
he remained till the first days of September, receiving treat
ment from Dr. R. M. Jackson and living as the guest of his
family. Here he made some perceptible improvement. But the
pressure about his head and spine, his extreme weakness and
nervousness, the imperfect use of his limbs, still continued,
with wakefulness. He often did not close his eyes in sleep
once during the night. Some days he seemed better, others
worse, almost as bad as ever, though he could get out of doors,
walk a little and ride on horseback, starting very moderately
and, as the days passed, increasing the length of his rides. But
withal he showed an almost morbid anxiety to be well and
back again at his work.
This was revealed in letters that he wrote to his friends.
But those who knew his condition urged quiet upon him and
complete restoration, before he attempted to do any work.
A nomination for Governor of Massachusetts was talked of
to give the people an opportunity by their votes to show their
approval of his work in the Senate; but he put it aside. In
the National Republican Convention he received votes for both
President and Vice-President. The Governor of Massachusetts
recommended to the Legislature the payment of the expenses of
his illness ; and a public subscription for a memorial to him, in
approbation of his recent speech was started and a thousand
dollars had already been subscribed before it was known to him.
He declined and urged that whatever could be given be applied
to promote and secure Kansas against the encroachments of
slavery. The money subscribed was accordingly given to that
object. He contributed one hundred dollars, of his own means,
to the same purpose, when a public subscription was started
and urged by the public journals in accordance with his sug
gestion. The degree of Doctor of Laws was conferred upon him by two
colleges, Yale and Amherst. In a peculiarly felicitous letter.
President Woolsey of Yale explained that the action of his col
lege, in conferring this degree was dictated neither by political
feeling nor by recent occurrences nor yet to secure popular
favor ; for none of these things would justify literary honors ;
but that the motive which led to this action was sincere respect
for his literary, legal and political attainments and cultivation,

346 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
and an equally sincere respect for the principles of his political
career. And, he added, what should also have added to the
honor, that no outside suggestion had led to this action but that
the thought of it had originated entirely within the Corpora
tion. Such words were a solace to Sumner in the exhausted and
broken condition of his health. Literary honors and the ap
probation of literary men were always grateful to him. In
moments of relaxation all his life, his thoughts had easily
turned to literature. The lines of a beautiful poem, the pages
of some old author, dead perhaps a thousand years, whose
genius had created the thought, did not want for apprecia
tion from him. They humanized and broadened the man and
lifted him above the statesmanship, which lives only for the
hour, into the region of things which will live for all time.
Chase and Seward, Wilson, Wade and Giddings were his as
sociates in Washington ; but how easily his thoughts turned
from them to Longfellow, Whittier, Emerson, Lowell and
Holmes at Boston. Their society furnished the pleasure and
the inspiration of his quiet hours and their letters were the
most carefully preserved among his papers. In his present
condition of enforced idleness these resources were precious
ones to him.
His physician insisted upon as much quiet and absence of
mental exertion as possible. But Sumner was not in a position
to be altogether divorced from the campaign that was absorbing
public attention. Some of the Republicans, earnest for the suc
cess of Fremont, not appreciating his condition, but feeling that
he occupied the position of a martyr, and that the enthusiasm
his presence and co-operation would awaken, would aid the
ticket, urged him to take part. Chase advised him to accept
the nomination for Governor of Massachusetts, be elected and
hold it till he was again elected to the Senate, when he could
resign; Campbell of Ohio who had been the leading spirit, in
the House, in securing the investigation of the assault and the
large vote for exptdsion against Brooks and the censure of
Keitt, urged him to be present at a great meeting to be held
at Hamilton, Ohio, even if his health would not permit him to
speak. The Republicans of Rhode Island urged him to address
their State Convention; and calls for him came from many
directions in Massachusetts. But under the injunction of his
physician, he made the one answer to all of them, that he could
not bear even the fatigue of travelling, much less the excitement
of the meetings, or the strain which would be required in an
effort to speak. But his letters were read at the meetings and

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 347
published, and showed the people how unequivocally he stood
for the ticket, and how much he wished its success. In this
way though silent, he was able to lend his aid. These letters
were necessarily very short, for the least exertion seemed to
cause a reappearance of his unfavorable symptoms, pressure
upon the brain, nervousness and extreme weakness, followed by
sleepless nights.
Early in September he left Cresson for Philadelphia, upon
the whole improved, but far from being well. He remained
during that month with his friends, W. H. and James T. Fur
ness, at Philadelphia and Cape May, receiving treatment again
from Dr. Wister. He still hoped to be able to resume his duties
at the opening of Congress in December. He was anxious to
go to Massachusetts and vote for Fremont and the Republican
candidates for Congress. The result on Burlingame was ex
pected to be close and he had been a very active and useful Free-
Soil Member, in thorough sympathy with Sumner. And there
was more trouble for the ticket in Boston where the Webster
Whigs were still numerous and where Burlingame was a can
didate than in other parts of the State. Sumner insisted that
Boston should sustain Burlingame, not merely to do him honor,
but to save herself from dishonor.
He had remained away from Boston, feeling that the ex
citement attending his return, might affect him injuriously.
As soon as it became known that he would go home to vote, a
committee waited on him, in Philadelphia, and urged him to
accept a public banquet. But he did not feel equal to such an
occasion. Under the advice of his physician, it was finally ar
ranged, however, that he would in the quietest way, accept a
public reception in Boston. No organizations, civil or military
were to be invited, as bodies, to take part, but only citizens, as
they might of their own inclination prefer, so that the recep
tion would be altogether spontaneous without any effort being
made to work up a crowd.
Sumner reached Cambridge, Sunday morning, November
second, two days before the election, and went directly to Long
fellow's home. Here he remained until Monday, when he went
to the home of Amos A. Lawrence in Brookline, where he was
met, after noon, by a procession of carriages containing the
reception committee and, in an open barouche, with his physi
cian, Dr. Marshall S. Perry and Professor Huntington of
Harvard, the Chairman of the Committee, they proceeded to
Boston. As they reached the city line they were met by a
large procession. He was presented by Professor Huntington
and was welcomed to the city by Josiah Quincy.

348 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Sumner replied briefly, and the procession proceeded to the
State House. The whole line of the march was decorated with
flags and bunting and streamers. Arriving at the State House,
they found the square in front and its steps and doors as well
as those of the surrounding houses and even the roofs crowded
with people. The stores had closed and the whole population
of Boston had turned out to greet him. He was briefly pre
sented to the Governor, who received him in behalf of the State.
He expressed the wish that in the quiet of his home he would
find complete restoration. Then he counselled the people that
Sumner was still a sick man and unable to endure excitement
and asked that after the exercises were over, they would leave
him to the quiet of his home.
When the Governor had finished and the cheers had sub
sided, Sumner expressed his gratitude for the privilege of be
ing able to look on these familiar scenes, and thanked them for
the hospitality. Here voice and strength failed him and he was
compelled to hand his manuscript to the reporters. When he
ceased he entered his carriage and was attended to his home.
Here another crowd gathered to cheer him till he and his
mother appeared at the window. The reception had been gener
ous. All day the weather was propitious, the crowd large
and the enthusiasm boundless.
To this reception was attributed the election of Burlingame,
who succeeded by a small majority. The Republicans, while
their National ticket was defeated, had upon the whole every
reason for encouragement. They had carried every New Eng
land State and besides New York, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin
and Iowa.
The Legislature of Massachusetts was Republican and Sum
ner's reelection was assured. During the previous winter it
had been in doubt. At that session, the American party con
trolled and they discussed the election of some one else. There
was some anxiety felt over this and at the suggestion of friends,
Sumner procured from the Secretary of the Senate precedents
against the validity of such a step. They were published in the
Boston papers. His speech on the Crime against Kansas and
the Brooks assault followed and no more was heard of the move
ment, the wave of popular indorsement was so great that all
thought of such action was abandoned.
The new Legislature met on January seventh, 1857, and
without waiting even for the Governor's Message, it fixed Jan
uary ninth as the day to elect a Senator. Promptly upon that
day they proceeded and upon the roll being called three hun
dred and thirty-three members of the House voted orally for

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 349
Sumner, while twelve votes were cast for nine other persons,
three for Robert C. Winthrop, two for Nathaniel J. Lord, the
seven remaining being for as many others, including one for
Edward Everett, and one for Rufus Choate. Four days later
the Senate balloted and every vote was for Sumner. This re
sult was without effort to accomplish it on his part.
The unanimity was gratifying. The contrast between it and
the first election was unusual. His first had been accomplished
on the twenty-sixth ballot and on the one hundred and four
teenth day of the session, after a long, weary and almost des
perate struggle, when every effort was made to defeat him.
Now it was substantially unanimous. His party then cast only
about one-fifth of the vote of the State, now it cast more than
two-thirds of it. He then went to a Senate where he could
count only two associates, Chase and Hale, though having the
sympathy of two others, Seward and Wade. Now his party
numbered one-fourth of the Senate and a majority of the
House. Then not a single state could be carried by the Free-
Soilers ; now all New England and half the balance of the Free
States were with him. No man in the country had done more
to bring about this change.
He accepted his new election as his first, in a letter addressed
to the Legislature, which was read and entered at large upon
the Journals.
During the next four months Sumner was an invalid, at his
home in Boston. He continued his exercise by walking and
horseback riding. He visited friends in Boston and Cam
bridge. But most of his time was spent in the house lying
upon a sofa. He did not go to Washington, at the opening of
Congress. He was incapable of a protracted effort. Late
in the winter he left for Washington so as to vote for some
changes desired by his constituents in the tariff of 1846 and
take the oath of office for his new term in the Senate and attend
the inauguration of President Buchanan. He reached there on
February twenty-fifth, in time to vote on the tariff bill, but he
was not able to continue in his seat and the effort convinced him
that he was totally unfit for service. He tarried, however, long
enough to take the oath of office and attend the inauguration.
Three days later, he sailed for Europe, on the steamer Fulton,
bound from New York to Havre.
His physicians, Drs. Perry and Jackson, as well as many
friends advised this step. He was reminded by the fact that
he had been urged to go to Washington to vote on the tariff bill
when he was not able, that he must go farther away? out of

350 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
sight and bevond the reach of the troubles and excitement of
his office, and obtain absolute rest.
His voyage was without incident. He had the usual sea
sickness from which he always suffered, though he made several
ocean voyages. After he arrived, he caught a severe cold;
" they call it la grippe here," he wrote, — a term not then but
since' well known in the United States. For two months he
suffered from it and at times it was so severe that it aggravated
his other troubles and for days it confined him to his rooms.
His steamer entered the dock at Havre on the morning of
March twenty-first ; and landing about eight a. m., after a short
walk enjoying the foreign aspect of the town, he started for
Rouen at eleven in the forenoon. He reached Rouen at two
p. M., and spent the remainder of the day enjoying the Cathe
dral and the streets of this old town which seemed to have a pe
culiar attraction for him. In the evening he attended the
theatre. " Weary enough now," he wrote that night, " and as
tonished that I am able to endure the fatigue. The sea-air or
sea-sickness or absolute separation from politics at home or all
combined have given me much of my old strength." The next
day being Sunday he attended mass and vespers in the Cathe
dral, drove among venerable streets and by the market-place
where Joan of Arc was executed and at evening attended a cou
ple of hours at the opera.
The next day, a beautiful one for the season, after a pleas
ant trip by rail he reached Paris, — " astonished at the magnifi
cence which he saw; beyond all his expectations." The nine
teen years that had elapsed since his first visit, had wrought
wonderful changes in this Capital of the Beautiful Arts. Old
buildings had been demolished, wide and spacious boulevards
had been opened, lofty structures had been erected and trees
planted, on either side, opening beautiful vistas from one part
of the city to another. The Seine winding its sinuous course
among magnificent galleries and public buildings had been in
closed within banks of solid masonry and spanned with bridges
of stone supported by graceful pillars and arches. The streets
touched down, with gentle grades, to the spacious promenades
on either bank. The river district, unlike that of most cities,
the habitation of squalor and vice, was the most magnificent
part of the metropolis. All over the city, available spaces at
street intersections were made the sites for a triumphal arch or
column, or fountain or other work of art. The venerable Cathe
dral, the churches and theatres, the Invalides, the tomb of
Napoleon, never seemed to him more beautiful and more mag
nificent than now in the sunshine of the bright spring evening

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 351
after an absence of years. The sight of them seemed to awaken
the ardor of other days and blot out years that had intervened.
Sumner's first effort that evening was to find his old French
teacher. He inquired for him at his former quarters; but he
was gone. " The places that knew him once, knew him no
more." The concierge, who had been there twelve years, had
never even heard of him. He then sought Crawford, the artist
with whom he had passed many happy hours at Rome and
for whom, after his return, he had done much in procuring the
purchase, in Boston, of his statue, representing Orpheus des
cending into Hades to redeem Eurydice, — whom he had also
aided to secure the order for the equestrian statue of Washing
ton at Richmond, Virginia. He had learned he was in Paris.
Though he inquired at two hotels, he could not find him.
Continuing the search he did find him a few days later, confined
to his apartments and nearing death. His Italian servant,
learning Sumner's former intimacy with his master disclosed
his grief and his affection. Crawford, though unable to see
general visitors, when told that Sumner was there, insisted
upon seeing him. Sumner held him by the hand and looking
at his altered features, marked by the foot of the destroyer,
thought of the beautiful genius whom he had met nineteen
years before, struggling for recognition on three hundred dollars
a year, now famous in his profession, his studio filled with
unfinished orders, passing away in the prime of years and the
incompleteness of his work.
Sumner visited while in Paris the places with which he
was familiar on his former trip, — the pictures and statuary in
the great galleries of the Louvre, the curiosities of the Musee de
Cluny and at the Hotel des Invalides, the Pantheon, the
Madeleine, the Cathedral, the Law School, where he had heard
lectures, the Sorbonne, the operas and theatres. Some Ameri
can friends were there, Elliot 0. Cowdin. T. G. Appleton,
Mr. and Mrs. Wm. B. Green, Mr. and Mrs. R. C. Matterson,
Mr. and Mrs. Geo. B. Emerson. With them he dined and
drove and attended the operas and galleries. It shows some
thing of the quiet of the life he was leading when on March
twenty-sixth, after dining with Cowdin, he wrote, "the first
time I have met company at dinner for ten months." He drove
to Versailles to see the fountains play and again to visit the
galleries, at the royal palace. He also drove to Saint Cloud
and Saint Germain and to visit the porcelain potteries at
Sevres. He went to the great cemeteries Pere la Chaise and
Montmartre and to the royal burying-place at St. Denis. With
Mr. and Mrs. Matterson he drove about the city and through

352 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the new park, Bois de Boulogne, " new to me," he wrote, " and
as beautiful as new." It was a royal forest, turned over to the
city on condition that it be improved as a park.
His friend De Tocqueville was in Paris issuing another edi
tion of his book, " Democracy in America." They at once re
newed their former pleasant relations. They dined and visited
together, discussed questions of government and prison dis
cipline. The Emperor Napoleon Third was in power. De
Tocqueville did not conceal his dislike for him. He was the son
of Queen Hortense, daughter of Josephine. She had married,
against her own wish, Louis Bonaparte, a younger brother of
Napoleon, afterwards King of Holland. There was talk of the
illicit relations between Hortense and the Dutch Admiral
Verhuel and the Emperor was said to be the offspring. Alex
ander Walewski, the Minister of War, was the reputed son
of Napoleon First. De Tocqueville called it the " government
of the bastards." Queen Hortense, a beautiful woman, en
dowed with many of the charming traits of her mother, had
thrown herself open to these charges by some indiscreet con
duct although her subsequent life refuted them as slanders.
After her husband had become alienated from his brother,
Napoleon First, and been deprived of his crown, Hortense sepa
rated from him and retired to Switzerland, where she died
twenty-eight years later. Her husband survived her nine
years. Her son, Napoleon III, was only two years old at the
time of their separation.
Sumner himself had not been favorably impressed with
Walewski, the Minister of War; whose reception he attended.
He noticed his resemblance to his reputed father, Napoleon I.
When Sumner spoke to him of the French Secretary at Wash
ington and commended him warmly, Walewski coldly an
swered him that the Secretary could not wait the slow course
of his diplomatic career but was to pass into the consular
service whence he could not repass, because he had married
a wife without fortune. The Secretary had married a daughter
of Thomas H. Benton, a United States Senator from Missouri
aud the author of " Thirty Years in Congress." She was a sister
of the wife of John C. Fremont, whose romantic marriage and
loyal devotion to her husband had been one of the inspirations
of the recent Presidential campaign. Fremont and his wife
had called to pay their respects to Sumner, at the home of
John Jay in New York, the evening before he sailed for Europe.
It is hardly to be wondered that Sumner should point with an
exclamation his memorandum of the degradation of the French
Secretary, on account of such a marriage.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 353
Sumner was intimate at the time of this visit with Michael
Chevalier, who was sent some years before to examine the rail
roads and waterways of the United States. He published the
results of his investigations upon his return to France. He was
a writer upon economic and political questions ; and was cordial
to Sumner from the first and showed him many attentions, en
tertained him and introduced him at the learned societies.
Another friend was Alexander Vattemare, a connoisseur,
whose specialty was the international exchange of duplicate
books and works of art. With him Sumner repeatedly dined
and drove. De Tocqueville asked Sumner to drive to meet the
granddaughter of Lafayette, Mademoiselle Corcelle. With
Vattemare he visited Lafayette's grave in Picpus Cemetery, a
small burying-ground in the suburbs of Paris, where nO
common dust was permitted to lie, all who were buried there
being of the ancient nobility of France. Vattemare also took
him to a creche, where the little children of laborers were kept
during the day.
He met Guizot, the historian, at breakfast, by invitation of
N. W. Senior, one of Sumner's English friends and correspond
ents, who was now in Paris. At this breakfast were also De
Tocqueville and Lord Granville. Guizot afterwards expressed
to M. Vattemare, a desire to receive Sumner and they called on
him together. They found the historian in a small room whose
walls were covered with books, except where there was a space
for four pictures, Washington's and Hamilton's being two of
them. Guizot remarked to Sumner that no other nation had
been cradled by men of such high character as the United
States. Sumner was impressed with the appearance of Guizot,
whom he described as "prepossessing and his conversation
eloquent." Guizot expressed to Sumner his sympathy for him
and his own opposition to slavery.
Sumner's health seemed to improve, but he was still far
from being well. The new scenes and faces, with the excite
ment of travel, withdrew his mind from the excitement and
worries of his official position and the events in which he had
been absorbed. But a little unusual exertion brought the old
sense of weariness and want of strength and obliged him to
seek his bed. Time and again the diary which he kept ends the
day with some reference to it, " home, weary, very weary," the
opera, " left before it was over to get home, to go to bed," or a
dinner, "got home from as soon as he could, without going
elsewhere." Added to this now was the cold he had contracted.
For whole days in succession he kept his room, except when he
felt obliged to go out to keep engagements previously made.

354 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Some days he was not out at all. The week commencing April
twenty-first, he spent almost entirely in the house.
On the twenty-eighth of April, he received from the Amer
ican merchants residing in Paris, as the agents, on that side of
the Atlantic, of their American houses, a letter asking him to
accept a public dinner, as a testimonial of their admiration of
his character and services. Two days later he declined the
honor. The reference to himself in his answer is important as
showing the condition of his health and his own explanation
of his reasons for coming to Europe :
" I am admonished," he wrote, " by the state of my health,
which is yet far from its natural vigor, that I must not listen
to it, except to express my gratitude. In making this excuse
let me fortify myself by the confession that I left home mainly
to withdraw from the excitement of political life and particu
larly from all public speaking, in the assurance that by such
withdrawal, accompanied by that relaxation which is found in
change of pursuit, my convalescence would be completed. The
good physician under whose advice I have acted would not
admit that by crossing the sea I had been able at once to alter
all the conditions under which his advice was given."
Both the letter and the answer were published in Galignani's
Messenger, a Parisian newspaper printed in English. The
publication called forth a letter to the newspaper from a Vir
ginia planter, also present in Paris, in which the writer in
sisted that the purpose of Sumner's trip was not health, but to
organize in Paris and London systematic agitation against
American slavery and characterized the action of the American
merchants in tendering the dinner as "this pseudo-patriotic
partisanship, this unfraternal display of their sectional colors
in a foreign land." The letter showed the feeling with which
Sumner was regarded by the slave-holding interest and how his
movements were watched. It showed too something of unkind-
ness when exhibited towards a sick man and those who were,
in his infirmity, offering him an attention that they thought
his services deserved.
At the Institute, on May second, he heard Francois Mignet,
the historian of the French Revolution of 1789, lecture on
Lakanal, who for twenty-two years had been a resident of the
United States, and for a time President of the University of
Louisiana. Mignet made some sallies in his lecture against life
in the United States. Upon returning to his room, Sumner
wrote Mignet, in kindly tone, taking exception to these remarks,
insisting that the conditions he referred to only obtained in
certain localities, and that it was not fair to condemn the whole

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 355
country for the faults of only a part. The letter called forth a
visit from Mignet to Sumner, two days later, in which Mignet
expressed satisfaction at the stand Sumner took in his letter.
A year later Mignet complimented Sumner with a ticket to his
lecture on Schelling, the German philosopher. Their friend
ship continued. They talked together of history and literature.
Alphonse De Lamartine, the poet, historian and statesman,
was another illustrious Frenchman, whose acquaintance and
friendship Sumner enjoyed at this time. He was a brilliant
writer and in the Revolution of 1848 had taken a prominent
part and by his eloquence, on more than one occasion, had
prevented anarchical outbreaks. He thus acquired much
popularity. He was the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the
Provisional Government and was nominated for the Presidency
of the Republic be had done so much to create, but his popu
larity had waned; the Republic not proving so great a boon
as had been expected and being blamed for having precipitated
it, he received but few votes. " Nobody," he said to Sumner,
" could anticipate the future of France. With a people so
changeable, nothing was certain but change." He had realized
this in his own career. Sumner and Lamartine met several
times in company; they dined together and exchanged calls
and he invited Sumner to visit him at his country home.
These I have mentioned do not comprehend all the people
Sumner met, but they are the names that occur most frequently
in his diary and letters; nor have I mentioned all his employ
ments or all the places of interest he visited, during his stay
in Paris. My purpose has been to show how he employed his
time, the character of his friends and the nature of his recrea
tions. From what has been said, it will be seen, that the tastes
of his young manhood still prevailed. His love remained for
pictures and statuary, for magnificent buildings, beautiful
parks, royal palaces, places of historic interest, what was rare
and curious in art or architecture or nature. His relish for
travel continued. And he liked historic characters, men of
worth and attainments. He especially enjoyed the society of
the authors and scholars ; but it is not recorded that he more
than once, while in Paris, entered a legislative hall, and only
once a court-room, and then with the expectation of hearing
Mairie, a member of the Provisional Government of the
Republic, try a case. But the suit was continued. All in all,
it was a pleasant recreation, mingling rest and improvement,
with the hope of health, by thus withdrawing the mind from
its accustomed labor and excitements.
He drove with the Appletons to St. Cloud where they dined

356 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
in the open air, while listening to the music of a band, May 23.
That evening he packed his trunk and the next day he left
Paris for a tour of the provinces, hoping that a change might
bring improvement. He wished to see France elsewhere than
at Paris, where he had been for two months. He reached
Orleans on his journey, about noon of a beautiful day after a
ride through a charming country. Here he spent the after
noon, visited the chateau where Bolingbroke lived during his
exile from England, walked through some of the old streets
and saw the house of the great French jurist Pothier and his
monument at the Cathedral. In the evening he went on by
rail to Blois, where he rambled about, till wearied. After
wards he attended a concert. The next morning he was awak
ened early by the sunlight streaming into his room and rising,
he dressed and from his window looked out upon the smooth-
gliding waters of the Loire and the sleepy canal. By seven he
started in a carriage to visit the castles at Chambord, at Am-
boise and at Chenonceaux, three of the most famous castles in
France. He returned to Amboise for dinner and then went by
rail to Tours.
The next day he went to its museum, its library, its Cathedral
and rambled about its old streets. In the neighborhood he also
visited the Agricultural and Penitentiary Colony at Mettray.
It was the reform school for boys, upon the family system,
founded in 1840 by Frederic Augusta Demetz, whose acquaint
ance at Paris, Sumner had made in 1838. He was then a
Judge of the Royal Court of Paris, but resigned that posi
tion to give his life to this work. The institution he founded
and conducted has been a model for many in Europe and Amer
ica. He continued at the head of it from its foundation in
1840 until his death in 1873 and when he died, he directed
that his heart should be buried there, though his body was
buried at Dourdan. Sumner watched the boys in confinement,
running about in their wooden shoes and was impressed with
the earnestness with which Demetz defended their use, saying
that he wore them himself about the yard in winter, that they
protected his feet against dampness better than rubber ones.
Early the next morning he left Tours for Nantes by rail,
stopping at Angers to visit its museum and library and chateau,
seeing en route the old castle of Giles de Rais, a powerful
Baron, infamous for the number of his wives and his de
baucheries, believing in sorcery and ruining young persons
of both sexes that he might attach them to himself; after
wards himself burned to death for his crimes. On his life,
hangs the story of Blue Beard.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 357
From Nantes, Sumner returned to Tours and went thence
by way of Poitiers and Angouleme to Bordeaux, stopping to
visit these antiquated towns and the romantic castles on his
road, travelling much by carriage and meeting the ordinary
experiences of a traveller. At Dax he met a Frenchman at
breakfast who insisted upon knowing his age and his business.
At Pau he enjoyed the Pyrenees, capped with snow on June
third. He travelled thence to Eaux Bonnes, a fashionable re
sort, on the outside of a diligence, the road constantly ascend
ing a mountain pass, by the side of a rushing stream, his
companion a priest. Arrived there he tasted the waters and
took the baths, and the next day mounted on horseback, with
a guide also on horseback, his trunk strapped on the back
of another horse led by a man on foot, he was off by six in
the morning over the mountains to Argelles where he ar
rived by five p. M., "weary, very weary," and gave up going
farther to rest at the pleasant inn. But he passed a night
sleepless from fatigue and was troubled to find how little he
could bear now, compared with that insensibility to fatigue,
which he had once enjoyed. He was obliged to give up trav
elling by horseback and from Argelles to Toulouse he went by
carriage or coach.
From Toulouse he went to Carcassonne, the finest walled
town in France. A day he spent in Montpellier, then a day in
Dijon and another at Fontainebleau. Here he went through the
royal palace, a favorite residence of Napoleon, in whose chapel
was pronounced the decree of divorce from Josephine ; in whose
court, he kissed the French eagle and bade farewell to his Old
Guard, on his banishment to Elba; and within whose walls he
signed his abdication after the defeat at Waterloo, when his
career ended and he left France forever for St. Helena. Here
too was signed the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by which
Henry IV had granted religious toleration to the French Prot
estants. Sumner drove through the forest containing thirty-
five hundred acres belonging to the palace and the same day he
rode on to Paris, thirty-two miles and was back in his old lodg
ings at Rue de la Paix, after an absence of eighteen days.
He remained five days in Paris and, on June 16, left for
England. He reached London by ten p. m. and the next day,
the first friend he met was Joseph Parkes, author of a history
of the Court of Chancery, now taxing master of the Court of
Exchequer. They dined together; and the next day he saw
Monckton Milnes, M. P., afterwards Lord Houghton, and so
for seven weeks he spent his time in London, renewing old
friendships.

358 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
The nineteen years that had passed since his first visit had
wrought many changes. He was then a young man of promise,
filled with high hopes, abounding in health and an enthusiastic
student. He was introduced by Judge Story and other friends
to the best circles of English society and his merits had jus
tified what they had said of him. But it was character only he
had to offer. He brought nothing of achievement. Now he
came a man of ripe judgment, bringing sheaves gathered in
the rough struggle of the years. The promise of the first visit
had become the realization of the next. He was now one of the
historic men of his country. But time had left its marks upon
him. He was broken in health, unable to work, he felt like an
old man worn out and in search of health. Instead of delight
ing in exertion and incapable of fatigue, he faltered in his steps
and in the midst of the most ordinary effort, was often obliged
to seek his bed and rest. His condition was a source of regret
to friends who remembered him as'he was before.
On the other hand he saw the change these years had wrought
in his friends. Monckton Milnes was " much altered since he
knew him." He passed some time with Lord Brougham, " very
kind but old." Lord Macaulay was " so altered he did not know
him." His old friend Robert M. Rolfe, who was then Solicitor-
General, had grown gracefully gray and was now Baron Cran-
worth and the Lord Chancellor of England. He dined with
him again and there met the grand-daughter of Lord Byron.
But Mrs. Norton, he wrote, was " as beautiful as ever."
It would be unprofitable to follow him in the round of social
entertainments. His former friends were glad to see him and
it seemed like an awakening of pleasant memories for them to
pass the hours together. Older grown, with less of hope and
more of care and of the stern realities of life upon them, it was
a relief to recall the earlier days. He made some new friends,
who were equally kind, among them William E. Gladstone and
John Bright and the Duke of Westminster and Wilberforce,
the Bishop of Oxford, by all of whom he was entertained.
The extent of his entertainment during the seven weeks in
London may be seen from an enumeration of some of the places
he went and the persons he met. He breakfasted with Senior,
where he met Lords Glenelg and Hatherton, Earl Fortescue,
M. de Lesseps and Merimee, the novelist and historian. He
declined an invitation to stay at Stafford House, preferring
the greater freedom of quarters of his own. The Duchess of
Sutherland took him to the Crystal Palace. He breakfasted
with the Duke of Argyle and met there Lord Aberdeen. He
dined with Lord Granville and met Lord Clarendon. He at-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 359
tended a great party at Lansdowne House and was again at
Senior's with Lord and Lady Monteagle and Reeve, the editor
of the Edinburgh Review and translator of De Tocqueville's
" Democracy in America ". He breakfasted at Lansdowne
House, where he was seated next to Lord John Russell, the head
of the British Foreign Office during our Civil War. He dined
with Lord Hatherton, where were the Archbishop of Canter
bury, Lord Lansdowne and the Duke and Duchess of Argyle. He
breakfasted with Lord Hatherton with Tocqueville, Senior and
Lord Aberdeen. He was the guest at dinner of the Benchers of
the Inner Temple. He lunched at Argyle Lodge and after it
the Duke and Duchess took him to Professor Owen, the
naturalist, in Richmond Park. He took dinner with Mr.
Ellice, M. P., where he met Mr. Dallas, the United States
Minister, and his family. He lunched at Stafford House,
where he met Dr. Whewell, Master of Trinity. He dined with
Mr. Sterling, where were Lord Lansdowne, Mr. Ellice, Lady
Molesworth and Mrs. Norton. He declined an invitation to
dine with the Law Amendment Society of Greenwich, with
Lord Brougham in the chair. He passed a Sunday at Cliveden,
the villa of the Duchess of Sutherland, with the Bishop of
Oxford, Gladstone, Labouchere, afterwards Lord Taunton, and
wife and the Duke and Duchess of Argyle. Lady Labouchere
took Sumner and Gladstone to her place, Stoke, where he
visited the grave of Gray, the poet, and the manor house where
Sir Edward Coke died. He walked with Gladstone two miles
to the railroad and enjoyed his conversation. He dined with
Lord Brougham and met Lord Chancellor Cranworth, Lord
Chief Justice Campbell, Lord Clanricarde, Lord Shaftesbury,
Lord Aberdeen, Lord Brougham, Lord Glenelg, Duke of Wel
lington, the Bishop of Oxford, Sir John Stevens and Mr.
Parks. . He breakfasted at Henry Reeves, with the Due de Ne
mours, Due d'Aumale, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Lord
Stanley, Lord Hatherton. He dined with Mr. Parkes, where he
met Jared Sparks, the historian, and Charlotte Cushman, the
actress. He was made an honorary member by the Reform and
Travellers' Clubs. He dined at Lord Belper's with Lord Mac
aulay. At Dr. Lushington's seat he met Lady Trevelyan, " a
most agreeable sister of Macaulay." He dined with Lord
Wensleydale, where were the Lord Chancellor, Lord Lynd-
hurst and the Argyles. Lady Mary Fox took him to Holland
House, where there was a beautiful open air festival. He
attended a lunch at Grosvenor House, where the company
assembled in the magnificent gallery. On a Sunday, he went
to Richmond, to lunch with Lord John Russell, where in his

360 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
pleasant grounds he met other distinguished people. He
visited the Archbishop of Canterbury at Addington and spent
an afternoon with him.
And so the list runs on. These are not all but they are suffi
cient to show the attention Sumner received and the wonderful
number of his friendships among the really great people of
England. His English acquaintance was always a source of
pride to him. The doors of such houses in every country open
slowly to strangers and it is evidence of his worth that he was
so generally and heartily received.
The attentions paid him were a tax upon his strength.
They withdrew his thoughts from his condition and from
things at home, and so far their effect was beneficial; but the
continual round of excitement was too great. He found him
self obliged to decline invitations he would have been glad to
accept and always to observe moderation in his exertions.
But he afterwards realized that he had gone too far.
Aside from these social engagements he spent the time in
London quietly. He did not undertake general sight-seeing.
He visited the Tower, Westminster Abbey, the British Museum
and the picture galleries, but this was the extent of it. His
interest was rather in men. He attended sessions in the House
of Commons and the House of Lords and listened to speeches
of the members. He was more in their society and less in the
society of members of the bar, than in 1838. His career in the
Senate accounted for this; his fame had preceded him among
Members of Parliament and they sought his acquaintance.
He left London on August fifth, for the home of De Tocque
ville, an interesting chateau three or four centuries old, near
Cherbourg, where his friend made him comfortable, telling
him it was not necessary to wear a white cravat at dinner, as the
country life of France was less formal than in England, etc.
The next morning he spent walking over De Tocqueville's
private grounds. In the afternoon they drove together to the
village and chateau of St. Pierre, situated in a beautiful park,
the ancestral home of the Abbe St. Pierre, well known for his
story of " Paul and Virginia." They were home to dinner, by
seven o'clock, and passed the evening watching the ladies play
billiards. The day following, the British consul at Cherbourg,
came over with his two daughters, to pass the day and De
Tocqueville drove the party to the village of Barfleur and to
the surrounding heights, where they could have good views of
the country. The excursion was pleasant, but was interrupted
by a shower, which caught and wet the whole party. On the
fourteenth De Tocqueville drove Sumner to Cherbourg where

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 3d
they were taken to visit the breakwaters and the docks and the
harbor, constructed at great cost by Napoleon I, with navy
yards and dry-docks and impregnable fortifications. They
dined with the British consul, who invited some friends to
meet them. In the evening, after a pleasant stay of three days,
he returned through Bayeux and Caen, to Paris, where he
arrived on the sixteenth of August.
He found the family of Hamilton Fish had just arrived
from New York, and visited them in the evening and dined
with them the next day. But on August nineteenth, he left
Paris again for a trip to Turin in Italy. Here he turned
back, crossing the Alps again at Great St. Bernard, spending
a nightat the hospice with the monks and their dogs on the
mountains, tarrying at Geneva and Lausanne and Heidelberg,
and descending the Rhine, reached London September nine
teenth. His purpose was to pay some visits he had promised
to make in the North, before his return to America.
The evening of his arrival in London, he went to Walton,
eighteen miles away, to visit Russell Sturges. The next day
he returned to the city and went to spend a night with the
Lord Chancellor, Cranworth, at his country place, Holwood,
in Kent, once the home of William Pitt. Here he found his
old friend of nineteen years before, Henry Hallam, the his
torian. He spent part of the next day with Hallam and found
time was making sad inroads upon him. He was very weak,
unable to walk. It was to be their last meeting.
Sumner went from London northward, stopping at Man
chester to see an exposition then in progress, to which he was
admitted to a private view on Sunday.
He left Manchester September twenty-ninth to visit Harriet
Martineau, at Ambleside, in the Lake region. Her house was
an ivy-clad, cottage, called The Knoll, situated at the edge of
the village and near the head of Windermere, the largest and
most picturesque of the succession of beautiful lakes, in which
the region abounds. The scenery was rugged and wooded,
interlaced with deep ravines, leading down streams of spark
ling water over beautiful falls and dancing eddies into the lake.
Clusters of little islands rose out of the smooth surface of the
lake, showing with their cottages, pretty glimpses of shade and
lawn. The region was sprinkled with homes of people, who
loving nature had added their work and frequently the charm
of their names to her profusion to make the region still more
attractive. Miss Martineau he had known since 1835. They met when
she was travelling in the United States, preparatory to writing

362 , LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
her " Society in America ". She was then attracted to the sub
ject of slavery and had become an abolitionist and continued
her interest in the subject till it finally prevailed. She did not
hesitate to lend the aid of her pen to the cause, even to the prej
udice of her popularity as an author. Sumner, at the time he
first made her acquaintance, had not shown an unusual in
terest in the subject, though she noted him as strongly dis
approving the conduct of the pro-slavery mobs and resolved to
set his face against such demonstrations. After the commence
ment of his career she followed him with sympathetic inter
est and when they met in London, he promised to visit her at
The Knoll. He was now redeeming this promise.
He spent a day and evening there, discussing old friends
and anti-slavery affairs in America. He went from there to
Westhoe Hall, at South Shields to visit Robert Ingham, stop
ping by the way for a couple of hours at Brougham Hall, where
he had visited in 1838, and where he was pressed to stay longer
now but declined, promising to stop, however, on his return.
Robert Ingham who for twenty-five years represented South
Shields in Parliament, after being educated at Oxford and
called to the bar, though not brilliant, either in his profession
or in Parliament, was a man of great worth and kindness of
heart. When he retired from Parliament, his friends by pub
lic subscription built an infirmary as a fitting testimonial to
his character. Sumner wrote him that " such a monument
was better than a statue." Though Sumner's senior in years,
a warm friendship had grown up between them on his former
trip and they had since corresponded. The similarity of their
employments and their tastes drew them together, Sumner
appreciating Ingham's worth and Ingham sympathizing en
tirely with Sumner's work for Abolition. Sumner arrived at
Westhoe Hall Friday evening and remained until Monday.
The only entry he made in his diary, the day after his arrival
is : " Rambled about hoping to recognize old spots, which I
had known nineteen years ago ; company to dinner."
From Westhoe Hall, Sumner went for a day with Lord Chief
Justice Campbell. When Sumner knew him in 1838 he was the
Attorney-General ; and later he was Lord Chancellor. He is
well known for his Lives of the Chief Justices and the Lord
Chancellors. Sumner spent the day talking and walking with
him in his grounds and returned to Edinburgh in the evening.
He left Edinburgh, October eighth, to visit Edward Ellice
who represented Coventry in Parliament for more than forty
years and was at one time Secretary of War and, at another,
Joint Secretary of the Treasury. Sumner had also met him on

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 363
his former trip. He was now at Glenquoich, a distant retreat
in the midst of the Highland lakes and mountains. He went
by way of Rothesay and the Crinan and Caledonian Canals
to the mouth of Glengarry and then by gig and dog-cart to the
retreat of his host. He remained for two days in this romantic
region. " I am here," he wrote, " farther north then lona and Staffa,
beyond Morven and near the Isle of Skye, where Flora Mac
donald sheltered Charles Edward. There is no family living
within forty or fifty miles of the friend whose guest I now am,
and whose estate stretches for miles and miles. In front of the
window at which I write are the hills of the immense posses
sions of Lochiel. I am away from American papers and with
out letters."
On October twelfth, early in the morning he set out for Dun-
robin Castle, the seat of the Duke of Sutherland. He reached
the Caledonian Canal by dogcart, at Fort Augustus. Thence
the steamer carried him through the canal to Inverness, be
fore dark. After dinner and a walk about the streets of the old
capital of the Highlands, he threw himself on a bed, at the
inn and rested till half-past eleven o'clock, when he took the
mail coach for an all-night ride. At eight o'clock the next
morning he reached Golspie, the nearest town to Dunrobin,
where he found a carriage from the Castle awaiting his arrival.
A farther ride of a mile brought him to his destination. He
immediately went to bed to recover his lost sleep and did not
appear till lunch at two o'clock. After lunch they walked in
the grounds and at the Duchess's request he planted a tree, a
Mount Atlas cedar. She was the sister of Lord Morpeth and
was Sumner's correspondent till her death in 1868. Sumner
•had met her in 1838 and was greatly impressed with her beauty
and her religious character. " She is," he wrote Judge Story,
" wonderfully beautiful ; I think even more so than Mrs. Nor
ton." She it was who brought Sumner and Gladstone together
and paved a way for the friendship between them.
Dunrobin Castle is an ancient seat, some parts of it having
been built as a fortress as early as 1097 and the estate with it-
comprises many acres. While Sumner was there, Lords Blan-
tyre, Grosvenor, Bagot and Stafford, with their wives, 'were also
guests at the Castle. They had dinner at eight o'clock and
afterwards, with the children, they engaged in a game of post,
a kind of blind man's buff. The next day they breakfasted at
ten and then rambled about the grounds. The Duke and some
of the family were going to Inverness and they all went aboard
the yacht to see them off; and afterward the Duchess with

364 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
four horses and an outrider drove them up the mountain to
enjoy the splendid atmosphere and the beautiful scenery. The
next morning there were prayers by the Duchess.
The custom of religious worship, one of the most beautiful
of the country, Sumner mentioned as commonly observed in
the great houses where he visited, daily prayers in the morn
ing attended by all the members of the great establishment,
from the highest to the lowest. They met in the great hall or
chapel and with bowed heads, in a simple service, led by the
head of the house or the lady, they acknowledged their depend
ence upon God and asked His guidance and His blessing. It
was a sincere acknowledgment and a touching admission by
those in high places, the heads of these houses, of their de
pendence upon another and a Higher Being, whose protection
was over all. By example, it taught those under them, humility
and obedience. It seemed nothing contributed more to the
spirit of contentment and happiness and love of order
so marked in the atmosphere of these great establishments,
than this simple and heartfelt exercise of religion.
On leaving the Duchess drove Sumner four miles to his
steamer; and he went on by way of Burghhead, Elgin, Keith
and Old Meldrum to Haddo House, the seat of the Earl of Aber
deen. The Queen had only left her Highland home, Balmoral
Castle, nearby, the day before. The family were alone and
Sumner spent the next day, Saturday, with the Earl, viewing
his grounds and in a visit to Balmoral Castle. Sunday they
went to the kirk, two miles away, in the morning, and heard
prayers and a Presbyterian sermon ; and he spent the remainder
of the day with the Earl quietly walking and talking.
He left Haddo House Monday morning and the same day
reached Sir William Stirling's place at Keir, for dinner and " a
pleasant evening." Wednesday morning, Sumner left Keir
by the post for Callander and passing through the Trossachs,
he crossed Loch Katrine in an open boat and, in this country
of alternate rain and sunshine, he recorded that he encountered
two severe rain squalls, in the short passage of ten miles.
The author remembers retracing with his wife the route fol
lowed by Sumner. They fell in with three bright and interest
ing Scottish girls as fellow travellers, on the little steamer, on
Loch Lomond. They were each armed with a heavy plaid, a
stout staff and strong shoes, and were bound on an excursion
through Loch Lomond and Loch Katrine and to the top of Ben
Venue, and then back to Loch Lomond, all the way on foot,
except where the boats sailed. At Inversnaid, where the boat
was left, waiting to ride by coach to Loch Katrine, a distance

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 365
of six miles, they by walking got the start, but were soon over
taken, in the midst of one of these violent squalls of rain, trudg
ing along at the side of the stone road, under their heavy plaids,
laughing at the rain. We saw them again at Stronachlacher
pier on Loch Katrine, none the worse of their walk or their
wetting, good-humoredly laughing at the "leaky weather" of
their country, but full of hearty love for its always fresh and
romantic scenery.
It is quite natural for the Scots to love their island home for
few countries have more picturesque and enchanting scenes.
The Lochs, Lomond and Katrine, are beautiful sheets of clear
water, embedded among hills and mountains and studded with
romantic islands covered with foliage which reaches down to the
water's edge. These mountains are not towering like the Alps,
for the highest, Ben Lomond, is little more than three thousand
feet in height; but they are covered with a dense growth of
small timber; kept green by constant showers and mists, and
rise roll above roll in all sorts of fantastic shapes, producing
a charming effect to the eye. There are romantic glens and
waterfalls and prim little villages, which dot the sides of the
lakes and frowning headlands and ivy grown walls, which
call to recollection scenes of dim days that are past. It is a
region of romance, sprinkled over with all sorts of interesting
legends. Sumner easily loitered among such scenes.
After passing through Loch Katrine, he drove to Inversnaid
on Loch Lomond and then went down the lake to Tarbert,
then by post through Glencoe to Inverary Castle, the seat of
the Duke of Argyll, the head of the Scottish family of Camp
bell, where he arrived on the evening of October twenty-first.
The Duke and Duchess were expecting him. She was the
daughter of the Duchess of Sutherland whom Sumner had just
visited at Dunrobin Castle and a niece of his friend, formerly
Lord Morpeth, now Earl of Carlisle, whom he was soon to visit.
They were all Sumner's friends and correspondents and con
tinued so until they were separated by death. They were ar
dently anti-slavery in sentiment and their letters to Sumner
were frequent and full of encouragement. During the Civil
War, the Duke of Argyll, whom he was now visiting, was a
member of the British Government and the only one who could
be said to be entirely in sympathy with the North.
Sumner remained at Inverary Castle two days. The first
was spent in driving with the Duke and Duchess through the
forests and plantations of Inverary; the second he planted, at
their request two trees, an oak and a pine. Both grew, and
years afterwards were mentioned in their correspondence, as

366 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
pleasant reminders of his visit. He went with the family, to
the other side of Loch Fyne, on which the Castle is situated,
to visit the children of the Duke and Duchess, who happened
to be from home. The third day he bade them good-bye and
went on to Glasgow.
From Glasgow he went to Penrith to visit Lord Brougham.
His carriage was waiting for him, at the station and in it he
reached Brougham Hall early in the afternoon. After lunch,
he and Lord Brougham, walked together, and later Lady
Brougham took him to drive through Lowther Park. Several
guests were present for dinner and spent the evening. Sumner
was interested in a death mask of Pitt, which Lord Brougham
had among his art treasures. He presented Sumner with a
colored print of Edmund Burke as a youth, a copy of a picture
by Reynolds, which Sumner retained till his death and then be
queathed to the Boston Art Museum.
He left Brougham Hall the next morning to visit W. E. Fos
ter, M. P., near Leeds. He and John Bright and Richard Cob-
den were the three members of the House of Commons who
stood by the North, in the American Civil War. They had al
ready been watching events in the United States with inter
est. Sumner reached Wharfside, the home of Foster in the
afternoon. Edward Baines of the Leeds Mercury was invited
to dine with him and several guests were present at breakfast
the next morning. At eleven o'clock, he left Wharfside.
He went to Castle Howard, near Malton, the seat of the
Earl of Carlisle, stopping on the way at York long enough
to see its famous Minster.
Sumner spent three days at Castle Howard. Only the mem
bers of the Earl's family were there, his mother now disabled
by paralysis and near her death, his sister Lady Caroline Las-
celles, and her three daughters all at the time unmarried, and
Lady Elizabeth Grey, another sister, and her husband Rev.
Francis Grey. The days were all pretty much the same. Sum
ner and the Earl were warm friends ; neither had married and
so the cares of a family had never separated them. The long
years since they met had been covered by a frequent corre
spondence and each had followed the career of the other, so
that now .they had many things to talk over. And it was in
walking and talking and rambling about the Castle, viewing the
pictures together that the time was spent. The Castle had a
celebrated collection of paintings by Titian, Rubens, Reynolds
and other masters, sculptures, bronzes, tapestries and old glass
and a beautiful park. At the Earl's request Sumner, soon after

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 367
this, sent him a crayon portrait of himself by William W.
Story which still hangs in the Castle.
Morpeth wrote of their intimacy: "In our past hours of
friendly intercourse, in our frequent walks by the sparkling
estuary of Boston, or upon the sunny brow of Bunker Hill, how
little did I, how little did he, I feci well assured, dream of
such an opening upon his quiet and unostentatious career ! "
And Sumner left a record of their friendship, when he wrote
his brother, Charles Howard, after tlie Earl's death : " Let me
confess that from the beginning I felt for him a peculiar friend
ship, and he seemed to feel the same for me. While I was an
invalid his sympathy was complete and constant. I cannot for
get his letters then. For more than a quarter of a century this
friendship has been to me a treasure and a solace. It is now
gone; and England with which he was so much associated in
my mind, seems to me less England than before."
Sumner left Castle Howard on the morning of October thirty-
first, Lord Carlisle rising early to see him off and his brother-
in-law Mr. Grey accompanying him as far as Manchester. He
crossed the country by Crewe to Stafford, where he took a fly
and drove six miles to Lord Hatherton's seat, Teddesley Hall.
The next day, Sunday, they drove to service in the parish church
at Penkridge; and in the afternoon he and Lord Hatherton
walked to see his farm, his Hereford cattle and his draining.
After dinner, at the close of the evening, all the domestics,
twenty-five or thirty in number, with the family, assembled in
the dining-room and Lady Hatherton read prayers and a short
sermon. Monday came, a rainy, dismal second of November, when all
parties were glad to keep themselves housed closely in from
the weather. How the cold wet day, late in autumn, with
falling leaves and seared meadows and other evidence of ap
proaching winter seemed to chill every living thing about the
great house and make all cling to shelter with hearty, though
secret thanksgiving for such a protection from the storm ! All
forenoon they remained close indoors at Teddesley Hall; but
in the afternoon, the clouds broke and Sumner, with Lady
Hatherton and a company of others went to Stafford where,
following his interest in prison discipline they visited the jail,
kept under the direction of a governor, who was formerly a
major in the army. The governor had besides the recommenda
tion, more appreciated in England than America, of belonging
to an old family. They also visited the house where Isaac Wal
ton was born. Though dead two hundred years the abounding
grace and simplicity of his " Compleat Angler," dear to lovers

368 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
of quiet life, seemed still to cast a spell around the quaint and
quiet town. After strolling about the streets they returned to
the Hall and in the evening, the governor of the jail with a
Captain Mackinnon, an acquaintance of Sumner, came in for
dinner. The next day he left Stafford to spend an evening with
John Bright at Landudno, near Conway, in Wales. He
reached Landudno in the evening, just at dark, and in the rain.
Bright had engaged rooms for him at the hotel, as his guest
and they spent the evening till eleven o'clock talking of health
and politics. The next morning was an enjoyable one spent
with Bright. From the acquaintance, made by Sumner with
Bright while on this European trip, sprung a lifetime friend
ship. They became correspondents and so continued till Sum
ner's death. The intimacy was of importance to Sumner's
country. Bright was one of the great men of his generation
and a powerful orator. Being a leader in Parliament, the con
stant interchange of letters between himself and Sumner, who
was for many years the chairman of the Committee on Foreign
Relations and one of the greatest orators of the Senate, aided
mightily to keep the hearts of the two great English-speaking
nations right towards each other.
From Bright, Sumner went to visit the other great Com
moner, William E. Gladstone, at Hawarden, near Chester. He
arrived on the afternoon of November fourth. The thick
misty weather, so common in England during this season of the
year and which he had been encountering for some days, still
continued. But notwithstanding, Gladstone took him over his
grounds and to show him the ruin of the old Castle. Gladstone
was at the time engaged on some volumes on Homer and the
conversation turning upon that subject they found themselves
in a field congenial by early studies to both. Sumner had spent
many years in the atmosphere of Harvard; while Gladstone
had attained an unusual distinction at Oxford and for a num
ber of years represented her in Parliament. Sumner found in
him the same eloquent conversation which he had before ad
mired. Similarity of tastes and of employment furnished them
many topics of common interest and the hours passed easily
between them. The next morning, the rain still continuing,
Gladstone took him to drive through the Park.
Sumner found Chester one of the most interesting cities
in England ; many of its buildings very old and in the restora
tions made great care was taken to preserve their ancient ap
pearance so that it presented the appearance of a well-kept city
of the Middle Ages. He visited the Cathedral dating from 1200

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 36g
and walked along the top of the city wall which afforded the
best means of obtaining a general view of the city. It lies
at the mouth of the river Dee, a small stream not sufficiently
large for ocean-going vessels yet with small crafts furnishing
an infinite amount of pleasure to its people. In numbers, in
pleasant weather, they gathered along its banks, in the shade of
" The Grove." Its old mill lazily ground away by the river
side, as perhaps it had done for centuries. Here and there in
its neighborhood where its wheels churned the water into foam
there was seated some ancient angler intent upon his sport,
just as perhaps there had been for a thousand years or more of
the history of the quaint old town. It was altogether one of the
attractive scenes of the home-life of " Merry England."
At Chester Sumner drove to Eaton Hall, the seat of the
Marquis of Westminster, where he had been invited to visit.
He arrived before lunch. The Marchioness met him, on his
arrival, and showed him through the house, and hospitably took
him to his room. It was again drizzling rain, but, not
withstanding, Sumner visited the gardens and the stables; for
aside from the beauty of its architecture the palace was justly
famed for its flowers and its horses. At dinner were several
persons of distinction, besides the daughters of his host, gentle,
well-educated young ladies, sensible and unspoiled by their
position. It was two o'clock in the afternoon when he reached the
Adelphi Hotel in Liverpool where he found Richard Rathbone
had been waiting for him several hours. Sumner's oration on
the " True Grandeur of Nations " had fallen into his hands and
he had it reprinted and circulated, by the Peace Society of
Liverpool. Some correspondence and an acquaintance between
them followed. He took Sumner to see the city and afterwards
to his home for dinner, where Sumner remained for the night.
At eleven the next morning, Mr. Rathbone drove him to his
hotel and then to the pier, and at three p. m. of November
seventh, Saturday, he sailed for home.
The voyage was not a rough one, the first days were even
pleasant; but Sumner suffered, as ever, from sea-sickness, so
that November seventeenth, ten days after starting, when they
touched at Halifax, he wrote that he had not taken a single
meal at the table and that much of his time had been passed in
his stateroom. At Halifax he went ashore for a stroll, but he
soon returned to the ship. They set sail again November
eighteenth and, by four p. m. of November nineteenth, reached
the wharf, " the day pleasant, the harbor of Boston beautiful,"
he wrote. And so to the wanderer, in search of health, after

370 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
eight months of absence, looking forward eagerly to the re
sumption of his duties, must have seemed a port even less beau
tiful than Boston.
Sumner was met on his arrival at the pier in Boston by his
colleague Henry Wilson, with N. P. Banks, who had recently
been elected Governor of Massachusetts. They drove him in
their carriage to his mother's home, where a crowd had gathered
in the street, to see him. In answer to their call, he spoke a
few words of thanks, before entering the house. The next
evening he attended a lecture by Banks to the Mechanics' Ap
prentice Association, where his appearance occasioned loud
applause, which continued until he was obliged to speak a few
words to the audience. Soon after, when he attended the
inauguration of the Governor, he was welcomed by an even
greater outburst. He was in his seat in Washington, when
Congress opened in December, where his Free-Soil associates
were glad to welcome him; but the pro-slavery members held
aloof. His presence was everywhere a happy omen to the
friends of Freedom. To all inquiries about his health, he
answered encouragingly, but his physicians still forbade him
taking an active part in the debates.
Congress this session was again occupied with the debate on
Kansas. Her fraudulent Legislature, meeting at Lecompton,
had drafted a constitution, containing a clause legalizing Slav
ery and it also had in it other provisions oppressive to the
Free State men. The people were not given an opportunity
to vote for the constitution or against the constitution. But if
they voted at all, they must vote for the constitution. Their
only privilege was to vote for the constitution with slavery, or
for the constitution without slavery. But if they voted it
without slavery, they voted it with all the other oppressive
provisions remaining. The Free State people naturally refused
to go near the trap that was thus laid for them and so, when
the election came, they declined to vote and the constitution
carried by a large majority, with slavery. President Buchanan
immediately on the opening of the session, sent a message to
Congress, urging the admission of the State with the Lecomp
ton constitution.
Douglas was a candidate for re-election to the Senate, for
his term was just expiring. Seeing that to support such a
bill as proposed would be fatal to his prospect of re-election, he
promptly opposed it with all the force of his forceful nature.
He cared not, he declared, whether the Constitution be voted
up or voted down, but he insisted the people of Kansas should
be allowed to vote for or against it. It was defeated in the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 371
Senate, where the Democrats were largely in the majority;
but in the House the result promised to be close. Wm. H.
English proposed an amendment, giving the people of the Ter
ritory a right to vote for or against the constitution, but
coupling with it a large grant of land if adopted and postpon
ing state-hood if rejected, thus holding up to the people of
Kansas a bribe to induce them to vote for the constitution with
slavery. The bill as amended passed both the House and the
Senate and was approved by the President. But when the
people of Kansas came to vote on the constitution they re
jected it by an overwhelming majority and thus the Free-
Soilers were victorious.
Perhaps never, in the history of this country, has the posi
tion of a public man attracted more attention than that of
Douglas in this contest. To this time he had been a Democratic
leader and a prominent candidate for the nomination for
President. He had made great sacrifices to secure the support
of the South ; but the South so far had only cultivated him,
as it had cultivated Webster, to destroy him. Believing that
the opposition of Douglas to the bill had defeated the admis
sion of Kansas as a slave state and the restoration of the
equality of the South in the Senate, a hot wave of popular
indignation, with all sorts of threats against Douglas, passed
over the South. The North cheered him. Many Abolitionists
belittled his act by interpreting it only as a bid for re-election
to the Senate and as showing no actual change of heart; but
realizing the good work he was doing, they smothered this
feeling. In the storm it was feared that Douglas would turn
back. Senator Broderick of California, equally as bold and
hardly less forceful in speech, who a year later was to give up
his life, in a duel with Judge Terry, a Southerner, over polit
ical differences, encouraged and supported Douglas. Douglas,
however, was not the man, having placed his hand to the plough,
to turn back; and he never did. The Republicans nominated
Abraham Lincoln against him for the Senate and the mem
orable Lincoln and Douglas debate followed. Douglas was
elected ; and Lincoln became President. But when the South
rebelled and the war came, the last blast from the famous old
trumpet of Douglas, that had led in so many fights, was lead
ing still, for the Union.
Sumner watched the struggle with a keen interest. None
had made greater sacrifices for this cause than he had done.
For had he not spent weary days of suffering, when death itself
would have been to him a relief? And the end of it was not
yet. He longed to take part in the debate. He felt that his

372 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
voice wanting would be noticed, in a cause for which he had
suffered so much. He wished for the ability to speak once
more with his old time vigor? He too mistrusted Douglas,
thought his motive selfish but was willing to try him, knowing
that he was essentially a partisan and if he once broke com
pletely with the Democrats he would necessarily come into the
camp of the Republicans. With his temperament, neutrality
would be impossible. But Sumner cautioned his friends that
Douglas had not reached their camp yet. He desired to hear
Douglas, speak upon the Kansas question, but he was forced
to deny himself even that ; his nervous organization was so sensi
tive that the excitement caused by a debate upon the question,
in which he felt such an interest, so affected him that he could
not endure it. Even the surroundings of the Senate were often
too much for him. Sitting there a weight seemed to over
spread his brain and he would be compelled to stagger out,
feeling like a man of ninety years.
He soon gave up all effort to sit in the Senate and arranged
that he should be called to vote upon important questions, but
otherwise to take no part in the proceedings. He passed his
time as quietly as possible, in his own room, reading, or in the
libraries and museums. He even spent part of his time as far
away as Philadelphia, New York and Boston, going to Wash
ington only when his vote was needed. His purpose was to
have politics as much as possible out of his mind and promote
his recovery by keeping himself quiet. He sought by other
studies to accomplish this purpose. With this view he com
menced the study of engravings, and devoted himself to it with
much diligence. He was thus employed during the winter of
1857-8, while in Washington at the Smithsonian Institute, in
New York at the Astor Library, and in Cambridge at the Har
vard Library, in all of which places there were considerable
collections of engravings. Thereafter he continued it, at such
times as his health permitted, till his complete recovery. The
subject, which thus solaced his hours of suffering, always after
retained a charm for him.
At the end of his life he recorded his own experience : " Look
ing at an engraving," he wrote, " like looking at a book, may be
the beginning of a new pleasure and a new study. Each per
son has his own story. Mine is simple. Suffering from con
tinued prostration, disabling me from the ordinary activities of
life, I turned to engravings for employment and pastime. With
the invaluable assistance of that devoted connoisseur, the late
Dr. Thies, I went through the Gray collection at Cambridge,
enjoying it like a picture gallery. Other collections in our

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 373
country were examined also. Then, in Paris, while under
going severe medical treatment, my daily medicine for weeks
was the vast cabinet of engravings then called Imperial, now
National, counted by the million, where was everything to
please or instruct. Thinking of these kindly portfolios, I
make this record of gratitude, as to benefactors. Perhaps
some other invalid, seeking occupation without burden, may
find in them the solace that I did."
He pursued the subject, with the same purpose and interest
that an art student would the study of paintings. To effec
tually withdraw his mind from politics he threw much
energy into it; so that he tired out others who undertook to
follow him, but were less enthusiastic than himself. He
sought to know what engravings had merit and what had none;
He pointed out that with two colors, black and white, and
the shading of one into the other, in the hands of a skilful
artist all the merits of a painting could be produced so that
the engraving presented to the eye the effect of colors. He
insisted that it required no less skill and artistic talent to
produce the one than the other. He studied the lives of the
engravers and pointed out that the best engravers had been
painters of equal merit. The engraver must have the same
knowledge of contours, the same sense of beauty and power
of expression, as the painter; and these qualities, with the
ability to use them, make the artist, whether painter or en
graver. Sumner in time acquired the skill to detect the qual
ities of an engraving with considerable accuracy; but, as with
paintings his ability in this direction always had its limitations.
He never acquired the ability, for example, as experts do, to de
termine, by an inspection, the place of an engraving in the
order of impressions. His purpose, however, was recreation.
But he soon found that with all he could do to avoid ex
citement, he was too close to the scene- of activities for a man
in his condition. Late in April while in Washington, in his
seat in the Senate, he suffered a relapse. The pressure upon
the brain returned with increased force, attended by pains in
the back along the spine and lameness in his legs so that he
could not rise from his chair, when sitting, without intense
effort and pain. This aggravated condition continued for a
month without any substantial improvement. There was no
apparent cause for it, but a slight over-exertion. His physi
cians were consulted and they advised him to go out of the
country again and away from excitement. Some of his col
leagues, Seward, Wilson and others who witnessed his con
dition and his total unfitness for work, joined in urging this

374 Life of charles sumner
advice upon him. Sorrowfully he yielded and again turned
his face towards Europe. His first purpose was to go to
Switzerland and get exercise on foot in the open air, commenc
ing with such moderate exertion as he could endure and in
creasing the amount daily as he hoped his strength would in
crease. He sailed on the ship Vanderbilt from New York,
bound for Havre, on the twenty-second day of May, 1858, just
two years after he received his injuries.
From the steamer, on the eve of his departure, he addressed
a letter to his constituents, the people of Massachusetts, in
which he explained to them the occasion and purpose of his
journey. He had been he said repeatedly encouraged by his
condition to believe himself almost well, but had been as often
disappointed. And now he was compelled to admit that in
juries so serious could not be readily cured. In the hope of
complete restoration by travel, he was now only following the
advice of his physician in going abroad again. He added :
"These valedictory words would be imperfect, if I did not
seize this occasion to declare, what I have often said less pub
licly, that, had I foreseen originally the duration of my dis
ability, I should at once have resigned my seat in the Senate,
making way for a servant more fortunate in the precious ad
vantages of health. I did not do so, because, like other in
valids, I lived in the belief that I was soon to be well, and was
reluctant to renounce the opportunity of again exposing the
hideous barbarism of slavery, now more than ever transfused
into the National Government, infecting its whole policy and
degrading its whole character. Besides I was often assured and
encouraged to feel, that to every sincere lover of civilization
my vacant chair was a perpetual speech."
His letters bear ample evidence that he made this trip to
Europe with great Teluctance and compelled by what seemed
absolute necessity, if he did not wish to pass the remainder of
his life as a confirmed invalid. From the English Channel,
before he left the ship he wrote : " I wish I were at home. It
is with real reluctance that I proceed on this pilgrimage; and
nothing but the conviction that it is the surest way to regain
my health would keep me in it. I long for work, and especially
to make myself felt again in our cause. The ghost of two
years already dead haunts me." And again a little later:
" It is with a pang unspeakable that I find myself thus ar
rested in the labors of life and in the duties of my position.
This is harder to bear than the fire. I do not hear of friends
engaged in active service, like Trumbull of Illinois, without
a feeling of envy."

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 375
His position was rendered more trying by Ihe insinuation of
Southern members, that his injuries were not severe and that
he was simply dallying away his time in European travel and
loitering in picture galleries, wliile giving out the impression
that he was a martyr to slavery, all for the studied purpose of
creating prejudice against their institution.
Chase wrote him: "It is amazing to see to what depths of
baseness sonic of the partisan presses in the interest of the Oli
garchy will descend. Not content with half vindications of
the assassination attempted upon you, several have bad the in
finite meanness to represent you as playing a part all the while
you have been suffering from the effects of the assault. When
will men learn decency?"
Sumner landed at Havre June 1, 1858, and went on to Paris
the next day, spending the night en route at Rouen. His pur
pose was to place himself under the care of some eminent
French physician. In the selection of one, he had the benefit
of the advice of Dr. George Hayward of Boston and of Mr.
Henry Woods, an American merchant residing in Paris, and
at their suggestion he saw Dr. Brown-Sequard, an eminent
specialist in nervous diseases. He made a careful examination
of Sumner on June 10, and announced that his trouble was
caused by the direct blows on the head and indirectly by the
reaction of these blows on the spinal cord, so that both the
brain and the spine were affected by inflammation and ef
fusion of fluid producing pressure upon both. Sumner, satis
fied with the diagnosis which had lasted three hours with al
ternate applications of ice and hot water to the injured parts, at
once asked the Doctor what remedy he would prescribe; to
which the answer was, fire. The Doctor's purpose was to pro
duce a counter-irritant and thus remove the inflamed and
unnatural condition. Sumner asked when tbe fire could be ap
plied and tho Doctor answered "To-morrow, if you please."
Sumner asked, "Why not this afternoon?" And the same
afternoon it was applied. The hope of regaining strength by
exercise was at once abandoned, as arising from an entire mis
conception of his case. He required absolute quiet instead of
exercise. The application was made by the mora. In other words an
inflammable substance, cotton-wood, was placed along the spine
and in that position it was set on fire at the top. The fire
burning downward, as the wood was consumed, the heat grad
ually increased till the back over the spine was burned to a
blister. The wound was then dressed and cared for till healed.
The applications were repeated till they had been made seven

376 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
times, always without chloroform or other drug to deaden the
pain. The Doctor proposed chloroform, but upon Sumner
asking if the treatment would more likely be successful with
out and being advised that it would, he promptly decided to
endure the treatment without it. His suffering was intense.
He sat in a chair during the first application, holding the back
of it with his hands and, in his agony, he wrenched the back
so severely that it was broken. The Doctor wrote : " I have
never seen a man bearing with such fortitude as Mr. Sumner
has shown the extremely violent pain of this kind of burning."
The treatment occupied six weeks, the Doctor visiting him
each day to dress his wounds or to renew the application of
the moxa. It was then discontinued to await the appearance
of its effects.
The moxa is used only in rare eases, where a powerful
counter-irritant is required. It causes such intense suffering
to the patient that its utility as a mode of relief has been
gravely questioned, because the effects of the remedy are often
disastrous. It is said that Dr. Brown-Sequard, seeing the ex
cruciating pain it caused Sumner, never applied it again, be
lieving the agony too great for the human body to endure. It
was during its application to Sumner, that he first experienced
the paroxysms of the disease of the heart, angina pectoris, that
fifteen years later caused his death. At first he did not realize
the nature of this new trouble, but supposed it to be a neuralgic
affection of the nerves of the chest, caused by sympathy with
the nerves of the spine. It was thought to reduce them by hot
baths and powerful internal remedies. But their recurrence
continued until his death. Thus the moxa by creating a power
ful counter-irritant removed the morbid condition of the brain
and spine, but it probably caused the angina pectoris.
It has been gravely questioned by some of Sumner's friends
whether the application of the moxa was not a mistake. They
have felt that some other treatment might have secured a cure
without the angina pectoris, which they believed was the result
of the treatment given. They may be right. But Sumner to
the day of his death, felt a grateful obligation to Dr. Brown-
. Sequard and was satisfied with the course followed. It must be
remembered that his injuries were of a very serious character
and that if a cure was to be had at all, which for a long time
was doubtful, it could hardly be expected without leaving some
traces behind it. As it was, from a condition of helplessness,
which permitted no useful exertion, Sumner was restored to al
most perfect health, save for intervals comparatively brief,
when he suffered from the new trouble ; and fifteen of the most

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 377
useful years of his life followed. This was something for which
he and humanity have abundant reason to be grateful and, so
far as we can now judge, we owe it to the radical measures
taken by Dr. Brown-Sequard, to remove a radical trouble.
At the time of Sumner's death Dr. Brown-Sequard, then liv
ing in New York, was engaged in delivering a course of six
lectures at the Lowell Institute, Boston. His fifth lecture was
to have been delivered on March 11, but a hasty summons
called him to Washington to attend Sumner, who was then
dying. On this account, the delivery of this lecture was post
poned until March 15, when the Doctor reviewed his treatment
of Sumner's case. What he said is worthy of a careful reading :
" When, in 1857, I saw Mr. Charles Sumner, for the first
time, he presented to me at once symptoms, which I could
not but recognize as dependent upon an irritation of some
fibres of the sympathetic nerve, and a paralysis of others. As
you know, he received a terrible blow on the head. His spine
as he was sitting had been bent in two places, the cranium
fortunately resisting. This bending of the spine in two places
had produced there the effects of a sprain. When I saw him
in Paris he had recovered altogether from the first effects of
the blow. He suffered from the two sprains of the spine and
perhaps a slight irritation of the spinal cord itself. He had
two troubles at that time. One was that he could not make
use of his brain at all. He could not read a newspaper; could
not write a letter. He was in a frightful state as regards the
activity of his mind, as every effort there was most painful to
him. It seemed to him at times as if his bread would burst ;
there seemed to be some great force within pushing the pieces
away from one another. Any emotion was painful to him.
Even in conversation anything that called for depth of thought
or feeling caused him suffering, so that we had to be very
careful with him. He had another trouble resulting from
the sprain which was at the level of the lowest dorsal vertebra.
The irritation produced was intense and the result was very
painful. When he tried to move forward he was compelled to
push one foot slowly and gently forward but a few inches, and
then drag the other foot to a level with the first, holding his
back at the same time, to diminish the pain that he had there.
It had been thought that he was paralyzed in the lower limbs,
and that he had disease of the brain, and the disease of the
brain was construed as being the cause of this paralysis of the
lower limbs."
" Fortunately the discovery made of what we call the vaso
motor nervous system, led me at once to the conclusion that he

378 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
had no disease of the brain and had no paralysis. He had
only an irritation of those vaso-motor nerves, resulting from
the upper sprain in the spine. That irritation was the cause
of the whole mischief as regards the function of the brain.
The other sprain caused the pain which gave the appearance of
paralysis. When I asked him if he was conscious of any
weakness in his lower limbs, he said, Certainly not; I have
never understood that my physicians considered me paralyzed.
I only cannot walk on account of the pain."
" What was to be done was to apply counter-irritants to
those two sprains. That was done. I told him that the best
plan of treatment would consist in the application of moxas,
and that they produced the most painful kind of irritation of
the skin that we knew. I urged him then to allow me to give
him chloroform to diminish the pain, if not take it away alto
gether. I well remember his impressive accent when he replied :
' If you can say positively that i shall derive as much benefit if
I take chloroform as if I do not, then of course I will take it;
but if there is to be any degree whatever of amelioration in case
I do not take it, then I shall not take it.' "
" I did not find courage enough to deceive him. I told him
the truth — that there would be more effect, as I thought, if he
did not take chloroform. And so I had to submit him to the
martyrdom of the greatest suffering that can be inflicted on
mortal man. I burned him with the first moxa. I had the
hope that after the first application he would submit to the
use of chloroform ; but for five times after that he was burned
in the same way" (Sumner says seven times in all) "and
refused to take chloroform. I had never seen a patient who
submitted to such treatment in that way."
" I cannot conceive that it was from mere heroism that he
did it. The real explanation was this: Heaps of abuse had
been thrown upon him. He was considered as amusing him
self in Paris ; as pretending to be ill. In fact he wanted to get
well and go home as quickly as possible. A few days were of
great importance to him. And so he passed through that
terrible suffering, the greatest that I have ever inflicted upon
any being, man or animal."
Here the Doctor broke down completely and was obliged to
ask the audience to excuse him for the remainder of the even
ing, though he had only spoken half the usual time. The
thoughts of a dear friend now no more and of the terrible
sufferings he had endured, under his advice, to insure a re
covery, completely unnerved him and he was unable to pro
ceed farther except to add : " Since 1857 the eminent man that

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 379
has left us has been under my care and has been also a very
dear friend."
The latter part of August, 1857, Sumner went to Aix-les-
Bains under the advice of Dr. Brown-Sequard to supplement
the treatment by fire with that of water. The baths of Aix are
famous for their medicinal properties. The water, having some
medicinal ingredients, issues from the earth very warm. Each
morning it was applied, by alternate hot and cold jets, to Sum
ner's back and chest, where affected. When he was thoroughly
exhausted by this treatment, he was carried wrapped in a sheet
and blanket to his hotel and put to bed. After a rest, he
walked for exercise. He enjoyed the bath with the rest and
absence from excitement which their location insured him. He
was among entire strangers and, except once for a day, did
not see an acquaintance during the three weeks he remained
there. He devoted himself entirely to recovering his health.
" The country," he wrote, " is beautiful and the people, simple
and kind." The time passed pleasantly enough, but his
lurking fear was that he might have to return to the dreaded
treatment by the moxa.
He left Aix the middle of September and spent the next
two months in travelling through Northern Italy, Austria and
through Germany, down the Rhine to Cologne. He was back
in Paris by the middle of November. His condition, while he
was thus loitering about to await the results of his treatment,
showed substantial improvement. He gradually became con
vinced that he was at last on the road to recovery. How long
it would take, and whether farther treatment would be neces
sary, he could not tell, but he was satisfied that his physician
understood his case and that his injuries were yielding to the
treatment. His strength was returning. He could take long
walks without the recurrence of the menacing symptoms he
once experienced. Upon his return to Paris Dr. Brown-
Sequard was gratified with the progress he had made and called
a consultation upon his case with Dr. Hayward of Boston and
Dr. Trousseau, an eminent French physician. They approved
the treatment and all agreed in advising against his contem
plated return to the United States to be present at the opening
of Congress in December. They insisted that he should seek
out some quiet place in the South of France, out of the way
of travellers and avoid both work and excitement. Wilson his
colleague united in urging him not to hurry his return, but to
make his health his first care.
He therefore followed this advice and went to Montpellier in
the south of France. But he did so reluctantly. In returning

380 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
from England before, to take his seat in the Senate, he had
disregarded the advice of Dr. George Combe and Sir James
Clark, the Queen's Physician, who both pronounced him unfit
for his Senatorial duties; and the sequel showed that they
were right and that he made a mistake in not heeding their
warning. He was cautious now not to repeat his indiscretion.
He remained in Montpellier three months, constantly under
the care of a physician, Dr. Crouzet to whom he had been com
mended by Dr. Brown-Sequard. The direction of the latter
was still followed as to the treatment to be given him. He was
to spend a great portion of the time each day on his bed or a
sofa and be treated daily by cupping, along the spine, to con
tinue the withdrawal of the inflammation from the injured
parts. This treatment was painful, but not to be compared to
the moxa. He avoided all excitement and undue exertion.
During the whole time he was at Montpellier he saw only three
or four persons he had previously known, three of them Amer
icans passing through, whom he enjoyed only for an even
ing; and not much oftener did he see an American paper. Of
Montpellier he always retained pleasant memories, recalling a
life for him unusually peaceful and happy and the farthest
removed from strife and contention.
He continued at Montpellier, his study of engravings. He
attended lectures at the University and was invited to the ses
sions of a learned club, which met weekly, on Friday evenings.
He made a few short excursions to places in the immediate
neighborhood and enjoyed the acquaintance of some scholars
of the city. In his intercourse with the people he met, he
spoke French almost entirely. His only companion, to whom
he spoke English, was a retired English officer, Captain J. R.
Gordon, who was making his home in the city. Gordon had
seen a varied career in the army, had served under Wellington
and was a delightful companion. He was Sumner's most in
timate friend and they dined together, usually as often as twice
each week. The Captain was acquainted with the French offi
cers, who commanded the garrison in the city, and their visits
with them afforded a pleasant recreation. Sumner continued
a correspondence with Captain Gordon till his death, in 1863.
But after all it was his books that furnished Sumner most of
his recreation. To one friend he wrote : " Some fifteen hours
out of the daily twenty-four I have passed on my back, and
have always begun the day with a treatment which was toler
able only as an exchange for fire. But I have found society
and solace in books, which I have devoured with my ancient
ardor. No prisoner in the Bastile ever read more. God be

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 381
praised for this taste, or appetite and for the returning strength
which has enabled me to indulge it ! " To another he wrote :
" How often I think with gratitude of my love of books, which
furnishes me in my retreat such hosts of truest friends."
Just before Sumner's return to America, in a letter to Cap
tain Gordon, he recorded his obligation to him and his faithful
Doctor Crouzet, as well as his tender memories of Montpellier.
" And now," he wrote, " I look with increased longing and
tenderness towards Montpellier. My residence there in such
retirement, compared with my life elsewhere, seems like a
fable or a dream. Most truly do I wish that I could repeat it.
I need not say how much you contributed to make it agreeable.
I often think of my quiet walks, my visit to the library, the
lectures, friends and then my weekly repast with you. I trust
that my excellent doctor, who declined all fee, has a long list
of patients who pay him well." Dr. Crouzet had become so
much attached to Sumner, by their constant association during
his treatment, that he refused all pay for his services.
Sumner left Montpellier late in March for Italy, making con
siderable stays at Rome, Naples and Florence. At Cannes in
the south of France he met Baron Bunsen, the German dip
lomat and author, and Lord Brougham, who had a chateau
there, where he spent much of his time and who had anticipated
his arrival, by a note cordially asking him to pay them a visit.
At Rome he was the guest of William W. Story. And while
there -he met J. Lothrop Motley, the historian, and Nathaniel
Hawthorne, the novelist, both of Massachusetts. The latter was
then residing in Italy, after having resigned his consulate at
Liverpool, England, and was writing " The Marble Faun."
Sumner visited the studios and talked with the artists. He was
at St. Peter's, the Vatican and the galleries; he enjoyed the
Easter festivities. Everything reminded him of the early days
when he saw these places of interest with such fidelity, under
the advantage of health, and of boundless hope for the future.
Of course he could not forget his friends, one Crawford, now
dead, who in that happiest summer of his life, had opened the
beauties of the Eternal City to him. How he longed to have it
all back! "But not," he added, "I think, on the condition
that I should live the intervening years over again." On leav
ing he wrote Wm. Story : " Rome now, as when I first saw it,
touches me more than any other place. Then I have been so
happy with you. Perhaps it will be long before we meet again ;
but I cannot forget those latter delicious days. God bless you ! "
From Rome, Sumner went to Civita Vecchia and thence by
steamer to Leghorn and Genoa and then by rail to Turin.

382 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Crossing from Turin over the Alps, he hired a private con
veyance at a cost of two hundred and twenty francs and made
the journey alone with his postilion. The country was full of
soldiers concentrated by the French to assist an uprising of the
Italians, against Austria, for national independence. As his
train entered the station at Alexandria, the depot was crowded
with them so that the train seemed to cut its way through the
living mass and yet he remarked their good behavior, with no
where a sign of disturbance. As his carriage ascended the Alps,
he met the French army, the lancers riding ahead, all well
mounted, in double file, as carefully dressed and as soldierly
in bearing as if on the streets of Paris, with their lances borne
upright and their pennons streaming, presenting a splendid
appearance. As his driver approached, he was at a loss which
side to turn, but the officer in command cried au milieu, au
milieu, and the ranks opened and his carriage passed on up
between the ranks, Sumner not neglecting to tip his hat to the
officers as he passed, who in turn acknowledged the salutation
by taking off their hats or giving the military salute. The
lancers past, the artillery followed and then came the troops
of the line, trudging along the road, with here and there some
foot-sore, half-sick straggler straying from the ranks or sitting
dejected by the road-side, perhaps thinking of the home he had
left and the loved ones his eyes might never behold again.
Upon the whole it was a deeply interesting sight to Sumner.
The day was charming and he seemed to be travelling in a, pic
ture. Enthusiast as he was in the cause of universal peace, the
thought of Italy, with her sunny skies, and art treasures, the
genius of her children and her long and often brilliant history,
now groaning under the yoke of the foreigner and struggling to
be free, enlisted his sympathy and he confessed much of the
ardor of the soldiers in the cause.
He was back in Paris by May twenty-fourth and remained a
month. He easily compared his condition with what it had
been, when he left. He no longer had to think when he sat
down how hard it would be to get up, walking, he did not have
to move slowly, dragging one foot after the other. He could
get up and down and walk about easily and naturally. At
times too great exertion reminded him he was not altogether
well, but he was assured that he was on the road to recovery
and that time and care now would bring a cure. Dr. Brown-
Sequard was satisfied with the progress he had made and ad
vised him to try sea-bathing. He went to Dieppe but finding
no library in the place, he felt he could not endure it and re
maining only for a day, he crossed over to London, where he

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 383
spent a month with his friends. He dined with Lord Cran
worth and Sir Henry Holland, was at Lansdowne House,
Stafford House, Holland House, Cambridge House, Argyll
Lodge, etc. " Lord Palmerston was as gay and jaunty as ever,
Lord Clarendon as fascinating, Lord Brougham as fitful, Lord
Lyndhurst as eloquent and clever, Lord Lansdowne as kind
and Lord Cranworth as good; saw much of Macaulay at
breakfasts and dinners — at least half a dozen times, and twice
in his own house ; his conversation was as full and interesting as
ever. Nothing' seemed too great or too small for his memory."
Heard Bright for the first time; was asked if he was not like
an American speaker and admitted he would be glad to claim
him. He was granted by the Speaker a seat under the gallery
of the House for a month and he occasionally occupied it.
But the excitement of London was still too much for him
and he went on July 23 to Bains Frescati, near Havre in
France, where he remained six weeks, taking daily swimming
baths and leading much the same quiet life as he had at Mont
pellier. He then made an excursion through Normandy and
Brittany and spent three weeks more in Paris, purchasing en
gravings, manuscripts, bronzes and bric-a-brac, standing aghast,
as he wrote, at his own extravagance. They were some of the
same curios that he afterwards, in his Washington home, took
such delight in showing his friends. He was back to London
by October tenth, spending a day with the poet Tennyson at
his home on the Isle of Wight, two days with Lord Stanhope at
Chevening Park, where he slept in the room occupied for three
years by Lord Chatham, another day at Argyll Lodge, where
he met Gladstone again, and still another with the historian
Motley at Walton on the Thames. Thus the time passed. He
purchased of Joseph Parkes in London an album containing
autographs of John Milton and Stafford, which he ever after
prized as among his most precious possessions and for which
he paid forty pounds. It is now in the library of Harvard
College. These purchases, with the expenses of his sickness,
consumed all the savings of his income so that now he came
home, as he himself expressed it, with health as his only
capital. He reached Boston from Liverpool on November twenty-
first and, after a few days spent there, he went on to Wash
ington to be present at the opening of Congress in December.
He stopped on the way at both New York and Philadelphia.
To all whom he met and who inquired about his health he an
swered that he was well again. And so he was, able again to
be at his post and discharge his full duty as Senator.

CHAPTER XXV
LOSS OF FRIENDS  IN THE SENATE — SPEECH ON "BARBARISM
OF SLAVERY " — EFFECT OF THE SPEECH  THE CAMPAIGN
OF 1860  LECTURE ON LAFAYETTE
In Boston as in New York Sumner missed some of his early
friends. Death had been doing its work among them. Rufus
Choate, brilliant and able, ever to be remembered as one of the
greatest of lawyers and one of the most eloquent of men, had
closed a hard life, unsparingly spent in the service of his profes
sion. He had been one of Sumner's early and constant friends,
their law offices being in the same building, Number Four, Court
Street. Though they had differed widely in politics, Choate
maintaining, with his rich rhetoric, the fortune and the fame
of Webster, even beside the grave of his chief in one of the most
beautiful eulogies ever pronounced, still he was too great not
to be tolerant of Sumner's difference of opinion. And when
he was gone, Sumner wrote : " I have a tender feeling for
Choate. For years he was my neighbor in Court Street, and I
have never had from him anything but kindness." Wm. H.
Prescott too was dead. Gentle, scholarly and sympathetic,
caring too little for party to allow it to influence his judgment
of issues against the right, as a historian would see it, he had
ever been one to whom Sumner turned with confidence for
sympathy. As Sumner had sought the darkened room that
sheltered Prescott's eyes, and chatted pleasantly in the days
when he was threatened with blindness, so, after the assault,
Prescott had sought the bedside of Sumner to show, by tender
sympathy, how his heart was moved. Theodore Parker too
was gone. In the grasp of a deadly disease, the fearless
preacher of the liberty of man as well as the religion of God,
had gone to Europe, in the vain hope of recovery ; but it after
wards proved that it was only to find his grave, on the banks
of the Arno, near the sepulchres of Michel Angelo and Galileo,
in the Protestant cemetery of Florence.
Dr. Howe was in Canada, whither he had gone to be beyond
the reach of the process of the United States, in case he should
be sought for complicity in the insurrection of John Brown
at Harper's Ferry. Howe and Parker had known Brown and
had entered info some of his anti-slavery projects, though
384

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 385
neither had been parties to that at Harper's Ferry. Sumner
regretted Howe's absence and urged him to return and brave the
threatened storm. This Howe afterwards did. He testified
before a Committee of investigation of the Senate and his
want of knowledge of the Harper's Ferry affair became appar
ent. The first public part Sumner took in the proceedings of
the Senate arose from this same question. On the day of
the opening of the session, December fifth, 1859, Mason of
Virginia moved the appointment of a committee to inquire into
the facts of the seizure of the armory and arsenal of the United
States at Harper's Ferry and the resolution concluded by pro
viding that the committee should have power to send for per
sons and papers. The committee was appointed and Mason
was made chairman. They summoned John Brown, Jr., of
Kansas and F. B. Sanborn and James Redpath of Massachu
setts. These all failed to appear. Thaddeus Hyatt of New
York was also summoned. He appeared but refused to testify.
Thereupon a resolution was offered in the Senate, by Mason on
behalf of his committee, to commit Hyatt to the common jail of
the District of Columbia till he should signify his willingness
to answer. Sumner resisted the resolution to commit Hyatt.
He insisted that, in such case, the Senate had no power to com
mit, that it could only do so, when sitting as a court, in cases
of impeachment, in determining the election or qualification of
its members and in punishing them for disorderly behavior,
in all of which cases the Senate acted judicially, under express
authority of the Constitution. Two other cases grew out of
these, the power to punish for abuse of the privileges of the
Senate, as in obtaining surreptitiously a copy of a treaty, or
for misconduct on the part of its officers. Beyond these, he
insisted the Senate had no such power. And especially did it
not have the power of a grand jury and a court to investigate
and punish crimes. But the resolution of commitment passed
and Hyatt was sent to the common jail of the District, where
he remained for more than three months and until the com
mittee in making the final report of their investigations recom
mended his discharge. Sumner visited him frequently while
in jail and did what he could to relieve the severity of his
punishment. The case of Mr. Sanborn illustrates still farther the length
the slave power was willing to go. He was a teacher in Con
cord, Massachusetts, and having refused obedience to the
summons of the Committee, it issued, to the Sergeant at Arms
of the Senate, a warrant for his arrest. The writ was sent by .

386 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the Sergeant at Arms to the Marshal of the District for service.
A deputy marshal under cover of night, seized Sanborn in
execution of the process and was about to carry him away, when
his sister, by procuring the bells of the village to be rung,
aroused the neighbors and a writ of habeas corpus having been
issued, the execution of the process was prevented and the next
day he was brought before the Supreme Court and discharged,
the Court holding that, if the Sergeant at Arms had power to
make the arrest, he, at least, had no power to delegate this
authority to a U. S. Marshal. Upon his release Mr. Sanborn
memorialized the Senate upon the outrage that had been done
him. Sumner presented the memorial, with some remarks re
citing the facts and moving its reference to the Judiciary Com
mittee. This motion carried. Mr. Bayard, of Delaware, for the
Committee reported a bill authorizing the Sergeant at Arms to
appoint deputies. This was intended to obviate the decision
of Chief Justice Shaw. But the bill was lost and there the
incident ended.
Slavery was the all-absorbing subject in Congress. Events
were fast hurrying towards a crisis. The obsequious adminis
tration of Franklin Pierce had been followed by the still more
obsequious rule of James Buchanan. The blustering threats of
secession were crystallizing into a dogged determination to se
cede. The North was steeling itself to meet the issue of war
if made. Each side stood watching the other, waiting to see
what the next move was to be. Sumner re-entered the contest
slowly; not because undecided upon the course to pursue, but
to measure his newly recovered strength. He was given a place
on the Committee on Foreign Relations, a place for which he
was peculiarly fitted and which he was to continue to fill with
rare ability for twelve years, ten of which he was to be its
Chairman, and until removed as a punishment for his resis
tance of President Grant. He introduced a resolution pro
posing the abolition of the numerous custom-house oaths ad
ministered under acts of Congress and suggested a simple
declaration as a substitute therefor, a reform that has since
been made, much to the comfort of home-coming travellers
from foreign lands. He also introduced a resolution to in
crease the safety of passengers in steamships for California,
often dangerously overloaded and without proper accommoda
tions. Both these resolutions the Senate gave unanimous con
sent to consider. But when he introduced a number of peti
tions on the subject of slavery and moved their reference to
the Committee on the Judiciary, on motion of Mason of Vir
ginia, they were promptly laid upon the table, all the Democrats

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 387
twenty-five in number voting in favor of it, while the Repub
licans, nineteen, voted against it.
A bill was again pending for the admission of Kansas.
During the four years of Sumner's disability, changes had been
taking place in the Territory. The constant infiux of people
from the Free States had placed the Free-Soil party largely
in the majority. Instead of practising non-intervention and
refusing to vote, as they had done under the disgraceful sway
of Atchison and his border ruffians, the Republicans had boldly
entered the field and captured the Legislature. Instead of
being bribed by the terms of the English Bill into seeking ad
mission as a State with a pro-slavery constitution, they came to
Congress firmly insisting upon admission as a Free State. The
last speech Sumner made in the Senate was entitled, The Crime
against Kansas, delivered on May nineteenth-twentieth, 1856,
on a bill for the admission of Kansas. Two days later for
words uttered in that speech, he was struck down in the Senate
Chamber. Now after four years of suffering, his first speech
in the Senate on his return, was upon a bill, on the same sub
ject, the admission of Kansas. On the fourth day of June,
1860, he again urged its admission as a Free State. Brooks,
his assailant, it will be remembered, was dead and Butler
for whose sake, the assault was alleged to have been made, had
followed him. The circumstances of Sumner's return to the
Senate were impressive. He opened his speech, entitled The
Barbarism of Slavery, with these words :
" Mr. President. — Undertaking now, after a silence of more
than four years, to address the Senate on this important sub
ject, I should suppress the emotions natural to such an occa
sion, if I did not declare on the threshold my gratitude to that
Supreme Being through whose benign care I am enabled, after
much suffering and many changes, once again to resume my
duties here, and to speak for the cause so near my heart. To
the honored Commonwealth whose representative I am, and
also to my immediate associates in this body, with whom I
enjoy the fellowship which is found in thinking alike concern
ing the Republic, i owe thanks which I seize the moment to
express, for indulgence extended to me throughout the pro
tracted seclusion enjoined by medical skill ; and I trust that it
will not be thought unbecoming in me to put on record here,
as an apology for leaving my seat so long vacant, without
making way, by resignation, for a successor, that I acted under
the illusion of an invalid, whose hopes for restoration to natural
health continued against oft-recurring disappointment."
" When I last entered into this debate, it became my duty to

388 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
expose the Crime against Kansas and to insist upon the imme
diate admission of that Territory as a State of this Union, with
a Constitution forbidding slavery. Time has passed, but the
question remains. Resuming the discussion precisely where I
left it, I am happy to avow that rule of moderation which, it is
said, may venture to fix the boundaries of wisdom itself. I
have no personal griefs to utter: only a vulgar egotism could
intrude such into this Chamber. I have no personal wrongs to
avenge; only a brutish nature could attempt to wield that
vengeance which belongs to the Lord. The years that have
intervened and the tombs that have opened since I spoke have
their voices, too, which I cannot fail to hear. Besides what am
I, what is any man among the living or the dead, compared
with the question before us? It is this alone which I shall
discuss, and I begin the argument with that easy victory which
is found in charity."
Sumner's purpose in this speech, while incidentally advocat
ing the admission of Kansas as a free State, was to lay bare the
essential character of slavery itself. Southern members of
Congress, with much unction, had for years descanted on its
humanizing influence, calling it ennobling, dispensing with
titles of nobility as in the old world and recognizing a natural
superiority of one race of men over another, as one of "two
civilizations" that of the North and the other of the South,
improving the character of both the slave and the master.
Jefferson Davis had called it " but a form of civil government
for those who by their nature were not fit to govern them
selves." While Hunter of Virginia had declared in the Senate
that it was the very keystone of the arch that sustained our
social fabric. Brown of Mississippi declared it was " a great
moral, social and political blessing." Hammond of South
Carolina insisted that its " frame of society is the best in the
world." Sumner thought it too much the fashion to let such
statements as these, made on the floor of the Senate, go
unchallenged. He had for some time had it in mind to openly and em
phatically attack them in a speech in the Senate. He felt their
absurdity and was convinced of their pernicious influence.
Beyond this he felt that in the crisis that was approaching,
public attention generally should be called to the inherent
degrading tendency of the institution of slavery to both the
master and the slave and to the country as well. He had
already discussed Slavery, in arguing that it was sectional in
character while Freedom was national, and again in urging the
unconstitutionality of the Fugitive Slave Law, and still again

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 389
in insisting upon the sacred obligation of the Missouri Com
promise and the crimes that had been attempted against Kan
sas. Though upon all these occasions he had spoken at length,
he felt that he had said too little of the essential character of
slavery itself, partly from a disinclination to press a matter
about which Southern people were so sensitive. But he thought
that the time for any such consideration was past and that this
aspect of the subject should now be set forth clearly. During
his whole term of service in the Senate he had seen how often
the cause he had so much at heart, had been baffled and de
feated by a pro-slavery President. The time for another
Presidential election was at hand and with a divided and
disorganized opposition he felt, for once, there was a prospect
for the election of one who was against slavery. But whatever
the result of that might be he was convinced that the effect of
the delivery and circulation of such a speech could not be other
wise than good.
Others differed from Sumner upon this subject. The times
were ominous. Many good men wished by farther concessions
to slavery to avert the calamities that seemed to threaten the
country. Such a speech could have no other effect upon South
ern slave masters and their representatives in Congress than
to inflame already angry passions and render compromise
more difficult. Even some Republicans, hoping to carry the
National election, feared its effect. They thought it might
influence against them conservative voters who were interested
in the new -movement, by giving a too anti-slavery caste to its
purpose. But Sumner differed from them again. He had
concluded that too much had been yielded already and that the
temper of the North demanded resistance to these extravagant
pretensions of the South and a more manly and independent
stand on the part of the representatives of the North in Con
gress. However, all agreed that if the unvarnished truth was
to be told to the South in words, which in their plainness, had
some of the appearance of severity, no one by suffering had
gained a better right to tell it than Sumner. A brief summary
of the speech will show the plainness of his language.
He argued that slavery which created property, in man was
an impiety, because according to the law of nature, written by
the same hand that placed the planets in their orbits every
human being had title to himself direct from the Almighty.
A man might be poor in this world's goods but he owned him
self. Slave-masters might say they owned the sun and moon
and stars but not that they owned man endowed with a soul
destined to live immortal when sun, moon and stars have passed

390 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
away. Slavery was a complete abrogation of the marriage tie.
No such sacrament was respected under it. All such ties were
subject to the selfish interest or still more selfish lust of the
master whose license knew no check. The chastity of a whole
race was exposed to violence while the result was recorded in the
tell-tale faces of children glowing with a maste'r's blood, but
doomed, for their mother's skin, to slavery through descending
generations. By polygamy one man had many wives bound to
him by the marriage tie and protected by law, but slavery
delivered a whole race over to prostitution and concubinage,
unprotected by any law. For the children, it was a complete
abrogation of the parental relation. At the command of a
master, little ones, though clasped by a mother's arms, were
swept under the hammer of the auctioneer. Slavery closed the
door of knowledge to them, for the law in many places posi
tively forbid that a. slave be taught to read even the book of life,
where they might learn that a Savior died, that all men, with
out distinction of race, might be saved. While it fastened
manacles upon the slave it thus also fastened manacles upon his
soul. Slavery appropriated all the toil of its victims, losing
every pretension of right. It was robbery and larceny both
under the garb of law, sordidly taking away from the slave
the fruits of the bitter sweat of his brow and at the same time
the mainspring to exertion. From its home in Africa, such
barbarism had been transplanted to American soil and thus
were the prerogatives of barbarous, half-naked African chiefs
perpetuated in American slave-masters. *
The fruits of such a system were too clearly to be seen in the
comparative view of the development of the Free and Slave
States. Slavery so degraded free labor as to stamp the brand
of degradation upon the daily toil decreed by the Almighty
and which contributes so much to a true civilization. No slave-
master, of course, worked, and his pernicious example pervaded
all classes, and the land itself became a prey to that paralysis
caused by a violation of the law of God. Slave territory ex
ceeding by more than 200,000 square miles that of the Free
States, in happiness of climate adapted to productions of
special value, with more than fifty navigable rivers, never closed
by the rigors of winter, with a long stretch of coast, indented
by harbors, contrasting strangely with the North, with its
climate often churlish, with few harbors and still fewer nav
igable rivers, both often swept by storms and closed by ice, yet
the North had far outstripped the South in growth of popula
tion as well as in material and moral development.
But turning from this discussion of the effect of slavery upon

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 391
the slave, and what must be said of its influence upon their
masters? The denial of all rights in the slaves, of course could
be sustained only by a disregard of other rights common to
the whole community, rights of the person, of the press and of
speech. Barbarous standards were unblushingly avowed. The
swagger of the bully was called chivalry; swiftness to quarrel,
courage ; the bludgeon was substituted for argument, and assas
sination became one of the fine arts. It produced the most per
nicious effect upon manners and transformed citizens into des
pots. There was no surer way of judging a people than by its
laws; yet the slave-code protected such atrocities as to show
that the laws of humanity had been totally perverted, stealing
the fruit of another's labor, polluting the body, outraging the
familv, making marriage impossible, decreeing ignorance.
Sumner quoted illustrations to show the brutalizing relation
of the master to the slave : a description in an advertisement of
a runaway slave, " has holes in his ears, a scar on the right side
of the forehead, has been shot in the hind part of his legs, is
marked on the back with the whip."
" For Sale : — An accomplished and handsome lady's maid.
She is just sixteen years of age; was raised in a genteel family
in Maryland ; and is now proposed to be sold, not for any fault,
but simply because the owner has no further use for her. A
note directed to C. D. Gadsly's Hotel, will receive prompt
attention." A slave-master's cure for a runaway slave : " If a nigger ran
away when he caught him, he would bind his knee over a log,
and fasten him so he could not stir; then he'd take a pair of
pincers, and pull out one of his toe nails by the roots, and tell
him if he ever ran away again, he would pull out two of them,
and if he ran away again after that, he told him he'd pull out
four of them, and so on, doubling each time. He never had to
do it more than twice ; it always cured them."
Another instance was given, where a master enraged at his
slave for an attempt to run away, had deliberately cut the
tendon of his heel, illustrating the language of the Supreme
Court of North Carolina, that " The power of the master must
be absolute to render the submission of the slave perfect."
If the picture could receive a darker coloring than such
illustrations gave it, Sumner declared it could only be, by paint
ing the character of the slave-overseer, the slave-breeder and
the slave-hunter in whom the essential brutality, vulgarity and
crime of slavery were all embodied.
The effect of such influences, he said, upon the relations of
slave-masters to each other and to society and government were

392 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
unmistakable. Nobody could be surrounded by vice and
violence without coming under its influence. Instead of en
nobling the master, slavery dragged him down. Violence,
brutality and injustice must be reproduced in those who lived
within their influence. Living with slaves, seeing their deg
radation and ignorance closed the eyes of the master and
withdrew the spirit of emulation produced by the society
of equals or association with superiors. The master saw
nothing to excite his emulation or remind him of his deficien
cies. Accustomed from youth to age to brutality and violence
he naturally adopted the bludgeon, the pistol and the knife in
his relation to society, and to his home ; and the street fight and
the brawl marked his appearance everywhere. " Men slaughter
each other with almost perfect impunity," read the Governor's
message to the Legislature of Kentucky, in 1837, and he urged
them to redeem their State from a condition which would
justify the name of " the Land of Blood." " Why do we hear
of stabbings and shootings almost daily in some part or other
of our State ? " asked the Governor of Alabama. .
Slavery, he argued, was against all freedom of speech or of
the press, for no one in the slave States could speak or write
plainly about it, except at his peril. A book agent offered for
sale Dr. Channing's sermon on West India Emancipation
and was prosecuted for it. A large number of copies of Spur-
geon's sermons were publicly burned at Montgomery, Alabama ;
and the use of Wayland's Moral Science was forbidden in one
of the colleges of that State because they contained " abolition
doctrines." Speeches delivered in the United States Senate
were stopped in the post-office and booksellers receiving them
were mobbed, while once at least the speeches were seriously
proceeded against by a Grand Jury. Abolitionists were
watched and mobbed for their opinions. Rewards were offered
in the public newspapers for the heads of Members of Congress ;
Five thousand dollars for that of William H. Seward, ten
thousand dollars for the delivery of Joshua R. Giddings at
Richmond; and the Governor of Georgia was recommended
by a meeting of slave-masters to offer five thousand dollars for
either of ten persons, citizens of New York, Massachusetts and
one of Great Britain, none of whom had ever been in Georgia.
Even in the Free States, anti-slavery meetings were broken up,
newspapers mobbed and in one case the editor was killed.
Samuel Hoar of Massachusetts appointed a Commissioner from
his State to Charleston to prevent the detention and sale, as
slaves, of free colored mariners from his own State, who might
touch at that port, was excluded from his hotel by the pro-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 393
prietor for fear of a mob, and forcibly driven from South
Carolina. The exhibitions of the barbarism of slavery in Congressional
history, he said, were not less marked. During the debate on
the compromise measures of 1850, Foote of Mississippi drew
upon Benton of Missouri a five-chambered revolver and cocked
it; Arnold of Tennessee was called by Dawson of Louisiana
" a d — d coward," " a d — d blackguard," and he threatened if
Arnold did not behave better he would " cut his throat from
ear to ear." Challenges to duel were common on the floor of
the Senate from slave-masters, and Jefferson Davis there vin
dicated the duel as a mode of settling personal differences.
" Insult, bullying and threats characterize the slaveholders in
Congress," said John Quincy Adams. And at a public dinner
at Waterborough, South Carolina, this toast was drunk, " May
we never want a Democrat to trip up the heels of a Federalist
or a hangman to prepare a halter for John Quincy Adams."
Joshua R. Giddings presented to the House resolutions affirm
ing that slavery was a local institution and could not exist
outside of the slave States. For this the House censured him ;
Giddings resigned and his constituents at once re-elected him.
Dawson of Louisiana once drew a bowie knife to assassinate
him. Again when one day speaking of a certain transaction in
which negroes were concerned in Georgia, Black of that State,
raised a bludgeon and standing in front of Giddings' desk
declared that if he repeated that language again, he would
knock him down. " It was a solemn moment for me, I had
never been knocked down, and having some curiosity upon that
subject, I repeated the language," said the six-foot Representa
tive, when afterwards describing the scene. But Black did not
attempt to knock him down. Dawson of Louisiana, however,
put his hand in his pocket and with an oath threatened he
would shoot Giddings, at the same time cocking the pistol so
that all around could hear it click. But he did not shoot.
Foote dared Hale in the Senate to come to Mississippi and he
should be hung and that if necessary he would himself assist in
the operation. Hammond, of South Carolina, in the House,
warned the Abolitionists to stay away from South Carolina,
unless they expected "a felon's death." Payne, of Alabama,
declared that if they came to the South they would hang them
like dogs. Martin, of Virginia, told Lovejoy of Illinois, that
if he came among them they would do with him as they had
with John Brown — hang him up as high as Haman, and in the
same debate he was called by other Southern members a

394 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
" black-hearted scoundrel and nigger stealing thief," " crazy,"
" a perjured villain," and " a mean, despicable wretch."
Sumner scouted the idea that slavery was justified by the
alleged inferiority of the black race. For if that be true, he
argued, what would hinder the same principle being applied
to other races ? Why might not the Japanese also be declared
inferior and all enslaved ? Why might not some of the weaker
and less highly civilized white races be declared inferior to
others and enslaved?
The doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, or permitting the
people of a territory to determine whether it should be formed
into a Slave or Free State could find no support anywhere.
There are rights which can neither be voted up nor voted down,
for they are above all votes. Neither the people, nor Congress,
nor any Territorial Legislature could give Slavery a legal
existence in any Territory of the United States. He therefore,
urged them to so declare by legislative act admitting Kansas as
a Free State.
Sumner closed with these prophetic words, which were six
months later to be realized in the election of Lincoln : " Thus,
Sir, speaking for Freedom in Kansas, I have spoken for Free
dom everywhere. You may reject it, but it will be only for to
day. The sacred animosity of Freedom and Slavery can end
only with the triumph of Freedom. The same question will
be carried soon before that high tribunal, supreme over Senate
and Court, where the judges are counted by millions, and the
judgment rendered will be the solemn charge of an awakened
people, instructing a new President, in the name of Freedom,
to see that Civilization receives no detriment."
When Sumner ceased speaking, Senator Chestnut, of South
Carolina arose and counselled that no notice whatever should
be taken of the speech, saying that Sumner " after ranging
over Europe, crawling through the back doors, to whine at the
feet of British aristocracy, craving pity and reaping a rich
harvest of contempt, the slanderer of States and men, had now
Teappeared in the Senate," that they were " not inclined again
to send forth the recipient of punishment, howling through the
world, yelping fresh cries of slander and malice." Sumner
merely replied that he would print the words of Chestnut, with
the speech, as an additional illustration of the "Barbarism of
Slavery." " I hope he will do it," rejoined Hammond, Chest
nut's colleague from South Carolina, who had been sitting,
during part of the speech, with Keitt, the accomplice of Pres
ton S. Brooks, at his side.
The attitude of Senators towards the speech was various.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 395
The feeling of Southerners was one of hostility. They
gathered in groups about the doors, came in and out, or sat for
a moment with the studied appearance of inattention. Some
of them were purposely noisy ; and once Sumner stopped, while
the Chair rapped them to order. Breckenridge sat and pre
tended to read a book, but his eyes wandered from the page,
and he finally put it away and sat gazing at the speaker, with a
frown, till he closed. Jefferson Davis, too, pretended to read,
but it was remarked, that the copy of " The Globe " which he
held in his hand was upside down. Wigfall, with lowering and
sinister countenance, passed whispering from one Senator to
another, apparently hatching mischief, but was met only by
shakes of the head, from the older members. Mason came in
and sat down and commenced to write a letter, never noticing
the speaker. But Lamar, of Mississippi, scholar and orator
himself, had come in from the House and occupied one of the
vacant chairs of the Senators and seemed to enjoy, with a
relish, the intellectual treat, though upon a subject, on which
he entertained radically different opinions. The Republicans
were not all in sympathy. Some, like Crittenden, still hoped
the approaching crisis might be averted by compromise; and
they deprecated a speech that seemed to destroy every hope of
such a cure. But Wilson, his colleague, with King, of New
York, and Burlingame and Lovejoy of the House sat near him
throughout, apparently anticipating violence and, if not alto
gether approving the propriety of the speech, at least recogniz
ing his right to judge of that and feeling themselves assured
that he was only telling the truth and telling it well.
The speech was read throughout in a moderate tone and
Sumner, after its delivery, was able to walk to his lodgings, a
mile from the Capitol, without any bad effects apparent. His
health had borne the test he had so long hoped for ; he was back
in his place in the Senate, again able to do his work. For fear
of violence, Wilson and Burlingame, with another friend, ac
companied him home. There was some talk of violence, but
the disposition of Southerners generally was to treat the speech
with the contempt of silence, perhaps feeling the weight of
Brooks' conduct upon themselves. The only apparent threat of
violence came four days later, when Sumner was sitting alone
in his rooms, in the evening, and a man called and finding
him alone' said he was one of the abused and slandered class,
against whom the speech had been made, and that he was one of
four who had come to Washington to demand reparation.
He became so violent in his manner that Sumner finally or
dered him out of the house and he went away threatening to

396 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
return again, with his companions. Sumner informed Wilson
of what had happened and Wilson insisted that some precau
tions should be taken. Later in the evening another stranger
came to the door and asked to see Sumner alone, but, being told
that he was not alone, he went away. Still later three men
came together and asked to see Sumner alone and, on being
refused, said they had come to the city to see him and that they
would call again in the morning, for a private interview, and,
if they did not get it, they would cut his d — d throat, before the
next night. The situation alarmed Sumner's friends and they
arranged to be with him, John Sherman and Burlingame sleep
ing in his apartments, in a bedroom adjoining his own. Others
accompanied him to and from the Capitol. Such was the con
dition of affairs in Washington in the months preceding the
War! The sequel showed that Sumner judged better than his
colleagues the public pulse. There had been so much politics
mixed with the discussion of the slavery question, adjustment
and compromise, the balancing of rights, even a measurement
of the length discussion should go in Congress, that the people
had grown tired. In their sturdy integrity, they could not see
the reason for all these limitations. Sumner had abandoned
them and had struck at the heart of the question. At last the
essential character of slavery, as one mind saw it, had been
frankly laid open in Congress. And the people praised it.
And in the Presidential campaign which followed, perhaps in
duced by the demand for such a discussion, Republican speakers
generally pursued the same course in discussing slavery. De
mands for Sumner as a campaign speaker were pressing. He
consented to deliver an address to the Young Men's Republi
can Union at Cooper Institute in New York City on his way to
Boston.^ A large audience greeted him and he spoke of "the
Republican Party, its Origin, Necessity and Permanence.
But, guarding his health, he declined all invitations to speak
during the campaign, outside of Massachusetts.
Sumner's speech on The Barbarism of Slavery was the. last
speech, on the general question of slavery, in Congress. It
closed the discussion, which had occupied Congress, with ever
increasing acrimony, since the formation of the Republic.
The next day, after a brief consideration of some questions of
the boundary of the proposed state, the bill for the admission of
Kansas was laid aside in the Senate; there was a brush upon
the same questions, in the House, a week later and then Con
gress adjourned. The election of Lincoln followed. When
Congress met again the South was going off on its mad career

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 397
of Secession. The battle was transferred to other fields. No
one was left in Congress to defend Slavery and before the re
turn of its friends, Emancipation had been proclaimed and the
Country was free.
The Presidential campaign of 1860, was acrimonious. The
National Democratic Convention had divided, one faction nom
inating John C. Breckinridge of Kentucky, and another
Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois. An organization styling itself
the Constitutional -Union Party had nominated John Bell of
Tennessee for President, with Edward Everett of Massachusetts
for Vice-President. These parties were all pro-slavery. Doug
las had no hope in the South, and Breckinridge had none in
the North. The real opponent of Breckinridge in the South
was the Bell-Everett party, for Bell was a slave-holder and
Everett was for peace at any price, which meant, of course, that
he would submit to Southern domination. Abraham Lincoln
of Illinois and Hannibal Hamlin of Maine had been nominated
by the Republicans. Thus the Democrats entered the contest
hopelessly divided; the division within their own ranks de
stroying every reasonable hope of success ; while the nomination
of Everett, a Boston man, of high character and ability, and
personally popular, who had for years deprecated the strife
between the North and the South and had sincerely done much
to allay it, added to the strength of his party in Massachusetts.
He had a large influence with the conservative element in Bos
ton which Hannibal Hamlin of the neighboring State of Maine
on the ticket with Lincoln could not outweigh. The Republi
cans of Massachusetts had nominated John A. Andrew, of
Boston, for Governor, and Anson G. Burlingame was again the
candidate, in Sumner's District, for Congress.
Naturally Sumner felt a deep interest in the result. John
A. Andrew, had occupied offices near him, when he was prac
tising law, and the early friendship then commenced had
continued, with increasing strength, as they became interested
in the anti-slavery conflict. Burlingame had already been a
Member of Congress and was Sumner's most constant friend in
the House. He felt a personal interest in his return. Sumner's
anxiety for the result was increased by the attitude of the Bell-
Everett people, the rump of the Webster Whigs, with whom,
since his first appearance in politics, he had been in constant
antagonism). But above all local considerations, was the
national triumph, which he hoped for the cause, for which he
had labored so long and suffered so much. Until now success
had seemed far away and though he never doubted the ultimate
triumph of the eternal principles of right as he saw them, he

398 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
was compelled to confess oftentimes that the great day might
be far away. But now the unexpected and hopeless division
of the Democrats seemed to open a great opportunity. If the
Republicans could only succeed in obtaining control of the
National Government, he thought the onward march of Slavery
could be checked.
Sumner entered into the campaign, in his own State, with
a will. As early as July thirtieth, in an open letter he pre
dicted the success of Lincoln. He continued to urge his friends
to increased effort, with this end in view, till the day of the
election. He spoke before the Massachusetts State Convention,
which was held at Worcester, on the " Presidential Candidates
and the Issues." With Henry L. Dawes, his successor in the
Senate, and Henry Wilson his colleague he addressed an open-
air mass meeting at Myricks Station; and again, with Senators
Wilson and John P. Hale and the candidate for Governor,
John A. Andrew, he addressed an open-air meeting at Fram-
ingham, on the " Threat of Disunion by the Slave States " and
again, at Worcester, he spoke for the Republican candidate for
Congress on the theme No Popular Sovereignty in Territories
can establish Slavery. Eli Thayer had been elected to Con
gress from that District as a Free-Soiler, but he had been se
duced by the Douglas theory of Popular Sovereignty, and gone
off from his Party, on this question. When a candidate this
year for renomination, before the Republican convention, he
had been defeated by Goldsmith F. Bailey. Thayer then came
out as an independent candidate. The contest was close. When
it was announced that Sumner was to speak for Bailey, Thayer
challenged him to a joint discussion, fearing the effect of his
speech ; Sumner declined, and spoke to a crowded house, many,
unable to secure even standing room, being turned away. Bai
ley was elected and Sumner was given the credit of having
turned the tide in his favor. Before the expiration of his
term, however, Bailey died and Sumner was called upon, in
his place in the Senate, to pronounce his eulogy.
On the evening before the election, Sumner presided and
spoke at a meeting in Faneuil Hall, Boston, where he declared
that the next day they would not only choose a new President,
but a new government, and he especially emphasized the impor
tance of voting for the Republican candidates from Boston.
Burlingame and Rice, rather than the Bell-Everett candidates
Appleton and Bigelow. He declared that the latter if elected,
with all New England and the North against them, would be
as solitary, at Washington, as Robinson Crusoe and Fridav on
their island. The Bell-Everett party, he said, from its lofty

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 399
airs in Boston, reminded him of Brahmins, who imagine them
selves of better clay than others, or of Chinese, who imagine
themselves cousins of the Sun and Moon.
But the influence of Sumner's speeches reached by the press,
was much larger than that by his voice. The careful prep
aration that he gave them, usually writing them out before
delivery, the animosity of the South towards him, the assault by
Brooks and his recognized leadership, among anti-slavery men,
all conspired to give them an especial interest. A very large
edition of his speech on The Barbarism of Slavery was printed
in Washington immediately after its delivery, another at
Boston with a portrait and another at San Francisco, with
the Republican platform. Besides being printed in the Times,
Herald, Tribune and World, in full, there was a pamphlet
edition of more than 50,000 copies, of his speech on the Origin,
Necessity and Permanence of the Republican Party, printed
and distributed by the Young Men's Republican Union of New
York ; while an edition of 10,000 copies of the same speech was
printed and distributed by the Republican Central Committee
of California. A Boston journal printed 10,000 copies of his
speech at Worcester, for Mr. Bailey to distribute in his dis
trict. These facts sustain the deliberate judgment of an eminent
witness of the events, Mr. Blaine, who years afterwards, wrote :
that Sumner " did more than any other man to promote the
anti-slavery cause, and to uprear its standard in the Republican
party. * * * His written arguments were the anti-slavery
Classics of the day, and they were read more eagerly than
speeches which produced greater effect on the hearer. Colonel
Benton said that William Pinkney of Maryland was always
thinking of the few hundred who came to hear him in the Sen
ate Chamber, apparently forgetting the million who might read
him outside. Mr. Sumner never made that mistake. His ar
guments went to the million. They produced a wide spread
and prodigious effect on public opinion and left an indelible
impression on the history of the country."
The result of the election of 1860 was a great victory for the
Republicans. Lincoln had in Massachusetts almost twice as
many votes as all the other candidates together. In the elec
toral colleges, he had one hundred and eighty votes ; while all
the others had only one hundred and twenty-three. The result
showed that even without the split in the Democratic party, its
candidate could not have been elected. The House of Repre
sentatives was Republican; the Senate was still held by the
Democrats, by a reduced majority. Andrew was elected Gov-

400 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ernor and entered upon a career that established him as one of
the most famous in the circle of War Governors. But in all
Sumner's rejoicing, there was a distinct note of sadness. Bur
lingame was defeated, for Congress, by Appleton, by less than
three hundred votes. It cut off the promise of a bright Con
gressional career and removed one of the supports, on which
Sumner constantly leaned. President Lincoln, however, rec
ognizing the injustice of the popular verdict, afterwards ap
pointed him Minister to China and there, and in the service
of the Chinese Empire, he continued, until his death, in 1870,
at the age of forty-nine.
During this year Sumner lost his friend, John W. Brown,
his college classmate and room mate. He died May 1, 1860.
Brown was commemorated by Sumner by a contribution to
a little volume, printed in memoriam. Sumner was warmly at
tached to him. Of all his classmates, he thought he gave, in
college, the largest promise of future eminence. He was a
bright, wayward fellow, of a bold and independent habit of
thought. It was feared his waywardness might sometime wreck
his prospects. Sumner may have caught from him something
of the Spirit of the iconoclast, which he showed, when he de
livered his oration on The True Grandeur of Nations, advocat
ing universal place, before the soldiery of Boston, and again
when he maintained his long struggle against slavery. Little
were Brown's friends, of his college days, prepared to expect of
him the quiet, peaceful, unobtrusive life he afterwards led.
After a short term, in the Legislature of Massachusetts, he put
aside a nomination for State Senator and thereafter disappeared
from public life entirely, caring little for political influence, and
hardly known, except to a- few intimates. So that Sumner
could suggest of him, when gone, the questionable praise, " Bene
vivit, qui bene latuit."
During this summer, Sumner prepared a lecture on the char
acter of Lafayette. It was first delivered in Tremont Temple
in Boston, on October 1, 1860, though it was afterward repeated
at Concord, Lowell and Providence and, on his way to Washing
ton, at Cooper Institute, in New York City, and, during the
Congressional vacation, at Philadelphia. At Concord, he was
the guest of Ralph Waldo Emerson and responded to a serenade
from his front door. At the lecture, in New York, William
Cullen Bryant presided. From Philadelphia, after the lecture
had been announced, Sumner received a letter, from the pres
ident of the institute, under whose auspices it was to be de
livered, asking him to omit any reference to slavery. Sumner
replied that he could not be guilty of such infidelity, in de-

life of Charles Sumner 401
lineating the life of one, whose whole career had been devoted
to the cause of human freedom, that it would be akin to the
conduct of the pirates of the Caribbean sea, who repeated the
Ten Commandments omitting, " Thou shalt not steal." And
he added : " For many years I have addressed associations,
societies and meetings of all kinds; but never before have I
been met by any hint of interference with the completest lati
tude of speech, according to my sense of the duties and pro
prieties of the occasion. Long accustomed to free speech, I am
too old now to renounce it. * * * Of course my place in your
list is now vacant." The limitation, however, was afterwards
withdrawn and Sumner spoke, according to the appointment,
to a crowded house.
The purpose of the lecture was to express the admiration he
felt, for the character of a truly good and great man. He had
been attracted to Lafayette's career, during his protracted stay
in Paris, while under the care of Dr. Brown-Sequard. He had,
it will be remembered, visited his grave within the circle of
the old walls of the cemetery of Picpus, watched over by white-
hooded nuns, of the neighboring convent. A little later he had
visited his family seat, La Grange, a picturesque and venerable
castle, with its towers and moat and drawbridge, its gate
hung by ivy, planted by the English statesman, Charles James
Fox, and " a large courtyard within, embosomed with trees,
except on one side, where a beautiful lawn spread its verdure."
Some of these items of personal interest he incorporated in his
lecture. Again he revealed his sympathy with noble lives and
his talent for commemorative oratory. The lecture contained
passages of beauty, hardly excelled by any in all his works.
Slavery was to Lafayette " a most lamentable drawback, on
the example of independence and freedom, presented to the
world, by the United States." It was this lesson from his life
that Sumner wished especially to impress, — his fidelity to free
dom everywhere. In the United States there was a crisis ap
proaching, upon this question. Slavery was making new de
mands and new threats; and Sumner thought it important to
strengthen the hearts of the people of the North, by holding up
before them, the example of Lafayette and calling their atten
tion, to those scenes in the life of one, so justly and universally
revered by Americans, showing his devotion to the cause of
universal freedom and the equality of all men before the law.

CHAPTER XXVI
COMPROMISE — SECESSION  SUMNER AGAINST CONCESSION 
BALTIMORE MOBS  EMANCIPATION
Sumner was in his seat at the opening of Congress, on the
fourth of December, 1860. It then became certain that the
South was determined to secede. The Message of President
Buchanan to Congress recognized this and declared his in
ability to control the seceding States. Powell of Kentucky, in
the Senate moved the appointment of a committee, to consider
this part of the President's Message, to inquire into the dis
tracted condition of the country, the grievances between the
North and the South and to report, by bill or otherwise. This
resolution, after some debate, was adopted, on December eigh
teenth. During the debate, Sumner read, in the Senate, an
unpublished autograph letter of Andrew Jackson, written,
just after his conflict with the Nullifiers in 1833, to Rev.
A. J. Crawford ; in which Jackson declared, that the tariff was
only the pretext for Nullification, that Disunion and a Southern
Confederacy was the real object and that the next pretext
would be the Slavery question. At the time the letter was read,
Crawford was living in the South and its use made his surround
ings so unpleasant that he soon destroyed it. On the thirty-
first of December, the Committee had to report that they were
unable to agree upon any plan of adjustment. Yet leading men
of both parties were on the Committee, Breckinridge, Hunter,
Toombs, Douglas and Jefferson Davis, of the Democrats ; Sew
ard, Collamer, Crittenden and Wade of the Republicans.
On December eighteenth, Crittenden brought forward prop
ositions of compromise, since known as the " Crittenden Prop
ositions." They proposed to prohibit slavery North of 36°
30', but declared, that in all territory south of this line, now
held, or hereafter to be acquired, Slavery of the African race
was to be recognized, as existing, and should not be interfered
with by Congress but protected, by the territorial governments ;
and all territory, north or south of the line, was to be admitted,
with or without slavery, as the constitution of the new States
might provide. Congress was to have no power to abolish
slavery, in places under its jurisdiction, nor within the limits of
slave-holding States, nor within the District of Columbia while
402

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 403
either Virginia or Maryland continued slave States. By con
stitutional amendment, the United States was to pay the
owner for a fugitive slave, if obstructed in the recovery of him ;
and no future amendment of the Constitution should give Con
gress power, to abolish or interfere with slavery, in any of the
States ; the elective franchise, and the right to held office, should
not be exercised by persons, in whole or in part of the African
race. These were extreme measures. For the Republicans to
agree to them, meant to give up all they had fought for, in
the late election, and more. The propositions proposed to
carry slavery, into the Territories, and to fix all South of
36° 30' as slave and all States everywhere, whether north or
south, of that line, as slave, if the people, when seeking admis
sion, adopted a pro-slavery constitution. Congress was to have
no power to abolish slavery anywhere. The Constitution was
to be amended, so as, to confirm forever, this condition, to
strengthen the fugitive slave law, to remove from Congress the
power to interfere with slavery, in any State, and finally, to
take from free colored people, the right to vote and hold office,
in the few places, where these rights were already enjoyed.
Instead of restricting and curtailing slavery and giving good
people reason to hope for its extinction, it was thus proposed, to
strengthen and extend it, and fix it irrevocably on the Repub
lic. Such concessions were not to be thought of by liberty lov
ing people.
Clark, of New Hampshire, proposed to meet them, by counter
propositions. He introduced in the Senate, on January ninth,
1861, two resolutions, one, that the provisions of the Consti
tution were ample for the preservation of the Union and the
protection of the country, that it needed to be obeyed rather
than amended; and, another, that to the maintenance of the
existing Union and Constitution, should be directed all the
energies of the Government and of all good people. On motion,
these resolutions of Clark were substituted, by a vote of twenty-
five to twenty-three, Sumner voting for them. This result was
brought about by the refusal of Southern Senators to vote.
The vote was afterwards reconsidered and lost, several Sena
tors desiring to vote on the " Crittenden Propositions," as in
troduced. When the Crittenden propositions were voted on,
they were lost also, Sumner voting against them.
At the close of the session, a joint resolution was passed by
both the Senate and the House proposing an amendment to
the Constitution, to forbid Congress, • from interfering with
slavery, in any State, where it already existed, Sumner vot-

404 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ing against it. This would not have been inconsistent with
the position of the Republicans ; for even Lincoln declared that
he had no purpose to interfere with slavery where it then
existed. But the amendment was never made.
Events were hurrying forward. Southern Statesmen them
selves hardly Cared for a settlement of the differences. It is
pretty certain, that any proposition that could have been offered,
short of complete surrender by the North, would have been
unsatisfactory to them. Andrew Jackson, himself a Southern
man, but of incorruptible honesty and unquestioned patriot
ism, had only declared, what his clear head distinctly saw, at
the time of the nullification trouble, when he said, their object
was, neither the tariff, nor slavery, but a Southern Confederacy.
They might by their action have defeated the adoption of the
Clark Resolution, in the Senate. They might have adopted the
Crittenden Propositions. But they refused to do either. They
absented themselves purposely and, when present, refused to
vote. Nor did they seem to care seriously what the North did.
Their real leaders took little or no part. They were busy, how
ever, inflaming the minds of the people of the South, and in
citing them, to take the steps at home, that had already been
resolved upon in Washington.
Sumner was unwilling to yield to them, in anything. In a
letter to Governor Andrew, on January eighteenth, 1861, he
wrote : " The question must be met on the Constitution as it is
and the facts as they are, or we shall hereafter hold our Govern
ment, subject to this asserted right of secession. Should we
yield now, — and any offer is concession, — every Presidential
election will be conducted, with menace of secession, by the
defeated party." He held to this ground, notwithstanding
every effort of the peace party, to move him. Under the great
pressure that was being exerted, Charles Francis Adams, one
of Sumner's most unswerving supporters, in the earlier work,
for Freedom, and, who was now in Congress, had yielded and
was offering propositions of compromise. Seward also had
weakened and, in a speech in the Senate, which he had read
over to Sumner before its delivery, and which Sumner un
successfully attempted to dissuade him from delivering, he
receded from the high ground the Republicans had taken.
When such men yielded, it showed the condition of the public
mind and the pressure that was being exerted.
But Sumner stood firm. He alone, of the whole Massachu
setts delegation, in Congress, refused to sign a recommendation,
to the Governor of the State, asking the appointment of Com
missioners, to attend a Peace Conference, proposed by the Gen-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 405
eral Assembly of Virginia. He declared, that any change in
the attitude of firmness thus far maintained by the North,
could have no other effect than the encouragement of treason.
It was thought best, however, by the Governor, to appoint these
Commissioners to prevent others in Washington from assuming
to take their place and misrepresenting the loyal feeling of the
State. All the Commissioners so appointed were firm against
any concession to Slavery and so voted in the Conference.
At the request of Governor Andrew, Sumner went to Pres
ident Buchanan to offer military aid, from the State to the Gov
ernment, in its peril. When he had finished his conference,
upon this subject, and was about to retire, he asked the Presi
dent if there was anything else Massachusetts could do, for the
good of the country. " Yes," said President Buchanan, " vote
for the Crittenden Propositions." The President greatly
desired their adoption, thinking this would bring peace to the
country. But Sumner replied that, while Massachusetts had
not yet spoken, he felt authorized to say, that such was the un
alterable conviction of her people, that they would see their
State sunk in the sea, and turned into a sandbank, before they
would adopt propositions, giving slavery constitutional protec
tion, in the Territories, and disfranchising a portion of her
population. A Boston Committee, headed by Edward Everett, lately a
candidate for Vice-President, came on to Washington, to urge
an adjustment, by mutual surrenders. Everett called upon
Sumner and urged him to bring forward some conciliatory
proposition, saying he was the only person who could do it, with
a chance of success. But Sumner replied that, if he was strong
in the North, it was only because the people there were con
vinced he would not compromise, but the moment he com
promised, he too would be lost.
Thus far, Sumner had refrained from speaking, believing
firmness, with silence, to be the best course. But on February
twelfth, Crittenden presented, in the Senate, a petition signed
by the people of Massachusetts, reciting that their sentiments
towards the Union and country, were being misrepresented and
misunderstod, that they were willing all parts of the country
should have equal rights and that they recognized in the Crit
tenden Propositions a basis of settlement, on which, both tho
North and the South, might unite and thus restore peace, to
the country. The petition purported to come from one hun
dred and eighty-two towns and villages and cities of Massa
chusetts and to be signed by 22,313 citizens. Crittenden, in
presenting it, remarked upon the number from Nantic, where

406 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Senator Wilson lived, and Boston, the. home of Sumner, where
there were more than 14,000 petitioners out of 19,000 voters.
He moved that the petition be laid on the table, which cut off
debate. But Sumner moved that it be printed, and, on this
motion, spoke.
He declared that the signers of the petition must have been
ignorant of the character of the Crittenden Propositions, that
these propositions went beyond the Breckinridge platform,
which had been condemned by the people, in the election of
Lincoln; and, if adopted, would set aside the Republican plat
form, on which that election was carried, and would foist, into
the Constitution, provisions, which the framers of the instru
ment had never sanctioned, and to which they would never have
consented, extending the protection of the Constitution itself,
over slavery, south of latitude 36° 30', and carrying it to every
future acquisition of territory there, while making freedom
more impossible, at the North, with every incoming State pos
sessing the right to come in as a slave State, giving new guar
antees to slavery, in the National Capitol, facilitating the
transportation of slaves from State to State, strengthening the
Fugitive Slave Law and then, as if attempting to do something
especially obnoxious to Massachusetts, proposing to despoil her
colored citizens of political franchises they had enjoyed before
the National Constitution was adopted, and had continued to
enjoy ever since. While he had infinite respect for the right of
petition, and hoped always to promote the interests and
represent the wishes of his constituents, he unhesitatingly
declared, that these petitioners had missed the opportunity of
asking two things, altogether sufficient for this crisis, first, that
the Constitution be preserved intact ; second, that the verdict of
the people, in the election of Lincoln, be enforced, without
price or condition. He insisted there was but one thing for the
North to do, and that was to stand firm. In answer to Crit
tenden's inquiry, why, if his propositions were not right, he
did not move to amend them, Sumner answered that he had
missed no opportunity, direct or indirect, from beginning to
end, of voting against every word and every line of them, and
that he had voted for Clark's substitute, which would have dis
placed them entirely, and that this substitute expressed his con
viction exactly.
Called out by this speech, it was freely declared, by well-in
formed persons in Boston, some of them signers, that the peti
tion had been signed ignorantly by a great many. But the
Common Council of Boston made haste to pass a formal resolu
tion, censuring Sumner, and declaring that his assertion in the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 407
Senate, about the petitioners was " undignified, unbecoming a
Senator, and a citizen of Boston, and untrue." The Common
Council was then controlled by the Compromisers. It after
wards appeared that the petition had been placed, at a public
place, in the Boston post-office, in charge of a crier, who asked
every one who passed to sign, that boys and foreigners, and
such, as well as citizens, did sign thoughtlessly; and that after
wards the city police canvassed the out of the way places, with
it, getting everybody to sign it who would.
An effort was also made, in the Legislature of Massachusetts,
as in some of the other States, to procure a repeal of the Per
sonal Liberty Laws. These were laws, passed for the protection
of free citizens, against abuses, growing up under the Fugitive
Slave Law. One of the complaints of the South was that it was
hindered in the recovery of its slaves, by these laws. An appeal
to the Legislature, to make this concession to the South, was
signed by a large number of prominent citizens of Boston,
headed by Judge Shaw, until lately Chief Justice of the State.
Sumner firmly resisted any such concession and was in almost
daily correspondence with Governor Andrew to prevent it.
His letters, beseeching them not to make any such unseemly
surrender to the South, were handed around among the mem
bers of the Legislature, and aided materially in preventing it.
He wrote to Governor Andrew, January twenty-third :
" Nothing, that Massachusetts can do now, can arrest one
single State. There can be no other result, except our "own
humiliation, and a bad example, which will be felt by all other
States. If Massachusetts yields one hair's breadth, other States
may yield an inch or foot, a furlong, or a mile. Pray keep
the Legislature firm. Don't let them undo anything ever done
for Freedom."
Sumner did not mistake the gravity of the situation. Prob
ably no man, in public life, had a clearer view of what was in
store for us, than he. For years he had been in the midst of
the conflict. He knew the temper of the South and its leaders ;
and he could appreciate what they were about to do, and what
the outcome of it would be. He made no effort to conceal his
convictions, or to mislead his friends. " We are on the eve of
great events," he wrote William Claflin, Chairman of the Re
publican State Committee and President of the Senate of Mass
achusetts, " and this month will try men's souls. But our
duty is as clear as noonday." The same month, January, 1861,
he wrote Count Gurowski : " The slave States are mad. They
will all move. Nothing now, but abject humiliation, on the
part of the North can stay them. Nobody can foresee precisely

408 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
all that is in the future, but I do not doubt that any conflict
will precipitate the doom of Slavery. It will probably go down
in blood." " My opinion," he wrote Governor Andrew, Jan
uary twenty-sixth, "has been fixed for a long time. All the
slave States will go, except Delaware, and perhaps Maryland
and Missouri, — to remain with us Free States."
These opinions were constantly realized by events. Within
two weeks after the opening of Congress and the appointment
of the committee of thirteen and within two days after Critten
den offered in the Senate his propositions of Compromise,
South Carolina, without waiting to see the result of either, on
December twentieth, 1860, adopted an ordinance of secession
and proceeded to raise the Palmetto Flag over the custom house
and post-office at Charleston. Other States followed, in quick
succession, Mississippi, January ninth, 1861 ; Florida, January
tenth ; Alabama, January eleventh ; Georgia, January nine
teenth; Louisiana, January twenty-sixth. Texas followed,
February first. Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia and Ten
nessee were merely waiting and soon to follow. The seceding
States were demanding the removal of the National troops from
their territory and the surrender to them of the fortifications
and custom houses and post-offices, within their borders. The
Senators of the seceding States withdrew from the Senate, on
January twenty-first. The President's Cabinet too was melting
away, before Secession. Cobb, of Georgia, left the Treasury
bankrupt, December tenth; Floyd, after transferring the mili
tary resources of the country to the forts of the South, and then
withdrawing the National troops from them, left the War
Department, December twenty-ninth; Thompson, as disloyal
as either of the others, left the Interior Department January
eighth. No especial regret was felt by loyal people, when they
left. It would have been better for the country if they had
gone earlier. They were succeeded by three loyal men. Edwin
M. Stanton, than whom America never produced a greater man,
soon to become the War Secretary, John A. Dix and Joseph
Holt, took their places; and thenceforward Buchanan, in the
hands of better men, became a better President.
But it was not the South alone that had gone off after the
idol of Slavery. Southern men had many political friends, in
the North, who had been associated with them", in conventions,
and in public office, had voted with and sustained them, and
were openly, with speech and pen, supporting them now ; such
men, as Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, Horatio Seymour, of
New York, and Clement L. Valandigham, of Ohio. They
were working vigorously and openly, pointing to the destruc-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 409
tion that threatened, and loudly calling on the North to yield.
Living in the North and a part of it, themselves men of ability,
they were more to be feared than their friends in the South.
Their influence was felt. Even the timid and weak-kneed of
the Republicans, whose votes had aided in the election of Lin
coln, were hesitating. The times were trying men of stronger
fibre. I count it one of the great debts we owe Sumner that he,
more than any other man, perhaps, of the whole country, with
grim resolution, stood firm at this time and kept the Republi
cans true to the work they had undertaken. He continued abso
lutely loyal to his convictions, without any sign of weakness;
one to whom all others could turn, with assurance, for en
couragement and advice. He saw the situation clearly him
self and he never wanted confidence in his own convictions.
He felt that now was the hour of supreme peril, that to yield
meant to give up all that had been gained and sink lower, than
ever, in submission to the South. He felt, too, that the life
of our institutions was staked on the issue, that the South,
having been beaten at the polls, should accept the verdict of the
people and abide the result, that any different course, on her
part, was revolutionary and must, if persisted in, destroy our
experiment in popular government. For the North to yield,
was to encourage revolutionary tendencies. He had absolute
confidence in the righteousness of his cause and that, if war
came, victory must ultimately come out of it, to the right, with
the complete destruction of slavery; and that with all cause
for strife between the sections removed, the country would
rise to a new height of prosperity and power, among the nations.
All he then saw, with prophetic instinct, events have since jus
tified, and to him, and those who stood with him, a debt of
gratitude is due.
The withdrawal of the Southern Senators left the Repub
licans with a majority in the Senate, and gave them the control
in the organization of the committees. After the inauguration
of Lincoln, they proceeded, on the eighth of March, 1861, to this
work. Sumner was made Chairman of the Committee on For
eign Relations, one of the most important committees of the
Senate, and for whose work he had an especial fitness, by reason
of his early studies in international law and his extensive travel
and acquaintance in Europe. This fitness was recognized by the
press both at home and abroad, at the time, as a matter for
congratulation. Mason, of Virginia, had held this chairman
ship, since December, 1851. Sumner had been a member of the
Committee for two years, and was destined to preside over it

410 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
until his removal, in 1871- There never was a period when
graver questions came before the Committee, than during the
years from 1861 to 1871, when Sumner was its Chairman.
They were the years of the war and those immediately follow
ing it, when our relations with foreign nations were frequently
strained, as with England, over the claims growing out of the
depredations of the rebel cruiser Alabama, built and manned
in Great Britain. Except for careful diplomacy war might
have resulted. The first report the Committee made under his
chairmanship, was in favor of the settlement of a disputed
question by arbitration, a means of settling national differences
he had advocated in his oration on The True Grandeur of
Nations. The dispute was between this country and England
over the boundary line between Vancouver's Island and the
American Continent.
The Senate continued in session, to act on the appointments
of President Lincoln, till late in March. Sumner, according
to his custom, remained in Washington a few days, after the
close of the session. While he was still there, Fort Sumter was
fired upon, and President Lincoln issued his call for seventy-
five thousand men. On the afternoon of April eighteenth,
Sumner left Washington for home, stopping that night at
Baltimore. Here he narrowly escaped being mobbed. He put
up at Barnum's Hotel, registering when he entered, in the
open book. He took tea, however, and spent the evening at the
home of some friends. As he was passing along the street, on
his way to his friends, he was recognized, and the report being
spread that he was in the city, a mob gathered and proceeded
to the hotel and demanded to see him. But they were assured
that he was not in the hotel, and that they did not know where
he had gone. Leaving his friends, about nine o'clock, and
walking leisurely back, when near the hotel, Sumner noticed an
excited crowd in the street, but, being entirely ignorant of the
cause, he turned into a side entrance of the hotel, thinking thus
to avoid the press. Going to the clerk's counter to get his key,
he was at once hurried into the private office of the proprietor
and was there told, by Mr. Barnum, of his danger and asked,
for the safety of himself as well as of the hotel, that he would
leave the house. Sumner insisted that he must claim the
rights of a guest, that no other hotel would be safer and that
he could not think of bringing danger to the home of a friend.
It was finally arranged that he might remain in the hotel,
occupying one of the rooms, at the end of a long hall, in the
third story, where all the rooms were of one size and where no
one, but the proprietor and his confidant would know where he

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 4H
was. Here Sumner remained, for the night; and as he sat
by the window he could see, all unknown to them, the surging
of the angry crowd, who were looking and waiting for him.
In the grey dawn of the following morning, he left the hotel
and proceeded on his way to Philadelphia. The lady in whose
family he had passed the previous evening, was notified, for
her own safety, to leave the city, which she did, until the excite
ment subsided.
On the road to Philadelphia, Sumner passed the Sixth Massa
chusetts regiment, on its way to Washington, in answer to the
President's call for troops. They were being carried in horse
cars. And in their laughter and singing and prevailing good
humor, they revealed the easy, joyous side of soldier life. In a
few hours, they were in Baltimore and then they encountered
the other side. As they were being transported from the
Philadelphia, to the Washington station, after part of them had
reached the latter, the remainder en route were set upon, by
a mob, the rails of the track were torn up and they were obliged
to march through the city. They were pelted with stones and
brick and other missiles and then came pistol shots; when the
soldiers turned and fired. And thus they fought their way for
two miles, to the Washington station. Four of the soldiers
were killed and thirty-six wounded. Some of the mob also
fell. Thus was shed 'the first blood of the Civil War. That
night the bridges on the Philadelphia Railroad were burned,
travel was cut off, over that thoroughfare, and the President
was notified by the Mayor of Baltimore that no more troops
could be transported through that city. When Sumner reached
Philadelphia they were reading bulletins, telling of the disaster
to the troops he had just passed, from his own State. That
night these same troops were quartered in the Senate Chamber
he had lately left, and so the scene of argument was transformed
into one of arms.
Events were fast hurrying upon one another. Both sides were
marshalling armies, and every one now believed that war was
inevitable. Sumner saw, in it, a great opportunity. He was as
sure the South could not succeed, as he was that eternal prin
ciples of right ruled the world. He knew that slavery was the
cause of all our trouble and he felt, that the destruction of
slavery, would end the war. Slavery was wrong, and as it was
the cause of the war, created and maintained it, he believed that
the war thus created could not succeed. The only danger he
saw, was, that the North would not place herself, in the right
attitude. He felt, that she should squarely assert that she was
against slavery, against its extension and believed it to be wrong,

412 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
and that Southern Statesmen, becoming convinced of this, had
persuaded their section to rebellion, to save slavery. He be
lieved the North should declare now, that the war having come,
and for this cause, that slavery must be destroyed, in the Repub
lic. She was not doing this. She was withholding any declara
tion, on the subject. She was holding on to slavery, in the bor
der States, Delaware, Maryland, Kentucky and Missouri. She
was holding on to the Southern States, and, apparently, under
taking to subjugate them. The South was asserting and ap
parently maintaining that her war was for independence, for
liberty. So that the war was made to appear, as one for con
quest, on the part of the North, and for independence, on the
part of the South.
Sumner felt that all this was wrong, that we could not suc
ceed, so long as we allowed the South to maintain such an atti
tude. The greatest naval power in the world was Great
Britain. She would be against us upon such an issue, as the
South was making. For our Nation had made war against
her, upon this very issue, in our struggle for Independence. In
this quarter, at any rate, the feeling towards us, as a Nation,
was then none too kind. France, too, was already committed
upon this question, for she had aided us, in that struggle.
Under Napoleon, she had since maintained a life and death
struggle, of her own, upon this issue, first, when Napoleon
emulating the Emperor Charlemagne, in the extent of his
territories, had sought to unite all Western Europe, under the
battle cry of freedom from kings and hereditary monarchs;
and, second, when all Europe had, in turn, united against him,
and swept away his conquests and his empire, and carried him
off, to St. Helena. The whole continent of Europe had seen
wars for conquest, until it was tired of them. We could expect
no sympathy there, upon such an issue. Yet the South was
seeking assistance there, in its struggle for independence, as it
called it, and the result must be doubtful to us, if she obtained
such aid.
Upon the question of slavery, on the other hand, Europe
was with the North. Great Britain had abolished it, in 1834.
France in 1848; and the example of these nations was being
followed, all over the Continent. It was everywhere being
treated, as a relic of barbarism. Intelligent men united in
condemning it and among them, no foreign country could hope
to find sympathy, in a war waged in support of it-
Sumner maintained, that our Nation should be set right,
before the world. He could not agree, that the necessity of
holding the border States, for the North, was a sufficient com-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 413
pensation, for the loss of the goodwill of Europe. Everywhere
the real cause of the War should be proclaimed and the issue
asserted, in no unmeaning terms, that the success of the North
meant the destruction of slavery ; while the success of the South
meant the establishment of a new nation, with slavery, as the
chief corner stone.
Sumner early pressed this matter, upon the attention of
President Lincoln. A day or two before the bombardment of
Fort Sumter, the President told him of the determination to
provision and hold the fort, resisting, by fire, an attempt to
take it, if one was made by the rebels. " Then the war power
will be in motion," answered Sumner, " and with it great
consequences." Sumner was in Washington, in May, and the
President invited him to take an evening drive, in his carriage.
Troops were seen everywhere, about the City, for the purpose
of guarding the Capitol. Fortifications were being constructed,
supplies were being collected and everything suggested the
coming conflict. Sumner brought up the subject of slavery and
took occasion to tell the President, that, so far, he was in the
right, in the course he had pursued towards it, but he must be
ready to strike, when the time came.
A special session of Congress was called to meet, July 4, 1861,
to pass some measures, necessary for the war. Sumner, prompt
in the discharge of his duty, was in Washington ten days, be
fore Congress opened. It continued in session, till the middle
of August, doing a good deal of actual work, but consuming
very little time, in discussion, the purpose being to confine
themselves closely, to the work in hand. While it was in session,
July 21, occurred the battle of Bull Run. On the day of the
defeat of our army, Sumner was with the President twice, but
made no mention of slavery. But, on the second day after the
battle, he went to the President, for the express purpose of rec
ommending emancipation. It was late in the evening, and he
found the President alone. Sumner opened the conversation,
by saying he had come to make an important recommenda
tion about the conduct of the war. To which the President
replied, that he was just thinking of that, and had something
new on the subject. Sumner supposing that he referred to
emancipation, said : " Then you are going against slavery ! "
But the President replied, " Oh, no, not that." Sumner an
swered, he was sorry. When the President called his atten
tion to the conversation, on their ride together, in May, and
asked Sumner, if he remembered it. " Certainly," said Sumner.
" Did you not then say that you approved my course ? " asked
the President. " Certainly," said Sumner, " but I also said

414 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
that you must be ready to strike at slavery, and now the mo
ment has come." -But the President did not agree with him.
Sumner urged his reasons, upon the President, and their con
versation continued, until midnight; but he was unable to con
vince him. Lincoln's primary object was to save the Union;
Sumner's to destroy slavery.
Sumner was impatient at the delay and resolved to go before
the people and publicly urge the necessity and duty of emanci
pation and create a sentiment, in its favor. During the fall,
he was invited, by William Claflin, the Chairman of the
Massachusetts State Republican Committee, to address the
State Convention, which was to meet at Worcester, on Octo
ber first. Sumner replied, that he would not speak, except to
urge the duty of immediate emancipation. Claflin urged him
to speak, and on that subject, if he chose. Sumner prepared
his speech, and at a subsequent call of Claflin, read to him a
sketch of what he proposed to say, telling him that, if it did not
meet his entire approval, to say so, and he would not appear;
but that he would say this, if he spoke at all. Claflin expressed
his entire agreement and Sumner spoke. He was received by
the Convention, with great enthusiasm and spoke for about
an hour. This explanation is proper, because, in the heat of
opposition, raised by the speech, it was claimed that he had
thrust himself and his subject upon the Convention and that
what he said was not favorably received.
He said he had often appeared before the people, to urge the
duty of emancipating the National Government, from the con
trol of slavery, and, that this had now been accomplished, first,
by the people in the election of Lincoln and, second, by the cart
ridge box, when, in obedience to the command of the Presi
dent, Fort Sumter had refused to surrender and had re
turned the fire of the rebel artillery. It had often been said
that the war would make an end of slavery, but it was surer
still, that the overthrow of slavery would make an end of the
war. The war must be brought to bear directly on slavery.
When the slaves fied to our armies, they must be received as
free. The higher law, under the Constitution, martial law,
which is only a form of self-defence, should be invoked against
slavery. Under this law, not only the President, but the Com
mander of the army, had power to order the emancipation of
the slaves.
" Two objects are before us, Union and Peace," he said, " each
for the sake of the other, and both for the sake of the country;
but without Emancipation how can we expect either?"
" Fellow-citizens, I have spoken frankly ; for such is always

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 415
my habit. Never was there greater need of frankness. Let
patriots understand each other and they cannot differ widely.
All will unite in whatever is required by the sovereign exigen
cies of self-defence; which means that all will unite in sus
taining the National Government, and driving back the Rebels.
But this cannot be by any half way measure, or lukewarm
policy. There must be no hesitation. Hearken not to the
voice of Slavery, no matter what its tone of persuasion. It
is the gigantic Traitor and Parricide, — not for a moment to be
trusted. Believe me its friendship is more deadly than its
enmity. If you are wise, prudent, economical, conservative,
practical, you will strike quick and hard, — strike, too, where
the blow will be most felt — strike at the mainspring of the
Rebellion." The address was received with frequent and long applause,- — -
sometimes so great that the speaker was compelled to stop and
wait, till quiet had been restored. No sign of dissent was
shown during the delivery. But the applause must have
come from those, in the Convention, who had been Free-
soilers. The conservative or Whig element, in the Convention,
though they made no sign of disapproval, during the speech,
were against Sumner's recommendation. A resolution was
introduced by James Freeman Clarke, proposing that all slaves,
within the lines of our armies, be declared free and that their
services be accepted, for the Union, and further, expressing
the opinion, that slavery was the cause of the war and asking
the Government to remove it. The resolution was laid upon
the table, pending the transaction of other business, but, when
a motion was made to take it from the table, another motion,
to adjourn, was made and carried. And so the Convention
adjourned, without a direct expression, on the resolution, being
taken, but, with an indirect expression given, against it.
Out of the Convention, the speech created a good deal of a
sensation. It was the first declaration, by any one, in high
authority, in favor of emancipation. True some of the extreme
anti-slavery men had advocated it, but they had advocated a
great many extravagant things; and sometimes their advocacy
did not attract much attention. But it did attract attention
when Sumner, openly and with earnestness advocated it, be
fore a political convention, of his own State. The speech was
printed in the newspapers and was read widely and evoked
much comment. The press of Boston, including the Repub
lican papers, all condemned it, as did the Springfield Repub
lican. Indeed, never once, in his career, did Sumner receive
the cordial support of the newspapers of his home city. The

416 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
tone of their comment on this occasion was in some instances
unkind. One of them called him " one of the most irrepressible
impracticables of the party," and added that " it is the position
and antecedents of the Senator which alone shield him from
the suspicion of being a proper person against whom a writ
De lunatico inquirendo might be issued." Another called it an
"unfortunate speech, which had certainly done as much as
lay within the compass of one man's powers to inspire this sus
picion (that the abolition of slavery and not the Union was the
object of the war,) to distract and weaken the loyal and by in
direction to aid the disloyal." While the Boston Post (Demo
cratic) in commenting on it, said "such men as Sumner, and
his ilk, do not fight nor pay; they only brawl, and deserve to
be treated as were old scolds in days past, — ducked in a horse
pond," calling it again " the rodomontade of this classic fana
tic at the Worcester Convention." But outside of Boston,
the Republican papers of Massachusetts generally approved the
speech. The New York papers as well as the Pennsylvania ones
were generally divided, according to politics, upon it. It was
printed and commented on variously in England and France.
His friends were as enthusiastic as his critics were bitter.
The former took up the matter and to the threats of the latter
that they would defeat his return to the Senate, at his next elec
tion, they predicted that his next election would be as nearly
unanimous as the last. They thanked the papers that had
assailed him, as simply revealing, in advance, their anxiety,
for his retirement, and promised their own support. But this
was hardly necessary; for within a year, the whole party were
compelled, by the logic of events, to the same position, he had
taken. The quotation, from Shakespeare's King Henry V,
with which he prefaced this speech, was rising up, in warning,
to the South. " Therefore take heed * * * "
How you awake the sleeping sword of war :
We charge you, in the name of God, take heed I "
From this time forward, Sumner lost no opportunity to urge
emancipation, whether before the people, or in his place in the
Senate, or with the President. He knew that the great pur
pose must be to convince the people. He never lost his faith,
in them. If they once united, with him, the result was cer
tain; but, without them, it was doubtful, when success would
come. To this task therefore he addressed himself, during the
remainder of the recess, of Congress.
He grasped the opportunity for the accomplishment of the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 417
great purpose of his life, and resolutely pushed forward to
success. He was not in politics for the sake of its honors and
its pleasures. He had no thought of wasting his life there,
enjoying the idle days. He had a distinct purpose, which it
was the hope of his life to see accomplished, for the good of
his country; and he kept steadily on, in pursuit of it. This is
what distinguishes him from so many statesmen, bent only on
the attainment of place and power for themselves. The conse
quences to himself, Sumner did not stop to estimate. With un
failing confidence in the justice of his cause, if he could only
accomplish it, he was willing to rest his fame. And yet the
people recognized his loftiness of purpose, as they always will,
when real merit is at stake, and loyally kept him at his post.
Daring always to do right, the sequel showed he was safe.
To John Bright, the English statesman, he wrote : " The
contest must go on: there is no thought of compromise or ar
rangement. And with its progress the slavery question becomes
more prominent. Against war as I am, never could I wage
a war for emancipation ; but with war forced upon us I accept
emancipation as one of the agencies by which it may be brought
to a close, and I see clearly that the war will then have a charac
ter which it now wants. If there are difficulties in this step,
there are greater difficulties without it." And again : " The
South will fight like desperadoes, and I see no chance of clos
ing the war without striking at slavery. * * * Meanwhile the
good people of England owe to us their good wishes. We are
fighting the battle of civilization and their public men and
newspapers should recognize and declare the true character of
the conflict."
Within three weeks after the Worcester Convention, where
he proposed emancipation as a remedy for the hour, he pre
pared a lecture on the Rebellion, its Origin and Mainspring.
In this lecture he treated the history of the South in its rela
tion to the General Government, how it had haltingly con
curred in the Declaration of Independence and again in the
adoption of the Constitution, how it had by threatening disun
ion gradually acquired and maintained for Slavery the suprem
acy and with what tyranny it had commanded obedience, how
now by a lawful and constitutional triumph of Freedom, in the
election of Lincoln, being deprived of its accustomed rule, it
had raised the bloody hand of Rebellion and proposed by war
to destroy the Republic.
" But all must see," he said, — " and nobody will deny — that
Slavery is the ruling idea of this Rebellion. It is Slavery that
marshals these hosts and breathes into their embattled ranks

418 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
its own barbarous fire. It is Slavery that stamps its character
alike upon officers and men. It is Slavery that inspires all
from the General to the trumpeter. It is Slavery that speaks
in the word of command, and sounds in the morning drum
beat. It is Slavery that digs trenches and builds hostile forts.
It is Slavery that pitches its wicked tents and stations its sen
tries over against the national capitol. It is Slavery that
sharpens the bayonet and runs the bullet, — that points the
cannon and scatters the shell, blazing, bursting with death.
Wherever this Rebellion shows itself, whatever form it takes,
whatever thing it does, whatever it meditates, it is moved by
Slavery; nay, the Rebellion is Slavery itself, incarnate, living,
acting, raging, robbing, murdering according to the essential
law of its being"
" Such," he added, " is Slavery, that it cannot exist, unless
it owns the Government. * * * The slave-masters of our
country saw that they were dislodged from the National Govern
ment, and straightway they rebelled. The Republic, which they
could no longer rule, they determined to ruin. And now the
issue is joined. Slavery must either rule or die."
He argued that the Union could be preserved only by the
destruction of Slavery. He urged the people to strike where
the blow would be felt and not miss the precious opportunity
of destroying the monster evil, the source of all this strife, that
military necessity required this in just self-defence. He knew
the cavils that were urged against this remedy, but he trusted
the people; for the heart of the people was right. He urged
them to be aroused to the occasion. The only peril he feared
was some new concession to Slavery.
This address was delivered in Boston, first, and then, in
several cities of Massachusetts, as well as in Providence, Al
bany and Philadelphia, always to full houses. Such was its
popularity, that he was asked to repeat it, in Boston and Phil
adelphia; and he did repeat it in the former place. It was
last delivered in Cooper Institute, New York, on November
twenty-seventh. The demand for it showed the interest of
the plain people, in what he had to say, and the conversion of
the masses to his opinions.
The audience, in New York, was a brilliant one. Long before
the hour for meeting, the immense hall was crowded. The
evening was a stormy one, and still the number of ladies pres
ent was larger than ever before seen, in the city, on a similar
occasion. Many distinguished men of New York and New
Jersey occupied, seats upon the platform. The New York
Herald, though hostile in politics, and unfriendly to the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 419
meeting, admitted, that never before had Cooper Institute held
an audience of such general reputation and intelligence.
When Sumner came forward he was met, by tumultuous ap
plause and cheers and waving of hats and handkerchiefs, and
it was several minutes, before he could proceed, for the enthu
siasm, which his appearance excited. Frequently during the
delivery of his lecture, he was similarly interrupted and at its
close resolutions were adopted, declaring it to be the judg
ment of the meeting that the public sentiment of the North
was, in full sympathy with any practical scheme for the extir
pation of Slavery, and would accept that as the only consistent
issue, in the contest then waged. They also conveyed to Sumner
the thanks of the meeting, for his eloquent assertion of this
principle. Thus what had been denied him, in Massachusetts,
was, six weeks later, accorded him, in New York.
At the opening of Congress Sumner renewed his efforts for
emancipation in the Senate. The regular session commenced
December second, 1861. Two days later, Sumner introduced
in the Senate, a resolution that the Secretary of War be re
quested to furnish, to the Senate, copies of any general or
ders, in the Military Department of Missouri, relating to fugi
tive slaves. General Halleck, in command of that department,
had issued an order directing that such persons should not be
received, within his camps, or in the lines of his forces, when
on the march, and, that any such slaves when found there be
driven out of the lines. Sumner spoke on the resolution and
characterized the order, as irrational and inhuman, authorizing
the surrender of slaves, beyond any constitutional obligation.
He insisted that such an order was disheartening, to the soldiers,
and discreditable to the country, both at home and abroad.
On December seventeenth, he followed this, with another
resolution, that the Committee on Military affairs, of which his
colleague, Wilson, was Chairman, be directed to consider the
expediency of providing by additional legislation, that the Na
tional army be not employed, in the surrender of fugitive
slaves. It appeared that General Stone who commanded the
Union troops, at the disaster of Ball's Bluff, had required his
men to surrender fugitive slaves. In his command, were
troops from Massachusetts, who had complained of this re
quirement. Governor Andrew had requested Sumner to call
attention of the War Department to it and ask that the out
rage be remedied. Some German troops,, who had enlisted
in Massachusetts, were also in Stone's army and were like
wise remonstrating.
Evidence that the country was being aroused upon these ques-

420 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
tions came to Sumner, from various sources. On the day
after the introduction of the first resolution, a letter from
St. Louis informed Sumner, that the. very slaves given up, be
longed to Secessionists, in the Confederate army, and asked
if it was not inhuman, for these poor people to be made out
laws, for no crime, save that they refused to join their masters,
in the onslaught on the Government. Another writer from
Missouri, in a letter which Sumner read to the Senate, when he
offered the second resolution, said, that he had lived in Mis
souri twenty-four years and knew her people and had served
them, in various offices, and that it was nonsense, to try to save
Missouri to the Union and the institution of slavery also, that
slavery should fall and Missouri be saved, that if the National
armies would proclaim freedom to the slaves of Secessionists,
the war would soon close.
In accordance with his second resolution, a bill was reported
by Senator Wilson's committee, but it gave way to another,
from the House, prohibiting the employment of National troops,
in the surrender of fugitive slaves. On March thirteenth,
1862, this became a law. It was one step towards Sumner's
desired goal, — emancipation.
Sumner's outspoken advocacy of this measure, was often
criticised, and sometimes, for peculiar reasons. Certain it is
that whenever an opportunity presented to correct the attitude
of the country, and to further his cherished object, he did not
fail to embrace it. Two of his colleagues, in the Senate, had
died, Bingham of Michigan and Baker of Oregon. Sumner
took the opportunity, in commemorating both, to especially em
phasize their work against slavery and their stand for emanci
pation. He said that except while engaged in the public serv
ice, Bingham had all his life been a farmer. By successive
promotions, he had been advanced to the State Legislature,
Speaker of that body, Member of Congress, Governor of his
State, and then Senator. But he belonged primarily to the vo
cation of the farmer, that does so much to strengthen both body
and soul. Dependent upon Nature, the sun and the rain, the
ever varying seasons, he had learned to be independent of men.
Though a Democrat, when he came to Washington, he had
frankly accepted the situation and true to his instincts for free
dom had assumed the responsibilities of his position and had
voted for the Wilmot proviso, forbidding slavery in any part of
the territory proposed to be acquired from Mexico, at the close
of the Mexican War, and, afterwards, had opposed the Fugitive
Slave Bill. All this, Sumner recorded to his credit, and he
added :

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 431
" He set his face against concession, in any degree, and in
every form. The time had come when slavery was to be met,
and he was ready. As the Rebellion assumed its warlike pro
portions, his perception of our duties was none the less clear.
In his mind, slavery was not only the origin, but vital part of
the Rebellion, and therefore to be attacked. Slavery was also
the mainspring of the belligerent power now arrayed against
the Union, — therefore in the name of the Union, to be de
stroyed. * * * Such a Senator can ill be spared at this hour.
His cheerful confidence, his genuine courage, his practical in
stinct, his simple presence, would help the great events now
preparing, nay, which are at hand. Happily he survives in a
noble example, and speaks even from the tomb."
He said that Baker's career had been somewhat different. He
was born, in England, of poor parents, and his earliest recol
lection was of the magnificent pageant, attending the funeral
of Lord Nelson, wounded in the naval battle of Trafalgar,
where his own, annihilated the French fleet, he dying three
hours later, when the day was won. Thus was Baker early
taught love of country. He was brought, as a child, to Phila
delphia. While still a boy, he had worked, in the factories, at
the loom, and later had removed to Illinois. His early career
was one of struggle, with adversity, but having reached the bar,
his engaging ways and rare endowments as an orator had quickly
carried him into Congress. Later he commanded a regiment
with signal ability, in the Mexican War. Disappointed at not
receiving a seat in the Cabinet of General Taylor, and consider
ing his political career closed, in Illinois, he had hurried with
the tide of emigration, to the Pacific coast, where his ability, as
an orator, was quickly recognized and, a little later, he reap
peared in Washington, as a Senator from Oregon. In a funeral
oration over Broderick, Senator from California, killed by Terry
the Chief Justice of that State, in a duel, growing out of politi
cal discussions, over slavery, in the heated campaign of 1859,
Baker had so wrought up the feelings of his audience that
violence was feared. On the breaking out of the Rebellion, he
had enlisted in the army and was made Colonel of his regiment
and, being stationed near Washington, he had sustained the
dual relation of Soldier and Senator.
Coming into the Senate one day, in the full uniform of a
Colonel, he had laid his sword upon his desk, and sat listening
to John C. Breckenridge, lately the Democratic candidate for
President, opposing the measures of the Government, for the
preservation of the Union. Baker at once replied and the pas
sions of his impulsive nature being aroused, branding his ad-

402 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
versary's words as " polished treason even in the very Capitol
of the Republic," infusing the fire of his own spirit into his
audience, he created a scene never to be forgotten.
"What would have been thought," he demanded, "if in
another Capitol, in a yet more martial age, a Senator, with the
Roman purple flowing from his shoulders, had risen in his
place, surrounded by all the illustrations of Roman glory, and
declared that advancing Hannibal was just, and that Carthage
should be dealt with on terms of peace? What would have
been thought, if after the battle of Cannae, a Senator had de
nounced every levy of the Roman people, every expenditure of
its treasure, every appeal to the old recollections and the old
glories?" "He would have been hurled from the Tarpeian
Rock," interrupted Fessenden, in an undertone, who sat near
him. And Baker catching up the answer and turning it against
his adversary, thundered on, in his indictment of Breckenridge.
Breckenridge had not caught the voice of Fessenden and,
thinking it was Sumner who had suggested the Tarpeian Rock,
in his reply, made a coarse onslaught on Sumner. Sumner
looked surprised but, accustomed to the abuse of the South,
said nothing.
Breckenridge and Baker had come to the parting of the ways.
The brilliant Southerner of long and distinguished ancestry, in
Kentucky, was expelled from the Senate at its next session,
characterized, in the resolution of expulsion, by Baker's epithet,
"John C. Breckenridge, the traitor," and destined never to
reappear, in his country's service. But his more brilliant an
tagonist, Baker, the poor boy, continued with increasing loyalty,
in the service of his adopted country. At the head of his
brigade, at Ball's Bluff, he fell dead, pierced by nine balls, the
brain that had swayed listening multitudes shattered and the
bosom, that had beat to so many generous impulses, riddled.
His eulogies were pronounced in the Senate, in the presence of
the Chief Magistrate and his Secretaries, and a multitude,
gathered to pay him honor, at the very session of Congress that
his antagonist was expelled.
It was an occasion that appealed strongly to Sumner; and,
always happy, in tributes to his deceased colleagues, he was then
at his best. The encounter at Ball's Bluff was a signal disaster,
to our arms, and there was a strong disposition, to hold some
one responsible for it. The brilliant life, suddenly snatched
away in the midst of an honorable career, in the place where
the waves of excitement ran highest, over a question that was
rending the nation, aroused intense feeling and called out bit
ter expressions. But, through it all, Sumner saw the evil, that

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 423
caused it and the remedy. Grief would be unavailing, he
thought, that did not point them out. Therefore, after pictur
ing these leading events, in Baker's eventful life, he pointed
the whole lesson, with this significant plea for emancipation.
" But the question is painfully asked, Who was author of
this tragedy, now filling the Senate Chamber, as already it has
filled the country, with mourning? There is a strong desire to
hold some body responsible, where so many perished, so un-
profitably. But we need not appoint committees, or study testi
mony, to know precisely who took this precious life. That great
criminal is easily detected, — still erect and defiant, without
concealment or disguise. The guns, the balls and the men that
fired them are of little importance. It is the power behind all,
saying, 'The State, it is I,' that took this precious life; and
this power is Slavery. The nine balls that slew our departed
brother came from Slavery. Every gaping wound of his slashed
bosom testifies against Slavery. Every drop of his generous
blood cries out from the ground against Slavery. The brain so
rudely shattered has its own voice and the tongue, so suddenly
silenced in death speaks now, in more than living eloquence.
To hold others responsible, is to hold the dwarf agent and dis
miss the giant principal. Nor shall we do great service, if
merely criticising some local blunder, we leave untouched that
fatal forbearance through which the weakness of the Rebellion
is changed into strength, and the strength of our armies is
changed into weakness."
" May our grief to-day be no hollow pageant, nor expend
itself in this funeral pomp ! It must become a motive and im
pulse to patriot action. But patriotism itself, that command
ing charity, embracing so many other charities, is only a name,
and nothing else, unless we resolve calmly, plainly, solemnly,
that Slavery, the barbarous enemy of our country, the irreconcil
able foe of our Union, the violator of our Constitution, the dis
turber of our peace, the vampire of our national life, sucking its
best blood, the assassin of our children and the murderer of our
dead Senator, shall be struck down."
These tributes of Sumner to his dead colleagues were crit
icised at the time for the passages I have quoted. One news
paper of New York, in an abusive article, declared that, " Even
in the burial services of the dead he mingles his sectional hate
and personal wrath" and that he ought to be sent home to
Boston to be imprisoned in Fort Warren with Mason and Sli
dell, all enemies alike of the Government and the Union. But
Sumner thought otherwise. " It is my nature," he once said,
" to be more touched, by the kindness of friends, than by the

424 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
malignity of enemies; and I know something of both." He
knew his dead colleagues, Bingham and Baker, and the les
son of their lives and its value to their country, at this time.
He could justify all he had said of them and these Congres
sional eulogies published in pamphlet form were sent broadcast
over the country and were eagerly read by patriotic people.
Such work for emancipation was making itself felt, in
the country. During the early years of the war, there was an
effort made by the Government to keep the border States from
joining the Rebellion. They were slave states and it was feared
that the adoption of radical anti-slavery measures would drive
them out of the Union. President Lincoln, feeling the re
sponsibility of his position, and knowing that his administra-
ton was new and untried, and that it had been entered upon
under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, was anxious to gain
the confidence of the country and to keep these border States.
There could be no doubt that he felt, as to the cause of the war,
much as Sumner did. Three years before, in his debate with
Douglas, he had declared, " I believe this Government cannot
endure permanently, half slave and half free." And he had
then made the prediction that it would eventually become " all
one thing or all the other." He had never retracted these
opinions, then deliberately expressed. But his position was
different from Sumner's, who had been in the Senate for ten
years, and was well-known in public life; arid his habits of
thought were essentially different. He watched the public pulse
more carefully; he reasoned out his conclusions more cau
tiously. He was slow in reaching his conclusions; and he had
to reach them himself, no one could be said to control him.
But his conclusions, when reached, were safe. Sumner while
chafing at the delay of emancipation, knew him and trusted
him always. And, to the credit of both, it may be said, no
other President, during Sumner's whole public career, so much
appreciated and trusted him as Lincoln.
Lincoln heard Sumner's plea for emancipation patiently and
considered his arguments, but was slow to express himself, not
agreeing that the time was ripe or that the people were pre
pared for it. But before the end of December, 1861, Lincoln
privately confessed to Sumner that he was ahead of him only a
month or six weeks. A majority of his cabinet then favored
emancipation. The change was beginning to show itself, in
the army orders, and a different attitude, towards fugitive
slaves, who reached the Union ranks. The time was ripening
fast for the consummation, so long hoped for, by Sumner. But
it was not destined to be reached in six weeks.

CHAPTER XXVII
THE TRENT AFFAIR  SUMNER URGES RELEASE OF MASON AND
SLIDELL  HIS SPEECH  HIS APPEARANCE AND POSITION 
EMANCIPATION, ADVOCATED BY SUMNER  OTHER QUES
TIONS
The ports of the South were now in a state of blockade and
the National Government was making every effort to cut off the
Confederacy from communication with the world. At the same
time the South was bending every energy to maintain her as
serted position as an independent nation. She had appointed
James M. Mason, of Virginia, Commissioner and Envoy to Eng
land, and John Slidell, of Louisiana, in the same capacity to
France. They had succeeded in running the blockade, some
time in October, 1861, and had reached Havana, in Cuba, with
their two secretaries, their baggage and dispatches. It became
generally known that they were in Havana, and what their mis
sion was. They were to act as agents of the Confederate gov
ernment, in procuring loans of money and armed intervention,
as well as the recognition of the Confederacy and, generally,
obstruct the United States, in their dealings with those powers.
Having reached Havana, they were anxious to proceed on their
missions, but the National Government was equally anxious to
prevent them. They were still far from their accredited gov
ernments, but they relied on the vessels of some neutral power,
to carry them. They had taken passage, in the English mail
and passenger vessel Trent, on their way to St. Thomas, where
that vessel turned her passengers over to a transatlantic ship.
While near Nassau, on November eighth, but on the open sea,
their vessel, the Trent, was overhauled by the San Jacinto,
commanded by Captain Wilkes. He acted without instructions.
The Trent was searched and Mason and Slidell, with their
secretaries were transferred to the United States vessel and
carried into Boston harbor, where they were confined in Fort
Warren. The affair excited various comments. The first feeling was
one of congratulation, that two enemies of their country, en
gaged in acts of rebellion, had been apprehended. But then the
question arose whether the taking of men, not soldiers, from a
425

426 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
neutral vessel, upon the open sea, could be justified, under the
law of nations. The question was also asked what effect the act
would have upon Great Britain, with whom our Government
was anxious to be on good terms ? The first feeling of exulta
tion gave way to one of doubt and questioning. So great a
lawyer as Caleb Cushing, once nominated by the President, for
Chief Justice, maintained that the seizure was right; Chief
Justice Bigelow, of Massachusetts, Theophilus Parsons, the
head of the Harvard Law School, and Edward Everett, who had
filled such offices as Minister to England and Secretary of
State, also justified the act of Captain Wilkes. Other men of
eminence, as well as, generally, the press of the country, took
the same view. Congress meeting soon after, one of the first
acts of the House was to adopt a resolution, thanking Captain
Wilkes " for his brave, adroit and patriotic conduct " in the
arrest. But Sumner, as soon as he heard of it, said the arrest
was wrong and we would have to give the prisoners up, that
it was in direct violation of the principle for which we had con
tended with Great Britain in the War of 1812. He admitted
the precedents of the English courts were the other way and
had probably misled some who took the different view.
The British Government was not long in making known what
it thought of the arrest. The information reached England on
November twenty-seventh, and three days later, instructions
were dispatched to the English Minister, at Washington, direct
ing him to demand the liberation of the four men and the
delivery of them to the British Government, with a suitable
apology. In a private letter, accompanying the dispatch, the
Minister was instructed that, in case this demand was not com
plied with in seven days, he should break up his legation and
ieave Washington. The contents of these dispatches were com
municated to our Government, on December nineteenth. In
the meantime troops were ordered by Great Britain to Canada,
the militia of that colony was drilled and the dockyards of Eng
land resounded with the din of workmen, fitting up her vessels
for sea. All this meant war, in case her demand was refused,
the recognition of the Southern Confederacy and aid, in every
way, to the Rebellion. While all this was taking place, our
Government was straining every nerve to suppress an uprising
in the first flush of victory encouraged by the surrender of Fort
Sumter and the successes at Ball's Bluff and Bull Run. Lin
coln shook his head gravely and, to hot-headed advisers, signifi
cantly answered, " One war at a time, gentlemen."
Sumner shared Lincoln's fears. He was in Washington be
fore the session of Congress opened and, as soon as he arrived,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 427
he went to the President and Secretary of State, to counsel
caution and advise against the adoption of the act of Wilkes.
He showed letters to the President and afterwards read them to
the Cabinet, received by him from the English statesmen,
Bright and Cobden, showing their pacific feeling towards the
the North and their familiarity with the true cause of the war.
In answer to Sumner's inquiry about the feeling of the Admin
istration towards England growing out of the Trent case,
Lincoln said to him, " There will be no war, unless England is
bent upon having one." This assurance Sumner conveyed to
Bright, in a letter, strongly deprecating the attitude of the
British Government and expressing a hope that pacific counsels
would yet prevail. When the matter came up in the Senate,
Sumner, anticipating an angry discussion and expressions of
hostility towards England, that would add fuel to the flame,
sought to have it referred to his committee, but to avoid dissen-
tion waived this and allowed it to go to a different one.
On December twenty-sixth, the last day in the limit set by
the British Government, for the surrender of the men, the
Secretary of State notified the English Minister, they would be
surrendered. There was a good deal of bitterness felt towards
England, for the peremptory manner in which the demand was
made. Instead of making complaint, and seeking by prelimi
nary negotiations, to obtain a peaceful surrender of the men
and omitting the peremptory alternative of surrender or war,
till these other means had been exhausted, a peremptory
course was adopted, at the start. Indeed the English Govern
ment anticipated that such an event was likely to happen, for
it took the opinion of its legal advisers upon the question of its
rights, before Mason and Slidell were arrested. In the dis
patch demanding the surrender, the British Government said
it was willing to believe that Captain Wilkes was not acting
under instructions, when he took them. And information that
this was the case, and further that the United States Govern
ment would not complicate the situation by adopting the act
hastily, was promptly conveyed to England, by instructions to
the American Minister, at London. Why, then, was this
peremptory course adopted, by the English Government, if it
was willing to believe we did not intend the act ? Why was it
persisted in, and our pacific intentions not made public, in
England, after they were communicated, to that government?
These were questions often asked, in the United States, and
unanswered, except by the assertion that the English Govern
ment desired war.
Naturally, these things provoked bitter comment. The

428 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
delivery up of the men, by our government added to the bitter
ness. Commenting on England's conduct, in the House, on
January seventh, one speaker declared : " She is treasuring up
to herself wrath against the day of wrath. She has excited
in the hearts of this people a deep and bitter sense of wrong, of
injury inflicted, at a moment when we could not respond. It
is night with us now; but through the watches of the night,
even, we shall be girding ourselves to strike the blow of right
eous retribution." Another, Vallandigham, of Ohio, destined
to a course of singular bitterness towards the North, in her
efforts to suppress the Rebellion, declared that " for the first
time, in our national history, have we strutted insolently into a
quarrel, without right, and then basely crept out of it, without
honor." When these things were said, the men had been delivered up,
but the position of the Administration was being misrepresented
and misunderstood, at a time when it needed friends. It was
important that the situation be understood, both at home and
abroad. Sumner had privately urged the Administration to
take the step it did; he was the' chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations, the most important officer in the country, in
such a crisis, except the President and his Secretary of State ;
and above all he was well-versed in international law. The task
therefore naturally fell to him. Two days after these bitter
expressions, in the House, he spoke in the Senate.
It being announced that he was to speak, at an early hour,
the galleries of the Senate began to fill, and, by the time he
commenced, notwithstanding the fog, the rain and the mud of
the wretched morning, they were crowded. The ladies' gallery
was filled. The wife of Vice-President Hamlin, with a party
of her friends occupied seats, in the diplomatic gallery, which
was also crowded. General Fremont was there and prominent
Abolitionists. Every important foreign minister, in Washing
ton, except only Lord Lyons, the English Minister, whom eti
quette kept away ; and members of the Cabinet, Chase and Cam
eron, occupied seats on the floor of the Senate. The Senators
themselves, generally so careless of each other's speeches, were
willing to hear him, upon this subject, and listened with at
tention. The speech was impressively delivered, so kind and so calm,
in rebuke, and yet convincing. His argument was strictly a
legal one. He lifted the case out of the narrow limits, to which
it had been confined, by others, that the arrest was wrong,
because the Trent, as well as the prisoners, had not been brought
into a port where the case could be adjudicated upon, by a

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 429
prize court, a position which was untenable; because if the
seizure was wrong, it could not be made right, by increasing the
extent of the seizure. Sumner placed it upon the broad ground
that a neutral ship could not be stopped, on the high seas, where
there was no court to adjudicate upon the rights of the parties
and there be subjected to a search, and, if persons, not soldiers,
were found, they be taken, by force, into the custody of a bellig
erent and carried away. Such a law would make all ships and
their cargoes on the high seas, perhaps thousands of miles from
land, subject to the jurisdiction of a lieutenant, upon the
quarter-deck. It would subject neutral ships to insufferable
annoyance and innocent men to infinite hazard. If a right
to the custody of such persons was claimed, it should be asserted
in port, within the jurisdiction of some court, where, without
inconvenience, and with little expense, the question could be
adjudicated. He insisted that enemies, unless soldiers, in
actual service, could not be taken out of a neutral ship, that
such persons as Mason and Slidell were not contraband of war,
so as to affect the voyage of a neutral with illegality.
He summarized his own position thus : " If I am correct, in
this review, then the conclusion is inevitable. The seizure of
the Rebel emissaries, on board a neutral ship, cannet be justi
fied, according to declared American principles and practice.
There is no single point, where the seizure is not questionable,
unless we invoke British precedents and practice, which, be
yond doubt, led Captain Wilkes into his mistake. * * * He
was mistaken. There was a better example ; it was the constant,
uniform, unhesitating practice of his own country, on the ocean,
conceding always the greatest immunities to neutral ships,
unless sailing to blockaded ports, refusing to consider dis
patches as contraband of war, refusing to consider persons,
other than soldiers and officers, as contraband of war, and pro
testing always, against an adjudication of personal rights, by
summary judgment of the quarter-deck."
The United States had taken this position, almost at the
beginning of her history, he insisted, and had consistently fol
lowed it, ever since. He quoted numerous of her treaties, to
prove this. On the other hand, Great Britain had denied it
and this had been the chief cause of the War of 1812. There
were precedents, in the reports of cases, tried in her courts, of
that kind. Following these, many of the writers, who justi
fied the act of Captain Wilkes, as well as Captain Wilkes him
self, had been mistaken. England had refused to recognize our
position, even at the close of the War of 1812; but now, at
last, by actual experience, she had been compelled to come to

430 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
it. The tables were turned. By the act of Captain Wilkes we
were put in the position England had held, and which we could
not maintain, without violence to all our own precedents ; while
England, when brought to experience the wrong, she had in
flicted, upon us, thousands of times, prior to 1812, had been
compelled, by a sense of right, to turn her back, upon her own
principle and acknowledge we were right. So that, while the
Administration had given up " two old men," of insignificant
importance, we gained the acquiescence of England to an im
mortal principle of international law. Truly the victories of
peace had become greater than those of war !
This speech elevated Sumner, in the estimation of the coun
try. By such efforts, where slavery was hardly mentioned and
where, in a closely reasoned discourse, upon an important prin
ciple of international law, he furnished a classic upon the sub
ject discussed, he taught men that he was not a mere agitator,
but a broad-minded statesman, equipped for every requirement
of his position.
Sumner had now become the most prominent figure in the
Senate. His seat was most inquired for, by strangers visit
ing Washington, and when it was announced that he was to
speak, the chamber and the galleries were filled. His stalwart
frame six feet, three inches tall, towered, by his desk, on the
outer circle. His deep, resonant voice, filling with distinctness
every nook and corner of the chamber, fell easily upon the ear
of any listener. His speeches, carefully prepared, in advance,
as great orations for some great occasions, seldom fell short or
disappointed the expectation of his audience. His motions,
were vigorous, and yet graceful, and there was a charm and an
impressiveness, in his manner, and a depth of conviction, in his
words, which added to his wealth of learning and his rhetoric,
made a lasting impression. No one could question his sincerity
or his earnestness.
His position was already somewhat historic. The cause for
which he had so long stood, in public life, as the chief repre
sentative, was now the reigning one, in Washington. When he
first entered the Senate, ten years before, there were only two of
his political belief, Chase of Ohio and Hale of New Hampshire.
He was then denied a place, on any of the committees of the
Senate, as being " outside of any healthy political organization."
Now, he was the Chairman of the principal committee of that
body, and his party held the Presidency and both Houses of
Congress. In all the intervening years, that had brought these
changes about, he had stood manfully for his convictions, with
out fear and without compromise. He had aided to bring these

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 431
changes, by years of toil and_ abuse and suffering. To the great
public who had watched his" course, he sustained something of
the character of a living martyr, for a triumphant cause. To
few mortals, is it given, to occupy such a place. Oftenest, like
Lincoln, they are in their grave, before the day of triumph. To
Sumner it brought added labor and responsibility.
There has seldom been a more laborious session of Congress,
than the first regular session, after this election of Lincoln.
The qualification of members of Congress, was called in ques
tion, as never before. The Rebellion had introduced new re
lations. Some of the Senators as Jefferson Davis, Toombs and
Mason had voluntarily abandoned their seats, some, as Breckin
ridge, had been expelled, without ceremony, still others held
to their places and, when questioned, insisted upon their quali
fication. Among the last, was Jesse D. Bright, of Indiana. A
resolution for his expulsion was offered, in the Senate, by Wil
kinson of Minnesota. The charge against him was, that he had
written a letter, addressed to " His Excellency, Jefferson Davis,
President of the Confederacy of States," introducing one
Thomas B. Lincoln, of Texas, adding, " He visits your capital,
mainly to dispose of what he regards a great improvement, in
fire-arms. I commend him to your favorable consideration "
etc. Bright disclaimed any recollection of having written the
letter, but admitted that if Lincoln said he did, it was probably
correct. Lincoln had not reached Davis, with the letter, but
when arrested had given it up, and so it had appeared against
Bright. Sumner insisted that this was treason and advocated
his expulsion and he was expelled. The judgment seems a harsh
one, looking at it, in our calmer times. It was such a letter
as, inadvertently, might have been given, in the early days of
the Rebellion, by a public official, to a friend, seeking an intro
duction, to one, with whom the writer had lately served, in the
Senate. General Lane of Kansas had been elected to the Senate but
before he had taken his seat, President Lincoln had designated
him as Brigadier-General of volunteers, and he had entered up
on his duties as such, without any formal commission or ap
pointment, from the United States Government. Afterwards,
upon being informed, that he could not hold both positions, he
abandoned his place, in the Army, and qualified as Senator.
Meantime the Governor of Kansas, assuming that he had
vacated his right to a seat, in the Senate, appointed Frederic
P. Stanton. Sumner spoke in favor of Lane, and insisted that
he had not been a Senator, when he served under the Presi
dent's designation, for he had not qualified. He was only a

432 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Senator elect. Nor, he insisted, was he, in the language of the
Constitution, "holding any office "under the United States,"
when in the military servic'e, for he had been a Brigadier Gen
eral under a commission from his State, like Colonel Baker, the
President not then having the authority to make the appoint
ment, the law authorizing it, not having been passed. The out
come of the contest was that Lane was seated, though the Judi
ciary Committee of the Senate had reported against his right.
The position, of the States in rebellion, early became one of
perplexity. On the eleventh of February, 1861, Sumner intro
duced, in the Senate, a series of resolutions, intended to fix the
relation of these States to the National Government. The reso
lutions declared that the Ordinances of Secession adopted by
these States were void, but, if sustained by force, became an
abdication of all their rights, so that the territory of the States
in rebellion came under the jurisdiction of Congress, just as
the Territories were; in other words, that State rebellion was
State suicide, that every act of the men, in rebellion, was
utterly lawless, that the termination of the State, terminated
all local institutions created by the State ; and that slavery, be
ing thus created, fell with the State; that it was the duty of
Congress to see that slavery in these States ceased to exist, in
fact, as it already had ceased to exist, in law; that a recogni
tion of slavery, by a civil or military official of the United
States, would be giving aid to the Rebellion and would besides
be a reduction to slavery of persons that, by act of the State, had
been made free ; that it was the duty of the National Govern
ment, to protect those formerly held as slaves, in the freedom
they had thus acquired; that Congress should also assume
complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory and proceed to
establish there republican forms of government. When the
resolutions had been read, Sumner moved that they be laid on
the table and be printed, adding that he hoped, at some future
day, to call them up, for consideration. Others sought to have
them referred to a committee, hoping thus to be rid of them
permanently. Sumner's motion prevailed, though the wish
to avoid a discussion of the questions thus presented had prob
ably more to do with the result, than anything else.
These resolutions created a sensation. The doctrine that
State rebellion was State suicide and reduced the rebellious
State to the condition of one of the Territories, was startling,
to many of Sumner's political associates. Leading Republican
members of the Senate made haste to disclaim any party re
sponsibility, for the doctrines of the resolutions. They ad
mitted Sumner's right to introduce them, as he might any other

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 433
measure he pleased, but they insisted, in their speeches, com
menting on them, that the party was not to be held responsible
for what was merely his individual act or opinion. The resolu
tions were, indeed, far in advance of the public opinion of that
time. There was still a disposition to hold on to slavery, and,
especially, not to disturb the property rights of loyal slave
holders. Davis of Kentucky, two days after the introduction
of these resolutions, introduced counter ones enforcing this
idea of protection to loyal slaveholders. They were also ordered
to be laid upon the table and printed. After some discus
sion, however, the whole matter dropped out of sight and
eventually disappeared. Sumner prepared a speech, for delivery
in the Senate defending his position, but an opportunity not
presenting, the material was used, in an article published in the
Atlantic Monthly in October, 1863. His object was to destroy
slavery, but this was accomplished a few months later by the
Proclamation of Emancipation, by President Lincoln.
Yet these resolutions, introduced, in February, 1862, by
Sumner, show his foresight and illustrate how, so often, he
strode ahead of his colleagues. The very Republican Senators
who disowned these resolutions in 1862, accepted the doctrine
of State suicide, in 1867, when demanding colored suffrage, as
ordained by Congress, as a condition of reconstruction, in the
States, that had been in rebellion. Doolittle of Wisconsin, on
the latter occasion, unwilling to go with others, declared that
more than twenty Republican Senators, who had stood with
him, advocating reconstruction upon the white basis, in 1862,
had in 1867 gone over to Sumner's side and advocated his
theory of reconstruction upon the basis of negro suffrage.
Fessenden, himself one of the ablest men who ever sat in the
Senate, completely changed his opinion. In 1862, discussing
Sumner's resolutions he said : " I dissent entirely from the con
clusions of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, as
stated in his resolutions." In 1866, he declared that these
States, " having by this treasonable withdrawal from Congress,
and by flagrant rebellion and war, forfeited all civil and polit
ical rights and privileges under the Federal Constitution, can
only be restored thereto by the permission and authority of that
constitutional power, against which they rebelled, and by
which they were subdued."
Hendricks, the Democratic leader of the Senate, afterwards
Vice-President, twitting his Republican colleagues one day,
upon this change of opinion said : " the Senator from Massa
chusetts steps out boldly, declares his doctrine, and then he is
approached, and finally he_ governs. * * * He was told some-

434 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
what sneeringly, two years ago, that among his party friends
he stood alone ; and to-day they all stand upon his position.""
But such men as John Jay, Charles A. Dana and Park Ben
jamin of New York, out of politics, but of ability and inde
pendence of thought, distinctly approved Sumner's resolutions.
On March sixth, 1862, a public meeting was called at Cooper's
Institute, New York City. The call for it asked the presence
of all who concurred in the conviction that the traitorous
power, calling itself The Confederate States, instead of achiev
ing the destruction of the Nation had thereby only destroyed
slavery and that it was the duty of the National Government
to provide against its restoration. Carl Schurz was among the
speakers. Letters were read from Sumner, Preston King,
Henry Wilson, David Wilmot and George W. Julian. Resolu
tions, in harmony with those offered by Sumner, in the Sen
ate, were adopted and forwarded by the Secretary to Sumner,
with the request that he present them to the President and to
Congress. The German Republican Central Committee of the
city and county of New York also passed a resolution indors
ing Sumner's position.
On the very day of this meeting, the President communicated
to Congress a scheme for compensated emancipation. This was
his first official step towards emancipation. This means was
soon found to be impracticable, on a large scale.
When Sumner arrived in Washington at the beginning of the
session, he had gone to the President, to press the matter of
emancipation. He found the President willing to talk about
it, but still unwilling to take decisive steps. The President
read to him a draft of his annual message to Congress; and
Sumner was disappointed at not finding in it a recommenda
tion on this subject. He was still more disappointed to learn,
from the President himself, that he had stricken out of Secre
tary Cameron's report a reference to this subject. Cameron
was in favor of it, as were also Chase and Stanton of the
Cabinet. But Sumner easily saw that Lincoln's heart was right
and that he was working it out, in his own way. Not a week
passed without Sumner seeing the President once, or oftener,
and pressing the matter upon him. At length, on the morning
of March sixth, the President sent for Sumner to come to him,
as soon as convenient after breakfast. When Sumner reached
the White House, the President told him he had something to
read to him and produced his special message to Congress, rec
ommending compensated emancipation. It was not Sumner's
way to deal gradually with a wrong, and he so argued with the
President; but he admitted that this recommendation was a

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 435
step in the right direction. Sumner took the Message and
while reading it criticised certain passages and upon the sug
gestion of the President undertook to change the wording of
one. After working at it a little while, he was interrupted, by
the President proposing to strike the whole of the passage out.
Sumner continued to study the paper, when Lincoln playfully
interrupted him, with the remark, " Enough, you must go now
or the boys " (referring to his private secretaries, Nicolay and
Hay), "won't have time to copy it". And so Sumner left,
the President assuring him, he would communicate it to Con
gress that day.
The Message, recommending compensated emancipation was
accordingly communicated to Congress. But nothing was ever
done under it, except the adoption, by both Houses, of a resolu
tion recommending that the Government ought to co-operate
with any State which may adopt gradual abolition of Slavery,
giving to such State pecuniary aid, to be used by it, in bringing
about this change.
But the Message did more good than this. It paved the
way for the Proclamation of Emancipation, which the President
issued a few months later. And it materially aided in the
scheme of compensated emancipation, in the District of Colum
bia, then pending in Congress. At the beginning of this ses
sion, Sumner's colleague, Wilson, had introduced a bill provid
ing for emancipation in the District and creating a commission
to appraise the claims on account of slaves thus liberated, limit
ing the allowance in the aggregate, to an amount equal to three
hundred dollars a slave, and appropriating a million dollars to
pay loyal owners, for the slaves thus liberated. There was ad
ded to it an appropriation, to aid such slaves as wished to emi
grate to Haiti or Liberia. Sumner spoke at length, on this bill,
on March 31, 1862, advocating its passage by the Senate. He
did not like the compensation feature. He was unwilling to
recognize the title of the master, implied in compensation. He
therefore refused, in speaking of it, to call it " compensation "
but preferred the term " ransom ", paid for the slave and for
his benefit and as his right, after years of unrequited toil,
rather than as a compensation to the master for a right sur
rendered. He upheld it as a duty, on the part of the country,
for its complicity in maintaining, so long, slavery, in a place,
exclusively under the national jurisdiction. He recognized it
also as the gentlest, quietest and surest way in which the change
could be accomplished and therefore the most practicable.
The bill passed the Senate on April third and the House on
April eleventh ; but it was not approved by the President until

436 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
April sixteenth. In the meantime, there' was some question, as
to the cause of this delay, of the President. Sumner, anxious
lest it should fail, sought him and urged him to approve it.
In the course of their conversation, Sumner said to him : " Do
you know who, at this moment, is the largest slaveholder, in
this country? It is Abraham Lincoln; for he holds all the
three thousand slaves of the District, which is more than any
other person in the country holds."
As the first practical act of emancipation, it was hailed with
delight by the colored people, who had so long waited for some
definite action of this kind. Fred Douglass, who had endured
the lash of the master upon his back, made haste to express his
gratitude to Sumner.
" I trust I am not dreaming," he wrote, " but the events tak
ing place seem like a dream. If slavery is really dead in the
District of Columbia, and merely waiting for the ceremony of
'Dust to Dust' by the President, to you more than to any
other American statesman belongs the honor of this great
triumph of justice, liberty and sound policy. I rejoice for my
freed brothers, — and, Sir, I rejoice for you. You have lived to
strike down in Washington the power that lifted the bludgeon
against your own free voice. I take nothing from the good and
brave men who have co-operated with you. There is, or ought
to be a head to everybody ; and whether you will it or not, the
slaveholder and the slave look to you as the best embodiment
of the anti-slavery idea now in the councils of the nation."
While the bill was before the Senate, Sumner moved an
amendment to it. The bill provided that the Commission
created to appraise the claims on account of slaves liberated
should have power to subpoena witnesses and compel their at
tendance before it, as in civil cases before courts of justice.
Sumner's amendment provided that in so doing there should
be no exclusion of any witness on account of color. The old
Maryland statute that was still in force in the District, did not
permit colored persons to testify in any case, where a white man
was a party. This amendment removed the disability of colored
persons, before this commission. The amendment was agreed
to and became part of the law. It was the first movement for
the civil rights of the colored people. But it only applied to
proceedings under this one act. A little later, on July seventh,
when the Senate had under consideration a supplementary bill,
on emancipation in the District, Sumner moved an amendment
to it, that in all judicial proceedings in the District there
should be no exclusion of any witness on account of color. This
amendment also was carried and became a law. Thus in the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 437
District of Columbia was removed forever, the disability of
colored persons as witnesses and thus ended the outrage, as
Thaddeus Stevens called it of not allowing any man of credit,
whether white or black, to be a witness.
Sumner aided, at this session of Congress, in removing
another discrimination by the National Government, against
the colored race. The republics of Haiti and Liberia, com
posed of colored people, with governments modeled upon our
own, and Liberia largely colonized by people of our own, had
thus far never been recognized by us. This fact could only
be explained by the prejudice towards the colored race, on
the part of the slave-owners who had so long dominated the
National Government. While other nations received and sent
ambassadors to them, ours did not. The failure of our govern
ment to recognize them was commented upon, by President Lin
coln, in his annual message and he recommended an appropria
tion for maintaining a charge d'affaires near each of them.
Sumner moved the reference of this part of the message to the
Committee on Foreign Relations and having called for all the
documents and the files of the Senate on the subject, he soon
thereafter reported, from the Committee, a bill authorizing the
President to appoint diplomatic representatives, to both Re
publics and in a speech setting out the natural advantages of
the countries and their importance to our commerce, he urged
the passage of the bill.
It was opposed by the Senators from the slave States, not in
rebellion. They gave the same reasons for their opposition,
that had previously been given, by their brethren of the slave
States, whenever the subject had been before Congress.
Saulsbury, of Delaware, admitting that the bill would now
pass, added : " I predict that, in twelve months, some negro
will walk upon the floor of the Senate of the United States and
carry his family into that gallery, which, is set apart for foreign
ministers. If that is agreeable to the taste and feeling of the
people of this country, it is not to mine ; and I only say that I
will not be responsible for any such act."
Davis, of Kentucky, was disgusted with the subject of sla
very in the Senate Chamber and was opposed to this bill for the
reason that if we sent ambassadors to Haiti and Liberia, they
would send their ministers to our country, and our President
would be obliged to receive them, on an equality, with the
representatives from other powers. A full blooded negro from
them would have to be received by us, on the same equality as
a white representative from a white people. When the Pres
ident entertained the wives and daughters of the white ambas-

438 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
sadors, he would have to entertain, with them, the black wives
and daughters of these colored representatives. This, Davis
could not endure. He recalled an illustration. When the re
fined French court admitted the representative of Soulonque,
" who then denominated himself, or was called, the Emperor of
Dominica, I think," said Davis.
" Of Haiti," interrupted Sumner.
" Well," replied Davis, " a great big negro fellow, dressed out
with his silver or gold lace clothes, in the most fantastic and
gaudy style, presented himself in the court of Louis Napoleon,
and, I admit, was received. Now, Sir, I want no such exhibi
tion as that in our capital and in our Government. The
American minister, Mr. Mason, was present on that occasion,
and he was sleeved by some Englishman — I have forgotten
his name — who was present, who pointed him to the ambas
sador of Soulonque, and said, 'What do you think of him?'
Mr. Mason turned round and said, 'I think, clothes and all,
he is worth a thousand dollars.' "
Notwithstanding such objections, however, the bill passed
both Houses of Congress and became a law.
Another step was taken at this session of Congress for the
protection of the colored race and the destruction of slavery.
Notwithstanding the slave trade had been abolished by statute
and declared to be piracy, so long ago as 1820 by the United
States, and, by England, in 1807, yet owing to the inefficient
manner in which these laws were executed, negroes were still
captured, in Africa, and brought to America and sold into
slavery. No conviction under the United States statute was
had, until 1862, when Nathaniel Gordon, master of a vessel,
called the Erie, was convicted and hanged, in New York. Early
in the spring of that year, Sumner had a conference with Sec
retary Seward, on the subject. As a consequence, negotiations
were opened with the British Minister and a treaty was soon
made, with Great Britain, for a restricted right of search, of
vessels supposed to be engaged in the trade, and for the crea
tion of mixed courts for the condemnation and destruction of
the ships found to be engaged in the business, leaving the slave-
trader himself to be tried in the home courts of the captor.
Sumner moved the ratification of the treaty in the Senate, on
the twenty-second of April, and spoke in favor of it. The
treaty was unanimously ratified. When Sumner carried the
news to Secretary Seward, late in the afternoon, he found him
reclining upon a sofa, in his private office. "Where," said he,
rising in astonishment, " were the Democrats ? " In a subse
quent bill, reported by Sumner from his Committee, a judge

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 439
and arbitrator for the mixed courts to be held respectively at
New York, Sierra Leone and at Cape of Good Hope, were pro
vided for and thus the trade became almost impossible. The
terror of the law, with such provisions in it, was sufficient to
destroy the traffic and eight years later the courts, being without
business, were abolished.
Two subjects pressed themselves upon the attention of Con
gress at this session, — first, the punishment of the men in re
bellion; second, the provision of means to sustain the war.
These two classes of bills were known as the Confiscation Bills
and the Revenue Bills. While not of the permanent interest
of some others, they were matters that could not escape imme
diate attention. They naturally awakened a good deal of
interest. •
From early in the session until the last day, July seventeenth,
the consideration of the Confiscation Bills was, in some form
almost constantly before the Senate. A majority of the Sena
tors agreed that such a bill should be passed. They agreed too
that slavery being responsible for the war, it should be made
to feel the punishment and that the natural way to do this was
in the emancipation of slaves. The differences were in mat
ters of detail and they took a great part of the time of the
session in their discussion though not destined to prove of
permanent importance.
A bill introduced by Sumner provided that all persons in
rebellion or who aided it or gave to those engaged in it aid or
comfort, forfeited all claims to their slaves, who thereby be
came free. If the master of any fugitive slave claimed him,
it would be a defence to his claim to show that the master had
engaged in or aided the Rebellion. Loyalty had to be proven
as one of the elements of title to the slave. On the other hand,
the bill which became a law by the President's approval on the
last day of the session, provided that only the slaves who had
escaped from Rebel masters and had come within the lines of
the Union army or under the control of the United States gov
ernment should be free. The difference between the two bills
was that Sumner's was broader than the bill that became a
law. By his bill all slaves of all rebels, wherever they were,
were free. By the law passed only such of these slaves, as es
caped to the lines of the United States government, became
free. Little difference did it make after the publication of the
President's Proclamation of Emancipation two months later,
which bill became a law. For by the preliminary proclamation
of September twenty-second, freedom was promised to all
slaves within the States, the people whereof should be in re-

440 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
bellion on January first, following. So that not only did all
the slaves of Rebels, but all the slaves of loyal owners, then
come to the promise of freedom soon to be consummated. The
proclamation of the President was much wider than either
of the bills.
Some members of the Senate doubted the power of Congress
to interfere with slavery. They argued that it was a local in
stitution created and maintained by the laws of the States
wherein it existed and that only those States had power over
it. They insisted that Congress could only punish the offenders
in rebellion as other criminals are punished, according to law;
that such a bill as this was an ex post facto law, and that like
a bill of attainder, it inflicted punishment, without conviction
by due process of law, all oi which was forbidden by the Con
stitution. Sumner scouted such arguments. He felt impatient at the
course of such debate, standing face to face with enemies strik
ing at the life of the Republic and yet in dealing with them
to be subjected to all the embarrassments of criminal proceed
ings. " People," he said, " talked flippantly of the gallows as
the certain doom of the Rebels. This is a mistake. For weal
or woe, the gallows is out of the question. It is not possible as
a punishment for this rebellion." He insisted that we were in
the midst of rebellion as well as in the midst of war and that
as a consequence we had a right to treat the offenders as crimi
nals or as public enemies and to choose for ourselves whichever
method of punishment we preferred ; that the power to do this
was ample, allowed both by the Constitution and the laws of
war. He showed that confiscation had always been an instru
ment of government both in punishment for crime and in war.
After reviewing foreign examples of ancient and modern times,
he collected the statutes, eighty-eight in number, which had
been passed by the colonies, punishing, by confiscation of prop
erty, the Tories, who had adhered to the King of England, dur
ing the Revolutionary War. He arranged them under the heads
of the respective colonies so as to show that the Southern people
themselves as well as the Northern did not hesitate during the
Revolutionary War to employ all the acknowledged rights of
war against their fellow citizens who were acting as public ene
mies. He showed also that the Commissioners Adams, Franklin
and Jay, refused, in the negotiations with England for the
acknowledgment of National Independence, to either restore the
property thus confiscated or to pay for it.
Closing his speech, on this subject, on the nineteenth of May,
1862, Sumner said : " God, in His beneficence, offers to na-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 441
tions, as to individuals, opportunity, opportunity, opportunity,
which, of all things, is most to be desired. Never before, in
history, has he offered such as is ours here. Do not fail to
seize it. * * * If you seek Indemnity for the Past and Security
tor the Future, if you seek the national unity under the Con
stitution of the United States here is the way. Strike down
the leaders of the Rebellion, and lift up the slaves."
Little profit as there seemed to be, on first impression, in all
this discussion, to secure the passage of a bill, that was soon to
be supplanted, by the wider proclamation of the President, still
I am not disposed to think the discussion was as fruitless as it
appeared. We must remember that slavery was the cause of
the war and, in the light of all the past, we could hope for no
permanent peace, without its destruction. But emancipation
was not practicable, at the beginning of the war. The country
was not prepared for it. Aggressive anti-slavery men, like
Sumner, were thoroughly convinced of its necessity. But the
South was a unit against it, and half of the North was of the
same way of thinking. It remained for the North to be edu
cated upon this question. More than any other means to this
end was the long discussion of the question, in Congress, during
this session. From Washington, it widened out, through the
press and public discussion, until a great change, in public senti
ment, was wrought. Sumner spoke, earnestly and often, dur
ing the session, upon the question, but his principal speech was
delivered, on May nineteenth. This speech was republished,
under the title of " Rights of Sovereignty and Rights of War,"
by the Young Men's Republican Union of New York City, and
gained a considerable circulation. He spoke again, ¦ on the
question, June twenty-seventh, and his speech this time was
published, at length, in the New York Independent. In pref
acing it the Independent declared it to be "the most com
plete presentation of the question, that could be found, within
the same compass, and, like all Mr. Sumner's speeches, dis
tinguished for accuracy of statement, learning and sound prin
ciple." Sumner's labors for emancipation at this session had been
herculean. He was as thoroughly convinced, as could be, that
the long hoped-for "opportunity" had arrived and, for the
good of the country, as well as humanity, should not be al
lowed to escape unembraced. Of course his persistency, in
pressing emancipation, was resented, by the few pro-slavery
members, remaining in the Senate. They felt that the colored
people were occupying too much of the attention of Congress.
Garrett Dayis of Kentucky, one day, when gumner was seek

442 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ing the amendment of a bill, relating to the judiciary, so as to
forbid the exclusion of witnesses, in the United States courts,
on account of color, rather petulantly remarked : " I do not
think, Mr. President, there was any need for sticking the per
petual, the all-pervading, the every-where-to-be-found, the ever-
in-the-way negro to this bill. I hope and trust that the Senate
and the Congress of the United States will be allowed to ma
ture and perfect some new bills, in which the interests and the
business of the white men are involved, without having this
ever-present negro stuck upon them, by the Senator from Mass
achusetts. If he desires to bring up this matter of the negro,
in connection with the rules of proceeding in the Federal courts,
let him introduce a distinct bill, and not make everything
odoriferous of his friend."
The amendment was rejected. But Sumner renewed his mo
tion, in the form of a proviso. The Senate adjourned and the
bill was never taken up again. But a few days later, the Senate
having under consideration another bill, Sumner offered his
amendment again. It was rejected again. But Sumner re
newed it, at the next session ; and finally it passed.
This, in brief, was the history of this bill, but not of this bill
alone. It was the history of many of the measures, that Sum
ner advocated. They oftentimes did not triumph, when he first
presented and first advocated them. But his persistency in
a good cause, has been seldom equalled. If defeated once,
he only renewed the struggle again, in a different form, and, if
ncessary, again, and again. His persistency was one of the
marked traits of his character.
But often, his thorough investigation of a question, led to its
prompt determination. This was illustrated, on more than
one occasion at this session. On the seventh of July, a bill
was before the Senate, to establish provisional governments for
the States in rebellion. This was reported to the Senate with
certain amendments, one of which recognized the laws of the
State before rebellion, and provided for their continued en
forcements, under the new government. Sumner opposed this
amendment, recognizing these laws. He read, from the statutes
of North Carolina, one, which provided, that any free person
teaching a slave to read or write, or giving a slave a book or
pamphlet should, if white, be fined, not more than two hun
dred dollars, or imprisoned and, if colored, should be fined, or
imprisoned, or whipped; another statute, forbidding a slave to
teach another slave or free negro, to read or write ; another for
bidding a person to circulate or publish in the State anything
calculated to cause slaves to be dissatisfied with their condi-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 443
tion or stir them up to conspiracies or insurrections, under
penalty of imprisonment, for a year, for the first offence, and
of death, for the second; another, forbidding a free negro to
preach, in public, or officiate, at a prayer-meeting, where slaves
of different families are collected, under penalty of receiving
thirty-nine lashes on his bare back. The bill was allowed to
drop, one of the members of the committee, who had united in
reporting it, declaring that he himself was against it and would
never vote for a law that sanctioned the punishment of a man
" for teaching another to read the word of God."
With like ease, by a visit to the President, and a call for docu
ments, by resolution, in the Senate, Sumner stopped the pro
visional Governor of North Carolina, from closing up the col
ored schools of that State, under laws in force prior to rebel
lion. The sweeping order of the War Department, to the
Governor, directed the enforcement of these laws. The teacher
of one of the schools thus closed, came on to Washington, and
presented the matter to Sumner and asked his interference to
stop such proceedings. Sumner at once sought the President,
at the White House, and, not finding him there, followed him
to the War Department. Upon Sumner making known to him
the purpose of his visit, the President asked him, with some
impatience ; " Do you take me for a School Committeeman ? "
" Not at all," answered Sumner, " I take you for the President
and I come to you with a grievance that George Washington
would have added to his renown, in correcting." The President
stopped and heard him patiently and the matter was corrected.
Sumner, in relating it afterwards, said this was the only time
he was ever treated impatiently by Lincoln.
Other things of grave importance were pressing upon the
President, in his still new and untried position. A large army
was already in the field and the expenses of the Government
were multiplying with fearful rapidity. The conduct of the
war was absorbing the interest as well as the energy of the
Administration. It is not difficult to realize that smaller mat
ters, of detail, that had to come to the President's attention, at
times, seemed more than he could bear.
The revenue bills received Sumner's careful consideration.
Sumner voted steadily in favor of the proposition, much dis
cussed and often before the Senate at this session, to make
Treasury notes a legal tender, in payment of all dues, public
and private, except for interest on bonds. In effect, it amounted
to a forced loan to the Government. He spoke at length, in
the Senate, in its favor. Others argued against its constitu
tionality, but he insisted that the Constitution expressly gave

444 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
to- Congress the power to issue bills of credit and that this
grant, of necessity, carried with it the power to make them a
legal tender. He showed that, in times of exigency, such bills
had been issued by Great Britain and the Colonies. But, while
granting the power and admitting the necessity for the exercise
of it, on the present exigency of the country, he warned Con
gress against the dangers of an irredeemable paper currency.
In the consideration of the Internal Tax Bill, Sumner moved
an amendment for a tax of Ten Dollars on each slave owned, to
be paid by his master. It was argued that such a tax would
give sanction to property in man; but Sumner answered that
slavery was an intolerable nuisance entrenched in State lines,
that we would not treat it otherwise than as a nuisance when
we taxed it. In taxing it we did not assume its rightfulness,
but its existence. Taxation instead of being an encouragement
of it would discourage it. But out of tenderness, to the slave
owners, in the border states, not in rebellion, Sumner's motion
failed. Sumner opposed a tax upon cotton. In the first consideration
of the bill, he procured the tax of a cent a pound on it to be
stricken out. But when the bill as thus amended went back
to the House this tax was inserted again and when returned
to the Senate, he procured it to be reduced to one half cent a
pound. He felt such tax was unjust to the South, agricultural
products of the North not being taxed; and likewise that it
bore hard upon the manufacturers of cotton goods. Sumner
also opposed an increase of the tax upon books imported into
the country, as being a tax upon knowledge.
In the consideration of such measures the session of Congress
wore away. It closed on July seventeenth, 1862. It had been
an unusual one, — unusual for the new and unheard of questions
it was called upon to dispose of, and unusual, as well, for the
character of the work it accomplished. Sumner said of it on
June twenty-seventh:
"The present Congress has already done much beyond any
other Congress in our history. Measures which for long years
seemed unattainable only to the most sanguine hope, have
triumphed. Emancipation in the national Capitol; freedom
in all the national Territories; the offer of ransom to help
emancipation in the States; the recognition of Haiti and Li
beria ; the treaty with Great Britain for the suppression of the
slave-trade ; the prohibition of the return of fugitive slaves by
military officers; homesteads for actual settlers on the public
lands ; a Pacific railroad ; endowment of agricultural colleges
out of the public lands; such are some of the achievements by

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 445
which the present Congress is already historic. There have been
victories of war, won on hard-fought fields, but none comparable
to the victories of peace. Besides these measures of unmixed
beneficence, the present Congress has created an immense army
and a considerable navy, and has provided the means for all
our gigantic expenditures by a tax which in itself is an epoch."
When it was drawing to its close, Sumner declared he had not
been out of his seat a half hour since the session began. But
when the motion was made, fixing the time of adjournment, he
spoke against it. He was tired, as well as the others, and wished
to be away, but he could not agree to go and leave so much
important business undisposed of. The admission of West
Virginia, as a separate State, was pressing ; Congress was called
upon to provide provisional governments for the States in rebel
lion; and above all the Army Bill required prompt attention.
This and Executive business should be finished, he thought,
before the adjournment. But the majority voted otherwise.

CHAPTER XXVIII
THE CAMPAIGN OF 1862 — SUMNER'S THIRD ELECTION TO THE
SENATE  SESSION 1862-3  ADVOCATES ENLISTMENT OF
COLORED TROOPS  COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION IN MIS
SOURI
The sands of Sumner's second term were fast running out.
The election of members of the State Legislature, who were to
make a choice of his successor, was to take place in November,
1862. For the only time after he entered the Senate, an or
ganized effort was made, to defeat him. It had been in prog
ress for a year. It first made its appearance, on the occasion
already alluded to, when Sumner, in 1861, made his speech,
before the State Republican Convention of Massachusetts, ad
vocating emancipation, as our best weapon, against rebellion.
The charge persistently made against him was, that he was too
extreme, in his advocacy of the rights of the colored people,
that he was aggravating the situation of the nation and pro
longing the war, by goading the slave-owners into more des
perate efforts to destroy the Union. It was charged that he was
second only to Jefferson Davis, in the work of destruction of the
Union and his defeat was urged as necessary, if the country
was to be saved. It was said, that the last session of Congress
had been consumed with measures, for the relief of colored
people, while the rights of our white citizens were neglected.
This opposition to Sumner served the purpose of arousing
his friends to activity. No man perhaps ever lived, in Mass
achusetts, who had so many friends, among intelligent men, of
all classes. Among them were such people as editors of country
newspapers, teachers and ministers, the members of the old
abolition parties, scholars and writers, who cared nothing for
office, for themselves. Many of them had been associated with
him, in the early anti-slavery days, and had ever since kept pace
with the work ; others had been converted to these views by later
events; most of them had followed his course, in the Senate,
with interest and many of them had been readers of his
speeches. Such men made a powerful following for any states
man, when they were once thoroughly aroused. Events now
happening were sufficient to awaken a watchfulness, in every
lover of his country. It was a time of intense interest, even
416

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 447
bitterness, of political opinions. These friends were not willing
to see Sumner defeated, without an effort. The attempt to do
this aroused, to activity, an element hardly known to exist, in
its intensity, till the occasion for it appeared.
A fight had also been made, early in the summer, to defeat
the renomination of John A. Andrew for Governor, on much
the same ground as had been taken against Sumner. The Re
publican State Convention met at Worcester, on September
tenth. Andrew was renominated, by acclamation. J. Q. A.
Griffin of Charlestown introduced two resolutions, one pro
posing the extermination of slavery and another approving the
course of the two Senators and " commending Sumner to the
suffrages of his fellow citizens, whom he had served so well,
that the Commonwealth might again honor itself, by returning
to duty, at the Capitol, a statesman, a scholar, a patriot, and a
man, of whom any republic, in any age, might be proud."
These were strong words of indorsement. Certainly too strong
to suit the taste of men, who were prepared to compass his
defeat. Griffin had been chosen to lead the Sumner forces, on
the floor of the convention. He was a young man, thirty-six
years of age, but of rare ability to catch the current of a popu
lar convention and to lead its deliberations, — an able speaker
and an enthusiastic worker. The opposition to Sumner was
led, by R. H. Dana, Jr., then United States District Attorney,
whose appointment Sumner had furthered and, with whose
family, he had always sustained relations of friendship. Dana
moved as a substitute a resolution simply indorsing the course
of the Administration in the prosecution of the war ; and sup
ported his substitute, by a speech deprecating the anticipation
of the work of the Legislature, whose duty it was to choose
Sumner's successor. Griffin followed him, in a trenchant speech,
in which Dana was roughly used. Others followed, in the same
vein. Griffin's resolutions were referred to a committee, where
Dana again opposed them. But the committee reported them,
to the convention. Here a motion to amend, by striking out
the indorsement of Sumner, was made. But it was voted down ;
and then the resolutions as reported by the committee indorsing
Sumner were unanimously adopted. With this, the effort,
within the party, to defeat Sumner ended.
But as Horace Greeley expressed it, the bitterness, with which
Sumner was hated, insisted on having the gratification of a can
vass, even though a hopeless one and, " since there was no exist
ing party, by which this could be attempted, without manifest
futility, one was organized for the purpose." The two distinct
issues presented, by the resolutions, were, the extermination of

448 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
slavery, and the re-election of Sumner. The party, committed
to the re-election of Sumner, was of necessity committed to the
extermination of slavery. Sumner, more than a year before,
had committed himself to emancipation and had now by hard
fighting brought his party, in the State, up to the same position
and both were now firmly committed, by the platform. Mas
sachusetts never receded from it. In the last months of his
life, looking back over his career, meditating on life and its
hardships and the inconstancy of men, Sumner consoled him
self, with this thought ; " There is one satisfaction which can
not be taken from me," he wrote. " I have tried to do my duty
and to advance humanity, keeping Massachusetts foremost in
what is just and magnanimous. When I am dead this will not
be denied." And could he not have uttered that sentiment at
the close of this Republican Convention ? Only twelve months
before he had pleaded earnestly, before these Republicans, for
emancipation, as the best weapon. But in vain! The Con
vention would adopt no such resolution. Sumner went to the
people with his plea and labored on and he convinced them.
Now the Convention had advanced to his position and in
dorsed it and indorsed him. But the Nation had not yet ad
vanced that far. He was " keeping Massachusetts foremost."
The Democratic party had fared so badly, in the recent elec
tions in Massachusetts, that opposition by it would be a con
fession of defeat. It was hoped elements could be induced to
join a new organization, that could not be induced to join the
Democrats and that, all the opposition being united, there would
be a hope of success. The movers were opposed to emancipa
tion, but they were much more opposed to the re-election of
Sumner ; and it was the latter they especially wished to defeat.
The various elements of opposition to Sumner and emancipa
tion crystallized, in a call for a " People's Convention," to be
held in Faneuil Hall, Boston, on October seventh.
But before this convention could be held, other events had
happened which placed a different aspect, on the situation.
On the seventeenth of September, the bloody battle of Antietam
was fought. The Northern armies remained in possession of
the field, and claimed the victory. President Lincoln had been
meditating emancipation and had prepared a draft of his Proc
lamation. He had been repeatedly urged to issue such a proc
lamation, but had never been brought to believe that the time
had come. Just when he came to the determination, in his
own mind, that he would issue it, is uncertain. But he did not
wish to issue it, while the fortunes of the war appeared against
us. In homely, but vigorous English, he has himself described

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 449
how at last he came to issue it when he did : " When Lee came
over the Potomac," he said, " I made a resolve that, if Mc-
Clellan drove him back, I would send the proclamation after
him. The battle of Antietam was fought Wednesday, but I
could not find out till Saturday, whether we had won a victory
or lost a battle. It was then too late to issue it that day, and
on Sunday I fixed it up a little, and on Monday I let them
have it." '
At last, Sumner and Massachusetts and the President were
in harmony, upon the great question of emancipation. And
though the Proclamation did not come as Sumner wished, it
can fairly be said, it came, as soon as the country was prepared
for it. He was right when he insisted that slavery was wrong
and should be abolished; but it was a monster evil that had
grown, with the growth of the country, until it had reached
mammoth proportions and could not carelessly at any mo
ment be plucked up by the roots. Sumner's great agitation of
the question was the work of a reformer and it bore the fruit
of substantial and permanent success, when at last it was
gathered. While he watched Sumner cultivating it, Lincoln had been
carefully looking for the harvest time. He saw the tide had
been setting against him, because emancipation was not de
clared. In 1861, the line of party had been almost wiped out,
in the determination of loyal people, both Democrats and Re
publicans, to support the war for the Union. This year a
large number of Members of Congress were to be elected and it
was vital, for the Administration, to have the Republican ma
jority of the House maintained. Congress controlled the ap
propriations and, by withholding money necessary for the prose
cution of the war, could dictate, in large measure, the policy of
the Administration. The Democratic Conventions of Ohio,
Pennsylvania, Indiana and Illinois had declared against the
policy of the Republicans for emancipation, and demanded that
the war be conducted for the preservation of the Union alone.
They declared that a war for the abolition of slavery could not
have their support. The Democrats of other States followed
their lead, as bitter in fact, but more diplomatic in expression.
They were entering into the campaign, with a will, and with
many promises of success before them. The anti-slavery work
of Congress had gone far enough to arouse the bitter hostility
of Democrats, who were not committed to the prosecution of
the war, but not far enough to deal an effective blow against
slavery; far enough to awaken every element of bitter opposi
tion North and South, but not far enough to awaken any en-

450 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
thusiasm among Republicans. The Administration had so
far only pursued a partial policy, where it was exposed to all
the dangers of a reaction of public opinion. Lincoln was
too clear sighted a politician not to appreciate the dangers of
such a position. He determined to lay before the people the
choice between Union and slavery and place them where voters
would be persuaded that both could not survive, that one or
the other must perish. With a great cause to work for, and a
battle cry worthy of the struggle they were compelled to make,
Republicans would be encouraged to work.
The proclamation was issued two weeks before the date fixed
"for the People's Convention." The Republicans, now
thoroughly aroused to the situation and convinced of the im
portance of the return of Sumner to the Senate, urged him to
take the stump. This he did, speaking in a dozen or more
places in the State, during the campaign. A meeting was
arranged for Faneuil Hall, Boston, at noon of October sixth,
the day before the convention of the " People's " party, called
to be held at the same place. The hour of Sumner's meeting
was fixed at noon, so as to secure the attendance of the business
men of the city. The hall was filled to overflowing.
Referring to the criticisms that had been made of him, for his
policy of emancipation, he said that they had now become of
little consequence, for even if he was once alone, he was no
longer so; for with him were now arrayed the loyal multitudes
of the North, and that they were all on the side of the Presi
dent. If he were criticised once, for being hostile to the Admin
istration, he could be no longer, for the President had pro
claimed emancipation. To criticise him, therefore, and the
platform of his party, in Massachusetts, was now to criticise the
Administration ; for they all stood together.
He insisted that the real object of the war was not to abolish
slavery, nor to restore the Constitution as it was; but to put
down the Rebellion, that there could be no separation of the
States, that such an event would bring interminable chaos. If
these States were allowed to go, what could be retained? Who
would control the Mississippi River? How could we tolerate
on our borders a malignant slave empire ? We must study the
disease and its cause and apply the cure, not hesitatingly, but
vigorously. The emancipation proclaimed by the President was
a war measure adopted by him, as Commander-in-Chief of the
armies, for the suppression of armed public enemies.
Without emancipation, all our efforts would be in vain. It
was not enough to beat armies. Rebel communities envenomed
against the Union would have to be restored and the South

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 451
quieted. This could only be done, by removing the disturbing
cause. Slavery was the disease and it must be extirpated by
the knife and by fire, so that the healthful operations of the
national life could be regained. This could not be accom
plished by force alone. A people defeated, on the battlefield
alone, will remain sullen and revengeful, ready for another
rebellion. To trample down the Rebellion, you must trample
down slavery. To end the war otherwise, is to end it in appear
ance only, not in reality. " Time will be gained for new
efforts, and slavery will coil itself to spring again."
Emancipation was the right of the slaves and we could
not expect the favor of a just God upon us while we did wrong
by refusing them freedom. Having now been proclaimed as a
war measure, it should be sustained, as the army, in the field, is
sustained. If we did this, European nations could no longer
be deluded into believing that slavery had nothing to do with
the war. It could no longer be said that it was a war for em
pire on one side and for independence upon the other, and that
all generous ideas were on the side of Rebellion. With emanci
pation before us, there would be no longer talk that separation
was inevitable and we were doomed to dismemberment. We
would only be fulfilling the wishes of our fathers, the rights of
human nature and the declared object of our Revolution. On
such an issue, there could be but two parties, the one for
the country, with Lincoln, and the other against it, with Davis.
Resolutions sustaining emancipation were read and adopted,
at the meeting, with great enthusiasm.
On the next day, October seventh, the " People's Conven
tion " met, in the same Hall. It nominated Charles Devens
for Governor and candidates against the others, of the Repub
licans. The day after this, October eighth, the Democratic
Convention met at Worcester and indorsed these nominations
of the " People's Convention." The issue was thus made up
on the emancipation policy of the Administration and the
re-election of Sumner.
Sumner was very active during the campaign, speaking at
numerous places, in Massachusetts; at Salem, at Springfield,
where the Springfield Republican was opposing his re-election,
and at the dinner of Hampshire County Agricultural Society,
at Northampton, the only time he ever spoke at a county fair.
He was introduced to the Society by Erastus Hopkins, his class
mate at the Boston Latin School, who described him as he
appeared forty years before : " in height and in breadth as well
as in diligence and scholarship, first among equals."
Such men as John G. Whittier, Horace Greeley and Wendell

452 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Phillips took part in the campaign for Sumner. Wendell Phil
lips declared that he was " the hardest worker Massachusetts
had ever sent to the Senate, — patient in labor, untiring in effort,
boundless in resources, terribly in earnest, — the only man who,
in civil affairs, was to be compared to the great terror of the
Union armies, Stonewall Jackson, both idealogists, both horsed
on an idea, and both men whom, a year before, the drudges of
State Street would have denounced as unpractical and im
practicable." The result of the campaign, at home, was all
that Sumner could wish. In entire harmony among themselves,
and with the Administration, having a great stake to play for,
the Republicans were successful. They carried Massachusetts
by more than 27,000 majority.
The result in other States was disheartening. New York
and New Jersey elected Democratic Governors. The President's
own State, Illinois, sent a Democratic Senator to Washington.
In Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania, the Democrats gained
largely in Congressmen. In many other States, the Repub
licans won only by reduced majorities. These States were not
prepared for emancipation. Their statesmen had not been as
vigorous in public education, as Sumner was in Massachusetts.
In this election, the wisdom of Lincoln again appeared.
The losses, in these States, if continued in the other States,
would have left him with a Democratic Congress. But he
had been tender, in all things, of the rights of the Border States.
And, at the last minute, these had saved him this humiliation.
There was a decided gain in Congressmen in Missouri, Dela
ware, Kentucky, West Virginia and Maryland. And they, with
the New England States, which stood firm, with California and
Oregon ; and with Iowa, Kansas and Minnesota, that sent solid
Republican delegations, gave their party a majority in Con
gress. So that the five slave States, which had been saved to the
Union, by Lincoln's care, were used by him effectively in over
powering the States in rebellion.
On the fifteenth of January, 1863, the Legislature of Massa
chusetts met to choose Sumner's successor. The two Houses
voted separately. As the roll was called, each member pro
nounced the name of the candidate he voted for, the result
showing that Sumner had two hundred and twenty-seven votes,
out of the whole two hundred and seventy-four, in both Houses.
In other words he had 227 votes and all the other candidates
together had only forty-seven. Josiah G. Abbott had forty-
three of these scattering votes, while Caleb Cushing and Charles
Francis Adams each had two.
Sumner was in his seat, at the opening of Congress. The

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 453
session was destined to be a short and uninteresting one. After
the work of the preceding long and laborious session, and tne
campaign which followed, there was a disposition among Con
gressmen to wait and see what would be the results of their own
work, already done, and of the Proclamation of the President,
before reaching out farther. The adverse election, the Republi
cans had met with in many States, was a caution to them to be
careful. Public interest was being transferred to other scenes. The
border States were now considered safe to the Union ; the elec
tions there having gone with the Republicans, when other
Northern States had not. The desperate battle of Stone River,
now remembered as the bloodiest of the whole war, considering
the numbers engaged, convinced the Confederacy that Ken
tucky, at least, was gone beyond recovery. The tide of Southern
invasion had been rolled back, from Antietam, with desperate
losses and Lee's army, while still threatening Washington, was
confined within the recesses of Virginia. The Mississippi River,
save for Vicksburg, now invested with Grant's army, flowed un-
vext to the sea, cutting off to itself and from the Confederacy
the greater part of Louisiana, as well as Arkansas and Texas,
States which had thus far furnished rich supplies to the new
government. Desperate battles had been fought and great vic
tories had been won by the Confederates. Thus far victory
had too seldom perched upon the banners of the North. But,
upon the whole, the extent of the territory held by the Con
federacy was materially reduced and its resources greatly cur
tailed. But the armies upon bffth sides were gathering for the
death struggle and, the elections having passed, the eyes of the
country as well as of Congress, were turned upon them.
As early as May 26, 1862, Sumner had introduced a resolu
tion in the Senate declaring the time had come to ask colored
men to enlist in our armies. On the last day of the previous
session, the bill became a law, which authorized the President to
receive, into the service of the United States, colored troops for
the purpose of performing camp service or any other labor, or
military or naval service, for which they might be competent.
On the sixth of October, in his speech in Faneuil Hall, Sumner
had again advocated the enlistment of colored soldiers. On the
ninth of February, 1863, he introduced a bill, providing for the
enrollment, as soldiers, by the commanding officer, in whose
department they might be found, of all colored men, between
the ages of eighteen and forty-five, made free, by the laws passed
in 1861 and 1862, to confiscate property used for insurrec
tionary purposes, and to punish treason, by confiscating the

454 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
property of rebels, or by the President's Proclamation of Eman
cipation. It provided for the enlistment of not exceeding three
hundred thousand, to be armed and equipped as soldiers and to
receive the same rations, clothing and equipments as volunteers.
Such a bill did not pass at this session, but it did become a law
a year later. In the meantime, Secretary Stanton had gone
forward and in several instances, by an order of the War De
partment, had authorized the enlistment of colored troops,
beginning with an order issued August 25, 1862.
A great outcry had been made, in advance, by Southern
people and their sympathisers, against the employment of
colored troops. It was objected to, as exciting servile insurrec
tion, as barbarous and in violation of the rules of war. But
the result justified the wisdom of the action. The first colored
regiment that went, from Sumner's State, was the Fifty-fourth
Massachusetts, led by Colonel Robert G. Shaw, a brilliant young
white officer. The regiment was almost cut to pieces, in an as
sault upon Fort Wagner, near Charleston, South Carolina, on
the eighteenth of July, 1863. Colonel Shaw was shot on
the parapet of the Fort, and his body was thrown, by the
Confederates, into the common trench, with those of his dead
colored troops.
Braver troops never entered the service, and to-day one of
the most beautiful memorials, in art, is the bas-relief, by Au
gustus St. Gaudens, erected on Boston Common, in com
memoration of this regiment. It stands beneath the elm tree,
still living, under which Governor Andrew reviewed, in May,
1863, the regiment, as it marched clown Beacon Street, opposite
the State House, on its way to the front. It represents the
young commander, beside his sturdy troops who, grimly carry
ing their guns aloft, keep step to the music that marches them
forth to fight for their freedom. Over them all, in the figure,
floats the death angel, beckoning them on with her right hand,
while, in the left, she holds the palm and the poppies, emblems
of victory and death.
Sumner took a deep interest in the enlistment of this regi
ment, and in following its fortunes. He wrote to John Jay, of
New York, May, 1863, that if the Seventh New York Regiment
would welcome this African regiment, as it passed through that
city, it would be an epoch as good as a victory, and the sure
herald of many victories and that the Seventh would thereby
contribute more to the war than when it hurried to Washington,
at the news of the firing upon Fort Sumter. Two months later
at the news of their disaster, at Fort Wagner, he wrote that he
could not be consoled for the death of Shaw and added the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 455
prediction, now fulfilled, "That death will be sacred in history
and in art." Two years later, by an article in the Boston Daily
Advertiser, he started the movement for the Shaw Memorial,
and himself headed the committee to secure an artist to execute
the work, and superintend its erection. To Sumner is given
the credit of suggesting the general design of the work. He
did not live long enough to see the monument completed. But
during the last years of his life he illustrated a debate on the
supplementary t'ixil Rights Bill with these words:
" ' Bury him with his niggers,' was the rude order of the
Rebel officer, as he flung the precious remains of our admirable
Colonel Shaw, into the common trench at Fort Wagner, where
he fell, mounting the parapets at the head of colored troops.
And so was he buried, lovely in death as in life. The intended
insult became an honor. In that common trench the young
hero rests, symbolizing the great Equality, for which he died.
No Roman monument, with its Sistc. viator, to the passing
traveler, no ' labor of an age in piled stones,' can match in
grandeur that simple burial."
The behavior of these troops made a deep impression at the
North and did more perhaps than anything else to convince the
public that colored troops could fight well, in the line of battle.
Though till now they were sparingly enlisted, after this their
employment went forward vigorously. So that, in the battle of
Nashville alone, it was estimated that twenty-five per cent, of
the loss of the Union army fell upon the negro division. And
between 18(13 and 1S65, one hundred and eighty thousand of
them enlisted under the Union flag. Wliile the South de
nounced their employment, early in the war, and punished their
white officers, if taken prisoners, with death, as inciters of ser
vile insurrection; before the close of the war the opinion of the
South also changed. General Lee repeatedly urged their enlist
ment; but not till among the very last general orders was their
recruiting ordered. It was then too late to help the South, but
not too late to give emphatic endorsement of the merit of such
troops. During a debate at this session of Congress over a bill for the
gradual emancipation of the slaves of Missouri, Sumner was
taunted by Senator Powell of Kentucky, with desiring these
negroes to be freed "so that Governor Andrew could recruit
there to fill up the Massachusetts quota." To which Sumner
replied that he " would have a musket put in the hands of every
one of these negroes in Missouri."
Notwithstanding President Lincoln's Proclamation, the sub
ject of Emancipation still continued an important and difficult

456 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
question for the solution of Congress. His Proclamation only
emancipated the slaves in the States which were in rebellion.
But slavery still continued to exist in the border States, Dela
ware, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri and Western Virginia,
notwithstanding the Proclamation of Emancipation. It was
proposed to free the slaves in these States by compensating the
owners of them ; and thus secure emancipation in all the States.
Sumner was not opposed to compensated emancipation. He
had already voted for it in the case of the District of Columbia.
It was a method of dealing with slavery in the Border States
which President Lincoln had much at heart. But Sumner was
not greatly in favor of it ; and, indeed, it was not very popular
with Congress. This bill had been introduced in the House,
by Noell, of Missouri, and it provided that the Government
would apply ten million dollars to aid in the emancipation of
all the slaves of Missouri, upon the passage of a bill for that
purpose, irrepealable except by the consent of the United States.
This bill passed the House. In the Senate it was referred to
the Judiciary Committee, which reported a substitute, providing
for " the gradual or immediate emancipation of all slaves in
Missouri, to take effect, on some day, not later than July
fourth, 1876. If it took effect before July fourth, 1865, the
amount to be appropriated, by the Government, was to be
twenty million dollars, if after that date ten million dollars.
The amount appropriated, however, was not in any event to
exceed three hundred dollars for each slave thus emancipated.
Sumner was opposed to the three-hundred-dollar limit. He
thought it was too large and should not exceed two hundred
dollars. But he was especially opposed to the gradual feature
of the bill. He contended that it was a war measure and, to
provide that it should not take effect for ten or twenty years,
was to his mind ridiculous. For the sake of the country as well
as Missouri and for the sake of every slave, Abolition should
be completed, at the earliest possible moment. The bill pro
vided for a certain sum, if it took effect in two years and a cer
tain other sum if it took effect in thirteen years. He was
opposed to any such alternative. He wished it to take effect at
once so that he might see the benefit of it and have it felt in
the suppression of the Rebellion. For such a sum we ought to
expect something very positive to be done for the ending of the
war. He could not see any good to result by allowing eman
cipation to drag through all these years, with the possibility
of reaction and the certainty of controversy through the whole
time. "What is done in war," he said, "must be done promptly,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 457
except, perhaps, under the policy of defence. Gradualism is
delay and delay is the betrayal of victory. If you would be
triumphant, strike quickly, let your blows be felt at once, with
out notice or premonition, and especially without time for re
sistance or debate. Time deserts all who do not appreciate its
value. Strike promptly, and time becomes your invaluable ally ;
strike slowly, gradually, prospectively, and time goes over to the
enemy." Sumner moved to amend the bill, by substituting two hun
dred dollars, for three hundred, as the limit to be paid for each
slave. This amendment was adopted. He also moved to sub
stitute 1864 for 1876 so that the act should go into operation
on July fourth 1864. This motion was lost. He then moved to
strike out the word " gradual " so that the money should be
paid only on immediate emancipation. He was opposed to a
gradual war measure. This motion too was lost. The bill then
came on for passage with the gradual emancipation feature in
it. Sumner voted for it declaring that he only did so, knowing
it would go back to the House, where it could be amended, so as
to leave out these unnatural provisions. The bill went back to
the House, but was lost in the rush of business, incident to the
closing hours of the session. The whole subject of compensated
emancipation soon disappeared, in the comprehensive destruc
tion of slavery, by the Thirteenth Amendment of the Constitu
tion.

CHAPTER XXIX
DANGERS FROM ENGLAND AND FRANCE  SUMNER'S WORK IN
PRESERVING PEACE  CORRESPONDENCE  SPEECH ON FOR
EIGN RELATIONS — ARTICLE ON FRANKLIN AND SLIDELL IN
PARIS
Reference has already been made to one of the really great
works that Sumner did for his countrymen, and for which he
is entitled to their gratitude, accomplished largely outside of
his official life; I refer to his efforts to maintain peace with
foreign nations, especially England. This requires some ex
planation. During the Civil War, our relations with these na
tions were often strained. With France and England, we were
more than once on the very verge of war. It required the ut
most patience and forbearance, on the part of the Government,
and especially of President Lincoln and his Secretary of State,
Mr. Seward, to avert it, owing to the trying position, in which
they placed us, with the people. No one upheld the hands of
the President and his Secretary, better than Sumner, and next
to them, no one is entitled to more of the credit.
The causes of these foreign troubles developed early in the
war. The South then had plenty of money. The cotton crop
never was so large, up till that time, as in 1860. The sale of
this crop, mostly in England, had brought a large sum of ready
money to the Southern people. The crop of the next year was
only about half so large and this was reduced to one-fifth, for
the year 1862. As a consequence, the price of cotton, owing
to this reduced production, and the increased difficulty in get
ting it to market, had advanced from llfyd. in Liverpool, in
1861, to %A.yzd. in 1862. It would sell, in Liverpool, for four
times its price, in Charleston. The demand for it was great.
But equally great was the difficulty of getting it.
Three days after the surrender of Fort Sumter, the Presi
dent of the Confederacy had authorized the issue of letters of
marque and reprisal ; and two days later, President Lincoln had
proclaimed a blockade of the Southern ports and that priva
teers, with letters of marque from the Confederacy, would be
treated as pirates. Of course, a good deal of this on both sides,
was a war on paper. The South found no one to whom to
issue her letters of marque, and the North had no navy with
458

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 459
which to enforce the blockade. Both sides hoped the whole
affair would end with bluster, and each that it would result
in its own government having its own way. While affairs were
still in this condition, and before the Minister to England,
appointed by President Lincoln, could reach London, where it
was hoped he could present the situation of his government and
advise delay, until the pacific intentions of Lincoln's adminis
tration could be seen and the South have an opportunity to
take calmer counsels, England, with unseemly haste, recognized,
by public proclamation, the Confederate States as belligerents.
This, of course, added fuel to the flames. Where there was
hope before, all was dark now. This right accorded the South
by a powerful nation, like England, encouraged her to expect
prompt recognition as an independent nation, and, perhaps,
intervention. This, the South reasoned, would mean Independ
ence. Belligerent rights gave the South increased facilities for
obtaining supplies of war and for recognition. These she en
ergetically used, hoping that before the North could arm her
self for the conflict, resistance would be useless.
Nothing was left the North, but to go forward energetically,
to prepare for war, and to provide the means to enforce the
blockade she had declared. War ships would do this, as well
as curtail the exercise of the rights of belligerency, which had
been so promptly extended. The energy with which the North
met the demand for ships, will be seen when it is remembered
that, when Lincoln was inaugurated, the United States had but
one single vessel in a Northern port fit for aggressive opera
tions. By the end of 1863, she had six hundred, which was in
creased to seven hundred, before the war closed. As an illus
tration of how rapidly this work was done, it may be stated, that
one contractor, James B. Eads, furnished finished, in less than
one hundred days, eight ships of an aggregate of five thousand
tons burden. Yet when the contract was taken, the timber had
to be cut from the woods and the machinery made with which
to manufacture the armor.
This powerful navy, thus created, was manned by brave and
capable men, loyal to their flag and ambitious to distinguish
themselves in its service. It promptly grappled with the work
of enforcing the blockade and of closing the ports of the South,
so as to prevent all trade with Europe. This trade was im
mensely profitable, in the early years of the war, when the South
had cotton to sell and money with which to buy supplies. It
is estimated that the profits on a single cargo of cotton goods
to the South with the return cargo of cotton, owing to the great
difference of prices, between Charleston and Liverpool would

460 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
more than repay the cost of construction of the best steamer,
and the expenses of the voyage. The trade opened a great field
for enterprise, and encouraged by the attitude of their home
governments towards the North, with their friendship for the
South, European shipping rushed into the business. Blockade
running became, for the time, of wonderful extent. To facili
tate it, depots of supplies were established at neighboring
friendly ports, such as Nassau, on one of the Bahama Islands,
near the coast of Florida. Here goods could be carried and
landed, in large quantities, with perfect safety" to the vessel,
from risk of capture, and, a favorable opportunity being
watched, they could thence be carried, in poorer and smaller
vessels, into Southern ports. If the last transit could be pre
vented, of course, the business would be destroyed. It was as
important for the North to break it up, as it was to destroy
the supplies of the Confederate armies or to capture their guns.
Indeed, these guns when captured were often found to be made
in England, or other parts of Europe.
How well the Northern navy did its work, is seen, when we
remember that more than seven hundred British vessels alone
were sunk by it during the war. These were mostly vessels
engaged in this contraband trade. Their owners were in sym
pathy with the South and were favorable to her success; and
the destruction of their ships, even though engaged in this
business, awakened a deep-seated animosity towards the North,
that easily found its expression, and its influence, at home.
The number of these ship-owners was large, but the number
affected by the destruction of the ships, those who built them,
repaired them, supplied them and were in different ways re
lated to them, was larger still. It was a powerful influence
against the Union. It united against the North the aristo
cratic classes of England, in large measure her governing
classes, whose sympathies went out to the South rather than
to their more democratic brethren of the North. It was soon
seen that the active portion of the British nation was against
the North.
Mr. Seward with some bitterness recorded the feeling, when
he said : " It is indeed manifest in the tone of the speeches,
as well as in the general tenor of popular discussion, that
neither the responsible ministers, nor the House of Commons,
nor the active portion of the people of Great Britain sympathize
with this Government, and hope, or even wish, for its success in
suppressing the insurrection; and that on the contrary the
whole British nation, speaking practically, desire and expect
the dismemberment of the Republic."

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 461
The transition from sentiments to open acts of hostility was
easy. The building and arming and equipment, in England,
of men-of-war to be used in the service of the South, tended
strongly to inflame the feeling of the Northern States. The
Florida and the Alabama were both built at Liverpool in 1862
and were both sunk, in 1864, after two years of destructive
service, in the Confederate cause. With British crews, and
gunners trained in the English navy, drawing all their supplies
from England and never entering a Rebel port, they captured,
robbed and burnt Union property, wherever it could be taken.
Their depredations excited a bitter feeling, in the North, which
was never satisfied till the damages were assessed by the
Geneva award, in 1872, and, subsequently, paid by England.
The building of two more powerful iron-clad vessels at Liver
pool, in 1863, since known as the " Rebel Rams," for similar
service, aroused the feeling to such an extent that it was openly
declared that war would ensue if they were permitted to sail.
But the victories of Gettysburg and Vicksburg, with the re
treat of one Confederate army and the surrender of the other,
fortunately for both sides, disclosed to England, the true con
dition of the Confederacy, and the Rams never sailed.
The Trent affair, where Mason and Slidell, two emissaries of
the Confederate government accredited respectively to Eng
land and France were unlawfully taken, from a British vessel,
by a Northern ship and afterwards given up, has already been
mentioned. These with other causes of feeling, all too numer
ous, were drawing the nations far apart and threatening war.
But in all this picture, the part taken by the good Queen of
England and her laboring classes, especially the operatives of
the cotton mills of Manchester, who were sorely pressed by the
conditions the war placed on their labor, should never be for
gotten. They remained steadfastly the friends of the North.
The Queen, less blinded, perhaps, by too close contact with de
tails, saw from her high position, with true womanly instinct,
the meaning of the struggle with slavery, far more clearly than
some of her Ministers, notably Lord John Russell, her secre
tary of Foreign Affairs, and Mr. Gladstone, her Chancellor of
the Exchequer. The plain people, to their credit be it said, are
generally for liberty and against slavery. In this case fortu
nately for us, they had as their leaders such men as John Bright
and Richard Cobden and some too among the nobility as the
Duke and Duchess of Argyll. But the situation in England
was full of danger.
In France, our prospects were hardly less threatening. While
she did not permit blockade running under her flag, she

452 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
did accord to the South the rights of belligerency, on the
ocean, so that without a single open port, the Confederacy en
joyed immunity for her vessels, as lawful cruisers and allowed
all, who could, to furnish her supplies and munitions of war.
Considering the time also propitious, she made a pretext for
war with our sister Republic of Mexico, in concurrence with
England and Spain. The latter two very soon withdrew, but
France continued her aggression, to the point of an armed in
vasion, with an attempt to make the Archduke Maximilian of
Austria the Emperor of Mexico. This was in direct contra
vention of all the ancient precedents of the United States, des
ignated as the Monroe doctrine, against the extension of Eu
ropean dominion, upon this continent. It would not have been
attempted, but for the dire extremity, in which our fortune
was placed, in 1862-3.
A persistent effort was also made, by the French Emperor,
to mediate, in the struggle between the North and the South.
He proposed to England and Russia to unite with him, in this
tender, accompanying it, with a proposition for an armistice,
for six months, during which every act of war should cease !
England and Russia, however, better informed, declined the
part proposed. The offer was promptly rejected by President
Lincoln ; and by solemn resolution, of both Houses of Congress,
it was attributed to a "misunderstanding" of the real ques
tion at issue and the character of the war. Congress declared
that a repetition of the offer would be considered " an un
friendly act." It could have no other effect than to encourage
the South and was construed with the reception of the agents of
the Confederacy, at the Tuileries and Fontainebleau, as an at
tempt to aid the Rebellion. The resolutions were drafted, by
Sumner, and were adopted by large majorities, in the Senate
and House, and then sent, as they provided, to our Ministers
abroad to be communicated to the governments, to which they
were accredited. Lieber declared that they did not sound
like resolutions, but as a proclamation, by the people, through
their representatives, " as if America herself had said it, her left
hand on her sword, her right stretched forward to the multi
tude of nations."
The influence of such acts upon the people of the North can
be readily imagined. The feeling was that our treatment, by
these powers, in such a crisis, was not fair ; that instead of up
holding a people, in its effort to create a slave nation, their in
fluence should be cast in the scale of humanity and for the
North ; or if that could not be, that they should at least main
tain an attitude of neutrality, in fact. The constant recurrence,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 463
of evidence of a different spirit, developed a strong feeling, in
the North, against the offending nations. Northern merchants
could not see their vessels sunk and their cargoes destroyed,
by freebooting vessels, of other professedly neutral nations,
without an outraged sense of their wrongs. They cried loudly
for redress. Soldiers declared they were as ready to fight their
secret enemies, who furnished guns, as their open enemies who
used them. There was a strong war feeling developed against
both England and France, especially against England. A war,
with either of them, in our then trying situation, would have
been dangerous.
In explanation of the conduct of England and France, it can
be said that their governing classes, their nobility and landed
gentry, feared the tendency of democratic institutions. The
entire absence in the United States of hereditary rank and of
primogeniture, which played so great part in maintaining the
position of their upper classes, was an example which they
would gladly have seen removed. The people they thought had
too much part in our institutions. They had been taught to
believe that such a form of government could not be permanent.
When the Rebellion came, it was, therefore, not unexpected to
them. They had anticipated some such result as the outcome
of an attempt of popular government. They believed it was
only the natural and expected falling apart of the nation and
that the South would ultimately succeed. The moral aspect of
the question, the overthrow of slavery, they had overlooked.
Indeed this was not surprising; for the Administration, the
North itself, in the early period of the war had kept it in the
background. Lincoln's paramount wish was to save the Union
and it was not his purpose, at first, to disturb slavery, where it
already existed. He hoped, by assuring the South of this, to
secure her early return to the Union.
The events, that aroused Europe to the true meaning of the
war, were, first, the Proclamation of Emancipation and, sec
ond, the victories of Gettysburg and Vicksburg. The first
came after the bloody battle of Antietam, in September, 1862
and the second came, in July, 1863, and both long after the
opening of the war. The one by a national act proclaimed the
anti-slavery character of the war for the Union; the other, by
sweeping and decisive 'victories, announced, in unmistakable
terms, the determination of the North and the hopeless char
acter of the struggle of the South. Then European sympathy
for the South quickly fell away; the tide turned toward the
North and the danger of a foreign war disappeared.
The real danger to the Union, from abroad, was before this,

464 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
and it was then that the good work of its friends was done.
Sumner's correspondence, till then, had been, with his Eu
ropean acquaintances, merely a friendly one. But he had kept
up and extended his friendships and his views were well-known
upon the question of slavery and the danger it threatened, to
the Republic. His visit to Europe in 1857 when in search of
health, after the assault by Brooks, had drawn the attention of
his friends to the subject. His visit to John Bright at Llan
dudno had led to a mutual regard and a correspondence. He
became our most powerful advocate in Great Britain. He was
an orator of the first rank, of sturdy common sense and so per
fectly fearless that Cobden wrote of him that " he rather liked
to battle with the long odds against him." He knew the re
sources of the North as compared with those of the South and,
when Gladstone prophesied victory for the Rebellion and de
clared that Jefferson Davis had made both an army and a navy
and, what was greater than either, a nation, Bright sturdily
pronounced it a vile speech and eloquently predicted that the
Nation would come out of the struggle, "one people and one
language and one law and one faith and, over all that wide con
tinent, the home of freedom and a refuge for the oppressed of
every race and of every clime."
During the whole struggle, Sumner kept closely in touch with
Bright; they exchanged frequent and long letters, communi
cated their private opinions and each conveyed to the other
prophecies of probable future steps of their own governments.
The letters to Sumner when received were often conveyed by
him to President Lincoln by whom they were read and their
contents discussed and sometimes they were laid before the
Cabinet. The influence for good of John Bright and Sumner
in molding and influencing the sentiment of their two coun
tries and holding each back from rash steps, that too certainly
would have led to war, cannot now be overestimated. The
debt of gratitude we owe to John Bright should never be for
gotten. In Parliament and on the platform and privately in
well directed speech, in influential circles, and elsewhere, he
towered the leader of the plain people of Great Britain, for
freedom and against slavery, for national unity and well-being,
in a great crisis.
In another class, Sumner's influence reached the Duke and
Duchess of Argyll. Among the earliest of Sumner's English
friends will be remembered Lord Morpeth, later Earl Carlyle,
whom Sumner met in England on his first visit and later in
Boston, while travelling in America. The Duchess of Argyll
was his niece, the daughter of his sister the Duchess of Suther-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 465
land. This family became Sumner's warni friends and ad
mirers and took a deep interest, in his public career. He cor
responded with the Duchess of Argyll, all through the period of
the war, and her letters are full of expressions of sympathy, for
the Union cause and of fervent piety and trust. She was of a
deeply religious character and could have no sympathy with
human slavery. She earnestly hoped for its extinction. Her
husband, the Duke of Argyll was, during the war, the Keeper
of the Privy Seal and, therefore, a member of Queen Victoria's
Cabinet. Besides reading the letters of Sumner and the
Duchess he also wrote occasionally to Sumner. Though
guarded in his letters, they show that he did not mistake the
character of the struggle. Sumner earnestly pressed upon them
his views, his confidence in the ultimate triumph of the North
and he urged upon them earnestly, their duty to keep England
true to the moral side of the question. He wrote to her, April
7, 1863, " Remember, my dear friend, I am no idolater of the
Union; I have never put our cause on this ground. But I
hate slavery; and never, through any action or non-action of
mine shall a new slave-empire be allowed to come into being, to
insult God and man." Though she doubted the success of his
cause, her answer was : " My hope and prayer is that you may
come out of the fiery trial stronger, freer, happier than before."
These are not the only correspondents Sumner had in Europe
during this period. I use them only as illustrations of his work,
in this direction. Among others could be mentioned, W. E.
Foster and Richard Cobden, among members of Parliament.
The latter wrote : " It is nothing but your great power that has
kept the hands of Europe off you." He had a large acquaint
ance and he corresponded with many others. He knew person
ally Earl Russell, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and Mr.
Gladstone, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who attained
prominence, as representatives in the English Cabinet, of the
element, in Great Britain, favorable to the South. He kept in
touch with them, read their speeches, studied their conduct
and noted English newspaper comment upon it. Sumner's
position as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations,
in the Senate, gave added weight to his opinions in England,
where his abilities were well-known. He was understood as
standing near to President Lincoln's administration, and his
letters were looked to, as foreshadowing action, that would prob
ably be taken by the North, and as explaining her feeling to
wards England. Sumner's peace principles were well-known
and it was readily seen from his letters, that he looked beyond
any mere personal considerations, and to the real well-being of

466 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
both nations, in deprecating, action by either that might lead
to war. While he frankly told England, in 1861-2, she was
writing a sorry chapter, in her history, the letters of his
friends revealed that she was not all for the South, that there
was a powerful influence there still, for the North, and this rev
elation counselled and encouraged patience.
Sumner was convinced, during the earlier years of the war,
that its anti-slavery character was not properly understood,
in England, and in his letters to correct this impression, he
was unwearied, in pressing the moral side of the question, upon
his correspondents. He insisted with earnestness that slavery
caused the war, that slavery alone maintained it, that England,
after all her work for emancipation, could not ignore her na
tional position upon this question, and unite with the South,
in creating and introducing, into the family of nations, a new
power, whose chief cornerstone was slavery. He scouted the
idea maintained by English Southern sympathizers that it was
a struggle, like so many of the old world and of the new too, in
the American Revolution, for extension of territory, upon the
one side and for independence on the other. He solemnly
warned them, that there was a right and a wrong to the ques
tion, that God had His side and He could not be ignored, that
though they might attempt it, sooner or later He would be
heard. It was this idea, thoroughly possessing the minds of
such men as John Bright that gave them the influence they
had, in their speeches, to hold back the hand of England from
decisive action, for the South.
Sumner deprecated strongly the action of the English govern
ment, in permitting the Florida and the Alabama, to be built,
and manned and provisioned in England, and to go forth to
their harvest of destruction. When the Rebel Rams were
known to be building, at Liverpool, ostensibly for China, but in
reality for the South, he wrote earnestly, to prevent their being
permitted to sail. He insisted that while others thought dif
ferently, he had never considered the affair of the Trent a
cause for war, but, with these Rams, the case was otherwise.
If they were to be permitted to sail, to sweep American com
merce from the sea, nothing could hold back the dread day of a
war with England. If our commerce went, hers would go next,
our nation would retaliate, that much as he had sought to
preserve peace, between the two countries, any hand would be
powerless to stay the flood, if those ships were permitted to sail,
that he knew the temper of the President and of every member
of his Cabinet, upon this question, and much as he hoped for
peace, he must agree with them that war would then be the
only alternative.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 467
Sumner held up, before his English friends, the condition
of our resources, as compared with those of the South. While
they were obliged to depend upon foreign countries for sup
plies, we were making arms faster than we needed them. He
pointed out that our credit was good, our bonds meeting with
ready sale and our Secretary of the Treasury having no diffi
culties to meet the requirements of the situation. While
Southern fields were abandoned and Southern armies depleted
by the course of the war, our industries went on the same as
ever, business was active, travel was great, incomes large and the
country marching forward; that we were reminded, with sad
ness, by the funerals of our dead and the appearance of wounded
soldiers, upon our streets, of the wrongs of slavery, for which
we were suffering, still our armies were easily kept up to the
requirements in number, were well fed, well clothed, in good
spirits and, notwithstanding temporary reverses, had absolute
confidence in our ultimate triumph.
During the early months of 1863, Sumner had been asked to
address the Young Men's Republican Union of New York City,
on our Foreign Relations. The sympathy for the South con
tinued unabated in both France and England. No overt act
of war was committed, professions of neutrality were still made ;
but rumors of mediation continued, notice of a motion, for
the recognition of the Confederacy, had been given in the Eng
lish House of Commons; this notice was renewed; it was fol
lowed by the presentation and debate, upon a petition for
negotiations to be opened with the great powers of Europe, for
a joint recognition -of the independence of the Confederate
States ; the Florida and the Alabama still followed their career
of destruction, upon the seas ; the work on the Rebel Rams pro
gressed and neared completion; and the English Government,
in answer to the protest of our Minister, Mr. Adams, was in
sisting upon its inability to interfere, in any way, with the
work on these vessels or their sailing. Mr. Adams, in answer,
represented that the failure to do so would mean war, that,
whatever might be the professions of neutrality, to permit a
public enemy to fit out and provision and man such ships, on
professedly neutral territory, made such a neutral a party to
the war. It was during the happening of such events that
Sumner wrote the Young Men's Republican Union, the last of
August, fixing September tenth as the time for his address.
The speech came, at a crisis, in our affairs, with England.
David Dudley Field, the chairman of the meeting, in introduc
ing the speaker, said : " At no former period in the history of
the country has the condition of its foreign relations been so

468 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
important and so critical as it is at this moment." The per
mission of the Rebel Rams to sail, one of which had been coaled,
ready for her voyage, was expected to precipitate the conflict.
Sumner felt he had exhausted his power to avert it, by means
of correspondence. He hoped, at the last moment, by this
means, to avert the threatened calamity. His plan was to ob
tain a full hearing with the English Cabinet, to most of whom
he was personally known, and still stay their hand or, if that
could not be done, and the war came, to place before the world,
in plain and dispassionate terms, the justification of our course
and the inconsistent position of England. The merits of the
controversy were also imperfectly understood, at home. While
there had been much discussion of it, in the North, it was
thought well to have the whole case presented, in compact form,
so that it would be understood. No one, from his position, was
better qualified to do this, than the Chairman of the Committee,
on Foreign Relations of the Senate.
The address was delivered, in the great hall of Cooper In
stitute, of New York, which had been the scene of so many
memorable occasions in oratory. As soon as the doors were
opened, the vast room was filled, its seats, aisles, lobbies and
platform, with an audience, numbering not less than three
thousand people while others, for want of being able to gain
an entrance, were turned away. There were gathered the
acknowledged representatives of the intelligence, wealth and
influence of the metropolis. From early evening, till eleven at
night, the great audience listened attentively to his address,
frequently interrupting the speaker, with applause and cheers,
as he covered the ground of our troubles with England and
France. Three newspapers in New York and two of Boston published
the speech entire, in their columns, the next day, notwithstand
ing its length. The Times, of New York, gave up half the
surface of the day's issue to it, owing to the national impor
tance of the subject, the speaker's intimate knowledge of it,
and " his relations with some of the foremost publicists of Eng
land and France." A large edition of it was printed and cir
culated, by the Union, under whose auspices it was delivered,
and copies of it were sent to our Consul at Liverpool to be dis
tributed to each member of the Cabinet and Parliament of Eng
land. It was also reprinted in France, in an abridged form,
and was largely commented upon in the newspapers of the three
countries. When it reached England, Earl Russell was on a
visit to Scotland. He took occasion, at a public dinner, to refer
to it and to answer some of its parts. In one English paper,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 469
Sumner was spoken of as the mouthpiece of the President, in
tlie delivery of it, and the speech as having been read, by him,
and the confidential members of his Cabinet, before delivery.
This was not true, as neither the President, nor any member of
his Cabinet, had read a line of it, before delivery.
It cannot now be questioned that the address was opportune
and that it bore good fruit, though at the time some of Sum
ner's English friends, who felt there had already been too much
recrimination, on both sides, objected to its plain expressions.
On the side of the United States there had been indignant and
angry feeling towards France and England, but without care
ful knowledge of the facts, or the law. as applicable to them.
Sumner was an acknowledged authority on both. Her people
had a feeling that their government was too slow in appreciat
ing and resenting the injuries. A frank statement by one in
high office, showed them that their rights had not been over
looked and their injuries would not be forgotten. It quieted
feeling and restored confidence, in the course of the Administra
tion. On the European side, there was forgetfulness of our
rights and apparent indifference, born, perhaps, of the thought,
that the hands of the North were already full of trouble. But
there was a growing mistrust and a feeling among business
men that trouble was near for England, bankers refusing to
make loans or extend credits, trade relations narrowed, for fear
of war. It was apparent, to thinking people, on this side,
that affairs had already progressed so far, that as soon as
trouble with the South was over, England would be called
upon for redress. It was best for her Cabinet to know the
ground of our complaint, so that it could be more cautious, in
avoiding future cause for it, and thus allay feeling and
strengthen the hands of those, like Sumner, who really wished
for a lasting peace.
At the date of the delivery of the speech, it was supposed the
departure of the Rebel Rams would not be stopped, by the Eng
lish Government. As late as September fourth Earl Russell in
formed Mr. Adams that the testimony against the vessels
was insufficient and that they could not interfere with them.
But, on September eighth, he wrote that the sailing of the ves
sels would be stopped. When he spoke, Sumner did not know
of this order and feared tlie vessels would be permitted to sail.
He had freely predicted that, if this took place, war against
England would be declared. Under the influence of Gettys
burg and Vicksburg and the predictions of her best friends, of
the consequences of her continuance in the course she was pur
suing, England's better nature was beginning to assert itself.

470 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
The crisis had passed. The published farewell to London of
Mason, the agent of the Confederate government, appeared in
the same issue of the newspapers as the reviews of Sumner's
speech. Mason realized his presence there could be no longer
useful. Slidell, her ambassador to France, never returned to
America, but died in London, in 1871. But after his change
in the attitude of the English Cabinet, the presence of Con
federate ambassadors was no longer dangerous in Europe.
During this same autumn, and in the same vein as this
speech, Sumner published in the Atlantic Monthly a " Mono
graph from an old Note Book." It was a contrast between
Benjamin Franklin, the representative of the Colonies and
John Slidell, the representative of the Confederacy, at Paris.
The purpose of it was to recall the brilliant success of Franklin,
sought by all classes, and thus compelling the recognition of
princes; and the position of Slidell, supported by the Emperor
alone, and by him, only because he feared the example of the
Republic. Slidell's reception at the Tuileries had been pointed
to, as compared with Franklin's, to prove the strength of the
Confederacy abroad. Sumner thought the error of such a com
parison should be corrected.
The article as reprinted in Sumner's published works oc
cupies thirty-eight pages, thirty-six of which are devoted to a
description of the reception of Franklin, as shown by historical
references, and only two, to the reception of Slidell. The
great learning of Franklin, with his original investigations,
in electricity and the sciences, his strong common sense, his
exquisite social qualities, his perfect good nature, his sim
plicity of manners, his uprightness of soul, which made itself
felt in the smallest things, his extreme tolerance, and above
all his sweet serenity, changing easily to gayety, caused his
acquaintance to be sought for everywhere. The learned so
cieties, without political pretensions, received him as eagerly
as statesmen, who were interested in our new problems of gov
ernment. His ready wit and his profound knowledge of human
nature made him as easily felt among Ministers as among the
masses. His society was sought for by princes, but he ap
peared in the Capital of Fashion in the plain clothes of a
private citizen, " his flat hair without powder, his round hat, his
coat of brown cloth," at the court receptions contrasted
strangely with " the bespangled and embroidered dresses, the
' powdered and perfumed coiffures of the courtiers." Madame
Campan, one of the attendants of Marie Antoinette, records that
1 she assisted at one of the elegant fetes given to him " where the
i most beautiful among three hundred ladies was designated to

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 471
place a crown of laurel upon the white head and two kisses upon
the cheeks " of the aged American philosopher. When he left
to return to America, the Queen sent a litter to bear his sick
body gently to the sea ; and when he died Mirabeau pronounced
a magnificent eulogy upon him and, on his motion, France went
into mourning, for him.
Sumner described the meeting of Voltaire with Franklin.
The aged dramatist had lived for many years near Geneva, in
Switzerland, and had been urged, once more to visit Paris,
before he died ; and he consented. His journey was a progress.
He desired to meet Franklin. The latter brought his little
grandson with him and desired Voltaire's benediction. " God
and Liberty," said Voltaire, placing his hand upon the child's
head, " this is the only benediction, proper for the grandson of
Franklin." A few weeks after, they met again at the Academy
and were seated side by side, when the distinguished company
applauded. Thereupon the old men arose and embraced. " The
political triumphs of Franklin and the dramatic triumph
of Voltaire caused the exclamation, ' Solon and Sophocles em
brace ! '" " It was more than this," added Sumner. " It was
France and America embracing beneath the benediction of
' God and Liberty.' " And Sumner adds, closing his article,
and referring to the reception of Slidell : " The earlier struggle,
adopted by the enlightened genius of France was solemnly
placed under the benediction of ' God and Liberty.' The pres
ent struggle, happily thus far discarded, by that same enlight
ened genius, can have no other benediction than ' Satan and
Slavery.' " So after the extended and graceful description of
Franklin in France with this short notice he dismissed John
Slidell. Sumner continued to trace the contrast. The month after
the publication of this article, he was invited to attend the
annual dinner of the New England Society of New York. The
Senate being in session he could not go; for he made it a rule
not to leave his post. But he wrote a stirring letter on " The
Mayflower and the Slave ship." " Amid all the sorrows of a
conflict without precedent," he wrote, " let us hold fast to the
consolation that it is in simple obedience to the spirit in which
New England was founded that we are now resisting the bloody
efforts to raise a wicked power on the corner-stone of Human
Slavery, and that as New Englanders we could not do other
wise." " If such wicked power can be raised on this continent, the
Mayflower traversed its wintry sea in vain."
"We remember, too, that another ship crossed at the same

472 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
time, buffeting the same sea. It was a Dutch ship, with twenty
slaves, who were landed at Jamestown, in Virginia, and became
the fatal seed of that slavery which has threatened to over
shadow the land. Thus the same ocean, in the same year, bore
to the Western Continent the Pilgrim Fathers, consecrated to
Human Liberty, and also a cargo of slaves. In the holds of
these two ships were the germs of the present direful war, and
the simple question now is between the Mayflower and the slave
ship. Who that has not forgotten God can doubt the result ? "
Slavery, as Sumner saw it, from this early beginning in the
country, till its death, at the close of a bloody war, was a pro
longed tragedy.

CHAPTER XXX
EMANCIPATION  PASSAGE OF XIV AMENDMENT  EQUAL RIGHTS
TO COLORED MEN, IN ARMY, ON STREET CARS, IN COURTS 
REPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS  SUMMER'S PERSISTENCY
 OTHER MEASURES
As the war went on and defeat for the Confederacy seemed
to draw near, new questions presented themselves in Congress.
Its Members were not less busy than the soldiers in the field.
Those who had been in Congress long enough, like Sumner, to
become leaders, had burdens of work and responsibility thrust
upon them. Sumner was now in the full tide of his career.
He was one of the recognized leaders of the Senate. Strangers
visiting that Chamber sought his face among the first. He was
one of the pioneers of the new party that now had undisputed
control of every department of the Government. His recog
nized ability, bis high treatment of moral questions and his
courageous struggle against slavery had brought him the ad
miration of the plain people. He stood very near to the Presi
dent who relied upon and trusted him as a personal friend and
confidential adviser. They differed, as men will differ often,
but as men, each respected the opinions of the other. Sumner
was bound to President Lincoln by personal ties, of mutual
respect and admiration. Mrs. Lincoln shared her husband's
admiration of Sumner's public career and more than once, as
we shall have occasion hereafter to see, this friendship revealed
itself. Sumner was frequently asked to drive with the Presi
dent alone and to become one of the President's party, on ex
cursions and at receptions, or in the theatre. Frequently late
at night, after the rush of the day's work was over, Sumner
visited the President, by appointment, to discuss some pending
and important question. This nearness to the President, ap
parent to a casual observer, increased the responsibilities of
Sumner's place. His opinions were sought as reflecting those
of the President; his services were valued as being able to
influence the administration.
Sumner never sustained the same nearness to any other Presi
dent. During the Presidencies of Pierce and Buchanan, he was
in a small minority of determined opponents of the Administra-
473

474 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
tion. While during the Presidencies of Johnson and Grant, the
spirit of harmony, that obtained during the earlier months of
each, in the White House, changed to a spirit of active opposi
tion before the close. Johnson soon broke with his party and
the Impeachment proceedings estranged him permanently from
his Republican friends. In the case of President Grant, his
scheme for the annexation of San Domingo was firmly opposed
by Sumner. And his subsequent removal from the Chairman
ship of the Committee on Foreign Relations, by Grant's friends,
in retaliation, completed an estrangement that culminated in
Sumner's support of Greeley, the nominee of the Democratic
Party, as against Grant, for his second term.
In January, 1864, Sumner introduced in the Senate a resolu
tion for the appointment of a special committee on Slavery
and Freedmen, to take into consideration all propositions and
papers concerning these subjects, with leave to report, by bill
or otherwise. The resolution was adopted and Sumner was
made Chairman of the new Committee of seven. It was a
committee growing out of questions crowding upon the success
ful close of the war. While not neglecting other duties, Sum
ner kept his eye constantly on slavery and the new wards of the
Republic who had now acquired their freedom. Being con
vinced that slavery had caused the war and that there could be
no lasting peace between the sections while it continued to
exist, he was determined that the war should not close without
its complete destruction. The new committee was engaged in
the disposition of matters tending to this end. As its chair
man, Sumner prepared some important reports, upon bills
presented by it, to the Senate. They were prepared with that
care and elaboration that characterized his work and are to-day
monuments of his industry.
By an amendment to the Appropriation Bill, Sumner secured
at this session, the abolition of the coastwise slave trade. Under
a statute, passed in 1807, this traffic in slaves had been legal
ized. Early in the session Sumner had reported from the Com
mittee on Slavery and Freedmen a bill for the prohibition of
the traffic in slaves between the States and the transportation of
any slave on any vessel, within the jurisdiction of the National
Government. Owing to the press of other business, he had
not been able to get the bill to a vote. He therefore moved the
repeal of the existing statute legalizing such traffic, as an
amendment to this appropriation bill. The amendment carried
and the coastwise slave trade was thus abolished.
It met with opposition. Sherman and Trumbull, though not
opposed to the repeal of the law, were opposed to it when pre-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 475
sented in the form of an amendment to the appropriation bill.
But Hendricks in compliment, perhaps unintentional, to Sum
ner, said : " I am surprised that any Senator should oppose the
proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts, for we all
know that eventually it will be adopted. The objection to its
materiality, or proper connection with the measure, is but an
objection of time. No gentleman can question that the Senator
from Massachusetts will eventually carry his proposition."
But he was opposed to the amendment and with other Demo
crats voted against it.
Another of Sumner's long struggles against slavery met
success at this session of Congress. His early effort for the
repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law will be remembered. On the
tenth of December, 1863, he gave notice of his intention to offer
a bill to repeal all laws on this subject. Pursuant to this
notice, on the eighth of February, 1864, he introduced a bill
for this purpose and, on his motion it was referred to the
committee on Slavery and Freedom. On the 29th of February
he reported this bill from the Committee. The accompanying
report, recommending its passage and prepared by Sumner,
was an exhaustive review of the subject in fifty-one pages
covering the history of the legislation from the formation of
the Constitution. He gave the argument against the con
stitutionality of the law. It was bad enough, he said, to thrust
an escaped slave back into bondage at any time ; it was absurd
to do so, at a moment when slavery was rallying all her forces
to destroy the Government. A slave that had the courage and
address to escape from his master, was needed as a soldier for
freedom. In thus withdrawing support from slavery there was
a contribution made to emancipation. To repeal these laws
encouraged public opinion to sweep the barbarism from the
country. In this report he cited, as an illustration of the cruel work-
\ ing of the law, the case of Margaret Garner, who with her three
' children had escaped from slavery and had reached Cincinnati,
when their flight was arrested. Unwilling to see her children
returned to slavery, with a butcher-knife she determined to
prevent it, in the only way that lay in her power. She had
killed one, an interesting little girl, almost white. To the Chris
tian minister, who interrogated her as to the cause for the deed,
she answered : " The child was mine, given to me by God to do
the best a mother could by it. I have done the best I could ; I
would have done more and better for the rest; I knew it was
better for them to go home to God than back to slavery." But
she was restrained and after the determination of some ques-

476 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
tions of jurisdiction, under the fugitive slave law, she with
her two children remaining and the dead body of the other,
emancipated, were carried back to slavery under an escort of
armed men.
The history of this bill furnishes an excellent illustration of
the difficulties Sumner encountered and the persistency with
which he met them. To record the different steps will serve as
an example of what he did both in this and in other instances,
when he wished to secure legislation. On March seventh, he
asked the Senate to make the bill the order for a future day.
This request was granted and the bill was made the order for
March ninth. The next day Davis of Kentucky proposed to
have another question made the order for the same day. Sum
ner objected and reminded him that his bill was fixed for that
day. Davis said it could wait; Sumner objected. At the ap
pointed time Davis and Hendricks wished a postponement and
Sumner consented to let it go over till March sixteenth, Davis
saying that he wished to speak on it. From March sixteenth
till the eighteenth, it was crowded out by other business. On
the eighteenth Davis was still not ready to speak. Sumner then
gave notice that he would take every proper occasion to call up
the bill and press its consideration. Until April eighteenth, the
Senate was occupied with other business, especially the Thir
teenth Amendment to the Constitution. On that day Sumner
moved to take it up, but the appropriation bill had precedence.
On the next day, on his motion, the Senate voted to take it
up and having been read three times, without a division and
without a word of debate it was ready for passage. Foster, of
Connecticut, then wished to be heard. Hendricks spoke against
it. Sherman, of Ohio, then declared he was opposed to repeal
ing the law of 1793 and was opposed to the bill as it stood,
because it would repeal that law, as well as the law of 1850.
He wished therefore to amend it. Finding it had passed this
stage, he moved to reconsider the motion ordering it to be en
grossed and read the third time. This motion to reconsider
was carried. Sherman then moved to amend the bill, by ex
cepting from the repeal the act of 1793. He urged that this
law had been held constitutional. Sumner spoke against the
exception and pointed out that it had never been suggested to
the court, when considering its constitutionality, that this law
of 1793 made no provision for the trial of the case of the fugi
tive slave, by jury, and upon that being pointed out, one of the
judges who rendered the decision, had declared he would con
sider its constitutionality still an open question. Sumner be
lieved they were all alike unconstitutional. Reverdy Johnson

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 477
argued that they were all constitutional. Sumner especially
regretted Sherman's interference at this late day, when the bill
was just ready to be passed and that now after all these years
of discussion it should be thought necessary still to discuss it.
Reminding the Senate of his own part against these laws, he
said : " Often, in other times, I have discussed these questions
in the Senate and before the people; but the time for discussion
is passed. And permit me to confess my gladness in this day.
I was chosen to the Senate for the first time immediately after
the passage of the Act of 1850. By that election, if I received
from the people of Massachusetts any special charge, it was to
use my best endeavor to secure the repeal of this atrocity. I
began the work in the first session I was here. God grant that
I may end it to-day ! "
The amendment of Sherman carried. Thereupon Saulsbury,
of Delaware, moved another amendment, which was lost. Then
Conners, of California, declared he was no longer in favor of
the bill as thus amended and moved to lay it on the table.
Sumner urged him to withdraw his motion and vote for the bill,
for the reason that they still got something by it. Conners
refused, but his motion to lay on the table was lost. April
twentieth the bill was proceeded with, when Foster spoke for it
as amended. Brown, of Missouri, spoke and concluded by de
claring he could not vote for it, as amended. Still other
amendments were proposed; finally the consideration of it was
adjourned. Sumner was discouraged to pass it, in that form;
and preferred to wait for the action of the House.
On June thirteenth, after much contention, the House passed
a bill to repeal all the fugitive slave laws. June fifteenth it
came to the Senate and Sumner moved its immediate passage.
Hale, of New Hampshire, objected; he wanted the time for
other business. Powell moved its reference to the Judiciary
Committee. This motion was lost. Sumner moved its refer
ence to the Committee on Slavery and Freedmen; and this
carried. Thereupon Sumner, having anticipated such action,
and having already obtained authority from the Committee, to
report it promptly and without amendment, did so and asked
immediate action. But objection was made.
On June twenty-first he moved to take it up and the motion
was carried, but after some consideration, the Senate took a
recess and it went over. The next day, Sumner moved to take
it up again; but the motion was lost. At the evening session
he again moved to take it up. Saulsbury thereupon moved to
adjourn, with the exclamation : " Let us have one day without
the nigger ! " His motion was lost. Reverdy Johnson then

478 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
asked an adjournment, so Davis, of Kentucky, could speak.
Sumner insisted that this business had been postponed again
and again for Davis to speak. The motion to proceed was
adopted. Then a motion for an executive session was made and
debated and lost. Saulsbury moved a postponement ; lost. An
other motion for an executive session was made and lost. Then
another motion to adjourn was made and lost. At last it was
agreed that it should be reported without amendment and that
Davis should have the opportunity to speak upon it the next
day. This he did. Saulsbury moved then to strike out all after
the enacting clause; lost. Johnson moved to amend so as to
leave out the act of 1793 in force ; this too was lost, the Senate
thus reversing its former vote. Thereupon the bill was passed.
It was approved by President Lincoln June twenty-eighth.
Thus ended the Fugitive Slave Law for the repeal of which
Sumner had striven so often and so earnestly.
From this illustration, it will be seen how sternly and per
sistently he pressed his measures to the front and insisted upon
their passage. Defeat never seemed to dishearten him. " Fail,
Sir ! No honest, earnest effort in a good cause can fail." if
defeated to-day he was ready to renew the fight to-morrow.
If crowded out then, he would press his measure again as soon
as an opportunity offered. He was invulnerable against rid
icule or taunt or abuse. He had been abused so much that it
may fairly be asked whether he did not, at times, feel a proud
pleasure in social ostracism for the sake of measures he firmly
believed to be right. Against such persistence as he showed,
obstruction was useless. He was sure to wear out the party
that undertook to wear him out. He believed these measures
against slavery were right and he was ready to strike, and
strike hard, and strike on persistently.
But it must be confessed that his persistence sometimes
angered his own party associates. Frequently they did not
approve the measures he advocated. He strode on faster than
they were sometimes prepared to follow, in the direction of
equal rights. Yet they were not prepared to go on the record of
the Senate as voting against some of these measures.
Take for example his bill for the equal rights of colored peo
ple on the street cars of Washington and the District of Colum
bia. Separate cars had been provided for them. But largely
through his instrumentality, clauses were inserted, in some
companies' charters, forbidding such a distinction and requiring
colored to be accorded the same treatment as white passengers.
While this remedied the distinction, under the law, at least
upon those lines, it did not as to the others. The exclusion

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 479
still continued upon lines not thus restrained, to the incon
venience and sometimes the distress of colored passengers. He
therefore persisted until at this session he procured the passage
of a law forbidding such distinction upon any line. And when
this law was not promptly obeyed, in one instance, he called the
attention of the President of the offending Company to it and
threatened if the offence was repeated to have its charter for
feited; and in other instances brought the violations to the
attention of the District Attorney.
This persistency angered his associates. Powell of Kentucky
declared : " The Senator's staple is this fanatical idea. He
wants this little hobby to ride through Massachusetts on and
to feed a fanatical flame there. He can fool nobody here with
this kind of thing. Take the negro out of the Senator's vocabu
lary and rich as it is, it would be exceedingly barren." His own
colleague Wilson was not in sympathy with him and his friends
Sherman of Ohio and Trumbull of Illinois and Reverdy John
son of Maryland all opposed his effort for equal rights in the
street cars. But nothing daunted he went on; he had been
opposed and abused often enough before, and he was not afraid
of it now. He was opposed to all class distinctions and for
maintaining the complete equality of all men in civil life and
in the use of public service corporations.
But to make this concession in Washington was an unpopular
act, especially among the classes with whom Senators mingled.
They reasoned, it was a matter of personal comfort, at best,
that was directly concerned, though theoretically it might be
true, that all men, white and black, should be accorded equal
privileges in a public conveyance. They would gladly evade
voting upon the question — might vote against it once, as if in
advertently. But he would bring them to the test, again and
again, compel them to go on record, till they yielded and sup
ported his measure, unwilling captives to his tactics. But they
laid it up against him in personal feeling. It deprived him of
their sympathy and good fellowship. When the time came as
in the struggle with President Grant, when his removal from
the Committee on Foreign Relations was proposed, such things
counted against him.
Sumner at this session proposed a measure that was also un
popular among some of his colleagues who desired patronage
to maintain themselves in their places. He introduced a bill
for the reform of the civil service. With the growth of the
country the maintenance of this service had become a duty
full of difficulty. The offices to be filled were so numerous and
their importance to good service so great that with the limited

480 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
opportunities of the Senators for knowledge of the fitness of the
applicants, the original design that they should be filled by the
President with the advice and consent of the Senate had been
outgrown. It had been customary for the President to be
governed in appointments by the recommendation of the chief
elective officer of the district where the office was. The offices
under the " spoils system " went as a reward for party work,
without sufficient attention being given to fitness. Even the
elective officers, seeing the number of places at their disposal
much fewer than the wants of their supporters, found their own
positions rendered trying. When General Butler declared that
each District ought to have two Congressmen, one to attend to
the offices and the other to perform the duties of legislation, he
voiced a sentiment that many Congressmen appreciated.
Sumner's bill was offered, on the thirtieth day of April,
1864, and is the first public movement, on this since much
vexed but now conceded reform. It proposed the appointment
by the President, of a commission composed of three Exam
iners, appointments to the civil service to be made upon their
recommendation, after an examination as to fitness, held in
such places as should be designated, by public notice, the
rank of the applicant to be assigned according to fitness, as
shown by the examination, and after appointment the officer
not to be removed, except for good cause shown. The essentials
of the plan proposed in this early bill have been adopted iu all
subsequent legislation, upon the subject. The Civil Service is
now one of the permanent branches of the Government.
It was not his purpose to attempt to pass a bill at this ses
sion but only to call public attention to it and endeavor to create
a sentiment in favor of a needed reform. It was read twice
in the Senate and permitted to lie on the table and expire with
the Congress. Its purpose was accomplished, however, in
attracting attention to the subject and securing its discussion
in the newspapers.
At this session he renewed his efforts to have the exclusion of
colored witnesses from the United States courts removed. He
had sought twice before to have this accomplished, in 1861 and
again in 1862. He had already secured the removal of this
disability in the District of Columbia. On his motion the
bill he introduced for this purpose was referred to the Com
mittee on Slavery and Freedom. Three weeks later it was re
ported by the committee, accompanied with a carefully pre
pared report in favor of its passage. This report was prepared
by Sumner and occupies forty pages of his Works. It reviewed
the condition of the law upon this question in each of the Slave

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 481
States, called attention to its eccentricities and discussed the
ground on which it is based. He insisted that it was a mere
prejudice against persons of a particular color whether slave
or free, fruitful of wrongs to the blacks whom it often placed
without any legal protection against lawless outrages, and even
permitted crimes against white persons to go unpunished. The
absurdity of the rule of exclusion was apparent, he urged, when
it was remembered that the testimony if admitted, would have
to be weighed by white judges and juries, who might reject
it, if their prejudice led them to believe that colored witnesses
were untrustworthy.
Failing to obtain a hearing for his measure, in any other
form, Sumner moved it as an amendment to the Civil Appro
priation Bill of the session. Sherman urged him not to do so,
after the experience of the night before, which had been spent,
in the discussion of an irrelevant matter, with the thermometer
at ninety-three degrees. He was sure it would provoke dis
cussion. Other Senators urged him to withdraw it, but he per
sisted. The amendment was agreed to and, with the appropria
tion bill, it passed and became a law.
Saulsbury of Delaware was pointed in his opposition to it in
the Senate. " I do not wish," he said " to say anything about
the 'nigger' aspect of this case. It is here every day, and I
suppose it will be here every day for years to come, till the
Democratic party comes into power and wipes out all legisla
tion on the Statute books of this character, which I trust in
God they will do soon."
Under this amendment, the colored man was made as com
petent to testify in the United States courts as his white
brother. In the slave States, until this time, colored persons
were not competent to testify as witnesses.
On the ninth of February, 1864, Sumner read in the Senate a
petition of the Woman's National League, for universal eman
cipation, by act of Congress. Though originally prepared and
circulated by women there was a duplicate of it, signed by men.
The signers were above the age of eighteen. The petition was
arranged by rolls, each roll representing a State, and they came
from twenty-four states and Territories. It was called the
" Prayer of One Hundred Thousand," because signed by one
hundred thousand names. Though memorable for numbers
Sumner insisted that it was more memorable for the prayer,
in which they united, — nothing less than universal emancipa
tion. So far as it was signed by women, he admitted it was
simply a petition. But he added, " there is no reason so strong
as the reason of the heart." After reading the prayer of the

482 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
petition and some brief remarks, he moved its reference to the
Committee on Slavery and Freedom. A debate ensued, but
it ended in a reference to the Committee.
Sumner was already committed to universal emancipation,
but not by act of Congress. He did not believe that the simple
guarantees of a law, passed by Congress and approved by the
President, were sufficient. Slavery had for many years en
trenched itself behind certain clauses of the Constitution and
though he believed that instrument when properly interpreted
did not countenance it, he felt that its abolition should be guar
anteed by a constitutional amendment, forbidding slavery
forever within the national domain. This would place the
matter beyond the reach of an act of Congress. It could then
be reached only by another amendment submitted, after a two-
thirds vote of each House of Congress or the legislatures of
two-thirds of the States, to be thereafter ratified by three-
fourths of the States. This would not make it incapable of
change, but it would make it as incapable of change as any
thing could be, under our form of government. It would cer
tainly place it, beyond the reach of the law-making power
alone; so that if change were contemplated the States and the
people would have to be first consulted. This mode of emanci
pation would more than satisfy the " prayer of the one hundred
thousand." The first known movement for constitutional emancipation
had its origin with Sumner himself. On the morning of De
cember second, 1863, he was a passenger on the steamboat,
Empire State, on Long Island Sound, bound from Fall River
to New York, on his way, to the opening of Congress. With
him, as a fellow passenger, was Henry C. Wright of Boston,
on his way to a meeting of the American Anti-Slavery Society
at Philadelphia. In the saloon of the vessel, Sumner sketched
to Mr. Wright his plan of emancipation and with his own hand
drew up a resolution :
" That the voice of the people is heard through petitions to
Congress and this Convention earnestly recommend that this
voice be raised in petitions for an Amendment of the Constitu
tion, declaring that slavery shall be forever prohibited within
the limits of the United States."
Two days later, this resolution was presented, by Mr. Wright,
to the American Anti-Slavery Society and was adopted by it,
without a dissenting vote.
On the fourteenth of December, 1863, amendments to the
Constitution abolishing slavery were offered in the House by
Ashley of Ohio and Wilson of Iowa and on the eleventh of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 483
January following, Henderson, of Missouri, introduced a sim
ilar amendment, in the Senate. On February eight Sumner
introduced another, in these words :
" Everywhere within the limits of the United States, and
of each State and Territory thereof, all persons are equal be
fore the law, so that no person can hold another as slave."
He moved that it be referred to the Committee on Slavery
and Freedmen of which he was chairman. Trumbull objected,
that it should go to the Judiciary Committee, of which he was
Chairman and to which the amendment offered by Henderson
had already been referred. Sumner assented, only requesting
that the Committee act promptly, in reporting. This was done,
for on February tenth, only two days later, Trumbull reported
a substitute for the two amendments, in these words :
" Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, ex
cept as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have
been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or
any place subject to their jurisdiction."
" Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this arti
cle by appropriate legislation."
This is the form, in which it was finally adopted, and as it
now stands in the Constitution. But it was not adopted and
made a part of the Constitution, for almost a year. A course
of many vicissitudes awaited it.
Sumner did not approve the language in which it was ex
pressed and gave notice of a substitute. By two other sec
tions, he proposed to strike out of the Constitution the clauses
theretofore alleged to concern slavery; one, the clause in the
third paragraph of the second section of article one, concern
ing the apportionment of Representatives, "which shall be
determined by adding to the whole number of free persons in
cluding those bound to a service for a term of years three-fifths
of all other persons," so that with these words stricken out it
should read, " Representatives and direct taxes shall be ap
portioned among the several States, which may be included in
this Union according to their respective numbers, excluding
Indians not taxed ; " second, all of the third paragraph of the
second section of article four, reading, " No person held to
service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping
into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation
therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be
delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or
labor may be due." While the words " slave " or " slavery "
nowhere appear in the Constitution, these two clauses had been

484 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
held to recognize the institution and make valid a fugitive slave
law, and he, therefore, would have had them stricken out.
Sumner did not like the words in the amendments as re
ported by the committee : " except as a punishment for crime
whereof the party shall have been duly convicted." He argued
that the committee had adopted these words, from the ordi
nance for the government of the North- West Territory, that
there was a reason for them, when then used, because men could
then be enslaved, in certain parts of the country, as a punish
ment for crime and it was not, by that ordinance, proposed
to prohibit such a form of punishment. But, he argued that
what was struck at here, was slavery as it existed, in the slave
States, that what was meant was well known, that the words he
wished stricken out were surplusage and created a doubt where
there should be none.
Trumbull replied, that the committee upon examination and
discussion had adopted these words, that he did not know that
he should have done so, but a majority of the committee
thought they were the best words, that, at any rate, they would
accomplish the purpose and he hoped Sumner would withdraw
his objection. It was urged by Howard, a member of the Com
mittee on Slavery and Freedmen, that these good old Anglo-
Saxon words, taken from the ordinance- of 1787, had been re
peatedly adjudicated upon, so that their meaning was well un
derstood, by the public and the courts; and he united in the
appeal to Sumner to waive a mere matter of form, rather than
endanger the substance of the amendment. Sumner yielded
to their appeals and withdrew his objections, though he
afterwards regretted that he had not insisted on striking out
the words, giving an implied sanction to slavery as a punish
ment for crime. He feared they would be made a pretext, for
imposition, upon the freedmen of the South. Subsequent
events have shown that his fears were not without foundation.
Within the few years following the war, some laws were
enacted by the States that had been in rebellion that are in
teresting in this connection. In Alabama, it was enacted that
stubborn and refractory servants, and servants who idled away
their time, might be fined fifty dollars and, in default of pay
ment, might be hired out, by public outcry, on three days'
notice, for six months. The reader will see, in such a statute,
only a studied attempt to reduce the poor, ignorant freedman
to slavery, for half the year, as a pretended punishment for
crime. In the case of minors whose parents had not the
means of supporting them, it was made the duty of the court to
apprentice them; and, if the minor was the child of a freedman,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 485
the former owner of the minor was to have the preference. In
the city of Mobile, vagrancy was made punishable with con
finement to labor not exceeding six months, the labor to be
designated by the city officials for the city's benefit. The
labor was to be done under the authority of an agent of the
city who was to take the persons so sentenced from their con
finement, watch them while at labor and return them before
sun-down. If the negroes met at night in assemblies to con
sider such abuses, under another statute they might be sen
tenced, for attending such an assembly, to pay a fine of fifty dol
lars and costs or, in default of payment, to work for the city,
not exceeding six months. In this way labor was secured to
repair the streets, sewers and wharfs, after the ravages of the
war. In Florida, the vagrant might be hired out for twelve
months by the County Commissioners, at public outcry, and
pay the money thus secured into the county treasury, to meet
the general expenditures of the county. In Louisiana, a bill
was introduced, requiring every freedman to furnish himself
a comfortable home and means of support, within twenty days,
and on failure to do so, to be arrested and hired out, by public
advertisement, for the remainder of the year. If he left his
employer's service without consent, he was to be arrested and
assigned to labor on some public work, without compensation,
till reclaimed. Many other statutes from different States
might be given, to illustrate the same tendency.
The purpose of these laws was apparent. The South had
failed in its struggle for slavery. But the spirit of the people
that maintained the war was unbroken. What they failed to
accomplish by arms, they were now willing to do by legislation.
These laws were all aimed at the freedmen, who were left poor
and ignorant, as the result of two hundred years of bondage.
It was now proposed, by systematic legislation, of this char
acter, to reduce them to a condition almost as abject and
pitiable as before. Of course they were poor, of course they had
no homes ; others had gathered where they had sown, during all
these years, leaving them, out of the hard measure of their
toils, only a bare subsistence. Of course they were ignorant;
it had been a crime to teach them to read. Of course they
were improvident and could not manage; it had been the law
of their lives that others should manage for them and so man
age, too, that they should have nothing. Yet the people that
had reduced them to this condition now proposed to punish
them for being so. It would have been much more to their
credit, if pitying the condition of these freedmen, they had
sought, in some systematic way, to improve it.

486 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Sumner's experience in the Senate, before the war, had
taught him the resourcefulness of Southern statesmen, in leg
islation. He wished carefully to guard against it, in a matter
of so much importance, as an amendment to the Constitution
prohibiting slavery. The punishment prescribed in all such
acts as enslaved men for a limited time was a qualified form
of slavery. Yet it came, ostensibly at least, within the excep
tion that Sumner wished to have stricken out of the Thirteenth
Amendment, as proposed by the committee, forbidding slavery
" except as a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted." He would have had it without this
exception. But in giving way to the preference of others, as
to the form of expression, he said he consoled himself with
the thought that, however expressed, the amendment would
endure to be read with gratitude.
As to the two clauses that Sumner wished to have stricken
out of the Constitution, the first, as to the apportionment of
Representatives, was subsequently taken out, by the Fourteenth
Amendment, the second, as to the return of fugitives from
service, remains in the Constitution.
The joint resolution for the submission of the Amendment
passed the Senate, on the eighth day of April, by the necessary
two-thirds vote. It was not taken up in the House till the
last day of May. A motion was then made to reject it, but this
motion failed, after an exciting debate lasting several days.
When the vote on the resolution was taken on June fifteenth
it failed to receive the necessary two-thirds. Seeing this, at
the last moment, Mr. Ashley, one of its strongest advocates,
changed his vote so as to be able to move a reconsideration of
it. This he did the same day and had his motion entered on
the journal, thus holding the resolution in suspense so it could
be taken up, in the House, at the next session, and if passed
there, not have to be voted on by the Senate. No further
action was taken on it, during this session. But President
Lincoln in his message to Congress, at the opening of the next
session, recommended its reconsideration and passage, adding
that the result of the late election showed the people were
favorable to it. On January sixth, 1865, it was taken up and
the debate on it continued, with some interruption until Jan
uary thirty-first, when it received the necessary two-thirds vote.
The vote was anticipated and a large audience of members
and spectators was present to witness the result. As the call of
the roll proceeded, a breath-like silence pervaded the chamber,
everyone listening to catch the vote of the Member, as his name
was called. All seemed to realize that the question, whether

life of ciiarles sumner 487
four million human beings should be restored to their birth
right of freedom, was a great one, which hung on the issue of
the hour. The issue had been explicitly stated in the Republi
can platform, and Lincoln had been elected upon it, by an over
whelming majority. The battle fought over the whole country,
at the polls, was now concentrated in this Chamber, for the final
issue. True, the Republicans then elected had not yet taken
office under that election, but it remained to be seen whether
those still occupying these seats would bow to the decree of the
people, whose will was to be supreme. Lincoln had plead with
them to anticipate the action of the next Congress, that was
now assured. He had reminded them of his own Proclamation,
carrying freedom to the slaves of the states now in rebellion.
With solemn words, he told them that, if it was ever made an
Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another and not he
must be made the instrument to perform it. The present
House had voted down this Amendment once, it might do so
again and thus delay, but it could not change the result.
Would it meet the crisis ?
When the voting commenced, it was found there were eight
absentees, without pairs, all Democrats, such men as Daniel W.
Voorhees and James F. McDowell of Indiana. It was as
sumed that they now favored the Amendment, though not pre
pared to so record their votes. As the roll-call proceeded, such
men as Homer A. Nelson of New York and Wells A. Hutchens
of Ohio answered, in its favor, until ten Democrats voted for
it, who had not done so before. When the roll-call was finished
the joint resolution had more than the necessary two-thirds
and the Amendment was ready to go to the States for ratifica
tion. When the result was announced, the scene was indescrib
able. Members sprang upon their seats, cheering and shout
ing, waving hats and hands and canes. The galleries answered
back the shout. The whole chamber was in an uproar. All
efforts to restore order were fruitless and the House, in spon
taneous recognition of the event, adjourned for the day.
The necessary three-fourths of the States promptly ratified
the Amendment. The result was formally announced by the
Secretary of State December eighteenth, 1865, and the Amend
ment then became a part of the Constitution. Slavery was
abolished. There was a reason for the wish of the Republicans to have
the work of the next Congress thus anticipated. It hastened
emancipation a year. The recent successes of the North, in the
field, indicated that the end of the war was near. Negotia
tions for peace were likely to be entered upon, at any time.

488 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
When Congress opened, Sherman was on his victorious march
to the sea. When the vote was taken in the House, he was
leaving Savannah, for his advance through the Carolinas;
Thomas had annihilated Hood's army at Nashville ; and Grant
was holding Lee fast at Petersburg. If a proposition came,
from the Confederate armies, to lay down their arms and,
from the Confederate States, to return to their former allegi
ance, they would likely be met by the North, with open arms.
In the joy of forgiveness, the guarantees of future peace might
be overlooked. Those who believed, like Lincoln and Sumner,
that there could be no permanent peace between the sections,
while slavery continued, were anxious to see it destroyed and
the legitimate fruits of the war secured by irreversible guar
antees, before the end came. This done, it was hoped that a
peace then coming would be a permanent one.
In this spirit, Sumner was busy upon other measures that
concerned the colored race, while this Amendment was pending
in the House and with the States. In answer to a suggestion
of Sherman, in the Senate one day, that the Constitutional
Amendment was the main proposition, Sumner retorted, " The
main proposition, Sir, is to strike slavery wherever you can hit
it and I tell the Senator he will not accomplish his purpose if
he contents himself merely with a constitutional amendment."
Sumner believed in the equality of the races before the law.
He made a protracted struggle in the Senate to equalize the
pay of colored troops. Some of them had enlisted under acts
that had made no distinction between them and white soldiers.
The white soldiers received thirteen dollars per month, but by
an order of the War Department, the colored men were paid,
under a subsequent act, only ten. It was a question of con
struction of the two laws. Sumner insisted, that all soldiers
enlisted under one law, should be paid the same and that an
act passed subsequently to their enlistment could not change the
rights of the colored man. Some Massachusetts troops were in
terested and that State firmly convinced of the justice of their
claim, Governor Andrew having assisted in their enlistment,
offered to pay them the difference. But some of the troops de
clined to so receive it, insisting they were to be paid by the
United States. The matter was first canvassed, by Sumner and
Wilson, before the War Department, and Secretary Stanton,
at last, became restive under their importunities. It was then
brought before the Senate, in an effort to amend the law caus
ing the doubt. Sumner spoke several times upon it. The
matter was finally referred by resolution, to the Attorney-Gen-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 489
eral, who construed the law in favor of the colored troops and
they were paid the same as white soldiers, who had enlisted
with them.
Another troublesome question upon which Sumner spent
much labor at this time was the claims against the Government
for French spoliations during the Revolutionary War. It was
an old subject, that had often before troubled Congress, and
was destined to trouble it still longer. The claims were in favor
of private parties for damages done to American shipping, by
cruisers and other armed vessels of France, in violation of the
law of nations and existing treaties. Claims of the same kind
had been made, by our Government, against other European
nations and had been paid and the money thus received dis
tributed to those entitled. It was insisted that the Colonies had
assumed the claims against France, in the adjustment made
between the two countries, at the close of that war. This being
disputed, the claims had never been paid. Forty-one times the
subject, had been reported upon by Committees of the Senate
and House, every time favorably, except in three of the earliest
reports, the third, fourth and fifth. Among the eminent men
who had made the favorable reports were Edward Livingston,
Edward Everett, Daniel Webster, Caleb Cushing, Charles J.
Ingersoll, John M. Clayton and Rufus Choate. Sumner now,
as Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, went into
the matter, with his customary thoroughness, and made a re
port of almost one hundred pages, in which he reviewed the
whole subject and urged an appropriation of not exceeding five
million dollars, to pay the claims. Three thousand extra copies
of the report were ordered printed. It stands as the most ex
haustive discussion of the subject ever made. It was twice
after, while Sumner was a member of the Committee, adopted
as its report, on this subject, and so returned to the Senate ; and
twice more, by the Committee, after Sumner's death. An ap
propriation was finally made for the payment of the claims and
they were paid.
The position of Sumner, upon another measure, at this
Session, is interesting. He opposed the taxation of national
banks, by the States, and offered an amendment to the law for
bidding any State tax upon them, except as to the real estate
they might hold. He believed the taxation of these banks
should be exclusively in the hands of Congress for fear the
States, if the power of taxation were continued to them, might
undertake, in some crisis, to destroy them. In this view, he
was supported by Secretary Chase, in a communication ad-

490 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
dressed by him to the Senate Finance Committee, and by some
Senators. But his amendment was voted down. The States
have always had the right to tax these banks and experience has
not yet shown that it was unwise to confer it upon them. To
withdraw from State taxation the vast amount of capital in
vested in these institutions would transfer an undue burden to
other classes of property.
Late in the evening of Saturday, July second, a resolution
was offered, proposing that Congress adjourn on the following
Monday at noon. Sumner was opposed to the resolution and
spoke against it. He reminded Senators that they were in the
midst of a gigantic war and that important legislation still re
mained to be acted upon, that the army must be sustained and
that measures for increased taxation should be debated, that
$100,000,000 more was said to be needed and the people were
asking taxation to provide for it. He reminded them that until
1856 there had been no adjournment before August and that
in 1850, the summer of the passage of the Fugitive Slave law,
there had been no adjournment until September thirtieth;
that, if for slavery Congress could endure the heat of summer
and autumn, surely now, for the sake of freedom, they could
continue in session longer than July fourth ; that the Senators
were paid then eight dollars per day, now a salary of three
thousand dollars per year; that it was humiliating to think
that so long as they were paid a per diem, they were willing to
stay late, but when paid by the year, they could not endure the
heat. He sympathized with the wish of others to be away. If
he were to take counsel of his own personal comfort he too
would be glad to be gone.
"Born on the sea-shore," he said, "accustomed to the sea
air, I am less prepared than many of my friends to endure the
climate here. I feel sensibly its sultry heats, and I pant for the
taste of salt in the atmosphere. Nor am I insensible to other
influences. What little remains to me of home and friendship
is far away from here — where I was born. But home, friend
ship, and sea-shore must not tempt me at this hour."
In that short expression: "What little remains to me of
home and friendship is far away," is the first note that comes
to us, in his works, of the sadness and loneliness of life that
afterwards dwelt upon him with peculiar heaviness. It seemed
at last to grow into a longing himself to be away. On the sixth
of the preceding October, 1863, his brother George had died
of paralysis. He had been first stricken, two years before. Of
all the large family that had once gathered around his father's

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 491
table, Sumner alone of the sons remained, and with him was
his mother and only one sister, Julia. The sister was married
and away in a home of her own. The feeling between Charles
and George had been unusually tender. Charles had remained
constantly near him during his last summer and was present
when he died.

CHAPTER XXXI
reconstruction under lincoln  in louisiana and arkan
sas — no bust of c. j. taney  negro suffrage  freed-
men's bureau — relations of lincoln and sumner 
Lincoln's death
I have reserved until this place the mention of some work of
Sumner on reconstruction. It would naturally have come ear
lier in strict order of time. But it will be more readily under
stood if the whole subject is treated together rather than in
detached portions, as it came up, from time to time under the
administration of Lincoln.
As the war neared its close, the question of the relation of the
seceding States to the Union became one of serious importance.
It had first made its appearance early in the war when the loyal
portion of Virginia, now West Virginia, refused to follow the
rest of the State into rebellion. The question had seemed
simple enough of solution then, for the nation was anxious to
retain as much as possible of the slave territory from the Con
federacy; and the part that remained was occupied by loyal
people, akin in manners of life to the North. Congress had
created it a separate State and admitted it to the Union. The
new state, under a constitution, formed in accordance with the
act of Congress had elected state officers; and Senators and
Members of Congress to represent them, were sent to Wash
ington. These had presented their credentials and been ad
mitted to their seats. Coming when they did, they had
strengthened the hands of Congress and the President. The
men sent to Washington, save a certain leaning towards slavery
to be expected from citizens of a slave State, were as loyal, and
as cordial, in their support of war measures, as any they found
there. The new State had given pledge of its sympathy for
the North, by placing in its constitution a provision for the
abolition of slavery and adopting it, by a popular vote. But
notice, the admission of the new State had been by concurrent
act of Congress and the President, not by the President alone.
There was this difference, however, between the conditions in
the admission of West Virginia and those attending the recon
struction of the States in secession. The white people of the
former were loyal, while those of the latter were not The
492

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 493
former had refused to enter into the Rebellion, had held a
separate convention, when the ordinance of secession was
adopted and had repudiated this action on the part of the
balance of the State. They had raised soldiers and had assisted
in fighting the battles of the Union. The others had seceded
and had raised and maintained armies to destroy the Union.
They were in favor of slavery and had sought to perpetuate it.
If compelled at last to give it up, it had only been at the point of
the bayonet. If readmitted to representation in Congress, judg
ing from all the past, they would be found voting to cripple the
efforts of the North to ameliorate the condition of the freedmen
of the South. So far as they could, they would frustrate the
efforts of the North, to restore the National authority in the
South. It was feared that a warring, contentious, dissatisfied
element would be restored to its old place in Washington. At
home in the South, the colored people, without property and
without influence would be left without any means of protec
tion. It was important that having been given their freedom,
they should be given the means of protecting it.
But President Lincoln was favorable to the reorganization
of the States in rebellion, as fast as could be, consistently with
the interests of the loyal North. A government in these States,
by military oligarchy longer than required by the necessities of
the case, would hardly be regarded favorably by an able lawyer,
who had thought much upon constitutional questions; and it
was abhorrent to his sense of justice. He was equally opposed
to a government inaugurated there by political adventurers,
who had followed the march of our armies and were ready to
fill any positions of place or power that might be offered. He
realized that we did not particularly need Members of Con
gress to assist in the work of legislation at Washington. That
work was being done, in the main, satisfactorily enough to us
But he would like to see citizens of the South, of sufficient
courage to boldly assert that they were opposed to the mad
career of rebellion, and these in sufficient numbers to organize
and maintain loyal State governments. It would furnish ac
tual demonstration of the failing fortunes of the Confederacy.
It will thus be seen that one of the President's purposes, in
reconstruction, was to encourage loyal citizens of the South to
assert their loyalty and aid in the re-establishment of their
States. It would strengthen their position by awakening a
feeling of loyalty in others. It would form a nucleus about
which opposition to the Confederacy might unite, and aid in
destroying its hopes of success. He well knew that many of the
people of the South had not favored rebellion, but had been

494 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
carried along in the mad career of their more powerful neigh
bors. Alexander H. Stephens, the Vice-President of the Con
federacy, had been one of this class. He had advised against
secession and had opposed it, in a strong public speech. He
had only gone with his section, at last, because he could not
control it. There was no hope of course now of reaching him.
But others of his class were not holding office under the Con
federacy and were not so prominently identified with the South.
The President hoped that they might be reached and united
and encouraged to do a good work in discouraging rebellion
and bringing back the section to its former allegiance. He felt
that there was a duty resting upon loyal Southern men that
they should perform. He had a good deal of impatience with
such of them as seemed to think the United States owed them
protection and safety, but that they owed the United States
nothing in return.
Writing of one of this class living in Louisiana, who had com
plained that, though loyal, the trade and travel of such as him
self had been interfered with, by the blockade, Lincoln said:
" Mr. Durant speaks of no duty, apparently thinks of none,
resting upon Southern Union men. He even thinks it inju
rious to the Union cause that they should be restrained in trade
and passage without taking sides. They are to touch neither a
sail nor a pump, live merely as passengers ('dead-heads' at
that) to be carried snug and dry throughout the storm and
safely landed right side up. Nay, more, even a mutineer is to
go untouched, lest these sacred passengers receive an accidental
wound. Of course the Rebellion will never be suppressed in
Louisiana, if the professed Union men there, will neither help
to do it nor permit the Government to do it, without their
help." It was over the State of Louisiana that the first question of
reconstruction arose. In April, 1862, Admiral Farragut had
reduced the Rebel fortifications on the lower Mississippi and
captured New Orleans. Thenceforward the city was in the
hands of the United States soldiers. Thus encouraged, the
loyal citizens of Louisiana began to take thought of reorganiz
ing the State and, under a proclamation, by the Union Military
Governor, for an election, had held one in December of that
year. Benjamin F. Flanders and Michael Hahn, two old resi
dents of the State, were chosen Members of Congress. They
had accordingly presented their credentials to that House and,
without much discussion, it had admitted them to their seats.
No Senators had been elected and, of course, each House being
the judge of its own elections, the question of eligibility had

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 495
not been discussed by the Senate. This was, however, the first
crude effort at real reconstruction and, as the sequel showed, it
was a mistake. It was admitting reconstruction, at the instance
of the President, and permitting it to be consummated, with
Congress having no voice in it save to vote, each House, on the
admission of Members, returned to it. The result of it was to
mislead both President Lincoln and President Johnson, as to
the extent of their powers. It led President Lincoln into be
lieving that reconstruction at the instance of the President
would be recognized by the Senate and it brought about a strug
gle between him and that House, in which he was defeated. It
misled President Johnson into believing that the authority of
the President, as assumed by his predecessor and apparently
conceded by the House, was greater than it was in reality. It
caused the first clash between him and Congress, and in large
measure contributed to his impeachment.
The action upon the credentials of Flanders and Hahn had
not, however, been taken without some misgivings on the part
of the lower House. But, like the admission of West Virginia,
it came at a time when the fortunes of the North were at the
lowest ebb, just after the bloody battle of Antietam, when both
Congress and the President were absorbed in providing men
and money to meet the needs of the war.
The next step was taken when President Lincoln, in his
Message to Congress, in December, 1863, recommended a defi
nite plan of reconstruction. He accompanied his Message with
a Proclamation setting forth his plan. It proposed a full par
don to all persons who had been in rebellion, except certain
classes who were deemed especially guilty because they had
abandoned judicial, congressional, naval or military offices
under the United States to enter the Confederacy, or who had
held high civil or military offices under the Confederate gov
ernment, or had been guilty of cruelty towards United States
colored troops when captured, treating them otherwise than as
prisoners of war. All persons not thus excepted from pardon
were to be restored to citizenship upon their taking an oath to
support and defend the Constitution and abide by all laws, and
proclamations, made during the war respecting slaves, until leg
ally modified. If a sufficient number of such persons in any
State in rebellion, voted, to cast one-tenth of the vote that was
cast at the Presidential election of 1860, the government thus
established was to be recognized as that of the State. The Proc
lamation, however, provided that the eligibility of persons
elected to the Senate and House must be determined by these
Houses respectively.

496 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
A change had now taken place in the fortunes of the North.
Vicksburg had been captured by Grant and the Mississippi
River was now open from its source to its mouth and patrolled
by Union gunboats. The Confederacy was divided in twain,
the part of it that lay west of the Mississippi being completely
separated from the rest and destined never to be reunited under
that government. Gettysburg had been fought and won. These
events, with the failing fortunes of the Confederacy elsewhere,
were strengthening the hearts of Southern Union men. _ In
Louisiana a convention was held and after that an election,
whereby Michael Hahn was chosen Governor. Members of
Congress were also elected. Arkansas had elected a Governor
and Members of Congress. Both States accomplished this by
the requisite ten per cent, vote and likewise adopted Constitu
tions abolishing slavery. Several States chose United States
Senators. The Senators from Arkansas were the first to present
their credentials at Washington and ask to be seated. The issue
was thus fairly presented. Everything had been done in ac
cordance with the President's Proclamation. Would the two
Houses of Congress acquiesce, and vote to seat the Representa
tives and Senators? President Lincoln, relying on the previous
action of the lower House upon the credentials of Flanders and
Hahn, believed they would.
But the feeling of some of the Members had changed in the
meantime. Within a few days after the publication of the
President's Message and Proclamation, Sumner referring to
the plan of reconstruction there set forth, wrote : " Any plan
which fastens emancipation beyond recall will suit me," thus
making emancipation the one single requisite in his eyes. On
the eighth of February, 1864, two months after the Proclama
tion, he introduced a series of resolutions in the Senate, for the
purpose of defining its position upon the question of reconstruc
tion. In these resolutions he took the same position as in his
letter to Bright and he made it emphatic that no reconstruction
was to be considered that did not secure emancipation in the
reconstructed States. In these resolutions he insisted that a
solemn duty was cast upon Congress to see that no rebel State
was prematurely restored * * * until all proper safe-guards were
established, so that loyal citizens, including the new-made freed
men could not be molested * * * and especially that no man
there could be made a slave." In the last of these resolutions
he defined how this freedom was to be secured: "the constitu
tion thereof must be so amended as to prohibit slavery every
where within the limits of the Republic." Here was eman
cipation to be secured by Constitutional Amendment, under the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 497
supervision of Congress, in the reconstructed States before they
should be allowed to retake their position as States. This was
the highest ground that Sumner assumed, up to the time of
President Lincoln's Proclamation. But note, there was no
mention in it of suffrage to the colored race, as one of the pre
requisites. Sumner himself had not yet advanced to this posi
tion. But he was travelling in this direction.
On the thirtieth of March, 1864, the Senate was considering
a bill already passed by the House, to provide a temporary
government for the Territory of Montana, when Wilkinson, of
Minnesota, moved to amend the clause relating to the qualifica
tion to vote. As the House had passed the bill, the qualification
stood " every white male inhabitant." The amendment pro
posed was to make it " every free male citizen of the United
States and those who have declared their intention to become
such." A debate arose over this amendment. Reverdy John
son said the word " citizen " as thus used was not applicable to
" black men " because the Supreme Court had held in the Dred
Scott case that a person of African descent is not a citizen.
Wilkinson said he was willing to let the amendment stand as it
was, let the decision of the Supreme Court be what it may.
Sumner remarked that he hoped Congress would proceed, with
out respect to a decision that had disgraced the country and
ought to be expunged from its jurisprudence. Johnson fol
lowed him at length in a eulogy of Chief Justice Taney, who
had delivered the majority opinion in the Dred Scott case and
was from his own State. He took Sumner to task for his want
of respect for the Supreme Court. Sumner replied that he had
been taught that two and two made four and if a tribunal
honored like that Court declared they made five he claimed the
right to dissent, that he entered a standing protest against that
" atrocious judgment " which was " as absurd and irrational
as such a reversal of the multiplication table," that it " was
false in law and also false in the history with which it sought
to maintain its false law." Johnson had referred to the honored
character of the Court and the great names that had been asso
ciated with it in the past. This reference to the old Court
touched a chord that had vibrated, in his youthful days, when
on his first visit to Washington, Judge Story had opened to
him an association with the Members of that body, and Sumner
replied :
" But the Senator wandered into eulogy of that old Supreme
Court, now departed, when Marshall was Chief Justice, and
from the past claimed consideration for the present. Sir, I
have been no careless student of that court in its great and

498 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
palmy days. I know the learning, wisdom and ability of its
judgments, and am proud that there are such pages in the
jurisprudence of my country. My sentiments towards the court
of that day are warmed, also, by personal experience. It is
among the cherished reminiscences of early life, that I was
privileged to know, as a youth might know, the illustrious
magistrate, whom the Senator praises so well. He received me
at his table, and allowed me to accompany him in his morning
walks to the court-room. He was a venerable character. But
I pray the Senator not to claim for the Dred Scott decision
any of the reverence justly belonging to his name. There is no
question of tribute to Chief Justice Marshall, or respect for the
tribunal while he presided over it. The Dred Scott decision
is more noticed from contrast with all that is good and great
in the decisions of other days. It is sad that the tribunal that
had established such an authority among us should do an act
by which its authority has been endangered."
Johnson replied insisting he had not wished to offend Sumner
and confessing his personal regard for him as well as acknowl
edging the courtesy he had received at his hands. But he still
insisted that he must place the authority of Chief Justice
Taney higher than Sumner upon a question of constitutional
law. Hale, of New Hampshire, to the merriment of the Senate,
added that he would have to differ from Sumner, that while
he did not think any better than he did of the Dred Scott deci
sion and agreed also that it was an outrage upon the civiliza
tion of the age and a libel upon the law, he could not agree with
Sumner in thinking it was a disgrace to the Supreme Court of
the United States. To this length had one decision carried
Senators jn their estimate of the court. The conclusion gravely
reached by so high a court that a man by reason of his color
could not be a " citizen " seems amusing still.
Chief Justice Taney died, during the coming recess of Con
gress. At the following session, a joint resolution for a bust of
him, to be placed in the Supreme Court Room, was introduced
by Trumbull, of Illinois. It was vigorously opposed by Sum
ner, Wilson, Hale and Wade; but was supported by Johnson,
Trumbull and Carlile of West Virginia. The debate over it
was exceedingly acrimonious; and personalities were indulged
in, on both sides. The proposition was opposed, on the ground
of the Dred Scott decision ; which was characterized " as the
greatest crime in the judicial annals of the country." Johnson
believed the decision was right and defended it. Sumner re
plied that in listening to Johnson he was "reminded of a
character known to the Roman Church who always figures at

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 499
the canonization of a saint as the Devil's Advocate " ; and added
that " Taney should never be recognized as a saint by any vote
of Congress," if he could prevent it. It was apparent that the
opposition, under Sumner's lead, would defeat it; and it was,
therefore, abandoned. The incident illustrates the height feel
ing was running at the time, on the question of slavery.
Though undoubtedly wrong in this decision, Chief Justice
Taney was a wise and able judge, who as the head of the court
for twenty-eight years, one of the longest careers in its his
tory, had added to its renown. The vote of a bust did not neces
sarily mean an endorsement of all his work. The busts are
placed there simply as memorials of the deceased. Nine years
later, when feeling had softened and all who had opposed the
resolution were gone from the Senate, save Sumner alone, and
he was detained from his seat by sickness, a resolution to place
in the Court Room busts of Taney, and Chase who had recently
died, was passed unanimously. The Dred Scott decision had
never been formally reversed by the court, but no one regarded
it as binding. Sumner himself had moved the admission of
the first colored attorney to the bar of that court and the court
had admitted him to practice, thus affirming the conclusion,
that others had reached, that the black man was a " citizen."
Wilkinson was therefore safe enough, when he declared he
was willing to let his amendment to the bill to provide a govern
ment for the Territory of Montana stand, as entitling " free
male ' citizens ' " to vote. The amendment proposed by him
was adopted by the Senate; and the bill was then passed as
amended. But the House refused to concur in the amendment.
A bill was finally passed by both Houses limiting the right to
vote substantially as first proposed to " white male inhabitants."
So the first battle for colored suffrage was lost.
The question next came up when the Senate had before it,
a bill to change the charter of the city of Washington. Cowen
of Pennsylvania moved to amend the bill, by inserting the word
" white " before " male," so as to confine the right to vote in the
city to white male citizens. Sumner spoke against the amend
ment, saying that the refusal of this right was an odious prej
udice against the black man, bequeathed by slavery. He in
sisted that in the early days of the Republic black men had
been allowed to vote. He called attention to the decision of
the Supreme Court of North Carolina, found in 4 Devereaux
and Battle Reports at page 25 where the court says that " it
is a matter of universal notoriety that under it (the original
constitution of the State) free persons without regard to color
claimed and exercised the franchise until it was taken away

500 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
from free men of color a few years since by our amended
constitution." " Her most eminent magistrate," said Sumner,
" the late Mr. Justice Gaston, accomplished as a jurist and as a
man, whom I remember well, in most agreeable personal inter
course, laid down the law of his State in these emphatic words."
This famous Judge had himself, as a member of the Constitu
tional Convention, of his State, opposed the proposition to de
prive free colored men of the right to vote. Sumner had met
him at Montreal, in 1836, when on an excursion in Canada.
He declared that he did not think any one on the floor of the
Senate could feel humbled, if his judgment was postponed to
that of Judge Gaston of North Carolina, who had declared that,
according to the constitutional law of human rights, colored
persons are citizens.
Sumner's mind upon the question of suffrage was now made
up. " I shall deem it my duty," he said, " to vote against all
propositions creating any discrimination of color. At this
moment of revolution, when our country needs the blessing of
Almighty God and the strong arms of all her children, this is
not the time for us solemnly to enact injustice."
With this, the bill to change the charter of Washington was
dropped. But on the twenty-fourth of May, 1864, two weeks
after Sumner made this declaration, Wade, of Ohio, offered a
joint resolution to improve the registration law of Washington.
It retained the old exclusion on account of color. Sumner
offered an amendment, to forbid this exclusion. Wade said it
was not his purpose to go into the question of suffrage, but
simply to secure a needed change in the law. Sumner answered
that it continued the old rule founded on color and that he
could not sanction it, that he would regret to see his amend
ment defeat the bill, as it was suggested it would, for he sin
cerely wished its passage, but he could see no reason for a dis
crimination of color, if white persons were deprived of their
rights, by a failure to pass the bill, so were colored persons, by
a failure to pass his amendment. And he asked with some
point, "which has been kept out the longest? I am for the
rights of both to the end that we may have at last, in the
national capitol, Equality before the law." He again expressed
the determination to miss no opportunity to assert the rights
of the oppressed race. Mr. Harlan moved to add a limitation,
granting the right of suffrage to those colored men, who had
borne arms, in the service of the country and had been honor
ably discharged. But both propositions to grant the right to
vote to colored men were voted down and the resolution as orig
inally proposed by Wade, was adopted, thus defeating the sec-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 501
ond effort for colored suffrage. The opponents of it and those,
who, like Wade, believed in it, but thought it inopportune, to
press it at this time, united to defeat it. Sumner was for it, in
season or out of season. He was thoroughly in earnest and was
now the recognized leader upon this question in the Senate and
was destined to so continue, until its final triumph.
I have dwelt at length upon these early movements for
universal suffrage, because it will be seen that they were soon to
play an important part in the question of reconstruction.
Sumner had not yet insisted on it, as an essential condition to
be imposed upon the rebel States, before they could resume their
place as States, but he soon did, and he maintained this posi
tion, even against both of the Presidents, Lincoln and John
son, till he succeeded. It was one of his greatest labors and like
wise one of his greatest triumphs. Sumner was the cham
pion of the rights of the colored race in the Senate. He was
opposed to all discriminations against them and in favor of
whatever could tend to uplift them and improve their condi
tion. He believed that they should be given the power to help
themselves and encouraged and instructed in the use of it.
As illustrating his labor to this end there may be mentioned
the creation of the Freedman's Bureau, by a law passed at the
close of the session of Congress, in March, 1865. It grew out
of the new condition of the colored people of the South, who
had been freed by the President's Proclamation of Emancipa
tion. They were relieved from all obligation to labor for their
former masters and yet were without the means of sustaining
an existence. Their only capital was their labor. Yet in many
places their masters had abandoned their plantations before the
inroads of the Union armies and these colored people were left
to starvation. There were too many of them to be supported
by public charity. It would have been the worst of policy to
have them so supported, if they could be. Some of them had al
ready got the impression, that the Government, in the fur
therance of its good work, was to furnish each colored man
" forty acres of land and a mule," and were disposed to wait
for this distribution. The need was to furnish them work and
protect them in it, from the greed of employers, until they could
become adjusted to their new condition and learn to take care
of themselves ; where the land had been abandoned set them to
work upon it and aid them to make a living for themselves. It
was such work as this that the Freedman's Bureau sought to
do. Sumner called it, " a bridge from Slavery to Freedom."
A bill to establish such a bureau had been passed by the
House as early as March first, 1864. The next day it came to

502 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the Senate and was referred to the committee on Slavery and
Freedmen of which Sumner was chairman. From March until
the last of May, three months, the committee was occupied in an
investigation of the subject. No less than nine different proj
ects were laid before the committee, some by eminent citizens
interested in the freedmen, such as Robert Dale Owen of In
diana, John Jay of New York and E. L. Pierce of Massa
chusetts. Defects were pointed out in the House bill. The re
sult of the whole was a new bill drafted by Sumner and reported
by his committee. It provided for the care of such persons only
as had once been slaves, not for persons of African descent gen
erally, and it sought to secure them labor in such places as
would be congenial to them, but prevented any system of en
forced labor by requiring contracts between them and their em
ployers to be attested before public officials. It looked to secur
ing them the opportunity to labor, under contracts well guarded
by the friendly advice of agents of the Government. After long
and acrimonious debates, and many attempts to defeat, amend
and postpone, after conference committees of the House and the
Senate, to trace which would be fruitless, except to illustrate
Sumner's persistence and ability, the measure was finally
passed, and approved by the President, on the third of March,
1865. It created a department that was destined to do much
good and likewise encounter much criticism, until its purpose
was served and it was abolished.
Reconstruction came up again, in the Senate, on June tenth,
1864, when Lane of Kansas brought in a joint resolution for
the recognition of the free State Government of Arkansas.
Sumner opposed the resolution in a speech since published,
under the title: "Make Haste Slowly." In closing he coun
selled prudence, urging Senators, that while they made haste,
to let haste be governed by wisdom and caution and not with
the sacrifice of all safeguards for the future. At the same time
he reminded the loyal people of Arkansas that they should not
be discouraged, but remember their country was with them, al
though their time had not yet come, that " they also serve who
only stand and wait." In this speech he took the broad ground
that the readmission of Arkansas at this time would be un
reasonable and dangerous. The people that were asking it had
until recently been acquiescing in rebellion, some of them taking
an active part in it and were at best only a small minority of
the actual voters of the state. To grant them two Senators and
the representation of Arkansas in the House, and Electoral
College where their votes might determine the choice of a
President, would be subversive of the rights of the other States

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 503
and of the principles of the Constitution. He argued that
President Lincoln's proclamation had never promised them such
privileges, but, on the contrary, had been careful to disclaim
any such purpose, expressly saying, that each House of Congress
must determine whether the members sent from any State
should be admitted, that the President only issued such a proc
lamation as Commander of the armies and that the State
Government that issued from it could only be, like its source,
military in character and consequently only provisional or tem
porary, until it received the sanction of Congress, that the two
Houses of Congress must act together and with the President in
legislating upon the subject so that whatever was done would be
harmonious. It would not do to have Representatives admitted
to the House and Senators denied admission to the Senate so
that though coming from the same State, they might be like
the famous twins, Castor and Pollux, in Grecian mythology,
one of whom was translated to Olympus while the other was
left upon earth.
Sumner had some weeks previously offered a resolution em
bodying his plan of reconstruction. It was, that a State pre
tending to secede from the Union, and battling against the
National Government to maintain this pretension, must be
regarded as a Rebel State, subject to military occupation, and
without title to representation in the Senate, until it had been
readmitted by a vote of both Houses of Congress; and the
Senate should decline to entertain any application to seat
Senators from any such Rebel State, until after such vote of
both Houses of Congress. This was offered, in the Senate, when
it had under consideration the credentials of claimants as
Senators from Arkansas. When Lane moved that his resolu
tions for the recognition of Arkansas be referred to the Judi
ciary committee, Sumner moved that his resolution also be
referred to the same committee. The committee reported
adversely upon both and the claimants were not admitted to
seats in the Senate.
The subject of reconstruction came up in the Senate again
on the first of July, only three days after this adverse report
of the committee, this time on a bill introduced in the House
by Henry Winter Davis. By the bill a Military Governor
was to be appointed by the President for each Rebel State and
as soon as resistance to the United States ceased in the State,
this Governor was to make an enrolment of the white male
citizens of the State and submit to them an oath to support the
Constitution. If one-half of them took this oath, he was to
order an election to a constitutional convention. If this con-

504 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
vention declared its submission to the Constitution of the
United States and also adopted a constitution for its State, ex
cluding from the Legislature or office of Governor and from the
right to vote for either, all who had held a civil office, other than
ministerial, or military, above the rank of Colonel, under the
Confederate Government; and forbidding slavery or the pay
ment of any debt created in aid of the Rebellion; and such
constitution was adopted by a majority of the voters already en
rolled ; and this fact was certified to the President, he should,
with the consent of Congress, recognize the State government as
competent to elect Senators and Representatives.
An amendment was offered to this bill when it came to the
Senate, after its passage by the House, to strike out the word
" white," so as to include among the voters all male citizens
of the United States. This amendment received only five
votes, Sumner's one of them, and had twenty-four against it.
Brown, of Missouri, then offered, as a substitute for the bill,
another simply providing, as had been proposed by Sumner,
that a Rebel State should not vote for Senators, Representatives
or Electors, until the suppression of the insurrection nor until
such State's return to obedience be declared by proclamation of
the President, issued by virtue of an act of Congress.
Sumner offered as an amendment an additional section that
the Proclamation of Emancipation so far as it freed the slaves
of the States in rebellion be enacted as a statute and as a rule
and article for the government of the military and naval forces.
He wished emancipation to have the sanction of Congress as
well as of the President. It was assumed he said that emanci
pation would never be recalled, but who could tell the vicissi
tudes of elections. The proclamation was a military measure
of the President, as Commander-in-Chief of the army and navy,
proclaimed as " a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing
the Rebellion," adopted, " upon military necessity." It might
be argued it was a temporary measure, to meet an emergency.
Who could look far enough into the future to see what other
proclamation might thereafter be issued, perhaps, by some
other President ? He " would make the present sure and fix it
forever and immortal," not leave it to depend upon the will of
any one man, however great. The amendment to the Consti
tution had not yet been ratified. He would place it in the Con
stitution if he could, but if that should fail he would at least
have it safeguarded by an act of Congress. His amendment
was, however, voted down, some of its friends feeling that it
ought not to be attached to this bill for fear it would defeat

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 505
it. But the substitute offered by Brown of Missouri, was
adopted by the Senate.
The House of Representatives refused to concur in Brown's
substitute. The Senate on the last day of the session, passed the
bill introduced by Henry Winter Davis in the House and re
ported to the Senate by Wade of Ohio. But the President re
fused to sign it; and so it failed to become a law. If it had
become a law, it would have dashed the pledges President
Lincoln had held out to the Rebel States, in his proclamation,
inducing them to reorganize the States and send Senators and
Representatives. The bill required one-half of the voters to
unite to form a state government ; the President's proclamation
was satisfied with one-tenth. His was familiarly known among
Congressmen as "the ten per cent, plan." The bill required
one method of ascertaining these voters, by registration and one
form of oath to be taken by them; the proclamation required
a different method of ascertaining the voters, " by guess," the
advocates of the bill said, and a different oath. The bill for
bade Electors for President to be chosen, in these States, while
the proclamation permitted it and the advocates of the bill
said, " threatened the country with a civil war to exclude them."
The President published a statement of his reasons for re
fusing to sign the bill, treating it as a plan of reconstruction of
fered by Congress and saying that having already proposed one
plan, he was unwilling to inflexibly commit himself to another.
He was also unprepared to set at naught what had been done in
Louisiana and Arkansas and thus discourage their loyal citi
zens from farther effort. Davis of the House and Wade of the
Senate, the chairmen of the committees, that were responsible
for the bill, prepared and published a protest against the Presi
dent's action, which took the form of a trenchant reply to his
statement. The only effect of their action was to defeat the
renomination of Davis to Congress, thus permanently retiring
a brave and brilliant man from public life, for before the next
election he was dead. The people were with the President, be
lieving that any contest betwen him and Congress over this
question in the present condition of the country, would be a
mistake. The whole subject went over to the next Congress.
The President, however, had carried his point. He kept
the subject of reconstruction, in his own hands and out of the
control of Congress. During the recess of Congress, he h>
structed the military officers stationed in Arkansas and Lou
isiana to sustain the governments that had been organized under
his proclamation. It was a subject in which the President felt
much interest, The prediction had been made in Europe and

506

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

used to our prejudice, that even though the Rebellion were
suppressed, the feeling in the South was so great that the two
sections could never be reunited, that the South, if kept in the
Union, could only be governed as a conquered province. The
President wished to prove the contrary by showing that even
during the existence of the war, there was a portion of the pop
ulation of the South devoted to the Union. This portion he
wished to develop into a positive force for the Union and in
crease in numbers. His wish may have carried him too far.
Contrary to his habit, he assumed authority that did not seem
to belong to his office and established a precedent which, when
followed by his successor, led to a notable contest, in which it is
now generally conceded President Johnson was wrong. It is,
however, just as generally believed, that such a contest never
would have occurred, if President Lincoln had lived. But
however politic it may have been to develop and demonstrate a
loyal sentiment in the South, these States were far from being
prepared to resume their places as States with the power to cast
their full vote, in the Electoral College to choose Presidents,
and in Congress to pass laws. Too much of them was still in
the Rebellion to be all counted as if in the Union.
Sumner while differing from the President had so far not
antagonized him. In his speech, " Make Haste Slowly," he
had treated the plan of reconstruction set out in the President's
proclamation as a suggestion merely and as not intended to be
binding upon either him or Congress. He had talked the
subject over privately with him, more than once, and had ad
vised moderate action. He had especially urged that there be
no contest allowed between the Executive and Congress over
the question. It was indeed fortunate that the bill was passed
so late, for with the feeling there was among Members, over his
failure to approve it, a contest might have been precipitated,
if Congress had still been in session. The Members having
separated and being among the people, who were taking the
side of the President, opportunity was given for their resent
ment to cool, before they reassembled. Many of them expected
trouble when they met and the President's Message was pre
sented. But the President, with the wise caution that was so
characteristic of him, avoided all reference to it in his Message.
There was an apparent indisposition to open the subject up
in Congress, knowing the want of agreement between the Presi
dent and that body. But kindred subjects kept appearing.
On February fourth, Sumner offered a series of resolutions to
declare the rule for ascertaining the three-fourths of the States
required for the ratification of a constitutional amendment.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 507
The resolution declared that the participation of the Rebel
States was not necessary, that as in proposing by Congress of
the Thirteenth Amendment to the States as well as in all recent
acts of Congress and all recent treaties, the vote had been deter
mined simply upon the basis of the representation at the time
in the two Houses, so must the three-fourths required for ratifi
cation of an amendment be founded on the simple fact of rep
resentation in the Government of the country and the support
of it. In other words he declared that the Rebel States
were not to be counted as States in determining whether
the necessary three-fourths of the States had ratified the
Amendment. Two days later he submitted in the Senate an Amendment to
the Constitution apportioning Representatives in Congress ac
cording to voters. The Constitution provided that Representa
tives should be apportioned among the several States according
to their respective numbers, which should be determined by
adding to the whole number of free persons, three-fifths of all
other persons. The " three-fifths " thus mentioned had been
held to mean slaves. Thus the South had always been allowed
Representatives for three-fifths of its slaves. Now that these
slaves had been freed in the Rebel States, if restored to State
hood these States would be allowed representation on all their
free colored population and yet none of it be allowed to vote.
This would give them an unjust advantage in the apportion
ment. Theretofore the South had only been allowed representa
tion on three-fifths of its slaves. Manifestly the colored men
should be allowed to vote or they should not be allowed repre
sentation. Hence Sumner proposed that Representatives should
be apportioned according to voters.
It was hoped that the refusal to the Rebel States of any voice
in the ratification of constitutional amendments, and especially
of that one just pending abolishing slavery, would produce a de
sire for reconstruction and hasten the end of rebellion. It was
likewise hoped by Sumner that the correction of the basis of
representation, denying the right to count the colored people, if
they were not allowed to vote, would lead to the grant of that
right to them.
Sumner argued that it was a great thing to be a State with
the privileges of representation in Congress and the Senate and
in the Electoral College. Such privileges ought not to be
lightly conferred, and they should be guarded carefully against
the approaches of those in actual rebellion or in covert hostility
to the Union. He insisted that it was also a great thing to be
a Senator of the United States with all the powers and privi-

508 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
leges, legislative, diplomatic and executive, appertaining to the
office and the question whether these were to be recognized
who were returned as Senators by States, whose people were
yet supporting armed opposition to the Union, was a matter of
grave importance to the whole country. Whether a State in
armed rebellion could have representation upon the floor of the
Senate was a great constitutional, practical and political ques
tion. Could a small portion of a State, the balance of which
was at that very moment confessedly in armed rebellion, be
admitted to equal privileges with the great States, for example
of New York and Pennsylvania ? Yet such were the questions
that were constantly recurring when the subject of recon
struction was approached. A curious illustration occurred at
this session when the credentials of Joseph Segar were pre
sented to the Senate, as a Senator from Virginia. He was ap
pointed by a State government sitting at Alexandria. It was
seriously said that the body that undertook to send him was
little more than the Common Council of Alexandria, a little
city, and a suburb of Washington. Sumner promptly opposed
his admission and moved the reference of his certificate to a
committee. He was astonished to find a strong sentiment with
certain Senators against his motion, which revealed itself in the
discussion. It was urged that Sumner himself had entered,
" with a certificate from a body of men, in Boston, little more
in number and character than the Common Council of that
city." If that be true answered Sumner, then it was " the duty
of the Senate before receiving my credentials to inquire into
their origin." The debate proceeded till Sherman, of Ohio,
moved that the credentials of Segar be laid on the table. It was
carried by an emphatic majority; and the claim to a seat was
never prosecuted farther.
The Senate's struggle over reconstruction, at this session,
commenced when, Trumbull, as Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee, reported a resolution to recognize the new State
government of Louisiana, as entitled to all the rights of a State
government, under the Constitution of the United States. This
government had been organized in accordance with the procla
mation of President Lincoln. He had advised it and was in
frequent consultation with those under whose direction it had
been organized. He directed the military officers in that dis
trict under whose command the initial steps were taken. Some
of the men elected were his confidential friends and trusted
correspondents on whom he relied for the success of his meas
ures, in Louisiana. The President was much interested in the
recognition of the new government. During the struggle which

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 509
followed, it was freely charged that Trumbull who reported
the resolution for its recognition and now moved to take it up
for consideration had been " miraculously converted." He had
opposed the recognition of Arkansas and the reception of the
credentials of its Senators, and he did have a conference with
President Lincoln about Louisiana after the opening of the
session and it was supposed the President had then pressed him
to move for this recognition. General Banks, commanding that
department, came on to Washington and remained some months
after the session opened and advocated the recognition. Every
thing pointed to the deep interest the President took in the suc
cess of the measure. This made Senators loath to openly
antagonize it.
Sumner's mind was now made up on two questions. He be
lieved first, that no reconstruction should take place without
congressional action, that it should not be brought about by
the President alone, and. second, that he would agree to none
that did not recognize the right of colored men to vote. He
would consent to no discrimination beween the two races. To
the unqualified admission of Louisiana as proposed, he was
unalterably opposed. He was so much opposed to it that he
was determined to defeat it by whatever constitutional means
lay in his power, if it became necessarv to use them. He con
sidered it so dangerous that he was determined that the regular
appropriation bills of the session should go unpassed, if it be
came necessary to consume the balance of the session in dilatory
tactics to defeat it.
When the motion was made to proceed to consider the resolu
tion, Sumner moved as a substitute, that Senators and Repre
sentatives should not be elected to Congress from a State in
rebellion until the President proclaimed all armed hostility to
the Government within the State had ceased nor until its people
had adopted a Constitution not repugnant to that of the United
States and its laws, nor until by a law of Congress such State
shall have been declared entitled to such representation. This
substitute was lost, only eight voting for it, while twenty-nine
were against it. When the subject came up, on the next day,
Sumner sought to interpose another bill for consideration, urg
ing that it had been more considered and they were better pre
pared to vote on it. He was pressing the change strongly ; and
the time for adjournment was drawing near. Conners urged
him not to waste the fifteen minutes left, in discussion, but to
let them take a vote. '* Give up." joined in several Senators.
" Senators say. ' Give up,' " answered Sumner. " That is not
mv habit," " We know that," answered Conners, amid the

510 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
laughter of the Senate. And the resolution went over. When it
came up next, Chandler, of Michigan, again moved to postpone
it. A debate followed with a good deal of feeling. Sumner
was charged with unfaithfulness to Freedom and the Free
States,' in joining hands with the Democratic Senator from
Kentucky to defeat the recognition of the free State of Louis
iana. Sumner replied that their measure was a shadow, cal
culated to bring disaster and he warned a Republican Senator
to hesitate before he lent his influence for a proposition, " open
ing the way to an ominous future." It was urged that the vote
of Louisiana was needed to make the necessary three-fourths of
the States to ratify the constitutional amendment prohibiting
slavery. Sumner denied that it was needed, denied that the
Rebel States should be considered as States, in a count for the
purpose and insisted that only three-fourths of those actually
in the Union were necessary. States in rebellion had no right,
he argued, at such a time to control the Government and thwart
the overthrow of slavery. The motion to substitute another bill
for consideration was also lost.
The debate proceeded, Henderson of Missouri, said : " The
Senator from Kentucky thinks the Constitution of Louisiana
is the offspring of military usurpation, but he does not say
that the Constitution itself is anti-republican." " I do," an
swered Sumner. " You do ? " asked Henderson. " Certainly,"
said Sumner. " I believe now candidly," said Henderson,
" that the Rebellion is about at an end, and if there were no
other evidence of it, that evidence would be presented to-night,
in the close alliance and affiliation of my friend from Massa
chusetts and my friend from Kentucky. Truly the lion and
the lamb have lain down together." " Who is the lion and who
is the lamb ? " asked Johnson, of Maryland. " That is for the
gentlemen themselves to settle," answered Henderson, amid the
laughter of the Senate. " The Senator from Massachusetts,"
he continued, "says that these State Constitutions are not re
publican in form. Will he tell me in what respect ? " " If the
loyal men, white and black recognize it, then it will be republi
can in form. Unless that is done, it will not be," answered
Sumner. Henderson asked, Can Congress interfere with the
right of suffrage in one of the States? Sumner promptly an
swered, " Under the words of the Constitution of the United
States, declaring that the United States shall guarantee to
every State a republican form of government, it is the bounden
duty of the United States, by act of Congress, to guarantee com
plete freedom to every citizen, immunity from all oppression,
and absolute equality before the law." Henderson argued that

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 511
the failure of Rebels to vote did not violate the principles of
republicanism. " It was the failure of loyal citizens to vote
that did the damage," answered Sumner. " I answer that,"
said Henderson, " by asking, what loyal men did General Banks
prevent from voting ? " " All the colored race," promptly an
swered Sumner.
The debate proceeding, Sumner proposed, as another sub
stitute, a series of resolutions, that the Constitution requires
that " the United States shall guarantee to every State in the
Union a republican form of government" and that the term
" United States " when so used meant " the President and both
Houses of Congress acting for the whole people " and not any
military commander or executive officer; that in the definition
of the expression " republican form of government," we should
adopt the Declaration of Independence and insist that, in every
re-established State, all persons must be equal -before the law,
that there should be no discrimination, in favor of Rebels who
had forfeited all rights, and exclusion of loyal persons who had
never forfeited any, that the equality of all should be secured so
that, when re-established, the governments should be permanent
and not again be liable to be overthrown by an oligarchical
ruling class, that, aside from questions of justice, the votes of
the colored people were needed against enemies at home as
much as their guns were needed against rebels in the field.
These resolutions were on Sumner's motion ordered to be
printed and he gave notice that at the proper time he would
offer them as a substitute.
As the debate proceeded Reverdy Johnson argued that the
United States had no right to impose on a State a change in the
qualification of its electors, that this must be done by the State
itself, that the State alone had the right to determine who
should vote. Sumner answered that the Proclamation of Eman
cipation was now admitted to be binding and would be sus
tained by the Supreme Court of the United States and it
recognized the right of the United States to impose conditions
on the Rebel States against their will. At the close of John
son's speech, Sumner offered a proviso to the resolution, that
reconstruction was not to take effect except on the condition
that within the reconstructed state there be no denial of the
electoral franchise or any other right on account of color or
race but that all persons must be equal before the law and that
the state should so guarantee before it could return. This pro
viso was opposed by Henderson, Johnson and Pomeroy.
Finally Wade moved that the consideration of Trumbull's
resolution be postponed to the next Session. Wilson inter-

512 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
rupted the consideration of it by a motion to adjourn. This
was lost. Then the motion to postpone was lost. Howard then
moved to adjourn. This too was lost. Then a motion to lay
the resolution on the table was lost. Sumner declared the pas
sage of the resolution would be " a national calamity," the polit
ical Bull Run of the Administration, sacrificing a great cause
and the destinies of the Republic," and urged that they were not
ready to vote on it, that it should be discussed farther and he
moved to adjourn as it was now late at night. But the motion
was lost. Trumbull appealed for a vote, saying that Sumner
had fought it now day after day to prevent a vote when a large
majority were against him, and had overruled him time and
again and here he still stood at half-past ten o'clock Saturday
night making dilatory motions, with a determination to brow
beat the Senate. Sumner denied that he was brow-beating the
Senate. " I heard it said there should be no vote to-night," re
torted Trumbull. " Is that brow-beating ? " asked Sumner.
" The question between the Senator from Illinois and myself is
simply this : he wishes to pass the measure, and I do not wish
to pass it. He thinks the measure innocent; I think it dan
gerous, and, thinking it dangerous, I am justified in opposing
it, and in employing all the means in our arsenal."
Sumner again reiterated his prediction that the resolution
could not be passed that night, that the rules would prevent it
and he knew it and its importance justified its defeat in that
way, this being true, was it advisable to press such a revolu
tionary measure at such a time ? If he did, he would make a
mistake, that a certain character of antiquity had been found
sowing salt by the sea-side and plowing it in and Trumbull's
occupation was just about as profitable. Sumner again moved
to adjourn, but it was again voted down. And the debate
continued. Hendricks of Indiana said that Sumner was de
termined that none of these States should be heard in Congress
until those who spoke for them spoke the voice of negroes as
well as of white men. Others said this should not be and the
Democrats were a unit on that. Finally Lane, of Kansas,
moved to adjourn and shortly before midnight the Senate
adjourned. The next Monday, the consideration of the resolution was
taken up again. Sherman of Ohio interrupted by a motion to
take up the appropriation bills and other pressing measures,
reminding Senators that it was now February twenty-seventh
and that the Session must close March fourth, when these bills
must be passed. This motion was debated. Sumner said the
Convention that formed the Louisiana Constitution was " a

LIFE OF CHARLES SpMNER 513
stupendous hoax " and that the resolution to recognize it was
little different and that perhaps the expression was hardly
strong enough to characterize a work where military power and
injustice to a whole race had been enlisted in defiance of
self-evident truths, that the pretended government was " utterly
indefensible," " a mere seven months abortion, begotten by the
bayonet in criminal conjunction with the spirit of caste and
born before its time, rickety, unformed, unfinished, — whose
continued existence would be a burden, a reproach and a
wrong." He was interrupted by Sherman and the vote was
taken on his motion to proceed with other business. It was
carried by a vote of thirty-four to twelve and this resolution for
the admission of Louisiana was postponed — forever. The con
sideration of it was never resumed.
An extra session of the Senate, of a week's duration, followed
President Lincoln's second inauguration, during which there
was some little discussion of the credentials of the Senators
from Arkansas. But the Senate was not disposed to enter upon
the subject of reconstruction then. Sumner took no part in the
discussion farther than to offer a resolution in which he named
the three conditions of reconstruction as, cessation of hostilities,
the adoption of a constitution, republican in form, and an act of
Congress declaring the State entitled to representation. But
he did not press it. The credentials of the Arkansas Senators
were referred to a committee and were not reported back.
The contest had been a hard one for Sumner and he was
given the credit of defeating the resolution. It was a square
defeat of reconstruction, under the direction of the President
alone and without the action of Congress. It was an emphatic
assertion of an intention to extend the right of suffrage to the
colored people of the South. Had the resolution succeeded they
would probably never have had this right. Reconstruction
having been inaugurated without it, it would probably have
continued so to the end, leaving them in the condition in which
the war found them in this respect. To Sumner therefore is
due the credit of turning the tide in their favor at an opportune
moment. Having placed his hand to the plow he never turned
back, until the work was complete and the colored people en
joyed the right to vote.
With the friends of the resolution there was some bitterness
towards Sumner for defeating it. It disturbed the relations
between him and Trumbull for some years, though they were
finally reconciled and their former friendship was renewed. It
was supposed it would destroy the good relations between Sum
ner and President Lincoln. One newspaper said that Sumner

514 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
" had kicked the pet scheme of the President down the marble
steps of the Senate Chamber " and that their friendship was at
an end. Another said that the President was indignant at
his course and had reverted to the subject repeatedly in the
presence of strangers. It was freely commented on, in Wash
ington, in this way. But the people who spoke so did not know
President Lincoln. As Sumner himself put it, " President
Lincoln was too good a man to be influenced by an honest
opposition on political grounds." The public were soon to be
disabused of such an idea. He was a man of the broadest views
and of the most catholic toleration. He had too often suffered
unjustly for opinion's sake to be willing to punish others for a
conscientious difference with him. Petty malice found no
place in his nature. " I shall do nothing in malice," he once
wrote. "What I deal with is too vast for malicious dealing."
The session of Congress closed on the fourth day of March.
On that day President Lincoln was inaugurated for the second
time. It was Saturday. The newspapers were still discussing
the rupture between Lincoln and Sumner growing out of the
defeat in the Senate of the recognition of Reconstruction in
Lousiana. On the fifth of March Sumner received from the
President an autograph note asking him to accompany the
Presidential party to the Inauguration Ball on the following
evening, inclosing a ticket and saying their carriage would call
for him at half-past nine. At the appointed time the carriage
called and as the Presidential Party entered the hall, the Presi
dent was seen on the arm of Mr. Colfax, Speaker of the House,
and following them was Mrs. Lincoln on the arm of Mr. Sum
ner. Then in succession came other members of the party,
Cabinet Ministers with their wives and some of their families
and others. The circumstance was the occasion again of a dis
cussion, by the newspapers, of the relations between the Presi
dent and Sumner. And it was now admitted, that their friend
ship was not of the kind to be disturbed by a conscientious
difference on public questions, however important.
Sumner remained in Washington, according to his custom,
for some weeks after the close of the session to get up his cor
respondence and to study questions arising in the Senate. He
was much interested now in reconstruction and other measures
that the close of the war was bringing forward. During these
davs he called often at the White House to see the President up
on matters of business, and received many proofs of his friend
ship. One important matter of business concerned the arrest and
prosecution of two Boston merchants, Benjamin and Franklin

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 515
Smith, partners as Smith Bros. & Co. They had been arrested
by order of the Navy Department on a charge of fraud, in the
performance of their contracts with the Department and con
fined in Fort Warren at Boston Harbor. Bail to the amount of
half a million dollars was required, which was afterwards, how
ever, reduced. They were ordered to be tried at Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania, by a court martial, but the place of trial also, was
afterwards changed to Charlestown, Massachusetts. The trial
lasted several months. It ended in a conviction of the defend
ants and a sentence to imprisonment for two years and to pay a
fine of twenty thousand dollars. This judgment and sentence
was approved by the Secretary of the Navy; and it only re
mained to be approved by the President. But the friends of the
defendants asked Sumner to intercede with the President. The
President, in reply to Sumner's inquiries, placed in his hands
the elaborate report of the Secretary of the Navy on the case
which he asked Sumner to read and give him an opinion on it.
This Sumner did in writing.
The contract of the Government with the defendants for the
sale of supplies involved a million or twelve hundred thousand
dollars and the specification which was claimed to be proved to
sustain this charge of fraud was in certain tin furnished under
the contract which, it was claimed was not of the kind des
ignated. For the defendants, it was insisted that the whole
trouble grew out of a confusion of names, the tin being known
to the trade by two names. It was conceded on both sides that
the fraud, if a fraud, only amounted to about two hundred
dollars. The President disapproved the sentence and discharged
the defendants, saying that to his mind, it was beyond the
power of rational belief that, on a contract involving so much
the defendants would attempt a fraud that could profit them
so little.
Nothing can better illustrate the great President's way of
throwing off care than the circumstances attending the dis
position of this business. When Sumner reached him with his
written opinion, it was late in the evening and the President was
just entering his carriage for a drive. He took the papers from
Sumner, telling him to return the next day and consider it with
him. But, urged Sumner, it is a case for immediate action. If
you had been tried and subjected to large expense and disgrace
and had been unjustly convicted and imprisoned and yet your
innocence was proven, you would not wish any one to sleep
until you were set free. The President apparently impressed
with this suggestion, told Sumner to return at eleven o'clock
and he would take up the case with him. Accordingly at eleven

516 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
o'clock that night, through a torrent of rain, with streets flooded
with water and a storm of wind threatening a downfall of chim
neys upon him, Sumner wended his way to the White House,
where he found the President ready to hear him. _ Sumner read
his opinion and discussed the case with the President. It was
twenty minutes past twelve when they finished going over it
together. The President then said he would prepare his deci
sion on it by morning and to come over and hear it, " when I
open shop." " And when do you open shop ? " asked Sumner.
"At nine o'clock," was the answer. Promptly at the hour
fixed, Sumner was there and was admitted. The President
read him his indorsement on the papers and while Sumner was
making an abstract of it, the President broke into quotations
from Petroleum V. Nasby and added: "For the genius to
write these things I would give up my office as President."
Seeing that Sumner was not familiar with them, he went to a
standing desk and opening it took out a pamphlet collection
of the letters and proceeded to read from them to Sumner with
evident enjoyment, apparently losing all thought of the case in
hand and of his Presidential duties. So he continued for per
haps twenty minutes, when Sumner thinking there must be
others waiting for him arose to go. He found some thirty per
sons, among them Senators and Representatives, waiting for
the President, in the anteroom, as he passed out. Though in
the company of the President much, in the intervening days
before his death, this was the last official business Sumner trans
acted with him.
He accompanied the President and Mrs. Lincoln to the thea
tre the last time he was there preceding the assassination and
on her invitation he accompanied her, with some other friends,
to meet the President at City Point, where the President was,
on his return from Richmond, during the closing days of the
war. Leaving the President there, they went on to Richmond
where, accompanied by an escort of cavalry, they visited places
of interest, among them the capitol, where Sumner got the
gavel of the Confederate Congress. He purposed to give it to
Secretary Stanton. The President hearing of it, said jokingly
to Speaker Colfax that he ought to have it. " Tell Sumner from
me to hand it over," said the President laughing. The party
visited the tent hospitals at City Point, where Sumner saw the
President shake hands with five thousand sick and wounded
soldiers and when done the President told him his arm was
not tired. They returned together to Washington on the
Steamer River Queen. The party was a small one and they
breakfasted, lunched and dined together. The day was fine,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 517
the water was clear and beautiful; it was Sunday and every
thing was peaceful and quiet as the little steamer wended her
way homeward. Everyone was happy. The long years of the
war were closing. The storm was over and the bright bow of
promise was in the sky. All were looking forward joyfully to
the future.
Sumner has given us some glimpses of his own, of the Presi
dent during the journey homeward. " He was never harsh," he
said, " even in speaking of Jefferson Davis ; and when one (Mrs.
Lincoln) who was privileged to address him in that way said,
' Do not allow him to escape the law, he must be hanged,' the
President replied calmly, in the words so beautifully adopted in
his last Inaugural Address, ' Judge not, that ye be not judged ; '
and when pressed again, by the remark that the sight of Libby
Prison, which they had both recently visited in Richmond,
made it impossible to pardon him, the President repeated twice
over the same words."
And again: With a beautiful quarto Shakespeare in his
hands, he read aloud the well-remembered words of his favorite
'Macbeth':— " Duncan is in his grave;
After life's fitful fever, lie sleeps well,
Treason has done his worst; nor steel, nor poison,
Malice domestic, foreign levy, nothing,
Can touch him further."
" Impressed by their beauty, or by some presentiment unut-
tered, he read them aloud a second time. As the friends about
listened to his reading, they little thought how in a few days
what was said of the murdered Duncan would be said of him.
' Nothing can touch him further.' He was saved from the trials
that were gathering. He had fought the good fight of Eman
cipation. He had borne the brunt of war. Treason had done
its worst, but he had conquered. He had made the name of Re
public a triumph and a joy in foreign lands."
Sumner recalled his speech at Springfield: "'A house di
vided against itself cannot stand.' I believe this Government
cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not
expect the Union to be dissolved, I do not expect the house to
fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become
all one thing or all the other." Sumner asked him if, at any
time, he had any doubt about his prediction. " Not in the
least," answered the President. " It was clearly true and time
has justified me."
They reached Washington about six o'clock in the evening of

518 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
April ninth. Sumner did not see the President again until he
was dying. A message from the White House with some
flowers, the next day announced the surrender of Lee and
another on Tuesday invited Sumner to view the celebration of
the victory with the Presidential party. But he did not accept.
Nor was he at the White House two days later on the occasion
of another celebration, when General Grant was there. On the
fatal night, Friday April fourteenth, Sumner was at the house
of Senator Conness of California engaged in conversation with
him and Senator Stewart of Nevada, when some one, rushing
in from the street, announced that the President had been shot
and that an attempt had also been made to assassinate Secretary
Seward. Sumner at once went to the White House and getting
no information there went on to Ford's Theatre and then to the
house opposite where the President had been carried. The
President was shot at twenty minutes past ten and Sumner
reached him about thirty minutes later. The President never
recovered consciousness, giving no evidence of life, but deep,
labored breathing, until twenty-two minutes past seven, the
next morning, when the breathing ceased and the work of the
assassin was complete. Sumner remained at his bedside, until
he died, a deeply affected witness of this sad scene, with which
the war was closing. When the end came, he was standing at
the head of the bed, supporting Robert Lincoln on his arm.
He had borne himself well through the trying ordeal but on
two occasions gave way to overpowering grief and sobbed aloud,
turning his head and leaning on Sumner's shoulder. After
all was over, Sumner quietly left the house.
As he passed out into the gray dawn of the drizzling morning
he met General Halleck, whose carriage had been in waiting,
just getting into it. Sumner got in beside him to go to Mr.
Seward's. On the way they stopped at President Johnson's,
where General Halleck told him of President Lincoln's death
and warned him not to go upon the street without a guard.
At Mr. Seward's, Sumner inquired for the Secretary and his
son, who were both victims of the same plot. Mrs. Seward
answered his card. Her friendship had been so constant for
Sumner during his early years in the Senate, that it affected
him deeply to see her sick yet subjected to the additional trial
of the probable loss of her husband and son. It was the last
time he saw her. The blow probably hastened her end. The
husband and son recovered but for her — the shock was too
great !
By eight o'clock Sumner was at his own apartments, where
he found guards stationed by order of the Secretary of War,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

)19

who feared that Sumner, by reason of his prominence against
Slavery and for the prosecution of the war, might be among
those marked for destruction. Here, weary and sad, he seated
himself, at last, to reflect on the scenes of the night. His first
thought filled him with new loathing for the barbarism of
slavery. The meal prepared stood untasted before him, as he
sat, bowed down with sadness, over the irreparable loss, but
grim and determined as ever. The nature of the great and
good President was so essentially humane and he had seen it
lately proved so tender towards the conquered enemy that it
was hard to believe that madness could be carried so far as to
compass his death. Yet he was reminded that his death would
do more for the cause than any human life. And what was
any single life compared with the cause !
During the coming days, Sumner was several times at the
White House to express his sympathy for the stricken family
of the President and to aid them in such kind offices as he
could. The widow broken-hearted seemed to turn to the cher
ished friend of her husband and herself, so loyal, as they all
knew, in the dark days as well as in the happier ones. When
she left Washington she gave Sumner two tokens of her hus
band, the one a picture of John Bright, the friend of Sumner
whom he had brought so near to her husband. He was the
friend of their country too. It was a small picture that he had
prized. The other, his cane, which she was sure he would
treasure as connected with his memory. She accompanied the
-latter with a short note reminding him of his kindness to them
and their regard for" him.
President Lincoln died on Saturday April 15. On the fol
lowing Monday at noon, a meeting was held, in the Senate
Chamber, of the Senators and Representatives remaining in
Washington, for it will be remembered neither House was in
session. The purpose of the meeting was to take appropriate
action upon the death of the President and make arrangements
for the funeral. The President pro tem of the Senate was
Chairman and the Speaker of the House was Secretary. The
object of the meeting was stated by Senator Foote of Vermont
and, on motion of Sumner, a committee was appointed, of
which he was made chairman, to report at four p. m., on the
proper action of the meeting. The committee reported a list
of pall bearers and a Congressional Committee of one for each
State to accompany the remains to Illinois, and also reported
resolutions, drawn by Sumner, expressing their veneration and
affection for the dead President, with an estimate of his char
acter and asking the President by proclamation to recommend

520 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
a day for the people of the nation to assemble and commemorate
his life. President Johnson accordingly appointed June first
as the day. Sumner was invited by the Municipal Authorities
of Boston to deliver the oration, in that city, on this com
memorative occasion and he accepted the invitation.
The oration opened with the solemn words : " In the universe
of God there are no accidents. From the fall of a sparrow to
the fall of an empire or the sweep of a planet, all is according
to Divine Providence, whose laws are everlasting. No acci
dent gave to his country the patriot we now honor. No acci
dent snatched this patriot, so suddenly and so cruelly, from his
sublime duties. Death is as little an accident as life. Never,
perhaps, in history has this Providence been more conspicuous
than in that recent procession of events, where the final triumph
is wrapped in the gloom of tragedy. It is our present duty to
find the moral of the stupendous drama."
It was the second time in the history of the country that the
President had appointed a day for such observance. The first
was on the occasion of the death of Washington. This fact
suggested a comparison between the two Presidents, Washing
ton and Lincoln, which Sumner dwelt upon for some minutes.
The one was of high birth and lofty lineage surrounded from
childhood to the day of his death by all the accompaniments
which wealth and position could furnish; the other, he said,
was the child of poverty and privation inured from birth to
manhood to the hard circumstances of frontier life, born in a
log cabin, his grandfather had been killed by Indians and his
father had followed the frontier westward, first from Ken
tucky to Indiana and later to Illinois, the son helping to split
the rails and daub the cabins for the new homes. In this hard
life he was reared till "at the age of twenty-one he left his
father's house to begin the world. A small bundle, a- laughing
face, and an honest heart, — these were his simple possessions,
together with that unconscious character and intelligence which
his country learned to prize." Yet both Washington and Lin
coln fought the battles of the nation in its two greatest wars ;
the one, for national independence and the other, for national
unity, on the basis of liberty and equality.
Sumner then traced Lincoln's career as he appeared in suc
cession, flat-boatman, captain in the Black Hawk war, surveyor,
member of the Legislature, attorney and Congressman, always
upward with no step backward till he reached the high places
of earth. He dwelt at length upon the debate with Douglas
and his later speeches against slavery, especially upon his ut
terances on the great truth of the Declaration of Independence,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 521
that all men are created equal. Sumner was fresh from his
struggles in Congress for the equal rights of the blacks and
their recognition, in the suffrage of the States lately in rebellion,
and he pointed with emphasis the lesson on this question as
drawn from the speeches of Lincoln. The eulogy has been
criticised for dwelling unduly upon this subject. It is urged
that Lincoln did not have this question in his mind at the time
he made the speeches. It is sufficient answer to say that the
premises from which Lincoln reasoned could admit of no other
conclusion and though he was at the time arguing against
slavery he recognized the logical conclusion, at the time of his
death, as applied to suffrage. He had not reached the conclu
sion of Sumner that it was to be secured by act of Congress as
a condition of reconstruction but probably inclined to the be
lief that the States themselves by local legislation were the
proper parties to deal with the question. He had himself sug
gested colored suffrage, extended to certain classes, "the very
intelligent and especially those who had fought gallantly in
our ranks." But Sumner recognized in this, as in other ques
tions a certain slowness of Lincoln in reaching conclusions as
one of his limitations, compensated, however, by his tenacity in
adhering to his convictions when once formed.
He dwelt upon Lincoln's entrance to the White House full of
anxious solicitude and with a devout trust in Providence as he
approached a duty greater than had devolved on any other since
Washington, State after State abandoning its place, Senator
after Senator dropping from his seat, fort after fort seized with
their munitions of war "while the actual President, besotted
by slavery, tranquilly witnessed the gigantic treason, as he sat
at ease in the Executive Mansion, and did nothing."
So he followed Lincoln as henceforward his history became
the history of his country, through the steps of the war, paus
ing to dwell particularly upon his proclamation giving freedom
to the slaves and his careful avoidance of a European war,
meeting each situation with masterful ability to the last. The
address increased in interest as he came to the last days when
together they had viewed the closing scenes of the war and felt
that peace was assured, that the struggle was over and what re
mained was as gathering up the hard-earned sheaves of the
harvest. He dwelt upon his character, his loyalty to principle,
regardless of consequences to himself, his caution in reaching
conclusions, his firmness in maintaining them, his power of
speech and thrown around all, and enlivening and pointing all,
his humor and his unfailing common sense. He recalled how
modest and approachable he was, always accessible to the widow

522 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
and orphan, the sick and the wounded, or the prayer of the
lowly. His place in history he likened to that of William of
Orange, or of Henry the Fourth and Saint Louis of France.
The address upon the whole must be classed as one of Sum
ner's best eulogies. The style is elevated throughout, the
diction and finish is noticeably fine, even among his works where
it is generally noticeable; and there runs through it a so
lemnity and a trust in Providence, as the ruler of men as well
as of nations, that gives it a marked effect. It bears every
where evidence of care in its preparation. At the time of its
delivery there was a disappointment felt. Contrary to his cus
tom theretofore, in his addresses at Boston, it was read and
closely too, so that its effect, at the time, was not as marked as
it would have been, if delivered without the use of a manuscript.
Even his reading was not easy. He omitted his former care
for oratorical effect and seemed content to reach his impres
sion upon the wider audience, by means of the newspapers. He
preferred to devote the time at his command, for its prepara
tion, to making it worthy of a permanent place in literature.
And it is from this standpoint that it should be viewed. By
those most competent to judge, it has been placed in the front
rank of the eulogies upon Lincoln and it deserves to be classed
with the best of our mortuary literature.
After this narrative of the relations of Sumner and Lincoln
it is hardly necessary to notice a statement of Nicolay and
Hay in their biography of Lincoln that there was a movement
against Lincoln to force him to withdraw from the Republican
ticket in 1864 when a candidate the second time and that this
movement " had the earnest support and eager instigation of
Henry Winter Davis of Maryland, of the editors of the Cin-
cinnatti Gazette of Ohio, and what would have surprised Mr.
Lincoln if he had known it, of Charles Sumner of Massachu
setts." Sumner did share with many good men, during the
earlier years of the war, doubts of Lincoln's fitness for the place,
owing to a certain slowness and apparent want of decision.
The want of success of our arms at that time perhaps contrib
uted to this feeling. But he declined to sign any paper or take
any part in any action against him, believing that, if any
movement towards a different candidate was had, it should be
through the voluntary withdrawal of Lincoln himself. He in
sisted that if Lincoln did not do so, that then all should rally
around him and elect him. Any other course he believed would
disunite the party and threaten defeat. The adoption of
the Chicago Platform by the Democrats, declaring the war a
failure, following the victories of Gettysburg, Vicksburg and

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 523
Atlanta, Sumner thought, acting like an overdose of ar
senic, would cure itself. Through it all, he was loyal to
Lincoln. He would do nothing against him. He would act
only with him. He spoke at a meeting called in Faneuil Hall
to ratify the nomination, at Cooper Institute, in New York
City, at various places in Massachusetts and in Connecticut,
during the campaign, and also at a meeting called in Faneuii
Hall for congratulation on the evening of the election, on each
occasion with his old-time earnestness and success.
Therefore I adopt the statement of another biographer of
Lincoln, Isaac N. Arnold, a Member of Congress from Lin
coln's own State during the war and his warm personal friend,
as expressing the true relation of Lincoln and Sumner. " Mr.
Sumner," he says, " had become the sincere and confidential
adviser of Lincoln. These two men, in many respects so unlike,
became the most ardent and affectionate personal friends. They
rode and walked together and seemed to enjoy each other's so
ciety like brothers, Sumner the scholar and man of convention
ality, the favorite American of the English aristocracy, found
in Lincoln one that he admired and confided in above all
others."

CHAPTER XXXII
RECONSTRUCTION UNDER JOHNSON  HIS CHARACTER  SUM-
NER'S WORK FOR EQUAL RIGHTS  THE FOURTEENTH AMEND
MENT — SUMNER AND THE PRESIDENT — EULOGIES ON COL
LEAGUES
Three hours after the death of President Lincoln, his suc
cessor was inaugurated, at his apartments in the Kirkwood
Hotel, in the presence of the members of the Cabinet, who were
able to attend, and of the Senators, who remained in Washing
ton. It was fortunate that Vice-President Johnson was in the
city, at the time of the assassination. He had come to Wash
ington only five days before and it was his intention to leave
within a few hours after the assassination occurred. His ab
sence would have furnished a better opportunity for a political
disturbance. As it was, the power passed quietly and peace
fully from the hand of one ruler to that of another and so
quickly that almost with the news of the assassination, the word
of the inauguration of the new President reached the people.
Little did they then realize the change that was thus wrought,
in the policy of the administration ! For there has never been a
more radical change made, in our national policy, than was
made when the power passed from the hand of Abraham Lin
coln to that of Andrew Johnson.
It was remarked, at the time the oath was administered, by
Chief Justice Chase, to President Johnson, he made no ex
pression of an intention to follow the policy of his predecessor.
Though such a statement was made, in a speech to a sorrowing
delegation from President Lincoln's own State, a short time
later, on a revision of the speech, by President Johnson it was
omitted, thus showing that, while the subject was thought of,
he was not prepared to commit himself to it. To men of a
later day, this hesitation seems unaccountable. President Lin
coln had reached such an assured place, in the hearts of the
people, that almost any policy suggested by him would have
been received, by a great proportion of the country, without
question. His conduct of the war had been eminently success
ful and satisfactory to the North and his administration had
been recently indorsed by a renomination and a triumphant
re-election. President Johnson's failure to express himself in
524

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 525
favor of a continuance of the same policy, can only be ex
plained, by a conviction, that it was hardly in harmony with
his own opinions or those of his confidential advisers, at the
time, or else that he was not prepared to commit himself to any
policy. It must be confessed that he assumed the Presidency at a
difficult time. The war was closed. The settled policy of a vig
orous prosecution of it, which had been pursued, was now at an
end. The questions of reconstruction and the care of the freed
men were comparatively untried. Such questions had never
before appeared, except during President Lincoln's adminis
tration, and then only discussed; they were not settled. Con
sequently there was no precedent by which he could be guided.
The respect and affection that had come to President Lincoln
during the four years of his life of trial, in the White House,
could not of course be transferred to another. Instead came the
cold, critical regard that usually meets a new and untried man.
It, perhaps, came to Johnson in added measure.
His career thus far had been mainly an honorable one. He
was born in North Carolina and belonged to the class, known
in the South as " poor whites." He was brought up to the trade
of a tailor. In early life he removed to eastern Tennessee. He
learned to read in his fifteenth year. He was successively
Mayor of his town, Member of the Legislature, five terms a
Member of Congress, two terms Governor of his State, and a
United States Senator — and all these before he was fifty years
of age. He entered the Senate in 1857. Sumner was still suf
fering from the Brooks assault and consequently was much of
the time, absent from his seat. He continued in the Senate,
until March 1862, when he left at the earnest solicitation of
President Lincoln to accept the difficult post of Military Gov
ernor of Tennessee. When that State had adopted the ordi
nance of Secession he refused to be bound by it or to enter the
Rebellion. While every other Senator followed the fortunes
of his state, he alone of the twenty-two from the eleven Con
federate States, remained firm. He filled the office of Military
Governor under circumstances of peculiar difficulty, and often
peril, with such ability as to attract the attention of the North
and lead to his nomination to the Vice-Presidency. He had
gained the implicit confidence of President Lincoln, who, at his
suggestion, omitted the State of Tennessee, from the operation
of the Proclamation of Emancipation. After he had filled the
office of President, with all the warring incidents of the Im
peachment proceedings, and had retired to private life, he was
returned, by his State, to the United States Senate and died in

526 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
that office. This career, of almost uninterrupted success, shows
him at least to have had some strong points.
But it brings out one trait of character, in strong relief. No
man would have been the only one of twenty-two Senators, to
stand out, in an independent career of his own, under such cir
cumstances, as surrounded him from 1857 to 1862, and at the
expiration of that time to have assumed and maintained the
perilous post of Military Governor of a State, over whieh the
hot surges of such a Rebellion were rolling back and forth,
without having some tenacity of his own opinions, when once
soberly formed. Whatever other faults he may have had, no
one has accused him of vacillation. But it has been curiously
enough observed that in the brief inaugural that he pronounced,
when assuming the office of President, occupying in its delivery
hardly five minutes, " I " and " my " and " me" occurred at
least twenty times.
One of the peculiarities of his career is, that though born and
continuing to live in a slave State, he was never in sympathy
with slavery. He realized that slaves were held by a very few
owners, powerful and tvrannical in disposition, but, if resisted,
without the power to sustain their pretensions. His own sec
tion of Tennessee was in the rough and mountainous, but fertile
eastern portion of the State, devoted to small farming, but ill
fitted to slave labor. Johnson's quick eye caught the situation
and his influence was generally thrown to measures to benefit
the plain people, the small farmers or the poorer classes, rather
than with the owners of the great plantations. He powerfully
advocated, and is credited with being the author, of the home
stead policy of the Government ; — one hundred and sixty acres
of land to the actual settler — in the distribution of the unim
proved land of the West, a policy necessarily fatal to slavery,
which could only thrive on large plantations. Though a South
ern Senator, he denounced Secession, with vigorous boldness.
While a Member of the House, in 1847, he arose, as John
Quincy Adams, then near the close of life, entered; and pub
licly tendered him the choice of his seat, that venerable com
moner having been detained, by sickness, from appearing, at
the opening of the session, to make a choice of one for him
self. While in the Senate, his membership being comparatively
new, he was not much given to speech making and his part in
the work was not a conspicuous one. When he came to the Pres
idency, Sumner's acquaintance with him was only slight. At
tbe death of President Lincoln, he was stopping at the Kirk-
wood Hotel, in Washington, but he then removed his lodging

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 527
to rooms, in the house of Samuel Hooper, a Member of Congress
from Boston, and opened a temporary office, for business, in the
Treasury Building. He continued to occupy these quarters
during the time President Lincoln's family remained in the
White House. Appreciating the importance of his influence
upon the questions of reconstruction, Sumner lost no time, in
seeing him and mentioning the subject. They met almost daily
and the subject was repeatedly talked over. Sumner was fearful
of the future, in the new President's hands, and he a Souther
ner, realizing that, though the hard, costly war was over, the
fruits of it still remained to be gathered. Sumner did not wish
to see rebels restored to place and power without some guarantee
for the future. He feared that the President, who had been
kept from Washington, during the previous three years, by his
duties as Military Governor of Tennessee, was too little familiar
with the work in Congress, upon reconstruction. Indeed subse
quent events showed that President Johnson, at this time, had
no fixed convictions of his own, upon this question.
During the first few weeks in the office, in the numerous off
hand speeches that he made, he talked much of treason and the
punishment of those who had been in rebellion, — so much, that
it became monotonous to thoughtful men, who knew that the
class was too large to think of such a course. But he said noth
ing of reconstruction. Chief Justice Chase suggested to Sumner
that they try to give him another topic. Together they called on
him and urged him to say something for the equal rights of the
colored men. He seemed somewhat reserved, but not more so
than his position would suggest. The Chief Justice afterwards
remarked how his countenance lighted up, when Sumner ap
pealed to him to carry out the Declaration of Independence.
They both left him satisfied of his good intentions. A few days
later, in a conversation with Sumner alone, he assured him
there was no difference between them on the suffrage question.
Sumner expressed his gratification at this declaration of the
President and added the hope that there should be no division
of the great Union party, that there should not be some called
" the President's friends," and others, " the opposition," but
that all should be kept together. The President promptly
replied, " I mean to keep you all together." In describing his
feelings afterwards, Sumner said, as he walked away from that
interview with the President, he felt that the battle of his life
was ended. If the President declared himself for the equal
rights of all, he thought the cause would be carried by his in
fluence. But at another time when the case of Tennessee was dis-

528 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
cussed, Sumner urged the President to use his influence for the
establishment of equal suffrage, in the State, so that it could be
used as an example, to which the other returning States could
be made to conform. But to this, the President made answer,
that if he were at Nashville he would see this accomplished.
This hesitation disturbed Sumner. It appeared to him like a
disposition to evade the question. Sumner answered him that
though at Washington, the President had the long end of the
lever, with which, by his power and merely expressing his desire,
he could control measures even at Nashville. Sumner recurred
to the subject again, with the President, when about to leave
Washington, for the summer. It was about the middle of May.
He apologized for returning to the subject so often. But the
President interrupted him pleasantly with the question, " Have
I not always listened to you ? " Sumner promptly replied that
he had. He then proceeded, at some length, to point out to the
President the manner in which his temporary power, as Com
mander-in-Chief of the Army, over a district under military
control, could be exercised, viz., by controlling the newspapers
by choosing, as Military Governors, men of known devotion to
equal rights so as to educate the people for it, by encouraging
the people of the South to engage in useful labor and abstain
from politics, and thus, keeping the district under good in
fluences, to hand over the subject of reconstruction and equal
rights to Congress, where it properly belonged. The President
listened to it all attentively and received it, in perfect kindness.
Sumner went home feeling there would be no trouble, so far as
President Johnson was concerned. He assured friends, that
he met and with whom he conversed, on the subject, in Boston,
that the President was in harmony with his views and that the
cause of equal rights was safe, in his hands.
But by the first of June, less than two weeks after Sumner
left Washington, all these hopes were dashed, by two public
proclamations of the President. They were issued on the
twenty-ninth day of May. The first was a proclamation of
amnesty and pardon to all Rebels, excepting however certain
classes, who by reason of their rank or the aggravated character
of their acts were deemed most guilty, but even these were en
couraged to apply to the President, for a specific pardon. In
less than nine months, from the date of the proclamation, nearly
fourteen thousand of the most prominent men in the South,
applied for and received these individual pardons, from the
President. By this means a constituency of qualified voters
was created in the South. The second proclamation was to ap
point William W. Holden provisional Governor of North Caro-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 529
lina, who was to assemble a convention to amend the constitu
tion and exercise the powers necessary to enable the loyal people
to restore the State to its constitutional relation to the Federal
Government. This proclamation confined the right to vote to
those white men who were qualified under the laws of North
Carolina, at the commencement of the war, thus at one blow
ending the question of equal suffrage to the blacks and placing
the whole matter in the hands of the men who had lately been
in rebellion. Both of these proclamations assumed the power
of the President to dispose of the whole subject of reconstruc
tion and ignored the authority of Congress over it. The Sec
retary of the Treasury was directed to nominate collectors of
customs, the Postmaster-General to establish post-offices, the
United States Judges to hold courts, and the Attorney-General
to enforce the administration of justice, in all matters within
the jurisdiction of the Federal courts. On June thirteenth, a
similar proclamation was issued to reconstruct the government
of Mississippi, with William L. Sharkey as Governor; on June
seventeenth one for Georgia, with James Johnson for Gov
ernor; on June twenty-first, one for Alabama, with Lewis E.
Parsons for Governor; on June thirtieth, one for South Caro
lina, with Benjamin F. Perry for Governor; on July thirteenth,
one for Florida with William Marvin for Governor. These were
all on the same plan as North Carolina.
It is interesting to note, who some of the Governors were, in
order to see whether the President had followed Sumner's ad
vice, to appoint men known for devotion to equal rights, so that
their names alone would be a proclamation, — men like Carl
Schurz whom Sumner suggested for one. Holden, appointed
Governor of North Carolina, was a member of the convention
which adopted the ordinance of secession and he signed that
article. Perry, the Governor of South Carolina, held a judicial
position under the Rebel Government and was one of its Com
missioners of Impressments. Parsons, Governor of Alabama,
was a member of the Confederate Legislature of that State and
introduced in it resolutions, thanking Jefferson Davis "for
his good labors in the cause of our common country, together
with the assurance of continued support."
The President recognized the Pierpont government of Vir
ginia, sitting at Alexandria, whose Senators had already been
refused seats in the United States Senate, and whose records
and archives, Thaddeus Stevens afterwards said, were taken, at
the close of the war, to Richmond, in an ambulance. President
Lincoln's " ten per cent, governments " in Louisiana, Arkansas
and Tennessee were all of them recognized as legal, though as

530 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
we have seen, the Senators of Louisiana and Arkansas had been
rejected by the Senate, and those from Tennessee had not yet
applied for their seats, but would certainly meet the same fate,
when they did.
Thus, within three months after Johnson assumed the duties
of the Presidency, his whole scheme of reconstruction had been
worked out and put in operation. He, in this, showed the merit
of dispatch, at least, — if dispatch be a merit, in the disposition
of such weighty concerns. The President had accomplished, in
three months, what Congress had already wrestled with, for
much of two years, and was destined to struggle with for several
years to come.
But it was apparent, that, if the work of the President stood,
the freedmen had no chance of improvement. Their old
masters before the war, were thus restored to power. The same
men, who held the ballot then held it now. Their disposition
towards the colored men had not changed. They could not be
expected to place the ballot in the hands of men who had lately
been their slaves and been given freedom as the result of a gi
gantic war, in which they had been conquered. They could only
be expected to perpetuate themselves in power, and this could
certainly be best accomplished by keeping the colored men out.
The danger was that they would go farther and by hostile leg
islation reduce them to a condition of peonage and thus the
hope of men, like Sumner, be blasted, that the colored men if
given the ballot, would be able to take care of themselves and
strengthen the Union.
The immediate results showed that these fears were well-
founded. Instead of drafting new constitutions adapted to the
changed conditions in the South the constitutional conventions
in the reconstructed States took their old ones, made a few
changes and readopted them, with all their odious class distinc
tions. One thing they uniformly did, was to abolish slavery.
But for this, they could hardly claim credit, for it was now
apparent it would soon be abolished by the amendment to the
Federal Constitution, which had been proposed by Congress
and was being promptly ratified by the States. President John
son, indeed, advised them to admit, to the right of suffrage the
colored men who could read and write and such as owned and
paid taxes on property valued at two hundred and fifty dollars,
but in the same letter, that he advised this, he gave as his reason
that it was to placate " the Radicals who were wild upon negro
franchise " and would foil their attempt to exclude Senators and
Representatives, elected in the reconstructed States, from Con
gress. He showed both his private feeling on the question

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 531
and the unworthiness of his motive in suggesting what he
did. But he virtually said to the South; this question is
all in your hands, to do with it as you may deem best; the
nation cannot control you in your solution of it. And having
given them this cue he could hardly have a doubt what they
would do. They promptly accepted the hint and did what they
felt the President in reality wished, left them all without the
franchise. The results were soon seen. The offices were quickly filled,
with men who had lately been prominent in the Rebellion.
Raphael Semmes, the commander of the Rebel vessel, the
Alabama, was chosen a Probate Judge in the State, whose name
that ship had carried so long and so widely and with such
disastrous results to the North. Herschel V. Johnson, a Con
federate Senator, and Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President
of the Confederacy, were sent to the United States Senate from
Georgia. In New Orleans the man who was Mayor, when the
city was captured from the Confederacy, was returned to that
office under reconstruction. The war had impoverished many
of these men, others were crippled and maimed and the South,
while appreciating the cause, in which they suffered, had no
other means to reward them than this. The failure of their
undertaking left a pension out of the question. So long as their
section remained in the control of its ancient masters they had
all these offices at their disposal. If the colored people, largely
in the majority in many of the election districts, were given
the suffrage and they chose to exercise their right, this power
to dispose of them would be taken away.
These results, rapidly brought about, by President Johnson,
were viewed with consternation by the advocates of equal suf
frage, in the Senate and House, now at their homes, during the
recess of Congress. Their effect upon Sumner can easily be
imagined. He had left Washington feeling that the President
was sound upon the subject of reconstruction and that the
rights of the freedmen were safe in his hands. He had so
assured his friends upon his return to Boston. He was now con
vinced otherwise. The revelation came with stunning effect.
Many Republicans had not yet reached the conclusion that
equal suffrage should be accorded the freedmen. To them, the
President's position did not seem of so much importance. They
hardly differed from him. Public opinion upon the question
was still so unsettled that the President was hopeful of carrying
the body of the Republicans with him. When he issued his
proclamation, he did not expect to break with his party. He
evidently thought then, he could carry with him all of it,

532 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
except a few of radical views like Sumner, Wade and Thaddeus
Stevens. But the sentiment was growing. Sumner was leading
it. He was determined. To him more than to any other the
colored people owe the right of suffrage which they now enjoy.
The inquiry naturally suggests itself, how did the President
come to make this sudden and radical departure from the views
he had early expressed to Sumner and repeated to others. The
answers are various. No one of them can certainly be said to
be altogether correct. One, that obtained a good deal of credit,
is that when Johnson took the oath of office, as Vice-President,
he appeared publicly intoxicated and, continuing so after
wards, he was taken charge of by Preston King, a Senator from
New York, and the Blairs, father and son, of Maryland. He
was taken to the home of the latter, at Silver Springs, a few
miles from the city of Washington, and cared for until his
recovery. Hence arose a friendship, which counted for much,
upon his accession to the Presidency, a few weeks later. They
were opposed to equal suffrage. The President may have felt
some bitterness towards other Republicans, who had witnessed
and commented severely on his lapse. Sumner, who was always
swift to condemn such an exhibition, by a public man, said
privately, at the time, that he ought to be waited on, by a com
mittee, and asked to resign. Such remarks may have been
repeated to the President by persons interested in controlling
him. Another explanation, and I think a better one, is this. When
Johnson came to the Presidency he had no well-fixed opinions
of his own, upon reconstruction. His mind had been occupied
with the war and the treatment of the rebels. The death of
President Lincoln coming with startling suddenness and elevat
ing him to the dizzy heights of the Presidency, without time for
meditation, he talked a good deal at random during his first
weeks in the office. Indeed his speeches were not generally
creditable to him, during the Presidency. About the time
Sumner left Washington, Secretary Seward was recovering
sufficiently from his injuries, to give attention to public busi
ness. The President had his first official business with him on
May tenth. Nine days later, they met at the State Department.
From this time forward, they were together often. Seward
admitted he advised the President to pursue this policy. He
was afterwards an open supporter of it. No one who knew the
Secretary intimately, doubted his power of persuasion, in
private conversation. It was said by those best able to judge,
that notwithstanding his great ability at the bar and on the
stump, this was his greatest gift. He doubtless had, in his

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 533
own mind, to signalize his return to health, by persuading the
President to issue a proclamation of amnesty and pardon to
those who had been in rebellion. It would appear a graceful
act for one who had been so near death's door, at the hand of
an assassin. He doubtless pictured to the President the pecul
iar propriety of his doing it. He had been born and reared in
the South, it had always been his home. He had taken a manly
part in opposing secession, had pointed out its fearful con
sequences; now too sadly realized. He had bravely maintained
the Union against a mad career that he could not control, and
had prevailed. It would be a graceful act for him, now at the
height of power, to forgive his erring brothers. Did not the
President also see that it would secure him the favor of the old
slave-holding class, who had always held aloof from him, as the
offspring of the poor white class, and not the equal of their set ?
He had struggled to power against them, but their praises now
would be sweet; and it would be sweeter still, when his official
life was ended, to return to their midst and enjoy a homage
to which distance thus far had always lent enchantment. In
the hands of a skilful diplomat as Seward undoubtedly was,
the situation furnished many suggestions that could be forcibly
plied. Doubtless more than any other, the Secretary is to be
held responsible for the change wrought in the opinions of the
President. Sumner himself attributed the change to Preston
King, the Blairs and the Secretary.
The serious question with Sumner was how to remedy the
evil that was being done, Congress not being in session and
several months remaining before it would reconvene. It was
suggested that he go on to Washington to interview the Presi
dent ; but he felt it was too late. The mischief was done before
he knew of it. The proclamations furnished him the first in
formation. But he went promptly to work in other ways. In
his eulogy on Lincoln, delivered only two days after the date of
the first proclamations, at the risk of criticism, he boldly
referred to and briefly advocated equal rights and suffrage for
colored men. Copious extracts from the eulogy were published,
in the newspapers, and were widely read, thus calling attention
to the subject and giving early direction to public sentiment in
Massachusetts. He wrote several letters during the summer,
which were published, in which he expressed himself for equal
rights, including suffrage for the colored people. One of these
was to the Mayor of Boston, in response to an invitation to
deliver the city oration on the fourth day of July ; another, to a
committee of colored men of Savannah, Georgia, who had for
warded him a petition for the right to vote " signed personally

534 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
by their own hands," as they pathetically described it. In his
reply Sumner urged them to never neglect their work, but
meanwhile prepare themselves for citizenship and to be assured
their rights would be protected. He wrote more at length and
more emphatically on the subject to the New York Independent.
In this letter he said, " President Johnson spoke well, when in
Tennessee he said that, ' in the work of reorganization Rebels
must take back seats, leaving place to those who have been
loyal.' There is a keynote of a just policy, which I trust Con
gress will adopt. It is difficult to measure the mischief already
accumulated from the policy that has been pursued."
On the fourteenth of September, Sumner was unanimously
elected Chairman of the Massachusetts Republican Convention,
held at Worcester, and made the opening speech, of an hour's
length. It was a carefully prepared argument for equal rights.
He said he had expected when he made his last speech, in the
preceding campaign for Lincoln and Johnson, that it would be
his last anti-slavery speech, but now he was sad to learn it was
not, that slavery had been abolished only in name and that the
work of liberation would not be complete until equal rights
were secured, that a righteous government could not be founded
on any exclusion of race, that he did not know how others
might feel, but, as for him, his course was fixed, that he pro
posed to battle on to the end and until all distinction of caste
were abolished, if it took what remained to him of life. The
convention unanimously passed a resolution calling upon Con
gress to see that the most perfect guarantees, for the safety of
all loyal people, both white and black, were secured, before the
people of the South were restored to their forfeited rights.
Sumner's friend, Richard Cobden, who had been such a tower
of strength in preventing hostile measures being taken against
us, by England, during the war, had died, on the second of the
preceding April. His last letter to Sumner was written just a
month before his death. In reviewing the course of Europe
towards us, he wrote to Sumner. " It is nothing but your great
power that has kept the hands of Europe off you." The Con
vention passed a resolution commemorative of him, as one of
our country's most earnest and devoted friends, and directed
Sumner to communicate it to his family. This he did in a
letter, conveying also an expression of his personal loss.
During this vacation Sumner also prepared an article en
titled, Clemency and Common Sense, a curiosity of literature,
with a moral. It was published, in the Atlantic Monthly for
December, 1865. Its purpose was to reach a different class and

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 535
advocate, in another form, the necessity of requiring from the
South guarantees commensurate with the danger and not permit
a return of its States, to their former place, without first hav
ing equal rights secured to the freedmen. It was an effort in
still another way to counteract the work of the President.
It will be observed that, in all his work thus far to prevent
the success of the President's plan, for the restoration of the
Southern States, with their old class distinctions and without
protection for the freedmen, Sumner had avoided antagonizing
him openly. Knowing the disposition of Congress to agree with
the President, he was careful to avoid the appearance of a
rupture. He still had some hope of an agreement, when Con
gress convened. Till then lie was determined, while protecting
his cause, to cast no obstructions in the way of harmonious
action between the two departments of the Government.
Sumner also addressed letters to members of the Cabinet,
asking them to stand firm against the Presidential policy. But
they were still hoping to avoid a break with him and were un
willing to commit themselves openly against it. In fact, they
were about evenly divided. Seward, Secretary of State ; Welles,
Secretary of the Navy; M'Cullouch, Secretary of the Treasury
were with the President, Dennison, Postmaster-General, was
uncommitted ; while Speed, Attorney-General ; Harlan, Secre
tary of the Interior and Stanton, Secretary of War were against
his new policy. But a crisis was approaching among them.
Speed, Dennison and Harlan were soon to retire, unable to
agree with the President and unwilling to compromise them
selves by remaining. Stanton, under the advice of his friends
and following the bent of his own fearless and aggressive nature,
was disposed to remain and fight it out. As soon as the election
was over Sumner appealed directly to the President, by a long
telegraphic message, as a faithful friend and supporter of his
administration, urging him to suspend his policy towards the
Confederate States, because it was abandoning the freedmen to
the control of their former masters and was exposing the
national debt to the danger of repudiation.
Sumner went on to Washington, for the opening of Congress,
early, so as to have a talk with the President. He reached there
on Saturday, December second, 1865, and at once called on him
and spent three hours in his company, in conference about the
Southern States. The contrast between his attitude then and
as it appeared when Sumner had left him for the summer, a few
days after Johnson's accession to the Presidency, was pain
ful to Sumner. Instead of the kindly sympathetic disposition
he then saw, he found the President now " harsh, petulant and

536 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
unreasonable." " His heart was with the ex-rebels. For the'
Unionist, white or black, who had borne the burden of the war,
he had little feeling." Sumner said that the States lately in
rebellion were unfit for restoration in their apparently lawless
condition, without some guarantees for the right of the defence
less freedmen. The President retorted : " Are there no mur
ders in Massachusetts ? " " Do not men, in Boston, sometimes
knock each other down, so that the police is obliged to inter
fere ? " " Would you consent that Massachusetts, on this ac
count should be excluded from Congress ? " Without remarking
on the irrelevancy of these inquiries, Sumner left, with the pain
ful conviction that he was " set as flint against the good cause."
The separation was final. Each was thereafter to pursue his
own course, but their paths were to be widely divergent.
Congress opened, on the fourth day of December. The
session was occupied with measures of Reconstruction, especially
suffrage for the colored race, and with differences with the
President, which were to culminate, at the next session with
his impediment. On the first day of the session Sumner in
troduced ten separate measures, all of them bearing upon these
questions — a bill to secure equal suffrage to colored men in the
District of Columbia, — a bill to secure colored representation on
juries, in the Federal courts, in cases where colored persons were
to be indicted or tried, — one to require an oath of all voters or
persons elected to office, in the States lately in rebellion, to
maintain the debt contracted by the Government in the war for
the Union to uphold the Union and to resist all laws making a
distinction of race or color or that prevented all men from en
joying equal protection or rights, — another to make all persons
in the Confederate States equal before the law whether in the
Court Room or at the ballot box, — another to supply appropriate
legislation, to enforce the amendment to the Constitution pro
hibiting slavery, — a joint resolution proposing an amendment to
the Constitution apportioning representatives in Congress
among the States according to the number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age, — a bill for Reconstruction on the basis
of equal rights, — a resolution declaring the adoption of the con
stitutional amendment prohibiting slavery, — a resolution de
claring five conditions of Reconstruction, loyalty, the enfran
chisement of all citizens, without distinction of race or color, re
jection of the Rebel debt and the adoption of the National debt,
an educational system for the equal benefit of all races — the
choice of loyal citizens for office State and National, — a resolu
tion declaring the duty of Congress to protect loyal people of
the South of all races, in their efforts for Reconstruction.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 537
These bills were read, passed to a second reading and ordered
printed. The resolutions were read and ordered printed and
entered at length on the journal of the Senate. Sumner's pur
pose was to present them early and thus make them guides to
future legislation. The standing committees of the Senate
were formed by the dominant party acting on the report of its
nominating committee. Sumner was a member of this nominat
ing committee. When the formation of the Committee on the
District of Columbia was under consideration, Sumner said his
only wish was that it be so constituted that it would report in
favor of suffrage for colored men in the District. Then, an
swered Sherman, you must go on the Committee. Sumner
answered he was very much occupied with the duties of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, but if placed on this one he
would not decline. He was accordingly made a member of the
Committee on the District and continued on it till relieved of
all committee work at his own request, in 1872. A bill for
equal suffrage was promptly reported by this committee. It
did not become a law at this session, but at the nex't it was
passed and was vetoed by the President and then repassed by a
two-thirds vote of both Houses and thus became a law.
Sumner's bill for Reconstruction, on the basis of equal rights
deserves more than a passing notice. Nothing as complete and
systematic was ever adopted. The legislation upon this sub
ject was piecemeal and much of it bungling. Sumner's bill
provided for the appointment of a Provisional Governor for
each Confederate State, to be appointed by the President, with
the advice and consent of the Senate. Under the direction of
this Governor, the United States Marshal was to name dep
uties to enroll all male citizens of the United States, resident
of the State, in their counties and request each one to take an
oath to maintain a republican form of government, for the State
of which he was a resident, to recognize the permanency of the
National Government, to resist any attempt to repudiate any
of the debts contracted in suppressing the Rebellion and to re
sist all laws making any distinction of race or color.
The deputy was to make one roll of those who took the oath
and another of those who refused to take it. If a majority of
the persons enrolled in the State took the oath, the Governor
was to invite the loyal people of the State to elect delegates to
a convention to re-establish the State Government in conformity
with the Constitution of the United States. The number of
members of the convention was to be the same as that of both
Houses of the Legislature of the State before secession, and
were to be elected by the loyal male voters, twenty-one years

538 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
of age, resident of the county. The delegates were to have the
same qualifications and to be chosen at elections held by com
missioners appointed by the Governor. Every person voting
was to take the foregoing oath, but any person known to have
held office civil or military under the Confederate or Secession
State Government or who had borne arms against the United
States was to be excluded from voting, unless it was shown by
the testimony of a qualified voter that he had done so involun
tarily. The Governor was to canvass the vote, declare the per
sons elected, by proclamation convene the delegates, administer
the above oath to them and preside over their deliberations.
If the convention declared its submission to the United
States Government and incorporated in its State Constitution
provisions, forbidding persons who held any office civil, except
ministerial, or military above the rank of colonel, to vote for
or be a member of the Legislature or Governor, prohibiting
slavery, repudiating the Rebel debt, requiring of all office
holders an oath to support the Federal Constitution and to
maintain a republican form of government, abolishing all dis
tinctions founded on race or color or former condition and mak
ing these provisions perpetual, then the constitution thus
formed was to be submitted to the voters. The Provisional
Governor was to canvass the votes and, if a majority were in its
favor, to so certify to the President, who after obtaining the
consent of Congress was to proclaim the State Government
established and permit Senators, Representatives and Presi
dential Electors to be chosen.
If the Convention refused to establish such a government, it
was to be the duty of the Provisional Governor to collect taxes
and execute the laws of the State, as they were before the pas
sage of the ordinance of secession, except as in conflict with the
existing laws and constitution of the United States, the laws
made for white persons to apply to all races and all jurors to
have the qualification of voters under this bill. If there was
any surplus of taxes collected under the Provisional Governor,
after payment of the expenses of his administration, they were
to be deposited in the United States Treasury, to be repaid to
the State when a republican form of government should be
there established and be recognized by the United States. On
the twenty-first day of December, on motion of Sumner, this
bill was referred to the Joint Committee of the Senate and
House on Reconstruction.
In this scheme for reconstruction two things are clearly
noticeable, a determination to keep the whole matter in the
hands of Congress, so that the new President would everywhere

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 539
find a check upon his acts ; and a determination to provide for
the equal rights of the colored race. Sumner's resolution was
fixed on both questions. He would neither trust this important
subject with the President, of whose perversity he was now per
suaded; nor would he leave the freedmen without the ballot,
to protect them against the aggressions of their ancient masters.
The President was to appoint the Provisional Governors, but
it was to be with the advice and consent of the Senate. The
President was to recognize the new government, but not until he
obtained the consent of Congress. The surplus taxes were to
be paid back to the States, but not until Congress united in an
appropriation therefor. He was just as exacting about the
equal rights of colored men. The voters were to be sworn to
resist all laws making any distinction on account of color and
to maintain a government where all men should be equal.
Colored men were to be allowed to participate, in creating these
governments. This equality was to be incorporated in a con
stitution that was to make it perpetual. The officers to be
elected under it were to be sworn to maintain it.
Sumner distrusted the former leaders of the South as much
as he did the President. He had come to regard both as be
longing to one class, united in purpose and determined to act
together. When, therefore, Senator Cowan on December
twelfth, 1865, submitted a resolution asking the President to
furnish information of the condition of the Southern States,
lately in Rebellion, Sumner moved an amendment that the
President also furnish copies of such reports as he may have
received from officers or agents appointed to visit these States.
The President in response to the call sent to the Senate a
message, in which he said that sectional animosity was surely
and rapidly merging itself into a spirit of nationality and that
the conditions there were more promising than could well have
been expected in view of all the circumstances. Accompany
ing the message were reports of Lieutenant-General Grant and
Major-General Carl Sehurz. Sumner knew that Schurz had
been appointed by the President to visit this section and make a
detailed report to him of the result of his investigations, that
in pursuance of this appointment he had visited South Caro
lina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and the Department of the
Gulf, spending about four months in a careful investigation and
report upon the conditions he found there. Sumner also had
reason to believe this report was unsatisfactory to the Presi
dent. For it argued an entire absence of national feeling on
the part of the South, a submission onlv to necessity, a promise
of a new form of servitude to take the place of slavery now

540 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
abolished under ordinances passed under pressure of circum
stances, and a warning that practical attempts by the Southern
people to deprive the negroes of their rights might result in
bloody collisions. This report corresponded with the infor
mation Sumner had from private sources and he believed it
represented the actual condition of the South.
The report of General Grant was radically different, both in
its origin and its substance. There was reason to believe that
the President, learning in advance from letters and conversa
tions the convictions of General Schurz, was not wishing that
kind of information and, seeing an opportunity to turn the
great popularity of General Grant to the support of his policy,
he requested him, as he was starting South, on a tour of military
inspection, to learn the feeling and intention of the Southern
States towards the National Government. The General never
thinking that his report would be made a subject of Congres
sional controversy, complied with the President's request, in a
merely perfunctory manner. He passed through Virginia, with
out conversing with any citizens, spent one day in North Caro
lina, one in South Carolina and two in Georgia and upon his
return to Washington made a brief report, upon this observation
to the President. He probably spoke from a purely military
standpoint, when he said the mass of thinking men, in the
South accepted the situation, in good faith, and that there was
universal acquiescence in the authority of the General Govern
ment, with anxiety to return to self-government, within the
Union, and do what was required of them by the North as con
ditions of restoration. It said nothing of the condition of the
freedmen or whether their rights were respected or denied.
When the message of the President and these two accompany
ing reports were received by the Senate, on December nine
teenth, the message of the President was read and the report of
General Grant. That of General Schurz was not read. Sum^
ner called for the reading of it. Several senators objected, on
account of its length, Sumner insisted that it was a very import
ant document, that when the report on the condition of Kansas
was made before the war, it was all read, that now the question
was immeasurably more important. " We have a message from
the President," he said, " which is like the whitewashing mes
sage of Franklin Pierce, with regard to the enormities in Kan
sas. Such is its parallel. I think the Senate had better at
least listen to the opening of Major-General Schurz's report."
The President's attitude was not so well understood then as
later and several senators objected to Sumner's use of the word
" whitewashing " as applied to his message. They thought

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 541
Sumner ought to qualify or modify or retract it. Sumner re
plied with some feeling that he had " nothing to retract, noth
ing to modify, nothing to qualify " that, while he was not ques
tioning the character or policy of the President as some of his
fellow Senators seemed to think, he was characterizing the mes
sage as he thought it deserved. Mr. Fessenden remarked that
" the difference between the Senators was a mere matter of defi
nitions and ought to be referred to some maker of dictiona
ries." Mr. Sherman moved that the reading be dispensed with
as he preferred to read it for himself and this motion prevailed
and the message and reports were ordered to be printed.
The incident found its way into the papers and became a
text for comments according to the opinions of the editors. It
was the occasion of letters of commendation from Sumner's
friends. Wendell Phillips wrote ; " Glorious ! just the truth,
and just the time and place to speak it, was your graphic and
most effective description of the President's message. I say
this, not that you need confirmation, but because, hearing the
clamor against you, it seems right you should have the ' cheers '
as well as the ' hisses.' "
The day after the " whitewashing " incident, December
twentieth, 1865, Sumner took the floor on a bill introduced by
Senator Wilson " to maintain freedom in the States in Rebel
lion," and spoke for more than a hour, to show the incorrectness
of the conclusion advanced in the message of the President and
the accompanying report of General Grant. He occupied the
time largely in reading letters from private individuals who
were or had been in the South. The letters covered the South
ern situation generally and the condition of the several Confed
erate States. They argued that the Southern people while ad
mitting themselves vanquished by arms hoped to secure suprem
acy in the National Government, by political management, so
as to control its affairs as they had done before the war, that
they were opposed to the payment of the debt, contracted in the
maintenance of the Union, were inflicting cruelties upon de
fenceless colored people and the loyal whites in the South and
were making the condition of the former much worse than it
was when they were in slavery. It is only fairness to General
Grant to add that a fuller investigation afterwards led him to
the same conclusion as that now maintained by Sumner. And
later, when the subject became one of the great issues of his
party, during his Presidency, he and Sumner stood loyally
together upon this question.
On the ninth day of January, 1866, Sumner called attention
to the fact that freedmen were being kidnapped and carried,

542 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
from the South to Brazil and Cuba where they were sold as
slaves. He offered a resolution, directing the Judiciary Com
mittee to inquire if further legislation were needed to prevent
this revival of the slave trade. That committee a month later
reported a bill to prevent and punish kidnapping which was
passed by both Houses and, with the approval of the Presi
dent, became a law, on May twenty-first.
Sumner insisted upon the equal title of the colored people
to all the rights of the white. He would admit of no distinc
tion. He believed that Congress, especially after the adoption
of the constitutional amendment prohibiting slavery, had power
to secure this object, by direct legislation. Others differed from
him and thought it should be accomplished, by a constitutional
amendment. At the opening of the session a joint committee on
Reconstruction had been appointed by the two Houses, of which
Thaddeus Stevens was the House Chairman and Fessenden of
Maine was the Senate Chairman. This Committee reported
to the House, through its Chairman Stevens, a proposition for
an amendment to the Constitution, indirectly reaching the ques
tion of equal suffrage. It was known from the name of its
author, James G. Blaine, as the " Blaine Amendment." It
proposed, in language different from what was afterwards in
corporated in the Fourteenth Amendment, that Representatives
should be apportioned among the States according to numbers
and that whenever the election franchise should be denied by
any State on account of race or color, all persons therein of such
race or color should be excluded from the basis of representa
tion. The joint resolution for the amendment was adopted by
the House on January thirty-first. The Senate Chairman of
the joint committee gave notice that he would call for its con
sideration, by the Senate, on February fifth. The right of open
ing the debate belonged to him as Chairman of the committee,
but he yielded the floor to Sumner, who commenced the debate
with an elaborate speech, running into two days. He spoke
for about two hours during the afternoon of each day. The
printed speech entitled " Equal Rights of All " occupies one
hundred pages of his published works. It is one of the most
elaborately prepared speeches he ever delievered.
He opposed the amendment. He insisted that in the Declara
tion of Independence as well as in the Constitution, no
expression had been permitted to contradict the foundation
principle of our government that all men are created equal. To
permit this amendment to be inserted, recognized a distinction
based upon color and gave the choice to the Southern States
to refuse the black race the ballot, if they were willing thereby

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 543
to reduce the number of their own Congressmen. An amend
ment should be an improvement, but this was like the crab,
which travelled backward. He afterwards declared that it re
minded him of that leg of mutton served for Dr. Johnson's
dinner, on the road from London to Oxford, which he described :
" as bad, as bad could be, — ill-fed, ill-killed, ill-kept, and ill-
dressed." He insisted that the Constitution required the United
States to guarantee to every state a republican form of govern
ment and likewise that Congress should enforce the prohibition
of slavery by appropriate legislation. He therefore offered, by
way of counter proposition, a joint resolution declaring all per
sons equal before the law, whether in the court-room or at the
ballot box. The power of Congress to pass such a law he believed
to be ample without requiring the formality of a constitutional
amendment. He dwelt at great length upon the meaning of
the terms republican form of government, which was required
bv the Constitution to be guaranteed to the States. He argued
that it meant simply a government where all men are equal
in rights, and which derives it powers from the consent of the
governed and that neither existed, where black men were de
prived of the right of suffrage, that when they were taxed, with
out being permitted to vote, it was the same taxation without
representation that our fathers had pronounced tyranny and had
fought against in our war for Independence. He insisted that
the rebel states were not republican, that it was the duty of
Congress to see that they were made so. The Constitution re
quired it. To those, therefore, who asked to amend it, he could
only retort, in the words of the magistrate to an advocate, who,
dissatisfied with the ruling of the court, threatened to burn
his book, " Better read it." The equal ballot would be peace
maker and reconciler to the South as well as schoolmaster and
friend to the negro. Had he been given it sooner, we could
have had no war, for his vote would have defeated the acts of
Secession. We owed it to him, because in the time of War, he
had aided our deliverance.
The speech was listened to, by a large audience. The
Chamber and its galleries were filled, before the hour for open
ing, at each afternoon session. Senator Pomeroy of Kansas, in
hearty sympathy with Sumner, in his efforts for equal suff
rage, occupied the chair. Many members of the House, with
Ministers and members of the Foreign Embassies, two Cabinet
officers and others, having the privileges of the floor came in,
to occupy seats in the chamber. Many members of the colored
race, among them some soldiers occupied seats in the gallery.
He was frequently interrupted by marks of approval and when,

544 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
on the second day, he reached his close the vast audience burst
into applause. It was some minutes before the Presiding
Officer could secure order.
The speech had less of the controversial spirit in it than most
of Sumner's. It was full of the subject in hand, treating it
with frankness, alluding to the views of his opponents with
respect and with fairness. Its effective and happy illustra
tions aided in holding the interest of his listeners. It was
favorably commented upon by men of all parties. _ In this
respect it was noticeably different from some of his earlier
speeches that had evoked so much bitterness. It was published
in the Independent, whose proprietor, Henry C. Bowen, was
among his auditors, and in an extra of the New York Tribune ;
was largely copied into other papers; and it was widely read.
It noticeably raised the tone of feeling towards equal suffrage.
These speeches made by Sumner served to widen the breach
between President Johnson and Congress. The President was
opposed to extending the right of suffrage to the colored men,
believing it would result in a war of the races. He stood
ready, therefore, to counteract any favorable impression that
such speeches might make. On the day after the delivery of this
one, he was visited by a delegation of colored men who urged
him to use his influence to secure suffrage for their raee. He
answered with feeling that he was the friend of the black race
and that he did not like to be arraigned by some one, who
could get up rounded periods and deal in rhetoric, but who had
never perilled life, liberty or property for them, that the policy
urged, if persisted in, he believed would result in great injury
to both races and the ruin of one or the other. He said
sneeringly to another colored delegation that he supposed Sum
ner was their God. From the steps of the White House, on
February twenty-second, he threw away all reserve. On the
nineteenth of February he had vetoed the Freedmen's Bureau
Bill, designed to remedy some defects in the law passed at a
previous session. The President had before vetoed this bill.
After some changes it was returned to him again. It was now
certain, as changed, to pass over his veto. He had vetoed the
civil rights bill and it had been passed over his veto. It did
not take a careful observer to see that a deplorable relation of
the two departments of the government was impending.
The veto of the Freedman's Bureau Bill on February nine
teenth was followed on February twenty-second, by a large pop
ular meeting in Washington to approve the President's action.
It adjourned to the White House, to congratulate the Presi
dent. He met them, at the door, and made a speech of some

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 545
length. " I have," said the President, in the course of his re
marks, " fought traitors and treason in the South. I opposed
Davis, Toombs, Slidell and a long list of others, whose names I
need not repeat ; and now, when I turn around at the other end
of the line, I find men — I care not by what name you call them
(a voice: 'Call them traitors') — who still stand opposed to
the restoration of the Union of these States. (A voice: ' Give
us their names.') A gentleman calls for their names. Well!
suppose I should give them ? I look upon them I repeat it as
President or citizen, as being as much opposed to the funda
mental principles of this Government, and I believe they are
as much laboring to prevent or destroy them as were the men
who fought against them in the Rebellion. (A voice : ' Give us
the names.') I say Thaddeus Stevens of Pennsylvania. (Tre
mendous applause.) I say Charles Sumner. (Tremendous
applause.) I say Wendell Phillips, and others of the same
stripe are among them. (A voice: ' Give it to Forney.') Some
gentleman in the crowd says, ' Give it to Forney,' I have only to
say I do not waste my ammunition upon dead ducks." (Laugh
ter and applause.) * * * Some one had spoken in Congress of
the Presidential obstacle to be gotten out of the way. He in
terpreted this as threatening personal violence to himself. " I
make use," he said, " of a very strong expression when I say that
I have no doubt the intention was to incite assassination and so
get out of the way the obstacle to place and power. Whether
by assassination or not there are individuals in this Govern
ment, I doubt not, who want to destroy our institutions and
change the character of the Government. Are they not satis
fied with the blood that has been shed ? Does not the murder
of Lincoln appease the vengeance and wrath of the opponents of
this Government ? Are they still unslaked ? Do they still want
more blood? I am not afraid of the assassin attacking me,
where a brave and courageous man would attack another. I
only dread him when he would go in disguise, his footstep
noiseless. If it is blood they want let them have courage
enough to strike like men."
This speech made a wretched impression upon the country.
Its want of taste, in selecting men, who were honored officials
of the Government and respected citizens, and naming them
personally, to be jeered at by a crowd upon the street, merely
because he could not agree with them upon political questions,
was thought to be an offence against good breeding unworthy of
the chief magistrate of a great people. To insinuate that they
were traitors and associate them in likeness with others, who
had notoriously led in an effort to destroy the Nation, to assume

546 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
that his political opponents were instigating assassination and
that as Lincoln had fallen a victim of a spirit of hostility
engendered in the South by the passions of the War, so he was
in danger of falling, before a similar spirit, in the North, men
construed as an unworthy attempt to associate himself with the
martyr President, absurdly without foundation in fact.
In Massachusetts where Sumner's career was regarded with
pride, as a peculiar possession of those who had maintained
him by their votes, the President's conduct was viewed with
some resentment. The Legislature being in session, a resolution
was adopted, by both Houses, declaring the language used and
charges made to be unbecoming a President, an unjust reflec
tion upon Massachusetts and without the shadow of justifica
tion or defence. A copy of this resolution, engrossed on parch
ment, was forwarded to Sumner by the Governor, with the
request that it be accepted and preserved. The Board of
Aldermen of the city of Boston unanimously adopted and con
veyed a similar resolution recognizing his great services and
indignantly repudiating as utterly false " any accusation which
likened him to the traitor chiefs of the Rebellion." The New
England Conference of the M. E. Church, by resolution, also
communicated to him, pronounced it " an unjustifiable assault,
upon his reputation," likened to that of Brooks, upon his person.
In other more private ways the same sentiment was conveyed
to him. Sumner never made any answer or allusion to the
speech. The speech of Sumner on the resolution for the submission
of the amendment to the Constitution and the substitute he
offered, was followed by a succession of speeches on the same
questions occupying, with some intermissions, the attention of
Congress for a month. Fessenden opposed Sumner's substitute.
He was one of the ablest men in the Senate, with a clear,
sharp, incisive manner of speech, always directly to the point
but sometimes inclined, perhaps owing to ill-health, to undue
severity. He had seemed severe to Sumner, when discussing his
speech and his substitute. During the debate Sumner spoke
briefly twice more, in reply to the others and especially to Fes
senden. " Pardon me, Sir," he said in reply to Fessenden, " if I re
mind you that there are two modes of debate. One is to attack
the previous speaker, with personality of criticism or manner.
The other is to speak plainly on the question and to deal di
rectly, according to your convictions, with the principles in
volved. Sometimes the two modes are allowed to intermingle.
If ever there was occasion when the first should be carefully

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNEK 5 17
avoided, when the question alone should be handled, and not
the previous speaker, when attention should be directed exclu
sively to principles involved, and not to any subordinate point
of mere form, it is now, when we are asked to insert a new
provision in the Constitution, fixing the basis of political power,
at the expense of fellow-citizens counted by millions. In this
spirit, I shall try to speak. To my mind, the occasion is
too solemn for personal controversy, and I shall not be drawn
into it."
He was not drawn into it, but contented himself with a re
statement of his own position and the giving of additional
arguments and authorities, in support of it.
Before the close of the debate, Henderson of Iowa moved to
strike out Sumner's substitute and insert in its stead a constitu
tional amendment securing suffrage to colored citizens. He
doubted the power of Congress to reach the evil by a simple
enactment, but thought the change better to be embodied in
the Constitution. Sumner declared he was in favor of his
motion, and he voted for it, but it received only ten votes.
The vote was then taken on Sumner's substitute and it received
only eight votes. Other amendments were proposed and voted
down. But when the vote was finally reached, on the House
Proposition for the Constitutional Amendment, it too failed.
This was a bitter disappointment to its friends, who held Sum
ner largely accountable for it. Stevens, the House Chairman
of the joint committee, said : " It was slaughtered, by a puerile
and pedantic criticism, by a perversion of philological def
inition, which if, when I taught school, a lad who had studied
Lindley Murray had assumed, I would have expelled him from
the institution as unworthy to waste education upon. * * *
Let us again try and see whether we cannot devise some way to
overcome the united forces of self-righteous Republicans and
unrighteous Copperheads."
It was argued, by Republican Members of both Houses, that
it would not do for Congress to go to the country, after so
much effort, without having adopted the resolution. It was
urged that Republicans generally were in favor of it. It was
therefore amended and resubmitted and finally passed both
Houses. It provided for the submission to the States, what is
now the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In this
new form Sumner voted for it, but did not again debate it. In
its new form, it had no recognition of exclusion from the fran
chise on account of " race or color," so as to injure the text of
the Constitution, which recognized no race or color, nor would
it give a pretext for changing the definition of the republican

548 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
form of government, which was required to be guaranteed to
the States. It had a clause added, defining who are citizens
of the United States, so as to include colored persons, assuring
for all the equal protection of the laws. Another clause had
been added disqualifying all persons from holding office, State
or National, who had previously taken an oath of office, as
Senator, Representative or officer of the United States or as
Legislator or executive or judicial officer of any State, to support
the Constitution and had afterwards engaged in the Rebellion
unless this disability was first removed by a two-thirds vote of
each House. Still another clause was added protecting the Na
tional debt and annulling all debts contracted in aid of the Re
bellion and all claims for the loss or emancipation of slaves.
All these provisions not found in the original, Sumner believed
counterbalanced the evil he still saw in it.
Before the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment by
the States so as to make it a part of the Constitution, Sumner's
object was accomplished in other ways. Congress took juris
diction of the elective franchise in the Confederate States and
required that in voting upon any constitution preparatory to
reconstruction there should be no exclusion on account of race or
color and that this prohibition should also be embodied in such
instruments. Equal suffrage was afterwards established by the
Fifteenth Amendment which provided that the right of citizens
to vote should " not be denied or abridged by the United States
or by any State on account of race or color or previous condi
tion of servitude." But these steps were slowly taken as will be
seen, after much argument and effort, by the pioneers on these
questions. Among these pioneers Sumner was fairly entitled
to be named first. A persuasion of the necessity for extending
the franchise to the colored men, owing to conditions in the
South, as well as justice to them at last prevailed. Though
the policy of thus extending suffrage has been and is still, in
certain States, a much vexed question, it must be conceded by
all that it was one of the great events of our political history.
It has already added a chapter of interesting history to every
Southern State and it has played an important part in the set
tlement of every National question since its adoption.
It has been seen how close were the votes, in the Senate, on
the resolution to submit this Amendment. It required a two-
thirds vote of each House. Though the Republicans had that
many, the margin was so small that the defection of a few was
sufficient to change the result. Owing to the defection of Presi
dent Johnson his veto would also defeat any measure he de
sired, unless the Republicans could pass it over his veto by a

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 549
two-thirds vote. The frequency of these vetoes had already
startled the Republicans. Party strength which had seemed
ample, for all purposes, when he was elected, was now
carefully husbanded. The credentials of new members were
closely scanned. The spur of party feeling was not wanting.
The bitterness engendered by the war had not abated in Con
gress, for the President's course had served to augment it
there. It was this situation that confronted John P. Stockton of
New Jersey, when, at this session, he presented his credentials
to a seat in the Senate. The previous winter had seen a strug
gle over his election. After many efforts it was found that no
one could secure a majority of all the members elected to each
House of the Legislature, as their rule provided. This rule
was, therefore, changed by a resolution at a joint meeting of the
two Houses, so that only a plurality of the votes of the members
present at a joint meeting was required. Under this rule
Stockton was elected. Thirty-eight members of the Legislature
forwarded to the Senate a protest against his admission.
At the opening of the session, he had appeared and taken the
oath as Senator. The validity of his title to a seat was referred
to the Judiciary Committee, which reported in his favor. The
question came up, in the Senate, on March twenty-third, 1866.
Sumner opposed the adoption of the report for two reasons. He
urged that his title was invalid because ; first, a majority of each
House was necessary. This he said was the practice in Massa
chusetts and, he urged, was the proper practice, although he
admitted a different one obtained in some other States. Sec
ond, because the joint meeting of the two Houses of the Legis
lature of New Jersey had no right, by resolution, to fix the
manner of the choice. It should be done by a law regularly
passed by the Legislature or by Congress. He cited authority
in support of both positions.
When the question came to a vote on the adoption of the
report of the committee, the vote stood twenty-one to twenty,
when Morrill of Maine asked to have his name called. This
was done and it resulted in a tie. Thereupon Stockton arose
and said that Morrill was paired with his colleague Wright, who
was at home sick. He, therefore, asked his name to be called,
which being done, he voted for the adoption of the report and
it carried, twenty-two to twenty-one. This action was taken on
Friday. On the following Monday, Sumner moved to amend the
journal of Friday by striking out the vote of Stockton. He
argued that no one could be a judge in his own case, and to per-

550 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
mit this vote to stand was to affirm that he could be. The
Senate passed a resolution that the vote be not received, and
afterwards voted him not entitled to his seat, upon a recon
sideration of the question. It was a mistake for him to vote.
If he had not, it would have been a tie and he occupying a seat
would have been left in possession of it. By voting he fur
nished a pretext for opening the question and it resulted in him
being ousted.
Stockton, being a Democrat, if permitted to retain his
seat, would doubtless have voted with his party to sustain the
President's vetoes. This would have prevented the passage of
some important legislation of the session, notably the Civil
Rights Bill, which had been vetoed and was passed, in the Sen
ate over his veto, by only one vote. Sumner was charged with
having brought about his ouster, for partisan purposes. But the
charge was hardly fair. To permit a Senator to vote on his own
right to a seat, was clearly an improper precedent to establish
and Sumner did right to secure its correction. Hitherto under
the influence of the Southern doctrine of State Rights, the
policy had been to enlarge the powers of the States and re
strict those of the Nation. Hence the fixing of the manner of
the choice of Senators had been left to the States, the Consti
tution providing that the State Legislatures might prescribe
the manner, but that Congress might alter it. The attitude to
ward the doctrine of State Rights being changed by the war,
and being admonished by the Stockton Case, Congress, at this
session, assumed jurisdiction of the subject and fixed by law
a uniform rule for making the choice.
When this bill was before the Senate, Sumner opposed and
assisted in defeating an amendment to it offered by Fessenden
to permit each Legislature to settle whether the vote should be
taken viva voce or by ballot. Sumner insisted that as the votes
were given in a representative capacity, they should be cast
openly so that everyone might know how each member voted.
He favored secret voting at popular elections, but open voting
for the election of Senators.
Sumner continued the fight for equal rights on the measures
that were offered at this session for the admission of three
States. Two of them, Colorado and Nebraska, were Territories
while the third, Tennessee, had lost the right of Statehood by
her participation in the Rebellion. Sumner insisted that none
of these should be admitted till provision be made in its con
stitution that there should be no denial of the electoral fran
chise or of any other rights, on account of race or color, but
that all persons should be equal before the law. He argued in

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 551
favor of such a restriction in each case, but Congress was not
yet ready to take such an advanced stand. He could summon to
his position at this time only four to seven votes, in the Senate.
Curiously enough one of these was Gratz Brown of Missouri,
who was soon to be the Democratic candidate for Vice-Presi
dent, on the ticket with Greeley. Tennessee was admitted with
out such a constitutional provision, Sumner voting against it.
The bill for Nebraska passed both Houses, but was vetoed by
the President. That for Colorado met the same fate. At the
next session, the bill for the admission of Nebraska passed with
the requirement for equal suffrage in it. Then the Colorado
bill was taken up and this condition inserted and then it passed
both Houses, but was vetoed by the President; and it failed to
pass, over the veto, for the want of the necessary two-thirds
vote, in the Senate. The few votes that Sumner was able to
command were sufficient to dictate the insertion of the pro
vision for equal rights, in the contest with the President.
During the debate on Colorado, Sumner was chided with the
suggestion that its admission would create two more votes, in
the Senate, much needed by the Republicans. " Tell me not,"
he retorted, " that it is expedient to create two more votes in
this Chamber. Nothing can be expedient that is not right. If
I were now about to pronounce the last words that I could ever
utter in this Chamber, I would say to you, Senators, do not for
get that right is always the highest expediency. You can never
sacrifice the right without suffering for it."
Among those who thus far had opposed Sumner's efforts for
political equality for the black race and had inclined toward
the President was Cowan of Pennsylvania. He was elected as
a Republican. The next elections went strongly against the
President. After they were over and the debate on the admis
sion of Nebraska came up, in the next session, Cowan voted
with Sumner. His conversion came somewhat awkwardly to
him and he was disposed to treat the question humorously. In
the Senate one day, he said :
"My honorable friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, is
six feet three inches in height, and weighs two hundred and
twenty pounds ; I am six feet three inches in height and weigh
one hundred and ninety pounds, if you please. That is not
equality. My honorable friend from Maine here is five feet
nine inches.
Fessenden. " And a half." (Laughter.)
Cowan. " I beg the honorable Senator's pardon. I would not
diminish his stature an inch or half an inch, nor take a hair
from his head ; and he weighs one hundred and forty pounds,

552 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
if you please. Is that equality? The honorable Senator from
Massachusetts is largely learned ; there is nothing, I think, that
he does not know, that is worth knowing, — and this is no empty
compliment that I desire to pay him now; and he is so much
wiser than I am, that at the last elections he divined exactly
how they would result, and I did not. (Laughter.) He rode
triumphantly upon the popular wave ; and I was overwhelmed,
and came out with eyes and nose suffused, and hardly able to
gasp." Sumner. " You ought to have followed my advice."
Cowan. " Why should I not ? What was Providence doing
in that? If Providence had made me equal to the honorable
Senator I should not have needed his counsel, and I should have
ridden, too, on the topmost wave."
Sumner's position among his fellow-Senators was now a com
manding one. His counsel was sought and respected. He was
never a strict party man, but he knew the value of organization.
He knew that little good could be accomplished, in public life,
without it. But he placed principle above party and preferred
his own convictions of duty to the opinion of the caucus; had
great faith in discussion and so he would discuss and agitate
and argue, till he would convert others to his own position.
How often during his career he appeared in defence of a princi
ple with only three or four supporters and kept on gathering
support until he triumphed, is now a cause for remark.
Through it all he preserved the respect and confidence of his
associates. Sometimes they were impatient at his persistence in
pushing his own measures to the front and insisting on action
upon them to the exclusion of other business, that they wished
to forward. Sometimes his disposition to argue wearied them.
But they all admitted his high character, his wonderful learn
ing and his great industry, his firm hope to make his career in
the Senate a useful one. With those who served longest with
him, this feeling was most marked. A strong tie grew up be
tween them, that either saw broken with sorrow.
During the present session, he was called upon three times
to commemorate friends with whom he sadly parted. Henry
Winter Davis, after a brilliant career of eight years in the
House had died on December 30, 1865, and Senators Collamer
and Foot, both from Vermont, had died, one earlier, and one
later than Davis. All three were prominent in the questions
that grew out of the War. It was therefore with sadness that
he saw them laid away. He commemorated all three, Davis
by an article published in the New York Independent and the
others by appreciative tributes in the Senate.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 553
Of Collamer he feelingly said : " Since Henry Clay left this
Chamber by the gate of death, no Senator has passed that way
crowned with the same honorable years as Mr. Collamer; nor
has any Senator passed that way whose departure created such
a blank in the public counsels, unless we except Mr. Douglas."
He reviewed his career in the Senate, pausing to emphasize two
occasions when his fearless independence had shown forth with
marked effect. One already mentioned in these pages, was in
opposing the majority report of the Committee on Territories
to which the whitewashing message of President Buchanan
on the Kansas troubles had been referred. The other was when
Collamer, with equal or greater courage, opposed the President
of his own party, then the triumphant chieftain of the North,
in his unwarranted exercise of power in the institution of civil
governments for the unreconstructed States, " to last beyond
the war ". In the one case he opposed executive power insti
gated by Jefferson Davis and in the other when wielded " by the
gentle hand of Abraham Lincoln." But in both cases it was
the firm hand of the conscientious Senator opposing the un
warranted exercise of power by the President and presenting
an inspiring example to others in good works.
Foote was the oldest Senator in continuous service. He had
entered in the spring before Sumner. Sumner's service
commenced with the opening of the session in December. Only
one other, Wade, now remained of equal length of service with
Sumner. Yet Sumner was destined to remain for almost nine
years more, five years after Wade. Foote was a retiring man,
slow to express opinions, but firm in his conduct and like his
colleague Collamer, of unquestioned courage. Giddings had at
the beginning assured Sumner that he could be depended on, in
the struggle against slavery, and had pleasantly recalled how
on Foote's first visit to the House, after he took his seat in the
Senate, he had seemed indifferent to criticism by asserting his
friendship for Giddings, the anti-slavery leader, in the days
when slavery tyrannized public life. He was thus firm in his
convictions, yet he was so forgetful of self that he would will
ingly waive a right of his own, in the appointments to com
mittees, so as to give important places, assigned to himself, to
others who desired them. " There was no jealousy, envy or un-
charitableness in him," said Sumner. " He enjoyed what others
did, and praised generously. He knew that his own just posi
tion could not be disturbed by the success of another. What
ever another may be, whether more or less, a man must always
be himself. A true man is a positive, and not a relative quan
tity. Properly inspired, he will know that in a just sense, no-

554 LIFE CF CHARLES SUMNER.
body can stand in the way of another." Foote had shown talent
as a presiding officer, which was recognized by the Senate in
making him for a considerable time its President pro tem. His
firmness and fairness fitted him for such duties. He had little
taste for controversy, seldom spoke in the Senate, but for the
less brilliant though not less useful work of a Senator he was
pre-eminent. During this session Sumner made some short speeches in
favor of non-partisan measures, which, after years of discus
sion, have reached realization. They show his wisdom as a
statesman. Among these may be named his speech for the
survey of a ship-canal across the isthmus of Panama, one for
the metric system of weights and measures, another for the
power of Congress to provide against cholera from abroad, still
another for its power to provide against a cattle plague. He
also wrote in favor of an international copyright for authors.
All of these show him far in advance of the sentiment of that
time. His effort for a codification of the United States statutes
which he commenced with his first session in the Senate and
had renewed repeatedly since, was successful at this session.
The bill was passed and Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts, was
one of the Commissioners appointed.
The hard work of this session told seriously on Sumner's
health. The session lasted till about August first and his labor
had been excessive. There were reappearances of his nervous
troubles which had resulted from the Brooks assault. He was
obliged to consult his former physician, Dr. Brown-Sequard,
then in America. Later he made a brief excursion to the White
Mountains.

CHAPTER XXXIII
THE DEATH OF HIS MOTHER  HER CHARACTER  HIS MARRIAGE
On the fifteenth day of June, 1866, Sumner met the loss by
death of his mother. She was eighty-one years of age. He had
never married and of her nine children he was the only one
who continued his home with her. All the others were dead,
save the youngest, Julia, who had married Dr. John Hastings,
of San Francisco, California, in 1854. During the last years
of her life Mrs. Hastings suffered from ill-health and though
she survived her brother, dying in 1876, she did not visit the
Atlantic States after 1862. Her three daughters were the only
living grandchildren. So that he was left alone to comfort his
mother's declining years. During his absence in Washington,
she continued at their home in Boston, with a companion; but
when not occupied with his duties in the Senate, he usually
spent his time there with her.
It was the same old home, No. 20, Hancock Street, that
Sheriff Sumner had bought thirty-six years before, after the
improvement of his fortunes by his office, and to which he then
removed his family. During 1867, a little more than a year
after the mother's death it was sold out of the family. It
was well located in one of the higher and better parts of Boston,
not far from the State House. No effort had been made to
change it to correspond to a larger life. It continued the same
comfortable and substantial home, that had sheltered him in
his boyhood. There peace and happiness, the usual accompani
ments of good sense and good habits, prevailed. From day to
day through the long twenty-seven years of her widowhood, the
spirit of contentment her life cast about it never changed. It
was just, as we think, such a retreat from the turmoil of his
stormy career as he needed. There he could always find quiet,
grateful rest. And while she lived he never sought, and when
she died he never found, another like it. There too she grew
gracefully older and as the weight of years fell gently upon her,
she came to lean more heavily upon the stronger arm of her
son. She was an ideal mother, a woman of strong common sense
with a sweet disposition; these were her prevailing traits. It
will be remembered that her ancestors had been farmers, well-
555

556 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
to-do and marked by good sense and good habits, leading plain
lives, close to nature and apart from the conventionalities of
crowded cities; that her father had died when she was only
fourteen years of age, leaving her and one sister in the care of
a widowed mother, where she was taught habits of economy
and industry and gained some training in the elementary
branches taught in a public school. She was married while
earning her living, with her needle, in Boston and though her
husband was then poor she was able to raise their family with
comfort and keep within his income; and though his income
was afterwards increased by his office, it was not wasted but,
largely owing to her, he left in her hands an estate worth about
fifty thousand dollars, for her during life and then to distribute
to their children. This trust, she executed so faithfully that
when she died the property had accumulated to the value of
more than a hundred thousand dollars and was then equally
divided between their surviving children.
The same sensible conduct, as in the use of her husband's
property, was observable in the treatment of their children.
The care of them she assumed herself, never when she could do
otherwise, entrusting it to others. Three of her daughters died,
in early womanhood, after a lingering illness and her husband
had likewise died after months of confinement. It will be
remembered that Charles had suffered from a long sickness in
early manhood, when his life was despaired of for some weeks.
Yet she was the constant nurse of them all, day and night.
She assumed and retained to the end the management of her
own house. As she grew older her thoughts centered with
pardonable pride in her son. Her thoughts went out to him
when he was absent, watching his public career and looking
forward eagerly to his coming home. It so happened that the
last letter he wrote her was during this session of Congress in
answer to an inquiry prompted by her, for his health, which
she had heard was not good. His answer full of tenderness,
and expressing solicitude for her 'comfort, quieted her fears by
assuring her that his sickness was not serious, but only a slight
indisposition, caused by overwork.
She was tall and spare in build. All her life long she had
enjoyed good health and, when she died, it was of no particular
disease but only from a general failure ; she was worn out with
age. It had been apparent for some months that she could not
last long; so by an arrangement with her physician, he wrote
weekly letters to the son, to keep him informed of her condi
tion. He was summoned at last by telegraph and reached her
bed several days before her death and remained with her to the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 557
end, the only one of her once large family present to pay this
debt. It was the close of a life of noble Christian womanhood
and the end came peacefully, as to one whose work was well
done and for whom " joy cometh in the morning."
He had been a devoted son. The father, somewhat stern in
his manner, had turned the child's affections to the mother.
She was kindly, sympathetic and sweet ; and the tendrils of his
young heart had gathered in affection about her, never to be
unfolded again. Though the father had marked out his career,
directed his studies and controlled his habits; she had en
couraged his childish efforts, softened the hard places and
sweetened the cup of his early life. Her good sense never for
sook her and it was a never failing source of comfort to him.
Even in mature years, though by training he had grown in other
directions than hers, he found her cool head and good judgment
a safe counsellor. And he repaid the debt. Her comfort was
always a consideration with him. When at home he conformed
to her habits and simple way of living, assisted her in the
management of the father's estate, and maintained the peaceful
tenor of her life. By continuing his home with her, she was
spared the feeling that she was old and of no use, but only an in
cumbrance to others, — a feeling that often fosters the wish to
be away and at rest. While she lived, he never felt that he was
free to contract another relation and this feeling was so strong
that had she survived he probably never would have married.
After her death he felt for the first time that he had the
means and was at liberty to get married. He had been meeting
for some time in Washington, at the home of Samuel Hooper,
a Member of Congress from Boston, the widow of his son. She
was formerly Miss Alice Mason, of Boston, a niece of Jeremiah
Mason, Daniel Webster's old competitor at the bar. She was
a beautiful and attractive young woman, of slender and stately
form, highbred manner and aristocratic reserve, one of the
noticeably fascinating women in Washington society; but
somewhat spoiled by the homage she had received, had an ex
tremely variable disposition which she could show in teasing or
in temper, and she was fond of society and was ambitious, with
the disposition to rule the circle in which she moved. She was
the mother of one child, a daughter of eight years. For
some time Sumner had been attracted to her. In the Sep
tember following the death of his mother, their engagement was
announced. She was then but twenty-eight years of age ; while
he was fifty-five. The announcement was the occasion of nu
merous congratulatory letters from his friends, Bancroft, Whit
tier, Longfellow, Howe, Lieber, the Duchess of Sutherland,

558 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER.
the Argylls, Robert Ingham, from Chief-Justice Chase, Hamil
ton Fish, Mrs. Lincoln and others, who were rejoiced to learn
of the contemplated change in his life. They had known him
so long and seen him so much, in a social way, that they could
not view the marriage otherwise than as fraught with happiness
to both.
The void created by the death of his mother, which he felt
during the following recess of Congress when the door of his
old home in Boston was no longer open, had easily carried his
thoughts forward to such a new life. Her presence in Wash
ington presiding with noticeable grace in one of the homes,
where he was always welcome, — welcome even after the
break came and his married life had ended — easily lent en
chantment to the proposed change. At the home of the Rep
resentative from Boston, the Senator was naturally present
often and saw much of her. They were at Washington during
the sessions and when Congress adjourned they were at Boston
together. They met at a home of affluence and culture where a
graceful hospitality was dispensed. It conformed to his taste,
and when contemplating the establishment of a home of his
own he naturally wished it to be one like this.
Yet the hope had not been, in its happiest anticipation, with
out solicitude. Less than a month before his marriage, he
wrote Bancroft : " I tremble sometimes at the responsibility I
assume. I am to make another happy; for unless I do this,
there can be no happiness for me and my idea will be quenched
in darkness. But the good God that gave me this new life will,
I trust, protect it. If you knew how little of design or will
there was in what has occurred, you would see the Providence
which has ruled."
On the seventeenth day of October, 1866, they were married.
The intervening weeks before the opening of Congress, they
spent at Newport and at his old home at Boston. At the open
ing of the session in December, they took a house in Washing
ton, bought a team, rented a pew in church and settled down
to housekeeping there. His health was now fully restored
and he was rejoicing in the bright anticipation of happiness
in this new relation. He felt the inspiration of the high place
he held in public life and though accompanied with added
labor he turned to the work of the session with renewed ardor.

CHAPTER XXXIV
PARKER FRATERNITY LECTURE  PRESIDENT JOHNSON AGAINST
XIV AMENDMENT  ELECTION OF 1866  TENURE OF OFFICE
BILL  RECONSTRUCTION  EQUAL SUFFRAGE  PURCHASE OF
ALASKA
During this recess of Congress, on October second, 1866,
Sumner delivered the opening lecture of the annual series of
the Parker Fraternity, at Music Hall, Boston. His theme was,
The One Man Power against Congress. It was a review of the
policy and administration of President Johnson, up to that
time, and recounted the interviews Sumner had with him,
after the death of President Lincoln. Sumner had now
assumed an attitude of pronounced opposition. He was per
suaded, and he did not hesitate to say that President Johnson
was a Southerner, the successor in his sympathies and purposes
to Jefferson Davis, and that his influence should be counter
acted by all loyal citizens and good men. He declared that the
war had been fought at the expense of much blood and treasure
and that the North had been victorious in the field, but that all
the results of the war were being frittered away by the stubborn
and perverse policy pursued by the President, that instead of
building up governments in the Confederate States and recon
structing the National authority, from the sound materials, the
Union men and the loyal citizens, he was using only that which
was worn out, decayed and rotten, the Confederates who had
been torn from their places of power by the war. Sumner in
sisted that the very reverse of this should be the policy, that the
men who had fomented rebellion should all be excluded and new
men of tried loyalty be entrusted with power.
He argued that in acting upon the question of Reconstruc
tion the President was usurping the power of Congress, that the
Executive had no authority to decide questions of this kind,
that the Rebel States by the Ordinances of Secession and the
support of rebellion had forfeited all rights of statehood and
reduced themselves to the condition of Territories and that it
was for Congress to determine by law upon what condition
they were to be admitted as States. Jurisdiction of this im
portant subject, much to his regret, Congress had been slow in
assuming. It involved, in large measure, the benefits that were
559

560 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
to be reaped from the war. If those who had constituted the
Confederate armies and government, were to assume control,
the same old troubles that had led to the war might be expected
to reappear. If the freedmen were given the ballot, they would
unite with the loyal whites of the South and outnumber and
outvote, and thus be able to control, the rebellious elements. He
would therefore make the ballot to the freedmen an essential
condition of Reconstruction.
The President was unalterably opposed to extending the ballot
to colored men. He had boldly and repeatedly predicted that
such a concession would lead to a war between the races, with
the possible extinction of the weaker. Therefore he was as
suming jurisdiction of the whole subject of reconstruction and
was pressing forward to determine every question involved.
He assumed that though they had rebelled and passed ordi
nances of secession, that the Confederate States had been con
quered and that thereby their ordinances of secession had been
annulled and that they still held their place and were entitled
to be treated as sister States just as if they had never attempted
secession. Thus the line was sharply drawn between Congress
and the President. Congress was assuming control of the
matter as one for legislative determination, with the purpose of
equal suffrage in view ; the President was assuming the question
as settled and all that remained, was for the Executive to see
the laws in force executed and oppose any change in the ballot,
treating that within their limits as a matter for the considera
tion of the Confederate States alone. The situation was, Sum
ner insisted, that of " one man power against Congress."
There were many persons who doubted the propriety of
elevating to the franchise, freedmen, who had so lately been
slaves and who were without education or experience to fit them
for the duties of citizenship. Sumner felt the force of the sug
gestion. But he answered that their loyalty with ignorance was
better than the education without loyalty, of the other class.
He complained bitterly of the use of the pardoning power by
the President to restore Confederates to places of power. He
insisted that they should only be pardoned on condition that
they give up a part of their large estates, so as to furnish home
steads to the freedmen, who when in slavery had helped to pile
them up by their unrequited toil. The freedmen he urged
were eager for such homes. These with education would place
them in condition to care for themselves and do good for the
country. The perversity of the President's course was shown during
this summer. Congress had submitted the Fourteenth Amend-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 561
ment to the Constitution. It would not become a part of the
Constitution until ratified by three-fourths of the States. Test
imony was abundant, from those who had been in the South at
the close of the war, that the spirit of her people had been'
broken and she was ready to perform all proper conditions laid
upon her by the North to restore her States to their former
place. It was believed that under such a firm and just hand as
Lincoln's, there would have been no trouble and that restoration
of good feeling under proper conditions for the freedmen,
would have been easy. But President Johnson, by the perverse
tone of his message and speeches, referring to the Southern as
an oppressed people and the ruling party of the North as bent
on humiliating them and preventing a peaceful union of the
rival sections, had encouraged a spirit of defiance in the South
and instead of submitting gracefully to reasonable conditions,
she now wished to dictate herself what those conditions should
be. It was now apparent that the President was attempting to
defeat the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment. He was
in communication privately, with those who controlled the polit
ical action of the insurrectionary States and he was discour
aging them from voting for it. He was not willing his
opponents in the North should have such a gratification.
The result showed how successful he was. Every one of these
States rejected it. The Legislatures of Florida, Mississippi and
Louisiana, all rejected it unanimously. Virginia and South
Carolina each gave it one vote ; Georgia, two ; Arkansas, three ;
Texas, five; Alabama, ten; and North Carolina, eleven. It
has since been shown, conclusively that when one of these States
proposed to reconsider its vote of rejection and those in control
asked his advice, it was given against it and the reconsideration
was not taken.
The provisions of this Amendment were so eminently just
that it is difficult to see how he could so control these States.
If colored citizens were not allowed to vote, why should they
be allowed by their numbers to increase the representation in
Congress of the South, so that one vote in South Carolina could
neutralize two votes in Massachusetts? Why should the pay
ment of the National debt contracted in a war to preserve the
Union not be guaranteed by that restored Union ? Why should
the debt of the Confederate Government contracted in a war
to destroy that Union not be annulled ? Who was left to pay
it? The Confederacy, that contracted it, was no more. Why
should not all claims for slaves emancipated as a necessary war
measure to weaken the Confederacy, likewise be annulled?
Could claims for railroads and bridges and stores destroyed by

562 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the invading armies of the North be paid? Why should not
citizenship be defined so that it could be authoritatively settled
by the Constitution who are citizens of the United States ? Yet
these were the essential features of the Amendment the South
so flippantly rejected.
Sumner argued that the conduct of the President in procur
ing the rejection of such an Amendment richly deserved the
criticism of good citizens. His lecture was delivered during
the campaign of 1866 and its purpose was to aid the opposition
to the President's policy at the popular election and secure an
indorsement for that of Congress. The campaign was one of
peculiar activity, never perhaps equalled, except in a Presiden
tial year. Four national conventions were held ; two in Phila
delphia, one of the President's friends and one of his opponents,
one of the soldiers friendly to him, in Cleveland; and one of
the soldiers against him, at Pittsburg. The last was the great
est and most interesting of them all. The President, eager to
secure an indorsement, made a journey to Chicago, ostensibly
to be present at the laying of the cornerstone of the monument
of Stephen A. Douglas, but in reality to make an electioneering
tour, going by way of Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, Al
bany and thence westward by way of Cleveland to Chicago,
returning by way of St. Louis, and speaking at many places
along the route. This journey has ever since been popularly
known as his " swinging around the circle." His speeches were
marked by his usual want of taste on such occasions, coarse an
swers to rude remarks made by his auditors and violent abuse
of Congress, all much to his own detriment. Petroleum V.
Nasby, humorously pretending to support the President, de
scribed the tour, as undertaken to " arouse the people to the
danger of concentrating power in the hands of Congress, in
stead of diffusing it through one man."
The result of the election was overwhelmingly against the
President. A Congress was elected, three to one against him.
The ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment had in many
quarters till now, notably in the New York Republican Plat
form, been made the test of the fitness of a Confederate State
to be restored to its place. But the election developed among
the people a very strong sentiment in favor of the enfranchise
ment of the freedmen, as the only safe condition. Riots had
occurred at New Orleans, Memphis and other places in the
South, which were attributed to Johnson's influence. The peo
ple of the North concluded, as had Sumner before them, that
the colored votes were needed in the South to counteract the
Confederate influence.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 563
Congress meeting soon after the elections, the two parties, to
the contest before the people, met in no uncertain mood. Con
gress encouraged by its success was ready to press forward in
the work it had begun; the President with the self-centered,
pugnacious sternness of his nature, angered by the election, was
defiant and if possible more determined than ever. Neither
side was in the humor for compromise. The session was largely
occupied in devising and passing over his veto measures to
limit his power.
The President, though not disposed at first to make removals
from office, had now adopted a different policy, and removals,
of those who were recognized as his opponents, were being made
with alarming frequency. A clerk in the Treasury Department,
who asked leave of absence to attend the convention of soldiers
held at Pittsburg, had been refused. He resigned his position
and went and was made Temporary Chairman of the conven
tion. At St. Louis when " swinging around the circle " John
son declared, in words that afford a fair sample of his diction
on this memorable trip, " I believe that one set of men have
enjoyed the emoluments of office long enough, and they should
let another portion of the people have a chance. (Cheers.)
How are these men to be got out (A voice, 'Kick 'em out! ' —
cheers and laughter), unless your Executive can put them out,
— unless you can reach them through the President ? Congress
says he shall not turn them out, and they are trying to pass
laws to prevent it being done. Well let me say to you, if you
will stand by me in this action (cheers), — if you will stand by
me in trying to give the people a fair chance, — to have soldiers
and citizens to participate in these offices, — God being willing, I
will kick them out, — I will kick them out just as fast as I
can." (Great cheering.)
This frank statement of his purpose, which men saw every
day being carried out, startled Federal officeholders and their
friends. On the day Congress opened, a bill was introduced to
restrain this threatened wholesale dismissal. The measure was
known as the Tenure of Office Bill. As passed, it provided that
every person holding a civil office to which he had been ap
pointed, with the advice and consent of the Senate, should be
entitled to hold the office until his successor would, in like man
ner, be appointed and qualified, excepting, however, that mem
bers of the Cabinet should hold their offices during the term of
the President by whom they were appointed and for one month
'thereafter. The President might suspend an officer for cause
during a recess of the Senate, but if the Senate at its next ses
sion refused to concur in the suspension then he was to be rein-

564 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
stated. Any officer making the appointment and any person ac
cepting an office, contrary to the provisions of the act, was to be
punished by fine or imprisonment; and under like penalty the
payment of an officer out of the public treasury was forbidden.
The intent of the whole law, therefore, was to prevent removal
from office, except by consent of the Senate.
The Constitution provided that appointments could not be
made without the advice and consent of the Senate ; but it was
silent on the subject of removals. The power of removal had
been assumed, in practice, to belong to the President alone and
he had always exercised it at will, though not always without
question. There had been discussion of the question, notably
in the time of Jackson when he sought to enforce his maxim
that " to the victors belong the spoils," by wholesale removals
to provide places for his friends. But the better authority
was with the President's claim of right to remove at will with
out consulting the Senate.
Sumner favored the Tenure of Office Bill and spoke in its
favor, arguing that it was the duty of the Senate to protect
these officeholders against the President, who had become, he
declared, " the enemy of his country." He was called to order
by McDougall of California, a Democratic member, for the use
of this expression when speaking of the President. The Chair
sustained Sumner and he proceeded after some farther inter
ruption. As there was some question about the words he had
used, he proceeded to read them as taken down by the stenog
rapher, when he was again called to order by Doolittle of Wis
consin. The presiding officer again sustained Sumner, when
the decision was appealed from and, after some confusion and
other motions, one to lay the appeal on the table carried aud
Sumner proceeded.
He declared that the President had usurped the powers of
Congress, to kindle anew the fires of rebellion, by setting up
illegal governments in the South and by usurping the power
of removal from office without consulting the Senate, that he
might make places for his partisans and silence others by his
threats, that the brutal language he employed to declare his
purpose showed the spirit in which he acted, that had Lincoln
been spared, the necessity for such legislation as the Tenure of
Office Bill would never have occurred. Sumner proposed to
amend the bill so that it would reach officers of smaller salaries
than those included in it. But other Senators objected that
this would impose too much labor and require too much time
of the Senate. Sumner declared that merely because the vic
tims were so numerous was no reason why the sacrifice should

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 565
be allowed to proceed, that they had not hesitated during the
war to act on the nomination of military and naval office; s.
though they were counted by thousands. He said he was willing
to act on an inspector or night watchman, if he could thereby
protect such humble officials from Executive tyranny, that they
were sent to the Senate for work and that they :4iould sur
round the citizen with all possible safeguards.
Sumner's amendment failed ; but the bill passed both the
Senate and the House. It was vetoed by the President and
was then passed over his veto and thus became a law. It is curi
ous to note that the bi'.l. as originally introduced, excepted
Cabinet officers from its operation. It was thought that by
reason of their confidential relation to the President his choice
of them should be uncontrolled. It was made applicable to
them by an amendment. It was under this amendment that
the chief article of impeachment of President Johnson, was
subsequently framed. He was charged with wilfully violating
the Tenure of Office Law in removing Secretary Stanton from
the Cabinet, after the Senate had once refused to concur in his
removal. But the law was upon the whole a source of trouble to
its authors. It tied Johnson's hands. But two years later when
Grant had become President ihe purpose of its passage was con
fessed, when manv of its advocates voted for a modification of
it which amounted to its repeal. It fell to Grant as they
thought, to cleanse the Augean stables of the men Johnson had
placed in office before the law was passed. He declined to un
dertake this, until the law was amended.
Sumner, however, was opposed to the change, brought about,
as he insisted, at the instance of President Grant, to make a way
for the very abuse that the law had been enacted to correct. A
bill for its repeal was missed by the House five days after Grant
became President, without a reference to a committee. But the
Senate was not so pliant. It was there rer'erred to a com
mittee. A substitute was reported and discussed. The sub
stitute was referred again and amended and. after further dis
cussion, it was nassed. Stunner was asked by a member of
President Grant's Cabinet to withdraw his opposition to its
repeal, urging that the President felt strongly upon it. But he
declined. He thought it a beneficent statute and should be
maintained. He was more consistent than those Republicans
who voted to pass it to tie Johnson's hands, because they were
not in harmony with him and voted to change it. so that it
might not tie Grant's hands, because they were in harmony
with him. To them, at least, its passage and virtual repeal
were not creditable. If it was a bad law, it should not have been

566 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
passed. If it was a good law it should have been continued.
They clearly should not have tied the hands of one President
from making appointments, because he was a Democrat and
loosened the hands of another President so that he could make
them, without stint, because he was a Republican.
One of the alleged reasons for passing the bill was that it
would aid the work of reconstruction. But this was little more
than a pretext. The officeholders whose places were in question,
could have little to do with reconstruction. They were mostly
clerks in the Departments and others whose duties were purely
ministerial. At this session of Congress the most important Reconstruc
tion Law was passed. Hostility to the President had become
pronounced. Little heed was now paid by Congress to his
wishes. He had attempted to take the whole subject of re
construction into his own hands. As a result, Congress saw the
consequent defiant action of the Southern people in rejecting
the Fourteenth Amendment, and in the riot at New Orleans
caused by their determination to break up a meeting called to
ask of the Convention then drafting the new constitution, to
consider the question of negro suffrage ; when forty defenceless
people were shot dead and one hundred and sixty more were
wounded. The facts were now being brought out into clear
light under a Congressional investigation. Congress saw sim
ilar outbreaks in other Southern States. It saw the systematic
terrorization of Union men there, who were leaving their homes
on account of it. It was estimated that more than a thousand
defenceless negroes and many whites had been killed and no
attempt made to punish the murderers. Congress felt the situa
tion could be neglected no longer. Reconstruction thus became
the chief work of the session.
After much debate the House passed a bill dividing the ten
States that had been in rebellion into five military districts,
the Commander of the Army to take charge of them through
five officers, not below the rank of Brigadier-General. They
were to have supervision of the peace in their precincts, with the
power to use the civil tribunals already established, if deemed
competent, otherwise to employ courts martial in their stead.
Prompt trials were to be guaranteed, but no sentence was to
be executed, until approved by the commanding officer of the
district. In this form the bill passed the House and -reached
the Senate on February thirteenth, 1867. It will be noticed
that it was purely a military bill, designed for protection
alone. It contained no provisions for suffrage, or for the
exclusion of those who had taken part in rebellion from acting

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 567
in the government. The House also passed about the same time
a bill for the reconstruction of Louisiana, drafted on lines sug
gested by Sumner at the previous session.
The lateness of date counselled promptness of action; for
the session would close on March fourth and the delay for the
President's veto must also be allowed. The Senate at once en
tered upon their consideration and continued for three days
and until three a. m. of the fourth. Sumner expressed him
self willing to vote for both as presented, if it was thought best
to hasten their passage. The one he thought embodied a com
plete system of protection and the other a complete plan of
reconstruction. But the discussion revealed great differences
of opinion upon them among Senators. Some were content
with the military, wishing to secure simple protection to the
loyal people in the South; others wished measures of recon
struction added. Upon reconstruction too there were differ
ences. Some were content with equal suffrage for the freed
men; others wished those who had been in rebellion excluded
from voting. With the hope of bringing some order out of
this chaos and securing prompt action, a caucus of Republicans
was called for the forenoon of February sixteenth.
At this caucus a committee of seven was appointed to which
all the pending propositions were to be referred. The members
of this committee were Sherman, Fessenden, Howard, Harris,
Frelinghuysen, Trumbull and Sumner. Sumner moved in
the Committee that the existing governments be declared in
valid in the proposed bill. This carried. He also moved that
the States in question be designated simply, "rebel states."
This also carried. But when he moved that in the constitutions
to be drafted by the " rebel states " preparatory to reconstruc
tion, there shall be no exclusion from suffrage on account of
color, this was voted down, only one other member of the com
mittee, Howard, sustaining him. Sherman, the Chairman of
the committee was strongly against it. Sumner's motion to
exclude those who had been in rebellion from suffrage, also
failed, as did also an effort to substitute the Louisiana bill that
had been passed by the House, making it apply to all the in
surrectionary States. These efforts failing, Sumner then gave
notice to the committee that he would appeal to the caucus,
considering the bill in the form drafted by the committee highly
objectionable. When the committee reported their bill to the caucus, he
stated his objections and moved an amendment to it, in en
larged form, to the effect that each State in its new constitution
should incorporate a provision that all citizens without regard

568 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
to color, with a proper residence, should be voters. He argued
that now was the time to settle this question and supersede its
discussion in the Southern States, where repetitions of the New
Orleans riots could be expected to attend it. He thought its
discussion would cause disturbances in every State and village
from the Potomac to the Rio Grande. It was near the noon
hour and members were anxious to vote. The vote was taken by.
ayes and noes, the members standing to be counted. There
were two counts and it carried, seventeen ayes to fifteen noes.
Thus in this small meeting and in this summary way the
fate of the great question of equal suffrage for the freedmen
was determined. For Sumner it had been a labor of years fol
lowed persistently on the platform, at the hustings, in the
Senate, by letter and by personal entreaty. Commencing with
three or four votes in the Senate, bv constant agitation it had
grown until it now triumphed, by being made, in caucus, the
policy of the dominant party, to which the Republican votes
were pledged. It was an occasion of great satisfaction to Sum
ner and to those who had stood faithfully by him. Clearer
than his associates he had foreseen the coming issue and had
pressed it to a solution. Some complain that it is not settled
yet. But it has given the South almost half a century of com
parative peace and, with farther education for the black race,
promises still greater results for the future.
In the form the bill was approved, Sumner confessed it was
not all he desired. He would have provided provisional Civil
governments for these States to shape them into their new
political life and superintend the transition. He would also
have provided a means for the freedmen to secure an education
and homestead. But these things he could not secure. Even
in triumph he was constrained to confess that : " It is in pol
itics as in life, — we rarely obtain precisely what we desire."
During the evening session of that day, Sherman, chairman
of the caucus committee, moved the bill as amended by the
caucus as a substitute for the House Bill. It was Saturday,
February sixteenth. The debate was protracted late into the
night. At midnight Sumner, assured that without further
amendment it would receive the Republican vote, left the Cham
ber for his home. It had been an eventful day to him. At
six o'clock Sunday morning the vote was taken and the bill
passed by a party vote, twenty-nine to ten. The friends of
the measure saw the magnitude of the measure and there was
corresponding exultation among them. Sumner said Wilson
wished to dance with somebody.
When the bill reached the House it was at first rejected.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 569
Only thirteen days of the session remained and it was feared
the measure would fail for lack of time. A veto of the Presi
dent was assured and he was also permitted by the Constitution
to hold it ten days, exclusive of Sundays, for consideration.
The House Republicans finally agreed to pass it with an Amend
ment excluding ex-rebels, disqualified by the Fourteenth
Amendment from holding office, from the right to vote for, or
be members of the constitutional conventions and from holding
any office under the provisional governments. Thus amended,
both the Senate and the House passed the bill.
During the consideration of the bill upon the House amend
ment there was a passage in the Senate between Sumner and
Sherman. The latter thought Sumner was asking too much,
that he was hard to please, that having secured all he asked,
equal suffrage, in the Senate substitute, he was now seeking
more, the exclusion of ex-rebels from power, and education and
homesteads for the freedmen. Sumner reminded him that he
had often before asked them ; and referred to his speeches of
years previous to prove it. He reminded Sherman that he had
been the laggard and how tardily he had advanced to Sumner's
position on equal suffrage and the exclusion of Confederates.
He also gave Sherman notice that he expected to continue to
advance and him to continue to follow. It was a form of
speech that Sumner occasionally indulged in towards antago
nists. His colleagues did not relish his " lecturing " and it
often caused feelings of resentment towards him.
There were good grounds for Sumner's claims in his own
behalf; for he was the aggressive reformer of the Senate. Dem
ocrats too liked occasionally to twit Sumner's Republican col
leagues about it. A few days later, during another debate on
reconstruction, Buckalew of Pennsylvania said : " The
propositions which the Senator from Massachusetts makes one
year, and which are criticised by his colleagues as extreme,
inappropriate and untimely, are precisely the propositions
which those colleagues support with greater zeal and vehe
mence, if possible, than he, the year following. In short, Sir, we
can foresee at one session of Congress the character of the
propositions and of the arguments, with which we are to be
favored at the next, in this Chamber, by looking to the pioneer
man, who goes forward in advance, his banner thrown out, his
cause announced, the means by which it shall be carried on and
the objects in view proclaimed with force and frankness.
When the Reconstruction Bill reached the President he re
tained it the ten days and on March second, returned it with his
veto. It was understood he held it for the Constitutional time

570 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
so as to permit it to be defeated by dilatory tactics in Congress.
But this was prevented by a motion and it passed both Houses
over his veto by a strict party vote, on the same day it was re
turned by the President. Thus was enacted the famous Recon
struction Law, giving to the freedmen, the right to vote.
It is an interesting reflection, that it probably would not have
been enacted, but for the perversity of the Southern States, just
as slavery would not have been wiped out where it already
existed, had the Nation not been driven to it by the conduct of
the South. Both stand out as examples of how an overruling
Providence sometimes makes the wrath of man to praise Him.
It was the feeling of many Northern statesmen that if the
insurrectionary states voted to ratify the Fourteenth Amend
ment, they should be restored to their privileges of state
hood. Such a resolution was placed in the Republican platform
of the State of New York. It was believed that the South,
being deprived of the increased representation their slaves had
given them so that, not being permitted to vote, this Amend
ment would forbid them being counted as a basis of representa
tion, she would grant the suffrage to her colored people. But
the South rejected the Fourteenth Amendment. She had Pres
ident Johnson on her side. She thought that with the patron
age at his disposal, he could compel the North to allow her in
creased representation to remain. The North was driven to
another way of dealing with the question and she passed this
law for equal suffrage. Two of Sumner's great purposes in
public life had now been accomplished. By the Thirteenth
Amendment to the Constitution slavery was abolished*; and now
the right of the freedmen to vote was secured. This right was
soon to be sealed by the Fifteenth Amendment.
One of the last measures passed by this Congress was a law
requiring the next Congress to meet immediately on the expira
tion of the present. The distrust of the President had become
so great that it was not deemed wise to leave matters in his
hands for the next nine months without retaining some means
of controlling him. It was feared that he would attempt to
place some such construction upon the Reconstruction Law as
would defeat its intended operation. The new Congress there
fore met promptly on March fourth.
Its first work was to pass a supplementary Reconstruction
Law, prescribing in detail a method of registering voters and
summoning conventions to frame constitutions in the insur
rectionary States, preparatory to readmission to representation.
This bill was passed and vetoed and passed again over the
President's veto, by a vote of forty ayes to seven noes in the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 571
Senate and one hundred and fourteen ayes to twenty-five noes
in the House. The vote showed the opposition that the last
election had developed to the President. This Congress ad
journed on the thirtieth day of March, but with the same want
of confidence in the President its predecessor had shown, its
adjournment was only until July third. The Senate was, how
ever, convened in executive session on April first, by proclama
tion of the President. During this adjournment of Congress
the expected happened. By an adroit construction placed upon
the Reconstruction Law, by the Attorney-General, in an opinion
furnished the President, it was seen that its operation would be
hampered. As soon as Congress reconvened on July third, it
passed another supplementary law to obviate the construction
placed upon the original act. This was vetoed as usual by the
President and as usual passed over his veto, by an overwhelm
ing majority.
When both of these supplementary acts were before the Sen
ate, Sumner offered amendments to them, requiring the con
stitutions of each of the States to contain a provision requiring
the legislature to establish and maintain a system of public
schools open to all without distinction of race or color. He
would also have required free schools as a condition of recon
struction. Some Senators said, " Wait till the constitutions
formed are presented to Congress," but he said, " No, that
would not be fair." He wished to be plain and explicit. They
had the power and they should seize the present moment to ex
ercise it. Some would act upon the principle of doing as little
as possible, but he would do as much as possible that would
redound to the good of all and to the National fame. Electors
by the hundred thousand would soon exercise the franchise for
the first time, and without preparation for it and they should
be educated promptly. Without education all this other benefi
cent legislation might be a failure and the gift bestowed be
perilous. He asked that education accompany and sustain
suffrage. "I plead now," he said, "for education. Nothing is more
beautiful or more precious. Education decorates the life, while
it increases all our powers. It is the charm of society, the
solace of solitude, and the multiple of every faculty. It adds
incalculably to the capacity of the individual and to the re
sources of the community. Careful inquiry establishes what
reason declares, that labor is productive in proportion to its
education. There is no art it does not advance. There is no
form of enterprise it does not encourage and quicken. It brings
victory and is itself the greatest of victories."

572 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
He argued that had these states been more enlightened they
never would have rebelled, that statistics showed that in the
slave States there were half a million white people over twenty
years of age, who could not read or write while in the free
States with double the native white population there were only
half as many. Here was the source of the Rebellion; a popula
tion, that could neither read nor write, naturally did not either
comprehend or appreciate good government. In Massachusetts
free schools had been founded and maintained according to the
words of her statute, " that learning may not be buried in the
graves of our fathers," in Virginia her Governor had publicly
thanked God that there were no free schools nor printing there,
and the hope was expressed that they would not have them these
hundred years. The example of each had spread. In Massa
chusetts one in four hundred and forty-six of the adult native
white population could not read or write ; in Virginia one in
five ; in Connecticut one in two hundred and fifty-six ; in South
Carolina one in eight ; in New Hampshire one in one hundred
and ninety-two; in North Carolina one in three. Hence he
traced the Rebellion. He asked them to be taught by this ex
perience and demand now a new safeguard for the future. As
the soldier would disappear let his place be supplied by the
schoolmaster. But the proposition met with opposition. Other Senators
more easily exhausted than he and feeling less interest in the
subject, were growing tired of reconstruction. They wished to
be done with it. Again they insisted he was too late and
asked why he had not called attention to it earlier. But he
answered he had done so, long before, as early as 1865, and had
continued to do so ever since, in season and out of season. The
fact was, in the larger interest and greater zeal with which he
had pressed for equal suffrage, the subject of education had
been overlooked by them. Frelinghuysen insisted, that to
undertake to add new conditions to the reconstruction measure,
the last Congress had passed, would be bad faith; that such
was not the way to do business; the nation should keep its
faith. Sumner answered that the law was not yet old enough
to have invited action upon it so as to prejudice any one. Pat
terson of New Hampshire asked if he thought it possible to
establish a system of common schools in the South correspond
ing to those of New England without first confiscating the
large estates and dividing them up into small homesteads so
that there might be small landholders, able and willing to sup
port them by taxation. When the vote was taken on Sumner's
amendment it was a tie and so the amendment was lost. When

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 573
Sumner moved the same amendment to the Reconstruction Bill
of July, it was voted out of order under the rule limiting the
business of the session.
It was with much regret that Sumner saw this new failure
of his effort for education. The freedmen were coming to their
new right, eager for improvement and, as he well knew, needing
it badly, to qualify them for citizenship. A provision of some
kind should have been attempted to afford this much needed
improvement. The regret continued and time has justified
him. It has been a subject of much earnest thought, how to
educate and elevate the colored people of the South. George
Peabody, a philanthropic citizen of Massachusetts, had recently
given two million dollars for the promotion of education there
and in the destitute portion of the South-West, and Sumner at
this session moved and had passed a resolution of thanks and
a gold medal to be given him in the name of the people of the
United States as a recognition of his beneficence. In a still
wider spirit Sumner had spoken in favor of a medal to Cyrus
W. Field for his work in the construction of the Atlantic
cable. He had carried a reduction of the tariff on books and
charts and educational and philosophical apparatus. All these,
this Congress had voted. He also advocated, though unsuc
cessfully, a department or bureau of education. Though edu
cation for the colored people of the South also failed, yet after
all is it not in the hands of the colored people themselves that
this question has found its best solution? Around their own
churches and Sabbath-schools have grown up literary societies
for secular culture and in the hands of their ministers and
teachers, such men as Booker Washington, the best progress has
been made. Their own desire for improvement has been the
best sign.
Sumner was not the man to be tamely bound, by an iron rule,
that prevented legislative action upon measures that he deemed
important. Though sometimes he yielded to such a rule, it was
only after a stern struggle against it. There were three
special sessions of this Congress before the opening of its first
regular session in December, one commencing March fourth,
another commencing July third and still another commencing
November twenty-first. Sumner was one of the earnest ad
vocates of these special sessions. He opposed each adjourn
ment, but the last, which was immediately before the com
mencement of the regular session. His argument was that the
President was a constant disturber and a mischief-maker, and
so long as his administration continued it was the duty of Con
gress to be on guard and perpetual watch, against him. He

574 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
felt that they should continue in session during the summer so
as to be at hand for any emergency that might arise. The head
of one of the Departments had assumed to appoint to office
persons in the South, who had taken part in the Rebellion and
whose disability to hold office had never been removed. If Con
gress were adjourned these appointees would hold over until
the regular session in December. Then would come up a ques
tion as to their pay for services rendered during the recess. If
the Senate were in session it could refuse to confirm the ap
pointments and thus that vexatious question could be avoided.
But others were more eager to escape the heats of Washington
and less devoted to their work. The most he could accomplish
was the sessions held. This much was accomplished only after
overcoming considerable opposition.
But when they met, there was a further difficulty. At the
opening of the July session a caucus of the Republican Sena
tors was held at which a resolution was passed to confine the
business of the session to removing obstructions to the Recon
struction Laws and giving them the scope intended. Sumner
had attended this caucus and taken part in its proceedings and
had voted against this resolution. He had gone to the caucus,
without knowing what was to be considered, and after the vote
was taken on the resolution he arose in the caucus and said he
would not be bound by it. Fessenden answered, Then you
should not have voted, if you did not intend to be bound by the
decision of the majority. Sumner replied that he was a
Senator. He insisted that he was under an obligation to dis
charge his duties as a Senator and that they could not tie his
hands from the discharge of that duty by invoking a rule of a
caucus. He argued that it was his duty to resist the offensive
resolution to the last in the caucus, and if beaten there, renew
the fight against it in the Senate. He was therefore offering
other business when he was interrupted by Fessenden who in
sisted on the limit agreed on in the caucus. An altercation be
tween them ensued in which some bitter expressions were used
by Fessenden. But the rule of the caucus was adhered to and
by resolution was made the rule of the Senate.
According to the rules governing parties in caucus, as we
have come to recognize them, this disposition of the matter was
correct. A caucus could be of little use, if, after its action,
parties were still free to follow their own bent, untrammelled
by what had been agreed to in it. It was asked of Sumner in
this altercation if he had not received the benefit of the same
rule when the caucus had voted to require equal suffrage for all,
in the future constitutions of the Confederate States. Sumner

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 575
admitted he had. What if the minority had then refused to be
bound by the vote of the caucus? was quickly asked. But
Sumner insisted the cases were different, that to repudiate a
proposition for liberty was very different from repudiating one
against it. Fessenden bluntly retorted that there was no dif
ference at all, that when one promised to do a thing, with a full
understanding, he had no right to do otherwise, whether it be
one way or the other. He assumed that when a man took part
in the proceedings of a caucus he impliedly promised to be
bound by its action. This Sumner denied. He regarded a
caucus vote as the recorded result of the deliberations of politi
cal associates, so far as practicable, a guide for their action,
but not a constraint embodied in a perpetual record.
Another measure of far-reaching importance belongs to this
period of Sumner's life. I have postponed the mention of it so
that the work of the two Houses of Congress might be con
cluded without a break, before entering upon it. I refer to the
purchase of what is now the Territory of Alaska from Russia.
This negotiation had been secretly conducted by Secretary
Seward during the winter and spring of 1867 and the treaty
was signed by him and the Russian Minister on March thir
tieth. Late the evening before, Sumner, on reaching home,
found a note waiting for him, from the Secretary asking if he
could come to his house, saying that he had a matter of public
business about which he wished to confer with him at once.
Sumner went to the Secretary's house, but found he had already
gone to the Department. His son, the Assistant Secretary, how
ever, was there and the Russian Minister soon came in and for
the first time Sumner learned that a treaty was in progress for
the cession of Russian America. The minister took a map and
pointed out the boundary and explained the terms of the pro
posed treaty. Sumner expressed no opinion upon it, but went
over the whole matter carefully. They separated at midnight,
the Minister going to the State Department, where the treaty
was being copied and he added, as he bade Sumner good-night,
an entreaty that he would not fail them, knowing how im
portant it was to have with them the Chairman of the Commit
tee on Foreign Relations of the Senate. The treaty could not
be made without the advice and consent of the Senate and it
was the report of this Committee which would largely deter
mine the action of the Senate.
The treaty was signed at four o'clock on the morning of
March thirtieth, which was the last day of this session of Con
gress. An adjournment was then to take place to July third.
The day it was signed the treaty was sent to the Senate for its

576 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
consideration and was at once referred to Sumner's Committee.
The President convened the Senate in Executive session the
next day. The members of the Committee were Sumner, Fes
senden, of Maine, Cameron, of Pennsylvania, Harlan, of Iowa,
Patterson, of New Hampshire, and Johnson, of Maryland. On
April eighth the Committee reported it to the Senate with a
recommendation that it advise and consent to the treaty; and
the Senate then proceeded to its consideration. Sumner spoke
at length the next day on the subject. As it was in Executive
session, the proceedings were secret and no reporters were
present. The ban of secrecy, however, was afterwards removed,
and having been requested to reduce his speech to writing so it
could be published as a means of furnishing information on the
subject to the public, Sumner consented and it was afterwards
written out and published. Though he spoke from notes of
less than a sheet of paper, for three hours, his speech as
published occupies one hundred and sixty-five pages. He
elaborated it in preparing it for publication.
It began with a description of the Territory. As ceded it was
estimated to contain 570,000 square miles and the price fixed
was $7,200,000, in gold, or about $12.64 per square mile or
twenty cents per acre.
The country was at this time comparatively unknown and
here lay one of the chief difficulties the treaty had to encounter.
There had been no preparation for it, — no sentiment in its
favor worked up; and being foreign country and in a northern
latitude, little opportunity had been offered for general in
formation about it. A trip to it was not then a delightful
summer excursion over deep seas of bright and sparkling waters,
studded with beautiful islands and hemmed with rock-bound
coasts, among which palatial steamers threaded their way carry
ing annually thousands of tourists. The region was then hardly
known beyond its savage inhabitants or the hardy fishermen or
solitary trader and his voyageurs, who made their way thither
to catch the fish that swarmed its waters in shoals, or to
traffic in the rich peltries the country produced. In prepar
ing his speech, Sumner was obliged to glean his information
from many sources. Books of travel of early voyagers, informa
tion furnished by the reports of trading fur companies as well
as works in the Russian language which he was obliged to have
translated for him. All were laid under contribution.
After describing the extent of the proposed purchase and the
title of Russia to the country, Sumner explained the . early
history of the treaty. The matter had been mooted as early as
the administration of President Buchanan, when it was sug-

life of charles sumner 577
gested, to Russia, by Senator Gwin of California, professing to
speak for the President unofficially, that she was too far away
to make the most of the possessions and that we could derive
more from them. There was also some unofficial talk about the
price. In the succeeding excitement of the Presidential elec
tion and the Rebellion, the matter was lost sight of for the
time. With returning peace, however, the people on the Pacific
coast again pressed the matter. They wished new facilities
to obtain fish, fur and ice. The Legislature of Washington
Territory memorialized President Johnson on the subject and
the matter was turned over to Secretary Seward. Senator
Cole, of California, also pressed the matter. Some rights that
Russia had granted to fur companies were about to expire and
the companies were seeking an extension of them for twenty-
five or thirty years. Their dealings had not been satisfactory,
so that a crisis in the affairs of the company seemed at hand.
In the meantime Russia had been making an investigation into
the value of the possessions in consideration of an offer of
$5,000,000, that had been suggested during Buchanan's ad
ministration. The Russian Minister had returned home on
leave of absence, promising to promote the good relations be
tween the countries on the subject. He presented the matter
to his Government and, as he was returning, he was instructed
to offer the possessions to us. Upon reaching this country the
matter was concluded by telegram, on March twenty-ninth.
At four o'clock the next morning the treaty was signed by
Secretary Seward and the Russian Minister, Baron Stoeckl,
acting for their respective countries.
In this simple manner the important transaction was brought
about, without protocol or dispatch or other writing till the
final conclusion of it, if we except two short notes, in length,
as printed, not so much as a single page, and they only con
veyed the expression on our part that the cession must be,
without any reservation of privilege or franchise of any com
pany, and offered the $200,000 additional if this be granted;
and it was. The occasion of these two notes was one monopoly
enjoyed by a fur company and another by an ice company,
which we wished extinguished. The treaty was to be ratified
within three months and the money to be paid within ten.
In considering the treaty generally, Sumner argued that it
would be a great advantage to the Pacific Coast States inasmuch
as they were already procuring supplies of ice there and also
wished to supplant European countries in its fisheries and its
trade in furs. Its coast abounded in numerous fine har
bors, whereas that of the United States then had only San Fran-

578 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
cisco of any considerable value from Panama to Puget Sound.
This was an important consideration, not only as furnishing an
outlet for our own trade but as reaching out for that of China
and Japan. Its acquisition would satisfy our Anglo-Saxon
" greed for land," furnishing increased size of our territory
and increased consciousness of strength. But more than this,
it would furnish an extension of Republican institutions and
enable us to dismiss another European monarchy from our con
tinent, which was destined, he believed, to become the un
divided home of the American people.
The acquisition of the strip, he argued, would anticipate a
desire of Great Britain to possess it because the value of her
interior would be depreciated without it. She had not been
friendly to us during our late war, while Russia had been our
constant friend. " The Rebellion which tempted so many
other powers into its embrace could not draw Russia from her
habitual good will." Simultaneously with the talk in England
and France of recognition of the Confederacy, had been the
appearance of a Russian fleet in New York harbor and another
in that of San Francisco ; and then the talk ceased. It was
argued that Russia, standing alone against the other powers of
Europe, was only wishing to create another rival to them on
this side of the Atlantic. The same wish may have prompted
her to cede this territory to us that it might not fall into the
hands of Great Britain. It was at all events hoped that our
acceptance of the offer might show our appreciation of Russian
friendship and cement the feeling of amity.
One thing Sumner did not like and, while he favored the
ratification, he filed his caveat against it. This treaty must
not be made a precedent for indiscriminate and costly an
nexations. He believed we were predestined to occupy the con
tinent, but our growth should be by natural process, without
war and without extensive purchase. Our motto should be that
of Goethe, " Without haste, without rest." Our growth should
be by the attraction of Republican institutions, rather than by
blood or money.
But the most elaborate and most valuable part of Sumner's
speech was his timely and elaborate discussion of the character
and value of the territory. All talk of purchase must have
been idle, if the people and Congress could not be persuaded of
the value of the possession. The opponents of the purchase
called it " rock and ice " and attempted to ridicule the project
of buying what they said Russia herself had come to regard
as worthless. Sumner showed how false such talk was.
Without a knowledge of climatic laws, the weather there, he

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 579
declared, would seem like a freak of nature. The winters were
much less severe than in corresponding latitudes on the
Atlantic. One traveller had spent seven winters there between
latitudes fifty-one and fifty-seven degrees and lying so near the
shore as to have the cable tied to the trees and yet only once was
the ice around his ship sufficient to bear the weight of a man.
Pines grew six feet in diameter and one hundred and forty
feet high, while in the corresponding latitude on the Atlantic
the same species were scarcely sufficient " for studding sail
booms." This was owing to the thermal currents, correspond
ing to the Gulf Stream in the Atlantic, which starting under
the Equator near the Philippines, sweep northward, passing
Japan and separating, one branch going to Bering Strait,
the other bending eastward along the Aleutian Islands and
thence south along the coast of Sitka, Oregon and California.
They were like pipes of hot water carrying the heat from warm
boilers to cool apartments above. Every ocean wind traversing
these streams of heat took up the warmth and carried it to the
coast. These currents of air and water were aided by the con
figuration of the coast, nearly paralleled by lofty and im
penetrable chains of mountains confining the warm air from
the ocean and warding off the cold from the Arctic regions.
So that the mean annual temperature of Sitka is about the
same as that of Montreal though it is ten degrees farther
north. Its temperature in winter is about the same as that of
Washington, D. C, while its summers are twenty degrees cooler.
Thus summers are cooler and winters warmer than in corre
sponding latitudes on the Atlantic coast.
Sumner explained that the natural results expected to follow
these climatic conditions appeared in the products of the
country. On every side in the southern parts were impenetrable
forests reaching from the coast to the mountain tops. The trees
were superb pines fit for masts for the largest ships. When
the timber disappeared there was long grass, berries, such as
raspberries, elderberries, cranberries and whortleberries, and
currants. Many of our garden fruits flourished, radishes, cab
bage, cauliflower, peas and carrots. In the world's present
enormous and wasteful consumption of wood, its forests prom
ised to be, in the future, of incalculable value. In minerals,
the country revealed gold, silver, copper, lead and coal.
One of the great products of the country was its furs. It
abounded in sea-otters, seals, foxes, the reindeer, the beaver
and the bear in great numbers. In one year 800,000 skins of
the ursine seals were accumulated at the factory at Oonalaska.
The value of the peltries was shown when it was remembered

580 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
that sea otters, at Sitka, were worth fifty dollars, black fox,
fifty dollars, silver fox, forty dollars. These exquisite furs had
been purchased by greedy traders from the ignorant natives for
a trifle. One early writer described the scene, " Such as were
dressed in furs instantly stripped themselves and in return for
a moderate quantity of spike-nails we received sixty-five sea-
otter skins." As a consequence of such dealing the poor natives
soon appeared in worthless hides while their rich conquerors
appropriated the beautiful furs they once wore. The greed for
the exquisite coat of the sea-otter became so great that the
animal was nearly exterminated.
Sumner described the fisheries as of equal if not greater im
portance than the furs. Fish in great abundance were every
where taken on the shore, around islands and in every creek
and inlet. There were oysters, clams, crabs ; and a dainty little
fish of the herring tribe called the oolachan, contributed to the
luxury of the table, so rich in its oily nature that the natives
were said to sometimes use it as a candle." Besides these which
he mentioned only to put aside, were the "great staples of
commerce and mainstays of daily subsistence, the salmon, the
herring, the halibut, the cod and behind all the whale." Down
to the discovery of the country, the natives lived on fish, fresh
in summer and dried in winter. They were in great plenty.
In three hours' time Captain Cook's men caught a hundred
halibuts, some of a hundred pounds and none less than twenty
pounds. This was near Kadiak. The writings of the early
voyagers, which Sumner quoted in great numbers, abound in
similar experiences. But, he argued, in order that there may
be profitable fisheries, there must be the existence of banks and
a proper climate as well as a market. Fish are not caught in
the deep waters of the ocean. The shores here show an im
mense extent of banks suitable for fisheries, " seeming like an
immense unbroken sea meadow adjoining the land and con
stituting plainly the largest extent of soundings in length and
breadth in the known world," larger than those of Newfound
land and Great Britain together. These facts as to the extent
of these fisheries were proven by the actual survey of the
coast but better still by the actual experience of the fishermen
themselves. The climate, too, was favorable for the taking and
the preservation of the fish. It is not so cold as to interfere
with the catch nor yet so warm as to prevent them being pre
served; and although near Sitka the constant rains prevent
their being dried in the sun, they can be easily taken to curing
stations, as is done on the Atlantic coast. An abundant market
was furnished in Washington, California and Oregon and our

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 5S1
country eastward. Sumner traced the rise and development of
the fisheries on the Atlantic coast and predicted that those, now
purchased, would yet rival our immense interests in the business
on our eastern shores.
In conclusion Sumner suggested that a new name must be
furnished our new possessions. They had been heretofore
known as " Russian America '" or " Russian Possessions in
America." Such names after the country had ceased to be
long to Russia would be obviously improper. He therefore, in
looking for a more appropriate name, was attracted by the
designation of the promontory stretching towards the Aleutian
Islands which had been called by Captain Cook, " Alaska." It
was the name applied by the natives to the American con
tinent, meaning " great land." Sumner suggested the name
for the whole possession. Mr. Hilgard, of the coast survey,
prepared a new map of the country. It was to appear for the
first time with the pamphlet edition of Sumner's speech. In
a letter to Sumner, he wrote : " As this edition will make its
first appearance appended to your speech, I have ventured
to put on it the name Alaska, proposed by you, as I have
no doubt it will be generally adopted." It has been universally
adopted and has ever since been the name of our Arctic pos
sessions. I have thus given a somewhat extended outline of Sumner's
speech to enable the reader to see something of its real character
and the labor he gave to it. It was a marvel of research, hap
pily arranged and clearly expressed. Until it was published,
we had no compendious treatment of the subject. Though he
was obliged to grope in all sorts of out-of-the-way places for
information, the work was conscientiously done. It affords to
day one of the best and most useful treatises, on the re
sources of the country ; and has been much read and relied
upon, for ready information on the subject. When the question
6f the purchase was before the country there was an earnest in
quiry for such information. Congress had not yet voted the
money to pay for it. the country was badly in debt and bur
dened with pensions and other large expenditures, our inheri
tance from the war. There was rife talk of repudiation. The
people must be persuaded that the proposition of purchase had
merit, before Congressmen could be expected to vote an in
crease of the National debt for this purpose. Sumner's speech
did very much to turn the tide in its favor. It showed by an
authority, that men had come to regard with confidence, that
tlie property was more than worth the price, and that it would
be folly for our nation to allow the opportunity, to possess it,

582 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
to escape. That Sumner should advocate it when proposed by
President Johnson and his Secretary, between whom on gen
eral questions, there was so much disagreement, showed his
statesmanship. With him, in public matters, the advocate was
nothing, the merit of the proposition, everything.
Fessenden moved in the Senate to postpone the further
consideration of the treaty, but his motion was voted down.
The ratification of it was voted by the Senate, the same day
that Sumner spoke, by a vote of thirty-seven to two, Fessenden
and Morrill of Vermont voting against it. The money to pay
for it was not voted by the House until July, 1868, more than
a year later and then only after an acrimonious debate. Some
feeling was shown towards the President and his Secretary for
having proceeded so far with the negotiation in secret, without
reserving any judgment for the other Departments of the Gov
ernment. The Secretary felt the importance of the treaty so
fully that he hardly intended to leave it where Congress could
defeat it without grea'i embarrassment. This did contribute to
its successful termination. But it was the powerful influence of
Sumner, that gave direction to public sentiment, on the subject,
and insured its success. His speech was published in full, not
withstanding its great length, in the Boston Journal, extracts
from it were published in other dailies, a Russian translation
of it with an introduction was published in St. Petersburg ;
and it was widely read and commented on in influential quar
ters. The Secretary of State subscribed for copies of the pam
phlet edition of it, printed in this country, out of funds of the
State Department, and distributed them to Members of Con
gress and the public.
Sumner's caveat against indiscriminate acquisitions of ter
ritory, contained in the speech, proved to be well-timed. Se
ward had a strong tendency towards territorial aggrandizement.
He seriously contemplated the purchase of the island of St.
Thomas, one of the West Indies, belonging to Denmark, for
$7,500,000. Denmark sent a special agent, General Raasloff,
to this country to promote the negotiations. He remained in
Washington some months and saw Sumner frequently on the
subject, but Sumner would have nothing to do with it. The
island is an unhealthy, storm-swept rock, frequented by hurri
canes and dotted by volcanoes, altogether of little value. The
negotiation, though persisted in till Seward went out of office,
was a dismal failure. He had also cast a longing eye towards
Mexico and the Sandwich Islands.
The acquisition of Alaska was a complete reversal of the
policy of our government. Under the domination of slavery, we

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 583
had made repeated acquisitions of territory to the South for the
purpose of increasing its influence in the two Houses of Con
gress. Prior to its domination, in 1803, we had acquired the
Louisiana Territory, partly North and partly South. But after
this, all our acquisitions had been in the South until now,
Florida in 1819, Texas in 1845, parts of New Mexico and Ari
zona, all of California, Utah and Nevada in 1848 and still other
parts of New Mexico and Arizona by the Gadsden Purchase in
1853. The purchase of Alaska therefore was a complete de
parture from the pro-slavery policy of the Government and
turned the eyes of the Nation northward. Its acquisition, how
ever, was attended with some regrets at the blundering of the
same period that had lost us British Columbia. It would
have given us an unbroken Pacific coast-line from Lower Cali
fornia to the Arctic Ocean.

CHAPTER XXXV
THE PROPHETIC VOICES ON AMERICA  LECTURE ON " THE NA
TION "  LEAVING THE OLD HOME IN BOSTON  NEW HOME
IN WASHINGTON  HABITS  VISITORS
The preparation, for publication, of his speech on Alaska, oc
cupied Sumner's time between the adjournment of the Execu
tive session of the Senate in April and the Extra session of
Congress in July. After the close of this session Sumner went
to Boston. But the time hung heavily on his hands. He was
without a home and a companion. His mother's house where he
had so long enjoyed the quiet of his vacation was closed, to be
open to him no more. The two previous summers it had been
occupied by him and his wife as their home, though part of each
they were absent from it, — at Newport together, part of the
first, and she, at Lenox, the second. But the sequel of their
married life was a sad one. She was not happy and as he pre
dicted there could, therefore, be no happiness in the union for
him. The first winter passed in the routine of Washington life
and without incident, so far as the public knew. After the close
of the session in Washington, they returned in June to their
home in Boston. During the same month she went to Lenox, —
and so they parted — never to meet again. The friends of both
parties continued to hope, for some time, that a reconciliation
would be had, but it never came. Some years later he procured
a divorce. Those in position best able to know the facts
acquitted him of any fault. Mr. Hooper, at whose house they
had met, and who had stood towards her as a father, continued
Sumner's friend to the end, was present with kind offices at his
last sickness and death, and to him were addressed in friendly
recognition his last words.
The details of the separation, each side with equal good taste,
withheld from the public. The real cause for the separation,
however, lay in the disparity of their ages. It is seldom that
a union is happy where such a disparity exists. He had become
engrossed in public affairs. With an industry rarely equalled,
he had given his undivided attention to the duties of his office ;
what is known as society was given little of his time. It was
too late to change the habits which had grown upon him with
the years. They were now a part of himself. Her life had
584

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 585
been cast in an entirely different mould and she could not fall
readily into the habits of one so many years her senior. The
place of the wife of a man of his prominence with its hard
round of social functions at Washington and Boston, would
have been no easy place for one much older and who had grown
into it with his growth.
This brief statement covering a period of eight months,
relates all the public ever knew of the story of Sumner's married
life. But it was a relation that tinged the remainder of his
days. The thought came sadly to him that he was never to
know again the comforts of a home. As the years went by, the
hard troublous days brought a struggle with Johnson and then
another with Grant, with loss of friends, with sickness and age
and there came too a feeling of loneliness, growing upon him
to the end. On all sides there was respect and admiration,
amounting almost to veneration, but when the time had come
when he needed the affection and tenderness of a home, there
was none. He stood like the last oak. If he found help, it
must be at the hands of men and of strangers, often good
enough and faithful enough too of its kind, but who that has
spent much of his life in hotels and boarding-houses has
not grown tired of the kind. Of womanly tenderness and sym
pathetic home confidence and companionship he found none.
It seemed a poor lot ; and by the hard work and the good he had
done he felt he deserved a better one.
And so his married life ended. But their separation had
not before come so sadly to him as now. During the sessions
of Congress, crowded with work and much in the society of his
fellow-Senators, his mind had been withdrawn from it. But
with the work of the sessions done and the time of vacation at
hand, away from Washington and its excitement, among the
quieter days at Boston, it came heavily upon him. It was
publicly known and talked about. He sought a respite from
the thought of it, in his never-failing solace, books. Books are
friends that never fail us. In the preparation of his speech on
Alaska, his thoughts had been turned to the widening prospect
of his country. • The vision that it opened to him was a pleasant
one and he found easy diversion in pursuing the subject.
He turned his attention to the preparation of an article on
" Prophetic Voices Concerning America," which was published
in the Atlantic Monthly for September, 1867. It afforded him
a wide field for reading, groping among old, and almost for
gotten, authors, and in curious places, in literature. It was a
kind of diversion he enjoyed and was like his study of en
gravings, that had solaced his thoughts, while in the hands of

586 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
his physician and suffering from the assault by Brooks. The
monograph was afterwards amplified, with a view to separate
publication, at the approach of our Centennial Celebration, in
1876. It now occupies one hundred and eighty pages of his
works. It is a curious collection of prophecies, made at different
times, by many men, concerning the future of America. It is
arranged in heads, under the name of each of the authors
quoted, and contains as introductory to the prophetic matter
quoted, a brief biographical sketch of the author, whose predic
tion is given with comments on the prophecy, and an extended
introduction and conclusion to the whole monograph by Sum
ner. In the opening sentence, he pronounces the discovery of
America by Columbus, " the greatest event of secular history."
In numerous places crops out the support of the prediction he
had ventured, in his speech on Alaska, that some day Canada
would be part of the United States and that the whole continent
of North America was destined to become the home of one
people. Turgot, the French philosopher and statesman, wrote
in 1750, predicting our Revolution: "Colonies are like fruits,
which hold to the tree only until their maturity; when suffi
cient for themselves they did that which Carthage afterwards
did, — that which some day America will do." Sumner added,
" At the time Turgot wrote, Canada was a French possession ;
but his words are as applicable to this colony as to the United
States. When will the fruit be ripe?" He quoted John
Adams, De Tocqueville and Cobden in support of his prophecy ;
and criticised Jefferson and Daniel Webster for a narrow view
of our destiny, they believing that an independent nation would
some day occupy the shores of the Pacific where are now the
States of California, Oregon and Washington.
Sumner received numerous congratulations on this mono
graph. Men wondered that, with the many other demands on
him, he could still find time for such work and they were still
further surprised, when he undertook it, that he could do it so
well. His industry and the resources of his mind seemed
remarkable to his friends. Edmunds, remembering the caustic
characterization of himself by Sumner, in the interview in the
Boston Advertiser humorously wrote him on reading the
monograph, that he hoped he would not hasten the irresistible
attraction prophecy but bring his " obstructiveness and tech
nicality " to bear against the purchase of St. Thomas and Cuba.
Edmunds was in favor of the acquisition of British Columbia.
When Sumner had finished his monograph and handed it to
the magazine, he plunged into the preparation of a lecture on

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 587
" The Nation ". Its preparation, he hoped, would banish un
pleasant thoughts and furnish congenial employment for the
balance of the recess. He had never stood before a Western au
dience. He had never been in the West but once and then with
little opportunity to mingle with her people. He wished to see
more of this section, that in later years had added so much to
the strength and greatness of the Republic. He had been fore
most in defending her rights and keeping her free. A lecturing
tour would furnish him an excuse for going, an opportunity for
seeing, and likewise take him away from Boston for a time.
He had thoughts too of establishing a home for himself in
Washington, but doubted his ability to meet the expense of
such an establishment. The income of his lectures would aid
this plan. It would do good, he hoped, to call popular attention
to the nature of our Government and enforce the theory of its
National character instead of the narrow construction placed
upon it by the advocates of State Rights.
The purpose of Sumner's lecture was to combat the idea,
advanced by John C. Calhoun and the Nallifiers of 1832 and
the State Rights advocates of the South, that we are a union of
Sovereign States and not a Nation, that this Union is simply
a league entered into by the States, which retain, however, their
sovereign character, that they can withdraw from it at pleasure
and re-established themselves in new relations at will, that a few
rights are specifically granted to the general Government, that
all others are reserved by the States, including the right to
establish slavery, fix the right to vote, etc. This theory had
culminated in the Rebellion. Sumner insisted, to the contrary,
that we were a Nation, that though many things are necessarily
left to local self-government in the hands of the States, the
great principles of unity and Human Rights are under the
control of the central Government. This had been a con
trolling principle of Sumner's public life. He believed this
theory, as important to be kept in mind now as ever, that
though the war was over and this construction had prevailed,
there was danger of its being forgotten. He thought the Nation
should shun those pestilent persons, who would carry trifles to
the highest magistrate, but should hold firmly to the great car
dinal principles of human rights, that it should insure equality,
abolish all discriminations among citizens and refuse to tolerate
the preposterous pretension that color, whether of the hair or
of the skin, or any other unchangeable circumstance of natural
condition, may be made a qualification of the voter. The essen
tial condition of our National life, he insisted, should be, " one
sovereignty, one citizenship, one people ". The Rebellion had

588 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
proceeded from hostility to the principle of equality of all men,
therefore this principle must now be made the supreme law,
that we could not trample out the Rebellion, till the principle
that produced it was trampled out also.
Sumner cited examples of the perils of a nation, composed
of separate, independent communities; disunited Italy, a prey
to petty princes and petty republics, tempting the foreigner by
her " fatal gift " of beauty, till reunited by Garibaldi ; Ger
many, with her magnificent territory stretching from the Baltic
to the Adriatic and the Alps, with great rivers, one language,
one intellectual life and one name, yet only a patchwork of
States, full of extravagant pretensions and discordant egotism,
each with its own custom house, stifling the aspiration for na
tional unity, sapping the national life with perpetual war and
with strife, till the memorable efforts of Bismarck for unity;
France divided into great provinces, Normandy, Brittany,
Burgundy, Provence, Languedoc and Gascony, ruled over by
quarrelsome barons, threatening nullification and sharing tur
bulence, till the lilies of a united nation floated over her proud
and victorious people. The Colonies had passed through a sim
ilar experience and. the present union was formed to prevent a
continuance of its evils. Our Constitution demonstrates our
national character. Its preamble commences " We, the people,"
it guarantees to all the States a republican form of government,
it asserts its supremacy over the constitution and laws of every
State, and it was opposed and vindicated at the time of its
adoption as creating a National Government. He argued that
our National character was also shown by the flag with its alter
nate stripes of red and white, with its stars on a field of blue ;
and by the configuration of the country chosen to be united,
from ocean to ocean, from the Lakes to the Gulf, joined by one
great network of rivers, binding all together.
The delivery of this lecture occupied his time from October
seventh, when it was delivered first, at Pontiac, Michigan,
until November nineteenth, when it was delivered in New
York. It was repeated, between these dates, twenty-six times,
read during the first part, and without notes the last part of the
time. His appointments were in Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois,
Iowa, Missouri and Ohio, in the West; and in Massachusetts,
Rhode Island, Maine and New York, in the East.
At the close of this lecture tour, he plunged into the work of
removing from the old home, in Hancock Street, Boston. It
was a sad task to leave the home of his childhood, ren
dered still sadder by thoughts of the domestic calamity that
finally prompted it. To Longfellow he revealed his feeling of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

589

despondency, when he declared that from this home he had
buried his father and mother, a brother and three sisters and
that he was now leaving it, " the deadest of them all." With
a heavy heart the family papers were sorted and the furniture
was wrapped and the accumulation of his own books and casts
and pictures were packed, preparatory to vacating for the new
occupant. How the memories of dear ones, all gone, gathered
around each familiar object and looked at him, out of each
well-known corner! It seemed like desecration, to ask these
pictures to leave their accustomed places, and irreverence to the
dead. How the thoughts of childhood and mother and sister
seemed to linger still about the dear, deserted place! The
chill November days without, were no more dreary than his
thoughts within. At last the sad work was finished and by the
beginning of December he was in Washington ready to move
into his new home.
He had purchased, for thirty thousand dollars, a house on La
fayette Square and only across that square from the White
House grounds. It was in the best district in Washington,
near to and in plain view of the Executive Mansion, not far
from the Departments and the Embassies, fronting on a beauti
ful park, one of the largest in the city, on a corner where sun
light and fresh air were abundant and within easy walk, of a
dozen squares, down Pennsylvania Avenue, to the Capitol. The
house was commodious, on the first floor a drawing-room,
library and dining-room, on the second a guest-chamber and his
bedroom with his study between. These rooms were all large,
airy and well-lighted. Below and above these floors were the
kitchen and servants' quarters. It was in his study on the
second floor, with his windows looking out across the Park to
the White House that he spent most of his time and ordinarily
entertained his friends. Here he worked and read and wrote.
A door opened from one end of it into his own bedroom and,
from the other, it opened into his guest chamber. This house
continued to be his home for the remainder of his life; and it
was here he died.
He dreaded the experiment of housekeeping. He feared it
was beyond his means, though by the death of his mother, his
fortune had now been increased to one hundred thousand
dollars. Forty thousand dollars of this sum, were his previous
accumulations. But with the large expenditure for his house
and the further amount that would be necessary to furnish it,
together with the expense of maintaining it, with hired help
exclusively, being himself without experience to aid him in such

590 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
matters, he feared that his remaining income would not be
equal to the drain upon it.
On the other hand he was tired of boarding-houses and
longed for greater freedom and a little more of the feeling of
proprietorship, in his surroundings. Though avoiding parties,
he was entertained much. His long residence at the Capitol
and his leadership in the Senate, called him into prominence
socially. His chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Rela
tions and his extensive foreign acquaintance brought him
into social relations with the foreign embassies. He enjoyed
the social life of the Capitol. He loved the companionship of
distinguished men and liked to be upon terms of intimacy with
them; and at the social board, no other voice entered more fully
and more heartily into the life of the occasion. Indeed he
was criticised for having somewhat of the disposition of
Macaulay to override others in conversation. He was full of
anecdotes of persons and places, which he loved to recall to
himself and others and, while not a wit, his ready and hearty
laugh responded freely to the sallies of others. It was in such
things and his books, that he found his truest recreation. His
friends, knowing this, urged the change upon him. It would
relieve the solitude of his life and enable him to give, as well as
receive entertainment.
He usually, while occupying this house, arose about seven
each morning, breakfasted at 8 : 30 and dined at 5 :30. These
were his only times of eating. He occupied himself while at
the morning meal, with a hurried examination of his mail.
This meal being over, his letters were answered and others
written, with the aid of his secretaries, clerks of the Com
mittee on Foreign Relations, which he, as Chairman, selected.
All of them were at the time young men and between them
and Sumner there then and ever after existed a warm and
affectionate relation. The balance of the forenoon was con
sumed in the examination of questions pending before the
Senate, with persons who called to see him, the work of Com
mittees, etc. ; the afternoons were occupied with the sessions
of the Senate. After dinner he drove; and his evenings were
spent at his home, usually at work on his speeches or other work
of his office. Eleven hours he counted a day's work, but they
were often prolonged beyond that. His regular hour of retiring
was at midnight, but when pressed, he would remain up and at
work later, sometimes all night, substituting a change of linen
for the refreshment of a night's rest.
He had now an opportunity to gratify his taste for paintings,
engravings and curios and during the remainder of his life he

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 591
bought them freely. The walls of the rooms and halls of his
home were filled with them. To one who expressed astonish
ment that he resorted to the popular horse-cars of the day,
instead of keeping a carriage and horses of his own, he replied
that if he did that, he could not enjoy these things, pointing to
his pictures and curios, adding that they were a part of his life,
while he could dispense with the other. Here he kept his col
lection of rare and valuable books. It was a delight for him
to go from one to another of these treasures and exhibit them
to his friends, dwelling upon the life of an artist or the merits
of a picture or the interesting history of some rare book, John
Bunyan's Bible, an exercise book that the poet Dryden had
studied when a boy at school, a tragedy of Voltaire, and Pope's
" Essay on Man," each with the author's own corrections for
new editions, a book which had belonged to England's Queen,
Anne Bole}'n, another of her daughter, Queen Elizabeth, still
another of the great Napoleon and, most precious of all, the
Album kept at Geneva, Switzerland, by a Neapolitan nobleman,
in which were secured the autographs of distinguished visitors
to that city, among the rest that of England's great Earl of
Strafford and another of John Milton under a couplet from his
Comus :  "if virtue feeble were
Heaven itself would stoope to her."
While occupying this house, Sumner seldom dined alone. He
would bring a friend with him from the House or the Senate,
or a member of the diplomatic corps, or some visitor or con
stituent, who happened to be in Washington. Here George
William Curtis dined almost daily, when in Washington, as
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission. Here Charles
Dickens met Stanton at dinner and heard him and his host
recount their experiences, on the night of the assassination of
Lincoln, as well as Stanton's confession, how on many nights
of anxiety during the Rebellion he had gone to bed, with one
of Dickens' novels under his pillow, so that if the hours proved
sleepless, he could drive away the thoughts of his work, with
the absorption of his book. . Here William M. Evarts came late
to dinner on a Sunday, during his preparation for the trial of
the Impeachment of Andrew Johnson, and apologized, for his
tardiness and such work on that day, by the scriptural inquiry :
"which of you shall have an ass * * * fallen into a pit and
will not straightway pull him out on the Sabbath day ? "

CHAPTER XXXVI
THE IMPEACHMENT OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON  THE EVENTS
THAT LED UP TO IT  SUMNER ARGUES THAT WADE QUAL
IFIED TO SIT  THAT CHIEF JUSTICE CANNOT RULE OR VOTE
— OPINION ON THE CASE
The session of Congress of 1867-8 is memorable for the im
peachment of President Johnson. No other attempt has ever
teen made to impeach a President. The events that have been
narrated in these pages, show how Congress was provoked to
this step. The reader will remember his numerous vetoes ; his
hostility to Reconstruction Laws; his wholesale removals from
office, to make room for his friends, that prompted the Tenure
of Office Law ; his pronounced sympathy for the South ; his in
temperate public speeches, attacking Congress before the people
as an unconstitutional body, because not admitting to member
ship, persons returned by the States lately in rebellion, his
coarse references to some of its Members and even to private
citizens, who were prominent in work for the Freedmen. Few
men would have had the temerity to continue the hopeless fight,
as he did, against a defiant majority, in both Houses, that stood
ready with a two-thirds vote to pass measures over his vetoes.
Still fewer would have continued it, after the overwhelming
defeat which his " policy " sustained, in the popular election
of 1866. The patience of no Congress was ever put to a severer
test. Talk of impeachment had been rife for many months in
Congressional circles. Sumner favored it. But calmer coun
sels had prevailed. On January seventh, 1867, James M.
Ashley, a Representative from Ohio„ presented, in the House,
formal charges against the President of a corrupt use of the
appointing, and pardoning and veto powers and of corruptly
interfering with elections. The charges were referred to the
Judiciary Committee of which James F. Wilson, of Iowa, was
chairman. Evidence was taken by this Committee, not enough
to justify a final report, but enough to warrant, at the expira
tion of the Congress, a majority report recommending' a fur
ther investigation of the charges by the succeeding Congress.
Five days later, in the next Congress, Ashley moved that- the
Judiciary Committee be directed to continue the investigation.
592

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 593
The motion carried by a small majority. The Committee by a
vote of five to four afterwards recommended impeachment.
The debate, on this report, was limited to a speech on each side,
Boutwell for, and Wilson, the Chairman of the Committee,
against. Both were Republicans. The vote was taken the day
after the conclusion of the debate and the recommendation of
the Committee was defeated by the overwhelming vote of fifty-
seven to one hundred and eight. Only Republicans voted for it.
With the Democrats who voted against it, there were sixty-five
Republicans, among them Allison, Bingham, Blaine, Garfield,
Wilson and the four Washburns.
From these names and this vote, it will be seen that im
peachment was not yet popular. The conservative men of the
country, both in and out of Congress, were generally against
it. Even the Republicans that voted against it did not pretend
to be satisfied with the course of the President, but their feeling
was that his conduct did not justify such extreme punishment.
The country, generally, after the years of turmoil it had wit
nessed, hoped for peace and that business interests would
be spared this new disturbance. But there were determined
men, of large experience and great ability, among its ad
vocates; Boutwell, Butler, Kelley, Logan, Lawrence, Schenck
and Thaddeus Stevens. Among them, there was anger and
bitterness at its defeat. While they were defeated, they were
not discouraged, but were determined to bide their time, feeling
that their opportunity might yet come. And it did come soon.
There had been trouble between the President and his
Cabinet. Very early, some of the members found themselves
unable to agree with him. Dennison, Postmaster-General;
Speed, Attorney-General; Harlan, of the Interior Depart
ment, against the advice of friends who urged them to retain
their offices so as to limit his power and prevent his use of the
patronage, had, one after another, offered their resignations.
The resignations were promptly accepted and willing servants
' of the President at once took their places. Stanton, of the War
Department, was likewise persona non grata to the President,
but was of a different disposition from the others, and refused
to take the frequent hints given him to resign. At last the
President, on August fifth, 1867, wrote Stanton : " Public con
siderations, of a high character, constrain me to say that your
resignation, as Secretary of War, will be accepted." Stanton
as tartly answered : " I have the honor to say that public con
siderations, of a high character, which alone have induced me
to continue at the head of this Department, constrain me not to
resign the Secretaryship of War, before the next meeting of

594 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Congress." On the twelfth, he was suspended and directed to
turn over the office to General Grant, who was appointed
Secretary ad interim. Stanton yielded, but protested, in writ
ing, that he submitted " under protest, to superior force."
The Tenure of Office Law required the President to commu
nicate this suspension, with his reasons for it, to the Senate,
within twenty days after its next meeting. This he did on
December twelfth, 1867, just five days after the House had
voted down the resolution of impeachment. The Senate, on
January thirteenth, 1868, refused to concur in the suspension.
General Grant upon receiving notice of this action of the
Senate, promptly vacated the office and Stanton as promptly
resumed it. The President hoped that Grant would retain the
office, notwithstanding the action of the Senate, till the con
stitutionality of the Tenure of Office Law could be tested, in the
courts, by a suit for his removal. Grant had no thought of
compromising himself in any such manner. His prompt vaca
tion displeased the President and angry letters were exchanged,
which left them enemies for life.
Stanton was now back in office. But the controversy was not
ended. On the twenty-first day of February, 1868, the Presi
dent removed him, and appointed Lorenzo Thomas, Secretary
ad interim and on the same day notified the Senate of his
action. Sumner had all the time watched the struggle with
increasing interest. His experience with the President
privately on his accession to the office, when he had tried to
keep him firm for the equal rights of the freedmen ; and later,
when in the Senate, he had sought to prevent him squandering
the hard-earned fruits of the war, by restoring those lately in
rebellion to power, without any changed conditions; and to
defeat his wholesale removal of loyal men from office, to make
places for his friends, had made Sumner impatient with him.
Sumner wrote Stanton a note, in pencil, from his seat in the
Senate, with the single word " stick," in the body of it. The
note came afterwards into the possession of Ben Perley Poore
and was sold at auction, in 1888, to a dealer in autographs.
It is hardly necessary to add that Stanton did " stick."
The Senate was surprised and indignant at the action of the
President and promptly passed a resolution that he had no
power to make the removal. It was just here that the real con
troversy in the impeachment proceedings arose; the Presi
dent's friends claimed that he had. The question depended
upon the construction to be given the Tenure of Office Law.
The same day that the Senate angrily passed this resolution, a
second resolution of impeachment was offered, in the House,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 595
and it was at once referred to the Committee on Reconstruc
tion, of which Thaddeus Stevens was chairman. The House
then adjourned.
Little doubt remained of what would be the fate of the
resolution, in the hands of a committee, thus officered, and
which had experienced so much trouble with the President.
The next day it was reported back, with the recommendation
that it pass, and that the question be taken without debate.
But the Members were in no humor to pass such a measure,
without allowing expression to their pent up feelings. An
angry debate followed in which more speakers addressed the
House than ever before, in a single day. The expressions
upon each side were bitter in the extreme and fill more than
two hundred of the large and closely printed columns of the
Congressional Globe. Several Democrats, perhaps appreciating
the ludicrous exhibition of wrath, by the Republicans, tried to
have Washington's Farewell Address, full of counsels of
moderation and of peace and good will to his countrymen, read,
but unable to succeed in this, one of them obtained leave to
print it with his remarks, in the Globe; and there it stands
to-day among the records of that day's angry utterances.
At the close of the debate, the vote was taken and every Repub
lican, that voted, was for impeachment and every Democrat
was against it. One Democrat and a few Republicans did not
vote. There were one hundred and twenty-six votes for im
peachment and only forty-seven against it.
Thaddeus Stevens and John A. Bingham were appointed to
notify the Senate of the action of the House. With five other
members, they were also appointed to draw up Articles of Im
peachment and with Boutwell, Wilson, Butler, Williams and
Logan they were made Managers to present the case on behalf
of the House to the Senate. In the choice of Managers, John
A. Bingham received the highest number of votes and thereby
became chairman of the board. Henry Stanberry, the Attorney-
General, William M. Evarts, of New York, Benj. R. Curtis, of
Boston, William S. Groesbeck, of Cincinnati, and T. A. R.
Nelson, of Tennessee, represented the President.
On the fourth day of March, attended by the House, the
Managers appeared, at the bar of the Senate, and the chairman,
Bingham, read the articles of impeachment. On the two suc
ceeding days the oath was administered to the Chief Justice
and Senators, rules of procedure were adopted and a summons
was ordered to be issued to the President, to appear and answer
the charges, returnable on the thirteenth day of March.
When the name of Senator Wade was called to receive the

596 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
oath, to be taken by Senators, upon the trial of an impeachment,
Senator Hendricks objected that he was not competent to sit,
inasmuch as he was the President pro tem of the Senate and
would become President of the United States, if the impeach
ment be sustained. The objection provoked a debate. The
question was an important one. A two-thirds vote was re
quired to convict and, if the result be close, he might have the
casting vote. Sumner argued that the Constitution settled the
question, that impeachments were to be tried by the Senate,
that this meant the whole Senate, that in such trial each State
was entitled to have two Senators, that one of these from Ohio
was Senator Wade. The clause in the Constitution providing
that, when the President is impeached, the Chief Justice shall
preside, he showed from contemporaneous authority was not
inserted to disqualify the President of the Senate from taking
part, because of his interest in the result as was asserted; but
because he might be called upon, in case of the suspension of
the President, to act in his place and hence be absorbed in the
discharge of the duties of that office and by reason thereof not
have the time to preside at the trial. Before, however, a vote
was taken upon this question, the objection to administering
the oath to Mr. Wade was withdrawn by Mr. Hendricks and
he was sworn and afterwards, without objection, voted upon
each of the three articles of impeachment, upon which a vote
was taken.
On the thirteenth day of March the President entered his
formal appearance, by his attorneys, and asked that forty days
be allowed him, for preparation. The Managers insisted that
the trial proceed at once. But the Senate fixed it for the
thirtieth day of March.
In the meeting of the Managers for the distribution of their
work, the most desirable place, the closing argument, was as
signed to the chairman, John A. Bingham. Benjamin F.
Butler desired to open the case and put in the evidence. He has
narrated how these duties were disposed of in the meeting.
" ' But who,' he inquired, ' is to make the opening argument
and put the case in form for presentation, in the Senate ? There
are less than three days, in which to prepare it. Who is anxious
for that place ? ' There were not many candidates for that
labor, and I said, ' Very well. I suppose as usual the opening
of the case will fall upon the youngest counsel and that is my
self. * * * It was agreed that I should prepare the case and
make the opening argument and I thought it would not be of
much consequence, after that was done, who did the rest. And
thus I became the leading figure of the impeachment, for better

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 597
or for worse * * * I came to the conclusion to try the case
upon the same rules of evidence and in the same manner as I
should try a horse case and I knew how to do that." Judging
from his want of success in this case, the inference would be
that he did himself honor over much, in saying that he knew
how to try a horse case.
The trial was held in the Senate Chamber. The hall and its
spacious galleries were filled to their utmost capacity. The
House attended in a body and were provided with seats on the
floor. The diplomatic gallery was filled with the representatives
of foreign countries, eager to see the spectacle of a free people
bringing to trial their sovereign ruler for malfeasance in office.
The press gallery was crowded with correspondents, who were
to convey the news of what took place, to the millions of plain
people, in their homes, who were watching the action of their
representatives. The beauty and the intelligence of the Capitol
and its visitors filled to overflowing the remaining space.
Salmon P. Chase, the Chief Justice, who presided, after an
eminent career at the bar, and in political life, as Governor
and Senator from Ohio, and Secretary of the Treasury, during
the trying years of the war, was now filling the highest judicial
station of his country. He sat erect, broad-shouldered, deep-
chested with a head and face of noble mould, one of the hand
somest men of his day. Bingham, the chairman of the
Managers, with the refined and sensitive face and the grace of a
poet, was still in his prime. He was the lifelong friend of
Stanton, living in the town where the great Secretary first
commenced the practice of law. With him he had grown up
to greatness ; for they were rivals at the bar and jointly debated
political questions, Stanton in those days being a Democrat.
Bingham had been a member of the House since the birth of the
Republican party and, as a brilliant and effective orator, his
fame was as wide as his country. He was supported, perhaps it
would be more proper to say, he was led, by his great colleague
Thaddeus Stevens, now wasting with disease and within six
months of his death, but with the grim heroism of his nature,
dragging, with his last breath, a great offender, as he believed,
to the bar of justice.
But in legal attainments, the Managers were outdone by their
opponents. Henry Stanberry, who organized the President's
defence, and paid the penalty of it with his office, was his At
torney-General. He was an able lawyer and resigned his
office to take part in the case. After its close, the Senate
refused to ratify his reappointment, as Attorney-General, by
Johnson. William M. Evarts, who did succeed him, as well as

598 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Benjamin R. Curtis and William S. Groesbeck, who were
associated with him in the case, were at the head of the bars of
New York, Boston and Cincinnati respectively. Curtis had
been a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, and
by his dissenting opinion in the Dred Scott case, as well as his
other work, had acquired a wide reputation; but the work
proving distasteful, he resigned to return to the practice.
In the articles of impeachment there were eleven charges,
but they may all be comprehended in four; first, The removal
of Stanton and appointment of Thomas ; second, Instructing
General Emory that the law requiring all military orders made
by the President or Secretary of War to be issued through the
General of the Army, was unconstitutional; third, The Presi
dent's speeches against Congress ; fourth, The attempt of the
President to prevent the execution of the Tenure of Office Law,
the Army Appropriation Law and the law for the more efficient
government of the Rebel States. The case was really tried
upon two, the removal of Stanton and the intemperate speeches
of the President and, of these, the greatest stress was laid upon
the removal of Stanton.
The President had made coarse, intemperate and ill-timed
speeches, at the White House, on August eighteenth, 1806, at
Cleveland, Ohio, on September third, 1866, and at St. Louis on
September eighth, 1866, charging Congress with promoting
disunion and discord between the North and the South and
preventing reconciliation between the sections, with trying to
break up the government, calling its members traitors, so nam
ing some of them individually, and calling upon the people to
aid him in kicking them out of office.
There could be no justification for such speeches. They were
unbecoming any person and were especially unbecoming a
President when speaking of one of the co-ordinate departments
of his government. He had a right to differ from Congress in
opinion ; and he had a right to maintain his own views, in
public speeches. The constitution expressly guarantees the
right of freedom of speech. But no one has a right, anywhere,
to be less than a gentleman. Coarse speech always degrades
the author of it. But in this case, his apologists could well urge
that he had said nothing more bitter of Congress, than Con
gress had said of him.
As to the removal of Stanton, a more extended explanation
is required. The Tenure of Office Law provided " That every
person holding any civil office, to which he has been appointed
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and every
person who shall hereafter be appointed to any such office, and

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 599
shall become duly qualified to act therein, is, and shall be, en
titled to hold such office until a successor shall have been in like
manner appointed and duly qualified, except us herein other
wise Provided. That the Secretary of State, of the Treasury,
of War, of the Navy, and of the Interior, the Postmaster-
General, and the Attorney-General shall hold their offices
respectively for and during the term of the President, by whom
they may have been appointed, and for one month thereafter,
subject to removal by and with the advice and consent of the
Senate." Stanton was appointed by President Lincoln, during his first
term, which expired March fourth, 1865, and was to hold
"during the pleasure of the President, for the time being,"
according to the words of his commission. The term of Presi
dent Lincoln had expired and he had taken the oath of office
and entered upon a new term, after a new election. Stanton
had continued to hold the office during his second term, until
his assassination, and likewise under President Johnson, with
out any new appointment or other commission. It was insisted
by the President and his friends that Stanton's term expired
under the proviso in the Tenure of Office Law, thirty days
after the expiration of President Lincoln's first term, that the
word " term " as used in this statute meant the four years for
which the President was elected and, if succeeding to office as
President Johnson did, the time that he was legally to
hold the office, that as Secretary Stanton had held beyond the
thirty days after the expiration of President Lincoln's first
term he had held merely by sufferance. Hence President John
son's friends claimed that Stanton was not protected in his
office by the Tenure of Office Law, but was holding over simply
and that the President had a right to tell him so, at any time,
and appoint his successor, as he had done, and that by so doing
the law was not violated. It was this view that prevailed.
The opponents of the President believed otherwise. Sum
ner argued that such a construction of the word " term " in
this law made it retroactive as to Stanton, who was in office
when it passed, that it was a penal statute and therefore would
become an ex-post facto law and hence unconstitutional, if
such a construction be placed upon it, that it also made Con
gress enact the absurdity that Stanton had for two years been
holding office illegally, whereas he had been holding under
the clearest legal title, which could no more be altered by leg
islation than black could be made white, that such a construc
tion, which made tbe statute at once unconstitutional and
absurd, should be rejected. He insisted, on the contrary, that

600 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
President Lincoln's term did not expire with his life but con
tinued until March 4, 1869, the expiration of the four years
for which he was elected and that with this construction Stan
ton wr.s entitled to hold until April 4, 1869. He believed
farther, that Stanton should be considered as appointed by
President Johnson, that the continuance of Stanton in office
with the concurrence of President Johnson was the equivalent of
an appointment, that he was in the office by the choice of the
President, when the law was passed and that his continuance
there by the President was to be treated as another commis
sion, that this view also gave effect to the intention of the
framers of the act, violated no sound canon of construction and
was entirely reasonable, in every respect.
Great efforts were made by some of the President's friends
to show that Stanton did not come within the protection of
the proviso of this law. Sumner insisted that such friends for- ¦
got that if the Secretary did not come within the special pro
tection of the proviso he must come within the general protec
tion of the body of the act as " a person holding a civil office "
and, therefore, " entitled to hold such office until a successor
shall have been in like manner appointed and duly qualified,"
that if they turned him out of the proviso he must fall within
the body of the act, unless they " placed him in a sort of in
termediate limbo, like a lost spirit floating in space," a con
struction utterly unreasonable and, like every construction
contrary to common sense, to be rejected.
Sumner advocated the broadest treatment of the subject. He
argued that impeachment was a political not a judicial pro
ceeding, that it was before a political body, for political
purposes, subject to a political judgment only, expulsion from
office, that therefore the same technicality of procedure could
not be required, as in a court. Hence he argued that impeach
ment was not necessarily a trial for a " crime," as that word is
known to the common law, that offences unknown to it, such
as the wanton removal of meritorious officers, would subject the
President to impeachment, that the exact minuteness of a crim
inal court should be discarded and the procedure adapted to a
common understanding, that they could not be held in the
articles of impeachment to a close description of the offence as
if it were an indictment, nor to the rules of evidence as they are
followed in the courts. He voted to admit all the evidence, not
trivial or obviously irrelevant, offered during the trial, leaving
Senators to determine what weight should be given to it. He
believed the Senators should take notice of such matters as
were within their knowledge, even though not charged or

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 601
proven, as, that Johnson appeared before the Senate, in a dis
graceful state of intoxication, when he took the oath of office as
Vice-President; that he had appointed incompetent and
dishonest officials, as in the " Whiskey Ring," that had robbed
the Treasury ; that he had obstructed the Civil Rights Law ; had
undertaken to prevent the execution of the Freedman Bureau
Law, to succor starving and homeless negroes in the South;
and had sought to defeat the ratification, by the Southern
States, of the Fourteenth Amendment, giving the guarantees
of irrepealable law to the equal rights of the citizen and to the
payment of the national debt.
There is much authority in English and French impeachment
cases, as Sumner showed for the breadth of treatment, which he
advocated. But precedents on the subject of impeachment from
those countries do not carry the weight of authority here, that
the decisions of their courts do upon other questions. Some of
them-, as the Earl of Strafford's case cited, bear too close a re
lation to the revolutions in those countries and recall some of
the darkest pages in their history. Sumner felt that the arti
cles of impeachment did not state the whole case against the
President and he was undoubtedly correct in this conclusion.
But the President was clearly entitled to have the charges upon
which he was to be tried set out, so as to know in advance what
he would be called upon to answer. In a matter of such im
portance, if it was intended to try him for his other offences,
they should have been charged in the articles.
A question arose upon the right of the Chief Justice to Tule
or vote. Sumner argued that the Chief Justice was not a
member of the Senate and that his duty was simply to put the
question and direct generally the conduct of the business, with
out undertaking in any way, by voice or vote, to determine any
question. In this conclusion he differed from the Chief Jus
tice, who claimed the right to rule upon questions of admis
sibility of evidence. The attorneys for the President offered to
prove that when the Tenure of Office Bill was before the Presi
dent for approval he was advised by his Cabinet that it was
unconstitutional and the duty of preparing the message to
accompany the veto devolved on Seward and Stanton. The
Chief Justice decided that this testimony was competent, to
show that he acted in good faith, under advice, in vetoing it.
His decision was appealed from and the Senate overruled him
and the testimony was excluded. Again, the Chief Justice ruled
that it was competent for the President to show that when the
Tenure of Office Law was under discussion in the Cabinet the
opinion was expressed generally that the Cabinet officers ap-

602 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
pointed by Mr. Lincoln were not 'within the restrictions placed
on President Johnson's power of removal. Again he was
overruled by the Senate. After that, the Chief Justice, without
ruling upon the objection made to testimony, referred the mat
ter to a vote of the Senate. These rulings of the Chief Justice
were generally accepted by the public as correct and the adverse
votes of the Senate produced a bad impression. Sumner be
lieved the testimony should have been admitted, but he insisted
that the Chief Justice had no right to rule upon it and thus
influence the proceedings.
The claim was also made that the Chief Justice, in the event
of a tie, had the right to vote. He did vote upon some unim
portant matters. Sumner was unwilling to allow any such
claim. He insisted that the Constitution expressly provided
that the Senate is to " have the sole power to try all impeach
ments " and that convictions could only be had by " the con
currence of two-thirds of the members present " and that these
two provisions confined the right to vote to the Senators alone.
He offered a resolution that the Chief Justice had no right
to vote on any question during the trial and that he could pro
nounce a decision only as the organ of the Senate and with its
assent. This was voted clown ; but the Senate afterwards
adopted a rule providing that the Chief Justice " may rule all
questions of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling
shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some mem
ber of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon,
in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision;
or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such
question to a vote of the members of the Senate."
At the close of his argument upon this question, which Sum
ner filed and had printed in the proceedings with his opinion in
the case, he made a graceful reference to his co-operation with
the Chief Justice, in the anti-slavery cause, in the years pre
ceding the war:
" I cannot bring this survey to an end without an expression
of deep regret that I find myself constrained to differ from the
Chief Justice," he said. " In faithful fellowship, for long years,
we have striven together for the establishment of Liberty and
Equality as the fundamental law of this Republic. I know his
fidelity, and revere his services, but not on this account can I
hesitate the less, when I find him claiming in this Chamber an
important power which, in my judgment, is three times denied
in the National Constitution : first when it is declared that the
Senate alone shall try impeachment ; secondly, when it is de
clared that only members shall convict; and thirdly, when it is

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 603
declared that the Chief Justice shall preside and nothing more,
thus conferring upon him those powers only, which by par
liamentary law belong to a presiding officer not a member of
the body. In the face of such a claim, so entirely without ex
ample, and of such possible consequences, I cannot be silent.
Reluctantly and painfully I offer this respectful protest."
An incident occurred during the trial that shows how sen
sitive Sumner was of the dignity of the Senate. During the
heat of his argument on April twenty-eighth, Nelson of Ten
nessee, one of the President's attorneys, used language toward
Manager Butler, apparently intended to provoke a duel.
Promptly upon the opening of the proceedings the next day,
Sumner offered a resolution of censure and pressed it, until a
proper apology was made by Mr. Nelson to the Senate.
The closing argument in the case was finished by Manager
Bingham on May sixth, 1868. No vote was taken on the guilt
of the President until May sixteenth, the intervening ten days
being occupied with discussions of methods of procedure and
adjournments. Sumner opposed a resolution granting to Sen
ators leave to file opinions in the case, giving the reasons for
their votes; believing the President guilty on all the articles,
he felt there was no need of explanation or apology for his vote.
But the resolution having carried, he accepted the invitation
which it seemed to extend. Twenty-eight other Senators also
published opinions. Sumner's covers thirty-four pages of the
report of the proceedings and is the longest and one of the
most exhaustive of the opinions ; but as a legal argument upon
the question of the President's guilt or innocence, it is not the
equal of some of the others. The Senate had in it, at that time,
some very able lawyers, who embraced this opportunity of ex
plaining their votes. Sumner, as a lawyer, was not the equal of
some of these Senators. He had quit the bar early and never
had an extensive practice.
It was decided to vote on the several articles of impeachment
separately, the vote first to be taken on the eleventh and last
article, excluding Stanton from office after the Senate refused
to concur in his suspension, interfering with the execution of
certain acts of Congress and denying the power of Congress to
pass laws because the Rebel States were not represented. Each
Senator as his name was called was to rise to his feet and an
nounce his vote, guilty or not guilty, as charged in this article.
It was decided to vote on- this article first, because it was a
compendium of the principal charges and a vote upon it would
therefore show the greatest strength of the prosecution.
The vote showed thirty-five for conviction and nineteen

604 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
against so that the necessary two-thirds not voting guilty, the
impeachment was not sustained on this article. A change of
one vote would have changed the result. An adjournment was
taken for ten days and a vote was then taken upon the second
and third articles, but with the same result. No farther vote
was taken and none of the articles of impeachment having been
sustained, by a two-thirds vote of the members present, a gen
eral judgment of acquittal was ordered and the Senate, sitting
as a court of impeachment, adjourned without day.
The great trial was ended and the President was clear. It
was a hasty, ill-advised, and, on the part of his prosecutors, in
many respects, a badly managed proceeding. The haste and
want of care with which it was conceived showed itself early.
From the commencement, its friends felt hampered by the
omission from the articles of all reference to the most serious
fault of the President, his persistently hostile attitude toward
the North and his championship of the South, in the settle
ment of all questions growing out of the war. Another mis
take was made by the House in permitting the prominence of
General Butler in the proceedings. He did not possess the
public confidence and his methods and manner were not suited
to his position. The sympathy of the Chief Justice was felt to
be against the proceeding and his influence with the people was
large. But the people felt that the result was right, that the
precedent of impeaching a President, on such grounds as
existed, would have been much more prejudicial to the country,
than anything he had done or would be able to do, in the
little of his term that remained. The real fault of the Presi
dent was a going over to the opposition, while in office, and for
this, political defeat and not impeachment was the remedy. It
was Congress that was especially outraged by his conduct and
the fight was peculiarly theirs. The moral results of it, indeed,
were with Congress, at last. At the close of it, all chance of
the President succeeding himself was at an end; the North
was awakened to the danger of his re-election; neither party
was willing to make him its candidate. In nine months he
gave place to General Grant ; and Andrew Johnson, as a force
in National politics, then disappeared forever. Though he
was returned to the Senate six years later, his brief service of
less than a month was only signalized by a vindictive assault
upon those who had been the friends of his best days. His
strange career was then closed by death.

CHAPTER XXXVII
NEW POLITICAL QUESTIONS  THE CAMPAIGN OF 1868  GRANT
ELECTED  SUMNER RE-ELECTED TO SENATE  A. T. STEWART
DISQUALIFIED FOR SECRETARY OF TREASURY  FISH, SECRE
TARY OF STATE  MOTLEY
In the campaign for the election of General Grant other
questions were forcing themselves to the front. The large na
tional debt, which accumulated during the war, was fruitful of
contention. One question was whether it should be paid soon,
which involved the maintenance of the income tax and high
revenues on tobacco and whiskey and the existing tariff rates, or
whether a part of the debt should be left for future generations
to pay and these means of raising money be modified. Repudia
tion in different forms was being discussed. No party had ad
vocated repudiation pure and simple, by an outright refusal to
pay the Government bonds. It would have been a very bold
move, to ask openly the votes of a free people, upon such a
plank as that, in a political platform. But the bonds were
payable in coin, and there were open advocates of the payment
of them in greenbacks, which were at the time depreciated.
The argument was made that the Government making green
backs a legal tender for the payment of other debts, should
also require the bondholders to accept them in payment of
the principal and interest of their bonds. To pay a debt in a
paper dollar worth fifty cents, in the markets of the world, that
was stipulated to be paid in a gold or silver dollar, worth one
hundred cents everywhere, would be repudiation in fact, if not
in name.
Another question growing out of this same condition was
the taxation of the Government bonds. The laws providing for
their issue and under which they were sold, provided that they
should be exempt from all taxes, State or National. The claim
was now made that they should be taxed just as other property
and that Congress should pass laws requiring it. This would
result in depreciating the value of the bonds. Their non-tax
able character made them a desirable form of investment and,
to take away this character, meant to depreciate their value, in
violation of the faith upon which the Government had sold
them, 605

606 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Still another question that arose, incidentally connected with
these two, was the resumption of specie payments. If the paper
dollar was made exchangeable for a dollar in gold or silver
there could be no longer a question made in what kind of money
the bonds should be paid. A sound financial course upon this
question would solve the other.
These questions all arose during the Presidency of Andrew
Johnson and were discussed in some of the State campaigns.
Sumner's attention had not been given largely to questions of
this kind. He had been occupied with slavery and the war and
the condition of the freedmen. And he had been so prominent
in the treatment of these subjects that he was credited with
being especially able in the discussion of them, but was con
sidered wanting in qualification for the treatment of financial
questions. His life had been singularly free from the ordinary
problems of money getting. He was born to a condition of
comfort and, being without family to provide for, his attention
had been given almost exclusively to the great work of his life.
But with these new problems that came up for solution he
developed an unexpected ability for their treatment. He had in
fact a practical side and a fund of good sense upon common
matters, partly inherited from his mother, with which he was
not generally credited. He intuitively saw and followed the
just and the honest side of a question, involving right and
wrong. No specious arguments, or pretty theories, seemed to
trouble him. He 'went straight to the proposition presented,
with the question, Is it right? The answer to that simple
question determined his course. Does the contract provide tor
the payment of these bonds in coin ? Does the contract provide
for the exemption of them from taxation ? If it does, then they
must be paid in coin and continued exempt from taxation.
The nation has no more right to violate its contract, than an
individual. It can no more do so with impunity. Any other
course involves loss of credit and invites financial ruin. These
were the considerations that determined him. He studied
them and he discussed them in this way.
On July eleventh, 1868, the Senate having under considera
tion a bill for the funding of the national debt, he spoke at
some length and with his customary thoroughness. He argued
that there w^as nothing more sensitive than credit, that a breath
would make it flutter, that the public faith must be sacredly
preserved above suspicion, that the nation must be as good as
its bond, that credit was like honor, once lost, more than dis
honor must be the consequence, that in itself it was a treasury,
a tariff and an internal revenue, all in one, that if all these

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

607

were lost and public faith retained, the others would be re
turned, the treasury be replenished, the tariff be renewed, the
revenue restored, that it must be kept "as the philosopher's
stoneof fable, having which, you have all." In the face ol' this,
he said, it was proposed to tax the national bonds, in violation
of the original contract on which the money was lent. They
might have the power to do this wrong, but never the right.
They could not make wrong right. The bargain must con
tinue unchanged except by consent of the parties, until the
laws of the universe tumbled into chaos. A proud nation,
justly sensitive to national honor, could do nothing else.
Not different, he argued, was the proposition to pay the bonds
with inconvertible paper. On the threshold, Public Faith
interposed a summary protest to such a proposition. On such
a question debate even is dangerous; the man who doubts is
lost. The Secretaries of the Treasury and their assistants had
declared they were payable in coin. It had been the uniform
practice to pay them in this kind of money. This practice had
established precedents that could not be broken. The money
had been invested in all the later bonds upon the faith of these
acts of the Government. They must continue to pay the bonds
in the same way.
He advocated, however, a rigid reduction of expenditures
and the simplification of our system of taxation, by confining
the tax to fewer articles, such as whiskey and tobacco, so that
fewer tax-gatherers would be needed and the collection be less
expensive. The prompt and exact fulfilment of our obligation
in the payment of the bonds he believed would enable us to
exchange a new bond with a lower rate of interest, running for
a longer time, for the old bonds at a high rate, soon to expire.
He called attention to the fact that our bonds in London sold
for twenty per cent less than the English, although the interest
on ours was double that on theirs. He showed that the same
was true of the bonds of Massachusetts, which sold higher in
London than those of our Government. This difference, he
said, was due to the higher credit of England and Massachu
setts. The agitation of repudiation was producing this result
and so our Government was already paying the penalty of
this heresy. The remedy would be found in the prompt ful
filment of our contracts, as made, and the speedy return to
specie payments.
These questions entered into the campaign for the election
of General Grant. The Republican platform of 1868 denounced
all forms of repudiation and demanded the payment of the
National debt, according to the letter and spirit of the laws

608 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
under which it was contracted, but advocated a refunding of
the bonds for a longer time and at a lower rate of interest.
It pronounced for equal civil and political rights and guar
anteed suffrage to all loyal men at the South. The Demo
cratic convention nominated Seymour and Blair against Grant
and Colfax, denounced the reconstruction measures of the
Republicans and proposed the payment of the national debt
in greenbacks.
Sumner spoke twice only during the campaign. He was suf
fering from a stubborn affection of the throat and was coun
selled against all public speaking, by his physician. Once he
spoke briefly at a flag raising of the Grant and Colfax Club, on
September fourteenth, in the ward, in Boston, where he was
born and had always voted. This was on Beacon Hill, the
highest point in Boston, where in early days were lighted the
beacon fires that flashed the news of danger over the surround
ing country. He prophesied that they were lighting there the
fires of congratulation and of joy. Four years before, this had
been counted a doubtful District. When the election was over,
Sumner had telegraphed Lincoln that it had gone Republican
by five thousand majority. It was the first word the President
had of his re-election and when he received it, he remarked : " If
this is a specimen of the doubtful Districts, what may we expect
of the whole country?"
Sumner spoke again, on October twenty-ninth, at the City
Hall, in Cambridge. The Massachusetts Republican Conven
tion, held at Worcester, September ninth, had indorsed him for
re-election to the Senate. At the opening of his speech he
therefore referred briefly to his own record of the preceding
six years. It began, while the war was still in progress and
saw its triumphant close, the abolition of slavery, the establish
ment of equal rights in the court-room and at the ballot-box
and the acquisition of Alaska. In all these things he had
borne his part in the Senate, — a part, he trusted, not unworthy
of the commonwealth he represented. Upon his service he
invited their scrutiny and candid judgment. He could not
forget, he said, that there had been much clamor at two prop
ositions he had advocated ; first, the power of Congress over the
States that had rebelled and abandoned their practical rela
tion with the Union; second, the necessity of securing to the
freedmen their equal civil and political rights. All this con
tention he recognized as happily at an end, within the ranks of
the Republican party, and was continued now only by those
lately in rebellion and their sympathizers at the North.
Though formal criticism of these things which he had ad-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 609
vocated so early and vigorously, had now disappeared, there
was yet left an occasional warning against " men of one idea,"
with a finger point at himself. What duty, he demanded, had
he failed to perform or what interest had he neglected? He
had given warning early against an inconvertible currency and
recently had urged a return to specie payments. With every
form of the business of the Senate, with taxation, commerce or
railroads, or the business of the Committee on Foreign Rela
tions, of which he was chairman, he had borne his part. But
while doing this he had felt it to be his supreme duty to warn
against the perils of slavery in all its forms and insist upon
every guarantee against its re-establishment. In season and out
of season, in the Senate and elsewhere, he had urged its aboli
tion and the destruction of its whole brood of inequalities. In
such a cause he had felt that no one could do too much, no
wisdom could be too great, no voice too eloquent, no courage
too persevering. Who upon this question had been " practical ",
he inquired, but the company of those who had been with him ?
" Permit me to say," he added, " that the ' practical ' statesman
foresees the future and provides for it. Whoever does anything
with his whole heart makes it for the time his ' one idea '.
Every discoverer, every inventor, every poet, every artist, every
orator, every general, every statesman is absorbed in his work;
and he succeeds just in proportion as, for the time, it becomes
his ' one idea '. The occasion must not be unworthy or petty ;
but the more complete the self-dedication, the more effective is
the result." Personally he felt he had nothing to regret, but
his own inadequacy. He would have done more, if he could.
His " idea " had been nothing less than his " country, with all
that is contained in that inspiring word, and with the infinite
vista of the same blessings for all mankind ".
It is to be remembered in view of what follows in this narra
tive, that, in this speech, Sumner repeatedly spoke in the
highest terms of General Grant as " an illustrious citizen "
and. " of unequal renown in the suppression of the Rebellion ",
instancing his career as an example of " one idea " pursued to
a triumphant end, when after planning his campaign, he an
nounced that he meant to " fight it out on this line, if it took
all summer" and yet, with no occasion for reproach, except
from rebels, who would have been glad to see him fail in that
singleness of purpose, which gave him the victory. In the con
test which afterward arose between Sumner and Grant, over
San Domingo, which led to the removal of Sumner from the
Committee on Foreign Relations and his separation from his

610 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
party, this early and pronounced friendship becomes a land
mark from which reckonings can be made.
With all earnestness, Sumner urged his hearers to vote for
the party, with Grant at its head, that had saved the Republic,
and not hand the country over " to the rebels and their allies ".
He declared that Blair, the Democratic candidate for Vice-
President, in calling upon President Johnson to declare the
reconstruction laws void and compel the army to undo their
work and disperse the " carpet-bag " government, at the South,
was guilty of greater nullification than that which had induced
President Jackson to threaten to hang John C. Calhoun. The
Democrats had declared that Congress had no power to pass
these laws. Sumner argued that Congress had this power,
that these States were under the control of Congress, because
they were without governments of their own and therefore of
necessity, as in the case of Territories, it must take charge of
them, because, having been conquered, the conqueror, accord
ing to the laws of war, has control of his conquests, because
the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery, gave Con
gress power to enforce this abolition and because Congress was
bound by the Constitution to guarantee to each State a repub
lican government. Hence he argued there could be no question
of the power of Congress to pass these laws.
Another objection, that was vigorously made by the Demo
crats to the Reconstruction Laws, was that they had extended
the right of suffrage to the freedmen. Sumner argued that
this was only an act of justice to those who had aided to save
the Republic, that while it was true that many of them could
neither read nor write, yet it must be remembered that there
were many other good citizens, whose only school had been the
rough world, in whom character was developed to a remarkable
degree, that you could not make men all equal in fact, that
Charles James Fox, the great English statesman, had been
driven to the poles to vote, only to find when he reached there
that his coachman was voting the other way, when he had
remonstrated with him for not telling him sooner so that they
might have paired off, that though this incident showed an ap
parent equality between the men it was not so in reality, for
this brilliant leader had influenced multitudes of his fellow-
citizens by his example. The ordinary man had nothing but
his vote to counterbalance the vote of the statesman. He
should not be deprived of that. He had nothing to counter
balance this influence. The ballot was necessary, he insisted,
to prevent a revival of slavery, in new forms, by hostile legis
lation, in the Southern States, and to ward off the threatened

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 611
violence, assassination and barbarism of the Ku-Klux-Klan.
To repeal the Reconstruction Laws would mean to break down
the barriers of protection thrown around the loyal people of
the South.
The other issues that were discussed in the campaign grew
out of the bonds. Sumner reiterated his warning against the
taxation of the bonds, in violation of the contract when the
money was lent, and against the payment of the interest in
greenbacks. Taxation would mean a confiscation of the addi
tional price paid for the bonds, on the faith that they were not
taxable. The bondholders had trusted to the faith of the nation
in the payment of this price. He reminded them of the ex
clamation of Charles James Fox to the proposal of a kindred
breach of national faith : " Oh, no, no, no ! His claims are
doubly binding who trusts to the rectitude of another ! " To
pay the interest in greenbacks would be ruinous to the national
credit. The greenbacks were not payment; they were simply
promises to pay. If nobody had breathed such a proposition
the nation would have been richer, for the bonds could then
have been paid, by the issue of others with a longer time to run
and at a lower rate of interest. " Here," he said, " was an
annual tax of millions imposed by these praters of repudiation."
Sumner again insisted upon the resumption of specie pay
ments. He proposed the fourth of July of the following year,
as the date to resume. It was destined to come ten years later
and to the great benefit of the country. But to have brought it
about so soon as Sumner suggested would probably have caused
a serious financial disturbance.
The result of the election was, upon the electoral vote, over
whelmingly for the Republicans. But to a more careful ob
server, looking behind this vote, there were many causes for
serious reflection. New York, New Jersey and Oregon had
gone Democratic. California was Republican by a majority of
five hundred and fourteen ; Indiana was correspondingly close ;
the majorities in Ohio and Pennsylvania were greatly reduced.
Six of the reconstructed Southern States — North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Arkansas and Florida —
saved the election to the Republicans. If the South had been
solid, as it has been so often since, Grant would have been de
feated. Evidence of shameless frauds and violence, in Louis
iana, was abundant and there was similar evidence concerning
Georgia. Both had gone Democratic. Grant's election being
assured, no investigation was made by Congress. It was un
fortunate that this was not done with promptness and thor
oughness, and the vote of Louisiana, where the evidence was

612 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
overwhelming, rejected. If this had been done and the leaders
vigorously punished, an infinite amount of trouble later would
have been saved and the credit of the nation upheld. Sumner
believed that it should not be thus lightly passed over, and
voted for a resolution introduced by Morton of Indiana, mak
ing a record of the Senate's knowledge of these frauds. But
the resolution was defeated.
One result of the election was the return of Sumner to the
Senate, for another term of six years. His election took place
in the Legislature of Massachusetts, on the nineteenth day of
January, 1869. It was destined to be his last. The unanimity
of the choice was unusual. He received in the Senate every
vote, save two, and in the House two hundred and sixteen, out
of two hundred and thirty-two votes. Henceforth he was to
be the senior Senator, in continuous service. Since the first
inauguration of Lincoln he had been the most widely known
and most conspicuous man in the Senate.
Much credit is due to the great State that had thus long and
thus unitedly sustained him. Those nearest to him knew with
what toil he had deserved it. The Duchess of Argyll, shortly
after this time wrote from England : " Is not what Dr.
Chalmers called your ' Sabbath of Life ' come when you feel
that you may give up the strife of politics and have time for
still better things? It has been a very full day of work, and I
wish you may see when resting time comes. God bless that
evening, and give hope of a glad morning ! " Alas, his " Sab
bath of Life " never came ! It was the full day's work to the
end. But was there not with it the hope of a glad morning ?
Sumner was in Washington at the time of the inauguration
of General Grant. The inaugural address was brief and
characteristic. It was very emphatic, on the two questions that
had been most discussed in the campaign, repudiation and
suffrage. He urged the exclusion of every repudiator from
public place as a means of strengthening the public credit ; and
the settlement of the suffrage question, likely to be agitated so
long as a portion of the citizens was excluded from the fran
chise in any State, by the ratification of the Fifteenth Amend
ment to the Constitution. The declaration, in his inaugural,
of most interest to us, in the light of the President's subsequent
contest with Sumner over San Domingo, was, that on all sub
jects he should have " a policy to recommend, but none to en
force against the will of the people ". He probably meant this
statement in all candor, but in reference to the course that had
been pursued by President Johnson, which had rendered his
" policy " so obnoxious, as to be still fresh in the public recol-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 613
lection. It was so fresh also in the recollection of General
Grant, by reason of Johnson's effort to place him in a false light,
in connection with the removal of Secretary Stanton that, con
trary to the almost uniform custom since the foundation of the
Republic', he would not recognize Johnson officially, by driving
to the Inauguration service with him from the White House.
On the evening of the Inauguration, three men dined together
at Sumner's house in Washington. At the time they were fast
friends of long standing and of similar tastes. All were men
of culture, scholarly, fond of each other's society, and of the
pleasures of good cheer; and all were destined to a permanent
place in their country's history. All of them were friends of
the administration just inaugurated and looked forward, with
bright anticipations, to the realization of the best hopes of the
Republicans. These three men were destined soon to play prin
cipal parts, in one of the most heated contests of Grant's ad
ministration. They were Sumner, John Lothrop Motley, the
historian, and Hamilton Fish, soon to become Grant's Secretary
of State. Little did they then think, as the pleasant com
munion passed from lip to lip, at this hospitable board, that one
of them, doing the will of his chief, would soon become the
instrument to drive both the others from coveted places, in their
country's service, estrange them from their party and leave
sores that never were healed.
Fish did not then know that he was to be a member of Grant's
Cabinet. At this time, the President's plans were otherwise.
He had nominated Alexander T. Stewart, a wealthy merchant
of New York City, for Secretary of the Treasury. If he had
received this place, it would, according to custom, have pre
vented the appointment of any other Cabinet officer from the
State of New York. But an old act of Congress forbade the
appointment of any one interested in the carrying business of
trade or commerce, to the position of Secretary of the Treasury.
This law disqualified Stewart. The President did not know
of the law, when this nomination was made, though its viola
tion was punishable by a fine of three thousand dollars and
removal from office and disqualification, thereafter, from hold
ing any position under the Government. The position was an
embarrassing one. When it was brought to his attention, the
President frankly admitted his ignorance of the law, but being
very desirous to have Mr. Stewart in his Cabinet he asked that
the law be changed so as to allow him to take the place. Sher
man asked unanimous consent of the Senate to introduce such
a bill, but Sumner's voice promptly arrested the measure. He
suggested that such a step ought to be carefully considered be-

614 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
fore it was taken. The bill was not called up again, a private
canvass having disclosed that the Senators upon reflection,
were generally against it. The President then withdrew the
appointment and nominated George S. Boutwell of Massa
chusetts. The President at the commencement of his administration
had sent to the Senate the name of Elihu B. Washburn for Sec
retary of State. For sixteen years, he had represented in Con
gress the Galena district of Illinois. At the opening of the
war Grant resided in this district and Washburn ever since had
been his faithful friend. Upon the failure of the President to
sec.ure A. T. Stewart of New York for his Secretary of the
Treasury, Mr. Washburn resigned and was appointed Minister to
France and Hamilton Fish was appointed Secretary of State.
He was the only member of Grant's Cabinet, appointed at this
time, that continued with him to the end of his administration.
Cabinet changes during his Presidency were frequent. The
President himself, with his strong personality, was the domi
nating spirit of his administration and a man of like character
was not continued long in his official family. Fish was not of
this disposition.
He was a member of one of the old Knickerbocker families
of New York City. He had inherited large wealth as well as a
companionable disposition. He was singularly fortunate in his
marriage to a refined and intelligent lady, who united with
him in making their home one of elegant hospitality. He had
served in both Houses of the New York Legislature, a term
in each House of Congress and one as Governor of New York.
His career in these offices had not been distinguished, but was
characterized by good sense and the genial character of the
man. He entered the Senate the same day Sumner did and they were
soon warm friends. Without a home of his own, the refined
hospitality dispensed at that of Fish, where he was always, till
this time, a welcome guest, appealed strongly to Sumner. No
where in Washington was he entertained so often or with so
much cordiality. After Fish's retirement from the Senate
this intimacy continued at his homes in New York and on the
Hudson ; and while Sumner was in Europe, in search of health
after the Brooks assault, he saw much of tliem in Paris, where
their daughters were in school. During all these years, fre
quent and cordial letters passed between him and Mr. and Mrs.
Fish and their children, and kindly messages were exchanged
upon interesting changes in their family. When the Fishes

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER <H5
went to Europe, in 1858, they carried letters from Sumner to
some of his European friends, a favor he rarely granted.
After his retirement from the Senate, in 1857, until called
to the Cabinet in 1869, Fish held no public office and, with the
facility of his disposition, seemed to have little interest, in the
important events that were transpiring in the political world.
His hospitality, extended to General Grant, in New York, had
brought them together and led to his selection for the Cabinet.
He was then sixty years of age and accepted and, for the first
year, retained the office, with some reluctance. Thereafter
the place became more congenial to him. His appointment was
very agreeable to Sumner. Fish relied upon Sumner to counsel
him about appointments and questions of difficulty, arising in
the Department, and even sent copies of dispatches from our
Ministers to him, when in Boston, so that he might have the
benefit of his advice. This unusually cordial relation con
tinued, until the San Domingo controversy arose.
The other guest at Sumner's table the evening of the Inaug
uration, John Lothrop Motley, was a native of Dorchester,
Massachusetts, now a part of Boston. He graduated at Har
vard, in the same class with Sumner's eloquent co-laborer in the
anti-slavery cause, Wendell Phillips. It was the class follow
ing Sumner's. Motley studied law and was admitted to the
Massachusetts bar, practised for some time in Boston and was
elected a Member of the Massachusetts Legislature, in 1849.
His wife was a sister of Park Benjamin, with whom and
another sister, she made her home in Boston, prior to her mar
riage. Sumner was, at the time, a frequent caller, at their
house. Inspired with the purpose of writing his Netherland
histories, Motley went to Europe in 1851, where the balance of
his life was mostly spent. His history of the Rise of the Dutch
Republic was published in London, in 1856, and it immediately
raised him to fame and popularity in England. He was in
London during the seasons of 1858, 1859 and 1860 and was
much sought for, and was entertained by the best society.
Realizing the want of knowledge, in England, of the real causes
of our troubles, at the opening of hostilities, he wrote a letter to
the London Times, afterwards singularly influential as a
pamphlet, explaining clearly and elaborately the nature of the
Union and the causes of the war.
He was made Minister to Austria, by President Lincoln, in
1861, and he continued there till 1867, occupying himself large
ly, with promoting a right knowledge, in Europe, of American
conditions and the aims of the Union party. He was recalled
by President Johnson and returning to the United States, he

616 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
took part in the campaign for the election of Grant. A bril
liant speech for the Republican cause, by the historian of
William the Silent, describing the candidates and urging
Grant's election, appealed strongly to him. Motley met Grant
frequently afterwards, when a genial cigar together cemented a
pleasant acquaintance and prepossessed Grant in his favor.
Fish also had met him in New York, liked him and had intro
duced him on the occasion of a lecture. The influential parties
were thus prepossessed in his favor, when Sumner recommended
him for Minister to England. He received the appointment on
April twelfth, a month after Fish entered the State Depart
ment. Sumner's especial desire in the distribution of the
Foreign Missions was to get that to Greece for his friend Dr.
Samuel G. Howe of Boston. The President wished to appoint
Motley and he, being credited to Boston, naturally barred Howe.

CHAPTER XXXVIII
EULOGIES ON THADDEUS STEVENS AND WM. P. FESSENDEN  AN
EDITION OF HIS WORKS  CHANGES. IN THE NATURALIZA
TION LAWS  EQUAL RIGHTS  RECONSTRUCTION COMPLETED
At the opening of Congress, in December, 1868, one Mem
ber was wanting, who had been a familiar figure there since
Sumner's first entrance to the Senate. This was Thaddeus
Stevens. He was born in Vermont, but had entered the House,
in 1848, from Pennsylvania, where he had already distinguished
himself, as a lawyer, and by a long service in the Legislature.
He had advocated an efficient system of common schools, with
such success that Sumner declared there was not a child in
Pennsylvania " conning a spelling-book beneath the rafters
of a village school, who did not owe him gratitude ". He was
early known, in the House, as a pronounced enemy of slavery
and a bold advocate of equal rights. For vigorous and trench
ant oratory he had few equals. " Speech was with him at
times a cat-o-nine tails and woe to the victim on whom the
terrible lash descended." He was not less distinctly a man of
action, fearless and uncompromising in his fight for equal
rights, and he fought slavery to its death. But when the fight
was over, when slavery was abolished and equal suffrage secured,
worn out by his tremendous efforts, " he laid down his load of
work and disease to put on immortality." Sumner commem
orated him in the Senate at the memorial service, emphasizing
the heroic qualities of the man. In fearless, direct and vigorous
advocacy, of what both believed was right, there was much in
common between them.
Sumner was soon called to perform the same office for one
of his colleagues. Senator William Pitt Fessenden took part
in the first session of Congress under President Grant, but it
was his last public service. He died on the eighth day of Sep
tember, 1869. He had been another of Sumner's early co-
laborers in the anti-slavery cause. When he entered the Senate,
in 1855, it was during the struggle over the Kansas-Nebraska
Bill. In the Senate there were just fourteen members, who
stood for freedom, while thirty-seven were ready to repeal the
Compromise that stood as a time-honored landmark, and to
open that vast region to slavery. His coming seemed like
617

618 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
a reinforcement on the field of battle. The friends of free
dom were no longer fourteen, but fifteen. Coming from the
other House, he was armed at all points for the fight. He at
once took part in the debate where his directness and his quick
ness at repartee were soon apparent. A threat of secession, by a
Southerner, while he was speaking, met the prompt response:
" Do not delay it on my account ; do not delay it on account
of anybody at the North ". Others still interrupted, only to be
worsted. " The effect," Sumner declared, " was electric "...
He added, " The ' Globe ' could not picture the exciting scene,
— the Senator from Maine erect, firm, immovable as a jutting
promontory against which the waves of Ocean tossed and broke
in dissolving spray. There he stood. Not a Senator, loving
Freedom, who did not feel on that day that a champion had
come." The place Fessenden took in the Senate that day, he
maintained to the end. No one in the Senate could match him
for directness of argument, " for immediate and incisive reply."
" He shot flying," said Sumner, " and with unerring aim."
Sumner contrasted the Senate as it was in the early days of
the Republic. It was then described, as the only assembly in
the Union, where eloquence was obtrusive and every one de
livered his opinion concisely — one leg over the other — where
speech was for business and immediate effect. Under the trans
forming influence of such men, it had become a centre from
which to address the country. "A seat here," Sumner de
clared, " is a lofty pulpit with a mighty sounding board and the
whole, wide-spread people is the congregation."
Sumner spoke of Fessenden's integrity, his fidelity, his con
stant watchfulness of the public interest. He dwelt on his serv
ices as chairman of the Finance Committee of the Senate
during the war, when immense sums were being appropriated
and the receipts and expenditures were both then under its
control and yet, so closely was the Treasury watched by him,
that nothing was added to or taken from it, without his knowl
edge. " All," he said, " that our best generals were in arms, he
was in the financial field."
Sumner and Fessenden had not been warm friends. Each
appreciated the other, each supported the same party and the
same measures. But both were leaders and sharp encounters
sometimes took place between them. As Sumner suggested,
"men are tempted by the talent they possess." Fessenden
" once engaged, yielded to the excitement of the moment and
the joy of conflict" and sometimes, perhaps, said more than
he intended. " His words warmed, as the Olympic wheel
caught fire in the swiftness of the race," But Sumner added,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 619
"if on these occasions there were sparkles which fell where
they should not have fallen, they cannot be remembered now."
It was a generous eulogy. Sumner was at his best. And Fes
senden's friends were grateful in their acknowledgments of it.
Little did either then realize what a loss Sumner had sustained
in Fessenden's death. In the struggles which followed with
Grant, Fessenden's strong sense of justice, his independence, his
high appreciation of Sumner's abilities, would have interposed
to prevent him being driven, from the Chairmanship of the
Committee on Foreign Relations, by a mere gust of temper on
the part of those in authority. It was felt that Fessenden's
influence in the Senate, was sufficient to have prevented it, if
he had lived.
But the Senate was changing. Sumner's old colleagues were
passing away. The position of senior Senator in continuous
service which he now held brought many reflections with it. He
was not yet old in years — only fifty-seven. His mother had
lived to be eighty-one ; his father was sixty-three when he died.
With Sumner's splendid physical endowment, much like his
mother's, he might have hoped, under other circumstances, that
his life would be continued to a good old age. But his days had
been passed too much in the storm and stress of the most ex
citing period of American history. The toil, and suffering,
both physical and mental, that he had endured, were telling
upon him. He felt old age creeping on and realized that he
must be putting his house in order. With the system that had
characterized his whole life, he set- about it.
In 1869, he commenced the publication of a complete edition
of his works. He had contemplated such an edition for several
years. There had been a collection of his earlier speeches pub
lished and generally sold, but this was exhausted and his friends
urged him to issue a new and complete one. There was a
demand frequently for copies of his speeches which were out
of print and could not be furnished. Many of them had been
prepared with great labor and embodied the result of much care
ful research. They had been received, at the time of their de
livery, in terms of high commendation, by the press and by
prominent men and were regarded as having a permanent value
for the matter which they contained as well as for the finished
form in which they appeared. They contained the thought of
one of the chief actors, in a most important period of history.
They were specimens of eloquence that were hardly surpassed in
the English language for beauty of expression and permanent
effect, some of them being inseparably connected with the fall
of slavery, as the speech which preceded the assault by Brooks.

620 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
A right understanding of the assault could not be had without
reading the speech and yet that assault made a permanent im
pression upon the country. Sumner's own fame as one of the
first orators of his country had become widely extended and he
naturally felt an interest in perpetuating it, by leaving these
speeches in such form as would render them accessible to future
generations. He wrote his friend, Dr. Samuel G. Howe : " Latterly I have
been led to think more than ever of the uncertainty of life.
Perhaps the little interest I have in it has made me notice
symptoms that in a gayer mood I might have neglected. Suf
fice it to say that I have now but one solicitude, — it is to print
a revised edition of my speeches before I die. If this were
done I should be ready to go. These speeches are my life. As
a connected series they will illustrate the progress of the great
battle with slavery, and what I have done in it. I hope it
is not unpardonable in me to desire to see them together,
especially as I have nothing else."
To accomplish this work in the manner proposed made it
no 'slight task for one of Sumner's years. His model was the
American edition of Burke's works; but it was to be more
elaborately done. The speeches were to have an accurate in
troduction explaining the circumstances under which the speech
was delivered, and the occasion of it. The text of the speech
was to be carefully corrected, if need be, the language changed
to convey the thought more clearly, and notes added, so as to
give the authorities relied, on ; and the whole followed by an
appendix, explaining circumstances which followed the speech,
perhaps the farther debate and vote, quoting the press com
ments and his correspondence upon it. As he was accustomed
to frank copies of his speeches after delivery, to the press and
his friends, naturally the comments and correspondence were
of some length. In some instances, this introduction and
the appendix of a speech would occupy, as in that preceding
the Brooks assault, more than a hundred pages of closely
printed matter. The care with which it was done and the
research required, tempted him to great labor, to give the
edition the finished form he desired. When he had completed
the first two volumes, he wrote Longfellow, it would have been
as easy to re-write the speeches as to edit them. The purpose
was to include the whole in eight volumes, the set to be com
pleted in one or two more, containing a biography, written by
another. But it far exceeded this, running to fifteen volumes
of about five hundred pages each, without the biography. He
did not live to see it completed. It was a greater work than he

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 621
anticipated, requiring time that at his age should have been
given to rest, overtaxing his strength and troubling the last
hours of his life. The part of the work up to the four hun
dredth and sixty-seventh page of the tenth volume and the
monograph, " Prophetic voices concerning America " contained
in the twelfth, which he was preparing for separate publica
tion, were completed under his direction. He also furnished
notes for the eleventh volume. But the remaining work was
done under the direction of his executors. The first volume
came from the press, in 1870 ; the last, not until 1883.
This work, while too large for a popular edition and contain
ing much of little interest to the general reader, is of great
value to one who wishes to make a careful study of Sumner's
life. The introductions and appendices and the notes to the
speeches, especially in the volumes prepared under Sumner's
own eye, are of great value and show in small compass and
with great accuracy his part in the affairs to which the speeches
relate. The expense connected with the work was considerable. An
accomplished proof-reader was engaged, who made verbal criti
cisms, verified the notes and carried the volumes through the
press. No expense was spared to make the work as nearly
perfect as it could be. Sumner assumed the financial re
sponsibility for it and he, and his executors after his death,
secured the copyrights. The publishing was by Lee and Shep-
ard of Boston and, in printing and binding as well as mate
rial, the work is a model of excellence. It was sold by sub
scription. A special edition, each set containing the autograph
of Sumner, was sold at an advanced price, mostly to his per
sonal friends; the last volume of the work contains the names
of the subscribers to this autograph edition. But the burden
of expense was felt by Sumner. At times he thought of giving
up his house in Washington, to reduce his expenditures, so as
to devote his means to this object, but this had become such a
source of comfort, at his time of life, for one in his position
and he felt the need of it so much, that he could not make the
sacrifice. The work was a considerable drain upon his moder
ate estate.
To raise the funds to meet these expenses of house and
" works " he continued his expedient of lecturing, during the
recesses of Congress. In the summer of 1869, he prepared a
lecture on " The Question of Caste " which he delivered first
in Boston on October twenty-first and subsequently at numer
ous places, in New England, and in the States of Pennsylvania,
New Jersey, Delaware and New York. The lecture revealed

622 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
his wealth of learning and customary care in preparation and
gave many historical illustrations of class distinctions, in the
population of semi-civilized countries. He argued that caste,
wherever it existed, was a relic of barbarism and should
be abolished. He had now advanced to this position, in the
Senate, in the treatment of the rights of the freedmen and was
insisting upon the absolute civil and political equality of all
men. He had spoken on the subject, at the previous session,
when the Fifteenth Amendment to the Constitution was under
consideration and had offered a substitute for it, which he be
lieved would more effectually promote this purpose, by adding
some criminal penalties to the denial of the right to vote or
hold office under the pretence of race or color. This substitute,
however, was rejected. His purpose in the lecture, aside from
financial gain, was to create and develop a sentiment in favor
of equal rights. Nothing, he argued, could ever be settled, that
wras not right, and there could be no settlement of this ques
tion except in harmony with the principles he advocated. " As
all rivers are lost in the sea, which shows no sign of their
presence " so, he insisted, must all nationalities, English, Ger
man, African or Chinese, within the confines of our Republic
be lost in one harmonious citizenship, where all are equal in
rights. In Congress, Sumner sought to have the naturalization laws
amended by striking out the word " white ", wherever it oc
curred, so that in the admission of foreign born persons to our
citizenship, there should be no distinction of race or color. The
bill he introduced for this purpose, was referred to the Judi
ciary Committee, where it remained until near the end of the
session, when it was reported adversely. In March, 1869, he in
troduced it again. The committee again retained it, this time
for more than a year, when it was reported favorably. On the
second and fourth days of July, 1870, he spoke upon it and
advocated its passage. He was opposed by some Republicans,
who asked him not to press it to a vote, because they did not
wish to go on record as voting for or against it. But he re
minded them of other days, when he had been asked not to
press questions to a vote. He insisted now, as then, that the
question should be settled justly and it would be settled finally
that from 1867 till now, he was unable to have a vote upon it
and when at last he had reached a vote he was asked to post
pone it to some " to-morrow ". With some impatience he ex
claimed : "To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 623
To the last syllable of recorded time ;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. "
I will not postpone this question to any ' to-morrow ' ! "
His bill was also opposed by some Senators who lived on the
Pacific coast, because it would admit the Chinese to citizenship.
But he still answered that his bill only dealt justly with all
men, negro as well as Chinese. His amendment, however, was
rejected ; a motion to reconsider the vote carried, but it was re
jected again. An amendment was then offered to extend the
naturalization laws to aliens of African nativity and to persons
of African descent; and it carried, Sumner voting for it, al
though he believed the exclusion of the Chinese to be unjust.
On the eighth of April, 1870, in reply to an invitation to be
present at the last meeting of the American Anti-Slavery So
ciety, which proposed to disband considering its work as finished,
after having secured the abolition of slavery and equal rights at
the ballot-box, he declared that he could not consider the work
as finished, so long as the word " white " was allowed to play
any part in legislation or rule public conveyances or bar the
doors of hotels, or houses of amusement or schools, that the
complete equality of all, before the law, must first be secured.
He was opposed to class disabilities.
At the same time he urged that there should be no exclusion
of retired army officers from civil office. He argued that the
half pay they enjoyed must be considered as a pension and not
as pay for employment, that it was unfair to these men, having
no work, to be excluded from the civil service, if qualified.
Another instance of Sumner's devotion to these principles
occurred at about this time. It illustrates his courage in main
taining a position that he believed to be right in the face of an
adverse majority and a misguided public sentiment. There
had been some disagreement between our government and
foreign nations as to the right of the citizens of these nations
to dissolve their relations with them and become naturalized
citizens of our country. Some of these naturalized citizens
upon returning to their native countries were arrested and
held, for a compliance with their laws of citizenship. To
remedy this evil a bill was passed by the House fixing the right
of foreign born persons to dissolve their relation to their mother
countries and become naturalized citizens of ours. But to this
very proper provision it was added, that if it became known to
the President, that any of these naturalized citizens were ar
rested and detained, by any foreign government, in contra-

(524 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
vention of our laws, and their release was unreasonably de
layed, the President was authorized to retaliate by suspending
commercial relations with the foreign government, thus offend
ing, or to arrest and detain in custody any subject of that
government, found within our country except ambassadors and
other public ministers and their domestics.
No one questioned the right of our government to maintain
that a foreign subject could thus dissolve his relation to his
mother country and become a citizen of ours. Both the polit
ical parties had recognized it, in their platforms. England and
Germany were recognizing it abroad. But the proposed
remedy, by the suspension of commerce or the arrest of foreign
citizens here, was monstrous. Yet a bill with these provisions
in it passed the House, under pressure of the Fenian move
ment. The wrongfulness of it was pointed out, but the flexibil
ity of the Members appeared when, for fear of offending this
element of our citizens, one hundred and four voted for it and
only four against it ; seventy-nine did not vote. Some Members
voted for it, though opposed to it, trusting that it would be
killed in the Senate. When one of these was asked how he
could vote for such a monstrous proposition, he answered : " It
was of no account ; I knew Sumner would put his foot on it."
He did put his foot on it, but their conduct was none the
less discreditable. In the Senate it was referred to the Com
mittee on Foreign Relations, of which he was Chairman. Not
withstanding a pressure to have it reported earlier, he held it
there for two months to allow time for reflection, and then
reported the bill, with an amendment leaving out the clause,
authorizing the suspension of commercial relations and re
prisals on private persons, and substituting for it a clause mak
ing it the duty of the President to report to Congress the cir
cumstances of the arrest of our citizens and any proceedings
for their release, so that Congress could take prompt action to
secure to everyone his just rights. Every member of his
Committee concurred in this report.
In the Senate, Sumner declared that by the law of nations,
private individuals could not be held responsible for the act of
their government and that this provision against them meant,
that Charles Dickens, or Anthony Trollope, or Rev. Newman
Hall, trustful travellers and honored guests in our country,
might be seized and imprisoned at the nod of the President, to
the great shame of the country. It would make good men
liable to suffer for acts, in which they took no part, and he
could liken it to nothing better, than " the revival of the
Priigel-knabe, who was kept at the German courts of former

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER

625

days, to receive the stripes which the prince had merited for
his misdeeds."
The Senate rejected these retaliatory provisions, in the
House bill, by a vote of thirty to seven. But a substitute was
moved, for the provision inserted by Sumner's Committee, re
quiring the President, whenever one of our citizens was unjustly
deprived of his liberty, to use such means, not amounting to
acts of war, as he may think proper, to obtain his release.
Sumner opposed this amendment as conferring too great power
on the President. On the other side it was said, that " the law
as proposed to be passed under the direction of the honorable
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations amounts to
nothing " and Conness of California charged Sumner with in
difference to the rights of foreign born citizens, except those
of African descent. Sumner replied, calling his attention to
the fact that when Know-Nothingism prevailed and enveloped
Massachusetts, opposing the naturalization and adoption of
foreigners as American citizens, he had gone down to Faneuil
Hall and, in the presence of one of the largest audiences ever
assembled there, demanded the same protection and privileges
for everyone, Irish, German, African or Chinese as he did now.
The substitute carried and the bill, as thus amended, passed.
Sumner, however, voted against it, though urged for political
reasons to support it.
In the Senate on the twenty-first day of January, 1870, a
controversy took place between Sumner and Trumbull of Il
linois over reconstruction. In the heat of it Trumbull ques
tioned Sumner's record on this question, taking him to task for
his absence on the night of the passage of the Act of 1867, re
quiring equal suffrage as one of the conditions, when Sumner
left the Chamber at midnight, before the vote was taken, but
after the success of the measure was assured. It will be remem
bered that Sumner was the first to engraft equal suffrage for
the colored race on that bill, as an essential condition of the
return of the States in rebellion. Sumner took little notice of
the thrust on that day. He did say:
" I have no taste for controversy ; much rather would I give
the little of strength that now remains for me to the direct
advocacy of those great principles to which my life in humble
measure has been dedicated, not forgetting any of my other
duties as a Senator. If I have in any respect failed, I regret
it. Let me say in all simplicity, I have done much less than
I wish I had. I have failed often, — oh, how often! — when I
wish I had prevailed. No one can regret it more than I. But

626 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
I have been constant and earnest always. Such, God willing,
such I mean to be to the end."
This occurred when the admission of Virginia was under con
sideration. A few days later, when the admission of Mississippi
was before the Senate, Stewart, of Nevada, returned to the
subject, in an acrimonious speech, denying Sumner's author
ship of the provision for colored suffrage, in the Act of 1867.
When he concluded Sumner, unwilling to remain silent longer,
reviewed the record at some length, commencing as early as
1862 and quoting, to show the different steps of the controversy
and how constantly he had been in the front of the movement
for equal suffrage. As the ground has already been gone over
in these pages it is needless to review it again.
Sherman of Ohio, who was a Senator during the whole time
in question and an active participant in all this work, was
somewhat impatient at the consumption of time over the ques
tion. He said, that Sumner's record on it was made long before
1867. " No man can deny," he added, " that from the first
and I think the very first, he has advocated and maintained the
necessity of giving to the colored people of the Southern States
the right to vote * * * Early and late he has repeated to us
the necessity of conferring suffrage upon the colored people
of the South as the basis of reconstruction. I think, therefore,
that he is justified in stating that he was the first to propose
it in" this body. * * * In my judgment it would be just as well
for George Washington to defend himself against the charge
of disloyalty to the American colonies, for whom he was fight
ing, as for the honorable Senator to defend his record on this
question." This controversy grew out of the reconstruction of Virginia,
Texas, Mississippi and Georgia. The first three of these States
had never been admitted and additional conditions were now
demanded. The depredations of the Ku Klux Klan and other
acts of outrage, upon loyal citizens, were awaking many Repub
licans to a feeling that other guarantees should be required of
them. Among these was Sumner, who urged that the Senate
should move slowly in the matter. Three Senators, Stewart,
Trumbull and Carpenter, were for restoring them without re
quiring any conditions. A joint resolution was offered provid
ing for the admission of Virginia unconditionally, declaring
she had complied with all the conditions of the Reconstruction
Acts. This was amended in the Senate by adding a requirement
that Members of the Legislature and State officers of Virginia
should take an oath of past loyalty or of the removal of their
disabilities. Other amendments were added requiring for the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 627
colored people equality in suffrage, equality in eligibility to
office, in school rights and privileges. Sumner strongly advo
cated all of them and he had with him the mass of the Repub
licans. But the three Senators named opposed them; and it
was over them the clash occurred. Sumner voted for all the
amendments, but refused to vote for the resolution, though
the amendments all carried. He believed that outrages in the
South were becoming so frequent, that these States should, for
a time, be continued under the control of Congress. But the
resolution carried. Mississippi and Texas were admitted under
the same conditions.
The Representatives from Georgia had been admitted to the
House in 1868. But before the Senators were admitted, her
Legislature had expelled all its colored Members on the ground
that they were disqualified and had admitted, to their places,
white persons, whose disabilities were not yet removed. Other
outrages were being committed there upon loyal citizens. It
all resulted in the exclusion of her Senators and the expulsion
of her Representatives from Congress. She was now seeking
admission again and was the last State to receive it. A proviso
was added in the House to the bill for her admission, making
valid the title of her State officers to their offices. In the
Senate this proviso was opposed by Sumner. She was finally
required to readmit the colored Members to their seats in the
Legislature and to ratify the Fifteenth Amendment to the
Constitution before her admission. Hence her admission did
not take place until July 15, 1870. This completed the re
construction of all the States which had been in rebellion.
The proclamation of the ratification of the Fifteenth Amend
ment was issued on the thirtieth day of March, 1870. The
Legislatures of the only States that refused to ratify it were
under the absolute control of the Democrats and every member
of that party in Congress refused to vote for it. But the req
uisite support was obtained without them. Thus equal suf
frage became a part of the fundamental law of the nation. On
the evening of April first, a large crowd, after serenading the
President and Vice-President, in honor of the event, went to
the house of Sumner and he responded in a short speech, from
his front door, in which he urged them to continue their efforts
for equal rights until the word " white " was expunged from
all our laws "and the public schools were open to all alike.
At this session of Congress Sumner introduced a resolution
and supported it by a speech, asking the revocation of the
charter of a medical society of the District of Columbia be-

628 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
cause it refused to admit colored physicians to its membership.
But he was unable to secure action upon it.
With the admission of Mississippi came questions as to the
right of each of her Senators to a seat. Hiram R. Revels was
a colored man, the first to ask admission to the Senate and,
as if by a strange decree of Providence, who sometimes chooses
the weak things of earth to confound the mighty, he came to
occupy the seat made vacant by Jefferson Davis, who had
abandoned it and became soon after the President of the Con
federacy. Adelbert Ames, the other, was an officer in the
United States Army, in command of that State and its pro
visional Governor, a native of Maine and a graduate of West
Point, who by brilliant service had won his star, before he was
twenty-six years of age. He of course belonged to that class
later known in the South as " carpet-baggers ". The only ob
jection made against him was that of non-residence. He was
in the State, claimed it as his residence and resigned his posi
tion in the army to take his seat. Sumner spoke and voted in
favor of both ; and both were seated. The objection made to the
seating of Revels was solely on account of color. A Democratic
member moved to refer his credentials to the Judiciary Com
mittee. Sumner insisted that the argument of this question
was past, that it had been fully discussed, that nothing more
could be said upon it and it only remained to act, that no man
acted for himself alone, that what he did, whether for good
or evil, is felt in widening circles, according to the measure
of his influence, that what the Senate did upon this question,
would be by way of example to be followed by other bodies
and associations throughout the country; it should be an ex
ample against tyranny and wrong and " for all everywhere who
feel the blight of unjust power ". The motion to refer was de
feated by a vote of forty-eight to eight; and by the same vote
he was seated.

CHAPTER XXXIX
FINANCIAL MEASURES  ONE CENT POSTAGE  CHINESE INDEM
NITY FUND  CLAIMS AGAINST ENGLAND  IN HARMONY
WITH GRANT'S ADMINISTRATION
The time of Congress during the years 1869 and 1870 was
largely occupied with financial measures growing out of the
war. There was much talk of damages done by our armies in
the South and claims were made on behalf of persons, alleged
to have been loyal, whose property had been destroyed in this
way. Of course the claim of loyalty was hard to disprove,
though in many cases it was gravely questioned. A sample of
these claims was in that presented by Miss Sue Murphy of
Decatur, Alabama. Her house was entirely destroyed under an
order from General Sherman to make this place a military
post. She claimed she had been loyal though residing in a
Rebel State. The claim provoked discussion because it was
one of a large class and if paid would open the door for many
others. Sumner opposed its payment. He said it presented
to him the single question whether the nation was bound to
indemnify a citizen domiciled in a hostile state for property
taken to build a fort against the Rebels. He insisted that the
authorities upon this question from the law of nations were
all against the payment of such a claim, that if this one were
paid, claimants whose name would be legion, must be paid
also and hence there was here a reason for caution. On his
motion the bill to pay it was recommitted to the Committee on
Claims. All of its class subsequently failed.
The national debt was already very large and it was taxing
the resources of the Government to keep the interest paid and
the bonds provided for as they came due. There was a care
ful watch being kept that it should not be unwisely increased.
Sumner was anxious to have it so adjusted as to be in process
of extinction. He argued, however, that the preservation of
the union was a work of such magnitude and of such impor
tance to future generations that the burden of it should not all
be imposed upon the country at once. He was in favor of
issuing new bonds payable in the future so that its payment
should be gradual. On the twelfth day of January, 1870, he
629

630 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
introduced a bill for the purpose of refunding the debt, pro
viding for the issue of three classes of bonds, all redeemable in
coin and exempt from taxation. There was to be $500,000,000.
of each class and the first was to be redeemable in from ten to
forty years, bearing interest at five per cent; the second re
deemable in from fifteen to fifty years, with interest at four and
one-half per cent; and the third redeemable in twenty to sixty
years, with interest at four per cent. The bill also provided
for extending the amount of the issue of the circulating notes
of the National banks from $300,000,000 to $500,000,000, the
additional circulation to be distributed according to population
among the States and Territories. And an equal amount of
greenbacks was to be withdrawn. This additional circulation
of the banks was to be secured by the four per cent bonds, re
deemable in from twenty to sixty years, deposited with the
United States Treasurer, in the proportions of one hundred
dollars of bonds for each eighty dollars of notes issued.
The object of the bill was to retire bonds bearing a higher
rate of interest so as in part to relieve the government of the
enormous burden of accumulating interest and at the same time
extend the time of payment of the debt, so that it would not all
come due at once, but gradually and, if need be, at long in
tervals. It was not his expectation that it would all be paid by
the generation that gave its blood so freely to put down the
Rebellion, nor that it should be an irredeemable debt like the
British consols. He would adhere to the definite payment of
the debt and avoid the idea that it was to be permanent, but
he would not require payment so soon as to embarrass our bus
iness interests.
A further section provided for the resumption of specie pay
ments. When the premium on gold fell to, or within five per
cent, the Secretary of the Treasury was to give notice that
greenbacks would be received in payment of custom duties at
par. Sumner spoke on the subject, between the twelfth day of
January and the eleventh day of March, 1870, on six different
occasions and showed a greater interest in the measure than
any other Senator, save Sherman of Ohio, who was the Chair
man of the Committee on Finance. It was this Committee that
had the bill in charge. Sumner in his speeches repeatedly
urged the necessity of economy in the public expenditures so
that payments might be made on the national debt and taxes
likewise be reduced.
He opposed the continuance of the income tax because the
difficulties in the way of its fair assessment are not of a char-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 631
acter that can be overcome, though apparently equal, it being
in operation most unequal and vexatious. He argued that it
was inquisitorial, difficult of collection and fell with peculiar
weight upon those who were disposed to act honestly. A good
place for the reduction of taxes to begin, he believed, was in the
abandonment of this altogether. It was only resorted to as a
war measure. And the war, the occasion and the pretext of it,
having ended, it should be abandoned at once.
He also moved to abolish the tariff on books printed in for
eign or dead languages of which no editions were printed in the
United States ; and, being voted down in this, he then moved to
add to the free list books with illustrations relating to the
sciences and the arts. But this also was voted down. He
argued that our foreign population — German, Italian, Span
iard, Swede and Dane — when they came here to join their
fortune with ours, should have the means of enjoying those
innocent recreations that are found in reading works of liter
ature, or instruction which thousands of them would be
glad to have. As to the books of sciences and the arts, many
of them were too costly and the sale of them too limited to be
reprinted and to deprive men of the use of them, by a heavy
duty, was an outrage. It was often taxing the tools by which
they lived. He was for free schools and free knowledge every
where. But while he urged economy and the reduction of expenses,
there were certain measures advocated that he was unwilling
to agree to, as either wise or politic. A bill was introduced to
abolish the franking privilege whereby Senators and Members
of Congress and other officials enjoyed the freedom of the mails
for letters on official business, speeches, documents, pamphlets
and seeds. He believed that this privilege brought the Govern
ment and people nearer together, than any government and
people ever were before. It disseminated knowledge by means
of these speeches and documents. When slavery was in exist
ence, this privilege had carried the arguments against it to the
people and when the war broke out, it became the powerful ally
of the national cause. He could not think it politic to dispense
with it, without providing some substitute. He, therefore, in
troduced, as a substitute, a bill to reduce the rate of postage on
letters to one cent and make a reduction of the rate on papers.
He made an elaborate speech on the subject. It had been a
favorite one with him. He had sought as early as March
eighth, 1852, to secure a reduction on ocean postage and had
supported a resolution of inquiry into the subject, by a brief
speech calling attention to the extravagant rates charged. The

632 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
rate had been subsequently reduced ; but he thought them still
too high. On the seventh of December, 1868, he offered a reso
lution requesting the President to open negotiations with Eng
land, France and Germany for cheaper ocean postage. He
believed on a letter of half an ounce weight the domestic postage
should be one cent and the foreign should be three cents. The
reduction on foreign letters has since been made.
On the tenth of June, 1870, he spoke at length on the sub
ject of cheaper postage. The speech occupies sixty pages of his
works and is an exhaustive historical review of the postal sys
tems of our own country and Great Britain. He believed that
the reduction of the rates as he proposed would result in the
increased use of the mails to such an extent that this would
compensate for the loss of the higher rate, that where mail
routes were established and the mail had to be carried the
increased number of the letters carried added comparatively
little to the cost of carriage. A reduction of the fee for admis
sion to the Tower of London in the ratio of four to one was fol
lowed by an increase of visitors, to this great national museum,
in the ratio of more than eight to one. Another illustration
that he gave was of a panorama in our country that at an en
trance fee of twenty-five cents did not pay expenses, but when
the fee was reduced to ten cents the attendance was so much in
creased that it gave a profit of one hundred dollars a week. The
purpose of his speech was to prove by the experience of England,
whose letter postage was one penny, as well as by results shown
by the reduction of rates, in the United States, that the in
creased use of the mails thus induced would make our postal
system more profitable to the Government.
But he reminded them that if there was a possible loss of
revenue the post-office should not be viewed as " a taxing
machine ", but as a beneficent agency and was to be used not
to make money, but to promote the welfare of the people.
" A letter," he said, " is simply conversation in writing and,
therefore, by strictness of logic, the tax you impose is a tax on
conversation. * * * Once at Mr. Webster's table I heard the
question discussed, 'From what do men derive most of what
they know ? ' The scholars about him answered, — one naming
' Our Mothers ', another, ' Schools ', another ' Books ', another
'Newspapers', when the host, who had listened to each, re
marked, very gravely, ' You forget Conversation, from which,
in my judgment, we derive the largest part of what we know.' "
Sumner argued that conversation being a great educational
agency should not be subject to a tax, nor should conversation
in writing, in other words the letter ; it should be as free as it

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 633
can be made, consistent with the actual expense of carriage and
delivery. Slavery, Sumner insisted, had always been the enemy of the
postal service ; so long as it held sway, improvements could not
be made; that one of the first legislative acts of the Confed
erate Government at Montgomery was to raise the rates of
postage; that this department had received the care of anti-
slavery men, before the war and now when they could, they
should make it the best in the world, by carrying letters to
every door at the smallest charge consistent with expense. He
would make it an agency to promote the welfare of the people
and increase their happiness, keeping these objects first and its
earning capacity second.
Among the matters of interest, relating to the Treasury,
that came to Sumner's hands at this session was a balance of
the Chinese Indemnity Fund. In 1858 the Chinese govern
ment had entered into a treaty with ours whereby it was to pay
five hundred thousand taels or about seven hundred thousand
dollars of our money to liquidate certain claims made by our
citizens for damages done our shipping by the depredations of
Chinese pirates, etc. The claims then made amounted to more
than one million two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, but it
was believed they would be reduced, when an actual settlement
of them came to be made. They were in fact so largely reduced
by the authorities having the adjustment in charge, that about
two hundred thousand dollars of the fund remained after the
awards were satisfied. This fund had increased by investment,
but otherwise it was in this condition ever since 1860.
The successive Presidents had called the attention of Con
gress to it and asked action upon it, but none had been taken.
Various suggestions had been made as to the disposition of the
fund; one was to build an American college with it, in Pekin,
China, for the education of students of both nations, each in
the language of the other; another use suggested was to build
an embassy for the United States, at Pekin, our country
having none there; still another was to return the money to
China, although she was making no claim to it. The matter
was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations on March
tenth, 1870, and, with its customary promptness under Sum
ner's Chairmanship, it reported on June twenty-fourth follow
ing. The report was prepared by Sumner.
It reviewed the origin and history of the fund. It had been
invested in United States bonds and, with its accumulation,
now amounted to three hundred and eighty-six thousand dol
lars. Sumner insisted that the fund had only been held by us in

634 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
trust, that in equity it belonged to China and should be re
turned to her and the report advised that this disposition be
made of it. " Whatever may be our technical title ", the report
tersely said, " in conscience the money is not ours ". It will be
noticed how he brought measures to this test; in conscience,
what is right? By its return, he urged, our country would
perform an act of justice to China, though still unsought and
relieve itself of a troublesome trust, which so long as it con
tinued, would be a bait to disappointed claimants, whose claims
had been rejected by the proper authorities as not entitled to
payment. But international claims of much greater importance un
expectedly came into prominence again about this time. These
were our claims against England growing out of her conduct
towards us during the war. They had been of absorbing in
terest since the early days of the war. It will be remembered
that Sumner, in September, 1863, made an address on this
subject at Cooper's Institute in New York City, at the invita
tion of the Young Men's Republican Club. Our Government
had steadily protested, during the war, against the unfriendly
course of England and it was determined that a reparation for
her acts should be demanded of her, at the close of hostil
ities. Our Minister to Great Britain, Charles Francis Adams,
had presented and argued the questions involved to the English
Government, but it had refused to make any reparation or to
agree to a reference of the controversy to any foreign State.
At a later day a statement of the claims made by individuals
for losses caused by the battleship Alabama, built and armored
in England and manned by an English crew, but officered by
Rebels, had been transmitted, by Secretary Seward, to Mr.
Adams, and was presented by him to that Government, but
it still declined to recognize them. Mr. Adams retired from
the post of Minister to Great Britain, in May, 1868, with the
respect of both nations, having faithfully represented his
country upon this question, but without being able to effect a
settlement or even get a proposition for a reference of it.
He was succeeded in June, 1868, by Reverdy Johnson, a
native of Maryland. After having established a brilliant repu
tation at the bar, Johnson, in 1845, became a United States
Senator from his native State. He was appointed Attorney-
General of the United States in 1849 and in 1863 was again
returned to the Senate for a full term of six years. He was
therefore a member of the Senate at the time of his appoint
ment. In the Impeachment proceedings, then just closed he
had voted for the President's acquittal. He was a Democrat,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 635
but one of the moderate school. At the time of the assault
made by Brooks on Sumner, though disapproving of Sumner's
political opinions, he had expressed his sympathy for him
and had condemned the assault. He was easy, affable and
naturally courteous. He had been a Member of the Committee
on Foreign Relations with Sumner for several years and, except
on party questions, they had uniformly harmonized. These
traits gave him strength when his nomination was made. Few
Democrats, especially of his age, for he was then in his seventy-
third year, could have secured the ready confirmation he did,
on the eve of a Presidential election, for a post requiring such
talent for foreign diplomacy and knowledge of international
law. Sumner favored rejecting the appointment, or any other
the President would make, preferring to leave the embassy in
charge of the Secretary of the Legation, for the short interval
before a new administration would be inaugurated. But upon
privately suggesting that course, he found his Republican col
leagues were disposed to give Johnson the compliment of the
short service that remained. He, therefore, yielded to this
preference of his colleagues and Johnson was unanimously con
firmed, Sumner feeling that if confirmed at all, it should be in
such way that he would feel obliged to the Republicans. The
evening after the confirmation Johnson called at Sumner's
house and thanked him for the unanimity of the action of the
Senate. It was not expected among the Senators that a settlement of
the Alabama claims would be undertaken by the new Minister,
but that he would take up the subjects of naturalization and
the San Juan boundary about which there were disputes be
tween the two countries. But when Johnson reached England
he promptly entered upon a negotiation for a settlement of the
Alabama claims, with Lord Clarendon, the British Minister
of Foreign Affairs. It was the evident wish of both our
Minister and Secretary of State to add the settlement of this
old and much-talked-of dispute to the accomplishments of
President Johnson's administration. To facilitate its progress,
much of the preliminary work was carried on between the
Secretary and Minister by cable so that it was known the treaty
was progressing under the immediate direction of Mr. Seward,
As his work in the Department of State had been generally
approved, much was hoped for the treaty, if it should reach
completion. No one was prepared for the disappointment and
chagrin that was felt, when its terms became known. It was
signed January fourteenth, 1869, and reached this country the
following month, only a few weeks before the expiration of the

636 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
President's term. It was at once transmitted to the Senate
where it was referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
It is known in history as the Johnson- Clarendon Treaty, from
the names of the two Ministers who negotiated it.
There had been a feeling of exasperation at the course of
England towards the North. Her indecent haste in according
belligerent rights to the South in little more than one month
after the bombardment of Fort Sumter, the building of the
pirate ships in her dockyards and permitting them to escape,
manned with British seamen, to prey upon our merchant
marine after our Minister had pointed out their character, the
sale of guns and other munitions of war by her people to the
Rebels, their subscription to the loans negotiated by the Con
federate Government to raise money to maintain the Rebellion,
were all too well known to be soon forgotten. It was remem
bered, too, that some of the subscribers to the Confederate Loan
stood high among British statesmen, Lord Robert Cecil, since
Marquis of Salisbury and Premier of England, more than
twenty of her Members of Parliament, and twice as many of her
nobility. Many of these same men had established and become
officers of an association to promote the cause of the Rebellion
and supply it with funds. Harsh comments came from leading
British statesmen upon the course of the North, with threats of
intervention. The builder of the Alabama was cheered in Par
liament, when he declared that the institutions of the United
States were of no value whatever and had " reduced the name
of Liberty to an utter absurdity." Another Member, Roebuck,
argued that it was not to England's interest to see the North
triumph and declared : " As far as my influence goes I am
determined to do all I can to prevent the reconstruction of the
Union." These were not accidental expressions, but common
in that body, where more than half the Members were open
sympathizers with the South. Hardly less exasperating was
England's tone of guardianship over the North as if she were
the parent, responsible to the world for the acts of her child,
to watch every movement, forbid what she disapproved and in
terfere to punish, if disobeyed.
The extent of the injury was well known to the people of the
North. There was no country where the masses understood so
well questions of national interest. The common schools
trained the youth, newspapers were cheap and everywhere read,
the constantly recurring popular elections, at which all men
voted, with the thorough discussion of the issues at stake, the
habit of independent thought, which a century of self -govern-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 637
ment had cultivated, all united to develop public interest in
such a controversy. Its merits were well understood by the
people, who had lately had many lessons of love ot country
and devotion to the flag, and their sense of injury, when now
in the flush of victory and with hands again free' was deep-
seated and their resentment not easily concealed. There was
a general expression of disappointment from them when the
terms of this treaty became known.
When it came to be considered in the Committee on Foreign
Relations every member was found to be against it. The report
was not made for some weeks, but when presented it unani
mously recommended that the Senate reject the treaty. It
became Sumner's duty, as Chairman of the Committee present
ing the report, to give the reasons which actuated them in
making this recommendation. This he did, in a speech of an
hour's length, on the thirteenth day of April, 1869. It was a
careful review of the grounds of complaint against the treaty
and of our claims on England. It was almost judicial in its
tone, avoiding anything that would seem to savor of bitterness
and aiming to present the facts in their true light. While
realizing the great wrong that had been done by England, he
still felt his early love for the people and country that had con
tributed much to his own happiness. He wished an honor
able settlement of our claims, but he would have been among
the last to resort to war to secure it. He did not believe there
would be any occasion for such a resort, but felt that if our
wrongs were clearly understood, the well-known sense of justice
of the English people would prevail to right them. He, there
fore, hoped by what he said to so reach the English people as to
convince them of the rightfulness of our case, promote an
adequate settlement, and thus remove all cause for bitterness
and lead to a lasting peace.
He said this was the first instance, since he came into the
Senate, of a report recommending the summary rejection of a
treaty. They had sometimes amended, sometimes reported
without any recommendation, but never, so far as he could
remember, had they asked a rejection. But the exceptional
character of this treaty seemed to justify this report. He be
lieved, in the interest of peace, which all should desire, that
it should be so treated.
He called attention to the fact that the national claims were
ignored entirely in it, no direct mention being made of the
injury the Nation had suffered. This, he said, was a strange
omission when it was remembered that the acts of England had
given early encouragement and constant material support to

638 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the Rebellion, nerving the South to strike the blow and cheering
her to continue the battle with the constant hope of interven
tion ; and yet the terms agreed upon were wide enough to for
ever bar a future recovery for the enormous expense caused by
the prolongation of the war. There was not even a word of
acknowledgment or of apology for this persistent course of
wrongdoing. The whole case was here treated as one for
private injuries to our citizens, as if claims of individuals were
the only matters of damage in issue.
The preamble of the treaty commenced with a recital that
claims had been made by citizens of the United States on Great
Britain and by subjects of Great Britain on the United States
and some of such claims were still pending and unsettled, and
the rulers of the two nations, believing that a settlement of them
would contribute to the maintenance of friendly feelings, had
sought to make this arrangement for such a settlement. Sum
ner suggested that there was nothing in this to give notice of
the real question that had so deeply stirred the American people
— the wrongs to our Nation. This only recited the wrongs of
individuals. The body of the treaty provided for the trial of
claims of individuals, by a commission to be created for that
purpose. The treaty further provided that the result thus
reached was to be " a full and final settlement of every claim
upon either government arising out of any transaction of a date
prior to the exchange of ratifications ". So that, as Sumner
said, there was no provision for the settlement of the claim for
national damages and yet this serious matter in dispute was to
be barred and forever disposed of by what was done as to
individual claims. It was even insisted that among the in
dividual claims to be presented by the subjects of Great Britain
would be those of the holders of Confederate bonds in England.
Sumner then passing from the treaty itself stated the claim
of the United States. He insisted that the recognition of
Rebels as belligerents, on land and on sea, was hasty and unfair,
that belligerency must have an actual existence before, under
the Law of Nations, it could be recognized and that the Rebels
were not belligerents on the ocean at that time and never were
afterwards, that they must have had power on the ocean, ships,
a navy, and be prosecuting the war there and have prize courts
for the adjudication of captures made on the high seas, before
the right of ocean belligerency could be granted, that having
none of these things, the grant was wrongful; that it was
fraught with destructive consequences to the North, that with
out it no Rebel ship could have been built in England, because
to do so would have been piracy, that to furnish munitions of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 639
war, without it, would have been piracy, that to practise
blockade running, without it, would have been piracy ; that the
consequence of this act was to put the Rebels on an equality
with us in the English markets; that pursuing this privilege,
came the building of the Alabama at Liverpool, that as early as
July, 1862, our Minister in London, Mr. Adams, had com
pleted the evidence of the purpose for which she was built and
accompanying it with the legal opinion of an eminent English
barrister declaring it to be their plain duty to stop her de
parture, it was forwarded to the proper officers and a remon
strance presented against permitting her to leave England, that
five days later she was permitted to depart on her piratical
mission; that other ships were built, for the same mission,
among them ironclad rams, manned and armored in England,
British in every respect except in their Commanders, who were
Rebels, cheered by a British passenger ship upon the ocean,
their builder cheered in Parliament, where he defended what he
had done, permitted the freedom of British ports to obtain
supplies, the Commander of one of them saved by a British
yacht as his ship was sinking, after her destructive course was
run, as if symbolizing the omnipresent support of England;
that everywhere the course of these vessels was strewn with the
wrecks of our commerce, entailing the loss of millions to our
citizens and prolonging the war and requiring immense ex
penditures by our Government to destroy them; that the
grant of these belligerent rights was aggravated by two cir
cumstances, first, that it was published on the very day our
Minister arrived in England, after he had been announced and
was daily expected, but without giving him a hearing, second,
that it was an unnatural departure from the avowed anti-
slavery creed of England, wherein she had announced her
pledge to the Universal Abolition of Slavery, whereas she here
took Rebel slave-holders by the hand, gave them official protec
tion and the God-speed of England, in their work of founding a
slave oligarchy.
In discussing the extent of our losses Sumner said those of
individuals were determinable with reasonable accuracy, that
ships burned and sunk with their cargoes could be estimated
and the amount fixed, but the damages done by commerce being
driven from the ocean and the injury caused by the prolonga
tion of the war, which were our national losses were difficult to
fix and immeasurable in extent, that Mr. Cobden had estimated
the losses from the capture and burning of American mer
cantile vessels at fifteen million dollars, but that this was a
small part of it, that the rest of our vast mercantile shipping

"640 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
had been rendered for the time valueless, that during the
decade from 1852 to 1862, the aggregate tonnage of American
vessels entered at United States seaports was thirty million
tons and the aggregate tonnage of foreign vessels was fourteen
million tons, that in the five years from 1863 to 1868 the
American tonnage entered was nine millions and the foreign
fourteen millions, showing a reduction from two hundred and
five to sixty-six per cent; that this loss must be largely attri
buted to British pirates and that to it must be added the further
loss of our natural increase of tonnage; that there was more
over the loss caused by the prolongation of the war, that no
candid person could deny that Rebellion was strengthened and
prolonged by this aid, that it was encouraged by the conces
sion of belligerent rights on the ocean, fed by British supplies
and flamed up anew with every burning vessel destroyed by
war ships, whose base of supplies was not in America, but in
England, so that Mr. Cobden had been able to say that Eng
land, from her shores, had made war on the United States and
done her an amount of damage greater than would be pro
duced by many ordinary wars.
In conclusion, he said, that in this speech he was no volun
teer, that for several years he had avoided saying anything on
the question, hoping it would be settled; but the submission
of this treaty made it his duty to review it carefully in the
Committee and in making their report to state the reasons
for their action to the Senate with the hope of aiding to a
settlement that would remove all possibility of strife between
the two countries.
" In this spirit," he added, " I have spoken to-day. If the
ease against England is strong, and if our claims are unprece
dented in magnitude, it is only because of the conduct of this
power at a trying period was most unfriendly, and the injurious
consequences of this conduct were on a scale corresponding to
the theatre of action. /'Life and property were both swallowed
up, leaving behind a deep-seated sense of enormous wrong, as
yet unatoned and even unacknowledged, which is one of the
chief factors, in the problem now presented to the statesmen of
both countries.^ The attempt to close this great international
debate without a complete settlement is little short of puerile."
* * * " The truth must be told, — not in anger but in sad
ness. England has done the United States an injury most
difficult to measure. Considering when it was done and in what
complicity, it is truly unaccountable. At a great epoch of his
tory, not less momentous than that of the French Revolution
Or that of the Reformation, when Civilization was fighting a

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 641
last battle with Slavery /England gave her name, her influence,
her material resources to the wicked cause, and flung a sword
into the scale with slavery. Here was a portentous mistake.
* * * And yet down to this day there is no acknowledgment
of this wrong — not a single word. Such a generous expres
sion would be the beginning of a just settlement, and the best
assurance of that harmony between two great and kindred
nations which all must desire.'/'
At the close of the speech, the Senate rejected the treaty, by a
vote of fifty -four to one.
The speech was received with general commendation. The
Senate approved it and before opening its doors and, without
suggestion from Sumner removed the ban of secrecy, which the
executive session had enjoined; and the speech appeared in
many of the leading dailies of the country. A pamphlet edition
of it was printed for circulation in England. The President
and Secretary of State both commended it. Efforts were made,
in the subsequent controversy between Sumner and the Pres
ident, over San Domingo, to show that the President and his
Secretary disapproved of certain parts of it, but the contem
porary evidence to the contrary is conclusive. It was recog
nized by them as well as by the masses of Americans as a plain,
direct and forcible statement of the American position. Its
conservative tone was noted and it was characterized, at the
time, as the most popular speech Sumner had ever delivered.
In England the reception of it was different. It was there
hoped that the troublesome controversy was in course of final
and satisfactory settlement, upon terms altogether easy to her.
When the treaty was so summarily rejected and, accompanying
the rejection, came the speech of Sumner there was bitterness
generally expressed and much of it was directed to Sumner.
His position was a disappointment to his English friends,
who hoped he would use his influence to close the apparently
widening breach. In the long years of their friendship they
had been in accord with so much of his work that they
were greatly disappointed at his position and, as one of them
expressed it, when his name was mentioned they were silent
for the first time now. The daily newspapers in Great Britain,
which had much to do in molding public sentiment, more than
in America, did not publish his speech, but resorted to extrav
agant statements of its contents, calculated to create preju
dice against him. He was held responsible for the action of the
Senate, though the feeling against the treaty was so general
and so pronounced that it would have been defeated, without a
word from him. But after all, the effect of the speech upon

642 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
England was good. It contributed to awaken there a better ap
preciation of the merits of the controversy. One of her con
trolling public men wrote Sumner in acknowledging a copy
of the speech : " I cannot tell you how cordially I sympathize
with what seems to me the governing idea of the speech. Great
international differences are not to be disposed of by huddling
them up and pretending not to look at them, nor to be treated,
as a man treats a bad shilling, by trying to pass it among a
handful of half-pence." This would have been good advice to
give Johnson and Clarendon at the beginning of their labors
on the treaty.
Sumner's purpose was not to secure large damages from
England and certainly not to provoke hostilities between the
two countries — nothing could have been farther from him. He
had been for many years the firm advocate of peace. But he
did wish England to realize the great wrong she had done us,
and acknowledge it and establish a principle of international
law, that would be a guide to civilized nations for the future
and prevent the recurrence of such wrongs and the occasion
for hostile feeling and perhaps war.
President Grant was in entire accord with the action of the
Senate upon the treaty and so expressed himself in his next
annual message to Congress. He there reiterated the claim
Sumner had made for national damages, enumerated the
same items of injury, and regretted that the Johnson-Clarendon
treaty had assumed that the subject was one for individual
losses alone.
" The injuries resulting," he said, " to the United States by
reason of the course adopted by Great Britain during our late
civil war in the increased rates of insurance ; in the diminution
of exports and imports, and other obstructions to domestic in
dustry and production ; in its effect upon the foreign commerce
of the country; in the decrease and transfer to Great Britain
of our commercial marine ; in the prolongation of the war and
the increased cost both in treasure and in lives, of its suppres
sion, could not be adjusted and satisfied as ordinary com
mercial claims, which continually arise between commercial
nations * * * Not a word was found in the treaty and not
an inference could be drawn from it, to remove the sense of the
unfriendliness of the course of Great Britain, in our struggle
for existence, which so deeply and universally impressed itself
upon the people of this country. * * * I regarded the action
of the Senate in rejecting the treaty to have been wisely taken
in the interest of peace and as a necessary step in the direction
of a perfect and cordial friendship between the two countries."

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 643
Mr. Motley, our Minister, who had in the meantime succeeded
Mr. Johnson, announced the rejection of the treaty to the
English Government. The United States was, under instruc
tions from the Secretary of State, committed then to the claim
for national damages, in addition to the claim for individual
losses. But as the feeling aroused in England by the rejection
of the treaty and Sumner's speech setting out our wider claim
for damages rendered the chance of a present settlement un
favorable, our Minister was instructed not to press the matter
then. In these steps Sumner was constantly consulted by Secre
tary Fish, who had succeeded Mr. Seward while the treaty was
still in the hands of the Committee on Foreign Relations.
During the summer, the Secretary asked Sumner to prepare a
statement of our case to be presented to the English Govern
ment, but Sumner declined and suggested General Cushing,
who did prepare the able presentation of it known as the dis
patch to Motley of September twenty-fifth, 1869, and embody
ing Sumner's views.
A year went by and nothing further was done. In his an
nual message to Congress in December, 1870, President Grant
spoke of the unwillingness of England to admit that she had
been guilty of negligence towards the United States or did or
permitted any act of which they had any cause of complaint
and suggested that Congress make provision for the proof and
payment of private claims of our citizens, after notice to the
English Government, so that our Government could thus be
come the owner of these claims. It thus became apparent to
England that there would be no abandonment of our claim
and no disposition to be hurried in the settlement of it, by the
urgency of private claimants. This quickly awakened Eng
land's interest in the subject especially in view of the possibility
of her being involved in the war then waging between Germany
and France, when piratical Alabamas and ironclads might es
cape from American ports to prey on English shipping, or our
well-equipped gun factories might make sales of arms to her
enemies. Early in January, 1871, Sir John Rose, a London banker,
was dispatched as a confidential agent of the English Govern
ment to learn the feeling in our country on the subject of a
settlement. Following this up, in the same month, a corre
spondence was commenced by England looking to a settlement
of all matters in dispute between the two countries. The ques
tion which for six years had been permitted to lie idle, almost
ignored by Great Britain, had in a day become urgent. A Joint
High Commission, the members to be named by each Govern-

644 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
ment, was created, to meet in Washington and discuss the
subject. The course of events was so rapid that in twenty-
seven days from the time of its suggestion the Members of the
Commission were in New York. They did not wait to receive
their commissions, which were sent after them by a special
messenger, and it was laughingly said, they did not delay their
departure from England long enough to pack their trunks, but
left that to be done by their servants who were to follow
them. Sumner, though not then a member of the Committee on For
eign Relations, was in frequent consultation with both the
American and English Commissioners. Two of the English
Commissioners, Earl De Grey and Sir Stafford Northcote
brought letters of introduction to him and Sir Edward Thorn
ton, the British Minister, invited Sumner to dine with the Eng
lish members, no other guest being present. He repeatedly en
tertained them. Both sides recognized his familiarity with the
subject and his influence in the Senate and with the people.
A treaty was concluded by them in Washington on May
eighth, 1871. England expressed, in a friendly spirit, her
regret for the escape of the Alabama and other vessels from
British ports and for the depredations committed by these
vessels. She agreed that all the claims growing out of acts
committed by these vessels and generally known as the Ala
bama claims should be referred to a tribunal of arbitration,
to be composed of five arbitrators, one to be named by President
Grant, one by Queen Victoria, one by the King of Italy, one
by the President of the Swiss Confederation and one by the
Emperor of Brazil. The terms of the Johnson-Clarendon
treaty were thus far exceeded and the national claims insisted
upon by Sumner, became a subject of settlement. England
acknowledged her error in permitting the escape of these ves
sels. But a still greater concession was made and one much de
sired by Sumner. England agreed that, in deciding the matters
submitted, the arbitrators should be governed by three rules to
be taken as applicable to the case ; first, a neutral Government
is bound to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming
or equipping within its jurisdiction of any vessel which it has
reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on
war against a power with which it is at peace and to prevent
the departure from its jurisdiction of such vessel there adapted
in whole or in part to warlike use ; second, such Government is
not to suffer either belligerent to use its forts or waters for a
base of operations, supplies or recruitment of men ; third, such
Government must use due diligence in its forts and waters and

Life of charles sumner 645
over all persons therein to prevent a violation of the foregoing
obligation. Sumner's criticisms of the Johnson-Clarendon treaty were
thus observed in the making of this one, afterwards known as
the Treaty of Washington from the place where it was nego
tiated. The English Commissioners confessed their obliga
tions to this speech of Sumner. One of them said that they
had used it " as a chart " and that his suggestions had been sub
stantially adopted. Sumner himself said the new treaty met
every point he had made against the Johnson Convention, ex
cept the amount of the damages which was of course to be de
termined from the evidence. Judge Hoar, who was one of the
American Commissioners, and who had been in frequent con
sultation with him as their work progressed, carried the first
available copy of it to Sumner inclosed in an envelope, indorsed,
"The result of long and earnest labor is presented and ded
icated with respect and confidence by his friend, E. R. Hoar."
Sumner spoke and voted for the ratification of the treaty. He
suggested some amendments, in the way of principles of inter
national law to guide in future wars, but did not press them.
The Court of Arbitration met at Geneva, Switzerland, in
December, 1871, and after a hearing of nine months awarded
fifteen million, five hundred thousand dollars to be paid in
gold by England to the United States, in satisfaction of all
claims. After the break came between Sumner and President Grant
over San Domingo, there was an effort made by some of the
President's friends to make it appear that there were differences
between them over the Alabama claims. It was said that the
President felt Sumner's views on the grant of belligerent rights
to the Rebels and the American claim for national damages
were extreme and that he might involve us in war with Eng
land over them and hence desired his removal from the Chair
manship of the Committee on Foreign Relations, to promote
a peaceful settlement with Great Britain.
From what has already been said it will appear that there was
no foundation whatever for such a claim. It was only an
effort by the apologists of the- President to conceal the real
cause of the difference. Some months after the delivery of
Sumner's speech and after the President had congratulated
him upon it and repeatedly expressed his approval of its posi
tions both on belligerency and national claims, Grant favored
the extension of belligerent rights to the insurgents in Cuba,
in one of their revolutions against Spain. Rawlins, Secretary
of War, was very urgent with the President to have him recog-

646 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
nize Cuban belligerency. On the fifteenth of December, 1869,
Sumner spoke against it in the Senate and he was urgent with
Fish and others near the President to prevent the step. The
revolutionists had no city, no government, no courts, no ships
and hence had no title to be treated as belligerents. The in
fluence of Sumner and his friends finally prevailed to prevent
it and among the arguments used was that it would weaken our
case against England. But the President was on this account,
during the fall of 1869, disposed to give less prominence to the
action of England in granting the South belligerent rights,
than he had been at the time and for some months after the
delivery of Sumner's speech. Hence there was seeming ground
for the claim made by the President's friends of a disagreement.
The other point of difference claimed was that the President
did not agree to the claim made by Sumner for national dam
ages. But we have seen how the President in his annual Mes
sage to Congress in December, 1869, set out these very claims
himself ; and he insisted on them repeatedly afterwards. They
were included in the Treaty of Washington, which was ratified
by the Senate and were presented, in the statement of the case
prepared by the United States government, with such fullness,
that they threatened at the time to break up the court of
Arbitration at Geneva, by the withdrawal of England. This
statement Sumner had no hand in preparing and disapproved
as harsh. It was prepared by the Assistant Secretary of State,
J. C. Bancroft Davis, under the direction of Secretary Fish and
was approved by President Grant. A modification of this
claim was sought and obtained by the English government and
the arbitration proceeded and hence the pretext for the state
ment that Sumner was extravagant. Curiously enough the man
who has made the claim of Sumner's extravagance as the oc
casion of the break with Grant, was J. C. Bancroft Davis who
himself prepared this statement of the American case.
But these things, if true, would not furnish a justification for
the removal of Sumner from his place at the head of the Com
mittee on Foreign Relations, which he had filled so long and
with such honor to his country. And if there was no founda
tion for them in fact, they should not have been made to cover
up the real and unworthy cause of the removal.
Sumner was in entire harmony with the Republican Admin
istration at the close of the year 1869. He was chosen in
September to preside over the Republican State convention of
Massachusetts, meeting at Worcester and upon taking the
chair, reviewed the Issues upon National Affairs at Home and
Abroad. In the whole speech there was no note of disagree-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 617
ment. He spoke of the misrule of Andrew Johnson, encourag
ing the South to acts of lawlessness and the difficulties Recon
struction had encountered under him and said: "Andrew
Johnson is now out of the way, and in his place a patriot Presi
dent. Public opinion must come to his support in this neces
sary work. There is but one thing these disturbers feel; it is
power; and this they must be made to feel: I mean the power
of an awakened people, directed by a Republican Administra
tion, vigorously, constantly, surely, so there shall be no rest
for the wicked." He warned against repudiation in any form,
and counselled against the grant of belligerent rights to Cuba;
and passing to the Alabama claims he reviewed our case briefly,
but temperately. Speaking of our damages he said : " Call
them what you please, to this extent the nation lost. The
records show how our commerce suffered, and witnesses with
out number testify how the blockade was broken and the war
prolonged. Ask any of our great generals, — ask Sherman,
Sheridan, Thomas, Meade, Burnside, — ask Grant." Grant was
present in his thoughts and he was in full co-operation with
him in the work of a Republican Administration.

CHAPTER XL
CONTINUED INTEREST IN REPUBLICAN PARTY  SCHEME TO AN
NEX SAN DOMINGO  SICKNESS — REMOVAL FROM COMMITTEE
ON FOREIGN RELATIONS  FAILURE OF ANNEXATION
On the fifteenth day of October, 1870, Sumner presided at a
Republican ratification meeting held in Faneuil Hall. Gover
nor Claflin and Congressmen Hooper and Twichell were candi
dates for re-election and the Legislature to be elected would
choose the successor to his colleague Senator Wilson, who was
also a candidate for re-election. These men were all close
friends of Sumner and he desired to see them all re-elected.
He mentioned all in his speech on taking the chair and urged
their re-election.
As showing his still continued harmony with his party, he
said : " I would add one further word in reply to those who in
sist that the Republican party has done its work, and therefore
may die. Nothing more absurd. It has done a great and ever-
memorable work ; but much remains to be done." He then re
cited its achievements, the suppression of the Rebellion, equal
rights at the ballot box and in the courts, reconstruction, home
steads, a Pacific Railroad, reduction of the national debt with
out repudiation in any form, and reduced taxation. He then
added: "It is foolish to imagine that this great party, conse
crated to Human Rights, can die. It will live as long as people
cherish those sublime truths declared by our fathers, of which
it is the representative and guardian. Its special work will
always be to stand by the nation in its unity and by the people
in their rights. For such a party there can be no decay. Men
whom I now address may grow old, but the Republican Party
will be ever young." In conclusion he introduced General
Hawdey, of Connecticut, as the speaker of the evening.
Late in the fall, he was again at his diversion of lecturing.
He. prepared a lecture on the war between France and Germany
with its lesson to civilization. He delivered it, or his lecture on
Lafayette, thirty-eight times between the middle of October and
the opening of Congress in December, reaching west from
Boston as far as Chicago, with his appointments, and netting
himself from the proceeds more than seven thousand dollars.
It was still his aim to meet the expenses of his home in Wash-
648

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 649
ington and the publication of his works without encroaching
upon the principal of his modest fortune.
His purpose in this lecture on the Franco-Prussian war was
to again urge the folly of all wars and the necessity of a policy
of peace between nations. He urged as the first step towards
this end, the complete disarmament of all civilized nations and
the substitution of some peaceful tribunal for the trial of in
ternational controversies. He recalled the folly of the Em
peror Napoleon III, in plunging France into this bloody war,
thereby causing himself the loss of his crown and his country
the loss of some of its fairest provinces, as illustrating the
necessity of some better method of settling international dis
putes. The lecture recalls his early plea for peace, before the
city authorities of Boston.
It so happened that the first measure that occupied his at
tention at the opening of the next Congress, was one of the
troubles that grew out of our late war. It was an application
to provide for the return of the Arlington estate to the family
of General R. E. Lee and for the removal of the graves of the
Union soldiers buried there during and since the war. Sum
ner opposed it vigorously in a speech in the Senate. He was
with Secretary Stanton, when he made the order for the burial
of the Union soldiers on this estate. The Secretary then told
Sumner that he meant to bury the patriot dead there in per
petual guard over that ground so that no person of the family
of Lee should ever dare to come upon it, unless to encounter
patriot ghosts counted by the thousand." The application to
return it had only four votes in its favor, while there were
fifty-four against it. The purpose of the great Secretary has
held to this day and the use to which he devoted this ground
will probably never be changed. It is the largest, in the number
of its dead and the extent of its grounds, of all the National
cemeteries and, unlike the others, it is yearly increasing the
number of its graves.
The prompt opposition of Sumner met the approval of Nast,
the cartoonist, who published the Senator's picture in Harper's
Weekly and sent it with his autograph to him a month later.
The author of the resolution was McCreery of Kentucky, in
description of whom it was said that he had gained " prom
inence in his party by carefully preparing and accurately com
mitting to memory, a political oration each year which he de
livered at the Democratic convention of his state." Sumner
said the resolution was a warning of the policy this party would
inaugurate, " which would take the old Rebellion by the hand
and install it in the high places of power."

650 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
These expressions, constantly occurring, show the deep in
terest Sumner felt at this time in the future of his party. He
had stood by its cradle and seen it multiply in good works and
in strength. With hardly concealed pride he now looked upon
its position and thought how often he had been in the forefront
of the battle for the great works accomplished, that were now
recognized as its titles to honor and confidence. Little did he
then think, as such things recurred to him, growing old and
the habit of retrospection coming on, how soon the scene would
change and the contemplation of this same party, in the hands
of new men, and the stab at him would bring bitter thoughts
of good deeds ill-requited.
President Grant was inaugurated March fourth, 1869. At
the beginning of his administration he was attracted to proj
ects of annexation. The revolution in Cuba first attracted him
to that island, but friends of the administration prevented him
from extending belligerent rights to the insurgents and with
drew his attention from this island. Then came the schemes
for annexation, with which he was plied, on behalf of San
Domingo. He had hardly been inaugurated, when Baez, the
leader of one faction in San Domingo, approached him. This
island had been torn with revolutions for many years. Prior
to this time it had been divided and the black republic of Haiti
occupied the western portion of the island, the other and larger
part being occupied by that of San Domingo. The two rival
chieftains of San Domingo were Baez and Cabral. Baez hap
pened about the time of Grant's inauguration to be in authority.
But his rival was hovering around the Haitian border, ready to
depose him as soon as a favorable opportunity presented.
Realizing the uncertainty of his office, Baez came to Washing
ton and sought the annexation of the country to the United
States. He had previously made overtures to President John
son and Secretary Seward, but had been referred to Sumner, as
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Sen
ate, who, after a patient hearing of his scheme, had declined to
entertain it. Baez was a native of the island, but of Spanish
descent, who had all his life been an adventurer, conspirator
and trickster, without patriotism and supremely selfish in all
his schemes in connection with his country. Under favor of
the successful general in one of the revolutions of Dominica
he had obtained an election to the Presidency, but scheming to
retain it beyond the constitutional limit of his term, he had
been driven from office by an uprising of the people. His
country being reannexed to Spain, his allegiance was purchased
by a Major-General's commission in the Spanish army. This

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 651
being lost by another revolution, he again sought and obtained
the Presidency, but was driven from it in less than a year,
by another popular uprising, on the ground that he was not
the free choice of the people, but was imposed upon them by
an armed force. His rival was elected and Baez then came to
Washington to see Johnson and Seward. Not succeeding, two
years later, he engaged in another revolution and was again suc
cessful in reaching the supreme authority. But knowing the
uncertain tenure by which it was held, he now sought to sell
out to President Grant.
General Grant was untried in civil life and was more open
to his arguments than Johnson and Seward had been. He en
tered upon a negotiation, which became one of the best known
of his administration, regretted, perhaps, as much by his friends
as his enemies. In July, 1869, he sent General Babcock, one
of his private secretaries, to San Domingo, ostensibly to inquire
into the condition and resources of the island. His printed in
structions did not contemplate more. But Babcock, in fact,
went farther and negotiated two treaties, one for the annexation
of San Domingo and another for the lease of the bay and pen
insula of Samana. They were both concluded on the twenty-
ninth day of November, 1869. President Grant afterwards ap
proved what he had done, though Babcock's printed instructions
did not authorize his action.
On this mission Babcock was accompanied by two war-ships
of the United States. The one in which he sailed was under
orders to furnish him every attention and facility in the per
formance of his duty and the moral support of its guns. The
other was placed at his disposal.
Showing the unfitness of Babcock for such duties, he signed
his own name to the protocol, entitling himself " Aide-de-camp
to his Excellency General Grant, President of the United States
of America," there being no such official, civil or military
known to the government. The protocol had the further very
unusual provision in it that " his Excellency, General Grant,
President of the United States, 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." In other words the chief magistrate of
a great nation was committed to the use of his private influence
with other high officials to procure them to ratify a treaty of
annexation. The suggestion is apparent that he had gone too
far. The President should have been left to the conscientious
discharge of his high duties and the others allowed an equally

652 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
conscientious discharge of theirs, untrammelled by pressure
from any source.
In a letter of Babcock, announcing the conclusion of the
treaties for the annexation of San Domingo and the lease of
Samana, to Lieutenant-Commander Bunce of the United States
vessel Nantasket, he wrote : " In this negotiation the President
has guaranteed to the Dominican Republic protection from all
foreign interposition during the time specified in the treaties
for submitting the same to the people of the Dominican Re
public," — a guaranty the President had no right to make.
Babcock further made the statement that, for this purpose, the
Secretary of the Navy had been directed to place three armed
vessels in the harbor of San Domingo, subject to his (Bab-
cock's) instructions. He accordingly wrote that he would raise
the United States flag on the island and leave a guard with it,
and he directed Bunce to use all his force to carry out to the
letter the guaranty of the President, if he found any foreign
intervention threatened. Bunce was further directed to in
form any people intending intervention that such a step would
be regarded as an unfriendly act towards the United States.
No treaty having been ratified by the Senate, this of course
meant .a taking of military possession of Dominica by the
President of the United States, without any warrant given him
to do so. The President was virtually making war upon
Dominica, without the consent of Congress, which alone, under
the Constitution had the power to declare war. Only the in
experience of President Grant can explain and atone for these
unauthorized acts done in his name and afterwards approved by
him. Two months later, on the twenty-ninth day of January, 1870,
Rear Admiral Poor was directed by the Navy Department to
proceed from Key West, Florida, with two United States war
ships, the Severn and Dictator to Port-au-Prince in Haiti and
inform the Haitian authorities that the United States Govern
ment was determined to protect the existing government of
Dominica, with all its power, then to proceed to Dominica and
protect it against any power attempting to interfere with it,
to then visit Samana and see the United States authority se
cure there and if the Haitians attacked Dominica, with their
ships to destroy or capture them.
Here was an open confession of possession taken, by the
United States, of Dominica and a threat against the Black
Republic of Haiti if it interfered with this possession, and an
active war movement of the Secretary of the Navy under in
structions from the President to support both.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 653
On February ninth, 1870, the Navy Department issued an
order to Commodore Green of the ship Congress, with an arm
ament of fourteen nine-inch guns and two sixty-pounders,
saying that, while the treaty was pending, the United States
agreed to sustain the Dominican people against their enemies
in the island and in revolution against the lawfully constituted
Government and commanding him to resist any attempts by its
enemies to invade its territories by land or sea. Of course this
was a declaration to sustain the tottering supremacy of Baez.
The threat against the invaders of Dominica by land could
only be against the Black Republic of Haiti. There being no
other government on the island, there could be no invasion by
land, except from its territory. Baez, a little later confessed
his own weakness, by notifying Rear-Admiral Poor, that if
annexation was delayed it would be absolutely necessary for him
to call upon the United States Government for aid. The Rear-
Admiral a little later reported that to protect the Dominican
Government he had found it necessary to send armed vessels to
different parts of the island, one to the north-west, one to
Puerto Plata, one to Samana, one to San Domingo. Lieuten
ant-Commander Bunce went so far as to threaten foreigners
in the island, that, if with their aid any one hostile to the
Dominican Government should get possession of Puerto Plata
the naval force of the United States would retake it, though
the foreigners might be the greatest sufferers.
This was an altogether unjustifiable interference with the
affairs of peaceable and friendly neighboring nations. It was
all confessedly done, at the instance and under the authority
of President Grant. No one now attempts to assert, that, in
it all, he acted from any dishonest or unworthy motive. Sum
ner never claimed that he did. The President sincerely be
lieved, that, in the acquisition of this territory, with its prod
uct of sugar and coffee and the home it would furnish to a
portion of our black population, great advantage was to be de
rived from its annexation to our country. He clung tenaciously
to the scheme and only relinquished it, when hopelessly de
feated during his Presidency ; and he recurred to it again, as
if to remove every suspicion of insincerity on his part, in those
last pages of his Memoirs written under the very shadow of
death. But Sumner did believe that he was acting without
authority and that he was making a wholly improper use of
the machinery of the Government that was placed under his
immediate control and that he was entirely mistaken as to the
value of the island. Sumner was likewise thoroughly convinced
of the insincere character and selfish purposes of Baez, who

654 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
was expecting to reap a large pecuniary benefit to himself al
though he was only maintained in power by the President and
was therefore able to give nothing for what he was to receive.
The negotiations were secretly conducted and Sumner did
not know of their existence, until they had been in progress
for six months. The first intimation he had of them was from
the President himself. It was during the holiday recess of
Congress, at the close of the year 1869. He was seated one
evening at table in his own house, in Washington, with two
friends, J. W. Forney of the Philadelphia Press, and Ben
Perley Poore, another journalist, when the President called.
His voice was recognized by Sumner, who went to the door and
returned with him to the table. The guests made a movement
as if to leave, but were motioned to remain, by the President,
who took a seat with them at the table. The whole party went
together, in a few minutes, from the dining-room to the
library adjoining. President Grant introduced the subject by
alluding to certain new treaties already negotiated. He showed
his inexperience in Congressional proceedings, by referring to
Sumner several times as chairman of the Judiciary Committee,
adding that the treaties would come before the Judiciary Com
mittee and that he, therefore, wished to speak with him on the
subject. He then commenced an explanation of the treaties.
After he had proceeded some length, Sumner not wishing to
commit himself on the treaties and having a letter from his
friend J. M. Ashley, who had recently been removed from his
place as Governor of Montana, of which he wished to speak
to the President, changed the subject to that and after a few
words, read a portion of the letter to him, when, thinking the
President was becoming restless and that he was perhaps pur
suing the subject too far, in his own house, he stopped and the
President again reverted to the treaties. The talk about the
treaties was very general and left on Sumner's mind no very
defined idea of what they contained and gave no information of
the character of the negotiations. Sumner was, therefore, cau
tious in committing himself. His answer was, as he distinctly
remembered it : " Mr. President, I am an Administration
man and whatever you do will always find in me the most
careful and candid consideration." The President shortly
after left the house.
This conversation became important, for it was afterwards
claimed by the President and his friends, that Sumner then
gave assurance that he would support the treaties and after
wards disappointed the President by opposing them. But this
conclusion of the President was probably born of his inex-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 655
perience in such matters. To one familiar with the caution of
public officers, in expressing themselves upon matters that are
yet to come before them officially, for determination, it would
seem very improbable that Sumner would commit himself to
the support of treaties that he had not even read. He had then
been in the Senate for twenty years and for ten of them he had
been chairman of one of its most important committees, the
one having the first consideration to give to treaties and the
first disposition to make of them. He was noticeably careful
and independent of Executive control. Even before his en
trance to public life his associations had been for many years
with attorneys and judges, among whom the impropriety of
such a premature expression would have been obvious and well
understood. Sumner would have been the last, from whom
such an expression could have been expected, and the conclusion
from the evidence of those present is irresistible that he did not
give it. When chided afterwards in the Senate with having
said such a thing to President Grant, Sumner's answer was:
" Never ! He may have formed this opinion, but never did I say
anything to justify it ; nor did I suppose he could have failed to
appreciate the reserve with which I spoke." And he again
reiterated the statement he did make and said he was positive
in his recollection of it, because it was early fixed in his mind.
Sumner first saw the treaties on the day following the call of
the President at his house. They were brought to him by Bab
cock and were soon after sent to the Senate where they were
referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations. When they
were first laid before the committee, it was apparent there was a
large majority of it against them. Only one member, Morton,
said anything in their favor. Before they separated Sumner
expressed the hope that nothing be said, by the members, of the
talk in the committee and that no vote be taken at that time.
Seeing the feeling of the committee, he wished that nothing be
done which could be construed as hasty or unfriendly towards
the Administration. Sumner had promised the President that
they should have a careful and candid consideration, and he did
not for several weeks express any opinion about them in the
committee. He did not then know how the President had set
his heart upon annexation, but he wished if the treaties were to
be rejected that there should be as little friction as possible in
doing it and that it be done after a quiet and respectful con
sideration, believing that such a way of doing it would be the
most agreeable to the Administration. He afterwards, in the
Senate, appealed to his colleagues on the committee, to say
whether his course there had not been above criticism, patriotic,

656 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
as well as always just and considerate towards the President.
And there was no one to question his claim that it had been so.
The report of the committee, as has been foreshadowed, was
adverse. It was presented by Sumner as chairman. On the
thirtieth day of June, 1870, the Senate also rejected them by a
vote of twenty-eight to twenty-eight, a vote of two-thirds being
required to ratify them. Sumner was not in favor of annexa
tion and indeed the sentiment of the Senate had been for some
years opposed to the acquisition of territory to the South.
Slavery had pressed such acquisition so long and so far, as a
means of extending its territory and increasing its votes in
Congress, that it had developed a settled opposition in the
North to expansion in that direction. Sumner shared in this
feeling. Indeed annexation would not have had the vote it did,
except for the subserviency of some Senators to Executive in
fluence. Many Senators from the South then held their places
by a very uncertain tenure and looked to the President to pro
vide places for them when their terms were ended.
But there were other reasons why Sumner was opposed to
annexation. He was the champion of the colored race in the
Senate. For many years he had battled hard to abolish slavery
and establish for this race complete equality in civil rights.
The island of Haiti was peopled by the colored race. The
western part of it was occupied by the Black Republic of Haiti.
It had been an object of tender interest to Sumner for many
years. In 1862, he had carried, in the Senate, a resolution
acknowledging her independence and he also secured the pas
sage of a bill to authorize the appointment of a Minister to the
Republic. In both instances he encountered and overcame a
determined opposition. He was not willing that this experi
ment of the black race in self-government should be destroyed.
Though this was not a direct destruction of the little republic,
it was only reasonable to conclude that this result would cer
tainly follow the step that was proposed. Two powers so un
equal in strength as the United States and Haiti could not be
expected to long occupy the same island, and the prediction was
freely made during the discussion that the annexation of the
one would be speedily followed by the absorption of the other.
It was very natural for Sumner to develop a strong opposition
to a measure that promised such results.
But he did not anticipate the strength of the feeling, in its
favor, with President Grant. Such schemes had been easily
taken up and as easily put aside, during the administration of
both Johnson and Lincoln. Sumner anticipated nothing more
now and supposed that the matter, being gently treated by the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 657
Senate, in its rejection, would disappear and nothing more be
thought of it. But in this he miscalculated.
General Grant was surprised and chagrined at the action of
the Senate. He was so thoroughly convinced of the importance
of the acquisition that he was not prepared for its rejection and
was inclined to attribute the result to improper motives of those
who opposed him. And here he made another mistake, which
afterwards caused additional feeling among those who differed
from him sincerely and felt that he had been already making
an improper use of the Navy. Notwithstanding the rejection
of the treaty, the protection of the Navy was still continued to
Baez. One naval officer in that service expressed the opinion
that the withdrawal of our support would be followed by a
revolt against him. Baez himself, seeming to realize this, asked
the presence of our ships at different points on the island and
they were sent. So that the opponents of annexation believed
he was continued in power by the President.
This was the situation when at the opening of Congress in
December, 1870, the President recurred to the subject again in
his Message and apparently with renewed confidence. He had
extravagantly predicted that the territory would yield all the
sugar, coffee, tobacco and tropical products, the United States
would consume, and could furnish us these articles of everyday
life at cheaper rates than ever before, would aid materially in
correcting the balance of trade against us with foreign nations
and aid us in the race for greatness with other countries. He
now predicted that, as soon as it was known that the United
States had abandoned the project of annexation, a free port
would be negotiated for, in the Bay of Samana, by European
nations, and a large commercial city would spring up there, to
which we would be tributary, without corresponding benefits.
This and other calamities, he thought, would flow from the
failure of annexation. He therefore recommended that he be
authorized to appoint a commission to negotiate a treaty for
the acquisition of the island.
This at once opened the whole subject up anew and caused
an explosion of the pent-up feeling, with which Members had
regarded the action of the President and the use made of the
Navy, after the rejection of the project of annexation, six
months before. So intense was the opposition, that the Pres
ident's friends did not even discuss the measure he recom
mended, but contented themselves in their effort to satisfy him
with a much milder substitute. On the twelfth of December,
1870, Morton, of Indiana, offered, in the Senate, a resolution
empowering the President to appoint three commissioners to

658 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
proceed to San Domingo and inquire into the political con
dition of the island, its agricultural and commercial value and
report to the President. The commissioners were to receive no
compensation, but their expenses were to be paid and a sec
retary was to be provided for them. Even to this there was
vigorous opposition, in both the Senate and the House.
Four days after the receipt of the President's message, Sum
ner offered a resolution in the Senate calling for copies of all
instructions to any agent, consul or naval commander of the
United States with their reports, and of all treaties or pro
tocols, relating to the annexation, and asking for an account
of the debts of the Dominican Government and for any infor
mation in the possession of the Administration to show that
any European power intended to acquire a foothold there.
Thus far he had not discussed annexation publicly. In the
secret session of the Senate he spoke temperately against it;
lying in the tropics and peopled by the blacks, of right belong
ing to them, he believed that they should be encouraged to
hold it and complete their experiment of self-government,
already begun in the island. He made only a passing reference
to the unlawful use that had been made of the navy in the
waters of the island, while the negotiations were pending. He
had contented himself with a respectful and quiet, but firm,
opposition to the measure. His attitude as well as his in
fluence and leadership had, however, been well known to the
President and much effort had been made to convert him
before any vote was taken.
The agent of the President who undertook to accomplish his
conversion was Secretary Fish. He had repeated interviews
with Sumner on the subject, in which he, urgently and at
length, argued the question with him, at his house in Washing
ton. Sumner found Fish at first seemingly indifferent person
ally, but inclined to accommodate the President. As the inter
views progressed, Fish's interest increased. Sumner argued
that he and the President were both wrong, that Baez was cor
rupt, that his country was weak and that instead of taking
advantage of these circumstances they should encourage and
assist the blacks in an effort to improve their condition and that
when the question came up for consideration in the Senate he
could conscientiously pursue no other course. Finding him
determined, Fish finally at one of their interviews, protracted
late into the night at Sumner's house, shortly before the vote
was taken, said to Sumner that if he felt in this way, why not
leave the Senate ? " Why not go to London ? I offer you the
English Mission. It is yours." Surprised at this offer of the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 659
Secretary of State, Sumner simply answered, " We have a
Minister there who cannot be bettered." Thus early was it in
dicated that the English Mission, then held by Mr. Motley,
would depend upon the result of annexation. Sumner- still
argued that it was wrong and that if the President insisted
upon him pressing it, he should refuse ; and resign his place in
the Cabinet, rather than do it. But Fish answered that he felt
differently, that he had taken office under the President and felt
obliged to further his wishes and, moreover, that General
Grant, by his personal influence, had carried the election for
the Republicans and that they owed something to him in return.
The substance of these conversations was of course commu
nicated to the President, by his Secretary, and when, at last,
the vote was taken and the treaty rejected, the full measure of
his resentment became apparent. The next day Mr. Motley was
removed from his place as Minister to England. This was at
once recognized as a thrust at Sumner, for Motley was a res
ident of Boston and had been approved, for the place, by Sum
ner. The indignity of the act as a punishment for mere
Senatorial independence of Executive control was afterwards
sought to be concealed and explained away by the Secretary,
when its impropriety and unfairness had become a matter of
public comment. It was then said that Motley's recall was
owing to the death of Lord Clarendon, the English Foreign
Secretary. But the Philadelphia correspondent of the London
Times had foreshadowed the removal as about to happen, in
his dispatches to his paper, two days before his Lordship's
death and when it was entirely unexpected. It was also said
the recall was owing to Motley's position on the Alabama ques
tion. But the Secretary had already expressed his satisfaction
with the Minister's position and besides, these negotiations had
been transferred to Washington, so that the Secretary could
act as one of the American Commissioners and the Senators,
who would have to ratify any treaty made, could be conferred
with, during its progress. Therefore the Alabama claims ques
tion had already, for other causes, been taken out of the Eng
lish Minister's bands. The cause for Motley's removal was so
apparent, that the attempt to conceal it only made its un
pardonable character more apparent and it has passed into
history as one of the mistakes of Grant's Administration.
The renewal of the contest for annexation by the President in
his Message to Congress, naturally found Sumner in no humor
to abandon his position. Some words spoken by the President
and Babcock, showing a disposition to call Sumner to account
for his action, did not improve the feeling between them. In-

660 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
deed Congress regretted the return of the President to the ques
tion after the decisive defeat he had sustained in June. But
if the question had to be met again there was some disposition
to meet and dispose of it promptly. Sumner sought to secure
an early consideration of his resolution, asking information
from the Departments. But there was a disposition to con
ciliate the President by appointing a commission to investigate
the condition and value of the island and hence that was taken
up for consideration first. Sumner opposed it and on Decem
ber twenty-first, spoke against it. He spoke without manuscript
and only from a few notes, but with some earnestness, remind
ing his hearers of the old-time fire he had shown in his anti-
slavery speeches before the war. As might have been expected,
he used some expressions that grated on the ears of the Presi
dent and his friends, and that it would have been better to
omit. He said the resolution committed Congress "to a dance of
blood," and was " a new step in a measure of violence." He
referred to Baez as " a political jockey " and to his partners in
the scheme, Cazneau and Fabens, as " two other political
jockeys " and the three together as " a precious copartner
ship ", who had seduced into their firm a young officer of ours,
who entitled himself " Aide-de-camp to his Excellency, General
Ulysses S. Grant, President of the United States of America ",
pausing to play on this pretentious title, inquiring if any one"
knew of any such officer appearing anywhere under the Con
stitution, the statutes or in the history of the Republic, until
the appearance of Babcock. He commented on -his protocol,
binding the President " privately to use all his influence " with
Congress to accomplish annexation. He referred to one of our
Commodores, acting under instructions from the Administra
tion in threatening Haiti, in terms not calculated to conciliate
General Grant, when he said : " In what school was our Com
modore raised? The prudent mother, in the story, cautioned
her son to take care never to fight with a boy of his own size."
He drew a parallel between annexation as attempted and the
Kansas-Nebraska Bill and the Lecompton Constitution, under
President Pierce, by which it was proposed to introduce slavery
into Kansas, against the will of her people. And he continued
the parallel, when he spoke of Grant's rumored effort to secure
the ratification of the treaty of annexation, by changing the
membership of the Committee on Foreign Relations as in like
ness to the removal of Douglas from his committee, at the in
stance of President Buchanan, when serving the slave power.
Counsel the President he said " to shun all approach to the ex-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 661
ample of Franklin Pierce, James Buchanan and Andrew John
son." He quoted from one familiar with the island, to show
that to receive it from Baez, while its most numerous, intelli
gent and wealthy citizens, the leading men of the country, were
in prison, in exile or in arms against him and having no voice in
the transfer would result in terrible disaster. " No prudent
man buys a lawsuit," he said, " but we are called upon to buy a
bloody lawsuit." And he again protested " against this legis
lation as another stage in a drama of blood."
Some of these are strong expressions. But Sumner felt
strongly upon this question. He was contending against what
he felt was a great wrong threatened, against the improper
exercise of authority, against a powerful and determined ad
versary — backed by the patronage of a great office. In such an
unequal contest, powerful weapons had to be used or defeat
was certain. All of the expressions that were objected to at the
time have been given as well as the others, to which exception
could be taken, that the reader may be able to judge, whether
the President's subsequent conduct was justified or not.
These were only heated expressions thrown off in the course
of the speech. The body of the speech was a vigorous argument
against the proposed measure. He argued that it was intended
to commit Congress to annexation, for the President already
had power to appoint agents to visit foreign countries and
a secret service fund provided, with which to pay them. So
that if it was only information that was desired, the President
already had the means of procuring it at his disposal. He
enumerated instances when other Presidents had appointed
these agents, informally called Commissioners, to obtain in
formation which was afterwards communicated to Congress.
He expressly declined to discuss whether the territory was
desirable or what were its resources or its debts. But he dis
cussed at length the nature of the negotiations thus far, and the
improper means used to maintain Baez in power against the
will of the people of Dominica, the want of authority of Baez
and Babcock to negotiate a treaty or protocol and the improper
character of the one they had negotiated and signed. He
argued and cited authorities to prove that our ships had no
right in the waters of the island until a treaty had been ratified
by the Senate. He objected to their presence there as a menace
to the independence of the Black Republic of Haiti and dwelt
on the part of the President's Message which proposed to annex
the island. This would include of necessity the territory oc
cupied by the Haitians. He showed that this territory had
already been threatened by our navy. It would be in vain, he

662 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
urged, to set forth commercial and material advantages to
accrue, when right and humanity were thus sacrificed. The
island, he said, belonged to the colored race by right of posses
sion and by tropical position and it was our plain duty to aid
and protect them, in an independence there, which was as
precious to them as ours is to us.
At the close of Sumner's speech, the Senate adjourned till
evening and then the debate was renewed. All night long it
continued and Sumner's speech was the subject of varied criti
cism. Chandler charged him with going over to the Democratic
party and with having violated a pledge to support annexation,
given the President a year before. Nye charged that he was
opposing an inquiry to discover the true worth of the proposed
possession and he and Morton insisted that he had assailed the
President and had made an unfavorable comparison between
him and other Presidents. Conkling foreshadowed the purpose
of the friends of the Administration to remove him from the
chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations. In the
midst of this onslaught, Thurman, from the other side, quietly
reminded them that the Senator they were now dismissing
from their party, had stood alone in that body in 1850, and
that since then, sixty had come to follow implicitly his leader
ship. To the charge of Chandler that he had not kept faith
with the President, Sumner answered, giving the interview as
it has already been narrated in these pages. He denied the
claim, made by Nye and Morton, that he had assailed the Presi
dent and insisted that he had alluded to him as little as possible
and never except in strict subordination to the main question,
that he had only put the case upon the facts and he asked again,
whether Baez was not maintained in power by the arms of the
United States. A running debate also occurred between him
and other Senators, particularly Edmunds, who showed some
feeling. At last, at half past six in the morning, a vote was
taken, thirty Senators being absent. The resolution was carried
by a vote of thirty-two to nine. After some debate it was also
passed by the House, but not until it was amended so as to
declare that Congress was not to be considered by this action
as committing itself to annexation. The Senate concurred in
the amendment, Sumner voting for it.
Under this resolution the President appointed Benjamin F.
Wade, of Ohio, Andrew D. White, of New York, and Samuel
G. Howe, of Massachusetts, as Commissioners to visit San
Domingo and report upon the condition of its people, their
disposition toward annexation, the resources of the country, its
debts, etc. A place on the Commission was offered to Professor

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 663
Agassiz, but he declined out of deference to his friendship for
Sumner, then Dr. Howe was appointed and accepted. Sumner
predicted that, feeling under obligation to the President, they
would only report favorably to his views. It is interesting to
remember, in this connection, the names of those who were so
prompt to quarrel with Sumner for assailing the President, as
they called it, in his speech on this resolution. Their names
will all soon appear again. Whether they were real friends of
the President or were simply actuated by motives of self-interest
and a desire for patronage, the reader must judge. The lan
guage of Sumner, which they complained of, has been given and
also his prompt disavowal, on the same day, of any intention to
assail the President. Doubtless they were just as prompt in
communicating to the President the vindication they had given
him. The President was displeased.
Sumner, however, still kept his attention fixed on annexa
tion. He pressed his resolution, calling for information, re
ports and copies of instructions, to a vote; and on January
ninth, 1871, it was taken up and passed. On February 15,
another resolution, calling for additional information, was also
passed. The hard work, the excitement and worry of this contest
with the Administration, the manifestations of displeasure he
received, accompanied by threats of removal from his place as
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, were too
much for his strength. A cold attended with some throat and
lung trouble, from which he had suffered from the beginning
of the winter, had depleted his system. To a friend he wrote
that he felt weary and old and disheartened at the course of
the President. But he struggled on with his duties until Feb
ruary eighteenth, when he was compelled to yield. For a week
he was unable to attend the sessions of the Senate. He suffered
a return of his old trouble, a result of the assault by Brooks,
the first he had experienced for several years. It was an affec
tion of the heart and chest, angina pectoris, attended with sud
den and severe paroxysms of pain, necessarily dangerous. It
was the same trouble that, a few years later, caused his death.
The illness was severe and caused anxiety to his friends and
drew from many of them expressions of sympathy.
A new Congress met on the fourth day of March, 1871. One
of the first duties of the Senate was the assignment of the Sen
ators to places on the Committees. The Republican members
being in the majority these places were disposed of in a caucus
of that party. The slate being there fixed, was easily carried,
at the meeting of the Senate, by the vote of the Republican

664 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
members. As the prominence and usefulness of a Senator de
pended very much on the place he occupied on the Committees,
there was naturally rivalry between the members for good ap
pointments, the best places going to those of longest experience
and greatest prominence. Sumner had for twelve years been
a member of the Committee on Foreign Relations, one of the
most important, and for ten of these years he had been its
chairman. This Committee had assigned to it the business of
the United States with foreign nations that came before the
Senate, such as treaties, claims, the settlement of disputed
boundaries, the annexation by purchase or otherwise of new
territory. Just at this time the work of the Committee prom
ised to be of unusual prominence on account of the pending
Alabama and San Domingo troubles. Owing to Sumner's long
experience with the work of the Committee, his familiarity with
international law and his extensive foreign travel and acquain
tance, its duties were congenial to him and he naturally desired
and expected to be continued in the place he had so long occu
pied. The chairmanship of a committee had certain privileges
with it which he valued, the use of a committee-room, where he
could meet people in the Capitol privately, and the clerk of
the committee to assist him with correspondence and other
public business. The character of both the room and the clerk
depended a good deal on the prominence of the committee.
In the Republican caucus called to make the assignments for
the committees, Sherman of Ohio, Morrill of Vermont, Howe
of Wisconsin, Nye of Nevada and Pool of North Carolina were
appointed to draft a list. Of these, the two oldest and ablest
Senators, Sherman and Morrill, were for the retention of Sum
ner in his place, to which he was entitled according to usage
of the Senate, which did not make changes except for cause.
But the other three led by Howe were in favor of a change,
giving Sumner's place to Cameron of Pennsylvania. The chair
man of the caucus, Anthony of Rhode Island was for the reten
tion of Sumner and expected that the Members appointed to
draft the list, would so arrange it, but he was disappointed
in Howe. Cameron while entitled to the place by seniority of
service on the Committee, if a vacancy was created, had little of
desire or fitness for it. But he was on intimate terms with the
President. It was proposed to place Sumner at the head of a
Committee on Privileges and Elections, a much less important
committee, in fact created for the exigency and for whose duties
Sumner had little qualification and still less taste.
When the list was read in the caucus, as thus reported, Sum
ner was not altogether taken by surprise, for his removal had

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 665
been threatened by Administration Senators and predicted by
others, for three months, as the result of his opposition to an
nexation. But he did not expect it. He spoke briefly. A flood
of memories seemed to crowd upon him, as he felt himself
parted from his old place where, during the long years, he
had stood with so much pride. He saw the work well done,
many of the difficult questions of the Rebellion settled, war
with England and France narrowly averted, the purchase of
Alaska accomplished, the Johnson-Clarendon treaty rejected,
the Alabama claims still unsettled, on which he had spent in
finite labor and rendered such signal assistance to the State
Department, and to his country, in moulding public opinion at
home and abroad. And he saw, instead of this place, a chair
manship of a committee on privileges and elections offered to
him, to whom the only politics known, was an honest, laborious
and brilliant discharge of his duties, so that he never needed
tricks and questionable combinations, but carried his own elec
tions by great waves of popular approval. Was the alternative
offered, intended to insult and injure him? Gathering his
robes of honor about him, he called the dead, Lincoln, his
martyred friend with whose inauguration the place had come to
him, Douglas, Collamer, Fessenden, all gone, his " associates,
able and eminent Senators," " to testify if he had ever failed
in any duty, of any labor or patriotism." He declined the
proffered place and left the caucus. From that day, to the day
of his death, Senator Sumner had no prominence in the Senate
or before the country as chairman of any committee, nor even
a place on any committee; he had no committee-room, as a
convenience, and no clerk of a committee as a needed help,
in the discharge of his public duties.
Mr. Blaine for long years a Member of Congress, for a time
its Speaker, a Senator, a Secretary of State, later a candidate
for President and the leader of the Republican party, speaking
of this act twelve years later, when he knew its unpopularity
with the American people of all parties, said : " The opening
of the forty-second Congress, on the fourth of March, 1871,
was disfigured by an act of grave injustice committed by the
Senate of the United States. Charles Sumner was deposed from
the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations, —
a position he had held continuously since the Republican party
gained control of the Senate. The cause of his displacement
may be found in the angry contentions, to which the scheme of
annexing San Domingo gave rise. Mr. Sumner's opposition to
that project was intense, and his words carried with them what
was construed as a personal affront to the President of the

666 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
United States, — though never so intended by the Massachusetts
Senator. * * * Never was the power of the caucus more
wrongfully applied. * * * For his fidelity to principle and
his boldness in asserting the truth at an earlier day, Mr. Sum
ner was struck down in the Senate Chamber, by a weapon in
the hands of a political foe. It was impossible to anticipate that
fifteen years later, he would be, even more cruelly, struck down
in the Senate by the members of the party he had done so much
to establish. The cruelty was greater in the latter case as
anguish of spirit is greater than suffering of body. In both
instances Mr. Sumner's bearing was distinguished by dignity
and magnanimity. He gave utterance to no complaints, and
silently submitted to the unjustifiable wrong of which he was
the victim."
If it were intended to add indignity to the wrong, a better
time could not have been chosen. The Joint High Commission,
for the settlement of the matters in difference between the
United States and Great Britain, had just entered upon the
consideration of the Alabama claims in the City of Washington.
Sumner had first aroused Great Britain to a sense of her danger
and liability on account of these claims, when, as chairman of
this committee, presenting an adverse report on the Johnson-
Clarendon treaty, by a speech making a powerful presentation
of our case, he foreshadowed its prompt rejection by the Senate.
He had made a careful study of the case and confessedly un
derstood it better than any man in Washington. His speeches
upon it had been carefully read and studied by Englishmen.
And now he, who was expected to take a prominent part in
the settlement of it, who had a wider acquaintance in Europe
than any man in the Senate, whom the Commissioners from
Great Britain all knew by his reputation abroad, was removed
from his official position in the settlement of it and discredited.
They were given notice, that, so far as the Administration could
control the situation, he was to have nothing farther to do
with it. It must have wounded him deeply to reflect that these
Commissioners, two of whom had brought letters to him from
foreign friends and one other, whom he knew by kindred
studies, were witnesses of his humiliation. What news of it
would they carry back to their homes and to his friends and to
those, who, for his speeches on these claims, had turned from
him as " an enemy of England " and were " grievously dis
appointed " and for the first time were " silent when he was
spoken about ? "
The action of the caucus committee in displacing him was
not to go unquestioned. Schurz, sitting near Sumner at the

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 667
time, demanded to know the reason for the change. Howe,
who had read the assignments, answered that the personal re
lations of the Senator to the President and his Secretary of
State, were such as to preclude all social intercourse between
them. Schurz immediately answered denying the correctness
of this statement.
A brief explanation of the excuse, thus given by Howe
is necessary. Motley, in his valedictory to the State Depart
ment had alluded to the rumor that he was removed from
the English Mission, on account of Sumner's opposition to the
San Domingo treaty. Secretary Fish had written a letter,
signed by himself and afterwards laid before the Senate, in
which, after denying that this was the cause for Motley's re
call, he then went entirely out of his way to vilify Sumner,
saying :
" 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 Domingo 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, is 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 pur
pose of hostility."
This letter was dated December thirtieth, 1870, and was
laid before the Senate, and thus became a public document, in
January, 1871. The passage quoted is a direct, unprovoked
and insulting reference to Sumner. It contains a covered
charge that his opposition to the San Domingo treaty was
not open and generous and that he had hypocritically used the
words and assurances of friendship to cover a secret and de
termined purpose of hostility toward the President, whose
confidence he had betrayed. It was written and signed by
Secretary Fish who had entered the Senate about the same
time Sumner did, with whom from that day he had sustained
intimate relations of friendship, visiting him in his home in
Washington, in New York and at his country seat on the
Hudson, who had been entertained by Sumner at his home in
Washington, and who had recently been welcomed, with un
concealed satisfaction to the State Department and who had

668 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
already received, at his own request, much assistance in the
work of that office from Sumner. It was written of Sumner,
who by a long, uninterrupted and able career in one of the high
est National offices, had already become one of the historical
characters of his generation, whose whole life had been above
every suspicion of dishonesty and peculiarly wanting in every
imputation of indirection, hypocrisy or malice. It was written
under such circumstances that it became and will always re
main one of the public records of the country, Executive Docu
ments 41 Cong. 3 Sess. Senate p. 36. It was so unexpected to
Sumner that, between its date and its publication he had on one
occasion dined and on another called at Fish's house. Sumner
did not know of its existence until his attention was called
to it by others.
For a time Sumner said nothing, hoping the Secretary would
make some friendly explanation or apology for the wrong done
him. Receiving none he felt, upon farther reflection, that he
could not longer continue their former friendship. Fish evi
dently anticipated such a result, for shortly after the letter be
came public, wishing to advise with Sumner about a resump
tion of negotiations with England over the Alabama claims, in
stead of going directly to Sumner, as their previous relations
would suggest, he sent Senator Patterson to Sumner to see how
he would receive him. Sumner replied that should the Secre
tary come to his house he would be at his service for consulta
tion on public business, but that he could not conceal his sense
of personal wrong received from him without reason or excuse.
The Secretary came and there was a free and full conference
about the public business, but no mention of private matters.
Two days later at a dinner given by Mr. Schenck, the successor
of Motley, Sumner did not recognize Fish socially.
At this time there had been no break with the President.
He was probably, as rumor said, displeased with Sumner's
opposition to the treaty. But Sumner intended no break and
recognized none.
From this brief statement of the facts, it will be seen that
there was nothing in the relations of Sumner, to either the
President or his Secretary, to in any way affect his discharge
of the duties of Chairman of the Committee. When this reason
was given by Howe, Schurz promptly answered for Sumner,
that he had not refused to enter into any official relation with
either. So that this must have been merely a pretext. Wilson
and Schurz both insisted that the real reason was Sumner's
opposition to annexation and because he had differed from
the President and Secretary on that question and they argued

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 669
that a Senator had a right to differ from a President, a Sec
retary or any other officer, that Senators were nobody's ser
vants, and Wilson added : " I love justice and fair play, and
I think I know enough of the American people to know that
ninety-nine hundredths of the men who elected this adminis
tration in 1868 will disapprove this act." Trumbull, Logan
and Tipton also spoke earnestly in the caucus against the
change. Howe and Nye while supporting it agreed, and no
one else claimed otherwise, that Sumner had always discharged
the duties of the place ably, and that it was not intended to
charge him with unfaithfulness in the past. Such men as
the two Morrills, Ferry, Wilson, Fenton, Sherman, Windom,
Logan, Trumbull and Schurz voted against the change. But
Conkling, Carpenter, Chandler, Edmunds and the Southern
Senators were its active supporters. Of the Senators from the
States lately in rebellion, of the carpet-bag class, who came in
with the years immediately following the grant of a vote to the
colored people, ten were for the change and only three against
it, — a difference sufficient to change the result. On the motion
to recommit the list to the committee, with instructions to
report a list with Sumner as chairman of the Committee on
Foreign Relations the vote was twenty-one for it and twenty-
six against it.
The next day another caucus was held and a motion to recon
sider the question of recommitment was made and debated, but
it was lost by a vote of twenty-one to twenty-three,- — a gain of
three. When the list, as reported, was moved in the Senate,
Schurz made a motion to postpone the question, hoping that
time and reflection would prevent the wrong. Another debate
followed. Schurz shamed the opposition for subservience to
the President and justified Sumner for resenting the insult con
tained in Fish's letter. Wilson attributed the whole movement
to Sumner's opposition to annexation, and demanded to know
why the Senate of the United States should be influenced by the
feeling of the President or Secretary for any such cause.
Logan characterized it as " a surrender of the independence of
the Senate." Sherman declared it " unjustifiable, impolitic and
unnecessary." Trumbull said he had stood by Sumner " when
he was stricken down by slavery and he stood by him now when
stricken down, by the party he had done as much to create as
any living man." The Democrats opposed the change. Bayard
suggested that the name of the committee should be changed
from committee on Foreign Relations to Committee on Personal
Relations. But this motion to postpone was also lost, as well as
a motion to adjourn. The decree had gone forth for Sumner's

670 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
removal and it was to be obeyed. The motion to adopt the re
port of the committee was carried, the Republicans, feeling the
obligation of the action of the caucus, either voting for it or
refraining from voting at all. But, as if nothing should be
wanting to complete the unusual character of the scene, the
Democratic members of the Senate all recorded their votes
against this unjust action.
Sumner took no part in any of the proceedings. There had
been no suggestion, that in the past he had been wanting in the
discharge of any duty as chairman of the Committee. On the
contrary his enemies admitted that, with his relations to the
President and his Secretary different, he would fill the place
better than any other Senator. With this record, he felt he
could afford to be silent. When Fish volunteered to make the
unprovoked assault on him that was made, in the letter already
quoted, Sumner prepared a statement of his personal relations
with the President and his Secretary, intending at first to make
it the basis of a speech in the Senate, but upon farther reflection
and consultation with friends decided to make no reply even
to this letter. The statement was, however, put in print and a
few copies of it placed in the hands of personal friends, marked,
" Unpublished, — private and confidential, — not to go out of
Mr. — 's hands." He was repeatedly pressed afterwards to pub
lish it, but his answer was that he would not do it, for personal
vindication merely, and that as to Mr. Motley he thought the
matter stood well enough before the public. After his death,
however, a friend to whom one of the copies had been intrusted,
believing that justice to his memory required its publication,
gave it to the press. It has since been included in the collected
edition of Sumner's Works.
The removal was unpopular, because it degraded a man emi
nent in the public service and of deservedly high standing; and
it also established a dangerous precedent. If the President, by
the possession of the public patronage, could enter the Senate
and remove a Senator from his place on one of the most im
portant Committees, for a mere refusal to vote for and sustain
a favorite measure of the Executive, then Senatorial indepen
dence was at an end and the usefulness of one department of the
government was seriously crippled. No other cause for the
removal ever existed. But to the public this was manifestly
insufficient and others were trumped up that were not thought
of or mentioned at the time. They originated, several years af
ter Sumner's death, with Secretary Fish and his assistant J. C.
B. Davis, each probably impelled by a desire to improve his
own record. They were in substance that Sumner did not, as

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 671
chairman, promptly report or move forward treaties referred to
his Committee and that he was expected to be an obstacle to the
negotiations with Great Britain over the Alabama claims. An
investigation showed they were without foundation. If treaties
were not reported or pushed forward, complaints would have
been made. This was a matter that other Senators and other
members of the Committee could complain of and correct. But
there was no such complaint against him. His associates, when
appealed to since, have declared there was no ground for such
a complaint. And the express disclaimer of any dissatisfaction
with his past conduct of the work of the chairman, made by
those who sought his removal, in the debates over it, should have
prevented such a claim being made after his death. Farther
answer need hardly be made to the assertion that Sumner was
expected to be an obstruction to the negotiations with Great
Britain, than to recall the reader's attention to the use that had
already been made, by the Secretary, of Sumner's superior quali
fication for that work. If the suggestion had been made by
him, with others, that a cession of Canada might be one of the
results of the negotiations, it should be remembered also, that
he had always insisted that this possession must never come to
us, except by peaceable agreement, and with the consent of her
people. And if mere expectations are to control in estimating
a man's qualifications for a position, the most fanciful reasons,
that the wildest imagination could devise, might be urged
against any man's selection.
It is interesting to note what became of the leaders of this
movement in the Senate and how much it profited them. Howe,
Nye and Pool, the three members of the committee of the caucus
who voted for the report, as well as Carpenter who spoke long
est in its favor, all failed of re-election. Conkling another of its
prime-movers, and who also spoke for it, received one re-election,
only to quarrel, with both of Grant's successors, in the Presi
dency, Hayes, and Garfield, about patronage. He finally in a
pique over the appointment of a collector for the port of New
York, resigned his office, and asked a re-election, was refused,
and then disappeared forever from the field of politics. Ed
munds, coming from a state, remarkable for the length of
service extended to her Senators, continued on the stage some
years longer, always disappointed in his ambition for promo
tion, and then retired. From this list the inference would be,
that, even in high places, it is best always to do what is right.
The 'Executive favor, if they acquired any by this act, did none
of these men any permanent good.
It still remains to be told what became of the other part of

672 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
this controversy, the scheme for annexing San Domingo.
This can be done in a few words. The resolutions introduced by
Sumner and passed by the Senate, calling for documents in the
State and Navy Departments, relative to annexation, resulted
in making public a good deal of information about the employ
ment of the Navy in the waters of the island pending the negoti
ations. On the twenty-fourth of March, 1871, Sumner offered
in the Senate, a series of resolutions, calling for the withdrawal
of the Navy and condemning its use, to maintain Baez in power,
while the negotiations for the sale of his country were pending,
as in violation of the rights of the people of the island, of our
constitution, and of the principles of international law. They
disavowed the indignities already shown the Republic of Haiti.
In support of these resolutions, he spoke at length, in the Sen
ate, three days later. It was sought by Conkling to prevent any
farther discussion of the question, but Sumner under a ruling
of the Vice-President overcame the obstruction and obtained the
floor. The news of his intention to speak had gone out and a
crowd, estimated at two thousand people, was present to hear
him. It was expected, after the provocation he had received and
his well-known interest in the subject, that he would show some
severity towards the Administration. In this, however, they
were disappointed. He confined himself to a discussion of the
facts as shown by the dispatches, naval orders and reports which
were now printed and made public. It was a carefully prepared
argument to show that the President, in sending the ships to
Dominican waters to intimidate the people in both parts of the
island, had exceeded his authority. He criticised the President
for coming to the Capitol, in his zeal for annexation, to im
portune Senators to vote for the treaty; and for assembling
them at the White House for the same purpose. "Who can
measure," he asked, " the pressure of all kinds by himself or
agents, especially through the appointing power, all to secure
the consummation of this scheme ? "
Once he drew the temper of his audience, when he declared,
that if the President had bestowed one-fourth of the time,
money, zeal, will, personal attention, personal effort and per
sonal intercession, which he had bestowed on his attempt to
obtain half an island in the Carribean Sea, our Southern Ku-
Klux would have existed in name only, while tranquillity would
have reigned everywhere within our borders. Whereupon the
audience burst into applause and the Vice-President was com
pelled to threaten to clear the galleries to restore order.
The Commissioners, Wade, White and Howe, appointed by
the President under the previous joint resolution of the Senate

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 673
and House, to visit the island, were conveyed there, in a United
States war-ship, there' being several newspaper men in their
party. They remained on the island, making observations and
gathering information, from January twenty-third to February
twenty-eighth, 1871. As Sumner predicted they made a re
port friendly to the President, but much milder than the views
he had expressed. They agreed that the island could furnish
sugar, coffee and other tropical products needed for our con
sumption and that the example of the free labor there would
tend to abolish slavery in the other West India Islands.
The report was communicated to Congress, by the President.
In the accompanying message, he became personal. He said
the mere rejection of a treaty only indicated a difference of
opinion between the Senate and President; but when the rejec
tion was accompanied with " charges openly made of corrup
tion on the part of the President or those employed by him,
the case was different. Indeed, in such case the honor of the
nation demanded investigation ". He also referred to the " ac
rimonious debates in Congress " and " unjust aspersions else
where " and added, that " no one could perform the duties of
President, without sometimes incurring the hostility of those,
who deemed their opinions and wishes treated with insufficient
consideration " and added that if the President had the ap
proval of his own conscience, he could " bear with patience the
censure of disappointed men ". These were all well understood
at the time to be references to Sumner. They show the feeling
of the President towards him and the treatment he could be
prepared to expect from his Administration. But they were
unfair. Sumner had not charged the President with corrup
tion. He had never questioned the integrity of the President's
motives. But he believed he was not well informed of the
physical or political conditions in the island, that he was not
properly advised1 in these, duties of his office and that he was
being imposed on by political adventurers at home and abroad.
He was determined, without counting nicely the cost to him
self, to prevent the consummation of the scheme ; and he did.
The President having at the hands of the Commission re
ceived such vindication as their report furnished, declared that
his connection with the subject and all his solicitude for it was
ended. Indeed, he could hardly do otherwise, for it was now
apparent that neither the Senate nor the House could be in
duced to join him in it.

CHAPTER XLI
GRATITUDE OF HAITI—- THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL  SALE OF ARMS
TO FRANCE  LIBERAL REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT  SPEECH
AGAINST GRANT  SUMNER AGAINST HIS RE-ELECTION
The annexation of San Domingo was regarded by the Hai
tians as threatening the independence of their Republic and
they showed in several ways their appreciation of Sumner's
efforts to defeat it. On July thirteenth, 1871, the Haitian
Minister at Washington placed in his hands a medal from the
President and other distinguished citizens of the Republic,
accompanied by a letter in which they said that " by his
eloquence and his high morality, he had made free four millions
of blacks in the United States ", but insisted that great as this
work was, it was still more to have protected and defended the
independence of Haiti on two solemn occasions and to have
thus affirmed the aptitude of the black race for civilization and
self-government. In replying to the letter Sumner said that
self-government implied self-respect and that in clinging to
national life not only for the sake of their own Republic but
as an example to their race there would, if successfully accom
plished, be a triumph for the black man everywhere, marking
an epoch in civilization. He felt it, however, his duty to decline
the medal because of the provision in the Constitution for
bidding any officer of the United States to accept a present
from a foreign State. It was thereupon given to the Common
wealth of Massachusetts and was afterwards deposited in the
State Library at Boston.
A year later on the occasion of the Haitian Minister going
to Washington he carried from the President of his Republic a
letter gratefully acknowledging the service of Sumner to their
country. Sumner was then in Europe and it did not come to
his hands for some time and then it remained unanswered for
several months longer, owing to his sickness. In his reply,
dated on the anniversary of our National independence, July
4, 1873, he said that in history the crime against the African
race would stand forth in terrible eminence, always observed
and never forgotten ; and apparent in its true character just in
proportion as civilization prevails. And he predicted that with
674

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 675
increasing light the denial of equal rights, on account of color,
would not escape the judgment-that had already been awarded
to slavery itself. The same year the Republic, in recognition
of his services, ordered a full length oil portrait of him, the
last likeness painted from life. It represents him speaking
in the Senate and is considered one of the best portraits of the
Senator. It now hangs in the Senate Chamber of the Haitian
Capitol at Port-au-Prince.
An incident occurred as the Commissioners appointed by the
President were returning from San Domingo that attracted
some attention at the time and was afterwards used by Sumner
in the debates for equal rights. Frederick Douglass, under the
provisions of the joint resolution providing for the Commission,
had been appointed Secretary to the Commissioners. This was
the only salaried officer provided for in the resolution. As the
mail steamer of the Potomac River bearing the Commissioners
on their journey from San Domingo, was approaching Wash
ington, Douglass was refused, by the officers of the vessel, a
place at the supper table, witb the Commissioners, nor was he
invited to dine with them at the White House when they were
entertained, by the President, three days later. Douglass was
the leading colored man of the country, one of the most eloquent
men of his generation, and his exclusion solely on account of
color, at a time when there was so much agitation of the race
question, could not fail to provoke remark.
In May, 1870, Sumner introduced a bill to protect all per
sons in their civil rights. It was referred to the Judiciary Com
mittee and was held by it till a few days before the close of the
session and then was reported on adversely. On January twen
tieth, 1871 Sumner introduced it again and with the same
result. On the opening of the next Congress, March ninth,
1871, Sumner introduced it again and, remarking that it had
twice been adversely reported on, did not ask a reference of it
to the committee, but gave notice that he would do what he
could to press it to a vote. Not succeeding, however, at that
session, he brought it up again at the next and a few days later
he moved it as an amendment to the pending Amnesty Bill,
providing for the removal of the disability imposed in the Four
teenth Amendment upon those who as National or State officers
had taken an oath to support the United States Constitution
and had afterwards engaged in the Rebellion. This disabled
them from holding any office, State or National, until the dis
ability was removed by a two-thirds vote of each House of Con
gress. In the debate that followed, he insisted that the two
should go " hand in hand," that he " remembered too well the

676 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
fires over which we had walked in the latter days not to know
that reconciliation was impossible except on the recognition of
equal rights." He insisted that the door of the public inn, of
the theatre, the railroad car, the school, the church and the
cemetery should be open by law to the colored man, the same as
to the white. As an illustration he introduced in his argument
the case of Frederick Douglass, already mentioned. While he
had never sought the punishment of any one, he said, he re
joiced to know that the Rebellion had closed without the sacri
fice of a single human life, by the civil power, as he had pre
dicted it would early in the war. He now insisted upon this
measure of justice to the colored race. He reminded Senators
"that higher than any beauty in art or literature was the
beauty in relieving the poor, in elevating the down-trodden and
being a succor to the oppressed, that there was true grandeur
in an example of justice, making the rights of all the same as
our own and beating down prejudice, like Satan under their
feet." Although now broken in health and feeling the weight of
years, never did the persistency of Sumner come out more fully
than in the conduct of this bill. It was humorously referred to,
during the debates, by Senator Flanagan, of Texas, " I am re
minded," he said, in referring to Sumner, " that it is best to
get rid of the imposing Senator, just as the lady answered her
admirers The suitor had been importuning her time and again
and she had invariably declined to accept the proposition.
At length, however, being very much annoyed, she concluded
to say ' yes ' just to get rid of his importunity. I want to go
with the Senator to get rid of this matter, because, really, Mr.
President, we find his bill here as a breakwater. A concurrent
resolution was introduced here for the adjournment of Con
gress at a particular day. Well, you saw that bill thrust right
on it. ' Stop ! ' says he, ' you must not adjourn until my bill is
passed.' There it was again ; here it is now ; and we shall con
tinue to have it ; and I am for making peace with it by a general
surrender at once."
During one of the debates on the bill, a passage occurred
between Sumner and Senator Carpenter who was objecting to
the equality proposed in the churches. Carpenter insisted Con
gress had no right to interfere and, he asked Sumner whether it
would be constitutional to enact that in no church should the
Host be exalted during divine service. Sumner promptly an
swered that Congress could not interfere with any religious
observance, but that he was not proposing to interfere with
it, that all he asked was complete equality before the law,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 677
in the inn, on the highway, in the school, the church, the jury
and m cemeteries, the last resting-place of the dead. He in
sisted that if the church were to be incorporated and protected
by law, they should not be allowed to insult a fellow human
being on account of color.
" The Senator," he said, " steps forward and says : No ! * * *
You listened to his eloquent, fervid appeal. I felt its eloquence,
but regretted that such power was employed in such a cause.
I said that, consciously or unconsciously, he had copied Petrol
eum V. Nasby's hymn.
' Shel niggers black this land possess,
And mix with us up here ?
O, no, my friends; we ray ther guess
We'll never stand that 'ere.' "
Nasby's letters were favorites with Lincoln and Sumner.
Both recognized the part they performed in abolishing slavery
and aiding reconstruction. Sumner wrote an introduction
for a permanent edition of them, in which he said that coming
periodically and enjoying an extensive circulation, each letter
was like a speech or one of those songs which stirred the people.
A motion to strike out the provision in the Civil Rights Bill
as to churches was afterwards carried. Thus amended, Sum
ner's motion to make it a part of the Amnesty Bill was carried
by the casting vote of Vice-President Colfax. But when this
bill, in the amended form, came to a vote it failed to receive the
two-thirds vote required to pass it. Democrats, opposed to the
Civil Rights provision, voted against the Amnesty Bill con
taining it. Sumner introduced it again and one night when
the Senate was holding a night session to consider the Ku-Klux
Act, and when he was obliged to absent himself from the Senate
on account of sickness, Chandler, taking advantage of his ab
sence, had it passed in a greatly modified and unsatisfactory
form, leaving out the requirement of equality in juries and
in the public schools. Spencer, of Alabama, protested that it
was unfair to Sumner to thus act on his bill, in his absence,
and tried to secure an adjournment, but failed. A messenger
was then sent to Sumner's house for him and he arose and
dressed' and hurried to the Senate to enter his protest, but he
was too late. This bill, however, failed in the House. But the
Amnesty bill with which Sumner had sought to associate it was
was passed. The next session Sumner was unable to attend
the sessions of the Senate on account of sickness; but on the
first of December, 1873, he introduced it again, leaving out the
provision as to churches, which had been voted out by the
Senate.

678 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Sumner felt a deep interest in this bill. With it passed, he
said that he could retire from public life and feel that his life-
work for the equality of the colored race was accomplished.
When it had been made a part of the Amnesty Bill by the cast
ing vote of the Vice-President and there seemed to be a well-
grounded hope for its passage, he wrote Longfellow : " I am
weary, and often say, How much longer must this last? I
have been gratified by the success of the Civil-Rights Bill. I
begin to believe it will become a law; then will there be joy.
Very few measures of equal importance have ever been pre
sented. It will be the cap-stone of my work. Then, perhaps, I
had better withdraw, and leave to others this laborious life."
The bill did become a law, after Sumner's death, but was
subsequently held unconstitutional, by the Supreme Court, on
the ground that it was an invasion of the rights of the people
of the States, in their purely domestic relations, — a result that
had been predicted during the debates by Morrill (Me.) and
Carpenter. Sumner, in his zeal for equal rights, sometimes
overlooked such considerations. An illustration of it was given
in this debate, when in reply to Morrill he said : " I insist that
the National Constitution must be interpreted by the National
Declaration. I insist that the Declaration is of equal and co
ordinate authority with the Constitution itself." This posi
tion, it need hardly be added, could not be approved, by law
yers generally.
In 1872 Sumner moved an investigation that further tried
his now broken health and strength. The Franco-Prussian War
having commenced, the United States had promptly issued a
declaration of neutrality. A sale of the large supply of arms,
accumulated during our recent war, had been taking place.
At the breaking out of the European war and the declaration
of our neutrality, these arms were being sold to Remington &
Sons, of New York. They were discovered to be agents of
France. Further sales to them were forbidden by the War
Department, but the sales were continued to others, apparently
connected with the Remingtons, and the arms were still going
to France. Sumner was not willing to see the spirit of neu
trality thus violated while its letter was being upheld, — es
pecially while negotiations for indemnity were in progress be
tween the United States and Great Britain, for similar infrac
tions. He introduced a resolution providing for a committee to
investigate all these sales. An acrimonious debate ensued,
Sumner and Schurz alone speaking for it, but Conkling, Car
penter and several others opposing it. Sumner's health was
not equal to the work, and Schurz, at his request, took the lead

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 679
m the debates. The resolution carried. But a committee was
selected of those who had opposed it. Neither Sumner, nor
Schurz, was accorded a place on the committee. Sumner filed
two protests against the committee as thus constituted and
refused to appear before it to testify. He placed his refusal on
the ground that the committee was thus improperly constituted
and on the further ground that what information a Senator
acquired should be privileged just as the information is, that is
acquired by a member of the grand jury. The committee did
not seek to compel him to testify, but hushed up the investiga
tion. The Prussians did not promote it or complain of the
sales, Bismarck significantly remarking, when his attention was
called to it, that it was cheaper to capture the arms on the
Loire, than to purchase them in Washington. The investiga
tion, however, such as it was, stopped the further sale.
It was the tone of the Administration of President Grant, as
revealed in such transactions, that went far to create the want
of confidence and dissatisfaction, that was felt at the close of
his first term. Sumner had vigorously protested against it in
the San Domingo scheme and had been made to feel it, in his
removal from his committee and in the recall of Motley. He
was dissatisfied with the Administration in other ways. He
was not alone in this feeling of dissatisfaction. It was be
coming widespread among Republicans. The question was fre
quently asked, what would be Sumner's attitude toward Grant's
renomination ? Except to his intimate friends, he maintained
a discreet silence upon the subject. He hoped that Grant would
not be a candidate and there was some foundation for this
hope ; for those close to him, at the time of his first nomination,
had published, apparently by authority, and certainly without
contradiction, that he was in favor of limiting the President
to a single term. But as time passed it became apparent that
this hope was not to be realized. Grant's friends were pressing
his claim for a renomination. Sumner then determined to
defeat it if he could, though he appreciated the force of the
precedent in favor of a second term and likewise the power
which the patronage of the office gave the incumbent.
Schurz and Trumbull, fellow Senators, both very near
friends, had already communicated to Sumner their determina-
ftion to oppose Grant's re-election. Senator Fenton, of New
York, was also dissatisfied. For four years he had been the
recognized leader of the Republican organization in New York.
Horace Greeley was his candidate for the nomination for Gov
ernor, in 1870, but he was defeated in the convention by
Stewart L. Woodford, under the rising leadership of Roscoe

680 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Conkling, as it was claimed by the use of Federal patronage.
Greeley was among the disaffected. And his paper, the New
York Tribune as well as the Chicago Tribune, the Cincinnati
Commercial and the Springfield Republican, four of the most
influential of the hitherto Republican dailies of the country,
were opposing him. The list of disaffected included such men
as David Dudley Field, of New York, Colonel McClure, of
Pennsylvania; Stanley Matthews and George Hoadly, of
Ohio; Governor Brown and Joseph Pulitzer, of Missouri;
Cassius M. Clay, of Kentucky ; George W. Julian, of Indiana ;
F. W. Bird, a very near friend of Sumner, of Massachusetts,
and David A. Wells, of Connecticut. More than any other,
perhaps, Schurz was entitled to be called the guiding spirit of
what has been known as the Liberal Republican movement of
1872. It originated in Missouri in 1870. That State had not se
ceded, but many of her citizens had become Confederates.
These Confederates had been disfranchised by an amendment
to the State Constitution and now that the war was closed they
asked that this disability be removed. But the Legislature was
Republican and the party divided upon this question. Schurz
and Brown headed a minority that united with the Democrats
and removed the disability. It was a movement that had
already been foreshadowed by Greeley, when, in 1868, he ad
vised the Democrats to nominate Chief Justice Chase, on a
platform of amnesty and suffrage. Such a course he believed
would go far to heal the differences created by the war and be
a great aid to reconstruction, even though it did not succeed.
This advice had made a deep impression at the time and with
the growing dissatisfaction over President Grant's course, it
had gathered strength in the intervening years.
The Liberal State Convention of Missouri issued a call for a
National Convention to be held at Cincinnati on May first,
1872. As the party had no organization elsewhere, it neces
sarily partook of the character of a mass convention. Every
body went who would and to equalize the representation, those
present selected the delegates from their number to represent
their respective States. Stanley Matthews was made tem
porary and Carl Schurz was the permanent chairman. Both,
in their speeches on taking the chair, emphasized the personal
and military character of the Administration of President
Grant. Each protested that they were still Republicans and
that it was only the perversion of the office to the personal pur
poses of the President and of a few of his favored lieutenants,
in controlling States, that led them to take this step. Charles

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 681
Francis Adams, of Massachusetts, Horace Greeley, of New
York and Lyman Trumbull, of Illinois, were the leading
candidates for President, and, on the sixth ballot, Greeley was
nominated. B. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, was nominated for
Vice-President. Sumner did not attend the convention and had not com
mitted himself to the movement. He was very loath to leave
the Republican party. Around it gathered the political asso
ciations of a long public career, now, as the condition of his
health warned him, drawing to a close. For many weeks he had
been the target for rival influences. On the one side were many
party associates, in public life, who knew the value" and the
extent of his public labors, the worth to the party of that high
moral character, for which he was widely known— such men as
his colleague in the Senate, Henry Wilson, who had done what
he could to avert the wrong Grant had done him and had been
constant in his endeavors to heal the breach thus created.
They were anxious to retain Sumner in the party, and preserve
harmony. On the other side was the peculiar private following
of friends of a lifetime — such as F. W. Bird, who held no
public station, sought in politics only the good of his fellow-
men and, who was leaving the party because of the injury done
Sumner and the degradation, as he thought, of the public
service under Grant. They urged him to go along with them.
Some weeks before the convention, it was given out, that he
would be present and preside over its deliberations and make a
speech. This was promptly denied. He was spoken of as its
candidate for President, but he gave it no encouragement. His
name was not brought up or voted on in the convention, be
cause his friends there knew he would not permit it. It was
apparent he was not the man to lead such a movement. For its
success, it would have to depend on uniting the Democrats.
Sumner could not do this. His whole career for the destruction
of slavery and for the equal rights of the colored people had
been antagonistic to them and he could not hope to be accept
able to the Southern States. The logical candidate was Charles
Francis Adams, who had been absent from the country as
Minister to Great Britain, during the war and who led the vote
on each ballot in the convention till the one on which Greeley
was nominated. But it is not likely that the movement would
have succeeded with any candidate. Great as the dissatisfac
tion was, and certainly with reason, it was not for cause suffi
ciently grave nor so widespread as to overcome the force of
established precedent for two terms and Grant's great war
record.

682 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
Sumner was in close touch with the leaders of the movement
and he furnished a draft of the platform. It was carried from
Washington to the convention by F. W. Bird. It declared for
equal rights, for emancipation and equal suffrage and against
any reopening of the questions settled by the Amendments to
the Constitution. With the tariff there was trouble, as might
naturally be expected, when it was sought to unite in the same
party men of such pronounced opinions and so widely separated
as Horace Greeley, who had been a lifelong protectionist and
had written a book, much of it in support of his position, and
Democrats who had always stood for free trade, or a tariff for
revenue only. The leaders of the movement, those who called
for it, created it and were the strongest in support of it, the
Missouri Liberals, the delegates from New York, Ohio, Illinois
and the New England States were generally protectionists.
There was a sharp contention over it in the convention, but it
was finally harmonized, in the only frank way apparently pos
sible, by agreeing to disagree. A plank was adopted remitting
that subject to the people in their Congressional districts and
to Congress free from Executive interference, — a position that
Sumner afterwards declared was the most candid expression on
the subject ever made by any convention of his time. The
platform demanded the immediate and absolute removal of all
disabilities imposed on account of the war; and it was this
plank, with that on the abuse of the civil service under Grant,
that were mostly urged, by its supporters, in the campaign
which followed.
For three months after this convention, Sumner maintained
a reserve as to what course he would pursue. To one urging
him on the subject, he wrote : " I shall not speak until I can
see the wffiole 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 in
ventions. * * * But I seek two things: (1) The protection
of the colored race, and (2) The defeat of Grant." He still
hoped to accomplish the latter and thereby remove any occa
sion for a separation from his party.. He was for some weeks
engaged in the preparation of a speech against Grant, which
he was determined to deliver in the Senate, on the first oppor
tunity that presented itself. He had hoped to find an occa
sion, on the presentation of the report of the committee on the
sale of arms to France. But that came in too late for a time
to be set apart for its consideration. On the thirty-first day
of May the Sundry Civil Appropriation Bill came up and
Sumner seized the opportunity then afforded, in the closing

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 683
days of the session, and within a week of the assembling of the
Republican National Convention at Philadelphia.
When Sumner obtained the floor and commenced to speak,
there were only a few persons in the Senate Chamber. Routine
business was being transacted and it was receiving little atten
tion, for the night session of the previous day had continued
until three that morning. The speech was entirely unexpected.
As he continued and word went out that he had the floor and
was arraigning the Administration, Senators sought their seats,
Members of the other House came in and the galleries filled.
Schurz was there, listening attentively, with sympathetic in
terest, to what was said; Conkling was there, too, feigning a
proud indifference. For a while he sat apparently meditating
what answer, as leader of the Administration forces, he could
make. Again, with the air of one who considered what was
said unworthy of attention, he stood in a group on the floor
within a few feet of the speaker noisily conferring with Senators
Morton and Carpenter, of the same ring, until called to order.
Some Members of the Cabinet were there and heard him charge
that two, perhaps three, of this " official family " had re
ceived their appointments in apparent return for gifts made to
the President. Some of his " military secretaries " were there
and learned that one Senator, at least, thought their place was
in the camp and not in the Council Chamber. While some dele
gates to the approaching convention, on their way to Phila
delphia, discovered that they had stopped off at the Capitol, un
expectedly to learn some new things about the candidate they
were intending to support. For three hours he held the atten
tion of his audience easily to the end, and the Senate then
adjourned. The speech was destined to be the last, as it was one of the
best of those great efforts, like his Crime against Kansas, his
Barbarism of Slavery, and for the Purchase of Alaska, made by
Sumner at varying intervals on the floor by the Senate, that
placed him in the front rank of parliamentary orators. It
has hardly its equal in kind in the English language. A speech
like it would not be made in Europe ; and in America it never
was. It finds its likeness in those efforts of Demosthenes, striv
ing to rouse the dying energies of his country against the ag
gressions of Philip. Sumner was full of his subject; it had
occupied his thoughts for many months and he spoke as one
weighing well his words, appreciating the consequence to him
self and yet determined to speak the whole truth plainly and
without fear. In reviewing the speech afterwards, Blaine said,
" Sumner sought to challenge and prevent the renomination of

684 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
General Grant by concentrating in one massive broadside all
that could be suggested against him."
At the beginning, as if to leave no equivocal impression of
his position and show that it was the man and not the party he
fought, that he abated not one jot of his principles, he said:
" Mr. President : — I have no hesitation in declaring myself
a member of the Republican Party, and one of the straightest
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. For these I have labored always
by speech and vote, in the Senate and elsewhere, — at first with
few only, but at last as success began to dawn, then with mul
titudes flocking forward. In this cause I never asked who were
my associates or how many they would number. In the con
sciousness of right I was willing to be alone. To such a party
with which so much of my life is intertwined, I have no com
mon attachment. Not without regrets 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 com
mon feeling, that the peril which menaces it may pass away."
He spoke of the pretension of the President, in defiance of
all law, treating for the annexation of San Domingo, pledging
his personal influence in support of it, surrounding the country
with ships of our navy to terrify it into submission, threaten
ing the republic of Haiti; and then reading a Senator out of
the party because he dared in his place in the Senate to protest
against such high-handed measures. Such personal government,
he insisted, was unconstitutional and unrepublican ; it was one-
man power elevated above all else. He argued that one always
a soldier could not later in life become a statesman, that prep
aration for each was needed, that their characters were different,
that, unlike Washington and Jackson, whose training had been
civil as well as military, Grant, whose training had been ex
clusively military, was in fact, as shown by his Administration,
unfitted for the Presidency.
He then passed to two typical proofs of Grant's unfitness —
Nepotism and Gift-Taking — wherein he had converted the
Presidential Office into a personal instrumentality. One list,
he said, placed the number of persons related to the President
by blood or marriage, holding office of the Government, at
forty-two ; it was conceded there were thirteen ; no one of whom
but for the relationship, would have had his place. He argued
that thus a pernicious example of kingly rule was being intro
duced almost for the first time into our Republic. Gift-taking,

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 685
without precedent, was likewise being introduced, he said; that
at least two, perhaps three, members of the Cabinet had been
repaid for gifts, by their appointments, thus subordinating the
public service to personal considerations and he instanced the
notorious case of Murphy, maintained at the head of the New
York Custom House and another at the head of the New Or
leans Custom House for similar reasons. He admitted that
the President had a discretion in the appointment of his Cab
inet, but it was a constitutional discretion, to be regulated by
the interest of the country and not by mere personal will, that
men must be selected, qualified for the place, not as A. T.
Stewart of New York for Secretary of the Treasury, of no
experience and disqualified, by his interest as an importer under
the law; or Borie for Secretary of the Navy, till then so un
heard of, that the great Admiral Farragut, over whom he was
placed in authority, was constrained to start the inquiry, " Do
you know anything of Borie ? " that Borie a little later con
fessed his disqualification and resigned ; and Washburn, Grant's
Congressman during the war, who was given the appointment
of Secretary of State as a personal compliment, with the un
derstanding that he would forthwith resign.
He spoke of the illegal " military ring " at the White House,
Generals Babcock, Porter, Badeau and Dent, acting as Grant's
secretaries and adding their military titles to the civil papers
they signed. He said the President had "operated by a sys
tem of combinations, military, political, and even senatorial,
having their orbits about him, so that like the planet Saturn,
he was surrounded by rings — nor did the similitude end here,
for his rings, like those of the planet, were held in position by
satellites." He called attention to irregularities, in the War
Department, whereby the Secretary himself was subjected in
authority to military officers and in the Navy Department
where the duties of an incompetent Secretary were devolved on
Admiral Porter; and in the Indian Bureau, his effort to ab
sorb it into the War Department and change its character as
a part of the civil service, by detailing sixty army officers," left
out of their regimental organizations by the consolidation of
regiments," for service there, until the abuse was remedied by
an act of Congress.
Sumner dwelt on Grant's interference with elections, by
troops at the poles in the South, and his endeavor to control
conventions by the use of patronage in the North, of his dis
position to quarrel with officials, who were not submissive to
him; in the Cabinet, as shown by constant removals; in the
Senate as shown by the interference with committees; in the

686 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
House and in the army. He said the ruler of forty million
people had no right to quarrel with any one, because his position
was too exalted; it shocked the decencies of life and jarred the
harmony of the universe. " Evidently," he said, " our Presi
dent has not read the eleventh Commandment : ' A President of
the United States shall never quarrel.' " But to Grant, he said,
" a quarrel is not only a constant necessity, but a perquisite of
office. To nurse a quarrel, like tending a horse, is in his list
of Presidential duties." * * * " Men take their places in
history according to their deeds. The flattery of life is then
superceded by the truthful record, and rulers do not escape
judgment. Louis the Tenth of France has the designation
of Le Hutin or ' The Quarreller ' by which he is known in the
long line of French Kings. And so in the long line of Ameri
can Chief-Magistrates has our President vindicated for him
self the same title."
He argued that with the adoption of all his Presidential pre
tensions the creed of the party ceased to be Republican and
became Grantism, that it became no longer a political party,
but a personal party. He could say he was no man's man nor
did he belong to any personal party. He plead for a single
term for the President, that all temptation to use the great in
fluence of the office, for a re-election, might be removed and
urged that the National Republican Convention might not be
made another " Presidential Ring," a mere expansion of the
" Military Ring " of the White House, the " Senatorial Ring "
of the Senate Chamber and the " Political Rings " of the
Custom Houses of New York and New Orleans. " A National
Convention, which is a Presidential ring, could not represent
the Republican Party."
" Much rather," he said in closing, " would I see the party
to which I am dedicated, under the image of a life-boat not to
be sunk by wind or wave * * * I do not fear the Demo
cratic Party, nothing from them can harm our life-boat. But
I do fear a quarrelsome pilot, unused to the sea, but preten
tious in command, who occupies himself in loading aboard, his
own unserviceable relations and personal patrons, while he
drives away the experienced seamen who know the craft and
her voyage. Here is a peril which no life-boat can stand."
The speech created a sensation in the Senate. Soon after,
Grant's friends gave Sumner notice that he was no longer in
good standing with them. When he arose that evening, in the
Senate, to claim a usual courtesy, he was curtly answered by
Conkling that, after what had occurred, he must know that
courtesy was no longer applicable there. Some brief impromptu

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 687
replies were made to the speech that evening. But it was
desirable that a full defence of the President should be made
on the floor of the Senate before adjournment, for it was
realized that Sumner's speech, though he had not yet joined the
Liberal Republican movement would become, as it did, the
opening speech of the campaign against Grant. More time
was needed to prepare to make answers to it and the day fixed
for adjournment of the Senate was extended for a week, during
which, extended replies were made by the President's friends.
They were generally severe upon Sumner, Carpenter's and
Chandler's being noticeably so; Logan's was the ablest. He
dwelt on Grant's service to the country as a soldier, his stand
for the payment of the Government bonds in gold and for
the maintenance of a sound financial policy, subjects which
Sumner had omitted and for which Grant was entitled to
credit. Sumner's speech called out leading editorials in the
daily papers. It was the first public declaration of his attitude
toward Grant, and in the present unusual condition of politi
cal parties, with interests now excited by the approaching
convention, many people who were accustomed to follow his
leadership were waiting to learn what his position would be.
Upon the work of the convention it had little effect. It came
too late to affect the nomination of Grant. The delegates were
already chosen and generally were committed, to their constit
uents, as to the vote they would give; and they could not be
changed now. Grant was nominated on the sixth day of June,
without a dissenting vote.
The chief contest of the convention was over the nomination
for Vice-President, between Colfax of Indiana and Wilson of
Massachusetts. The former had early in the year announced
that he would not be a candidate for renomination and the
latter then appeared and had made much progress. So when
Colfax reappeared in the field, shortly before the convention,
he found a vigorous contest awaiting him. The result was
close, but Sumner's colleague, in the Senate, was nominated
on the first ballot. Owing to the now well-known opposition
of Sumner to Grant, it was important to have the candidate
for Vice-President in New England and this contributed to the
success of Wilson.
The platform adopted, declared for complete liberty and
equal civil rights for the colored people and the mainte
nance of all the recent Constitutional Amendments, thus upon
the issues in which Sumner felt most interest, placing itself
upon the same plane as the Liberal Republicans. The Demo
cratic Convention met at Baltimore on the ninth day of July

688 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
and, accepting Greeley and Brown as their candidates, they
adopted, without modification, the platform of the Liberal
Republicans. Thus Sumner, though disappointed by the nom
ination of Grant, saw all the political parties united on the
issue for equal rights of all men, of every color, for which he
had waged such a long and persistent warfare.
The campaign opened with unusual promptness. Within
two weeks of the adjournment of the Democratic convention,
Conkling made the opening speech for the Republicans at
Cooler's Institute in New York City. He had not made a
reply to Sumner in the Senate but reserved it for this more
elaborate occasion. Senator Sherman and other leaders took
the field with equal promptness and before the end of the
month the campaign had become general. The day after the
Democratic convention adjourned, a considerable number of
the leading colored citizens of Washington addressed a letter
to Sumner, asking his advice as to the course they should pur
sue. He delayed an answer until July twenty-ninth and then in
an open letter, after contrasting the relation of Greeley and
Grant to the colored race, he advised them, as he expressed the
purpose to do, to vote for Greeley. Two days later he was an
swered in an open letter by Speaker Blaine, arraigning him as
recreant to both party and principle, in so advising colored
voters. Sumner answered under date of August fifth in another
open letter.
To this charge of personal recreancy, he answered with an
honest burst of feeling, which revealed the cause of his own
opposition : '" The personal imputation you make upon me I
repel with the indignation of an honest man. I was a faithful
supporter of the President until somewhat tardily awakened
by his painful conduct on the island of San Domingo, involv
ing seizure of the war power in violation of the Constitution
and indignity to the Black Republic in violation of Interna
tional Law ; and when I remonstrated against these intolerable
outrages, I was set upon by those acting in his behalf. Such
is the origin of my opposition. I could not have done less with
out failure in that duty which is with me the rule of life."
To the Speaker's reminder that he had now entered into
company with Secessionists and with the confederates of his
former assailant, Preston S. Brooks, he indignantly retorted:
"What has Preston Brooks to do with the Presidential elec
tion? 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

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 689
the grave, where he sleeps, to aggravate the passions of a polit
ical conflict, and arrest the longing for concord."
Until near the middle of August Sumner remained in Wash
ington, holding himself aloof from any further participation
in politics, but- plied with letters, some of them from Greeley
and the leaders of the new movement thanking him for the
stand he had taken, others pressing him to make speeches for
the ticket in various States, others from old friends commenting
variously upon his speech in the Senate. Some of them spoke
approvingly, others in kindness differed from him. Even those
differing from him generally agreed that his motives were good.
To several friends, as with G. W. Curtis, of Harper's Weekly
and Henry Wilson, his colleague, he expressed regret that he
had not been able to bring them to his way of thinking. But
there was no break between them. The situation was wearing
upon him, growing old and almost sick as he was.
He was working long hours upon the edition of his Works.
Life seemed to be passing and he was anxious to have this work
completed. The twelve to fifteen hours a day he was devoting
himself, in this way, to labor, was too much for one in his con
dition of health. It will be remembered that he had a serious
sick spell, during the previous year, after his first speech against
annexation ; and again recurring symptoms during the last ses
sion, in the debate on the French Arms question ; and he had
been compelled at other times to seek the advice of a physician.
He found his heart affected and quiet and absence of excite
ment necessary.
The hard lines in which his last days were cast were telling
upon his personal appearance. The noble form appeared broken
and its muscular elasticity was gone and his capacity for ex-
erton seemed exhausted. Those who remembered him " stand
ing sturdily upon their old platforms, almost arrogant in the
consciousness of intellectual and physical strength, full of
vigor and dilating with the courage of opinion, the Ajax about
whom the young men of Massachusetts rallied for many a moral
contest, and followed in the onset of many a forlorn political
hope " saw sad changes in him now, that silenced the spirit of
criticism and awakened only tender recollections of the great
work he had undertaken and had performed so well.
On the evening of August ninth, 1872, the colored people
of the District united to make his departure from Washington
the occasion of a serenade. They gathered at his house, in
number, one of the largest that had been seen in Washington
for such a purpose, and Sumner being introduced by Dr.
Augusta, one of their race, responded in a brief speech. He

690 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
reminded them that for the first time in our history all politi
cal parties were pledged to the equality of all before the law.
Of the early passage of a Civil Rights Bill to relieve them from
any exclusion or discrimination on account of color, he felt
there was now no doubt. This, he added, was a strange contrast
to their condition when he entered upon his public duties in
Washington, more than twenty years before. Then slavery was
in the ascendency, giving the law to all the usages of life. Now
the courtroom, the school-house, the horse-car and the ballot
box were opened, never to be closed against them again.
Soon after he reached Boston, he was formally invited, by
the Liberal Republican State Committee, to address a public
meeting in Faneuil Hall. He had purposed to take no farther
part in the campaign, but he felt he could not resist this new
pressure from old friends at home. He prepared a speech for
the occasion, but recurring symptoms of his old complaint
caused him to hesitate at the attempt to deliver it. Death he
did not fear so much ; but he had been repeatedly warned that
paralysis, accompanied by physical and perhaps mental dis
ability, might be the result of his disease. The latter result
he especially dreaded. At last he gave up his contemplated
purpose of speaking in Faneuil Hall and handed the manu
script of his speech to the committee, with permission to pub
lish it. It accordingly appeared in the newspapers, though it
was never delivered.
In it he reviewed briefly the character of the two candidates,
Greeley and Grant, and the reasons he had before urged for
opposing the latter and dwelt at length on the question of grant
ing amnesty to all the Confederates and the complete recon
ciliation of the North and the South. This was the new issue
that was brought forward and was being pressed by the friends
of the Liberal movement. Sumner while pressing for the de
struction of slavery and for equal rights had never ceased to
hope for a reunited country under better conditions.
Then by advice of his physician and near friends, to seek
rest and avoid all excitement, he sailed for Europe on the third
day of September, 1872, not to return until after the election.
It was to be his last trip abroad.* His speech appeared in the
newspapers of the day after his departure.
* The day before sailing he made his will giving, to Henry "W. Long
fellow, Francis V. Balch and Edward L. Pierce, as trustees, all his papers,
manuscripts and letter books; and to them three thousand dollars to com
plete the publication of his works; to the library of Harvard College his
books and autographs; to the City of Boston for the Art Museum his
pictures and engravings; to his " friends of many years Henry W. Long-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 691
Before he left, the result of the election in North Carolina,
the first State to vote, and therefore the preliminary test of the
drift of popular feeling, was known; it indicated the re-elec
tion of Grant. Before his return, the victory was complete and
Greeley was overwhelmingly defeated. All of the Northern
States and all of the Southern States, but six, voted for Grant.
This crushing defeat was too much. Greeley turned from it to
plunge anew into the work of editing The Tribune, where at
least he had stood without a peer. But coming as it did after
years of hard work and incessant care, following the strain of
a heated campaign and only a few days after the death of his
devoted wife, the heroic mind failed and his light went out.
He died on the twenty-seventh day of the same November that
witnessed his defeat, — only three days after Sumner landed
on his return from Europe.
There were various causes for this result of the election.
Grant was a tried man in the public service. His military
record was a great one and the nation's gratitude for his suc
cess in saving the union was still warm. Shiloh, Vicksburg,
Chattanooga and Appomattox were fruitful subjects for ef
fective appeals during the campaign. Greeley's triumphs were
all those of peace. Troubles in the Southern States were still
feared and it was felt that the strong arm of the soldier was
needed to hold the lawless elements there in check. During his
first term, Grant had gained the confidence of the financial
fellow and Samuel G. Howe " his bronzes ; to the daughters of Longfel
low, two thousand dollars and a like amount to those of Howe and James
T. Furness of Philadelphia ' in token of his gratitude for the friendship
their parents had shown him ' ; to Hannah R. Jacobs only surviving sister
of bis mother an annuity of five hundred dollars for life ; a ' provision for
perpetual care of his mother's lot at Mount Auburn ' ; one thousand dol
lars to Harvard College for an annual prize for the best dissertation by
any student " on universal peace and the methods by which war may be
permanently suspended." And to this bequest he added : " I do this iu
the hope of drawing tbe attention of students to the practicability of or
ganizing peace among nations which I sincerely believe may be done.
I cannot doubt that the same modes of decision which now prevail be
tween towns and between individuals, between smaller communities,
may be extended to nations." All the residue of his estate, real and per
sonal, he directed to be sold and the proceeds to be distributed, half
to his sister Julia, and half to Harvard College, "for the benefit of the
College library ", ' his desire being that the income should be applied :
to the purchasing of books relating to politics and fine arts.' He added
"This bequest is made in filial regard for the College. In selecting
especially the library, I am governed by the consideration that all my life
I have been a user of books, and having few of my own, I have relied on
the libraries of friends and on public libraries; so that what I now do is
only a return for what I have freely received." This will was the one
admitted to probate after his death.

692 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
circles, by his stand against repudiation, in any form, and for
the payment of the national debt in gold. He was considered
a safe man upon these issues, that were still felt to be in
volved. On the other hand there was a want of confidence in
Greeley. He was felt to be untried and of an experimental
disposition. Some personal peculiarities, that were dwelt on
by campaign speakers, heightened this impression of him. Such
traits do not impress plain business men favorably. Another
cause for the size of Grant's majority was the dissatisfaction of
old line Democrats with the course of their party in taking up
a Republican candidate. After they saw the tide was setting
towards defeat, this class abstained from the campaign and
even refused to vote.
The objections that Sumner urged against Grant were gener
ally conceded, even by his supporters, but they were objections
that appealed to a Senator or a Congressman, rather than to
the plain people. His course towards San Domingo and Haiti
was a mistake and indefensible. He had appointed too many
relatives to office ; and he had accepted gifts and had placed the
givers in high positions in the public service; both in bad
taste. He had appointed unfit men to office and permitted a
favored few to control too much patronage, creating well
grounded complaints of the rings that disgraced his admin
istration. He had shown a good deal of a disposition to do as
he pleased, without considering much the feelings or the opin
ions of others, and if they opposed him to use his authority to
displace them, as he had done in frequent instances with mem
bers of his Cabinet and with Sumner and his Committee ; this
was not with proper regard for the limitations of his own
office or the rights of others. But all these things could be
urged with little effect to a popular audience. It was much
easier to arouse enthusiasm over the recollections of the war,
when many of his soldiers were scattered through the audience.
Sumner provoked disagreeable antagonisms, by opposing
Grant, which embittered the remaining months of his life. It
separated him from his party. And it encouraged some
friends of Grant within it, who were more than willing to
exhibit their hostility in various ways, with the hope of thereby
gaining new favor with their chief. It also deprived Sumner of
an influence, within the party, that he might have easily exerted,
notwithstanding all that Grant could do. Grant was only one
of the party, though its leader ; beyond him was the great
Republican organization, which revered and honored Sumner
and with whose principles he was in entire harmony. He
should not have allowed one man to separate him from it. He

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 693
went too far, when he confounded Grant with the party, and for
the sake of defeating one was willing to defeat both.
But on the other hand Sumner was never a politician. He
felt that by supporting Grant a principle would be sacrificed.
He believed that Grant had demonstrated his unfitness for the
office and that having done so, he should not be returned to it.
He thought Greeley was a better representative of Republican
principles and that in his hands those principles would be safe.
Hence he unhesitatingly followed the course that he believed
at the time was right. How much this conviction was modified
by farther reflection it is hard to determine. Later events in
dicate that both Sumner and the President regretted the length
to which they were carried in the heat of their controversy.
Both were great and good men and have deserved well of their
country and have an enduring place in her history. And there
is reason to believe Sumner afterwards felt that Greeley's suc
cess would in the end have subjected the nation to Democratic
rule and to a ruinous reaction. At that time this would have
been most unfortunate. Many good men thought they foresaw
it and believing that Greeley, as President, could not prevent it,
even though having confidence in him, they voted against him.

CHAPTER XLII
LAST TRIP TO EUROPE  THE BATTLE FLAG BILL — RESOLUTION
OE CENSURE — SICKNESS
Sumner reached Liverpool on the fourteenth day of Septem
ber, 1872, after a voyage of eleven days. On the voyage he
experienced his customary sea-sickness. It drew from him
the remark that the sea was always a nuisance to him and he
would never be content until it was filled up so that he could
travel everywhere on dry ground. But he enjoyed comparative
freedom from the pains of the heart and pressure on the brain,
which he experienced in Washington and Boston. His thoughts
on the voyage were saddened by the evidence of party ill-will
he had experienced, at home, on account of his opposition to
Grant. He could not claim generosity from old acquaintances,
who had turned against him after enjoying favors at his hands,
for he had only acted from a sense of duty in what he did;
but he did claim justice and this he felt he had not received.
For he said he never in his life acted under a more irresistible
sense of duty, than in opposing annexation, which had brought
him the anger of the Presidential rings, with the strange co
operation of some Massachusetts people, calling themselves his
friends. Among these he counted Dr. Samuel G. Howe, who
had accepted the place on the San Domingo Commission, when
Professor Agassiz refused it, and William Lloyd Garrison, who
had assailed him in his paper.
To his friend Edward L. Pierce, to whom he confided this
feeling, he afterwards wrote from Paris, showing that it still
haunted him : " I have had much occasion latterly to meditate
on the justice and friendship of this world, especially when
crossed by the mandate of political power. I know the integrity
of my conduct and the motives of my life. Never were they
more clear or absolutely blameless than now. But never, in
the worst days of slavery, have I been more vindictively pur
sued or more falsely misrepresented."
On reaching Liverpool, he was subjected to a new annoyance,
from his connection with the Liberal movement. He learned
that while he was upon the ocean and without any previous
consent from him, the Liberal and Democratic parties had nom
inated him for Governor of Massachusetts. The nomination
694

From a Photograph taken in 1873.

Oi^-^ y

ex

CLsUZJL-,

y^yU^U^

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 695
was made for the purpose of attracting votes in the State to
Greeley. Upon learning it, he, at once, telegraphed and wrote
declining the nomination. He also wrote privately insisting
that his declination must be respected. His name was accord
ingly taken from the ticket and that of his friend F. W. Bird
substituted for it. The annoyance caused by this unauthorized
use of his name, aggravated his sickness.
He had resolved, so far as he could, while he remained in
Europe, to drive politics from his thoughts, convinced that it
was provoking his troubles. He therefore ceased reading
American newspapers entirely, during his stay abroad; and to
remove himself still farther from touch with American affairs,
he determined to leave England for the Continent and spend
his time in Paris. He hoped, in this way, to separate him
self as much as possible from all the turmoil and excitement
from which he could find no escape at home ; and, in quiet, find
strength and recovery.
He was met on landing at Liverpool by the Secretary of the
American Club and spent one day there in his company visiting
some places of interest and then went directly to London, where
he remained a week. Two days he gave to the British Museum
and two more to the Bethnal Green Museum. The remainder
of the time he spent visiting streets and buildings and seeing
galleries and old friends. He was admitted to the Athenaeum
Club, a favorite resort when he was in London. He found his
friend William W. Story, the sculptor, son of Judge Story,,
spending the season with his family in England, near Carlisle,
and Hugh McCulloch, the Secretary of the Treasury, under
President Johnson, another old acquaintance, in London. Let
ters came from his English friends, Robert Ingham, inviting
him to Newcastle and from the Duchess of Argyll asking him
to Inverary, but he delayed, hoping to see them on his return
from the Continent. He went on to Paris.
Sumner remained in Paris a month, mainly occupied with
visiting galleries and places of interest and in collecting rare
books and curios, for which he had a great taste, but not a
very accurate judgment, as to their value. It was here that he
first found real rest and physical improvement, by a complete
diversion from affairs at home. He met the American Minister,
Washburn, Morrison R. Waite afterwards Chief Justice, Ex-
Governor Bullock of Massachusetts and others of his country
men. He was especially indebted to Elliot C. Cowdin, a New
York merchant, formerly of Boston, but now representing his
house in Paris where he had his family and a residence. A
place at his table was always ready for Sumner ; and his friends

696 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
were invited to dine with him. Sumner was very fond of
Mr. Cowdin's children and particularly of one, little Alice, who
had, as he said, " so sweet a name." He met President Thiers,
dined with him at the Palais d'Elysee, saw his friend and
correspondent, the Count of Paris, and Gambetta. To the last,
in conversation, he said, "you wish to found a republic in
France without religion. I do not know your country well
enough to express an opinion, but in America we would con
sider such an undertaking chimerical and doomed to certain
defeat." At a dinner given him by M. de Corcelle he met
Remusat, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Gouland the
Minister of Finance. Sumner spoke French fluently and was
everywhere received with attention. An intelligent French
gentleman wrote : " I do not believe that an American has ever
made so great an impression in France." And this good im
pression was mutual, for Sumner left France this time, with
a higher opinion of the French character, than ever before.
He left Paris on October nineteenth, returning to London by.
the twenty-sixth. He stopped on the way at Brussels, Antwerp
and The Hague, at the latter place spending two days with Mot
ley. He met Motley again at Mr. Sheridan's, Frampton Court,
Dorchester, with other guests, among them the Queen of Hol
land, when Motley's little granddaughter was christened. He
remained in London until the eleventh day of November, oc
cupying his time in visiting private libraries and collections of
antiquities and porcelain, among others being admitted to a
private view of the porcelain and pictures of Buckingham Pal
ace. In London, as in Paris, he made purchases of curios.
Among other attentions which he received, Lord Granville came
from Walmer Castle to London to entertain him at dinner, and
Dean and Lady Stanley entertained him at breakfast, with
William W. Story, at the Westminster deanery, the morning
he left London. Lady Stanley was the sister of Sir Frederick
Bruce, the British Ambassador at Washington, who died sud
denly in Boston, in September, 1867. Sumner had cared for
him, in his last hours, and superintended the arrangements for
his funeral, he being the only acquaintance he had in the city.
Sumner had been on cordial terms with the family for many
years, but this breakfast was to be their last meeting.
From London, he went to visit the Duke of Devonshire
at Chatsworth Castle and then to Rochdale to spend a night
with John Bright. It was his last night in England. They sat
up and talked together till after midnight, of the President and
their trouble, of San Domingo- and the offer of the mission to
England, to quiet him, of London and its buildings and archi-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 697
lecture, of England and her people and her great men, of the
many friends he had there, " how sorry he was to leave it,
under a sad sense that he would visit it no more." His heart
was still troubling him and there was a sadness and a gentleness
noticeable in his manner that left the impression, that he felt
himself seriously sick and " that his life of work was nearly
ended." He did not rest well that night; and the next day,
rough, unsettled and disagreeable, he went on to Liverpool to
commence the homeward voyage. His purpose was to go farther
north to visit the Argylls at Inverary, the Duchess had written,
urging him to come, and the warm friendship between him and
her family, since he first visited England and the wish to see
them once more, induced him strongly, but at the last, he felt
he could not spare the time.
His friends urged him to stay longer in Europe. William W.
Story was delighted to meet and visit with him once more. It
seemed as if the intervening years were blotted out and both
were young again. He had " the same pleased astonishment at
all he saw " and " the same stern and unflinching adherence to
his friends." And he patronized William as pleasantly as he
did, when he was twenty and the world before him, so that he
was delighted and laughed into youth again. Doubtless the
merry laugh of William recalled his father's, and took Sumner
back to the days when he dropped into Judge Story's home, in
Cambridge, so familiarly. Under such influences, he grew vis
ibly stronger; and William urged him to spend the winter in
England or go with him to Rome and "wander over the old
places ". Once Sumner seemed to yield, but only for a moment.
His answer at last was the same as to Bright and Governor
Bullock, he must go back to the Senate and to work. And so
he went forth, from the sight of his friends beyond the sea
forever. How much those friends and those scenes meant to
him, warm-hearted and affectionate, and yet without family and
without home, and how much the thought of them came into
his hard, toilsome life, to ease the burden and brighten the way,
can hardly be told.
The voyage homeward was a rough one. For two days a
violent gale blew and the next the sailors rescued the crew
of another ship that had been disabled. He landed in New
York on the twenty-sixth day of November, after a voyage of
twelve days. One of the purposes of his trip had been to con
sult Dr. Brown-Sequard; but he had suddenly left Paris for
New York, before Sumner's arrival. Sumner consulted him
there upon his return to America and then went to Wash
ington.

698 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
At the opening of Congress he was in his seat, feeling
much improved in health by his trip. The change of scene and
the journey had done him good. He felt disappointed at the
result of the election. To those with whom he talked, in con
fidence, he expressed surprise. He could not understand why
reasons that seemed so conclusive to him that Grant should
not have been re-elected, had not been equally so to others. He
was disappointed that his own speeches against him had not
produced a greater effect upon the vote. But if there was any
feeling of bitterness at this, there was no expression of it. His
associates in the Senate remarked it at the time and after
wards. He had only kind words for all of them and seemed to
accept the result as it was and wish for peace and reconciliation.
At the opening of the Session it had been arranged that a
motion would be made to have the Senate adjourn on the day
of the funeral of Horace Greeley, out of respect to his memory.
Fenton of New York was to make the motion and Sumner was
to second it. By parliamentary tactics, the Republican major
ity prevented the motion being made. In some remarks that
Sumner prepared for the occasion, which have since been pub
lished, he plead for reconciliation. " We are admonished ", he
said " to forget the strifes of party and to remember only truth,
country and mankind * * * in other days the horse and
armor of the departed chieftain have been buried in the grave,
where he reposed. So too may we bury the animosities if not
the badges of the past."
A few days later in a tribute to Garret Davis, a Senator from
Kentucky, who had died during the recess, Sumner touched the
same chord again. Davis was a man of conspicuous ability and
industry and of unquestioned integrity. Under circumstances
of peculiar trial he had been unfaltering in his devotion to the
Union. But he was the advocate and defender of slavery.
Upon this subject "a certain wild independence and intensity
of nature, which made him unaccommodating and irrepres
sible " came out so conspicuously that he yielded neither " to
argument nor to the logic of events ". He " spoke last for
slavery". While paying a high tribute to his better nature,
Sumner did not believe that, even in a eulogy, he should pass
over this trait, without remark. But he also added, in tender
ness for the past : " Time is teacher and reconciler ; nor is it
easy for any candid nature to preserve a constant austerity of
judgment towards persons. As evening approaches, the me
ridian heats lose their intensity. While abiding firmly in the
truth as we saw it, there may be charity and consideration for
those who did not see it as we saw it. * * * In proportion as

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 699
I quit myself, and as time sweeps me far from our combats, I
enter without difficulty into a serene and pleasant apprecia
tion of ideas and sentiments which do not belong to me. * * *
Here let me be frank. Nothing could make any speech for
slavery tolerable to me; but when I think how much opinions
are determined by the influences about us, so that a change of
birth and education might have made the Abolitionist a par
tisan of slavery and the partisan of slavery an Abolitionist, I
feel that while always unrelenting towards the wrong, we cannot
be insensible to individual merits."
Sumner had two aspirations when he entered upon the work
of this session that he wished to see promoted by legislation, —
equal civil rights for the blacks, and a removal of the animos
ities created by the war. He hoped for a complete recon
ciliation between the North and the South. Both parties ad
vocated these two measures in the late campaign. He was for
carrying them out in good faith.
He introduced his Civil Rights Bill again. He also intro
duced another bill, which seems unimportant to us, that could
do no harm, as he thought, and would aid to restore harmony
between the sections. But it was destined to develop conse
quences that were altogether unthought of when introduced.
The text of this bill was as follows :
" A Bill to regulate the Army-Register and the Regimental
Colors of the United States. 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: There
fore, Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 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."
Sumner had twice before introduced this measure, in sub
stance; once in 1862, when after the capture of Williamsburg,
General McClellan asked if it would be proper for regiments
to place the names of battles in which they were engaged, on
their regimental colors. Sumner introduced in the Senate a
resolution that it would not and General Scott, then living,
commended it as " noble." Again, in 1865 he introduced in the
Senate a resolution, that in the Nation's Capitol there should
be no picture of a victory in battle over fellow-citizens; which
General Robert Anderson, another high military authority,
commended. There was no criticism of Sumner's action or
motives on either of these occasions. This had been in accord

700 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
with the practice of all civilized nations, ancient and modern.
And the reason for it was obvious. No soldier while fighting
the battles of his country should be reminded by the flag under
which he served of his previous defeats. It would neither be
wise nor generous. Every one should be made to feel him
self the equal of all others, the citizen of a common country,
with an equal pride in its glory, and not as a defeated foe.
In speaking on this subject, after Sumner's death, Carl
Schurz, himself a soldier of high rank, educated in the military
schools of Europe, said : " All civilized governments of our days
have instinctively followed the same dictate of wisdom and
patriotism. The Irishman, when fighting for old England at
Waterloo, was not to behold on the red cross floating above him
the name of the Boyne. The Scotch Highlander, when standing
in the trenches of Sebastopol, was not by the colors of his regi
ment to be reminded of Culloden. No French soldier at Aus-
terlitz or Solferino had to read upon the tricolor any remi
niscence of the Vendee. No Hungarian at Sadowa was taunted
by an Austrian banner with the surrender of Villagos. No
German regiment, from Saxony or Hanover, charging under
the iron hail of Gravelotte, was made to remember, by words
written on a Prussian standard, that the black eagle had con
quered them at Koniggratz and Langensalza. Should the son
of South Carolina, when at some future day defending the
Republic against some foreign foe, be reminded by an inscrip
tion on the colors floating over him, that under this flag the
gun was fired that killed his father at Gettysburg? Should
this great and enlightened Republic, proud of standing in the
front of human progress, be less wise, less large-hearted, than
the ancients were two thousand years ago and the kingly gov
ernments of Europe are to-day ? "
Sumner thought not. He believed that all occasion for strife
and distrust between the North and the South had passed away
and that the time had come when they should grow together
again in heart as they were indissolubly joined together by
law. And this generous impulse quickly found an answering
response among the Southern people. "It was certainly a
gracious act toward the South" said one of them, — "though
unhappily it jarred upon the sensibilities of the people at the
other extreme of the Union and estranged from him the great
body of his political friends — to propose to erase from the ban
ners of the national army the mementoes of the bloody inter
necine struggle, which might be regarded as assailing the pride
or wounding the sensibilities of the Southern people. That

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 701
proposal will never be forgotten by that people so long as the
name of Charles Sumner lives in the memory of man."
But this act met a different reception in the North. The
Legislature of Massachusetts was in extra session, called to
gether to pass some bills made necessary by the great fire of
that year, in Boston. One Hoyt, the member from Athol, who
had been a soldier, but with no particular army record, intro
duced a resolution censuring Sumner's bill as " insulting the
soldiers " and " meeting the unqualified condemnation of the
people " of Massachusetts. The resolution was unexpected ;
it came in, without previous discussion, among the mem
bers, of the propriety of such a step and was at once re
ferred to a committee. The committee announced no public
hearings upon it and no one was heard but Hoyt and two of his
friends. The committee divided upon it, three members being
for and three against it ; and it was thus reported. The Legis
lature was to adjourn the next day after it was reported. It
was discussed, the evening it was reported, and the next morn
ing. There was a good deal of loose declamation about insult
ing the soldiers, tearing down their tombstones and ploughing
up the National cemeteries. How other nations had treated the
question and the precedents they had established was not dis
cussed. Members were apparently not familiar with the sub
ject. What Sumner's motive or purpose was, in introducing the
bill, was not known ; an opportunity was not given him to
explain. A motion was made to postpone the resolution indefinitely.
It was supposed to have carried by the casting vote of the
Speaker, but a recount being made, it was found that the
motion was lost, by a majority of one. The resolution was then
passed by the House. It was rushed through the Senate, the
afternoon of the same day. And thus was Charles Sumner cen
sured by the Legislature of Massachusetts !
The fear of incurring the displeasure of the soldier vote,
which was then large, naturally influenced some Members to
vote for it. But there was a bitter feeling on the Repub
lican side towards Sumner, for his part against Grant.
The election was only recently over and party feeling at the
time ran high. Sumner was treated, on the impulse of the
moment, as having abandoned his principles and gone over to
the Democrats, and his bill as a Democratic measure. There
was a disposition to punish him for it. And this feeling more
than any other caused its adoption.
But in every community there is a class of educated and sober-
minded people, who are not to be blown about by every gust of

702 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
political excitement. Sumner had enjoyed, in large measure,
the confidence of this class in Massachusetts. His record in the
Senate had been a matter of pride to them and, though they
may have differed from him in his estimate of Grant, they were
not willing that he should be treated with injustice. A resolu
tion of censure passed upon him at once arrested their attention
and the cause was no sooner known, than a movement was or
ganized, headed by John Greenleaf Whittier, the poet, to have
the incoming Legislature rescind it.
Petitions were circulated and they were signed by more than
five thousand names. The number could have been increased
indefinitely. It was the character of the petitioners that was
chiefly remarkable. Perhaps no prayer to a Legislature ever
had so many great names attached to it, authors, scholars,
divines, men of all professions, judges and statesmen, of the
highest rank in the country, Whittier, Longfellow, Holmes,
Agassiz, Wendell Phillips, Rev. James Freeman Clarke, Ex-
Governor Claflin, Ex-Governor Washburn, A. H. Rice, soon to
be Governor, Henry Wilson, Vice-President elect, Henry L.
Pierce, the Congressman of Boston, were some of those within
the State ; William Cullen Bryant, Fred Douglass, Chief Justice
Chase and Governor Noyes, of Ohio, were some of those without.
A remonstrance was also presented.
The Legislature met in January, 1873. The petitions were
referred to the Committee on Federal Relations, which gave
public hearings to both sides. Ex-Governor Claflin, Ex-Gov
ernor Washburn, Rev. James Freeman Clarke and Hon. Edward
L. Pierce argued the question for the petitioners; Hoyt, the
mover of this resolution, William Lloyd Garrison and Julia
Ward Howe, appeared and spoke for the remonstrants. Since
the days of his young manhood, Sumner had known the last
two. Garrison's paper, the Liberator, was the first for which
he subscribed; and since 1835 he had continued his sup
port to it and its editor. But as the tide of years rolled back
and he saw the visits in those early days to New York and the
home of the Misses Ward, the " Three Graces of Bond Street ",
where he entered with a young man's enthusiasm into the
charmed circle of their wit and beauty, and recalled once more
the tender sentiment of the past, it must have chafed him to see
the last of the " lovely triumvirate " in this company.
The committee reported against rescinding the resolution
and both Houses voted to adopt their report. The strength
of the election prejudice was still too strong.
The resolution of censure came upon Sumner with prostrat
ing effect. " Only the sea and tiger," he wrote Rev. James Free-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 703
man Clarke, who had promptly criticised in his pulpit the
resolution of the Legislature and defended Sumner's bill, " are
as blind and senseless, in ferocity, as party hate." He was now
without party lines in the Senate. He was not a Democrat —
never had been ; and the call for the Republican caucus limited
its membership to those who had supported Grant and the plat
form. Hostility seemed to be directed at him. Schurz was
given a place on the Committee on Foreign Relations by the
Democrats, and Banks was allowed to retain his Committee
appointment, by the Republicans in the House. Both had been
prominent in the movement for Greeley. Cut off thus in Wash
ington and censured at home, avoided by many he had for
merly led, Sumner's position was unpleasant. It preyed upon
his mind.
He was in no physical condition to withstand it. All the
improvement he had gained by his trip to Europe disappeared
and the heart and brain troubles returned, in aggravated forms.
He became seriously sick. The attacks of angina pectoris be
came so frequent as to average one each week and increased in
length and intensity. There was the pressure on the brain at
tended with pains about the spine, neck and shoulders. His
physician, Dr. J. T. Johnson, of Washington, attended him
twice each day; and besides, daily reports were made to Dr.
Brown-Sequard, in New York, and his advice received as to
treatment. He could walk with difficulty, leaning upon a cane,
in the house ; it pained him to sit and he was finally obliged to
take his bed.
He read some and was glad to see friends who called ; their
talk generally led to his recent trip to Europe, and the persons
and places he visited. It withdrew his thoughts from politics.
But to a few, those nearest to him, as Schurz and Wilson, he
revealed his deep disappointment, at the storm of obloquy that
his Battle Flag Bill had raised in Massachusetts. The days of
that winter sat sad and dark upon him. He was obliged to
give up all work, even that upon his " book ", as he called the
collected edition of his speeches, which he was publishing and
longed to see completed. His life, filled with work and political
struggle and strife, had not been a peculiarly happy one and
sometimes he longed for a home with a little less friction in it.
" If my works were completed and my Civil Rights Bill passed,"
he said one day to Wilson as they sat alone, " no visitor could
enter that door that would be more welcome than death." For
these causes he would ask strength again ; and now a new wish
had come, to appear in the Senate once more, and defend his
Battle Flag Bill. He felt that he had been misunderstood,

704 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
and unjustly condemned. Massachusetts, he said, had led in
the battle for freedom and equality; and he wished to see her
lead again, " in smoothing the wrinkled front of war ". He
wrote to Wilson asking that the consideration of his bill be
postponed until he would be able to be present ; and his request
was granted.
From the nineteenth day of December until the middle of
March he was not in the Senate. He went there at that time to
present, according to custom, the credentials of his colleague,
Geo. S. Boutwell, who had been elected to succeed Wilson, now
the Vice-President. When Sumner advanced with Boutwell
to the Speaker's chair, where the oath was administered, he
appeared weak and sick, leaning heavily upon his cane. And he
was not able to attend the meetings of the Senate again that
session. With the coming of spring and the bright and beauti
ful days, with warm sunshine and pleasant air, which wake trees
and flowers and birds to such joyous life in that climate, a new
vigor seemed to be infused into him. He commenced, by taking
short walks or drives and increasing their length. On the first
of May he attended the wedding of his physician and called on
Chief Justice Chase. The talk with Chase of old friends, old
scenes and old conflicts was " intimate and affectionate ". Six
days later Chase died, very suddenly, in New York, and Sum
ner was asked to be one of the pallbearers, but was obliged to
decline. Two weeks later, he was able to do a little work on his
" book ". Gradually health and strength, in a measure, re
turned and by the last of July the physicians and medicines
disappeared.

CHAPTER XLIII
RETURN TO WORK  LAST SUMMER AT BOSTON  IN SENATE AGAIN
 ATTENDS DINNER OF NEW ENGLAND SOCIETY OF NEW
YORK  LAST DAYS  DEATH  EULOGIES.
Sumner remained in Washington till the last days of July,
at work upon his " book ". This required frequent visits to the
Congressional Library. It was quiet, congenial employment
for him and took his mind from politics and excitement. This
was what he needed. While his general health had become fair,
he found he could not stand excitement and therefore avoided
politics even in conversation. His friends urged him to make
another trip to Europe, but he would not listen to this. In the
purchase of rare books and manuscripts and art treasures,
while there the summer before, he had expended about six thou
sand dollars. The most of this he had borrowed; for the modest
fortune, inherited mostly at his mother's death, he kept invested
as a permanent capital, upon which he did not wish to draw.
He was always restive when in debt. He now hoped by lectur
ing, the coming fall, to earn the money to pay this off and be
free again.
When pressed to go to Europe, he wrote : " I am yet in debt
for my European trip last autumn, and no temptation can
make me repeat this indiscretion, and reduce still more my
small capital. Evidently you do not consider my expenses, —
my house, clerk hire here — salary to proof readers at Cam
bridge, my doctor's bills' (two visits daily for months), with
Dr. Brown-Sequard's account; also poor relations. How to
meet these, even with my increased pay, I know not."
Sumner had partly made arrangements with Redpath's
bureau for engagements to lecture, when his friends discovered
it. The subject he had chosen was the "The Unity of the
Republic " ; and he had done some work upon his lecture. His
physician, Dr. Brown-Sequard thought he was equal to the
strain. But his friends thought differently and urgently ad
vised against it. He admitted he needed "rest and play
and friendship " and regretfully undertook the work. Wendeil
Phillips, who had been an extensive lecturer and was familiar
with the hardships of the work, was especially active in dis-
705

706 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
suading from it. Seeing that the debt was the worrying cause,
he procured Henry L. Pierce to pay it and take Sumner's note
for the amount. The engagement to lecture was then reluc
tantly cancelled. Sumner would rather have had the debt paid.
This note was afterwards paid out of Sumner's estate. The
various reports that money was raised among his friends, as
for instance, to pay the expenses of his last trip to Europe, to
pay this debt, and so forth, are without foundation. Sumner
was exceedingly sensitive upon such matters and would not
allow favors of this kind to be shown him. He even declined
the offer from the steamship company, of a free passage home
ward, on his last European trip. His sensitiveness about receiv
ing gifts has already been noticed. He believed that the receipt
of such favors was not consistent with a public man's position.
In the life of Daniel Webster, he had seen these gratuities give
rise to ugly scandals and rude questionings, unworthy of the
man and his position, as well as embarrassing to his friends.
Sumner spent the time quietly, during this summer, with his
friends and occasionally working at his book ; otherwise under
taking no serious employment, but keeping in mind his purpose
to re-establish his health. " It is pleasant," he wrote, " to feel
a sense of health, to sleep without narcotics and to move about,
as other people, without effort or ache." Mrs. John T. Sargent
invited him to make her house his home during his stay in
Massachusetts ; but he declined. " The large airy room in the
large house " was tempting, but he felt he needed retirement
and went to his old quarters at the Coolidge House, where he
would feel less restraint. He spent his summer there, and at
Nahant, where he was the guest of Longfellow and Mrs. George
A. James, at both of whose houses he was always welcome and
was treated almost as one of the family. One day in Septem
ber he and Longfellow drove to Amesbury and visited Whittier,
on their return, dining with Ben Perley Poore at Newbury.
He also visited Ex-Governor Claflin at Newtonville and Mr.
Hooper at Cotuit, spending two or three days with each.
While visiting Longfellow at Nahant, Sumner had a call
from Vice-President Wilson, his former colleague in the Senate,
whose friendship, notwithstanding differences of political
opinion, still continued unbroken. Wilson had suffered a stroke
of paralysis the previous spring, which had partially disabled
him. Each was struggling on with shattered health, filling a
high office, under the penalty of public life, that he could not
escape observation and attention wherever he went, and having
besides an unfinished book on his hands, by which he hoped to
continue his name to posterity. It is a sad reflection on the.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 707
uncertain fame of American statesmen that Sumner and Wilson
after spending twenty years of hard service in one of the highest
offices of the Nation, where the best of life was exacted and
given, must thus confess at its close the uncertainty of its
rewards. Each was obliged by death to leave his book to be
completed by others.
George S. Hillard, another of Sumner's friends, had also
suffered a stroke of paralysis. Sumner saw him repeatedly
during this summer vacation and together they enjoyed their
talks of the old days, of " The Five of Clubs,' of the members
long gone, the refined and sensitive Cleveland ; and Felton, so
lovable, whose merry laugh came back from the past so tenderly ;
of " Number Four, Court Street " and their old law office, with
its visitors. The separation later, caused by Sumner's fight
against slavery, was forgotten ; and Hillard now agreed that he
had not seen into the future so clearly. Sumner dined with
Hillard, one evening shortly before his return to Washington.
The domestics of the house were colored and one had been a
slave and bore on her back the marks of her master's lash. They
were much elated at the thought of preparing a dinner for
Charles Sumner. Upon being told of their admiration, Sumner
answered that it was customary, in certain places, when the din
ner was unusually fine, to send a glass of wine to the cook and
asked that he might be permitted to do so on this occasion ; and
it was done. At the close of the meal the domestics wished to
be permitted to see Sumner and he smilingly complied with the
request. It was a scene worthy the brush of an artist; Sum
ner's stalwart form, six feet three inches tall, filling the door
way to the kitchen, while those poor colored women, as if it
were enough to touch the hem of his garment, came forward to
take his hand and press it to their lips. Some of the by
standers could not suppress a tear ; but it was so unexpected to
Sumner, that he soon escaped in embarrassment.
This was an unusually happy summer for Sumner. He felt
the sympathy of the people of Massachusetts coming back to
him, in love and confidence, as of old. His sickness and the fear
that perhaps he might not recover had touched them with a
sense of the injustice done him in the recent days. Old friends
came forward to greet him and new people sought to make his
acquaintance. They were glad to see him looking so well. He
confessed he had not felt so well for several years. The color in
his face was unusually clear and good; and he walked with
comparative ease. He greeted those he met cordially and
seemed to appreciate the warm welcome he received. On every
side there was talk of him for another term in the Senate and

708 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
no serious mention of any other name, though the choice was
soon to be made. He was entertained as principal guest at four
of the clubs in Boston, making a short speech on each occasion,
but avoiding politics, choosing such subjects as love of country,
the future of the Republic, or the Centennial Celebration and
the return to specie payments, questions then only being
mooted. He appeared at lectures several times, at one he pre
sided and, at another, came forward, at the close, to decline the
call of the audience for him. He spoke at a meeting at the
Merchants' Exchange, called to solicit aid for the sufferers from
yellow fever at Memphis and Shreveport. He was made a mem
ber of the Massachusetts Historical Society, a place then much
coveted by scholars. He attended a social meeting at Rev.
James Freeman Clarke's church by invitation of the pastor.
On the way he inquired of a passenger on the street car for the
location of the church. After answering, the passenger inquired
if he was a stranger in the city. But a little boy on the same
car jumped off, when Sumner alighted, to ask him to write his
name in an autograph album, which he did, by the light of a
street lamp. At the church he spoke briefly, directing his re
marks to the young folks, speaking of the possibilities of the
future and expressing the wish that he could live in the com
ing generation. But a lady present reminded him later in the
evening that, "the Lord knew better than he did when he
ought to have been born." He was entertained by many of his
friends and entered heartily into the occasions, both he and
they seeming happy at his prospect of continued good health.
He left Boston for Washington November twenty-fourth,
1873, stopping off a few hours, in the afternoon, to attend a
public reception, given in his honor, by the citizens of Spring
field and then went on; and the people of Massachusetts saw
him no more. But it was not a parting in sadness and disap
pointment. His friend, Edward L. Pierce, accompanied him
on the train from Boston, and once interrupted his reading to
ask : " Do you not see how the heart of Massachusetts is with
you ? " " Yes," after a moment's hesitation, he answered, " I
expected it, but not so soon." He realized then that the resolu
tion of censure would be rescinded, at the coming meeting of
the Legislature, and that for the fifth time, if he consented,
he would be chosen to represent the State in the Senate. After
brief stops at New York and Philadelphia he reached Wash
ington on November twenty-eighth.
Sumner was present in the Senate at the opening of Congress.
The disposition here as in Boston had been changed by his

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 709
illness and absence from the Senate. His colleagues gener
ally were glad to welcome him back and to congratulate him
upon his return to health. But there was still a lack of cordial
ity, on the part of those who were peculiarly of the Administra
tion circle, Conkling, Logan, Morton and Carpenter. They,
with the aid of patronage, were now the controlling set in the
Senate. They classed him as a Democrat and refused him any
place of consequence on the Committees. He knew the classifi
cation was not correct, as they did, but he made no complaint.
Sumner this year attended the annual dinner of the New
England Society of New York, held on the evening of the
twenty-second of December. He had been pressed to go
before, but declined, because of his rule not to leave Washing
ton, when Congress was in session, except in case of urgent
necessity. He felt that he could now claim some relaxation
of this rule. The President of the Society was his friend,
Elliot C. Cowdin, who had shown him so much kindness on
his last visit to Paris. Sumner was to be his guest while in
New York and thus renew his pleasant acquaintance with
" little Alice " and the rest of the family, and talk over their
European days.
In responding to the toast, " The Senate of the United
States ", he made a graceful reference to his friendship with
Mr. Cowdin, " of many years, in Boston, New York and in a
foreign land." This speech — his last before a general audience
— his last except some impromptu remarks in the Senate, re
vealed some of the principles which guided his life. He re
ferred to the counsel of the venerable pastor, John Robin
son, to the Pilgrims, before their embarkation at Delft-Haven ;
" to be as ready to receive the truth, at the hands of other min
isters, as ever they had been at his, not to close their souls to the
truth as the Lutherans, who could not be drawn to go beyond
what Luther saw " nor as the Calvinists, " who stuck where
Calvin left them," " though they were precious, shining lights
in their times, yet God had not revealed His whole will to
them," and he was "very confident the Lord had more truth
and light yet, to break forth out of His Holy Word." This,
Sumner insisted, recognized the law of Human Progress,
"which teaches the sure advance of the human family, and
opens the vista of the ever broadening, never ending future
on earth."
He spoke of the poverty of the Pilgrims, their whole outfit,
including £1,700 of tra'ding-stock, being only £2,400, and
humorously told of their soldier captain, Miles Standish, being
sent to England to borrow, and was only able to raise £150, at

710 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
fifty per cent interest. " So much," he said, with a reference
to General Sherman, who was present, "for a valiant soldier
on a financial expedition." " And yet," he said, " this embarka
tion so slender in numbers and means is illustrious beyond the
lot of men."
" Though this was little foreseen," he said, " in their day, it
is plain now how it has come to pass. The highest greatness,
surviving time and storm, is that which proceeds from the
soul of man. Monarchs and cabinets, generals and admirals,
with the pomp of courts and the circumstance of war, in the
gradual lapse of time disappear from sight; but the pioneers
of Truth, though poor and lowly, especially those whose ex
ample elevates human nature and teaches the rights of man so
that Government of the people, by the people, and for the
people shall not perish from the earth — such harbingers can
never be forgotten, and their renown spreads, coextensive with
the cause they served."
He contrasted the rulers of that time, " the foolish James "
of England " the morose Louis the Thirteenth " of France,
" the imbecile Philip the Third " of Spain, " the persecuting
Ferdinand the Second " of Germany, Pope Paul the Fifth,
Christian of Denmark and his son Christian of Norway,
Gustavus Adolphus of Sweden and a score of others whom he
named, all so well known then and whose faces have been so
carefully preserved by Art, with these poor Pilgrims who had
no artists and whose countenances are now unknown. None of
the former, he declared, excepting Gustavus Adolphus " because
he revealed a superior character ", is now remembered, " but
with indifference or contempt. While our Pilgrims had in
themselves that inborn virtue which was more than all else
besides, and their landing was an epoch." " The former," he
added, " are ascending into the firmament, there to shine for
ever, while the latter have been long dropping into the dark
ness of oblivion, to be brought forth only to point a moral or to
illustrate the fame of contemporaries whom they regarded not.
Do I err in supposing this an illustration of the supremacy
which belongs to the triumphs of the moral nature ? "
" I would if I could," he said, " make their example a uni
versal lesson, and stamp it upon the land. The conscience
which directed them should be the guide of our public council ;
the just and equal laws which they required should be ordained
by us; and the hospitality to Truth which was their rule should
be ours. Nor would I forget their courage and steadfastness.
Had they turned back or wavered, I know not what would

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 711
have been the record of this continent, but I can see clearly that
a great example would have been lost."
This speech, though his last, shows no diminution of his
mental powers. Since his death it has been selected and pub
lished as one of the choice specimens of American eloquence.
Sumner's reception at this banquet gave unmistakable evi
dence of the high place he held in New York. Owing to a de
lay of his train, he was late in arriving at the banquet. As he
passed up the hall, to the place assigned him, as principal guest,
at the right of the President, he was recognized and heartily
cheered. He was introduced by the President as "the senior
in consecutive service and the most eminent member of the
Senate, whose early, varied and distinguished services in the
cause of Freedom had made his name a household word through
out the world." On rising he was received with great cheering,
the members of the Society standing. Many times during his
speech he was interrupted by applause and at the conclusion
the audience rose and gave cheer upon cheer. It was a re
ception altogether worthy of the man and his work and it
touched him deeply. For weeks after, the effect of it was
noticeable upon his spirits. It was an earnest of the assured
place he was to hold in the estimation of posterity.
Sumner remained four days in New York, enjoying the
hospitality of Mr. Cowdin and his family. While there he was
seized with a cold, which, with the excitement and physical
strain incident to his visit, caused some unfavorable symptoms,
but the kindly anxiety of Mr. Cowdin and his family quickly
came out in the unfailing tenderness of husband and wife and
children. Did Sumner not secretly wish he could have such
tenderness with him always, have wife and children of his
own, to offer kindly ministrations in sickness and when others
met him with averted faces, to welcome him to their circle and
say they knew that he was great and pure and good?
On December, twenty-sixth, he was back in Washington and
at work. To one who wrote to him cautioning him about his
health, he answered cheerily. " I note and value your warning.
My case is less menacing than the Vice-President's. I have
latterly done my eleven hours work a day."
At the opening of the session he introduced his Civil Rights
Bill again. On the second day of the session he moved the
Senate to proceed to the consideration of it. But Senator
Ferry of Connecticut objected that Edmunds of Vermont had
asked, that it be referred to his committee, and added that he
was not now present and that a recent decision of the Supreme
Court had increased the doubt of the constitutionality of the

712 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
bill. There was a discussion of the reference, Sumner objecting
and insisting that it be disposed of promptly. But his mo
tion did not carry. On the twenty-seventh day of January
1874, the bill came up again, on a motion to refer it to the
Judiciary Committee. Sumner resisted the motion and argued
that the bill had already been twice before this Committee and
had each time been reported adversely, after being held there
many months, that the third time he had introduced it, he did
not ask a reference on this account, that in his opinion to refer
it now only meant delay and he was for action. But members
of the Committee assured him that it should be promptly re
ported and he then withdrew his objection and it was referred.
This was Sumner's last effort for the passage of a bill, on
which he had labored four years. By his agitation, there had
grown up a feeling in its favor. Each political party had ad
mitted its justness and the Senate was inclined in its favor.
Though later it was passed, it was afterwards held unconstitu
tional by the Supreme Court, on the ground that it was legis
lation that belonged to the States. Its provisions have since
been enacted in many of them.
Sumner's interest in the attitude of the Supreme Court to
wards his Civil Rights Bill influenced his action upon the ap
pointment of a Chief Justice at this session. The President
first nominated Roscoe Conkling, but he declined, then Wil
liams of Oregon, but it became apparent that his appointment
could not be confirmed. After some hesitation, his name was
withdrawn, by the President. He then sent to the Senate the
name of Caleb Cushing, of Massachusetts. Of his ability, there
could be no question, but his practice as an attorney had not
been extensive. His life had been spent largely as a politician
and in dealing with public questions. His instability as a
politician was well known. He had been a Whig, a Democrat
and a Republican and an ultra man in each relation. He was
a Member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives at the
time of Sumner's first election to the Senate and the leader of
the opposition to him. He was the Chairman of the Demo
cratic Convention which met at Charleston in 1860. At the
outbreak of the war, he publicly spoke and wrote in favor of the
right of Secession. During the war he became a Republican.
His nomination was much of a surprise in Massachusetts.
Sumner determined to support it. Cushing had a country
home near Washington and an intimacy had grown up between
them, Sumner frequently driving out to his house during the
pleasant days of the preceding spring, when he was convales
cing. Their talks had been cordial and the constitutionality of

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 713
the Civil Rights Bill had been one of their subjects. Cushing
agreed with Sumner upon it. Owing to their friendship, Cush-
ing's ability and their agreement on this question, in which
Sumner took a deep interest, he determined to support the nom
ination, though many of his Massachusetts friends advised
against it. His name, however, was afterwards withdrawn, by
the President, at the request of the Republican, caucus, of which
Sumner was not a member, owing to Cushing's record at the
opening of the war and particularly on account of a letter
which then came to light, asking the good offices of Jefferson
Davis in favor of a clerk about to join the Confederacy.
A letter written by Sumner about this appointment reveals
his fidelity, to his friends as well as to his measures : " I trust
Cushing absolutely," he wrote, " and believe, if the occasion
had occurred, he would have vindicated our ideas judicially far
better than any probable nominee of Grant. I do not write
in the dark, for I have talked with him on these questions and
have seen his sympathy with me. You know that I do not
cherish old differences and animosities. How many have I
seen advanced to the front who were once bitterly the other
way! Knowing Cushing as I did, would it not have been
mean and craven for me to turn against him or to skulk in
silence? This is not my way with friends. Such is not my
idea of friendship."
Morrison R. Waite was afterwards appointed and confirmed.
Sumner did not vote on the question of his confirmation. When
it was being considered by the Senate in executive session, he
spoke at length of the importance of the office and the character
of man required and of his association with those who had
filled it and of the great judges he had known. The session
being secret his remarks were never printed, but they were
commended by those who heard them. The appointee was
then comparatively unknown in Washington, as was his opinion
upon the question in which Sumner felt so much interest. The
result justified Sumner's apprehension, for Chief Justice Waite
concurred in the opinion holding the Civil Rights Law uncon
stitutional. On Friday, March sixth, Sumner spoke in the Senate on the
bill for the Centennial Exposition to be held in Philadelphia
in 1876. From the beginning he had taken much interest in
it. He was not in favor of giving it the form of a World's
Fair, believing that coming so soon after the Exposition at
Vienna it would not be a success. But he was in favor of a
National Exposition showing the progress of this country in the
arts and sciences. In his debate, on this day, there was a sharp

714 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
though friendly encounter between him and the Pennsylvania
Senators. He favored a farther consideration of the bill and
moved a reference of it to a committee; and he prevailed.
These were his last remarks in the Senate.
He was pleased with the vote and just after it was taken he
said to a fellow Senator : " Thurman, this is another instance
of the good effects of debate. Had the vote been taken on the
bill without discussion, it would have passed almost unani
mously." Sumner never limited his friendships to those of
his own party. His friendship with Thurman, though a
Democrat, approached intimacy and, he said after Sumner's
death, it was never marred for a moment by any political
difference, however great and decided. Thurman thought one
of Sumner's distinguishing traits was his love of discussion.
" He never," he said, " within my knowledge shrunk from
it; and he was the determined opponent of all attempts to
limit debate in the Senate by a, previous question or other
restrictive rule. He spoke often and elaborately himself, and
he was the best, and perhaps the most courteous, listener among
us to the speeches of others. He placed a very high estimate
upon the power and effect of discussion, often in conversation
citing instances of measures being carried or defeated by a
thorough debate."
The Senate adjourned from March sixth, Friday, to Monday
March ninth. On Sunday evening Sumner dined at Mr.
Hooper's in company with Senator Anthony of Rhode Island
and Hon. J. B. Smith, a colored member of the Massachusetts
Legislature, who had been appointed to bring to Washington
the resolution, rescinding the Legislative censure of Sumner.
It was rescinded by the State Senate on February eleventh and
by the House of Representatives on February thirteenth, al
most unanimously. Mr. Smith had brought the resolution, and
a beautifully engrossed parchment copy of it for Sumner.
Sumner was in excellent spirits while at Mr. Hooper's. But
after retiring that night he had an attack of the angina pec
toris, which kept him awake four hours and necessitated the
call of his physician and a return to morphine to ease the pain.
On Monday, March ninth, the session of the Senate lasted
only a few minutes and then adjourned out of respect for the
memory of ex-President Fillmore, who had just died. Sumner
was not able to be present. On that evening he had another, but
less severe, attack of his disease, when his physician was again
sent for and administered remedies. On the next day, Tuesday,
March tenth, 1874, his colleague Senator Boutwell was to
formally present in the Senate the rescinding resolution.

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 715
Boutwell had been sick for some days and hence it had not been
done sooner. It had been presented in the House on March
seventh by General Butler, in Sumner's absence. But it was
desired that he should be present when it was presented in the
Senate. He felt better on the morning of Tuesday, chatted
pleasantly and discussed, with his guest and former secretary,
A. B. Johnson, many persons and events " always in a kindly,
genial, pleasant tone," while he waited nearly an hour for his
mail, which was late. He went to the Senate against the advice
of his physician.
He was in his seat about 12.30 p. m. when Senator Bout
well arose soon after the Senate convened and read the resolu
tion, formally retracting the only censure that had been passed
upon him by the State during a service of twenty-three years.
The eyes of the members sought him as the resolution was
read, but in his face there was no sign of exultation or tri
umph. When asked the evening before if he would speak,
he answered : " The dear old commonwealth has spoken for me
and that is enough." But underneath a silent and impassive
extarior there was a deep feeling of appreciation of this act of
the Legislature. How many heart aches and sad misgivings,
this hasty, passionate and ill-considered resolution cost him,
no one will ever know. But we do know that it did much to
hasten the break down of the already shattered health of this
noble servant of the State. The presentation of the rescinding
resolution was the last act of the Senate in which he partici
pated. His fellow Senators, and others present, congratulated him.
He went to his colleague Boutwell and affectionately putting his
arm around his neck, inquired after his health and as he arose
to leave the chamber accompanied him to the door, there
bidding him " Good-bye ". He met Charles Kingsley, the
English novelist and divine, who was on a lecturing tour in this
country and conversed with him pleasantly. It was their first
meeting and the impressions were mutually pleasant. They
talked of English friends and acquaintances, Gladstone and the
Argylls. Sumner said he was going to write to the Duchess
of Argyll the next day. But he never did. Kingsley wrote in
stead to tell her the sad particulars of the end. Sumner spoke
to several of his fellow Senators; to some, of the Centennial
Celebration, of the resumption of specie payments, of the re
scinding resolution and the kindness he had enjoyed during his
recent vacation in Massachusetts; and to others, Mr. Hooper
among them, of his sickness, of his feeling of weakness and of
his apprehension of another attack. While he was still speaking

716 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
to some of them, he experienced pains in his side and remarked
about them. Mr. Hooper arranged that his carriage would
come to the Capitol and that he should ride home with him.
During this session of the Senate and the one of the Friday
previous when Sumner was last there, he was greatly worried
over a complimentary dinner to Baez, the San Domingo ad
venturer, that was being arranged for in Boston by Dr. S. G.
Howe and others. To Mr. J. W. Chandler, who had dis
cussed it with him on each occasion, he declared himself firmly
against it and expressed the wish to have it prevented.
An effort was being made by Mr. Chandler to gratify him.
There was an earnest conversation of some length about it, on
each occasion. Baez was then in New York; and the dinner
was understood to be in furtherance of the scheme of annexa
tion. It was never held. Sumner left the Senate Chamber, at
4.30 p. m., according to appointment, with Mr. Hooper, in
his carriage. As he went out, those near noticed him pause and
cast his eyes around, as if giving a long, parting look upon this
scene of struggle and suffering and triumph, that had filled so
large a place, in his life.
In the evening he entertained Congressman Henry L. Pierce
and Mr. B. P. Poore of the press, both of Massachusetts, at his
house for dinner. Before their arrival he wrote some friends
in Boston, to interest them in preventing the complimentary
dinner to Baez and he spoke of it to his guests when they
arrived and seemed worried by it. After dinner, the two friends
remained in conversation with him for two hours and then
left, Mr. Pierce being the last to go. About half an hour after
he left, the servants below heard a noise, in his chamber, as of
some one falling heavily to the floor ; and upon going imme
diately up, they found him lying partly upon the lounge and
in great agony.
His physician Dr. J. T. Johnson was at once sent for and
he came promptly with his brother A. B. Johnson, Sumner's
former secretary. They reached the house about nine p. m. In
the meantime, he had been aided to his bed ; and when the phys
ician arrived he was lying across it suffering severely. Mor
phine was administered hypodermically to ease the pain and
produce sleep, but it gave no relief and fifteen minutes later the
application was repeated. This afforded temporary relief and
at the request of Dr. Johnson he retired to bed and soon went to
sleep and slept for twenty minutes, when he awoke again with
another paroxysm, more violent than the other. He exclaimed,
" Doctor, this thing must kill me yet, and it might as well be

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 717
now; for life at this price is not worth the having." It was
now near midnight and the physician, becoming alarmed at the
violence of the symptoms, thought it prudent to call in others.
His friends Mr. Hooper and Mr. Pierce as well as James
Wormley, who lived near, were summoned and Dr. W. P. John
ston was also called; and they soon arrived, Mr. Wormley
bringing with him another colored friend, G. F. Downing.
After another injection of morphine and a dose of brandy and
ammonia he seemed easier, and at two o'clock there was so much
improvement that his friends, except Mr. A. B. Johnson,
thought it safe to retire to their homes; and he requested Mr.
Johnson and his physician to go to bed, assuring them that he
was better. The others complied except Dr. Johnson, who re
mained with him all night watching his symptoms. Towards
morning they became noticeably worse. He was very weak,
his pulse was fast disappearing and he became unconscious.
About six o'clock Mr. Hooper, Mr. Pierce, and Mr. Wormley
returned and it was decided to have a consultation of phy
sicians and Surgeon-General Barnes and Dr. Lincoln were
called and the result was a conviction that the end was near.
From this time until he died there were only intervals of
semi-consciousness. Dr. Brown-Sequard was telegraphed for
and word of his condition sent his sister and other relatives.
His friends Senator Schurz and Congressmen E. Rockwood
Hoar and George F. Hoar heard of his condition and came at
once. Many of his friends and associates in the public service
called during the day to tender kindly offices and before them
the chaplain of the Senate in the library, below where he lay,
read passages of Scripture and offered prayer, as he did also in
Sumner's room.
When partially aroused certain things seemed to be upon
his mind. " I should not regret this if my book were finished,"
he murmured. And again, " My book, my unfinished book ! "
He could be heard to murmur the words " Tired ", " Weary ".
To his former secretary, Mr. Johnson, who with the two colored
friends were changing his position he said : " You must be very
tired; but you can soon rest." To Judge E. R. Hoar who was
chafing his hands, saying he was trying to warm them, he an
swered hopelessly, " You never will ". To Mr. Johnson who had
lifted him up and had his arm under him, he said, " Don't let
the bill be lost." To which he replied " Certainly not "; when
Sumner answered: "You don't understand me: I mean the
Civil Rights Bill ; " and then turning to Judge Hoar he said ;
" Judge, the Civil Rights Bill ; don't let it be lost— don't let
it fail, my bill, the Civil Rights Bill ! " About noon Schurz

718 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
asked him, " Do you know me ? " " Yes ", he answered, striv
ing to open his eyes, " but I do not see you ". And again the
words were murmured ; " 0, so tired ! 0, so weary ! " As the
end drew very near he said to Judge Hoar, a neighbor of Ralph
Waldo Emerson, " Judge, tell Emerson how much I love and
revere him ". And the Judge answered, " I will. He said of
you once, he never knew so white a soul." He was a little later
told that Mr. Hooper had come to see him. He motioned him
to a seat and said : " Sit down." These were his last words.
He soon sank again into unconsciousness, the heart beats grow
ing feebler; for six hours there had been no pulse distinguish
able at his wrist; and at ten minutes before three o'clock p. m.
he passed into another convulsive movement with his heart;
and the end was over. And Charles Sumner was dead.
His friend and former secretary Johnson and Dr. Lincoln
were supporting him at the time, Mr. Downing held his right
hand, Judge Hoar his left; and as he laid it down he said,
" Well done, good and faithful servant ! enter thou into the joy
of thy Lord ! "
" As I stood by the dying bed of him who was my friend
for thirty years," said Judge Hoar, " and heard the repeated
exclamation, ' 0, so tired ! 0, so weary ! ' the old hymn of the
church seemed to be sounding in my ears :
'* ' Yes, peace I for war is needless;
Yes calm ! for storm is past ;
And rest from finished labor,
And anchorage at last."
When the Senate met that day and the condition of Sumner
was known, who the day before had been present participating
in the proceedings, there was an indisposition to do any busi
ness and, on motion of Sherman, an adjournment was taken to
the next morning. The Senators gathered in groups, receiv
ing word of his condition from time to time and discussing
the impending event. The House continued in session receiv
ing and having read bulletins giving information of his condi
tion and, when his death was announced, it too adjourned.
By a coincidence, that did not escape observation among his
colleagues, the day he was stricken with the fatal attack, which
ended his life, was the anniversary of the day, when three years
before he was removed from the Committee on Foreign Rela
tions. The next day, in the absence of Senator Boutwell of Massa
chusetts, on account of sickness, his death was announced in
the Senate by Senator Anthony of Rhode Island.-

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 719
" It is an event," he said, " which needs not to be announced,
for its dark shadow rests gloomily upon this chamber, and not
only upon the Senate and the Capitol, but upon the whole
country." He moved that a committee of six be appointed to take
charge of the funeral and that, in consideration of his long
and distinguished services to his country, his remains be re
moved to Massachusetts in charge of the Sergeant at Arms of
the Senate, attended by a committee of six. The Senate then
adjourned to attend the funeral services in the Senate Chamber
at 12.30 p. m. the next day.
The announcement of his death was made in the House by
Judge Hoar. He moved that a committee of nine be appointed,
who with the Members of the House from Massachusetts,
should accompany the remains to his native State.
The scene at the residence the next day was unusual. No rel
ative of Sumner was there but the house was filled with
mourners. The Massachusetts delegation with their families
assembled early and went with the remains to the Capitol. A
great procession of colored men, headed by Frederick Douglass,
followed the hearse and after them came the committees of
Congress and the immediate friends in carriages. The re
mains were deposited in the rotunda and here under the dome
of the Capitol, all the forenoon, a throng of many thousands
took a last look at the familiar face. Many were turned away,
however, unable to get near on account of the press of the
crowd. Promptly at 12.30 p. M. the body was removed to the Sen
ate Chamber. The throng that had already assembled there,
the President and his Cabinet, the Supreme Court, the Senate
and House of Representatives, General Sherman and Admiral
Porter the heads of the Army and Navy, with many of their
subordinate officers, the legations and their families and the
public, that crowded the great galleries, all arose at the an
nouncement of its coming and remained standing, while it was
carried to the place reserved, before the Vice-President's desk.
Here during the service, President Grant and Secretary Fish
sat at the head, .and Senator Schurz at the foot, while the
eyes of the great audience wandered from him, where he
lay, to the one vacant chair now, as was the whole chamber,
heavily draped in mourning. The services were brief. The
Chaplain of the House read 1 Cor. xv, 22-28 and offered a
prayer. The Chaplain of the Senate then read Psalm xxxix,
5-13 and Psalm xc and offered further prayer. And Senator
Carpenter then President pro tem., committed the remains to

720 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate and the committees, to
be borne to Massachusetts. They were accompanied to the
Railroad Station by many of those present.
Of these services Mr. Blaine wrote that they " were marked
with a manifestation of personal sorrow on the part of multi
tudes of people, more profound than had attended the last rites
of any statesman of the generation — Abraham Lincoln alone
excepted." There was a wealth of flowers. Among them a
cross sent from the White House by the daughter of the Presi
dent and a magnificent design sent by the little Black Republic
of Haiti; but what would have touched Sumner most, —
those from the poor colored people, in profusion.
Both Houses of Congress adjourned until after the burial.
The special train left Washington at three p. M.
When the train reached its destination it was met by a multi
tude of people. Escorted by a mounted guard of honor from the
First Battalion, followed by a long procession of carriages and
people on foot, to the State House, here on a catafalque in the
rotunda, hung with the torn and tattered flags of the conflict
over Slavery, he was laid, his life-work done and the trust
which had been confided to him by his State ended. As the
shades of Saturday evening were gathering in the great hall,
Senator Anthony advanced to Governor Washburn and said:
" May it please your Excellency : We are commanded by the
Senate to render back to you, your illustrious dead. Nearly a
quarter of a century ago, you dedicated to the public service a
man who was even then greatly distinguished. He remained
in it, quickening its patriotism, informing its counsels, and
leading in its deliberations, until, having survived in continu
ous service all his original associates he has closed his earthly
career. With reverent hands we bring to you his mortal part,
that it may be committed to the soil of the renowned com
monwealth that gave him birth. Take it; it is yours. The
part which we do not return to you is not wholly yours to re
ceive, nor altogether ours to give. It belongs to the country,
to mankind, to freedom, to civilization, to humanity. We
come to you with the emblems of mourning, which faintly
typify the sorrow that swells the breasts which they cover. So
much we must concede to the infirmity of human nature. But
in the view of reason and philosophy is it not rather a matter
of high exultation that a life so pure in its personal qualities,
so high in its public aims, so fortunate in its fruition of noble
effort, has closed safely, without a stain, before age had im
paired its intellectual vigor, before time had dimmed the luster
of its genius ! "

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 721
"May it please Your Excellency: Our mission is completed.
We commit to you the body of Charles Sumner. His undying
fame the Muse of History has already taken into her keeping."
The Governor, in reply, addressed the committee briefly.
In the rotunda, the remains lay in state until Monday after
noon, guarded by a company of colored soldiers. During this
time the assembled city and its visitors passed through the
hall to view the face that had so long been familiar. During
Saturday, while the train that bore him, was threading its way
to his old home, a public meeting was held in Faneuil Hall at
which short commemorative addresses were made by leading
citizens, A. H. Rice and William Gaston, both afterwards Gov
ernors of Massachusetts, General Banks, Edward E. Hale,
Richard H. Dana Jr., James B. Smith and others and letters
were read from Charles Francis Adams and Henry Wilson.
During Sunday, his life furnished the theme for many of the
sermons of the country. On Monday, Boston was draped in
mourning, the bells tolled, the flags in the city and harbor were
at half mast and business was suspended. Everywhere there
was evidence of sorrow. At three p. m the remains were re
moved from the State House to the King's Chapel, the old stone
church, with associations of colonial days, where for many
years he and his family had worshipped. Here the pastor, Rev.
Henry W. Foote, read appropriate passages of Scripture, prayer
was offered, Montgomery's hymn, " Servant of God, well done "
was sung, other music was rendered and the brief service was
ended. The long procession to Mt. Auburn Cemetery moved over
the bridge to Cambridge, passed the homes of Story and Long
fellow and the College and Law School, and, as the sun was just
disappearing, reached the grave, where in the gathering twilight
the Lord's Prayer was said, a choir of forty male voices sang
the inimitable " Integer Vitae " and " A mighty fortress is our
God ", the pastor pronounced a benediction ; and all that was
mortal of Charles Sumner was at rest.
By the grave stood Longfellow, Whittier, Emerson and
Holmes, and his associates in public life, Vice-President Wil
son, Speaker Blaine, Schurz, Anthony, Sherman, Hooper, Hoar
and Pierce. No one of kin was there, but, as the coffin rested,
two ladies, one of them the daughter of Julia Ward Howe,
approached and placed upon it a wreath and a cross, the offer
ing of the only surviving member of his father's large family,
his sister Julia.
The grave is in a secluded spot near the boundary of the
cemetery farthest from the main entrance. It is on the south-

722 LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER
west slope of the hill which originally was called by the stu
dents of Harvard " Mt. Auburn," and which afterwards gave
its name to the cemetery. From the top of this eminence is
had a fine view of the surrounding country and of the Charles
River, of which Longfellow wrote :
" River that stealeth with such silent pace
Around the City of the Dead, where lies
A friend who bore thy name and whom these eyes
Shall see no more in his accustomed place,
Linger and hold him in thy soft embrace
And say good night."
The grave is now marked by a granite monument, bearing his
name, erected by the people. Beside it are the graves of his
family and near by the visitor sees to-day those of Agassiz
and Felton, and a little farther off those of Story, Longfellow,
Holmes, Choate, Hillard and Channing.
Perhaps no member of either House of Congress was ever
followed to the grave by such a wealth of eulogy. He was a
great orator himself and had always been generous in eulogy
of his dead associates. It was therefore natural that his death
should make an impression upon men of this stamp, that would
find its expression before the public. The State of Massachu
setts and the City of Boston each held a commemorative serv
ice; at the former George William Curtis and at the latter
Carl Schurz delivered the oration. The one was published in
full in Harper's Weekly and the other by the New York Tri
bune. They were both able and generous tributes, and deserve
to be classed with the best funeral orations in our language.
A special commemorative service was held by the New York
Chamber of Commerce and another by the Legislature of Mass
achusetts. Longfellow, Whittier and Holmes each commemor
ated him in a poem. The press of the whole country recognized
the loss as a National one and united in generous praise of the
dead Senator. It was commented on by many of the papers of
Great Britain and by some in France and a sketch of his life,
with a portrait, was printed in one in Stockholm. Extracts
from the English estimates were collected by the London cor
respondent of the New York Tribune and were republished in
an article of his own to his home paper.
But of all the tributes, those of his associates in public
life were the most discriminating and contain the best estimates
of his character. They knew him intimately, saw his life and
his work closely and speaking before the country and in the
presence of one another, they spoke carefully. They do not
attempt to conceal that they saw defects in his character. But

LIFE OF CHARLES SUMNER 723
there was a generous acknowledgment of his great work and
the loss his death was to the Senate and to the country. " Who
ever was first in other fields of statesmanship, the pre-em
inence of Sumner on the slavery question must always be con
ceded." They testified to his official integrity, the purity of his
private life, his ability, his industry, his deeply affectionate
nature, his strong religious faith.
They dwelt upon the gentleness and kindliness of his disposi
tion during these last months, no unkind word for his old
antagonists, only a longing for peace and harmony, and the
spirit of charity. And why should it not be so? The long
day's work was ended, derided, scoffed at and denounced, borne
with stern patience through the noontide heats, it at last had
triumphed. There remained no forum where its justice was
debated and no home so lowly that it could not reach. As
the shadows gathered, he could easily cover up the animosities
of the past and look forward, with a cheering hope, to the
future.

INDEX

Abbott, Josiah G., 452.
Adams, Cbas. F. —
An Anti-Slavery Whig, 184, 5, 9,
191.
Retires from contest with Win
throp, 204.
Friendship for Sumner, 212.
Discussed for Senator, 223.
Announces for Sumner, 225.
Serenaded, 233.
Voted for Senator, 452.
Retires from English Mission,
634.
At Funeral, 721.
Adams, John Quincy —
A Whig Leader, 99, 115, 116.
Hears Sumner's Oration, 163-6.
An Anti-Slavery Leader, 182,
239.
His Motto, 212.
His Funeral, 214.
Alaska, Purchase of, 575, 582.
Allen, Chas., 191, 207.
Allston, Washington, 65, 105, 116,
165.
Ames, Adelbert, 628.
Andrew, John A., 151, 184, 292-3,
397, 400, 454.
Annexation of San Domingo, 650-
673.
Appleton, Nathan, 113, 206.
Argyll, Duchess of, Letter, 612.
Arlington, Sumner opposes Return of
to Lee, 649.
Arnold, Isaac N., 523.
Aiken, William, 306.
Aix-les-Bains, 379.
Ashley, James M., 592.
Ashmun, Professor, 22-4.
Assault by Brooks, 330-3.
B
Baez, President, 650.
Baker, Senator, Eulogy on, 421-2.

Bancroft, George, 115, 138, 209.
Banks, N. P., 227, 306.
" Barbarism of Slavery," Speech,
377-394.
Bartlett, Sidney, 232.
Bachelder, Jas., 283-4.
" Battle Flag Bill," 690-700.
Bell, John, 397.
Benton, Thos. H., 217, 239.
Bigelow, John, 234.
Bingham. John A., 329, 330, 595-7.
Bingham, Senator, Eulogy on, 420-1.
Blaine, Jas. G., Letter to Sumner,
688.
Blair, F. P., 344.
Boutwell, Geo. S., 227, 704, 714,
715.
Bowen, Henry C, 544.
Breckenridge, Senator, 395, 397,
421-2.
Brewster, Sir David, 65-6.
Bright. Jesse D., 312, 431.
Bright, John, 358, 368, 696.
Brooks. Preston S. —
Sketch of, 329.
Lays in wait for Sumner, 330.
Assaults him, 330-3.
Congressional Action on, 334.
Resignation and Re-election, 336.
Criminal Punishment of, 336.
Challenges Wilson, 337.
Challenges Burlingame, 337.
Death of, 340.
Recalled by Blaine, 688.
Brougham Hall, 64.
Brougham, Lord, 63, 80, 81, 358-9.
Brown, John, 308.
Brown, John W., 13. SO, 400.
Brown-Sequard. Dr., 375, 377-9, 382,
697, 715, 717.
Brown, Thos., 30, 66, 67. 68,
Bryant, Wm. Cullen, 267. 338, 400.
Buckingham, Edgar, 141.
Buchanan, Jas., 339.
Buckalew, Senator, 569.
Bulwer, Edward G., 53.

("25

T26

INDEX

Burlingame, Representative, 337,
397, 400.
Burns, Robert, 161.
Burns, Anthony, 283.
Burritt, Elihu, 170.
Butler, Benjamin, 596, 715.
Butler, Fanny Kemble, 135.
Butler, Senator, 287-8, 296, 315-17,
320, 322-4, 328, 334-6, 341.

C

Carlyle, Thomas, 54, 67, 68.
" Caroline, The," 123.
Cass, Lewis, 41, 80, 81, 191, 193,
196, 217, 240.
Caucus Rules, 574-575.
Censure of Sumner, 701-3.
Chandler, P. W., 150. ,
Channing, Wm. F., 125.
Channing, Wm. E., 117, 118, 119,
165.
Channing, Walter, 188.
Chase, Salmon P. —
Chm. Free-Soil Convention, 193.
On Compromise, 217.
Urges Sumner for Senator, 226.
Early Anti-Slavery, 239.
Sumner's visit to, 302.
Death, 704.
Chestnut, Senator, 394.
Chester, visits, 368.
Chevalier, Michael, 353.
Child, Linus, 185.
Chinese Indemnity Fund, 633-4.
Choate, Rufus, 25, 100, 115, 207, 245,
349, 384.
Civil Rights Bill, 675-8, 699.
Clay, Brutus J., 302-3.
Clay, Cassius M., 302-3.
Clarke, J. F., 188, 702, 708.
" Clarke Propositions," 403.
Clay, Henry, 99, 130, 216-17, 247.
303.
Cleveland, H. R., 31, 206.
Cobb, Howell, 217.
Cole, Senator, 577.
Collamer, Senator, 312, 553.
Cogswell, J. G., 96, 109.
" Compensated Emancipation," 434-7,
456-7.
Compromise of 1850, 216.
Cobden, Richard, 210.
Conversation, Daniel Webster on,
632.
Corwin, Thos., 99, 190-4, 217.

Cornwall, Barry, 55.
Cottenham, Lord Charles, 52.
Cotton Crop during war, 458.
Cowan, Senator, 539, 551.
Cowdin, Eliot C, 351, 709, 711.
" Craigie House," 111-12.
Crawford, Thos., 85, 87, 91, 104,
105-6, 351.
" Crittenden Propositions," 402—5.
Crittenden, Senator, 332.
" Creole, The," 124.
Crouzet, Dr., 379-381.
Curtis, Benj. R., 595, 598.
Cushing, Caleb, 228, 426, 452, 712-
13.
Cushman, H. W., 227.
Cushing, L. S., 27, 28, 135.
Cutler, B. C, 109.
Custom House Oaths, 386.

Dana, R. H., Jr., 233, 255.
Davis, Jefferson, 395.
Davis, Henry Winter, 503, 505.
Davis, John, 265.
De Grey, Earl, 644.
Denman, Chief Justice, 47, 48, 50.
De Tocqueville, Alexis, 173, 352.
Dexter, Franklin, 101, 115.
Divorce, 584-5.
Disraeli, Benjamin, 90.
Dix, John A., 408.
Douglas, Stephen A. —
On Compromise, 217.
Kansas-Nebraska Debate, 276,
326.
Sketch of, 313.
Sumner answers, 317, 321, 324.
Attacks Sumner, 315, 326.
Sumner answers, 316, 327-8.
Against Democrats on Kansas,
371.
Nominated for President, 397.
Dedication of his Monument,
562.
Drayton and Sayres, 250.
Dunlap, Adam, 28-9.
Dunrobin Castle, 363.
Dwight, Louis, 172, 176.

E

Eads, Jas. B., 459.
Edmundson, Representative, 330-2,
341.

INDEX

(27

Education, Sumner on, 571.
Eldredge, J. S., 189.
Eliot, S. A., 172, 176.
Elsworth, Oliver, 259.
Emancipation, The Issue, 411-17,
419, 423-4, 482-7.
Emerson, Ralph Waldo, 47, 54, 97,
400, 718, 721.
Estimate of Sumner, 338.
Enlistment of Colored Soldiers, 453.
Engravings, Study of, 372-3.
English Bar, 48, 61.
English Interference in War, 458-
464.
Eulogy on Lincoln, 520-2.
on Rantoul, 248-9.
on Bingham, 420-1.
on Baker, 421-2.
on Collamer, 553.
on Foot, 553.
on Stevens, 617.
on Fessenden, 617.
on Greeley, 698.
on Davis, 698.
Eulogies on Sumner, 722-3.
Evarts. Wm. M., 338. 591, 595, 598.
European Trips, 32-96, 349-369,
374-383, 694-7.
Everett, Edward, 99, 163, 166, 279,
349, 405.
Exmouth, Lord, 161.
Fay, Theodore S., 92, 93.

Felton, C. C, 31, 97, 111, 167.
Ferguson, Sir Adam, 66.
Fessenden, Senator, 433, 546, 550,
582, 617.
Field. David D., 193, 467.
Fillmore, President, pardons Dray
ton and Sayres, 250-1.
Fish, Hamilton, 241, 613-615, 658,
667. 719.
Fitzwilliam, Lord, 53, 73, 210.
Fletcher, Richard, 33.
Foelix, J. J. G., 41.
Foot, Senator, 553.
" Foreign Relations, Our," Speech,
467-9.
Fox, Chas. James, 610, 611.
" Franco-Prussian War," Lecture on
648-9.
Free-Soilers, Growth of, 285.
Freedmen's Bureau, 501-2.

French, Interference In War, 401-
462.
Fremont, John C, 339, 352.
French Spoliatloas, 489.
French Arms' Investigation, 678.
Frost, B., 13.
Fugitive Slave Law, 262-5, 286, 296-
7, 245-8, 475-8.
Funeral of Sumner, 718-721.
Furness, J. T., 344, 347, 691.
Furness, W. H., 344, 347.

" Gag Rule," 285.
Garner, Margaret, 475.
Garrison, Wm. Lloyd, 126-7, 158,
254.
Gaston, Judge. 30. 500.
Gerando. Baron de, 41, 42.
Gerry. Elbrldge, 359.
Giddings, Joshua R., 124, 192, 193,
213, 224, 250. 314.
Gladstone, Wm. E., 358, 359, 368.
Gigli, Signor, 87.
Goethe, Johann W., 161.
Gordon, Capt. J. R., 380.
Gould. Benjamin, 8.
Grant, TJ. S.—
Appointed Secretary of War.
594.
Report on Condition in South,
539.
Elected President, 605-611.
Approves Sumner's Position on
Alabama Claims against Eng
land, 642.
Seeks Annexation of San Do
mingo, 654, etc.
Sumner's Speech against. 683-6.
Gray, F. C. 174.
Gray, John C, 190.
Greeley, Horace, 451, 688. 691.
Greene, Geo. W., 84, 89. 210.
Greenough. Horatio. 87. 104.
Groesbeck Wm. S.. 595, 598.
Greenleaf Professor, 24-5, 28, 33, 55,
100.
Guizot, F. P. G., 42, 353.
Gwin, Senator, 577.

Hale, John C, 2.n,n. 266, 302.
Hallam, Henry, 55, 361.
Harrison, Wm. H., 98.

728

INDEX

Harvard College, 145-7.
Harvey, Jacob, 126.
Hayden, Wm., 189.
Heidelberg, visit to, 93.
Henry, Patrick. 324.
Hillard, Geo. S., 27, 28, 31, 53, 54,
56, 99, 111, 158, 206, 219, 707.
Hoar, Geo. F., 717.
Hoar, E. Rockwood 192, 717, 718.
Hoar, Samuel, 191.
Holkham House, visit to, 71.
Hopkins, Erasmus, 451.
Hopkinson, Thos., 13, 18.
Home, Removal from Old. 5S8-9.
Home. Purchase of New, 589.
Holt, Joseph. 408.
Howe, Samuel, G. —
Sumner's early Friendship for.
103, 109, 110.
Interest with, in Popular Educa
tion, 130.
In Prison Discipline. 139. 171.
Candidate for Congress, 184.
Result. 187.
Friendship, 209.
Goes to Canada, 384.
For Minister to Greece. 616.
In San Domingo Controversy.
694. 716. ,
Howe, Julia Ward, 109, 110, 702,
163.
Hunt, Leigh, 53.
Humboldt, Alexander von, 92.
Hutchens, Wells A., 487.
Hyatt, Thaddeus, 385.

Impeachment of Johnson. 502-
600-4.
Ingham, Robert, 61, 104, 210, 36
Irving, Washington, 114.

Kansas-Nebraska Trouble, 276-2S5
307.
Keitt. Representative, 330-3, 341.
Kemble. Fanny. 135.
Kent. James. 25, 138.
Kent, Wm., 163, 179, 211.
Kenyon. John, 210.
King, Preston. 193.
Know-Nothing Party, 294, 305.
Kossnth, Louis, 242.

Lafayette, Lecture on, 400.
Lake Champlain, Excursion to, 13.
Lane, Senator, 431-2.
Lamar, Representative, 395.
Law Reporter, Contributes to, 138.
Lawrence, Abbott, 207.
Leader, Wm. J., 333.
Leavitt. Joshua, 226.
Leverett, L. P., 8.
Liberal Republican Movement, 680.
Lieber, Francis, 25, 30-1. 56, 103.
Lincoln, Abraham —
Nomination for President, 397.
Election of, 399.
Sumner urges Emancipation on,
413-14.
Favors Compensated Emancipa
tion. 434-7.
Proclamation of Emancipation
issued. 448-9.
On English and French Atti
tude. 459-460.
Sumner's Intimacy with. 473.
On Southern Union Men. 494.
His Trip to City Point, 516-17.
Assassination of. 518.
Sumner's, Eulogy on, 520-2.
Lincoln, Levi, 9.
Lindsley. Dr. Harvey, 343.
Lockhart, J. G., 53.
London. In 40, 72, 95, 357, 361, 383.
695-6.
Longfellow Henry W. —
Sumner's Early Friendship for,
31. 104, 111, 112-4.
Unbroken by Politics. 206-8.
Spends night after Election to
Senate with him. 234.
Regrets af Separation. 23S-9.
Later Friendship, 702, 706, 721,
722.
Lyman, Joseph, 233.

M

Macaulay, Tbos. B.. 54, 358.
Makenzie. Alexr. Slidell. 128-130.
Mann. Horace. 130, 250, 302.
Marriage of Sumner. 557-8.
McDowell. Jas. F., 487.
McLean, Judge. 194.
Martineau, Harriet, 361.
Mason, Alice,

INDEX

7^9

Mason, Jas. M., 425.
Mason, Jeremiah, 115.
Mason, Senator, 324, 326-8, 335-0.
Metcalf, Theron, 28.
Metternich, Prince, 91.
Mexican War, Opposed to, 148-9,
181, 188.
Mittermaier, Professor, 35, 94, 104,
105, 210.
" Monograph from an Old Note
Book," 470.
Montpellier. Residence at. 379-381.
Morpeth. Lord, 09, 70, 104, 105, 114,
125, 210, 366-7.
Morris, Gouverneur. 259.
Morgan, Representative. 332.
Motley, John Lothrop, 613, 615. 643.
696.
Morris, Robert, 177.
Mu rat, Madame, 42.

N

Norton. Mrs. Caroline, 76, 96. 358.
Napoleon, 160.
Nasby. Petroleum V., 516, 077.
National Banks, Taxation of, 489.
Nelson, Homer A., 487.
Nelson. T. A. R.. 595.
New Bedford Lyceum. 158.
New England Society of N. Y. Toast.
709-711.
New England Emigrant Aid Co., 318-
320.
Northcote, Sir Stafford, 644.

Oregon Boundary Dispute, 148.
Owen, Robert Dale, 502.

Palfrey. John G., 150, 157, 189, 204.
224, 234.
Paris. Visits to, 37-45, 350-355.
375-6, 695-6.
Parkes. Joseph, 210.
Parker, Theodore, 188, 384.
Parsons, Theo., 28.
Penitentiary at Mettray, 356.
Penn, William, 143.
Terry, Dr. Marshal S., 343, 347.
Phillips, S. C„ 185, 223.

Phillips, Wendell—
At Latin School, 8.
Opposes Texas Annexation, 157.
As a Lecturer, 188.
Approves Sumner's Speech, 291,
451.
Befriends Sumner, 705.
Phillips, Willard, 28.
Pickering, John, 3, 102, 103.
Pierce, Edward L., 502, 70S.
Pierce, Franklin, 309.
Polk, James IC, 130.
Poor. Rear-Admiral, 052, 653.
Poore, Ben. Perley, 654.
Postage, Advocates Cheaper, 631-3.
Powers, Hiram, 87.
Prison Discipline, Interest iu, 139,
etc.
Prescott, Wm. H. —
Commencement of Friendship,
56.
Dines with, 97, 105.
Their Intimacy, 113-115, 138,
211, 384.
Dissents from Peace Theory,
151.
Proclamation of Emancipation, 448-
9.
" Prophetic Voices," Article, 585.
Purchase of New Home, 589.
Putnam, Samuel, 102.
Q
Quincy, President, 33, 103, 163.
R
Rand, Benjamin, 24.
Ranke, Leopold, 92.
Rantoul, Robert, Jr., 227. 248.
" Rebellion, Its Origin," etc., Lecture,
447-9.
Reception at Boston, 347-8.
Reception proposed at Paris, 354.
Reconstruction. —
State rebellion, State suicide,
432.
In West Virginia, 492.
Generally, 492-7, 502-514, 566-
570.
Reeder, A. M., 309.
Republican Party, Organization of,
292, 396, 399.
Republic without Religion, Doubtful,
696.

730

INDEX

Resumption of Specie Payments,
630.
Removal from Old Home, 588-9.
Revels, Senator, 628.
" Rights of Sovereignty," etc.. Speech,
441.
Rockwell, Julius, 285-6.
Rogers, Samuel, 53.
Rome, visits to. 82-6, 381.
Rose, Sir John, 643.
Rouen, visit, 350.
Russell, Earl, 461, 465, 469.
Roberts, Sarah C, 177.
S
Sanborn, F. B., 385-6.
San Domingo, Opposes Annexation,
650.
Savigny, F. K. 92. 155.
Schurz, Carl, 539. 679, 722.
Scott, Archdeacon, 62.
Scott, Sir Walter, 53, 64, 66, 69.
Sedgwick, Theodore, 109.
Segar. Joseph, 508.
Seward, Wm. H. —
On Compromise, 217.
Early Anti-Slavery, 239.
Does not Vote, 265.
Hostility of England, 460.
Purchase of Alaska. 572, 577.
Contemplated Purchase of St.
Thomas, 582.
Seymour, Lady, 76, 96.
Seymour, Horatio, 408.
Sharp, Granville, 294.
Shannon, Governor, 210-212.
Shaw, Col. Robert G., 454.
Sherman, John, 311. 476-7, 9, 488,
507-9, 626, 664, 688, 721.
Sixth Mass. Resiment, 411.
Slavery, Character of, 390-4.
Slidell, John, 128-130, 312, 332, 425.
470.
Smitb, Benj. and Franklin, 515.
Smith, Sydney. 60. 67.
" Somers Meeting," 128.
South Carolina, 323-4.
Sparks, .Tared, 115.
Spencer, John C, 128.
Spencer, Philip, 128.
Stanberry, Henry, 595, 597.
Stanton, Edwin M. —
Appointment to Cabinet, 408.
Refuses to Resign, 593.
Removal, 594.
Commission, 599.

Stanton, Henry B., 158.
Stephens, Alexander II., 494.
Stevens, Thaddeus, 595, 597. 617.
Stewart. Alexander T.. 613-14.
Stockton, John P.. 549. 550.
Stearns, J. F.. 13. 20.
Story, Joseph —
Father's Friend, 3.
Early Friendship. 22, 23, 24, 25,
30, 35. 47, 100.
Gives Employment. 29, 102. 132.
Letters to. 40. 43. 49. 55, 61.
Secures Publisher for. 56.
Friction Match Case, 100.
Letter on Municipal Oration,
152.
Death. 153.
Sumner's Tribute, 154.
Habits. 160, 162.
Story, Wm. W.. 100, 115. 697.
Suffrage, 499, 546-8, 567-570.
Supreme Court, Recollection of, 497.
Sumner, Albert. 1. 108, 135.
Sumner, Alice M.. 557-8, 584-5.
Sumner. Charles —
Birth, 1.
Father, 12-15, 82.
Mother, 5-6, 555-7.
Family, 1-6.
Youth, 7-10.
In Latin School, 8.
In Harvard College, 11-17.
Prizes, 15, 19, 20, 22.
Studies Law, 20-25.
Excursion to Lake Champlain,
13-14.
Law Librarian, 21.
Visits Washington. 25.
Little attracted to Women, 26.
Hillard & Sumner, Partners, 27.
Edits "Jurist." 27-8. 138.
Edits " Admiralty Practice." 28.
Teaches in Law School, 29, 132,
157.
Montreal, 30.
Europe, 32.
Studies French. 38.
French Trial, 43-5.
Paris, 37-45, 80.
London. 46-57. 72-8, 95.
On Circuit, 57-72.
Oxford, 73.
Cambridge. 73.
Fox Hunt, 73-6.
Parliament, 77-8.

INDEX

731

Rome, 82-6.
Death of Father, 82.
Venice, 87.
Heidelberg, 94-5.
" Sumner's Reports," 99.
Social Life, 119-121.
Somers Mutiny, 128-130.
Edits " Vesey Jr.", 132.
Sickness, 132-5.
Friction Match Case, 100, 137.
Prison Discipline, 139.
" True Grandeur of Nations,"
140-153.
Appearance, 142.
Tribute to Judge Story, 154.
Opposes Annexation of Texas,
157.
Opposes Slavery, 158.
" Employment of Time," 159-
161.
" White Slavery," 159-161.
Tribute to John Pickering, 162.
Phi Beta Kappa Oration, 163-7.
As an Orator, 167-8.
Universal Peace, 140-153, 169-
170.
Prison Discipline, 171, etc.
Equal School Privileges, 177-8.
Law Practice, 179.
Lyceum Lecturer, 179.
Mexican War, 181.
Delegate to Whig Conventions,
184, 189.
Favors new Party, 190-3.
Attends Free-Soil Convention,
193.
Ratification Meeting, 194-5.
Free-Soil Campaign, 195-6.
Nominated for Congress, 196-
202.
Loss of Friends, 203-212.
New Friends, 212-14.
" Five of Clubs," 205.
Taste for Music, 209.
European Correspondence, 210.
Edits his Speeches, 214.
" Our Immediate Anti-Slavery
Duties," 221.
Attacks Fugitive Slave Law,
221-3.
Candidate for Senator, 223-232.
Elected, 232.
First News, 233.
Goes to Longfellow's, 234-5.
Accepts, 236.

Regrets at Leaving Boston,
237-9.
Benton's Prediction, 239.
Reception in Washington, 241-2.
Speaks on Reception of Kossuth,
242-5.
Iowa Land Bill, 246.
Eulogy on Rantoul, 248-9.
Pardon for Drayton & Sayers,
250-1.
Seeks to Speak on Slavery,
252-7.
Speech " Freedom, National,"
257.
Against Fugitive Slave Law,
262-5, 286, 475-6.
His Egotism, 267.
Free-Soil Convention. 268.
Massachusetts Constitutional
Convention. 270-5.
Repeal of Missouri Compromise,
276-8.
Midnight Speech, 281-3.
Threats of Violence, 283-4.
Abuse of, 287-8, 315-16, 326.
Talks back, 289-290, 316.
Speaks to Republican Conven
tion, 292-3, 305.
Literary Recreation, 294-5.
" Anti-Slavery Enterprise," 299-
302.
Visits West and South, 302-5.
" Crime against Kansas," 316-
328.
Assaulted by Brooks, 330-3.
Injuries, 333, 342.
Congressional Action, 334-5.
Resignation and Re-election of
Brooks, 336.
College Degrees, 345.
Reception at Boston, 347-8.
Second Election, 348-9.
Visits De Tocqueville, 360-1.
Harriet Martineau, 361.
Dunrobin Castle, 363.
Teddesley Hall, 367.
Stafford, 367.
Hawarden, 368.
Study of Engravings, 372,
Submits to Moxa, 375.
Rome and Turin, 381.
On Foreign Relations Commit
tee, 386, 409.
" Barbarism of Slavery," 387-
394, 399.
First Lincoln Campaign, 398.

732

INDEX

As an Orator, 399.
Lecture on Lafayette, 400.
Firmness at opening of War
404-9.
Threatened by Baltimore Mob
410.
Slavery, the issue iu War, 411-5
" Rebellion, its Origin," etc..
417-19.
"Trent Affair," 425-9.
Mason and Slidell, 425-9.
Leader in Senate, 430, 552, 569.
Reconstruction, 432-3, 537-9.
Emancipation, 411-5, 434, 439-
441, 442-3, 448-451, 482-7,
504.
Compensated Emancipation, 434-
7. 456.
Ambassadors for Haiti and Li
beria, 437-8.
Slave Trade, 438-9, 474.
To Free Slaves of Rebels, 439.
Legal Tender Notes, 443.
Third Election, 446-7, 452.
Enlistment of Colored Troops,
453.
Shaw Memorial, 454.
Our Foreign Relations, 464-7.
Intimacy with Lincoln, 473, 514.
Slavery and Freedom Committee,
474.
Persistency, 478.
Civil Service Bill, 479-480.
Colored Witnesses, 481.
Equal Pay for Colored Troops,
488.
French Spoliations, 489.
Opposes Tax on Banks, 489.
Supreme Court, 497, 499.
Suffrage, 499, 504, 610-1, 567-8,
625.
Freedmen's Bureau, 501, etc.
Discharge of Smith Bros., 515.
At Richmond, 516-7.
Assassination of Lincoln, 518-19.
Eulogy on Lincoln, 520-2.
Relations with Johnson, 524.
559, 534-5, 540-1, 545-0,
600-3.
" Equal Rights for All," 542.
Senator Stockton, 550.
Viva Voce Ballot for Senators,
550.
Death of Mother, 555.
Marriage, 557-8.

" One Man Power against Con
gress," 559.
On Education, 571-2. 573.
Rules of Caucus. 574.
Purchase of Alaska, 575-582.
Divorce, 584-5.
" Prophetic Voices," 585.
" The Nation," 580-8.
His Fortune, 589.
Habits, 590-1.
Impeachment, 600-3.
Opposes Repudiation, 605-7.
For Grant, 608-610, 046.
Fourth Election, 612.
Motley and Fish, 613-16.
Eulogies on Stevens and Fes
senden, 617.
Edition of Works, 619.
" Question of Caste," 621.
"Equal Rights," 022-3. 626-7.
Opposes Southern Indemnity,
623-4.
Resumption, 607, 630.
Opposes Income Tax, 630.
Opposes Tariff on Books, 631.
Cheaper Postage, 631-3.
Johnson-Clarendon Treaty, 635-
640.
Opposes Annexation of San Do
mingo, 656-664, 072.
Removal from his Committee,
663-670.
Medal from Haiti, 674.
Speech against Grant, GS3-6.
Advises Colored Voters to sup
port Greeley, 688.
Letter of Blaine, 688.
His Answer, 688-9.
Speech for Greeley, 690.
His Will, 690-1.
Nominated for Governor and de
clines, 694.
London and Paris, 695.
Visits John Blight, 690.
Battle Flag Bill, 699-700.
Censured, 701-3.
Last Summer, 705-8.
Toast before New Eugland Soci
ety, N. Y., 709-711.
Last Days in Senate, 711-715.
Last Sickness and Death, 716-
718.
Funeral, 718-721.
Eulogies. 722-3.
Sumner, Charles P., 12-15, 82.

INDEX

,'33

Sumner, Edwin V., 1, 10.
Sumner, George, 1, 106, 131, 204-5,
208, 343, 490-1.
Sumner, Henry, 1.
Sumner, Horace, 1, 120.
Sumner, Increase, 1.
Sumner. Jane, 1.
Sumner, Job, 2, 120.
Sumner, Julia, 1, 108, 109, 112, 135.
721.
Sumner, Matilda, 1, 24.
Sumner, Mary, 1, 108, 109, 135-7.
Sumner, Relief Jacobs, 5-6, 555-7.

Talfourd, Thos. N., 67, 68, 69.
Taney, Chief Justice, 497-9.
Taylor. Zachariah, 191, 196.
Teddesley Hall, 367.
Tenure of Office Law, 563-6.
Texas, Annexation of, 127, 130, 180.
" The Three Graces," 109.
Threats of Violence, 283-4, 395.
"Tbe Nation," Lecture, 586-8.
Thomas, Lorenzo, 594.
Thiers. L. A., 42.
Tiehnor, Professor Geo., 16, 41, 115,
204, 208.
Thibaut, Professor, 94, 155.
Tilden Samuel J., 193.
Tindal, Chief Justice, 51, 59.
Toombs, Senator, 332.
Toucey, Bill, 296-7.
Tower, C, 13, 18.
" Trent Affair," 425.
Trumbull, Senator, 314, 679.
Tyler, John, 207.

Van Buren, Martin, 98. 193-4, 196.
Vallandigham, C. T., 408.
Vattemare, Alexr., 3.13.
Voorhees. Daniel W., 487.
Von Humboldt, Alexr., 160.
W
Wade, Senator, 596.
Walker, Amasa, 170.
Ward, Julia R., 109.
Ward, Julia (Howe), 109, 110, 163,
702.
Ward, Samuel, 109, 134.
Washburn, Elihu B., 614.
Washington, George, 143.

Washington, Treaty of, 644-C.
Wayland, Francis, 172, 174.
Webster, Daniel —
Hears his Eulogy on Adams and
Jefferson, 19.
In "Harrison Campaign," 99.
Friendly Help, 100.
Estimate of Hedging, 116, 125,
1S9, 191.
Marvelous Presence, 185.
His Estimate of Van Buren as a
Free-Soiler, 193-4.
Seventh of March Speech, 216-
220.
Webster, Fletcher, 185.
Webb, Seth, Jr.. 224.
Wentworth House, 70, 72.
Wharncliffe, Earl, 70, 210.
Whewell, Professor, 210.
Whittier, John G. —
Urges Sumner for Senator,
224-5.
Congratulates him, 235, 186,
275, 291.
Campaigns for him, 451.
Seeks Repeal of Censure, 702.
Commemorates him, 721-2.
Wilde. Thos., 59.
Willis, N. P., 96.
Windsor Castle, Visits, 72.
Williams, J. M., 188.
Wilson, Vice-President —
Bolt's Nomination of Taylor,
191, 207.
Friendship, 213.
In Election of Sumner to Senate,
227, 233. 235.
Nominated for Governor, 293.
Elected to Senate.
Elected Vice-rresident.
Friendship unbroken, 706-7,
721.
Williamson, Passmore, 304.
Wilson, James F., 592.
Winthrop, Robert C, 8, 150, 107,
181, 188, 190, 203, 210, 220, 227,
232, 349.
Witherell, Sir Charles, 49.
Witnesses, Colored, 481.
Wright, E„ 188.
Wordsworth, William (poet), 65,
116.

Young Men's Republican Union, 467.

YALE UNIVERSITY

a39002 002897i+6 1 b