The Project Gutenberg eBook, Charles Sumner; His Complete Works, Volume VIII (of 20), by Charles Sumner This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you'll have to check the laws of the country where you are located before using this ebook. Title: Charles Sumner; His Complete Works, Volume VIII (of 20) Author: Charles Sumner Release Date: February 5, 2015 [eBook #48170] Language: English Character set encoding: UTF-8 ***START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER; HIS COMPLETE WORKS, VOLUME VIII (OF 20)*** E-text prepared by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team (http://www.pgdp.net) from page images generously made available by Internet Archive (https://archive.org) Note: Images of the original pages are available through Internet Archive. See https://archive.org/details/completeworks08sumnuoft John A. Andrew JOHN A. ANDREW A. W. Elson & Co. Boston Cover page COPYRIGHT, 1872, BY CHARLES SUMNER. COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY LEE AND SHEPARD. Statesman Edition. Limited to One Thousand Copies. Of which this is No. 565 Norwood Press: Norwood, Mass., U.S.A. [Pg i] [Pg ii] [Pg iii] CONTENTS OF VOLUME VIII. PAGE Revision and Consolidation of the National Statutes. Resolution and Speech in the Senate, December 12, 1861 1 Denial of Patents to Colored Inventors. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 16, 1861 6 The National Armies and Fugitive Slaves. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 18, 1861 7 Expulsion of Trusten Polk, of Missouri. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 18, 1861 12 Emancipation and the President. Letter to Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, December 27, 1861 14 The Trent Case, and Maritime Rights. Speech in the Senate, on the Surrender of Mason and Slidell, Rebel Agents, taken from the British Mail Steamer Trent, January 9, 1862. With Appendix 15 Office of Senator, and its Incompatibility with other Office. Remarks in the Senate, on the Case of General Lane, of Kansas, January 13, 1862 105 Expulsion of Jesse D. Bright, of Indiana. Speeches in the Senate, January 21 and February 4, 1862 114 Answer of a Witness Criminating Himself. Remarks in the Senate, on the Bill relating to Witnesses before Committees, January 22, 1862 152 Limitation of Debate in the Senate. Remarks in the Senate, on a Five Minutes’ Rule, January 27 and 29, 1862 155 Industrial Exhibition at London. Speech in the Senate, on the Joint Resolution providing for Representation there, January 31, 1862 157 Order in Business: Each Question by Itself. Remarks in the Senate, February 6, 1862 161 State Rebellion, State Suicide; Emancipation and Reconstruction. Resolutions in the Senate, February 11, 1862. With Appendix 163 Treasury Notes a Legal Tender. Speech in the Senate, on the Clause making Treasury Notes a Legal Tender, February 13, 1862 181 Loyalty a Qualification required in a Senator. Speeches in the Senate, February 18 and 26, 1862 208 Help for Mexico against Foreign Intervention. Report from the Committee of Foreign Relations upon the Draught of a Convention with Mexico, February 19, 1862 227 No Recognition of the Fugitive Slave Bill. Motion and Remarks in the Senate, February 25, 1862 238 Our German Fellow-citizens, and a True Reconstruction. Letter to the German Republican Central Committee of New York, February 25, 1862 241 State Suicide and Emancipation. Letter to a Public Meeting at the Cooper Institute, New York, March 6, 1862 243 Removal of Disqualification of Color in carrying the Mails. Bill in the Senate, March 18, 1862, and Incidents 247 Ransom of Slaves at the National Capital. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill for the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia, March 31, 1862 251 Rebel Barbarities, and the Barbarism of Slavery. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, April 1, 1862 301 Testimony of Colored Persons in the District of Columbia. Remarks in the Senate, on the Emancipation Bill, April 3, 1862 304 Independence of Hayti and Liberia. Speech in the Senate, on the Bill to authorize the Appointment of Diplomatic Representatives to the Republics of Hayti and Liberia, April 23, 1862 307 Final Suppression of the Slave Trade. Speech in the Senate, on the Treaty with Great Britain, April 24, 1862 336 Enforcement of Emancipation in the District. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, April 28, 1862 349 Conduct of our Generals towards Fugitive Slaves. Speech in the Senate, on a Resolution of Inquiry, May 1, 1862 351 No Names of Victories over Fellow-Citizens on Regimental Colors. Resolution in the Senate, May 8, 1862 361 Bounty Lands for Soldiers out of Real Estate of Rebels. Resolution in the Senate, May 12, 1862 363 Testimony of Colored Persons in Judicial Proceedings for Confiscation and Emancipation. Resolution in the Senate, May 12, and Remarks, June 28, 1862 364 The Late Hon. Goldsmith F. Bailey, Representative from Massachusetts. Speech in the Senate, on his Death, May 15, 1862 366 Use of Parchment in Legislative Proceedings. Resolution and Speech in the Senate, on the Enrolment of Bills, May 16, 1862 372 [Pg 1] [Pg 2] M REVISION AND CONSOLIDATION OF THE NATIONAL STATUTES. Resolution and Speech in the Senate, December 12, 1861. April 8, 1852, during his first session in the Senate, Mr. Sumner brought forward a resolution for a revision and consolidation of the national statutes, which was duly referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.[1] Though the resolution attracted attention at the time, the committee did nothing. Early in the next Congress, December 14, 1853, he presented the same resolution a second time, which was duly referred,[2] and again neglected. In the succeeding Congress, February 11, 1856, he offered the same resolution a third time,[3] and with no better success than before. Absence from the Senate and protracted disability prevented the renewal of this effort until the administration of President Lincoln, who was induced to make a recommendation on the subject in his annual message of December 3, 1861.[4] Mr. Sumner followed, December 12th, with his oft-repeated resolution:— “Resolved, That the Committee on the Judiciary be directed to consider the expediency of providing by law for the appointment of commissioners to revise the public statutes of the United States, to simplify their language, to correct their incongruities, to supply their deficiencies, to arrange them in order, to reduce them to one connected text, and to report them thus improved to Congress for its final action, to the end that the public statutes, which all are presumed to know, may be in such form as to be more within the apprehension of all.” Of this he spoke. R. PRESIDENT,—It is now nearly ten years, since, on first entering this Chamber, I had the honor of presenting this identical resolution. Several times afterwards, at succeeding sessions, I brought it forward; but there was no action in regard to it, either by the Committee on the Judiciary, to which it was referred, or by the Senate. At last we have a positive recommendation from the President in his Annual Message, calling attention to the necessity of a revision of our statutes, and of reducing them to a connected text. I desire to take advantage of that recommendation, and to revive the proposition which ten years ago I first introduced. Something in earnest, Sir, must be done. The ancient Roman laws, when first codified, were so cumbersome that they made a load for several camels. If this cannot be said of our statutes, nobody will deny that they are cumbersome, swelling to at least eleven or twelve heavy volumes, besides being most expensive. They are to be found in few public libraries, and very rarely in private libraries. They ought to be in every public library, and also in the offices of lawyers throughout the country. That can be only by reducing them in size so that they will form a single volume, which is entirely practicable,—thus rendering them easy to read and cheap to buy. I have reason to believe, Sir, that such a work would be agreeable to the people. I am not without assurance that the people value such reading. Certainly I am justified in this conclusion, when I think of my own State; for it is within my knowledge that the statutes of Massachusetts, reduced to a single volume, as they now are, have, during a very brief period, been purchased by the people at large to the extent of more than ten thousand copies. I hope, Sir, there will be no objection founded on the condition of the country. I do not forget the old saying, that the laws are silent in the midst of arms; but I would have our Republic show by example that such is not always the case. I am sure we can do nothing better for the honor of the Administration that is ours. Indeed, should we not all look with increased pride upon our country, most cherished when most in peril, if, while dealing with a fearful Rebellion, Congress turned aside to the edification of the people in objects that are useful, among which I place that I now propose? It will be something, if, through the din of war, this work of peace proceeds, changing the national statutes into a harmonious text, and making them accessible to all. The resolution was agreed to. This was followed, January 28, 1862, by a bill, introduced by Mr. Sumner, for the revision and consolidation of the statutes of the United States, which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. May 31, the Committee, on motion of its chairman [Mr. Trumbull], was discharged from the further consideration of the resolution. At the same time the bill was postponed to the first Monday in December, and expired with the Congress.[5] December 15, 1863, Mr. Sumner renewed his original resolution on the subject, and on the 23d introduced another bill with the same object, on which Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee, reported adversely, June 28, 1864.[6] January 5, 1866, Mr. Sumner renewed his effort by a bill, which was also referred to the Judiciary Committee. February 7, Mr. Poland, from the Committee, reported the bill favorably. April 9, it was considered in the Senate and passed without debate, substantially as drawn and introduced by Mr. Sumner. In the original bill the salaries of the commissioners were $3,000 each. On the report of the Committee, they were changed to $5,000 each. June 22 the bill passed the House of Representatives without amendment, and was approved by the President June 27.[7] Under this Act, President Johnson appointed as commissioners Hon. Caleb Cushing of Massachusetts, Hon. Charles P. James of Ohio, and Hon. William Johnston of Pennsylvania. [Pg 3] [Pg 4] [Pg 5] The period of three years, within which the revision and consolidation were to be completed, having expired, leaving the work undone, a supplementary Act of Congress was passed,[8] continuing the original Act, and under it President Grant appointed as commissioners Hon. Benjamin Vaughan Abbott of New York, Hon. Charles P. James of Ohio, and Hon. Victor C. Barringer of North Carolina. [Pg 6] M DENIAL OF PATENTS TO COLORED INVENTORS. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 16, 1861. Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution, and asked for its present consideration. “Resolved, That the Committee on Patents and the Patent Office be directed to consider if any further legislation is necessary in order to secure to persons of African descent, in our own country, the right to take out patents for useful inventions, under the Constitution of the United States.” R. PRESIDENT,—If I can have the attention of the Chairman of the Committee on Patents, I will state to him why this resolution is introduced. It has come to my knowledge that an inventor of African descent, living in Boston, applied for a patent under the Constitution and laws of the land, and was refused, on the ground, that, according to the Dred Scott decision, he is not a citizen of the United States, and therefore a patent cannot issue to him. I wish the Committee to consider whether in any way that abuse cannot be removed. That is all. The resolution was considered by unanimous consent, and agreed to. The Committee made no report on the resolution. It was a case for interpretation rather than legislation, and the question, like that of passports, was practically settled not long afterwards by the opinion of the Attorney-General, that a free man of color, born in the United States, is a citizen.[9] Since then patents have been issued to colored inventors. [Pg 7] M THE NATIONAL ARMIES AND FUGITIVE SLAVES. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 18, 1861. The abuses in Missouri, to which Mr. Sumner called attention, December 4, 1861, appeared even in the neighborhood of Washington, almost under the eye of Congress, so that he felt it his duty to expose them once more. December 18, he spoke briefly on the following resolution, introduced by himself the preceding day. “Resolved, That the Committee on Military Affairs and the Militia be directed to consider the expediency of providing by additional legislation that our national armies shall not be employed in the surrender of fugitive slaves.” R. PRESIDENT,—Some days ago it was my duty to expose abuses in Missouri in regard to fugitive slaves. Since then I have received communications from that State, showing great interest in the question, some of them in the nature of protest against the system adopted there. One purports to be from a slave-master, educated in a Slave State, and he speaks with bitterness of the indignity put upon the army there, and of the injury it inflicts on the cause of the Union. Another contains a passage which I shall read. “I wish to say in addition that I have lived twenty-four years in Missouri, that I know the people well, have served them in various offices; and let me assure you, it is nonsense to try to save Missouri to the Union, and the institution of Slavery also. We must give up one or the other. Slavery ought to fall, and Missouri be saved. Fremont’s army struck terror into the Secessionists. He made them feel it by taking their goods and chattels. Let our armies proclaim freedom to the slaves of the Secessionists and the Rebellion will soon close. We can take care of the free negroes at a future day; give General Lane ten thousand men, and he would establish peace in Missouri in thirty days.” But, Sir, my special object now is, to exhibit wrong here at home rather than in distant Missouri. Brigadier-General Stone, the well-known commander at Ball’s Bluff, is adding to his disaster there by engaging in the surrender of fugitive slaves. He does this most successfully. If a fugitive slave is to be handed over to a Rebel, the General is easily victorious. Sir, beside my constant interest in this question, beside my interest in the honor of the national army, I have a special interest at the present moment, because Brigadier-General Stone sees fit to impose this vile and unconstitutional duty upon Massachusetts troops. The Governor of my honored State has charged me with a communication to the Secretary of War, treating it as an indignity to the men, and an act unworthy of the flag. I agree with the Governor; and when I ask your attention to this outrage, I make myself his representative, as well as my own. Others beside the Governor of Massachusetts complain. There are two German companies in one of the Massachusetts regiments, who entered into the public service with the positive understanding that they should not be put to any such discreditable and unconstitutional service. They complain, and with them all their own compatriot fellow- citizens, the enlightened, freedom-loving German population throughout the country. The complaint extends to other quarters. Here is a letter from Philadelphia, interesting and to the point. I read a short extract only. “I have but one son, and he fought on Ball’s Bluff in the California regiment, where his bravery brought him into notice. He escaped, wounded, after dark. He protests against being made to return fugitive slaves, and, if ordered to that duty, will refuse obedience and take the consequences. I ask, Sir, shall our sons, who are offering their lives for the preservation of our institutions, be degraded to slave-catchers for any persons, loyal or disloyal? If such is the policy of the Government, I shall urge my son to shed no more blood for its preservation.” With such communications, some official and others private, I feel that I should not do my duty, if I failed to implore the attention of the Senate to this intolerable grievance. It must be arrested. I am glad to know that my friend and colleague, the Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs [Mr. Wilson], promises us a bill to stop this outrage. It should be introduced promptly, and passed at once. Our troops must be saved from such shame. The resolution was adopted after remarks by Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, which revealed the tone still prevalent in certain quarters. He said:— “I agree, that, if all men were Puritans, that, if all men appreciated Liberty as we do, and as our race does, then we might extend it to all men; but to extend it to men who have no appreciation of it, who would trample the boon under foot, when granted them,—to such men it is a mischief rather than a blessing. “Still I have only to say, that I think we have nothing in the world to do with all these questions. I think their discussion here, their being mooted in these assemblies, is mischievous, and only calculated to keep up an angry irritation, which may have exceedingly bad results in the final consummation of the struggle in which we are now engaged.” [Pg 8] [Pg 9] [Pg 10] Mr. Wilson, as chairman of the Committee, reported a bill on the subject, which, after debate, gave way to another from the House of Representatives, containing a new article of war, prohibiting the employment of the national forces in the return of fugitive slaves, which became a law March 13, 1862.[10] This movement of Mr. Sumner was followed by a personal incident. General Stone, whose conduct was exposed with severity, took exception to the speech, and addressed him a letter intended to be very insulting. Mr. Sumner made no reply, nor did he utter any complaint in any quarter. A few days later be received notice from Boston that a near relative of the General had threatened to inflict personal violence upon him. Some time afterwards General Stone was taken into custody by military order, and for a long time incarcerated. The hostile press and the General’s friends charged this upon Mr. Sumner, often in most offensive terms, and it was repeated in the face of his constant denial. April 21, 1862, the question of this arrest was considered in the Senate, on motion of Mr. McDougall, of California, when Mr. Sumner spoke briefly. Mr. President,—I have no opinion to express on the case of General Stone, for I know nothing about it. Clearly he ought to be confronted with his accusers at an early day, unless, indeed, there be some reason of transcending military character, which, in the present condition of the country, at a moment of war, might render such a trial improper. Of this I do not pretend to judge; nor am I aware of evidence on which the Senate can now act. … I hope I shall be pardoned, if I allude to myself. A most persistent attempt has been made in newspapers to connect me with this arrest, to the extent of according to me and my imagined influence the credit or the discredit of it. This is a mistake. I have been from the beginning an absolute stranger to it. The arrest was made originally without suggestion or hint from me, direct or indirect, and it has been continued without any such suggestion or hint from me. I knew nothing about it at the beginning, and know nothing about it now. There is no intimate friend or family relative of the prisoner more entirely free from all connection with it than myself. [Pg 11] [Pg 12] I EXPULSION OF TRUSTEN POLK, OF MISSOURI. Resolution and Remarks in the Senate, December 18, 1861. December 18, 1861, Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution, which, on his motion, was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary. “Resolved, That Trusten Polk, of Missouri, now a traitor to the United States, be expelled, and he hereby is expelled, from the Senate.” Mr. Sumner produced a letter from Mr. Polk, which had found its way into the newspapers, where he says: “Dissolution is now a fact,—not only a fact accomplished, but thrice repeated. Everything here looks like inevitable and final dissolution. Will Missouri hesitate a moment to go with her Southern sisters? I hope not.” Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, thought the letter was “not genuine,” and added:— “He is a native of my own State; from early boyhood he has been an exemplary Christian, a member of a religious denomination; and when the phrase is used in that letter, professing to have been written by Trusten Polk, that he had to ‘ante up $200,’ I am satisfied the language is not the language of Trusten Polk. He is not familiar with scenes where hundreds of dollars are ‘anted up.’” Mr. Sumner replied:— do not pretend to an opinion on the genuineness of the letter. Like the Senator from Delaware, I have seen it in several newspapers, and my attention has been specially called to it by correspondents in Missouri, who write that its genuineness cannot be doubted. But this is a question for the Committee. If I understand the Senator, his argument against the genuineness of the letter is founded on a phrase which he thinks Trusten Polk could never have written: it is a phrase of doubtful style or taste, showing bad associations. I am not familiar enough with Trusten Polk to sit in judgment on his style, nor is the Senate called to any such responsibility; but we are to sit in judgment on his public conduct, and if the letter is not a forgery, there can be no question as to our duty. Believing the inquiry important, not doubting the duty of the Senate to purge itself of traitors who have too long found sanctuary in its Chamber, and satisfied that the country justly expects this to be done, I have felt bound to introduce the resolution. But there is more than the letter. The Senate has heard within a few days that this person has found his way to Memphis. Why is he at Memphis, when he should be at Washington? Some time afterwards Mr. Sumner received from Missouri the very letter, in the undoubted autograph of Mr. Polk, and with the phrase which it was insisted he could not have written. January 9, 1862, Mr. Ten Eyck, of New Jersey, reported the resolution from the Committee, with the unanimous recommendation that it pass. January 10, the resolution was adopted without debate: Yeas, 36; Nays, 0. [Pg 13] [Pg 14] W EMANCIPATION AND THE PRESIDENT. Letter to Governor Andrew, of Massachusetts, December 27, 1861. The following extract, copied from the letter-book of Governor Andrew, is a contemporary record of Mr. Sumner’s efforts with the Governor, and also of an important remark by President Lincoln. Washington, December 27, 1861. … e hope that in your Message you will keep Massachusetts ahead, where she always has been, in the ideas of our movement. Let the doctrine of Emancipation be proclaimed as an essential and happy agency in subduing a wicked rebellion. In this way you will help a majority of the Cabinet, whose opinions on this subject are fixed, and precede the President himself by a few weeks. He tells me that I am ahead of him only a month or six weeks. God bless you!… Ever yours, Charles Sumner. [Pg 15] THE TRENT CASE, AND MARITIME RIGHTS. Speech in the Senate, on the Surrender of Mason and Slidell, Rebel Agents, taken from the British Mail Steamer Trent, January 9, 1862. With Appendix. Hamlet. Come on, Sir. Laertes. Come, my Lord. [They play.] … Osric. A hit, a very palpable hit. Laertes. Well,—again. [Laertes wounds Hamlet; then, in scuffling, they change rapiers, and Hamlet wounds Laertes.] Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act V. Scene 2. It is, perhaps, well that you settled the matter by sending away the men at once. Consistently with your own principles you could not have justified their detention.—Richard Cobden, MS. Letter to Mr. Sumner, January 23, 1862. This announcement is not made, my Lord, to revive useless recollections of the past, nor to stir the embers from fires which have been in a great degree smothered by many years of peace. Far otherwise. Its purpose is to extinguish those fires effectually, before new incidents arise to fan them into flame. The communication is in the spirit of peace and for the sake of peace, and springs from a deep and conscientious conviction that high interests of both nations require this so long contested and controverted subject now to be finally put to rest.—Daniel Webster, Letter to Lord Ashburton, August 8, 1842: Works, Vol. VI. p. 325. The case of the Trent was an important incident of the war,—most interesting for a time to the people of the United States, attracting the attention of foreign nations, and exciting England to hostile demonstrations, even to the verge of practical coöperation with a Rebellion for the sake of Slavery. The facts are few, and are authenticated by official documents. At an early stage of the Rebellion, the Slave-Masters of Richmond appointed James M. Mason, of Virginia, commissioner and envoy to England, and John Slidell, of Louisiana, in the same capacity to France, each with a secretary, and also with instructions and despatches. Their duty was to help the Rebellion, especially in its financial and military exigencies, to urge its recognition, to make treaties of commerce and alliance, to obtain European intervention, and generally to oppose the diplomacy of the United States. As the Rebel ports were already under strict blockade, and there were no Rebel vessels for their conveyance, they were driven to rely upon accommodation under a neutral flag. Some time in October, 1861, they succeeded in running the blockade and reaching Havana. Here their pretensions and objects were notorious. But this was only the first stage in the voyage. The next was conveyance to Europe; and for this they relied upon the English flag, taking passage in the Trent, bound from Havana to St. Thomas, from which latter place a regular line of steamers, connecting with the Trent, ran to England. Mr. Dana, in his excellent statement of the case, says: “Their character and destination were well known to the agent and master of the Trent, as well as the great interest felt by the Rebels that they should, and by the United States officials that they should not, reach their destination in safety.”[11] The regular mails for England from South America and Cuba were aboard, to be transferred at St. Thomas, with a large number of passengers bound to England. On the high seas, within a few hours’ sail of Nassau, the Trent was stopped and searched by the national steamer San Jacinto, commanded by Captain Wilkes, afterwards Rear-Admiral, acting on his own responsibility, and without any instructions from the National Government. The two commissioners and their secretaries were found aboard, but the despatches were secreted or confided to some of the passengers. Here Mr. Dana remarks: “There was no evidence or charge that the commander of the Trent aided in the concealment or forwarding of these despatches. He did, however, deny the right of search, refused all facilities for it, and obstructed it by everything but actual force, and made it known to Captain Wilkes that he yielded only to superior power, and that, if made a prize, he and his crew would lend no aid in carrying the Trent into port.”[12] Under these circumstances, Captain Wilkes took the two commissioners with their suite, and carried them as prisoners to the United States, while the Trent proceeded on her voyage. As this incident became known in the United States, there was a general expression of sympathy and approbation. The press was unanimous. Persons in authority gave their adhesion by public speech or writing, among whom were Mr. Everett, Governor Andrew, Chief-Justice Bigelow of Massachusetts, Professor Parsons of the Law School at Cambridge, Mr. Caleb Cushing, and Mr. George Sumner, all of whom were to a certain extent under the influence of British precedents. The Secretary of the Navy, under date of November 30, 1861, addressed a communication to Captain Wilkes, containing the following significant words. “Your conduct in seizing these public enemies was marked by intelligence, ability, decision, and firmness, and has the emphatic approval of this Department. It is not necessary that I should in this communication, which is intended to be one of congratulation to yourself, officers, and crew, express an opinion on the course pursued in omitting to capture the vessel which had these public enemies on board, further than to say that the forbearance exercised in this instance must not be permitted to constitute a precedent hereafter for infractions of neutral obligations.”[13] The House of Representatives made haste, December 2, 1861, the first day of its session, to adopt a joint resolution tendering the thanks of Congress to Captain Wilkes, “for his brave, adroit, and patriotic conduct in the arrest and detention of the traitors James M. Mason and John Slidell.” This was on the motion of Hon. Owen Lovejoy, the faithful Abolitionist. The joint resolution, on reaching the Senate, was referred to the Committee on Naval Affairs, of which Mr. Hale was chairman. [Pg 16] [Pg 17] [Pg 18] Mr. Sumner suggested its reference to the Committee on Foreign Relations; but Mr. Hale insisted, by way of objection, that “the attempt now to take it out of its ordinary course and refer it to the Committee on Foreign Relations would be taken as an intimation that there is some doubt in some minds as to the propriety of the course that Captain Wilkes took.” Unwilling to raise a debate at that moment, Mr. Sumner assented to the reference proposed. In England there was a counter sentiment, breaking out into expressions of exasperation. The press was bitter and vindictive. Public report attested a crisis, which may be read in the newspapers of Richmond, throbbing sympathetically with the London organs. The Richmond Examiner, of December 19, broke forth in notes of triumph. “All other topics become trifles beside the tidings of England which occupy this journal, and all commentary that diverts public attention from that single point is impertinence. The effect of the outrage of the Trent on the public sentiment of Great Britain more than fulfils the prophecy that we made when the arrest of the Confederate ministers was a fresh event. All legal quibbling and selfish calculation has been consumed like straw in the burning sense of incredible insult.” Then, speculating upon the position of the National Government, the same journal says:— “The Abolition element of the Northern States would go straight to revolution at the least movement toward a surrender of the captives.… Spectators of these events, who can doubt that the Almighty fiat has gone forth against the American Union, or that the Southern Confederacy is decreed by Divine Wisdom?” The Richmond Enquirer of the same date likewise rejoiced. “We have no need to invite attention to the extremely interesting foreign news which we publish to- day from England. The old British lion is giving an honest roar, in view of the indignity visited upon the Queen’s flag.… We will not disturb the eloquence of such facts by words of comment. We will only say, Well done, John Bull! France, too, echoes the British indignation, and will support her action. Vive Napoléon! … After the brave talk and the congratulations to Wilkes by both Cabinet and Congress, it would be to the last degree pusillanimous to retreat. We think Lincoln will be afraid to prove so great a coward.” Swiftly came the British demand, in a letter from Earl Russell to Lord Lyons at Washington, dated at London, November 30, and read to Mr. Seward December 19. It concluded in the following terms. “Her Majesty’s Government, therefore, trust, that, when this matter shall have been brought under the consideration of the Government of the United States, that Government will, of its own accord, offer to the British Government such redress as alone could satisfy the British nation, namely, the liberation of the four gentlemen and their delivery to your Lordship, in order that they may again be placed under British protection, and a suitable apology for the aggression which has been committed. Should these terms not be offered by Mr. Seward, you will propose them to him.”[14] “The four gentlemen,” being the commissioners and their secretaries, all Rebels, were to be liberated forthwith, and “a suitable apology” was to be made by the National Government. Such was the mandate. But accompanying these instructions read to Mr. Seward was a private communication to Lord Lyons, directing him to break up his legation and to leave Washington, if the National Government did not submit to the terms required after “a delay not exceeding seven days.” Here are the words:— “Should Mr. Seward ask for delay, in order that this grave and painful matter should be deliberately considered, you will consent to a delay not exceeding seven days. If at the end of that time no answer is given, or if any other answer is given except that of a compliance with the demands of Her Majesty’s Government, your Lordship is instructed to leave Washington, with all the members of your legation, bringing with you the archives of the legation, and to repair immediately to London.… You will communicate with Vice-Admiral Sir A. Milne immediately upon receiving the answer of the American Government, and you will send him a copy of that answer, together with such observations as you may think fit to make. You will also give all the information in your power to the Governors of Canada, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Jamaica, Bermuda, and such other of Her Majesty’s possessions as may be within your reach.”[15] These latter instructions, contemplating war, were unknown in our country at the time of the settlement, and, when read in the calmness of a period removed from the event, seem incomprehensible in spirit. They are positive and peremptory, without recognizing any possibility of delay, even for a proposal of arbitration. Plainly they announce, as the British alternatives, instant surrender, with suitable apology, or war. This is the conclusion of Mr. Dana, in his admirable note, and nobody can doubt it. In accord with this note was the conduct of the British Government, making preparations for war; and here is unimpeachable British testimony. “Troops were despatched to Canada with all possible expedition; and that brave and loyal colony called out its militia and volunteers, so as to be ready to act at a moment’s notice. Our dock-yards here resounded with the din of workmen getting vessels fitted for sea; and there was but one feeling, which animated all classes and parties in the country, and that was a determination to vindicate our insulted honor and uphold the inviolability of the national flag.”[16] At that moment the American Republic was straining every nerve to suppress a Rebellion whose single declared object was the foundation of a new government with Slavery as its corner-stone. War by England was practical recognition of the new government, with alliance and breaking of the blockade. The difficulty in comprehending this attitude is increased, when it is known that the British Government did not regard the seizure as authorized by instructions. In his letter to Lord Lyons, Earl Russell says expressly: “Her Majesty’s Government are [Pg 19] [Pg 20] [Pg 21] willing to believe that the United States naval officer who committed the aggression was not acting in compliance with any authority from his Government.”[17] Therefore the National Government had done nothing,—absolutely nothing. On the same day that Earl Russell indited his remarkable despatch, Mr. Seward wrote from Washington to Mr. Adams, at London, on business of the legation, and in his letter mentions that Captain Wilkes “acted without any instructions from the Government.” He adds: “We have done nothing on the subject to anticipate the discussion.” The letter throughout is in the spirit of peace. After declaring his inference “that the British Government is now awake to the importance of averting possible conflict, and disposed to confer and act with earnestness to that end,” Mr. Seward says, “If so, we are disposed to meet them in the same spirit, as a nation chiefly of British lineage, sentiments, and sympathies, a civilized and humane nation, a Christian people,” and then adds, that the affair of the Trent “is to be met and disposed of by the two Governments, if possible, in the spirit to which I have adverted,”[18] that is, with a sense of “the importance of averting possible conflict,” and a disposition “to confer and act with earnestness to that end,” as a Christian people. It so happened that Mr. Adams read this letter to Earl Russell on the very day that Lord Lyons read the demand for surrender and apology to Mr. Seward; but the British Government did not allow its pacific contents to become known, and the war-fever went on. Here Mr. Dana aptly remarks: “The truth seems to be, that, so long as they were uncertain whether their menace of war might not lead to war, they could not afford to withdraw the chief motive for the war-spirit in the British people, and to admit that their warlike demonstration had been needless. Their popular support depended upon a general belief in a necessity for their having accompanied their demand with the preparations and menace of war.”[19] The extraordinary character of this demand was recognized at the time in Europe. The Count de Gasparin, after describing it as “a question of declaring war,” and an “ultimatum,” said: “Between great nations, between sister nations, it was a strange opening. The usage is hardly to commence with an ultimatum,—that is, to commence with the end. Ordinarily, when there has been a misunderstanding or regrettable act, especially when that act comes within a portion of the Law of Nations which is yet full of obscurity, the natural opening is to ask for explanations as to the intentions, and for reparation for what has been done, without mixing therewith an immediate menace of rupture.”[20] After expressing astonishment that a demand of apology “figured in the original programme,” which he pronounced entirely out of place, the impartial Frenchman proceeds: “Seeing such haste and proclamation so lofty of an exigence above debate, seeing the idea of an impious war accepted with so much ease by some and with such joy so little dissembled by others, Europe declared, without ambiguity or reserve, that, if England were not miraculously saved from her own undertaking, that, if she went so far as to fire a cannon at the North as an ally of the South, she would tear with her own hands her principal titles to the respect of the civilized world.”[21] Rejecting the pretension that the maintenance of peace was due to the “warlike measures of England,” the eloquent moralist exclaims, “America has just rendered to England the most signal service which ever a people rendered to another people,” and this by refusing the war which was menaced,—a war, as painted by him, where, in addition to untold calamity, would be the wretchedness of striking at the liberty of the world in alliance with slave-traders. How naturally he adds: “From the moment that she is only the ally of slave-traders, she has abdicated.”[22] The summary tone of the British Government and the contemporaneous preparations for war enhanced the difficulties peculiar to such a question; but it was easy to see, on examination, that the demand was in substantial conformity with American precedents, and accordingly the Rebels, who had been confined at Fort Warren, in Boston Harbor, were handed over to the British Government. While the question was under consideration by the Cabinet of President Lincoln, and before any conclusion had been communicated to the British Government, an incident occurred in the Senate which showed the feeling that sought expression. December 26th, Mr. Hale, of New Hampshire, who had already avowed his sympathy with the act of Captain Wilkes, found occasion to discuss it at some length, and to denounce the idea of surrendering the Rebels. A few passages will show the tone he adopted. “I believe that the Cabinet to-day and yesterday, and for some days past, have had under consideration a measure which involves more of good or evil to this country than anything that has ever occurred before: I mean the surrender, on the demand of Great Britain, of the persons of Messrs. Slidell and Mason. To my mind, a more fatal act could not mark the history of this country, —an act that would surrender at once to the arbitrary demand of Great Britain all that was won in the Revolution, reduce us to the position of a second-rate power, and make us the vassal of Great Britain. … “I have seen many gentlemen, and I have seen none, not a man can be found, who is in favor of this surrender; for it would humiliate us in the eyes of the world, irritate our own people, and subject us to their indignant scorn. If we are to have war with Great Britain, it will not be because we refuse to surrender Messrs. Mason and Slidell: that is a mere pretence. If war shall come, it will be because Great Britain has determined to force war upon us. They would humiliate us first and fight us afterwards. If we are to be humiliated, I prefer to take it after a war, and not before.… I pray that this Administration will not surrender our national honor. I tell them that hundreds and thousands and hundreds of thousands will rush to the battle-field, and bare their breasts to its perils, rather than submit to degradation.”[23] Mr. Sumner at that time had not seen the demand, and was without any precise information on the subject, but felt it his duty to say something by way of breakwater against the rising tide. He spoke briefly. Mr. President,—The Senator has made his speech, and then withdrawn his motion; he has accomplished his object. For myself, Sir, I would rather meet this question, truly important, when presented in a practical form. The Senator treats it on an hypothesis; he assumes that Great Britain has made an arrogant demand, and then proceeds to denounce it. How does he know that any such demand has been made? Who in the Senate knows it? Who in the country knows it? I do not believe it,—will not believe it, except on evidence. The Senator says that he is not against arbitration. How does he know that this is not the policy of the Administration? But I know nobody here who can speak for the Administration on this point. [Pg 22] [Pg 23] [Pg 24]