Volume 4 — REPLY TO ASSAILANTS:

OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION; WEAKNESS OF THE SOUTH FROM SLAVERY.

Second Speech in the Senate on the Boston Petition for the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, June 28, 1854.

The preceding speech was followed by a debate without example in anger, excitement, and brutality. Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, Mr. Mason, of Virginia, Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, Mr. Mallory, of Florida, and Mr. Clay, of Alabama, vied with each other in bullying denunciation of Mr. Sumner.

Mr. Butler began by claiming that the American Revolution was carried through by "slaveholding States," thus making boast for Slavery,—and then turned to pour contempt upon Mr. Sumner, whose speech he characterized as "a species of rhetoric intended to feed the fires of fanaticism in his own State"; then it was "a Fourth of July Oration,"—"vapid rhetoric,"—"a species of rhetoric which ought not to come from a scholar,"—"a rhetoric with more fine color than real strength"; and then he announced, "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." Then again, "If the object be to make the issue between the North and the South, let the issue come." He then asked if Massachusetts "would send fugitives back to us after trial by jury or any other mode?" Then, turning to Mr. Sumner, he demanded, with much impetuosity of manner, "Will this honorable Senator tell me that he will do it?" To which Mr. Sumner promptly replied, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" The Globe reports the disorderly ejaculations which followed from Mr. Butler, winding up with the words, "You stand in my presence as a coëqual Senator, and tell me that it is a dog's office to execute the Constitution of the United States?" Here Mr. Sumner remarked, "I recognize no such obligation,"—meaning, plainly, no obligation to return a fugitive slave.

Mr. Mason, afterwards so conspicuous in the Rebellion, followed in similar vein. He began by saying: "I say, Sir, the dignity of the American Senate has been rudely, wantonly, grossly assailed by a Senator from Massachusetts,—and not only the dignity of the Senate, but of the whole people, trifled with in the presence of the American Senate, either ignorantly or corruptly, I do not know which, nor do I care." He then proceeded to vindicate the "gentleman from Virginia" who had sought his slave in Boston, denounced Mr. Sumner for having "the boldness to speak here of such a man as a slave-hunter," and boasted that the law had been executed in Boston,—that "in that city, within the last fortnight, it has done its office, and done it in the presence of a mob, which that Senator and his associates roused and inflamed to the very verge of treason, subjecting them to traitors' doom, while he and his associates sat here and kept themselves aloof from danger." Then he exclaimed: "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 a declaration that he would violate his oath now recently taken?"

All that was said by these two representatives of Slavery was intensified and aggravated by Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, who charged Mr. Sumner with openly declaring in the Senate that he would violate his oath, and then proceeded to foreshadow a proposition for his expulsion. At the same time he vindicated at length his original statement, that the construction put upon the Declaration of Independence by the Abolitionists of the country "made it a self-evident lie, instead of a self-evident truth." At this stage the Senate adjourned, leaving the question of reference still pending.

The next day was occupied by other business, contrary to the declared desire of Mr. Sumner, who said that he had "something further to say" upon the petition. On the 28th of June the attack on Mr. Sumner was renewed by Mr. Pettit, but without taking up the petition. An attempt was made to stifle further debate. Motions to postpone, and then to lay on the table, were proposed, when Mr. Sumner remarked:—

I am unwilling to stand in the way of the general wish of the Senate to go on with its business; I desire at all times to promote its business; but this question has been presented and debated. Several Senators have already expressed themselves on it. Other Senators within my knowledge expect to be heard. I too, Sir, claim the privilege of being heard again, in reply to remarks which have fallen from honorable Senators. I hope, therefore, the memorial will have no disposition that shall preclude its complete discussion.

The Senate refused to postpone, and Mr. Mallory, of Florida, afterwards Secretary of the Navy in the cabinet of Jefferson Davis, began the assault on Mr. Sumner, expressing horror at his declarations in the Senate, and then adducing his early language in the Boston speech so often referred to. The future rebel dwelt with unction on the obligations of an oath, saying: "Sir, if there be any principle in the breast of the American citizen which more than any other lies at the foundation of law, morals, and society, it is his habitual observance and recognition of all the sacred obligations of an oath; and this no man knows better than the Senator himself." Mr. Clay, of Alabama, afterwards a violent rebel, succeeded in interpolating into the speech of Mr. Mallory a tirade of personality and brutality, which will be found in the Globe, and, after presenting a portrait meant for Mr. Sumner, "who held himself irresponsible to all law, feeling the obligation neither of the Divine law, nor of the law of the land, nor of the law of honor," proceeded to ask, "How would such a miscreant be treated? Why, if you could not reach him with the arm of the municipal law, if you could not send him to the Penitentiary, you would send him to Coventry." And the orator of Slavery wound up by saying: "If we cannot restrain or prevent this eternal warfare upon the feelings and rights of Southern gentlemen, we may rob the serpent of his fangs, we can paralyze his influence, by placing him in that nadir of social degradation which he merits."

This brief account of the debate is important, as showing the atmosphere of the Senate, and the personal provocation, when Mr. Sumner at last obtained the floor and spoke as follows.

Mr. President,—Since I had the honor of addressing the Senate two days ago, various Senators have spoken. Of these, several have alluded to me in terms clearly beyond the sanction of parliamentary debate. Of this I make no complaint, though, for the honor of the Senate, at least, it were well, had it been otherwise. If to them it seems fit, courteous, parliamentary, let them

I will not interfere with the enjoyment they find in such exposure of themselves. They have given us a taste of their quality. Two of them, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. Butler], who sits immediately before me, and the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason], who sits immediately behind me, are not young. Their heads are amply crowned by Time. They did not speak from any ebullition of youth, but from the confirmed temper of age. It is melancholy to believe that in this debate they showed themselves as they are. It were charitable to believe that they are in reality better than they showed themselves.

I think, Sir, that I am not the only person on this floor, who, listening to these two self-confident champions of that peculiar fanaticism of the South, was reminded of the striking words of Jefferson, picturing the influence of Slavery, where he says: "The whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism, on the one part, and degrading submission on the other. Our children see this, and learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal.... The parent storms. The child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the worst of passions, and, thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances."[78] Nobody, who witnessed the Senator from South Carolina or the Senator from Virginia in this debate, will place either of them among the "prodigies" described by Jefferson. As they spoke, the Senate Chamber must have seemed to them, in the characteristic fantasy of the moment, a plantation well-stocked with slaves, over which the lash of the overseer had free swing. Sir, it gives me no pleasure to say these things. It is not according to my nature. Bear witness that I do it only in just self-defence against the unprecedented assaults and provocations of this debate. In doing it, I desire to warn certain Senators, that, if, by any ardor of menace, or by any tyrannical frown, they expect to shake my fixed resolve, they expect a vain thing.

There is little that fell from these two champions, as the fit was on, which deserves reply. Certainly not the hard words they used so readily and congenially. The veteran Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] complained that I had characterized one of his "constituents"—a person who went all the way from Virginia to Boston in pursuit of a slave—as Slave-Hunter. Sir, I choose to call things by their right names. White I call white, and black I call black. And where a person degrades himself to the work of chasing a fellow-man, who, under the inspiration of Freedom and the guidance of the North Star, has sought a freeman's home far away from coffle and chain,—that person, whosoever he may be, I call Slave-Hunter. If the Senator from Virginia, who professes nicety of speech, will give me any term more precisely describing such an individual, I will use it. Until then, I must continue to use the language which seems to me so apt. But this very sensibility of the veteran Senator at a just term, truly depicting an odious character, shows a shame which pleases me. It was said by a philosopher of Antiquity that a blush is the sign of virtue; and permit me to add, that, in this violent sensibility, I recognize a blush mantling the cheek of the honorable Senator, which even his plantation manners cannot conceal.

And the venerable Senator from South Carolina, too, [Mr. Butler,]—he has betrayed his sensibility. Here let me say that this Senator knows well that I always listen with gurgles forth,—sometimes tinctured by generous ideas,—except when, forgetful of history, and in defiance of reason, he undertakes to defend what is obviously indefensible. This Senator was disturbed, when, to his inquiry, personally, pointedly, and vehemently addressed to me, whether I would join in returning a fellow-man to Slavery, I exclaimed: "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" In fitful phrase, which seemed to come from unconscious excitement, so common with the Senator, he shot forth various cries about "dogs," and, among other things, asked if there was any "dog" in the Constitution? The Senator did not seem to bear in mind, through the heady currents of that moment, that, by the false interpretation he fastens upon the Constitution, he has helped to nurture there a whole kennel of Carolina bloodhounds, trained, with savage jaw and insatiable scent, for the hunt of flying bondmen. No, Sir, I do not believe that there is any "kennel of bloodhounds," or even any "dog," in the Constitution.

But, Mr. President, since the brief response which I made to the inquiry of the Senator, and which leaped unconsciously to my lips, has drawn upon me such various attacks, all marked by grossness of language and manner,—since I have been charged with openly declaring a purpose to violate the Constitution, and to break the oath which I have taken at that desk, I shall be pardoned for showing simply how a few plain words will put all this down. The authentic report in the "Globe" shows what was actually said. The report in the "Sentinel" is substantially the same. And one of the New York papers, which has been put into my hands since I entered the Senate Chamber to-day, under its telegraphic head, states the incident with substantial accuracy,—though it omits the personal, individual appeal addressed to me by the Senator, and preserved in the "Globe." Here is the New York report.

"Mr. Butler. I would like to ask the Senator, if Congress repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would Massachusetts execute the Constitutional requirements, and send back to the South the absconding slaves?

"Mr. Sumner. Do you ask me if I would send back a slave?

"Mr. Butler. Why, yes.

"Mr. Sumner. 'Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?'"[79]

To any candid mind, either of these reports renders anything further superfluous. The answer is explicit and above impeachment. Indignantly it spurns a service from which the soul recoils, while it denies no constitutional obligation. But Senators who are so swift in misrepresentation, and in assault upon me as disloyal to the Constitution, deserve to be exposed, and it shall be done.

Now, Sir, I begin by adopting as my guide the authoritative words of Andrew Jackson, in 1832, in his memorable veto of the Bank of the United States. To his course at that critical time were opposed the authority of the Supreme Court and his oath to support the Constitution. Here is his triumphant reply.

"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this Act, it ought not to control the coördinate authorities of this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must, each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others. It is as much the duty of the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President, to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme Judges, when it may be brought before them for judicial decision.... The authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive, when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."[80]

Mark these words: "Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others." Yes, Sir, AS HE UNDERSTANDS IT, and not as it is understood by others. Does any Senator here dissent from this rule? Does the Senator from Virginia? Does the Senator from South Carolina? [Here Mr. Sumner paused, but there was no reply.] At all events, I accept the rule as just and reasonable,—in harmony, too, let me assert, with that Liberty which scorns the dogma of passive obedience, and asserts the inestimable right of private judgment, whether in religion or politics. In swearing to support the Constitution at your desk, Mr. President, I did not swear to support it as you understand it,—oh, no, Sir!—or as the Senator from Virginia understands it,—by no means!—or as the Senator from South Carolina understands it, with a kennel of bloodhounds, or at least a "dog" in it, "pawing to get free his hinder parts," in pursuit of a slave. No such thing. Sir, I swore to support the Constitution as I understand it,—nor more, nor less.

But Andrew Jackson was not alone in this rule of conduct. Statesmen before and since have declared it also,—nobody with more force and constancy than Jefferson, who was, indeed, the author of it, so far as anybody can be the author of what springs so obviously from common sense. Repeatedly he returns to it, expressing it in various forms. "Each department," he insists, "is truly independent of the others, and has an equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of the Constitution in the cases submitted to its action, and especially where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."[81] I content myself with a single text from this authority. The same rule was also announced by Hon. John Holmes, a Representative from Massachusetts, afterwards Senator from Maine, in the famous debate on the admission of Missouri. "This Constitution," he declares, "which I hold in my hand, I am sworn to support, not according to legislative or judicial exposition, but as I shall understand it."[82] Here is the rule of Jackson, almost in his language, twelve years before he uttered it.

And since Jackson we have the rule stated with great point in this very Chamber, by no less an authority—at least with Democrats—than Mr. Buchanan. Here are a few words from his speech on the United States Bank.

"If all the judges and all the lawyers in Christendom had decided in the affirmative, when the question is thus brought home to me as a legislator, bound to vote for or against a new charter, upon my oath to support the Constitution, I must exercise my own judgment. I would treat with profound respect the arguments and opinions of judges and constitutional lawyers; but if after all they failed to convince me that the law was constitutional, I should be guilty of perjury before high Heaven, if I voted in its favor.... Even if the judiciary had settled the question, I should never hold myself bound by their decision.... I shall never consent to place the political rights and liberties of this people in the hands of any judicial tribunal."[83]

In short, he would exercise his own judgment: and this is precisely what I intend to do on the proposition to hunt slaves.

Now I will not occupy your time, nor am I so disposed at this moment, nor does the occasion require it, by entering upon any minute criticism of the clause in the Constitution touching the surrender of "fugitives from service." A few words only are needful. Assuming, Sir, in the face of commanding rules of interpretation, all leaning towards Freedom, that, in the evasive language of this clause, "paltering in a double sense," the words employed can be judicially regarded as justly applicable to fugitive slaves, which, as you ought to know, Sir, is often most strenuously and conscientiously denied, thus sponging the whole clause out of existence, except as a provision for the return of persons actually bound by lawful contract, but on which I now express no opinion,—assuming, I say, this interpretation, so hostile to Freedom, and derogatory to the members of the National Convention, who solemnly declared that they would not give any sanction to Slavery, or admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men,—assuming, I repeat, an interpretation which every principle of the Common Law, claimed by our fathers as their birthright, must disown,—admitting, for the moment only, that the Constitution of the United States has any words which in any legal intendment can constrain fugitive slaves,—then I desire to say, that, as I understand the Constitution, this clause does not impose upon me, as Senator or citizen, any obligation to take part, directly or indirectly, in the surrender of a fugitive slave.

Sir, as Senator, I have taken at your desk the oath to support the Constitution, as I understand it. And understanding it as I do, I am bound by that oath, Mr. President, to oppose all enactments by Congress on the subject of fugitive slaves, as a flagrant violation of the Constitution; especially must I oppose the last act, as a tyrannical usurpation, kindred in character to the Stamp Act, which our fathers indignantly refused to obey. Here my duties, under the oath which I have taken as Senator, end. There is nothing beyond. They are all absorbed in the constant, inflexible, righteous obligation to oppose every exercise by Congress of any power over the subject. In no respect by that oath can I be compelled to duties in other capacities, or as a simple citizen, especially when revolting to my conscience. Now in this interpretation of the Constitution I may be wrong; others may differ from me; the Senator from Virginia may be otherwise minded, and the Senator from South Carolina also; and they will, each and all, act according to their respective understanding. For myself, I shall act according to mine. On this explicit statement of my constitutional obligations I stand, as upon a living rock; and to the inquiry, in whatever form addressed to my personal responsibility, whether I would aid, directly or indirectly, in reducing or surrendering a fellow-man to bondage, I reply again, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?"

And, Sir, looking round upon this Senate, I might ask fearlessly, how many there are, even in this body,—if, indeed, there be a single Senator,—who would stoop to any such service? Until some one rises and openly confesses his willingness to become a Slave-Hunter, I will not believe there can be one. [Here Mr. Sumner paused, but nobody rose.] And yet honorable and chivalrous Senators have rushed headlong to denounce me because I openly declared my repudiation of a service at which every manly bosom must revolt. "Sire, I have found in Bayonne good citizens and brave soldiers, but not one executioner," was the noble utterance of the Governor of that place to Charles the Ninth of France, in response to the royal edict for the massacre of St. Bartholomew;[84] and such a spirit, I trust, will yet animate the people of this country, when pressed to the service of "dogs."

To that other question which has been proposed, whether Massachusetts, by State laws, will carry out the offensive clause in the Constitution according to the understanding of the venerable Senator from South Carolina, I reply, that Massachusetts, at all times, has been ready to do her duty under the Constitution, as she understands it, and I doubt not will ever continue of this mind. More than this I cannot say.

In quitting this topic, I cannot forbear to remark that the assault on me for my disclaimer of all constitutional obligation, resting upon me as Senator or citizen, to aid in enslaving a fellow-man, or in surrendering him to Slavery, comes with ill grace from the veteran Senator from Virginia, a State which, by its far-famed resolutions of 1798, claimed to determine its constitutional obligations, even to the extent of openly declaring two different Acts of Congress null and void; and it comes even more strangely from the venerable Senator from South Carolina, a State which, in latter days, has arrayed itself openly against the national authorities, and which threatens nullification as often as babies cry.

Surely the Senator from South Carolina, with his silver-white locks, would have hesitated to lead this assault upon me, had he not for the moment been entirely oblivious of the history of the State which he represents. Not many years have passed since an incident occurred at Charleston, in South Carolina,—not at Boston, in Massachusetts,—which ought to be remembered. The postmaster of that place, acting under a controlling Public Opinion there, informed the head of his Department at Washington that he had determined to suppress all Antislavery publications, and requested instructions for the future. Thus, in violation of the laws of the land, the very mails were rifled, and South Carolina smiled approbation. But still further. The Postmaster-General, Mr. Kendall, after prudently alleging, that, as he had not seen the papers in question, he could not give an opinion of their character, proceeded to say that he had been informed that they were inflammatory, incendiary, and insurrectionary, and then announced:—

"By no act or direction of mine, official or private, could I be induced to aid knowingly in giving circulation to papers of this description, directly or indirectly. We owe an obligation to the law, but a higher one to the communities in which we live; and if the former be perverted to destroy the latter, it is patriotism to disregard them. Entertaining these views, I cannot sanction, and will not condemn, the step you have taken."[85]

Such was the approving response of the National Government to the Postmaster of Charleston, when, for the sake of Slavery, and without any constitutional scruple, he set himself against an acknowledged law of the land. And yet the venerable Senator from South Carolina now presumes to denounce me, when, for the sake of Freedom, and in the honest interpretation of my constitutional obligations, I decline an offensive service.

There is another incident in the history of South Carolina, which, as a loyal son of Massachusetts, I cannot forget, and which rises now in judgment against the venerable Senator. Massachusetts ventured to commission a distinguished gentleman, of blameless life and eminent professional qualities, who had served with honor in the other House [Hon. Samuel Hoar], to reside at Charleston for a brief period, in order to guard the rights of her free colored citizens, assailed on arrival there by an inhospitable statute, so gross in its provisions that an eminent character of South Carolina, a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States [Hon. William Johnson], had condemned it as "trampling on the Constitution," and "a direct attack upon the sovereignty of the United States."[86] Massachusetts had read in the Constitution a clause closely associated with that touching fugitives from service, to the following effect: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States," and supposed that this would yet be recognized by South Carolina. But she was mistaken. Her venerable representative, an unarmed old man, with hair as silver-white almost as that of the Senator before me, was beset in Charleston by a "respectable" mob, prevented from entering upon his duties, and driven from the State,—while the Legislature stepped forward to sanction this shameless, lawless act, by placing on the statute-book an order for his expulsion. And yet, Sir, the excitable Senator from South Carolina is fired by the fancied delinquencies of Massachusetts towards Slave-Hunters, and also by my own refusal to render them any aid or comfort; he shoots questions in volleys, assumes to measure our duties by his understanding, and ejaculates a lecture at Massachusetts and myself. Sir, before that venerable Senator again ventures thus, let him return to his own State, seamed all over with the scars of Nullification, and first lecture there. Ay, Sir, let him look into his own heart, and lecture himself.

But enough for the present on the extent of my constitutional obligations to become Slave-Hunter. There are, however, yet other things in the assault of the venerable Senator, which, for the sake of truth, in just defence of Massachusetts, and in honor of Freedom, shall not be left unanswered. Alluding to those days when Massachusetts was illustrated by Otis, Hancock, and "the brace of Adamses," when Faneuil Hall sent forth notes of Liberty which resounded even to South Carolina, and the very stones in the streets of Boston rose in mutiny against tyranny, the Senator with the silver-white locks, in the very ecstasy of Slavery, broke forth in exclamation that Massachusetts was then "slaveholding," and he presumed to hail these patriots representatives of "hardy, slaveholding Massachusetts." Sir, I repel the imputation. True, Massachusetts was "hardy"; but she was not, in any just sense, "slaveholding." Had she been so, she could not have been "hardy." The two characteristics are inconsistent as weakness and strength, as disease and health,—I had almost said, as death and life.

The Senator opens a page on which I willingly dwell. Sir, Slavery never flourished in Massachusetts; nor did it ever prevail there at any time, even in early colonial days, in such measure as to be a distinctive feature of her progressive civilization. Her few slaves were for a term of years or for life. If, in fact, their issue was sometimes held in bondage, it was never by sanction of any statute or law of Colony or Commonwealth. Such has been the solemn and repeated judgment of her Supreme Court.[87] In all her annals, no person was ever born a slave on the soil of Massachusetts. This, of itself, is an answer to the imputation of the Senator.

Benign and brilliant Acts of her Legislature, at an early date, show her sensibility on this subject. Unhappily, in 1645, two negroes were brought from the coast of Guinea in a Boston ship. Instead of holding them as slaves, the record shows "a resolve to send them back."[88] One year later, "a negro interpreter, with others, unlawfully taken," became the occasion of another testimony. Thus spoke Massachusetts:—

"The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the first opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and crying sin of man-stealing, as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is past, and such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men, do order, that the negro interpreter, with others, unlawfully taken, be, by the first opportunity, at the charge of the country for present, sent to his native country of Guinea, and a letter with him, of the indignation of the Court thereabouts, and justice thereof."[89]

Note the language: "Such vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men." Better words could not be employed against the infamies of Slavery in our day. The Colony that could issue this noble decree was inconsistent with itself, when it permitted its rocky soil to be pressed by the footstep of a single slave. But a righteous public opinion early and constantly set its face against Slavery. As early as 1701 the following vote appears on the Records of Boston: "The Representatives are desired to promote the encouraging the bringing of white servants, and to put a period to negroes being slaves."[90] Perhaps, in all history, this is the earliest testimony from any official body against Negro Slavery, and I thank God that it came from Boston, my native town. In 1705 a heavy duty was imposed upon every negro imported into the Province;[91] in 1712 the importation of Indians as servants or slaves was strictly forbidden;[92] but the general subject of Slavery attracted little attention till the beginning of the controversy which ended in the Revolution, when the rights of the blacks were blended by all true patriots with those of the whites. Sparing unnecessary detail, suffice it to say, that, as early as 1770, one of the courts of Massachusetts, anticipating by two years the renowned judgment in Somerset's case, established within its jurisdiction the principle of emancipation, and, under its touch of magic power, changed slave into freeman. Similar decisions followed from other courts. In 1776 the whole number of blacks, both free and slave, sprinkled thinly over "hardy" Massachusetts, was five thousand two hundred and forty-nine, being to the whites as one to sixty-five,[93]—while in "slaveholding" South Carolina the number of negro slaves at that time was not far from one hundred thousand, being at least one slave for every freeman, thus rendering that Colony anything but "hardy." In these figures I give South Carolina the benefit of the most favorable estimates. Good authorities make the slaves at that time in this State more than twice as numerous as the freemen.[94] At last, in 1780, even before the triumph of Yorktown led the way to that peace which set its seal upon National Independence, Massachusetts, glowing with the struggles of the Revolution, and filled with the sentiments of Freedom, placed foremost in her Declaration of Rights those emphatic words, "All men are born free and equal," and by this declaration exterminated every vestige of Slavery within her borders. All hail, then, to Massachusetts! the just and generous Commonwealth in whose behalf I have the honor to speak.

Thus, Sir, does the venerable Senator err, when he presumes to vouch Massachusetts for Slavery, and to associate this odious institution with the names of her great patriots.

But the venerable Senator errs yet more, if possible, when he attributes to "slaveholding" communities a leading part in those contributions of arms and treasure by which independence was secured. Here are his exact words, as I find them in the "Globe," revised by himself.

"Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of Lexington and Concord, in an issue made by Boston, to whom was an appeal made, and from whom was it answered? The answer is found in the acts of slaveholding States,—animis opibusque parati. Yes, Sir, the independence of America, to maintain republican liberty, was won by the arms and treasure, by the patriotism and good faith, of slaveholding communities."[95]

Observe, Sir, the words as emphasized by himself. Surely, the Senator, with his silver-white locks, all fresh from the outrage of the Nebraska Bill, and that overthrow of a solemn compact, cannot stand here and proclaim the "good faith of slaveholding communities," except in irony,—yes, Sir, in irony. And let me add, that, when this Senator presumes to say that American Independence "was won by the arms and treasure of slaveholding communities," he speaks either in irony or in ignorance.

The question which the venerable Senator from South Carolina opens by his vaunt I have no desire to discuss; but since it is presented, I confront it at once. This is not the first time, during my brief service here, that this Senator has sought on this floor to provoke comparison between slaveholding communities and the Free States.

Mr. Butler [from his seat]. You cannot quote a single instance in which I have done it. I have always said I thought it was in bad taste, and I have never attempted it.

Mr. Sumner. I beg the Senator's pardon. I always listen to him, and I know whereof I affirm. He has profusely dealt in it. I allude now only to a single occasion. In his speech on the Nebraska Bill, running through two days, it was one of his commonplaces. There he openly presented a contrast between the Free States and "slaveholding communities" in certain essential features of civilization, and directed shafts at Massachusetts which called to his feet my distinguished colleague at that time [Mr. Everett], and more than once compelled me to take the floor. And now, Sir, the venerable Senator, not rising from his seat and standing openly before the Senate, undertakes to deny that he has dealt in such comparisons.

Mr. Butler. Will the Senator allow me?

Mr. Sumner. Certainly: I yield the floor to the Senator.

Mr. Butler. Whenever that speech is read,—and I wish the Senator had read it before he commented on it with a good deal of rhetorical enthusiasm,—it will be found that I was particular not to wound the feelings of the Northern people who were sympathizing with us in the great movement to remove odious distinctions. I was careful to say nothing that would provoke invidious comparisons; and when that speech is read, notwithstanding the vehement assertion of the honorable Senator, he will find, that, when I quoted the laws of Massachusetts, particularly one Act which I termed the Toties Quoties Act, by which every negro was whipped every time he came into Massachusetts, I quoted them with a view to show, not a contrast between South Carolina and Massachusetts, but to show that in the whole of this country, from the beginning to this time,—even in my own State,—I made no exception,—public opinion had undergone a change, and that it had undergone the same change in Massachusetts; for at one time they did not regard this institution of Slavery with the same odium that they do at this time. That was the purpose; and I challenge the Senator, as an orator of fairness, to look at it and see if it is not so.

Mr. Sumner. Has the Senator done?

Mr. Butler. I may not be done presently; but that is the purport of that speech.

Mr. Sumner. Will the Senator refer to his own speech? He now admits, that, under the guise of an argument, he did draw attention to what he evidently regarded an odious law of Massachusetts. And, Sir, I did not forget, that, in doing this, there was, at the time, an apology which ill concealed the sting.[96] But let that pass. The Senator is strangely oblivious of the statistical contrasts which he borrowed from the speech of a member of the other House, and which, at his request, were read by a Senator before him on this floor. The Senator, too, is strangely oblivious of yet another imputation, which, at the very close of his speech, he shot as a Parthian arrow at Massachusetts. It is he, then, who is the offender; and no hardihood of denial can extricate him. For myself, Sir, I understand the sensibilities of Senators from "slaveholding communities," and would not wound them by a superfluous word. Of Slavery I speak strongly, as I must; but thus far, even at the expense of my argument, I have avoided the contrasts founded on detail of figures and facts which are so obvious between the Free States and "slaveholding communities"; especially have I shunned all allusion to South Carolina. But the venerable Senator to whose discretion that State has intrusted its interests here will not allow me to be still.

God forbid that I should do injustice to South Carolina! I know well the gallantry of many of her sons. I know the response which she made to the appeal of Massachusetts for union against the Stamp Act—the Fugitive Slave Act of that day—by the pen of Christopher Gadsden. And I remember with sorrow that this patriot was obliged to confess, at the time, her "weakness in having such a number of slaves," though it is to his credit that he recognized Slavery as "crime."[97] I have no pleasure in dwelling on the humiliations of South Carolina; I have little desire to expose her sores; I would not lay bare even her nakedness. But the Senator, in his vaunt for "slaveholding communities," has made a claim for Slavery so derogatory to Freedom, and so inconsistent with history, that I cannot allow it to pass unanswered.

This, Sir, is not the first time, even during my little experience here, that the same claim has been made on this floor; and this seems the more astonishing, because the archives of the country furnish such ample and undoubted materials for its refutation. The question of the comparative contributions of men by different States and sections of the country in the war of the Revolution was brought forward as early as 1790, in the first Congress under the Constitution, in the animated and protracted debate on the assumption of State debts by the Union. On that occasion, Fisher Ames, a Representative from Massachusetts, famous for classic eloquence, moved a call upon the War Department for the number of men furnished by each State to the Revolutionary armies. The motion, though vehemently opposed, was carried by a small majority. Shortly afterwards an answer to the call was received from the Department, at that time under the charge of General Knox. This answer, which is one of the documents of our history, places beyond cavil or criticism the exact contributions in arms made by each State. Here it is,—taken from the original, in a volume of the "American State Papers,"[98] published under the authority of Congress. This is official.

Statement of the number of troops and militia furnished by the several States, for the support of the Revolutionary War, from 1775 to 1783, inclusive.

Number ofNumber ofTotal militiaConjectural

continentalmilitia.and continentalestimate of

Northern States.troops.troops.militia.

New Hampshire12,4962,09314,5893,700

Massachusetts67,90715,15583,0629,500

Rhode Island5,9084,28410,1921,500

Connecticut32,0397,79239,8313,000

New York17,7813,31221,0938,750

Pennsylvania25,6087,35732,9652,000

New Jersey10,7266,05516,7812,500

————————————

Total172,46546,048218,51330,950

Southern States.

Delaware2,3873762,7631,000

Maryland13,9125,46419,3764,000

Virginia26,6784,16330,84121,880

North Carolina7,2632,7069,96912,000

South Carolina6,417——6,41725,850

Georgia2,679——2,6799,900

————————————

Total59,33612,70972,04574,630

At this time there was but little difference in numbers between the population of the Southern States and that of the Northern States. By the census of 1790 the Southern had a population of 1,851,804; the Northern a population of 1,882,615. Notwithstanding this essential equality of population in the two sections, the North furnished vastly more men than the South.

Of continental troops, the Southern States furnished 59,336; the Northern, 172,465: making about three men furnished to the continental army by the Northern States to one from the Southern.

Of militia whose services are authenticated by the War Office, the Southern States furnished 12,709; the Northern, 46,048: making nearly four men contributed to the militia by the Northern States to one from the Southern.

Of militia whose services are not authenticated by the War Office, but are set down in the return as "conjectural" only, we have 74,630 furnished by the Southern States, and 30,950 by the Northern: making, under this head, five men contributed by the Southern to two from the Northern. The chief services of the Southern States, for which the venerable Senator now claims so much, it will be observed with a smile, were conjectural only.

Looking, however, at the sum-total of continental troops, authenticated militia, and "conjectural" militia, we have 146,675 from the Southern States, while 249,463 were from the Northern: making upwards of 100,000 men contributed to the war by the Northern more than by the Southern.

The disparity swells, when we compare South Carolina and Massachusetts directly. Of continental troops and authenticated militia and "conjectural" militia, South Carolina furnished 32,267, while Massachusetts furnished 92,562: making nearly three for every one furnished by South Carolina. Look, however, at the continental troops and the authenticated militia from the two States, and here you will find only 6,417 furnished by South Carolina, while 83,062 were furnished by Massachusetts,—being thirteen times more than by South Carolina, and much more than by all the Southern States together. Here are facts and figures of which the Senator ought not to be ignorant.

So obvious was this at the time, that we find John Adams recording in his Autobiography, that "almost the whole army was derived from New England."[99] General Knox, in a letter to Colonel Joseph Ward, of Massachusetts, under date of July 28, 1780, with regard to the reestablishment of the army, has a few words in point. After complaining of the general inertness, as sufficient "to induce a ready belief that the mass of America have taken a monstrous deal of opium," he says:—

"It is true, the Eastern States and New York have done something in this instance, but no others. Propagate this truth."[100]

In a letter to General Gates, under date of Philadelphia, March 23, 1776, John Adams touches a difference in sentiment between the Northern and Southern States, which of itself accounts for this disparity of military contributions.

"However, my dear friend Gates, all our misfortunes arise from a single source, the reluctance of the Southern Colonies to republican government."[101]

Nothing could be stronger, although it is painful to think that it was true.

Foreign testimony, also, is in harmony with the official Statement. The Marquis de Chastellux, who travelled through the States towards the close of the Revolution, records somewhere that he "never met anybody from the North who had not been in the army." So marked and preeminent was the service of the Northern States, ay, Sir, so peculiar and special was the service of Boston, from which comes the present petition, that the Revolution was known in Europe by the name of this patriotic town. Edmund Burke exclaimed in Parliament: "The cause of Boston is become the cause of all America. Every part of America is united in support of Boston. By these acts of oppression you have made Boston the Lord Mayor of America."[102] And it was the same on the Continent. Our fathers in arms for Independence were known as "the insurgents of Boston." The French King was praised for protecting with his arms what was called "the justice of the Bostonians."[103] In saying this, I do not speak vaguely or without authority.

Did occasion require, I might go further, and minutely portray the imbecility of Southern States, and particularly of South Carolina, in the War of the Revolution, as compared with Northern States. This is a sad chapter, upon which I dwell unwillingly. Faithful annals record, that, as early as 1778, the six South Carolina regiments, composing, with the Georgia regiment, the regular force of the Southern Department, did not, in the whole, muster above eight hundred men; nor was it possible to fill up their ranks. The succeeding year, the Governor of South Carolina, pressed by British forces, offered to stipulate the neutrality of his State during the war, leaving its permanent position to be decided at the peace: a premonitory symptom of the secession menaced in our own day. After the fatal field of Camden, no organized American force was left in this region. The three Southern States—animis opibusque parati, according to the vaunt of the Senator—had not a single battalion in the field. During all this period the men of Massachusetts were serving their country, not at home, but away from their own borders: for, from the Declaration of Independence, Massachusetts never felt the pressure of a hostile foot.

The offer of the Governor of South Carolina to stipulate the neutrality of his State during the war has been sometimes called in question. But, unhappily, the case is too clear. General Moultrie, who commanded at Charleston, under the Governor, and whose name has been since given to one of the forts in the harbor there, has furnished an authentic record in two volumes, entitled "Memoirs of the American Revolution, so far as it related to the States of North and South Carolina and Georgia." He is my witness. As the British approached, the Governor and his Council became frightened, and proceeded forthwith to talk about capitulation. At last, after debate, "the question was carried for giving up the town upon a neutrality."[104] Colonel John Laurens was requested to carry this offer of capitulation from the Governor to General Prevost, the British commander; but "he begged to be excused from carrying such a message; that it was much against his inclination; that he would do anything to serve his country, but he could not think of carrying such a message as that." Other envoys were found who most reluctantly undertook this service. The message was as follows:—

"To propose a neutrality during the war between Great Britain and America, and the question, whether the State shall belong to Great Britain or remain one of the United States, be determined by the treaty of peace between those two powers."[105]

The same story is told by others. Ramsay, himself of South Carolina, in his "History of the American Revolution," says:—

"Commissioners from the garrison were instructed 'to propose a neutrality during the war between Great Britain and America, and that the question, whether the State shall belong to Great Britain or remain one of the United States, be determined by the treaty of peace between these powers.'"[106]

Chief Justice Marshall, in his authentic work, thus chronicles the disgraceful business:—

"The town was summoned to surrender, and the day was spent in sending and receiving flags. The neutrality of South Carolina during the war, leaving the question, whether that State should finally belong to Great Britain or the United States, to be settled in the treaty of peace, was proposed by the garrison, and rejected by Prevost."[107]

It is also presented with precision by Professor Bowen, of Harvard University, in his recent Life of General Lincoln, who remarks on it as follows:—

"This proposal did not come merely from the commander of a military garrison, in which case, of course, it would have been only nugatory; the Governor of the State, clothed with discretionary powers, was in the place, and probably most of his Council along with him. Whether such a proposition would have been justifiable under any circumstances is a question that needs not be discussed; at any rate, it would not have evinced much honorable or patriotic feeling. But to make such an offer in the present case was conduct little short of treason."[108]

This author concludes an animated review of the proposition with the remark, that it "was equivalent to an offer from the State to return to its allegiance to the British Crown."[109]

The fate of the State was typified in the capture by the British, some time afterwards, of the ship "South Carolina," of forty guns, the largest and most costly of our infant navy, and called by Cooper "much the heaviest ship that ever sailed under the American flag, until the new frigates were constructed during the War of 1812."[110] But here is the same story. Her service was altogether inadequate.

At last, the military genius and remarkable exertions of General Greene, a Northern man, who assumed the command of the Southern army, prevailed in rescuing South Carolina from British power. But the trials of this successful leader reveal in a striking manner the weakness of the "slaveholding" State he saved. Some of these are graphically presented in his letters.

Writing to President Reed, of Pennsylvania, under date of 4th May, 1781, he says:—

"The strength and resources of these [Southern] States to support the war have been greatly magnified and overrated; and those whose business and true interest it was to give a just state of the situation of things have joined in the deception, and, from a false principle of pride of having the country thought powerful, have led people to believe it was so. It is true, there were many inhabitants, but they were spread over a great extent of country, and near equally divided between the King's interest and ours. The majority is greatly in favor of the enemy's interest now, as great numbers of the Whigs have left the country.... The love of pleasure and the want of principle among many of those who are our friends render the exertions very languid in support of our cause; and unless the Northern States can give more effectual support, these States must fall."[111]

Writing to Colonel Davie, under date of 23d May, 1781, General Greene again exposes the actual condition of the country.

"The animosity between the Whigs and Tories of this State renders their situation truly deplorable. There is not a day passes but there are more or less who fall a sacrifice to this savage disposition. The Whigs seem determined to extirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. Some thousands have fallen in this way in this quarter, and the evil rages with more violence than ever. If a stop cannot be soon put to these massacres, the country will be depopulated in a few months more, as neither Whig nor Tory can live."[112]

To Lafayette, General Greene, under date of 29th December, 1780, describes the weakness of his troops.

"It is now within a few days of the time you mentioned of being with me. Were you to arrive, you would find a few ragged, half-starved troops in the wilderness, destitute of everything necessary for either the comfort or convenience of soldiers.... The country is almost laid waste, and the inhabitants plunder one another with little less than savage fury. We live from hand to mouth, and have nothing to subsist on but what we collect with armed parties. In this situation, I believe you will agree with me, there is nothing inviting this way, especially when I assure you our whole force fit for duty, that are properly clothed and properly equipped, does not amount to eight hundred men."[113]

Writing to Mr. Varnum, a member of Congress, the General says:—

"There is a great spirit of enterprise prevailing among the militia of these Southern States, especially with the volunteers. But their mode of going to war is so destructive, that it is the greatest folly in the world to trust the liberties of a people to such a precarious defence."[114]

Nothing can be more authentic or complete than this testimony. Here, also, is what is said by David Ramsay, an estimable citizen of South Carolina, in his History of the Revolution in that State, published in 1785, only a short time after the scenes which he describes.

"While the American soldiers lay encamped in this inactive situation," (in the low country near Charleston,) "their tattered rags were so completely worn out, that seven hundred of them were as naked as they were born, excepting a small slip of cloth about their waists; and they were nearly as destitute of meat as of clothing."[115]

To the same effect is a letter from Greene to Sumter, under date of Jan. 15, 1781.

"It is a great misfortune that the little force we have is in such a wretched state for want of clothing. More than one half our numbers are in a manner naked, so much so that we cannot put them on the least kind of duty. Indeed, there is a great number that have not a rag of clothes on them, except a little piece of blanket, in the Indian form, around their waists."[116]

The military weakness of this "slaveholding community" is but too apparent. As I show its occasion, you will join with me in amazement that a Senator from South Carolina should attribute Independence to anything "slaveholding." The records of the country, and various voices, all disown his vaunt for Slavery. The State of South Carolina itself, by authentic history, disowns it. I give the proofs.

The first is from the debate on the Confederation in the Continental Congress, as early as July, 1776, when the following passage occurred, which I quote from "Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress in 1775 and 1776," preserved by John Adams. Mr. Lynch, a young representative of South Carolina, showing the sensibilities, if not the evil spirit, engendered by Slavery, speaking in behalf of the Southern States, said: "If it is debated whether their slaves are their property, there is an end of the Confederation. Our slaves being our property, why should they be taxed more than the land, sheep, cattle, horses, &c.?" Without noticing the menace against the Confederation, the beginning of a long line, Franklin replied, with sententious authority: "Slaves rather weaken than strengthen the State, and there is therefore some difference between them and sheep. Sheep will never make any insurrections."[117] Franklin touched the point.

And now listen, if you please, to peculiar and decisive testimony, under date of 29th March, 1779, from the Secret Journals of the Continental Congress.

"The Committee appointed to take into consideration the circumstances of the Southern States, and the ways and means for their safety and defence, report, ... That the State of South Carolina (as represented by the Delegates to the said State, and by Mr. Huger, who has come hither at the request of the Governor of the said State, on purpose to explain the particular circumstances thereof) is UNABLE to make any effectual efforts with militia, by reason of the great proportion of citizens necessary to remain at home, to prevent insurrections among the negroes, and to prevent the desertion of them to the enemy; that the state of the country, and the great numbers of those people among them, expose the inhabitants to great danger, from the endeavors of the enemy to excite them either to revolt or desert."[118]

Here is South Carolina secretly disclosing her military weakness, and its ignoble occasion: thus repudiating in advance the vaunt of her Senator, who finds strength and gratulation in Slavery rather than in Freedom. It was during the war, and in the confessional of the Continental Congress, that, on bended knees, she shrived herself. But the same ignominious confession was made, some time after the war, in open debate, on the floor of Congress, by Mr. Burke, a Representative from South Carolina.

"There is not a gentleman on the floor who is a stranger to the feeble situation of our State, when we entered into the war to oppose the British power. We were not only without money, without an army or military stores, but we were few in number, and likely to be entangled with our domestics, in case the enemy invaded us."[119]

Similar testimony to this weakness was borne by Mr. Madison in open debate in Congress.

"Every addition they [Georgia and South Carolina] receive to their number of slaves tends to weaken, and render them less capable of self-defence."[120]

The historian of South Carolina, Dr. Ramsay, a contemporary observer of the very scenes which he describes, to whom I have already referred, also exposes this weakness.

"The forces under the command of General Prevost marched through the richest settlements of the State, where are the fewest white inhabitants in proportion to the number of slaves. The hapless Africans, allured with hopes of freedom, forsook their owners, and repaired in great numbers to the royal army. They endeavored to recommend themselves to their new masters by discovering where their owners had concealed their property, and were assisting in carrying it off."[121]

The same candid historian, describing the invasion of the next year, says:—

"The slaves a second time flocked to the British army."[122]

At a still later day, Mr. Justice Johnson, of the Supreme Court of the United States, and a citizen of South Carolina, in his elaborate Life of General Greene, speaking of negro slaves, makes the same unhappy admission. He says:—

"But the number dispersed through these [Southern] States was very great,—so great as to render it impossible for the citizens to muster freemen enough to withstand the pressure of the British arms."[123]

Here is illustration from an English pamphlet entitled "Account of the Duckenfield Hall Estate Negroes, 1806, Law Case," where will be found the following incident.

"In 1779 I bought ten negroes, which, with sixty others, were taken by a privateer from a plantation in South Carolina."

Thus from every quarter are we conducted to the same conclusion.

And all this cumulative and unimpeachable testimony is reinforced by testimony of an earlier day, also from South Carolina. The Assembly of the Colony represented to the King, in 1734, that they were

"Subject to many intestine dangers from the great number of negroes that are now among us."[124]

Another representation shortly afterwards declared:—

"If any stop be put to the exportation of rice from South Carolina to Europe, it ... may render the whole Colony an easy prey to their neighbors, the Indians and Spaniards, and also to those yet more dangerous enemies, their own negroes, who are ready to revolt on the first opportunity, and are eight times as many in number as there are white men able to bear arms."[125]

Thus was it before, as during the Revolution,—weakness always, nothing but weakness.

And this is precisely according to human experience. It was in South Carolina as it had been in other lands where Slavery prevailed. Here I read the testimony of a remarkable writer, Archbishop Whately.

"For if there be any one truth which the deductions of reason alone, independent of history, would lead us to anticipate, and which again history alone would establish independently of antecedent reasoning, it is this: that a whole class of men placed permanently under the ascendency of another as subjects, without the rights of citizens, must be a source, at the best, of weakness, and generally of danger, to the State.... It is notorious, accordingly, how much Sparta was weakened and endangered by the Helots, always ready to avail themselves of any public disaster as an occasion for revolt."[126]

The Archbishop then recalls how Hannibal for sixteen years maintained himself in Italy against the Romans, and, though scantily supplied from Carthage, recruited his ranks by the aid of Roman subjects. Truly does he say that every page of history teaches the same lesson, and proclaims in every different form, "How long shall these men be a snare unto us?"[127]—and also, "The remnant of these nations which thou shalt not drive out shall be pricks in thine eyes and thorns in thy side."[128]

Surely, Sir, this is enough, and more. From authentic documents, including the very muster-rolls of the Revolution, we learn the small contributions of men and the military weakness of the Southern States, particularly of South Carolina, as compared with the Northern States; and from the very lips of South Carolina herself, on four different occasions,—by a Committee, by one of her Representatives in Congress, by her historian, and by an eminent citizen,—we have the confession, not only of weakness, but that this weakness was caused by Slavery. And yet, in the face of this combined and authoritative testimony, we are called to listen, in the American Senate, to the arrogant boast, from a venerable Senator, that American Independence was achieved by the arms and treasure of "slaveholding communities": an assumption baseless as the fabric of a vision, in any way it may be interpreted,—whether as meaning baldly that Independence was achieved by those Southern States, the peculiar home of Slavery, or that it was achieved by any strength or influence which came from that noxious source. Sir, I speak here for a Commonwealth of just renown, but I speak also for a cause which is more than any Commonwealth, even that which I represent; and I cannot allow the Senator to discredit either. Not by Slavery, but in spite of Slavery, was Independence achieved. Not because, but notwithstanding, there were "slaveholding communities," did triumph descend upon our arms. It was the inspiration of Liberty Universal that conducted us through the Red Sea of the Revolution, as it had already given to the Declaration of Independence its mighty tone, resounding through the ages. "Let it be remembered," said the Nation, speaking by the voice of the Continental Congress, at the close of the war, "that it has ever been the pride and boast of America, that the rights for which she contended were THE RIGHTS OF HUMAN NATURE."[129] Yes, Sir, in this behalf, and by this sign, we conquered.

Such, Sir, is my answer on this head to the Senator from South Carolina. If the work which I undertook has been done thoroughly, he must not blame me. Justice demanded that it should be thorough. But, while thus repelling insinuations against Massachusetts, and assumptions for Slavery, I would not unnecessarily touch the sensibilities of that Senator, or of the State which he represents. I cannot forget, that, amidst all diversities of opinion, we are bound together by ties of a common country,—that Massachusetts and South Carolina are sister States, and that the concord of sisters ought to prevail between them; but I am constrained to declare, that, throughout this debate, I have sought in vain any token of that just spirit which within the sphere of its influence is calculated to promote the concord whether of State or of individuals.

And now, for the present, I part with the venerable Senator from South Carolina. Pursuing his inconsistencies, and exposing them to judgment, 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 [Mr. 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, permit me to tell him now in this presence, nothing in him can warrant. Sir, I claim little for myself; but I shrink in no respect from any comparison with that 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 attainments, something of his abilities, something of his character,—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 the position which I hold or the name which I have established, when I openly declare, that, as Senator of Massachusetts, and as man, I place myself at every point in unhesitating comparison 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.

Mr. President, I welcome the sensibility which the Senator from Virginia manifests at the exposure of the Fugitive Slave Act. He is the author of that enormity. From his brain came forth the soulless monster. He is, therefore, its natural guardian. The Senator is, I believe, a lawyer. And now, since at last he shows parental solicitude to shield his offspring, he must do more than vainly parry the objection that it denies the great writ of Habeas Corpus. It is true, Sir, if anything but Slavery were in question, such an objection, if merely plausible, would be fatal; but it is not to be supposed that the partisans of an institution founded on denial of human rights can appreciate the proper efficacy of that writ. Sir, I challenge the Senator to defend his progeny,—not by assertion, but by reason. Let him rally all the ability, learning, and subtilty which he can command, and undertake the impossible work.

Let him answer this objection: The Constitution, by an amendment which Samuel Adams hailed as a protection against the usurpations of the National Government, and which Jefferson asserted was its very "foundation," has solemnly declared that "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." Stronger words could not be employed to limit the powers under the Constitution, and to protect the people from all assumptions of the National Government, particularly in derogation of Freedom. By the Virginia Resolutions of 1798, which the Senator is reputed to accept, this limitation of the powers of the National Government is recognized and enforced. The Senator himself is understood, on all questions not affecting the claims of Slavery, to espouse this rule in its utmost strictness. Let him now indicate, if he can, any article, clause, phrase, or word in the Constitution which gives to Congress any power to establish a "uniform law throughout the United States" on the subject of fugitive slaves. Let him now show, if he can, from the records of the National Convention, one jot of evidence inclining to any such power. Whatever its interpretation in other respects, the clause on which this bill purports to be founded gives no such power. Sir, nothing can come out of nothing; and the Fugitive Slave Act is, therefore, without any source or origin in the Constitution. It is an open and unmitigated usurpation.

When the veteran Senator of Virginia has answered this objection, when he is able to find in the Constitution a power which is not to be found, and to make us see what is not to be seen, then let him answer another objection. The Constitution has secured the inestimable right of Trial by Jury "in suits at Common Law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars." Of course Freedom is not susceptible of pecuniary valuation; therefore there can be no question that the claim for a fugitive slave is within this condition. In determining what is meant by "suits at Common Law," recourse must be had to the Common Law itself, precisely as we resort to that law in order to determine what is meant by "Trial by Jury." Let the Senator, if he be a lawyer, undertake to show that a claim for a fugitive slave is not, according to early precedents and writs,—well known to the framers of the Constitution, especially to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and John Rutledge, of South Carolina, both of whom had studied law at the Temple,—a suit at Common Law, to which, under the solemn guaranty of the Constitution, is attached the Trial by Jury, as an inseparable incident. Let the Senator show this, if he can.

And, Sir, when the veteran Senator has found a power in the Constitution where none exists, and has set aside the right of Trial by Jury in a suit at Common Law, then let him answer yet another objection. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States, a claim for a fugitive slave is declared to be a case under the Constitution,[130] within the judicial power; and this judgment of the Court is confirmed by common sense and Common Law. Let the Senator show, if he can, how such exalted exercise of judicial power can be confided to a single petty magistrate, appointed, not by the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate, but by the Court,—holding his office, not during good behavior, but merely during the will of the Court,—and receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to each individual case. Let the Senator answer this objection, if, in any way, by twist of learning, logic, or law, he can.

Thus, Sir, do I present the issue directly on this monstrous enactment. Let the author of the Fugitive Slave Bill meet it. He will find me ready to follow him in argument,—though I trust never to be led, even by his example, into any departure from those courtesies of debate which are essential to the harmony of every legislative body.

Such, Mr. President, is my response to all that has been said in this debate, so far as I deem it in any way worthy of attention. To the two associate chieftains in this personal assault, the veteran Senator from Virginia, and the Senator from South Carolina with the silver-white locks, I have replied completely. It is true that others have joined in the cry which these associates first started; but I shall not be tempted further. Some there are best answered by silence, best answered by withholding the words which leap impulsively to the lips. [Here Mr. Sumner turned to Mr. Mallory and Mr. Clay.]

And now, giving to oblivion all these things, let me, as I close, dwell on a single aspect of this discussion, which will render it memorable. On former occasions like this, the right of petition has been vehemently assailed or practically denied. Only two years ago, memorials for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, presented by me, were laid on your table, Mr. President, without reference to any Committee. All is changed now. Senators have condemned the memorial, and sounded in our ears the cry of "Treason! treason!"—but thus far, throughout this excited debate, no person has so completely outraged the spirit of our institutions, or forgotten himself, as to persevere in objecting to the reception of the memorial, and its proper reference. It is true, the remonstrants and their representatives here are treated with indignity; but the great right of petition, the sword and buckler of the citizen, though thus dishonored, is not denied. Here, Sir, is a triumph for Freedom.

When Mr. Sumner had finished, Mr. Clay, of Alabama, made haste to say, "He has put the question, whether any Senator upon this floor would assist in returning a fugitive slave? No response was made to the interrogatory; and lest he should herald it to the world that there was no Senator upon this floor who had the moral courage to say 'Ay,' in response to the interrogatory, I tell him that I would do it." To which Mr. Sumner replied at once, "Then let the Senator say the immoral courage."

Mr. Butler rose to reply, when Mr. Badger asked his "friend from South Carolina, whether it would not be better for him to allow us now to adjourn?" To which Mr. Butler answered: "No, Sir; I would not subject myself to the temptation of preparing a reply that might have something in it, that, like a hyena, I was scratching at the graves in Massachusetts, to take revenge for the elaborate and vindictive assault that has been made by the gentleman who has just spoken." The Globe shows his continued anger and excitement, which broke out especially at the comparison Mr. Sumner made between the Stamp Act and the Slave Act, and at his refusal to surrender a fugitive slave. These seemed to be the two grounds of offence. On the latter point, Mr. Butler, contrary to Mr. Sumner's positive declaration, was persistent in saying that he had denied the obligation of his oath to support the Constitution, when he had only denied his obligation to surrender a fugitive slave. At this stage, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, remarked: "The answer made by the Senator from Massachusetts was in these precise words: 'I recognize no such obligation.' I did not understand that Senator as meaning to say that he would not obey the Constitution, or would disregard his oath,—nor, allow me to say, was he so understood by many gentlemen on this side of the chamber; but he simply meant to say (I certainly so understood him) that he did not consider that the Constitution imposed any such obligation upon him. That is all." Before the debate closed, Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, said: "I beg leave to ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether he now recognizes an obligation to return a fugitive slave? I put the question in general language: Does he recognize the obligation to return a fugitive slave?" Mr. Sumner then said, "To that I answer distinctly, No." The petition was then referred to the Committee.

As Mr. Sumner resumed his seat, after his speech in reply to his assailants, Mr. Chase, who sat next to him, said: "You have struck Slavery the strongest blow it ever received; you have made it reel to the centre." The rage of its representatives was without bounds. The suggestion of Mr. Pettit to expel him was the first idea, which at last gave way to that of Mr. Clay to put him in Coventry. The first was not abandoned at once. It was seriously entertained. The newspapers of the time represent that it was under consideration from the day of his speech,—that "the opposition to Mr. Sumner is general and bitter in the Senate, and that it would be rash, therefore, to assert that the resolution will not be presented, and that, if presented, it will not be carried." It was added, that four Northern Senators were pledged to the resolution. The Evening Post said, jestingly: "The Washington Union, and those of whom it is the special organ, are as much puzzled what to do with Senator Sumner as the Lilliputians were how to dispose of Mr. Lemuel Gulliver, when he made his appearance among them." Other papers treated the subject more gravely. The National Era, at Washington, said: "When we heard that a project for the expulsion of Mr. Sumner was under consideration among some Senators, we scouted the report as simply ridiculous; but there is no limit to the insolence and folly of some men. On inquiry, we learned that such a project was seriously canvassed."

This debate was profoundly felt throughout the country. Mr. Sumner's speech was telegraphed to the North, and extensively read. People there were smarting under the repeal of the Missouri Prohibition and the attempt to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. They were glad to find the audacious pretensions of the slave-masters repelled in Congress. Newspapers were enthusiastic. The correspondent of the New York Times wrote:—

"This able, triumphant vindication, which covered the assailants with confusion, told with the more effect because it was unexpected. It had been supposed that Mr. Sumner would submit quietly to any indignity that might be heaped upon him; but the people, doubtless, when they read his speech, will acknowledge that he held in reserve, and knew when and how to use, weapons of defence far keener than the bowie-knife, and far more certain and fatal than the duellist's rifle; and his countrymen will honor the moral courage that enabled him to bear unflinchingly all the cruel taunts of his misreckoning assailants, until the time had arrived for drawing the arrows of Truth.... I have not been accustomed to praise the Senator who is now my theme; but that heart must be cold, and that judgment lamentably distorted, which could withhold from Mr. Sumner his well-earned tribute for to-day's acquittance."

The Springfield Republican thus characterizes the speech:—

"Curiosity has been greatly stimulated to see it in full, and it will amply repay attention. Mr. Sumner has made more brilliant, classical, scholarly speeches, but never one more effective, nor one upon which his fame as Congressional debater can more creditably rest. It was a full vindication of himself and of Massachusetts, and its influence and effect have been marked at Washington. It ended the discussion which the South so vauntingly provoked. There has been no essay at reply. It carried the war into the bowels of his opponents in a manner not ordinarily excusable, but, after the provocation which had been given, in this instance most abundantly justifiable. His annihilation of his accusers was complete."

In a speech at Providence shortly afterwards, Mr. Giddings, of the House of Representatives, referred to this effort, which he heard, in sympathetic terms.

"They assailed Sumner because he said, 'Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?' in reply to the question, whether he would assist in the capture of a fugitive slave? He was assailed by the whole Slave Power in the Senate, and for a time he was the constant theme of their vituperation. The maddened waves rolled and dashed against him for two or three days, until eventually he obtained the floor himself. Then he arose and threw back the dashing surges with a power of inimitable eloquence utterly indescribable.... I assure you that last week was the proudest week I ever saw. Sumner stood inimitable, and hurled back the taunts of his assailants with irresistible force. There he stood towering above the infamous characters who had attempted to silence him, while I sat and listened with rapturous emotion."

The interest awakened by the conflict in the Senate and the part borne by Mr. Sumner can be understood only by reading the testimony of the time in private letters, which have additional value in the light of subsequent events. It will be seen how Mr. Sumner was supported, and what already was the sentiment of the North.

Letters came from unknown persons, saying, "I want to thank you for that speech." On the next day after its delivery Rev. Theodore Parker wrote:—

"I never felt so proud of you as now, and can't go to bed without first thanking you for the noble words which Apthorp has just read me of yours from the Transcript of to-night. Even phlegmatic——is roused up with your fire. God bless you!"

Hon. John P. Hale, of the Senate, wrote from Dover, N.H., under date of July 3d:—

"As I came from Washington to this place, in New York, Boston, and in steamboats and railroad cars, I heard but one expression in regard to your speech, and that was of unmingled gratification. I have heard all classes, Whigs and others, and there is no exception. Ladies particularly are in ecstasies at it. Mrs. Hale says, 'Give him my thanks for his speech.' The feeling of gratification at your speech is so great, that people do not think, much less speak, of the Billingsgate by which you were assailed."

Hon. Henry Wilson thus expressed his feelings in a letter from Boston:—

"I write to say to you that you have given the heaviest blow you ever struck to the slaveholding oligarchy. All our friends are delighted, and men, who, even up to this hour have withheld all words of commendation, are proud of your speech, and loud in their commendations."

John A. Andrew, Esq., wrote:—

"Your recent rencontre with the wild beasts of Ephesus has been a brilliant success. I have regarded that debate with pride and gratification. I am glad it has occurred for many reasons, private and personal, as well as public and universal. And I have heard no person refer to it but in terms the most gratifying to my friendship for you, and my interest in the controversy itself. I think our friends here are in good spirits and full of hope.

"How do those people treat you now, since they have come to close quarters with you? I hope you will spare not. You had ample occasion, and now I hope you will keep up the war aggressively; never fail to attack them, in the right way, whenever they deserve it. The insolence of the presumption to stand between a man and his own conscientious interpretation of the Constitution, especially when they defiantly and every day dare everybody to tread on their coat-tails, at the price of treason and rebellion, under the name of 'disunion,' is utterly unbearable.

"I only wish they would expel you, and Chase, and Gillette,—all three."

Wendell Phillips was most earnest, as follows:—

"The storm of letters of congratulation is perhaps lulled a little by this time, and you'll have a moment's leisure to receive the admiring thanks of an old friend. Amid so much that was sad and dark at home, it has been delightful to sun one's self now and then in the glad noon of hope at Washington. The whole State is very proud of you just now. If your six years were out this next winter, I think you'd be run in again without a competitor, and by a vote of all parties.

"All your late efforts have been grand: see the benefit of being insulted. Your last richly merited the claim you made of being thorough. I liked and entirely approved the self-respect with which you put your own opinion side by side with the Virginian's and left it. You claimed not a tittle too much, and he deserved just that sort of treatment.

"If, amid such universal congratulation, it be any joy to you to hear my amen, be assured it is most heartily shouted."

Rev. Joshua Leavitt, the lifelong Abolitionist, wrote from New York:—

"I have just read the full report of your speech with intense satisfaction. It is a glorious work. The report, the echo, the effect in the other fleet, shows that it was such a broadside as they never had before."

John Jay wrote from Bedford, New York, the country home of his grandfather, the Chief Justice:—

"I have read your speech of the 28th June with, I think, more thorough satisfaction and delight than any other in my life, not excepting even your first speech on the Fugitive Bill, for which I waited so impatiently, as your first great blow in the Senate against American Slavery. Your last is a glorious, a most triumphant effort, and has given you a proud and commanding position before the country, as the long hoped-for Champion of the North, before whose fearless front and avenging arm Southern insolence at length shall quail. How the Free States will receive your words is already clear, if doubt could have been entertained of it, by the tone generally of the public press, and the delight manifested, both in the town and country, by almost all who speak of it. In our quiet neighborhood I find people talking of it enthusiastically whom I never before heard express the slightest feeling on the Slavery question."

Rev. Convers Francis, the eminent professor of Harvard University, wrote:—

"When I came to that answer of yours, 'Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?' I could not but cry out, 'That is just the thing! Mr. Sumner could not have found in all literature or history elsewhere so fitting words for reply, when he was asked whether he would send back a slave.' And your admirable application of Jefferson's description of the manners produced by Slavery did my very heart good. I have heard but one opinion of these speeches from every side: indeed, there can be but one,—that which expresses unmingled admiration and delight."

Dr. Joseph Sargent, of Worcester, wrote:—

"You must allow me to thank you for your reply to the assaults of Mr. Pettit and Mr. Clay. It is a personal matter with me, and all of us; for we have felt ourselves insulted, and we are satisfied. I have read all your speeches in the Senate with instruction and gratification; but this has warmed me so that I cannot withhold my thanks, though I trespass on your time. The whole community feels as I do. Men stop their business to ask each other if they have read Mr. Sumner's speech, and even men calling on me to visit their sick families forget their errand till they have put the universal question. We have hitherto admired your forbearance, but your reply is as dignified and noble as your forbearance, while it is strong, rich, and Saxon. We have had nothing like it since the Hülsemann letter. I will say no more, but I could say no less."

Theophilus P. Chandler, Esq., of Boston, wrote:—

"I cannot express the pleasure your friends have enjoyed at the result of the late Senatorial conflict. Old Fogies read your speech with satisfaction, although some complain of the Jackson doctrine."

Count Gurowski wrote from Newport:—

"You showed what is the real backbone of a gentleman, considered in the higher moral or philosophical point of view, by far superior to what your assailers conceive or are able to imagine in their vulgar or low conceptions."

Rev. William H. Furness, the distinguished divine and devoted Abolitionist, wrote:—

"I congratulate you upon having been blackguarded and denounced. It has redounded to your honor. It has proved a rare success. I think you should thank God for placing you, in his wise Providence, in a position which, utterly hateful as it must be to you (fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus), proves to furnish occasion for the heroic element. I can dimly surmise how much it costs you to stand there; but I doubt not the experience you are having testifies that it will pay the cost, and a great deal more. I may be mistaken, but, from all I have learned of your position in the Senate, things look as if those Southern men, after trying to steal your sting away by all sorts of courtliness and courtesy, and trying in vain, have turned upon you like rabid dogs, with the intent to tear you in pieces. They have not done it, nor will they."

Hiram Barney, Esq., of New York, wrote:—

"I congratulate you on that day's work. It was well and nobly done. I have seen something of your assailants, and know something of their habits and manners, and can appreciate your forbearance. It is a shame that you should be obliged to meet so much that is disgusting to the taste and shocking to the moral sense in the American Senate. But it is a matter of just pride that the friends of Freedom there are gentlemen, and always win upon the field of argument."

William C. Russell, Esq., of New York, afterwards professor at Cornell University, wrote:—

"I am delighted beyond measure by your reply to the Southern chivalry. It is grand, gentlemanly, cool, pointed, well aimed, and true metal. I do not wonder that Mr. Butler did not want to play vampire to Massachusetts. The fact is, it is getting to be rather serious work to interfere with the old Commonwealth; and I shall be surprised, if the Southern bull-dogs do not bay in some other quarter."

Hon. Charles P. Huntington, of Northampton, afterwards Judge of the Superior Court of the County of Suffolk, wrote:—

"I have been, as usual, exceedingly gratified with the manner, style, and spirit in which you have met your Senatorial responsibilities on this trying Nebraska question. But the reply to the personal attacks and insults of Butler and Mason last week has gratified me more than anything that has fallen from your lips,—so severe, yet so just,—so cutting, yet so keen and polished,—so decided, manly, and bold,—so indicative of backbone, as well as pith and marrow, that your adversaries were fairly hung up and impaled."

Hon. Charles G. Loring, the eminent lawyer, wrote:—

"Your reply to the Southern gentlemen, who seem to think that a Northern man must be craven, elicited general and great admiration. I heartily enjoyed it, and think that Mr. Mason must have had at least one experience in his life of the comfort of being squeezed through the little end of the horn. You will doubtless be treated with some consideration by these worthies hereafter. In what school of blackguardism was Clay of Alabama graduated? He certainly is a magnificent specimen of Southern chivalry. You would have great reason to thank him for placing you in Coventry, at a distance beyond hailing from him and his compeers."

Andrew Ritchie, Esq., of Boston, wrote:—

"These gentlemen have been unfortunate in attacking you. You have punished them in a most exemplary manner, without descending to their vulgar level. You have exposed their ignorance of our Revolutionary history, vindicated the character of your own State, and brought forward, to their utter confusion, their own General Jackson, to justify your remark that you would not voluntarily do anything to promote the execution of what you deemed an unconstitutional law. In a word, you have taught these orators how much more effective is a caustic civility of reply than coarse, intemperate reviling."

Hon. S.E. Sewall, the constant Abolitionist, of Boston, wrote:—

"It is hardly necessary for me to tell you, what you probably see in the newspapers, that you have become one of the most popular men in Massachusetts. Even the Whigs are beginning to find out that you have maintained the character of the State far better than their own Senator.

"I suppose the idea of expelling you from the Senate, which was reported in the papers some weeks ago, could never have been seriously entertained. But the mere suggestion of such an outrage roused many men who had never been your political friends; for everybody felt that to attempt such an act would be an indignity to the State not to be tolerated.

"I find that I have left to the end of my letter, what I meant to have said in the beginning, that all your friends are delighted with your course in Congress under the very trying circumstances of the present session. We all agree that you have fought a good fight."

William I. Bowditch, Esq., of Boston, communicated the following incident:—

"One gentleman whom I saw this forenoon said that he involuntarily gave three cheers, when he had finished reading your speech; and an 'old Hunker' said to me smilingly, 'I really don't know but that I shall myself come out at last a Sumner man.'"

Dr. James W. Stone, an indefatigable member of the Free-Soil party, wrote:—

"But I should not only fail to express my own feelings, but also the universal satisfaction here evinced, did I long delay to tell you, even if I have time to do nothing more, how great the enthusiasm is in your behalf, for your noble reply to the unworthy assaults from Pettit, whose name is more significant of his mental than of his physical calibre, from Butler the faithless, and from Clay the slave-hunter, et id omne genus. I doubt whether even you can repress the enthusiasm which so earnestly demands a public reception for you on your return home."

Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, afterwards General, and Representative in Congress, wrote:—

"My interest in the subject of the speeches procured me the reports while they were being delivered. At that time I was at Concord, in court, seeing people of all parties; and I can assure you, from observation, that your course in the Senate is sanctioned by the approving sentiment of Massachusetts."

Robert Carter, Esq., the journalist and writer, wrote from Cambridge:—

"A month ago I thought your popularity had reached a wonderfully high pitch, that you had at a leap overcome prejudices and misconceptions that seemed likely to be surmounted only by the gradual toil of years. But the last week has wrought even greater wonders. Multitudes, formerly your enemies and revilers, are not merely willing to tolerate you, not merely willing to be satisfied with you, but have become actually proud of you, as their representative, and the champion of Massachusetts and the North. I hear on all sides nothing but commendations and exultations."

John C. Dodge, Esq., of Boston, wrote:—

"I rejoice that Massachusetts has found a defender who will, without fear or favor, tell the whole truth, when she is assailed. And I assure you that such is the voice of nearly our whole community. Whigs, Democrats, and Free-Soilers unite in the expression of approbation and pleasure."

Hon. Albert G. Browne, of Salem, wrote:—

"Let me say seriously, frankly, your reputation as a fearless, brave, and true man is firmly established,—confidence also in your discretion and good judgment, as shown in this last debate and in the management of this whole affair. There is a settled conviction that you know how to withstand the entreaties or coolness of friends, when your thoughts are not their thoughts,—that you have shown great moral and physical courage, united with admirable ability, in meeting and discomfiting the foes of Freedom, when, in your opinion, the right time had come."

Professor Edward T. Channing, of Harvard University, whose memory is dear to a large circle of pupils, wrote to a friend:—

"Sumner has done nobly. He is erect and a man of authority among the slave holders, dealers, and hunters. He has made an historical era for the North; for at least one among us has dared to confront the insolent. He makes cowards of them, or rather shows what cowards they are at the South. So will it ever be, when the Truth is bold; though it is rare for a young or old hero in politics to produce effect so rapidly. Still, and notwithstanding, and nevertheless, our Whigs would send Apollyon to the Senate as soon as Sumner, if his term should expire when they are uppermost."

T.C. Connolly, Esq., under date of August 21, reported from Washington the opinion of Mr. Gales, the very able editor of the National Intelligencer.

"I rejoice in the assurance universally felt here, that your position in the Senate will be far more pleasant in the future than it has been in the past. I enjoyed the pleasure of a conversation with Mr. Gales on this subject a few days since. He introduced your name, and remarked that the absence of sympathy in your views could not influence his fair judgment of your worth. He was an attentive reader of the debates of the Senate, and he had seen that every step you had taken was a step upward, and that they who had affected to contemn were at length driven into a tacit acknowledgment of their very great error. He spoke in particular of the reproofs you had found it necessary to administer to Senators around you, and said, that, while they were exceedingly severe and effective, they were equally just, and unaccompanied by a single word that could be regarded as incompatible with the place and presence in which you stood."