Volume 12 — NO RECONSTRUCTION WITHOUT THE VOTES OF THE BLACKS.

Remarks in the Senate, on the Resolution recognizing the new State Government of Louisiana, February 24, 25, and 27, 1865.

February 18th, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, reported the following resolution, which, at the request of Mr. Sumner, was read:—

“Resolved, &c., That the United States do hereby recognize the Government of the State of Louisiana, inaugurated under and by the Convention which assembled on the 6th day of April, A. D. 1864, at the city of New Orleans, as the legitimate Government of the said State, and entitled to the guaranties and all other rights of a State Government under the Constitution of the United States.”

The admission of the State, as here proposed, had the favor of President Lincoln. It was earnestly opposed by Mr. Sumner, as not republican in origin or form, and furnishing no security for the rights of colored persons.

February 23d, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, the Senate proceeded to consider the resolution, when Mr. Sumner moved the following substitute:—

“That neither the people nor the Legislature of any State, the people of which were declared to be in insurrection against the United States by the Proclamation of the President, dated August 16, 1861, shall hereafter elect Representatives or Senators to the Congress of the United States, until the President, by proclamation, shall have declared that armed hostility to the Government of the United States within such State has ceased, nor until the people of such State shall have adopted a Constitution of Government not repugnant to the Constitution and laws of the United States, nor until, by a law of Congress, such State shall have been declared to be entitled to representation in the Congress of the United States of America.”

This was lost,—Yeas 8, Nays 29.

February 24th, Mr. Lane, of Kansas, moved that the resolution be made the special order for the next day at one o’clock. In the debate on this motion the following colloquy occurred.

Mr. Sumner. If we are to make any special order for to-morrow, I think it should be the bill which the Senate has most maturely considered, and on which it is most prepared to vote, known as the Railroad Bill, in charge of my friend from Michigan [Mr. Chandler]. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] came forward with his measure——

Mr. Conness. Will my friend permit me—I know he will—to appeal to him not to waste the fifteen minutes we have left in discussing the order of business, but let us take a vote?…

Several Senators (to Mr. Sumner). Give up.

Mr. Sumner. Senators say, “Give up.” That is not my habit.

Mr. Conness. We know that. [Laughter.]

Mr. Lane (of Kansas). Will the Senator from Massachusetts permit me to withdraw my motion?

Mr. Sumner. If the motion is withdrawn, I have nothing further to say.

Mr. Lane. I withdraw the motion.

The motion to postpone was not pressed, and the resolution came up in regular order. After an elaborate speech against it by Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, obtained the floor, when his colleague, Mr. Chandler, moved to proceed with the bill to regulate commerce among the States, known as the Railroad Bill. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke of the latter bill as “a reality,” and called the resolution “a shadow.” Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, vindicated the resolution as “the great measure of this Congress,” and said, “It is not for the Senator from Massachusetts, with all his boastful friendship for Freedom and free States, to join hands with the Senator from Kentucky, and undertake to prevent the recognition of the free State of Louisiana.” In reply, Mr. Sumner said:—

This measure, I say, Sir, is a shadow. So far as it is calculated to exercise any influence, it is to bring disaster. Sir, I do not stand here as a prophet, and I will not at this moment, on this incidental question, be carried into debate; but I warn the Senator from Wisconsin, as he loves Human Freedom, ay, Sir, as he represents a State dedicated to Freedom, to hesitate, before he throws his influence on the side of such a proposition, opening the way to an ominous future.

Sir, I am not disposed to go on, and yet there is one other remark of the Senator to which I must reply. The Senator insists constantly upon foisting an unconstitutional idea in the way of establishing Emancipation throughout this country. He says the vote of Louisiana is needed to the Constitutional Amendment. Sir, the vote of Louisiana is not needed; and when the Senator makes the assertion, he interposes an obstacle to the Amendment. Is he a friend to it? Why, then, interpose an obstacle by an untenable and erroneous interpretation of the Constitution? The Constitution declares that an Amendment shall become to all intents and purposes a part of the Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States.

Mr. Doolittle. “When ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.”

Mr. Sumner. Very well,—“when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States”; but if no Legislatures exist in States, will the Senator make that an excuse for avoiding the establishment of the Amendment? I will not recognize the Rebellion to such extent; I will not recognize the independence of the Rebel States, as the Senator does. I insist, Sir, that these States shall not control the National Government at this moment, in this great period of our history, and thwart the establishment of human freedom throughout the land.

After remarks from other Senators, the motion to take up the Railroad Bill was lost,—Yeas 10, Nays 25. Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, made an elaborate speech in favor of the admission, claiming that its Constitution was republican in form, in the course of which the following colloquy occurred.

Mr. Henderson. The Senator from Kentucky thinks the Constitution of Louisiana is the offspring of military usurpation, but he does not say that the Constitution itself is antirepublican.

Mr. Sumner. I do.

Mr. Henderson. You do?

Mr. Sumner. Certainly.

Mr. Henderson. In what particular? Mr. President, I have been in the Senate for nearly four years, and I believe now candidly that the Rebellion is about at an end, and, if there were no other evidence of it, that evidence would be presented to-night in the close alliance and affiliation of my friend from Massachusetts and my friend from Kentucky. Truly, the lion and the lamb have lain down together.

Mr. Johnson (of Maryland). Who is the lion, and who is the lamb?

Mr. Henderson. That is for the gentlemen themselves to settle. [Laughter.] The Senator from Massachusetts says that these State Constitutions are not republican in form. Will he tell me in what respect?

Mr. Sumner. Because they do not follow out the principles of the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Henderson. I should like to know in what particular. The answer is a very general one, indeed. He refuses, then, to specify. The Senator can answer more particularly hereafter, if he chooses. He says these Constitutions do not follow the Constitution of the United States. I have looked over them, and I find no objection to them.… The Senator from Massachusetts says the act of secession took the States out. In the name of sense, cannot the act of the loyal men bring them back?…

Mr. Sumner. Does the Senator refer to me as having ever said that the act of secession took a State out?

Mr. Henderson. I understand the Senator to claim that these States are in a territorial condition,—that they are not States,—that, by losing their State Governments in the act of secession, they lose their specific identity as States.

Mr. Sumner. I would rather the Senator should use my language than his own, when he undertakes to state my position. I have never said that any act of secession took a State out. I have always said just the contrary. No act of secession can take a State out of this Union. Whatever may be attempted, the State continues under the Constitution of the United States, subject to all its requirements and behests. The Government of the State is subverted by secession; the Senator does not recognize the existing Government as legal or constitutional, any more than I do. Where, then, is the difference between us? There is no Government which he or I recognize; but we do hold that the whole region, the whole territory, is under the Constitution, to be protected and governed by it.

Mr. Henderson. The Senator, then, admits that the States are in the Union. Now I ask him if we can restore the Union without restoring State Governments in the seceded States.

Mr. Sumner. That is the desire I have most at heart. I wish to restore State Governments in those States.

Mr. Henderson. Then I desire to ask the Senator, if the loyal men in one of those States acquiesce in the Constitution presented here, are they not entitled to govern the State under it?

Mr. Sumner. If the loyal men, white and black, recognize it, then it will be republican in form. Unless that is done, it will not be.

Mr. Henderson. Now, Mr. President, I desire to ask the Senator if the Congress of the United States can interfere with the right of suffrage in one of the American States of this Union. I put the question to him as a constitutional lawyer.

Mr. Sumner. I answer at once, as a constitutional lawyer, that at the present time, under the words of the Constitution of the United States, declaring that the United States shall guaranty to every State a republican form of government, it is the bounden duty of the United States by Act of Congress to guaranty complete freedom to every citizen, immunity from all oppression, and absolute equality before the law. No Government failing to guaranty these things can be recognized as republican in form, when the United States are called to enforce the constitutional guaranty.

In the course of the speech of Mr. Henderson, this further colloquy occurred.

Mr. Henderson. To secure national supremacy, you must have the aid of State authority. For legitimate State authority you must rely upon the loyal voters.

Mr. Sumner. There is where I agree precisely with the Senator; and I should like to hold him to it. He says the loyal men must form the Government, and we should recognize that Government; and yet he insists upon a mere oligarchy forming it, and an oligarchy of the skin.

Mr. Henderson. The Senator says he agrees with me in my position, but insists that I am in favor of an oligarchy. If I am in favor of an oligarchy, and he agrees with me, then he also wants an oligarchy. [Laughter.]

Mr. Sumner. The Senator plays upon words.

Mr. Henderson continued at length, answering various objections to the Louisiana State Government on account of irregularity in the proceedings. Upon his statement that the failure of the Rebels to vote did not harm the great principles of Republicanism, the following passage occurred.

Mr. Sumner. It was the failure of loyal citizens to vote that did the damage.

Mr. Henderson. I answer that by asking, What loyal men did General Banks prevent from voting?

Mr. Sumner. All the colored race.

At a late hour Mr. Henderson concluded, and the Senate adjourned.

February 25th, the Senate proceeded with the resolution, when Mr. Sumner sent to the Chair resolutions which he proposed to offer as a substitute, declaring the duty of the States to guaranty republican governments in the Rebel States on the basis of the Declaration of Independence,—being the next article in this volume.

Mr. Howard, of Michigan, made an elaborate speech against the resolution, and Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, for it. The latter asked: “Are these States to be governed as provinces? That is the idea of the honorable member from Massachusetts.… Will the honorable member deny that it would be in the power of Massachusetts now to exclude the black? I suppose not; and yet, if by an Act of Congress you place it out of the power of the seceded States, when they come back, under the authority of that Act, to change the qualifications of electors, they will not come back as the equals of Massachusetts.” Then ensued a colloquy.

Mr. Sumner. Allow me to ask the Senator, whether, in his opinion, the Ordinance governing the Northwest Territory, prohibiting Slavery, and declared to be a perpetual compact, could be set aside by any one of the States formed out of the Territory now.

Mr. Johnson. I certainly think they can, except so far as rights are vested.

Mr. Sumner. The Senator, then, thinks Ohio can enslave a fellow-man?

Mr. Johnson. Just as much as Massachusetts can.

Mr. Sumner. Massachusetts cannot.

Mr. Johnson. Why not?

Mr. Sumner. Massachusetts cannot do an act of injustice.

Mr. Johnson. Oh, indeed! I did not know that. [Laughter.]

Mr. Sumner. The Senator ought to know it.

Mr. Johnson. I do not think that is in the Constitution.

Mr. Sumner. I beg the Senator’s pardon; it is in the Constitution.

Mr. Johnson. The United States Constitution, or your State Constitution?

Mr. Sumner. Yes, Sir,—in our State Constitution.

Mr. Johnson. But it is not in the constitution of your people. You sometimes do, or have done, acts of injustice. What I mean to say is this,—and I am sure the honorable member will not be able successfully to controvert it, certainly not by authority,—that there is no difference between the State of Massachusetts and any other State in the Union with reference to its State powers. That is what I mean to say.

Mr. Sumner. I mean to say that the State of Massachusetts has no power to do an act of wrong,—no power constitutionally, morally, politically, or in any way.

Mr. Johnson. What is an act of wrong? Who is to judge of it?

Mr. Sumner. To enslave a fellow-man.

Mr. Johnson. You had them there.

Mr. Sumner. Not since the Constitution.

Afterwards came the following question and answer.

Mr. Sumner. Does the Senator from Maryland, who now calls in question the validity of the Proclamation of Emancipation, question that the Supreme Court of the United States, with its present Chief Justice, would affirm the complete validity of that Proclamation everywhere within the Rebel States strictly according to its letter?

Mr. Johnson. If I am perfectly satisfied, as I am, that the Chief Justice is abundantly capable of filling the high office he has, I do not think he would; but whether he would or not does not settle the question, what the Court would do. He is but one of ten.

At the close of Mr. Johnson’s speech, Mr. Sumner offered the following proviso, to come at the end of the resolution:—

“Provided, That this shall not take effect, except upon the fundamental condition that within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any other rights, on account of color or race, but all persons shall be equal before the law. And the Legislature of the State, by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the State to this fundamental condition, and shall transmit to the President of the United States an authentic copy of such assent, whenever the same shall be adopted; upon the receipt whereof, he shall, by proclamation, announce the fact; whereupon, without any further proceedings on the part of Congress, this joint resolution shall take effect.”

Mr. Sumner remarked, that he desired to call attention to the precedent on which this proviso was modelled, and he was induced to do so from the very elaborate way in which Mr. Johnson had seemed to anticipate it. He has announced that it would be futile; but those who preceded us did not think so; and Mr. Sumner then read the resolution for the admission of Missouri into the Union on a certain condition, where is a proviso, as he insisted, similar in character.

Mr. Henderson moved to amend the proviso by inserting after the word “race” the words “or sex.” Meanwhile occurred a desultory debate, in which the proviso was opposed by Mr. Henderson and Mr. Johnson,—also by Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas. The latter said: “I usually vote for everything that the Senator from Massachusetts brings forward on the Antislavery question; but I am opposed to this amendment,—in the first place, because I do not suppose that we have the right to say what shall be the qualifications of voters in any State in the Union.… I shall vote against all amendments that look like dictation on the part of Congress to any State, whether they will let the right of suffrage be enjoyed by a whole or a part of the people.”

After some time, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, remarked, that it had “got now to be pretty late in the evening,” and he moved that the resolution be postponed till the first Monday in December next. While this was pending, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved an adjournment, which was lost,—Yeas 11, Nays not counted. After debate, the question was put on the motion of Mr. Wade, which was lost,—Yeas 12, Nays 17. Mr. Howard, of Michigan, then moved an adjournment, which was lost,—Yeas 12, Nays 19. Mr. Howard then moved that the whole subject be laid on the table, which was lost,—Yeas 12, Nays 18.

Mr. Sumner. I agree with the Senator from Michigan in the impropriety of pressing a measure of this importance. Perhaps it is the most important measure we have had before us. I shall regard its passage as a national calamity. It will be the political Bull Run of this Administration, sacrificing a great cause and the great destinies of the Republic. I will not go into debate at this time. I think the Senate is not in a condition to vote finally upon it. There are many who would unquestionably like to record their names upon it who are not here. We ought to give them an opportunity. We ought also to give an opportunity for further discussion. It never has been the habit of the Senate, except in those days which we ought not to imitate,——

Mr. Foster (of Connecticut). Will the honorable Senator allow me to ask him a question?

Mr. Sumner. Certainly.

Mr. Foster. I will ask the honorable Senator if he is not fully prepared to vote on the question.

Mr. Sumner. I certainly am prepared to vote on it.

Mr. Foster. I will merely say I am.

Mr. Sumner. … I think, on his account, it would be well that the question should be postponed for another day. It is never too late to mend; and it is not impossible that even the Senator, coming from New England, representing, as I doubt not he does, liberal ideas, devoted as he must be to the cause of Human Freedom and of his country, may think there is something in this question to justify the most mature consideration,—something on which the Senate ought to deliberate carefully, without rushing precipitately to a vote. Sir, this question ought not to be closed to-night, and I therefore move an adjournment; and on that I ask for the yeas and nays.

The motion was lost,—Yeas 11, Nays 18.

Mr. Trumbull then appealed for a vote, saying: “The Senator from Massachusetts has fought it day after day to prevent it coming up; and when a large majority of the Senate has overruled him time and again, and decided that it should come up, he stands here, at half after ten o’clock on Saturday night, making dilatory motions.” He also protested against what he called “manifestations of a determination to browbeat the Senate on the part of a minority.” Mr. Sumner followed.

The Senator from Illinois draws upon his imagination, which, on this occasion, is peculiarly lively. I know not that anybody has undertaken to browbeat. Certainly nobody on the side with which I am associated has done any such thing, or, I believe, imagined doing it.

Mr. Trumbull. I heard it said that there should be no vote to-night.

Mr. Sumner. Well, Sir, is that browbeating?

Mr. Trumbull. I think it is undertaking to decide for the Senate.

Mr. Sumner. Is that browbeating? No, Sir; it is only undertaking to decide the conduct of an individual Senator with regard to an important public measure. The question between the Senator from Illinois and myself is simply this: he wishes to pass the measure, and I do not wish to pass it. He thinks the measure innocent; I think it dangerous, and, thinking it dangerous, I am justified in opposing it, and in employing all the means to be found in our arsenal. But, Sir, I mean to employ them properly and in a parliamentary way. In no other way can I act in this Chamber.

The Senator is entirely mistaken, if he supposes that this measure can be passed to-night. I tell him it cannot. Parliamentary Law is against him; and the importance of the question justifies a resort to every instrument that Parliamentary Law supplies. The Senator knows it well. I need not even suggest it.

And now, Sir, I have to counsel the Senator,—perhaps he would say that I am taking too great a liberty, and even dictating,—but I would first advise the Senator to look at the clock. He will see that on this evening of Saturday it is twenty-five minutes of eleven,—that it is approaching Sunday. Then let him remember that we have been here all day, and ask himself whether, all things considered, it is advisable to press such a revolutionary measure after this protracted session, and at this late hour. I think his better judgment will come to the conclusion that it is not. At any rate, should he not come to that conclusion, I think he will make a mistake, and all his efforts will be fruitless. There is a certain character of Antiquity who was found sowing salt in the sand by the sea-shore, and ploughing it in. The Senator will be engaged in an occupation just about as profitable.

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, then moved a call of the Senate, which being ruled out of order, as never entertained by the Senate, Mr. Sumner moved an adjournment, which was lost,—Yeas 8, Nays 19. In the desultory debate that ensued, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, criticized Mr. Sumner, who replied. Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, followed, and, in the course of his remarks, said: “The question is, What is to be done with the four million negroes, when they are set free? There are Senators upon the Republican side who feel that it is a very troublesome question. That is the trouble here to-night.… The Senator from Massachusetts is determined that none of these States shall ever be heard in the Halls of Congress, until the men who speak from those States speak the voice of the negroes as well as of the white men. Other Senators say that shall not be. We Democrats are a unit upon that question.” On motion of Mr. Lane, of Kansas, the Senate adjourned shortly before midnight, leaving the resolution pending.

February 27th, the resolution came up in regular order, when Mr. Sherman moved to proceed with the Internal Revenue Bill, and then called attention to the Indian Appropriation Bill, the Civil Appropriation Bill, the Tariff Bill, also the Army and Navy Appropriation Bills, all of which must be considered before March 4th, when the session closed. In the debate that followed, Mr. Sumner said:—

Mr. President,—I remember that good fortune last summer threw me in the path of a distinguished gentleman just returned from Louisiana. I think he had been present at the sittings of the Convention whose work finds such an advocate in my friend from Illinois; at any rate, he had been in New Orleans at the time, in the discharge of important public duties. In reply to an inquiry with regard to that Convention, he said compendiously, that it was “nothing but a stupendous hoax,”—yes, Sir, nothing but a stupendous hoax, and the product of that Convention——

Here Mr. Sumner was called to order by Mr. Sherman, for discussing the merits of the measure, when only the order of business was in question. He was also interrupted by Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, who said, that, if the Senate would give him a committee, he would show fraudulent voting.

Mr. Sumner. I doubt not that my friend from Iowa is right; but I am aware that it is not proper to discuss the merits of the question on this preliminary motion, and I shall not. I was simply characterizing it, and I was going on to say that in my opinion the resolution the Senator from Illinois so earnestly presses upon the Senate, when we consider its origin and character, is itself very little different from “a stupendous hoax.” I say nothing about the Convention, for I was not there, I did not see it. On that point I simply cite the testimony of another. But the resolution of the Senator is before us; we are familiar with its nature. Every moment gives new glimpses of the violence and fraud with which it is associated. Perhaps the expression I have quoted is hardly grave enough in speaking of such a matter, where, in forming the Constitution of a State, military power and injustice to a whole race have been enlisted in defiance of the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. The United States are bound by the Constitution to “guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” Being called to perform this guaranty, you are asked to recognize an oligarchy of the skin, and on this very question the Senate is now called to vote.

The pretended State Government in Louisiana is utterly indefensible, whether you look at its origin or its character. To describe it, I must use plain language. It is a mere seven-month’ abortion, begotten by the bayonet in criminal conjunction with the spirit of caste, and born before its time, rickety, unformed, unfinished,—whose continued existence will be a burden, a reproach, and a wrong. That is the whole case; and yet the Senator from Illinois now presses it upon the Senate, to the exclusion of the important public business of the country. For instance,——

Here Mr. Sherman insisted on confining the debate to the pending motion. The vote was then taken, and resulted,—Yeas 34, Nays 12; so the resolution for the admission of Louisiana was postponed, never to be resumed.

During the next Congress, Mr. Sumner urged a bill for the organization of Louisiana, with safeguards for Equal Rights, including suffrage without distinction of color; but the Senate was not inclined to consider it.

The failure of the Louisiana resolution attracted attention at the time. Some journals spoke of Mr. Sumner’s course with severity; others were rejoiced at the result. The New York Herald said:—

“The factious opposition of Mr. Sumner has probably defeated the recognition of the new government of Louisiana by the Senate at the present session, … although probably two thirds of the Senate are in favor of recognition.”

One journal said, in figurative language, that Mr. Sumner had “kicked the pet scheme of the President down the marble steps of the Senate Chamber,” and that, as a consequence, the intimate relations which he had sustained with the President must cease.

President Lincoln was too good a man to be influenced by an honest opposition on political grounds. A few days later, Mr. Sumner received from him the following note.

“Executive Mansion, Washington, March 5, 1865.

“Hon. C. Sumner.

“My dear Sir,—I should be pleased for you to accompany us to-morrow evening, at ten o’clock, on a visit of half an hour to the Inaugural Ball. I enclose a ticket. Our carriage will call for you at half past nine.

“Yours truly,

“A. Lincoln.”

At the appointed time the carriage was at Mr. Sumner’s lodgings. During the ball he was with the Presidential party, which gave occasion to comment; the New York Herald remarking, “It was presumed that the President had indorsed his Reconstruction theories.” There is reason to believe that he had not; but he recognized the right of Mr. Sumner to his own individual judgment.

The following extract from the letter of a newspaper correspondent at Washington illustrates the course of the President towards Mr. Sumner.

“Mrs. Lincoln went down the Potomac this morning for City Point and Richmond, escorted by Mr. Sumner, who remains in Washington to exert his influence in the right direction in closing up the war. Nor let any man suppose that Mr. Sumner’s influence is slight over this Administration, when Congress is in session. I know of no man who has more. The President disagrees entirely with Mr. Sumner in his views respecting Reconstruction. He was almost indignant at the Senator’s course towards Louisiana, adverting to it over and over again in the presence of strangers. But still he respects Mr. Sumner, confers with him, and perhaps fears him. Besides, the Senator has great influence with Mr. Stanton and Mr. Welles. Mr. Sumner is a clever diplomatist, and has always been friendly with Mr. Lincoln. So long as ‘peace negotiations’ are talked of, Mr. Sumner will not leave Washington but for a day or two, I presume.”

The effort of Mr. Sumner on the Louisiana question found a warm and cordial response, as amply appears from letters at the time.

Wendell Phillips wrote from Boston:—

“Though I have but half an hour at home, I cannot let it pass without thanking you for your gallant fight against Louisiana. Your tireless patience in carrying in detail one point after another of the enemy’s defences, all winter long, has not passed without our grateful admiration; the masterly strategy of the last week is the grand and fitting climax,—all the more grateful, because we had been told you felt the resistance so hopeless as to fear you must succumb to the dictation of the Cabinet. We have watched your white plume with fearful delight. Could we only hope this defeat would be final, our joy would be unmixed. At any rate, the effort will bear fruit thousand-fold.”

Hon. Francis W. Bird wrote from Boston:—

“Let me thank you most heartily for your gallant fight against Louisiana. I hope it will be powerful to the end. I can see it was against fearful odds, and all the more splendid.”

Dr. Estes Howe wrote from Cambridge:—

“I don’t trouble you much with letters, but I must thank and congratulate you most warmly on your splendid fight and great victory in the Bogus Louisiana struggle. Some weak-kneed Republicans who rejoice at the result did not know at first whether to rejoice or not, when they saw what tools you had to work with; but your true friends, who have their eyes open, are full of joy, and all the rest will fall into line as soon as the great truth becomes apparent to them.”

Hon. Edward L. Pierce wrote from Boston:—

“God bless you a thousand times for your indomitable resistance to the admission of Louisiana with her caste system! This afternoon some forty gentlemen dined at Bird’s room, and all, nemine dissentiente, approved it, and with full praise.”

Joel P. Bishop, the learned law-writer, and author of a much used work on Criminal Law, wrote from Boston:—

“Blessings on you! You have done in this Louisiana matter an excellent work, for which some of your friends thank you less now than they will by-and-by.”

Hon. Charles W. Slack, an Antislavery journalist, wrote from Boston:—

“Thanks!—hearty, cordial, continued thanks!—for your brave and persistent opposition to Louisiana.

“There is a very much larger share of the community who will sustain you than at first thought may be supposed.

“The idea of negro suffrage in the disloyal States grows daily in favor and advocacy among business men.”

William S. Robinson, the journalist, known as “Warrington,” wrote:—

“I cannot sit down to my work this morning, albeit pressed for time, without giving you the homage of my sincere admiration and respect for killing Louisiana, at least pro tempore. Thanks! thanks! thanks!”

General William L. Burt, afterwards Postmaster of Boston, who had served in Louisiana during the Rebellion, wrote:—

“I congratulate you upon your defeat of the Louisiana Bill. Your action was not only justifiable, but commendable,—doubly so in view of the fact of your concession upon the Reconstruction Bill.… The complaints made by the Administration, or its friends, of the means you took to prevent the fraud upon you and the people, are a compliment, first, to your sagacity, and, secondly, to your skill and ability. You will be vindicated a hundred times before December.”

Colonel Albert J. Wright, having great influence in the local politics of Boston, wrote:—

“Something must be done in Boston. Some of your admiring friends here, who at first, in the midst of the muddle of telegraphic despatches, had some misgivings in regard to your action on ‘Reconstruction’ questions before the Senate, have had their eyes opened, and now feel that you have rendered a great service to the country in battling manfully for the rights of humanity,—that you have done right, and saved us from a new disaster. Of course we must have a great meeting at the Music Hall, and give you an ovation: nothing less will satisfy us.”

F. B. Sanborn wrote from Concord, Massachusetts:—

“Allow me to add my congratulations to those of your other friends on your successful opposition to the Louisiana scheme of Reconstruction. I look upon you as the real destroyer of that fine web of intrigue and absurdity so carefully spun.”

Henry O. Stone wrote from Framingham, Massachusetts:—

“Although an humble and obscure individual, I cannot refrain from thanking you for your persistent resistance to the admission into Congress of the Louisiana claimants. I feel as if you ought to have personal acknowledgment from every one in Massachusetts who can appreciate your just and patriotic motives and wise statesmanship. I know you will be accused of factious opposition to the Administration and the President; but there are those who believe your opposition comes from a desire to do justice, not only to the blacks, but to the poor whites, and to establish the Government upon the only permanent and safe foundation on true democratic principles.”

Hon. Adin Thayer wrote from Worcester:—

“I thank you from the bottom of my heart for your heroic and successful opposition to the Louisiana fraud. Nothing you have ever done better deserves the gratitude of the country and of mankind.”

Elizur Wright, one of our earliest Abolitionists, wrote from Boston:—

“Your keeping out the sham State of Louisiana is worth, in my estimation, any three average military victories. I would give the United States Treasury half I am worth to have Congress, the next thing it does on the subject, decide black suffrage as the ‘inexorable condition’ of readmission.”

Rev. A. P. Marvin wrote from Winchendon, Massachusetts:—

“I have just risen from reading in the telegraphic despatch of the noble stand made by you in the Senate last night, by which the admission of Louisiana is staved off for the present. I have often fervently thanked God that you were in your present position, and enabled to do so much to prevent evil and accomplish good,—but never more earnestly than now. I know it must be hard to withstand so many of the supporters of the Administration, but the battle must be fought on the very question involved in this measure. It will not only be wicked and infamous, but suicidal, for us to let the greater part of the rank and file of the Rebels come back and be voters, while we exclude our colored countrymen. I hope strength will be given to you, according to your day; as to your zeal, courage, ability, and prudence, nothing is wanting.”

Rev. George C. Beckwith, Secretary of the American Peace Society, wrote from Boston:—

“I have just been reading, with my wife, some account of your course on the Louisiana question; and we can’t help sending you our thanks for your persistent efforts to avert the very possible evils likely to come from a wrong decision in this case. God grant you success in preventing here a precedent that may lead to irretrievable mischief!”

Rev. George B. Cheever, the constant Abolitionist, wrote from New York:—

“Permit me the pleasure of congratulating you on the firm and noble stand you are maintaining in the Senate for the rights of loyal men in Louisiana, irrespective of color, and for the prerogative of Congress, as well as its obligation, to settle the government of that State as a republican government. Your efforts are so much the more admirable and important as they are opposed by mistaken Senators, such as Trumbull and Doolittle, and by some of our editors, as of the Times. The heart of the country goes with you, not with your opponents. It would be a terrible disaster to have the precedent set of a State readmitted to the Union with the sacrifice of the rights of the blacks. Your resolutions of Saturday, as well as the amendment you proposed, were admirable. The victory will be worth everything, if you can carry something of that kind.”

A. P. Hayden wrote from New York:—

“I cannot let this opportunity pass of thanking you for the manner in which you have stood by the colored people of Louisiana,—almost the only out-and-out Loyalists of that State. I agree with you that any settlement of the question that will not put the ballot into their hands will create mischief that will take a long time to remedy. When I read in this morning’s Tribune of the vote to postpone the Louisiana matter until December, I felt as if a great moral as well as political battle had been won by our side.”

Dr. J. B. Smith, giving expression to the feelings of colored citizens in a letter from Boston, said:—

“I know of no words of any language adequate to convey to you the gratitude I feel in my inmost soul towards you for your efforts and final success in defeating the bill for the readmission of Louisiana as a State into the Union, with the present flagrantly unjust and proscriptive laws and Constitution. The white people of this country have been so accustomed to regard and treat us as their natural inferiors, that we dread the very thought of submitting to them the adjustment of our rights after their own are made secure. What is not gained for us now will not be obtained for a quarter of a century after peace is declared.”

Frederick Douglass, the watchful orator of his race, wrote from Rochester, New York:—

“The friends of Freedom all over the country have looked to you, and confided in you, of all men in the United States Senate, during all this terrible war. They will look to you all the more, now that peace dawns, and the final settlement of our national troubles is at hand. God grant you strength equal to your day and your duties! is my prayer and that of millions.”

In harmony with these expressions, the following resolution was adopted unanimously by the Worcester Freedom Club, and communicated to Mr. Sumner:—

“Resolved, That the ‘Worcester Freedom Club’ tenders to the Hon. Charles Sumner their gratitude as freemen, for the able manner in which he met the question for the admission of Louisiana, and for his noble defence of the ‘Equality of all men before the Law.’”

Evidently Mr. Sumner was not alone. The right of colored fellow-citizens was recognized as next in order for discussion and judgment. The Antislavery fires were flaming forth anew.