In the brief debate that ensued, Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said:—
“The sword and the cannon are the reapers now, and the Rebels are the harvest; and to that purpose and to those reapers I shall devote my attention.”
The joint resolution was lost,—yeas 17, nays 22; so that at the London Exhibition the United States had no representation.
Remarks in the Senate, February 6, 1862.
The Senate had under discussion an Army Bill, when Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, moved an amendment reducing and regulating the mileage of Members of Congress. The remarks of Mr. Sumner were not addressed to the merits of the question, but to the impropriety of dealing with it in the pending bill.
MR. PRESIDENT,—It seems clear that the discussion in which we are launched is a departure from the question before the Senate. The pending bill is “to define the pay and emoluments of certain officers of the army, and for other purposes,” and an amendment is moved to reduce and regulate Congressional mileage. By what process of association the two are brought together it is not easy to see. Certainly nobody looking for light on Congressional mileage would think of exploring our army legislation.
My experience teaches me the advantage, not to say the beauty of order, in the business of legislation, as in all other business. There is a proper place for everything, and everything should be in its proper place. Especially should things plainly incongruous be kept apart, and without commixture. But what more unreasonable than the commixture proposed? Each measure may be good in itself, but the two do not go together. They are without natural or logical connection. One is not the incident of the other, nor in any respect germane to the other. They should be in separate bills, and be discussed separately.
Here we are in high debate on the Army Bill, and all at once the subject is changed, although the original bill is still before the Senate. But Congressional mileage is enough by itself. Already it has occupied the attention of the country, has been discussed in the newspapers, and especially in the other House. It is a Serbonian bog, not indeed “where armies whole have sunk,” but only Members of Congress. Are you ready, while considering another question, to revive this debate, making it the accident of another, with which it has nothing to do? Is it advisable? Is it according to the natural order of business?
The Mileage Amendment was adopted, but the bill failed between the two Houses.
Resolutions in the Senate, February 11, 1862. With Appendix.
Mr. Sumner sent to the Chair a series of resolutions, which he described by their title. They were then read, as follows.
Resolutions declaratory of the Relations between the United States and the Territory once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by pretended Governments without Constitutional or Legal Right.
Whereas certain States, rightfully belonging to the Union of the United States, have, through their respective Governments, wickedly undertaken to abjure all those duties by which their connection with the Union was maintained, to renounce all allegiance to the Constitution, to levy war upon the National Government, and, for the consummation of this treason, have unconstitutionally and unlawfully confederated together with the declared purpose of putting an end, by force, to the supremacy of the Constitution within their respective limits;
And whereas this condition of insurrection, organized by pretended Governments, openly exists in North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Tennessee, and Virginia,—except in Eastern Tennessee and Western Virginia,—and the President of the United States, in a proclamation duly made in conformity with an Act of Congress, has declared the same to exist throughout this territory, with the exceptions already named;
And whereas the extensive territory thus usurped by these pretended Governments and organized into a hostile confederation belongs to the United States, as an inseparable part thereof, under the sanctions of the Constitution, to be held in trust for the inhabitants in the present and future generations, and is so completely interlinked with the Union that it is forever dependent thereupon;
And whereas the Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, cannot be displaced within this territory, but must ever continue the supreme law thereof, notwithstanding the doings of any pretended Governments, acting singly or in confederation, hostile to its supremacy: Therefore,—
1. Resolved, That any vote of secession, or other act, by a State hostile to the supremacy of the Constitution within its territory, is inoperative and void against the Constitution, and, when sustained by force, becomes a practical abdication by the State of all rights under the Constitution, while the treason it involves works instant forfeiture of all functions and powers essential to the continued existence of the State as a body politic; so that from such time forward the territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, as other territory, and the State becomes, according to the language of the law, felo de se.
2. That any combination of men assuming to act in the place of such State, and attempting to ensnare or coerce its inhabitants into a confederation hostile to the Union, is rebellious, treasonable, and destitute of all moral authority; and such combination is a usurpation incapable of constitutional existence and utterly lawless, so that everything dependent upon it is without constitutional or legal support.
3. That the termination of a State under the Constitution necessarily causes the termination of those peculiar local institutions which, having no origin in the Constitution, or in natural right independent of the Constitution, are upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State.
4. That Slavery, being a peculiar local institution, derived from local law, without any origin in the Constitution or in natural right, is upheld by the sole and exclusive authority of the State, and must therefore cease, legally and constitutionally, when the State on which it depends has lapsed; for the incident must follow the principal.[141]
5. That, in the exercise of exclusive jurisdiction over the territory once occupied by the States, it is the duty of Congress to see that the supremacy of the Constitution is maintained in its essential principles, so that everywhere in this extensive territory Slavery shall cease to exist in fact, as it has already ceased to exist in law or Constitution.
6. That any recognition of Slavery in such territory, or surrender of slaves under pretended laws of such States, by an officer of the United States, civil or military, is a practical recognition of the pretended Governments, to the exclusion of the jurisdiction of Congress under the Constitution, and is in the nature of aid and comfort to the Rebellion that has been organized.
7. That any such recognition of Slavery, or surrender of pretended slaves, besides being a practical recognition of the pretended Governments, giving them aid and comfort, is a denial of the rights of persons who by the action of the States have become free, so that, under the Constitution, they cannot again be enslaved.
8. That allegiance from the inhabitant and protection from the Government are corresponding obligations, dependent upon each other; so that, while the allegiance of every inhabitant of this territory, without distinction of class or color, is due to the United States, and cannot in any way be defeated by the action of any pretended Government, or by any pretence of property or claim to service, the corresponding obligation of protection is at the same time due from the United States to every such inhabitant, without distinction of class or color; and it follows that inhabitants held as slaves, whose paramount allegiance is to the United States, may justly look to the National Government for protection.
9. That the duty cast upon Congress by the action of the States is enforced by the positive requirement of the Constitution, that “no State shall enter into any confederation,” or, “without the consent of Congress, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace,” or “enter into any agreement or compact with another State,” or “grant letters of marque and reprisal,” or “coin money,” or “emit bills of credit,” or, “without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports,” all of which have been done by these pretended Governments, and also by the positive injunction of the Constitution, addressed to the Nation, that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government”; and that, in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution, Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory, where such unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of government under the Constitution, and, in the execution of this trust, will provide carefully for the protection of all the inhabitants thereof, for the security of families, the organization of labor, the encouragement of industry, and the welfare of society, and will in every way discharge the duties of a just, merciful, and paternal Government.
When the reading was completed, Mr. Sumner asked that the resolutions be printed and laid upon the table, adding that at some future day he hoped to call them up for consideration. Then ensued a scene not inaptly called a “flurry,” with regard to the disposition of the resolutions,—some wishing their reference to a committee, where they would be out of the way, and others wishing them laid on the table, so as to avoid present debate. Mr. Sumner made the latter motion, so as to keep them on the calendar of the Senate.
Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, moved at once their reference to the Committee on the Judiciary. But the motion to lay on the table had precedence. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, said: “I do not think we ought to take time now in discussing this question.” Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, said: “If the motion to lay on the table be lost, the motion to refer will be debatable. I vote ‘yea.’” The motion of Mr. Sumner prevailed,—yeas 21, nays 15.
Chief among the nays were the Democrats and the ordinary revilers of Antislavery movements; but the division did not indicate definite opinions on the resolutions. It was in no sense an adverse vote, although often cited as such by hostile partisans, which was the more curious as Mr. Sumner voted with the majority.
February 13th, Mr. Davis introduced a series of counter resolutions, eight in number, which were ordered to lie on the table and be printed. Their special object was the protection of loyal persons, so that no form of confiscation or forfeiture should reach them,—meaning, of course, protection against Emancipation,—“whilst inflicting on the guilty leaders condign and exemplary punishment, granting amnesty and oblivion to the comparatively innocent masses.”
The difference developed here entered into subsequent debates. Mr. Sumner regarded Slavery as the great offender, besides being a constant wrong, and he wished it destroyed completely. Others sought to confine the sphere of Emancipation to the slaves of Rebels.
After certain Senatorial protests at a subsequent day, the question of Congressional power, presented by the resolutions, and involving Reconstruction, dropped out of sight, partly because the Proclamation of Emancipation provided a method against Slavery, and partly because Rebel resistance and the cloud which soon afterwards lowered upon our arms prevented Reconstruction from becoming what was called “a practical question,” except to those who, anticipating the future, saw how much would be gained by a sure rule capable of immediate application as the national power prevailed.
A speech on this subject, especially vindicating the positions he had taken, was prepared by Mr. Sumner during this session; but the proper occasion for its delivery not occurring, it was handed over to the Atlantic Monthly, where it appeared as an article, October, 1863. Some of the points of the resolutions reappeared in the speech of the 19th May, on “Rights of Sovereignty and Rights of War”;[142] also in the resolutions of June 2 and 6, 1862, relating to the Provisional Government of North Carolina.[143]
These Resolutions became the occasion of controversy, and occupied public attention. They have been considered the starting-point of Reconstruction, although the primary object on their introduction was to strike at Slavery. The principle here enunciated, that Slavery, being without support in the Constitution or in natural right, fell with the local governments on which it depended, seemed to Mr. Sumner impregnable, and he never ceased to regret that it was not authoritatively announced at an early day, believing that such a juridical truth adopted by the Government would have smoothed the way, while it hastened the great result. The essential difficulty proceeded from the indisposition to Emancipation; for here was only another form of the perpetual question, “Shall the slaves be set free?”
Towards the close of the war, Mr. Everett, in an eloquent speech at Faneuil Hall, gave his valuable authority in favor of this principle.
“I will add, that it is very doubtful whether any act of the Government of the United States was necessary to liberate the slaves in a State which is in rebellion. There is much reason for the opinion, that, by the simple act of levying war against the United States, the relation of Slavery was terminated, certainly so far as concerns the duty of the United States to recognize it or to refrain from interfering with it. Not being founded on the Law of Nature, and resting solely on positive local law, and that not of the United States, as soon as it becomes either the motive or pretext of an unjust war against the Union, an efficient instrument in the hands of the Rebels for carrying on the war, a source of military strength to the Rebellion and of danger to the Government at home and abroad, with the additional certainty, that, in any event but its abandonment, it will continue in all future time to work these mischiefs, who can suppose it is the duty of the United States to continue to recognize it? To maintain this would be a contradiction in terms.… No such absurdity can be admitted; and any citizen of the United States, from the President down, who should by any overt act recognize the duty of a slave to obey a Rebel master in a hostile operation, would himself be giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”[144]
Dr. Brownson’s judgment was the same way, as appears in a citation on a subsequent page.
Besides the enunciation of this juridical truth, which, frankly adopted, must have put an end to Slavery legally and constitutionally in the Rebel States, the Resolutions further asserted the jurisdiction of Congress over these States, and the duty to establish republican government therein,—in other words, the plenary power and duty of Reconstruction. Although these were formally denied, yet the power was practically recognized and the duty was followed, but only after injurious delay and the conflict of debate.
The Resolutions were especially criticized, in the Senate and out of it, for what was termed the doctrine of “State Suicide,” and “the lapse of States into Territories.” They were described as proposing to reduce States into Territories. Naturally, the sentiment of State Rights was aroused.
Mr. Willey, of Virginia, saw in them a scheme of “unconditional, immediate, and universal Emancipation”; and he added:—
“These consequences, in my judgment, involve the lives of thousands of my fellow-citizens, and the happiness of all the loyal people of all the border slaveholding States.”
Then referring to the people of the South, he said:—
“Especially will they point to the sweeping resolutions of the great apostle of Abolition, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], which by one dash of the pen deprive every Southern man of his slaves.”
Then came the familiar parallel between Mr. Sumner and Jefferson Davis.
“Sir, a few weeks ago we expelled a Senator, because, on the 1st of March last, he wrote a letter to Jefferson Davis, commending to his regard a friend who had a valuable fire-arm to sell, and who visited the South mainly for the purpose of selling it. This was deemed evidence of disloyalty sufficient to warrant his ejection from the Senate. But what do we now see? What, for instance, is the proposition of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner]? It is, by one fell swoop of his pen, to blot ten or twelve States out of the Union forever to remit them back to a Territorial condition, and thus to involve our muniments of right, the titles to our estates, our franchises and municipal privileges, in a kind of hotch-pot, begetting and superinducing an inevitable confusion as inexplicable and dark as original Chaos.”[145]
Mr. Fessenden, in reply to Mr. Willey, emphatically disowned Mr. Sumner.
“Why, Sir, I do not hesitate to say here most distinctly, for myself, that I dissent entirely from the conclusions of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, as stated in his resolutions. I do not look upon the States of this Union as gone and destroyed.… It is enough to say, in this connection, that upon this particular point the opinions of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts are his own, for which he alone is responsible, and which he is undoubtedly well able to defend.”[146]
On the next day Mr. Sherman followed in the same vein,—vindicating the Republican party, and especially disowning Mr. Sumner, which in the course of his speech he did twice. The first time he said:—
“The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner], as he has a perfect right to do, introduced a series of resolutions giving his idea about the effect of the war upon the political status of the States, and at once those resolutions are seized upon as the dogmas of the Republican party, and we are denounced for them, although candid men must know that they are but the emanation of a single individual, who has decided convictions on this subject, and who is far in advance of any political organization in this country.”
Then, at the close of his speech, after saying that “we ought to oppose all useless and unconstitutional measures of legislation,” he proceeded:—
“I, therefore, cannot help but say, that, while I respect the motives of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, while I give him credit for consistency, ability, and a great deal of culture, and am always glad to hear him speak, yet I must confess, that, when I looked over his resolutions, they struck me with surprise and regret. They would revolutionize this Government. Sir, strike the States out of this system of Government, and your Government is lost and gone. I cannot conceive of the United States governing colonies and provinces containing millions upon millions of people, black and white. I do not think such a thing can exist. I do not believe it is in the power of Secession to bring us to such a state of things. I can draw no distinction between the resolutions of the Senator from Massachusetts and the doctrines that are proclaimed by Jefferson Davis.… The doctrine of the Senator from Massachusetts is substantially an acknowledgment of the right of secession, of the right to secede. He, however, puts the States in the condition of abject Territories, to be governed by Congress. Jefferson Davis puts it in the power of the people of the States to govern the States themselves. As to which is the most dangerous or obnoxious doctrine I leave every man to determine.”[147]
Not long afterwards, Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, took up the same strain, characterizing the doctrine of the Resolutions as “fatal to our form of government, destructive of our Federal system, and utterly incompatible with a restoration of harmonious relations between the States in which rebellion now prevails and the United States”; and he condensed his judgment by calling the doctrine a “fatal heresy.”[148]
Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, some time later, spoke in harmony with the others.
“Now everybody knows that the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] has a scheme by which he proposes to turn all these States, in case they could be conquered, into Territories, that they shall be governed by the United States as Territories, and then, when their people come to their senses,—this is the language of the advocates of the scheme,—they are to be readmitted into the Union upon terms. Mr. President, I do not know anybody hardly who has not deprecated that as a most mischievous scheme to agitate just at present.”[149]
Still later, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, in an elaborate speech, discussed Mr. Sumner’s policy in the same spirit, saying that he had provided a way of disunion,—“which for brevity I will call, with no disrespect to my honorable friend from Massachusetts, the Sumner way for States to go out of the Union, namely, by Act of Congress.” And he attributed the same position to his colleague, Mr. Howe.
“What, in effect, do the Senator from Massachusetts and my colleague propose? To place outside of the Constitution, and to govern with unlimited power, eleven States and ten million people, nearly one third of all the States and people of the United States, without any representation.”[150]
Mr. Howe replied to Mr. Doolittle, and, after referring to a resolution introduced by himself, declaring that “local governments ought to be provisionally organized forthwith for the people in each of the districts named in the preamble hereto,”[151] being the Rebel States, paid the following tribute to Mr. Sumner.
“As to the matter of fact, whether this resolution is the Lincoln and Johnson theory or the Sumner theory, the Senator from Massachusetts has not yet, I regret to say, indorsed that resolution, nor anything that I said in support of it; and I suppose the Senator from Massachusetts will claim the right, which, under the Constitution, as I understand it, belongs to every Senator on this floor, to speak for himself. If it should hereafter happen to receive his indorsement, it will be very gratifying to me. If I should find that I had given utterance on this floor to one sentiment which is approved by the Senator from Massachusetts, it will be only a small compensation for the great number of living sentiments to which I have listened from the Senator from Massachusetts, and which are bound to live long after my colleague and myself shall have passed from this stage of existence.”[152]
Meanwhile, Mr. Sumner, acting upon the principles of his Resolutions, insisted upon colored suffrage in the Rebel States to be ordained by Congress, as will appear hereafter in these volumes. Senators who had originally opposed the power of Congress over these States now united in this requirement. Among those who still stood out was Mr. Doolittle, who, after alluding to President Lincoln’s policy of Reconstruction, said:—
“Neither Mr. Lincoln, nor any member of his Cabinet, nor more than two Senators, I believe, in this body, the Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumner] and the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Gratz Brown], at that time advocated Reconstruction upon a basis including negro suffrage.”
And Mr. Doolittle then proclaimed that more than twenty Republican Senators, who had stood with him, “advocating Reconstruction upon the white basis,” now “go over to the side of the Senator from Massachusetts, and advocate his theory of Reconstruction upon the basis of negro suffrage and white disfranchisement.”[153]
Then came another speech by the same Senator, in which he describes Mr. Sumner as adding to his demands only to find them adopted by Senators who had begun by opposing him.
“My friend from Massachusetts ought to feel a sense of profound satisfaction to see the progress they have made. I mean no discourtesy, when I say the ideas advanced by him that night, rejected then by a majority of four to one, rule the Senate now. Not only have they educated, they have Sumnerized the Senate.”[154]
Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, the Democratic leader of the Senate, differing widely from Mr. Sumner, in the debate on the Supplementary Reconstruction Bill, gave this testimony:—
“I said in the Senate, a year or two ago, that the course of things is this: the Senator from Massachusetts steps out boldly, declares his doctrine, and then he is approached, and finally he governs. Believing that he is in the right,—I concede that belief to him as a Senator,—his place in this body and before this country to-day is a very proud one. He was told somewhat sneeringly, two years ago, that among his party friends he stood alone; and to-day they all stand upon his position. This is a compliment and indorsement of sagacity and intelligence that but few men receive in the course of a public life.”[155]
From the Senate the question was transferred to the great arena where pamphlets, reviews, and newspapers were the disputants. Here the opposition in the Senate found frequent expression. The Resolutions by their positive character offered a full front, and they were openly attacked.
Public meetings and committees also made them the subject of discussion,—especially a great meeting at Cooper Institute, New York, and a meeting of the German Republican Committee in New York, where they were fully sustained.[156]
The North American Review,[157] in an elaborate article, under the title of “Constitutional Law,” afterwards published in a pamphlet with the author’s name[158] on the title-page, treated the Resolutions with a severity which may be judged by the concluding words.
“It is to be hoped that disloyalty will not become more general by reason of threats of conquest, or by propositions that the United States shall become administrator de bonis non of the seceding States. One description of treason against the United States consists ‘in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.’ Mr. Conway[159] and Mr. Sumner have given the ‘aid and comfort.’ Had they sent in their adhesion at the same time, they would have done the Union much less mischief.”
Not content with this article, the learned author addressed the following letter to the Boston Journal.
“Unconstitutional Legislation.
“Dear Sir,—Will you permit me to say, that, the sooner the Republican party cuts itself loose from all unconstitutional projects (whether they relate to emancipation by proclamation, conquering States and holding them as Territories, confiscation without trial, or any other measure not warranted by the Constitution), the sooner it will begin to provide for its own salvation.
“Very truly yours,
“Joel Parker.
“Cambridge, May 5, 1862.”
On the other side, Dr. Brownson, the able and indefatigable Catholic writer, sustained Mr. Summer in a powerful article, entitled “State Rebellion, State Suicide.”[160] A few sentences will show its character.
“The slave-owners, by their rebellion, have unquestionably forfeited their right under the Federal Constitution to be protected in their slave property, or, as to that matter, in any other species of property. If Slavery be ever again recognized as legal, therefore, the responsibility will attach not to Slave States only, but to the whole people of the United States, and we of the Free States will become, clearly and decidedly, participes criminis.”[161]
“We hold with Mr. Sumner in his noble Resolutions, creditable alike to him as a statesman and a lawyer, that the State by rebellion commits suicide, and lapses as a civil and political entity. All laws, customs, or usages, depending for their vitality, force, or vigor on the State, are rendered null and void by its secession, and are to be treated as non avenues. Slavery exists in any country only by municipal law,—in no country by the jus gentium. In our political system it exists by the local law, or by the law or usage of a particular State, in distinction from a law or usage of the United States.”[162]
“The Rebellion, in a word, kills the whole State and everything dependent on it. Whether the State be revived and permitted to return to the Union depends entirely on the good pleasure of the Federal authority. It cannot be claimed as a right by the population on the territory of the defunct State. As they could not take the territory out of the Union, and as they, so long as they remain on it, are within the jurisdiction of the United States, the Federal Government has authority to govern them, and may govern them either as a Territory or as a conquered province.”[163]
“The two most important measures ever introduced into the American Congress are, first, the resolutions of Mr. Sumner in the Senate, declaring that a State by rebellion commits suicide, and, second, General Ashley’s bill in the House, from the Territorial Committee, providing for the government of the rebellious States as Territories.… Their adoption would save constitutional government, and give new guaranties of man’s capacity for freedom. But whether these measures be adopted or not, Mr. Sumner’s resolutions will serve as a platform on which will take their stand all in the country worthy of consideration for their political sagacity, their wise statesmanship, their disinterestedness, and their nobility of sentiment.”[164]
The newspapers were not behind the quarterlies in earnestness of difference; but citations from them will not add to the case already stated. An article in the Temps, an Imperialist organ at Paris, is interesting, as showing that the debate had crossed the ocean to France.
“The confidence of the nation possesses the Washington Cabinet, too often accessible to incertitude and discouragements, and its members seem about to rally to the system presented by Mr. Sumner. It is known that the Constitution gives to Congress the absolute power over what is called the Territories,—that is to say, the territorial portions not yet incorporated politically into the Union.… The practical consequence which Mr. Sumner draws from that can be divined. He proposes to consider the Rebel States as simple Territories, which necessarily after victory will return one after another to their vitality. Then, according to the manner in which the Washington Government and Congress shall pronounce definitively on this supreme question, can admittance into the Union be refused to States which do not abolish Slavery or regulate it in a sense favorable to Abolition.”[165]
The response by letters showed that Senatorial protest and newspaper criticism did not prevent the acceptance of the Resolutions by earnest, thoughtful people, anxious for decisive measures and a true preparation for the future. Here was a plan of Reconstruction without Slavery, and this was a wide-spread longing of hearts.
Hon. John Jay, afterwards Minister at Vienna, wrote from New York:—
“There is no question about the fact that Slavery in the Rebel States has ceased to exist, within the meaning and under the protection of the Constitution.
“I have thought somewhat on the matter, and have just completed an argument on it, which I proposed to include in my lecture before the Washington Association. The Southern States have ceased to be States of the Union; their soil has become national territory; and the slaves, in the eyes of the Constitution, are freemen. I wish your resolutions had been referred to some committee from whom we could have had a careful report in their favor, even though it were a minority report, to get the argument before the country.”
Charles T. Rodgers, President of the Young Men’s Republican Union, wrote from New York:—
“I have just read the preamble and resolutions offered by you in the Senate, in which you define the position and status of the revolted States, and of persons held to service under the laws thereof.
“I cannot refrain from expressing to you, personally, my pleasure at the fact that the true doctrine on this subject has been so clearly laid down. I am sure that your theory is the true one, and, in fact, the only one this Government can consistently follow, and the only one which seems to offer a plain path out of the maze of conflicting legal and constitutional points in which so many of our public men seem to have become entangled. The States, by seceding, have committed suicide. The slaves therein are de facto free. Stick to that, and you will come out all right.”
Hon. Charles A. Dana, the accomplished journalist, afterwards Assistant Secretary of War, wrote:—
“I fully appreciate the difficulty of settling the South after it is conquered. I don’t see how your plan can be avoided; bon gré, mal gré, it is what we all must come to.”
Park Benjamin, writer and poet, who had not formerly sympathized with Mr. Sumner politically, wrote from New York:—
“Your Territorial plan is the only right and just one, let the short-sighted geese hiss at it as they may.”
William Herries, journalist, wrote from New York:—
“It was my pleasure to-night to be present at the meeting of the German Republican Central Committee, and it was truly refreshing to witness the enthusiasm manifested in behalf of those lofty sentiments embraced in your Rebel Territory Bill. A Memorial is now in course of preparation for you on the subject.”
Hon. J. Y. Smith, of the Wisconsin Argus, wrote from Madison:—
“Early in the Rebellion I took the same view of the effect of Secession upon the Rebel States as is set forth in your Resolutions,—suggested it to our Wisconsin Senators, and wrote several articles in support of it, but could find very few public journals or public men to agree with me. When your resolutions on that subject appeared, I hailed them with joy, and have been exerting the little influence I have to instil the principle into the public mind. It is the true theory, and I wonder why any friend of the country can object to it. By their rebellion they have tumbled Slavery right into our bag, and if we shake it out, our life will go for its life.”
Thomas Garrett, a Quaker Abolitionist, wrote from Wilmington, Delaware:—
“I yesterday read the resolutions thou offeredst on the 11th of this month, and think the view thou hast taken is correct: that any vote of secession, or other act by which a State may undertake to put an end to the supremacy of the Constitution within its territory, is inoperative and void against the Constitution, and, when sustained by force, is practical abdication by the State of all rights under the Constitution; and every such State ought to be expunged and revert back into a Territory, and begin anew. I thought, six months since, that ere this Slavery would have been abolished by the War Power in all the seceded States, but at present I have very little hope of it. It seems to me incredible that the President and Cabinet should have so much more sympathy for the Rebels than they have for the loyal North.”
W. G. Snethen, lawyer, earnest against Slavery, wrote from Baltimore:—
“Your admirable resolutions respecting the status of the Rebel region, in which the Rebellion has killed Slavery, did my heart good, especially as indicating an Administration policy. I hope and pray that this doctrine speaks the mind of Lincoln, and that he will not flinch from its execution with the whole power of the Government.… Oh that Congress may adopt your set just as they came from your mighty pen, and then follow them up by legislation to give them active life!”
Edward P. Brownson communicated the opinion of his father, Orestes A. Brownson, in a letter from Elizabeth, New Jersey.
“I suppose my father has long since told you of his delight, when you introduced your Resolutions into the Senate. The joy with which he read them, and the attention he has given them, you will find very clearly expressed in the deep and careful study he has given the subject, evident in his article on State Rebellion, State Suicide; and he would much rather see them pass than win a victory in the field.”
Mrs. Maria Weston Chapman, the devoted Abolitionist, and among the earliest in the warfare, wrote from Boston:—
“Thanks a thousand-fold for the eleventh volume Pacific Railroad Survey. Your Resolutions are the great Pacific Road to Freedom,—made possible by the War Power though they be. I thank you a million-fold. To say so is no exaggeration, since all done in this behalf is done for all men and all time; and from the hour that Garrison struck the first blow, I have ever felt that the highest numbers were needed fitly to express human gratitude for services rendered to human nature.”
Jabez C. Woodman, an able lawyer, wrote from Portland, Maine:—
“You are not without some judicial authority. As much as ten months ago I heard Judge Ware[166] express the opinion that the Union troops would prevail. He then said he was in favor of coercion,—that he would subjugate the Rebel States, and, taking them at their word, he would not acknowledge them at once as States, but would govern them as conquered provinces, till they were fit to govern themselves.”
Elizur Wright, the early and constant Abolitionist, wrote from Boston:—
“Your Resolutions are the very thing. Had they been passed at the extra session, the war would have been over before now. They, or something to the same effect, must be passed before spring opens, or we are lost. Victories, without this law of the conquest, cannot save us. Quite the reverse. I beg you to press the resolutions with any amount of animosity or violence, and to know that all that is alive at the North will sustain you.
“There are thousands ready to see the present Government blotted out in blood and chaos rather than see the old curse reinstated. On us, not on our children! There has been fooling enough. Heaven bless you!”
Rev. George C. Beckwith, Secretary of the American Peace Society, wrote from Boston:—
“I had some difficulty for a time about your Territorial views; but I am coming fully to the conclusion that we must deal with all rebellion in some such way, before the South can be brought to any terms. We must have and keep them all in our grasp, until they prove themselves, by their good behavior, fit to come again into the Union.”
Charles Husband, an intelligent citizen, whose correspondence was always valuable, wrote from Taunton, Massachusetts:—
“I have to thank you for a copy of your Resolutions, and perhaps you will not deem me intrusive, if I wish you a hearty God-speed in the work you have undertaken,—a work the successful accomplishment of which is large enough to fill the measure of the highest ambition,—a work which will redeem the nation from its low estate, which asserts the nation’s sovereignty and self-existence, instead of ‘borrowing leave to be,’—which demands for the nation the paramount allegiance of every inhabitant of its territory, and sweeps away every institution which interposes itself between the nation and that allegiance,—which calls the Government from being the minister of oppression and the mere dispenser of patronage, to take upon itself the high purposes and duties for which ‘governments are instituted among men,’—which transmutes four millions of chattels into men.
“Allow me to suggest (although it has not, probably, escaped your notice), that the constitutional requirement, that every legislative, executive, and judicial officer in the States shall be sworn to the support of the Constitution of the United States, leaves the whole of the Rebel territory without a civil officer whom the Government can recognize, as every such pretended officer is just as much a usurper in the eye of the Constitution as Jefferson Davis himself.”
Henry Hoyt, publisher and bookseller, wrote from Boston:—
“I cannot sleep another night till I have thanked you from the bottom of my heart for your bill resolving Rebeldom into Territorial relations again. Of all measures ever introduced into Congress, nothing so completely meets the case of the present exigency of our country’s history, and nothing but this can make the confederacy of the whole land stand in safety a single year. We may continue to win battles, but, so long as the ruins of Slavery exist in the body politic, we shall stand on a volcano.”
But the most important commentary on the Resolutions is found in the measures of Reconstruction subsequently adopted, all of which stand on the power of Congress over the Rebel States, which they positively assert, including especially the power and duty to guaranty a republican form of government.
The Report of the Joint Committee on Reconstruction, drawn up by its Chairman, Mr. Fessenden, asserted that the Rebel States “having voluntarily renounced the right to representation, and disqualified themselves by crime from participating in the Government, the burden now rests upon them, before claiming to be reinstated in their former condition, to show that they are qualified to resume Federal relations.” It then laid down the rule:—
“Having, by this treasonable withdrawal from Congress, and by flagrant rebellion and war, forfeited all civil and political rights and privileges under the Federal Constitution, they can only be restored thereto by the permission and authority of that constitutional power against which they rebelled, and by which they were subdued.”[167]
Here was the power of Congress asserted,—but very tardily, and after original denial.
A calm observer has recently recorded his regret that the Resolutions were not adopted at once, and consistently acted upon. After saying that “the mover was overwhelmed with a tornado of denunciation and abuse,” and that the opposition “rendered any satisfactory reconstruction as nearly impracticable as can well be imagined,” the writer proceeds:—
“Time has fully vindicated the wisdom of Mr. Sumner’s course, and many of the Senators against the measure now admit their mistake,—while every man who comes here from the South says that their present miserable condition grows out of that great error.
“To the Democratic party the rejection of the Resolutions was a God-send. It made the continued existence of the Democratic party possible.”[168]
Such is the first chapter of Reconstruction.
Speech in the Senate, on the Clause making Treasury Notes A Legal Tender, February 13, 1862.