MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry that I have given pain to honorable friends.
I certainly did not intend it. They suggest that a question has been
raised as to the policy of the President. I have raised no such
question, and have expressed no opinion in regard to it. The Senator
from Wisconsin dwells on that point, and reminds the Senate that the
policy of the President was not in question. I knew it was not in
question, and therefore I expressed no opinion upon it; for, when I
speak here, I try to speak directly to the question. There was then
no question on the policy of the President. Had there been, I should
have been ready to meet it. At the proper time I shall meet it fully,
plainly, unequivocally, I trust, as becomes a member of this body.
The only question, then, was on the character of the document just
read; and that I exhibited, compendiously, as whitewashing; and
then my honorable friends rise, one after the other, and, like two
lexicographers, proceed with a definition of “whitewash.” I do not
accept their definition. I intended no such thing as either the
Senator from Connecticut or the Senator from Wisconsin attempted to
impute. I have no reflection to make on the patriotism or the truth
of the President. Never, in public or in private, have I made any
such reflection, and I do not begin now. When I spoke, it was of the
document read at the desk. I characterized it as I thought I ought.
My memory goes back in this Chamber further than that of many about
me. I remember that other scene, when a whitewashing message came from
Franklin Pierce. We all at that time called it whitewashing; and I
am not aware that any one, even on the other side, undertook to play
the part that my honorable friends from Wisconsin and Connecticut
undertake to perform. The message was so called because we all felt
that it was whitewashing; and I undertook at once, to-day, on listening
to the document read at the desk, to characterize it precisely as the
patriotic party of 1856 characterized the message of Franklin Pierce.
Mr. Dixon added, that, if Mr. Sumner had said that he did
not intend his remarks in an offensive tone, but considered
“whitewashing” a polite and proper word to apply to the message
of the President, he should have accepted his explanation.
Mr. Trumbull expressed a hope “that this unprofitable debate
might cease.” Mr. Fessenden remarked: “This is a mere matter
of definitions, and it ought to be referred to some maker of
dictionaries.”
The motion of Mr. Sherman prevailed without a division, and the
message and accompanying documents were ordered to be printed.
The report of General Schurz was a remarkable document, founded
on an official visit, at the appointment of President Johnson,
and with its accompanying papers occupied more than a hundred
pages.[20] It bristled with testimony, not only from his own
observation, but from that of generals and other officers on
the spot. “An utter absence of national feeling”; “an entire
absence of that national spirit which forms the basis of
true loyalty and patriotism”; “although the freedman is no
longer considered the property of the individual master, he is
considered the slave of society,” with the notion “that the
elevation of the blacks will be the degradation of the whites”;
“the practice of corporal punishment is still continued to a
great extent”; “the habit is so inveterate with a great many
persons as to render, on the least provocation, the impulse to
whip a negro almost irresistible”; “the maiming and killing of
colored men seems to be looked upon by many as one of those
venial offences which must be forgiven to the outraged feelings
of a wronged and robbed people”; “the number of murders and
assaults perpetrated upon negroes is very great”: these are
words of General Schurz. The accompanying testimony supplies
fearful details. All this was painfully inconsistent with the
message of the President and the report of General Grant.
* * * * *
The marked effect of this incident shows the sensitive
condition of the public mind. The word “whitewashing” became a
text for the press on opposite sides. The interest also found
expression in letters.
* * * * *
Wendell Phillips, the orator, always sympathizing with every
earnest word for Human Rights, wrote from Boston:--
“Glorious! just the truth, and just the time and place to
speak it, was your graphic and most effective description
of the President’s message. I say this, not that you need
confirmation, but because, hearing the clamor against you,
it seems right you should have the ‘cheers’ as well as the
‘hisses.’”
Rev. Justin D. Fulton, a successful Baptist preacher, wrote
from Boston:--
“Before I can begin my sermon, I want to send you my thanks
for your noble stand in the Senate of the United States
against the President and for the country. Last Sabbath,
in the great congregation, I publicly thanked God that
you used the word ‘whitewashing.’ The same thing I did in
Albany; the same thing I do now.”
Hon. Thomas Russell, Judge of the Superior Court, and
afterwards Collector of the port of Boston, wrote from Boston:--
“I only write to thank you heartily for your courage and
fidelity. I would say, ‘Go on,’ but that is needless.”
Edward W. Kinsley, a merchant, who never forgot the claims of
Human Rights or of personal friendship, wrote from Boston:--
“I know you are too busy to read any letter from me; but I
cannot let the day pass without thanking you for the course
you are taking in the Senate this session. Thank God, we
have one man on the watch-tower who will not slumber or
sleep.”
Hon. Samuel E. Sewall, the able lawyer and Abolitionist, wrote
from Boston:--
“I do not know any man who is doing so much for the
country, in the present crisis, as you are by your speeches
and writings. We are all here watching the course of
Congress with the deepest anxiety.”
Nathaniel Moody, always on the side of Humanity, wrote from
Chelsea, Massachusetts:--
“Permit me, as one of your constituents, to thank you for
the noble stand you have taken in regard to Reconstruction,
which I regard of quite as much importance as was the
persistent prosecution of the war just brought to a
successful conclusion. I did expect no less from you,
considering your former great efforts in the true cause of
Humanity.”
Mrs. John Davis, widow of Mr. Sumner’s first colleague in the
Senate, wrote from Worcester, Massachusetts:--
“We hope the whitewashing is over, and that common sense,
to say nothing of justice, will resume the sway.”
Rev. George N. Richardson wrote from Westborough,
Massachusetts:--
“You are bearing yourself so bravely and faithfully in
behalf of a cause very dear to me, that it is the impulse
of my heart to thank and bless you.”
Rev. Richard S. Storrs, the eminent Congregational clergyman,
wrote from Braintree, Massachusetts:--
“It must be a great satisfaction to you to know that
you have the unlimited confidence and sympathy of your
constituents; and I am sure you have the approval of all
loyal men and _angels_, while struggling against the
devices of the arch enemy of God and man.”
Rev. J. R. W. Sloane, a pastor of the Presbyterian Church,
wrote from New York:--
“To yourself and Thaddeus Stevens the nation is now
looking as the defenders of Truth and Justice. Thanks for
your just rebuke of the President’s ‘whitewashing’ message.
The statements of this paper are directly in the face of
what I know to be the state of things in the South. I
rejoice that it did not pass unrebuked.”