Here the testimony is complete. If I open it now, it is less to show
the obligations which constrain me personally than to make these
witnesses plead again the cause which from the beginning I have had at
heart. I follow the order of time, letting each speak in a few words.
There are some among us who may remember that early speech before
the Republican State Convention at Worcester, October 1, 1861, which
excited at the time so much discussion, when, after calling for
Emancipation, I united this cause with Peace:--
“Two objects are before us, _Union and Peace_, each for the sake
of the other, and both for the sake of the country; but without
Emancipation how can we expect either?”[199]
Thus at the beginning was I mindful of Peace.
Then again, in the same strain, at the Cooper Institute, New York,
November 27, 1861, after showing Slavery to be the origin and
main-spring of the Rebellion, I pleaded for Emancipation, and at the
same time first sounded the key-note of Reconciliation:--
“Perversely and pitifully do you postpone that sure period of
_reconciliation, not only between the two sections, not only
between the men of the North and the men of the South, but, more
necessary still, between slave and master_, without which the true
tranquillity we all seek cannot be permanently assured. Believe it,
_only through such reconciliation_, under sanction of freedom, can
you remove all occasions of conflict hereafter.”[200]
Thus early was reconciliation associated with my most earnest efforts;
nor did I at any moment hesitate in this work.
The same spirit was manifest in opposition to perpetuating the memory
of victories over fellow-citizens. The question arose on a dispatch of
General McClellan, where, after announcing the capture of Williamsburg,
he inquired whether he was “authorized to follow the example of other
generals, and direct the names of battles to be placed on the colors of
regiments.”[201] This being communicated to the Senate, I felt it my
duty to move, May 8, 1862, the following resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That in the efforts now making for _the restoration of
the Union and the establishment of peace throughout the country_,
it is inexpedient that the names of victories obtained over our
fellow-citizens should be placed on the regimental colors of the
United States.”[202]
Here again was anxiety for peace. Mr. Wilson, my colleague,
did not agree with me, and he made haste to introduce a
counter-resolution;[203] but no further action was had upon it. The
usage of civilized nations is against placing on regimental colors the
names of victories gained over fellow-countrymen. In France, the most
military country of the world, the principle was carefully discarded by
King Louis Philippe, when, in preparing the Museum at Versailles, he
excluded every picture or image of civil war. Everything to arouse and
gratify the patriotic pride of Frenchmen, of all Frenchmen, is there,
but nothing to exhibit Frenchmen warring with each other.
Then came the bills for Confiscation, which I supported chiefly with
a view to Emancipation. While enforcing this object, May 19, 1862, I
said:--
“People talk flippantly of the gallows as the certain doom of
the Rebels. This is a mistake. For weal or woe, the gallows is
out of the question. It is not possible as a punishment for this
rebellion.”
Then declaring our supreme object to be Peace, I said:
“In this work it is needless to say _there is no place for any
sentiment of hate or any suggestion of vengeance_. There can
be no exaction and no punishment beyond the necessity of the
case,--nothing harsh, nothing excessive. Lenity and pardon become
the conqueror more even than victory. ‘Do in time of peace the most
good, and in time of war the least evil possible: such is the Law
of Nations.’ These are the admirable words of an eminent French
magistrate and statesman. In this spirit it is our duty to assuage
the calamities of war, and especially to spare an inoffensive
population.”[204]
Shortly afterwards, June 27th, while the same subject was under
consideration, I returned to it again:--
“But I confess frankly that I look with more hope and confidence
to Liberation than to Confiscation. To give freedom is nobler
than to take property, and on this occasion it cannot fail to be
more efficacious, for in this way the rear-guard of the Rebellion
will be changed into the advance-guard of the Union. There is in
Confiscation, unless when directed against the criminal authors of
the Rebellion, a harshness inconsistent with that mercy which it
is always a sacred duty to cultivate, and which should be manifest
in proportion to our triumphs, ‘mightiest in the mightiest.’ _But
Liberation is not harsh; and it is certain, if properly conducted,
to carry with it the smiles of a benignant Providence._”[205]
At last the country was gladdened by the Proclamation of Emancipation,
which here in Faneuil Hall, October 6, 1862, I vindicated as a measure
of peace; and then I said:--
“In the old war between King and Parliament, which rent England,
the generous Falkland cried from his soul, _Peace! Peace!_--and
History gratefully records his words. Never did he utter this cry
with more earnestness than I do now. But how shall the blessing be
secured?”[206]
_By Emancipation_, was my answer.
Then came the bill creating the Freedmen’s Bureau. In opening the
debate on this interesting subject, June 8, 1864, I said:--
“It is for the Senate to determine, under the circumstances,
what it will do. My earnest hope is that it will do something.
The opportunity must not be lost of helping so many persons now
helpless, and _of aiding the cause of Reconciliation, without which
peace cannot be assured_.”[207]
Here again Reconciliation is announced as an ever-present object.
In the same spirit, I deemed it my duty to oppose the efforts made in
the winter of 1865 to authorize Retaliation, differing from valued
friends. The proposition for Retaliation was met by the following
declaration, moved by me, January 24th:--
“The United States … call upon all to bear witness that in this
necessary warfare with Barbarism they renounce all vengeance and
every evil example, and plant themselves firmly on the sacred
landmarks of Christian civilization, under the protection of that
God who is present with every prisoner, and enables heroic souls to
suffer for their country.”[208]
Then came the effort, favored by President Lincoln, to receive
Louisiana with a Constitution which failed to recognize the equal
rights of colored fellow-citizens. Here again, February 25th, I
encountered the proposition by a resolution, where it is declared:--
“That such an oligarchical government is not competent at this
moment to discharge the duties and execute the powers of a State;
and that its recognition as a legitimate government will tend to
enfeeble the Union, _to postpone the day of Reconciliation_, and to
endanger the national tranquillity.”[209]
Mark, if you please, “_the day of Reconciliation_.”
Then came the question of perpetuating the memory of our victories.
February 27th, the Senate having under consideration an appropriation
for a picture in the National Capitol, I moved as an amendment,--
“That in the National Capitol, dedicated to the National Union,
there shall be no picture of a victory in battle with our own
fellow-citizens.”[210]
Mr. Wilson again made haste to announce that he “disagreed with his
colleague altogether,”--saying, according to the “Congressional
Globe,”[211] “I do not believe in that doctrine.”
In the eulogy on President Lincoln, pronounced before the municipal
authorities of Boston, June 1, 1865, the great object of Reconciliation
was presented as dependent on the establishment of our ideas. After
insisting upon Emancipation and the Equal Suffrage, these words occur:--
“Such a vengeance will be a kiss of reconciliation, for it will
remove every obstacle to peace and harmony. The people where
Slavery once ruled will bless the blow that destroyed it. The
people where the kindred tyranny of Caste once prevailed will
rejoice that this fell under the same blow. They will yet confess
that it was dealt in no harshness, in no unkindness, in no desire
to humiliate, but simply and solemnly, in the name of the Republic
and of Human Nature, for their good as well as ours,--ay, for their
good more than ours.
“By ideas, more than by armies, we have conquered. The sword of the
Archangel was less mighty than the mission he bore from the Lord.
But if the ideas giving us the victory are now neglected, if the
pledges of the Declaration, which the Rebellion openly assailed,
are left unredeemed, then have blood and treasure been lavished for
nought.”