SECOND SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON THE BOSTON PETITION FOR THE REPEAL
OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT, JUNE 28, 1854.
The preceding speech was followed by a debate without example in anger,
excitement, and brutality. Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, Mr. Mason, of
Virginia, Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, Mr. Mallory,
of Florida, and Mr. Clay, of Alabama, vied with each other in bullying
denunciation of Mr. Sumner.
Mr. Butler began by claiming that the American Revolution was
carried through by "slaveholding States," thus making boast for
Slavery,--and then turned to pour contempt upon Mr. Sumner, whose
speech he characterized as "a species of rhetoric intended to feed the
fires of fanaticism in his own State"; then it was "a Fourth of July
Oration,"--"vapid rhetoric,"--"a species of rhetoric which ought not
to come from a scholar,"--"a rhetoric with more fine color than real
strength"; and then he announced, "If sectional agitation is to be
fed by such sentiments, such displays, and such things as come from
the honorable gentleman near me, I say we ought not to be in a common
confederacy, and we should be better off without it." Then again, "If
the object be to make the issue between the North and the South, let
the issue come." He then asked if Massachusetts "would send fugitives
back to us after trial by jury or any other mode?" Then, turning to
Mr. Sumner, he demanded, with much impetuosity of manner, "Will this
honorable Senator tell me that he will do it?" To which Mr. Sumner
promptly replied, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?"
The _Globe_ reports the disorderly ejaculations which followed from
Mr. Butler, winding up with the words, "You stand in my presence as
a coëqual Senator, and tell me that it is a dog's office to execute
the Constitution of the United States?" Here Mr. Sumner remarked, "I
recognize no such obligation,"--meaning, plainly, no obligation to
return a fugitive slave.
Mr. Mason, afterwards so conspicuous in the Rebellion, followed in
similar vein. He began by saying: "I say, Sir, the dignity of the
American Senate has been rudely, wantonly, grossly assailed by a
Senator from Massachusetts,--and not only the dignity of the Senate,
but of the whole people, trifled with in the presence of the American
Senate, either ignorantly or corruptly, I do not know which, nor do I
care." He then proceeded to vindicate the "gentleman from Virginia" who
had sought his slave in Boston, denounced Mr. Sumner for having "the
boldness to speak here of such a man as a slave-hunter," and boasted
that the law had been executed in Boston,--that "in that city, within
the last fortnight, it has done its office, and done it in the presence
of a mob, which that Senator and his associates roused and inflamed to
the very verge of treason, subjecting them to traitors' doom, while he
and his associates sat here and kept themselves aloof from danger."
Then he exclaimed: "Why, Sir, am I speaking of a fanatic, one whose
reason is dethroned? Can such a one expect to make impressions upon the
American people from his vapid, vulgar declamation here, accompanied by
a declaration that he would violate his oath now recently taken?"
All that was said by these two representatives of Slavery was
intensified and aggravated by Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, who charged Mr.
Sumner with openly declaring in the Senate that he would violate his
oath, and then proceeded to foreshadow a proposition for his expulsion.
At the same time he vindicated at length his original statement, that
the construction put upon the Declaration of Independence by the
Abolitionists of the country "made it a self-evident lie, instead of a
self-evident truth." At this stage the Senate adjourned, leaving the
question of reference still pending.
The next day was occupied by other business, contrary to the declared
desire of Mr. Sumner, who said that he had "something further to say"
upon the petition. On the 28th of June the attack on Mr. Sumner was
renewed by Mr. Pettit, but without taking up the petition. An attempt
was made to stifle further debate. Motions to postpone, and then to lay
on the table, were proposed, when Mr. Sumner remarked:--
I am unwilling to stand in the way of the general wish of the Senate
to go on with its business; I desire at all times to promote its
business; but this question has been presented and debated. Several
Senators have already expressed themselves on it. Other Senators within
my knowledge expect to be heard. I too, Sir, claim the privilege of
being heard again, in reply to remarks which have fallen from honorable
Senators. I hope, therefore, the memorial will have no disposition that
shall preclude its complete discussion.
The Senate refused to postpone, and Mr. Mallory, of Florida, afterwards
Secretary of the Navy in the cabinet of Jefferson Davis, began the
assault on Mr. Sumner, expressing horror at his declarations in the
Senate, and then adducing his early language in the Boston speech
so often referred to. The future rebel dwelt with unction on the
obligations of an oath, saying: "Sir, if there be any principle in the
breast of the American citizen which more than any other lies at the
foundation of law, morals, and society, it is his habitual observance
and recognition of _all_ the sacred obligations of an oath; and this
no man knows better than the Senator himself." Mr. Clay, of Alabama,
afterwards a violent rebel, succeeded in interpolating into the speech
of Mr. Mallory a tirade of personality and brutality, which will be
found in the _Globe_, and, after presenting a portrait meant for
Mr. Sumner, "who held himself irresponsible to all law, feeling the
obligation neither of the Divine law, nor of the law of the land, _nor
of the law of honor_," proceeded to ask, "How would such a miscreant be
treated? Why, if you could not reach him with the arm of the municipal
law, if you could not send him to the Penitentiary, you would _send
him to Coventry_." And the orator of Slavery wound up by saying: "If
we cannot restrain or prevent this eternal warfare upon the feelings
and rights of Southern gentlemen, we may rob the serpent of his fangs,
we can paralyze his influence, by placing him in that nadir of social
degradation which he merits."
This brief account of the debate is important, as showing the
atmosphere of the Senate, and the personal provocation, when Mr. Sumner
at last obtained the floor and spoke as follows.
Mr. President,--Since I had the honor of addressing the Senate two days
ago, various Senators have spoken. Of these, several have alluded to me
in terms clearly beyond the sanction of parliamentary debate. Of this
I make no complaint, though, for the honor of the Senate, at least, it
were well, had it been otherwise. If to them it seems fit, courteous,
parliamentary, let them
"unpack the heart with words,
And fall a-cursing, like a very drab,
A scullion";
I will not interfere with the enjoyment they find in such exposure
of themselves. They have given us a taste of their quality. Two
of them, the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER],
who sits immediately before me, and the Senator from Virginia [Mr.
MASON], who sits immediately behind me, are not young. Their
heads are amply crowned by Time. They did not speak from any ebullition
of youth, but from the confirmed temper of age. It is melancholy to
believe that in this debate they showed themselves as they are. It were
charitable to believe that they are in reality better than they showed
themselves.
I think, Sir, that I am not the only person on this floor, who,
listening to these two self-confident champions of that peculiar
fanaticism of the South, was reminded of the striking words of
Jefferson, picturing the influence of Slavery, where he says: "The
whole commerce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise of the
most boisterous passions, the most unremitting despotism, on the one
part, and degrading submission on the other. Our children see this, and
learn to imitate it; for man is an imitative animal.... The parent
storms. The child looks on, catches the lineaments of wrath, puts on
the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives a loose to the
worst of passions, and, thus nursed, educated, and daily exercised in
tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. _The
man must be a prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved
by such circumstances._"[78] Nobody, who witnessed the Senator from
South Carolina or the Senator from Virginia in this debate, will
place either of them among the "prodigies" described by Jefferson.
As they spoke, the Senate Chamber must have seemed to them, in the
characteristic fantasy of the moment, a plantation well-stocked with
slaves, over which the lash of the overseer had free swing. Sir, it
gives me no pleasure to say these things. It is not according to my
nature. Bear witness that I do it only in just self-defence against the
unprecedented assaults and provocations of this debate. In doing it, I
desire to warn certain Senators, that, if, by any ardor of menace, or
by any tyrannical frown, they expect to shake my fixed resolve, they
expect a vain thing.
[78] Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII.
There is little that fell from these two champions, as the fit was
on, which deserves reply. Certainly not the hard words they used
so readily and congenially. The veteran Senator from Virginia [Mr.
MASON] complained that I had characterized one of his
"constituents"--a person who went all the way from Virginia to Boston
in pursuit of a slave--as Slave-Hunter. Sir, I choose to call things
by their right names. White I call white, and black I call black. And
where a person degrades himself to the work of chasing a fellow-man,
who, under the inspiration of Freedom and the guidance of the North
Star, has sought a freeman's home far away from coffle and chain,--that
person, whosoever he may be, I call Slave-Hunter. If the Senator from
Virginia, who professes nicety of speech, will give me any term more
precisely describing such an individual, I will use it. Until then, I
must continue to use the language which seems to me so apt. But this
very sensibility of the veteran Senator at a just term, truly depicting
an odious character, shows a shame which pleases me. It was said by a
philosopher of Antiquity that a blush is the sign of virtue; and permit
me to add, that, in this violent sensibility, I recognize a blush
mantling the cheek of the honorable Senator, which even his plantation
manners cannot conceal.
And the venerable Senator from South Carolina, too, [Mr.
BUTLER,]--he has betrayed his sensibility. Here let me say
that this Senator knows well that I always listen with gurgles
forth,--sometimes tinctured by generous ideas,--except when, forgetful
of history, and in defiance of reason, he undertakes to defend what
is obviously indefensible. This Senator was disturbed, when, to his
inquiry, personally, pointedly, and vehemently addressed to me, whether
I would join in returning a fellow-man to Slavery, I exclaimed: "Is thy
servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" In fitful phrase, which
seemed to come from unconscious excitement, so common with the Senator,
he shot forth various cries about "dogs," and, among other things,
asked if there was any "dog" in the Constitution? The Senator did
not seem to bear in mind, through the heady currents of that moment,
that, by the false interpretation he fastens upon the Constitution, he
has helped to nurture there a whole kennel of Carolina bloodhounds,
trained, with savage jaw and insatiable scent, for the hunt of flying
bondmen. No, Sir, I do not believe that there is any "kennel of
bloodhounds," or even any "dog," in the Constitution.
But, Mr. President, since the brief response which I made to the
inquiry of the Senator, and which leaped unconsciously to my lips, has
drawn upon me such various attacks, all marked by grossness of language
and manner,--since I have been charged with openly declaring a purpose
to violate the Constitution, and to break the oath which I have taken
at that desk, I shall be pardoned for showing simply how a few plain
words will put all this down. The authentic report in the "Globe" shows
what was actually said. The report in the "Sentinel" is substantially
the same. And one of the New York papers, which has been put into my
hands since I entered the Senate Chamber to-day, under its telegraphic
head, states the incident with substantial accuracy,--though it omits
the personal, individual appeal addressed to me by the Senator, and
preserved in the "Globe." Here is the New York report.
"MR. BUTLER. I would like to ask the Senator, if Congress
repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would Massachusetts execute
the Constitutional requirements, and send back to the South the
absconding slaves?
"MR. SUMNER. Do you ask me if I would send back a slave?
"MR. BUTLER. Why, yes.
"MR. SUMNER. 'Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this
thing?'"[79]
[79] New York Daily Times, June 27, 1854.
To any candid mind, either of these reports renders anything
further superfluous. The answer is explicit and above impeachment.
Indignantly it spurns a service from which the soul recoils, while it
denies no constitutional obligation. But Senators who are so swift
in misrepresentation, and in assault upon me as disloyal to the
Constitution, deserve to be exposed, and it shall be done.
Now, Sir, I begin by adopting as my guide the authoritative words
of Andrew Jackson, in 1832, in his memorable veto of the Bank of
the United States. To his course at that critical time were opposed
the authority of the Supreme Court _and his oath to support the
Constitution_. Here is his triumphant reply.
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of
this Act, it ought not to control the coördinate authorities of
this Government. The Congress, the Executive, and the Court must,
each for itself, be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.
_Each public officer, who takes an oath to support the
Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it,
and not as it is understood by others._ It is as much the duty of
the House of Representatives, of the Senate, and of the President,
to decide upon the constitutionality of any bill or resolution
which may be presented to them for passage or approval, as it is
of the Supreme Judges, when it may be brought before them for
judicial decision.... The authority of the Supreme Court must not,
therefore, be permitted to control the Congress or the Executive,
when acting in their legislative capacities, but to have only such
influence as the force of their reasoning may deserve."[80]
[80] Senate Journal, 22d Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 438, 439.
Mark these words: "Each public officer, who takes an oath to support
the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he understands it,
and not as it is understood by others." Yes, Sir, AS HE UNDERSTANDS
IT, _and not as it is understood by others_. Does any Senator
here dissent from this rule? Does the Senator from Virginia? Does the
Senator from South Carolina? [_Here Mr. Sumner paused, but there was no
reply._] At all events, I accept the rule as just and reasonable,--in
harmony, too, let me assert, with that Liberty which scorns the dogma
of _passive obedience_, and asserts the inestimable right of private
judgment, whether in religion or politics. In swearing to support the
Constitution at your desk, Mr. President, I did not swear to support it
as _you_ understand it,--oh, no, Sir!--or as the Senator from Virginia
understands it,--by no means!--or as the Senator from South Carolina
understands it, with a kennel of bloodhounds, or at least a "dog" in
it, "pawing to get free his hinder parts," in pursuit of a slave. No
such thing. Sir, I swore to support the Constitution _as I understand
it_,--nor more, nor less.
But Andrew Jackson was not alone in this rule of conduct. Statesmen
before and since have declared it also,--nobody with more force and
constancy than Jefferson, who was, indeed, the author of it, so far
as anybody can be the author of what springs so obviously from common
sense. Repeatedly he returns to it, expressing it in various forms.
"Each department," he insists, "is truly independent of the others,
and has an equal right to decide for itself _what is the meaning of
the Constitution_ in the cases submitted to its action, and especially
where it is to act ultimately and without appeal."[81] I content
myself with a single text from this authority. The same rule was also
announced by Hon. John Holmes, a Representative from Massachusetts,
afterwards Senator from Maine, in the famous debate on the admission
of Missouri. "This Constitution," he declares, "which I hold in my
hand, I am sworn to support, not according to legislative or judicial
exposition, _but as I shall understand it_."[82] Here is the rule of
Jackson, almost in his language, twelve years before he uttered it.
[81] Letter to Judge Roane, Sept. 6, 1819: Writings, Vol. VII. p.
135. See also, p. 178, Letter to Mr. Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820; and,
Vol. VI. pp. 461, 462, Letter to W. H. Torrance, June 11, 1815.
[82] Annals of Congress, 16th Cong. 1st Sess., I. 967, Jan. 27,
1820.
And since Jackson we have the rule stated with great point in this very
Chamber, by no less an authority--at least with Democrats--than Mr.
Buchanan. Here are a few words from his speech on the United States
Bank.
"If all the judges and all the lawyers in Christendom had decided
in the affirmative, when the question is thus brought home to
me as a legislator, bound to vote for or against a new charter,
upon my oath to support the Constitution, _I must exercise my own
judgment_. I would treat with profound respect the arguments and
opinions of judges and constitutional lawyers; but if after all
they failed to convince me that the law was constitutional, I
should be guilty of perjury before high Heaven, if I voted in its
favor.... Even if the judiciary had settled the question, I should
never hold myself bound by their decision.... I shall never consent
to place the political rights and liberties of this people in the
hands of any judicial tribunal."[83]
[83] Congressional Globe, July 6, 1841, Appendix, pp. 162, 163.
In short, he would exercise his own judgment: and this is precisely
what I intend to do on the proposition to hunt slaves.
Now I will not occupy your time, nor am I so disposed at this moment,
nor does the occasion require it, by entering upon any minute criticism
of the clause in the Constitution touching the surrender of "fugitives
from service." A few words only are needful. Assuming, Sir, in the face
of commanding rules of interpretation, all leaning towards Freedom,
that, in the evasive language of this clause, "paltering in a double
sense," the words employed can be judicially regarded as justly
applicable to fugitive slaves, which, as you ought to know, Sir, is
often most strenuously and conscientiously denied, thus sponging the
whole clause out of existence, except as a provision for the return of
persons actually bound by lawful contract, but on which I now express
no opinion,--assuming, I say, this interpretation, so hostile to
Freedom, and derogatory to the members of the National Convention, who
solemnly declared that they would not give any sanction to Slavery,
or admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property
in men,--assuming, I repeat, an interpretation which every principle
of the Common Law, claimed by our fathers as their birthright, must
disown,--admitting, for the moment only, that the Constitution of
the United States has any words which in any legal intendment can
constrain fugitive slaves,--then I desire to say, that, as I understand
the Constitution, this clause does not impose upon me, as Senator or
citizen, any obligation to take part, directly or indirectly, in the
surrender of a fugitive slave.
Sir, as Senator, I have taken at your desk the oath to support the
Constitution, _as I understand it_. And understanding it as I do, I
am bound by that oath, Mr. President, to oppose all enactments by
Congress on the subject of fugitive slaves, as a flagrant violation
of the Constitution; especially must I oppose the last act, as a
tyrannical usurpation, kindred in character to the Stamp Act, which
our fathers indignantly refused to obey. Here my duties, under the
oath which I have taken as Senator, end. There is nothing beyond. They
are all absorbed in the constant, inflexible, righteous obligation to
oppose every exercise by Congress of any power over the subject. In no
respect by that oath can I be compelled to duties _in other capacities,
or as a simple citizen_, especially when revolting to my conscience.
Now in this interpretation of the Constitution I may be wrong; others
may differ from me; the Senator from Virginia may be otherwise minded,
and the Senator from South Carolina also; and they will, each and all,
act according to their respective understanding. For myself, I shall
act according to mine. On this explicit statement of my constitutional
obligations I stand, as upon a living rock; and to the inquiry, in
whatever form addressed to my personal responsibility, whether I would
aid, directly or indirectly, in reducing or surrendering a fellow-man
to bondage, I reply again, "Is thy servant a dog, that he should do
this thing?"
And, Sir, looking round upon this Senate, I might ask fearlessly, how
many there are, even in this body,--if, indeed, there be a single
Senator,--who would stoop to any such service? Until some one rises
and openly confesses his willingness to become a Slave-Hunter, I will
not believe there can be one. [_Here Mr. Sumner paused, but nobody
rose._] And yet honorable and chivalrous Senators have rushed headlong
to denounce me because I openly declared my repudiation of a service
at which every manly bosom must revolt. "Sire, I have found in
Bayonne good citizens and brave soldiers, _but not one executioner_,"
was the noble utterance of the Governor of that place to Charles the
Ninth of France, in response to the royal edict for the massacre of
St. Bartholomew;[84] and such a spirit, I trust, will yet animate the
people of this country, when pressed to the service of "dogs."
[84] Sismondi, Histoire de France, Tom. XIX. p. 177, note.
To that other question which has been proposed, whether Massachusetts,
by State laws, will carry out the offensive clause in the Constitution
according to the understanding of the venerable Senator from South
Carolina, I reply, that Massachusetts, at all times, has been ready to
do her duty under the Constitution, as she understands it, and I doubt
not will ever continue of this mind. More than this I cannot say.
In quitting this topic, I cannot forbear to remark that the assault
on me for my disclaimer of all constitutional obligation, resting
upon me as Senator or citizen, to aid in enslaving a fellow-man, or
in surrendering him to Slavery, comes with ill grace from the veteran
Senator from Virginia, a State which, by its far-famed resolutions of
1798, claimed to determine its constitutional obligations, even to
the extent of openly declaring two different Acts of Congress null
and void; and it comes even more strangely from the venerable Senator
from South Carolina, a State which, in latter days, has arrayed
itself openly against the national authorities, and which threatens
nullification as often as babies cry.
Surely the Senator from South Carolina, with his silver-white locks,
would have hesitated to lead this assault upon me, had he not for the
moment been entirely oblivious of the history of the State which he
represents. Not many years have passed since an incident occurred at
Charleston, in South Carolina,--not at Boston, in Massachusetts,--which
ought to be remembered. The postmaster of that place, acting under a
controlling Public Opinion there, informed the head of his Department
at Washington that he had determined to suppress all _Antislavery_
publications, and requested instructions for the future. Thus, in
violation of the laws of the land, the very mails were rifled,
and South Carolina smiled approbation. But still further. The
Postmaster-General, Mr. Kendall, after prudently alleging, that, as
he had not seen the papers in question, he could not give an opinion
of their character, proceeded to say that he had been _informed_ that
they were inflammatory, incendiary, and insurrectionary, and then
announced:--
"By no act or direction of mine, official or private, could I be
induced to aid knowingly in giving circulation to papers of this
description, directly or indirectly. _We owe an obligation to the
law_, but a _higher_ one to the communities in which we live; and
if the former be perverted to destroy the latter, _it is patriotism
to disregard them_. Entertaining these views, I cannot sanction,
and will not condemn, the step you have taken."[85]
[85] Letter of Postmaster-General to Postmaster at Charleston, S.
C., August 4, 1835: Niles's Weekly Register, 4th Ser. Vol. XII. p.
448.
Such was the approving response of the National Government to the
Postmaster of Charleston, when, for the sake of Slavery, and without
any constitutional scruple, he set himself against an acknowledged law
of the land. And yet the venerable Senator from South Carolina now
presumes to denounce me, when, for the sake of Freedom, and in the
honest interpretation of my constitutional obligations, I decline an
offensive service.
There is another incident in the history of South Carolina, which, as
a loyal son of Massachusetts, I cannot forget, and which rises now
in judgment against the venerable Senator. Massachusetts ventured to
commission a distinguished gentleman, of blameless life and eminent
professional qualities, who had served with honor in the other House
[Hon. SAMUEL HOAR], to reside at Charleston for a brief
period, in order to guard the rights of her free colored citizens,
assailed on arrival there by an inhospitable statute, so gross in its
provisions that an eminent character of South Carolina, a Judge of the
Supreme Court of the United States [Hon. WILLIAM JOHNSON],
had condemned it as "trampling on the Constitution," and "a direct
attack upon the sovereignty of the United States."[86] Massachusetts
had read in the Constitution a clause closely associated with that
touching fugitives from service, to the following effect: "The citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States," and supposed that this would yet be
recognized by South Carolina. But she was mistaken. Her venerable
representative, an unarmed old man, with hair as silver-white almost
as that of the Senator before me, was beset in Charleston by a
"respectable" mob, prevented from entering upon his duties, and driven
from the State,--while the Legislature stepped forward to sanction
this shameless, lawless act, by placing on the statute-book an order
for his expulsion. And yet, Sir, the excitable Senator from South
Carolina is fired by the fancied delinquencies of Massachusetts
towards Slave-Hunters, and also by my own refusal to render them any
aid or comfort; he shoots questions in volleys, assumes to measure our
duties by his understanding, and ejaculates a lecture at Massachusetts
and myself. Sir, before that venerable Senator again ventures thus,
let him return to his own State, seamed all over with the scars of
Nullification, and first lecture there. Ay, Sir, let him look into his
own heart, and lecture himself.
[86] Letter to John Quincy Adams, July 3, 1824; Opinion in Ex parte
Henry Elkison, August 7, 1823: Report No. 80, Com. H. of R., 27th
Cong. 1st Sess., Jan. 20, 1843, Appendix, pp. 14, 29.
* * * * *
But enough for the present on the extent of my constitutional
obligations to become Slave-Hunter. There are, however, yet other
things in the assault of the venerable Senator, which, for the sake
of truth, in just defence of Massachusetts, and in honor of Freedom,
shall not be left unanswered. Alluding to those days when Massachusetts
was illustrated by Otis, Hancock, and "the brace of Adamses," when
Faneuil Hall sent forth notes of Liberty which resounded even to South
Carolina, and the very stones in the streets of Boston rose in mutiny
against tyranny, the Senator with the silver-white locks, in the very
ecstasy of Slavery, broke forth in exclamation that Massachusetts
was then "slaveholding," and he presumed to hail these patriots
representatives of "hardy, slaveholding Massachusetts." Sir, I repel
the imputation. True, Massachusetts was "hardy"; but she was not, in
any just sense, "slaveholding." Had she been so, she could not have
been "hardy." The two characteristics are inconsistent as weakness and
strength, as disease and health,--I had almost said, as death and life.
The Senator opens a page on which I willingly dwell. Sir, Slavery
never flourished in Massachusetts; nor did it ever prevail there at
any time, even in early colonial days, in such measure as to be a
distinctive feature of her progressive civilization. Her few slaves
were for a term of years or for life. If, in fact, their issue was
sometimes held in bondage, it was never by sanction of any statute or
law of Colony or Commonwealth. Such has been the solemn and repeated
judgment of her Supreme Court.[87] In all her annals, no person was
ever born a slave on the soil of Massachusetts. This, of itself, is an
answer to the imputation of the Senator.
[87] Littleton _v._ Tuttle, 4 Mass., 128, note; Lanesborough _v._
Westfield, 16 Mass., 75; Edgartown _v._ Tisbury, 10 Cush., 410;
Jackson _v._ Phillips et als., 14 Allen, 562.
Benign and brilliant Acts of her Legislature, at an early date, show
her sensibility on this subject. Unhappily, in 1645, two negroes were
brought from the coast of Guinea in a Boston ship. Instead of holding
them as slaves, the record shows "a resolve to send them back."[88]
One year later, "a negro interpreter, with others, unlawfully taken,"
became the occasion of another testimony. Thus spoke Massachusetts:--
"The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the first
opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and crying sin of
man-stealing, as also to prescribe such timely redress for what is
past, _and such a law for the future, as may sufficiently deter all
others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and most odious
courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men_, do order, that
the negro interpreter, with others, unlawfully taken, be, by the
first opportunity, at the charge of the country for present, sent
to his native country of Guinea, and a letter with him, of the
indignation of the Court thereabouts, and justice thereof."[89]
[88] Mass. Records, Oct. 14, 1645, Vol. III. p. 49. Winthrop,
History of New England, Vol. II. p. 244.
[89] Mass. Records, Nov. 4, 1646, Vol. III. p. 84.
Note the language: "Such vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred
of all good and just men." Better words could not be employed against
the infamies of Slavery in our day. The Colony that could issue this
noble decree was inconsistent with itself, when it permitted its
rocky soil to be pressed by the footstep of a single slave. But a
righteous public opinion early and constantly set its face against
Slavery. As early as 1701 the following vote appears on the Records of
Boston: "The Representatives are desired to promote the encouraging
the bringing of white servants, _and to put a period to negroes being
slaves_."[90] Perhaps, in all history, this is the earliest testimony
from any official body against Negro Slavery, and I thank God that it
came from Boston, my native town. In 1705 a heavy duty was imposed upon
every negro imported into the Province;[91] in 1712 the importation
of Indians as servants or slaves was strictly forbidden;[92] but
the general subject of Slavery attracted little attention till the
beginning of the controversy which ended in the Revolution, when the
rights of the blacks were blended by all true patriots with those
of the whites. Sparing unnecessary detail, suffice it to say, that,
as early as 1770, one of the courts of Massachusetts, anticipating
by two years the renowned judgment in Somerset's case, established
within its jurisdiction the principle of emancipation, and, under its
touch of magic power, changed slave into freeman. Similar decisions
followed from other courts. In 1776 the whole number of blacks, both
free and slave, sprinkled thinly over "hardy" Massachusetts, was
five thousand two hundred and forty-nine, being to the whites as one
to sixty-five,[93]--while in "slaveholding" South Carolina the number
of negro slaves at that time was not far from one hundred thousand,
being at least one slave for every freeman, thus rendering that Colony
anything but "hardy." In these figures I give South Carolina the
benefit of the most favorable estimates. Good authorities make the
slaves at that time in this State more than twice as numerous as the
freemen.[94] At last, in 1780, even before the triumph of Yorktown led
the way to that peace which set its seal upon National Independence,
Massachusetts, glowing with the struggles of the Revolution, and filled
with the sentiments of Freedom, placed foremost in her Declaration
of Rights those emphatic words, "All men are born free and equal,"
and by this declaration exterminated every vestige of Slavery within
her borders. All hail, then, to Massachusetts! the just and generous
Commonwealth in whose behalf I have the honor to speak.
[90] Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., 2d Ser. Vol. VIII. p. 184. Drake's
History and Antiquities of Boston, p. 525.
[91] Acts and Laws of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, 1705,
Ch. VI. § 6.
[92] Ibid., 1711-12, Ch. V.
[93] Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc., Vol. IV. p. 198.
[94] Hewatt, History of South Carolina, Vol. II. p. 292; Drayton,
View of South Carolina, p. 103; Mills, Statistics of South
Carolina, p. 177. In harmony with these is the recent History of
South Carolina, by William Gilmore Simms, (ed. 1860,) p. 199.
Thus, Sir, does the venerable Senator err, when he presumes to vouch
Massachusetts for Slavery, and to associate this odious institution
with the names of her great patriots.
But the venerable Senator errs yet more, if possible, when he
attributes to "slaveholding" communities a leading part in those
contributions of arms and treasure by which independence was secured.
Here are his exact words, as I find them in the "Globe," revised by
himself.
"Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of Lexington and
Concord, in an issue made by Boston, to whom was an appeal made,
and from whom was it answered? The answer is found in the acts of
slaveholding States,--_animis opibusque parati_. Yes, Sir, the
independence of America, to maintain republican liberty, was won
by the arms and treasure, by the patriotism and _good faith_, of
slaveholding communities."[95]
[95] Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1854, Vol.
XXVIII. p. 1516.
Observe, Sir, the words as emphasized by himself. Surely, the Senator,
with his silver-white locks, all fresh from the outrage of the Nebraska
Bill, and that overthrow of a solemn compact, cannot stand here and
proclaim the "_good faith_ of slaveholding communities," except in
irony,--yes, Sir, in irony. And let me add, that, when this Senator
presumes to say that American Independence "was won by the arms and
treasure of _slaveholding_ communities," he speaks either in irony or
in ignorance.
The question which the venerable Senator from South Carolina opens
by his vaunt I have no desire to discuss; but since it is presented,
I confront it at once. This is not the first time, during my brief
service here, that this Senator has sought on this floor to provoke
comparison between slaveholding communities and the Free States.
MR. BUTLER [_from his seat_]. You cannot quote a single instance in
which I have done it. I have always said I thought it was in bad
taste, and I have never attempted it.
MR. SUMNER. I beg the Senator's pardon. I always listen to
him, and I know whereof I affirm. He has profusely dealt in it. I
allude now only to a single occasion. In his speech on the Nebraska
Bill, running through two days, it was one of his commonplaces.
There he openly presented a contrast between the Free States
and "slaveholding communities" in certain essential features of
civilization, and directed shafts at Massachusetts which called to his
feet my distinguished colleague at that time [Mr. EVERETT],
and more than once compelled me to take the floor. And now, Sir, the
venerable Senator, not rising from his seat and standing openly before
the Senate, undertakes to deny that he has dealt in such comparisons.
MR. BUTLER. Will the Senator allow me?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly: I yield the floor to the Senator.
MR. BUTLER. Whenever that speech is read,--and I wish the Senator
had read it before he commented on it with a good deal of
rhetorical enthusiasm,--it will be found that I was particular not
to wound the feelings of the Northern people who were sympathizing
with us in the great movement to remove odious distinctions. I was
careful to say nothing that would provoke invidious comparisons;
and when that speech is read, notwithstanding the vehement
assertion of the honorable Senator, he will find, that, when I
quoted the laws of Massachusetts, particularly one Act which I
termed the _Toties Quoties_ Act, by which every negro was whipped
every time he came into Massachusetts, I quoted them with a view
to show, not a contrast between South Carolina and Massachusetts,
but to show that in the whole of this country, from the beginning
to this time,--even in my own State,--I made no exception,--public
opinion had undergone a change, and that it had undergone the same
change in Massachusetts; for at one time they did not regard this
institution of Slavery with the same odium that they do at this
time. That was the purpose; and I challenge the Senator, as an
orator of fairness, to look at it and see if it is not so.
MR. SUMNER. Has the Senator done?
MR. BUTLER. I may not be done presently; but that is the purport of
that speech.
MR. SUMNER. Will the Senator refer to his own speech? He now
admits, that, under the guise of an argument, he did draw attention to
what he evidently regarded an odious law of Massachusetts. And, Sir, I
did not forget, that, in doing this, there was, at the time, an apology
which ill concealed the sting.[96] But let that pass. The Senator is
strangely oblivious of the statistical contrasts which he borrowed from
the speech of a member of the other House, and which, at his request,
were read by a Senator before him on this floor. The Senator, too, is
strangely oblivious of yet another imputation, which, at the very close
of his speech, he shot as a Parthian arrow at Massachusetts. It is he,
then, who is the offender; and no hardihood of denial can extricate
him. For myself, Sir, I understand the sensibilities of Senators from
"slaveholding communities," and would not wound them by a superfluous
word. Of Slavery I speak strongly, as I must; but thus far, even at the
expense of my argument, I have avoided the contrasts founded on detail
of figures and facts which are so obvious between the Free States and
"slaveholding communities"; especially have I shunned all allusion to
South Carolina. But the venerable Senator to whose discretion that
State has intrusted its interests here will not allow me to be still.
[96] The following, from the _Congressional Globe_ (33d Cong. 1st
Sess., Appendix, p. 234), will show the spirit of Mr. Butler's
remarks, on the occasion referred to.
"MR. BUTLER. ... I have said, that, before the adoption of the
Missouri Compromise, even the Northern States were not so very
kind and philanthropic towards this race, which is now under the
peculiar care of the Senator from Massachusetts, as he would
represent. I have before me a statute of that State, which I ask my
friend from Alabama [Mr. C. C. Clay], who sits beside me, to read."
[Here Mr. Clay read from the Act in question (withholding the
title, "_An Act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, Vagabonds,
Common Beggars, and other Idle, Disorderly, and Lewd Persons_") a
section prohibiting the tarrying of vagrant negroes in the State
_longer than two months_, on pain, in case of complaint, and
continuance after due warning, of being "whipped not exceeding ten
stripes, and ordered to depart out of the Commonwealth within ten
days; and if he or she shall not so depart, the same process to be
had and punishment inflicted, and so _toties quoties_."]
"MR. BROADHEAD. What is the date of that statute?
"MR. BUTLER. Seventeen hundred and eighty-eight; and it remained
on the statute-book _in full force_ until 1823, until after the
adoption of the Missouri Compromise. I will call it the _Toties
Quoties_ Act. The negroes were to be whipped every time they
happened to get to Boston, or any other place in Massachusetts.
That is a specimen of statutory philanthropy at least."