SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A MASSACHUSETTS PETITION IN FAVOR OF THE
CRITTENDEN PROPOSITIONS, FEBRUARY 12, 1861.
During weary, anxious weeks, while the Rebellion was preparing,
and Senators were leaving their seats to organize hostile
governments, Mr. Sumner resisted appeals to speak. An earnest
character in Philadelphia wrote to him, January 31st:--
“May we not look to have _you_ speak once more for us,--as
a statesman, not as a politician,--as a philanthropist,
not as the representative of a prospective Cabinet? Mr.
Sumner, you know that Kansas was yesterday admitted. God
bless her, and God bless you, to whom under Him she owes
her deliverance, and the country owes the turning of the
balances _against_ Slavery for all time to come. Now, if
the whole country is on the eve of a similar struggle, why
should we not know it and act accordingly?”
Another zealous friend, writing from Massachusetts on the same
day, said:--
“Why do we not hear your voice uplifted, in this critical,
this dangerous hour?”
It was hard to resist such appeals. But there were good
friends, agreeing with Mr. Sumner, who counselled silence. An
incident unexpectedly occurred which compelled him to speak,
although briefly.
February 12, 1861, Mr. Crittenden presented a petition
extensively signed by people of Massachusetts, where, after
setting forth that “their sentiments towards the Union and
towards their common country have been misrepresented and
misunderstood,” and further declaring themselves “willing
that all parts of the country should have their full and
equal rights under the Constitution, and recognizing in the
propositions of Hon. J. J. Crittenden a basis of settlement
which the North and the South may fairly and honorably accede
to, and which is well calculated to restore peace to the
country,” the petitioners conclude by asking the adoption of
these propositions. The petition purported to be from one
hundred and eighty-two cities and towns of Massachusetts, and
to be signed by twenty-two thousand three hundred and thirteen
citizens of Massachusetts. In presenting it, Mr. Crittenden
remarked on the number of signatures in different towns,
mentioning especially Natick, the home of Senator Wilson,
and Boston, where there were more than fourteen thousand
petitioners out of nineteen thousand voters. And he added, that
he felt “peculiar and especial satisfaction” in presenting the
petition.
On his motion the petition was laid on the table, which, under
the rules of the Senate, cut off debate, when Mr. Sumner moved
the printing of the petition, and on this motion spoke as
follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--As I desire to say a few words on the petition, I move
that it be printed.
These petitioners, I perceive, ask you to adopt what are familiarly
known as the Crittenden Propositions. Their best apology, Sir, for such
a petition is their ignorance of the character of those propositions.
Had they known what they are, I feel sure they could not have put their
names to any such paper.
Those propositions go beyond the Breckinridge platform, already
solemnly condemned by the American people in the election of Abraham
Lincoln. If adopted, they set aside the Republican platform, while
they foist into the National Constitution guaranties of Slavery which
the framers of that instrument never sanctioned,--which Washington,
Jefferson, Franklin, Patrick Henry, and John Jay, according to the
testimony of their lives and declared opinions, would have scorned to
sanction; nor can there be any doubt, that, had such propositions been
made the condition of Union, this Union could not have been formed.
Mr. Madison, in the Convention which framed the National Constitution,
taught his fellow-countrymen that it is “wrong to admit in the
Constitution the idea that there can be property in men.”[135]
What manly vigor and loftiness inspired that warning! Now these
propositions not only interpolate the forbidden idea, but, proceeding
to its practical application, they run a visible black line at
latitude 36° 30´, extending the protection of the Constitution itself
over Slavery south of that line, and then, making the case yet more
offensive and more impossible at the North, they carry it to all
territory hereafter acquired, so that the flag of the Republic, as
it moves southward, must always be the flag of Slavery, while every
future acquisition in that direction must submit to the terrible
doom,--and all this under irrepealable text of Constitution, which, by
supplementary provision, is expressly placed beyond amendment. In an
age of civilization this is bad, very bad; but they go further. There
are to be new guaranties of Slavery in the National capital, and in
other places within the National jurisdiction,--also in transporting
slaves to States and Territories,--also a reinforcement of the Fugitive
Slave Bill; and all these are so placed under Constitutional safeguard
as to exceed the permanence of other provisions. Nor is even this all.
As if to do something inconceivably repugnant to just principles, and
especially obnoxious to the people of Massachusetts, it is proposed to
despoil our colored fellow-citizens there of political franchises long
time assured by the institutions of that Liberty-loving Commonwealth.
Before the adoption of the National Constitution it was declared in
Massachusetts that there could be no distinction of color at the
ballot-box; and this rule of equality is to be sacrificed, while
fellow-citizens are thrust out of rights which they have enjoyed for
generations.
Sir, for these things, and others kindred, do these petitioners now
pray, insisting that they shall all be interpolated into the National
Constitution,--while, in entire harmony with this unparalleled
betrayal, those laws which have been established for the protection
of Personal Liberty are to be set aside, that the Slave-Hunter may
have free course. Such are things which in the judgment of these
petitioners “the North and the South may honorably accede to,” while,
in consideration of these impossible sacrifices, the fee of the
Fugitive Slave Commissioners is modified, and it is declared that the
Slave-Trade shall not be revived. And this is the compromise for which
Massachusetts people in such large numbers from cities and towns now
pray!
I have infinite respect for the right of petition, and I hope always
to promote the interests and to represent the just and proper wishes
of my fellow-citizens; but I cannot hesitate to declare my unfeigned
regret that these petitioners, uniting in such numbers, have missed the
opportunity of demanding plainly and unequivocally, as lovers of the
Union, two things, all-sufficient for the present crisis, with regard
to which I might expect the sympathies of the Senator from Kentucky:
first, that the Constitution of the United States, as administered
by George Washington, shall be preserved intact and blameless in its
text, with no tinkering for the sake of Slavery; and, secondly, that
the verdict of the people last November, by which Abraham Lincoln was
elected President of the United States, shall be enforced without price
or condition. Here is a platform on which every patriot citizen can
take his stand, having over him the stars of the Union. How much better
than any proposition, scheme, or vain delusion of Compromise! On such
ground, all who really love the Union of their fathers, without an
_if_ or a _but_, can plant themselves.
I remember, Sir, that in the debate on the night of the passage of the
Nebraska Bill,--it was at midnight,--I made the declaration that all
future compromise was impossible.[136] Events now taking place verify
this truth. It is obvious that existing difficulties can be arranged
only on permanent principles of justice, freedom, and humanity. Any
seeming settlement founded in abandonment of principles will be but a
miserable patchwork, which cannot succeed. Only a short time ago the
whole country was filled with shame and dismay, as the reports came
to us of the surrender of the Southern forts; and when it was known
that Fort Sumter, too, was about to be given up, a cry went forth from
the popular heart, by which that fortress was saved, at least for the
present. And now for the parallel. Propositions are brought forward by
the Senator from Kentucky, and enforced by petition from my own State,
calling upon the North to surrender its principles,--to surrender those
impregnable principles of Human Rights which constitute our Northern
forts. It is even proposed to surrender the principle of Freedom in
the Territories,--the Fort Sumter of the North. I trust, Sir, that all
these principles will yet be saved; but plainly their safety depends
upon the people, and not upon a President; therefore must the people be
heard, as in that cry from the heart which only a few days ago saved
the other Fort Sumter, menaced by the representatives of Slavery. For
myself, if I stand with many, with few, or alone, I have but one thing
to say: “No surrender of the Fort Sumter of the North! No surrender of
any of our Northern forts,--no, Sir, not one of them!”
Bankers and merchants of New York and Boston tell us that the
Government shall not have money, if we do not surrender. Then again,
Sir, do I appeal to the people. Surely the American people are not
less patriotic than the French. They only want the opportunity to come
forward and supply the necessities of the Government, as the latter, at
the hint of their Emperor, came forward with money, all in small sums,
for the support of that war which ended in the liberation of Italy.
Our Government stands on the aggregate virtue and intelligence of the
people. Not only the rich and fortunate, but the farmer, the mechanic,
the laborer, every citizen truly loving his country, will contribute
out of his daily life to uphold the Constitution and the flag. From
these small sums, inspired by a generous patriotism, I am glad to
believe we shall have a full treasury, even if bankers and merchants
stand aloof.
There is but one thing now for the North to do: it is to stand firm.
The testimony of a great national benefactor, who helped our country
to Independence, should be heard,--I mean Lafayette,--who, in his
old age, with experience ripened by time, contemplating the terrible
Revolution which had convulsed France, as a surviving actor and a
surviving sufferer, did not hesitate to announce from his seat in the
Chamber of Deputies, after recognizing the unutterable calamities of
that Revolution, that, according to his solemn judgment, they must
be referred not so much to the bad passions of men as to those timid
counsels which sought to substitute _Compromise_ for _Principle_.[137]
The venerable patriot may well speak to his American fellow-citizens
now, and inspire them to stand firm against those timid counsels which
would make any such fatal substitution.
Mr. Crittenden replied at some length, vindicating his
propositions, and also the Massachusetts petitioners, who, he
said, had been charged with “ignorance.” In the course of the
debate the following passage occurred.
MR. CRITTENDEN. If the propositions I offered, and which I
offered with diffidence, are not adequate to the purpose,
if they ask too much, why have not gentlemen moved to
amend? Why has the honorable Senator sat here for one month
and more, and proposed no amendment to the propositions
which he now rises to condemn his constituents for
approving?
MR. SUMNER. Will the Senator allow me to say that every
time I could get an opportunity I have voted against his
propositions? I have missed no opportunity, direct or
indirect, of voting against them, from beginning to end,
every line and every word.
MR. CRITTENDEN. I do not controvert that, Mr. President;
it may be so; but that is not what I am asking of
the gentleman. It is, that, if he desired union and
conciliation at all, why did he not move to amend the
propositions which he now condemns?
MR. SUMNER. I will answer the Senator: Because I thought
there could be no basis of peace on the Senator’s
propositions, which are wrong in every respect, in every
line, in every word. That is what I thought. I was for the
Constitution of the United States, the Constitution of our
fathers, as administered by George Washington.
MR. CRITTENDEN. If that was all true, and the gentleman
desired an amicable settlement of the difficulties which
now threaten the country, had he no proposition whatever to
make?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly,--the proposition which I have
already made, that the Constitution, as administered by
George Washington, should be preserved pure and free from
any amendment for the sake of Slavery.
MR. CRITTENDEN. Why did he not move that? Why did he sit
sullen and silent here for one month or more, with his
breast full of resentment? [_Applause in the galleries._]
THE PRESIDING OFFICER [Mr. FOSTER, of Connecticut]. Order
will be preserved in the galleries, or they will be cleared
immediately.
MR. CRITTENDEN. With such a spirit of opposition to, and
thinking as he did of these resolutions, why did he not
propose to strike them all out?
MR. SUMNER. Will the Senator let me answer?
MR. CRITTENDEN. Yes, I will.
MR. SUMNER. I did vote for the substitute of the Senator
from New Hampshire [Mr. CLARK] just as soon as it
could come to a vote, and that expresses precisely my
conviction. That vote displaced the Senator’s propositions
entirely.[138]
Before the debate closed, Mr. Sumner replied briefly.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I have no desire to prolong this debate, or to occupy
the time of the Senate. I content myself with two remarks. The Senator
from Kentucky is not aware of his own popularity in Massachusetts, of
the extent to which his name is an authority there, of the willingness
of the people there to adopt anything with the sanction of his
respectable name. I do not think the distinguished Senator is aware
of that fact; consequently he does not see how easily the people of
Massachusetts might be seduced to adopt at sight a proposition brought
forward by him, which otherwise they would at once reject. Now all that
I suggest in regard to these petitioners is, that, under the lead of
the distinguished Senator, they put their names to a petition which I
am sure they did not, in all respects and in all its bearings, fully
understand; and I must do them the justice to believe, that, had they
known the true character of the propositions of the Senator, they would
not have signed petitions for their adoption.
This is all on that point; but I wish to make one other remark. The
Senator intimated, if I understood him aright, that his propositions,
at least in his own mind, were not applicable to territory hereafter
acquired.
MR. CRITTENDEN. No: I do not mean to be understood as saying
that.
MR. SUMNER. I understood the Senator so.
MR. CRITTENDEN. I said I did not consider that proposition as
an essential part of mine,--that I did not intend to insist
upon it, if I found it would not be acceptable. I did not
intend that that should be any obstacle to an adjustment, and I
would propose to strike it out, if necessary.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator did not consider that an essential part; and
yet in the Journal of the Senate, now before me, in the yeas and nays,
I find his name recorded in the affirmative on introducing those words,
“now held or hereafter to be acquired.” Here is the record,--the name
of the Senator from Kentucky answering yea, when we were all asked to
answer yea or nay.
This brief effort of Mr. Sumner at a critical moment found
response, not only from his constituents, but from the North
generally. In Massachusetts many made haste to testify that the
petition praying for such a shameful surrender had been signed
by large numbers without knowing its true character,--while
the Common Council of Boston, then controlled by Compromisers,
also made haste to censure Mr. Sumner, declaring, in formal
resolution, that his assertion in the Senate with regard to
the petitioners was “undignified, unbecoming a Senator and a
citizen of Boston, and untrue.”
As through this remarkable petition, and the speech of Mr.
Crittenden in presenting it, Massachusetts was vouched for
Slavery, a few witnesses may be properly adduced to show how
the signatures were obtained, and also what was the real
sentiment of the people there.
William Lloyd Garrison, always watchful for Human Rights, and
knowing the wiles of Compromise, wrote from Boston:--
“For one, I desire to thank you for declaring in the Senate
that the petition from Boston, asking for any compromise
to propitiate the South, did not represent the sentiment
even of the city, but was signed by multitudes ignorantly
and recklessly,--the left hand not knowing what the right
hand did. I wish it were in your power to have that
list of names critically examined. I am quite sure that
hundreds of names would be proved to be ‘men of straw.’ I
have been told that the names of Wendell Phillips, Henry
Ward Beecher, Theodore Parker (!),[139] and my own, were
appended to it. This is possible, but hardly credible.
Still, excepting the Border-Ruffian returns in Kansas, I do
not believe there was ever a petition more impudently and
fraudulently presented to a legislative assembly than the
one from this city.
“I congratulate you upon being the special object of the
_Courier’s_ malignant abuse. Do not fear of being fully
sustained by Massachusetts in your boldest utterances; and
how posterity will decide is easily seen.”
M. P. Kennard, an excellent citizen and business man, wrote
from Boston:--
“The petition was placed in the lobby of our post-office,
under the charge of a crier, who saluted every one who
passed him with, ‘Sign this petition?’--and it was
thoughtlessly signed by men and boys, native and foreign.”