As this speech was made in the midst of the excitement in
Massachusetts on the nomination of Mr. Sumner as Senator, an
account of that contest will not be out of place here.
* * * * *
The early and active part taken by Mr. Sumner in favor
of Emancipation, and the urgency of his efforts against
Slavery, excited against him an intense opposition, not
only in Massachusetts, but throughout the country. He was
denounced as second only to Jefferson Davis in hostility to
the Constitution. But these attacks aroused the friends of
Emancipation, who were unwilling to see their representative
sacrificed.
There were signs of this contest in the autumn of 1861, when
Mr. Sumner called for Emancipation as our best weapon.[133]
Governor Andrew saw it coming. In a letter, dated June 9, 1862,
with reference to the appointment of officers in the Internal
Revenue Bureau, he used the following language.
“The Hunkers will make the most strenuous efforts to secure
a large representation in this agency, so that, by means
of their influence with the people (and in travelling from
town to town), they can poison the minds of prominent
citizens against you, and accomplish your defeat by
securing a Legislature favorable to their purposes.
“Depend upon it, that they are calculating largely upon the
Tax Bill as an element in their desperate ‘strategy’ for
the fall campaign.”
The _New York Tribune_, in a vigorous article, June 24, 1862,
entitled “Mr. Sumner’s Seat,” set forth reasons “why many
earnest Republicans in other States would regret the retirement
of Mr. Sumner.” Here it said:--
“Most of our Republican statesmen have a political
history antecedent to our existing organizations. Mr.
Sumner, nearly alone, is nowhere regarded as having Whig
or Democratic predilections, but as purely and wholly
Republican.
“Other statesmen, however profoundly Republican, regard
collateral questions with an observing interest: the
Tariff, the Currency, the Pacific Railroad, &c., largely
engross their attention. Mr. Sumner profoundly believes it
of paramount, absorbing interest that the nation should be
just, even to her humblest, most despised children, and
that Righteousness is the essential condition of material
and other prosperity. Never inattentive to or neglectful
of any public duty, never even accused of sacrificing
or opposing the interest of Massachusetts in any matter
of legislation, he is yet known to believe that her
interests can never be truly promoted by sacrificing those
of Humanity. In an age of venality and of uncharitable
suspicion, he was never even suspected of giving a
mercenary or selfish vote; in an atmosphere where every
man is supposed to have his price, and to be scheming and
striving for self-aggrandizement, no man ever suggested
that Charles Sumner was animated by sinister impulses, or
that he would barter or stifle his convictions for the
Presidency. The one charge brought against him by his many
bitter adversaries imports that he is a _fanatic_,--not
that it was ever imagined that he is the special devotee of
any fane or sect, but that he sincerely believes it the end
of civil government to hasten the coming of God’s earthly
kingdom by causing His justice to pervade every act, every
relation, and thus making the earth, so far as human
imperfection will permit, a vestibule of heaven.”
In warning against possible combination to defeat his
reëlection, the article said:--
“All that the Republicans of other States can and do
ask is, that no back-stairs intrigue, no chimney-corner
arrangement, shall send to Boston a Legislature secretly
pledged to oust him, and elected by constituencies
profoundly ignorant of any such manipulation.… All we ask
is, that those who vote at the polls to supersede Mr.
Sumner in the Senate shall know for what they vote, and not
be duped by professions only made to deceive.”
The adverse spirit showed itself at a large public meeting in
New York, July 1st, which was entitled by the _Herald_, “The
Anti-Abolition and Anti-Secession Movement.--Disunion the Fruit
of Abolition.” Here Hon. William Duer, of Oswego, seemed to
become the mouthpiece of the excited multitude.
“No emancipation and turning loose upon them hordes
of uncivilized and ignorant Africans.… No tyrant in
history has ever made his name execrated by measures more
despicable than such as those proposed by the Abolitionists
for the humiliation and destruction of the South. The
Southern people have been deluded by their leaders in the
same way as the Northern people, and, in his opinion,
the next man who walked up the scaffold after Jefferson
Davis should be Charles Sumner. [_Loud and long-continued
applause, mingled with hooting and groans for Sumner. Some
person in the meeting attempted to say a word in his favor,
but his voice was quickly drowned in loud shouts of ‘Put
him out!’_]”
This is from the _Herald_. The same incident is thus reported
in the _Tribune_.
“And if we came to hanging every traitor in this country
in the order of their guilt, the next man who marched
upon the scaffold after Jefferson Davis would be Charles
Sumner. [_Loud applause, the greatest of the evening thus
far. Groans for Sumner. Great excitement. Cries of ‘Put him
out!’ Cries, ‘Where is Horace Greeley?’_]”
A correspondent of a Boston paper, taking up the strain, echoed
it for the benefit of Massachusetts.
“There are now two war-cries in New York, and the great
Union mastiff is as ready to pounce upon one of the brutes
as upon the other. If there are two parties outside of the
doomed radicals, they are those, the most violent of them,
who would hang Jeff. Davis and Sumner together, and those
who would hang Davis first and Sumner afterwards.
“If Sumner is reëlected to the Senate, he may not find it
convenient to pass through this city. That his name is
odious, infamous, is not all,--it is cursed and abominable.
The blood of thousands sacrificed to his ambition and
personal revenge cries to Heaven against him, and if a
Massachusetts Legislature can still support him by its
vote, those who do so will deserve to lose their children
at the altar of this Moloch.”
The _New York Herald_ followed with a leader, July 16th,
entitled, “Senators Wade and Sumner,” which, after announcing
that the terms of these Senators would expire on the 4th of
March next, made the following appeal.
“By the foulest means they have succeeded in clogging the
wheels of our progress in the war, and have made another
year of battles unavoidable. Had it not been for them and
their coadjutors, the war would have been over and the
Union restored on the Fourth of July instant. More than any
other men they are responsible for the useless sacrifice of
blood and treasure in the past, and for the three hundred
thousand more men and five hundred millions more dollars
which will have to be perilled in the future. Practically,
and in the most emphatic sense, they are traitors to the
country and enemies of the nation. From them, more than
from a thousand Vallandighams, Jeff. Davis has received
aid and comfort; for they have strengthened his forces by
exasperating the South and by dividing and weakening the
North. We hope that the loyal men of Massachusetts and
Ohio will raise these questions in the coming elections
for State legislators, and vote down every man who is
pledged or who intends to vote for the reëlection of these
twin traitors, Sumner and Wade. They have only escaped
Fort Lafayette and the gallows because the Government has
distrusted its own power and misunderstood the sentiments
of the loyal people. Let this misunderstanding now end,
and let Messrs. Sumner and Wade find, when they return to
their homes, that they are held personally and politically
responsible for their infamous and treasonable course.”
The friends of Emancipation in Massachusetts were not inactive.
The issue thus presented was accepted by the formal nomination
of Mr. Sumner, at the annual Republican State Convention at
Worcester, September 10th.
* * * * *
The Convention was organized by the choice of the following
officers.
_President_,--Hon. Alexander H. Bullock of Worcester.
_Vice-Presidents_,--District 1, Nathaniel Coggswell of
Yarmouth; District 2, J. H. D. Blake of Braintree; District
3, Theodore Otis of Roxbury; District 4, Nehemiah Boynton of
Chelsea; District 5, Timothy Davis of Gloucester; District 6,
George Foster of Andover; District 7, Chauncey L. Knapp of
Lowell; District 8, Valorous Taft of Upton; District 9, Joel
Hayden of Williamsburg; District 10, George L. Wright of West
Springfield. _At Large_,--John Bertram of Salem, George Morey
of Boston, Tappan Wentworth of Lowell, Ensign H. Kellogg of
Pittsfield, Charles G. Davis of Plymouth, Henry Alexander, Jr.,
of Springfield.
_Secretaries_,--Stephen N. Stockwell of Boston, William M.
Walker of Pittsfield, Joseph B. Thaxter, Jr., of Hingham,
William T. Hollis of Plymouth, Thomas B. Gardner of Boston,
Joel Hayden, Jr., of Williamsburg.
John A. Andrew was re-nominated for Governor by acclamation.
J. Q. A. Griffin, of Charlestown, introduced a resolution
approving the course of the two Senators, and nominating Mr.
Sumner for reëlection as Senator, and at the same time said:--
“Remember, it is our duty not only to sustain the arms
of the Generals in the field, but likewise to sustain
the President in his seat, the Cabinet in its counsels,
the Governor in his chair, and, _above all, the fearless
legislator in his duty_. [_Loud applause, and cries of
‘Good!’_]”
Mr. Griffin was followed by Frederick Robinson, of Marblehead,
who hoped that the resolution would be adopted unanimously,
and also another, expressing the opinion of Massachusetts in
favor of Emancipation. George F. Hoar, of Worcester, agreed
with Mr. Robinson. As to the resolution approving Charles
Sumner and Henry Wilson, “he liked that,” but he wished, also,
“an expression of the opinion of this Convention, that it
is the duty of the United States Government, in the further
prosecution of the war, to strike the Rebellion where it is
weakest.” The different propositions were then referred to
a committee. At this stage the letter of Mr. Sumner to the
Convention was presented and read by Mr. Claflin.[134]
Among the resolutions subsequently reported were the two
following.
“_Resolved_, That the most decisive measures for the
complete and permanent suppression of this Rebellion are
the most prudent, and that, as the institution of Slavery
is a principal support of it, that institution shall be
exterminated.”
“_Resolved_, That we recognize and acknowledge the
preëminent merits and services of our Senators in the
Congress of the United States, the Hon. Charles Sumner
and the Hon. Henry Wilson. In the posts of duty assigned
them by the suffrages of their brother Senators, one as
Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations, and the
other as Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs,
they have cordially and unreservedly, and with masterly
ability, supported all governmental measures, and fitly
represented the Commonwealth as among the most cheerful and
enthusiastic defenders of the Government. And now that the
second term of our senior Senator is drawing to a close,
we desire to express our warm approbation of his course
and appreciation of his services, and to commend him to
the suffrages of his fellow-citizens, whom he has served
so well, that the Commonwealth may again honor itself by
returning to duty at the capital a statesman, a scholar, a
patriot, and a man of whom any republic in any age might be
proud.”
The whole series, as read, was received with intense
enthusiasm, especially that against Slavery. A motion was
made to amend by striking out that part recommending the
reëlection of Mr. Sumner, which was voted down promptly, and
the resolution was unanimously adopted.
The action of the Convention presented two distinct
issues,--first, the extermination of Slavery, and, secondly,
the reëlection of Mr. Sumner. There was at once a counter
movement. A call was put forth for what was called a “People’s
Convention,” at Faneuil Hall, October 7th, whose main object
was to defeat the action of the Republican Convention, and
especially the reëlection of Mr. Sumner. It was supposed that
in this way all the elements of opposition could be united.
This plan received an unexpected check by the Proclamation of
Emancipation of September 22d. It could no longer be said that
the Republican Party of Massachusetts and Mr. Sumner were not
in entire harmony with the President.
Meanwhile Mr. Sumner addressed his fellow-citizens at Faneuil
Hall, October 6th, in vindication of the Proclamation. On
the succeeding day the “People’s Convention” assembled in
the same place and nominated candidates for State offices in
opposition to the Republicans. The tone of this Convention
appears in a brief extract from the speech of Hon. Josiah G.
Abbott, of Boston. After alluding to the various interests of
Massachusetts, he said:--
“And I tell you, Gentlemen,--and every heart here responds
to it,--every heart out of this hall would respond to it,
if the lips would speak the language of the heart,--I tell
you, Gentlemen, we want men in the Halls of Congress, in
the House of Representatives, and, above and beyond all,
in the Senate Chamber, who will attend to those interests,
and not be continually, as they have been, Sir, attending
to mere wild speculations and sentimental theories.
[_Applause._] Do not the people cry out, ’For God’s sake,
give us somebody who believes there is something to be
attended to in the wants of a million and a quarter of
white men, women, and children’? [_Great applause._]”
The spirit of this Convention was thus described by the
_Norfolk County Journal_:--
“The partisanship of the People’s Convention all centres
in opposition to Charles Sumner. It is as pure an instance
of personal hate on the part of its leaders as was ever
exhibited. _This animosity comes solely from the fact
that he was the earliest and has been the most persistent
advocate of what is now the policy of the nation._ They
hate Mr. Sumner, not because he is personally unamiable,
not because there is a flaw in his moral character or a
doubt as to the purity of his intentions, not because he
has not represented the opinion of Massachusetts, and
faithfully advocated her best interests on every point
affecting her material prosperity. They have commenced this
personal crusade _solely_ because he has been the most
conspicuous and uncompromising foe to the encroachments of
Southern Slavery. And now that the President has ranged
himself on Mr. Sumner’s side, in opposing him they oppose
the Administration.”
On the next day, the Democratic Convention at Worcester adopted
the nominations of the “People’s Convention,” so that the
elements of opposition seemed to be united. The President of
the Convention in his remarks announced the common object.
“Let me, then, appeal to you to come here with one heart
and with kindly feelings towards all, entertaining respect
for the opinions of all, so that, when this Convention
shall have adjourned, a voice will go forth throughout this
Commonwealth, that the day of John A. Andrew and Charles
Sumner is ended. [_Prolonged cheers._]”
Other speeches followed in the same tone, and insisting upon
union “to beat Sumner and Andrew.”
The issue was thus presented to the people of Massachusetts,
and throughout the Commonwealth the election of Senators
and Representatives turned mainly upon it. If the attack
was vigorous, so also was the defence. Of the latter a few
illustrations will suffice. The first is from Wendell Phillips,
who, in an address at Music Hall, Sunday forenoon, November 2d,
said:--
“I say this much, before turning again to my immediate
subject, for our great Senator, who has done justice to the
manufacturing interests and the shipping of Massachusetts,
as Webster did, and also justice to her conscience and her
thought, as Webster did not. [_Applause._] I do not wish to
take one leaf from the laurel of the great Defender of the
Constitution; he rests at Marshfield, beneath the honors he
fairly earned. But we have put in his place a man far more
practical than he was; we have put in his place the hardest
worker that Massachusetts ever sent to the Senate of the
United States [_applause_]; we have put in his place the
Stonewall Jackson of the floor of the Senate,--patient of
labor, untiring in effort, boundless in resources, terribly
in earnest,--the only man who, in civil affairs, is to
be compared with the great terror of the Union armies,
the General of the Virginia forces: both ideologists,
both horsed on an idea, and both men whom a year ago the
drudges of State Street denounced, or would have denounced,
as unpractical and impracticable; but when the war-bugle
sounded through the land, both were found to be the only
men to whom Carolina and Massachusetts hasted to give the
batons of the opposing hosts.”
John G. Whittier, whose words of flame had done so much in the
long warfare with Slavery, was aroused from his retirement to
testify. In the Amesbury _Villager_, near his home, he wrote:--
“In looking over the speeches and newspapers of his active
opponents, it really seems to me, that, if ever a man
was hated and condemned for his very virtues, it is this
gentleman. Nobody accuses him of making use of his high
position for his own personal emolument; no shadow of
suspicion rests upon the purity of his private or public
character; no man can point to an instance in which he
has neglected any duty properly devolving upon him; no
interest of his State has been forgotten or overlooked;
no citizen has appealed to him in vain for kindly offices
and courteous hearing and attention. As Chairman of the
Committee of Foreign Affairs, his industry and ability
have never been denied by his bitterest enemies. All admit
that he has rendered important service to his Government.
What, then, is his crime? Simply and solely this, that he
stands inflexibly by his principles,--that he is too hearty
in his hatred of the monstrous Wrong which initiated and
still sustains the present Rebellion,--that in advance
of his contemporaries he saw the danger and proclaimed
it,--that he heartily sustains the President in his
Proclamation,--that he is in favor of destroying the guilty
cause of all our national calamities, that red-handed
murderer and traitor against whom the sighs and groans of
Massachusetts wives and mothers, weeping in every town
and hamlet for dear ones who are not, are rising in swift
witness to God.
“This is his crime, his real offence, in the eyes of his
leading opponents. I know it has been said that he is
too much a man of ideas, and not a statesman. That he
is not a politician, in the modern sense of the word, I
admit; and if indirection, trickery, and the habit of
looking upon men, parties, and principles as mere stock in
trade and tools of convenience are the qualifications of
statecraft, then he is not a statesman. But if a thorough
comprehension of the great principles of law and political
economy, of all which constitutes the true honor and glory
and prosperity of a people,--if the will and ability to
master every question as it arises,--if entire familiarity
with the history, resources, laws, and policy of other
nations, derived not merely from the study of books, but
from free personal intercourse with the leading minds of
Europe, are essential requisites of statesmanship, then is
Charles Sumner a statesman in the noblest and truest sense.
Certain it is that he is so regarded by the diplomatic
representatives of European nations, and that no man in the
country has so entirely the confidence and esteem of all
who are really our friends in the Old World.”
Horace Greeley, in an article under his own name in the
New York _Independent_, and entitled, “Charles Sumner as a
Statesman,” united with the Republicans of Massachusetts.
“For the first time in our political history, a party has
been organized and a State ticket nominated for the sole
purpose of defeating the reëlection of one who is not a
State officer, and never aspired to be. Governor Andrew is
regarded with a hostility intensified by the fewness of
those who feel it; but the bitterness with which Mr. Sumner
is hated insists on the gratification of a canvass, even
though a hopeless one; and, since there was no existing
party by which this could be attempted without manifest
futility, one was organized for the purpose. And it was
best that this should be. Let us have a census of the
friends and the enemies of Mr. Sumner in the State which he
has so honored.
“I have said, that, while other Senators have shared
his convictions, none has seemed so emphatically, so
eminently, as he to embody and represent the growing,
deepening Antislavery sentiment of the country. None has
seemed so invariably to realize that a public wrong is a
public danger, that injustice to the humblest and weakest
is peril to the well-being of all. Others have seemed to
regard the recent developments of disunion and treason
with surprise and alarm: he has esteemed them the bitter,
but natural, fruit of the deadly tree we have so long been
watering and cherishing. The profound, yet simple truth,
that ‘RIGHTEOUSNESS exalteth a nation,’--that nothing else
is so baleful as injustice,--that the country which gains
a large accession of territory or of wealth at the cost
of violating the least tittle of the canons of eternal
rectitude has therein made a ruinous mistake,--that
nothing else can be so important or so profitable as
stern uprightness: such is the key-note of his lofty and
beneficent career. May it be vouchsafed him to announce
from his seat in the Senate the final overthrow of the
demon he has so faithfully, so nobly resisted, and that
from Greenland to Panama, from the St. John to the Pacific,
the sun in his daily course looks down on no master and no
slave!”
A single incident will illustrate the interest excited
throughout the Commonwealth. A venerable citizen of New
Bedford, seventy-nine years of age and very feeble, was
assisted to the polls, saying, “Here goes a dying vote for
Charles Sumner!”
The triumphant result of the election was known at once. It was
declared officially on the meeting of the Legislature.
* * * * *
January 15, 1863, at twelve o’clock, each branch of the
Legislature proceeded, by special assignment, to vote for a
Senator to represent Massachusetts for six years from March
4th next ensuing. The vote in each branch was _vivâ voce_, the
roll bring called and each member pronouncing the name of the
candidate he voted for.