“Especially will they point to the sweeping resolutions
of the great apostle of Abolition, the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER], which by one dash of the pen
deprive every Southern man of his slaves.”
Then came the familiar parallel between Mr. Sumner and
Jefferson Davis.
“Sir, a few weeks ago we expelled a Senator, because, on
the 1st of March last, he wrote a letter to Jefferson
Davis, commending to his regard a friend who had a valuable
fire-arm to sell, and who visited the South mainly for
the purpose of selling it. This was deemed evidence of
disloyalty sufficient to warrant his ejection from the
Senate. But what do we now see? What, for instance, is the
proposition of the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts
[Mr. SUMNER]? It is, by one fell swoop of his pen, to
blot ten or twelve States out of the Union forever to
remit them back to a Territorial condition, and thus to
involve our muniments of right, the titles to our estates,
our franchises and municipal privileges, in a kind of
hotch-pot, begetting and superinducing an inevitable
confusion as inexplicable and dark as original Chaos.”[145]
Mr. Fessenden, in reply to Mr. Willey, emphatically disowned
Mr. Sumner.
“Why, Sir, I do not hesitate to say here most distinctly,
for myself, that I dissent entirely from the conclusions
of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, as stated in
his resolutions. I do not look upon the States of this
Union as gone and destroyed.… It is enough to say, in this
connection, that upon this particular point the opinions of
the honorable Senator from Massachusetts are his own, for
which he alone is responsible, and which he is undoubtedly
well able to defend.”[146]
On the next day Mr. Sherman followed in the same
vein,--vindicating the Republican party, and especially
disowning Mr. Sumner, which in the course of his speech he did
twice. The first time he said:--
“The Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER], as he has a
perfect right to do, introduced a series of resolutions
giving his idea about the effect of the war upon the
political status of the States, and at once those
resolutions are seized upon as the dogmas of the Republican
party, and we are denounced for them, although candid men
must know that they are but the emanation of a single
individual, who has decided convictions on this subject,
and who is far in advance of any political organization in
this country.”
Then, at the close of his speech, after saying that “we
ought to oppose all useless and unconstitutional measures of
legislation,” he proceeded:--
“I, therefore, cannot help but say, that, while I respect
the motives of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts,
while I give him credit for consistency, ability, and a
great deal of culture, and am always glad to hear him
speak, yet I must confess, that, when I looked over his
resolutions, they struck me with surprise and regret. They
would revolutionize this Government. Sir, strike the States
out of this system of Government, and your Government is
lost and gone. I cannot conceive of the United States
governing colonies and provinces containing millions upon
millions of people, black and white. I do not think such
a thing can exist. I do not believe it is in the power of
Secession to bring us to such a state of things. I can
draw no distinction between the resolutions of the Senator
from Massachusetts and the doctrines that are proclaimed
by Jefferson Davis.… The doctrine of the Senator from
Massachusetts is substantially an acknowledgment of the
right of secession, of the right to secede. He, however,
puts the States in the condition of abject Territories, to
be governed by Congress. Jefferson Davis puts it in the
power of the people of the States to govern the States
themselves. As to which is the most dangerous or obnoxious
doctrine I leave every man to determine.”[147]
Not long afterwards, Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, took up the
same strain, characterizing the doctrine of the Resolutions
as “fatal to our form of government, destructive of our
Federal system, and utterly incompatible with a restoration of
harmonious relations between the States in which rebellion now
prevails and the United States”; and he condensed his judgment
by calling the doctrine a “fatal heresy.”[148]
Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, some time later, spoke in harmony
with the others.
“Now everybody knows that the honorable Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] has a scheme by which he
proposes to turn all these States, in case they could be
conquered, into Territories, that they shall be governed
by the United States as Territories, and then, when their
people come to their senses,--this is the language of the
advocates of the scheme,--they are to be readmitted into
the Union upon terms. Mr. President, I do not know anybody
hardly who has not deprecated that as a most mischievous
scheme to agitate just at present.”[149]
Still later, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, in an elaborate
speech, discussed Mr. Sumner’s policy in the same spirit,
saying that he had provided a way of disunion,--“which for
brevity I will call, with no disrespect to my honorable friend
from Massachusetts, THE SUMNER WAY FOR STATES TO GO OUT OF THE
UNION, namely, by Act of Congress.” And he attributed the same
position to his colleague, Mr. Howe.
“What, in effect, do the Senator from Massachusetts
and my colleague propose? To place outside of the
Constitution, and to govern with unlimited power, eleven
States and ten million people, nearly one third of all
the States and people of the United States, without any
representation.”[150]
Mr. Howe replied to Mr. Doolittle, and, after referring to
a resolution introduced by himself, declaring that “local
governments ought to be provisionally organized forthwith for
the people in each of the districts named in the preamble
hereto,”[151] being the Rebel States, paid the following
tribute to Mr. Sumner.
“As to the matter of fact, whether this resolution is
the Lincoln and Johnson theory or the Sumner theory, the
Senator from Massachusetts has not yet, I regret to say,
indorsed that resolution, nor anything that I said in
support of it; and I suppose the Senator from Massachusetts
will claim the right, which, under the Constitution, as
I understand it, belongs to every Senator on this floor,
to speak for himself. If it should hereafter happen to
receive his indorsement, it will be very gratifying to me.
If I should find that I had given utterance on this floor
to one sentiment which is approved by the Senator from
Massachusetts, it will be only a small compensation for the
great number of living sentiments to which I have listened
from the Senator from Massachusetts, and which are bound to
live long after my colleague and myself shall have passed
from this stage of existence.”[152]
Meanwhile, Mr. Sumner, acting upon the principles of his
Resolutions, insisted upon colored suffrage in the Rebel
States to be ordained by Congress, as will appear hereafter in
these volumes. Senators who had originally opposed the power
of Congress over these States now united in this requirement.
Among those who still stood out was Mr. Doolittle, who, after
alluding to President Lincoln’s policy of Reconstruction,
said:--
“Neither Mr. Lincoln, nor any member of his Cabinet, nor
more than two Senators, I believe, in this body, the
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] and the Senator
from Missouri [Mr. GRATZ BROWN], at that time advocated
Reconstruction upon a basis including negro suffrage.”
And Mr. Doolittle then proclaimed that more than twenty
Republican Senators, who had stood with him, “advocating
Reconstruction upon the white basis,” now “go over to the side
of the Senator from Massachusetts, and advocate his theory
of Reconstruction upon the basis of negro suffrage and white
disfranchisement.”[153]
Then came another speech by the same Senator, in which he
describes Mr. Sumner as adding to his demands only to find them
adopted by Senators who had begun by opposing him.
“My friend from Massachusetts ought to feel a sense of
profound satisfaction to see the progress they have made. I
mean no discourtesy, when I say the ideas advanced by him
that night, rejected then by a majority of four to one,
rule the Senate now. Not only have they educated, they have
Sumnerized the Senate.”[154]
Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, the Democratic leader of the
Senate, differing widely from Mr. Sumner, in the debate on the
Supplementary Reconstruction Bill, gave this testimony:--
“I said in the Senate, a year or two ago, that the course
of things is this: the Senator from Massachusetts steps out
boldly, declares his doctrine, and then he is approached,
and finally he governs. Believing that he is in the
right,--I concede that belief to him as a Senator,--his
place in this body and before this country to-day is
a very proud one. He was told somewhat sneeringly, two
years ago, that among his party friends he stood alone;
and to-day they all stand upon his position. This is a
compliment and indorsement of sagacity and intelligence
that but few men receive in the course of a public
life.”[155]