NOTES OF UNDELIVERED SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON RESOLUTION REFUSING TO
RECEIVE PETITION FROM CITIZENS OF MASSACHUSETTS OF AFRICAN DESCENT,
JUNE 15, 1860.
June 5, 1860, Mr. Sumner presented a petition of citizens
of Massachusetts, of African descent, praying the Senate
to suspend the labors of the Select Committee appointed to
investigate the facts of the late invasion and seizure of
public property at Harper’s Ferry, and that all persons now in
custody under the proceedings of such Committee be discharged,
which was duly referred to the Select Committee.
* * * * *
June 15, Mr. Mason submitted a report from the Committee,
accompanied by the following resolution:--
“_Resolved_, That the paper purporting to be a petition
from ‘citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, of
African descent,’ presented to the Senate by Charles
Sumner, a Senator of Massachusetts, on the 5th of June,
instant, and on his motion referred to a Select Committee
of the Senate, be returned by the Secretary to the Senator
who presented it.”
This resolution was never called up for consideration, but it
stands on the Journal of the Senate in perpetual testimony of
the assumption of the Slave Power and its tyrannical hardihood.
Anticipating its discussion, Mr. Sumner prepared the notes of a
speech upon it, which are here preserved precisely as sketched
at the time.
It is difficult to treat this proposition, proceeding from a Committee
of the Senate, except as you would treat a direct proposition of
Atheism. “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God”; but it was
only in his heart; the fool in Scripture did not openly declare it.
Had he openly declared it, he would have been in a position hardly more
offensive than your Committee.
There is a saying of antiquity, which has the confirming voice of
all intervening time, that “whom the gods would destroy they first
make mad.” And now, Sir, while humbled for my country that such a
proposition should be introduced into the Senate, I accept it as the
omen of that madness which precedes the fall of its authors.
At this moment the number of free persons, African by descent, in the
United States, is almost half a million,--being a population two thirds
larger than the white population in South Carolina, more than one third
larger than the white population in Mississippi, and six times larger
than the white population in Florida. I mention these facts in order to
show at the outset the number of persons whose rights are now assailed.
Already, in several States, free negroes are threatened with expulsion,
under the terrible penalty of being sold into Slavery. The Supreme
Court of the United States has stepped forward, and by cruel decree
declared that they are not citizens, and therefore are not entitled
to sue in the courts of the United States. And now, to complete their
degradation and exclusion from all rights, it is proposed to declare
that their petitions cannot be received by the Senate.
* * * * *
The right of petition is not _political_, but _personal_,--born with
Humanity, and confirmed by Christianity,--belonging to all, but
peculiar to the humble, the weak, and the oppressed. It belongs even to
the criminal; for it is simply the right to pray.
There is no country, professing civilization, where this right is not
sacred. In Mahometan countries it is revered. One of the most touching
stories of the East is where a petitioner in affliction came before the
Sultan, crying out,--
“‘My sorrow is my right,
And I _will_ see the Sultan, and to-night.’
‘Sorrow,’ said Mahmoud, ‘is a reverend thing;
I recognize its right, as king with king:
Speak on.’”[144]
To take this right away from any portion of our _fellow-subjects_--even
if you say they are not _fellow-citizens_--will be barbarous. And when
I consider under what influence this proposition is brought forward, I
present it as a fresh illustration of the Barbarism of Slavery,--most
barbarous in the unconsciousness of its Barbarism.
The outrage is apparent from a simple statement.
In all the States--even in the Slave States--a free colored man may
hold property of all kinds, personal or real,--even land, in which
citizenship strikes its strongest root; but you will not allow him the
poor right of petition.
He may own stocks of the United States, Treasury notes, and in other
ways be the creditor of the Government; but you will not allow him the
poor right of petition.
He is strictly bound by every enactment upon our statute-book; and yet
you will not allow him to appear before you with a prayer to modify or
soften this statute-book.
He is rigidly held to pay his quota of taxes; but you will not allow
him to ask for their reduction.
And still further, under all your pension laws for Revolutionary
services, and for services in other wars, whether on land or sea, he is
entitled to a pension precisely as if he were white; but you will not
allow him to solicit aid under these laws.
Such is a simple statement of the injustice you are about to do. On
this statement alone, without one word of argument or illustration, you
will surely recoil.
But this proposition proceeds on two assumptions, each of which is
radically false: _first_, that a free person of African descent is not
a citizen of the United States; and, _secondly_, that none other than a
citizen is entitled to petition Congress.
In support of the first assumption is the recent decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Dred Scott. But against that decision--so
unfortunate for the character of the tribunal from which it
proceeded,--which has degraded that tribunal hardly less than it sought
to degrade the African race--I oppose the actual fact in at least _six_
of the original thirteen States at the adoption of the Constitution.
_First_, in Massachusetts, where the present petitioners reside, all
persons, without distinction of color, are treated as citizens by its
Constitution adopted in 1780.
_Secondly_, in Virginia, the State represented by the Senator [Mr.
MASON] who brings forward this decree of disfranchisement, the same
principle prevailed at the same time. And here I call attention to the
11th volume of Hening’s Virginia Statutes, where, on page 322, may be
found the law of October, 1783, which repeals that of 1779, limiting
citizenship to whites, and enacts, “that _all free persons_ born
within the territory of this Commonwealth … shall be deemed citizens of
this Commonwealth,” without one word referring to descent or color.
_Thirdly_, in New Hampshire, whose Constitution conferred the elective
franchise upon “every inhabitant of the State having the proper
qualifications,”--of which descent or color was not one.
_Fourthly_, in New York, where the Constitution conferred the elective
franchise upon “every male inhabitant of full age who shall have
personally resided,” &c., “if during the time aforesaid he shall have
been a freeholder,” &c.,--without any discrimination of descent or
color.
_Fifthly_, in New Jersey, by whose Constitution the elective franchise
was conferred upon “_all inhabitants_ of this colony, of full age,
who are worth fifty pounds, proclamation money, clear estate,”--also
without any discrimination of descent or color.
_Sixthly_, in North Carolina, where Mr. Justice Gaston, in delivering
the opinion of the Supreme Court of the State in the case of _The
State_ v. _Manuel_, declared that “the Constitution extended the
elective franchise to _every freeman_ who had arrived at the age of
twenty-one and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal
notoriety, that, under it, _free persons_, without regard to color,
claimed and exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men
of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.”[145]
To these authoritative precedents, drawn from the very epoch of the
National Constitution, I might add other illustrations. I content
myself with referring to the Constitution of Missouri, which, in
speaking of “every free _white_ male citizen,”[146] admits by
implication that colored persons may be _citizens_, and to the Code
of Alabama, which declares that certain sections “do not apply to or
affect any free person of color who by the Treaty between the United
States and Spain became _a citizen of the United States, or the
descendants of such_.”[147]
But not only in six of the old thirteen States _all freemen_ without
distinction of color were _citizens_, but also under the Articles
of Confederation they were _citizens_. By the fourth article it was
expressly declared that “the _free inhabitants_ of each of these
States (paupers, vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted)
shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of _free citizens_
in the several States.” The meaning of this clause, which is clear
on its face, becomes clearer still, when it is known, that, while
it was under discussion, on the 25th of June, 1778, the delegates
from South Carolina moved to amend it by inserting between the
words “free inhabitants” the word “white,” so that the character of
a citizen should be restricted to white persons. This proposition
was rejected,--two States only voting for it, eight States against
it, and the vote of one State being divided; so that the term “free
inhabitants” was left in its full significance, without any distinction
of descent or color.
The Constitution of the United States next followed. And it contains
not a sentence, phrase, or word of disfranchisement on account of
descent or color, any more than on account of religion.
* * * * *
If the present question depended upon citizenship, you could not refuse
to receive the petition. But it does not depend upon citizenship.
The right to petition Congress is not an incident of the elective
franchise. It exists where the elective franchise does not exist.
The Constitution expressly secures it, not simply to _citizens_, but
broadly and completely to THE PEOPLE, declaring, in the first article
of its Amendments, that “Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,
or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, _or the right of
the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances_.”
The term _people_ here naturally means all, without distinction of
class, who owe allegiance to the Government. It is the American
equivalent for _subjects_. If there were any doubt on this point, it
would be removed by the clear and irresistible meaning of the term in
other parts of the Constitution. Thus, in the clause constituting the
House of Representatives, it is declared that it “shall be composed
of members chosen every second year by the _people_ of the several
States, and the _electors_ in each State shall have the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
Legislature.” Here is an obvious difference between the “people” and
“electors.” The former is broader than the latter. It is the former
that constitutes the _basis of representation_, and the Constitution
then proceeds to declare that this basis “shall be determined by adding
_to the whole number of free persons_, including those bound to service
for a term of years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of
all other persons.” Whatever may be the position of the _fractional_
class, nothing can be clearer than that all _free persons_, without
distinction of color or descent, belong to the _people_, and,
so belonging, they are solemnly and expressly protected by the
Constitution in the right of petition.
The Constitution next provides for the “enumeration” of the _people_,
and under this provision there is a decennial census of the whole
_people_, without distinction of color or descent; and yet, while
including all of African descent in your population, you refuse to
receive their petitions.
The present proposition is aggravated by well-attested facts in our
history. A colored man, Crispus Attucks, was the first martyr of our
Revolutionary struggle. Throughout the long war of seven years, while
national independence was still doubtful, colored men fought sometimes
in the same ranks with the whites, and sometimes in separate companies,
but always with patriotic courage, and often under the eye of
Washington. The blood of the two races mingled, and, dying on the same
field, they were buried beneath the same sod. And this same association
was continued throughout the War of 1812, in all our naval contests,
and especially in the Battle of Lake Erie under Perry, and of Lake
Champlain under Macdonough, where colored men performed a conspicuous
part. But no better testimony can be presented than the eloquent
proclamation of General Jackson, before the Battle of New Orleans,
where he calls upon the “free colored inhabitants of Louisiana” to
take part in the contest as _American soldiers_, and speaks of them
by implication as “fellow-citizens.”[148] “American soldiers” and
“fellow-citizens”: such is the language of Andrew Jackson, when
speaking of those whom you would despoil of a venerable right.
Thus, Sir, throughout our history, you have used these men for defence
of the country, you have coined their blood into your own liberties;
but you deny them now the smallest liberty of all,--the last which
is left to the miserable,--_the liberty to pray_. In the history of
misfortune or of tyranny nothing can surpass this final act of robbery.
The words of the classic poet are fulfilled:--
“‘The wretch, in short, had nothing.’ You say true:
And yet the wretch _must lose that nothing too_.”[149]
There is a story of General Washington which illustrates by contrast
the wrong of the present proposition. On a certain occasion, being
engaged late at the quarters of his aid, Colonel Pickering, of
Massachusetts, he proposed to pass the night, if the colored servant,
Primus Hall, whom I remember at Boston in my childhood, could find
straw and a blanket. Of course they were found; but it was by the
surrender of the servant’s own blanket. In the course of the night, the
General, becoming aware of the sacrifice, most authoritatively required
the servant to share the blanket, saying, “There is room for both, and
I insist upon it”; and on the same straw, beneath the same blanket, the
General and the faithful African slept till morning sun.[150] You not
only refuse to share your liberties with the colored man, but you now
propose to take from him his last blanket.
* * * * *
This is not the time to dwell on the character of the colored race;
for the right of petition can never depend on the character of the
petitioner, while in criminal cases liberty and life even may. But I
mention two facts which speak for this much injured people. The first,
Sir, is the official census, by which it appears that throughout the
Free States among the colored population a much larger proportion
attend school than among the whites of the Slave States, and this
contrast becomes still more apparent when we consider the small
attendance upon school by the whites in South Carolina. The other fact
appears in the last will and testament of Mr. Upshur, of Virginia,
Secretary of State under President Tyler, where he thus speaks:--
“I emancipate and set free my servant, David Rich, and direct
my executors to give him one hundred dollars. I recommend him
in the strongest manner to the respect, esteem, and confidence
of any community in which he may happen to live. He has been
my slave for twenty-four years, during which time he has been
trusted to every extent and in every respect. My confidence
in him has been unbounded; his relation to myself and family
has always been such as to afford him daily opportunities to
deceive and injure us, and yet he has never been detected in
a serious fault, nor even in an intentional breach of the
decorums of his station. His intelligence is of a high order,
his integrity above all suspicion, and his sense of right and
propriety always correct and even delicate and refined. I feel
that he is justly entitled to carry this certificate from me
into the new relations which he now must form. It is due to
his long and most faithful services, and to the sincere and
steady friendship which I bear him. In the uninterrupted and
confidential intercourse of twenty-four years, I have never
given nor had occasion to give him an unpleasant word. I know
no man who has fewer faults or more excellencies than he.