Investigation Of The Sumner Assault — published May 28, 1856

We find the following in the Baltimore Papers. With regard the Sumner’s statement, we may remark that it disagrees, in important particulars, with authentic accounts heretofore published.

WASHINGTON, May 26.—The House committee of investigation waited on Mr. Sumner to-day in discharge of their duty regarding the resent assault. He was in bed but have is testimony and was also cross-examined. He was unable to set up during the visit of the committee, but did so a short time today. He is still very week and his physicians counsel him not to move out of the House for a week.

The following is Mr. Sumner’s statement on oath.—“I attended the Senate as usual on Thursday the 22nd of May. After some formal business a message was received from the House of Representatives, announcing the death of a member of that body from Missouri. This was followed by a brief tribute to the deceased from Mr. Geyer, of Missouri, when, according to usage and out of respect to the deceased, the Senate adjourned. Instead of leaving the Chamber with the rest on the adjournment, I continued in my seat, occupied with my pen. While thus intent, in order to be in season for the mail, which was soon to close, I was approached by several persons, who desired to consult with me, but I answered them promptly and briefly, excusing myself, for the reason that I was much engaged.

When the last of these persons left me, I drew my arm chair close to my desk, and with my legs under the desk, continued writing. My attention at this time was so entirely drawn from all other objects, that, though there must have been many persons in the Senate, I saw no body. While thus intent, with my head bent over my writing, I was addressed by a person who approached the front of my desk, so entirely unobserved that I was not aware of his presence, until I heard my name pronounced. As I looked up, with my pen in my hand, I saw a tall man, whose countenance was not familiar, standing directly over me, and at the same moment I caught these words:—“I have read your speech twice over carefully.—It is a libel on South Carolina and Mr. Butler who is a relative of mine.”

While these words were still passing from his lips, he commenced a succession of blows with a heavy cane on my head, by the first of which I was stunned so as to lose sight. I no longer saw my assailant nor any other person or object in the room. What I did afterwards was done almost unconsciously, acting under the instincts of self-defence, with my head already bent down, I rose from my seat, wrenching up my desk which was screwed to the floor, and then pressed forward while my assailant continued his blows.—I had no other consciousness, until I found myself ten feet forward in front of my desk, lying on the floor of the Senate, with my bleeding head supported on the knee of a gentleman, whom I soon recognized by voice and manner as Mr. Morgan of New York. Other persons there were about me offering friendly assistance, but I did not recognize any of them. Others there were at a distance, looking on and offering no assistance of whom I recognized only Mr. Douglas, of Illinois, Mr. Toombs of Georgia, and, I thought, also my assailant standing between them.

I was helped from the floor and conducted into the lobby of the Senate, where I was placed upon a sofa. Of those who helped me there I have no recollections. As I entered the lobby I recognized Mr. Slidell, of Louisiana, who retreated; but I recognized no one else until I felt a friendly grasp of the hand, which seemed to come from Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, I have a vague impression that Mr. Bright, President of the Senate, spoke to me while I was on the floor of the Senate or in the lobby. I make this statement in answer to the interrogatories of the committee and offer it as presenting completely all my recollections of the assault and of the attending circumstances, whether immediately before after. I desire to add that besides the words which I have given as uttered by my assailant, I have an indistinct recollection of the words “old man,” but these are so enveloped in the mists which ensued from the first blow, that I am not sure whether they were uttered or not.

On the cross examination Mr. Sumner said that he was entirely without arms of any kind, and that he had no notice or warning of any kind direct or indirect, of this assault.

In answer to another question, Mr. Sumner replied:—That what he had said of Mr. Butler was strictly responsive to Mr. Butler’s speeches.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, May 28, 1856, p. 2

Will Kansas be a Slave State, Published September 28, 1855

The Hon. Theodore G. Hunt, of La., who was one of the few Southern Representatives in Congress that voted against the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, addressed a public meeting of his constituents on the 15th instant in a speech in which, whilst defending his course upon that subject, he conclusively stated the reason that would prevent Kansas from being a slave State:

In addition to the view I presented of good faith, I also urged in my speech on the Nebraska bill that, apart from abstractions, there was no practical advantage to be attained for the South by opening the Territory in question to the admission of slavery. And I still retain that opinion. I believe that Kansas and Nebraska are both destined by nature to be free States. No prudent slaveholder will leave the genial soil and climate of the South, and take his slaves with him, merely to establish the condition of slavery in the less productive and colder region of Kansas or Nebraska. The author of the Nebraska bill himself, and leading Southern gentlemen, who advocated the bill, also entertained the opinion I expressed.

Mr. Douglas said: “I do not believe there is a man in Congress who thinks it could be permanently a slaveholding country. I have no idea that it could.”

Mr. Badger, or North Carolina, said: “I have no more idea of seeing a slave population in either of them I have of seeing it in Massachusetts, not a whit.”

Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, said: “As far as I am concerned, I must say that I do not expect that this bill is to give us of the South anything, but merely to accommodate something like the sentiment of the South.”

Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, said: “Does any man believe that you will have a slaveholding State in Kansas and Nebraska? I confess that for a moment I permitted such an illusion to  rest on my mind.”

Mr. Jones, of Tennessee, said: As I told the honorable chairman of this committee on Territories, and as I have expressed myself everywhere when I have given my opinion on the subject, I was content to let this matter stand as it was, because, in my judgment, there was nothing practical in it.”

There is nothing in the present state of things that shakes my conviction in the destination of Kansas to be a free State. The lawless violence of certain Missourians to control the election and mould the sovereignty of Kansas must fall of its object. The condition of Kansas as to slavery will be determined ultimately by the influence of the law of nature and the principles of human interest, almost as certain in their operation as that law itself. Population, which was flowing rapidly into the Territory, has been checked and greatly obstructed for some time past; but thousands who have settled there opposed to the institution of slavery; and a vast number who, it is believed, will settle there as soon as law and order are established, will join the opposition. Besides, I understand that the number of emigrants going to Missouri bona fide to live there does not exceed the number of emigrants from that state returning to their ancient establishments. Now, if this information be correct, Kansas will in due time, when prepared for admission into the Union, present herself to Congress for admission with a constitution prohibitory of slavery. To her admission under the case supposed there could be no serious objection on the part of the South; for the doctrine is justly avowed by her that when a State is about to be admitted into the Union, that States has a right to decide for itself whether it will or will not have slavery within its limits.

But if I am mistaken in the opinion that Kansas will present herself at the right time to Congress with a constitution prohibitory of slavery, and, on the contrary, by any possibility she should be admitted as a slaveholding Sates, still, I repeat, I am convinced, from the nature of her soil, from the number of foreigners and citizens from the free States who have settled, and who will hereafter settle within her limits, and from the well known aversion of those persons to the institution of slavery, that her career as a slaving State would be a very short one, and that her destiny is fixed by the law of Nature, and the circumstances averted to, as a non-slaveholding State.

Practically, then, the South had nothing to gain by a repeal of the Missouri compromise. Her own fertile lands, suitable for the profitable culture of her great staples, and situated in a climate congenial to the health of her laborers, afforded her, in their immense area, a space far beyond her powers for cultivation for any series of ages yet to come. I condemned the lust for lands which the South did not want, and which honor called upon her not to invade or to acquire by injustice.

SOURCE: “Will Kansas be a Slave State?” Daily American Organ, Washington, D.C., Friday, September 28, 1855, p. 2