Diary of Gideon Welles: Saturday, May 5, 1866

Senator Morgan says that in the debate on Lewis Campbell's appointment as Minister to Mexico, Wade declared in executive session he intended to vote in favor of no man for any appointment who favored the Johnson policy and opposed the policy of Congress. Campbell, he said, was in favor of the Johnson policy. He then launched off into a tirade against Maximilian, in which he got terribly excited, but finally closed by voting for Campbell, who is an Ohio man.

The Senate rejected the nomination of Frank Blair for Collector at St. Louis. No man in the country, perhaps, did so much and so efficiently and timely against the Rebellion as General Blair in Missouri at the beginning of the Rebellion. But he is not of the Radical faction.

A. E. Burr, who is a member of the Connecticut Legislature from Hartford, writes me that there is a good deal of feeling on the subject of Senator; thinks that a majority might be concentrated on me if I am so disposed. One of the newspaper correspondents, Ripley, has called on me on the same subject. R. has seen Dixon, who says he should like to have me elected and will do anything to bring it about, provided it is my wish, but he adds the difficulty is I will do nothing for myself. D. says there is not a doubt of my election if I will earnestly enter the canvass. He may be correct, probably is, but I cannot approve, or do, what others do in these matters. While I should feel gratified with the unsolicited compliment of such a testimonial, I do not so crave it as to employ or enter into such means as are too freely used to obtain it. If a good and true man can be secured I will aid him.

SOURCE: Gideon Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 501-2

The Sumner Assault—Mr. Brooks’ Letter — published June 4, 1856

WASHINGTON, June 2.—The following is Mr. Brooks’ letter to the President of the Senate, referred to in the Senate proceedings of yesterday.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, June 2, 1856

 

Sir:—I have seen in the public journals of this morning the report of the Senate Committee to whom was referred a resolution of the Senate Directing an inquiry into an assault made by me on the 22d inst., on a senator from Massachusetts. It is with unfeigned regret, I find in their report that what I had intended only as a redress for personal wrong, has been construed into, or must necessarily be held as a breach of the privilege of the Senate. Whilst making a full and explicit disclaimer of any such design or purpose, I ask leave to say that, for the occasion, considering myself only as a gentleman in society and under no official restraint as a member of the House of Representatives, I did not advert to or consider there was any alternative restraint imposed upon me by reason that the offence came from a member of the Senate. I had read attentively and carefully a speech delivered on the 19th and 20th ult. by a Senator of Massachusetts, and found therein language which I regard as unjustly reflecting not only on the history and character of South Carolina but also upon a friend and relative. To such language I thought I had a just right to take exception, under the circumstances,—the Senator from South Carolina, who was effected by these remarks being absent from the Senate and the city. I had reason to believe that the personal responsibility for wrongs in personal deportment which would have saved me the painful necessity of the collision which I sought; and in my judgement, therefore, I had no alternative but to act as I did.

 

That the assault was made in the Senate Chamber was caused only by the fact that, after a careful search elsewhere, on the previous as well as the same day, the offender could not be found outside of the walls of the Senate Chamber, and the Senate had just adjourned for more than an hour previous to the assault.

 

I submit the forgoing statement from high respect for the Senate of the United States, and ask that it may be received as a full disclaimer of any design or purpose to infract its privileges, or offend its dignity.

 

I cheerfully add, should the facts as reported by the Committee of the Senate be nevertheless necessarily considered as a breach of privilege, as a conclusion of law, my earnest desire to atone for it, so far as may be by this unhesitating and unqualified apology, and that you will oblige me by communicating this to the Senate as its presiding officer.

 

I have the honor to remain, sir, with great respect, your servant,

P. S. BROOKS.

Hon. Jesse D. Bright, Pres’t of the Senate.

 

The Majority report of the select committee of the House, to inquire into the assault, concludes as follows:

That this House is of opinion that it not only has the power to punish Preston S. Brooks for a breach of privilege, but for an act of disorderly behavior.

 

And whereas it further appears that Henry A. Edmundson and Lawrence M. Keitt, some time previous to the said assault, were informed that it was the purpose of the said Brooks to commit violence on the person of said Sumner, for words passed by him in debate as a Senator, in the Senate, and took no measure to discourage or prevent the same, but on the contrary, anticipating the commission of the violence, were present on one or more occasions to witness the same as friends of the assailant, therefore

 

Resolved, That Preston S. Brooks be and he is forthwith expelled from this House as representative from the State of South Carolina.

 

Resolved, That this House hereby declares its disapprobation of said act of Henry A. Edmunson and Lawrence M. Keitt in relation to said assault.

Mr. Cobb, of Georgia, presented a minority report; both reports were laid on the table, and ordered to be printed. The minority report argues that no breach of privilege, under the Constitution, had been committed, and that the House has no power to go beyond the Constitution, in deciding that a breach of privilege had been committed.

The Majority report is signed by Messrs. Campbell of Ohio, Pennington and Spinner.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Wednesday Morning, June 4, 1856, p. 2

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

Messrs. Brooks And Sumner — published May 26, 1856

With regard to the assault upon Mr. Sumner, by Col Brooks, a statement was made in the Senate on Friday, by Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, which represent that Mr. S. was taken at very great disadvantage by his assailant. The following however, is said to be the authentic account of the affair.

Mr. Brooks waited at the Porter’s Lodge about an hour yesterday, and as long this morning, hoping to meet Mr. Sumner, with a view to attack him. Failing in this, he entered the Senate chamber to-day, just as that body adjourned, and seeing several ladies present, seated himself on the opposite side of Mr. Sumner. Soon all disappeared but one. He then request a friend to get her out, when he immediately approached Mr. Sumner, and said, in a quiet tone of voice:—

Mr. Sumner, I have read your speech with great care, and with as much impartiality as I am capable of and I feel it my duty to say to you that you have published a libel on my State, and uttered a slander upon a relative, who is aged and absent, and I am come to punish you.

At the concluding words Mr. Sumner attempted to spring to his feet, showing fight, but whilst in the act was struck by Col. Brooks a backhanded blow across the head with a gutta percha cane, near an inch thick, but hollow, and he continued striking him right and left until the stick was broken into fragments and, Mr. Sumner was prostrated and bleeding on the floor. No one took hold of Col. Brooks during the time, so quick was the operation; but immediately afterwards Mr. Crittenden caught him around the body and arms, when Col. B. said, “I did not wish to hurt him much, but only to whip him.”

No one knew of the anticipated attack but the Hon. H. A. Edmunson, of Virginia, who happened not to be present when the attack commenced. It was reported on the streets for several days previous that Mr. Sumner would be armed when he delivered his speech, and that if occasion required it he should use his weapons. He was not armed when attacked by Colonel Brooks to-day.

We append a sketch of the proceedings in the House of Representatives, on Friday, touching the affair:

Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, rising to a question of privilege, offered the following:

Whereas on the 23rd of May the Hon. Preston S. Brooks and Hon. Lawrence M. Keitt, members of the House from South Carolina, and other members, either as principals or accessories, perpetrated a violent assault on the person of Hon. Charles Sumner, Senator of the United States from Massachusetts, while remaining in his seat in the Senate Chamber, and while in the performance of the duties appertaining to his official station.  Therefore,

Resolved, That a select committee of five members be appointed by the Speaker to investigate the subject and report on the facts with such resolution in reference thereto as in their judgment may be proper and necessary for the vindication of the character of this House, and that said committee have power to send for persons and papers, and employ a clerk and sit during the session of the House.

A debate ensued upon a point of order.

Mr. Smith of Virginia, suggested to Mr. Campbell the propriety of striking out the preamble. It assumed as fact that which could only be ascertained as such on examination. Mr. Campbell was willing to modify the preamble, which he did to read: “Whereas it is represented, etc.” It was, he said, due to the House and all parties that facts should be presented in some authentic form, and could only be done fully and fairly through the committee.

Mr. Clingman said he was satisfied with the statement in the preamble that it was a gross falsehood, but he did not mean that Mr. Campbell had intentionally made an untrue declaration. The gentleman mistook him.

The Speaker decided the proposition in order. He said, substantially that it was represented or charged that a member of the House had assaulted a Senator while in discharge of his official duties. The Senate could not interfere with a member of the House, but it belonged to the House, if one of its members had violated the privilege of the Senate, to make an investigation, it being the prober tribunal for that purpose. The Senate being a co-ordinate branch of Congress, and covered by some constitutional privilege, it was the duty of The Chair to receive Mr. Campbell’s proposition as a question of privilege.

Mr. Clingman appealed from the decision of the Chair.

Mr. Craige was satisfied Mr. Keitt was not concerned in the matter in any way stated.

Mr. Campbell replied that if it should be passed, certainly no wrong would be done.

Mr. Keitt said he thought the dignity of the House required the investigation. His personal relations with the parties [had] always been those of friendship.

Mr. Paine inquired: is this resolution the result of precedent of action outside this hall or of [causas]?

Mr. Campbell replied that not one word had he heard passed by a member of any party as to such a course. He was influenced alone by the dictates of his own judgment and sense of public duty. As to who perpetrated the outrage; he only knew from what he had heard, although he saw Mr. Sumner lying in the ante-room adjoining the Senate Chamber with gashes on his head to the bone, and blood flowing over him.

Mr. Clingman repeated that he would leave the offender, Mr. Brooks, to answer to the law.

Mr. Letcher said that several years ago Postmaster General Hubbard was attacked by George Briggs, a member of the House, yet neither he [Mr. Letcher] nor Mr. Campbell thought it proper to bring the subject to the attention of the House.

The Speaker made a personal explanation. He had not been a party to any deliberation or consultation on this matter; and had no knowledge of the proposition until it was made from the clerk’s desk.

Mr. Brooks explained. I take the entire responsibility on myself, and state on my honor as a gentleman, no human being besides myself know when or where the transaction was intended to be made.

Mr. McQueen informed Mr. Campbell that a process had been instituted against his colleague, Mr. Brooks, who was amenable to the laws of the country. Mr. Campbell said he had no purpose to put any party in a false position, but he merely wished to ascertain the facts, there being so many rumors prevalent.

Mr. Haven appealed to Mr Campbell to omit the name of Mr. Keitt from the preamble.

Mr. Campbell assented.

Several gentlemen wanted him to strike of the words “other members,” but he refused, saying he had reasons for retaining them.

Mr. Keitt remarked that as his name had been withdrawn, he would say that he did not know the time nor the place where the act would be committed, and when it was committed he was behind the chair of the President of the Senate, with gentlemen from his own State, and he didn’t see the beginning of it. Therefore he had not the slightest preconsert with his colleague.

Under the operation of the previous question, Mr. C.’s proposition was adopted—yeas 93; nays 68.

The Speaker appointed Mr. Campbell, of Ohio, Allison, Cobb, of Georgia, Greenwood and Spinner, the committee. Mr. Allison was excused at his own request.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Monday Morning, May 26, 1856, p. 2

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Congressman Lewis D. Campbell,* May 25, 1855

Cincinnati, May 25th [1855.]

Dear Sir: On my return this evening from the East, I find your note of the 18th on my table, and I shall answer it frankly according to your wish.

Last fall the Independent Democrats or Freesoilers entered heartily and earnestly into the people's anti-nebraska movement, animated by the simple desire to redress the Nebraska wrong. They accepted frankly the State Candidates of the 13th July Convention, neither of whom was taken from their ranks. After the election many of them, and not a few also of the liberal whigs and Democrats, anxious that some token of the popular approval of my course as Senator should be given and especially moved, as I suppose, by the consideration that in consequence of the ascendency of the administration party in the Legislature, I alone of all the earnest opponents of the Nebraska Iniquity from Ohio, could not be approved by a re-election, manifested a disposition to make me the candidate of the people's movement this fall. They were pleased to think, also, that my nomination and election to that office would afford to the friends of freedom throughout the union a most significant indication that Ohio would tread no step backward from the glorious stand she has just taken against slavery and the domination of Slavepower. To the suggestions of these friends I have uniformly replied by an unhesitating avowal of the gratification which such an endorsement of the people would give me, provided I could be nominated and elected without any surrender or modification of my well known principles of political action.

Had I supposed that opposition to my nomination would have been made in the particular quarters in which it has since appeared I should have promptly declined to allow my name to be proposed at all. Nothing but the gratification and advantage of the implied indorsement, and the belief that my election under the circumstances would greatly inspirit and encourage the friends of freedom outside of Ohio, could have induced me to consent to the use of my name, and these considerations would not have prevailed with me, had I not supposed that the nomination for Governor would this year be cheerfully conceded to the choice of the distinctive anti-slavery men. As things now are I confess myself much embrassed, and quite undecided as to the course which duty to myself, to the cause, and to the friends who have honored me with their confidence require me to pursue. One thing, however, seems plain, which is that no duty, whatever, under existing circumstances, requires me to accept a nomination for atty. general or Supreme Judge, and certainly my inclination does not lead me in that direction. For the rest, I can only say that it would be infinitely more agreeable to me to support my old friend Brinkerhoff, than to be a candidate myself, if he could be said at this time to represent the pure element of opp. to Slavery extension & Slav'y domination. But if he is to be forced upon them, and his election taken as triumph of another element, it is obvious that this must have a powerful influence on the course of those with whom the Slavery question is paramount to every other.

_______________

* From letter-book 6, pp. 190-191. Lewis Davis Campbell, 1811-1882; Member of Congress 1849-1858, United States minister to Mexico 1865-1868

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 273-4