Senator Charles Sumner to the Massachusetts Senate and House of Representatives, May 14, 1851

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

BY the hands of the Secretary of the Commonwealth I have received a certificate, that by concurrent votes of the two branches of the Legislature, namely, by the Senate on the 22d day of January, and the House of Representatives on the 24th day of April, in conformity to the provisions of the Constitution and Laws of the United States, I was duly elected a Senator to represent the Commonwealth of Massachusetts in the Senate of the United States for the term of six years, commencing on the 4th day of March, 1851.

If I were to follow the customary course, I should receive this in silence. But the protracted and unprecedented contest which ended in my election, the interest it awakened, the importance universally conceded to it, the ardor of opposition and the constancy of support which it aroused, also the principles which more than ever among us it brought into discussion, seem to justify, what my own feelings irresistibly prompt, a departure from this rule. If, beyond these considerations, any apology is needed for thus directly addressing the Legislature, I may find it in the example of an illustrious predecessor, whose clear and venerable name will be a sufficient authority.

The trust conferred on me is one of the most weighty which a citizen can receive. It concerns the grandest interests of our own Commonwealth, and also of the Union in which we are an indissoluble link. Like every post of eminent duty, it is a post of eminent honor. A personal ambition, such as I cannot confess, might be satisfied to possess it. But when I think what it requires, I am obliged to say that its honors are all eclipsed by its duties.

Your appointment finds me in a private station, with which I am entirely content. For the first time in my life I am called to political office. With none of the experience possessed by others to smooth the way of labor, I might well hesitate. But I am cheered by the generous confidence which throughout a lengthened contest persevered in sustaining me, and by the conviction, that, amidst all seeming differences of party, the sentiments of which I am the known advocate, and which led to my original selection as candidate, are dear to the hearts of the people throughout this Commonwealth. I derive, also, a most grateful consciousness of personal independence from the circumstance, which I deem it frank and proper thus publicly to declare and place on record, that this office comes to me unsought and undesired.

Acknowledging the right of my country to the service of her sons wherever she chooses to place them, and with a heart full of gratitude that a sacred cause is permitted to triumph through me, I now accept the post of Senator.

I accept it as the servant of Massachusetts, mindful of the sentiments solemnly uttered by her successive Legislatures, of the genius which inspires her history, and of the men, her perpetual pride and ornament, who breathed into her that breath of Liberty which early made her an example to her sister States. In such a service, the way, though new to my footsteps, is illumined by lights which cannot be missed.

I accept it as the servant of the Union, bound to study and maintain the interests of all parts of our country with equal patriotic care, to discountenance every effort to loosen any of those ties by which our fellowship of States is held in fraternal company, and to oppose all sectionalism, in whatsoever form, whether in unconstitutional efforts by the North to carry so great a boon as Freedom into the Slave States, in unconstitutional efforts by the South, aided by Northern allies, to carry the sectional evil of Slavery into the Free States, or in any efforts whatsoever to extend the sectional domination of Slavery over the National Government. With me the Union is twice blessed: first, as powerful guardian of the repose and happiness of thirty-one States, clasped by the endearing name of country; and next, as model and beginning of that all-embracing Federation of States, by which unity, peace, and concord will finally be organized among the Nations. Nor do I believe it possible, whatever the delusion of the hour, that any part can be permanently lost from its well-compacted bulk. E Pluribus Unum is stamped upon the national coin, the national territory, and the national heart. Though composed of many parts united into one, the Union is separable only by a crash which shall destroy the whole.

Entering now upon the public service, I venture to bespeak for what I do or say that candid judgment which I trust always to have for others, but which I am well aware the prejudices of party too rarely concede. I may fail in ability, but not in sincere effort, to promote the general weal. In the conflict of opinion, natural to the atmosphere of liberal institutions, I may err; but I trust never to forget the prudence which should temper firmness, or the modesty which becomes the consciousness of right. If I decline to recognize as my guides the leading men of to-day, I shall feel safe while I follow the master principles which the Union was established to secure, leaning for support on the great Triumvirate of American Freedom, Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson. And since true politics are simply morals applied to public affairs, I shall find constant assistance from those everlasting rules of right and wrong which are a law alike to individuals and communities.

Let me borrow, in conclusion, the language of another: "I see my duty, that of standing up for the liberties of my country; and whatever difficulties and discouragements lie in my way, I dare not shrink from it; and I rely on that Being who has not left to us the choice of duties, that, whilst I conscientiously discharge mine, I shall not finally lose my reward." These are words attributed to Washington, in the early darkness of the American Revolution. The rule of duty is the same for the lowly and the great; and I hope it may not seem presumptuous in one so humble as myself to adopt his determination, and to avow his confidence.

I have the honor to be, fellow-citizens,

With sincere regard,        

Your faithful friend and servant,                    

CHARLES SUMNER.

BOSTON, May 14, 1851.

SOURCE: The Works of Charles Sumner, Volume 2, 437-40

Charles Sumner to Congressman Charles Allen, October 15, 1850

Nothing is clearer to me than this. Our friends should if possible secure the balance of power in the Legislature, so as to influence the choice of senator. Some are sanguine that we can choose one of our men. I doubt this; but by a prudent course, and without any bargain, we can obtain the control of the Senate. We can then at least dictate to the Whigs whom they shall send. But this cannot be done except by thinning the Whig ranks. I fear that the course in Middlesex¹ will jeopard Palfrey's position and our whole movement. I wash my hands of it.

_______________

¹ Opposition to union between Democrats and Free Soilers for the election of members of the Legislature, led by Samuel Hoar, R. H. Dana, Jr., and Anson Burlingame. It proved ineffective against the strong current in favor of union.

SOURCE: Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and Letters of Charles Sumner, Vol. 3, p. 218-9

Outpouring of Indignation in the Massachusetts Legislature — published May 27, 1856

BOSTON, May 26.—The Senate to-day unanimously passed a series of resolutions denounciatory of the assault upon Sumner as brutal and cowardly in itself, and a gross breach of parliamentary privilege; a ruthless attack upon the liberty of speech; an outrage on the decencies of civilized life and an indignity to Massachusetts; after approving Sumner’s course, demanding a strict investigation, and the expulsion of Brooks and other members from Congress. The resolutions were sent to the House for the concurrence of that body.

SOURCE: Richmond Daily Whig, Richmond Virginia, Tuesday Morning, May 27, 1856, p. 3

Julia Ward Howe to her Sisters, Thursday, May 29, 1856

Thursday, 29, 1856

We have been in the most painful state of excitement relative to Kansas matters and dear Charles Sumner, whose condition gives great anxiety.¹ Chev is as you might expect under such circumstances; he has had much to do with meetings here, etc., etc. New England spunk seems to be pretty well up, but what will be done is uncertain as yet. One thing we have got: the Massachusetts Legislature has passed the “personal liberty bill,” which will effectually prevent the rendition of any more fugitive slaves from Massachusetts. Another thing, the Tract Society here (orthodox) has put out old Dr. Adams, who published a book in favor of slavery; a third thing, the Connecticut legislature has withdrawn its invitation to Mr. Everett to deliver his oration before them, in consequence of his having declined to speak at the Sumner meeting in Faneuil Hall. . . .

_______________

¹ In consequence of the assault upon him in the Senate Chamber by Preston Brooks of South Carolina.

SOURCE: Laura E. Richards & Maud Howe Elliott, Julia Ward Howe, 1819-1910, Large-Paper Edition, Volume 1, p. 168

Ralph Waldo Emerson’s Speech on Affairs in Kansas, at the Kansas Relief Meeting in Cambridge Massachusetts, Wednesday Evening, September 10, 1856

I regret, with all this company, the absence of Mr. Whitman of Kansas, whose narrative was to constitute the interest of this meeting. Mr. Whitman is not here; but knowing, as we all do, why he is not, what duties kept him at home, he is more than present. His vacant chair speaks for him. For quite other reasons, I had been wiser to have stayed at home, unskilled as I am to address a political meeting, but it is impossible for the most recluse to extricate himself from the questions of the times.

There is this peculiarity about the case of Kansas, that all the right is on one side. We hear the screams of hunted wives and children answered by the howl of the butchers. The testimony of the telegraphs from St. Louis and the border confirm the worst details. The printed letters of the border ruffians avow the facts. When pressed to look at the cause of the mischief in the Kansas laws, the President falters and declines the discussion; but his supporters in the Senate, Mr. Cass, Mr. Geyer, Mr. Hunter, speak out, and declare the intolerable atrocity of the code. It is a maxim that all party spirit produces the incapacity to receive natural impressions from facts; and our recent political history has abundantly borne out the maxim. But these details that have come from Kansas are so horrible, that the hostile press have but one word in reply, namely, that it is all exaggeration, It is an Abolition lie. Do the Committee of Investigation say that the outrages have been overstated? Does their dismal catalogue of private tragedies show it? Do the private letters? Is it an exaggeration, that Mr. Hopps of Somerville, Mr. Hoyt of Deerfield, Mr. Jennison of Groton, Mr. Phillips of Berkshire, have been murdered? That Mr. Robinson of Fitchburg has been imprisoned? Rev. Mr. Nute of Springfield seized, and up to this time we have no tidings of his fate?

In these calamities under which they suffer, and the worse which threaten them, the people of Kansas ask for bread, clothes, arms and men, to save them alive, and enable them to stand against these enemies of the human race. They have a right to be helped, for they have helped themselves.

This aid must be sent, and this is not to be doled out as an ordinary charity; but bestowed up to the magnitude of the want, and, as has been elsewhere said, “on the scale of a national action.” I think we are to give largely, lavishly, to these men. And we must prepare to do it. We must learn to do with less, live in a smaller tenement, sell our apple-trees, our acres, our pleasant houses. I know people who are making haste to reduce their expenses and pay their debts, not with a view to new accumulations, but in preparation to save and earn for the benefit of the Kansas emigrants.

We must have aid from individuals, — we must also have aid from the State. I know that the last Legislature refused that aid. I know that lawyers hesitate on technical grounds, and wonder what method of relief the Legislature will apply. But I submit that, in a case like this, where citizens of Massachusetts, legal voters here, have emigrated to national territory under the sanction of every law, and are then set on by highwaymen, driven from their new homes, pillaged, and numbers of them killed and scalped, and the whole world knows that this is no accidental brawl, but a systematic war to the knife, and in defiance of all laws and liberties, I submit that the Governor and Legislature should neither slumber nor sleep till they have found out how to send effectual aid and comfort to these poor farmers, or else should resign their seats to those who can. But first let them hang the halls of the State House with black crape, and order funeral service to be said there for the citizens whom they were unable to defend.

We stick at the technical difficulties. I think there never was a people so choked and stultified by forms. We adore the forms of law, instead of making them vehicles of wisdom and justice. I like the primary assembly. I own I have little esteem for governments. I esteem them only good in the moment when they are established. I set the private man first. He only who is able to stand alone is qualified to be a citizen. Next to the private man, I value the primary assembly, met to watch the government and to correct it. That is the theory of the American State, that it exists to execute the will of the citizens, is always responsible to them, and is always to be changed when it does not. First, the private citizen, then the primary assembly, and the government last.

In this country for the last few years the government has been the chief obstruction to the common weal. Who doubts that Kansas would have been very well settled, if the United States had let it alone? The government armed and led the ruffians against the poor farmers. I do not know any story so gloomy as the politics of this country for the last twenty years, centralizing ever more manifestly round one spring, and that a vast crime, and ever more plainly, until it is notorious that all promotion, power and policy are dictated from one source, — illustrating the fatal effects of a false position to demoralize legislation and put the best people always at a disadvantage; — one crime always present, always to be varnished over, to find fine names for; and we free-statesmen, as accomplices to the guilt, ever in the power of the grand offender.

Language has lost its meaning in the universal cant. Representative Government is really misrepresentative; Union is a conspiracy against the Northern States which the Northern States are to have the privilege of paying for; the adding of Cuba and Central America to the slave marts is enlarging the area of Freedom. Manifest Destiny, Democracy, Freedom, fine names for an ugly thing. They call it otto of rose and lavender, — I call it bilge water. They call it Chivalry and Freedom; I call it the stealing all the earnings of a poor man and the earnings of his little girl and boy, and the earnings of all that shall come from him, his children's children forever.

But this is Union, and this is Democracy; and our poor people, led by the nose by these fine words, dance and sing, ring bells and fire cannon, with every new link of the chain which is forged for their limbs by the plotters in the Capitol.

What are the results of law and union? There is no Union. Can any citizen of Massachusetts travel in honor through Kentucky and Alabama and speak his mind? Or can any citizen of the Southern country who happens to think kidnapping a bad thing, say so? Let Mr. Underwood of Virginia answer. Is it to be supposed that there are no men in Carolina who dissent from the popular sentiment now reigning there? It must happen, in the variety of human opinions, that there are dissenters. They are silent as the grave. Are there no women in that country, — women, who always carry the conscience of a people? Yet we have not heard one discordant whisper.

In the free States, we give a snivelling support to slavery. The judges give cowardly interpretations to the law, in direct opposition to the known foundation of all law, that every immoral statute is void. And here of Kansas, the President says: “Let the complainants go to the courts;” though he knows that when the poor plundered farmer comes to the court, he finds the ringleader who has robbed him, dismounting from his own horse, and unbuckling his knife to sit as his judge.

The President told the Kansas Committee that the whole difficulty grew from “the factions spirit of the Kansas people, respecting institutions which they need not have concerned themselves about.” A very remarkable speech from a Democratic President to his fellow citizens, that they are not to concern themselves with institutions which they alone are to create and determine. The President is a lawyer, and should know the statutes of the land. But I borrow the language of an eminent man, used long since, with far less occasion: “If that be law, let the ploughshare be run under the foundations of the Capitol;” — and if that be Government, extirpation is the only cure.

I am glad to see that the terror at disunion and anarchy is disappearing. Massachusetts, in its heroic day, had no government — was an anarchy. Every man stood on his own feet, was his own governor; and there was no breach of peace from Cape Cod to Mount Hoosac. California, a few years ago, by the testimony of all people at that time in the country, had the best government that ever existed. Pans of gold lay drying outside of every man’s tent, in perfect security. The land was measured into little strips of a few feet wide, all side by side. A bit of ground that your hand could cover was worth one or two hundred dollars, on the edge of your strip; and there was no dispute. Every man throughout the country was armed with knife and revolver, and it was known that instant justice would be administered to each offence, and perfect peace reigned. For the Saxon man, when he is well awake, is not a pirate but a citizen, all made of hooks and eyes, and links himself naturally to his brothers, as bees hook themselves to one another and to their queen in a loyal swarm.

But the hour is coming when the strongest will not be strong enough. A harder task will the new revolution of the nineteenth century be, than was the revolution of the eighteenth century. I think the American Revolution bought its glory cheap. If the problem was new, it was simple. If there were few people, they were united, and the enemy 3,000 miles off. But now, vast property, gigantic interests, family connections, webs of party, cover the land with a network that immensely multiplies the dangers of war.

Fellow Citizens, in these times full of the fate of the Republic, I think the towns should hold town meetings, and resolve themselves into Committees of Safety, go into permanent sessions, adjourning from week to week, from month to month. I wish we could send the Sergeant-at-arms to stop every American who is about to leave the country. Send home every one who is abroad, lest they should find no country to return to. Come home and stay at home, while there is a country to save. When it is lost it will be time enough then for any who are luckless enough to remain alive to gather up their clothes and depart to some land where freedom exists.

SOURCE: The Works of Ralph Waldo Emerson, Volume 11: Miscellanies, p. 241-7; Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 500

Charles Francis Adams to John A. Andrew, January 4, 1861

(Private and Confidential.)

 Washington, 4 January, 1861.

Hon. J. A. Andrew, Boston, Mass.

My Dear Sir, — It is beyond a doubt, that the revolutionists have determined to take forcible possession of the Government at Washington before the fourth of March, and perhaps within thirty days. The State Legislature ought at once to take provisional measures to counteract the movement by appropriations of money and organizing of men, in both cases provisional. But it is of the last importance that such measures should be carefully guarded so as not to be misunderstood by the people of Maryland, and the loyal portion of Virginia. They should therefore be specifically directed to protecting the president, the government offices, the Legislature, the Judiciary, the archives and other public property. The proceedings should emanate spontaneously from the States, and not be traced to suggestions from this quarter. Especially abstain from mentioning me, or you would deprive me of the ability to obtain further information. I should think it best to avoid making it a matter of special executive message; rather let it appear to be a matter originating with the proper Committee of the Legislature. Current information will justify it before this letter reaches you, if it does not already.

Very truly yours,

Charles Francis Adams.

Mem. Private.

On the 8th of January at 12 o'clock, a hundred guns should be fired at 12 o'clock, in every town and village, in honor of General Jackson, the flag of the Union, the hero of Fort Sumter. But do not let it appear to have been suggested from here.

What I have written to you to-day has been suggested also to the authorities of New York and Pennsylvania, from sources which they will recognize.

C. F. A.

SOURCE: Henry Greenleaf Pearson, The Life of John A. Andrew: Governor of Massachusetts, 1861-1865, Volume 1, p. 142-3

George L. Stearns to the National Kansas Committee in New York City, May 10, 1857

Since the close of the last year we have confined our operations to aiding those persons in Kansas who were, or intended to become citizens of the territory, — believing that sufficient inducements to immigrate existed in the prosperous state of affairs there; and we now believe that should quiet and prosperity continue there for another year, the large influx of Northern and Eastern men will secure the state for freedom. To insure the present prosperity we propose:—

I. To have our legislature make a grant of one hundred thousand dollars, to be placed in the hands of discreet persons, who shall use it for the relief of those in Kansas who are, or may become, destitute through Border-ruffian outrage. We think it will be done.

II. To organize a secret force, well armed, and under control of the famous John Brown, to repel Border-ruffian outrage and defend the Free-state men from all alleged impositions. This organization is strictly to be a defensive one.

III. To aid by timely donations of money those parties of settlers in the territory who from misfortune are unable to provide for their present wants.

I am personally acquainted with Captain Brown, and have great confidence in his courage, prudence, and good judgment. He has control of the whole affair, including contributions of arms, clothing, etc. His presence in the territory will, we think, give the Free-state men confidence in their cause, and also check the disposition of the Border-ruffians to impose on them. This I believe to be the most important work to be done in Kansas at the present time. Many of the Free-state leaders, being engaged in speculations, are willing to accept peace on any terms. Brown and his friends will hold to the original principle of making Kansas free, without regard to private interests. If you agree with me, I should like to have your money appropriated for the use of Captain John Brown. If not that, the other proposition, to aid parties of settlers now in the territory, will be the next best.

George L. Stearns.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 386-7 which states the date of this letter as May 18, 1857; Frank Preston Stearns, The Life and Public Services of George Luther Stearns, p. 139-40 which dates the letter as May 10, 1857 for which I give more weight being written by son of the letter’s author.

William Barton Rogers to Henry Darwin Rogers, May 29, 1860

Boston, May 29, 1860.

. . . We go to Lunenburg on Friday. As soon as there I shall write out my observations on binocular vision, etc., in a form suited for presentation.

Our “Reservation Committees” are to continue their action until the next meeting of the Legislature, feeling strong hopes of obtaining the grant of land on the Back Bay through further efforts. They have urged me to accept the chairmanship, and I have conditionally agreed. Among our present purposes is that of framing a plan for a Technological department, with which some of our leading men, as Erastus Bigelow, Ignatius Sargent, etc., think they can secure a subscription of $100,000 from the manufacturers and merchants, and that being assured, we can come before the Legislature with an irresistible claim.

Now can you not, while in London, gather up all documents relating to the Kensington Museum, that in Jermyn Street, etc., which might be of assistance in digesting such a plan? You will do us a great service by sending me such as you collect....

The anti-Darwin review in the last “Edinburgh” is, I suppose, by Owen. It does not seem to me to be altogether fair or philosophic. I see a notice of his “Palaeontology “ in the small type of the "Westminster," which I ascribe to Huxley, and which certainly shows up the deficiencies and errors of that treatise very positively.

This morning's paper brought the sad announcement of the death of Theodore Parker. The news lately received from Florence led us to look for such a result. But now that it is certain, how deep will be the grief of the large circle of friends upon whom it will fall as one of the heaviest of bereavements. No one will be more sincerely mourned, or leave a more lasting memory in the affections and gratitude of liberal hearts everywhere, than our noble, self-sacrificing, gently loving and heroic friend. I feel that his name will be a power, and that the free and wise words that he has written, and the disciples he has reared, will continue the labours of humanity and freedom which he showed such unfaltering boldness in carrying on. You and I have lost a good friend, who knew how, better than almost any other, to appreciate the free thought that was in us. I shall never forget his kind words of you and to me, as with a tearful eye I last parted from him.

You have no doubt seen the action of the Chicago Convention. How decorous and manly and consistent their course, compared with the Democratic and the old-fogy conventions that preceded! There is good reason to expect the success of the Republican ticket; Lincoln and Hamlin are both men of superior endowments, are honest and patriotic, and sufficiently versed in affairs.

The Union-saving party is looked upon as a “dead thing” Some one lately said to one of these gentlemen, who had just been telling him that they had nominated “Bell and Everett,” “Why did you not choose?” “Why, he has been dead this twelvemonth!” was the reply. “Not so dead as either of your nominees,” was the rejoinder.

SOURCE: Emma Savage Rogers & William T. Sedgwick, Life and Letters of William Barton Rogers, Volume 2, p. 34

John Brown to the Reverend Samuel Lyle Adair, February 16, 1857

Boston, Mass., Feb. 16, 1857.

Dear Brother And Sister Adair, — It is a long time since I have heard a word from you, but I suppose it is because I have been continually shifting about since my return to the States. I am getting quite anxious to hear from you, and to get your views on your own prospects and present condition, together with your ideas of Governor Geary and of Kansas matters generally. I have not heard a word from Hudson or Akron since December; but that is owing to the fact that I have had no place fixed upon, till of late, where to receive letters. This has been from a kind of necessity; but I can now say, do write me at Springfield, Mass., care of the Massasoit House, leaving the title of Captain off. I now expect to go to Kansas (quietly) before long; but I do not wish it noised about at all. Can you tell me what has become of Captain Holmes of your place? I expect to appear before a committee of the Massachusetts legislature in a day or two. My family were well about a week ago.

Your affectionate brother,

John Brown.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 370

The Massachusetts Kansas Committee to Edward Clark, January 30, 1857

The National Committee, at their meeting in New York, voted to resign all claim to the rifles at Tabor to our committee; and Mr. Hurd is to notify you of the fact officially. If, therefore, you have commenced any proceedings to get possession of them from the National Committee, you may suspend all action until you receive Mr. Hurd's letter, which will give you full power in the premises. We learn that the rifles are at Tabor, in charge of a certain Jonas Jones, and that they are properly stored and cared for. If this should not be so, or if the Central Committee at Lawrence have interfered with them at all, you may take measures to get immediate possession, as directed by us. All matters at issue between our committee and the National Committee have been satisfactorily settled, and we trust there will be no further misunderstandings. Mr. Hurd has been in Boston and arranged all things. We have been expecting a letter from you for some days. By the time this reaches you, you will have been at Tabor, we presume. There write us a full account of your proceedings, and also of the present condition of things in Kansas, the position of the Central Committee, etc. Much business was done at the New York meeting; but no final settlement of accounts could be made, by reason of the absence of important persons and papers. Conway and Whitman are here, preparing to appear before the legislative committee about a State appropriation.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 369

Massachusetts Kansas Committee to Governor James W. Grimes, December 20, 1856

State Kansas Aid Committee Rooms,

Boston, Dec. 20, 1856.

Dear Sir, — Your letter of the 16th has been received, and we are glad to find that the importance of State action in regard to Kansas is appreciated in Iowa as well as here. The first question seems to be, Is such action really needed? And I will state what I believe to be substantially the views of this committee, who are now laboring to obtain an appropriation from our legislature.

There can be no doubt that the measures of which you speak (the purchase of land, erection of mills, etc.) could not well be engaged in by a State; and certainly no grant for that purpose could be obtained here. But although present destitution may be relieved in Kansas, it is by no means certain that there will not be great suffering there in the spring, before any crops can be raised, — especially if for any cause business should not be active. Then who can be sure that the scenes of last summer will not be acted again? True, things look better; but the experience of the past ought to teach us to prepare for the future. But even if things go on prosperously there, money may still be needed. Men have been subjected to unjust punishments, or at least threatened with them, under the unconstitutional laws of the Territory. It is desirable that these cases should be brought before a higher tribunal; while the accused person may be a poor man unable to bear the expense of such a suit. The State appropriations could then be drawn upon for this purpose, and used to retain counsel, furnish evidence, and in other ways to forward the suit of the injured man.

Would it not therefore be well for each State to make an appropriation, which should remain in the hands of the Governor, as in Vermont, or of a committee, until it should be needed in Kansas? It would thus be a contingent fund, to be drawn on only in cases of necessity, and it would be ready against any emergency. It might never be called for, or only a portion of it might be used; but should occasion arise, it would save our citizens in Kansas from many of the horrors which have afflicted them the past year. A bill embodying these ideas will be introduced into our legislature; and from the tone of our people we have good hope that it will pass. If a similar bill could pass your legislature I have no doubt the example would be followed by New York, Maine, Michigan, Connecticut, and perhaps by Ohio, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island. A general movement of this kind would give us all we want; and we might make Kansas free, I think, without expending a dollar of the money voted. The moral effect of such action on emigration from the North, and on the employment of capital, would be very important. Security would be given that the rights of emigrants would be supported; and the first result would be the emigration of thousands as soon as spring opens; so that by July we should have a force of Northern settlers there, enough to sustain any form of law which might be set up. Without this, 1 fear that next year, in spite of the flattering promises of the present, will only see the last year's history repeated. There will be no confidence in the tranquillity of the Territory; capital will shun it; emigration be almost stopped; and a year hence we may be no better off than now, — and perhaps worse. With these opinions, we look on State appropriations as the salvation of Kansas, and hope that the whole North may be led to the same view.

With much respect,

F. B. Sanborn,

Corresponding Secretary of State Committee.

SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 355-6

Charles Russell Lowell to John M. Forbes, February 11, 1861

Mt. Savage, February 11, 1861.

My Dear Mr. Forbes, — I was delighted to see your name among the Massachusetts Commissioners — and very glad to hear that you were going to take Mrs. Forbes and the young ladies with you.¹ If all the Representatives and Commissioners would show the same confidence in the good intentions of Maryland and Virginia towards the Capital, it might have a good effect — but perhaps it would be unsafe to trust too many ladies together at a Peace Conference even.

I see that in some of the Western Delegations, there are more “Generals” than “Judges.” I hope this does not indicate fight.

If Massachusetts stands where Charles Francis Adams has put her, it seems to me she will be right, and will look right in history. I did not know till now that Webster was so nearly correct in his 7th of March speech. I have always supposed he stretched the facts to suit his purposes.

We had a Union meeting in this county some three weeks ago which was more anti-slavery than Faneuil Hall dares to be — but this seems by no means the feeling throughout the State. I doubt if any compromise which did not virtually acknowledge the right of secession would be acceptable here: and yet with this right acknowledged, will not the credit of the General Government and of many of the States be badly damaged abroad — will not New York and Massachusetts be asked to endorse the Federal securities?

As to the extreme South — I suppose Benjamin & Co.,² after the raid on the New Orleans mint, will scarcely come back unless we all express through the Constitution our approbation and admiration of stealing. It seems likely now that we shall avoid a war with them; but will not the fighting mania they have encouraged force them into an attack on Cuba or Nicaragua — and thus bring about a war with some strong foreign power which will enable us to re-cement the Union on our terms? I sincerely hope that Lincoln will not consult too nicely what is acceptable even to the Border States, but will take his stand on the principles which the framers of the Constitution stood upon, and if there comes a collision, call upon the Border States alone to aid him — I believe they would at once rally to sustain him, even in a course which they would now pronounce totally unacceptable.

As my views are taken from the New York papers, they will probably be novel to you.

In fact, I write chiefly to express a faint hope that we may see you and the ladies at Mt. Savage. Mr. Graham tells me that he has invited you. In these dull times I cannot be expected to have acquired very much information about the manufacturing of Iron, but I should like very much to go over the ground with you. If the works are ever to go on, I am well satisfied with my change from Iowa — I think there are practical economies to be introduced in almost every department.

_______________

¹ “The war,” wrote Mr. Forbes, in his notes, “virtually began for me with what is called the ‘Peace Congress’ of February, 1861. In January, Virginia asked the other States to send delegates to a congress for the purpose of devising means to avert the civil war then threatening. This was pretty generally responded to at the North, and resulted in the meeting of what was called the Peace Congress at Washington, in the early part of February, 1861. It was unauthorized by law and entirely informal, and simply a conference of men of the different States. Each State was represented by as many delegates as it had members of Congress, our Massachusetts contingent being thirteen (I think), all nominated by Governor Andrew under authority from the legislature. Of my colleagues I recall the names of George S. Boutwell, J. Z. Goodrich, F. N. Crowninshield, T. P. Chandler, and B. F. Waters of Marblehead, as having been the most active. We started nearly all together, about February 10, with the political horizon everywhere darkly lowering. My wife and daughter accompanied me.  . . . I had secured an asylum for them with Baron Stoeckel, the Russian ambassador, to be availed of in case the rebels pushed into Washington, an event which seemed as probable as it really was easy of accomplishment, had the rebels been half as smart as we thought them. . . .

“We soon plunged into our work, our [the Massachusetts delegation's] advent having very much the effect of a bombshell explosion. Before our arrival, the talk had been chiefly of compromise, and some progress seemed to have been made in preparing the way for a surrender by the North, on the basis of the Crittenden Resolutions, so called from Senator Crittenden, who introduced them into the Senate. They practically surrendered the ground which the North and West had taken against the extension of Slavery, and gave up the advanced position for Freedom which had been gained after long years of conflict, and which was represented by the election of Lincoln.  . . . We who went to see what chance there was of any real peace, soon found that the Southerners in the convention were ready to receive any concessions from us ‘in the hope that it might do some good,’ but to commit themselves to nothing.

“When we asked the Border States, ‘Suppose the North concedes what you ask, will you join them in forcing the South to obey the laws?’ ‘No,’ was the reply, ‘but we should hope that such concessions would lead to a settlement, and we will do all we peaceably can to bring this about.’  . . . Our only policy then was to stand firm, and, as the Fourth of March was approaching, when the weak old Buchanan and his Cabinet would go out, to make all the time we could in the Peace Convention and avert, as long as possible, the onslaught of the better prepared South, which was plainly impending.  . . . So the Massachusetts delegates introduced a resolution calling upon the representatives of the Border States, who had asked us to meet them, for ‘a statement of the grievances which we were asked to redress.’

“This led to long debates, and some of us who had not the gift of speaking, and could read the reports of the convention in print, turned our thoughts naturally to some other modes of saving the Union.” (John Murray Forbes, Letters and Recollections, edited by his daughter, Sarah Forbes Hughes. Houghton, Mifflin & Co., 1899.)

Mr. Forbes wrote a draft for a report of the Peace Commission to Governor Andrew, in which he said: “We have no belief that any absolute settlement was practicable, short of an entire subversion of the constitutional rights of the majority of the people of the United States.”

² Judah P. Benjamin, a Jew, came to North Carolina in early youth, and became a prominent lawyer and politician in New Orleans. He was a leading secessionist and was Secretary of War, and, later, of State, to the Confederacy. After the war, he was a noted practitioner of law in England. He died in Paris.

SOURCE: Edward Waldo Emerson, Life and Letters of Charles Russell Lowell, p. 193-6, 400-2