How can he require evidence now which he did not require then?
Charles Sumner
The Public Record
Charles Sumner was an American lawyer and statesman who represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874. Before and during the American Civil War, he was a leading American advocate for the abolition of slavery, and after the war he was a key figure in the Reconstruction era, during which he and other Radical Republicans successfully fought to end slavery and ensure basic rights for Black Americans. He continued advocating for racial equality until his death, lobbying in his final days for a civil rights bill that served as a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historians credit Sumner with coining the phrase "equality before the law," which he first used as part of an early attempt to integrate Boston's public school system.
gutenberg.org
But even if not disposed to admit actual levying of war on the part of the Rebels,--though of this there can be no doubt,--there was surely preparation and purpose so to do; and any contribution to such preparation and purpose was…
Clearly, Jefferson Davis at that time was a traitor, at the head of traitors.
What, then, can be thought of a Senator who offered arms to him?
But, whatever the language of the President, it is none the less clear that the Rebellion at that very moment was completely organized by a succession of overt acts, which fixed the treasonable position of its authors, and especially of…
Nobody questions that treason was uttered on this floor, or that treasonable counsels went forth from this Chamber.
It is within the recollection of many that those utterances were heard on this side of the Chamber, not only with indignant patriotism, but with bitter, stinging regret at the abject condition of the Senate, then so entirely in the hands…
Surely such utterances, wicked with treason, constituting the very voice of the Rebellion, cannot be an apology for the disloyal letter of the Senator; nor can silence, when we were powerless to act, be any argument for silence now that…
Freedom of debate is among the triumphs of modern civilization; and it shall never be impaired by any vote or word of mine.
To this freedom I have held fast, when almost alone in this body; and what I have steadily vindicated for myself against all odds I shall never deny to another.
Therefore, if I am the judge, there is no Senator who will not always be perfectly free to speak and vote as he thinks best on every question that shall legitimately arise; but beyond this immunity he must not go.
He shall not talk treason; he shall not parley with rebellion; he shall not address to it words of sympathy and good-will; especially, he shall not recognize its chief in his pretended character of President, nor shall he send him improved…
Putting aside all these considerations, the case against the Senator from Indiana is clear.
It is vain to say that the bearer of the letter was his lifelong friend, as it is vain to say, also, that the Senator did not dream that there would be war.
The first apology is as feeble as the second is audacious.
If the Senator did not dream that there would be war, then why send arms to the chief of the Rebellion?
But even if the Rebellion were not at that time manifest in overt acts,--as it clearly was,--still the sending of arms was a positive provocation and contribution to its outbreak, especially when the arms were sent by a Senator.
God grant, that, in the administration of justice, a citizen arraigned for his life may always be presumed innocent till he is proved guilty!
But, while zealously asserting this presumption in a criminal trial, I utterly deny it in the present case.
The flag-officer of a fleet, or the commander of a garrison, when only suspected of correspondence with the enemy, is without delay deprived of command; nor can any technical presumption of innocence be invoked in his defence.
If not strong, pure, and upright in himself, he must not expect to find strength, purity, and uprightness in any presumption of innocence, or in any technical rule of law.
But his fidelity as trustee is now drawn in question; and since no person is allowed to continue as trustee whose character is not above suspicion,--inspired uberrimâ fide, according to the language of the law,--the case of the Senator…
The Senator has no right for himself here; he does not represent himself; but he represents his State, of which he is the elected, most confidential trustee; and when his fidelity is openly impeached, there is no personal right which can…
By courtesy the seat may be his; but in reality the seat belongs to Indiana; and this honored State, unsurpassed in contributions to the patriot armies of the Republic, may justly protest against longer misrepresentation on this floor by a…
Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.
Politicians like Charles Sumner
