The Massachusetts Resolutions on the Sumner Assault, and the Slavery Issue

FROM THE HON. ROBERT M. T. HUNTER’S SPEECH, DELIVERED IN THE SENATE. OF THE UNITED STATES, JUNE 24, 1856. Oil motion of Mr. Butler, the Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration St the bill (S. No. 172) to authorize the people of Kansas to form a constitution and State government, preparatory to their admission into the Union when they have the requisite population. Mr. HUNTER said: Mr. President, it was with deep regret that I first saw the announcement of tiie passage of those resolutions by the Legislature of the State of Massachusetts. I was concerned to see that great State interpose for the purpose of converting what seemed to me to be a personal dispute into the magnitude of a public quarrel. In the history of the two Houses of Congress since the institution of this Government, there have been many instances of personal collisions in which members have been engaged, arising out of wori^ spoken in debate; but so far as I am acquainted with "their history, this is the first case- in which any State has interposed for the purpose of taking part in such quarrels. When Mr. John Quincy Adams, of Massachusetts, was Presidentof the United States, his Secretary of State challenged a Senator from Virginia for words spoken in debate, and the quarrel thtts made was not settled until two shots had been exchanged on the ground. The Legislature of Virginia did not interpose for the purpose of demanding of the Senate to protect the privileges of its Senator, or to shield him from the consequences of his speech; but, on the contrary, it was content to leave him to meet all his personal . responsibilities, under the belief that he would be [ able to defend himself. There have been cases in which members have fallen at the hands of each other for disputes arising out of debates; and yeti know of no instance before, in which* the Legislature of any State has stepped forward to prejudge the case, and to pronounce the sentence which is to be given. I can see no consequence so likely to flow from this attempt, in the present instance, as that of exasperating the unfortunate sectional dispute which is now raging in the country. But, sir, that was not the only thing in these resolution’s which excited pain and regret in my mind. I was concerned to see that, when the State of Massachusetts sat in judgment on this case, it had nothing to say,by way of rebuke to its Senator ; for the offensive language which he uttered, not merely towards a majority of the members of this body, or towards certain individuals who were in it, but towards all the slave States, and particularly towards the States of South Carolina and I Virginia? Not only did she have no word of rebuke to offer for such a speech—a speech which ' called out from the venerable Senator from Michigan [Mr. Cass] the declaration that it was the most unpatriotic and un-American speech he had , ever heard on this floor—not only, I say, did she have no word of rebuke to utter for the offensive personalities of such a speech, but she actually indorsed and encouraged them, for she returned him her thanks for having made them; for in no pther light qan we regard her resolution “approving” of Mr. Sumner’s manliness and courage in his earnest and fearless declaration of free principles, and his defense of human rights and free territory. " Mr. President, so long as the attacks on my State emanated from a single individual, I had nothing to say. Virginia can live under the taunts of any individual, I care not who he be; and portentous indeed would be the day, if it should ever arise, when can be said, the “ Falcon, tow-’ring in her pride of place, Was by a mousing owl hawk’d at, and kill’d.” But when a State of this Confederacy comes forward to indorse the attack, and to thank the person who has uttered what I conceive to be a slander, it appears to me that I owe it as a duty to my constituents and, to myself, as well as to others who may be concerned, to examine into the foundation upon which this accusation has been so unnecessarily and unprovokedly made against my State. I pass over the personalities towards friends of mine on this floor—towards myself even, so far as I am included in that majority who voted for the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and towards the slaveholding States in the generality, to which I belong; and I come to the specific attack on the State of Virginia, which I understand the State of Massachusetts to indorse and approve. The Senator from Massachusetts, [Mr. Sumner,] speaking of my colleague, said: <rHe holds,the commission of Virginia: but he does not represent that early Virginia, so dear to our hearts, which gave to us the pen of Jefferson, by which the equality of men was declared, and the sword of Washington, by which independence was secured; but he represents that other Virginia, from which Washington and Jefferson now avert their faces, where human beings are bred as cattle for the shambles, and where a dungeon rewards the pious matron who teaches little children to relieve their bondage by reading the Book of Life. It is proper that such a Senator, representing s^ch a State, should rail against free Kansas.” The foundation upon which this accusation rests—and it has not even the poor merit of originality with him who has last made it, is the fact that slavery, and as a consequence of it the slave trade, exists in the State of Virginia—that is to pay, slaves are notonly held inbondage, but, being treated as property, it follows as a consequence that they are sold from one to another; These are the facts upon which the attack is based. I The coloring in which it is dressed up depends ' on the fancy or the taste of him who may happen

RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=