Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4

[551] observation in the midst of the intense heats of the Civil War strangely enough now provoked indignant protests in the name of patriotism, at a time when there had been an opportunity for the passions of war to subside, and the policy of restoration and reconciliation to take their place. Time and circumstance showed that the professed sentiments were unreal, and that the occasion was taken advantage of to punish the senator's divergence from his party at the late election. Sumner was thought to be rather reckless in opening fresh wounds anew; but it is not likely that he foresaw the clamor he was to provoke, and it is certain that he would not have hesitated in his purpose if he had foreseen it. Hale of Maine offered, a few days later, in the House, a counter proposition, which was passed, without debate, by a party vote. This, as well as Sumner's bill, was laid over in the Senate on account of his illness, as he expressed his desire to take part in the debate. Edmunds, though yielding to a postponement, avowed his earnest opposition to Sumner's bill.

At the time Sumner introduced his bill the Legislature of Massachusetts was holding an extra session, called solely to meet exigencies growing out of the great fire in Boston. A member of the House (Hoyt of Athol), who had been a soldier, but not one remarkable for any service, introduced a resolution condemning severely the senator's bill. The committee to which it was referred heard him and two of his friends in its behalf, but advertised no public hearing and gave no opportunity to remonstrants. Three members, not a majority (three being for and three against the resolution), made a report on the day before the final adjournment; but the fact that the report was not submitted by a majority was overlooked in the confusion. The one colored member of the committee, be it remembered to the honor of his race, stood with Sumner, saying cleverly that his only offence was that what he had done was fifty years too soon. The committee's resolution condemned the senator's bill as ‘an insult to the loyal soldiery of the nation, . . . depreciating their grand achievements in the late rebellion,’ and ‘meeting the unqualified condemnation of the people of the Commonwealth.’ The debate began the same afternoon, and continued the next morning. There was no critical or historical treatment of Sumner's proposition; but instead of this, the partisans of censure indulged in loose rhetoric and