QUICK FACTS
Created Jan 0001
Status Verified Sarcastic
Type Existential Dread
Keywords
massachusetts, american civil war, abolition of slavery, reconstruction era, radical republicans, civil rights act of 1964, ulysses s. grant, santo domingo, liberal republican party

Charles Sumner

“(January 6, 1811 – March 11, 1874) was a towering figure in American politics, a lawyer, and a statesman who served as a United States Senator representing...”

Contents
  • 1. Overview
  • 2. Etymology
  • 3. Cultural Impact

Charles Sumner (January 6, 1811 – March 11, 1874) was a towering figure in American politics, a lawyer, and a statesman who served as a United States Senator representing Massachusetts from 1851 until his death. Before and throughout the tumultuous American Civil War , Sumner was a vocal and unwavering champion for the abolition of slavery . Following the war, he played a pivotal role in the Reconstruction era , aligning himself with other Radical Republicans to dismantle slavery and secure fundamental rights for newly freed Black Americans. His commitment to racial equality remained steadfast until his final days, as he tirelessly advocated for civil rights legislation that would later serve as a blueprint for the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964 . It is widely credited to Sumner that the phrase “equality before the law” was coined, a concept he first articulated in an early effort to desegregate Boston’s public school system.

Sumner’s tenure as Chair of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee spanned from 1861 to 1871. He ultimately relinquished this influential position following a significant disagreement with President Ulysses S. Grant concerning the proposed annexation of Santo Domingo . This rift led Sumner to align with the Liberal Republican Party , spending the final two years of his senatorial career in opposition to the Republican establishment.

His political journey began within various anti-slavery organizations, culminating in his election to the U.S. Senate in 1851 as a member of the Free Soil Party . He was instrumental in the formation of the Republican Party , dedicating his senatorial efforts to confronting what he termed the “Slave Power .” This opposition reached a violent climax in 1856 when he was brutally beaten on the Senate floor by Representative Preston Brooks , an assault that nearly cost him his life. Sumner’s grievous injuries and subsequent extended absence from the Senate transformed him into a potent symbol of the anti-slavery movement. Though he did not return to his seat until 1859, Massachusetts reelected him in 1857, leaving his empty desk as a stark reminder of the violence that intensified national polarization as the Civil War loomed.

During the war, Sumner emerged as a leading voice within the Radical Republican faction, often critical of President Abraham Lincoln ’s perceived leniency towards the South. As Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, he worked diligently to prevent intervention from the United Kingdom and France on behalf of the Confederate States . Following the Union victory and Lincoln’s assassination, Sumner, alongside Thaddeus Stevens , spearheaded congressional efforts to enfranchise and grant civil rights to freedmen, while simultaneously working to prevent former Confederates from regaining power and undoing the war’s achievements. President Andrew Johnson ’s staunch opposition to these measures contributed significantly to his impeachment in 1868.

The Grant administration saw Sumner increasingly at odds with his party. While he supported the acquisition of Alaska, he vehemently opposed Grant’s ambitious plan to annex Santo Domingo . His efforts were instrumental in the defeat of the Santo Domingo Treaty in 1870. This act of defiance, coupled with his public denunciation of Grant, rendered reconciliation impossible, leading to Sumner’s removal from powerful Senate positions. He opposed Grant’s 1872 reelection , instead endorsing the Liberal Republican candidate Horace Greeley . Sumner’s political career concluded with his death in office in 1874.

Early Life, Education, and Law Career

Charles Sumner was born in Boston , Massachusetts, on January 6, 1811. His father, Charles Pinckney Sumner , was a graduate of Harvard and a distinguished lawyer with a strong abolitionist stance. He was an early advocate for integrating schools, a progressive position that challenged the prevailing social norms of 19th-century Boston. His mother, Relief Jacob, was a seamstress before her marriage.

Both of Sumner’s parents hailed from humble beginnings and were known for their formal and reserved demeanor. His father held the position of Clerk of the Massachusetts House of Representatives for several years and maintained a respectable legal practice. The Sumner family occupied a precarious position on the edge of the middle class, residing in a predominantly Black neighborhood of Beacon Hill . This upbringing, surrounded by Black Bostonians who often shared their experiences of injustice, profoundly shaped Sumner’s political convictions and fueled his lifelong dedication to racial equality.

Charles Pinckney Sumner harbored a deep hatred for slavery, emphasizing to his son that true liberation for the enslaved would only be meaningful if it were accompanied by societal equality. He was a close confidant of the Unitarian leader [William Ellery Channing]. Building upon Channing’s belief in the boundless capacity for human self-improvement, Sumner posited that environmental influences played a crucial, if not decisive, role in shaping individuals. He believed that a society that prioritized “knowledge, virtue and religion” could elevate even the most disadvantaged to “forms of unimagined strength and beauty.” For Sumner, moral law was not merely a personal guideline but a fundamental principle for governance. He viewed legal institutions that obstructed personal progress, such as slavery or segregation, as inherently evil.

The family’s financial situation improved significantly in 1825 when Charles Pinckney Sumner was appointed Sheriff of Suffolk County, Massachusetts , a post he held until his death in 1838. The family attended Trinity Church , later moving to a pew at King’s Chapel after 1825. His father’s improved circumstances also allowed for Charles’s pursuit of higher education. He attended Boston Latin School, where he forged lasting friendships with notable figures such as Robert Charles Winthrop , James Freeman Clarke , Samuel Francis Smith , and Wendell Phillips . In 1830, he graduated from Harvard College , where he was a member of the Porcellian Club . He then matriculated at Harvard Law School , becoming a favored student of Joseph Story , immersing himself in the study of jurisprudence .

Upon graduating in 1834, Sumner was admitted to the bar and established a private law practice in Boston, entering into a partnership with George Stillman Hillard . A formative visit to Washington, D.C., dissuaded him from pursuing a political career at that time, and he returned to Boston with a renewed focus on his legal work. He contributed scholarly articles to the quarterly American Jurist and undertook the significant task of editing Justice Story’s court decisions, along with other legal texts. From 1836 to 1837, Sumner also shared his legal acumen by lecturing at Harvard Law School.

Travels in Europe

In 1837, Sumner embarked on an extensive journey through Europe, his travels supported by a circle of benefactors, including Justice Story and Congressman Richard Fletcher . Upon arriving in Le Havre , France, he was deeply struck by the grandeur of the cathedral at Rouen , describing it as “The great lion of the north of France … transcending all that my imagination had pictured.” By December, he had reached Paris , where he dedicated himself to mastering the French language and frequented the Louvre . Within six months, he achieved fluency in French and attended lectures at the Sorbonne on a diverse array of subjects, from geology and Greek history to criminal law.

A journal entry from January 20, 1838, provides insight into his observations of social dynamics in Paris. He noted a lecturer’s sizable audience, which included “two or three blacks, or rather mulattos—two-thirds black perhaps—dressed quite Ă  la mode and having the easy, jaunty air of young men of fashion.” These individuals, he observed, were “well received” by their fellow students after the lecture, their presence seemingly unproblematic. He reflected:

They were standing in the midst of a knot of young men and their color seemed to be no objection to them. I was glad to see this, though with American impressions, it seemed very strange. It must be then that the distance between free blacks and whites among us is derived from education, and does not exist in the nature of things.

This experience solidified Sumner’s belief that racial prejudice in America was a learned behavior, not an inherent one. He resolved to become an abolitionist upon his return to the United States.

Over the ensuing three years, Sumner expanded his linguistic repertoire, becoming proficient in Spanish , German , and Italian . He also cultivated relationships with numerous prominent European statesmen. In 1838, during a visit to Britain, Lord Brougham lauded Sumner, stating that he “had never met with any man of Sumner’s age of such extensive legal knowledge and natural legal intellect.” While he often expressed admiration for the refinement of British society compared to American, Sumner also penned a robust defense of the American position in the ongoing dispute over the Maine-Canada boundary , a stance circulated by the American Minister to France, Lewis Cass .

Upon his return to Boston in 1840, at the age of 29, Sumner resumed his law practice. However, he increasingly devoted his time to lecturing at Harvard Law, editing court reports, and contributing to legal journals, often focusing on historical and biographical subjects. His intellectual endeavors were complemented by developing friendships with prominent Bostonians, notably the poet Henry Wadsworth Longfellow , whose home he frequented from the 1840s onward. Longfellow’s daughters reportedly found his formal demeanor amusing, recalling how he would ceremoniously hold open doors for them with the pronouncement “In presequas” (“after you”) in a resonant voice. In 1840, Sumner also became an hereditary member of the Massachusetts Society of the Cincinnati , succeeding his father.

Early Political Activism

Sumner’s public political career formally commenced in 1845, when he emerged as a leading critic of slavery in Boston and the broader state of Massachusetts, a region already recognized as a center of abolitionist sentiment.

On July 4th of that year, Sumner delivered the Boston Independence Day oration, titled “The True Grandeur of Nations.” This speech was a powerful indictment of the burgeoning conflict with Mexico and a passionate plea for peace and freedom. Sumner viewed the impending war as an act of aggression , but his primary concern lay in the potential expansion of slavery into any newly acquired territories. He quickly became a sought-after speaker for formal occasions across Boston. His elevated themes, delivered with a stately eloquence, left a profound impression. His physical presence was commanding; standing at 6 feet 4 inches (1.93 m) with a substantial frame, his voice was clear and resonant. His oratorical style, while unconventional in its gestures, was vigorous and captivating. His literary style was ornate, rich with detail, allusion, and quotation, drawing heavily from both the Bible and classical literature. Longfellow , observing his delivery, remarked that Sumner spoke “like a cannoneer ramming down cartridges,” while Sumner himself quipped that one might as well “look for a joke in the Book of Revelation .”

Following the annexation of Texas as a slave state in December 1845, Sumner became deeply involved in the anti-slavery movement. In 1847, he vehemently denounced the declaration of war against Mexico, earning him recognition as a leader of the “Conscience Whigs ” faction within the Massachusetts Whig Party . He declined the Whig nomination for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1848, choosing instead to play a key role in organizing the Free Soil Party . As chairman of the state party’s executive committee, he championed abolitionist causes and worked to forge a coalition that united anti-slavery elements from both the Whig and Democratic parties.

Sumner’s activism extended to other social reform efforts. He collaborated with Horace Mann in advocating for improvements in Massachusetts’s public education system and supported prison reform . He also represented the plaintiffs in the landmark case of Roberts v. City of Boston , a legal challenge against racial segregation in public schools. Sumner partnered with Black attorney Robert Morris in presenting this case, marking the first instance of an interracial legal team arguing a case in American history.

Arguing before the Massachusetts Supreme Court , Sumner presented arguments that foreshadowed those in Brown v. Board of Education over a century later. He highlighted the inferior physical conditions of schools designated for Black students and contended that segregation inflicted damaging psychological and sociological harm. Although Sumner lost the case, the Massachusetts General Court subsequently abolished school segregation in 1855.

United States Senate (1851–1874)

In 1851, a coalition of Democratic and Free Soil legislators secured control of the Massachusetts General Court. In exchange for the Free Soil Party’s support for the Democratic governor George Boutwell , the Free Soilers were granted the nomination for the U.S. Senate. Despite a private agreement, conservative Democrats resisted Sumner’s radical candidacy, advocating for a less confrontational figure. After a protracted stalemate lasting three months, Sumner was ultimately elected on April 24, 1851, by a narrow one-vote margin, partly due to the crucial support of Senate President Henry Wilson . His election signaled a significant shift in Massachusetts politics, as his staunch abolitionist platform stood in stark contrast to that of his immediate predecessor, Daniel Webster , a prominent architect of the Compromise of 1850 and its controversial Fugitive Slave Act .

For his initial Senate sessions, Sumner deliberately avoided overtly controversial stances. However, on August 26, 1852, he delivered his maiden speech , despite considerable pressure to remain silent. Titled “Freedom National; Slavery Sectional,” the speech was a direct assault on the Fugitive Slave Act . While both major political parties had affirmed the Compromise of 1850 as a final resolution, including its harshest provisions, Sumner demanded its repeal. Over three hours, he condemned the Act as a constitutional violation, an affront to the nation’s conscience, and an offense against divine law . Following his impassioned address, a senator from Alabama advised against a response, stating, “The ravings of a maniac may sometimes be dangerous, but the barking of a puppy never did any harm.” Sumner’s unyielding opposition to slavery, however, garnered him few allies in the Senate.

“Crime against Kansas” and Beating by Preston Brooks

On May 19 and 20, 1856, amidst the escalating violence in Kansas , Sumner delivered his seminal “Crime against Kansas” speech, a scathing denunciation of the Kansas–Nebraska Act . The lengthy oration argued for Kansas’s immediate admission as a free state and launched a furious attack on the “Slave Power ,” asserting that its ultimate goal was to extend slavery into free territories. He declared:

Not in any common lust for power did this uncommon tragedy have its origin. It is the rape of a virgin Territory, compelling it to the hateful embrace of slavery; and it may be clearly traced to a depraved desire for a new Slave State, hideous offspring of such a crime, in the hope of adding to the power of slavery in the National Government.

Sumner did not shy away from personally attacking the architects of the Act, Stephen A. Douglas of Illinois and Andrew Butler of South Carolina. He particularly targeted Butler, stating:

The senator from South Carolina has read many books of chivalry, and believes himself a chivalrous knight with sentiments of honor and courage. Of course he has chosen a mistress to whom he has made his vows, and who, though ugly to others, is always lovely to him; though polluted in the sight of the world, is chaste in his sight—I mean the harlot, slavery. For her his tongue is always profuse in words. Let her be impeached in character, or any proposition made to shut her out from the extension of her wantonness, and no extravagance of manner or hardihood of assertion is then too great for this senator.

Sumner’s reference to slavery as Butler’s “mistress” was a deliberate attempt to expose the perceived sexual depravity associated with the institution and, by extension, with Butler himself. Later historical investigations, notably by Zaakir Tameez, uncovered evidence suggesting Butler fathered children with a mistress kept within his household, likely a slave, lending a disturbing resonance to Sumner’s accusation.

Beyond his criticisms of Douglas and Butler, Sumner also denounced his former Senate colleague David Atchison , whom he accused of violently seizing polling locations to manipulate territorial elections in Kansas. Sumner drew an analogy between Atchison and Catiline , the Roman politician who led a failed coup, positioning himself as a modern Cicero safeguarding the American republic from anti-democratic conspirators.

On the afternoon of May 22, 1856, Representative Preston Brooks , a relative of Andrew Butler, confronted Sumner within the Senate chamber. Brooks brutally assaulted Sumner with a heavy gutta-percha cane, striking him repeatedly on the head. Sumner was knocked to the floor, pinned beneath his desk, which was bolted to the floor. Blinded by his own blood, he managed to stagger towards the aisle before collapsing. Brooks continued his assault on the incapacitated Sumner until his cane shattered, then proceeded to strike him with the broken remnant. Several other senators attempted to intervene and aid Sumner, but they were prevented by Brooks’s associate, Laurence Keitt , who brandished a pistol and commanded them to stand down.

This violent episode became a potent symbol of the nation’s deepening divisions. Sumner was hailed as a martyr in the North, while Brooks was celebrated as a hero in the South. Rallies in support of Sumner were held across the North, drawing thousands. Louisa May Alcott , in a letter to her sister, vividly described a rally in Boston:

Eight hundred gentlemen on horseback escorted him and formed a line up Beacon St. through which he rode smiling and bowing… The streets were lined with wreaths, flags, and loving people to welcome the good man back… I could not hear the speeches at the State House so I tore down Hancock St. and got a place opposite his house. I saw him go in, and soon after the cheers of the horsemen and crowd brought him smiling to the window, he only bowed, but when the leader of the cavelcade cried out ‘Three cheers for the mother of Charles Sumner!’ he stepped back and soon appeared leading an old lady who nodded, waved her hand, put down the curtain, and then with a few dozen more cheers the crowd dispersed.

Numerous African Americans wrote to Sumner following the caning, expressing not only sympathy but also a profound sense of identification with him. Brooks’s description of his attack as a “flogging,” intended to debase Sumner and liken him to a slave, resonated deeply. For some Black Americans, Sumner’s physical suffering mirrored the indignities of slavery.

Over a million copies of Sumner’s “Crime against Kansas” speech were distributed. Ralph Waldo Emerson commented on the escalating conflict, stating, “I do not see how a barbarous community and a civilised community can constitute one state. I think we must get rid of slavery, or we must get rid of freedom.” Conversely, Southern newspapers lauded Brooks’s actions. The Richmond Enquirer editorialized that Sumner should be caned “every morning,” and Southern lawmakers sent Brooks numerous new canes in a show of support. Some even fashioned rings from the remnants of the broken cane, wearing them on neck chains as a symbol of solidarity.

Historian William Gienapp has argued that Brooks’s assault was a critical catalyst in transforming the nascent Republican Party into a formidable political force. Theological and legal scholar William R. Long described Sumner’s speech as “a most rebarbative and vituperative speech on the Senate floor,” characterized by “Latin quotations and references to English and Roman history.” He viewed it as a direct challenge to the “Slave Power,” an attempt to expose its pervasive influence and its gradual suffocation of democratic ideals.

Return to the Senate and Continued Advocacy

The assault inflicted not only severe head trauma but also profound psychological wounds , now understood as indicative of post-traumatic stress disorder . During his months of convalescence, political adversaries mocked him, accusing him of cowardice for not returning to his duties. Nevertheless, the Massachusetts General Court reelected him in November 1856, recognizing that his empty seat in the Senate chamber served as a powerful emblem of resistance to slavery and a defense of free speech .

Sumner’s return to the Senate in 1857 proved untenable, as his health had not sufficiently recovered. His physicians recommended a sea voyage and “a complete separation from the cares and responsibilities that must beset him at home.” He sailed for Europe and found immediate relief. During a two-month stay in Paris in the spring of 1857, he reconnected with friends, including Thomas Gold Appleton , attended numerous social events, and frequented the opera. His notable acquaintances included Alexis de Tocqueville , the poet Alphonse de Lamartine , former French Prime Minister François Guizot , Ivan Turgenev , and Harriet Beecher Stowe . Sumner then embarked on tours of several European countries, including Prussia and Scotland , before returning to Washington. He spent only a few days in the Senate in December, finding himself utterly exhausted by simply listening to the proceedings. On May 22, 1858, the second anniversary of Brooks’s attack, he sailed for Europe once more.

In Paris, the prominent physician Charles-Édouard Brown-SĂ©quard diagnosed Sumner’s condition as spinal cord damage and proposed treatment involving burning the skin along the spinal cord. Sumner opted to undergo the procedure without anesthesia, believing it might enhance its effectiveness. However, contemporary and subsequent assessments have cast doubt on the efficacy of Brown-SĂ©quard’s methods. After several weeks of recovery from these treatments, Sumner resumed his travels, venturing as far east as Dresden and Prague, and making two trips to Italy. He also visited Brittany and Normandy in France. He wrote to his brother, “If anyone cares to know how I am doing, you can say better and better.”

In 1859, Sumner made his permanent return to the Senate. Despite advice from fellow Republicans to adopt a less confrontational tone, he declared, “When crime and criminals are thrust before us, they are to be met by all the energies that God has given us by argument, scorn, sarcasm and denunciation.” His first speech upon his return, “The Barbarism of Slavery,” delivered on June 4, 1860, directly challenged attempts to portray slavery as a benevolent institution . He argued that slavery stifled economic progress in the South and rendered slaveholders dependent on “the bludgeon, the revolver, and the bowie-knife.” Addressing a potential counterargument, he proclaimed, “Say, sir, in your madness, that you own the sun, the stars, the moon; but do not say that you own a man, endowed with a soul that shall live immortal, when sun and moon and stars have passed away.” Even some allies found his rhetoric excessively harsh, with one describing it as “harsh, vindictive, and slightly brutal.” Sumner spent the summer actively rallying anti-slavery forces in preparation for the election of 1860 , adamantly opposing any calls for compromise.

Civil War

With the outbreak of the Civil War , Sumner positioned himself firmly among the Radical Republicans , advocating for the immediate abolition of slavery and the dismantling of the Southern planter aristocracy. While united on the issue of slavery, the Radical faction lacked cohesive organization on other matters, such as tariffs and currency. Prominent Radical senators included Zachariah Chandler and Benjamin Wade . Following the Confederate attack on Fort Sumter in April 1861, Sumner, Chandler, and Wade made frequent visits to President Abraham Lincoln at the White House to discuss the escalating crisis. Historian Gilbert Osofsky suggests that Sumner viewed the war as an existential “death struggle” between “two mutually contradictory civilizations ,” believing the solution lay in a forceful “civilizing” and “Americanizing” of the South according to Northern ideals, essentially remolding it in the image of an idealized New England .

Throughout the war, Sumner was a steadfast advocate for Black Americans, championing emancipation, the enlistment of Black soldiers in the Union Army, and the establishment of the Freedmen’s Bureau .

Emancipation

The Radical Republicans’ demand for immediate emancipation met initial resistance from Lincoln, who feared alienating the slave states that remained loyal to the Union. Lincoln instead favored a plan for gradual emancipation with compensation for slaveholders, though he consulted Sumner extensively. Despite their policy differences, Lincoln held Sumner in high regard, referring to him as “my idea of a bishop” and an embodiment of the American conscience.

In May 1861, Sumner urged Lincoln to make emancipation the central objective of the war effort. He believed that military necessity would eventually compel Lincoln’s hand and that emancipation would elevate the Union’s moral standing, thereby deterring British intervention on behalf of the Confederacy. By October 1861, at the Massachusetts Republican Convention in Worcester, Sumner openly declared slavery to be the sole cause of the war and asserted that the Union government’s paramount duty was its abolition. He argued that Lincoln possessed the authority, under martial law , to command the Union Army to emancipate slaves. This stance was met with strong condemnation in the conservative press, with some newspapers labeling Sumner mentally unstable and a “candidate for the insane asylum.” However, the Radical Republicans wholeheartedly endorsed Sumner’s position, and he continued to articulate his arguments publicly. As an interim measure, Congress passed two Confiscation Acts in 1861 and 1862 , authorizing the military to emancipate slaves who had been impressed into Confederate service.

On January 1, 1863, Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation , declaring slavery abolished in all Confederate territories. This monumental step was later solidified by the Thirteenth Amendment , which formally abolished chattel slavery throughout the nation.

Foreign Relations

Following the withdrawal of Southern senators, Sumner assumed the chairmanship of the Committee on Foreign Relations in March 1861. In this capacity, he renewed his long-standing efforts to secure diplomatic recognition for Haiti . Haiti, having achieved independence in 1804, had sought recognition for decades but faced persistent opposition from Southern senators. With their absence, the United States officially recognized Haiti in 1862.

A critical diplomatic incident occurred on November 8, 1861, when the Union Navy vessel USS San Jacinto intercepted the British mail steamer RMS Trent, seizing two Confederate diplomats aboard and placing them in custody. This action provoked a strong reaction from the British government, which dispatched 8,000 troops to the Canada–United States border and began reinforcing the Royal Navy . While Secretary of State William Seward initially maintained that the diplomats were contraband of war, Sumner argued they did not qualify as such, being unarmed. He advocated for their release and a formal apology from the U.S. government to Great Britain. To prevent further escalation and shield the Lincoln administration from embarrassment, Sumner skillfully suppressed open debate on the matter in the Senate. On December 25, 1861, at Lincoln’s invitation, Sumner addressed the cabinet. He presented correspondence from influential British political figures, including Richard Cobden , John Bright , William Ewart Gladstone , and the Duke of Argyll , as evidence of strong political support in Britain for the diplomats’ return. Lincoln, though reluctant, ordered the captives’ release to British custody and issued an apology. The resolution of the Trent affair significantly bolstered Sumner’s standing among conservative Northerners.

Reconstruction and Civil Rights

As a leading figure among the Radical Republicans in the post-war Senate, Sumner ardently championed the cause of equal civil and voting rights for freedmen, grounding his arguments in the principle of the “consent of the governed” as a cornerstone of American republicanism .

Sumner’s radical legal framework for Reconstruction proposed that Congress possessed broad authority to regulate the former Confederate states, unbound by anything beyond the Constitution, interpreted in light of the Declaration of Independence. While not as extreme as Thaddeus Stevens , who advocated treating the Confederate states as “conquered provinces,” Sumner argued that the act of secession constituted a form of felo de se (state suicide), rendering these entities territories subject to national government oversight and preparation for readmission as states under specific conditions.

During this turbulent and contentious period, Sumner emerged as an idealist and a staunch advocate for civil rights. He joined his Republican colleagues in overriding President Andrew Johnson ’s vetoes of key legislation, though his most radical proposals were not enacted. Sumner initially favored limited male suffrage for Southerners, incorporating a literacy requirement. However, Congress ultimately imposed a loyalty requirement, which Sumner strongly supported.

Sumner maintained a close friendship with Samuel Gridley Howe and played a guiding role in the American Freedmen’s Inquiry Commission , established in 1863. He was a prominent voice advocating for Black suffrage, alongside demands for free homesteads and public education for all. His uncompromising stance, however, often alienated moderates, and his perceived arrogance and inflexibility sometimes hindered his legislative effectiveness. He was largely excluded from the drafting process of the Thirteenth Amendment , partly due to friction with Senator Lyman Trumbull , the chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee who managed the amendment’s passage. Sumner introduced an alternative amendment that sought to combine the Thirteenth Amendment with key provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment , proposing the abolition of slavery and declaring that “all people are equal before the law.” Throughout Reconstruction, he frequently criticized civil rights legislation as insufficient, pushing for measures to provide land to freed slaves and mandate universal education in the South, regardless of race. He viewed segregation and slavery as two sides of the same oppressive coin. In 1872, he introduced a civil rights bill aimed at guaranteeing equal accommodations in all public spaces and directing that suits brought under the bill be heard in federal courts. The bill failed to pass, but Sumner revived it in the subsequent Congress, and on his deathbed, he implored visitors to ensure its passage.

Sumner repeatedly attempted to remove the word “white” from naturalization laws, introducing bills to that effect in 1868 and 1869, neither of which came to a vote. On July 2, 1870, he moved to amend pending legislation to strike the word “white” from all Congressional acts pertaining to the naturalization of immigrants. On July 4, 1870, he argued:

Senators undertake to disturb us … by reminding us of the possibility of large numbers swarming from China; but the answer to all this is very obvious and very simple. If the Chinese come here, they will come for citizenship or merely for labor. If they come for citizenship, then in this desire do they give a pledge of loyalty to our institutions; and where is the peril in such vows? They are peaceful and industrious; how can their citizenship be the occasion of solicitude?

He accused legislators who supported anti-Chinese legislation of betraying the principles enshrined in the Declaration of Independence , stating, “Worse than any heathen or pagan abroad are those in our midst who are false to our institutions.” Sumner’s bill ultimately failed, and from 1870 until 1943, and in some cases as late as 1952, individuals of Asian descent were barred from naturalized U.S. citizenship. Sumner remained a staunch advocate for the civil rights of Black Americans. He co-authored the Civil Rights Act of 1875 with John Mercer Langston and introduced the bill in the Senate on May 13, 1870. The legislation finally passed in February 1875, a year after his death, and was signed into law by President Grant on March 1. It represented the last significant civil rights legislation for 82 years, until the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1957 . In 1883, the Supreme Court declared the 1875 Act unconstitutional in the landmark decision of the Civil Rights Cases .

During President Johnson’s impeachment , Sumner voted for conviction. He expressed regret only that he had to vote on each article separately, stating he would have preferred to vote, “Guilty of all, and infinitely more.”

Alaska Annexation

Throughout March 1867, Secretary of State William H. Seward and Russian representative Edouard de Stoeckl negotiated a treaty for the sale of the Russian American territory of Alaska to the United States for $7,200,000. President Johnson submitted the treaty to Congress for ratification, with Sumner’s endorsement. On April 9, Sumner’s foreign relations committee approved the treaty and forwarded it to the Senate. In a three-hour speech on the Senate floor, Sumner passionately advocated for the treaty, detailing Alaska’s history, vast natural resources, population, and climate. He sought to counter potential British expansion from Canada, arguing that Alaska possessed significant geographical and financial strategic value, particularly for the Pacific Coast States. Sumner contended that Alaska would extend America’s borders, advance republican institutions, and symbolize a gesture of friendship with Russia. The treaty secured the necessary two-thirds majority by a single vote.

The 1867 treaty, however, failed to formally recognize, categorize, or compensate the indigenous Eskimos and Indians of Alaska, referring to them only as “uncivilized tribes” under Congressional authority. By federal law, Native Alaskan tribes, including the Inuit , the Aleut , and the Athabascan , were entitled only to the lands they inhabited. The treaty excluded indigenous Alaskan tribes from U.S. citizenship, though citizenship was extended to Russian residents. Creoles , individuals of mixed Russian and Indian descent, were classified as Russian. Sumner proposed that the new territory be named Alaska, derived from its Aleutian name meaning “great land.” He also championed the provision of free public education and equal protection laws for U.S. citizens residing in Alaska. In 1867, Sumner achieved another personal milestone with his election as a member of the American Philosophical Society .

CSS Alabama Claims

Sumner was once held in high esteem in the United Kingdom, but after the Civil War, his stance on U.S. claims against Britain for violating neutrality significantly damaged his reputation there. The United States sought reparations from Britain for damages inflicted by Confederate raiding ships that had been outfitted in British ports. Sumner argued that Britain’s recognition of the Confederacy as a belligerent power had prolonged the war and resulted in immense, immeasurable losses. In 1869, he contended that Britain should compensate not only for the damage caused by the raiders but also for the “prolongation of the war” itself, citing the impact of British blockade runners . These vessels, estimated to have supplied the Confederacy with 60% of its weaponry, one-third of the lead for its bullets, three-quarters of the ingredients for its gunpowder, and most of its uniform cloth, arguably extended the conflict by two years. Sumner demanded $2,000,000,000 for these “national claims,” in addition to $125,000,000 for damages caused by the raiders. While he likely did not expect Britain to pay such a sum, he suggested that Canada be ceded as compensation. This proposition deeply offended many Britons but was taken seriously by numerous Americans, including the Secretary of State, whose support for it nearly jeopardized the settlement with Great Britain on the eve of the arbitration conference in Geneva. At the Geneva arbitration conference in 1871, convened to resolve U.S. claims against Britain, the arbitrators refused to consider these extensive “national claims.”

Sumner’s influence over J. Lothrop Motley , the U.S. ambassador to Britain, led Motley to disregard instructions from Secretary of State Hamilton Fish . This action angered President Grant, and while it was cited as the official reason for Motley’s dismissal, it was not the primary cause. The dismissal occurred a year after Motley’s alleged insubordination and was largely an act of retribution by Grant against Sumner.

Dominican Republic Annexation Treaty

In 1869, President Grant, driven by expansionist ambitions, pursued the annexation of the Dominican Republic , then known as Santo Domingo. Grant envisioned that the island’s mineral wealth would be highly beneficial to the United States. Furthermore, he believed that the island could serve as a sanctuary for African Americans facing oppression in the South, thereby compelling Southern states to adopt more tolerant attitudes towards Black citizens due to labor shortages. In July and November of 1869, under Grant’s directive and with the State Department’s sanction on the second occasion, Orville Babcock , Grant’s private secretary, secretly negotiated a treaty with Dominican President Buenaventura BĂĄez . The initial treaty lacked official State Department authorization, and the Dominican Republic was teetering on the brink of civil war between BĂĄez and former President Marcos A. Cabral. Grant deployed the U.S. Navy to protect the Dominican Republic from invasion and internal conflict during the treaty negotiations, a controversial move as this military action had not been authorized by Congress. The official treaty, finalized by Secretary of State Hamilton Fish in October 1869, proposed the annexation of the Dominican Republic, with the promise of eventual statehood, a lease of SamanĂĄ Bay for an annual fee of $150,000, and a payment of $1,500,000 to settle the Dominican national debt. In January 1870, Grant visited Sumner at his Washington residence, mistakenly believing Sumner had agreed to the treaty, when in fact Sumner had only pledged to give it “friendly consideration.” This misunderstanding ignited a bitter feud between Sumner and Grant. The treaty was formally presented to the United States Senate on January 10, 1870.

Sumner, deeply opposed to American imperialism in the Caribbean and concerned that annexation would threaten the independence of the neighboring Black republic of Haiti, became convinced that corruption permeated the treaty negotiations, with individuals close to Grant allegedly involved. As chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, he initially withheld his judgment on the treaty on January 18, 1870. However, having received information from Assistant Secretary of State Bancroft Davis indicating the use of U.S. naval vessels to support BĂĄez, Sumner’s committee voted against annexation. Possibly to avert internal party strife or spare Grant embarrassment, the Senate deliberated on the treaty in closed executive session. Grant remained resolute, sending messages to Congress advocating for annexation on March 14 and May 31, 1870. In the confidential debates, Sumner voiced strong opposition, warning of potential conflicts with foreign nationals, highlighting the island’s chronic instability, and expressing concern for the endangered independence of Haiti, which the U.S. had recognized in 1862. He also argued that Grant’s use of the U.S. Navy to establish a protectorate violated international law and the Constitution. Finally, on June 30, 1870, the treaty was put to a vote in the Senate but failed to secure the required two-thirds majority.

The following day, feeling betrayed by Sumner, Grant retaliated by ordering the dismissal of Sumner’s close friend John Lothrop Motley , the U.S. Ambassador to Britain. By autumn, Sumner’s personal animosity towards Grant was public knowledge, and he held Secretary of State Fish responsible for not resigning rather than acquiescing to Grant’s agenda. The former friends became bitter enemies. In December 1870, still wary of Grant’s intentions regarding Santo Domingo, Sumner delivered a scathing speech accusing Grant of usurpation and Babcock of unethical conduct. Grant, supported by Fish, had already initiated efforts to remove Sumner from his chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Although Sumner maintained he was an “Administration man,” his opposition to Grant extended beyond the Dominican Republic treaty; he had also thwarted Grant’s attempt to fully repeal the Tenure of Office Act , blocked Grant’s nomination of Alexander Stewart as Secretary of the Treasury, and consistently pushed for more aggressive Reconstruction policies than Grant was willing to support. Grant also resented Sumner’s perceived air of superiority. Upon hearing that Sumner did not believe in the Bible, Grant reportedly remarked, “He didn’t write it.” As the rift between Grant and Sumner widened, Sumner’s health began to deteriorate. When the 42nd U.S. Congress convened on March 4, 1871, senators aligned with Grant, known as “New Radicals,” voted to oust Sumner from the chairmanship of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Liberal Republican Revolt

Sumner subsequently turned his opposition towards Grant, echoing the sentiments of many reformers who decried the corruption endemic within Grant’s administration. Sumner became convinced that his vital civil rights agenda could not be effectively advanced by a government perceived as corrupt. In 1872, he joined the Liberal Republican Party , a reformist movement initiated by prominent Republicans such as Horace Greeley . The Liberal Republicans ostensibly supported Black suffrage, the Reconstruction Amendments, and fundamental civil rights protections. However, they also called for amnesty for ex-Confederates, criticized the Republican governments established in the South with the aid of Black voters, downplayed the violence of the Ku Klux Klan, and advocated for the restoration of “home rule” in the South, which effectively meant the return of white Democratic control. While the Liberal Republicans offered no support for Sumner’s civil rights bill, he aligned with them, having become convinced that reconciliation was necessary and that Democrats were sincere in their stated commitment to uphold the Reconstruction settlement.

Conciliation Toward the South

Sumner’s advocacy for civil rights was never intended as hostility toward the South. On the contrary, he consistently argued that guaranteeing equality was the essential precondition for genuine reconciliation. Unlike some other Radical Republicans, he had strongly opposed the execution or imprisonment of Confederate leaders. In December 1872, he introduced a Senate resolution proposing that Civil War battle names be removed from the regimental flags of the U.S. Army, thereby ceasing to be “battle honors.” This was not a new proposal; Sumner had introduced a similar resolution in May 1862 and in 1865 had argued against displaying paintings in the Capitol that depicted scenes from the Civil War, deeming the commemoration of inter-state conflict “barbarous.” His 1872 proposal, though not affecting most battle-flags as they belonged to state regiments, was intended to prevent future insults to Southerners who might enlist in U.S. regiments alongside Northerners. The resolution had no chance of passing but deeply offended Union army veterans. The Massachusetts legislature censured Sumner for offering “an insult to the loyal soldiery of the nation” and for meeting “the unqualified condemnation of the people of the Commonwealth.” The poet John Greenleaf Whittier , with the assistance of abolitionist Joshua Bowen Smith , led an effort to rescind this censure, which succeeded in early 1874. Sumner was present to hear the rescinding resolution presented to the Senate on his final day of attendance. He died the following afternoon.

Virginius Affair

On October 30, 1873, the Virginius, a ship transporting munitions and troops in support of the Cuban Rebellion and flying the U.S. flag, was captured by Spanish authorities. Following a swift trial in Santiago , Cuba, Spain executed 53 crew members, including American and British citizens. Sumner sympathized with the Cuban rebels and the executed individuals but refused to endorse U.S. military intervention or the annexation of Cuba. On November 17, 1873, Sumner articulated his views on the Virginius Affair in an interview in Boston . He argued that despite flying the U.S. flag, the ship’s mission was illegal. Sumner, critical of the Grant Administration’s neutrality policy regarding the Cuban insurgency, believed that the United States should instead support the First Spanish Republic . On November 28, 1873, Secretary of State Hamilton Fish , who managed the crisis with remarkable calm amidst calls for war, negotiated a peaceful settlement with Spanish President Emilio Castelar , averting conflict with Spain.

Death

Charles Sumner, having been in declining health for some time, died of a heart attack at his residence in Washington, D.C., on March 11, 1874, at the age of 63. He lay in state in the United States Capitol rotunda , becoming the second senator (following Henry Clay in 1852) and the fourth person overall to receive this honor. His funeral took place on March 16 at Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge, Massachusetts . Among the pallbearers were distinguished figures such as Henry Wadsworth Longfellow , Oliver Wendell Holmes , Ralph Waldo Emerson , and John Greenleaf Whittier .

In the aftermath of his death, Senator Lucius Lamar of Mississippi , a Southerner, delivered a eulogy for Sumner that, given his own background, proved controversial. This eulogy later contributed to Lamar’s inclusion in John F. Kennedy ’s book, Profiles in Courage .

Historical Interpretations

Sumner’s complex personality and extensive public career have been subjects of considerable study by contemporaries and historians alike. In the first half of the 20th century, Sumner’s reputation among historians was largely unfavorable. He was often blamed by both the Dunning School and its revisionist critics for the perceived excesses of Radical Reconstruction, particularly for advocating Black voting rights and political participation. However, as scholarly perspectives on Reconstruction have evolved, so too have interpretations of Sumner’s legacy. Modern scholars increasingly emphasize his role as a foremost champion of Black rights, both before, during, and after the Civil War, with some historians labeling him “perhaps the least racist man in America in his day.”

Sumner’s personality also presented a challenge to those who knew him. His friend Senator Carl Schurz lauded Sumner’s integrity, “moral courage,” “sincerity of his convictions,” and “disinterestedness of his motives.” Indeed, few of his contemporaries doubted his courage; abolitionist Wendell Phillips, who knew Sumner intimately, recalled that Southerners in Washington during the 1850s often speculated whether Sumner would return home alive each day. Shortly before his death, Sumner confided in his friend Ebenezer Rockwood Hoar, “Judge, tell Emerson how much I love and revere him.” Hoar, in turn, relayed Emerson’s sentiment: “He said of you once, that he never knew so white a soul.”

Moorfield Storey , Sumner’s private secretary for two years and later his biographer, offered this assessment:

Charles Sumner was a great man in his absolute fidelity to principle, his clear perception of what his country needed, his unflinching courage, his perfect sincerity, his persistent devotion to duty, his indifference to selfish considerations, his high scorn of anything petty or mean. He was essentially simple to the end, brave, kind, and pure… Originally modest and not self-confident, the result of his long contest was to make him egotistical and dogmatic. There are few successful men who escape these penalties of success, the common accompaniment of increasing years… Sumner’s naively simple nature, his confidence in his fellows, and his lack of humor combined to prevent his concealing what many feel but are better able to hide. From the time he entered public life till he died he was a strong force constantly working for righteousness…To Sumner more than to any single man, except possibly Lincoln, the colored race owes its emancipation and such measure of equal rights as it now enjoys.

David Donald, Sumner’s biographer and a Southerner, presented a more critical portrait in his Pulitzer Prize-winning first volume, Charles Sumner and the Coming of the Civil War (1960). Donald characterized Sumner as an insufferably arrogant moralist, an egoist consumed by pride, pontifical and Olympian, and prone to conflating minor issues with major ones. Donald concluded that Sumner was a coward who avoided direct confrontation with his numerous enemies, preferring to insult them through prepared speeches. However, in Donald’s subsequent volume, Charles Sumner and the Rights of Man (1970), his assessment became more favorable. While still offering criticism, Donald acknowledged Sumner’s substantial contributions to the positive achievements of Reconstruction.

Donald also noted Sumner’s difficulties in interpersonal relationships within the Senate:

Distrusted by friends and allies, and reciprocating their distrust, a man of “ostentatious culture”, “unvarnished egotism”, and “‘a specimen of prolonged and morbid juvenility,’” Sumner combined a passionate conviction in his own moral purity with a command of 19th-century “rhetorical flourishes” and a “remarkable talent for rationalization”. Stumbling “into politics largely by accident”, elevated to the United States Senate largely by chance, willing to indulge in “Jacksonian demagoguery” for the sake of political expediency, Sumner became a bitter and potent agitator of sectional conflict. Carving out a reputation as the South’s most hated foe and the Negro’s bravest friend, he inflamed sectional differences, advanced his personal fortunes, and helped bring about national tragedy.

In a biography of Sumner published in 2025, Zaakir Tameez challenged Donald’s emphasis on Sumner’s egotism, describing the historian’s work as “a character assassination of a monumental figure in the history of civil rights.” Tameez’s biography shifts the focus from Sumner’s personal conflicts to his decades-long advocacy for Black Americans, portraying him as “the most famous civil rights leader of the nineteenth century, much like Martin Luther King Jr. in the twentieth century.”

Tameez further elaborated on the parallels between King and Sumner:

There are many parallels to draw between King and Sumner, two towering historical visionaries who briefly commanded national attention and tried to use their soaring oratory, along with their sharp political instincts, to drive a stake through the heart of America’s racial caste system by invoking America’s highest ideals.

Other prominent civil rights figures and historians, including Frederick Douglass , Ralph Waldo Emerson , and W.E.B. Du Bois , have lauded Sumner. Du Bois referred to Sumner as a “magnificent figure” and a “seer of democracy.”

Emerson’s tribute to Sumner reads:

Mr. Sumner’s position is exceptional in its honor…. In Congress, he did not rush into party position. He sat long silent and studious. His friends, I remember, were told that they would find Sumner a man of the world like the rest; “it is quite impossible to be at Washington and not bend; he will bend as the rest have done.” Well, he did not bend. He took his position and kept it…. I think I may borrow the language which Bishop Burnet applied to Sir Isaac Newton, and say that Charles Sumner “has the whitest soul I ever knew.”… Let him hear that every man of worth in New England loves his virtues.

Charles Sumner has been depicted in several films. In the 2012 movie Lincoln , the role of Sumner was played by actor John Hutton. In the 2013 film Saving Lincoln , Sumner was portrayed by Creed Bratton .

Personal Life

Sumner was elected a member of the American Antiquarian Society in 1843. He served on the society’s board of councilors from 1852 to 1853 and later, from 1867 to 1874, held the position of secretary of foreign correspondence.

Marriage and Sexual Orientation

Sumner remained a lifelong bachelor for the majority of his life, and some historians suggest he may have been gay. For many years, he maintained a deep romantic friendship with the physician and fellow abolitionist Samuel Gridley Howe . Their close bond involved extensive time spent together during Sumner’s youth and a continuous correspondence throughout their lives. Sumner once wrote to Howe, “There is something at the bottom of my heart & on my lips always for you.”

Sumner was reportedly grief-stricken when Howe married Julia Ward Howe , who herself once remarked to her husband, “Sumner ought to have been a woman and you to have married her.” In the years leading up to the Civil War, political opponents, such as Senator Andrew Butler of South Carolina , alluded to Sumner’s bachelor status, implying he harbored fantasies about Black women. Sumner found these attacks deeply distressing, expressing shame over what he termed his “cage of celibacy.”

After years of bachelorhood, Sumner began courting Alice Mason Hooper, the widowed daughter-in-law of Massachusetts Representative Samuel Hooper , in 1866. They married that October, but the marriage proved unhappy. Sumner struggled to reciprocate his wife’s humor, and Alice possessed a volatile temper. That winter, Alice began attending public events with Prussian diplomat Friedrich von Holstein , sparking gossip in Washington. Alice refused to cease her association with Holstein, and when he was recalled to Prussia in the spring of 1867, Alice accused Sumner of orchestrating the action, which he denied. They separated the following September. Sumner’s adversaries seized upon this affair to attack his character, derisively calling him “The Great Impotency.” The situation deeply depressed and embarrassed Sumner. He obtained an uncontested divorce on the grounds of desertion on May 10, 1873.

Memorials

Numerous places and institutions have been named in honor of Charles Sumner. These include:

A statue of Sumner by sculptor Anne Whitney stands in Harvard Square , Cambridge, Massachusetts, and another statue by Thomas Ball is located in Boston, Massachusetts. The $500 silver certificate of 1880 featured Sumner’s portrait.

See Also