The Neato Senator Sumner

[peteanddelmar]

Sen. Sumner, upset at having learned Brig. Gen. Stone had ordered two runaway slaves to be denied asylum in the Union Army, castigated Brig. Gen. Stone in a Senate speech.[51] Brig. Gen. Stone wrote Sen. Sumner a terse letter and demanded satisfaction from Sen. Sumner. On January 31, 1862, Brig. Gen. Stone defended himself in front of the Senate Committee under Radical chairman Sen. Wade.[51] Indicted under suspicion of treason, without any trial, Brig. Gen. Stone was arrested on February 8, 1862, and federally imprisoned for 189 days.

Williams, T. Harry (December 1954). "Investigation: 1862". American Heritage Magazine 6 (1). Retrieved 2011-09-27.

Maybe Sen. Sumner WAS one of the *******s from the North?

This could be easily the first of a series of many examples of how altruistic senators from the North were humbly seeking to free the slaves. (That's sarcasm) Falsely imprisoning their own soldiers.

Sounds like "power play" and "do what I want or else" type of thing.

Read a more complete story here.

Primary sources for the article are at the end.
(This does not endorse, defend, or condone the beating of Sumner earlier by a Slavery thug)

 

[brass napoleon]

I'm not familiar with this case, but I have a question. You imply that Sumner had some other motivation for going after Stone than his stance on slavery. What evidence is there of that, and what was that motivation?

 

[Copperhead-mi]

It is highly unlikely that Sumner had any involvement with Stone's arrest:

"Mr. Sumner had 'no opinion to express in the case, for he knew nothing about it;' but 'it seemed clear' to him 'that General Stone ought to be confronted with his accusers at an early day, unless there be some reason of an overbearing military character which would render such a trial improper.' Mr. Sumner had 'seen in various newspapers a most persistent attempt' to connect him 'with the credit or discredit of the arrest.' He declared that from the beginning he 'had been an absolute stranger to it.' The arrest was made, he repeated, without his 'suggestion or hint, direct or indirect.' He declared that he 'was as free from all connection with it' as 'the intimate friends and family relatives of the prisoner.' At the close of the debate Mr. McDougall accepted Mr. Wilson's resolution as a substitute for his, and on the 21st of April the latter was adopted by general consent.

"The unfounded assumption of Mr. Sumner's connection with the arrest sprang perhaps from some censorious remarks in the Senate made by him in December touching General Stone's alleged course in sending back fugitive slaves. Subsequent intelligence indicated that Mr. Sumner had been misinformed on this matter, and that the facts did not inculpate General Stone. But instead of writing to Mr. Sumner to correct the statements made in his speech, General Stone, most unwisely and most reprehensibly, addressed to the senator on the 23d of December an ill-tempered and abusive letter. Mr. Henry Melville Parker of Massachusetts investigated all the facts and incidents of the case, and came to the conclusion that Mr. Sumner, as an act of revenge for the insolent letter, had caused General Stone's arrest. But the facts do not warrant Mr. Parker's conclusion. Aside from Mr. Sumner's public denial on the floor of the Senate — which of itself closed the issue — he was never known to be guilty of an act of revenge. That passion belongs to meaner natures. The dates, moreover, remove the imputation of Mr. Parker. General Stone's hasty and ill-considered letter was placed in Mr. Sumner's hands on Christmas Day, 1861. The arrest was made on the 8th of February, 1862 — forty-six days later. The intervening circumstances nowhere involve Mr. Sumner in the remotest degree."
Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield, Volume 1, James Gillespie Blaine. pp. 388-389

 

[peteanddelmar]

I'm not familiar with this case, but I have a question. You imply that Sumner had some other motivation for going after Stone than his stance on slavery. What evidence is there of that, and what was that motivation?

I didn't mean to make that assertion if I did. He was a powerful man who imprisoned his own soldier after arguing if that soldier should follow existing law or the Senators desires.
Was it reasonable and moral to imprison this officer, with no explanation...ever, for 189 days because he disagreed with you? And if he did disagree on slavery was that a good reason at that time? Were the slaves free at that time?
Sounds like high level bullying and power play to me.
Sumner and his pals founded and ran the "Committee on the Conduct of the War", so this was easy.

Huh?! Found one of the B******s from the north!

Now get all the lawyers for cross. At least I'll be getting the treatment on a undiscussed topic.

PS - Not sure but I think Foner discusses this very case in one of his books.

 

[peteanddelmar]

' Mr. Sumner had 'seen in various newspapers a most persistent attempt' to connect him 'with the credit or discredit of the arrest.' He declared that from the beginning he 'had been an absolute stranger to it.' The arrest was made, he repeated, without his 'suggestion or hint, direct or indirect.' He declared that he 'was as free from all connection with it' as 'the intimate friends and family relatives of the prisoner

He protesteth too much, me thinks.

So if not Sumner, as some authors think, then who decided to arrest and imprison this soldier? Without given cause for 189 days? There you go....? Did nobody make the call?

 

[Copperhead-mi]

<snipped for brevity>

Sumner and his pals founded and ran the "Committee on the Conduct of the War", so this was easy.

In our system of government the military is subordinate and answers to the the civilian leadership. The CCW was assembled by Congress partially because Union forces were stagnant or suffering defeats in the field while rumors persisted among officers that there were traitors in command position within the Army.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

He protesteth too much, me thinks.

So if not Sumner, as some authors think, then who decided to arrest and imprison this soldier? Without given cause for 189 days? There you go....? Did nobody make the call?

"In answer to the call upon the President for information, Mr. Lincoln sent a message to the Senate on the 1st of May, saying, 'General Stone was arrested and imprisoned under my general authority, and upon evidence which, whether he be guilty or innocent, required, as appears to me, such proceedings to be had against him for the public safety.' The President deemed it 'incompatible with the public interest, and perhaps unjust to General Stone, to make a more particular statement of the evidence.' After saying that General Stone had not been tried because the officers to constitute a court-martial could not be withdrawn from duty without serious injury to the service, the President gave this public assurance: 'He will be allowed a trial without unnecessary delay: the charges and specifications will be furnished him in due season, and every facility for his defense will be afforded him by the War Department.' This message on its face bears evidence that it was prepared at the War Department, and that Mr. Lincoln acted upon assurances furnished by Mr. Stanton. The arrest was made upon his 'general' authority, and clearly not from any specific information he possessed. But the effect of the message was to preclude any further attempt at intervention by Congress. Indeed the assurance that General Stone should be tried 'without unnecessary delay' was all that could be asked. But the promise made to the ear was broken to the hope, and General Stone was left to languish without a word of intelligence as to his alleged offense, and without the slightest opportunity to meet the accusers who in the dark had convicted him without trial, subjected him to cruel punishment, and exposed him to the judgment of the world as a degraded criminal.

"Release from imprisonment came at last by the action of Congress, coercing the Executive Department to the trial or discharge of General Stone. In the Act of July 17, 1862, 'defining the pay and emolument of certain officers,' a section was inserted declaring that 'whenever an officer shall be put under arrest, except at remote military posts, it shall be the duty of the officer by whose orders he is arrested to see that a copy of the charges shall be served upon him within eight days thereafter, and that he shall be brought to trial within ten days thereafter unless the necessities of the service prevent such trial; and then he shall be brought to trial within thirty days after the expiration of said ten days, or the arrest shall cease.' The Act reserved the right to try the officer at any time within twelve months after his discharge from arrest, and by a proviso it was made to apply 'to all persons now under arrest and waiting trial.' The bill had been pending several months, having been originally reported by Senator Wilson before General Stone's arrest."
Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield, Volume 1, James Gillespie Blaine. pg. 390

 

[peteanddelmar]

In our system of government the military is subordinate and answers to the the civilian leadership. The CCW was assembled by Congress partially because Union forces were stagnant or suffering defeats in the field while rumors persisted among officers that there were traitors in command position within the Army.

Would it surprise you to know that I already knew about the military being subordinate to the civilian?
Would it surprise you that this committee was formed and headed by Sumner and Wade? And others of their ilk?
Do you know what other traitors besides lifetime army man Brig. Gen. Charles Stone were incarcerated with no given reason or charge for lengthy terms? And who ordered their arrests?
Would it surprise you that "rumors" from officers that are competing happen all the time? IDK maybe they were right.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

Would it surprise you to know that I already knew about the military being subordinate to the civilian?
Would it surprise you that this committee was formed and headed by Sumner and Wade? And others of their ilk?
Do you know what other traitors besides lifetime army man Brig. Gen. Charles Stone were incarcerated with no given reason or charge for lengthy terms? And who ordered their arrests?
Would it surprise you that "rumors" from officers that are competing happen all the time? IDK maybe they were right.

Lighten up. What's up with your hostility lately to those who respond to your questions?

 

[peteanddelmar]

Mr. Lincoln sent a message to the Senate on the 1st of May, saying, 'General Stone was arrested and imprisoned under my general authority

So under Lincoln's "general authority". IDK what that means, but at least he takes credit. But that troubles me because I had always dismissed those who post on the forum that Lincoln was a tyrant. I always thought he was just a politician walking a tightrope. But apparently he did accidentally throw some of the wrong people in jail.

But that appears, if it is not a Sumner lying, to get Sumner off the hook, but puts Lincoln on, which disturbs me.

 

[peteanddelmar]

Lighten up. What's up with your hostility lately to those who respond to your questions?

I'll try. There seems to be a sea change lately after I made some disagreeable posts.
I will tell you this. You get to stuff very fast. Is that searching online inside some book? Or just searching with your mind and finger inside a book?
I AM really unsettled that Lincoln imprisoned this man. I didn't think Lincoln generally went after people who had stood under fire for the Union before and during the war. Sounds more like the Radicals or Stanton.

 

[RobertP]

Wait, wait, wait. Hold the presses! Who is this guy, Twenty Years of Congress: From Lincoln to Garfield, Volume 1, James Gillespie Blaine.

Wiki says, "James Gillespie Blaine (January 31, 1830 – January 27, 1893) was an American statesman and Republican politician who represented Maine in the United States House of Representatives from 1863 to 1876, serving as Speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875, and then in the United States Senate from 1876 to 1881."

I thought only the losers wrote the History of the Civil War! Say it ain't so.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I'll try. There seems to be a sea change lately after I made some disagreeable posts.
I will tell you this. You get to stuff very fast. Is that searching online inside some book? Or just searching with your mind and finger inside a book?
I AM really unsettled that Lincoln imprisoned this man. I didn't think Lincoln generally went after people who had stood under fire for the Union before and during the war. Sounds more like the Radicals or Stanton.

The book I've quoted from is online. Following the Union disaster at Ball's Bluff and the death of Lincoln's close friend Col. Baker, who was I believe a brigade commander in General Stone's division, a number of subordinate officers in the Division began accusing Stone of traitorous activities and being responsible for Baker's death. This information eventually reached General McClellan and Secretary of War Stanton, who ordered Stone's arrest.

 

[peteanddelmar]

The book I've quoted from is online. Following the Union disaster at Ball's Bluff and the death of Lincoln's close friend Col. Baker, who was I believe a brigade commander in General Stone's division, a number of subordinate officers in the Division began accusing Stone of traitorous activities and being responsible for Baker's death. This information eventually reached General McClellan and Secretary of War Stanton, who ordered Stone's arrest.

Ok. That I can digest and easily believe. Still wrong, but easier explained. Stone sure had served the US a lot to turn traitor to no avail and this date.

 

[Copperhead-mi]

I AM really unsettled that Lincoln imprisoned this man. I didn't think Lincoln generally went after people who had stood under fire for the Union before and during the war. Sounds more like the Radicals or Stanton.

General Stone definitely got railroaded but it wasn't by Charles Sumner.

 

[peteanddelmar]

General Stone definitely got railroaded but it wasn't by Charles Sumner.

Maybe I misread what I originally linked too. Maybe some authors thought his disagreement with Sumner had something to do with it. Sumner did seem very upset to be defied. Who knows.

 

[RobertP]

Maybe I misread what I originally linked too. Maybe some authors thought his disagreement with Sumner had something to do with it. Sumner did seem very upset to be defied. Who knows.

When a politician's lips are moving they are lying. Almost every time.

 

[peteanddelmar]

When a politician's lips are moving they are lying. Almost every time.

I generally agree with that. But this poster had been kind enough to do research instead of just "shoving me off the sidewalk". Instead of Sumner pressuring for the arrest it is placed at Lincolns feet but was indeed Stanton.
I can believe that. Even if they covered for a guy. Which is impossible in this discussion to prove.

 

[brass napoleon]

I generally agree with that. But this poster had been kind enough to do research instead of just "shoving me off the sidewalk". Instead of Sumner pressuring for the arrest it is placed at Lincolns feet but was indeed Stanton.
I can believe that. Even if they covered for a guy. Which is impossible in this discussion to prove.

Blaine certainly isn't the most reliable of sources. But it's a source. The best advice is to gather information from as many sources as possible and THEN start drawing a conclusion.

 

[peteanddelmar]

Blaine certainly isn't the most reliable of sources. But it's a source. The best advice is to gather information from as many sources as possible and THEN start drawing a conclusion.

See I don't know what authors are unreliable to EVERYONE'S agreement.
I have never read about the authors. Just the books.