By Michael A. Schoeppner, Andrew W. Mellon Short-Term Fellow, Associate Professor and Trustee Research Professor University of Maine-Farmington
Historians often go into the archives with specific questions in mind, and we can exhibit obscene levels of patience as we sift through materials in search of historical evidence to answer those questions. Many research trips yield more frustration than insight. But other times, not only do we find what we are looking for, we come across an item that speaks directly to us about our contemporary historical moment. I call this fortunate event an “archival surprise.”
During my first week at the Massachusetts Historical Society, I was scrolling through the Winthrop Papers, a sprawling collection that contains multiple volumes from Robert C. Winthrop, former US Senator and US Speaker of the House. In 1843, Winthrop wrote a report about the imprisonment of Black people in Southern port cities. This report was central to my current research on the movement of free Black people before the Civil War and their ideas about citizenship. As I scrolled through Winthrop’s personal correspondence, I came across a letter from Charles Sumner, who was just cutting his teeth in public service when he wrote it. In the letter, he applauded Winthrop’s argument about Black people’s citizenship rights. I did not read the entire letter at first; I made an electronic copy to read later.
Two days afterwards, I was in the MHS reading room, exhausted from the previous evening’s doomscrolling over the recently argued birthright citizenship case currently before the Supreme Court. While I was waiting for a set of documents to be delivered, I read that letter from Charles Sumner. As I suspected, he held similar views as Winthrop regarding the citizenship rights that Black travelers ought to be entitled. But then, completely unsolicited, Charles Sumner wrote,
“The genius of our institutions invites immigration, but it does not say “come,” then add “but all who come must be of the purest white, and you cannot have offspring entitled to privileges + immunities of citizenship.” For whatever may be the conditions of the foreign immigrant under the Acts of Congress, I cannot doubt that his children, born in the United States, are citizens thereof.”
And just in case I was misreading Sumner’s rather deplorable handwriting, he reiterated in no uncertain terms,
“The accident of birth impresses upon the infant this indelible character. He becomes a citizen by birth within the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth, for then the C’wealth treats him as owing allegiance. He is one of her children. He is not a resident, but a citizen.”
I was shellshocked at how pertinent and precise Sumner’s position was. Given how essential he and other Radical Republicans were in the drafting and passage of the Reconstruction Amendments and the 1866 Civil Rights Act while Sumner was a US Senator, his views on immigrants’ birthright citizenship should be required reading for legal theorists. If anyone cared what the Radical Republicans meant when they proposed the 14th Amendment’s birthright citizenship clause, here was a powerful enunciation.
I swore Sumner was talking to me. Then I remembered the portrait hanging directly behind my table in the MHS reading room. I turned around, and Old Charles was there, sitting in his chair, staring down. His smug glare confirmed my suspicion. He wrote that letter to us as much as he wrote it to Winthrop. Here was an archival surprise, courtesy of Charles Sumner.

Anyone who has spent considerable time in the archives has met with similar moments. Archival surprises are special rewards, a reminder that the past is not ever really past. It also confirms that public archives, such as the Massachusetts Historical Society, are invaluable cultural repositories.















