Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 07 (of 20)

by Charles Sumner

APPENDIX.

Outbursts of the public press, and other exhibitions of opinion, showed at least that the speech was felt, even where condemned. Some were bitter, and expressed their bitterness strongly; others were grateful, rejoicing that at last their thoughts and desires found utterance. Its reception at the time was peculiarly part of the speech; so also was its origin, and the motive which led to it.

THE PRESIDENT AND MR. SUMNER ON EMANCIPATION.

From the beginning Mr. Sumner never doubted that rebellion must cause the end of Slavery. So he spoke and wrote often during the previous winter. As the Slave States became more perverse, he exclaimed, “Slavery will go down in blood!” But this would be only in the event of war, which seemed inevitable. A day or two before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, when President Lincoln mentioned to him confidentially the determination to provision and hold this fort, repelling force by force, Mr. Sumner remarked, “Then the War Power will be in motion, and with it great consequences.” In the solemnity of that moment, when peace seemed banished, although saddened inexpressibly, he saw at once the mighty instrument before which Slavery must fall, and never for one moment afterwards did he doubt the final result. He would not and could not believe the success of the Rebels possible; but he saw no way to success on our part, except through Emancipation. Therefore he awaited anxiously the moment when this weapon could be employed. Shrinking from bloodshed, he wished this irresistible ally to close the war. Vowed against Slavery, he was eager to see it smitten. And still further, feeling the peril of European intervention, he longed for a declaration on our part that would make such an act impossible. In his judgment, our foreign relations depended much on Emancipation. So that the whole situation at home and abroad was involved in this question.

At the earliest practicable moment he did not hesitate to press these considerations upon the President. This was immediately after the Battle of Bull Run. An earlier incident will explain what passed on this occasion.

Some time towards the close of the preceding May, while the National troops were gathered about the capital, and during an evening drive with the President alone in his carriage, Mr. Sumner brought up the subject of Slavery, in order to say that the President was right in his course at that time, but that he must be ready to strike when the moment came. On the day of the disaster he was with the President twice, but made no suggestion then. On the second day thereafter, when the tidings from all quarters showed that the country was aroused to intense action, he visited the President expressly to urge Emancipation. The President received him kindly, and, when Mr. Sumner said that he had come to make an important recommendation with regard to the conduct of the war, replied promptly, that he was occupied with that very question, and had something new upon it. Mr. Sumner, thinking that he was anticipated, said, “You are going against Slavery!” “Oh, no, not that!” he replied, impatiently. “I am sorry,” said Mr. Sumner, when the President, with increasing impatience, reminded him of the evening drive in his carriage, and then retorted: “Did you not then approve my course?” “Certainly,” said Mr. Sumner, “at that time; but I said also that you must be ready to strike at Slavery, and now the moment has come. Of this I have no doubt.” And he proceeded to urge his reasons, but could not satisfy the President. The interview, which was late in the evening, did not terminate till midnight.

So completely had Mr. Sumner acted on the idea of waiting for a moment to strike, that in two different bills introduced by him before the disaster at Bull Run, one, July 16th, entitled, “For the confiscation of property of persons in rebellion against the Constitution and Laws of the United States,” and the other, July 18th, entitled, “For the punishment of conspiracy and kindred offences against the United States, and for the confiscation of the property of the offenders,” there is no open mention of Slavery. In the first bill there is a provision for the forfeiture of “the property, real and personal, of every kind whatsoever, and wheresoever situated within the limits of the United States, belonging to any person owing allegiance to the United States, who shall be found in arms against the United States, or shall give any aid or comfort to their enemies.” The other bill contains a clause equally stringent, but general in character. But after that disaster to our arms, he was satisfied the time had come for a full exercise of the War Power, and he desired earnestly to have the President lead the way openly and without reservation.

POLICY OF FORBEARANCE.

Meanwhile the policy of forbearance was continued, giving, as Mr. Sumner thought, moral strength to the Rebellion, and postponing success. By General Orders from Head-Quarters at Washington, July 17th, Slave-Masters obtained new security for their pretended property, in the following terms.

“Fugitive slaves will under no pretext whatever be permitted to reside, or in any way be harbored, in the quarters and camps of the troops serving in this department. Neither will such slaves be allowed to accompany troops on the march. Commanders of troops will be held responsible for a strict observance of the order.”[171]

In harmony with this military order was an opinion of the Attorney-General, of July 23d, by which the marshals of Missouri were reminded that the Fugitive Slave Act must be executed.[172] Then came the correspondence between General Butler and the War Department. The former, in a letter from Head-Quarters, Fortress Monroe, July 30th, after speaking of “the able-bodied negro fit to work in the trenches as property liable to be used in aid of rebellion, and so contraband of war,” and then with unanswerable force declaring our duty to fugitive slaves, announced a definite policy as follows.

“In a state of rebellion I would confiscate that which was used to oppose my arms, and take all that property which constituted the wealth of that State and furnished the means by which the war is prosecuted, beside being the cause of the war; and if, in so doing, it should be objected that human beings were brought to the free enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, such objection might not require much consideration.[173]

To this annunciation Mr. Cameron, Secretary of War, replied, under date of August 8th:—

“It is the desire of the President that all existing rights in all the States be fully respected and maintained.”

And then, after forbidding troops to interfere “with the servants of peaceable citizens in house or field,” it was declared, as if to help the Fugitive Slave Act:—

“Nor will you, except in cases where the public good may seem to require it, prevent the voluntary return of any fugitive to the service from which he may have escaped.”[174]

These various declarations were followed, August 16th, by a speech of Hon. Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, at a social festival in Providence, R. I., which seemed to give point to all. This Cabinet officer said:—

“The minds of the people of the South have been deceived by the artful representations of demagogues, who have assured them that the people of the North were determined to bring the power of this Government to bear upon them, for the purpose of crushing out this institution of Slavery.… The Government of the United States has no more right to interfere with the institution of Slavery in South Carolina than it has to interfere with the peculiar institution of Rhode Island, whose benefits I have enjoyed.”[175]

Then came the reversal by the President of General Fremont’s Proclamation in Missouri, where, under date of August 30th, this officer, commanding the Western Department, announced a system of partial and local Emancipation as follows.

“The property, real and personal, of all persons in the State of Missouri, who shall take up arms against the United States, or who shall be directly proven to have taken an active part with their enemies in the field, is declared to be confiscated to the public use, and their slaves, if any they have, are hereby declared freemen.”[176]

The enthusiasm with which this provision was received by the country could not save it from the judgment of the President.

These incidents, still showing in certain quarters a constant tendency towards Emancipation, checked always by the Executive, attested a policy of forbearance towards Slavery. Regarding this condition of things as disastrous and of evil omen for the future, Mr. Sumner earnestly strove to arrest it. His speech was an appeal to the country.

CRITICISM AND COMMENT.

Attacks upon the speech were not prompted exclusively by friendship to Slavery. Personal opposition to Mr. Sumner, never mitigated by compromise on his part, found vent, in the hope of influencing his reëlection as Senator, although this could not occur till the next year. Such, at least, was the motive of some. Hon. William Claflin, President of the Senate, wrote as early as February 7, 1861, when the Crittenden Compromise was finding support in Massachusetts:—

“The truth is, there is a desperate effort under the surface to drive you from the Senate next winter, and, if nothing is done, it is feared by many that the Conservative force will get so strong as to drive both you and Andrew from your seats.”

A correspondent of the Plymouth Memorial put this point strongly.

“It is true, the country press spoke out and denounced this attack upon Mr. Sumner, and the attempt which is being made to take him from his place and put in it some weak-backed quietist, who, afraid to look this thing in the face, would palter weak commonplaces, and, while the patient writhed in the paroxysms of pain, would administer soothing drops instead of strong medicine to cure the disease. Mr. Sumner struck at Worcester the key-note of an anthem that will, ay, that is now being taken up by the people, and the sound of which will put the croaking of these penny trumpets far out of hearing.”

The Norfolk County Journal, by one of its correspondents, explained the opposition.

“Of course no man with his eyes open needs to be told that this furious onslaught on Mr. Sumner has very little to do with this speech. It is the opening of the war to defeat his reëlection next fall. A year ago the same papers made, if possible, more savage attacks upon Mr. Andrew. Before he was nominated every one of them opposed him, and after his nomination not one of them supported him cordially; and most of them predicted, that, though he might be carried through by the Presidential election, yet in another year the reaction would sweep him into oblivion. They will find themselves equally mistaken about Mr. Sumner.”

Wendell Phillips, alluding to the assaults upon the speech, wrote:—

“If it had no other advantage, suffice it that it shows you who your personal enemies are.”

Not content with arraigning the policy proposed by Mr. Sumner, his assailants became critics of another sort. They insisted that he was wrong in his illustrations from history,—misrepresenting the decree of Emancipation at Athens, and misquoting Plutarch.

The decree of Emancipation can be read, and also the record of the excitement which followed. That Hyperides at a desperate moment proposed Emancipation as a measure of defence against a triumphant conqueror is indisputable, and that such a measure was already known in Athens among war powers is attested by the scholiast of Aristophanes,[177] while a candid interpretation of all the circumstances, including the acceptable peace unexpectedly offered by Philip, points to the conclusion that the latter was unwilling to provoke this untried warfare.[178] This incident is described by a French writer, who gives to it the same effect as Mr. Sumner:—

“Philippe, au bruit de cette proposition, dont l’adoption pouvait ébranler la Grèce entière, s’arrêta, frappé d’épouvante.”[179]

The heaviest blows were on account of Plutarch, and here it is not easy to comprehend the anger displayed. Endeavoring to present the idea of Emancipation in its proper relief, Mr. Sumner brought forward the proclamation of liberty to the slaves, saying nothing of others joining Marius, according to the familiar translation of Langhorne, well satisfied that the slaves were the effective force; and the speech was so reported in the newspapers. Then came the attack, with learned newspaper scholia, garnished with Greek type, insisting that the husbandmen and shepherds, called “freemen” in Langhorne’s translation, and not the emancipated slaves, were authors of the success which carried the illustrious adventurer into the Roman Forum, there to clutch with dying grasp his seventh consulate.

The text of Plutarch is the best answer. That interesting biographer speaks of the slaves first, putting the Proclamation of Emancipation foremost; and this is precisely what was needed for the argument. Nor was Mr. Sumner alone in omitting to mention particularly the husbandmen and shepherds, whether freemen or freedmen. Good scholars had done precisely the same. Dr. Liddell, head master of Westminster School, and one of the authors of the favorite Greek Lexicon, describing this event, gives prominence to the Proclamation of Emancipation, without mentioning any freemen, saying: “Like all the partisan leaders of this period, he offered liberty to slaves, and soon found himself at the head of a large force.”[180] Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology says that Marius “landed at Telamo in Etruria, and, proclaiming freedom to the slaves, began to collect a large force.”[181] And the great historian Niebuhr, after referring to his landing on the coast of Etruria, where he was joined by Etruscan cohorts, adds,—“Marius was not at all delicate in collecting troops, and even restored slaves to freedom on condition of their taking up arms for him.”[182] Thus both these authorities, in harmony with Dr. Liddell, treat the Proclamation as the chief feature, precisely as Mr. Sumner presented it, and all three leave out of view the “freemen.”

Admitting that there were “freemen,” their part was evidently secondary, unless in reality they were the new-made “freedmen,” as a scholar has suggested. The predominance of the latter is conspicuous in the old English translation by Sir Thomas North:[183] “And being landed, proclaimed by sound of trumpet liberty to all slaves and bondmen that would come to him. So the laborers, herdmen, and neat-herds of all that marsh, for the only name and reputation of Marius, ran to the seaside from all parts.” It appears also in the historic fact, that, when Marius landed in Etruria, there were few or no husbandmen and shepherds already free. They were slaves. According to Plutarch, the first prompting of Tiberius Gracchus to his career as a reformer was observation in this very region. Passing through Etruria, on the way to Spain, he was troubled to find “scarce any husbandmen or shepherds except slaves from foreign and barbarous nations.”[184] Niebuhr, following Plutarch, says that “he saw far and wide no free laborers, but numbers of slaves in chains.”[185] The language is strong,—“far and wide no free laborers.” This was 137 years B. C. Somewhat later, 45 years B. C., Julius Cæsar by positive law required that of herdmen one third should always be free,[186] thus showing that two thirds at least were then slaves. It is only reasonable to suppose, that, if slaves were everywhere at the earlier date, and so numerous at the later date, it would have been impossible at the landing of Marius, 87 years B. C., to form an army of freemen in a few days. Only fourteen years later the gladiator Spartacus called the slaves to his standard, and they came by tens of thousands, so as to stifle the local power; and here again is testimony to their comparative numbers.

Nothing is clearer than the diminution of the free population of Italy at this period. An excellent authority speaks of it as “the most notorious evil of the times”;[187] and this is attested by others. It is easy to infer that the freemen must have been few by the side of the slaves. Naturally, therefore, did the experienced general make his appeal to this most numerous and sympathetic class: he knew that so his strength would be best assured. And this was the very position of Mr. Sumner. It is evident that Plutarch himself was of the same opinion; for shortly afterwards, in narrating these events, he records that the other side did not suffer so much through incapacity “as by anxious and unseasonable attention to the laws,”[188] in preventing Emancipation. This important testimony is most vividly stated in the old translation of North, when he describes the opponent of Marius in Rome as failing “not so much for lack of reasonable skill of wars as through his unprofitable curiosity and strictness in observing the law; for, when divers did persuade him to set the bondmen at liberty to take arms for defence of the Commonwealth, he answered, that he would never give bondmen the law and privilege of a Roman citizen, having driven Caius Marius out of Rome to maintain the authority of the law.”[189] Here was passion for consistency, and want of practical sense. Marius was not troubled in this way.

Another circumstance makes the conclusion yet clearer. On entering Rome, Marius surrounded himself, according to Plutarch, “with a guard selected from the slaves that had repaired to his standard,”[190] or, according to the same authority in another place, “the slaves, whom he had admitted his fellow-soldiers,“[191] thus attesting still further their superior importance. In the troubles that ensued these freedmen played a bloody part, until they were destroyed by Sertorius; and here again their numbers appear. According to Plutarch, the guard ”selected from the slaves that had repaired to his standard” was four thousand,[192] or not far from the ordinary complement of a Roman legion, which the accomplished scholar, Mr. George Long, tells us was the very force collected by Marius in Etruria.[193] Plainly, therefore, the emancipated slaves constituted the main body, if not the whole legion.

Whatever may be the text of Plutarch, and supposing freemen among the recruits, nothing can prevent the conclusion, that emancipated slaves constituted the decisive force by which success was achieved. Therefore this example illustrates the efficacy of a proclamation giving freedom to slaves, and for this purpose it was adduced.

This discussion seems a diversion now; but at the time of the speech the criticism was a reality,[194] attracting attention and helping to arrest the great cause. To cap the climax, it was gravely argued, that, even if the Proclamation had the effect attributed to it, we must not imitate Caius Marius,—for he was no better than a barbarian.

THE PRESS.

Specimens from the press show the condition of the public mind at the time, and the controversy which arose, extending to foreign countries. If there were enemies, so also were there friends, both at home and abroad.

The Boston Daily Advertiser thus frankly denounced the speech.

“We are sorry to see a disposition in several quarters to represent the Republican party, mainly on the strength of Mr. Sumner’s unfortunate speech at Worcester, as a party of Emancipation, a ‘John Brown party,’ a party that desires to carry on this war as a war of Abolition.… The Convention certainly disavowed any intention of indorsing the fatal doctrines announced by Mr. Sumner, with a distinctness which can scarcely be flattering to that gentleman’s conception of his own influence in Massachusetts.… It is alleged that the Convention cheered Mr. Sumner. His supporters among the delegates and spectators undoubtedly did so: but who does not see that this goes for nothing, in the face of the obvious fact that the silent party who disapproved were so much superior in number as to control the action of the whole body?… We hold it for an incontestable truth, that neither men nor money will be forthcoming for this war, if once the people are impressed with the belief that the Abolition of Slavery, and not the defence of the Union, is its object, or that its original purpose is converted into a cloak for some new design of seizing this opportunity for the destruction of the social system of the South.… The speech to which we have several times referred has certainly done as much as lay within the compass of one man’s powers to inspire this suspicion, to distract and weaken the loyal, and by indirection to aid the disloyal.”

The Boston Evening Gazette was in harmony with the Advertiser.

“His appearance this year was not in accordance with the wishes of those who do not follow his lead, but regard him as one of the most irrepressible impracticables of the party.… The sentiments uttered by Mr. Sumner are opposed to the spirit of the times, to the policy of the Administration, and are detrimental to the prosperity of the cause. They are Charles Sumner’s ideas; he is responsible for them; and the Convention, by killing the resolutions offered by Rev. James Freeman Clarke, of Boston, which substantially indorsed the speech of Mr. Sumner, repudiated the Emancipation sentiments which Mr. Sumner attempted to induce the Republicans to adopt as a part of their policy. It was a most lamentable failure, and should prove a lesson to men who are so entangled in one idea that they imagine the wealth of the country and the blood of its sons are being poured out to perpetuate a party, instead of securing the safety of the Union and the Constitution.

“After reading Mr. Sumner’s speech, one can but regret that a mind possessed of such culture should give utterance to sentiments that will stimulate the flames which now threaten the destruction of the ship of state, and provoke discord among the noble men who are striving to save it. Had some unknown individual spoken the same words at this time, we doubt not many would have regarded him as a fit inmate for an insane asylum; but it is the position and antecedents of the Senator which alone shield him from the suspicion of being a proper person against whom a writ De lunatico inquirendo might be issued.… The tone of the speech and the manner in which it was delivered are the acme of arrogance.”

The Boston Journal did not differ much from the Advertiser, except in manner.

“Mr. Sumner and other radical Antislavery men, dazzled by visions of Universal Freedom, entirely overlook the insurmountable difficulties which stand in the way of immediate emancipation. The unutterable horrors of a servile insurrection do not present themselves, or they would shrink from the prospect. The economic problem of supporting four millions of human beings who have never been self-dependent is not considered. All practical considerations, in fact, are ignored by a miscalled philanthropy which is as impracticable as it is visionary, and which would lay waste the most prolific soil, and fill our land with vagrants and marauders.

“We must limit the war to the purposes so distinctly avowed by the Administration, or the sun of our national prosperity will set in darkness and gloom, to rise again, if at all, only after years of bloodshed and anarchy. Proclaim the policy of Emancipation, and all hope of a reconstruction of the Union will be crushed out. All the loyal elements in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri will be alienated at once, and every prospect of awakening the dormant loyalty in the seceded States will have passed away. It will come to this, that we must subjugate or be subjugated. The people of the South would defend their homes and their firesides to the last extremity, as we would do, should the chances of war favor them. The present generation would not see the end of such a contest, unless the North should be conquered and subdued by the aid of foreign bayonets or internal dissensions. From such a war we may well pray to be delivered.”

The Norfolk County Journal declared dissent.

“We are not prepared to indorse the doctrines to which Mr. Sumner gave utterance in his Worcester speech. They strike us as not pertinent to the present stage of the Rebellion. Though their application may become a necessity in the future, public sentiment is as yet unready to adopt and enforce them. They were especially infelicitous in being advanced at a Convention to which men of varying views of public policy had been invited, and their influence has not conduced to that harmony of political action in Massachusetts which it is desirable to bring about.”

The Springfield Republican, among many things, said:—

“We fear it is but an illustration of the mental perversity produced by entire absorption in a single aspect of a great question, without regard to its manifold relations, and by the ‘sacred animosity,’ which, too exclusively nourished, renders the best men reckless of means in the pursuit of what they consider the chief end of life.”

On the contrary, the able Boston correspondent of that paper wrote:—

“Charles Sumner’s speech was the great event of the day, however. It was an epoch and a victory in itself. The right thing was said, in the right way, at the right time, by the right man. It was wise, conservative, practical, as Mr. Sumner always is, and it unquestionably met the views of four fifths of the audience. Those who did not enthusiastically applaud said, ‘Oh, it isn’t quite time; Sumner is right; this will be the result, we hope and expect; but let us wait for Providence and the Administration.’”

The Boston Post, representing the Democracy, declared itself.

“Mr. Sumner’s speech at Worcester yesterday was in direct opposition to the policy of the Administration, the declaration of Congress, and the avowed purpose of the war,—overflowing with the same narrow, bitter, and unconstitutional sentiments that have done so much to bring our present misfortunes upon us, and which tend to render the restoration of the Union impossible. If such views as he advances governed the action of the Administration, not a brigade could be kept in the field, or money enough raised by the Secretary of the Treasury to buy breeches and gaiters for a demagogue Senator. For such men as Sumner and his ilk do not fight nor pay; they only brawl, and deserve to be treated as were old scolds in days past,—ducked in a horse-pond.”

Then in another article:—

“The error of having listened to this speech cannot be repaired. The Republicans can set the matter right, as to this being indorsed by the friends of the Administration in Massachusetts; and it would seem to be incumbent on the Republican State Committee to make a statement of facts, going to show, that, as a body, it did not invite Mr. Sumner to speak,—that, though the noisy Abolitionists shouted, yet the main body of the Convention evidently and notoriously heard him with sorrow.”

And again, by a correspondent, the same Democratic organ said:—

“Can any patriot read the rodomontade of this classic fanatic at the Worcester Convention, without a sense of pain, nausea, and disgust? He certainly ought to be put in a strait-jacket.”

The Boston Courier promptly said:—

“The sincerity of the Republican managers, in appealing to Union men of all parties to meet with them in Convention, is not certainly placed beyond question by the fact that Mr. Sumner (not without invitation, we apprehend) comes forward as the organ of the assembly, and makes the principal speech of the occasion, as he did at the Convention last year. At that period this was felt as at least an awkward circumstance, considering the unquestionable Antislavery ultraisms of Mr. Sumner. Of all men in the community, this, and this alone, was the special vocation of this Senator,—to denounce a domestic usage of a part of the country, which, whether good or bad, is protected by its Constitution and laws.”

In another issue the same paper characterized the speech as one, “the insane counsels of which considerate men of all parties regard with such dislike and indignation.”

The Newburyport Herald said:—

“Charles Sumner’s speech will be found on our first page to-day. We give it not by way of approval, for it seems to us the worst speech that could be made. Its only influence will be to distract and divide the North, and raise up a faction here against the Administration, which has declared for an entirely different policy,—while at the South it will kill what little Union sentiment remains, and rejoice the Rebel hosts, giving them better ammunition for their treason than powder would be.… We don’t know how it appears to others, but it seems to us, that, if Jeff Davis had liberty to send his own agent here to do the worst for us, he could have done nothing more. The war can be fought upon no such grounds; and before it closes, we shall discover that fact.”

The New York Journal of Commerce was quite sententious.

“The Republicans of Boston desire to be rid of any connection with the fanatic Senator’s remarks. The signs of the times improve.”

The Carbon Democrat, of Pennsylvania, breaks forth in condemnation.

“If there were any lack of evidence to prove that Charles Sumner is really an enemy to our country, and desired only to destroy it, and immerse the people in the dreadful, crashing slavery of martial tyranny, this speech supplies the link, and makes the train of evidence against his fealty strong as Holy Writ. He here unblushingly proclaims the horrid policy of unloosing the bonds of four million slaves, and setting them against the Caucasian race,—to murder, pillage, and destroy, without stint, until their barbarous appetites may be appeased.…

“In this connection we might suggest that Marius was a very proper example for Senator Sumner and his school of politicians to quote. Like them, he was the very prince of office-seekers.…

“He advocates a doctrine which is in direct violation of the spirit of the Constitution, and which tends only to weaken the hands of the Government, by dividing public sentiment at the North, and thus discouraging enlistments. Why is it that the Government, thus assailed, does not lay its hand upon this fulminator of treason, and secure him safely behind the bars and bolts of Fort Lafayette?”

The New York Herald thus interpreted the speech:—

“Now we beg leave to submit, that this speech, from this Senator, at this crisis, comprehends an Abolition warning to the Administration, and a warning to the States involved in this Rebellion. Mr. Sumner is supported in his views by an active Abolition faction, extending from Massachusetts to Missouri, and with this faction an exterminating crusade against Slavery is the all-absorbing idea. Let the President and his Cabinet, then, exert their energies to the uttermost for a speedy blow or two which will break the backbone of this Rebellion, or we know not what may be the consequences to the Administration from the fanatical hostility of this Abolition faction to the conservative policy of Mr. Lincoln. On the other hand, we would appeal to the Union men of the Border Slave States to turn out at once, and en masse, to the active support of the Government, and thus restore the Union in its integrity, including the integrity of Southern institutions, in the speedy expulsion of the Rebels into the Cotton States. With the Border Slave States rescued, this whole Rebellion will soon fall to pieces from its own weight; but every day that the Rebels continue to menace Washington, to desolate Missouri, and to hold a threatening lodgement in Kentucky, the danger to Southern Slavery is increased, and of a protracted and desolating war of sections, factions, and races.”

---

Against these voices were others very different in tone.

The National Antislavery Standard of New York, in an elaborate leader, united with Mr. Sumner.

“We lay before our readers to-day the admirable speech of Mr. Sumner before the Republican Convention at Worcester, Massachusetts. We shall not invite their attention to it, for we are sure they cannot keep their attention away from it, and it will well repay all that they have to bestow. It is a bold, clear, and conclusive exposition of the policy which the United States Government should adopt, and make the vital principle of their action, in the present war. Mr. Sumner is the first public man of eminent station who has dared to indicate the true and only way of escape for this nation out of its dangers; and whether his counsel be hearkened unto or mocked, he will go into history as the first man of high political rank who has discerned and not shrunk from proclaiming this saving truth.”

The New York Independent published the speech promptly upon its delivery, with the remark:—

“The following masterly and patriotic speech was made by Hon. Charles Sumner at the recent Republican Convention in Massachusetts which renominated Governor Andrew.”

The same paper, in another issue, followed the speech with a tribute which has merit of its own.

“TO CHARLES SUMNER.

“We thank thee, Sumner! Thou hast spoken the word

God gave to thy safe keeping; thou hast set

Life, Death, before the nation; thou hast hurled

Thy single pebble, plucked from Truth’s pure stream,

Into the forehead of a Giant Wrong,

And it doth reel and tremble. Men may doubt,

But the keen sword of Right shall finish well

Thy brave beginning.

“Courage, then, true soul!

Not vainly hast thou spoken; angels heard,

And shook from their glad harps a gush of joy

That the One Word was uttered in men’s ears,

The ‘Open Sesame’ by which alone

True Freedom and true Peace might enter in,

Making earth like to heaven.

“Then bide thy time.

What thou hast spoken as ’t were in the ear

Shall be proclaimed on housetops. God locks up

In His safe garner every seed of Truth,

Until the time shall come to cast it forth,

Saying, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, and fill

The broad earth, till it shouts its harvest-home.’

His purposes are sure; who works with Him

Need fear no failure. By my hopes of heaven,

I’d rather speak one word for Truth and Right,

That God shall hear and treasure up for use

In working out His purposes of good,

Than clutch the title-deed that should insure

A kingdom to my keeping!—so, in faith,

I speak my simple word, and, fearing not,

Commit it to His hands whom I do serve.

“And thus it is, O friend, that I have dared

To send thee greeting and this word of cheer.

God bless thee, Sumner, and all souls like thine,

Working serene and patient in His cause!

God give thee of the fruit of thine own hands,

And let thine own works praise thee in the gates

Of the new city, whose foundation-stones

Thy hands are laying, though men see it not!

“Caroline A. Mason.

“Fitchburg, Mass.”

The New York Tribune said:—

“The Hon. Charles Sumner yesterday delivered an eloquent speech at the Republican Convention at Worcester, Mass., which we print this morning. He confined himself almost exclusively to a consideration of the subject of Slavery in its relation to the war; he took the ground that the overthrow of Slavery will at once make an end of the war, and justified that policy by many historic examples.”

The Tribune also published a dramatic sketch between a Conservative and a Reporter, exposing the reports about the reception of the speech. Here are a few lines.

“Conservative. Men took his coming coldly, as they say.

“Reporter. My Lord, they lie who say so. On my life,

The pillars shook with plaudits,—the wide hall

Was as a sea of joyous countenance.

“Con. You are mistaken.

“Rep. With these eyes I saw it;

Heard with these ears.

“Con. Say they did not applaud.

So must we dress it in the people’s eyes,

As he had been a rash, unwelcome guest,

Who came with little call, and spake with less.

The Boston Liberator spoke of it as “this dispassionate and statesmanlike speech”; but a correspondent complained of Mr. Sumner’s confidence in the Administration, saying:—

“No, we are not yet saved! And it is the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, and the elected head of the nation, it is Abraham Lincoln himself, who obstructs, by the exercise of his individual will, the nation’s entrance upon that movement against Slavery which Mr. Sumner has shown to be the direct course, and the only course, to success against the Rebellion.”

By another of its correspondents the same paper said:—

“If I had a fortune, however large, I would exhaust the last cent in the way I have chosen, and in getting up petitions from the Free States, especially from Massachusetts, which should meet Congress at the very threshold of the session nearly upon us, and which should inspire Senator Sumner to submit his Plan of Emancipation to that body at once, and give foundation and impulse for an immediate and triumphant vote in his favor.”

The Boston Traveller announced the following:—

“Several thousand copies of Senator Sumner’s recent speech at Worcester, which disturbed the equanimity of some of our contemporaries, have been circulated in Kentucky. A Colonel of that State, now in the Union service, writes thus: ‘Sumner’s speech strikes the key-note for the Union cause in Kentucky, and his policy, if followed up by the Administration, will insure us a speedy triumph.’”

The country press of Massachusetts espoused the speech warmly.

The New Bedford Evening Standard, always ready against Slavery, declared its sympathy, while giving testimony to the reception of the speech by the Convention.

“We have no apology to make to our readers for inserting the noble speech of Mr. Sumner at the Worcester Convention. Its perusal by all earnest and sincere lovers of Freedom will no doubt be a rich treat, as it was to those who had the pleasure of hearing it from the Senator’s lips. The manner in which it was received by nine tenths of the Convention was a true indication of the state of feeling in the Old Bay State. We have been pained, as well as surprised, to see the manner in which some Republican papers, as well as individual members of the party, have spoken in condemnation of this speech.”

The People’s Press, of Fall River, said:—

“The Boston Journal may call it ‘ill-timed eloquence,’ but we believe that the people are rapidly coming to the conclusion that the Honorable Senator has resolutely spoken the needed truth, and has indicated the proper course for our Government to pursue, in order to put down rebellion most speedily and effectually, and secure a permanent peace and an undivided country.”

The Taunton Gazette said:—

“This suggestive speech of the eloquent Senator is not in a strain which is just now popular. He does not sigh for the things which have passed away, but calmly fronts the demands of the future; and what he sees and declares of swift-coming events is in keeping with the sternest struggles for Liberty, and in full accordance with the irrepressible instinct which animates our armed free laborers, however the trimming politicians may denounce their declaration. Let us not speak ill of this forecast and courage. None knew better than he, that, for the time being, he was rendering a thankless service. Indeed, we venture to say that no other man holding high office in the government, or desiring to hold, will dare to second or in any way publicly approve of the vital suggestions of this address.”

The Dedham Gazette was positive for the speech, and also as to its favorable reception.

“The most significant feature of the Convention was the speech of Mr. Sumner, which was received with the strongest expressions of approval by the great mass of delegates present. The fixed and earnest attention with which every word was received, and the hearty and repeated applause which greeted every allusion to the doctrine of Emancipation, proved conclusively that upon this question the people are far in advance of the Government.”

The Charlestown Advertiser testified to the reception of the speech at the Convention.

“This speech by the Hon. Charles Sumner has been assailed during the last fortnight by a herd of political scribblers, none of whom, however, have the wit to refute its positions. The Republican Convention sanctioned it, on its delivery, with the most hearty applause.”

The Haverhill Publisher expressed itself with caution.

“As was said, in remarking upon the Worcester Convention, Mr. Sumner furnished the sensation matter for the occasion, so it now appears; for all over the country the press is lively with comment upon it, and in every circle it is the theme of discussion. It may be well to remember that the speech of Mr. Sumner will test the spirit of his constituents, and time will show whether they will sustain this great statesman, not as a partisan, but as a moral and philosophical force, in the evidently Heaven-appointed mission of keeping the public eye fixed upon a great principle, regardless of politicians or parties.”

The Northampton Free Press said:—

“Charles Sumner was present at the Convention, and made one of his best speeches on Slavery and its relation to the war. It is sound in argument, and such a one as might be expected from its author. It was received with great applause; but the Springfield Republican calls it ill-advised and out of place.”

The True American, of Erie, Pennsylvania, said:—

“The speech from Hon. Charles Sumner, made at Worcester, Massachusetts, on the 1st inst., and which is printed in full upon our first page, deserves the attention of every reader. It is a calm and statesmanlike argument in favor of suppressing this guilty Rebellion by removing its guilty cause. It is a clear vindication of a necessary policy. Coming from a man in his high official position, it is significant. And we believe, with a contemporary, that he will not have to wait for the verdict of posterity to justify and exalt the great truth his speech embodies. Indeed, we are confident that his word will find a response in all that is best of the North,—and not only in all that is best in quality, but strongest in numbers.”

The Philadelphia Public Ledger held the scales:—

“Although Mr. Sumner, and Massachusetts at his back, are disposed to move faster than the rest of the North upon the Slavery Question, there is no doubt that whatever amount of injury, consistent with the Laws of War, inflicted on the South, will bring this Rebellion most speedily to an end will find the next Congress prepared at least to consider it. Mr. Sumner has proved very conclusively, that, as a punishment to Rebels and bad citizens, the manumission of the slaves is fully recognized by those old Roman laws which the South-Carolinians have been so fond of quoting in their own behalf. But Mr. Sumner has not proved, we think, that it would be policy to adopt at once and irrevocably so extreme a measure as to set at liberty some four millions of slaves.”

Le Messager Franco-Américain, a French journal at New York, thus balanced the account:—

“Mr. Charles Sumner, the eloquent Senator of Massachusetts, is indefatigable in his devotion to the cause of Free Labor. Always in the breach with the ardor of a true patriot and of a friend of Liberty, he contends without cessation for the triumph of those great principles of Right and Justice consecrated by the National Constitution.… Mr. Sumner is a light of the Antislavery army. He sees the cause of right and of country in danger. As a vigilant sentinel, he gives the signal of alarm. Let the civil war continue, and the cry of Emancipation by Mr. Sumner will find powerful echoes in the Northern States. The conservative and honest population at the South should reflect upon this.”

Crossing the ocean, the same differences appear, with allusions to the character of the war. Here was evident disposition to recognize in Mr. Sumner exceptional earnestness against Slavery, while the country was worse than indifferent. This view was presented by no less a person than the Earl of Shaftesbury, in a speech at a public meeting, reported in the London Times, July 25, 1861, where he said:—

“There had, however, been no great feeling in the country for either one or the other of the parties; for the country did not believe in the sincerity of either. The North had conceded everything to Slavery that it could possibly demand; so the South had certainly no cause for rebellion. But in the struggle they were entering on, the North never thought of putting an end to Slavery; for, if such a declaration had been made, they would have had the sympathy of every man in England: he was almost afraid to say how far he thought that sympathy would have gone.… There was no honest feeling on the subject of Slavery in America, except among the Abolitionists headed by that great and good man, Charles Sumner.”

Similar expressions of good-will to Mr. Sumner had appeared in France. Besides allusions in the writings of M. Laboulaye and M. Cochin, there was a contemporary notice in a letter from Washington, of August 12, 1861, in the Opinion Nationale of Paris, evidently by a gentleman who accompanied Prince Napoleon on his summer tour in the United States.

“I have been present at sessions of the Senate and House of Representatives. I have had pointed out to me the most influential members of both parties, … Mr. Sumner, Massachusetts Senator, acknowledged leader of the Abolitionists, an amiable, educated man, having travelled much in France, the friend of De Tocqueville, and very well versed in our literature.”[195]

In harmony with this testimony was the sketch by Colonel Ferri-Pisani, aide-de-camp of Prince Napoleon, in his letter from Washington of August 10, 1861.

“The person with whom the Prince has formed the most sympathetic relations is Mr. Sumner, Senator of the State of Massachusetts (Boston), and declared partisan of the Abolition of Slavery. Mr. Sumner is one of the most eloquent men of the United States, a mind highly instructed, very cultivated, especially versed in French literature, which he studied in France. He was the friend of De Tocqueville, and is personally connected with a great number of our writers and thinkers. His manners are as distinguished as his intelligence. He inspires among the partisans of the South a furious hate; in return, he passes for the warmest partisan of the French alliance, and for the friend of our Legation.”[196]

These testimonies prepare the way for expressions which found utterance abroad after the speech at Worcester, and help explain the notice it received.

The London Times, always against the Union in its efforts to put down the Rebellion, said:—

“While statesmen, merchants, and bankers are laboring to carry on a suicidal war in a conservative spirit, and to spare the interests and prejudices of the foe, a more numerous class from the Atlantic to the Mississippi have no such scruple, and go to the root of the evil. Slavery, they are told by one of the most eloquent of the agitators, himself a martyr in the cause, is the original sin of the Union, the cause of every subsequent dissension, the occasion of this war, and, what is more, the strength of the wrong cause, and the weakness of the right. Mr. Sumner refers to Slavery every misery, every mishap, every difficulty of the Federal cause,—and tells listening thousands that all they do, the sacrifices they make, their taxation, their life-blood, their commercial interests, everything they have, suffer, do, or hope, is all flung into that Maelström, never to reappear. The whole American nation, with all its wealth and all its glory, is flung as a holocaust before the shrine of this hideous idol. The remedy he proclaims is to give up the weak scruple which paralyzes a righteous arm. Mr. Sumner sees in this war not merely a call to rally round a Constitution, to punish treason, and reinstate a mighty power; he sees a call to a higher level of humanity, and a sublimer doctrine. “Not Union, but Freedom,”[197] is his cry. This is the fated weapon for the decision of the contest. This alone can defeat the foe, whose strength is in Slavery.…

“Now all this we have heard before. It is a story in Mr. Sumner’s mouth, and according to him it is as old as the Declaration of Independence itself, and the first struggles of the Commonwealth. What, we have to ask, is its fresh significance at the present hour? According to Mr. Sumner, its significance is most critical. Slavery he makes out to be the very balance on which the fortunes of America now hang.…

“Every nation in the world has had to give up its pretensions at one time or another; and the Federal Government will only follow the example of the most powerful sovereigns and the wisest ministers, if it makes peace in time, before it is committed to a treble war,—with the Confederates, the British, and its own Abolitionists at home.”

The London Herald of Peace, in its opposition to the war, took pains to insist that it was not Antislavery,—forgetting that the North, even when failing to demand the abolition of Slavery, sought its limitation, and that the new Government openly declared Slavery its corner-stone. After setting forth Mr. Sumner’s “proposal to use the War Power to proclaim at once, as respects the Rebels, the emancipation of their slaves,” and that “the speech was received with many demonstrations of applause,” it dwells on the circumstances favoring the effort: that it was in Massachusetts, of all the States “the most forward in the Antislavery cause”; that “the subject was presented by one whose judgment they were most bound to honor, and whose lead they were most likely to follow,” whom it describes.

“Mr. Sumner is a man of whom Massachusetts might well be proud. His great abilities, his lofty spirit, his spotless public life, mark him as a man standing apart, not to be confounded with the crowd of selfish politicians that besiege the avenues of power in America. He has stood forward in evil days to encounter with an undaunted mien the obloquy and the peril attaching to the avowal of thorough Antislavery principles, and has been not the champion merely, but the martyr of the cause.”

After this presentation, it goes on to ask, “Well, and what was the reception which Mr. Sumner’s proposal met from the Republican Convention of the State of Massachusetts?” It finds an answer in the refusal to act on the resolutions of Mr. Clarke, and then says:—

“After all this, we sincerely hope we shall hear no more of this war as a war for the liberation of the slave, as a ‘sublime uprising’ of the men of the North for the cause of Human Freedom.”

The London Post, which did not sympathize with the National cause, said:—

“If the Federal Government are in want of an ex parte defender, they will certainly find one in Mr. Charles Sumner. When he tells the Republican State Convention at Worcester, that Rebellion never assumed such a front since Satan made war upon the Almighty, he used first the hyperbolical language which the most abject courtier of an absolute monarch in the Middle Ages could have suggested in condemnation of some insurrection that had broken out in one of his provinces.… Mr. Sumner narrows the question now dividing the North and South distinctly into a war of Slavery. Hence he appeals to European sympathies in behalf of the North. Now this view is in great part true, yet it is not wholly true.… It is not simply in respect of Slavery, as Mr. Sumner represents it, that the South differs from the North. The leading men of the South were commonly of different extraction from the leading men of the North. That difference has developed a broad distinction in social habits, in political ideas, in consent to authority, and in other characteristics which constitute the idiosyncrasy of a nation.… We cannot, therefore, agree with Mr. Sumner, that the question is essentially and wholly a slave question, any more than we can regard the secession as a rebellion against quasi-Divine authority.”

But the National cause was not without defenders abroad, nor the speech without sympathy.

The London Daily News, in an elaborate leader, with an abstract of the speech, said:—

“The most remarkable circumstance which we have yet chronicled is the speech of Mr. Charles Sumner in defence of the war.… We regard Mr. Sumner’s speech as most important in every point of view. It is the best answer which has been yet made on American ground to those who complain that hitherto the cause of the North has not met with the sympathy it deserved in Britain. But passing this, it shows to the Northerners themselves what it is that paralyzes their arms, what it is that places them so generally on the defensive and prevents their success. Let Mr. Sumner’s policy be adopted, and it would not only strike terror into the hearts of the Rebels, but would animate the masses of volunteers in the North with a ‘spirit which would render them still more formidable.’”

A London commercial paper, The Floating Cargoes Evening List, published a considerable extract, with a line from the speech as its caption, “Look at the war as you will, and you always see Slavery,” and the following notice:—

“The present American war exercises so powerful an influence upon commercial affairs in general, that the expression of an opinion on this subject by one of the most eminent American statesmen deserves special notice.”

The London Morning Star thus declared its sympathy:—

“The speech delivered by the Hon. Charles Sumner, at the Republican Convention at Worcester, in Massachusetts, is one of the most significant events of the American crisis.… In vigorous and eloquent words Mr. Sumner has told the plain truths which we have frequently reiterated, and there was not heard even the whisper of a dissentient voice.[198] He pointed out that Slavery is the great enemy to the preservation of the Union, and that its eradication would bring the war at once to a close.… Emancipation must come, and its calm concession by an act of executive power can alone prevent its ultimate consummation by red-handed insurrection. The enthusiastic assent which was evoked by Mr. Sumner’s noble words—words worthy alike of the man and of his theme—is a cheering foretaste of the triumph which cannot be long deferred.”

In the English island of Jersey, one of the Channel Isles, on the coast of France, the Independent and Daily Telegraph published the speech at length, with an article entitled “The Orator of Freedom,” where it said:—

“As a general rule, even those who like to listen to good speeches do not care to read long speeches, good or bad. But even such persons need not our recommendation to give their attention to the graceful periods and electrifying appeals of, probably, the most accomplished of American speakers,—perhaps we might justly say the foremost orator speaking the Anglo-Saxon tongue; for, rivalling Gladstone in genius, he more than rivals the glory of England’s House of Commons by that holy earnestness which imparts to eloquence its chief effect, and which naturally is the product of circumstances rather than of individual will.… The principles of the Massachusetts Senator command our thorough adhesion, as his extraordinary talents challenge our admiration, and his courageous consistency carries with it our respect. But, although we can make every allowance for President Lincoln and his ministers, and those Massachusetts men who hesitate to invoke the sword of Spartacus, still, we repeat, all our sympathies are with Mr. Sumner, and the cause of which he is the champion, and the policy of which he is the exponent.… Although grammarians will not allow the comparative and superlative of ‘right,’ and know nothing of ‘righter’ and ‘rightest,’ we must nevertheless affirm that General Butler was right, General Fremont more right, and that Senator Sumner is most right.”

Crossing to the Continent, the controversy continues.

The Précurseur of Antwerp, in Belgium, said:—

“Mr. Charles Sumner has pronounced very energetically in favor of the Abolition of Slavery, and demanded, with great strength of expression and power of argument, the introduction of this question into the conflict. He demanded especially, that the Executive Power should pronounce in favor of Immediate Abolition by a declaration, perfectly legal according to him, that all slaves coming within the lines of the Federal [National] army should be free. This declaration seems to him at the same time constitutional and justified by precedents. The Executive Power has this right in virtue of Martial Law. The most significant fact, and which augurs the definitive solution of the question, is, that the speech was received with great enthusiasm by the audience; and since it presents in effect the most rapid solution of a burdensome war, it becomes now more than probable that the pressure of public opinion will not be slow in making itself felt by the Federal Government.”

The Pays, at Paris, an Imperialist journal, said:—

“It appears that in the State of Massachusetts public views are divided as to the means to be employed for joining the pieces of the American Union. The most violent, represented by Senator Sumner, preach war to the knife, and the emancipation of the blacks. They propose to give liberty to all the slaves in the Union, with indemnities to loyalists only. Thus, then, if we are to believe Senator Sumner, the surest way of establishing peace in North America will be to let loose several millions of blacks, and incite them to murder and incendiarism.”

On the other hand, in France was the testimony of Count Agénor de Gasparin, noble friend of the national cause, who, in a powerful work, cited the speech at Worcester, and adopted its conclusion,[199]—also of M. Édouard Laboulaye, who, at a later day, when presiding over the Antislavery Conference at Paris, surrounded by the Abolitionists of all countries, paid a flattering tribute to Mr. Sumner, winding up with allusion to this speech:—

“Charles Sumner, a man who in his turn took up this cause and defended it with the most admirable eloquence, which, as you probably all know, was the occasion of his being nearly killed in his place in the Senate,—an act for which the assassin was rewarded by his Southern friends. They gave him a cane, gold-mounted, bearing the inscription, ‘Hit him again.’ Mr. Sumner came to France, and we made his acquaintance at that time. The object of his journey was the reëstablishment of his health,—and he recovered it; for he it was, who, during the whole of the war, was the real adviser of America: he felt, and he said, more boldly than any one, that the war could be terminated only by the Abolition of Slavery.”[200]

The position accorded to Mr. Sumner in Europe, beginning especially with this speech, was attested at a still later day in an article by M. Michel Chevalier, a Senator of France under the Empire, renowned for various writings, especially in Political Economy. In a sympathetic review of the address on the “Duel between France and Germany,” this authority thus expresses himself:—

“The opinion embodied in the writing which I am about to analyze, and which is a mixture of sympathetic words and of severe counsels for France, is not that of one or many assemblies, of one or many popular meetings, of one group or of many groups of journals; it is that of one man. But this man is one of the most distinguished citizens of his country; he has exercised a supreme influence in the events of which the great Republic has been the theatre since the moment when, in 1861, the South declared that it broke the Union, and at the mouth of the cannon seized Fort Sumter, situated in the harbor of Charleston. Mr. Charles Sumner has not figured on the battle-field; he was elsewhere, in the Senate of the United States, from which place, it can be said, he was the political director of the conflict.… But the thought of extirpating Slavery, of obliging the Slave States to modify their internal system so as to render impossible the reëstablishment of servitude under another name, the idea of assimilating by law the black and mulatto with the white,—assimilation to which until then their habits were as repugnant as their laws,—these have belonged to Mr. Charles Sumner more than to any other person, and were the basis of a plan which has triumphed by the indomitable will and the ever-ready eloquence of this statesman. It can therefore be said of Mr. Charles Sumner, that he is in himself a public opinion.”[201]

CORRESPONDENCE.

As after the speech on the Barbarism of Slavery, so now, letters came with volunteer testimony. Beyond their interest as tokens of strong and wide-spread sympathy with Mr. Sumner, they have historic value as illustrations of the intense Antislavery sentiment destined so soon to triumph. Sometimes they are directly responsive to the press, especially in the severity of its criticism on the speech. Here, as before, Abolitionists took the lead.

Wendell Phillips thus earnestly placed himself by the side of his friend:—

“I both thank and congratulate you most heartily on your great speech, for some reasons the boldest even you ever made,—the first statesmanlike word worthy of the hour from any one in a high civil position,—fit response from Statesmanship to War,—showing the people the reasons and purpose of Fremont’s proclamation, and giving it more breadth and a nobler basis.

“All agree it was a most decided success,—taking the Convention wholly off its feet with enthusiasm; and we absent ones may measure the strength of the blow from the rebound,—witness Post, Courier, Journal, and, basest of all, Advertiser, of course.…

“Never fear but that the masses, the hearts, are all with you,—and you’ll see your enemies at your footstool, as you so often have already.”

And in another letter:—

“I could not take the hazard of advising you to make it, though I told you in your circumstances I should; but now you’ve done it, I can say it was wise and well,—your duty to the country, to the hour, yourself, the slave,—to your fame as a statesman, and your duty as leader.”

Lewis Tappan, the Abolitionist, wrote from New York:—

“‘Union and Peace,—how they shall be restored.’ You have shown the way, and the only way. We may have peace on other terms, but no union and peace. The Free States must choose between peace, temporary peace, renewed war, and peace founded upon righteousness, justice, and equity.”

Hon. Amasa Walker, the able writer on Political Economy, afterwards Representative in Congress, wrote from North Brookfield:—

“You never made a nobler, braver, or more opportune utterance than at Worcester on the first instant. But all Hunkerdom is down upon you for it, as I expected. No matter,—the people, I trust in God, will sustain you. Your words meet a most hearty response in the hearts of all true men, you may rest assured. If your positions are not sustained by the country, the great contest now going on will end in failure, and ought to end so.”

David Lee Child, the sincere and lifelong Abolitionist, once a journalist and lawyer, and always a writer, wrote for himself and his wife from Wayland, Massachusetts:—

“I was, and my wife was, refreshed and strengthened by your voice from Worcester. When you gave us the ‘Barbarism of Slavery,’ the grandest, the most comprehensive, complete, compact, and conclusive of all your noble utterances against ‘the sum of all villanies,’ I did not write, though never before so much moved to do so. We read it the night that it reached us, and were so exalted by it that we sat up two hours beyond our time, talking about it and rejoicing over it. The foes of justice and freedom accuse you of accelerating the crisis and precipitating civil war by that speech. I think they are right for once. The revived victim of frustrate assassins, the calm and undaunted bearing, the inflexible purpose, the overwhelming force of facts, argument, and illustration, struck more terror to the soul of Richard than could the substance of ten thousand soldiers armed in proof.

“I fully intended to address you as soon as the overflow of my heart became somewhat proportionate to the capacity of the pen, and to repeat that quotation from Tully which Junius aptly uses, though less aptly than it applied then: ‘Quod si quis existimat me aut voluntate esse mutata, aut debilitata virtute, aut animo fracto, vehementer errat.’[202] But my dear wife wrote you our joint offering of admiration and gratitude better than I could do it for myself.”

Hon. S. E. Sewall, the able lawyer and devoted Abolitionist, whose sympathy with Mr. Sumner had been constant, wrote from Boston:—

“As I have not time to call on you just now, I cannot forbear writing, merely to say how delighted I am with your speech at Worcester. I see it has roused a good deal of howling among our wretched editors. But this does not convince me that your position is wrong, or that it will not be sustained by the country. Almost every one whom I see thinks as I do about your speech, and regards it as eloquent, statesmanlike, and timely. I trust Congress will think as you do, and act accordingly.”

George Livermore, who so often wrote to Mr. Sumner with entire sympathy, and soon afterwards contributed an invaluable service to the African race,[203] expressed his present anxiety.

“I did hope that in this terrible day of our country’s trial there would be found sufficient patriotism with those sent to Worcester to cast aside all party considerations and all disturbing differences, and unite, before it is too late, in trying to save the Government and the Union.… I trembled when I heard that you had been invited to speak, and I wept when I read your speech.

“Unless there is a united North, united on the basis of the Constitution as it is, we are doomed to defeat.”

Hon. Joshua R. Giddings, at the time Consul General at Montreal, wrote from that city:—

“Thanks for your speech at Worcester. I want you to place the same question before the Senate.”

Hon. Carl Schurz, at the time Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Spain, wrote from Madrid:—

“First let me thank you for the glorious speech you have delivered before the Massachusetts Convention. I agree with you on every point, and expect shortly to fight by your side.”

William S. Thayer, a writer of admirable sense, and Consul General at Alexandria in Egypt, wrote:—

“Well, after all, your Cassandra-like prophecies as to the course of public affairs have come true to the letter. Time will show whether your declaration at the Massachusetts Convention, that without Emancipation our war will be a vain masquerade of battles, will not also be realized. At this distance from home I do not feel qualified to dogmatize; but we do not appear as yet to have struck our opponents in a vital part.”

Hon. Montgomery Blair, Postmaster General, wrote from Washington:—

“Your speech is noble, beautiful, classical, sensible. I would have timed it differently; but I will take it now, rather than lose it.”

Hon. Hiram Barney, Collector of New York, wrote:—

“I was gratified with it. You indicate the proper course for the Government to take in this war with Slavery. It is the real Rebel, and Providence has brought us at length into direct conflict with it. We can destroy it without violating any right. Now is our opportunity, and I pray God we may have the wisdom and the intrepidity to end the war humanely and economically by the speedy destruction of the enemy, Slavery. Peace by Emancipation is accomplishing a good end by good means. How easily will the President make his administration the most eventful and glorious in American history!”

Hon. Thomas Dawes Eliot, Representative in Congress, pure in life, and always against Slavery, wrote from New Bedford:—

“If the party who have the responsible conduct of our war do not avail themselves of the power which the Law of Nations gives to them, whereby to strengthen themselves and defeat the Rebels, we shall find the party opposed to them will advocate Emancipation as a party issue. And when the time comes, as it must, that the South shall realize their own inevitable defeat, and shall see the alternative of submission or Emancipation, they will themselves initiate Freedom and secure Europe, unless before them we shall have acted.”

Hon. E. G. Spaulding, the eminent Representative in Congress, and a leading member of the Committee of Ways and Means, wrote from Buffalo:—

“Our people are earnestly discussing the subject of Immediate Emancipation, and I desire to see the views of one who has so thoroughly considered this question. Nearly all our people have come to the conclusion, that, whenever it is necessary to crush out the Rebellion to abolish Slavery, then the Government must abolish it.”

Hon. Robert C. Pitman, afterwards of the Superior Court of Massachusetts, wrote from New Bedford:—

“Permit me to thank you cordially for the service rendered by you to our cause, on Tuesday, at Worcester. Ideas must reinforce our arms, or we shall neither deserve nor win a victory.”

Epes Sargent, journalist, another and early friend, wrote from Boston:—

“I do not think you can be more than two months in advance of the public sentiment of the North, in your speech. I read it with great satisfaction, and it was not till I got down town among the politicians that I realized what imprudent things you had been saying.”

Hon. Daniel W. Alvord, who had coöperated with Mr. Sumner before, wrote from Greenfield, Massachusetts:—

“I thank you for the right word uttered at the right time in your Worcester speech. I should not deem it necessary to say this, as you could hardly fail to know that such a speech would meet my hearty approbation, but for the attacks made upon you by the Springfield Republican. Be assured that the Republican by no means reflects the feelings or the opinions of the people of the western counties. The thorough, hearty Republicans, who in the northwest, if not in the southwest, constitute a great majority, cordially indorse the reasoning and positions of the speech.”

Hon. John D. Baldwin, journalist, afterwards Representative in Congress, and author of the work entitled “Pre-Historic Nations,” wrote from Worcester:—

“What a wave of Hunkerism has flooded Massachusetts since the State Convention, reaching up to the ceiling of nearly every editorial sanctum! But the ebb-tide must come.”

Hon. James H. Morton, the magistrate, wrote from Springfield, Massachusetts:—

“I cannot refrain from expressing the satisfaction and pleasure I derived from the perusal of your Worcester speech. In my opinion it expressed the sentiment of a very large majority of the citizens of Massachusetts, and though in advance of the sentiment of the whole country, still, if I can read the signs of the times, our Government, if it has not already reached, is fast approaching, the doctrines there enunciated by you. It seems to me they must be adopted in their length and breadth.”

A writer, admired as “Gail Hamilton,” wrote from Hamilton, Massachusetts:—

“I glory in that speech. It is logic, and sagacity, and morality. Let them maul it. To that complexion must they come at last, and perhaps before. Strange that people will have so much faith in shilly-shally! Strange they will not see that honesty is the best policy, as well as the best religion! But never mind. Do you lead the van.”

Rev. John Weiss, the eloquent preacher, and biographer of Theodore Parker, wrote from Milton:—

“I am surprised and disappointed at the temper shown by the Republicans. Before the Worcester Convention I was ready to declare that the people were only waiting to have the word Emancipation strongly pronounced to repeat it with the aggrandizement of a hundred thousand votes. I am deeply pained to see how the newspapers receive your declarations. They thinly veil a spirit which is ready at the first opportunity to forget the Past, and to sacrifice its living representatives,—the men who alone preserve the glorious Antislavery idea, and whose prophecies can alone secure the Future.… ‘Cry aloud, and spare not.’ Reiterate more flatly and unsparingly, that the war must destroy the evil which engendered it. Give the bullets their billet, and the bayonets something to think about, and lend them a manifesto of Freedom to punctuate. What a Congress will next winter’s be! Compromise will seek to make War its missionary.”

Orestes A. Brownson, Catholic thinker and writer, wrote from Elizabeth, New Jersey:—

“I have re-read your speech at Worcester, and I’m even better pleased with it than I was at the first reading. You have struck the right chord, as the manner in which my own article has been received sufficiently indicates. Our venerable President and his rhetorical adviser, whatever their timidity, or their reluctance, or attachment to the ‘Rule of Three,’ must come to the policy you recommend. It is clear to me that it is impossible to save both the integrity of the Nation and Southern Slavery, and the great question before us now is, whether we shall sacrifice the Nation to Slavery, or Slavery to the Nation. This is the issue before the people, and this issue we must meet.”

Rev. R. S. Storrs, the eminent Congregational divine, wrote from Braintree, Massachusetts:—

“Your admirable speech before the Worcester Convention ought to have been sooner acknowledged, with the fervent gratitude of my heart, to Heaven and you, for its delivery. The spirit that condemns its argument or author is either the spirit of blind infatuation, or of treachery as foul as marks the Southern Confederates themselves. It surprises and grieves me that Republicans wince and scold at the just lashing given to the grand conspirator against Liberty and Religion,—for in this contest they are identical. The timeserving policy of multitudes who have hitherto acted with us, and, as it seems to me, of the Administration itself, is revolting, and puts far away the day of peace and prosperity.”

Rev. Francis LeBaron, afterwards of Ohio, earnest against Slavery, wrote from Dighton, Massachusetts:—

“Let me take this opportunity to thank you most heartily for your Worcester speech, and for your Boston lecture. Such noble words dwarf other men’s actions, and make me glad that the feeling of hero-worship is still strong at my heart. I can see honor and victory and glory and permanence on no other path than that by which you would lead the nation. If you will touch men’s hearts so nobly, you must not be surprised that they leap toward you; and when men move my deepest respect and admiration, I must tell them so.”

Rev. Moncure D. Conway, the Reformer, so admirable with his pen, wrote from Cincinnati:—

“Allow me to thank you for the exquisite presentation of the law and the truth in your Worcester speech, which I read in the Tribune, to the million of readers guarantied it there, and the million others by the Boston press. I shall secure a large circulation in this city’s press. It is a perfect code for the hour.”

Rev. Rufus P. Stebbins, who sympathized so strongly with the speech on the Barbarism of Slavery, wrote now from Woburn, Massachusetts:—

“Accept a ‘thousand thanks’ for your speech at Worcester. It was a calm, solid, irresistible word. Adoption or no adoption by that Convention was of little consequence. Perhaps delay by such bodies is wise; but the people are coming, and the hour is at hand.”

Rev. Elnathan Davis, the friend of Peace, wrote from Fitchburg:—

“That the position taken in your speech is true I believe the judgment of Massachusetts and the country bears full testimony to-day; and that it is taken in due season I think the very howl of a Hunker political press clearly testifies. God give you strength for this battle, and, amidst the shifting experiences of the Government, and above ‘the confused noise of the warrior,’ make your word ‘On to Freedom’ clearly and widely heard by our countrymen.”

Rev. Moses Thacher, the venerable clergyman, formerly of Massachusetts, wrote from Fort Covington, New York:—

“God bless you! Your Worcester speech of the 1st inst. is invaluable. It states the cause, the issue, and the remedy of the war.”

Rev. W. H. Cudworth, chaplain in the army, in a letter from Hooker’s Brigade, Camp Union, wrote:—

“If I bore you, pardon me,—but, sympathizing most heartily in your uncompromising hostility to Slavery, and yet placed by the laws in an embarrassing, if not helpless position, what can I do, in the way of preventing the rendition of fugitives? For instance, one was hidden in our regimental barn. I knew and encouraged it, intending to trot him off, if a favorable chance offered. The owner came, but could not accomplish anything. He came next day with a United States warrant and the Provost Marshal. It wrung my heart, but what could I do?… Meantime let me thank you, as a servant of God and in the name of my brother man, for your Worcester speech, which I have just read, for your magnificent broadside called the ‘Barbarism of Slavery,’ and for all your efforts to break every yoke and let the oppressed go free.”

Hon. Charles W. Slack, connected with the press, and always Antislavery Republican, wrote from Boston:—

“Whether speaking for others or myself individually, I only express a general acknowledgment among all Liberty-loving men, when I say that to you preëminently is assigned the responsible, yet honorable, task of indicating the advance of public sentiment upon the living, overtopping, gigantic question of the day. I thank God daily that we have so earnest, steadfast, and persistent an exponent in the Senate Chamber. May you, then, be delivered and preserved from all harm for even greater achievements!”

John P. Jewett, bookseller, original publisher of Uncle Tom’s Cabin, wrote from Boston:—

“I am more than provoked with the unmitigated flunkeyism of the Boston —— and —— in their criticisms of your manly and excellent speech at Worcester. Posterity will do you justice, even if the sneaking toadyism of the day refuse it to you. I cannot refrain from writing you a word of sympathy, although perhaps you do not feel the need of it. Rest assured, my noble friend, that God and all truly great and good men are with you, therefore you have nothing to fear from the malice of cowardly time-servers.”

William Kenrick, the horticulturist, wrote from Newton, Massachusetts:—

“I must thank you for your most timely, outspoken speech at the Convention at Worcester. It exactly meets my views,—the views I have long entertained. Yes, here are our natural allies, amongst the slaves.”

Frank B. Sanborn, most earnest where Freedom is in question, wrote from Concord:—

“I have to-day read for the second time your speech before the Worcester Convention, and I am renewedly glad that you made it then and there. I am sure that every passing day will but strengthen its positions, and that they must soon be accepted by the whole Northern people. Indeed, I believe that the people are of that mind now; it is the politicians, and those most timid of all created things, the Republican partisan leaders, who shiver at the thought of raising a real issue to displace their shams.… Happily, no great principle like this rests on the turn of a period or the position of a comma; and if Boston scribblers could show that Marius did not know a slave from a barrel of salt-fish, they would not weaken the argument of your speech.”

Hon. Adin Thayer, a strong Republican, wrote from Worcester:—

“I cannot refrain from expressing to you, even at this late day, my hearty thanks for your brave, earnest speech at the State Convention. Be assured that neither you nor the great truths you advocate will be at all harmed by the malignant attacks of the Hunker press.”

Rev. William Tyler wrote from Pawtucket:—

“Republicans self-styled Conservative do not like your Worcester speech; and yet I meet with some such who admit that the liberation of the slaves of the Rebels must yet be a war policy,—only that the time has not come for its adoption. Well, some must be pioneers, and others will follow at a carefully considered distance: editors and office-seekers will be farthest in the rear. I was not so much surprised at the dissent in yesterday’s Boston Journal as at the character of the assault on your speech and on you.”

Hollis Loring, a good Republican, wrote from Marlborough, Massachusetts:—

“Some of our public journals seem disposed to criticize your speech at Worcester on Tuesday, as not reflecting the sentiments of your State. For one, I will say that I listened to your speech with much pleasure. I believe you take the only correct view of the subject; and I know you reflect the sentiment of a large majority of the people in this town. Even some of the most Proslavery Democrats of the past are fully up to your ground to-day.”

James Means, a teacher, always against Slavery, wrote from Auburndale, Massachusetts:—

“I have read with great interest and pleasure your speech at the late Convention in Worcester. And as it has called forth unfriendly criticism, I cannot forbear to express to you my cordial thanks for it.”

Dr. Luther B. Morse, a physician and Republican, wrote from Lowell:—

“I thank you for those manly, true, and earnest words, which it would be well for our country—Government and people—to consider. They involve principles of political economy of unequalled importance to our country, especially in its present condition.”

William W. Thayer, an earnest Republican, wrote from Boston:—

“All honor, then, to the man who dares to risk his reputation in representing the Emancipation sentiment of the country! All honor to you, Sir, for taking the leadership of the Emancipationists, who will sooner or later be called upon to march to the ballot-box and there fight Freedom’s battles!… For one, I am glad that you ‘have dragged the eternal Slavery Question’ into politics again, and I feel so glad that I had to write and tell you so.”

Josiah H. Carter, a Boston constituent, wrote:—

“Allow me to congratulate you on the position you took in your speech delivered at Worcester on the first instant. You have now struck the key-note. I honor you for it. May the time soon come, when our military, judicial, and executive heads may take their tone from that key! Then, and not till then, can we begin to subdue Rebellion and put a stop to this bloodshed and enormous expenditure.”

Dr. Dio Lewis wrote from Boston:—

“I am more gratified than I can express for your wise, noble, patriotic speech at Worcester.”

Thomas Gaffield, an excellent business man and alderman, wrote from Boston:—

“As you have had, and will have much more, opposition on the part of some newspapers and some men, I have felt it my duty, although only a humble constituent, to give my word of comfort and good cheer, though I doubt not you foresaw all which has followed, and find your comfort in the sense of duty well and fearlessly done. I have no doubt that your speech is prophetic, and of events and ideas not very far in the future.”

Dr. Henry A. Hartt wrote from New York:—

“I am greatly pleased with your speech at Worcester, and it seemed to me a fitting key-note to a general appeal to the masses.”

J. W. Alden, an early Abolitionist, wrote from New York:—

“Cheered and encouraged by your noble speech at Worcester yesterday, which causes a thrill of joy to run through the hearts of the friends of Emancipation in this city, warned by the action of the President in regard to General Fremont’s proclamation, and seeing a disposition in various quarters to put down Rebellion without wiping out its cause, we have come to the conclusion that there is no time to be lost in organizing our committees and inaugurating a movement in the direction indicated above.”

J. P. Lesley, the eminent geologist, wrote from Philadelphia:—

“Why can’t the golden chance be clutched to say to the whole South, ‘Good!—you rebel,—you are no longer slaveholders, nor can you ever be again.’ How it would ring round the world, and transcendently through Heaven! One would think that Abraham Lincoln would be fired at the thought of the unrivalled fame that would succeed the act. Has he not thought of immortality? Or does he wait for Congress to take away the glory from him, or an accident to take away the opportunity?”

Lyman S. Hapgood, paymaster in the army, and a good Republican, wrote from Washington:—

“I have just been reading your speech which was made to the Massachusetts Republicans, at their State Convention, on the first instant; and the policy therein so fully declared, which, in your opinion, it is the duty of the National Government to pursue, agrees so completely with my own views of our country’s difficulties, and her only way of permanent and successful escape, that I could not refrain from expressing to you my gratitude, as a citizen of the good old Commonwealth, that she has one son, at least, who, regardless of all personal misrepresentations from political enemies or professed friends, has the moral courage to stand up, upon all occasions and under all circumstances, and proclaim what he sincerely believes to be the true and just policy for the Government to adopt.”

A. B. Johnson, of the Treasury Department, wrote from Washington:—

“I thank you from my heart for that noble speech at Worcester. That trumpet gave forth no uncertain sound. Hints have come up from the West, and intimations, vague, undetermined, from the East, before; but it has been left for you to define, announce, and defend a logical policy, and you have accomplished your task.”

H. Catlin, editor of the True American, wrote from Erie, Pennsylvania:—

“How lamentable that we should make Human Slavery the one sacred thing under the heavens! Everything else must give way,—every other property may be confiscated, every other right suspended,—but Slavery cannot be touched! Our Proslavery education is costing a great deal,—it threatens to cost us our country! Thanks that Senator Sumner so fully appreciates the real issue of the hour, and that, though a Senator, he proclaims it manfully and boldly! The masses of the people are with you.”

A. T. Goodman wrote from Cleveland:—

“Your speech of October 1st is before me, and I have read and read it through and through again, no less than three times. There is something about your speeches that has endeared your name to me, and something in their tone and in their teachings that tells me they are right in their meaning, and right in every point, and are very true.”

Thus, from correspondence, as also from the press, it appears that Mr. Sumner was not alone. Others were glowing in the same cause, and their number increased daily. But the great salvation was postponed. Almost a full year was allowed to elapse before the Proclamation of Emancipation. And what a year, whether for those in the tented field and Rebel prisons, or those others waiting, longing, struggling for Union and Peace through Liberty! Nobody could espouse such a cause, and feel that its triumph was essential to save the country from prolonged bloodshed, without effort and anxiety corresponding in some measure to the transcendent interests involved.

From this time forward Mr. Sumner never missed an opportunity of urging Emancipation, whether in addresses before the people and in the Senate, or in direct personal appeal to the President. In the last he was constant, rarely seeing the President without in some way presenting the all-absorbing question. These volumes will show the continuity of his public efforts.

---

THE REBELLION: ITS ORIGIN AND MAINSPRING.

Oration, under the Auspices of the Young Men’s Republican Union of New York, at Cooper Institute, November 27, 1861. With Appendix.

---

Cassius. Some to the common pulpits, and cry out,

Liberty, Freedom, and Enfranchisement!

Shakespeare, Julius Cæsar, Act III. Scene 1.

---

The natural strength of the country, in point of numbers, appears to me to consist much more in the blacks than in the whites. Could they be incorporated and employed for its defence, it would afford you double security. That they would make good soldiers I have not the least doubt; and I am persuaded the State has it not in its power to give sufficient reinforcements, without incorporating them, either to secure the country, if the enemy mean to act vigorously upon an offensive plan, or furnish a force sufficient to dispossess them of Charleston, should it be defensive.—Major-General Nathaniel Greene, Letter to Governor Rutledge of South Carolina. Life and Correspondence, by William Johnson, Vol. II. p. 274.

---

The assemblage before which this oration was delivered was remarkable in numbers and in character.[204] Long before the hour for the meeting, the immense hall was crowded; and notwithstanding the stormy evening, the proportion of ladies present was larger than ever before seen in New York on such an occasion.

Upon the platform were seated many distinguished citizens, among whom may be named Hon. William Pennington, ex-Governor of New Jersey and ex-Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Schuyler Colfax of Indiana, Hon. Lot M. Morrill of Maine, Charles King, LL. D., President of Columbia College, Professor Francis Lieber, David Dudley Field, Esq., William M. Evarts, Esq., John Jay, Esq., Rev. Stephen H. Tyng, D. D., Rev. William Hague, D. D., Rev. George B. Cheever, D. D., Rev. Theodore L. Cuyler, Rev. Alfred Cookman, John H. Griscom, M. D., Hon. John W. Edmonds, General Prosper M. Wetmore, Lewis Tappan, Esq., Rev. William Goodell, Hon. Charles A. Peabody, Rev. Roswell D. Hitchcock, D. D., Rev. Henry M. Field, Hon. Thomas B. Stillman, Hon. Benjamin F. Manierré, R. M. Blatchford, Esq., William Pitt Palmer, Esq., D. A. Harsha, Esq., George P. Putnam, Esq., Elliot C. Cowdin, Esq., Hon. William B. Taylor, Postmaster of New York, Hon. Rufus F. Andrews, Surveyor of the Port, Hon. H. B. Stanton, Deputy Collector, Hon. Joseph Hoxie, Major A. A. Selover, U. S. Army, Oliver Johnson, Esq.

Charles T. Rodgers, Esq., President of the “Union,” introduced William Curtis Noyes, Esq., as presiding officer of the meeting, and a list of Vice-Presidents and Secretaries was unanimously adopted.

Mr. Noyes, upon taking the chair, delivered the following address.

“Ladies and Gentlemen:—Thanking you, as I do, gratefully, for the kindness which has called me to preside over this meeting, let me remind you that within the modest chapel which impresses with devotional emotions every visitor to Mount Auburn, that most beautiful of American cemeteries, stands a marble statue of one of the patriot leaders of the American Revolution. Its simple dignity arrests attention and commands admiration and respect. Stern resolve and unflinching courage are depicted in lineament and attitude. We see him voluntarily renouncing a high professional office under the crown to take his place in the forum as a private citizen, to oppose, without reward, the odious violations of the liberties of the people by means of Writs of Assistance. His exordium startles the prejudiced judges:—

“‘Let the consequences be what they will, I am determined to proceed. The only principles of public conduct that are worthy of a gentleman or a man are to sacrifice estate, ease, health, and applause, and even life, to the sacred calls of country. These principles, in private life, make the good citizen,—in public life, the patriot and the hero.’

“Then, rising with the progress of his great theme, he continues:—

“‘Every man in a state of Nature is an independent sovereign, subject to no law but the law written upon his heart and revealed to him by his Maker. His right to his life, his liberty, and his property no created being can rightfully contest; these rights are inherent and inalienable.’

“We watch the effect of his indignant words. They convince and awe, and yet the royal tribunal dare not decide. It prevaricates and postpones; but the victory is won, the odious measure is abandoned forever, and the orator’s utterances have lighted up a flame which Independence alone can ever quench.

“We go with him from this first theatre of triumph, through many long years of toil and anxiety in shaping the measures which led to the great conflict with the mother country, to the General Court guided by his skill and political sagacity, to the popular assembly alike aroused to turbulence and hushed to repose by his burning eloquence. We see him hurling defiance at the minions of power who with secret malevolence assailed his reputation. We witness their malignant hatred, and their deadly assault upon his person, when alone and unarmed. We see him fall, covered with wounds, and carried bleeding to his home.

“Thenceforward, to the actual opening of the Revolutionary drama, and during its progress, this act of regal barbarism obscured, but did not wholly extinguish, the light of the great intellect which it sought to destroy; but all that remained was a wreck, reminding only of the glories of the past. The crime against the person added to its atrocity a greater crime against the soul, dooming it to pursue its earthly career in sadness and gloom. Conscious of being only a monument of decay, well might the gradually expiring patriot wish, that, when God, in his righteous Providence, should call him from time into eternity, it might be by a flash of lightning. We may rejoice that his prayer was answered, and that, too noble to be permitted to die a common death, in a manner equally affecting and sublime, James Otis [applause] was removed to the mansions of eternal felicity.

“It is the necessary result of barbarism, in all its phases, to furnish historic parallels by reproducing itself in viler forms. Not a century elapsed, and a similar atrocity is enacted in the Senate Chamber of the United States. The ruffians were actuated by as deadly a hate, their malice was as foul and murderous, their defiance of law was as manifest, their victim was also the friend and advocate of universal freedom, and as much distinguished and feared, and he also fell beneath the blows of assassins in heart and conduct.

“But here the parallel ends. This outrage did not impair the intellect which it sought to destroy; that survived the trial, enlarged, strengthened, purified, to set forward in a new and more glorious career in the cause of Freedom and Humanity. Instead of the lightning’s flash to remove it to heaven, a divine influence, equal in potency, has emanated thence, inspiring it with a larger love of freedom, more zeal in the cause of the oppressed, and a more earnest conviction that human slavery produces only evil, and that it should be forever eradicated. [Enthusiastic applause.]

“Happy, then, for us, and for our country, has been the suffering of these martyrs in the cause of Freedom. The name of James Otis has descended to posterity on the brightest pages of our history, associated with those of Hancock, and Adams, and Jay, and Jefferson, and Henry, and Rutledge, and there it will remain forever.

“The name of that other martyr in the cause of Truth and Justice will find equal distinction, in future ages, on the roll of philanthropists, with those of Howard and Clarkson and Wilberforce, and others of that glorious company, ‘of whom the world was not worthy.’

“But history has also its retributions. The infamous actors in these tragedies passed away under the scorn and contempt of mankind, their names only searched for and remembered among the persecutors and slayers of their race. They who countenanced and approved the last, by a fitting gradation, became the betrayers and assassins of their country, and two of these, the highest in station and basest in conduct, are now awaiting the punishment due to their crimes in a prison within the shadow of Bunker Hill Monument, [applause,] which indignantly frowns upon them from base to summit.

“In the reality of the present behold the promise of the future, when all traitors like them shall meet a similar doom. Still devoting himself to the cause of his country and to the freedom of the oppressed, the advocate and friend of all, of whatever rank or condition or color, the scholar, the philanthropist, the martyr, the statesman has come again among us, and it is with equal pride and pleasure that I present to you the Hon. Charles Sumner, not of Massachusetts, but of the United States of America, one and indivisible.”

Mr. Sumner then came forward, and was received by the vast audience with tumultuous applause, in which the ladies joined with every manifestation of delight. The cheers, and waving of hats and handkerchiefs, lasted several minutes.

---