The Whig party was the nearest to the anti-slavery society of any of the political organizations of the time. It had promised, in convention assembled, "to promote all constitutional measures for the overthrow of slavery, and to oppose at all times, with uncompromising zeal and firmness, any further addition of slave-holding States to this Union, out of whatever territory formed.[15] But the party never got beyond this. Charles Sumner was a member of the Whig party, but was greatly disturbed about its indifference on the question of slavery. In 1846 he delivered a speech before the Whig convention of Massachusetts on "The Anti-Slavery Duties of the Whig Party." He declared his positive opposition to slavery; said that he intended to attack the institution on constitutional grounds; that slavery was not a "covenant with death or an agreement with hell"; that he intended to do his work for the slave inside of the Constitution. He said:—
"There is in the Constitution no compromise on the subject of slavery of a character not to be reached legally and constitutionally, which is the only way in which I propose to reach it. Wherever power and jurisdiction are secured to Congress, they may unquestionably be exercised in conformity with the Constitution. And even in matters beyond existing powers and jurisdiction there is a constitutional mode of action. The Constitution contains an article pointing out how at any time amendments may be made thereto. This is an important article, giving to the Constitution a progressive character, and allowing it to be moulded to suit new exigencies and new conditions of feeling. The wise framers of this instrument did not treat the country as a Chinese foot, never to grow after its infancy, but anticipated the changes incident to its growth."
He proposed to the Whigs as their rallying watchword, the "Repeal of slavery under the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government." Discussing the methods, he continued:—
"The time has passed when this can be opposed on constitutional grounds. It will not be questioned by any competent authority that Congress may by express legislation abolish slavery, first, in the District of Columbia; second, in the territories, if there should be any; third, that it may abolish the slave-trade on the high seas between the States; fourth, that it may refuse to admit any new State with a constitution sanctioning slavery. Nor can it be doubted that the people of the free States may, in the manner pointed out by the Constitution, proceed to its amendment."
Thus did Charles Sumner lay down a platform for a Political Abolition Party, and of such a party he became the laurelled champion and leader.
The year 1846 was marked by the most bitter political discussion; Garrison the Agitator, the Mexican war, and other issues had greatly exercised the people. At a meeting held in Tremont Temple, Boston, on the 5th of November, 1846, Mr. Sumner took occasion to give his reasons for bolting the nominee of the Whig party for Congress, Mr. Winthrop.[16] Mr. Sumner said that he had never heard Mr. Winthrop's voice raised for the slave; and that, judging from the past, he never expected to hear it. "Will he oppose," asked Mr. Sumner, "at all times, without compromise, any further addition of slave-holding States? Here, again, if we judge him by the past, he is wanting. None can forget that in 1845, on the 4th of July, a day ever sacred to memories of freedom, in a speech at Faneuil Hall, he volunteered, in advance of any other Northern Whig, to receive Texas with a welcome into the family of States, although on that very day she was preparing a constitution placing slavery beyond the reach of Legislative change."[17]
Here, then, was another party created—a Political Abolition Party—for the suppression of slavery.
In 1848, Mr. Sumner left the Whig party, and gave his magnificent energies and splendid talents to the organization of the Free-Soil Party, upon the principles he had failed to educate the Whigs to accept.
Charles Sumner was in the United States Senate, where "his words were clothed with the majesty of Massachusetts." The young lawyer who had upbraided Winthrop for his indifference respecting the slave, and opposed the Mexican war, was consistent in the Senate, and in harmony with his early love for humanity. He closed his great speech on freedom national, slavery sectional, in the following incisive language:—
"At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clearness, review now this argument, and gather it together. Considering that slavery is of such an offensive character that it can find sanction only in positive law, and that it has no such 'positive' sanction in the Constitution; that the Constitution, according to its Preamble, was ordained to 'establish justice,' and 'secure the blessings of liberty'; that in the convention which framed it, and also elsewhere at the time, it was declared not to 'sanction'; that according to the Declaration of Independence, and the address of the Continental Congress, the nation was dedicated to 'Liberty' and the 'rights of human nature'; that according to the principles of common law, the Constitution must be interpreted openly, actively, and perpetually for Freedom; that according to the decision of the Supreme Court, it acts upon slaves, not as property, but as persons; that at the first organization of the national government under Washington, slavery had no national favor, existed nowhere on the national territory, beneath the national flag, but was openly condemned by the nation, the Church, the colleges, and literature of the times; and finally, that according to an amendment of the Constitution, the national government can only exercise powers delegated to it, among which there is none to support slavery;—considering these things, sir, it is impossible to avoid the single conclusion that slavery is in no respect a national institution, and that the Constitution nowhere upholds property in man."