•i^.'..'e%-'-.f^j9

(?'!,^.^.

if'

M '¦"Wfi
¦ «* ¦• '^^»wip¥s^f*'j*'*i*-'>-»-i*«f^^
''£mm
mi-mm^:'
-imi^-'
for the fatirulin^of a, CoWigi in, this Colptiyp.

From the library of
David Willcox,
1909

HENRY WILSON

§>tate«man CUDition Vol. IV

Charles Sumner
HIS COMPLETE WORKS

[itf) JEittrobuctton BY
HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

BOSTON
LEE AND SHEPARD
MCM

Copyright, 1900,
BY
LEE AND SHEPARD.

Statesman ^tsitian.
Limited to One Thousand Copies.
Of which this is

Wo.

^ f—i

tNortoanli ^tess :
Norwood, Mass., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME IV.

PAGE
Andrew J. Downing, the Landscape Gardener. Speeoh
in the Senate, in Favor of an Allowance to the Widow of
the late Andrew J. Downing, August 26, 1852 . . 1
The Party of Freedom : Its Necessity and Practica
bility. Speech at the State Convention of the Free-Soil
Party of Massachusetts, held at Lowell, September 15,
1852  3
Civil Superintendents of Armories. Speech in the Senate,
on the Proposition to change the Superintendents of
Armories, February 23, 1853  12
Necessity of Union to uphold Freedom. Letter to a
Rhode Island Committee, March 26, 1853 . . .15
Against Secrecy in Proceedings of the Senate. Speech
in the Senate, on the Proposition to limit the Secret Ses
sions of the Senate, April 6, 1853  16
The German Emigrant must be against Slavery. Letter
to Lewis Tappan, Esq., May 17, 1853 . . . .19
Powers of the State over the Militia : Exemptions
FOR Conscientious Scruples. Speech in Convention
to revise and amend the Constitution of Massachusetts,
June 21, 1853  20
Powers or the State over the Militia : Colored Com
panies. Speech in Convention to revise and amend the
Constitution of Massachusetts, June 22, 1853 ... 25
iii

iv CONTENTS. PAGE
The Pacific Railroad and the Declaration of Inde
pendence. Letter to the Mayor of Boston, for the Cele
bration of July 4, 1853  32
The Representative System, and its Proper Basis.
Speech on the Proposition to amend the Basis of the
House of Representatives of Massachusetts, in the Con
vention to revise and amend the Constitution of that
State, July 7, 1853  33
Bills op Rights : Their History and Policy. Speech on
the Report from the Committee on the Bill of Rights, in
the Convention to revise and amend the Constitution of
Massachusetts, July 25, 1853  62
FiNGEK-PoiNT from PLYMOUTH RocK. Speech at the Ply
mouth Festival in Commemoration of the Embarkation
of the Pilgrims, August 1, 1853  73
Ireland and Irishmen. Letter to a Committee of Irish-
bom Citizens, August 2, 1853  80
The Landmark of Freedom : No Repeal of the Mis
souri Compromise. Speech in the Senate, against the
Repeal of the Missouri Prohibition of Slavery north of
36° 30' in the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, February 21,
1854  81
When will the North be aroused ? Letter to a Personal
Friend, March 30, 1854 .  137
A Liberty-Loving Emigration to guard Kansas. Letter
to a Massachusetts Committee, May 1, 1854 . . . 138
Final Protest, foe himself and the Clergy op New
England, against Slavery in Nebraska and Kansas.
Speech in the Senate, on the Night of the Final Passage
of the Nebraska and Kansas Bill, May 25, 1854 . . 140
Union of All Parties Necessary against the Slave
Power. Letter to a Massachusetts Committee, May
20, 1854  157

CONTENTS.

PAGE

Boston Petition for the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave
Act. Speech in the Senate, on the Boston Petition for
the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Aot, June 26, 1854 . 159
Reply to Assailants : Oath to support the Constitu
tion ; Weakness of the South from Slavery. Sec
ond Speech in the Senate on the Boston Petition for the
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, June 28, 1854 . . 172
Peaceful Opposition to the Fugitive Slave Act. Let
ter to the Mayor of Boston, for the Celebration of July
4, 1854  228
No Pension for Service in Support of the Fugitive
Slave Act. Minority Report to the Senate of the
United States, on the Bill granting to the Widow of
James Batchelder a Provision for her Future Support,
July 13, 1854 .  230
James Otis an Example to Massachusetts. Letter to
the Cape Cod Association of Massachusetts, July 30, 1854 287
Struggle foe Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act. De
bate in the Senate, July 31, 1854  239
Duties of Massachusetts at the Present Crisis. For
mation OF the Republican Party. Speech before the
Republican State Convention at Worcester, September
7, 1854  .... 255
The Good Farmer and the Good Citizen. Letter to the
Norfolk Agricultural Society, September 25, 1854 . . 280
The Fugitive Slave Act to be disobeyed. Letter to a
Committee at Syracuse, New York, September 28, 1854 . 282
Position and Duties of the Merchant, illustrated by
tee Life of Granville Sharp. Address before the
Mercantile Library Association of Boston, on the Even
ing of November 13, 1854  283

vi CONTENTS.

PAGE

Wages of Seamen in Case or Wreck. Speech in the
Senate, on introducing a Bill to secure Wages to Seamen
in Case of Wreck, February 12, 1855 . . . .324
Against Capital Punishment. Letter to a Committee of
the Massachusetts Legislature, February 12, 1855 . . 331
The Demands of Freedom : Repeal op the Fugitive
Slave Act. Speech in the Senate against Mr. Toucey's
Bill, and for the Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Aot, Feb
ruary 23, 1855  333

ANDREW J. DOWNING, THE LANDSCAPE GAEDENER.
Speech in the Senate, in Favor of an Allowance to the Widow
OF the late Andrew J. Downing, August 26, 1852.

The Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation BUl being under considera
tion, Mr. Pearce, of Maryland, under instructions from the Committee
on Finance, moved the foUowing amendment : —
" For the payment of the arrears of salary due to the late Rural Architect,
A. J. Downing, deceased, from the 1st of May, 1852, to the date of his death,
and a farther allowance to his widow, equal to the salary for one year,
$ 2,500 : Promded, that the said sum shall be in full of all claim for the ser
vices of the said deceased, and for all models, specifications, and drawings,
designed for the benefit of the United States, which are not in its possession."
In the course of the debate wliich ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke as fol
lows. ME. PEESIDENT, — The laborer is worthy of his
hire ; and I believe at this moment there is no
<luestion of charity to the widow of the late Mr. Down
ing. The simple proposition is, to make compensation
for services rendered to the United States by this emi
nent artist as superintendent of the public grounds in
Washington. And since the plans he has left behind
and the impulse he has given to improvements here
by his remarkable genius wiU continue to benefit us,
though he has been removed, it is thought reasonable
to continue his salary to the close of the unexpired year
from which it commenced. These plans alone have
been valued at five thousand doUars, and we are to
have the advantage of them. In pursuance of these,
vol. IV.  1

2 DOWNING, THE LANDSCAPE GARDENER.
his successor will be able to proceed in arranging the
public grounds, and in embellishing the national capi
tal, without further expenditure for others. Thus, as I
said at the outset, it is not a question of charity, but
of compensation ; and on this ground I doubt not the
estate of the departed artist deserves the small pittance
it is proposed to pay. For myseK, I should be much
happier to vote a larger appropriation, believing, that,
over and above the services actually rendered in the
discharge of his duties, these plans are amply worth it,
and that we shall all feel better by such recognition of
our debt.
Few men in the public service have vindicated a title
to regard above Mr. Downing. At the age of thirty-
seven he has passed away, " dead ere his prime," ^— Uke
Lycidas, also, " floating upon his watery bier," ^ — leaving
behind a reputation above that of any other citizen in
the beautiful department of Art to which he was devoted.
His labors and his example cannot be forgotten. I
know of no man among us, in any sphere of life, so
yoimg as he was at his death, who has been able to per
form services of such true, simple, and lasting benefi
cence. By wide and active superintendence of rural
improvements, by labors of the pen, and by the various
exercise of his genius, he has contributed essentially to
the sum of human happiness. And now. Sir, by practi
cal services here in Washington, rendered at the caU of
his country, he has earned, it seems to me, this small
appropriation, not as a charity to his desolate widow,
but as a remuneration for labor done. I hope the
amendment will be agreed to.
' Mr. Downing was accidentally drowned in the Hudson River.

THE PARTY OF FREEDOM : ITS NECESSITY AND
PRACTICABILITY.
Speech at the State Convention op the Free-Soil Partt o/
Massachusetts, held at Lowell, September 15, 1852.

The annual State Convention of the Free-Soil Party of Massachu
setts met at Lowell September 15, 1852. It was orgamzed with the
following officers : Hon. Stephen C. PhiUips, of Salem, President, —
Rodney French, of New Bedford, George B. Atwood, of Taunton, WU
liam Jackson, of Newton, George F. WUliams, of Boston, Charles Beck,
of Cambridge, John B. AUey, of Lynn, Benjamin F. Thompson, of
Winchester, John Nesmith, of LoweU, John EdgeU, of Gardner, Francis
Bates, of Springfield, Calvin Harden, of Pittsfield, Vice-Presidents, —
George M. Brooks, of Concord, Edmund Anthony, of New Bedford,
WUliam S. Eobinson, of LoweU, Andrew J. Aiken, of Adams, Benja
min F. White, of Weymouth, Secretaries.
Eloquent speeches were made by the President, Hon. S. C. PhiUips,
Hon. Henry Wilson, Hon. John W. Graves, Hon. E. L. Keyes,
Hon. Rodney FrencTi, Dr. Caleb Swan, Richard H. Dana, Jr., Esq.,
Hon. Horace Maim, Hon. Amasa Walker, Hon. Anson BurUngame,
and Seth Webb, Jr., Esq. The resolutions adopted by the Conven
tion were reported by Hon. C. F. Adams. Hon. Horace Mann was
nominated as candidate for Govemor, and Hon. Amasa Walker as
candidate for Lieutenant-Governor.
Early in the proceedings Mr. Sumner was introduced to the audience
hy the President. This incident is copied from the report in the pa
pers, as is also the speech which he made, with the interruptions.
" The President remarked, that there was one gentleman present whom
the Convention would all delight to hear: he aUuded to our distinguished
Senator in Congress, Hon. Charles Sumner.
" The name of Mr. Sumner was received with ' three times three ' rousing
cheers, and the waving of hats, canes, handkerchiefs, &c. ; which demonstra
tions of regard were renewed as he made his appearance on the platform."

4 THE PARTY OF FEEEDOM:
Among those on the platform was Captain Drayton, called " The Hero
of the Pearl," recently liberated from prison through the exertions of
Mr. Sumner (a-nte, p. 49), who took his seat "amid the hearty cheers
of the whole assembly."
Me. Peesident, and Fellow-Citizens of Massa
chusetts : —
I SHOULD be dull indeed, — dull as a weed, — were
I insensible to this generous, heart-speaking wel
come. After an absence of many months, I have now
come home to breathe anew this invigorating Northern
air [applause], to tread again the free soil of our native
Massachusetts [cheers], and to enjoy the sympathy of
friends and fellow-citizens. [Renewed applause^ But,
while glad in your greetings, thus botmteously lavished,
I cannot accept them for myself. I do not deserve them.
They belong to the cause [applause] which we all have at
heart, and which binds us together. [Cheers,]
Fellow-citizens, I have not come here to make a
speech. The occasion requires no such effort. Weary
with other labors, and desiring rest, I have little now to
say, — and that little will be too much, if about myself.
If, at Washington, during a long session of Congress,
— my first experience of public Ufe, — I have been
able to do anything which meets your acceptance, I am
I'^PPy- [Cheers.] I have done nothing but my duty.
[" Hear ! hear ! "] Passing from this, and taking advan
tage of the kind attention with which you honor me,
let me add one word in vindication of our position as
a national party.
We are on the eve of two important elections, — one
of National of&cers, and the other of State officers. A
President and Vice-President of the United States and
members of Congress are to be chosen ; also. Governor

its necessity and PEACTICABILITY. 5
and lieutenant-Govemor of the Commonwealth, and
members of the Legislature. And at these elections
we are to cast our votes so as most to advance the
cause of Freedom under the National Constitution.
[Cheers.] This is our peculiar object, — though asso
ciated with it are other aims, kindred in their humane
and liberal character.
Against Freedom both the old parties are banded.
Opposed to each other in the contest for power, they
concur in opposing every effort for the establishment of
Freedom under the National Constitution. [Applause,]
Divided as parties, they are one as supporters of Slavery.
On this question we can have no sympathy with either,
but must necessarily be against both. [" Hear ! hear ! "]
They sustain Slavery in the District of Columbia : we
are against it. They sustain the coastwise Slave-Trade
under the National Flag : we abhor it. [Cheers.] They
sustain the policy of silence on Slavery in the Territo
ries : we urge the voice of positive prohibition. They
sustain that paragon of legislative monsters, — uncon
stitutional, unchristian, and infamous, — the Fugitive
Slave Bill [sensation ] : we insist on its repeal. [Gh-eat
applause.] They concede to the Slave Power new life
and protection : we cannot be content except with its
total destruction. [Unthu,siasm.] Such, feUow-citizens,
is the difference between us.
And now, if here in Massachusetts there be any who,
on grounds of policy or conscience, feel impelled to sup
port Slavery, let them go and sink in the embrace of
the old parties. [Applause.] There they belong. On
the other hand, all sincerely opposed to Slavery, who
desire to act agaiast Slavery, who seek to bear their
testimony for Freedom, who long to carry into public

6 THE PAETY OF FREEDOM:
affairs those principles of morality and Christian duty
which are the rule of private life, — let them come out
from both the old parties, and join us. [Cheers.] In
our organization, with the declared friends of Freedom,
they will find a place in harmony with their aspirations.
[Enthusiasm.] There is one apology, common to the supporters of
both the old parties, and often ia their mouths, when
pressed for inconsistent persistence in adhering to these
parties. It is dogmatically asserted that there can be
but two parties, — that a new party is impossible, par
ticularly in our country, — and that, therefore, aU per
sons, however opposed to Slavery, must be content in
one of the old parties. This assumption, which is with
out foundation in reason, is so often put forth, that it
has acquired a certain currency ; and many, who reason
hastily, or implicitly follow others, have adopted it as
the all-sufficient excuse for their conduct. Confessing
their own opposition to Slavery, they yield to the domi
nation of party, and become dumb. All this is wrong
morally, and therefore must be wrong practically.
Party, in its true estate, is the natural expression and
agency of different forms of opinion on important public
questions, and itself assumes different forms precisely
according to the prevalence of different opinions. Thus,
in the early Italian republics there were for a while the
^factions of Guelphs and GhibeUines, rival supporters of
Pope and Emperor, — also of Whites and Blacks, taking
their names from the color of their respective badges, —
and in England, the two factions of the White and Eed
Eoses, in which was involved the succession to the
crown. In aU these cases the party came into being,
died out, or changed vTith the objects originating it.

ITS NECESSITY AND PEACTICABILITY. 7
If there be in a community only two chief antagonist
opinions, then there wtU be but two parties embodying
these opinions. But as other opinions practicaUy pre
vail and seek vent, so must parties change or multiply.
This is so strongly the conclusion of reason and philoso
phy, that it could not be doubted, even if there were
no examples of such change and multipUcity. But we
need only turn to the recent history of France and Eng
land, the two countries where opiaion has the freest
scope, to find such examples.
Thus, for instance, in France, — and I dweU on this
point because I have myseK observed, in conversation,
that it is of practical importance, — under Louis Phi-
Uppe, anterior to the late EepubUc, there was the party
of Legitimists, supporters of the old branch of Bourbons,
and the party of Orleanists, supporters of the existing
throne : these two corresponding at the time, in relative
rank and power, to our Whigs and Democrats. Besides
these was a third party, the, small hand of Republicans,
represented in the Legislatv/re hf a few persons only, but
strong in principles and purposes, which in February,
1848, prevailed over both the others. [Applause.] On
the estabUshment of the EepubUc, the multipUcation of
parties continued, untU, with the freedom of opinion and
the freedom of the press, aU were equaUy overthrown
by Louis Napoleon, and their place suppUed by the en
forced unity of despotism.
In England, the most important measure of recent
reform, the aboUtion of the laws imposing a protective
duty on com, was carried only by a third party. Neither
of the two old parties could be brought to adopt this
measure and press it to consummation. A powerful
pubUc opinion, thwarted in the regular parties, had

8 THE PAETY OF FEEEDOM:
recourse to a new one, neither Whig nor Tory, but
formed from both the old ones, where Sir Eobert Peel,
the great Conservative leader, took his place, side by
side, in honorable coaUtion, with Mr. Cobden, the great
Liberal leader. [" Rear ! hear ! "] In this way the
Corn Laws were finaUy overthrown. The multipUcity
of parties engendered by this contest stiU continues in
England. At the general election for the new ParUa
ment which has just taken place, the strict Unes of
ancient parties seemed to be effaced, and many were re
turned, not as Whigs and Tories, but as Protectionists
and Anti-Protectionists.
Thus by example in our own day we confirm the
principle of poUtical phUosophy, that parties naturaUy
adapt themselves in character and number to prevaiUng
pubUc opinion.
At the present time, in our country, there exists a
deep, controUing, conscientious feeUng against Slavery.
[Cheers.] You and I, Sir, and aU of us, confess it.
WhUe recognizing the Constitution, we desire to do ev
erything in our power to reUeve ourselves of responsi
bUity for this terrible wrong. [" Yes ! yes ! "] We would
vindicate the Constitution, and the National Govern
ment it has estabUshed, from aU participation in this
outrage. [Cheers.] Both the old poUtical parties, for
getful of the Fathers, and of the spirit of the Constitu
tion, not only refuse to be agents or representatives in
any degree of our convictions, but expressly discourage
and denounce them. Thus baffled in effort for utter
ance, these convictions naturally seek expression in a
new agency, the party of Freedom. [Cheers.] Such is
the party, representing the great doctrines of Human
Eights, as enunciated in our Declaration of Indepen-

ITS NECESSITY AND PEACTICABILITY. 9
dence, and inspired by a truly Democratic sentiment,
now assembled here under the name of the Free De
mocracy. [Cheers.]
The rising pubUc opinion against Slavery cannot
flow in the old poUtical channels. It is impeded, choked,
and dammed back. But if not through the old parties,
then over the old parties [tremendoits cheering], this ir
resistible current shall find its way. [Enthusiasm.] It
cannot be permanently stopped. If the old parties wUl
not become its organs, they must become its victims.
[Cheers.] The party of Freedom wUl certainly prevaU.
[Sensation.] It may be by entering into and possess
ing one of the old parties, filUng it with our own strong
life; or it may be by drawing to itself the good and
true from both who are unwilUng to continue in a po
Utical combination when it ceases to represent their
convictions ; but, in one way or the other, its ultimate
triumph is sure. [Great applause.] Of this let no man
doubt. [Repeated cheers^
At this moment we are in a minority. At the last
popular election in Massachusetts, there were twenty-
eight thousand Free-SoUers, forty-three thousand Dem
ocrats, and sixty-four thousand Whigs. But this is no
reason for discouragement. According to recent esti
mates, the population of the whole world amounts to
about eight hundred miUions. Of these only two hun
dred and sixty miUions are Christians, whUe the re
maining five hundred and forty millions are mainly
Mahometans, Brahmins, and Idolaters. Because the
Christians are in this minority, that is no reason for
renouncing Christianity, and for surrendering to the
false reUgions [cheers] ; nor do we doubt that Christian
ity wiU yet prevaU over the whole earth, as the waters

10 THE PAETY OE FEEEDOM:
cover the sea. [" Kear I hear ! "] The friends of Fre©'
dom in Massachusetts are Ukewise in a minority; but
they wUl not therefore renounce Freedom [cheers], nor
surrender to the poUtical Mahometans, Brahmins, and
Idolaters of Baltimore [" Never ! never ! "] ; nor can they
doubt that their cause, Uke Christianity, will yet pre
vaU. [Enthusiastic cheers.]
Our party commends itself. But it is also com
mended by our candidates. [ Cheers,] In aU that makes
the eminent civUian or the accompUshed statesman fit
for the responsibilities of government, they wiU proudly
compare with any of their competitors [applause], whUe
they are dear to our hearts as able, weU-tried, loyal
supporters of those vital principles which we seek to
estabUsh under the Constitution of the United States.
[Applause.] In the Senate, Mr. Hale [cheers] is admit
ted to be foremost in aptitude and readiness for debate,
whether in the general legislation of the country, or in
constant and vaUant championship of our cause. [Ap
plause.] His genial and sun-Uke nature irradiates the
antagonism of poUtical controversy [cheers], while his
active and practical mind, richly stored with various
experience, never faUs to render good service. [Great
cheering.] Of Mr. JuUan, our candidate for the Vice-Presidency,
[" Hear ! hear ! "] let me say simply, that, in abiUty and
devotion to our principles, he is a worthy compeer of
Mr^ Hale. To vote for such men wUl itself be a pleas
ure. But it wUl be doubly so, when we reflect that in
this way we do something to acoompUsh a noble work,
with which the happiness, welfare, and fame of our
country are iadissolubly connected. [Repeated and
enthusiastic cheers.]

ITS NECESSITY AND PEACTICABILITY 11
With such a cause and such candidates, no man can
be disheartened. The tempest may blow, — but ours is
a life-boat, not to be harmed by wind or wave. The
Genius of Liberty sits at the helm. I hear her voice of
cheer, saying, " Whoso sails with me comes to shore ! "
Mr. Simmer resumed his seat amid heartiest and long-protracted
applause.

CIVIL SUPERINTENDENTS OF ARMORIES.
Speech in the Senate, on the Proposition to change the Super-
INTENnENTS OF ArMORIES, FEBRUARY 23, 1853.

The Army Appropriation BiU being under discussion, Mr. Davis, of
Massachusetts, moved the foUowing amendment : — -
" That from and after the first day of July next, the Aot of Congress
approved August 23, 1842, be so modified, that the President may, if in
his opinion the public interest demands it, place over any of the armories
a superintendent who does not belong to the Army."
In the course of the debate, Mr. Sunmer spoke as foUows.
ME. PEESIDENT, — I do not desire to speak upon
the general subject of the manufacture of arms un
der the authority of the United States, which has been
opened in debate by honorable Senators. What I have
to say wUl be on the precise question before the Senate,
and nothing else. That question, as I understand it, is on
the amendment proposed by my coUeague [Mr. Davis],
according to which the Act of 1842 is to be so far modi
fied, that the President, in his discretion, may place over
the armories persons not of the army, — leaving it, there
fore, to his judgment whether the superintendent shaU
be a miUtary man or a civiUan. This is aU.
The Senate is exhorted not to act precipitately. But
the character of this proposition excludes aU idea of
precipitation. We do not determine absolutely that the
system shaU be changed, but simply that it may be
changed in the discretion of the President. This discre
tion, which wiU be exercised only after ample inquiry,

CIVIL SUPEEINTENDENTS OF AEMOEIES. 13
stands in the way of aU precipitation ; and this is my
answer to the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Shields].
Again, it is urged, that under a miUtary head the
armories are better administered than they would be
under a civil head, and that the arms are better and
cheaper ; and here my friend from South CaroUna, who
sits before me [Mr. Butlee], dwelt with his accus
tomed glow upon the success with which this manufac
ture is conducted at the national armories, and the ex
tent to which it is recognized in Europe. But, Sir, in
the precise question before you the merits of the armories
are not involved. We do not undertake to judge the
miUtary superintendents or their works. The determi
nation of this question is referred to the President ; and
this is my answer to the Senator from South CaroUna.
The objections to this amendment of my coUeague,
then, seem to disappear. But there are two distinct ar
guments in its favor, which, at the present moment, do
not seem to me susceptible of any answer.
In the first place, there are complaints against the
existing system, which ought to be heard. A memorial
from five hundred legal voters of Springfield, now on
your table, bears testimony to them. Letters to myself
and others, from persons whose opinions I am bound to
regard, set them forth sometimes in very strong lan
guage. The administration of the arsenal at Springfield
is commended by many; but there are others who judge
it differently. As now conducted, it is sometimes rep
resented to be the seat of oppressive conduct, and the
occasion of heart-burning and strffe, often running into
local poUtics. In the eyes of some this arsenal is Uttle
better than a sore on that beautiful town. Now on
these complaints and aUegations I express no opinion.

14 CIVIL SUPEETNTENDENTS OF AEMOEIES.
I do not affirm their truth or untruth. What I know
of the superintendent makes it difficult for me to be
Ueve that anything unjust, oppressive, or hard can pro
ceed from him. But the whole case justifies inquiry at
least, and such wiU be secured by the proposition before
the Senate. This is the smaUest thing we can do.
This proposition is enforced by another consideration
which seems to me entitled to weight. I have nothing
to say now on the general question of reducing the
army or modifying the existing miUtary system. But I
do affirm, confidently, that the genius of our institutions
favors civil Ufe rather than miUtary life, — and that, in
harmony with this, it is our duty, whenever the pubUc
interests wiU permit, to limit and restrict the sphere of
mUitary influence. This is not a military monarchy,
where the soldier is supreme, but a repubUc, where the
soldier yields to the civiUan. But the law, as it now
stands, gives to the soldier an absolute preference in a
service which is not military, and which, from its na
ture, belongs to civU Ufe. The manufacture of arms is
a mechanical pursuit, and, for myseff, I can see no rea
son why it should not be placed in charge of one bred
to the business. Among the intelUgent mechanics of
Massachusetts there are many fuUy fit to be at the
head of the arsenal at Springfield ; but by the existing
law aU these are austerely excluded from any such
trust. The idea which has faUen from so many Sena
tors, that the superintendent of an armory ought to be
a miUtary man, that a miUtary man only is compe
tent, or even that a military man is more competent
than a civiUan, seems to me as iUogical as the jocular
faUacy of Dr. Johnson, that he "who drives fat oxen
should himself be fat."

NECESSITY OF UNION TO UPHOLD FREEDOM.
Letter to a Bhode Islaih) Committee, AIaroh 26, 1853.

Washington, March 26, 1853.
DEAE SIE, — I cannot promise myself the pleasure
of being in Ehode Island at the time you propose,
and am therefore constraiaed to decline the invitation
with which you have honored me.
But let me assure you, that, ia aU our poUtical con
tests, I see no question comparable in practical impor
tance, as surely there is none equal in moral grandeur,
to that which is presented by the Free Democracy, and
which now enlists your sympathies.
Both the old parties unite in upholding Slavery. It
becomes aU good citizens to unite in upholding Free
dom ; nor should any one beUeve that his siagle vote
may not exert an influence on the struggle.
BeUeve me, dear Sir, faithfuUy yours,
Chaeles Sumnee.
George L. Clarke, Chairman of the State Central Committee of
the Free Democracy of Khode Island.

AGAINST SECRECY IN PROCEEDINGS OF THE SENATE.
Speech in the Senate, on the Proposition to limit the Secret
Sessions of the Senate, April 6, 1853.

The following resolution was submitted by Mr. Chase, of Ohio.
" Reiolved, That all sessions and all proceedings of the Senate shall be
public and open, except when matters communicated in confidence by the
President shall be received and considered, and iu such other oases as the
Senate by resolution from time to time shall specially order; and so much
of the thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, and fortieth rules as may be inconsistent
with this rule is hereby rescinded."
In the debate which ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke as foUows.

ME. PEESIDENT, — Party aUusions and party con
siderations have been brought to bear upon this
question. I wish to regard it for a moment in the Ught
of the Constitution, and in the spirit of our institutions.
In the Constitution there is no injunction of secrecy on
any of the proceedings of the Senate ; nor is there any
requirement of publicity. To the Senate is left the de
termination of its rules of proceeding. Thus abstaining
from all regulation of this matter, the framers of the
Constitution obviously regarded it as in all respects
within the discretion of the Senate, to be exercised from
time to time as it thinks best.
The Senate possesses three important functions : first,
the legislative or parUamentary power, where it acts
concurrently with the House of Eepresentatives, as weU

AGAINST SECEECY IN THE SENATE. 17
as the President ; secondly, the diplomatic power, or that
of " advice and consent " to treaties with foreign countries
in concurrence with the President; and, thirdly, the
executive power, or that of " advice and consent '' to
nominations by the President for offices under the Con
stitution. I say nothing of another, rarely caUed into
activity, the sole power to try impeachments.
At the first organization of the Government, the pro
ceedings of the Senate, whether in legislation or on
treaties or nominations, were with closed doors. In
this respect legislative business and executive business
were aUke. This continued down to the second session
of the Third Congress, in 1794, when, in pursuance of a
formal resolution, the gaUeries were opened so long as
the Senate were engaged in their legislative capacity,
unless where, in the opinion of the Senate, secrecy
was required; and this rule has continued ever since.
Here was an exercise of discretion, in obvious har
mony with pubUc sentiment and the spirit of our in
stitutions. The change now proposed goes stUl further. It opens
the doors on aU occasions, whether legislative or ex
ecutive, except when speciaUy ordered otherwise. The
Senator from South CaroUna [Mr. Butlee] says that
the Senate is a confidential body, and should be ready
to receive confidential communications from the Presi
dent. But this wUl stUl be the case, if we adopt
the resolution now submitted to us. The limitation
proposed seems adequate to aU exigencies, while the
general rule will be publicity. Executive sessions with
closed doors, shrouded from the pubUc gaze and pubUc
criticism, constitute an exceptional part of our system,
too much in harmony with the proceedings of other
vol. IV. — 2

18 AGAINST SECEECY IN THE SENATE.
Governments less Uberal in character. The genius of
our institutions requires pubUcity. The ancient Eoman,
who bade his architect so to construct his house that his
guests and aU that he did could be seen by the world,
is a fit model for the American people.

THE GERMAN EMIGRANT MUST BE AGAINST
SLAVERY.
Letter to Lewis Tappan, Esq., Mat 17, 1853.

Boston, May 17, 1853.
DEAE SIE, — I know Mr. Schmidt by the good
name he has won, and I have also had the pleas
ure of making his personal acquaintance. I under
stand hJTn to be a scholar, beUeving in the demand
which Liberty in our country now makes upon every
citizen. Thus endowed in mind and character, he wUI
address his compatriots from Germany, in their own
language, with persuasive power. I trust he wiU find
the opportunity he covets ; and I know of none which
promises better than his present plan of a Weekly Ger
man Antislavery Newspaper at Washington.
The number of persons to be addressed by such a
journal is very large ; and they should be easy converts.
The German emigrant who is not against Slavery here
leads us to doubt the sincerity of his opposition to the
Tyranny he has left behind in his native land.
BeUeve me, dear Sir, faithfuUy yours,
Chaeles Sumnee.
Lewis Tappan, Esq.

POWERS OF THE STATE OVER TEE IILITIA:
EXEMPTIONS rOK CONSCIENTIOUS SCEUPLES,
Speech in Convention to revise and amend the Constitution
OE Massachusetts,' June 21, 1853.

Propositions of amendment on the general subject of the MUitia
being under consideration in Committee of the Whole, Mr. Sumner
spoke as foUows.
I SHOULD Uke to caU the attention of the Commit
tee to the precise question on which we are to vote.
This does not, as it seems to me, properly open the dis
cussion to which we have been listening. I do not un
derstand that it involves the topics introduced by my
friend opposite [Mr. Wilson], — the present condition
of Europe, the prospects of the Uberal cause in that quar
ter of the globe, or the extent to which that cause may
be affected by a contemporaneous movement for peace.
Nor do I understand that the important considerations
introduced by the gentleman on my right [Mr. Whit
ney, of Boylston], regarding the extent to which Gov
ernment may be intrusted with the power of the sword,
can materiaUy influence our decision. I put these
things aside at this time.
1 The members of this Convention were not required to have their
domiciles in the places which they represented. Mr. Sumner sat as
member for Marsliiield, by which place he was chosen while absent from
the State.

exemptions foe conscientious SCEUPLES. 21
The question is on the final passage of the fifteen
resolutions reported by the Committee on the MUitia.
And here let me adopt a suggestion dropped by my
friend opposite [Mr. Wilson]. He regretted, if I under
stood him, that this whole subject was not compressed
into one or two resolutions. Am I right ?
Mb. Wilson. The gentleman is correct.
Me. Sumnee. I agree with him. I regret that it was
not compressed into one or two resolutions. I object
to these resolutions for several reasons. In the first
place, there are too many ; in the second place, at least
two of them seem to be an assumption of power belong
ing to Congress, and therefore at least of doubtful con-
stitutionaUty ; and, in the third place, because twelve
of them undertake to control matters which it were
better to leave with the Legislature.
On the formation of the Constitution of Massachu
setts, in 1780, it was natural that our fathers should
introduce detaUs with regard to the mUitia and its or
ganization. The Constitution of the United States had
not then been made. But since the estabUshment of
this Constitution the whole condition of the miUtia is
changed. Among the powers expressly given to Con
gress is the power "to provide for organizing, arming,
and discipUning the mUitia, and for goveming such part
of them as may be employed in the service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively the appoint
ment of the officers, and the authority of training the mi
Utia according to the discipUne prescribed by Congress."
And Congress has proceeded to exercise this power by
the organization of a national militia. Whatever might
have been the original inducement to multiform provis
ions on this subject in the Constitution of Massachu-

22 POWEES of the state ovee the militia:
setts, none such exists at this day, and it is impoUtic at
least to introduce them.
I fear that they are more than impoUtic. I wUI not
argue here the question of Constitutional Law; but I
appeal to the better judgment of my professional breth
ren — and I am happy to see some of them Ungering at
this late hour — that any attempt on the part of the
State to interfere, ia any way, by addition or subtrac
tion, with the organization of the national miUtia, is an
experiment which we should not introduce into the per
manent text of our organic law. If the decisions of the
Supreme Court of the United States on the powers of
Congress are to prevaU, then, it seems to me, any such
assumption, in a case where the original power of Con
gress is clear, wiU be unconstitutional and void. In
the famous case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, after an elab
orate discussion at the bar, aU State legislation on the
subject of fugitive slaves was declared unconstitutional
and void, whUe Congress is recognized as the sole de
pository of power on this subject. According to my
recoUection, it was expressly held that legislation by
Congress excluded aU State legislation on the same sub
ject, whether to control, quaUfy, or superadd to the rem
edy enacted by Congress. I commend gentlemen, now
so swift with these provisions, to the study of this prece
dent. It is comparatively recent ; and the principle of
interpretation which it estabUshes is appUcable to State
laws on the miUtia, even though entirely inappUcable
to State laws on fugitive slaves, — for the simple reason,
that in the former case the original power of Congress
is clear, whUe in the latter it is denied.
But the States are not without power over the militia..
In the very grant to Congress is a reservation to them

exemptions foe conscientious SCEUPLES. 23
as foUows: "reserving to the States respectively the
appointment of the officers, and the authority of train
ing the miUtia according to the discipUne prescribed
by Congress." And here is precisely what the States
can do. They may appoint the officers and train the
militia. Now, Sir, the first two resolutions before us transcend
the powers of the State. They touch the enrolment
and organization of the miUtia, and on this account are
an assumption of power forbidden by the principle to
which I have referred. The other thirteen resolutions,
with the exception of the seventh, are in the nature of
a mUitary code, concerning the choice of officers, aU of
which should be left to the action of the Legislature.
In conformity with these views, Mr. Chairman, and
in the hope of presenting a proposition on which the
Convention may unite, I propose to strike out aU after
the preamble and insert two resolutions, as foUows.
Art. 1. The Govemor shaU be the Commander-in-Chief of
the Army and Navy of the State, and the Militia thereof,
excepting when these forces shaU be actuaUy in the service
of the United States, — and shall have power to call out the
same to aid in the execution of the laws, to suppress insur
rection, and to repel invasion.
Art. 2. The appointment of officers and the training of
the Mihtia shaU be regulated in such manner as may here
after be deemed expedient by the Legislature ; and all per
sons, who from scruples of conscience shaU be averse to
bearing arms, shaU be excused on such conditions as shall
hereafter be prescribed by law.
The first of these resolutions is identical with the
seventh resolution of the Committee. The second pro
vides for the exercise by the Legislature of powers ex-

24 POWEES OF THE STATE OVEE THE MILITIA.
pressly reserved to the States over the appointment of
officers and the training of the mUitia ; and taking ad
vantage of the Act of Congress which aUows the States
to determine who shaU be exempted from miUtary duty,
it plants in the text of the Constitution a clause by
which this immunity is secured to aU persons who
from scruples of conscience are averse to bearing arms.
I beUeve we cannot go far beyond these without doing
too much, whUe these seem to me enough.

POWERS OF THE STATE OVER THE MILITIA
COLOEED COMPANIES.
Speech in Convention to revise and amend the Constitution
OP Massachusetts, June 22, 1853.

On 22d June the foUowing resolution was brought forward by Mr.
"WUson : —
" Sesolved, That no distinction shall ever be made, in the organization of
the volunteer militia of this Commonwealth, on account of color or race."
On this proposition Mr. Sunmer spoke as foUows.
IHAVE a suggestion for my friend opposite [Mr.
Wilson], in regard to the form of his proposition,
which, if he accepts it, wiU, as it seems to me, abso
lutely remove his proposition from the criticism of my
most eloquent friend before me [Mr. Choate], and from
the criticism of other gentlemen who have addressed the
Convention. I suggest to strike out the word "militia,"
and substitute the words "miUtary companies," so that
his proposition wUl read, " that in the organization of
the volunteer mUitary companies of the Commonwealth
there shaU be no distinction of color or race.''
Mr. Wilson. I accept the suggestion, and will amend
my proposition accordingly.
Me. Sumnee. Now the proposition, as amended, I
assert, is absolutely consistent with the Constitution
of the United States, and, I beUeve, in conformity with
the pubUc sentiment of Massachusetts.
A brief inquiry wUl show that it is consistent with
the Constitution of the United States, and in no respect

26 POWEES OF THE STATE OVEE THE MILITIA :
interferes with the organization of the National MUitia.
That Constitution provides for organizing, arming, and
discipUning the mUitia, and gives Congress fuU power
over the subject, — in which particular, be it observed,
it is clearly distinguishable from that of fugitive slaves,
over whom no such power is given. To be more ex
pUcit, I wiU read the clause. It is found in the long
Ust of enumerated powers of Congress, and is as foUows :
"The Congress shaU have power to provide for organ
izing, arming, and disciplining the miUtia, and for gov
erning such part of them as may be employed in the
service of the United States, reserving to the States
respectively the appointment of the officers, and the
authority of training the militia according to the disci
pline prescribed by Congress." And then, at the close
of the section, it is further declared, that Congress shaU
have power " to make all laws which shall be necessary
and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing
powers." In pursuance of this power. Congress has proceeded,
by various laws, " to provide for organizing, arming, and
disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of
them as may be employed in the service of the United
States." The earUest of these laws, stUI in force, is
entitled "An act more effectuaUy to provide for the
national defence, by establishing an uniform mUitia
throughout the United States."^ TMs was foUowed by
several acts in addition. Congress, then, has under
taken to exercise the power of " organizing " the miUtia
under the Constitution.
Here the question arises, to what extent, if any, this
power, when already exercised by Congress, is exclusive
1 Act of May 8, 1792, oh. 33.

COLOEED COMPANIES. 27
in character. Among the powers delegated to Congress
there may be some not for the time being exercised.
For instance, there is the power " to fix the standard of
weights and measures." PracticaUy, this has never been
exercised by Congress ; but it is left to each State with
in its own jurisdiction. On the other hand, there is a
power, belonging to the same group, " to estabUsh imi-
form laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout
the United States," which, when exercised by Congress,
has been held so far exclusive as to avoid at once all
the bankrupt and insolvent laws of the several States.
I might go over aH the powers of Congress, and find
constant iUustration of the subject. For instance, there
is the power "to estabUsh an uniform rule of natu
raUzation," on which Chief Justice MarshaU once re
marked, "That the power of naturaUzation is eocclu-
sively in Congress does not seem to be, and certainly
ought not to be, controverted."^ There is the power "to
regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the
several States," which was early declared by the Su
preme Court to be exclusive, so as to prevent the exer
cise of any part of it by the States.^ There is the power
over patents and copyrights, which is also regarded as
exclusive. So also is the power "to define and punish
piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and
offences against the Law of Nations." So also is that
other power, "to estabUsh post-offices and post-roads."
AU these powers, as in the case of the power over the
National MUitia, have been exercised by Congress, and
even if not absolutely exclusive in original character,
have become so by exercise.
1 Chirac v. Chirac, 2 Wheaton, 269.
3 Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheaton, 198.

28 POWEES OF THE STATE OVEE THE MILITIA :
Now, Sir, upon what ground do gentlemen make any
discrimination in the case of the power over the Na
tional MiUtia ? I know of none which seems at aU
tenable. It is natural that the States should desire to
exercise this power, since it was so important to them
before the Union ; but I do not see how any discrimina
tion can be maintained at the present time. Whatever
may have been the original importance of the militia
to each State, yet, when the National Constitution was
formed, and Congress exercised the power delegated to
it over this subject, the mUitia of the several States was
absorbed into one uniform body, organized, armed, and
discipUned as the National MUitia. To the States re
spectively, according to the express language of the Con
stitution, was left " the appointment of the officers, and
the authority of training the miUtia according to the
discipUne prescribed by Congress." To this may be
added the impUed power of " governing " them when in
the service of the State. This is aU. The distinct spe
cification of certain powers, as reserved to the States, ex
cludes the States from the exercise of aU other powers
not specified or clearly impUed. In other words, they
are excluded from aU power over the " organizing, arm
ing, and discipUning the mUitia," at least after Congress
has undertaken to enact laws for this purpose.
The history of the adoption of the several parts of
this clause in the National Convention reflects Ught
upon its true meaning. The first part, in regard to
organizing, arming, and discipUning the miUtia, was
passed by a vote of nine States against two ; the next,
reserving the appointment of officers to the States, after
an ineffectual attempt to amend it by confining the ap
pointment to officers under the rank of general officers.

COLOEED COMPANIES. 29
was passed without a division ; and the last, reserving
to the States the authority to train the miUtia accord
ing to the discipline prescribed by Congress, was passed
by a vote of seven States against four.^ It seems, then,
that there was strong opposition in the Convention,
even to the secondary reservation of " the authority of
training the militia." But this power is not reserved
unquaUfiedly. The States are to train the mUitia " ac
cording to the discipline prescribed by Congress " : not
according to any discipline determined by the States, or
by the States concurrently with the National Govern
ment, but absolutely according to the discipline pre
scribed by Congress, — nor more, nor less : thus distinct
ly recognizing the essentiaUy exclusive character of the
legislation of Congress on this subject.
This interpretation derives confirmation from the
manner in which the militia of England was constituted
or organized at the time of the adoption of the National
Constitution. To the crown was given "the sole right
to govem and command them," though they were " offi
cered" by the Lord Lieutenant, the Deputy Lieutenants,
and other principal landholders of the county.^ The Com
mentaries of Sir WUUam Blackstone, from which this de
scription is drawn, were famiUar to the members of the
Convention ; and it is reasonable to suppose, that, in the
distribution of powers between the National Government
and the States, on this subject, the pecuUar arrangement
prevaUing in the mother country was not disregarded.
If it should be said, that the adoption of this conclu
sion would affect the character of many laws enacted
by States, and thus far recognized as ancUlary to the
1 Madison's Debates, August 23, 1787.
* Blackstone, Commentaries, I. 412, 413.

30 POWEES OF THE STATE OVEE THE MILITIA:
National MUitia, it may be repUed, that the possibiUty
of these consequences cannot justly influence our con
clusions on a question which must be determined by ac
knowledged principles of Constitutional Law. In obe
dience to these same principles, the Supreme Court, in
the case of Prigg v. Pennsylvania, after asserting a pow
er over fugitive slaves which is controverted, has pro
ceeded to annul a large number of statutes in different
States. Mr. Justice Wayne in this case said, "that
the legislation by Congress upon the provision, as the
supreme law of the land, excludes all State legislation
upon the same subject, — and that no State can pass any
law or regiUation, or interpose such as may have been a
law or regulation when the Constitution of the United
States was ratified, to superadd to, control, quaUfy, or
impede a remedy enacted by Congress for the deUvery
of fugitive slaves to the parties to whom their service
or labor is due." ^ Without the sanction of any express
words in the Constitution, and chiefly, if not solely, im
pressed by the importance of consulting " unity of pur
pose or vmiformity of operation "^ in the legislation with
regard to fugitive slaves, the Court assumed a power
over this subject, and then, as a natural incident to this
assumption, excluded the States from aU sovereignty in
the premises.
If this rule be appUcable to the pretended power over
fugitive slaves, it is stUl more appUcable to the power
over the militia which nobody questions. Besides, I
know of no power which so absolutely requires what
has been regarded as an important criterion, " unity of
purpose or uniformity of operation." No uniform mUi
tary organization can spring from opposite or inharmoni-
1 Prigg V. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 636. a Ibid., 624.

COLOEED COMPANIES. 31
ous systems, and all systems proceeding from different
sources are Uable to be opposite or inharmonious.
Now, Sir, let us apply this reasoning to the matter in
hand. In Massachusetts there exists, and has for a
long time existed, an anomalous system, famiUarly and
loosely described as the Volunteer MiUtia, not com
posed absolutely of those enroUed under the laws of the
United States, but a smaUer, more select, and pecu
Uar body. It caimot be doubted that the State, by
virtue of its police powers within its own borders, has
power to constitute or organize a body of volunteers to
aid in enforcing its laws. But it does not foUow that
it has power to constitute or organize a body of volun
teers who shaU be regarded as part of the National
MiUtia. And, Sir, I make bold to say that the volun
teer militia. — I prefer to call it the volunteer mUitary
companies — caimot be regarded as part of the Na
tional MiUtia. It is no part of that uniform militia
which it was the object of the early Act of Congress to
organize. It may appear to be part of this system, it
may affect to be, but I pronounce it a mistake to sup
pose that it is so in any just constitutional sense.
As a local system, disconnected from the National
MiUtia, and not in any way constrained by its organi
zation, it is within our jurisdiction. We are free to
declare the principles which shaU govem it. We may
declare, that, whatever may be the existing law of the
United States with regard to its enroUed militia, — and
with this I propose no interference, because it would be
futUe, — I say, Massachusetts may proudly declare that
in her own volunteer miUtary companies, marshaUed un
der her own local laws, there shaU be no distinction of
race or color.

THE PACIFIC RAILROAD AND THE DECLARA
TION OF INDEPENDENCE.
Letter to the Mayor op Boston, for the Celebration of
July 4, 1853.
Boston, July 1, 1853.
DEAE SIE, — It wUl not be in my power to unite
with the City CouncU of Boston in the approach
ing celebration of our national anniversary; but I beg
to assure you that I am not insensible to the honor of
their invitation.
The day itself comes fuU of quickening suggestions,
which can need no prompting fi'om me. And yet, with
your permission, I would gladly endeavor to associate at
this time one special aspiration with the general glad
ness. Allow me to propose the foUowing toast.
The Railroad from, the Atlantic to the Pacific. — Trav
ersing a whole continent, and binding together two oceans,
this mighty thoroughfare, when completed, will mark an
epoch of human progress second only to that of our Decla
ration of Independence. May the day soon come !
BeUeve me, dear Sir, faithfuUy yours,
Charles Sumnee.
Hon. Benjamin Sea ver, Mayor, &c.

THE REPRESENTATIVE SYSTEM, AND ITS
PROPER BASIS.
Speech on the Proposition to amend the Basis of the House of
Representatives of Massachusetts, m the Convention to revise
AND AMEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THAT StATE, JuLT 7, 1853.

ME. PEESIDENT, — If the question under consid
eration were less important in its bearings, or less
embarrassed by confficting opinions, I should hesitate
to break the sUence which I have been inclined to pre
serve in this Convention. In taking the seat to which
I was unexpectedly chosen whUe absent from the Com
monwealth, in another sphere of duty, I felt that it
would be becoming in me, and that my associates
here would recognize the propriety of my course, con
sidering the Uttle opportunity I had enjoyed of late
to make myself acquainted with the sentiments of the
people on proposed changes, especiaUy in comparison
with friends to whom this movement is mainly due,
— on these accounts, as also on other accounts, I felt
that it would be becoming in me to interfere as Uttle -as
possible with these debates. To others I willingly left
the part which I might have taken.
And now, whUe I think, that, since our labors began,
weeks, even months, have passed, and that the term is
already reached, when, according to the just expecta
tions and earnest desires of many, they shoiUd be closed.

34 THE eepeesentative system,
I feel that acts rather than words, that votes rather
than speeches, — at least such as I might hope to make,
— are needed here, to the end that the Convention, sea
sonably and effectively completing its beneficent work,
may itself be haUed as a Great Act in the history of the
Commonwealth. But the magnitude of this question justifies debate ;
and aUow me to add, that the State, our common mother,
may feel proud of the abUity, the eloquence, and the
good temper with which it has thus far been conducted.
Gentlemen have addressed the Convention in a manner
which would grace any assembly that it has been my
fortime to know, at home or abroad. Sir, the charac
ter of these proceedings gives new assurance for the
future. The alarmist, who starts at every suggestion of
change, and the croaker, who augurs constant evU from
the irresistible tendency of events, must confess that
there are men here to whose intelUgence and patriot
ism, under God, the interests of our beloved Common
wealth may weU be intrusted. Yes, Sir, Massachusetts
is safe. Whatever the result even of the present im
portant question, whichsoever scheme of representation
may be adopted, Massachusetts wiU continue to prosper
as in times past.
In the course of human history, two States, smaU in
territory, have won enviable renown by genius and de
votion to Freedom, so that their very names awaken
echoes : I refer to Athens and Scotland. But Athens,
— even at Salamis, repeUing the Persian host, or after
wards, in the golden days of Pericles, — and Scotland,
throughout her long struggle with England, down to the
very Act of Union at the beginning of the last century,
— were each inferior, in population and wealth, to Mas-

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 36
sachusetts at this moment. It belongs to us, according
to our capacities, to see that this comparison does not
end here. Others may beUeve that our duty is best
accomplished by standing stUl. I Uke to beUeve that
it can be completely done only by constant, incessant
advance in aU things, — in knowledge, in science, in
art, and lastly in government itself, destined to be the
bright consummation, on earth, of aU knowledge, aU
science, and aU art.
In framing oui Constitution anew, we encounter a
difficulty which at its original formation, in 1780, per
plexed our fathers, — which perplexed the Convention
of 1820, — which with its perplexities has haunted suc
cessive Legislatures and the whole people down to this
day, — and which now perplexes us. This difficulty
occurs in determining the Eepresentative System, and
proceeds mainly from the corporate claims of towns.
From an early period in the State, towns, both great
and smaU, with sUght exceptions, have sent one or more
representatives to the Legislature. In primitive days,
when towns were few and the whole population was
scanty, this arrangement was convenient at least, if not
equitable. But now, with the increased number of
towns, and the unequal distribution of a large popula
tion, it has become inconvenient, if not ineqmtable.
The existing system does not work weU, and we are
summoned to reform it.
And here. Sir, let me congratulate the Convention,
that, on this most important question, transcending
every other, aU of us, without distinction of party, are
in favor of reform. AU are Eeformers. The existing
system finds no advocate on this floor. Nobody here

36 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
wUl do it reverence. If the caU of the Convention were
not aUeady amply vindicated, if there were doubt any
where of its expediency, the remarkable concurrence
of aU sides in condemning the existing representative
system shows that we have not come together without
cause. The orders of the day have been fiUed with various
plans to meet the exigency. Most of these aimed to
preserve the corporate representation of towns ; some of
them, at least one from the venerable gentleman from
Taunton [Mr. Moeton], and another from the venerable
gentleman from Boston [Mr. Hale], favored an oppo
site system, hitherto untried among us, and proposed to
divide the State into districts. The question has been
between these hostUe propositions ; and that is the ques
tion which I propose to consider, in the Ught of history
and abstract principle, as also with reference to pres
ent exigencies. I shaU speak, first, of the origin and
nature of the Eepresentative System, and its proper
character under American institutions ; and, secondly, I
shaU endeavor to indicate the principles which may
conduct us to a practical conclusion in the present de
bate. Entering upon this service at so late a stage of
the discussion, I feel like a tardy gleaner in a weU-trav-
ersed field ; but I shaU proceed.

I BEGIN with the Origin and Nature of the Eepre
sentative System. This is an invention of modern
times. In antiqmty there were repubUcs and democra
cies, but there was no Eepresentative System. Eulers
were chosen by the people, as in many Commonwealths ;

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. * 37
senators were jiesignated by the king or by the censors,
as in Eome ; ambassadors or legates were sent to a Fed
eral CouncU, as to the Assembly of the Amphictyons ;
but in no ancient state was any body of men ever con
stituted by the people to represent them in the admin
istration of their internal affairs. In Athens, the people
met in pubUc assembly, and directly acted for them
selves on aU questions, foreign or domestic. This was
possible there, as the State was smaU, and the Assem
bly seldom exceeded five thousand citizens, — a large
town-meeting, or mass-meeting, we might caU it, — not
inaptly termed " that fierce democratic " of Athens.
But where the territory was extensive, and the popu
lation scattered and numerous, there could be no assem
bly of the whole body of citizens. To meet this precise
difficulty the Eepresentative System was devised. By
a machinery so obvious that we are astonished it was
not employed in the ancient Commonwealths, the peo
ple, though scattered and numerous, are gathered, by
their chosen representatives, into a smaU and deUbera-
tive assembly, where, without tumult or rashness, they
consider and determine aU questions which concern
them. In every representative body, properly consti
tuted, the people are practicaUy present.
Nothing is invented and perfected at the same time ;
and this system is no exception to the rule. In Eng
land, where it reached its earUest vigor, it has been, and
still is, anomalous in character. The existing divisions
of the country, composed of boroughs, cities, and coun
ties, were summoned by the king's writ to send repre
sentatives, with Uttle regard to equaUty of any kind,
whether of population, taxation, or territory. Their ex
istence as corporate units was the prevaUing title. The

38 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
irregular operation of the system, increasing with lapse
of time, provoked a cry for ParUamentary Eeform,
which, after a struggle of more than fifty years, ending
in a debate that occupied the House of Commons more
than fifty days, was finaUy carried ; but, though many
abuses and inequaUties were removed, yet the anoma
lous representation by counties, cities, and boroughs stiU
continued. And this. Sir, is the EngUsh system.
Pass now to the American system. I say Ajnerican
system, — for to our country belongs the honor of first
giving to the world the idea of a system which, dis
carding corporate representation, founded itself abso
lutely on equaUty. Let us acknowledge with gratitude
that from England have come five great and ever mem
orable institutions, by which Liberty is secured : I
mean the Trial by Jury, — the writ of Habeas Corpus, —
the Eepresentative System, — the Eules and Orders of
Debate, — and, lastly, that benign principle which pro
nounces that its air is too pure for a slave to breathe :
perhaps the five most important political estabUshments
of modern times. This glory cannot be taken from the
mother country. But America has added to the Eepre
sentative System another principle, without which it is
incomplete, and which, in the course of events, is des
tined, I cannot doubt, to find acceptance wherever the
Eepresentative System is employed: I mean the prin
ciple of equality.
Here in Massachusetts, home of the ideas out of
which sprang the Eevolution, this principle had its ear
liest expression. And it is not a Uttle curious that this
very expression was suggested by the two evils of which
we now complain, — namely, a practical inequaUty of
rejjresentation, and a too numerous House.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 39
In the earUest days of the Colony, whUe the number
of freemen was smaU and gathered in one neighbor
hood, there was no occasion for any representative body.
All could then meet in pubUc assembly, as at ancient
Athens ; in fact, they did so meet, and in this way dis
charged the duties of legislation. But as the freemen
became scattered and numerous, it was found grievous
to compel the personal attendance of the whole body,
and, as a substitute, the towns were empowered, in 1634,
to assemble in General Court by deputies.^ Here was
the establishment of the Eepresentative System in Mas
sachusetts, which has continued, without interruption,
down to our day. The size of the House and the rela
tive representation of towns have varied at different
times ; but the great principle of representation, by
which a substitute is provided for the whole body of
the people, has constantly been preserved. StUl a feel
ing has long prevaUed that the system had not yet
received its final form, whUe, with more or less precis
ion, has been discerned that principle of equaUty which
is essential to its completeness.
Among the acts of the first General Court of the Eev
olution was one passed in the summer of 1775, after
the Battle of Bunker HUl, " declaratory of the right of
the towns and districts to elect and depute a represen
tative or representatives to serve for and represent them
in the General Court." By this act aU provisions of
previous acts denying to certain towns and districts the
right of sending a representative were declared nuU and
void, and every town containing thirty qualified voters
1 Hntchinson, History of Massachnsetts, Vol. L pp. 30, 39. Charters and
General Laws of the Colony and Province of Massachnsetts Bay, Appen
dix, p. 713. Records of the Govemor and Company of the Massachusetts
Say, VoL L pp. 116 - 118.

40 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
was authorized to send one.^ The immediate conse
quence was the two evils to which I have already
referred, — namely, inequaUty of representation, and a
too numerous House : but the whole number of repre
sentatives which aroused the complaints of that day
was three hundred and five.
These grievances were the occasion of a Convention of
delegates from the towns of Essex Comity, at Ipswich,
AprU 25, 1776, where was adopted a Memorial, after
wards presented and enforced at the bar of the House
by John LoweU. In this remarkable document occurs
the first development, if not the first proclamation, of
the principle of equaUty in representation. Here, Sir,
is the fountain and origin of an idea fuU of strength,
beauty, and trutL Listen to the words of these Eevo
lutionary fathers.
" If this representation is equal, it is perfect ; as far as it
deviates from this equality, so far it is imperfect, and ap
proaches to that state of slavery ; and the want of a just
weight in representation is an evil nearly akin to being to
taUy destitute of it. An inequality of representation has
been justly esteemed the cause which has in a great degree
sapped the foundation of the once admired, but now totter
ing, fabric of the British Empire ; and we fear, that, if a dif
ferent mode of representation from the present is not adopted
in this Colony, our Constitution will not continue to that late
period of time which the glowing heart of every true Ameri
can now anticipates 
" We cannot realize that your Honors, our wise pohtical
fathers, have adverted to the present inequahty of represen
tation in this Colony, to the growth of the evil, or to the
fatal consequences which will probably ensue from the con
tinuance of it.
I Charters and General Laws of Massachnsetts Bay, Appendix, pp. 796, 797.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 41
" Each town and district in the Colony is by some late reg
ulations permitted to send one representative to the General
Court, if such town or district consists of thirty freeholders
and other inhabitants qualified to elect ; if of one hundred
and twenty, to send two. No town is permitted to send more
than two, except the town of Boston, which may send four.
There are some towns and districts in the Colony in which
there are between thirty and forty freeholders, and other in
habitants qualified to elect, only ; there are others besides
Boston in which there are more than five hundred. The
first of these may send one representative ; the latter can
send only two. If these towns as to property are to each
other in the same respective proportion, is it not clear to
a mathematical demonstration that the same number of in
habitants of equal property in the one town have but an
eighth part of the weight in representation with the other ? —
and with what colorable pretext? we would decently in
quire." ¦*
Under the pressure of this powerful state paper the
obnoxious law was repealed, and one " providing for a
mxire equal representation" substituted; but the evil
was only partiaUy remedied. Then followed an unsuc
cessful effort to make a Constitution in 1777-8, which
faUed partly through dissatisfaction with its disposal of
this very question. The County of Essex was again
heard in another document, now known as the " Essex
Eesult," and among the most able and instructive in
our history, from which I take the foUowing important
words. " The rights of representation should be so equally and
impartially distributed, that the representatives should have
the same views and interests with the people at large. They
1 From the original MS. in the Massachusetts Archives, Vol. 166.

42 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
should think, feel, and act like them, and, in fine, should be
an exact miniature of their constituents. They should be,
if we may use the expression, the whole body politic, with
aU its property, rights, and privileges reduced to a smaUer
scale, every part heing diminished in just proportion. To pur
sue the metaphor, if, in adjusting the representation of free
men, any ten are reduced into cme, all the other tens should be
alike reduced ; or, if any hundred should he reduced to one, all
the other hundreds should have just the same reduction," ^
Mark weU these words. Here is the Eule of Three,
for the first time in history, applied to representation.
This, Sir, is not the EngUsh system. I caU it, with
pride, the American system.
In another place the document proceeds as foUows.
" The rights of representation should also be held sacred
and inviolable, and for this purpose representation should
be fixed upon known and easy principles ; and the Constitu
tion should make provision that recourse should constantly
be had to those principles within a very smaU period of
years, to rectify the errors that will creep in through lapse
of time or alteration of situations." ^
Then, distinctly, it proposes a system of districts, in
words which I quote.
" In forming the first body of legislators, let regard be had
only to the representation of persons, not of property. This
body we caU the House of Eepresentatives. Ascertain the
number of representatives. It ought not to be so large as wiU
1 Eesult of the Convention of Delegates holden at Ipswich, in the County
of Essex, who were deputed to take into Consideration the Constitution and
Form of Government proposed by the Convention of the State of Massachu
setts Bay, (Newburyport, 1778,) pp. 29, 30. See also Memoir of Theophilus
Parsons, by his Son, Appendix, pp. 359 - 402, where this remarkable paper
wUl be found.
» Result, p. 33.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 43
induce an enormous expense to Govemment, nor too unwieldy
to deliberate with coolness and attention, nor so smaU as to
be unacquainted with the situation and circumstances of the
State. One hundred will be large enough, and perhaps it
may be too large. We are persuaded that any number of men
exceeding that cannot do business with such expedition and
propriety as a smaller number could. However, let that at
present be considered as the number. Let us have the
number of freemen in the several counties in the State, and
let these representatives be apportioned among the respec
tive counties in proportion to their number of freemen 
As we have the number of freemen in the county, and the
number of county representatives, by dividing the greater
by the less we have the number of freemen entitled to
send one representative. Then add as many adjoining towns
together as contain that number of freemen, or as near as
may be, and let those towns form one district, and proceed in
this manner through the county." ^
Mr. Hallett, for Wilbraham (interrupting). WiU the
gentleman state who was the author of that Essex paper 1
Mk. Sumnee. Theophilus Parsons is the reputed author
of the document known as the " Essex Eesult."
Mr. Hallett. Yes, Sir, it was Theophilus Parsons who
was the author of that, and John Lowell of the other ; and
good old Tory doctrines they are.
Mr. Sumner. If these be Tory doctrines, I must thmk
weU of Toryism.
Sfr, notwithstanding these appeals, sustained with
unsurpassed abiUty, the American system faUed to be
adopted in the Constitution of 1780. The anomalous
EngUsh system was stUl continued ; but, as if to cover
the departure from principle, it was twice declared that
1 Eesult, pp. 49 - 61.

44 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
the representation of the people should be "founded
upon the principle of equaUty." This declaration stUl
continues as our giude, while the irregular operation
of the existing system, with its inequaUties and large
numbers, is a beacon of warning.
FoUowing closely upon these efforts in Massachu
setts, this principle found an Ulustrious advocate in
Thomas Jefferson. In his " Notes on Virginia," written
in 1781, he sharply exposes the inequalities of repre
sentation ; ^ and a short time afterwards, when the vic
tory at Yorktown had rescued Virginia from invasion
and secured the independence of the United Colonies,
he prepared the draught of a Constitution for his native
State, which, disowning the EngUsh system, and recog
nizing the very principle that had failed in Massachu
setts, expressly provided that " the number of delegates
which each county may send shaU be in proportion to
the number of its qualified electors ; and the whole num
ber of delegates for the State shall be so proportioned to
the wlwle number of qualified electors in it, that they
shaU never exceed three hundred nor be fewer than
one hundred  If any county be reduced in its qual
ified electors below the number authorized to send one
delegate, let it be annexed to some adjoining county." ^
This proposition, which is substantially the Eule of
Three, did not find favor in Virginia, which State, Uke
Massachusetts, was not yet prepared for such a charter
of electoral equaUty ; but it stUl stands as a monument
at once of its author and of the true system of repre
sentation. The American system, though first showing itself in
1 Query XIII.
2 Notes on Virginia, Appendix, No. II. : Works, Vol. VIII., p. 443.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. , 45
Massachusetts and Virginia, found its earUest practical
exempUfication a few years later in the Constitution of
the United States. By the Articles of Confederation
each State was entitled to send to Congress not less
than two nor more than seven representatives, and in
the determination of questions each State had one vote
only. This plan was rejected by the framers of the new
Constitution, and another was adopted, tiU then untried
in the history of the world. It was declared that " rep
resentatives and dfrect taxes shaU be apportioned among
the several States which may be included within this
Union according to their respective numbers": not ac
cording to property, not according to territory, not ac
cording to any corporate rights, but according to their
respective numbers. And this system has continued
down to our day, and wiU continue immortal as the
Union itseU. Here is the Eule of Three actually in
corporated into the Eepresentative System of the United
States. An attempt has been made to render this system
odious, or at least questionable, by charging upon it
something of the excesses of the great French Eevolu
tion. Even if this rule had prevaUed at that time in
France, it would be bold to charge upon it any such
consequences. But it is a mistake to suppose that it
was then adopted in that country. The repubUcan Con
stitution of 1791 was not founded upon numbers only,
but upon numbers, territory, and taxation combined, —
a mixed system, which excluded the true idea of per
sonal equaUty. At the peaceful, almost bloodless, Eevo
lution of 1848, under the lead of Lamartine, a National
Assembly was convened on the simple basis of popu
lation, and one representative was aUowed for every

46 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
forty thousand inhabitants. Here, indeed, is the Eule of
Three ; but the idea originaUy came from our country.
Mr. Hallett. WiU the gentleman for Marshfield aUow
me to make one more inquiry 1
Mr. Sumner. Certainly.
Mr. Hallett. Do I understand the gentleman to say
that the Eule of Three was apphed to representation in the
United States ?
Mr. Sumner. I mean to say that the representation in
the lower House of Congress was apportioned according to
numbers ; and this is the Eule of Three.
A practical question arises here, whether this rule
should be applied to the whole body of population, in
cluding women, chUdren, and unnaturaUzed foreigners,
or to those only who exercise the electoral franchise, —
in other words, to voters. It is probable that the rule
would produce nearly simUar results in both cases, as
voters, except in few places, would bear a uniform
proportion to the whole population. But it is easy to
determine what the priaciple of the Eepresentative Sys
tem requfres. Since its object is to provide a practi
cal substitute for meetings of the people, it should be
founded, in just proportion, on the numbers of those who,
according to our Constitution, can take part in those
meetings, — that is, upon the quaUfied voters. The rep
resentative body should be a miniature or abridgment
of the electoral body, — in other words, of those aUowed
to participate in pubUc affairs. If this conclusion needs
authority, it may be found in the words of Mr. Madi
son, in the Debates on the National Constitution. " It
has been very properly observed," he says, "that rep
resentation is an expedient by which the meeting of
the people themselves is rendered unnecessary, and that

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 47
the representatives ought, therefore, to bear a proportion
to the votes which their constituents, if convened, would
respectively have."^
The Eule of Three, then, appUed to voters, seems to
me sound ; but whether appUed to voters or population,
it is the true rule of representation, and stands on frre-
versible principles. In my view, it commends itself to
the natural reason so obviously, so instinctively, that
I do not feel disposed to dweU upon it. But since it
is caUed in question, I shaU be excused for saying a few
words in its behalf. Its advantages present themselves
in several aspects.
First. I put in the front its constant and equal oper
ation throughout the Commonwealth. Under it, every
man wiU have a representative each year, and every
man wiU have the same representative power as every
other man. In this respect it recognizes a darling idea
of our institutions, which cannot be disowned without
weakening thefr foundations. It gives to the great
principle of human equaUty a new expansion and ap
pUcation. It makes aU men, in the enjojonent of the
electoral franchise, whatever thefr diversities of intelU
gence, education, or wealth, or wheresoever they may
be within the borders of the Commonwealth, whether
in smaU town or in populous city, absolutely equal at
the ballot-box.
I know that there are persons. Sir, who do not hesi-
.tate to assaU the whole doctrine of the equaUty of men,
as enunciated in our Declaration of Independence and
ia our BUl of Eights. In this work two eminent states
men of our own country and England have led the
way.^ But it seems to me, that, if they had chosen to
1 Madison's Debates, .luly 14, 1787, Vol. IL p. 1102.
2 See ante, Vol. II. p. 331.

48 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
comprenend the meaning of the priaciple, much, if not
aU, of thefr objection would have been removed. Very
plain it is that men are not bom equal in physical
strength or in mental capacity, in beauty of form or
health of body. This is apparent to aU, and the differ
ence increases with years. Diversity or inequaUty in
these respects is the law of creation. But as God is no
respecter of persons, and as aU are equal in his sight,
whether rich or poor, whether dweUers in cities or in
fields, so are aU equal in natural rights; and it is an
absurd declamation — of which no gentleman in this
Convention is guUty — -to adduce, in argument against
them, the physical or mental inequaUties by which men
are characterized. Now I am not prepared to class the
electoral franchise among inherent, natural rights, com
mon to the whole human family, without distinction of
age, sex, or residence ; but I do say, that from the equal
ity of men, which we so proudly proclaim, we derive a
just rule for its exercise. For myself, I accept this
principle, and, just so far and just so soon as possible, I
would be guided by it in the system of Eepresentation.
But there are other reasons stiU.
Secondly. The Eule of Three, as appUed to represen
tation, is commended by its simpUcity. It supersedes
aU the painful calculations to which we have been
driven, the long agony of mathematics, as it was caUed
by my friend over the way [Mr. Giles], and is as easy
in appUcation as it is just.
Thirdly. This rule is founded in Nature, and not in
Art, — on natural bodies, and not on artificial bodies, —
on men, and not on corporations, — on souls, and not on
petty geographical Unes. On this account it may be
caUed a natural rule, and, when once estabUshed, wUl

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 49
become fixed and permanent, beyond aU change or de
sfre of change.
And, fourthly, this rule removes, to every possible
extent, those opportunities of poUtical partiaUty and
calculation, in the adjustment of representation, which
are naturaUy incident to any departure from precise
rule. It was beautifuUy said of Law by the greatest in
teUect of Antiquity, that it is mind without passion ; and
this very definition I would extend to a rule which,
with little intervention from human wUl, is graduated
by numbers, passionless as law itself in the conception
of Aristotle. The object of free institutions is to with
draw aU concerns of State, so far as practicable, from
human discretion, and place them under the shield of
human principles, to the end, according to the words
of our Constitution, that there may be " a government of
laws, and not of men." But, just in proportion as we
depart from precise rule, it becomes a government of
men, and not of laws.
Such considerations as these, thus briefly expressed,
seem to vindicate this rule of representation. But I
would not forget the arguments adduced against it.
These assume two distinct forms : one founded on the
character of our towns and the importance of preserving
thefr influence ; the other founded on the aUeged neces
sity of counteracting the centraUzation of power in the
cities. Now of these in thefr order.
And, ffrst, of the importance of preserving our towns.
Sir, I yield to no man in appreciation of the good done
by these free municipaUties. The able member for
Erving [Mr. Geiswold], who began this debate, the
eloquent member for BerUn [Mr. Boutwell], and my
exceUent friend of many years, the accomplished mem-

50 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
ber for Manchester [Mr. Dana], in the masterly speeches
which they have addressed to the Convention, attributed
no good influence to the towns which I do not recog
nize also. With them I agree, cordiaUy, that the towns
of Massachusetts, like the municipaUties of Switzerland,
have been schools and nurseries of freedom, — and that
in these smaU bodies men were early discipUned in
those primal duties of citizenship, which, on a grander
scale, are made the foundation of our whole poUtical
fabric. But I cannot go so far as to attribute this re
markable influence to the assumed fact, that each town
by itseU was entitled to a representative in the legisla
tive body. At the time of the Eevolution this was the
prerogative of most towns, though not of aU ; but it can
not be regarded as the distinctive, essential, life-giving
attribute : at most, it was only an incident.
Sir, the true glory of the towns then was, that they
were organized on the principle of self-government, at a
time when that principle was not generaUy recognized, —
that each town by itseff was a little repubUc, where the
whole body of freemen were voters, with powers of local
legislation, taxation, and administration, and, especially,
with power to choose thefr own head and aU subordi
nate magistrates. The boroughs of England have pos
sessed the power to send a member — often two mem
bers — to Parliament ; but this has not saved them
from corruption ; nor has any person attributed to them,
though in the enjoyment of this franchise, the influ
ence which has proceeded from our municipaUties.
The reason is obvious. They were organized under
charters from the crown, by which local government
was vested, not in the whole body of freemen, but in
smaU councils, or select classes, originaUy nominated

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 51
by the crown, and ever afterwards renewing themselves.
No such abuse prevaUed in our municipaUties ; and
this poUtical health at home, Sfr, and not the incident
of exclusive representation in a distant Legislature, has
been the secret of thefr strength. I would cherish it
ever. This brings me, in the next place, to the objection
founded on centraUzation of power in the cities. It is
said that wealth, business, population, and talent, in
multitudinous forms, aU tend to the cities, and that the
excessive influence of this concentrated mass, quickened
by an active press, by facUities of concert, and by social
appUances, ought to be counterbalanced by aUotment to
the towns of representative weight beyond thefr pro
portion of numbers. Now, Sir, while confessing and re
gretting the present predominance of the cities, I must
be permitted to question the propriety of the proposed
remedy. And here, differing in some respects from
friends on both sides, I make an appeal for candid
judgment of what I shaU candidly say.
Let us deal fairly by the cities. No student of
history can faU to perceive that they have performed
different parts at different stages of the world. In An
tiquity, they were the acknowledged centres of power,
often of tyranny. In the Middle Ages, they became the
home of freedom, and the bridle to feudaUsm. For this
service they should be gratefuUy remembered. And
now there is another change. The armed feudaUsm is
overthrown ; but it is impossible not to see that it has
yielded to a commercial feudaUsm, whose seat is in the
cities, and which, in its way, is hardly less selfish and
exacting than the feudaUsm of the iron hand. My
friend, the member for Manchester [Mr. Dana], was

52 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
clearly right, when he said that the Boston of to-day is
not the Boston of our fathers. Let me be understood.
I make no impeachment of individuals, but simply in
dicate those combined influences proceeding from the
potent Spirit of Trade, which, though unlike that Spirit
of the Lord where is Liberty, is not inconsistent with
the most enlarged munificence. I think, while confess
ing the abounding charities of the rich men whose
eulogy we have heard more than once in this debate,
it must be admitted that those pure principles which
are the breath of the EepubUc now find their truest
atmosphere in calm retreats, away from the strife of
gain and the hot pavements of crowded streets. Sir, it
is not only when we look upon the fields, hUls, and
vaUeys, clad in verdure, and shining with sUver lake
or rivulet, that we are ready to exclaim, —
" God made the country, and man made the town."
But, Sfr, whUe maintaining these opinions, I cannot
admit the argument, that the centralized power of the
cities may be coimteracted by degrading them in the
scale of representation. This cannot be purposely done,
without departing from fundamental principles, and
overthrowing the presiding doctrine of personal equal
ity. Cities are but congregations of men ; and men ex
ert influence in various ways, — by the accident of po
sition, the accident of inteUigence, the accident of prop
erty, the accident of birth, and, lastly, by the vote. It
is the vote only which is not an accident ; and it should
be the boast of Massachusetts, that aU men, whatever
thefr accidents, are equal in their votes.
Here the hammer of the President fell, as the hour expired ; but, hy
unanimous consent, Mr. Sumner proceeded.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 53
The idea of property as a check upon numbers, which
on a former occasion found such favor in this haU, is
now rejected in the adjustment of our Eepresentative
System. And, Sir, I venture to predict that the propo
sition, newly broached in this Commonwealth, to re
strain the cities by curtaUment of thefr just representa
tive power, wiU hereafter be as Uttle regarded.

IL
Me. Peesident, — Such is what I have to say on the
history and principles of the Eepresentative System,
particularly in the Ught of American institutions ; and
this brings me to the practical question at this moment.
I cannot doubt that the District System, as it is gen
erally caUed, whereby the representative power wiU be
distributed in just proportion, according to the Eule
of Three, among the voters of the Commonwealth, is
the true system, destined at no distant day to prevaU.
And gladly would I see this Convention hasten the
day by presenting it to the people for adoption in the
organic law. To this end I have striven by my votes.
But, Sir, I cannot forget what has passed. The votes
afready taken show that the Convention is not prepared
for this radical change ; and I am assured by gentlemen
more famUiar with pubUc sentiment than I can pretend
to be, that the people are not yet prepared for it.
Thus we are brought to the position occupied succes
sively by the Conventions of 1780 and 1820, each of
which, though containing warm partisans of the District
System, shrank from its adoption — as in Vfrginia, the
early recommendation of Jefferson, and his vehement

54 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
support at a later day, have been powerless to produce
this important amendment. John LoweU, who appeared
at the bar of the Massachusetts Legislature fri 1776 to
vindicate the principle of equaUty in representation,
and TheophUus Parsons, author of the powerful tract
which proposed to found the Eepresentative System on
the Eule of Three, were both members of the first Con
vention, — and I know not if the District System has
since had any abler defenders. To these I might add
the great name of John Adams, who early pleaded for
equaUty of representation, and declared, in words adopted
by the Essex Convention, that the Eepresentative As
sembly should be " an exact portrait in miaiature of the
people at large." ^ In the Convention of 1820, the Dis
trict System was cherished and openly extoUed by a
distinguished jurist, at that time a Justice of the Su
preme Court of the United States, — Joseph Story, —
whose present fame gives additional importance to his
opinions. And yet the desfre of these men faUed. The
corporate representation of towns was preserved, and
the District System pronounced impracticable. In
the Address put forth by the Convention of 1780, and
signed by its President, James Bowdoia, these words
may be found : —
" You wiU observe that we have resolved that represen
tation ought to be founded on the principle of Equahty ;
but it cannot be understood thereby that each town in the
Commonwealth shaU have weight and importance in a just
proportion to its numbers and property. An exact repre
sentation would be impracticable, even in a system of gov
emment arising from the state of Nature, and much more
1 Thoughts on Govemment: Works, Vol. IV. pp. 195, 206. Essex Result,
p. 29.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 55
so in a State already divided into nearly three hundred
corporations." *
The Convention seem to have recognized the theo
retic fitness of an "exact representation," but did not
regard it as feasible in a State afready divided into
nearly three hundred corporations. In the Convention
of 1820, Joseph Story, who has been quoted by my elo
quent friend [Mr. Choate], used language which, though
not so strong as that of the early Address, has the same
result. " In the Select Committee, I was in favor of a plan of rep
resentation in the House founded on population, as the most
just and equal in its operation. I still retain that opinion.
There were serious objections against this system, and it
was believed by others that the towns could not be brought
to consent to yield up the corporate privileges of representa
tion, which had been enjoyed so long, and were so intimately
connected with their pride and their interests. I felt con
strained, therefore, with great reluctance, to yield up a favor
ite plan. I have hved long enough to know, that, in any
question of government, something is to be yielded up on
aU sides. Conciliation and compromise lie at the origin of
every free govemment ; and the question never was and
never can be, what is absolutely best, but what is relatively
wise, just, and expedient. I have not hesitated, therefore,
to support the plan of the Select Committee, as one that, on
the whole, was the best that, under existing cfrcumstances,
could be obtained." *
Sir, I am not insensible to these considerations, or
to the authority of these examples. A division of the
1 Journal of the Convention, p. 219.
2 Debates, etc., in the Convention to revise the Constitution of Massachu
setts, 1820-21, p. 136 c. Story's Miscellaneous Writings, p. 618.

56 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
State into districts woiUd be a change, in conformity
with abstract principles, which would interfere with ex
isting opinions, habitudes, and prejudices of the towns,
all of which must be respected. A change so important
in character cannot be advantageously made, unless
supported by the permanent feeUngs and convictions of
the people. Institutions are formed from within, not
from witliout. They spring from custom and popular
faith, sUently operating with internal power, not from
the imposed wiU of a lawgiver. And our present duty
here, at least on this question, may be in some measure
satisfied, if we aid this growth.
Two great schools of jurisprudence for a while di
vided the learned mind of Germany, — one known as
the Historic, the other as the Didactic. The question
between them was simUar to that now before the Con
vention. The first regarded all laws and institutions as
the growth of custom, under constant influences of his
tory ; the other insisted upon positive legislation, giving
to them a form in conformity with abstract reason. It
is clear that both were in a measure right. No law
giver or statesman can disregard either history or ab
stract reason. He must contemplate both. He wiU
faithfuUy study the Past, and wiU recognize its treas
ures and traditions ; but, with equal fidelity, he wUl set
his face towards the Future, where aU institutions wUl
at last be in harmony with truth.
I have been encouraged to believe in the practicabUi
ty of the District System by its conformity with reason,
and by seeing how naturaUy it went into operation un
der the Constitution of the United States. But there
is a difference between that case and the present. A
new Government was then founded, with new powers.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 57
appUcable to a broad expanse of country ; but the Con
stitution of Massachusetts was Uttle more than a con
tinuation of preexisting usages and institutions, with
aU dependence upon royalty removed. This distinction
may help us now. If the country were absolutely new,
without embarrassment from existing corporate rights,
— clai^ns I would rather caU them, — it might easUy
be arranged according to the most approved theory, as
PhUadelphia is said to have been originaUy laid out on
the model of the German city which its great founder
had seen in his travels.^ But to bring our existing sys
tem into symmetry, and to lay it out anew, would seem
to be a task — at least I am reluctantly led to this con
clusion by what I have heard here — not unUke that of
rebuUding Boston, and of shaping its compact mass of
crooked streets into the regular rectangular forms of the
city of Penn. And yet this is not impossible. With
each day, by demolishing ancient houses and widening
ancient ways, changes are made which tend to this re-
siUt. Sfr, we must recognize the existing condition of things,
remedy aU practical grievances so far as possible, and
set our faces towards the true system. We must act in
the Present, but be mindful also of the Future. There
are proper occasions for compromise, as most certainly
there are rights beyond compromise. But the Eepresen
tative System is an expedient or device for ascertain
ing the popular wiU, and, though weU satisfied that this
can be best founded on numbers, I would not venture
to say, in the present Ught of poUtical science, that the
right of each man to an equal representation, according
to the Eule of Three, and without regard to existing in-
1 Julius, Nordamerikas Sittliche Zustande, Band I. p. 92.

58 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
stitutions or controUing usages, is of that inherent and
lofty character — Uke the God-given right to life or Ub
erty — which admits of no compromise.
Several grievances exist, which wiU be removed by
the proposed amendments. There is one which I had
hoped would disappear, but which is the necessary inci
dent of corporate representation : I mean the unwieldy
size of the House.
It is generaUy said that a smaU body is more open
to bribery and corruption than a large body ; but, on
the other hand, I have heard it asserted that the larger
is more exposed than the smaUer. I put this consid
eration aside. My objection to a large House is, that
it is inconvenient for the despatch of pubUc business.
There is a famous saying of Cardinal de Eetz, that
every assembly of more than one hundred is a mob ;
and Lord Chesterfield appUed the same term to the
British House of Commons. At the present time that
body has nominaUy six hundred and fifty-four mem
bers. It is caUed by Lord Brougham "preposterously
large " ; but a quorum for busuiess is forty only ; and
it is only on rare occasions of poUtical importance that
its benches are completely occupied. The House of
Lords, nominaUy, has four hundred and fifty-nine mem
bers; but a quorum in this body consists of three only;^
and much of its business is transacted in a very thin
attendance. The experience of Congress, as also of other States,
points to a reduction of our present number. Indeed,
for many years this was a general desfre through the
State. In the earUest Colonial days every town was
1 According to the old rule, Tres facmnt coUegi-u-n.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 59
aUowed three deputies; but in five years the number,
on reaching thfrty-three, was reduced to two for each.^
At a later day, in 1694, a great contest in the House
was decided by a vote of twenty-six against twenty-
four.2 In the agitating period between 1762 and 1773,
covering the controversies which heralded the Eevolu
tion, the House consisted, on an average, of one hundred
and twenty members ; and only on one occasion the
magnitude of the interest is reported by Hutchinson to
have drawn together so many as one hundred and thir
teen. At the last session of the Provincial Legislature,
in May, 1774, when the Eevolutionary conflict was at
hand, the complete returns of the Journal show one
hundred and forty. In 1776 there was a House of
three hundred and five ; but this " enormous and very
unwieldy size," according to the language of the time,
was assigned as a reason for a new Constitution. I
regret that we caimot profit by this experience. A
House of two hundred and fifty, or, since we are accus
tomed to large congregations,^ of three hundred at most,
would be an improvement on the present system.
There are two proposed improvements which I haU
with satisfaction : one relates to the smaU towns, and
the other to the cities. The smaU towns wUl have a
more constant representation ; and this of itseff is an
1 Records of the Govemor and Company of the Massachusetts Bay, Vol.
L pp. 118, 25G, 254.
2 Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, Vol. H. p. 77.
8 The House for many years numbered upwards of five hundred mem
bers,  in 1836, '36, and '37 swelling to the truly " enormous and unwieldy
size " of 615, 619, and 635 ; and even under the greatly reduced apportion
ment established by the Amendment of 1840, the numbers in the two years
(1851 and 1852) preceding the present Convention were no less than 396 and
402. See Gifford and Stowe's Manual for the General Court, (Boston, I860,)
p. 130.

60 THE EEPEESENTATIVE SYSTEM,
approach to the true principle of representation, which
should be constant as weU as equal. The cities wiU be
divided into districts, and this I regard of twofold im
portance : first, as the beginning of a true system ; and,
secondly, as reducing the power which the cities, by
the large number of thefr representatives, chosen by
general ticket, now exercise.
A respected gentleman, now in my eye, has reminded
me that in boyhood his attention was arrested in this
House by what was caUed " the Boston seat," reserved
exclusively for the Boston members, who sat together
on cushions, while other members were left to such ac
commodation as they could find on bare benches. This
discrimination ceased long ago. But it seems to me
that this reserved and cushioned seat is typical of an
other discrimination, which Boston, in common with the
cities, stiU enjoys. Sir, in voting for forty-four rep
resentatives, the elector in Boston exercises a repre
sentative power far exceeding that of electors in the
country ; and the majority which rules Boston and de
termines the whole delegation exercises a representative
power transcending far that of any simUar number in
the Commonwealth. This is apparent on the bare state
ment, as forty-four sticks are stronger in one compact
bundle than when single or in smaU parcels. Thus,
while other counties are divided, the delegation from
Boston is united. In aU political contests, it is Uke the
well-knit Macedonian phalanx, or the iron front of the
Eoman legion, in comparison with the disconnected in
dividual warriors against whom they were engaged.
This abuse wUl be removed ; and here is the beginning,
I had almost said the inauguration, of a true electoral
equaUty in our Commonwealth.

AND ITS PEOPEE BASIS. 61
And now, in conclusion, whUe thanking gentlemen
for the kind attention with which they have honored
me, let me express briefly the result to which I have
come. I have openly declared my convictions with
regard to the District System, and in accordance with
these have recorded my votes in this Convention.
These votes, which reveal my inmost desfres on this
matter, I would not change. But the question is not
now between the District System, which I covet so
much for Massachusetts, and the proposed amendments,
but between these amendments and the existing sys
tem. On this issue I decide without hesitation. I
shaU vote, Sfr, for the propositions of amendment be
fore the Convention, should they come to a question on
thefr final passage, not because they are aU that I de
sfre, not because they satisfy the requfrement of prin
ciples which I cannot deny, not because they constitute
a permanent adjustment of this difficult question, but
because they are the best which I can now obtain, be
cause they reform grievances of the existing system,
and because they begin a change which can end only in
the estabUshment of a Eepresentative System founded
in reaUty, as in name, on Equality. Their adoption
wUl be the triumph of conciUation and harmony, and
wiU furnish new testimony to the weU-tempered spirit
of OUI institutions, where
"jarring interests, reconciled, create
The according music of a well-mixed State."

BILLS OF RIGHTS: THEIR HISTORY AND
POLICY.
Speech on the Report from the Committee on the Bill or Eights,
IN the Convention to revise and amend the Constitution of
Massachusetts, July 25, 1853.

As Chairman of the Committee on the BiU of Eights, Mr. Smnner
suhmitted a Eeport, on which, in Committee of the Whole, he spoke as
follows. ME. CHAIEMAN", — As Chairman of the Commit
tee on the Preamble and BiU of Eights, it is my
duty to introduce and explain thefr Eeport. It wUl be
perceived that it is brief, and proposes no important
changes. But in justice to the distinguished gentlemen
with whom I have the honor of being associated on
that Committee, I deem it my duty to suggest that the
extent of thefr labors must not be judged by this result.
It appears from the proceedings of the Convention of
1820, that the Committee on the BUl of Eights at that
time sat longer than any other Committee. I beUeve
that the same Committee in the present Convention
might claim the same preeminence. Thefr records
show twenty different sessions.
At these sessions, the Preamble and the BiU of
Eights, in its thfrty different propositions, were passed
in review and considered clause by clause ; the various
orders of the Convention, amounting to twelve in num-

BILLS OF EIGHTS : THEIE HISTOEY AND POLICY. 63
ber, the petitions addressed to the Convention and re
ferred to the Committee, as also informal propositions
from members of the Convention and others were con
sidered, some of them repeatedly and at length. On
many questions there was a decided difference of opin
ion, and on a few the Committee was nearly equaUy
divided. But after the best consideration we could be
stow in our protracted series of meetings, it was found
that the few simple propositions now on your table
were aU upon which a majority of the Committee could
be brought to unite. As such I was dfrected to present
them. Admonished by the lapse of time and the desfre
to close these proceedings, I might be content with this
simple statement.
But, notwithstanding the urgency of our business, I
cannot aUow the opportunity to pass — indeed, I should
not do my duty — without attempting for a brief mo
ment to show the origin and character of this part of
OUI Constitution. In this way we may leam its weight
and authority, and appreciate the difficulty and deUcacy
of any change in its substance or even its form. I wUI
try not to abuse your patience.
The Preamble and BUl of Eights, like the rest of
our Constitution, were from the pen of John Adams, —
among whose pubUshed works the whole document, in
its original draught, may be found. At the time when
he rendered this important service to his native Com
monwealth and to the principles of free institutions
everywhere, he was forty-four years of age. He was
also quite prepared. The natural maturity of his powers
had been enriched by the weU-ripened fruit of assidu
ous study and of active Ufe, both of which concurred fri

64 BILLS OF EIGHTS :
bim. The examples of Greece and Eome and the writ
ings of Sidney and Locke were especiaUy famiUar to
his mind. The Common Law he had made his own, and
mastered weU its whole arsenal of Freedom. For a
long time the vigorous and unfaUing partisan of the Ub
eral cause in Boston, throughout its many conflicts, —
then in Congress, whither he was transferred, the frre
sistible champion of Independence, — and then the re
pubUcan representative of the United, but stUl strug
gUng, Colonies at the Court of France, — in the brief
interval between two foreign missions, only seven days
after landing from his long ocean voyage, he was chosen
a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and at once
brought aU his varied experience, rare poUtical culture,
and eminent powers to the task of adjusting the frame
work of government for Massachusetts. As his work,
it aU claims our regard ; and no part bears the imprint
of his mind so much as the Preamble and BUl of Eights ;
nor is any other part authenticated as coining so exclu
sively from him.
At the time of its first adoption the Massachusetts
BUl of Eights was more ample in provisions and more
complete in form than any simUar declaration in Eng
Ush or Colonial history. Grlancing at its predecessors,
we leam something of its sources. First came, long
back in the thirteenth century. Magna Charta, with gen
erous safeguards of Freedom, wrung from King John by
the Barons at Eunnymede. From time to time these
Uberties were confirmed, and, after an interval of centu
ries, they were again ratified, near the beginning of the
unhappy reign of Charles the First, by a Parliamentary
Declaration, to which the monarch assented, known as
the Petition of Eight, which, in its very title, reveals the

THEIR HISTOEY AND POLICY. 65
humility with which the rights of the people were then
maintained. FinaUy, in a different tone and language,
at the Eevolution of 1688, when James the Second was
driven from his dominions, a " Declaration of the true,
ancient, and indubitable rights and Uberties of the peo
ple of the kingdom," familiarly known as the BiU of
Eights, was deUvered by the Convention ParUament to
the new sovereigns, WilUam and Mary, and embodied
in the Act of Settlement, by vfrtue of which they sat
on the throne. These, Sfr, are English examples.
Thefr influence was not confined to England. It
crossed the ocean. From the beginning the Colonists
were tenacious of the rights and Uberties of EngUsh-
men, and at various times and in various forms de
clared them. Connecticut, as early as 1639, Vfrginia
in 1624 and 1776, Pennsylvania in 1682, New York in
1691, — and I might mention others stUl, — put forth
Declarations, brief and meagre, but kindred to those of
the mother country. In the Colony of New Plymouth,
the essential principles of Magna Charta were pro
claimed in 1636, under the name of " The General Fun
damentals " ; and in 1641 the inhabitants of Massachu
setts Bay announced, in words worthy of careful study,
that "the free fruition of such Liberties, Immunities,
and PrivUeges, as Humanity, CiviUty, and Christianity
caU for, as due to every man in his place and propor
tion, without impeachment and infringement, hath ever
been and ever wiU be the tranquiUity and stabiUty of
Churches and Commonwealths, and the denial or de-
prival thereof the distm'bance, if not the ruin, of both." ^
1 Preamble to the Body of Liberties of the Massachusetts Colony, 1641:
CoU. Mass. Hist. Soc, 3d Ser. Vol. VIH. p. 216. See also General Laws
and Liberties of the Massachusetts Colony, revised and reprinted by Order
of the General Court, 1672, p. 1.
vol. rv. — 5

66 BILLS OF EIGHTS :
Such was the Preamble to the " Body of Liberties " of
the Massachusetts Colony in 1641. It would be diffi
cult to find any text more comprehensive than these
remarkable words, ¦ — the object being " Liberties, Im
munities, and PrivUeges," to such extent " as Humanity,
CivUity, and Christianity caU for"; and this Declara
tion, broader than Magna Charta, became the inspfra-
tion of Massachusetts, if not of the Nation. Nor does
Massachusetts stand alone in this honor. Connecticut
is by her side.^
I should not do justice to this " Body of Liberties," if
I did not caU attention to at least four different dec
larations. There is, first, the clause : " There shaU nev
er be any bond slavery, viUenage, or captivity amongst
us, unless it be lawfiU captives taken in just wars, and
such strangers as willingly seU themselves or are sold
to us " ; and although this provision falls short of that
universal freedom which is our present aspfration. it is
a plain limitation upon Slavery, and marks the hostUity
of the Colony. Another declaration sets an example of
hospitaUty : " If any people of other nations, professing
the true Christian reUgion, shaU flee to us from the tyr
anny or oppression of their persecutors, or from fam
ine, wars, or the like necessary and compulsory cause,
they shaU be entertained and succored amongst us ac
cording to that power and prudence God shaU give us."
And it is further declared: "Every person within this
jurisdiction, whether inhabitant or foreigner, shaU enjoy
the same Justice and Law that is general for the Plan-
1 The Preamble in combination with the first Article of the Massachu
setts Body of Liberties was adopted as the Preamble to the Connecticut
Code of 1650. See Public Eecords of the Colony of Connecticut, edited by
J. H. Trumbull, (Hartford, 1850,) p. 509; and compare with CoU. Mass.
Hist. Soc, ut supra.

THEilE HISTOEY AND POLICY, 67
tation, whieh we constitute and execute one towards
another, without partiaUty or delay." Here is nothing
less than EquaUty before the Law, without this com
pendious term. There is another declaration, which has
the same exalted character : " Every man, whether in
habitant or foreigner, free or not free, shall have Uberty
to come to any pubUc Court, CouncU, or Town Meeting,
and either by speech or writing to move any lawful,
seasonable, and material question, or to present any
necessary motion, complaint, petition, bUl, or informa
tion, whereof that meeting hath proper cognizance, so
it be done in convenient time, due order, and respective
manner." Such declarations as these belong to the his
tory of Freedom.
In the animated discussions immediately preceding
the Eevolution, the rights and Uberties of EngUshmen
were constantly asserted as the bfrthright of the Colo
nists. This was often by formal resolution or declara
tion, couched at first in moderate phrase. At the out
rage of the Stamp Act, a Congress of delegates from
nine Colonies, held at New York in October, 1765, put
forth a series of resolutions embodying "Declarations of
our humble opinion respecting the most essential rights
and Uberties of the Colonists." ^ The humility of this
language recaUs the EngUsh Petition of Eight under
Charles the Ffrst. This was foUowed in 1774 by the
Declaration of the Continental Congress, which, in an
other tone and with admfrable force, in ten different
propositions, arrays the rights which belong to "the
inhabitants of the EngUsh Colonies in North America,
by the immutable Laws of Nature, the Principles of the
1 Proceedings of the Congress at New York, p. 6. Hutchinson's History
of Massachusetts, Vol. HL, Appendix, p. 479.

68 BILLS OF EIGHTS:
EngUsh Constitution, and the several Charters or Com
pacts." ^ " Time's noblest offspring is the last " ;
and the whole Colonial series is aptly closed by the
Declaration of Independence, announcing not merely
the rights of EngUshmen, but the rights of men.
Only a few brief weeks before the Declaration of
Independence, Vfrginia, taking the lead of her sister
Colonies, established a Constitution, to which was pre
fixed an elaborate Declaration of Eights. This remark
able document, which became the immediate precedent
for the whole country, marks an epoch in poUtical histo
ry. Massachusetts and Connecticut had already led the
way in that early and most comprehensive Preamble,
which has been too little noticed; but in aU English
Declarations of Eights, and generaUy even in those of
the Colonies, stress was laid upon the Uberties and priv
ileges of EngUshmen. The rights claimed even by the
Continental Congress of 1774, in their masculine Decla
ration, were the rights of "free and natural-born sub
jects within the realm of England." But the Virginia
BUl of Eights, standing at the front of its ffrst Con
stitution, discarded aU narrow title from mere English
precedent, planted itself on the eternal law of God,
above every human ordinance, and openly proclaimed
that " aU men are by nature equally free and indepen
dent," — a declaration which is repeated, though in
other language, by the Massachusetts Declaration of
Eights. The policy of BUls of Eights is sometimes caUed in
question. It has been said that they were originaUy
1 Journals of Congress, October 14, 1774, Vol. I. p. 28.

THEIE HISTOEY AND POLICY. 69
privUeges or concessions extorted from the king, and,
though expedient in a monarchy, are of little value in a
repubUc. As late as 1821, in the Convention for re
vising the Constitution of New York, doubts of their
utUity were openly expressed by Mr. Van Buren. But
they are now above question. State after State, ending
with California, foUows the example of Virginia and
Massachusetts, and places its BiU of Eights in the front
of its Constitution. Nor can I doubt that much good
is done by this frank assertion of fundamental princi
ples. The pubUc mind is instructed, people leam to
know thefr rights, Uberal institutions are confirmed,
and the Constitution is made stable in the hearts of
the community. BUls of Eights are lessons of poUtical
wisdom and anchors of Uberty. They are the constant
index, and also scourge, of injustice and wrong. In
Massachusetts, Slavery itseU disappeared before the
declaration that "aU men are born free and equal,"
interpreted by a Uberty-loving Court.^
In the Convention of 1780 the BUl of Eights formed
a prominent subject of interest. The necessity of such
a safeguard had been pressed upon the people, and its
absence from the Constitution of 1778 was imquestion-
ably a reason for the rejection of that iU-fated effort.
Indeed, the Constitution was openly opposed because it
had no BUl of Eights. In the array of objections at
the period was the foUowing, which I take from an im
portant contemporaneous pubUcation: "That a BiU of
Eights, clearly ascertaining and defining the rights of
1 See, on this subject, a paper entitled " The Extinction of Slavery in Mas
sachusetts," by Emory Washburn ; CoU. Mass. Hist. Soc, 4th Ser. Vol. IV.
pp. 333 - 346.

70 BILLS OF EIGHTS :
conscience and that security of person and property
which every member in the State hath a right to expect
from the supreme power thereof, ought to be settled
and estabUshed previous to the ratification of any Con
stitution for the State." ^ Accordiagly, at the earUest
moment after the organization of the Convention, a mo
tion was made, "that there be a Declaration of Eights
prepared previous to the framing a new Constitution
of Government," which after adoption gave way to an
other, " that the Convention will prepare a Declaration
of Eights," and this motion prevaUed by a nearly unan
imous vote, — the whole number present, as returned
by the monitors, being two hundred and fifty-one, of
whom two hundred and fifty voted in the affirmative.*
Thus emphaticaUy did the early fathers of Massachu
setts manifest thefr watchfulness for the rights of the
people ; and there is good reason to beUeve, also, that
among the motives which stimulated it was a determi
nation in tMs way to abolish Slavery.^ The Convention
then resolved to "proceed to the framing a new Consti
tution of Government." A grand Comnuttee of thirty '
was chosen to perform these two important duties ; and
this Committee, after extended discussion, intrusted to
John Adams alone the preparation of a Declaration of
Eights, and to a Sub-Committee, consisting of James
Bowdoin, Samuel Adams, and John Adams, the duty of
preparing the Form of a Constitution, which Sub-Com
mittee again delegated the task to John Adams : so that
1 Essex Eesult, p. 4.
2 Journal of the Convention, pp. 22, 23.
8 This was the testimony of the late Eev. Charles LoweU, who had re
ceived it frora his father, Hon. John Lowell, a member of the Convention, in
whose family was a tradition that the latter obtained the insertion of the
words "all men are bom free and equal," for this declared purpose. See,
ut supra, CoU. Mass. Hist. Soc, 4th Ser. Vol. IV. p. 340.

THEIE HISTOEY AND POLICY. 71
to the pen of this iUustrious citizen we are indebted
primarUy both for the Declaration of Eights and the
Form of the Constitution.^
It is not difficult to trace most, if not aU, of the
ideas and provisions of our Preamble and Declaration
of Eights to thefr primitive sources. The Preamble,
where the body poUtic is founded on the fiction of the
Social Compact, was doubtless inspfred by the writings
of Sidney and Locke, and by the English discussions at
the period of the Eevolution of 1688, when this ques
tionable theory did good service in response to the as
sumptions of FUmer, and as a shield against arbitrary
power. Of different provisions in the BUl of Eights,
some are in the very words of Magna Charta, — others
are derived from the ancient Common Law, the Petition
of Eight, and the BUl of Eights of 1688, — whUe, of the
thirty Articles composing it, no less than nineteen,*
either whoUy or in part, may be found substantiaUy
in the Vfrginia BiU of Eights : but these again are in
great part derived from the earUer fountains.
And now, Sfr, you have before you for revision and
amendment this early work of our fathers. I do not
stop to consider its pecuUar merits. With satisfaction
I might point to special safeguards by which our rights .
have been protected against usurpation, whether execu
tive, legislative, or judicial "With pride I might dwell
on those words which banished Slavery from our soU,
1 Observations ou the Eeconstruction of Govemment in Massachusetts
during the Eevolution : Works of John Adams, Vol. IV. pp. 215, 216.
2 Namely, Articles 1, 2, 4-10, 12-18, 20, 26, 30. The Virginia BUl of
Eights consists of sixteen Articles, three of which (the 5th, 6th, and 8th)
are divided in the Massachusetts Declaration, constituting respectively the
substance of Articles 30 and 8, 9 and 10, 12 and 13.

72 BILLS OF EIGHTS.
and rendered the Declaration of Independence here
with us a Uving letter. But the hour does not requfre
or admit any such service. You have a practical duty,
which I seek to promote ; and I now take leave of the
whole subject, with the simple remark, that a document
proceeding from such a pen, drawn from such sources,
with such an origin in all respects, speaking so early
for Human Eights, and now for more than threescore
years and ten a household word to the people of Mas
sachusetts, should be touched by the Convention only
with exceeding care.

FINGER-POINT FROM PLYMOUTH ROCK.
Speech at the Plymouth Festival in Commemoration of the
Embarkation of the Pilgrims, August 1, 1853.

The President, Eichard "Warren, Esq., said they had abeady heen
delighted with the words of a distinguished member of the Senate of
the United States [Mr. Everett.] They were favored with the pres
ence of another ; and he would give as a sentiment : —
The Se-nate of ihe United States, — The concentrated light of the stars of
the Union.
In his reply, Mr. Sumner attempted to obtain a hearing for the Anti-
slavery cause and the Party of Freedom. In picturing the English
Puritans he had in mind our Antislavery Puritans, who, Kke their
prototypes, were at first "Separatists," and then "Independents."
The abuse showered on each was the same. Though nothing is said
directly on present affairs, they were clearly discerned behind the Puri
tan veil. Such was the sensibility in certain quarters, that it was
objected to as out of place. Others were pleased with its fidelity.
Among the latter was the poet John G. Whittier, who wrote at the
time : " Its tone and hearing are unmistakable, and yet unobjection
able  When 1 read the toast which called thee up, I confess 1
could see very little appropriateness in it ; in fact, it seemed to me a
very unpromising text, and I almost feared to read the sermon. I en
joyed it aU the better for my misgivings."
ME. PEESIDENT, — You bid me speak for the
Senate of the United States. But I know weU
that there is another voice here, of classical eloquence,
which might more fitly render this service. As one
of the humblest members of that body, and associ
ated with the pubUc councils for a brief period only,

74 FINGEE-POINT FEOM PLYMOUTH EOCK.
I should prefer that my distinguished coUeague [Mr.
Eveeett], whose fame is linked with a long poUtical
Ufe, should speak for it. And there is yet another here
[Mr. Hale], who, though not at this moment a member
of the Senate, has, throughout an active and briUiant
career, marked by a rare combination of abiUty, elo
quence, and good-humor, so identified himseU with the
Senate in the pubUc mind that he might weU speak for
it always, and when he speaks, aU are pleased to Usten.
But, Sfr, you have ordered it otherwise.
From the tears and trials at DeUt Haven, from the
deck of the Mayflower, from the landing on Plymouth
Eock, to the Senate of the United States is a mighty
contrast, covering whole spaces of history, hardly less
than from the wolf that suckled Eomulus and Eemus
to that Eoman Senate which on curule chafrs swayed
Italy and the world. From these obscure beginnings
of poverty and weakness, which you now piously com
memorate, and on which aU our minds naturaUy rest
to-day, you bid us leap to that marble Capitol, where
thfrty-one powerful repubUcs, bound in common feUow
ship and welfare, are gathered together in legislative
body, constituting One Government, which, stretching
from ocean to ocean, and counting miUions of people
beneath its majestic rule, surpasses far in wealth and
might any government of the Old World when the
little band of Pilgrims left it, and now promises to be a
clasp between Europe and Asia, bringing the most dis
tant places near together, so that there shaU be no more
Orient or Occident. It were interesting to dweU on the
stages of this gxand procession; but it is enough, on
this occasion, merely to glance at them and pass on.
Sfr, it is the PUgrims that we commemorate to-day.

FINGEE-POINT FEOM PLYMOUTH EOCK. 76
not the Senate. For this moment, at least, let us tread
under foot aU pride of empire, aU exiUtation in our
manifold triumphs of industry, science, Uterature, with
aU the crowding anticipations of the vast untold Fu
ture, that we may reverently bow before the Fore
fathers. The day is thefrs. In the contemplation of
thefr vfrtue we derive a lesson which, Uke truth, may
judge us sternly, but, if we can reaUy foUow it, Uke
truth, shall make us free. For myseU, I accept the
admonition of the day. It may teach us aU, though
few in numbers or alone, never, by word or act, to
swerve from those primal principles of duty, which,
from the landing on Plymouth Eock, have been the Ufe
of Massachusetts. Let me briefly unfold the lesson, —
though to the discerning soul it unfolds itself.
Few persons in history have suffered more from con
temporary misrepresentation, abuse, and persecution,
than the EngUsh Puritans. At first a smaU body, they
were regarded with indifference and contempt. But
by degrees they grew in numbers, and drew into thefr
company education, intelUgence, and even rank. Ee
formers in aU ages have had Uttle of blessing from the
world they sought to serve. But the Puritans were
not disheartened. StUl they persevered. The obnox
ious laws of conformity they vowed to withstand, tUl, in
the fervid language of the time, " they be sent back to
the darkness from whence they came." Through them
the spirit of modern Freedom made itseff potently felt,
in great warfare with Authority, in Church, in Litera
ture, and in State, — in other words, for reUgious, intel
lectual, and poUtical emancipation. The Puritans prima
rily aimed at reUgious freedom : for this they contend
ed in ParUament, under EUzabeth and James ; for this

76 FINGEE-POINT FEOM PLYMOUTH EOCK.
they suffered : but, so connected are aU these great and
glorious interests, that the struggles for one have al
ways helped the others. Such service did they do, that
Hume, whose cold nature sympathized Uttle with their
burning souls, is obUged to confess that " the precious
spark of Liberty had been kindled and was preserved
by the Puritans alone," and he adds, that "to this sect
the EngUsh owe the whole freedom of their Constitu
tion." As among aU reformers, so among them were dif
ferences of degree. Some continued within the pale of
the National Church, and there pressed thefr ineffectual
attempts in behalf of the good cause. Some at length,
driven by conscientious convictions, and unwUUng to
be partakers longer in its enormities, stung also by
cruel excesses of magisterial power, openly disclaimed
the National EstabUshment, and became a separate sect,
first imder the name of Brownists, from the person who
led in this new organization, and then under the better
name of Separatists. I Uke this word. Sir. It has a
meaning.^ After long struggles in ParUament and out
of it, in Church and State, prolonged through succes
sive reigns, the Puritans finaUy triumphed, and' the de
spised sect of Separatists, swoUen in numbers, and now
under the denomination of Independents,^ with OUver
CromweU at thefr head and John MUton as his Secre
tary, ruled England. Thus is prefigured the final tri
umph of aU, however few in numbers, who sincerely
devote themselves to Truth.
The Pilgrims of Plymouth were among the earUest of
the Separatists. As such, they knew by bitter experi-
^ Our Abolitionists and Free-Soilers were Separatists.
2 Like the Eepublican party. — whose triumph is here foreshadowed.

FINGEE-POESiT FEOM PLYMOUTH EOCK. 77
ence all the sharpness of persecution. Against them
the men in power raged Uke the heathen. Against
them the whole fury of the law was dfrected. Some
were imprisoned, aU were impoverished, whUe thefr
name became a by- word of reproach. For safety and
freedom the Uttle band first sought shelter in HoUand,
where they continued in obscurity and indigence for
more than ten years, when they were inspired to seek a
home in this unknown Western world. Such, in brief,
is thefr history. I could not say more of it without in
truding upon your time ; I could not say less without
injustice to them.
Earely have austere principles been expressed with
more gentleness than from their Ups. By a covenant
with the Lord, they had vowed to walk in aU his ways,
according to thefr best endeavors, whatsoever it shoidd
cost them, — and also to receive whatsoever truth should
be made known from the written word of God. Ee-
pentance and prayers, patience and tears, were their
weapons. "It is not with us," said they, "as with other
men, whom smaU things can discourage or smaU dis
contentments cause to wish themselves at home again."
And then again, on another occasion, thefr souls were
lifted to utterance like this : " When we are in oux
graves, it wiU be aU one, whether we have Uved in
plenty or penury, whether we have died in a bed of
down or on locks of straw." Seff-sacrifice is never in
vain, and with the clearness of prophecy they foresaw
that out of thefr trials should come a transcendent Fu
ture. "As one smaU candle," said an early PUgrim
Govemor, " may Ught a thousand, so the Ught kindled
here may in some sort shine even to the whole nation."
And these utterances were crowned by the testimony of

78 FINGEE-POINT FEOM PLYMOUTH EOCK.
the EngUsh governor and historian, whose sympathy for
them was as Uttle as that of Hume for the Puritans, con
fessing it doubtful " whether Britain would have had any
colonies in America at this day, if reUgion had not been
the grand inducement," — thus honoring our PUgrims.
And yet these men, with such sublime endurance,
lofty faith, and admfrable achievement, are among those
sometimes caUed "Puritan knaves" and "knaves-Puri
tans," and openly branded by King James as "very
pests in the Church and Commowealth." The small
company of our forefathers became jest and gibe of
fashion and power. The phrase "men of one idea" was
not invented then ; but, in equivalent language, they
were styled " the pinched fanatics of Leyden." A
contemporary poet and favorite of Charles the Ffrst,
Thomas Carew, lent his genius to thefr defamation. A
masque, from his elegant and careful pen, was per
formed by the monarch and his courtiers, tuming the
whole plantation of New England to royal sport. The
jeer broke forth in the exclamation, that it had " purged
more virulent humors from the poUtic body than gua-
iacum and aU the West Indian drugs have from the
natural bodies of this kingdom."^
And these outcasts, despised in thefr own day by the
proud and great, are the men whom we have met in
this goodly number to celebrate, — not for any victory of
war, — not for any triumph of discovery, science, learn
ing, or eloquence, — not for worldly success of any kind.
How poor are aU these things by the side of that divine
vfrtue which, amidst the reproach, the obloquy, and the
hardness of the world, made them hold fast to Free-
1 This masque, entitled Ccd-um Briiannicum, was performed at Wliitehall,
February 18, 1633.

FINGEE-POINT FEOM PLYMOUTH EOCK. 79
dom and Truth ! Sfr, if the honors of this day are not
a mockery, ff they do not expend themselves in mere
self-gratulation, ff they are a sincere homage to the
character of the PUgrims, — and I caimot suppose oth
erwise, — then is it weU for us to be here. Standing
on Plymouth Eock, at thefr great anniversary, we can
not faU to be elevated by their example. We see clear
ly what it has done for the world, and what it has done
for thefr fame. No pusUlanimous soul here to-day wUl
declare thefr seff-sacrifice, thefr deviation from received
opinions, their unquenchable thfrst for Uberty, an error
or Ulusion. From gushing multitudinous hearts we
now thank these lowly men that they dared to be true
and brave. Conformity or compromise might, perhaps,
have purchased for them a profitable peace, but not
peace of mind ; it might have secured place and power,
but not repose; it might have opened present shelter,
but not a home in history and in men's hearts tUl time
shall be no more. AU must confess the true grandeur of
thefr example, whUe, in vindication of a cherished prin
ciple, they stood alone, against the madness of men,
against the law of the land, against thefr king. Better
the despised PUgrim, a fugitive for freedom, than the
halting poUtician, forgetful of principle, " with a Senate
at his heels."
Such, Sfr, is the voice from Plymouth Eock, as it sa
lutes my ears. Others may not hear it; but to me
it comes in tones which I cannot mistake. I catch its
words of noble cheer : —
" New occasions teach new duties; Time makes ancient good uncouth;
They must upward still and onward who would keep abreast of Truth:
Lo, before us gleam her camp-fires ! we ourselves must Pilgrims be.
Launch our Mayflower, and steer boldly through the desperate winter sea."

IRELAND AND IRISHMEN.
Letter to a Committee of Irish-born Citizens, August 2, 1853.

Boston, August 2, 1853.
GENTLEMEN, — It is not in my power to be with
you on the evemng of the celebration at FaneuU
HaU, but, I pray you, do not consider me insensible to
the honor of your invitation.
Permit me to say that no country excites a generous
sympathy more than Ireland ; nor is any society more
genial and winning than that of Irishmen.
BeUeve me. Gentlemen, faithfully yours,
Chaeles Sumnee.

THE LANDMARK OF FREEDOM
NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPKOMISB.

Speech in the Senate, against the Repeal op the Missouri
Prohibition of Slavery north of 36° 30' in the Nebrasea
AND Kansas Bill, February 21, 1854.

Cursed be he that removeth his neighbor's landmark. And all (he people
shaU say. Amen. — Dedteronomt, xxvii. 17.

" The Nebraska Debate," as it was called at the time, was one of
the most remarkable in our history. It grew out of the proposition to
overturn the famous Missouri Compromise, so as to admit Slavery into
the vast territory west of the Mississippi, where it had been prohibited
by that Compromise. The country was startled by the outrage. Many
who had tried to reconcile themselves to the Fugitive Slave BUl, as
required by the Constitution, were maddened hy this most audacious
attempt. Even assuming that the Fugitive Slave BUl was in any
sense j'ustifiable, there was nothing to justify this flagrant violation of
plighted faith, where Slavery was the inexorable robber. Here began
those heats which afterwards showed themselves in blood. Never was
the action of Congress watched with more anxiety. Speeches were read
as never before, especiaUy those opposed to this new aggression. That
of Mr. Sumner was extensively circulated in various editions, and he
received numerous letters expressing sympathy and gratitude. The
tone of these iUustrates the reception of the speech. The late Rufus
W. Griswold, so weU known in contemporary Uterature, wrote from
New York on the day after its deUvery : ' ' The admirable speech which
you delivered in the Senate yesterday wUl bring you a wearying quan
tity of approving letters ; but, though aware of this, I cannot refraia
from assuring you of my own admiration of it and gratitude for it, nor
from teUing you that all through the city it appears to be the subj'ect
of applauding conversation  1 congratulate you on having made
a speech so worthy of an American Senator, and calculated to be so
serviceable to the cause of Liberty.'' Frederick Douglass, who watched
the contest from a distance with the interest of a former slave, wrote :
" AU the friends of Freedom in every State and of every color may claim
you just now as their representative. As one of your sable constitu
ents, 1 desire to thank you for your noble speech for Freedom and for
your country, which 1 have now read twice over." An original AboU
tionist wrote : "Let me thank you from my heart of hearts for your
noble speech. It is everything that we could wish, — bold, free, and
true. God will surely bless you ! " The feeUng of the hour appeared
also in the foUowing from John G. Whittier : " 1 am unused to flatter
any one, least of aU one whom 1 love and honor ; but I must say, in
all sincerity, that there is no orator or statesman living in this country

84 THE LANDMAEK of FEEEDOM:
or in Europe whose fame is so great as not to derive additional lustre
from such a speech. It wUl Uve the fuU Ufe of American history."
Professor C. S. Henry, of the New York University, wrote : " 1 thank
you for your noble speech on the Nebraska BiU. In every quaUty of
nobleness transcendently noble. Unsurpassed iu tone aud temper, —
unrivaUed in impregnable soundness and judicious statement of posi
tions, in clearness and logical force of historical recital, in conclusive
ness of reasoning, in beautiful fitness of style, and in the true eloquence
of a justice-loving soul. " Among the curiosities of praise, considering
the poUtical position of the writer, was a letter from Pierre Soule, our
minister at Madrid, and formerly Senator from Louisiana, containing
the foUowing passage : " Que je profite de cette occasion pour vous dire
combien j'ai ete heureux du succes, et pour mieux dii'e, du triomphe
eclatant que vous avez obtenu k I'occasiou de votre discours sur le Ne
braska Bill. Courage ! Sic itur ad astra. Mais que dis-je ? Vous y
etes dejk, et habile qui reussirait vous en deloger." These are exam
ples only ; but they help to exhibit the condition of the pubUc mind.
The North was aroused, and felt as never before towards those who
spoke in its behalf.
The origin of the debate wiU appear from a statement of facts.
On the 14th of December, 1853, Mr. Dodge, of Iowa, asked and ob
tained leave to introduce a biU to organize the Territory of Nebraska,
which was read a first and second time by unanimous consent and re
ferred to the Committee on Territories. This was a simple Territorial
BiU, in the common form, containing no aUusion to Slavery, and not
in any way undertaliing to touch the existing Prohibition of Slavery in
this Territory.
On the 4th of January, 1854, Mr. Douglas, of IlUnois, as Chairman
of the Committee on Territories, reported this bUl back to the Senate
with various amendments, accompanied by a special report. By this
biU only a single Territory was constituted, under the name of Ne
braska ; the existing Prohibition of Slavery was not directly over
thrown, but it was declared that the States formed out of this Territory
should be admitted into the Union "with or without Slaveiy," as they
should desire.
On the 16th of January, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky, in order to ac
compUsh directly what the biU did only indirectly, gave notice of
an amendment, to the effect that the existing Prohibition of Slavery
"shaU not be so construed as to apply to the Territory contemplated
by this Act, or to any other Territory of the United States ; but that
the citizens of the several States or Territories shaU he at liberty to

NO EEPEAL OE THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 86
take and hold their slaves within any of the Territories of the United
States, or of the States to he formed therefrom."
On the next day, January 17, Mr. Sumner, in order to preserve the
existing Prohibition, gave notice of the foUowing amendment.
" Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to abrogate
or in any way contravene the Act of March 6, 1820, entitled ' An Act to au
thorize the people of Missouri Territory to form a Constitution and State
Government, and for the admission of such State into the Union on an equal
footing with the original States, and to prohibit Slavery in certain Terri
tories ' ; wherein it is expressly enacted, ' that in that territory ceded by
France to the United States, under the name of Louisiana, which lies north
of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, not included within
the limits of the State contemplated by this Act, slavery and involuntary
servitude, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes, whereof the parties
shall have been duly convicted, shall be, and is hereby, forever prohibited.' "
It is worthy of remark, that at this stage the proposition of Mr. Dixon,
and also that of Mr. Sumner, were equaUy condemned by the Wa,sMng-
ton Union, the oflicial organ of the Administration. It had not then
heen determined to sustain the repeal.
On the 23d of January, Mr. Douglas, from the Committee on Terri
tories, submitted a new hiU, as a, substitute for that already reported.
Here was a sudden change, hy which the Territory was divided into
two, Nebraska and Kansas, and the Prohibition of Slavery was directly
overthrown. According to his language at the time, there were ' ' incor
porated into it one or two other amendments, which make the provis
ions of the bill upon other and more delicate questions more clear and
specific, so as to avoid aU conflict of opinion." It was formaUy enun
ciated in the hUl, that the Prohibition of Slavery "was superseded bj'
the principles of the legislation of 1850, commonly caUed the Compro
mise Measures, and is hereby declared inoperative." This of course
superseded the proposed amendment of Mr. Dixon, who subsequently
declared his entire assent to the bUl in its new form. It also presented
the issue directly raised in Mr. Sumner's proposed amendment.
On the next day, January 24th, when the amended hUl had just
heen laid upon the tables of Senators, and without aUowing the ne
cessary time even for its perusal, Mr. Douglas pressed its considera
tion upon the Senate. After some debate it was postponed untU the
30th of January, and made the special order from day to day until dis
posed of.
MeanwhUe an appeal to the coimtry was put forth hy a few Senatprs
and Eepresentatives in Congress, calUng themselves Independent Dem
ocrats. The only Senators who signed this appeal were Mr. Chase and

86 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
Mr. Sunmer. It was entitled, "ShaU Slavery be permitted in Ne
braska ? " and proceeded in strong language to expose the violation of
pUghted faith and the wickedness about to be perpetrated. This docu
ment was extensively circulated, and did much to awaken the pubUc.
On the 30th of January the Senate proceeded to the consideration of
the biU, when Mr. Douglas took tlie floor and devoted himself to de
nunciation of the appeal by the Independent Democrats, characterizing
its authors as "AboUtion confederates," and particularly arraigning
Mr. Chase and Mr. Sumner, the two Senators who had signed it.
When he sat down, Mr. Chase repUed at once to the personal matters
introduced, and was followed by Mr. Sumner, in the few remarks be
low ; and this was the opening of the great debate which occupied for
months the attention of the country.
Me. Peesident, — Before the Senate adjourns I crave
a siagle moment. As a signer of the address referred
to by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], I open
ly accept, before the Senate and the country, my fuU
responsibility for it, and deprecate no criticism from
any quarter. That document was put forth in the dis
charge of a high pubUc duty, — on the precipitate intro
duction into this body of a measure which, as seems
to me, is not only subversive of an ancient landmark,
but hostUe to the peace, the harmony, and the best in
terests of the country. But, Sir, in doing this, I judged
the act, and not its author. I saw only the enormous
proposition, and nothing of the Senator.
The language used is strong, but not stronger than
the exigency required. Here is a measure which re
verses the time-honored policy of our fathers in the
restriction of Slavery, — which sets aside the Missouri
Compromise, a, solemn compact, by which aU the ter
ritory ceded by France under the name of Louisiana,
north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north
latitude and not included within the Umits of Missouri,
was " forever " consecrated to Freedom, — and which

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 87
violates, also, the aUeged compromises of 1850 : and aU
this opening an immense territory to Slavery. Such
a measure cannot be regarded without emotions too
strong for speech ; nor can it be justly described in
common language. It is a souUess, eyeless monster, —
horrid, unshapely, vast : and this monster is now let
loose upon the country.
AUow me one other word of explanation. It is true
I desired that the consideration of this measure should
not be pressed at once, with indecent haste, as was pro
posed, even before the Senate could read the bUl in
which it is embodied. You may remember that the
Missouri BiU, as appears from the Journals of Congress,
when first introduced, in December, 1819, was aUowed
to rest upon the table nearly two months before the
discussion commenced. The proposition to undo the
only part of that work which is now in any degree
within the reach of Congress should be approached with
even greater caution and reserve. The people have a
right to be heard on this monstrous scheme ; and there
is no apology for that driving, gaUoping speed which
shaU anticipate their voice, and, in its consequences,
must despoU them of this right.

The debate was continued from day to day. On the 7th of February
Mr. Douglas proposed stUl another change in his bUl. There seemed
to be a perpetual difficulty in adjusting the language by which the ex
isting Prohibition of Slavery should be overthrown. He now moved
to strike out the words referring to this Prohibition, and to insert the
foUowing : —
" Which, being inconsistent with the principles of non-intervention by
Congress with Slavery in the States and Territories, as recognized by the
legislation of 1850, commonly called the Compromise Measures, is hereby
declared inoperative and void : it being the true intent and meaning of this
Act not to legislate Slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it

88 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM.
therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regu
late their domestic institutions iu their own way, subject only to the Con
stitution of the United States."
On the 15th of February this amendment was adopted hy a vote of
thirty-five yeas to ten nays. The debate was then continued upon the
pending substitute reported hy the Committee for the original bUl.
On the 21st of February Mr. Sumner took the floor and deUvered
the foUowing speech.

SPEECH.

ME. PEESIDENT,— I approach this discussion with
awe. The mighty question, with untold issues,
oppresses me. like a portentous cloud surcharged with
irresistible storm and ruin, it seems to fiU the whole
heavens, making me painfuUy conscious how unequal
to the occasion I am, — how unequal, also, is aU that I
can say to aU that I feel
In deUvering my sentiments to-day I shaU speak
frankly, according to my convictions, without conceal
ment or reserve. If anything feU from the Senator
from Illinois [Mr. Douglas], in opening this discussion,
which might seem to chaUenge a personal contest, I
desire to say that I shaU not enter upon it. Let not
a word or a tone pass my Ups to divert attention for
a moment from the surpassing theme, by the side of
which Senators and Presidents are but dwarfs. I would
not forget those amenities which belong to this place,
and are so weU calculated to temper the antagonism
of debate ; nor can I cease to remember, and to feel,
that, amidst aU diversities of opinion, we are the rep
resentatives of thirty-one sister repubUcs, knit to
gether by indissoluble ties, and constituting that Plu
ral Unit which we aU embrace by the endearing name
of country.

90 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
The question for your consideration is not exceeded
in grandeur by any wliich has occurred in our national
history since the Declaration of Independence. In ev
ery aspect it assumes gigantic proportions, whether we
consider simply the extent of territory it affects, or
the pubUc faith and national poUcy which it assaUs, or
that higher question — that Question of Questions, as far
above others as Liberty is above the common things of
Ufe — which it opens anew for judgment.
It concerns an immense region, larger than the origi
nal Thirteen States, vying ia extent with aU the existing
Free States,— stretching over prairie, field, and forest, —
interlaced by sUver streams, skirted by protecting moun
tains, and constituting the heart of the North American
continent, — only a Uttle smaUer, let me add, than three
great European countries combined, — Italy, Spain, and
France, — each of which, in succession, has dominated
over the globe. This territory has been Ukened, on this
floor, to the Garden of G-od. The similitude is found
not merely in its pure and virgin character, but in its
actual geographical situation, occupying central spaces
on this henusphere, which, in their general relations,
may weU compare with that " happy rural seat." "We
are told that " Southward through Eden went a river large " :
SO here a stream flows southward which is larger than
the Euphrates. And here, too, aU amid the smiling
products of Nature, lavished by the hand of God, is the
lofty Tree of Liberty, planted by our fathers, which,
without exaggeration, or even imagination, may be Uk
ened to "the Tree of Life,
High eminent, blooming ambrosial fruit
Of vegetable gold."

NO REPEAL OF THE lUSSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 91
It is with regard to this territory that you are now
caUed to exercise the grandest function of lawgiver, by
establishing rules of poUty which wUl determine its
future character. As the twig is bent the tree incUnes ;
and the influences impressed upon the early days of an
empire, like those upon a chUd, are of inconceivable
importance to its future weal or woe. The biU now
before us proposes to organize and equip two new ter
ritorial estabUshments, with Governors, Secretaries, Le
gislative CouncUs, Legislators, Judges, Marshals, and
the whole machinery of civU society. Such a measure
at any time would deserve the most careful attention.
But at the present moment it justly excites pecuUar
interest, from the effort made — on pretences unsus-
tained by facts, ia violation of solemn covenant, and
in disregard of the early principles of our fathers — to
open this immense region to Slavery.
According to existing law, this territory is now
guarded agaiast Slavery by a positive Prohibition, em
bodied in the Act of Congress approved March Gth,
1820, preparatory to the admission of Missouri into the
Union as a sister State, and in the foUowing expUcit
words : —
"Sec. 8. And he it further enacted. That m ah that ter
ritory ceded hy France to the United States, under the name
of Louisiana, which hes north of thirty-six degrees and thir
ty minutes north latitude, not included within the Umits of
the State contemplated by this Act, slaveby and involun-
TAET SEEViTDDE, otherwise than in the punishment of crimes,
whereof the parties shaU have been duly convicted, shall
BE, AND IS HEREBY, FOKEVER PROHIBITED."
It is now proposed to set aside this Prohibition. But
there seems to be a singular indecision as to the way

92 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
in which the deed shaU be done. From the time of its
first introduction, in the Eeport of the Committee on Ter
ritories, the proposition has assumed different shapes;
and it promises to assume as many as Proteus, — now
one thing in form, and now another, ^ — now Uke a ser
pent, and then like a Uon, — but in every form and shape
identical in substance ; with but one object, — the over
throw of the Prohibition of Slavery. At first it pro
posed simply to declare that the States formed out of
this territory should be admitted into the Union "with
or without Slavery," and did not directly assume to
touch this Prohibition. For some reason this was not
satisfactory, and then it was precipitately proposed to
declare that the Prohibition in the Missouri Act " was
superseded by the principles of the legislation of 1850,
commonly caUed the Compromise Measures, and is
hereby declared inoperative." But this would not do ;
and it is now proposed to enact, that the Prohibition,
" being inconsistent with the principles of non-inter
vention by Congress with Slavery in the States and
Territories, as recognized by the legislation of 1850,
commonly caUed the Compromise Measures, is hereby
declared inoperative and void."
AU this is to be done on pretences founded upon the
Slavery enactments of 1850. Now, Sir, I am not here
to speak in behaU of those measures, or to lean in any
way upon their support. Eelating to different subject-
matters, contained in different acts, which prevaUed
successively, at different times, and by different votes,
— some persons voting for one, and some for another,
and very few for aU, — they cannot be regarded as a
unit, embodyiag conditions of compact, or compromise.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 93
if you please, adopted equaUy by aU, and therefore obU
gatory on aU. But since this broken series of measures
is adduced as apology for the proposition now before
us, I desire to say, that, such as they are, they cannot,
by any rule of interpretation, by any charming rod of
power, by any magic alchemy, be transmuted into a re
peal of that original Prohibition.
On this head there are several points to which I
would merely caU attention, and then pass on. First :
The Slavery enactments of 1850 did not pretend, in
terms, to touch, much less to change, the condition of
the Louisiana Territory, which was already fixed by
Congressional enactment. The two transactions related
to different subject-matters. Secondly : The enactments
do not directly touch the subject of Slavery, during the
Territorial existence of Utah and New Mexico; but
they provide prospectively, that, when admitted as
States, they shaU be received "with or without Slavery."
Here certainly can be no overthrow of an Act of Con
gress which directly concerns a Territory during its Ter
ritorial existence. Thirdly : During aU the discussion
of these measures in Congress, and afterwards before
the people, and through the pubUc press, at the North
and the South alike, no person was heard to intimate
that the Prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri Act was
in any way disturbed. Fourthly : The acts themselves
contain a formal provision, that "nothing herein con
tained shaU be construed to impair or qualify any
thing" in a certain article of the Eesolution annexing
Texas, where it is expressly declared, that, in any State
formed out of territory north of the Missouri Compro
mise Une, " Slavery or involuntary servitude, except for
crime, shaU be prohibited."

94 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
I do not dweU on these things. These pretences have
been amply refuted by able Senators who have preceded
me. It is clear, beyond contradiction, that the Prohibi
tion of Slavery ta this Territory was not superseded, or
ta any way contravened, by the Slavery Acts of 1850.
The proposition before you is, therefore, original in
character, without sanction from any former legislation,
and it must, accordingly, be judged by its merits, as an
original proposition.
Here, Sir, let it be remembered that the friends of
Freedom are not open to any charge of aggression. They
are now standiag on the defensive, guardiag the early
intrenchments thrown up by our fathers. No proposi
tion to aboUsh Slavery anywhere is now before you,
but, on the contrary, a proposition to aboUsh Freedom.
The term AboUtionist, so often appUed in reproach, justly
belongs, on this occasion, to him who would overthrow
this weU-estabUshed landmark. He is, indeed, no Abo
Utionist of Slavery ; let him be caUed, Sir, AboUtionist
of Freedom. For myself, whether with many or few,
my place is taken. Even if alone, my feeble arm should
not be wanting as a bar against this outrage.
On two distinct grounds, " strong both agaiast the
deed," I arraign it : First, in the name of PubUc Faith,
as an infraction of solemn obUgations, assumed beyond
recaU by the South, on the admission of Missouri into
the Union as a Slave State. Secondly, I arraign it in
the name of Freedom, as an unjustifiable departure from
the original Antislavery poUcy of our fathers. These
two heads I shaU consider in their order, glancing, un
der the latter, at the objections to the Prohibition of
Slavery in the Territories.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 95
Before I approach the argument, indulgfe me with a
few preliminary words on the character of this proposi
tion. Slavery is the forcible subjection of one human
beiag, in person, labor, and property, to the wUl of an
other. In this simple statement is involved its whole
injustice. There is no offence against reUgion, against
morals, against humanity, which, in the Ucense of this
enormity, may not stalk " unwhipped of justice." For
the husband and wife there is no marriage ; for the moth
er there is no assurance that her infant chUd wiU not
be ravished from her breast ; for aU who bear the name
of Slave there is nothing that they can caU their own.
Without a father, without a mother, almost without a
God, the slave has nothing but a master. It would be
contrary to that Eule of Eight which is ordained by God,
if such a system, though mitigated often by patriarchal
kindness, and by plausible physical comfort, could be
otherwise than pernicious. It is confessed that the
master suffers not less than the slave. And this is not
aU. The whole social fabric is disorganized ; labor loses
its dignity; industry sickens; education finds no schools;
and aU the land of Slavery is impoverished. And now.
Sir, when the donscience of mankind is at last aroused
to these things, when, throughout the civilized world,
a slave-dealer is a by-word and a reproach, we, as a na
tion, are about to open a new market to the traffickers'
in flesh that haunt the shambles of the South. Such
an act, at this time, is removed from aU reach of that
paUiation often vouchsafed to Slavery. This wrong, we
are speciously told by those who seek to defend it, is
not our original sin. It was entaUed upon us, so we are
instructed, by our ancestors ; and the responsibUity is
often thrown, with exultation, upon the mother coun-

96 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
try. Now, without stoppiag to inquire into the value
of this apology, which is never adduced ia behaU of
other abuses, and which avaUed nothtag against that
kingly power imposed by the mother country, but over
thrown by our fathers, it is sufficient for the present
purpose to know that it is now proposed to make Slav
ery our own original act. Here is a fresh case of actual
transgression, which we cannot cast upon the shoulders
of any progenitors, nor upon any mother country, dis
tant in time or place. The Congress of the United
States, the people of the United States, at this day, in
this vaunted period of light, wUl be responsible for it,
so that it shaU be said hereafter, so long as the dismal
history of Slavery is read, that tn the year of Christ
185.4 a new and deUberate act was passed by which a
vast territory was opened to its incursions.
Historic instances show how such an act wiU make
us soUtary among the nations. In autocratic Eussia,
the serfdom which constitutes the "peculiar institu
tion" of that great empire is never aUowed to travel
with the imperial flag, according to American preten
sion, into provinces newly acquired by the common blood
and treasure, but, by positive prohibition, in harmony
with the general conscience, is carefully restricted with
in its ancient confines ; and this prohibition — the WU
mot Proviso of Eussia — is rigorously enforced on every
side, in aU the provinces, as in Bessarabia on the south,
and Poland on the west, so that, in fact, no Eussian
nobleman is able to move into these important territo
ries with his slaves. Thus Eussia speaks for Freedom,
and disowns the slaveholding dogma of our country.
India, the land of caste, and Turkey, the abode of po
lygamy, both fasten upon Slavery^ the stigma of repro-

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 97
bation. The Barbary States of Africa, occupjdng the
same paraUels of latitude with the Slave States of our
Union, and resembUng them in the nature of their boun
daries, their productions, their climate, and the " peculiar
institution " which sought shelter in both, are changed
into AboUtionists. Algiers, seated on the Une of 36°
30', is dedicated to Freedom. Tunis and Morocco are
doing likewise.
As the effbrt now making is extraordinary in char
acter, so no assumption seems too extraordinary to be
advanced in its support. The primal truth of the Equal
ity of Men, proclaimed in our Declaration of Indepen
dence, is assaUed, and this Great Charter of our country
discredited. Sir, you and I wUl soon pass away, but
that charter wiU conttaue to stand above impeachment
or question. The Declaration of Independence was a
Declaration of Eights, and the language employed,
though general in character, must obviously be con
fined within the design and sphere of a Declaration
of Eights, involving no such pitiful absurdity as was
attributed to it yesterday by the Senator from Indiana
{Mr. Pettit]. Sir, who has pretended that aU men
are bom equal in physical strength or in mental capaci
ties, in beauty of form or health of body? Certainly
not the signers of the Declaration of Independence,
who could have been guUty of no such self-stultifica
tion. Diversity is the law of creation, unrestricted to
race or color. But as God is no respecter of persons,
and as aU are equal in his sight, both Dives and Laza
rus, master and slave, so are aU equal in natural inborn
rights;' and pardon me, if I say it is a mere quibble to
adduce, in argument against this vital axiom of Liberty,
the physical or mental inequalities by which men are
VOL- IV. — 7

98 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
characterized, or the unhappy degradation to which, in
violation of a common brotherhood, they are doomed.
To deny the Declaration of Independence is to rush
on the bosses of the shield of the Almighty, — which,
in aU respects, the supporters of this measure seem
to do.
To the delusive suggestion of the Senator from North
CaroUna [ Mr. Badgee], that by overthrow of this Pro
hibition the number of slaves wUl not be increased,
that there wiU be simply a beneficent diffusion of Slav
ery, and not its extension, I reply at once, that this
argument, if of any value, if not mere words and
nothtag else, would equally justify and require the
overthrow of the Prohibition of Slavery in the Free
States, and, indeed, everywhere throughout the world.
AU the dikes, which, in different countries, from time
to time, with the march of civUization, have been pain
fuUy set up against the inroads of this evU, must be
removed, and every land opened anew to its destructive
flood. It is clear, beyond dispute, that by the over
throw of this Prohibition Slavery wUl be quickened,
and slaves themselves wtU be multipUed, while new
room and verge wiU be secured for the gloomy opera
tions of Slave Law, under which free labor wUl di'oop,
and a vast territoiy be smitten with sterUity. Sir, a
blade of grass would not grow where the horse of AttUa
had trod ; nor can any true prosperity spring up in the
footprints of a slave.
But it is argued that slaves wUl be carried into Ne
braska only in smaU numbers, and therefore the ques
tion is of Uttle practical moment. My distinguished
coUeague [Mr. Eveeett], tn his eloquent speech, heark
ened to this apology, and aUowed himself, whUe up-

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 99
holding the Prohibition, to disparage its importance in
a manner from which I feel obUged, kindly, but most
strenuously, to dissent. Sir, the very census attests its
vital consequence. There is Missouri, at this moment,
with IlUnois on the east and Nebraska on the west, aU
covering nearly the same spaces of latitude, and resem
bling each other in soU, climate, and natural produc
tions. Mark now the contrast ! By the potent efficacy
of the Ordinance of the Northwestern Territory IlUnois
is a Free State, whUe Missouri has eighty-seven thou
sand four hundred and twenty-two slaves ; and the
simple question which chaUenges answer is, whether
Nebraska shaU be preserved in the condition of IlUnois
or surrendered to that of Missouri ? Surely this cannot
be treated Ughtly. But I am unwilling to measure the
exigency of the Prohibition by the number of persons,
whether many or few, whom it may protect. Human
rights, whether tn a multitude or the soUtary individ
ual, are entitled to equal and tmhesitating support.
In this spirit, the flag of our country only recently
became the impenetrable panoply of a homeless wan
derer who claimed its protection in a distant sea ; ^ and
in this spirit I am constrained to declare that there is
no place accessible to human avarice or human lust, or
human force, whether the lowest vaUey or the loftiest
mountain-top, whether the broad flower-spangled prai
ries or the snowy caps of the Eocky Mountains, where
the Prohibition of Slavery, Uke the commandments of
the Decalogue, should not go.
1 Martin Koszta, Hungarian hy birth, who had made the preliminary
declaration of citizenship, aud had a protection from the United States
Consul at Smyrna, was, July 2, 1853, surrendered by an Austrian man-
of-war in the harbor of Smyrna at the demand of a man-of-war of the
United States.

100 THE LANDMAIIK OF FEEEDOM:

And now. Sir, in the name of that PubUc Faith
which is the very Ugament of civil society, and which
the great Eoman orator teUs us it is detestable to break
even with an enemy, I arraign this scheme, and hold it
up to the judgment of the country. There is an early
ItaUan story of an experienced citizen, who, when told
by his nephew, at the University of Bologna, that he
had been studying the science of Right, said in reply,
"You have spent your time to Uttle purpose. It would
have been better, had you learned the science of Might,
for that is worth two of the other " ; and the bystanders
of that day aU agreed that the veteran spoke the truth.
I begin. Sir, by assuming that honorable Senators wiU
not act in this spirit, — that they wiU not wantonly and
flagitiously discard any obUgation, pledge, or covenant,
because they chance to possess the power, — that they
wiU not substitute might for' right.
Sir, the proposition before you involves not merely
the repeal of existing law, but the infraction of solemn
obUgations, originaUy proposed and assumed by the
South, after protracted and embittered contest, as a
covenant of peace, with regard to certain specified ter
ritory therein described, namely, "All that territory
ceded by France to the United States, under the name
of Louisiana," — according to which, in consideration
of the admission into the Union of Missouri as a Slave
State, Slavery was forever prohibited in aU the remain
ing part of this territory which Ues north of 36° 30'.
This arrangement between different sections of the
Union, the Slave States of the first part and the Free
States of the second part, though usuaUy known as

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 101
the Missouri Compromise, was at the time styled a
COMPACT. In its stipulations for Slavery, it was justly
repugnant to the conscience of the North, and ought
never to have been made ; but on that side it has been
performed. And now the unperformed outstanding ob
Ugations to Freedom, origtaally proposed and assumed
by the South, are resisted.
Tears have passed since these obligations were em
bodied in the legislation of Congress, and accepted by
the country. MeanwhUe the statesmen by whom they
were framed and vindicated have, one by one, dropped
from this earthly sphere. Their Uving voices cannot
now be heard, for the conservation of that PubUc Faith
to which they were pledged. But this extraordinary
lapse of time, with the complete fruition by one party of
aU the benefits belonging to it under the compact, gives
to the transaction an added and most sacred strength.
Prescription steps tn and with new bonds confirms the
original work, to the end, that, whUe men are mortal,
controversies sliaU not be immortal. Death, with in
exorable scythe, has mowed down the authors of this
compact; but, with conservative hour-glass, the dread
destroyer has counted out a succession of years, which
now defile before us, like so many sentinels, to guard
the sacred landmark of Freedom.
A simple statement of facts, derived from the Jour
nals of Congress and contemporary records,-'^ wiU show
the origin and nature of this compact, the influence
1 As the volumes of the Annals of Congress covering the proceedings on
the Missouri Compromise were not published when this speech was made,
Mr. Sumner was obliged to rely upon the National Intelligencer and Niles's
Register. In the present edition references are made to the Annals of Con-.

102 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
by which it was estabUshed, and the obUgations it im
posed. As early as 1818, at the first session of the Fifteenth
Congress, a bUl was reported to the House of Eepre
sentatives, authorizing the people of the Missouri Ter
ritory to form a Constitution and State Government,
for the admission of such State into the Union ; but at
that session no final action was had. At the next ses
sion, in February, 1819, the bUl was again brought for
ward, when an eminent Eepresentative of New York,
whose Ufe was spared tUl this last autumn, Mr. James
Tallmadge, moved a clause prohibiting any further intro
duction of slaves into the proposed State, and securing
Freedom to the chUdren born witlun the State, after ad
mission into the Union, on attaining the age of twenty-
five years. This important proposition, which assumed
a power not only to prohibit the ingress of Slavery
into the State, but also to abolish it there, was passed in
the affirmative, after a vehement debate of three days.
On a division of the question, the first part, prohibit
ing the further introduction of slaves, was adopted by
eighty-seven yeas to seventy-six nays ; the second part,
providing for the emancipation of chUdren, was adopted
by eighty-two yeas to seventy-eight nays. Other prop
ositions to thwart the operation of these amendments
were voted down, and on the 17th of February the btU
was read a third time, and passed with these important
restrictions. In the Senate, after debate, the provision for the
emancipation of children was struck out by thirty-one
yeas to seven nays ; the other provision, against the
further introduction of Slavery, was struck out by
-twenty-two yeas to sixteen nays. Thus emasculated.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 103
the bUl was returned to the House, which, on the 2d of
March, by a vote of seventy-eight nays to seventy-six
yeas, refused its concurrence. The Senate adhered to
thetr amendments, and the House, by seventy-eight yeas
to sixty-six nays, adhered to their disagreement ; and so
at this session the Missouri BUl was lost : and here was
a temporary triumph for Freedom.
MeanwhUe the same controversy was renewed on the
bUl pending at the same time for the organization of
the Territory of Arkansas, then known as the southern
part of the Territory of Missouri. The restrictions
already adopted in the Missouri BUl were moved by
Mr. Taylor, of New York, subsequently Speaker; but,
after at least five close votes, on the yeas and nays, in
one of which the House was equaUy divided, eighty-
eight yeas to eighty-eight nays, they were lost. An
other proposition by Mr. Taylor, simpler in form, that
Slavery should not hereafter be introduced into this
Territory, was lost by ninety nays to eighty-six yeas ;
and the Arkansas BUl, on the 20th of February, was
read the third time and passed. In the Senate, Mr.
BurrUl, of Ehode Island, moved, as an amendment, the
prohibition of the further introduction of Slavery into
this Territory, which was lost by nineteen nays to four
teen yeas. And thus, without any provision for Free
dom, Arkansas was organized as a Territory : and here
was a triumph of Slavery.
At this same session Alabama was admitted as a
Slave State, without any restriction or objection.
It was in the discussion on the Arkansas BtU, at this
session, that we find the earliest suggestion of a Com
promise. Defeated in his efforts to prohibit Slavery
in this Territory, Mr. Taylor stated that " he thought it

104 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM :
important that some Une should be designated beyond
which Slavery should not be permitted," and he moved
its prohibition hereafter tn all Territories of the United
States north of 36° 30' north latitude, without any excep
tion of Missouri, which is north of this line. This propo
sition, though withdrawn after debate, was at once wel
comed by Mr. Livermore, of New HampshUe, as " made
in the true spirit of compromiser It was opposed by Mr.
Ehea, of Tennessee, on behalf of Slavery, who avowed
himseU against every restriction, — and also by Mr.
Ogle, of Pennsylvania, on behalf of Freedom, who was
"opposed to any compromise by which Slavery in any
of the Territories should be recognized or sanctioned by
Congress." In this spirit it was opposed and supported
by others, among whom was General Harrison, after
wards President of the United States, who " assented to
the expediency of estabUshing some such Une of dis
crimination," but proposed a Une due west from the
mouth of the Des Moines, thus constituting the north-
em, and not the southem boundary of Missouri, the
partition line between Freedom and Slavery.
This idea of Compromise, though suggested by Mr.
Taylor, was thus early adopted and vindicated in this
very debate by an eminent character — Mr. Louis Mc
Lane, of Delaware — who has stace held high office ta
the country ,1 and enjoyed no common measure of public
confidence. Of aU the leadiog actors ia these early
scenes, he and Mr. Mercer alone are yet spared. On
this occasion he said : —
" The fixing of a line on the west of the Mississippi, north
of which Slavery should not be tolerated, had al-ways heen vrith
1 Secretary of State and Minister to England under President Jackson,
and a second time Minister to England under President Polk.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 105
him a favorite policy, and he hoped the day was not distant,
when, upon principles oi fair compromise, it might consti
tutionally be effected." *
The present attempt, however, he regarded as prema
ture. After opposing the restriction on Missouri, he
concluded by declaring : —
" At the same time, I do not mean to abandon the policy
to which I aUuded in the commencement of my remarks. I
think it but fair that both sections of the Union should be
accommodated on this subject, with regard to which so much
feeling has been manifested. The same great motives of policy
which reconciled and harmonized the jarring and discordant
elements of our system originally, and which enabled the
framers of our happy Constitution to compromise the differ
ent interests which then prevailed upon this and other sub
jects, if properly cherished by us, will enable us to achieve
similar objects. If we meet upon principles of reciprocity,
we cannot faU to do justice to aU. It has already heen
avowed hy gentlemen on this jloor, from the South and the West,_,
that they mil agree upon a line -which shall di-vide the slave-
holding front the non-slaveholding States. It is this proposi
tion I am anxious to effect ; hut I wish to effect it hy some
COMPACT which shall be binding upon all parties and all sub
sequent Legislatures, — which cannot be changed, and will not
fluctuate with the diversity of feeling and of sentiment to
which this empire, in its march, must be destined. There
is a vast and immense tract of country west of the Missis
sippi yet to be settled, and intimately connected with the
northern section of the Union, upon which this compromise
can be effected." "
The suggestions of Compromise were at this time
vain : each party was determined. The North, by the
1 Annals of Congress, 16th Cong. 2d Sess., Feb. 17, 1819, Vol. IL col. 1228.
3 Ibid., 1235.

106 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
prevailing voice of its Eepresentatives, claimed aU for
Freedom ; the South, by its potential command of the
Senate, claimed aU for Slavery.
The report of this debate aroused the country. For
the first time in our history. Freedom, after animated
struggle, hand to hand, was kept in check by Slavery.
The original poUcy of our fathers in the restriction of
Slavery was suspended, and this giant wrong threatened
to stalk into aU the broad national domain. Men at the
North were humbled and amazed. The imperious de
mands of Slavery seemed incredible. MeanwhUe the
whole subject was adjoumed from Congress to the peo
ple. Through the press and at pubUc meetings, an
earnest voice was raised against the admission of Mis
souri into the Union without the restriction of Slavery.
Judges left the bench, and clergymen the pulpit, to sweU
the indignant protest which went up from good men
without distinction of party or pursuit.
The movement was not confined to a few persons, nor
to a few States. A pubUc meeting at Trenton, in New
Jersey, was foUowed by others in New York and PhUa
delphia, and finally at Worcester, Salem, and Boston,
where committees were organized to raUy the country.
The citizens of Baltimore, in pubUc meeting at the court
house, with the mayor in the chair, resolved " that the
future admission of slaves into the States which may
hereafter be formed west of the Mississippi ought to
be prohibited by Congress.'' VUlages, towns, and cities,
by memorial, petition, and prayer, caUed upon Congress
to maintain the great principle of the Prohibition of
Slavery. The same principle was also commended by
the resolutions of State Legislatures ; and Pennsylvania,
inspUed by the teachings of Franklin and the convictions

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. lOT
of the respectable denomination of Friends, unanimously
asserted at once the right and the duty of Congress to
prohibit Slavery west of the Mississippi, solemnly caU
ing upon her sister States " to refuse to covenant with
crime." New Jersey and Delaware foUowed. Ohio as
serted the same principle : so did Indiana. The latter
State, not content with providing for the future, severely
censured one of its Senators for his vote to organize
Arkansas without the prohibition of Slavery. The reso
lutions of New York were reinforced by the recommen
dation of De Witt CUnton.^
Amidst these excitements Congress came together
Ul December, 1819, taking possession of these HaUs
of the Capitol for the first time since their desolation
by the British. On the day after the receipt of the
President's Message two several Committees of the
House were constituted, one to consider the application
of Maine, and the other of Missouri, to enter the Union
as separate and independent States. With only the
delay of a single day, the biU for the admission of Mis
souri was reported to the House without the restriction
of Slavery ; but, as if shrinking from the immediate dis
cussion of the great question it involved, afterwards, on
motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York, modified by Mr.
Mercer, of VUginia, its consideration was postponed for
several weeks : aU which, be it observed, is in open
contrast with the manner in which the present discus
sion has been precipitated upon Congress. MeanwhUe
the Maine BtU, when reported to the House, was promptly
acted upon, and sent to the Senate.
In the interval between the report of the Missouri
BiU and its consideration by the House, a Committee
1 See Niles's Weekly Eegister, Vol. 'KVII. passim.

108 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
was constituted, on motion of Mr. Taylor, of New York,
to tuquire into the expediency of prohibiting the in
troduction of Slavery into the Territories west of the
Mississippi. This Committee, at the end of a fortnight,
was discharged from further consideration of the subject,
which, it was understood, would enter into the postponed
debate on the Missouri BUl.
This early effort to interdict Slavery in the Territories
by special law is worthy of notice on account of ex
pressions of opinion it drew forth. In the course of his
remarks, Mr. Taylor declared that " he presumed there
was no member — he knew of none — who doubted the
constitutional power of Congress to impose such a re
striction on the Territories." ^
A generous voice from Virginia recognized at once
the right and duty of Congress. This was from Charles
Fenton Mercer, who declared, that, " when the question
proposed should come fairly before the House, he should
support the proposition  He should record his vote
against suffering the dark cloud of calamity which now
darkened his country from rolling on beyond the peace
ful shores of the Mississippi." ^
At length, on the 25th of January, 1820, the House
resolved itseU into Committee of the Whole on the
Missouri BiU, and proceeded with its discussion, day
by day, tUl the 28th of February, when it was report
ed back with an amendment excluding Slavery from
the proposed State. At the opening of the debate an
amendment was offered with a view to Compromise,
when Mr. Smith, of Maryland, for many years an emi
nent Senator of that State, but at this time a Eepre
sentative, whUe opposing the restriction of Missouri,
1 Annals of Congress, 16th Cong. 1st Sess., 1. 802. 2 Ibid., 803.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 109
vindicated the prohibition of Slavery in the Territo
ries. " He said that he rose principaUy with a view to state his
understanding of the proposed amendment, namely : That it
retained the boundaries of Missouri as delineated in the bill ;
that it prohibited the admission of slaves west of the west
line of Missouri, and north of the north line ; that it did not
interfere with the Territory of Arkansas, or the uninhabited
land west thereof. He thought the proposition not exception
able, but doubted the propriety of its forming a part of the
biU. He considered the power of Congress over the Terri
tory as supreme, unlimited, before its admission ; that Con
gress could impose on its Territories any restriction it thought
proper; and the people, when they settled therein, did so
under a fuU knowledge of the restriction. If citizens go into
the Territory thus restricted, they cannot carry with them
slaves. They wiU be without slaves, and wiU be educated
with prejudices and habits such as will exclude all desire
on their part to admit Slavery, when they shaU become suf
ficiently numerous to be admitted as a State. And this is
the advantage proposed by the amendment." ^
MeanwhUe the same question was presented to the
Senate, where a conclusion was reached earUer than in
the House. A clause for the admission of Missouri was
moved by way of tack to the Maine BUl. To this an
amendment was moved by Mr Eoberts, of Pennsylvania,
prohibiting the further introduction of Slavery into the
State, which, after a fortnight's debate, was defeated by
twenty-seven nays to sixteen yeas.
The debate tn the Senate was of unusual interest and
splendor. It was especially iUustrated by an effort of
eminent power from that great lawyer and orator, WU-
1 Annals of Congress, ul mpra, I. 940, 941, January 26, 1820.

110 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
Uam Ptakney. Eecently returned from a succession of
missions to foreign courts, and at this time the acknowl
edged chief of the American bar, particularly skilled in
questions of Constitutional Law, his course as a Senator
from Maryland was calculated to produce a profound im
pression. A speech from him, which for two days ^ drew
to this Chamber an admiring throng, and at the time
was fondly compared with the best examples of Greece
and Eome, is without any record ; but another, made
shortly afterwards, remains to us, and here we find the
first authoritative proposition and statement of what
has been since known as the Missouri Compromise.
This latter effort was mainly dUected against the re
striction upon Missouri, but it began and ended with the
idea of Compromise. " Notwithstanding," he says, " oc
casional appearances of rather an unfavorable descrip
tion, I have long since persuaded myseU that the Mis
souri question, as it is called, might be laid to rest with
innocence and safety by some conciliatory compromise
at least, by which, as is our duty, we might reconcUe
the extremes of conflicting views and feeUngs, without
any sacrifice of constitutional principle." And he closed
with the hope that the restriction on Missouri would
not be pressed, but that the whole question " might be
disposed of in a manner satisfactory to aU, by a pro
spective prohibition of Slavery in the territory to the north
and west of Missouri." ^ Here let me remark, that, in the
nomenclature of the time, the term "restriction" was
applied to the requirement of Freedom proposed for the
State of Missouri, while the term "prohibition" was ap
pUed to the outlying territory north of a certain line.
1 January 21 and 24, 1820: Annals of Congress, ut supra, I. 232, 236.
2 Ibid., I. 389-417, February 15, 1820. Wheaton's Life of Pinkney, Ap
pendix, pp. 573 - 612.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. Ill
The compromise proposed was abandonment of the " re
striction," with recognition of the " prohibition."
This authoritative proposition of Compromise from
the most powerful advocate of the unconditional admis
sion of Missouri, was made in the Senate on the 15th of
February. From various indications, it seems to have
found prompt favor in that body. On the 16th of Feb
ruary, the union of Maine and Missouri tn one bUl pre
vaUed there by twenty-three yeas to twenty-one nays.
The next day, Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, who had always
voted with the South agaiast any restriction upon Mis
souri, introduced the famous clause prohibiting Slavery
tn territory north of 36° 30' outside this State, which
constitutes the eighth section of the Missouri Act. An
effort was made to include within the prohibition " the
whole country west of the Mississippi, except Louisiana,
Arkansas, and Missouri " ; but the South united against
such extension of the area of Freedom, and it was de
feated by twenty-four nays to twenty yeas. The pro
hibition, as moved by Mr. Thomas, then prevaUed by
thirty-four yeas to only ten nays. Among those in the
affirmative were both the Senators from each of the
Slave States, Louisiana, Tennessee, Kentucky, Delaware,
Maryland, and Alabama, and also one of the Senators
from each of the Slave States, Mississippi and North
Carolina, including in the honorable list the famiUar
names of WiUiam Pinkney, James Brown, and WUUam
Eufus King.
This biU, thus amended, is the first legislative em
bodiment of the Missouri Compact or Compromise, the
essential conditions of which were the admission of
Missouri as a State without any restriction of Slavery,
and the prohibition of Slavery in aU the remaining ter-

112 THE LANDMARK OF FEEEDOM:
ritory of Louisiana north of 36° 30'.^ Janus-faced, with
one front towards Freedom and another towards Slavery,
this must not be confounded with the simpler proposi
tion of Mr. Taylor, at the preceding session, to prohibit
Slavery in aU the territory north of 36° 30', including
Missouri. The compromise now brought forward, foUow
ing the early lead of Mr. McLane, both recognized and
prohibited Slavery north of 36° 30'. Here, for the first
time, these two opposite principles commingled in one
legislative channel ; and it is immediately subsequent to
this junction that we discern the precise responsibUity
assumed by different parties. And now observe the in
dubitable and decisive fact. This bUl, thus composed,
containing these two elements, this double measure,
finaUy passed the Senate by a test vote of twenty-four
yeas to twenty nays. The yeas embraced every South
ern Senator except Nathaniel Macon, of North Carolina,
and WilUam Smith, of South CaroUna.
Mr. Butlee, of South Carolina {interrupting). Mr. Gail-
lard, of South Carolina, voted with Mr. Smith.
Me. Sumnee. No, Sir : the Journal, which I now hold
in my hand, shows that he voted for the bUl with the
Compromise. I repeat, that the yeas on this vital ques
tion embraced every Southern Senator except Mr. Macon
and Mr. Smith. The nays embraced every Northern
Senator, except the two Senators from IlUnois, one Sen
ator from Ehode Island, and one from New Hampshire.
And this. Sir, is the record of the first stage in the
1 The eminent .ludge Story, who was then in Washington, mentions
these conditions in a private letter, under date of February 27, 1820, as fol
lows : " There is a great deal of heat and irritation, but most probably a
compromise will take place, admitting Missouri mto the Union without the
restriction, and imposing it on all the other Territories." — Letter la Stephen
White, Esq. : Life aud Letters of Story, Vol. I. pp. 362, 363.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 113
adoption of the Missouri Compromise. First openly
announced and vindicated on the floor of the Senate by
a distinguished Southem statesman, it was forced on
the North by an almost unanimous Southem vote.
WhUe things had thus culminated in the Senate, dis
cussion was stiU proceeding in the House on the original
Missouri BUl. This was for a moment arrested by the
reception from the Senate of the Maine BUl, amended
by tacking to it a biU for the admission of Missouri,
embodying the Compromise. Upon this the debate was
brief and the decision prompt. The House was not dis
posed to abandon the substantial restriction of Slavery
in Missouri for what seemed its unsubstantial prohibition
in an unsettled territory. The Senate's amendments to
the Maine BUl were aU rejected, and the bUl left in its
original condition. This was done by large votes. Even
the Prohibition of Slavery was thrown out, by one hun
dred and fifty-nine yeas to eighteen nays, both North
and South unittag against it, — though, in this smaU, but
persistent minority, we find two Southern statesmen,
Samuel Smith and Charles Fenton Mercer The Sen
ate, on receiving the biU back from the House, insist
ed on their amendments. The House in turn insisted on
their disagreement. According to parUamentary usage,
a Committee of Conference between the two Houses
was now appointed. Mr. Thomas, of lUinois, Mr. Pink
ney, of Maryland, and Mr. James Barbour, of Virginia,
composed this important Committee on the part of the
Senate ; and Mr. Holmes, of Massachusetts, from the Dis
trict of Maine, Mr Taylor, of New York, Mr Lowndes,
of South Carolina, Mr. Parker, of Massachusetts, and Mr.
Kinsey, of New Jersey, on the part of the House.
VOL. IV. — 8

114 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
MeanwhUe the House voted on the original Missouri
BiU. An amendment peremptorily interdicting aU Sla
very in the new State was adopted by ninety-four yeas
to eighty-six nays ; and thus the biU passed the House
and was sent to the Senate on the 1st of March. So,
after an exasperated and protracted discussion, the two
Houses were at a dead-lock. The double-headed Missou
ri Compromise was the ultimatum of the Senate. The
restriction of Slavery in Missouri, involving, of course,
its prohibition in aU the unorganized territories, was
the ultimatum of the House.
At this stage, on the 2d of March, the Committee of
Conference made their report, which was urged at once
upon the House by Mr. Lowndes, the distinguished rep
resentative from South CaroUna, and one of her most
cherished sons. And here, SU, at the mention of this
name, sttU so fragrant among us, let me for one moment
stop this current of history, to express the honest admi
ration with which he inspires me. Mr. Lowndes died
before my memory of poUtical events, but he is stUl
endeared by the self-abnegation of a single utterance, —
that the Presidency is an ofiice not to be sought or deelined,
— a sentiment which by its beauty, in one part at least,
shames the vileness of aspiration in our day. Such a
man, on any occasion, would be a host; but he now
threw his great soul into the work. He even objected
to a motion to print the Eeport, on the ground "that
it would imply a determination in the House to delay a
decision of the subject to-day, which he had hoped the
House was fully prepared for" The question then fol
lowed on striking out the restriction in the Missouri BUL
The report in the " National InteUigencer " ^ says : —
I See also Annals of Congress, ut supra, II. 1578, 1586, March 2, 1820.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 115
" Mr. Lowndes spoke briefly in support of the Compromise
recommended by the Committee of Conference, and urged
with great earnestness the propriety of a decision which
would restore tranquillity to the country, which was de
manded by every consideration of discretion, of moderation,
of wisdom, and of virtue."
" Mr. Mercer [of Virginia] foUowed on the same side with
great earnestness, and had spoken about half an hour, when
he was compeUed by indisposition to resume his seat."
Such efforts, pressed with Southern ardor, were not
unavailing. In conformity with the report of the Com
mittee, the whole question was forthwith put at rest.
Maine and Missouri were admitted into the Union
as independent States. The restriction of Slavery inl
Missouri was abandoned by a vote in the House of
ninety yeas to eighty-seven nays ; and the prohibition
of Slavery in territories north of 36° 30', exclusive of
Missouri, was substituted by a vote of one hundred and
thirty-four yeas to forty-two nays. Among the distin
guished Southern names in the affirmative are Louis
McLane, of Delaware, Samuel Smith, of Maryland,
WilUam Lowndes, of South Carolina, and Charles Fen
ton Mercer, of Virginia. The title of the Missouri BtU
was amended in conformity with this prohibition, by
adding the words, "and to prohibit Slavery in certain
Territories." The bills then passed both Houses without
a division; and on the morning of the 3d of March,
1820, the "National InteUigencer" contataed an exult
ing article, entitled " The Question Settled."
Another paper, pubUshed in Baltimore, immediately
after the passage of the Compromise, vindicated it as a
perpetual compact, which could not be disturbed. The
language is so clear and strong that I wiU read it, al-

116 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
though it has been aUeady quoted by my able and ex
ceUent friend from Ohio [Mr. Chase].
" It is true, the Compromise is supported only hy the letter of
a law repealable hy the authority which enacted it ; hut the cir
cumstances of the case give to this law a moeal foeoe equal to
that of a positive provision of the Constitution ; and we do not
hazard anything hy saying that the Constitution exists in its
ohserva-nce. Both parties have sacrificed much to conciliation.
We -wish to see the compact kept in good faith, and trust that
a kind Providence wiU open the way to relieve us of an evil
¦which every good citizen deprecates as the supreme curse of
this country." '^
SU, the distingmshed leaders in this settlement were
aU from the South. As early as February, 1819, Louis
McLane, of Delaware, urged it upon Congress, in the form
of a "compact binding upon all subsequent Legisla
tures." It was in 1820 brought forward and upheld in
the Senate by WiUiam Pinkney, of Maryland, and passed
in that body by the vote of every Southern Senator ex
cept two, against the vote of every Northern Senator
except four. In the House it was welcomed at once by
Samuel Smith, of Maryland, and Charles Fenton Mercer,
of Virginia. The Committee of Conference, through
which it finaUy prevaUed, was fiUed, on the part of the
Senate, with inflexible partisans of the South, such as
might fitly represent the sentiments of its President,
John Gaillard, a Senator from South Carolina; on the
part of the House, it was nominated by Henry Clay, the
Speaker, a Eepresentative from Kentucky. This Com
mittee, thus constituted, drawing its double Ufe from the
South, was unanimous in favor of the Compromise, with
but one dissenting voice, and that from the North, — •
1 Niles's Weekly Eegister, March 11, 1820.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 117
John W. Taylor, of New York. A private letter from Mr.
Pinkney, written at the time, and preserved by his dis
tinguished biographer, shows that the report made by
the Committee came from him.
" The biU for the admission of Missouri into the Union
{vrithout restriction as to Slavery) may be considered as passed.
That bill was sent back again this morning from the House,
vrith the restriction as to Slavery. The Senate voted to amend
it by striking out the restriction (twenty-seven to fifteen),
and proposed, as another amendment, what I have all along
heen the advocate qf, a restriction upon the vacant territory
to the north and west, as to Slavery. To-night the House of
Eepresentatives have agreed to both of these amendments,
in opposition to their former votes, and this affair is settled.
To-morrow we shall (of course) recede from our amendments
as to Maine (our object being effected), and both States will
be admitted. This happy result has been, accomplished hy the
Conference, of which I was a member on the part of the Senate,
and of which I proposed the repo-rt which has heen made." ^
Thus again the Compromise takes its Ufe from the
South. Proposed in the Committee by Mr. Pinkney, it
was urged on the House of Eepresentatives, with great
earnestness, by Mr. Lowndes, of South CaroUna, and Mr.
Mercer, of VUginia : and here again is the most persua
sive voice of the South. When passed by Congress, it
next came before the President, James Monroe, of VU
ginia, for his approval, who did not sign it tUl after the
unanimous opinion, in writing, of his Cabinet, composed
of John Quincy Adams, WUUam H. Crawford, John C.
Calhoun, Smith Thompson, and WilUam Wirt, — a ma
jority of whom were Southern men, — that the prohi
bition of Slavery tn the Territories was constitutional
1 Wheaton's Life of Pinkney, p. 167.

118 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
Thus yet again the Compromise takes its lUe from the
South. As the Compromise took its life from the South, so,
in the judgment of its own statesmen at the time, and
according to unquestionable facts, the South was the con
quering party. It gained forthwith its darUng desUe,
the first and essential stage in the admission of Missouri
as a Slave State, successfuUy consummated at the next
session, — and subsequently the admission of Arkansas,
also as a Slave State. From the crushed and humbled
North it received more than the fuU consideration stip
ulated in its favor. On the side of the North the con
tract has been more than executed. And now the South
refuses to perform the part which it originaUy proposed
and assumed in this transaction. With the considera
tion in its pocket, it repudiates the bargain which it
forced upon the country. This, SU, is a simple state
ment of the present question.
A subtUe German has declared that he could find her
esies in the Lord's Prayer ; and I beUeve it is only in this
spirit that any fiaw can be found in the existing obUga
tions of this compact. As late as 1848, in the discussions
of this body, the Senator from Virginia [Mr Mason],
who usually sits behind me, but who is not now in his
seat, whUe condemning it in many aspects, says : —
" Yet, as it was agreed to, as a Compromise, by the South,
for the sake of the Union, / would he the last to disturb it."^
Even this determined Senator recognized it as an obU
gation which he would not disturb. And, though dis-
beUeving the original constitutionaUty of the arrange
ment, he was clearly right. I know. Sir, that it is in
1 Congressional Globe, 30th Cong. 1st Sess., Vol. XIX., Appendix, p. 887.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 119
form simply a Legislative Act ; but as the Act of Settle
ment in England, declaring the rights and Uberties of
the subject and settling the succession of the Crown,
has become a permanent part of the British Constitu
tion, irrepealable by any common legislation, so this Act,
under aU the circumstances attending its passage, also
by long acquiescence, and the complete performance of
its conditions by one party, has become part of our fun
damental law, Urepealable by any common legislation.
As weU might Congress at this moment undertake to
overhaul the original purchase of Louisiana as unconsti
tutional, and now, on this account, thrust away that mag
nificent heritage, with aU its cities, States, and Territories,
teeming with civilization. The Missouri Compact, in its
unperformed obUgations to Freedom, stands at this day
as impregnable as the Louisiana purchase.
I appeal to Senators about me not to disturb it. I
appeal to the Senators from Virginia to keep inviolate
the compact made in theU behaU by James Barbour
and Charles Fenton Mercer. I appeal to the Senators
from South CaroUna to guard the work of John GaU-
lard and WiUiam Lowndes. I appeal, to the Senators
from Maryland to uphold the Compromise which eUcit-
ed the constant support of Samuel Smith, and was first
triumphantly pressed by the unsurpassed eloquence of
Pinkney. I appeal to the Senators from Delaware to
maintain the landmark of Freedom in the Territory of
Louisiana early proposed by Louis McLane. I appeal
to the Senators from Kentucky not to repudiate the
pledges of Henry Clay. I appeal to the Senators from
Alabama not to break the agreement sanctioned by the
earUest votes in the Senate of their late most honored
feUow-citizen, WUliam Eufus King. Sir, I have heard

120 THE LANDMARK OF FEEEDOM:
of honor that felt a stain Uke a wound. If there be any
such in this Chamber, — and surely there is, — it wiU hes
itate to take upon itseU the stain of this transaction.
Sir, Congress may now set aside this obligation, re
pudiate this pUghted faith, annul this compact ; and
some of you, forgetful of the majesty of honest dealing,
in order to support Slavery, may consider it advanta
geous to use this power. To aU such let me commend
a famiUar story. An eminent leader in Antiquity, The
mistocles, once announced to the Athenian Assembly,
that he had a scheme in contemplation, highly bene
ficial to the State, but which could not be made pubUc.
He was thereupon directed to communicate it to Aris-
tides, surnamed the Just, and, if approved by him, to
put it in execution. The brief and memorable judgment
of Aristides was, that, while nothing could be more ad
vantageous to Athens, nothing could be more unjust;
and the Assembly, responding at once, commanded that
the project should be abandoned. It appears that it
was proposed to burn the combined Greek fleet, then
enjoying the security of peace in a neighboring sea, and
thus confirm the naval supremacy of Athens.^ A simi
lar proposition is now brought before the American Sen
ate. You are asked to destroy a safeguard of Freedom,
consecrated by solemn compact, under which the coun
try is reposing in the security of peace, and thus con
firm the supremacy of Slavery. To this institution and
its partisans the proposition may seem- advantageous;
but nothing can be more unjust. Let the judgment of
the Athenian democracy be yours.
This is what I have to say upon this head. I now
pass to the second branch of the argument.
1 Plutarch, Themistocles.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 121

IL
Me. Peesident, — It is not only as an infraction of
solemn compact, embodied in ancient law, that I oppose
this biU; I arraign it as a flagrant and extravagant
departure from the original policy of our fathers, con
secrated by theU Uves, opinions, and acts.
[Here Mr. Simmer proceeded to set forth the Antislavery policy at
the foundation of the Government, — less fully than in the earlier
speech. Freedom National, Slavery Sectional, hut substantially in the
same vein. After alluding to the memorial of Franklin, addressed to
the first Congress under the Constitution, he proceeded as follows.]
The memorial of Franklin, with other memorials of a
simUar character, was referred to a Committee, and much
debated in the House, which finaUy sanctioned the fol
lowing resolution, and dUected the same to be entered
upon its Journals, namely : —
" That Congress have no authority to interfere in the
emancipation of slaves, or in the treatment of them, within
any of the States : it remaining with the several States alone
to provide any regulations therein which humanity and true
policy may require."^
This resolution, declaring the principle of non-inter
vention by Congress with Slavery in the States, was
adopted by the same Congress which had solemnly
affirmed the Prohibition of Slavery in aU the existing
territory of the Union ; so that one may be regarded as
the complement of the other. And it is on these double
acts, at the first organization of the Govemment, and
the recorded sentiments of the founders, that I take my
stand, and chaUenge aU question.
In the country, at this time, there was strictly no
1 Annals of Congress, ist Cong. 2d Sess., H. 1472-74, March 23, 1790.

122 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
dividing Une between Antislavery and Proslavery. The
Antislavery sentiment was thoroughly national, broad
and general, pervading alike aU parts of the Union, and
uprising from the common heart of the entire people.
The Proslavery interest was strictly personal and pecu
niary, and had its source simply in the self-interest of
individual slaveholders. It contemplated Slavery only
as a domestic tastitution, not as a poUtical element,
and merely stipulated for its security where it actuaUy
existed within the States.
SU, the original poUcy of the country, begun under
the Confederation, and recognized at the initiation of
the new Government, is clear and unmistakable. Com
pendiously expressed, it was non-intervention by Congress
with Slavery in the States, and its prohibition in all the
national domain. In this way discordant feelings on
this subject were reconciled. Slave-masters were left at
home in their respective States, under the protection of
local laws, to hug Slavery without interference from Con
gress, while all opposed to it were exempted from any
responsibiUty therefor in the national domain. This, Sir,
is the common ground on which our poUtical fabric was
reared ; and I do not hesitate to say that it is the only
groimd on which it can stand in permanent peace.
Our Eepublic has swoUen tn population and power,
but it has shrunk in character. It is not now what it
was in the beginning, a EepubUc merely permitting,
whUe it regretted Slavery, — tolerating it only where it
could not be removed, and interdicting it where it did
not exist, — but a mighty Propagandist, openly favoring
and vindicating it, — visiting, also, with displeasure all
who oppose it.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 123
SU, our country early reached heights which it could
not keep. Its faU was gentle, but complete. At the
session of Congress immediately foUowing the ratifica
tion of the Prohibition of Slavery in the national do
main, a transfer of the territory now constituting Ten
nessee was accepted from North Carolina (2d April,
1790), loaded with the express proviso, "that no regula
tions made or to be made by Congress shaU tend to
emancipate slaves": a formal provision, which, whUe
admitting the power of Congress over Slavery in the
Territories, waived the prevaUing poUcy of executing it.
TlUs was foUowed, in 1798, by the transfer from Georgia
of the region between her present western limit and the
Mississippi, under a similar condition. In both these
cases apology may be found in the very terms of the
transfer, and in the fact that the region constituted part
of two States where Slavery actuaUy existed, — though
it wUl be confessed that even here there was a descent
from that summit of Freedom on which the Nation had
so proudly rested.
Without tracing this downward course through its
successive stages, let me refer to facts which too palpa
bly reveal the abyss that has been reached. Early in
our history no man was disquaUfied for pubUc office by
reason of his opinions on this subject ; and this condi
tion continued for a long period. As late as 1820, John
W. Taylor, Eepresentative from New York, who pressed
with so much energy, not merely the prohibition of
Slavery in the Territories, but its restriction in the State
of Missouri, was elected to the chafr of Henry Clay, as
Speaker of the other House. It is needless to add, that
no determined supporter of the prohibition of Slavery
in the Territories at this day could expect that eminent

124 THE LANDMARK OF FEEEDOM:
trust  To such lowest deep has our Govemment
descended !
These things prepare us to comprehend the true char
acter of the change with regard to the Territories. In
1787 aU existing national domain was promptly and
unanimously dedicated to Freedom, without opposition
or criticism. The interdict of Slavery then covered
every inch of soU belonging to the National Govern
ment. Louisiana, an immense region beyond the bounds
of the original States, was subsequently acquUed, and
in 1820, after a vehement struggle which shook the
whole land, discomfited Freedom was compeUed, by a
dividing Une, to a partition with Slavery. This arrange
ment, which, in its very terms, was exclusively appUca
ble to a particular territory purchased from France, has
been accepted as final down to the present session of
Congress ; but now, SU, here in 1854, Freedom is sud
denly summoned to surrender even her hard-won moiety.
Hbre are the three stages : at the first, aU consecrated
to Freedom; at the second, only haU; at the third, aU
grasped by Slavery. The original poUcy of the Gov
ernment is absolutely reversed. Slavery, which at the
beginning was a sectional institution, with no foothold
anywhere on the National Territory, is now exalted as
national, and aU our broad domain is threatened by its
bUghting shadow.
Thus much for what I have to say, at this time, of
the original poUcy, consecrated by the Uves, opinions,
and acts of our fathers. Certain reasons are adduced for
the proposed departure from thefr great example, which,
though of Uttle vaUdity, I would not pass in sUence.
The Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories is as-

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 125
saUed, as beyond the power of Congress, and an infringe
ment of local sovereignty. On this account, at this late
day, it is pronounced unconstitutional. Now, without
considering minutely the sources from which the power
of Congress over the national domain is derived, —
whether from express grant in the Constitution to make
rules and regulations for the govemment of the Terri
tory, or from power, necessarUy implied, to govern ter
ritory acqufred by conquest or purchase, — it seems to
me impossible to deny its existence, without invaUdat-
ing a large portion of the legislation of the country,
from the adoption of the Constitution down to the
present day. This power was asserted before the Con
stitution. It was not denied or prohibited by the Con
stitution itself. Exercised from the first existence of
the Govemment, it has been recognized by the three
departments, Executive, Legislative, and Judicial. Pre
cedents of every kind are thick tn its support. Indeed,
the very bUI now before us assumes a control of the
Territory clearly inconsistent with those principles of
sovereignty which are said to be violated by CongTes-
sional prohibition of Slavery.
Here are provisions determining the main features
of the Govemment, the distribution of powers in the
Executive, Legislative, and Judicial departments, and
the maimer in which they shaU be respectively consti
tuted, — securing to the President, with the consent of
the Senate, the appointment of Governor, Secretary, and
Judges, and to the people only the election of the Legis
lature, — and even ordaining the qualifications of vot
ers, the salaries of the public officers, and the daily com
pensation of the members of the Legislature. Surely, if
Congress may establish these provisions, without inter-

126 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
ference with the rights of territorial sovereignty, it is
absurd to say that it may not also prohibit Slavery.
In this very biU there is an express prohibition on the
Territory, borrowed from the Ordinance of 1787, and re
peated in every Act organizing a Territory, or even a new
State, down to the present time, where it is expressly
declared that " no tax shaU be imposed upon the prop
erty of the United States." Now here is a clear and un
questionable restriction upon the Territories and States.
The pubUc lands of the United States, situated within
an organized Territory or State, cannot be regarded as
the instruments and means necessary and proper to ex
ecute the sovereign powers of the nation, like fortifica
tions, arsenals, and navy-yards. They are strictly in the
nature of private property of the nation, and as such,
imless exempted by the foregoing prohibition, would
clearly be within the scope of local taxation, Uable, Uke
the lands of other proprietors, to aU customary burdens
and incidents. Mr. Justice Woodbury has declared, in
a weU-considered judgment, that, "where the United
States own land situated within the limits of particular
States, and over which they have no cession of jurisdic
tion, for objects either special or general, Uttle doubt
exists that the rights and remedies in relation to it
are usuaUy such as apply to other land-owners within
the State." ^ I assume, then, that without this prohi
bition these lands would be Uable to taxation. Does
any one question this ? Nobody. The conclusion, then,
foUows, that by this prohibition you propose to deprive
the present Territory, as you have deprived other Terri
tories, — ay, and States, — of an essential portion of its
sovereignty. 1 United States v, Ames, 1 Woodbury & Minot, 80.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 127
And these. Sir, are not vain words. The Supreme
Court of the United States has given great promi
nence to the sovereign right of taxation in the States.
In the case of Providence Bank v. Billings and Pittman,
4 Peters, 561, they declare, —
" That the taxing power is of vital importance ; that it is
essential to the existence of Govemment ; that the relinquish
ment of such a power is never to be assumed."
And again, in the case of Dobbins v. Comrnissioners of
Erie County, 16 Peters, 447, they say : —
" Taxation is a sacred right, essential to the existence of
Govemment, an incident of sovereignty. The right of legis
lation is coextensive with the incident, to attach it upon aU
persons and property within the jurisdiction of a State.''
Now I caU upon Senators to remark, that this sacred
right, reputed so essential to the very existence of Gov
emment, is abridged in the biU before us.
For myseU, I do not doubt the power of Congress to
fasten this restriction upon the Territory, and afterwards
upon the State, as is always done ; but I am at a loss to
see on what grounds this restriction can be placed, which
wiU not also support the Prohibition of Slavery. The
former is an unquestionable infringement of sovereignty,
as declared by our Supreme Court, far more than can be
asserted of the latter.
I am unwiUing to admit. Sir, that the Prohibition of
Slavery in the Territories is in any just sense an in
fringement of local sovereignty. Slavery is an infrac
tion of the immutable Law of Nature, and as such can
not be considered a natural incident to any sovereignty,
especiaUy in a country which has solemnly declared, in
its Declaration of Independence, the unaUenable right of

128 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
aU men to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. In
an age of civUization, and in a land of rights. Slavery
may stiU be tolerated in fact ; but its prohibition within
a municipal jurisdiction by the government thereof —
as by one of the States of the Union, — cannot be con
sidered an infraction of natural rights ; nor can its pro
hibition by Congress in the Territories be regarded as
an infringement of local sovereignty, founded, as it must
be, on natural rights.
Then comes another argument, most faUacious in its
character. It is asserted, that, inasmuch as the Terri
tories were acqufred by the common treasure, they are
the common property of the whole Union, and there
fore no citizen can be prevented from carrying into
them his slaves, without infringement of the equal
rights and privUeges which belong to him as a citizen of
the United States. But it is admitted that the people
of this very Territory, when organized as a State, may
exclude slaves, and in this way abridge an asserted right,
founded on the common property in the Territory. Now,
if this can be done by the few thousand settlers who
constitute the State Government, the whole argument
founded on the acquisition of the Territories by a com
mon treasure is futile and evanescent.
But this argument proceeds on an assumption which
cannot stand. It assumes that Slavery is a National In
stitution, and that property in slaves is recognized by
the Constitution of the United States. Nothin" can be
more false. By the judgment of the Supreme Court of
the United States, and also by the principles of the Com
mon Law, Slavery is a local municipal institution, de
riving its support exclusively from local municipal laws,
and beyond the sphere of these laws it ceases to exist.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 129
€xcept SO far as it may be preserved by the uncertain
clause for the rendition of fugitives from service. Mad
ison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the
idea that there can be property in men ; and I rejoice to
beUeve that no such idea can be found there. The Con
stitution regards slaves always as " persons," with the
rights of " persons," — never as property. When it is said,
therefore, that every citizen may enter the national do
main with his property, it does not foUow, by any rule
of logic or of law, that he may carry his slaves. On the
contrary, he can carry only that property which is ad
mitted such by the universal Law of Nature, written by
God's own finger on the heart of man. In vain do you
speak of "rights" in the Territories, — as if this august
word could be profaned to characterize such a claim.
The relation of master and slave is sometimes classed
with the " domestic relations.'' Now, whUe it is unques
tionably among the powers of any State, within its own
jurisdiction, to change the existing relation of husband
and wUe, and to estabUsh polygamy, I presume no per
son would contend that a polygamous husband, resident
in one of the States, would be entitled to enter the Na
tional Territory with his harem, — his property, U you
please, — and there claim immunity. Clearly, when he
passes the bounds of that local jurisdiction which sanc
tions polygamy, the pecuUar domestic relation would
cease : and it is precisely the same with Slavery.
Sfr, I dismiss these considerations. The Prohibition
of Slavery in the Territory of Kansas and Nebraska
stands on foundations of living rock, upheld by the
early poUcy of the Fathers, by constant precedent, and
time-honored compact. It is now in your power to over-

130 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
turn it ; you may remove the sacred landmark, and open
the whole vast domain to Slavery. To you is committed
this high prerogative. Our fathers, on the eve of the
Eevolution, set forth in burning words, among their griev
ances, that George the ThUd, " determined to keep open a
market where men should be bought and sold, had pros
tituted his negative for suppressing every legislative at
tempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce."*
Sfr, like the English monarch, you may now prostitute
your power to this same purpose. But you cannot escape
the judgment of the world, nor the doom of history.
It wiU be in vaia, that, whUe dotag this thing, you
plead in apology the principle of self-government, which
you profess to recognize in the Territories. Sir, this
very principle, when truly administered, secures equal
rights to aU, without distiaction of race or color, and
makes Slavery impossible. By no rule of justice, and
by no subtilty of poUtical metaphysics, can the right
to hold a feUow-man in bondage be regarded as essen
tial to seU-government. The inconsistency is too fla
grant. It is apparent on the bare statement. It is Uke
saying two and two make three. In the name of Lib
erty you open the door to Slavery. With professions
of Equal Eights on the Ups, you trample on the rights
of Human Nature. With a kiss upon the brow of that
fair Territory, you betray it to wretchedness and shame.
WeU did the patriot soul exclaim, tn bitter words, wrung
out by bitter experience, " 0 Liberty, what crimes are
committed in thy name ! " ^
In vain. Sir, you wUl plead that this measure pro-
^ First Draught of the Declaration of Independence: Jefferson's Writines.
Vol. I. p. 23.
* " 0 Libert^, que de crimes on commet en ton nom ! " — Mme. Eoland.

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 131
ceeds from the North, as has been suggested by the
Senator from Kentucky [Mr Dixon]. Even U this
were true, it would be no apology. But, precipitated
upon the Senate, as this biU has been, at a moment
of general calm, and in the absence of any controUing
exigency, and then hurried to a vote in advance of the
public voice, as if fearful of arrest, it cannot justly be
caUed the offspriag of any popular sentiment. In this
respect it differs widely from the Missouri Prohibition,
which was adopted only after solenm debate, extending
through two sessions of Congress, and ample discussion
before the people. As yet, there is no evidence that
this attempt, though espoused by Northern poUticians,
proceeds from that Northern sentiment which throbs and
glows, strong and fresh, in the schools, the churches, and
the homes of the people. Populi omnes ad aquilonem
positi Libertatem quandam spirant.^ And could the
abomination which you seek to perpetrate be now sub
mitted to the awakened milUons whose souls are truly
ripened under Northern skies, it would be flouted at
once, with indignant and undying scorn.
But the race of men, "white slaves of the North,"
described and despised by a Southem statesman, is not
yet extinct there. Sir. It is one of the melancholy to
kens of the power of Slavery, under our poUtical system,
and especiaUy through the operations of the National
Govemment, that it loosens and destroys the character
of Northern men, exerting its subtle influence even at
a distance, — Uke the black magnetic moimtain in the
Arabian story, under whose irresistible attraction, the
fron bolts which held together the strong timbers of a
stately ship, floating securely on the distant wave, were
1 Bodinus, de Eepublica, Lib. I. cap. 8, p. 90.

132 the landmark of feeedom:
drawn out, tUl the whole feU apart, and became a dis
jointed wreck. Alas ! too often those principles which
give consistency, individuaUty, and form to the North
ern character, which render it stanch, strong, and seawor
thy, which bind it together as with iron, are sucked out,
one by one, like the bolts of the Ul-fated vessel, and
from the miserable loosened fragments is formed that
human anomaly, a Northern man with Southern princi
ples. Sfr, no such man can speak for the North.
[Here there was an interruption of prolonged applause in the gal
leries.] The PEEsmENT (Mr. Stuart in the chair). The Chair
will be obliged to direct the gaUeries to be cleared, if order
is not preserved. No applause will be aUowed.
Several Voices. Let them be cleared now.
Me. Sumnee. Mr. President, this bUl is proposed as
a measure of peace. In this way you vainly think to
withdraw the subject of Slavery from National PoUtics.
This is a mistake. Peace depends on mutual confidence.
It can never rest secure on broken faith and injustice.
Permit me to say, frankly, sincerely, and earnestly, that
the subject of Slavery can never be withdrawn from
the National PoUtics until we retum once more to the
original poUcy of our fathers, at the first organization of
the Government under Washiagton, when the national
ensign nowhere on the National Territory covered a
single slave.
Amidst aU seeming discouragements, the great omens
are with us. Art, Uterature, poetry, reUgion, everything
which elevates man, aU are on our side. The plough,
the steam-engine, the raUroad, the telegraph, the book.

no EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 133
every human improvement, every generous word any
where, every true pulsation of every heart which is not
a mere muscle and nothiag else, gives new encourage
ment to the warfare with Slavery. The discussion wUl
proceed. Wherever an election occurs, there this ques
tion wiU arise. Wherever men come together to speak
of pubUc affairs, there again wiU it be. No poUtical
Joshua now, with miraculous power, can stop the sun
in its course through the heavens. It is even now re
joicing, Uke a strong man, to run its race, and wUl yet
send its beams into the most distant plantations, melt
ing the chains of every slave.
But this movement, or agitation, as it is reproachfuUy
caUed, is boldly pronounced injurious to the very object
desfred. Now, without entering into detaUs, which nei
ther time nor the occasion justifies, let me say that this
objection belongs to those commonplaces which have
been arrayed against every good movement in the
world's history, against even knowledge itself, against
the aboUtion of the slave-trade. Perhaps it was not
unnatural for the Senator from North CaroUna [Mr.
Badgee] to press it, even as vehemently as he did ; but it
sounded less natural, when it came, though in more mod
erate phrase, from my distinguished friend and coUeague
from Massachusetts [Mr. Eveeett]. The past furnishes
a controlUng example by which its true character may
be determined. CaU to mind. Sir, that the efforts of
WilUam WUberforce encountered this precise objection,
and that the condition of the kidnapped slave was then
vindicated, in language not unUke that of the Senator
from North CaroUna, by no less a person than the Duke
of Clarence, of the royal famUy of Great Britain. In
what was caUed his maiden speech, on the 3d of May,

134 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM:
1792, and preserved in the ParUamentary Debates, he
said : " The negroes were not treated in the manner
which had so much agitated the pubUc mind. He had
been an attentive observer of thefr state, and had no
doubt but he could bring forward proofs to convince
thefr Lordships that thefr state was far from being mis
erable : on the contrary, that, when the various ranks of
society were considered, they were comparatively in a
state of humble happiness." And only the next year,
this same royal prince, in debate in the House of Lords,
asserted that the promoters of the aboUtion of the slave-
trade were "either fanatics or hypocrites," and in one
of these classes he ranked WUberforce. Mark now the
end. After years of weary effort, the slave-trade was
finaUy aboUshed; and at last, in 1833, the early vindi
cator of this enormity, the maUgner of a name hallowed
among men, was brought to give his royal assent, as
WiUiam the Fourth, King of Great Britaia, to the im
mortal Act of ParUament, greater far than any victory
of war, by which Slavery was abolished throughout the
British dominions. Sir, time and the universal con
science have vindicated the labors of Wilberforce. The
movement against American Slavery, protected by the
august names of Washiagton, FrankUn, and Jefferson,
can calmly await a simUar judgment.
Sometimes it is said that this movement is dangerous
to the Union. In this solicitude I cannot share. As a
lover of concord, and a jealous partisan of aU that makes
for peace, I am always glad to express my attachment
to the Union ; but I beUeve that this bond wUl be most
truly preserved and most beneficently extended (for I
shrink from no expansion where Freedom leads the
^ay) by firmly upholding those principles of Liberty

NO EEPEAL OF THE MISSOUEI COMPEOMISE. 135
and Justice which were its early corner-stones. The
true danger to this Union proceeds not from any aban
donment of the " pecuUar institution " of the South, but
from the abandonment of the spfrit in which the Union
was formed, — not from any warfare upon Slavery with
ia the Umits of the Constitution, but from warfare upon
Freedom, Uke that waged by this very btU. The Union
is most precious ; but more precious far are that "general
weUare," that " domestic tranquilUty," and those " bless
ings of Liberty " which it was estabUshed to secure, —
aU which are now wantonly endangered. Not that I
love the Union less, but Freedom more, do I now, in
pleading this great cause, insist that Freedom, at aU
hazards, shaU be preserved.
The great master, Shakespeare, who with aU-seeing
mortal eye observed mankind, and with immortal pen
depicted the manners as they rise, has presented a scene
which may be read with advantage by aU who would
plunge the South into tempestuous quarrel with the
North. I refer to the well-known passage between
Brutus and Cassius. Eeading this remarkable dia
logue, it is difficult not to see in Brutus our own North,
and in Cassius the South.
" Cdi. Urge me no more, I shall forget myself ;
Have mind upon your health, tempt me no further.
" B-ru, Hear me, for I will speak.
Must I give way and room to your rash choler ?
" Cas, 0 ye gods ! ye gods ! must I endure aU this ?
" J?ra. All this? Ay, more: fret, till your proud heart break:
Go, show your slaves kow choleric you are.
And make your bondmen tremble. Must I budge ?
Must I observe you I Must I stand and crouch
Under your testy humor?

136 THE LANDMAEK OF FEEEDOM.
" Cas, Do not presume too much upon my love ;
I may do that I shall be sorry for.
" Bru, You have done that you should be sorry for.
There is no terror, Cassius, in your threats;
For I am armed so strong in honesty,
That they pass by me as the idle wind.
Which I respect not.
" Cas. A friend should bear his friend's infirmities,
But Brutus makes mine greater than they are.
" Bru. I do not, till you pkactise them on me.
" Cas. You love me not.
" s-ru. I do not Uke your faidts."
And the coUoquy proceedUig, each finaUy comes to under
stand the other, appreciates his character and attitude,
and the impetuous, gaUant Cassius exclaims, " Give me
your hand ! " — to which Bratus repUes, " And my heart
too ! " Afterwards, with hand and heart united, on the
field of PhUippi they together upheld the Uberties of
Eome. The North and the South, Sir, as I fondly tmst, amidst
aU differences, wiU ever have hand and heart for each
other ; and believing in the sure prevalence of Almighty
Truth, I confidently look forward to the good time, when
both wiU unite, according to the sentiments of the Fa
thers and the true spirit of the Constitution, in declar
ing Freedom, and not Slavery, National, to the end
that the Flag of the EepubUc, wherever it floats, on sea
or land, within the National jurisdiction, maj" cover
none but freemen. Then wUl be achieved that Union
contemplated at the beginning, against which the storms
of faction and the assaults of foreign power shaU beat
in vain, as upon the Eock of Ages, — and libeety, seek
ing a firm foothold, will have at last wheeeon to
STAND AND MOVE THE WOELD.

WHEN WILL THE NORTH BE AROUSED ?
Letter to a Personal Pkiend, March 30, 1854.

The following private letter found its way into the puhUc prints.
Senate Chambee, March 30, 1854.
MY DEAE  : Your letter has cheered and
strengthened me. It came to me, too, with pleas
ant memories of early Ufe. As I read it, the gates of
the Past seemed to open, and I saw again the bright
fields of study in which we walked together.
Our battle here has been severe, and much of its brunt
has faUen upon a few. Fof weeks my trials and anxi
eties were intense. It is a satisfaction to know that
they have found sympathy among good men.
But the Slave Power wiU push its tyranny yet fur
ther, and there is but one remedy, — Union at the North
without distiaction of party, to take possession of the
National Govemment, and administer it in the spfrit of
Freedom, and not of Slavery. Oh, when wUl the North
be aroused ? Ever sincerely yours, Chaeles Sumnee.

A LIBERTY-LOVING EMIGRATION TO GUARD
KANSAS.
Letter to a Massachusetts Committee, Mat 1, 1854.

Senate Chamber, May 1, 1854.
MY DEAE SIE, — I cannot be with you at your
meetiag on Wednesday next: my post of duty
is here. But I must not lose the opportunity afforded
by your invitation to express anew my abhorrence of
the outrage upon Freedom and public faith attempted
by the Nebraska BUl, and to offer my gratitude to those
who unite in the good work of opposing it.
In this warfare there is room for every human activity.
By speech, vote, pubUc meeting, sermon, and prayer, we
have aUeady striven. But a new agent is now an
nounced. It is proposed to organize a company of Lib
erty-loving citizens, who shaU enter upon the broad
lands in question, and by example, voice, and vote,
trained under the pecidiar institutions of Massachusetts,
overrule the designs of slave-masters. The purpose has
a nobleness which gives assurance of success.
With a heart fuU of love for Massachusetts, her
schools, Ubraries, churches, and happy homes, I should
hesitate to counsel any one to turn away from her, a
voluntary exUe. I do not venture such advice. But
if any there be among us, to whom our goodly Com
monwealth seems narrow, and who incUne to cast their

LIBEETY-LOVING EMIGEATION TO GUAED KANSAS. 139
lines ia other places, — to such I would say, that they
will do weU, whUe beconUng, each for himseU, the ar
tificer of his fortune, to enter into the Sacred Legion
by which Liberty shaU be safely guarded in Nebraska
and Kansas. Thus wiU mingle pubUc good with pri
vate advantage.
The Pilgrim Fathers turned thefr backs upon thefr
native land to secure Liberty for themselves and thefr
chUdren. The emigrants whom you organize have a
higher motive. Liberty for themselves and thefr chU
dren is afready secured in Massachusetts. They wiU
go to secure Liberty for others, — to guard an immense
territory from the invasion of Slavery, and to dedicate
it forever to Liberty. In such an expedition volun
teers may win a victory of peace, which history wUl
record with admiration and gratitude.
BeUeve me, dear Sfr,
Very faithfuUy yours,
Chaeles Sumnee.
Thomas Drew, Esq., Chairman of the Committee.

EINAL PEOTEST, FOE HIMSELF AND THE CLBEGT OP
KBW ENGLAND, AGAINST SLAVEEY IN NEBEASKA
AND KANSAS.
Speech in the Senate, on the Night op the Final Passage of the
Nebraska and Kansas Bill, Mat 25, 1854.

Among the important incidents of the Nebraska Debate was a pro
test from three thousand clergymen of New England, which was se
verely denounced hy the supporters of the aggression, especially by
Mr. Douglas. Particular objection was taken to the words, "In the
name of Almighty God, and in his presence," which were employed by
the protestants. The heats on both sides increased. At a later stage
Mr. Sumner felt constrained to speak again, which he did for himself
and the much-abused clergy. This brief effort attracted unusual atten
tion. It seemed to meet the rising sentiments of the people, and
especiaUy of the clergy. Eev. Dr. Allen, formerly President of Bow
doin College, wrote : " Our Northampton Courier of yesterday con
tained your bold and admirable midnight speech. I thank you for
what you said for the clergy, but more especially what you said for the
country and for Freedom." Rev. Dr. Storrs, of Braintree, Massachu
setts, an eminent Congi-egationalist, wrote: "1 took my pen only to
say a single word, — to tell yoii of my grateful admiration of your
courage, faithfulness, and eloquence in defence of truth and godliness
against the increasing tide of hellish principles and passions. " Rev.
Theodore Parker wrote : "1 have had no time to thank you for your
noble speech tni this minute. Nat. Bowditch says it is the best
speech delivered in the Senate of the United States in his day. You
never did a thing more timely, or which will be more warmly welcomed
than this." George S. Hillard, a friend of many years, but differing
in position on political questions, wrote : "Your last brief speech on
the Nebraska Bill is capital. 1 think it the best speech you have ever
made. The mixture of dignity and spirit is most happy. We are
going to fiU up that region with free laborers, and secure it against

NEBEASKA AND KANSAS. 141
Slavery." John G. Whittier wrote : " It was the fitting word ; it
entirely satisfied me ; and with a glow of heart I thanked God that
its author was my friend." As the speech received the sympathy of
friends, so it aroused aU. the bad passions on the side of Slavery. The
manifestation that ensued wiU appear in a note at the end.
The original debate in the Senate on the Nebraska and Kansas BiU,
in which Mr. Sumner took part, was closed hy the passage of that biU
— after a protracted session throughout the night — ou the moming of
Saturday, March 4, 1854, by a vote of thirty-seven yeas to fourteen
nays. The hUl was then sent to the House of Representatives. It
was there taken up and referred to the Committee of the Whole ; hut,
owing to the mass of prior business, it became impossible to reach it.
Under these circumstances, a fresh bUl, nearly identical with that which
passed the Senate, was introduced and passed the House. This, of
course, required the action of the Senate. Ou the 23d of May a mes
sage from the House announced its passage, and asked the concurrence
of the Senate. It was at once read a first time ; but, on the objection
of Mr. Sumner, its second reading was stopped for that day. The
next day, on motion of Mr. Douglas, aU prior orders were postponed
for the purpose of considering it. The debate upon it continued during
that day and the next. The interest it excited was attested by crowded
gaUeries to the end. Among spectators ou the floor of the Senate
was the Earl of Elgin, Governor-General of Canada, with his suite,
then in Washington to negotiate the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty.
Late in the night of the last day, after the bOl was reported to the
Senate, and the question put by the Chair, " ShaU the bUl be engrossed
and read a third time ? " Mr. Sumner took the floor and said : —
ME. PEESIDENT, — It is now midnight. At this
late hour of a session drawn out to unaccus
tomed length, I shaU not fatigue the Senate by argu
ment. There is a time for aU things, and the time
for argument has passed. The determination of the
majority is fixed ; but it is not more fixed than mine.
The biU which they sustain I oppose. On a former
occasion I met it by argument, which, though often
attacked in debate, stiU stands unanswered and unan
swerable. At present I am admonished that I must be
content with a few words of earnest protest against the

142 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVEEY
consummation of a great wrong. Duty to myseU, and
also to the honored Commonwealth of which I find
myseU the sole representative in this immediate exi
gency, wUl not aUow me to do less.
But I have a special duty, which I would not omit.
Here on my desk are remonstances against the passage
of this bUl, some placed in my hands since the com
mencement of the debate to-day, and I desire that these
voices, direct from the people, should be heard. With
the permission of the Senate, I wiU offer them now.
The Presiding Officer (Mr. Stuart in the chair). The
remonstrances can be received by unanimous consent.
Several Voices. Let them be received.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair hears no objection.
Me. Sumnee. Taking advantage of this permission,
I now present the remonstrance of a large number of
citizens of New York against the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise. I also present the memorial of the reUgious Society
of Friends in Michigan against the passage of the Ne
braska BiU, or any other bUl annulling the Missouri
Compromise Act of 1820.
I also present the remonstrance of the clergy and
laity of the Baptist denomination in Michigan and
Indiana against the wrong and bad faith contemplated
in the Nebraska BiU.
But this is not aU. I hold in my hand, and now pre
sent to the Senate, one hundred and twenty-five sepa
rate remonstrances, from clergjrmen of every Protestant
denomination in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Mas
sachusetts, Ehode Island, and Connecticut, constituting
the six New England States. These remonstrances are

IN NEBEASKA AND KANSAS. 143
identical in character with the larger one presented by
my distinguished coUeague [Mr. Eveeett], — whose
term of service here ends in a few days by voluntary
resignation, and who is now detained at home by illness,
: — and were originaUy intended as part of it, but did
not arrive in season for annexation to that interesting
and weighty document. They are independent in form,
though supplementary in nature, helping to sweU the
protest of the pulpits of New England.
With pleasure and pride I now do this service, and
at this last stage interpose the sanctity of the pulpits
of New England to arrest an alarming outrage, — be
Ueving that the remonstrants, from thefr eminent char
acter and influence as representatives of the intelUgence
and conscience of the country, are pecuUarly entitled
to be heard, — and, further, beUeving that thefr remon
strances, whUe respectful in form, embody just con
clusions, both of opiaion and fact. Like them, Sfr, I
do not hesitate to protest agaiast the biU yet pending
before the Senate, as a great moral wrong, as a breach
of pubUc faith, as a measure fuU of danger to the peace,
and even existence, of our Union. And, Sfr, beUeving
in God, as I profoundly do, I cannot doubt that the
opening of an immense region to so great an enormity
as Slavery is calciUated to draw down upon our country
his righteous judgments.
" In the name of Almighty God, and in his presence,"
these remonstrants protest against the Nebraska BiU. In
this solemn language, most strangely pronounced blas
phemous on this floor, there is obviously no assumption
of ecclesiastical power, as is perversely charged, but sim
ply a devout observance of the Scriptural injunction,
" Whatsoever ye do, in word or deed, do aU in the name

144 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVEEY
of the Lord." Let me add, also, that these remonstrants,
in this very language, have foUowed the example of the
Senate, which, at our present session, has ratified at least
one important treaty beginning with these precise words,
" In the name of Almighty God." Surely, U the Senate
may thus assume to speak, the clergy may do likewise,
without imputation of blasphemy, or any just criticism,
at least in this body.
I am unwiUing, particularly at this time, to be betrayed
into anything Uke a defence of the clergy. They need no
such thing at my hands. There are men in this Senate
justly eminent for eloquence, learning, and abiUty ; but
there is no man here competent, except in his own con
ceit, to sit in judgment on the clergy of New England.
Honorable Senators, so swift with criticism and sarcasm,
might profit by their example. Perhaps the Senator
from South CaroUna [Mr. Butlee], who is not insensible
to scholarship, might learn from them something of its
graces. Perhaps the Senator from Virginia [ Mr. Mason],
who finds no sanction under the Constitution for any
remonstrance from clergymen, might learn from them
something of the privUeges of an American citizen.
And perhaps the Senator from IlUnois [Mr Douglas],
who precipitated this odious measure upon the country,
might learn from them something of poUtical wisdom.
Sfr, from the first settlement of these shores, from those
early days of struggle and privation, through the trials
of the Eevolution, the clergy are associated not only
with the piety and the learning, but with the liberties
of the country. New England for a long time was gov
erned by their prayers more than by any acts of the
Legislature ; and at a later day thefr voices aided even
the Declaration of Independence. The clergy of our

IN NEBEASKA AND KANSAS. 145
time speak, then, not only from thefr own virtues, but
from echoes yet surviving in the pulpits of their fathers.
For myself, I desfre to thank them for their generous
interposition. Already they have done much good in
moviag the country. They wiU not be idle. In the
days of the Eevolution, John Adams, yearning for Inde
pendence, said, " Let the pulpits thunder against oppres
sion ! " And the pulpits thimdered.^ The time has come
for them to thunder again. So famous was John Knox
for power in prayer, that Queen Mary used to say she
feared his prayers more than aU the armies of Europe.
But our clergy have prayers to be feared by the uphold
ers of wrong.
There are lessons taught by these remonstrances,
which, at this moment, should not pass unheeded. The
Senator from Ohio [Mr Wade], on the other side of
the chamber, has openly declared that Northern Whigs
can never again combine with their Southern brethren
in support of Slavery. This is a good augury. The
clergy of New England, some of whom, forgetfiU of the
traditions of other days, once made their pulpits vocal
for the Fugitive Slave BUl, now, by the voices of learned
divines, eminent bishops, accompUshed professors, and
faithful pastors, uttered in solemn remonstrance, unite
at last ia putting a permanent brand upon this hate
ful wrong. Surely, from this time forward, they can
never more render it any support. Thank God for this I
Here is a sign fuU of promise for Freedom.
These remonstrances have especial significance, when
1 A specimen is an address by Eev. Thomas Allen, Minister of Pittsfield,
Mass., entitled "Instruction and Counsel of a Country Clergyman, given to
his People, Lord's Day, June 20, 1779, immediately after reading [to thera]
the Address of the Honorable Congress to the Inhabitants of these United
States." See Boston Independent Chronicle, July 15, 1779.
VOL. IV.  10

146 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVEEY
it is urged, as has been often done in this debate, that
the proposition stiU pending proceeds from the North.
Yes, Sir, proceeds from the North : for that is its excuse
and apology. The ostrich is reputed to hide its head in
the sand, and then vainly imagine its coward body be
yond the reach of pursuers. In simUar spirit, honor
able Senators seem to shelter themselves behind scanty
Northern votes, and then vainly imagine that they are
protected from the judgment of the country. The pul
pits of New England, representing in unprecedented
extent the popular voice there, now proclaim that six
States, with aU the fervor of religious conviction, protest
agaiast your outrage. To this extent, at least, I main
tain it does not come from the North.
From these expressions, and other tokens which daUy
greet us, it is evident that at last the reUgious sentiment
of the country is touched, and, through this sentiment, I
rejoice to beUeve that the whole North wUl be quickened
with the true Ufe of Freedom. Sir PhiUp Sidney, speak
ing to Queen EUzabeth of the spirit in the Netherlands,
animating every man, woman, and child against the
Spanish power, exclaimed, " It is the spfrit of the Lord,
and is irresistible." A kindred spirit now animates the
Free States against the Slave Power, breathing every
where its involuntary inspiration, and forbiddUig repose
under the attempted usurpation. It is the spirit of the
Lord, and is irresistible. The threat of disunion, too often
sounded in our ears, wiU be disregarded by an aroused
and indignant people. Ah, Sfr, Senators vainly expect
peace. Not in this way can peace come. In passing such
a biU as is now threatened, you scatter, from this dark
midnight hour, no seeds of harmony and good-wiU, but,
broadcast through the land, dragons' teeth, which haply

m NEBEASKA AND KANSAS. 147
may not spring up in dfreful crops of armed men, yet,
I am assured, Sfr, will fructify in civU strife and feud.
From the depths of my soul, as loyal citizen and as
Senator, I plead, remonstrate, protest, agaiast the pas
sage of this bUl I struggle against it as against death ;
but, as in death itseU corruption puts on incorruption,
and this mortal body puts on immortaUty, so from the
sting of this hour I find assurance of that triumph by
which Freedom wiU be restored to her immortal birth
right in the EepubUc.
Sir, the bill you are about to pass is at once the worst
and the best on which Congress ever acted. Yes, Sfr, woest
and BEST at the same time.
It is the worst bUl, inasmuch as it is a present victory
of Slavery. In a Christian land, and in an age of civ
ilisation, a time-honored statute of Freedom is struck
down, opening the way to aU the countless woes and
wrongs of human bondage. Among the crimes of history,
another is soon to be recorded, which no tears can blot
out, and which in better days wiU be read with universal
shame. Do not start. The Tea Tax and Stamp Act,
which aroused the patriot rage of our fathers, were vfr
tues by the side of your transgression ; nor would it be
easy to imagine, at this day, any measure which more
openly and wantonly defied every sentiment of justice,
humanity, and Christianity. Am I not right, then, in
calUng it the worst biU on which Congress ever acted ?
There is another side, to which I gladly tum. Sfr, it
is the best bUl on which Congress ever acted ; for it an-
nuls all past compromises with Slavery, and makes any
future compromises impossible. Thus it puts Freedom
and Slavery face to face, and bids them grapple. Who
can doubt the result ? It opens wide the dooi of the

148 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVEEY
Future, when, at last, there will really be a North, and
the Slave Power wiU be broken, — when this wretched
Despotism wiU cease to dominate over our Government,
no longer impressing itself upon everything at home
and abroad, — when the National Govemment wUl be
divorced in every way from Slavery, and, according to
the true intention of our fathers. Freedom wiU be es
tabUshed by Congress everywhere, at least beyond the
local limits of the States.
Slavery wiU then be driven from usurped foothold
here in the District of Columbia, in the National Terri
tories, and elsewhere beneath the national flag; the
Fugitive Slave BiU, as vile as it is unconstitutional, wUl
become a dead letter ; and the domestic Slave-Trade, so
far as it can be reached, but especiaUy on the high seas,
wiU be blasted by Congi-essional Prohibition. Every
where within the sphere of Congress, the great Northern
Hammer wiU descend to smite the wrong ; and the
frresistible cry wUl break forth, "No more Slave
States!" Thus, Sfr, standing at the very grave of Freedom in
Nebraska and Kansas, I lift myseU to the vision of that
happy resurrection by which Freedom wiU be assured,
not only in these Territories, but everywhere under the
National Government. More clearly than ever before,
I now penetrate that great Future when Slavery must
disappear Proudly I discern the flag of my country,
as it ripples in every breeze, at last in reaUty, as in
name, the Flag of Freedom, — undoubted, pure, and
irresistible. Am I not right, then, in calling this biU
the best on which Congress ever acted?
Sorrowfully I bend before the wrong you commit.
JoyfuUy I welcome the promises of the Future.

IN NEBEASKA AND KANSAS. 149
When Mr. Sunmer took his seat, he was succeeded by Mr. Mason, of
Yirginia, who spoke as foUows.
I understand that the petitions which the Senator [Mr.
Sumner] who has just taken his seat ofiFers were to be ad
mitted, as they were offered, by the unanimous consent of
the Senate. Two of them, when offered, were sent to the
President's table. The last he has reserved, and made the
vehicle for communicating the sentiments of the pulpits of
New England to the Senate, on the subject of this biU. I
object to its reception; and I object to it because I under
stand that Senator to say that it is verbatim the petition
that was presented by his honorable coUeague, who is not
now with us, in which the clergy presented themselves in
this Seriate and to the country as a third estate, speaking
not as American citizens, but as clergymen, and in that
character only. I object to its reception. I object to it,
that I may not in any manner minister to the unchristian
purposes of the clergy of New England, as the Senator has
just announced them. I object to it, that I may be in no
manner responsible for the prostitution of their ofi&ce (once
caUed holy and sacred, with them no longer so) in the face
of the Senate and of the American people. I object to it,
that the clergymen of my own honored State, and of the
South, may, as holding a common office in the ministry of
the Gospel, be in no manner confounded with or contaminated
by these clergymen of New England, if the Senator repre
sents them correctly.
Sir, if the Senator has represented these clergymen cor
rectly, I rejoice that there is to be a separation between the
Church North and the Church South; for, I say, if these
men dare to lay aside the character of American citizens,
and come here profaning their office, profaning the name of
the Almighty, for the purpose of political aUiances, they are
unworthy of their associates in the Church. Sir, it is the
first time in the history of this country that a Church of

150 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVEEY
any denomination has asserted a right to be heard, as a
Church, upon the floors of legislation ; and if the Senator
represents that body correctly, they have profaned their
office, and I predict now a total separation between the
Church North and the Church South, if I understand the
sentiments of the Church South. The Church there, I know,
is yet pure in its great and holy mission. When its minis
ters address themselves from the piUpit, they are heard with
respect, under the sanctity of their office. You find none of
them coming here to the doors of legislation to mingle in
political strife. They truly hold themselves "unspotted
from the world."
If the Senator who has just taken his seat has correctly
expounded the clergymen of New England, I object to that
petition. If he has correctly stated that it is verbatim
copied fi-om the petition presented by his coUeague, I say it
is a prostitution of their office to the embrace of political
party ; and the Senate shall not, by my assent, be made the
medium of so unholy an aUiance. I do not mean to go fur
ther into this debate ; but I object to the reception of the
petition. The Presiding Of ficer. The petitions cannot be received
without unanimous consent.
Me. Sumnee. It may be, Sfr, at this moment, within
the competency of the honorable Senator from VfrgUUa
to object to the reception of these remonstrances ; but I
am satisfied that at another time his calmer judgment
wiU not approve this course, much less the ground on
which now, as weU as on a former occasion, he has un
dertaken to impeach the right of clergymen to appear
by petition or remonstrance at the bar of Congress. Sfr,
in refusing to receive these remonstrances, or in neg
lecting them in any way, on reasons assigned in this

IN NEBRASKA AND KANSAS. 151
chamber, you treat them with an indignity which be
comes more marked, because it is the constant habit of
the Senate to welcome remonstrances from members of
the Society of Friends in thefr reUgious character, and
from aU other persons, by any designation which they
may adopt. BookseUers remonstrate agaiast the interna
tional copyright treaty ; last-makers against a proposed
change in the patent laws ; and only lately the tobacco
nists have remonstrated against certain regulations touch
ing tobacco : and aU these remonstrances are received
with respect, and referred to appropriate committees in
the Senate. But the clergy of New England, when pro
testing against a wicked measure, which, with singular
unanimity, they beUeve fuU of perU and shame to our
country, are told to stay at home. Almost the jeer is
heard, " Go up, thou bald head ! " If not weU, it is at
least natural, that the act you are about to commit should
be attended by thia concordant outrage.

From the Kansas and Nebraska BUl came forth a demon. Down to
this time the hostility to Mr. Sumner in the Senate was Umited. It
now became more general, although he had said nothing in any way to
justify it, except that he had exposed Slavery and the pretensions in
its behalf. From the Senate it extended among the partisans of Slav
ery. MeanwhUe an incident in Boston was used to arouse a feeUng against
him. On the evening of the 24th of May Anthony Bums was seized
there as a fugitive slave, on the claim of a citizen of Virginia, and de
tained by the marshal in a room of the Court-House. In the course of
the evening of the 26th, immediately after a meetiag at Faneuil Hall,
addressed by Abolitionists, the Court-House was attacked hy a number
of citizens, and in the defence, James Batchelder, one of the guard, was
kiUed. The report of his death caused a great sensation at Washington.
It was received while the impression of Mr. Sumner's midnight speech
was stiU fresh, and was at once attributed to that effort. Mr. Sumner
was treated as responsible for this act, and the official organs of the Ad-

152 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVEEY
ministration openly denounced him as "murderer." It was predicted
in the speech that the biU would " scatter dragons' teeth," which he was
assured would "fructify in civil strife and feud" ; but plainly there
was nothing to suggest or excite violence, even if at the time the speech
had been known in Boston, as it was not. It was concluded on the
morning of the 26th of May, at too late an hour for the telegraph, and
in fact was not known in Boston until it reached there by maU on the
27th ; but Batchelder was kiUed on the previous evening. And yet,
in the face of these unquestionable facts, there was a cry agaiast Mr.
Sumner. The Union, which was the official organ, thus broke forth on the
morning of May 30th.
" Boston in arms against the Constitution, and an Abolition fanatic, the
distant leader, safe from the fire and the fagot he invokes from his seat in
the Senate of the United States, giving the command. Men shot down in
the faithful discharge of duty to a law based upon a constitutional guaranty,
and the word lohich encourages the assassin given by a man who has sworn on
the Holy Evangelists and in the presence of his Maker to support the Consti
tution of the country. But our Charles Sumner tells us that a new era has
heen inaugurated, .... that the Constitution shall not be obeyed, and that
Slavery shall at all and every hazard be uprooted and destroyed, in spite
of all that has been pledged and written in other days."
The Star, another organ of the Administration, repeated the imputa
tions of the Union, in a long article, of which the following is a speci
men. " K Southem gentlemen are threatened and assaulted, while legally seek
ing to obtain possession of property for the use of which they have a solemn
constitutional guaranty, if legal rights can only be sought for and estab
lished at the bayonet's point, certain Northern men now in our midst will
have to evince a little more circumspection than they have ever evinced in
their walk, talk, and acts.
" Public sentiment in Alexandria is intensely excited in condemnation of
Sumner and his allies. We know that it increases in this city every hour.
The masses look upon Sumner as responsible for the death of Batchelder.
They attribute, and justly, the action of the murderers to the counsel of
Sumner. We hope that the public sentiment against these Abolition mis
creants who infest Congress and our fair city, and fill the atmosphere in
which they move with the odor of a brothel, will not descend to acts of per
sonal violence. Such conduct can find no justification. But let public opin
ion condemn these men everywhere, — in the street, in the Capitol, in every
place where men meet. Let Sumner and his infamous gang feel that he can
not outrage the fame of his country, counsel treason to its laws, incite the
ignorant to bloodshed and murder, and still receive the support and counte
nance of the society of this city, which he has done so much to vilify.

IN NEBEASKA AND KANSAS. 153
" While the person of a Virginia citizen is only safe from rudeness and
outrage behind the serried ranks of armed men, Charles Sumner is permitted
to walk among the ' slave-catchers ' and ' fire-eaters ' of the South in peace
and security. While he incites his constituents to resist the Federal laws even
to the shedding of blood, concocts his traitorous plots, and sends forth his in
cendiary appeals under the broad protecting panoply of the laws he de
nounces, he retains his seat in the Senate, and yet daily violates the official
oath which he took to support the Constitution of the United States."
Such articles were plainly intended to excite a mob against Mr. Sum
ner. The conspiracy obtained headway in Alexandria. One propo
sition was, to seize him as hostage for the surrender of the fugitive
slave whose case was then pending in Boston ; another was, to in
flict upon him personal indignity and violence ; another was, "to put
a hall through his head." These menaces were communicated to him,
and he was warned to leave Washington. This he refused to do, and
he insisted upon walking to the Senate by Pennsylvania Avenue, always
unarmed. At a restaurant, where he dined, he was directly menaced
and insulted. The foUowing telegram in the New York Times, under
date of May 31, states the case briefly.
" A strenuous and systematized effort is making here and in Alexandria
t» raise a mob against Senator Sumner, in retaliation for the Boston dif-
ficidty  The Star of this evening has two articles, the incendiary pur
pose of which cannot be mistaken. Senator Sumner himself has been sev
eral times wamed to-day of personal danger, and assured that persons bear
ing close relation to the Administration are inciting the people to violence
against him. Northern men are much excited in consequence, and if au
outrage is coromitted, there is a probabUity that there will be serious
trouble." The same telegram was sent to other places. Throughout New
England it excited great sensation, attested at once by the public press
and by private letters. The foUowing was received by Mr. Sumner,
under date of May 31, from Joseph E. Hawley, of Connecticut, after
wards a general in the War, and Govemor of Connecticut.
" If you really think there is any danger worth mentioning, I wish you
would telegraph me instantly. I will come to Washington by the next train,
and quietly stay by. I have revolvers, and can use them, — and while there
should not be a word of unnecessary provocation, still, if anybody in Alex
andria or Washington really means to trouble you, or any other Free Demo
crat there, you know several can play at that game. I feel comparatively
little anxiety as to the result in Boston. Let them hunt slaves till the peo
ple get sick of it. But such threats as are conveyed by that despatch should
be quietly prepared for, and met as they deserve."

154 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVEEY
George Livermore, of Boston, gave expression to the same anxiety in
a different form. He wrote thus, under date of June 3.
" There is but one feeling here respecting the infamous threats of the
Union and Star. Let the minions of the Administration and of the Slavocracy
harm one hair of your head, and they will raise a whirlwind that will sweep them
to dest-ruction, I have read your closing remarks on the Nebraska Bill with
the greatest admiration, and most heartily indorse every word and senti
ment. You never made a better speech. What higher praise could I offer ?
Many persons not of the Free-Soil party have spoken of it in terms of the
highest commendation."
The violence was postponed ; hut the maUgnant spirit continued
active. Beyond the sentiment of indignation at the menaces to which Mr.
Sumner was exposed arose another against Slavery. Persons who had
heen cold or lukewarm before were excited now. Here again contem
porary newspapers and private letters testify. John B. AUey, for sev
eral years afterwards the representative from Essex, wrote thus, under
date of June 5.
" The most eventful week that Boston has ever seen has just passed, and
I cannot refrain from troubling you with a description of the state of feeling
here. In the first place, allow me to congratulate you upon the glorious
position you occupy in the hearts of the people of Boston. Praises from the
lips of the most ultra Hunker Whigs have greeted my ears (I need not teU
you with how much pleasure) during the past week.
" Boston, it is trae, has been humbled in the dust, aud it is hard, terribly
hard, to be compelled to witness the surrender of a panting fugitive into the
hands of the Slave-Hunters ; but never, since 1 have been engaged in the
Antislavery cause, have I seen occasion for rejoicing as now.
" Thank God, the chains that have bound the people to their old organi
zations have been snapped asunder, and they have proved in this case but as
packthreads upon the arms of an unshom Samson  Your speech
in defence of the clergy is noble, and wonderfully effective, apparently, in
stirring up their sympathies for the slave."
Numerous letters describe the surrender to which Mr. AUey aUudes.
The foUowing from E. H. Dana, Jr., under date of June 5, gives
details. " Judging from present appearances, there are few Compromise men left
in Boston. I firaily believe that in the providence of God it has been de
creed that one cup more should be put to our lips, and that it should not
pass away until we had drained it to the dregs. To this end, a foUy has
been put in their counsel and a madness in their hearts, that they might do
the thmgs that should work in the end the utmost good. The delays, the
doubts as to the propriety of the decision (more than doubts even with the

IN NEBEASKA AND KANSAS. 165
moderate), the military indignities and violence, the noonday procession, the
refusal to sell, the Presidential intervention, all have tended to the desired
effect. Poor Bums himself looked with terror to a renewal of slavery.
Not that Colonel Suttle was cruel. He has uever lived with Suttle, but he
is intelligent, reads and writes, is weak iu his injured head, and therefore
of Uttle value, and liable to be sold and abused.
" Batchelder was not a deputy-marshal. He is only a man who has vol
unteered, this third time, against advice, to help catch and keep a fugitive
slave. You observe the marshal only calls him one of his ' guards.' This
guard were a precious set of murderers, thieves, buUies, blacklegs, — with
a very few men who went into it from party bias, old Hunker Democratic
truckmen. Batchelder was a truckman, I am told, and may be personally
respectable for aught I know. I can give you no advice as to the pension.
They ought to know what Batchelder was. It seems to me unconstitu
tional and unprecedented. If it can be defeated without your stir, it would
he better, no doubt. I do not find there is any feeling for his case here.
He volunteered for the duty, and met the consequences. He voluntarily
risked his life for pay, in an odious and dangerous business, and lost it."
George Livermore, always a decided Whig, who had written under
date of June 3, wrote again, under date of June 13 : —
" I am, as I always have been, a Conservative Whig, but I am ready to
fraternize with embody who will do the most for Freedom; and if one who has
heretofore been called a Democrat or a Free-Soiler will do more for this
cause than a candidate who has been called a Whig, he shall have my vote,
aud my hearty cooperation in every way in my power."
A merchant of Boston wrote at the same time : —
"I rejoice that a man of your sympathies and sensibilities is not here to
see the Court-House again in chains, and justice administered behind bayo
nets. The only retaliation at present proposed is a petition to repeal the
Fugitive Slave Act, now in the News-Eoom, on its second day, with several
thousand names attached. But what is the use of petition, or polished sen
tences and rounded periods, in a contest with the pirate honor of Slavery ?
It is like an attempt to hew down a mountain of granite with a glass pick
axe." The sentiments of the people, and particularly of the clergy, are
sketched hy Rev. George C. Beckwith, Secretary of the Peace Society,
in a letter dated June 2, from which an extract is given.
" You will have learned ere this that the deed is done, — the deed of shame
and degradation to our good old State. I witnessed the scene from an in
surance office on State Street, and never before felt such a sense of degra
dation. I am glad that so many seemed to share it with me ; for I observed
a sort of funereal sadness on the vast masses before and around me. There
were groans and hisses at even our owu troops, the militia, that had come

156 FINAL PEOTEST AGAINST SLAVEEY.
cut at the call of our mayor; but every effort to get up any counter ap
plause proved a failure.
" I took my pen, however, for another purpose, as you wiQ get from other
sources a better account of this day's public proceedings. I wish to say a
word about our clerical friends, whom you have vindicated with so much
spirit and force in your brief speech before the Senate. They met yes
terday morning, almost without notice, to the number of some four or
five hundred, for consultation on this subject. I never attended a meeting
that evinced a truer spirit or a greater amount of moral power. Little or
no effervescence on the surface, but a depth of feeling, a calmness of con
viction, and an energy of purpose, from which, I am well satisfied, the
whole country will hear in due time.
" I think I am still tme to my peace principles, but my heart is stirred to
its lowest depths of mdignation; and I say frankly to men who applaud
what our forefathers did, that we have now even stronger reasons for resist
ance to the Slave Power than they had to the usurpations of England."
Thomas Sherwin, late head-master of the Boston High School, and
once a tutor of Mr. Sumner at Harvard University, wrote as follows.
" You, Sir, in my opinion, command the highest respect firom the people,
not only of Massachusetts, but of the entire Union. To yourself, Chase,
Giddings, Smith, Benton, and a few others, the great majority of our peo
ple look for protection against the machinations of politicians who would
bring upon our country the contempt of the civiUzed world, and upon the
Government the execration of unborn mUlions."
These extracts prepare the way for the next scene in the drama.

UNION OF ALL PAETIES NECESSAEY AGAINST THE
SLAVE POWER.
Letter to a Massachusetts Committee, May 29, 1854.

Senate Chamber, May 29, 1854.
GENTLEMEN, — For the present my post of duty is
here, so that I must forego the pleasure of meeting
our friends on Wednesday next. The Massachusetts host,
I am glad to leam, wiU be reinforced on that occasion by
brave voices from other States. Mr. Giddings you wiU
be glad to welcome.
Could I meet my feUow-citizens, I should not lose the
opportunity of sounding the alarm and exhorting them
to action. The Nebraska BiU has passed, but it is a mis
take to suppose that the propagandists of Slavery wiU
stop here. Other audacities are at hand. More land
from Mexico is sought, on which to extend a nefarious
institution. The calamities of war with Spain, incalcu
lably disastrous to the commerce of New Tork and Bos
ton" are aU to be braved in order to appropriate slave-
holding Cuba. Aa iatrigue is now pending to secure a
foothold in Hayti; and even the distant vaUey of the
Amazon is embraced in these gigantic schemes, by which
the despotism of the Slave Power is to be estabUshed,
whUe you and I, and all of us from the North, are to
bow down before it. For myself, I wUl not bow down ;
but. Gentlemen, you wiU understand that no individual
can effectuaUy oppose these schemes.

158 UNION OF PAETIES AGAINST THE SLAVE POWEE.
This can be done only in one way. As aU at the
South, without distinction of party, unite for Slavery,
so aU at the North, without distinction of party, forget-
tino- vain differences of Whig and Democrat, must unite
for Freedom, and, rising in majority and miglit, take
control of the National Government. For this work
the people are now ready ; and they can surely accom
pUsh it, U they wUl. The only impediment, at this mo
ment, is to be found in those bUnd or selfish poUticians
who perversely seek a triumph of mere party, instead of
a triumph of Freedom. Neither the Whig party nor the
Democratic party, through its national organization de
pendent on slaveholding wings, is competent to the exi
gency. The slaveholding wings can be kept in concert
with the Northern wings only when they give the law to
the movement. For a poor triumph of party, the North
yields, in advance, aU that is dear to it, and, whUe vainly
calUng itself national, helps to instal the sectional power
of Slavery in the National Govemment. This must be
changed. With an earnest soul, devoted to the triumph of the
righteous cause, and indifferent to the name by which I
may be called, I would say to aU at this time. Abandon
old party ties ; forget old party names ; let by-gones be
by-gones ; and for the sake of Liberty, and to secure
the general weUare, now unite against the Despotism
of Slavery, and in this union let past differences disap
pear. BeUeve me, Gentlemen,
Very faithfuUy yours,
Chaeles Sumnee.
Hon. P W Bird, James M, Stone, Committee.

THE BOSTON PETITION FOR THE REPEAL OF THE
FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.
Speech in the Senate, on the Boston Petition for the Repeal
OF the Fugitive Slave Act, June 26, 1854.

The midnight speech of Mr. Sumner on the Kansas and Nebraska
BUl contained language which was soon justified. In pronouncing the
hUl "the best on whieh Congress ever acted," he said that it annuUed
aU past compromises with Slavery, and "thus it puts Freedom and
Slavery face to face, and bids them grapple." And this was the case in
Boston, immediately after the passage of the bUl, when a fugitive slave
was surrendered. The indignation was general, and a petition for the
repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act was extensively signed, in the foUow
ing terms.
" To the Honorable the Senate and House of Eepresentatives iu Congress
assembled: The undersigned, men of Massachusetts, ask for the repeal of
the Act of Congress of 1850 known as the Fugitive Slave Bill."
There were twenty-nine hundred petitioners, among whom were many
who had heretofore sustained this atrocious measure ; but they felt at
last reUeved from this service. In this respect this petition marks au
epoch in pubUc sentiment.
Its reception in the Senate marks an epoch there. It was presented
on the 22d of June, hy Mr. EockweU, the new Senator in Mr. Everett's
place, who moved its reference to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Other petitions of like character had heen tieated very unceremoni
ously. This was debated at length, and finaUy referred according to
the motion of Mr. EockweU.
On the 26th of June the debate began, in which Mr. Jones, of Ten
nessee, Mr. EockweU, of Massachusetts, then again Mr. Jones, and
Mr. Brodhead, of Pennsylvania, took part. At this stage Mr. Sumner
spoke as foUows.

160 THE BOSTON PETITION FOE THE EEPEAL

ME. PEESIDENT,— I begin by answering the m-
terrogatory propounded by the Senator from Ten
nessee [Mr Jones] : " Can any one suppose, that, U the
Fugitive Slave Act be repealed, this Union can exist ? "
To which I reply at once, that, if the Union be ia any
way dependent on an act — I cannot caU it a law — so
revolting in every aspect as that to which he refers, then
it ought not to exist. To much else that has faUen from
that Senator I do not desUe to reply. Matters aUeady
handled again and again, in the long-drawn-out debates
of this session, he has discussed at length. Like the
excited hero of Macedonia, he has renewed past con
fUcts, —
"And thrice he routed all his foes, and thrice he slew the slain."
Of what the Senator said on the relations of Senators,
North and South, of a particiUar party, it is not my prov
ince to speak. And yet I do not turn from it without
expressing at least some confidence that men from the
North, whether Whigs or Democrats, wUl neither be ca
joled by any temptation nor driven by any lash from
the support of those principles which are inseparable
from the true honor and welfare of the country. At last
there wiU be, I trust, a backbone in the North.
My coUeague has aUeady remarked that this petition
proceeds from persons many of whom were open sup
porters of the aUeged Compromises of 1850, including
even the odious Fugitive Slave Act. I have looked over
the long Ust, and, so far as I can judge, find this to be
true. And, in my opinion, the change shown by these
men is typical of the change in the community of which
they constitute a prominent part. Once the positive

OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 161
upholders of the Fugitive Slave Act, they now demand
its unconditional repeal.
There is another cUcumstance worthy of especial re
mark. This petition proceeds mainly from persons con
nected with trade and commerce. Now it is a fact too
weU known in the history of England, and of our own
country, that these persons, while often justly distin
guished by individual charities, have been lukewarm in
opposition to Slavery. Twice in English history did " the
mercantUe interest" frown upon endeavors to suppress
the atrocity of Algerine Slavery ; steadfastly in England
it sought to bafile WUberforce's great efibrt for the abo
Ution of the African slave-trade ; and at the formation of
our own Constitution, it stipulated a sordid compromise,
by which this same detested. Heaven-defying trafiic was
saved for twenty years from American judgment. But
now it is aU changed, — at least in Boston. Eepresen
tatives of " the mercantUe interest " place themselves in
the front of the new movement against Slavery, and, by
theU expUcit memorial, caU for the removal of a griev
ance which they have bitterly felt in Boston.
Mr. President, this petition is interesting to me, first,
as it asks a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, and, sec
ondly, as it comes from Massachusetts. That repeal I
shaU be glad, at any time, now and hereafter, as in times
past, to sustain by vote and argument ; and I trust never
to faU in any just regard for the sentiments or interests
of Massachusetts. With these few remarks I would gladly
close. But there has been an arraignment, here to-day,
both of myself and of the Commonwealth which I rep
resent. To all that has been said of myseU or the Com
monwealth, so far as it is impeachment of either, so
far as it subjects either to any real censure, I plead
VOL. IV.  ^11

162 THE BOSTON PETITION FOE THE EEPEAL
openly, for myseU and for Massachusetts, " Not guilty."
But pardon me, U I do not submit to be tried by the
Senate, fresh from the injustice of the Nebraska BUL
In the language of the Common Law, I put myself upon
"God and the country," and claim the same trial for
my honored Commonwealth.
So far as the arraignment touches me personaUy, I
hardly care to speak. It is true that I have not hesi
tated, here and elsewhere, to express my open, sincere,
and unequivocal condemnation of the Fugitive Slave
Act. I have denounced it as at once a violation of
the law of God, and of the Constitution of the United
States ; and I now repeat this denunciation.
Its violation of the Constitution is manifold; and
here I repeat but what I have often said. Too often
it cannot be set forth, so long as the infamous statute
blackens the land.
It commits the great question of human freedom, —
than which none is more sacred in the law, — not to a
solemn trial, but to summary proceedings.
It commits this great question, not to one of the high
tribunals of the land, but to the unaided judgment of a
single petty magistrate.
It commits this great question to a magistrate ap-
poiated, not by the President with the consent of the
Senate, but by the Court, — holding his office, not dur
ing good behavior, but merely during the wiU of the
Court, — and recei^dng, not a regiUar salary, but fees
accordiag to each individual case.
It authorizes judgment on ex parte evidence, by affi
davit, without the sanction of cross-examination.
It denies the writ of habeas corpus, ever known as the
paUadium of the citizen.

OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 163
Contrary to the declared purposes of the framers of
the Constitution, it sends the fugitive back " at the pub
Uc expense." 1
Adding meanness to the violation of the Constitution,
it bribes the Commissioner by a double fee to pronounce
against Freedom. If he dooms a man to Slavery, the
reward is ten doUars ; but saving him to Freedom, his
dole is five doUars.
This is enough, but not all. On two other capital
grounds do I oppose the Act as unconstitutional: first,
as it is an assumption by CongTess of powers not del
egated by the Constitution, and in derogation of the
rights of the States; and, secondly, as it takes away
that essential birthright of the citizen, trial by jury, in a
question of personal Uberty and a suit at Common Law.
Thus obnoxious, I have always regarded it as an enact
ment totaUy devoid of all constitutional, as it is clearly
devoid of all moral obUgation, while it is disgraceful to
the country and the age. And, Sir, I have hoped and
labored for the creation of such a Public Opinion, firm,
enUghtened, and generous, as shoiUd render this Act
practicaUy inoperative, and shoiUd press, without ceas
ing, upon Congress for its repeal. For aU that I have
thus uttered I have no regret or apology, but rather
joy and satisfaction. Glad I am in having said it;
glad I am now in the opportunity of affirming it aU
anew. Thus much for myself.
In response for Massachusetts, there are other things.
Something surely must be pardoned to her history. In
Massachusetts stands Boston. In Boston stands Faneuil
HaU, where, throughout the perils which preceded the
Eevolution, our patriot fathers assembled to vow them-
1 See Madison's Debates, August 28, 1787.

164 THE BOSTON PETITION FOE THE EEPEAL
selves to Freedom. Here, Ui those days, spoke James
Otis, fuU of the thought that " the people's safety is the
law of God."^ Here, also, spoke Joseph Warren, in
spired by the sentiment that " death with aU its tor
tures is preferable to Slavery." ^ And here, also, thun
dered John Adams, fervid with the conviction that
•' consenting to Slavery is a sacrUegious breach of
trust." ^ Not far from this venerable haU — between
this Temple of Freedom and the very court-house to
which the Senator [Mr. Jones] has referred — is the
street where, in 1770, the first blood was spilt in con
fiict between British troops and American citizens, and
among the victims was one of that African race which
you so much despise. Almost within sight is Bunker
HUl ; further off, Lexington and Concord. Amidst these
scenes a Slave-Hunter from Virginia appears, and the
disgusting rites begin by which a feUow-man is sacri
ficed. SU, can you wonder that our people are moved ?
" Who can be wise, amazed, temperate and furious.
Loyal and neutral, in a moment? No man,"
It is true that the Slave Act was with difficulty exe
cuted, and that one of its servants perished in the mad
ness. On these grounds the Senator from Tennessee
charges Boston with fanaticism. I express no opinion
on the conduct of individuals ; but I do say, that the
fanaticism which the Senator condemns is not new in
Boston. It is the same which opposed the execution
of the Stamp Act, and finaUy secured its repeal. It is
the same which opposed the Tea Tax. It is the fanati
cism which finaUy triumphed on Bunker HUL The
' Eights of the British Colonies (Boston, 1764), p. 10.
2 Letter to Edmund Dana, March 19, 1766: Loring's Hundred Boston
Orators, 2d ed., p. 51.
3 Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law: Works, Vol. HL p. 463.

OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 165
Senator says that Boston is fiUed with traitors. That
charge is not new. Boston of old was the home of
Hancock and Adams. Her traitors now are those who
are truly animated by the spirit of the American Eevo
lution. In condemning them, in condemning Massachu
setts, in condemning these remonstrants, you simply give
proper conclusion to the utterance on this floor, that the
Declaration of Independence is " a self-evident lie."
Here I might leave the imputations on Massachu
setts. But the case is stronger yet. I have referred to
the Stamp Act. The paraUel is of such aptness and
importance, that, though on a former occasion I pre
sented it to the Senate, I cannot forbear from pressing
it again. As the precise character of this Act may not
be famUiar, aUow me to remind the Senate that it was
an attempt to draw money from the Colonies through a
stamp tax, whUe the determination of certain qtfestions
of forfeiture under the statute was delegated, not to the
Courts of Common Law, but to Courts of AdmUalty,
without trial by jury. This Act was denounced in the
Colonies at its passage, as contrary to the British Con
stitution, on two principal grounds, identical in char
acter with the two chief grounds on which the Slave
Act is now declared to be unconstitutional: first, as an
assumption by ParUament of powers not belonging to
it, and an infraction of rights secured to the Colonies ;
and, secondly, as a denial of trial by jury in certain
cases of property. On these grounds the Stamp Act
was held to be an outrage.
The Colonies were aroused against it. Virginia first
declared herseU by solemn resolutions, which the timid
thought " treasonable," — yes. Sir, " treasonable," ^ —
1 Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, Vol. UI. p. 119.

166 THE BOSTON PETITION FOE THE EEPEAL
just as that word is now appUed to recent manifesta
tions of opiaion in Boston, — even to the memorial of
her twenty-nine hundred merchants. But these " trea
sonable " resolutions soon found response. New York
foUowed. Massachusetts came next. In an address
from the Legislature to the Governor, the true ground
of opposition to the Stamp Act, coincident with the two
radical objections to the Slave Act, are clearly set forth,
with the foUowing pregnant conclusion : —
" We deeply regret it that the Parliament has seen fit to
pass such an aot as the Stamp Act ; we flatter ourselves
that the hardships of it wiU shortly appear to them in such
a point of light as shall induce them, in their wisdom, to
repeal it ; in the -mean time we -must beg your Excellency to
excuse its from doing anything to assist in the execution of it," ^
The Stamp Act was welcomed in the Colonies by the
Tories of that day, precisely as the unconstitutional
Slave Act has been welcomed by an imperious class
among us. Hutchinson, at that time Lieutenant-Gov
ernor and Judge in Massachusetts, wrote to Ministers
in England : —
"The Stamp Act is received among us with as much
decency as could be expected. It leaves no room for eva
sion, and wiU execute itself." ^
Like Judges of our day, in charges to Grand Ju
ries, he resolutely vindicated the Act, and admonished
"the jurors and people" to obey.^ Like Governors of
our day, Bernard, in his speech to the Legislature of
Massachusetts, demanded unreasoning submission. " I
1 Journal of the House of Eepresentatives of Massachusetts Bay, October
24, 1765, p. 135. Hutchinson, Vol. III., Appendix, p. 474.
2 Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. p. 272.
8 Ibid.

OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 167
shaU not," says this British Governor, " enter into any
disquisition of the poUcy of the Act. I have only to say
that it is an Act of the ParUament of Great Britain." ^
The elaborate answer of Massachusetts — the work of
Samuel Adams, one of the piUars of our history — was
pronounced " the ravings of a parcel of wUd enthusi
asts," ^ even as recent proceedings in Boston, resulting
in the memorial before you, have been characterized on
this floor. Am I not right in this paraUel ?
The country was aroused against the execution of the
Act. And here Boston took the lead. In formal in
structions to her Eepresentatives, adopted unanimously
in town meeting at FaneuU HaU, the foUowing rule of
conduct was prescribed : —
" We therefore thiak it our iadispensable duty, in jus
tice to ourselves and posterity, as it is our undoubted privi
lege, in the most open and unreserved, but decent and re
spectful terms, to declare our greatest dissatisfaction with
this law : and we think it incumbent upon you hy no means
to join in any public measures for countenancing and assisting
in the execution of the same, but to use your best endeavors
in the General Assembly to have the inherent, unalienable
rights of the people of this Province asserted and vindicated,
and left upon the public records, that posterity may never
have reason to charge the present times with the guilt of
tamely given them away." *
The opposition spread and deepened, with a natural
tendency to outbreak and violence. On one occasion
in Boston, it showed itself in the lawlessness of a mob
most formidable in character, even as is now charged.
1 Journal of the House of Eepresentatives, September 25, 1765, p. 119.
Hutchinson, Vol. HL p. 467.
2 Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. p. 349.
8 Boston Gazette, September 23, 1766.

168 THE BOSTON PETITION FOE THE EEPEAL
Liberty, in her struggles, is too often driven to force.
But the town, at a pubUc meeting in FaneuU HaU,
caUed without delay, on the motion of the opponents
of the Stamp Act, with James Otis as Chairman, con
demned the outrage. Eager in hostility to the execu
tion of the Act, Boston cherished municipal order, and
constantly discountenanced aU tumult, violence, and
iUegal proceedUig. On these two grounds she then
stood : and her position was widely recognized. In re
ply, March 24, 1766, to an address from the inhabitants
of Plymouth, her own consciousness of duty done is
thus expressed : —
" If the inhabitants of this metropolis have taken the war
rantable and legal measures to prevent that misfortune, of all
others the most to be dreaded, the execution of the Stamp Act, and,
as a necessary means of preventing it, have made any spirited
applications for opening the custom-houses and courts of
justice, — if, at the same time, they have hore their testimony
against outrageous tumults and illegal proceedings, and given
any example of the love of peace and good order, next to
the consciousness of having done their duty is the satisfac
tion of meeting with the approbation of any of their fel-
low-countrym en. " *
Thus was the Stamp Act annuUed, even before its
actual repeal, which was pressed with assiduity by peti
tion and remonstrance, at the next meetiag of ParUa
ment. Among potent influences was the entUe concur
rence of the merchants, and especially a remonstrance '
against the Stamp Act by merchants of New York, Uke
that now made against the Slave Act by merchants of
Boston. Some at first sought only its mitigation. Even
James Otis began with this moderate aim. The King
'' Boston Gazette, March 31, 1766.

OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 169
himself showed a disposition to yield to this extent.
But FrankUn, who was then in England, when asked
whether the Colonies would submit to the Act, U miti
gated in certain particulars, repUed : " No, never, unless
compeUed by force of arms."^ Then it was that the
great Commoner, WiUiam Pitt, in an ever-memorable
speech, uttered words which fitly belong to this oc
casion. He said : —
" Sir, I have been charged with giving birth to sedition
in America. They have spoken their sentiments with free
dom against this unhappy Aot, and that freedom has be
come their crime. Sorry I am to hear the liberty of speech
in this House imputed as a crime. But the imputation
shaU not discourage me. It is a hberty I mean to exercise.
No gentleman ought to be afraid to exercise it. It is a
liberty by which the gentleman who calumniates it might
have profited. He ought to have profited. He ought to
have desisted from his project. The gentleman teUs us
America is obstinate, America is almost in open rebellion. I
rejoice .that America has resisted. Three millions of people,
so dead to all the feelings of Liberty as voluntarily to submit
to be slaves, would have been fit instruments to make slaves
of the rest  I would not debate a particular point of
law with the gentleman ; but I draw my ideas of Freedom
from the vital powers of the British Constitution, — not from
the crude and fallacious notions too much relied upon, as if
we were but in the moming of Liberty. I can acknowledge
no veneration for any procedure, law, or ordinance, that is
repugnant to reason and the first elements of our Constitu
tion  The Americans have been wronged. They have
been driven to madness by injustice  Upon the whole,
I will beg leave to tell the House what is really my opinion.
It is, that the Stamp Act he repealed, absolutely, totally, and
1 Hansard, Parliamentary History, XVI. 140.

170 THE BOSTON PETITION FOE THE EEPEAL
immediately, — that the reason for the repeal he assigned, he-
cause it was founded on an erroneous principle." '^
Thus spoke this great orator, at the time tutelary
cfuardian of American Liberty. He was not unheeded.
Within less than a year from its original passage, the
Stamp Act — assaUed as unconstitutional on the precise
grounds which I now occupy in assailing the Slave Act
— was driven from the statute-book.
SU, the Stamp Act was, at most, an infringement of
civil Uberty only, not of personal Uberty. How often
must I say this ? It touched questions of property only,
and not the personal Uberty of any man. Under it, no
freeman could be seized as a slave. There was an un
just tax of a few pence, with the chance of amercement
by a siagle judge without jury ; but by this statute no
person could be deprived of that vital right of aU which
is to other rights as soul to body, — the right of a man
to himself. Who can faU to see the difference between
the two cases, and how far the tyranny of the Slave Act
is beyond the tyranny of the Stamp Act ? The difference
is inmeasurable. And this wUl yet be pronounced by
history. I caU upon you, then, to receive the petition, and
hearken to its prayer All other petitions asking for
change in existing legislation are treated with respect,
promptly referred and acted upon. This should not be
an exception. The petition asks simply the repeal of
an obnoxious statute, which is entirely within the com
petency of Congress. It proceeds from a large number
of respectable citizens, whose autograph signatures are
attached. It is brief and respectful, and, in its very
1 Hansard, Parliamentary History, XVI. 103 - 108. Bancroft, History of
the United States, V. 391-395.

OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 171
brevity, shows that spirit of freedom which should
awaken a generous response. In refusing to receive it
or refer it, according to the 'usage of the Senate, or in
treating it with any indignity, you offer an afiront not
only to these numerous petitioners, but also to the great
Eight of Petition, which is never more sacred than
when exercised in behaU of Freedom against an odious
enactment. Permit me to add, that by this course
you provoke the very spUit which you would repress.
There is a plant which is said to gTow when trodden
upon. It remains to be seen U the Boston petitioners
have not something of this quaUty. But this I know.
Sir, — that the Slave Act, Uke Vice, is
" a monster of so frightful mien,
As, to be hated, needs but to be seen."
And the occurrences of this day wUl make it visible to
the people in new forms of injustice.

REPLY TO ASSAILANTS:
OATH TO SUPPORT THE CONSTITUTION; WEAKNESS
Of THE SOUTH FEOM SLAVERY.
Second Speech in the Senate on the Boston Petition fok the
Eepeal op the PuGiTrvE Slave Act, June 28, 1854.

The preceding speech was followed by a debate without example in
anger, excitement, and brutality. Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, Mr.
Mason, of Virginia, Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, Mr. Dixon, of Kentucky,
Mr. Mallory, of Florida, and Mr. Clay, of Alabama, vied with each
other in bullying denunciation of Mr. Sumner.
Jlr. Butler began by claiming that the American Eevolution was
carried through by "slaveholding States," thus making boast for
Slavery, — and then turned to pour contempt upon Mr. Sumner, whose
speech he characterized as "a species of rhetoric intended to feed the
iires of fanaticism in his own State" ; then it was "a Fourth of July
Oration," — "vapid rhetoric," — "a species of rhetoric which ought
not to come from a scholar," — "a rhetoric with more fine color
than real strength" ; and then he announced, "If sectional agita
tion is to be fed by such sentiments, such displays, and such things
as come from the honorable gentleman near me, 1 say we ought not
to be in a common confederacy, and we should be better off with
out it." Then again, " If the object be to make the issue between
the North and tha South, let the issue come." He then asked if
ilassachusetts "would send fugitives hack to us after trial by jury
or any other mode ? " Then, tuming to Mr. Sumner, he demanded,
with much impetuosity of manner, "Will this honorable Senator tell
me that he will do it ? " To which Mr. Sumner promptly replied,
"Is thy servant a dog, that he should do this thing?" The Globe
reports the disorderly ejaculations which followed from Mr. Butler,
winding up with the words, "You stand in my presence as a coequal
Senator, and tell me that it is a dog's office to execute the Constitu-

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 173
tion of the United States ? " Here Mr. Sumner remarked, "I recog
nize no such obligation," — meaning, plainly, no obligation to return
a fugitive slave.
Mr. Mason, afterwards so conspicuous in the EebelUon, followed in
similar vein. He began by saying : "I say. Sir, the dignity of the
American Senate has heen rudely, wantonly, grossly assailed by a Sen
ator from Massachusetts, — and not only the dignity of the Senate, but of
the whole people, trifled with in the presence of the American Senate,
either ignorantly or corruptly, 1 do not know wliich, nor do I care."
He then proceeded to vindicate the "gentleman from Virginia" who
had sought his slave in Boston, denounced Mr. Sumner for having
"the boldness to speak here of such a man as a slave-hunter," and
boasted that the law had been executed in Boston, — that "in that
city, within the last fortnight, it has done its office, and done it iu
the presence of a mob, which that Senator and his associates roused
and inflamed to the very verge of treason, subjecting them to trai
tors' doom, while he and his associates sat here and kept themselves
aloof from danger." Then he exclaimed : " Why, Sir, am I speaking
of a fanatic, one whose reason is dethroned ? Can such a one expect
to make impressions upon the American people from his vapid, vulgar
declamation here, accompanied by a declaration that he would violate
his oath now recently taken ? "
All that was said hy these two representatives of Slavery was in
tensified and aggravated hy Mr. Pettit, of Indiana, who charged Mr.
Sumner with openly declaring in the Senate that he would violate his
oath, and then proceeded to foreshadow a proposition for his expul
sion. At the same time he vindicated at length his original statement,
that the construction put upon the Declaration of Independence by
the Abolitionists of the country "made it a self-evident lie, instead of
a self-evident truth." At this stage the Senate adjourned, leaving the
question of reference still pending.
The next day was occupied by other business, contrary to the de
clared desire of Mr. Sumner, who said that he had " something further
to say " upon the petition. On the 28th of June the attack on Mr. Sum
ner was renewed by Mr. Pettit, but without taking up the petition.
An attempt was made to stifle further debate. Motions to postpone,
and then to lay on the table, were proposed, when Mr. Sumner re
marked : —
I AM unwiUing to stand in the way of the gen
eral wish of the Senate to go on with its business; I

174 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
desire at aU times to promote its business ; but this
question has been presented and debated. Several
Senators have aUeady expressed themselves on it.
Other Senators within my knowledge expect to be
heard. I too. Sir, claim the privUege of being heard
again, in reply to remarks which have faUen from hon
orable Senators. I hope, therefore, the memorial wUl
have no disposition that shaU preclude its complete
discussion. The Senate refused to postpone, and Mr. MaUory, of Florida,
afterwards Secretary of the Navy in the cabinet of Jefferson Davis,
hegan the assault on Mr. Sumner, expressing horror at his declara
tions in the Senate, and then adducing his early language in the
Boston speech so often referred to. The future rebel dwelt with unc
tion on the obligations of an oath, saying : " Sir, if there he any prin
ciple in the breast of the American citizen which more than any
other lies at the foundation of law, morals, and society, it is his ha
bitual observance and recognition of all the sacred obligations of an
oath ; and this no man knows better than the Senator himself."
Mr. Clay, of Alabama, afterwards a violent rebel, succeeded in in
terpolating into the speech of Mr. Mallory a tirade of personality
and brutality, which wUl be found in the Olobe, and, after present
ing a portrait meant for Mr. Sumner, "who held himself irrespon
sible to all law, feeling the obligation neither of the Divine law, nor
of the law of the land, nor of tlie law of honor," proceeded to ask,
" How would such a miscreant he treated ? Why, if you could not
reach him with the arm of the municipal law, if you could not
send him to the Penitentiary, you would send him to Coventry."
And the orator of Slavery wound up by saying : " If we cannot re
strain or prevent this eternal warfare upon the feelings and rights
of Southern gentlemen, we may rob the serpent of his fangs, we can
paralyze his influence, hy placing him in that nadir of social degra
dation which he merits."
This brief account of the debate is important, as showing the at
mosphere of the Senate, and the personal provocation, when Mr.
Sunmer at last obtained the floor and spoke as follows.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 175

ME. PEESIDENT, — Since I had the honor of
addressiag the Senate two days ago, various
Senators have spoken. Of these, several have aUuded
to me in terms clearly beyond the sanction of par
liamentary debate. Of this I make no complaint,
though, for the honor of the Senate, at least, it were
weU, had it been otherwise. If to them it seems fit,
courteous, parUamentary, let them
" unpack the heart with words.
And fall a-cursing, Hke a very drab,
A scullion " :
I wiU not interfere with the enjoyment they find in
such exposure of themselves. They have given us a
taste of their quality. Two of them, the Senator from
South Caroliaa [Mr. Butlee], who sits immediately be
fore me, and the Senator from Virgioia [Mr. Mason],
who sits immediately behind me, are not young. Their
heads are amply crowned by Time. They did not speak
from any ebulUtion of youth, but from the confirmed
temper of age. It is melancholy to beUeve that in this
debate they showed themselves as they are. It were
charitable to beUeve that they are in reaUty better than
they showed themselves.
I think, SU, that I am not the only person on this
floor, who, Ustening to these two self-confident cham
pions of that peculiar fanaticism of the South, was re
minded of the striking words of Jefferson, picturing the
influence of Slavery, where he says : " The whole com
merce between master and slave is a perpetual exercise
of the most boisterous passions, the most unremitting
despotism, on the one part, and degrading submission on
the other. Our chUdren see this, and learn to Uuitate it ;

1761 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
for man is an imitative animal  The parent storms.
The chUd looks on, catches the Uneaments of wrath,
puts on the same aUs tn the cUcle of smaUer slaves,
gives a loose to the worst of passions, and, thus nursed,
educated, and daUy exercised in tyranny, cannot but be
stamped by it with odious pecuUarities. The man must
be a prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals
undepraved by such circumstances" ^ Nobody, who wit
nessed the Senator from South Carolina or the Senator
from Virginia in this debate, wiU place either of them
among the " prodigies " described by Jefferson. As
they spoke, the Senate Chamber must have seemed to
them, in the characteristic fantasy of the moment, a
plantation weU-stocked with slaves, over which the lash
of the overseer had free swing. Sir, it gives me no
pleasure to say these things. It is not according to my
nature. Bear witness that I do it only in just self-
defence against the unprecedented assaults and provo
cations of this debate. In doing it, I desire to warn
certain Senators, that, if, by any ardor of menace, or by
any tyrannical frown, they expect to shake my fixed
resolve, they expect a vain thing.
There is Uttle that feU from these two champions,
as the fit was on, which deserves reply. Certainly not
the hard words they used so readUy and congeniaUy.
The veteran Senator from Virgima [Mr. Mason] com
plamed that I had characterized one of his " constitu
ents " — a person who went aU the way from Virginia
to Boston in pursmt of a slave — as Slave-Hunter. Sir,
I choose to caU things by their right names. White I
caU white, and black I call black. And where a person
degrades himself to the work of chasing a feUow-man,
1 Notes on Virginia, Query XVIII.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 177
who, under the inspUation of Freedom and the guid
ance of the North Star, has sought a freeman's home far
away from coffle and chain, — that person, whosoever he
may be, I caU Slave-Hunter. If the Senator from Vir
ginia, who professes nicety of speech, wiU give me any
term more precisely describing such an individual, I
wiU use it. UntU then, I must contiaue to use the
language which seems to me so apt. But this very
sensibUity of the veteran Senator at a just term, truly
depicting an odious character, shows a shame which
pleases me. It was said by a phUosopher of Antiquity
that a blush is the sign of virtue ; and perroit me to
add, that, in this violent sensibiUty, I recognize a blush
mantUng the cheek of the honorable Senator, which
even his plantation manners cannot conceal.
And the venerable Senator from South CaroUna, too,
[Mr. Butlee,] — he has betrayed his sensibiUty. Here
let me say that this Senator knows well that I always
Usten with pecuUar pleasure to his racy and exuberant
speech, as it gurgles forth, — sometimes tinctured by
generous ideas, — except when, forgetful of history, and
in defiance of reason, he undertakes to defend what is
obviously indefensible. This Senator was disturbed,
when, to his inquiry, personaUy, pointedly, and vehe
mently addressed to me, whether I would joUi in return
ing a feUow-man to Slavery, I exclaimed: "Is thy
servant a dog, that he should do this thing ? " In fitful
phrase, which seemed to come from unconscious excite
ment, so common with the Senator, he shot forth various
cries about " dogs," and, among other things, asked if
there was any " dog " in the Constitution ? The Sena
tor did not seem to bear in mind, through the heady
currents of that moment, that, by the false interpreta-
voi,. IV. — 12

178 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
tion he fastens upon the Constitution, he has helped to
nurture there a whole kennel of CaroUna bloodhounds,
trained, with savage jaw and iasatiable scent, for the
hunt of flying bondmen. No, SU, I do not beUeve that
there is any "kennel of bloodhounds," or even any
"dog," in the Constitution.
But, Mr President, sUice the brief response which I
made to the inquiry of the Senator, and which leaped
unconsciously to my lips, has drawn upon me such
various attacks, aU marked by grossness of language
and manner, — since I have been charged with openly
declaring a purpose to violate the Constitution, and to
break the oath which I have taken at that desk, I shaU
be pardoned for showing simply how a few plain words
wUl put aU this down. The authentic report in the
" Globe " shows what was actually said. The report in
the " Sentinel " is substantiaUy the same. And one of
the New York papers, which has been put into my
hands since I entered the Senate Chamber to-day, under
its telegraphic head, states the incident with substantial
accuracy, — though it omits the personal, individual ap
peal addressed to me by the Senator, and preserved in
the " Globe." Here is the New York report.
" Mb. Butler. I woiUd like to ask the Senator, if- Con
gress repealed the Fugitive Slave Law, would Massachusetts
execute the Constitutional requirements, and send back to
the South the absconding slaves 1
" Mr. Sumner. Do you ask me if I would send back a
slave 1
" Mb. Butler. Why, yes.
" Mr. Sumner. ' Is thy servant a dog, that he should do
this thing r"i 1 New York Daily Times, June 27, 1854.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 179
To any candid miad, either of these reports renders
anything further superfluous. The answer is expUcit
and above impeachment. Indignantly it spurns a ser
vice from which the soul recoUs, whUe it denies no con
stitutional obUgation. But Senators who are so swift
in misrepresentation, and in assault upon me as disloyal
to the Constitution, deserve to be exposed, and it shaU
be done.
Now, SU, I begin by adoptiug as my guide the au
thoritative words of Andrew Jackson, ia 1832, in his
memorable veto of the Bank of the United States. To
his course at that critical time were opposed the au
thority of the Supreme Court and his oath to support
the Constitution. Here is his triumphant reply.
"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole
ground of this Act, it ought not to control the coordinate au
thorities of this Govemment. The Congress, the Executive,
and the Court must, each for itself^ be guided by its own opin
ion of the Constitution. Each public officer, who takes an oath
to support the Constitution, swears that he will support it as he
understands it, and not as it is understood hy others. It is as
much the duty of the House of Eepresentatives, of the Sen
ate, and of the President, to decide upon the constitutionality
of any bill or resolution which may be presented to them for
passage or approval, as it is of the Supreme Judges, when it
may be brought before them for judicial decision  The
authority of the Supreme Court must not, therefore, be per
mitted to control the Congress or the Executive, when acting
in their legislative capacities, but to have only such influence
as the force of their reasoning may deserve." ^
Mark these words : " Each public oificer, who takes
an oath to support the Constitution, swears that he wUl
1 Senate Journal, 22d Cong. 1st Sess., pp. 438, 439.

180 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
support it as he understands it, and not as it is under
stood by others." Yes, Sir, as he undeestands it, and
not as it is understood by others. Does any Senator
here dissent from this rule ? Does the Senator from
Virgmia ? Does the Senator from South CaroUna ?
[Here Mr. Sumner paused, but there was no reply,] At
aU events, I accept the rule as just and reasonable, —
in harmony, too, let me assert, with that Liberty which
scorns the dogma oi passive obedience, and asserts the in
estimable right of private judgment, whether in reUgion
or poUtics. In swearing to support the Constitution at
your desk, Mr. President, I did not swear to sujiport it
as you understand it, — oh, no. Sir ! — or as the Senator
from Virginia understands it, — by no means ! — or as
the Senator from South CaroUna understands it, with "a
kennel of bloodhounds, or at least a " dog " in it, " paw
ing to get free his hinder parts," in pursuit of a slave.
No such thing. Sir, I swore to support the Constitution
as I ¦understand it, — nor more, nor less.
But Andrew Jackson was not alone in this rule of
conduct. Statesmen before and since have declared it
also, — nobody with more force and constancy than Jef
ferson, who was, indeed, the author of it, so far as any
body can be the author of what springs so obviously
from common sense. Eepeatedly he returns to it, ex
pressing it in various forms. " Each department," he
insists, " is truly independent of the others, and has an
equal right to decide for itself what is the meaning of
ihe Constitution in the cases submitted to its action, and
especiaUy where it is to act ultimately and without ap
peal" 1 I content myself with a single text from this
1 Letter to .Judge Eoane, Sept. 6, 1819: Writings, Vol. VIL p. 135. See
also, p. 178, Letter to Mr. .Jarvis, Sept. 28, 1820; and, Vol. VI. pp. 461, 482,
Letter to W. H. Torrance, June 11, 1815.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 181
authority. The same rule was also announced by Hon.
John Holmes, a Eepresentative from Massachusetts, af
terwards Senator from Maine, in the famous debate on
the admission of Missouri. " This Constitution," he
declares, "which I hold in my hand, I am sworn to
support, not according to legislative or judicial expo
sition, but as I shall understand it." ^ Here is the rule
of Jackson, almost in his language, twelve years before
he uttered it.
And since Jackson we have the rule stated with
great point in this very Chamber, by no less an author
ity — at least with Democrats — than Mr. Buchanan.
Here are a few words from his speech on the United
States Bank.
" If aU the judges and all the lawyers in Christendom had
decided in the affirmative, when the question is thus brought
home to me as a legislator, bound to vote for or against a
new charter, upon my oath to support the Constitution,
/ -rmist exercise my own judgment. I would treat with pro
found respect the arguments and opinions of judges and
constitutional lawyers ; but if after all they failed to con
vince me that the law was constitutional, I should be guilty
of perjury before high Heaven, if I voted in its favor 
Even if the judiciary had settled the question, I should
never hold myself bound by their decision  I shall
never consent to place the political rights and liberties of
this people in the hands of any judicial tribunal." ^
In short, he would exercise his own judgment : and
this is precisely what I intend to do on the proposition
to hunt slaves.
Now I will not occupy your time, nor am I so disposed
1 Annals of Congress, 16th Cong. 1st Sess., I. 967, Jan. 27, 1820.
2 Congressional Globe, July 6, 1841, Appendix, pp. 162, 163.

182 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
at this moment, nor does the occasion requUe it, by en-
terino- upon any minute criticism of the clause in the
Constitution touching the surrender' of " fugitives from
service." A few words only are needful. Assuming, Sir,
in the face of commanding rules of interpretation, aU
leaning towards Freedom, that, in the evasive language
of this clause, " paltering in a double sense," the words
employed can be judiciaUy regarded as justly appUcable
to fugitive slaves, which, as you ought to know. Sir, is
often most strenuously and conscientiously denied, thus
spongiug the whole clause out of existence, except as
a provision for the return of persons actuaUy bound by
lawful contract, but on which I now express no opin
ion, — assuming, I say, this interpretation, so hostUe to
Freedom, and derogatory to the members of the National
Convention, who solemnly declared that they would not
give any sanction to Slavery, or admit in the Consti
tution the idea that there could be property in men, —
assuming, I repeat, an interpretation which every prin
ciple of the Common Law, claimed by our fathers as
their birthright, must disown, — admitting, for the mo
ment only, that the Constitution of the United States
has any words which in any legal intendment can con
strain fugitive slaves, — then I desUe to say, that, as I
understand the Constitution, this clause does not im
pose upon me, as Senator or citizen, any obUgation to
take part, directly or indirectly, in the surrender of a
fugitive slave.
Sir, as Senator, I have taken at your desk the oath
to support the Constitution, as I understand it. And
understanding it as I do, I am bound by that oath, Mr.
President, to ojipose aU enactments by Congress on the
subject of fugitive slaves, as a flagrant violation of the

BEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 183
Constitution; especiaUy must I oppose the last act,
as a tyrannical usurpation, kindred in character to the
Stamp Act, which our fathers indignantly refused to
obey. Here my duties, under the oath which I have
taken as Senator, end. There is nothiag beyond. They
are aU absorbed in the constant, inflexible, righteous
obUgation to oppose every exercise by Congress of any
power over the subject. In no respect by that oath
can I be compeUed to duties in other capacities, or as
a simple citizen, especiaUy when revolting to my con
science. Now in this interpretation of the Constitution
I may be wrong ; others may differ from me ; the Sen
ator from Virginia may be otherwise minded, and the
Senator from South Carolina also ; and they wUl, each
and aU, act according to theU respective understand
ing. For myseU, I shaU act according to mine. On
this expUcit statement of my constitutional obUgations
I stand, as upon a Uving rock; and to the inquiry,
in whatever form addressed to my personal responsibil
ity, whether I would aid, directly or indirectly, in re
ducing or surrendering a feUow-man to bondage, I
reply again, " Is thy servant a dog, that he should do
this thing?"
And, Sir, looking round upon this Senate, I might ask
fearlessly, how many there are, even in this body, —
if, indeed, there be a siagle Senator, — who would stoop
to any such service ? Until some one rises and openly
confesses his wUUngness to become a Slave-Hunter, I
wiU not beUeve there can be one. [Here Mr. Sumner
paused, but nobody rose.] And yet honorable and chiv-
aUous Senators have rushed headlong to denounce me
because I openly declared my repudiation of a service
at which every manly bosom must revolt. "SUe, I

184 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
have found in Bayonne good citizens and brave soldiers,
but not one executioner" was the noble utterance of the
Governor of that place to Charles the Ninth of France,
in response to the royal edict for the massacre of St.
Bartholomew;^ and such a spUit, I trust, wUl yet ani
mate the people of this country, when pressed to the
service of "dogs."
To that other question which has been proposed,
whether Massachusetts, by State laws, wUl carry out the
offensive clause in the Constitution according to the un
derstanding of the venerable Senator from South Caro
lina, I reply, that Massachusetts, at aU times, has been
ready to do her duty under the Constitution, as she un
derstands it, and I doubt not wiU ever continue of this
mind. More than this I cannot say.
In quitting this topic, I cannot forbear to remark that
the assault on me for my disclaimer of aU constitutional
obUgation, resting upon me as Senator or citizen, to aid
in enslaving a feUow-man, or in surrendering hUn to
Slavery, comes with iU grace from the veteran Senator
from Virginia, a State which, by its far-famed resolutions
of 1798, claimed to determine its constitutional obUga
tions, even to the extent of openly declaring two differ
ent Acts of Congress nuU and void ; and it comes even
more strangely from the venerable Senator from South
Carolina, a State which, in latter days, has arrayed it
seU openly against the national authorities, and which
threatens nulUfication as often as babies cry.
Surely the Senator from South CaroUna, with his
sUver-white locks, would have hesitated to lead this
assault upon me, had he not for the moment been en
tUely obUvious of the history of the State which he
I Sismondi, Histoire de France, Tom. XIX. p. 177, note.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 185
represents. Not many years have passed since an inci
dent occurred at Charleston, in South Carolina, — not at
Boston, in Massachusetts, — which ought to be remem
bered. The postmaster of that place, acting under a
controUing PubUc Opiaion there, informed the head of
his Department at Washington that he had determined
to suppress aU Antislavery pubUcations, and requested
instructions for the future. Thus, in violation of the
laws of the land, the very maUs were rifled, and South
Carolina smiled approbation. But stiU further. The
Postmaster-General, Mr. KendaU, after prudently aUeg
ing, that, as he had not seen the papers in question, he
could not give an opinion of their character, proceeded
to say that he had been informed that they were inflam
matory, incendiary, and insurrectionary, and then an
nounced : —
" By no act or direction of mine, official or private, could
I be induced to aid knowingly in giving circulation to papers
of this description, directly or indirectly. JTe owe an obliga
tion to the laws, but a higher one to the communities in which
we live ; and if the former be perverted to destroy the latter,
it is patriotism to disregard them. Entertaining these views,
I cannot sanction, and wUl not condemn, the step you have
taken."! Such was the approving response of the National
Govemment to the Postmaster of Charleston, when, for
the sake of Slavery, and without any constitutional
scruple, he set himseU against an acknowledged law of
the land. And yet the venerable Senator from South
CaroUna now presumes to denounce me, when, for the
sake of Freedom, and in the honest interpretation of
1 Letter of Postmaster-General to Postmaster at Charleston, S. C, August
4, 1835: Niles's Weekly Eegister, 4th Ser. Vol. XIL p. 448.

186 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
my constitutional obUgations, I decline an offensive
service. There is another incident in the history of South Car
oUna, which, as a loyal son of Massachusetts, I cannot
forget, and which rises now in judgment against the ven
erable Senator. Massachusetts ventured to commission
a distinguished gentleman, of blameless Ufe and emi
nent professional quaUties, who had served with honor
in the other House [Hon. Samuel Hoae], to reside at
Charleston for a brief period, in order to guard the rights
of her free colored citizens, assaUed on arrival there by
an inhospitable statute, so gross in its provisions that
an eminent character of South Carolina, a Judge of the
Supreme Court of the United States [Hon. William
Johnson], had condemned it as "trampUng on the
Constitution,'' and " a direct attack upon the sovereign
ty of the United States." ^ Massachusetts had read in
the Constitution a clause closely associated with that
touching fugitives from service, to the foUowing effect :
" The citizens of each State shaU be entitled to aU priv
Ueges and immunities of citizens in the several States,"
and supposed that this would yet be recognized by
South CaroUna. But she was mistaken. Her venera
ble representative, an unarmed old man, with haU as
sUver-white almost as that of the Senator before me,
was beset in Charleston by a " respectable " mob, pre
vented from entering upon his duties, and driven from
the State, — whUe the Legislature stepped forward to
sanction this shameless, lawless act, by placing on the
statute-book an order for his expulsion. And yet. Sir,
the excitable Senator from South CaroUna is fired by the
1 Letter to John Quincy Adams, July 8, 1824 ; Opinion in Ex parte Henry
Elkison, August 7, 1823 : Report No. 80, Com. H. of E., 27th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Jan. 20, 1848, Appendix, pp. 14, 29.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 187
fancied delinquencies of Massachusetts towards Slave-
Hunters, and also by my own refusal to render them
any aid or comfort ; he shoots questions in voUeys, as-
simies to measure our duties by his imderstanding, and
ejaculates a lecture at Massachusetts and myseU. SU,
before that venerable Senator again ventures thus, let
him return to his own State, seamed aU over with the
scars of Nullification, and first lecture there. Ay, SU, let
him look into his own heart, and lecture himseU.
But enough for the present on the extent of my
constitutional obUgations to become Slave - Hunter.
There are, however, yet other things in the assault of
the venerable Senator, which, for the sake of truth, in
just defence of Massachusetts, and in honor of Freedom,
shaU not be left unanswered. AUudUig to those days
when Massachusetts was iUustrated by Otis, Hancock,
and "the brace of Adamses," when FaneuU HaU sent
forth notes of Liberty which resounded even to South
Carolina, and the very stones in the streets of Boston
rose in mutiny against tyranny, the Senator with the
sUver-white locks, in the very ecstasy of Slavery, broke
forth in exclamation that Massachusetts was then
" slaveholding," and he presumed to hail these patriots
representatives of "hardy, slaveholding Massachusetts."
SU, I repel the imputation. True, Massachusetts was
" hardy " ; but she was not, in any just sense, " slave-
holding." Had she been so, she could not have been
"hardy." The two characteristics are inconsistent as
weakness and strength, as disease and health, — I had
almost said, as death and Ufe.
The Senator opens a page on which I wUlingly dweU.
SU, Slavery never flourished in Massachusetts ; nor did

188 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
it ever prevail there at any time, even in early colonial
days, in such measure as to be a distinctive feature of
her progressive civiUzation. Her few slaves were for a
term of years or for life. If, in fact, theU issue was some
times held in bondage, it was never by sanction of any
statute or law of Colony or Commonwealth. Such has
been the solemn and repeated judgment of her Supreme
Court.^ In aU her annals, no person was ever born a
slave on the soil of Massachusetts. This, of itself, is an
answer to the imputation of the Senator.
Benign and brUUant Acts of her Legislature, at an
early date, show her sensibility on this subject. Un
happily, in 1645, two negroes were brought from the
coast of Guinea ia a Boston ship. Instead of holding
them as slaves, the record shows "a resolve to send
them back." ^ One year later, " a negro interpreter, with
others, unlawfuUy taken," became the occasion of an
other testimony. Thus spoke Massachusetts : —
" The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the
first opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and cry
ing sin of man-stealing, as also to prescribe such timely re
dress for what is past, and such a law for the future, as may
sufficiently deter all others belonging to us to have to do in such
vile and most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and
just men, do order, that the negro interpreter, with others,
unlawfully taken, be, by the first opportunity, at the charge
of the country for present, sent to his native country of Gui
nea, and a letter with him, of the indignation of the Court
thereabouts, and justice thereof." ^
'' Littleton sj.Tuttle, 4 Mass., 128, note ; Lanesborough v, Westfield, 16 Mass.,
75 ; Edgartown v. Tisbury, 10 Cush., 410 ; Jackson v. Phillips et als., 14 Allen,
562. 2 Mass. Eecords, Oct. 14, 1645, Vol. IH. p. 49. Wmthrop, History of New
England, Vol. H. p. 244.
8 Mass. Eecords, Nov. 4, 1646, Vol. III. p. 84.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 189
Note the language : " Such vUe and most odious
courses, justly abhorred of aU good and just men." Bet
ter words could not be employed against the infamies of
Slavery in our day. The Colony that could issue this
noble decree was inconsistent with itseff, when it per
mitted its rocky soU to be pressed by the footstep of
a single slave. But a righteous pubUc opmion early
and constantly set its face against Slavery. As early
as 1701 the foUowing vote appears on the Eecords of
Boston: "The Eepresentatives are desUed to promote
the encouraging the brmging of whUe servants, cmd to
put a period to negroes being slaves." i Perhaps, in all
history, this is the earUest testimony from any official
body against Negro Slavery, and I thank God that it
came from Boston, my native town. In 1705 a hea\y
duty was imposed upon every negro imported into the
Province; 2 in 1712 the importation of Indians as ser
vants or slaves was strictly forbidden ;2 but the gen
eral subject of Slavery attracted Uttle attention tiU the
beginning of the controversy which ended in the Eevo
lution, when the rights of the blacks were blended by
aU true patriots with those of the whites. Sparing un
necessary detaU, suffice it to say, that, as early as 1770,
one of the courts of Massachusetts, anticipating by two
years the renowned judgment in Somerset's case, es
tabUshed within its jurisdiction the principle of eman
cipation, and, under its touch of magic power, changed
slave into freeman. Similar decisions foUowed from
other courts. In 1776 the whole number of blacks, both
1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, 2d Ser. Vol. VHI. p. 184. Drake's History and
Antiquities of Boston, p. 525.
2 Acts and Laws of the Province of the Massachusetts Bay, 1705, Ch. VI.
§6- 8 Ibid., 1711 - 12, Ch. V.

190 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
free and slave, sprinkled thinly over "hardy" Massa
chusetts, was five thousand two hundred and forty-nine,
being to the whites as one to sixty-five,^ — whUe in
" slaveholding " South CaroUna the number of negro
slaves at that time was not far from one hundred thou
sand, being at least one slave for every freeman, thus
rendering that Colony anything but " hardy." In these
figures I give South Carolina the benefit of the most
favorable estimates. Good authorities make the slaves
at that time in this State more than twice as numer
ous as the freemen.^ At last, in 1780, even before the
triumph of Yorktown led the way to that peace which
set its seal upon National Independence, Massachu
setts, glowing with the struggles of the Eevolution, and
fiUed with the sentiments of Freedom, placed foremost
in her Declaration of Eights those emphatic words,
" AU men are born free and equal," and by this decla
ration exterminated every vestige of Slavery within her
borders. All haU, then, to Massachusetts ! the just and
generous Commonwealth in whose behalf I have the
honor to speak.
Thus, SU, does the venerable Senator err, when he
presumes to vouch Massachusetts for Slavery, and to
associate this odious institution with the names of her
great patriots.
But the venerable Senator errs yet more, if possible,
when he attributes to " slaveholding " communities a
leading part in those contributions of arms and treasure
by which independence was secured. Here are his
1 Coll. Mass. Hist. Soc, Vol. IV. p. 198.
2 Hewatt, History of South Carolina, Vol. U. p. 292; Drayton, View of
South Carolina, p. 103; Mills, Statistics of South Carolina, p. 177. In har
mony with these is the recent History of South Carolina, by William GU-
more Simms, (ed. I860,) p. 199.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 191
exact words, as I find them ia the "Globe," revised by
himseU. " Sir, when blood was shed upon the plains of Lexington
and Concord, in an issue made by Boston, to whom was an
appeal made, and from whom was it answered ? The answer
is found in the acts of slaveholding States, — animis opibus-
gue parati. Yes, Sir, the independence of America, to main
tain republican hberty, was won by the arms and treasure,
by the patriotism and good faith, of slaveholding communi
ties." 1
Observe, SU, the words as emphasized by himself.
Surely, the Senator, with his sUver- white locks, aU fresh
from the outrage of the Nebraska BiU, and that over
throw of a solemn compact, cannot stand here and
proclaim the " good faith of slaveholding communities,"
except in Uony, — yes, SU, in Uony. And let me add,
that, when this Senator presumes to say that American
Independence "was won by the arms and treasure of
slaveholding communities," he speaks either in Uony or
in ignorance.
The question which the venerable Senator from South
Carolina opens by his vaunt I have no desUe to dis
cuss ; but since it is presented, I confront it at once.
This is not the first time, during my brief service here,
that this Senator has sought on this floor to provoke
comparison between slaveholding communities and the
Free States.
Mr. Butlee [from his seat]. You cannot quote a single
instance in which I have done it. I have always said I
thought it was in bad taste, and I have never attempted it. -
1 Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., June 26, 1854, Vol. XXVHL
p. 1516.

192 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
Me. Sumnee. I beg the Senator's pardon. I always
listen to him, and I know whereof I affirm. He has
profusely dealt in it. I aUude now only to a single
occasion. In his speech on the Nebraska BiU, run
ning through two days, it was one of his commonplaces.
There he openly presented a contrast between the Free
States and " slaveholding communities " in certain essen
tial features of civiUzation, and dUected shafts at Mas
sachusetts which caUed to his feet my distinguished
coUeague at that time [Mr Eveeett], and more than
once compeUed me to take the floor. And now, Sir, the
venerable Senator, not rising from his seat and standing
openly before the Senate, undertakes to deny that he
has dealt in such comparisons.
Me. Butler. WiU the Senator allow me ?
Mr. Sumnee. Certainly : I yield the floor to the Senator.
Me. Butlee. Whenever that speech is read, — and I
wish the Senator had read it before he commented on it
with a good deal of rhetorical enthusiasm, — it will be found
that I was particular not to wound the feelings of the North-
em people who were sympathizing with us in the great
movement to remove odious distinctions. I was careful to
say nothing that would provoke invidious comparisons ; and
when that speech is read, notwithstanding the vehement as
sertion of the honorable Senator, he will find, that, wheu I
quoted the laws of Massachusetts, particularly one Act which
I termed the Toties Quoties Act, by which every negro was
whipped every time he came into Massachusetts, I quoted
them with a view to show, not a contrast between South
Carolina and Massachusetts, but to show that in the whole
of this country, from the beginning to this time, — even in
my own State, — I made no exception, — public opinion had
undergone a change, and that it had undergone the same
change in Massachusetts ; for at one time they did not re-

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 193
-gard this mstitution of Slavery with the same odium that
they do at this time. That was the purpose; and I chal
lenge the Senator, as an orator of fairness, to look at it and
see if it is not so.
Me. Sumner. Has the Senator done 1
Me. Butlbb. I may not be done presently; but that is
the purport of that speech.
Me. Sumnee. WUl the Senator refer to his own
speech? He now admits, that, under the guise of an
argument, he did draw attention to what he evidently
regarded an odious law of Massachusetts. And, Sir, I
did not forget, that, in doing this, there was, at the time,
an apology which Ul concealed the sting.^ But let that
1 The following, from the Congressional Globe (83d Cong. 1st Sess., Ap
pendix, p. 234), will show the spirit of Mr. Butler's remarks, on the occasion
referred to.
" Mr. Butler  I have said, that, before the adoption of the Mis
souri Compromise, even the Northern States were not so very kind and
philanthropic towards this race, which is now imder the peculiar care of
the Senator from Massachusetts, as he would represent. I have before me
a statute of that State, which I ask my friend from Alabama [Mr. C. C.
Clay], who sits beside me, to read."
[Here Mr. Clay read from the Act in question (withholding the title, " An
.Act for suppressing and punishing of Rogues, 'Vagabonds, Common Beggars,
and oth,er Idle, Disorderly, and Lewd Persons " ) a section prohibiting the tar
rying of vagrant negroes in the State longer than two -months, on pain, in case
of complaint, and continuance after due warning, of being " whipped not
exceeding ten stripes, and ordered to depart out of the Commonwealth within
ten days ; and if he or she shall not so depart, the same process to be had
and punishment inflicted, and so toties quoties."'[
" Mr. Beoadhead. What is the date of that statute ?
"Mr. Butler. Seventeen hundred and eighty-eight; and it remained
on the statute-book in full force until 1823, until after the adoption of the
Missouri Compromise. I will call it the Toties Quoties Act. The negroes
were to be whipped every time they happened to get to Boston, or any other
place in Massachusetts. That is a specimen of statutory philanthropy at
least." To this Mr. Sumner replied at once: —
VOL. IV. — 13

194 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
pass. The Senator is strangely obUvious of the statis
tical contrasts which he borrowed from the speech of a
member of the other House, and which, at his request,
were read by a Senator before him on this floor. The
Senator, too, is strangely obUvious of yet another impu
tation, which, at the very close of his speech, he shot as
a Parthian arrow at Massachusetts. It is he, then, who
is the offender ; and no hardihood of denial can extricate
him. For myseff. Sir, I understand the sensibUities of
Senators from "slaveholding communities," and would
not wound them by a superfluous word. Of Slavery I
speak strongly, as I must ; but thus far, even at the
expense of my argument, I have avoided the contrasts
founded on detaU of figures and facts which are so ob
vious between the Free States and " slaveholding com-

" The Senator from South Carolina is so jealous of the honor of his own
State, that he will pardon me, if I interrupt him for one moment, merely to
explain the offensive statute to which he has referred. I have nothing to say
in vindication of it: I simply desire that it should be understood. This stat
ute, which bears date 1788, anterior to the National Govemment, was ap
plicable only to Africans or negroes not citizens of some one of the United
States ; and, according to contemporary evidence, it was intended to protect
the Commonwealth against the vagabondage of fugitive slaves. But I do
not vindicate the statute ; I only explain it ; and I add, that it has long since
been banished from the statute-book."
There is a Eeport to the Massachusetts Legislature by Theodore Lyman,
Jr., as Chairman of a Committee " to report a Bill concerning the Admis
sion into this State of Free Negroes and Mulattoes," dated January 16, 1822,
which confirms the position of Mr. Sumner. After a few preliminary re
marks, it is said: —
" The Committee have already found in the statute-books of this Com
monwealth a law, passed in 1788, regulating the residence in this State of
certain persons of color. They believe that this law has never been enforced,
and, ineffectual as it has proved, tbey would never have been the authors of
placing among the statutes a law so arbitrary in its principle, and in its
operation so little accordant with ihe institutions, feelings, and practices qf the
people of this Commonwealth."

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 195
munities " ; especiaUy have I shunned aU allusion to
South Caroliaa. But the venerable Senator to whose
discretion that State has intrusted its interests here wUl
not aUow me to be stUl.
God forbid that I should do iajustice to South Caro
Una ! I know weU the gaUantry of many of her sons.
I know the response which she made to the appeal of
Massachusetts for union against the Stamp Act — the
Fugitive Slave Act of that day — by the pen of Chris
topher Gadsden. And I remember with sorrow that this
patriot was obUged to confess, at the time, her "weak
ness Ul having such a number of slaves," though it is
to his credit that he recognized Slavery as " crime." ^
I have no pleasure in dweUing on the humUiations of
The Eeport then goes into a history of the public acts and proceedings in
relation to colored persons in Massachusetts, from the earliest colonial times
down to the date of the enactment, in order to show the spirit of the people
towards this class, and concludes with observations like the following; —
" The feelings of the people disclosed since the year 1760 in the votes of
towns and tn the verdicts of juries, .... the fact that there is no law at
present in force which makes a distinction between white and black per
sons, .... the same law which allows justices to expel blacks from the
State after a certain notice expressly recognizing the right of blacks to be
come citizens (a law, the constitutionality of which has been called in ques
tion, and which it is well known was passed on the same day as the Aboli
tion Act of March, 1788, in order to prevent the State from being overrun
with runaway slaves). — blacks having the same public provisions for educa
tion, and the same public support in case of sickness and poverty, — many
blacks before and during the Eevolution having obtained their freedom by a
legal process, and, as the spirit of the Constitution of this State abrogates
all exclusive laws, thereby becoming invested with all the rights of freemen,
and with a capability of becoming freeholders, .... and, above all, the
construction given to the first principle in the Declaration of Eights atthe
time of the adoption of this Constitution, both in the public mind and in the
courts of law, — clearly manifest and demoustrate that the people of this
Commonwealth have always believed negroes and mulattoes to possess tha
same right and capability to become citizens as white persons."
1 Bancroft, History of the United States, Vol. V. pp. 294, 425, 426.

196 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
South Carolina ; I have Uttle desUe to expose her sores ;
I would not lay bare even her nakedness. But the
Senator, in his vaunt for " slaveholding communities,"
has made a claim for Slavery so derogatory to Freedom,
and so inconsistent with history, that I cannot aUow
it to pass unanswered.
This, Sir, is not the first time, even during my Uttle
experience here, that the same claim has been made on
this floor ; and this seems the more astonishing, because
the archives of the country furnish such ample and un
doubted materials for its refutation. The question of
the comparative contributions of men by different States
and sections of the country in the war of the Eevolu
tion was brought forward as early as 1790, in the fUst
Congress under the Constitution, in the animated and
protracted debate on the assumption of State debts by
the Union. On that occasion, Fisher Ames, a Eepre
sentative from Massachusetts, famous for classic elo
quence, moved a caU upon the War Department for the
number of men furnished by each State to the Eevo
lutionary armies. The motion, though vehemently op
posed, was carried by a smaU majority. Shortly after
wards an answer to the caU was received from the
Department, at that time under the charge of General
Knox. This answer, which is one of the documents of
our history, places beyond cavil or criticism the exact
contributions in arms made by each State. Here it is, —
taken from the original, in a volume of the " American
State Papers," ^ pubUshed under the authority of Con
gress. This is official
1 Military Affairs, Vol. I. pp. 14-19. Compare with Coll. New Hamp.
Hist. Soc, Vol. L p. 236.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 197
Statement of the number of troops and militia furnished hy the
several States, for the support of the Eevolutionary 'War, from
1775 to 1783, inclusive. Number of Number of Total militia Coiyectural
T.T- ™ continental militia. and continental estimate of
Northern States, troops. troops. militia.
New Hampshire 12,496 2,093 14,589 3,700
Massachusetts 67,907 15,155 83,062 9,500
Ehode Island 5,908 4,284 10,192 1,500
Connecticut 32,039 7,792 39,831 3,000
New York 17,781 3,312 21,093 8,750
Pennsylvania 25,608 7,357 32,965 2,000
New Jersey 10,726 6,055 16,781 2,500

Total 172,465 46,048 218,513 30,950
Southern States.
Delaware 2,387 376 2,763 1,000
Maryland 13,912 5,464 19,376 4,000
Virginia 26,678 4,163 30,841 21,880
North Carolina 7,263 2,706 9,969 12,000
South Carolina 6,417  6,417 26,850
Georgia 2,679  2,679 9,900

Total 59,336 12,709 72,045 74,630
At this time there was but Uttle difference in num
bers between the population of the Southern States and
that of the Northern States. By the census of 1790
the Southem had a population of 1,851,804 ; the North
ern a population of 1,882,615. Notwithstanding this
essential equaUty of population in the two sections, the
North fumished vastly more men than the South.
Of continental troops, the Southem States fumished
59,336; the Northem, 172,465: making about three
men furnished to the continental army by the Northem
States to one from the Southem.
Of militia whose services are authenticated by the
War Office, the Southem States furnished 12,709 ; the

198 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
Northern, 46,048 : making nearly four men contributed
to the mUitia by the Northern States to one from the
Southern. Of mUitia whose services are not authenticated by
the War Office, but are set down in the return as " con
jectural " only, we have 74,630 furnished by the South
ern States, and 30,950 by the Northem : making, under
this head, five men contributed by the Southern to two
from the Northern. The clUef services of the Southern
States, for which the venerable Senator now claims so
much, it wUl be observed with a smUe, were conjectu
ral only.
Looking, however, at the sum-total of continental
troops, authenticated militia, and " conjectural " mUitia,
we have 146,675 from the Southem States, whUe 249,463
were from the Northern : making upwards of 100,000
men contributed to the war by the Northern more than
by the Southern.
The disparity swells, when we compare South Carolina
and Massachusetts directly. Of continental troops and
authenticated miUtia and " conjectural " militia. South
Carolina furnished 32,267, while Massachusetts fur
nished 92,562 : making nearly three for every one fur
nished by South Carolina. Look, however, at the conti
nental troops and the authenticated mUitia from the two
States, and here you wiU find only 6,417 furnished by
South CaroUna, whUe 83,062 were furnished by Massa
chusetts, — being thirteen times more than by South Car
olina, and much more than by all the Southern States
together. Here are facts and figures of which the Sen
ator ought not to be ignorant.
So obvious was this at the time, that we find John
Adams recording in his Autobiography, that " almost the

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 199
whole army was derived from New England." ^ General
Knox, in a letter to Colonel Joseph Ward, of Massachu
setts, under date of July 28, 1780, with regard to the
reestabUshment of the army, has a few words in point.
After complaining of the general inertness, as sufficient
" to induce a ready beUef that the mass of America have
taken a monstrous deal of opium" he says : —
" It is true, the Eastern States and New York have done
something in this instance, but no others. Propagate this
truth." »
In a letter to General Gates, under date of Philadel
phia, March 23, 1776, John Adams touches a difference
in sentiment between the Northern and Southem States,
which of itself accounts for this disparity of mUitary
contributions. " However, my dear friend Gates, all our misfortunes arise
from a single source, the reluctance of the Southern Colonies
to republican government'' *
Nothing could be stronger, although it is painful to
think that it was true.
Foreign testimony, also, is in harmony with the offi
cial Statement. The Marquis de ChasteUux, who trav
eUed through the States towards the close of the Eev
olution, records somewhere that he "never met any
body from the North who had not been in the army."
So marked and preeminent was the service of the
Northem States, ay. Sir, so peculiar and special was
the service of Boston, from which comes the present
petition, that the Eevolution was known in Europe
by the name of this patriotic town. Edmund Burke
1 Works, Vol. IIL p. 48; see also p. 87.
2 .Tackson's History of Newton, p. 517.
3 Works, Vol. I. p. 207.

200 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
exclaimed in ParUament : " The cause of Boston is be
come the cause of aU America. Every part of Amer
ica is united in support of Boston. By these acts of
oppression you have made Boston the Lord Mayor of
America." ^ And it was the same on the Continent.
Our fathers in arms for Independence were known as
" the insurgents of Boston." The French King was
praised for protectiag with his arms what was caUed
" the justice of the Bostonians." ^ In saying this, I do
not speak vaguely or without authority.
Did occasion require, I might go further, and minutely
portray the imbeciUty of Southern States, and particu
larly of South Caroliaa, in the War of the Eevolution,
as compared with Northern States. This is a sad chap
ter, upon which I dweU unwiUingly. Faithful annals
record, that, as early as 1778, the six South Carolina
regiments, composing, with the Georgia regiment, the
regular force of the Southern Department, did not, in
the whole, muster above eight hundred men ; nor was
it possible to fiU up their ranks. The succeeding year,
the Governor of South Carolina, pressed by British
forces, offered to stipulate the neutraUty of his State
during the war, leaving its permanent position to be
decided at the peace : a premonitory symptom of the
secession menaced in our own day. After the fatal
field of Camden, no organized American force was left
in this region. The three Southem States — animis opi-
busque parati, according to the vaunt of the Senator —
1 Hansard, Parliamentary History, Vol. XVIH. col. 45.
2 Vie Publique et Privie de Louis XVL, p. 43. See also Memoir of the
Eight Honorable Hugh Elliot, by the Countess of Minto, published since
this speech, where will be found (p. 48) a letter from a fine lady of Vienna,
who, writing to Mr. Elliot in 1775, confesses that she has been " Bostonian
at heart " ; J^etais Bostonienne de ccsur.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 201
had not a single battaUon in the field. During aU this
period the men of Massachusetts were serving their
country, not at home, but away from theU own borders :
for, from the Declaration of Independence, Massachusetts
never felt the pressure of a hostUe foot.
The offer of the Governor of South CaroUna to stipu
late the neutraUty of his State during the war has been
sometimes called in question. But, unhappUy, the case is
too clear. General Moultrie, who commanded at Charles
ton, under the Governor, and whose name has been since
given to one of the forts in the harbor there, has fur
nished an authentic record in two volumes, entitled
" Memoirs of the American Eevolution, so far as it relat
ed to the States of North and South CaroUna and Geor
gia." He is my witness. As the British approached, the
Governor and his CouncU became frightened, and pro
ceeded forthwith to talk about capitulation. At last,
after debate, " the question was carried for giving up the
town upon a neutraUty." ^ Colonel John Laurens was
requested to carry this offer of capitulation from the
Governor to General Prevost, the British commander;
but " he begged to be excused from carrying such a
message ; that it was much against his incUnation ; that
he would do anything to serve his country, but he could
not think of carrying such a message as that." Other
envoys were found who most reluctantly undertook this
service. The message was as foUows : —
" To propose a neutrality during the war between Great
Britain and America, and the question, whether the State shall
belong to Great Britain or remain one of the United States, be
determined by the treaty of peace between those two pow
ers." 2'
1 Moultrie, Memoirs, Vol. L p. 432. » Ibid., p. 433.

202 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
The same story is told by others. Eamsay, himseff
of South CaroUna, in his " History of the American
Eevolution," says : —
" Commissioners from the garrison were instructed ' to
propose a neutrality during the war between Great Britain
and America, and that the question, whether the State shall
belong to Great Britain or remain one of the United States, be
determined by the treaty of peace between these powers.' " '
Chief Justice MarshaU, in his authentic work, thus
chronicles the disgraceful business : —
" The town was summoned to surrender, and the day was
spent in sending and receiving flags. The neutrality of
South Carolina during the war, leaving the question, whetlier
that State should finally belong to Great Britain or tlie United
States, to be settled in the treaty of peace, was proposed by
the garrison, and rejected by Prevost." ^
It is also presented with precision by Professor Bowen,
of Harvard University, in his recent Life of General
Lincoln, who remarks on it as follows : — ¦
" This proposal did not come merely from the commander
of a military garrison, in which case, of course, it would
have been only nugatory ; the Govemor of the State, clothed
with discretionary powers, was in the place, and probably
most of his Council along with him. Whether such a propo
sition would have been justifiable under any circumstances
is a question that needs not be discussed ; at any rate, it
would not have evinced much honorable or patriotic feeling.
But to make such an offer in the present case was conduct
little short of treason." *
1 History of the American Eevolution, Vol. H. p. 118.
1" Life of Washington, Vol. L (2d edition) pp. 298, 299.
s Life of Benjamin Lincoln: Sparks's American Biography, 2d Ser. Vol.
XIH. p. 285.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 203
This author concludes an animated review of the
proposition with the remark, that it " was equivalent to
an offer from the State to retum to its aUegiance to the
British Crown." ^
The fate of the State was typified ia the capture by
the British, some time afterwards, of the ship " South
CaroUna," of forty guns, the largest and most costly of
our infant navy, and caUed by Cooper " much the heavi
est ship that ever saUed under the American flag, untU
the new frigates were constmcted during the War of
1812." 2 But here is the same story. Her service was
altogether inadequate.
At last, the miUtary genius and remarkable exertions
of General Greene, a Northem man, who assumed the
command of the Southern army, prevailed in rescuing
South CaroUna from British power But the trials of
this successful leader reveal in a striking manner the
weakness of the " slaveholding '' State he saved. Some
of these are graphicaUy presented in his letters.
Writing to President Eeed, of Pennsylvania, under
date of 4th May, 1781, he says: —
" The strength and resources of these [Southem] States
to support the war have been greatly magnified and over
rated ; and those whose business and true interest it was to
give a just state of the situation of things have joined in the
deception, and, from a false principle of pride of having the
country thought powerful, have led people to believe it was
so. It is true, there were many inhabitants, but they were
spread over a great extent of country, and near equally di
vided between the King's interest and om-s. The majority
1 Life of Benjamin Lincoln: Sparks's American Biography, 2d Ser. Vol.
XIII. p. 286.
2 History of the Navy of the United States (2d edition), Vol. I. p. 213.

204 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
is greatly in favor of the enemy's interest now, as great
numbers of the Whigs have left the country. .... The
love of pleasure and the want of principle among many of
those who are our friends render the exertions very languid
in support of our cause ; and unless the Northem States can
give more effectual support, these States must fall," ^
Writing to Colonel Davie, under date of 23d May,
1781, General Greene again exposes the actual condi
tion of the country.
" The animosity between the Whigs and Tories of this
State renders their situation truly deplorable. There is not
a day passes but there are more or less who fall a sacrifice
to this savage disposition. The Whigs seem determined to
extirpate the Tories, and the Tories the Whigs. Some thou
sands have fallen in this way in this quarter, and the evil
rages with more violence than ever. If a stop cannot be
soon put to these massacres, the country will be depopu
lated in a few months more, as neither Whig nor Tory can
hve." =
To Lafayette, General Greene, tmder date of 29th
December, 1780, describes the weakness of his troops.
" It is now within a few days of the time you mentioned
of being with me. Were you to arrive, you would find a
few ragged, half-starved troops in the wilderness, destitute
of everything necessary for either the comfort or conven
ience of soldiers  The country is almost laid waste,
and the inhabitants plunder one another with little less
than savage fury. We live from hand to mouth, and have
nothing to subsist on but what we collect with armed par
ties. In this situation, I believe you will agree with me,
1 Life and Correspondence of Joseph Eeed, Vol. H. p. 351. Johnson's
Life and Correspondence of Nathaniel Greene, Vol. H. p. 87.
* Gordon, History of the Eise, etc., of the Independence of the United
States, Vol. IV. p. 99.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 205
there is nothing inviting this way, especiaUy when I assure
you our whole force fit for duty, that are properly clothed
and properly equipped, does not amount to eight hundred
men" ^
Writing to Mr. Varnum, a member of Congress, the
General says : —
" There is a great spirit of enterprise prevailing among
the mUitia of these Southem States, especiaUy with the vol
unteers. But their mode of going to war is so destructive,
that it is the greatest folly in the world to trust the liberties
of a people to such a precarious defence." ^
Nothing can be more authentic or complete than
this testimony. Here, also, is what is said by David
Eamsay, an estimable citizen of South CaroUna, in his
History of the Eevolution in that State, pubUshed in
1785, only a short time after the scenes which he de
scribes. "While the American soldiers lay encamped in this in
active situation," (in the low country near Charleston,)
" their tattered rags were so completely worn out, that seven
hundred of them were as naked as they were bom, excepting
a smaU shp of cloth about their waists ; and they were near
ly as destitute of meat as of clothing." *
To the same effect is a letter from Greene to Sumter,
imder date of Jan. 15, 1781.
" It is a great misfortune that the little force we have is
in . such a wretched state for want of clothing. More than
one half our numbers are in a manner naked, so much so
1 Johnson's Life aud Correspondence of Greene, Vol. I. p. 340.
2 Ibid., p. 397.
" History of the Eevolution of South Carolma, Vol. II. p. 258.

206 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
that we cannot put them on the least kind of duty. Indeed,
there is a great number that have not a rag of clothes on
them, except a little piece of blanket, in the Indian form,
around their waists." ^
The mUitary weakness of this "slaveholding com
munity " is but too apparent. As I show its occasion,
you wiU join with me in amazement that a Senator
from South CaroUna should attribute Independence to
anything "slaveholding." The records of the country,
and various voices, aU disown his vaunt for Slavery.
The State of South Carolina itself, by authentic history,
disowns it. I give the proofs.
The first is from the debate on the Confederation in
the Continental Congress, as early as July, 1776, when
the following passage occurred, which I quote from
"Notes of Debates in the Continental Congress in 1775
and 1776," preserved by John Adams. Mr. Lynch, a
young representative of South Carolina, showing the
sensibiUties, if not the evU spirit, engendered by Slav
ery, speaking in behaff of the Southern States, said :
"If it is debated whether their slaves are theU prop
erty, there is an end of the Confederation. Our slaves
being our property, why should they be taxed more than
the land, sheep, cattle, horses, &c. ? " Without noticing
the menace against the Confederation, the beginning of
a long Une, FrankUn repUed, with sententious author
ity : " Slaves rather weaken than strengthen the State,
and there is therefore some difference between them
and sheep. Sheep will never make any insurrections."^
FrankUn touched the point.
1 Johnson's Life and Correspondence of Greene, Vol. I. p. 393.
2 Works of John Adams, Vol. H. p. 498. See also Bancroft's History of
the United States, Vol. IX. p. 62.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 207
And now Hsten, ff you please, to pecuUar and deci
sive testimony, under date of 29th March, 1779, from
the Secret Journals of the Continental Congress.
" The Committee appointed to take into consideration the
drcumstan^ces of the Southern States, and the ways and means
for their safety and defence, report, .... That the State of
South Carolina (as represented by the Delegates to the said
State, and by Mr. Huger, who has. come hither at the request
of the Govemor of the said State, on purpose to explain the
particular circumstances thereof) is UNABLE to make any
efiectual efforts with militia, by reason of the great propor
tion of citizens necessary to remain at home, to prevent insur
rections among the negroes, and to prevent the desertion of
them to the enemy ; that the state of the country, and the
great numbers of those people among them, expose the inhab
itants to great danger, from the endeavors of the enemy to
excite them either to revolt or desert." ^
Here is South Carolina secretly disclosiag her milita
ry weakness, and its ignoble occasion : thus repudiating
in advance the vaunt of her Senator, who finds strength
and gratulation in Slavery rather than in Freedom. It
was during the war, and in the confessional of the Con
tinental Congress, that, on bended knees, she shrived
herself. But the same ignominious confession was made,
some time after the war, in open debate, on the floor
of Congress, by Mr. Burke, a Eepresentative from South
Carolina. " There is not a gentleman on the floor who is a stranger
to the feeble situation of our State, when we entered into the
war to oppose the British power. We were not only -without
money, without an army or military stores, hut we were few in
1 Secret Journals, Vol. I. pp. 107, 108.

208 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
number, and likely to he entangled with our domestics, in case
the enemy invaded -us." ^
SimUar testimony to this weakness was borne by
Mr. Madison in open debate ia Congress.
"Every addition they [Georgia and South Carolina] re
ceive to their number of slaves tends to weaken, and render
them less capable of self-defence." ^
The historian of South Carolina, Dr Eamsay, a con
temporary observer of the very scenes which he de
scribes, to whom I have aUeady referred, also exposes
this weakness.
" The forces under the command of General Prevost
marched through the richest settlements of the State, where
are the fewest white inhabitants in proportion to the num
ber of slaves. The hapless Africans, allured with hopes of
freedom, forsook their owners, and repaired in great numbers
to the royal army. They endeavored to recommend them
selves to their new masters by discovering where their own
ers had concealed their property, and were assisting in carry
ing it off'." »
The same candid historian, describing the invasion
of the next year, says : —
" The slaves a second time flocked to the British army." *
At a stUl later day, Mr. Justice Johnson, of the Su
preme Court of the United States, and a citizen of South
Carolina, in his elaborate Lffe of General Greene, speak
ing of negro slaves, makes the same unhappy admission.
He says : —
"But the number dispersed through these [Southern]
1 Annals of Congress, 1st Cong. 2d Sess., IL 1484, March 30, 1790.
"^ Ibid., 1st Cong. 1st Sess., L 340, May 13, 1789.
8 History of South Carolma, Vol. L pp. 312, 313.
* Ibid., p. 334.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 209
States was very great, — so great as to render it impossible far
the citizens to muster freemen enough to vrithstand the pressure
of the British arms." *
Here is iUustration from an English pamphlet enti
tled "Account of the Duckenfield HaU Estate Negroes,
1806, Law Case," where wUl be found the foUowing in
cident. "In 1779 I bought ten negroes, which, with sixty others,
were taken by a privateer from a plantation in South Caro
Una." Thus from every quarter are we conducted to the
same conclusion.
And aU this cumulative and unimpeachable testimony
is reinforced by testimony of an earUer day, also from
South Carolina. The Assembly of the Colony repre
sented to the King, in 1734, that they were
" Subject to many intestine dangers from the great number
of negroes that are now among us." "
Another representation shortly afterwards declared : —
" If any stop be put to the exportation of rice from South
Carolina to Europe, it ... . may render the whole Colony
an easy prey to their neighbors, the Indians and Spaniards,
and also to those yet more dangerous enemies, their own negroes,
who are ready to revolt on the first opportunity, and are eight
times as many in number as there are white men able to
bear arms." ^
Thus was it before, as during the Eevolution, — weak
ness always, nothing but weakness.
And this is precisely according to human experience.
1 Life of Greene, Vol. H. Appendix, p. 472.
2 Grahame, History of the United States, Vol. HI. p. 161.
« Ibid., p. 216
VOL. IV.  14

210 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
It was in South Carolina as it had been in other lands
where Slavery prevailed. Here I read the testimony of
a remarkable writer. Archbishop Whately.
" For if there be any one truth which the deductions of
reason alone, independent of history, would lead us to an
ticipate, and which again history alone would establish inde
pendently of antecedent reasoning, it is this : that a whole
class of men placed permanently under the ascendency of
another as subjects, without the rights of citizens, must be
a source, at the best, of weakness, and generally of danger, to the
State  It is notorious, accordingly, how much Sparta
was weakened and endangered by the Helots, always ready
to avail themselves of any public disaster as an occasion for
revoU." 1
The Archbishop then recaUs how Hannibal for sixteen
years maintained himself in Italy against the Eomans,
and, though scantUy suppUed from Carthage, recruited
his ranks by the aid of Eoman subjects. Truly does he
say that every page of history teaches the same lesson,
and proclaims in every different form, " How long shaU
these men be a snare unto us ? " ^ — and also, " The rem
nant of these nations which thou shalt not drive out
shaU be pricks in thine eyes and thorns in thy side." ^
Surely, Sir, this is enough, and more. From authen
tic documents, including the very muster-rolls of the
Eevolution, we learn the smaU contributions of men
and the military weakness of the Southern States, par
ticularly of South CaroUna, as compared with the North
ern States ; and from the very Ups of South Carolina her-
1 Essays on Some of the Dangers to Christian Faith, pp. 214- 216, note F,
2d edition. See also Bacon's Essays, with Annotations by Whately, pp.
127 - 130 : Annotations to Essay XV.
2 Exodus, 1 7. 8 Numbers, xxxiii. 68.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 211
seff, on four different occasions, — by a Committee, by
one of her Eepresentatives in Congress, by her historian,
and by an eminent citizen, — we have the confession, not
only of weakness, but that this weakness was caused by
Slavery. And yet, in the face of this combined and au
thoritative testimony, we are caUed to Usten, in the
American Senate, to the arrogant boast, from a venera
ble Senator, that American Independence was achieved
by the arms and treasure of "slaveholding communi
ties": an assumption baseless as the fabric of a vision,
in any way it may be interpreted, — whether as meaning
baldly that Independence was achieved by those South
em States, the pecuUar home of Slavery, or that it was
achieved by any strength or influence which came from
that noxious source. SU, I speak here for a Common
wealth of just renown, but I speak also for a cause
which is more than any Commonwealth, even that which
I represent ; and I cannot aUow the Senator to discred
it either. Not by Slavery, but in spite of Slavery, was
Independence achieved. Not because, but notwithstand
ing, there were " slaveholding communities," did tri
umph descend upon our arms. It was the inspUation
of Liberty Universal that conducted us through the
Eed Sea of the Eevolution, as it had already given to
the Declaration of Independence its mighty tone, re
sounding through the ages. " Let it be remembered,"
said the Nation, speaking by the voice of the Conti
nental Congress, at the close of the war, " that it has
ever been the pride and boast of America, that the
rights for which she contended were the eights of
HUMAN NATUEE." ^ Yes, Sir, in this behaff, and by this
sign, we conquered.
1 Address to the States, April 26, 1783: Journal of Congress, Vol. VIII.
p. 201.

212 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
Such, SU, is my answer on this head to the Senator
from South CaroUna. If the work which I undertook
has been done thoroughly, he must not blame me. Jus
tice demanded that it should be thorough. But, whUe
thus repelUng insinuations against Massachusetts, and
assumptions for Slavery, I would not unnecessarUy
touch the sensibUities of that Senator, or of the State
which he represents. I cannot forget, that, amidst all
diversities of opinion, we are bound together by ties
of a common country, — that Massachusetts and South
CaroUna are sister States, and that the concord of sis
ters ought to prevail between them ; but I am con
strained to declare, that, throughout this debate, I have
sought in vain any token of that just spUit which with
in the sphere of its influence is calculated to promote
the concord whether of State or of individuals.
And now, for the present, I part with the venerable
Senator from South CaroUna. Pursuing his inconsist
encies, and exposing them to judgment, I had almost
forgotten his associate leader in the wanton personal
assault upon me in this long debate, — I mean the vet
eran Senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason], who is now
directly in my eye. With imperious look, and in the
style of Sir Forcible Feeble, that Senator undertakes to
caU in question my statement, that the Fugitive Slave
Act denies the writ of Habeas Corpus ; and in doing
this, he assumes a superiority for himself, which, per
mit me to teU him now in this presence, nothing in him
can warrant. SU, I claim Uttle for myself ; but I shrink
in no respect from any comparison with that Senator,
veteran though he be. Sitting near him, as has been
my fortune since I had the honor of a seat in this cham-

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 213
ber, I have come to know something of his conversation,
something of his manners, something of his attainments,
something of his abiUties, something of his character, —
ay, SU, and something of his associations ; and, whUe I
would not disparage him in any of these respects, I feel
that I do not exalt myseff unduly, that I do not claim too
much for the position which I hold or the name which
I have estabUshed, when I openly declare, that, as Sen
ator of Massachusetts, and as man, I place myseff at
every point in unhesitating comparison with that hon
orable assaUant. And to his peremptory assertion, that
the Fugitive Slave Act does not deny the Habeas Corpus,
I oppose my assertion,- peremptory as his own, that it
does, — and there I leave that issue.
Mr. President, I welcome the sensibUity which the
Senator from VUginia manifests at the exposure of the
Fugitive Slave Act. He is the author of that enormity.
From his brain came forth the souUess monster. He
is, therefore, its natural, guardian. The Senator is, I be
Ueve, a lawyer. And now, since at last he shows pa
rental soUcitude to shield his offspring, he must do more
than vainly parry the objection that it denies the great
writ of Habeas Corpus. It is true, Sir, ff anything but
Slavery were in question, such an objection, if merely
plausible, would be fatal ; but it is not to be supposed
that the partisans of an institution founded on denial
of human rights can appreciate the proper efficacy of
that writ. Sir, I chaUenge the Senator to defend his
progeny, — not by assertion, but by reason. Let him
rally aU the abUity, learning, and subtUty which he can
command, and undertake the impossible work.
Let him answer this objection: The Constitution, by
an amendment which Samuel Adams haUed as a protec-

214 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
tion against the usurpations of the National Govern
ment, and which Jefferson asserted was its very " foun
dation," has solemnly declared that "the powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people." Stronger words could
not be employed to lUnit the powers under the Consti
tution, and to protect the people from all assumptions
of the National Government, particularly in deroga
tion of Freedom. By the VUginia Eesolutions of 1798,
which the Senator is reputed to accept, this Umitation
of the powers of the National Government is recognized
and enforced. The Senator himself is understood, on
aU questions not affecting the claims of Slavery, to es
pouse this rule in its utmost strictness. Let him now
indicate, ff he can, any article, clause, phrase, or word
in the Constitution which gives to Congress any power
to estabUsh a "uniform law throughout the United
States " on the subject of fugitive slaves. Let him now
show, ff he can, from the records of the National Con
vention, one jot of evidence inclining to any such pow
er Whatever its interpretation in other respects, the
clause on which this bUl purports to be founded gives
no such power. Sir, nothing can come out of nothiag ;
and the Fugitive Slave Act is, therefore, without any
source or origin in the Constitution. It is an open and
unmitigated usurpation.
When the veteran Senator of VUginia has answered
this objection, when he is able to find in the Constitu
tion a power which is not to be found, and to make us
see what is not to be seen, then let him answer another
objection. The Constitution has secured the inestimable
right of Trial by Jury " in suits at Common Law, where

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 215
the value in controversy shaU exceed twenty doUars."
Of course Freedom is not susceptible of pecuniary valu
ation ; therefore there can be no question that the claim
for a fugitive slave is within this condition. In deter
mining what is meant by " suits at Common Law," re
course must be had to the Common Law itseff, precisely
as we resort to that law in order to determine what is
meant by " Trial by Jury." Let the Senator, if he be
a lawyer, undertake to show that a claim for a fugitive
slave is not, according to early precedents and writs, —
weU known to the framers of the Constitution, espe
ciaUy to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and John Eut-
ledge, of South CaroUna, both of whom had studied law
at the Temple, — a suit at Common Law, to which, under
the solemn guaranty of the Constitution, is attached the
Trial by Jury, as an inseparable incident. Let the Sen
ator show this, ff he cam
And, Sir, when the veteran Senator has found a power
in the Constitution where none exists, and has set aside
the right of Trial by Jury in a suit at Common Law,
then let him answer yet another objection. By the
judgment of the Supreme Court of the United States,
a claim for a fugitive slave is declared to be a case un
der the Constitution} within the judicial power; and this
judgment of the Court is confirmed by common sense
and Common Law. Let the Senator show, ff he can, how
such exalted exercise of judicial power can be confided
to a siagle petty magistrate, appoiated, not by the Pres
ident, with the advice and consent of the Senate, but
by the Court, — holding his office, not during good be
havior, but merely during the wiU of the Court, — and
receiving, not a regular salary, but fees according to
1 Prigg V. Pennsylvania, 16 Peters, 616.

216 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
each individual case. Let the Senator answer this ob
jection, if, in any way, by twist of leamiag, logic, or law,
he can.
Thus, SU, do I present the issue directly on this
monstrous enactment. Let the author of the Fugitive
Slave BUl meet it. He wUl find me ready to foUow
him in argument, — though I trust never to be led,
even by his example, into any departure from those
courtesies of debate which are essential to the harmony
of every legislative body.
Such, Mr. President, is my response to aU that has
been said ia this debate, so far as I deem it Ui any
way worthy of attention. To the two associate chief
tains in tlUs personal assault, the veteran Senator from
Virginia, and the Senator from South CaroUna with the
silver-white locks, I have repUed completely. It is true
that others have joined in the cry which these associates
first started ; but I shall not be tempted further. Some
there are best answered by sUence, best answered by
withholding the words which leap impulsively to the
Ups. [Here Mr. Sumner turned to Mr. Mallory and Mr.
Clay.] And now, giving to oblivion aU these things, let me,
as I close, dweU on a single aspect of this discussion,
which wiU render it memorable. On former occasions
like this, the right of petition has been vehemently
assaUed or practicaUy denied. Only two years ago,
memorials for the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act,
presented by me, were laid on your table, Mr. President,
without reference to any Committee. All is changed
now. Senators have condemned the memorial, and
sounded in our ears the cry of "Treason! treason!" —

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 217
but thus far, throughout this excited debate, no person
has so completely outraged the spirit of our institutions,
or forgotten himself, as to persevere in objectiag to the
reception of the memorial, and its proper reference. It
is true, the remonstrants and their representatives here
are treated with indignity ; but the great right of peti
tion, the sword and buckler of the citizen, though thus
dishonored, is not denied. Here, SU, is a triumph for
Freedom.

When Mr. Sumner had finished, Mr. Clay, of Alabama, made haste
to say, "He has put the question, whether any Senator upon this
floor would assist in returning a fugitive slave ? No response was made
to the interrogatory ; and lest he should herald it to the world that
there was no Senator upon this floor who had the moral courage to
say 'Ay,' in response to the interrogatory, I tell him that 1 would
do it. " To which Mr. Sunmer replied at once, ' ' Then let the Senator
say the immoral courage."
Mr. Butler rose to reply, when Mr. Badger asked his "friend from
South Carolina, whether it would not be better for him to allow us now
to adjourn ? " To which Mr. Butler answered : " No, Sir ; I would not
subject myself to the temptation of preparing a reply that might have
something in it, that, like a hyena, I was scratching at the graves in
Massachusetts, to take revenge for the elaborate and vindictive assault
that has been made hy the gentleman who has just spoken." The
Globe shows his continued anger and excitement, which broke out es
pecially at the comparison Mr. Sumner made between the Stamp Act
and the Slave Act, and at his refusal to surrender a fugitive slave.
These seemed to be the two grounds of offence. On the latter point, Mr.
Butler, contrary to Mr. Siunner's positive declaration, was persistent
in saying that he had denied the obligation of his oath to support the
Constitution, when he had only denied his obligation to surrender a
fugitive slave. At this stage, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, remarked :
"The answer made hy the Senator from Massachusetts was in these
precise words : 'I recognize no such obligation.' 1 did not understand
that Senator as meaning to say that he would not obey the Constitu
tion, or would disregard his oath, — nor, allow me to say, was he so
understood hy many gentlemen on this side of the chamber ; but he
simply meant to say (1 certainly so understood him) that he did not con-

218 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
sider that the Constitution imposed any such obligation upon him. That
is all." Before the debate closed, Mr. Toucey, of Connecticut, said :
"1 beg leave to ask the Senator from Massachusetts whether he now
recognizes an obligation to return a fugitive slave ? I put the question
in general language : Does he recognize the obligation to return a fugi
tive slave?" Mr. Sumner then said, "To that 1 answer distinctly.
No." The petition was then referred to the Committee.
As Mr. Sumner resumed his seat, after his speech in reply to his
assailants, Mr. Chase, who sat next to him, said : "You have struck
Slavery the strongest blow it ever received ; you have made it reel
to the centre." The rage of its representatives was without hounds.
The suggestion of Mr. Pettit to expel him was the first idea, which at
last gave way to that of Mr. Clay to put bim in Coventry. The first
was not abandoned at once. It was seriously entertained. The news
papers of the time represent that it was under consideration from the
day of his speech, — that "the opposition to Mr. Sumner is general and
bitter in the Senate, and that it would be rash, therefore, to assert that
the resolution will not be presented, and that, if presented, it will not
be carried." It was added, that four Northem Senators were pledged
to the resolution. The Eveni-ng Post said, jestingly : "The Washing
ton Union, and those of whom it is the special organ, are as much
puzzled what to do -nith Senator Sumner as the Lilliputians were how
to dispose of Mr. Lemuel Gulliver, when he made his appearance
among them." Other papers treated the suhject more gravely. The
National Era, at Washington, said : "When we heard that a pro
ject for the expulsion of Mr. Sumner was under consideration among
some Senators, we scouted the report as simply ridiculous ; but there
is no limit to the insolence and foUy of some men. On inquiry, we
leamed that such a project was seriously canvassed."
This debate was profoundly felt throughout the country. Mr.
Sumner's speech was telegraphed to the North, and extensively read.
People there were smarting under the repeal of the Missouri Prohibi
tion and the attempt to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. They were
glad to find the audacious pretensions of the slave-masters repelled in
Congress. Newspapers were enthusiastic. The correspondent of the
New York Times wrote : —
" This able, triumphant vindication, which covered the assailants with
confusion, told with the more effect because it was unexpected, it had
been supposed that Mr. Sumner would submit quietly to any indignity that
might be heaped upon him ; but the people, doubtless, when they read his

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 219
speech, will acknowledge that he held in reserve, and knew when and how
to use, weapons of defence far keener than the bowie-knife, and far more cer
tain and fatal than the duellist's rifle ; and his countrymen will honor the
moral courage that enabled him to bear unflinchingly all the cruel taunts
of his misreckoning assailants, until the time had arrived for drawing the
arrows of Truth  I have notibeen accustomed to praise the Senator
who is now my theme; but that heart must be cold, and that judgment
lamentably distorted, which could withhold from Mr. Sumner his well-
earned tribute for to-day's acquittance."
The Springfield Republican thus characterizes the speech : —
" Curiosity has been greatly stimulated to see it in full, and it will amply
repay attention. Mr. Sumner has made more brilliant, classical, scholarly
speeches, but never one more effective, nor one upon which his fame as Con
gressional debater can more creditably rest. It was a full vindication of
himself and of Massachusetts, and its influence and effect have been marked
at Washington. It ended the discussion which the South so vauntingly pro
voked. There has been no essay at reply. It carried the war into the bow
els of his opponents in a maimer not ordinarily excusable, but, after the
provocation which had been given, in this instance most abundantly justifi
able. His annihilation of his accusers was complete."
In a speech at Providence shortly afterwards, Mr. Giddings, of the
House of Eepresentatives, referred to this efi'ort, which he heard, in sym
pathetic terms.
" They assailed Sumner because he said, ' Is thy servant a dog, that he
should do this thing ? ' in reply to the question, whether he would assist in
the capture of a fugitive slave ? He was assailed by the whole Slave Power
in the Senate, and for a time he was the constant theme of their vitupera
tion. The maddened waves rolled and dashed against him for two or three
days, until eventually he obtained the floor himself. Then he arose and
threw back the dashing surges with a power of inimitable eloquence utterly
indescribable  I assure you that last week was the proudest week I
ever saw. Sumner stood inimitable, and hurled back the taunts of his as
saUants with irresistible force. There he stood towering above the infamous
characters who had attempted to silence him, whUe I sat and listened with
rapturous emotion."
The interest awakened hy the conflict in the Senate and the part
home hy Mr. Sumner can he understood only by reading the testimony
of the time in private letters, which have additional value in the light
of subsequent events. It will be seen how Mr. Sumner was supported,
and what already was the sentiment of the North.
Letters came from unknown persons, saying, "I want to thank you
for that speech." On the next day after its delivery Eev. Theodore
Parker wrote : —

220 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
" I never felt so proud of you as now, and can't go to bed without first
thanking you for the noble words which Apthorp has just read me of yours
fi-om the Transcript of to-night. Even phlegmatic  is roused up witb
your fire. God bless you ! "
Hon. John P. Hale, of the Senate, wrote from Dover, N. H., under
date of July 3d : —
" As I came from Washington to this place, in New York, Boston, and in
steamboats and railroad cars, I heard but one expression in regard to your
speech, and that was of unmingled gratification. I have heard all classes,
Whigs and others, and there is no exception. Ladies particularly are iu
ecstasies at it. Mrs. Hale says, ' Give him my thanks for his speech.' The
feeling of gratification at your speech is so great, that people do not think,
much less speak, of the BiUingsgate by which you were assailed."
Hon. Henry Wilson thus expressed his feeUngs in a letter from Bos
ton : —
" I write to say to you that you have given the heaviest blow you ever
stmck to the slaveholding oligarchy. All our friends are delighted, and
men, who, even up to this hour have withheld all words of commendation,
are proud of your speech, and loud in their commendations."
John A. Andrew, Esq., wrote : —
" Your recent rencontre with the wild beasts of Ephesus has been a bril
liant success. I have regarded that debate with pride and gratification. I
am glad it has occurred for many reasons, private and personal, as well as
public and universal. And I have beard no person refer to it but in terms
the most gratifying to my friendship for you, and my interest in the contro
versy itself. I think our friends here are in good spirits and full of hope.
" How do those people treat you now, since they have come to close
quarters with you ? I hope you will spare not. You had ample occasion,
and now I hope you will keep up the war aggressi-oely ; never fail to attack
them, in the right way, whenever they deserve it. The insolence of the
presumption to stand between a man and his own conscientious interpre
tation of the Constitution, especially when they defiantly and every day
dare everybody to tread on their coat^taUs, at the price of treason and
rebellion, under the name of ' disunion,' is utterly unbearable.
" I only wish they would expel you, and Chase, and GUlette, — all three."
Wendell Phillips was most eamest, as follows : —
" The storm of letters of congratulation is perhaps lulled a little hy this
time, and you '11 have a moment's leisure to receive the admiring thanks of
an old friend. Amid so much that was sad and dark at home, it has been
delightful to sun one's self now and then in the glad noon of hope at Wash
ington. The whole State is very proud of you just now. If your six years
were out this next winter, I think you 'd be run in again without a com
petitor, aud by a vote of aU parties.

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 221'
" AU your late efforts have been grand: see the benefit of being insulted.
Your last richly merited the claim you made of being thorough. I liked and
entirely approved the self-respect with which you put your own opinion
side by side with the Virginian's and left it. You claimed not a tittle too
much, and he deserved just that sort of treatment.
" If, amid such universal congratulation, it be any joy to you to hear my
amen, be assured it is most heartily shouted."
Eev. Joshua Leavitt, the lifelong AboUtionist, wrote from New
York: —
" I have just read the full report of your speech with intense satisfaction.
It is a glorious work. The report, the echo, the efiect in the other fleet,
shows that it was such a broadside as they never had before."
John Jay wrote from Bedford, New York, the country home of his
grandfather, the Chief Justice : —
" I have read your speech of the 28th June with, I think, more thorough
satisfaction and delight than any other in my life, not excepting even your
first speech ou the Fugitive Bill, for which I waited so impatiently, as your
first great blow iu the Senate against American Slavery. Your last is
a glorious, a most triumphant effort, and has given you a proud and com
manding position before the country, as the long hoped-for Champion of
the North, before whose fearless front and avenging arm Southem insolence
at length shall quaU. How the Free States will receive your words is already
clear, if doubt could have been entertained of it, by the tone generally of
the public press, and the delight manifested, both in the town and country,
by almost all who speak of it. In our quiet neighborhood I find people
talking of it enthusiasticaUy whom I never before heard express the slightest
feeling on the Slavery question."
Eev. Convers Francis, the eminent professor of Harvard University,
wrote : —
" When I came to that answer of yours, ' Is thy servant a dog, that he
should do this thing ? ' I could not but cry out, ' That is just the thing ! Mr.
Sumner could not have found in all literature or history elsewhere so fitting
words for reply, when he was asked whether he would send back a slave.'
And your admirable application of Jefferson's description of the manners
produced by Slavery did my very heart good. J have heard but one opin
ion of these speeches from every side : indeed, there can be but one, — that
which expresses unmingled admiration and delight."
Dr. Joseph Sargent, of Worcester, wrote : —
" You must aUow me to thank you for your reply to the assaults of Mr.
Pettit and Mr. Clay. It is a personal matter with me, and all of us ; for we
have felt ourselves insulted, and we are satisfied. I have read all your
speeches in the Senate with instraction and gratification; but this has

222 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
warmed me so that I cannot withhold my thanks, though I trespass on your
time. The whole community feels as I do. Men stop their business to ask
each other if they have read Mr. Sumner's speech, and even men caUing on
me to visit their sick famUies forget their errand tiU they have put the uni
versal question. We have hitherto admired your forbearance, but your
reply is as dignified and noble as your forbearance, whUe it is strong, rich,
and Saxon. We have had nothing like it since the Hiilsemann letter. I
wiU say no more, but I could say no less."
Theophilus P. Chandler, Esq., of Boston, wrote : —
" I cannot express the pleasure your friends have enjoyed at the result of
the late Senatorial conflict. Old Fogies read your speech with satisfaction,
although some complain of the Jackson doctrine."
Count Gurowski wrote from Newport : —
" You showed what is the real backbone of a gentleman, considered in the
higher moral or phUosophical point of view, by far superior to what your
assailers conceive or are able to imagine in theu- vulgar or low concep
tions.' '
Eev. William H. Furness, the distinguished divine and devoted
Abolitionist, wrote : —
" I congratulate you upon having been blackguarded and denounced. It
has redounded to your honor. It has proved a rare success. I think you
should thank God for placing you, in his wise Providence, iu a position which,
utterly hateful as it must be to you (fighting with wild beasts at Ephesus),
proves to furnish occasion for the heroic element. I can dimly surmise how
much it costs you to stand there ; but I doubt not the experience you are
having testifies that it wiU pay the cost, and a great deal more. I may be
mistaken, but, from all I have leamed of your position in the Senate, things
look as if those Southem men, after trying to steal your sting away by aU
sorts of courtliness and courtesy, and trying in vain, have turned upon you
like rabid dogs, with the intent to tear you in pieces. They have not done
it, nor wiU they."
Hiram Barney, Esq., of New York, wrote : —
" I congratulate you on that day's work. It was weU and nobly done. I
have seen something of your assailants, and know something of their habits
and manners, and can appreciate your forbearance. It is a shame that you
should be obliged to meet so much that is disgusting to the taste and shock
ing to the moral sense in the American Senate. But it is a matter of just
pride that the friends of Freedom there are gentlemen, and always win upon
the field of argument."
William C. Russell, Esq., of New York, afterwards professor at Cor
nell University, wrote : —

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 223
" I am delighted beyond measure by your reply to the Southern chivalry.
It is grand, gentlemanly, cool, pointed, weU aimed, and true metal. I do not
wonder that Mr. Butler did not want to play vampire to Massachusetts.
The fact is, it is getting to be rather serious work to interfere with the old
Commonwealth; and I shaU be surprised, if the Southem buU-dogs do not
bay in some other quarter."
Hon. Charles P. Huntington, of Northampton, afterwards Judge of
the Superior Court of the County of Suffolk, wrote : —
" 1 have been, as usual, exceedingly gratified with the manner, style, and
spirit in which you have met your Senatorial responsibUities on this try
ing Nebraska question. But the reply to the personal attacks and insults of
Butler and Mason last week has gratified me more than anything that has
faUen from your hps, — so severe, yet so just, — so cutting, yet so keen and
polished, — so decided, manly, and bold, — so indicative of backbone, as
well as pith and marrow, that your adversaries were fairly hung up and
impaled." Hon. Charles G. Loring, the eminent lawyer, wrote : —
" Your reply to the Southern gentlemen, who seem to think that a Northem
man must be craven, elicited general and great admiration. I heartily en
joyed it, and think that Mr. Mason must have had at least one experience
in his life of the comfort of being squeezed through the little end of the
hom. You will doubtless be treated with some consideration by these wor
thies hereafter. In what school of blackguardism was Clay of Alabama
graduated ? He certainly is a magnificent specimen of Southem chivalry.
You would have great reason to thank him for placing you in Coventry, at
a distance beyond bailing from him and his compeers."
Andrew Eitchie, Esq., of Boston, wrote : —
" These gentlemen have been unfortunate in attacking you. You have
punished them in a most exemplary manner, without descending to their
vulgar level. You have exposed their ignorance of our Eevolutionary histo
ry, vindicated the character of your own State, and brought forward, to their
utter confusion, their own General Jackson, to justify your remark that you
woiUd not voluntarily do anything to promote the execution of what you
deemed an unconstitutional law. In a word, you have taught these orators
how much more effective is a caustic cimlUy of reply than coarse, intemper
ate reviling."
Hon. S. E. Sewall, the constant Abolitionist, of Boston, -wrote : —
" It is hardly necessary for me to tell yon, what you probably see in the
newspapers, that you have become one of the most popular men in Massa
chusetts. Even the Whigs are beginning to find out that you have main
tained the character of the State far better than their own Senator.
" I suppose the idea of expelling you from the Senate, which was reported
in the papers some weeks ago, could never have been seriously entertained.

224 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
But the mere suggestion of such an outrage roused many men who had
never been your political friends ; for everybody felt that to attempt such an
aot would be an indigmty to the State not to be tolerated.
" I find that I have left to the end of my letter, what I meant to have said
in the beginning, that all your friends are delighted with your course in
Congress under the very trying circumstances of the present session. We
all agree that you have fought a good fight."
William I. Bowditch, Esq., of Boston, communicated the following
incident : —
" One gentleman whom I saw this forenoon said that he involuntarily
gave three cheers, when he had finished reading your speech ; and an ' old
Hunker ' said to me smilingly, ' I really don't know but that I shaU myself
come out at last a Sumner man.' "
Dr. James W. Stone, an indefatigahle member of the Free-SoU party,
wrote : —
" But I should not only faU to express my own feelings, but also the
universal satisfaction here evinced, did I long delay to tell you, even if I
have time to do nothing more, how great the enthusiasm is in your behalf, for
your noble reply to the unworthy assaults from Pettit, whose name is more
significant of his mental than of his physical calibre, from Butler the faith
less, and from Clay the slave-hunter, et id omne genus. I doubt whether
even you can repress the enthusiasm which so eamestly demands a public
reception for you on your return home."
Hon. Benjamin F. Butler, afterwards General, and Representative in
Congi-ess, wi-ote : —
" My interest in the subject of the speeches procured me the reports whUe
they were being delivered. At that time I was at Concord, in court, seeing
people of all parties ; and I can assure you, from observation, that your course
in the Senate is sanctioned by the approving sentiment of Massachusetts."
Eobert Carter, Esq., the journalist and writer, -wrote from Cam
bridge : —
" A month ago I thought your popularity had reached a wonderfully high
pitch, that you had at a leap overcome prejudices and misconceptions that
seemed likely to be sm-mounted only by the gradual toU of years. But the
last week has wrought even greater wonders. Multitudes, formerly your
enemies and revilers, are not merely willing to tolerate you, not merely wUl
ing to be satisfied with you, but have become actually proud of you, as their
representative, and the champion of Massachusetts and the North. I hear
on aU sides nothing but commendations and exultations."
John C. Dodge, Esq., of Boston, -wrote : —
" I rejoice that Massachusetts has found a defender who wiU, without fear

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 225
or favor, tel! the whole truth, when she is assailed. And I assure you that
«uch is the voice of nearly our whole community. Whigs, Democrats, and
Free-Soilers unite in the expression of approbation and pleasure."
Hon. Albert G. Browne, of Salem, wrote : —
" Let me say seriously, frankly, your reputation as a fearless, brave, and
true man is firmly established, — confidence also in your discretion and good
judgment, as shown in this last debate and in the management of this whole
affair. There is a settled conviction that you know how to withstand the
entreaties or coolness of friends, when your thoughts are not their thoughts,
— that you have shown great moral and physical courage, united with ad
mirable abUity, in meeting and discomfiting the foes of Freedom, when, in
your opinion, the right time had come."
Professor Edward T. Channmg, of Harvard University, whose mem
ory is dear to a large circle of pupils, -wrote to a friend : —
" Sumner has done nobly. He is erect and a man of authority among the
slave holders, dealers, and hunters. He has made an historical era for the
North ; for at least one among us has dared to confront the insolent. He
makes cowards of them, or rather shows what cowards they are at the
South. So wiU it ever be, when the Tmth is bold; though it is rare for a
young or old hero in politics to produce effect so rapidly. Still, aud not
withstanding, and nevertheless, our Whigs would send ApoUyon to the Sen
ate as soon as Sumner, if his term should expire when they are uppermost."
T. C. Connolly, Esq., under date of August 21, reported from Wash
ington the opmion of Mr. Gales, the very able editor of the National
Intelligencer. " I rejoice in the assurance universaUy felt here, that your position in the
Senate wiU be far more pleasant in the future than it has been in the past.
I enjoyed the pleasure of a conversation with Mr. Gales on this subject a
few days since. He introduced your name, and remarked that the absence
¦of sympathy in your views could not infiuence his fair judgment of your
worth. He was an attentive reader of the debates of the Senate, and he had
seen that every step you had taken was a step upward, and that they who
had affected to contemn were at length driven into a tacit acknowledgment
of their very great error. He spoke in particular of the reproofs you had
found it necessary to administer to Senators around you, and said, that, while
they were exceedingly severe and effective, they were equally just, and im-
accompanied by a single word that could be regarded as incompatible with
the place and presence in which you stood."
Men particularly interested in the Peace Cause united in the prevaU
ing sentiment.
Of these, Hon. Amasa Walker, afterwards a Eepresentative in Con
gress from Massachusetts, wrote : —
VOL. IV.  15

226 EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS.
"Your reply to the slaveholders is capital, and receives universal ad.
miration in this quarter. It was just such a flagellation as the slavocrats
deserved, and such a one as they never received before in the Senate. 1
think, from what I can observe, that your course is universaUy popular, al
ways excepting the mercenary minions of the Govemment."
J. P. Blanchard, Esq., devoted to Peace, -wrote : —
" I take this occasion to express my warm admiration of the spirit and
power you have exhibited in your late contest with Messrs. Butler, Pettit,
et id genus omne, I am rejoiced and grateful that your ' backbone ' has
proved strong enough to stand such a test without bending: that I have not
given you this acknowledgment earlier is because, being very busy, I did
not take time to write a letter for that purpose only, as 1 knew you were
so well acquainted with my sympathies that the expression of them was un
necessary. 1 am glad to understand that you have received commendations
on this score from sources where a short time ago you would not have ex
pected them."
Elihu Burritt, the Missionary of Peace, wrote : —
" And now I want to thank you with my whole heart for your grand and
brave rejoinder to Butler and Mason. It was the best, bravest thing done in
the Senate this many a year. I think more hearts in the Free States wiU
glory in your courageous and overwhelming reply to these plantation Sena
tors than in any public effort of your life. You must have made it, too, on
short notice. I never read anything with more satisfaction."
Other letters attest a change in sentiment among those who had heen
lukewarm on Slavery, and perhaps adverse to Mr. Sumner.
Hon. Daniel Shattuck, of Concord, wrote : —
" Being one of the old-time Whigs, I was not pleased with your election
to the high seat which you hold: for that opinion you wiU forgive me, I am
sure, when I say that I go with you now heart and soul, and approve aU you
have said in defence of your native State, whose sons I know approve your
course and wish you God-speed."
George M. Browne, Esq., of Boston, wrote ; —
" Differing with you as I do in political sentiments, and having no other
connection with public affairs than what pertains to every citizen, I desire
nevertheless to express to you, what I believe to be the general feeling
among all classes of reflecting minds here, an admiration for the dignified
and gentlemanly bearing with which you have gone through the contest and
rebuked the ruffian onslaught, — and to say, moreover, that we should, I have
no doubt, aU unite, from aU sides, as one man, in sending you back to the
Senate, should the maniac threats of expulsion by any possibUity be car
ried into effect."

EEPLY TO ASSAILANTS. 227
The foUowing poem, suggested by this debate, belongs to this history.
TO C. S.
I have seemed more prompt to censure wrong
Than praise the right, — if seldom to thine ear
My voice hath mingled with the exultant cheer
Bome upon all our Northern winds along, —
If I have failed to join the fickle throng
In wide-eyed wonder that thou standest strong
In victory, surprised in thee to find
Brougham's scathing power with Canning's grace combined, —
That he, for whom the ninefold Muses sang.
From their twined arms a giant athlete sprang,
Barbing the arrows of his native tongue
With the spent shafts Latona's archer flung,
To smite the Python of our land and time.
Fell as the monster bom of Crissa's shme.
Like the blind bard who in Castalian springs
Tempered the steel that clove the crest of kings,
And on the shrine of England's freedom laid
The gifts of Cuma3 and of Delphi's shade, —
Small need hast thou of words of praise from me.
Thou knowest my heart, dear friend, and well canst guess.
That, even though silent, I have not the less
Eejoiced to see thy actual life agree
With the large future which I shaped for thee,
When, years ago, beside the summer sea.
White in the moon, we saw the long waves fall
Baffled and broken from the rocky wall.
That to the menace of the brawling flood
Opposed alone its massive quietude.
Calm as a fate, with not a leaf nor vine
Nor birch-spray trembling in the still moonshine,
Crowning it like God's peace. I sometimes think
That night-scene by the sea prophetical,
(For Nature speaks in symbols and in signs.
And tlirough her pictures human fate divines,) —
That rock, wherefrom we saw the bUlows sink
In murmuring rout, uprising clear aud taU
In the white light of heaven, the type of one
Who, momently by Error's host assailed.
Stands strong as Trath, in greaves of granite mailed.
And, tranquil-fronted, listening over all
The tumult, hears the angels say, WeU done ! J. G. W.
nth month, 25th, 1864.

PEACEFUL OPPOSITION TO THE FUGITIVE
SLAVE ACT.
Letter to the Mayor or Boston, for the Celebratiok
July 4, 1854.

Senate Chamber, 1st July, 1854.
DEAR SIR, — I have been honored by the invita
tion of the municipal authorities of Boston to unite
with them in commemorating the approaching anniver
sary of our National Independence.
Please tender to them my gratitude, that they have
thus remembered me, an absent citizen, who tries to
serve truth and justice in the sphere where he has been
placed. Pleasure would take me home among con
genial souls, but duty keeps me here.
The approaching anniversary of Independence in Bos
ton should be something more than a show and expense.
It ought to be the occasion of a practical vow to those
primal principles of Freedom which have been assaUed.
Our municipal history should be carefuUy read, and, un
less we are prepared to disown our fathers, the conduct
of Boston at memorable times should be set forward
anew, as an example which her chUdren must never
forget. I do not refer to the violent act by which her
harbor was converted into a " teapot " ; but I would
especiaUy dweU on the peaceful opposition, which, ac
cording to her own records, now preserved at the City
HaU, she organised against a tyrannical and unconstitu-

PEACEFUL OPPOSITION TO FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. ^ 229
tional Act of ParUament, — " bearing testimony against
outrageous tumults and iUegal proceedings," but never
failing to "take legal and warrantable measures to pre
vent that misfortune, of aU others the most to be dreaded,
the execution of the Stamp Act." The City Clerk wUl
find these words in his books, under date of 24th March,
1766, whence I have with my own hand copied them.
With this great precedent of Freedom in my memory,
I ask the municipal authorities — should I be remem
bered at theU hospitable board — to propose in my
name the foUowing sentiment.
The City of Boston. — WhUe stUl in colonial dependence,
and with no aim at revolution, her municipal fathers stead
fastly opposed the execution, within her borders, of an im
constitutional and tyrannical Act of Parhament, until, with
out violence or coUision, it was at first practically annulled,
and at last repealed. Truly honoring the Fathers, let Boston
not depart from their example.
I remain, dear SU, your faithful servant,
Chaeles Sumnee.
To THE Matok of Boston.

NO PENSION FOR SERVICE IN SUPPORT OF
THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.
Minority Report to the Senate or the United States, on the
Bill granting to the Widow of James Batchelder a Pro
vision FOR her future StTPPORT, JuLY 13, 1854.

An attempt was made to obtain a pension for the widow of James
Batchelder, kUled in Boston, while guarding Anthony Bums, the fugi
tive slave, on the evening of May 26, 1854. A biU was reported from
the Committee on Pensions. Mr. Sumner and Mr. Seward, constitut
ing a minority of the Committee, made the foUowing adverse report,
which was dra-wn up by the former.

VIEWS OF ME. SUMNER AND MR. SEWARD.
THE undersigned, a minority of the Committee on
Pensions, cannot concur with the maj'ority of the
Committee in reporting a biU for the reUef of the widow
of the late James Batchelder. They also dissent from
the report accompanying the biU, which, however, is
understood not to proceed from a majority of the Com
mittee. In granting pensions, or bounties of a kindred na
ture, it has been the habit of the Committee to require
evidence of aU essential facts and circumstances, — not,
indeed, according to the rigorous forms of a court of
law, but with substantial fulness and authenticity. Ap-
pUcations for pensions are constantly rejected for de-

NO PENSION FOE SUPPOET OF FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 231
feet of testimony. But this reasonable practice, which
is a necessary safeguard against abuse, has been dis
regarded in the present case. No evidence of any kind
— not a shred or particle — was produced. The ma
jority of the Committee undertook to act at once, on
loose and general report, gathered from the pubUc press
at a moment of excitement. In this report they have
obviously proceeded with more haste than discretion.
Such a course cannot be in conformity with approved
precedents. In itseU it wUl be a bad precedent for the
future. But this proceeding seems more obnoxious to com
ment, when it is known that it appears, from the very
sources on which the Committee reUed, that the facts in
question are aU at this moment the subject of judicial
inquiry, still pending, in the courts at Boston. Several
citizens have been indicted for participation in the trans
action to which reference is made, and in which Batch-
elder is said to have been kiUed. Their trials have not
yet taken place, but are near at hand. Under these
pecuUar cUcumstances, the indiscreet haste of the Com
mittee, thus acting in advance of authentic evidence,
and lite pendente, is enhanced by possible detriment to
the grave interests of justice, which aU wiU admit
shoiUd not be exposed to partisan influence from abroad.
The report accompanying the bUl, without any aid from
human testimony, undertakes to pronounce dogmati-
caUy on facts which wiU be in issue on these trials.
Anticipating the court, and UteraUy without a hearing,
it gives judgment on absent persons, as well as on dis
tant events.
On grounds irrespective of the merits of the case, the
undersigned object to any action upon it on the pres-

232 NO PENSION FOE SEEVICE IN SUPPOET
ent evidence, and in the existing state of things. They
object for two reasons: first, that such action would
become a bad precedent, opening the way to a disre
gard of evidence in the distribution of pensions and
bounties ; and, secondly, that it would be an interfer
ence — offensive, though indUect — with the adminis
tration of justice, in matters still pending, and involv
ing the fortunes of several citizens. These reasons are
ample. But on other grounds, of a different character, and vi
tal to the merits of the case, the undersigned must dis
sent from the majority of the Committee.
Eegarding the Act of Congress usuaUy known as the
Fugitive Slave Act as unconstitutional, whUe it is justly
condemned by the moral sense of the communities where
it is sought to be enforced, the undersigned are not dis
posed to recognize any services rendered in its enforce
ment as meritorious in character. EspeciaUy are they
unwUling to depart beyond the clear line of precedent,
in voting bounties on account , of such services. This
of itself is sufiicient reason for opposition to the pro
posed bUl.
But admitting for the moment the asserted constitu
tionaUty of the Fugitive Slave Act, and its conformity
vidth just principles of duty, and admitting further, that
efforts for its enforcement are to be placed in the same
scale with efforts to enforce other Acts of Congress, of
acknowledged constitutionaUty, and clear conformity
with just principles of duty, then the undersigned beg
leave to submit, that, according to the practice of our
country, such efforts have not been considered as en
titled to the ordinary reward of pensions or kindred
bounties.

OF THE FUGITTfE SLAVE ACT. 233
The pensions and kindred bounties of our country have
been founded exclusively on military and naval services.
In England, civil services, whether on the bench, in di
plomacy, or in the departments of State, are subjects of
pension; but it is otherwise here. With us there are
no general laws to this end ; nor are there special laws
of such clear meaning and character as to become prece
dents, sanctioning pensions or bounties for civU service.
A report of this Committee, made by its ChaUman at
this very session of Congress, states the rule and prac
tice of Congress. Here is the whole report.
"m THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES.
"April 11, 1854. — Ordered to be printed.
" Mr. Jones, of Iowa, made the foUowing report
" The Committee on Pensions, to whom was referred the petition
of Rebecca Bright, beg leave to report : —
" That the petitioner is the widow of Jacob Bright, an
armorer, who was kiUed at the navy-yard in this city by the
bursting of a sheU. He heing an employee of the Government,
and in -no sense to be regarded as in its * military or -naval
service,' the Committee can find no reason, founded in law or
justice, for pensioning his widow. Her case is precisely that
of the widow of a laborer or mechanic employed by the day
or month upon any pubhc work. They therefore recommend
that the prayer of the petitioner be rejected." ^
And yet, in the very teeth of this recommendation,
made by themselves at this very session, the Committee
now propose to bestow a bounty upon such services.
If the Committee were right in theU former report, they
cannot be right now.
1 Eeports of the Committees of the Senate, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., No. 199.

234 no pension foe seevice in suppoet
The report accompanying the bUl shows that three
of the Committee have felt that their recommendation
needed the support of precedents, and they have ran
sacked the records for them. Two only are produced.
The first is an Act of Congress, bearing date June 7,
1794, which provides "that the sum of two thousand
doUars be aUowed to the widow of Eobert Forsyth,
late marshal of the district of Georgia, for the use of
herself and the chUdren of the said Eobert Forsyth."
On search in the office of the Secretary of the Senate,
where this bUl originated, and also at the Treasury,
where the money was paid, no papers have been found
showing the occasion of this grant; nor has anybody
undertaken to state any. This precedent, then, can be
of Uttle value in establishing an important rule in the
dispensation of national bounties.
The only other precedent adduced by the Committee
is an Act bearing date May 8, 1820, providing "that
the Postmaster-General be, and he hereby is, author
ized and directed to pay to the widow of John Heaps,
late of the city of Baltimore, — who, whUe employed
as a carrier of the maU of the United States, and
having the said maU in his custody, was beset by
ruflians and murdered, — out of the money belong
ing to the United States, arising from the postage of
letters and packets, five hundred doUars in ten equal
semiannual payments." On this precedent Congress
will surely hesitate to estabUsh a rule which wUl open
a new drain upon the country.
The general laws do not award pensions or boun
ties for services in enforcing the revenue laws of
the country; and it is not known that any special
acts have ever been passed rewarding such services.

OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 235
though they have often been rendered at imminent
danger to Ufe, as weU from shipwreck as from the vio
lence of smugglers. The proposed biU wUl be an apt
precedent for bounty in this large class of cases; and
it may properly be opposed by aU who are not ready
for a new batch of claimants.
The undersigned venture to make a single comment
further on the report accompanying the biU. This re
port, not content with assigning reasons for its proposed
bounty, proceeds to take cognizance of the conduct of
the people of Massachusetts, the citizens, the soldiers, the
marshal and his deputies, the mayor and poUce of Bos
ton, in the recent transaction, and assumes to hold the
scales of judgment. In this respect it evinces an indis
creet haste, similar to that aUeady displayed in acting
on the present proposition, without authentic evidence,
and during the pendency of judicial investigations. It
appears from the pubUc journals, out of which all our in
formation on this matter is derived, that the conduct of
several pubUc functionaries, on this occasion, in Mas
sachusetts, has been seriously drawn in question. The
marshal of ,the district is openly charged with making
the arrest of the aUeged fugitive under the fraudulent
pretence that he was a criminal, — a scandalous device,
which no honest man can regard without reprobation.
The mayor of Boston is also openly charged with viola
tion of the primal principles of free institutions and of
the law of the land, in surrendering the city for the
time being into the possession of a military force, and
thus establishing there that supremacy of arms under
which aU law is sUent. But on these things the under
signed express no opinion. They desire only to with
hold aU assent from the blindfold ratification which the

236 NO PENSION FOE SUPPOET OF FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.
report accompanying the bUl volunteers, without reason
or occasion, to the conduct of pubUc functionaries, as
well as of others, who, according to some evidence, may
have acted very badly. Chaeles Sumnee.
William H. Sewaed.

JAMES OTIS AN EXAMPLE TO MASSACHUSETTS.
Letter to the Cape Cod Association op Massachusetts,
July 30, 1854

Here, again, is an effort against the enforcement of the Fugitive
Slave Act. Senate Chambeb, July 30, 1854.
DEAE SIE, — I have been honored by the Cape Cod
Association with an invitation to unite with them
in theU approaching festival at Yarmouth.
Amidst these unprecedented heats it is pleasant mere
ly to think of the seaside ; much pleasanter would it be
to taste for a day its salt, refreshing air, especiaUy with
cherished friends, and stirred by historical memories, in
these times bracing to the soul. But my duties wiU
keep me here.
In that part of Massachusetts to which you invite me
was born James Otis, one of our immortal names. He
early saw the beauty of Liberty, and in those struggles
which preceded the Eevolution gave his eloquent tongue
to her support. To the tyrannical TFWfe of Assistance,
offspring of sovereign power, and at that day regarded
as constitutional, he offered inflexible resistance, saying,
"I wiU to my dying day oppose, with aU the powers
and faculties God has given me, all such instruments of
slavery on the one hand and viUany on the other. I
cheerfuUy submit myseU to every odious name for con
science' sake. Let the consequences be what they wUl,

238 JAMES OTIS AN EXAMPLE TO MASSACHUSETTS.
I am determined to proceed." And then again he de
clared of this outrageous process " It is a power that
places the Uberty of every man in the hands of every
petty officer." With this precision he struck at an en
gine of tyranny, and with fervid eloquence exposed it to
mankind. Such a character should not be forgotten at
your commemoration. "Were I there, I might ask leave
to propose the foUowing sentiment.
The memory of James Otis, of Barnstable, the early orator
of American Liberty. — Massachusetts cherishes the fame of
her patriot child. Let her also imitate his virtues.
1 remain, dear SU, very faithfully yours,
Chaeles Sumnee.
To the Chairman of the Committee.

STRUGGLE FOR REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE
SLAVE ACT.
Debate m the Senate, July 31, 1854.

All efforts of the friends of Freedom in Congress encountered op
position at every stage. Attempts by John Quincy Adams to present
petitions were thwarted in every way that vindictive rage could
prompt. Propositions for the repeal of obnoxious laws sustaining
Slavery were stified. To accompUsh this result, parUamentary cour
tesy and parUamentary law were both set at defiance. On a former
occasion,^ when Mr. Sumner brought forward his motion for the repeal
of the Fugitive Slave Act, he was refused a hearing, and obtained it
only by taking advantage of the CivU and Biplomatic Appropriation
BiU, and moving an amendment to it, which no parliamentary subtlety
or audacity could declare to be out of order. On the presentation of
petitions against the Fugitive Slave Act, from time to time, he was
met hy simUar checks. MeanwhUe anything for Slavery was always in
order. An experience of a single day wUl show something of this.
On the 31st of July, 1854, Mr. Seward, of New York, under instruc
tions from the Committee on Pensions, reported a bill, which had
already passed the House of Eepresentatives, for the relief of Betsey
Nash, a poor and aged woman, whose husband had died of wounds
received in the war of 1812, and asked for its immediate consideration.
This simple measure, demanded hy obvious justice, was at once embar
rassed by an incongruous proposition for the support of Slavery. Mr.
Adams, of Mississippi, moved, as an amendment, another hill, for the
reUef of Mrs. Batchelder, widow of a person kUled in Boston, while
aiding as a volunteer in the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Act.
In the face of various objections this amendment was adopted. Mr.
Sumner at once foUowed hy a proposition in the following words : —
"Provided, That the Act of Congress, approved September 18, 1850,
for the surrender of fugitives from service or labor, be, and the same
is hereby, repealed." 1 See ante, p. 80.

240 STEUGGLE FOE EEPEAL OF
This was ruled out of order, as "not germane to the bUl under con
sideration " ; and the two hiUs, hitched together, — one for a miUtary
pension, and the other for contribution to the widow of a Slave-
Hunter, — were put on their passage. Mr. Sunmer then sprang for
the floor, when a struggle ensued, which is minutely reported in the
Congressional Olobe. The careful reader wiU observe, that, in order to
cut off an effort to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act, at least two unques
tionable rules of parUamentary law were overturned.
ME. SUMNEE. In pursuance of notice, I now
ask leave to introduce a bUL
Me. Stuaet (of Michigan). I object to it, and move
to take up the Eiver and Harbor BUl.
The Peesiding Officee (Me. Coopee, of Pennsyl
vania). The other bUl is not disposed of. The thUd
reading of a BUl for the reUef of Betsey Nash.
The bUl was then read a thUd time and passed.
Me. Sumnee. In pursuance of notice, I ask leave to
introduce a bUl, which I now send to the table.
Me. Stuaet. Is that in order ?
Me. Sumnee. Why not ?
Me. Benjamin (of Louisiana). There is a pending
motion of the Senator from Michigan to take up the
Eiver and Harbor BiU.
The Peesiding Officee. That motion was not en
tertained, because the Senator from Massachusetts had
and has the floor.
Me. Stuaet. I make the motion now.
The Peesiding Officee. The ChaU thinks it is ia
order to give the notice.
Me. Sumnee. Notice has been given, and I now, in
pursuance of notice, introduce the biU. The question
is on its fUst reading.
The Peesiding Officee. The first reading of a bUl.
Me. Noeris (of New HampshUe). I rise to a ques
tion of order.

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 241
Me. Sumnee. I beUeve I have the fioor
Me. Noeeis. But I rise to a question of order I
submit that that is not the question. The Senator from
Massachusetts has given notice that he would ask leave
to introduce a bUl. He now asks that leave. If there
be objection, the question must be decided by the Sen
ate whether he shaU have leave or not. Objection is
made, and the bUl cannot be read.
Me. Sumnee. Very weU ; the first question, then, is
on granting leave, and the title of the bUl wUl be read.
The Peesiding Officee (to the Secretary). Eead
the title.
The Secretary read it as follows : " A BUl to repeal
the Act of Congress approved September 18, 1850, for
the surrender of fugitives from service or labor."
The Peesiding Officer. The question is on grant
ing leave to introduce the bUl.
Me. Sumnee. And I have the fioor.
The Peesiding Officee. The Senator from Massa
chusetts is entitled to the floor.
Me. Sumnee. I shaU not occupy much time, nor
shaU I debate the biU. Some time ago, Mr President,
after the presentation of the Memorial from Boston,
signed by twenty-nine hundred citizens without dis
tinction of party, I gave notice that I shoiUd, at a day
thereafter, ask leave to introduce a bUl for the repeal
of the Fugitive Slave Act. Desirous, however, not to
proceed prematurely, I awaited the action of the Com
nUttee on the Judiciary, to which the Memorial, and
others of a simUar character, were referred. At length
an adverse report was made, and accepted by the Sen
ate. From the time of that report down to this mo
ment, I have sought an opportunity to introduce this
VOL. IV.  16

242 STEUGGLE FOE EEPEAL OF
bUl. Now, at last, I have it. At a former session,
Sir, in introducing a simUar proposition, I considered it
at length, in an argument which I fearlessly assert 
Me. Gwin (of California). I rise to a point of order.
Has the Senator a right to debate the question, or say
anytlUng on it, untU leave be granted ?
The Peesiding Offices. My impression is that the
question is not debatable.'
Me. Sumnee. I propose simply to explain my bUl,
— to make a statement, not an argument.
Me. Gwin. I make the point of order
The Presiding Officer. I am not aware precisely
what the rule of order on the subject is ; but I have the
impression that the Senator cannot debate 
Mr. Sumner. The distinction is this 
Me. Gwin. I insist upon the appUcation of the de
cision of the Chair.
Me. Mason (of Virginia). Mr President, there is one
rule of order that is undoubted : that, when the Chair is
stating a question of order, he must not be interrupted
by a Senator. There is no question about that rule of
order. The Presiding Officer. The Senator did not in
terrupt the Chair.
Mr. Sumner. The Chair does me justice in response
to the injustice of the Senator from Virginia.
The Presiding Officer. Order ! order !
Mr. Mason. The Senator is doing that very thing at
this moment. I am endeavoring to sustain the authori
ty of the ChaU, which certainly has been violated.
^ Nothing is clearer, under the rules of the Senate, than that Mr. Sumner
was in order, when, on introducing his bill, he proceeded to state the causes
for doing it.

the fugitive slave act. 243
The Peesiding Officee. It is the opimon of the
Chair that the debate is out of order. I am not pre
cisely informed of what the rule is ; but such is my
clear impression.
Me. Walker (of Wisconsin). If the Senator from
Massachusetts wiU aUow me, I wiU say a word here.
Mr. Sumnee. Certainly.
Mr. Walker. It is usual, upon notice being given
of intention, to ask leave to introduce a bUl. The bUl
is sent to the Chair, and it is taken as a matter of course
that the Senator asking it has leave. But in this instance,
differing from the usual practice, objection has been
made to leave being granted. The necessity is imposed,
then, of taking the sense of the Senate on granting leave
to the Senator to introduce his biU. That, then, be
comes the question. The question for the ChaU to put
is, ShaU the Senator have leave ?
The Peesiding Offices. That was the question
proposed. Mr. Walker. Now, Sir, it does seem to me that
it is proper, and that it is in order, for the Senator to
address himself to the Senate, with the view of show
ing the propriety of granting the leave asked for. He
has a right to show that there would be propriety on the
part of the Senate in granting the leave. I think, there
fore, as this may become a precedent in future in regard
to other matters, that it should be settled with some
degree of deUberation.
Mr. Gwin. Let the Chair decide the question.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair has decided
that debate was not in order, in his opimon.
Mr. Sumner. From that decision of the ChaU I
most respectfuUy take an appeal

244 struggle foe eepeal of
The Presiding Officer. From that ruling of the
ChaU an appeal is t^en by the Senator from Massa
chusetts. The question is on the appeal.
Me. Benjamin. In order to put a stop to the whole
debate, I move to lay the appeal on the table. That is
a motion which is not debatable.
Me. Sumnee. Is that motion in order ?
The Peesiding Officee. Certainly it is in order'
Me. Wellee (of California). I desire to make one
remark in regard to the rule.
The Peesiding Officer. It is not in order now.
The question must be taken without debate.
Mr. Sumner. AUow me to state the case as it seems
to me. I was on the floor, and yielded it to the Senator
from Wisconsin strictly for the purpose of an explana
tion. When he finished, I was in possession of the fioor;
and then it was that the Senator from Louisiana, on my
right 
The Presiding Officer. WiU the Senator from
Massachusetts give leave to the Chair to explain?
Me. Sumner. Certainly.
The Presiding Officer. A point of order was made
by the Senator from CaUfornia [ Mr Gwin], that debate
was not in order upon the question of granting leave ;
and the ChaU so decided. The Senator from Massachu
setts then lost the floor, as I apprehend, and he certain
ly did by foUowing it up by an appeal. After that he
could go no further. He lost the floor then again for a
second time, and then it was that the Senator from Louis-

1 The motion was clearly out of order ; first, because in the Senate an appeal
from the decision of the Chair on a question of order cannot be laid on the
table ; and, secondly, because Mr. Sumner was already on the floor, so that
Mr. Benjamin could not make a motion.

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 245
iana intervened with another motion, which is certainly
in order, to lay the appeal on the table. That is not
debatable. This, it seems to me, is the state of the case.
Mr. Chase (of Ohio). WUl the Chair aUow me to
make a single statement?
The Presiding Officer. Certainly.
Mr. Chase. The Senator from Massachusetts rose
and held the floor during the suggestion made to the
ChaU by the Senator from Wisconsin. The Chair then,
after the Senator from Wisconsin had finished his sug
gestion, declared his opiaion to be, notwithstanding the
suggestion, that debate was not in order. The Senator
from Massachusetts then took an appeal, and retained
the floor for the purpose of addressing the Senate on
that appeal. While he occupied the floor, the Senator
from Lomsiana rose and moved to lay the appeal upon
the table. That wUl be borne out by the gentlemen
present. The Presiding Officer. That is so ; but the Chair
does not understand that debate was in order on the
appeal The appeal was to be decided without debate,
and therefore the Senator from Massachusetts neces
sarUy lost the floor after he took the appeal
Me. Bell (of Tennessee). I would inquire whether
there is not a bUl aUeady pending for the repeal of the
Fugitive Slave Law ?
The Peesiding Officee. I have not inquired of the
Secretary, but it is my beUef there is a similar bUl
pending ; but it was not on that ground the ChaU made
this ruling.
Me. Bell. I would inquUe whether there is not
such a biU pending? Did not the honorable Senator
from Ohio some time ago bring in such a bUl ?

246 STEUGGLE FOE EEPEAL OF
Me. Wellee. I think he did.
Mr. Chase. No, SU.
Me. Bell. Then I am mistaken.
Mr. Chase. My biU is not on that subject.
The Presiding Officer. The question is on the
motion of the Senator from Louisiana, to lay on the
table the appeal taken by the Senator from Massachu
setts from the decision of the ChaU.
Me. Chase. I ask U the motion of the Senator from
Louisiana is in order, when the Senator from Massachu
setts retained the floor for the purpose of debating the
appeal ?
Me. Benjamin. The Senator is not in order in re
newing that question, which has aUeady been decided
by the Chair.
The Peesiding Officee. If the ChaU acted under
an erroneous impression in supposing that debate on the
appeal was not in order, when it actuaUy is, it was the
fault of the Chair, and it would not have been in order
for the Senator from Louisiana to make the motion
which he did make, whUe the Senator from Massachu
setts was on the floor. But the Chair recognized the
Senator from Louisiana, supposing that the Senator from
Massachusetts had yielded the floor. The Senator had
taken an appeal ; he foUowed it up by no address to the
ChaU, indicating an intention that he intended to de
bate the appeal, or the Chair certainly should so far
have recognized him. But the Chair would reconsider
his ruling in that respect, with the consent of the Sen
ator from Louisiana.
Me. Beight (of Indiana). The Chair wUl permit me
to suggest that I think the motion proper to be enter
tained now is the one proposed by the Senator from

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 247
New Hampshire [Mr. NoEEis]. The Senator from Mas
sachusetts presented his biU; the Senator from New
Hampshire raised the question as to whether the Senate
would grant leave to introduce it; and I think the
proper question to be put now is, WUl the Senate grant
leave to introduce a bUl repealing the Fugitive Slave
Law? The effect of the motion of the Senator from
Louisiana woiUd be to lay the subject on the table, from
which it might be taken at any time for action. For
one, I desUe to give a decisive vote now, declaring
that I am unwilUng to legislate upon the subject, that
I am satisfied with the law as it reads, and that I wiU
not aid the Senator from Massachusetts, or any Senator,
in 
The Peesiding Officer. The Senator from Indiana
is certainly not in order.
Me. Bright. I certaUiIy am in order in caUiag the
attention of the ChaU to the fact that the Senator from
New HampshUe 
The Presiding Officer. The Senator from Indiana
is not in order.
Me. Bright. Then I wUl sit down and ask the ChaU
to state wherein I am out of order.
The Presiding Officer. In discussing a question
which is not before the Senate.
Mr. Bright. I claim that the motion is before the
Senate. The Senator from New HampshUe raised the
question immediately, that 
The Presiding Officer. The ChaU decides otherwise.
Mr. Bright. Then I appeal from the decision of the
Chair, and I state this as my point of order: that, before
the biU was presented in legal parlance, the Senator
from New Hampshire raised the question as to whether

248 struggle foe eepeal of
the Senate would grant leave, and that is the point now
before the Senate.
The Presiding Officer. The Chair wUl state the
question which he supposes to be pending. The Sena
tor from CaUfornia made a point of order, that debate on
the bUl proposed to be introduced by the Senator from
Massachusetts was not in order. The ChaU so ruled.
From that ruling the Senator from Massachusetts took
an appeal. The ChaU supposed that the Senator from
Massachusetts had yielded the floor, and he gave the
floor to the Senator from Louisiana, who moved to lay
that appeal on the table. That is the question which is
now pending. The Chair before suggested, that, U the
Senator from Massachusetts had not yielded the fioor,
he had made a mistake in giving the floor to the Senator
from Louisiana, but he did not suppose that the Sena
tor from Massachusetts, after taking the appeal, without
some indication of his intention to debate it, could con
tinue to hold the floor, and he therefore recognized the
Senator from LoiUsiana. The Chair is sorry, U he did
the Senator from Massachusetts injustice in that respect ;
but he did not hear him, and recognized the Senator
from Louisiana.
Mr. Bright. I would respectfuUy ask the Chair
what has become of the motion submitted by the Sena
tor from New Hampshire ?
The Presiding Officer. The ChaU did not under
stand him to submit a motion, but the Senator from
CaUfornia took his point of order.
Mr. Bright. I wish to inquUe of the Senator from
New Hampshire whether he has withdrawn his mo
tion? The Presiding Officer. It was not entertained. It

THE fugitive SLAVE ACT. ' 249
is not in his power to say whether it was withdrawn or
not, for it was not entertained.
Me. Noeeis. I think I can inform my friend from
Indiana how the matter stands. The Senator from
Massachusetts proposed to introduce a bUl on notice
given. I raised the question, that it could not be intro
duced without leave of the Senate, U there was objec
tion. Me. Sumnee. Do I understand the Senator to say
without notice given? I asked leave to introduce the
bUl in pursuance of notice.
Mr. Noeeis. The Senator from Massachusetts, I
have aUeady stated, offered his bUl agreeably to pre
vious notice.
Me. Sumnee. Precisely.
Mr. Norris. The question was then raised, whether
it could be received, U there was objection ? The ques
tion arose, whether leave should be granted to the Sena
tor from Massachusetts to introduce the bUl ?
Me. Sumnee. That is the first question.
Me. Noeeis. The Senator from Massachusetts, upon
the question of granting leave, undertook to address the
Senate. He was then caUed to order by my friend from
CaUfornia for discussing that question. The Chair sus
tained the objection of the Senator from CaUfornia.
From the decision of the ChaU the Senator from Mas
sachusetts took an appeal ; and that is where the ques
tion now stands, unless the Senator from Louisiana had
a right to make the motion which he did make, which
was to lay the appeal on the table.
The Peesiding Officee. The question is, unless the
Senator from Lomsiana will disembaiTass the ChaU by
withdrawing it, oh the motion of the Senator from Lou
isiana to lay the appeal on the table.

250 STRUGGLE FOE EEPEAL OF
.Mr. Sumnee. On that motion I ask for the yeas and
nays. The yeas and nays were ordered.
Me. Foot (of Vermont). On what motion have the
yeas and nays been ordered ?
The Peesiding Officee. On the motion of the Sen
ator from Louisiana.
Me. Walkee. I wish to know, before voting, what
wiU be the effect of a vote given in the affirmative on
this motion ? WUl it carry the biU and the whole sub
ject on the table ?
Me. Foot. An affirmative vote carries the whole
measure on the table.
The Peesiding Officee. Yes, SU ; if the motion to
lay on the table be agreed to, it carries the bUl with it.
Seveeal Senatoes. No, no !
Me. Benjamin. The question is, whether, on the
motion for leave to introduce the bUl, there shaU be
debate ? The Chair has decided that there shall be no
debate. Those who vote " yea " on my motion to lay
the appeal of the Senator from Massachusetts on the
table wUl vote that there is to be no debate upon the
permission to offer the biU, and then the question wUl
be taken upon granting leave.
Mr. Walker. The Chair decides differently. The
Chair decides, if I understand, that it wiU carry the
biU on the table. Then how can we ever reach the
question of leave, when objection is made ?
Mr. Wellee. I object to this discussion. The Chair
wiU decide that question when it arises. It does not
arise now. I insist that the Secretary shaU go on and
caU the roU.
Me. Walkee. Suppose some of us object to it ?

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 251
Me. Wellee. Then I object to your discussing it.
The Peesiding Officer. The Chair, on reflection,
thinks that the motion, if agreed to, would not have a
further effect than to bring up the question of granting
leave. Mr. Bright. I desUe to understand the ChaU. I
do not wish to insist on anything that is not right, or
that is not within the rules. That I insist upon having.
The honorable Senator from Louisiana is right in his
conclusions as to his motion, provided he had a right to
make the motion ; but I doubt whether he had a right
to make that motion whUe the motion of the honorable
Senator from New HampshUe was pending. I do not
wish, however, to consume the time of the Senate. If
the effect of the decision of the ChaU is to bring us
back to the question as to whether we shaU receive the
bUl or not, I wUl yield the floor.
The Presiding Officer. That is it.
Mr. Bright. Very well
Mr. Sumner. Before the vote is taken, aUow me to
read a few words from the Eules and Orders, and from
Jefferson's Manual
" One day's notice, at least, shaU be given of an intended
motion for leave to bring in a biU."
That is the 25th rule of the Senate ; and then to that
riUe, in the pubUcation which I now hold in my hand,
is appended, from Jefferson's Manual, the foUowing de
cisive language : —
" When a member desires to bring in a bill on any sub
ject, he states to the House, in general terms, the causes for do
ing it, and concludes by moving for leave to bring in a bill
entitled, &c. Leave being given, on the question, a committee
is appointed to prepare and bring in the biU."

252 STRUGGLE FOE EEPEAL OF
Now I would simply observe, that my purpose was
merely to make a statement 
Me. Benjamin. I caU to order.
The Peesiding Officee. The Senator had presented
his bUl, and was debating it afterwards. The question
is on the motion of the Senator from Louisiana to lay
the appeal on the table, and on that the yeas and nays
have been ordered.
The question, being taken hy yeas and nays, resulted, — yeas 35, nays
10, as foUows : —
Yeas, — Messrs. Adams, Atchison, BeU, Benjamin, Brodhead,
Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Dodge, of Iowa, Evans,
Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Ten
nessee, MaUory, Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Busk,
Sebastian, SUdeU, Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson, of New
Jersey, Toombs, Toucey, and WeUer, — 35.
Nays, — Messrs. Chase, Fessenden, Fish, Foot, GUlette, EockweU,
Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker, — 10.
So the appeal was ordered to Ue on the table.
The Presiding Officer. The question now is on
granting leave to introduce the biU.
Mr. Sumner. On that question I ask for the yeas
and nays.
Mr. Stuart. I rise to a question of order ; and I
think, U the Chair wiU consider it for the moment, he
wiU, or at least I hope he wiU, agree with me. The
parUamentary law is the law under which the Senate
act. Whenever there is a motion made to lay on the
table a subject connected with the maUi subject, and it
prevails, it carries the whole question with it. It is dU-
ferent entirely from the rules tn the House of Eepresen
tatives. The rules in the House vary the parUamentary
law, and you may there move to lay a matter on the
table, because that is the final vote, and is equivalent to

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 253
rejecting it, and a motion to take it up from the table
is not in order. But now the Presiding Officer wiU see,
that, if this course be pursued, the Senate may grant
leave to introduce this biU, they may go on and pass it,
and yet next week it wUl be in order for the Senator
from Massachusetts to move to take up the appeal
which the Senate has just laid on the table; whereas
the whole subject on which his appeal rested might have
been passed and sent to the other House. That surely
cannot be so. The ruling of the ChaU in this respect,
therefore, I suggest is wrong, and the motion to lay on
the table carries the whole subject with it. It is impor
tant to have the matter settled for the future practice of
the Senate.
The Presiding Officer. At the first mooting of the
proposition, the ChaU was of that opinion ; but he is
perfectly satisfied now that it did not carry the whole
question with it. The question was on the motion to
lay the appeal on the table, and that motion was ex
hausted when it did lay the appeal on the table. It did
not reach back to affect the question of granting leave.
That is now the question before the Senate. On that
the yeas and nays have been asked for by the Senator
from Massachusetts.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
Mr. Stuart. I wUl not take an appeal from the de
cision of the Chair, but I only wish to say, that, as I am
satisfied I am right, I do not wish, by acquiescing in the
decision of the ChaU, to embarrass us when such occa
sions may arise again.
The question, heing taken by yeas and nays upon granting leave to
introduce the biU, resulted, — yeas 10, nays 35, as foUows ; —

254 STRUGGLE FOR EEPEAL OF FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.
Yeas, — Messrs. Chase, Dodge, of Wisconsin, Fessenden, Foot, GU
lette, EockweU, Seward, Sumner, Wade, and Walker, — 10.
Nays, — Messrs. Adams, Atchison, Bell, Benjamin, Bright, Brod
head, Brown, Butler, Cass, Clay, Cooper, Dawson, Evans, Fitzpatrick,
Geyer, Gwin, Johnson, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tennessee, MaUory,
Mason, Morton, Norris, Pearce, Pettit, Pratt, Rusk, Sebastian, Slidell,
Stuart, Thompson, of Kentucky, Thomson, of New Jersey, Toombs,
Toucey, and WeUer, — 35.
So the Senate refused to grant leave to introduce the bUl.

DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS AT THE PRESENT CRISIS.
FORMATION OP THE REPUBLICAN PARTY.
Speech betore the Eepublican State Convention at Worces
ter, September 7, 1854.

The Free-SoU party, having assumed the name of Republican party,
held its Annual Convention at Worcester, September 7, 1854. It was
organized hy the foUowing officers : Hon. Eobert Eautoul, of Beverly,
the venerable father of the late Mr. Eautoul, £is President ; George E.
EusseU, of West Roxbury, B. W. Gage, of Charlestown, Samuel Hop
kins, of Northampton, Charles Shute, of Hingham, Albert Currier, of
Newburyport, Warren Levering, of Medway, Adam Harrington, of
Shrewsbury, Francis Watkins, of Hinsdale, Eobert Sturtevant, of Savoy,
Asaph ChurchiU, of Dorchester, Richard P. Waters, of Beverly, Wil
Uam Washburn, of Boston, Charles Beck, of Cambridge, Benjamin B.
Sisson, of Westport, Joel Shed, of Bridgewater, Augustus Morse, of Leo
minster, Foster Hooper, of Fall River, Levi Eeed, of Abington, John
A. Andrew, of Hingham, Vice-Presidents ; Joseph Denny, of Worces
ter, WiUiam H. Harris, of Worcester, E. W. Stacy, of Milford, Charles
E. Ladd, of Chicopee, WiUiam H. DeCosta, of Charlestown, Secretaries.
At the same Convention Hon. Henry WUson was nominated for Gov
emor, and Hon. Increase Sumner for Lieutenant-Govemor. John A.
Andrew, Esq., was made Chairman of the State Committee.
Mr. Sumner's reception in the Convention was quickened by recent
events in which he had bome part. It is thus described in a report of
the Convention.
"At this point the Hon. Charles Sumner entered the hall. His re
ception was such as is rarely accorded to a public man. The whole vast
audience rose as one man to welcome him, and the most deafening cheers
of welcome resounded for several minutes. We have never seen a more
hearty and enthusiastic demonstration in honor of any man. It was the
spontaneous homage of true men to the man who had upheld the Freedom
standard and carried it into the thickest of the fight, — to the man who had
npheld the honor of Massachusetts in the Senate, vindicated her opinioas,

256 DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
and thrown back upon her assailants the taunts and insults which they had
never ceased to heap upon her. The cheering, as our Senator appeared
upon the platform and took his seat, was loud and long continued."
Mr. Sumner was at once called to speak. His speech is given as re
ported by the Boston Traveller, which ran a special train in one hour
from Worcester, a distance of forty mUes, in order to lay it before the
public without delay.
In this speech Mr. Sumner had two objects, — first, to vindicate the
necessity of the RepubUcan party, and, secondly, to destroy the opera
tion of the Fugitive Slave Act in Massachusetts, showing especially
that citizens are not constrained to its support. His position with re
gard to the oath to support the Constitution was much discussed at
the time, and the National Intelligencer, in elaborate articles by Mr.
Gales, undertook to caU him to account. To the latter he repUed by
letter. The speech had an extensive circulation.
Mr. Sumner came to the Convention at the invitation of Mr. Andrew,
Chainnan of the Provisional State Committee, whose first letter, dated
July 22, 1854, was as follows.
" You will have seen, before receiving this note, the report of the meeting
at Worcester, at which a new party was begun, and the steps preliminary to
a State nominating convention taken. I think, in spite of strong opposition
from the Whig presses and fuglemen, who cannot bear to give up their fac
titious powers and influence, that there is a great popular movement com
menced, which may, under proper cultivation, disclose a splendid result In
the fall. But more depends upon the aid you can give than upon that of
any one man. Your recent battles in the Senate have shut the mouth of
personal opposition, wrung applause from the unwilUng, excited a State's
pride and gratitude, such as rarely it is the fortune of any one to win. Your
presence at the nominating convention, to be held on the 10th of August, —
probablj' at Springfield, — is a point which must be agreed to at once. It
will secure a most triumphant meeting, certainly in point of numbers and
enthusiasm. I want you to write to me at once, permitting me to say to
any of our friends that you unit attend the meeting. A speech of half an
hour, or an hour, is all that you need make, though you could have three
hours, if you would use them. . . . I am bold, speak urgently, since I am,
as Chairman of the Provisional State Committee, ofiioially responsible for
the utmost exertions to serve the cause in this behalf."
This was followed hy another letter from Mr. Andrew, dated August
28, 1854, as foUows.
" I, however, wish to have the authority now to say definitely to all in
quirers that you will be present on the 7th, and address the convention, and
I wish this to be considered as a formal and official invitation. There are
constant references made to the hope of seeing and hearing you there, on all

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 257
:hands. Everybody counts for that gratification. And we can do nothing
which wUI so completely secure a triumphant gathering as to announce
your name. The whole Free-Soil party, proud of your recent achievements,
and grateful for the many exhibitions of yom- devotedness to our principles
at all times of hazard and necessity, and the people of all parties, who feel
you to have been the most conspicuously representative man to whom Mas
sachusetts has intrusted her interest in Congress since the death of John
Quincy Adams, are alike anxious to greet you.
" I do not wish you to feel imder the necessity of preparing for one of
your greatest speeches. No one will demand that of you. They only want
you to come, and to say what seems to yourself proper to say at the time."
The speech drew from Mr. Chase the foUowing expression.
" Your speech was just the thing. I read it with delighted admiration.
Only one thing abated my pleasure, — the dissolution of the Independent
Democracy. I am now without a party: but no matter; I shall soon cease
to have any connection with poUtics."
Mr. Seward wrote thus : —
" I have read your noble speech. It is eminently able, and in a tone that
is as characteristic as it is worthy of you. Of its particular direction, as re
lates to parties, it is not becoming me to speak. Its merits as an argument
are unsurpassed."

Mr. President, and Fellow-Citizens of Massachu
setts : —
AFTEE months of constant, anxious service in an
other place, away from Massachusetts, I am per
mitted to stand among you again, my feUow-citizens,
and to draw satisfaction and strength from your gener
ous presence. [Applause.] LUe is fuU of change and
contrast. From slave soil I have come to free soU.
[Applause.] From the tainted breath of Slavery I have
passed into this bracing air of Freedom. [Applause.]
And the heated antagonism of debate, shooting forth its
fiery cinders, is changed into this brimming, overflowing
welcome, whUe I seem to lean on the great heart of our
beloved Commonwealth, as it palpitates audibly in this
crowded assembly. [Loud and long applause.]
VOL. IV. — 17

258 duties of Massachusetts
Let me say at once, frankly and sincerely, that I am
not here to receive applause or to give occasion for to
kens of pubUc regard, but simply to unite with feUow-
citizens in new vows of duty. [Applause.] And yet I
would not be thought insensible to the good-wiU now
swelling from so many honest bosoms. It touches me
more than I can tell
During tbe late session of Congress, an eminent sup
porter of the Nebraska BiU said to me, with great ani
mation, in language which I give with some precision,
that you may appreciate the style as weU as the senti
ment, " I would not go through aU that you do on this
nigger question for aU the offices and honors of the
country." To which I naturally and promptly repUed,
" Nor would I, — for aU the offices and honors of the
country." [Laughter and long applause.] 'Not in such
things are the inducements to this warfare. For myself,
if I have been able to do aught in any respect not un
worthy of you, it is because I thought rather of those
commanding duties which are above office and honor.
[Cries of " Good ! good !" and loud applause.]
And now, on the eve of an important election in this
State, we are assembled to take counsel how best to per
form those duties which we owe to our common coun
try. We are to choose eleven Eepresentatives in Con
gress, — also. Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, and mem
bers of the Legislature, which last wiU choose a Senator
of the United States, to uphold, for five years ensuing,
the principles and honor of Massachusetts. If in these
elections you were governed by partiaUties or prejudi
ces, personal or poUtical, or merely by the exactions of
party, I should have nothing to say now, except to dis
miss you to the ignoble work. [" Tliat is it!" "Good!

AT THE PRESENT CEISIS. 259
good ! "] But I assume that you are ready to renounce
these influences, and press forward with siagle regard
to the duties now iacumbent.
Here two questions occur, absorbing aU others : first,
what are our poUtical duties here in Massachusetts at
the present time ? and, secondly, how, and by what
agency, shaU they be performed ? What and how ?
These are the two questions, of which I shaU briefiy
speak in their order, attempting no elaborate discus
sion, but aiming to state the case so that it wUl be in
teUigible to aU who hear me.
And first, what are our present duties here in Mas
sachusetts ? Unfolding these, I need not dweU on the
wrong and shame of Slavery, or on the character of the
Slave Power — that Oligarchy of Slaveholders — now
ruUng the EepubUc. These you understand. And yet
there are two outrages, fresh in recoUection, which I must
not faU to expose, as natural manifestations of Slavery
and the Slave Power. One is the repeal of the Prohibi
tion of Slavery in the vast Missouri Territory, now known
as Kansas and Nebraska, contrary to time-honored com
pact and pUghted faith. The other is the seizure of
Anthony Burns on the free soU of Massachusetts, and
his surrender, without judge or jury, to a Slave-Hunter
from Virginia, to be thrust back into perpetual bond
age. [" Shame ! shame ! "] These outrages cry aloud to
Heaven, and to you,people of Massachusetts ! [Sensation.]
Their intrinsic wickedness is enhanced by the way in
which they were accompUshed. Of the first I know
something from personal observation; of the latter I
am informed only by pubUc report.

260 duties of MASSACHUSETTS
It is characteristic of the Slave Power not to stick
at the means supposed needful in carrying forward its
plans ; but never, on any occasion, were its assumptions
so barefaced and tyrannical as in the passage of the
Nebraska BUl.
This bUl was precipitated upon Congress without
one word of public recommendation from the Presi
dent, without notice or discussion in any newspaper,
and without a single petition from the people. It
was urged by different advocates, on two principal
arguments, so opposite and inconsistent as to slap
each other in the face [laughter] : one, that, by the
repeal of the Prohibition, the territory would be abso
lutely open to the entry of slaveholders with theU
slaves ; and the other, that the people there would be
left to determine whether slaveholders should enter
with theU slaves. With some, the apology was the
aUeged rights of slaveholders ; with others, the alleged
rights of the people. With some, it was openly the
extension of Slavery; and with others, openly the es
tabUshment of Freedom, under the pretence of "popular
sovereignty." The measure thus upheld in defiance of
reason was carried through Congress in defiance of aU
the securities of legislation.
It was carried, first, by whipping in, through Executive
influence and patronage, men who acted against theU
own declared judgment and the known wiU of theU
constituents ; secondly, by thrusting out of place, both
in the Senate and House of Eepresentatives, important
business, long pending, and usurping its room ; thirdly,
by trampling under foot the rules of the House of Eep
resentatives, always before the safeguard of the minor
ity; and, fourthly, by driving it to a close during the

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 261
present Congress, so that it might not be arrested by
the indignant voice of the people. Such were some of
the means by which the Nebraska BUl was carried. If
the clear wUl of the people had not been defied, it could
not have passed. If the Government had not nefari
ously interposed, it could not have passed. If it had
been ieft to its natural place in the order of business,
it could not have passed. If the rules of the House
and the rights of the minority had not been violated, it
could not have passed. If it had been aUowed to go
over to another Congress, when the people might be
heard, it would have faUed, forever faUed.
Contemporaneously with the final triumph of this
outrage at Washington, another dismal tragedy was en
acted at Boston. In those streets where he had walked
as freeman Anthony Burns was seized as slave, under
the base pretext that he was a criminal, — imprisoned
in the Court-House, which was turned for the time in
to fortress and barracoon, — guarded by heartless hUe-
lings, whose chief idea of Liberty was Ucense to wrong
[loud applause, and cries of " That 's it ! that 's it ! "], —
escorted by intrusive soldiers of the United States, —
watched by a prostituted mUitia, — and finaUy given
up to a Slave-Hunter by the decree of a petty magis
trate, who did not hesitate to take upon his soul the
awful responsibiUty of dooming a feUow-man, in whom
he could find no fault, to a fate worse than death.
How aU this was accompUshed I need not relate. Suf
fice it to say, that, in doing this deed of woe and shame,
the Uberties of aU our citizens, white as weU as black,
were put in jeopardy, the Mayor of Boston was con
verted to a tool [applause], the Govemor of the Com
monwealth to a cipher [long continued applause], the

262 DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
laws, the precious sentiments, the reUgion, the pride
and glory of Massachusetts were trampled in the dust,
and you and I and aU of us feU down while the Slave
Power fiourished over us. [^'Sliame ! shame ! " and ap
plause^ These things in themselves are bad, very bad ; but
they are worse, when regarded as natural offspring of
the OUgarchy now swaying the country. And it is this
OUgarchy which, at every poUtical hazard, we must
oppose, until it is overthrown. Lord Chatham once ex
claimed, that the time had been, when he was content to
bring France to her knees ; now he would not stop tiU
he had laid her on her back. Nor can we be content
with less in our warfare. We must not stop tiU we
have laid the Slave Power on its back. [Prolonged
cheers.] And, feUow-citizens, permit me to say, not tUl
then wUl the Free States be absolved from aU poUtical
responsibUity for Slavery, and reUeved from that corrupt
spirit of compromise which now debases at once their
politics and their religion; nor tUl then wUl there be
repose for the country. [Immense cheering^ Indem
nity for the past and security for the future must be
our watchwords. [Applause.] But these can be ob
tained only when Slavery is dispossessed of present
vantage-ground, by driving it back exclusively within
the limits of the States, and putting the National Gov
ernment, everywhere within its constitutional sphere,
openly, actively, and perpetually on the side of Freedom.
The consequences of this change of policy would be
of far-reaching and incalculable beneficence. Not only
would Freedom become national and Slavery section
al, as was intended by our fathers, but the National
Government would become the mighty instrument and

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 263
herald of Freedom, as it is now the mighty instru
ment and herald of. Slavery. Its powers, its treasury,
its patronage, would aU be turned, in harmony with
the Constitution, to promote Freedom. The Commit
tees of Congress, where Slavery now rules, — Congress
itseU, and the Cabinet also, — would aU be organized
for Freedom. The hypocritical disguise or renunciation
of Antislavery sentiment would cease to be necessary
for the sake of political preferment ; and the Slavehold
ing OUgarchy, banished from the National Government,
and despoUed of iU-gotten political consequence, with
out abUity to punish or reward, would cease to be feared,
either at the North or the South, untU at last the citi
zens of the Slave States, where a large portion have no
interest in Slavery, woiUd demand Emancipation, and
the great work would commence. Such is the obvious
course of things. To the overthrow of the Slave Power
we are summoned by a double caU, one poUtical and the
other phUanthropic, — first, to remove an oppressive
tyranny from the National Government, and, secondly,
to open the gates of Emancipation in the Slave States.
[Loud applause.]
WhUe keeping this great purpose in view, we must
not forget detaUs. The existence of Slavery anywhere
within the national jurisdiction, in the Territories, in
the District of Columbia, or on the high seas beneath
the national flag, is an unconstitutional usurpation,
which must be opposed. The Fugitive Slave BiU, mon
strous in cruelty, as in unconstitutionaUty, is a usurpa
tion, which must be opposed. The admission of new
Slave States, from whatsoever quarter, from Texas or
Cuba [applause], Utah or New Mexico, must be op
posed. And to every scheme of Slavery, whether in

264 DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
Cuba or Mexico, on the high seas in opening the slave-
trade, in the West Indies, or Ui the VaUey of the Ama
zon, whether accompUshed or merely plotted, whether
pending or in prospect, we must send forth an evee-
LASTiNG NO ! [Long continued applause,] Such is the
present, immediate duty of Massachusetts, without com
promise or hesitation.
Thus far I have spoken of duties in national matters ;
but there are other duties of pressing importance, here
at home, not to be forgotten or postponed. It is often
said that charity should begin at home. Better say,
charity should begin everywhere. While contending with
the Slave Power on the broad field of national poUtics,
we must not forget the duty of protecting the liberty
of aU who tread the soU of Massachusetts. [Immense
cheering^ Early ia Colonial history Massachusetts set
her face against Slavery. At the head of her Declara
tion of Eights she solemnly asserted that all men are
born free and equal, and iu the same Declaration sur
rounded the Uberties of all within her borders by the
inestimable rights of Trial by Jury and Habeas Corpus.
Eecent events on her own soil have taught the neces
sity of new safeguards to these great principles, — to
the end that Massachusetts may not be the vassal of
South CaroUna and Virginia, that the Slave-Hunter
may not range at wUl among us, and that the Uberties
of aU may not be violated with impunity.
I am admonished that I must not dweU longer on
these things. Suffice it to say that our duties in
National and State affaUs are identical, and may be
described by the same formula: In the one case to
put the National Government, in all its departments,
and in the other case the State Govemment, in aU its

AT THE PRESENT CEISIS. 265
departments, openly, actively, and perpetuaUy on the
side of Freedom. [Loud applause.]
Having considered what our duties are, the question
now presses. How shaU they be performed ? — by what
agency, by what instrumentality, in what way ?
The most obvious way is by choosing men to repre
sent us in the National Government, and also at home,
who wiU recognize these duties, and be ever loyal to
them [cheers], — men who at Washington wUl not shrink
from conflict with Slavery, and also other men who at
home in Massachusetts wiU not shrink from the same
conflict when the Slave-Hunter appears. [Loud ap
plause, and cries of " Good ! good ! "] In the choice of
men we are driven to the organization of parties ; and
here the question arises. By what form of organization,
or by what party, can these men be best secured ?
Surely not by the Democratic party, as at present con
stituted [laughter] : though, U this party were true to
its name, pregnant with human rights, it would leave
Uttle to be desUed. In this party there are doubtless
iadividuals anxious to do aU in theU power against
Slavery ; but indulge me in saying, that, so long as they
continue members of a party which upholds the Ne
braska BUl, they can do very Uttle. [Applause and
laughter,] What may we expect from the Whig party ?
[A voice, " Resolutions."] If more might be expected from
the Whig- party than the Democratic party, candor must
attribute much of the difference to the fact that the
Whigs are out of power, whUe the Democrats are in
power. [Long continued cheers^ If the cases were
reversed, and the Whigs were in power, as in 1850,
I fear, that, notwithstanding the ardor of individuals

266 DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
and the Eesolutions of Conventions [great laughter], — -
made, I fear, too often, merely to be broken, — the
party might be brought to sustain an outrage as great
as the Fugitive Slave BUl. [Laughter and applause.]
But, without dweUing on these things (to which I
aUude with diffidence, and, I trast, in no uncharitable
temper or partisan spirit), I desire to say that no
party which caUs itself National, according to the com
mon acceptation of the word, — which leans upon a
slaveholding wing [cheers], or is in combination with
slaveholders [cheers], — can at this time be true to Mas
sachusetts. [Great applause.] And the reason is obvi
ous. It can be presented so as to penetrate the most
common understanding. The essential element of such
a party, whetlier declared or concealed, is Compromise ;
hut oiir duties require all constitutional opposition to
Slavery and the Slave Power, vnthout Compromise.
[" That 's it ! " " Good ! good ! "] It is difficult, then, to
see how we can rely upon the Whig party.
To the true-hearted, magnanimous citizens ready to
place Freedom above Party, and their Country above
PoUticians, I appeal. [Immense cheering.] Let them
leave old parties, and blend in an organization which,
without compromise, wiU maintain the good cause
surely to the end. Here in Massachusetts a large
majority concur in sentiment on Slavery, — a large
majority desire the overthrow of the Slave Power.
These must not scatter their votes, but unite in one
firm, consistent phalanx [applause], whose triumph will
constitute an epoch of Freedom, not only in this Com
monwealth, but throughout the land. Such an organ
ization is presented by this Eepublican Convention,
which announces its purpose to cooperate with the

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 267
friends of Freedom in other States. [Cheers.] As
EEPUBLICANS, we go forth to encounter the Oli
garchs of Slavery. [Great applause.]
Through this organization we shaU secure the elec
tion of men who, unseduced and unterrified, wiU at
Washington uphold the principles of Freedom, — and
also here at home, in our own community, by example,
influence, and vote, wUl help invigorate Massachusetts.
I might go further, and say that by no other organiza
tion can we reasonably hope to obtaia such men, unless
in rare and exceptional cases.
Men are but instruments. It wUl not be enough to
choose those who are loyal Other things must be
done here at home. In the first place, aU existing laws
for the protection of human freedom must be rigorously
enforced [applause, and cries of " Good !"]; and since
these are found inadequate, there must be new laws
for this purpose within the limits of the Constitution.
Massachusetts wiU do weU in foUowing Vermont, which
by special law places the fugitive slave under the safe
guard of Trial by Jury and the writ of Habeas Corpus.
But a Legislature true to Freedom will not fail in reme
dies. [Applause.] A simple prohibition, declaring that
no person, holding the commission of Massachusetts as
Justice of the Peace, or other magistrate, shaU assume
to act as a Slave-Hunting Commissioner, or as counsel
of any Slave-Hunter, under some proper penalty, woiUd
go far to render the existing Slave Act inoperative.
[Applause.] There are not many so fond of this base
trade as to continue in it, when the Commonwealth sets
upon it a legislative brand.
Besides more rigorous legislation, Public Opinion
must be invoked to step forward and throw over the

o

268 DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
fugitive its protecting aegis. A Slave-Hunter wiU then
be a by- word and reproach ; and all his instruments,
especiaUy every one who volunteers in this vUeness
without positive obligation of law, wUl naturaUy be
regarded as part of his pack, and share the ignominy
of the chief hunter. [Laughter and cheers,] And now,
from authentic example, drawn out of recent history,
learn how the Slave-Hunter may be palsied by contri
tion. I take the story from late letters on Neapolitan
affairs by the eminent EngUsh statesman, Mr. Glad
stone, who has copied it from an ItaUan writer. A most
successful member of the Neapolitan poUce, Bolza, of
the hateful tribe known as sbirri, whose official duties
involved his own personal degradation and the loathing
of others, has left a record of the acute sense retained
of his shame by even such a man. " I absolutely
forbid my heUs," says this penitent official, "to aUow
any mark, of whatever kind, to be placed over the spot
of my burial, — much more any inscription or epitaph.
I recommend my dearly beloved wife to impress upon
my children the injunction, that, in soUciting any em
ployment from Government, they shall ask for it else
where than in the executive police, and not, unless un
der extraordinary cUcumstances, to give her consent to
the marriage of any of my daughters with a member of
that service." ^ Thus testifies the ItaUan instrument
of legal avrong. Let public opinion here in Massachu
setts once put forth its might, and every instrument
of the Fugitive Slave Act wUl feel a kUidred shame.
[Great applause,] They wUl resign. When, under the
r Two Letters to the Earl of Aberdeen, on the State Prosecutions of the
Neapolitan Govemment, by the Eight Hon. W. E. Gladstone, (London, 1861,)
Letter II. p. 45.

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 269
heartless Charles the Second of England, the Act of
UnUormity went into operation, upwards of two thou
sand pulpits were vacated by the voluntary withdrawal
of men who thought it better to face starvation than
treachery to theU Master. Here is an example for us.
Let magistrates and officers, caUed to enforce a cruel
injustice, take notice.
It is sometimes gravely urged, that, since the Supreme
Court of the United States has aflUmed the constitu
tionaUty of the Fugitive Act, there only remains to us,
in aU places, whether in pubUc station or in private
Ufe, the duty of absolute submission. Yes, Sir, that is
the assumption, which you wUl perceive is appUed to
the humblest citizen who holds no office and has taken
no oath to support the Constitution, as weU as to the
pubUc servant who is under the special obUgations of
an official oath. Now, without stopping to consider the
soundness of the judgment affirming the constitutional
ity of this Act, let me say that the Constitution, as I
understand it, exacts no such passive obedience. In tak
ing the oath to support the Constitution, it is as I un
derstand it, and not as other men understand it. [Loud
applause.] In adopting this rule, first authoritatively enunciated
by Andrew Jackson, when, as President of the United
States, in the face of the Supreme Court, he asserted
the unconstitutionaUty of the Bank, I desUe to be un
derstood as not acting hastUy. Let me add, that, if it
needed other authority in its support, it has the sanction
also of the distinguished Cabinet by which he was then
surrounded, among whom were that unsurpassed jurist,
Edward Livingston, Secretary of State, and that stiU liv
ing exemplar of careful learning and wisdom, Eoger R

270 DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
Taney, then Attorney-General, now Chief- Justice of the
United States. Beyond these, it has the unquestion
able authority of Thomas Jefi'erson, by whom it was
asserted again and again as a rule of conduct. Thus, if
any person at this day be disposed to deal sharply with
me on account of the support which 1 now most con
scientiously give to this rule, let him remember that his
thrusts wUl pierce not only myseU, the humblest of its
supporters, but also the great fame of Andrew Jackson
and of Thomas Jefi'erson, — patriots both of eminent Ufe
and authority, on whose Atlantean shoulders this prin
ciple of Constitutional Law wiU ever firmly rest.
Eeason here is in harmony with authority. From the
necessity of the case I must swear to support the Con
stitution either as I do understand it ar as I do not
understand it. [Laughter.] But the absurdity of dan-
gUng on the latter horn of the dilemma compels me to
take the former, and there is a natural end of the ar
gument. [Great laughter and cheers,] Is there a per
son in Congress or out of it, in the National Govern
ment or State Government, who, when this inevitable
alternative is presented, wiU venture to say that he
swears to support the Constitution as he does not un
derstand it ? [Laughter and applause.] The supposition
is too preposterous. But let me ask gentlemen disposed
to abandon their own understanding of the Constitu
tion, and to submit their conscience to the standard of
other men. By whose understanding do they swear ?
Surely not by that of the President : this is not al
leged : but by the understanding of the Supreme Court.
In other words, to this Court, being at present nine per
sons, — represented by a simple majority, it may be of one
only, — is accorded the power of fastening such inter-

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 271
pretation as they see fit upon any part of the Constitu
tion, — adding to it, or subtracting from it, or positively
varying its requUements, — actuaUy making and unmak
ing the Constitution ; and to theU work aU good citi
zens must bow, as of equal authority with the original
instrument, ratified by solemn votes of the whole peo
ple ! [Great applause.] If this be so, the oath to sup
port the Constitution is hardly less offensive than the
famous "et csetera" oath devised by Archbishop Laud,
where the subject swore to certain specUied things, with
an "&c." added. Such an oath I have not taken.
[" Good ! good ! "] An old poet anticipates my objec
tion : — " Who swears #c. swears more oaths at once
Than Cerberus out of his triple sconce ;
Who views it well with the same eye beholds
The old half serpent in his numerous folds
Accursed." i
The power of our Supreme Court is great, and its
sphere is vast ; but there are Umits to its power and
its sphere. According to the Constitution, "the judi
cial power shaU extend to all cases in law and equity,
arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United
States, and treaties " ; but it by no means foUows that
the interpretation of the Constitution, incident to the
trial of these " cases," is final. Of course, the judgment
in the " case " actuaUy pending is final, as the settle
ment of a controversy, for weal or woe, to the UtigatUig
parties ; but as a precedent it is not final even on the
Supreme Court itself. When cited afterwards, it wUl
be regarded with respect as an interpretation of the Con
stitution, and, U nothing appears against it, of control
ling authority ; but, at any day, in any Utigation, at the
1 Cleveland. See Hudibras, ed. Grey, Part I. Canto 2, Note to v. 650.

272 DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
trial of any " case," it wUl be within the unquestion
able competency of the Court to review its own decis
ion, so far as it establishes any interpretation of the Con
stitution. If the Court itseU be not constraiaed by its
own precedents, how can coordinate branches, under
oath to support the Constitution, and, Uke the Court
itseU, caUed incidentally to interpret the Constitu
tion, be constrained by them 1 In both Uistances, the
power to interpret is simply iticident to other princi
pal duties, as the trial of " cases," the making of laws,
or the administration of govemment; and it seems as
plaUUy incident to a "case" of legislation or of ad
ministration as to a "case" of Utigation. And on this
view I shaU act with entUe confidence, under the oath
I have taken.
For myself, let me say, that I hold judges, and espe
ciaUy the Supreme Court, in much respect ; but I am
too famiUar with the history of judicial proceedings to
regard them with any superstitious reverence. [Sensa
tion.] Judges are but men, and in all ages have shown
a fuU share of human frailty. Alas ! alas ! the worst
crimes of history have been perpetrated under their
sanction. The blood of martyrs and of patriots, crying
from the ground, summons them to judgment. It was
a judicial tribunal which condemned Socrates to drink
the fatal hemlock, and which pushed the Saviour bare
foot over the pavements of Jerusalem, bending beneath
his cross. It was a judicial tribunal which, against the
testimony and entreaties of her father, surrendered the
fair VUginia as a slave, — which arrested the teachings of
the great Apostle to the GentUes, and sent him in bonds
from Judsea to Eome, — which, in the name of the Old
EeUgion, persecuted the saints and fathers of the Chris-

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 273
tian Church, and adjudged them to a martyr's death, in aU
its most dreadful forms, — and afterwards, in the name of
the New EeUgion, enforced the tortures of the Inquisi
tion, amidst the shrieks and agonies of its victims, whUe
it compeUed GaUleo to declare, in solemn denial of
the great tmth he had disclosed, that the earth did not
move round the sun. It was a judicial tribunal which,
in France, during the long reign of her monarchs, lent
itseU to be the instrument of every tyranny, as during the
brief Eeign of Terror it did not hesitate to stand forth the
unpitying accessary of the unpitying guUlotine. Ay,
SU, it was a judicial tribunal in England, surrounded by
aU forms of law, which sanctioned every despotic caprice
of Henry the Eighth, from the unjust divorce of his
queen to the beheading of SU Thomas More, — which
Ughted the fires of persecution that glowed at Oxford
and Smithfield, over the cinders of Latimer, Eidley, and
John Eogers, — which, after elaborate argument, upheld
the fatal tyranny of ship money against the patriot
resistance of Hampden, — which, in defiance of justice
and humanity, sent Sidney and EusseU to the block, —
which persistently enforced the laws of Conformity that
our Puritan fathers persistently refused to obey, and
afterwards, with Jeffreys on the bench, crimsoned the
pages of English history with massacre and murder,
even with the blood of innocent women. Ay, Sir, it
was a judicial tribunal in our own country, surrounded
by aU forms of law, which hung witches at Salem, —
which affirmed the constitutionality of the Stamp Act,
whUe it admonished "jurors and people" to obey, —
and which now, in our day, lends its sanction to the
unutterable atrocity of the Fugitive Slave Act. [Long
continued applause, and three cheers for Sumner^
VOL. IV. — 18

274 DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
Of course judgments of courts are bindiag upon in
ferior tribunals, and their own executive officers, whose
virtue does not prompt them to resign rather than aid
in executing an unjust mandate. Over aU citizens,
whether in pubUc or private station, they wiU natural
ly exert, as precedents, an impartial influence. This I
admit. But no man, who is not lost to seU-respect, and
ready to abandon that manhood which is shown in the
Heaven-directed countenance, wiU voluntarUy aid in
enforcing a judgment which in conscience he beUeves
wrong. He wiU not hesitate " to obey God rather than
men," and calmly abide the perU he provokes. Not
Ughtly, not rashly, wUl he take the grave responsibiUty
of open dissent ; but U the occasion requires, he wiU
not faU. Pains and penalties may be endured, but wrong
must not be done. [Cheers.] "Where I cannot obey
I am wiUing to suffer," was the exclamation of the
author of " PUgrim's Progress," when imprisoned for
disobedience to an earthly statute. Elsewhere I have
said what I now repeat and proclaim on the house-top.
Better suffer injustice than do it. Better be even the
poor slave retumed to bondage than the unhappy Com
missioner. [Applause and sensation.]
I repeat, judges are but men, and I know no differ
ence between the claim of power now made for them
and that other insulting pretension put forth sometimes
in the name of a king and sometimes of a people.
Listen to what King James of England once wrote:
"It is atheism and blasphemy to dispute what God
can do : good Christians content themselves with his
wiU revealed in his word. So it is presumption and
high contempt in a subject to dispute what a king can
do, or say that a king cannot do this or that : but rest

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 275
in that which is the king's revealed wiU in his law." ^
Thus wrote one who was caUed "the wisest fool of
Christendom." And so we are to rest in that popular
wiU revealed in the Fugitive Slave Act, and ratified
by the Supreme Court. The rabble of revolutionary
France, in a spUit kindred to that of King James,
cried out, as the executioner's cart tracked its way in
blood, "We can do what we please," — adding, "There
is no God." Of course, U there were no God, they
could not do as they pleased; nor could the king,
whose pretension for himself was no better than that
of the rabble. But there is a God, to be obeyed in
aU things, although kings, people, and even courts, as
sert the contrary.
The whole dogma of passive obedience must be re
jected, whatever guise it assumes, under whatever alias
it skulks, — whether in tyrannical usurpations of king,
parhament, or judicial tribunal, — whether in exploded
theories of SU Eobert FUmer, or rampant assumptions
of the Fugitive Slave Act. The rights of the civil
power are Umited ; there are things beyond its prov
ince ; there are matters out of its control ; there are
cases in which the faithful citizen may say, — ay, must
say, — "I wiU not obey." One of the highest fiights of
Mirabeau was, when, addressing the National Assembly
of France, he protested against a law then pending, and
exclaimed, " If you make such a law, I swear never to
obey it ! " 2 No man now responds to the words of
Shakespeare, " If a 'king bid a man be a viUain, he is
1 Speech in the Star-Chamber, June 20, 1616 : Works of the Most High
and Mighty Prince, James, liy the Grace of God King of Great Britain, &o.,
(London, 1616, folio,) p. 557. See also Finch's Law, p. 81.
2 Projet de Loi sur les Emigrations, 28 F^vrier, 1791; CEuvres, (Paris,
1834,) Tom. HI. p. 86.

276( DUTIES OF MASSACHUSETTS
bound by the indenture of his oath to be one." Nor, in
this age of civUization and Uberty, wUl any prudent
reasoner, who duly considers the rights of conscience,
claim for any earthly magistrate or tribunal, howsoever
styled, a power which the loftiest monarch of a Chris
tian throne, wearing on his brow " the round and top of
sovereignty," dare not assert.
On this twofold conclusion I rest, and do not doubt
the final result. The citizen who has sworn to support
the Constitution is constrained to support it simply as
he understands it. The citizen whose private lUe has
kept him from assuming the obUgations of official oath
may bravely set at nought the unrighteous ruUng of a
magistrate, and, so doing, he wiU serve justice, though
he expose himself to stem penalties.
FeUow-citizens of Massachusetts, our own local his
tory is not without encouragement. In early colonial
days, the law against witchcraft, now so abhorrent to
reason and conscience, was regarded as constitutional
and binding, — precisely as the Fugitive Slave Act, not
less abhorrent to reason and conscience, is regarded as
constitutional and binding. A special Court of Oyer and
Terminer, with able judges, whose names are entwined
with our history, enforced this law at Salem by the ex
ecution of nineteen persons as witches, — precisely as
petty magistrates, acting under sanction of the Supreme
Court of the United States, and also of the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts, have enforced the Fugitive Act
by the reduction of two human beings to slavery. The
clergy of Massachusetts, particularly near Boston, and
also Harvard CoUege, were for the law. " Witchcraft,"
shouted Cotton Mather from the pulpit, "is the most
nefandous high treason," "a capital crime," — even as

AT THE PEESENT CRISIS. 277
opposition to the Fugitive Act has been denounced as
"treason." [Laughter.]
But the law agaiast Avitchcraft was not triimiphant
long. The General Court of the Proviace first became
penitent, and asked pardon of God for " aU the errors
of his servants and people ia the late tragedy." Jury
men united ia condemning and lamenting the delusion
to which they had yielded under the decision of the
judges, and acknowledged that they had brought the
reproach of wrongful bloodshed on their native land.
SewaU, one of the judges, and author of the early tract
against Slavery, " The SeUing of Joseph," whose name
Uves freshly in his Uberty-loving descendant [Hon. S.
E. Sewall] [applause], stood up in his place at church,
before the congregation, and implored the prayers of the
people, that the errors he had committed might not be
visited by the judgments of an avenging God on his
country, his family, or himself. And now, in a manu
script diary of this departed judge, may be read, on the
margin agaiast the contemporary record, in his own
handwriting, words of saddest interjection and sorrow -
Vce ! vce ! vce ! Woe ! woe ! woe ! ^ [Sensation.]
The paraUel between the law against witchcraft and
the Fugitive Act is not yet complete. It remains for
our Legislature, successor of that original General Court,
to lead the penitential march. [Laughter!] In the
slave cases there have been no jurjrmen to recant
[laughter] ; and it is too much, perhaps, to expect any
magistrate who sanctioned the cruelty to imitate by
pubUc penitence the magnanimity of other days. Yet it
1 Holmes, Annals, Vol. I. p. 440, note. In similar spirit, John Winthrop,
the early Governor of Massachusetts, on his death-bed refused to sign an
order to banish a heterodox person, sajnng, " I have done too much of that
work already." — Hutchinson, History of Massachusetts, Vol. I. p. 142.

278 duties of Massachusetts
is not impossible that future generations may be permit
ted to read, in some newly exhumed diary or letter by
one of these troubled functionaries, words of woe not un
Uke those wrung from the soul of SewaU. [Sensation,]
FeUow-citizens, one word in conclusion : Be of good
cheer [" That 's it ! "] I know weU the difficulties and
responsibiUties of the contest ; but not on this account
do I bate a jot of heart or hope. [Applausel] At this
time, ia our country, there is Uttle else to tempt into
public Ufe an honest man, who wishes, by something
that he has done, to leave the world better than he
found it. There is Uttle else to afford any of those
satisfactions which an honest man can covet. Nor is
there any cause which so surely promises final success.
There is nothing good — not a breathing of the common
air — which is not on our side. Ours, too, are those
great aUies described by the poet, —
" Exultations, agonies.
And love, and man's unconquerable mind."
And there are favoriag circumstances peculiar to the
present moment. By the passage of the Nebraska BiU,
and the Boston kidnapping case, the tyranny of the
Slave Power is unmistakably manUest, whUe at the
same time aU compromises with Slavery are happUy
dissolved, so that Freedom stands face to face with its foe.
The pulpit, too, released from iU-omened sUence, now
thunders for Freedom, as in the olden time. [Cheers,]
It belongs to Massachusetts, nurse of the men and prin
ciples wMch made the earUest Eevolution, to vow her
self anew to her ancient faith, as she Ufts herseU to the
great stmggle. Her place now, as then, is in the van,
at the head of the battle. [Sensation^ To sustain this

AT THE PEESENT CEISIS. 279
advanced position with proper infiexibUity, three things
are needed by our beloved Commonwealth, in aU her
departments of government, — the same three things
which once, in FaneuU HaU, I ventured to say were
needed by every representative of the North at Wash
ington. The first is backbone [applause] ; the second is
BACKBONE [renewed applause] ; and the third is BACK
BONE. [Long continued cheering, and three cheers for
" BacM)one."] With these Massachusetts wUl be felt
and respected, as a positive force in the National Gov
ernment [applause], whUe at home, on her own soU, free
at last in reaUty as in name [applause], aU her people,
from Boston islands to BerkshUe hUls, and from the
sands of Barnstable to the northern Une, wUl unite in
the cry, —
" No slave-hunt in our borders! no pirate on our strand!
No fetters in the Bay State! no slave upon our land I "

THE GOOD FAKMER AKD THE GOOD CITIZEN,
Letter to the Norfolk Agricultural Society,
September 25, 1854.

Another voice against the Fugitive Slave Act.
Boston, September 25, 1854.
MY DEAE SIE, — I am grateful for the honor
done me by the invitation of your Society, and
also for the kind manner in which' you have conveyed it.
But another engagement promises to occupy my time
so as to deprive me of the pleasure thus kindly offered
From the mother earth we may derive many lessons,
and I doubt not they wiU spring up abundantly in the
footprints of the Norfolk Agricultural Society. There
is one that comes to my mind at this moment, and
which is of perpetual force.
The good farmer obeys the natural laws ; nor does he
impotently attempt to set up any behest of man agaiast
the ordinances of God, determining day and night, sum
mer and winter, sunshine and rain. The good citizen
wiU imitate the good farmer ; nor wiU he impotently
attempt to set up any statute of man against the ordi
nances of God, which determine good and evU, right and
wrong, justice and injustice. Let me express these cor
relative ideas in a sentiment which I trust may be wel
come at your festival : —

THE GOOD FAEMEE AND THE GOOD CITIZEN. 281
The Good Farmer and the Good Citizen : Acting in
conformity with the laws of God, rather than the stat
utes of man, they know that in this way only can true
prosperity be obtained.
BeUeve me, dear SU, with much respect.
Very faithfuUy yours,
Chaeles Sumner.
Hon. Marshall P. Wilder.

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT TO BE DISOBEYED.
Letter to a Committee at Syracuse, New York,
September 28, 1854.

The escape of the Fugitive Slave, Jerry, at Syracuse, was commem
orated at a public meeting, to which Mr. Sumner was invited. His
answer was published at the time as "from a man who is not afraid to
speak out." Boston, September 28, 1854.
DEAE SIE, — I cannot be with you at Syracuse, ac
cording to the invitation with which I have been
honored ; but I shaU rejoice at every word uttered there
which helps to lay bare the true nature of Slavery, and
its legitimate offspring, the Fugitive Slave BiU.
That atrocious enactment has no sanction in the Con
stitution of the United States or in the law of God.
It shocks both. The good citizen, at aU personal hazard,
wUl refuse to obey it. Yours very faithfully,
Chaeles Sumnee.

POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MERCHANT,
illustrated by the life of
GEANVILLE SHAEP.

Address before the Mercantile Library Association of Boston,
ON the Evening of November 13, 1854.

Veluti in speculum.

Here was another effort to ohtain a hearing for unwelcome tmth.
"WTiile portraying the life and character of Granville Sharp, Mr. Sum
ner was saying what he had most at heart on Slavery, and exposing
that swiftness which had been shown here in support of the Fugitive
Slave Act. Describing the simple championship of the Englishman,
he presented an example for imitation. Showing how Slavery had been
overturned in England, he exhibited the essential rule of interpreta
tion, by which, in the absence of precise words of sanction, it neces
sarily becomes impossible. Condemning the London merchants who
contributed to support this wrong, and also the able lawyers who lent
themselves to the same cause, he presented a picture where our merchants
and lawyers might see themselves. Extolling that conscience which
sustained Granville Sharp in his career, he vindicated all among us
who would not bow before injustice.
The address was well received. The tide was then tuming. Since then
the lecture-room has been free. The condition of the public mind was
noticed at the time. One newspaper said, that "a Boston audience
of the kind then and there present would not have listened to it with
patience four years ago, '' — that, ' ' valuable as the lecture is on account
of its literary merits, its real importance consists in marking an era in
Boston opinion.'' Another paper says, with enthusiasm, "That Mr.
Sumner should have delivered such a lecture before ' the solid men of
Boston ' is a great, a sublime fact in American history," and, after pro
ceeding in this strain, concludes with the remark, that "it is one of
the most striking examples of whipping one set of people over the backs
of another that we ever heard of."

ADDRESS.

Me. Peesident, and Gentlemen of the Meectlntile
LiBEARY AsSOCLiTION : —
IHAATE been honored by an invitation to deUver
an address, introductory to the annual course of lec
tures which your Association bountifuUy contributes to
the pastime, instruction, and elevation of our community.
You know, SU, something of the reluctance with which,
embarrassed by other cares, I undertook this service, —
yielding to kindly and persistent pressure, which only
a nature sterner thail mine could resist. And now I
am here to perform what I promised.
I am to address the Mercantile Library Association
of Boston, numbering, according to your last Eeport, two
thousand and seventy-eight members, and possessing a
Ubrary of more than fifteen thousand volumes. With
so many members and so many books, yours is an in
stitution of positive power. Two distinct features
appear in its name. It is, primarily, an association of
persons in mercantUe pursuits ; and it is, next, an asso
ciation for the improvement of its members, particularly
through books. In either particular it is entitled to re
gard. But it possesses yet another feature, more inter
esting stUl, which does not appear in its name. It is an
association of young men, with hearts yet hospitable to
generous words, and with resolves not yet vanquished

286 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
by the trials and temptations of Ufe. EspeciaUy does
this last consideration fiU me with a deep sense of the
privUege and responsibUity to which you have sum
moned me. I am aware, that, according to usage, the
whole cUcle of knowledge, thought, and aspiration is
open to the speaker ; but, as often as I have revolved the
occasion in my mind, I have been brought back to the
pecuUar character of your Association, and have found
myseU unwiUing to touch any theme not addressed to
you especiaUy as merchants.
I might fitly speak to you of books ; and here, whUe
considering principles to govern the student in his
reading, it would be pleasant to dweU on the profitable
deUghts, better than a "shower of cent per cent," on
the society, better than fashion or dissipation, and on
that completeness of satisfaction, outvying the posses
sions of wealth, and making the "Ubrary dukedom large
enough," — all of which are found in books. But I leave
this theme. I might also fitly speak to you of young
men, theU claims and duties ; and here again, while en
forcing the precious advantages of Occupation, it would
be pleasant to unfold and viadicate that reverence which
Antiquity wisely accorded to youth, as the season of
promise and hope, pregnant with an unknown future,
and therefore to be watched with tenderness and care, —
to show how in every young man the uncertaia measure
of capacities yet undeveloped gives scope to magnificence
of anticipation beyond any reaUty, — and to inquire what
must be done, that aU this anticipation may not whoUy
die whUe the young man Uves. But there are other
things which beckon me away. Not on books, not on
youth must I speak, but on yet another topic, suggested
directly by the name of your Association.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 287
With your kind permission, I shaU speak to-night on
what this age requUes from the mercantUe profession,
or rather, since nothing is justly requUed which is not
due, what the mercantUe profession owes to this age. I
would show the principle by which we are to be guided
in making the account current between the mercantUe
profession and Humanity, and, might I so aspUe, hold
up the Looking-Glass of the Good Merchant. And siace
example is better than precept, and deeds are more than
words, I shaU exhibit the career of a remarkable man,
whose simple Ufe, beginning as apprentice to a linen-
draper, and never getting beyond a clerkship, shows
what may be accompUshed by faithful, humble labor,
and reveals precisely those quaUties which in this age
are needed to crown the character of the Good Mer
chant. "I hold every man a debtor to his profession," was
a saying of Lord Bacon, repeated by his contemporary
and rival. Lord Coke. But this does not teU the whole
truth. It restricts withia the narrow circle of a pro
fession obUgations which are broad and universal as
humanity. Eather should it be said that every man
owes a debt to mankind. In determining the debt of
the merchant, we must first appreciate his actual posi
tion in the social system.
At the dawn of modern times trade was unknown.
There was nothing then like a poUcy of insurance, a
bank, a bUl of exchange, or even a promissory note.
The very term " chattels," so comprehensive in its pres
ent appUcation, yet, when considered in its derivation
from the mediaeval Latin catalla, cattle, reveals the nar
row inventory of personal property in those days, when

288 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
" two hundred sheep " were paid by a pious Countess
of Anjou for a coveted volume of HomUies. The places
of honor and. power were then occupied by men who
had distinguished themselves by the sword, and were
known under the various names of Knight, Baron,
Count, or — highest of aU — Duke, Dux, leader in war.
Under these influences the feudal system was organ
ized, with its hierarchy of ranks, in mutual relations of
dependence and protection ; and society for a whUe rested
in its shadow. The steel-clad chiefs who enjoyed power
had a corresponding responsibiUty, whUe the mingled
gaUantry and gentleness of chivaUy often controUed the
Uon hand. It was the dukes who led the forces ; it was
the counts or earls who placed themselves at the head of
theU respective counties ; it was the knights who went
forth to do battle with danger, in whatever form, wheth
er from robbers or wUd beasts. It was the barons of
Eunnymede — there was no merchant there — who ex
torted from KUig John that Magna Charta which laid
the corner-stone of English and American liberty.
MeanwhUe trade made its humble beginnings. But
for a long time the merchant was of a despised caste,
only next above the slave who was sold as a chattel
If a Jew, he was often compeUed, under direful torture,
to surrender his gains ; U a foreigner, he earned tolera
tion by inordinate contribution to the pubUc revenue ;
U a native, he was treated as caitiff too mean for soci
ety, and only good enough to be taxed. In the time of
Chaucer he had so far come up, that he was admitted to
the promiscuous company, ranging from knight to mil
ler, who undertook the merry pUgrimage from the Ta
bard Inn to Canterbury ; but the gentle poet satirically
exposes his selfish talk : — -

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 289
" His resons spake he ftd solempnely,
Souning alway the eucrese of his winning;
He wold the see were kept for any thing
Betwixen Middelburgh and Orewell." 1
The man of trade was so low, that it took bim long
to rise. A London merchant, the famous Gresham, in
the time of EUzabeth, founded the Eoyal Exchange, and
a coUege also ; but trade continued stUl a butt for jest
and gibe. At a later day an EngUsh statute gave new
security to the merchant's accounts; but the contem
poraneous dramatists exhibited bim to the derision of
the theatre, and even the almanacs exposed his ignorant
superstitions by chronicling the days supposed to be fa
vorable or unfavorable to trade. But in the grand mu
tations of society the merchant throve. His wealth in
creased, his influence extended, and he graduaUy drew
into his company decayed or poverty-stricken members
of feudal families, tUl at last in France ( I do not forget
the exceptional condition of Italy), at the close of the
seventeenth century, an edict was put forth, which
John Locke has preserved in the journal of his travels,
"that those who merchandise, but do not use the
yard, shaU not lose theU gentUity''^ (admUable dis-
crUnUiation ! ) ; and in England, at the close of the eigh
teenth century, his former degradation and growing im
portance were attested in the saying of Dr Johnson,
that " an EngUsh merchant is a new species of gentle
man." ^ But this high arbiter, bending under feudal
traditions, would not even then concede to him any
merit, — proclaiming that there were "no qualities ia
trade that should entitle a man to superiority," — that
1 Canterbury Tales, Prologue, 276-279.
' King's Life of Locke, Vol. I. p. 104.
s BosweU's Life of Johnson, ed. Croker, (London, 1835,) Vol. II. p. 294,
note, anno 1766. VOL. IV. — 19

290 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
" we cannot think that a feUow, by sitting aU day at a
desk, is entitled to get above us," — and to the supposi
tion by his faithful BosweU, that a merchant might be a
man of enlarged mind, the determined moraUst replied :
" Why, Sir, we may suppose any fictitious character ;
but there is nothing in trade connected with an en
larged mind." ^
In America feudalism never prevaUed, and our Eev
olution severed the only cord by which we were con
nected with this ancient system. It was fit that the
Congress which performed this memorable act should
have for its President a merchant. It was fit, that, in
promiUgating the Declaration of Independence, by which,
in the face of kiags, prUices, and nobles, the New Era was
inaugurated, the education of the counting-house should
flaunt conspicuously in the broad and clerkly signature
of John Hancock. Our fathers " buUded better than
they knew " ; and these things are typical of the social
change then taking place. By yet another act, fresh in
your recoUection, and of pecuUar interest to this assem
bly, has our country borne the same testimony. A dis
tinguished merchant of Boston, who has ascended through
aU the gradations of trade, honored always for private
virtues as well as public abUities, — need I mention the
name of Abbott Laweence ? — has been sent to the
Court of St. James as ambassador of our EepubUc, and
with that proud commission, higher than any patent of
nobiUty, taken precedence of nobles in that ancient
realm. Here I see the triumph of personal merit, but
still more the consummation of a new epoch.
Yes, Sir ! say what you wiU, this is the day of the mer
chant. As in the early ages war was the great concern
1 BosweU's Johnson, Vol. V. pp. 63, 64, Oct. 18, 1773.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 291
of society, and the very pivot of power, so is trade now ;
and as feudal chiefs were the " notables," placed at the
very top of their time, so are merchants now. AE
things attest the change. War, which was once the
universal business, is now confined to a few ; once a
daily terror, it is now the accident of an age. Not for
adventures of the sword, but for trade, do men descend
upon the sea in ships, and traverse broad continents on
Uon pathways. Not for protection against violence, but
for trade, do men come together in cities, and rear the
marveUous superstructure of social order. If they go
abroad, or if they stay at home, it is trade that controls
them, without distinction of persons. In our country
every man is trader : the physician trades his benev
olent care ; the lawyer trades his ingenious tongue ; the
clergyman trades his prayers. And trade summons
firom the quarry choicest marble and granite to buUd its
capacious homes, and now, in our own city, displays
warehouses which outdo the baronial castle, and sales
rooms which outdo the ducal palace. With these mag
nificent appUances, the relations of dependence and
protection, marking the early feudaUsm, are reproduced
in the more comprehensive feudaUsm of trade. There
are European bankers who vie in power with the dukes
and princes of other days, and there are traffickers
everywhere whose title comes from the ledger and not
the sword, fit successors to counts, barons, and knights.
As the feudal chief aUocated to himseU and his foUow
ers that soU which was the prize of his strong arm, so
now the merchant, with grasp more subtle and reaching,
aUocates to himseU and his foUowers, ranging through
multitudinous degrees of dependence, aU the spoUs of
every land, triumphantly won by trade. I would not

292. POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
press this paraUel too far ; but at this moment, especial
ly in our country, the merchant, more than any other
character, stands in the very boots of the feudal chief.
Of aU pursuits or relations, his is now the most exten
sive and formidable, making aU others its tributaries,
and bending at times even the lawyer and the clergyman
to be its dependent stipendiaries.
Such, in our social system, is the merchant ; and on
this precise and incontrovertible statement I found his
duties. Wealth, power, and influence are not for seU-
indulgence merely, and just according to theU extent
are the obUgations to others which they impose. If, by
the rule of increase, to him that hath is given, so in the
same degree new duties are superadded : nor can any
man escape from theU behests. If the merchant be in
reaUty our feudal lord, he must render feudal service ;
U he be our modem knight, he must do knightly deeds ;
U he be the baron of our day, let him maintain baronial
charity to the humble, — ay, SU, and baronial courage
against tyrannical wrong, whatsoever form it may as
sume. Even if I err in attributing to him this pecuUar
position, I do not err in attributing to him these duties ;
for his influence is surely great, and he is at least a man,
bound by simple manhood to regard nothing human as
foreign to his heart.
The special perUs which aroused the age of chivaUy
have passed away. Monsters, in the form of dragons,
griffins, or unicorns, no longer ravage the land. Giants
have disappeared from the scene. Eobbers have been
dislodged from castle and forest. Godeschal the Iron-
hearted, and Eobin Hood, are each without descendants.
In the new forms which society assumes, touched by the
potent wand of trade, there is no place for any of these.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 293
But wrong and outrage are not yet extinct. Cast out
of one body, they enter straightway another, whence,
too, they must be cast out. Alas ! in our day, amidst aU
this teeming civiUzation, with the hom of Abundance
at our gates, with the purse of Fortunatus in our hands,
with professions of Christianity on our Ups, and with
the merchant instaUed in the high places of Chivalry,
there are sorrows not less poignant than those which
once enkindled knightly sympathy, and there is wrong
which vies in loathsomeness with early monsters, in
power with early giants, and in existing immunity with
robbers once sheltered by castle and forest, — stalking
through your streets in the abused garb of Law itself, and
by its hateful presence dwarfing aU the atrocities of
another age. A wicked man is a deplorable sight ; but
a wicked law is worse than any wicked man, even than
-the wretch who steals human beings from their home
in Africa; nor can its outrage be redressed by any in
cidental charities, perishing at night as manna in the
wUderness. Like the monster, it must be overpowered ;
Uke the robber, it must be chained ; Uke the wUd beast,
it must be exterminated.
To the merchant, then, especiaUy to the young mer
chant, I appeal, by the position you have won and by
the power which is yours, — go forth to redress these
grievances, whatever they may be, whether in the suffer
ings of the soUtary soul or audaciously organized in the
likeness of law. That I may not seem, to hold up any
impracticable standard, that the path of duty may not
appear difficult, and that no young man need hesitate,
even though he find himseU alone and opposed by num
bers, let me present briefly, as becomes the hour, the ex
ample and special achievement of Geanville Shaep, the

294 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
humble EngUshman, who, without wealth, fame, or pow
er, did not hesitate to set himseU against the merchants
of the time, agaiast the traditions of the EngUsh bar,
against the authority of learned lawyers, and against
the power of magistrates, untU, by persevering effort,
he compeUed the highest tribunal of the land to declare
the grand constitutional truth, that the slave who sets
his foot on British ground becomes that instant free.
His character of pure and courageous principle may be
Uttle regarded yet ; but as time advances, it wUl become
a guiding luminary. There are stars aloft, centres of
other systems, in such depths of firmament that only
after the lapse of ages does theU Ught reach this smaU
baU which we caU earth.
Be assured, Mr. President, I shaU not tread on for
bidden ground. To the occasion and to your Association
I shaU be loyal; but let me be loyal also to myself.
Thank God, the great volume of the Past is always
open, with its lessons of warnUig and example. Nor
wUl the assembly which now does me the honor to listen
to me be disposed to imitate the pious pirates of the Ca
ribbean Sea, who daUy recited the Ten Commandments,
always omitting the injunction, " Thou shalt not steal."
I know weU the sensitiveness of certain consciences.
TlUs is natural. It is according to the decrees of Prov
idence, that whosoever has been engaged in meanness
or wickedness should be pursued, wherever he moves,
by reproving voices, speaking to him from the soUtudes
of Nature, from the darkness of night, from the hum of
the street, and from every book that he reads, like fiery
tongues at Pentecost, untU at last the confession of Satan
himseU can alone express his wretchedness : —
" Me miserable ! which way shall I fly ?
Which way I fly is Hell : myself am Hell!"

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 295
Geanville Shakp was born at Durham, in 1735.
His family was of great respectabiUty and of ancient
lineage. His grandfather was Archbishop of York,
confidential chaplain and counseUor of the renowned
ChanceUor, Heneage Finch, Lord Nottingham. His less
conspicuous father was archdeacon and prebendary of
the Church, who, out of his ecclesiastical emoluments,
knew how to dispense charity, whUe rearing his nu
merous chUdren to different pursuits. Of these, Gran
vUle was the youngest son, and, though elder brothers
were educated for professional Ufe, he was destined to
trade, a portion being set apart by his father to serve
as his apprentice-fee in London. With this view his
back was turned upon the learned languages, and his
instruction was confined chiefly to writing and arithme
tic ; but at this time he read and enjoyed aU the plays
of Shakespeare, perched in an apple-tree of his father's
orchard. When fifteen years old, he was bound as ap
prentice to a Quaker Unen-draper in London, and at this
tender age left his father's house. Of his apprenticeship
he has given an interesting glimpse.
" After I had served about three years of my apprentice
ship, my master, the Quaker, died, and I was turned over to
a Presbyterian, or rather, as he was more properly called,
an Independent. I afterward lived some time with an Irish
Papist, and also with another person, who, I believe, had no
religion at aU." ^
Although always a devoted member of the Church of
England, these extraordinary experiences in early life
placed him above the prejudice of sect, and inspired a
rule of conduct worthy of perpetual memory, which he
presents as foUows.
1 Memoirs, by Prince Hoare, (London, 1820,) p. 28.

296 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
" It has taught me to make a proper distinction between
the OPINIONS of men and their persons. The former I can
freely condemn, without presuming to judge the individuals
themselves. Thus freedom of argument is preserved, as
well as Christian charity, leaving personal judgment to Him
to whom alone it belongs." ^
Only two years before the enrolment of GranviUe
Sharp among London apprentices, — that class so fa
mous in local history, — another person, kindred in
benevolence, and now in fame, Howard, the phUanthro
pist, on whose career Burke has cast the iUumination of
his genius, finished service in the same place, as appren
tice to a wholesale grocer. I do not know that these
two congenial natures — or yet another contemporary
of lowly fortunes, Eobert Eaikes, the inventor of Sunday
schools — ever encountered in the world. But they are
joined in example, — and the life of an apprentice, in aU
its humiUties, seems radiant with their presence, as with
heavenly Ught. Perhaps among the apprentices of Bos
ton there may be yet a GranvUle Sharp or John How
ard. And just in proportion as the moral nature asserts
its rightful supremacy here wiU such a character be
haUed of higher worth than the products of aU the mUls
of LoweU, backed by all the dividends and discounts of
State Street.
Shortly after the completion of his apprenticeship
and entrance upon business. Sharp lost both his par
ents, and very soon thereafter, abandoning trade, ob
tained a subordinate appointment as supernumerary
clerk in the Ordnance Office, where, ¦ after six years'
service, he became simply " clerk in ordinary." Mean
whUe, conscientiously fulfiUing this Ufe of routine and
'' Jleraoirs, p. 29.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 297
labor, not unUke the toUs of Charles Lamb at the India
House, he pursued, in moments saved from business
and snatched from sleep, a series of studies, which,
though undervalued by his modesty, the scholar may
envy. That he might better enjoy and vindicate that
Book which he reverently accepted as the rule of Ufe,
he first studied Greek and then Hebrew, obtaiaing
such command of both languages as to employ them
skUfuUy in the field of theological controversy. Music
and French he studied also, and our own EngUsh tongue
too, on the pronunciation of which he wrote an excel
lent essay.
These quiet pursuits were interrupted by an incident
which belongs to the romance of truth. An unhappy
African, by the name of Jonathan Strong, was brought
as a slave from Barbadoes to London, where, after brutal
outrage, at which the soul shudders, inflicted by the
person who called himseU master, — I regret to add
lawyer also, — he was turned adrift on the unpitying
stones of the great metropolis, lame, bUnd, and faint,
with ague and fever, and without a home. In this
pUght, while staggering along in quest of medical care,
he was met by the Good Samaritan, GranviUe Sharp,
who, touched by his misfortunes, bound up his wounds,
gave him charitable assistance, placed him in a hospital,
and watched him through a protracted Ulness, until at
last health and strength returned, and he was able to
commence service as freeman in a respectable home.
In this condition, after the lapse of two years, he was
recognized in the street by his old master, who at once
determined to entrap him, and to hold him as slave.
By deceitful message the victim was tempted to a pub
lic house, where he was shocked to encounter his cruel

298, POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
claimant, who, without delay, seized and committed bim
to prison. Here again was the Good Samaritan, Gran~
vUle Sharp, who lost no time in enjoUiing upon the
keeper of the prison, at his perU, not to deliver the Af
rican to any person whatever, and then promptly in
voked the iatervention of the Mayor of London. At
the hearing before this magistrate, it appeared that the
claimant had aUeady undertaken, by formal bUl of sale,
to convey the aUeged slave to another person, who, by
an agent, was in attendance to take him on board a ship
bound for Jamaica. As soon as the case was stated,
the Mayor gave judgment in words worthy of imitation.
" The lad," said this righteous judge, " has not stolen
anything, and is not guUty of any offence, and is there
fore at Uberty to go away." The agent of the claim
ant, not disheartened, seized him by the arm, and stUI
claimed him as " property," — yes, even as property !
Sharp, in ignorance of legal proceedings, was for a mo
ment perplexed, when the friendly voice of the coroner,
who chanced to be near, whispered, " Charge him " ; on
which hint, our phUanthropist, tuming at once to the
brazen-faced claimant, said, with justifiable anger of
manner, "Sir, I charge you, in the name of the King,
with an assault upon the person of Jonathan Strong,
and aU these are my witnesses," — when, to avoid imme
diate commitment, and the yawning cell of the jaU, he
let go his piratical, slave-huntiag grasp, " and all bowed
to the Lord Mayor and came away, Jonathan foUowing
GranviUe Sharp, and no one daring to touch him." ^
But the end was not yet. By this accidental and
disinterested act of humanity Sharp was exposed at the
1 Memoirs, pp. 32-35. Clarkson's History of the Abolition of the Afrt
can Slave-Trade, Vol. I. pp. 57-60.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP; 299
same time to personal insult and to a suit at law. The
discomfited claimant — the same lawyer who had origi
naUy abandoned the slave in the streets of London —
caUed on him " to demand gentlemanUke satisfaction " ;
to which the phUanthropist repUed, that, as "he had
studied the law so many years, he should want no
satisfaction that the law could give him." And he
nobly redeemed his word ; for he applied himself at
once to his defence against the legal process instituted
by the claimant for an aUeged abstraction of property.
Here begins his greatness.
It is in collision with difficulty that the sparks of
genuine character appear. This simple-hearted man,
now vindictively pursued, laid his case before an emi
nent soUcitor, who, after ample consideration with learn
ed counsel, among whom was the celebrated SU James
Eyre, did not hesitate to assure him, that, under the
British Constitution, he could not be defended against
the action. An opinion given in 1729, by the Attorney-
General and SoUcitor-General of the time, Yorke and
Talbot, — two great names in the EngUsh law, and each
afterwards Lord ChanceUor, — was adduced, declariug,
under theU respective signatures, " that a slave, by
coming from the West Indies to Great Britaia or Ire
land, either with or without his master, doth not become
free," and " that the master may legaUy compel him to
retum to the plantations " ; and Lord Mansfield, the
Chief Justice, was reported as strenuously concurring
in this opinion, to the odious extent of deUvering up
fugitive slaves to theU claimants. With these author
ities against him, and forsaken by professional defend
ers. Sharp was not disheartened; but, though, accord
ing to his own striking language, "totaUy unacquainted

300 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
either with the practice of the law or the foundations
of it, having never in his Ufe opened a law-book ex
cept the Bible," he was inspired to depend on hunself.
An unconquerable wiU, and instincts often profounder
in theU teaching than any learning, were now his
counseUors. For nearly two years, during which the
suit was stiU pending, he gave himseU to intense study
of the British Constitution in aU its bearings upon
human Uberty. During these researches he was con
firmed in his original prepossessions, and aroused to
undying hostUity against Slavery, which he plainly
saw to be without any sanction in the Constitution.
" The word slaves," he wrote, " or anything that can
justify the enslaving of others, is not to be found there,
God be thanked ! " ^ And I, too, say, God be thanked !
The result of these studies was embodied in a tract,
entitled " A Eepresentation of the Injustice and Dan
gerous Tendency of tolerating Slavery, or of admitting
the least Claim of Private Property in the Persons of
Men in England." This was submitted to his counsel,
one of whom was the famous commentator. Sir WiUiam
Blackstone, and, by means of copies in manuscript, cir
culated among gentlemen of the bar, until the lawyers
on the other side were actuaUy intimidated, and the
Slave-Hunter, faiUng to bring forward his action, was
mulcted in treble costs; and thus ended that persecu
tion of our phUanthropist. In 1769 this important tract
was printed.
Thus far it was an individual case only which en
gaged his care. Another soon foUowed, where, through
his chivalrous humanity, the intolerable wrongs of a
woman kidnapped in London and transported as slave
1 Memoirs, p. 38.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 301
to Barbadoes, were redressed, — so far as earthly decree
cmUd go. Learning the infinite woe of Slavery, he was
now aroused to broader effort. Shocked by an adver
tisement in a London newspaper, — such as often ap
peared in those days, — of " a black girl to be sold, of an
exceUent temper and wilUng disposition," — he at once
protested to the ChanceUor, Lord Camden, against such
things as a " notorious breach of the laws of Nature, hu
manity, and equity, and also of the estabUshed law, cus
tom, and Constitution of England";^ and in the same
year. May 15, 1769, by letter to the Archbishop of Can
terbury, he solemnly appealed against the Slave-Trade,
and thus by many years heralded the labors of Clarkson
and WUberforce. "I am myseU convinced," he said,
" that nothing can thrive which is in any way concerned
in that unjust trade. I have known several instances
which are strong proofs to me of the judgments of God,
even in this world, against such a destructive and in
iquitous trafific." 2 In these things he showed not only
his love of justice, but his personal independence. " Al
though I am a placeman" he wrote on another occasion,
" and indeed of a very inferior rank, yet I look on my
seU to be perfectly independent, because I have never
yet been afraid to do and avow whatever I thought just
and right, without the consideration of consequences to
myseU: for, indeed, I think it unworthy of a man to be
afraid of the world ; and it is a point with me never
to conceal my sentiments on any subject whatever, not
even from my superiors in office, when there is a proba
bility of answering any good purpose by it," ^
StUl again was his protectiag presence enUsted to
save a feUow-man from bondage ; and here it is neces-
1 Memoirs, p. 49. " Ibid., p. 45. » Ibid., p. 67.

302 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
sary to note the new form of outrage. A poor African,
Thomas Lewis, once a slave, was residing quietly at Chel
sea, in the neighborhood of London, when he was sudden
ly seized by his former master, who, with the aid of two
ruffians, bought for the fiendish purpose, dragged him on
his back into the water, and thence into a boat lying in
the Thames, when, with legs tied, and mouth gagged by a
stick, he was rowed down to a ship bound for Jamaica,
under a commander previously enlisted in the conspU-
acy, to be sold for a slave on arrival in that island.
But this diaboUcal act, though warUy contrived, did not
escape notice. The cries of the victim, on his way to
the boat, reached the servants of a neighboring mansion,
who witnessed the deadly struggle, but did not venture
a rescue. Their mistress, a retired widow, mother of
the eminent naturalist and traveUer, Sir Joseph Banks,
on learning what had passed, instantly put forth her
womanly exertion. Without the hesitation of her sex,
she hurried to GranvUle Sharp, now known for knightly
zeal to succor the distressed, laid before him the terrible
story, and insisted upon vindicating the freedom of the
stranger at her own expense. AU honor to this woman !
A simple warrant, first obtained by Sharp, was scouted
by the captain, whose victim, bathed in tears, was al
ready chained to the mast. The great writ of Habeas
Corpus was next invoked ; and the ship, which had con
tumaciously proceeded on its way, was boarded in the
Downs, happUy within British jurisdiction, by a faithfiU
officer, who, in the name of the King of England, un
bound the African, and took him back to freedom.
A complaint was now presented agaiast the kidnap
pers, who were at once indicted by the grand jury. The
cause was removed to the King's Bench, and on the

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 303
20th of February, 1771, brought into court before Lord
Mansfield. The defence set up, that the victim was
theU slave, and therefore property to be rightfuUy seized.
Here the question was distinctly presented, whether
any such property was recognized by the British Con
stitution ? The transcendent magistrate who presided
on the occasion saw the magnitude of the issue, and
sought to avoid its formal determination by presenting
the subordinate point, whether the claimant, supposing
such property recognized, was able to prove the man to
be his ? The kidnappers were found guUty ; but judg
ment against them was waived, on the recommendation
of Lord Mansfield, who, be it observed, at every stage,
shrank from any act by which Slavery in England should
be annulled, and on this occasion avowed his " hope that
the question never would be finaUy discussed." Sharp
was justly indignant at this craven conduct, which, with
aU gentleness of manner, but with perfect firmness, he
did not hesitate to arraign as open contempt of the true
principles of the Constitution.^
Alas ! it is the natural influence of Slavery to make
men hard. Gorgon-like, it turns to stone. Among the
judicial magistrates of the time, Lord Mansfield was not
alone. His companion in contemporary fame, Black
stone, shared the petrifaction. The first edition of his
incomparable Commentaries openly declared, that a
slave, on coming to England, became at once a free
man ; but, in a subsequent edition, after the question
had been practicaUy presented by GranviUe Sharp, the
text was pusiUanimously altered to an abandonment
of this great constitutional principle ; and our intrepid
phUanthropist hung his head with shame and anxiety,
1 Memoirs, pp. 62-61.

304 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
whUe the counsel for the Slave-Hunters triumphantly
invoked this tergiversation as new authority against
Freedom.^ The day was at hand when the great phUanthropist
was to be vindicated, even by the Ups of the great magis
trate. The Slavery question could not be suppressed:
the Chief Justice of England could not suppress it.
Drive out Nature with a pitchfork, and stUl she will re
tum. Only a few months elapsed, when a memorable
case arose, which presented the question distinctly for
judgment. A negro, James Somerset, whose name, in
the estabUshment of an immortal priaciple, wiU help to
keep aUve the appeUation of the ducal house to which it
originaUy belonged, — was detained in Uons on board a
ship lying in the Thames, and bound for Jamaica. On
appUcation to Lord Mansfield in his behaU, supported
by affidavits, December 3, 1771, a writ of Habeas.Cor-
pus was directed to the captain of the ship, command
ing him to return the body of Somerset into court, with
the cause of his detention. In course of time, though
somewhat tardUy, the body was produced, and for cause
of detention it was assigned, that he was the property of
1 Memoirs, pp. 91, 92, note. The text of the first edition (1765), as quot
ed by Sharp's biographer, Hoare, was as follows: "And this spirit of liberty
is so deeply implanted in our Constitution, and rooted even in our very soil,
that a Slave, or a Negro, the moment he lands in England, falls under the
protection of the laws, and, with regard to all national rights, becomes eo
instanti a freeman." As altered, the latter part was found to read thus:
" .... a negro, the moment he lands In England, falls under the protec
tion of the laws, and so far becomes a freeman; though the master's right
to his service may possibly still continue." Hoare remarks, that he finds
this reading in the fifth edition, 1773. It appears also in an edition printed
at Philadelphia so early as 1771. And thus the text was finaUy left by the
author, and so remains. In the third edition, printed at Oxford in 1768, for
"possibly" iu the last clause we have the word "probably." Of this prior
reading Hoare makes no mention.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 305
Charles Stewart, Esq., of Virginia, who had held him
in Virginia as a slave, — that, when brought as such to
London, he ran away from the service of his master,
but was recovered, and finaUy deUvered on board the
ship to be carried to Jamaica, there to be sold as the
slave and property of the Virginia gentleman} As no
facts were in issue here, the whole cause hinged on the
Constitutionality of Slavery in England ; and the great
question which the Chief Justice had sought to avoid,
and on which the Commentator had changed sides, was
once again to be heard.
That the proceedings might have a solemnity in some
degree corresponding to their importance, the cause was
brought by Lord Mansfield before the King's Bench,
where it was continued from time to time, according
to the convenience of counsel and the court, running
through months, and occupying different days in Jan
uary, February, and May, down to the 22d June, 1772,
when judgment was finally delivered. During aU this
period, Somerset, having recognized with sureties for
his appearance in court, was left at large. To. GranviUe
Sharp he had repaired at once, and by him was kindly
welcomed and effectually aided. Under the advice of
this humble clerk, counsel learned in the law were re
tained, who were instructed by him in the grounds of de
fence. At his expense, too, out of his smaU means, the
1 Since this Address, private papers have seen the light, by which it ap
pears, that the claimant was cashier and paymaster of customs in North
America, and for some years previous to this important case resided in
Boston, where Somerset was known. Through all the arguments he is
spoken of as from Virginia, and reference is constantly made to the laws of
Virginia; nor is this mistake astonishing, when it is understood that an ora.
tor in Parliament once spoke of the " Island of Virginia," and nobody cor
rected him. — Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings for 1863-64, p. 324: ViUenage,
by Emory Washburn. VOL. IV. — 20

306 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
proceedings were maintained. " Money," he nobly said,
" has no value but when it is weU spent ; and I am
thorouglUy convinced that no part of my Uttle pittance
of ready money can ever be better bestowed than in an
honest endeavor to crush a growing oppression, which
is not only shocking to humanity, but in time must
prove even dangerous to the community." ^ On the
other side the costs were defrayed by a subscription
among the merchants. Hear this, merchants of Boston,
justly jealous of the good name of your calUng, and hang
your heads with shame !
To the glory of the English bar, the eminent counsel
for the slave declUied aU fee for their valuable and pro
tracted services ; and here let me pause for one moment
to pay them an unaffected tribute. They were five in
number : Mr. Serjeant Davy, who opened the cause with
the proposition, " that no man at this day is or can be a
slave in England," — Mr. Serjeant Glynn, — Mr Mans
field, afterward Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, —
Mr. Hargrave, and Mr. AUeyne, — each of whom was
patiently heard by the Court at length. The argument
of Mr. Hargrave, who early volunteered his great learn
ing in the case, is one of the masterpieces of the bar.
This was his first appearance in court ; but it is weU
that Liberty on that day had such support. For aU
these gallant lawyers, champions of the Eight, there is
honor ever increasing, which the soul spontaneously of
fers, whUe it turns in sorrow from the counsel, only two
in number, who aUowed themselves to be enUsted on the
side of Slavery. I know weU that in Westminster HaU
there are professional usages — which happily do not
prevaU in our country, where every such service depends
'' Memoirs, p. 57-

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 307
purely on contract — by which a barrister thinks himself
constrained to assume any cause properly presented to
him. If this service depended on contract there, as
with us, the sarcasm of Ben Jonson would be strictly
appUcable : — " This fellow,
For six sols more, would plead against his Maker." i
But I undertake to affirm that no usage, professional or
social, can give any apology for joining the pack of the
Slave-Hunter. Mr. Dunning, one of the persons in this
predicament, showed that he acted against his better
nature.^ The fUst words in his argniment were : " It is
incumbent on me to justify the detainer of the negro."
Pray, why incumbent on him ? He was then careful to
show that he did not maintain any absolute property in
him ; and he proceeded to say, among other things, that
it was his misfortune to address an audience, the greater
part of which, he feared, was prejudiced the other way,
— that, for himseU, he would not be understood to inti
mate a wish in favor of Slavery, but that he was bound
in duty to maintain those arguments most useful to the
claimant, so far as consistent with the truth; and he
concluded with this conscience-stricken appeal : " I hope,
therefore, I shaU not suffer in the opinion of those whose
honest passions are fired at the name of Slavery ; I
1 The Fox, Act IV. sc. 2.
2 A private letter from the claimant to James Murray, Esq., of Boston,
dated London, Jime 15, 1772, carries us back to the times, and even to the
court-room. "I am told," writes the claimant, "that some young coun
sel flourished away on the side of liberty, and acquired great honor. Dun
ning was dull and languid, and would have made a much better figure ou
that side also." Of course he would. After speaking of the " load of abuse
thrown on L — d M  , for hesitating to pronounce judgment in favor of
freedom," the claimant says, " Dunning has come in also for a pretty good
share for taking the wrong side." (Mass. Hist. Soc. Proceedings for 1863-
64, pp. 323, 324.) Abolitionists had begun to be critical.

308 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
hope I have not transgressed my duty to Humanity." ^
Clearly the lawyer had transgressed his duty to Human
ity. No man can rightfuUy enforce a principle which
violates human nature ; nor can any subtilty of dialec
tics, any extent of erudition, or any grandeur of iatel-
lect sustain him. Notwithstanding the character for
Uberal principles which John Dunning acquired, and
which breathes in his sensitive excuses, — ¦ notwithstand
ing his double fame at once in Westminster HaU and
Saint Stephen's Chapel, — notwithstandUig the peerage
which he won, — this odious service rendered to a Slave-
Hunter, caUing himself a VUginia gentleman, cries in
judgment against him, and wUl continue to cry, as time
advances. (Do not start, Mr President, — I am nar
rating occurrences in another hemisphere and another
century.) As well undertake a Slave-Hunt in the
deserts of Africa as in the streets of London. As weU
pursue the fugitive with the hired whip of the overseer
as with the hired argument of the lawyer. As well
chase him with the baying of the blood-hound as with
the tongue of the advocate. It is the lawyer's clear
duty to uphold hitman rights, whether in the loftiest or
the lowUest ; and when he undertakes to uphold a
wrong outrageous as Slavery, his proper function is so
far reversed that he can be aptly described only in the
phrase of the Eoman Church, Advocatus Didboli, the
DevU's Advocate.
Passing from counsel to court, we find occasion for
gratitude and sorrow. The three judges, Aston, WUles,
and Ashhurst, who sat at the side of Lord Mansfield,
were silent through the whole proceedings, overawed,
perhaps, by his commanding authority, so that he alone
1 HoweU's state Trials, XX. 71-76.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 309
seems to be present. Of large inteUect, and extensive
studies, running into aU regions of leamiag, — with a
sUver-tongued voice, and an amenity of manner which
gave constant charm to his presence, — with unsurpassed
professional and poUtical experience combined, — early
companion of Pope, and early competitor of Pitt, — -hav
ing aUeady once refused the post of Prime Minister, and
three times refused the post of Chancellor, — he stood
forth, at the period when the poor slave was brought
before him, an acknowledged master of jurisprudence,
and, take him for aU in all, the most finished magistrate
England had then produced. But his character had one
fatal defect, too common on the bench. He lacked moral
firmness, — happUy not lacking in GranvUle Sharp. StUl
more, he was not naturaUy on the side of Liberty, as
becomes a great judge, but always, by blood and instinct,
on the side of prerogative and power, — an offence for
which he was arraigned by his contemporary, Junius,
and for which posterity will hold him to strict account.
But his luminous mind, prompt to perceive the force of
principles, could not resist the array of argument now
marshaUed for Freedom. He saw clearly that a system
Uke Slavery could not find home under the British Con
stitution, which nowhere mentions the name Slave; and
yet he shrank from the sublime conclusion. More than
once he coquetted with the merchants, who had the case
so much at heart, and twice ignobly suggested that the
claimant might avoid the decision of the great question,
fraught with Freedom or Slavery to multitudes, simply
by manumitting the iadividual. And when at last the
case could not be arrested by any device, or be lon
ger postponed, — when judgment was inevitable, — he
came to the work, not warmly or generously, but ia

310 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
trembling obedience to the Truth, which waited to be
declared. On other occasions, of purely commercial character,
his judgments are more learned and elaborate, besides
being reported with more completeness and care; but
no judgment of equal significance ever feU from the
great Oracle. From various sources I have sought its
precise import.^ It is remarkable for several rules,
which it clearly enunciates, and which, though often
assaulted, stUl stand as reason and as law. Of these,
the first is expressed in these simple words: "If the
parties wUl have judgment, fiat Justitia, ruat coelum: let
justice be done, whatever be the consequence." The
Latin phrase which here plays such a prominent part,
though of classical stamp, cannot be traced to any
classical origin, and it has even been asserted that it
was freshly coined by Lord Mansfield on this occasion,
worthy of such commanding truth in such commanding
phrase. But it is of older date, and from another mint,
— though it is not too much to say, that it took its cur
rency and authority from him. Coming from such a
conservative magistrate, it is of pecuUar importance.
With little expansion, it says openly: To every man his
natural rights ; justice to aU, without distinction of per
son, without abridgment, and without compromise. Let
I It is strange that there should be no single satisfactory report of this
memorable judgment. That usually quoted from Howell's State Trials,
Vol. XX. coll. 80 - 82, was copied from LoflTt, a reporter generally avoided
as authority. There is another report in Hoare's Memoirs of Sharp, pp.
89-91; also another in Campbell's Lives of the Chief Justices, Vol. II. p.
419; and still another, and in some respects the best, in the Appendix (No.
8) to a tract published by Sharp in 1776, entitled "The Just Limitation
of Slavery in the Laws of God, compared with the Unbounded Claims of
the African Traders and British American Slaveholders." It is considered
and quoted in other contemporary tracts.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 311
justice be done, though it drags down the piUars of the
sky. Thus spoke the Chief Justice of England.^
1 A British writer, giving an account of the Somerset case, says of this
maxim, that " it has found its way into use as a classical expression, aud, as
no one has been abla to find it in any Latin author, it is supposed to have
been of Lord Mansfield's own coining." (Chambers's Edinburgh Journal,
July 31, 1852, N. S. Vol. XVIH. p. 71 : Slaves in Britain,) This is a mistake.
The precise phrase will be found in Ward's " Simple Cobler of Aggawamm
in America," written in 1645, and first printed in 1647, — "It is lesse to say,
Statuatur Veritas, ruat Regnum, than Fiat justitia, ruat Cxlum" (p. 14); but
its origin, in substance, if not in foi-m, is earlier. There is little doubt that it
does not occur in any Latin author. Its Latinity is good, and might belong
to the classical period. The latter clause, ruat ccelum, has classical authority,
as in the passage of Terence, showing that it was a common saying in his
time, " Quid si redeo ad illos qui aiunt, Quid si nunc ccelum ruat ? " ( Heau-
ton.. Act. IV. sc. 3.) The idea is also Eoman. On the European continent,
and especially in Germany, the maxim has another form, which is common,
— Fiat justitia, pereat mundus. Binder, in his Noms Thesaurus Adagioruni
Laiinorum, (Stuttgart, 1861,) cites it in this form as Regula Juris, explained
as " a designation for the maxims, taken from the Corpus Juris and the works
of the diff'erent ancient civilians, which have become proverbial." In the
same authority is the hexameter verse, Fiat justitia, pereat licet integer orbis,
from Johannis Leibi Studentica (Coburg, 1627). In England tbe maxim was
current in other forms. As early as February 26, 1624-5, in a letter to the
English ambassador at Holland, alluding to "the business of Amboyne," we
meet Fiat justitia et ruat mundus. (Birch's Court and Times of James I.,
Vol. II. p. 500.) In a speech in the House of Commons, December 22,
1640, against the judges who pronounced in favor of ship-money, an orator
says : " If ever any nation might justifiably, we certainly may now, now
most properly, most seasonably, cry out, and cry aloud, Vel sacra regnet
justitia vel ruat codum." And he concludes with a motion, " That a spe
cial committee may be appointed to examine the whole carriage of that
extrajudicial judgment, .... and, upon report thereof, to draw up a
charge against the guilty; and Q\eTi Lex currat, Jiat justitia. (Pari. Hist.,
2d ed., London, 1763, Vol. IX. p. 192.) In the answer of the Duke of Eich
mond (January 31, 1641-2) to the charge of the Commons, it is said:
"Magna est -Veritas et prevalebit, I wish it may do so in what concerns
me. Regnet justitia et -ruat ccelum.''^ (Pari. Hist., Vol. X. p. 254. Also,
HoweU's State Trials, Vol. IV. col. 116.) The first clause of the maxim is
an old law phrase, found in Law Dictionaries, and often repeated. A letter,
dated London, May 4, 1621, relating the fine and degradation of Lord Bacon,
concludes. Fiat justitia. (Birch's James I., Vol. II. p. 252.) Charles I., in
a letter to the Lords, dated May 11, 1641, interceding for Straflbrd, said:
" But if no less than his life can satisfy my people, I must say. Fiat jus
titia." (Pari. Hist. Vol. IX. p. 316. Howell's State Trials, Vol. III. col.

312 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
And stUl another rule, hardly less important or less
commanding, was clearly proclaimed in these penetrat
ing words : " I care not for the supposed dicta of judges,
however eminent, if they be contrary to all principle " ;
or, in other language. In vain do you invoke great names
in the law, even the names of Hardwicke and Talbot,
and my own learned associate, Blackstone, in behaU of
an institution which defies reason and outrages justice.
Human precedent is powerless against immutable prin
ciple. Thus again spoke the Chief Justice of England.
Braced by these rules, the next stages were logicaUy
easy. And here he uttered words which are Uke a but
tress to Freedom. He declared, that, tracing Slavery to
natural principles, it can never be supported : that is
to say. Slavery is a violation of the great law of Nature,
estabUshed by God himseU, coextensive in space and
time with the Universe. Again he proclaimed. Sla
very cannot stand on any reason, moral or poUtical, but
only by virtue of positive law ; and he clinched his con
clusion by the unquestionable truth, that, in a matter
so odious, the evidence and authority of this law must
be taken strictly : in other words, a wrong like Slavery,
which finds no support in natural law or in reason, can
be maintained, if at aU, only by some dread mandate,
from some sovereign authority, irresistibly clear and in
capable of a double sense, which declares in precise and
unequivocal terms, that men guilty of no crime may be
held as slaves, and be submitted to the bargains of the
market-place, the hammer of the auctioneer, and the
hunt of the blood-hound. Clearly no such mandate
1520.) If not classical in authority, the maxim is not without interest from
association with great events of English history, while it is a perpetual in
junction to justice. Shakespeare gives expression to simUar truth, when
he says, " Be just and fear not."

ILLUSTEATED BY THE UFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 313
could be shown in England. After asserting the obvious
truth, that rights caimot depend on any discrimination
of color, and thus discarding the profane assumptions of
race, whUe he quoted apt Eoman authority, —
" Quamvis Hie niger, quamvis tu candidus esses,"
the Chief Justice concluded, "And therefore let the
negro be discharged." Such was this immortal judg
ment. I catch its last words, aUeady resoimding through
the ages, with the voice of deUverance to an enslaved
people. From Westminster HaU, where he had been held so
long in painful suspense, the happy freedman, with glad
tidings of deUverance, hurried to his angel protector,
GranviUe Sharp, who, though organizing and sustaining
these proceedings, was restrained by unobtrusive mod
esty from aU attendance in court, that he might in no
wise Uritate the Chief Justice, unfortunately prepos
sessed against his endeavor. And thus closed the most
remarkable constitutional battle in EngUsh history,
fought by a simple clerk, once apprentice to a Unen-
draper, against the merchants of London, backed by
great names in law, and by the most exalted magistrate
of the age. Like the stripling Da\dd, he went forth to
the contest with only a sUng and a few smooth stones
from the brook ; and GoUath feU prostrate. Not merely
the individual slave, but upwards of fourteen thousand
human beings, — four times as many slaves as could
be counted throughout New England at the adoption of
the National Constitution, — rejoiced in emancipation;
a slave-hunt was made impossible in the streets of
London; and a great principle was set up which wiU
stand forever as a Landmark of Freedom.
This triumph, haUed at the time by the friends of

314 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
human happiness with exultation and deUght, was com
memorated by poetry and eloquence. It prompted Cow
per, in his " Task," to these touching verses : —
" Slaves cannot breathe in England ; if their lungs
Eeceive our air, that moment they are free :
They touch our couutry, and their shackles fall.
That 's noble, and bespeaks a nation proud
And jealous of the blessing. Spread it, then,
And let it circulate through every vein
Of all your Empire, that, where Britain's power
Is felt, mankind may feel her mercy too."
It inspired Curran to a burst of eloquence, grand, and
famiUar to all who hear me.
" I speak in the spirit of the British law, which makes Lib
erty commensurate with and inseparable from British soQ, —
which proclaims even to the stranger and sojourner, the mo
ment he sets his foot upon British earth, that the ground on
which he treads is holy and consecrated by the genius of
Universal Emancipation. No matter in what language his
doom may have been pronounced, — no matter what com
plexion, incompatible with Freedom, an Indian or an Afri
can sun may have burnt upon him, — no matter in what
disastrous battle his liberty may have been cloven down, — ¦
no matter with what solemnities he may have been devoted
upon the altar of Slavery : the first moment he touches the
sacred soil of Britain, the altar and the god sink together in
the dust, his soul walks abroad in her own majesty, his body
swells beyond the measure of his chains that burst from
around him, and he stands redeemed, regenerated, and dis
enthralled by the irresistible genius of Universal Emancipa
tion." 1
It was this triumph which lifted Brougham, in our
own day, to one of those vivid utterances by which
truth is flashed upon unwiUing souls.
1 Defence of Archibald Hamilton Rowan, January 29, 1794: Speeches,
ed. Davis, (London, 1847,) p. 182.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 316
" Tell me not of rights, — talk not of the property of the
planter in his slaves. I deny the right, — 1 acknowledge not
the property. The principles, the feelings of our common
nature rise in rebellion against it. Be the appeal made to
the understanding or to the heart, the sentence is the same
that rejects it. In vain you tell me of laws that sanction
such a claim. There is a law above all the enactments of
human codes, — the same throughout the world, the same in
all times : .... it is the law written on the heart of man
by the finger of his Maker ; and by that law, unchangeable
and eternal, while men despise fraud and loathe rapine and
abhor blood, they will reject with indignation the wild and
guilty fantasy that man can hold property in man."^
GranviUe Sharp did not rest from labor. The Hu
manities are not solitary. Where one is found, there
wiU others be also. The advocate of the slave in Lon
don was naturaUy the advocate of liberty for aU every
where. In this spUit he signaUzed himself against that
scandal of the EngUsh law, the hateful system of Im
pressment, whUe he encountered no less a person than
Dr. Johnson, whom he did not hesitate to charge with
"plausible sophistry and important self-sufficiency, as
if he supposed that the mere sound of words was capa
ble of alteriag the nature of things " ; ^ also, against the
claims of England in the controversy with her American
colonies, zealously maintaining our cause in a pubUca
tion, of which it is said seven thousand copies were
printed in Boston^; also, in estabUshing a colony of
Uberated slaves at Sierra Leone, on the coast of Africa,
predecessor of our more successful Liberia ; and, finally,
1 Speech on Negro Slavery, July 13, 1830: Works, Vol. X. p. 216.
" Memoirs, p. 169.
3 A Declaration of the People's Natural Right to a Share in the Legisla
ture (London, 1774). Memoirs, pp. 172, 173.

316 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
as leader, not only against the Slave-Trade, but also
against Slavery itseU, so that he was hailed "Father
of the cause in England," and was placed at the head
of the iUustrious committee by which it was conducted,
though his rare modesty prevented him from taking the
chair to which he was unanimously elected. But no
modesty could check his vaUant soul in conflict with
wrong. Not content with his warfare in court, he ad
dressed Lord North, the Prime Minister, warning him
in the most earnest manner to take measures for the
immediate aboUtion of Slavery in all the British do
minions, as utterly irreconcilable with the principles of
the British Constitution and the estabUshed religion of
the land, and solemnly declaring that "it were better
for the nation that their American dominions had never
existed, or even that they had sunk in the sea, than that
the kingdom of Great Britain should be loaded with the
horrid guilt of tolerating such abominable wickedness." ^
With simUar boldness, in an elaborate work, he ar
raigned the doctrine of Passive Obedience, advanced now
in favor of judicial tribunals, as once in favor of kiags,
and he openly affirmed, as unquestionable truth, that
every public ordinance contrary to reason, justice, natu
ral equity, or the written word of God, must be promptly
rejected.^ Other things, too, I might mention ; but I am
admonished that I must draw to a close. Pardon me, if
I touch yet one other shining point in his career.
The news of the Battle of Bunker HiU, which reached
London at the end of July, 1775, foimd him at his desk,
stUl a clerk in the Ordnance Office, and by position
obUged to participate in the miUtary preparations now
I Memoirs, pp. 78-80.
* The Law of Passive Obedience, p. 82, note.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 317
required. He was unwUUng to be concerned, even thus
distantly, in what he regarded as " that unnatural busi
ness " ; and though a close attendance on his office for
seventeen years, to the neglect of aU other worldly oppor
tunities, made it important to him as a UveUhood, yet he
resolved to sacrifice it. Out of regard to his great worth
and the respect he had won, he was indulged at first
with leave of absence ; but when hostUities in the Colo
nies advanced beyond any prospect of speedy accommo
dation, then he vacated his office. This man of charity,
who Uved for others, was now left without support. But
he was happy in the testimony he had borne to his prin
ciples : nor was he alone. Lord Effingham, and also the
eldest son of Lord Chatham, threw up commissions in
the army rather than serve on the side of injustice.
They were aU clearly right. It is vain to suppose that
any human ordinance, whether from King, ParUament,
or Judicial Tribunal, can vary our moral responsibUi
ties, or release us from obedience to God. And since
no man can stand between us and God, it belongs to
each conscience for itself to determine its final obliga
tions, and where pressed to an unrighteous act, — as if
to slay, or, what is equaUy bad, to enslave, a feUow-
man charged with no crime, — then at every perU to
disobey the mandate. The example of GranviUe Sharp
on this occasion is not the least among the large lega
cies of wisdom and fideUty which he has left to man
kind. AU these are especiaUy commended to us, as citizens
of the United States, by the early and constant interest
which he manifested in our country. By pen and per
sonal intercession he vindicated our poUtical rights, —
and when independence was secured, his sympathies did

318 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
not abate, as witness his correspondence with Adams,
Jay, FrankUn, and America's earUest Abolitionist, An
thony Benezet. His name became an authority here, —
at the South as weU as the North, — and the coUeges,
including Brown University, Harvard University, and
William and Mary, of slaveholding Virginia, vied with
each other in conferrUig upon him their highest aca
demic honors. But the growiag numbers of the Epis
copal Church had occasion for special gratitude, only to
be repaid by loyal regard for his character and Ufe. On
separation from the mother country, they were left with
out Episcopal head. To repair this deprivation, Gran
viUe Sharp, in pubUshed writings extensively circulated,
proposed the election of bishops by the churches, and
their subsequent consecration in England, as congenial
to the usage of early Christians, and, after much cor
respondence and many impediments, enjoyed the sat
isfaction of presenting two bishops elect from America
— one of whom was the exemplary Bishop White, of
Philadelphia — to the Archbishop of Canterbury, by
whom the Christian rite of laying on of hands was per
formed ; and thus was the English Episcopacy com
municated to this continent. I know not that the pow
erful religious denomination befriended by him in its
infancy has ever sympathized mth the great effort by
which his name is exalted ; but they should at least re
pel the weak imputation, so often leveUed against aU
who are steadfast against Slavery, tha.t their benefactor
was " a man of one idea."
Mr. President, I have striven to keep within the open
field of history and philanthropy, on neutral ground ; but
you would not forgive me, U, on this occasion, I forbore

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHARP. 319
to adduce the most iaterestiag testimony of GranvUle
Sharp touching that much debated clause in our Na
tional Constitution which has been stretched to the sur
render of fugitive slaves. Anterior to the Constitution,
even during colonial days, he wrote, that any law which
orders the arrest or rendition of "fugitive slaves, or in
any way tends to deprive them of legal protection, is to
be deemed " a corruption, null and void in itseU" ; and
at a later period, in an elaborate communication to the
AboUtion Society of Maryland, — mark, U you please, of
slaveholdiag Maryland, — which was printed and cU-
culated by this society, as "the production of a great
and respectable name," calculated to reUeve persons
" embarrassed by a conflict between their principles
and the obUgations imposed by unwise and perhaps
unconstitutional laws," he exposed the utter "Ulegal-
ity " of Slavery, and especiaUy of " taking up slaves
that had escaped from theU masters." ^ But, in a re
markable letter to Franklin, dated January 10, 1788, —
a short time after the Constitution had left the hands
of the Convention, and some months before its final
adoption by the people, — and which has never before
been adduced, even in the thorough discussion of this
question, the undaunted champion, who had not shrunk
from conflict with the Chief Justice of England, open
ly arraigned the National Constitution. Here are his
words. " Having been always zealous for the honor of free govern
ments, I am the more sincerely grieved to see the new Federal
Constitution stained by the insertion of two most exception
able clauses : the one in direct opposition to a most humane
I Letter to the Maryland Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery,
\Baltimore, 1793,) pp. 2, 3.

320 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
article, ordained by the first American Congress to be perpetu
ally observed " (referring to the sufferance of the slave-trade
tiU 1808) ; " and the other, in equal opposition to an express
command of the Almighty, ' not to deliver up the servant
that has escaped from his master,' &c. Both clauses, however,
(the 9th section of the 1st article, and the latter part of
the 2d section of the 3d [4th] article,) are so clearly null and
void hy their iniquity, that it woidd he evert, a CRIME to regard
them as law." '^
It does not appear that FrankUn ever answered this
letter, in the short term of Ufe which remained to him.
But, in justice to his great name, I desire to express my
conviction here, of course without argument, that this
patriot phUosopher never attributed to the clause, which
simply provides for the surrender of fugitives from
" service or labor," without the mention of slaves, any
such meaning as it has since been made to assume.
And GranviUe Sharp himseU, in putting upon it the
interpretation he did, forgot the judgment he had ex
torted from Lord Mansfield, affirming that any law out
of which Slavery is derived must be construed strictly ;
and, stranger still, he forgot his own unanswerable argu
ment, that the word SLAVES is nowhere to be found in the
British Constitidion. The question under the fugitive
clause of our Constitution is identical with that happUy
settled in England.
In works and contemplations like these was the Ufe
of our phUanthropist prolonged to a generous old age,
cheered by the esteem of the good, informed by study,
and elevated by an enthusiastic faith, which always saw
the world as the footstool of God ; and when, at last, in
1 Memoirs, p. 253.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 321
1813, bending under the burden of seventy-seven win
ters, he gently sank away, it was felt that a man had
died in whom was the greatness of goodness. Among
the mourners at his grave stood WiUiam Wilberforce ;
and over the earthly remains of this chUd of lowly be
ginnings were now dropped the tears of a royal duke.
The portals of that great Temple of Honor, where are
treasured England's glories, swung open at the name of
England's earliest Abolitionist. A simple tablet, from
the chisel of Chantrey, representing an African slave
on his knees in suppUcation, and also the Uon and the
lamb lying down together, with a suitable inscription,
was placed in the Poet's Corner of Westminster Abbey,
in close companionship with those stones which bear
the names of Chaucer, Spenser, Shakespeare, MUton,
Dryden, Goldsmith, Gray. As the Muses themselves
did not disdain to watch over the grave of one who had
-done weU on earth, so do the poets of England keep
watch over the monument of Granville Sharp. Nor is
his place in that goodly company without poetical title.
The poet is simply creator ; and he who was inspired
to create freemen out of slaves was poet of the loftiest
style. Not in the sacred Abbey only was our philan
thropist commemorated. The city of London, centre of
those Slave-Hunting merchants over whom his great tri
umph was won, now gratefuUy claimed part of his re
nown. The marble bust of England's earUest AboUtion
ist was instaUed at GuUdhaU, home of metropolitan jus
tice, pomp, and hospitaUty, in the precise spot where
once had stood the bust of Nelson, England's greatest
Admiral, and beneath it was carved a simple tribute,
of more perennial worth than aU the trophies of Traf
algar: — VOL. IV. — 21

322 POSITION AND DUTIES OF THE MEECHANT,
GRANVILLE SHAEP,
TO WHOM ENGLAND OWES THE GLORIOUS VERDICT
OP HEE HIGHEST COURT OP LAW,
THAT THE SLAVE WHO SETS HIS FOOT ON
BRITISH GROUND
BECOMES THAT INSTANT
FREE.

Gentlemen of the MercantUe Library Association, —
such was GranviUe Sharp, and such honors England to
her hero paid. And now, if it be asked, why, in enforcing
the duties of the Good Merchant, I select his name, the
answer is prompt. It is in him that the merchant, suc
cessor to the chivalrous knight, aiming to fulfil his whole
duty, may find a truer prototype than in any stunted,
though successful votary of trade, while the humble cir
cumstances of his Ufe seem to make him an easy exam
ple. Imitating him, commerce would thrive none the less,
but goodness more. Business would not be checked,
but it would cease to be pursued as the " one idea " of
Ufe. Wealth would stUl abound ; but there would be
also that soUd virtue, never to be moved from truth,
which, you wUl admit, even without the admonition of
Plato, is better than all the cunning of Dsedalus or all
the treasures of Tantalus.^ The hardness of heart en
gendered by the accursed greed of gain, and by the
madness of worldly ambition, would be overcome : the
perverted practice, that Policy is the best Honesty, would
be reversed ; and Merchants would be recalled, gently, but
irresistibly, to the great PEACTICAL DUTIES of this age, and
thus win the palm of true honesty, which trade alone
can never bestow. 1 Euthyphron, § 12.

ILLUSTEATED BY THE LIFE OF GEANVILLE SHAEP. 323
" Who is the Hohest Man?
He that doth still and strongly good pursue,
To God, his neighbor, and himself, most true." i
Young Merchants of Boston ! I have spoken to
you frankly and faithfully, trusting that you would
frankly and faithfuUy hearken to me. And now, in the
benison once bestowed upon the youthful Knight, I
take my leave : " Go forth ! be brave, loyal, and success
ful!" 1 Herbert, The Temple: Constancy.

WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WRECK.
Speech in the Senate, on introducing a Bill to secure Wages to
Seamen in Case op Wreck, February 12, 1855.

On the 26th of December, 1854, Mr. Sumner introduced the foUow
ing resolution : —
" Resoked, That the Committee ou Commerce be directed to consider if
any legislation be needed in order to secure the wages of merchant seamen
in the case of wreck."
On the 12th of February, 1855, Mr. Sumner followed up this resolu
tion by introducing a bill, which was read twice and referred to the
Committee on Commerce, as follows : —
" A BiU to secure Wages to Seamen in case of Wreck.
" Be it enacted, &c.. That, in case of wreck or loss of any ship or vessel of
the United States, every seaman belonging thereto shall be entitled to his
wages up to the period of such wreck or loss, whether such ship or vessel
shall or shall not have previously earned freight, provided such seaman
shall have exerted himself to the utmost to save the ship, cargo, and stores ;
and in any trial of the question of services, the master, although a party to
the suit, shall be a competent witness on this question.
" Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That every stipulation, by which any
seaman shall consent to abandon his wages, in case of wreck or loss of the
ship or vessel, or in case of the failure to eam freight, shall be wholly void."
On this bill Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.
ME. PEESIDENT, — In Uitroducing this bUl, I
desUe to make a brief explanation, which shaU,
at least, be a record of my views with regard to it.
The bUl proposes an ameUoration of the existing
Maritime Law in respect to the wages of merchant sea
men, which, so far as England is concerned, has been

WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WEECK. 325
made aUeady by Act of ParUament, and in our country
can be accompUshed only by Act of Congress.
By existing Maritime Law, the seaman's wages depend
upon a technical rule, which sometimes occasions hard
ship. Freight is compendiously said to be the mother
of wages. In conformity with this fancUul idea, wages
are made to depend upon the earning of freight, unless
the freight is waived by agreement of the owner, or the
voyage or freight is lost by negUgence, fraud, or roiscon-
duct of the owner or master, or voluntarUy abandoned.
In case of wreck, the sailor has simply the chance of
something tmder the name of salvage, U the fragments
saved happen to be of any value ; but if the loss be to
tal, then he is without remedy. In wrecks, which occur
with melancholy frequency, on our churUsh winter coast,
this hardship adds even to the sorrows of disaster. Thus,
as in a case which has actuaUy arisen, a crew may com
mence service at Calcutta, may navigate the Indian
Ocean, double the Cape of Good Hope, and bring theU
ship safely within sight of land, and then, by total loss
of ship and cargo, from acknowledged perUs of the sea,
they may lose everything, even theU right to wages,
and may find themselves in a strange port, the prey
of poverty. Nor can any merit, either throughout the
protracted voyage or in the hour of peril and shipwreck,
prevent the operation of this technical rule.
There is also another cUcumstance which constrains
the poor saUor. The owner may insure lus ship, and
also his freight, so that he may lose notliing but the
premium he pays ; but the saUor is not aUowed to pro
tect himself by insurance from loss of wages : his loss
is UteraUy total.
Now this technical rule, which fastens the wages of

326 WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WEECK.
the saUor to the fortunes of the vessel, or, in other words,
makes the right dependent on the successful issue of
the enterprise for which he is hUed, must be consid
ered an offshoot of Mediseval Maritime Law. It is not
found in the Eoman Law, nor in the maritime legislation
of the Eastern Empire, nor in that early compUation
which goes under the name of the Ehodian Laws. An
eminent American judge, who sheds great Ught upon
maritime jurisprudence, — I refer to the learned and able
Judge Ware, of the District Court of Maine, — says, in
a judicial opinion, that "it owes its origin to the ne
cessities and pecuUar hazards which maritime commerce
had to encounter in the Middle Ages, 'when to the dan
gers of the winds and waves were added the" more for
midable perUs of pUacy and robbery." ^ The rule, hav-
iag been thus estabUshed, was preserved ia the mari
time jurisprudence of Europe, when the special exi
gencies in which it had its birth ceased to exist. It
has outUved the circumstances and excuses of its ori
gin, and now survives to vex, oppress, and disappoint
the most needy, if not the most meritorious, of aU con
cerned in the business of the seas.
This hard rule survives with us, but not everywhere.
The greatest commercial nation of the world has led the
way in its abolition, and set an example to the United
States. The Act of ParUament, of 7th and 8th Victoria,
ch. 112, sec. 17 (at the close), — caUed " The Merchant
Seamen's Act," — provides that
" In aU cases of wreck or loss of the ship, every surviving
seaman shall be entitled to his wages up to the period of the
wreck or loss of the ship, whether such ship shall or sliall
not have previously earned freight : provided the seaman shaU
1 The Davm, Daveis, 133.

WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WEECK. 327
produce a certificate from the master or chief surviving offi
cer of the ship, to the effect that he had exerted himself to
the utmost to save the ship, cargo, and stores."
But the saUor was not completely protected by this
provision. Experience in England showed that the cun
ning of agents was able to introduce into the shipping
articles an agreement waiving the right to wages in case
of loss, which the unthrifty saUor signed, ignorant or
careless of its import. To remedy this abuse, a further
Act of ParUament, of 13th and 14th Victoria, ch. 93^
sec. 53, — known as " The MercantUe Marine Act," —
" No seaman shall, by reason of any agreement, forfeit his
hen upon the ship, or be deprived of any remedy for the re
covery of his wages, to which he would otherwise have been
entitled ; and every stipulation which is inconsistent with
any provision of this Act, or of any other Act relating to
merchant seamen, and every stipulation by which any sea
man consents to abandon his right to wages in the case of the
loss of the ship, or to abandon any right which he may have
or obtain in the nature of salvage, shall he wholly inoperor-
tive." The bUl which I now introduce is grounded on the
provisions quoted from the two Acts of the British Par
Uament, and contains two principles : first, that seamen
shaU be paid theU wages down to the time of the loss
of the ship, in case they serve faithfuUy to the last ; and,
secondly, that they shall not be permitted to lose theU
wages through any agreement in the shipping articles.
In some detaUs I have departed from the British Act.
It does not seem advisable to make the wages depend
ent on " a certificate from the master or chief surviving
of&cer of the ship," but to leave the question of services

328 WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WEECK.
open to proof in any way, according to received rules of
evidence. Therefore I have said that the wages shaU
be paid, "provided the seaman shaU have exerted him
seU to the utmost to save the ship, cargo, and stores."
The reasons for this course are clear. Masters are often
part owners of American ships, and thus have a personal
interest adverse to the saUor. In a mood of selfishness
or recklessness, they might refuse the certificate, even
though weU earned. Now, in constructing a protection
to the saUor, it does not seem prudent to make his wages
dependent upon any such quarter. Indeed, it is hardly
just to take from him the right to estabUsh his claim
before the Admiralty Court, merely because an inter
ested master refuses a certificate, when, perhaps, ple
nary proof might be furnished aliunde. Moreover, U
the question were put in control of the master, he might
obtain an improper influence over the minds of the
crew, inducing them even to sacrifice truth in the event
of litigation between owners and underwriters.
There can be no harm in leaving the question of fact to
be proved by competent witnesses, Uke every other ques
tion of fact : and the seamen should be competent wit
nesses for each other. A sagacious court wiU know
how to weigh their testimony, should it come in conflict
with that of the officers. It seems proper that the mas
ter, too, though a party to the suit, — as in the case of a
libel against him in personam, or in a suit at Common
Law, — should be competent to testify to the conduct of
the libeUant or plaintiff, — in other words, whether he
has " exerted himseU to the utmost " ; and I have intro
duced into the bUl a provision accordingly.
The British Act of 7th and 8th Victoria contains
another defect. It Umits the wages to " every surviving

WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WEECK. 329
seaman." I can see no good reason why the wife and
children of the sailor who has perished in the forlorn
hope perhaps, in the cause of aU, should be deprived of
the humble wages so dearly earned by their natural pro
tector, and thus be compeUed to feel a new deprivation
added to their bereavement. In the proposed bUl there
is no such limitation.
Beyond this brief statement, I need not on this occa
sion add another word. Already Congress has shown
a disposition to modify the rigorous Maritime Law in
some of its provisions. In 1851 it made a change in
the UabUity of ship-owners as common carriers. But
this very UabUity originated, to a certain extent, in the
same principles from which is derived the UabiUty of
the seamen, U they faU to bring the ship and cargo to
port. Ship-owners and saUors were both treated as
insurers. This was in the age of force, before the con
tract of insurance had spread its broad protection over
commerce in every sea. The seaman should share this
protection. He should be treated as not necessarUy
either pUate or coward.
In the discussions of the Senate on the proposed
change in the UabUity of ship-owners, it was effectively
urged by my immediate predecessor, a distinguished
Senator from Massachusetts, the late Eobert Eantoul, Jr,
that, if the United States faUed to adopt that measure,
the other maritime nations would have an advantage in
the carrying trade. It is equaUy trae, that, imless we
adopt the measure now proposed. Great Britain wUl
have the advantage of us in the rate of seamen's wages ;
for, imder her existing laws, the seaman can afford to
work cheaper on board a British ship than under the
American flag.

330 WAGES OF SEAMEN IN CASE OF WEECK.
The measure now proposed is of dUect importance to
the hundred and fifty thousand seamen constituting the
mercantUe marine of the United States. It also concerns
the mUUon of men constituting the mercantUe marine
of the civiUzed world, any of whom, in the vicissitudes
of the sea, may find themselves in American bottoms.
I commend it as a measure of enUghtened philanthropy,
and also of simple justice.
I ask that the bUl, having been read twice, be referred
to the Committee on Commerce.
The motion was agreed to.

AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
Letter to a Committee of the Massachusetts Legislature,
February 12, 1855.

Senate Chamber, February 12, 1855.
DEAE SIE, — In response to your inquiry, I beg
leave to say, that I am happy in an opportunity
to bear my testimony against Capital Punishment. My
instincts were ever against it, and, from the time when,
whUe yet a student of law, I read the classical report to
the Legislature of Louisiana, by that illustrious jurist,
Edward Livingston, I have been constantly glad to find
my instincts confirmed by reason. Nothing of argu
ment or experience since has in any respect shaken the
original and perpetual repugnance with which I have
regarded it. Punishment is justly inflicted by human
power, with a twofold purpose : first, for the protection
of society, and, secondly, for the reformation of the of
fender. Now it seems to me clear, that, in our age and
country, the taking of human life is not necessary to the
protection of society, while it reduces the period of ref
ormation to a narrow, fleeting span. If not necessary,
it cannot come within the province of self-defence, and
is unjustifiable.It is sad to beUeve that much of the prejudice in
favor of the gaUows may be traced to three discredita
ble sources : first, the spirit of vengeance, which surely
does not properly belong to man ; secondly, unworthy

332 AGAINST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.
timidity, as U a powerful, civiUzed community would be
in perU, U Ufe were not sometimes taken by the govern
ment ; and, thirdly, blind obedience to the traditions of
another age. But rack, thumbscrew, wheel, iron crown,
bed of steel, and every instrument of barbarous torture,
now rejected with horror, were once upheld by the same
spirit of vengeance, the same timidity, and the same
tradition of another age.
I trust that the time is at hand, when Massachusetts,
tuming from the vindictive gaUows, wiU provide a com
prehensive system of punishment, which by just penal
ties and privations shaU deter from guilt, and by just
benevolence and care shaU promote the reformation of
its unhappy subjects. Then, and not tiU then, wiU our
beloved Commonwealth imitate the Divine Justice, which
" desireth not the death of a sinner, but rather that he
may tum from his wickedness and Uve."
BeUeve me, dear Sir, very faithfuUy yours,
Chaeles Sumnee.
To THE Chairman of the Committee.

THE DEMANDS OF FREEDOM:
EEPEAL OP THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT.
Speech in the Senate against Mr. Toucet* s Bill, and for the
Repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act, February 23, 1855.

On the 23d of February, 1855, on motion of Mr. Toucey, of Con
necticut, the Senate proceeded to the consideration of "a bill to pro
tect officers and other persons acting under the authority of the United
States," by which it was provided that "suits commenced or pending
in any State Court against any officer of the United States, or other
person, for or on account of any act done under any law of the United
States, or under color thereof, or for or on account of any right, au
thority, claim, or title set up by such officer or other person, under any
law of the United States," should be removed for trial to the Cncuit
Court of the United States. It was seen at once that under these
words an attempt was made to oust the State Courts of cases arising
from trespasses and damages under the Fugitive Slave Act ; and the
hill was pressed, as everythuig for Slavery was always pressed, even ou
Friday, to the exclusion of the private clauns to which that day was
devoted under the rules of the Senate. A debate commenced, which
was continued with much animation and feeliag late into the night.
Mr. Sumner seized this opportunity to urge again his proposition
to repeal the Fugitive Slave Act. Just before the final question, he
took the floor and spoke as follows.
ME. PEESIDENT, — On a former occasion, as Sla
very was about to clutch one of its triumphs, I
rose to make my final opposition at midnight. It is now
the same hour. Slavery is pressing again for its accus
tomed victory, which I undertake again for the moment
to arrest. It is hardly an accidental conjunction which
constantly brings Slavery and midnight together

334 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM:
Since eleven o'clock this forenoon we have been in our
seats, detained by the dominant majority, which, in sub
servience to Slavery, refuses to postpone this question or
to adjourn. AU other things are neglected. Various pub
Uc interests, at this late stage of the session, demand
ing attention, are put aside. According to usage of the
Senate, Friday is devoted to private claims. I am ac
customed to call it our day of justice, — glad, that, since
these matters are referred to us, at least one day in the
week is thus set apart. But Slavery grasps this whole
day, and changes it to a day of injustice. By the calen
dar, which I hold in my hand, it appears that upwards
of seventy-five private bUls, with which are associated
hopes and fears of widows and orphans, and of aU who
come to Congress for reUef, are on your table, — neg
lected, ay, SU, sacrificed, to the bUl now urged with so
much pertinacity. Like Juggernaut, the biU is driven
over prostrate victims. And here is another sacrifice to
Slavery. I do not adequately expose this bUl, when I say it is
a sacrifice to Slavery. It is a sacrifice to Slavery in its
most odious form. Bad as Slavery is, it is not so bad
as hunting slaves. There is seeming apology for Sla
very at home, in States where it prevails, founded on
difficulties in the position of the master and the rela
tions of personal attachment it sometimes excites ; but
every apology faUs, when you seek again to enslave the
fugitive whom the master cannot detain by duress or
kindness, and who, by courage and inteUigence, under
guidance of the North Star, can achieve a happy free
dom. Sir, there is wide difference between Slaveholder
and Slave-Hunter.
But the bill before you is to aid in the chase of slaves.

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 335
This is its object. This is its " being's end and aim."
And this bUl, with this object, is pressed upon the Sen
ate by the honorable Senator from Connecticut [Mr
Toucey]. Not from slave soil, but from free soU, comes
this effort. A Senator from the North, a Senator from
New England, lends himseU to the work, and with un
natural zeal helps to bind stUl stronger the fetter of the
slave. Mr. Eusk (of Texas) [interrupting]. WiU the honorable
Senator allow me to interrupt him?
Mb. Sumnee. Certainly.
Mb. Rusk. I ask him to point out the words in this bill
where Slavery is mentioned.
Me. Sumnee. I am glad the Senator from Texas asks
the question, for it brings attention at once to the true
character of this bUL I know its language weU, and
also its plausible title. On its face it purports to be " a
biU to protect officers and other persons acting under
the authority of the United States " ; and it provides
for the transfer of certain proceedings from State Courts
to the CUcuit Courts of the United States. And yet.
Sir, by the admission of this whole debate, stretching
from noon to midnight, it is a bUl to bolster up the
Fugitive Slave Act.
Me. Rusk. I have not listened to the debate, but I ask
the Senator to point out in the bill the place where Slavery
is mentioned. If the Constitution and laws appoint officers,
and require them to discharge duties, will he abandon them
to the mob ?
Me. Sumnee. The Senator asks me to poiat out any
place in this bUl where " Slavery " is mentioned. Why,
Sir, this is quite unnecessary. I might ask the Senator

336 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM:
to point out any place in the Constitution of the United
States where " Slavery " is mentioned, or where the word
" slave " can be found, and he could not do it.
Me. Rusk. That is evading the question. I asked the
Senator to point out in the bUl the clause where Slavery
is mentioned. The bOl proposes to protect officers of the
United States, whom you appoint, in discharging their du
ties. If they are to be left unprotected, repeal your law.
Me. Sumnee. I respond to the Senator with aU my
heart, " Eepeal your law." Yes, Sir, repeal the Fugitive
Act, which now requires the support of supplementary
legislation. Eemove this ground of offence. And before
I sit down, I hope to make that very motion. Mean
whUe I evade no question propounded by the honora
ble Senator ; but I do not consider it necessary to show
that " Slavery " is mentioned in the bUl. It may not be
found there in name ; but Slavery is the very soul of
the bUl.
[Mr. Eusk rose.]
Me. Sumnee. The Senator has interrupted me sev
eral times ; he may do it more ; but perhaps he had
better let me go on.
Me. Rusk. I understand the Senator; but I make no
boast of that sort.
Me. Sumnee. Very weU. At last I am aUowed to
proceed. Of the bUl in question I have Uttle to say.
Its technical character has been exposed by various
Senators, and especially by my valued friend from Ohio
[Mr. Chase] who opened this debate. Suffice it to say,
that it is an intrusive and offensive encroachment on
State Eights, calculated to subvert the power of States in

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 337
the protection of the citizen. This consideration alone
would be ample to secure its rejection, U the attachment
to State Eights, so often avowed by Senators, were not
utterly lost in stronger attachment to Slavery. But on
these tilings, although weU worthy of attention, I do
not dwell. Objectionable as the biU may be on this
ground, it becomes much more so when regarded as an
effort to bolster up the Fugitive Slave Act.
Of this Act it is difficult to speak with moderation.
Conceived in defiance of the Constitution, and in utter
disregard of every sentiment of justice and humanity, it
should be treated as an outlaw. It may have the form
of legislation, but it lacks every essential element of
law. I have so often exposed its character on this floor,
that I shaU be brief now.
There is an argument against it which has especial
importance at this moment, when the Fugitive Act is
made the occasion of new assault on State Eights. This
very Act is an assumption by Congress of power not dele
gated to it under the Constitution, and an infraction
of rights secured to the States. You will mark, if you
please, the double aspect of this proposition, in asserting
not only an assumption of ' power by Congress, but an
infraction of State Eights. And this proposition, I ven
ture to say, defies answer or cavil. Show me. Sir, U
you can, the clause, sentence, or word in the Constitu
tion which gives to Congress any power to legislate on
this subject. I chaUenge honorable Senators to produce
it. I fearlessly assert that it cannot be found. The
obligations imposed by the " fugitive " clause, whatever
they may be} rest upon States, and not upon Congress.
I Here, as iu other places, Mr. Sumner did not recognize that the lan
guage of the Constitution was appUcable to " fugitive slaves."
VOL. IV. — 22

338 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM:
I do not now undertake to say what these obUgations
are, — but simply, that, whether much or little, they
rest upon States. And this interpretation is sustained
by the practice of Congress on another kindred ques
tion. The associate clause touching " privUeges of citi
zens " is never made a source of power. It wiU be in
the recoUection of the Senate, that, during the last ses
sion, the Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Benjamin], in
answer to a question from me, openly admitted that
there were laws of the Southern States, bearing hard
upon colored citizens of the North, which were uncon
stitutional; but when I pressed the honorable Sena
tor with the question, whether he would introduce or
sustain a biU to carry out the clause of the Constitu
tion securing to these citizens their rights, he declined
to answer.
Me. Benjamin. I think, Mr. President, I have a right to
set the record straight upon that point. I rose in the Sen
ate on the occasion referred to, as will be perfectly well
recollected by every Senator present, and put a respect
ful question to the Senator from Massachusetts. Instead
of a reply to my question, he put a question to me, which
I answered, and then I put my question. Instead of re
plying to tbat, he again put a question to me. Consider
ing that as an absolute evasion of the question which 1 put
to him, I declined having anything further to say in the dis
cussion. Me. Sumnee. The Senator from Louisiana wiU par
don me, if I suggest that there is an incontrovertible
fact which shows that the evasion was on his part. The
record testifies not only that he did not reply, but that
I was cut off from replying by efforts and votes of him
self and his friends. Let him consult the "Congres-

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 339
sional Globe," and he wiU find it aU there.^ I can con
ceive that it might be embarrassing for him to reply,
since, had he decUned to carry out the clause in ques
tion, it would be awkward, at least, to vindicate tlie
Fugitive Slave Act, which is derived from an identical
clause in the Constitution. And yet there are Senators
on this floor, who, careless of the flagrant inconsisten
cy, vindicate the exercise of power by Congress under
the " fugitive " clause, while their own States at home
deny any power of Congress under the associate clause,
on the "privUeges of citizens," assume to themselves
complete right to deternUne the obUgations of this
clause, and then, in practical Ulustration of their as
sumption, ruthlessly seU into Slavery colored citizens
of the North.
Me. Butlee [interrupting]. Does the Senator aUude to
my State ?
Me. Rusk. No, — to mine.
Me. Butlbb. If he means South Carolina, I wiU reply to
him. Me. Sumnee. I do aUude to South CaroUna, and al
so to other Southem States, — but especiaUy to South
CaroUna. If I allude to these States, it is not to bring
up and array the hardships of individual instances, but
simply to show the position occupied by them on a con
stitutional question, identical with that in the Fugitive
Act. And now, at the risk of repetition, if I can have
your attention for a brief moment, without interruption,
I wiU endeavor to state anew this argument.
The rules of iuterpretation, appUcable to the clause of
the Constitution securing to " the citizens of each State
1 Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., July 18, 1854, Vol. XXVIII.
pp. 1790-91.

340 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM :
aU privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
States," are equaUy appUcable to its associate clause,
forming part of the same section, in the same article,
and providing that " persons held to service or labor in
one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
shaU be deUvered up, on claim of the party to whom
such service or labor may be due." Of this there can
be no doubt.
If one of these clauses is regarded as a compact be
tween the States, to be carried out by them respectively,
according to theU interpretation of its obUgations, with
out intervention of Congress, then the other must be so
regarded; nor can any legislative power be asserted of
Congress under one clause which is denied under the
other. This proposition cannot be questioned. Now
mark the consequences.
Congress, in abstaining from aU exercise of power
under the first clause, when requUed to protect the
Uberty of colored citizens, whUe assuming power under
the second clause, in order to obtain the surrender of
fugitive slaves, shows an inconsistency, which becomes
more monstrous when it is considered that in the one
case the general and commanding interests of Liberty
are neglected, whUe in the other the pecuUar and sub
ordinate interests of Slavery are carefully assured ; and
such an exercise of power is an alarming evidence of
that influence of Slavery in the National Govemment
which has increased, is increasing, and ought to be over
thrown. Looking more precisely at these two clauses, we ar
rive at the true conclusion. According to express words
of the Constitution, in the Tenth Amendment, "the pow
ers not delegated to the United States by the Constitu-

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 341
tion, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people " ; and since no
powers are delegated to the United States iu the clause
relating to "privUeges and immunities of citizens," or
in the associate clause of the same section, relating
to the surrender of "persons held to service or labor,"
therefore all legislation by Congress, under either clause,
must be an assumption of undelegated powers, and an
UUraction of rights secured to the States respectively,
or to the people : and such, I have aUeady said, is the
Fugitive Slave Act.
I might go further, and, by the example of South
CaroUna, vindicate to Massachusetts, and every other
State, the right to put such interpretation upon the
"fugitive" clause as it shaU think proper. The Le
gislature of South CaroUna, in a series of resolutions
adopted in 1844, asserts the foUowing proposition: —
" Resolved, That free negroes and persons of color are not
citizens of the United States -within the meaning of the Consti
tution, which confers upon the citizens of one State the privi
leges and immunities of citizens in the several States." ^
Here is a distinct assumption of right to determine
the persons to whom certain words of the Constitu
tion are appUcable. Now nothing can be clearer than
this : If South CaroUna may determine for itself whether
the clause relating to the " privUeges and immunities of
citizens " be appUcable to colored citizens of the several
States, and may solemnly deny its appUcabUity, then
may Massachusetts, and every other State, determine for
itseU whether the other clause, relating to the surrender
1 Eeports and Eesolutions of the General Assembly of South Carolina,
Sess. 1844, December 6, p 160.

342 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM :
of " persons held to service or labor," be reaUy appUca
ble io fugitive slaves, and may solemnly deny its appU
cabUity. Mr. President, I have said enough to show the usur
pation by Congress under the " fugitive " clause of the
Constitution, and to warn you against abetting this
usurpation. But I have left untouched those other
outrages, many and great, which enter into the existing
Fugitive Slave Act, among which are the denial of trial
by jury, the denial of the writ of Habeas Corpus, the
authorization of judgment on ex parte evidence with
out the safeguard of cross-examination, and the surren
der of the great question of Human Freedom to be de
termined by a mere Commissioner, who, according to
the requirement of the Constitution, is grossly incom
petent to any such service. I have also left untouched
the hateful character of this enactment, as a barefaced
subversion of every principle of humanity and justice.
And now, SU, we are asked to lend ourselves anew to
this enormity, worthy only of indignant condemnation ;
we are asked to impart new life to this pretended law,
this false Act of Congress, this counterfeit enactment,
this monstrosity of legislation, which draws no Ufe from
the Constitution, as it clearly draws no lUe from that
Supreme Law which is the essential fountain of life to
every human law.
Sir, the bUl before you may have the approval of Con
gress ; and in yet other ways you may seek to sustain
the Fugitive Slave Act. But it wUl be in vain. You
undertake what no legislation can accompUsh. Courts
may come forward, and lend it theU sanction. All
this, too, wiU be in vain. I respect the learning of
judges ; I reverence the vUtue, more than learning, by

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 343
which theU Uves are often adorned. Nor learning, nor
virtue, when, with mistaken force, bent to this pur
pose, can avaU. I assert confidently. Sir, and ask the
Senate to note my assertion, that there is no court, how
soever endowed with judicial quaUties or surrounded
by public confidence, which is strong enough to Uft this
Act into permanent consideration or respect. It may
seem for a moment to accompUsh the feat. Its de
cision may be enforced, amidst tears and agonies. A
feUow-man may be reduced anew to slavery. But aU
wUl be in vain. This Act cannot be upheld. Anything
so entirely vUe, so absolutely atrocious, would drag an
angel down. Sir, it must drag down every court or
judge venturing to sustain it.
And yet, SU, in zeal for this enormity. Senators an
nounce theU purpose to break down the recent legis
lation of States, calculated to shield the liberty of the
citizen. " It is difficult,'' says Burke, " to frame an in
dictment against a whole people." But here in the Sen
ate, where are convened the jealous representatives of
the States, we hear whole States arraigned, as if already
guUty of crime. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Ben
jamin], in plaintive tones sets forth the ground of pro
ceeding, and more than one State is summoned to judg
ment. It would be easy to show, by critical inquiry,
that this whole charge is without just foundation, and
that all the legislation so much condemned is as clearly
defensible under the Constitution as it is meritorious in
purpose. SU, the only crime of these States is, that Liberty is
placed before Slavery. FoUow the charge, point by point,
and this is apparent. In securing to every person claimed
as slave the protection of trial by jury and the Habeas

344 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM:
Corpus, they simply provide safeguards strictly within the
province of every State, and rendered necessary by the
usurpation of the Fugitive Act. In securing the aid of
counsel to every person claimed as slave, they but per
form a kindly duty, which no phrase or word in the Con
stitution can be tortured to condemn. In visiting with
severe penalties every malicious effort to reduce a feUow-
man to slavery, they respond to the best feeUngs of the
human heart. In prohibiting the use of county jaUs
and buildings as barracoons and slave-pens, — in prohib
iting aU pubUc officers, holding the commission of the
State, in any capacity, whether as Chief Justice or Jus
tice of the Peace, whether as Governor or Constable,
from any service as slave-hunter, — in prohibiting the
volunteer militia of the State, in its organized form, from
any such service, the States simply exercise a power
under the Constitution, recognized by the Supreme
Court of the United States even whUe upholding Sla
very in the fatal Prigg case, by positive peohibition,
to withdraw its own officers from this offensive busi
ness. For myself, let me say that I look with no pleasure on
any possibiUty of conflict between the two jurisdictions
of State and Nation ; but I trust, that, U the interests of
Freedom so require, the States wiU not hesitate. From
the beginning of this controversy, I have sought, as I
stiU seek, to awaken another influence, which, without
the possibility of conflict, wUl be mightier than any
Act of Congress or the sword of the National Govern
ment : I mean an enlightened, generous, humane. Chris
tian pubUc opinion, which shaU blast with contempt,
indignation, and abhorrence aU who, in whatever form
or under whatever name, undertake to be agents in

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 345
enslaving a feUow-man. Sir, such an opinion you
caimot bind or subdue. Against its subtUe, pervasive
influence your legislation and the decrees of courts wUI
be powerless. AUeady in Massachusetts, I am proud to
beUeve, it begins to prevaU ; and the Fugitive Act there
wUl soon be a dead letter.
Mr. President, since things are so, it were weU to
remove this Act from our statute-book, that it may no
longer exist as an occasion of iU-wiU and a point of
conffict. Let the North be reUeved from this usurpa
tion, and the first step wUl be taken towards permanent
harmony. The Senator from Louisiana [Mr. Benjamin]
has proclaimed anew to-night, what he has before de
clared on this floor, "that Slavery is a subject with
which the Federal Govemment has nothing to do." I
thank him for teaching the Senate that word. Tme,
most true, SU, ours is a Government of Freedom, having
nothing to do with Slavery. This is the doctrine which
I have ever maintained, and am happy to find recog
nized in form, if not in reaUty, by the Senator from
Louisiana. The Senator then proceeded to declare that
" aU that the South asks is to be let alone." This re
quest is moderate. And I say, for the North, that aU
we ask is to be let alone. Yes, SU, let us alone. Do
not involve us in the support of Slavery. Hug the
viper to your bosoms, U you perversely wUl, within your
own States, untU it stings you to a generous remorse,
but do not compel us to hug it too ; for this, I assure
you, we can never do.
The Senator from Louisiana, with these professions
on his Ups, proceeds to ask, doubtless with complete
sincerity, but iu strange forgetfulness of our country's
history: "Did we ever bring this subject into Con-

346 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM :
gress ? " Yes, Sir, that was his iaquiry, — as if there
was any moment, from the earUest days of the EepubUc,
when the supporters of Slavery ceased to bring this sub
ject into Congress. Almost from the beginning it has
been here, through the exercise of usurped power, no
where given under the Constitution : for I am glad to
beUeve that the Constitution of my country contains no
words out of which Slavery, or the power to support
Slavery, can be derived ; and this conclusion, I doubt
not, wiU yet be affirmed by the courts. And yet the
honorable Senator asks, "Did we ever bring this sub
ject into Congress ? " The answer shaU be plain and
explicit. SU, you brought Slavery into Congress, when,
shortly after the adoption of the Constitution, you sanc
tioned it in the District of Columbia, within the nation
al jurisdiction, and adopted that barbarous slave code,
stUl extant on your statute-book, which the Senator
from Connecticut [Mr Gillette] so eloquently exposed
to-night. You brought Slavery into Congress, when, at
the same period, you accepted the cession of territories
from North Carolina and Georgia, now constituting
States of the Union, with conditions in favor of Sla
very, and thus began to sanction Slavery in territories
within the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress. You
brought Slavery into Congress, when, at different times,
you usurped a power, not given by the Constitution,
over fugitive slaves, and by most offensive legislation
thrust your arms into distant Northem homes. You
brought Slavery into Congress, when, by express legis
lation, you regulated the coastwise slave-trade, and thus
threw the national shield over a traffic on the coast
of the United States which on the coast of Congo you
justly brand as "pUacy." You brought Slavery into

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 347
Congi'ess, when, from time to time, you sought to intro
duce new States with slaveholding Constitutions into
the National Union. And, permit me to say. Sir, you
brought Slavery into Congress, when you caUed upon
us, as you have done even at this very session, to pay
for slaves, and thus, in defiance of a cardinal principle
of the Constitution, pressed the National Govemment
to recognize property in man. And yet the Senator
from Louisiana, with strange simpUcity, says that the
South only asks to be let alone. Sir, the honorable
Senator borrows the language of the North, which, at
each of these usurpations, exclaims, " Let us alone ! "
And let me say, frankly, that peace can never prevaU
until you do let us alone, — untU this subject of Slav
ery is banished from Congress by the triumph of Free
dom, — untU Slavery is driven from its usurped foot
hold, and Freedom is made national instead of sectional,
— and untU the National Government is brought back
to the precise position it occupied on the day that
Washington took his first oath as President of the
United States, when there was no Fugitive Act, and
the national flag, as it floated over the national terri
tory within the jurisdiction of Congress, nowhere cov
ered a single slave.
And now, SU, as an effort in the true direction of
the Constitution, in the hope of beginning the divorce
of the National Govemment from Slavery, and to re
move aU occasion for the proposed measure under con
sideration, I shaU close these remarks with a motion
to repeal the Fugitive Act. Twice already, since I
have had the honor of a seat in this chamber, I have
pressed that question to a vote, and I mean to press
it again to-night. After the protracted discussion in-

348 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM:
volving the character of this enactment, such a motion
belongs logicaUy to this occasion, and fitly closes its
proceedings. At a former session, on introducing this proposition,
I discussed it at length, in an argument which I fear
lessly assert never has been answered, and now, in this
debate, I have already touched upon various objections.
There are yet other things which might be urged. I
might exhibit abuses which have occurred under the
Fugitive Act, — the number of free persons it has
doomed to Slavery, the riots it has provoked, the brutal
conduct of its officers, the distress it has scattered, the
derangement of business it has caused, — interfering
even with the administration of justice, changing court
houses into barracks and barracoons, and fiUing streets
with armed men, amidst which law is silent. AU these
things I might expose. But in these hurried moments
I forbear. Suffice it to say, that the proposition to re
peal the existing Fugitive Act stands on fundamental
principles which no debate or opposition can shake.
There are considerations belonging to the present
period which give new strength to this proposition.
PubUc Opinion, which, under a popular govemment,
makes and unmakes laws, and which for a time was
passive and acquiescent, now Ufts itseU everywhere in
the States where the Act is sought to be enforced, and
demands a change. Already three States, Ehode Island,
Connecticut, and Michigan, by formal resolutions pre
sented to the Senate, have concurred in this demand.
Tribunals of law are joining at last with the people.
The Superior Court of Cincinnati has denied the power
of Congress over this subject. And now, almost whUe
I speak, comes the solemn judgment of the Supreme

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 349
Court of Wisconsin, delivered after elaborate argument,
on successive occasions, before a single judge, and then
before the whole bench, declaring this Act a violation
of the Constitution. In response to pubUc opinion,
broad and general, if not universal, at the North, sweU
ing alike from viUage and city, from seaboard and lake,
— judiciaUy attested, legislatively declared, and repre
sented also by numerous petitions from good men with
out distinction of party, — in response to this PubUc
Opinion, as weU as in obedience to my own fixed con
victions, I deem it my duty not to lose this opportunity
of pressing the repeal of the Fugitive Slave Act once
more upon the Senate. I move, SU, to strike out aU
after the enacting clause in the pending bUl, and insert
instead these words : —
" That the Act of Congress, approved September 18,
1850, usuaUy known as the 'Fugitive Slave Act,' be, and
the same is hereby, repealed."
And on this motion I ask the yeas and nays.
On taking his seat, Mr. Stunner was followed by Mr. Butler, of
South Carolina, when the following passage occurred.
Me. Butlee. Mr. President, I have no idea of irritating
sectional diiferences. If gentlemen have the opinions which
it seems the gentleman from Massachusetts entertains, be it
so. I assure him I do not intend to bandy words with him.
He talks as if he was disposed to maintain the Constitution
of the United States ; but if I were to put to him a question
now, I would ask him one which he, perhaps, would not an
swer me honestly.
Me. Sumnee. I wUl answer any question.
Me. Butlee. Then I ask you honestly now, whether, aU
laws of Congress being put out of the question, you would

350 THE DEMANDS OF FEEEDOM:
recommend to Massachusetts to pass a law to deliver up
fugitives from slavery?
Me. Sumnee. The Senator asks me a question, and I an
swer, frankly, that no temptation, no inducement, would
draw me in any way to sanction the return of any man to
slavery. Others will speak for themselves. In this respect
I speak for myself.
Me. Butlee. I do not rise now at all to question the
right of the gentleman from Massachusetts to hold his seat,
under the obligation of the Constitution of the United States,
with the opinions which he has expressed ; but, if I under
stand him, he means, that, whether this law or that law or
any other law prevails, he disregards the obligations of the
Constitution of the United States.
Mb. Sumnee. Not at all. That I never said. I recog
nize the obligations of the Constitution.
Me. Butlee. He says he recognizes the obligations of the
Constitution of the United States. I see, I know he is not
a tactician, and I shall not take advantage of the infirmity
of a man who does not know half his time exactly what he
is about. [Laughter.] But, Sir, I wiU ask that gentleman
one question : If it devolved upon him as a representative
of Massachusetts, aU Federal laws being put out of the way,
would he recommend any law for the delivery of a fugitive
slave under the Constitution of the United States t
Me. Sumnee. Never.
Mb. Butlee. I knew that. Now, Sir, I have got ex
actly what is the truth, and what I intend shall go forth to
the Southern States  When the gentleman talks in
the way he does, I choose to rebuke him. Any man who
comes up here with a philanthropy inconsistent with what
is practical justice and liberty, I do not say that I scorn
him, — I use no such word, ¦ — but by heavens ¦'....
1 Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 2d Sess., Appendix, Vol. XXXI. p. 246.
The tone of Senator Butler on this occasion shows the intolerable spirit of
Slavery, which would not endure Jlr. Sumner.

EEPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT. 351
The question, being taken hy yeas and nays on the amendment of
fered by Mr. Sumner, resulted, — yeas 9, nays 30, ¦ — as foUows.
Yeas. — Messrs. Brainerd, Chase, Cooper, Fessenden, Gillette, Sew
ard, Sunmer, Wade, aud Wilson, — ¦ 9.
Nays. — Messrs. Adams, Badger, Bayard, Bell, Benjamin, Bright,
Brown, Butler, Clay, Dawson, Douglas, Fitzpatrick, Geyer, Gwin,
Hunter, Jones, of Iowa, Jones, of Tennessee, Mallory, Mason, Morton,
Pearce, Pettit, Kusk, Sebastian, Shields, Slidell, Thomson, of New
Jersey, Toucey, Weller, and Wright, — 30.
So the amendment was rejected.

YALE UNIVERSITY

002969i(8i4b