Chapter XI: Part 11

This definition leaves undisturbed that question of Christian ethics, whether the right of self-defence is consistent with the example and teaching of Christ. Channing thought it was. It is sufficient that war, when regarded as a judicial combat, sanctioned by the Law of Nations as an _institution_ to determine justice, raises no such question, involves no such right. When, in our age, two nations, parties to existing international law, after mutual preparations, continued perhaps through years, appeal to war and invoke the God of Battles, they _voluntarily_ adopt this unchristian umpirage; nor can either side plead that overruling _necessity_ on which alone the right of self-defence is founded. They are governed at every step by the Laws of War. But self-defence is independent of law; it knows no law, but springs from sudden tempestuous urgency, which brooks neither circumscription nor delay. Define it, give it laws, circumscribe it by a code, invest it with form, refine it by punctilio, and it becomes _the Duel_. And modern war, with its definitions, laws, limitations, forms, and refinements, is _the Duel of Nations_.

These nations are communities of Christian brothers. War is, therefore, a duel between brothers; and here its impiety finds apt illustration in the past. Far away in the early period of time, where uncertain hues of Poetry blend with the clearer light of History, our eyes discern the fatal contest between those two brothers, Eteocles and Polynices. No scene stirs deeper aversion; we do not inquire which was right. The soul cries out, in bitterness and sorrow, _Both were wrong_, and refuses to discriminate between them. A just and enlightened opinion, contemplating the feuds and wars of mankind, will condemn both sides as wrong, pronouncing all war fratricidal, and every battle-field a scene from which to avert the countenance, as from that dismal duel beneath the walls of Grecian Thebes.

To hasten this judgment our Philanthropist labored. "Follow my white plume," said the chivalrous monarch of France. "Follow the Right," more resplendent than plume or oriflamme, was the watchword of Channing. With a soul kindling intensely at every story of magnanimous virtue, at every deed of self-sacrifice in a righteous cause, his clear Christian judgment saw the mockery of what is called military glory, whether in ancient thunderbolts of war or in the career of modern conquest. He saw that the fairest flowers cannot bloom in soil moistened by human blood,--that to overcome evil by bullets and bayonets is less great and glorious than to overcome it by good,--that the courage of the camp is inferior to this Christian fortitude found in patience, resignation, and forgiveness of evil, as the spirit which scourged and crucified the Saviour was less divine than that which murmured, "Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do."

With fearless pen he arraigned that giant criminal, Napoleon Bonaparte. Witnesses flocked from all his scenes of blood; and the pyramids of Egypt, the coast of Palestine, the plains of Italy, the snows of Russia, the fields of Austria, Prussia, Spain, all Europe, sent forth uncoffined hosts to bear testimony against the glory of their chief. Never before, in the name of humanity and freedom, was grand offender arraigned by such a voice. The sentence of degradation which Channing has passed, confirmed by coming generations, will darken the name of the warrior more than any defeat of his arms or compelled abdication of his power.

These causes Channing upheld and commended with admirable eloquence, both of tongue and pen. Though abounding in beauty of thought and expression, he will be judged less by single passages, sentences, or phrases, than by the continuous and harmonious treatment of his subject. And yet everywhere the same spirit is discerned. What he said was an effluence rather than a composition. His style was not formal or architectural in shape or proportion, but natural and flowing. Others seem to construct, to build; he bears us forward on an unbroken stream. If we seek a parallel for him as writer, we must turn our backs upon England, and repair to France. Meditating on the glowing thought of Pascal, the persuasive sweetness of Fénelon, the constant and comprehensive benevolence of the Abbé Saint Pierre, we may be reminded of Channing.

With few of the physical attributes belonging to the orator, he was an orator of surpassing grace. His soul tabernacled in a body that was little more than a filament of clay. He was small in stature; but when he spoke, his person seemed to dilate with the majesty of his thoughts,--as the Hercules of Lysippus, a marvel of ancient art, though not more than a foot in height, revived in the mind the superhuman strength which overcame the Nemean lion:--

"Deus ille, Deus; seseque videndum
Indulsit, Lysippe, tibi, _parvusque videri
Sentirique ingens_."[185]

[185] Statius, Silv., Lib. IV. Carm. 6.

His voice was soft and musical, not loud or full in tone; and yet, like conscience, it made itself heard in the inmost chambers of the soul. His eloquence was gentleness and persuasion, reasoning for religion, humanity, and justice. He did not thunder or lighten. The rude elemental forces furnish no proper image of his power. Like sunshine, his words descended upon the souls of his hearers, and under their genial influence the hard in heart were softened, while the closely hugged mantle of prejudice and error dropped to the earth.

His eloquence had not the character and fashion of forensic effort or parliamentary debate. It mounted above these, into an atmosphere unattempted by the applauded orators of the world. Whenever he spoke or wrote, it was with loftiest purpose, as his works attest,--not for public display, not to advance himself, not on any question of pecuniary interest, not under any worldly temptation, but to promote the love of God and man. Here are untried founts of truest inspiration. Eloquence has been called _action_; but it is something more. It is that divine and ceaseless energy which saves and helps mankind. It cannot assume its highest form in personal pursuit of dishonest guardians, or selfish contention for a crown,--not in defence of a murderer, or invective hurled at a conspirator. I would not over-step the proper modesty of this discussion, nor would I disparage the genius of the great masters; but all must join in admitting that no rhetorical skill or oratorical power can elevate these lower, earthly things to the natural heights on which Channing stood, when he pleaded for Freedom and Peace.

Such was our Philanthropist. Advancing in life, his enthusiasm seemed to brighten, his soul put forth fresh blossoms of hope, his mind opened to new truths. Age brings experience; but, except in a few constitutions of rare felicity, it renders the mind indifferent to what is new, particularly in moral truth. His last months were passed amid the heights of Berkshire, with a people to whom may be applied what Bentivoglio said of Switzerland,--"Their mountains become them, and they become their mountains." To them, on the 1st of August, 1842, he volunteered an Anniversary Address, in commemoration of that great English victory,--the peaceful emancipation of eight hundred thousand slaves. These were the last public words from his lips. His final benediction descended on the slave. His spirit, taking flight, seemed to say,--nay, still says, _Remember the Slave_.

* * * * *

Thus have I attempted, humbly and affectionately, to bring before you the images of our departed brothers, while I dwelt on the great causes in which their lives were revealed. Servants of Knowledge, Justice, Beauty, Love, they have ascended to the great Source of Knowledge, Justice, Beauty, Love. Though dead, they yet speak, informing the understanding, strengthening the sense of justice, refining the tastes, enlarging the sympathies. The body dies; but the page of the Scholar, the interpretation of the Jurist, the creation of the Artist, the beneficence of the Philanthropist cannot die.

I have dwelt upon their lives and characters, less in grief for what we have lost than in gratitude for what we possessed so long, and still retain, in their precious example. Proudly recollecting her departed children, Alma Mater may well exclaim, in those touching words of parental grief, that she would not give her dead sons for any living sons in Christendom. Pickering, Story, Allston, Channing! A grand Quaternion! Each, in his peculiar sphere, was foremost in his country. Each might have said, what the modesty of Demosthenes did not forbid him to boast, that, through him, his country had been crowned abroad. Their labors were wide as Scholarship, Jurisprudence, Art, Humanity, and have found acceptance wherever these are recognized.

Their lives, which overflow with instruction, teach one persuasive lesson to all alike of every calling and pursuit,--_not to live for ourselves alone_. They lived for Knowledge, Justice, Beauty, Love. Turning from the strifes of the world, the allurements of office, and the rage for gain, they consecrated themselves to the pursuit of excellence, and each, in his own sphere, to beneficent labor. They were all philanthropists; for the labors of all were directed to the welfare and happiness of man.

In their presence, how truly do we feel the insignificance of office and wealth, which men so hotly pursue! What is office? and what is wealth? Expressions and representatives of what is present and fleeting only, investing the possessor with a brief and local regard. Let this not be exaggerated; it must not be confounded with the serene fame which is the reflection of generous labors in great causes. The street lights, within the circle of their nightly glimmer, seem to outshine the distant stars, observed of men in all lands and times; but gas-lamps are not to be mistaken for celestial luminaries. They who live for wealth, and the things of this world, follow shadows, neglecting realities eternal on earth and in heaven. After the perturbations of life, all its accumulated possessions must be resigned, except those only which have been devoted to God and mankind. What we do for _ourselves_ perishes with this mortal dust; what we do for _others_ lives coeval with the benefaction. Worms may destroy the body, but they will not consume such a fame.

Struggles of the selfish crowd, clamors of a false patriotism, suggestions of a sordid ambition, cannot obscure that commanding duty which enjoins perpetual labor for the welfare of the whole human family, without distinction of country, color, or race. In this work, Knowledge, Jurisprudence, Art, Humanity, all are blessed ministers. More puissant than the sword, they will lead mankind from the bondage of error into that service which alone is freedom:--

"Hæ tibi erunt artes, _pacisque imponere morem_."[186]

[186] Æneid, VI. 852.--Dryden, translating this passage, gives
distinctness to a duty beyond the language of Virgil:--

"_The fettered slave to free_, These are imperial arts, and worthy thee."

The brothers we commemorate join in summons to this gladsome obedience. Their examples have voice. Go forth into the many mansions of the house of life. Scholar! store them with learning. Jurist! strengthen them with justice. Artist! adorn them with beauty. Philanthropist! fill them with love. Be servants of truth, each in his vocation,--sincere, pure, earnest, enthusiastic. A virtuous enthusiasm is self-forgetful and noble. It is the grand inspiration yet vouchsafed to man. Like Pickering, blend humility with learning. Like Story, ascend above the present, in place and time. Like Allston, regard fame only as the eternal shadow of excellence. Like Channing, plead for the good of man. Cultivate alike the wisdom of experience and the wisdom of hope. Mindful of the future, do not neglect the past; awed by the majesty of antiquity, turn not with indifference from the new. True wisdom looks to the ages before, as well as behind. Like the Janus of the Capitol, one front regards the past, rich with experience, with memories, with priceless traditions of virtue; the other is directed to the All Hail Hereafter, richer still with transcendent hopes and unfulfilled prophecies.

We stand on the threshold of a new age, which is preparing to recognize new influences. The ancient divinities of Violence and Wrong are retreating before the light of a better day. The sun is entering a new ecliptic, no longer deformed by those images of animal rage, Taurus, Leo, Scorpio, Sagittarius, but beaming with the mild radiance of those heavenly signs, Faith, Hope, and Charity.

"There's a fount about to stream,
There's a light about to beam,
There's a warmth about to glow,
There's a flower about to blow,
There's a midnight blackness changing
Into gray:
Men of thought, and men of action,
_Clear the way!_

"Aid the dawning, tongue and pen!
Aid it, hopes of honest men!
Aid it, paper! aid it, type!
Aid it, for the hour is ripe,
And our earnest must not slacken
Into play:
Men of thought, and men of action,
_Clear the way!_"

The age of Chivalry is gone. An age of Humanity has come. The Horse, whose importance, more than human, gave its name to that early period of gallantry and war, now yields the foremost place to Man. In serving him, in studying his elevation, in helping his welfare, in doing him good, are fields of bloodless triumph, nobler far than any in which Bayard or Du Guesclin conquered. Here are spaces of labor, wide as the world, lofty as heaven. Let me say, then, in the benison once bestowed upon the youthful knight,--Scholar! Jurist! Artist! Philanthropist! hero of a Christian age, companion of a celestial knighthood, "Go forth, be brave, loyal, and successful!"

And may it be our office to light a fresh beacon-fire on the venerable walls of Harvard, sacred to Truth, to Christ, and to the Church,[187]--to Truth Immortal, to Christ the Comforter, to the Holy Church Universal. Let the flame pass from steeple to steeple, from hill to hill, from island to island, from continent to continent, till the long lineage of fires illumine all the nations of the earth, animating them to the holy contests of KNOWLEDGE, JUSTICE, BEAUTY, LOVE!

[187] The legend on the early seal of Harvard University was _Veritas_.
The present legend is _Christo et Ecclesiæ_.

ANTISLAVERY DUTIES OF THE WHIG PARTY.

SPEECH AT THE WHIG STATE CONVENTION OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN FANEUIL HALL,
BOSTON, SEPTEMBER 23, 1846.

The Convention was organized by the appointment of Hon. Charles Hudson, of Westminster, President,--Nathan Appleton, of Boston, Stephen C. Phillips, of Salem, Amos Abbott, of Andover, Samuel Hoar, of Concord, Thomas Kinnicutt, of Worcester, Isaac King, of Palmer, E.R. Coit, of Pittsfield, A. Richards, of Dedham, Artemas Hale, of Bridgewater, and Aaron Mitchell, of Nantucket, Vice-Presidents,--and F.W. Lincoln, Jr., of Boston, William S. Robinson, of Lowell, George Marston, of Barnstable, and E.G. Bowdoin, of South Hadley, Secretaries.

After the appointment of a committee to report resolutions, and its withdrawal for this purpose, there was a call for Mr. Sumner, who came forward and spoke. This incident was described by the _Daily Advertiser_, in its account of the proceedings, as follows.

"After this committee had gone out, Charles Sumner, Esq., of this city, in response to a general call, took the stand and made a very eloquent speech, which was received with sympathy and repeated bursts of applause.... An allusion which he made to Daniel Webster in terms of the highest admiration, and an appeal to him to add to his title of _Defender of the Constitution_ that of _Defender of Freedom_ [_Humanity_], was received with great applause."

Mr. Winthrop, at the call of the Convention, spoke immediately after Mr. Sumner.

As Mr. Sumner stepped from the platform, Mr. Appleton, one of the Vice-Presidents, said to him, "A good speech for Virginia, but out of place here"; to which Mr. Sumner replied, "If good for Virginia, it is good for Boston, as we have our responsibilities for Slavery." This incident is mentioned as opening briefly the practical issue made by many with regard to the discussion of Slavery at the North.

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS, WHIGS OF MASSACHUSETTS:--

Grateful for the honor done me in this early call to address the
Convention, I shall endeavor to speak with sincerity and frankness
on the duties of the Whig party. It is of Duties that I shall speak.

On the first notice that our meeting was to be in Boston, many
were disposed to regret that the country was not selected instead,
believing that the opinions of the country, free as its bracing
air, more than those of Boston, were in harmony with the tone
becoming us at the present crisis. In the country is the spirit
of freedom, in the city the spirit of commerce; and though these
two spirits may at times act in admirable conjunction and with
irresistible strength, yet it sometimes occurs that the generous
and unselfish impulses of the one are checked and controlled by the
careful calculations of the other. Even Right and Liberty are, in
some minds, of less significance than dividends and dollars.

But I am happy that the Convention is convoked in Faneuil Hall,--a
place vocal with inspiring accents; and though on other occasions
words have been uttered here which the lover of morals, of freedom,
and humanity must regret, these walls, faithful only to Freedom,
refuse to echo them. Whigs of Massachusetts, in Faneuil Hall
assembled, must be true to this early scene of patriot struggles;
they must be true to their own name, which has descended from the
brave men who took part in those struggles.

We are a Convention of Whigs. And who are the Whigs? Some may say
they are supporters of the Tariff; others, that they are advocates
of Internal Improvements, of measures to restrict the Veto Power,
or it may be of a Bank. All these are now, or have been, prominent
articles of the party. But this enumeration does not do justice to
the Whig character.

The Whigs, as their name imports, are, or ought to be, the party
of Freedom. They seek, or should seek, on all occasions, to carry
out fully and practically the principles of our institutions. Those
principles which our fathers declared, and sealed with their blood,
their Whig children should seek to manifest in acts. The Whigs,
therefore, reverence the Declaration of Independence, as embodying
the vital truths of Freedom, especially that great truth, "that
all men are created equal." They reverence the Constitution of the
United States, and seek to guard it against infractions, believing
that under the Constitution Freedom can be best preserved. They
reverence the Union, believing that the peace, happiness, and
welfare of all depend upon this blessed bond. They reverence the
public faith, and require that it shall be punctiliously kept in
all laws, charters, and obligations. They reverence the principles
of morality, truth, justice, right. They seek to advance their
country rather than individuals, and to promote the welfare of the
people rather than of leaders. A member of such an association,
founded on the highest moral sentiments, recognizing conscience and
benevolence as animating ideas, is not open to the accusation that
he "to party gave up what was meant for mankind,"--since all the
interests of the party must be coincident and commensurate with the
manifold interests of humanity.

Such is, as I trust, the Whig party of Massachusetts. It refuses
to identify itself exclusively with those measures of transient
policy which, like the Bank, may become "obsolete ideas," but
connects itself with everlasting principles which can never fade or
decay. Doing this, it does not neglect other things, as the Tariff,
or Internal Improvements; but it treats them as subordinate. Far
less does it show indifference to the Constitution or the Union;
for it seeks to render these guardians and representatives of the
principles to which we are attached.

The Whigs have been called by you, Mr. President, _conservatives_.
In a just sense, they should be conservatives,--not of forms only,
but of substance,--not of the letter only, but of the living
spirit. The Whigs should be conservators of the ancestral spirit,
conservators of the animating ideas in which our institutions were
born. They should profess that truest and highest conservatism
which watches, guards, and preserves the great principles of Truth,
Right, Freedom, and Humanity. Such a conservatism is not narrow and
exclusive, but broad and expansive. It is not trivial and bigoted,
but manly and generous. It is the conservatism of '76.

Let me say, then, that the Whigs of Massachusetts are--I hope it
is not my wish only that is father to the thought--the party which
seeks the establishment of Truth, Freedom, Right, and Humanity,
under the Constitution of the United States, and by the Union of
the States. They are Unionists, Constitutionalists, Friends of the
Right.

The question here arises, How shall this party, inspired by these
principles, now act? The answer is easy. In strict accordance with
their principles. It must utter them with distinctness, and act
upon them with energy.

The party will naturally express opposition to the present
Administration for its treacherous course on the tariff, and
for its interference by veto with internal improvements; but it
will be more alive to evils of greater magnitude,--the unjust and
unchristian war with Mexico, which is not less absurd than wicked,
and, beyond this, the institution of Slavery.

The time, I believe, has gone by, when the question is asked,
_What has the North to do with Slavery?_ It might almost be
answered, that, politically, it has little to do with anything
else,--so are all the acts of our Government connected, directly
or indirectly, with this institution. Slavery is everywhere.
Appealing to the Constitution, it enters the Halls of Congress, in
the disproportionate representation of the Slave States. It holds
its disgusting mart at Washington, in the shadow of the Capitol,
under the legislative jurisdiction of the Nation,--of the North as
well as the South. It sends its miserable victims over the high
seas, from the ports of Virginia to the ports of Louisiana, beneath
the protecting flag of the Republic. It presumes to follow into
the Free States those fugitives who, filled with the inspiration
of Freedom, seek our altars for safety; nay, more, with profane
hands it seizes those who have never known the name of slave,
freemen of the North, and dooms them to irremediable bondage. It
insults and expels from its jurisdiction honored representatives
of Massachusetts, seeking to secure for her colored citizens
the peaceful safeguard of the Union. It assumes at pleasure to
build up new slaveholding States, striving perpetually to widen
its area, while professing to extend the area of Freedom. It
has brought upon the country war with Mexico, with its enormous
expenditures and more enormous guilt. By the spirit of union among
its supporters, it controls the affairs of Government,--interferes
with the cherished interests of the North, enforcing and then
refusing protection to her manufactures,--makes and unmakes
Presidents,--usurps to itself the larger portion of all offices
of honor and profit, both in the army and navy, and also in the
civil department,--and stamps upon our whole country the character,
before the world, of that monstrous anomaly and mockery, _a
slaveholding republic_, with the living truths of Freedom on its
lips and the dark mark of Slavery on its brow.

In opposition to Slavery, Massachusetts has already, to a certain
extent, done what becomes her character as a free Commonwealth.
By successive resolutions of her Legislature, she has called for
the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and for the
abolition of the slave-trade between the States; and she has also
proposed an amendment of the Constitution, putting the South upon
an equality with the North in Congressional representation. More
than this, her judiciary, always pure, fearless, and upright, has
inflicted upon Slavery the brand of reprobation. I but recall a
familiar fact, when I refer to the opinion of the Supreme Court
of Massachusetts, where it is expressly declared that "slavery is
contrary to natural right, to the principles of justice, humanity,
and sound policy."[188] This is the law of Massachusetts.

[188] 18 Pick. Rep. 215.

And shall this Commonwealth continue in any way to sustain an
institution which its laws declare to be contrary to natural right,
justice, humanity, and sound policy? Shall Whigs support what is
contrary to the fundamental principles of the party? Here the
consciences of good men respond to the judgment of the Court.
If it be wrong to hold a single slave, it must be wrong to hold
many. If it be wrong for an individual to hold a slave, it must be
wrong for a State. If it be wrong for a State in its individual
capacity, it must be wrong also in association with other States.
Massachusetts does not allow any of her citizens within her borders
to hold slaves. Let her be consistent, and call for the abolition
of slavery wherever she is any way responsible for it, not only
where she is a party to it, but wherever it may be reached by her
influence,--that is, everywhere beneath the Constitution and laws
of the National Government. "If any practices exist," said Mr.
Webster, in one of those earlier efforts which commended him to our
admiration, his Discourse at Plymouth in 1820,--"if any practices
exist contrary to the principles of justice and humanity, within
the reach of our laws or our influence, _we are inexcusable, if we
do not exert ourselves to restrain and abolish them_."[189] This
is correct, worthy of its author, and of Massachusetts. It points
directly to Massachusetts as inexcusable for not doing her best to
restrain and abolish slavery everywhere within the reach of her
laws or her influence.

[189] Works, Vol. I. p. 45.

Certainly, to labor in this cause is far higher and nobler than to
strive for _repeal of the Tariff_, once the tocsin to rally the
Whigs. REPEAL OF SLAVERY UNDER THE CONSTITUTION AND LAWS OF THE
NATIONAL GOVERNMENT is a watchword more Christian and more potent,
because it embodies a higher sentiment and a more commanding duty.

The time has passed when this can be opposed on constitutional
grounds. It will not be questioned by any competent authority, that
Congress may, by express legislation, abolish slavery: first, in
the District of Columbia; secondly, in the Territories, if there
should be any; thirdly, that it may abolish the slave-trade on the
high seas between the States; fourthly, that it may refuse to admit
new States with a constitution sanctioning slavery. Nor can it be
questioned that the people of the United States may, in the manner
pointed out by the Constitution, proceed to its amendment. It is,
then, by constitutional legislation, and even by amendment of the
Constitution, that slavery may be reached.

Here the question arises, Is there any _compromise_ in the
Constitution of such a character as to prevent action? This word
is invoked by many honest minds as the excuse for not joining in
this cause. Let me meet this question frankly and fairly. The
Constitution, it is said, was the result of compromise between the
Free States and the Slave States, which good faith will not allow
us to break. To this it may be replied, that the Slave States, by
their many violations of the Constitution, have already overturned
all the original compromises, if any there were of perpetual
character. But I do not content myself with this answer. I wish
to say, distinctly, that there is no compromise on slavery not to
be reached _legally and constitutionally_, which is the only way
in which I propose to reach it. Wherever powers and jurisdiction
are secured to Congress, they may unquestionably be exercised in
conformity with the Constitution; even in matters beyond existing
powers and jurisdiction there is a constitutional method of action.
The Constitution contains an article pointing out how, at any time,
amendments may be made. This is an important element, giving to
the Constitution a _progressive_ character, and allowing it to be
moulded according to new exigencies and conditions of feeling.
The wise framers of this instrument did not treat the country as a
Chinese foot,--never to grow after its infancy,--but anticipated
the changes incident to its advance. "_Provided_, that no amendment
which may be made prior to the year one thousand eight hundred
and eight shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses
in the ninth section of the first article, and that no State,
without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the
Senate." These are the words of the Constitution. They expressly
designate what shall be sacred from amendment,--what compromise
shall be perpetual,--and so doing, according to a familiar rule
of law and of logic, virtually declare that the remainder of the
Constitution may be amended. Already, since its adoption, twelve
amendments have been made, and every year produces new projects.
There has been a pressure on the floor of Congress to abrogate the
veto, and also to limit the tenure of the Presidential office.
Let it be distinctly understood, then,--and this is my answer to
the pretension of binding compromise,--that, in conferring upon
Congress certain specified powers and jurisdiction, and also in
providing for the amendment of the Constitution, its framers
expressly established the means for setting aside what are vaguely
called compromises of the Constitution. They openly declare,
"Legislate as you please, in conformity with the Constitution;
and even make amendments rendered proper by change of opinion or
circumstances, following always the manner prescribed."

Nor can we dishonor the revered authors of the Constitution by
supposing that they set their hands to it, believing that under
it slavery was to be _perpetual_,--that the Republic, which they
had reared to its giant stature, snatched from heaven the sacred
fire of Freedom, only to be bound, like another Prometheus, in
adamantine chains of Fate, while Slavery, like another vulture,
preyed upon its vitals. Let Franklin speak for them. He was
President of the earliest Abolition Society in the United States,
and in 1790, only two years after the adoption of the Constitution,
addressed a petition to Congress, calling upon them to "step to
the very verge of the power vested in them for discouraging every
species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men."[190] Let
Jefferson speak for them. His desire for the abolition of slavery
was often expressed with philanthropic warmth and emphasis, and is
too familiar to be quoted. Let Washington speak for them. "It is
among my first wishes," he said, in a letter to John F. Mercer,
"to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country _may
be abolished by law_."[191] And in his will, penned with his own
hand, during the last year of his life, he bore his testimony
again, by providing for the emancipation of all his slaves. It is
thus that Washington speaks, not only by words, but by actions
more significant "Give freedom to your slaves." The Father of his
Country requires, as a token of the filial piety which all profess,
that his example shall be followed. I am not insensible to the many
glories of his character; but I cannot contemplate this act without
a fresh feeling of admiration and gratitude. The martial scene
depicted on that votive canvas may fade from the memory of men; but
this act of justice and benevolence can never perish.

"Ergo postque magisque viri nunc gloria claret."

[190] Annals of Congress, First Congress, Second Session, col. 1198.

[191] Sparks's Writings of Washington, Vol. IX. p. 159, note.

I assume, then, that it is the duty of Whigs professing the
principles of the fathers to express themselves openly,
distinctly, and solemnly against slavery,--_not only against its
further extension, but against its longer continuance under the
Constitution and Laws of the Union_. But while it is their duty
to enter upon this holy warfare, it should be their aim to temper
it with moderation, with gentleness, with tenderness, towards
slave-owners. These should be won, if possible, rather than driven,
to the duties of emancipation. But emancipation should always be
presented as the cardinal object of our national policy.

It is for the Whigs of Massachusetts now to say whether the
republican edifice shall indeed be one where all the Christian
virtues will be fellow-workers with them. The resolutions which
they adopt, the platform of principles which they establish, must
be the imperishable foundation of a true glory.

But it will not be sufficient to pass _resolutions_ opposing
slavery; we must choose _men_ who will devote themselves earnestly,
heartily, to the work,--who will enter upon it with awakened
conscience, and with that valiant faith before which all obstacles
disappear,--who will be ever loyal to Truth, Freedom, Right,
Humanity,--who will not look for rules of conduct down to earth,
in the mire of expediency, but with heaven-directed countenance
seek those great "primal duties" which "shine aloft like stars,"
to illumine alike the path of individuals and of nations. They
must be true to the principles of Massachusetts. They must not
be Northern men with Southern principles, nor Northern men under
Southern influences. They must be courageous and willing on all
occasions to stand alone, provided Right be with them. "Were there
as many devils in Worms as there are tiles upon the roofs," said
Martin Luther, "yet would I enter." Such a spirit is needed now
by the advocates of Right. They must not be ashamed of the name
which belongs to Franklin, Jefferson, and Washington,--expressing
the idea which should be theirs,--Abolitionist. They must be
thorough, uncompromising advocates of the repeal of slavery,--of
its abolition under the laws and Constitution of the United States.
They must be Repealers, Abolitionists.

There are a few such now in Congress. Massachusetts has a
venerable Representative,[192] whose aged bosom still glows with
inextinguishable fires, like the central heats of the monarch
mountain of the Andes beneath its canopy of snow. To this cause
he dedicates the closing energies of a long and illustrious life.
Would that all might join him!

[192] John Quincy Adams.

There is a Senator of Massachusetts we had hoped to welcome here
to-day, whose position is of commanding influence. Let me address
him with the respectful frankness of a constituent and friend.
Already, Sir, by various labors, you have acquired an honorable
place in the history of our country. By the vigor, argumentation,
and eloquence with which you upheld the Union, and that
interpretation of the Constitution which makes us a Nation, you
have justly earned the title of _Defender of the Constitution_. By
masterly and successful negotiation, and by efforts to compose the
strife concerning Oregon, you have earned another title,--_Defender
of Peace_. Pardon me, if I add, that there are yet other duties
claiming your care, whose performance will be the crown of a long
life in the public service. Do not forget them. Dedicate, Sir, the
years happily in store for you, with all that precious experience
which is yours, to grand endeavor, in the name of Human Freedom,
for the overthrow of that terrible evil which now afflicts our
country. In this cause are inspirations to eloquence higher than
any you have yet confessed.

"To heavenly themes sublimer strains belong."

Do not shrink from the task. With the marvellous powers that are
yours, under the auspicious influences of an awakened public
sentiment, and under God, who smiles always upon conscientious
labor for the welfare of man, we may hope for beneficent results.
Assume, then, these unperformed duties. The aged shall bear witness
to you; the young shall kindle with rapture, as they repeat the
name of Webster; the large company of the ransomed shall teach
their children and their children's children, to the latest
generation, to call you blessed; and you shall have yet another
title, never to be forgotten on earth or in heaven,--_Defender
of Humanity_,--by the side of which that earlier title will fade
into insignificance, as the Constitution, which is the work of
mortal hands, dwindles by the side of Man, created in the image of
God.[193]

[193] How Mr. Webster regarded this appeal will be seen in a letter
from him at the end of the Speech.

To my mind it is clear that the time has arrived when the Whigs
of Massachusetts, the party of Freedom, owe it to their declared
principles, to their character before the world, and to conscience,
that they should place themselves firmly on this honest ground.
They need not fear to stand alone. They need not fear separation
from brethren with whom they have acted in concert. Better be
separated even from them than from the Right. Massachusetts can
stand alone, if need be. The Whigs of Massachusetts can stand
alone. Their motto should not be, "Our party, _howsoever bounded_,"
but "Our party, bounded always by the Right." They must recognize
the dominion of Right, or there will be none who will recognize
the dominion of the party. Let us, then, in Faneuil Hall, beneath
the images of our fathers, vow perpetual allegiance to the Right,
and perpetual hostility to Slavery. Ours is a noble cause, nobler
even than that of our fathers, inasmuch as it is more exalted to
struggle for the freedom of _others_ than for _our own_. The love
of Right, which is the animating impulse of our movement, is higher
even than the love of Freedom. But Right, Freedom, and Humanity all
concur in demanding the Abolition of Slavery.

LETTER OF MR. WEBSTER TO MR. SUMNER.

MARSHFIELD, October 5, 1846.

MY DEAR SIR,--I had the pleasure to receive yours of September
25th, and thank you for the kind and friendly sentiments which you
express. These sentiments are reciprocal. I have ever cherished
high respect for your character and talents, and seen with pleasure
the promise of your future and greater eminence and usefulness.

In political affairs we happen to entertain, at the present moment,
a difference of opinion respecting the relative importance of some
of the political questions of the time, and take a different view
of the line of duty most fit to be pursued in endeavors to obtain
all the good which can be obtained in connection with certain
important subjects. These differences I much regret, but shall not
allow them to interfere with personal regard, or my continued good
wishes for your prosperity and happiness.

Yours truly,
DANIEL WEBSTER.

MR. SUMNER.

WRONGFUL DECLARATION OF WAR AGAINST MEXICO.

LETTER TO HON. ROBERT C. WINTHROP, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
BOSTON, OCTOBER 25, 1846.

Sir,--Newspapers, and some among your friends, complain of the
manner in which many of your constituents are obliged to regard
your vote on the Mexican War Bill. This vote is defended with an
ardor such as even Truth, Freedom, and Right do not always find in
their behalf,--while honest strictures are attributed to personal
motives, sometimes to a selfish desire for the place you now hold,
sometimes even to a wanton purpose to injure you.

All this may be the natural and inevitable incident of political
controversy; but it must be regretted that personal feelings
and imputations of personal selfishness should intrude into the
discussion of an important question of public duty,--I might say,
of public morals. As a Whig, never failing to vote for you when I
had an opportunity, I have felt it proper on other occasions to
review your course, and to express the sorrow it caused. For this
I am arraigned; and the question of public morals is forgotten
in personal feeling. This is my excuse for recalling attention
now to the true issue. Conscious of no feeling to yourself
personally, except of good-will, mingled with the recollection
of pleasant social intercourse, I refer with pain to your vote,
and the apologies for it which have been set up. As one of your
constituents, I single you, who are the representative of Boston,
among the majority with whom you acted. I am not a politician;
and you will pardon me, therefore, if I do not bring your conduct
to any test of party or of numbers, to any sliding scale of
expediency, to any standard except the rule of Right and Wrong.

To understand your course, it will be necessary to consider the
action of Congress in declaring war against Mexico. I shall state
the facts and conclusions briefly as possible.

By virtue of an unconstitutional Act of Congress, in conjunction
with the _de facto_ government of Texas, the latter was annexed
to the United States some time in the month of December, 1845.
If we regard Texas as a province of Mexico, its boundaries must
be sought in the geography of that republic. If we regard it as
an independent State, they must be determined by the extent of
jurisdiction which the State was able to maintain. Now it seems
clear that the river Nueces was always recognized by Mexico as
the western boundary; and it is undisputed that the State of
Texas, since its Declaration of Independence, never exercised any
jurisdiction beyond the Nueces. The Act of Annexation could not,
therefore, transfer to the United States any title to the region
between the Nueces and the Rio Grande. That region belonged to
Mexico. _Certainly_ it did not belong to the United States.

In the month of January, 1846, the President of the United States
directed the troops under General Taylor, called the Army of
Occupation, to take possession of this region. Here was an act of
aggression. As might have been expected, it produced collision.
The Mexicans, aroused in self-defence, sought to repel the invaders
from their hearths and churches. Unexpected tidings reached
Washington that the American forces were in danger. The President,
in a message to Congress, called for succors.

Here the question occurs, What was the duty of Congress in this
emergency? Clearly to withhold all sanction to unjust war,--to
aggression upon a neighboring Republic,--to spoliation of
fellow-men. Our troops were in danger only because upon foreign
soil, forcibly displacing the jurisdiction and laws of the rightful
government. In this condition of things, the way of safety, just
and honorable, was by instant withdrawal from the Rio Grande to the
Nueces. Congress should have spoken like Washington, when General
Braddock, staggered by the peril of the moment, asked the youthful
soldier, "What shall I do, Colonel Washington?" "RETREAT, Sir!
RETREAT, Sir!" was the earnest reply. The American forces should
have been directed to _retreat_,--not from any human force, but
from _wrong-doing_; and this would have been a true victory.

Alas! this was not the mood of Congress. With wicked speed a
bill was introduced, furnishing large and unusual supplies of
men and money. In any just sense, such provision was wasteful
and unnecessary; but it would hardly be worthy of criticism, if
confined in its object to the safety of the troops. When made,
it must have been known that the fate of the troops was already
decided, while the magnitude of the appropriations and the number
of volunteers called for showed that measures were contemplated
_beyond self-defence_. Self-defence is easy and cheap. Aggression
and injustice are difficult and costly.

The bill, in its earliest guise, provided money and volunteers
only. Suddenly an amendment is introduced, in the nature of a
preamble, which gives to it _another character_, in harmony with
the covert design of the large appropriation. This was adopted by
a vote of 123 to 67; and the bill then leaped forth, fully armed,
as a measure of open and active hostility against Mexico. As such,
it was passed by a vote of 174 to 14. This was on the 11th of May,
1846, destined to be among the dark days of our history.

The amendment, in the nature of a preamble, and the important part
of the bill, are as follows.

"_Whereas, by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists
between that Government and the United States,_--

"Be it enacted, &c., _That, for the purpose of enabling the Government
of the United States to prosecute said war to a speedy and successful
termination_, the President be, and he is hereby, authorized to employ
the militia, naval, and military forces of the United States, and to
call for and accept the services of any number of volunteers, not
exceeding fifty thousand, and that the sum of ten millions of dollars
be, and the same is hereby, appropriated for the purpose."

This Act cannot be regarded merely as provision for the safety of
General Taylor; nor, indeed can this be considered the principal
end proposed. It has other and ulterior objects, broader and more
general, in view of which his safety, important as it might be, is
of comparative insignificance; as it would be less mournful to lose
a whole army than lend the solemn sanction of legislation to an
unjust war.

This Act may be considered in six different aspects. It is six
times wrong. Six different and unanswerable reasons should have
urged its rejection. Six different appeals should have touched
every heart. I shall consider them separately.

_First._ It is practically a DECLARATION OF WAR against a sister
Republic. By the Constitution of the United States, the power of
declaring war is vested in Congress. Before this Act was passed,
the Mexican War had no legislative sanction. Without this Act it
could have no legislative sanction. _By virtue of this Act_ the
present war is waged. _By virtue of this Act_, an American fleet,
at immense cost of money, and without any gain of character, is
now disturbing the commerce of Mexico, and of the civilized world,
by the blockade of Vera Cruz. _By virtue of this Act_, a distant
expedition, with pilfering rapacity, has seized the defenceless
province of California. _By virtue of this Act_ General Kearney has
marched upon and captured Santa Fe. _By virtue of this Act_ General
Taylor has perpetrated the massacre at Monterey. _By virtue of this
Act_ desolation has been carried into a thousand homes, while the
uncoffined bodies of sons, brothers, and husbands are consigned
to premature graves. Lastly, it is _by virtue of this Act_ that
the army of the United States has been converted into a _legalized
band_ of brigands, marauders, and banditti, against the sanctions
of civilization, justice, and humanity. American soldiers, who have
fallen wretchedly in the streets of a foreign city, in the attack
upon a _Bishop's_ palace, in contest with Christian fellow-men
defending firesides and altars, may claim the epitaph of Simonides:
"Go, tell the Lacedæmonians that we lie here in obedience to their
commands." It was in obedience to this Act of Congress that they
laid down their lives.

_Secondly._ This Act gives the sanction of Congress to an _unjust_
war. War is barbarous and brutal; but this is unjust. It grows
out of aggression on our part, and is continued by aggression. The
statement of facts already made is sufficient on this head.

_Thirdly._ It declares that war exists "_by the act of the Republic
of Mexico_." This statement of brazen falsehood is inserted in the
front of the Act. But it is now admitted by most, if not all, of
the Whigs who unhappily voted for it, that it is not founded in
fact. It is a national lie.

"Whose tongue soe'er speaks false
Not truly speaks; _who speaks not truly_ LIES."

_Fourthly._ It provides for the prosecution of the war "_to a
speedy and successful termination_,"--that is, for the speedy and
successful prosecution of _unjust_ war. Surely no rule can be
better founded in morals than that we should seek the establishment
of _right_. How, then, can we strive to hasten the triumph of wrong?

_Fifthly._ The war has its origin in a series of measures to extend
and perpetuate slavery. A wise and humane legislator should have
discerned its source, and found fresh impulses to oppose it.

_Sixthly._ The war is dishonorable and cowardly, as the attack of
a rich, powerful, numerous, and united republic upon a weak and
defenceless neighbor, distracted by civil feud. Every consideration
of honor, manliness, and Christian duty prompted gentleness and
forbearance towards our unfortunate sister.

Such, Sir, is the Act of Congress which received your sanction.
Hardly does it yield in importance to any measure of our Government
since the adoption of the National Constitution. It is the most
wicked in our history, as it is one of the most wicked in all
history. The recording Muse will drop a tear over its turpitude
and injustice, while it is gibbeted for the disgust and
reprobation of mankind.

Such, Sir, is the Act of Congress to which by your affirmative vote
the people of Boston are made parties. Through _you_ they are made
to _declare unjust and cowardly war, with superadded falsehood, in
the cause of Slavery_. Through _you_ they are made partakers in
the blockade of Vera Cruz, the seizure of California, the capture
of Santa Fe, the bloodshed of Monterey. It were idle to suppose
that the soldier or officer only is stained by this guilt. It
reaches far back, and incarnadines the Halls of Congress; nay,
more, through you, it reddens the hands of your constituents in
Boston. Pardon this language. Strong as it may seem, it is weak to
express the aggravation of this Act. Rather than lend your hand to
this wickedness, you should have suffered the army of the United
States to pass submissively through the Caudine Forks of Mexican
power,--to perish, it might be, like the legions of Varus. Their
bleached bones, in the distant valleys where they were waging
unjust war, would not tell to posterity such a tale of ignominy as
this lying Act of Congress.

Passing from the character and consequences of your vote, I proceed
to examine the grounds on which it is vindicated: for it is
vindicated, by yourself, and by some of your friends!

The first vindication, apology, or extenuation appears in your
speech on the Tariff, delivered in the House of Representatives,
June 25th. This was a deliberate effort, more than six weeks
subsequent to the vote, and after all the disturbing influences of
haste and surprise had passed. It may be considered, therefore,
to express your own view of the ground on which it is to be
sustained. And here, while you declare, with commendable
frankness, that you "would by no means be understood to vindicate
the justice" (why not say the _truth_?) "of the declaration
that war exists by the act of Mexico," yet you adhere to your
vote, and animadvert upon the conduct of Mexico, in refusing to
receive a minister instead of a commissioner, as if that were a
vindication, apology, or extenuation! Do we live in a Christian
land? Is this the nineteenth century? Does an American statesman
venture any such suggestion in vindication, apology, or extenuation
of war? On this point I join issue. By the Law of Nations as
now enlightened by civilization, by the law of common sense, by
the higher law of Christian duty, the fact presented in your
vindication can form no ground of war. This attempt has given pain
to many of your constituents hardly less than the original vote.
It shows insensibility to the true character of war, and perverse
adherence to the fatal act of wrong. It were possible to suppose a
representative, not over-tenacious of moral purpose, shaken from
his firm resolve by the ardors of a tyrannical majority ordaining
wicked things; but it is less easy to imagine a deliberate
vindication of the hasty wrong, when the pressure of the majority
is removed, and time affords opportunity for the recovery of that
sense of Right which was for a while overturned.

Another apology, in which you and your defenders participate, is
founded on the alleged duty of voting succors to our troops, and
the impossibility of doing this without voting also for the bill,
after it was converted into a Declaration of Falsehood and of War.
It is said that patriotism required this vote. Is not that name
profaned by this apology? One of your honored predecessors, Sir,
a Representative of Boston on the floor of Congress, Mr. Quincy,
replied to such apology, when, on an occasion of trial not unlike
that through which you have just passed, he gave utterance to these
noble words:--

"But it is said that this resolution must be taken as 'a test of
Patriotism.' To this I have but one answer. If Patriotism ask me
to assert a falsehood, I have no hesitation in telling Patriotism,
'I am not prepared to make that sacrifice.' The duty we owe to our
country is, indeed, among the most solemn and impressive of all
obligations; yet, high as it may be, it is nevertheless subordinate
to that which we owe to that Being with whose name and character
_truth_ is identified. In this respect I deem myself acting upon
this resolution under a higher responsibility than either to this
House or to this people."[194]

[194] Speech on the Resolution concerning the Conduct of the British Minister, Dec. 28, 1809: Annals of Congress, Eleventh Congress, Second Session, col. 958.

These words were worthy of Boston. May her Representatives never
more fail to feel their inspiration! "But," say the too swift
defenders, "Mr. Winthrop voted against the falsehood _once_."
Certainly no reason for not voting against it _always_. But the
excuse is still pressed, "Succors to General Taylor should have
been voted." The result shows that even these were unnecessary.
Before the passage of this disastrous Act of Congress, his troops
had already achieved a success to which may be applied the words of
Milton:--

"That _dishonest_ victory
At Chæronea, _fatal to liberty_."