Chapter XII: Part 12

But it would have been less wrong to leave him without succors,
even if needful to his safety, than to vote falsehood and unjust
war. In seeing that the republic received no detriment, you should
not have regarded the army only; _your highest care should have
been that its good name, its moral and Christian character,
received no detriment_. You might have said, in the spirit of
virtuous Andrew Fletcher, that "you would lose your life to
_serve_ your country, but would not do a base thing to _save_
it." You might have adopted the words of Sheridan, in the British
Parliament, during our Revolution, that you "could not assent to
a vote that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the
war."[195]

[195] Speech, Nov. 27, 1780: Hansard, Parl. Hist., XXI. 905.

Another apology is, that the _majority_ of the Whig party joined
with you,--or, as it has been expressed, that "Mr. Winthrop voted
with all the rest of the weight of moral character in Congress,
from the Free States, belonging to the Whig party, _not included
in the Massachusetts delegation_"; and suggestions are made in
disparagement of the _fourteen_ who remained unshaken in loyalty
to Truth and Peace. In the question of Right or Wrong, it is of
little importance that a few fallible men, constituting what
is called a majority, are all of one mind. Supple or insane
majorities are found in every age to sanction injustice. It was
a majority which passed the Stamp Act and Tea Tax,--which smiled
upon the persecution of Galileo,--which stood about the stake of
Servetus,--which administered the hemlock to Socrates,--which
called for the crucifixion of our Lord. These majorities cannot
make us hesitate to condemn such acts and their authors. Aloft on
the throne of God, and not below in the footprints of a trampling
multitude, are the sacred rules of Right, which no majorities can
displace or overturn. And the question recurs, Was it _right_ to
declare unjust and cowardly war, with superadded falsehood, in the
cause of Slavery?

Thus do I set forth the character of your act, and the apologies
by which it is shielded. I hoped that you would see the wrong, and
with true magnanimity repair it. I hoped that your friends would
all join in assisting you to recover the attitude of uprightness
which becomes a Representative from Boston. But I am disappointed.

I add, that your course in other respects has been in disagreeable
harmony with the vote on the Mexican War Bill. I cannot forget--for
I sat by your side at the time--that on the Fourth of July, 1845,
in Faneuil Hall, you extended the hand of fellowship to Texas,
although this slaveholding community was not yet received among the
States of the Union. I cannot forget the toast,[196] on the same
occasion, by which you were willing to connect your name with an
epigram of dishonest patriotism. I cannot forget your apathy at a
later day, when many of your constituents engaged in constitutional
efforts to oppose the admission of Texas _with a slaveholding
constitution_,--so strangely inconsistent with your recent avowal
of "uncompromising hostility to all measures for introducing new
Slave States and new Slave Territories into our Union."[197] Nor
can I forget the ardor with which you devoted yourself to the less
important question of the Tariff,--indicating the relative value of
the two in your mind. The vote on the Mexican War Bill seems to be
the dark consummation of your course.

[196] "Our country,--however bounded, still our country, to be defended
by all our hands."

[197] Speech at the Whig Convention in Faneuil Hall, Sept. 23, 1846.

Pardon me, if I ask you, on resuming your seat in Congress, to
testify _at once_, without hesitation or delay, against the further
prosecution of this war. Forget for a while Sub-Treasury, Veto,
even Tariff, and remember this wicked war. With the eloquence
which you command so easily, and which is your pride, call for the
instant cessation of hostilities. Let your cry be that of Falkland
in the Civil Wars: "Peace! Peace!" Think not of what you call
in your speeches "an _honorable_ peace." There can be no peace
with Mexico which will not be more honorable than this war. Every
fresh victory is a fresh dishonor. "Unquestionably," you have
strangely said, "we are not to forget that Mexico must be willing
to negotiate."[198] No! no! Mr. Winthrop! We are not to wait for
Mexico. Her consent is not needed; nor is it to be asked, while our
armies are defiling her soil by their aggressive footsteps. She
is _passive_. We alone are _active_. Stop the war. Withdraw our
forces. In the words of Colonel Washington, RETREAT! RETREAT! So
doing, we shall cease from further wrong, and peace will ensue.

[198] Speech at the Whig Convention, Sept. 23, 1846.

Let me ask you to remember in your public course the rules of Right
which you obey in private life. The principles of morals are the
same for nations as for individuals. Pardon me, if I suggest that
you have not acted invariably according to this truth. You would
not in your private capacity set your name to a falsehood; but you
have done so as Representative in Congress. You would not in your
private capacity countenance wrong, even in friend or child; but
as Representative you have pledged yourself "not to withhold your
vote from any reasonable supplies which may be called for"[199]
in the prosecution of a wicked war. Do by your country as by
friend or child. To neither of these would you furnish means of
offence against a neighbor; do not furnish to your country any such
means. Again, you would not hold slaves. I doubt not you would
join with Mr. Palfrey in emancipating any who should become yours
by inheritance or otherwise. But I do not hear of your effort or
sympathy with those who seek to carry into our institutions that
practical conscience which declares it to be as wrong in States as
in individuals to sanction slavery.

[199] Speech on the Tariff, June 25, 1846: Congressional Globe,
Twenty-ninth Congress, First Session, p. 970.

Let me ask you still further--and you will know if there is reason
for this request--to bear testimony against the Mexican War, and
all supplies for its prosecution, regardless of the minority in
which you are placed. Think, Sir, of the cause, and not of your
associates. Forget for a while the tactics of party, and all its
subtle combinations. Emancipate yourself from its close-woven web,
spun as from a spider's belly, and move in the pathway of Right.
Remember that you represent the conscience of Boston, the churches
of the Puritans, the city of Channing.

Meanwhile a fresh election is at hand, and you are again a
candidate for the suffrages of your fellow-citizens. I shall
not anticipate their verdict. Your blameless private life and
well-known attainments will receive the approbation of all; but
more than one of your neighbors will be obliged to say,--

"Cassio, I love thee,
But nevermore be officer of mine!"

I am, Sir, your obedient servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

OCTOBER 26, 1846.

REFUSAL TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS.

NOTICE IN THE BOSTON PAPERS, OCTOBER 31, 1846.

After the appearance of Mr. Sumner's letter to Mr. Winthrop, there
was a disposition with certain persons feeling strongly on Slavery
and the Mexican War to seek a candidate against the latter. Mr.
Sumner again and again refused to accept a nomination. Besides
his constant unwillingness to enter into public life, he would
not consent that his criticism of Mr. Winthrop should be weakened
by the imputation of an unworthy desire for his place. In his
absence from Boston, lecturing before Lyceums in Maine, a meeting
of citizens was convened at the Tremont Temple on the evening
of October 29, 1846, to make what was called an "independent
nomination for Congress." The meeting was called to order by Dr.
S.G. Howe, and organized by the choice of the following officers:
Hon. Charles F. Adams, President,--J.P. Blanchard, Samuel May,
George Merrill, Dr. Walter Channing, Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, and R.
I. Attwill, Vice-Presidents,--Charles G. Davis and J.H. Frevert,
Secretaries. A committee was appointed to draft resolutions and
nominate a candidate. This committee, by its chairman, John A.
Andrew, afterwards Governor of Massachusetts, reported an elaborate
series of resolutions, setting forth reasons for a separate
nomination, and concluding with a resolution in the following terms.

* * * * *

"_Resolved_, That we recommend to the citizens of this District
as a candidate for Representative in the National Congress a man
raised by his pure character above reproach, whose firmness,
intelligence, distinguished ability, rational patriotism, manly
independence, and glowing love of liberty and truth entitle him to
the unbought confidence of his fellow-citizens,--CHARLES SUMNER, of
Boston,--fitted to adorn any station, always found on the side of
the Right, and especially worthy at the present crisis to represent
the interests of the city and the cardinal principles of Truth,
Justice, Liberty, and Peace, which have not yet died out from the
hearts of her citizens."

* * * * *

Mr. Andrew followed the reading of the resolutions with a speech,
in which he vindicated the position of Mr. Sumner as follows.

"Mr. President, I shall have done no adequate justice to the views
of the committee, to this meeting, to the distinguished friend of
Peace and Liberty to whose nomination this crowded assembly has
with such gratifying and enthusiastic heartiness so unequivocally
responded, nor, indeed, to my own feelings, until I shall have made
a single statement of fact in regard to the attitude of Mr. Sumner
himself towards the act we have just felt it our duty to perform.

"This nomination, grateful as it may be to his feelings, considered
as an evidence of personal attachment and respect on the part of
so many of his friends and fellow-citizens, will find him wholly
unprepared for its reception; more than that, as I myself do know,
he will hear of it with surprise and regret. Though I am unaware
that any member of the committee, other than myself, has had any
immediate personal knowledge of the views likely to be entertained
by him in this regard, I say, what no living man can truly dispute
or honestly question, that this nomination has been made upon the
entire responsibility and sense of duty of this committee,--not
only without the knowledge, approbation, or consent of Mr. Sumner,
but in the face of his constant, repeated, and determined refusal,
at all times, to allow his name, even for a moment, to be held at
the disposal of friends for such a purpose.

"A delicate and sensitive appreciation of his attitude, as one of
the earliest, strongest, and most open of those opposed to the
dealings of our present member of Congress with the matter of the
Mexican War, determined Mr. Sumner, although looked to by--may I
not say every individual who sympathizes in this present movement
of opposition, as the man to bear our standard on the field of
controversy?--determined him to resist every effort to draw him
forth from the humblest station in our ranks.

"He would think, write, and speak as his own mind and heart were
moved; but he would do nothing, he would permit nothing to be done,
for himself, for his own personal promotion."

* * * * *

Mr. Andrew then proceeded to mention what induced the committee to
disregard Mr. Sumner's known wishes.

The resolutions were adopted unanimously. A committee of vigilance
was appointed. Mr. Sumner's letter to Mr. Winthrop, with the report
of this meeting, signed by the President and Secretaries, was
printed on a broad-side.

Meanwhile Mr. Sumner returned from Maine, when, on learning what
had passed, he at once withdrew his name in the following notice.

Late last evening, on my return from Bangor, where I had been in pursuance of an engagement made last August, I was surprised to find myself nominated as candidate for Congress.

I have never on any occasion sought or desired public office of any kind. I do not now. My tastes are alien to official life; and I have long been accustomed to look to other fields of usefulness.

My name has been brought forward, in my absence, without any knowledge or suspicion on my part of such a purpose, and contrary to express declarations, repeatedly made, that I would not, under any circumstances, consent to be a candidate.

Grateful for the kindness of friends who have thought me worthy of political confidence, and regretting much that it is not bestowed upon some one else, who would fitly represent the idea of opposition to the longer continuance of the unjust war with Mexico, I beg leave respectfully, but explicitly, to withdraw my name from the canvass.

CHARLES SUMNER.

SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31.

SLAVERY AND THE MEXICAN WAR.

SPEECH AT A PUBLIC MEETING IN THE TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON, NOVEMBER 5,
1846.

The sentiment against Slavery and the Mexican War found expression
in the independent nomination of Dr. S.G. Howe as Representative to
Congress. At a meeting of citizens to support this nomination, John
A. Andrew, Esq., was called to the chair. The following resolution
was reported from the District Committee by John S. Eldridge, Esq.

* * * * *

"_Resolved_, That in the determination of our candidate, Dr.
SAMUEL G. HOWE, 'to stand and be shot at,' we recognize the spirit
of a man distinguished by a life of service in various fields
of humanity; and, confidently trusting in the triumph of sound
principles, we heartily pledge ourselves to make, with untiring
zeal, every honorable effort to secure the election of a candidate
who has boldly identified himself with the cause of Truth, Peace,
Justice, the Liberties of the North, and the Rights of Man."

* * * * *

On this resolution Mr. Sumner made the speech given below. He was
followed by Hon. C.F. Adams, who reviewed the Anti-Slavery policy
pursued for several years by the Massachusetts Legislature, and the
obstacles they encountered.

At the election, which took place on Monday, November 9th, the vote
was as follows: Winthrop (Whig), 5,980; Howe (Anti-Slavery), 1,334;
Homer (Democrat), 1,688; Whiton (Independent), 331.

Mr. Chairman,--When, in the month of July, 1830, the people of Paris rose against the arbitrary ordinances of Charles the Tenth, and, after three days of bloody contest, succeeded in that Revolution which gave the dynasty of Orléans to the throne of France, Lafayette, votary of Liberty in two hemispheres, placing himself at the head of the movement, made his way on foot to the City Hall, through streets impassable to carriages, filled with barricades, and strewn with wrecks of war. Moving along with a thin attendance, he was unexpectedly joined by a gallant Bostonian, who, though young in life, was already eminent by seven years of disinterested service in the struggle for Grecian independence against the Turks, who had listened to the whizzing of bullets, and narrowly escaped the descending scimitar. Lafayette, considerate as brave, turned to his faithful friend, and said, "Do not join me; this is a danger for Frenchmen only; reserve yourself for your own country, where you will be needed." Our fellow-citizen heeded him not, but continued by his side, sharing his perils. That Bostonian was Dr. Howe. And now the words of Lafayette are verified. He is needed by his country. At the present crisis, in our Revolution of "Three Days," he comes forward to the post of danger.

I do not disguise the satisfaction I shall feel in voting for him, beyond even the gratification of personal friendship, because he is not a politician. His life is thickly studded with labors in the best of all causes, the good of man. He is the friend of the poor, the blind, the prisoner, the slave. Wherever there is suffering, there his friendship is manifest. Generosity, disinterestedness, self-sacrifice, and courage have been his inspiring sentiments, directed by rare sagacity and intelligence; and now, wherever Humanity is regarded, wherever bosoms beat responsive to philanthropic effort, his name is cherished. Such a character reflects lustre upon the place of his birth, far more than if he had excelled only in the strife of politics or the servitude of party.

He has qualities which especially commend him at this time. He is firm, ever true, honest, determined, a lover of the Right. With a courage that charms opposition, he would not fear to stand alone against a fervid majority. Knowing war by fearful familiarity, he is an earnest defender of peace. With a singular experience of life in other countries, he now brings the stores he has garnered up, and his noble spirit, to the service of his fellow-citizens.

But we are assembled to-night less to consider his praises--grateful as these would be to me, who claim him as friend--than to examine the principles now in issue. Not names, but principles, are now in issue. Proud as we may be of our candidate, we feel, and he too feels, that his principles on the grave questions now pending are his truest recommendation.

In examining these questions, I shall regard those only which are put in issue by the Whigs. It is with the Whigs that I have heretofore acted, and may hereafter act,--always confessing loyalty to principles above any party.

The Resolutions of the recent Whig State Convention present five different questions, with the opinions of the party thereupon. These are the Veto of the President, the Sub-Treasury, the Tariff, _Slavery_, and _the Mexican War_. Now, of these five questions, it will not be disguised that the last two are the most important. Slavery is a wrong which justice and humanity alike condemn. The Mexican War is an enormity born of Slavery. Viewed as a question of dollars and cents, it overshadows the others; while the blackness of its guilt compels them to the darkness of a total eclipse. Base in object, atrocious in beginning, immoral in all its influences, vainly prodigal of treasure and life; it is a war of infamy, which must blot the pages of our history. No success, no bravery, no victory can change its character. Vainly will our flag wave in triumph over twenty fields. Shame, and not glory, will attend our footsteps, while, in the spirit of a bully, we employ superior resources of wealth and numbers in carrying death and devastation to a poor, distracted, long afflicted sister republic. Without disparaging the other questions, every just and humane person will recognize Slavery and the Mexican War as paramount to all else,--so much so, that whoever is wrong on these must be so entirely wrong as not to deserve the votes of Massachusetts men.

The Whig Convention has furnished a rule or measure of opinion. It has expressly pledged the Whigs "to promote all constitutional measures for the overthrow of Slavery, and to oppose at all times, with uncompromising zeal and firmness, any further addition of slaveholding States to this Union, out of whatever territory formed." The Mexican War it has denounced as having its origin in _an invasion of Mexico by our troops_.

Now on these subjects Dr. Howe's opinions are clear and explicit. He is an earnest, hearty, conscientious opponent of Slavery, and in his speech at your former meeting he denounced the injustice of the Mexican War, and, as a natural consequence, demanded the instant _retreat_ of General Taylor's troops to the Nueces.

And this brings me to Mr. Winthrop. Here let me carefully disclaim any sentiment except of kindness towards him as a citizen. It is of Mr. Winthrop the politician that I speak, and not of Mr. Winthrop the honorable gentleman.

And, _first_, what may we expect from him against _Slavery_? Will he promote all constitutional measures for its overthrow? Clearly one of these is the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. This is within the constitutional powers of Congress, and has been called for expressly by our State. It has sometimes occurred to me that Slavery in our country is like the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream, whose feet of clay are in the District of Columbia, where they may be shivered by Congressional legislation, directed by an enlightened Northern sentiment, so that the whole image shall tumble to the earth. Other measures against Slavery are sanctioned by the Massachusetts Whigs, and by the Legislature of our State, in formal resolutions, duly transmitted to Washington. I have never heard of Mr. Winthrop's voice for any of these,--nor, judging by the past, have I any reason to believe that he will support them earnestly. On these important points he fails, if tried by Whig standards.

Will he oppose, at all times, without compromise, any further addition of slaveholding States? Here again, if we judge him by the past, he is wanting. None can forget that in 1845, on the Fourth of July, a day ever sacred to memories of Freedom, in a speech at Faneuil Hall, he volunteered, in advance of any other Northern Whig, to receive Texas with a welcome into the family of States, although on that very day she was preparing a Constitution placing Slavery beyond the reach of legislative change.

The conclusion is irresistible, that Mr. Winthrop cannot fitly represent the feeling palpitating in Massachusetts bosoms, and so often expressed by our Legislature, with regard to Slavery.

What may we expect from him as to the _Mexican War_? This brings me to a melancholy inquiry, on which I am the less disposed to dwell because it has already been so fully considered. Will he ascend to the heights of a true civilization, and, while branding the war as unjust, call at once for its cessation, and the withdrawal of our forces? There is no reason to believe that he will. He voted for the Act of Congress under which it is now waged, and by that disastrous vote made his constituents partakers in a wicked and bloody war. At a later day, in an elaborate speech,[200] he vindicated his action, and promised "not to withhold his vote from any reasonable supplies which may be called for" in the prosecution of the war,--adding, that he should vote for them "to enable the President to achieve that _honorable peace_ which he has solemnly promised to bring about at the earliest possible moment" _by the sword_. And, pray, what is Mr. Winthrop's idea of an "honorable peace"? Is it peace imposed upon a weak neighbor by brute force, the successful consummation of unrighteous war? Is it the triumph of wrong? Is it the Saturnalia of Slavery? Is it the fruit of sin? Is it a baptism of blood unjustly shed? In the same speech, with grievous insensibility to the sordid character of the suggestion, he pleads for the maintenance of the old Tariff, as necessary to meet "the exigencies" of the Mexican War. "In a time of war, like the present, more especially," he says, "_an ample revenue should be the primary aim and end of all our custom-house duties_." Perish manufactures, let me rather say, if the duties by which they seem to be protected are swollen to feed "the exigencies" of unjust war! Afterwards, at Faneuil Hall, before the Whig Convention, he shows a similar insensibility. Nowhere does he sound the word _Duty_. Nowhere does he tell his country to begin by doing right. Nowhere does he give assurance of aid by calling for the instant stay of the war.

[200] Speech on the Tariff, June 25, 1846.

There are those who, admitting that his vote was a mistake, say that we are not to judge him on this account. Can we afford to send a representative who can make such a mistake? But it is a mistake never by him acknowledged as such. It is still persisted in, and hugged. Among the last words of warning from the lips of Chatham, as he fell at his post in the British Senate, almost his dying words, were "against co-operation with men who still persist in unretracted error."

In his vote for the Mexican War Mr. Winthrop was not a Whig. He then left the party: for surely the party is not where numbers prevail, but where its principles are recognized. The true Whigs are the valiant minority of _fourteen_. Once in Roman history, the vestal fire, the archives, the sacred volumes of the Republic, were in the custody of a single individual, in a humble vehicle, fleeing from the burning city. With him was the life of the Republic. So in that small minority was the life of the Whig party, with its principles and its sacred fire.

The true Whig ground, the only ground consistent with professed loyalty to the sentiment of duty, is uncompromising opposition to the war, wheresoever and howsoever opposition may be made. Expecting right from Mexico, we must begin by doing right. We are aggressors, and must cease to be so.

This is the proper course, having its foundations in immutable laws. Let me repeat, that our country must do as an individual in like circumstances. For, though politicians may disown it, there is but one rule for nations and for individuals. If any one of you, fellow-citizens, finding yourself in dispute with a neighbor, had unfortunately felled him to earth, but, with returning reason, discovered that you were wrong, what would you do? Of course, cease instantly from _wrong-doing_. You would help your neighbor to his feet, and with awakened benevolence soothe his wounded nature. Precisely so must our country do now. This can be only by the withdrawal of our forces. Peace would then follow. The very response sent to the Roman Senate by a province of Italy might be repeated by the Mexicans: "The Romans, having preferred _justice_ to _conquest_, have taught us to be satisfied with submission instead of liberty."

That I may not found these conclusions upon general principles only, I would invoke the example of English Whigs, Chatham, Camden, Burke, Fox, and Sheridan, in opposition to the war of our Revolution,--denouncing it at the outset as unjust, and ever, during its whole progress, declaring their condemnation of it,--voting against supplies for its prosecution, and against thanks for the military services by which it was waged. Holding their example as of the highest practical authority on the present question, and as particularly fit to be regarded by all professing to be Whigs in America, I make no apology for introducing the authentic evidence which places it beyond doubt. This is to be found in the volumes of the Parliamentary Debates. I am not aware that it has ever before been applied to the present discussion, although it is in every word especially applicable.

I begin with that famous instance where two officers--one the son of Lord Chatham, and the other the Earl of Effingham--flung up their commissions rather than fight against constitutional liberty as upheld by our fathers. In the case of the latter especially the sacrifice was great; for he was bred to arms, and enjoyed the service. From his place in the House of Lords, May 18, 1775, he vindicated his act in the following terms.

"Ever since I was of an age to have any ambition at all, my highest
has been to serve my country in a military capacity. If there was
on earth an event I dreaded, it was to see this country so situated
as to make that profession incompatible with my duty as a citizen.
That period is in my opinion arrived.... When the duties of a
soldier and a citizen become inconsistent, I shall always think
myself obliged to sink the character of the soldier in that of the
citizen, till such time as those duties shall again, by the malice
of our real enemies, become united."

These generous words found an echo at the time. A note in the Parliamentary History says, "The Twenty-second Regiment of Foot, in which he held a captain's commission, being ordered to America, he resolved, though not possessed of an ample patrimony, to resign a darling profession, and all hopes of advancement, rather than bear arms in a cause he did not approve"; and the record proceeds to say that "the cities of London and Dublin voted him their thanks for this conduct."[201] If a soldier could bear testimony against an unjust war, it was easy for others not under the constraint of martial prejudice to do so. The sequel shows how the example prevailed.

[201] Vol. XVIII., col. 688. See also Annual Register for 1776,
Vol. XIX. p. 42

First came the famous Duke of Grafton, who, in the House of Lords, on the Address of Thanks, October 26, 1775, after the Battles of Lexington and Bunker Hill, said:--

"I pledge myself to your Lordships and my country, that, if
necessity should require it, and my health not otherwise permit it,
I mean to come down to this House in a litter, in order to express
my full and hearty disapprobation of the measures now pursuing,
and, as I understand from the noble Lords in office, meant to be
pursued. I do protest to your Lordships, that, if my brother or
my dearest friend were to be affected by the vote I mean to give
this evening, I could not possibly resist the faithful discharge
of my conscience and my duty. Were I to lose my fortune and every
other thing I esteem, were I to be reduced to beggary itself, the
strong conviction and compulsion at once operating on my mind
and conscience would not permit me to take any other part on the
present occasion than that I now mean to adopt."

A protest at the close of this debate was signed by several peers, containing the following emphatic clause:--

"Because we cannot, as Englishmen, as Christians, or as men of
common humanity, consent to the prosecution of a cruel civil war,
so little supported by justice, and so very fatal in its necessary
consequences, as that which is now waging against our brethren and
fellow-subjects in America."

This was echoed in the House of Commons, where, on the same Address, Mr. Wilkes said:--

"I call the war with our brethren in America an unjust, felonious
war.... I assert that it is a murderous war, because it is an
effort to deprive men of their lives for standing up in the just
cause of the defence of their property and their clear rights.
It becomes no less a murderous war with respect to many of our
fellow-subjects of this island; for every man, either of the navy
or army, who has been sent by Government to America, and fallen a
victim in this unnatural and unjust contest, has in my opinion been
murdered by Administration, and his blood lies at their door. Such
a war, I fear, Sir, will draw down the vengeance of Heaven upon
this devoted kingdom."

Mr. Fox expressed himself as follows:--

"_He could not consent to the bloody consequences of so silly a
contest_ about so silly an object, conducted in the silliest manner
that history or observation had ever furnished an instance of, and
from which we were likely to derive nothing but poverty, misery,
disgrace, defeat, and ruin."

He was followed by the eminent lawyer, Serjeant Adair:--

"I am against the present war, because I think it unjust in its
commencement, injurious to both countries in its prosecution, and
ruinous in its event.... I think, from the bottom of my soul, that
the Colonies are engaged in a noble and glorious struggle.... Sir,
I could not be easy in my own mind without entering the strongest
and most public protestations against measures which appear to me
to be fraught with the destruction of this mighty empire. _I wash
my hands of the blood of my fellow-subjects_, and shall at least
have this satisfaction, amidst the impending calamities of the
public, not only to think that I have not contributed to, but that
I have done all in my power to oppose and avert, the ruin of my
country."

During another debate in the Lords, November 15, 1775, that strenuous friend of freedom and upholder of Whig principles, Lord Camden, declared himself thus:--

"Peace is still within our power; nay, we may command it. A
suspension of arms on our part, if adopted in time, will secure
it for us, and, I may add, on our own terms. _From which it is
plain, as we have been the original aggressors in this business,
if we obstinately persist, we are fairly answerable for all the
consequences._ I again repeat, what I often urged before, that I
was against this unnatural war from the beginning. I was equally
against every measure, from the instant the first tax was proposed
to this minute. When, therefore, it is insisted that we aim only
to defend and enforce our own rights, I positively deny it. I
contend that America has been driven by cruel necessity to defend
her rights from the united attacks of violence, oppression,
and injustice. I contend that America has been indisputably
aggrieved.... I must still think, and shall uniformly continue to
assert, that Great Britain was the aggressor, that most, if not
all, the acts were founded in oppression, and that, if I were an
American, I should resist to the last such manifest exertion of
tyranny, violence, and injustice."

On another occasion, in the Commons, December 8, 1775, Mr. Fox expressed himself thus sententiously:--

"I have always said that the war carrying on against the Americans
is unjust."

Again, in the Lords, March 5, 1776, the Earl of Effingham said:--

"I never can stand up in your Lordships' presence without throwing
in a few words on the justice of this unnatural war."

In the Commons, March 11, 1776, Colonel Barré, Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, all vied in eulogy of General Montgomery, the account of whose death before Quebec had arrived a few days before.

The same spirit was constantly manifest. In the Commons, April 24, 1776, in the debate on the Budget, embodying taxes to carry on the war against America, Mr. Fox laid down the constitutional rule of opposition to an unjust war.

"To the resolutions he should give his flat negative, and that
not because of any particular objections to the taxes proposed
(although there might be a sufficient ground for urging many),
_but because he could not conscientiously agree to grant any money
for so destructive, so ignoble a purpose as the carrying on a war
commenced unjustly, and supported with no other view than to the
extirpation of freedom_ and the violation of every social compact.
THIS HE CONCEIVED TO BE THE STRICT LINE OF CONDUCT TO BE OBSERVED
BY A MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT.... He then painted the quarrel with
America as unjust, and the pursuance of the war as blood-thirsty
and oppressive."

Colonel Barré followed, and adopted the phrase of Mr. Fox, "giving his flat negative to the resolutions, _as they were calculated to tax the subject for an unjust purpose_."

The Duke of Grafton, in the Lords, October 31, 1776, repeated the sentiments he had avowed at an earlier day.

"He pledged himself to the House, and to the public, that, while he
had a leg to stand on, he would come down day after day to express
the most marked abhorrence of the measures hitherto pursued, and
meant to be adhered to, in respect to America."

On the same night, in the Commons, Mr. Fox exclaimed:--

"The noble Lord who moved the amendment said that we were in the
dilemma of _conquering or abandoning America. If we are reduced to
that, I am for abandoning America._"

In the Commons, November 6, 1776, Mr. Burke likened England to a "cruel conqueror."

"You simply tell the Colonists to lay down their arms, and then
you will do just as you please. Could the most cruel conqueror say
less? Had you conquered the Devil himself in Hell, could you be
less liberal?"

Colonel Barré, in the Commons, February 10, 1777, insisted:--

"America must be reclaimed, _not conquered or subdued_.
Conciliation or concession are the only sure means of either
gaining or retaining America."

The Budget came up again in the Commons, May 14, 1777, when Mr. Burke spoke nobly:--

"He was, and ever would be, ready to support a just war, whether
against subjects or alien enemies; but where justice, or a color of
justice, was wanting, he should ever be the first to oppose it."

All these declarations were crowned by Lord Chatham's motion in the Lords, May 30, 1777, to put a stop to American hostilities, when he spoke so wisely and bravely.

"We have tried for unconditional submission: _try what can be
gained by unconditional redress_.... We are the aggressors. We have
invaded them. We have invaded them as much as the Spanish Armada
invaded England.... In the sportsman's phrase, when you have found
yourselves at fault, _you must try back_.... I shall no doubt
hear it objected, 'Why should we submit or concede? Has America
done anything, on her part, to induce us to agree to so large a
ground of concession?' I will tell you, my Lords, why I think
you should. _You have been the aggressors from the beginning....
If, then, we are the aggressors, it is your Lordships' business
to make the first overture._ I say again, this country has been
the aggressor. You have made descents upon their coasts; you have
burnt their towns, plundered their country, made war upon the
inhabitants, confiscated their property, proscribed and imprisoned
their persons. _I do therefore affirm, that, instead of exacting
unconditional submission from the Colonies, we should grant them
unconditional redress._ We have injured them; we have endeavored
to enslave and oppress them. Upon this clear ground, instead of
chastisement, they are entitled to redress."

Again Lord Chatham broke out, November 18, 1777, in words most applicable to the present occasion.

"I would sell my shirt off my back to assist in proper measures,
properly and wisely conducted; _but I would not part with a single
shilling to the present ministers_. Their plans are founded
in destruction and disgrace. It is, my Lords, a ruinous and
destructive war; it is full of danger; it teems with disgrace, and
must end in ruin.... If I were an American, as I am an Englishman,
while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay
down my arms!--never!--never!--never!"

The Duke of Richmond, in the Lords, on the same occasion, returned to the charge in a similar spirit.

"Can we too soon put a stop to such a scene of carnage? My Lords, I
know that what I am going to say is not fashionable language; but
a time will come when every one of us must account to God for his
actions, and how can we justify causing so many innocent lives to
be lost?"

In the Commons, December 5, 1777, Mr. Hartley, the constant friend of America, brought forward a motion:--

"That it is unbecoming the wisdom and prudence of Parliament to
proceed any farther in the support of this fruitless, expensive,
and destructive war, more especially without any specific terms of
accommodation declared."

The Marquis of Rockingham, in the Lords, February 16, 1778, exclaimed:--

"He was determined to serve his country _by making peace at any
rate_."

At last, in the Lords, March 23, 1778, the Duke of Richmond brought forward a motion for the withdrawal of the forces from America.

The same question was presented again in the Commons, November 27, 1780, on a motion to thank General Clinton and others for their military services in America, when Mr. Wilkes laid down the true rule.

"I think it my duty to oppose this motion, because in my idea
every part of it conveys an approbation of the American War,--a
war unfounded in principle, and fatal in its consequences to this
country.... _Sir, I will not thank for victories which only tend
to protract a destructive war...._ As I reprobate the want of
principle in the origin of the American War, I the more lament all
the spirited exertions of valor and the wisdom of conduct which in
a good cause I should warmly applaud. Thinking as I do, I see more
matter of grief than of triumph, of bewailing than thanksgiving, in
this civil contest, and the deluge of blood which has overflowed
America.... I deeply lament that the lustre of such splendid
victories is obscured and darkened by the want of a good cause,
without which no war, in the eye of truth and reason, before God or
man, can be justified."

Mr. Fox followed in similar strain.

"He allowed the merits of the officers now in question, but he made
a distinction between thanks and praise. He might, admire their
valor, but he could not separate the intention from the action;
they were united in his mind; there they formed one whole, and he
would not attempt to divide them."

Mr. Sheridan joined in these declarations.

"There were in that House different descriptions of men _who
could not assent to a vote that seemed to imply a recognition or
approbation of the American War_."

All these words are memorable from the occasion of their utterance, from the statesmen who uttered them, and from the sentiments avowed. The occasion was the war of Great Britain upon our fathers. The statesmen were the greatest masters of political wisdom and eloquence that England has given to the world. The sentiments were all in harmony with what I have urged on the present occasion. Orators contended with each other in the strength of their language. Lord Camden averred that "Great Britain was the aggressor." The Duke of Grafton declared, that, "while he had a leg to stand on," he would express his "abhorrence" of the war. Chatham gave utterance to the same sentiment in one of his most magnificent orations. And Wilkes, Sheridan, Fox, and Burke echoed this strain, all insisting that the war was unjust, and must therefore be stopped.

Thus far I have quoted testimony from Parliamentary debates on our own Revolution; but going farther back, we find similar authority. When Charles the First sent assistance to the French against the Huguenots in Rochelle, the officers and men did more than murmur; and here our authority is Hume. The commander of one of the ships "declared that he would rather be hanged in England for disobedience than fight against his brother Protestants in France."[202]

[202] Hume, History of England, Chap. L.

They went back to the Downs. Having received new orders, they sailed again for France.

"When they arrived at Dieppe, they found that they had been
deceived. Sir Ferdinando Gorges, who commanded one of the vessels,
broke through and returned to England. All the officers and sailors
of all the other ships, notwithstanding great offers made them by
the French, immediately deserted. One gunner alone preferred duty
towards his king to the cause of religion, and he was afterwards
killed in charging a cannon before Rochelle."[203]

[203] Hume, History of England, Chap. L.

The same sentiment prevailed also in the war upon Spain by Cromwell, when several naval officers, having scruples of conscience with regard to the justice of the war, threw up their commissions and retired. Here again Hume is our authority.

"No commands, they thought, of their superiors could justify a war
which was contrary to the principles of natural equity, and which
the civil magistrate had no right to order. Individuals, they
maintained, in resigning to the public their natural liberty, could
bestow on it only what they themselves were possessed of, a right
of performing lawful actions, and could invest it with no authority
of commanding what is contrary to the decrees of Heaven."[204]

[204] Ibid., Chap. LXI.

Here again it is soldiers who refuse to fight in unjust war.

Such is the doctrine of morals sanctioned by English examples. Such should be the doctrine of an American statesman. If we apply it to the existing exigency, or try the candidates by this standard, we find, that, as Dr. Howe is unquestionably right, so Mr. Winthrop is too certainly wrong. Exalting our own candidate, I would not unduly disparage another. It is for the sake of the cause in which we are engaged, by the side of which individuals dwindle into insignificance, that we now oppose Mr. Winthrop, bearing our testimony against Slavery and the longer continuance of the Mexican War, demanding the retreat of General Taylor and the instant withdrawal of the American forces. Even if we seem to fail in this election, we shall not fail in reality. The influence of this effort will help to awaken and organize that powerful public opinion by which this war will at last be arrested.

Hang out, fellow-citizens, the white banner of Peace; let the citizens of Boston rally about it; and may it be borne forward by an enlightened, conscientious people, aroused to condemnation of this murderous war, until Mexico, now wet with blood unjustly shed, shall repose undisturbed beneath its folds.

INVALIDITY OF ENLISTMENTS

IN THE MASSACHUSETTS REGIMENT OF VOLUNTEERS FOR THE MEXICAN WAR.

ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, JANUARY, 1847.

By the Mexican War Bill (approved May 13, 1846) the President was
authorized "to call for and accept the services of any number
of volunteers, not exceeding fifty thousand," and provision was
made for their organization. The Governor of Massachusetts, by
proclamation, called for a Regiment in this Commonwealth, which
was organized under the Act of Congress. Before it had left the
Commonwealth, applications for discharge were made to the Supreme
Court of Massachusetts in behalf of several persons repenting
their too hasty enlistment. At the hearing, the proceedings by
which the Regiment had been organized were called in question.
Their validity was denied on the ground that the Act of Congress,
in some of its essential provisions concerning volunteers, was
unconstitutional,--that the enlistments were not in conformity
with the Act,--and also that the militia laws of Massachusetts had
been fraudulently used in forming the regiment. These points, and
the further question, whether a minor is bound by his contract of
enlistment under the Act, were argued by Mr. Sumner, who appeared
as counsel for one of the petitioners. The Court sustained the
validity of the proceedings, but discharged the minors.--See _In
Re_ Kimball, Murray, and Stone, 9 Law Reporter, 500, where the case
is reported.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONORS,

This cause has a strong claim upon the careful consideration of the Court. It comes with a _trinoda necessitas_, a triple cord, to bind its judgment. It is important as respects the parties, the public, and the principles involved.

To the _parties_, it is one of the highest questions known to the law, being a question of _human freedom_. It is proposed to hold the petitioner in the servitude of the army for an indefinite space of time, namely, "for the duration of the war with Mexico." During all this period, he will be subject to martial law, and to the Articles of War, with the terrible penalties of desertion. He will be under the command of officers, at whose word he must move from place to place beyond the confines of the country, and perform unwelcome duties, involving his own life and the lives of others.

To the _public_, it is important, as it is surely of especial consequence, in whose hands is placed the power of life and death. The soldier is vested with extraordinary attributes. He is at times more than marshal or sheriff. He is also surrounded by the law with certain immunities, one of which is exemption from imprisonment for debt.

It is important from the _principles_ involved. These are the distinctions between the different kinds of military force under the Constitution of the United States, the constitutionality of the Act of Congress of May, 1846, and the legality of the enlistments under it. The determination of these questions will establish or annul the immense and complex Volunteer System now set in motion.

In a case of such magnitude, I shall be pardoned for dwelling carefully upon the different questions. In the course of my argument I hope to establish the following propositions.

_First._ That the forces contemplated by the Act of May, 1846, are a part of the "army" of the United States, or its general military force, and not of the "militia."

_Secondly._ That the part of the Act of Congress of 1846 providing for the officering of the companies is unconstitutional, and the proceedings thereunder are void.

_Thirdly._ That the present contract is illegal, inasmuch as it is not according to the terms of the Statute, which prescribes that it shall be for "twelve months or the war," whereas it is "for the war" only.

_Fourthly._ That it is illegal, being entered into by an improper use of the militia laws of Massachusetts, so as to be a _fraud_ on those laws.

_Fifthly._ That minors cannot be held by contract of enlistment under the present Act.

I shall now consider these different propositions.

_First._ The force contemplated by the Act of May, 1846, is a part of the _army_ of the United States, or of its general military force, and not of the _militia_.

It is called "volunteers"; but on inquiry it will appear that it has elements _inconsistent_ with militia, while it wants elements _essential_ to militia.

Without stopping to consider what these elements are, it will be proper, first, to consider the powers of Congress over the land forces. Congress is not omnipotent, like the British Parliament. It can do only what is permitted by the Constitution of the United States, and _in the manner permitted_. We are, then, to search the Constitution.

Here we find two different species of land forces, and only two. These are "armies" and "militia." There is between the two no hybrid or heteroclite,--no _tertium quid_.

These forces are referred to and sanctioned by the following clauses, and by no others: "The Congress shall have power _to raise and support armies_; to provide for calling forth _the militia_ to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions; 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, _reserving to the States, respectively, the appointment of the officers_, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." (Art. I. § 8.) And again: "The President shall be commander-in-chief of the _army_ and navy of the United States, and of _the militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States_." (Art. II. § 2.)

It has been ably argued by Mr. Lanier, in the Virginia Assembly, that the distinction between _army_ and _militia_ is, that the first stands on _contract_ or _voluntary enlistment_, and the second on _the law compelling parties to serve_; that this simple test determines the character of the service, Did the party enter _voluntarily_ or by _operation of law_? If voluntarily, then he is in the "army"; if compulsorily, or by operation of law, then he is in the "militia." This distinction is palpable, and is true, I think, beyond question, with regard to the "army" and "militia" under existing laws. I am not prepared to say that Congress, under the clause authorizing it "to raise and support armies," may not, following the example of other countries, enforce a conscription, or levy, which shall act compulsorily throughout the country, being in this respect like the _militia_, although unlike it in other respects. Such a plan was recommended by Mr. Monroe, when Secretary of War, October 17, 1814, who speaks of it as follows.

"The limited power which the United States have in organizing the
militia may be urged as an argument against their right to raise
_regular troops in the mode proposed_. If any argument could be
drawn from that circumstance, I should suppose that it would be in
favor of an opposite conclusion. The power of the United States
over the militia has been limited, and that for raising regular
armies granted without limitation. There was, doubtless, some
object in this arrangement. The fair inference seems to be, that it
was made on great consideration,--that the limitation in the first
instance was intentional, the consequence of the unqualified grant
of the second.

"But it is said, that by drawing the men from the militia service
into the regular army and putting them under regular officers you
violate a principle of the Constitution _which provides that the
militia shall be commanded by their own officers_. If this was the
fact, the conclusion would follow. But it is not the fact. The men
are not drawn from the militia, but from the population of the
country. _When they enlist voluntarily, it is not as militia-men
that they act, but as citizens._ If they are drafted, it must be in
the same sense. In both instances they are enrolled in the militia
corps; but that, as is presumed, cannot prevent the voluntary
act in one instance or the compulsive in the other. The whole
population of the United States, within certain ages, belong to
these corps. If the United States could not form regular armies
from them, they could raise none."[205]

[205] Niles's Register, Vol. VII. p. 139: November 5, 1814.

If Mr. Monroe's views are sound, the "army" of the United States, as well as the "militia," may be raised by draft. It may consist of _regulars_ and _irregulars_.