Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

Circumstances in the very constitution of these parties render it difficult, if not impossible, for them to act in this behalf. Constructed subtly with a view to political success, they are spread everywhere throughout the Union, and the principles which they uphold are pruned and modified to meet existing sentiment in different parts of the country. Neither can venture, as a party, to place itself on the side of Freedom, because, by such a course, it would disaffect that slaveholding support which is essential to its political success. The Antislavery resolutions adopted by legislatures at the North are regarded as expressions of individual or local opinion only, and not suffered to control the action of the national party. To such an extent is this carried, that Whigs of Massachusetts, professing immitigable hostility to Slavery, recently united in support of a candidate for the Presidency in whose behalf the eminent slaveholding Whig, Mr. Berrien, had "implored his fellow-citizens of Georgia, Whig and Democratic, to forget for a time their party divisions, and to know each other only as Southern men."

Fellow-citizens, individuals in each of the old parties strove in vain to produce a change, and to make them exponents of growing Antislavery sentiments. At Baltimore and Philadelphia, in the great Conventions of these parties, Slavery triumphed. So strongly were they both arrayed against Freedom, and so unrelenting were they in ostracism of its generous supporters,--of all who had written or spoken in its behalf,--that it is not going too far to say, that, if Jefferson, or Franklin, or Washington could have descended from his sphere above, and revisited the country which he had nobly dedicated to Freedom, he could not, with his well-known and recorded opinions against Slavery, have received a nomination for the Presidency from either of these Conventions.

To maintain the principles of Freedom, as set forth in this Address, it might be well for us to take a lesson from the old parties,--to learn from them the importance of perseverance and union, and thus to see the value of a distinct political organization,--and, profiting by these instructions, to direct the efforts of the friends of Freedom everywhere throughout the country into this channel.

OBJECTIONS.

There are objections from various quarters to the establishment of our party,--some urged in ignorance, some in the sophist spirit, which would "make the worse appear the better reason." Glance at them.

_Single Idea._--It is often said that it is a party of a single idea. This is a phrase, and nothing more. The moving cause and animating soul of our party is the idea of Freedom. But this idea is manifold in character and influence. It is the idea of the Declaration of Independence. It is the great idea of the founders of the Republic. In adopting it as the paramount principle of our movement we declare our purpose to carry out the Great Idea of our institutions, as originally established. In other words, it is our lofty aim to bring back the administration of the Government to the standard of a Christian Democracy, with a sincere and wide regard for Human Rights,--that it may be in reality, as in name, a Republic. With the comprehensive cause of Freedom are associated in our vows, as has been already seen, other questions important to the well-being of the people. Nor is there any cause by which mankind can be advanced that is not embraced by our aspirations. "I am a man, and regard nothing human as foreign to me," was the sentiment of the Roman poet, who had once been a slave; and these words may be adopted as the motto of our movement.

* * * * *

_Sectional, or against the South._--Again, it is said that ours is a sectional party; and the charge is sometimes put in another form,--that it is a party against the South. The significant words of Washington are quoted to warn the country against "geographical" questions.[10] Now, if we proposed any system of measures calculated to exclude absolutely any "geographical" portion of the country from the benefit of the general laws and Constitution of the United States, or to operate exclusively and by name upon any "geographical" section,--or perhaps, if we proposed to interfere with Slavery in the States,--there might be some ground for this charge; but, as we propose to act against Slavery only where it exists under the National Government, and where this Government is responsible for it, nobody can say that we are sectional, or against the South. Our aim is in no respect sectional, but in every respect national. It is in no respect against the South, but against the Evil Spirit having its home at the South, which has obtained the control of the Government. As well might it be said that Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington were sectional, and against the South.

[10] "In contemplating the causes which may disturb our Union,
it occurs as matter of serious concern, that any ground should
have been furnished for characterizing parties by _geographical_
discriminations, _Northern_ and _Southern_, _Atlantic_ and
_Western_; whence designing men may endeavor to excite a belief
that there is a real difference of local interests and views.
One of the expedients of party to acquire influence within
particular districts is to misrepresent the opinions and aims of
other districts. You cannot shield yourselves too much against
the jealousies and heart-burnings which spring from these
misrepresentations; they tend to render alien to each other those
who ought to be bound together by fraternal affection."--_Farewell
Address: Writings_, ed. Sparks, Vol. XII. p. 221.

It is true that at present a large portion of the party are at the North; but if our cause is sectional on this account, then is the Tariff sectional, because its chief supporters are also in the North.

Unquestionably there is a particular class of individuals against whom we are obliged to act. These are the slave-masters, wherever situated throughout the country, constituting, according to recent calculations, not more than 248,000 in all. Those most interested are probably not more than 100,000. For years this band has acted against the whole country, and subjugated it to Slavery. Surely it does not become them, or their partisans, to complain that an effort is now made to rally the whole country against their tyranny. There are many who forget that the larger portion of the people at the South are non-slaveholders, interested equally with ourselves--nay, more than we are--in the overthrow of that power which has so long dictated its disastrous and discreditable policy. To these we may ultimately look for support, so soon as our movement is able to furnish them with the needful hope and strength.

If at the present moment our efforts seem in any respect sectional or against the South, it is simply because the chief opponents of our principles are there. But our principles are not sectional; they are applicable to the whole Union,--nay, more, to all the human race. They are universal as Man.

* * * * *

_Interference with other Parties._--Again, it is sometimes said that we interfere with the other parties. This is true. And it is necessary, because the other parties do not represent the principles which we consider of paramount importance. No intelligent person, careful and honest in his statements, will undertake to say that either of them does represent these. Failing thus, they are unworthy of support. They do not embody the great ideas of the Republic.

Here again it is important to distinguish between individuals and the parties to which they adhere. There are many, doubtless, in both the old parties, who subscribe to our principles, but still hug the belief that these principles can be best carried into action by the parties to which they are respectively attached. Influenced by the common bias, which indisposes distrust of the political party with which they have been associated, they continue in the companionship early adopted, and often learn to combat for an organization, which, _as a whole_, is hostile to the very principles they have at heart. _Most certainly his devotion to Freedom may well be questioned, who adheres to a national party which declines to be the organ of Freedom._ He only is in earnest who places Freedom above party, and does not hesitate to leave a party which neglects to serve Freedom. Such men we trust to welcome in large numbers from both the old organizations.

* * * * *

_Alleged Injurious Influences in the Slave States._--Once more, it is said that the Antislavery Movement at the North, and particularly its political form, have caused unnecessary irritation among slave-owners, and thwarted a more proper movement at the South. It is sometimes declared that we have not promoted, but rather retarded, the cause of Emancipation.

To this let it be said, in the first place, that our direct and primary object is not Emancipation in the States, but the establishment of Freedom everywhere under the National Government; and there is reason to believe that we have already done something towards the accomplishment of this object. By the confession of slaveholders themselves, in one of the recent "Addresses" put forth from their conclave at Washington, it appears that we have not labored in vain. "This agitation, and the use of means," says the Address prepared by Mr. Berrien, "have been continued with more or less activity for a series of years, _not without doing much towards effecting the object intended_." Take courage, fellow-citizens, from this confession, and do not doubt that your continued efforts must finally prevail.

But, in the second place, whatever may have been the temporary shock to Emancipation in the Slave States, it will not be denied by candid minds that the efforts in the North have hastened the great day of Freedom. They have encouraged its friends in Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia, Maryland, and Tennessee, and have contributed to diffuse the information and awaken the generous resolve which are so much needed. Nor can it be doubted, that, if the North had continued silent, Mr. Clay, in Kentucky, and Mr. Benton, in Missouri, would both have been silent. Without the moral support of the Free States, these powerful statesmen would have shrunk from the unequal battle. Let us, then, continue to plead, believing that no honest, earnest voice for Freedom can be in vain. And let us be sure to vote so as best to promote this cause, extorting yet other confessions, from other conclaves of slaveholders, that we are "_doing much towards effecting the object intended_."

* * * * *

_Why carry the Question of Slavery into State Elections?_--Having thus reviewed the objections to our organization as a National Movement, applying its principles as a test in the choice of national officers, it only remains to meet one other objection, founded on its introduction into State elections. Here we might content ourselves by replying, that we are a national party, and, as such, simply follow the example of both the other parties. From the beginning of the Government the necessity of such a course has been recognized and acted upon uniformly by these parties; and it does not become them now to question its propriety, when recognized and acted upon by us.

But, independent of example, we are led to this course by conviction of its necessity, in the maintenance of our great cause. It is our duty so to cast our votes on all occasions as to promote the _principles_ we have at heart. And it would be wrong to disregard the experience of political history, both at home and abroad, which teaches that it is through the constant, well-directed organization of party that these are best maintained. The influence already exerted over both the old parties, and over the general sentiment of the country, affords additional encouragement. Assuming, then, what few will be so hardy as to deny, that it is proper for people to combine in parties for the promotion of cherished convictions, it follows, as an irresistible consequence, that this combination should be made most effective for the purpose in view. What is worth doing is worth well doing. If men unite in constructing the powerful and complex machine of a political organization, it must be rendered complete, and thoroughly competent to its work.

Now it will be apparent to those familiar with political transactions, that such an organization, acting only in National elections, and suspending its exertions in State elections, cannot effectually do its work. People acting antagonistically in State elections cannot be brought to act harmoniously in National elections. It is practically impossible to have one permanent party in National affairs and another in State affairs. Such a course would cause uncertainty and ultimate disorganization.

Peculiar local interests may control certain local elections. These constitute the exceptions, and not the rule. They arise where, within the locality, a greater sum of good may be accomplished by sustaining a certain person, independent of party, than by voting strictly according to party. But it is clear that such instances cannot be frequent without impairing the efficiency of the movement.

It is natural that parties in our country should take their strongest complexion from National affairs, because these affairs are of the most absorbing interest. Justly important as is the election of Municipal and State officers, we feel that they are of less importance than the election of a President of the United States,--as the character of the State Government, whose influence is confined to a limited sphere, is of less importance than that of the National Government, whose influence embraces all the States, and reaches to foreign lands. Therefore the organizations of party in the States are properly treated as subordinate, though ancillary, to the National organizations. They are branches or limbs, which repay the strength they derive from the great trunk by helping to extend in all directions its protecting power. But these branches cannot be lopped off or neglected.

Again, the influence of each individual is of importance. But the State itself is a compound individual, and just in proportion to its size and character it is important that it should be arrayed as a powerful unit in support of our organization. In this way its influence can be brought to bear most effectually upon the National Government in support of our _principles_.

Fellow-citizens, the question again recurs, "Are you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery?" If you are for Freedom, do not hesitate to support the National party dedicated to this cause. Strive in all ways to extend its influence, to enlarge its means of efficiency, and to consolidate its strength. And consider well, that this can be accomplished only by casting your votes for those who, while avowing our principles, are willing to sacrifice ancient party ties in order to maintain them. By her towns, counties, and districts, by her executive and legislative departments, Massachusetts must call upon the National Government to change from the policy of Slavery to the policy of Freedom. _Massachusetts must refuse to support any Government which does not hearken to this request._

* * * * *

_Local Matters._--The sentiments which inspire the Party of Freedom in opposition to Slavery must naturally control their conduct on all questions of local policy. Friends of Human Rights, they cannot regard with indifference anything by which these are impaired. Recognizing Justice and Beneficence as the end and aim of Government, they must sympathize with all efforts to extend their sway. Let the Government be ever just. Let it be ever beneficent. Abuses and wrongs will then disappear, and the State will stand forth in the moral dignity of true manhood. If there be anything in the Commonwealth inconsistent with these sentiments, it must be changed. This should be done in no spirit of political empiricism, but with an honest and intelligent regard to practical results.

There is complaint in many, and even opposite quarters, of numerous corporations annually established by our Legislature, of the considerable time thus consumed in special legislation, and, still further, of the influence these corporations are able to exert over political affairs, dispensing a patronage exceeding that of the National Government within the borders of our State. Without considering these things in detail, it is impossible to avoid calling attention to the perverse influence from this source. Of this we can speak with knowledge. _The efforts to place the National Government on the side of Freedom_ have received little sympathy from corporations, or from persons largely interested in them, but have rather encountered their opposition, sometimes concealed, sometimes open, often bitter and vindictive. It is easy to explain this. In corporations is the Money Power of the Commonwealth. Thus far the instinct of property has proved stronger in Massachusetts than the instinct of Freedom. The Money Power has joined hands with the Slave Power. Selfish, grasping, subtle, tyrannical, like its ally, it will not brook opposition. It claims the Commonwealth as its own, and too successfully enlists in its support that needy talent and easy virtue which are required to maintain its sway. Perhaps the true remedy for this evil will be found in a more enlightened public sentiment; meanwhile we must do what we can to restrain this influence, by watchful legislation, if need be, but especially by directing against it the finger-point of a generous indignation.

The natural influence of the Money Power is still further increased by defects in our present system of Representation. The large cities, particularly Boston, electing Representatives by a general ticket, are able to return a compact delegation, united in political opinions, while the country, through divisions into small towns, is practically subdivided into districts, and chooses Representatives differing in opinions. A careful estimate of the influence thus wrought will show that Boston alone, actually casting 13,000 votes, is able to neutralize the 26,000 votes cast by all western Massachusetts, including Berkshire, Franklin, Hampshire, and Hampden. The large cities, which are the seat of the Money Power, are thus able, though a minority, to control the State. Like the Slave Power, they are strong from union. This abuse calls for amendment; and it will be for the friends of our cause to urge such measures as the necessity of the case requires.

* * * * *

_Our Candidates._--In the fulfilment of our duty to sustain our principles at all times, in all elections, National or State, we have nominated Hon. STEPHEN C. PHILLIPS, of Salem, as our candidate for Governor. With confidence and pride we ask for him your support. Few in the community, by a long series of beneficent services, have entitled themselves to the same degree of kindly regard. In him we find a liberal education blended with a liberal spirit,--the experience and the wealth of the successful merchant turned into the channels of Benevolence, and the influence earned by various labors, in various posts of honor and trust, consecrated to Human Improvement. All the great causes which are doing so much to renovate the age, Temperance, Education, Peace, Freedom, have in him a discreet, practical, devoted, self-sacrificing friend. Formerly associated with the Whig party, and a member of Congress, chosen by Whig votes, he set the example of renouncing his party, when it became openly faithless to Freedom, and by unreserved and noble effort has done much to strengthen the movement in which we are engaged.

As candidate for Lieutenant-Governor, we nominate Hon. JOHN MILLS, of Springfield, a gentleman of spotless life, with ample experience in many spheres of action, formerly an honored member of the Democratic party, who has filled responsible stations under the Governments of the State and the Nation, and who, like Mr. Phillips, has testified his fidelity to Freedom by renouncing the party to which he belonged.

* * * * *

Fellow-citizens, such are our principles, and such our candidates. Join us in their support. Join us, all who love Freedom and hate Slavery. Join us, all who cherish the Constitution and the Union. Help us in endeavors to crown them again with their early virtue. Join us, all who reverence the memory of the fathers, and would have their spirit once more animate the Republic. Join us, all who would have the National Government administered in the spirit of Freedom, and not in the spirit of Slavery. The occasion is urgent. Active, resolute exertions must be made. It does not become the sons of the Pilgrims, and the sons of the Revolution, to be _neutral_ in this contest. Such was not the temper of their fathers. In such a contest neutrality is treason to Human Rights. In questions _merely political_ an honest man may stand neuter; but what true heart can be neuter, when the distinct question is put, which we now address to the people of Massachusetts, "Are you for Freedom, or are you for Slavery?"

Finally, we appeal to the moral and religious sentiments of the Commonwealth. When these are thoroughly moved, there can be no question of the result. We invoke the sympathy of the pulpit. Let it preach deliverance to the captive. We call upon good men of all sects and all parties to lend their support. You all agree in our PRINCIPLES. Do not practically oppose them by continued adhesion to a national party hostile to them. Join in proclaiming them through the new Party of Freedom.

The Resolutions at the close of the Address are omitted, being in
the nature of a repetition, which, however important at the time,
is of less value as a record of opinions.

WASHINGTON AN ABOLITIONIST.

LETTER TO THE BOSTON DAILY ATLAS, SEPTEMBER 27, 1849.

The Address to the People of Massachusetts, adopted by the Free-Soil Convention, was violently attacked, as will appear from the following reply, written at a hotel in New York, where Mr. Sumner happened to be staying, when he saw the criticism.

NEW YORK, IRVING HOTEL, September 27, 1849.

Gentlemen,--My attention has been directed to-day to an article
in your paper of the 25th September, entitled "Mr. Sumner and
his Authorities," in which I am charged, among other things,
with misrepresenting the opinions of Washington, particularly in
the following sentence, in the Address recently adopted by the
Free-Soil Convention at Worcester:--

"The first Washington freely declared his affinity with Antislavery
Societies, and that in support of any legislative measure for the
abolition of Slavery his suffrage should never be wanting."

A more familiar acquaintance with the opinions of our great
exemplar would have prevented the writer in the Atlas from falsely
accusing a neighbor. It would have prevented him from saying that
the letter to Robert Morris, from which part of the above statement
is drawn, was written more than ten years before the adoption of
the National Constitution, and from dating it in 1776, when the
letter in reality bears date in 1786.

I will not doubt your willingness to repair the injustice you
have allowed in the columns of the Atlas, and therefore ask you
to publish this note, with the accompanying extracts, showing the
opinions of Washington.

By these it will appear that Washington freely declared to Brissot
de Warville, in a conversation which took place in 1788, and was
published in 1791, that he rejoiced in what was doing in other
States for the emancipation of the negroes,--that he sincerely
desired the extension of it to his own country,--and, contrary to
the opinions of many Virginians, _expressly said that he wished the
formation of an Antislavery Society, and that he would second such
a society_.

It will appear, also, that Washington said to Robert Morris, in a
letter dated April 12, 1786, that in support of any legislative
measure for the abolition of Slavery his suffrage should not be
wanting,--that he said to Lafayette, in a letter dated May 10,
1786, that gradual emancipation certainly might and assuredly ought
to be effected, and that, too, by legislative authority,--that he
said to John F. Mercer, in a letter dated September 9, 1786, that
it was among his first wishes to see some plan adopted by which
Slavery in this country may be abolished by law,--that he said
to Sir John Sinclair, in a letter dated December 11, 1796, that
Maryland and Virginia must have, and at a period not remote, laws
for the gradual abolition of Slavery,--and that by his will, dated
July 9, 1790 [1799], he expressly emancipated his slaves.

Thus acting, and thus constantly avowing his sentiments in favor
of the abolition of Slavery, Washington is properly called an
Abolitionist.

I cannot close without correcting the insinuation of the writer
in the Atlas, that it is my wish, or that it is the wish of the
Free-Soil party to interfere, through Congress, with Slavery
in the States. This is a mistake. Our position is this. They
who are responsible for Slavery should abolish it. Our duties
are coextensive with our responsibilities. We at the North are
responsible for Slavery everywhere within the jurisdiction of
Congress, and it is here that we should exert ourselves, according
to the principles of Washington, to abolish it by legislative
action.

Still further, our sympathies and God-speed must attend every
effort in the States to remove this great evil. We should join with
Washington in his exclamation to Lafayette, on learning that this
philanthropic Frenchman had purchased an estate in Cayenne, with
the view of emancipating the slaves on it: "Would to God a like
spirit might diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people
of this country!"

I will not trouble you with any comment on the other criticisms
upon me by the writer in the Atlas.

I am, Gentlemen, your obedient servant,

CHARLES SUMNER.

TO THE EDITORS OF THE ATLAS.

* * * * *

OPINIONS OF WASHINGTON ON SLAVERY.

"He has nevertheless (must I say it?) a numerous crowd of slaves;
but they are treated with the greatest humanity,--well fed, well
clothed, and kept to moderate labor; they bless God without
ceasing for having given them so good a master. It is a task
worthy of a soul so elevated, so pure, and so disinterested, to
begin the revolution in Virginia, to prepare the way for _the
emancipation of the negroes. This great man declared to me that
he rejoiced at what was doing in other States on this subject,
that he sincerely desired the extension of it in his own country_;
but he did not dissemble that there were still many obstacles to
be overcome,--that it was dangerous to strike too vigorously at
a prejudice which had begun to diminish,--that time, patience,
and information would not fail to vanquish it. Almost all the
Virginians, added he, believe that the liberty of the blacks cannot
soon become general. _This is the reason why they wish not to form
a society_, which may give dangerous ideas to their slaves. There
is another obstacle: the great plantations, of which the State is
composed, render it necessary for men to live so dispersed, _that
frequent meetings of a society would be difficult_.

"I replied, that the Virginians were in an error,--that, evidently,
sooner or later, the negroes would obtain their liberty everywhere.
It is, then, for the interest of your countrymen to prepare the way
to such a revolution, by endeavoring to reconcile the restitution
of the rights of the blacks with the interest of the whites. _The
means necessary to be taken to this effect can only be the work of
a SOCIETY_; and it is worthy the Saviour of America to put himself
at their head, and to open the door of liberty to three hundred
thousand unhappy beings of his own State. _He told me that he
desired the formation of a SOCIETY, and that he would second it_;
but that he did not think the moment favorable."--_Conversation
with Washington, in the New Travels of Brissot de Warville in the
United States in 1788, published in 1791, and translated in 1792._

* * * * *

"I can only say, that there is not a man living who wishes more
sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of
it [Slavery]; but there is only one proper and effectual mode
by which it can be accomplished, and that is by _legislative
authority; and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be
wanting_."--_Letter of Washington to Robert Morris, April 12, 1786._

* * * * *

"The benevolence of your heart, my dear Marquis, is so conspicuous
upon all occasions, that I never wonder at any fresh proofs of
it; but your late purchase of an estate in the Colony of Cayenne,
_with a view of emancipating the slaves on it_, is a generous
and noble proof of your humanity. _Would to God a like spirit
might diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people of
this country!_ But I despair of seeing it. Some petitions were
presented to the Assembly, at its last session, for the abolition
of Slavery; but they could scarcely obtain a reading. To set the
slaves afloat at once would, I really believe, be productive of
much inconvenience and mischief; _but by degrees it certainly might
and assuredly ought to be effected, and that, too, by legislative
authority_."--_Letter of Washington to Lafayette, May 10, 1786._

"I never mean, unless some particular circumstances should compel
me to it, to possess another slave by purchase, _it being among
my first wishes to see some plan adopted by which Slavery in this
country may be abolished by law_."--_Letter of Washington to John
F. Mercer, September 9, 1786._

* * * * *

"From what I have said, you will perceive that the present prices
of lands in Pennsylvania are higher than they are in Maryland and
Virginia, although they are not of superior quality, ... [among
other reasons] because there are _laws here for the gradual
abolition of Slavery_, which neither of the two States above
mentioned have at present, _but which nothing is more certain than
that they must have, and at a period not remote_."--_Letter of
Washington to Sir John Sinclair, December 11, 1796._

* * * * *

"Upon the decease of my wife, it is my will and desire that
all the slaves whom I hold in my own right shall receive their
freedom. To emancipate them during her life would, though earnestly
wished by me, be attended with such insuperable difficulties, on
account of their inter-mixture by marriage with the dower negroes,
as to excite the most painful sensations, if not disagreeable
consequences to the latter, while both descriptions are in the
occupancy of the same proprietor; it not being in my power, under
the tenure by which the dower negroes are held, to manumit them....
_And I do, moreover, most pointedly and most solemnly enjoin it
upon my executors hereafter named, or the survivors of them, to
see that this clause respecting slaves, and every part thereof,
be religiously fulfilled at the epoch at which it is directed to
take place, without evasion, neglect, or delay_, after the crops
which may then be on the ground are harvested, particularly as it
respects the aged and infirm; seeing that a regular and permanent
fund be established for their support, as long as there are
subjects requiring it; not trusting to the uncertain provision to
be made by individuals."--_Washington's Will, dated July 9, 1790
[1799]_.

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW:

UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SEPARATE COLORED SCHOOLS IN MASSACHUSETTS.

ARGUMENT BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE CASE
OF SARAH C. ROBERTS _v._ THE CITY OF BOSTON, DECEMBER 4,
1849.

This argument, though addressed to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, is mainly national and universal in topics, so that it is applicable wherever, especially in our country, any discrimination in educational opportunities is founded on race or color. It is a vindication of Equal Rights in Common Schools. The term "Equality before the Law" was here for the first time introduced into our discussions. It is not found in the Common Law, nor until recently in the English language. It is a translation from the French, whence Mr. Sumner took it.

The Supreme Court heard the argument, and in their opinion complimented the advocate; but they did not take the responsibility of annulling the unjust discrimination. After stating the claim of Equality before the Law, Chief-Justice Shaw reduced it to very small proportions, when he said that it meant "only that the rights of all, as they are settled and regulated by law, are equally entitled to the paternal consideration and protection of the law for their maintenance and security."[11] This made it mean nothing; but such was the decision. The _victrix causa_ was not less odious to Mr. Sumner, who never ceased to regret the opportunity lost by the Court of contributing an immortal precedent to the recognition and safeguard of human rights.

The error of the Court was repaired by the Legislature of Massachusetts, which in 1855 enacted as follows:--

"In determining the qualifications of scholars to be admitted into
any Public School or any District School in this Commonwealth,
no distinction shall be made on account of the race, color, or
religious opinions of the applicant or scholar."[12]

[11] Roberts _v._ City of Boston, 5 Cushing R., 206.

[12] General Laws of Massachusetts, 1855, Ch. 256, sec. 1.

By other sections, the child excluded on such account was entitled to "damages therefor in an action of tort," with a bill of discovery to obtain evidence. Then came this supplementary protection:--

"Every person belonging to the School Committee under whose rules
or directions any child shall be excluded from such school, and
every teacher of any such school, shall, on application by the
parent or guardian of any such child, state in writing the grounds
and reasons of such exclusion."

Since this legislation, Equal Rights have prevailed in the Common Schools of Massachusetts, and nobody would go back to the earlier system.

Associated with Mr. Sumner in this case was Robert Morris, Esq., a colored lawyer.

MAY IT PLEASE YOUR HONORS:--

Can any discrimination on account of race or color be made among children entitled to the benefit of our Common Schools under the Constitution and Laws of Massachusetts? This is the question which the Court is now to hear, to consider, and to decide.

Or, stating the question with more detail, and with more particular application to the facts of the present case, are the Committee having superintendence of the Common Schools of Boston intrusted with _power_, under the Constitution and Laws of Massachusetts, to exclude colored children from the schools, and compel them to find education at separate schools, set apart for colored children only, at distances from their homes less convenient than schools open to white children?

This important question arises in an action by a colored child only five years old, who, _by her next friend_, sues the city of Boston for damages on account of a refusal to receive her into one of the Common Schools.

It would be difficult to imagine any case appealing more strongly to your best judgment, whether you regard the parties or the subject. On the one side is the City of Boston, strong in wealth, influence, character; on the other side is a little child, of degraded color, of humble parents, and still within the period of natural infancy, but strong from her very weakness, and from the irrepressible sympathies of good men, which, by a divine compensation, come to succor the weak. This little child asks at your hands her _personal rights_. So doing, she calls upon you to decide a question which concerns the personal rights of other colored children,--which concerns the Constitution and Laws of the Commonwealth,--which concerns that _peculiar institution_ of New England, the Common Schools,--which concerns the fundamental principles of human rights,--which concerns the Christian character of this community. Such parties and such interests justly challenge your earnest attention.

Though this discussion is now for the first time brought before a judicial tribunal, it is no stranger to the public. In the School Committee of Boston for five years it has been the occasion of discord. No less than four different reports, two majority and two minority, forming pamphlets, of solid dimensions, devoted to this question, have been made to this Committee, and afterwards published. The opinions of learned counsel have been enlisted. The controversy, leaving these regular channels, overflowed the newspaper press, and numerous articles appeared, espousing opposite sides. At last it has reached this tribunal. It is in your power to make it subside forever.

* * * * *

THE QUESTION STATED.

Forgetting many of the topics and all of the heats heretofore mingling with the controversy, I shall strive to present the question in its juridical light, as becomes the habits of this tribunal. It is a question of jurisprudence on which you are to give judgment. But I cannot forget that the principles of morals and of natural justice lie at the foundation of all jurisprudence. Nor can any reference to these be inappropriate in a discussion before this Court.

Of Equality I shall speak, not only as a sentiment, but as a principle embodied in the Constitution of Massachusetts, and obligatory upon court and citizen. It will be my duty to show that this principle, after finding its way into our State Constitution, was recognized in legislation and judicial decisions. Considering next the circumstances of this case, it will be easy to show how completely they violate Constitution, legislation, and judicial proceedings,--_first_, by subjecting colored children to inconvenience inconsistent with the requirements of Equality, and, _secondly_, by establishing a system of Caste odious as that of the Hindoos,--leading to the conclusion that the School Committee have no such power as they have exercised, and that it is the duty of the Court to set aside their unjust by-law. In the course of this discussion I shall exhibit the true idea of our Common Schools, and the fallacy of the pretension that any exclusion or discrimination founded on race or color can be consistent with Equal Rights.

In opening this argument, I begin naturally with the fundamental proposition which, when once established, renders the conclusion irresistible. According to the Constitution of Massachusetts, _all men, without distinction of race or color, are equal before the law_. In the statement of this proposition I use language which, though new in our country, has the advantage of precision.

* * * * *

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW: ITS MEANING.

I might, perhaps, leave this proposition without one word of comment. The equality of men will not be directly denied on this occasion; and yet it is so often assailed of late, that I shall not seem to occupy your time superfluously, I trust, while endeavoring to show what is understood by this term, when used in laws, constitutions, or other political instruments. Here I encounter a prevailing misapprehension. Lord Brougham, in his recent work on Political Philosophy, announces, with something of pungency, that "the notion of Equality, or anything approaching to Equality, among the different members of any community, is altogether wild and fantastic."[13] Mr. Calhoun, in the Senate of the United States, assails both the principle and the form of its statement. He does not hesitate to say that the claim in the Declaration of Independence is "the most false and dangerous of all political errors,"--that it "has done more to retard the cause of liberty and civilization, and is doing more at present, than all other causes combined,"--that "for a long time it lay dormant, but in the process of time it began to germinate and produce its poisonous fruits."[14] Had these two distinguished authorities chosen to comprehend the extent and application of the term thus employed, something, if not all, of their objection would have disappeared. That we may better appreciate its meaning and limitation, I am induced to exhibit the origin and growth of the sentiment, which, finally ripening into a formula of civil and political right, was embodied in the Constitution of Massachusetts.

[13] Part II. ch. 4, p. 23.

[14] Speech on the Oregon Bill, June 27, 1848: Works, Vol. IV.
pp. 507, 511, 512; Congressional Globe, 30th Cong. 1st Sess.,
Vol. XVIII. p. 876. These extravagances found an echo afterwards.
Mr. Pettit, a Senator of the United States from Indiana, after
quoting the words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that
all men are created equal," proceeded to say: "I hold it to be a
self-evident lie. There is no such thing. Sir, tell me that the
imbecile, the deformed, the weak, the blurred intellect in man
is my equal, physically, mentally, or morally, and you tell me
a lie. Tell me, Sir, that the slave in the South, who is born
a slave, and with but little over one half the volume of brain
that attaches to the Northern European race, is his equal, and
you tell what is physically a falsehood. There is no truth in
it at all." (Speech in the Senate of the United States, February
20, 1854: Congressional Globe, 33d Cong. 1st Sess., Appendix,
Vol. XXIX. p. 214.) Mr. Choate, without descending into the same
particularity, seems to have reached the same conclusion, when, in
addressing political associates, he characterized the Declaration
of Independence as "that passionate and eloquent manifesto of
a revolutionary war," and then again spoke of its self-evident
truths as "the glittering and sounding generalities of natural
right." (Letter to the Maine Whig State Central Committee, August
9, 1856: Works, Vol. I. pp. 214, 215.) This great question was a
hinge in the famous debate between Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln in
the contest for the senatorship of Illinois, when the former said,
in various forms of speech, that "the Declaration of Independence
only included the white people of the United States," and the
latter replied, that "the entire records of the world, from the
date of the Declaration of Independence up to within three years
ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one
single man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration."
(Political Debates between Hon. Abraham Lincoln and Hon. Stephen A.
Douglas in the Campaign of 1858 in Illinois: see speech of Douglas
at Springfield, July 17, and of Lincoln at Galesburgh, October 7;
and _passim_.) Andrew Johnson, speaking in the Senate, showed the
side to which he belonged, when he said, after quoting the great
words of the Declaration: "Is there an intelligent man throughout
the whole country, is there a Senator, when he has stripped himself
of all party prejudice, who will come forward and say that he
believes that Mr. Jefferson, when he penned that paragraph of the
Declaration of Independence, intended it to embrace the African
population? Is there a gentleman in the Senate who believes any
such thing?... There is not a man of respectable intelligence who
will hazard his reputation upon such an assertion." (Congressional
Globe, 36th Cong. 1st Sess., December 12, 1859, p. 100.)

Equality as a sentiment was early cherished by generous souls. It showed itself in dreams of ancient philosophy, and was declared by Seneca, when, in a letter of consolation on death, he said, _Prima enim pars Æquitatis est Æqualitas_: "The chief part of Equity is Equality."[15] But not till the truths of the Christian Religion was it enunciated with persuasive force. Here we learn that God is no respecter of persons,--that he is the Father of all,--and that we are all his children, and brethren to each other. When the Saviour gave us the Lord's Prayer, he taught the sublime doctrine of Human Brotherhood, enfolding the equality of men.

[15] Epist. XXX.

Slowly did this sentiment enter the State. The whole constitution of government was inconsistent with it. An hereditary monarchy, an order of nobility, and the complex ranks of superior and inferior, established by the feudal system, all declare, not the equality, but the inequality of men, and all conspire to perpetuate this inequality. Every infant of royal blood, every noble, every vassal, is a present example, that, whatever may be the injunctions of religion or the sentiment of the heart, men under these institutions are not born equal.

The boldest political reformers of early times did not venture to proclaim this truth, nor did they truly perceive it. Cromwell beheaded his king, but secured the supreme power in hereditary succession to his eldest son. It was left to his loftier contemporary, John Milton, in poetic vision to be entranced

"With fair Equality, fraternal state."[16]

Sidney, who perished a martyr to the liberal cause, drew his inspiration from classic, and not from Christian fountains. The examples of Greece and Rome fed his soul. The English Revolution of 1688, partly by force and partly by the popular voice, changed the succession to the crown, and, if we may credit loyal Englishmen, secured the establishment of Freedom throughout the land. But the Bill of Rights did not declare, nor did the genius of Somers or Maynard conceive the political axiom, that all men are born equal. It may find acceptance from Englishmen in our day, but it is disowned by English institutions.

[16] Paradise Lost, Book XII. 26.

I would not forget the early testimony of the "judicious" Hooker, who in his "Ecclesiastical Polity," that masterly work, dwells on the equality of men by nature, or the subsequent testimony of Locke, in his "Two Treatises of Government," who, quoting Hooker, asserts for himself that "creatures of the same species and rank, promiscuously born to all the same advantages of nature and the use of the same faculties, should also be _equal_ one amongst another, without subordination or subjection."[17] Hooker and Locke saw the equality of men in a state of Nature; but their utterances found more acceptance across the Channel than in England.

It is to France that we must pass for the earliest development of this idea, its amplest illustration, and its most complete, accurate, and logical expression. In the middle of the last century appeared the renowned _Encyclopédie_, edited by Diderot and D'Alembert. This remarkable production, where science, religion, and government are discussed with revolutionary freedom, contains an article on Equality, first published in 1755. Here we find the boldest expression of this sentiment down to that time. "Natural Equality," says this authority, "is that which exists between all men by the constitution of their nature only. This Equality is the principle and the foundation of Liberty. Natural or moral equality is, then, founded upon the constitution of human nature common to all men, who are born, grow, subsist, and die in the same manner. Since human nature finds itself the same in all men, it is clear, that, according to Nature's law, each ought to esteem and treat the others as beings who are naturally equal to himself,--that is to say, who are men as well as himself." It is then remarked, that political and civil slavery is in violation of this Equality; and yet the inequalities of nobility in the state are allowed to pass without condemnation. Alluding to these, it is simply said that "they who are elevated above others ought to treat their inferiors as naturally their equals, shunning all outrage, exacting nothing beyond what is their due, and exacting with humanity what is incontestably their due."[18]

[17] Locke on Government, Book II. ch. 2, § 4. Hooker,
Ecclesiastical Polity, Book I.

[18] Encyclopédie, art. _Égalité Naturelle_, Tom. V. p. 415.

Considering the period at which this article was written, we are astonished less by its vagueness and incompleteness than by its bravery and generosity. The dissolute despotism of Louis the Fifteenth poisoned France. The antechambers of the King were thronged by selfish nobles and fawning courtiers. The councils of Government were controlled by royal mistresses. The King, only a few years before, in defiance of Equality,--but in entire harmony with the conduct of the School Committee in Boston,--founded a military school _for nobles only_, carrying into education the distinction of Caste. At such a period the Encyclopedia did well in uttering important and effective truth. The _sentiment_ of Equality was fully declared. Nor should we be disappointed, that, at this early day, even the boldest philosophers did not adequately perceive, or, if they perceived, did not dare to utter, our axiom of liberty.

Thus it is with all moral and political ideas. First appearing as a sentiment, they awake a noble impulse, filling the soul with generous sympathy, and encouraging to congenial effort. Slowly recognized, they finally pass into a formula, to be acted upon, to be applied, to be defended in the concerns of life, as principles.

Almost contemporaneously with this article in the Encyclopedia our attention is arrested by a poor solitary, of humble extraction, born at Geneva, in Switzerland, of irregular education and life, a wanderer from his birthplace, enjoying a temporary home in France,--Jean Jacques Rousseau. Of audacious genius, setting at nought received opinions, he rushed into notoriety by an eccentric essay "On the Origin of the Inequality among Men," where he sustained the irrational paradox, that men are happier in a state of Nature than under the laws of Civilization. At a later day appeared his famous work on "The Social Contract." In both the sentiment of Equality is invoked against abuses of society, and language is employed tending far beyond Equality in Civil and Political Rights. The conspicuous position since awarded to the speculations of Rousseau, and their influence in diffusing this sentiment, would make this sketch imperfect without allusion to him; but he taught men to feel rather than to know, and his words have more of inspiration than of precision.

The French Revolution was at hand. That great outbreak for enfranchisement was the expression of this sentiment. Here it received distinct and authoritative enunciation. In the Constitutions of Government successively adopted, amid the throes of bloody struggle, the equality of men was constantly proclaimed. Kings, nobles, and all distinctions of birth, passed away before this mighty and triumphant truth.

These Constitutions show the grandeur of the principle, and how it was explained and illustrated. The Constitution of 1791, in its first article, declares that "Men are born and continue free and _equal in their rights_." This great declaration was explained in the sixth article: "The law is the expression of the general will.... It ought to be the same for all, whether it protect or punish. All citizens, being equal in its eyes, are equally admissible to all dignities, places, and public employments, according to their capacity, and without other distinction than their virtues and talents." At the close of the Declaration of Rights there is this further explanation: "The National Assembly, wishing to establish the French Constitution on the principles which it has just acknowledged and declared, abolishes irrevocably the institutions which bounded liberty and equality of rights. There is no longer nobility, or peerage, or hereditary distinctions, or distinction of orders, or feudal rule, or patrimonial jurisdictions, or any titles, denominations, or prerogatives thence derived, or any orders of chivalry, or any corporations or decorations for which proofs of nobility were required, or which supposed distinctions of birth, or any other superiority than that of public functionaries in the exercise of their functions.... _There is no longer, for any part of the nation, or for any individual, any privilege or exception to the common right of all Frenchmen._"[19] These diffuse articles all begin and end in the equality of men.

[19] Moniteur, 1791, No. 259.

In fitful mood, another Declaration of Rights was brought forward by Condorcet. February 15, 1793. Here are fresh inculcations of Equality. Article First places Equality among the natural, civil, and political rights of man. Article Seventh declares: "Equality consists in this, that each individual can enjoy the same rights." Article Eighth: "_The law ought to be equal for all_, whether it recompense or punish, whether it protect or repress." Article Ninth: "All citizens are admissible to all public places, employments, and functions. Free people know no other motives of preference in their choice than talents and virtues." Article Twenty-third: "Instruction is the need of all, and society owes it equally to all its members." Article Thirty-second: "There is oppression, when a law violates the natural, civil, and political rights which it ought to guaranty. There is oppression, when the law is violated by the public functionaries in its application to individual cases."[20] Here again is the same constant testimony, reinforced by the accompanying report explaining the Constitution, where it is said: "All hereditary political power is at the same time an evident violation of natural equality and an absurd institution, since it supposes the inheritance of qualities proper for the discharge of a public function. Every exception to the common law made in favor of an individual is a blow struck at the rights of all." And in another part of the same report, "the sovereignty of the people, _equality among men_, the unity of the Republic," are declared to have been "the guiding principles always present in the formation of the Constitution."[21]

[20] Moniteur, 1793, No. 49.

[21] Exposition des Principes et des Motifs du Plan de
Constitution: Condorcet, OEuvres, Tom. XII. pp. 336, 413.