Chapter VIII: Appendix (1)

The speech on the Barbarism of Slavery was followed by outbursts of opinion which exhibit the state of the public mind at the time. There was approval and opposition, and there was also menace of violence. As this was promptly encountered, it could never be known to what extent the plot had proceeded.

Mr. Sumner was at his lodgings, alone, on the fourth day after the speech, when, about six o’clock, P. M., he received a visit from a stranger, who opened conversation by saying that he was one of the class recently slandered, being a Southern man and a slaveholder, and that he had called for an explanation of the speech, and to hold its author responsible. A few words ensued, in which the visitor became still more offensive, when Mr. Sumner ordered him out of the room. After some delay, he left, saying, in violent tone, that he was one of four who had come from Virginia for the express purpose of holding Mr. Sumner responsible, and that he would call upon him again with his friends. Mr. Sumner sent at once to his colleague, Mr. Wilson, who quickly joined him. While they were together, a person came to the door who asked particularly to see Mr. Sumner alone, and when told that he was not alone, declined to enter. About nine o’clock in the evening three other persons came to the door, who asked to see Mr. Sumner alone, and receiving the same answer, they sent word by the domestic who opened the door, that Mr. ---- and two friends had called, but, not finding him alone, they would call again in the morning, for a private interview, and if they could not have it, they would cut his d----d throat before the next night. Such a message, with the attendant circumstances, put the friends of Mr. Sumner on their guard, and it was determined, contrary to his desire, that one or more should sleep in the house that night. Accordingly Hon. Anson Burlingame and Hon. John Sherman, both Representatives, slept in the room opening into his bedroom. In the morning other circumstances increased the suspicion that personal injury was intended.

It was the desire of Mr. Sumner that this incident should be kept out of the newspapers; but it became known, and caused no small excitement at Washington, and through the country. It was the subject of telegrams and of letters. The anxiety in Boston was shown in a letter, under date of June 9, from his friend Hon. Edward L. Pierce, saying:--

“We have just heard of the threat of violence made to you last
evening. Dr. Howe and others meditate leaving for Washington
forthwith. I wish I could be there; but I feel assured that
there are enough to protect you, if you will only let them. Do
be careful, very careful. You will not be safe, until you have
arrived in the Free States on your way home.”

Messrs. Thayer and Eldridge, booksellers, wrote at once from Boston:--

“If you need assistance in defending yourself against the
ruffians of the Slave Power, please telegraph us _at once_, or
to some of your friends here who will notify us. There is a
strong feeling here, and we can raise a small body of men, who
will join with your Washington friends, or will alone defend
you.”

Hon. Gershom B. Weston, a veteran, wrote from Duxbury, Massachusetts:--

“I am ready to shoulder my musket and march to the Capitol,
and there sacrifice my life in defence of Free Speech and the
Right.”

Hon. M. F. Conway, then in Washington, and afterwards Representative in Congress from Kansas, sent in to Mr. Sumner, while in his seat, this warning and tender of service:--

“You are not safe to be alone at any time. I will be glad to
be with you all the time, if practicable. I ask the privilege
especially of being one of your companions at night. I will
accompany you from the Senate Chamber, when you leave this
evening.”

In reply to an inquiry from home, Hon. James Buffinton, of the House of Representatives, wrote:--

“The Massachusetts delegation in Congress will stand by Mr.
Sumner and his late speech. There will be no backing down by
us, and I am in hopes our people at home will pursue the same
course.”

The Mayor of Washington invited Mr. Sumner to make affidavit of the facts, or to lodge a complaint, which the latter declined to do, saying that he and his friends had no inducement from the past to rely upon Washington magistrates. At last the Mayor brought the original offender, being a well-known Washington office-holder of Virginia, to Mr. Sumner’s room, when he apologized for his conduct, and denied all knowledge of the visitors later in the evening who left the brutal message.

The friends of Mr. Sumner did not feel entirely relieved. Among these was his private secretary, A. B. Johnson, Esq., afterwards chief clerk of the Lighthouse Board, who, untiring in friendship and fidelity, without consulting him, arranged protection for the night, and a body-guard between his lodgings and the Senate. The latter service was generously assumed by citizens of Kansas, who, under the captaincy of Augustus Wattles, insisted upon testifying in this way their sense of his efforts for them. Apprised of Mr. Sumner’s habit of walking to and from the Capitol, they watched his door, and, as he came out, put themselves at covering distance behind, with revolvers in hand, and then, unknown to him, followed to the door of the Senate. In the same way they followed him home. This body-guard, especially in connection with the previous menace, illustrates the era of Slavery.

The personal incident just described was lost in the larger discussion caused by the speech itself, in the press and in correspondence.

THE PRESS.

The appearance of the Senate at the delivery of the speech was described by the correspondent of the _New York Herald_ in his letter of the same date.

“During the delivery of this exasperating bill of charges,
specifications, and denunciation of that ‘sum of all
villanies,’ Slavery, a profound and most ominous silence
prevailed on the floor of the Senate and in the galleries.
We have no recollection in our experience here, running
through a period of twenty years, of anything like this
ominous silence during the delivery of a speech for Buncombe,
on Slavery, by a Northern fanatic or a Southern fire-eater.
We say ominous silence, because we can only recognize it as
something fearfully ominous,--ominous of mischief,--ominous of
the revival in this capital and throughout the country of the
Slavery agitation, with a tenfold bitterness compared with any
previous stirring up of the fountains of bitter waters.”

The correspondent of the _New York Tribune_ of the same date wrote:--

“Mr. Sumner’s speech attracted a large audience to the Senate
galleries, which continued well filled during the four hours
of his scourging review of Slavery in all its relations,
political, social, moral, and economical. There appeared to be
a studied effort at indifference on the Democratic side; for
only a dozen Senators were in their seats during the first hour
or two. Afterward they gradually appeared, and leading Southern
members from the House contributed to the general interest by
their presence and attention.

“As a whole, this speech was regarded as being more offensive
by the South than the one which created such a sensation
before, and there is reason to believe, that, but for
prudential considerations, it might have been attended with
similar results. It was found quite difficult to restrain some
decided exhibition of resentment in certain quarters. The
only expression of indignation which found vent was in Mr.
Chesnut’s brief and angry reply, from which the general temper
of the South may be inferred, as he is regarded among the most
discreet and considerate in his tone and bearing.”

The correspondent of the _Chicago Press and Tribune_, under date of June 5, wrote:--

“The speech of Charles Sumner yesterday was probably the most
masterly and exhaustive argument against human bondage that has
ever been made in this or any other country, since man first
commenced to oppress his fellow-man. He took the floor at ten
minutes past twelve, and spoke until a little after four. The
tone of the speech was not vindictive, and yet there was a
terrible severity running through it that literally awed the
Southern side. There will, of course, be various opinions as to
the _policy_ of this awful arraignment of the Slave Power, yet
there can be but one opinion as to its extraordinary logical
completeness, and, however it may affect public opinion to-day,
it is an effort that will live in history long after the
ephemeral contest of this age shall have passed away. Indeed,
while listening to it, I could not but feel--and the same
feeling was, I know, experienced by others--that the eloquent
and brave orator was speaking rather to future generations, and
to the impartial audience of the whole civilized world, than
to the men of to-day, with a view of effecting any result upon
elements with which he was immediately surrounded.”

The correspondent of the _New York Evening Post_ wrote, under date of June 5:--

“Mr. Sumner’s speech was a tremendous attack upon Slavery,
and was utterly devoid of personalities. He attacked _the
institution_, and not individuals, but his language was very
severe. There was no let-up in the severity from beginning
to end. Facts were quoted, and _they_ were allowed to bear
against States as well as individuals; but Mr. Sumner made no
comment upon that class of facts. While he was exhibiting the
barbarous character of Slave-Masters, there was a good deal of
restlessness on the slaveholding side of the Senate Hall, as if
it required great self-control to keep silence.”

The correspondent of the _Boston Traveller_ wrote at length on the delivery, and the impression produced. Here is an extract:--

“So far as personal violence was to be apprehended, we think he
was as unconcerned as a man could be. Anxiety on that account
might have been felt by his friends, but not by him. He seemed
to be all forgetful of himself, and to have his mind dwelling
on the cause to which he was devoted, the race for which he was
to plead, and on the responsibility under which he stood to his
country and to generations to come.…

“There was something sublime in the ardor and boldness and
majesty with which he spoke. At times we could not but forget
the speech, and think only of the speaker,--the honorable
emulation of his youth, the illustrious services of his
manhood, the purity of his aims, the sufferings he had endured,
and the merciful Providence which had preserved him. Nothing
could surpass the effect of the concluding paragraphs, in which
he predicted a Republican triumph in November next.

“The four hours during which we listened to him can never pass
from our memory. It would be superfluous here even to enumerate
the points of the speech, or to suggest its most powerful
passages, for it will be universally read. An arraignment
of Slavery so exhaustive has never before been made in our
history, and it will supersede the necessity of another.
Hereafter, when one desires to prove Slavery irrational and
unconstitutional, he will go to that speech as to an arsenal.
During a part of its delivery, the Southern Senators, as Toombs
and Wigfall, were very uneasy, walking about the Senate, and
conversing aloud. Keitt and other members of the House from
South Carolina were also in the Senate Chamber, and were rather
unquiet. Near Mr. Sumner, throughout his speech, sat his
colleague, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Burlingame, and Owen Lovejoy; and
had any Southern member attempted a repetition of the Brooks
assault, he would have found in either of them a foeman worthy
of his steel.

“The Republican Senators gave excellent attention to the
speech. Some of them, who are understood to hold very moderate
and conservative opinions, expressed a strong admiration of the
speech. One of them called it ‘a mighty effort’; another said
it was ‘the greatest speech of the age’; another said ‘it was
an unanswerable refutation of the doctrines which Senators from
Slave States had repeatedly advanced and debated in favor of
the justice and policy of Slavery, and It was a good work.’ …

“Mr. Sumner was called upon last evening by some of the leading
citizens of Kansas, some of whom are to hold official positions
upon its admission, who thanked him for his speech, and assured
him that their cause would rather be advanced than injured by
it. Their course puts to shame the timidity of some persons
who were opposed to its delivery, fearing lest it would defeat
the admission of Kansas,--just as if the Proslavery Democracy,
in their treatment of that question, are to be governed by any
consideration except their own party interests and the demands
of Slavery. It is time that the Republican party pursued its
own course, without asking the counsel or permission of its
adversaries.”

An occasional correspondent of the _Chatauque Democrat_, New York, gave a familiar sketch of the scene.

“Mr. Breckinridge remained all the time, and sat with an open
book in his hands, pretending to read; but his eyes wandered
from the page, and, with a frown upon his brow, he finally
gazed at the speaker till he closed. Jeff Davis pretended to
be reading the _Globe_, but it was plain to be seen by the
heading of the paper that it was upside down. Wigfall seemed
in torment. He listened respectfully awhile, and then glided
silently around from one Senator to another, and conferred in
whispers. He seemed to be hatching mischief; but the grave
shake of the head of the older Senators doubtless kept this
uneasy, restless desperado quiet. Hunter sat like a rock,
immovable, and listened respectfully to the whole. Not a muscle
moved upon his placid face to denote what was going on in his
mind. Toombs heard the most of it quietly, and with as much
of a don’t-care look as his evil passions would permit. Near
the close, ‘Sheep’s-Gray’ Mason came in and took his seat, and
commenced writing a letter. He evidently intended to show the
galleries that Sumner was too small for him to notice. But he
soon found a seat in a distant part of the Hall, and an easy
position, where he sat gloomily scowling upon the orator till
he sat down. When the speech was about half through, Keitt,
the accomplice of Brooks in his attempted assassination of
Mr. Sumner, came in and took a seat near Senator Hammond.
For a while he sat gazing about the galleries, evidently to
notice the dramatic effect of his presence upon the audience
there. But few seemed to notice him. By degrees he began to
pay attention to the speech.… Curry, of Alabama, and Lamar, of
Mississippi, members of the other House, though Southerners
of the straitest sect, could not conceal their delight at the
oratory and classic and scholarly feast before them. They
are scholars and orators themselves, and could appreciate
an intellectual treat, though the sentiments were ever so
obnoxious.

“On the Republican side breathless attention prevailed. Those
who immediately surrounded the Senator were Mr. Wilson, Senator
Bingham, John Hickman, Preston King, and Solomon Foot. Mr.
Seward sat in his usual seat, and scarcely moved during the
delivery of the great speech.”

As the speech was read, the conflict of opinion began to show itself. Democrats were all against it; Republicans were divided.

The _New York Tribune_, in an editorial notice, said:--

“We have said that Mr. Sumner’s was doubtless a strong and
forcible speech; and yet we wish he had made it on some other
bill than that providing for the admission of Kansas.”

A Boston paper, in a letter from Washington, contained the following reply to the _New York Tribune_.

“And speaking of Kansas, I may here say that a number of
leading Kansas men have called on Mr. Sumner to assure him that
the _Tribune’s_ idea, that his speech injured the prospect of
the admission of their State, never found lodgement in their
minds. They thank him for it, and assure him, that, of their
own knowledge, the fate of the bill was decided before he took
the floor.”

The _New York Evening Post_, after observing that the speech was “elaborate, learned, eloquent, and exhaustive of every topic on which it touched,” said:--

“Though nominally relating to the bill for the admission of
Kansas, his remarks took a wider range, and were a general
arraignment of the system of Slavery, as it exists in the
Southern States of this Union, in all its moral, political, and
social aspects.…

“No one, we presume, can fail to admire the ability and cogency
of this address; but whether the peculiar line of argument was
called for at this time, or whether it will aid in the passage
of the Kansas Admission Bill, may admit of doubt.”

The _New York Times_ was as little sympathetic as the _Tribune_.

“From beginning to end it was a vehement denunciation of
Slavery. The labor of four leisure years seems to have been
devoted by Mr. Sumner to collecting every instance of cruelty,
violence, passion, coarseness, and vulgarity recorded as having
happened within the Slave States, or as having been committed
by a slaveholder.… But, aside from its utter irrelevancy to the
Kansas Question, what general good can be hoped for from such
envenomed attacks upon the Slave States? Do they tend in any
way to promote the public welfare? Do they aid in the least the
solution of what every sensible man acknowledges to be the most
delicate and difficult problem of this age?”

Then, in another number, the _Times_ said:--

“Fortunately, it has commanded less attention than was
anticipated, and has encountered silence in some quarters,
and positive disapproval in others, usually disposed to judge
speeches of this class with the utmost forbearance. Even the
_Tribune_, while it has published the speech in its editions
intended mainly for the country, has not deemed it judicious
or wise to give it circulation among its city readers; and
some of the most decided Republican papers in the country
have protested against the injustice of holding the party
responsible for its sentiments.”

The _New York Herald_ took advantage of the speech to hold up the consequences of “Black Republicanism.” On the day after the delivery, it wrote thus:--

“_Important from Washington.--The Great Republican
Manifesto.--Opening of the Campaign in Earnest.--Charles
Sumner’s Inflammatory Harangue in the Senate.--Appeal to
the North against the South.--The Fivefold Wrong of Human
Slavery.--Its Total Abolition in the United States the
Sacred Duty of the Republican Party.--The Helper and Spooner
Programmes fully and emphatically indorsed.--Mr. Sumner the
Leading Light of the Black Republicans._

“We give elsewhere, to-day, in full, the speech of Senator
Sumner, of Massachusetts, on the great question that is
presented to the whole country for judgment in November next.

“Not only the argument it contains, but the place where it was
uttered, and the position and character of the man who uttered
it, should be taken into consideration, in measuring its
bearing upon, and relation to, what may truthfully be called
the greatest question of the present age.…

“In that Senate which has so often resounded with the sublimest
utterances of human lips and human hopes, Mr. Sumner stands
forth the personification of a great and a free State, and the
representative man of a great and powerful political party in
fifteen of the sovereign States of this Union. He possesses
the philosophical acumen of Mr. Seward, without his cautious
reserve as a politician,--the honesty of Lincoln, without the
craft of a candidate in nomination,--and literary culture,
political zeal, and the gift of eloquence, which place him in
the very foremost rank as a leader and an exponent of the Black
Republican ideas. All of these circumstances combine to give a
more deep solemnity to his words, in this grave moment of their
utterance.…

“Every man admits that our fraternal relations with the
Southern States are productive of unmixed benefit to us and
to ours; and yet Lincoln and Seward incite the North to an
‘irrepressible conflict’ with the South; and now comes another
mighty leader among the Black Republicans, and proclaims it to
be a ‘sacred animosity.’

“This is the burden of Mr. Sumner’s eloquence, and we need not
enter upon its details. But there is one characteristic of
this speech which is in perfect accordance with the policy of
the Black Republican party in the present campaign. The bloody
and terrible results which must ensue, if that party succeeds
in getting possession of the Federal Government, are kept
carefully out of view. John Brown’s practice is taught, but
there is no word of John Brown. The social condition of fifteen
populous, rich, and powerful States is to be revolutionized;
but not a hint of the possibility of resistance on their
part, or of the reactive effect of such resistance upon the
aggressive North, is dropped.”

On the next day the _Herald_ said:--

“_Sumner’s Truthful Exposition of the Aims of Black
Republicanism.--Its Teachings in the coming Conventions._

“The perfect platform of the Black Republican party has been
laid down by Senator Sumner in his recent speech in the Senate,
and it is now before the country for approval or rejection.”

In the same spirit, the _Richmond Despatch_ recognized the speech as an authentic manifestation of Northern sentiment.

“The fact is, Sumner has spoken but too truly. His is the
spirit in which the South is regarded by the party to which
he belongs. He is its mouthpiece. His is the tongue to the
Abolition lyre, giving it utterance, bringing out its genuine
tones. Greeley and Raymond are afraid, just at this moment,
to speak the whole truth. They dare not let the conservative
portion of the people at the North know that it is the
design of the party with which they are associated to make
uncompromising war upon the South,--to destroy its institutions
at any cost of blood, to hunt down its people even to the
extremity of death, if it be necessary. The South ought to feel
obliged to Sumner for betraying the designs of the party. His
speech is a godsend.”

The _Indianapolis Daily Journal_ wrote:--

“We have read as much of Senator Sumner’s speech on the
Barbarism of Slavery as we have had time to read, and must
bear witness that it is one of the ablest, most exasperating,
and most useless speeches we ever read. It shows all through
the genius, the learning, and the hate of its gifted and
abused author. It is manifestly the revenge of the orator on
the institution that through Brooks’s arm struck him down so
brutally. It is intended less to check the growth of Slavery
than to gall Slaveholders. It is a scalding, excoriating
invective, almost without parallel in the annals of oratory.…
As a vengeance for the orator’s own wrongs, it is ample and
admirable. As an implement to aid the great work of repressing
Slavery extension, it is simply worthless, or worse. Slavery is
all that he charges. But slaveholders are not as barbarous as
their system.”

The _Boston Daily Advertiser_ begins by saying of the speech, that “its denunciation, although strong, is not hot; its profuse learning and reference to history show elaboration and study; and the whole mass of reasoning, of rhetoric, and of authority is brought together and wielded with such skill and power as the greatest masters of oratory might well envy”; and then the journal proceeds:--

“We confess that in our judgment the argument upon Slavery
itself need be neither long nor elaborate. The Golden Rule
has exhausted the subject, both upon principle and authority.
The testimony of one enlightened slaveholder like Jefferson,
who ‘trembled for his country, when he remembered that God
was just,’ tells us as much of the actual workings of the
institution as all the hideous narratives which its opponents
have culled in such appalling profusion from its current
history. The subject is one which is governed by principles
which are essentially and peculiarly elementary, and we confess
that we see not how any powers of eloquence or reasoning could
turn him who is not convinced by the simple statement of these
few original principles.…

“If the majority of the people are already right upon the main
subject,--and we should otherwise despair of the Republic,--we
must conclude that our efforts will be much more efficacious,
if directed at those constitutional heresies by means of which
this giant evil is at present carrying on its attack. It is in
this way, chiefly, that, within those limits of duty which the
Republican party is ever careful to affirm and observe, we can
hope to act efficiently upon this great question.”

The tone of the Democratic papers appears in the _Albany Atlas and Argus_.

“No one can rise from a perusal of this speech without a
contempt for the author, and a conviction of his unfitness for
the place.”

Also in the _Boston Post_.

“Charles Sumner’s recent speech is a curiosity that has no
parallel, at least in our Senatorial record. Pedantry, egotism,
fortuitous hypothesis, malice, rhapsody, and verbosity stripe
and emblazon it with disgusting conspicuousness.”

Other papers were grateful and enthusiastic, generally in proportion to their Antislavery character.

The _Boston Traveller_ said:--

“No nobler specimen of American eloquence can be found than
this logical, bold, spirited, clear, and learned exposition
of the ‘Barbarism of Slavery.’ In it we have the views of the
chivalrous antagonist of Wrong, expressed in the pointed and
elegant language of the accomplished scholar, and guided by the
intellect of the sagacious and benevolent statesman. We are the
more pleased with the plain speaking of Mr. Sumner, because
there has apparently been a falling off in the language of some
leading Republicans since the beginning of the Presidential
contest, as if they were fearful of offending the Oligarchy.
Mr. Sumner, who has no idea of sacrificing the Right to the
Expedient, has given utterance to vital truths in language full
of vital energy,--‘Thoughts that breathe, and words that burn.’”

The _Boston Transcript_ said:--

“Many persons, who read this speech without having previously
read a number of speeches made on the other side, may be likely
to consider it too abstract in its character. But, as many
Southern Senators, who assume to be the representative men
of their section, have gravely lectured the Senate at great
length in defence of the principles and practice of Slavery,
have taken the bold ground that it is in accordance with the
commands of God and the teachings of experience, have attempted
to show that it elevates the white man and blesses the black,
have even gone so far as to assert that labor, whether white
or black, is happier when owned than when hired, and on the
strength of these assumptions have eagerly argued for the
extension of such a beneficent institution into territory now
free, it is certainly proper that some man from the Northern
States should make an attempt to save religion, conscience,
reason, common sense, common sensibility, from being pressed
into the service of the wickedest and most nonsensical
paradoxes that ever entered the brain or came out of the mouth
of educated men.”

The _Boston Atlas and Bee_ said:--

“It is not too much to say that it is the boldest, most
thorough, and most uncompromising speech that Mr. Sumner has
ever delivered; and it is easy to see that it must prove the
most offensive to the slaveholders of any of his speeches. It
is a complete hand-book of their offences, and will excite in
them great and perhaps irrepressible rage.…

“In vigor of thought and style, this speech will rank among
the greatest, if not at the head, of Mr. Sumner’s productions.
It is straightforward, direct, logical, proceeding directly to
its mark and by the shortest line, striking the swiftest and
hardest blows, and never for a moment leaving the reader in
doubt as to its meaning, while it is enlivened by even more
than the orator’s usual wealth of classical and historical
lore. It is in every respect a remarkable speech, and will
arrest the attention of the whole country.”

The _Boston Journal_ said:--

“We trust that the length of Mr. Sumner’s speech will deter
none from its perusal. It is what it professes to be, an
examination of the institution of Slavery itself,--and we
venture to say a more acute, comprehensive, exhaustive, and
powerful exposition of the whole subject never was made.
Whoever wants to understand what American Slavery is must
read this speech; whoever wants to make headway against the
ripening public feeling by defending Slavery must first try to
answer the arguments of this speech. If he does not, he will
be in danger of imitating the folly of Senator Chesnut, and,
through an exhibition of passion and scurrility, of becoming a
living illustration of its truths.… The nation has certainly
been drifting into a too general acquiescence in the doctrine,
upheld openly or insidiously by both factions of the Democratic
party, that slaves are property, precisely like any other
property known to the Common Law. Any utterance like this of
Mr. Sumner’s, which shall call the American people from this
disgraceful and dangerous conclusion, may well be generously
criticised in other respects.”

The _New Bedford Mercury_ had the following, in a letter from Boston.

“The chief event of interest, certainly to Bostonians, lately,
is the astonishing speech delivered by Charles Sumner, in his
place in the Senate, in which he takes up the Slavery Question
precisely where he left it off, when stricken down by the cane
of the deceased bully Brooks. Offensive as that speech proved
to the Slave-Masters, this one is ten times worse. This speech,
for the first time in the history of Congressional speeches,
sets forth, without the slightest veil or mincing of the
matter, the deformities, obliquities, and immoralities of the
Slavery system.”

The _Albany Evening Journal_ said:--

“On the 22d of May, four years ago, we were startled with the
news that Charles Sumner had been struck down in the Senate
Chamber and nearly killed. Yesterday, for the first time since
that event, his eloquence again enchained the attention of the
Senate. The speech which provoked the assault in 1856 has been
more than matched in the one just delivered. The former speech
was read by millions, and the last is undoubtedly destined to
receive a still wider attention. The glowing eloquence and
surpassing erudition of Mr. Sumner give to all his speeches an
attraction difficult to resist, even by those who dislike the
doctrines he proclaims. His last speech is characterized not
only by his usual brilliancy of style, but contains a striking
array of facts and statistics which must have cost much patient
toil in collecting.”

The _Hartford Evening Press_ said:--

“It is said in certain quarters that it would have been more
politic to have left the speech unspoken. It is even urged by a
leading journal that the admission of Kansas is endangered by
it. The fact is, that the journal knows--none know better--that
the Kansas Bill stands just as good a chance at the hands of
Southern Senators to-day as if Charles Sumner had bent low
and with bated breath begged the admission of that Territory
as a favor, instead of demanding it as a right.… The speech
is demanded by the progress of the assumptions of Slavery.
It boldly sets itself up as divine in origin, Christian in
practice, the best form of civilized society, and challenges
our scrutiny and approbation. This, taken in connection with
its extraordinary interpretation of the Constitution as a
charter of Slavery, and not of Freedom, as we have all along
supposed it to be, forces the discussion upon us. Let us thank
Heaven that we have men bold enough to take up the gauntlet.
Charles Sumner deserves well of the country and well of the
age, for his calm and masterly exposition of the true character
of that system we are urged to accept and extend, as divine in
appointment, and adapted to the wants of our time.”

The _New Yorker Abendzeitung_, a German paper at New York, published an elaborate leader, translated by the _Evening Post_, of which this is an extract:--

“The oration made by Mr. Sumner is not a mere speech in the
common meaning of the term, but rather a thoroughly digested
treatise, carefully prepared, on the basis of a great number
of facts and quotations. It unites the most thorough-going
philosophical research, regardless of the conflict of its
results with the nearest practical aims, to that variegated
poetical coloring, which, appealing to the power of
imagination, is an indispensable element of an efficient
speech. Even to the best speeches of Senator Seward Sumner’s
speech stands in proportion as an oil painting of richest
coloring and most dramatic grouping of figures to a mere black
crayon etching. If Mr. Sumner’s speech had been uttered before
the meeting of the Chicago Convention, he would undoubtedly
have occupied a prominent rank among the candidates of the
radical portion of the Republican party.”

The _Sunday Transcript_, of Philadelphia, said:--

“The greatest speech of the season is certainly Charles
Sumner’s magnificent philippic against ‘The Great Barbarism.’
The learning and research, the array of facts, the apt and
eloquent quotations, the striking illustrations, and the
vivid imagery of the oration are its least merits. The style
and diction are as clear as crystal, as pure as water, and
sonorously musical. The entire tone of the speech is dignified
and lofty.…

“Indeed, we admire his courage, his unequalled moral _pluck_.
In this day of compromise and timidity, of bated breath and
base concession, when it is the loathsome fashion to say that
the Slavery Question should be discussed only as a matter of
profit and loss, it is refreshing to hear a Senator speak in
the spirit of Jefferson and the Fathers. Besides, does not
the South challenge us to discuss the abstract question? Do
not Benjamin, Toombs, Stephens, Curry, Keitt, Lamar, Hunter,
Slidell, Brown, Hammond, Chesnut, Mason, Pryor, Clingman,
Fitzhugh, and _all_ the Southern politicians, discuss the
question of Slavery in the abstract? Do they not deliver
long arguments to prove that Slavery is right, just, benign,
civilizing, and necessary,--that it is the proper condition of
the negro and the working-man? And is any free Northern man so
poor a poltroon as to say that these men shall not be _replied
to_? What! shall all the South be privileged to praise and
applaud Human Slavery, and not even Charles Sumner be allowed
to _describe it as it really is_?”

The _Daily Democrat,_ of Chicago, said:--

“This is the great speech of the day. It paints American
Slavery as it is, and as it has never been painted before.
No Republican can look upon the picture which Charles Sumner
draws of this Barbarism without feeling his heart swell with
hatred against it, and without recording a new vow to labor
unceasingly for its extinction.”

Early in the controversy _Frederick Douglass’s Paper_ bore testimony as follows.

“At last the right word has been spoken in the Chamber of
the American Senate. Long and sadly have we waited for an
utterance like this, and were beginning at last to despair of
getting anything of the sort from the present generation of
Republican statesmen; but Senator Sumner has now exceeded all
our hopes, and filled up the full measure of all that we have
long desired in the Senatorial discussions of Slavery. He has
dared to grapple directly with the Hell-born monster itself.
It is not the unreasonableness of the demands of Slavery, not
the aggressions nor the mere arrogance of the Slave Power,
insufferable and unconstitutional as these have been, that have
now so thoroughly aroused the soul and fired the tongue of the
learned and eloquent Senator of Massachusetts, but the inherent
and brutal barbarism of Slavery itself.… His manner of assault
is, we think, faultless. It was calm, self-poised, earnest,
brave, and yet completely guarded. The network of his argument,
though wonderfully elaborate and various, is everywhere, and
in all its parts, strong as iron. The whole slaveholding
Propaganda of the Senate might dash themselves against it in a
compact body, without breaking the smallest fibre of any of its
various parts.”

The _Liberator_, in an editorial article by William Lloyd Garrison, said:--

“Throughout, its spirit was lofty, dignified, and bold,
indicative of high moral intrepidity and a noble purpose. No
attempts were made to interrupt him, though the smothered wrath
of the Southern members must have been excessive.”

The correspondent of an Antislavery paper, with the initials W. P., in an article entitled “Mr. Sumner’s Last and Greatest Speech,” said:--

“The Massachusetts Senator has led a column into this fortress,
which, in the name of God and Humanity, must eventually silence
all its guns and level its last stone to the ground. Neither
statesman nor philanthropist has ever, in like manner, rent
asunder the veil and exposed to the view of an outraged people
the Barbarism of Slavery. This Mr. Sumner has done, _and no man
can undo it_. ‘What is written is written.’ Slaveholders may
rave, Americans may ignore, Republicans may deplore, but the
speech and the name of Charles Sumner will live and be praised
when the death-pall of oblivion shall cover the last vestige of
these unhappy men.”

The _Independent_, of New York, said:--

“The world will one day acknowledge the debt of gratitude it
owes to the author of this masterly analysis. For four hours he
held a crowded audience in attention, including large numbers
of Southern people, members of Congress, and others.”

The _Antislavery Standard_, of New York, said:--

“Nothing like it, in elevation of tone and width of scope,
had ever before been heard in that Chamber. It was worth, to
the author, to the cause, and to the country, all that it
cost to produce it. For Mr. Sumner it was a great triumph and
a revenge. And yet there was nothing vindictive in its tone
or spirit. The ‘bitterness’ which is ascribed to it was in
its truth. No doubt it stirred the malignant passions of the
Slave-Masters to the deepest depths; but the fault was theirs,
not his. His facts were unquestionable, his logic beyond
the reach of cavil, and his rhetoric eminently becoming and
self-respectful.”

While newspapers were discussing the speech, and Republicans were differing, the Legislature of Massachusetts threw its weight into the scales by the adoption of resolutions, entitled “Resolves relating to Freedom of Speech,” containing the following support of Mr. Sumner.

“_Resolved_, That the thanks of the people of this Commonwealth
are due and are hereby tendered to the Honorable Charles Sumner
for his recent manly and earnest assertion of the right of free
discussion on the floor of the United States Senate, and we
repeat the well-considered words of our predecessors in these
seats in approval of ‘Mr. Sumner’s manliness and courage in
his fearless declaration of free principles and his defence of
human rights and free institutions.’

“_Resolved_, That we approve the thorough, truthful, and
comprehensive examination of the institution of Slavery
embraced in Mr. Sumner’s recent speech; that the stern morality
of that speech, its logic, and its power command our entire
admiration; and that it expresses with fidelity the sentiments
of Massachusetts upon the question therein discussed.”

The meaning of these resolutions was not left doubtful by the mover, J. Q. A. Griffin, who, after alluding to “certain Conservative Republican newspapers, such as the _New York Times_ and the _Courier and Enquirer_, declaring that Mr. Sumner does not represent the Republican party in any degree,” said, “It is necessary that Massachusetts should uphold her Senator.”

* * * * *

The conflict of opinion in the American press showed itself abroad. The London _Times_ took the lead in opposition. Its New York correspondent, entitled “Our own Correspondent,” in a letter dated June 6, said of the speech: “A more studied insult to Southern slaveholding members, who compose nearly one half of the body in which the speech was delivered, a more vituperative attack upon the institution, a more bitter, galling, personal assault, or one more calculated to excite the worst feelings, can hardly be imagined.” Then quoting certain passages without explanation or context, and asking the reader to “bear in mind that one half of the gentlemen who listened to him were slaveholders,” the New York correspondent adds, “These extracts are sample bricks of the whole structure.”

The _Times_ itself followed in a leader of June, 18, where the tone of its New York correspondent was reproduced; and here is the beginning of those attacks on the Antislavery cause in our country for which this journal became so famous during the war. An extract will show its character.

“We must, in the name of English Abolitionism at least,
protest against these foolish and vindictive harangues.
Scarcely has the frenzy caused by John Brown’s outrage begun
to die away than out comes Mr. Sumner with a speech which will
set the whole South in a flame. We can well believe that the
prospects of the Republican party have been already damaged
by it. Mr. Sumner is one of that class of politicians who
should be muzzled by their friends. The man who can in personal
irritability so forget the interests of a great cause is its
worst enemy. Slavery existed on the American Continent long
before the assembly of which Mr. Sumner is a member. On it
depends, or is supposed to depend, the prosperity of half the
Union; the looms of Lancashire and Normandy, as well as those
of Mr. Sumner’s own State, are supplied by slave-grown cotton,
and hundreds of millions of Northern dollars are invested in
slave-worked plantations. Slavery, with its roots thus deep
in the soil, is not to be rooted up by any peevish effort of
rhetoric; and we may predict that the man who first gains a
victory for the cause of Abolition will be of very different
temper to the Senator from Massachusetts.”

The London _Morning Star_, of June 20, replied at length, and with much feeling. Here is an extract:--

“Who invested the _Times_ with the functions of the organ of
English Abolitionists? Who authorized the hoary charlatan of
Printing-House Square to speak authoritatively in the name of
the advocates of negro emancipation, and, as their assumed
representative, to bespatter with its venom one of the noblest
champions of that holy cause? Assuredly not the men of whom,
with the mendacious arrogance which has become to it a second
nature, it now pretends to be the appointed spokesman. Let it
canvass, if it will, the whole legion of British sympathizers
with the groaning slaves in the Southern States of America; it
will be puzzled to find one whom its coarse and unprincipled
attack upon Mr. Sumner has not inspired with sentiments of
mingled indignation and disgust.…

“We are convinced, that, throughout the length and breadth of
the United Kingdom, the noble speech of Mr. Sumner will awaken
reverence for his valor, admiration for his eloquence, and
sympathetic esteem for his genial sympathy for the down-trodden
slave; at any rate, we believe that there is but one journal
whose inveterate malignity would inspire it to heap censure
upon conduct which cannot be rewarded by too abundant homage.”

The London _Morning Advertiser_ also replied at length. Here is a specimen:--

“We are not satisfied with a contemporary who chooses to
describe the noble oration of Senator Sumner as ‘a vituperative
attack,’ as ‘a bitter, galling, personal assault.’ It is full
of noble and manly thoughts, expressed in terms of becoming
strength, but not too strongly, considering the magnitude of
the evil against which it is directed, and the determination of
the party by whom it is maintained.”

The London _Daily News_, of June 22, followed.

“The barbaric character of Slavery, and of its supporters,
has been abundantly exhibited through the press of some
Northern States, but it has never before been displayed in the
Senate; and all criticism of it is excluded from the Southern
press, and from most of the Northern. In the progress of the
revolutionary conflict, the moment has arrived for the truth to
be told in the Senate; and Mr. Sumner, as the representative
of the most venerable State of the Union, was the man to utter
it. He described the character of Slavery; he proved its
operation upon the liberties of communities and the character
of individuals; and he declared the resolution of the Free
States to get rid of the evil of being implicated in such a
barbarism, and to save every new community from being cursed
with it against its will.”

Then came _Punch_, July 21st, which said:--

“Mr. Summer’s speech was chiefly characterized by its closeness
of argument and lucidity of diction; but he occasionally
introduced a passage of highly wrought eloquence, or an
image of singular vividness; and in England, however the
orator’s sentiments might have been objected to by a political
antagonist, Mr. Sumner would have received the compliments of
gentlemen of both sides upon so remarkable an exhibition of
sustained power and intellectual skill.…

“Mr. Punch begs leave to offer his respectful congratulations
to Mr. Sumner upon his magnificent speech, and even more
earnestly upon the ample and perfect testimony that was
instantly given by the besotted slave-owners to the truth of
his assertion of the Barbarism of Slavery. It is not often that
an orator’s enemies are in such a desperate hurry to prove his
case for him. But here he was scarcely down, when the Slave
party rushed together to proclaim themselves the ruffians he
had painted them, and in the published copy of the oration Mr.
Sumner has given at once the calmest and the deadliest blow to
the system he denounces,--for he prints Mr. Chesnut’s speech.
All the bludgeons in the hands of all the ‘chivalry of the
South’ cannot beat that demonstration of Mr. Sumner’s case out
of the heads of the public in and out of the States. The speech
should be reprinted in England, and circulated in thousands.
What is the Antislavery Society about?”

To these London articles may be added passages from Miss Martineau’s correspondence with the _Antislavery Standard_, of New York. In a letter under date of July 2, the eminent writer said:--

“I may just say that Senator Chesnut’s commentary on Mr.
Sumner’s speech is very amusing here. He cannot know much of
the English aristocracy, if he supposes that strangers can get
at them by their back doors. Their back doors are well looked
to; but in Mr. Sumner’s case there was no question of back door
or front. Our aristocracy went out to seek him,--not he them. I
need not say that we heartily rejoice in the full truth having
been spoken in Congress. The occasion brings back vividly to my
memory Mr. Calhoun’s countenance and voice, when he insisted
to me, peremptorily putting down all argument, that that day
would never come: there would be silence about Slavery in
Congress world without end. This was in 1835. It must be also
needless for me to say that no unprejudiced man or woman here
really supposes that any terms can be kept with Slavery and
Slaveholders. The crisis of your revolution may be precipitated
by such open defiance in the Federal Legislature; but we see
that it was the South which brought on the revolution and
uttered the defiance, and that the only course for the Senator
from Massachusetts is to take care that the revolution is
steered straight by compass while there is such a fearful
tampering with the helm. To speak gingerly of Barbarism, when
his business was to set before his country the choice between
Barbarism and Civilization, was, of course, impossible; and
there could be no fidelity short of such a thorough exposure
and denunciation as he has offered.”

Then, under date of July 16, Miss Martineau wrote again:--

“Since I wrote last, we have had the opportunity of reading
Mr. Sumner’s speech entire. I know no instance in which it was
so necessary to have read the whole in order to understand any
part; and certainly I can recall no case in which careless
and conceited critics have cut a more wretched figure in
condemning a production before they understood it. They
supposed themselves on safe ground, when they cited passages
of denunciation, leaving (as such isolated passages must)
an impression that the speaker had outraged the principles
and spirit of legislative debate by personal imputation and
provocation to passion. Mr. Sumner’s own friends here regretted
what they saw, simply because personal accusation and insult
can never do any good, and must, in a crisis like that of your
polity, render a complete rupture inevitable. As soon as we got
the whole speech, however, the aspect of the quoted paragraphs
was entirely changed. Instead of a piece of stimulating
invective, we find the speech to be a chapter of history,
and an exposition, calm and rational, of the workings of a
social institution which is brought forward for discussion,
and so placed on its trial, by Mr. Sumner’s opponents. To me
it appears a production of altogether incalculable importance,
apart from its merits in detail. Till now, if we could have
met with such a phenomenon in England as a person who was not
convinced of the wickedness and folly of Slavery, we should not
have known where to turn for a compact, reliable, serviceable
statement of the modern case of slave and free labor.”

Another testimony, purporting to be “by a distinguished writer of England,” appeared in the American papers at the time.

“Thanks, many thanks, for Sumner’s noble speech. It has been
read with swelling throats and tearful eyes. It is a mighty
effort towards wiping out the monstrous blot that disfigures
your fair country. I like well the way in which he takes head
after head of the foul Hydra, and severs each as completely
as ever Hercules did; yet his labor was child’s play in
comparison.”

To this English list may be joined a poem prompted by this speech. The New York _Independent_, where it first appeared in our country, announced that the initials subscribed to it were those of Mrs. L. W. Fellowes, a daughter of Rowland Hill, originator of the cheap postage system in England.

“TO CHARLES SUMNER.

“As one who wandering lone is sudden stirred
With a wild gush of hidden woodland singing,
Doth picture to himself the beauteous bird
That with sweet concord sets the greenwood ringing,
And gazes eager round, and is full fain
To mark the warbler fair, yet gazes still in vain,--

“So I, being melted to my inmost soul
By this thy noble plaint for Freedom’s sake,
Do grieve that ocean-tides between us roll,
And that I ne’er can see thee strive to break
The shackles, e’en more harsh than those that bind
The slave-born limbs,--the shackles of the mind.

“Go on, brave heart! and faint not, though thy way
Be rough and rude, and torn with many a thorn:
All England would thee hail, if some white day
Thou, harassed by thy country’s bitter scorn,
Shouldst seek our friendly shore, and rest awhile
Thy wearied soul in this our happy Isle.

“L. W. F.

“WOLVERHAMPTON, ENGLAND.”

This speech took its place in foreign bibliography. French writers who discussed American Slavery cited it, among whom was that excellent ally of our country, M. Édouard Laboulaye, who wrote always with equal knowledge and friendship. After quoting the famous words by which Wesley describes and blasts Slavery, he gives a definition from this speech.

“The Americans of the North, who calculate even to the
beatings of the heart, have summed up this multifold crime
in five axioms. It is, say they, man become the property of
his fellow-man, marriage abolished, paternity destroyed,
intelligence systematically stifled, labor forced and
unpaid,--in other terms, tyranny, confiscation, and robbery.
Such are the essential vices of Slavery, vices independent
of the goodness or the wickedness of the master, vices
irremediable,--for to correct them is to acknowledge that the
Slave has some rights, it is to make a man of him, it is to
commence emancipation. Such, without exaggeration and without
declamation, is the ‘Barbarism of Slavery,’ as the eloquent
Senator of Massachusetts has justly called it.”

The able Frenchman then adds in a note:--

“Mr. Sumner is the Senator who was struck down in the Senate
Chamber by a colleague from the South, for which the assailant
received a cane of honor, awarded by his admirers at the South.
The welcome which Mr. Sumner in turn received in England and
France, where he came to reëstablish his health, must have
proved to him how much on the Old Continent are still esteemed
courage and talent put forth in the service of humanity.”[140]

CORRESPONDENCE.

The testimony of correspondents was in harmony with the Antislavery press. Both in character and number, their letters were of singular authority. They show the sentiments of good men, and the extent to which the country was absorbed by the question of Slavery, although politicians sought to put it out of sight. And since this discussion, culminated in war, they throw light on the origin of that terrible conflict, and therefore belong to history. Brief extracts are given from a portion of the letters within reach.

There can be no better name for the beginning than John G. Whittier, the poet, who wrote from his home at Amesbury, Massachusetts:--