Chapter IX: Part 9

“The minds of the people of the South have been deceived by
the artful representations of demagogues, who have assured
them that the people of the North were determined to bring
the power of this Government to bear upon them, for the
purpose of crushing out this institution of Slavery.…
The Government of the United States has no more right to
interfere with the institution of Slavery in South Carolina
than it has to interfere with the peculiar institution of
Rhode Island, whose benefits I have enjoyed.”[175]

Then came the reversal by the President of General Fremont’s
Proclamation in Missouri, where, under date of August 30th,
this officer, commanding the Western Department, announced a
system of partial and local Emancipation as follows.

“The property, real and personal, of all persons in the
State of Missouri, who shall take up arms against the
United States, or who shall be directly proven to have
taken an active part with their enemies in the field,
is declared to be confiscated to the public use, and
their slaves, _if any they have, are hereby declared
freemen_.”[176]

The enthusiasm with which this provision was received by the
country could not save it from the judgment of the President.

These incidents, still showing in certain quarters a constant
tendency towards Emancipation, checked always by the Executive,
attested a policy of forbearance towards Slavery. Regarding
this condition of things as disastrous and of evil omen for the
future, Mr. Sumner earnestly strove to arrest it. His speech
was an appeal to the country.

CRITICISM AND COMMENT.

Attacks upon the speech were not prompted exclusively by
friendship to Slavery. Personal opposition to Mr. Sumner, never
mitigated by compromise on his part, found vent, in the hope
of influencing his reëlection as Senator, although this could
not occur till the next year. Such, at least, was the motive of
some. Hon. William Claflin, President of the Senate, wrote as
early as February 7, 1861, when the Crittenden Compromise was
finding support in Massachusetts:--

“The truth is, there is a desperate effort under the
surface to drive you from the Senate next winter, and,
if _nothing_ is done, it is feared by many that the
Conservative force will get so strong as to drive both you
and Andrew from your seats.”

A correspondent of the _Plymouth Memorial_ put this point
strongly.

“It is true, the country press spoke out and denounced this
attack upon Mr. Sumner, and the attempt which is being made
to take him from his place and put in it some weak-backed
quietist, who, afraid to look this thing in the face, would
palter weak commonplaces, and, while the patient writhed
in the paroxysms of pain, would administer soothing drops
instead of strong medicine to cure the disease. Mr. Sumner
struck at Worcester the key-note of an anthem that will,
ay, that is now being taken up by the people, and the sound
of which will put the croaking of these penny trumpets far
out of hearing.”

The _Norfolk County Journal_, by one of its correspondents,
explained the opposition.

“Of course no man with his eyes open needs to be told that
this furious onslaught on Mr. Sumner has very little to do
with this speech. _It is the opening of the war to defeat
his reëlection next fall._ A year ago the same papers made,
if possible, more savage attacks upon Mr. Andrew. Before
he was nominated every one of them opposed him, and after
his nomination not one of them supported him cordially; and
most of them predicted, that, though he might be carried
through by the Presidential election, yet in another year
the reaction would sweep him into oblivion. They will find
themselves equally mistaken about Mr. Sumner.”

Wendell Phillips, alluding to the assaults upon the speech,
wrote:--

“If it had no other advantage, suffice it that it shows you
who your personal enemies are.”

Not content with arraigning the policy proposed by Mr.
Sumner, his assailants became critics of another sort.
They insisted that he was wrong in his illustrations from
history,--misrepresenting the decree of Emancipation at Athens,
and misquoting Plutarch.

The decree of Emancipation can be read, and also the record of
the excitement which followed. That Hyperides at a desperate
moment proposed Emancipation as a measure of defence against a
triumphant conqueror is indisputable, and that such a measure
was already known in Athens among war powers is attested by the
scholiast of Aristophanes,[177] while a candid interpretation
of all the circumstances, including the acceptable peace
unexpectedly offered by Philip, points to the conclusion that
the latter was unwilling to provoke this untried warfare.[178]
This incident is described by a French writer, who gives to it
the same effect as Mr. Sumner:--

“Philippe, au bruit de cette proposition, dont l’adoption
pouvait ébranler la Grèce entière, _s’arrêta, frappé
d’épouvante_.”[179]

The heaviest blows were on account of Plutarch, and here it
is not easy to comprehend the anger displayed. Endeavoring to
present the idea of Emancipation in its proper relief, Mr.
Sumner brought forward the proclamation of liberty to the
slaves, saying nothing of others joining Marius, according to
the familiar translation of Langhorne, well satisfied that
the slaves were the effective force; and the speech was so
reported in the newspapers. Then came the attack, with learned
newspaper _scholia_, garnished with Greek type, insisting that
the husbandmen and shepherds, called “freemen” in Langhorne’s
translation, and not the emancipated slaves, were authors of
the success which carried the illustrious adventurer into the
Roman Forum, there to clutch with dying grasp his seventh
consulate.

The text of Plutarch is the best answer. That interesting
biographer speaks of the slaves first, _putting the
Proclamation of Emancipation foremost_; and this is precisely
what was needed for the argument. Nor was Mr. Sumner alone
in omitting to mention particularly the husbandmen and
shepherds, whether freemen or freedmen. Good scholars had done
precisely the same. Dr. Liddell, head master of Westminster
School, and one of the authors of the favorite Greek Lexicon,
describing this event, gives prominence to the Proclamation of
Emancipation, without mentioning any freemen, saying: “Like
all the partisan leaders of this period, _he offered liberty
to slaves_, and soon found himself at the head of a large
force.”[180] Smith’s Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography
and Mythology says that Marius “landed at Telamo in Etruria,
and, _proclaiming freedom to the slaves_, began to collect
a large force.”[181] And the great historian Niebuhr, after
referring to his landing on the coast of Etruria, where he
was joined by Etruscan cohorts, adds,--“Marius was not at all
delicate in collecting troops, and even _restored slaves to
freedom on condition of their taking up arms for him_.”[182]
Thus both these authorities, in harmony with Dr. Liddell, treat
the Proclamation as the chief feature, precisely as Mr. Sumner
presented it, and all three leave out of view the “freemen.”

Admitting that there were “freemen,” their part was evidently
secondary, unless in reality they were the new-made “freedmen,”
as a scholar has suggested. The predominance of the latter
is conspicuous in the old English translation by Sir Thomas
North:[183] “_And being landed, proclaimed by sound of
trumpet liberty to all slaves and bondmen that would come to
him._ So the laborers, herdmen, and neat-herds of all that
marsh, for the only name and reputation of Marius, ran to
the seaside from all parts.” It appears also in the historic
fact, that, when Marius landed in Etruria, there were few or
no husbandmen and shepherds already free. They were slaves.
According to Plutarch, the first prompting of Tiberius Gracchus
to his career as a reformer was observation in this very
region. Passing through Etruria, on the way to Spain, he was
troubled to find “scarce any husbandmen or shepherds except
slaves from foreign and barbarous nations.”[184] Niebuhr,
following Plutarch, says that “he saw far and wide no free
laborers, but numbers of slaves in chains.”[185] The language
is strong,--“far and wide no free laborers.” This was 137
years B. C. Somewhat later, 45 years B. C., Julius Cæsar by
positive law required that of herdmen one third should always
be free,[186] thus showing that two thirds at least were then
slaves. It is only reasonable to suppose, that, if slaves were
everywhere at the earlier date, and so numerous at the later
date, it would have been impossible at the landing of Marius,
87 years B. C., to form an army of freemen in a few days. Only
fourteen years later the gladiator Spartacus called the slaves
to his standard, and they came by tens of thousands, so as to
stifle the local power; and here again is testimony to their
comparative numbers.

Nothing is clearer than the diminution of the free population
of Italy at this period. An excellent authority speaks of it
as “the most notorious evil of the times”;[187] and this is
attested by others. It is easy to infer that the freemen must
have been few by the side of the slaves. Naturally, therefore,
did the experienced general make his appeal to this most
numerous and sympathetic class: he knew that so his strength
would be best assured. And this was the very position of Mr.
Sumner. It is evident that Plutarch himself was of the same
opinion; for shortly afterwards, in narrating these events,
he records that the other side did not suffer so much through
incapacity “as by anxious and unseasonable attention to
the laws,”[188] in preventing Emancipation. This important
testimony is most vividly stated in the old translation of
North, when he describes the opponent of Marius in Rome as
failing “not so much for lack of reasonable skill of wars _as
through his unprofitable curiosity and strictness in observing
the law_; for, when divers did persuade him to set the bondmen
at liberty to take arms for defence of the Commonwealth,
he answered, that he would never give bondmen the law and
privilege of a Roman citizen, having driven Caius Marius out
of Rome to maintain the authority of the law.”[189] Here was
passion for consistency, and want of practical sense. Marius
was not troubled in this way.

Another circumstance makes the conclusion yet clearer. On
entering Rome, Marius surrounded himself, according to
Plutarch, “with a guard _selected_ from the slaves that had
repaired to his standard,”[190] or, according to the same
authority in another place, “the slaves, whom he had admitted
his fellow-soldiers,“[191] thus attesting still further their
superior importance. In the troubles that ensued these freedmen
played a bloody part, until they were destroyed by Sertorius;
and here again their numbers appear. According to Plutarch,
the guard ”_selected_ from the slaves that had repaired to his
standard” was four thousand,[192] or not far from the ordinary
complement of a Roman legion, which the accomplished scholar,
Mr. George Long, tells us was the very force collected by
Marius in Etruria.[193] Plainly, therefore, the emancipated
slaves constituted the main body, if not the whole legion.

Whatever may be the text of Plutarch, and supposing freemen
among the recruits, nothing can prevent the conclusion, that
emancipated slaves constituted the decisive force by which
success was achieved. Therefore this example illustrates the
efficacy of a proclamation giving freedom to slaves, and for
this purpose it was adduced.

This discussion seems a diversion now; but at the time of the
speech the criticism was a reality,[194] attracting attention
and helping to arrest the great cause. To cap the climax, it
was gravely argued, that, even if the Proclamation had the
effect attributed to it, we must not imitate Caius Marius,--for
he was no better than a barbarian.

THE PRESS.

Specimens from the press show the condition of the public mind
at the time, and the controversy which arose, extending to
foreign countries. If there were enemies, so also were there
friends, both at home and abroad.

The _Boston Daily Advertiser_ thus frankly denounced the speech.

“We are sorry to see a disposition in several quarters to
represent the Republican party, mainly on the strength of
Mr. Sumner’s unfortunate speech at Worcester, as a party of
Emancipation, a ‘John Brown party,’ a party that desires to
carry on this war as a war of Abolition.… The Convention
certainly disavowed any intention of indorsing the fatal
doctrines announced by Mr. Sumner, with a distinctness
which can scarcely be flattering to that gentleman’s
conception of his own influence in Massachusetts.… It
is alleged that the Convention cheered Mr. Sumner. His
supporters among the delegates and spectators undoubtedly
did so: but who does not see that this goes for nothing,
in the face of the obvious fact that the silent party
who disapproved were so much superior in number as to
control the action of the whole body?… We hold it for an
incontestable truth, that neither men nor money will be
forthcoming for this war, if once the people are impressed
with the belief that the Abolition of Slavery, and not the
defence of the Union, is its object, or that its original
purpose is converted into a cloak for some new design of
seizing this opportunity for the destruction of the social
system of the South.… The speech to which we have several
times referred has certainly done as much as lay within the
compass of one man’s powers to inspire this suspicion, to
distract and weaken the loyal, and by indirection to aid
the disloyal.”

The _Boston Evening Gazette_ was in harmony with the
_Advertiser_.

“His appearance this year was not in accordance with the
wishes of those who do not follow his lead, but regard
him as one of the most irrepressible impracticables of
the party.… The sentiments uttered by Mr. Sumner are
opposed to the spirit of the times, to the policy of the
Administration, and are detrimental to the prosperity
of the cause. They are Charles Sumner’s ideas; he is
responsible for them; and the Convention, by killing the
resolutions offered by Rev. James Freeman Clarke, of
Boston, which substantially indorsed the speech of Mr.
Sumner, repudiated the Emancipation sentiments which Mr.
Sumner attempted to induce the Republicans to adopt as a
part of their policy. It was a most lamentable failure,
and should prove a lesson to men who are so entangled in
one idea that they imagine the wealth of the country and
the blood of its sons are being poured out to perpetuate a
party, instead of securing the safety of the Union and the
Constitution.

“After reading Mr. Sumner’s speech, one can but regret that
a mind possessed of such culture should give utterance
to sentiments that will stimulate the flames which now
threaten the destruction of the ship of state, and provoke
discord among the noble men who are striving to save it.
Had some unknown individual spoken the same words at this
time, we doubt not many would have regarded him as a fit
inmate for an insane asylum; but it is the position and
antecedents of the Senator which alone shield him from the
suspicion of being a proper person against whom a writ _De
lunatico inquirendo_ might be issued.… The tone of the
speech and the manner in which it was delivered are the
acme of arrogance.”

The _Boston Journal_ did not differ much from the _Advertiser_,
except in manner.

“Mr. Sumner and other radical Antislavery men, dazzled
by visions of Universal Freedom, entirely overlook the
insurmountable difficulties which stand in the way of
immediate emancipation. The unutterable horrors of a
servile insurrection do not present themselves, or they
would shrink from the prospect. The economic problem of
supporting four millions of human beings who have never
been self-dependent is not considered. All practical
considerations, in fact, are ignored by a miscalled
philanthropy which is as impracticable as it is visionary,
and which would lay waste the most prolific soil, and fill
our land with vagrants and marauders.

“We must limit the war to the purposes so distinctly
avowed by the Administration, or the sun of our national
prosperity will set in darkness and gloom, to rise again,
if at all, only after years of bloodshed and anarchy.
Proclaim the policy of Emancipation, and all hope of a
reconstruction of the Union will be crushed out. All the
loyal elements in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri will
be alienated at once, and every prospect of awakening the
dormant loyalty in the seceded States will have passed
away. It will come to this, that we must subjugate or be
subjugated. The people of the South would defend their
homes and their firesides to the last extremity, as we
would do, should the chances of war favor them. The present
generation would not see the end of such a contest, unless
the North should be conquered and subdued by the aid of
foreign bayonets or internal dissensions. From such a war
we may well pray to be delivered.”

The _Norfolk County Journal_ declared dissent.

“We are not prepared to indorse the doctrines to which
Mr. Sumner gave utterance in his Worcester speech. They
strike us as not pertinent to the present stage of the
Rebellion. Though their application may become a necessity
in the future, public sentiment is as yet unready to adopt
and enforce them. They were especially infelicitous in
being advanced at a Convention to which men of varying
views of public policy had been invited, and their
influence has not conduced to that harmony of political
action in Massachusetts which it is desirable to bring
about.”

The _Springfield Republican_, among many things, said:--

“We fear it is but an illustration of the mental perversity
produced by entire absorption in a single aspect of a great
question, without regard to its manifold relations, and by
the ‘sacred animosity,’ which, too exclusively nourished,
renders the best men reckless of means in the pursuit of
what they consider the chief end of life.”

On the contrary, the able Boston correspondent of that paper
wrote:--

“Charles Sumner’s speech was the great event of the day,
however. It was an epoch and a victory in itself. The
right thing was said, in the right way, at the right time,
by the right man. It was wise, conservative, practical,
as Mr. Sumner always is, and it unquestionably met the
views of four fifths of the audience. Those who did
not enthusiastically applaud said, ‘Oh, it isn’t quite
time; Sumner is right; this will be the _result_, we
hope and expect; but let us wait for Providence and the
Administration.’”

The _Boston Post_, representing the Democracy, declared itself.

“Mr. Sumner’s speech at Worcester yesterday was in
direct opposition to the policy of the Administration,
the declaration of Congress, and the avowed purpose of
the war,--overflowing with the same narrow, bitter, and
unconstitutional sentiments that have done so much to bring
our present misfortunes upon us, and which tend to render
the restoration of the Union impossible. If such views as
he advances governed the action of the Administration, _not
a brigade could be kept in the field_, or money enough
raised by the Secretary of the Treasury to buy breeches and
gaiters for a demagogue Senator. For such men as Sumner and
his ilk do not fight nor pay; they only brawl, and deserve
to be treated as were old scolds in days past,--_ducked in
a horse-pond_.”

Then in another article:--

“The error of having listened to this speech cannot be
repaired. The Republicans can set the matter right, as to
this being indorsed by the friends of the Administration
in Massachusetts; and it would seem to be incumbent on the
Republican State Committee to make a statement of facts,
going to show, that, as a body, it did not invite Mr.
Sumner to speak,--that, though the noisy Abolitionists
shouted, yet the main body of the Convention evidently and
notoriously heard him with sorrow.”

And again, by a correspondent, the same Democratic organ said:--

“Can any patriot read the rodomontade of this classic
fanatic at the Worcester Convention, without a sense of
pain, nausea, and disgust? He certainly ought to be put in
a strait-jacket.”

The _Boston Courier_ promptly said:--

“The sincerity of the Republican managers, in appealing to
Union men of all parties to meet with them in Convention,
is not certainly placed beyond question by the fact
that Mr. Sumner (not without invitation, we apprehend)
comes forward as the organ of the assembly, and makes
the principal speech of the occasion, as he did at the
Convention last year. At that period this was felt
as at least an awkward circumstance, considering the
unquestionable Antislavery ultraisms of Mr. Sumner. Of all
men in the community, this, and this alone, was the special
vocation of this Senator,--to denounce a domestic usage
of a part of the country, which, whether good or bad, is
protected by its Constitution and laws.”

In another issue the same paper characterized the speech as
one, “the insane counsels of which considerate men of all
parties regard with such dislike and indignation.”

The _Newburyport Herald_ said:--

“Charles Sumner’s speech will be found on our first page
to-day. We give it not by way of approval, for it seems to
us the worst speech that could be made. Its only influence
will be to distract and divide the North, and raise up a
faction here against the Administration, which has declared
for an entirely different policy,--while at the South it
will kill what little Union sentiment remains, and rejoice
the Rebel hosts, giving them better ammunition for their
treason than powder would be.… We don’t know how it appears
to others, but it seems to us, that, if Jeff Davis had
liberty to send his own agent here to do the worst for us,
he could have done nothing more. The war can be fought upon
no such grounds; and before it closes, we shall discover
that fact.”

The New York _Journal of Commerce_ was quite sententious.

“The Republicans of Boston desire to be rid of any
connection with the fanatic Senator’s remarks. The signs of
the times improve.”

The _Carbon Democrat_, of Pennsylvania, breaks forth in
condemnation.

“If there were any lack of evidence to prove that Charles
Sumner is really an enemy to our country, and desired only
to destroy it, and immerse the people in the dreadful,
crashing slavery of martial tyranny, this speech supplies
the link, and makes the train of evidence against his
fealty strong as Holy Writ. He here unblushingly proclaims
the horrid policy of unloosing the bonds of four million
slaves, and setting them against the Caucasian race,--to
murder, pillage, and destroy, without stint, until their
barbarous appetites may be appeased.…

“In this connection we might suggest that Marius was a
very proper example for Senator Sumner and his school of
politicians to quote. Like them, he was the very prince of
office-seekers.…

“He advocates a doctrine which is in direct violation of
the spirit of the Constitution, and which tends only to
weaken the hands of the Government, by dividing public
sentiment at the North, and thus discouraging enlistments.
Why is it that the Government, thus assailed, does not lay
its hand upon this fulminator of treason, and secure him
safely behind the bars and bolts of Fort Lafayette?”

The _New York Herald_ thus interpreted the speech:--

“Now we beg leave to submit, that this speech, from this
Senator, at this crisis, comprehends an Abolition warning
to the Administration, and a warning to the States involved
in this Rebellion. Mr. Sumner is supported in his views by
an active Abolition faction, extending from Massachusetts
to Missouri, and with this faction an exterminating
crusade against Slavery is the all-absorbing idea. Let the
President and his Cabinet, then, exert their energies to
the uttermost for a speedy blow or two which will break
the backbone of this Rebellion, or we know not what may be
the consequences to the Administration from the fanatical
hostility of this Abolition faction to the conservative
policy of Mr. Lincoln. On the other hand, we would appeal
to the Union men of the Border Slave States to turn out
at once, and en masse, to the active support of the
Government, and thus restore the Union in its integrity,
including the integrity of Southern institutions, in the
speedy expulsion of the Rebels into the Cotton States. With
the Border Slave States rescued, this whole Rebellion will
soon fall to pieces from its own weight; but every day
that the Rebels continue to menace Washington, to desolate
Missouri, and to hold a threatening lodgement in Kentucky,
the danger to Southern Slavery is increased, and of a
protracted and desolating war of sections, factions, and
races.”

* * * * *

Against these voices were others very different in tone.

The _National Antislavery Standard_ of New York, in an
elaborate leader, united with Mr. Sumner.

“We lay before our readers to-day the admirable speech of
Mr. Sumner before the Republican Convention at Worcester,
Massachusetts. We shall not invite their attention to it,
for we are sure they cannot keep their attention away from
it, and it will well repay all that they have to bestow. It
is a bold, clear, and conclusive exposition of the policy
which the United States Government should adopt, and make
the vital principle of their action, in the present war.
Mr. Sumner is the first public man of eminent station who
has dared to indicate the true and only way of escape for
this nation out of its dangers; and whether his counsel be
hearkened unto or mocked, he will go into history as the
first man of high political rank who has discerned and not
shrunk from proclaiming this saving truth.”

The New York _Independent_ published the speech promptly upon
its delivery, with the remark:--

“The following masterly and patriotic speech was made by
Hon. Charles Sumner at the recent Republican Convention in
Massachusetts which renominated Governor Andrew.”

The same paper, in another issue, followed the speech with a
tribute which has merit of its own.

“TO CHARLES SUMNER.

“We thank thee, Sumner! Thou hast spoken the word
God gave to thy safe keeping; thou hast set
Life, Death, before the nation; thou hast hurled
Thy single pebble, plucked from Truth’s pure stream,
Into the forehead of a Giant Wrong,
And it doth reel and tremble. Men may doubt,
But the keen sword of Right shall finish well
Thy brave beginning.

“Courage, then, true soul!
Not vainly hast thou spoken; angels heard,
And shook from their glad harps a gush of joy
That the _One Word_ was uttered in men’s ears,
The ‘Open Sesame’ by which alone
True Freedom and true Peace might enter in,
Making earth like to heaven.

“Then bide thy time.
What thou hast spoken as ’t were in the ear
Shall be proclaimed on housetops. God locks up
In His safe garner every seed of Truth,
Until the time shall come to cast it forth,
Saying, ‘Be fruitful, multiply, and fill
The broad earth, till it shouts its harvest-home.’
His purposes are sure; who works with Him
Need fear no failure. By my hopes of heaven,
I’d rather speak one word for Truth and Right,
That God shall hear and treasure up for use
In working out His purposes of good,
Than clutch the title-deed that should insure
A kingdom to my keeping!--so, in faith,
I speak my simple word, and, fearing not,
Commit it to His hands whom I do serve.

“And thus it is, O friend, that I have dared
To send thee greeting and this word of cheer.
God bless thee, Sumner, and all souls like thine,
Working serene and patient in His cause!
God give thee of the fruit of thine own hands,
And let thine own works praise thee in the gates
Of the new city, whose foundation-stones
Thy hands are laying, though men see it not!

“CAROLINE A. MASON.

“FITCHBURG, Mass.”

The _New York Tribune_ said:--

“The Hon. Charles Sumner yesterday delivered an eloquent
speech at the Republican Convention at Worcester, Mass.,
which we print this morning. He confined himself almost
exclusively to a consideration of the subject of Slavery
in its relation to the war; he took the ground that the
overthrow of Slavery will at once make an end of the war,
and justified that policy by many historic examples.”

The _Tribune_ also published a dramatic sketch between a
Conservative and a Reporter, exposing the reports about the
reception of the speech. Here are a few lines.

“CONSERVATIVE. Men took his coming coldly, as they say.

“REPORTER. My Lord, they lie who say so. On my life,
The pillars shook with plaudits,--the wide hall
Was as a sea of joyous countenance.

“CON. You are mistaken.

“REP. With these eyes I saw it;
Heard with these ears.

“CON. Say they did not applaud.
So must we dress it in the people’s eyes,
As he had been a rash, unwelcome guest,
Who came with little call, and spake with less.

The Boston _Liberator_ spoke of it as “this dispassionate and
statesmanlike speech”; but a correspondent complained of Mr.
Sumner’s confidence in the Administration, saying:--

“No, we are not yet saved! And it is the Commander-in-Chief
of the Army, and the elected head of the nation, it is
Abraham Lincoln himself, who obstructs, by the exercise
of his individual will, the nation’s entrance upon that
movement against Slavery which Mr. Sumner has shown to be
the direct course, and the only course, to success against
the Rebellion.”

By another of its correspondents the same paper said:--

“If I had a fortune, however large, I would exhaust
the last cent in the way I have chosen, and in getting
up petitions from the Free States, especially from
Massachusetts, which should meet Congress at the very
threshold of the session nearly upon us, and which should
inspire Senator Sumner to submit his Plan of Emancipation
to that body at once, and give foundation and impulse for
an immediate and triumphant vote in his favor.”

The _Boston Traveller_ announced the following:--

“Several thousand copies of Senator Sumner’s recent speech
at Worcester, which disturbed the equanimity of some of
our contemporaries, have been circulated in Kentucky. A
Colonel of that State, now in the Union service, writes
thus: ‘Sumner’s speech strikes the key-note for the Union
cause in Kentucky, and his policy, if followed up by the
Administration, will insure us a speedy triumph.’”

The country press of Massachusetts espoused the speech warmly.

The New Bedford _Evening Standard_, always ready against
Slavery, declared its sympathy, while giving testimony to the
reception of the speech by the Convention.

“We have no apology to make to our readers for inserting
the noble speech of Mr. Sumner at the Worcester Convention.
Its perusal by all earnest and sincere lovers of Freedom
will no doubt be a rich treat, as it was to those who had
the pleasure of hearing it from the Senator’s lips. _The
manner in which it was received by nine tenths of the
Convention was a true indication of the state of feeling
in the Old Bay State._ We have been pained, as well as
surprised, to see the manner in which some Republican
papers, as well as individual members of the party, have
spoken in condemnation of this speech.”

The _People’s Press_, of Fall River, said:--

“The _Boston Journal_ may call it ‘ill-timed eloquence,’
but we believe that the people are rapidly coming to the
conclusion that the Honorable Senator has resolutely spoken
the needed truth, and has indicated the proper course for
our Government to pursue, in order to put down rebellion
most speedily and effectually, and secure a permanent peace
and an undivided country.”

The _Taunton Gazette_ said:--

“This suggestive speech of the eloquent Senator is not
in a strain which is just now popular. He does not sigh
for the things which have passed away, but calmly fronts
the demands of the future; and what he sees and declares
of swift-coming events is in keeping with the sternest
struggles for Liberty, and in full accordance with the
irrepressible instinct which animates our armed free
laborers, however the trimming politicians may denounce
their declaration. Let us not speak ill of this forecast
and courage. None knew better than he, that, for the time
being, he was rendering a thankless service. Indeed, we
venture to say that no other man holding high office in the
government, or desiring to hold, will dare to second or in
any way publicly approve of the vital suggestions of this
address.”

The _Dedham Gazette_ was positive for the speech, and also as to
its favorable reception.

“The most significant feature of the Convention was
the speech of Mr. Sumner, which was received with the
strongest expressions of approval by the great mass of
delegates present. The fixed and earnest attention with
which every word was received, and the hearty and repeated
applause which greeted every allusion to the doctrine of
Emancipation, proved conclusively that upon this question
the people are far in advance of the Government.”

The _Charlestown Advertiser_ testified to the reception of the
speech at the Convention.

“This speech by the Hon. Charles Sumner has been assailed
during the last fortnight by a herd of political
scribblers, none of whom, however, have the wit to refute
its positions. The Republican Convention sanctioned it, on
its delivery, with the most hearty applause.”

The Haverhill _Publisher_ expressed itself with caution.

“As was said, in remarking upon the Worcester Convention,
Mr. Sumner furnished the sensation matter for the occasion,
so it now appears; for all over the country the press
is lively with comment upon it, and in every circle it
is the theme of discussion. It may be well to remember
that the speech of Mr. Sumner will test the spirit of his
constituents, and time will show whether they will sustain
this great statesman, not as a partisan, but as a moral
and philosophical force, in the evidently Heaven-appointed
mission of keeping the public eye fixed upon a great
principle, regardless of politicians or parties.”

The _Northampton Free Press_ said:--

“Charles Sumner was present at the Convention, and made
one of his best speeches on Slavery and its relation
to the war. It is sound in argument, and such a one as
might be expected from its author. It was received with
great applause; but the _Springfield Republican_ calls it
ill-advised and out of place.”

The _True American_, of Erie, Pennsylvania, said:--

“The speech from Hon. Charles Sumner, made at Worcester,
Massachusetts, on the 1st inst., and which is printed in
full upon our first page, deserves the attention of every
reader. It is a calm and statesmanlike argument in favor of
suppressing this guilty Rebellion by removing its guilty
cause. It is a clear vindication of a necessary policy.
Coming from a man in his high official position, it is
significant. And we believe, with a contemporary, that
he will not have to wait for the verdict of posterity to
justify and exalt the great truth his speech embodies.
Indeed, we are confident that his word will find a response
in all that is best of the North,--and not only in all that
is best in quality, but strongest in numbers.”

The Philadelphia _Public Ledger_ held the scales:--

“Although Mr. Sumner, and Massachusetts at his back, are
disposed to move faster than the rest of the North upon the
Slavery Question, there is no doubt that whatever amount of
injury, consistent with the Laws of War, inflicted on the
South, will bring this Rebellion most speedily to an end
will find the next Congress prepared at least to consider
it. Mr. Sumner has proved very conclusively, that, as a
punishment to Rebels and bad citizens, the manumission of
the slaves is fully recognized by those old Roman laws
which the South-Carolinians have been so fond of quoting in
their own behalf. But Mr. Sumner has not proved, we think,
that it would be policy to adopt at once and irrevocably so
extreme a measure as to set at liberty some four millions
of slaves.”

_Le Messager Franco-Américain_, a French journal at New York,
thus balanced the account:--

“Mr. Charles Sumner, the eloquent Senator of Massachusetts,
is indefatigable in his devotion to the cause of Free
Labor. Always in the breach with the ardor of a true
patriot and of a friend of Liberty, he contends without
cessation for the triumph of those great principles
of Right and Justice consecrated by the National
Constitution.… Mr. Sumner is a light of the Antislavery
army. He sees the cause of right and of country in danger.
As a vigilant sentinel, he gives the signal of alarm. Let
the civil war continue, and the cry of Emancipation by Mr.
Sumner will find powerful echoes in the Northern States.
The conservative and honest population at the South should
reflect upon this.”

Crossing the ocean, the same differences appear, with allusions
to the character of the war. Here was evident disposition
to recognize in Mr. Sumner exceptional earnestness against
Slavery, while the country was worse than indifferent. This
view was presented by no less a person than the Earl of
Shaftesbury, in a speech at a public meeting, reported in the
London _Times_, July 25, 1861, where he said:--

“There had, however, been no great feeling in the country
for either one or the other of the parties; for the country
did not believe in the sincerity of either. The North had
conceded everything to Slavery that it could possibly
demand; so the South had certainly no cause for rebellion.
But in the struggle they were entering on, the North never
thought of putting an end to Slavery; for, _if such a
declaration had been made, they would have had the sympathy
of every man in England_: he was almost afraid to say how
far he thought that sympathy would have gone.… There was
no honest feeling on the subject of Slavery in America,
except among the Abolitionists headed by that great and
good man, Charles Sumner.”

Similar expressions of good-will to Mr. Sumner had appeared in
France. Besides allusions in the writings of M. Laboulaye and
M. Cochin, there was a contemporary notice in a letter from
Washington, of August 12, 1861, in the _Opinion Nationale_ of
Paris, evidently by a gentleman who accompanied Prince Napoleon
on his summer tour in the United States.

“I have been present at sessions of the Senate and House
of Representatives. I have had pointed out to me the
most influential members of both parties, … Mr. Sumner,
Massachusetts Senator, acknowledged leader of the
Abolitionists, an amiable, educated man, having travelled
much in France, the friend of De Tocqueville, and very well
versed in our literature.”[195]

In harmony with this testimony was the sketch by Colonel
Ferri-Pisani, aide-de-camp of Prince Napoleon, in his letter
from Washington of August 10, 1861.

“The person with whom the Prince has formed the most
sympathetic relations is Mr. Sumner, Senator of the
State of Massachusetts (Boston), and declared partisan
of the Abolition of Slavery. Mr. Sumner is one of the
most eloquent men of the United States, a mind highly
instructed, very cultivated, especially versed in French
literature, which he studied in France. He was the friend
of De Tocqueville, and is personally connected with a great
number of our writers and thinkers. His manners are as
distinguished as his intelligence. He inspires among the
partisans of the South a furious hate; in return, he passes
for the warmest partisan of the French alliance, and for
the friend of our Legation.”[196]

These testimonies prepare the way for expressions which found
utterance abroad after the speech at Worcester, and help
explain the notice it received.

The London _Times_, always against the Union in its efforts to
put down the Rebellion, said:--

“While statesmen, merchants, and bankers are laboring to
carry on a suicidal war in a conservative spirit, and to
spare the interests and prejudices of the foe, a more
numerous class from the Atlantic to the Mississippi have
no such scruple, and go to the root of the evil. Slavery,
they are told by one of the most eloquent of the agitators,
himself a martyr in the cause, is the original sin of
the Union, the cause of every subsequent dissension, the
occasion of this war, and, what is more, the strength
of the wrong cause, and the weakness of the right. Mr.
Sumner refers to Slavery every misery, every mishap, every
difficulty of the Federal cause,--and tells listening
thousands that all they do, the sacrifices they make, their
taxation, their life-blood, their commercial interests,
everything they have, suffer, do, or hope, is all flung
into that Maelström, never to reappear. The whole American
nation, with all its wealth and all its glory, is flung as
a holocaust before the shrine of this hideous idol. The
remedy he proclaims is to give up the weak scruple which
paralyzes a righteous arm. Mr. Sumner sees in this war not
merely a call to rally round a Constitution, to punish
treason, and reinstate a mighty power; he sees a call to
a higher level of humanity, and a sublimer doctrine. “Not
Union, but Freedom,”[197] is his cry. This is the fated
weapon for the decision of the contest. This alone can
defeat the foe, whose strength is in Slavery.…

“Now all this we have heard before. It is a story in Mr.
Sumner’s mouth, and according to him it is as old as the
Declaration of Independence itself, and the first struggles
of the Commonwealth. What, we have to ask, is its fresh
significance at the present hour? According to Mr. Sumner,
its significance is most critical. Slavery he makes out to
be the very balance on which the fortunes of America now
hang.…

“Every nation in the world has had to give up its
pretensions at one time or another; and the Federal
Government will only follow the example of the most
powerful sovereigns and the wisest ministers, if it
makes peace in time, before it is committed to a treble
war,--with the Confederates, the British, and its own
Abolitionists at home.”

The London _Herald of Peace_, in its opposition to the war,
took pains to insist that it was not Antislavery,--forgetting
that the North, even when failing to demand the abolition of
Slavery, sought its limitation, and that the new Government
openly declared Slavery its corner-stone. After setting forth
Mr. Sumner’s “proposal to use the War Power to proclaim at
once, as respects the Rebels, the emancipation of their
slaves,” and that “the speech was received with many
demonstrations of applause,” it dwells on the circumstances
favoring the effort: that it was in Massachusetts, of all
the States “the most forward in the Antislavery cause”; that
“the subject was presented by one whose judgment they were
most bound to honor, and whose lead they were most likely to
follow,” whom it describes.

“Mr. Sumner is a man of whom Massachusetts might well be
proud. His great abilities, his lofty spirit, his spotless
public life, mark him as a man standing apart, not to be
confounded with the crowd of selfish politicians that
besiege the avenues of power in America. He has stood
forward in evil days to encounter with an undaunted mien
the obloquy and the peril attaching to the avowal of
thorough Antislavery principles, and has been not the
champion merely, but the martyr of the cause.”

After this presentation, it goes on to ask, “Well, and what
was the reception which Mr. Sumner’s proposal met from the
Republican Convention of the State of Massachusetts?” It finds
an answer in the refusal to act on the resolutions of Mr.
Clarke, and then says:--

“After all this, we sincerely hope we shall hear no more
of this war as a war for the liberation of the slave, as a
‘sublime uprising’ of the men of the North for the cause of
Human Freedom.”

The London _Post_, which did not sympathize with the National
cause, said:--

“If the Federal Government are in want of an _ex parte_
defender, they will certainly find one in Mr. Charles
Sumner. When he tells the Republican State Convention
at Worcester, that Rebellion never assumed such a front
since Satan made war upon the Almighty, he used first the
hyperbolical language which the most abject courtier of an
absolute monarch in the Middle Ages could have suggested
in condemnation of some insurrection that had broken out
in one of his provinces.… _Mr. Sumner narrows the question
now dividing the North and South distinctly into a war
of Slavery._ Hence he appeals to European sympathies in
behalf of the North. Now this view is in great part true,
yet it is not wholly true.… It is not simply in respect
of Slavery, as Mr. Sumner represents it, that the South
differs from the North. The leading men of the South
were commonly of different extraction from the leading
men of the North. That difference has developed a broad
distinction in social habits, in political ideas, in
consent to authority, and in other characteristics which
constitute the idiosyncrasy of a nation.… We cannot,
therefore, agree with Mr. Sumner, that the question
is essentially and wholly a slave question, any more
than we can regard the secession as a rebellion against
quasi-Divine authority.”

But the National cause was not without defenders abroad, nor
the speech without sympathy.

The London _Daily News_, in an elaborate leader, with an
abstract of the speech, said:--

“The most remarkable circumstance which we have yet
chronicled is the speech of Mr. Charles Sumner in defence
of the war.… We regard Mr. Sumner’s speech as most
important in every point of view. It is the best answer
which has been yet made on American ground to those who
complain that hitherto the cause of the North has not met
with the sympathy it deserved in Britain. But passing
this, it shows to the Northerners themselves what it is
that paralyzes their arms, what it is that places them so
generally on the defensive and prevents their success.
Let Mr. Sumner’s policy be adopted, and it would not only
strike terror into the hearts of the Rebels, but would
animate the masses of volunteers in the North with a
‘spirit which would render them still more formidable.’”

A London commercial paper, _The Floating Cargoes Evening List_,
published a considerable extract, with a line from the speech
as its caption, “Look at the war as you will, and you always
see Slavery,” and the following notice:--

“The present American war exercises so powerful an
influence upon commercial affairs in general, that the
expression of an opinion on this subject by one of the most
eminent American statesmen deserves special notice.”

The London _Morning Star_ thus declared its sympathy:--

“The speech delivered by the Hon. Charles Sumner, at the
Republican Convention at Worcester, in Massachusetts,
is one of the most significant events of the American
crisis.… In vigorous and eloquent words Mr. Sumner has
told the plain truths which we have frequently reiterated,
and there was not heard even the whisper of a dissentient
voice.[198] He pointed out that Slavery is the great enemy
to the preservation of the Union, and that its eradication
would bring the war at once to a close.… Emancipation must
come, and its calm concession by an act of executive power
can alone prevent its ultimate consummation by red-handed
insurrection. The enthusiastic assent which was evoked by
Mr. Sumner’s noble words--words worthy alike of the man and
of his theme--is a cheering foretaste of the triumph which
cannot be long deferred.”

In the English island of Jersey, one of the Channel Isles, on
the coast of France, the _Independent and Daily Telegraph_
published the speech at length, with an article entitled “The
Orator of Freedom,” where it said:--

“As a general rule, even those who like to listen to good
speeches do not care to read long speeches, good or bad.
But even such persons need not our recommendation to give
their attention to the graceful periods and electrifying
appeals of, probably, the most accomplished of American
speakers,--perhaps we might justly say the foremost orator
speaking the Anglo-Saxon tongue; for, rivalling Gladstone
in genius, he more than rivals the glory of England’s
House of Commons by that holy earnestness which imparts
to eloquence its chief effect, and which naturally is the
product of circumstances rather than of individual will.…
The principles of the Massachusetts Senator command our
thorough adhesion, as his extraordinary talents challenge
our admiration, and his courageous consistency carries
with it our respect. But, although we can make every
allowance for President Lincoln and his ministers, and
those Massachusetts men who hesitate to invoke the sword of
Spartacus, still, we repeat, all our sympathies are with
Mr. Sumner, and the cause of which he is the champion,
and the policy of which he is the exponent.… Although
grammarians will not allow the comparative and superlative
of ‘right,’ and know nothing of ‘righter’ and ‘rightest,’
we must nevertheless affirm that General Butler was right,
General Fremont more right, and that Senator Sumner is most
right.”

Crossing to the Continent, the controversy continues.

The _Précurseur_ of Antwerp, in Belgium, said:--

“Mr. Charles Sumner has pronounced very energetically in
favor of the Abolition of Slavery, and demanded, with
great strength of expression and power of argument, the
introduction of this question into the conflict. He
demanded especially, that the Executive Power should
pronounce in favor of Immediate Abolition by a declaration,
perfectly legal according to him, that all slaves coming
within the lines of the Federal [National] army should
be free. This declaration seems to him at the same time
constitutional and justified by precedents. The Executive
Power has this right in virtue of Martial Law. The most
significant fact, and which augurs the definitive solution
of the question, is, that the speech was received with
great enthusiasm by the audience; and since it presents
in effect the most rapid solution of a burdensome war, it
becomes now more than probable that the pressure of public
opinion will not be slow in making itself felt by the
Federal Government.”

The _Pays_, at Paris, an Imperialist journal, said:--

“It appears that in the State of Massachusetts public views
are divided as to the means to be employed for joining the
pieces of the American Union. The most violent, represented
by Senator Sumner, preach war to the knife, and the
emancipation of the blacks. They propose to give liberty to
all the slaves in the Union, with indemnities to loyalists
only. Thus, then, if we are to believe Senator Sumner, the
surest way of establishing peace in North America will be
to let loose several millions of blacks, and incite them to
murder and incendiarism.”

On the other hand, in France was the testimony of Count Agénor
de Gasparin, noble friend of the national cause, who, in a
powerful work, cited the speech at Worcester, and adopted its
conclusion,[199]--also of M. Édouard Laboulaye, who, at a
later day, when presiding over the Antislavery Conference at
Paris, surrounded by the Abolitionists of all countries, paid a
flattering tribute to Mr. Sumner, winding up with allusion to
this speech:--

“Charles Sumner, a man who in his turn took up this cause
and defended it with the most admirable eloquence, which,
as you probably all know, was the occasion of his being
nearly killed in his place in the Senate,--an act for which
the assassin was rewarded by his Southern friends. They
gave him a cane, gold-mounted, bearing the inscription,
‘_Hit him again._’ Mr. Sumner came to France, and we made
his acquaintance at that time. The object of his journey
was the reëstablishment of his health,--and he recovered
it; for he it was, who, during the whole of the war, was
the real adviser of America: he felt, and he said, more
boldly than any one, that the war could be terminated only
by the Abolition of Slavery.”[200]

The position accorded to Mr. Sumner in Europe, beginning
especially with this speech, was attested at a still later
day in an article by M. Michel Chevalier, a Senator of France
under the Empire, renowned for various writings, especially
in Political Economy. In a sympathetic review of the address
on the “Duel between France and Germany,” this authority thus
expresses himself:--