Volume 7 — EMANCIPATION OUR BEST WEAPON.

Speech before the Republican State Convention at Worcester, Massachusetts, October 1, 1861. With Appendix.

So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the Law of Liberty.—Epistle of James, ii. 12.

This speech, at the time of its delivery, was entitled in some quarters “Emancipation the Cure of the Rebellion,” which certainly showed an appreciation of its meaning. In the pamphlet edition another title was adopted, argumentative in form, and intended to suggest the same conclusion,—“Union and Peace, how they shall be restored.” It was made at the annual State Convention of the Republican party of Massachusetts.

The Convention was called to order by Hon. William Claflin, Chairman of the Republican State Committee. Its permanent organization was as follows.

President,—Hon. Henry L. Dawes, of North Adams.

Vice-Presidents,—Richard Libbey of Wellfleet, James H. Mitchell of East Bridgewater, Joseph N. Bacon of Newton, Albert J. Wright of Boston, Nehemiah Boynton of Chelsea, John S. E. Rogers of Gloucester, Gerry W. Cochrane of Methuen, N. C. Munson of Shirley, Giles H. Whitney of Winchendon, J. H. Butler of Northampton, Joel Hayden of Haydensville, by districts; with Robert M. Hooper of Boston, Oliver Ames, Jr., of Easton, Alexander DeWitt of Oxford, Hapgood Swift of Lowell, Freeman Walker of North Brookfield, Marshall P. Wilder of Dorchester, Clement Willis of Boston, Lorenzo Sabine of Roxbury, Thomas Tucker of Worcester, Francis H. Fay of Lancaster, Columbus Tyler of Somerville, George Washington Warren of Charlestown, Linus Beck of Boston, Charles O. Rogers of Boston, H. B. Staples of Milford, Orlando Burt of Sandisfield, Francis Coggswell of Andover, at large.

Secretaries,—S. N. Stockwell of Boston, J. E. Tucker of Worcester, N. A. Horton of Salem, Z. E. Stowe of Lowell, George S. Merrill of Lawrence, Joseph B. Thaxter of Hingham, Samuel B. Noyes of Canton, William S. Robinson of Malden, Charles A. Chase of Boston, L. H. Bradford of Fitchburg, William Martin of North Adams, Gardner M. Fiske of Palmer, William W. Clapp, Jr., of Boston.

The President, on being conducted to the chair, made a speech, in which he said:—

“Since last assembled here for a kindred purpose, the mighty march of events has borne the popular efforts on to a higher plane than ever before opened to the gaze of man.… Massachusetts cannot, if she would, and, thank God, she would not, if she could, perform an indifferent part in this life struggle of the Republic. She makes no boast over her sister States, but the great Disposer and Adjuster of events has placed her in the forefront rank, in this great battle for the integrity of the nation and the existence of free institutions, and she accepts her place with alacrity.”

Immediately after this speech, John A. Andrew was unanimously and by acclamation renominated as candidate for Governor, being his second nomination for that post. The committees of the Convention having been appointed, there was an adjournment till afternoon.

In the afternoon, the resolutions of the Committee, seven in number, were reported by George S. Hale, of Boston, and at once laid upon the table, on motion of Edward L. Pierce, of Milton, in order to give an opportunity for Mr. Sumner to address the Convention. A report says:—

“Hon. Charles Sumner came on the platform about this time, and his presence was acknowledged with great applause. The President introduced him to the Convention, and he made a speech about an hour long.”

“Great enthusiasm” and “warm cheers” are the terms of other reports with regard to his reception. These are mentioned because the sentiments of the audience were represented afterwards as adverse. The pamphlet report says:—

“Upon the appearance of Mr. Sumner on the platform, he was most cordially greeted by the whole Convention and the large audience in the galleries. Hon. H. L. Dawes, President of the Convention, introduced him in a few felicitous words, whereupon the warm applause of the vast assembly burst forth again with great enthusiasm, ending with three rousing cheers.”

At the conclusion of Mr. Sumner’s speech, a motion was made to take the resolutions of the Committee from the table, when Rev. James Freeman Clarke, the Liberal preacher and sincere reformer, appeared on the platform, and after a few remarks offered the following resolutions.

“Resolved, That, while the people of Massachusetts have confidence in the wisdom of the National Administration, and are ready hereafter, as hitherto, to give their blood and their treasure in answer to its call, yet, believing that Slavery is the root and cause of this Rebellion, they will rejoice when the time shall come, in the wisdom of the Government, to remove this radical source of our present evils.

“Resolved, That, when the proper time shall arrive, the people of Massachusetts will welcome any act, under the war power of the Commander-in-Chief, which shall declare all the slaves within the lines of our armies to be free, and accept their services in defence of the Union,—compensating all loyal owners for slaves thus emancipated, and thus carrying liberty for all human beings wherever the Stars and Stripes shall float.”

There was no direct vote on these resolutions, but authentic accounts at the time enable us to trace their fortune.

They were at once opposed by George S. Hale, the reporter of the Committee’s resolutions, and by Artemas Lee of Templeton, “declaring that they were calculated to weaken the Administration in Kentucky.” Not being moved as an amendment to the other resolutions, the first question was on the adoption of the latter, which were carried. Pending the question on Mr. Clarke’s resolutions, the Committee to nominate Lieutenant-Governor, Secretary of the Commonwealth, Attorney-General, Treasurer and Receiver-General, and Auditor, made their report, which superseded the other question, and caused an irritating and personal discussion. When the nominations were completed, it had become late, and many had already left by the trains, among them Mr. Sumner; but Mr. Clarke moved to take his resolutions from the table, when, according to the report, “a member in front of the chair moved to adjourn, and that motion, being first in order, was put and carried, with but few dissenting votes.” It was supposed by many, that, had a vote been taken on these resolutions while the Convention was full, they would have been adopted.

In the disposition to weaken the speech of Mr. Sumner, it was charged at the time that he spoke without official invitation,—which was contrary to the fact. Some time in advance of the Convention, Mr. Claflin, Chairman of the State Committee, called on Mr. Sumner and invited him to address it, urging him strongly; and when the latter said that he could not consent, without declaring the duty of Emancipation, and freeing his mind on this all-important subject, Mr. Claflin insisted that he should do so, and Mr. Sumner promised to speak. At another call Mr. Sumner read to Mr. Claflin a sketch of what he proposed to say, adding that he would not speak except with the approval of Mr. Claflin, when the latter declared his entire agreement with Mr. Sumner, and insisted that the speech should be made.

An account of the contemporaneous discussion, whether of criticism or sympathy, will be found in the Appendix.

SPEECH.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,—In meeting fellow-citizens of Massachusetts, who have come together from all parts of the Commonwealth, I find myself in a familiar scene, but plainly things are changed. Yes, there is a great change, and it is manifest in our Convention.

No longer are we met, as so often in times past, on questions of controversy, or to sustain our cause by argument. That hour has passed. Formerly I have exhibited to you the atrocities of the Fugitive Slave Bill; I have rejoiced to show that Freedom was National and Slavery Sectional; I have striven to prevent the spread of Slavery in the Territories; I have vindicated especially Freedom in Kansas, assailed by slaveholding conspirators; I have exposed the tyrannical usurpations of the Slave Oligarchy; and I have dragged into light the huge and hideous Barbarism of Slavery. [Applause.] But these topics have passed into history, and are no longer of practical interest. They are not of to-day.

Let us rejoice that at least so much is gained, and from the extent of present triumph take hope and courage for the future. Providence will be with the good cause in times to come, as in times past. Others may despair; I do not. Others may see gloom; I cannot. Others may hesitate; I will not. [Applause.] Already is the nation saved. Great as seems the present peril, there was peril greater far, while it was sinking year after year under the rule of Slavery. How often have I exclaimed, in times past, that our foremost object was the Emancipation of the National Government, so that no longer should it be the slave of Slavery, ready to do its bidding in all things! But this surpassing victory has been won. It was won first by the ballot-box, when Abraham Lincoln was elected President of the United States [applause]; and it was won the second time by the cartridge-box, when, at the command of the President, the guns of Fort Sumter returned defiance to the Rebel artillery. [Three cheers.] Such is the madness of Slavery that the first was not enough; unhappily, the second was needed to complete the work.

God be praised, much is already done. The Slave Oligarchy, which, according to vaunt of a slaveholding Senator, has ruled the Republic for more than fifty years,—which has stamped its degrading character upon the national forehead,—which has entered into and possessed not only the politics, but the literature, and even the religion of the land,—which has embroiled us at home, and given us a bad name abroad,—which has wielded at will President, Cabinet, and even judicial tribunals,—which has superseded Public Opinion by substituting its own immoral behests,—which has appropriated to itself the offices and honors of the Republic,—which has established Slavery as the single test and shibboleth of favor,—which, after opening all our Territories to this wrong, was already promising to renew the Slave-Trade and its unutterable woes,—nay, more, which, in the instinct of that tyranny through which it ruled, was beating down all safeguard of human rights, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, security of person, and delivering the whole country to a sway whose vulgarity was second only to its madness,—this domineering Slave Oligarchy is dislodged from the National Government, never more to return. [Immense sensation.] Thus far, at least, has Emancipation prevailed. The greatest slave of all is free.

If at any moment we are disposed to be disheartened, if the Future is not always clear before us, we may find ample motive for joy in the victory already achieved. Pillars greater than those of Hercules might fitly mark this progress.

Among the obvious results of such victory is one to be enjoyed especially on this occasion. It is Slavery which has been the origin of our party divisions, keeping men asunder who ought to act together. But with the expulsion of this disturber the apology for difference ceases. All patriots, all who truly love their country, may now act together,—no matter in what party combination they have appeared, no matter of what accent the speech by which their present duties are declared. Call them Democrats, Union men, natives, or foreigners, what you will, are we not all engaged in a common cause? Nor will I claim as yet the highest praise for those with whom I am most intimately associated. I have read history too well not to remember that faithful allies are sometimes superior even to domestic veterans. Hannibal relied less on his own Carthaginians than on his Spanish infantry and Numidian horse.

The Government is assailed by a rebellion without precedent. Never, since Satan warred upon the Almighty, has rebellion assumed such a front [applause], and never before has it begun in such a cause. The Rebels are numerous and powerful, and their cause is Slavery. [Sensation.]

It is the very essence of rebellion to be audacious, unhesitating, unscrupulous. Rebellion sticks at nothing,—least of all, rebellion beginning in Slavery. It can be encountered successfully only by vigor and energy surpassing its own. Patriotism as a motive surely is not less potent than Treason. It must be invoked. By all the memories of your fathers, who founded this Republic and delivered to you the precious heritage, by all the sentiments of gratitude for the good you have enjoyed beneath its protecting care, are you summoned to its defence. Defence did I say? With mortification I utter the word; but you all know the truth.

Rebel conspirators have set upon us, and now besiege the National Government. They besiege it at Washington, where are the President and his Cabinet with the national archives. They besiege it at Fortress Monroe on the Atlantic, at St. Louis on the Mississippi, and now they besiege it in Kentucky. Everywhere we are on the defensive. [Sensation.] Strongholds are wrested from us. Soldiers gathered under the folds of the national flag are compelled to surrender. Citizens, whose only offence is loyalty, are driven from their homes. Bridges are burned. Railways are disabled. Steamers and ships are seized. The largest navy-yard of the country is appropriated. Commerce is hunted on the sea, and property, wherever it can be reached, ruthlessly robbed or destroyed. Only within a few days we have read the order of one Buckner, Rebel commander in Kentucky, directing the destruction of a most important lock, by which Green River was rendered navigable. Pardon me, if I ask attention to this intercepted order. It is instructive, as showing the spirit with which we have to deal.

“Bowling Green, September 19, 1861.

“Lock No. 1 must be destroyed. I rely upon our friends at Owenboro’ to do it. Not an hour must be lost. The destruction is a great deal to me in crippling our adversary. Assemble our friends, without delay, in sufficient force to accomplish the object. One of the best ways is to open all the gates but one, and to dig down behind the wall at both gates, to put one or two kegs of powder behind the wall, to apply a slow match, and blow the wall into the lock. If possible, it should be done in such a way as to leave a strong current through the lock, which will empty the dam. Provide everything in advance. Do not fail. It is worth an effort.”[148]

It is still doubtful if the work of destruction was accomplished. But the military order remains. Thus madly was it attempted to sweep away the most valuable of the internal improvements of Kentucky, being part of the pride and wealth of the State.

Do you ask in whose name all this is done? The answer is easy. Not “in the name of God and the Continental Congress,” as Ethan Allen summoned Ticonderoga,—but “in the name of Slavery.” In the name of Slavery, and nothing else, is all this crime, destruction, and ravage perpetrated; and the work still proceeds.

Look at the war as you will, and you always see Slavery,—as the renowned orator of Rome saw in the evil about him only the great conspirator. Never were his words more applicable: Nullum facinus exstitit, nisi per te; nullum flagitium sine te: “No villany but has owed its existence to thee; no shameful thing has been done without thee.”[149] Slavery is our Catiline, being to this war everything,—inspiration, motive power, end and aim, be-all and end-all. And this brings me to an important statement.

It is often said that war will make an end of Slavery. This is probable. But it is surer still that the overthrow of Slavery will make an end of the war. [Tumultuous applause and cheers.]

If I am correct in this averment, which I believe beyond question, then do reason, justice, and policy unite, each and all, in declaring that the war must be brought to bear directly on the grand conspirator and omnipresent enemy. [Here the vociferous cheers of the Convention interrupted the speaker.] Not to do so is to take upon ourselves all the weakness of Slavery, while we leave to the Rebels its boasted resources of military strength. [Cheers.] Not to do so is to squander life and treasure in a vain masquerade of battle, without practical result. Not to do so is blindly to neglect the plainest dictates of economy, humanity, and common sense,—and, alas! simply to let slip the dogs of war on a mad chase over the land, never to stop until spent with fatigue or sated with slaughter. [Sensation.]

Believe me, fellow-citizens, I know all imagined difficulties and unquestioned responsibilities. But, if you are in earnest, the difficulties will at once disappear, and the responsibilities are such as you will gladly bear. This is not the first time that a knot hard to untie was cut by the sword [cheers]; and we all know that danger flees before the brave man. Believe that you can, and you can. The will only is needed. Courage now is the highest prudence. [Applause.]

It is not necessary even, borrowing a familiar phrase, to carry the war into Africa. It will be enough, if we carry Africa into the war [here the outburst of applause compelled the speaker to suspend his remarks], in any form, any quantity, any way. [Continued applause.] The moment this is done, Rebellion will begin its bad luck, and the Union become secure forever. [Cheers.]

History teaches by examples. The occasion does not allow me to show how completely this monitor points our duty and certain triumph. I content myself with two instances of special mark,—one from ancient Greece, and the other from ancient Rome.

The most fatal day for ancient Greece was that “dishonest victory” at Chæronea, when Philip of Macedon triumphed over combined forces, in which Demosthenes was enlisted as a soldier. The panic was universal. Athens was thrown into consternation. Her great orator had fought bravely, but ineffectually. Another orator, called by Milton “that old man eloquent,” died suddenly on hearing the report of the defeat. The Book of Fate seemed about to close, while the proud Athenian State sank to be a Macedonian province. Then it was that a patriot orator, Hyperides, launched a proposition to emancipate the slaves. The effect was electric. The royal Philip, already strong in victory, trembled. King and conqueror, he was statesman also, and saw well that such a proposition, begun in Athens, would shake all Greece, even to his powerful throne, which the young Alexander was preparing to mount. His triumphant course was arrested, and peace secured.[150]

The other instance is in Roman history. You will find it in Plutarch’s Life of Caius Marius. Six times Consul,—victor over the redoubtable Jugurtha, also over the innumerable Teutones and Cimbri,—hailed as Saviour of Rome, and then, in the terrible vicissitudes of civil feud, driven from his country to find shelter in the ruins of Carthage,—this great general, returning from exile, was able to effect a landing in Italy. The incident is recorded in these words,—and you must acknowledge that such immense military experience gives to the example highest authority:—

“Marius upon this news determined to hasten to Cinna. He took with him some Marusian horse which he had levied in Africa, and a few others that were come to him from Italy, in all not amounting to above a thousand men, and with this handful began his voyage. He arrived at a port of Tuscany called Telamon, and as soon as he was landed proclaimed liberty to the slaves. [Immense applause.] The name of Marius brought down numbers of freemen too, husbandmen, shepherds, and such like, to the shore, the ablest of which he enlisted, and in a short time had a great army on foot, with which he filled forty ships.”[151]

Thus far Plutarch. It is needless to add that Marius soon found himself master of Rome. [Applause.]

These are historic instances. I do not adduce them for blind acceptance, but simply that you may see how in times past defeat was stayed and victory won by a generous word for Freedom. Men die and disappear; but the Human Family continues the same, in passions and fears, as when Philip was frightened back from Athens, as when Marius was borne in triumph to Rome. [Applause.]

To these great teachers I would add the authority of the ancient Roman Law, and I refer you for it to the common Dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities[152] now used in all our schools. According to that law, the state of Slavery might be terminated in at least three different modes: first, by manumission; secondly, by enactment of reward to the slave; and, thirdly, by enactment of punishment to the master. [Great sensation.] If the master failed to be a good citizen, he might be punished, so that he should suffer in property, and at the same time others gain what is more than property,—freedom. But I do not cite even this example of a time-honored jurisprudence for absolute guidance. I will not doubt, that, in the unparalleled circumstances by which we are encompassed, justice will be done.

Already the way is easy. A simple declaration, that all men within the lines of the United States troops are freemen, will be in strict conformity with the Constitution, and also with precedent. The Constitution knows no man as slave. It treats all within its jurisdiction as persons, while the exceptional provision for the rendition of persons held to service or labor, you will observe, is carefully confined to such as have escaped into another State,—so that in Virginia it cannot require the surrender of a Virginia slave, nor in Missouri of a Missouri slave. It is clear, therefore, that there is no sanction under the Constitution for turning a national camp into a slave-pen, or for turning military officers into slave-hunters. Let this plain construction be adopted, and then, as our lines advance, Freedom will be established everywhere, and the national flag in its triumphant march will wave with new glory. [Applause.]

A brave General whom Massachusetts has given to the country, though commencing his career with prejudices derived from the Proslavery school of politicians, has known how to see this question in its true light: I mean, of course, General Butler. [Immense cheering, interrupting the speaker for some time.] He has declared, in a letter to the Secretary of War, dated Fortress Monroe, 30th July, 1861, with reference to fugitive slaves, that it is his duty to “take the same care of these men, women, and children, houseless, homeless, and unprovided for, as he would of the same number of men, women, and children who for their attachment to the Union had been driven or allowed to flee from the Confederate States.”[153] These words are better for his reputation than a victory. [Applause and cheers.] Humanity and wisdom go together, and here we see both.

There is similar and unimpeachable testimony from a succession of Generals, all born, living, and dying in the South: I mean Gaines, Taylor, and Jesup, who, one after another, commanded in that protracted war instigated by the Slave Power against the Seminoles, and waged at such cost of treasure and life. Fugitives from Slavery, known as the Exiles of Florida, found a home among these Indian warriors, and the question arose how they should be treated, being, on a smaller scale, the very question which now occupies us. Major-General Gaines insisted, that, when captured, they were prisoners of war, and, in reply to claimants, he refused to surrender them, somewhat in the temper of Hotspur, even to the extent of denying his prisoners.[154] Then followed Major-General Taylor, afterwards President, who, in reply to claimants asking him “to turn over certain negroes,” said, “I cannot for a moment consent to meddle with this transaction,”[155]—thus giving example of just sensibility. At last the Exiles surrendered to Major-General Jesup as freemen. Afterwards, when their condition was in question, the General wrote: “By my Proclamation, and the Convention made with them, when they separated from the Indians and surrendered, they are free.” And then again he wrote: “I, as commander of the army, and in the capacity of representative of my country, solemnly pledged the national faith that they should not be separated, nor any of them sold to white men or others, but be allowed to settle and remain in separate villages, under the protection of the United States.”[156] Thus apparent, from beginning to end, are obligations to fugitives from bondage, while by concurring and consecutive authority that principle is established under which the camp becomes a refuge against Slavery.

This conclusion is reinforced by language attributed to General Gaines, and extensively published in the newspapers. “The military officer can enter into no judicial examination of the claim of one man to the bone and muscle of another as property. Nor could he as a military officer know what the laws of Florida were, while engaged in maintaining the Federal Government by force of arms. In such case he could only be guided by the Laws of War; and whatever may be the laws of any State, they must yield to the safety of the Federal Government.” Nothing can be clearer, stronger, or more to the point.

Thus have we example in the past as in the present, and from military quarters, pointing to a rule, which, though of seeming simplicity, would be of incalculable efficacy, if honestly and sincerely enforced. Then would our camps become nurseries of freemen, and every common soldier a chain-breaker, while Slavery shrunk out of sight.

There is a higher agency that may be invoked, which is at the same time under the Constitution and above the Constitution: I mean Martial Law in its plenitude, and declared by solemn Proclamation. It is under the Constitution, because the War Power to which it belongs is positively recognized by the Constitution. It is above the Constitution, because, when set in motion, like necessity, it knows no other law. For the time it is Law and Constitution. The civil power, in mass and detail, is superseded, and all rights are subordinate to this military magistracy. Other agencies, small and great, executive, legislative, and even judicial, are absorbed in a transcendent triune power, which, for the time, declares its absolute will, while holding alike the scales of justice and the sword of the executioner. The existence of this power nobody questions. If rarely exercised in our country, and never largely, the power is none the less fixed in our political system. As well strike out the kindred law of self-defence, belonging to states as to individuals. Martial Law is only a form of self-defence.

That this law might be employed against Slavery, without impediment from State Rights, was first proclaimed in the House of Representatives by a Massachusetts statesman, who was a champion of Freedom, John Quincy Adams. [Applause.] His authority is such that I content myself with the sanction of his name, which becomes more commanding when we consider the circumstances under which he first put forth this great rule, then repeated it, and then again most defiantly vindicated it.

Student of history, and of Public Law in all its forms, from earliest youth, under the teaching of his father, counsellor-at-law, Senator of the United States, Minister at foreign courts, including Holland, Prussia, Russia, England, negotiator of Peace at Ghent, then Secretary of State and President, this illustrious citizen, after such varied experience, entered the House of Representatives, where it became his duty to expound the War Power in our government, especially with regard to Slavery. On such a question, his whole life was the open book from which he spoke with magistral authority. No well-worn, dog-eared volume was needed. Himself was enough. And the circumstances of the debate, with the sensitiveness of the hour, gave new force to the principle which he announced.

A select committee on the Abolition of Slavery reported a resolution declaring “That Congress possesses no Constitutional authority to interfere in any way with the institution of Slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy.” Before the vote, the Ex-President asked to be heard, saying, “If the House will allow me five minutes’ time, I pledge myself to prove that resolution false and utterly untrue.”[157] Here he was called to order, and resumed his seat. The resolution was adopted. Immediately thereafter, on the same day, he obtained the floor on another subject, being a resolution for the distribution of rations among unfortunate sufferers in Alabama and Georgia, and having first remarked that his reasons for voting against the former resolution, founded on the power of Congress, would be a justification for the vote he should give in favor of the proposed distribution, he proceeded to discuss the War Power under the Constitution, portraying the various wars actually menaced, including a civil war, while with prophetic voice he exclaimed, “Your own Southern and Southwestern States must be the battle-field upon which the last great conflict must be fought between Slavery and Emancipation,” and then announced the supreme power of Congress.

“From the instant that your slaveholding States become the theatre of war, civil, servile, or foreign, from that instant the war powers of Congress extend to interference with the institution of Slavery in every way by which it can be interfered with,—from a claim of indemnity for slaves taken or destroyed, to the cession of the State burdened with slavery to a foreign power.”[158]

I give but an extract. Again, after other years, with added experience, we find this exalted citizen asserting the same War Power, and holding up to terrified Slave-Masters the prospect of Universal Emancipation.[159]

Meanwhile the question was discussed by friend and foe, being always in the blaze of the public press, when, on the 14th of April, 1842, our champion returned to it again, asserting the power of Congress with new vigor and detail. This was after the introduction of resolutions by Mr. Giddings, setting forth the relations of the National Government to Slavery, where it was declared without reservation that each of the several States composing this Union has full and exclusive jurisdiction over the subject of Slavery within its own territory.[160] The Ex-President, while accepting the other resolutions, was unwilling to vote for this complete surrender to the Slave States, and here again he was driven to find opportunity for speech on another question. It was on the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill, and the salaries of our foreign ministers, when, with masterly ability, in a speech of two days,[161] he reviewed our foreign relations, warning especially against war with England and Mexico; and then by natural transition depicted again the power of Congress in such emergency. These are his words:—

“It is a War Power. I say it is a War Power; and when your country is actually in war, whether it be a war of invasion or a war of insurrection, Congress has power to carry on the war, and must carry it on according to the Laws of War; and by the Laws of War an invaded country has all its laws and municipal institutions swept by the board, and Martial Law takes the place of them. This power in Congress has perhaps never been called into exercise under the present Constitution of the United States. But when the Laws of War are in force, what, I ask, is one of those laws? It is this: that, when a country is invaded, and two hostile armies are set in martial array, the commanders of both armies have power to emancipate all the slaves in the invaded territory.”[162]

Still further, he announces, in words precisely applicable to the present hour:—

“Nor is this a mere theoretic statement. The history of South America shows that the doctrine has been carried into practical execution within the last thirty years. Slavery was abolished in Colombia, first, by the Spanish General Murillo, and, secondly, by the American General Bolivar. It was abolished by virtue of a military command, given at the head of the army; and its abolition continues to be law to this day.”[163]

Condensing then the whole subject, and bringing it all into one final statement, he says:—

“I might furnish a thousand proofs to show that the pretensions of gentlemen to the sanctity of their municipal institutions, under a state of actual invasion and of actual war, whether servile, civil, or foreign, are wholly unfounded, and that the Laws of War do in all such cases take precedence. I lay this down as the Law of Nations. I say that the military authority takes, for the time, the place of all municipal institutions, and of Slavery among the rest; and that under that state of things, so far from its being true that the States where Slavery exists have the exclusive management of the subject, not only the President of the United States, but the commander of the army, has power to order the Universal Emancipation of the slaves.”[164] [Applause.]

His confidence in this principle was complete. As he uttered it, he said, addressing the Presiding Officer, “I have no more doubt of it than that you, Sir, occupy that chair”; and he called upon Slave-Masters to answer him, if they could, “not by indignation, not by passion and fury, but by sound and sober reasoning from the Laws of Nations and the Laws of War.” No attempt to answer him was ever made; but the wrath of Slavery was poured still more unsparingly upon the head of the venerable orator. Meanwhile his words have stood as a towering landmark and beacon-flame.

In the protracted controversy now drawing to a close in blood, Massachusetts has done much. She, first of all, gave the example of Universal Freedom within her borders; and ever since that early day she has taken the leading part against Slavery. It is her children who have never failed in this cause, where anything was to be done, whether by word or deed. Massachusetts, for years, has borne the burden of this discussion, and also the heavier burden of obloquy long resting upon all who speak for the slave. It is Massachusetts who with patriotic ardor first leaped to the rescue, when the capital was menaced by Slavery [applause], and by happy coincidence, on the 19th of April, consecrated herself anew by the blood of her people [applause],—thus being at the same time first to do and first to suffer. [Immense applause.] It was also a Massachusetts General who first in this conflict proclaimed that our camps cannot contain a slave [vociferous applause]; and it was an illustrious Massachusetts statesman who first unfolded the beneficent principle by virtue of which, constitutionally, legally, and without excess of any kind, the President, or a Commanding General, may become more than conqueror, even Liberator. [Applause and great sensation.]

Massachusetts will be false to herself, if she fails at this moment. [Sensation.] And yet I would not be misunderstood. Feeling most profoundly that there is an opportunity now for incalculable good, such as occurs rarely in human annals, seeing clearly that there is one spot, like the heel of Achilles, where this great Rebellion may be wounded to death, I calmly deliver the whole question to the judgment of those on whom the responsibility rests, contenting myself with reminding you that there are times when not to act carries with it greater responsibility than to act. It is enough for us to review the unquestioned powers of Government to handle for a moment its mighty weapons, yet allowed to slumber, without assuming to declare that the hour has come when they shall flash against the sky.

May a good Providence save our Republic from that everlasting regret which must ensue, if a great opportunity is lost by which all the bleeding wounds of war shall be stanched, and prosperity again assured, while Peace is made immortal in the embrace of Liberty! [Applause.] Saul was cursed for not hewing Agag in pieces when this enemy was in his hands, and Ahab was cursed for not destroying Benhadad. Let no such curse ever descend upon us!

Anxious as I am, I cannot doubt the result; but I long to make it more sure and inevitable. Among works of art handed down from Antiquity, and regarded with greatest wonder, is that unrivalled marble, where Laocoön with his two sons is sculptured in serpent folds, vainly struggling, and slowly yielding to terrific death. Poetry also has pictured the scene. Thus does our country now writhe in the torturing folds of Slavery, the fearful serpent which came swimming out of the sea and fastened upon the Republic; but, God be praised! the Republic shall live, and the serpent be bruised to death.

“So many enemies as slaves!”[165] Unless this ancient proverb has ceased to be true, there are now four millions of enemies intermingled with the Rebels, toiling in their fields, digging in their camps, and sitting at their firesides, constituting four millions of allies to the National Government. Careful calculation demonstrates, that, out of this number, more than one million are of an age for military service,—that in Virginia alone there are 121,564 male slaves of this important period, in Missouri 21,334, and in Kentucky 51,900. Can we afford to reject this natural alliance, quickened by a common interest, and consecrated by humanity? I call the alliance natural. Let history testify; and here I quote acknowledged authority. In the famous Peloponnesian War, when Greece suffered as we are suffering now, and her own people were arrayed under hostile banners, Greek meeting Greek, slaves often passed over from one side to the other, carrying sometimes oxen and sheep, and always practical knowledge of the country,—on one occasion twenty thousand in number, mostly mechanics: all of which is described by the great historian Thucydides,[166] who records also that the martial Lacedæmonians, in dread of their Helots, most cruelly took the lives of two thousand, selected for energy and character.[167] Thus in other days have slaves played their part, while slave-masters dwelt in fear. Of this trepidation there are abundant illustrations, some farcical. From Aristophanes we learn, that, during the same Peloponnesian War, the Athenians were unwilling to punish their slaves, lest they should desert. This dramatist, in one of his most famous comedies, has a character who, after exclaiming that “the slaves snore as never before,” pours forth his maledictions on the War, because he can no longer apply to them the wonted castigation.[168] The great philosopher of Greece accords with the historian and dramatist. Plato does not hesitate to say that “slaves and masters can never become friends”;[169] and he tells us how frequent are servile insurrections, especially in cities where the slaves speak one language, instancing customary outbreaks of the Messenians, and crowning his statement with the declaration, prompted by the universal human heart, even without experience as a slave, which had been his own lot, that “a man is a difficult possession to hold”:[170] and here our Fugitive Slave Bill with its terrible conditions, and the fugitive slaves of our country with their tragedies, are in harmony with this voice from Antiquity.

There is another motive not to be neglected. Without this alliance insurrection is inevitable, destined to be wild and lawless. This should be prevented. If Liberty does not descend from the tranquil heights of power, it will rise in blood, amidst the confusion of families. And what difference between the two apparitions! One has the face of an angel, radiant with celestial life; the other the front of a demon, “shaking from its horrid hair pestilence and war.” [Great applause and cheering.] All this was clearly seen by the Emperor of Russia, when, on the 21st of September, 1858, he called upon his people to unite with him in Emancipation, “which,” he nobly declared, “ought to begin from above, to the end that it may not come from below”; and now this very year twenty millions of Russian serfs are peacefully passing from the house of bondage. Cheered by this great example, forget not that it began from above.

There is another practical advantage where the action proceeds from Government. The interest of loyal citizens can be protected. Compensation may relieve the hardships of meritorious classes, or of individual cases; nor can I object. Never should any question of money be allowed to interfere with human freedom. Better an empty treasury than a single slave. A Bridge of Gold would be cheap, if demanded by the retreating Fiend.

Two objects are before us, Union and Peace, each for the sake of the other, and both for the sake of the country; but without Emancipation how can we expect either?

Fellow-citizens, I have spoken frankly; for such is always my habit. Never was there greater need of frankness. Let patriots understand each other and they cannot differ widely. All will unite in whatever is required by the sovereign exigencies of self-defence; which means that all will unite in sustaining the National Government, and driving back the Rebels. But this cannot be by any half-way measure or lukewarm policy. There must be no hesitation. Hearken not to the voice of Slavery, no matter what its tone of persuasion. It is the gigantic Traitor and Parricide,—not for a moment to be trusted. Believe me, its friendship is more deadly than its enmity. [Sensation.] If you are wise, prudent, economical, conservative, practical, you will strike quick and hard,—strike, too, where the blow will be most felt,—strike at the mainspring of the Rebellion. Strike in the name of the Union, which only in this way can be restored,—in the name of Peace, which is vain without Union,—and in the name of Liberty also, sure to bring both Peace and Union in her glorious train.

As Mr. Sumner closed, the hearty approval of the sentiments of the speech found utterance in the most enthusiastic and long-continued demonstrations of applause.

APPENDIX.

Outbursts of the public press, and other exhibitions of opinion, showed at least that the speech was felt, even where condemned. Some were bitter, and expressed their bitterness strongly; others were grateful, rejoicing that at last their thoughts and desires found utterance. Its reception at the time was peculiarly part of the speech; so also was its origin, and the motive which led to it.

THE PRESIDENT AND MR. SUMNER ON EMANCIPATION.

From the beginning Mr. Sumner never doubted that rebellion must cause the end of Slavery. So he spoke and wrote often during the previous winter. As the Slave States became more perverse, he exclaimed, “Slavery will go down in blood!” But this would be only in the event of war, which seemed inevitable. A day or two before the bombardment of Fort Sumter, when President Lincoln mentioned to him confidentially the determination to provision and hold this fort, repelling force by force, Mr. Sumner remarked, “Then the War Power will be in motion, and with it great consequences.” In the solemnity of that moment, when peace seemed banished, although saddened inexpressibly, he saw at once the mighty instrument before which Slavery must fall, and never for one moment afterwards did he doubt the final result. He would not and could not believe the success of the Rebels possible; but he saw no way to success on our part, except through Emancipation. Therefore he awaited anxiously the moment when this weapon could be employed. Shrinking from bloodshed, he wished this irresistible ally to close the war. Vowed against Slavery, he was eager to see it smitten. And still further, feeling the peril of European intervention, he longed for a declaration on our part that would make such an act impossible. In his judgment, our foreign relations depended much on Emancipation. So that the whole situation at home and abroad was involved in this question.

At the earliest practicable moment he did not hesitate to press these considerations upon the President. This was immediately after the Battle of Bull Run. An earlier incident will explain what passed on this occasion.

Some time towards the close of the preceding May, while the National troops were gathered about the capital, and during an evening drive with the President alone in his carriage, Mr. Sumner brought up the subject of Slavery, in order to say that the President was right in his course at that time, but that he must be ready to strike when the moment came. On the day of the disaster he was with the President twice, but made no suggestion then. On the second day thereafter, when the tidings from all quarters showed that the country was aroused to intense action, he visited the President expressly to urge Emancipation. The President received him kindly, and, when Mr. Sumner said that he had come to make an important recommendation with regard to the conduct of the war, replied promptly, that he was occupied with that very question, and had something new upon it. Mr. Sumner, thinking that he was anticipated, said, “You are going against Slavery!” “Oh, no, not that!” he replied, impatiently. “I am sorry,” said Mr. Sumner, when the President, with increasing impatience, reminded him of the evening drive in his carriage, and then retorted: “Did you not then approve my course?” “Certainly,” said Mr. Sumner, “at that time; but I said also that you must be ready to strike at Slavery, and now the moment has come. Of this I have no doubt.” And he proceeded to urge his reasons, but could not satisfy the President. The interview, which was late in the evening, did not terminate till midnight.

So completely had Mr. Sumner acted on the idea of waiting for a moment to strike, that in two different bills introduced by him before the disaster at Bull Run, one, July 16th, entitled, “For the confiscation of property of persons in rebellion against the Constitution and Laws of the United States,” and the other, July 18th, entitled, “For the punishment of conspiracy and kindred offences against the United States, and for the confiscation of the property of the offenders,” there is no open mention of Slavery. In the first bill there is a provision for the forfeiture of “the property, real and personal, of every kind whatsoever, and wheresoever situated within the limits of the United States, belonging to any person owing allegiance to the United States, who shall be found in arms against the United States, or shall give any aid or comfort to their enemies.” The other bill contains a clause equally stringent, but general in character. But after that disaster to our arms, he was satisfied the time had come for a full exercise of the War Power, and he desired earnestly to have the President lead the way openly and without reservation.

POLICY OF FORBEARANCE.

Meanwhile the policy of forbearance was continued, giving, as Mr. Sumner thought, moral strength to the Rebellion, and postponing success. By General Orders from Head-Quarters at Washington, July 17th, Slave-Masters obtained new security for their pretended property, in the following terms.

“Fugitive slaves will under no pretext whatever be permitted to reside, or in any way be harbored, in the quarters and camps of the troops serving in this department. Neither will such slaves be allowed to accompany troops on the march. Commanders of troops will be held responsible for a strict observance of the order.”[171]

In harmony with this military order was an opinion of the Attorney-General, of July 23d, by which the marshals of Missouri were reminded that the Fugitive Slave Act must be executed.[172] Then came the correspondence between General Butler and the War Department. The former, in a letter from Head-Quarters, Fortress Monroe, July 30th, after speaking of “the able-bodied negro fit to work in the trenches as property liable to be used in aid of rebellion, and so contraband of war,” and then with unanswerable force declaring our duty to fugitive slaves, announced a definite policy as follows.

“In a state of rebellion I would confiscate that which was used to oppose my arms, and take all that property which constituted the wealth of that State and furnished the means by which the war is prosecuted, beside being the cause of the war; and if, in so doing, it should be objected that human beings were brought to the free enjoyment of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, such objection might not require much consideration.[173]

To this annunciation Mr. Cameron, Secretary of War, replied, under date of August 8th:—

“It is the desire of the President that all existing rights in all the States be fully respected and maintained.”

And then, after forbidding troops to interfere “with the servants of peaceable citizens in house or field,” it was declared, as if to help the Fugitive Slave Act:—

“Nor will you, except in cases where the public good may seem to require it, prevent the voluntary return of any fugitive to the service from which he may have escaped.”[174]

These various declarations were followed, August 16th, by a speech of Hon. Caleb B. Smith, Secretary of the Interior, at a social festival in Providence, R. I., which seemed to give point to all. This Cabinet officer said:—

“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.

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.

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.’”