Mr. Sumner's political life was now to begin, and he chose for its opening the occasion of the National Anniversary of 1844, which was to be observed in Boston with unusual interest. A brief glance at the state of public affairs at the time, will faintly show what significance there was in the choice of the orator, and what important results were to follow his startling utterances.

American slavery was then in the zenith of its fearful and unthreatened reign. It held the whole nation bound hand and foot. It dictated every law passed by Congress, and inspired every measure adopted in the Cabinet. It controlled the Press of a free, and exulted in the sanction of the Pulpit of a Christian, nation. It was extending its dark shadow over soil then free, and claiming its inhuman jurisdiction over every Northern hearth-stone. It unblushingly boasted that it would one day call the slave-roll on Bunker Hill—And why should the menace seem so unmeaning? Had not Boston seen William Lloyd Garrison, the chief apostle of freedom, dragged through her streets with a halter about his neck, within sight of that column of Liberty, with scarce a protest from her opulent and polite citizens? Had not the Governor and Legislature of Georgia set a price upon the head of that prophet of the coming dispensation of freedom; and should not the Northern Athens obey the behest of her cotton king?

African Slavery had become as sacred in the precincts of Faneuil Hall, as it was in the slave-den of Washington, where the sound of the auctioneer's hammer knocking down men, women, and children to the highest bidder, could be heard from the steps of the Capitol itself. More slave property was owned in Boston than in Charleston—abolitionist was as odious a name in

How then could Boston regard any word of irreverence towards that all-powerful Institution, as less than a declaration of war à l'outrance against the slaveholding States? And to inflame the indignity, these insulting words had been uttered by one of the most brilliant and admired of her own long-descended aristocrats! What could not be tolerated, even in so plebeian a fanatic as Garrison, no longer than a rope could be thrown to a howling mob, rose when coming from the lips of the eloquent and travelled young patrician, the most atrocious blasphemy against God and the Constitution! And yet his great theme was The True Grandeur of Nations, and the burden of his oration was Peace,—an oration which Cobden, the most eloquent advocate of peace in Europe, pronounced the noblest contribution ever made by any modern writer to the cause of peace. But it gave offence to the magnates of the Whig Party in Massachusetts, since it was known that they were fast drifting, body and soul, into the embraces of the slave-power, which was demanding fresh aggressions upon the territory of Mexico, with a view to wrest from her some of her fairest possessions, to be devoted to the demon of human servitude. Mr. Sumner early foresaw that this would end in a collision with our sister republic, and which, under the dictation of the slave oligarchy, would be attended with outrages and injustice. The Whigs had been greatly weakened by the death of Harrison, and the wavering policy, and final defection of John Tyler; and the Democrats, preparing to regain their lost power, were also ready to bid for the pro-slavery vote. Thus both parties would hold up their hands for any measure that would give them votes, no matter how great the demolition of principle.

In this oration, Mr. Sumner uttered the memorable declaration which went through the world:—In our age, there can be no peace that is not honorable; there can be no war that is not dishonorable. We shall give no space here to any part of that oration, since other speeches on the same subject were elicited by subsequent occasions, when his prophecies were fast becoming history, by the anticipations of war with Mexico being turned into the most active hostilities. But a careful reading of that oration, which marked Mr. Sumner's first appearance before the country as a public man, will satisfy any student of his Speeches, that on this Fourth of July, 1844, he gave clear indications of the policy he was to pursue in future life. Nor could a prophet have marked out with greater clearness, than the historian could afterwards, the course Mr. Sumner would take in whatever crisis might arise, involving the fortunes of freedom, or of peace, in the coming struggles of parties.

Another point should here be observed, for it gave an index to his character which distinguished him ever afterwards from nearly all the prominent men who were to flourish during the approaching times of excitement and trouble. We speak of his inflexibility of purpose; his steady persistence in opposing at any and at all hazards, whatever he believed to be morally, socially, or politically wrong,—his absolute insensibility to opposition or criticism, come from what quarter they might; and the admirable and absolutely unparalleled steadiness with which he pursued the great objects of his life.

He then began to experience, what he had so many occasions to encounter—the criticisms of his friends, as well as the assaults of his enemies; the one scarcely exceeding in bitterness the cold reproofs, or only halfconcealed satire of the others. Without a single exception, no man in our history has had to pass through such ordeals as Charles Sumner. Whenever a new crisis rose in the country, he was found marching way ahead of the friends who had so reluctantly just come up to the last position he had taken; and thus they were continually falling off from him, one by one, all the time; and sometimes whole battalions of them together.

But with the single exception of the Supplemental Civil Rights Bill, which caused him almost the only lingering regret he had in dying so soon, he lived to see every public measure he had proposed involving a great principle of liberty, either fully incorporated into the Amended Constitution, or fairly expressed in some statute that was never afterwards to be repealed. And yet he seldom rose on the floor of the Senate to announce for the first time a new step in advance, without finding himself nearly alone; generally without supporters; sometimes without one:—and all through this protracted struggle for principle, he was not only subject to the violent persecution of the public press, and the desertion of personal friends, but the object of official insults, and even attempts at Senatorial degradation. Thus in tracing his career, we shall mark these points as we pass by them, only indicating them now in brief, that the reader may bear in mind these strong attributes of Mr. Sumner's character, to enable him more fully to comprehend how arduous was his warfare, how immovable was his integrity, how sublime was his faith; how he, more than any other man in our history, illustrated what was so well applied to Burke, that he never gave up to party what was meant for mankind.

In the first address he delivered on a plan of action with a view to the ultimate abolition of slavery, he said, in Faneuil Hall, Nov. 4th, 1845:

The time has passed when this can be opposed on constitutional grounds. It will not be questioned by any competent authority that Congress may, by express legislation, abolish slavery, first, in the District of Columbia; second, in the Territories, if there should be any; third, that it may abolish the slave trade on the high seas between the States; fourth, that it may refuse to admit any new State with a constitution sanctioning slavery. Nor can it be doubted that the people of the free States may, in the manner pointed out by the Constitution, proceed to its amendment.

There is in the Constitution no compromise on the subject of slavery of a character not to be reached legally and constitutionally, which is the only way in which I propose to reach it. Wherever power and jurisdiction are secured to Congress, they may unquestionably be exercised in conformity with the Constitution. And even in the matters beyond existing powers and jurisdiction there is a constitutional mode of action. The Constitution contains an article pointing out how, at any time, amendments may be made thereto. This is an important article, giving to the Constitution a progressive character, and allowing it to be moulded to suit new exigencies and new conditions of feeling. The wise framers of this instrument did not treat the country as a Chinese foot, never to grow after its infancy, but anticipated the changes incident to its growth.

But it was not until November 4, 1845, that he took his final position on the subject; and this he did in addressing a mass-meeting in Faneuil Hall, against the annexation of Texas. In the opening of that speech, to every sentence of which the future was to impart strange significance, he paid a graceful tribute to the chairman, Hon. John G. Palfrey,—then Secretary of the Commonwealth,—for an act which won for him universal respect, and admiration, viz., the manumission of a body of slaves that had descended to him by inheritance, and whom he had conducted far away from slavery, into these more cheerful precincts of freedom. By this act, said Mr. Sumner, he has done as a citizen, what Massachusetts is now called upon to do as a State—divest herself of all responsibility for any occasion of slave property.

In approaching his subject, he spoke of occasions in the progress of affairs when the attention of all, though ordinarily opposed to each other, is arrested; and even the lukewarm, the listless, the indifferent, unite heartily in a common object. Such is the case in great calamities, when the efforts of all are needed to avert a fatal blow. If the fire-bells startle us from our slumbers, we do not ask of what faith in politics or religion is the unfortunate brother who is exposed to destruction. It is enough that there is misfortune to be averted. In this spirit, we have assembled, putting aside all distinctions of party, forgetting all disagreements of opinion, renouncing all discords, only to cling to one ground on which we all meet in concord—I mean opposition to the admission of Texas as a slave State.

The scheme for the annexation of Texas, he continued, begun in stealth and fraud, and with the view to extend and strengthen slavery, has not yet received the final sanction of Congress. Even according to the course pursued by the framers of this measure, it is necessary that Texas should be formally admitted into the family of States by a vote of Congress, and that her Constitution should be approved by Congress. The question on this measure will arise this winter, and we would, if we could, strengthen the hands and the hearts of the friends of freedom by whom the measure will be opposed.

Ours is no factious or irregular course. It has the sanction of the highest examples on a kindred occasion. In 1819, the question now before us arose on the admission of Missouri as a slave State. I need not remind you of the ardor and constancy with which this was opposed at the North, by men of all parties, with scarcely a dissenting voice. One universal chorus of protests thundered from the Free States against the formation of what was called another black State. Meetings were convened in all the considerable towns—in Philadelphia, Trenton, New York, New Haven, and everywhere throughout Massachusetts, in order to give expression to this opposition in a manner to be audible on the floor of Congress. At Boston, on December 3d, 1819, a meeting was held in the State-house, without distinction of party, and embracing the leaders of both sides. That meeting, in its objects, was precisely like this now assembled. A large committee was appointed to prepare resolutions. Of this committee, William Eustis, afterwards Governor of Massachusetts, was chairman. With him were associated John Phillips, at that time President of the Senate of Massachusetts— a name dear to every friend of the slave as the father of him to whose eloquent voice we hope to listen to-night—Timothy Bigelow, Speaker of the House of Representatives, William Gray, Henry Dearborn, Josiah Quincy, Daniel Webster, William Ward, of Medford, William Prescott, Thomas H. Perkins, Stephen White, Benjamin Pickman, William Sullivan, George Blake, David Cummings, James Savage, John Gallison, James T. Austin, and Henry Orne. A committee, more calculated to inspire the confidence of all sides, could not have been appointed. Numerous as were its members, they were all men of mark, high in the confidence and affections of the country. This committee reported the following resolutions, which were adopted by the meeting:—

Resolved, As the opinion of this meeting, that the Congress of the United States possess the constitutional power upon the admission of any new State created beyond the limits of the original territory of the United States, to make the prohibition of the further extension of slavery, or involuntary servitude, in such new State, a condition of its admission.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this meeting, it is just and expedient that this power should be exercised by Congress upon the admission of all new States, created beyond the original limits of the United States.

The meeting in Boston was followed by one in Salem, called, according to the terms of the notice, to consider whether the immense region of country extending from the Mississippi to the Pacific Ocean is destined to be the abode of Happiness, Independence, and Freedom, or the wide prison of misery and slavery. Resolutions against the admission of any slave State were passed, being supported by Benjamin T. Pickman, Andrew Dunlap, and Joseph Story, a name of authority wherever found.

By these assemblies, the Commonwealth was aroused. It opposed an unbroken front to slavery.

Twenty-five years have passed since these efforts in the cause of freedom. Some of the partakers in them are still spared to us, full of years and honors; but the larger part have been called from the duty of opposing slavery on earth, to His presence, whose service is perfect freedom. But the same question which aroused their energies, presents itself to us. Shall we be less faithful than they? Will Massachusetts oppose a less unbroken front now than then? In the lapse of these few years has the love of freedom diminished? Has the sensibility to human suffering lost any of the keenness of its edge?

Let us regard the question closely. Congress is called upon to sanction the Constitution of Texas, which not only supports slavery, but which contains a clause prohibiting the Legislature of the State from abolishing slavery. In doing this, it will give a fresh stamp of legislative approbation to an unrighteous system; it will assume a new and active responsibility for the system; it will again become a dealer, on a gigantic scale, in human flesh. Yes, at this moment, when the conscience of mankind is at last aroused to the enormity of holding a fellow-man in bondage; when, throughout the civilized world, a slavedealer is a bye-word and a reproach, we, as a nation, are about to become proprietors of a large population of slaves. Such an act, at this time, is removed from the reach of the palliation often extended to slavery. Slavery, we are speciously told by those who seek to defend it, is not our original sin. It was entailed upon us, so we are instructed, by our ancestors; and the responsibility is often, with exultation, thrown upon the mother country. Now, without stopping to inquire into the truth of this suggestion, it is sufficient for the present purpose, to know that by welcoming Texas as a slave State we do make slavery our own original sin. Here is a new case of actual transgression which we cannot cast upon the shoulders of any progenitors, nor upon any mother country, distant in time or place. The Congress of the United States, the people of the United States, at this day, in this vaunted period of light, will be responsible for it; so that it shall be said hereafter, so long as the dismal history of slavery is read, that in the year of Christ, 1846, a new and deliberate act was passed to confirm and extend it.

By the present movement we propose no measure of change. We do not offer to interfere with any institutions of the Southern States, nor to modify any law on the subject of slavery anywhere under the Constitution of the United States. Our movement is conservative in its character. It is to preserve the existing supports of freedom; it is to prevent a violation of the vital principles of free institutions.

By the proposed measure, we not only become parties to the acquisition of a large population of slaves, with all the crime of slavery; but we open a new market for the slaves of Virginia and the Carolinas, and legalize a new slave trade. A new slave trade! Consider this well. You cannot forget the horrors of what is called the middle passage, when the crowds of unfortunate human beings, stolen, and borne by sea far from their warm African homes, are pressed on shipboard into spaces of smaller dimensions for each than a coffin. And yet the deadly consequences of this middle passage have been supposed to fall short of those, which are sometimes undergone by the wretched caravans, driven from the exhausted lands of the Northern slave States to the sugar plantations nearer to the sun of the South. It is supposed, that one-quarter part often perish in these removals. I see them, in imagination, on this painful passage, chained in bands or troops, and driven like cattle, leaving behind what has become to them a home and a country (alas! what a home, and what a country!)—husband torn from wife, and parent from child, and sold anew into a more direful captivity. Can this take place with our consent, nay, without our most determined opposition? If the slave trade is to receive a new adoption from our country, let us have no part or lot in it. Let us wash our hands of this great guilt. As we read its horrors, may each of us be able to exclaim, with a conscience void of offence, Thou canst not say I did it. God forbid, that the votes and voices of the freemen of the North should help to bind anew the fetter of the slave! God forbid, that the lash of the slave-dealer should be nerved by any sanction from New England! God forbid, that the blood which spirts from the lacerated, quivering flesh of the slave, should soil the hem of the white garments of Massachusetts! But we are told that all exertions will be vain, and that the admission of a new slave State is a foregone conclusion. But this is no reason why we should shrink from our duty. I will try, was the exclamation of an American general on the field of battle. England expects every man to do his duty, was the signal of the British admiral. Ours is a contest holier than those which aroused these animating words. Let us try; let every man do his duty. And suppose New England stands alone in these efforts; suppose Massachusetts stands alone; is it not a noble solitude? Is it not a position of honor? Is it not a position where she will find companionship with all that is great and generous in the past—with all the disciples of truth, of right, of liberty? It has not been her wont on former occasions to inquire whether she should stand alone. Your honored ancestor, Mr. Chairman, who from these walls regards our proceedings to-night, did not ask whether Massachusetts would be alone,. when she commenced the opposition which ended in the independence of the Thirteen Colonies.

But we cannot fail to accomplish great good. It is in obedience to a prevailing law of Providence, that no act of self-sacrifice, no act of devotion to duty, no act of humanity can fail. It stands forever as a landmark; as a point from which to make a new effort. The champions of equal rights and of human brotherhood shall hereafter derive new strength from these exertions.

Let Massachusetts, then, be aroused. Let all her children be summoned to join in this holy cause. There are questions of ordinary politics in which men may remain neutral; but neutrality now is treason to liberty, to humanity, and to the fundamental principles of our free institutions. Let her united voice, with the accumulated echoes of freedom that fill this ancient Hall, go forth with comfort and cheer to all who labor in the same cause everywhere throughout the land. Let it help to confirm the wavering, and to reclaim those who have erred from the right path. Especially may it exert a proper influence in Congress upon the representatives of the free States. May it serve to make them as firm in the defence of freedom as their opponents are pertinacious in the cause of slavery.

Let Massachusetts continue to be known as foremost in the cause of freedom; and let none of her children yield to the fatal dalliance with slavery. You will remember the Arabian story of the magnetic mountain, under whose irresistible attraction the iron bolts which held together the strong timbers of a stately ship were drawn out, till the whole fell apart, and became a disjointed wreck. Do we not find in this story an image of what happens to many Northern men, under the potent magnetism of Southern companionship or Southern influence? Those principles, which constitute the individuality of the Northern character, which render it stanch, strong, and seaworthy, which bind it together, as with iron, are drawn out one by one, like the bolts from the ill-fated vessel, and out of the miserable loosened fragments is formed that human anomaly—A Northern man with Southern principles. Such a man is no true son of Massachusetts.

There is a precious incident in the life of one whom our country has delighted to honor, furnishing an example that we shall do well to imitate. When Napoleon, having reached the pinnacle of military honor, lusting for a higher title than that of First Consul, caused a formal vote to be taken on the question, whether he should be declared Emperor of France, Lafayette, at that time in retirement, and only recently, by the intervention of the First Consul, liberated from the dungeons of Olmutz, deliberately registered his No. At a period, in the golden decline of his high career, resplendent with heroic virtues, revisiting our shores, the scene of his youthful devotion to freedom, and receiving on all sides that beautiful homage of thanksgiving, which is of itself an all-sufficient answer to the sarcasm against the alleged ingratitude of republics, here in Boston, this illustrious Frenchman listened with especial pride to the felicitation addressed to him, as the man who knew so well how to say no. Be this the example for Massachusetts, and may it be among her praises hereafter, that on this occasion she knew so well how to say no!

So far as Mr. Sumner had been a party man, he had been counted among the Whigs, for he had more hopes, he said, that they would be the party of freedom. He had been elected to a Whig State Convention, which assembled at Faneuil Hall on the 23d of September, 1846, where a good deal of curiosity was excited, and some solicitude felt, in regard to the course he would take. But at an early stage of the meeting, being called upon by the President, he delivered a powerful speech upon The Anti-Slavery Duties of the Whig Party, which produced a profound impression of admiration among all, for the boldness, the candor, and the manliness of his words. But by a large majority of the Convention it was regarded as a speech for unhealthy agitation; the Whigs were not prepared to go so far. Neither Mr. Webster nor Mr. Everett sympathized with the sentiments of Mr. Sumner, nor did they approve of the policy of any such course as he recommended. Both of those eminent men were still looking forward to larger rewards for their public services. They were both held in high honor at home and abroad; Mr. Everett being regarded as of much riper scholarship and higher intellectual culture than almost any other man in America; while men felt as profound a veneration for the majesty and power of Webster's mind, and placed a loftier estimate upon his eloquence than perhaps upon that of any other living statesman. Nor could it be expected that these illustrious citizens, who were much older than Mr. Sumner, and who had won their enviable reputation in the calmer days of the republic, could enter very warmly into such radical views as the rising orator was now putting forth. Long experience generally teaches the wisdom of conciliation; and the proverbial conservatism of age is always roused into alarm or hostility, when the young reformer enters the field.

In the beginning of his speech, Mr. Sumner did not conceal his regret that the Convention had not been summoned to sit in the country, believing that the opinions of the country, free as its bracing air, more than those of Boston, would be in harmony with the tone which it became them to adopt at the present crisis. In the country, he said, is the spirit of freedom; in the city, the spirit of commerce; and though these two spirits may at times act in admirable conjunction, and with irresistible strength, yet it sometimes occurs that the generous and unselfish impulses of the one, are checked and controlled by the careful calculations of economy suggested by the other. Even Right and Liberty are, in some minds, of less significance than dividends and dollars.

But I am happy, said he, that the Convention has been convoked in Faneuil Hall. This place is vocal with inspiring accents, and though, on other occasions, words have been uttered here which the lover of morals, of freedom, and humanity must regret, these walls, faithful only to Freedom, refuse to echo them. The Whigs of Massachusetts, assembled in Faneuil Hall, must be true to this early scene of the struggles for Freedom; they must be true to their own name, which has descended to them from those who partook of those struggles.

We are a Convention of Whigs. And who are the Whigs? Some may say they are the supporters of the tariff; others, that they are the advocates of internal improvements; of measures to restrain the exercise of the veto power; or of a bank. All these are now, or have been, prominent articles in the faith of the party. But this enumeration does not do justice to the character of the Whigs.

The Whigs, as their name imports, are, or ought to be, the party of Freedom. They seek, or should seek, on all occasions, to carry out fully and practically the principles of our institutions. The principles which our fathers declared, and sealed with their blood, their Whig children should seek to manifest in their acts. The Whigs, therefore, reverence the Declaration of Independence, as embodying the vital truths of freedom, especially that great truth, that all men are born equal. They reverence the Constitution of the United States, and seek to guard it against infractions; believing that under the Constitution, Freedom can be best preserved. They reverence the Union of the States; believing that the peace, happiness, and welfare of all depend upon this blessed bond. They reverence the public faith, and require that it should be punctiliously kept in all laws, charters, and obligations. They reverence the principles of morality, of truth, of justice, of right. They seek to advance their country, rather than individuals; and to promote the welfare of the people, rather than of their leaders. A member of such an association, founded on the highest moral sentiments, recognizing conscience and benevolence as its animating ideas, cannot be said to give to party what was meant for mankind; for all the interests of the party must be coincident and commensurate with the manifold interests of humanity.

Such is, as I trust, or certainly should be, the Whig party of Massachusetts. It refuses to identify itself exclusively with those measures of transient policy, which may, like the Bank, become obsolete ideas; but connects itself with everlasting principles, which can never fade or decay. In doing this, it does not neglect other things; as the tariff, or internal improvements. But it treats these as subordinate. Far less does it show indifference to the Constitution or the Union; for it seeks to render these the guardians and representatives of the lofty principles to which we are attached.

The Whigs have been called by you, Mr. President, the conservatives. In a just sense, they should be conservatives; not of forms only, but of substance; not of the letter only, but of the living spirit. The Whigs should be the conservators of the spirit of our ancestors; conservators of the great animating ideas of our institutions. They should profess that truest and highest conservatism, which watches, guards, and preserves the great principles of Truth, Right, Freedom, and Humanity. Such a conservatism is not narrow and exclusive; but broad and expansive. It is not trivial and bigoted; but manly and generous. It is the conservatism of the Whigs of ‘76.

Let me say, then, that the Whigs of Massachusetts are—I hope it is not my wish only that is father to the thought—the party who seek the establishment of Truth, Freedom, Right and Humanity, under the Constitution of the United States, and by the Union of the States. They are Unionists, Constitutionalists, Friends of the Right.

And the question here arises, how shall this party, inspired by these principles, now act? The answer is easy. In accordance with their principles. It must utter them with distinctness, and act upon them with energy.

The time, I believe, has gone by when the question is asked, What has the North to do with Slavery? It might almost be answered, that, politically, it had little to do with anything else, so are all the acts of our government connected, directly or indirectly, with this institution. Slavery is everywhere. It constitutionally enters the halls of Congress, in the disproportionate representation of the slave States. It shows its disgusting front in the District of Columbia, in the shadow of the Capitol, under the legislative jurisdiction of the nation; of the North as well as the South. It sends its miserable victims on the high seas, from the ports of Virginia to the ports of Louisiana, beneath the protecting flag of the republic. It follows into the free States, in pursuance of a provision of the Constitution, those fugitives, who, under the inspiration of freedom, seek our altars for safety; nay, more, with profane hands it seizes those who have never known the name of slave, colored freemen of the North, and dooms them to irremediable bondage. It insults and exiles from its jurisdiction the honored representatives of Massachusetts, who seek, as messengers of the Commonwealth, to secure for her colored citizens the peaceful safeguard of the laws of the Union. It not only uses the Constitution for its purposes, but abuses it also. It violates the Constitution at pleasure, to build up new slaveholding States. It seeks perpetually to widen its area, while professing to extend the area of freedom. It has brought upon the country war with Mexico, with its enormous expenditures, and more enormous guilt. By the spirit of union among its supporters, it controls the affairs of government; interferes with the cherished interests of the North, enforcing and then refusing protection to her manufactures; makes and unmakes presidents; usurps to itself the larger portion of all offices of honor and profit, both in the army and navy, and also in the civil department; and stamps upon our whole country the character, before the world, of that monstrous anomaly and mockery, a slaveholding republic, with the living truths of freedom on its lips, and the dark mark of slavery printed on its brow.

And shall this Commonwealth continue in any way to sustain an institution which its laws declare to be contrary to natural right, to justice, to humanity and sound policy? Shall the Whigs support what is contrary to the fundamental principles of the party? Here the consciences of good men respond to the judgment of the court. If it be wrong to hold a single slave, it must be wrong to hold many. If it be wrong for an individual to hold a slave, it must be wrong for a State. If it be wrong for a State, in its individual capacity, it must be wrong also, in association with other States. Massachusetts does not allow any of her citizens within her borders to hold slaves. Let her be consistent, and call for the abolition of slavery wherever she is, to any extent, responsible for it, wherever she is a party to it, wherever it may be reached by her influence; that is, everywhere beneath the constitution and laws of the Federal Government. If any practice exist, said Mr. Webster, in one of those earlier efforts which commended him to our admiration, his address at Plymouth in 1820—If any practices exist, contrary to the principles of justice and humanity, within the reach of our laws or our influence, we are inexcusable if we do not exert ourselves to restrain and abolish them.

Certainly, to labor in this cause is far higher and nobler than to strive merely for a repeal of the Tariff, which was once mentioned as the tocsin to rally the Whigs. Repeal of Slavery under the Constitution and laws of the Federal Government is a more Christian and more potent watchword, because it embodies a higher sentiment, and a more commanding duty.

The time has passed when this can be opposed on constitutional grounds. It will not be questioned by any competent authority, that Congress may, by express legislation, abolish slavery, 1st, in the District of Columbia; 2d, in the Territories, if there should be any; 3d, that it may abolish the slave trade on the high seas between the States; 4th, that it may refuse to admit any new State with a constitution sanctioning slavery. Nor can it be questioned that the people of the United States may, in the manner pointed out by the Constitution, proceed to its amendment. It is, then, by constitutional legislation, and even by amendment of the Constitution, that slavery may be reached.

And here the question arises: Are there any compromises in the Constitution of such a character as to prevent action on this subject? I wish to say, distinctly, that there is no compromise on the subject of slavery, of a character not to be reached legally and constitutionally, which is the only way in which I propose to reach it. Wherever power and jurisdiction are secured to Congress, they may unquestionably be exercised in conformity with the Constitution. And even in matters beyond existing powers and jurisdiction, there is a constitutional method of action. The Constitution contains an article pointing out how, at any time, amendments may be made thereto. This is an important element, giving to the Constitution a progressive character; and allowing it to be moulded to suit new exigencies and new conditions of feeling. The wise framers of this instrument did not treat the country as a Chinese foot—never to grow after its infancy—but anticipated the changes incident to its growth. They openly declare, Legislate, as you please, in conformity with the Constitution; and even make amendments in this instrument, rendered proper by change of opinion or character, following always the manner therein prescribed.

Nor can we dishonor the memories of the revered authors of the Constitution, by supposing that they set their hands to it, believing that slavery was to be perpetual—that the republic, which, reared by them to its giant stature, had snatched from Heaven the sacred fire of freedom, was to be bound, like another Prometheus, in the adamantine chains of fate, while slavery, like another vulture, preyed upon its vitals. Let Franklin speak for them. He was President of the earliest Abolition Society in the United States, and in 1790, only two years after the adoption of the Constitution, addressed a petition to Congress, calling upon them to step to the very verge of the power vested in them for discouraging every species of traffic in our fellow-men. Let Jefferson speak for them. His desire for the abolition of slavery was often expressed with philanthropic warmth and emphasis. Let Washington speak for them. It is among my first wishes, he said, in a letter to John Fenton Mercer, to see some plan adopted by which slavery in this country may be abolished by law. And in his will, penned with his own hand, in the last year of his life, he bore his testimony again, by providing for the emancipation of all his slaves. It is thus that Washington speaks, not only by words, but by actions louder than words, Give freedom to your slaves. The Father of his country requires, as a token of the filial piety which all profess, that his example should be followed. I am not insensible to the many glories of his character; but I cannot contemplate this act, without a fresh gush of admiration and gratitude. The martial scene depicted on that votive canvas may fade from the memories of men; but this act of justice and benevolence shall never perish.

I assume, then, that it is the duty of the Whigs, professing the principles of the fathers, to express themselves openly, distinctly, and solemnly against slavery; not only against its further extension, but against its longer continuance under the Constitution and laws of the Union. But while it is their duty to enter upon this holy warfare, it should be their aim to temper it with moderation, with gentleness, with tenderness, towards slave owners. These should be won, if possible, rather than driven, to the duties of emancipation. But emancipation should always be presented as the cardinal object of our National policy.

Our representatives must be courageous and willing on all occasions to stand alone, provided Right is with them. Though every tile were a devil, said Martin Luther, yet will I enter Worms. Such a spirit is needed now by the advocates of Right. They must not be ashamed of the name which belongs to Franklin, Jefferson and Washington— and which express the idea to which they should be devoted—Abolitionist. They must be thorough, uncompromising advocates of the repeal of slavery, of its abolition under the laws and Constitution of the United States. They must be Repealers, Abolitionists.

There are a few such men now in Congress. Massachusetts has a venerable representative, John Quincy Adams, whose aged bosom still glows with inextinguishable fires; like the central heats of the monarch mountain of the Andes, beneath its canopy of snow. To this cause he dedicates the closing energies of a long and illustrious life. Would that all would join him!

There is a Senator of Massachusetts, whom we had hoped to welcome here to-day, whose position is one of commanding influence. Let me address him with the respectful frankness of a constituent and a friend:—You have, Sir, by various labors, already acquired an honorable place in the history of our country. By the vigor, argumentation, and eloquence with which you have upheld the Union, and that interpretation of the Constitution which makes us a Nation, you have justly earned the title of Defender of the Constitution. By the successful and masterly negotiation of the treaty of Washington, and by your efforts to compose the strife of the Oregon, you have earned another title-Defender of Peace. There are yet other duties, claiming your care, whose performance will be the crown to a life of high public service. Let me ask you, when again at your post in the Senate, not to forget them. Dedicate, Sir, the golden years of experience happily in store for you, to the grand endeavor, in the name of Freedom, to remove from your country its greatest evil. In this cause you shall find inspirations to eloquence, higher than any you have yet confessed;

It cost Mr. Sumner no small sacrifice of personal feeling to address such a letter to one who had from boyhood been among his intimate and most highly esteemed personal friends. But while he could never allow his conscience to give way to personal considerations, we search in vain for any trace of personal animosity, or other sentiment than one of regret. He tells Mr. Winthrop that he had never failed to vote for him as a Whig, whenever he had an opportunity, and had on other occasions considered it proper to review his public course, and to express, as he sometimes had, the sorrow it had caused him. Conscious, says he, of no feeling towards yourself personally, except good-will, mingled with the recollection of pleasant social intercourse, I enter with pain upon the consideration of your vote, and of the apologies for it which you and others have set up. I am not a politician; and you will pardon me, therefore, if I decline to bring your conduct to any of the tests of party, or of numbers; to any sliding scale of expediency; to any standard except the golden rule of right and wrong.

In speaking of the Act of Congress appropriating money and men for the Mexican war, he says that he shall consider the Act in six different aspects:

It is six times wrong. Six different and unanswerable reasons should have urged its rejection. Six different appeals should have touched every Christian heart. Let me consider them separately.

First. It is practically a Declaration of war against a sister Republic. In Congress is vested, by the Constitution of the United States, the power of declaring war. Before this Act was passed, the Mexican War had no legislative sanction. Without this Act, it would have no legislative sanction. It is by virtue of this Act, that the present war is waged. It is by virtue of this Act, that an American fleet, at immense cost of money, and without any gain of character, is now disturbing the commerce of Mexico, and of the civilized world, by the blockade of Vera Cruz. It is by virtue of this Act, that a distant expedition has seized, with pilfering rapacity, the defenceless province of California. It is by virtue of this Act, that General Kearney has marched upon and captured Santa Fe. It is by virtue of this Act, that General Taylor has perpetrated the massacre at Monterey. It is by virtue of this Act, that desolation has been carried into a thousand homes,—that mothers, sisters, daughters and wives have been plunged in the comfortless despair of bloody bereavement, while the uncoffined bodies of sons, brothers and husbands are consigned to premature graves. Lastly, it is by virtue of this Act, that the army of the United States has been converted into a legalized band of brigands, marauders, and banditti, in violation of the sanctions of civilization, justice and humanity. The American soldiers, who have died ignobly in the streets of a foreign city, in the attack upon a Bishop's palace, in contest with Christian fellow-men, who were defending fire-sides and altars, may claim the epitaph of Simonides: Go, tell at Sparta, that we died here in obedience to her laws. It was in obedience to this Act of Congress that they laid down their lives in a barbarous war.

Second. This Act gives the sanction of Congress to an unjust war. War is barbarous and brutal; but this is unjust. It grows out of aggression on our part, and is continued by aggression. The statement of facts already made is sufficient to substantiate this point.

Third. It declares that war exists by the act of the Republic of Mexico. This statement of brazen falsehood is inserted in the front of the Act. But it is now admitted by most, if not all of the Whigs, who unhappily voted for it, that it is not founded in fact. It is a National lie.

Fourth. It provides for the prosecution of the war to a speedy and successful termination, that is, for the successful prosecution of an unjust war. Surely no rule can be more firmly founded in morals, than that we should seek the establishment of right. Never strive for the triumph of wrong.

Fifth. The war has its origin in a series of measures to extend and perpetuate Slavery. A wise and humane legislator should have discerned its source, and derived therefrom fresh impulses to oppose it.

Sixth. The war is dishonorable and cowardly, as being the attack of a rich, powerful, numerous and united Republic, upon a weak and defenceless neighbor, distracted by civil feuds. Every consideration of true honor, manliness and Christian duty, prompted gentleness and forbearance towards our unfortunate Sister.

Such, Sir, is the Act of Congress, which received your sanction. It will hardly yield in importance to any measure of our Government since the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It is certainly the most wicked in our history, as it is one of the most wicked in all history. The recording Muse will drop a tear over its turpitude and injustice, while she gibbets it for the disgust and reprobation of mankind.

Such, Sir, is the Act of Congress to which, by your affirmative vote, the people of Boston have been made parties. Through you, they have been made to declare an unjust and cowardly war, with falsehood, in the cause of slavery. Through you, they have been made partakers in the blockade of Vera Cruz, in the seizure of California, in the capture of Santa Fe, in the bloodshed of Monterey. It were idle to suppose that the poor soldier, or officer only, is stained by this guilt. It reaches far back, and incarnadines the Halls of Congress; nay more, through you, it reddens the hands of your constituents in Boston. Pardon this language. Strong as it may seem, it is weak to express the aggravation of your act, in joining in the declaration of an unjust war. Oh! Mr. Winthrop, rather than lend your vote to this wickedness, you should have suffered the army of the United States to pass submissively through the Caudine Forks of Mexican power—to perish, it might be, irretrievably, like the legions of Varus. Their bleached bones, in the distant valleys where they were waging an unjust war, would not tell to posterity such a tale of ignominy as this lying Act of Congress.

Another apology, suggested by yourself, and vouchsafed by your defenders, is founded on the alleged duty of voting succors to General Taylor's troops, and the impossibility of doing this, without voting also for the Bill, after it had been converted into a Declaration of Falsehood and of War. It is said that patriotism required this vote. Patriotism! is not thy name profaned by this apology! Let one of your honored predecessors, Sir, a representative of Boston on the floor of Congress, Mr. Quincy, give the reply to this apology. On an occasion of trial not unlike that through which you have passed, and in the same place, he gave utterance to these noble words:—

But it is said this resolution must be taken as a test of patriotism. To this I have but one answer. If patriotism ask me to assert a falsehood, I have no hesitation in telling patriotism, I am not prepared to make that sacrifice. The duty we owe to our country is indeed among the most solemn and impressive of all obligations. But, high as it may be, it is nevertheless subordinate to that, which we owe to that Being, with whose name and character truth is identified. In this respect, I deem myself acting, upon this resolution, under a higher responsibility than either to this House, or this people.

Ten days later—Nov. 4, 1846—on the eve of the Congressional Election, at a meeting in the Tremont Temple to advance the cause of the Election of Dr. Howe in opposition to Mr. Winthrop, the regular Whig candidate, Mr. Sumner made one of his most effective speeches, in which he said:

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

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

He has qualities which commend him, especially at this time. He is firm, ever true, honest, inflexible, a lover of the Right. With a courage that charms opposition, he would not fear to stand alone against a fervid majority. Knowing War by a fearful familiarity, he is an earnest defender of Peace. With a singular experience of life in other countries, he now bring the stores which he has garnered up, and his noble spirit, to the service of his fellow-citizens. May they know how to value them! * *

The true Whig ground, the only ground, consistent with our professed loyalty to the higher sentiments of duty, is constant uncompromising opposition to the war, in all the forms in which opposition may be made. Expecting right from Mexico, we must begin by doing right. We are the aggressors. We must cease to be the aggressors.

This is the proper course of duty, having its foundations in the immutable laws of God. Our country must do as an individual in similar circumstances; for though politicians may disown it—and this principle cannot be too often repeated—there is but one rule of duty for nations and for individuals. If any one of you, fellow-citizens, finding yourself in dispute with a neighbor, had unfortunately resorted to blows and felled him to the earth, but, with returning reason, discovered that you were in the wrong, what would you do? Of course, cease instantly from wrong-doing. You would help your neighbor to his feet. With Christian benevolence you would seek to soothe his wrongs. You would not, in the language of President Polk, seek to conquer a peace, nor, in the language of Mr. Winthrop, to achieve an honorable peace by force. Precisely so must our country act now. We must help our down-trodden Mexican neighbor to her feet. We must withdraw our forces to the Neuces, and then, when ample justice has been done on our side, seek justice and peace from her. Be assured these would easily follow. Perhaps the same response might come from the Mexicans, that the Falerii sent to the Roman Senate, through Camillus: The Romans having preferred justice to conquest, have taught us to be satisfied with submission instead of liberty.

That I may not seem to found these conclusions upon general principles of morals only, let me invoke the example of the Whigs of England, of Chatham, Camden, Burke, Fox and Sheridan, in their opposition to the war of our Revolution; denouncing it, at the outset, as unjust, and never, during its whole progress, failing to declare their condemnation of it; voting against supplies for its prosecution, and against thanks for the military services by which it was waged. Holding their example, as of the highest practical authority on the present question of political duty, and as particularly fit to be regarded by persons professing to be Whigs in America, I shall make no apology for introducing at some length the authentic evidence which places it beyond doubt. This is to be found in the volumes of the Parliamentary Debates. I am not aware that it has ever before been applied to the present discussion.

In the Debate in the Lords on the address of Thanks in Oct. 1775, after the battle of Lexington and Bunker Hill—the Duke of Grafton said:

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

At the close of this Debate, a protest was signed by several peers, containing the following clause:

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

In the House of Commons, on the same Address, Mr. Wilkes said:

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

Mr. Fox said:

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

Mr. Serjeant Adair said:

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

In another debate in the Lords, Nov. 15th, 1775, that strenuous friend of freedom, and upholder of Whig principles, Lord Camden. said:

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

In another debate in the Commons, Dec. 8th, 1785, Mr. Fox said:

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

In the Commons, March 11th, 1776, Col. Barre, Mr. Burke, Mr. Fox, all vied in eulogies upon General Montgomery, the account of whose death before Quebec had arrived some days before.

In the Commons, April 24th, 1776, a debate arose on the Budget, containing resolutions to raise taxes to carry on the war against America. Mr. Fox then said:

To the resolutions he should give a flat negative, and that not because of any particular objection to the taxes proposed (although it might be a sufficient ground for urging many) but because he could not conscientiously agree to grant any money for so destructive, so ignoble a purpose as the carrying on a war commenced unjustly, and supported with no other view than to the extirpation of freedom, and the violation of every social comfort. This he conceived to be the strict line of conduct to be observed by A member of Parliament. He then painted the war with America as unjust, and the pursuance of the war as blood-thirsty and oppressive.

Col. Barre followed, and adopted the phrase of Mr. Fox, giving his flat negative to the Resolutions, as they were calculated to tax the subject for an unjust purpose.

In the Lords, Oct. 31st, 1776, the Duke of Grafton said:

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

In the Commons, on the same night, Mr. Fox said:

The noble Lord who moved the amendment, said that we were in the dilemma of conquering or abandoning America; if we are reduced to that, I am for abandoning America.

In the Commons, Nov. 6th, 1776, Mr. Burke said:

You simply tell the Colonists to lay down their arms, and then you will do just as you please. Could the most cruel conqueror say less? Had you conquered the devil himself in hell, could you be less liberal? No!

In the Commons, Feb. 18th, 1777, Col. Barre said:

America must be reclaimed, not conquered or subdued. Conciliation or concession are the only sure means of either gaining or retaining America.

In the Commons, May 14th, 1777, another debate occurred on the Budget, in the course of which Mr. Burke said:

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

In the Lords, May 28th, 1777, Lord Chatham brought forward a motion to put a stop to American hostilities, and said:

We have tried for unconditional submission; try what can be gained by unconditional redress. We are the aggressors. We have invaded them. We have invaded them as much as the Spanish Armada invaded England. * * * * In the sportsman's phrase, when you have found yourself at fault, you must try back. I shall no doubt hear it objected, Why should we submit or concede? Has America done anything, on her part, to induce us to agree to so large a ground of concession? I will tell you, my lords, why I think you should. You have been the aggressors from the beginning. If then we are the aggressors, it is your lordships' business to make the first overture. I say again, this country has been the aggressor. You have made descents upon their coasts; you have burnt their towns, plundered their country, made war upon the inhabitants, confiscated their property, proscribed and imprisoned their persons. I do therefore affirm, that, instead of exacting unconditional submission from the Colonies, we should grant them unconditional redress. We have injured them; we have endeavored to enslave and oppress them. Upon this clear ground, instead of chastisement they are entitled to redress. If I were an American, as I am an Englishman, while a foreign troop was landed in my country, I never would lay down my arms—never—never— never.

And again Lord Chatham said:

I would sell my shirt from off my back to assist in proper measures, properly and wisely conducted; but I would not part with a single shilling to the present ministers. Their plans are founded in destruction and disgrace. It is, my lord, a ruinous and destructive war; it is full of danger; it teens with disgrace, and must end in ruin.

In the Lords, Nov. 18th, 1777, the Duke of Richmond said:

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

In the Commons, Dec. 5th, 1778, Mr. Hartley, the constant friend of America, brought forward a motion:

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

The war with Mexico had ended in the conquest of that country, and the annexation of just as large a portion of its territory as we saw fit to demand. The extension of our republic to the Pacific Ocean, with the vast domain thus acquired, would now call for new legislation, and slavery was stretching forth her hands to grasp those vast regions which were now open for the first time to the enterprise of the Anglo-Saxon race. The Pro-slavery party at the North seemed more ready than ever to yield to any demands that slavery might make, and both parties vied with each other in bowing to the now all-powerful Moloch. But signs were everywhere appearing of the birth of a new party which would resist the further extension of slavery over free soil. There were strong men throughout the country, who were preparing for a new movement. Mr. Van Buren was not strong enough to command the nomination of his party at Baltimore, and the Democratic statesmen of New York, embracing such men as Silas Wright and Gov. Dix, were preparing to stand by their former political leader, in making some movement to resist the imperious demands of the slave power. Salmon P. Chase, who entertained strong anti-slavery sentiments, as well as Joshua Giddings, commanded great influence in Ohio, while Mr. Charles Francis Adams, and his friend, Charles Sumner, were putting forth their mightiest efforts to restore to the old Commonwealth of Massachusetts Bay the spirit of liberty, whose beacon-fires had long ago begun to grow dim. There was a general disposition, through many portions of the North, to throw off despotism of party; and with a view to unite men of all parties against the future encroachments of slavery, a mass Convention was called, to meet at Worcester on the 28th of June, 1848. In that convention, Mr. Charles Francis Adams, Mr. Giddings, and Mr. Sumner were the chief speakers, and the leading spirits. Before Mr. Sumner spoke, Charles Francis Adams, after showing how basely the Whig Party had prostituted itself to the behests of slavery, closed with the following stirring words:

The only thing to be done by all under such circumstances, is what as one, individually, I have made up my mind to do, that is—to have nothing more to do with it. Hereafter, then, I stand free, clear, a freeman, without any pledges, without any promise to any party. I stand, then, ready to go forward as one in this great movement, which shall establish, I hope, forever, the sacred principle of freedom throughout this hemisphere. Forgetting the things that are behind, I propose that we press forward to the high calling of our new occupation; and, fellow-citizens, whatever may be the fate of you or me, all I can now add is, to repeat the words of one with whom I take pride in remembering that I have been connected—Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish; to go with the liberties of my country, is my fixed determination.

These words, which had something of the ring of the old Revolution in them, transported the assembly with the wildest enthusiasm. Perhaps no man, except Charles Sumner, could have followed such a speaker as Mr. Adams proved himself to be that day, and maintained the fervor of the meeting. In alluding to what Mr. Adams had said, he modestly renounced any hope of exciting a deeper feeling, or even a desire to fan the fires of patriotism and liberty which had been once more re-kindled in the old Bay State. But one thing, at least, he declared that he could do, I can join them —Giddings and Adams—in a renunciation of those party relations which seem now inconsistent with the support of freedom. Like them, I have been a Whig, because I thought this Party represented the moral sentiments of the country; that it was the Party of Humanity: but it has ceased to sustain this character. It does not represent the moral sentiments of the country; it is not the Party of Humanity: and a party which renounces its sentiments, must itself expect to be renounced. For myself, therefore, in the coming conflict, I wish it to be understood that I belong to the Party of Freedom—to that party which plants itself on the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States. He then proceeded with his speech, in terms of fervid eloquence.

I am reminded, he said, by the transactions in which we are now engaged, of an incident in French history. It was late in the night, at Versailles, that a courtier of Louis XVI., penetrating the bedcham-ber of his master, and arousing him from his slumbers, communicated to him the intelligence—big with gigantic destinies—that the people of Paris, smarting under wrong and falsehood, had risen in their might, and, after a severe contest with hireling troops, destroyed the Bastile. The unhappy monarch, turning upon his couch, said, It is an insurrection. No, Sire, was the reply of the honest courtier, it is a revolution. And such is our Movement to-day. It is a Revolution—not beginning with the destruction of a Bastile, but destined to end only with the overthrow of a tyranny, differing little in hardship and audacity from that which sustained the Bastile of France—I mean the Slave Power of the United States.

By the Slave Power, I understand that combination of persons, or, perhaps, of politicians, whose animating principle is the perpetuation and extension of Slavery, and the advancement of Slaveholders. That such a combination exists, will be apparent from a review of our history. It shows itself, in the mildest, and perhaps the least offensive form, in the undue proportion of offices under the Federal Constitution, which has been held by Slaveholders. It is still worse apparent in a succession of acts by which the Federal Government has been prostituted to the cause of Slavery. Among the most important of these is the Missouri Compromise, the Annexation of Texas, and the War with Mexico. Mindful of the sanctions, which Slavery derived under the Constitution—from the Missouri Compromise—of the fraud and iniquity of the Annexation of Texas—and of the great crime of waging an unnecessary and unjust war with Mexico—of the mothers, wives, and sisters compelled to mourn sons, husbands, and brothers, untimely slain,—as these things, dark, dismal, atrocious, rise to the mind, may we not brand their author, the Slave Power, as a tyranny hardly less hateful than that which sustained the Bastile.

This combination is unknown to the Constitution; nay, it exists in defiance of the spirit of that instrument, and of the recorded opinions of its founders. The Constitution was the crowning labor of the authors of the Declaration of Independence. It was established to perpetuate, in the form of an organic law, those rights which the Declaration had promulgated, and which the sword of Washington had secured —We hold these truths to be self-evident—that all men are created equal, that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights,—that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Such are the emphatic words which our country took upon its lips, when it first claimed its place among the nations of the earth. These were its baptismal vows. And the preamble of the Constitution renews them, when it declares its objects to be, among other things, to establish justice, to promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity. Mark; it is not to establish injustice— not to promote the welfare of a class, or of a few slaveholders, but the general welfare; not to foster the curse of slavery, but to secure the blessings of liberty. And the declared opinions of the fathers were all in harmony with these instruments. I can only say, said Washington, that there is not a man living, who wishes more sincerely than I do to see a plan adopted for the abolition of slavery; but there is only one proper and effectual mode by which it can be accomplished, and that is, by the legislative authority; and this, as far as my suffrage will go, shall not be wanting. Patrick Henry, while confessing that he was a master of slaves, said, I will not, I cannot justify it. However culpable my conduct, I will so far pay my devoir to virtue, as to own the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and lament my want of conformity to them. I believe a time will come, when an opportunity will be offered to abolish this lamentable evil. And Franklin, as President of the earliest Abolition Society of the country, signed a petition to the first Congress, in which he declared that he considered himself bound to use all justifiable endeavors to loosen the bands of slavery, and promote a general enjoyment of the blessings of freedom. Thus the soldier, the orator, and the philosopher of the Revolution, all unite in homage to Freedom. Washington, so wise in counsel and in battle; Patrick Henry, with his tongue of flame; Franklin, with his heaven-descended sagacity and humanity, all bear testimony to the true spirit of the times in which they lived, and of the institutions which they helped to establish.

It is apparent that our constitution was formed by the lovers of Human Freedom; that it was animated by their divine spirit; that the institution of Domestic Slavery was regarded by them with aversion, so that, though covertly alluded to, it was not named in the instrument; and that they all looked forward to the day when this evil and shame would be obliterated from the land. Surely, then, it is right to say that the combination, whose object is to perpetuate and extend Slavery, is unknown to the Constitution, and exists in defiance of the spirit of that instrument, and of the recorded opinions of its founders.

Time would fail me to dwell on the growing influence which it has exerted from the foundation of the government. In the earlier periods of our history it was moderate and reserved. The spirit of the founders still prevailed. But with the advance of time, and as these early champions passed from the scene, it became more audacious, aggressive and tyrannical, till at last it has obtained the control of the government, and caused it to be administered, not in the spirit of Freedom, but in the spirit of Slavery. Yes! the government of the United States is now (let it be said with shame) not what it was at the beginning, a government merely permitting, while it regretted Slavery, but a government openly favoring and vindicating it, visiting also with its displeasure all who oppose it.

It is during late years that the Slave Power has introduced a new test for office—a test which would have excluded Washington, Jefferson and Franklin. It applies an arrogant and unrelenting ostracism to all who express themselves against Slavery. And now, in the madness of its tyranny, it proposes to extend this curse to new soils not darkened by its presence. It seeks to make the flag of our country the carrier of Slavery into distant lands; to scale the mountain fastnesses of Oregon, and descend with its prey upon the shores of the Pacific; to cross the Rio Grande, and there, in broad territories, recently obtained by robber hands from Mexico, to plant a shameful institution, which that republic has expressly abolished. * *

And now the question occurs, What is the true line of duty with regard to these two candidates? Mr. Van Buren (and I honor him for his trumpet call to the North) has sounded the true note, when he said he could not vote for either of them. Though nominated by different parties, they represent, as I have said, substantially the same interest —the Slave Power. The election of either would be a triumph of the Slave Power, and entail upon the country, in all probability, the sin of extending slavery. How, then, shall they be encountered? It seems to me, in a very plain way. The lovers of Freedom, of all parties, and irrespective of all party association, must unite, and, by a new combination, congenial with the Constitution, oppose both candidates. This will be the Freedom power, whose single object shall be to resist the Slave power. We shall put them face to face, and let them grapple. Who can doubt the result?

But it is said that we shall throw away our votes, and that our opposition will fail. Fail, Sir! No honest, earnest effort in a good cause ever fails. It may not be crowned with the applause of men; it may not seem to touch the goal of immediate worldly success, which is the end and aim of so much of life. But still it is not lost. It helps to strengthen the weak with new virtue; to arm the irresolute with proper energy; to animate all with devotion to duty, which in the end conquers all. Fail! Did the martyrs fail, when with their precious blood they sowed the seed of the Church? Did the discomfited champions of Freedom fail, who have left those names in history which can never die? Did the three hundred Spartans fail, when, in the narrow pass, they did not fear to brave the innumerable Persian hosts, whose very arrows darkened the sun? No! Overborne by numbers, crushed to earth, they have left an example which is greater far than any victory. And this is the least we can do. Our example shall be the source of triumph hereafter. It will not be the first time in history that the hosts of Slavery have outnumbered the champions of freedom. But where is it written that Slavery finally prevailed?

But the assurances received here to-day show that we need not postpone our anticipations of success. It seems already at hand. The heart of Ohio beats responsive to the heart of Massachusetts, and all the Free States are animated with the vigorous breath of Freedom. Let us not, then, waste time in vain speculations between the two candidates. Both are bad. Both represent a principle which we cannot sanction.

Whatever may be said by politicians to the contrary, the question of Freedom is the only one now before the American people.

All other questions being withdrawn, what remains for those who, in casting their votes, regard principles rather than men? It is clear, that the only question of any present practical interest is that arising from the usurpations of the Slave Power, and the efforts to extend slavery. This is the vital question of our country at this time. It is the question of questions. It was lately said in the Convention of the New York Democracy at Utica, (and I am glad to allude to the doings of that most respectable body of men,) that the movement in which we are now engaged was the most important of any since the American Revolution. Something more might have been said. It is a continuance of the American Revolution. It is an effort to carry into effect the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and to revive in the administration of our government the spirit of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson; to bring back the Constitution to the principles and practice of its early founders; to the end that it shall promote Freedom and not Slavery, and shall be administered in harmony with the spirit of Freedom, and not with the spirit of Slavery.

There are emphatic words in the last will and testament of Washington, which may be adopted as a motto for the present contest. After providing for the emancipation of his slaves, to take place on the death of his wife, he says, And I do expressly forbid the sale or transportation out of the said Commonwealth, of any slave I may die possessed of under any pretence, whatever. So at least should the people of the United States expressly forbid the sale or transportation of any slave beyond their ancient borders, under any pretence whatever.

Returning to our forefathers for their principles, let us borrow, also, something of their courage and union. Let us summon to our sides the majestic forms of those civil heroes, whose firmness in council was equalled only by the firmness of Washington in war. Let us listen again to the eloquence of the elder Adams, animating his associates in Congress to independence; let us hang anew upon the sententious wisdom of Franklin; let us be enkindled, as were the men of other days, by the fervid devotion to Freedom, which flamed from the heart of Jefferson.

Deriving instruction from our enemies, let us also be taught by the Slave Power. The two hundred thousand slaveholders are always united in purpose. Hence their strength. Like arrows in a quiver, they cannot be broken. The friends of Freedom have thus far been divided. Union, then, must be our watchword,—union among men of all parties. By such a union we shall consolidate an opposition which must prevail.

Let Massachusetts—nurse of the men and principles which made our earliest revolution—vow herself anew to her early faith. Let her elevate once more the torch, which she first held aloft. Let us, if need be, pluck some fresh coals from the living altars of France. Let us, too, proclaim Liberty, Equality, Fraternity,—Liberty to the captive —Equality between the master and his slave—Fraternity with all men, the whole comprehended in that sublime revelation of Christianity, the Brotherhood of Mankind.

In the contemplation of these great interests, the intrigues of party, the machinations of politicians, the combinations of office-seekers, seem all to pass from our sight. Politics and morals, no longer divorced from each other, become one and inseparable in the holy wedlock of Christian sentiment. Such a union elevates politics, while it gives a new sphere to morals. Political discussions have a grandeur which they have never before assumed. Released from those topics, which concern only the selfish strife for gain, and which are perhaps independent of morals, they come home to the hearts and consciences of men. A novel force passes into the contests of party, breathing into them the breath of a new life, of Hope, of Progress, of Justice, of Humanity.

It is easy to see from this demonstration to-day, and from the glad tidings that swell upon us from all the Free States, that this great cause of Freedom, to which we now dedicate ourselves, will sweep the heartstrings of the people! It will smite all the chords with a might to draw forth emotions, such as no political struggle has ever caused before. It will move the young, the middle-aged, and the old. It will find a place in the family circle, and mingle with the flame of the household hearth. It will touch the souls of mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters, until the sympathies of all shall swell in one firm and irresistible voice against the deep damnation, in this age of Christian light, of lending new sanctions to the slavery of our brother-man. Come forth, then, men of all parties; let us range together. Come forth, all who have thus far stood aloof from parties. Here is an occasion for action. Men of peace! come forward. All who feel in any way the wrong of slavery, take your stand! Join us, ye lovers of Truth, of Justice, of Humanity! And let me call especially upon the young. You are the natural guardians of Freedom. In your firm resolves and generous souls, she will find her surest protection. The young man, who is not willing to serve in her cause—to suffer, if need be, for her—gives little promise of those qualities which secure an honorable age.

The agitation which had now for some time been going on through the country, began to assume formidable proportions—the seed sown by a few strong hands had begun to bear fruit. The foremost of the leading spirits throughout the North assembled in convention at Buffalo, announcing a platform of opposition to the further extension of slavery, and by acclamation nominated Martin Van Buren for President, and Charles Francis Adams as Vice-President. On the 22d of August, the same year— 1848—a public meeting was called at Faneuil Hall to ratify the nominations of the Buffalo Convention. Mr. Sumner, as the presiding officer of the meeting, made the following brief, but bold and comprehensive speech:

And why, in this nineteenth century, are we assembled here in Faneuil Hall, to vow ourselves to this cause? It is because it is now in danger. The principles of our fathers,—of Washington, Franklin, and Jefferson,—nay. the self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence,—have been assailed. Our Constitution,—which was the work of the lovers of Freedom,—which was watched by its most devoted champions,—which, like the ark of the covenant, was borne on the shoulders of the early patriarchs of our Israel,—has been prostituted to the uses of Slavery. A body of men, whose principle of union was unknown to the authors of the Constitution, have obtained the control of the government, and caused it to be administered, not in the spirit of Freedom, but in the spirit of Slavery. This combination is known as the Slave Power of the United States.

This combination has obtained the sway of both the great political factions of the country. Whatever may be said of the opinions of individuals belonging to these different factions, it would be difficult to say whether the whigs or democrats, in their recent conduct as national parties, had most succumbed to this malign influence. The late Conventions at Baltimore and Philadelphia were controlled by it. At Baltimore, the delegation of the most important State of the Union—known to be opposed to the Wilmot Proviso—was refused admission to the Convention. At Philadelphia, the Wilmot Proviso itself was stifled, according to the report of an Ohio delegate, amidst the cries of Kick it out! General Cass was nominated at Baltimore, pledged against the Wilmot Proviso. General Taylor, at Philadelphia,—without any pledge on this all-important question,—was forced upon the Convention by the Slave Power; nor were any principles of any kind put forth by this body of professing whigs. These two candidates, apparently representing opposite parties, both concur in being the representatives of Slavery. They are the leaders of the two contending factions of the Slave Power. I say factions; for, what are factions but combinations of men whose sole cement is a selfish desire for place and power, in disregard of principles? And such were the Conventions at Baltimore and Philadelphia.

In marked contrast with these was the recent Convention at Buffalo, where were represented the good men of all the parties,—whigs, democrats, and liberty men,—forgetting alike all former differences, and uniting in a common opposition to the Slave Power. There, by their delegates, was the formidable and unsubdued Democracy of New York; there also was the devoted, inflexible Liberty party of the country; there also were the true-hearted whigs and democrats of all the Free States, who in this great cause of Freedom have been, among the faithless, faithful found. There also were welcome delegates from the Slave States,—from Maryland and Virginia,—anxious to join in this new and truly holy alliance. In uncounted multitude,—mighty in numbers, mightier still in the harmony and unity of their proceedings,— this Convention consummated the object for which it was called. It has presented to the country a platform of principles, and candidates who are the exponents of these principles. In their support the representatives of the parties there assembled,—whigs, democrats, and liberty men,—all united. In the strength and completeness of this union, I am reminded of the Mississippi, Father of Rivers, where the commingling waters of the Missouri and Ohio are lost in one broad, united, irresistible current, in one channel descending to the sea.

The principles which caused this union have already been widely received, and will be responded to by this vast assembly. Look at them. They are frankly and explicitly expressed. They were solemnly and deliberately considered by a large committee, and enthusiastically adopted in the Convention. They not only propose to guard the territories against Slavery, but to relieve the Federal Government from all responsibility therefor, everywhere within the sphere of its constitutional powers. In short, on the subject of Slavery, they adopt substantially the prayer of Franklin, who by formal petition called upon Congress to step to the verge of its constitutional power to discourage every species of traffic in human flesh. They propose to bring back the government to the truths of the Declaration of Independence and to the principles of the fathers, to the end that it shall be administered no longer in the spirit of Slavery, but in the spirit of Freedom.

It is no longer banks and tariffs which are to occupy the foremost place in our discussions, and to give their tone, sounding always with the chink of dollars and cents, to the policy of the country. Henceforward, protection to man shall be the true American system.

The candidates selected as the exponents of these principles have claims upon your support, in forgetfulness of all former differences of opinion. They were brought forward, not because of the past, but the present; I may add, they were sustained in the Convention by many persons, notwithstanding the past. I name them with pride: Martin Van Buren, the New York democrat, and Charles Francis Adams, the Massachusetts whig. But these designations can no longer denote different principles. Those to whom they are applied, whether democrat or whig, concur in making opposition to Slavery and the Slave Power the paramount principle of political action. The designations may now be interchanged. Mr. Adams may be properly hailed as a New York democrat, and Mr. Van Buren as a Massachusetts whig.

There are many here, doubtless, among those once connected with the whig party, who, like myself on former occasions, have voted against Mr. Van Buren, and who regard some portion of his career with anything but satisfaction. Mr. Adams is a younger man; but there are some, doubtless, among those once connected with the democratic party, who have voted against him. But these differences, and the prejudices they have engendered, are all forgotten, absorbed, and lost in the entire sympathy with their present position. Time changes, and we change with it. He has lived to little purpose, whose mind and character continue, through a lapse of years, untouched by these mutations. It is not for the Van Buren of 1838 that we are to vote; but for the Van Buren of to-day,—the veteran statesman, sagacious, determined, experienced,—who, at an age when most men are rejoicing to put off their armor, girds himself anew, and enters the list as the champion of Freedom. Having implicit confidence in the sincerity and earnestness of his devotion to the cause, and in his ability to maintain it to a successful result, I call upon you, as you love Freedom, and value the fair fame of your country, now dishonored, to render him your earnest and enthusiastic support. Of Mr. Adams I need say nothing in this place, where his honorable and efficient public services, and his private life, are so familiar. Standing as I now do beneath the images of his father and grandfather, it will be sufficient if I say that he is the heir, not only to their name, but to the virtues, the abilities, and the indomitable spirit that rendered that name so illustrious. Such are our principles, and such our candidates. We present them fearlessly to the country. Upon the people depends the question, whether their certain triumph shall be immediate or postponed; for triumph they must. The old and ill-compacted party organizations are broken, and from their ruins is now formed a new party, The Party of Freedom. There are good men who longed for this, and have died without the sight. John Quincy Adams longed for it. William Ellery Channing longed for it. Their spirits hover over us, and urge us to persevere. Let us be true to the moral grandeur of our cause. Have faith in Truth and in God, who giveth the victory.

Oh, a fair cause stands firm and will abide; Legions of angels fight upon its side! Fellow-citizens, I am tempted to exclaim, seeing the spirit which animates your faces, that the work is already done to-night—that the victory is already achieved. But I would not lull you to the repose which springs from too great confidence. I would rather arouse you to renewed and incessant exertions. A great cause is staked upon your constancy; for without you, where among us would Freedom find its defenders?

The sentiment of opposition to the Slave Power, to the extension of Slavery, and to its longer continuance under the Constitution wherever the Federal Government is responsible for it, though recognized by individuals, and adopted also by a small and faithful party, has now for the first time become the leading principle of a broad, formidable, and national organization. It is indeed, as Mr. Webster has lately said, no new idea; it is as old as the Declaration of Independence. But it is an idea now for the first time recognized by a great political party; for if the old parties had been true to it, there would have been no occasion for our organization. It is said our idea is sectional. How is this? Because the slaveholders live at the South? As well might we say that the tariff is sectional, because the manufacturers live at the North.

It is said that we have but one idea. This I deny; but admitting that it is so, are we not, with our one idea, better than a party with no ideas at all? And what is our one idea? It is the idea which combined our fathers on the heights of Bunker Hill. It is the idea which carried Washington through a seven years war; which inspired Lafayette; which touched with coals of fire the lips of Adams, Otis, and Patrick Henry. Ours is an idea which is, at least, noble and elevating; it is an idea which draws in its train virtue, goodness, and all the charities of life—all that makes earth a home of improvement and happiness.

Her path where'er the goddess roves, Glory pursues, and generous shame, The unconquerable mind, and freedom's holy flame.

We found now a new party. Its corner-stone is Freedom. Its broad, all-sustaining arches are Truth, Justice, and Humanity. Like the ancient Roman Capitol, at once a Temple and a Citadel, it shall be the fit shrine of the genius of American institutions.

The National and State elections of 1848 had come and gone. The Free-soil Party, which was afterwards to control the government, and give an entirely new direction to public affairs, was slowly forming, and where-ever the great issues were made and met, the friends of Freedom had been steadily gaining ground. Strange as it may seem, the hardest work in this great battle had to be fought in Massachusetts, where Mr. Sumner was the acknowledged leader of the Liberal host. Clothed with no official dignity or power, to give prestige to his words or actions, he was already commanding a national influence which made every speech delivered in Massachusetts effective far beyond the bounds of the State. John Quincy Adams had died at his post, the last undismayed champion of the Revolutionary school of Freedom, his heart still burning with the love of liberty, and the eloquent utterances of freedom still fresh from his lips. But his son, Charles Francis, had already come forward in the same spirit, to tread in the steps of his father, and in all quarters the roused spirit of insulted American liberty was no longer to cower back from the presence of her foes. But there was yet lacking, as there always is in such reforms, a practical plan of operations, to give effect to the efforts of the friends of freedom. By the great majority of them, the radical Anti-slavery men were still looked upon as fanatical, and generally, as hostile to the Constitution; many of them, like Mr. Garrison, regarding it as the chief impediment, not only to emancipation, but to the spread of slavery itself. Much had been done at Buffalo by the enunciations made in the Platform, and the nomination of candidates pledged to resist the further encroachments of slavery; and around them a large body of voters had gathered at the ballot-box. But the great mass of the people had yet no clear idea of any practical plan of operations, that could be carried out without open war upon the Constitution. At this time—September 12, 1849—a Free-soil Convention met at Worcester, and Mr. Sumner was invited to present an address explaining and vindicating the Free-soil movement, and that address was adopted by the Convention. As nothing appeared at the time which put forth so clearly, or with so much power, the great issue which was coming before the nation, we shall make as copious extracts from that address, as our space will admit; for it will give every reader a better understanding of the state of public feeling at the time, and serve as a chart for tracing the early progress of the mighty movement then starting, which will hereafter doubtless be regarded as the most important feature in the political history of this nation, since the adoption of the Federal Constitution. Omnipresent, as Mr. Sumner then declared the great issue to be, wherever any political election occurred, it was never to cease to challenge attention, until, in his own language, at least two things are accomplished: first, the divorce of the Federal Government from all support or sanction of Slavery; and secondly, the conversion of this government, within its Constitutional limits, to the cause of Freedom, so that it shall become Freedom's open, active, and perpetual ally.

Impressed by the magnitude of these interests,—devoted to the triumph of the righteous cause,—solicitous of the true welfare of the country,—animated by the example of the Fathers of the Republic, and desirous of breathing their spirit into our Government, the Free Democracy of Massachusetts, in Convention assembled at Worcester, now address their fellow-citizens throughout the Commonwealth. Imperfectly, according to the necessity of the occasion—earnestly, according to the fulness of their convictions—hopefully, according to the confidence of their aspirations, they will proceed to unfold the reasons of their appeal. They now ask your best attention. They trust, through this, to secure your votes.

Our Party a permanent National Party.—Fellow-citizens; we make our appeal as a National party, established to promote principles deemed to be of paramount importance to the country. In assuming our place as a distinct party, we simply give form and direction, in harmony with the usage and the genius of popular governments, to a Movement which stirs the whole country, and does not find an adequate and constant organ in either of the other existing parties. In France, under the royalty of Louis Philippe, the faithful friends of the yet unborn Republic, formed a band together, and by their publications, speeches, and votes, sought to influence the public mind. Few at first in numbers, they became strong by united political action. In England, the most brilliant popular triumph in her history, the repeal of the monopoly of the Corn Laws, was finally carried, by means of a newly-formed, but wide-spread political organization, which combined men of all the old parties, Whigs, Tories, and Radicals, and recognized opposition to the Corn Laws as a special test. In the spirit of these examples, the friends of Freedom have come together, in wellcom-pacted ranks, to uphold their cherished principles, and, by combined efforts, according to the course of parties, to urge them upon the Government, and upon the country.

All the old organizations have contributed to our numbers, and good citizens have come to us, who have not heretofore mingled in the contests of party. Here are men from the ancient democracy, believing all that any democracy must be a name only, no better than sounding brass or a tinkling cymbal, which does not recognize, on every occasion, the supremacy of Human Rights, and which is not ready to do and to suffer in their behalf. Here also are men, who have come out of the Whig party, weary of its many professions, and of its little performance, and especially revolting at its recent sinister course with regard to the cause of Freedom; believing all that, in any devotion to Human Rights, they cannot err. Here also, in solid legion, is the well-tried band of the Liberty Party, to whom belongs the praise of first placing the cause of Freedom under the guardianship of a special political organization, whose exclusive test was opposition to Slavery.

In thus associating and harmonizing from opposite quarters, in order to promote a common cause, we have learned to forget former differences of opinion, and to appreciate the motives of each other. We have learned how trivial are the matters on which we may disagree, compared with the Great Issue on which we all agree. Old prejudices have vanished. Even the rancors of political antagonism have been changed and dissolved, as in a potent alembic, by the natural irresistible affinities of Freedom. In our union we have ceased to wear the badges of either of the old organizations. We have become a party, distinct, independent, permanent, under the name of the Free Democracy. Thus in our very designation expressing our devotion to Human Rights, and especially to Human Freedom.

Professing honestly the same sentiments, wherever we exist, in all parts of the country, East and West, North and South, we are truly a National party. We are not compelled to assume one face at the South and another at the North; to blow hot in one place, and blow cold in another; to speak loudly of Freedom in one region, and vindicate Slavery in another; in short, to present a combination, in which the two extreme wings profess opinions, on the Great Issue before the country, diametrically opposed to each other. We are the same everywhere. And the reason is, because our party, unlike the other parties, is bound together in support of certain fixed and well-defined principles. It is not a combination, fired by partisan zeal, and kept together, as with mechanical force, by considerations of political expediency only; but a sincere, conscientious, inflexible union for the sake of Freedom.

The Address shows that all the old Issues which had hitherto divided the country were obsolete; that the Bank, the Sub-Treasury, the Public Lands, had disappeared from the political field, and that even the Tariff question could not draw a distinguishing line.

The devices of party could no longer stave off the Great Issue. Politicians could by no subterfuge escape it. Office-seekers could not dodge it by any trick. It would mix itself up in every election. Wherever men met to speak of public affairs, it would come up, in city, village, field, workshop—everywhere the question sounded in the ears of men, would be, Are you for Freedom, or against it?

And now, instead of these superseded questions, which were connected for the most part only with the material interests of the country, and which, though not unimportant in their time, all had the odor of the dollar, you are called to consider a cause which is connected with all that is divine in Religion, with all that is pure and noble in Morals, with all that is truly practical in Politics. Unlike the other questions, it is not temporary or local in its character. It belongs to all times, and to all countries. It is an everlasting link in the golden chain of Human Progress. It is a part of the great Movement, under whose strong pulsations all Christendom now shakes from side to side. It is a cause, which, though long kept in check throughout our country, as also in Europe, now confronts the people and their rulers, demanding to be heard. It can no longer be avoided, or silenced. To every man in the land it now says, with clear penetrating voice, Are you for Freedom, or are you for slavery? And every man in the land must answer this question when he votes.

The next point to which attention was directed, was the Anti-slavery sentiments of the Founders of the Republic, where a plain recital of facts is given.

At the period of the Declaration of Independence there were upwards of half a million of colored persons held in slavery in the United States. These unhappy people were originally stolen from Africa, or were the children of those who had been so stolen, and, though distributed throughout the whole country, were to be found in the largest numbers in the Southern States. But the spirit of Freedom was then abroad in the land. The fathers of the Republic, leaders in the War of Independence, were struck with the impious inconsistency of an appeal for their own liberties while holding in bondage their fellowmen, guilty of a skin not colored like their own. In private and in public they did not hesitate to bear their testimony against the atrocity. The following resolution, passed at Darien, in Georgia, in 1775, and preserved in the American Archives, (Vol. I., 4th series, p. 1134,) speaks, in tones worthy of freemen, the sentiments of the time: We, therefore, the representatives of the extensive district of Darien, in the Colony of Georgia, having now assembled in Congress, by authority and free choice of the inhabitants of the said District, now freed from their fetters, do resolve;—To show the world that we are not influenced by any contracted or interested motives, but by a general philanthropy for all mankind, of whatever climate, language, or complexion, we hereby declare our disapprobation and abhorrence of the unnatural practice of Slavery in America, however the uncultivated state of our country, or other specious arguments may plead for it; a practice founded in injustice and cruelty, and highly dangerous to our liberties as well as lives, debasing part of our fellow-creatures below men, and corrupting the virtue and morals of the rest, and as laying the basis of that liberty we contend for (and which we pray the Almighty to continue to the latest posterity) upon a very wrong foundation. We, therefore, resolve to use our utmost endeavors for the manumission of our slaves in this colony, upon the most safe and equitable footing for the masters and themselves. Would that such a voice could be heard once more from Georgia!

The spirit of Virginia is spoken of, as it found expression through Jefferson, who by his precocious and immortal words against slavery, enrolled himself among the earliest Abolitionists of the country.

In the Declaration of Independence he embodied sentiments, which, when practically applied, will give Freedom to every Slave throughout the land. We hold these truths to be self-evident, says our country speaking by his voice, that all men are created equal—that they are endowed with certain inalienable rights—that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. And again, in the Congress of the Confederation, he brought forward, as early as 1784, a resolution to exclude Slavery from all the territory ceded or to be ceded by the States of the Federal Government, and including the territory now covered by Tennessee, Mississippi and Alabama. Lost at first by a single vote only, this measure was substantially renewed at a subsequent day by a son of Massachusetts, and in 1787 was finally confirmed, in the Ordinance of the North-Western Territory, by a unanimous vote of the States and their respective delegates.

The same spirit is discerned in the Federal Constitution which was adopted in 1788, where express provision was made for the abolition of the slave-trade, the discreditable words slave and slavery being allowed no place in that sacred instrument; while a clause subsequently added, specifically declared that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law.

It is evident, from a perusal of the debates on the Federal Constitution, that Slavery, like the slave trade, was regarded as temporary; and it seems to have been supposed by many that they would both disappear together. Nor do any words employed in our day denounce it with an indignation more burning than that which glowed on the lips of the fathers. Mr. Morris, of Pennsylvania, said in Convention, that he would never concur in upholding domestic slavery. It is a nefarious institution. In another mood, and with mild judicial phrase, Mr. Madison thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea of property in man. And Washington, in a letter written near this period, says, with a frankness worthy of imitation, There is but one proper and effectual mode by which the abolition of slavery can be accomplished, and that is by legislative action, and this as far as my suffrage will go, shall never be wanting.

When the earliest Congress assembled, under the Constitution, a petition was early presented from the Abolition Society of Pennsylvania, signed by Benjamin Franklin, as President.

This venerable man, whose active life had been devoted to the welfare of mankind at home and abroad, who both as a philosopher and a statesman had arrested the attention of the world,—who had ravished the lightning from the skies, and the sceptre from a tyrant,—who, as a member of the Continental Congress, had set his name to the Declaration of Independence, and as a member of the Convention, had again set his name to the Federal Constitution,—in whom, more perhaps than in any other person, the true spirit of American institutions, at once practical and humane, was embodied,—than whom no one could be more familiar with the purposes and aspirations of the founders,—this veteran, eighty-four years of age, within a few months only of his death, now appeared by his petition at the bar of that Congress, whose powers he had helped to define and establish. Your memorialists, he says, and this Convention now repeats the words of Franklin, particularly engaged in attending to the distresses arising from slavery, believe it to be their indispensable duty to present this subject to your notice. They have observed with real satisfaction that many important and salutary powers are vested in you for promoting the welfare and securing the blessings of liberty to the people of the United States; and as they conceive that these blessings ought rightfully to be administered, without distinction of color, to all descriptions of people, so they indulge themselves in the pleasing expectation, that nothing which can be done for the relief of the unhappy objects of their care, will be either omitted or delayed. And the memorialists conclude as follows: Under these impressions they earnestly entreat your serious attention to the subject of Slavery; that you will be pleased to countenance the restoration of liberty to those unhappy men, who alone, in this land of Freedom, are degraded into perpetual bondage, and who, amidst the general joy of surrounding freemen, are groaning in servile subjection; that you will promote mercy and justice towards this distressed race, and that you will step to the very verge of the power vested in you for Discourag-Ing every species of traffic in the persons of our fellow-men.

The Address also makes the assertion—which is an historical fact not often alluded to—that at the time, nowhere, under the Federal Government, did slavery exist. It was in States only, skulking beneath the shelter of local laws, that it was allowed to remain.

But the country had changed from Anti-slavery to Pro-slavery. The generous sentiments which filled the souls of the early patriots, had been impressed upon the government they founded, as it was upon the coin they circulated—the image and superscription of Liberty. But the blessings of Freedom being secured to themselves, the freemen of the land grew indifferent to the freedom of others: they ceased to think of the slaves. The slave-masters were but few in numbers, even in the slave States; but by persevering union among themselves, and through skilful tactics carrying their influence with whatever party was in power, to promote their personal interests, they succeeded through a long period of years, in obtaining control of the Federal Government, which resulted in a fundamental change in its character.

The Usurpations and Aggressions of the Slave Power.—Look at the extent to which this malign influence has predominated. The Slave States are far inferior to the Free States in population, in wealth, in education, in libraries, in resources of all kinds, and yet they have taken to themselves the lion's share of the offices of honor and profit under the Constitution. They have held the presidency for fifty-seven years, while the Free States have held it for twelve years only. But without pursuing the exposition of this game of political sweep-stakes, which the Slave Power has perpetually played, let us present what is more important, as indicative of its spirit—the aggressions and usurpations by which it has turned the Federal Government from its original character of Freedom, and prostituted it to Slavery.

The following catalogue is given, which should be carefully noticed:

Early in this century, when the District of Columbia was finally occupied as the national capital, the Slave Power succeeded, in defiance of the spirit of the Constitution, and even of the express letter of one of its amendments, in securing for Slavery, within the District, the countenance of the Federal Government. Until then Slavery had existed nowhere within the exclusive jurisdiction of this Government.

It next secured for Slavery another recognition under the Federal Government, in the broad territory of Louisiana, purchased from France.

It next placed Slavery again under the sanction of the Federal Government, in the territory of Florida, purchased from Spain.

Waxing powerful, it was able, after a severe struggle, to dictate terms to the Federal Government, in the Missouri Compromise, compelling it to receive that State into the Union with a slave-holding Constitution.

It instigated and carried on a most expensive war in Florida, mainly to recover fugitive slaves, thus employing the army of the United States as slave-catchers.

It wrested from Mexico the Province of Texas in order to extend Slavery, and triumphing over all opposition, finally secured its admission into the Union with a Constitution making Slavery perpetual.

It next plunged the country in war with Mexico, in order to gain new lands for Slavery.

With the meanness, as well as the insolence of tyranny, it has compelled the Federal Government to abstain from acknowledging the neighbor republic of Hayti, where slaves have become freemen, and established an independent nation.

It has compelled the Federal Government to stoop ignobly and in vain, before the British Queen, to secure compensation for slaves, who, in the exercise of the natural rights of man, had asserted and achieved their Freedom on the Atlantic ocean, and afterwards sought shelter in Bermuda.

It has compelled the Federal Government to seek to negotiate treaties for the surrender of fugitive slaves, thus making it assert property in human flesh.

It has joined in declaring the foreign slave trade piracy, but insists upon the coastwise slave trade, with the sanction of the Federal Government.

For several years it rejected the petitions to Congress adverse to Slavery, thus, in order to shield Slavery, practically denying the right of petition.

It denies to the free colored citizens of Massachusetts the privileges secured to them under the Constitution of the United States, by imprisoning them, and sometimes selling them into Slavery.

It insulted and exiled from Charleston and New Orleans, the honored representatives of Massachusetts who were sent to those places in order to throw the shield of the Constitution over her colored citizens.

It has, by the pen of Mr. Calhoun, as Secretary of State, in formal dispatches, made the Republic stand before the nations of the earth as the vindicator of Slavery.

It has put forth the hideous effrontery that Slavery can go to all newly acquired territories, and have the protection of the national flag.

Such are some of the usurpations and aggressions of the Slave Power! By such steps the Federal Government has been perverted from its original purposes, its character changed, and its powers subjected to Slavery. It is pitiful to see Freedom suffer at any time from any hands. It is doubly pitiful when she suffers from a Government, whose earliest energies were inspired by her breath, and who learned by her teachings to be strong. So the struck eagle, stretched upon the plain, No more through rolling clouds to soar again, Viewed his own feather on the fatal dart, And winged the shaft that quivered in his heart. Keen were his pangs, but keener far to feel, He nursed the pinion which impelled the steel, While the same plumage that had warmed his nest Drank the last life-drop of his bleeding breast.

A frightful, but a true picture, is drawn of the evils of slavery, where it existed; not least of which was that for the husband and wife there is no marriage. The mother has no assurance that her infant child will not be torn from her breast, since for all who bear the name of Slave, there is nothing which they can call their own. But the bondman is not the only sufferer—he does not sit alone, in his degradation.

By his side is his master, who, in the debasing influences on his own soul, is compelled to share the degradation to which he dooms his fellow-man. He must be a prodigy, says Jefferson, who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And this is not all. The whole social fabric is disorganized; labor loses its dignity; industry sickens; education finds no schools; religion finds no churches; and all the land of Slavery is impoverished.

The address then reaches the main question, that was soon to be determined, and which constituted the rallying-cry of the rising Party.

Shall Slavery be extended?—And now at last the Slave Power threatens to carry Slavery to the vast regions of New Mexico and California, existing territories of the United States, already purged of this evil by the express legislation of the recent Mexican government. It is the immediate urgency of this question that has contributed to arouse the country to the successive aggressions of the Slave Power, and to its undue influence over the Federal Government. This is without doubt the most pressing form in which the Great Issue can be presented. Nor can it be exaggerated. These territories, excluding Oregon, embrace upwards of five hundred thousand square miles. The imdensity of this tract may be partially comprehended, when we consider that Massachusetts contains only 7,800 miles, all New England only 66,280, and all the original thirteen States, which declared independence, only 352,000. And the distinct question is presented, whether the Federal Government shall carry to this imperial region the curse of Slavery, with its monstrous brood of ignorance, poverty, and degradation; or Freedom, with her attendant train of blessings.

The only remedy that can be applied:—It thus became plain enough, that in order to secure freedom in the Territories, slavery there must be prohibited by an Act of Congress.

A direct Prohibition by Congress necessary to prevent Extension of Slavery.—An attempt has been made to divert attention from this question, by denying the necessity of legislation by Congress to prevent the extension of Slavery to California, on the ground that the climate and physical condition of the territory furnish natural obstacles to its existence there. This is a weak device of the enemy. It is well known that Slavery did exist there for many years, until excluded by law,—that California lies in the same range of latitude as the Slave States of the Union, and it may be added also, as the Barbary States of Africa,—that the mineral wealth of California creates a demand for slave labor, which would overcome any physical obstacles to its introduction,—that slavery has existed in every country from which it was not excluded by the laws or religion of the people,—and still further, it is an undeniable fact, that slaves have already been taken into California and publicly sold there at enormous prices, and thousands are now on their way thither from the Southern States and from South America. In support of this last statement numerous authorities might be adduced. It is stated that a member of Congress from Tennessee has recently declared, that, within his own knowledge, there would be taken to California, during the summer just passed, from ten to twelve thousand slaves. And another person states, from reliable evidence, that whole families are moving with their slaves from Tennessee, Arkansas, and Missouri. Mr. Rowe, under date of May 13, at Independence, Mo., on his way to the Pacific, writes to the paper, of which he was recently the editor, the Belfast Journal, Maine,—I have seen as many as a dozen teams going along with their families of slaves. And Mr. Boggs, once Governor of Missouri, now a resident of California, is quoted as writing to a friend at home as follows,—If your sons will bring out two or three negroes, who can cook and attend at a hotel, your brother will pay cash for them at a good profit, and take it as a great favor.

The Wilmot Proviso next receives the notice of the address. An obscure member of Congress from the State of Pennsylvania, but who became a powerful champion of the new Party, had introduced a resolution prohibiting the extension of slavery over soil then free. This measure was earnestly endorsed, in the following words:

To the end that the country and the age may not witness the foul sin of a Republic dedicated to Freedom, pouring into vast unsettled lands, as into the veins of an infant, the festering poison of Slavery, destined as time advances, to show itself only in cancers and leprous disease, we pledge ourselves to unremitting endeavors to procure the passage of the Wilmot Proviso, or some other form of Congressional legislation, prohibiting slavery in the territories, without equivocation or compromise of any kind.

But the Worcester men advanced still further, and pressed upon the public the question of moral responsibility in opposition to Slavery wherever we are responsible for it, standing upon the ground of principle that Slavery is wrong; that no human legislation can elevate into respectability the blasphemy of tyranny, that man can hold property in his fellow-man:

Wherever we are responsible for Slavery, we oppose it. Our opposition is co-extensive with our responsibility. In the States, Slavery is sustained by local laws; and although we may be compelled to share the stigma which its presence inflicts upon the fair fame of the country, yet it receives no direct sanction at our hands. We are not responsible for it there. The Federal Government, in whom we are represented, is not responsible for it there. The evil is not at our own particular doors. But Slavery everywhere under the Constitution of the United States—everywhere under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Government—everywhere under the national flag—is at our own particular doors. The freemen of the North are responsible for it equally with the traffickers in flesh, who haunt the shambles of the South. Nor will this responsibility cease, so long as Slavery continues to exist in the District of Columbia, in any territories of the United States, or anywhere on the high seas, beneath the protecting flag of the Republic. The fetters of every slave within these jurisdictions are bound and clasped in part by the votes of Massachusetts. Their chains, as they clank, seem to say, Massachusetts helps commit this outrage.

They were not satisfied with even a complete Divorce of the Federal Government from Slavery—that it should no longer receive its sanction or support:—

Federal Government must be on the side of Freedom.—In accomplishing these specific changes, a new tone would be given to the Republic. The Slave Power would be broken, and Slavery driven from its present intrenchments under the Federal Government. The influence of such a change would be incalculable. The whole weight of the Government would then be taken from the side of Slavery, where it has been placed by the Slave Power, and put on the side of Freedom, according to the original purposes and aspirations of its founders. This of itself is an end for which we should labor earnestly, in the spirit of the Constitution.

Let it never be forgotten, as the pole-star of our policy, that the Federal Government must be placed openly, actively and perpetually, on the side of Freedom.

It must be openly on the side of Freedom. There must be no equivocation, concealment, or reserve in its opinions. It must not, like the witches in Macbeth, palter in a double sense. Let it avow itself distinctly and firmly as the enemy of Slavery, and thus give to the friends of Freedom, now struggling throughout the Slave States, the advantage of its countenance.

It must be actively on the side of Freedom. It should not be content with bearing its testimony openly. It must act. Within the constitutional sphere of its influence, it must be felt as the enemy of Slavery. Let it now study to exert itself for Freedom as zealously and effectively as for many years it has exerted itself for slavery.

It must be perpetually on the side of Freedom. It must not be uncertain, vacillating or temporary, in this beneficent policy. Let it be fixed and constant in its hostility to Slavery, so that hereafter it shall know no change.

Other national matters engaged the attention of the Convention, such as cheap postage; the abolition of all Unnecessary offices and salaries; the election of civil officers, as far as practicable, by the people; the improvement of rivers and harbors, and a general Homestead Law for actual settlers. But these were all of a subordinate character.

The administration of Gen. Taylor having now commenced, its Pro-slavery character was severely exposed, in the following passage:

In support of these principles, we felt it our duty to oppose the election of General Cass and General Taylor—both of them being brought forward under the influence of the Slave Power; the first, as openly pledged against the Wilmot Proviso, and the second, as a large slaveholder and recent purchaser of slaves, who was not known, by any acts or declared opinions, to be hostile in any way to Slavery, or even against its extension, and who, from his position, and from the declarations of many of his friends and neighbors, was supposed to be friendly to that institution. General Taylor was elected by the people. And now, while it becomes all to regard his administration with candor, we cannot forget our duty to the cause which has brought us together. His most ardent supporters will not venture the assertion, that his conduct will bear the test of the principles of our party. We look in vain for any token that the Federal Government, while in his hands, will be placed, openly, actively, and perpetually, on the side of Freedom. Indeed, all that his Free Soil supporters vouchsafe, in his behalf, is the assurance, that the Second Washington will not assume the responsibility, if the Wilmot Proviso should receive the sanction of both branches of Congress,—if it should prevail in the House of Representatives, and then, in that citadel of slavery, the American Senate—of arresting its final passage by the Presidential Veto! This is all. The first Washington freely declared his affinity with Anti-Slavery Societies, and said, that in support of any legislative measure for the abolition of Slavery, his suffrage should never be Wanting.

But the character of the Administration may be inferred from other circumstances. First.—The Slave Power continues to hold its lion's share in the cabinet, and in the diplomatic posts abroad, thus ruling the country at home, and representing it in foreign lands. The number of votes cast in the Slave States, exclusive of South Carolina, where the electors are chosen by the Legislature, at the last Presidential election, was 845,050, while the number of votes cast in the Free States was 2,027,006. And yet there are four persons in the cabinet from the Slave States, and three only from the Free States, while a slave-holding President presides over all. The diplomatic representation of the country at Paris, St. Petersburg, Vienna, the Hague, Brussels, Frankfort, Madrid, Lisbon, Naples, Chili, Mexico, is now confided to persons from Slave-holding States; and at Rome, our Republic is represented by the son of the great adversary of the Wilmot Proviso, and in Berlin, by a late Senator, who was rewarded with this high appointment in consideration of his services to Slavery; while the principles of Freedom abroad are confined to the anxious care of the recently appointed Minister to England. But this is not all. Secondly.—The administration, through one of its official organs at Washington, has made the President threaten to frown indignantly upon the movements of the friends of Freedom at the North, though he has had no word of indignation, and no frown, for the schemes of disunion openly put forth by the friends of Slavery at the South. Thirdly.—Mr. Clayton, as Secretary of State, in defiance of justice, and in mockery of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, has refused a national passport to a free-colored citizen, alleging that by a rule of his Department, passports are not granted to colored persons. In marked contrast are the laws of Massachusetts, recognizing such persons as citizens; and also those words of gratitude and commendation, in which General Jackson, after the battle of New Orleans, addressed the black soldiers who had shared, with a noble enthusiasm, the perils and glory of their white fellow-citisens. Fourthly.—The Post-Office Department, in a formal communication with regard to what are called incendiary publications, has stated that the Postmaster-General leaves the whole subject to the discretion of Postmasters under the authority of State Governments. Here is no word of indignation at the idea that the mails of the United States are exposed to lawless interruption from the partisans of Slavery. The Post-Office, intrusted to a son of New England, assumes an abject neutrality, when the letters intrusted to its care are rifled at the instigation of the Slave Power.

At this early period in the struggle between Slavery and Freedom, Mr. Sumner, who was always thorough and practical in the application of principle, to every act, and on every occasion, appeared before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, in the case of Sarah C. Roberts vs. The City of Boston. The object of this suit was, to have some decision of a Court of Final Appeal, which should determine the civil rights of the Colored people of the State.

This was the most powerful and exhaustive argument in behalf of the equality of every human being before the Law of Equity, which is the law of nature, and the law of God, that had then been pronounced, and it has never been equalled. It settled the question in Massachusetts, as it has since been virtually established throughout the country. Even Mr. Sumner never was obliged to elucidate the subject again. It constituted the first great charter ever distinctly drawn up in favor of the equal right of the Colored people of the United States to education and the corresponding privileges that grow out of it, with all other citizens. The argument in Equity stands upon the eternal basis of justice. No reply has ever been attempted against it as an argument in Law; and wherever its principles come in conflict with municipal statutes, those statutes are arbitrary, and on appeal to Courts of Final Jurisdiction, will, in every free country, be overthrown. It will be seen, in Mr. Sumner's subsequent career, how fully he conformed his life and official acts to the high standard he had raised. He carried out every one of those principles to their logical conclusion, never deviating, even in the smallest thing, from the courtesies which they implied. He lived a large and generous life; he moved in the best society, at home and abroad: his companions were the most illustrious men living. But in no instance—so genuinely democratic, and so purely Christian was his soul,—did he ever give the slightest countenance to that principle of unjust Caste which, in this argument, he so mercilessly condemned. In this respect, he has probably had no equal among his countrymen. His example more perfectly illustrated the principles he advocated than that of any other man; and he certainly had a higher and broader field for their exemplification than almost any other public character of his times was favored with.

Considering the time when this argument was made—the heavy structure of Southern slavery still unshaken —the dark cloud of prejudice against the African race hanging still undispelled over the whole North——the race itself, without exception, ostracised from the pale of Northern charity,—from the precincts of Northern justice, —from the sacred amenities of Northern homes,—from the priceless advantages of Northern education,—exiled from every scene of social amusement and culture,— shut out from theatres, from lecture-rooms, from universities, from all schools of higher education—excluded from the learned professions—condemned everywhere to the most menial and degrading offices,—nowhere allowed to enter the charmed circle of a common brotherhood of a universal humanity—banished absolutely from all the sunlight of civilization, and all the sympathies of earth-and spurned from every covert of refuge except the bosom of Almighty God! Such was the condition of this doomed race—such was the defender they found in Charles Sumner, and such the argument he delivered before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts.

It reads now,—except to the young, who were fortunate enough to be born in better days of the Republic, where they have escaped much of the contamination of that spirit of Caste that so deeply clouded our young days,—like a thrice-told tale. It seems but a tame enunciation of axioms no longer disputed. Ah! thank God, there is some truth in this. But let the young go back, if it be to gain but a faint impression of the hard road the colored people have had to tread in reaching this better day; and they may half conceive how many a wounded spirit, like Charles Sumner's, bled in secret sorrow, with hearts grown sore in waiting for the emancipation of an enslaved race. Then will they cease to wonder that to their salvation the great Senator so unreservedly dedicated his life. Then will they learn why his name will be mentioned with veneration by their latest posterity—why he is to them, even now, the best beloved name in all history.

He opened his argument by asking the Court: Can any discrimination on account of color, or race, be made, under the Constitution and laws of Massachusetts, among the children entitled to the benefits of our Public Schools? This is the question which the Court is now to hear, to consider, and to decide.

There had been a long controversy on the subject, and a great deal of angry debate had, for five years, been witnessed in the School Committee. The controversy had been heated and virulent. It was now to be determined for the first time before a judicial tribunal, in an action by a colored child, only five years old, who, by her next friend, sued the City of Boston for damages, on account of a refusal to receive her into one of the Public Schools.

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

The great principle involved in this case, I shall first exhibit in the Constitution of Massachusetts, next in the legislation, and then in the judicial decisions. I shall then consider the special circumstances of this case, and show the violation of the Constitution and Laws, by the School Committee of Boston—answering, before I close, some of the grounds on which their conduct has been vindicated.

I. I begin with the principle, that, according to the spirit of American institutions, and especially of the Constitution of Massachusetts, all men, without distinction of color or race, are equal before the law.

I might, perhaps, leave this proposition without one word of comment. The Equality of men will not be directly denied on this occasion. But that we may better appreciate its character and its limitations, let me develop with some care the origin and growth of this sentiment, until it finally ripened into a formula of civil and political right.

The sentiment of Equality among men was early cherished by generous souls. It showed itself in the dreams of ancient philosophy. It was declared by Seneca; when writing to a friend a letter of consolation on death, he said, Prina enim pars Equitatis est Equalitas. (Epist. 30.) The first part of Equity is Equality. But it was enunciated with persuasive force in the truths of the Christian Religion. Here we learn that God is no respecter of persons; that he is the father of all; and that we are all his children, and brethren to each other. When the Saviour taught the Lord's prayer, he taught the sublime doctrine of the Brotherhood of Mankind, infolding the Equality of men.

Slowly did this sentiment enter the State. The whole constitution of government in modern times was inconsistent with it. An hereditary monarchy, an order of nobility, and the complex ranks of superiors and inferiors established by the feudal system, all declared, not the Equality, but the inequality of men, and they all conspired to perpetuate this inequality. Every infant of royal blood, every noble, every vassal, was a present example, that, whatever might be the truths of religion, or the sentiments of the heart, men living under these institutions were not born equal.

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

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

It is to France that we must pass for the earliest development of this idea, for its amplest illustration, and for its most complete, accurate, and logical expression. In the middle of the last century appeared the renowned Encyclopedie, edited by D'Alembert and Diderot. This remarkable production, where science, religion, and government were all discussed with a revolutionary freedom, contains an article on Equality, which was published in 1755. Here we find the boldest expression that had then been given to this sentiment. Natural Equality, says the Encyclopedia, is that which exists between all men by the constitution of their nature only. This Equality is the principle and the foundation of liberty. Natural or moral equality is then founded upon the constitution of human nature, common to all men, who are born, grow, subsist, and die in the same manner. Since human nature finds itself the same in all men, it is clear, that, according to nature's law, each ought to esteem and treat the others as beings who are naturally equal to himself; that is to say, who are men as well as himself.

When we consider the period at which this article was written, we shall be astonished less by its incompleteness and vagueness, than by its bravery and generosity. The dissolute despotism of Louis XV. overshadowed France. Selfish nobles and fawning courtiers filled the royal antechambers. The councils of Government were controlled by royal mistresses. Only a few years before, in 1751, the King had founded, in defiance of the principles of Equality,—but in entire harmony with the conduct of the School Committee in Boston—a military school, for nobles only, carrying into education the distinction of Caste. At such a period the Encyclopedia did well in uttering such important and effective truth. The sentiment of Equality was here fully declared. Nor should we be disappointed, that, at this early day, even the boldest philosophers did not adequately perceive, or if they perceived, did not dare to utter, our axiom of liberty, that all men are born equal, in civil and political rights.

Mr. Sumner opened his speech with the words, Watchman, what of the night? And well may the question be asked, he said,

for things have occurred, and measures have passed into laws, which fill the day itself into blackness. And yet, there are streaks of light —an unwonted dawn—in the distant west, out of which a full-orbed sun is beginning to ascend, rejoicing, like a strong man, to run his race.

California had been admitted to the Union with a Constitution forbidding slavery. A hateful institution which thus far, without check, had travelled with the power of the Republic westward, was bidden to stop, and a new and rising State guarded from its contamination. Freedom—in whose hands is the divining rod of magical power, pointing the way not only to wealth untold, but to every possession of virtue and intelligence—whose presence is better far than any mine—is now at last established in an extensive region on the distant Pacific, between the very parallels of latitude so long claimed by slavery as its peculiar home. Here is a moral and political victory: a moral victory inasmuch as Freedom has secured a new foothold where to exert her far-reaching influence; a political victory also, inasmuch as, by the admission of California, the free States have obtained a majority of votes in the Senate, and the Balance of power between Freedom and Slavery—so preposterously claimed by the Slave States, in forgetfulness of the true spirit of the Constitution, and in mockery of human Rights—has been overturned. May Free California, and her Senators in Congress, never fail hereafter, amidst the trials before us, in loyalty to Freedom! God forbid that the daughter should turn with ingratitude or neglect from the mother that bore her.

Congress had also abolished the slave-trade in the District of Columbia, and banished from the national Capital the odious traffic, thus affixing upon the trade in human flesh everywhere in the broad domain of the Republic, the brand of Congressional reprobation. True, Congress had not, as in the case of the Foreign Slave-Trade, stamped it as piracy, and awarded to its perpetrators the doom of pirates; but it had condemned the trade, and gave to general scorn those who partook of it; thus preparing the way for that complete act of Abolition which was necessary to purge the National Capital of its still remaining curse and shame. It had also abolished flogging in the Navy, thus rebuking the lash wherever and by whomsoever employed. These two props and stays of slavery had been undermined by Congressional legislation. Without the slave-trade and the lash, slavery itself must fall to the earth.

But other measures had passed, which the speaker contemplated only with indignation and disgust. The broad territories of New Mexico and Utah, under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, had been organized without any prohibition of slavery. In laying the foundations there, Congress had omitted the great Ordinances of Freedom, first suggested by Jefferson, and consecrated by the experience of the Northwestern Territory. Moreover, a vast territory, larger than all New England, had been taken from New Mexico, and ten million dollars had been given to slave-holding Texas.

And still further, as if to do a deed which should make heaven weep, all earth amazed, this same Congress, in disregard of all the cherished safeguards of Freedom, has passed a most cruel, unchristian, devilish law to secure the return into Slavery of those fortunate bondmen who have found shelter by our firesides. This is the Fugitive Slave Bill—a bill which despoils the party claimed as a slave—whether he be in reality a slave or a freeman—of the sacred right of Trial by Jury, and commits the question of Human Freedom—the highest question known by the law—to the unaided judgment of a single magistrate, on ex parte evidence it may be, by affidavits, without the sanction of crossexami-nation.

And yet there are streaks of light—an unwonted dawn—in the distant West, out of which a full-orbed sun is beginning to ascend, rejoicing like a strong man to run his race. Video solem orientem in occidente. By an Act of the recent Congress, California, with a Constitution forbidding Slavery, adopted in the exercise of its sovereignty as a State, has been admitted into the Union. For a measure like this, required not only by the simplest justice, but by the uniform practice of the country, and the constitutional principles of the slave-holders themselves, we may well be ashamed to confess our gratitude; and yet I cannot but rejoice in this great good accomplished. A hateful institution, which thus far, without check, had travelled with the power of the Republic, westward, is bidden to stop, and a new and rising State guarded from its contamination. Freedom—in whose hands is the divining rod of magical power, pointing the way, not only to wealth untold, but to every possession of virtue and intelligence—whose presence is better far than any mine of gold—is now at last established in an extensive region on the distant Pacific, between the very parallels of latitude so long claimed by Slavery as its peculiar home.

Here is a moral and political victory; a moral victory, inasmuch as Freedom has secured a new foothold where to exert her far-reaching influence; a political victory also, inasmuch as by the admission of California, the Free States have obtained a majority of votes in the Senate, and the balance of power, between Freedom and Slavery—so preposterously claimed by the Slave States, in forgetfulness of the true spirit of the Constitution, and in mockery of Human Rights—has been overturned. May free California, and her Senators in Congress, never fail hereafter, amidst the trials before us, in loyalty to Freedom! God forbid that the daughter should turn with ingratitude or neglect from the mother that bore her!

Besides this Act, there are two others of this long session which may be regarded with satisfaction, and which I mention at once, before considering the reverse of the picture. The Slave trade has been abolished in the District of Columbia. This measure, though small in the sight of Justice, is most important. It banishes from the National Capital an odious traffic. But this is its least office. It practically affixes to the whole traffic, wherever it exists—not merely in Washington, within the immediate sphere of the legislative act-but everywhere throughout the Slave States, whether at Richmond, or Charleston, or New Orleans, the brand of Congressional reprobation. Yes! The people of the United States, by the voice of Congress, have solemnly declared the domestic traffic in slaves to be offensive in their sight. The nation has judged this traffic. The nation has said to it, Get thee behind me, Satan. It is true that Congress has not, as in the case of the foreign slave trade, stamped it as piracy, and awarded to its perpetrators the doom of pirates; but it condemns the trade, and gives to general scorn those who partake of it. To this extent the North may be swept into ruthless captivity; and there is no white citizen, born among us, bred in our schools, partaking in our affairs, voting in our elections, whose liberty is not assailed also. Without any discrimination of color, the Bill surrenders all, who may be claimed as owing service or labor, to the same tyrannical judgment. And mark once more its heathenism. By unrelenting provisions it visits, with bitter penalties of fine and imprisonment, the faithful men and women who may render to the fugitive that countenance, succor, and shelter which Christianity expressly requires! Thus, from beginning to end, it sets at naught the best principles of the Constitution, and the very laws of God! I might occupy your time by exposing the unconstitutionality of this act. In denying the Trial by Jury, it is three times unconstitutional: first, as the Constitution declares the right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable seizures; secondly, as it further declares, that No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; and, thirdly, because it expressly declares, that In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved. By this triple cord did the framers of the Constitution secure the Trial by Jury in every question of Human Freedom. That man can be little imbued with the true spirit of American institutions—he can have little sympathy with Bills of Rights—he must be lukewarm for Freedom, who can hesitate to construe the Constitution so as to secure this safeguard.

He could not withhold the following burst of indignation:

The soul sickens in the contemplation of this legalized outrage. In the dreary annals of the Past there are many acts of shame—there are ordinances of monarchs, and laws, which have become a bye-word and a hissing to the nations. But, when we consider the country and the age, I ask fearlessly, What act of shame, what ordinance of monarch, what law can compare in atrocity with this enactment of an American Congress? I do not forget Appius Claudius, the tyrant decemvir of ancient Rome, condemning Virginia as a slave; nor Louis XIV. of France, letting slip the dogs of religious persecution by the revocation of the edict of Nantes; nor Charles I. of England, arousing the patriot rage of Hampden, by the extortion of Ship-money; nor the British Parliament, provoking, in our own country, spirits kindred to Hampden, by the tyranny of the Stamp Act and Tea Tax. I would not exaggerate; I wish to keep within bounds; but I think no person can doubt that the condemnation now affixed to all these transactions, and to their authors, must be the lot hereafter of the Fugitive Slave Bill, and of every one, according to the measure of his influence, who gave it his support. Into the immortal catalogue of national crimes this has now passed, drawing with it, by an inexorable necessity, its authors also, and chiefly him, who, as President of the United States, set his name to the Bill, and breathed into it that final breath, without which it would have no life. Other Presidents may be forgotten; but the name signed to the Fugitive Slave Bill can never be forgotten. There are depths of infamy, as there are heights of fame. I regret to say what I must; but truth compels me. Better far for him had he never been born; better far for his memory, and for the good name of his children, had he never been President!

I have already likened this Bill to the Stamp Act, and I trust that the parallel may be continued yet further by a burst of popular feeling against all action under it, similar to that which glowed in the breasts of our fathers. Listen to the words of John Adams, as written in his Diary for the time:—

The year 1765 has been the most remarkable year of my life. That enormous engine, fabricated by the British Parliament, for battering down all the rights and liberties of America,—I mean the Stamp Act, —has raised and spread through the whole continent a spirit that will be recorded to our honor with all future generations. In every colony, from Georgia to New Hampshire inclusively, the stamp distributors and inspectors have been compelled by the unconquerable rage of the people to renounce their offices. Such and so universal has been the resentment of the people, that every man who has dared to speak in favor of the stamps, or to soften the detestation in which they are held, how great soever his abilities and virtues had been esteemed before, or whatever his fortune, connections, and influence had been, has been seen to sink into universal contempt and ignominy.

Surely the love of Freedom cannot have so far cooled among us, the descendants of those who opposed the Stamp Act, that we are insensible to the Fugitive Slave Bill. The unconquerable rage of the people, in those other days, compelled the stamp distributors and inspectors to renounce their offices, and held up to detestation all who dared to speak in favor of the stamps. And shall we be more tolerant of those who volunteer in favor of this Bill—more tolerant of the Slave-Hunter, who, under its safeguard, pursues his prey upon our soil? The Stamp Act could not be executed here. Can the Fugitive Slave Bill?

And here, Sir, let me say, that it becomes me to speak with peculiar caution. It happens to me to sustain an important relation to this Bill. Early in professional life I was designated by the late Mr. Justice Story one of the Commissioners of the Courts of the United States, and, though I have not very often exercised the functions of this post, yet my name is still upon the lists. As such I am one of those before whom, under the recent Act of Congress, the panting fugitive may be brought for the decision of the question, whether he is a freeman or a slave. But while it becomes me to speak with caution, I shall not hesitate to speak with plainness. I cannot forget that I am a man, although I am a Commissioner.

He thus gives vent to his own feelings:

Surely, no person of humane feelings, and with any true sense of justice—living in a land where bells have knolled to church—whatever may be the apology of public station, could fail to recoil from such service. For myself let me say, that I can imagine no office, no salary, no consideration, which I would not gladly forego, rather than become in any way an agent in enslaving my brother-man. Where for me would be comfort and solace, after such a work! In dreams and in waking hours, in solitude and in the street, in the meditations of the closet, and in the affairs of men, wherever I turned, there my victim would stare me in the face; from the distant rice-fields and sugar plantations of the South, his cries beneath the vindictive lash, his moans at the thought of Liberty once his, now alas! ravished from him, would pursue me, repeating the tale of his fearful doom, and sounding, forever sounding in my ears, Thou art the man!

And yet, in the face of these enormities of legislation, we are told, he says, that the Slavery question is settled. Nothing, sir, can be settled, which is not right. Nothing can be settled which is adverse to Freedom, or contrary to the principles of Christianity. God, nature, and all the holy sentiments of the heart, repudiate any such seeming settlement.

Turning at last to the duties of Massachusetts men, he thus sums up the demands which must be made upon Congress.

Sir, I will not dishonor this home of the Pilgrims, and of the Revolution, by admitting—nay, I cannot believe—that this Bill will be executed here. Individuals among us, as elsewhere, may forget humanity in a fancied loyalty to law; but the public conscience will not allow a man, who has trodden our streets as a freeman, to be dragged away as a slave. By his escape from bondage, he has shown that true manhood, which must grapple to him every honest heart. He may be ignorant, and rude, as he is poor, but he is of a true nobility. The Fugitive Slaves of the United States are among the heroes of our age. In sacrificing them to this foul enactment of Congress, we should violate every sentiment of hospitality, every whispering of the heart, every dictate of religion.

There are many who will never shrink at any cost, and, notwithstanding all the atrocious penalties of this Bill, from efforts to save a wandering fellow-man from bondage; they will offer him the shelter of their houses, and, if need be, will protect his liberty by force. But let me be understood; I counsel no violence. There is another power—stronger than any individual arm—which I invoke; I mean that invincible Public Opinion, inspired by love of God and man, which, without violence or noise, gently as the operations of nature, makes and unmakes laws. Let this opinion be felt in its Christian might, and the Fugitive Slave Bill will become everywhere upon our soil a dead letter. No lawyer will aid it by counsel; no citizen will become its agent; it will die of inanition—like a spider beneath an exhausted receiver. Oh! it were well the tidings should spread throughout the land, that here in Massachusetts this accursed Bill has found no servants. Sire, I have found in Bayonne honest citizens and brave soldiers only; but not one executioner, was the reply of the governor of that place, to the royal mandate from Charles IX. of France, ordering the Massacre of St. Bartholomew.

But it rests with you, my fellow-citizens, by your words and your example, by your calm determinations, and your devoted lives, to do this work. From a humane, just, and religious people shall spring a Public Opinion, to keep perpetual guard over the liberties of all within our borders. Nay, more, like the flaming sword of the cherubim at the gates of Paradise, turning on every side, it shall prevent any Slavehunter from ever setting foot in this Commonwealth. Elsewhere, he may pursue his human prey; he may employ his congenial bloodhounds, and exult in his successful game. But into Massachusetts he must not come. And yet again I say, I counsel no violence. I would not touch his person. Not with whips and thongs would I scourge him from the land. The contempt, the indignation, the abhorrence of the community shall be our weapons of offence. Wherever he moves, he shall find no house to receive him—no table spread to nourish him—no welcome to cheer him. The dismal lot of the Roman exile shall be his. He shall be a wanderer, without roof, fire, or water.

The contest which resulted in the election of Mr. Sumner to the United States Senate the first time, by the Legislature of Massachusetts, in 1851, was one of the most protracted and memorable in the history of any State. Mr. Boutwell, who is now the colleague of Mr. Sumner in the United States Senate, was then Governor of Massachusetts.

On the 16th of January, on motion of Mr. Barry, a member of the House, the election of a United States Senator was taken up, and the contest lasted three months. The Daily Evening Transcript for that year gave the following history of the great contest:

The first ballot resulted as follows: Whole number394Necessary to a choice98Charles Sumner80Robert C. Winthrop66

A second ballot failed to elect either candidate, and the matter was postponed for one week. On January 23d, the election came up again by assignment, and resulted in the same manner, Mr. Sumner receiving 187 votes, 192 being necessary to a choice. On the 26th of February, the sixteenth ballot was taken, but no choice was made, Mr. Sumner lacking two votes of the number necessary for his election. The matter came up every two weeks regularly, with the same result, until the 24th of April, when the end was reached, as will be seen by the following report of that day's proceedings:

The House was called to order at 9 o'clock, and prayer was offered by Rev. Mr. Stone. The morning business was unimportant, and at 9. 30 the House proceeded to the twenty-fifth ballot for United States Senator, which resulted as follows: Whole number386Necessary to a choice194Charles Sumner192R. C. Winthrop168Scattering26Blanks1

At the conclusion of the ballot given above, it was discovered that two more votes had been cast than there were members present, and, to avoid such an occurrence in future, it was ordered that, in subsequent trials, the ballots be enclosed in envelopes, and if any contained more than one vote, all but one should be rejected, if all the ballots so contained were for the same person. In case there should be more than one candidate named, all should be thrown out. The result was as follows: Whole number384Necessary to a choice193Charles Sumner193Robert C. Winthrop66Scattering25Blank2

And Charles Sumner was declared elected.

In the same issue of that journal, the following bright and pointed editorial appeared:

The mountain that has been in labor for the last three months has brought forth, and Charles Sumner, Esq., has been elected for six years, from the 4th of March next, to succeed Mr. Webster in the Senate of the United States. This was consummated in the House of Representatives this afternoon, on the twenty-sixth ballot, by a vote of 193, being the exact number necessary in concurrence with the choice of the Senate, made in January last. This will be a sore disappointment to the Whig Party, who have a plurality of some 20,000 votes in the State; but the fates have so decreed, and so it must be. The die is cast, and the Whigs and the indomitable Democracy have lost the game. We are not prepared to proclaim the country ruined in consequence of this event. Mr. Sumner is a forcible and eloquent speaker, an apt scholar, a man of superior abilities, of polished address and extensive acquaintance with the men and events of his times, and he may become a statesman of mark in the political arena. He will probably act and work with the Whig Party on all questions but one, a vital and momentous one, it is true, as he will find when he gets to Washington. Mr. Sumner will find, on reaching the Capital, that Massachusetts, and even New England, is but a fraction of the United States; that there are interests besides hers to be looked after; that, under his oath of office, he is bound to legislate for the whole country, not a sectional part; that the constitutional rights of others must be respected; and all this his good sense will soon teach him, if he needs to be taught. Again, we say, we do not yet despair of the Union. Massachusetts might have seated in the Senate a man far more objectionable than Charles Sumner! Vive la Republique!

The next day after the election, the Daily Advertiser, then under the control of the well-known journalist, Mr. Nathan Hale, used the following severe language, which referred, however, to the coalition in the Legislature by which the election was secured, and having no reference to the personal fitness of Mr. Sumner for the position:

It is the grossest outrage upon the feelings of the majority of the people of the State, by a combination between two minorities, which we have known to be perpetrated in any of the States of the Union. We regard the event as a most unfortunate one for the reputation of the State, and one which must paralyze its influence in the councils of the Union, and in sustaining a course of legislation tending to harmonize the dissensions which have so long disturbed the quiet of the country.

In the Senate, Mr. Sumner was to appear in the list as a Free-Soiler. There were but two others who claimed that distinction—Salmon P. Chase, from Ohio, and John P. Hale, from New Hampshire. These were but the morning-stars of the great day of emancipation that was so soon to dawn upon a redeemed country, and a disenthralled race.

In his letter to the Legislature of the State, accepting the honor of Senatorship, he speaks of the appointment finding him in a private station, and he accepts the office with a grateful consciousness of personal independence; as an honor that had come to him unsought and undesired. I accept it, he continued, as the servant of Massachusetts, mindful of the sentiments solemnly uttered by her successive Legislatures, of the genius which inspires her history, and of the men,—her perpetual pride and ornament,—who breathed into her that breath of liberty which early made her an exampie to her sister States. With me, the union is twice blessed—first, as the powerful guardian of the repose and happiness of thirty-one sovereign States, clasped by the endearing name of country: and next, as the model of that all-embracing federation of States by which unity, peace and concord will finally be organized among the nations. He declares himself fully resolved to oppose any effort to introduce the sectional evil of slavery into Free States. He would follow the example of the great triumvirate of American Freedom, Washington, Franklin and Jefferson; and in the words of the first, he concludes his letter:—I see my duty that in standing up for the liberties of my country, whatever difficulties and discouragements lie in my way, I dare not shrink from it; and I rely on that Being who has not left to us the choice of duties, that while I shall conscientiously discharge mine, I shall not finally lose my reward.

Compared with the narrow field where he had hitherto carried on the battle, the arena that was to witness his future struggles was as the two days skirmishing of Ligny and Quatre Bras, to the final overthrow at Waterloo.

The scene and its surroundings Mrs. Harriet Beecher Stowe has so finely sketched, it were a pity not to let the reader carry it on his fancy as he goes with the champions into the heat of the conflict:

And now came the great battle of the Fugitive Slave Law. The sorceress slavery meditated a grand coup daetat that should found a Southern slave empire, and shake off the troublesome North, and to that intent her agents concocted a statute so insulting to Northern honor, so needlessly offensive in its provisions, so derisive of what were understood to be its religious convictions and humane sentiments, that it was thought verily, The North never will submit to this, and we shall make here the breaking point. Then arose Daniel Webster, that lost Archangel of New England—he who had won her confidence by his knowledge of and reverence for all that was most sacred in her, and moved over to the side of evil! It was as if a great constellation had changed sides in the heavens, drawing after it a third part of the stars.

The North, perplexed, silenced, troubled, yielded for a moment. For a brief space all seemed to go down before that mighty influence, and all listened, as if spell-bound, to the serpent voice with which he scoffed at the idea that there was a law of God higher than any law or constitution of the United States.

But that moment of degradation was the last. Back came the healthy blood, the re-awakened pulse of moral feeling in New England, and there were found voices on all sides to speak for the right, and hearts to respond, and on this side of re-awakened moral feeling Sumner was carried into the United States Senate, to take the seat vacated by Webster. The right was not yet victorious, but the battle had turned so far that its champion had a place to stand on in the midst of the fray.

And what a battle was that! What an ordeal! What a gauntlet to run was that of the man in Washington who in those days set himself against the will of the great sorceress! Plied with temptation on the right hand and on the left, studied, mapped out like a fortress to be attacked and taken, was every Northern man who entered the arena. Could he be bought, bribed, cajoled, flattered, terrified? Which, or all? So planned the conspirators in their secret conclaves.

The gigantic Giddings——he who brought to the strife nerves toughened by backwoods toil and frontier fights with Indians—once said of this warfare: I've seen hard fighting with clubs and bullets; I've seen men falling all around me; but I tell you it takes more courage to stand up in one's seat in Congress and say the right thing, than to walk up to the cannon's mouth. There's no such courage as that of the anti-slavery men there.

Now, Sumner's superb vitality, that hardy yeoman blood which his ancestors brought from England, stood him in excellent stead. His strong and active brain was based on a body muscular, vigorous, and healthy, incapable of nervous tremor, bearing him with a steady aplomb through much that would be confusing and weakening to men of less physical force. Sumner had not the character of a ready debater; not a light-armed skirmisher was he; he resembled rather one of the mailed warriors of ancient tourney. When he had deliberately put on his armor, all polished and finished down to buckle and shoe-latchet, and engraved with whatnot of classic, or Venetian, or Genoese device; when he put down his visor, steadied his lance, took sure aim, and went man and horse against his antagonist, all went down before him, as went down all before the lance of Coeur-de-Lion.

Such a charge into the enemy was his first great speech, Freedom National, Slavery Sectional, which he directed against the Fugitive Slave Law. It was a perfect land-slide of history and argument; an avalanche under which the opposing party were logically buried, and it has been a magazine from which catapults have been taken to beat down their fortresses ever since.

Mr. Sumner's credentials as Senator were presented at the opening of the Thirty-second Congress, December 1, 1851, when he took the oath of office. On the 26th of May, 1852, he presented a memorial against the Fugitive Slave Bill. But he was not allowed to proceed with the remarks he desired to make. On no other subject except slavery was any check imposed upon Senators. But in moving the reference of the petition to the Committee on the Judiciary, he remarked that he hoped he was not expecting too much if, at some fit moment, he should bespeak the clear and candid attention of the Senate, while he undertook to set forth frankly and fully, and with entire respect for that body, convictions deeply cherished in his own State, though disregarded in the Capital; convictions to which he was bound by every sentiment of the heart, by every fibre of his being, by all his devotion to country, by his love of God and man. Upon these, he said, I do not now enter; suffice it for the present for me to remark, that when I undertake that service, I believe I shall utter nothing which in any just sense can be called sectional; unless the Constitution is sectional, and unless the sentiments of the Fathers were sectional. It is my happiness to believe, and my hope to be able to show, that according to the true spirit of the Constitution, and the sentiments of the Fathers, Freedom, and not Slavery, is national; while Slavery, and not Freedom, is sectional.

A vast majority of the Senate were determined that Mr. Sumner should not be allowed to deliver the speech which it was well known he had prepared. But he vigilantly watched his opportunity. It came at last on the 26th of August, 1852, and being by the Rules of the Senate entitled to the floor, he held it against all opposition for nearly four hours; during which he pronounced that immortal oration—as it would have been called by the Romans in the days of Cicero—which will forever be regarded as the most powerful defence of the eternal principles of Freedom ever uttered in that Senate House. It sounded like a voice from the dead—it stirred the whole Nation—it foretold the doom of American Slavery

Its length precludes its full admission. But we give passages sufficiently copious to preserve the chain of the argument and without trying to describe the effect on the vast assembly that crowded the Senate Chamber, which would be at best but a poor attempt; for, as an old Greek writer said of the eloquence of his countrymen-The wonder-working power of oratory must needs die with the delivery.

The theme was—

Freedom national; slavery sectional.

The occasion was the following memorial of the members of the Society of Friends of New England:

We, therefore, respectfully, but earnestly and sincerely, entreat you to repeal the law of the last Congress respecting fugitive slaves; first and principally, because of its injustice towards a long sorely-oppressed and deeply-injured people; and, secondly, in order that we, together with other conscientious sufferers, may be exempted from the penalties which it imposes on all who, in faithfulness to their Divine Master, and in discharge of their obligations to their distressed fellow-men, feel bound to regulate their conduct, even under the heaviest penalties which man can inflict for so doing, by the Divine injunction, All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them; and by the other commandment, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbor as thyself.

The subject is at last broadly before the Senate, and by the blessing of God, it shall be discussed.

These were the words with which he opened his speech, after the last impediment had been swept away. He then entered upon his main argument:—

Sir, a severe lawgiver of early Greece vainly sought to secure permanence for his imperfect institutions, by providing that the citizen who, at any time, attempted their alteration or repeal, should appear in the public assembly with a halter about his neck, ready to be drawn if his proposition failed to be adopted. A tyrannical spirit among us, in unconscious imitation of this antique and discarded barbarism, seeks to surround an offensive institution with a similar safeguard. In the existing distemper of the public mind and at this present juncture, no man can enter upon the service which I now undertake, without a personal responsibility, such as can be sustained only by that sense of duty which, under God, is always our best support. That personal responsibility I accept. Before the Senate and the country let me be held accountable for this act, and for every word which I utter.

With me, sir, there is no alternative. Painfully convinced of the unutterable wrongs and woes of slavery; profoundly believing that, according to the true spirit of the Constitution and the sentiments of the fathers, it can find no place under our National Government—that it is in every respect sectional, and in no respect national—that it is always and everywhere the creature and dependent of the States, and never anywhere the creature or dependent of the Nation, and that the Nation can never, by legislative or other act, impart to it any support, under the Constitution of the United States; with these convictions, I could not allow this session to reach its close, without making or seizing an opportunity to declare myself openly against the usurpation, injustice, and cruelty of the late enactment by Congress for the recovery of fugitive slaves. Full well I know, sir, the difficulties of this discussion, arising from prejudices of opinion and from adverse conclusions, strong and sincere as my own. Full well I know that I am in a small minority, with few here to whom I may look for sympathy or support. Full well I know that I must utter things unwelcome to many in this body, which I cannot do without pain. Full well I know that the institution of slavery in our country, which I now proceed to consider, is as sensitive as it is powerful—possessing a power to shake the whole land with a sensitiveness that shrinks and trembles at the touch. But, while these things may properly prompt me to caution and reserve, they cannot change my duty, or my determination to perform it. For this I willingly forget myself, and all personal consequences. The favor and good — will of my fellow-citizens, of my brethren of the Senate, sir,— grateful to me as it justly is—I am ready, if required, to sacrifice. All that I am or may be, I freely offer to this cause.

And here allow me, for one moment, to refer to myself and my position. Sir, I have never been a politician. The slave of principles, I call no party master. By sentiment, education, and conviction, a friend of Human Rights, in their utmost expansion, I have ever most sincerely embraced the Democratic Idea; not, indeed, as represented or professed by any party, but according to its real significance, as transfigured in the Declaration of Independence, and in the injunctions of Christianity. Party does not constrain me; nor is my independence lessened by any relations to the office which gives me a title to be heard on this floor. And here, sir, I may speak proudly. By no effort, by no desire of my own, I find myself a Senator of the United States. Never before have I held public office of any kind. With the ample opportunities of private life I was content. No tombstone for me could bear a fairer inscription than this: Here lies one who, without the honors or emoluments of public station, did something for his fellow-man. From such simple aspirations I was taken away by the free choice of my native Commonwealth, and placed in this responsible post of duty, without personal obligation of any kind, beyond what was implied in my life and published words. The earnest friends, by whose confidence I was first designated, asked nothing from me, and, throughout the long conflict which ended in my election, rejoiced in the position which I most carefully guarded. To all my language was uniform, that I did not desire to be brought forward; that I would do nothing to promote the result; that I had no pledges or promises to offer; that the office should seek me, and not I the office; and that it should find me in all respects an independent man, bound to no party and to no human being, but only, according to my best judgment, to act for the good of all. In this spirit I have come here, and in this spirit I shall speak to-day.

He early disclaims violence and discourtesy in debate, into whose indulgence he was never to be provoked.

Rejoicing in my independence, and claiming nothing from party ties, I throw myself upon the candor and magnanimity of the Senate. I now ask your attention; but I trust not to abuse it. I may speak strongly; for I shall speak openly and from the strength of my convictions. I may speak warmly; for I shall speak from the heart. But in no event can I forget the amenities which belong to debate, and which especially become this body. Slavery I must condemn with my whole soul; but here I need only borrow the language of slaveholders themselves; nor would it accord with my habits or my sense of justice to exhibit them as the impersonation of the institution—Jefferson calls it the enormity—which they cherish. Of them I do not speak; but without fear and without favor, as without impeachment of any person, I assail this wrong. Again, sir, I may err; but it will be with the Fathers. I plant myself on the ancient ways of the Republic, with its grandest names, its surest landmarks, and all its original altar-fires about me.

Such, sir, at the adoption of the Constitution and at the first organization of the National Government, was the outspoken, unequivocal heart of the country. Slavery was abhorred. Like the slave trade, it was regarded as transitory; and, by many, it was supposed that they would both disappear together. As the oracles grew mute at the coming of Christ, and a voice was heard, crying to mariners at sea, Great Pan is dead, so at this time Slavery became dumb, and its death seemed to be near. Voices of Freedom filled the air. The patriot, the Christian, the scholar, the writer, the poet, vied in loyalty to this cause. All were Abolitionists.

Important words! in themselves a key-note of the times. From his grave Franklin seems still to call upon Congress to step to the very verge of the powers vested in it to Discourage Slavery; and, in making this prayer, he proclaims the true national policy of the Fathers. Not encouragement but discouragement of Slavery was their rule.

Sir, enough has been said to show the sentiment which, like a vital air, surrounded the National Government as it stepped into being. In the face of this history, and in the absence of any positive sanction, it is absurd to suppose that Slavery, which under the Confederation was merely sectional, was now constituted a national institution. Our fathers did not say with the apostate angel, Evil be thou my good! In a different spirit they cried out to Slavery, Get thee behind me, Satan!

But there is yet another link in the argument. In the discussions which took place in the local conventions on the adoption of the Constitution, a sensitive desire was manifested to surround all persons under the Constitution with additional safeguards. Fears were expressed, from the supposed indefiniteness of some of the powers conceded to the National Government, and also from the absence of a Bill of Rights. Massachusetts, on ratifying the Constitution, proposed a series of amendments, at the head of which was this, characterized by Samuel Adams, in the Convention, as A summary of a Bill of Rights:

That it be explicitly declared, that all powers not expressly delegated by the aforesaid Constitution are reserved to the several States, to be by them exercised. Virginia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, with minorities in Pennsylvania and Maryland, united in this proposition. In pursuance of these recommendations, the first Congress presented for adoption the following article, which, being ratified by a proper number of States, became part of the Constitution, as the 10th amendment:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Stronger words could not be employed to limit the power under the Constitution, and to protect the people from all assumptions of the National Government, particularly in derogation of Freedom. Its guardian character commended it to the sagacious mind of Jefferson, who said: I consider the foundation corner-stone of the Constitution of the United States to be laid upon the tenth article of the amendments. And Samuel Adams, ever watchful for Freedom, said: It removes a doubt which many have entertained respecting the matter, gives assurance that, if any law made by the Federal Government shall be extended beyond the power granted by the Constitution, and inconsistent with the Constitution of this State, it will be an error, and adjudged by the courts of law to be void.

Beyond all question, the National Government, ordained by the Constitution, is not general or universal; but special and particular. It is a Government of limited powers. It has no power which is not delegated. Especially is this clear with regard to an institution like Slavery. The Constitution contains no power to make a King or to support kingly rule. With similar reason it may be said, that it contains no power to make a slave, or to support a system of Slavery. The absence of all such power is hardly more clear in one case than in the other. But if there be no such power, all national legislation upholding Slavery must be unconstitutional and void. The stream cannot be higher than the fountain-head. Nay more, nothing can come out of nothing; the stream cannot exist, if there be no springs from which it is fed.

At the risk of repetition, but for the sake of clearness, review now this argument, and gather it together. Considering that Slavery is of such an offensive character that it can find sanction only in positive law, and that it has no such positive sanction in the Constitution; that the Constitution, according to its Preamble, was ordained to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty; that, in the Convention which framed it, and also elsewhere at the time, it was declared not to sanction Slavery; that, according to the Declaration of Independence and the Address of the Continental Congress, the Nation was dedicated to liberty and the rights of human nature; that, according to the principles of the common law, the Constitution must be interpreted openly, actively, and perpetually, for Freedom; that, according to the decision of the Supreme Court, it acts upon slaves, not as property , but as persons; that, at the first organization of the National Government under Washington, Slavery had no national favor, existed nowhere on the national territory, beneath the national flag, but was openly condemned by the Nation, the Church, the Colleges and Literature of the time; and, finally, that according to an Amendment of the Constitution, the National Government can only exercise powers delegated to it, among which there is none to support Slavery; considering these things, sir, it is impossible to avoid the single conclusion that Slavery is in no respect a national institution, and that the Constitution nowhere upholds property in man.