C. Edwards Lester, Life and public services of Charles Sumner: Born Jan. 6, 1811. Died March 11, 1874.

[217] are to say nothing but good of the dead. How, then, shall I speak of the late powerful Whig party—by whose giant contests the whole country was once upheaved—but which has now ceased to exist, except as the shadow of a name? Here, in Massachusetts, a few who do not yet know that it is dead, have met together and proffered their old allegiance. They are the Rip Van Winkles of our politics. This respectable charter, falling asleep in the mountains, drowsed undisturbed throughout the whole war of the Revolution, and, then returning to his native village, ignorant of all that had passed, proposed to drink the health of King George. But our Whigs are less tolerant and urbane than this awakened Dutchman. In petulant and irrational assumptions they are like the unfortunate judge, who, being aroused from his slumbers on the bench by a sudden crash of thunder, exclaimed, ‘Mr. Crier, stop the noise in Court.’ The thunder would not be hushed; nor will the voice of Freedom, now reverberating throughout the land. Some there are among these who openly espouse the part of Slavery, while others, by their indifference, place themselves in the same unhappy company. If their position at this moment were of sufficient importance to justify grave remark, they should be exhibited as kindred in spirit and isolation to the Tories of our Revolution, or, at least, as the Bourbons of Massachusetts—always claiming everything, learning nothing, forgetting nothing, and at last condemned by an aroused people for their disloyalty to Freedom. Let no person who truly loves Freedom join this company, tempted by its name, its music, and its banners.

There is still another party, which claims your votes, but permit me to say, at this crisis, with small pretence. I am at a loss to determine the name by which it may be properly called. It is sometimes known as the Know-Nothing party; sometimes as the American party; but it cannot be entitled to these designations—if they be of any value—for it does not claim to belong to the organization, which first assumed and still retains them. It is an isolated combination, peculiar to Massachusetts, which, while professing certain political sentiments, is bound together by the support of one of the candidates for Governor. At this moment this is its controlling idea. It is, therefore, a personal party, and I trust that I shall not be considered as departing from that courtesy which is with me a law, if I say that, in the absence of any appropriate name, expressive of principles, it may properly take its designation from the candidate it supports.

Of course, such a party wants the first essential condition of the organization which we seek. It is a personal party, whose controlling idea