Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 07 (of 20)

by Charles Sumner · English · Gutenberg #48077 · 711,117 chars · public domain (US)

The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 07 (of 20)

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 07 (of 20)

Author: Charles Sumner

Release date: January 25, 2015 [eBook #48077]
Most recently updated: October 24, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/48077

Credits: Produced by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: HIS COMPLETE WORKS, VOLUME 07 (OF 20) ***

TRANSCRIBER'S NOTE: The tombstone inscriptions on pages 90, 91 and 93
contain elements not possible to reproduce in this plain text version:
superscripted letters, and horizontal lines above text indicating the
omission of one or more letters. The former is represented by a caret
followed by curly braces around the superscripted letter(s) (e.g.
ESQ^{R}) and the latter by enclosing the annotated letter(s), with an
equals sign preceding, in square brackets (e.g. D[=N]I).

[Illustration: ABRAHAM LINCOLN

Statesman Edition VOL. VI

Charles Sumner

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction
BY
HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

[Illustration]

BOSTON
LEE AND SHEPARD
MCM

Statesman Edition.
LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES.
OF WHICH THIS IS
No. 565

Norwood Press:
NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME VII.

PAGE

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SLAVERY SHOWN FROM ITS BARBARISM.
Letter to a Political Antislavery Convention at Worcester,
Massachusetts, September 9, 1860 1

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT MUST BE A DEAD LETTER. Letter to a
Public Meeting at Syracuse, New York, September 9, 1860 3

EXAMPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS AGAINST SLAVERY. Speech at a Mass
Meeting of Republicans, in the Open Air, at Myrick’s Station,
Massachusetts, September 18, 1860 5

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SCHOOLS FOR STATUE OF HORACE MANN. Letter to
the Agent for receiving Contributions, September 19, 1860 20

REMINISCENCE OF THE LATE THEODORE PARKER. Remarks at the Annual
Opening of the Fraternity Lectures of Boston, October 1, 1860 22

THREAT OF DISUNION BY THE SLAVE STATES, AND ITS ABSURDITY.
Speech at a Mass Meeting of Republicans, in the Open Air, at
Framingham, Massachusetts, October 11, 1860 25

NO POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN TERRITORIES CAN ESTABLISH SLAVERY.
Speech in the Mechanics’ Hall, Worcester, November 1, 1860 41

EVENING BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Speech at Faneuil
Hall, Boston, November 5, 1860 70

EVENING AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION. Speech to the
Wide-Awakes of Concord, Massachusetts, November 7, 1860 76

JOY AND SORROW IN THE RECENT ELECTION. Letter to the
Wide-Awakes of Boston, at their Festival, after Election,
November 9, 1860 80

THE VICTORY AND PRESENT DUTIES. Speech to the Wide-Awakes, at
Providence, Rhode Island, November 16, 1860 82

MODERATION IN VICTORY; STANDING BY OUR PRINCIPLES. Speech to
the Wide-Awakes of Lowell, November 21, 1860 86

MEMORIAL STONES OF THE WASHINGTONS IN ENGLAND. Letter to Jared
Sparks, Historian of Washington, November 22, 1860. From the
Boston Daily Advertiser 89

LAFAYETTE, THE FAITHFUL ONE. Address at the Cooper Institute,
New York, November 30, 1860 101

DISUNION AND A SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY: THE OBJECT. Remarks in the
Senate, December 10, 1860 165

ATTEMPT AT COMPROMISE: THE CRITTENDEN PROPOSITIONS. Incidents
and Notes, December 18, 1860, to March 4, 1861 169

ANXIETIES AND PROSPECTS DURING THE WINTER. Letters to John A.
Andrew, Governor of Massachusetts, January 17 to February 20,
1861 186

NO SURRENDER OF THE NORTHERN FORTS. Speech in the Senate, on a
Massachusetts Petition in Favor of the Crittenden Propositions,
February 12, 1861 200

DUTY AND STRENGTH OF THE COMING ADMINISTRATION. From Notes of
Undelivered Speech on the Various Propositions of Compromise,
February, 1861 213

FOREIGN RELATIONS: ARBITRATION. Report from Committee on
Foreign Relations, advising the President to submit the San
Juan Boundary Question to Arbitration, in the Senate, March 19,
1861 216

BEGINNING OF THE CONFLICT. Speech before the Third
Massachusetts Rifles, in the Armory at New York, April 21, 1861 224

PASSPORTS FOR COLORED CITIZENS. Note to the Secretary of State,
June 27, 1861 229

OBJECT OF THE WAR. Proceedings in the Senate, on the Crittenden
Resolution declaring the Object of the War, July 24 and 25, 1861 231

SYMPATHIES OF THE CIVILIZED WORLD NOT TO BE REPELLED. Speech
in the Senate, against Increase of Ten Per Cent on all Foreign
Duties, July 29, 1861 234

EMANCIPATION OUR BEST WEAPON. Speech before the Republican
State Convention at Worcester, Massachusetts, October 1, 1861.
With Appendix 241

THE REBELLION: ITS ORIGIN AND MAINSPRING. Oration, under the
Auspices of the Young Men’s Republican Union of New York, at
Cooper Institute, November 27, 1861. With Appendix 305

WELCOME TO FUGITIVE SLAVES. Remarks in the Senate, on a
Military Order in Missouri, December 4, 1861 359

SLAVERY AND THE BLACK CODE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Remarks
in the Senate, on a Resolution for the Discharge of Fugitive
Slaves from the Washington Jail, December 4, 1861 361

THE LATE SENATOR BINGHAM, WITH PROTEST AGAINST SLAVERY. Speech
in the Senate, on the Death of Hon. Kinsley S. Bingham, late
Senator of Michigan, December 10, 1861 364

THE LATE SENATOR BAKER, WITH CALL FOR EMANCIPATION. Speech in
the Senate, on the Death of Hon. Edward D. Baker, late Senator
of Oregon, December 11, 1861. With Appendix 370

THE UNCONSTITUTIONALITY OF SLAVERY SHOWN FROM ITS BARBARISM.

LETTER TO A POLITICAL ANTISLAVERY CONVENTION AT WORCESTER,
MASSACHUSETTS, SEPTEMBER 9, 1860.

BOSTON, September 9, 1860.

DEAR SIR,--With you I hate, deplore, and denounce the Barbarism
of Slavery,--believing that the _nonentity and impossibility_
of Slavery under the Constitution of the United States can be
fully seen only when we fully see its Barbarism; so that in the
Constitutional argument against Slavery the first link is its
essential Barbarism, with the recognition of which no man will
be so absurd as to infer or imagine that Slavery can have any
basis in words which do not plainly and unequivocally declare it,
even if, when thus declared, it were not at once forbidden by the
Divine Law, which is above all Human Law. Therefore in much I
agree with you, and wish you God-speed.

But I do not agree that the National Government has power under
the Constitution to touch Slavery in the States, any more than it
has power to touch the twin Barbarism of Polygamy in the States,
while fully endowed to arrest and suppress both in all the
Territories. Therefore I do not join in your special efforts.

But I rejoice in every honest endeavor to expose the Barbarism
which degrades our Republic; and here my gratitude is so strong
that criticism is disarmed, even where I find that my judgment
hesitates.

Accept my thanks for the invitation with which you have honored
me, and my best wishes for all Constitutional efforts against
Slavery; and believe me, my dear Sir,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

A. P. BROOKS, Esq.

THE FUGITIVE SLAVE ACT MUST BE A DEAD LETTER.

LETTER TO A PUBLIC MEETING AT SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 9, 1860.

This meeting was one of a series, known as “Jerry Rescue
Celebration,” being on the anniversary of the rescue of the
fugitive slave Jerry from the hands of slave-hunters.

BOSTON, September 9, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR,--You know well how much I sympathize with you
personally, and also how much I detest the Fugitive Slave Bill,
as a flagrant violation of the Constitution, and of the most
cherished human rights,--shocking to Christian sentiments,
insulting to humanity, and impudent in all its pretensions. Of
course I agree with you that such an enactment, utterly without
support in Constitution, Christianity, or reason, should not
be allowed to remain on the statute-book; and so long as it is
there, I trust that the honorable, freedom-loving, peaceful,
good, and law-abiding citizens, acting in the name of a
violated Constitution, and for the sake of law, will see that
this infamous counterfeit is made _a dead letter_. I am happy
to believe that this can be accomplished by an aroused Public
Opinion, which, without violence of any kind, shall surround
every “person” who treads our soil with all safeguards of the
citizen, teaching the Slave-Hunter, whenever he shows himself,
that he can expect from Northern men no sympathy or support in
his barbarous pursuit.

At your proposed meeting, which it will not be in my power
to attend, I trust that just hatred of Slavery in all its
pretensions will be subjected to that temperate judgment which
knows how to keep a sacred animosity within the limits of
Constitution and Law.

Accept my thanks for the invitation with which you have honored
me, and believe me, with much personal regard and constant
sympathy,

Sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

Rev. S. J. MAY.

EXAMPLE OF MASSACHUSETTS AGAINST SLAVERY.

SPEECH AT A MASS MEETING OF REPUBLICANS, IN THE OPEN AIR, AT MYRICK’S
STATION, MASSACHUSETTS, SEPTEMBER 18, 1860.

A large Republican meeting was held in the open air, at
Myrick’s Station, September 18, 1860, in Bristol County,
Massachusetts. The New Bedford and Taunton Branch Railroad, and
the Old Colony and Fall River Railroad, with their branches,
were tasked to the utmost in bringing a crowd estimated at
eight thousand. There were large delegations from New Bedford,
Fall River, and Taunton.

Harrison Tweed, of Taunton, was chosen President, with a long
list of Vice-Presidents and Secretaries. The speaking was from
a stand in a beautiful grove. After Hon. Henry L. Dawes and
Hon. Henry Wilson, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows.

FELLOW-CITIZENS,--Knowing well the character of the good people in
the region where we are assembled, I feel that our cause is safe in
your hands; nor do you need my voice to quicken the generous zeal
which throbs in all your hearts. Proceeding from intelligence and from
conscience, your zeal, I am sure, is wise, steady, and determined, even
if it do not show itself in much speaking,--like your own faithful
Representative in Congress, Mr. Buffinton, who never misses a vote, and
whose presence alone is often as good as a speech. He will pardon me,
if I say that I am glad to see him here among his constituents, so
many of whom I now meet for the first time face to face.

You would hardly bear with me, if, on this occasion, I undertook to
occupy your time at length. There is a time for all things; and let me
say frankly, that I have come here to mingle with my fellow-citizens,
and to partake of their social joy, rather than to make a speech.
And yet I cannot let the opportunity pass without undertaking for a
brief moment to impress upon you our duties in one single aspect,--I
mean _simply as citizens of Massachusetts_. Of course you have duties
as men, belonging to the great human family; you have duties also as
American citizens, belonging to this National Republic; and you have
duties especially as citizens of Massachusetts, not inconsistent with
those other duties, but merely cumulative and confirmatory. Happily,
in all good governments duties do not clash, but harmonize; and we may
well suspect any pretension, whatever name it assumes, which cannot
bear this touchstone.

As _men_, our duties have been grandly denoted in that ancient verse
which aroused the applause of the Roman theatre:--

“Myself a man, nought touching man alien to me I deem.”[1]

What can be broader or more Christian than this heathen utterance?
Sympathy, kindness, succor are due from man to man. This is a debt
which, though daily paid, can never be cancelled while life endures.
And this debt has the sanction of Religion, so that wrong to man is
impiety to God. Of course, in the constant discharge of this debt, we
must be the enemies of injustice, wherever it shows itself. Nor can we
hesitate because injustice is organized in the name of Law and assumes
the front of Power. On this very account we must be the more resolute
against it.

As citizens of the United States, our duties, fixed in the Constitution
and the Declaration of Independence, are of the same character. I say,
fixed in the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence; for
to these, as our guides, I look. Follow Nature, if you would be its
interpreter. This is the Novum Organum of Lord Bacon. And so you must
follow the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, if you
would be their interpreter. This is the Novum Organum of the Republican
party. Nothing can be clearer than that these two instruments, if
followed to their natural meaning, are in harmony with all the
suggestions of justice and humanity; so that our duties as men are all
reaffirmed by our duties as American citizens.

And, lastly, as citizens of Massachusetts our duties are identical,
but reinforced by circumstances in her history; so that, if, as men,
or as citizens of the United States, we hesitate, yet as citizens of
Massachusetts we are not allowed to hesitate. By the example of our
fathers, who laid the foundations of this Commonwealth in knowledge
and in justice, who built schools and set their faces against Slavery,
we are urged to special effort. As their children, we must strive to
develop and extend those principles which they had so much at heart,
and which constitute their just fame.

In the recent conflicts of party it is common to heap insult upon
Massachusetts. Hard words are often employed. Some of her own children
turn against her. But it is in vain. From the past learn the future.
See how from the beginning she has led the way. This has been her
office. She led in the long battle of argument which ended in the
War of Independence, so that European historians have called our
Revolutionary Fathers simply “the insurgents of Boston,” and have
announced the object of the war as simply “justice to Boston.” And she
has also led in all enterprises of human improvement, especially in
the establishment of public schools and the abolition of Slavery. We
are told that a little leaven shall leaven the whole lump; it is the
Massachusetts leaven which is now stirring the whole country. Wherever
education is organized at the public expense, or human rights are
respected, there is seen the influence of Massachusetts, who has been
not only schoolmaster, but chain-breaker. Such are her titles. Men may
rail, but they cannot rail these away. Look at them in her history.

* * * * *

In the winter of 1620 the Mayflower landed its precious cargo on
Plymouth Rock. This small band, cheered by the valedictory prayers of
its beloved pastor, John Robinson, braved sea and wilderness for the
sake of Liberty. In this inspiration our Commonwealth began. That same
year, another cargo, of another character, was landed at Jamestown
in Virginia. It was twenty slaves,--the first that ever touched and
desecrated our soil. Never in history was greater contrast. There was
the Mayflower, filled with men, intelligent, conscientious, prayerful,
all braced to hardy industry, who before landing united in a written
compact by which they constituted themselves “a civil body politic,”
bound “to frame just and equal laws.” And there was the Slave-Ship,
with its fetters, its chains, its bludgeons, and its whips,--with its
wretched victims, forerunners of the long agony of the Slave-Trade, and
with its wretched tyrants, rude, ignorant, profane,

“who had learned their only prayers
From curses,”

carrying in their hold that barbarous Slavery, _whose single object
is to compel labor without wages_, which no “just and equal laws” can
sanction. Thus in the same year began two mighty influences; and these
two influences still prevail far and wide throughout the country. But
they have met at last in final grapple, and we are partakers in the
holy conflict. The question is simply between the Mayflower and the
Slave-Ship,--which of the two to choose?

True to her origin, Massachusetts began at once that noble system
of Common Schools which continues her “peculiar institution,” while
a College was founded at Cambridge which has grown to be a light
throughout the land. Thus together began Common Schools and the
College, and together they have flourished always. Said one of her
early teachers, in most affecting words,--“After God had carried
us safe to New England, and we had builded our houses, provided
necessaries for our livelihood, reared convenient places for God’s
worship, and settled the civil government, one of the next things we
longed for and looked after was to advance learning and perpetuate it
to posterity, dreading to leave an illiterate ministry to the churches
when our present ministers shall lie in the dust.”[2] In this spirit
it was ordered by the General Court, as early as 1642, “That in every
town the chosen men appointed for managing the prudential affairs of
the same … shall have power to take account from time to time of all
parents and masters, and of their children, concerning their calling
and employment of their children, especially of their ability to read
and understand the principles of religion and the capital laws of this
country.”[3] This was followed only a few years later, in 1647, by that
famous law which ordered, “That every township in this jurisdiction,
after the Lord hath increased them to the number of fifty householders,
shall then forthwith appoint one within their town to teach all such
children as shall resort to him to write and read,” and “that, where
any town shall increase to the number of one hundred families or
householders, they shall set up a grammar school, the master thereof
being able to instruct youth so far as they may be fitted for the
University”; and this law, in its preamble, assigned as its object the
counteraction of “one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep
men from the knowledge of the Scriptures,” and also “that learning
may not be buried in the grave of our fathers in the Church and
Commonwealth.”[4] To nothing in her history can Massachusetts look with
more pride than to this commanding example, which, wherever followed,
must open wide the gates of human improvement.

Again, mindful that printing is the indispensable minister of good
learning, they established a printing-press without delay. This was
at Cambridge, as early as 1639, and the first thing printed was “The
Freeman’s Oath.”

Meanwhile the Slave-Ship continued its voyages and discharged its
baleful cargoes. Virginia became a Slave State and the natural
consequences of Slavery ensued. Of course the Common School was
unknown; for, where Slavery rules, the schoolmaster is shut out. One of
her Governors, Sir William Berkeley, said in 1671, “I thank God there
are no free schools nor printing, and I hope we shall not have these
hundred years; for learning has brought disobedience and heresy and
sects into the world, and printing has divulged them and libels against
the best government. God keep us from both!”[5] These remarkable words,
which embodied the political philosophy of Slavery, were in an official
reply to interrogatories propounded from England.

Thus early was the contrast manifest, which has increased ever since.
The evidence is unimpeachable, whether we consult the faithful
historian who tells us that early in the last century Boston alone
contained five printing-offices and many booksellers, while there was
not a single bookseller in Virginia, Maryland, or Carolina,[6]--or
consult the various statistics of the census in our day, where figures
speak with most persuasive power for the Mayflower against the
Slave-Ship.

While Massachusetts thus founded the School and the Printing-Press,
what was her course on Slavery? Alas! not all that we could wish, but
still enough to make her an example. Unhappily, Slavery, although
in much mitigated form, came to be recognized here. But it never
flourished, and it was from the beginning surrounded with impediments
to increase. To our glory let it be known that no person could be
born a slave on our soil. This odious yoke was not transmissible in
the blood. It ended with life, and did not visit itself upon the
children of the slave-mother.[7] It appears also that the slave could
take and hold property,[8]--which no American slave can now do. He
could also testify in courts of justice, like a white man,--which
no American slave, nor colored person in a Slave State, can now do.
A slave, called “Andrew, Mr. Oliver Wendell’s negro,” also “Newtown
Prince, a free negro,” and “Cato, a negro man,” were witnesses in the
proceedings against the British soldiers for what is known as the
Boston Massacre.[9] And still further, there were times when the negro,
whether bond or free, was enlisted in the militia, and “enjoined to
attend trainings as well as the English.”[10] Indeed, as early as 1643,
on the muster-roll of Plymouth is the name of “Abraham Pearse, the
blackamore.”[11] Thus, though Slavery had a certain recognition, it did
not give its unjust law to the body politic and to the social life of
Massachusetts.

It was natural, therefore, that her General Court should bear witness
against “man-stealing.” This it did as far back as 1646, in formal act
worthy of perpetual memory. A Boston ship had brought home two negroes
kidnapped on the coast of Guinea. Thus spoke the Massachusetts of that
day:--

“The General Court, conceiving themselves bound by the first
opportunity to bear witness against the heinous and crying sin
of man-stealing, as also to prescribe such timely redress for
what is past _and such a law for the future as may sufficiently
deter all others belonging to us to have to do in such vile and
most odious courses, justly abhorred of all good and just men_,
do order that the negro interpreter, with others unlawfully
taken, be, by the first opportunity, at the charge of the
country for present, sent to his native country of Guinea, and
a letter with him of the indignation of the Court thereabouts,
and justice thereof.”[12]

Mark the energy of this language. Here is an example, more than
a century before Clarkson or Wilberforce, which blasts with just
indignation the horrid crime still skulking beneath our national flag.
The government that could issue this decree was inconsistent with
itself, when it allowed a single person bearing the upright form of man
to be held a slave, even for life, anywhere within its jurisdiction.

Slavery flees before the schoolmaster. As early as 1701, its injustice
was formally declared by the town of Boston, whose Records contain the
following vote, proper for adoption at this day: “The Representatives
are desired to promote the encouraging the bringing of white servants,
_and to put a period to negroes being slaves_.”[13] By this official
corporate act, first of the kind in history, Boston stands foremost in
the warfare with Slavery. Let her be proud of this post. Her wealth may
depart, her warehouses may crumble, her ships may cease to cleave the
seas with their keels, and her writers, too, may lose their charm; but
this early record of justice and humanity will endure in never-failing
brightness.

Other official acts followed. In 1705 a heavy duty was imposed upon
every negro imported into Massachusetts. In 1712 the importation of
Indians as servants or slaves was strictly forbidden. But the small
number of slaves, and the mildness with which their condition was
tempered, or, perhaps, a still immature public opinion, postponed
definitive action on this great question until our controversy with
the mother country, when the rights of the blacks were blended by all
true patriots with the rights of the whites. James Otis, in pleading
for the Colonies, denounced Slavery of all kinds, while Samuel Adams,
on learning from his wife that she had received the gift of a female
slave, exclaimed at once, “A slave cannot live in my house; if she
comes, she must be free”: she came, and was free.[14] Sparing all
unnecessary details, suffice it to say, that, as early as 1769, the
Superior Court of Massachusetts, anticipating the renowned judgment in
Somerset’s case, established the principle of Emancipation, and under
its touch of benign power changed a chattel into a man. In the same
spirit voluntary manumissions took place,--as by Jonathan Jackson, of
Newburyport, who, in a deed, which may be found in the Probate Records
of the County of Suffolk, declared that it was “in consideration of
the impropriety long felt in holding any person in constant bondage,
more especially at a time when his country is so warmly contending
for the liberty every man ought to enjoy.”[15] At last, in 1780, even
before the triumph of Yorktown had assured that peace which set its
seal upon National Independence, Massachusetts, enlightened by her
common schools, filled with the sentiment of Freedom, and guided by
Revolutionary patriots, placed in front of her Declaration of Rights
the emphatic words, “All men are born free and equal,” and by this
solemn testimony, enforced by her courts, made Slavery impossible
within her borders. From that time it ceased to exist, so that the
first census after the adoption of the National Constitution, in
the enumeration of slaves, contains a blank against the name of
Massachusetts; and this is the only State having this honor. Thus of
old did Massachusetts lead the way.

If all this be good for Massachusetts, if she has wisely rejected
Slavery, then is it her duty to do for others within the reach of
her influence what she has done for herself. And here her sons have
not always been remiss. Follow her history, and you find that on the
national field they have stood forth for the good cause. In 1785, one
of her Representatives in the Continental Congress, the eminent Rufus
King, moved the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories of the United
States; and in 1787, Nathan Dane, another of her Representatives,
reported the Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest Territory,
containing this same prohibition. At a later day, when the Missouri
Compromise was under discussion, that same son of Massachusetts,
Rufus King, whose home was transferred to New York, showed himself
inflexible against compromise with Slavery, and in the Senate of the
United States, with all his weight of years, character, and ability,
led the effort to restrict it. John Quincy Adams, another son of
Massachusetts, was at the time Secretary of State, and he enrolled
himself on the same side. Afterwards, when the discussion of Slavery
was renewed in Congress, this same champion, then a Representative
from Massachusetts, entered the lists for Freedom, and in his old age,
having been President, achieved a second fame. Slavery, now exalted by
its partisans as beneficent and just, he exposed in its enormity; the
knot of Slave-Masters who had domineered over the country he denounced
with withering scorn; while he vindicated the right of petition,
which Slave-Masters assailed, and upheld the primal truths of the
Declaration of Independence, which Slave-Masters audaciously denied.
Thus constantly spoke Massachusetts, and in her voice was the voice of
the Mayflower against the Slave-Ship.

Plainly there is a common bond between the charities, so that one
draws others in its train. And the grand charity for which we to-day
bless our Commonwealth is only one of many by which she is already
illustrious. Goodness grows by activity, and the moral and intellectual
character which inspired Massachusetts to do what she has done for
Freedom makes her active, wherever the suffering are to be relieved,
wherever the ignorant are to be taught, or wherever the lowly are to be
elevated, and enables her, though small in extent and churlish in soil,
to exert a wide-spread power. This character has given her that name
on earth which is a source of pride to her children. Strike out from
her life all that is due to this influence, and how great the blank in
her history! I do not say that her children would disown her; but they
would hardly rise up to call her blessed, as they now do.

It is our duty to keep Massachusetts in her present commanding
position,--true to herself in all respects,--true to that Spirit of
Liberty in which she had her origin,--true to the “just and equal
laws” promised in the Mayflower,--true to her early and long-continued
efforts against Slavery,--true to the declaration in her own Bill
of Rights by which Slavery was abolished within her borders,--true
to the examples of her illustrious representatives, Rufus King,
Nathan Dane, and John Quincy Adams,--and, lastly, true to that moral
and intellectual character which has made her the home of generous
charities, the nurse of true learning, and the land of churches. This
is our duty. And permit me to say, that this can be done now only by
earnest, steadfast effort to arrest the power of Slavery, overshadowing
the whole country, and menacing boundless regions with its malign
influence. And this is the very purpose of the Republican party.

* * * * *

Against the Republican party are arrayed three factions, differing
in name, differing superficially in professions, but all concurring
in hostility to the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, and
therefore all three Proslavery. As the Republican party represents
the Mayflower, so do these three factions, whether fused or apart,
represent the original Slave-Ship,--and you, fellow-citizens, are here
to choose between them.

In this contest we appeal to all good citizens. We appeal alike to the
Conservative and to the Reformer; for our reasonable and most moderate
purpose commends itself alike to both. To the Conservative it says,
“Join us to preserve the work of our fathers, and to maintain the
time-honored policy of Massachusetts.” To the Reformer it says, “Join
us to improve the human family, to support free labor, and to save the
Territories from that deplorable condition where ‘one man ruleth over
another to his own hurt,’ and human character suffers as much from
the arrogance of the master as from the abasement of the slave,--a
condition which is founded on nothing else but force,--

‘the simple plan,
That they should take who have the power,
And they should keep who can.’”[16]

Our course is commended also by our candidates. Of Mr. Lincoln and
Mr. Hamlin I have already elsewhere spoken, and know that in this
presence it is needless to speak of Mr. Andrew. You all anticipate his
praise before it can be uttered. Of unquestioned abilities, extensive
attainments, and rare aptitude for affairs, his integrity has already
passed into a proverb, and his broad sympathies cause us to forget the
lawyer in the man. Nobody questions his intelligence, or the happy
faculties which make him at home in all that he attempts. But it is
sometimes complained that he has a “heart,” as if this were dangerous
in a Massachusetts Governor; and fears are excited because he is
“honest,” as if such a character could not be trusted. Thank God,
he has a heart, and is an honest man. In these respects, and in his
well-matured convictions, always expressed with honorable frankness,
he embodies the historic idea of Massachusetts, and treads in the
footsteps of the Fathers.

Fellow-citizens, if I have dwelt exclusively on our duties as citizens
of Massachusetts, it is because I seek to impress these especially
upon your minds. On other occasions I have treated other parts of the
argument; but to-day my hope is to make you feel that you cannot turn
from the Republican party without turning also from those principles by
which Massachusetts has won her place in history, and without turning
from the Mayflower, and its promise of “just and equal laws,” to embark
on that dismal Slave-Ship which in the same year first let loose upon
our country all the cruel wrongs and woes of Human Bondage.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF SCHOOLS FOR STATUE OF HORACE MANN.

LETTER TO THE AGENT FOR RECEIVING CONTRIBUTIONS, SEPTEMBER 19, 1860.

BOSTON, September 19, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR,--Surely the statue of Horace Mann ought to be made,
and you are right in appealing for contributions to those who
have been especially benefited by his noble labors. When I think
of their extent and variety, embracing every question of human
improvement, I feel that there are none to whom this appeal may
not be confidently addressed.

I know nothing more appropriate or touching than the
contributions you are gathering from the schools. It is true that
there is no school in Massachusetts which has not been improved
by his labors, and therefore no pupil or teacher who is not his
debtor. But it is pleasant to feel that this debt is recognized.

I doubt not that every child who gives his “mite” will be happy
hereafter in the thought, especially when he looks at the statue
in the public grounds of the Commonwealth. He will of course
have new interest in the man, and therefore a new and quickening
example of excellence, which may send its influence through life.
The teacher, besides sharing these feelings with the pupil, must
look with grateful pride upon a tribute which, so long as it
endures, will proclaim the dignity of his profession.

The engraving of Mr. Mann is faithful and agreeable. I hope it
may be in every school, so that children may early learn the
countenance of their benefactor.

Believe me, dear Sir, with my best wishes,

Very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

CHARLES A. PERRY, Esq.

REMINISCENCE OF THE LATE THEODORE PARKER.

REMARKS AT THE ANNUAL OPENING OF THE FRATERNITY LECTURES OF BOSTON,
OCTOBER 1, 1860.

Mr. Sumner delivered the opening address for the season in
the “Fraternity” Lectures, established by the Society bearing
that name, of which Theodore Parker was the much-loved pastor.
Before proceeding with his address he made a brief allusion
to the great preacher and reformer. This was in the Tremont
Temple. According to a newspaper of the time, “the immense
hall was crowded in every part; not only were all the seats
occupied, but also all available standing-room.” “Mr. Sumner
spoke two hours and five minutes, and commanded the entire
attention of the audience to the close,” and “was frequently
interrupted by the most enthusiastic applause.”

The address of the evening, on Lafayette, was again delivered
a few weeks later in New York, and will be found in this
collection at that date. The introductory words are given here.

FELLOW-CITIZENS, LADIES, AND GENTLEMEN:--

In opening this course of lectures, devoted to Human Improvement, I
cannot forget that noble spirit, especially dear to many of you as
pastor, whom we had hoped to welcome at this time in restored health,
instead of mourning dead in a distant land. I knew him well, and never
came within his influence without confessing his many-sided powers,
his marvellous acquirements, his rare eloquence, his soul touched
to so many generous sympathies, and his heart beating warm for his
fellow-men. To the cause of Human Improvement, in every form, his life
was given. For this he labored; for this he died.

It was my fortune to see him during several days in Paris, some time
after he parted from you. He had recently arrived from the West Indies.
I feel that I cannot err in offering a slight reminiscence of that
meeting. I found him the same in purpose and aspiration as I had always
known him,--earnest, thoughtful, and intent on all that helped the good
of man, with the same completeness of intelligence, and the same large,
loving heart. We visited together ancient by-ways and historic scenes
of that wonderful metropolis, which no person was more forward to
appreciate and to enjoy; but, turning from these fascinating objects,
his conversation took the wings of the morning, and, traversing the
Atlantic, rested on our own country, on friends at home, on his
relations to his parishioners, on his unfinished labors, and on that
great cause of Liberty, which contains all other causes, as the greater
contains the less; for where Liberty is not, what is man, whether
slave or master? Observing him carefully, with the fellow-feeling of a
convalescent, I was glad and surprised to find in him so many signs of
health. At that time he was stronger than I was; but he has been taken,
and I am spared. Indeed, it was only in the husky whisper of his voice
that he seemed weak. I envied him much his active step and his power
to walk. But he had measured his forces, and calmly revealed to me his
doubt whether he should live to see home again. If this were permitted,
he did not expect to resume his old activities, but thought that in
some quiet retreat, away from paved streets, surrounded by books, he
might perhaps have strength to continue some of his labors, to bind up
some of his sheaves, and occasionally to speak with his pen. But it was
ordered otherwise. Not even this moderate anticipation was gratified.
The fatal disease had fastened too surely upon him, and was slowly
mastering all resistance. The devotion of friends, travel, change of
scene, the charms of Switzerland, the classic breath of Italy, all were
in vain. It was his wish that he should be buried where he fell, and
this child of New England, the well-ripened product of her peculiar
life, now sleeps in Tuscan earth, on the banks of the Arno, near the
sepulchres of Michel Angelo and Galileo. But I know not if even this
exalted association can make us content to renounce the pious privilege
of laying him in one of our own tombs, among the people that he loved
so well.

Pardon me for thus renewing your grief. But I felt that I could not
address you on any other subject until I had mingled my feelings with
yours, and our hearts had met in sympathy for our great bereavement.

THREAT OF DISUNION BY THE SLAVE STATES, AND ITS ABSURDITY.

SPEECH AT A MASS MEETING OF REPUBLICANS, IN THE OPEN AIR, AT
FRAMINGHAM, MASSACHUSETTS, OCTOBER 11, 1860.

A Mass Meeting of Republicans was held in Harmony Grove at
Framingham, October 11, 1860, with the following officers.

President,--Hon. Charles R. Train of Framingham.

Vice-Presidents,--A. C. Mayhew of Milford, Milo Hildreth of
Northborough, Charles Devens of Worcester, Samuel M. Griggs
of Westborough, William F. Ellis of Ashland, Alden Leland
of Holliston, John O. Wilson of Natick, Hollis Loring of
Marlborough, James Moore of Sudbury, J. N. Bacon of Newton,
Amory Holman of Bolton, S. D. Davenport of Hopkinton, George
W. Maynard of Berlin, B. W. Gleason of Stowe, J. D. Wheeler
of Grafton, Charles Campbell of Wayland, Sullivan Fay of
Southborough, Albert Ballard of Framingham.

Secretaries,--Thomas W. Fox of Worcester, Nelson Bartholomew
of Oxford, A. B. Underwood of Newton, and Theodore C. Hurd of
Framingham.

The meeting was addressed, among others, by Hon. John P. Hale,
Hon. Henry Wilson, and John A. Andrew, Esq., the Republican
candidate for Governor. The report at the time says:--

“While Mr. Wilson was speaking, Hon. Charles Sumner arrived
upon the ground, and, on stepping upon the platform, was
greeted with great applause. At the close of the speech
of Mr. Wilson, the President presented Mr. Sumner, who
was received with nine hearty cheers. After silence was
obtained, Mr. Sumner addressed the meeting.”

This speech was quoted as the Framingham Speech by M.
Cochin, the philanthropic Frenchman, in his important work,
_L’Abolition de l’Esclavage_.[17]

FELLOW-CITIZENS,--The German Siebold begins his great treatise on the
“Anatomy of the Invertebrates” with this general remark:--

“The _Invertebrate_ animals are organized after various types,
the limits of which are not always clearly defined. There is,
therefore, a greater number of classes among them than among
the _Vertebrates_.”

In this remark of the illustrious naturalist I find an explanation
of the number of parties now arrayed against us. On one side is the
Republican party, openly declaring its principles, and looking with
confidence to the Future. Threats of disunion, and menaces of violence,
in constant cry, do not disturb it. Such a party may properly be called
the _Backbone party_, or, adopting the phraseology of the German
naturalist, the party of the _Vertebrates_.

But against the Republican party here in Massachusetts are three
parties, or factions rather, which cannot be precisely named except
from their candidates. Differing from each other superficially,
they all concur in practical support of Slavery. At this moment,
when the propagandists of Slavery insist upon its extension into
the Territories, all these three factions lend themselves actively
or passively to this work, and thus become practically Proslavery.
Unwilling here in Massachusetts openly to advocate a wrong so
unmistakable as Slavery, they find excuse in alleged danger to the
Union, and bend before the threats and menaces of Slave-Masters. Not
in the name of Freedom, which is really in danger, but in the name of
the Union, which is only threatened, do they all three rally against
the Republican party. In their flexibility to threats and menaces, they
show a want of that backbone which characterizes the Republican party.
In short, though differing from each other, they all take their place
among _Invertebrates_, which, according to the naturalist, are of more
various types than _Vertebrates_.

There is the Bell faction, the Breckinridge faction, and the Douglas
faction, all three _Invertebrates_, declaring that the Union is in
danger, and asking your votes in order to save it. That is, they ask
you to abandon cherished convictions, and to allow Slavery, with all
its Barbarism, to enter the outlying Territories of the Republic,
simply because certain Slave-Masters threaten disunion. Instead of
opposing the treason which is threatened, Freedom-loving voters of the
North are summoned to surrender. Instead of scorning the violence which
is menaced, we are asked to cringe before it. I ask you if this is not
the special point of every appeal by any speaker representing either of
these factions? No man so audacious here in Massachusetts as to argue
for Slavery openly. He knows that his argument would be scouted. It is
therefore by appeal for the Union that people are deluded. In this way
the weak are cajoled, the timeserving are seduced, and the timid are
frightened; and people professing opposition to Slavery gravely come
forward as supporters of these Proslavery factions.

* * * * *

The unknown is apt to be exaggerated; so that, if these threats of
disunion were now heard for the first time, we might, perhaps, pardon
men who yield to their influence. But since this is not the first time
such cries are heard,--since, indeed, they have been long sounding in
our ears, so that their exact value is perfectly understood from the
very beginning,--there seems no longer excuse or apology for hearkening
to them. They are to be treated as threats, and nothing more. Look at
them from the outset, and you will see their constant recurrence as
weapons of political warfare.

* * * * *

Even while the Constitution was under discussion in the National
Convention, the threats began. Georgia and South Carolina announced
that they would not come into the Union, unless the African
Slave-Trade, so dear in their sight, was allowed for twenty years under
the Constitution; and the North ignominiously yielded this barbarous
privilege, thus consenting to piracy. The cry from these States was
then, “We will not come in.” Ever since it has been, “We will not stay
in.”

One of the earliest and most characteristic outcries was on the
ratification of Jay’s Treaty in 1795. This famous treaty, negotiated by
John Jay, at that time Chief Justice of the United States, under the
instructions of Washington, provided for the surrender of the Western
posts by Great Britain, and indemnity to our merchants for spoliations
on their commerce, and also the adjustment of claims of British
merchants upon our citizens. In the opposition which it encountered we
meet the following threat of disunion in Virginia, published in Davis’s
Gazette, at Richmond.

“Notice is hereby given, that, in case the treaty entered
into by that d--d arch-traitor, J--n J--y, with the British
tyrant should be ratified, a petition will be presented to the
General Assembly of Virginia, at their next session, praying
that the said State may _recede_ [such was the word in that
early day] from the Union, and be left under the government
and protection of one hundred thousand free and independent
Virginians.

“P. S.--As it is the wish of the people of the said State to
enter into a treaty of amity and commerce and navigation with
any other State or States of the present Union who are averse
to returning again under the galling yoke of Great Britain, the
printers of the (at present) United States are requested to
publish the above notification.”[18]

Thus early was this menace tried. But the treaty was ratified.

The menace was employed with more effect to secure the adoption of the
Missouri Compromise. This was in 1820. Missouri applied for admission
into the Union as a Slaveholding State. Her admission was opposed by
the North on the declared ground that it was not right to give any such
sanction to Slavery. Thus the whole Slave Question was opened; and it
was discussed with much thoroughness and ability, under the lead of
Rufus King, once an eminent representative of Massachusetts, but at
that time a venerable Senator from New York. Overthrown in argument,
the Slave-Masters resorted to threats of disunion. The Union was
pronounced in danger, and under this cry a compromise, first suggested
in the House by Louis McLane, a Representative from Delaware, and in
the Senate by William Pinkney, a Senator from Maryland, was adopted,
by virtue of which Missouri was admitted as a Slave State, while
Slavery was prohibited in the remaining territory north of 36° 30´, at
that time trodden only by Indians. The special operative gain to the
Slave-Masters was the admission of Missouri as a Slave State, with two
new slaveholding Senators to confirm their predominance in the Senate;
and this was notoriously secured under threats of disunion, by which
weak men at the North were intimidated.

A record at the time by the late Mr. Justice Story, who was then at
Washington, shows the temper especially of Virginia. Writing to a
friend at home, he says:--

“Mr. Randolph, in the House of Representatives, made a furious
attack upon all who advocated the Compromise. He said: ‘The
land is _ours_ [meaning Virginia’s], and we will have it, and
hold it, and use it as we [Virginians] please.’ He abused all
the Eastern States in the most bitter style, and intimated in
the most direct manner that he would have nothing to do with
them. ‘We,’ said he, ‘will not cut and deal with them, but will
put our hands upon our pockets and have nothing to do in this
game with them.’ His speech was a very severe philippic, and
contained a great many offensive allusions. _It let out the
great secrets of Virginia, and blabbed that policy by which
she has hitherto bullied us, and led us, and wheedled us, and
governed us._ You would not have supposed that there was a
State in the Union entitled to any confidence or character,
except Virginia.”[19]

Such is the testimony of a tranquil observer, friend and associate
of that illustrious Virginian, John Marshall, who witnessed this
manifestation of the bullying spirit, and judged it.

Ten years passed, from 1820 to 1830, and the cry was raised again.
It was now on the allegation of injustice in our Tariff. Here South
Carolina took the lead, and openly threatened Nullification,--in the
face of the arguments of Daniel Webster and the proclamations of Andrew
Jackson. A modification of the tariff became necessary before this cry
of “wolf” ceased. General Jackson, in a private letter written at the
time, and now in the possession of our candidate, Mr. Andrew, predicts
that “the Negro Question” will be the next occasion for it;[20] and he
was right.

The subject of Slavery came up in Congress on petitions as early as
1835, and then commenced the great career of John Quincy Adams, as
champion of Freedom, eclipsing even all his glories as diplomatist
and President. At the presentation of petitions by this illustrious
statesman, the old threats were revived; and falling before them, the
Right of Petition itself was sacrificed. You all remember the depth of
this humiliation.

This was followed by still another, on the introduction of the Wilmot
Proviso, which was simply a proposition to prohibit Slavery in the
Territories. The same threats broke forth with increased violence.
Citizens at the North, while avowing hostility to Slavery, professed
to be alarmed for the Union. Again they bowed, and in 1850 assisted
in those Acts of Compromise, by which the Territories of Utah and New
Mexico were left open to Slavery, and a Fugitive Slave Bill was passed,
outraging alike every principle of Constitutional Liberty and every
sentiment of Humanity. Here was surrender to this cry.

The menace of disunion at the South became chronic. Not a day passed
that it was not uttered. At length, in 1856, John C. Fremont was
nominated as candidate for the Presidency by the Republican party. As
his election seemed at hand, we were again encountered by the same
old threats. We were told, that, even if elected according to the
forms of the Constitution, the Slave-Masters would not allow him to
be inaugurated, and people at the North were summoned ignominiously
to vote against him for the safety of the Union; and they surrendered
to the call. Without this, John C. Fremont would have been chosen
President. Thus again did the old menace prevail; and the chronic cry
still continued, showing itself on the election of a Speaker, and
then on the approval of Mr. Helper’s book by sixty-seven Members of
Congress.[21]

And now Abraham Lincoln is the candidate, instead of John C. Fremont.
Again the threats are renewed with increased animosity, and you are
asked to vote against a statesman of marked abilities and blameless
character, representing the early sentiments of the Fathers, simply
because Slave-Masters menace disunion in the event of his election.
Bending with _invertebrate_ backs before these threats, you are called
to surrender your principles, your votes, and your souls.

* * * * *

Thus seven times, at seven different stages in our history, since the
adoption of the Constitution, has this menace of disunion been made to
play its part. Whatever it might have been at first, it is now nothing
more than “second childishness and mere oblivion, _sans_ everything.”
There is nothing in it which should not be treated with indignant
contempt, certainly when employed here in Massachusetts to make us
sacrifice our principles.

Absurd on the face, its absurdity is fully appreciated only when we
consider its impotence as a remedy for the alleged grievances of the
Slave States. They complain that fugitive slaves are not faithfully
surrendered,--or, in other words, that some score or two of human
beings, following the North Star, with the assistance of Northern men,
succeed in securing their freedom. But disunion surely would be a poor
remedy for this intolerable grievance; for it would leave them without
even their present protection in this respect, without a Fugitive Slave
Bill, or any constitutional safeguard, so that all fugitives, just so
soon as they crossed the frontiers of the Slave States, would become
free,--precisely as if Canada, with its British welcome to slaves, were
carried down to the borders of Virginia and Maryland. If slaves escape
now, what would they do then? If such things are done in the green
tree, what would be done in the dry? Surely, in this case, it were
better to

“bear the ills they have
Than fly to others that they know not of.”

The other grievance is of the same character. The Slave-Masters
complain, that, by the prohibition of Slavery in the Territories, they
are deprived of the opportunity of new Slave States through which their
predominance in the Senate may be continued. But, pray, what remedy for
this loss can be found in disunion? Surely they cannot add to their
present political strength by renouncing securities and dignities which
they now enjoy in the national copartnership. It is true, that, while
in the Union, they may be voted down on matters within the national
jurisdiction and outside of the States; but they may nevertheless exert
an influence, which on their withdrawal must be entirely renounced.

Such are the two grievances which are to justify disunion; and pardon
me, if I venture to illustrate the irrational character of this remedy
by an incident of scientific interest. The monkey in the _Jardin des
Plantes_ at Paris was found biting the rope by which he was suspended
from the roof. “See,” said the learned professor, “that monkey shows
the difference between brutes and men. He sees what he is doing, but
does not see the consequence,--that down he will fall.” And the Slave
States also bite the rope by which they are suspended, and, like the
unreasoning brute, see not the consequence.

Yet more apparent is the absurdity of this threat, when we consider how
it is to be accomplished. If the Slave States were solemnly unanimous
at home, the cry might have a certain force. But it is well known
that they are not unanimous. Whatever the threats of disorganizing
extremists, the large mass of people even in the Slave States do not
desire disunion. They keep aloof now from such threats, and openly
declare their purpose to put down the traitors without assistance from
the North; and this I cannot doubt would be done. Such men as Cassius
M. Clay and the Blairs would find a field for their energies, and they
would see at their side people who have not hitherto acted with them
gladly forgetting past differences for the sake of a common cause. Here
are emphatic words, just uttered by a speaker at the South, in reply to
Mr. Yancey, which show that any such attempt would fare badly, even at
home:--

“I am one of a numerous party at the South, who will, if even
Lincoln shall be elected under the forms of our Constitution
and by the authority of law, without committing any other
offence than being elected, force the vile disunionists and
secessionists of the South to pass over our dead bodies in
their march to Washington to break up this government.”

But the absurdity of this threat glares upon us still more, when we
reflect on the unhappy condition in which disunion would leave the
seceding Slave States. Antiquity, by numerous instances, declares
the danger from slaves, and history is continually verifying this
truth. Even now, while I speak, we hear of insurrection at Norfolk, in
Virginia, carrying with it wide-spread alarm, and the necessity for
most especial vigilance. But in the event of disunion this condition
would become permanent, so that life, if not a tragedy, would be a
penance long drawn out. The whole region cursed with Slavery would be
dotted over with fortifications and military posts; communities would
be changed into camps carefully guarded against surprise; life would
be as in Turkey or Tartary; and every Slave-Master would sleep with
all the precautions of a highwayman fearing arrest, or of the mad
prince, Don Carlos of Spain, who had two naked swords and two loaded
pistols under his bed, and two arquebuses with powder and balls in his
closet. The mother, as she heard the fire-bell at midnight, would
clasp her infant to her breast, fearful that at last the long hoarded
resentments of the slave would be vindictively indulged. Even the
soil, now so productive, would refuse its increase; for Nature herself
would cease to smile amidst the alarms of servile war. Thus cruelly
harassed and impoverished at home, the Slave States could find little
comfort abroad. For a brief moment they might brave the scorn and
contempt poured upon them; but they must fail to have the sensibilities
of men, or they would at last shrink before the finger-point of the
civilized world. The house of Lycaon, the cruel king of early Greece,
was destroyed by the thunder of Jove, and the miserable monarch changed
to a wolf. Such would be the doom of a State which set at defiance
the laws of Humanity. It would have a _wolf’s head_, and all would be
against it.

The States which especially threaten secession are on the Mexican
Gulf, and they have become known already as “The Gulf Squadron.” Not
yet wolves, they are now ships. Let them sail, with the black flag at
the mast-head. I know not how the tale would end, but I know well that
Slavery could not gain. Their dismal fate is, perhaps, prefigured in
that of the slaver loaded down with its human cargo, where the crew
were all struck with ophthalmia, and in this condition of blindness,
while vainly striving to navigate the vessel, and weltering on the sea,
were at last picked up by a charitable cruiser and carried into port.
Or perhaps it is prefigured in that of the famous craft known in story
as “The Flying Dutchman,” which, darkened by piracy and murder, was
doomed to perpetual cruise, unable to enter a port:--

“Faint and despairing on their watery bier,
To every friendly shore the sailors steer;
Repelled, from port to port they sue in vain,
And track with slow, unsteady sail the main.…
Unblest of God and man! Till time shall end,
Its view strange horror to the storm shall lend.”[22]

Such is Disunion, in the history of its threats,--also in the reasons
now alleged for it, the difficulties in its way, and its dismal
consequences. But in all these aspects, from the beginning, we find but
one supreme absurdity. It is the same, whether we ask Why? How? or What?

* * * * *

And yet you and I here in Massachusetts are summoned, under threats
of disunion, to withdraw opposition to the extension of Slavery, and
in token thereof to vote for Bell, or Breckinridge, or Douglas. I can
do no such thing; nor do I see how any Northern man, with a head on
his shoulders, or a heart in his bosom, or a backbone in his body,
can do any such thing. Nor must fealty to the Union be measured by
loud-mouthed profession. Not Cordelia, loving her father, in all
simplicity, “according to her bond,” but the sisters Goneril and Regan,
so fervent in professions, sacrificed him. And I do not hesitate to
declare that the Republican party is the only true Union party. In the
first place, it is the only party which is not connected in some way,
by association, affiliation, communion, or sympathy, with disunionists;
and, in the second place, it is the only party which seeks the
establishment of those national principles of Freedom on which the
Union was originally founded, and without which it cannot exist in
security or honor.

As it is the only Union party, so the Republican party is the
only Constitutional party. It is the only party which takes the
Constitution unreservedly as guide, according to the spirit in which
it was made, and the light of its Preamble,--rejecting the Proslavery
interpretations adopted by the Bell faction, the Breckinridge faction,
and the Douglas faction, all of which, in whatever form, are abhorrent
to the spirit of the Constitution and the very words of its Preamble.
In that Preamble it is declared that the Constitution is made to
“establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the
common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Mark these important
words. It is to establish justice: but Slavery is injustice. It is to
insure domestic tranquillity: but Slavery insures domestic discord and
insurrection. It is to provide for the common defence: but Slavery
causes common weakness. It is to promote the general welfare: but
Slavery perils the general welfare. Finally, it is to secure the
blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our posterity: but Slavery
sacrifices these blessings. Such is the Preamble, which is the key to
the Constitution. The Republican party alone adopts its principles, as
it alone adopts most honestly and sincerely the often declared opinions
of its founders. Therefore it is the only Constitutional party.

For the Union and the Constitution, the Republican party is also the
only party which maintains the great principles of Human Freedom. Thus
in every respect is it commended to your support. The man who asks
you here in Massachusetts to vote against it is either very weak, and
believes in his own bad reasoning, or very artful, and laughs in his
sleeve at your credulity, or very spiteful, and allows all things, even
his principles and his country, to be lost in the gratification of a
vindictive temper. Look at your opponents here, and you will find that
weakness, duplicity, and spite are the three main springs to their
conduct. This is a severe analysis, but I think the facts support the
assertion.

Frankness is not a virtue of our opponents, else we should have
this issue between us more fairly stated. But you will not be
deceived. You will see, that, amidst all disguises and subterfuges,
the great question perpetually recurs: Are you for Freedom, or are
you for Slavery? On this single question you are to vote; and no
cry of “Disunion” can change the issue. Are you for Freedom in the
Territories? Are you for a National Government administered in the
spirit of the Fathers? Are you for the prostration of the Slave
Oligarchy which now rules the country? Vain is the attempt to interpose
other questions, even that of the Union itself; and vain is the attempt
to separate the combatants. The ancient armies of Rome and Carthage
fought on, unconscious of an earthquake which upheaved mountains,
toppled down cities, and turned the course of rivers. But the animosity
between Freedom and Slavery is not less implacable and self-forgetful.
It can end only with the triumph of Freedom.

Freedom, which is the breath of God, is a great leveller; but it raises
where it levels. Slavery, which is the breath of Satan, is also a great
leveller; but it degrades everything, carrying with it master as well
as slave. Choose ye between them; and remember that your first duty
is to stand up straight, and not bend before absurd threats, whether
uttered at the South or repeated here in Massachusetts. Let people
cry, “Disunion.” We know what the cry means, and we answer back: The
Union shall be preserved, and made more precious by its consecration to
Freedom.

NO POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY IN TERRITORIES CAN ESTABLISH SLAVERY.

SPEECH IN THE MECHANICS’ HALL, WORCESTER, NOVEMBER 1, 1860.

This speech was made on the eve of the Presidential election,
with the special purpose of sustaining Hon. Goldsmith F.
Bailey, the Republican candidate for Congress in the Worcester
District, against Hon. Eli Thayer, the previous Representative,
who, failing to obtain the Republican nomination, became an
Independent candidate. When it was known that Mr. Sumner had
accepted an invitation from the Republican Committee to speak
in the District, Mr. Thayer addressed him a letter, proposing
a public discussion together on an evening named. To this
challenge Mr. Sumner promptly replied in the following letter.

BOSTON, October 30, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR,--I make haste to acknowledge your favor of 29th
October, that I may not seem for a moment to fail in any courtesy
towards you.

I have been invited by the Republicans of Worcester to address
them in support of their candidate, and have not felt at liberty
to decline the invitation. But I should not like to take part in
any controversy with an Opposition candidate, even had I been
invited to do so.

Accept the good wishes which I sincerely cherish for your
personal welfare, and believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

HON. ELI THAYER.

Mr. Sumner, yielding with reluctance to the pressure upon him,
consented to speak on this occasion, solely with the desire of
striking a last blow at a political heresy which stood in the
way of establishing Freedom in the Territories, and of helping
to save an important District of Massachusetts from being
represented by one of its partisans. The speech is confined
exclusively to the dogma or device of Popular Sovereignty,
often called Squatter Sovereignty, in the Territories, which,
after playing a conspicuous part in other sections of the
country, at last found a supporter in Mr. Thayer, who gave
to it certain importance, inasmuch as he had already done
excellent service in organizing that Liberty-loving emigration
which contributed so powerfully to the salvation of Kansas.

Though local in its immediate influence, the speech completes
the series of efforts by which Mr. Sumner sought to fix the
power of Congress to prohibit Slavery in the Territories,
which was the great issue in the Presidential election. It is,
perhaps, the last speech made anywhere on this topic, which
unquestionably belongs to the history of the Slavery Question
in our country. At its delivery there was much enthusiasm. The
large hall was crowded for an hour before the meeting. Many
hundreds, some from a distance, were compelled to return home,
while others thronged the aisles and passage-ways. The effect
of the speech was attested at the time by the public press, and
also by correspondents. Mr. Bailey, the successful candidate,
wrote as follows, under date of Fitchburg, November 10, 1860.

“Our District was carried on high points. Our triumph is
one of principle. We were in danger at one time, and felt
the need of a strong, manly blow from an authoritative
source. You gave such a blow, and the result is, Mr. Thayer
has a plurality in but eight of the thirty-seven towns
comprising our District.

“The victory is not in any sense a personal one for
me. But, as a member of the Republican party, a lover
of the principles of personal liberty cherished by the
Fathers, and an enemy of human slavery in all forms and
_everywhere_, I must thank you from a full heart for the
great and timely aid you then rendered to the cause in this
District. Your reward, I know, is not in these thanks, but
it is a satisfaction to me to express them.”

Edwin Bynner, an energetic citizen of Worcester, who took a
leading part in the canvass, wrote, under date of November 10,
1860:--

“I cannot refrain from tendering to you personally my
heartfelt thanks for your masterly speech in Mechanics’
Hall, which, in my opinion, did more to avert our
threatened defeat than any other instrumentality employed.
In saying this, I would not for a moment disparage any
effort put forth by others; but, having devoted my whole
soul to the contest, having expended every effort of mind
and body, and believing that I _know_, as well, if not
better, than others engaged in the fight, to whom the
laurels really belong, I cannot repress avowal of the
conviction, that, but for your speech, the event would have
been at least doubtful. I am impelled to tender you my
warmest personal gratitude for efforts which others halted
and hesitated in making.”

To these local testimonies may be added the words of Hon. Henry
L. Dawes, who wrote, under date of North Adams, November 6,
1860:--

“I desire to thank you, in the name of the Constitution,
justice, and the cause, for your speech at Worcester. The
argument was complete and unanswerable.”

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF WORCESTER:--

On my way to this place, my attention was attracted by a banner,
flaunting over the highway, with these words: “TRUST THE PEOPLE.”
Nothing could be fairer or more seductive. In those simple words is
embodied a principle, long unknown, and to this day often denied, which
may be called the mainspring of Democratic institutions. Here is an
implied assertion of the right of the people to govern themselves.
And here also is an implied denial of all pretensions of Tyranny and
Oligarchy. Such a principle, properly understood in its simplicity and
just limitations, must find welcome in every Republican breast. Reading
it on the banner, I responded with joy: “‘Trust the People,’ and Might
will no longer make Right, Government everywhere will be founded upon
the consent of the governed, and Slavery will become impossible!”

Studying the banner further, I found written above this fair device the
names, “DOUGLAS AND JOHNSON.” And then I was saddened to see how here
in Massachusetts a great principle of human rights is degraded to be a
cover for the denial of all rights. Of course the principles of these
two candidates are understood. Mr. Douglas, with vulgar insensibility
to what is due to all who wear the human form, openly declares that
“at the North he is for the white man against the _nigger_, but that
further South he is for the _nigger_ against the alligator,”--and in
this spirit says, “Vote Slavery up or vote Slavery down”; and such
is the Popular Sovereignty which he proclaims. Mr. Johnson, who is
his associate, declares, in well-known words, that “Capital ought to
own Labor,”--that is, that mechanics, workmen, and farmers, in fine,
all who toil with hands, should be slaves; and this is the Popular
Sovereignty which he proclaims. Surely this Douglas and Johnson Popular
Sovereignty should rather be called Popular Tyranny. And here at the
outset you will observe a wide distinction. Sovereignty is properly
limited by _right_; Tyranny is without any limit except _force_. But
when presented under the captivating device of “Trust the people,” its
true character is concealed. It is the Devil radiant with the face of
an angel. It is an apple of Sodom, fair to the eye, but dust and ashes
to the touch.

* * * * *

There are few among us who avow themselves supporters of Douglas and
Johnson; or if they do, they have ceased to look for success in the
coming Presidential election, which seems to be practically decided
already. I should not be justified, therefore, in occupying your time
to-night in considering their cunning artifice, if it were represented
only by Douglas and Johnson, against whom you all stand ready to vote.
To argue against these candidates here in Massachusetts, and especially
in Worcester County, is as superfluous as to argue against King George
the Third, whose ideas of sovereignty were of the same tyrannical
class, yet who was dead long ago.

But the same popular tyranny, misnamed Popular Sovereignty, upheld by
these Presidential candidates, is also upheld by another candidate,
now seeking your votes as Representative to Congress. Let me not do
injustice to Mr. Thayer. I know well the points of difference between
his theory and the theory of Douglas and Johnson; but I know also
that in essential character they are identical,--so much so, that Mr.
Douglas is reported to have hailed him, at the close of one of his
speeches, as an authoritative expounder of the theory. The ancient
Athenian, when praised in a certain quarter, exclaimed, “What bad thing
have I done?” And Mr. Thayer, in earlier days, when doing so much for
Freedom, would have been apt to turn from such praise with a similar
exclamation.

It was natural that Mr. Douglas should praise him; for he gave the
influence of character and ability to that pretension on which this
reckless adventurer had staked his political fortunes. The fundamental
principle of each is, that the question of Slavery in a distant
Territory shall be taken from Congress and referred to the handful
of squatters in the Territory, who, in the exercise of a sovereignty
inherent in the people, and therefore called Popular Sovereignty,
may “vote Slavery up or vote Slavery down.” Of course Mr. Thayer,
thanks to his New England home, has too much good taste to put forth
this pretension in the brutal form it often assumes, when advanced by
Mr. Douglas. He does not say that he is “for the white man against
the _nigger_ and for the _nigger_ against the alligator.” Perhaps
the pretension becomes more dangerous because presented in more
plausible form, and made part of a more comprehensive system. All
that Mr. Douglas claims for the squatters, in the exercise of Popular
Sovereignty, is power over Slavery, and other domestic institutions;
while Mr. Thayer claims for them, besides this power, the power also to
choose their own officers, instead of receiving them from Washington.
But the essential distinctive pretension of each is, that the handful
of squatters is exclusively entitled, in the exercise of Popular
Sovereignty, to pass upon the question of Slavery in the Territories,
and to vote it up or vote it down, without any intervention from
Congress.

If this principle were asserted only with regard to a single Territory,
or even with regard to a single county or a single town, it ought to
be opposed as fallacious and unjust; but when asserted as a general
principle applicable to all the Territories of the Republic, it must
be resisted, not only as fallacious and unjust, but as fraught with
consequences difficult to measure. Glance for one moment at the vast
spaces which it would open to this mad conflict, and you will be awed
by the immensity of the question.

According to official documents, the whole territorial extent of the
United States, including States and Territories, embraces about three
million square miles. This in itself is no inconsiderable portion of
the earth’s surface. It is nearly ten times as large as Great Britain
and France combined,--three times as large as the whole of France,
Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, Holland, and
Denmark together,--only a little less than the whole sixty Empires,
States, and Republics of all Europe,--and of equal extent with the
ancient Roman Empire, or the empire of Alexander, neither of which is
said to have exceeded three million square miles. Of this vast area,
about one half is now organized into States, leaving one million five
hundred thousand square miles in the condition of outlying territory,
whose future fortunes are involved in the decision of the present
question.

If the subject assumes colossal proportions when we regard the
extent of territory, it swells to yet grander form when we look at
the population involved. The whole white population of the United
States at the present moment amounts to 27,000,000. Supposing it
to increase at the rate of 34 per cent in ten years, which may be
inferred from the rate at which it has already increased, it will
number in 1870, 36,000,000; in 1880, 48,000,000; in 1890, 64,000,000;
in 1900, 85,000,000; in 1910, 113,000,000; in 1920, 151,000,000; in
1930, 202,000,000; in 1940, 270,000,000; in 1950, 361,000,000; and in
1960, just one hundred years from now, it will reach 483,000,000 of
white freemen. Here we may well stop to take breath. Add to this white
population 50,000,000 of colored population, whether free or slave,
according to the supposed increase, and we shall have a sum-total of
533,000,000; and in two hundred years, with the same continuing rate
of increase, our population will be ten times larger than that of the
whole globe at the present hour.

This extraordinary multitude will not be confined to the present
States. It will diffuse itself in every direction, covering all
our territory as the waters cover the sea. Precisely how it will
be distributed it is impossible to foreknow. But the tendency of
population is Westward. The Eastern States are becoming stationary.
Assuming that in 1960 the area now unoccupied will be settled at the
rate of Massachusetts in 1850, which was 127 to the square mile, we
shall then have on that territory a white population of 190,000,000.
And the simple question is, Whether this enormous territory, with this
enormous population, shall be exposed to all the accumulating evils of
Slavery, with their hateful legacy, at the mere will of the handful of
first settlers? According to a French proverb, “It is only the first
step which costs,” and there is profound truth in this saying. In
similar spirit the ancient Romans said, _Obsta principiis_, “Oppose
beginnings.”

Never were these time-honored maxims more applicable than in the
present case, when such prodigious results are involved. All experience
shows that it takes very little Slavery to constitute a Slave State,
and that Slavery, when once introduced, is most tenacious of existence.
Mr. Lincoln, in one of his speeches, has aptly likened it to the
Canada thistle, which, when once planted, extends with most injurious
pertinacity. Others liken it to a cancer or vicious disease, which,
when once in the system, corrupts the blood forever. It may be likened
to a superstitious usage, which, when once established in the customs
of a people, yields reluctantly to every effort against it. And yet Mr.
Thayer wrests from Congress, representing the whole country, all power
to prevent the introduction of this transcendent evil, and transfers
the whole question to a handful of squatters, who are to act for the
weal or woe of half a continent with teeming millions of population;
and this is done in the name of Popular Sovereignty, as announced in
the Declaration of Independence.

Fellow-citizens, I deny this pretension in every respect and at every
point. I assert the power of Congress, founded on reason and precedent;
and I assert the overwhelming necessity at this moment of exercising
this unquestionable power. Guardians of this mighty territory, the
destined home of untold millions, we must see that it is securely
consecrated to the uses of Freedom, so that it cannot be pressed by
the footsteps of a slave. For the moment we are performing the duty of
_conditores imperiorum_, or founders of States, which Lord Bacon, in
sententious wisdom, places foremost in honor, and calls a “primitive
and heroical work.”[23] In the discharge of this duty, every power,
every effort, every influence for Freedom should be invoked. The angel
at the gates of Paradise, with flaming sword turning to every side,
might be fitly summoned to guard this grand inheritance.

* * * * *

Not only do I assert this power, but I deny that sovereignty, when
justly understood, has among its incidents the right to enslave our
fellow-man. Mr. Thayer practically recognizes this incident; for he
insists upon leaving the handful of squatters in the Territories to
vote Slavery up or vote Slavery down without any intervention from
Congress. And here is the vital question: Is there any such power
incident to sovereignty?

And since the Declaration of Independence is invoked as authority for
this new pretension, I shall bring it precisely to this touchstone.
Bear with me, if I am tedious.

On the 4th of July, 1776, was put forth that great state paper, which
constitutes an epoch of history. Its primary object was to dissolve
the bonds which existed between the Colonies and the mother country.
For this purpose a few positive words would have sufficed. But its
authors were not content with this enunciation. Ascending far above the
simple idea of National Independence, they made their Declaration an
example to mankind, in two respects: first, as a Declaration of Human
Rights; and, secondly, as an admission that the Sovereignty which they
established was limited by Right.

In the first place, they declared “that all men are created equal; that
they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights;
that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”; and
“that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men,
deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.” Note
well these words. Here was a Declaration of Natural Rights, the first
ever put forth in history, unless we except the declaration only a
few months earlier in Virginia. In England there have been Bills of
Rights, beginning with Magna Charta, all declaring simply the rights
of Englishmen, and all founded on concession and precedent. Now came
a Declaration of the Rights of Man, not founded on concession or
precedent, but founded on Nature. And this Declaration, though made
the basis of the new government, was universal in application, so that
people, wherever struggling for rights, have been cheered by its words.

There is another enunciation, by which the Declaration is equally
memorable, although this feature has been less noticed. Certainly
it has not been noticed by Mr. Thayer, or he would never venture to
derive his pretension from a Declaration which positively excludes
all such idea. Other governments, even those of the American Colonies,
have been founded on _force_, and the sovereignty which they claimed
was unlimited, so as to sanction Slavery. That I may not seem to
make this statement hastily, pardon me, if I adduce two illustrative
authorities. I refer first to Sir William Blackstone, the commentator
on the Laws of England, who says: “There is and must be in all forms
of government, however they began, or by what right soever they
subsist, a supreme, irresistible, absolute, uncontrolled authority,
in which the _rights of sovereignty_ reside;”[24] and this power,
which in England is attributed to Parliament, he calls in one place
“that _absolute despotic power_ which must in all governments reside
_somewhere_.”[25] I refer also to the famous Dr. Johnson, who, in his
tract entitled “Taxation no Tyranny,” openly says that “all government
is ultimately and essentially absolute”; that “in sovereignty there
are no gradations”; that “there must in every society be some power
or other from which there is no appeal,” which “extends or contracts
privileges, exempt itself from question or control, and bounded only by
physical necessity.”[26]

In the face of these contemporary authorities, one an eminent jurist,
and the other an eminent moralist, both well known to our fathers,
and in the face of all traditions of government, the Declaration of
Independence disclaimed all despotic, absolute, or unlimited power, and
voluntarily brought the new sovereignty within the circumscription of
_Right_. Not content with declaring that the rights to life, liberty,
and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable, and therefore beyond
the control of any sovereignty, the Declaration went further, and,
by abnegation worthy of perpetual honor, solemnly restrained the new
sovereignty,--simply claiming for it the “power to do all acts and
things which independent states may OF RIGHT do.” Even had this express
limitation been omitted, no such incident of sovereignty as that
asserted by Mr. Thayer could be derived from an instrument containing
those words with which the Declaration begins; but with these latter
words of special limitation, the pretension becomes absurd.

Such, fellow-citizens, is the Popular Sovereignty of the Declaration
of Independence, drawing its life, first, from the inalienable Rights
of Man, and then, by positive words, restrained to what is Right.
And this is the Popular Sovereignty which, lifting the down-trodden
and trampling on tyrants,--now gentle as Charity, and then terrible
as an army with banners,--is destined to make the tour of the world,
rendering Slavery everywhere impossible.

Of this Popular Sovereignty I have spoken on another occasion,[27]
and I refrain with difficulty from repeating now what I said then,
partly because I believe so completely in its truth and rejoice in its
utterance, but more because I learn that it has been wrested from its
place to cover the Popular Tyranny, misnamed Popular Sovereignty, which
Mr. Thayer so ardently vindicates.

How strange that words which hail the Angel of Human Liberation,
with Liberty and Equality in her glorious train, should be invoked in
support of a wicked tyranny, which, in the name of Popular Sovereignty,
makes merchandise of our fellow-man! Face to face against this wretched
pretension I put the true Popular Sovereignty, with Liberty and
Equality for all, guarded and surrounded by the impassable limitation
of Right, which is the god Terminus, never to be overthrown. Within
these great precincts there can be no Slavery, nor can there be any
denial of Equal Rights. How, then, can any man, in the name of Popular
Sovereignty, vote another to be a slave? How, then, can any man, in
this name, assert property in his fellow-man? By what excuse, with what
reason, on what argument can any such thing be done, without first
denying all that is true and sacred? Liberty, which is the active
principle of Popular Sovereignty,--Equality, which is twin sister
of Liberty,--and Justice, which sets bounds to all that men do on
earth,--these are the irresistible enemies of Slavery, each and all
of which must be trampled out by any rule under which man can be made
a slave. But these, each and all, constitute that Popular Sovereignty
which is the glory of our institutions. Anything else calling itself by
this great name is a mockery and a sham, fit only for hissing and scorn.

The Declaration of Independence gave dignity to our Revolutionary
contest, and made it a landmark of human progress. Here, at last,
the rights of man were proclaimed, and a government was organized in
subjection to the sovereign rule of Right. The people, while lifting
themselves to the duties of sovereignty, bowed before that overruling
sovereignty whose seat is the bosom of God. Such an example became
at once a guide to mankind. It was copied in France, under the lead
of Lafayette; and there is no people struggling for Right in either
hemisphere who have not felt its inspiration. And yet this Declaration,
standing highest among the historic landmarks of our country, is now
assailed and dishonored.

It is assailed and dishonored, first, by denial of these natural
rights which it so gloriously declares. This is done often with a
jeer. Forgetful that these rights were divinely established at the
very Creation, when God said, “Let us make man in our image,” and
then again in the Gospel, when it was said, “God hath made of one
blood all nations of men,”--forgetful that these rights are stamped
by Nature on all who wear the human form,--forgetful also that they
belong to those self-evident truths, sometimes called axioms, which are
universal in their application, as the axiom in arithmetic that two
and two make four, and the axiom in geometry that a straight line is
the shortest distance between two points,--forgetful of the true glory
of our country, these primal truths are sometimes scouted as “absurd,”
sometimes as “splendid generalities,” and sometimes as a “self-evident
lie.” This assault, though proceeding from various voices, originated
with Mr. Calhoun. He is its first author.

And now, secondly, the Declaration is assailed and dishonored by the
claim, that men, in the exercise of sovereignty derived from the
Declaration, may set up on an auction-block their fellow-men, if to
them it seems fit, and that this power is an incident of Popular
Sovereignty. This pretension, first put forth by General Cass, in 1847,
when a Presidential candidate,[28] and now revived by Mr. Douglas, who
peddles it throughout the country, is also practically adopted by Mr.
Thayer, as part of his peculiar Territorial policy. Such a pretension
is hardly less degrading to the Declaration than the open mockery of
its primal truths by Mr. Calhoun. The latter, as is well known, denied
the sovereignty of the people in the Territories, but he agreed, heart
and soul, in the pretension that the right to enslave a fellow-man is
an incident of sovereignty, wherever it exists.

Thus do these two assaults upon the Declaration practically proceed
from one source. In their essential ideas they are _Calhounism_.

On the other side is arrayed a name illustrious for various public
service, and for unsurpassed championship of Freedom: I mean John
Quincy Adams. Entering the House of Representatives after a long life,
at home and abroad, as Senator, as Minister, as Secretary of State,
and finally as President, he added to all these titles by the ability
and constancy with which he upheld the Rights of Man. Mr. Calhoun was
at this time in the Senate; but Mr. Adams incessantly met all his
assumptions for Slavery,--exposing its hateful character, insisting
upon its _prohibition_ in the Territories, and especially vindicating
the Declaration of Independence. Never has the recent pretension, in
the name of Popular Sovereignty, been more completely anticipated and
exposed. And now, that this argument may not stand entirely upon my
words, I quote from him. Says John Quincy Adams, in his oration on the
Fourth of July, 1831, at Quincy:--

“Unlimited power belongs not to the nature of man, and rotten
will be the foundation of every government leaning upon such
a maxim for its support.… The pretence of an absolute,
irresistible, despotic power existing in every government
_somewhere_ is incompatible with the first principle of natural
right.… The _sovereignty_ which would arrogate to itself
absolute, unlimited power must appeal for its sanction to those
illustrious expounders of Human Rights, Pharaoh of Egypt and
Herod the Great of Judea.”[29]

In another passage of the same oration, the patriot statesman says, in
words which answer a portion of Mr. Thayer’s arguments:--

“It has sometimes been objected to the Declaration, that it
deals too much in abstractions. But this was its characteristic
excellence; for upon those abstractions hinged the justice
of the cause. Without them our Revolution would have been
but successful rebellion. Right, truth, justice are all
abstractions. The Divinity that stirs within the soul of man
is abstraction. The Creator of the universe is a spirit, and
all spiritual nature is abstraction. Happy would it be, could
we answer with equal confidence another objection, not to the
Declaration, but to the consistency of the people by whom it
was proclaimed!”[30]

These same views were enforced again by Mr. Adams in his oration at
Newburyport, July 4, 1837. There he uses words which reveal the limits
of Popular Sovereignty. Thus he speaks:--

“The sovereign authority conferred upon the people of the
Colonies by the Declaration of Independence could not dispense
them, nor any individual citizen of them, from the fulfilment
of all their moral obligations.… The people who assumed their
equal and separate station among the powers of the earth,
by the laws of Nature’s God, by that very act acknowledged
themselves bound to the observance of those laws, _and could
neither exercise nor confer any power inconsistent with
them_.”[31]

Then alluding to the self-imposed restraints upon the sovereignty which
was established, our teacher says:--

“The Declaration acknowledged a rule of _Right_ paramount
to the power of independent states itself, and virtually
disclaimed all power to do _Wrong_. This was a novelty in the
moral philosophy of nations, and it is the essential point
of difference between the system of government announced in
the Declaration of Independence and those systems which had
until then prevailed among men.… It was an experiment upon
the heart of man. All the legislators of the human race until
that day had laid the foundations of all government among men
in _Power_; and hence it was that in the maxims of theory, as
well as in the practice of nations, sovereignty was held to
be unlimited and illimitable. The Declaration of Independence
proclaimed another law, … a law of _Right_, binding upon
nations as well as individuals, upon sovereigns as well as upon
subjects.… In assuming the attributes of _sovereign power_,
the Colonists appealed to the Supreme Judge of the world for
the rectitude of their intentions, and neither claimed nor
conferred authority to do anything but _of Right_.”[32]

Such is the irresistible testimony of John Quincy Adams. On the other
side are arrayed John C. Calhoun, Stephen A. Douglas, and Eli Thayer.
Choose you between these two sides.

* * * * *

Enough, perhaps, has been said. But I shall not leave this question
merely on reason and high authority, decisive as they may be. I appeal,
further, to the practice of the National Government, which from the
beginning has sanctioned the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories.
The pretension of Popular Sovereignty is altogether a modern invention,
unknown to our fathers.

The positive Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories was proposed
in the Continental Congress by Mr. Jefferson, as early as 1784. Thus
did the hand which drew the Declaration of Independence first assert
the practical application of its principles within the jurisdiction of
Congress; and here the Popular Sovereignty of the Declaration receives
most instructive illustration. Although the proposition had in its
favor a majority of all the delegates then present, and also a majority
of all the States then present, yet, under the rules of the Continental
Congress, it failed for the moment. But there is no evidence that
anybody questioned the power of Congress, or claimed Sovereignty for
any handful of squatters.

The following year, in the absence of Mr. Jefferson, the Prohibition
was proposed by Rufus King, a delegate from Massachusetts. It
was afterwards embodied by Nathan Dane, another delegate from
Massachusetts, in the Ordinance for the Government of the Northwest
Territory; and finally, on the 13th of July, 1787, a day ever memorable
in the annals of Human Freedom, it was carried with only one vote in
the negative, and became the corner-stone of those imperial States
destined to exercise such controlling influence in our history. Thus
early did our Commonwealth, through its faithful Representatives,
insist upon Prohibition by Congress. This was before the National
Constitution.

The Ordinance thus adopted by the Continental Congress was affirmed in
August, 1789, by the first Congress that sat under the Constitution, in
a law which bears the signature of George Washington. In pursuance of
its provisions, Ohio was admitted into the Union, 19th February, 1803;
Indiana, 11th December, 1816; Illinois, 3d December, 1818; Michigan,
26th January, 1837; and Wisconsin, 29th May, 1848. In the various Acts
of Congress preparatory to the admission of these States, the validity
of the Ordinance was recognized to the fullest extent. Meanwhile the
same principle was applied in the Missouri Compromise, under which
Slavery was prohibited by Congress in all the territory west of the
Mississippi and north of 36° 30´; also in the organization of Iowa as
a Territory, 12th June, 1838, and especially of Oregon as a Territory,
14th August, 1848. Thus from the beginning has this power been affirmed
by successive Congresses and by successive Presidents, from George
Washington to James K. Polk. It is impossible to present any principle
in our history sustained by a line of precedents so imposing.

The necessity of this Prohibition, as a safeguard to the Territories,
is apparent from well-attested occurrences. The people of the Territory
of Indiana, embracing the larger part of the whole of the Northwestern
Territory, in 1802, then again in 1805, then again in 1807, and at
other times also, with the pertinacity which marks all struggles for
Slavery, petitioned Congress to suspend the Prohibition, so as to
allow the introduction of slaves, if the squatters should desire it.
To the honor of Congress, their petitions were rejected; but they
are memorable from a brief report adverse to their passage by John
Randolph, of Virginia. Here it is, bearing date 2d March, 1803.

“That the rapid population of the State of Ohio sufficiently
evinces, in the opinion of your Committee, that the labor of
slaves is not necessary to promote the growth and settlement
of colonies in that region. That this labor, demonstrably
the dearest of any, can only be employed to advantage in
the cultivation of products more valuable than any known to
that quarter of the United States. That the Committee deem
it _highly dangerous and inexpedient to impair a provision
wisely calculated to promote the happiness and prosperity of
the Northwestern country_, and to give strength and security
to that extensive frontier. _In the salutary operation of
this sagacious and benevolent restraint_ it is believed that
the inhabitants of Indiana will at no very distant day find
ample remuneration for a temporary privation of labor and of
emigration.”[33]

With these benignant and most suggestive words of an eminent
Slave-Master Congress happily concurred, and the Prohibition was
confirmed. Had the modern pretension of Popular Sovereignty then
prevailed, the States of Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin,
instead of becoming the smiling home of Free Labor, would be suffering
from the blight of Slavery,--instead of joining in triumphant vote for
Lincoln, they would, like their neighbor, Missouri, be linked with the
Slave States in support of Breckinridge, or Bell, or Douglas, and would
constitute part of that Slave Power under whose tyranny the country has
so long suffered.

The advantage of the Prohibition is as clear as its necessity. I do
not dwell on the comparison between Free States and Slave States,
between free labor and slave labor, between the social system fostered
by Freedom and the social system engendered by Slavery, between
the civilization of the one and the barbarism of the other; but I
call attention simply to two States, covering nearly the same spaces
of latitude, resembling each other in soil, climate, and natural
productions, lying side by side, and organized at about the same
time,--Illinois, thanks to the Prohibition, a Free State, and Missouri
cursed with more than one hundred thousand slaves. Look at the
statistics of these two States, if you would know the contrast which
day by day magnifies the Prohibition.

And yet, in the face of all this experience, showing, first, the
necessity of Prohibition as a safeguard to the Territories, and,
secondly, its immeasurable advantages, you are now called to abandon
the early policy of the Republic, to turn your back upon this policy as
irrational and unwise, and to adopt a new pretension, with a plausible
name, which, in the only instance where it has been tried, produced
discord, strife, and blood. You are called to give up the old Aladdin’s
Lamp of magical power, filling the land with infinite treasures and the
true nobility of Freedom, and to take in exchange a new patent article
now hawked about the streets of Worcester.

If this recent pretension, in the name of Popular Sovereignty, were
merely an idea and nothing more, coined in the brain of an ingenious
theorist, but not pressed persistently at all times into practical
application, it might be left with kindred errors to pass away quietly
into the limbo of things lost on earth, as described by Milton:--

“then reliques, beads,
Indulgences, dispenses, pardons, bulls,
The sport of winds.”

But unhappily this is not the case.

Such a pretension, espoused with ardor, as a practical rule, must
naturally exercise a disturbing influence. You have not forgotten
its influence on General Cass, who, yielding to it, violated the
instructions of his State and voted against the Prohibition. You all
know its influence on Mr. Douglas. In the name of this pretension he
overturned the time-honored Prohibition of Slavery in the Missouri
Territory, and delivered over Kansas to a conflict where fraud, rapine,
and murder stalked with impunity. Afterward, in the name of this
pretension, he sought to arrest all action by Congress for the relief
of the settlers there. And ever since he has made this pretension a
plain “dodge,” in order to avoid the urgent question: Are you for
Freedom, or are you for Slavery? on which every citizen ought to say
plainly, “Yea” or “Nay.”

It has not been the lot of your Representative to play a part so
conspicuous as that of Mr. Douglas. But this pretension has changed his
course hardly less than it has varied the course of the Presidential
candidate, driving him into acts which only his large ingenuity in
“making the worse appear the better reason” can save from an outburst
of universal and indignant condemnation. And now, as I touch briefly on
these acts, let me say that I do it most reluctantly, most painfully,
and only in obedience to the absolute exigencies of this discussion,
that you may truly understand the character of the pretension on which
you are to pass judgment at the polls.

Surely its _disturbing influence_ is manifest in his vote on the Bill
to annul the Slave Code of New Mexico, under which not only slavery of
blacks, but also serfdom of whites is recognized, while laborers of
all kinds are subjected to be cuffed, flogged, beaten, or otherwise
punished by their employers, without any redress at law. The blood
freezes at the idea of such a code extant in a Territory within the
jurisdiction of Congress. And yet, on the ayes and noes upon declaring
this code null and void, Mr. Thayer’s name is recorded “no,” with
the ninety Proslavery Democrats and Americans, against ninety-seven
Republicans; and thus you, fellow-citizens of Worcester, whose
Representative he then was, have been made parties to an odious crime.
I use plain language; for only in this way can that atrocious code be
characterized, which in itself is the paragon and _ne plus ultra_ of
cold-blooded, scientific, and most cruel tyranny.

Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in his vote on
the Bill to abolish Polygamy in the vast Territory of Utah, where
Brigham Young with his forty wives repeats the scandal of a Turkish
harem within the jurisdiction of Congress. On the ayes and noes, Mr.
Thayer’s name is found in the small minority of sixty noes, composed
of _ultraists_ of Proslavery, against one hundred and forty-nine ayes;
and you, fellow-citizens of Worcester, whose Representative he then
was, have been made parties to the sanction of Polygamy. It is natural
that the partisans of Slavery, which nullifies the relation of husband
and wife, should be indifferent to this disgusting offence; but nothing
short of a most potent disturbing influence could have brought your
Representative to a similar indifference.

Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in his course
on the Territorial Bills reported by Mr. Grow from the Committee on
Territories, for the organization of the five Territories of Idaho,
Nevada, Arizona, Dakota, and Chippewa, all of which were tabled by
the vote of Mr. Thayer, and all but one on his motion. Afterward,
in debate, he boasted that he “had taken the lead in this business
of killing off these Territorial organizations, which go upon the
assumption that the people in a Territory are infants,”[34] thus
setting up this disturbing pretension as his apology, and claiming for
squatters a tyrannical power.

Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in his perversion
of unquestionable facts of history with regard to the operation of the
Ordinance for the Government of the Northwestern Territory, saying
that Freedom was secured in that Territory through Popular Sovereignty
and not through the Ordinance; whereas history shows, by unimpeachable
evidence, that this great work was accomplished through the Ordinance.
Read the able speech of the Republican candidate, Mr. Bailey, if you
would appreciate the extent of this perversion.

Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in the language by
which he allows himself to disparage that great cause, so dear to the
people of Worcester, which first brought him into public life: saying
that the principle of Prohibition, introduced by Jefferson, approved by
the Fathers, and now amply vindicated by its fruits, is a “humbug”; and
then again saying, “I think the Slave Question is altogether too small
a question to disturb so great a people as inhabit the United States
of America”: thus confessing insensibility to the grandeur of that
question now overshadowing all other questions, which it is the first
duty of a statesman in our country to understand and to appreciate.

Surely its _disturbing influence_ is again manifest in the tone and
manner which he has adopted toward the Antislavery cause, and its
supporters in Congress, as will be seen by all who read his speeches
there. Let the good people of this district know these things, and say
if they are ready to join in such contumely.

And, lastly, the _disturbing influence_ is manifest in his setting
himself up as an independent candidate for Congress, against the
Republican party, whose Presidential candidate he professes to support.

It will be for you to determine, whether a candidate, under this
_disturbing influence_, thus repeatedly manifest in signal acts, can
adequately represent the active, conscientious, Freedom-loving citizens
of Worcester, who oppose Slavery by something more practical than a
theory. I do not doubt his integrity; nor do I utter one word against
his personal character. I speak of him only as a public man, open to
criticism for public acts; and I speak solemnly and sincerely, for the
sake of the cause which I have at heart. Honest men with a false theory
are sometimes as dangerous as bad men. I would not liken Mr. Thayer to
Benedict Arnold; but there is a letter of the latter, immediately after
his defection, addressed to Washington, which your Representative might
adopt. Here it is.

“ON BOARD THE VULTURE, 25 September, 1780.

“SIR,--The heart which is conscious of its own rectitude
cannot attempt to palliate a step which the world may censure
as wrong. I have ever acted from a principle of love to my
country, since the commencement of the present unhappy contest
between Great Britain and the Colonies. The same principle of
love to my country actuates my present conduct, however it may
appear inconsistent to the world, who very seldom judge right
of any man’s actions.”[35]

The difference between the two cases is obvious. One is flat treason:
the other is flat delusion. One is a crime which history can never
pardon: the other is a mistake over which history will drop a tear.

* * * * *

Fellow-Republicans, you are about to choose Abraham Lincoln President.
Of his election there is no reasonable doubt. Under his auspices the
National Government will be brought back to the original policy of
the Fathers, which placed Slavery, so far at least as it is outside
the States, within the jurisdiction of Congress. It was for his
fidelity to this principle, vindicating it against the pretension
of Popular Sovereignty, in his long debate with Mr. Douglas, and
openly declaring, that, “if he were in Congress, and a vote should
come up on a question whether Slavery should be prohibited in a new
Territory, he would vote that it should, in spite of the Dred Scott
decision,”[36]--on this account it was that Mr. Lincoln was eligible as
the Republican candidate. But it is not enough to make him President.
You must see that he is sustained in this fundamental principle by
your Representative in Congress. And since his election is now beyond
question, the vote for a Representative true to this principle becomes
more important than a vote for him. Little good will you do in voting
for him, if at the same time you vote for a Representative pledged to
defeat his declared policy.

Vote, then, so as to vindicate the declared policy of your candidate
for the Presidency.

Vote so as to vindicate the Declaration of Independence, which is
dishonored by being made the authority for a false pretension in the
name of Popular Sovereignty.

Vote so as to vindicate the early policy of the Fathers, who organized
the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories.

Vote so as to vindicate the early policy of Massachusetts, who, in the
Continental Congress, immediately after the Revolution, first by the
voice of Rufus King, and then by the voice of Nathan Dane, insisted
upon the Prohibition of Slavery in the Territories.

Vote so as to vindicate those sentiments and principles of the County
of Worcester, “heart of the Commonwealth,” always so constantly and
honorably maintained.

Vote so as to vindicate the Antislavery cause in its necessity,
practicability, and dignity, and so as to confound its enemies, now
banding together against it, under the lead of Mr. Thayer.

Vote so as to vindicate the existence of the Republican party, which,
if the theory of Mr. Thayer be true, should at once be disbanded.

Vote, finally, so as to settle peacefully this great question, by
taking it away from the chance and peril of conflict, and committing it
to the calm judgment of Congress.

It is vain to say that Slavery cannot exist in the Territories under
the Constitution, and therefore legislation is superfluous. It is there
in fact, and that is enough. It must be struck at once by Congress.
St. Patrick banished snakes from Ireland; but that is no reason why
the woman should not bruise the head of one found there. It is vain to
say, as has been said, that the slaves are few,--amounting to fourteen
only in New Mexico; for human rights, whether in a vast multitude or a
solitary individual, are entitled to equal and unhesitating support.
In this spirit the ancient lawgiver nobly declared that to be the best
government “where an injury to a single citizen is resented as an
injury to the whole state.” It is vain to say that the prohibition by
Congress is superfluous in the present state of opinion; for nothing
is clearer than the remark of Lafayette, that principles strong in
themselves take new force, when solemnly recognized by all in the form
of law. It is vain to say that Freedom is more powerful than Slavery,
and therefore may be safely left face to face with its antagonist. In
the progress of civilization, law has superseded the ordeal by battle;
and law must now supersede this conflict. It is vain to say that the
Territories are protected in any form, whether by the Constitution,
public opinion, or the inherent strength of Freedom. No possible
safeguard should be abandoned. Let there be double locks, double bolts,
and double gates. No lock, no bolt, and no gate should be neglected by
which Slavery may be fastened out. And, lastly, if Popular Sovereignty
is invoked, let it be the Popular Sovereignty of the American people,
counted by millions and assembled in Congress, rather than the
tyrannical, irresponsible sovereignty of a handful of squatters.

* * * * *

Fellow-citizens, in taking leave of this question, I bear my testimony
again to the abilities of Mr. Thayer, and to his active labors in
times past. For the good that he has done I honor him; let it all be
enrolled for his benefit. But not on this account can I accept him now
as a representative of our cause. It is an ancient story, consecrated
by the undying verse of Homer, that a ship, with all its canvas spread,
was suddenly changed into a rock at the very mouth of a frequented
harbor; and thus the instrument of commerce became an impediment to
commerce:--

“Fixèd forever, a memorial stone,
Which still may seem to sail, and _seem_ alone.”[37]

A similar wonder is now repeated before our eyes, making the former
instrument of Freedom an impediment to Freedom. Deplore this accident
we must; but the remedy is happily within our power.

EVENING BEFORE THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

SPEECH AT FANEUIL HALL, BOSTON, NOVEMBER 5, 1860.

This meeting was called to order by Carlos Pierce, Esq., who
announced the officers of the evening, among whom was Mr.
Sumner as President. On taking the chair, he made a speech,
which is preserved here as showing the anticipations of triumph
at the election, and also the declared magnitude of the result.
This testimony shows how seriously the election was regarded.
It foreshadows change, if not revolution,--“not only a new
President, but a new government.”

FELLOW-CITIZENS,--Five years have now passed since it was my privilege
last to set foot in Faneuil Hall. During this long, unwilling exile,
whether at home or abroad, my “heart untravelled” has fondly turned to
this historic place, and often have I seemed to hear those utterances
for Human Rights which echo along its walls. The distant in place
was confounded with the distant in time, and the accents of our own
Burlingame seemed to mingle with the words of Adams, Hancock, and
Warren, in the past. Let me express my gratitude that I am permitted
once more to enjoy these generous utterances, no longer in dream or
vision only, but in reality.

Could these venerable arches speak, what stories could they not
tell,--sometimes of victory and sometimes of defeat, sometimes of
gladness and sometimes of mourning, sometimes of hope and sometimes
of fear! The history of American Freedom, with all its anxieties,
struggles, and triumphs, commencing before National Independence, and
continued down to the very contest now about to close,--all this might
be written from the voices of this Hall. But, thank God! the days of
defeat, of mourning, of fear, have passed, and these walls will record
only those notes of victory already beginning to sound in our ears.

There are anniversaries in our history noticed by young and old with
grateful emotion; but to-morrow’s sun will set on a day more glorious
for Freedom than any anniversary since the fourth of July, 1776. The
forces for a long time mustering are about to meet face to face;
but the result is not doubtful. That Power, which, according to the
boast of Slave-Masters, has governed the country for more than fifty
years,--organizing cabinets and courts, directing the army and navy,
controlling legislation, usurping offices, stamping its own pernicious
character upon the national policy, and especially claiming all the
Territories for Slavery,--that Power which has taught us by example
how much of tyranny there may be in the name of Democracy, is doomed.
The great clock will soon strike, sounding its knell. Every four years
a new President is chosen, but rarely a new government. To-morrow we
shall have not only a new President, but a new government. A new order
of things will begin, and our history will proceed on a grander scale,
in harmony with those sublime principles in which it commenced. Let the
knell sound!

“Ring out the old, ring in the new!
Ring out the false, ring in the true!
Ring out a slowly dying cause,
And ancient forms of party strife!
Ring in the nobler modes of life,
With sweeter manners, purer laws!”

The eve of election is not the time for argument. Already this has been
amply done in numerous public meetings, where you have been addressed
by the orators of Freedom, and also in the press, which has repeated
their eloquent words, while a new power, in happy harmony with the new
exigencies--the “Wide-Awakes”--has shown how true it is that citizens
by the million would spring forth, whenever the North

“Stamped her strong foot and said she would be free.”

I need not speak of our candidate for President, whose simple, honest
character has grown constantly upon the public interest, while his
abilities have everywhere commanded most unhesitating respect. Nor need
I speak of our candidate for Governor, whose eminent qualities alike
of head and heart give assurance of a man deserving our most devoted
support. Of their election there is no doubt. Abraham Lincoln will be
President of the United States. John A. Andrew will be Governor of
Massachusetts.

But this is not enough. Especially must you see to it, so far as
depends on you, that Representatives in Congress are chosen who shall
be true to the principles of the Republican party. And since the
election of our President is now certain, your vote for Representatives
becomes more important than your vote for President. In vain you
will vote for Abraham Lincoln, if at the same time you vote for a
Representative who will oppose his well-known principles. Such a vote
will more than neutralize your vote for President.

Happily there is no occasion to hesitate. Boston is now represented in
Congress by two eminent citizens,--differing from each other in many
respects, unlike in the talents which each so largely possesses, and
dissimilar in character, and yet substantially agreeing in principles,
uniting always in their votes, whether to guard Freedom or to promote
the important interests of the metropolis, and by their very diversity
of character, as the complement of each other, representing completely
and harmoniously a large and diversified constituency. Follow the
record of Mr. Burlingame and Mr. Rice, whether throughout the long
contest for Speaker, or on the proposition to secure Freedom in Kansas,
or on the various matters of local concern, and you will find that they
always keep together.

Besides the merit of services which no candid person can question,
they are also recommended by the practical consideration of their
experience. They know their business, and on this account, if no other,
it is for your interest that they should be continued. This experience
is something which belongs to you, if you are wise enough to use it. On
grounds of self-interest the most simple and obvious, you should vote
for them.

But, besides experience, they will have another advantage, which you
will surely not fling away. Being in harmony with the Administration,
they will naturally have the ear of the President and of his Cabinet;
and this alone will give them opportunities to promote the interest of
Boston such as no Representative of the Opposition could hope to enjoy.

All will see how impossible it will be for Mr. Appleton and Mr. Bigelow
to represent adequately this great metropolis during the coming
administration. Imagine them at Washington, with the whole delegation
from New England, ay, almost of the whole North, against them. Robinson
Crusoe and Friday were not more solitary than these Proslavery
Representatives would be among their colleagues from the Free States.
And when, on the vote for Speaker, involving the organization of
the House and the arrangement of the public business, the forces of
Slavery are rallied against the Northern candidate, John Sherman or
William Pennington, then will the Liberty-loving citizens of Boston be
mortified to find their Representatives, under specious plea of danger
to the Union, ranging with Disunionists. A simple errand-boy, picked
up in the streets, honest and intelligent enough to deposit a vote for
a Northern Speaker, would be better than Representatives who would do
this thing.

The election of such persons would be a positive encouragement to the
disunionists of the South. It would be a signal of sympathy from our
citadel. Still further, it would be a premium for indifference to
fellow-men struggling for their rights. In vain have we read the story
of him who, having fallen among thieves, was succored by the good
Samaritan, if we approve by our votes the conduct of those who, when
Kansas had fallen among thieves and was lying wounded and bleeding,
passed by on the other side without aid or sympathy.

In vain you say that these gentlemen, if elected, may mingle socially
with the propagandists of Slavery at Washington, and through this
intercourse promote your interests. Do not believe it. No good to you
can come from any such artificial fellowship. The enmity of Slavery may
be dangerous, but its friendship is fatal. None have ever escaped with
honor from that deadly embrace.

In vain you appeal in the name of a party, familiarly called from its
candidates Bell-Everett, which, in the recent elections of Vermont,
Maine, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana, out of more than 1,300,000
votes, polled less than 20,000,--a party which, from its lofty airs
here in Boston, may remind us of Brahmins, who imagine themselves of
better clay than others, or of Chinese, who imagine themselves cousins
of the Sun and Moon.

Vote, then, for your present Representatives: first, to maintain the
policy of the new President; secondly, as proper recognition of their
merits; thirdly, that you may have the benefit of their experience;
fourthly, that you may have the advantage of their friendly relations
with the new Administration; fifthly, that you may help choose a
Northern Speaker; sixthly, that you may answer with proper scorn the
menaces of disunion, whether uttered at the South or echoed at the
North.

Hereafter, fellow-citizens, let it be one of your satisfactions, that
in this contest you voted for Freedom. The young man should rejoice
in the privilege; the old man must take care not to lose the precious
opportunity.

EVENING AFTER THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION.

SPEECH TO THE WIDE-AWAKES OF CONCORD, MASSACHUSETTS, NOVEMBER 7, 1860.

The “Wide-Awakes” constituted a new and powerful agency in
the machinery of American politics. They were companies of
active voters in uniform of cap and cape with a lamp on a
staff, organized and drilled with officers, who by display
in the streets increased their numbers and intensified the
prevailing enthusiasm. The organization was general throughout
the Northern States, and constituted the working element of
the Republican party. It has been sometimes remarked that its
military discipline was an unconscious preparation for the
sterner duties at hand.

The companies were not disbanded immediately after the
election, and at several places where Mr. Sumner lectured
he received from them the compliment of a visit after the
lecture. This was the case at Concord on the evening succeeding
the Presidential election, when the Wide-Awakes of the town
appeared before the house of Ralph Waldo Emerson, the admired
author, where Mr. Sumner was staying, and their Captain, Hon.
John S. Keyes, made the following address.

“HONORED SIR,--In behalf of the Republican Wide-Awakes of
Concord, and of numerous other Republicans, part of that
gallant army whose victory was yesterday achieved, I have
the honor to tender to you our respectful greeting on this
occasion of your first visit, after many years of pain and
suffering endured in the cause of Republicanism, to the
old battle-ground of Concord. We could not permit it to
pass without at least offering to you a warm and earnest
welcome, especially on the day following that glorious
victory whose brightness no cloud obscures, and whose
lustre is owing more, perhaps, to your earnest efforts
in the cause of Freedom than to any other man. Permit
me, Sir, in the name of these Wide-Awakes, to say to you
that we trust with renewed health upon this soil you may
bear forward the glorious cause of Freedom upon which our
country has just entered.”

Mr. Sumner, standing on the steps of the house, replied as
follows.

CAPTAIN AND WIDE-AWAKES:--

You take me by surprise, absolutely. I am here to-night in the
performance of an agreeable service outside of politics, and have not
anticipated any such contingency as this with which you honor me, nor
any such welcome.

I thank you, Gentlemen, for the kind and good words which have fallen
from your Captain. They are a reward for the little I have been able to
do in the past, and will be an encouragement in the future.

I join with you in gladness at the victory we celebrate to-day,--not
of the cartridge-box, but of the ballot-box. No victories of the
cartridge-box have involved higher principles or more important results
than that just won by the ballot-box. A poet, whose home is in Concord,
has said that the shot fired here was heard round the world. I doubt
not that our victory just achieved will awaken reverberations also to
be heard round the world. All men struggling for rights, vindicating
liberal ideas, seeking human improvement, maintaining republican
government, will be encouraged, when they hear of yesterday. It will be
good news to Garibaldi in Italy, good news to the French now subjected
to imperial power, good news to English Reformers,--and so also will
it be good news to all among us who love Liberty, for it proclaims
that at last Liberty has prevailed. Every four years we choose a new
President; but it rarely happens that we choose a new government, as
was done yesterday. A new order of things is inaugurated, with new
auspices, lifting the Republic once more to that platform of principles
on which it was originally placed by the Fathers. What victory of the
cartridge-box ever did so much?

Looking at the vote in its practical significance, several things may
be considered as established and proclaimed by the American people, so
that hereafter they shall not be drawn in question.

Of these I place foremost the irrevocable decree, according to the very
words of Madison, that it is “wrong to admit in the Constitution the
idea that there can be property in men,”[38]--that, therefore, Slavery,
if it exists anywhere, is sectional, and must derive such life as it
has from local law, and not from the Constitution,--in opposition
to the pretension so often put forward in its name, that Slavery is
national and Freedom sectional.

Then again the American people have declared, that all outlying
Territories, so immense in extent, and destined to the support of
unknown millions, shall be consecrated to Freedom, so that the vast
outstretched soil shall never know the footprint of a slave: all of
which is the natural conclusion and corollary from the first decree.

And yet again it is declared, that in the administration of the
National Government the original policy of the Fathers shall be
adopted, in opposition to the policy of Slavery, which for the last
twelve years has been so tyrannical, and for the last forty years has
made its barbaric impress on the country.

And still further, the decree goes forth that the Slave-Trade shall be
suppressed in reality as in name, that the statutes against it shall be
vigorously enforced, and the power of the Government directed in good
faith against it, all efforts to the contrary notwithstanding.

These things were yesterday proclaimed by the American people solemnly,
and in a way from which there is no appeal. It was done by a vote
destined to be ever memorable and a landmark of history.

Having obtained this great victory, let us study to use it with
moderation, with prudence, with wisdom. Through no failure on our part
must its proper fruits be lost. Happily, Abraham Lincoln [_prolonged
cheers_] has those elements of character needed to carry us through
the crisis. He is calm, prudent, wise, and also brave. And permit me
to say, that there are moments in government when bravery is not less
important than prudence. He will not see our cause sacrificed through
menaces of disunion from the South, even if echoed in Massachusetts;
and in this firmness he will be sustained by the American people,
insisting upon all that is promised and secured by the Constitution,
and to all menaces, from whatever quarter, answering back, that the
Union shall be preserved and made more precious by consecration to
Human Rights. [_Three cheers for the Union._]

I thank you for this welcome, and now bid you good night.

JOY AND SORROW IN THE RECENT ELECTION.

LETTER TO THE WIDE-AWAKES OF BOSTON, AT THEIR FESTIVAL, AFTER ELECTION,
NOVEMBER 9, 1860.

The defeat of Mr. Burlingame, as a Representative of Boston,
which was keenly felt by Republicans, and especially by Mr.
Sumner, opened the way to his wider career as Minister of the
United States to China, and then as Minister of the Chinese
Empire to the Western Powers. The vote stood 8,014 for Hon.
William Appleton, and 7,757 for Mr. Burlingame.

BOSTON, November 9, 1860.

DEAR SIR,--An engagement out of the State will prevent me from
uniting with the gallant Wide-Awakes this evening in their
festival at Music Hall. But my heart will be with them in their
joy and in their sorrow.

They will naturally rejoice in that great victory by which the
American people have solemnly declared that _Slavery is sectional
and Freedom is national_, so that, wherever Slavery exists, if
it exist at all, it must be by virtue of local law, and not by
virtue of the National Constitution.

But even this victory, opening a new epoch in our national
history, cannot make us forget the backsliders of Boston, through
whose desertion of principles the delegation in Congress,
pledged to Freedom, has been weakened, and a blow struck at
an eminent Representative which has fallen upon the hearts of
Republicans everywhere throughout the country. To the honor of
Mr. Burlingame, all good Republicans feel wounded through him;
and it is also to his honor that he was made the mark of special
assault.

All experience shows that the partisans of Slavery stick at
nothing, where the imagined interests of Slavery are in question.
The essential brutality of Slavery showed itself lately in New
York, when Marshal Rynders personally assaulted a venerable
citizen who appeared at his office on public business, cursing
him with most blasphemous oaths; and it showed itself here in
Boston, when the supporters of Mr. Appleton for weeks traduced
the Republican candidate, uttering calumnies which were as
basely false with regard to him as if they had been uttered
in detraction of Mr. Appleton. Such conduct must make us hate
Slavery more, and add to our mortification that it prevailed
among us.

It belongs to the Republican party, at last triumphant in the
nation, inflexibly to sustain its principles, and also to sustain
the men who are true to these principles. In this duty I doubt
not it will be guided by that temperate judgment which is in
harmony with the consciousness of right.

God bless the Wide-Awakes! And believe me, dear Sir,

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

S. B. STEBBINS, Esq.

THE VICTORY AND PRESENT DUTIES.

SPEECH TO THE WIDE-AWAKES, AT PROVIDENCE, RHODE ISLAND, NOVEMBER 16,
1860.

Late in the evening, after lecturing[39] in Providence, Mr.
Sumner, who was the guest of Hon. A. C. Barstow, received a
serenade from the Wide-Awakes, commanded by Colonel Dexter,
with a band of music, and accompanied by the “Central Glee
Club” and the “National Vocalists.” The space in front of the
house, and the streets, for some distance, were thronged. After
music by the band, Mr. Sumner appeared on the front steps of
the house, and addressed the immense crowd.

GENTLEMEN OF THE WIDE-AWAKES:--

I had supposed that with our great triumph you would naturally retire
to your homes, like soldiers when peace has come. But this goodly show
assures me that here in Providence you still exist as a distinct body,
ready with sympathy, and I doubt not for duty also.

In the faithful record of recent events, the service performed by the
Wide-Awakes cannot be forgotten. I see it in two different aspects.
Besides contributing immensely to that victory which now gladdens our
hearts, you have shown that here at the North are men ready, if the
exigency requires, to leap forward in defence of Northern rights, which
are only Constitutional rights. In these two things you have done well,
and I am happy in this opportunity of offering you my grateful thanks.

All our hearts, fellow-citizens, are swelling with joy at the
Presidential election. It is in congratulation that you appear to-night
once more with banners and lights, and I rejoice with you,--as I love
Liberty and love my country. It is impossible to exaggerate the result.
Had we merely elected new officers, that would have been much; but
we have done more. A new policy is declared. Thus far the National
Government has been inspired by Slavery. It has seemed to exist for
Slavery only. All is now changed. Liberty will be its inspiration. And
what a change! Liberty instead of Slavery! But you know well that this
change, so beneficent and natural, is in completest harmony with the
Constitution and with the declared sentiments of our fathers.

I can never banish from my mind that picture of Washington taking
his first oath to support the Constitution of the United States,
when nowhere on the land within the national jurisdiction breathed a
single slave. At that time Freedom was national. Surely good men will
rejoice to see our country regain once more that happy condition,
nor can any person regret it who does not deliberately exalt Slavery
above Freedom. But this condition is secured by the recent election.
Already the country seems fairer, the skies clearer, the air purer,
and all good influences more abundant, while Liberty opens the way
to prosperity and renown. Not merely will Slavery cease its baleful
predominance in the Government, but other things will be accomplished.
There will be improvements in rivers and harbors, communications
between the Atlantic and Pacific, homesteads for actual settlers on our
public lands, peace and dignity in our foreign relations, with sympathy
for struggling Liberty everywhere, also economy in administration, and
reform generally,--all of which will naturally ensue, when the Republic
is once more inspired by those sentiments in which it had its being.

While indulging in proper congratulations on such a victory, we can
afford to disregard all menaces, from whatever quarter they come,
whether from the distant South or nearer home. Conscious of right, we
have only to go forward, mindful always of the Constitution, mindful
also of that just moderation which adds to the strength of firmness.
An ancient poet teaches, that, “where Prudence is, no Divinity is
absent.”[40] I cannot doubt that the Republican party, to which we
belong, will be as prudent in government as it has been irresistible at
the ballot-box. Such, at least, is my sincere aspiration.

* * * * *

Fellow-citizens and Wide-Awakes, I thank you for this unexpected visit,
and now most sincerely and gratefully wish you good night.

The speech was followed by vocal music, in a succession of
pieces, continuing till after midnight. In conclusion, the
serenaders sang the following words, written by Hon. William M.
Rodman.

“Bold champion of the Right!
We welcome thee to-night
With heartfelt song:
Once Freedom’s tyrant foe
Essayed to lay thee low,
But now we joy to know
That thou art strong.

“Life’s purpose to fulfil,
Stand thou defiant still,
While life remains:
For Thraldom’s night will flee,
Our children yet shall see
The land redeemed and free
From Slavery’s chains.

“Faithful and vigilant!
To thee our song we chant:
Good night! Good night!
Around thy couch be peace,
From pain may sleep release,
And strength with years increase!
Good night! Good night!”

MODERATION IN VICTORY; STANDING BY OUR PRINCIPLES.

SPEECH TO THE WIDE-AWAKES OF LOWELL, NOVEMBER 21, 1860.

In the evening after his lecture at Lowell, Mr. Sumner was
escorted by the Wide-Awakes, with banners and lights, to the
house of Hon. John Nesmith, whose guest he was. On arrival
there, he thanked his escort in these words:--

WIDE-AWAKES AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--

I owe my best thanks for the escort with which you honor me. But I must
say frankly that I attribute it less to any merit of my own than to
your zeal for the good cause in which I have borne a part.

In our recent triumph the Wide-Awakes have rendered conspicuous
service. The light which they have carried, I trust, is symbolical of
that which, under the new Administration, will be directed upon the
dark places of Government, while their activity and promptitude furnish
an example which all may be proud to follow.

The Republican party has prevailed. Its success is the triumph not
only of Freedom, but also of the Constitution, long perverted to the
purposes of Slavery. Nothing is clearer than this. The Republican party
is not _aggressive_, but _conservative_. Its object is to carry the
Government back to the original policy of the Fathers. Pardon me, but
I never tire of reminding my fellow-citizens, that, when Washington
took his first oath as President, the Constitution nowhere on the land,
within the national jurisdiction, covered a slave; and surely the
Republican party cannot err, if it seeks to bring back the condition
of things under Washington. Bear this in mind, if you please; and when
it is said that you are aggressive, reply fearlessly, “Then is the
Constitution aggressive, then was Washington aggressive.” With these
two authorities we cannot hesitate. To all enemies we oppose “the
Constitution and Washington.”

If attacks upon the Republican party here at home have caused a
different impression in any quarter, the responsibility belongs
to those who have constantly and systematically maligned and
misrepresented us. And our severity of judgment should be reserved less
for the Southern States so much excited than for those at the North who
feed the flames.

Our duty is plain and bright before us,--plain as day, and bright as
the sun. It is simply to proceed as we have begun, and to abide by
our declared principles. This is not the moment for any surrender to
threats, even if Massachusetts could ever yield to such compulsion.

It was the saying of Samuel Adams, in the early stage of our
Revolution, that we should be respected abroad just in proportion to
the firmness of our conduct. And this is true now. The victory which
we have won can be assured only by such conduct, tempered always by
that wise moderation which is needful even in victory. There should be
no party act or hasty word to increase present responsibilities. Our
safety is in our principles. They are of living rock, and no power can
prevail against them.

Again I thank you. Good night.

This was followed by a serenade, with a song for the occasion.

MEMORIAL STONES OF THE WASHINGTONS IN ENGLAND.

LETTER TO JARED SPARKS, HISTORIAN OF WASHINGTON, NOV. 22, 1860. FROM
THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER.

BOSTON, November 22, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR,--Since our last conversation I have received from
Earl Spencer precise copies of the two “Memorial Stones” of the
English family of George Washington, which I described to you
as harmonizing exactly with the pedigree having the sanction
of your authority.[41] The copies are, as I understand, of the
same stone and of the same size with the originals, and have the
original inscriptions,--being in all respects _fac-similes_. They
will therefore give you an exact idea of those most interesting
memorials in the parish church near Althorp, in Brington,
Northamptonshire.

The largest is of Lawrence Washington, father of John Washington,
who with his brother Lawrence emigrated to America. It is a slab
of bluish-gray sandstone, and measures five feet nine inches long
and two feet six inches broad.

This is the inscription:--

HERE·LIETH·THE·BODI·OF·LAVRENCE
WASHINGTON·SONNE·&·HEIRE·OF
ROBERT·WASHINGTON·OF·SOVLGRÆ
IN·THE·COVNTIE·OF·NORTHAMTON
ESQVIER·WHO·MARIED·MARGARET
THE·ELDEST·DAVGHTER·OF·WILLIAM
BVTLER·OF·TEES·IN·THE·COVNTIE
OF·SVSSEXE·ESQVIER·WHO·HAD·ISSV
BY·HER·8·SONNS·&·9·DAVGHTERS
WHICH·LAVRENCE·DECESSED·THE·13
OF·DECEMBER·A: D[=N]I: 1616

THOV·THAT·BY·CHANCE·OR·CHOYCE
OF·THIS·HAST·SIGHT
KNOW·LIFE·TO·DEATH·RESIGNES
AS·DAYE·TO·NIGHT
BVT·AS·THE·SVNNS·RETORNE
REVIVES·THE·DAYE
SO·CHRIST·SHALL·VS
THOVGH·TVRNDE·TO·DVST·&·CLAY

Above the inscription, carved in the stone, are the arms of the
Washingtons, with the arms of the Butlers _impaled_,--the latter
being, in the language of heraldry, _azure, a chevron between
three covered cups or_.

The other stone is placed over Robert Washington and Elizabeth
his wife. Robert was uncle of the emigrant. This is a slab of the
same sandstone, and measures three feet six inches long and two
feet six inches broad.

The inscription, on a small brass plate set into the stone, is as
follows:--

HERE LIES INTERRED Y^{E} BODIES OF ELIZAB: WASHINGTON
WIDDOWE, WHO CHANGED THIS LIFE FOR [=IM]ORTALLITIE
Y^{E} 19^{TH} OF MARCH 1622. AS ALSO Y^{E} BODY OF ROBERT
WASHINGTON GENT: HER LATE HVSBAND SECOND
SONNE OF ROBERT WASHINGTON OF SOLGRAVE IN Y^{E}
COVNTY OF NORT[=H]: ESQ^{R}: WHO DE[=PT]ED THIS LIFE Y^{E}
10^{TH} OF MARCH 1622 AFTER THEY LIVED LOVINGLY TOGETHER
MANY YEARES IN THIS PARRISH

On a separate brass, beneath the inscription, are the arms of
the Washingtons, without any addition but a crescent, the _mark
of cadency_, which denotes the _second_ son. These, as you are
well aware, have the combination of stars and stripes, and are
sometimes supposed to have suggested our national flag. In
heraldic language, they are _argent, two bars gules, in chief
three mullets of the second_.

In the interesting chapter on the “Origin and Genealogy of the
Washington Family,” preserved in the Appendix to your “Life of
Washington,” it appears that Lawrence, father of the emigrant,
died 13th December, and was buried at Brington 15th December,
1616. But the genealogical tables followed by you furnish no
indication of the locality of this church. Had it appeared as the
parish church of the Spencer family, in Northamptonshire, the
locality, which I believe was unknown in our country, would have
been precisely fixed.

In fact, the slab covering Lawrence Washington is in the chancel
of the church, by the side of the monuments of the Spencer
family. These are all in admirable preservation, with full-length
effigies, busts, or other sculptured work, and exhibit an
interesting and connected series of sepulchral memorials, from
the reign of Henry the Eighth to the present time. Among them is
a monument by the early English sculptor, Nicholas Stone; another
by Nollekens from a design by Cipriani; and another by Flaxman,
with exquisitely beautiful personifications of Faith and Charity.
Beneath these monuments repose successive representatives of this
illustrious family, whose aristocratic claims are enhanced by
services not only to the state, but also to knowledge, as shown
in the unique and world-famous library collected by one of its
members. In this companionship is found the last English ancestor
of our Washington.

The other slab, covering Robert, uncle of the emigrant, is in one
of the aisles, where it is scraped by the feet of all who pass.

The parish of Brington--written in Domesday Book “Brinintone,”
and also “Brintone,” in modern pronunciation _Brighton_--is
between seven and eight miles from the town of Northampton, not
far from the centre of England. It contains about 2,210 acres, of
which about 1,490 belong to Earl Spencer, and about 326 to the
rector in right of his church. The soil is chiefly dark-colored
loam, with a small tract of clay towards the north. Nearly four
fifths of the whole is pasture.

In the village still stands the house said to have been occupied
by the Washingtons when the emigrant brother left them. You will
see a vignette of it on the title-page of the recent English work
entitled “The Washingtons.” Over the door are carved the words,
THE LORD GEVETH, THE LORD TAKETH AWAY, BLESSED BE THE NAME OF THE
LORD; while the Parish Register gives pathetic commentary, by
showing that in the very year when this house was built a child
was born and another died in this family.

The church, originally dedicated to the Virgin, stands at the
northeast angle of the village, and consists of an embattled
tower with five bells, nave, north and south aisles, chancel,
chapel, and modern porch. The tower is flanked by buttresses
of two stages. The present fabric goes back in origin to the
beginning of the fourteenth century, nearly two hundred years
before the discovery of America. The chancel and chapel, where
repose the Spencers and Lawrence Washington, were rebuilt by
Sir John Spencer, purchaser of the estate, at the beginning of
the sixteenth century. They afford a late specimen of Tudor
architecture. The church is beautifully situated on the highest
ground of Brington, and is surrounded by a stone wall lined with
trees. Dibdin says that a more complete picture of a country
churchyard is rarely seen. A well-trimmed walk encircles the
whole of the interior, while the fine Gothic windows at the end
of the chancel fill the scene with picturesque beauty.

The Parish Register, which is still preserved, commences in 1560.
From this it appears that William Proctor was rector from 1601 to
1627, partly contemporary with the last Washingtons there. Other
entries occur, relating to this family.

1616. “Mr. Lawrance Washington was buried the XVth day of
December.”

1620. “Mr. Philip Curtis and M^{is} Amy Washington were maried
August 8.”

1622. “Mr. Robert Washington was buried March y^{e} 11th.”

----. “M^{rs.} Elisabeth Washington widow was buried March y^{e}
20th.”

Of a minister in this church we have an amusing notice in
Evelyn’s Memoirs, where the following contrast is found, under
date of August 18th, 1688: “Dr. Jeffryes [a misnomer for
_Jessop_], the minister of Althorp, who was my Lord’s chaplain
when Ambassador in France, _preached the shortest discourse I
ever heard_; but what was defective in the amplitude of his
sermon he had supplied in the largeness and convenience of the
parsonage-house.”[42]

Less than a mile from the church is the famous seat of the
Spencers, surrounded by a park of five hundred acres, with one of
the gates opening near the church. Bordering on the churchyard
are oak-trees which were growing at the purchase of the estate
in the reign of Henry the Seventh. Evelyn was often here, a
delighted visitor. On one occasion he speaks of “the house, or
rather palace, at Althorp.”[43] Elsewhere he describes it as
“in a pretty open bottom, very finely watered, and flanked with
stately woods and groves in a park.”[44] An engraving by the
younger Luke Vorsterman, a Dutch artist, attests the attraction
of the place at this time.

One feature of the park excited the admiration of Evelyn, and at
a later day of Mrs. Jameson, who gives to it some beautiful pages
in her “Visits and Sketches at Home and Abroad.” It is a record
of the dates when different plantations of trees were begun.
While recommending this practice in his “Sylva,” Evelyn remarks,
“The only instance I know of the like in our own country is in
the park at Althorp in Northamptonshire, the magnificent seat of
the Right Hon. the Earl of Sunderland.”[45] Here are six of these
commemorative stones. The first records a wood planted by Sir
John Spencer, in 1567 and 1568; the second, a wood planted by
Sir John Spencer, son of the former, in 1589; the third, a wood
planted by Robert Lord Spencer, in 1602 and 1603; the fourth,
a wood planted by Sir William Spencer, Knight of the Bath,
afterwards Lord Spencer, in 1624. This stone is ornamented with
the arms of the Spencers, and on the back is inscribed, VP AND
BEE DOING AND GOD WILL PROSPER. In this scenery and amidst these
associations the Washingtons lived. When the emigrant left, in
1657, the woods must have been well grown. Not long afterwards
they arrested the attention of Evelyn. The fifth and sixth stones
were never seen by the Washingtons, or by Evelyn. They were set
up in 1798 and 1800, by George John, second Earl Spencer, who
planted trees as well as amassed books.

The Household Books at Althorp show that for many years the
Washingtons were frequent guests. The hospitality of this seat
has been renowned. The Queen of James the First and Prince
Henry, on their way to London in 1603, were welcomed there in an
entertainment, memorable for a Masque from the vigorous muse of
Ben Jonson.[46] Charles the First was at Althorp in 1647, when
he received the first intelligence of those approaching pursuers
from whom he never escaped except by the scaffold. In 1695,
King William was there for a week, and, according to Evelyn,
“mightily entertained.”[47] At least one of the family was famous
for hospitality of a different character. Evelyn records that
he used to dine with the Countess of Sunderland,--the title
then borne by the Spencers,--when she invited _fire-eaters_,[48]
stone-eaters, and opera-singers, after the fashion of the day.[49]

The family was early and constantly associated with literature.
Spenser, the poet, belonged to it, and dedicated to one of its
members, Alice Spencer, “the Ladie Strange,” afterwards Countess
of Derby, his “Tears of the Muses.” For the same Alice Spencer
Milton wrote his “Arcades,” while Sir John Harrington celebrated
her memory by an epigram. The Sacharissa of Waller was the Lady
Dorothy Sydney, wife of the first Earl of Sunderland, third Lord
Spencer, who perished fighting for King Charles the First at
Newbury. I do not dwell on other associations of a later day, as
my object is simply to indicate those which existed in the time
of the Washingtons.

“The nobility of the Spencers has been illustrated and enriched
by the trophies of Marlborough; but I exhort them to consider the
‘Fairy Queen’ as the most precious jewel of their coronet.” Thus
wrote Gibbon in his Memoirs,[50] and all must feel the beauty of
the exhortation. This nobility may claim another illustration
from ties of friendship and neighborhood with the Washingtons.
Perhaps hereafter our countrymen will turn aside from their
travels to visit the parish church of Brington, in reverence for
a spot so closely associated with American history.

* * * * *

I trust that this little sketch, suggested by what I saw at
Althorp during a brief visit last autumn, will not seem
irrelevant. Besides my own personal impressions and the volumes
quoted, I have relied upon Dibdin’s “Ædes Althorpianæ,” so
interesting to all bibliographical students, and especially
upon Baker’s “History and Antiquities of the County of
Northampton,”--one of those magnificent local works which
illustrate English history,--to which you refer in your Appendix.

The Memorial Stones, which I have received from Lord Spencer,
are of historic value; and I think that I shall best carry out
the generous idea of the giver by taking care that they are
permanently placed where they can be seen by the public,--perhaps
in the State-House, near Chantrey’s beautiful statue of
Washington, if this should be agreeable to the Commonwealth.

Pray pardon this call upon your attention, and believe me, my
dear Sir, with much regard,

Ever sincerely yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

JARED SPARKS, Esq.

The following official documents show how these Memorial Stones
found their way to the State-House of Massachusetts.

“EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, COUNCIL CHAMBER,
BOSTON, March 15, 1861.

“_To the Honorable the House of Representatives_:--

“I have the honor to present to the General Court, as a
gift to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from one of its
citizens, certain memorials of great historic interest.

“The home and final resting-place of the ancestors of
George Washington were until recently unvisited by
and unknown to Americans. In the genealogical table
appended to the ‘Life of Washington’ by our distinguished
fellow-citizen, Mr. Jared Sparks, it is stated that
Lawrence Washington, the father of John Washington (who
emigrated to Virginia in 1657), was buried at Brington;
but, though both Mr. Sparks and Washington Irving visited
Sulgrave, an earlier home of the Washingtons, neither of
these learned biographers appears by his works to have
repaired to this quiet parish in Northamptonshire.

“Our fellow-citizen, the Hon. Charles Sumner, on a recent
visit to England, identified certain inscriptions in the
parish church of Brington, near Althorp, as being those of
the father and uncle of John Washington, the emigrant to
Virginia, who was the great-grandfather of the Father of
his Country.

“Earl Spencer, the proprietor of Althorp, sought out the
quarry from which, more than two centuries ago, these
tablets were taken, and caused others to be made which
are exact _fac-similes_ of the originals. These he has
presented to Mr. Sumner, who has expressed the desire that
memorials so interesting to all Americans may be placed
where they may be seen by the public, and has authorized me
to offer them to the Commonwealth, if it be the pleasure
of the Legislature to order them to be preserved in some
public part of the State-House.

“I send with this a letter addressed to myself by the
learned historian of Washington, bearing testimony to the
great interest of these memorials, and expressing the
desire that they may (Mr. Sumner assenting) be placed in
the Capitol.

“A letter from Mr. Sumner to Mr. Sparks also accompanies
this Message, describing the church at Brington, and some
of the associations which cluster around the resting-place
of the ancestors of our Washington.

“JOHN A. ANDREW.”

* * * * *

MR. SPARKS TO THE GOVERNOR.

“CAMBRIDGE, February 22, 1861.

“DEAR SIR,--I enclose a copy of a highly interesting letter
from Mr. Charles Sumner, describing the church at Brington,
near Althorp, in Northamptonshire. In this church were
deposited the remains of Lawrence Washington, who was the
father of John and Lawrence Washington, the emigrants to
America, and who was therefore the last English ancestor
of George Washington. A copy of the inscription on the
stone which covers the grave of Lawrence Washington, and
also of another inscription over the grave of his brother,
Robert Washington, who was buried in the same church, are
given with exactness in Mr. Sumner’s letter. As far as I am
aware, these inscriptions are now for the first time made
known in this country.

“Earl Spencer has sent to Mr. Sumner two stones, being from
the same quarry, and having the same form and dimensions,
as the originals, and containing a _fac-simile_ of the
inscriptions. It has been suggested that these stones
ought to be placed in the State-House, where they may be
accessible to the public, and my opinion on the subject has
been asked. As they are unquestionably genuine memorials
of the Washington family, and possess on this account a
singular historical interest, I cannot imagine that a more
appropriate disposition of them could be made. I understand
that Mr. Sumner would cheerfully assent to such an
arrangement, and I cannot doubt that your Excellency will
be well inclined to take such measures as may effectually
aid in attaining so desirable an object.

“I am, Sir, very respectfully yours,

“JARED SPARKS.

“His Excellency JOHN A. ANDREW, _Governor of
Massachusetts_.”

* * * * *

“COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS.

“HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, March 23, 1861.

“The Committee on the State-House, to whom was referred
the Message of His Excellency the Governor, presenting
to the General Court, as a gift from the Hon. Charles
Sumner, certain memorials of Washington, of great historic
interest, report that they consider it a matter of special
congratulation that the interesting facts concerning the
Father of his Country, contained in the papers accompanying
the Message, should have been first made known to us by a
citizen of Massachusetts; and deeming it important that
these valuable memorials should be permanently preserved
in the capitol of the State, they report the accompanying
resolves.

“Per order,

“R. WARD.”

* * * * *

“_Resolves in relation to certain Memorials of the
Ancestors of Washington._

“_Resolved_, That the thanks of the General Court be and
hereby are presented to the Hon. Charles Sumner for his
interesting and patriotic gift to the Commonwealth, of two
Memorial Tablets in imitation of the originals which mark
the final resting-place of the last English ancestors of
GEORGE WASHINGTON.

“_Resolved_, That the Commissioners on the State-House
cause the same to be prepared and placed, with appropriate
inscriptions, in some convenient place in the Doric Hall of
the State-House, near the statue of Washington.--_Approved
April 6, 1861._”

* * * * *

“OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON THE STATE-HOUSE,
BOSTON, January 1, 1862.

“The undersigned, Commissioners on the State-House,
hereby certify, that, in compliance with the Resolves of
the Legislature of Massachusetts, passed April 6, 1861,
they have caused the abovenamed Memorial Tablets of the
Washington Family to be permanently placed upon the marble
floor of the area in which the statue of Washington stands,
within the railing in front of said statue.

“JOHN MORISSEY, _Sergeant-at-Arms_.
OLIVER WARNER, _Secretary_.
HENRY K. OLIVER, _Treasurer_.

A white marble tablet, placed by the Commissioners near the
Washington Memorials, bears the following inscription:--

THESE FAC-SIMILES OF THE MEMORIAL STONES OF THE WASHINGTON
FAMILY IN THE PARISH CHURCH OF BRINGTON, THE BURIAL-PLACE
OF THE SPENCERS, NEAR ALTHORP, NORTHAMPTONSHIRE, ENGLAND,
WERE PRESENTED BY THE RIGHT HONORABLE EARL SPENCER TO
CHARLES SUMNER OF MASSACHUSETTS, AND BY HIM OFFERED TO THE
COMMONWEALTH 22 FEBRUARY, 1861.

LAWRENCE WAS FATHER, AND ROBERT UNCLE, OF THE ENGLISH
EMIGRANT TO VIRGINIA, WHO WAS GREAT-GRANDFATHER OF GEORGE
WASHINGTON.

LAFAYETTE, THE FAITHFUL ONE.

ADDRESS AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK, NOVEMBER 30, 1860.

He [Algernon Sidney] was stiff to all republican principles,
and such an enemy to everything that looked like monarchy, that
he set himself in a high opposition against Cromwell, when he
was made Protector.--BURNET, _History of His Own Time_, Vol. I.
p. 538.

Quant à moi, j’avoue que mon indolence sur cet objet tient à la
confiance intime où je suis que la liberté finira par s’établir
dans l’ancien monde comme dans le nouveau, et qu’alors
l’histoire de nos révolutions mettra chaque chose et chacun à
sa place.--LAFAYETTE, _Mémoires_, Tom. I. Avant-propos, p. v.

Go on, my friend, in your consistent and magnanimous career;
and may you live to witness and enjoy the success of a cause
the most truly glorious that can animate the breast of
man,--that of elevating and meliorating the condition of his
race.--JAMES MADISON, _Letter to Lafayette, 1821_: _Letters and
other Writings_, Vol. III. pp. 237, 238.

* * * * *

This Address was at the invitation of the Young Men’s
Republican Union of New York, before whom the speech on the
Republican party had been given.[51] On the present occasion,
William C. Bryant, justly famous in our literature, took the
chair and introduced Mr. Sumner in the following words.

“I am glad, my friends, to see so large an audience
assembled for the purpose of hearing one of our most
accomplished scholars and orators discourse on a subject
lying apart from the ordinary strifes and immediate
interests of the day. Concerning the services rendered by
Lafayette to our country, to our own Republic, in the most
critical stage of its existence, there is no controversy.
For them we are all grateful. For his personal character
we all cherish a high veneration. And your presence here
to-night in such numbers declares that there are multitudes
among us who cherish and preserve a warm admiration, a
generous and purifying enthusiasm, for the noble examples
of self-sacrifice bequeathed to us by a generation which
has passed away. Among public men, in all times and all
countries, among all that class who have been actors in
the events which make up the history of the world, there
are few, unfortunately, who can compare with Lafayette
in a course of steady, unswerving virtue. Attend, then,
my friends, to the portraiture of that virtue drawn and
set before you in living words by a great artist, Charles
Sumner, of Boston, whom I now introduce to this assembly.”
[_Long continued cheering._]

The newspapers speak of the assembly as crowded and
enthusiastic, in spite of stormy weather. The _Herald_ says,
“The cheering was protracted, and the utmost enthusiasm was
manifested by the audience.” Even the _World_ adds, “The
lecturer was frequently and vociferously applauded, and the
audience gave evidence of deep interest in his remarks.” From
the report in the _Herald_ it appears that the allusions to
Slavery were received always with “applause,” while, at the
remark of Lafayette attributing “the evils of France less to
the madness of violence than to compromise of conscience by
timid men,”[52] there was what the _Herald_ calls “vehement and
long continued applause, and waving of hats and handkerchiefs.”
The temper of the audience was an illustration of prevailing
sentiment.

Beside the newspaper report at the time, this address was
printed at New York in a pamphlet, but from notes of reporters
without revision or help from Mr. Sumner.

* * * * *

In selecting this subject, Mr. Sumner was governed by two
considerations: first, a long cherished desire to pay the
homage justly due in his opinion to an illustrious character
whose place in history was not yet determined, and, secondly,
the conviction, that, in the actual crisis of our affairs, such
an example of fidelity would help to fix popular sentiment. The
sympathy of the audience in all the testimony against Slavery,
and especially in the condemnation of Compromise, showed that
the effort was appreciated. The report in the _Herald_ was
headed “_Sumner on Slavery_.”

Rumors of compromise in certain quarters and menaces from
the South increased the anxiety of the more earnest to take
advantage of every opportunity for demonstration against
Slavery. To all suggestions of concession the North made haste
to answer in the negative. Already began that fidelity under
which the Rebellion finally succumbed and Slavery disappeared.

* * * * *

Mr. Sumner was especially pleased at the appreciation of this
Address as an effort against compromise,--shown by a letter
from a citizen of Kansas, who was present:--

“How timely and impressively that bright example teaches
adherence to Liberty and Principle, and resistance to
concession and compromise, at the present crisis!”

A patriot citizen who heard it at Philadelphia, where it was
given before an immense audience, wrote:--

“Your Lecture has done more good than words can tell. There
is no such thing as calculating its value to our city.”

The _Pennsylvanian_ of Philadelphia, after entitling it “Clear
Grit Abolitionism,” said:--

“The People’s Literary Institute Lecture, at Concert Hall,
last evening, was by that perfect ensample of Abolitionism,
Senator Sumner, of Massachusetts. The hall was crowded,
negroes occupying the front seats and other prominent
places. Sumner’s nominal subject was ‘Lafayette,’ but he
made his sketch of the noble Marquis a vehicle for the
expression of the most ardent wishes and aspirations after
negro equality. The audience applauded the most radical
passages, although a stray hiss now and then betrayed the
whereabouts of a ‘Conservative.’”

ADDRESS.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am to speak this evening of one who early
consecrated himself to Human Rights, and throughout a long life became
their representative, knight-errant, champion, hero, missionary,
apostle,--who strove in this cause as no man in history has ever
striven,--who suffered for it as few have suffered,--and whose
protracted career, beginning at an age when others are yet at school,
and continued to the tomb, where he tardily arrived, is conspicuous
for the rarest fidelity, the purest principle, and the most chivalrous
courage, whether civil or military. There is but one personage to whom
this description is justly applicable, and you have anticipated me when
I pronounce the name of Lafayette. As in Germany Jean Paul is known as
“the Only One,” so would I hail Lafayette as “the Faithful One.” If
Liberty be what philosophy, poetry, and the human heart all declare,
then must we treasure the example of one who served her always with a
lover’s fondness and with a martyr’s constancy, nor demand perfections
which do not belong to human nature. It is enough for unstinted
gratitude that he stood forth her steadfast friend, like the good
angel,--

“unmoved,
Unshaken, unseduced, unterrified,--

trampling on all the blandishments of youth, of fortune, and of power,
keeping himself sternly aloof whether from King or Emperor, and always
insisting upon the same comprehensive cause,--with a soul as fearless
and irreproachable as Bayard, from whom generals and kings received
knighthood, as unbending as Cato, who singly stood out against Cæsar,
and as gentle as that best loved disciple, who leaned on the bosom of
the Saviour, and alone of all the Twelve followed him to the Cross.

* * * * *

If anything could add to the interest which this unparalleled career is
calculated to awaken, I should find it in special associations which
I have enjoyed. Often, when in Paris halting about as an invalid, I
turned from its crowded life to visit the simple tomb of Lafayette in
the conventual cemetery of Picpus, watched by white-hooded nuns, within
the circle of the old walls, where he lies by the side of his heroic
wife, pattern of noblest womanhood. Gazing on this horizontal slab of
red freestone, in shape like that of Albert Dürer in the republican
graveyard of Nuremberg, bearing an inscription without title of any
kind, and then casting my eyes upon the neighboring monuments, where
every name has the blazon of prince or noble, I seemed to see before
me that youthful, lifelong, and incomparable loyalty to a great cause
with perfect consistency to the end, marking him a phenomenon of
history, which will be my theme to-night. The interest inspired at
the republican tomb was strengthened at Lagrange, the country home of
Lafayette, a possession derived from the family of his wife, where
he passed the last thirty years of life in patriarchal simplicity,
surrounded by children and grandchildren, with happy guests, and where
everything still bears witness to him.

Nor do I believe that my interest goes far beyond that of the American
people, when I think how his name is a household word, dear to all
alike, old and young. Even the list of post-offices in the United
States shows no less than fifty with his venerated name, and eighteen
with the name of Lagrange.

Just before leaving France, now a year ago, on a clear and lovely day
of October, in company with a friend, I visited this famous seat, which
at once reminded me of the prints of it so common at shop-windows in my
childhood. It is a picturesque and venerable castle, with five round
towers, a moat, a drawbridge, an arched gateway, ivy-clad walls, and a
large court-yard within, embosomed in trees, except on one side, where
a beautiful lawn spreads its verdure. Everything speaks to us. The
castle itself is of immemorial antiquity,--supposed to have been built
in the earliest days of the French monarchy, as far back as Louis le
Gros. It had been tenanted by princes of Lorraine, and been battered
by the cannon of Turenne, one of whose balls penetrated its thick
masonry. The ivy so luxuriantly mantling the gate, with the tower by
its side, was planted by the eminent British statesman, Charles Fox,
on a visit during the brief peace of Amiens. The park owed much of its
beauty to Lafayette himself. The situation harmonized with the retired
habits which found shelter there from the storms of fortune. It is in
the level district of Brie, famous for its cheese, and forming part
of the province of Champagne, famous for its wine,--about forty-five
miles to the east of Paris, remote from any high-road, and at some
distance from the railway recently opened through the neighborhood, in
a country rich with orchards and smiling with fertility of all kinds.
The estate immediately about the castle contains six hundred acres,
which in the time of Lafayette was enlarged by several outlying farms.
The well-filled library occupied an upper room in one of the towers,
and near a window overlooking the farm-yard still stood the desk at
which Lafayette was in the habit of sitting, with the speaking-trumpet
by which he made himself heard in the yard, and with the account-book
of the farm lying open as he had left it. All about were souvenirs of
our country, showing how it engaged his thoughts. The castle is now
occupied by the family of one of his grandchildren, whose hospitable
welcome to us as Americans gave token of their illustrious ancestor,
hardly less than these precious memorials and the full-length portrait
by Ary Scheffer which looked down from the walls.

* * * * *

And now holding up to view a model of surpassing fidelity in support of
Human Rights, I am not without hope that others may see the beauty of
such a character and try to make it in some measure their own. There is
need of it among us. We, too, must be faithful.

* * * * *

Gilbert de Motier, Marquis de Lafayette, only child of an ancient
house, was born 6th September, 1757, at the castle of Chavaniac, in
the central and mountainous province of Auvergne, in France. He came
into the world an orphan,--for his father, a colonel of grenadiers in
the French army, had already perished at the Battle of Minden. The
verses which once interested Burns and excited the youthful admiration
of Scott, though suggested by a humbler lot, depict some of the
circumstances which surrounded his:--

“Cold on Canadian hills or _Minden’s plain_,
Perhaps that parent mourned her soldier slain,
Bent o’er her babe, her eye dissolved in dew,
The big drops mingling with the milk he drew.”[53]

The mother died soon after, leaving her child alone in the world, with
rank and fortune such as few possess.

In the Memoirs, written by his own hand, Lafayette mentions simply his
birth, without allusion to family or ancestry. This was characteristic
of one who had so completely renounced all such distinctions. But the
temptations he overcame and the prejudices he encountered can be fully
appreciated only when we know his origin. His family was not merely
ancient and noble, but for generations historic. It had given to French
renown a Marshal, who, after honorable service in Italian campaigns,
fought by the side of the Maid of Orléans in the expulsion of the
English from France; and it had added to the more refined glories of
the nation an authoress of that name, the friend of Rochefoucauld
and Madame de Sévigné, who shone by literary genius at the court of
Louis the Fourteenth, and became an early example of what woman may
accomplish: so that the young orphan bore a name which, in a land of
hereditary distinctions, seemed to enlist him for their conservation,
while it gave him everywhere an all-sufficient passport.

But as some are born poets and others are born mathematicians, the
Marquis de Lafayette was born with instinctive fidelity to the great
principles of Liberty and Equality, by the side of which all hereditary
distinctions disappear. Liberty, he had the habit of saying, was
with him a religion, a love, and a geometrical certainty; and this
passion, thus sacred, ardent, and confident, was inborn, perpetual,
and irresistible. While still a child in the seclusion of Auvergne, he
sighed for dangerous adventure, and when at the age of eleven he was
transferred to college at Paris, the soul of the young noble responded
instinctively to all instances of republican virtue. In the child may
be seen the man, and he delighted afterwards to remember that during
those early years, when the heart showed itself as it was, in a school
exercise describing “the perfect horse,” he lost the prize by picturing
the noble animal as throwing his rider at sight of the whip. Nor did
his ardent nature express itself in superficial sallies. At every
period of life, and particularly in youth, he was grave and silent even
to coldness,--thus in external manner differing from the giddy and
ostentatious nobles of his day, as he contrasted with them in character.

An early marriage, at the age of sixteen, with the remarkable daughter
of the ducal house of Noailles, enlarged his aristocratic connections,
and completed all that heart could desire for happiness or worldly
advancement. But the life of a courtier, even with the companionship of
royal princes, did not satisfy his earnest nature, and he turned away
from the grandeurs and follies of Versailles to follow in the steps of
his father as captain in the French army. Stationed at Metz, a border
fortification on the Rhenish frontier of France, an incident occurred
which gave impulse and direction to his life.

The Duke of Gloucester, brother of King George the Third, smarting
under slights at court on account of a marriage disagreeable to the
King, turned his back upon England, and in his travels stopped at Metz,
where he was welcomed at dinner by the commander of the garrison. At
that table sat the youthful Lafayette, only nineteen years old, who
there for the first time heard the story of the American “insurgents,”
as they were called,--of their armed resistance to British troops, and
of the Declaration of Independence. His whole nature was thrilled, and
the passionate declamation against arbitrary power to which the English
Duke gave vent, though stirred only by wounded pride and spite, fell
like a spark upon his sincere and sensitive soul, already kindling with
generous emotions, so that, before the dinner was ended, his resolution
was fixed to cross the ocean and offer his sword to distant, unknown
fellow-men struggling for liberty. This was in the autumn of 1776.[54]
Hastening back to Paris, he lost no time in engaging with the American
Commissioners there, who with grateful astonishment welcomed their
romantic ally.

Meanwhile came tidings of melancholy reverses which followed the
Declaration of Independence, and of the scanty forces of Washington
tracking the snow with bloody feet, as they retreated through
New Jersey,--seeming to announce that all was lost. The American
Commissioners frankly confessed that they could not encourage Lafayette
to proceed with his purpose. But his undaunted temper was quickened
anew, and when they told him that with their damaged credit it was
impossible to provide a vessel for his conveyance, he exclaimed: “Thus
far you have seen my zeal only; now it shall be something more. I will
purchase and equip a vessel myself. It is while danger presses that I
wish to join your fortunes.” Noble words, worthy of immortality, and
never to be heard without a throb by an American heart!

Before embarking, Lafayette, partly to mask his enterprise, and also in
the hardihood of courage, visited England, where his wife’s uncle, the
French ambassador, presented him to George the Third, who, unconscious
of his purpose, said, “I hope you mean to stay some time in Britain”;
to which he answered, that it was not in his power. “What obliges you
to leave us?” asked the King. “Please your Majesty,” said our new ally,
“I have a very particular engagement; and if your Majesty were aware
of it, you would not desire me to stay.” During this visit everything
was open to the youthful soldier, and he was even invited to attend the
review of British troops about to embark for America. From instinctive
delicacy he declined, thinking it not right to take advantage of a
hospitable invitation to inspect troops against whom he was about to
array himself in war. “But,” he added, in relating this incident, “I
met them six months after at the Brandywine.”

Quitting England, he traversed France with secrecy and despatch to join
his vessel, which was at a Spanish port, beyond French jurisdiction.
His departure came like a bolt upon the English Court, which he had
just left, also upon the French Court, which was not yet prepared for
a break with England, and upon his most affectionate family, who were
planning for him a tour in Italy, which in his busy life he never
made; but his young wife, who suffered most, loved him too well not to
partake his sentiments and to approve his generous resolution, even
though it separated him from her. To illustrate the general sensation,
I quote the words of the historian Gibbon, in a letter dated April 12,
1777. “We talk chiefly of the Marquis de Lafayette, who was here a few
weeks ago. He is about twenty, with an hundred and thirty thousand
livres a year, the nephew of Noailles, who is ambassador here. He
has bought the Duke of Kingston’s yacht, and is gone to join the
Americans.[55] His family interfered by peremptory command, and the
French Government interfered by that arbitrary mandate, under seal
of the King, known as _lettre-de-cachet_,--but, disregarding the one
and evading the other, in the disguise of a courier, our devoted ally
traversed the Pyrenees, and soon found himself with his companions in
arms on board his vessel, which, on the 26th of April, 1777, set sail
for America.

Undertaking this enterprise at a time when the sea and all beyond were
little known, the youthful adventurer showed a heart of “triple oak.”
Our admiration is enhanced, when we recall the charms of country,
rank, and family left behind,--with perils of capture and war braved
even before reaching the land,--and especially when we contemplate
the motive in which this enterprise had its origin. Rarely has hero
gone forth on so beautiful an errand; for he carried words of cheer to
our fathers, then in despairing struggle for the Great Declaration,
and opened the way for those fleets and armies of France soon after
marshalled on our side; nor is it too much to say, that he was the
good angel of Independence. His family correspondence, which has
seen the light only since his death, exhibits his beautiful fidelity
and the completeness of his dedication to our cause. In a letter to
his distinguished father-in-law, announcing his purpose, he says of
American interests, that they “will always be more dear to him than
his own,” and then declares himself “at the height of joy at having
found so fine an occasion to do something and to improve himself.”[56]
In a letter to his wife, written on the voyage, under date of June 7,
1777, his sympathy with the great objects of the national contest is
tenderly revealed. “I hope, for my sake,” he writes, in words worthy
of everlasting memory, “that you will become a good American. This
is a sentiment proper for virtuous hearts. Intimately allied to the
happiness of the whole Human Family is that of America, destined to
become the respectable and sure asylum of virtue, honesty, toleration,
equality, and of a tranquil liberty.”[57] Where are nobler words of
aspiration for our country than this simple testimony by a youth of
nineteen, pouring out his heart to his wife of seventeen? Where in
history are grander words from youth or man? For seven weeks laboring
through the sea, yet sustained by thoughts like these, he arrived at
last on the coast of South Carolina. It was dark, but, pushing ashore
in a boat, and following the guidance of a light, he found himself
under a friendly roof. His first word, as he touched the land, was a
vow to conquer or perish with it.

The Continental Congress was then sitting at Philadelphia, and,
without stopping for rest, the sea-worn voyager hastened to report
himself there. Most of the way on horseback, for nine hundred miles,
he journeyed on, enjoying the country in its native freshness, and
the simple, cordial welcome which greeted him everywhere on the road.
“The further North I advance,” thus he wrote to his wife, “the more
I like this country and its people.”[58] He had already been struck
by what to him were “black domestics who came to ask his orders.”[59]
Then for the first time he looked upon a slave. His well-known
sentiments, so constantly declared, show clearly how his candid nature
must have been troubled. He had forsaken France, where, amidst gross
inequalities of condition, this grossest was unknown,--where, in the
descending ranks of the feudal hierarchy, there was no place for this
degradation,--where, amidst unjust taxes and injurious privileges
without number, every man had a right at least to his child, to his
wife, and to himself,--and where the boast went forth, as in England,
and was repeated by judicial tribunals, that the air was too pure for
a slave. With heavenly generosity he had turned away from his own
country to help the cause of Freedom in another hemisphere, and here he
found man despoiled of all _personal_ rights, and even degraded to be
property, by those whose own struggles merely for _political_ rights
had thrilled the fibres of his being. Youthful, and little schooled as
yet in the world, he must have recoiled instinctively, as this most
dismal and incomprehensible inconsistency appeared before him. How
faithfully he battled with the demon his life will show.

Arrived in Philadelphia, he announced that he had come to serve at
his own expense and as volunteer. The Continental Congress, touched
by the magnanimous devotion of the youthful stranger, and apprised of
his distinguished connections at home, appointed him without delay
Major-General in the army of the United States, where he took rank
by the side of Gates and Greene, Lincoln and Lee. Born to exalted
condition in an ancient monarchy, he found himself welcomed to the
highest place in the military councils of a struggling republic, and
this while still a youth under twenty,--younger than Fox, younger than
Pitt, when they astonished the world by their precocious parliamentary
powers,--younger than Condé, in his own beautiful France, on the
field of Rocroi. And his modesty was not less eminent than his post.
To Washington, who made apologies for exhibiting his troops before a
French officer, he replied with interesting simplicity, “I have come to
learn, and not to teach.”[60] The Commander-in-Chief, usually so grave,
was won at once to that perpetual friendship which endured unbroken as
long as life,--showing itself now in tears of joy and then in tears of
grief,--watching the youthful stranger with paternal care,--sharing
with him table, tent, and on the field of Monmouth the same cloak for
a couch,--following his transcendent fortunes, now on giddiest heights
and then in gloom, with constant, unabated attachment,--corresponding
with him at all times,--addressing him in terms of unwonted endearment
as “the man he loved,”[61] and saying again that he “had not words to
express his affection, were he to attempt it,”[62]--sending kindly
sympathy to that devoted wife in her unparalleled affliction, and
pleading across sea and continent with the Austrian despot for his
release from the dungeons of Olmütz.

It is much to have inspired the most tender friendship which history
records in the life of Washington. There were with us other strangers,
scarcely less brilliant than Lafayette. There was Kosciusko, the Pole,
who afterwards played so great a part in his own country--Steuben,
the German, who did so much for the discipline of our troops,--De
Kalb, the gallant soldier, who died for us at Camden,--Rochambeau, the
distinguished commander of the French forces, compeer with Washington
at Yorktown,--Lauzun, the sparkling courtier, whose fascinations were
acknowledged by Marie Antoinette,--Ségur, the high-bred youthful
soldier and future diplomatist,--Montesquieu, grandson of the immortal
author of the “Spirit of Laws,”--Saint-Simon, whose military and
ancestral honors are now lost in his fame as social reformer,--also
the unfortunate Count de Loménie, with the Prince de Broglie of the
old monarchy, and Berthier, afterwards a prince of the Empire. All
these were in our revolutionary contest gathered about Washington; but
Lafayette alone obtained place in his heart. Friendship is always a
solace and delight; but such a friendship was a testimony. Let it ever
be said that Washington chose Lafayette as friend, while Lafayette was
to him always pupil, disciple, son.

His intrepidity found early occasion for display at the Battle of the
Brandywine, where, attempting to rally our unlucky troops, he was
severely wounded in the leg, and thus at once, by suffering for us,
increased his titles to regard. As he became known, his simple and
bountiful nature awakened the attachment of officers and men, so that
in writing to his wife he was able to relieve her anxieties by saying
that he had “the friendship of the army in gross and in detail,” and
also what he calls “a tender union with the most respectable, the most
admirable of men, General Washington.”[63] Nor was this unnatural,
when we consider how completely he became American in dress, food, and
habits, as he was already American in heart. Avoiding no privation
or fatigue, this juvenile patrician, educated to indulgence in all
the forms that wealth and privilege could supply, showed himself more
frugal and more austere even than his republican associates, living
sometimes for months on a single ration. The confidence of Congress
soon followed, and by special resolution Washington was requested to
place him at the head of an independent command.

Meanwhile France openly enlisted on our side. Turgot, the philosopher,
and Necker, the financier, counselled, as far-sighted ministers,
against this step, which launched the ancient monarchy in a dangerous
career. Jealous of a rival power, smarting under recent reverses, and
brooding over the accumulated rancors of long generations, the Court
was willing to embarrass England, yet covertly and without the hazard
of open war. The King himself never sympathized with the American
cause. But public opinion, which in that nation inclines to generous
ideas, was moved by the news of a distant people waging a contest for
Human Rights, at first doubtful, and then suddenly illumined by the
victory of Saratoga,--while Franklin, the philosopher and diplomatist,
our unequalled representative at Paris, challenged the admiration
alike of grave and gay, and the example of Lafayette touched the heart
of France. These wrought so far, that Court and King were obliged to
bend before the popular will, and then came the Treaty of Alliance
with the Colonies by which their place in the Family of Nations was
assured. The Treaty was communicated to the British Court, with a note
referring Independence to the Declaration of the 4th of July, on which
Lafayette, with constant instinct for popular rights, exclaimed, “Here
is a principle of national sovereignty which will some day be recalled
at home.”[64] Of course, if Americans could become independent by a
Declaration, so could Frenchmen.

The duties of Frenchman were now superadded to the duties Lafayette
had assumed toward our cause. “As long,” said he, in a letter to
Congress, “as I thought I could dispose of myself, I made it my pride
and pleasure to fight under American colors in defence of a cause
which I dare more particularly call _ours_ because I had the good luck
to bleed for it. Now that France is involved in a war, I am urged
by a sense of duty, as well as by patriotic love, to present myself
before the King, and know in what manner he judges proper to employ my
services. The most agreeable of all will always be such as may enable
me to serve the common cause among those whose friendship I have had
the happiness to obtain, and whose fortune I have had the honor to
follow in less smiling times.” Congress responded by unlimited leave of
absence, with permission to return at his own convenient time, and by
a vote of grateful thanks and a sword, together with a letter to the
French King, where they said, “We recommend this young nobleman to your
Majesty’s notice, as one whom we know to be wise in council, gallant in
the field, and patient under the hardships of war.”[65] Never before
did Frenchman return from service abroad with such a letter to his king.

On his way to embark at Boston, he was attacked by a fever, which in
its violence seemed about to prevail, so that Washington dwelt on the
daily tidings of the physician “with tears in his eyes,” and it was
reported at one time that “the soldier’s friend,” as he was called,
had died.[66] Happily he was spared to his two countries, and to the
affection of his commander. Always true to Liberty, he would not let
the crew of the frigate waiting for him at Boston be recruited by
impressment,--thus in all things guarding the rights of the people.[67]

If the sensation in Europe caused by his departure had been great,
that caused by his return, after two years of brilliant service, with
eminent military rank, with the thanks of Congress and the friendship
of Washington, was greater far. He could not appear anywhere without
greetings of admiration which knew no bounds, while, to borrow his own
account, he was “consulted by all the ministers, and, what is much
better, kissed by all the women.”[68] In a journey to his estate, the
towns through which he passed honored him with processions and civic
pomp. But his distant friends, struggling for the Great Declaration,
were never out of mind. Accustomed to large interests sustained by
small means, he regretted each _fête_ even in his own honor as a
diversion of supplies, while his zeal went so far as to make the
Prime-Minister, M. de Maurepas, declare that for this cause Lafayette
would strip Versailles of its furniture. Such an influence, so sincere
and so constant, from one who spoke not only as a French noble, but
as a Major-General of the American army, was not without result. The
papers of Lafayette attest the ability with which he pressed upon
the French Government an active participation in the contest, and
especially prompted the decisive expedition of Rochambeau.

But he did not loiter at home. Soon he turned from country and family.
Again he crossed the sea, and this time landed at Boston, for which,
at a later day, he recorded a “predilection,”[69] chiefly, it appears,
because there were no slaves there, and all were equal. The hearts of
the people everywhere throbbed with welcome; the army partook of this
delight, and Washington now “shed tears of joy.”[70] The republican
sentiments which animated him appear in the present of a flag to one of
our battalions, with a simple wreath of laurel blending with a civic
crown, and the words beneath, “_No other_.”[71] Farewell to crowns and
coronets, to kings and nobles! Such was the great lesson of the flag.
Then commenced the second part of his American career,--his active
military service,--his command in Virginia,--his campaign against
Cornwallis, when the latter said triumphantly, “The boy shall not
escape me,”--and his coöperation in the final assault at Yorktown,
ending in the capitulation of the British commander to the combined
forces of America and France,--all of which belongs to the history of
both countries.

The campaign in Virginia redounded to the praise of Lafayette in no
common measure. After announcing his designation for this service,
and saying that “the command of the troops in that State cannot be in
better hands,” Washington proceeds:--

“He possesses uncommon military talents, is of a quick and
sound judgment, persevering, and enterprising without rashness;
and besides these, he is of a very conciliating temper and
perfectly sober, which are qualities that rarely combine in the
same person. And were I to add that some men will gain as much
experience in the course of three or four years as some others
will in ten or a dozen, you cannot deny the fact and attack me
upon that ground.”[72]

Madison wrote at the time that “his having baffled and finally reduced
to the defensive so powerful an army as we now know he had to contend
with, and with so disproportionate a force, would have done honor to
the most veteran officer.”[73] The General Assembly of Virginia, by
solemn resolution, conceived in the warmest terms of affection and
applause, acknowledged “his many great and important services to this
Commonwealth in particular, and through it to the United States in
general,” and tendered to him therefor “the grateful thanks of the free
representatives of a free people.” They also directed a marble bust
of him, “as a lasting monument of his merit and of their gratitude.”
This judgment was sanctioned by the highest authorities, including
Washington.[74] A recent author adds to this testimony by speaking of
the campaign as “masterly,” and then characterizes it as “the most
brilliant, as well as the most successful, part of his whole public
career.”[75] But this judgment strangely forgets that lifelong loyalty
to Human Rights which in itself is a campaign beyond any in war.

Grim-visaged war now smoothed its wrinkled front, and, in the lull
which ensued after the surrender of Cornwallis, Lafayette returned
again to France, with the renewed thanks of Congress, and with added
trusts. Our ministers abroad were instructed to consult him. The
youthful soldier was changed into the more youthful diplomatist;
nor was he less efficient in the new field. His presence alone was
for our country an Embassy. Through him the haughty Spanish Court
was approached, and gigantic forces were gathered at Cadiz for an
expedition in the common cause. At the same time his republican
character was so far recognized, that the Spanish monarch, anticipating
the capture of Jamaica, exclaimed, “Lafayette must not

Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/48077