The Address to the People of Massachusetts, adopted by the Free-Soil
Convention, was violently attacked, as will appear from the following
reply, written at a hotel in New York, where Mr. Sumner happened to be
staying, when he saw the criticism.
NEW YORK, IRVING HOTEL, September 27, 1849.
Gentlemen,--My attention has been directed to-day to an article
in your paper of the 25th September, entitled "Mr. Sumner and
his Authorities," in which I am charged, among other things,
with misrepresenting the opinions of Washington, particularly in
the following sentence, in the Address recently adopted by the
Free-Soil Convention at Worcester:--
"The first Washington freely declared his affinity with Antislavery
Societies, and that in support of any legislative measure for the
abolition of Slavery his suffrage should never be wanting."
A more familiar acquaintance with the opinions of our great
exemplar would have prevented the writer in the Atlas from falsely
accusing a neighbor. It would have prevented him from saying that
the letter to Robert Morris, from which part of the above statement
is drawn, was written more than ten years before the adoption of
the National Constitution, and from dating it in 1776, when the
letter in reality bears date in 1786.
I will not doubt your willingness to repair the injustice you
have allowed in the columns of the Atlas, and therefore ask you
to publish this note, with the accompanying extracts, showing the
opinions of Washington.
By these it will appear that Washington freely declared to Brissot
de Warville, in a conversation which took place in 1788, and was
published in 1791, that he rejoiced in what was doing in other
States for the emancipation of the negroes,--that he sincerely
desired the extension of it to his own country,--and, contrary to
the opinions of many Virginians, _expressly said that he wished the
formation of an Antislavery Society, and that he would second such
a society_.
It will appear, also, that Washington said to Robert Morris, in a
letter dated April 12, 1786, that in support of any legislative
measure for the abolition of Slavery his suffrage should not be
wanting,--that he said to Lafayette, in a letter dated May 10,
1786, that gradual emancipation certainly might and assuredly ought
to be effected, and that, too, by legislative authority,--that he
said to John F. Mercer, in a letter dated September 9, 1786, that
it was among his first wishes to see some plan adopted by which
Slavery in this country may be abolished by law,--that he said
to Sir John Sinclair, in a letter dated December 11, 1796, that
Maryland and Virginia must have, and at a period not remote, laws
for the gradual abolition of Slavery,--and that by his will, dated
July 9, 1790 [1799], he expressly emancipated his slaves.
Thus acting, and thus constantly avowing his sentiments in favor
of the abolition of Slavery, Washington is properly called an
Abolitionist.
I cannot close without correcting the insinuation of the writer
in the Atlas, that it is my wish, or that it is the wish of the
Free-Soil party to interfere, through Congress, with Slavery
in the States. This is a mistake. Our position is this. They
who are responsible for Slavery should abolish it. Our duties
are coextensive with our responsibilities. We at the North are
responsible for Slavery everywhere within the jurisdiction of
Congress, and it is here that we should exert ourselves, according
to the principles of Washington, to abolish it by legislative
action.
Still further, our sympathies and God-speed must attend every
effort in the States to remove this great evil. We should join with
Washington in his exclamation to Lafayette, on learning that this
philanthropic Frenchman had purchased an estate in Cayenne, with
the view of emancipating the slaves on it: "Would to God a like
spirit might diffuse itself generally into the minds of the people
of this country!"
I will not trouble you with any comment on the other criticisms
upon me by the writer in the Atlas.