speech on the Tariff, delivered in the House of Representatives,
June 25th. This was a deliberate effort, more than six weeks
subsequent to the vote, and after all the disturbing influences of
haste and surprise had passed. It may be considered, therefore,
to express your own view of the ground on which it is to be
sustained. And here, while you declare, with commendable
frankness, that you "would by no means be understood to vindicate
the justice" (why not say the _truth_?) "of the declaration
that war exists by the act of Mexico," yet you adhere to your
vote, and animadvert upon the conduct of Mexico, in refusing to
receive a minister instead of a commissioner, as if that were a
vindication, apology, or extenuation! Do we live in a Christian
land? Is this the nineteenth century? Does an American statesman
venture any such suggestion in vindication, apology, or extenuation
of war? On this point I join issue. By the Law of Nations as
now enlightened by civilization, by the law of common sense, by
the higher law of Christian duty, the fact presented in your
vindication can form no ground of war. This attempt has given pain
to many of your constituents hardly less than the original vote.
It shows insensibility to the true character of war, and perverse
adherence to the fatal act of wrong. It were possible to suppose a
representative, not over-tenacious of moral purpose, shaken from
his firm resolve by the ardors of a tyrannical majority ordaining
wicked things; but it is less easy to imagine a deliberate
vindication of the hasty wrong, when the pressure of the majority
is removed, and time affords opportunity for the recovery of that
sense of Right which was for a while overturned.
Another apology, in which you and your defenders participate, is
founded on the alleged duty of voting succors to our troops, and
the impossibility of doing this without voting also for the bill,
after it was converted into a Declaration of Falsehood and of War.
It is said that patriotism required this vote. Is not that name
profaned by this apology? One of your honored predecessors, Sir,
a Representative of Boston on the floor of Congress, Mr. Quincy,
replied to such apology, when, on an occasion of trial not unlike
that through which you have just passed, he gave utterance to these
noble words:--
"But it is said that this resolution must be taken as 'a test of
Patriotism.' To this I have but one answer. If Patriotism ask me
to assert a falsehood, I have no hesitation in telling Patriotism,
'I am not prepared to make that sacrifice.' The duty we owe to our
country is, indeed, among the most solemn and impressive of all
obligations; yet, high as it may be, it is nevertheless subordinate
to that which we owe to that Being with whose name and character
_truth_ is identified. In this respect I deem myself acting upon
this resolution under a higher responsibility than either to this
House or to this people."[194]
[194] Speech on the Resolution concerning the Conduct of the British
Minister, Dec. 28, 1809: Annals of Congress, Eleventh Congress, Second
Session, col. 958.
These words were worthy of Boston. May her Representatives never
more fail to feel their inspiration! "But," say the too swift
defenders, "Mr. Winthrop voted against the falsehood _once_."
Certainly no reason for not voting against it _always_. But the
excuse is still pressed, "Succors to General Taylor should have
been voted." The result shows that even these were unnecessary.
Before the passage of this disastrous Act of Congress, his troops
had already achieved a success to which may be applied the words of
Milton:--
"That _dishonest_ victory
At Chæronea, _fatal to liberty_."
But it would have been less wrong to leave him without succors,
even if needful to his safety, than to vote falsehood and unjust
war. In seeing that the republic received no detriment, you should
not have regarded the army only; _your highest care should have
been that its good name, its moral and Christian character,
received no detriment_. You might have said, in the spirit of
virtuous Andrew Fletcher, that "you would lose your life to
_serve_ your country, but would not do a base thing to _save_
it." You might have adopted the words of Sheridan, in the British
Parliament, during our Revolution, that you "could not assent to
a vote that seemed to imply a recognition or approbation of the
war."[195]
[195] Speech, Nov. 27, 1780: Hansard, Parl. Hist., XXI. 905.
Another apology is, that the _majority_ of the Whig party joined
with you,--or, as it has been expressed, that "Mr. Winthrop voted
with all the rest of the weight of moral character in Congress,
from the Free States, belonging to the Whig party, _not included
in the Massachusetts delegation_"; and suggestions are made in
disparagement of the _fourteen_ who remained unshaken in loyalty
to Truth and Peace. In the question of Right or Wrong, it is of
little importance that a few fallible men, constituting what
is called a majority, are all of one mind. Supple or insane
majorities are found in every age to sanction injustice. It was
a majority which passed the Stamp Act and Tea Tax,--which smiled
upon the persecution of Galileo,--which stood about the stake of
Servetus,--which administered the hemlock to Socrates,--which
called for the crucifixion of our Lord. These majorities cannot
make us hesitate to condemn such acts and their authors. Aloft on
the throne of God, and not below in the footprints of a trampling
multitude, are the sacred rules of Right, which no majorities can
displace or overturn. And the question recurs, Was it _right_ to
declare unjust and cowardly war, with superadded falsehood, in the
cause of Slavery?
Thus do I set forth the character of your act, and the apologies
by which it is shielded. I hoped that you would see the wrong, and
with true magnanimity repair it. I hoped that your friends would
all join in assisting you to recover the attitude of uprightness
which becomes a Representative from Boston. But I am disappointed.
I add, that your course in other respects has been in disagreeable
harmony with the vote on the Mexican War Bill. I cannot forget--for
I sat by your side at the time--that on the Fourth of July, 1845,
in Faneuil Hall, you extended the hand of fellowship to Texas,
although this slaveholding community was not yet received among the
States of the Union. I cannot forget the toast,[196] on the same
occasion, by which you were willing to connect your name with an
epigram of dishonest patriotism. I cannot forget your apathy at a
later day, when many of your constituents engaged in constitutional
efforts to oppose the admission of Texas _with a slaveholding
constitution_,--so strangely inconsistent with your recent avowal
of "uncompromising hostility to all measures for introducing new
Slave States and new Slave Territories into our Union."[197] Nor
can I forget the ardor with which you devoted yourself to the less
important question of the Tariff,--indicating the relative value of
the two in your mind. The vote on the Mexican War Bill seems to be
the dark consummation of your course.
[196] "Our country,--however bounded, still our country, to be defended
by all our hands."
[197] Speech at the Whig Convention in Faneuil Hall, Sept. 23, 1846.
Pardon me, if I ask you, on resuming your seat in Congress, to
testify _at once_, without hesitation or delay, against the further
prosecution of this war. Forget for a while Sub-Treasury, Veto,
even Tariff, and remember this wicked war. With the eloquence
which you command so easily, and which is your pride, call for the
instant cessation of hostilities. Let your cry be that of Falkland
in the Civil Wars: "Peace! Peace!" Think not of what you call
in your speeches "an _honorable_ peace." There can be no peace
with Mexico which will not be more honorable than this war. Every
fresh victory is a fresh dishonor. "Unquestionably," you have
strangely said, "we are not to forget that Mexico must be willing
to negotiate."[198] No! no! Mr. Winthrop! We are not to wait for
Mexico. Her consent is not needed; nor is it to be asked, while our
armies are defiling her soil by their aggressive footsteps. She
is _passive_. We alone are _active_. Stop the war. Withdraw our
forces. In the words of Colonel Washington, RETREAT! RETREAT! So
doing, we shall cease from further wrong, and peace will ensue.
[198] Speech at the Whig Convention, Sept. 23, 1846.
Let me ask you to remember in your public course the rules of Right
which you obey in private life. The principles of morals are the
same for nations as for individuals. Pardon me, if I suggest that
you have not acted invariably according to this truth. You would
not in your private capacity set your name to a falsehood; but you
have done so as Representative in Congress. You would not in your
private capacity countenance wrong, even in friend or child; but
as Representative you have pledged yourself "not to withhold your
vote from any reasonable supplies which may be called for"[199]
in the prosecution of a wicked war. Do by your country as by
friend or child. To neither of these would you furnish means of
offence against a neighbor; do not furnish to your country any such
means. Again, you would not hold slaves. I doubt not you would
join with Mr. Palfrey in emancipating any who should become yours
by inheritance or otherwise. But I do not hear of your effort or
sympathy with those who seek to carry into our institutions that
practical conscience which declares it to be as wrong in States as
in individuals to sanction slavery.
[199] Speech on the Tariff, June 25, 1846: Congressional Globe,
Twenty-ninth Congress, First Session, p. 970.
Let me ask you still further--and you will know if there is reason
for this request--to bear testimony against the Mexican War, and
all supplies for its prosecution, regardless of the minority in
which you are placed. Think, Sir, of the cause, and not of your
associates. Forget for a while the tactics of party, and all its
subtle combinations. Emancipate yourself from its close-woven web,
spun as from a spider's belly, and move in the pathway of Right.
Remember that you represent the conscience of Boston, the churches
of the Puritans, the city of Channing.
Meanwhile a fresh election is at hand, and you are again a
candidate for the suffrages of your fellow-citizens. I shall
not anticipate their verdict. Your blameless private life and
well-known attainments will receive the approbation of all; but
more than one of your neighbors will be obliged to say,--
"Cassio, I love thee,
But nevermore be officer of mine!"
I am, Sir, your obedient servant,
CHARLES SUMNER.
OCTOBER 26, 1846.
REFUSAL TO BE A CANDIDATE FOR CONGRESS.
NOTICE IN THE BOSTON PAPERS, OCTOBER 31, 1846.
After the appearance of Mr. Sumner's letter to Mr. Winthrop, there
was a disposition with certain persons feeling strongly on Slavery
and the Mexican War to seek a candidate against the latter. Mr.
Sumner again and again refused to accept a nomination. Besides
his constant unwillingness to enter into public life, he would
not consent that his criticism of Mr. Winthrop should be weakened
by the imputation of an unworthy desire for his place. In his
absence from Boston, lecturing before Lyceums in Maine, a meeting
of citizens was convened at the Tremont Temple on the evening
of October 29, 1846, to make what was called an "independent
nomination for Congress." The meeting was called to order by Dr.
S.G. Howe, and organized by the choice of the following officers:
Hon. Charles F. Adams, President,--J.P. Blanchard, Samuel May,
George Merrill, Dr. Walter Channing, Dr. Henry I. Bowditch, and R.
I. Attwill, Vice-Presidents,--Charles G. Davis and J.H. Frevert,
Secretaries. A committee was appointed to draft resolutions and
nominate a candidate. This committee, by its chairman, John A.
Andrew, afterwards Governor of Massachusetts, reported an elaborate
series of resolutions, setting forth reasons for a separate
nomination, and concluding with a resolution in the following terms.
* * * * *
"_Resolved_, That we recommend to the citizens of this District
as a candidate for Representative in the National Congress a man
raised by his pure character above reproach, whose firmness,
intelligence, distinguished ability, rational patriotism, manly
independence, and glowing love of liberty and truth entitle him to
the unbought confidence of his fellow-citizens,--CHARLES SUMNER, of
Boston,--fitted to adorn any station, always found on the side of
the Right, and especially worthy at the present crisis to represent
the interests of the city and the cardinal principles of Truth,
Justice, Liberty, and Peace, which have not yet died out from the
hearts of her citizens."
* * * * *
Mr. Andrew followed the reading of the resolutions with a speech,
in which he vindicated the position of Mr. Sumner as follows.
"Mr. President, I shall have done no adequate justice to the views
of the committee, to this meeting, to the distinguished friend of
Peace and Liberty to whose nomination this crowded assembly has
with such gratifying and enthusiastic heartiness so unequivocally
responded, nor, indeed, to my own feelings, until I shall have made
a single statement of fact in regard to the attitude of Mr. Sumner
himself towards the act we have just felt it our duty to perform.
"This nomination, grateful as it may be to his feelings, considered
as an evidence of personal attachment and respect on the part of
so many of his friends and fellow-citizens, will find him wholly
unprepared for its reception; more than that, as I myself do know,
he will hear of it with surprise and regret. Though I am unaware
that any member of the committee, other than myself, has had any
immediate personal knowledge of the views likely to be entertained
by him in this regard, I say, what no living man can truly dispute
or honestly question, that this nomination has been made upon the
entire responsibility and sense of duty of this committee,--not
only without the knowledge, approbation, or consent of Mr. Sumner,
but in the face of his constant, repeated, and determined refusal,
at all times, to allow his name, even for a moment, to be held at
the disposal of friends for such a purpose.
"A delicate and sensitive appreciation of his attitude, as one of
the earliest, strongest, and most open of those opposed to the
dealings of our present member of Congress with the matter of the
Mexican War, determined Mr. Sumner, although looked to by--may I
not say every individual who sympathizes in this present movement
of opposition, as the man to bear our standard on the field of
controversy?--determined him to resist every effort to draw him
forth from the humblest station in our ranks.
"He would think, write, and speak as his own mind and heart were
moved; but he would do nothing, he would permit nothing to be done,
for himself, for his own personal promotion."
* * * * *
Mr. Andrew then proceeded to mention what induced the committee to
disregard Mr. Sumner's known wishes.
The resolutions were adopted unanimously. A committee of vigilance
was appointed. Mr. Sumner's letter to Mr. Winthrop, with the report
of this meeting, signed by the President and Secretaries, was
printed on a broad-side.
Meanwhile Mr. Sumner returned from Maine, when, on learning what
had passed, he at once withdrew his name in the following notice.
Late last evening, on my return from Bangor, where I had been in
pursuance of an engagement made last August, I was surprised to find
myself nominated as candidate for Congress.
I have never on any occasion sought or desired public office of any
kind. I do not now. My tastes are alien to official life; and I have
long been accustomed to look to other fields of usefulness.
My name has been brought forward, in my absence, without any
knowledge or suspicion on my part of such a purpose, and contrary to
express declarations, repeatedly made, that I would not, under any
circumstances, consent to be a candidate.
Grateful for the kindness of friends who have thought me worthy of
political confidence, and regretting much that it is not bestowed
upon some one else, who would fitly represent the idea of opposition
to the longer continuance of the unjust war with Mexico, I beg leave
respectfully, but explicitly, to withdraw my name from the canvass.
CHARLES SUMNER.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 31.
SLAVERY AND THE MEXICAN WAR.
SPEECH AT A PUBLIC MEETING IN THE TREMONT TEMPLE, BOSTON, NOVEMBER 5,
1846.
The sentiment against Slavery and the Mexican War found expression
in the independent nomination of Dr. S.G. Howe as Representative to
Congress. At a meeting of citizens to support this nomination, John
A. Andrew, Esq., was called to the chair. The following resolution
was reported from the District Committee by John S. Eldridge, Esq.
* * * * *
"_Resolved_, That in the determination of our candidate, Dr.
SAMUEL G. HOWE, 'to stand and be shot at,' we recognize the spirit
of a man distinguished by a life of service in various fields
of humanity; and, confidently trusting in the triumph of sound
principles, we heartily pledge ourselves to make, with untiring
zeal, every honorable effort to secure the election of a candidate
who has boldly identified himself with the cause of Truth, Peace,
Justice, the Liberties of the North, and the Rights of Man."
* * * * *
On this resolution Mr. Sumner made the speech given below. He was
followed by Hon. C.F. Adams, who reviewed the Anti-Slavery policy
pursued for several years by the Massachusetts Legislature, and the
obstacles they encountered.
At the election, which took place on Monday, November 9th, the vote
was as follows: Winthrop (Whig), 5,980; Howe (Anti-Slavery), 1,334;
Homer (Democrat), 1,688; Whiton (Independent), 331.
Mr. Chairman,--When, in the month of July, 1830, the people of Paris
rose against the arbitrary ordinances of Charles the Tenth, and, after
three days of bloody contest, succeeded in that Revolution which gave
the dynasty of Orléans to the throne of France, Lafayette, votary
of Liberty in two hemispheres, placing himself at the head of the
movement, made his way on foot to the City Hall, through streets
impassable to carriages, filled with barricades, and strewn with wrecks
of war. Moving along with a thin attendance, he was unexpectedly joined
by a gallant Bostonian, who, though young in life, was already eminent
by seven years of disinterested service in the struggle for Grecian
independence against the Turks, who had listened to the whizzing of
bullets, and narrowly escaped the descending scimitar. Lafayette,
considerate as brave, turned to his faithful friend, and said, "Do not
join me; this is a danger for Frenchmen only; reserve yourself for your
own country, where you will be needed." Our fellow-citizen heeded him
not, but continued by his side, sharing his perils. That Bostonian was
Dr. Howe. And now the words of Lafayette are verified. He is needed by
his country. At the present crisis, in our Revolution of "Three Days,"
he comes forward to the post of danger.
I do not disguise the satisfaction I shall feel in voting for him,
beyond even the gratification of personal friendship, because he is
not a politician. His life is thickly studded with labors in the best
of all causes, the good of man. He is the friend of the poor, the
blind, the prisoner, the slave. Wherever there is suffering, there his
friendship is manifest. Generosity, disinterestedness, self-sacrifice,
and courage have been his inspiring sentiments, directed by rare
sagacity and intelligence; and now, wherever Humanity is regarded,
wherever bosoms beat responsive to philanthropic effort, his name is
cherished. Such a character reflects lustre upon the place of his
birth, far more than if he had excelled only in the strife of politics
or the servitude of party.
He has qualities which especially commend him at this time. He is
firm, ever true, honest, determined, a lover of the Right. With a
courage that charms opposition, he would not fear to stand alone
against a fervid majority. Knowing war by fearful familiarity, he is an
earnest defender of peace. With a singular experience of life in other
countries, he now brings the stores he has garnered up, and his noble
spirit, to the service of his fellow-citizens.
But we are assembled to-night less to consider his praises--grateful
as these would be to me, who claim him as friend--than to examine the
principles now in issue. Not names, but principles, are now in issue.
Proud as we may be of our candidate, we feel, and he too feels, that
his principles on the grave questions now pending are his truest
recommendation.
In examining these questions, I shall regard those only which are put
in issue by the Whigs. It is with the Whigs that I have heretofore
acted, and may hereafter act,--always confessing loyalty to principles
above any party.
The Resolutions of the recent Whig State Convention present five
different questions, with the opinions of the party thereupon. These
are the Veto of the President, the Sub-Treasury, the Tariff, _Slavery_,
and _the Mexican War_. Now, of these five questions, it will not be
disguised that the last two are the most important. Slavery is a
wrong which justice and humanity alike condemn. The Mexican War is an
enormity born of Slavery. Viewed as a question of dollars and cents,
it overshadows the others; while the blackness of its guilt compels
them to the darkness of a total eclipse. Base in object, atrocious in
beginning, immoral in all its influences, vainly prodigal of treasure
and life; it is a war of infamy, which must blot the pages of our
history. No success, no bravery, no victory can change its character.
Vainly will our flag wave in triumph over twenty fields. Shame, and
not glory, will attend our footsteps, while, in the spirit of a bully,
we employ superior resources of wealth and numbers in carrying death
and devastation to a poor, distracted, long afflicted sister republic.
Without disparaging the other questions, every just and humane person
will recognize Slavery and the Mexican War as paramount to all
else,--so much so, that whoever is wrong on these must be so entirely
wrong as not to deserve the votes of Massachusetts men.
The Whig Convention has furnished a rule or measure of opinion. It has
expressly pledged the Whigs "to promote all constitutional measures
for the overthrow of Slavery, and to oppose at all times, with
uncompromising zeal and firmness, any further addition of slaveholding
States to this Union, out of whatever territory formed." The Mexican
War it has denounced as having its origin in _an invasion of Mexico by
our troops_.
Now on these subjects Dr. Howe's opinions are clear and explicit. He
is an earnest, hearty, conscientious opponent of Slavery, and in his
speech at your former meeting he denounced the injustice of the Mexican
War, and, as a natural consequence, demanded the instant _retreat_ of
General Taylor's troops to the Nueces.
And this brings me to Mr. Winthrop. Here let me carefully disclaim
any sentiment except of kindness towards him as a citizen. It is of
Mr. Winthrop the politician that I speak, and not of Mr. Winthrop the
honorable gentleman.
And, _first_, what may we expect from him against _Slavery_? Will he
promote all constitutional measures for its overthrow? Clearly one of
these is the Abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia. This
is within the constitutional powers of Congress, and has been called
for expressly by our State. It has sometimes occurred to me that
Slavery in our country is like the image in Nebuchadnezzar's dream,
whose feet of clay are in the District of Columbia, where they may
be shivered by Congressional legislation, directed by an enlightened
Northern sentiment, so that the whole image shall tumble to the earth.
Other measures against Slavery are sanctioned by the Massachusetts
Whigs, and by the Legislature of our State, in formal resolutions,
duly transmitted to Washington. I have never heard of Mr. Winthrop's
voice for any of these,--nor, judging by the past, have I any reason to
believe that he will support them earnestly. On these important points
he fails, if tried by Whig standards.