THOMAS DREW, Esq., Chairman of the Committee.
FINAL PROTEST, FOR HIMSELF AND THE CLERGY OF
NEW ENGLAND, AGAINST SLAVERY IN NEBRASKA
AND KANSAS.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE NIGHT OF THE FINAL PASSAGE OF THE
NEBRASKA AND KANSAS BILL, MAY 25, 1854.
Among the important incidents of the Nebraska Debate was a protest
from three thousand clergymen of New England, which was severely
denounced by the supporters of the aggression, especially by
Mr. Douglas. Particular objection was taken to the words, "In the
name of Almighty God, and in his presence," which were employed by
the protestants. The heats on both sides increased. At a later stage
Mr. Sumner felt constrained to speak again, which he did for himself
and the much-abused clergy. This brief effort attracted unusual attention.
It seemed to meet the rising sentiments of the people, and
especially of the clergy. Rev. Dr. Allen, formerly President of Bowdoin
College, wrote: "Our _Northampton Courier_ of yesterday contained
your bold and admirable midnight speech. I thank you for
what you said for the clergy, but more especially what you said for the
country and for Freedom." Rev. Dr. Storrs, of Braintree, Massachusetts,
an eminent Congregationalist, wrote: "I took my pen only to
say a single word,--to tell you of my grateful admiration of your
courage, faithfulness, and eloquence in defence of truth and godliness
against the increasing tide of hellish principles and passions." Rev.
Theodore Parker wrote: "I have had no time to thank you for your
noble speech till this minute. Nat. Bowditch says it is the best
speech delivered in the Senate of the United States in his day. You
never did a thing more timely, or which will be more warmly welcomed
than this." George S. Hillard, a friend of many years, but differing
in position on political questions, wrote: "Your last brief speech on
the Nebraska Bill is capital. I think it the best speech you have ever
made. The mixture of dignity and spirit is most happy. We are
going to fill up that region with free laborers, and secure it against
Slavery." John G. Whittier wrote: "It was the fitting word; it
entirely satisfied me; and with a glow of heart I thanked God that
its author was my friend." As the speech received the sympathy of
friends, so it aroused all the bad passions on the side of Slavery. The
manifestation that ensued will appear in a note at the end.
The original debate in the Senate on the Nebraska and Kansas Bill,
in which Mr. Sumner took part, was closed by the passage of that
bill--after a protracted session throughout the night--on the morning
of Saturday, March 4, 1854, by a vote of thirty-seven yeas to fourteen
nays. The bill was then sent to the House of Representatives. It was
there taken up and referred to the Committee of the Whole; but, owing
to the mass of prior business, it became impossible to reach it. Under
these circumstances, a fresh bill, nearly identical with that which
passed the Senate, was introduced and passed the House. This, of
course, required the action of the Senate. On the 23d of May a message
from the House announced its passage, and asked the concurrence of the
Senate. It was at once read a first time; but, on the objection of Mr.
Sumner, its second reading was stopped for that day. The next day, on
motion of Mr. Douglas, all prior orders were postponed for the purpose
of considering it. The debate upon it continued during that day and
the next. The interest it excited was attested by crowded galleries to
the end. Among spectators on the floor of the Senate was the Earl of
Elgin, Governor-General of Canada, with his suite, then in Washington
to negotiate the Canadian Reciprocity Treaty. Late in the night of the
last day, after the bill was reported to the Senate, and the question
put by the Chair, "Shall the bill be engrossed and read a third time?"
Mr. Sumner took the floor and said:--
Mr. President,--It is now midnight. At this late hour of a session
drawn out to unaccustomed length, I shall not fatigue the Senate by
argument. There is a time for all things, and the time for argument
has passed. The determination of the majority is fixed; but it is not
more fixed than mine. The bill which they sustain I oppose. On a former
occasion I met it by argument, which, though often attacked in debate,
still stands unanswered and unanswerable. At present I am admonished
that I must be content with a few words of earnest protest against the
consummation of a great wrong. Duty to myself, and also to the honored
Commonwealth of which I find myself the sole representative in this
immediate exigency, will not allow me to do less.
But I have a special duty, which I would not omit. Here on my desk are
remonstrances against the passage of this bill, some placed in my hands
since the commencement of the debate to-day, and I desire that these
voices, direct from the people, should be heard. With the permission of
the Senate, I will offer them now.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. STUART in the chair). The remonstrances
can be received by unanimous consent.
SEVERAL VOICES. Let them be received.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair hears no objection.
MR. SUMNER. Taking advantage of this permission, I now present
the remonstrance of a large number of citizens of New York against the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
I also present the memorial of the religious Society of Friends in
Michigan against the passage of the Nebraska Bill, or any other bill
annulling the Missouri Compromise Act of 1820.
I also present the remonstrance of the clergy and laity of the Baptist
denomination in Michigan and Indiana against the wrong and bad faith
contemplated in the Nebraska Bill.
But this is not all. I hold in my hand, and now present to the Senate,
one hundred and twenty-five separate remonstrances, from clergymen
of every Protestant denomination in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont,
Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, constituting the six
New England States. These remonstrances are identical in character
with the larger one presented by my distinguished colleague [Mr.
EVERETT],--whose term of service here ends in a few days by
voluntary resignation, and who is now detained at home by illness,--and
were originally intended as part of it, but did not arrive in season
for annexation to that interesting and weighty document. They are
independent in form, though supplementary in nature, helping to swell
the protest of the pulpits of New England.
With pleasure and pride I now do this service, and at this last stage
interpose the sanctity of the pulpits of New England to arrest an
alarming outrage,--believing that the remonstrants, from their eminent
character and influence as representatives of the intelligence and
conscience of the country, are peculiarly entitled to be heard,--and,
further, believing that their remonstrances, while respectful in form,
embody just conclusions, both of opinion and fact. Like them, Sir, I do
not hesitate to protest against the bill yet pending before the Senate,
as a great moral wrong, as a breach of public faith, as a measure full
of danger to the peace, and even existence, of our Union. And, Sir,
believing in God, as I profoundly do, I cannot doubt that the opening
of an immense region to so great an enormity as Slavery is calculated
to draw down upon our country his righteous judgments.
"In the name of Almighty God, and in his presence," these remonstrants
protest against the Nebraska Bill. In this solemn language, most
strangely pronounced blasphemous on this floor, there is obviously
no assumption of ecclesiastical power, as is perversely charged, but
simply a devout observance of the Scriptural injunction, "Whatsoever
ye do, in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord." Let me add,
also, that these remonstrants, in this very language, have followed the
example of the Senate, which, at our present session, has ratified at
least one important treaty beginning with these precise words, "In the
name of Almighty God." Surely, if the Senate may thus assume to speak,
the clergy may do likewise, without imputation of blasphemy, or any
just criticism, at least in this body.
I am unwilling, particularly at this time, to be betrayed into anything
like a defence of the clergy. They need no such thing at my hands.
There are men in this Senate justly eminent for eloquence, learning,
and ability; but there is no man here competent, except in his own
conceit, to sit in judgment on the clergy of New England. Honorable
Senators, so swift with criticism and sarcasm, might profit by their
example. Perhaps the Senator from South Carolina [Mr. BUTLER],
who is not insensible to scholarship, might learn from them something
of its graces. Perhaps the Senator from Virginia [Mr. MASON],
who finds no sanction under the Constitution for any remonstrance
from clergymen, might learn from them something of the privileges
of an American citizen. And perhaps the Senator from Illinois [Mr.
DOUGLAS], who precipitated this odious measure upon the
country, might learn from them something of political wisdom. Sir, from
the first settlement of these shores, from those early days of struggle
and privation, through the trials of the Revolution, the clergy are
associated not only with the piety and the learning, but with the
liberties of the country. New England for a long time was governed by
their prayers more than by any acts of the Legislature; and at a later
day their voices aided even the Declaration of Independence. The clergy
of our time speak, then, not only from their own virtues, but from
echoes yet surviving in the pulpits of their fathers.
For myself, I desire to thank them for their generous interposition.
Already they have done much good in moving the country. They will
not be idle. In the days of the Revolution, John Adams, yearning for
Independence, said, "Let the pulpits thunder against oppression!" And
the pulpits thundered.[63] The time has come for them to thunder again.
So famous was John Knox for power in prayer, that Queen Mary used to
say she feared his prayers more than all the armies of Europe. But our
clergy have prayers to be feared by the upholders of wrong.
[63] A specimen is an address by Rev. Thomas Allen, Minister
of Pittsfield, Mass., entitled "Instruction and Counsel of a
Country Clergyman, given to his People, Lord's Day, June 20, 1779,
immediately after reading [to them] the Address of the Honorable
Congress to the Inhabitants of these United States." See Boston
Independent Chronicle, July 15, 1779.
There are lessons taught by these remonstrances, which, at this moment,
should not pass unheeded. The Senator from Ohio [Mr. WADE],
on the other side of the chamber, has openly declared that Northern
Whigs can never again combine with their Southern brethren in support
of Slavery. This is a good augury. The clergy of New England, some
of whom, forgetful of the traditions of other days, once made their
pulpits vocal for the Fugitive Slave Bill, now, by the voices of
learned divines, eminent bishops, accomplished professors, and faithful
pastors, uttered in solemn remonstrance, unite at last in putting
a permanent brand upon this hateful wrong. Surely, from this time
forward, they can never more render it any support. Thank God for this!
Here is a sign full of promise for Freedom.
These remonstrances have especial significance, when it is urged, as
has been often done in this debate, that the proposition still pending
proceeds from the North. Yes, Sir, proceeds from the North: for that
is its excuse and apology. The ostrich is reputed to hide its head in
the sand, and then vainly imagine its coward body beyond the reach
of pursuers. In similar spirit, honorable Senators seem to shelter
themselves behind scanty Northern votes, and then vainly imagine that
they are protected from the judgment of the country. The pulpits of
New England, representing in unprecedented extent the popular voice
there, now proclaim that six States, with all the fervor of religious
conviction, protest against your outrage. To this extent, at least, I
maintain it does not come from the North.
From these expressions, and other tokens which daily greet us, it is
evident that at last the religious sentiment of the country is touched,
and, through this sentiment, I rejoice to believe that the whole North
will be quickened with the true life of Freedom. Sir Philip Sidney,
speaking to Queen Elizabeth of the spirit in the Netherlands, animating
every man, woman, and child against the Spanish power, exclaimed, "It
is the spirit of the Lord, and is irresistible." A kindred spirit now
animates the Free States against the Slave Power, breathing everywhere
its involuntary inspiration, and forbidding repose under the attempted
usurpation. It is the spirit of the Lord, and is irresistible. The
threat of disunion, too often sounded in our ears, will be disregarded
by an aroused and indignant people. Ah, Sir, Senators vainly expect
peace. Not in this way can peace come. In passing such a bill as is
now threatened, you scatter, from this dark midnight hour, no seeds of
harmony and good-will, but, broadcast through the land, dragons' teeth,
which haply may not spring up in direful crops of armed men, yet, I am
assured, Sir, will fructify in civil strife and feud.
From the depths of my soul, as loyal citizen and as Senator, I plead,
remonstrate, protest, against the passage of this bill. I struggle
against it as against death; but, as in death itself corruption puts
on incorruption, and this mortal body puts on immortality, so from the
sting of this hour I find assurance of that triumph by which Freedom
will be restored to her immortal birthright in the Republic.
_Sir, the bill you are about to pass is at once the worst and the
BEST on which Congress ever acted._ Yes, Sir, WORST
and BEST at the same time.
It is the worst bill, inasmuch as it is a present victory of Slavery.
In a Christian land, and in an age of civilization, a time-honored
statute of Freedom is struck down, opening the way to all the countless
woes and wrongs of human bondage. Among the crimes of history, another
is soon to be recorded, which no tears can blot out, and which in
better days will be read with universal shame. Do not start. The Tea
Tax and Stamp Act, which aroused the patriot rage of our fathers, were
virtues by the side of your transgression; nor would it be easy to
imagine, at this day, any measure which more openly and wantonly defied
every sentiment of justice, humanity, and Christianity. Am I not right,
then, in calling it the worst bill on which Congress ever acted?
There is another side, to which I gladly turn. Sir, it is the best
bill on which Congress ever acted; _for it annuls all past compromises
with Slavery, and makes any future compromises impossible_. Thus it
puts Freedom and Slavery face to face, and bids them grapple. Who can
doubt the result? It opens wide the door of the Future, when, at last,
there will really be a North, and the Slave Power will be broken,--when
this wretched Despotism will cease to dominate over our Government,
no longer impressing itself upon everything at home and abroad,--when
the National Government will be divorced in every way from Slavery,
and, according to the true intention of our fathers, Freedom will be
established by Congress everywhere, at least beyond the local limits of
the States.
Slavery will then be driven from usurped foothold here in the
District of Columbia, in the National Territories, and elsewhere
beneath the national flag; the Fugitive Slave Bill, as vile as it
is unconstitutional, will become a dead letter; and the domestic
Slave-Trade, so far as it can be reached, but especially on the high
seas, will be blasted by Congressional Prohibition. Everywhere within
the sphere of Congress, the great _Northern Hammer_ will descend to
smite the wrong; and the irresistible cry will break forth, "No more
Slave States!"
Thus, Sir, standing at the very grave of Freedom in Nebraska and
Kansas, I lift myself to the vision of that happy resurrection by which
Freedom will be assured, not only in these Territories, but everywhere
under the National Government. More clearly than ever before, I now
penetrate that great Future when Slavery must disappear. Proudly I
discern the flag of my country, as it ripples in every breeze, at last
in reality, as in name, the Flag of Freedom,--undoubted, pure, and
irresistible. Am I not right, then, in calling this bill the best on
which Congress ever acted?
Sorrowfully I bend before the wrong you commit. Joyfully I welcome the
promises of the Future.
When Mr. Sumner took his seat, he was succeeded by Mr. MASON,
of Virginia, who spoke as follows.
I understand that the petitions which the Senator [Mr. SUMNER]
who has just taken his seat offers were to be admitted, as they were
offered, by the unanimous consent of the Senate. Two of them, when
offered, were sent to the President's table. The last he has reserved,
and made the vehicle for communicating the sentiments of the pulpits of
New England to the Senate, on the subject of this bill. I object to its
reception; and I object to it because I understand that Senator to say
that it is _verbatim_ the petition that was presented by his honorable
colleague, who is not now with us, in which the clergy presented
themselves in this Senate and to the country as a third estate,
speaking not as American citizens, but as clergymen, and in that
character only. I object to its reception. I object to it, that I may
not in any manner minister to the unchristian purposes of the clergy of
New England, as the Senator has just announced them. I object to it,
that I may be in no manner responsible for the prostitution of their
office (once called holy and sacred, with them no longer so) in the
face of the Senate and of the American people. I object to it, that the
clergymen of my own honored State, and of the South, may, as holding a
common office in the ministry of the Gospel, be in no manner confounded
with or contaminated by these clergymen of New England, if the Senator
represents them correctly.
Sir, if the Senator has represented these clergymen correctly, I
rejoice that there is to be a separation between the Church North
and the Church South; for, I say, if these men dare to lay aside the
character of American citizens, and come here profaning their office,
profaning the name of the Almighty, for the purpose of political
alliances, they are unworthy of their associates in the Church. Sir,
it is the first time in the history of this country that a Church
of any denomination has asserted a right to be heard, as a Church,
upon the floors of legislation; and if the Senator represents that
body correctly, they have profaned their office, and I predict now a
total separation between the Church North and the Church South, if I
understand the sentiments of the Church South. The Church there, I
know, is yet pure in its great and holy mission. When its ministers
address themselves from the pulpit, they are heard with respect, under
the sanctity of their office. You find none of them coming here to the
doors of legislation to mingle in political strife. They truly hold
themselves "unspotted from the world."
If the Senator who has just taken his seat has correctly expounded
the clergymen of New England, I object to that petition. If he has
correctly stated that it is _verbatim_ copied from the petition
presented by his colleague, I say it is a prostitution of their office
to the embrace of political party; and the Senate shall not, by my
assent, be made the medium of so unholy an alliance. I do not mean
to go further into this debate; but I object to the reception of the
petition.
* * * * *
THE PRESIDING OFFICER. The petitions cannot be received without
unanimous consent.
MR. SUMNER. It may be, Sir, at this moment, within the
competency of the honorable Senator from Virginia to object to the
reception of these remonstrances; but I am satisfied that at another
time his calmer judgment will not approve this course, much less
the ground on which now, as well as on a former occasion, he has
undertaken to impeach the right of clergymen to appear by petition or
remonstrance at the bar of Congress. Sir, in refusing to receive these
remonstrances, or in neglecting them in any way, on reasons assigned
in this chamber, you treat them with an indignity which becomes more
marked, because it is the constant habit of the Senate to welcome
remonstrances from members of the Society of Friends in their religious
character, and from all other persons, by any designation which they
may adopt. Booksellers remonstrate against the international copyright
treaty; last-makers against a proposed change in the patent laws;
and only lately the tobacconists have remonstrated against certain
regulations touching tobacco: and all these remonstrances are received
with respect, and referred to appropriate committees in the Senate. But
the clergy of New England, when protesting against a wicked measure,
which, with singular unanimity, they believe full of peril and shame to
our country, are told to stay at home. Almost the jeer is heard, "Go
up, thou bald head!" If not well, it is at least natural, that the act
you are about to commit should be attended by this concordant outrage.
* * * * *
From the Kansas and Nebraska Bill came forth a demon. Down to this time
the hostility to Mr. Sumner in the Senate was limited. It now became
more general, although he had said nothing in any way to justify it,
except that he had exposed Slavery and the pretensions in its behalf.
From the Senate it extended among the partisans of Slavery.
Meanwhile an incident in Boston was used to arouse a feeling against
him. On the evening of the 24th of May Anthony Burns was seized there
as a fugitive slave, on the claim of a citizen of Virginia, and
detained by the marshal in a room of the Court-House. In the course of
the evening of the 26th, immediately after a meeting at Faneuil Hall,
addressed by Abolitionists, the Court-House was attacked by a number of
citizens, and in the defence, James Batchelder, one of the guard, was
killed. The report of his death caused a great sensation at Washington.
It was received while the impression of Mr. Sumner's midnight speech
was still fresh, and was at once attributed to that effort. Mr. Sumner
was treated as responsible for this act, and the official organs of the
Administration openly denounced him as "murderer." It was predicted
in the speech that the bill would "scatter dragons' teeth," which he
was assured would "fructify in civil strife and feud"; but plainly
there was nothing to suggest or excite violence, even if at the time
the speech had been known in Boston, as it was not. It was concluded on
the morning of the 26th of May, at too late an hour for the telegraph,
and in fact was not known in Boston until it reached there by mail on
the 27th; but Batchelder was killed on the previous evening. And yet,
in the face of these unquestionable facts, there was a cry against Mr.
Sumner.
The _Union_, which was the official organ, thus broke forth on the
morning of May 30th.
"Boston in arms against the Constitution, and an Abolition fanatic,
the distant leader, safe from the fire and the fagot he invokes
from his seat in the Senate of the United States, _giving the
command_. Men shot down in the faithful discharge of duty to a
law based upon a constitutional guaranty, and _the word which
encourages the assassin_ given by a man who has sworn on the
Holy Evangelists and in the presence of his Maker to support the
Constitution of the country. But our Charles Sumner tells us that
a new era has been inaugurated, ... that the Constitution shall
not be obeyed, and that Slavery shall at all and every hazard be
uprooted and destroyed, in spite of all that has been pledged and
written in other days."
The _Star_, another organ of the Administration, repeated the
imputations of the _Union_, in a long article, of which the following
is a specimen.
"If Southern gentlemen are threatened and assaulted, while legally
seeking to obtain possession of property for the use of which they
have a solemn constitutional guaranty, if legal rights can only
be sought for and established at the bayonet's point, _certain
Northern men now in our midst_ will have to evince a little more
circumspection than they have ever evinced in their walk, talk, and
acts.
"Public sentiment in Alexandria is intensely excited in
condemnation of Sumner and his allies. We know that it increases in
this city every hour. The masses look upon Sumner as responsible
for the death of Batchelder. They attribute, and justly, the
action of the murderers to the counsel of Sumner. We hope that the
public sentiment against these Abolition miscreants who infest
Congress and our fair city, and fill the atmosphere in which they
move with the odor of a brothel, will not descend to acts of
personal violence. Such conduct can find no justification. But let
public opinion condemn these men everywhere,--in the street, in
the Capitol, in every place where men meet. _Let Sumner and his
infamous gang_ feel that he cannot outrage the fame of his country,
counsel treason to its laws, incite the ignorant to bloodshed
and murder, and still receive the support and countenance of the
society of this city, which he has done so much to vilify.
"While the person of a Virginia citizen is only safe from
rudeness and outrage behind the serried ranks of armed men,
Charles Sumner is permitted to walk among the 'slave-catchers'
and 'fire-eaters' of the South in peace and security. While he
incites his constituents to resist the Federal laws _even to the
shedding of blood_, concocts his traitorous plots, and sends
forth his incendiary appeals under the broad protecting panoply
of the laws he denounces, he retains his seat in the Senate, and
yet daily violates the official oath which he took to support the
Constitution of the United States."
Such articles were plainly intended to excite a mob against Mr. Sumner.
The conspiracy obtained headway in Alexandria. One proposition was, to
seize him as hostage for the surrender of the fugitive slave whose case
was then pending in Boston; another was, to inflict upon him personal
indignity and violence; another was, "to put a ball through his head."
These menaces were communicated to him, and he was warned to leave
Washington. This he refused to do, and he insisted upon walking to the
Senate by Pennsylvania Avenue, always unarmed. At a restaurant, where
he dined, he was directly menaced and insulted. The following telegram
in the New York _Times_, under date of May 31, states the case briefly.
"A strenuous and systematized effort is making here and in
Alexandria to raise a mob against Senator Sumner, in retaliation
for the Boston difficulty.... The _Star_ of this evening has two
articles, the incendiary purpose of which cannot be mistaken.
Senator Sumner himself has been several times warned to-day of
personal danger, and assured that persons bearing close relation to
the Administration are inciting the people to violence against him.
Northern men are much excited in consequence, and if an outrage
is committed, there is a probability that there will be serious
trouble."
The same telegram was sent to other places. Throughout New England it
excited great sensation, attested at once by the public press and by
private letters. The following was received by Mr. Sumner, under date
of May 31, from Joseph R. Hawley, of Connecticut, afterwards a general
in the War, and Governor of Connecticut.
"If you really think there is any danger worth mentioning, I wish
you would telegraph me instantly. I will come to Washington by
the next train, and quietly _stay by_. I have revolvers, and can
use them,--and while there should not be a word of unnecessary
provocation, still, if anybody in Alexandria or Washington _really_
means to trouble you, or any other Free Democrat there, you know
several can play at that game. I feel comparatively little anxiety
as to the result in Boston. Let them hunt slaves till the people
get sick of it. But such threats as are conveyed by that despatch
should be quietly prepared for, and met as they deserve."
George Livermore, of Boston, gave expression to the same anxiety in a
different form. He wrote thus, under date of June 3.
"There is but one feeling here respecting the infamous threats of
the _Union_ and _Star_. _Let the minions of the Administration and
of the Slavocracy harm one hair of your head, and they will raise
a whirlwind that will sweep them to destruction._ I have read your
closing remarks on the Nebraska Bill with the greatest admiration,
and most heartily indorse every word and sentiment. You never made
a better speech. What higher praise could I offer? Many persons not
of the Free-Soil party have spoken of it in terms of the highest
commendation."
The violence was postponed; but the malignant spirit continued active.
Beyond the sentiment of indignation at the menaces to which Mr. Sumner
was exposed arose another against Slavery. Persons who had been cold or
lukewarm before were excited now. Here again contemporary newspapers
and private letters testify. John B. Alley, for several years
afterwards the representative from Essex, wrote thus, under date of
June 5.
"The most eventful week that Boston has ever seen has just passed,
and I cannot refrain from troubling you with a description of the
state of feeling here. In the first place, allow me to congratulate
you upon the glorious position you occupy in the hearts of the
people of Boston. Praises from the lips of the most ultra Hunker
Whigs have greeted my ears (I need not tell you with how much
pleasure) during the past week.
"Boston, it is true, has been humbled in the dust, and it is hard,
terribly hard, to be compelled to witness the surrender of a
panting fugitive into the hands of the Slave-Hunters; but never,
since I have been engaged in the Antislavery cause, have I seen
occasion for rejoicing as now.
"Thank God, the chains that have bound the people to their old
organizations have been snapped asunder, and they have proved in
this case but as packthreads upon the arms of an unshorn Samson....
Your speech in defence of the clergy is noble, and wonderfully
effective, apparently, in stirring up their sympathies for the
slave."
Numerous letters describe the surrender to which Mr. Alley alludes. The
following from R. H. Dana, Jr., under date of June 5, gives details.
"Judging from present appearances, there are few Compromise men
left in Boston. I firmly believe that in the providence of God it
has been decreed that one cup more should be put to our lips, and
that it should not pass away until we had drained it to the dregs.
To this end, a folly has been put in their counsel and a madness
in their hearts, that they might do the things that should work in
the end the utmost good. The delays, the doubts as to the propriety
of the decision (more than doubts even with the moderate), the
military indignities and violence, the noonday procession, the
refusal to sell, the Presidential intervention, all have tended
to the desired effect. Poor Burns himself looked with terror to a
renewal of slavery. Not that Colonel Suttle was cruel. He has never
lived with Suttle, but he is intelligent, reads and writes, is weak
in his injured head, and therefore of little value, and liable to
be sold and abused.
"Batchelder was not a deputy-marshal. He is only a man who has
volunteered, this third time, against advice, to help catch and
keep a fugitive slave. You observe the marshal only calls him one
of his 'guards.' This guard were a precious set of murderers,
thieves, bullies, blacklegs,--with a very few men who went into it
from party bias, old Hunker Democratic truckmen. Batchelder was a
truckman, I am told, and may be personally respectable for aught
I know. I can give you no advice as to the pension. They ought
to know what Batchelder was. It seems to me unconstitutional and
unprecedented. If it can be defeated without your stir, it would
be better, no doubt. I do not find there is any feeling for his
case here. He volunteered for the duty, and met the consequences.
He voluntarily risked his life for pay, in an odious and dangerous
business, and lost it."
George Livermore, always a decided Whig, who had written under date of
June 3, wrote again, under date of June 13:--
"I am, as I always have been, a Conservative Whig, but I am ready
to fraternize with _anybody who will do the most for Freedom_; and
if one who has heretofore been called a Democrat or a Free-Soiler
will do more for this cause than a candidate who has been called a
Whig, he shall have my vote, and my hearty coöperation in every way
in my power."