LETTER ADDRESSED TO A COMMITTEE OF THE FREE-SOIL PARTY IN BOSTON,
OCTOBER 26, 1848.
In the political campaign which followed the nominations at Buffalo
Mr. Sumner took an active part, addressing large audiences at all the
principal places in Massachusetts, beginning at Plymouth. On these
occasions he discussed at length the failure of the two old parties,
and the political character of their candidates, especially in contrast
with those of the Free-Soil party, vindicating the necessity of
political action against the Slave Power and the extension of Slavery.
Contemporary newspapers show the impression produced, and, in the
absence of any authentic report, are quoted here. Of his address at
Springfield one of his hearers says in a newspaper:--
"It was a speech which, for beauty, eloquence, and convincing
argument, I never heard equalled. With the utmost candor, with
a power of argument not to be answered, with an array of facts
which cannot be met, he examined the position occupied by Cass and
Taylor. Refraining from all abuse, on the contrary dealing out
praise where praise is due, he yet showed most conclusively that on
the great question, the only question of importance now in issue,
neither of these candidates could be trusted. He then spoke in a
most beautiful manner of our candidate, Martin Van Buren, and his
position. Extenuating nothing in his former action or opinion, he
spoke of him _as he now is_, the true exponent of the glorious
principles of the Buffalo Platform, which he called the Second
Declaration of Independence. Mr. Sumner spoke for three hours, and
to the close the hall was crowded. The bitterest opponents speak in
the highest terms of the speech and the meeting."
Another hearer at Amherst, writing in another newspaper, is equally
enthusiastic
"For three hours the multitude was swayed to and fro by his
resistless eloquence. No description can do justice to the address.
Its framework was logic and high moral principle, ornamented with
refined and classical allusions and glowing images. Through the
whole he was interrupted by long and hearty cheers. Toward the
close he expressed a fear that he was detaining his audience too
long (the clock was then striking midnight) but he was answered by
cries from all parts of the house, 'Oh, no! go on! go on! talk all
night!'"
This introduction may explain what ensued. Mr. Sumner was nominated
for Congress, and, under the circumstances, did not feel authorized to
decline. Earnestly urging others to active support of the cause, he
could not refuse the post assigned to himself. His letter accepting the
nomination, after giving reasons for the step, proceeds to consider at
some length the philosophy of parties and the necessity for the new
organization in which he was enlisted. The nomination was communicated
to him in a letter, which is given below, with his answer. The result
will appear in the sequel.
"BOSTON, October 23, 1848.
"CHARLES SUMNER, ESQ.
"DEAR SIR,--At a meeting of the Ward, County, and District
Convention of the Free-Soil Party of Suffolk, held on Thursday
last, it being proposed to go into a nomination of candidate for
Representative to Congress, and nominations being called for, your
name, and yours only, was placed upon the list.
"A member of the Convention, who represented himself as authorized
by you for that purpose, urged, in the strongest terms, your
disinclination to be a candidate, growing out of an early formed
and long cherished resolution never to hold any political office;
but, notwithstanding all that could be urged, the Convention
nominated you, by acclamation, the Free-Soil candidate for Congress
from District Number One, and appointed us a committee to inform
you of the fact.
"It seems to us, as it did to the Convention, that a political
crisis has come which calls upon every man to forego his personal
wishes, without regard to resolutions formed under circumstances
totally different; and considering the extreme importance of a
permanent Free-Soil organization, firm, enthusiastic, and united,
we trust we shall have the great pleasure of conveying to the
Convention your acceptance of their nomination.
"S.G. HOWE,
"OTIS TURNER,
"MATTHEW BOLLES,
"CHARLES A. PHELPS,
"RICHARD HILDRETH."
BOSTON, October 26, 1848.
Gentlemen,--I have received your communication of October 23d,
informing me that I have been nominated by the Ward, County, and
District Convention of the Free-Soil Party of Suffolk as their
candidate for Congress, and requesting my acceptance of that
nomination.
You state, that a member of the Convention, who represented himself
as authorized by me for that purpose, urged in the strongest terms
my disinclination to be a candidate, growing out of an early formed
and long cherished resolution never to hold political office;
but notwithstanding all that could be urged, I was nominated by
acclamation.
The member of the Convention who spoke for me, at my special
request, did not go beyond the truth. I have never held political
office of any kind, nor have I ever been a candidate for any such
office. It has been my desire and determination to labor in such
fields of usefulness as are open to every private citizen, without
the honor, emolument, or constraint of office. I would show by
example (might I so aspire!) that something may be done for the
welfare of our race, without the support of public station or the
accident of popular favor. In this course I hoped to persevere.
I was aware of the readiness with which the world attributes to
candidates motives inconsistent with singleness and uprightness; I
knew the viperous malignity of a party press, ready to shoot its
venom upon those who oppose its course; for a succession of years I
saw friends, of whose purity I was assured, a prey to the vampire
ferocity of political partisans. Observing these things, I found in
them fresh reason for my original determination to keep aloof from
office, and from being a candidate for office.
The active part which I have taken in our recent movement,
resulting in the formation of a separate organization, has exposed
me to something of that animosity usually reserved for candidates.
Desirous to avoid any position suggesting desire for office, I have
felt an additional motive for adherence to my original purpose. I
wished to occupy such a place in our contest, as, while it left me
free to labor, should put me above suspicion.
You now bid me renounce the cherished idea of my life, early
formed, and strengthened by daily experience, especially by
circumstances at the present moment. In support of this request,
you suggest that a political crisis has come which calls upon every
man to forego his personal wishes.
Upon serious deliberation, anxious to perform my duty, I feel
myself unable to resist this appeal. In my view a crisis has
arrived which requires the best efforts of every citizen; nor
should he hesitate with regard to his peculiar post. Happy to serve
in the cause, he should shrink from no labor and no exposure. When
the fire-bell rings at midnight, when the ship which bears us
drives furious upon a lee shore, there is no time to select the
manner in which we will work. Not without dereliction of duty can
we be indifferent to the call then addressed to us, nor can we fail
to assume the responsibility or service, unwelcome though it be,
which is cast upon us.
This is the case now. The principles of Washington, Jefferson, and
Franklin, the security of our Constitution, the true fame of our
country, the interests of labor, the cause of Freedom, Humanity,
Right, Morals, Religion, God, all these are now at stake. Holier
cause has never appeared in history. To it I offer not vows only,
but my best efforts, wherever they can be effectual.
Accepting, as I now do, the nomination as Free-Soil candidate
for Congress from our District, I might properly close this
communication; but a topic in the letter with which you have
honored me leads me further. While urging my consent, you allege
"the extreme importance of a permanent Free-Soil organization,
firm, enthusiastic, and united." Even at the hazard of wearying
your attention, I would give you my own views.
I agree with the Convention in the importance of the new
organization; nor do I think there are many candid persons,
recognizing morals as the soul of all true politics, who will
hesitate in this conclusion.
The evils of party organization have often been deprecated. Some
there are, who, in visions of possible good, think these evils may
be entirely removed. They suppose that men may be left to vote, as
they act in other concerns, without the constraint of those giant
combinations by whose struggle the whole land is up-torn. Some go
so far as to oppose all associated action, as interfering with
proper freedom and individuality of conduct. On the other hand,
there are many who regard the phalanx and antagonism of party as a
necessary agency in the administration of free governments. It is
supposed that there must be two sides, whose constant watchfulness
will prevent abuse and misrule. This idea was pointedly expressed
by an eminent British statesman, when he gave as a toast, "A strong
Administration and a strong Opposition."
Without yielding to any of these extreme views with regard to the
mischiefs or the benefits of party, all should agree that the only
true and legitimate object of such an association is to uphold,
advance, and develop certain principles, regarded by the members
of the party as important to the well-being of the state. So far
forth as the members honestly concur in these principles they may
properly unite in action. But when they cease to join in their
support, or when new principles are called into activity, then the
common bond is dissolved, and a new association must be formed.
This law, which is recognized by all intelligent minds, was
developed by Mr. Webster at Faneuil Hall in 1825. "_New parties_,"
he said, "may arise, growing out of new events or new questions;
but as to those old parties which have sprung from controversies
now no longer pending, or from feelings which time and other causes
have now changed or greatly allayed, I do not believe that they
can long remain. Efforts, indeed, made to that end, with zeal and
perseverance, may delay their extinction, but, I think, cannot
prevent it. There is nothing to keep alive these distinctions in
the interests and objects which now engage society. New questions
and new objects arise, having no connection with the subjects of
past controversies, and present interest overcomes or absorbs
the recollection of former controversies. All that are united on
these existing questions and present interests are not likely to
weaken their efforts to promote them by angry reflections on past
differences. If there were nothing in _things_ to divide about, I
think the people not likely to maintain systematic controversies
about _men_. They have no interest in so doing. Associations formed
to support _principles_ may be called _parties_; but if they have
no bond of union but adherence to particular _men_, they become
_factions_."[273]
[273] Speeches and Forensic Arguments, p. 98.
In obedience to this law, political parties in France and England,
the only countries besides our own where experience is of service
to us on this occasion, have undergone mutations with time. From
the reign of Charles the Tenth to the Republic of February, the
former country witnessed a succession of parties, representing
the different principles struggling for mastery. It was rare
that there were two parties only. In England the lines were more
distinctly drawn, and the early division into two great parties
was more strictly maintained. But here also it is found impossible
to stand always upon the ancient ways. Much of the old distinction
between Whig and Tory has already become traditional; the members
of these two great antagonist combinations have recently united in
measures demanded by the law of Human Progress. The monopoly of
the Corn Laws, first assailed by Radicals, and then condemned by
aristocratic Whigs, was finally overthrown by the leader of the
Tories, who marshalled in this cause various forces never before
associated.
In our own country parties have undergone changes. It would be
difficult to find in the modern Democratic party, rejecting the
Wilmot Proviso, that early party which recognized as its chief
Jefferson, the original author of the Proviso. It would be equally
difficult to find in the modern Whig party, which ignobly trampled
upon the Wilmot Proviso, that other early party which aided in the
election of Washington, the emancipator of his slaves, and the
advocate of Emancipation.
The party lately known as Whig is recent in origin. It cannot plead
prescription in its favor. Twenty years have not yet elapsed since
its birth. It is still in its minority, without any promise that it
can reach the _age of freedom_.
From this survey we are admonished not to hesitate in support of
the new organization, from any vain idea of necessary permanence
in the two old parties. Encouragement also may be drawn from the
insufficiency of these parties as representatives of existing
public sentiment.
It is a humiliating reflection, forced upon us by the history of
parties, that the professions of principle are often a mere cover
to selfish efforts for place and power. Politics become a game, and
principles are the counters which are used. The apparent contests
of principle are made subservient to the contests of interest,
and the latter is pursued to the neglect of the former. As this
subservience becomes manifest, and as it clearly appears that
fidelity to principle is merged in selfish ambition, surrendering
all things to the pursuit of barren "availability," party loses
title to the countenance of honest men. It is a faction, a cabal.
It is an engine of mere political brokerage, by which preferment
is procured. If I used a stronger word, I should only borrow
the language of the great poet patriot, in describing his own
Italy, defiled by noxious factions, whose prostitution of sacred
principles filled the whole land with noisome odor.
Without undertaking to apply this language in all its force to
either of the parties convened at Baltimore or Philadelphia, it
will be sufficient to say that they do not now embody, if they ever
did, those principles which are accepted by large numbers of good
men as vital and paramount. The question, then, arises, Shall these
principles continue without any national organ? Shall they find no
voice? Shall they be stifled? Clearly not.
Such precisely is our condition. The important sentiment of
hostility to the Slave Power, to the extension of Slavery, and to
its longer continuance under the Constitution wherever the National
Government is responsible for it, though recognized by individuals,
and by a small, but respectable, political organization, was
never till now put forth as the paramount principle of a large
and national party. It is true, indeed, that here is no new idea.
It is as old as the Revolution,--as old as Washington, Jefferson,
and Franklin; but it is an idea neglected by both the great
parties which have recently swayed the country. Were it recognized
by either, there would be no occasion for the new party whose
existence has so auspiciously begun.
No person is so hardy as to assert that the present Democratic
party embodies this idea. But there are partisans, who, in
disregard of well-known facts, claim it as the property of the
late Whig party, even in its present metamorphosis into the Taylor
faction. It is sometimes proclaimed as their "thunder." How is this?
It is well known that the Whigs of Massachusetts, in local
conventions, and also in formal legislative proceedings, have
avowed hostility to the Slave Power, to the extension of Slavery,
and to its longer continuance under the Constitution, wherever the
National Government is responsible for it; but the _National_ Whig
party, or what Mr. Webster has called "the _united_ Whig party
of the United States," has never recognized any such principles.
Search its history, and you will find that it has been false to
them.
_As a party_, it has never sustained any measure for the abolition
of Slavery in the District of Columbia. On the contrary, it
has discountenanced all proceedings in this direction. General
Harrison, the only President it has succeeded in electing, covertly
took ground against it in his Inaugural Message, and Mr. Clay, the
acknowledged representative of the party, expressed himself to the
same effect, with a warmth which better became a better cause.
Nor did either of these Whig statesmen admit, what Mr. Van Buren
more than once distinctly declared, that Congress possessed the
constitutional power to abolish Slavery in the District. That part
of our principles, then, which touches this topic, has formed no
portion of the _National_ Whig doctrines.
The claim to proprietorship in the principle of opposition to the
extension of Slavery is equally vain. Florida and Arkansas have
both been admitted as States with slaveholding Constitutions, and
the _National_ Whig party made no opposition.
The annexation of Texas, when first presented, was opposed by
many Whigs of the Slave States, _but on grounds irrespective of
Slavery_. It was finally consummated through the agency of John
Tyler, President by the act of the Whig party, and of John C.
Calhoun, Secretary of State by the unanimous vote of the _Whig_
and Democratic members of the Senate, _through joint resolutions,
moved in the House by Mr. Milton Brown, a Slaveholding Whig from
Tennessee, and in the Senate by Mr. Foster, a Slaveholding Whig
from the same State_. Thus even against the annexation of Texas the
Whig party did not present a constant and uniform front.
The question of the extension of Slavery was distinctly presented,
on the application of Texas for admission into our Union, with a
Constitution which not only established Slavery, but took from the
Legislature all power to abolish it. The spirit of New England was
aroused. Remonstrances went up to Congress on the single ground of
opposition to the extension of Slavery. John Quincy Adams undertook
to present them. But, notwithstanding his earnest efforts, the
measure was hurried through the House by the vote of every
slaveholder present, Whig and Democrat. It went to the Senate,
where it was ushered under the sanction in part of Mr. Berrien, a
slaveholding Whig from Georgia, and finally triumphed in that body,
notwithstanding the opposition of Mr. Webster, by the vote of every
slaveholder present, Whig and Democrat. Let it be mentioned to
their credit, that Mr. Thomas Clayton, of the Senate, and Mr. John
W. Houston, of the House, from Delaware, and Mr. John G. Chapman,
of the House, from Maryland, united with the friends of Freedom;
but I understand that they are not slaveholders. The associations
of the day on which this deed was done added to its character as a
mockery of Human Rights. It was on the 22d of December, 1845, the
anniversary of the landing at Plymouth Rock.
At a later day this great question again entered Congress,
overshadowing all others. In 1846, Mr. Wilmot, a Democrat, of
Pennsylvania, in order to secure the Territories for Freedom, moved
his Proviso, borrowed from the Ordinance of 1787. The motion was
sustained by Northern Whigs, but opposed by slaveholders _without_
_distinction of party_. Exertions were made to rally the Free
States on this ground; but the _National_ Whig party, anxious to
avoid the issue, strove, through the agency of Mr. Berrien and Mr.
Webster, to substitute the question of _No more Territory_,--thus
avoiding the issue upon the paramount principle, now vaunted as
theirs, of opposition to the extension of Slavery.
At the Whig Convention in Philadelphia two different efforts were
made to obtain the recognition of this principle; but it was laid
upon the table, or stifled amidst unseemly noises and cries of
"Kick it out!"
This same Convention nominated for the Presidency General Taylor,
who is justly supposed, by his position, to be against the Wilmot
Proviso, and who has been advocated recently by Mr. Berrien, a
leading slaveholding Whig, remarkable for hostility to the Proviso,
on the ground, thus candidly expressed, that "the Southern man
who is farthest from us is nearer to us than any Northern man can
be,--that General Taylor is identified with us in feeling and
interest, was born and educated in a slaveholding State, is himself
a slaveholder,--that his slave property constitutes the means of
support to himself and family,--_that he cannot desert us_, without
sacrificing his interest, his principles, the habits and feelings
of his life,--and that with him, therefore, our institutions are
safe." In sustaining such a candidate, while professing to be a
Free-Soil party, the Whigs imitate those barbarians who elevate in
their temple a Pagan idol, while professing to serve, in Gospel
light, the only true God.
There are leading supporters of General Taylor, not slaveholders,
but acknowledged Whigs, who frankly disclaim the Wilmot Proviso.
Mr. Clayton, of Delaware, is reported as declaring to the Senate,
July 5, 1848,--"No man has a right to say that the Wilmot Proviso
is a Whig principle, or that its opposite is a Whig principle. We
repudiate the question altogether, as a political question. Neither
the one side nor the other of the question forms any part of our
platform." And my friend Mr. Choate, the accomplished orator, is
reported as saying, in one of his recent speeches: "On all the
great questions of the day BUT JUST SLAVERY, we mean to remain the
same party of Whigs, one and indivisible, from Maine to Louisiana;
upon this question alone _we always differ from the Whigs of the
South_, and on that one we propose simply to vote them down."
I conclude, then, that the principle of opposition to the extension
of Slavery, like that of opposition to its longer continuance under
the Constitution, wherever the National Government is responsible
for it, is not recognized by the national political combination
which supports General Taylor. None will say that this combination
will oppose the Slave Power, of which their candidate is a
component part.
It is to uphold and advance these principles, thus neglected by
others, that we have come together, leaving the parties to which
we have been respectively attached. Now, in the course of human
events, it has become our duty to dissolve the political bands
which have hitherto bound us to the old organizations, and to
assume a separate existence. Our Declaration of Independence was
put forth at Buffalo. Let us, in the spirit of the fathers, pledge
ourselves to sustain it with lives, fortunes, and sacred honor. Our
cause is holier than theirs, inasmuch as it is nobler to struggle
for the freedom of others than for our own. Full of reverence for
the fathers, I here repeat what in this contest cannot be too
often declared. The love of Right, which is the animating principle
of our movement, is higher than the love of Freedom. But both Right
and Freedom inspire our cause.
Taking our place as a new party, we fulfil the desires of many good
men, living and dead, who have longed to see the thraldom of the
old organizations broken. Such was the earnest hope of John Quincy
Adams, expressed more than once. "God grant that it may come!" was
his devout wish.
Another person, not a politician, whose opinions exercise a wide
influence over the present generation, the late William Ellery
Channing, has left on record a similar aspiration. In a letter
dated January 11, 1840, recently published in his biography,
he says: "The Whig interest seems to be too strong to be put
down at once. This party has the wealth, and in so rich a State
[Massachusetts] has great advantages for perpetuating its power. No
party, however, which thinks only of securing wealth can last long.
There must be some higher principle."[274] And in another letter,
dated March 1, 1842, the same patriot and philanthropist says: "The
political state of the country is exceedingly perplexed. _The Whig
party has little unity, and is threatened with dissolution....
Would the Democrats break up too, and could we start afresh, the
Government would probably be less of an evil than it is._"[275]
[274] Memoir, Vol. III. p. 262.
[275] Ibid., p. 263.
Another eminent person, honored wherever the pulpit and philosophy
of our country are known, Rev. Francis Wayland, of the Baptist
denomination, has recently put forth sentiments in a similar
strain. "But," says he, "it may be said that a course of conduct
like this would destroy all political organizations, and render
nugatory the designations in which we have for so very long prided
ourselves. If this be all the mischief that is done, the Republic,
I think, may very patiently endure it.... If a disciple of Christ
has learned to value his political party more highly than he does
truth and justice and mercy, it is surely time that his connection
with it were broken off. Let him learn to surrender party for moral
principle.... _Let all good men do this, and they will form a party
by themselves, a party acting in the fear of God, and sustained by
the arm of Omnipotence...._
"Let virtuous men, then, unite on the ground of _universal moral
principle_, and the tyranny of party will be crushed. Were the
virtuous men of this country to carry their moral sentiments into
practice, and act alone rather than participate in the doing
of wrong, all parties would, from necessity, submit to their
authority, and the acts of the nation would become a true exponent
of the moral character of our people."[276]
[276] The Duty of Obedience to the Civil Magistrate, pp. 38-40.
I would add, that I am glad to adduce this high testimony from the
pulpit. The Gospel is never more truly or sublimely preached than
when the politician is told that he, too, is bound by its laws,
and communities, whether villages, towns, states, or nations, are
summoned, like individuals, to obey its sacred behests.
In such a spirit our organization has been established. It is
sometimes said, that it does not recognize certain measures of
public policy, deemed by certain persons of special importance. If
this be so, it does what is better, and what other organizations
fail to do: it acknowledges those high principles which, like the
great central light, vivify all, and without which all is dark and
sterile.
Surely the people will not be diverted from these truths by holding
up the Sub-Treasury and the Tariff. The American people are
intelligent and humane; they are not bulls, to be turned aside by
shaking in their eyes a bit of red cloth, or whales, to be stopped
by a tub. In listening to the recent pertinacious and exclusive
advocacy which these questions have received, in disregard of
Freedom, I am reminded of the scene, so vividly portrayed by Mr.
Wirt, where the humor and eloquence of Patrick Henry exhibited an
effort of selfishness in the midst of the Revolution. The American
army was in great distress, exposed almost naked to the rigor of
a winter sky, and marking the frozen ground over which it marched
with the blood of unshod feet. "Where was the man," said Patrick
Henry, "who would not have thrown open his fields, his barns,
his cellars, the doors of his house, the portals of his breast,
to receive the meanest soldier in that little band of famished
patriots? Where is the man? There he stands; but whether the heart
of an American beats in his bosom you are to judge." It was to John
Hook that he pointed, who had brought a vexatious suit for two
steers taken for the use of the troops. "What notes of discord do I
hear?" said the orator. "They are the notes of John Hook, hoarsely
bawling through the American camp, _Beef! Beef! Beef!_"[277]
[277] Wirt's Life and Character of Patrick Henry, pp. 373, 374.
As a separate party, following the example of other parties, and
recognizing the necessity of such a course, we nominate candidates
for the Presidency, Vice-Presidency, and for all State offices. We
cannot support Taylor or Cass, nor can we support the supporters
of Taylor or Cass. We cannot sustain men who contribute votes to
place the power and patronage of the highest offices in hands
which may exercise them against Freedom. I know there are some who
will do this, wishing well to Freedom; but her friends should be
of sterner stuff. Nor is it easy to put confidence in the moral
firmness of men who, while this great cause is pending, can sustain
any party or individual not unequivocally pledged to its support.
From this statement you will perceive, Gentlemen, that I am
convinced, with you, of "the extreme importance of a permanent
Free-Soil organization, firm, enthusiastic, and united." In this
conviction I find an additional motive, now that this organization
is commencing its most difficult struggle, to accept the nomination
which you have tendered. Let us labor together. Confident in the
justice of our cause, we will dedicate to it our best powers,
careless of opposing factions or the misrepresentations of a
mendacious press,--sustaining it with enthusiasm, and yet with
candor, with firmness, and yet with moderation. The great law of
Human Progress, the all-prevailing might of truth and of God, are
on our side.
I have the honor to be, Gentlemen,
Your faithful friend and servant,
CHARLES SUMNER.
S.G. HOWE, OTIS TURNER, MATTHEW BOLLES,
CHARLES A. PHELPS, RICHARD HILDRETH, Esquires.