Specimens from the press show the condition of the public mind
at the time, and the controversy which arose, extending to
foreign countries. If there were enemies, so also were there
friends, both at home and abroad.
The _Boston Daily Advertiser_ thus frankly denounced the speech.
“We are sorry to see a disposition in several quarters to
represent the Republican party, mainly on the strength of
Mr. Sumner’s unfortunate speech at Worcester, as a party of
Emancipation, a ‘John Brown party,’ a party that desires to
carry on this war as a war of Abolition.… The Convention
certainly disavowed any intention of indorsing the fatal
doctrines announced by Mr. Sumner, with a distinctness
which can scarcely be flattering to that gentleman’s
conception of his own influence in Massachusetts.… It
is alleged that the Convention cheered Mr. Sumner. His
supporters among the delegates and spectators undoubtedly
did so: but who does not see that this goes for nothing,
in the face of the obvious fact that the silent party
who disapproved were so much superior in number as to
control the action of the whole body?… We hold it for an
incontestable truth, that neither men nor money will be
forthcoming for this war, if once the people are impressed
with the belief that the Abolition of Slavery, and not the
defence of the Union, is its object, or that its original
purpose is converted into a cloak for some new design of
seizing this opportunity for the destruction of the social
system of the South.… The speech to which we have several
times referred has certainly done as much as lay within the
compass of one man’s powers to inspire this suspicion, to
distract and weaken the loyal, and by indirection to aid
the disloyal.”
The _Boston Evening Gazette_ was in harmony with the
_Advertiser_.
“His appearance this year was not in accordance with the
wishes of those who do not follow his lead, but regard
him as one of the most irrepressible impracticables of
the party.… The sentiments uttered by Mr. Sumner are
opposed to the spirit of the times, to the policy of the
Administration, and are detrimental to the prosperity
of the cause. They are Charles Sumner’s ideas; he is
responsible for them; and the Convention, by killing the
resolutions offered by Rev. James Freeman Clarke, of
Boston, which substantially indorsed the speech of Mr.
Sumner, repudiated the Emancipation sentiments which Mr.
Sumner attempted to induce the Republicans to adopt as a
part of their policy. It was a most lamentable failure,
and should prove a lesson to men who are so entangled in
one idea that they imagine the wealth of the country and
the blood of its sons are being poured out to perpetuate a
party, instead of securing the safety of the Union and the
Constitution.
“After reading Mr. Sumner’s speech, one can but regret that
a mind possessed of such culture should give utterance
to sentiments that will stimulate the flames which now
threaten the destruction of the ship of state, and provoke
discord among the noble men who are striving to save it.
Had some unknown individual spoken the same words at this
time, we doubt not many would have regarded him as a fit
inmate for an insane asylum; but it is the position and
antecedents of the Senator which alone shield him from the
suspicion of being a proper person against whom a writ _De
lunatico inquirendo_ might be issued.… The tone of the
speech and the manner in which it was delivered are the
acme of arrogance.”
The _Boston Journal_ did not differ much from the _Advertiser_,
except in manner.
“Mr. Sumner and other radical Antislavery men, dazzled
by visions of Universal Freedom, entirely overlook the
insurmountable difficulties which stand in the way of
immediate emancipation. The unutterable horrors of a
servile insurrection do not present themselves, or they
would shrink from the prospect. The economic problem of
supporting four millions of human beings who have never
been self-dependent is not considered. All practical
considerations, in fact, are ignored by a miscalled
philanthropy which is as impracticable as it is visionary,
and which would lay waste the most prolific soil, and fill
our land with vagrants and marauders.
“We must limit the war to the purposes so distinctly
avowed by the Administration, or the sun of our national
prosperity will set in darkness and gloom, to rise again,
if at all, only after years of bloodshed and anarchy.
Proclaim the policy of Emancipation, and all hope of a
reconstruction of the Union will be crushed out. All the
loyal elements in Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri will
be alienated at once, and every prospect of awakening the
dormant loyalty in the seceded States will have passed
away. It will come to this, that we must subjugate or be
subjugated. The people of the South would defend their
homes and their firesides to the last extremity, as we
would do, should the chances of war favor them. The present
generation would not see the end of such a contest, unless
the North should be conquered and subdued by the aid of
foreign bayonets or internal dissensions. From such a war
we may well pray to be delivered.”
The _Norfolk County Journal_ declared dissent.
“We are not prepared to indorse the doctrines to which
Mr. Sumner gave utterance in his Worcester speech. They
strike us as not pertinent to the present stage of the
Rebellion. Though their application may become a necessity
in the future, public sentiment is as yet unready to adopt
and enforce them. They were especially infelicitous in
being advanced at a Convention to which men of varying
views of public policy had been invited, and their
influence has not conduced to that harmony of political
action in Massachusetts which it is desirable to bring
about.”