“We fear it is but an illustration of the mental perversity
produced by entire absorption in a single aspect of a great
question, without regard to its manifold relations, and by
the ‘sacred animosity,’ which, too exclusively nourished,
renders the best men reckless of means in the pursuit of
what they consider the chief end of life.”
On the contrary, the able Boston correspondent of that paper
wrote:--
“Charles Sumner’s speech was the great event of the day,
however. It was an epoch and a victory in itself. The
right thing was said, in the right way, at the right time,
by the right man. It was wise, conservative, practical,
as Mr. Sumner always is, and it unquestionably met the
views of four fifths of the audience. Those who did
not enthusiastically applaud said, ‘Oh, it isn’t quite
time; Sumner is right; this will be the _result_, we
hope and expect; but let us wait for Providence and the
Administration.’”
The _Boston Post_, representing the Democracy, declared itself.
“Mr. Sumner’s speech at Worcester yesterday was in
direct opposition to the policy of the Administration,
the declaration of Congress, and the avowed purpose of
the war,--overflowing with the same narrow, bitter, and
unconstitutional sentiments that have done so much to bring
our present misfortunes upon us, and which tend to render
the restoration of the Union impossible. If such views as
he advances governed the action of the Administration, _not
a brigade could be kept in the field_, or money enough
raised by the Secretary of the Treasury to buy breeches and
gaiters for a demagogue Senator. For such men as Sumner and
his ilk do not fight nor pay; they only brawl, and deserve
to be treated as were old scolds in days past,--_ducked in
a horse-pond_.”