“I was gratified with it. You indicate the proper course
for the Government to take in this war with Slavery. It is
the real Rebel, and Providence has brought us at length
into direct conflict with it. We can destroy it without
violating any right. Now is our opportunity, and I pray
God we may have the wisdom and the intrepidity to end the
war humanely and economically by the speedy destruction of
the enemy, Slavery. Peace by Emancipation is accomplishing
a good end by good means. How easily will the President
make his administration the most eventful and glorious in
American history!”
Hon. Thomas Dawes Eliot, Representative in Congress, pure in
life, and always against Slavery, wrote from New Bedford:--
“If the party who have the responsible conduct of our war
do not avail themselves of the power which the Law of
Nations gives to them, whereby to strengthen themselves and
defeat the Rebels, we shall find the party opposed to them
will advocate Emancipation as a party issue. And when the
time comes, as it must, that the South shall realize their
own inevitable defeat, and shall see the alternative of
submission or Emancipation, they will themselves initiate
Freedom and secure Europe, unless before them we shall have
acted.”
Hon. E. G. Spaulding, the eminent Representative in Congress,
and a leading member of the Committee of Ways and Means, wrote
from Buffalo:--
“Our people are earnestly discussing the subject of
Immediate Emancipation, and I desire to see the views of
one who has so thoroughly considered this question. Nearly
all our people have come to the conclusion, that, whenever
it is necessary to crush out the Rebellion to abolish
Slavery, then the Government must abolish it.”
Hon. Robert C. Pitman, afterwards of the Superior Court of
Massachusetts, wrote from New Bedford:--
“Permit me to thank you cordially for the service rendered
by you to our cause, on Tuesday, at Worcester. Ideas must
reinforce our arms, or we shall neither deserve nor win a
victory.”
Epes Sargent, journalist, another and early friend, wrote from
Boston:--
“I do not think you can be more than two months in advance
of the public sentiment of the North, in your speech. I
read it with great satisfaction, and it was not till I
got down town among the politicians that I realized what
imprudent things you had been saying.”
Hon. Daniel W. Alvord, who had coöperated with Mr. Sumner
before, wrote from Greenfield, Massachusetts:--
“I thank you for the right word uttered at the right time
in your Worcester speech. I should not deem it necessary
to say this, as you could hardly fail to know that such
a speech would meet my hearty approbation, but for the
attacks made upon you by the _Springfield Republican_. Be
assured that the _Republican_ by no means reflects the
feelings or the opinions of the people of the western
counties. The thorough, hearty Republicans, who in the
northwest, if not in the southwest, constitute a great
majority, cordially indorse the reasoning and positions of
the speech.”
Hon. John D. Baldwin, journalist, afterwards Representative
in Congress, and author of the work entitled “Pre-Historic
Nations,” wrote from Worcester:--
“What a wave of Hunkerism has flooded Massachusetts since
the State Convention, reaching up to the ceiling of nearly
every editorial sanctum! But the ebb-tide must come.”
Hon. James H. Morton, the magistrate, wrote from Springfield,
Massachusetts:--
“I cannot refrain from expressing the satisfaction and
pleasure I derived from the perusal of your Worcester
speech. In my opinion it expressed the sentiment of a very
large majority of the citizens of Massachusetts, and though
in advance of the sentiment of the whole country, still, if
I can read the signs of the times, our Government, if it
has not already reached, is fast approaching, the doctrines
there enunciated by you. It seems to me they must be
adopted in their length and breadth.”
A writer, admired as “Gail Hamilton,” wrote from Hamilton,
Massachusetts:--
“I glory in that speech. It is logic, and sagacity, and
morality. Let them maul it. To that complexion must they
come at last, and perhaps before. Strange that people will
have so much faith in shilly-shally! Strange they will not
see that honesty is the best policy, as well as the best
religion! But never mind. Do you lead the van.”
Rev. John Weiss, the eloquent preacher, and biographer of
Theodore Parker, wrote from Milton:--
“I am surprised and disappointed at the temper shown by
the Republicans. Before the Worcester Convention I was
ready to declare that the people were only waiting to
have the word Emancipation strongly pronounced to repeat
it with the aggrandizement of a hundred thousand votes. I
am deeply pained to see how the newspapers receive your
declarations. They thinly veil a spirit which is ready at
the first opportunity to forget the Past, and to sacrifice
its living representatives,--the men who alone preserve the
glorious Antislavery idea, and whose prophecies can alone
secure the Future.… ‘Cry aloud, and spare not.’ Reiterate
more flatly and unsparingly, that the war must destroy the
evil which engendered it. Give the bullets their billet,
and the bayonets something to think about, and lend them
a manifesto of Freedom to punctuate. What a Congress will
next winter’s be! Compromise will seek to make War its
missionary.”
Orestes A. Brownson, Catholic thinker and writer, wrote from
Elizabeth, New Jersey:--
“I have re-read your speech at Worcester, and I’m even
better pleased with it than I was at the first reading.
You have struck the right chord, as the manner in which my
own article has been received sufficiently indicates. Our
venerable President and his rhetorical adviser, whatever
their timidity, or their reluctance, or attachment to the
‘Rule of Three,’ must come to the policy you recommend.
It is clear to me that it is impossible to save both the
integrity of the Nation and Southern Slavery, and the great
question before us now is, whether we shall sacrifice the
Nation to Slavery, or Slavery to the Nation. This is the
issue before the people, and this issue we must meet.”
Rev. R. S. Storrs, the eminent Congregational divine, wrote
from Braintree, Massachusetts:--
“Your admirable speech before the Worcester Convention
ought to have been sooner acknowledged, with the fervent
gratitude of my heart, to Heaven and you, for its delivery.
The spirit that condemns its argument or author is either
the spirit of blind infatuation, or of treachery as foul as
marks the Southern Confederates themselves. It surprises
and grieves me that _Republicans_ wince and scold at the
_just_ lashing given to the grand conspirator against
Liberty and Religion,--for in this contest they are
identical. The timeserving policy of multitudes who have
hitherto acted with us, and, as it seems to me, of the
Administration itself, is revolting, and puts far away the
day of peace and prosperity.”
Rev. Francis LeBaron, afterwards of Ohio, earnest against
Slavery, wrote from Dighton, Massachusetts:--
“Let me take this opportunity to thank you most heartily
for your Worcester speech, and for your Boston lecture.
Such noble words dwarf other men’s actions, and make me
glad that the feeling of hero-worship is still strong at my
heart. I can see honor and victory and glory and permanence
on no other path than that by which you would lead the
nation. If you will touch men’s hearts so nobly, you must
not be surprised that they leap toward you; and when men
move my deepest respect and admiration, I must tell them
so.”
Rev. Moncure D. Conway, the Reformer, so admirable with his
pen, wrote from Cincinnati:--
“Allow me to thank you for the exquisite presentation of
the law and the truth in your Worcester speech, which I
read in the _Tribune_, to the million of readers guarantied
it there, and the million others by the Boston press. I
shall secure a large circulation in this city’s press. It
is a perfect code for the hour.”
Rev. Rufus P. Stebbins, who sympathized so strongly with the
speech on the Barbarism of Slavery, wrote now from Woburn,
Massachusetts:--
“Accept a ‘thousand thanks’ for your speech at Worcester.
It was a calm, solid, irresistible word. Adoption or no
adoption by that Convention was of little consequence.
Perhaps _delay_ by _such_ bodies is wise; but _the people
are coming_, and the hour is at hand.”
Rev. Elnathan Davis, the friend of Peace, wrote from
Fitchburg:--
“That the position taken in your speech is true I believe
the judgment of Massachusetts and the country bears full
testimony to-day; and that it is taken in due season I
think the very _howl_ of a Hunker political press clearly
testifies. God give you strength for _this_ battle, and,
amidst the shifting experiences of the Government, and
above ‘the confused noise of the warrior,’ make your
word ‘_On to Freedom_’ clearly and widely heard by our
countrymen.”
Rev. Moses Thacher, the venerable clergyman, formerly of
Massachusetts, wrote from Fort Covington, New York:--
“_God bless you!_ Your Worcester speech of the 1st inst.
is invaluable. It states the _cause_, the _issue_, and the
_remedy_ of the war.”
Rev. W. H. Cudworth, chaplain in the army, in a letter from
Hooker’s Brigade, Camp Union, wrote:--
“If I bore you, pardon me,--but, sympathizing most heartily
in your uncompromising hostility to Slavery, and yet placed
by the laws in an embarrassing, if not helpless position,
what can I do, in the way of preventing the rendition of
fugitives? For instance, one was hidden in our regimental
barn. I knew and encouraged it, intending to trot him
off, if a favorable chance offered. The owner came, but
could not accomplish anything. He came next day with a
United States warrant and the Provost Marshal. It wrung my
heart, but what could I do?… Meantime let me thank you, as
a servant of God and in the name of my brother man, for
your Worcester speech, which I have just read, for your
magnificent broadside called the ‘Barbarism of Slavery,’
and for all your efforts to break every yoke and let the
oppressed go free.”
Hon. Charles W. Slack, connected with the press, and always
Antislavery Republican, wrote from Boston:--
“Whether speaking for others or myself individually, I only
express a general acknowledgment among all Liberty-loving
men, when I say that to you preëminently is assigned the
responsible, yet honorable, task of indicating the advance
of public sentiment upon the living, overtopping, gigantic
question of the day. I thank God daily that we have so
earnest, steadfast, and persistent an exponent in the
Senate Chamber. May you, then, be delivered and preserved
from all harm for even greater achievements!”
John P. Jewett, bookseller, original publisher of _Uncle Tom’s
Cabin_, wrote from Boston:--
“I am more than provoked with the unmitigated flunkeyism of
the Boston ---- and ---- in their criticisms of your manly
and excellent speech at Worcester. Posterity will do you
justice, even if the sneaking toadyism of the day refuse
it to you. I cannot refrain from writing you a word of
sympathy, although perhaps you do not feel the need of it.
Rest assured, my noble friend, that God and all truly great
and good men are with you, therefore you have nothing to
fear from the malice of cowardly time-servers.”
William Kenrick, the horticulturist, wrote from Newton,
Massachusetts:--
“I must thank you for your most timely, outspoken speech
at the Convention at Worcester. It exactly meets my
views,--the views I have long entertained. Yes, here are
our natural allies, amongst the slaves.”
Frank B. Sanborn, most earnest where Freedom is in question,
wrote from Concord:--
“I have to-day read for the second time your speech before
the Worcester Convention, and I am renewedly glad that
you made it then and there. I am sure that every passing
day will but strengthen its positions, and that they must
soon be accepted by the whole Northern people. Indeed, I
believe that the people are of that mind now; it is the
politicians, and those most timid of all created things,
the Republican partisan leaders, who shiver at the thought
of raising a _real_ issue to displace their shams.…
Happily, no great principle like this rests on the turn
of a period or the position of a comma; and if Boston
scribblers could show that Marius did not know a slave from
a barrel of salt-fish, they would not weaken the argument
of your speech.”