The tributes to Bingham and Baker were accepted at the time as
more than eulogies. The protest against Slavery and the cry
for Emancipation were not lost. They were noticed extensively
by the press and by correspondents. The effect shows the
development of that sentiment before which Slavery was falling.
A Philadelphia newspaper, even while praising the eulogy on
Senator Baker, seemed to shrink from the demand with which it
concluded.
“The speech of Senator Sumner surpassed all others in
powerful effect, clear and manly style, and an undisguised
expression of opinion which all must respect, and which
but few can condemn at the present juncture. His learned
eloquence captivated the heart, even where it did not
convince the judgment.”
Another recorded the impressions of a correspondent.
“Mr. Sumner, in his splendid eulogy on Baker this morning,
uttered a stupendous thought, when, in commenting on the
unfortunate reconnoissance at Ball’s Bluff, he scoffed at
the idea of an investigating committee to ascertain where
the blame should justly be charged, and said that the
great criminal stood before the country and the world, and
that great criminal was Slavery. You will have his words
in print, and can judge of this point for yourselves. I
confess that it thrilled me like an electric shock.”
The _Antislavery Standard_, of New York, exulted that Slavery
was arraigned.
“To see men like Bright and Powell sit still, when Charles
Sumner charged Baker’s murder on Slavery, was worth at
least ten years of Antislavery privations. The Proslavery
interest in the Senate is quite respectful, and does not
indulge in the old-time bluster and parade.”
On the contrary, the “Editorial Correspondent” of the _New York
Express_, writing on the day of the eulogy on Baker, gave vent
to his sentiments with regard to Mr. Sumner.
“Even in the burial services of the dead he mingles his
sectional hate and personal wrath.
“Such a man will never consent to a peaceful reunion of
the States, nor to an equal representation of all the
States in the Federal Congress. He deeply wounds the
self-sacrificing, loyal Union men of the Border States and
Far South; in every breath he utters, and in every speech
he makes, he sets back upon the clock of advancing time
the hour-hand of Peace. His presence in the Senate Chamber
is a signal of protracted war, renewed sectional hate, and
offensive intermeddling.…
“If Massachusetts were to-day represented in the spirit of
her early Revolutionary men, or in the spirit in which so
many thousands of her sons have rushed to the defence of
the country, Mr. Sumner, as a long standing enemy of the
Constitution and the Union, would be sent back to Boston,
and there sandwiched between Slidell and Mason within the
casemates of Fort Warren. These three men are each old
acquaintances here, and each old enemies of the Government,
the Union, and the Constitution; and the only difference
between the extremes is, that the Senator from Boston
remains in council here to fight the Government, and men
and institutions belonging to it from its foundation, while
the others fled from its service to render more available
aid to those in arms against it.”
Hon. Edward G. Parker, author of “The Golden Age of American
Oratory” and “Reminiscences of Rufus Choate,” wrote from
Boston:--
“I thank you sincerely for a copy of your exquisite
panegyrics on Bingham and Baker. I often heard Baker,
and recognize at once the beautiful fidelity of your
description.
“The touch of Plutarch and of Addison--both, if you will
allow me to say so--are there.
“I had, before receiving this, cut out of the newspaper
your portrait of Baker, and put it in a choice book devoted
to great men and memorable thoughts.
“It is to me like a medallion of that _true_ man, who, in
so shining a manner, and yet so suddenly, ‘passed from the
service of his country to the service of his God.’
“Pardon what you may perhaps consider the superfluous
enthusiasm of this note; but it is written right away
upon reading these oratoric odes, and I feel a little of
the _lava_ struggling even in the attempt to acknowledge
receiving them.”
Hon. John Jay, afterwards Minister at Vienna, wrote from New
York:--
“They are not only eloquent tributes to the dead, but
powerful appeals to the living.”
Epes Sargent, the friend and writer, showed his sympathy in a
letter from Boston.
“Your remarks in the Senate on Senator Baker pleased me
so much that I could not forbear speaking my pleasure in
print. They are level with the theme and the time, and the
trumpet-note at the close is in just the right key. Oh, if
it were not for Kentucky, that neither hot nor cold State,
we might hope for a policy up to the height of this great
argument! ‘I would she were hot or cold.’
“Our Boston papers do not yet speak out, as I would like to
see them, on this question of proclaiming emancipation to
the slaves of Rebels. We need another disaster to carry us
forward a little further.”
William Lloyd Garrison declared himself with his accustomed
directness in a letter from Boston.
“Thanks for your eloquent eulogy upon the late Senator
Baker, (which I have published in the _Liberator_ this
week,) and its forcible application to Slavery as the
primary cause of his untimely death, as it is of all
our national woes. Be in no wise daunted, but rather
strengthened and stimulated, by the abusive clamors and
assaults following all your efforts, on the part of the
‘Satanic press,’ and unprincipled demagogues generally.
These are surer evidences of the wisdom, goodness, and
nobility of your cause than all the praises of your
numerous friends and admirers. You may confidently make
‘the safe appeal of truth to time,’ and rely upon a
universal verdict of approval at no distant day. To be in
the right is as surely to be allied to victory as that God
reigns. When there is howling in the pit, there is special
rejoicing in heaven.”