“Nothing like it, in elevation of tone and width of scope,
had ever before been heard in that Chamber. It was worth, to
the author, to the cause, and to the country, all that it
cost to produce it. For Mr. Sumner it was a great triumph and
a revenge. And yet there was nothing vindictive in its tone
or spirit. The ‘bitterness’ which is ascribed to it was in
its truth. No doubt it stirred the malignant passions of the
Slave-Masters to the deepest depths; but the fault was theirs,
not his. His facts were unquestionable, his logic beyond
the reach of cavil, and his rhetoric eminently becoming and
self-respectful.”
While newspapers were discussing the speech, and Republicans were
differing, the Legislature of Massachusetts threw its weight into the
scales by the adoption of resolutions, entitled “Resolves relating to
Freedom of Speech,” containing the following support of Mr. Sumner.
“_Resolved_, That the thanks of the people of this Commonwealth
are due and are hereby tendered to the Honorable Charles Sumner
for his recent manly and earnest assertion of the right of free
discussion on the floor of the United States Senate, and we
repeat the well-considered words of our predecessors in these
seats in approval of ‘Mr. Sumner’s manliness and courage in
his fearless declaration of free principles and his defence of
human rights and free institutions.’
“_Resolved_, That we approve the thorough, truthful, and
comprehensive examination of the institution of Slavery
embraced in Mr. Sumner’s recent speech; that the stern morality
of that speech, its logic, and its power command our entire
admiration; and that it expresses with fidelity the sentiments
of Massachusetts upon the question therein discussed.”
The meaning of these resolutions was not left doubtful by the mover, J.
Q. A. Griffin, who, after alluding to “certain Conservative Republican
newspapers, such as the _New York Times_ and the _Courier and
Enquirer_, declaring that Mr. Sumner does not represent the Republican
party in any degree,” said, “It is necessary that Massachusetts should
uphold her Senator.”
* * * * *
The conflict of opinion in the American press showed itself abroad. The
London _Times_ took the lead in opposition. Its New York correspondent,
entitled “Our own Correspondent,” in a letter dated June 6, said of
the speech: “A more studied insult to Southern slaveholding members,
who compose nearly one half of the body in which the speech was
delivered, a more vituperative attack upon the institution, a more
bitter, galling, personal assault, or one more calculated to excite the
worst feelings, can hardly be imagined.” Then quoting certain passages
without explanation or context, and asking the reader to “bear in mind
that one half of the gentlemen who listened to him were slaveholders,”
the New York correspondent adds, “These extracts are sample bricks of
the whole structure.”
The _Times_ itself followed in a leader of June, 18, where the tone of
its New York correspondent was reproduced; and here is the beginning
of those attacks on the Antislavery cause in our country for which
this journal became so famous during the war. An extract will show its
character.
“We must, in the name of English Abolitionism at least,
protest against these foolish and vindictive harangues.
Scarcely has the frenzy caused by John Brown’s outrage begun
to die away than out comes Mr. Sumner with a speech which will
set the whole South in a flame. We can well believe that the
prospects of the Republican party have been already damaged
by it. Mr. Sumner is one of that class of politicians who
should be muzzled by their friends. The man who can in personal
irritability so forget the interests of a great cause is its
worst enemy. Slavery existed on the American Continent long
before the assembly of which Mr. Sumner is a member. On it
depends, or is supposed to depend, the prosperity of half the
Union; the looms of Lancashire and Normandy, as well as those
of Mr. Sumner’s own State, are supplied by slave-grown cotton,
and hundreds of millions of Northern dollars are invested in
slave-worked plantations. Slavery, with its roots thus deep
in the soil, is not to be rooted up by any peevish effort of
rhetoric; and we may predict that the man who first gains a
victory for the cause of Abolition will be of very different
temper to the Senator from Massachusetts.”
The London _Morning Star_, of June 20, replied at length, and with much
feeling. Here is an extract:--
“Who invested the _Times_ with the functions of the organ of
English Abolitionists? Who authorized the hoary charlatan of
Printing-House Square to speak authoritatively in the name of
the advocates of negro emancipation, and, as their assumed
representative, to bespatter with its venom one of the noblest
champions of that holy cause? Assuredly not the men of whom,
with the mendacious arrogance which has become to it a second
nature, it now pretends to be the appointed spokesman. Let it
canvass, if it will, the whole legion of British sympathizers
with the groaning slaves in the Southern States of America; it
will be puzzled to find one whom its coarse and unprincipled
attack upon Mr. Sumner has not inspired with sentiments of
mingled indignation and disgust.…
“We are convinced, that, throughout the length and breadth of
the United Kingdom, the noble speech of Mr. Sumner will awaken
reverence for his valor, admiration for his eloquence, and
sympathetic esteem for his genial sympathy for the down-trodden
slave; at any rate, we believe that there is but one journal
whose inveterate malignity would inspire it to heap censure
upon conduct which cannot be rewarded by too abundant homage.”
The London _Morning Advertiser_ also replied at length. Here is a
specimen:--
“We are not satisfied with a contemporary who chooses to
describe the noble oration of Senator Sumner as ‘a vituperative
attack,’ as ‘a bitter, galling, personal assault.’ It is full
of noble and manly thoughts, expressed in terms of becoming
strength, but not too strongly, considering the magnitude of
the evil against which it is directed, and the determination of
the party by whom it is maintained.”
The London _Daily News_, of June 22, followed.
“The barbaric character of Slavery, and of its supporters,
has been abundantly exhibited through the press of some
Northern States, but it has never before been displayed in the
Senate; and all criticism of it is excluded from the Southern
press, and from most of the Northern. In the progress of the
revolutionary conflict, the moment has arrived for the truth to
be told in the Senate; and Mr. Sumner, as the representative
of the most venerable State of the Union, was the man to utter
it. He described the character of Slavery; he proved its
operation upon the liberties of communities and the character
of individuals; and he declared the resolution of the Free
States to get rid of the evil of being implicated in such a
barbarism, and to save every new community from being cursed
with it against its will.”