“Mr. Summer’s speech was chiefly characterized by its closeness
of argument and lucidity of diction; but he occasionally
introduced a passage of highly wrought eloquence, or an
image of singular vividness; and in England, however the
orator’s sentiments might have been objected to by a political
antagonist, Mr. Sumner would have received the compliments of
gentlemen of both sides upon so remarkable an exhibition of
sustained power and intellectual skill.…
“Mr. Punch begs leave to offer his respectful congratulations
to Mr. Sumner upon his magnificent speech, and even more
earnestly upon the ample and perfect testimony that was
instantly given by the besotted slave-owners to the truth of
his assertion of the Barbarism of Slavery. It is not often that
an orator’s enemies are in such a desperate hurry to prove his
case for him. But here he was scarcely down, when the Slave
party rushed together to proclaim themselves the ruffians he
had painted them, and in the published copy of the oration Mr.
Sumner has given at once the calmest and the deadliest blow to
the system he denounces,--for he prints Mr. Chesnut’s speech.
All the bludgeons in the hands of all the ‘chivalry of the
South’ cannot beat that demonstration of Mr. Sumner’s case out
of the heads of the public in and out of the States. The speech
should be reprinted in England, and circulated in thousands.
What is the Antislavery Society about?”
To these London articles may be added passages from Miss Martineau’s
correspondence with the _Antislavery Standard_, of New York. In a
letter under date of July 2, the eminent writer said:--
“I may just say that Senator Chesnut’s commentary on Mr.
Sumner’s speech is very amusing here. He cannot know much of
the English aristocracy, if he supposes that strangers can get
at them by their back doors. Their back doors are well looked
to; but in Mr. Sumner’s case there was no question of back door
or front. Our aristocracy went out to seek him,--not he them. I
need not say that we heartily rejoice in the full truth having
been spoken in Congress. The occasion brings back vividly to my
memory Mr. Calhoun’s countenance and voice, when he insisted
to me, peremptorily putting down all argument, that that day
would never come: there would be silence about Slavery in
Congress world without end. This was in 1835. It must be also
needless for me to say that no unprejudiced man or woman here
really supposes that any terms can be kept with Slavery and
Slaveholders. The crisis of your revolution may be precipitated
by such open defiance in the Federal Legislature; but we see
that it was the South which brought on the revolution and
uttered the defiance, and that the only course for the Senator
from Massachusetts is to take care that the revolution is
steered straight by compass while there is such a fearful
tampering with the helm. To speak gingerly of Barbarism, when
his business was to set before his country the choice between
Barbarism and Civilization, was, of course, impossible; and
there could be no fidelity short of such a thorough exposure
and denunciation as he has offered.”