The joy of the Free Soilers over the result was only equalled by the wrath and bitterness of the partisan Whigs, particularly those of the Webster type. They hated Sumner as few men have been hated, and he was now to fill the high place which their idol had filled so long. They associated his name with all that was plebeian, ignominious, and revolutionary; and they had heaped on him and his coadjutors every odious epithet. Seldom has insolence met with so signal a rebuke. These unworthy sentiments were not, however, common to all the Whigs, and from some came public or private assurances of confidence in his high character and aims. The New York Tribune recognized in his election the absence of self-seeking and embarrassing pledges, and foresaw that his action, dictated by an earnest and deliberate conviction, would be that of a statesman looking to universal and permanent ends,—never of a partisan looking to the distribution of the spoils.2 The antislavery people through the free States received the tidings with profound gratitude. Their leaders—Chase, Giddings, Seward, the Jays, Whittier, Bryant, Parker,3 and many more—
This text is part of:
Table of Contents:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.