, and Amasa Walker
, fully approved his caution against any departure from the policy of non-intervention.
He found himself supported in quarters where he had hitherto received little or no favor.
His first effort was commended by conservative people, some of whom were personally well disposed to him, but most of whom had expected nothing from him but a radical and partisan course; and they were now surprised to find him beginning his public life in so sensible a way.1
The social and mercantile sentiment of Boston
was then running strongly against the Hungarian
,—as indeed it was in the habit of running against popular enthusiasms,—and for once, in his practical conclusion against intervention in foreign wars, he found himself in agreement with it. Epes Sargent
, the editor of the ‘Transcript,’ wrote: ‘There seems to be but one sentiment here as to your speech on the Kossuth resolution.
It is as much admired for its discretion as for the grace and energy of its diction, and the lofty eloquence of its sentiments.’
wrote him a cordial note in his characteristic and inimitable style.2 Hillard
also wrote at once in a kindly way of the speech; and again, May 11, 1852: ‘Among the rank and file of the community—I mean the Whigs
—there is a decided change of feeling towards you; and they look to your legislative future with a different feeling from that with which they followed you to your seat in December.’
R. H. Dana, Jr.
, wrote: ‘I am glad you had an opportunity to make your speech on a subject of so great general interest, on which you are so well informed, and one disconnected with party issues.
I am glad you were so short, and kept so closely to the only point; it is beautifully expressed.’
The speech drew from a college friend of the class graduating after him—Asaph Churchill
, a lawyer of high repute a note warmly commending its assertion of the policy of nonintervention, with a reminiscence of their association at the Law School, which deserves to be preserved:—