Edward L. Pierce, Memoir and letters of Charles Sumner: volume 4

[20] Massachusetts; and inquiring what else the State could do for the good of the country, the President replied, ‘Adopt the Crittenden propositions.’ The senator's answer was, that such were the unalterable convictions of the people of the State that they would never adopt propositions which protected slavery in the Territories, and disfranchised large numbers of her citizens. The interview then ended without further discussion.¹

Sumner interposed an objection to the House resolution which by an irrepealable and unamendable amendment to the Constitution excluded Congress forever from interfering with slavery in the States, so as to prevent its being hurried through; and the next day he had a correction made in the journal which had failed to record his objection. It passed at the end of the session by the exact two-thirds vote required. Among the negative votes were those of Sumner, Wilson, Foot, Trumbull, Wade, Preston King, and Z. Chandler. Seward and Fessenden did not vote. In presenting, February 18, petitions opposed to compromise, Sumner added comments of his own in approval. He expressed his dissent, February 25, from one which prayed for national interference with slavery in the States.

During the winter there was a determined effort in Massachusetts to repeal the personal liberty law of the State. An appeal to that effect, signed by Chief-Justice Shaw, recently retired from office, B. R. Curtis, Joel Parker, George Ticknor, and a large number of persons of high standing, was published in the papers and presented to the Legislature. It was supported by leading Boston journals. George Ashmun, who had presided at the national Republican convention, in an open letter to Mr. Winthrop urged the repeal. Governor Banks, yielding to the pressure, in a farewell message recommended the repeal; while his successor, Governor Andrew, took the opposite position, though willing to assent to the revision of any doubtful provision. Sumner was most earnest in his protests against a repeal, insisting that any questions concerning the statute should be left to the courts, and that a repeal under menace would be a humiliation. His letters, which were freely shown among members of the Legislature, were thought to have saved the statute.²