Xxiii.
Some other words were uttered on the floor of the Senate, after the delivery of this speech, which should be preserved, since the speakers have all passed away.
Mr. Hale, the
Senator from
New Hampshire, said: ‘I feel that I should be doing injustice to my own feelings, and injustice to my friend the
Senator from
Massachusetts, if I were to fail at this time to express the very great gratification with which I have listened to his speech.
If he were actuated by as corrupt and selfish motives as can possibly be attributed to him, so far as his own personal fame is concerned he has done enough by his effort here to-day, to place himself side by side with the first orators of antiquity; and as far ahead of any living American orator, as Freedom is ahead of Slavery.
He has to-day formed, I believe, a new era in the history of the politics and the eloquence of the country; and in future generations the young men of this nation will be stimulated to effort by the record of what an American Senator has done, to which all the appeals drawn from ancient history would be entirely inadequate.
He has to-day made a draft upon the gratitude of the friends of humanity and liberty that will not be paid through many generations; but its memory will endure as long as the
English language is spoken, or the history
[
163]
of this Republic shall form a part of the annals of the world.’
Mr. Chase, the
Senator from
Ohio, used also the following noble language in adopting the argument of
Mr. Sumner against the
Fugitive Slave Bill, and in a personal vindication of the orator himself: ‘In the argument which my friend from
Massachusetts has addressed to us to-day, there was no assault upon the
Constitution.
It was a noble vindication of that great charter of government, from the perversions of the advocates of the
Fugitive Slave Act. He only asserted that the Fugitive servant clause of the
Constitution is a clause of compact between the States, and confers no legislative power upon Congress; and he has arrayed history and reason in support of this proposition.
I therefore avow my conviction, that logically and historically, the argument is impregnable–entirely impregnable.
Let me add,
Mr. President, that, in my judgment, this speech will mark
an era in American history.
It will distinguish the day when the advocates of that theory of governmental policy —Constitution construction—which he has so nobly defended, and so brilliantly illustrated, no longer content to stand on the defence in the contest with Slavery, boldly attacks the very citadel of its power, in that doctrine of finality which two of the political parties of the country, through their national organizations, are endeavoring to establish, as the impregnable defence of its usurpation.’
Mr. Seward happened to be absent—fact that was very widely commented on, but satisfactorily explained to the minds of many, by his feeling constrained to keep away, because of the prominent support he had rendered, and seemed disposed to continue to render, to
Gen.
[
164]
Scott.
But on reading the speech, he wrote to
Mr. Sumner:—‘Your speech is an admirable, a great, a very great one.
That is my opinion, and everybody around me, of all sorts, confess it.’
In addition to what he had already said in the Senate,
Mr. Chase also wrote:—‘I have read, as well as heard, your truly great speech.
Hundreds of thousands will read it, and everywhere it will carry conviction to all willing to be convinced, and will infuse a feeling of incertitude and a fearful looking for judgment in the minds of those who resist the light, and toil in the harness of party platforms, irreconcilable with justice.’
Mr. Henry Wilson, who was afterwards to be elected to the Senate, and from its floor to its Presidency, wrote:—‘I have read your glorious speech.
How proud I am that God gave me the power to aid in placing you in the Senate!
You have exhausted the question.
Hereafter all that can be said will be to repeat your speech.
It will afford to any one the most complete view of the questions in dispute, of anything ever published.’
Hon. Stephen C. Phillips, who had rendered important aid in organizing the free-soil party, in
Massachusetts, wrote:—‘I regard it as a contribution of inestimable value to our noble cause, worth all the labor, all the time, all the self-sacrifice, and all the misrepresentations it has cost you. It is statesmanlike in all its features, and does all that is necessary to place our simple and entire design in its true light before the country, and before the world, and in the records of history.’
Although
Mr. Wendell Phillips differed with
Mr. Sumner on some points, he nevertheless wrote:—‘I have read your speech with envious admiration.
It is
[
165]
admirable, both as a masterly argument, and a noble testimony that will endear you to thousands.’
There were some millions of copies of this speech circulated through
America and in
Europe by the journals, and in multiplied editions in large pamphlet form, both at home and abroad, to the extent of several hundred thousand copies.
In his preface to the
English edition of ‘Uncle Tom's Cabin,’ Lord Carlisle associated
Mr. Sumner's speech with that work, speaking of ‘the closeness of its logic, and the masculine vigor of its eloquence.’
In a letter to the
London Times, Lord Shaftesbury exclaimed, ‘What noble eloquence!’
And the distinguished phrenologist,
Mr. Combe, in a letter to a celebrated American, which was soon afterwards published, remarked:—‘I have read every word of this speech, with pleasure and with pain.
The pain arose from the subject—the pleasure from sympathy with, and admiration of, the speaker.
I have long desired to know the merits of that most cruel and iniquitous enactment, and this speech has made them clear as day.’
The effect of this speech, great as it evidently was at the time, was far greater than could then possibly be conceived.
Wherever it was read, it set people to thinking: its appeals to the judgment and reason of citizens could not be resisted: it insensibly colored the thoughts of every thinking man: it gave a new, fresh, and irreversible interpretation of the letter of the
Constitution; while it breathed all through its flaming utterances the very soul of the liberty achieved by our fathers.
After its delivery, the
Free-Soil party was looked upon as the
national party.
The allegations of sectionalism lost their force: it was
slavery that was
[
166]
now branded as sectional, local, narrow, hostile to the
Constitution, as well as inimical to liberty itself.
It did, as
Mr. Chase had said, constitute a new era in American history; and future times will probably regard it as the grandest contribution that has been made to the spirit of American nationality and freedom, since the
Declaration of Independence.
