On the record
They did no such thing; or, if it is insisted, contrary to received rules of interpretation, that such must be the signification of their language, clearly they did not understand it so.
Source
gutenberg.orgEditor's note · Context
Sumner asserts that if the Constitution's language is misinterpreted to support slavery, it reflects a misunderstanding of its intent.
Share
More from Charles Sumner
Again I repeat, so long as the War System prevails under the sanction of International Law, these painful incongruities will be apparent.
Their existence is a disgrace to civilization; for it implies the common consent of nations to the Arbitrament of War, as regulated by these laws.
Tendencies of nations, as revealed in history, teach that our aims are in harmony with prevailing laws, which God, in his benevolence, has ordained for mankind.
Nay, more,--if it would be criminal in these several clusters of States to reëstablish the Institution of War as Arbiter of Justice, then is it criminal in the Commonwealth of Nations to continue it.
Other voices in this conversation
