It hardly comports with the gravity of this debate to dwell on such an argument; and yet I cannot go wrong, if, for the sake of a much injured race, I brush it away.
Charles Sumner
The Public Record
Charles Sumner was an American lawyer and statesman who represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874. Before and during the American Civil War, he was a leading American advocate for the abolition of slavery, and after the war he was a key figure in the Reconstruction era, during which he and other Radical Republicans successfully fought to end slavery and ensure basic rights for Black Americans. He continued advocating for racial equality until his death, lobbying in his final days for a civil rights bill that served as a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historians credit Sumner with coining the phrase "equality before the law," which he first used as part of an early attempt to integrate Boston's public school system.
It is natural that Senators who pretend, that, by the Law of Nature, man may hold property in man, should find this pretension in the Constitution.
But the pretension is as much without foundation in the Constitution as it is without foundation in Nature.
Looking for one moment juridically at this question, we are brought to the conclusion, according to the admission of courts and jurists, first in Europe, and then in our own country, that Slavery can be derived from no doubtful word or…
The state of Slavery,” said Lord Mansfield, pronouncing judgment in the great case of Somerset, “is of such a nature that it is incapable of being introduced on any reasons, moral or political, but only by positive law.
Slavery is the same in essential character, wherever it exists,--except, perhaps, that it has received new harshness here among us.
There is no argument against its validity at Algiers not equally strong against its validity at Washington.
In both cases it is unjust FORCE organized into law.
In the same spirit, and without any exaggeration, may it be said that by the acknowledgment of Hayti we shall provide a check to distant schemes of ambition, which have latterly menaced an undue predominance in the West Indies.
It is so odious that nothing can be suffered to support it but POSITIVE LAW,”--that is, express words of a written text; and this principle, which commends itself to the enlightened reason, is adopted by several courts in the Slave States.
But, as no prescription runs against the King, so no prescription is allowed to run against Slavery, while all the early victories of Freedom are set aside by the Slave-Masters of to-day.
The Senator knows well that an old and barbarous case is a poor answer to a principle brought into activity by the demands of advancing Civilization, and which, once recognized, can never be denied.
Pardon me, if I remind him that Jurisprudence is not a dark-lantern, shining in a narrow circle, and never changing, but a gladsome light, which, slowly emerging from original darkness, grows and spreads with human improvement, until at…
When the Senator, in this age, leaguing all his forces, undertakes to drag down that immortal principle which made Slavery impossible in England, as, thank God! it makes Slavery impossible under the Constitution, he vainly tugs to drag…
The enormity of the pretension that Slavery is sanctioned by the Constitution becomes still more flagrant, when we read the Constitution in the light of great national acts and of contemporaneous authorities.
Here is the national heart, the national soul, the national will, the national voice, which must inspire our interpretation of the Constitution, and enter into and diffuse itself through all the national legislation.
Such are commanding authorities which make “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,” and, in more general words, “the Rights of Human Nature,” as the basis of our national institutions, without distinction of race, or absurd…
This pretension, which may be dismissed as utterly baseless, becomes absurd, when it is considered to what result it necessarily conducts.
Do we not witness this result in open attempts now made by Slave-Masters to travel with their slaves in the Free States?
And yet this pretension, which in natural consequences overturns State Rights, is announced by Senators who profess to be special guardians of State Rights.
Nor does this pretension derive any support from the much debated clause in the Constitution for the rendition of fugitives from “service or labor,” on which so much stress is constantly put.
This argument comes back to the first pretension, that slaves are recognized as “property” in the Constitution.
And yet this very argument betrays the inconsistency of its authors.
It becomes a pledge of permanent peace, as well as of commerce; but it can have this character only if made effective, sincerely and honestly, according to the usage of nations.
Let us at all hazards prevent the extension of Slavery and the increase of the Slave Power.





