Charles Sumner

Every presumption must be as strong against such a power as against Slavery.

Of course every power to uphold Slavery must have an origin as distinct as that of Slavery itself.

Slavery is condemned by reason and the Laws of Nature.

According to the uniform admission of courts and jurists in Europe, again and again promulgated in our country, Slavery can be derived only from clear and special recognition.

If Slavery be national, if there be any power in the National Government to uphold this institution,--as in the recent Slave Act,--it must be by virtue of the Constitution.

On this unanswerable proposition I take my stand, and here commences my argument.

Honest efforts to secure its blessings everywhere within the jurisdiction of Congress are scouted as sectional; and this cause, which the founders of our National Government had so much at heart, is called Sectionalism.

As Slavery assumes to be national, so, by an equally strange perversion, Freedom is degraded to be sectional, and all who uphold it, under the National Constitution, are made to share this same epithet.

A popular belief at this moment makes Slavery a national institution, and of course renders its support a national duty.

It may not be felt yet in the high places of office and power, but all who can put their ears humbly to the ground will hear and comprehend its incessant and advancing tread.

The movement against Slavery is from the Everlasting Arm.

The discussion of Slavery will proceed, wherever two or three are gathered together,--by the fireside, on the highway, at the public meeting, in the church.

As well attempt to check the tides of Ocean, the currents of the Mississippi, or the rushing waters of Niagara.

With equal fervor they should be echoed now by every American not already a slave.

On Slavery, as on every other subject, I claim the right to be heard.

For myself, in no factious spirit, but solemnly and in loyalty to the Constitution, as a Senator of the United States, representing a free Commonwealth, I protest against this wrong.

In vain do we condemn the despotisms of Europe, while we borrow the rigors with which they repress Liberty, and guard their own uncertain power.

In any country this would be grievous; but here, where the Constitution expressly provides against abridging freedom of speech, it is a special outrage.

To sustain Slavery, it is now proposed to trample on free speech.

The responsibility for the recent Slave Act, and for Slavery everywhere within the jurisdiction of Congress, necessarily involves the right to discuss them.

Inconsistent and absurd, this effort is tyrannical also.

The wise Fathers did not treat the country as a Chinese foot, never to grow after infancy; but, anticipating progress, they declared expressly that their great Act is not final.

To make a law final, so as not to be reached by Congress, is, by mere legislation, to fasten a new provision on the Constitution.

Each Legislature, under a just sense of its responsibility, must judge for itself; and if it think proper, it may revise, or amend, or absolutely undo the work of any predecessor.

Nothing can be plainer than this,--that by no parliamentary device or knot can any Legislature tie the hands of a succeeding Legislature, so as to prevent the full exercise of its constitutional powers.