Charles Sumner

From my own personal observation, during a four years' residence in Ceylon, I am decidedly of opinion that Caste is directly opposed to the spirit of Christianity, and consequently ought to be discouraged in every possible way.

He who is prepared to support the system of Caste is, in my judgment, neither a true friend of man nor a consistent follower of Christ.

I regard the distinction of Caste, both in its principles and operations, as directly opposed to vital godliness, and consequently inadmissible into the Church of Christ.

The principle of Caste I consider so much at variance with the spirit of the Gospel as to render impossible, where its authority is acknowledged, the exercise of many of the most beautiful virtues of our holy religion.

Caste must be entirely renounced; for it is a noxious plant, by the side of which the graces cannot grow; for facts demonstrate, that, where it has been allowed, Christianity has never flourished.

It is a fact, in those entire congregations where Caste is allowed the spirit of the Gospel does not enter; whereas in those from which it is excluded we see the fruits of the Gospel spirit.

I have found Caste, both in theory and practice, to be diametrically opposed to the Gospel, which inculcates love, humility, and union; whereas Caste teaches the contrary.

Touch not, taste not, handle not.' Thus Caste condemns the Saviour.

Esteem others better than yourself.' 'No,' says Caste, 'do not commune with low men: consider yourself of high estimation.

Thus Caste sets itself up as a judge of our Saviour himself.

Such distinctions, I say, the Gospel does not recognize.

It is a system which tends, more than any else the Devil has yet invented, to destroy the feelings of general benevolence, and to make nine tenths of mankind the hopeless slaves of the remainder.

As you join in detestation of this foul institution, you will learn to condemn its establishment among our children.

But the offence is greater with us, because, unlike the Hindoos, we acknowledge that men are born equal.

With similar inhumanity here, the black child who goes to sit on the same benches with the white is banished, not indeed from the country, but from the school.

Strange that here, under a State Constitution declaring the Equality of all men, we should follow the worst precedents and establish among us a Caste.

But it is not on the ground of inconvenience only that it is odious.

It is an inequality which the Constitution and the Laws of Massachusetts repudiate.

Here is a grievance which, independent of any stigma from color, calls for redress.

As they grow in knowledge they will rise and call him blessed; but at the same time they will brand as accursed that arbitrary discrimination of color in the Common Schools of Boston which rendered it necessary for their father, out of…

Every toll paid by this parent, as every step taken by the children, testifies to that inequality which I now arraign.

The liberty which belongs to the white man, of choosing his home, is not theirs.

Colored parents, anxious for the education of their children, are compelled to live in the neighborhood of the schools, to gather about them,--as in Eastern countries people gather near a fountain or a well.

Looking beyond the facts of this case, it is apparent that the inconvenience from the exclusion of colored children is such as to affect seriously the comfort and condition of the African race in Boston.

Let it not be said, then, that in the present case the inconvenience is too slight to justify the appeal I make in behalf of colored children for Equality before the Law.