None will say that this combination will oppose the Slave Power, of which their candidate is a component part.
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.
gutenberg.org
I conclude, then, that the principle of opposition to the extension of Slavery, like that of opposition to its longer continuance under the Constitution, wherever the National Government is responsible for it, is not recognized by the…
The associations of the day on which this deed was done added to its character as a mockery of Human Rights.
But, notwithstanding his earnest efforts, the measure was hurried through the House by the vote of every slaveholder present, Whig and Democrat.
The question of the extension of Slavery was distinctly presented, on the application of Texas for admission into our Union, with a Constitution which not only established Slavery, but took from the Legislature all power to abolish it.
Florida and Arkansas have both been admitted as States with slaveholding Constitutions, and the National Whig party made no opposition.
The claim to proprietorship in the principle of opposition to the extension of Slavery is equally vain.
As a party, it has never sustained any measure for the abolition of Slavery in the District of Columbia.
No person is so hardy as to assert that the present Democratic party embodies this idea.
It is as old as the Revolution,--as old as Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin; but it is an idea neglected by both the great parties which have recently swayed the country.
Without undertaking to apply this language in all its force to either of the parties convened at Baltimore or Philadelphia, it will be sufficient to say that they do not now embody, if they ever did, those principles which are accepted by…
The apparent contests of principle are made subservient to the contests of interest, and the latter is pursued to the neglect of the former.
Politics become a game, and principles are the counters which are used.
It is a humiliating reflection, forced upon us by the history of parties, that the professions of principle are often a mere cover to selfish efforts for place and power.
Encouragement also may be drawn from the insufficiency of these parties as representatives of existing public sentiment.
From this survey we are admonished not to hesitate in support of the new organization, from any vain idea of necessary permanence in the two old parties.
Much of the old distinction between Whig and Tory has already become traditional; the members of these two great antagonist combinations have recently united in measures demanded by the law of Human Progress.
All that are united on these existing questions and present interests are not likely to weaken their efforts to promote them by angry reflections on past differences.
New questions and new objects arise, having no connection with the subjects of past controversies, and present interest overcomes or absorbs the recollection of former controversies.
But when they cease to join in their support, or when new principles are called into activity, then the common bond is dissolved, and a new association must be formed.
Without yielding to any of these extreme views with regard to the mischiefs or the benefits of party, all should agree that the only true and legitimate object of such an association is to uphold, advance, and develop certain principles…
On the other hand, there are many who regard the phalanx and antagonism of party as a necessary agency in the administration of free governments.
I agree with the Convention in the importance of the new organization; nor do I think there are many candid persons, recognizing morals as the soul of all true politics, who will hesitate in this conclusion.
The principles of Washington, Jefferson, and Franklin, the security of our Constitution, the true fame of our country, the interests of labor, the cause of Freedom, Humanity, Right, Morals, Religion, God, all these are now at stake.
When the fire-bell rings at midnight, when the ship which bears us drives furious upon a lee shore, there is no time to select the manner in which we will work.
Politicians like Charles Sumner
