The Provocation to the Assault.Portland, Maine, Advertiser [Republican](29 May 1856)
If you would see the sure and unmistakable
evidences of MEAN souls, look at the semi-apologies
made in some of the Northern administration
papers, for the brutal and cowardly assault made
on Senator Sumner. It was "ill-advised and
unfortunate," says the Boston Post! "Painful
affair," says another of the same stripe, -- while
others say that it was decidedly wrong, but then
there was great provocation! The Argus
expressed itself in decided terms of disapprobation
of the assault, but it couldn't close without adding --
We are far from extenuating the inflammatory
and seditious speech which instigated the attack.
And then in its next issue, it copied approvingly
from the Washington Star, a miserable paragraph,
from which we quote the following:
His personal vilification and abuse of Senator
Butler, than whom a more considerate and higher
toned gentleman never graced a seat in the national
councils, caused a blush of shame to mantle the
cheeks of all present who respect the character of
the body before whom it was uttered; because it
was wholly unjust and untrue, and, in style, far
better suited to some low doggery in a region of
country wherein billingsgate is uttered with impunity,
because it is not customary there to resent
and punish such language personally.
Fortunately Mr. Sumner's speech will speak for
itself -- and it will show very clearly that its
character is as grossly misrepresented in this
paragraph, as is the character of Mr. Butler. Mr.
Butler, that considerate and high-toned gentleman,
is a notorious drunkard, and more violent
and abusive towards opponents, in a controversy,
than any man who ever before held a seat in that
body. Witness, for example, the exhibition he
has just made of himself in the Senate, and for
which he felt himself compelled to apologise. --
He may be very pleasant, friendly and agreeable,
so long as one agrees with him and in no way
disturbs his slave-driver's temper -- but the moment
any one opposes his views on the slavery question,
he is little better than a mad man.
It is true that Mr. Sumner, in his speech, used
the weapon of ridicule, but that, by universal
consent, is as lawful and proper a weapon as
argument. There is nothing in it so severe or ore
personal than some remarks made by Mr. Webster
on various occasions. We all remember that in
his great speech in reply to Hayne, most decidedly
the best political speech he ever made, he said:
I employ no scavengers -- no one is in attendance
on me, tendering such means of retaliation; and
if there were, with an ass's load of them, with a
bulk as large as that which the gentleman himself
has produced, I would not touch one of them.
It is well known that another Senator was "in
attendance" on Mr. Hayne, furnishing him with,
and referring him to, the pamphlets, &c., to which
Mr. Webster referred. In view of this fact, there
is nothing in Mr. Sumner's speech so personally
offensive, as this declaration of Mr. Webster's
about scavengers! We remember, too, Mr.
Webster's terribly scathing castigation of C. J.
Ingersoll, compared with which Mr. Sumner's
speech may be called mild, and at another time he
took occasion to compare Mr. Cass to Snug, the
Joiner!
But we find this subject ably treated in an
article from the Boston Transcript, part of which we
copy:--
[Boston Transcript article omitted]
[<<Previous Editorial][Next Editorial>>]
|
