The peroration was received with the most earnest applause, followed by cries of "Three cheers for Charles Sumner!" "Three cheers for Phillips and Walker!" "Three cheers for Horace Mann and the cause!"

The combinations or agreements between the Free-Soilers and Democrats throughout Massachusetts in the election of members of the State Legislature were successful. The election was more than usually interesting, because the Legislature was to choose a United States Senator for the term of six years from the ensuing fourth of March, in the place of Mr. Webster, who had become Secretary of State. Nothing had been said before the election with regard to candidates for this place, but there was a general understanding, at least among Free-Soilers, that it should be claimed for one of their party. Mr. Sumner had never regarded himself as a candidate, and the first intimation he had that he was so regarded by others came to him early in the morning after the election in a note written in pencil at his door by Seth Webb, Jr., Esq., afterwards the excellent Consul at Hayti, as follows.

"My dear Mr. Sumner,—

"I called to tell you such good news. We have carried everything in the State. Senate sure; House nearly certain; Governor, Senator, all. You are bound for Washington this winter.

"Yours truly,

"Seth Webb, Jr."

Similar intimations came from various quarters. Under date of December 18th, the Rev. Joshua Leavitt, the constant Abolitionist, wrote: "I confidently hope and trust that in a month from this time you will take your seat in the Senate of the United States, as the successor of Daniel Webster. I need not say how greatly I shall be gratified at such an event, both for your sake and that of the cause. It will be a worthy rebuke of cotton arrogance, pronounced in earnest and sealed by action in the name of the good old Commonwealth." An active Free-Soiler in Vermont wrote: "I think you are nearer my ideal of a Free-Soiler of this time than anybody else; so does the whole Free-Soil heart of New England. And you may depend that the actual triumph of just such a man as you are will give a heavier blow to the conspirators against Freedom, and do more to fortify the general trust in the ultimate ascendency of uncompromising right, than that of any other living being. You cannot escape from your position." Mr. Giddings and Mr. Chase both wrote from Washington, insisting that Mr. Sumner could not refuse to be a candidate. Hon. John Mills wrote from Springfield: "C.S., I am satisfied, must be the man. He stands better with the Democrats than others, and so he does with the Free-Soilers in this section of the State." Hon. C.F. Adams "saw difficulties in alliance with the Democracy"; but he added, "If our friends decide to risk themselves in that ship, I trust we may get a full consideration for the risk, and the only full consideration that we can receive is in securing your services in the Senate. If anything can be done with that iron and marble body, you may do it. You know how hopeless I think the task."

Under the unamended Constitution of Massachusetts popular elections were determined by a majority of the votes cast, and not by a plurality. In the event of a failure to secure a majority, the election of Governor and Lieutenant-Governor was transferred to the Legislature, which made a selection from the three highest candidates. This duty was now devolved upon the Legislature. At the opening of the session there were separate caucuses of the Free-Soilers and Democrats, with committees of conference, which resulted in the understanding that the Democrats should have the Governor, Lieutenant-Governor, five of the nine Councillors, the Treasurer, and the Senator for the short term, being the few weeks till the 4th of March following, while the Free-Soilers should have the Senator for the long term, being for six years from the 4th of March. The two parties united on Mr. Sumner as their candidate for Senator. The nomination by the Free-Soilers was communicated in the following letter.

"Caucus Room, State House, ½ past 10, A.M. [Jan. 7th, 1851.]

"We have just taken the vote by ballot for Senator, and you are the man.

"Whole number

"For Charles Sumner	82
"Others	00

"We have sworn to stand by you, to sink or swim with you, AT ALL HAZARDS.

"If you shall fail us in any respect, may God forgive you!—we never shall.

"Yours truly,

"E.L. Keyes.

"Charles Sumner."

The nomination thus unanimously conferred was welcomed beyond the caucus that made it. A letter of Richard H. Dana, Jr., written the next day, congratulates Mr. Sumner. "I have just learned that you have received the unanimous nomination of the Free-Soil caucus, as their first choice for the Senate. Whether the state of parties permits your election or not, this voluntary and unanimous tribute from our party must be a deep gratification to you through life, and I heartily congratulate you upon it."

Why Mr. Sumner was selected appears from the Commonwealth, which was at the time the organ of the Free-Soil party, and edited by Richard Hildreth, the historian. "Mr. Sumner was selected as the candidate for the Senate, because, while true as the truest to Free-Soil principles, he was supposed to be less obnoxious than any prominent Free-Soiler in the State to the Democratic party. He was never identified with any of the measures of the Whig party, except those relating to Slavery. He never entered a Whig State Convention, except to sustain the sentiment, not of the Whig party alone, but of Massachusetts, against the annexation of Texas and the Mexican War."[61]

The Democrats in caucus were less prompt than the Free-Soilers. They began by a resolution to abide by the decision of two thirds of those present and voting, being the rule of the Baltimore Convention in 1844. This was adopted almost unanimously. Mr. Sumner then received the two thirds required, when one of those who voted against him, after stating his adverse vote, moved that he be unanimously declared the candidate of the Democratic caucus, and six only voted in the negative.

On the completion of these arrangements, the Legislature proceeded to the elections, choosing George S. Boutwell Governor, and Henry W. Cushman Lieutenant-Governor, both Democrats, and, at a later day, Robert Rantoul, Jr., a Democrat, Senator for the short term. The other Democrats were chosen according to the understanding. In the Senate, Henry Wilson, Free-Soiler, had been chosen President, and in the House of Representatives Nathaniel P. Banks, Jr., Democrat, Speaker.

On the 14th of January the House of Representatives proceeded to ballot for Senator, with the following result: Whole number, 381; necessary to a choice, 191; Charles Sumner, 186; R.C. Winthrop, 167; scattering, 28; blanks, 3. There was a second ballot on the same day, when Mr. Sumner had the same number of votes as before. The entire Free-Soil vote was 110, which he received, with 76 Democratic votes.

The Commonwealth announced at once the determination of the Free-Soil party as follows. "This entire unanimity of the Free-Soil members indicates a purpose, not to be changed, to stand by their candidate, come what may. They have taken the candidates presented by the Democratic party without pledges, without questions. They have selected for their candidate a man who stands first in the respect and affections of every true Free-Soiler in the State. Their constituents would repudiate them, if they should desert him now. We are assured they never will."[62]

The failure in the House did not prevent the Senate from proceeding with the election, on January 22d, when the whole number of votes was 38: for Charles Sumner, 23; for R.C. Winthrop, 14; and for Henry W. Bishop, 1; and Mr. Sumner was accordingly chosen on the part of the Senate.

During the long contest which ensued, Mr. Sumner was constant to the end, without doing or saying anything to change or modify his position. Extracts from his speeches, printed in capitals, with hostile comments, appeared daily in the Whig and Democratic papers, and were often characterized as treasonable, while he was called a disunionist. In reply to a personal and political friend, who sought some mode of meeting these attacks, he wrote the following private letter, which was never published.

In another letter, written during the contest and published at its close, Mr. Sumner stated his position more fully, and released the party from all obligation to him as a candidate.

He also wrote privately to more than one leader, proposing to withdraw. Hon. Charles Allen, who was then at Washington, said in reply: "I need no declaration from you to assure me that you did not seek nor desire political office. On that subject you have no secrets to communicate to me. Your purposes and wishes have been transparent.... Though not so tall by some inches, I believe I have kept myself about as bolt upright as you have, and as far within the lines of the Free-Soil party. I shall give no more heed to the suggestion of your letter. You must be the hero of this war to the end,—the conquering hero, I trust." Hon. Stephen C. Phillips, though not sympathizing with the "Coalition," gave his best wishes to Mr. Sumner, saying: "As the case now stands, I hope you will not be disposed, and I am clear that the Free-Soil members should not allow you, to withdraw yourself; and in view of what may affect you personally, and of some probable or possible general results, I rejoice in the prospect of your election."

The issue was presented, if possible, with increased distinctness by the revival in the papers of the speech at Faneuil Hall on the eve of the election. The editor of the Times, a Democratic paper in Boston, calling on Mr. Sumner, invited him to modify his opinions, or, as was sometimes said, to "ease off," especially with regard to his recent speech. This Mr. Sumner declined to do, when the editor inquired how he would like that speech reprinted in the Times, that it might be read by the Legislature. Mr. Sumner replied at once, that nothing could give him more pleasure. The speech appeared the next day, with an appeal to the Legislature as follows. "Mr. Sumner avows that what is called his Faneuil-Hall Speech contains his calm, deliberately formed, and well-matured opinions,—opinions by which his action would be governed in the event of his election to the office of United States Senator.... We hope that every Democratic member of the Legislature will read the speech of the man for whom they are asked to vote, and then consider whether it is not their duty to vote for some other person."[63]

As the discussion proceeded, the Commonwealth also published the speech, introducing it with these defiant words: "We treat our readers to-day to the noble speech of Charles Sumner at that great 'treasonable' meeting in Faneuil Hall. We are proud of it, and of the man who made it. We give it as it was reported by Dr. Stone for the Traveller, and as it was copied into the Times. The apologists for Slavery have heaped abuse on Mr. Sumner for this speech, and garbled it to serve their base purposes; but here it stands. Not a glorious word of it can or shall be rubbed out. We ask any member of the Legislature, whatever may be his politics or party, as a man, as a son of New England, and as an admirer of Washington, Jefferson, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, and Samuel Adams, to read this speech, and tell us how he can do a better thing than to vote for its author next Wednesday. Here you have the intellect and heart of a man,—a man for the times, a man for Massachusetts!"[64]

The session wore on, with constantly recurring ballots, always unsuccessful, when the organ of the Free-Soil party made another appeal, in which it presented strongly the issue of principle involved. An extract will show the character of this appeal. "Circumstances have conspired to give extraordinary interest to this election in Massachusetts. Not here only, but elsewhere, both North and South, it is regarded as symbolical of the march of new opinions on an important subject. There can be no doubt in the mind of any reasonable man that there is gradually, but certainly, approaching that tremendous moral conflict in politics which was early foreseen by the wise men of the Republic as sure at some day to happen, and which no human power can do more than to retard.... One peculiarity attending this election is, that it involves a true issue of principle.... The question is not so much whether Mr. Sumner or any one else is to be Senator as whether the antislavery sentiment shall be understood as having established itself not only in the internal and domestic policy of the Commonwealth, where it has always been, but also in the channels through which it connects itself with the government of the Union. Tenfold importance has been attached to this decision from the fact of the apostasy to Freedom lately committed by the person who for many years was considered as the leading exponent of Massachusetts doctrines in the Senate. The election of such a man as Charles Sumner in the room of such a man as Daniel Webster may be construed to be quite as much a complete disavowal of the late conduct of the one as a sanction of the system advocated by the other. Herein it is not difficult to trace the real causes as well of the extraordinary opposition on the one side as of the tenacious adherence on the other."[65]

This was followed in a few days by the annunciation of the determination of the party. "But one course is left,—to stand by Charles Sumner, as our first, our last, our only choice. And if we fail, we fail in a good cause, true to our promises, true to our faith."[66]

On April 23d there was another ballot, when the result was announced as follows: Whole number of votes, 387; necessary to a choice, 194; Charles Sumner, 194; R.C. Winthrop, 167; scattering, 26. On the report it appeared that Mr. Sumner was elected, when it was insisted that a vote having his name printed upon it, with the name of John Mills in pencil beneath, which had been thrown out, should be counted for Mr. Mills, thus making one more necessary to a choice. It was also stated that the record of the clerk showed that only 386 votes were cast, while this count showed 388. This inconsistency was not explained. Three other ballots were had unsuccessfully. On April 24th there was another unsuccessful ballot, when, on motion of Sidney Bartlett, Esq., the eminent lawyer, and a Whig, it was ordered, that, "in the further balloting, the ballot be placed in an envelope, and that, where two votes for one person are found in the same envelope, one shall be rejected, and that, where two votes for different persons are cast, both shall be rejected; the envelopes to be of a uniform character, furnished by the Sergeant-at-Arms." At the ballot that ensued the votes were: Whole number, 384; necessary to a choice, 193; Charles Sumner, 193; R.C. Winthrop, 166; H.W. Bishop, 11; S.C. Phillips, 4; Caleb Cushing, 3; Isaac Davis, 3; John Mills, 1; H.H. Childs, 1; N.P. Banks, Jr., 1; B.F. Hallett, 1. There were also two blanks, not counted, making 386 who had voted. The Speaker read the report of the committee, and declared Mr. Sumner elected. The announcement was received with applause in the galleries, which the Speaker and Sergeant-at-Arms promptly suppressed. This was the twenty-sixth ballot.

The election had been so long in suspense, and had so much occupied the public mind, that the final result was received with much feeling. As the news spread, some were dejected and angry, others were joyous and satisfied. Mr. Sumner heard of it while at the house of Hon. Charles F. Adams, in Boston, and there received the first congratulations. A proposition for a public demonstration at his own house in the evening he discountenanced, saying, according to the published report, that, while feeling grateful to friends for their kindness, he was unwilling to do or say anything that could be construed by any one as evidence of personal triumph,—that it was the triumph of the cause, but that his heart dictated silence. In the evening there was a meeting for congratulation in State Street, where speeches were made by Hon. Henry Wilson, Joseph Lyman, and Thomas Russell. Similar meetings were held in other towns of Massachusetts, on receiving the news. The crowd in State Street moved to the house of Mr. Sumner, but he had left the city; then to the house of Mr. Adams, who said that he "was glad of the opportunity to be able to congratulate his friends upon the glorious triumph of Liberty in the election of Mr. Sumner"; then to the house of Richard H. Dana, Jr., who, being out of town, was represented by his venerable father, who said that he had "kept his bed until noon through illness, but, on learning the news of the election of Mr. Sumner, he suddenly became better."

The language of leading journals attests the prevailing interest, and the deep sense of the issue that had been tried. A few of these will be mentioned, beginning with the Free-Soil organ in Boston, which thus announced the result: "In congratulating the world on this event, we congratulate the defeated themselves: for, if they did but know it, there is no firm basis for property except the equal rights of man; there can be no durable Union contrary to our immortal Declaration of Independence and the solemn preamble of our Constitution.... Those very men have the greatest reason to rejoice in our victory, for their children, if not for themselves."[67]

The same organ replied to the assaults on Mr. Sumner: "No man ever accepted office with cleaner hands than Charles Sumner. He consented to receive the nomination with extreme reluctance. His pursuits, his tastes, and aspirations were in a different direction. He earnestly entreated his friends to select some other candidate. After he was nominated, and an onslaught unprecedented for ferocity and recklessness in political warfare had seemed to render his election impossible, unless he would authorize some qualification of the alleged obnoxious doctrines of his speeches, particularly of his last Faneuil-Hall speech, Mr. Sumner refused to retract, qualify, or explain. Ten lines from his pen—lines that a politician might have written without even the appearance of a change of sentiment—would have secured his election in January. No solicitation, of friends or opponents, could extort a line. A delegation of Hunkers applied to him for a few words to cover their retreat; in reply, he stated that he had no pledges to give, no explanations to make; he referred them to his published speeches for his position, and added, that he had not sought the office, but, if it came to him, it must find him an independent man. To another Democrat, who called on him on the same errand, he said, 'If by walking across my office I could secure the Senatorship, I would not take a step.' In February he placed in the hands of General Wilson a letter authorizing that gentleman to withdraw his name, whenever, in his judgment, the good of the cause should require it."[68]

The National Era, edited by Dr. Bailey, and the organ of the Free-Soil party at Washington, after speaking of Mr. Sumner in most flattering terms, proceeded as follows: "When it is considered that he is the exponent and advocate of opinions and measures which Mr. Webster has renounced and is seeking to put down, that the whole weight of the influence of this gentleman, with that of the cotton interest, the Administration, and Hunker Democracy, has been brought to bear against him, that at no time has he consented to qualify any word he has ever written or spoken on the questions at issue between him and his opponents, or to give a single pledge, direct or indirect, respecting his course, his election must be regarded as one of the most brilliant, honorable, and decisive triumphs yet achieved by the opponents of Slavery and Conservatism."[69]

The Tribune in New York, though closely allied with the Whig party, rendered justice to Mr. Sumner. "We do not know the man who has entered the Senate under auspices so favorable to personal independence as Mr. Sumner. He has not sought the office, has not made an effort for its acquisition. No pledge has he given to any party or any person upon any question or measure. When asked as to the course he should pursue as Senator, his answer has been a reference to his past acts and published writings; in them were the only promises he had to offer. Though it would have been easy for him to secure the election three months ago by the slightest shadow of a concession to some of the Hunker members of the Legislature, he has steadily refused to say or do anything that could be construed in that manner. To every overture he has replied, that, if chosen, it must be on the footing of absolute independence,—that the Senatorship must come to him, and not he pursue the Senatorship. Such stern adherence to what he considered the path of duty and manliness has thus delayed his election. But it has not prevented it, and now Mr. Sumner enters the Senate free of all trammels whatever. This it is especially which makes us rejoice at the event. It is a new thing in our recent politics, and the loftiest success we can wish him in his Congressional career is an unflinching preservation of the same spirit and conduct."[70]

The London Times had a leader on the election, where, among other things, it said: "He was opposed by the Protectionists of Massachusetts as a partisan of greater freedom of trade, and by the adherents of the Government as an opponent of the Fugitive Slave Act. Yet such was the strength of feeling in Massachusetts on that point alone, that the Free-Soil party have succeeded in sending to the Senate the most active and able representative of their cause, and Mr. Sumner enters upon his ostensible political career under these remarkable and flattering circumstances.... The election of Mr. Sumner to the Senate is everywhere regarded as an emphatic declaration, on the part of his own State, that the law is at least not to remain in its present form unassailed. The South responds to such an election by louder declarations of its resistance to all infractions on its local institutions, even at the sacrifice of the integrity of the Union."[71]

Congratulations came from every quarter. They are alluded to here only because they belong to the history of this election. Some of them are given. One of the earliest was from Richard H. Dana, the scholar, and father of the eminent lawyer, who wrote: "I am thankful that Massachusetts is to speak through you in Washington,—through one whom neither West nor South will be able to win over or to browbeat." John G. Whittier wrote: "I rejoice, that, unpledged, free, and without a single concession or compromise, thou art enabled to take thy place in the Senate. I never knew such a general feeling of real heart pleasure and satisfaction as is manifested by all except inveterate Hunkers in view of thy election. The whole country is electrified by it. Sick abed, I heard the guns, Quaker as I am, with real satisfaction." William C. Bryant wrote: "I am glad that my native State is once more worthily represented in the United States Senate." John Bigelow, who was at the time associated with Mr. Bryant in the Evening Post, wrote: "I was quite overcome when I read the despatch which announced your election; and when the news was communicated through the building, it gave everybody else, including printers and clerks, almost as much pleasure as to me." Epes Sargent, who edited a Whig paper, wrote: "My private acquaintance is a sufficient assurance that your public course will be honorable and patriotic." Neal Dow wrote: "I thank God Massachusetts has at last done something effectual to redeem her character. I am sure that upon the floor of the Senate you will not forget to assert the rights of your State, and maintain with firmness and dignity the great principles upon which a free government should be based." Mr. Chase wrote: "Laus Deo! From the bottom of my heart I congratulate you—no, not you, but all friends of Freedom everywhere—upon your election to the Senate." Mr. Giddings wrote from Ohio: "A most intense interest was felt in this whole region, and I have seen no event which has given greater joy to the population generally." Judge Jay wrote: "May God enable you to leave the public service with a conscience and a reputation as unsullied as those you carry with you!" John Jay telegraphed: "Your election has made us most happy and thankful." Elihu Burritt, who was then in England, wrote: "My soul is gladdened to great and exceeding joy at the news of your election to fill the place of the late Daniel Webster. It has been hailed by the friends of human freedom and progress in this country with exultation. There are more eyes and hearts fixed upon your course than upon that of any man in America." Nobody expressed himself more cordially than John Van Buren, who wrote at once: "You will need no assurance of how delighted I was to hear that you were in fact a Senator from Massachusetts for six years"; and in another letter he said: "I was as much pleased with seeing your frank as I was with the inside of your note. Independent of the fact that it proves your election to the United States Senate, the inscription, 'Free Charles Sumner,' seems to me mighty pretty reading."

This history brings us to the Letter of Acceptance addressed to the Legislature, which was read in the two Houses,—in the Senate by Hon. Henry Wilson, President, and in the House of Representatives by Hon. N.P. Banks, Speaker. In addressing the Legislature directly Mr. Sumner follows the precedent of John Quincy Adams, in 1808, resigning his seat in the Senate.

The American Lawyer: Distinguished by the lofty sphere of his influence, may he find in it new motive to the cultivation of those moral excellences, and those generous virtues of the heart, which give the truest elevation to the character! Nobilitas sola est atque unica virtus.

This meeting was held to consider the case of Smith O'Brien and his fellow-exiles in Australia, and to ask the intercession of our Government in their behalf. Governor Boutwell presided and addressed the meeting.