ing to Calhoun? (8) Compare his position with Clay's on this question; with Websters. (9) What was the South's Thermopylae?

(1) What was the relation between Calhoun and Jackson in 1837? (2) Find out the reason for this feeling. (3) What charges had Calhoun made against Jackson's order for the “removal of the deposits"? (4) Find out about the "removal of the deposits." (5) Did Calhoun recede from his position? (6) Compare his feeling for Jackson with the feelings of Clay and Webster towards him. (7) Explain so much ill-will among our great

mex.

(1) What international rights did Calhoun claim for slavery? (2) If his position was true what was the legal difference between a slave and a bale of cotton? (3) Try to find out whether he was technically right or not. (4) What view did Webster take of the question? (5) Outline his arguments on the question.

(1) To what party did he belong in 1837? (2) What danger did he think he saw that he was opposing?

(1) What did he affirm was the nature of the Constitution? (2) Who was to be the final judge in cases of infraction of the Constitution? (3) Compare his views with Websters. (4) What did he hold in regard to the right of one state to interfere or intermeddle in the affairs of another? (5) What did he consider intermeddling? (6) Did he still love the Union? (7) Was there anything of more importance? (8) To what did he compare Abolitionism? (9) Hunt out his predictions. (10) Were they fulfilled? (11) How did he define the States Rights' view. (12) How did he feel in regard to the non-extension of slavery into the territories? (13) Trace the effect on the Union of an unequal number of states-free and slave. (14) Give his argument in regard to rights in the territory. (15) If you had lived in the South at the time how would you probably have felt? (16) What did he believe in regard to compromise?

(1) What did he think about the results of the acquisition of territory? (2) Compare his views with Clay's, with Webster's on this subject. (3) What reasons does he assign? (4) Are they applicable to-day? (5) Summarize his arguments. (6) What answer can you give to his arguments? (7) Make a diagram to show the arguments of Clay, Webster, and Calhoun in regard to the subject of expansion.

(1) Write a paper or a series of papers comparing these three great men. (2) Which do you like best and why?

CHARLES SUMNER

A native of Massachusetts, 1811. Graduate of Harvard. A lawyer. Visited Europe, 1836-1837. Senator, 1851-1872. Great oration on "Peace," 1845. Speech on "The Crime against Kansas," 1856. Attacked by Brooks in Senate, 1856. An invalid as result, 1856-1860. Opposed San Domingo treaty, 1870. Supported Greeley for President, 1872. Died, 1872.

I'

CHAPTER VI

CHARLES SUMNER

N leaving Clay, Calhoun, and Webster, and

in taking up the life of Sumner we find

ourselves in a new environment, in a new atmosphere. Clay and Webster had stood for the Union above all things else. They were ready to compromise when questions appeared that seemed to endanger their beloved Union. I believe it may also be said that the "Great Nullifier" was such for the very reason that he, too, loved the Union. Some interpretation of the constitution must be found that would make it possible for both slavery and the Union to exist. He hoped he had found it in this doctrine. If this be a true interpretation of our history, then Clay in his Compromises, Webster in his Union speech of March 7th, and Calhoun in his Nullification plans were all aiming at the same goal-the preservation of the Union.

Now when we turn to the younger group of statesmen of whom Sumner is one of the best representatives from the North, we find them more anxious about slavery than about the Union. It may be that they loved the Union no less, but at least they were concerned about slavery more. Sumner was not, or professed not to be, an abolitionist. Yet slavery was the theme of nearly all his strongest thinking. It would seem that his pen could hardly complete

a letter, or indite an address without discussing that question in some way.

The few pages at command for this study make it impossible to illustrate the later years of his life. His voice and pen were busy till the end, and the published volumes of his speeches number fourteen, while his letters, if all were gathered together, would make many volumes more. Thus it will be seen that many features of his life can not be touched. Enough can only be hoped to be done to arouse the desire to know more. In such a series of studies as this the southern statesman also should appear; such men as Toombs, A. H. Stephens, and Davis should speak for their cause. We are now far enough away from the scenes of 1861 to be able to admit that honesty of convictions was found on both sides of Mason and Dixon's line. No true picture of our country's history can be had till we consider both sides, and hear representative men of both sides speak. At last it may be said that the American people are ready to listen, hence it may be hoped that this study will be discussed no more fairly in the North than in the South. As a great, if an aggressive American, he has a place in our life, and we must seek it, and analzye the problem. The latter can never be solved, if such men as he be omitted from our studies. Hoping, then, for as appreciative a reception for this study, as for the earlier ones, we will let Sumner tell us something of his life.

Sumner's father wrote the following letter to Mr. Partridge in 1826, when thinking of send

ing Charles to Partridge's Military Academy for a time:

I have a son, named Charles Sumner, in his fifteenth year, and large of his age, but not of so firm and solid a constitution as I should wish to have him. He has no immoral practices or propensities known to me; he has acquired a pretty good knowledge of Latin and Greek, understands the fundamental rules of arithmetic, and has a superficial knowledge of the whole. He is well acquainted with geography and history, both ancient and modern; in fine, he has been four years at the public Latin School in Boston, sustaining a good standing in the class, which will be qualified for admission at Cambridge College in 182, for which I do not design him. The life of a scholar would be too sedentary and inactive for him. Pierce, Life and

Letters of Sumner, Vol. I, pp. 42, 43.

The following letter from Sumner, 1829, while a student in Harvard College, lets us see something of him and of college life of the time:

Have told you everything new in college now. Everything here is always the same-the same invariable round of bells and recitations, of diggings and of deads! Mathematics piled on mathematics! Metaphysics murdered and mangled! Prayer-bells after prayer-bells! but, worse than all commons upon commons! Clean, handsome plates, and poor food! By the way, the commons bell rung fifteen minutes ago. If I don't stop, I shall lose the invaluable meal. Accordingly, adieu.

Charles Sumner.

N. B.--Spare me! Oh, spare me! Eheu me miserum! I arrived too late; lost my breakfast; got to University, however, soon enough to be present at one 'This was the unkindest cut of

of Follen's lectures.

all.' Again, adieu.

To classmates, he wrote:

C. S."

Ibid., pp. 51, 52.

You would have sooner thought, I suppose, that fire and water would have embraced than mathematics and myself; but, strange to tell, we are close