This text is part of:
‘
[210]
was not moral power enough in Boston to execute the laws of the Commonwealth when they conflicted with the interests of the slave-power.’1 The two leading journals of the city showed the temper which pervaded its society and capital.
The ‘Advertiser’ printed with implied sanction a communication which could bear no other construction than the suggestion to merchants to withdraw their patronage from Dana;2 and shortly after it admitted another article in favor of withdrawing confidence and business from men like Sumner, Mann, and Dana.3 The ‘Courier,’ in an elaborate and bitter leader, called for the exclusion of Dana, Dr. Howe, and Theodore Parker from society and patronage.4 Bryant, in the New York Evening Post, denounced these assaults as ‘an infamous attempt at coercion,’ and ‘the shameless avowal of a spirit both tyrannical and mercenary, . . . . making political principles a matter of bargain and sale.’
Horace Mann, in two ‘Letters,’ May 3 and June 6 (‘Notes,’ July 8) subjected Webster's speech of March 7, and his Newburyport and Kennebee letters, to a trenchant criticism, exhibiting his inconsistency, and following him closely in his misstatements.
Mann's argument was one of great ability, but impaired in its effect by intensives and personalities.
Sumner read the proofs in connection with Dr. Howe, and made some changes, as well as supplied several points and authorities.
During the summer his correspondence with Mann was constant.
The controversy between the Webster and anti-Webster men became exceedingly bitter.
Webster's Latinity—his comparison of Mann to the ‘captatores verborum,’ a ‘set of small but rapacious critics in classical times’—was called in question on the ground that the phrase, at least in the sense
1 Adams's ‘Biography’ of Dana, vol. i. pp. 187, 192.
2 May 10, 1851, signed ‘E.’ See article March 22, suggesting to Southern men not to trade with Lynn manufacturers ‘who are concerned in the warfare against the Union.’
3 June 2, signed ‘Son of a Merchant.’ Adams's ‘Biography’ of Dana, vol. i. p. 198.
4 June 9. The ‘Courier,’ April 24, stated an incident, without disapproval, where a person refused to buy at a shop on hearing the tradesman rejoice at Sumner's election as senator. See references to the ‘Advertiser's’ and ‘Courier's’ articles in Palfrey's ‘Five Years Progress of the Slave Power.’ In the Constitutional Convention, June 23, 1853, Hillard upbraided Dana for ‘striking at the hand that feeds us,’ which provoked the latter's reply: ‘The hand that feeds us! The hand that feeds us! Sir, no hand feeds me that has any right to control my opinions.’ This passage between Hillard and Dana was often referred to at the time. Adams's ‘Biography’ of Dana, vol. i. pp. 237, 238.
Cambridge, MA. Press of John Wilson and Son. 1877.
Tufts University provided support for entering this text.
This work is licensed under a
Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 United States License.
An XML version of this text is available for download, with the additional restriction that you offer Perseus any modifications you make. Perseus provides credit for all accepted changes, storing new additions in a versioning system.