ive a temporary eclat to his argument.

So much for the unfairness of Mr. Sumner. If we should notice all such
instances of artful design in his speech, we should have no space for
his logic. To this we would now invite the attention of the reader, in
order to see if it be really "impregnable."

As we have already intimated, Mr. Sumner does not, like Mr. Seward,
openly denounce the Constitution of his country. On the contrary, he
professes the most profound respect for every part of that instrument,
not even excepting the clause which demands the restoration of the
fugitive from labor. But an examination of his argument, both
_historical_ and _logical_, will enable us, we trust, to estimate this
profession at its real intrinsic worth.

We shall begin with his argument from history. In the examination of
this argument, we beg to excuse ourselves from any further notice of all
that vast array of historical proofs to show that "freedom is national
and slavery sectional."[212] We shall consider those proofs alone which
relate to the real point in controversy, namely, Has Congress the power
to pass a Fugitive Slave Law?

Mr. Sumner argues, from the well-known sentiments of the framers of the
Constitution with respect to slavery, that they intended to confer no
such power on Congress. Thus, after quoting the sentiments of Gouverneur
Morris, of Elbridge Gerry, of Roger Sherman, and James Madison, he adds:
"In the face of these unequivocal statements, it is absurd to suppose
that they consented _unanimously_ to any provision by which the National
Government, the work of their own hands, could be made the most
offensive instrument of slavery." Such is the historical argument of Mr.
Sumner. Let us see what it is worth.

Elbridge Gerry had said: "We ought to be careful NOT _to give any
sanction to slavery_;"--language repeatedly quoted, and underscored as
above, by Mr. Sumner. It is absurd, he concludes, to suppose that a man
who could use such language had the least intention to confer a power on
Congress to support slavery by the passage of a Fugitive Slave Law. This
is one branch of his historical argument. It may appear perfectly
conclusive to Mr. Sumner, and "entirely impregnable" to Mr. Chase; but,
after all, it is not quite so invulnerable as they imagine. Mr. Sumner
stopped his historical researches at a most convenient point for his
argument. If he had only read a little further, he would have discovered
that this sa