he offensive proposition was quietly
withdrawn."

Now mark the character of these objections. It is objected, not that it
is wrong to deliver up fugitive slaves, but only that they should not be
"delivered up like criminals;" that is, by a demand on the executive of
the State to which they may have fled. And this objection is based on
the ground that such a requisition would oblige the public to deliver
them up at its own expense. Mr. Sherman insists, not that it is wrong to
surrender fugitive slaves or fugitive horses, but only that the
executive, or public, should not be called upon to surrender them.
Surely, if these gentlemen had been so violently opposed to the
restoration of fugitive slaves, here was a fair occasion for them to
speak out; and as honest, outspoken men they would, no doubt, have made
their sentiments known. But there is, in fact, not a syllable of such a
sentiment uttered. There is not the slightest symptom of the existence
of any such feeling in their minds. If any such existed, we must insist
that Mr. Sumner has discovered it by instinct, and not by his researches
in history.

The statement that "under the pressure of these objections the offensive
propositon was _quietly withdrawn_" is not true. It was not quietly
withdrawn; on the contrary, it was withdrawn with the assurance that it
would be again introduced. "Mr. Butler withdrew his proposition," says
Mr. Madison, "_in order that some particular provision might be made_,
apart from this article."[214] Accordingly, the very next day he
introduced a provision, which, as Mr. Madison declares, "was expressly
inserted to enable owners of slaves to reclaim them."

These glosses of Mr. Sumner on the history of the times will appear
important, if we view them in connection with his design. This design is
to bring into doubt the idea that slaves are embraced in the clause of
the Constitution which requires fugitives from service or labor to be
delivered up. We should not suspect this design from the hints here
thrown out, if it were not afterward more fully disclosed. "On the next
day," says Mr. Sumner, "August 29th, profiting by the suggestions
already made, Mr. Butler moved a proposition, substantially like that
now found in the Constitution, _not directly for the surrender of_
'_fugitive slaves_,' as originally proposed, but as 'fugitives from
service or labor,' which, without debate or opposition of any kind, was
unanimously adopted." Was it the