New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1874-03-22
VIII
Fillmore and Sumner.

rHiMOfe ana SUMNER
The current OF other and active discu
sion has paused for several days while tn
thought OF the nation has dwelt upon i,
lamented dead. Our minds have reverte
from the engrossing questions of the pre-
ent TO the great contests Of the past w
have turned from the pursuit of immediat
and material ends TO the contemplation G
elevated and noble character IN studyin
the examples thus beeueathed us, and i
tracing the principles which informed an
inspired them, we have sunk the angry tul
MOL OF the hour and dropped the embi
tered conflicts of passion. We have foun
1hat, however much we may differ from
the policies of the day, in reverent regar
for the purity, the moral grandeur and til
conscientious conservation which lie deepe
| than all the turbulence Of the surface, th
| whole world is kin.
Both ct the eminent men who have JUS
Deen laid to rest present themselves to Ou
contemplation in two distinct phases. TIL,
first is their own personality, with its or
ganic type, its special growth, its menta
structure and the qualities Of it's moral fibre
the second is their relation to the influences
and tendencies OF their times. Comparing
the whole, there were vivid contrasts al
we'll as some analogies. Widely differen
as the two statesmen were, there was in
splratlon IN the career Of each. Mr.. Fill
more was born in penury, Mr.. Sumner il
atttuence. Fillmore had ne early advan
tages, Sumner had the embarrassment Of
riches. Fillmore rose against many obsta
cies, Sumner was borne on by the most pro-
nitlous circumstances. Fillmore had not
seen a grammar or geography at an age
when Sumner had already won the diploma
at Harvard. Fillmore surmounted the
harsh difficulties Of poverty, Sumner tri
umphed over the enervating luxury OF
wealth. The career of Fillmore taught
that no impeachment can daunt persever.
ance, industry, and determination: the
career of Sumner taught that no ease of
position relieves from the duty of earnest
work and lofty aims.
In the spotlessness of their integrity they
resembled each other Both were conspicu-
Gus tor personal probity and honor to
which we may point as shining example
imputation was repelled by their transpa-
rently pure characters. In all the stains
which clouded the public life of their
epochs, no suspicion OF corrupt thought
shadowed either. There was a similarity.
too-rhough with varying shades-in their
dependence upon the action of others for
mere political position. Fillmore could
manage for himself scarcely more than
Sumner. Neither had any Of the mere arts
OF politics. The New York statesman at
tracted the support of politicians by his ob-
vious availablity-the Massachusetts states.
man compelled the support of his common
wealth py his commanding superiority.
Both were courtly and dignifed-Sumner
with tlnge OF conscious greatness. Fill
more with the grace of natural suavitv. In
their mental and moral organization thew
were very different. Fillmore was cool and
well balanced-Sumner was ardent and
dashlng. Fillmore was solid and common
p!ace-Sumner was brilliant and glittering.
Fillmore gathered what was needed for pre-
sent use-Sumner swept over the whole
range of knowledge. The one embodied
the average thought and feeling-the other
shone Respondent far above the common
crowd.
The two men were emineEtly representa-
tive OF the two opposing tendencies of their
tlmes--and representative not only through
the positions which circumstances called
Them to I'll but IN the contrasting texture
of their moral fibre. Fillmore was bv tenn
perament and moral constitution a conser-
vative-Sumner radical. Fillmore studied
poEcy-Sumner principle. Both were
honest N carrying out their convictions:
Out the CONVICTIONS o. the one were suhGned
and sottened to a tame and Indifferent tint,
while those of the other were kindled by an
acute conscience into a high color and a
fervid glow. Fillmore regarded slavery as
a political institution, unfortunate and dele
terious, but still to be treated with tenn
pOrZlng policy; Sumner felt it in the yery
depths OF his soul to be gigantic wrong,
1.-The sum Of all yillanies," and all the i'm
pulses OF his moral being rose up in unyield-
ing revolt against the mOnstrous iniquity.
Fillmore presents the figure of a public
man, stainless in his life, with no sordid
seeking, and exhibiting much to emulate,
but still not mounting to the higher realm
OF moral greatness. Sumner, on the other
hand, presents the figure of moral hero.
fighting almost alone the battle
OF the lowly and oppressed, and Growing
the moral grandeur OF his sublime devotion
with dignity Of character and an intellec-
tual glory which altogether made him tower
like the fitting mould Of his own command
ing form, above the elements around him.
And SO the one naturally embodied the
spirit OF compromise, while the other rep
resented the spirit Of radicalism Each
was type, and their death almost at the
same hour suggests not only the contrast of
characters but review of that history
which we have left no space to follow. 1t
invites possible return to the subject on
some future day. Meanwhile it sufices to
say that the history of these later years,
ensanguined with the collision OF forces
whlch no concession could stay, has Illus
trated the impotence of all compromises
Concession only increased the arrogance
and the demands of the slave power, and
only intensified the contest which was to
come. But, without entering upon that
theme, as dust is cast unto dust, we may
well point out what is worthy in the ex-
ample of the dead President, and the heroic
OF freedom, the lofty eieva-
ion of character, and the trained services
If the dead Statesman who was greater
han President.-Atbany Erening Journal.