Charles Sumner: History's Misunderstood Idealist

Abstract

Few historical figures in the history of the United States have received such contrasting treatment by historians and scholars than Senator Charles Sumner. One view of Sumner mainly focuses on Sumner as a “Cardboard Yankee,” a figure who was arrogantly too tied to principle and was someone who seldom tried to understand others, was lacking in humor, was a pedant, lacked the judgment and self-control to be effective in settling disputes, and was unable to compromise.

A more recent “revised” interpretation of Sumner contends Sumner was driven into reform movements and politics for two reasons: first, that Sumner believed the humanistic ideals of the Enlightenment represented the best foundation for the public good and second, that Sumner responded to the duty of the individual to work toward that public good.

In this article, I not only address Sumner’s philosophy, but contend the “revised” interpretation best interprets Sumner’s legal philosophy and political motivations throughout his illustrious Senatorial career by focusing on a particularly painful moment for Sumner – his perplexing decision to leave the Republican Party and endorse the Liberal Republican movement in the presidential election in 1872. Sumner’s strong belief in the transformative nature of the words of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution moved him from neutral to an endorsement of the Liberal Republican movement in 1872 and also that the power of the written word, that of the Constitution, Declaration of Independence, as well as platform of the Liberal Republican Party – could cure all deficiencies, even the hostility of many Democrats to civil rights legislation and to the Radical Republican ideals of Reconstruction.

Thus, the “revised” interpretation, emphasizing Sumner’s dedication to natural law principles, natural rights, equality of all under the law, and belief in the intellectual and moral potential of the human person, best explains the life and career of one of the most idealistic, but yet misunderstood, leaders who deserves a new hearing in American legal, intellectual, and political history.