Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 13 (of 20)
by Charles Sumner · English · Gutenberg #50159 · 703,180 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 13 (of 20)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 13 (of 20)
Author: Charles Sumner
Release date: October 8, 2015 [eBook #50159]
Most recently updated: October 22, 2024
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/50159
Credits: Produced by Mark C. Orton and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER: HIS COMPLETE WORKS, VOLUME 13 (OF 20) ***
[Illustration: JAMES G. BLAINE]
Statesman Edition VOL. XIII
Charles Sumner
HIS COMPLETE WORKS
With Introduction
BY
HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR
[Illustration]
BOSTON
LEE AND SHEPARD
MCM
COPYRIGHT, 1874,
BY
FRANCIS V. BALCH, EXECUTOR.
COPYRIGHT, 1900,
BY
LEE AND SHEPARD.
Statesman Edition.
LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES.
OF WHICH THIS IS
No. 565
Norwood Press:
NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.
CONTENTS OF VOLUME XIII.
PAGE
A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT OUR FIRST DUTY AND THE
ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF PEACE. Bills and Resolutions in the
Senate, at the Opening of the Session of Congress,
December 4, 1865 1
COLORED SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Bill in the
Senate, December 4, 1865 5
IMPARTIAL JURORS FOR COLORED PERSONS. Bill in the Senate,
December 4, 1865 10
OATH TO MAINTAIN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE REBEL
STATES. Bill in the Senate, December 4, 1865 12
PART EXECUTION OF THE GUARANTY OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT. Bill in the Senate, December 4, 1865 14
EQUAL RIGHTS OF COLORED PERSONS TO BE PROTECTED BY THE NATIONAL
COURTS. Bill in the Senate, to enforce the Constitutional
Amendment abolishing Slavery, December 4, 1865 16
REPRESENTATION ACCORDING TO VOTERS. Joint Resolution in the
Senate, to amend the Constitution, December 4, 1865 19
SCHEME OF RECONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF EQUAL RIGHTS. Bill in
the Senate, to enforce the Guaranty of a Republican Form of
Government in Certain States, December 4, 1865 21
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.
Concurrent Resolutions in the Senate, declaring the Adoption,
December 4, 1865 30
FIVE CONDITIONS OF RECONSTRUCTION. Resolutions in respect to
Guaranties of the National Security and the National Faith,
December 4, 1865 33
RIGHTS OF LOYAL CITIZENS, AND A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
Resolutions in the Senate, declaring the Duty of Congress,
December 4, 1865 35
THE LATE SENATOR COLLAMER. Speech in the Senate, on his Death,
December 14, 1865 38
“WHITEWASHING” BY THE PRESIDENT. Remarks in the Senate, on a
Message of President Johnson on the Condition of the Southern
States, December 19, 1865 47
ENFRANCHISEMENT AND PROTECTION OF FREEDMEN. ACTUAL CONDITION OF
THE REBEL STATES. Speech in the Senate, on a Bill to maintain
Freedom in those States, December 20, 1865 55
THE WHITES _vs._ COLORED SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
Remarks in the Senate, on presenting a Petition from Citizens
of the District, December 21, 1865 98
PROTECTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT, AND REJECTION OF EVERY REBEL
DEBT. Constitutional Amendment in the Senate, January 5, 1866 99
KIDNAPPING OF FREEDMEN. Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution
of Inquiry, January 9, 1866 101
THE LATE HENRY WINTER DAVIS. Article in the New York
Independent, January 11, 1866 104
DISFRANCHISEMENT INCONSISTENT WITH REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
Remarks in the Senate, on the Credentials of a Senator from
Florida, January 19, 1866 109
IMPANELLING OF JURIES, AND TRIAL OF JEFFERSON DAVIS. Remarks in
the Senate, on a Bill removing Certain Objections to Jurors,
January 22, 1866 111
CARRYING OUT THE GUARANTY OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, AND
ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY. Joint Resolution in
the Senate, February 2, 1866 113
THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL: THE GREAT GUARANTY AND PRESENT
NECESSITY, FOR THE SAKE OF SECURITY, AND TO MAINTAIN
A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. Speech in the Senate, on the
Proposed Amendment of the Constitution fixing the Basis of
Representation, February 5 and 6, 1866. With Appendix 115
DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE REPUBLIC OF DOMINICA. Bill in the
Senate, February 6, 1866 270
PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS. Remarks in the Senate, February
9, 1866 271
THE CITY OF BOSTON AND MR. SUMNER. Letter to the Mayor of
Boston, in Acknowledgment of a Resolution of the Board of
Aldermen, March 5, 1866 280
POLITICAL EQUALITY WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR. NO COMPROMISE
OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Second Speech in the Senate on the
Proposed Amendment of the Constitution fixing the Basis of
Representation, March 7, 1866 282
OPPOSITE SIDES ON THE MEANING OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL
AMENDMENT. Final Speech in the Senate on this Amendment, March
9, 1866 338
NO MORE STATES WITH THE WORD “WHITE” IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION.
Speeches in the Senate, on the Bill for the Admission of the
State of Colorado into the Union, March 12 and 13, April 17,
19, and 24, and May 21, 1866 346
OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THE BASIS OF
REPRESENTATION. Letter to the Boston Daily Advertiser, March
15, 1866 375
A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT OUR FIRST DUTY AND THE ESSENTIAL
CONDITION OF PEACE.
BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION OF
CONGRESS, DECEMBER 4, 1865.
This session of Congress was occupied by Reconstruction,
especially the question of suffrage for the colored race, with
differences between Congress and President Johnson, culminating
at the next Congress in his impeachment.
Mr. Sumner, on the first day of the session, as soon as he
could obtain the floor, introduced the following measures.
A bill to carry out the principles of a republican form of government
in the District of Columbia.
A bill to preserve the right of jury trial, by securing impartial
jurors in the courts of the United States.
A bill to prescribe an oath to maintain a republican form of government
in the Rebel States.
A bill in part execution of the guaranty of a republican form of
government in the Constitution of the United States.
A bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment to
the Constitution prohibiting Slavery.
A bill to enforce the guaranty of a republican form of government in
certain States whose governments have been usurped or overthrown.
A joint resolution proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the
United States.
Concurrent resolutions declaring the adoption of the Constitutional
Amendment abolishing Slavery.
Resolutions declaring the duties of Congress in respect to guaranties
of the National Security and the National Faith in the Rebel States.
Resolutions declaring the duty of Congress, especially in respect to
loyal citizens in the Rebel States.
This series of propositions attracted the attention of the
country. Expressions of sympathy and gratitude were abundant.
Colored fellow-citizens at Philadelphia addressed Mr. Sumner in
earnest words.
“PHILADELPHIA, PA., December 6, 1865.
“HON. CHARLES SUMNER:--
“DEAR SIR,--At a large and enthusiastic meeting of the
colored citizens of this city, held in the Philadelphia
Institute this evening, the undersigned were charged with
the duty of conveying to you, in behalf of twenty-five
thousand disfranchised Americans here, their most heartfelt
gratitude for the noble, fearless, patriotic stand taken
by you at the opening of the present Congress. No day of
our lives seems brighter than that upon which the foremost
champion of Freedom boldly directs the attention of the
nation to a series of clear, sound, statesmanlike measures
looking to the complete enfranchisement of America.
“We speak but faintly, though truthfully, when we say
that four millions of Americans will ever cherish with
the warmest gratitude of their hearts, and hand down as
a precious legacy to their children, the name of Charles
Sumner,--Charles Sumner, who has at all times and under all
circumstances, even when friends faltered and foes exulted,
stood firm, unflinching, immovable, _uncompromising_, on
the rock of Justice and Liberty.
“God bless the Christian gentleman and scholar, the ablest
of American statesmen! God bless the noble, spotless man,
Charles Sumner! is the fervent prayer of four millions of
disfranchised Americans, not less than of
“Yours, admiringly and sincerely,
“EBENEZER D. BASSETT,[1]
ISAIAH C. WEAR,
NATHANIEL W. DEPEE.”
Parker Pillsbury, the devoted Abolitionist, wrote at once from
the office of the _Antislavery Standard_, in New York:--
“No need of many words to-day. Your openings yesterday were
sublime,--a genuine Apocalypse! God grant it be but the
key-note to the grandest oratorio ever performed by less
than the morning stars and all the sons of God shouting
together!”
Rev. Joshua Leavitt, an editor of the New York _Independent_,
and a constant Abolitionist of great practical sense, wrote
from New York:--
“We look to you to forbear when necessary, and to dare when
the time is right.”
William Lloyd Garrison, an honored leader in the long warfare
with Slavery, who had just returned from a lecture tour in the
West as far as the Mississippi, wrote from Boston:--
“I have found but one opinion, whether the test was made
publicly or privately, in regard to that _questio vexata_,
Reconstruction,--and that is, that not one of the revolted
States should be admitted into the Union without being put
under a longer probation.… Thanks for your prompt action
and untiring vigilance in this matter, in the series of
resolutions presented by you to the Senate.”
William E. Walker wrote from Trenton, New Jersey:--
“You have ever been in the foremost rank in guarding and
defending the rights of the colored people of this country
with a sacred jealousy. I hail with inexpressible joy
your manly, bold, and intelligent avowal of their civil
and political rights, on the opening of the session of
Congress. I feel assured that they will be opposed, and
strongly opposed; but God grant to you, and the other
fearless champions of Freedom’s cause, strength and ability
to successfully defeat all opposition!”
Hon. Theophilus Parsons, the learned Law Professor and law
writer, wrote from Cambridge:--
“Congress has hard work before it,--about as hard as
Grant had to take Richmond; but I suppose it will be done
somehow.”
Hon. Charles W. Upham, a scholar and writer, formerly
Representative in Congress from the Essex District in
Massachusetts, wrote from Salem:--
“Stick to the noble ground you have taken, and let reason
and events put the President in harmony with you and the
people.”
With such voices from the people the great work of the session
began.
The bad spirit which belonged to the days of Slavery seemed
also to return. The following, to Mr. Sumner from ----, dated
“Paymaster General’s Office, Washington, December 11, 1865,”
recalled other days.
“I conceive it to be my duty to impart the following
information, in which you may be interested.
“Calling your name yesterday, in conversation with a
citizen of this city, he casually remarked that you
would probably be killed before the expiration of this
session,--that two or three were sworn against you.
“I paid no apparent attention to the remark at the time,
nor asked any question with regard to it; but, if I can
serve you in the matter any further, I am at your command.”
Mr. Sumner did not notice this letter, or follow it with any
inquiry. He was accustomed to such reports.
COLORED SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
BILL IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 4, 1865.
A Bill to carry out the principles of a Republican form of Government
in the District of Columbia.
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That no person, in other
respects qualified to vote within the District of Columbia, shall be
excluded from that right by reason of race or color.
SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That any person whose duty it
shall be to receive votes at any election within the District of
Columbia, who shall refuse to receive or shall reject the vote of
any person entitled to such right under this Act, shall be liable to
an action of tort by the person injured, and shall be liable, upon
indictment and conviction, if such act was done knowingly, to a fine
not exceeding five thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding one year, or to both. And where the person injured is
of African descent, one half the jury impanelled to try the action or
indictment shall be of African descent.
SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall molest
any person entitled to vote under this Act, in the exercise of such
right, shall, upon indictment and conviction, be liable to a fine not
exceeding three thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not
exceeding six months, or to both; and if the person molested was of
African descent, one half the jury impanelled to try the indictment
shall be of African descent.
This bill was read, passed to a second reading, and ordered to
be printed.
December 6th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was referred to the
Committee on the District of Columbia.
* * * * *
At the formation of the Committee, Mr. Sumner became, for
the first time, a member of the Standing Committee on the
District of Columbia. According to usage in the Senate, the
Standing Committees are formed in a caucus of the predominant
political party, acting on the report of a Nominating Committee
appointed by the caucus. At the opening of the present
session Mr. Sumner was a member of the Nominating Committee.
While occupied in arranging the Committee on the District
of Columbia, he remarked that his only wish with regard to
this Committee was, that it should be so constituted as to
report in favor of suffrage without distinction of color in
the District. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, who was a member of the
Nominating Committee, said at once, “Then you must go on it.”
Mr. Sumner replied, that he was much occupied on the Committee
on Foreign Relations, of which he was Chairman, but that, if
the Nominating Committee chose to assign him this new duty,
he could not decline it. He was accordingly placed on this
Committee, where he continued until the opening of the session
in December, 1872, when, at his own request, founded on ill
health, he was excused from all service on committees.
The members of the Committee were Mr. Morrill, of Maine,
Chairman, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, Mr.
Sumner, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, Mr. Yates, of Illinois,
and Mr. Riddle, of Delaware. At the earliest meeting of the
Committee, Mr. Wade’s bill to regulate the franchise in
the District of Columbia, being first on the calendar, was
proceeded with. At once the question arose of a general bill
regulating suffrage in the District. To relieve the Committee
from this embarrassment, and reach a prompt conclusion on
the main question, Mr. Sumner moved, “That the Committee
will report a bill simply prohibiting any exclusion from the
elective franchise on account of color, with proper provisions
to carry out this prohibition, and without undertaking to
regulate the qualifications.” This motion was adopted.
* * * * *
December 20th, Mr. Morrill reported Mr. Wade’s bill with
amendments, and, in reply to inquiry from Mr. Sumner, said that
he was “inclined to call it up at the earliest possible time,
but probably not before the contemplated adjournment [for the
holidays].” Mr. Sumner then said:--
“I am very glad my excellent friend proposes to proceed
with the consideration of that measure at an early day. I
believe the country requires promptitude in such act of
justice.”
* * * * *
January 10, 1866, the Senate, on motion of Mr. Morrill,
proceeded with the bill, and adopted several of the amendments.
An amendment providing that the elector “shall be able to read
the Constitution of the United States in the English language,
and write his name,” excited discussion, when the bill, on
motion of Mr. Yates, was recommitted.
January 12th, Mr. Morrill reported the original bill with an
amendment as a substitute. January 16th, it was taken up for
consideration, when Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, spoke at length
against it. From that date until June 27th it was not resumed,
but the Senate during this interval heard suffrage discussed,
especially on the Constitutional Amendment concerning
representation. At the latter date it was taken up, on motion
of Mr. Morrill. In the substitute there was no requirement of
reading and writing as a qualification; but Mr. Morrill moved
the amendment on this subject which had been reported before.
On this important proposition the vote stood, Yeas 15, Nays 19.
So it was rejected. After an elaborate speech from Mr. Willey,
in which he proposed a qualified suffrage, the bill went over
to another day, but was not resumed until the next session of
Congress. The pressure of business, the fact that there would
be no election until after the next session, the growing sense
that the suffrage must be without educational qualification,
and the uncertainty of carrying such a bill over the veto of
the President, were the reasons for this delay.
* * * * *
Meanwhile, after a debate of several days, the House of
Representatives, on the 18th of January, passed a short bill,
striking the word “white” from the election laws of the
District, and declaring that no person should be disqualified
on account of color.
* * * * *
December 3, 1866, being the first day of the session, Mr.
Sumner moved that the Senate proceed with the consideration of
the Suffrage Bill, and then remarked:--
“It will be remembered that this bill was introduced on the
first day of the last session,--that it was the subject of
repeated debate in this Chamber,--that it was more than
once referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia,
by whose chairman it was reported back to the Senate. At
several different stages it was supposed that we were about
to reach a final vote. The country expected that vote. It
was not had. It ought to have been had. And now, Sir, I
think it best for the Senate, in this very first hour of
its coming together, to put that bill on its passage. It
has been thoroughly debated. Every Senator has made up his
mind. There is nothing more to be said on either side. So
far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that the vote
shall be taken without one further word; but I think that
the Senate ought not to allow the bill to be postponed. We
should seize this first occasion to put the bill on its
passage. The country expects it; the country will rejoice
and be grateful, if you will signalize this first day of
your coming together by this beautiful and generous act.”
The Chair, after recognizing the motion, ruled it not in order,
according to a former precedent.
* * * * *
December 10th, on motion of Mr. Morrill, the Senate proceeded
with the Suffrage Bill. Mr. Sumner joined in urging it:--
“Let us, so far as the Senate can do it, give suffrage to
the colored race in the District; let us signalize this
first day of actual business by finishing this great act.”
Debate ensued for four days, in which Mr. Morrill, Mr. Willey,
of West Virginia, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, Mr. Pomeroy, of
Kansas, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, Mr. Williams, of Oregon,
Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Mr. Yates, of
Illinois, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Gratz Brown, of
Missouri, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Sprague, of Rhode Island,
Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin,
Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr.
Foster, of Connecticut, Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr.
Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Lane, of Indiana, and Mr. Sumner,
took part. The remarks of the last will appear in their proper
place, according to date.[2] Among the amendments considered
was one by Mr. Cowan to strike out the word “male,” so as to
open suffrage to women, which was rejected,--Yeas 9, Nays
37. The amendment by Mr. Dixon, making reading and writing a
qualification, was also rejected,--Yeas 11, Nays 34.
December 13th, the bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 32, Nays
13. The announcement of its passage was followed by applause
in the galleries. On the next day the bill passed the other
House,--Yeas 128, Nays 46.
January 7, 1867, the bill passed the Senate over the veto of
President Johnson, by a two-thirds vote,--Yeas 29, Nays 10.
On the next day it passed the other House by a two-thirds
vote,--Yeas 113, Nays 38. And so it became a law, and also a
model for similar legislation in the reconstruction of the
Rebel States.
IMPARTIAL JURORS FOR COLORED PERSONS.
BILL IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 4, 1865.
A Bill to preserve the right of trial by jury, by securing
impartial jurors in the Courts of the United States.
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That in the courts
of the United States in any State, whereof, according to the census
Anno Domini eighteen hundred and sixty, one sixth part or more of the
population was of African descent, every grand jury shall consist
one half of persons of African descent who shall possess the other
qualifications now required by law; and when the matter to be tried
relates to any injury inflicted by a person of African descent upon a
person not of such descent, or _vice versa_, or to any claim, suit, or
demand between a person of such descent and one not of such descent,
every petit jury shall consist one half of persons of African descent
possessing the other qualifications now required by law. Upon any
such trial, prejudice against persons of African descent, or against
persons not of such descent, shall be ground of challenge, and, being
established by proof, to the satisfaction of the judge, shall exclude
the juror. And upon any such trial, inability to read or write shall
be ground of challenge, and, the fact being found by the judge, shall
exclude the juror.
This bill was read, passed to a second reading, and ordered to
be printed.
December 13th, it was read a second time, and, on motion of Mr.
Sumner, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Towards the end of the session, July 7, 1866, it was reported
adversely by Mr. Trumbull, and, on his motion, indefinitely
postponed.
* * * * *
This effort to secure recognition of colored persons on juries
was suggested by the ancient jury _de Medietate Linguæ_, first
given by the statute of 28th Edward III., cap. 13, and used in
cases where one party was a foreigner and the other a denizen.
There were other cases where an analogous jury was impanelled,
as in a criminal trial in the University courts, where the
jury was half freeholders of the county, and half matriculated
laymen of the University.[3]
OATH TO MAINTAIN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE REBEL STATES.
BILL IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 4, 1865.
A Bill prescribing an oath to maintain a Republican form of
Government in the Rebel States.
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That hereafter every
person in any State lately declared to be in rebellion, before he
shall be allowed to vote at any election, State or National, or before
he shall enter upon the duties of any office, State or National, or
become entitled to the salary or other emoluments thereof, shall take
and subscribe an oath or affirmation to maintain a republican form of
government, as follows: “I do hereby swear (or affirm) that I will
at all times hereafter use my best endeavors to maintain a republican
form of government in the State of which I am an inhabitant, and in
the Union of the United States; that I will at all times recognize the
indissoluble unity of the Republic, and will always discountenance and
resist any endeavor to break away or secede from the Union; that I
will give my influence and vote at all times to strengthen and sustain
the national credit; that I will always discountenance and resist any
attempt, directly or indirectly, to repudiate or postpone, in any
part or in any way, either the debt contracted by the United States
in subduing the late Rebellion or the obligation assumed to the Union
soldiers; that I will always discountenance and resist any laws making
any distinction of race or color; and that in all ways I will strive to
maintain a State government completely loyal to the Union, where all
men shall enjoy equal protection and equal rights”: which, so taken
and subscribed, shall be preserved in the proper office or department,
according to regulations made by the President of the United States.
Any person who shall falsely take such oath shall be guilty of perjury,
and, on conviction, in addition to the penalties now prescribed for
that offence, shall be deprived of his office, and rendered incapable
forever after of holding any office under the United States.
This bill was read, passed to a second reading, and ordered
to be printed. The same oath appears in the Scheme of
Reconstruction.[4]
PART EXECUTION OF THE GUARANTY OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.
BILL IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 4, 1865.
A Bill in part execution of the guaranty of a Republican form
of Government in the Constitution of the United States.
Whereas it is declared in the Constitution that the United States shall
guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government;
and whereas certain States have allowed their governments to be
subverted by rebellion, so that the duty is now cast upon Congress of
executing this guaranty: Now, therefore,
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That in all States lately
declared to be in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy invested with
peculiar privileges and powers, and there shall be no denial of rights,
civil or political, on account of race or color; but all persons
shall be equal before the law, whether in the court-room or at the
ballot-box. And this statute, made in pursuance of the Constitution,
shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or
laws of any such State to the contrary notwithstanding.
This bill was read, passed to a second reading, and ordered to
be printed.
* * * * *
The same bill, in another form, was introduced by Mr. Sumner,
February 2, 1866, and afterwards moved as a substitute for the
Constitutional Amendment on Representation.[5]
EQUAL RIGHTS OF COLORED PERSONS TO BE PROTECTED BY THE NATIONAL COURTS.
BILL IN THE SENATE, TO ENFORCE THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOLISHING
SLAVERY, DECEMBER 4, 1865.
A Bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the
Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery.
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_, That neither slavery nor
involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the
party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That, if any person shall attempt
to control, or shall by act or word claim any right to control, the
services of any other person, contrary to the provisions of the
foregoing section, the person so offending shall, upon indictment and
conviction in the District Court of the United States for the district
where the crime was committed, be punished by a fine not exceeding
ten thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years, or by both, to be inflicted at the discretion of the court; and
it shall be no defence, nor cause of mitigation of sentence, that such
claim or attempt is sanctioned by any pretended law of a State, or any
judgment of a State court. But nothing herein contained shall be held
to impair any other remedy now existing by _Habeas Corpus_ or otherwise.
SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That, in further enforcement
of the provision of the Constitution prohibiting Slavery, and in
order to remove all relics of this wrong from the States where this
Constitutional prohibition takes effect, it is hereby declared that
all laws or customs in such States, establishing any oligarchical
privileges and any distinction of rights on account of race or color,
are hereby annulled, and all persons in such States are recognized as
equal before the law; and the penalties provided in the last section
are hereby made applicable to any violation of this provision, which is
made in pursuance of the Constitution of the United States.
SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That, in further enforcement of
the provision of the Constitution, the courts of the United States in
the States shall have exclusive jurisdiction of all offences committed
by persons not of African descent upon persons of African descent; also
of all offences committed by persons of African descent; and also of
all causes, suits, and demands to which any person of African descent
shall be a party; and it is hereby declared that all such cases are to
be treated as cases arising under the Constitution of the United States.
This bill was read, passed to a second reading, and ordered to
be printed.
December 21st, it was read a second time, and, on motion of Mr.
Sumner, referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
January 11, 1866, Mr. Trumbull, from this Committee, reported
the “Bill to protect all persons in the United States in their
civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication,”
which was passed, covering in part the ground of Mr. Sumner’s
bill.[6]
REPRESENTATION ACCORDING TO VOTERS.
JOINT RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, TO AMEND THE CONSTITUTION, DECEMBER 4,
1865.
Joint Resolution proposing an Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States.
_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled_ (two thirds of both Houses
concurring), That the following Article be proposed to the Legislatures
of the several States as an Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States, which, when ratified by three fourths of such Legislatures,
shall become a part of the Constitution, to wit:--
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which
may be included within this Union according to the number of male
citizens of the age of twenty-one years having in each State the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of
the State Legislature. The actual enumeration of such citizens shall be
made by the census of the United States.”
This was the first resolution of the session. It was read,
passed to a second reading, and ordered to be printed.
December 13th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was read a second
time, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
June 20, 1866, in company with other resolutions proposing
Amendments to the Constitution, it was reported adversely by
Mr. Trumbull, and on his motion indefinitely postponed.
Meanwhile the proposition had entered largely into debate,
and had been discussed by Mr. Sumner.[7] It was superseded by
the provision on Representation in the Fourteenth Amendment
of the Constitution. When moved, June 6th, by Mr. Doolittle,
of Wisconsin, as a substitute for that clause, it was
rejected,--Yeas 7, Nays 31. The yeas were Messrs. Cowan, of
Pennsylvania, Davis, of Kentucky, Doolittle, Guthrie, of
Kentucky, Hendricks, of Indiana, Johnson, of Maryland, and
Riddle, of Delaware. It was no longer satisfactory to Mr.
Sumner, who hoped for something better. When brought forward by
him, it was in the nature of a tentative process.
SCHEME OF RECONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF EQUAL RIGHTS.
BILL IN THE SENATE, TO ENFORCE THE GUARANTY OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF
GOVERNMENT IN CERTAIN STATES, DECEMBER 4, 1865.
A Bill to enforce the guaranty of a Republican form of
Government in certain States whose governments have been
usurped or overthrown.
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America, in Congress assembled_, That, in the States lately
declared in rebellion against the United States, the President shall,
by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, appoint for each a
provisional governor, with pay and emoluments not exceeding those of a
brigadier-general of volunteers, who shall be charged with the civil
administration of such State, until a State government therein shall be
recognized as hereinafter provided.
SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That the provisional governor of
each of such States shall direct the marshal of the United States, as
speedily as may be, to name a sufficient number of deputies, and to
enroll all male citizens of the United States resident in the State
in their respective counties, and to request each one to take the
oath to support the Constitution of the United States, and the oath
to maintain a republican form of government, and in his enrolment to
designate those who take and those who refuse to take the oaths, which
rolls shall be forthwith returned to the provisional governor; and if
the persons taking the oaths shall amount to a majority of the persons
enrolled in the State, he shall by proclamation invite the loyal people
of the State to elect delegates to a convention charged to declare the
will of the people of the State relative to the reëstablishment of a
State government, subject to and in conformity with the Constitution of
the United States.
SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That the oath to maintain a
republican form of government shall be as follows: “I do hereby swear
(or affirm) that I will at all times hereafter use my best endeavors
to maintain a republican form of government in the State of which
I am an inhabitant, and in the Union of the United States; that I
will at all times recognize the indissoluble unity of the Republic,
and will always discountenance and resist any endeavor to break away
or secede from the Union; that I will give my influence and vote at
all times to strengthen and sustain the national credit; that I will
always discountenance and resist any attempt, directly or indirectly,
to repudiate or postpone, in any part or in any way, either the debt
contracted by the United States in subduing the late rebellion or
the obligation assumed to the Union soldiers; that I will always
discountenance and resist any laws making any distinction of race
or color; and that in all ways I will strive to maintain a State
government completely loyal to the Union, where all men shall enjoy
equal protection and equal rights.”[8]
SEC. 4. _And be it further enacted_, That the convention shall
consist of as many members as both Houses of the last constitutional
State Legislature, apportioned by the provisional governor among the
counties, parishes, or districts of the State, in proportion to the
population returned as electors by the marshal, in compliance with the
provisions of this Act. The provisional governor shall by proclamation
declare the number of delegates to be elected by each county, parish,
or election district; name a day of election, not less than thirty days
thereafter; designate the places of voting in each county, parish, or
district, conforming, as nearly as may be convenient, to the places
used in the State elections next preceding the Rebellion; appoint one
or more commissioners to hold the election at each place of voting; and
provide an adequate force to keep the peace during the election.
SEC. 5. _And be it further enacted_, That the delegates shall be
elected by the loyal male citizens of the United States of the age of
twenty-one years, and resident at the time in the county, parish, or
district in which they shall offer to vote, and enrolled as aforesaid,
or absent in the military service of the United States, and who shall
take and subscribe the oath of allegiance to the United States in
the form contained in the Act of Congress of July 2, 1862, and the
before recited oath to maintain a republican form of government;
and all such citizens of the United States who are in the military
service of the United States shall vote at the head-quarters of their
respective commands, under such regulations as may be prescribed by the
provisional governor for the taking and return of their votes; but no
person who has held or exercised any office, civil or military, State
or otherwise, under the Rebel usurpation, or who has voluntarily borne
arms against the United States, shall vote or be eligible as delegate
at such election.
SEC. 6. _And be it further enacted_, That the commissioners, or either
of them, shall hold the election in conformity with this Act, and,
so far as may be consistent therewith, shall proceed in the manner
used in the State prior to the Rebellion. The oath of allegiance and
the oath to maintain a republican form of government shall be taken
and subscribed on the poll-book by every voter in the form above
prescribed; but every person known by or proved to the commissioners
to have held or exercised any office, civil or military, State or
otherwise, under the Rebel usurpation, or to have voluntarily borne
arms against the United States, shall be excluded, though he offer
to take the oath; and in case any person who shall have borne arms
against the United States shall offer to vote, he shall be deemed to
have borne arms voluntarily, unless he shall prove the contrary by the
testimony of a qualified voter. The poll-book showing the name and
oath of each voter shall be returned to the provisional governor by
the commissioners of election, or the one acting, and the provisional
governor shall canvass such returns, and declare the person having the
highest number of votes elected.
SEC. 7. _And be it further enacted_, That the provisional governor
shall by proclamation convene the delegates duly elected, at the
capital of the State, on a day not more than three months after the
election, giving at least thirty days’ notice of such day. In case the
capital shall in his judgment be unfit, he shall in his proclamation
appoint another place. He shall preside over the deliberations of the
convention, and administer to each delegate, before taking his seat in
the convention, the oath of allegiance to the United States, and the
oath to maintain a republican form of government, in the form above
prescribed.
SEC. 8. _And be it further enacted_, That the convention shall
declare, on behalf of the people of the State, their submission to
the Constitution and laws of the United States, and shall adopt the
following provisions, hereby prescribed by the United States in the
execution of the constitutional duty to guaranty a republican form of
government to every State, and incorporate them in the Constitution of
the State, that is to say:--
First. No person who has held or exercised any office, civil or
military, except offices merely ministerial and military offices below
the grade of colonel, State or otherwise, under the usurping power,
shall vote for or be a member of the legislature or governor.
Secondly. Involuntary servitude is forever prohibited, and the freedom
of all persons is guarantied in such State.
Thirdly. No debt, State or otherwise, created by or under the sanction
of the usurping power, shall be recognized or paid by the State.
Fourthly. No person shall enter upon any office within the gift of the
people of this State, until he has first taken the oath to support the
Constitution of the United States and the oath to maintain a republican
form of government. And the Constitution shall prescribe forms for
these oaths substantially in accordance with the forms herein provided.
Fifthly. There shall be no distinction among the inhabitants of
this State founded on race, former condition, or color. Every such
inhabitant shall be entitled to all the privileges before the law
enjoyed by the most favored class of such inhabitants.
Sixthly. These provisions shall be perpetual, not to be abolished or
changed hereafter.
SEC. 9. _And be it further enacted_, That, when the convention shall
have adopted those provisions, it shall proceed to reëstablish a
republican form of government, and ordain a constitution containing
those provisions, which, when adopted, the convention shall by
ordinance provide for submitting to the people of the State entitled to
vote under this law, at an election to be held in the manner prescribed
by the act for the election of delegates, but at a time and place named
by the convention, at which election the electors described above, and
none others, shall vote directly for or against such constitution and
form of State government. And the returns of such election shall be
made to the provisional governor, who shall canvass the same in the
presence of the electors, and if a majority of the votes cast shall
be for the constitution and form of government, he shall certify the
same, with a copy thereof, to the President of the United States, who,
after obtaining the assent of Congress, shall by proclamation recognize
the government so established, and none other, as the constitutional
government of the State; and from the date of such recognition, and
after its legislature shall have ratified the Amendment to the United
States Constitution abolishing slavery and prohibiting involuntary
servitude, and not before, Senators and Representatives, and Electors
for President and Vice-President, may be elected in such State,
according to the laws of the State and of the United States.
SEC. 10. _And be it further enacted_, That, if the convention shall
refuse to reëstablish the State government on the foregoing conditions,
the provisional governor shall declare it dissolved; but it shall be
the duty of the President, whenever he shall have reason to believe
that a sufficient number of the people of the State entitled to vote
under this Act, in number not less than a majority of those enrolled
as aforesaid, are willing to reëstablish a State government on the
foregoing conditions, to direct the provisional governor to order
another election of delegates to a convention for the purpose and in
the manner prescribed in this Act, and to proceed in all respects
as herein before provided, either to dissolve the convention, or to
certify the State government reëstablished by it to the President.
SEC. 11. _And be it further enacted_, That, until the United States
shall have recognized a republican form of State government, the
provisional governor in each of such States shall see that this Act,
and the laws of the United States, and the laws of the State in
force when the State government was overthrown by the Rebellion, are
faithfully executed within the State; but no law or usage contrary
to any of the provisions herein directed to be inserted in the
constitution of the State shall be recognized or enforced by any court
or officer in such State, and such provisions shall be regarded as
already incorporated into the law of the State; and the laws for the
trial and punishment of white persons shall extend to all persons,
and jurors shall have the qualifications of voters under this law
for delegates to the convention. The President shall appoint such
officers, provided for by the laws of the State when its government
was overthrown, as he may find necessary to the civil administration
of the State, all which officers shall be entitled to receive the fees
and emoluments provided by the State laws for such officers. And he
may permit, when he deems it expedient, elections to be made of such
officers by the people entitled to vote according to the provisions of
this Act; such officers to have the qualifications required for voters
under this Act, and to hold their offices subject to removal by him.
And all such officers, whether appointed by the President or elected
by the people, shall, before entering on the duties of their offices,
take the oaths to support the Constitution of the United States, and to
maintain a republican form of government.
SEC. 12. _And be it further enacted_, That, until the recognition of a
State government as aforesaid, the provisional governor shall, under
such regulations as he may prescribe, cause to be assessed, levied, and
collected, for the year eighteen hundred and sixty-four, and every year
thereafter, the taxes provided by the laws of such State to be levied
during the fiscal year preceding the overthrow of the State government
thereof, in the manner prescribed by the laws of the State, as nearly
as may be; and the officers appointed as aforesaid are vested with all
powers of levying and collecting such taxes, by distress or sale, as
were vested in any officers or tribunal of the State government for
those purposes. The proceeds of such taxes shall be accounted for to
the provisional governor, and be by him applied to the expenses of the
administration of the laws in such State, subject to the direction of
the President; and the surplus shall be deposited in the treasury of
the United States to the credit of such State, to be paid to the State
upon an appropriation therefor, to be made when a republican form of
government shall be recognized therein by the United States.
This was read, passed to a second reading, and ordered to be
printed.
December 21st, it was, on motion of Mr. Sumner, referred to the
Joint Committee “to inquire into the condition of the States
which formed the so-called Confederate States of America,”
known as the Reconstruction Committee, of which Mr. Fessenden
was Senate Chairman, and Mr. Stevens House Chairman.
Nothing as systematic and complete as this measure was ever
adopted. The work of Reconstruction was piecemeal.
ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY.
CONCURRENT RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, DECLARING THE ADOPTION, DECEMBER
4, 1865.
Concurrent Resolutions declaring the adoption of the
Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery.
Whereas Congress, by a vote of two thirds of both Houses, did
heretofore propose to the Legislatures of the several States for
ratification an Amendment to the Constitution in the following words,
to wit:--
“ARTICLE XIII. _Section 1._ Neither slavery nor involuntary
servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United
States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
“_Section 2._ Congress shall have power to enforce this Article
by appropriate legislation.”
And whereas, at the time when such Amendment was submitted, as well
as since, there were sundry States which, by reason of rebellion,
were without Legislatures, so that, while the submission was made in
due constitutional form to “the Legislatures of the several States,”
in obedience both to the letter and spirit of the provision of the
Constitution authorizing Amendments, it was not, as it could not be,
made to all the States, there being a less number of Legislatures of
States than there were States;
And whereas, since the Constitution expressly authorizes Amendments
to be made, any construction which would render the making of them at
times impossible must violate both its letter and its spirit;
And whereas, to require the ratification by States without Legislatures
as well as by “the Legislatures of the States,” in order to be valid,
would put it in the power of long-continued rebellion to suspend not
only the peace of the nation, but its Constitution also;
And whereas the count of States in rebellion enables such States by
silence to vote against the Constitutional Amendment, thus giving to
their silence the same effect as a vote;
And whereas, from the terms of the Constitution and the nature of the
case, it belongs to the two Houses of Congress to determine when such
ratification is complete;
And whereas more than three fourths of the Legislatures to which the
proposition was made have ratified such Amendment: Now, therefore,
_Be it resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives
concurring)_, That the Amendment abolishing Slavery has become and is
part of the Constitution of the United States.
_Resolved_, That, notwithstanding the foregoing resolution, yet,
considering the great public interest which attaches to this question,
the Legislatures which have not ratified the Amendment be permitted
to express their concurrence by the usual form of ratification, to be
returned in the usual manner.
_Resolved_, That no one of the States, to the Legislatures of which
such Amendment could not be submitted, by reason of rebellion against
the United States and having no Legislatures, be permitted to resume
its relations, and have its Legislature acknowledged and its Senators
and Representatives admitted, until its Legislature has first ratified
such Amendment in recognition of the accomplished fact.
These resolutions were read and ordered to be printed. They
were also entered at length on the Journal of the Senate.
FIVE CONDITIONS OF RECONSTRUCTION.
RESOLUTIONS IN RESPECT TO GUARANTIES OF THE NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
NATIONAL FAITH, DECEMBER 4, 1865.
Resolutions declaring the duty of Congress in respect to
guaranties of the national security and the national faith in
the Rebel States.
_Resolved_, That in order to provide proper guaranties for security
in the future, so that peace and prosperity shall surely prevail, and
the plighted faith of the nation be preserved, it is the first duty
of Congress to take care that no State declared in rebellion shall be
allowed to resume its relations with the Union until after satisfactory
performance of five several conditions, which conditions precedent must
be submitted to a popular vote, and be sanctioned by a majority of the
people of each State respectively, as follows.
1. The complete reëstablishment of loyalty, as shown by honest
recognition of the unity of the Republic, and the duty of allegiance to
it at all times, without mental reservation or equivocation of any kind.
2. The complete suppression of all oligarchical pretensions, and the
complete enfranchisement of all citizens, so that there shall be no
denial of rights on account of race or color, but justice shall be
impartial, and all shall be equal before the law.
3. The rejection of the Rebel debt, and at the same time the adoption,
in just proportion, of the national debt and the national obligations
to Union soldiers, with solemn pledges never to join in any measure,
direct or indirect, for their repudiation, or in any way tending to
impair the national credit.
4. The organization of an educational system for the equal benefit of
all, without distinction of race or color.
5. The choice of citizens for office, whether State or National, of
constant and undoubted loyalty, whose conduct and conversation shall
give assurance of peace and reconciliation.
_Resolved_, That to provide these essential safeguards, without which
the national security and the national faith will be imperilled, States
cannot be precipitated back to political power and independence; but
they must wait until these conditions are in all respects fulfilled.
These resolutions were read and ordered to be printed. They
were also entered at length on the Journal of the Senate.
RIGHTS OF LOYAL CITIZENS, AND A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, DECLARING THE DUTY OF CONGRESS, DECEMBER 4,
1865.
Resolutions declaring the duty of Congress, especially towards
loyal citizens in the Rebel States.
Whereas it is provided by the Constitution that “the United States
shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of
government”;
And whereas there are certain States where, by reason of rebellion, no
State governments are recognized by Congress;
And whereas, because of the failure of such States respectively to
maintain State governments, it has become the duty of Congress,
standing in the place of guarantor, where the principal has made a
lapse, to provide governments republican in form for such States
respectively: Now, therefore, in order to declare the duty of
Congress,--
1. _Resolved_, That, whenever a convention is called in any such State
for the organization of a government, the following persons have a
right to be represented therein, namely: the citizens of the State
who have taken no part in the Rebellion, especially all those whose
exclusion from the ballot enabled others to carry the State into the
Rebellion, and still more especially those who became soldiers in the
armies of the Union, and by valor on the battle-field helped turn the
tide of war, making the Union triumphant; and Congress must refuse
to sanction the proceedings of any convention composed of delegates
chosen by men recently in arms against the Union, and excluding men who
perilled life in its defence, unless its proceedings have been first
approved by those entitled to participate therein, as hereby declared.
2. _Resolved_, That the Constitution of the United States, being
supreme over State laws and State constitutions on those matters upon
which it speaks, and the duty being now imposed by it on Congress to
legislate for the establishment of government in the States where
government is overthrown, it is hereby declared that no supposed
State law or State constitution can be set up as an impediment to the
national power in the discharge of its duty.
3. _Resolved_, That, since also it has become the duty of Congress
to determine what is a republican form of government, it is hereby
declared that no government of a State recently in rebellion can be
accepted as republican, where large masses of citizens always loyal
to the United States are excluded from the elective franchise, and
especially where wounded soldiers of the Union, with kindred and race,
and also the kindred of others whose bones whiten battle-fields on
which they died for country, are thrust from the polls to make place
for the men by whose hands came wounds and death; more particularly
where, as in some of those States, the result would be to disfranchise
the majority of citizens always loyal, and give to the oligarchical
minority recently engaged in rebellion power to oppress the loyal
majority, even to the extent of driving them from home, and depriving
them of all opportunity of livelihood.
4. _Resolved_, That, where, by reason of rebellion, there is a lapse
in the State government, and it becomes the duty of Congress to
provide a government, none can be accepted as “a republican form of
government,” where numerous native-born citizens, charged with no
crime and no failure of duty, and compelled to pay taxes, are left
wholly unrepresented; and especially where a particular race is singled
out and denied representation, although compelled to pay taxes; more
especially where such race constitutes the majority of the citizens,
and the enfranchised minority has for the time forfeited its rights
by rebellion; and more especially still, where by such exclusion the
oligarchical enemies of the Republic can practically compel it to
break faith with national soldiers and national creditors, to whose
generosity it was indebted during a period of peril.
These resolutions were read and ordered to be printed. They
were also entered at length on the Journal of the Senate.
THE LATE SENATOR COLLAMER.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS DEATH, DECEMBER 14, 1865.
MR. PRESIDENT,--Since Henry Clay left this Chamber by the gate of
death, no Senator has passed that way crowned with the same honorable
years as Mr. Collamer; nor has any Senator passed that way whose
departure created such a blank in the public councils, unless we
except Mr. Douglas. He was our most venerable associate; but his place
here had not shrunk with time. Nor was he, when we last saw him, less
important to our debates and to our conclusions than ever before. He
still possessed all those peculiar powers of argument and illustration,
seasoned with a New England salt, which he had from the beginning. He
was not so old that he was not often the life of the body.
When he came into the Senate, it was after long and various experience
as lawyer, judge, representative in the other House, member of the
Cabinet, and then again as judge, in all which characters he had been
single, pure, honest, faithful, and laborious. Though little of a
traveller, he had seen much. He had also read much, and he had done
much. But all the results of observation, study, and action had so
passed into his nature as to become part of himself. If he expressed
an opinion, even on law, it seemed to come from himself, and not from
books. He was the authority. And yet he was fond of books, whether in
his own profession or in other departments of study.
His fidelity assumed the form of accuracy in all that he said or did.
He spoke accurately, and he was especially accurate with his pen.
Perhaps nobody was apter in the style or language of legislation. He
was an expert draughtsman, although, without doubt, too professional
for a taste not exclusively professional,--indulging in traditional
phrases, and those favorite superfluities of the lawyer, “said” and
“aforesaid.” The great Act of July 13, 1861,[9] which gave to the war
for the suppression of the Rebellion its first Congressional sanction,
and invested the President with new powers, was drawn by him. It was
he that set in place the great ban, not yet lifted, by which the
Rebel States were shut out from the communion of the Union. This is a
landmark in our history, and it might properly be known by the name of
its author, as “Collamer’s statute.”
All who ever sat with him in the committee-room will long remember the
carefulness with which he gave his counsels, and the completeness with
which he explained them. Perhaps his wisdom and facility in business
were nowhere more manifest. I seize this occasion to confess most
gratefully my own personal obligations to him in this interesting
relation.
The same character which appeared in the committee-room showed itself
in conversation, enlivened by constant humor. He, too, had his “little
story” for illustration; but in this respect he differed from the
late President as one of his own Vermont mountains differs from an
outstretched laughing prairie of the West. In manner he was Socratic.
The curious observer, fond of tracing resemblances, might fancy that
in the form of his head, and even of his person, he was not unlike the
received image of Socrates, while his colloquial powers might again
recall Socrates, as pictured by the affectionate Xenophon, “handling
all who conversed with him just as he pleased.” He had also the same
antique simplicity, and I doubt not he would have followed the wise
man of Athens barefoot in the waters of the Ilissus. I would not push
the resemblance too far, and I use it only for illustration, not for
parallel; and yet, as I bring to mind our departed friend, he seems to
assume this classical figure. Call him, then, if you please, the Green
Mountain Socrates.
Debate, except on the highest occasions, is only conversation in
public. With him it was conversation always. He spoke as he conversed,
with the same pith and humor, and with the same facility. But his
facility did not tempt him. In this gilded amphitheatre,[10] where
the speaker is sacrificed to the galleries, as of old the gladiator
was offered up to make a Roman holiday, he declined all display, and
simply conversed; and such was the desire to hear him, that we gathered
near to catch his words. He was not a frequent speaker, and he never
spoke except when he had something to say; nor did he speak for effect
abroad, but only for effect in the debate. Of course, he was too honest
and too considerate of the Senate to speak without the preparation of
reflection and study. Though at times earnest, he was never bitter. He
never dropped into the debate any poisoned ingredients.
Sometimes he spoke with much effect, especially on law, or finance, or
business. On the great question which for a generation overshadowed all
others, and finally wrapped the country in the “living cloud of war,”
he was sincerely antislavery, but with certain shortcomings which in
this impartial tribute ought not to be concealed. His lenity toward our
monster enemy showed itself unconsciously when he spoke of malignant
Rebels as “those Southern gentlemen who had seceded,” and then again,
when, at an earlier date, he spoke of “two civilizations”; but he bore
kindly the reply, that civilization was only on one side. And yet on
two occasions in this Chamber he strove for the Right very bravely, so
that his position became historic. One of these was many years ago,
shortly after he came into the Senate; the other was only last year.
The historian and the biographer will describe these scenes. One of
them is the fit subject of Art.
The earliest of these occasions was when, under the influence of the
President of that day, backed by Jefferson Davis in the Cabinet,
an illegal government was set up in a distant Territory, which, in
defiance of the people there, proceeded to institute an infamous Black
Code borrowed from Slavery. The President countenanced the illegal
government, and smiled upon the Black Code. The representatives of
Slavery in both Houses of Congress, with their Northern allies,
indifferent to human rights, and greedy only of political power,
sustained the President in his disregard of a fundamental principle of
the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive “their just
powers from the consent of the governed.” The contest was unequal.
On one side was a struggling people, insulted and despoiled of their
rights; on the other side was the President, with all the vast powers
of the Republic, with patronage less than now, but very prevailing,
and with a great political party yielding an unhesitating support. The
contest reached this Chamber. Naturally it came before the Committee
on Territories, where happily the good cause was represented by Jacob
Collamer, of Vermont. The interest increased with each day; and when
the Committee reported, a scene ensued without example among us.
The reports of committees are usually handed in and ordered to be
printed; but now, at the impassioned call of a Senator from South
Carolina,[11] the report of the Committee, whitewashing incredible
outrages, was read by the Chairman at the desk of the Secretary of the
Senate. The Chairman left his seat for this purpose, and stood face to
face with the Senate.[12] For two hours the apology for that usurpation
which had fastened a Black Code upon an inoffensive people sounded in
this Chamber, while the partisans of Slavery gloated over the seeming
triumph. There was a hush of silence, and there was sadness also with
some, who saw clearly the unpardonable turpitude of the sacrifice. Mr.
Collamer followed with a minority report, signed by himself alone,
which he read at the desk of the Secretary, standing face to face with
the Senate. Jesse D. Bright was at the time our President, but he had
installed in the chair on that momentous occasion none other than
that most determined artificer of treason and drill-sergeant of the
Rebellion, John Slidell, who sat behind, like Mephistopheles looking
over the shoulder of Truth,[13] while the patriot Senator, standing
before, gravely unfolded the enormities that had been perpetrated.
Few then present now remain; but none then present can fail to recall
the scene. The report which Mr. Collamer read belongs to the history
of the country. But the scene comes clearly within the domain of Art.
In the long life of our departed friend it was his brightest and most
glorious moment,--beyond anything of honor or power, whether in the
cabinet or on the bench. For what is office, compared to the priceless
opportunity, nobly employed, of standing as a buttress for human rights?
The other signal occasion, when he showed much of the same character,
and was surely inspired by the same sentiment, was during the last
year, when the illustrious President, who now reposes in immortality,
undertook, in disregard of Congress, and solely by executive power, to
institute civil governments throughout that region of the Union where
civil governments had been overthrown,--imitating, in the agencies
he employed, the Cromwellian system of ruling by “major-generals.”
The case of distant and oppressed Kansas was revived. Who can forget
the awakened leonine energy of the aged Senator, when, contrary to
his custom, he interrupted another in debate to declare his judgment
against the power of the President to institute permanent civil
governments “to last beyond the war”?[14] The dividing line was clear.
The President might exercise a temporary military power, but Congress
must lay the foundations of permanent peace. This simple principle was,
of course, only the corollary of that rule of Jefferson, which has
become one of the commonplaces of our political system, asserting “the
supremacy of the civil over the military authority.”[15] The eggs of
crocodiles can produce only crocodiles; and it is not easy to see how
eggs laid by military power can be hatched into an American State.
This interjected judgment was afterward developed in a speech, which
for sententious wisdom and solid sense is, perhaps, the best he ever
delivered. It is not long, but, like the Roman sword, it is effective
from its very shortness. He spoke with the authority of years, but he
spoke also with another peculiar authority; for it was he who drew
the Act of Congress which placed the Rebel States under the ban.[16]
Positively, earnestly, and most persuasively, he insisted that Congress
should not abdicate its control of this question. His conclusion was
repeated again and again. It was for Congress, he said, to say when
that state of things existed which would entitle the Rebel States to
perform their functions as integral parts of the Union. It was for
Congress to decide this question, and not for the President, except so
far as the President unites in an Act of Congress by his signature.
And he asked, “When will and when ought Congress to admit these States
as being in their normal condition?” To which he answers: “It is not
enough that they stop their hostility and are repentant. They should
present fruits meet for repentance. They should furnish to us, by their
actions, some evidence that the condition of loyalty and obedience is
their true condition again, and Congress must pass upon it; _otherwise
we have no securities_.… And I insist that the President, making peace
with them, if you please, by surceasing military operations, _does
not alter their status, until Congress passes upon it_.” Then, again,
filled with the thought, he exclaims, “The great and essential thing
now to insist upon is, that Congress shall do nothing which can in
any way create _a doubt_ about our power over the subject.” And still
pleading against executive interference, he says: “I believe, that,
when reëstablishing the condition of peace with that people, Congress,
representing the United States, has power, in ending this war, as any
other war, to get some security for the future. It would be a strange
thing, if it were not true that this nation, in ending a civil as well
as a foreign war, could close it and make peace by obtaining, if not
indemnity for the past, _at least some security for future peace_.”[17]
This was among the last utterances of our patriot Senator. It is his
dying legacy to his country. Let all, from President to citizen, heed
its words. The aspiration so often expressed to-day, that he were
now alive to take part in the restoration of the Rebel States, is
fulfilled. He lives in his declared opinions, echoed from the tomb.
Say not that I err, because here at his funeral, seeking to do him
honor, I exhibit him bravely standing front to front with executive
power wielded by a President instigated by Jefferson Davis, and then
again bravely standing front to front with executive power wielded by
the gentle hand of Abraham Lincoln. In the first case it was to save
an outraged people; in the other it was to vindicate the powers of the
people of the United States in Congress assembled to provide guaranties
and safeguards against the wickedness and perjury which had deluged
his beloved country with blood. Say not that I err, because now, at
his funeral, anxious that his best actions should not be forgotten,
I commemorate this championship. He is dead, but the good he has done
cannot die. And hereafter faithful Senators, struggling with executive
power, will catch a new inspiration from his example. A bishop of the
Church tells us that “all is not over, while there is a man left to
reprove error and bear testimony to the truth; and a man who does it
with becoming spirit may stop a prince or senate when in full career,
and recover the day.”[18] Where this spirit has been shown, where an
honored associate has earned this title to fame, I insist that it shall
be made known.
“WHITEWASHING” BY THE PRESIDENT.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON ON THE
CONDITION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES, DECEMBER 19, 1865.
December 19th, a message was read from President Johnson
with regard to the condition of the Southern States, which
was represented as “more promising than, in view of all the
circumstances, could well have been expected.” The President
said:--
“From all the information in my possession, and from that
which I have recently derived from the most reliable
authority, I am induced to cherish the belief that
sectional animosity is surely and rapidly merging itself
into a spirit of nationality, and that representation,
connected with a properly adjusted system of taxation, will
result in a harmonious restoration of the relations of the
States to the National Union.”
Accompanying the message was a report to the President by
Lieutenant-General Grant, who had recently made a tour of
inspection through several of the States lately in rebellion,
where he said, “I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men
of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good
faith.” In this spirit the report speaks of the “universal
acquiescence in the authority of the General Government”; it
declares that “the good of the country and economy require that
the force kept in the interior, where there are many freedmen,
should all be white troops,”--that “the presence of black
troops, lately slaves, demoralizes labor, both by their advice
and by furnishing in their camps a resort for the freedmen for
long distances around,”--that “the citizens of the Southern
States are anxious to return to self-government within the
Union as soon as possible”; and it adds, that “they are in
earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the
Government, not humiliating to them as citizens.”
Nothing was said in the message or the report of the condition
of the freedmen, or of the continued denial of their rights.
Both these documents were read at length by the Secretary of
the Senate. A report by Major-General Carl Schurz was also
communicated; but this was not read. It was understood that
this report was elaborate, and that it set forth the condition
of the freedmen. Mr. Sumner, ascertaining that it accompanied
the message, said: “If it is there, I think it had better be
read.”
SEVERAL SENATORS. It is very long.
MR. SUMNER. At any rate, we can begin it.
THE PRESIDENT _pro tempore_. The reading of the report of
General Carl Schurz is called for. It will be read, if
there be no objection.
MR. JOHNSON [of Maryland]. I have no objection to the
reading of the report; I should like to hear it; but the
reading will take a good while, and it can all be printed
in a day or two.
MR. SUMNER. Let the reading be begun.
MR. JOHNSON. I submit to the Senator from Massachusetts
that the printing of it, perhaps, will answer every
purpose. It is a very long report, I see; at least, it
seems to be so. I have, personally, not the slightest
objection to its being read.
MR. SUMNER. It is a very important document. The Senate will
remember, that, when the report was made on the condition of
Kansas, every word of it was read at the desk.[19] Now the
question before the country is immeasurably more important
than that of Kansas. We have a message from the President
which is like the whitewashing message of Franklin Pierce with
regard to the enormities in Kansas. Such is its parallel. I
think the Senate had better at least listen to the opening of
Major-General Schurz’s report.
MR. JOHNSON. I have no objection, if the Senate think they
have time to listen to it; but I did not expect to hear any
assault, direct or indirect, upon the President at this
time.
MR. SUMNER. No assault at all.
Mr. Johnson then said: “I have seen nothing in the message
which would warrant a reflection that any improper purpose had
actuated the President in sending it here. He does not mean, as
I suppose, to whitewash anybody who has offended.”
The Secretary proceeded to read the introductory paragraphs
of General Schurz’s report, in which he states through what
portion of the South he travelled, the points at which he
stopped, his facilities for obtaining information, and the
order in which the results of his observation would be detailed.
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, “would much prefer to read this document
in print,” and he moved to dispense with its further reading.
Mr. Sumner replied:--
I shall not object, if the Senator from Ohio thinks it proper, on
this important occasion, to dispense with the reading. In my judgment
the Senate cannot listen to anything of more consequence than this
accurate, authentic, most authoritative report with regard to the
actual condition of things in the States lately in rebellion. Here
is an eminent citizen, lately a major-general in the army of the
United States, sent by the President on a special mission to visit
those States and to report upon their condition. The visit has been
made,--not a hasty one, like that of General Grant, for instance,
or of other officers or citizens, but a sojourn occupying time,
extending through different States,--and the results are recorded in a
careful document. Now, Sir, if the question were trivial, if it were
transitory, I should think the Senator was right; but, if he persists
in his motion, I shall not oppose it.
Mr. Sherman insisted upon his motion, and said: “It is unusual
to read documents in this way.” Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin,
called attention to a remark of Mr. Sumner, which he thought
he ought “to qualify at least, if not altogether retract.” The
objectionable remark was then stated. “Speaking of the message
just received from the President of the United States, he said
that it was like the whitewashing message of Franklin Pierce,
to cover up the transactions in Kansas.… Now, Mr. President, I
think the Senator from Massachusetts must have let fall that
expression without due consideration”; and he concluded by
saying: “I believe, Sir, certainly I think I ought to believe,
that the honorable Senator from Massachusetts will at least
modify or qualify, if he does not wholly retract, this strong
expression.”
Mr. Sumner followed:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--I have nothing to retract, nothing to modify, nothing
to qualify. In former days there was one Kansas suffering under illegal
power; there are now eleven Kansases suffering as that one; therefore,
as eleven is more than one, so is the enormity of the present time more
than the enormity in the day of Franklin Pierce.
Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, said: “A charge has been directly
made here by the Senator that the President has sent in a
whitewashing report.… When such a charge as that is brought
in the Senate, I think it calls for some notice, and I
take the liberty, with all my respect for the Senator from
Massachusetts, to deny that there is anything in that report
of a whitewashing character.” Mr. Doolittle spoke again:
“I was not pained because the honorable Senator differed
from the President; I knew he differed from the President
on this question; but I was pained, and I confess very much
disappointed, to hear that Senator, as I should be to hear any
other Senator on the floor of the Senate, question the truth,
the integrity, or the patriotism of the President, however much
he might disagree with me in opinion.”
Mr. Sumner spoke again:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry that I have given pain to honorable friends.
I certainly did not intend it. They suggest that a question has been
raised as to the policy of the President. I have raised no such
question, and have expressed no opinion in regard to it. The Senator
from Wisconsin dwells on that point, and reminds the Senate that the
policy of the President was not in question. I knew it was not in
question, and therefore I expressed no opinion upon it; for, when I
speak here, I try to speak directly to the question. There was then
no question on the policy of the President. Had there been, I should
have been ready to meet it. At the proper time I shall meet it fully,
plainly, unequivocally, I trust, as becomes a member of this body.
The only question, then, was on the character of the document just
read; and that I exhibited, compendiously, as whitewashing; and
then my honorable friends rise, one after the other, and, like two
lexicographers, proceed with a definition of “whitewash.” I do not
accept their definition. I intended no such thing as either the
Senator from Connecticut or the Senator from Wisconsin attempted to
impute. I have no reflection to make on the patriotism or the truth
of the President. Never, in public or in private, have I made any
such reflection, and I do not begin now. When I spoke, it was of the
document read at the desk. I characterized it as I thought I ought.
My memory goes back in this Chamber further than that of many about
me. I remember that other scene, when a whitewashing message came from
Franklin Pierce. We all at that time called it whitewashing; and I
am not aware that any one, even on the other side, undertook to play
the part that my honorable friends from Wisconsin and Connecticut
undertake to perform. The message was so called because we all felt
that it was whitewashing; and I undertook at once, to-day, on listening
to the document read at the desk, to characterize it precisely as the
patriotic party of 1856 characterized the message of Franklin Pierce.
Mr. Dixon added, that, if Mr. Sumner had said that he did
not intend his remarks in an offensive tone, but considered
“whitewashing” a polite and proper word to apply to the message
of the President, he should have accepted his explanation.
Mr. Trumbull expressed a hope “that this unprofitable debate
might cease.” Mr. Fessenden remarked: “This is a mere matter
of definitions, and it ought to be referred to some maker of
dictionaries.”
The motion of Mr. Sherman prevailed without a division, and the
message and accompanying documents were ordered to be printed.
The report of General Schurz was a remarkable document, founded
on an official visit, at the appointment of President Johnson,
and with its accompanying papers occupied more than a hundred
pages.[20] It bristled with testimony, not only from his own
observation, but from that of generals and other officers on
the spot. “An utter absence of national feeling”; “an entire
absence of that national spirit which forms the basis of
true loyalty and patriotism”; “although the freedman is no
longer considered the property of the individual master, he is
considered the slave of society,” with the notion “that the
elevation of the blacks will be the degradation of the whites”;
“the practice of corporal punishment is still continued to a
great extent”; “the habit is so inveterate with a great many
persons as to render, on the least provocation, the impulse to
whip a negro almost irresistible”; “the maiming and killing of
colored men seems to be looked upon by many as one of those
venial offences which must be forgiven to the outraged feelings
of a wronged and robbed people”; “the number of murders and
assaults perpetrated upon negroes is very great”: these are
words of General Schurz. The accompanying testimony supplies
fearful details. All this was painfully inconsistent with the
message of the President and the report of General Grant.
* * * * *
The marked effect of this incident shows the sensitive
condition of the public mind. The word “whitewashing” became a
text for the press on opposite sides. The interest also found
expression in letters.
* * * * *
Wendell Phillips, the orator, always sympathizing with every
earnest word for Human Rights, wrote from Boston:--
“Glorious! just the truth, and just the time and place to
speak it, was your graphic and most effective description
of the President’s message. I say this, not that you need
confirmation, but because, hearing the clamor against you,
it seems right you should have the ‘cheers’ as well as the
‘hisses.’”
Rev. Justin D. Fulton, a successful Baptist preacher, wrote
from Boston:--
“Before I can begin my sermon, I want to send you my thanks
for your noble stand in the Senate of the United States
against the President and for the country. Last Sabbath,
in the great congregation, I publicly thanked God that
you used the word ‘whitewashing.’ The same thing I did in
Albany; the same thing I do now.”
Hon. Thomas Russell, Judge of the Superior Court, and
afterwards Collector of the port of Boston, wrote from Boston:--
“I only write to thank you heartily for your courage and
fidelity. I would say, ‘Go on,’ but that is needless.”
Edward W. Kinsley, a merchant, who never forgot the claims of
Human Rights or of personal friendship, wrote from Boston:--
“I know you are too busy to read any letter from me; but I
cannot let the day pass without thanking you for the course
you are taking in the Senate this session. Thank God, we
have one man on the watch-tower who will not slumber or
sleep.”
Hon. Samuel E. Sewall, the able lawyer and Abolitionist, wrote
from Boston:--
“I do not know any man who is doing so much for the
country, in the present crisis, as you are by your speeches
and writings. We are all here watching the course of
Congress with the deepest anxiety.”
Nathaniel Moody, always on the side of Humanity, wrote from
Chelsea, Massachusetts:--
“Permit me, as one of your constituents, to thank you for
the noble stand you have taken in regard to Reconstruction,
which I regard of quite as much importance as was the
persistent prosecution of the war just brought to a
successful conclusion. I did expect no less from you,
considering your former great efforts in the true cause of
Humanity.”
Mrs. John Davis, widow of Mr. Sumner’s first colleague in the
Senate, wrote from Worcester, Massachusetts:--
“We hope the whitewashing is over, and that common sense,
to say nothing of justice, will resume the sway.”
Rev. George N. Richardson wrote from Westborough,
Massachusetts:--
“You are bearing yourself so bravely and faithfully in
behalf of a cause very dear to me, that it is the impulse
of my heart to thank and bless you.”
Rev. Richard S. Storrs, the eminent Congregational clergyman,
wrote from Braintree, Massachusetts:--
“It must be a great satisfaction to you to know that
you have the unlimited confidence and sympathy of your
constituents; and I am sure you have the approval of all
loyal men and _angels_, while struggling against the
devices of the arch enemy of God and man.”
Rev. J. R. W. Sloane, a pastor of the Presbyterian Church,
wrote from New York:--
“To yourself and Thaddeus Stevens the nation is now
looking as the defenders of Truth and Justice. Thanks for
your just rebuke of the President’s ‘whitewashing’ message.
The statements of this paper are directly in the face of
what I know to be the state of things in the South. I
rejoice that it did not pass unrebuked.”
E. Burt wrote earnestly from Cleveland, Ohio:--
“Thanks be to our Heavenly Father, dear Sir, that there are
no Brookses in Congress this year, to raise their canes
over any man’s head. Now, Sir, my prayer is, that God may
give you strength to do your duty this year, as no other
man in or out of Congress can do it; for no other man has
shown up the barbarism of Slavery like yourself. Sir, when
but a few days ago you asked the reading of Carl Schurz’s
report, and it was not granted, my blood started with such
a rush in my veins that I could hardly contain myself.
‘What!’ said I, ‘has it come to this, after the loss of so
many of the most valuable lives of our dear countrymen, so
much of blood and treasure?’”
Thomas D. Hoxsey wrote from Paterson, New Jersey:--
“You have to fight your old battle over again, and I only
hope and trust that you may have the physical health to
stand firm where your late speeches place you.”
Colonel Wentworth Higginson, who served so well at the head of
colored troops, and does such honor to American literature,
in a letter from Newport, Rhode Island, thanking Mr. Sumner
for speeches, added, “especially that one word _whitewashing_,
which was the best speech of all.”
* * * * *
These brief utterances illustrate the sentiment beginning to
prevail. The issue with the President, already foreseen, had
come.
ENFRANCHISEMENT AND PROTECTION OF FREEDMEN.
ACTUAL CONDITION OF THE REBEL STATES.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO MAINTAIN FREEDOM IN THOSE STATES,
DECEMBER 20, 1865.
On the day after the “whitewashing” incident, Mr. Sumner
seized an opportunity of setting forth the actual condition
of the States lately in rebellion, and the duty of Congress
with regard to them. He took the floor on a bill, introduced
by his colleague, Mr. Wilson, “to maintain the freedom of
the inhabitants in the States declared in insurrection and
rebellion by the Proclamation of the President of the first of
July, 1862,” and spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--When I think of what occurred yesterday in this
Chamber, when I call to mind the attempt to whitewash the unhappy
condition of the Rebel States, and to throw the mantle of official
oblivion over sickening and heartrending outrages, where Human Rights
are sacrificed and Rebel Barbarism receives a new letter of license,
I feel that I ought to speak of nothing else. Years ago, in the days
of Kansas, I stood here when one small community was surrendered to
the machinations of slave-masters. I stand here again, when, alas!
an immense region, with millions of people, is surrendered to the
machinations of slave-masters. Sir, it is the duty of Congress to
arrest this fatal fury. Congress must dare to be brave; it must dare
to be just. I shall not be diverted from the question before the
Senate, although, in unfolding the necessity of present legislation for
the protection of freedmen, I shall be led necessarily and logically to
speak of the condition of the Rebel States.
All must admit that the bill of my colleague is excellent in purpose.
It proposes nothing less than to establish Equality before the Law,
at least so far as civil rights are concerned, in the Rebel States.
This is done simply to carry out and maintain the Proclamation of
Emancipation, by which the Republic is solemnly pledged to “maintain”
the emancipated slave in freedom. Here is our pledge: “The Executive
Government of the United States, including the military and naval
authorities thereof, will recognize and _maintain the freedom of said
persons_.” The pledge is without limitation in space or time. It is as
extended and as immortal as the Republic itself. Does anybody call it
vain words? I trust not. To that pledge we are solemnly bound. Wherever
our flag floats, as long as time endures, we must see that it is
sacredly observed.
The performance of this pledge cannot be intrusted to another; least
of all can it be intrusted to ancient slave-masters, embittered
against the slave. It must be performed by the National Government.
The power that gave freedom must see that freedom is maintained. This
is according to reason. It is also according to examples of history.
In the British West Indies we find this teaching. Three of England’s
greatest orators and statesmen, Burke, Canning, and Brougham, at
successive periods united in declaring, from experience in the British
West Indies, that whatever the slave-masters undertook to do for their
slaves was always “arrant trifling,” and that, whatever might be its
plausible form, it always wanted “an executory principle.”[21] More
recently the Emperor of Russia, when ordering Emancipation, declared
that all efforts of his predecessors in this direction had failed,
because left to “the spontaneous initiative of the proprietors.” I
might say much more on this head, but this is enough. I assume that no
such blunder will be made by us,--that we shall not leave to the old
proprietors the maintenance of that freedom to which we are pledged,
and thus break our own promises and sacrifice a race.
* * * * *
Elsewhere I have alluded to Emancipation in Russia.[22] But the example
is worthy our deepest study, unless we purposely reject history. All
know that in 1861 the Emperor by solemn proclamation gave freedom to
upward of twenty-three million serfs; but it is not generally known by
what supplementary provisions this freedom was assured.
I have in my hands an official copy of this great act, published at St.
Petersburg, by which it is declared that the serfs, after an interval
of two years, are “entirely enfranchised.”[23] Under this Proclamation,
a new set of local magistrates is constituted, with “special court” and
“justices of the peace” in each district, to superintend the working of
the Proclamation, and to examine on the spot all questions arising from
Emancipation. The provision is not unlike our Bureau of Freedmen, which
is vindicated by this example.
The good work did not stop here. The Emperor did not leave the
freedmen without protection, handed over to the tender mercies of
former owners. By a careful series of “Regulations” accompanying the
Proclamation, prepared with minutest care, and divided into chapters
and sections, their rights are secured beyond question. A copy of this
remarkable document shows it to be a model for generous imitation.
These “Regulations” begin with a formal declaration, that the freedmen
by the act of Emancipation “acquire the rights belonging to free
farmers.” The language is general. It is “the rights of free farmers,”
not in certain particulars, but in all particulars,--not merely
in exemption from the authority of their masters, but in complete
enfranchisement. Surely this is an example for us.
The “Regulations” then proceed in formal words to fix and assure these
rights, civil and political. They are not left to inference or to
future discussion, but positively declared with all possible detail.
By one section the freedman is secured in all his _rights of family_
and _rights of contract_, as follows:--
“The articles of the Civil Code on the rights and obligations
of the family are extended to the freedmen; consequently they
acquire the right, without the authorization of the proprietor,
to contract marriage, and to make any arrangement whatever
concerning their family affairs; they can equally enter into
all agreements and obligations authorized by the laws, as
well with the state as with individuals, on the conditions
established for free farmers; they can inscribe themselves in
the guilds, and exercise their trades in the villages; and they
can found and conduct factories and establishments of commerce.”
Here is a beautiful example for us.
By another section the freedman is secured in _rights of property_.
He may acquire and alienate property of all kinds, according to the
general law; and, besides, “the possession of the homestead” on which
he has lived is guarantied to him on certain conditions. Here is
another example for us.
By further provision the freedman is secured complete _Equality in the
courts_:--
“He shall have the right of action, whether civilly or
criminally, to commence process, and to answer personally or by
attorney, to make complaint, and to defend his rights by all
the means known to the law, _and to appear as witness and as
bail conformably to the common law_.”
Mark these words. He may appear “as witness and as bail.” It is an
example for us.
By other provisions the freedman is secured _Equality in political
rights_, according to the measure of such rights in Russia, thus:--
“On the organization of the towns, he shall be entitled to take
part in the meetings and elections for the towns, and to vote
on town affairs, and to exercise divers functions; and he shall
also take part in assemblies for the district, and shall vote
on district affairs, and choose the chairman.”
From all the provisions on this head it appears that the freedman
enjoys rights to choose local officers, and to be chosen in turn. Here
also is an example for us.
By still another section the freedman is secured _Equality at school
and in education_, thus:--
“He may place his children in the establishments for
public education, to embrace the career of instruction or
the scientific career, or to take service in the corps of
surveyors.”
Here again is an example for us.
Then, still further, for the general protection of the freedman, it
is provided that he “cannot lose his rights, or be restrained in
their exercise, except after the judgment of the town according to
fixed rules”; and still further, that he “cannot be subjected to any
punishment, otherwise than by notice of a judgment, or according to
the legal decision of the town to which he belongs.” Here, too, is an
example for us.
Thus does Russia, by careful provisions, supplementary to the act of
Emancipation, assure her freedmen in all their rights: first, the right
of family and the right of contract; secondly, the right of property,
including a homestead; thirdly, complete Equality in the courts;
fourthly, Equality in political rights; fifthly, Equality at school and
in education; and, finally, all these precious safeguards are crowned
by declaring that they cannot lose their rights, or be punished, except
after judgment according to fixed rules: thus completely fulfilling
that requirement of our fathers, that government should be “a
government of laws, and not of men.”[24]
I trust that this grand example is none the less worthy of imitation
because from an empire which is not supposed to sympathize with
liberal ideas. The Republic cannot in this respect lag behind the
Empire. Besides, all that we hear shows that the experiment has been
successful. An experiment inspired so completely by the spirit of
justice cannot fail.
My colleague is right in introducing his bill and pressing it to a
vote. The argument for it is irresistible. It is essential to complete
Emancipation. Without it Emancipation will be only _half done_. It is
our duty to see that it is wholly done. Slavery must be abolished not
in form only, but in substance, so that there shall be no Black Code,
but all shall be Equal before the Law.
As to the power of Congress over this question, I cannot doubt it.
My colleague assumes the power, without tracing it to any particular
source. It may be a military power, precisely as the Proclamation
of Emancipation,--and here the authority is as clear and absolute
as in the District of Columbia; or it may be in pursuance of the
Constitutional Amendment, which provides that Congress may “enforce
this Article by appropriate legislation”; or it may be to carry out the
guaranty of a republican form of government.
There are measures of my own, already introduced by me, now on your
table, looking to the same result as the pending bill, which proceed
specifically on the two latter grounds.
One of these is entitled “A bill supplying appropriate legislation to
enforce the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery,” from
which I read two sections.
Here Mr. Sumner read sections 3 and 4, as given on a previous
page.[25]
This bill proceeds on the idea that the Amendment is now part of
the Constitution to all intents and purposes. And who can doubt
this? Already it is adopted by three fourths of the States having
Legislatures,--in other words, by “the Legislatures of three fourths
of the several States.” The States having no Legislatures at the time
of its proposition by Congress cannot be counted. Of what value is the
enforced consent of disloyal and barbarous bodies pretending to act for
certain States at the dictation of military power? Military power may
govern during the war; but it is impotent to make a republican State,
or to adopt an Amendment of the Constitution.
Another bill introduced by me, and now on the table, is founded on the
guaranty clause. I give its title: “A bill in part execution of the
guaranty of a Republican form of Government in the Constitution of the
United States.”[26]
Both these bills are broader even than that of my colleague; for
they point to the absolute obliteration of all legal discriminations
founded on color, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box; and
to this conclusion we must come at last. But I confess that I feel the
dignity, the grandeur, and the substantial value which would be found
in a declaration of Congress, that an oligarchical government, denying
rights to a whole race, undertaking to tax without representation, and
discarding “the consent of the governed” as its just foundation, cannot
be “republican.”
The most explicit, the most positive, the most mandatory words in the
Constitution are, “The United States shall guaranty to every State
in this Union a republican form of government.” This great duty is
thrown not upon any individual branch of the Government, but upon
the United States. It is a duty to “guaranty”--which in itself is a
strong term--what? A republican form of government. Now, by the lapse
of State governments in the Rebel States, this duty is cast upon the
United States. But the United States are represented in Congress, or
rather by Act of Congress, which in itself is the embodied will of
both Houses and of the President. Congress must, therefore, determine
what is a republican form of government. Into this question I do not
now enter. At the proper time I hope to consider it.[27] For the
present I content myself with the remark, that it is absurd to say
that a community founded on oligarchical pretensions, excluding from
all participation in the government any considerable proportion of its
tax-paying citizens, and ignoring the consent of the governed, can be
considered a republican form of government. On this proposition I hope
to be heard at an early day. Here is one of the greatest questions of
our history.
* * * * *
After this brief review of the object to be accomplished, I am brought
to consider the practical necessity of such legislation; and here it is
my duty to expose the actual condition of the Rebel States, especially
as regards loyalty and the treatment of the freedmen. On this head I
shall adduce evidence in my possession. In the endeavor to bring what
I say within reasonable proportions, I shall adduce only a small part
of what has passed under my eye; but it will be more than enough. In
bringing it forward, the difficulty is of selection and abridgment.
I begin with something relating to the condition of the Rebel States
generally, and shall then consider the different States successively.
And now, first, as to the Rebel States generally. I know no testimony
that has found its way to the public, with regard to the general
condition of the South, which will compare in value with a series
of letters by A. Warren Kelsey, a business agent of character and
intelligence above question, who has travelled through the Rebel
States. His communications with his employers show singular powers of
observation, and are expressed with great clearness. Of course I can
give only a few extracts.
“In travelling about, as I have, from one section of the
country to the other, I have been able to compare opinions,
and, as you know, I have had peculiar and favorable
opportunities for ascertaining the views they have in common.
I have endeavored to trace the motives from which they have
acted and which now animate them, and their _real_ purpose
for the future, if they have one. In giving you my opinion
now, it is proper to say that I have taken no one individual
as a criterion of the whole, and have judged them only by
the opinions I find they are generally agreed upon; neither
have I any one’s statement for their thoughts and actions. My
opinions, deductions, and conclusions are derived from my own
experience and observation among them, and, whether they shall
be confirmed or denied by others, are, notwithstanding, my
honest and sincere convictions.
…
“While I am able to say that they have made up their minds
that Emancipation is a fact, and not to be avoided, I am
obliged to state my earnest opinion, that, so far as secession
is concerned,--that is, the doctrine of State Rights,--it is
more deeply rooted than ever among them. They are perfectly
united in the belief that the division of this country is
both right from a moral stand-point and politic as a measure
of expediency. They have simply changed their base from the
battle-field to the ballot-box, believing, as they very frankly
admit, that greater triumphs await them there than they could
ever hope for in the field. In almost every house hangs the
old, worn Confederate uniform, which is displayed with pride
and satisfaction to all comers. So far from repenting of the
stand they took, they glory in it. They regret the result, and
their non-success, it is true, but not one in a thousand will
admit they were in the wrong.
…
“They argue that at least ninety-five in every two hundred
votes at the North are sure to be thrown in their favor, and
they can now rule the Union by giving up, which is cheaper
than to persist in their idea of a separate government. That
idea, however, is only laid aside for a time. Every boy at the
South is being educated in the belief that the relations the
South to-day sustains toward the North are the same as those of
Hungary or Venetia toward Austria, or of Poland to Russia. They
bide their time. They have adopted for their motto, ‘Patience,
and shuffle the cards.’ The snake, so far from being killed, is
barely ‘scotched.’ Meantime they deem it better to rule in the
Union than to serve in the Confederate army.
…
“As to their affection for their military leaders, you will
find proof in the elections at Richmond and South Carolina.
No man has a better claim to their sympathy, and none stand a
better chance of election, than those who were the last to give
up. Motives of policy may induce them to nominate others, but
the fact remains as I have stated. I repeat, that General Lee
and Wade Hampton are the two most popular and best loved men in
the South to-day. I have heard but one disparaging remark made
of General Lee since I was at the South, and that was in this
connection. I was riding one night in a hack across the gap
in a railway, made by Wilson, and, as usual, the conversation
turned on political affairs and the condition and prospects of
the Southern people. One man said that General Lee stood the
best chance for the next Presidency,--by the way, that is a
very prevalent idea here at the South,--when another remarked
that he would rather have Andrew Johnson. I was curious to
know why, and inquired. He replied, that ‘he had but little
confidence in Lee since he favored negro soldiers, and in his
opinion he was not much better than a Black Republican.’
…
“At present every one at the South is occupied in his personal
and family interests. There are no political parties,--very
little coherence of opinion as to the policy best to be
pursued. But I find among the knowing ones, particularly
those who have been on to the North, and remained some time
in New York or Washington, a sanguine belief that they can
easily resume the reins of office; and these men are the only
Unionists in the South to-day. You can depend upon it, that
the Southern States in the future will present one solid,
unanimous front; their leaders have them well in hand. And
this is precisely what ninety-nine in every hundred of the
men, women, and children believe sincerely as to the situation
to-day: first, that the South of right possesses, and always
possessed, the right of secession; secondly, that the war only
proved that the North was the strongest; thirdly, that Negro
Slavery was and is right, but has been abolished by the war.
The Southerners are too smart not to see that Slavery is dead,
but many of them hope as long as the black race exists here
to be able to hold it in a condition of practical serfdom.
All expect the negro will be killed in one way or another by
Emancipation. The policy of those who will eventually become
the leaders here at the South is, for the present, to accept
the best they can get, to acquiesce in anything and everything,
but to strain every nerve to regain the political power and
ascendency they held under Buchanan. This they believe cannot
be postponed longer than up to the next Presidential election.
They will do all in their power to resist Negro Suffrage,
to reduce taxation and expenditures, and would attack the
national debt, if they saw any reason to believe repudiation
possible. They will continue to assert the inferiority of the
African; and they would to-day, if possible, precipitate the
United States into a foreign war, believing they could then
reassert and obtain their independence. They will, most of
them, take any oaths you may cause to be adopted, and break
them immediately, and without scruple. In one word, this people
have placed themselves in resolute antagonism to the North,
and _this_ generation, at least, will always hate the Northern
people, while the boys are being educated to the same idea.
…
“On the whole, looking at the affair from all sides, it amounts
to just this: if the Northern people are content to be ruled
over by the Southerners, they will continue in the Union; if
not, the first chance they get, they will rise again.”[28]
Other testimony is in harmony. For instance, a trustworthy traveller,
who has recently traversed the Gulf States, thus writes in a private
letter to myself:--
“The former masters exhibit a most cruel, remorseless, and
vindictive spirit toward the colored people. In parts where
there are no Union soldiers I saw colored women treated in
the most outrageous manner. They have no rights that are
respected. They are killed, and their bodies thrown into ponds
or mud-holes. They are mutilated by having ears and noses cut
off.”
Such a people already talk of repudiating the national debt. To the
question, “Would it be safe to trust white men at the South with the
power to repudiate the national debt?” a person in gray uniform at once
replied: “Repudiate? I should hope they would. I’m whipped, and I’ll
own it; but I’m not so fond of a whipping that I’m going to pay a man’s
expenses while he gives it to me. Of course there are not ten men in
the whole South that wouldn’t repudiate.” Such is the spirit of these
States. But a candidate for Congress in Virginia undertook to speak for
the Rebel States.
“I am opposed to the Southern States being taxed at all for
the redemption of this debt, either directly or indirectly;
and, if elected to Congress, I will oppose all such measures,
_and I will vote to repeal all laws that have heretofore been
passed for that purpose_; and, in doing so, I do not consider
that I violate any obligations to which the South was a party.
_We have never plighted our faith for the redemption of the war
debt._ The people will be borne down with taxes for years to
come, even if the war debt is repudiated. It will be the duty
of the Government to support the maimed and disabled soldiers,
and this will be a great expense; and if the United States
Government requires the South to be taxed for the support of
Union soldiers, we should insist that all disabled soldiers
should be maintained by the United States Government, _without
regard to the side they had taken in the war_.”
A late writer, who within a few days has returned from an extensive
tour in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and who now enjoys
a seat in your Reporters’ Gallery, thus testifies with regard to the
national debt:--
“The national debt doubtless seems to you beyond the reach
of any hand. Yet I regard it as very probable that one or
two or all of three things will be attempted within three
years after the Southern members of Congress are admitted to
seats,--the repudiation of the National debt, the assumption
of the Confederate debt, or the payment of several hundred
million dollars to the South for property destroyed and slaves
emancipated. I met several shrewd and intelligent men who
expressed the belief that Confederate bonds will be worth
something in two or three years. One told me that large amounts
were held in New York and England, and he expected steps would
be taken within five years toward paying them from the National
Treasury. I heard no man openly advocate the repudiation of the
National debt, but scores argued to me that it would not be
fair to make the South pay any part of it; and one man said he
believed, if the case were only carried up, that the Supreme
Court would so decide. The idea that the nation will pay the
South for her slaves extensively prevails both in Georgia and
South Carolina. It is incorporated into the new Constitution
of Georgia, and is openly advocated by many influential men
in South Carolina. Wherefore, I say, the national debt needs
watching.”
Let the Secretary of the Treasury[29] take notice, and not expose the
national finances to the peril which menaces them.
* * * * *
Passing from this testimony, which is general, I come to the neighbor
State of Virginia. I read from a private letter received by myself from
a Government officer there:--
“We who are here have a much better opportunity of knowing
the feeling of the people than you at a distance, for they will
not speak as freely before you as they will before us here
and among themselves. The feeling of disloyalty is as strong
here now as it was during the war, but they cannot show it as
they did then; and with regard to the freedmen there is every
disposition on their part to make them odious. They constantly
talk of insurrection, insubordination, thieving, idleness, and
every species of crime and vice; all of which I assure you is
entirely false. They are perfectly subordinate to every law,
and, so far as thieving is concerned, such an assertion is
gratuitous or false; for all cases of thieving, certainly, I am
sorry to say, are done by the whites.”
I also read from another private letter:--
“The clash of arms has subsided, the serried hosts of Rebels
have been disbanded, and the huge paraphernalia of war have
been scattered; but, notwithstanding these facts, the low
mutterings of sullen discontent are yet heard, and the desire
to persecute and break down all truly loyal men is exhibited on
every hand with even more sly ferocity than while the war of
sections raged.
“We are residents of this city, each engaged in public
business, and consequently thrown into contact with all classes
of citizens. Hourly we hear denunciations of the Government,
and prayers for the removal of the military. And why these
denunciations and these prayers, if the oath of allegiance had
been honestly taken, to be sacredly observed? No, Gentlemen,
the spirit of rebellion is not dead, and will never die while
Democratic leaders in the South are relieved of their treachery
and turned loose to stir up sedition and to incite rebellion.
The men make loud professions of loyalty, and their press
reverberates the echo from hill and valley; but you have only
to read their fanfaronades on loyalty to satisfy yourselves of
the bitter hatred that fills their breasts against the Union,
and the burning hate with which they will proceed to pour out
the vials of their wrath upon all Union men, when once they
can secure seats in Congress and get possession of the reins
of State government. In their hearts they cling as ardently to
State sovereignty as ever, and once give them the power and
they will tax the loyal people to the full value of the slave
property destroyed by the war. Mark this prediction.”
Another private letter, from a person so situated as to be singularly
well informed, thus foreshadows a system of Peonage:--
“The necessity of the courts is beyond all question. Even with
these courts it requires watchfulness to protect the blacks.
If they were left without these courts, the whites would keep
them forever in bondage, by keeping them in debt; and I am
afraid that the legislation of the States will be to the effect
to establish here the Mexican system of Peonage, by using
some very extraordinary terms to coerce ‘hatched-up’ accounts
against the blacks.”
To this I might add indefinitely, exhibiting the bad temper and
disloyal spirit which prevail throughout Virginia. Bayonets are no
longer flashing there; bullets are no longer whizzing there; but the
traitorous soul that inspired the Rebellion still fills the State with
its malignant breath. Give it not, I entreat you, the power to rule.
* * * * *
From Virginia pass to North Carolina. Here the testimony is the same.
During this week I have seen Government officers who have been in
service, one since 1863, who report that it is not safe to speak one’s
sentiments there; that liberty of speech does not exist; that the
freedmen, so far from being lazy or remiss, are willing to work, but
that they are exposed to unutterable hardship and cruelty. On these
points the testimony is explicit. A loyal resident of North Carolina
writes me:--
“I tell you, Sir, the only difference now and one year ago is,
that the flag is acknowledged as supreme, and there is some
fear manifested, and they have no arms. The sentiment is the
same. If anything otherwise, more hatred exists toward the
Government. _I know there is more toward Union men, both black
and white._”
More hatred toward the Union men, both white and black, than one year
ago! Such is the condition of North Carolina.
In accordance with this is other testimony.
“Two women, school-teachers, who were recently sent from
Wilmington to Fayetteville to establish a school for colored
children, were informed by the sheriff of the county that they
would not be allowed to start their schools, nor would they be
allowed to land; but they might remain on the steamer until her
return to Wilmington, inasmuch as they were women; if they were
men, they would receive such treatment as was awarded to such
meddlesome characters before the war.
“Mr. Dickinson says, that, while he was in Fayetteville, a
negro was strung up by the thumbs in the public square, and
received forty-nine lashes from a civil officer recently
appointed by Governor Holden.”
A Wilmington paper makes the following report.
“General Ames, General Duncan, and Colonel Donnelson have
returned from an official visit to Fayetteville, where they
went to ascertain the truth of the reports coming from there in
regard to the treatment of the colored people.
“The result of their visit substantiates the fact that the
negroes have been cruelly treated, not only by the civilians,
but also by the civil authorities there.
“Two negroes were tied up and publicly whipped by the sheriff,
on the sentence of a magistrate.
“Other negroes were tied up to trees and whipped, and left tied
to the trees until a storm came up and prostrated the trees,
and the poor negroes fell with them.
“Citizens exercised the authority of masters over the negroes,
and punished them at their will with such severity as to them
seemed fit.
“It is even reported that negroes have been killed in the most
cruel manner.”
Why heap instances? They might be piled high; but why pain the heart by
such an exhibition?
* * * * *
From North Carolina pass to South Carolina, where the testimony is,
if possible, still more explicit. The spirit of this Rebel State, yet
rebel in heart, appears in the well-known letter from Wade Hampton,
which I do not stop to quote. It is especially manifest in the frank
speech of James R. Campbell in the Convention, from which I read an
extract.
“I believe, that, when our votes are admitted into that
Congress, if we are tolerably wise, governed by a moderate
share of common sense, we will have our own way. I am speaking
now not to be reported. We will have our own way yet, if we
are true to ourselves. We know the past; we know not what is
to be our future. Are we not in a condition to accept what we
cannot help? Are we not in a condition where it is the part of
wisdom to wait and give what we cannot avoid giving? I believe
as surely as we are a people, so surely, if we are guided by
wisdom, we will by the beginning of the next Presidential
election, which is all that is known of the Constitution, (for,
when you talk of the Constitution of the United States, it
means the Presidential election, and the share of the spoils,)
I believe then we may hold the balance of power.”
That Mr. Campbell spoke according to the sentiments of the prevailing
politicians is attested by a private letter which I have received from
a Government officer so situated there as to know the real condition of
things. I read extracts only.
“The speeches in Convention and Legislature are doubtless known
to you, and the _animus_ pervading all action of these bodies.
Mr. Campbell expressed it exactly. Let us do what we _have to_,
as little as we are obliged to, get into Congress somehow, and
_then_ pay off the score. One or two minor matters in this
connection I mention as showing how the current sets.
“1. _The election for members of Convention, 4th September._
The favorites in every contested case were those most prominent
in Secession proceedings of past years. The majority of them
did not take the amnesty oath.…
“2. Not even the prospect of securing a favorable recognition
in Congress could secure the election of any man tainted with
Unionism, in opposition to any candidate thoroughly established
as an opponent to the Government in past time.
“3. And yet, strange as it may seem, _the people_--by
which I mean the planters generally, exclusive of the
_politicians_--are not savagely disloyal; and this is one main
point to which I desire earnestly to testify. It is a fact
that the political working of the State is in the hands of one
hundred and fifty to one hundred and eighty men. It has taken
me six months to appreciate the _entireness_ of the fact,
though of course I had heard it stated.
“It seems to me a most Providential opportunity is now
offered to break up this maladministration of politics.
The people among whom I move are becoming restive under
present disadvantages, and criticize sharply the acts of the
Legislature, which seem to delay Reconstruction. If the State
is refused representation in the present Congress, and the
acts of the State Legislature, its speeches, its Black Code,
its general fractious and combative attitude, its spirit
in accepting the Constitutional Amendment and refusing the
annulment of Secession Ordinances are brought to light,--if, in
a word, it can be shown that the long recognized politicians
of the State have thoroughly damaged the State by taking her
out of the Union, and have also kept her from coming in, _there
will be a political revolution in the State in less than two
months_. The Rebels so promptly pardoned by the President will
meet no such complacency from the people. I _know_ this to be
true,--am taught it anew every day.
“If the State authority is to be recognized, and the present
Legislature triumphs by forcing the State into the Union, I
anticipate very disastrous consequences. The freed people are
well enough; they do not know as much as could be desired,
but they know quite as much as could be expected, and are
open to instruction. But that instruction must come from
_the Government, through the military_, untrammelled by any
fractious jobbing of State Legislatures. There is no confidence
on the part of the freed people in the _State_; they only know
the United States Government, and no other will answer.”
Here is a letter from a South-Carolinian who served in the Rebel army,
but who now sees the error of his ways.
“I am sorry to say Governor Orr’s inaugural yesterday received
no applause at all from the audience: its sentiments were
too Union-loving for them. I am sorry also to say that the
South-Carolinians generally entertain to a great extent their
old ideas and prejudices, so disastrous of late to the State.
One is almost compelled to think they insanely wish to bring
upon themselves more and greater mortifications. Witness the
vote given Hampton, who refused to be a candidate. What an
unwise display of a factious and discontented spirit! Few seem
willing to admit the simple proposition that all causes of
ill-feeling between North and South have been settled by the
arbitrament of the sword, and we must submit sincerely. They
seek rather to keep alive the ill-feeling that has made us
unhappy for so many years, _and that ill-advised disposition to
supervise the actions of the United States Government_.
“If this war does not settle all issues, and settle them
forever, _it will be because the General Government fails
to use the power it has obtained_. I am as dear a lover of
South Carolina as any man in it, and for that reason I wish
to see peace and harmony restored throughout its borders.
But that can never be, if the men who tried hardest to break
up the Government are, immediately they find themselves
unsuccessful with the sword, _allowed to take seats in Congress
and recommence the agitation with their tongues and by their
arguments and votes. More inflammatory speeches were not made
in 1860 than have been delivered during the late canvass. If
examples are not made, if leading men are not made to feel some
ill effects from an unsuccessful attempt to revolutionize, then
agitation will never cease, but will be kept up by ambitious
men of mean talents, who can hope to rise only in times of
disorder, or by operating upon and influencing the passions of
the multitude._”
To cap the climax of this iniquity, a body of men calling themselves
the Legislature, but having small title to be considered a legal body,
have undertaken to enact a Black Code, separating the two races, in
defiance of every principle of Equality. I quote a provision fastening
apprenticeship or serfdom in new form upon the unhappy freedman.
“Colored children, between the ages mentioned [males two and
twenty-one, females two and eighteen], who have neither father
nor mother _living in the district in which they are found_,
or whose parents are paupers, or unable to afford to them
maintenance, _or whose parents are not teaching them habits
of industry and honesty_, or are persons of notoriously bad
character, or are vagrants, or have been, either of them,
convicted of an infamous offence, may be bound as apprentices
by the District Judge, or one of the magistrates, for the
aforesaid term.”[30]
Under these words no colored minor in the State is safe for one moment
from compulsory serfdom.
The lash is also prescribed as a means of enforcing contracts.[31] The
lash once more is to resound.
The planters at their public meetings give utterance to the same brutal
spirit. Here is a series of resolutions, where, after calling for the
withdrawal of the troops of the United States, and declaring themselves
pledged to the existing state of things, and that it is their “honest
purpose to abide thereby,” they proceed as follows.
“_Resolved_, That, if inconsistent with the views of the
authorities to remove the military, we express the opinion that
the plan of the military _to compel the freedman_ to contract
with his former owner, when desired by the latter, is wise,
prudent, and absolutely necessary.
“_Resolved_, That we, the planters of the district, pledge
ourselves not to contract with any freedman, unless he can
produce a certificate of regular discharge from his former
owner.
“_Resolved_, That under no circumstances whatsoever will we
rent land to any freedmen, nor will we permit them to live on
our premises as employees.”
Thus is the freedman, whose liberty the United States are bound
to maintain, handed over to _compulsory service_, and under no
circumstances is land to be rented to him. And yet these people
announce that they accept the existing state of things, and that it is
their honest purpose to abide thereby! Of course they accept a state of
things which leaves them once more “masters” of their former slaves. Of
course they will abide by this. Be it our function to teach them the
duty and necessity of Equal Rights.
* * * * *
From South Carolina pass to Georgia, and there is the same wretched
story. The spirit of the State appears in the language of Mr. Simmons
in the Convention:--
“Let us repudiate only under the lash and the application of
military power; and then, as soon as we are an independent
sovereignty, restored to our equal rights and privileges in the
Union, let us immediately call another Convention and resume
the debt.”
Testimony from various quarters shows the same spirit. A recent writer,
of unimpeachable authority, now sitting as reporter in your galleries,
thus testifies:--
“In the stage between Augusta and Milledgeville I rode with
two gentlemen of considerable local weight and prominence,
who were both anti-secessionists in 1860-61. They talked of
the approaching Convention, and of its probable action in
redistricting the State for Representatives. ‘Well, Colonel,’
said the younger, himself a man of over forty years,--‘well,
Colonel, what will be our proper course, when we are once more
fully restored to the Union?’ The answer came, after a moment’s
consideration: ‘_We must strike hands with the Democratic party
of the North, and manage them as we always have._’ There was a
pause while we rattled down the hill, and then the questioner
responded: ‘That is just it; _they were ready enough to give us
control, if we gave them the offices, and I reckon they have
not changed very much yet_.’ There was then conversation on
other matters; but half an hour later, after a mile or so of
silence, the Colonel suddenly resumed: ‘Yes, Sir, our duty is
plain; we shall be without weight, now that Slavery is gone,
unless we do join hands with them. Andy Johnson will want a
reëlection, and the united _Democratic party must take him up.
It shall be a fair division: we want the power, and they want
the spoils._’”
The same writer, in another letter, shows how Rebels were honored in
the Convention.
“‘I’ll be d--d, if I vote for any man who did not go with
the State,’ said one of the delegates, while the canvass for
officers was going on; in accordance with which spirit the
secretary is a gentleman who was a colonel in the Rebel army,
and the doorkeeper a gentleman who lost an arm in the service.”
Where such a spirit prevails, the freedmen fare badly. In Georgia they
are treated cruelly. A traveller writes:--
“The hatred toward the negro as a freeman is intense among the
low and brutal, who are the vast majority. Murders, shootings,
whippings, robbing, and brutal treatment of every kind are
daily inflicted upon them, and I am sorry to say in most cases
they can get no redress. They don’t know where to complain or
how to seek justice, after they have been abused and cheated.
The habitual deference toward the white man makes them fearful
of his anger and revenge.”
An official of the Government, after traversing Mississippi and
Alabama, writes from Georgia in a very recent letter:--
“Every day the press of the South testifies to the outrages
that are being perpetrated upon unoffending colored people by
the State militia. These outrages are particularly flagrant
in the States of Alabama and Mississippi, and are of such a
character as to demand most imperatively the interposition of
the National Executive. These men are rapidly inaugurating a
condition of things, a feeling among the freedmen, that will,
if not checked, ultimate in insurrection. The freedmen are
peaceable and inoffensive; yet, if the whites continue to make
it all their lives are worth to go through the country, as free
people have a right to do, they will goad them to that point at
which submission and patience cease to be a virtue.
…
“I call your attention to this matter, after reading and
hearing from the most authentic sources, officers and others,
for weeks, of the continuance of the militia robbing the
colored people of their property,--arms,--shooting them in the
public highways, if they refuse to halt, when so commanded,
and lodging them in jail, if found from home without _passes_,
and ask, as a matter of simple justice to an unoffending and
downtrodden people, that you use your influence to induce
the President to issue an order or proclamation forbidding
such wicked and unlawful proceedings, and, if he deem it
prudent, forbidding the organization of State militia. _The
only military force_ NEEDED _in the South is more regular and
volunteer troops to keep in proper subjection those lately in
rebellion, and to teach them to treat the freed people in a
manner becoming a civilized community_.”
Another witness, himself a Georgian, with ample opportunities of
information, testifies:--
“I have personal and friendly relations with many leading men
of this section: I had before the war. I have met many of them
in New York and in Washington within the past few months, and
have, as a citizen of the South, had frequent conversations
with them upon our future, and the means that should be
employed to begin it auspiciously. These interviews have been
free and open in interchange of opinion, and I must believe
that I had laid before me the intentions of those who must
and will again assume the leadership here. If they are not so
honored, their opinions will show how they _would_ lead, had
they the power.
“Among these were four ex-governors of three different
States, who had received pardons from President Johnson. Our
conversation naturally and necessarily turned to the future of
the emancipated negroes. Their past and present condition was
discussed, and their chances as well as our own were of course
considered, and everything that could bear upon their future
was canvassed. The course to be pursued by the Legislatures
of the reconstructed States, and the laws to be enacted, in
order to obtain the fulfilment of contracts with the freedmen
employed, occupied no small portion of consideration. In this
way I had full opportunity to learn the opinions of those who
have been and will be again looked up to as the leaders and
directors of Southern opinion and sentiment.
“The unanimity of all was not the least singular thing,
especially regarding the _status_ of the freedmen and their
rights hereafter. If legal chicanery can avail, those rights
will be but nominal, and they will remain, as they have ever
been, isolated and apart,--free in name, but slaves in fact.”
It seems that in Georgia there is a body of men known as “Regulators,”
who are thus described by a correspondent of that journal which has for
years whitewashed the enormities of Slavery, the “New York Herald”:--
“Springing naturally out of this disordered state of affairs
is an organization of ‘Regulators,’ so called. Their numbers
include many ex-Confederate cavaliers of the country, and their
mission is to visit summary justice upon any offenders against
the public peace. It is needless to say that their attention
is largely directed to maintaining quiet and submission among
the blacks. _The shooting or stringing up of some obstreperous
‘nigger’ by the ‘Regulators’ is so common an occurrence as to
excite little remark. Nor is the work of proscription confined
to the freedmen only._ The ‘Regulators’ go to the bottom of the
matter, and strive to make it uncomfortably warm for any new
settler with demoralizing innovations of wages for ‘niggers.’”
Such is the unimaginable atrocity which, according to friendly
authority, prevails in Georgia. The poor freedman is sacrificed. The
Northern settler, believing in Human Rights, is sacrificed also. Alas
that such scenes should disgrace our country and age! Alas that there
should be hesitation in applying the necessary remedy!
Surely this is enough. I do not stop to dwell on instances of frightful
barbarism. One is authenticated in the court of the provost-marshal,
where a colored girl was roasted alive! And another writer, in a
letter just received, describes a system of “burning” in Wilkes
County, Georgia, as “a mild means of extorting from the freed people a
confession as to where they have their arms and money concealed.” He
says, “They were held in the blaze.” Think of it, Sir, here, in this
Republic, they are held in a blaze! And the National Government looks
on!
* * * * *
From Georgia pass to Alabama, only to find the same evil spirit and the
same succession of enormities, intensified, if possible. Here again I
am embarrassed by the variety and extent of evidence.
A recent private letter from Mobile testifies:--
“The press and people here, with one voice, are loud in their
praise of President Johnson, for his wholesale manner of
dispensing pardons. But I have yet to see the first signs of
repentance on the part of those who have received clemency from
the Chief Magistrate of the Government. The existing feeling
is, that no man who did not support the Confederacy is worthy
of trust; and all offices are given to those who did their best
to break up the country. President Johnson will find in the end
that he has been too liberal in the exercise of clemency. And
unless he changes his course, or is checked by Congress, the
most corrupt men in the South will again get into power, and
sway the destinies of this section of the country.
…
“And until the labor question is adjusted between the
planters and the freedmen, we cannot look forward to a time
of prosperity. The indications at present are not favorable
to a satisfactory solution of this difficult problem. The
planters hate the negro, and the latter class distrust the
former; and while this state of things continues, there
cannot be harmonious action in developing the resources of
the country. Besides, a good many men are unwilling yet to
believe that the ‘peculiar institution’ of the South has been
actually abolished, and still have the lingering hope that
Slavery, though not in name, will yet in some form practically
exist. And hence the great anxiety to get back into the Union,
which being accomplished, they will then, as I have heard it
expressed, ‘fix the negro.’
…
“I look forward with deep solicitude to the approaching
session of Congress. I hope there will be strength and moral
courage enough in that body to keep the ship of state right.
The President has a difficult position to fill, and needs all
the sympathy and aid he can get from right-minded citizens.
But there is no question that he has been most sadly imposed
upon within the past few months by designing and corrupt
politicians.”
Another private letter, from a person so situated as to be accurately
informed, makes this painful report:--
“The Government, in taking the responsibility of freeing this
people, tacitly engaged to protect them in their freedom. The
various departments of Government have solemnly declared the
black man entitled to equal rights before the law with the
white man. Yet it is the simple fact, capable of indefinite
proof, that the black man does not receive the faintest shadow
of justice. I aver that in nine cases out of ten within my own
observation, where a white man has provoked an affray with
a black, and savagely misused him, the black man has been
fined for insolent language, because he did not receive the
chastisement in submissive silence, while the white man has
gone free. It is the simple truth that the most flagrant crimes
against the blacks are not noticed at all; and, indeed, a man
loses caste, if he interests himself about them.
“It is the simple truth that black men are not allowed to use
their own property to the best advantage, or in any way to make
such use of their capabilities as would be likely to elevate
them in social position.
…
“The above are but specimen facts, and they are facts. Every
provost-marshal who has been in office here will testify to the
truthfulness of the picture. Meantime companies are forming
to import coolies and European immigrants to drive the black
man from the little chance that is left him. The whole thing
may be summed up in one word: _The South is determined to have
Slavery,--the thing, if not the name._ And if all restraint
is removed, it is as certain as fate that their condition
will be far worse than it ever was before. It will be the old
system, with all its mitigations rescinded and all its horrors
intensified.
…
“The prospect for the coming winter is overwhelming in its
horrors, at best. If the freedmen are left friendless, it will
be the very valley of the shadow of death. Let Congress keep
these States out of the Union till the shape and tone of their
legislation is seen and understood as relating to freedmen, and
then keep them out until it is clearly shown whether the people
will obey the legislation or make it a dead letter from the
beginning.”
And still another letter furnishes these revelations:--
“Do not let yourselves be deceived by the influences which
reach you. These influences are energetic, active, spare no
pains or expense to accomplish certain purposes. I know this
people well; I was born and reared with them; they are far more
hostile to the Government to-day than they were in 1860. Every
demonstration in the State since the surrender has been, in one
shape or another, that of hostility to the Union; and every new
concession they make is simply made with the hope of thereby
obtaining that degree of independence which follows, as they
understand and expect it, the resumption of the _status_ as
States again.
“The elections are just over. The Secessionists were united
to a man,--hopeful, active; the Union party disorganized,
discouraged, and dispersed among the Secessionists. President
Johnson and Governor Parsons are responsible for it. The
enemies of the Union have defeated us, horse, foot, and
dragoons, in all parts of the State. The stanch favorites of
our party are defeated everywhere.
…
“In a word, the friends of the Union are completely under; the
successful party are the Secessionists and renegade Unionists,
enemies of the Government. It is to the Union party of the
North that we are to-day indebted for being able to _live
here_.”
The person who is styled Provisional Governor of Alabama thus in a
late message alludes to Rebel trophies, and stirs the ashes of the
Rebellion:--
“Several of these had been deposited in the executive
department, and were not removed when the Capitol was
evacuated. They were not destroyed, however, by those who took
possession of it, but came to my hands as the representative of
the State for the time being, and are now carefully preserved
and ready to be delivered to the governor elected under the
Constitution. We should preserve these sacred souvenirs of
the courage and endurance of those who went forth to battle
under their folds, and who manfully upheld them with their
life-blood.”
With such a person in high office, we could expect little else than the
barbarism which rages there.
* * * * *
From Alabama pass to Mississippi, and there the same hideous scenes
are renewed. Here is the testimony of a citizen of that State, once a
slave-master, in a private letter:--
“In respectful earnestness I must say, that, if, at the end of
all the blood that has been shed and the treasure expended,
the unfortunate negro is to be left in the hands of his
infuriated and disappointed former owners to legislate and fix
his _status_, God help him! for his cup of bitterness will
overflow indeed. Was ever such a policy conceived in the brain
of men before? After a great step and a mighty victory, you
are expected by President Johnson to withdraw your protection
from this people and turn their destiny over to those who for
centuries have ground them into the dust. Truly, by such a
course will your fruits become bitter ashes.
“As a man who has been deprived of a large number of persons he
once claimed as slaves, I protest against such a course. If it
is intended to follow up the abolition of Slavery by a liberal
and enlightened policy, by which I mean bestowing upon them the
full rights of other citizens, then I can give this movement my
heart and hand. But if the negro is to be left in a helpless
condition, far more miserable than that of Slavery, I would
ask, What was the object of taking him from those who claimed
his services? As things seem now approaching the position of
rendering loyalty at the South a disgrace, and those who,
amid many dangers and trials, stood true to the Union and the
Constitution are to be left to suffer the scorn, contempt, and
oppressions of Secessionist traitors,--I say, as this seems
to be the settled policy of the Government to the whites so
situated, I fear there will remain but little hope for them or
the negroes, unless the true men of the country will present a
barrier between them and those who are anxious to punish and
destroy them.”
The pretended Governor of Mississippi, like the pretended Governor
of Alabama, exults in Rebel victories, and fans the Rebel flame.
Both Convention and Legislature abounded in bitter treason. In the
Convention, one of the speakers declared it good policy to accept
the present condition of affairs, until the control of the State is
returned into the hands of the people, and “to submit _for a time_ to
evils which cannot be remedied.” Another speaker, urging the acceptance
of the Union, revealed the plot:--
“_If we act wisely, we shall be joined by what is called the
Copperhead party_, and even by many of the Black Republicans.”
Such is the voice of Mississippi.
Naturally the freedmen are exposed to untold hardships and atrocities.
Here is testimony:--
“A Superintendent of the Bureau reports the poor creatures
coming in with cruel grievances that are unredressed by
these magistrates. General Chetlain tells us, that, while
he was in command, for two months, of the Jackson district,
containing nine counties, there was an average of one black
man killed every day, and that, in moving out forty miles on
an expedition, he found seven negroes wantonly butchered; and
Colonel Thomas, Assistant Commissioner of the Bureau for this
State, tells us that there is now a daily average of two or
three black men killed in Mississippi: the sable patriots in
blue, as they return, are the objects of especial spite.”
There is another authority of peculiar value. It is a letter dated at
Webb’s Ranch, Issaquena County, Mississippi, November 13, 1865.
“I regret to state, that, under the civil power, now deemed
by all the inhabitants of Mississippi (since the order of
President Johnson revoking General Slocum’s decree in relation
to the State militia) to be paramount, the condition of the
freedmen in many portions of the country has become deplorable
and painful in the extreme. _I must give it as my deliberate
opinion, that the freedmen are to-day, in the vicinity of
where I am now writing, worse off in most respects than
when they were held as slaves._ If matters are permitted to
continue as they now seem likely to be, it needs no prophet to
predict a rising on the part of the colored population, and a
terrible scene of bloodshed and desolation; nor can one blame
the negroes, if this proves to be the result. _I have heard,
since my arrival here, of numberless atrocities that have been
perpetrated against the freedmen._ It is sufficient to state
that the old overseers are in power again. The agents of the
Freedmen’s Bureau are almost powerless. Just as soon as the
United States troops are withdrawn, it will be unsafe for the
agents of the Bureau to remain. The object of the Southerners
appears to be to make good their often repeated assertions, to
the effect that the negroes would die, if they were freed. To
make it so, they seem determined to goad them to desperation,
in order to have an excuse to turn upon and annihilate them.
There are, within a few miles of where I sit writing, several
Northern men, who have settled here, designing to work
plantations. _They all assure me that they do not consider
themselves safe in the country_; and two of them, ex-colonels
in the United States army, are afraid to leave their places
without an armed escort. Other Northern lessees do not dare
remain on their places.”
These are grave words, opening in fearful vista the tragical condition
of the freedmen, and the perils of Northern settlers.
And now the pretended Legislature is engaged in fashioning an infamous
Black Code; but I do not dwell on this, as it has been already exposed
by my colleague.
* * * * *
From Mississippi pass to Louisiana, where anarchy is beginning under
the sway of returning Rebels emboldened from Washington. Unionists are
menaced in safety. The story is so familiar that I content myself with
a glimpse. I give the testimony of a responsible person.
“During the canvass, I made a tour through the northern portion
of the State, where I have resided for many years and have a
large acquaintance among the people, and was surprised to find
the spirit of the people more hostile to the Government than at
the breaking out of the war. This is especially the case with
the leaders, who asserted to me in private conversation that
they were more impressed with the truth of Secession than they
ever were; that the war against the United States was a just
one; that they would not support any man for office who did not
participate in that war; and that the only true policy for the
Southern people to adopt is to support the Democratic party in
opposition to the Republican party of the North. They say that
the whole war was an aggression on the part of the Government,
and that they intend to use every means in their power to
destroy the Government.
“A prominent member of the Legislature, now convened in this
city, said to me a short time before the election, that he
was a stronger Secessionist now than he ever was, and that he
hated the United States Government, and intended to do all in
his power to destroy it. This man is a leading member of the
Legislature, which, in the House at least, is composed of more
than eight tenths who entertain the same feeling, and are now
legislating for the loyal citizens of this State.
“There are several respectable men now in this city who are
refugees from their homes in the interior of the State, being
recently expelled on account of their Union sentiments.”
Here is a private letter from an interior town of Louisiana, written by
a lady to a lady in New Orleans and communicated to me:--
“The poor colored people are in a constant state of alarm.
There is a Mrs. ---- in this place, who teaches the colored
children; but the inhabitants, I suppose, not liking their
having the advantages of education, expressed their disapproval
by shooting at the teacher. At one time she was nursing a sick
baby, when a shot passed over her shoulder. No attempts were
made to discover the guilty party. Of course all in office here
are Rebels. The teacher, who is a poor widow, became so much
alarmed for her safety that she petitioned the officers to
allow the troops to remain, which they did for a few days. The
attempts on her life not being renewed, the troops were obliged
to leave, and it was only on her account that they remained as
long as they did.”
Enough of this. Nor is it all. The pretended Legislature is plotting,
like such bodies elsewhere, against the freedman. But I forbear to
dwell on the elaborate machination. And yet how can I fail to denounce,
with all the energy of my soul, these most cruel and most vindictive
attempts to oppress the freedman, to despoil him of rights, and to
nullify the great Act of Emancipation? Talk of Nullification! What
Nullification in our history comparable to this most wicked attempt?
The difference between a revenue law and the great statute of Freedom
is as wide as the space between earth and heaven.
Where such things are done, there can be small security for those
faithful Unionists who fondly hoped for protection under the national
flag. Already they talk of abandoning the State and finding in exile
the safety denied at home. The flag they had longed for is now
prostituted to the purposes of Rebels, and they are thrust out from the
shadow of its folds. Hard fate, almost without parallel in history!
For myself, I know nothing more touching than the story of Unionists,
loving their country and loving freedom, tyrannized by returning Rebels.
* * * * *
In Texas there seemed more hope than anywhere, because a sincerely
loyal person had been placed in power there.[32] But a private letter
from a loyal Texan cries out:--
“What we of the South fear is, that President Johnson’s course
will, by its _precipitancy_, enable the old set to reorganize
themselves into place and power. For Heaven’s sake, preserve
us, if you can, from this calamity.”
Surely you will preserve them.
But there is special evidence, not to be forgotten. The same authority
adduced with regard to the general condition of the Rebel States writes
from Galveston, in Texas:--
“If any man from the North comes down here expecting to hold
and maintain ‘Radical’ or ‘Abolition’ sentiments, _let him
expect to be shot down from behind, the first time he leaves
his house, and know that his murderer, if ever brought to
justice, will be acquitted by the jury_. If the _military_ are
withdrawn, his house even will be no protection, and he may
expect to be hung from his own chamber window. I tell you,
Mr. ----, these men are only taking breath and recuperating.
Not that there is the _slightest_ danger of any _immediate_
outbreak. No,--the Southern people are too smart for _that_.
They will _never_ again measure strength with the North, unless
their success be assured beforehand. In case of foreign war, or
a domestic convulsion at the North, they will rise; but they
will never try it alone and without assistance. Meantime they
propose to ‘take it out in _hating_.’ Already our officers are
the subject of a social ostracism. I repeat, that any man of
Radical views who comes down here to plant cotton will be in
constant danger, night and day, unless he holds his tongue. The
ministers of the Gospel, of all denominations, the instructors
of the youth of the country, the women, and the young men,
all hate the North with a degree of intensity that cannot be
exaggerated.”
Small temptation here to the Northern capitalist! Small welcome to the
Northern emigrant! The first condition of prosperity is security; but
this is absolutely wanting throughout the unhappy region.
* * * * *
There is also Tennessee, where authentic testimony shows a painful
condition of things. I content myself with official documents. It seems
that a committee was appointed to consider what could be done to arrest
crimes and disorders in this State. Addressing Governor Brownlow, they
remark:--
“In the discharge of this duty, we would respectfully and
earnestly call the attention of your Excellency to the many
dreadful crimes that are becoming so common, not only in and
immediately around the capital of the State, but _over the
whole country_.
“Quiet and peaceful citizens are met on our most public
highways and robbed of their money and property, often cruelly
beaten and abused, and in many cases murdered outright. This
state of things is not only greatly injurious to the business
of the country, but shocking to all sincere advocates of law
and order, and to humanity itself.
“We, therefore, with the earnest desire to see security
restored to life and property, and the majesty of law
reasserted, appeal to your Excellency, who are the chief
representative of power in the State, to exercise your power,
and give the weight of your great influence to correct these
sore evils, of which _the whole country_ so justly complain.”
The Governor communicated this paper to the Legislature by the
following message.
“STATE OF TENNESSEE.
“EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
NASHVILLE, November 22, 1865.
“_Gentlemen of the Legislature_: The reputation being
acquired by Nashville, the capital of your State and the
great commercial emporium of Middle Tennessee, is humiliating
to every friend of law and order. Murders, robberies, and
burglaries are the order of the day. No man is safe, day or
night, within a circuit around Nashville whose radius is eight
or ten miles. The most of these outrages grow out of the
abundant use of intoxicating spirits, connected with those
gambling hells to be found in full blast on every street in the
city. The same may be said, to a considerable extent, of all
the larger cities and towns in the State. Life and property
must be protected, or the country will go to ruin. I therefore
call upon you, most respectfully, but earnestly, by prompt and
decisive legislation, to remedy this growing and alarming evil.
Should you fail to apply the necessary remedy, my next appeal
will be made to Major-General Thomas to close up all these dens
of wickedness, so prolific of fights, murders, and robberies of
every description. The Sabbath is violated, the sanctuary of
the Lord is ruthlessly invaded, and ladies and gentlemen are
insulted at every corner and on every highway. Again I appeal
to you, Gentlemen, to relieve the suffering people from this
outrageous condition of affairs.
“W. G. BROWNLOW.”[33]
I add a few sentences from a Tennessee paper, “The Southern Loyalist.”
“Do the authorities at Washington realize the fact that there
is very great danger of wide-spread anarchy and bloodshed?
Do they realize that it is the supineness and imbecility, or
worse, with which the Freedmen’s Bureau has been conducted at
this point, that is the cause of danger, and, it may be, of
much bloodshed? God knows we speak in all sincerity, and we
believe we speak the sentiment of nine tenths of the loyal men
of Memphis.
“When colored men have remonstrated against injustice,--against
the very discriminations against freedmen that the War
Department declared should not exist,--they have been told,
‘If you damned niggers think I am going to give you any rights
that you had not under the old State laws, you are damnably
mistaken.’ This may not be exactly literal, but it is very
nearly so. When colored people have asked for wages hardly
earned in the cotton-field, but not paid by rascally employers,
they have been in very many cases told to go about their
business, or left to get their claims as they could.”
Such is Tennessee, the most advanced of the States claiming recognition
in the government of the country. Besides this testimony, there is
other derived from its own statute-book. Tennessee refuses to the
colored citizen his right at the ballot-box, and even his right of
testimony in court. I quote from the ignoble statute.
“A negro, mulatto, _Indian_, or person of mixed blood descended
from negro or Indian ancestors, to the third generation
inclusive, though one ancestor of each generation may have been
a white person, whether bond or free, is incapable of being a
witness in any cause, civil or criminal, except for or against
each other.”[34]
I say nothing of Florida and Arkansas, for the special testimony which
has come to me with regard to these States is not at hand. But it is
not needed. The same tragical report proceeds from these States also.
But, even without any report, all this must be inferred. How could it
be otherwise? Abandoned to themselves, with unchecked power, ancient
slave-masters naturally continue the barbarism in which they have so
long excelled.
* * * * *
Mr. President, I bring this plain story to a close. I regret that I
have been constrained to present it. I wish it were otherwise. But
I should fail in duty, did I fail to speak. Not in anger, not in
vengeance, not in harshness, have I spoken, but solemnly, carefully,
for the sake of my country and humanity, that peace and reconciliation
may again prevail. I have spoken especially for the loyal citizens
now trodden down by Rebel power, and without representation on this
floor. Would that my voice could help them to security and justice!
I can only state the case. It is for you to decide. It is for you to
determine how long these things shall continue to shock mankind. You
have before you the actual condition of the Rebel region. You have
heard the terrible testimony. The blood curdles at the thought of such
enormities, and especially at the thought that the poor freedmen, to
whom we owe protection, are left to the unrestrained will of such
a people, smarting with defeat, and ready to wreak vengeance upon
these representatives of a true loyalty. In the name of God, let
us protect them. Insist upon guaranties. Pass the bill now under
consideration,--pass any bill,--but do not let this crying injustice
rage any longer. An avenging God cannot sleep while such things find
countenance. If you are not ready to be the Moses of an oppressed
people, do not become its Pharaoh.
Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, followed Mr. Sumner. Then came Mr.
Cowan, of Pennsylvania, who said he was “not disposed to allow
the speech of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts to go
to the country without a very brief reply. If that speech be
true, and if it be a correct picture of the South, then God
help us! then this Republic, this Union, is at an end.” He then
vindicated President Johnson and General Grant against the
charge of “whitewashing,” quoting passages from them. In the
course of his speech, he said:--
“If the honorable Senator from Massachusetts, and those who
think with him, desire that these people should have the
right of suffrage, why not say so broadly?”
MR. SUMNER. I do say so.
MR. COWAN. Very well; that is so much that is clear. Make
it broadly; we may differ from him, but the people will
decide.
Here again was issue joined on the great political question
which awaited judgment.
The debate continued another day, but after that Mr. Wilson’s
bill was never resumed. The object proposed was accomplished by
other measures.
THE WHITES _vs._ COLORED SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON PRESENTING A PETITION FROM CITIZENS OF THE
DISTRICT, DECEMBER 21, 1865.
I offer a petition of citizens of the District of Columbia, similar to
petitions presented by me yesterday, calling upon Congress to provide
irreversible guaranties in the work of Reconstruction, so that there
shall be such security for the future, and, among such guaranties,
proposing the enfranchisement of the colored race.
Sir, I am glad to present this petition from citizens of the District,
because it shows that there are good people here who are not entirely
indifferent to the great cause of Equal Rights. I am more disposed to
make this remark because I see notice of a public meeting of whites
here in the hope of arresting this cause. The whites can meet, if
they please, and such a meeting, called under such auspices, may vote
to continue their unjust pretensions; but any vote by them will be,
under the circumstances, little better than an absurdity. The whites
of the District of Columbia, in respect to the colored people, are no
better than squatters, and those who for generations have squatted on
the rights of others do not quietly give up. But it is our duty to
dispossess them. Hereafter nobody should be allowed to squat on the
rights of others, civil or political.
I move the reference of this petition to the Joint Committee on
Reconstruction.
PROTECTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT, AND REJECTION OF EVERY REBEL DEBT.
CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 5, 1866.
Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in
the following joint resolution, which was read twice, referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.
Joint Resolution proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States for the protection of the National Debt and
the rejection of any Rebel Debt.
_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both
Houses concurring,)_ That the following Article be proposed to the
Legislatures of the several States as an Amendment to the Constitution
of the United States, which, when ratified by three fourths of such
Legislatures, shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the
Constitution, namely:--
ARTICLE --.
SECTION 1. The national debt is hereby declared to be of paramount
obligation, to which the faith of the nation is pledged; and Congress
shall not, at any time, do anything, directly or indirectly, to impair
this obligation in any part, but shall in all ways maintain it in full
force and virtue.
SECTION 2. Debts and liabilities incurred in aid of rebellion are
without any just consideration, and void; and no tax, duty, or impost
shall be laid, nor shall any appropriation of money be made by the
United States, or by any one of the States, or by any county, town, or
corporation therein, for the payment of any such debt or liability, or
any part thereof.
June 20th, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Committee on the
Judiciary, reported this to the Senate, with the recommendation
that it be indefinitely postponed, and it was so postponed.
Meanwhile both Houses had adopted the Fourteenth Constitutional
Amendment, reported by the Joint Select Committee on
Reconstruction, which contains a kindred proposition.
KIDNAPPING OF FREEDMEN.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY, JANUARY 9, 1866.
January 9th, Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution:--
“Whereas it is reported that persons declared free by the
Proclamation of Emancipation and by the recent Amendment of
the Constitution are now kidnapped and transported to Cuba
and Brazil, to be held as slaves, and that in this way a
new slave-trade has been commenced on our southern coast:
Therefore,
“_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be
directed to inquire if any further legislation is needed to
prevent the kidnapping of freedmen and the revival of the
slave-trade on our southern coast.”
The Senate proceeded to its consideration, when Mr. Sumner
explained it.
Before the vote is taken, I desire to state some of the information
that has come to my possession. For instance, here is a letter from
Alabama, from which I will read a short extract.
“Another big trade is going on,--that of running negroes to
Cuba and Brazil. They are running through the country, dressed
in Yankee clothes, hiring men, giving them any price they
ask, to make turpentine on the bay, sometimes on the rivers,
sometimes to make sugar. They get them on the cars. Of course
the negro don’t know where he is going. They get him to the
bay, and tell him to go on the steamer to go around the coast,
and away goes poor Cuffee to slavery again. They are just
cleaning out this section of the country of the likeliest men
and women in it. Federal officers are mixed up in it, too.”
* * * * *
MR. JOHNSON [of Maryland]. Who writes the letter? Give the name
of the writer.
MR. SUMNER. It is from a person in Alabama, whose name I am requested
not to communicate; but the writer is well known to members of
the other House. I have also a letter from the District Judge of
Florida,--his name is familiar, and will be found in the official lists
of the country,--communicating a letter received from a person well
known to him, and for whom he vouches, in Florida, dated December 14,
1865, from which I read a brief extract.
“I am advised that certain parties here intend to make a
business of importing negroes into Cuba. It is said that there
have gone two vessel-loads of them already. Titus & Co. have
bought a steamer for the ostensible purpose of carrying fish
from Indian River to Charleston, but most people think that his
will be carried the other way. There have been more gunboats
ordered down in that region to look out for the fishmongers.”
Here are two letters from different States, Alabama and Florida. Add
also verbal communications received during the last week from Texas,
from Louisiana, and from Mississippi, three other States, all to the
same effect, that in each of those States a system of kidnapping has
already been commenced, and a new slave-trade started on that coast. I
do not know that the laws on our statute-book are sufficient to meet
this untold enormity. I desire that our Committee, in which we repose
such confidence, should apply themselves to it, and see if there is any
remedy for this terrible crime. I desire, also, that every branch of
the Government should do its duty in this business: that the Department
of State should address all its agents in Cuba and in Brazil, requiring
them to look after the liberty of these people, to which we are
pledged; that the Navy Department should forward proper instructions to
our cruisers; that the War Department should send proper instructions
to our troops in that region; and that the President himself should
take notice of this unexpected enormity of outrage, and see to it that
everything possible is done to arrest it.
Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, thought it “altogether probable that
the Yankees have reopened the slave-trade.”
The resolution was adopted.
* * * * *
February 7th, Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, from the Judiciary
Committee, reported “A Bill to prevent and punish Kidnapping,”
which he stated was upon a resolution introduced by Mr. Sumner.
February 15th, the Senate proceeded to its consideration, and
it passed that body.
May 18th, the bill passed the House of Representatives, and,
May 21st, it was approved by the President.[35]
THE LATE HENRY WINTER DAVIS.
ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT, JANUARY 11, 1866.
The death of Henry Winter Davis at this moment is a national calamity.
His rare powers were in their perfect prime, and he had dedicated all
to his country. At this crisis, when the best statesmanship, inspired
by the best courage, is so much needed, it is hard to part with him.
He was born at Annapolis, Maryland, August 16, 1817; was a
Representative of Baltimore in the Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth,
Thirty-Sixth, and Thirty-Eighth Congresses; died in Baltimore, December
30, 1865. His career in Congress made him famous.
Nature had done much for this remarkable man. Elegant in person,
elastic in step, and winning in manner, he arrested the attention
of all who saw him, and when he spoke, the first impressions were
confirmed. He was rapid and direct. He went straight to the point. He
abounded in ideas. Language lent her charms. Among the living orators
of the country he had few peers. Professional studies and political
experience added to his powers. Had he lived, I know not what height
he might have reached. Never before had he been so completely master
of himself, and never before did he see so clear and glorious a line
of duty. As the occasion was vast, so I doubt not would have been his
efforts. He looked to nothing less than the complete enfranchisement of
his country, and the redemption of all the promises of our fathers in
the Declaration of Independence. In this cause he was a leader.
In a recent publication[36] he had touched this great question to the
quick, when he said that a State which denied the elective franchise
to a considerable portion of its citizens could not be considered “a
republican government,” and he earnestly insisted that all such States
should be reformed. He was right. All honor to the champion! Alas that
he is not here to help in the battle now at hand! With what force and
beauty, with what intensity and eloquence, he would have illustrated
the congenial theme!
He was zealous, and, like all zealous men, when great questions are
in issue, sometimes gave offence. It is hard to strike strong blows
without leaving bruises. It is hard to restrain the rage of a generous
indignation so that it will not seem severe. There are times when
justice is severity. There are times when gentleness will not do.
Falkland, in England, and Barnave, in France, were gentle in nature.
Honor them for their virtues, but do not expect everybody to carry into
the deadly controversy with Slavery that softness which must surely
fail. Sterner stuff is needed. Fox had a heart which overflowed with
human kindness, like that of our friend; but when duty called, he was
terrible in debate. Words boiled and bubbled from his wrought soul,
and he did not hesitate to call things by their right names. On one
occasion this great parliamentary orator exclaimed: “I state it to be
my firm opinion that there is not one fact asserted in his Majesty’s
speech which is not false, not one assertion or insinuation which is
not unfounded.”[37] On another occasion he said, in words which I seem
almost to hear from the lips of the late Representative of Baltimore:
“Oh for the good old parliamentary word _jealousy_, instead of its
modern substitute, _confidence_!” This was the exclamation of Charles
James Fox. It embodies the spirit of Henry Winter Davis. There were
things he could not bear. His warm nature glowed at the thought of
wrong or usurpation; nor could he check the currents of his soul,
even if they threatened to dash against persons powerful in place or
influence. A President like Abraham Lincoln was not above his honest,
fearless criticism.
His country owes much to him. Living in a State which panted with the
throes of the Rebellion, and surrounded by a disloyal population, he
was from the beginning austere in patriotism. He made no compromises.
He stood by the flag at all hazards. And as the conflict deepened,
he was among the foremost to see that Slavery was the great Rebel.
Against Slavery he struck. He had the inexpressible satisfaction to
witness the first stages of its overthrow, and he was girding himself
for the final battle with the transcendent offender under the new form
it assumed. In striking against Slavery, he set an example to his
fellow-citizens everywhere. If he, whose home was in a Slave State, and
whose friends were slave-masters, could strike such blows, it was hard
to see how citizens of other places, where Slavery did not prevail,
could hesitate. Hereafter, when recent events are recorded in faithful
annals, his name will be mentioned proudly and gratefully.
There is one community that will cherish his memory with especial
reverence. It is his native State of Maryland. Among all the sons she
has given to the country, there is none who can be named before him. I
do not forget William Pinkney, the finished lawyer, or Charles Carroll,
the signer of the Declaration of Independence; but there is nothing in
the career of either of these to evince superiority over that of Henry
Winter Davis. Hereafter, when Maryland is fully redeemed, and a happy
people rejoices in all the manifold blessings secured, then will hearts
throb and eyes glisten at the mention of this noble name. Better for
his memory than any triumph of genius at the bar will be his devoted
championship of Human Freedom. Maryland may not now be ready to do fit
honor to her departed son; but the time cannot be long postponed. Her
advance in civilization may well be measured by sympathy with his name.
POSTSCRIPT.
Since writing this tribute to an heroic spirit, I have received a
journal from Baltimore, published by colored persons, which contains
his best eulogy. Such praise is more than any other praise, for it
comes from neighbors and wards who knew him well, and it is the voice
of that oppressed race he had served so faithfully. Better than any
official order of mourning are these artless, feeling words:--
“We are sorely grieved to chronicle the death of so great and
good a man as Hon. Henry Winter Davis, who departed this life
on Saturday, 30th ult., 1865, after a short illness of about
three days. Mr. Davis was an accomplished gentleman, a true
patriot, and a finished statesman. He was true to his country,
and _a tried friend_ to the colored people,--_never_ faltering
in the time of need. In Congress he fought as a hero for our
people, and at home he labored assiduously for the bondman, and
espoused the cause of _Liberty, Justice, and Truth_, up to the
time of his death. The memory of Henry Winter Davis should live
in every colored American’s heart for ages to come, and _all_
loyal citizens should give his very interesting family their
full sympathy; for Henry Winter Davis, at _his own_ peril,
stood invincible for his country, knew no flag but the flag of
_free_ America, even when his nearest friend would impeach him
for his acts, and almost threaten his life. Henry Winter Davis
was _firm_, defying all prejudiced parties to dare advance;
but he was such a statesman and elocutionist, he kept them at
bay, until God, in His own time, has seen it His pleasure to
remove him from our midst; and we humble beings can do nothing
but trust that God, in His all-wise and tender mercy, may raise
erelong another Henry Winter Davis.”
DISFRANCHISEMENT INCONSISTENT WITH REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE CREDENTIALS OF A SENATOR FROM FLORIDA,
JANUARY 19, 1866.
January 19th, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, presented the
credentials of Hon. William Marvin as Senator of Florida. Mr.
Sumner, seizing the occasion to declare what he thought an
essential element of republican government to be observed in
Reconstruction, said:--
I have no desire to discuss the question arising on the presentation
of these credentials, and I may say that there are reasons for the
expression of personal respect toward the gentleman who appears as
Senator from Florida. In many particulars--not in all, unhappily--he
has done well where he was placed. I say, unhappily not in all
particulars; for no person can read his speeches and say that in
everything he has done what a governor of one of those States at this
time should do. But I have no desire to discuss his case.
The Senator has alluded to the actual condition of Florida. I also ask
attention to the actual condition of things there, as represented by
thoroughly competent witnesses, whose character is vouched by the first
citizens of that State.
Mr. Sumner here read two communications, mentioning that
four fifths of the Legislature were Rebel officers, and
setting forth the programme of the Rebel States hostile to
Reconstruction, and declaring that the only hope of Union men
was in Congress. He then said:--
There, Sir, is testimony direct from Florida. Besides, we have the
Constitution which the recent pretended Convention has put forward,--a
Constitution which, after recognizing the abolition of Slavery, and
therefore the citizenship of those once slaves, proceeds to decree
their disfranchisement; and Senators are expected to receive this
document as creating a republican form of government,--a Constitution
which begins by the denial of equality to nearly one half its citizens!
The question is entirely changed since the abolition of Slavery, for
all are now citizens; and I insist, and at a proper time shall argue
the question, that no State, where the government has lapsed, can be
recognized as republican in form, while disfranchising any considerable
portion of its citizens, especially if it founds any right, immunity,
or privilege on color.
The credentials were laid on the table, and never afterwards
considered.
IMPANELLING OF JURIES, AND TRIAL OF JEFFERSON DAVIS.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL REMOVING CERTAIN OBJECTIONS TO JURORS,
JANUARY 22, 1866.
Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, called up a bill, reported by
the Judiciary Committee, “in relation to the qualifications
of jurors and to writs of error in certain cases.” The first
section removed the objection to jurors serving in certain
cases by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion
founded upon common notoriety, public rumor, or statements in
public journals. The other section provided a writ of error on
questions of law, where the punishment was death.
Mr. Sumner remarked:--
I see no objection to the second section. Here I agree with the
Senator from New Hampshire. I am not so sure about the first section.
There seem to me two objections to it. Whether they are sufficiently
strong to justify the rejection of the bill will be for the Senate to
determine. I simply call attention to them.
The first is, that it positively sets aside what, down to this day, on
the ruling of the highest magistrate of our country, has been the law
in impanelling juries. To this the Senator aptly replies, that it is
important to obtain uniformity of practice in the United States courts.
There I agree with him. If the proposition involved nothing else, I
should not venture even a suggestion with regard to it; but it reaches
further. It sets aside what my friend, the learned Senator from
Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] knows well was the decision of Chief Justice
Marshall, and what has been also the practice in many States of the
Union. It is the practice in my own State. It is the practice also in
the District of Columbia. Against that practice I can venture only with
a certain hesitation.
Then comes another consideration of greater importance. So far as I
comprehend the special bearing of this provision, it is to meet an
actual case of unprecedented historical importance; it is to prepare
the way for the trial of that grandest criminal in the world’s history,
now in the custody of the National Government. Sir, that trial should
be approached carefully, most discreetly, and I humbly submit, unless
reasons to the contrary are found of the strongest character, with
absolute reference to the existing law of the land. I shrink from
any change in the law to meet an individual case, even though of
transcendent importance, like that to which I refer. Indeed, the very
importance of the case, and especially its political character, puts us
on our guard.
I would also ask whether there is not in the proposition something of
an _ex post facto_ character. I am not going to argue against the power
of Congress to make changes in modes of procedure and of trial after
the crime has been perpetrated; but I cannot doubt, that, in view of
the positive limitation of the Constitution, it is a very doubtful
course to enter upon.
Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, who was not disposed to agree with
Mr. Sumner, said: “I certainly very heartily approve of
the opinions and sentiments expressed by the Senator from
Massachusetts.”
The bill was postponed, and allowed to drop.
CARRYING OUT THE GUARANTY OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT OF
THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY.
JOINT RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 2, 1866.
The following joint resolution, introduced February 2d, is
a modification of a bill introduced at the beginning of the
session.[38]
Joint Resolution carrying out the guaranty of a Republican Form of
Government in the Constitution of the United States, and enforcing the
Constitutional Amendment for the Prohibition of Slavery.
Whereas it is provided in the Constitution, that the United States
shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of
government;
And whereas, by reason of the failure of certain States to maintain
governments which Congress can recognize, it has become the duty
of the United States, standing in the place of guarantor where the
principal has made a lapse, to secure to such States, according to the
requirement of the guaranty, governments republican in form;
And whereas, further, it is provided in a recent Constitutional
Amendment, that Congress may “enforce” the prohibition of Slavery by
“appropriate legislation,” and it is important to this end that all
relics of Slavery should be removed, including all distinction of
rights on account of color:
Now, therefore, to carry out the guaranty of a republican form of
government, and to enforce the prohibition of Slavery,
_Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, That in all States
lately declared to be in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy,
aristocracy, caste, or monopoly invested with peculiar privileges or
powers, and there shall be no denial of rights, civil or political, on
account of race or color; but all persons shall be equal before the
law, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box. And this statute,
made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the
land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any such State to the
contrary notwithstanding.
The joint resolution was printed and laid on the table. Mr.
Sumner gave notice that at the proper time he should move it
as a counter proposition to the resolution of the House of
Representatives proposing a Constitutional Amendment.[39]
THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL: THE GREAT GUARANTY AND PRESENT NECESSITY, FOR
THE SAKE OF SECURITY, AND TO MAINTAIN A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.
SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION
FIXING THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, FEBRUARY 5 AND 6, 1866. WITH
APPENDIX.
Taxation without representation is Tyranny.--THE REVOLUTIONARY
FATHERS.
* * * * *
Remember, O my friends, the laws, the rights,
The generous plan of power delivered down
From age to age by your renowned forefathers,
So dearly bought, the price of so much blood:
Oh, let it never perish in your hands!”
ADDISON, _Cato_, Act III. Scene 5.
* * * * *
But if any among you thinks that Philip will maintain his
power by having occupied forts and havens and the like, this
is a mistake.… Impossible is it, impossible, Athenians, to
acquire a solid power by injustice and perjury and falsehood.
Such things last for once, or for a short period; maybe, they
blossom fairly with hope; but in time they are discovered and
drop away. As a house, a ship, or the like, ought to have the
lower parts firmest, so in human conduct, I ween, the principle
and foundation should be just and true.--DEMOSTHENES, _Second
Olynthiac_, tr. Kennedy.
* * * * *
Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O
house of Israel! Is not my way equal? are not your ways
unequal?--EZEKIEL, xviii. 25.
* * * * *
’Twere better, O my son,
To cultivate Equality, who joins
Friends, cities, heroes in one steadfast league;
For by the laws of Nature through the world
Equality was established: …
Equality, among the human race,
Measures and weights and numbers hath ordained.
EURIPIDES, _The Phœnician Damsels_, tr. Wodhull.
* * * * *
That all might free and equal all remain.
LUCAN, _Pharsalia_, tr. Rowe, Book IX. 336.
* * * * *
Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed
in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens,
and let them vote.--GOUVERNEUR MORRIS: _Debates in the Federal
Convention_, August 8, 1787: Madison Papers, Vol. III. p. 1264.
* * * * *
He took his ground carefully, and propounded only what he felt
sure that Hardy himself would at once accept,--what no man
of any worth could possibly take exception to. He meant much
more, he said, than this, but for the present purpose it would
be enough for him to say, that, whatever else it might mean,
_Democracy in his mouth always meant that every man should have
a share in the government of his country_.--HUGHES, _Tom Brown
at Oxford_, Vol. II. Chap. XIX.
* * * * *
The Equal Rights of the colored race occupied the constant
attention of Congress in different forms. One measure was
known as the Civil Rights Bill, securing the right to sue and
testify in court, introduced by Mr. Trumbull January 5, and
passed April 9, 1866. Others were intended to secure suffrage
for colored citizens in the District of Columbia and generally
in the Rebel States. The efforts of Mr. Sumner were applicable
to all these measures. He insisted always upon the equal title
of all to rights of white citizens, whether civil or political,
and he wished to act directly. Not doubting the plenary powers
of Congress to provide for the equal rights of all, political
as well as civil, especially since the Constitutional Amendment
prohibiting Slavery, he pressed action by “appropriate
legislation.”
Meanwhile the House of Representatives undertook to meet
the Suffrage question indirectly, and by a proposition for
an Amendment of the Constitution, reported by Hon. Thaddeus
Stevens from the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. Proceeding
originally from Hon. James G. Blaine, a Representative from
Maine, afterwards Speaker, it was known familiarly as “the
Blaine Amendment.” After elaborate discussion, the joint
resolution containing the Amendment was adopted by the House,
January 31st,--Yeas 120, Nays 46,--in the following terms:--
“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union according
to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed:
_Provided_, That, whenever the elective franchise shall
be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or
color, all persons therein of such race or color shall be
excluded from the basis of representation.”
Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, who was the Senate Chairman of the
Joint Committee on Reconstruction, promptly gave notice that
he should call for its consideration in the Senate February
5th. This opened the whole subject in all its branches, and Mr.
Sumner seized the earliest opportunity to discuss it, beginning
the important debate. His speech, after asserting the equal
rights of all, vindicated the plenary powers of Congress,
especially under the clause requiring the United States to
guaranty a republican form of government. Though made on the
Constitutional Amendment, it was equally applicable to Mr.
Trumbull’s Civil Rights Bill, then pending, as also to the Bill
for Enfranchisement in the District of Columbia, and to all
measures of Reconstruction.
SPEECH.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I begin by expressing my acknowledgments to the Senator
from Maine, who yields the floor to-day, and also my sincere regret
that anything should interfere with the opening of this debate by him.
It is his right, and I enter upon it now only by his indulgence.
I am not insensible to the responsibility assumed in setting myself
against a proposition already adopted in the other House, and having
the recommendation of a Committee to which the country looks with
such just expectation, and to which, let me say, I look with so much
trust. But, after careful reflection, I do not feel that I can do
otherwise. Knowing, as I do, the eminent character of the Committee,
its intelligence, its patriotism, and the moral instincts by which it
is moved, I am at a loss to understand the origin of an attempt which
seems to me nothing else than another compromise of Human Rights, as
if the country had not already paid enough in costly treasure and more
costly blood for such compromises in the past. I had hoped the day of
compromise with wrong had gone forever. Ample experience shows that
it is the least practical mode of settling questions involving moral
principle. A moral principle cannot be compromised.
Here are important words of the Amendment:--
“_Provided_, That, whenever the elective franchise shall be
denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color,
all persons therein of such race or color shall be excluded
from the basis of representation.”
I may be mistaken, Sir, but I think it difficult to read this
proposition without being painfully impressed by the discord and
defilement it will introduce into the National Constitution, having
among specific objects the guaranty of a republican form of government.
The discord appears on the face. The defilement is none the less
apparent. Go back, if you please, to the adoption of the Constitution,
and you will gratefully acknowledge that the finest saying of the
times was when Madison, evidently inspired by the Declaration of
Independence, and determined to keep the Constitution in harmony with
it, insisted, in well-known words, that it was “WRONG to admit in the
Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”[40] Of all
that has come to us from that historic Convention,
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/50159