diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'old/50159-0.txt')
| -rw-r--r-- | old/50159-0.txt | 13392 |
1 files changed, 0 insertions, 13392 deletions
diff --git a/old/50159-0.txt b/old/50159-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index f6767e4..0000000 --- a/old/50159-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,13392 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, volume -13 (of 20), by Charles Sumner - -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'll 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 - -Editor: George Frisbie Hoar - -Release Date: October 8, 2015 [EBook #50159] - -Language: English - -Character set encoding: UTF-8 - -*** START OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER, COMPLETE WORKS, 13 *** - - - - -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) - - - - - - - - - - - [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, where Washington -sat as President, and Franklin and Hamilton sat as members, there is -nothing with so much of imperishable charm. It was wrong to admit -in the Constitution the idea that man could hold property in man. -In this spirit the Constitution was framed. This offensive idea was -not admitted. The text, at least, was kept blameless. And now, after -generations have passed, surrounded by the light of Christian truth -and in the full blaze of Human Freedom, it is proposed to admit in the -Constitution a twin idea of Inequality in Rights, and thus openly set -at nought the first principles of the Declaration of Independence, and -the guaranty of a republican government itself, while you blot out a -whole race politically. For some time we have been carefully expunging -from the statute-book the word “white,” and now it is proposed to -insert in the Constitution itself a distinction of color. An amendment, -according to the dictionaries, is “an improvement,” “a change for the -better.” Surely the present proposition is an amendment which, like the -crab, goes backward. - -Such is the appearance, when you regard it merely in form, without -penetrating its substance; but here it is none the less offensive. The -case is plain. Still among us are four million citizens robbed of all -share in the government of a common country, while, at the same time, -according to their means, they are taxed, directly and indirectly, for -the support of the Government. Nobody will question the statement. And -this bare-faced tyranny of taxation without representation it is now -proposed to recognize as not inconsistent with fundamental right and -the guaranty of a republican government. Instead of blasting it, you go -forward to embrace it as an element of political power. - -If you expect to induce the recent slave-master to confer suffrage -without distinction of color, you will find the proposition a delusion -and a snare. He will do no such thing. Even the bribe offered cannot -tempt him. If, on the other hand, you expect to accomplish a reduction -of his political power, permit me to say that success is more than -doubtful, while the means employed are unworthy. Tricks and evasions -are possible, and the cunning slave-master will drive his coach and six -through your Amendment, stuffed with all his representatives. Should -he cheat you, it will only be a proper return for the endeavor on your -part to circumvent him at the expense of fellow-citizens to whom you -are bound by every obligation of public faith. - -I know not if others will see this uncertainty as I see it; but -there are two practical consequences, having direct influence on the -times, which all must discern as following at once from the adoption -of the so-called Amendment. In the first place, it will be a present -renunciation of all power under the Constitution to apply the remedy -for a grievous wrong, when the remedy, even according to your own -recent example, is actually in your hands. You have already in this -Chamber, only last Friday, decreed civil rights without distinction -of color.[41] Who can doubt that by the same title you may decree -political rights, also, without distinction of color? But, having -the power, it is your duty to exercise it. You cannot evade this -duty without becoming partakers in wrong. And this brings me to the -second practical consequence that must ensue from the adoption of -this proposition. You hand over wards and allies, through whom the -Republic has been saved, and therefore our saviours, to the control of -vindictive enemies, to be taxed and governed without their own consent; -and this you do for a consideration “nominated in the bond,” by virtue -of which men may do a great wrong, provided they submit, as a _quid pro -quo_, to a proportionate abridgment of political power. Who does not -admire the Scottish patriot of whom it was said that he “would lose -his life readily to _serve_ his country, but would not do a base thing -to _save_ it”?[42] I hope we may act in this spirit. Above all, do not -copy the example of Pontius Pilate, who surrendered the Saviour of the -World, in whom he found no fault at all, to be scourged and crucified, -while he set at large Barabbas, of whom the Gospel says in simple -words, “Now Barabbas was a robber.” - -I speak with sincere deference for cherished friends from whom I -differ; but I submit that the time has come, at last, when we should -deal directly, and not indirectly, with the great question before us, -and when all compromise of Human Rights should cease, and especially -there should be no thought of a three-headed compromise, which, after -degrading the Constitution, renounces a beneficent power essential to -the safety of the Republic, and, lastly, borrowing an example from -Pontius Pilate, turns over a whole race to sacrifice. These objections -I present briefly on the threshold, without argument, and advance to -the main question which must dominate this whole debate. By way of -introduction, I send to the Chair a counter proposition, which I wish -read. It is entitled “A 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.” - - This was the joint resolution introduced February 2d,[43] in - anticipation of this debate, but made applicable “anywhere - within the limits of the United States or the jurisdiction - thereof.” After its reading by the Secretary of the Senate, Mr. - Sumner proceeded. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--In opening this great question, I begin by expressing a -heartfelt aspiration that the day may soon come, when the States lately -in rebellion may be received again into the copartnership of political -power and the full fellowship of the Union. But I see too well that it -is vain to expect this day, so much longed for, until we have obtained -that security for the future which is found only in the Equal Rights -of All, at the ballot-box as in the court-room. This is the Great -Guaranty without which all other guaranties will fail. This is the sole -solution of present troubles and anxieties. This is the only sufficient -assurance of peace and reconciliation. To the establishment of this -Great Guaranty, as a measure of safety and of justice, I now ask your -best attention. - - * * * * * - -The powers of Congress over this subject are ample as they are -beneficent. From four specific fountains they flow, each sufficient, -all four swelling into an irresistible current, and tending to one -conclusion: first, the necessity of the case, by which, according -to analogy of the Territories, disloyal States, having no local -government, lapse under the authority of Congress; secondly, the -Rights of War, which do not expire or lose their grasp, except -with the establishment of all needful guaranties; thirdly, the -constitutional injunction to guaranty a republican form of government; -and, fourthly, the Constitutional Amendment, by which Congress, in -words of peculiar energy, is empowered to “enforce” the abolition of -Slavery by “appropriate legislation.” According to the proverb of -Catholic Europe, all roads lead to Rome; and so do all these powers -lead to the jurisdiction of Congress over this whole subject. No -matter which road you take, you arrive at the same point. The first -two have already been discussed exhaustively.[44] The two latter have -been considered less, and it is on these that I shall speak especially -to-day. I propose, with the permission of the Senate, to show the -necessity and duty of exercising the jurisdiction of Congress so as -to secure that essential condition of a republican government, the -Equal Rights of All. And I put aside, at the outset, the metaphysical -question, worthy of schoolmen in the Dark Ages, whether certain -States are _in_ the Union or _out of_ the Union. That is a question -of form, and not of substance,--of words only, and not of facts; -for the substance is clear, and the facts are unanswerable. All are -agreed, according to the authority of President Lincoln, in his latest -utterance before his lamented death, that these States have ceased to -be in “practical relation with the Union”;[45] and this is enough to -sustain the jurisdiction of Congress, even without the plain words of -the Constitution in two separate texts. - -The time has passed for phrases, which have been the chief resource in -opposition to a just reconstruction. It is not enough to say “a State -cannot secede,” “a State cannot get out of the Union,” “Louisiana -is a State in the Union.” These are mere words, having no positive -meaning, and improper for this debate. So far as they have meaning, -they confound law and fact. It is very obvious that a State may, in -point of _law_, be still in the list of States, and yet, in point of -_fact_, its relations to the Union may have ceased through violence, -foreign or domestic. In point of law, no man can commit suicide; but -in point of fact, men do. The absurdity of denying that a man has -committed suicide, because it is unlawful, is equalled by the kindred -absurdity of saying that a State cannot do a certain thing, because -it is unlawful. Unhappily, in this world, the fact is not always in -conformity with the law. - -Therefore I put aside all fine-spun theories running into the -metaphysics of Constitutional Law. All such subtilties are absolutely -futile. They must end in nothing. I found myself on existing facts, -which are undeniable. Of these I select two. - -Whatever may have been the effect of the acts of Secession in point -of law, it is plain that _de facto_ the Rebel States have ceased to -take any part in the National Government. All loyal government in -those States has been _de facto_ subverted. They are all without -magistrates or officers bound by oath to support the National -Constitution according to its requirement, so that _de facto_ there -are no magistrates or officers of the Union in these States; nor are -there any _de facto_ Senators or Representatives in Congress from those -States. Such are unquestionable facts, all of which concentre in the -great unquestionable _fact_, that for the time being there are no State -Governments in these States which the National Government can recognize -as such. - -There is another fact equally unquestionable. It is that the Rebel -States have been _de facto_ in war against the National Government. -Armies have been mustered, battles have been fought, and the whole -country has been convulsed by this war. An immense national debt, -mourning families, widows and orphans, attest this terrible fact. - -Everything has a natural consequence, and the consequence of this -condition of things is that necessity which I have announced. These -States cannot subsist without legal governments in just correlation -with the other States and with the Nation. - -Necessity and duty commingle. If what is necessary is not always -according to duty, surely duty is always a necessity. On the present -occasion they unite in one voice for the Great Guaranty. It is at once -necessity and duty. Glancing at the promises of the Fathers, I shall -exhibit,-- - -_First_, the overruling necessity of the times; - -And, _secondly_, the positive mandate of the Constitution, compelling -us to guaranty “a republican form of government,” and thus to determine -what is meant by this requirement; all of which has been fortified -by continuing Rights of War, and by the Constitutional Amendment -authorizing Congress to enforce the abolition of Slavery. - - * * * * * - -In the life of a nation, as in that of an individual, there are moments -when outstanding promises must be performed under peril of ruin and -dishonor. Such is the present moment in the life of the Republic. -Sacred promises, beginning with our history, are yet unperformed, -although the hour has sounded when continued failure on our part -will open the door to a long train of woes. And there are yet other -promises, recently made, for the national defence against a wicked -rebellion, which, like those of earlier date, are also unperformed. But -the latter are all included in the former; so that our whole present -duty centres in the performance of sacred promises coëval with the -national life. - -Our fathers solemnly announced the Equal Rights of all men, and -that government had no just foundation except in the consent of the -governed; and to the support of the Declaration heralding these -self-evident truths they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their -sacred honor. Looking at this Declaration now, it is chiefly memorable -for the promises it made. Mighty words! Fit utterance for the infant -giant then born! Fit device for the great Republic taking its place in -the family of kings! Fit lesson for mankind! And now the moment has -come when these vows must be fulfilled to the letter. In securing the -Equal Rights of the freedman, and his participation in the Government -which he is taxed to support, we shall perform the early promises of -the Fathers, and at the same time supplementary promises only recently -made to the freedman as the condition of alliance and aid against -the Rebellion. Failure here is moral and political bankruptcy. It is -repudiation of moral and political duties, ending in repudiation of the -financial obligations. So are duties to the national freedman linked -with obligations to the national creditor, that you cannot repudiate -the former without impairing the latter. Whoever disowns any of the -promises of the Republic leads the way in repudiation. - -But you cannot be thus guilty. Even if indifferent to the vows of -the Fathers, necessity, in harmony with the plain injunction of the -Constitution, will constrain you. On this there can be no doubt. You -must perform these promises; and this brings me to the overruling -necessity of the times. - - -I. - -Necessity is a peremptory instructor. It gives the law which no man can -disregard. It will not hearken to apology or postponement. With a voice -of command it insists that its behests shall be obeyed. And now this -very necessity speaks with familiar tones. - -Twice already, since Rebel Slavery rose against the Republic, it has -spoken, insisting, first, that the slaves should be declared free, and, -secondly, that muskets should be put into their hands for the common -defence. Yielding to necessity, these two things were done. Reason, -humanity, justice were powerless; but necessity was irresistible. -And the result testifies how wisely the Republic acted. Without -Emancipation, followed by arming the slaves, Rebel Slavery would not -have been overcome. With these, victory was easy. - -At last the same necessity, which insisted first upon Emancipation and -then upon arming the slaves, insists with the same unanswerable force -upon admission of the freedman to complete equality before the law, so -that there shall be no ban of color in court-room or at the ballot-box, -and government shall be fixed on its only rightful foundation, the -consent of the governed. Reason, humanity, and justice, all of which -are clear for the admission of the freedman, may fail to move you; -but you must yield to necessity, now requiring these promises to be -performed. - -The demand I make stands on necessity. You must grant it, or you will -peril the peace of the Republic, and postpone indefinitely the great -day of security and reconciliation. Therefore, in the name of that -national safety which is the supreme law, I begin my appeal. Whatever -is required for the national safety is constitutional. Not only it -_may_ be done, but it _must_ be done. Not to do it is to fail in duty. -The Republic must be saved. - -When I speak of necessity, I mean that overruling compulsion which -cannot be disobeyed. In the present case it is compounded of moral duty -and the instinct of self-preservation. The moral duty to perform these -promises is plain as the Decalogue. The instinct of self-preservation, -impelling us to save the Republic, is in harmony with the requirement -of moral duty. In denying justice now, you are not only guilty of -grievous wrong, but you expose your country to incalculable calamity. -The case is too clear for debate. - -The irresistible argument for Emancipation was always twofold,--first, -its intrinsic justice, and, secondly, its necessity for the safety of -the Republic; all of which was expressed by President Lincoln in the -closing words of his great Proclamation:-- - - “And upon this act, sincerely believed to be _an act of justice - warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity_, I - invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious - favor of Almighty God.” - -But the argument for Enfranchisement, which is nothing but the -complement of Emancipation, is the same. Enfranchisement is not only -intrinsically just, but necessary to the safety of the Republic. There -is no reason, point, or argument once urged for Emancipation which may -not be urged now for Enfranchisement. I do not err, when I say that -Emancipation itself will fail without Enfranchisement. - -By Enfranchisement I mean the establishment of the Equal Rights -of All, so that there shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or -political, founded on color, and the promises of the Fathers shall be -fulfilled. Such a measure will be, in the words of President Lincoln, -“an act of justice warranted by the Constitution upon military -necessity.” - -As an act of justice, Enfranchisement has a necessity of its own. No -individual and no people can afford to be unjust. Such an offence -carries a curse, which, sooner or later, must drag its perpetrator to -ruin. But here necessity from considerations of justice is completed -and intensified by positive requirements of the national safety, -plainly involved in the performance of these promises. - -Look at the unhappy freedman blasted by the ban of exclusion. He has -always been loyal, and now it is he, and not the Rebel master, who pays -the penalty. From the nature of the case, he must be discontented, -restless, anxious, smarting with sense of wrong and consciousness of -rights denied. He does not work as if taken by the hand and made to -feel the grasp of friendship. He is idle, thriftless, unproductive. -Industry suffers. Cotton does not grow. Commerce does not thrive. -Credit fails; nay, it dies before it is born. On the other hand, his -Rebel master, with hands still red with the blood of fellow-countrymen, -is encouraged in that assumption of superiority which is part of the -Barbarism of Slavery; he dominates as in times past; he is exacting as -of old; he is harsh, cruel, and vindictive; he makes the unprotected -and trembling freedman suffer for the losses and disappointments of the -Rebellion; he continues to insult and prostitute the wife and children, -who, ceasing to be chattels, have not ceased to be dependants; he -follows the freedman to by-ways and obscure places, where once again he -plays master and asserts his ancient title as lord of the lash. Scenes -of savage brutality and blood ensue. All this, which reason foretells, -the short experience of a few months already confirms. And all this you -sanction, when you leave the freedman despoiled of his rights. - -But the freedman, though forbearing and slow to anger, will not always -submit to outrage. He will resist. Resistance will be organized. And -here begins the terrible war of races foreseen by Jefferson, where -God, in all His attributes, has none which can take part with the -oppressor. The tragedy of San Domingo will be renewed on a wider -theatre, with bloodier incidents. Be warned, I entreat you, by this -historic example. It was the denial of rights to colored people, upon -successive promises, which caused that fearful insurrection. After -various vicissitudes, during which the rights of citizenship were -conferred on free people of color and then resumed, the slaves at last -rose; and here the soul sickens at the recital. Then came Toussaint -l’Ouverture, a black of unmixed blood, who placed himself at the head -of his race, showing the genius of war, and the genius of statesmanship -also. Under his magnanimous rule the beautiful island began to smile -once more: agriculture revived; commerce took a new start; the whites -were protected in person and property; and a Constitution was adopted -acknowledging the authority of France, but making no distinction of -race or color. In an evil hour this policy was reversed by a decree -of Napoleon Bonaparte. War revived, and the French army was compelled -to succumb. The connection of San Domingo with France was broken, -and this island became a black republic. All this dreary catalogue -of murder, battle, sorrow, and woe began in denial of justice to the -colored race. And only recently we have listened to a similar tragedy -from Jamaica, thus swelling the terrible testimony. Like causes produce -like effects; therefore all this will be ours, if we madly persist in -the same denial. The freedmen among us are not unlike the freedmen of -San Domingo or Jamaica; they have the same “organs, dimensions, senses, -affections, passions,” and, above all, the same sense of wrong, and the -same revenge. - -To avoid insurrection and servile war, big with measureless calamity, -and even to obtain the security essential to industry, agriculture, -commerce, and the national credit, you must perform the promises of -the Republic, originally made by our fathers, and recently renewed by -ourselves. But duty done will not only save you from calamity and give -you security; it will also prepare the way for the great triumphs of -the future, when through assured peace there shall be tranquillity, -prosperity, and reconciliation, all of which it is vain to expect -without justice. - -The freedman must be protected. To this you are solemnly pledged by -the Proclamation of President Lincoln, which, after declaring him -“free,” promises to _maintain_ this freedom, not for any limited -period, but for all time. But this cannot be, so long as you deny him -the shield of _impartial laws_. Let him be heard in court, and let him -vote. Let these rights be guarded sacredly. Beyond even the shield of -_impartial laws_, he will then have the protection which comes from -the consciousness of manhood. Clad in the full panoply of citizenship, -he will feel at last that he is a man. At present he is only a recent -chattel, awaiting your justice to be transmuted into manhood. Would -you have him respected in his rights, you must begin by respecting him -in your laws. Would you maintain him in freedom, you must begin by -maintaining him in the equal rights of citizenship. - -And now the national safety is staked on this act of justice. You -cannot sacrifice the freedman without endangering the peace of the -country and the stability of our institutions. Everything will be kept -in jeopardy. The national credit will suffer. Business of all kinds -will feel the insecurity. The whole land will gape with volcanic fire, -ready to burst forth in fatal flood. The irrepressible conflict will -be prolonged. The house will continue divided against itself. From all -these things, Good Lord, deliver us! But, under God, there is but one -deliverance, and this is through justice. - -I have said that the national credit will suffer; but this does -not disclose the whole financial calamity. It is idle to suppose -that recent rebels, restored to privileges of citizenship, will -vote cordially for the national debt incurred in the suppression -of their rebellion, or that they will willingly tax themselves for -interest on the enormous outlays by which their darling Slavery has -been overthrown. The evidence shows them already set against any -such contribution. As time advances, and their power is assured, in -conjunction with Northern sympathizers, they will openly oppose it; or, -if they consent to recognize it, they will impose the condition that -the Rebel debt shall be recognized also. All this is inevitable, if you -give them the power; it is madness to tempt them. But they will not -have the power, if the promises to the freedman are performed. Here -again justice to the freedman becomes a necessity. - -Sometimes it is said that we must not require justice to the freedman, -because justice is still denied to the colored citizen in Connecticut -and New York. Idle words, of inconceivable utterance! as if the two -cases bore any imaginable resemblance! There are rivers in the North -and rivers in the South, but who says that on this account the two -regions are alike? The denial of justice to the colored citizens in -Connecticut and New York is wrong and mean; but it is on so small a -scale that it is not perilous to the Republic, nor is it vital to the -protection of the colored citizen and the protection of the national -creditor. You are moved to Enfranchisement in Connecticut and New York -for justice to a few individuals only; but you are moved to it in the -Rebel States for justice to multitudes, also to save the Republic, -imperilled by injustice on a gigantic scale, and to supply needful -protection to the national freedman and the national creditor. From -failure on our part, there is in one case little more than shame, -while in the other there is positive danger, involving the fate of -the national freedman and the national creditor, to whom we are bound -by the most solemn ties. To a good man, injustice, even on a small -scale, is not tolerable; he feels the necessity of resisting it; but -where the victims are counted by millions, this necessity becomes a -transcendent duty, quickened and invigorated by all the instincts of -self-preservation. Therefore, I say again, for the national safety, -redeem these promises of the Fathers, and your own. - -It is sometimes asserted that the National Constitution expressly -reserves to the States the power of determining who shall vote, -because it declares that “the electors in each State shall have the -_qualifications_ requisite for electors of the most numerous branch -of the State Legislature.” But this assumption proceeds on the fatal -error, that, at any time under the Constitution, which makes no -distinction of color, there can be any such oligarchical distinction -as a “qualification” founded on color. Even assuming that in a period -of peace this might be done, yet, beyond all doubt, at the present -moment, from the necessity of the case, from the Rights of War, from -the Constitutional clause of guaranty, and from the Constitutional -Amendment, Congress, by its quadruple powers, is completely authorized -to do all it thinks best for the national security and the national -faith in the Rebel States. As well question Farragut in the maintop of -his steamer, Sherman in his march across Georgia, or Grant in the field -before Richmond, as question the authority of Congress in the present -crisis. But, if the authority exists, it must be exercised. - - -II. - -And this brings me to the next form of this necessity and duty, as they -appear in the guaranty clause of the Constitution. It is expressly -declared that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this -Union a republican form of government.” These words, when properly -understood, leave no alternative. They speak to us with no uncertain -voice. But they must be understood. The Rebel States, while providing -constitutional safeguards for property in man, and, according to the -vaunt of their Vice-President, making Slavery the corner-stone of the -new Government, yet follow our Constitution in the formal guaranty -of a republican form of government.[46] Defiantly they assume that -Slavery is not inconsistent with such a government. To this degrading -assumption we must reply, not only for the national cause, but that -republican governments may not suffer. - -The magnitude of the question before us is seen in the postulate with -which I begin. Assuming that there has been a lapse of government in -any State, so as to impose upon the United States the duty of executing -this guaranty, then do I insist that it is a bounden duty to see that -such State has a “republican form of government,” and, in the discharge -of this bounden duty, we must declare that a State, which, in the -foundation of its government, sets aside “the consent of the governed,” -which imposes taxation without representation, which discards the -principle of Equal Rights, and lodges power exclusively with an -Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, or Monopoly, cannot be recognized as -a “republican form of government,” according to the requirement of -American institutions. Even if it may satisfy some definition handed -down from antiquity or invented in monarchical Europe, it cannot -satisfy the solemn injunction of our Constitution. For this question -I now ask a hearing. Nothing in the present debate can equal it in -importance. Its correct determination will be an epoch for our country -and for mankind. - -Believe me, Sir, this is no question of theory or abstraction. It is -a practical question, which you are summoned to decide. Here is the -positive text of the Constitution, and you must affix its meaning. You -cannot evade it, you cannot forget it, without abandonment of duty. -Others in vision or aspiration have dwelt on the idea of a Republic, -and they have been lifted in soul. You must consider it not merely -in vision or aspiration, but practically, as legislators, seeking a -precise definition, to the end that the constitutional “guaranty” may -be performed. Your powers and duties are involved in this definition. -The character of the Government founded by our fathers is also involved -in it. - -There is another consideration not to be forgotten. In affixing the -proper meaning to the text, and determining what is a “republican form -of government,” you act as a court in the last resort, from which there -is no appeal. You are sole and exclusive judges. You may decide as you -please. Rarely in history has such an opportunity been offered to the -statesman. You may raise the name of Republic to majestic heights of -justice and truth, or you may let it drag low down in the depths of -wrong and falsehood. You may make it fulfil the idea of John Milton, -when he said that “a commonwealth ought to be but as one huge Christian -personage, one mighty growth and stature of an honest man, as big and -compact in virtue as in body”;[47] or you may let it shrink into the -ignoble form of a pretender, with the name of Republic, but without its -soul. - -Before considering this vital question, it is proper to regard the -origin of this “guaranty,” and see how it obtained place in the -Constitution. Perhaps there was no clause more cordially welcomed; nor -does it appear that it was subjected to any serious criticism in the -National Convention or in any State Convention. It is not found in -the Articles of Confederation; but we learn from the “Federalist”[48] -that the want of this provision was felt as a capital defect in the -plan of the Confederation. Mr. Madison, in a private record, made -in advance of the National Convention, and which has only recently -seen the light, enumerates among defects of the Confederation what he -calls “want of guaranty to the States of their Constitutions and laws -_against internal violence_”; and he then proceeds to anticipate danger -from Slavery, which could be counteracted only by such “guaranty.” -Showing why this was needed, he says, that, “according to _republican -theory_, right and power, being both vested in the majority, are held -to be synonymous; according to fact and experience, a minority may, in -an appeal to force, be an overmatch for the majority”; and he remarks, -in words which furnish a key to the “guaranty” afterwards adopted, -“Where Slavery exists, the _republican theory_ becomes still more -fallacious,”--thus showing, that, at its very origin, it was regarded -as a check upon Slavery.[49] - -Hamilton was not less positive than Madison. In his sketch of a -Constitution, communicated to Madison, and preserved by him,[50] -this “guaranty” is found; and in the elaborate brief of his argument -on the Constitution, it is specified as one of its “miscellaneous -advantages.” The last words of this remarkable paper are “guaranty of -republican governments.”[51] Randolph, of Virginia, in his sketch of a -Constitution, proposed the “guaranty,” and, in a speech setting forth -the evils of the old system, he said of the remedy, that “the basis -must be the _republican principle_.”[52] Colonel Mason, of Virginia, -taking up the same strain, said, that, though the people might be -unsettled on some points, they were settled as to others, among which -he put foremost “an attachment to _republican government_.”[53] - -The proposition in its earliest form was, “that a republican -government, and the territory of each State, except in the instance -of a voluntary junction of government and territory, ought to be -guarantied by the United States to each State.”[54] This was afterward -altered so as to read, “that a republican Constitution and its existing -laws ought to be guarantied to each State by the United States.” -Gouverneur Morris thought that the proposition in this form was “very -objectionable,” and he added, that “he should be very unwilling -that such laws as exist in Rhode Island should be guarantied.” On -discussion, it was amended, at the motion of Mr. Wilson, the learned -and philosophical delegate from Pennsylvania, afterward of the Supreme -Court of the United States, so as to read, “that _a republican form -of government_ shall be guarantied to each State, and that each State -shall be protected against foreign and domestic violence,” and in -this form it was unanimously adopted.[55] Afterward it underwent -modification in the Convention and in the Committees of Detail -and Revision, until it received the final form it now has in the -Constitution:[56]-- - - “_The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union - a republican form of government_, and shall protect each of - them against invasion, and, on application of the Legislature, - or of the Executive, when the Legislature cannot be convened, - against domestic violence.” - -Thus stands the “guaranty.” If further reason be required for its -introduction into the Constitution, it will be found in the prophetic -language of the “Federalist”:-- - - “It may possibly be asked, what need there could be of such - a precaution, and whether it may not become a pretext for - alterations in the State governments without the concurrence of - the States themselves. These questions admit of ready answers. - If the interposition of the General Government should not be - needed, the provision for such an event will be a harmless - superfluity only in the Constitution. _But who can say what - experiments may be produced by the caprice of particular - States, by the ambition of enterprising leaders, or by the - intrigues and influence of foreign powers?_”[57] - -The very crisis anticipated has arrived. “The caprice of particular -States,” and “the ambition of enterprising leaders” have done their -worst. And now the “guaranty” must be performed, not only for the sake -of individual States, but for the sake of the Union to which they -all belong, and to advance the declared objects of the Constitution, -specified in its preamble. - -The text of this great contract is worthy of study. No stronger or -more comprehensive words could be employed, whether we regard the -object, the party guarantying, or the party guarantied. The express -object is “a republican form of government.” This is plain. The party -guarantying is not merely the Executive or some specified branch of the -National Government, but “the United States,” or, in other words, the -Nation. The Republic, which is the impersonation of all, guaranties -“a republican form of government”; and every branch of the National -Government must sustain the guaranty, including especially Congress, -where is the collected will of the people. The obligation is not less -broad, when we consider the party guarantied. Here there can be no -evasion. The guaranty is not merely for the advantage of individual -States, but for the common defence and the general welfare. It is a -guaranty to each in the interest of all, and therefore a guaranty -to all. And such is the solidarity of States in the Union, that the -good of all is involved in the good of each. For each and all, then, -this guaranty must be performed, when the _casus fœderis_ arrives. As -guarantor, the Republic, according to a familiar principle, is to act -on default of the party guarantied; and then the duty is fixed in all -its amplitude. - -The testimony is complete. This clause was no hasty or accidental -amendment, creeping into the Constitution by stealth or compromise, -obscure in language and open to various interpretation, but a solemn -act, couched in few, lucid, unmistakable words; and its precise purpose -was just what so plainly appears,--to keep all the States truly -“republican,” and make the whole numerous people, in the development -of the future, homogeneous and one. By these words the Nation is not -only empowered, but commanded, to perform the great guaranty. Power and -duty here concur. Mr. Webster was right, when he called this provision -“a very stringent article, drawing after it the most important -consequences, and all of them good consequences.”[58] - -The question, then, returns, What is “a republican form of government,” -according to the requirement of the National Constitution? Mark, if -you please, that it is not the meaning of this term according to Plato -and Cicero, not even according to examples of history, nor according -to definitions of monarchical writers or lexicographers,--but what -is “a republican form of government” according to the requirements -of the National Constitution? Of course these important words were -not introduced and unanimously adopted without purpose. They must be -interpreted so as to have real meaning. Any interpretation rendering -them insignificant must be discarded as irrational and valueless, -if not dishonest. They cannot be treated as a phrase only, nor a -dead letter, nor an empty figure-head. Nor can they be treated as -profession and nothing more, so that the Constitution shall merely -_seem_ to be republican, reversing the old injunction, “To be rather -than to seem,”--_Esse quam videri_. They must be treated as real. -Thus interpreted, they become at once a support of Human Rights and a -balance-wheel to our whole political system. - -In determining their signification, I begin by putting aside what is -vague, unsatisfactory, and inapplicable, in order to bring the inquiry -directly to American institutions. - -I put aside all illustration derived from the speculations of ancient -philosophers, because, on careful examination, it appears that the -term “Republic,” as used by them, was so absolutely different from any -idea among us as to exclude their definition from the debate. This -captivating term is of Roman origin. It is the same as “commonwealth,” -and means the public interest. As originally employed, it was not -a specific term, describing a particular form of government, but a -general term, embracing all governments, whether kingly, aristocratic, -democratic, or mixed. Its equivalent in Greece was “polity,” being -the general term for all governments. Therefore the definition of a -Republic, according to these ancients, is simply the definition of -an organized government, whether kingly, aristocratic, democratic, -or mixed. Following this definition, the words of the Constitution -are only the guaranty of an organized government, without determining -its character. This, of course, leaves open the very question under -consideration. - -While the ancient nomenclature cannot be cited in determining the -definition of a Republic, we may be encouraged by it in demanding -that all government, whatever name it bears, shall be designed to -establish justice and secure the general welfare. Thus, Plato, who -commenced these interesting speculations, likens government to a just -man, delighting in justice always, however treated by others; and -the philosopher insists that every man is a government to himself as -every community is a government to itself. His ideal commonwealth -appears in a good man, and this analogy testifies to the government he -conceived. Aristotle, in a different vein, and with more precision, -opens by declaring that “every state is a certain community” or -“partnership.”[59] This idea appears again when he says, “Nothing more -characterizes a complete citizen than _having a share_ in the judicial -and executive part of the government.”[60] In various places he speaks -of “the common good” as a special object,--as, “when the One, the Few, -or the Many govern for the common good, theirs must be called a good -government”[61]; and he defines a democracy as “where the freemen and -the poor, being the majority, are masters of the government.”[62] -The same ideas find new fervor and expansion, when Cicero says, “A -republic is the interest of the people. But by the people I do not mean -every assemblage of men, gathered together anyhow, but a body of men -associated through agreement in right and community of interest.”[63] -And then again, in another place, the Roman philosopher says, “Only -in a state where the power of the people is supreme has Liberty any -abode, and, _where not equal_, it is not really Liberty.”[64] But all -these requirements or aspirations are applicable to any government, of -whatever form; and it is well known that Cicero recorded his preference -for a government tempered by admixture of the three different kinds; -so that we are not advanced in our definition, unless we insist -that our Republic should have all the virtues accorded to the ideal -commonwealth. And yet there are two principles which all these -philosophers teach: the first is justice; and the second is the duty of -seeking the general welfare. - -I next put aside the examples of history, as absolutely fallacious and -inapplicable. In all ages, governments have been called Republics. -Tacitus speaks of Rome under the tyranny of the Empire as the Republic; -and Marcus Aurelius, while Emperor, pledges himself to the Republic. -Indeed, there is hardly a government, from that of the great hunter -Nimrod down to insulted and partitioned Poland, which has not been -called Republic. In 1773, only a few years before the adoption of the -National Constitution, Russia, Austria, and Prussia, after dividing -Poland, undertook to establish fundamental laws for this conquered -country, where was this declaration:-- - - “The government of Poland shall be forever free, independent, - _and of a republican form_: the true principle of said - government consisting in the strict execution of its laws, and - the equilibrium of the three estates, namely, the king, the - senate, and the equestrian order.”[65] - -But a government thus composed cannot be recognized in this debate as -“of a republican form.” - -At the adoption of the Constitution, the most competent persons, -who disagreed on other things, agreed in discarding these examples. -Alexander Hamilton and John Adams met here on common ground. The -former, in the Brief of his Argument, exhibits the various forms of -government to which the term “Republic” has been applied. - - “A Republic, a word used in various senses. Has been applied - to aristocracies and monarchies. (1.) To Rome under the - Kings. (2.) To Sparta, though a Senate for life. (3.) To - Carthage, though the same. (4.) To United Netherlands, though - Stadtholder, hereditary nobles. (5.) To Poland, though - aristocracy and monarchy. (6.) To Great Britain, though - monarchy, &c.”[66] - -John Adams, in his Defence of the American Constitutions, written -immediately anterior to the National Constitution, concurs with -Hamilton. - - “But, of all the words in all languages, perhaps there has - been none so much abused in this way as the words _Republic_, - Commonwealth, and Popular State. In the _Rerum-Publicarum - Collectio_, of which there are fifty and odd volumes, and many - of them very incorrect, France, Spain, and Portugal, the four - great Empires, the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman, and - even the Ottoman, are all denominated Republics.”[67] - -In his old age the patriarch expressed himself in the same sense, and -with equal force. - - “The customary meanings of the words _Republic_ and - _Commonwealth_ have been infinite. They have been applied to - every government under heaven: that of Turkey, and that of - Spain, as well as that of Athens and of Rome, of Geneva and San - Marino.”[68] - -And then again he said:-- - - “In some writing or other of mine, I happened, _currente - calamo_, to drop the phrase, ‘The word _Republic_, as it is - used, may signify anything, everything, or nothing.’ For this - escape I have been pelted, for twenty or thirty years, with as - many stones as ever were thrown at St. Stephen, when St. Paul - held the clothes of the stoners. But the aphorism is literal, - strict, solemn truth. To speak technically, or scientifically, - if you will, there are monarchical, aristocratical, and - democratical republics. The government of Great Britain and - that of Poland are as strictly republics as that of Rhode - Island or Connecticut under their old charters.”[69] - -In the latter remark, Mr. Adams simply repeats his treatise, where he -calls England and Poland “monarchical or regal _republics_.”[70] - -It is plain that our fathers, when they adopted the “guaranty” of “a -republican form of government,” intended something certain, or which, -if not certain on the face, could be made certain. But this excludes -the authority of incongruous and inconsistent examples. They did not -use words to signify “anything, everything, or nothing”; nor did they -use words which were as applicable to England and Poland as to the -United States. Therefore I cannot err in putting aside examples which, -however they illustrate republican government in times past, are -utterly out of place as a guide to the interpretation of the National -Constitution. Something better must be found: nor is it wanting. - -I put aside, also, definitions of European writers and lexicographers -anterior to the National Constitution; for all these have the vagueness -and uncertainty of political truth at that time in Europe. Among these, -none is of higher authority than Montesquieu, who brought to political -science study, genius, and a liberal spirit. But even this great -writer, who profited by all his predecessors, quickens and elevates -without furnishing a satisfactory guide. He taught that “Virtue” was -the inspiring principle of a republic, and by “virtue” he means the -love of country, which, he says, is the love of equality.[71] This is -beautiful, and makes Equality a foremost principle; but, with curious -inconsistency, he includes “democracy” and “aristocracy” under the -term “Republic,”--the former being where the people in mass have the -sovereign power, and the latter “where the sovereign power is in the -hands of _part of the people_.” When defining “democracy,” he expresses -the importance of the suffrage as a fundamental of government, -saying, among other things, that it is as important to regulate _by -whom_ the suffrage shall be given as in a monarchy to know who is -the monarch.[72] But among all these glimpses of truth there is no -definition of “a republican form of government” which can help us in -interpreting the National Constitution. Surely an aristocracy, “where -the sovereign power is in the hands of _part of the people_,” cannot -find a just place in our political system. It may be “a republican form -of government” according to Montesquieu, but it cannot be according to -American institutions. - -One of the ablest among the modern predecessors of Montesquieu was -John Bodin, also a Frenchman, who wrote nearly two centuries earlier. -Like the ancient writers, he uses the term “republic” to embrace -monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, which he calls “three kinds of -republics,”--_tria rerumpublicarum genera_. If the republic is in the -power of one, _penes unum_, it is a monarchy; if in the power of a -few, _penes paucos_, it is an aristocracy; if in the power of all, -_penes universos_, it is a democracy. Proceeding further, he says -that a democracy is “where all or the major part of all the citizens, -_omnes aut major pars omnium civium_, collected together, have the -supreme power.”[73] Here the philosopher plainly follows the rule of -jurisprudence in regard to corporations; but this definition seems to -sanction the exclusion of part of the citizens, less than a majority, -while it is inadequate in other respects. It says nothing of equality -of rights, or of that great touchstone of the republican idea, the -dependence of taxation upon representation. - -But in his day the word was general, and not specific, as appears -in other instances. The easy-going and very natural Brantôme, a -contemporary of Bodin, quotes a book of his day which in its title -speaks of “the Republic of France.”[74] This was while the most -unrepublican house of Valois ruled. The great Chancellor l’Hospital -uses the word in the same sense, when in his famous testament he speaks -of yielding to “the necessity of the Republic.”[75] We have also -the authority of Henri Martin, in his admirable History of France, -who says that the word in Bodin “means only the State in its broad -signification.”[76] Plainly, from writers of this period there is -little help in the present inquiry. - -There are later definitions to be put aside also. Thus, for instance, -it is often said that a republic is “a government of laws, and not -of men”; and this saying found favor with some among our fathers.[77] -Long before, Aristotle had declared that such a government would be -the kingdom of God.[78] But this condition, though marking an advanced -degree of civilization, and of course essential to a republic, -cannot be recognized as decisive. On its face it is vague from -comprehensiveness. It is enough to say that it would embrace England, -whose government our fathers renounced in order to build a republic. -And still further, it would throw its shield over a government which -“frameth mischief by a law.” This will not do. - -There is also a plausible definition by Millar, the learned author of -the work on the British Constitution, who states, hypothetically, that -by Republic may be meant “a government in which there is no king or -hereditary chief magistrate.”[79] But this, again, must be rejected, as -leaving aristocracies and oligarchies in the category of republics. - -Sometimes we hear that a government with an elective chief magistrate -is a republic. Here, again, nothing is said of aristocracy or -oligarchy, which coexist with an elective chief magistrate,--as in -Venice, where the elected Doge was surrounded by an oligarchy of -nobles, and in Holland, where the elected Stadtholder was a prince -surrounded by princes. But there are other instances which make this -definition unsatisfactory, if not absurd. The Pope of Rome is an -elective chief magistrate; so also is the Grand Lama; but surely the -States of the Church are not republican, nor is Thibet. - -Rejecting the definition founded on the elective character of the -chief magistrate, we must also reject another, founded on “the -sovereignty of more than one man.” It has been said positively, by -an eminent person who has written much on the subject, that “the -strict definition of a republic is that in which the sovereignty -resides in more than one man.”[80] But this strict definition embraces -aristocracies and oligarchies. - -I conclude these rejected specimens with that of Dr. Johnson in his -Dictionary, which appeared before American Independence:-- - - “REPUBLIC. (1.) Commonwealth; state in which the power is - lodged in more than one. (2.) Common interest; the public.” - -These definitions are all as little to the purpose as the “vulgar -error,” chronicled by Sir Thomas Browne, “that storks are to be found -and will only live in republics,”[81]--or the saying of Rousseau, -at a later day, that, “were there a nation of gods, it would govern -itself democratically,”[82]--or the remark of John Adams, that “all -good government is republican.”[83] It is evident that we must turn -elsewhere for the illumination we need. If others thus far have failed, -it is because they have looked across the sea instead of at home, and -have searched foreign history and example instead of simply recognizing -the history and example of their own country. They have imported -inapplicable and uncertain definitions, forgetting that the Fathers, -by positive conduct, by solemn utterances, by declared opinions, -and by public acts, all in harmony and constituting one overwhelming -testimony, exhibited their idea of a republican government in a way at -once applicable and certain. They are the natural interpreters of their -own Constitution. Mr. Fox, the eminent English statesman, exclaimed in -debate, that, “if, by a peculiar interposition of Divine power, all -the wisest men of every age and of every country could be collected -into one assembly, he did not believe that their united wisdom would -be capable of forming even a tolerable constitution,”[84]--meaning, -of course, that a constitution must be derived from habits and -convictions, and not from any invention. There is sound sense in the -remark; and it is in this spirit that I turn from a discussion having -only this value, that it shows how little there is in the past to -interpret the meaning of the Fathers. - - * * * * * - -Every constitution embodies the principles of its framers. It is a -transcript of their minds. If its meaning in any place is open to -doubt, or if words are used which seem to have no fixed signification, -we cannot err in turning to the framers; and their authority increases -in proportion to the evidence they have left on the question. By -“a republican form of government” our fathers plainly intended a -government representing the principles for which they had struggled. -Now, if it appears that through years of controversy they insisted -on certain principles as vital to free government, even to the -extent of encountering the mother country in war,--that afterward, -on solemn occasions, they heralded these principles to the world -as “self-evident truths,”--that also, in declared opinions, they -sustained these principles,--and that in public acts they embodied -these principles,--then is it beyond dispute that these principles must -have entered into the idea of the government they took pains to place -under the guaranty of the nation. But all these things can be shown -unanswerably. - -In these words of hypothesis I foreshadow the four different heads -under which these principles may be seen. - -_First_, as asserted by the Fathers throughout the long radical -controversy which culminated in war. - -_Secondly_, as announced in solemn declarations. - -_Thirdly_, as sustained in declared opinions. - -_Fourthly_, as embodied in public acts. - - * * * * * - -1. I begin with _the principles asserted by our fathers throughout -the protracted controversy that preceded the Revolution_. If Senators -ask why our fathers struggled so long in controversy with the mother -country, and then went forth to battle, they will find that it was to -establish the very principles for which I now contend. To secure the -natural rights of men, and especially to vindicate the controlling -maxim that there can be no taxation without representation, they fought -with argument and then with arms. Had these been conceded, there would -have been no Lexington or Bunker Hill, and the Colonies would have -continued yet longer under transatlantic rule. The first object was -not independence, but the establishment of these principles; and when -at last independence began, it was because these principles could be -secured in no other way. Therefore the triumph of independence was the -triumph of these principles, which necessarily entered into and became -the animating soul of the Republic then and there born. The evidence is -complete, and, if I dwell on it with minuteness, it is because of its -decisive character. - -The great controversy opened with the pretension of Parliament to tax -the Colonies, first disclosed to Benjamin Franklin as early as 1754. It -was at the time a profound secret; but the patriot philosopher, whose -rare intelligence embraced the natural laws of government not less than -those of science, in a few masterly sentences exposed the injustice of -taxation without representation.[85] For a moment the Ministry shrank -back; but at last, when the power of France had been humbled, and the -Colonies were no longer needed as allies in war, George Grenville, -blind to principle and only seeing an increase of revenue, renewed -the irrational claim. The Colonies were to be taxed by the Parliament -in which they had no representation. Two millions and a half of -people--for such was the population then--were to pay taxes without -voice in determining them. The men of that day listened to the tidings -with dismay. In this ministerial outrage they saw the overthrow of -their liberties, whether founded on natural rights or on the rights of -British subjects. In their conclusions they were confirmed by two names -of authority in British history, Algernon Sidney and John Locke, each -of whom solemnly asserted the liberties now in danger. One had borne -his testimony on the scaffold, the other in exile. - -Sidney, in his Discourses on Government, did not hesitate to say, that -“God leaves to man the choice of forms in government,”--and then -again, that “all just magistratical power is from the people.”[86] Such -words were calculated to strengthen the sentiment of human freedom. -But it was Locke who gave formal expression to the very principles now -assailed. In a famous passage of his work on Civil Government, inspired -and tempered by his exile in Holland, this eminent Englishman bore his -testimony. - - “It is true governments cannot be supported without great - charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share of the - protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the - maintenance of it. But still it must be with his own consent, - i. e. the consent of the majority, _giving it either by - themselves or their representatives chosen by them_; for, if - any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the people - by his own authority _and without such consent of the people_, - he thereby invades the fundamental law of property and subverts - the end of government; for what property have I in that which - another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?”[87] - -Here is a plain enunciation of two capital truths: first, that all -political society stands only on the consent of the governed; and, -secondly, that taxation without representation is an invasion of -fundamental right. It was these truths that our fathers embraced in the -controversy before them; and these same truths, happily characterized -by Hallam as “fertile of great revolutions and perhaps pregnant with -more,”[88] are as fertile and as pregnant now as then. - -But even this illumination did not begin with these illustrious -Englishmen. Two centuries before their testimony, Philippe de Comines, -a minister of Louis the Eleventh, in his Memoirs, marking an epoch -in historical literature, announced the same principle; so that here -France antedates England. - - “Is there king or lord on earth who has power, outside his - domain [personal estate], to impose a penny upon his subjects, - _without grant and consent of those who must pay it_, unless by - tyranny or violence?”[89] - -That good man, who excelled so much as teacher, and did so much for -scholarship and history, Arnold of Rugby, records a conclusion hardly -less important than that of his earlier compatriots. - - “It seems to be assumed in modern times that the being born of - free parents within the territory of any particular state, and - the paying towards the support of its government, _conveys a - natural claim to the rights of citizenship_.”[90] - -Others had said there could be taxation only with the consent of the -people taxed. The last authority exhibits citizenship associated with -contribution to the support of the government. This same political -truth appeared in Virginia as early as 1655-6, where, by solemn -enactment, repealing a restriction upon suffrage, it was declared -“something hard and unagreeable to reason that any persons shall pay -equal taxes and yet have no votes in elections.”[91] And it reappears -in the famous Declaration of Rights, adopted unanimously June 12, -1776, which announces that men “cannot be taxed or deprived of their -property for public uses without their own consent or that of their -representatives so elected.”[92] - -Sidney and Locke unquestionably exercised more influence over the -popular mind, preceding the Revolution, than any other writers. They -were constantly quoted, and their names were held in reverence. But -their authority has not ceased. As they spoke to our fathers, they now -speak to us: _Sicut patribus, sic nobis_. - -The cause of Human Liberty, in this great controversy, found voice in -James Otis, a young lawyer of eloquence, learning, and courage, whose -early words, like the notes of the morning bugle mingling with the -dawn, awakened the whole country. Asked by the merchants of Boston -to speak at the bar against Writs of Assistance, issued to enforce -ancient Acts of Parliament, he spoke both as lawyer and as patriot, -and so doing became a statesman. His speech was the most important, -down to that occasion, ever made on this side of the ocean. An earnest -contemporary, who was present, says, “No harangue of Demosthenes or -Cicero ever had such effects upon this globe as that speech.”[93] It -was the harbinger of a new era. For five hours the brilliant orator -unfolded the character of these Acts of Parliament; for five hours he -held the court-room in rapt and astonished admiration; but his effort -ascended into statesmanship, when, after showing that the colonists -were without representation in Parliament, he cried out, that, -notwithstanding this exclusion, Parliament had undertaken to “impose -taxes, and enormous taxes, burdensome taxes, oppressive, ruinous, -intolerable taxes”; and then, glowing with generous indignation at -this injustice, he launched that thunderbolt of political truth, -“Taxation without representation is Tyranny.”[94] From the narrow -court-room where he spoke, the thunderbolt passed, smiting and blasting -the intolerable pretension. It was the idea of John Locke; but the -fervid orator, with tongue of flame, gave to it the intensity of his -own genius. He found it in a book of philosophy; but he sent it forth a -winged messenger blazing in the sky. - -John Adams, then a young man just admitted to the bar, was present at -the scene, and he dwells on it often with sympathetic delight. There, -in the Old Town-House of Boston, sat the five judges of the Province, -with Hutchinson as Chief Justice, in robes of scarlet, cambric bands, -and judicial wigs; and there, too, in gowns, bands, and tie-wigs, were -the barristers. Conspicuous on the wall were full-length portraits of -two British monarchs, Charles the Second and James the Second, while -in the corners were the likenesses of Massachusetts Governors. In -this presence the great oration was delivered. The patriot lawyer had -refused compensation. “In such a cause as this,” said he, “I despise a -fee.” He spoke for country and for mankind. Firmly he planted himself -on the Rights of Man, which he insisted were, by the everlasting -Law of Nature, inherent and inalienable; and these rights, he nobly -proclaimed, were common to all, without distinction of color. To -suppose them surrendered in any other way than by _equal rules and -general consent_ was to suppose men idiot or mad, whose acts are not -binding. But he especially flew at two arguments of tyranny: first, -that the colonists were “virtually” represented, and, secondly, that -there was such a difference between direct and indirect taxation, -that, while the former might be questionable, the latter was not. -To these two apologies he replied, first, that no such phrase as -“virtual representation” was known in Law or Constitution,--that it is -altogether subtilty and illusion, wholly unfounded and absurd,--and -that we must not be cheated by any such phantom, or other fiction -of law or politics, or any monkish trick of deceit and hypocrisy; -and then, with the same crushing force, he said, that, in absence of -representation, all taxation, whether direct or indirect, whether -internal or external, whether on land or trade, was equally obnoxious -to the same unhesitating condemnation.[95] The effect was electric. The -judges were stunned into silence, and postponed judgment. The people -were aroused to a frenzy of patriotism. “American Independence,” says -John Adams, in the record of his impressions, “was then and there -born; the seeds of patriots and heroes were then and there sown, to -defend the vigorous youth. Every man of a crowded audience appeared -to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of -Assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of -opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the -child Independence was born.”[96] But this great birth is inseparably -associated with the principle, then and there declared, that “Taxation -without representation is Tyranny.” - -From this time forward Otis dedicated himself singly to the cause he -had so bravely upheld, and the popular heart clove to him. He became -the favorite of his fellow-countrymen. His arguments were repeated, -his words were gratefully adopted, and the saying, “Taxation without -representation is tyranny,” became a maxim of patriotism. In May, 1761, -only a few weeks after this utterance, he was chosen a representative -of Boston in the Legislature by an almost unanimous vote. The Crown -officers were dismayed by this most significant election, and one of -them, speaking with prophetic lamentation, said it would “shake the -Province to its foundation”; on which John Adams remarked, many years -later, when some of its results were already visible, “That election -has shaken two continents, and will shake four.”[97] Of course this -was simply because it affirmed and invigorated a practical truth of -government by which all the people are confirmed in political power. At -his new post of duty, Otis became the acknowledged leader, constant, -fervid, eloquent, and, according to his own language, “daring to -speak plain English.” While still declaring unhesitating loyalty to -the Crown, and even pledging “the last penny and the last drop of -blood, rather than that by any backwardness of ours his Majesty’s -measures should be embarrassed,” he made haste to announce, in words -where humor blends with truth, that “God made all men naturally -equal,”--that “the ideas of earthly superiority, preëminence, and -grandeur are educational, at least acquired, not innate,”--that “no -government has a right to make hobby-horses, asses, and slaves of the -subject, Nature having made sufficient of the two former for all the -lawful purposes of man, from the harmless peasant in the field to the -most refined politician in the cabinet, but none of the last, which -infallibly proves they are unnecessary.” But the case would have been -imperfectly stated, if the patriot representative had not once more -cried out against taxation without representation, and warned against -the calamities that must follow from this unquestionable tyranny. This -early debate is preserved in a pamphlet, printed in 1762, and entitled -“A Vindication of the Conduct of the House of Representatives of the -Province of the Massachusetts Bay, etc., by James Otis, Esq.,” which, -we are told by an eminent authority, contains, in solid substance, -all that is found in the Declaration of Rights and Wrongs issued by -Congress in 1774, the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and the -subsequent writings of those political philosophers who upheld the -national cause.[98] Pardon me, if I dwell too minutely on this history. -I do it only to illustrate the issue of principle actually made with -the mother country. - -The controversy still continued, when, in 1764, the orator, who by -voice and pen had so bravely maintained the cause of his country, put -forth another publication, entitled “The Rights of the British Colonies -Asserted and Proved.” Mark, if you please, the vigor of the title. -The rights of the Colonies are not only “asserted,” but “proved.” -Reprinted in London, this pamphlet was read by Lord Mansfield, Chief -Justice of England, and was answered by Soame Jenyns, a partisan -writer of the Crown. The copy I hold in my hand has the imprint of -London, and is marked “Third Edition.” All things considered, it is -the most remarkable pamphlet of our country, and one of the most -remarkable ever written. Recent events, verifying the truths it so -early announced, elevate its place in history. Here are the same vital -principles, enforced with learning and eloquence, which Otis announced -at the bar, and then again in the debates of the Legislature; and here -are not only the truths asserted by our fathers, but the unanswerable -arguments by which they were vindicated. Even an abstract would be too -long for this debate; but the character of this Defence of the American -People, not unlike Milton’s famous “Defensio pro Populo Anglicano,” -will appear in a few passages, where, as in gleams, may be discerned -the _Idea of a Republic_. - -I do not pause on the assertion, “that every man of a sound mind should -have his vote,” or the authority he invokes, when he says, “Lord Coke -declares that it is against Magna Charta and against the franchises of -the land, for freemen to be taxed but by their own consent,” both of -which, sounded by him elsewhere,[99] are important premises. Nor do I -dwell on that admirable statement of much in little, “The first simple -principle is Equality and the Power of the Whole.”[100] The Equality of -All and the Power of All!--the two buttresses of a just government. I -come at once to the plain statement of fundamental right. - - “The supreme power cannot take from any man any part of his - property _without his consent in person or by representation_.” - - “Taxes are not to be laid on the people _but by their consent - in person or by deputation_.”[101] - -Such are “the first principles of law and justice, and the great -barriers of a free state”; and then he adds, “I ask, I want no -more.”[102] And these principles he claims for all, without distinction -of color. - - “The colonists are by the Law of Nature free-born, as indeed - all men are, white or black.… Does it follow that ‘tis right - to enslave a man because he is black? Will short, curled hair, - like wool, instead of Christian hair, as ’tis called by those - whose hearts are as hard as the nether millstone, help the - argument? Can any logical inference in favor of Slavery be - drawn from a flat nose, a long or a short face?”[103] - -Assuming these rights as common to all, whether white or black, -he insists that any taxation, whether direct or indirect, without -representation, is only another form of Slavery. - - “I can see no reason to doubt but that the imposition of taxes, - whether on trade, or on land, or houses, or ships, on real - or personal, fixed or floating property, in the Colonies, is - absolutely irreconcilable with the rights of the colonists, - as British subjects, _and as men_. I say men, for in a state - of Nature no man can take my property from me without my - consent. _If he does, he deprives me of my liberty and makes - me a slave.…_ The very act of taxing, exercised over those who - are not represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one - of their most essential rights as freemen, and, if continued, - seems to be in effect _an entire disfranchisement of every - civil right_. For what one civil right is worth a rush, after - a man’s property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure, - without his consent?”[104] - -Such was the voice of James Otis, who was our John the Baptist. It was -he who went before in this great controversy. He first stated the -case between the Colonies and the mother country, and first developed -the principles in issue. But, though first, he was not long alone. -Conspicuous among his followers was Samuel Adams, that austere patriot, -always faithful and true, who desired to make Puritan Boston “a -Christian Sparta.” He was remarkable for the simplicity, accuracy, and -harmony of his style, and on this account often held the pen for the -Legislature or the town-meeting. In obedience to the latter, he drew -up instructions to the Representatives of Boston, afterward adopted in -Faneuil Hall, where, repeating the very arguments of Otis, he says, “If -our trade may be taxed, why not our lands, why not the produce of our -lands, and everything we possess or make use of?” And then, advancing -in the subject, he asks: “If taxes are laid upon us in any shape -_without our having a legal representation where they are laid_, are we -not reduced from the character of free subjects to the miserable state -of tributary slaves?”[105] In proposing this question, he leaves no -room to doubt the answer it deserved. - -Soon thereafter, Franklin, as agent of Pennsylvania, maintained the -same principles in England. But the ministry, hurried on by fatal folly -leading to destruction, persevered in their pretension. The Stamp Act -was passed, and for the first time in our history papers bore stamps, -to swell the revenue of the Crown. Massachusetts remonstrated in formal -resolutions, “particularly considered,” wherein it is declared, “That -there are certain essential rights of the British Constitution of -Government, which are founded in the law of God and Nature, and are -the common rights of mankind,--therefore, … that no man can justly take -the property of another without his consent,-- … that all acts made by -any power whatever, other than the General Assembly of this Province, -imposing taxes on the inhabitants, are infringements of our inherent -and unalienable rights as men and British subjects, and render void the -most valuable declarations of our Charter.”[106] In an address to the -Royal Governor, the Legislature, after setting forth the injustice of -the Stamp Act, proceeded to say, “We must beg your Excellency to excuse -us from doing anything to assist in the execution of it.”[107] The -people in town-meetings took up the strain, and all united against the -Act. But Massachusetts was not alone. - -Virginia, by positive statute, as early as 1655-6 recognized the just -principle, as we have already seen;[108] and now a writer of that -State, catching the spirit of Otis, declared, in an elaborate pamphlet, -that it was “an essential principle of the English Constitution that -the subject shall not be taxed _without his consent_”; and then again, -quoting the words of another, “All men have natural, and freemen legal -rights, which they may justly maintain, and no legislative authority -can deprive them of.”[109] The Legislature of Virginia, even before -Massachusetts, adopted resolutions kindred in spirit, which were moved -by Patrick Henry, and heroically carried by his eloquent voice, even -against the menacing cry of “Treason.” Thus spoke Virginia, exposing -the true issue, and insisting on the inseparability of taxation and -representation:-- - - “_Resolved_, That the taxation of the people by themselves, - or _by persons chosen by themselves to represent them_, who - can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the - easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected - by every tax laid on the people, _is the only security against - a burdensome taxation_ and the distinguishing characteristic of - British freedom, without which the ancient Constitution cannot - exist.”[110] - -Pennsylvania, by her House of Assembly, spoke also to the same effect:-- - -“_Resolved, N. C. D._, That this House think it their duty thus firmly -to assert with modesty and decency their _inherent rights_, that their -posterity may learn and know that it was not with their consent and -acquiescence that _any taxes_ should be levied on them by any persons -but their own representatives.”[111] - -The controversy proceeded. At the invitation of Massachusetts, moved -by Otis, a Congress assembled at New York in October, 1765, having -delegates from Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New -Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and South Carolina, which, -after a prolonged session, adopted a declaration of colonial rights and -grievances, where it is declared:-- - - “That it is inseparably essential to the freedom of a people, - and the undoubted right of Englishmen, that no taxes be - imposed on them _but with their own consent, given personally - or by their representatives_. - - “That the people of these Colonies are not, and from their - local circumstances cannot be, represented in the House of - Commons in Great Britain.”[112] - -At last the Stamp Act was repealed. But the pretension of taxation was -suspended rather than abandoned. A ministerial partisan continued to -urge the scheme in unscrupulous language:-- - - “All countries unaccustomed to taxes are at first violently - prepossessed against them, though the price which they give for - their liberty: like an ox untamed to the yoke, they show at - first a very stubborn neck, but by degrees become docile and - yield a willing obedience.… America must be taxed.”[113] - -As time advanced, the old audacity was revived, and, under the lead -of the reckless Charles Townshend, taxes were imposed by Parliament -on tea, glass, lead, paper, and painters’ colors. The old opposition -in the Colonies was revived also, and taxation without representation -was again denounced. Committees of correspondence were established, -and the work of organization began. The whole country was in a fever. -Massachusetts, as in times past, did not hesitate to proclaim the true -principle. At a town-meeting of Boston in 1772, there was a declaration -of rights, “which no man or body of men, consistently with their own -rights as men and citizens or members of society, can for themselves -give up or take away from others”; and here we meet again familiar -words:-- - - “The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part - of his property without his consent in person or by his - representatives.”[114] - -Against all Parliamentary taxation, as often as it showed itself, this -impenetrable buckler was lifted. But the mother country was perverse. -Ship-loads of tea arrived. At Boston the tea was thrown into the dock. -The Colonies entered into an agreement of non-importation. Then came -troops, and the Boston Port Bill, by which this harbor was vindictively -closed against commerce. The whole country, including even South -Carolina, made common cause with Massachusetts. Gadsden exclaimed, -“Massachusetts sounded the trumpet, but to Carolina is it owing that it -was attended to.”[115] And Virginia exclaimed, “_We will never be taxed -but by our own representatives._ This is the great badge of Freedom.… -Whether the people in Boston were warranted by justice, when they -destroyed the tea, we know not; but this we know, that the Parliament, -by their proceedings, have made us and all North America parties in -the present dispute.”[116] Meanwhile more troops arrived. All things -portended strife; and yet the colonists did not ask for independence. -They only asked for rights, insisting always that there should be no -taxation without representation. “The patriots of this Province,” said -John Adams in 1774, “desire nothing new; they wish only to keep their -old privileges. They were for one hundred and fifty years allowed to -tax themselves, and govern their internal concerns as they thought -best. Parliament governed their trade as they thought fit. This plan -they wish may continue forever.”[117] Thus stood the two parties face -to face. - -Then came the Continental Congress, which at once put forth -resolutions, where, after claiming the enjoyment of life, liberty, and -property, as natural rights, it was insisted that the colonists could -be bound by no law to which they had not consented by representatives. -Here was the original programme of James Otis: first, the rights of -men, according to Natural Law; and, secondly, the principle that -government, including of course taxation, depended on the consent of -the governed. “_The foundation_ of English Liberty and _of all free -government_,” said these resolutions, “is a right in the people to -participate in their legislative council.”[118] In harmony with these -resolutions were the several addresses of the Continental Congress,--to -the people of Great Britain, to the inhabitants of the Province of -Quebec, and to the king himself,--always pleading for Human Rights in -the largest sense. The address to the people of Great Britain begins -by an appeal for “the rights of men and the blessings of Liberty,” and -then insists “that no power on earth has a right to take our property -from us without our consent.”[119] The address to the inhabitants of -the Province of Quebec, in similar spirit, says: “_The first grand -right is that of the people having a share in their own government by -their representatives chosen by themselves_, and, in consequence, of -being ruled by laws which they themselves approve, not by edicts of -men over whom they have no control. This is a bulwark surrounding and -defending their property.”[120] And the petition to the king has the -same key-note: “Duty to your Majesty, and regard for the preservation -of ourselves and our posterity, _the primary obligations of Nature -and society_, command us to entreat your royal attention.”[121] Thus -constantly, down to the last moment, did our fathers set forth the -principles they sought to establish as essential to free government. -Thus constantly did they testify to the cause for which I now plead. - -Answering voices came back from England, announcing the principles in -issue. The right of taxation was asserted; but there were many who -disguised the tyranny by assuming that the Colonies were “virtually -represented.” Perhaps that spirit of legal technicality which is -satisfied by form at the expense of reason was never more strikingly -illustrated than in the argument of Sir James Marriott, the Admiralty -Judge, who gravely insisted, in the House of Commons, that England -“had an undoubted right to tax America, because she was represented by -the members for the County of Kent, of which the thirteen provinces -were a part or parcel, for in their charters they were to hold of -the manor of Greenwich in Kent.”[122] The whole pretension had been -scouted by the indignant eloquence of Mr. Pitt, afterward Lord Chatham. -“The idea,” said he, “of a _virtual representation_ of America in -this House is the most contemptible idea that ever entered into the -head of a man. It does not deserve a serious refutation.”[123] As -the controversy continued, and especially as those masterly state -papers, the addresses of the Continental Congress, reached England, -the ministers of the king were put on the defensive. They retained as -advocate none other than Samuel Johnson, who, for “small hire,” lent -the pen which had written “Rasselas,” “The Vanity of Human Wishes,” -and the English Dictionary, to a rancorous attack on the principles of -our fathers. Its concentrated venom was all expressed in the title, -“Taxation no Tyranny.” Another pamphlet appeared in reply, with the -epigram, “Resistance no Rebellion,” embodying the idea, that, where -there is taxation without representation, resistance is justifiable; -and thus was issue joined at London. This was in 1775. Already the -“embattled farmers” had gathered at Lexington and Bunker Hill; already -Washington had drawn his sword at Cambridge, as commander-in-chief and -generalissimo of the new-born armies; already war had begun. At last, -to the defiant watchword, “Taxation no Tyranny,” hurled from London, -our fathers returned that other defiant watchword, “Independence.” But -they did not turn their backs upon the principles asserted throughout -the long controversy. Independence was the means to an end, and that -end was nothing less than a Republic, with Liberty and Equality as -animating principles, where government stood on the consent of the -governed, or, which is the same thing, where there should be no -taxation without representation: for here was the distinctive feature -of American institutions. - - * * * * * - -2. The principles heralded through fifteen years of controversy were -not forgotten when Independence was declared: and here I come to the -national declarations of the Fathers. - -It sometimes happens that men fail in support of the cause to which -they are pledged, or content themselves with something less than -the truth. But not so with our fathers. In declaring Independence -they continued loyal to their constant vows. The natural rights of -all men, and the consent of the people as the only just foundation -of government, which James Otis first announced, which Samuel Adams -maintained with severe simplicity, which Patrick Henry vindicated -even against the cry of “Treason,” and which had been affirmed by -legislative bodies and public meetings, were embodied in the opening -words of the Declaration. There they stand, like a sublime overture -to the new Republic, interpreting, inspiring, and filling it with -transforming power. - - “We hold these truths to be _self-evident_: that _all men are - created equal_; that they are endowed by their Creator with - certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, - and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights - governments are instituted among men, _deriving their just - powers from the consent of the governed_.” - -Nor did these declarations proceed from the National Congress alone. -The States spoke also in their Bills of Rights. - -Foremost is the Equality of All Men. Of course, in a declaration of -rights, no such supreme folly was intended as that all men are created -equal in form or capacity, bodily or mental,--but simply that they are -created equal in rights. This is grandest of the self-evident truths -announced, leading and governing all the rest. Life, liberty, and the -pursuit of happiness are among inalienable rights; but they are all -in subordination to that primal truth. Here is the starting-point of -the whole; and the end is like the starting-point. Announcing that -governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, -the Declaration repeats the same proclamation of Equal Rights. Thus -is Equality the Alpha and the Omega, wherein all other rights are -embraced. Men may not have a natural right to certain things, but most -clearly they have a natural right to _impartial laws_, without which -justice, being the end and aim of government, must fail. Equality in -rights is the first of rights. Because these self-evident truths, -beginning with Equality, had been set at nought by Great Britain, in -her relations with our fathers, Independence was declared. To these -truths, therefore, was the new Government solemnly dedicated, as it -assumed its separate and equal station among the powers of the earth. -Do you ask for the definition of Republic? Here it is, by patriot -lexicographers, whose authority none of us can question. - -As the War of Independence began with a declaration of principles, -so it ended with a like declaration. At its successful close, the -Continental Congress, in an Address to the States, by the pen of James -Madison, thus announced the objects for which it had been waged, and -thus supplied another definition of the new government:-- - - “Let it be remembered that it has ever been the pride and boast - of America, _that the rights for which she contended were - the rights of human nature_. By the blessing of the Author - of these rights on the means exerted for their defence, they - have prevailed against all opposition, and _form the basis_ - of thirteen independent States. No instance has heretofore - occurred, nor can any instance be expected hereafter to occur, - in which the _unadulterated forms of Republican Government_ can - pretend to so fair an opportunity of justifying themselves by - their fruits. In this view, the citizens of the United States - are responsible for the greatest trust ever confided to a - political society.”[124] - -Such, also, was the sublime sentiment promulgated by Washington from -his camp, in a general order, near the same date, announcing the close -of the war, where he declares his “rapture” in the national prospects, -and the three-fold happiness for all “who have assisted in protecting -_the rights of human nature_.”[125] It was for “the rights of human -nature” that our fathers went forth to battle, and these rights are -proclaimed to “form the basis of thirteen independent States.” But -supreme among these is Equality, including of course the equal right of -all to a voice in the Government. And this is the Republic which our -fathers, with pride and boast, then gave as an example to mankind. - -The same spirit appears in the National Constitution, which, by its -preamble, asserts practically similar sentiments:-- - - “We, the people of the United States, in order to form a - more perfect union, _establish justice_, insure domestic - tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the - general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to - ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this - Constitution for the United States of America.” - -Thus was the National Constitution ordained, not to create an oligarchy -or aristocracy, not to exclude certain persons from the pale of its -privileges, not to organize _inequality of rights_ in any form, -but to “establish justice,” which is Equality,--to “insure domestic -tranquillity,” which is vain without justice,--to “provide for the -common defence,” which is the defence of all,--to “promote the general -welfare,” which is the welfare of all,--and to “secure the blessings of -liberty” to all the people and their posterity, which is giving to all -the complete enjoyment of rights central among which is Equality. Here, -then, is another authoritative definition. - -Thus has our country testified to its idea of a Republic, not only -throughout long days of controversy, but in national declarations, -being in themselves monumental acts. - - * * * * * - -3. From these national declarations I come now to the _Opinions of the -Fathers_. Here you see how these same principles have been sustained -by eminent characters, whose names are historic, all testifying to the -government they founded and upheld. In their weighty words you find a -definition, constantly repeated, in harmony with all the promises of -the Fathers, whether in controversy or in solemn instruments which are -the very title-deeds of the Republic. - - * * * * * - -I begin with Benjamin Franklin, who saw all questions of Government -with a surer instinct than any other person in our history. As early as -1736, while still a young man, he wrote an article, which was published -in the Pennsylvania Gazette, containing these words:-- - - “Popular Governments have not been framed without the wisest - reasons. It seemed highly fitting that the conduct of - magistrates, _created by and for the good of the whole_, should - be made liable to the inspection and animadversion of _the - whole_.”[126] - -It is for _the good of the whole_, and not for an odious oligarchy or -an aristocratic class, that our patriot speaks, and in these words -is foreshadowed the idea of a republican government. But it was in -discussions, after Otis had hurled his flaming bolt, that we find a -fuller and more precise definition. Here it is, as adopted, if not -written, by Franklin:-- - - “That _every man_ of the commonalty (excepting infants, insane - persons, and criminals) is, of common right, and by the laws of - God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. - - “_That liberty, or freedom, consists in having an actual share - in the appointment of those who frame the laws_, and who are to - be the guardians of every man’s life, property, and peace: for - the _all_ of one man is as dear to him as the _all_ of another; - and the poor man has an _equal_ right, but _more_ need, to have - representatives in the Legislature than the rich one. - - “That they who have no voice nor vote in the electing - of representatives _do not enjoy liberty, but are - absolutely enslaved to those who have votes, and to their - representatives_: for to be enslaved is to have governors - whom _other men have set over us_, and be subject to laws - _made by the representatives of others_, without having - had representatives of our own to give consent in _our_ - behalf.”[127] - -In these emphatic words is a complete vindication of the _equal right_ -of representation, as essential to free government,--so much so, that, -where this does not exist, Liberty does not exist. - -Jefferson followed Franklin in the same vein, but with greater fervor. -The author of the Declaration of Independence could not do otherwise. -Constantly he testifies to his idea of a Republic. Thus he wrote to -Alexander von Humboldt, under date of June 13, 1817, affirming the -rights of the majority as “the first principle of Republicanism,” and -assuming the principle of Equal Rights:-- - - “The first principle of Republicanism is, that the _lex majoris - partis_ is the fundamental law of every society of individuals - _of equal rights_. To consider the will of the society enounced - by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is - the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which - is thoroughly learnt. This law once disregarded, no other - remains but that of force, which ends necessarily in military - despotism.”[128] - -In another letter, to John Taylor, of Caroline, dated May 28, 1816, he -thus defines a Republic:-- - - “Indeed, it must be acknowledged that the term _Republic_ - is of very vague application in every language. Witness the - self-styled Republics of Holland, Switzerland, Genoa, Venice, - Poland. Were I to assign to this term a precise and definite - idea, I would say, purely and simply, it means _a government - by its citizens in mass_, acting directly and personally, - _according to rules established by the majority_,--and that - every other government is more or less republican in proportion - as it has in its composition more or less of this ingredient of - the direct action of the citizens.”[129] - -Here again, while confessing the unquestionable vagueness of the term -according to old examples, he assumes that in a republic all citizens -must have a voice. And again, in the same letter, he thus indignantly -condemns denial of representation:-- - - “And also that one half of our brethren who fight and pay taxes - are excluded, like Helots, from the rights of representation, - as if society were instituted for the soil, and not for - the men inhabiting it, _or one half of these could dispose - of the rights and the will of the other half without their - consent_.”[130] - -Thus did he scout the whole wretched pretension of oligarchy and -monopoly by which citizens are deprived of equal rights. - -To these may be added his earliest and latest declarations on this -important question. The earliest is in his “Notes on Virginia,” written -in 1781, where he recognizes “a reciprocation of right” as a presiding -principle:-- - - “When arguing for ourselves, we lay it down as a fundamental, - that laws, to be just, must give _a reciprocation of right_: - that without this they are mere arbitrary rules of conduct, - founded in force, and not in conscience.”[131] - -The latest declaration was in 1826, the year of his death. It is in -a paper containing some of his most intimate opinions. Here he bears -testimony to “_equality_ among our citizens” as “essential to the -maintenance of republican government.”[132] These are among his dying -words. - - * * * * * - -Madison was colder in nature than Jefferson; but they were associates -in opinion, as in political life. In the debates on the National -Constitution the former condemned the denial of rights on account of -color:-- - - “We have seen the mere distinction of color made, in the most - enlightened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive - dominion ever exercised by man over man.”[133] - -Speaking directly of the right of suffrage, he uses the following -language:-- - - “_The right of suffrage is certainly one of the fundamental - articles of republican government_, and ought not to be left - to be regulated by the legislature. A gradual abridgment of - this right has been the mode in which _aristocracies_ have been - built on the ruins of popular forms.”[134] - -Thus declaring himself against “aristocracies,” he naturally recognized -the true idea; and here he was perplexed by the question of a property -qualification, and the effort to reconcile it with “the right of -suffrage,” which he calls “a fundamental article in republican -constitutions.”[135] In another place, he says of “confining the right -of suffrage to freeholders”: “It violates _the vital principle_ of free -government, that those who are to be bound by laws ought to have a -voice in making them; and the violation would be more strikingly unjust -as the lawmakers become the minority.”[136] Completely recognizing the -great American principle, that just government can stand only on “the -consent of the governed,” he is brought to this conclusion:-- - - “Under every view of the subject, it seems indispensable - that the mass of citizens should not be without a voice in - making the laws which they are to obey, and in choosing the - magistrates who are to administer them.”[137] - -In one of the most remarkable chapters of the “Federalist,” Madison -gives expansion to this idea in his formal definition of a Republic:-- - - “If we resort for a criterion to the different principles - on which different forms of government are established, we - may define a Republic to be, or at least may bestow that - name on, _a government which derives all its powers directly - or indirectly from the great body of the people_, and is - administered by persons holding their offices during pleasure, - for a limited period, or during good behavior. _It is essential - to such a government that it be derived from the great body - of the society, not from an inconsiderable proportion_, OR A - FAVORED CLASS OF IT: otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, - exercising their oppressions by a delegation of their powers, - might aspire to the rank of republicans, and claim for their - government the honorable title of Republic.”[138] - -Thus, in few significant words, does this authority teach that a -Republic is a government derived from “the great body of the people,” -and not from “a favored class of it.” Better words could not be found -for the American definition. - -I repeat these two conditions of republican government according to -Madison: _First_, the government must be derived from the _great body_ -of the people; and, _secondly_, it cannot spring from any _favored -class_. - -That the colored race should not be excluded from this definition may -be justly inferred from his remark, already quoted, that “where Slavery -exists the _republican_ theory becomes still more fallacious,”[139] -and also from his correspondence at a later day with Lafayette, whose -devotion to the great principle of Equal Rights was blazoned before -the world. Writing to the latter, November 25, 1820, he said:-- - - “The Constitutions and laws of the different States are much - at variance in the civic character given to free persons of - color: those of most of the States, not excepting such as have - abolished Slavery, imposing _various disqualifications_, which - _degrade_ them from the rank and rights of white persons. - _All these perplexities develop more and more the dreadful - fruitfulness of the original sin of the African trade._”[140] - -“Various disqualifications which degrade them”; “dreadful -fruitfulness”: such are some of the terms in which judgment is -recorded. Another letter, also to Lafayette, written as late as -February 1, 1830, says:-- - - “Outlets for the freed blacks are alone wanted for a rapid - erasure of the blot [of Slavery] from our _Republican - character_.”[141] - -Thus, in his opinion, was the treatment of this unhappy people -inconsistent with the “Republican character.” - - * * * * * - -Hamilton follows with perhaps equal authority. Though approaching -political questions from opposite points of view, we find him uniting -with Franklin, Jefferson, and Madison. Here is a glimpse of the -definition he would supply:-- - - “As long as offices are _open to all men_ and _no - constitutional rank_ is established, it is pure - republicanism.”[142] - -Not for an oligarchy, but for _all_, is a Republic created. Then again -he testifies for Equal Rights, and against _partial distinctions_:-- - - “There can be no truer principle than this, that _every - individual of the community at large has an equal right to the - protection of Government_.… We propose _a free government_. Can - it be so, if _partial distinctions_ are maintained?”[143] - -Again he says, in positive words:-- - - “A share in the sovereignty of the State, which is exercised - by the citizens at large in voting at elections, is one of the - most important rights of the subject, _and in a Republic ought - to stand foremost in the estimation of the law_. It is that - right by which we exist a free people.”[144] - -He then exhibits the crowning lesson:-- - - “The principles of the Revolution taught the inhabitants of - this country to risk their lives and fortunes in asserting - their liberty, or, in other words, _their right to a share in - the government_. That portion of the sovereignty to which each - individual is entitled can never be too highly prized. It is - that for which we have fought and bled.”[145] - -More could not be said in the few words. But it is when Hamilton comes -to consider the National Constitution and to expound its provisions, -that, while recognizing the anomalous condition of Slavery, and -exposing what he calls “the compromising expedient of the Constitution” -by which “_the slave_ is divested of two fifths of _the man_,” he yet -declares “the equal level of free inhabitants,” and announces, “that, -if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, _the -negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation -with the other inhabitants_.” Here is this important text,--which has -additional authority when it is considered that it was attributed also -to Madison, and indeed claimed by him, who thus acknowledged the -sentiments as his own:-- - - “It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed - the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is denied - to them in the computation of numbers; AND IT IS ADMITTED, - THAT, IF THE LAWS WERE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN - TAKEN AWAY, THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN EQUAL - SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHER INHABITANTS.”[146] - -Thus, according to Hamilton, if the slaves are restored to the -rights which have been taken away,--in other words, if they become -freemen,--they will be on the same _equal level_, and entitled to -the same _equal share_ of representation with the other inhabitants. -The two ideas of Equality and a Right to Representation, so early -and constantly avowed by the Fathers, are here again recognized as -essential conditions of government; and this is the true definition of -a Republic. - -With these great representative names to illustrate the American idea -I might close the catalogue. Surely this is sufficient. But there are -others, whose authority cannot be disregarded. - - * * * * * - -Here is the testimony of that inflexible spirit, who had thought and -acted much, Samuel Adams, in a letter to his kinsman, John Adams:-- - - “That the sovereignty _resides in the people_ is a political - doctrine which I have never heard an American politician - seriously deny.… _We, the people_, is the style of the Federal - Constitution. They adopted it; and, conformably to it, they - delegate the exercise of the powers of government to particular - persons, who, after short intervals, resign their powers _to - the people_, and they will reëlect them, or appoint others, as - they think fit.”[147] - -Here also is the testimony of another Republican, who signed the -Declaration of Independence, Roger Sherman, in a letter to John Adams:-- - - “What especially denominates it a _Republic_ is its dependence - on the _public_ or _people at large_, without any hereditary - powers. But it is not of so much importance by what appellation - the government is distinguished as to have it well constituted - _to secure the rights and advance the happiness of the - community_.”[148] - -There also was John Adams himself, who was the least distinct of all -the Fathers on this question; but we find in the Preface to his Defence -of the American Constitutions a passage full of prophetic meaning:-- - - “Thirteen governments, thus founded on _the natural authority - of the people alone_, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, - and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that - whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor - of _the rights of mankind_.”[149] - -Here is a plain assertion that our Thirteen States were founded “on the -natural authority of the people alone,” and that they were destined to -spread over all North America. - -Charles Pinckney, in a speech on the adoption of the Constitution, -speaks for South Carolina:-- - - “The doctrine of representation is the fundamental of a - republic.… As to the United Netherlands, it is such a confusion - of states and assemblies, that I have always been at loss what - species of government to term it. According to my idea of the - word, it is not a republic; for I conceive it as indispensable - in a republic that all authority should flow from the people.… - A republic is _where the people at large_, either collectively - or by representation, form the Legislature.”[150] - -Luther Martin, an able representative of Maryland in the Convention, -while vindicating a prohibition or tax on the importation of slaves, -said:-- - - “The privilege of importing them was unreasonable; and it - was inconsistent with the principles of the Revolution, and - dishonorable to the American character, to have such a feature - in the Constitution.”[151] - -Afterwards, in his address to the Legislature of Maryland, he announced -that both in the Committee and in the Convention he was influenced by -the argument,-- - - “that Slavery is inconsistent with _the genius of - republicanism_, and has a tendency to destroy those principles - on which it is supported, _as it lessens the sense of the - Equal Rights of mankind_, and habituates us to tyranny and - oppression.”[152] - -Thus was a “sense of the Equal Rights of mankind” one of the principles -on which Republicanism rested. - -And here is one more word from Virginia: it is Colonel Mason, who -always spoke with so much point:-- - - “The true idea, in his opinion, was, that _every man_, having - evidence of attachment to and permanent common interest - with the society, ought to share in all its rights and - privileges.”[153] - -Again we have a plain recognition of the Revolutionary idea. - - * * * * * - -Here, also, is another authority. I quote a Virginia writer on -Government,--John Taylor, of Caroline:-- - - “The end of the guaranty is ‘a republican form of government.’ - The meaning of this expression is not so unsettled here as - in other countries, because we agree in one descriptive - character as essential to the existence of a republican - form of government. _This is representation. We do not - admit a government to be even in its origin republican, - unless it is instituted by representation_; nor do we allow - it to be so, unless its legislation is also founded upon - representation.”[154] - -I close this array, illustrative of opinion, with the words of Daniel -Webster, in harmony with the rest:-- - - “Now, fellow-citizens, I will venture to state, in a few - words, what I take these American political principles in - substance to be. They consist, as I think, in the first place, - in the establishment of popular governments on the basis of - representation.… _This representation is to be made as equal as - circumstances will allow._”[155] - -Then again, on another occasion, he said:-- - - “This is the true idea of a State. It is an organized - government, representing _the collected will of the people_, as - far as they see fit to invest that government with power.”[156] - -Thus, at every stage, from the opening, when Otis announced the master -principle, “Taxation without representation is Tyranny,” all along to -Daniel Webster, we find “Representation” an essential element in the -American definition of republican government. - - * * * * * - -4. From authoritative opinions I pass to _public acts_, which testify -to the true idea of republican government. These are of two classes: -first, by the United States, in their collective character; and, -secondly, by the States individually. - - * * * * * - -Looking at the States in their collective character, we find that at -the adoption of the National Constitution they refused to recognize any -exclusion from the elective franchise on account of race or color. The -Fathers knew too well the requirements of a republican government to -sanction such exclusion. Recognizing Slavery as a transitory condition, -soon to cease, they threw over it a careful oblivion; but they were -none the less jealous of the rights of all freemen. _The slave did -not pay taxes_, and, so far as he was a person and not property, he -was part of the family of his master, by whom he was represented, so -that in his case the commanding principle of the Revolution was not -disturbed. But, becoming a freeman, the slave stepped at once within -the pale of taxation, and therefore necessarily of representation, -since the two are inseparable. And this consideration was the guide to -our fathers. - -The Continental Congress refused point-blank to insert the word “white” -in the Articles of Confederation. The question came up, June 25, 1778, -on these words: “THE FREE INHABITANTS of each of these States (paupers, -vagabonds, and fugitives from justice excepted) shall be entitled to -all privileges and immunities of FREE CITIZENS in the several States.” -The delegates from South Carolina moved, in behalf of their State, to -limit this guaranty to “free WHITE inhabitants.” On the question of -inserting the word “white,” eleven States voted,--two in favor of the -insertion, one was divided, and eight were against it. South Carolina, -not disheartened, made another attempt, by moving to add, after the -words “the several States,” the further clause, “according to the -law of such States respectively for the government of their own FREE -WHITE inhabitants,”--thus seeking again to limit the operation of the -guaranty. This proposition was voted down by the same decisive majority -of eight to three. And thus did our fathers testify to the right of -representation without distinction of color. On other occasions, for -successive years, they constantly gave the same testimony. - -A resolution of Congress in April, 1783, seconded by the report of a -Grand Committee, of which Mr. Jefferson was Chairman, in April, 1784, -recommended an Amendment of the Articles of Confederation, whereby -the war expenses should be apportioned among the several States -according to “the whole number of white and _other free citizens and -inhabitants_,”--thus positively embracing colored persons. In the -Act for the Temporary Government of the Territory “ceded or to be -ceded” to the United States, April 23, 1784, and drawn by Jefferson, -the voters are declared to be the “free males of full age,” without -distinction of color. In the famous Ordinance for the Government of the -Northwestern Territory, drawn by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, adopted -by the Confederation July 13, 1787, and then reënacted by our Congress -after the adoption of the Constitution, the voters are declared to -be “free male inhabitants of full age,”--again without distinction -of color. Then came successive Acts of Congress for the government -of Territories, where the rule in the Ordinance for the Northwestern -Territory was followed, and there was no distinction of color. If this -rule changed, it was only when the partakers in the Revolution and the -authors of the Constitution ceased to exercise influence over public -affairs. The testimony of the Fathers was constant, and it is only of -this that I speak. - - * * * * * - -Turning from the States collectively, and looking at them individually, -we find the same testimony. By the Constitution of New Hampshire, -at the adoption of the National Constitution, the suffrage was -vested in “every male inhabitant of each town and parish,” with -certain qualifications, but without exclusion on account of color. -By the Constitution of Massachusetts the suffrage was vested in -“every male inhabitant,” with certain specified qualifications, but -without distinction of color. Rhode Island, at the adoption of the -Constitution, was under her original colonial charter, which provided -for elections by “the major part of the freemen of the respective towns -or places,” without distinction of color. Connecticut was likewise -under her original colonial charter, which also provided for elections -by “the major part of the freemen of the respective towns, cities, and -places,” without distinction of color. By the Constitution of New York -the suffrage was vested in “every male inhabitant of full age,” with -certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By -the Constitution of New Jersey it was vested in “all inhabitants of -this Colony of full age,” with certain specified qualifications, but -without distinction of color. By the Constitution of Pennsylvania it -was vested in “every freeman of the full age of twenty-one years,” with -certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. -By the Declaration of Rights prefixed to the Constitution of Delaware -it was announced that “every freeman, having sufficient evidence of -a permanent common interest with and attachment to the community, -hath a right of suffrage,” without distinction of color; and in the -Constitution the suffrage was vested in “the freemen and inhabitants -of the respective counties,” with certain specified exceptions, -but without distinction of color. By the Constitution of Maryland -the suffrage was vested in “all freemen above twenty-one years of -age,” with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction -of color. By the Constitution of North Carolina the suffrage was -vested in “all freemen of the age of twenty-one years,” with certain -specified qualifications, but without distinction of color; and this -rule continued down to 1836, when the Constitution was amended, or -rather, let me say, perverted. That eminent citizen, Judge Gaston, -of North Carolina, in giving judgment at a later day, said: “It is a -matter of universal notoriety, that _free persons, without regard to -color, claimed and exercised the franchise_.”[157] To these States I -add Tennessee, which was carved out of North Carolina, and followed -her benign example. Her Constitution, adopted in 1796, vested the -suffrage in “every freeman of the age of twenty-one years,” with -certain qualifications, but without distinction of color; and this rule -continued down to the perversion of the Constitution in 1834. Mr. Cave -Johnson, of Tennessee, once Postmaster General, is reported to have -said that he was originally elected to Congress by the votes of colored -persons, and I have heard Mr. John Bell make the same confession with -regard to himself. - -Virginia was inconsistent and uncandid. By the Declaration of Rights -prefixed to her Constitution it was announced that “ALL MEN, having -sufficient evidence of permanent common interest with and attachment -to the community, have the right of suffrage,” without distinction -of color; and it is added, that they “_cannot be taxed or deprived -of their property for public uses without their own consent_ or that -of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which -they have not in like manner assented for the public good.” This was -entirely worthy of the eminent citizens who adorned that State. But -a subsequent provision of the Constitution preserved the right of -suffrage “as exercised at present”: thus embodying, without naming, -the legislative exclusion of free negroes, mulattoes, and Indians, -“although such persons be freeholders.” This discreditable manœuvre -becomes more notable in view of an incident in the early history of -Virginia, curious and important, and also applicable to all the States -during their colonial existence. It was on the enactment of a statute -in 1723, “that no free negro, mulatto, or Indian whatsoever shall -hereafter have any vote at the election of burgesses, or any other -election whatsoever,”[158] when the tyranny here manifest was rebuked -with unexpected plainness. The legal authority in England, to whom this -colonial statute was submitted for review and approval, reported, in -admirable words:-- - - “I cannot see why one freeman should be used worse than another - _merely upon account of his complexion_.… To vote at elections - of officers, either for a county or parish, &c., is incident - to every freeman who is possessed of a certain amount of - property.”[159] - -Georgia was fitful. By her Constitution of 1777, in existence -immediately anterior to the National Constitution, suffrage was -confined to “male _white_ inhabitants.” But a Constitution adopted -May 6, 1789, and another adopted May 30, 1798, accorded suffrage to -“citizens and inhabitants,” with certain specified qualifications, but -without the word “white.” - -It only remains to speak of South Carolina, the persistent marplot of -republican institutions, where, by the Constitution, the suffrage was -vested in “every free _white_ man, and no other person,” with certain -specified qualifications. This was the only State among the original -Thirteen, unless Georgia be grouped with South Carolina, which at that -time allowed a color discrimination in its Constitution. It was the -only State which, after uniting in a National Declaration that “all -men are created equal,” openly and audaciously commenced the example -of “a white man’s government.” This apostate idea, which has since -played such a part as a disturber of the national peace, was then and -there born, as the opposite idea was born in Massachusetts, under -the inspiring words of James Otis. And the other States, in their -Constitutions, followed this patriot voice. They spoke of “persons,” -“inhabitants,” “freemen,” or, better still, “men,” without prefix of -“white.” Color was not mentioned. But even in South Carolina, which -introduced the discreditable tyranny into her Constitution, this -exclusion was more apparent than real. In point of fact, even as late -as 1790, when the first census was taken, there were in this State -only one thousand eight hundred and one free colored citizens. Of -course their exclusion was wrong, mean, and unrepublican; but I do not -assert that it was such a case as to justify the interference of the -nation to reform it, especially where there was no lapse of the State -Government. On the other hand, its sufferance cannot be interpreted -as a waiver of the principles for which the Revolution was fought. -But even in South Carolina there had been a spasm of virtue. In 1757 -there was a “flourishing negro school” at Charleston, and in 1709 we -find a complaint that “even negroes” had been admitted to vote. Though -denounced as an abuse, the precedent is authenticated by a disgusted -inhabitant.[160] - - * * * * * - -Such are the public acts of the States, collectively and individually, -at the adoption of the National Constitution, illustrating with rare -harmony the American idea of a Republic, and testifying against -any exclusion founded on color. Add to these, that the National -Constitution, carefully excepting from the basis of Representation -“Indians _not taxed_,” pays open homage to the principle that there -can be no taxation without representation; add then that it expressly -founds the Government upon “the people,” not only in the preamble, -which begins “We the people,” but also in providing that the House of -Representatives shall be “chosen by the people of the several States”; -add also the crowning fact, that it recognizes no distinction of color, -that it treats all with the same impartial justice, that the word -“white” does not appear there, and who are we, Sir, who dare foist into -this Magna Charta an oligarchical idea which finds no sanction in its -republican text? - - * * * * * - -Here I bring this part of the argument to a close. We have seen the -origin of the controversy which led to the Revolution, when Otis, -with such solid claim, insisted upon Equal Rights, and then, giving -practical effect to the grand demand, sounded the battle-cry, “Taxation -without Representation is Tyranny”; we have followed the controversy -in its anxious stages, where these principles were constantly asserted -and constantly denied, until it broke forth in battle; we have seen -these principles adopted as the very frontlet of the Republic, when -it assumed its place in the family of nations, and then again when it -ordained its Constitution; we have seen them avowed and illustrated in -memorable words by the greatest authorities of our history; lastly, -we have seen them embodied in public acts of the States collectively -and individually; and now, out of this concurring, cumulative, -and unimpeachable testimony, constituting a speaking aggregation -absolutely without precedent, I offer you the American definition of -a Republican form of government. In vain do you cite philosophers -or publicists, or the examples of former history. Against these I -put the early and constant postulates of the Fathers, the corporate -declarations of the Fathers, the avowed opinions of the Fathers, and -the public acts of the Fathers, all with one voice proclaiming, first, -that all men are equal in rights, and, secondly, that government -derives its just powers from the consent of the governed; and here -is the American idea of a Republic, which must be adopted in the -interpretation of the National Constitution. You cannot reject it. As -well reject the Decalogue in determining moral duties, or reject the -multiplication-table in determining a question of arithmetic. - -Counter to this irresistible conclusion there can be only one -suggestion having any seeming plausibility, and this is founded on -the contemporary recognition of Slavery. On this point, it is enough, -if I remind you, first, that our fathers did not recognize Slavery -as a permanent part of our system, but treated it as exceptional and -transitory, while they concealed it from view by words which might -mean something else; secondly, that the slave was always regarded, -legally and politically, as part of the family of his master, according -to the nomenclature of Blackstone’s Commentaries, much read at the -time, where master and servant are grouped with husband and wife, -parent and child, and, as in the case of wife and child, _the slave -is represented by the head of the family, who also paid taxes on his -account_, so that in his case the cardinal principle of the Revolution, -associating representation and taxation together, was not essentially -violated; and, thirdly, that by the acts of the Continental Congress, -and generally by the State Constitutions, all distinction of color was -discarded in determining the elective franchise, and that illustrious -expounders of the National Constitution, as if anticipating the very -question before us, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison, announced -in the “Federalist,” IF THE LAWS WERE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS WHICH -HAVE BEEN TAKEN AWAY, THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN -EQUAL SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHER INHABITANTS. Such was -the understanding, and such the promise, at the adoption of the -Constitution. Such was the declared meaning of our fathers, according -to the concurrent contemporary testimony of Hamilton and Madison. -Therefore, while confessing sorrowfully the terrible inconsistency in -recognizing Slavery, and throwing over their shame the mantle which the -son of Noah threw over his father, we must reject every argument or -inference on this account against the true idea of a Republic, which -is none other than a government where all citizens have an _equal -voice_. As Washington, by divine example, gave to mankind a new idea -of political greatness, so did the Fathers, by inspired teaching, give -to mankind a new idea of Government. Do you ask again for authority? -I offer it in its many forms. It is the early Vocabulary of James -Otis, Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin; it is the -Dictionary of the Revolution; it is the Lexicon of our National -History; it is the Thesaurus of Public Acts. This new idea was the -great discovery of our fathers. Rob them of this, and you take their -highest title to gratitude. Columbus, venturing into an unknown sea, -discovered a New World of Space; but our fathers, venturing likewise, -discovered a New World of Public Duty. It is for us, their children, to -profit by their discovery. - - * * * * * - -For determining the meaning of our own Constitution in a momentous -requirement without precedent, American authority and example are -enough; but I would not have you forget that the conclusion on which I -rest is grandly sustained by France. Here I shall be brief. - -I cannot begin with a higher name than Montaigne, who, though never -defining a Republic, let drop words which, coming from such a master, -are invaluable:-- - - “Popular rule seems to me the most natural and equitable.” - “Equality is the first part of equity.”[161] - -In the same spirit, Montesquieu, while failing to supply a precise -definition, helped to elevate the idea of republican government, when -he declared “virtue” its inspiration, and that virtue is the love of -equality.[162] A kindred thought is expressed by a publicist of our -time, in a remarkable study on Montesquieu, when he says, that “the -true principle of democracy is justice.”[163] But justice is equality. - -Contemporary with Montesquieu was the Marquis d’Argenson, a minister of -Louis the Fifteenth and the friend of Voltaire. In a work written as -early as 1739, but not seeing the light till 1764, some time after his -death, when it was attributed to Rousseau, this remarkable character -gives utterance to words worthy of perpetual memory:-- - - “It is only necessary to lay aside the most stupid prejudice, - to admit that two things are chiefly to be desired for the - good of the State: one, that all the citizens shall be equal - among themselves; the other, that each shall be the son of his - works.”[164] - -A government where these two things are assured would be a Republic -indeed. - -Voltaire, though not professing to define a Republic, taught its -dependence _upon equality_:-- - - “Civil government is _the will of all_, executed by one - or by many _in virtue of laws for which all have voted_.” - “The republican is undoubtedly the most tolerable of all - governments, because it is that which brings men most nearly to - natural equality.”[165] - -In another place the same illustrious teacher said:-- - - “The people never desire, and never can desire, anything but - Liberty and Equality.”[166] - -Advancing in time, the Republic becomes more manifest. Omitting the -fervid words of Jean Jacques Rousseau, I adduce Condorcet, whose -consecration to truth was sealed by a tragical death:-- - - “I have ever thought that a Republican Constitution, _having - Equality for its basis_, was the only one in conformity with - Nature, with reason, and with justice,--the only one which - could preserve the liberty of the citizens and the dignity of - the human race.”[167] - -Belonging to the ancient system of France, and, like Lafayette, with -the rank of Marquis, Condorcet, again like Lafayette, not only accepted -the Republic, but declared its true basis. - -Another French authority, of eminent experience in diplomacy, who wrote -coldly and only according to the requirement of reason, Gérard de -Rayneval, asserts the same law of Equality:-- - - “Political Liberty consists in the right to participate in - public affairs. This participation is direct or indirect, - and it is more or less extended according to the form of - government. It is, then, necessarily unequal. For example, _in - a Democracy all the citizens participate in the legislative - power_. If they delegate it, they have only a very indirect - part in it; but all can become delegates or representatives, - all can arrive at administrative employments, and all have the - right to protest against abuses. In aristocratic republics - political liberty is exclusively concentrated in the body of - Notables; they alone exercise all the power; subjects have only - civil liberty.”[168] - -Such, in France, is the voice of political science. - -It is also the voice of the French Revolution. The one idea which that -great event taught with prevailing influence was the Equal Rights of -All, explained and defined by the new-born formula, that “all are equal -before the Law.” Napoleon recognized the supremacy of this principle, -when, in an official address to the Council of State, he said, “France -loves Equality above everything”;[169] and he sought to enforce it, -when, in an early proclamation, he declared, “Let there be no head -which does not bend under the empire of Equality.”[170] Such is human -inconsistency, that shortly afterwards his own ambition refused to bend -under this empire, which none the less disowned the sceptre he assumed -and the nobles he created. But the great truth, though trampled down, -survived in the hearts of the French people, to rise again and resume -its heritage. - -As the Provisional Government of 1848 proclaimed the Republic, it -was careful, after proper deliberation, to proclaim at the same time -“universal suffrage,” which Lamartine, standing on the steps of the -Hôtel de Ville, and speaking in the name of the Government, said was -“the first truth and only basis of every National Republic.”[171] This -proclamation was itself submitted to the vote of “all the citizens”; -and on the terms of this submission another member of the Government, -of solid sense and perfect fidelity, thus expresses himself:-- - - “By these words--_all the citizens_--the Provisional Government - intended to consecrate definitively the fundamental principle - of democracy; it intended to proclaim boldly and forever the - inalienable, imprescriptible right inherent in each member - of society to participate directly in the government of his - country; it intended to put in practice really and loyally the - great principles hitherto shut up in the domain of the abstract - theories of philosophy.”[172] - -The same person, M. Garnier-Pagès, who was at once an eminent actor in -these scenes and their most authentic historian, thus again dwells on -the true idea of a Republic:-- - - “The Republic, that government of _all by all_, where each has - his place, his duty, and his right; the Republic, that is to - say, Liberty itself, the liberty to do every act and to give - utterance to every thought not prejudicial to others; the - Republic, that fraternal ground where are admitted all parties, - the representatives of the past as well as of the future, where - all minds, all associations, can have free scope.”[173] - -This precise definition is fitly crowned by the remarkable words -revealing the soul of De Tocqueville:-- - - “I should, I think, have loved Liberty at all times, but in the - times in which we live I feel inclined to adore it.… There is - no legislator sufficiently wise and sufficiently powerful to - maintain free institutions, _if he does not take Equality for - first principle and symbol_. All our contemporaries, then, who - would create or assure the independence and dignity of their - fellow-men, must show themselves the friends of Equality; and - the only worthy way of showing themselves such is to be so. - Upon this depends the success of their holy enterprise.”[174] - -To the authentic testimony of modern France, in harmony with our own -country, I add the definition of a very recent foreign publicist, who, -after dwelling on Equality as the idol sentiment of a Republic, says:-- - - “This shows us the nature and the end of republican government. - It is a government founded on the general interest and - equality.”[175] - -Admirable words!--in themselves a definition. And here, before -closing this testimony, let me call attention to two authorities, -contemporary with our fathers, which stand apart,--one English, and the -other German. The first is that of Dr. Richard Price, the friend of -John Adams, who very early appreciated the American Revolution, and -vindicated it before the world. Here is his idea of good government, -compendiously expressed:-- - - “Legitimate government, as opposed to oppression and tyranny, - consists only in the dominion of _Equal Laws_ made with _common - consent_, or of men over _themselves_; and not in the dominion - of communities over communities, or of any men over other - men.”[176] - -The German was none other than the great thinker, Emanuel Kant, who, in -his speculations on Perpetual Peace, says, that to this end every state -should be a Republic, which he defines:-- - - “That form of government where _every citizen_ participates by - his representatives in the exercise of the legislative power, - and especially in that of deciding on the questions of peace - and war.”[177] - -The statement of Kant is as simple as Pure Reason, which is the title -of his great work. It claims plainly for “every citizen” a share in the -government, and is the deliberate conclusion furnished by this eminent -philosopher, whose name, rarely quoted in politics, is an unimpeachable -authority. - - * * * * * - -Such is the definition of a republican form of government, as found in -the history, declarations, opinions, and public acts of the Fathers of -our country, reinforced by the authority of foreign intelligence and -the example of France. From this presentation of authorities not to be -questioned we pass easily to another stage of the discussion, where the -conclusion is the easy and irresistible sequence. - - -III. - -Bringing these lapsed States to the touchstone, we see at once their -small title to recognition as republican in form. Authentic figures are -not wanting. The census of 1860 discloses the population of the States -in question. - - +----------------+--------------------+-----------------------+ - | | | Colored Population, | - | States. | White Population. | Slave and Free, | - | | | including Indians. | - +----------------+--------------------+-----------------------+ - |Alabama | 526,271 | 437,930 | - |Arkansas | 324,143 | 111,307 | - |Florida | 77,747 | 62,677 | - |Georgia | 591,550 | 465,736 | - |Louisiana | 357,456 | 350,546 | - |Mississippi | 353,899 | 437,406 | - |North Carolina | 629,942 | 362,680 | - |South Carolina | 291,300 | 412,408 | - |Tennessee | 826,722 | 283,079 | - |Texas | 420,891 | 183,324 | - |Virginia | 1,047,299 | 549,019 | - | +--------------------+-----------------------+ - | | 5,447,220 | 3,656,112 | - +----------------+--------------------+-----------------------+ - -A glance at this table is enough. Taking the sum total of population -in the eleven States, we find 5,447,220 whites to 3,656,112 colored -persons; and you are now to decide, whether, in the discharge of -imperative duties under the National Constitution, and bound to -guaranty a republican form of government, you will disfranchise this -latter mass, shutting them out from those Equal Rights promised by our -fathers, and from all copartnership in the government of their country. -They surpass in numbers, by at least a million, the whole population -of the Colonies at the time our fathers raised the cry, “Taxation -without Representation is Tyranny”; and now you are to decide whether -to strip them of representation, while you subject them to grinding -taxation by tariff and excise, acting directly and indirectly, dwarfing -into insignificance everything attempted by the British Parliament. -Our fathers could not bear a Stamp Act in making which they had no -voice, and they braved terrible war with the most formidable power -of the globe rather than pay a tax of threepence on tea imposed by a -Parliament in which they were unrepresented. Are you ready, Sir, in -disregard of this great precedent, and in disregard of all promises -and examples of past history, to thrust a single citizen out of all -representation in the Government, while you consume his substance -with taxation, subject him to Stamp Acts, compel him to pay a duty of -twenty-five cents a pound on tea, and then follow him with imposts in -all the business of life? Clearly, if you do not recognize his title to -representation, you must at least by careful legislation relieve him -from this intolerable taxation. Some of the millions you thrust out -already contribute largely to the public revenue. How, then, can you -deny them representation? Their money is not rejected. Why reject their -votes? But if you reject their votes, you cannot take their money. As -you detect no color in their money, you ought to detect no color in -their votes. - -In this denial of the right to vote there is a surpassing tyranny, -being nothing less than a confiscation of the highest property the -citizen can possess. To take his money is robbery; to appropriate his -house or land is spoliation; but house and land are less than the -right by which the citizen is assured in all other rights. Lord Chief -Justice Holt spoke as became one of England’s greatest magistrates, -when he said from the bench: “A right that a man has to give his vote -at the election of a person to represent him in Parliament, there -to concur to the making of laws which are to bind his liberty and -property, is a most transcendent thing and of an high nature.”[178] But -this “most transcendent thing” is taken from a whole race on an excuse -insulting to them as members of the human family. - -Unhappily, too many people discern the wrong only when they personally -feel its sting. Suppose now the case reversed, and white citizens in -South Carolina despoiled of this “most transcendent thing” by the -predominance of the colored race, so that “black” instead of “white” -marks participation in government. But, if such discrimination is just -where the white prevails, it would be equally just where the black -prevails, and it would be as constitutional in one case as in the -other. Unquestionably a black man’s government is as constitutional as -a white man’s government. But the white man could not easily endure the -degradation; nor can it be doubted that Congress would promptly insist -that it was inconsistent with republican government, and would apply -the proper remedy. Failing in this duty, what other discrimination -could it arrest? The Anglo-Saxon might exclude the Celt; the Celt might -exclude the Anglo-Saxon; both might exclude the German, and the fearful -antagonisms of race would have full play. Other battles than the Boyne -would be the signal of discord, and other parties than Orangemen would -stalk upon the scene. - -If, looking at these States together, the case is clear, it becomes -clearer when we look at them separately. Begin with Tennessee, which -disfranchises 283,079 citizens, being more than a quarter of its -whole “people.” Thus violating a distinctive principle of republican -government, how can this State be recognized as republican? The -question is easier asked than answered. But Tennessee is the least -offensive on the list. There is Virginia, which disfranchises 549,019 -citizens, being more than a third its whole “people.” There is Alabama, -which disfranchises 437,930 citizens, being nearly one half its whole -“people.” There is Louisiana, which disfranchises 350,546 citizens, -being one half its whole “people.” There is Mississippi, which -disfranchises 437,406 citizens, being much more than one half its whole -“people.” And there is South Carolina, which disfranchises 412,408 -citizens, being nearly three fifths its whole “people.” A republic is a -pyramid standing on the broad mass of the people as a base; but here is -a pyramid balanced on its apex. To call such a government “republican” -is a mockery of sense and decency. A monarch “surrounded by republican -institutions,” as at one time was the boast of France, would be less -offensive to correct principles, and give more security to Human Rights. - -Plainly such a government is not a “democracy,” where all the people -assemble and govern in person; nor is it a “republic,” where they -assemble and govern by representatives, according to the distinction -presented by Madison in the “Federalist.”[179] A representative -government is a government by the people, not less than a democracy, -provided all the people are represented. Representation is a modern -invention of incalculable value to embody the will of the people. A -republic, like a democracy, cannot tolerate inequality. Wherever a -favored class appears, whether in one or the other, its republican -character ceases. It may be an aristocracy or oligarchy, but it is not -a democracy or a republic. - -It is not difficult to classify our Rebel States. They are -aristocracies or oligarchies. Aristocracy, according to etymology, is -the government of the best. Oligarchy is the government of the few, -being not even aristocracy, but an abuse of aristocracy, as despotism -is the abuse of monarchy. Perhaps these States may be characterized in -either way; and yet aristocracy, especially in origin, has something -respectable, which cannot be attributed to a combination whose single -distinctive element is color of the skin. - -The eminent French publicist, Bodin, in his definition of aristocracy, -says that it exists _where a smaller body of citizens governs the -greater_;[180] and this definition has been adopted by others, -especially by Montesquieu. But it is not satisfactory. Hallam, whose -judgment is of the highest value, after discussing its merits, proposes -the following most suggestive substitute:-- - - “We might better say, that the distinguishing characteristic - of an _aristocracy_ is the enjoyment of privileges _which are - not communicable to other citizens simply by anything they can - themselves do to obtain them_.”[181] - -These words completely characterize the aristocracy of color; for this -aristocracy is plainly in the enjoyment of privileges not communicable -to other citizens by anything they can themselves do to obtain them. -Are we not reminded that “the Ethiopian cannot change his skin,” -neither can we “make one hair white or black,” and “which of you -by taking thought can add one cubit unto his stature”? Aristotle, -the great intelligence of Antiquity, whose illumination has reached -everywhere, used congenial language, when, in reply to those who would -have magistracy and power distributed unequally, according to some -rule of personal superiority, he said, “If this is a correct rule, -then complexion, or stature, or some similar advantage, might be made -the excuse for superiority in civil rights”; and he illustrates the -unreasonableness of such a rule by showing, that, in a company of -musicians, the best flute is not given to the most noble, but to the -artist who will use it best; thus making merit the only qualification, -and discarding color, which is accidental and unchangeable.[182] - -The famous French founder of the school of Doctrinaires, Royer-Collard, -so remarkable for sententious thought, was in the habit of saying -that “the sovereignty of Reason is superior to the sovereignty of -the people.” But both declare the equal rights of all. The rule -of inequality is plainly unreasonable; and what a mockery is that -sovereignty of the people which sanctions any denial of equal rights! -In different spirit, the consummate French writer, Louis Blanc, -devoted to reform, has declared that “the republic is above universal -suffrage,”--meaning that even universal suffrage cannot subvert it. But -in each is Equality. Universal suffrage openly proclaims this right; -and what is the republic without it? - -To show that our Rebel States are aristocracies or oligarchies might -suffice. But we must not forget, that, born of Slavery, they have the -spirit of that iniquity, so that they are essentially of a low type. -Founded on color of the skin, they are, beyond question, the most -senseless and disgusting of all history. Would you learn to what they -must incline? Listen to the frank words of the Venetian master, the -famous Father Paul, while, in a state refined by art and elevated by -glory, he counsels the privileged class how to use their powers. “If a -noble,” says he, “injure a plebeian, justify him by all possible means; -but should that be found quite impossible, punish more in appearance -than in reality. If a plebeian insult a noble, punish him with the -greatest severity, that the commonalty may know how perilous it is to -insult a noble.”[183] Such is the terrible rule announced in a document -which taught how to make the power of Venice perpetual. But this same -spirit predominates still in the Rebel States. It rages there with -more revolting cruelty than Venice ever witnessed. And such is the -government now claiming recognition as “republican.” - -The pretension is hateful on another ground. It is nothing less than -a caste, which is irreligious as well as unrepublican. A caste exists -only in defiance of the first principles of Christianity and the first -principles of a republic. It is heathenism in religion and tyranny in -government. The Brahmins and the Sudras in India, from generation to -generation, have been separated, as the two races are still separated -in these States. If a Sudra presumed to sit on a Brahmin’s carpet, he -was punished with banishment. But our recent Rebels undertake to play -the part of Brahmins, and exclude citizens, with better title than -themselves, from essential rights, simply on the ground of caste, -which, according to its Portuguese origin (_casta_), is only another -term for race. - -But the pretension is yet otherwise hostile to good government. Here -is a monopoly on a gigantic scale and with an unprecedented field, in -a country which sets its face against all monopolies as unequal and -immoral. If any monopoly deserves unhesitating judgment, it must be -that which absorbs the rights of others and engrosses political power. -How vain to condemn the petty monopoly of commerce, while allowing this -vast, all-embracing monopoly of Human Rights! - -Clearly, most clearly, and beyond all question, such a government is -not “republican in form.” Call it oligarchy, call it aristocracy, call -it caste, call it monopoly; but never call it a republic. - - -IV. - -Of course such a government can exist only in defiance of the National -Constitution, and it is _the duty of Congress_ to interfere against it. - -The guaranty is by the United States; therefore Congress must perform -it; and, in the discharge of this eminent duty, it must affix the true -meaning to the requirement, declaring what is a republican government, -and supplying the long-sought definition. Here Congress is sole and -final arbiter, binding all other branches of Government. Let a State -make office hereditary,--let it shut from the courts all who have not -the “blue blood” of ancient ancestry,--let it accord to a favored class -controlling power and influence,--let it apply any discrimination -on account of race or color, whether against Anglo-Saxons, Celts, -or Germans, whether against black or white,--let it do any of these -things, all so plainly inconsistent with constitutional requirement, -and the legislative power of the nation must recall the State from its -aberration, and bring it home to the republican standard. - -President Johnson, in his recent annual message, says:-- - - “In case of the usurpation of the government of a State by one - man or an _oligarchy_, it becomes a duty of the United States - to make good the guaranty to that State of a republican form of - government.” - -The President forgets to mention an aristocracy, and does not add, -what is true, that the authority bound to make good the guaranty is -the sole judge of the exigency. To this end everything centres in -Congress, whose powers are commensurate with the occasion. In aid of -the guaranty are those other words providing that Congress “shall -have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for -carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the -Government of the United States.” Under this ample provision there is -a duty to be performed, by any means that seem best. The jurisdiction -is complete, and it is in Congress. If any authority were needed for -this proposition, it would be found in the words of Chief Justice Taney -himself, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States:-- - - “The fourth section of the fourth article of the Constitution - of the United States provides that the United States shall - guaranty to every State in the Union a republican form of - government, and shall protect each of them against invasion, - and, on the application of the Legislature, or of the Executive - (when the Legislature cannot be convened), against domestic - violence. - - “_Under this article of the Constitution, it rests with - Congress to decide what government is the established one in - a State. For, as the United States guaranty to each State a - republican government, Congress must necessarily decide what - government is established in the State, before it can determine - whether it is republican or not._”[184] - -In the exercise of this power two courses are open. One is to impose an -irrepealable condition upon the unrepublican States, requiring them, -before recognition, to re-form their governments to the satisfaction -of Congress. The other, and more direct, is by Act of Congress, in -performance of the guaranty, and according to the plenary authority -“for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in -the Government of the United States,” to provide all needful safeguards -in the unrepublican States, and especially to place the Equal Rights of -All under the guardianship of National Law. - -Against the exercise of this power there are but two arguments. First, -that the Constitution, by providing that “the electors in each State -shall have the _qualifications_ requisite for electors of the most -numerous branch of the State Legislature,” has reserved to each State -the power of excluding citizens merely on account of color, even though -constituting more than a majority of the population. The other argument -is, that, since certain States at the North have disfranchised the few -colored persons within their borders, the United States are so far -constrained by this example that they cannot protect the millions of -freedmen in the Rebel States from disfranchisement, and cannot save the -Republic from the peril of crying injustice. I know not which of these -two arguments is the least reasonable, or rather, which is the most -reprehensible. They are both unreasonable, and both reprehensible. They -both do violence to the true principles of the National Constitution, -if not to common sense. - -It is true, that, according to the text of the Constitution, each State -may determine the “qualifications” of electors; but this can have no -application to an exigency like the present, where, at the close of a -prolonged and desperate rebellion, the United States are obliged to -guaranty to certain States a republican form of government. In the -performance of this guaranty, the United States will look only at the -essential elements of such a government, nor more nor less, without -regard to State laws. But I am unwilling to rest the argument here. -Even assuming that there has been no lapse of State governments, so -as to bring the guaranty into operation,--assuming that we are in -a condition of assured peace,--then I utterly deny that the power -to determine the “qualifications” of electors can give any power to -disfranchise actual citizens. It is “qualifications” only which the -States can determine,--meaning by this limited term those requirements -of personal condition regarded as essential to the security of the -franchise. These “qualifications” cannot be in nature permanent or -insurmountable. Color cannot be a “qualification,” any more than size, -or quality of hair. A permanent or insurmountable “qualification” -is equivalent to deprivation of suffrage; in other words, it is the -tyranny of taxation without representation, and this tyranny, I -insist, is not intrusted to any State. This is the very ground taken by -Mr. Madison, when defending the National Constitution in the Virginia -Convention. - - “Some States might regulate the elections on the principles of - _Equality_, and others might regulate them otherwise.… Should - the people of any State, by any means, be deprived of the right - of suffrage, _it was judged proper that it should be remedied - by the General Government_.… If the elections be regulated - properly by the State Legislatures, the Congressional control - will very probably never be exercised. The power appears to - me satisfactory, and unlikely to be abused as any part of the - Constitution.”[185] - -With these decisive words from a chief framer of the National -Constitution, backed by the reason of the case, I dismiss this -objection to the little consideration it deserves. And I dismiss to -the same indifference the other objection, that our hands are tied -because certain Northern States have done a wrong and mean thing. Pray, -Sir, how can the failure of these States affect the power of Congress -in a great exigency under the National Constitution? Duty here is -identical with power. No matter if the power has been long dormant, it -is none the less vital. It is like the slumbering statute which Cicero -describes as a sword in the scabbard, _tanquam gladius in vagina_. It -only remains that it be drawn forth. - - * * * * * - -This duty is fortified by the Constitutional Amendment, which, after -providing for the abolition of Slavery, empowers Congress to “enforce” -it by “appropriate legislation,” thus heaping Ossa upon Pelion. -Clearly, under these words, Congress may do what in its discretion -seems “appropriate” to this end, and there is no power to call its -action in question. On this point the authority of the Supreme Court, -in the weighty judgment of Chief Justice Marshall, is explicit. - - “The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed - on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to the - dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means; and those - who contend that it may not select _any appropriate means_, - that one particular mode of effecting the object is excepted, - take upon themselves the burden of establishing that exception.… - - “Let the end be legitimate, let it be within the scope of the - Constitution, and _all means_ which are appropriate, which are - plainly adapted to that end, which are not prohibited, but - consist with the letter and spirit of the Constitution, are - constitutional.”[186] - -These words of the Chief Justice are reinforced by a kindred -declaration from another great authority, Mr. Justice Story, speaking -also for the Supreme Court, on an important occasion. - - “The Constitution unavoidably deals in general language.… - The instrument was not intended to provide merely for the - exigencies of a few years, but was to endure through a long - lapse of ages, the events of which were locked up in the - inscrutable purposes of Providence.… Hence its powers are - expressed in general terms, leaving to the Legislature from - time to time _to adopt its own means to effectuate legitimate - objects_.”[187] - -Apply these words to the present case, and the conclusion is -irresistible. Whatever legislation seems “appropriate” to “enforce” the -abolition of Slavery, whatever means seem proper to this end, must be -within the powers of Congress under the Constitutional Amendment. You -cannot deny this principle without setting aside those most remarkable -judgments which stand as landmarks of constitutional history. But -who can doubt that the abolition of the whole Black Code, in all its -oligarchical pretensions, civil and political, is “appropriate” to -“enforce” the abolition of Slavery? Mark the language of the grant. -Congress may “enforce” abolition, and nobody can question the “means” -it thinks best to employ. Let it not hesitate to adopt the “means” that -promise to be most effective. As the occasion is extraordinary, so the -“means” employed must be extraordinary. - -But the Senate has already by solemn vote affirmed this very -jurisdiction. You have, Sir, decreed that blacks shall enjoy the same -civil rights as whites,--in other words, that with regard to civil -rights there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or monopoly, -but that all shall be equal before the law, without distinction -of color. And this great decree you have made, as “appropriate -legislation” under the Constitutional Amendment, to “enforce” the -abolition of Slavery. Surely you have not erred. Beyond all question, -the protection of the colored race in civil rights is essential to -complete the abolition of Slavery; but the protection of the colored -race in political rights is not less essential, and the power is as -ample in one case as in the other. In each you legislate for the -maintenance of that Liberty so tardily accorded, and the legislation is -just as “appropriate” in one case as in the other. Protection in civil -rights by Act of Congress will be a great event. It will be great in -itself. It will be greater still, because it establishes the power -of Congress, without further amendment of the National Constitution, -to protect every citizen in all his rights, including of course the -elective franchise. There are precedents of Congress, as well as of -courts, which are landmarks; and this is one of them. - -Therefore, as authority for Congress, you have two sources in the -Constitution itself,--first, the guaranty clause, and, secondly, -the Constitutional Amendment, each sufficient, the two together a -twofold sufficiency. To establish the Equal Rights of All, no further -Amendment is needed. The actual text is exuberant. Instead of adding -new words, it will be enough, if you give those that exist the natural -force belonging to them. Instead of neglecting, use them. Instead of -supplementing, interpret them. An illustrious magistrate once retorted -upon an advocate, who, dissatisfied with a ruling of the court, -threatened to burn his books, “Better read them”; and so would I say -now to all who think the Constitution needs amendment, Better read it. -Yes, Sir, read it in the principles proclaimed by the Fathers before -the Revolution, read it in the declarations of the Fathers when they -took their place as a Republic, read it in the avowed opinions of the -Fathers, read it in the public acts of the Fathers; and in all this -beaming, diffusive light you will discern the true meaning. Then again -read it in that other light which, as from another sun, newly risen -at midday, streams from the obligation of Congress to “enforce” the -abolition of Slavery. And yet again read it in the glowing illumination -of the war. In whichever light you read it, you will find always the -same irresistible meaning. Even if the text were doubtful, the war -makes it clear. The victory which overthrew Slavery carried away all -those glosses and constructions by which this wrong was originally -fastened upon it. For generations the National Constitution has been -interpreted for Slavery. From this time forward it must be interpreted -in harmony with the Declaration of Independence, so that Human Rights -shall always prevail. The promises of the Fathers must be sacredly -fulfilled. This is the commanding rule, superseding all other rules. -This is a great victory of the war,--perhaps the greatest. It is -nothing less than the emancipation of the Constitution itself. - - -V. - -MR. PRESIDENT, such is the testimony of history, authority, and -Constitution, binding the judgment, and leaving no alternative. Thus -far I have done little but bring together the diversified testimony and -weave it into one body. It is not I who speak. I am nothing. It is the -cause, whose voice I am, that addresses you. But there are yet other -things, even at this late hour, craving utterance. And here, after this -long review, I am brought back to more general considerations, and end -as I began, by showing the necessity of Enfranchisement for the sake of -public security and public faith. I plead now for the ballot, as the -great guaranty, and _the only sufficient guaranty_,--being in itself -peacemaker, reconciler, schoolmaster, and protector,--to which we are -bound by every necessity and every reason; and I speak also for the -good of the States lately in rebellion, as well as for the glory and -safety of the Republic, that it may be an example to mankind. - -Let me be understood. What I ask especially is impartial suffrage, -which is, of course, embraced in universal suffrage. What is universal -is necessarily impartial. For the present, I simply insist that all -shall be equal before the law, so that in the enjoyment of this -right there shall be no restriction not equally applicable to all. -Any further question in the nature of “qualification” belongs to -another stage of the debate. And yet I have no hesitation in saying -that universal suffrage is a universal right, subject only to such -regulations as the safety of society may require. These may concern -(1.) age, (2.) character, (3.) registration, (4.) residence. In ancient -Greece there was what is called a Timocracy, where a certain amount -of property was required; and this condition has modern example, -even among us. But it is entirely out of place now. Nobody doubts -that minors may be excluded, and so also persons of infamous life. -Registration and residence are both prudential requirements for the -safeguard of the ballot-box against the Nomads and Bohemians of -politics, and to compel the exercise of this franchise among neighbors -and friends, where a person is known. Education also, under certain -circumstances, may be a requirement of prudence, particularly valuable -in a republic, where so much depends on the intelligence of the people; -but it is of doubtful value, especially where patriotic votes are -needed to crush treason or counteract fraud. There is something worse -than inability to read and write. These temporary restrictions do not -in any way interfere with the right of suffrage, for they leave it -_absolutely accessible to all_. Even if impediments, they are easily -overcome. At all events, they are not in any sense insurmountable; -and this is the essential requirement of republican institutions. No -matter under what depression of poverty, in what depth of obscurity, -or with what diversity of complexion a man has been born, he is -nevertheless a citizen, the peer of every other citizen, and the ballot -is his inalienable right. - - * * * * * - -The ballot is _peacemaker_; and is it not said, “Blessed are the -peacemakers”? High among the Beatitudes let it be placed, for there -it belongs. Deny it, and the freedman will be the victim of perpetual -warfare. Ceasing to be a slave, he only becomes a sacrifice. Grant it, -and he is admitted to those equal rights which allow no sacrifice. -Plutarch records that the wise man of Athens charmed the people by -saying that _Equality causes no War_, and this “pleased both the -rich and the poor.”[188] In another place the same ancient records -the wise man as declaring it “that which would occasion no tumult or -faction.”[189] But this is peace. How god-like in transforming power -alike on master and slave! The master will recognize the new citizen. -The slave will stand with tranquil self-respect in presence of the -master. Brute force disappears. Distrust is at an end. The master is no -longer tyrant. The freedman is no longer dependant. The ballot comes to -him in his depression, and says, “Use me, and be elevated.” It comes to -him in his passion, and says, “Use me, and do not fight.” It comes to -him in his daily thoughts, filling him with the strength and glory of -manhood. - - * * * * * - -The ballot is _reconciler_. Next after peace is reconciliation. But -reconciliation is more than peace. It is concord. Parties long -estranged are brought into harmony. They learn to live together. They -learn to work together. They are kind to each other, even if only as -the Arab and his horse; and this mutual kindness is mutual advantage. -Unquestionably the ballot promises this great boon, because it brings -all into natural relations of justice, without which reconciliation -is a vain thing. Do you wish to see harmony truly prevail, so that -industry, society, government, civilization may all prosper, and the -Republic wear a crown of true greatness? Then do not neglect the ballot. - - * * * * * - -The ballot is _schoolmaster_. Reading and writing are of inestimable -value, but the ballot teaches what these cannot teach. It teaches -manhood. Especially is it important to a race whose manhood has been -denied. The work of redemption cannot be complete, if the ballot is -left in doubt. The freedman already knows his friend by the unerring -instinct of the heart. Give him the ballot, and he will be educated -into the principles of government. Deny him the ballot, and he will -continue alien in knowledge as in rights. His claim is exceptional, as -your injustice is exceptional. For generations you have shut him out -from all education, making it a crime to teach him to read the Book of -Life. Let not the tyranny of the past be apology for further exclusion. -Prisoners long immured in a dungeon are sometimes blinded, as they come -forth into day; but this is no reason for continued imprisonment. To -every freedman the ballot is the light of day. - - * * * * * - -The ballot is _protector_. Perhaps, at the present moment, this is -its highest function. Slavery has ceased in name; but this is all. -The old master still asserts an inhuman power, and now by positive -statutes seeks to bind his victim in new chains. Let this conspiracy -proceed unchecked, and the freedman will be more unhappy than the early -Puritan, who, seeking liberty of conscience, escaped from the “lords -bishops” only to fall under the “lords elders.” The master will still -be master, under another name,--as, according to Milton, - - “New presbyter is but old priest writ large.” - -Serfdom or apprenticeship is slavery in another guise. To save the -freedman from this tyranny, with all its accumulated outrage, is a -solemn duty. For this we are now devising guaranties; but, believe me, -the only sufficient guaranty is the ballot. Let the freedman vote, -and he will have in himself under the law a constant, ever-present, -self-protecting power. The armor of citizenship will be his best -security. The ballot will be to him sword and buckler,--sword with -which to pierce his enemies, and buckler on which to receive their -assault. Its possession will be a terror and a defence. The law, which -is the highest reason, boasts that every man’s house is his castle; but -the freedman can have no castle without the ballot. When the master -knows that he may be voted down, he will know that he must be just, and -everything is contained in justice. The ballot is like charity, which -never faileth, and without which man is only as sounding brass or a -tinkling cymbal. The ballot is the one thing needful, wanting which, -rights of testimony and all other rights are no better than cobwebs, -which the master will break through with impunity. To him who has the -ballot all other things shall be given,--protection, opportunity, -education, a homestead. The ballot is the Horn of Abundance, out of -which overflow rights of every kind, with corn, cotton, rice, and -all the fruits of the earth. Or, better still, it is like the hand -of the body, without which, man, who is now only a little lower than -the angels, must have continued only a little above the brutes. We -are fearfully and wonderfully made; but as is the hand in the work of -civilization, so is the ballot in the work of government. “Give me -the ballot and I will move the world” may be the exclamation of the -race despoiled of this right. There is nothing it cannot open with -almost fabulous power, like that golden bough which in the hands of the -classical adventurer unclosed the regions of another world, while, like -that magic rod, it is renewed as in the verse,-- - - “One plucked away, a second branch you see - Shoot forth in gold and glitter through the tree.”[190] - -If I crowd these illustrations, it is only that I may bring home -that supreme efficacy which cannot be exaggerated. Though simple in -character, there is nothing the ballot may not accomplish,--like -the homely household lamp in Arabian story, which, at call of its -possessor, evoked a spirit that did all things, from the building -of a palace to the rocking of a cradle, and filled the air with an -invisible presence. As protector it is of immeasurable power,--like a -fifteen-inch Columbiad pointed from a Monitor. Ay, Sir, the ballot is -the Columbiad of our political life, and every citizen who has it is a -full-armed Monitor. - - * * * * * - -Having pleaded for the freedman, I now plead for the Republic; for -to each alike the ballot is a _necessity_. It is idle to expect -any true peace while the freedman is robbed of this transcendent -right, and left a prey to a vengeance too ready to wreak upon him -the disappointment of defeat. The country, sympathetic with him, -will be in perpetual unrest. With him it will suffer; with him alone -can it cease to suffer. Only through him can you redress the balance -of our political system and assure the safety of patriot citizens. -Only through him can you save the national debt from the inevitable -repudiation awaiting it, when recent Rebels in conjunction with -Northern allies once more bear sway. He is our best guaranty. Use him. -He was once your fellow-soldier; he has always been your fellow-man. -If he was willing to die for the Republic, he is surely good enough to -vote. And now that he is ready to uphold the Republic, it is madness -to reject him. Had he voted originally, the Acts of Secession must -have failed, treason would have been voted down. You owe this tragical -war, and the debt now fastened upon the country, to the denial of this -right. Vacant chairs in once happy homes, innumerable graves, saddened -hearts, mothers, fathers, wives, sisters, brothers, all mourning lost -ones, the poor ground by taxation never known before, all testify -against the injustice by which the present freedman was not allowed to -vote. Had he voted, there would have been peace. If he votes now, there -will be peace. Without this you must have a standing army, which is a -sorry substitute for justice. Before you is the plain alternative of -the ballot-box or the cartridge-box: choose ye between them. - - * * * * * - -_Reason_, too, in every way and with every voice, cries out in unison -with necessity. All policies, all expediencies, all economies take -up the cry. Nothing so impolitic as wrong; nothing so inexpedient -as tyranny; nothing so little economical as the spirit of caste. -Justice is the highest policy, the truest expediency, and the most -comprehensive economy. In this inspiration act. Do you wish to save the -national credit, still imperilled by fatal injustice, and to secure -gold as the national currency? Then do not let the question of Equal -Rights disturb the country with volcanic throes. You complain that -labor is unorganized, and that the cotton crop fails. Do you wish labor -to smile and cotton to grow? Then sow the land with Human Rights, and -encircle it round about with Justice. The freedman will not, cannot -work, while you deny his rights. Cotton will not, cannot grow in such -an atmosphere. Absurd to expect it. Using the freedman as you now -do, you imitate those barbarous Irish who insisted upon ploughing by -the horse’s tail, until an Act of Parliament interfered to require -ploughing by harness. The infinite folly must be corrected, if for no -higher reason than because it is unprofitable. But it is contrary to -Nature, and on this account renders the whole social system insecure. -Where Human Rights are set at nought, there can be no tranquillity -except that of force, which is despotism. The philosophy of history, -speaking by one of its oracles, the great Italian Vico, confirms this -lesson, when it says, most sententiously, that “nothing out of its -natural state can either easily subsist or last long.” Truer words were -never uttered, as statement of philosophy, or warning to injustice -enacted into law. - - * * * * * - -_Gratitude_, in unison with necessity and reason, takes up the cry, -insisting that we shall not fail in duty to benefactors. It is -difficult to measure the extent of this obligation, which is vast in -proportion to regard for Human Rights and the value set upon the Union. -By their strong arms and patriot example the national strength was -aggrandized. As Freedom stamped her foot, black armies sprang from the -ground. To save the Republic they toiled, digging trenches and making -of their bodies breastworks; for the Republic they bled. Toiling and -fighting, they became copartners in the government. And shall we now -disown the copartnership? Receiving them into our embattled lines, the -Republic is estopped against all denial of their Equal Rights. Acts -stronger than words created the unimpeachable estoppel. They aided -the victories by which the Republic was assured in unity. Is there no -assurance for them also? - -If that “more perfect union” proclaimed in the National Constitution -as a primary object has been obtained at last, it is through them. -If the terrible crime of Slavery, for which the Republic suffered in -strength and good name, is ended, and the Republic thereby exalted, -it is through them. They helped our deliverance. To them, therefore, -are we bound as debtor to creditor, as just man to benefactor. By -their undoubted service we are under perpetual obligation of doing to -them as they did to us. We must deliver them. Here justice commands; -but another sentiment, proceeding from the heart, lends persuasive -influence. Failing in present duty, the Republic will lose a precious -possession, as full of sweetness as of strength. - - “Sweet is the breath of vernal shower, - The bee’s collected treasures sweet, - Sweet music’s melting fall; but sweeter yet - The still, small voice of Gratitude.”[191] - -Mr. President, already I have taken too much time, and still the great -theme, in various and multitudinous relations, continues to open before -us. At each step it rises in some new aspect, assuming every shape of -interest and of duty,--now with voice of command, and then with voice -of persuasion. The national security, the national faith, the good of -the freedman, the concerns of business, agriculture, justice, peace, -reconciliation, obedience to God,--these are among the forms it takes. -In the name of all these I speak to-day, hoping to do something for -my country, and especially for that unhappy portion which has been -arrayed in arms against us. The people there are my fellow-citizens, -and gladly would I hail them, if they would permit, as no longer a -“section,” no longer “the South,” but an integral part of the Republic, -under a Constitution which, knowing no North and no South, cannot -tolerate “sectional” pretension. Gladly, in all sincerity, do I offer -my best effort for their welfare. But I see clearly that there is -nothing in the compass of mortal power so important to them in every -respect, morally, politically, and economically, that there is nothing -with such certain promise to them of beneficent result, that there is -nothing so sure to make their land smile with industry and fertility, -as the decree of Equal Rights I now invoke. Let the judgment go forth -to cover them with blessings, sure to descend upon their children in -successive generations. They have given us war: we offer them peace. -They have raged against us in the name of Slavery: we send them back -the benediction of justice for all. They menace hate: we ask them to -accept in return all the sacred charities of country, together with -oblivion of the past. This is our “Measure for Measure.” This is our -retaliation. This is our only revenge. - -All omens are with the Republic, destined yet to win its sublimest -triumphs. Timid or perverse counsels may postpone the gladsome -consummation; but the contest now begun can end only when Slavery -is completely transformed by a metamorphosis which shall substitute -justice for injustice, riches for poverty, and beauty for deformity. -From history we learn not only the past, but the future. By the study -of what has been we know what must be, according to unerring law. -Call it, if you please, the logic of events, and infer the inevitable -conclusion. Or call it, if you please, the Rule of Three, and from -the result of certain forces determine the proportionate result of -increased forces. There can be no mistake in the answer. And so it -is plain that the Equal Rights of All will be established. Amid -all seeming vicissitudes the work proceeds. Soon or late the final -victory will be won,--I believe soon. Speeches cannot stop it; crafty -machinations cannot change it. Against its irresistible movement -politicians are as impotent as those old conjurers who imagined that - - “By rhymes they could pull down full soon - From lofty sky the wandering moon.”[192] - -These verses, which shine on the black-letter page of the great -lawyer, Sir Edward Coke, aptly describe the incantations of our day -to pull down Justice from her lofty sky. It cannot be done. In this -conviction I observe what comes to pass without losing faith. I listen -with composure to arguments which ought not to be made, and I see with -equal composure how individual opinions swing between Congress and -the President. It is not to the oscillations of the pendulum that we -look for the measure of time, but to the face of the public clock and -the striking of the church bell. The indications of that clock and the -striking of that bell leave little room for doubt. - -In the fearful tragedy drawing to a close there is a destiny, stern -and irresistible as that of the Greek drama, which seems to master all -that is done, hurrying on the death of Slavery and its whole brood of -sin. There is also a Christian Providence which watches this battle -for right, caring especially for the poor and downtrodden who have no -helper. The freedman, still writhing under cruel oppression, lifts his -voice to God the Avenger. It is for us to save ourselves from righteous -judgment. Never with impunity can you outrage human nature. Our -country, which is guilty still, is paying still the grievous penalty. -Therefore by every motive of self-preservation we are summoned to be -just. And thus is the cause associated indissolubly with the national -life. - -But, saving the Republic, we elevate it. Overthrowing an oppressive -injustice, we give full scope to the principles of the National -Government, and fulfil the “idea of a perfect commonwealth” which has -charmed the visions of philosophy and poetry. “I am all that has been, -that is, and that shall be, and none among mortals has hitherto lifted -my veil”: such was the enigma cut on the pavement of the Temple of the -Egyptian Minerva.[193] For ages it remained unanswered; but the answer -is at hand. The Republic is all that has been, that is, and that shall -be; and it is your duty to lift the veil. To do less were failure; for -such was the aspiration and promise of the Fathers, assuming their -first vows in the family of nations. To do this will fix the example of -American institutions. So long as Slavery endured, it was impossible; -so long as the Black Code, wretched counterpart of Slavery, endures -in any form, it is impossible. To attain this idea we must proclaim -the rule of justice. Slavery thus far has been the very pivot round -which the Republic revolved, while all its policy at home and abroad -has radiated from this terrible centre. Hereafter the Equal Rights of -All will take the place of Slavery, and the Republic will revolve on -this glorious centre, whose countless, far-reaching radiations will -be the happiness of the people. There is nothing the imagination can -picture which will not be ours. Where justice is supreme, nothing -can be wanting. There will be room for every business and for every -charity. The fields will nod with increase, industry will be quickened -to unimagined triumph, and life itself raised to higher service. There -will be that repose which comes from harmony, and also that simplicity -which comes from one prevailing law, both essential to the idea of -Republic. Our country will cease to be a patchwork where different -States vary in the rights they accord, and will become a Plural Unit, -with one Constitution, one liberty, and one franchise. With all these -things the Republic will be the synonym for justice and peace, since -these things will be inseparable from its name. In our longings we -need not repair to philosophy or poetry. Nor need we go back to the -memorable sage who declared that the best government was where every -citizen rushed to the defence of the humblest as if he were the state, -for all this will be ours. Nor need we go back to the patriot king, in -ancient tragedy, who, inspired by the republican idea, called for the -vote of the people:-- - - “For them I made supreme, - And on this city, _with an equal right_ - _For all to vote_, its freedom have bestowed.”[194] - -Here, at last, among us all this will be assured, and the Republic will -be of such renown and virtue that all at home or abroad who bear the -American name may exclaim with more than Roman pride, “I am an American -citizen!”--and if danger approaches, they may repeat the same cry with -more than Roman confidence, knowing well that this title will be a -sufficient protection. Then will be renewed the story of the two sticks -in the prophecy of Ezekiel: “Behold, I will take the stick of Joseph, -which is in the hand of Ephraim, and the tribes of Israel his fellows, -and will put them with him, even with the stick of Judah, and make them -one stick, and they shall be one in mine hand.”[195] - - * * * * * - -Sir, it is for you now to determine if all this shall be fulfilled. The -whole case is before you in its grandeur and its humanity, infinite -as human aspiration, beautiful as the vision of a republic. Turn -not away from it. Vindicate the great cause, I entreat you, by the -suppression of all oligarchical pretensions, and the establishment of -those equal rights without which republican government is a name, and -nothing more. Strike at the Black Code, as you have already struck -at the Slave Code. There is little to choose between them. Strike at -once; strike hard. You have already proclaimed Emancipation; proclaim -Enfranchisement also. Nor longer stultify yourselves by setting at -nought the practical principle of the Fathers, that all just government -stands only on the consent of the governed, and its inseparable -corollary, that _taxation without representation is tyranny_. What was -once true is true forever, although we may for a time lose sight of -it; and this is the case with those imperishable truths to which you -have been, alas! so indifferent. Thus far the work is only _half done_. -See that it is finished. Save the freedman from the outrage which is -his daily life. As a slave he was “a tool without a soul.” If you have -ceased to treat him according to this ancient definition, it is only -because you treat him even as something less. In your cruel arithmetic -he is only a “cipher,” without the protection which the slave sometimes -found in the self-interest of the master; or rather let me say he is -only a “cipher” where rights are concerned, but a numeral counted by -millions where taxes are to be paid. Not only is the freedman compelled -to pay, he must fight also, and he must obey the laws,--three things -he cannot escape. But, according to the primal principle of republican -government, he has an indefeasible right to a voice in determining how -to be taxed, when to fight, and what laws to obey,--all of which can -be secured only through the ballot. Thus again do I bring you to the -same conclusion, confronting us at every point and at every stage, as a -commandment not to be disobeyed. - -Would you secure all the just fruits of this terrible war, and -trample out the Rebellion in its pernicious assumptions, as in its -arms? You cannot hesitate; and this is the last stage of the argument. -The Rebellion began in two assumptions, both proceeding from South -Carolina: first, the sovereignty of the States, with the pretended -right of secession; and, secondly, the superiority of the white race, -with the pretended right of caste, oligarchy, and monopoly, on account -of color. The first was often announced in many ways. The second -showed itself at the beginning, when South Carolina, conspicuous among -the Thirteen States, allowed her Constitution to be degraded by an -exclusion on account of color; but it did not receive authoritative -statement until a later day, when that false evangelist, Mr. Calhoun, -taking issue with the Declaration of Independence, audaciously -announced in the Senate that to declare all born free and equal was -“the most dangerous of all political errors”; that it had “done more -to retard the cause of liberty and civilization, and is doing more at -present, than all other causes combined”; and that “we now begin to -experience the danger of admitting so great an error to have a place in -the Declaration of our Independence.”[196] These two assumptions are -kindred in effrontery. All agree that the dogma of State sovereignty -must be repelled; but this is less offensive than the other, having -the same origin, that the Declaration of Independence is “the most -dangerous of all political errors.” To repel such effrontery is not -enough; it must be scorned. - -The Gospel according to Calhoun is only another statement of the -imposture, that this august Republic, founded to sustain the rights -of Human Nature, is nothing but “a white man’s government.” The whole -assumption is ignoble, utterly unsupported by history, and insulting -to the Fathers, while offensively illogical and irreligious. It is -illogical, inasmuch as our fathers, when they declared that all men -are created equal, gave expression to a truth of political science, -which, from the nature of the case, admits no exception. As axiom it -is without exception; for it is the essence of an axiom, whether in -geometry or morals, to be universal. As abstract truth it is also -without exception, according to the requirement of such truth. And, -finally, as self-evident truth, so announced in the great Declaration, -it is without exception; for only such truth can be self-evident. -Thus, whether axiom, abstract truth, or self-evident truth, it is -always universal. But the assumption is not only illogical, it is -irreligious, inasmuch as it flies in the face of that living truth -which appears twice at the Creation: first, when God said, “Let us -make man in our image”; and, secondly, in the unity of the race, then -divinely appointed, and which appears again in the Gospel, when it -said, “God, that made the world, and all things therein, hath made of -one blood all nations of men.” According to the best testimony, the -present population of the earth--embracing Caucasians, Mongolians, -Malays, Africans, and Americans--is about thirteen hundred millions, -of whom only three hundred and seventy-five millions are “white,” or -little more than one fourth; so that, in claiming exclusive rights for -“white,” you degrade nearly three quarters of the human family, made -in the “image of God” and declared to be of “one blood,” while you -sanction a caste offensive to religion, an oligarchy inconsistent with -republican government, and a monopoly which has the Human Family as -the subject of its tyrannical usurpation. - -Against this assumption I protest with mind, soul, and heart. It is -false in religion, false in statesmanship, and false in economy. It -is an extravagance, which, if enforced, is foolish tyranny. Show me a -creature, with lifted countenance looking to heaven, made in the image -of God, and I show you A MAN, who, of whatever country or race, whether -browned by equatorial sun or blanched by northern cold, is with you -a child of the Heavenly Father, and equal with you in all the rights -of Human Nature. You cannot deny these rights without impiety. And -so, as God linked the national welfare with national duty, you cannot -deny these rights without peril to the Republic. It is not enough that -you have given Liberty. By the same title that we claim Liberty do we -claim Equality also. One cannot be denied without the other. What is -Equality without Liberty? What is Liberty without Equality? One is the -complement of the other. The two are necessary to begin and complete -the circle of American citizenship. They are the inseparable organs -through which the people have their national life. They are the two -vital principles of republican government, without which, government, -although republican in name, cannot be republican in fact. These two -vital principles belong to those divine statutes graven on the soul of -Universal Man, even of the slave who forgets them, and of the master -who denies them, and, whether forgotten or denied, more enduring than -marble or brass, for they share the perpetuity of the human family. - -The Roman Cato, after declaring his belief in the immortality of the -soul, added, that, if this were an error, it was an error he loved. -And now, declaring my belief in Liberty and Equality as the God-given -birthright of all men, let me say, in the same spirit, if this be an -error, it is an error I love,--if this be a fault, it is a fault I -shall be slow to renounce,--if this be an illusion, it is an illusion -which I pray may wrap the world in its angelic forms. - - -APPENDIX. - - The sequel of this speech, which occupied two days in the - delivery, will appear, _first_, in the Debate and Votes that - ensued, and, _secondly_, in its reception by the country, as - illustrated by the Press and Correspondence. - - -DEBATE AND VOTES. - - The speech of Mr. Sumner was followed by a succession of - speeches extending over a month, with considerable variation - by a concurrent resolution from the House of Representatives - involving the same questions. - - Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, on the day after Mr. Sumner, spoke at - length. In the course of his remarks he said:-- - - “I take it no one contends, I think the honorable Senator - from Massachusetts himself, who is the great champion of - Universal Suffrage, would hardly contend, that now, at this - time, the whole mass of the population of the recent Slave - States is fit to be admitted to the exercise of the right - of suffrage.” - - Then again:-- - - “While the honorable Senator from Massachusetts argued, and - argued with great force, that every man should have that - right, and that he should only be subject to disabilities - which he could overcome, his argument, connected with the - other principle that he laid down, and the application of - it that he made, that taxation and representation should go - together, would just as well apply to women as to men; but - I noticed that the honorable Senator dodged that part of - the proposition very carefully.” - - He criticized the substitute offered by Mr. Sumner, when the - latter remarked:-- - - “Last Friday this Senate solemnly declared, that, under - the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery, it had - power to decree the equal rights of all persons everywhere - throughout the United States, without distinction of - color. The moment that was declared, I said to friends - about me that the duty of Congress was fixed with regard - to political rights also. If Congress can decree equality - in civil rights, by the same reason, if not _a fortiori_, - it can decree equality in political rights; and as the - preamble to my proposition recited two reasons or moving - causes, one the guaranty clause, and the other the - Constitutional Amendment, I felt it my duty, acting upon - the vote of the Senate, to insist that the declaration of - equality for all should be coextensive with the Republic, - claiming as I do under the guaranty clause that it operates - within all the States where there has been a lapse of - government, and that under the Constitutional Amendment it - operates everywhere within the limits of the Republic.” - - In confining the guaranty clause to States that had “lapsed,” - Mr. Sumner was cautious not to make his proposition too - broad, although his judgment was that it was applicable to - all the States, and authorized a prohibition by Congress of - unrepublican provisions in any State. - - Mr. Fessenden said: “The Senator says we may secure it in the - States which have lapsed. That is a new phrase, but perhaps it - is as good as any other.” But he was unwilling to accept this - power. - - Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said, in answer to Mr. Sumner:-- - - “If Congress had the undoubted and unquestionable authority - to pass such a law, it gets at the result more readily than - does the Constitutional Amendment; but it is doubtful to my - mind whether Congress has this power. I believe, under the - Constitution, the right to determine the qualifications of - electors is left with the several States.” - - Then of the counter proposition he said:-- - - “It is a noble declaration, but a simple declaration,--a - paper bullet, that kills no one, and fixes and maintains - the rights of no one.” - - Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, Mr. - Clark, of New Hampshire, Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr. - Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Buckalew, - of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Saulsbury, - of Delaware, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, and Mr. Wilson, of - Massachusetts, all spoke at length. Of these, Mr. Henderson, - Mr. Yates, and Mr. Pomeroy sustained Mr. Sumner, in opposition - to the House expedient, although the first preferred to assure - suffrage by a Constitutional Amendment ordaining it: while - insisting upon the ballot for the colored citizen, he doubted - the power of Congress. Mr. Johnson thought the claim of our - fathers, in their cry against Taxation without Representation, - was for communities, and not for individuals. Mr. Sumner - afterwards replied at length to this opinion.[197] In the - course of Mr. Henderson’s speech, occupying two days, the - following colloquy occurred. - - MR. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend as insisting that the - denial of the franchise is consistent with a republican - government? Take the State of South Carolina, which denies - the franchise to more than half its population. - - MR. HENDERSON. In theory it is not. Under the Constitution - it was regarded as a republican State at the time of the - adoption of the instrument. - - MR. SUMNER. It did not deny the franchise to half its - citizens and more. I say citizens. Most excluded were - slaves. - - MR. HENDERSON. It then had only one hundred and forty - thousand whites, and had one hundred and seven thousand - slaves. It also had eighteen hundred free negroes. I - think it more nearly a republican State now than then. - Practically, the question of suffrage was left to the - States---- - - MR. SUMNER. But that is the question, whether they were - left to deny suffrage to any freeman on account of color. - - MR. HENDERSON. If that be the question, then the point is - against my friend; for both South Carolina and Virginia did - deny the suffrage to the free negroes on account of color - only, at the time when the Constitution was made, and when - it was adopted. Virginia had upward of twelve thousand free - negroes thus denied. - - MR. SUMNER. But the question is--I cannot anticipate my - friend’s conclusion on that point---- - - MR. HENDERSON. My conclusion is, that a mistake was made - in recognizing a Constitution as republican that permitted - Slavery. I know of no way to get rid of it except by - Constitutional Amendment. I think another mistake was - committed in leaving each State to so far abridge the right - of suffrage as to change, in theory, the republican form. - But such is the Constitution, and you cannot change it by - Act of Congress. That is my conclusion. - - MR. SUMNER. You are wrong. It is a question of theory - with regard to republican government, and I say that the - Constitution must be interpreted according to this theory. - - MR. HENDERSON. But our fathers did not deal with it in the - Constitution as a question of theory, but as a question of - fact. Whatever may have been their theories, I mean only to - say that the text of the Constitution does not carry them - out---- - - MR. SUMNER. The practical point is, Did our fathers concede - to any State the power of disfranchising citizens on - account of color? I utterly deny it, and I challenge my - friend to show any authority for it. - - MR. HENDERSON. Why, Mr. President, if I have already - failed to show it, I must fail in the future. I have shown - that the suffrage was left to the States, and that they - did exclude their negroes,--that they held in slavery - in Virginia almost half of their population,[198] and - that Virginia was called a republican State. Indeed, she - was most prominent in making the very provisions we are - discussing. She excluded the slaves and---- - - MR. SUMNER. Ah! slaves. That is another thing. The question - is, whether you are allowed to disfranchise freemen on - account of color,--whether you are allowed to deny freemen - rights as citizens. That I deny. The exception was slaves, - who were not regarded as members of the “body politic.” - They were treated as minors, or as women, represented - by their masters. But every freeman, no matter what his - color, was recognized as entitled to all the privileges of - citizenship; he was one of the sovereigns. The proposition - cannot be met, if my friend will consult the history of his - country. - - MR. HENDERSON. It was not slaves only that were - disfranchised, but I have shown that free negroes were also - disfranchised. But I have no controversy with the Senator - in what we mutually aim at. - - MR. SUMNER. I know that, and I concede to my excellent - friend all that I claim for myself. We are in search of the - best. I applaud his zeal, and thank him for his courtesy. - - MR. HENDERSON. I am certainly very much obliged to the - Senator from Massachusetts. I feel now ten times better - than I did before. [_Laughter._]--I cannot longer detain - the Senate in presenting objections to the exercise - of legislative power under the guaranty clause. It is - sufficient to control my own action, that I believe by the - letter, and even spirit of the Constitution, the suffrage - was placed exclusively under the control of State action. - I think that the error of so placing it is as clear as the - error made in tolerating Slavery. To rid ourselves of the - evil, however, we must amend the Constitution. - - MR. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend that a State might - adopt a rule founded on the color of the hair, so that - all men with light hair should be excluded from suffrage? - I insist that a State is not authorized, under the - Constitution, to make any exclusion on account of color. - - MR. HENDERSON. It ought not to be, you mean. - - MR. SUMNER. No,--it cannot be. Color cannot be a - qualification. There may be a qualification founded on age, - or residence, or knowledge, or crime. - - MR. HENDERSON. You are now coming in conflict with the - Committee of Fifteen, who declare by their resolution - that the States now have the power, and may yet exclude - everybody of a particular race or color. - - MR. SUMNER. The Committee propose to place that in the - Constitution, which is one reason why I object to their - report. I say that they propose to do what our fathers - never did. - - MR. HENDERSON. The Senator from Massachusetts is in theory, - perhaps, correct. He is speaking, however, of an ideal - Constitution. - - The following colloquy also occurred. - - MR. HENDERSON. The Senator from Massachusetts proposes to - do by an Act of Congress what I think can only be done by - a Constitutional Amendment. That is the difference now - between the Senator from Illinois [Mr. YATES] and myself. - I think the Amendment can be adopted. Indeed, I feel - confident of it. - - MR. SUMNER. What Amendment? - - MR. HENDERSON. An Amendment to the Constitution preventing - any discrimination against the negro in the right of - suffrage because of color. - - MR. SUMNER. It cannot. - - MR. HENDERSON. I thought in the bright lexicon of the - Senator from Massachusetts there was no such word as “fail.” - - MR. SUMNER. I thought the Senator meant that this - proposition of the Reconstruction Committee could be - adopted. - - MR. HENDERSON. Oh, no! I never thought that. - - MR. SUMNER. I believe that the Senator’s proposition can be - adopted--gratefully adopted--by the country; but the other - cannot be. - - Mr. Williams, of Oregon, hesitated with regard to Mr. Sumner’s - substitute, although he seemed to sympathize with the speech. - - “Sir, I listened with profound admiration to the speech - which the Senator delivered in favor of the proposed - substitute. It was worthy of the subject, worthy of the - occasion, worthy of the author; and when those who heard it - shall be forgotten, the echoes of its lofty and majestic - periods will linger and repeat themselves among the - corridors of History. I cordially indorse the prevailing - sentiment of that speech. I believe that the founders of - this Republic intended that all freemen should participate - in the political and civil rights of the country. I think - the distinction which they made was not between white men - and black men: that distinction is of modern origin: but - the distinction which they made was between freemen and - slaves.” - - He took objection to the substitute. - - “Pass that law at this session, and it becomes an issue - in the next political campaign; and those who sustain it - and pass it here will be committed to its support, and - those who oppose it will strive to elect men in favor of - its repeal. A majority of this Congress may believe in the - constitutionality and expediency of such legislation; but - another Congress, if a majority should happen to sympathize - with the honorable Senator from Kentucky, would abrogate - the law, and so the political rights of millions of people - would be as varying as the capricious fortunes of the - political parties of the country.” - - In the intervening debate on the Reconstruction Resolution - of the House of Representatives, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, - made an elaborate speech on the pending Amendment, in which he - pictured the compromise involved in it. - - “This Committee proposes in this Amendment to sell out four - million (radical count) negroes to the bad people of those - States forever and ever. In consideration of what? I am - asked. O shame, where is thy blush? I answer, in dust and - ashes, For about sixteen members of Congress. Has there - ever been before, Sir, in the history of this or any other - country, such a stupendous sale of negroes as that? Never! - never! It is saying to the Southern States, You may have - these millions of human beings, whom we love so dearly, and - about whom we have said so much, and for whom we have done - so much,--you may do with them as you please in the way of - legislative discrimination against them, if you will only - agree not to count them at the next census, except as your - sheep and oxen are counted; waive your right to sixteen - members of Congress, and the great compromise is sealed, - the long agony is over, the nation’s dead are avenged, the - nation’s tears are dried, and the nation’s politics are - relieved of the negro.” - - March 7th, Mr. Sumner spoke at length in reply to Mr. Fessenden - and others who had opposed his substitute. This speech appears - in the present volume, according to its date.[199] He was - followed by his colleague, Mr. Wilson, who was strenuous for - the House Amendment. - - “Mr. President, there are indications, not to be mistaken, - that this Amendment is doomed to defeat. To me this result - will be a subject of sincere and profound regret. My heart, - my conscience, and my judgment approve of this Amendment, - and I support it without qualification or reservation.” - - March 9th, Mr. Fessenden spoke again, criticizing especially - Mr. Yates and Mr. Sumner. - - Mr. Sumner followed Mr. Fessenden in a brief reply, which will - be found under its date.[200] - - Mr. Wilson declared again his adhesion to the pending - Amendment, saying: “I would go to the scaffold joyfully before - the sun goes down, if I could put this proposed Amendment into - the Constitution of my country; for, if it were there, there - would be but one result and one end to it, and that is the - enfranchisement of every black man within the bounds of the - United States.” - - The voting then commenced on the various substitutes for the - Amendment adopted by the House of Representatives. - - First came the counter proposition of Mr. Sumner, altered, - in conformity with the original draught,[201] so as to be - applicable only to States that had lapsed, being “lately - declared to be in rebellion,” without republican government. - - Mr. Henderson moved to strike out all of the counter - proposition, and in lieu of it insert a Constitutional - Amendment securing the suffrage to colored citizens:-- - - “ARTICLE 14. No State, in prescribing the qualifications - requisite for electors therein, shall discriminate against - any person on account of color or race.” - - Mr. Henderson felt obliged to move his amendment as a - substitute for the counter proposition of Mr. Sumner in order - to compel a vote upon it. - - Mr. Sumner stated that he was for this proposition, and that he - should vote for it, and, on its failure, press his own. - - The question, being taken by yeas and nays on Mr. Henderson’s - amendment, resulted--Yeas 10, Nays 37--as follows:-- - - YEAS,--Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Clark, Henderson, Howe, - Pomeroy, Sumner, Wade, Wilson, and Yates. - - NAYS,--Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Conness, Cowan, Cragin, - Creswell, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, - Guthrie, Harris, Hendricks, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, - Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton, - Nye, Poland, Ramsey, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague, - Stewart, Stockton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Williams. - - ABSENT,--Messrs. Foot, Howard, and Wright. - - So the amendment to the amendment was rejected. - - The question then recurred on the substitute of Mr. Sumner, - when the vote stood,--Yeas 8, Nays 39; so it was rejected. - Those voting in the affirmative were Messrs. Gratz Brown, of - Missouri, Chandler, of Michigan, Howe, of Wisconsin, Pomeroy, - of Kansas, Sumner, Wade, of Ohio, Wilson, of Massachusetts, and - Yates, of Illinois. - - Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, then moved to amend the House - proposition by striking out the proviso and inserting these - words, being an amplification of the proviso:-- - - “Whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or - abridged in any State in the election of Representatives - to Congress, or of any other officer, municipal, State, - or national, on account of race, color, descent, or - previous condition of servitude, or by any provision of - law not equally applicable to all races and descents, - all persons of such race, color, descent, and condition - shall be excluded from the basis of representation, as - prescribed in the second section of the first article of - the Constitution.” - - This amendment was adopted,--Yeas 26, Nays 20. It was - afterwards withdrawn by the mover, with the unanimous consent - of the Senate. - - The next question was on a legislative substitute, not unlike - that of Mr. Sumner, moved by Mr. Yates:-- - - “That no State or Territory of the United States shall, - by any constitution, law, or other regulation whatever, - heretofore in force or hereafter to be adopted, make, - or enforce, or in any manner recognize, any distinction - between citizens of the United States, or of any State - or Territory, on account of race or color or previous - condition of slavery; and that hereafter all citizens, - without distinction of race, color, or previous condition - of slavery, shall be protected in the full and equal - enjoyment and exercise of all their civil and political - rights, including the right of suffrage.” - - This was rejected,--Yeas 7, Nays 38. - - Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, then moved to amend the proposition - of the House of Representatives by inserting after the word - “legislatures” the words “next hereafter to be chosen in each - State.” The motion was rejected,--Yeas 12, Nays 31. - - Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the proviso in the House - proposition, as amended on the motion of Mr. Clark, and in lieu - thereof insert,-- - - “And the elective franchise shall not be denied or abridged - in any State on account of race or color.” - - In moving this Constitutional Amendment, Mr. Sumner remarked - that it was “a direct, positive proposition, slightly different - from that [Mr. HENDERSON’S] on which the Senate had voted.” It - was rejected,--Yeas 8, Nays 38. - - Mr. Sumner then moved to add at the end of the House - proposition the words, “And they shall be exempt from taxation - of all kinds.” - - Before the vote he remarked:-- - - “It is proposed, by a solemn provision of the Constitution, - to declare that certain persons shall not be included - in the basis of representation. I think, in justice to - them, they should not be taxed. You ought not to repeat - in the Constitution the tyranny of taxation without - representation. In so many words, you are about to despoil - fellow-citizens of representation, and I say, that, not to - be inconsistent with your own institutions and with the - principles upon which your government is founded, you must - exempt them from taxation.” - - The amendment was rejected. - - The question then came on the passage of the House proposition, - when the vote stood,-- - - YEAS,--Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, Conness, Cragin, - Creswell, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes, Harris, Howe, Kirkwood, - Lane of Indiana, McDougall, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, - Ramsey, Sherman, Sprague, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, and Wilson. - - NAYS,--Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, - Guthrie, Henderson, Hendricks, Johnson, Lane of Kansas, - Nesmith, Norton, Pomeroy, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton, - Sumner, Van Winkle, Willey, and Yates. - - ABSENT,--Messrs. Foot, Howard, and Wright. - - The Chair then declared: “On this question the Yeas are 25 and - the Nays 22. Two thirds of the Senators present not having - voted for the joint resolution, it is not agreed to.” - - This vote showed the judgment of the Senate at that time. But, - in order to keep the question open, it was, on motion of Mr. - Henderson, reconsidered. Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, then - moved a substitute, basing representation on qualified voters, - and also regulating direct taxes. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, offered - another substitute, founded on qualified voters, but with - nothing on direct taxes. While these were pending, the subject - was postponed on motion of Mr. Fessenden, and never resumed. - - Much feeling was manifested by some of the supporters of the - House attempt at amendment, when its defeat was known. Mr. - Stevens, of Pennsylvania, took an early occasion to say:-- - - “It was slaughtered by a puerile and pedantic criticism, by - a perversion of philological definition, which, if, when - I taught school, a lad who had studied Lindley Murray had - assumed, I would have expelled him from the institution - as unfit to waste education upon.… The murderers must - answer to the suffering race. I would not have been the - perpetrator. A load of misery must sit heavy on their - souls.… Let us again try and see whether we cannot devise - some way to overcome the united forces of self-righteous - Republicans and unrighteous Copperheads.”[202] - - The Fourteenth Amendment followed, and was adopted by - both Houses of Congress during the present session. While - undertaking to regulate representation, this Amendment had - no recognition of exclusion from the elective franchise on - account of “race or color.” Though failing in directness, there - was nothing in it to injure the text of the Constitution, or - impair the idea of a republican form of government, always with - Mr. Sumner a cardinal point. There were also other important - clauses, defining citizenship, assuring for all “the equal - protection of the laws,” disqualifying certain persons from - office until the removal of such disability by a vote of two - thirds of each House of Congress, protecting the public debt of - the United States, and annulling all debts in aid of rebellion - or on account of the loss or emancipation of any slave. - - The original object of the clause relating to representation - was accomplished directly, before its ratification as part of - the Constitution. After much debate, Congress yielded to the - claim of power, and took jurisdiction of the elective franchise - in the Rebel States, requiring, that, in voting on any State - constitution in the reconstruction of the Rebel States, there - should be no exclusion on account of race or color, and - that this prohibition should be embodied in the new State - constitutions.[203] The Fifteenth Constitutional Amendment on - equal suffrage followed. - - Unquestionably the establishment of the equal rights of colored - citizens at the ballot-box was one of the most important events - in our political history. With few supporters at first, the - cause grew in interest and strength until final success in - the Acts of Reconstruction, and then in the Constitutional - Amendment. This great result was accomplished by discussion and - the gradual recognition of the national exigency. - - -PRESS AND CORRESPONDENCE. - - Mr. Sumner’s speech was extensively circulated, and awakened - much attention. The response of the country will be seen in - the contemporary press and in letters addressed to him, which, - while illustrating the speech, reflect light on the times. - - * * * * * - - The Washington correspondents concurred in accounts of the - speech, and of the interest it created. - - Henry C. Bowen, proprietor of the New York _Independent_, then - on a visit to Washington, wrote to his paper of the first day - of the speech:-- - - “SENATE CHAMBER, - Monday Afternoon. - - “Whatever may be said in regard to the political opinions - of Hon. Charles Sumner, no one can deny his eminent ability - as an orator and scholar, and to-day this world-renowned - friend of the poor and the oppressed is speaking in the - Senate,--I had almost said as orator and scholar never - spoke before. His theme is the Rights of Man. The floor - and galleries of the Senate Chamber are crowded with most - attentive listeners, and such a spectacle as it is now my - unspeakable privilege to witness is worthy of a thousand - miles’ journey.… Never before have I heard in these - halls such solemn appeals, never such noble and eloquent - utterances. May the great Author of truth and justice - continue to inspire the great Senator now speaking to do - His will to the glory of His name!” - - So also the correspondent of the Boston _Daily Advertiser_:-- - - “The finest audience of the session came out to-day to - hear Mr. Sumner’s great speech on the Amendment to the - Constitution. Many persons were in the galleries before the - Senate was called together at noon, and long before one - o’clock, the hour at which the proposition was to be taken - up, they were crowded to their utmost capacity. The morning - hour was occupied with minor business, and it was a - quarter past one when Mr. Fessenden called for the special - order. He of course was entitled to open the debate, but, - being unwell to-day, he yielded the floor to Mr. Sumner. - - “The scene, when he rose to speak, was one that could not - fail to touch the most indifferent heart. One fourth of - the gentlemen’s gallery was filled with colored soldiers, - and the other seats and aisles of the remaining part of - the galleries were closely packed with an intent and - appreciative auditory, while on the floor were a large - number of members from the House and several members of the - foreign delegations resident in the city.” - - So also the correspondent of the Pittsburg _Commercial_:-- - - “The great event of the day and of the session in the - Senate was Mr. Sumner’s speech. The galleries were crowded - to excess, as they have not been on any occasion before - in a long time. Frederick Douglass was in the gallery, - one of the most attentive listeners, and evidently - the best-pleased man in the Chamber, as he heard the - distinguished champion of his race plead so eloquently in - its behalf. Nearly every member of the Senate listened with - rapt attention to Mr. Sumner.” - - So also the correspondent of the Boston _Commonwealth_:-- - - “Mr. Sumner’s great speech upon what constitutes a - republican government is now being delivered in the Senate. - It is the most powerful oration of his life,--the crowning - glory of his scholarship and statesmanship. Never yet has - any American statesman swept so wide a range of learning, - so complete a circle of public law, history, philosophy, - and jurisprudence, in support of so noble a principle as - the one underlying republican government. Mr. Sumner spoke - two hours yesterday, and will occupy about the same time - to-day. The galleries were filled to overflowing. The - Senatorial chairs were all occupied, while the floor was - thronged by Representatives and others having the _entrée_.” - - The correspondent of the Boston _Journal_ wrote of the second - day:-- - - “Senator Sumner was honored to-day by such an audience - as is rarely seen in the Senate Chamber. The Senators, - wheeling around their chairs so as to face the speaker, - listened with marked attention. Scores of Representatives - filled the sofas or the floor and stood in groups, and the - galleries were literally packed with earnest men and women, - who drank in every word as the gifted orator proceeded. - When he closed, the galleries applauded loudly, until - Senator Pomeroy, who occupied the chair, secured order, - while those on the floor crowded around Senator Sumner to - offer earnest congratulations.” - - So also the correspondent of the New York _Tribune_:-- - - “Senator Sumner concluded his great effort at fifty-five - minutes past two, having commenced at one. Diplomats, - two Cabinet Ministers, and a much larger number of - Congressmen than yesterday were on the floor, while - all the galleries and approaches were densely packed - with attentive listeners. As the argument of the speaker - culminated, he became grandly eloquent, and his elaborate - plea, which might rather be denominated an essay than a - speech, for negro enfranchisement, unquestionably made a - profound impression upon every intelligent listener. At its - conclusion the floor and galleries broke forth in applause.” - - A few days later, the correspondent of the New York _Tribune_, - after mentioning President Johnson’s interview with the - delegation of colored people headed by Frederick Douglass and - George T. Downing, wrote:-- - - “As to Mr. Sumner’s grand vindication of the fundamental - principles underlying republicanism, it is unnecessary - to repeat what has been said of the immediate effect it - produced upon those who listened to it,--of the overcrowded - galleries, the silent attention of the Senate, the members - of the House who had left their own seats and eagerly - thronged the floor of the Senate Chamber.… And even now, - since the sound has died away and there has been ample time - for searching criticism, you can hear men who are not in - the habit of following Mr. Sumner’s views of policy say - with heartfelt satisfaction, it was a grand speech, worthy - of the Senate, worthy of the cause it defended, worthy of - this Republic. I have hardly seen a Republican here who was - not as proud of it as if he had made it himself. Even Mr. - Sumner’s opponents, the Democrats of the Senate and the - House, yielded to it the tribute of their respect. That - respect will go all over this country, and even beyond its - boundaries; and while no thinking man in this Republic will - take it up without feeling the irresistible weight of its - logic and the ennobling power of its sentiments, it will - abroad do more honor to American republicanism than any - public act since the decree of Emancipation.” - - The correspondent of the New Orleans _Tribune_ wrote:-- - - “You will of course give to your readers the great speech - of Senator Sumner. His speech is one of the best ever - delivered in the Senate, and it was delivered in the - greatest of causes,--that of Human Liberty. It differs from - the tone so common among so-called ‘Democratic’ orators for - years past, both North and South, inasmuch as it contained - neither abusive, personal, nor vindictive language. But it - was calm, manly, dignified,--full of the subject in hand, - treating it with frankness,--alluding to the opposite - view with fairness, and even respect, while showing up - their errors and weaknesses as one would those of a - wayward child. For historical and legal research, critical - analysis, and logical argument, it is unsurpassed. Concise, - pithy, full of effective and happy illustrations, it was - admirably conceived and presented.” - - The correspondent of the Richmond _Republic_, with equal - appreciation, but less faith, wrote:-- - - “In the Senate, the day was devoted to Sumner. He began - speaking about one o’clock, and concluded his exhaustive - argument in an hour and forty minutes. The burden of the - whole of it was the absolute political and civil equality - of all men, and his peroration was a loftier flight of - majestic eloquence than the Senate has heard since the - best days of Clay and Webster. While very few agree with - Sumner in the present practicability of his ideas, and - still fewer indorse them at all as tenets of political - faith, yet there is but one opinion of the speech he has - been making for two days,--that, simply as a monument of - laborious research and good English, it is unsurpassed. - When he concluded to-night, the densely crowded galleries - could not be restrained, and burst out into vehement - applause; but it was a tribute to the grandly classical - language in which his ideas were clothed, and not to the - ideas themselves. Charles Sumner may possibly be a patriot, - but he is certainly a political philanthropist, and as such - there is no probability that he will live to see his tenets - practically enforced in the legislation of the country.” - - The correspondent of the New York _Times_ wrote:-- - - “He exhausted ancient and modern history in gathering - maxims and examples for the illustration of the points - which he made. Portions of the speech were marked by great - felicity of language and beauty of imagery. It exhibited, - perhaps, more of the speculative theorist than of the - practical statesman. Though he took pains to disavow - everything of this character, and to present his views as - the basis and guide of practical action, it was by far the - most elaborate and comprehensive speech made in Congress - for many years, and was heard with great attention by the - Senate and crowded galleries.” - - A few extracts from newspapers will show how the speech was - received at a distance. - - * * * * * - - The _Independent_, of New York, in printing the speech, thus - noticed it:-- - - “Charles Sumner’s argument for the Rights of Men ought to - be printed by the hundred thousand, and scattered like - seed-grain throughout the nation. It is a speech worth - a lifetime to have achieved,--the greatest of all Mr. - Sumner’s great speeches. Standing in some respects almost - alone in the Senate, his position is all the more morally - grand for his isolation, and his plea all the more eloquent - for his moral heroism. Generous readers will overlook - their minor differences of opinion from Mr. Sumner, for - the sake of agreeing with him to the full in the masterly, - unanswerable, and incomparable argument which he has made - in behalf of securing to every American citizen his just - rights before the law.” - - The New York _Tribune_ said:-- - - “Mr. Sumner concluded yesterday a great speech on the - true basis of a Republic. We believe it will exalt his - reputation as a statesman, a scholar, and a devotee of - Liberty. It is elaborate; but his theme demanded thorough - treatment, and we think very few who read the speech will - find it too long. He will not convince the majority that - the Federal Constitution, as it stands, empowers Congress - to extend and guaranty the right of suffrage in the States - lately in revolt to the black race, and especially to the - freedmen; but he has very clearly demonstrated that it - _ought_ to be so extended,--that the rights of the humble, - the hated, the scorned ought especially to be protected by - their right to vote. Hear what he says on this point.” - - The Boston _Daily Advertiser_ said:-- - - “There has been a good deal of amusement expressed at - the evidence of industry, during the recess of Congress, - presented by the sheaf of bills and resolutions offered - by Mr. Sumner at the opening of the session. The copious - use of authorities in his speech of this week shows that - these numerous measures were not prepared without a careful - survey of the ground upon principle and in history, - nor without very profound inquiry into the underlying - doctrines upon which the true glory of our institutions is - established.” - - The Adams _Transcript_, of Massachusetts, said:-- - - “In this work of clearing away the rubbish of lies which - Slavery has heaped upon the real doctrines and purposes of - the Fathers, and bringing out into clear, glorious relief - the great truth and work of the Revolution, Mr. Sumner has - performed a service which no public man of our politics - has equalled. The whole of our history is searched and - illumined, and the most overwhelming mass of evidence - produced to the point, that a true construction of the - Constitution gives all men who pay taxes representation and - the ballot, thus basing free government upon the consent of - the governed. No such argument for free government has been - made in our day. For learning, cogency of logic, wealth of - illustration, felicity and splendor of diction, nobility - of tone and sentiment, and genuine eloquence, it will take - rank with the highest of forensic efforts. Already its - effect is visible in the political atmosphere. The public - feeling and thought have received an obvious elevation.” - - The Rochester _Democrat_, of New York, said:-- - - “It will be observed, as a remarkable characteristic of - this great speech, that it is but slightly controversial - in its character, but is devoted mainly to the elucidation - of the general principles of republican government, which - are discussed with an elevation of sentiment, a depth - of learning, and a power of logic that entitle it to a - place far above the transient expressions of the views - and passions of the hour. It will stand for ages, a noble - and enduring monument of the highest range and scope of - American statesmanship, and will be read with profit and - admiration long after the questions of the day have been - settled and forgotten, or remembered only by students - of history. Its immediate effect, however, on public - sentiment cannot fail to be vast and beneficial. - - The Dayton _Journal_, of Ohio, said:-- - - “As an exposition of the American theory of Republicanism, - this speech is unsurpassed in the history of American - oratory. It is a magnificent contribution to our political - literature. It is candid and temperate, the speech of a - statesman and patriot who earnestly seeks the welfare of - all his countrymen. It abounds in splendid passages, and is - a model of classic strength and elegant style. The partisan - sneers of demagogues cannot prevail against it.” - - The Portland _Daily Press_, of Maine, said:-- - - “It is not only _the_ great speech of Charles Sumner’s - life, but it is the great speech of the age. It is - perfectly exhaustive, free from all personalities, free - from all idiosyncrasies, statesmanlike, philosophical, and - calculated to become a lasting memorial of its author’s - research, patient investigation, power of analysis, and, - above all, his undying devotion to the cause of popular - liberty and human rights.” - - The _Progressive Age_, of Belfast, Maine, said:-- - - “It is beyond question the greatest effort of our most - distinguished New England statesman, and will make his name - dear to every friend of freedom and equal rights in all - coming time. It is throughout the language of the calm, - conscientious statesman. Avoiding all mere expedients and - controversies concerning details, it fixes the attention - upon the great principles of a free republican government; - and never in our history have those principles been so - clearly and forcibly elucidated.” - - The Bangor _Jeffersonian_, also of Maine, said:-- - - “In the United States Senate, on Monday and Tuesday of last - week, Mr. Sumner made a speech which will occupy a very - conspicuous place in the history of the American Union, - not so much for its advocacy of any merely formal plan or - scheme of national legislation for Reconstruction as for - its closer relations to the great fundamental principles - which constitute the ideal of a truly republican government - It goes to the very foundation of things.” - - In a leading article of more than two columns, the New York - _Herald_ said, in a different vein:-- - - “MR. SUMNER’S ORATION.--NEGRO SUFFRAGE THE WHOLE DUTY OF - THE NATION, AND THE ONLY ESCAPE FROM OUR DIFFICULTIES.--Mr. - Sumner, in his Senatorial pleading in the case of the - negro, has given to the country an elaborate evidence of - the utterly impracticable and visionary character of his - political views. His oration is admirable in all purely - literary respects, and indicates an abundant industry and - research; but its theories of society, its interpretations - of the Constitution, and its assumptions as to the history - of the country and of the war are inadmissible, excepting - only what is said of the Constitutional Amendment.… - - “Those parts of the oration which claim suffrage for the - negro, as a necessary policy of the nation, will require - but little answer by argument; for the country and the - world--all men outside the Radical Republican party--will - completely deny the truth of the points from which they - start.… - - “We quite agree with Mr. Sumner in the grand fact that - the Constitutional Amendment gives Congress full power to - settle the position of the negro in the Southern States, - and even to give him the suffrage. We are quite sure that - this oration has not shown the necessity, the justice, - or even the expediency of this gift. Still it may be - expedient, necessary, and just.” - - The speech attracted attention in Europe. In the _Revue - des Deux Mondes_, of Paris, which is so comprehensive a - representative of the French mind, a leading article by M. - Forcade presents a parallel between Mr. Sumner’s speech and the - famous speech of the time in the French Assembly by M. Thiers, - where Liberty was the theme. - - “The very day when M. Thiers delivered his speech we were - occupied in reading the remarkable speech which Mr. Sumner - has just pronounced in the Senate at Washington, and which - the last mail from America has brought us. The speech of - Mr. Sumner is the recent political event in the United - States. - - “The illustrious American Senator, the chief of the radical - party in the Senate, proposed to himself to deduce from - the most careful examination of the Constitution of his - country those principles according to which should be - settled that difficult problem which the Americans call - Reconstruction,--that is to say, the return of the Rebel - States into the Union. We shall not undertake to judge - the practical bearing of the opinions of Mr. Sumner on - the great question which agitates the United States; - but it is impossible for us not to render homage to the - patriotic piety which breathes in his beautiful discourse. - As M. Thiers wished to derive the liberal destinies of - France from the great principles of the Revolution, so - Mr. Sumner applied himself to exhibit in the origin of - the Constitution of the United States the fundamental - principles of republican government of modern times.… - - “Is it not a remarkable coincidence, that these voices of - two great patriots, who, almost at the same moment, without - any concert, obey instinctively the mysterious law which - moves the people destined to guide civilization, answer - to each other with so much splendor from opposite sides - of the Atlantic? All the news from the United States show - that the effect produced by the speech of Mr. Sumner has - been immense.… The habitual adversaries of Mr. Sumner, - the Democrats in Congress, covered themselves with honor - in uniting in the testimonials of respect which were so - universally rendered to the radical Senator. In the pride - inspired by this beautiful and good oratorical plea, the - Americans turn in a friendly spirit toward our Old World, - and do not dissemble the hope that this speech will do them - more honor in Europe than any public act in their country - since the decree of Emancipation. We are charmed, for our - part, to justify this hope.”[204] - - -CORRESPONDENCE. - - Numerous letters, from various persons and quarters, attest the - general interest, marked in many cases by feeling and personal - gratitude seeking to express itself. Brief extracts from a - portion only are given. - - * * * * * - - Theodore Tilton, editor of the New York _Independent_, wrote - just before the speech:-- - - “I protested with all my heart against the Amendment - offered by the Committee of Fifteen. It don’t execute - justice. It leaves the negro to the decision of the Rebel. - It proves that a republic is ungrateful. - - “I am glad to notice by the _Tribune_ of this morning that - you are to move an Amendment, or rather a substitute for - that Amendment.” - - -[FROM MASSACHUSETTS.] - - William Lloyd Garrison, the early Abolitionist, always - persistent against Slavery, wrote from Boston:-- - - “I have perused your eloquent and unanswerable speech on - the Suffrage question, and need not say that it contains - the noblest sentiments, to which all the faculties and - powers which God has given me thrillingly respond. It will - doubtless be more efficacious out of the Senate than in it, - as it will help to educate the popular mind up to the point - of abolishing all complexional distinctions before the law, - North and South.… Your speech, based as it is upon absolute - justice and eternal right, is an admirable elementary - treatise, and I trust will have the widest circulation.… - - “What assiduity and perseverance, what courage and - determination, what devotion and inflexible purpose - you have shown, through fiery trials and at the risk - of martyrdom, ‘in season and out of season,’ to effect - the downfall of the atrocious slave system, and thereby - elevate and save the Republic! If to this extent the year - of jubilee has come, you have done much towards ushering - it in, and have a right to be specially glad and grateful - that Heaven has been pleased to make you so potential an - instrumentality in bringing about its beneficent designs.” - - Wendell Phillips, who never failed to sympathize with efforts - for Human Rights, wrote from Boston:-- - - “We are all inexpressibly grateful for your brave position - and words. You and half a dozen others redeem Congress. - Your arguments have been grand and exhaustive. You never - linked so many hearts to you as during the last two months.” - - Elizur Wright, the veteran Abolitionist, wrote from Boston:-- - - “Your speech and vote on the Blaine Amendment ought to - produce a thrill of life and joy and hope through every - spinal column that supports a loyal soul. We can’t afford - any of the old nonsense. We took our sable friends into our - boat when it was _bulleting_; and if we allow them to be - thrown overboard by the traitors now it is _balloting_, we - sink, in short.” - - George Bemis, the eminent lawyer and publicist, wrote from - Boston:-- - - “I think that you may justly rank it among your greatest - efforts, and that it will go into history as the great - statement of the Freedman’s claim to participate in the - government of the country of which he makes part. The - general student of governmental law and civil polity - will also constantly refer to it as a new and important - development of the connection between representation and - executive sovereignty, and as a powerful _exposé_ of the - true basis of republican institutions. You have done a - great service to the colored race, to the science of - statesmanship, and to your country, all at once.” - - Hon. Charles P. Huntington, for some time an able Judge of the - Superior Court, wrote from Boston:-- - - “If your opposition does not just now reflect the feeling - of New England Republicans, it anticipates their sober - judgment. Theoretically, at least, it deprives the black - race of representation, and punishes them for acts of - legislation in which they have no voice.” - - Hon. Theophilus P. Chandler, able lawyer and Assistant - Treasurer, wrote from the United States Treasury, Boston:-- - - “Eloquent, exhaustive, unanswerable.” - - Hon. George B. Loring, afterwards Chairman of the State - Committee of the Republican party in Massachusetts, and - President of the Massachusetts Senate, wrote from Salem:-- - - “Your masterly speech will one day be reached by Congress - and the people,--I trust, in your day and mine. The best - minds believe in it; the best hearts take courage from it.” - - Hon. E. L. Pierce, afterwards Secretary of the Board of - Charities in Massachusetts, wrote from Boston:-- - - “I read last evening, at one session, your last speech in - the Senate. It is a noble one, and right in all respects. - One passage near the close reminds me of the famous - passages of Curran and Brougham about Freedom. I agree with - you about the proposed Amendment.” - - Thomas Sherwin, head master of the Boston High School, father - of General Sherwin, and a tutor of Mr. Sumner at Harvard - College, wrote from Dedham:-- - - “Allow me, as an old friend, to congratulate you and to - thank you for your noble speech in the Senate on the 5th. - I obtained it last evening, and read the whole before I - slept. In humanity of sentiment, in true patriotism, in - completeness of argument, in fulness of illustration, you - have left nothing to be desired. - - “This Reconstruction is, indeed, a momentous affair, and I - feel a greater doubt of its just determination than I felt - for that of arms while the war raged.” - - Rev. John T. Sargent, always swift to sympathize with Mr. - Sumner, wrote from Boston:-- - - “It is emphatically _the_ speech of the time and crisis, - absorbing, superseding, and transcending every other. God - bless you for these timely words! They ought to be widely - circulated, and reprinted in every corner of our land, - East, West, North, and South.” - - Rev. George C. Beckwith, Congregational clergyman, and - Secretary of the American Peace Society, wrote from Boston:-- - - “Nothing but the constant feeling that you are constantly - overtasked has kept me from writing you on several - occasions. I will only just say now, that I owe you a - thousand thanks for the great and noble services you - are rendering. God give you strength and life and full - opportunity to complete your work!” - - Rev. R. S. Storrs, the eminent Congregational clergyman, wrote - from Braintree:-- - - “I am sure that I express but the common sentiment of - the people all about me, when I say that your own course - meets with more than a hearty approval, even admiration - and gratitude. May God give you wisdom and firmness equal - to the emergency, and crown your arduous labors with the - success they deserve!” - - E. E. Williamson, one of the earnest men of Massachusetts, - wrote from Boston:-- - - “Your whole argument is founded upon righteousness and - justice, and cannot be overthrown. What a glorious - record you are making for future generations to peruse - with gladness, and by which record your name is made as - imperishable as the hills of your native State! I hope God - will spare you to finish the good work you are in, and many - years after to reap a slight portion of your reward.” - - Nathaniel C. Nash, a merchant devoted to the national cause, - wrote from Boston:-- - - “The multitude who thronged to the Senate Chamber, together - with the representatives of foreign governments, to listen - to your speech (which I term the New Testament of the - Nineteenth Century), was an exhibition of the world’s - interest in how well or ill you finish the great battle for - human freedom, not for one continent, but for civilized - man.” - - Hon. Charles G. Davis, a stanch Antislavery Republican, wrote - from Plymouth:-- - - “Your course is fully approved here by a majority of - the Republicans, and by all who have opinions. Besides - all this, you will be historically right, now that the - Amendment is defeated.… It is the greatest work of your - life, unless your opposition to Lincoln’s Louisiana scheme - may prove such, if you even succeed in keeping out the - mongrel States.” - - Augustine G. Stimson, desiring to express his sympathies as a - constituent, wrote from Boston:-- - - “Last evening I read your speech from beginning to end, - with an interest that awakened admiration and gratitude. - The Equal Rights of All is the only sure guaranty for the - present and future of mankind.” - - William E. Chase, formerly a private in the national army, - wrote from North Uxbridge:-- - - “Please accept the thanks of a poor private for your noble, - courageous, and Christian efforts in the great cause of - Right, Justice, and Liberty, when Justice is unpopular, and - you are obliged by duty to meet both friend and foe in this - conflict.” - - F. W. Pelton wrote from Boston:-- - - “I desire to thank you for your late noble speech in favor - of legal equality in this country. I read it with deep - interest. Your propositions are sound, and the great lights - of history you marshal up to sustain them impressed me - forcibly.” - - William Plumer wrote from Lexington:-- - - “Please accept my thanks for the copies of your very able - and learned speech on the right of universal suffrage. - Whatever may be the practicability of this principle at - the present time, and however the country or Congress may - settle the question in the future, your arguments are - certainly unanswerable, and will ever remain an enduring - monument of your earnest labors in behalf of the Freedman.” - - Richard L. Pease, Clerk of Courts, wrote from Edgartown:-- - - “It was with feelings of intense satisfaction that I read - the report of your recent speech on equal suffrage, as it - appeared in the Boston _Journal_. The argument is so clear - and able that it would seem that no intelligent man of - candor could deny the conclusions. Adherence to the Right - because it is the Right will never fail to commend itself - to all right-thinking men.” - - Rev. Robert Crawford wrote from Deerfield:-- - - “I thank you for that noble speech, … so logical, so - happily illustrated, so full of earnestness and soul, and - withal so convincing. I rejoice that there is one in our - highest councils who feels as you do on the subject, and - who has the ability and the courage to make such a speech.” - - Rev. Patrick V. Moyce, a priest of the Roman Catholic Church, - wrote from Northampton:-- - - “I am often reading your admirable speech of March 7th, - and so much am I impressed with the justice of the - principles it inculcates with so much classical ability and - statesmanly wisdom and foresight, that I cannot possibly - deny myself the honor of taking this method of testifying - to you my heartfelt congratulations. You are the one man - among many who seems to have studied the present exigencies - of your noble country, and to have judged aright the - requirements of the age you and we all live in at present. - The benevolent qualities of heart which distinguish you in - this great speech are in perfect keeping with the towering - majesty of your well-cultivated intellect. Go on. Lead - and triumph, and accept the blessing and prayers of a - Roman Catholic priest, who begs to subscribe himself, with - profound esteem and high consideration, your most humble - and devoted servant.” - - The New England Conference of the Methodist Episcopal Church, - meeting at Chicopee, Massachusetts, March 28th, adopted a - resolution, officially communicated to Mr. Sumner, which, after - declaring approbation of both Houses of Congress, proceeds:-- - - “Especially do we offer our sympathies and prayers for our - own honored Senators, one of whom has endured in the past, - with a martyr’s fortitude, the barbarous assaults upon his - person of the champion of Slavery, and has lately been - called to endure an equally unjustifiable assault upon his - reputation by the present Chief Magistrate of the United - States.” - - -[OUT OF MASSACHUSETTS.] - - Hon. Israel Washburn, Collector of the port of Portland, - formerly Governor of Maine and a distinguished Representative - in Congress, wrote from Portland:-- - - “When I obtained Wilson’s bill, which prohibited the denial - by the States of _civil_ rights to persons on account of - color or race, I wrote him to inquire why he had not said - also _political_. The authority is certainly as clear for - the latter as for the former. So, when, last evening, I - read your resolution and speech, I was strengthened and - rejoiced. Your positions are impregnable, and your speech, - I think, the greatest of your life. We must stand there, or - not at all.” - - In another letter, Mr. Washburn wrote:-- - - “When men as patriotic and sincere as I am, and a great - deal wiser, sustain the Blaine Amendment, I am confounded, - and don’t know what to make of it. To my mind it is most - abhorrent, and I hope it will not receive the assent of - Congress.” - - Rev. Rufus P. Stebbins, a Unitarian clergyman, wrote from - Portland, Maine:-- - - “You have fought a good fight. The Amendment proposed was - defeated. _Laus Deo!_ It was a blot too dark and foul to be - permitted to stain the Constitution. To speak of ‘race and - color’ in that instrument would be an insult to the men who - framed it.” - - Rev. A. Battles wrote from Bangor, Maine:-- - - “As a native of Massachusetts, and more than that, as a - lover of my race, I want to thank you for your timely - and eloquent words in behalf of universal and impartial - justice. I thank you also for voting against the Blaine - Amendment. Though it might accomplish one desirable object, - it was a concession to prejudice against color. The black - man could hope for nothing through it. We want no more - compromise.” - - Hon. William Greene, an enlightened citizen, who has held - various public offices in Rhode Island, wrote from East - Greenwich:-- - - “I beg to congratulate you as a friend, and to thank you - as an American citizen, for the great speech recently - delivered by you in the Senate. You have opened a new field - of thought to American statesmen, and furnished a new book - of elementary political lessons to the American people. It - would seem almost impossible that such an effort should not - tell grandly upon both.” - - Hon. Gerrit Smith, the devoted Abolitionist, formerly a - Representative in Congress, wrote from Peterboro, New York:-- - - “God bless you for this noble speech which you have made - against the Apportionment Amendment! I have this day read - the part of it in yesterday’s New York _Tribune_. I long to - read the whole of it.” - - In another letter, Mr. Smith wrote:-- - - “You are the keystone of our arch. If you fail, all falls.” - - Hon. N. Niles, formerly in the diplomatic service, wrote from - New York:-- - - “I admire and applaud the tenacity with which you advocate - the equal rights of all men of all races under one - Constitution and Government.… I hope you will stand up - for the Asiatics as well as for the negroes. They are now - treated as brutes in some of our States.” - - Cephas Brainerd, lawyer, and arbitrator under the last treaty - with England against the Slave Trade, wrote from New York:-- - - “Nearly all the copies of your great speech that I - obtained have been circulated, and I don’t find any one - who dares deny the correctness of the doctrines you lay - down. It has my hearty assent, and I have subjected it - to the examination which the argument of an opposing - counsel receives from me. I consider that very many of - your Senatorial speeches will be quite as permanent as - any of Burke’s productions; but this last seems to be as - enduring as the Constitution of our country, whether as the - foundation of a government or as a matter of mere study.” - - Rev. Henry Ward Beecher, always on the watch-tower, wrote from - Brooklyn, New York:-- - - “Although I do not think with you on the specific change - in the Amendment which you advocate, I cannot forbear - expressing my thanks for your noble speech, which has the - merit of rising far above the occasion and object for which - it was uttered, and covering a ground which will abide - after all temporary questions of special legislation have - passed away. - - “I wish that your oration might be in every school library - in the Union. May your life be prolonged, and every year - add some new jewel to the crown of fame, that, when you go - to a higher sphere, men will place upon your name!” - - Rev. A. P. Putnam, Unitarian clergyman, also wrote from - Brooklyn, New York:-- - - “I bless God for the firm and lofty stand you have taken, - and the people will yet see, if they do not now see, - that it is the only wise and sure one for Union- and - Freedom-loving men to take. Would that all loyal men, - especially the great Union party, could see it to be their - duty and their interest to meet boldly and grandly the - issue which the President seems determined to force upon - them!” - - Rev. F. C. Ewer, anxious against compromise, wrote from New - York:-- - - “I am but one of thousands whom you little think of as - watching you with anxiety, and to whom your present firm - position has given great cheer and comfort. Of course there - are many who have always stood with you, and who must be - sources of encouragement; but we are new recruits, who - have had enough of ‘compromise,’ and who see no hope of - permanent peace ahead except under a thorough adjusting of - the Constitution to the principles of the Declaration of - Independence.” - - James P. Lee and fourteen others united in a letter from - Herkimer, New York:-- - - “In this centre of the Empire State there are not a few - who would express their thanks to you personally, if - they could, but more especially to God, our Heavenly - Father, for having endowed you, as Joshua of old, with the - determination to lead His oppressed people to the promised - land, ‘a land flowing with milk and honey’ (not with - disgrace), after their Moses had been taken from them.” - - F. Hawley wrote with much feeling, from Cazenovia, New York:-- - - “In God’s name, in the name of Justice and Freedom, and - in behalf of the millions of God’s outraged poor, I thank - you for your noble speech. Brooks could not kill you. God - predetermined that you should live to be mouth for Him, - that this preëminently guilty nation might know their duty, - and that the great idea that lies at the foundation of all - righteous civil government might be vindicated. It is to be - regretted that your proposition could not have been brought - forward before the House had committed itself to that - miserable Amendment.” - - Alexander Ostrander, a lawyer, wrote from New York:-- - - “I thank God that we have a man in the Senate bold enough - and capable enough to point the nation the road back to the - foundation principles of the Government.” - - E. W. Stewart, originally of the Liberty party, wrote from - North Evans, New York:-- - - “Having read your truly noble plea for the ‘great guaranty’ - of personal and political rights under the Constitution, - in the Senate, I write to thank you with my whole heart. - It is the right word spoken at the right time and in the - right place, and it will reach the hearts of the people - and produce there a deep conviction, if it does not in - Congress.… The positions in your speech are unanswerable.” - - Dr. Henry A. Hartt, a radical Abolitionist, wrote from New - York:-- - - “I must tell you how proud I feel, as a man and as an - American citizen, on account of the position you have - taken. When the Amendment of the Committee was proposed, I - felt chagrined and mortified beyond expression, and I did - fervently pray that we might be saved from the intolerable - infamy of putting into our Constitution a sanction, - even by implication, of the right of a State to deny or - abridge the franchise in consequence of race or color. - You may, then, imagine my joy, when I saw you break loose - from all considerations of policy and party, and place - yourself immovably upon the elevated platform of a just and - righteous statesmanship. - - “I have read the report of your speech in the extra of the - _Tribune_, and I am sure that history will confirm the - verdict which I give, when I say that it was equal to the - great occasion.” - - Edward Cary, editor of the Brooklyn _Daily Union_, wrote from - that place:-- - - “The loyal people in Brooklyn have felt very keenly the - outrage and insult you have suffered at the hands of Mr. - Johnson. They honor and trust you, and will uphold you. The - mention of your name by Mr. Garrison, on Tuesday evening, - drew from the large audience rounds of applause, which died - away only to be renewed, until it was the most prolonged I - ever heard.” - - William Silvey, of New Jersey, earnest in patriotism and - Antislavery, wrote from Alexandria, Virginia:-- - - “How all the hearts of the true lovers of their country, - even in this rebellious city, are thrilling with gratitude - and thankfulness for your uniform noble efforts, which - have opened and will continue to open the eyes of the - citizens of our country and the whole world as to the true - significance or meaning of what constitutes a republican - government, which has been so sadly perverted by our - practice as a nation!” - - W. H. Ashhurst, an eminent merchant, wrote from Philadelphia:-- - - “I have read nothing for a long while that has moved me so - much as your speech in the Senate on the 5th and 6th inst.” - - George D. Parrish, an earnest friend of peace, wrote from - Philadelphia:-- - - “I have written you more than once before, but, having - no personal acquaintance, hesitated to thank you for the - strength and instruction which really called for thanks and - congratulations. You have done nobly, Sir, for your country - and for this generation.” - - Joseph T. Thomas, of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, - wrote from Harrisburg:-- - - “You may be vilified and abused, and no doubt are, as - all great benefactors of their race are in their day and - generation. But future ages will do you full justice, - and your name will be illustrious when the names of your - revilers will be consigned to the most ignoble oblivion.” - - T. E. Hall wrote from Galion, Ohio:-- - - “In the joy of my heart I congratulate the people of this - Government that the old ship of state has at its helm a - statesman who, despite the storms, the howling tempests, - the Cimmerian darkness which enshrouds us, stands boldly - and fearlessly at his post, unawed, calm, self-possessed, - ready for any emergency. - - “The great speech, portions of which it has been my - privilege to peruse, is only second in importance to - President Lincoln’s proclamation which liberated four - millions of slaves; and, indeed, this speech carried out is - virtually but the fulfilling of that proclamation.” - - Rev. George Duffield wrote from Detroit, Michigan:-- - - “I feel constrained, though entirely unknown to you, - to thank you most cordially for the intense pleasure I - have enjoyed in the perusal of your great oration on the - question of Universal Enfranchisement, as involved in - the proposed Constitutional Amendment, looking towards - universal suffrage. Its lucid didactic statements, its - admirable analysis, its irresistible logic, and its - glowing, brilliant eloquence, with its valuable historic - instruction and its burning love of freedom and humanity, - have both convinced my understanding and captivated my - heart.” - - Rev. Charles H. Brigham, an accomplished Unitarian clergyman, - in a letter describing an exhibition at the University of - Michigan, wrote from Ann Arbor:-- - - “But the most attractive piece on the programme, which - brought the house down with the most prolonged and hearty - applause, was Number Four [entitled “Charles Sumner”], - in which a most glowing and animated tribute was paid to - the scholarship, industry, fidelity, patriotism, love of - justice, and love of man, of the Senator whom Massachusetts - delights to honor. It was a delight, I assure you, to a - Massachusetts man, and a friend of yours, to hear, out here - in the West, among these ‘Fogies’ and ‘Copperheads,’ such - noble words about the old Bay State and her representative - man, and to hear the response to them from the great - audience.” - - Hon. Charles V. Dyer, a Judge under the final treaty with - England against the Slave Trade, wrote from Chicago:-- - - “I am greatly your debtor for your two speeches, in a form - for preservation and re-perusal, and any word of mine in - regard to their ability or patriotism is quite needless. - But I will say that the courage that can face cold looks - of friends, cruel animadversions of one’s own party press, - and, what is easier, the unceasing abuse and bullyism of - the enemies of all good, is so rare that it commands my - admiration.” - - Jesse W. Fell wrote from Normal, Illinois:-- - - “I have just finished reading your late speech on - Reconstruction, and I cannot forbear dropping you a line - to say how much I have been gratified by its perusal. I - will not characterize it as under different circumstances - I should be tempted to. Suffice it to say, in my poor - judgment it is the noblest, ablest effort of your life, and - is just the document to send broadcast over the land.” - - James H. Alderman wrote from Jacksonville, Illinois:-- - - “A thousand thanks for your incomparable speech, expounding - and defining the true theory of a republican government. - Yes, I say a thousand thanks. I have always believed - the Constitution was fully adequate for every exigency. - Congress, therefore, must of necessity guaranty to every - State a republican form of government.” - - Worthington G. Snethen, an Abolitionist, of Baltimore, wrote:-- - - “Thanks, thanks for your two great speeches. They will live - and breathe and stir the heart of humanity, when the memory - of A. Johnson and his Republican renegade sycophants will - be forgotten, or brought to mind only to be execrated. - Millions of black men bless you now, and hundreds of - millions of God’s dusky skins will bless you in the ages - to come, for these two grand and eloquent vindications of - human liberty from the assaults of despotism, caste, and - the white man’s meanness; and the white world, too, far - down in the future, will bless your name. The spirit of - prophecy pervades every line of these speeches, and lights - up every step you take with the blaze of logic and truth.… - - “Your resistance to the Trojan horse of the Apportionment - Amendment I sincerely hope was crowned with success in - to-day’s vote. That Amendment is the basest compromise that - has yet bubbled to the surface of the cesspool of American - politics.… - - “You must all come to it, sooner or later. Congress must - legislate impartial suffrage into all the States by direct - statute. Strange that the States in Congress cannot do what - the States separately out of Congress can do!” - - Hon. R. Stockett Mathews, the orator and lawyer, wrote from - Baltimore:-- - - “I thank you most profoundly for the seasonable courage - which will admonish others of their duty, although I have - but small hope of witnessing any immediate fruition of the - good work you have done for us all.” - - F. W. Alexander, of Maryland, who served patriotically in the - war, wrote from New York:-- - - “I read your speech in the paper this morning, and I write - to express my gratification that you have refused to accept - any half-measures, but have sought to induce Congress to - proceed in its work of Reconstruction on the only sure - foundation, that of justice to all. Whether the measure is - carried or not, your speech will not be lost, and it is a - mere question of time.” - - S. F. Chapman wrote from Alexandria, Virginia:-- - - “I thank you for your speech. I think it an honor to - the age in which you live, and believe it will remain a - monument to your genius and eloquence. I am proud of it, - and that you sent it to me. I shall preserve it, and leave - it to my children, as one of the noblest consecrations to - Liberty and Man.” - - John W. Osborne, Hospital Steward of the United States Army, - wrote from Washington:-- - - “That elaborate exposition will endure for ages as a - monument of your noble patriotism and unparalleled - eloquence. Its sentences will be read with grateful emotion - by the freedom-loving people of all nations, and their - prayers for your welfare and warfare will daily ascend to - Heaven.” - - Rev. Henry Highland Garnet, a colored clergyman and orator, for - some time settled in New York, wrote from Washington, where he - was on a visit:-- - - “I was one of the many who heard your speech which you - concluded yesterday afternoon in the Senate of the United - States, and I take this opportunity to tender you my thanks - and undying gratitude for that glorious and inspired - production. I think that I may safely say that you have the - gratitude of my entire race for your fearless and radical - advocacy of the rights of all men, as I know you have their - sincere and ardent love. - - “After having slept upon your speech, and the excitement - which was produced at the moment of its delivery is - somewhat subdued, I must say, that, if I were able, I would - cause a million of copies to be printed and scattered over - the land.” - - This was followed by the presentation of the Memorial Discourse - by Mr. Garnet in the Hall of the House of Representatives, - Washington, February 12, 1866, with the inscription, “To the - Hon. Charles Sumner, as a small and humble token of respect, - and admiration of the ablest speech ever delivered in the - Senate of the United States.” - - * * * * * - - Among the most enlightened women of the country the pending - question awakened a deep interest; nor was their testimony - wanting. - - Mrs. Josephine S. Griffing, devoted to good works in - Washington, and especially to the care and protection of poor - colored people, young and old, wrote from Washington:-- - - “I hope I shall not be considered intrusive in expressing - to you my deep gratitude for and high estimation of your - unparalleled speech, made in the United States Senate, - February 5th and 6th, not only as contrasted with that of - President Johnson to the colored delegation, but as an - independent effort, the greatest, because the broadest - in its application, of any ever made before the American - people.” - - Mrs. L. M. Worden, sister of the late Mrs. William H. Seward, - and always a warm Abolitionist, wrote from Auburn, New York:-- - - “Please accept my thanks for your noble speech of the 5th - and 6th of February, which I have read and re-read with - great attention and deep gratitude and admiration. This - ‘testimony of the truth’ will add yet another bright page - to the record of your undeviating fidelity to the cause of - Justice and Humanity.” - - Mrs. Horace Mann, widow of the philanthropist, teacher, and - Representative in Congress, wrote from Concord, Massachusetts:-- - - “I presume you will receive a thousand letters expressive - of the satisfaction and delight that your speech upon the - Suffrage question has given; and yet I must add mine, - for it is but rarely that one feels that a moral subject - is exhausted, and you appear to have accomplished this - astonishing result. It is difficult to conceive how - Congress can act otherwise than in the highest manner, - after listening to it and reading it.” - - Miss Susan B. Anthony, so earnest to secure suffrage for her - own sex, was not less earnest for the colored race:-- - - “A thousand thanks for your renewed, repeated protest - against that proposed Amendment. You stand in the Senate - almost the lone man to vindicate the absolute Right. May - you be spared these many years, thus to stand and thus to - speak!” - - -PRESIDENT JOHNSON AND HIS COUNTER MANIFESTATIONS. - - An immediate effect of the speech was to hasten yet more the - issue with President Johnson. On the day after its delivery he - was visited by a delegation of colored citizens, who pleaded - especially for the ballot. The President answered with feeling, - that he had always been a friend of the colored race, and - said:-- - - “I do not like to be arraigned by some who can get up - handsomely rounded periods, and deal in rhetoric, and talk - about abstract ideas of Liberty, who never perilled life, - liberty, or property. This kind of theoretical, hollow, - unpractical friendship amounts to but very little. While I - say that I am a friend of the colored man, I do not want to - adopt a policy that I believe will end in a contest between - the races, which, if persisted in, will result in the - extermination of one or the other.” - - The idea of “a contest between the races” recurred in stronger - language, when, alluding to the colored man, he spoke of “the - sacrifice of his life and the shedding of his blood.… I feel - what I say, and I feel well assured, that, if the policy urged - by some be persisted in, it will result in great injury to the - white as well as to the colored man.… The query comes up right - there, whether we don’t commence a war of races.… I do not want - to be engaged in a work that will commence a war of races.… I - feel a conviction that driving this matter upon the people, - upon the community, will result in the injury of both races, - and the ruin of one or the other.”[205] - - Shortly afterwards he was reported in the press as saying to a - colored delegation of North Carolina, “I suppose Sumner is your - God”; to which the spokesman replied, “We respect and love Mr. - Sumner, Sir, but no man is our God.” - - Then came the incendiary speech of the 22d February, when the - President, standing on the steps of the Executive Mansion, - threw away all reserve. - - “I am opposed to the Davises, the Toombses, the Slidells, - and the long list of such. But when I perceive, on the - other hand, men [_A voice, “Call them off!”_]--I care not - by what name you call them--still opposed to the Union, - I am free to say to you that I am still with the people. - I am still for the preservation of these States, for the - preservation of this Union, and in favor of this great - Government accomplishing its destiny.” - - Here the President was called upon to give the names of three - of the Members of Congress to whom he had alluded as being - opposed to the Union. - - “The gentleman calls for three names. I am talking to - my friends and fellow-citizens here. Suppose I should - name to you those whom I look upon as being opposed to - the fundamental principles of this Government, and as - now laboring to destroy them. I say Thaddeus Stevens, of - Pennsylvania; I say Charles Sumner, of Massachusetts; I say - Wendell Phillips, of Massachusetts.” - - Becoming excited in speech, the President followed the charge - of opposition to the fundamental principles of this Government - with an accusation of a different character. - - “Are those who want to destroy our institutions and change - the character of the Government not satisfied with the - blood that has been shed? Are they not satisfied with one - martyr? Does not the blood of Lincoln appease the vengeance - and wrath of the opponents of this Government? Is their - thirst still unslaked? Do they want more blood? Have they - not honor and courage enough to effect the removal of the - Presidential obstacle otherwise than through the hands of - the assassin?”[206] - - Mr. Sumner never made answer or allusion to this Presidential - attack, but others did. It became the subject of debate in the - House of Representatives of the Massachusetts Legislature, - on resolutions by Hon. George B. Loring, the Representative - of Salem, already mentioned in this Appendix.[207] His - reasons for vindication of Mr. Sumner were private and public, - according to the report of the debate. - - “The first men to congratulate him on his change [from the - Democratic party] were John A. Andrew and Charles Sumner; - and he should not forget that Mr. Sumner, against whom he - had warred so long, was the first to extend sympathy to - him, and had led him on till this day. - - “Passing now to the public reasons for his advocacy of - the fourth resolution, Mr. Loring paid a high eulogium to - Senator Sumner, who, he said, would live in history with - Adams and Hancock, for his adherence to and courageous - advocacy of great principles, and his remarkable record - since the war of the Rebellion broke out. Men might say - that Mr. Sumner was an impracticable theorist; but it - was to him, more than to any other man, that we owed the - defeat of the iniquitous Louisiana proposition in the last - Congress, the success of which would have established a - precedent fraught with great danger to the nation.”[208] - - The resolution, adopted by the House March 14, and the Senate - April 7, 1866, was as follows:-- - - “_Resolved_, That, while thus expressing our confidence in - our Senatorial and Representative delegations in Congress, - and the determination of the people to stand by them, we - are also impelled to take notice of the recent charges - made by name against one of the Senators of this State, - Hon. Charles Sumner, in the lately published speech of the - President of the United States, and to declare that the - language used and the charges made by the President are - unbecoming the elevated station occupied by him, an unjust - reflection upon Massachusetts, and without the shadow of - justification or defence founded upon the private or public - record of our eminent Senator.” - - A copy of the resolutions, containing the foregoing, engrossed - on parchment, was forwarded to Mr. Sumner by the Governor - of Massachusetts, Hon. Alexander H. Bullock, with a letter, - saying, “This I take great personal pleasure in asking you to - accept and preserve.” - - The Aldermen of Boston, by a resolution, under date of March - 2d, interposed their “indignant conviction of the utter - falsehood” of the charges against Mr. Sumner.[209] - - This testimony may be closed by that of a Massachusetts pen. In - the New York _Independent_, Mrs. Lydia Maria Child, replying to - the President, said:-- - - “Let any man capable of forming an opinion independent - of party prejudice look candidly at the whole course of - the Hon. Charles Sumner, and say whether any nation was - ever blessed with a public man intellectually more able - and consistent, and morally more courageous, pure, and - noble. What a tower of strength he has been in times of - difficulty and danger! How brave and steadfast he has been - in the midst of denunciations and threats! How much he - has suffered in the cause of Freedom! and how calmly and - heroically he suffered, never boasting or complaining! - What herculean labor he has performed, and every particle - of that labor to sustain and advance those principles of - justice and freedom which form the only sure basis of a - republic! I am glad to see that Boston has, at last, by the - voice of its city government, shown due appreciation of the - services rendered to the country by that truly great and - good man.” - - Such was the conflict then raging, with Truth gaining new - strength daily. - - -PERSONAL SAFETY. - - From his first arrival in Washington as a Senator, as far back - as 1851, Mr. Sumner had been pursued by menace of personal - violence. At the beginning of the present session he received - a warning,[210] while the head of the military police reported - to him at least one conspiracy against his life, with regard to - which he had evidence. The prevailing bitterness, especially - after the speech of President Johnson, arrested the attention - of Hon. A. P. Granger, a retired Representative in Congress - from the State of New York, whose experience in the anxious - days of Kansas, when Mr. Sumner suffered personal violence, - put him on his guard. In a letter from Syracuse, New York, he - expressed his present anxiety:-- - - “Permit me to say a word as to your personal safety. There - are many of our best men who think more of that than you - do. No man living that Treason would so much rejoice to - see struck down as yourself; and many there are who would - strike, if they dared. I know you think little of danger; - but fear for your country, if not for yourself. Do not - keep your room alone, night or day. Seldom or never go out - after nightfall, and let your painful experience and the - character of the foe teach you to be ever on guard.” - - - - -DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE REPUBLIC OF DOMINICA. - -BILL IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 6, 1866. - - - Dominica was a colored government, occupying part of the island - of Hayti. - - In pursuance of a message from President Johnson, Mr. Sumner, - from the Committee on Foreign Relations, reported the following - bill, which was read and passed to a second reading. - -A Bill to authorize the President of the United States to appoint a -diplomatic representative to the Republic of Dominica. - -_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United -States of America in Congress assembled_, That the President of the -United States be, and he is hereby, authorized, by and with the advice -and consent of the Senate, to appoint a diplomatic representative of -the United States to the Republic of Dominica, who shall be accredited -as Commissioner and Consul General, and shall receive the compensation -of a Commissioner, according to the Act of Congress approved August -eighteenth, eighteen hundred and fifty-six. - - The object of this bill was accomplished by specific - appropriation in the Consular and Diplomatic Bill.[211] - - - - -PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS. - -REMARKS IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 9, 1866. - - - January 5, 1866, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, introduced “a bill - to protect all persons in the United States in their civil - rights, and furnish the means of their vindication,” which was - referred to the Judiciary Committee, of which he was Chairman. - By this bill all courts, National and State, were opened to - colored persons as parties and witnesses as to white citizens, - and they were subject to like punishments. January 11th, he - reported it to the Senate with amendments, and the next day - the Senate proceeded to its consideration. The amendments were - adopted, when, on motion of Mr. Trumbull, it was postponed. - January 25th, its consideration was resumed, and continued - until February 2d, when it passed the Senate,--Yeas 33, Nays 12. - - March 13th, the bill passed the House of Representatives, with - amendments,--Yeas 111, Nays 38. The Senate promptly concurred - in the House amendments. - - March 27th, President Johnson returned the bill to the Senate - with his objections. - - April 6th, after debate of several days, the bill passed the - Senate again, notwithstanding the veto of the President, two - thirds agreeing,--Yeas 33, Nays 15. - - April 9th, it passed the House again, notwithstanding the veto - of the President, two thirds agreeing,--Yeas 122, Nays 41. - - * * * * * - - Mr. Sumner, on the first day of the session, had introduced - a “Bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the - Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery.”[212] He - had also succeeded at an earlier day in opening the courts - of the District of Columbia,[213] and then the courts of the - United States, to colored testimony.[214] The bill of Mr. - Trumbull was introduced after consultation with Mr. Sumner, - who watched its progress with absorbing interest, not doubting - that it would be a precedent for a similar bill securing - political rights. That the latter were embraced in civil - rights was ably stated by Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, in the House - of Representatives, while the Civil Rights Bill was under - discussion. - - “A distinction is taken, I know very well, in modern - times, between civil and political rights. I submit with - all respect that the term ‘political rights’ is only a - limitation of the term ‘civil rights,’ and by general - acceptation signifies that class of civil rights which - are more directly exercised by the citizen in connection - with the government of his country. If this be so, are - not political rights all embraced in the term ‘civil - rights,’ and must it not of necessity be so interpreted? - Blackstone, whose Commentaries on the Common Law are so - exact in definition, uses in that classic of the law the - terms ‘civil liberty’ and ‘political liberty’ everywhere - as synonymous. It never occurred to him that there was a - colorable distinction between them.”[215] - - Another point equally clear to Mr. Sumner was, that a bill - to secure equal rights at the ballot-box was “appropriate - legislation” in enforcement of the Constitutional Amendment - abolishing Slavery, just as much as the Civil Rights Bill. If - the latter was constitutional, so also was the former. This - appears in the speech of February 5th and 6th, and also in that - of March 7th. But he took care to present it briefly in the - debate on the Constitutional Amendment. - - February 9th, interrupting Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, - with his permission, Mr. Sumner, after reading the operative - words of the Civil Rights Bill, which had already passed the - Senate and was then pending in the House, said:-- - -As I understand it, this bill, which, as the Senator will see, actually -annuls all State laws, everywhere throughout the United States, fixing -any inequality in civil rights, is founded upon the second clause of -the recent Amendment to the Constitution abolishing Slavery. Now the -point to which I ask the attention of the Senator, before he passes -from this branch of the discussion, is, whether, if we can annul all -State laws declaring inequality in civil rights, we cannot also annul -all State laws declaring inequality in political rights? whether, -if this bill is constitutional, as I believe it is, such a bill as -I propose would not also be constitutional? And in this connection -I call attention to the famous judgment of Chief Justice Marshall, -which the Senator remembers so well, in the case of _M’Culloch_ v. -_The State of Maryland_,[216] where the Chief Justice distinctly -announces, having the point before him, that it is within the power of -Congress to select its means, provided the means are appropriate to the -end, and it is not for the Supreme Court, or any other branch of the -Government, to sit in judgment on the means Congress chose to select. -Therefore, if Congress now think, that, to enforce the abolition of -Slavery, it is necessary, in the first place, to annul all inequality -of civil rights, and, in the second place, to annul all inequality of -political rights, I ask the Senator whether the latter proposition -can be called in question?--whether an Act of Congress annulling all -State laws declaring inequality of political rights is not absolutely -constitutional, being “appropriate legislation” to enforce the -Constitutional Amendment? - - Mr. Johnson replied, that he had stated more than once that the - bill on which Mr. Sumner “now relies is unconstitutional,” and - then said:-- - - “But even supposing it to be within the power of Congress - to pass a law of that kind, it by no means follows that - I think it has power to pass a law placing all the - inhabitants of the States on the same political ground.” - - Later in his speech Mr. Sumner interrupted Mr. Johnson again, - with his permission:-- - -My argument is, that, if, to carry out the prohibition of Slavery, -and to complete the duty of Abolition, it shall be regarded necessary -to confer the franchise, it is within the power of Congress so -to do. And now I ask my honorable friend to give the Senate the -benefit of his opinion on this precise point. If Congress, under the -Constitutional Amendment, can secure equality of civil rights, may -it not, _a fortiori_, secure equality in political rights, under the -same clause? I do not ask the Senator whether in his opinion it may -under that clause confer equality in civil rights. I assume that it -can, and the Senator knows well that the Senate has acted accordingly. -Senators all about me assume that power; and now I ask the Senator, as -a Constitutional lawyer to whom we refer daily, whether, if you can do -the one, you cannot do the other? - - Mr. Johnson replied at once: “I answer that in the negative - very decidedly, and have only time to give a few reasons for - it.” - - * * * * * - - The following remarks, sketched for a speech on the veto of the - Civil Rights Bill, and not delivered, are presented here in - illustration of opinion at that time. - -If I have not taken part in this debate, it is not from lack of -interest in the question, but because on other occasions I have -expressed my views on our duty to maintain the freedmen in their -rights, civil and political, and since the cause, in the hands of the -able Chairman of the Judiciary Committee [Mr. TRUMBULL], needed no -assistance from me. I cannot disguise my joy that a measure like that -now pending should receive the support it does. This is an augury for -the future. If I were disposed to despair on other questions, I should -take heart, when I see how Senators, once lukewarm, indifferent, or -perhaps hostile, now generously unite in securing protection to the -freedman by Act of Congress. - -But, Mr. President, I am unwilling that this debate should close -without at least one remark applicable to the future. You are about to -decree that colored persons shall enjoy the same civil rights as white -persons,--in other words, that with regard to civil rights there shall -be no distinction of color; and this you do under the Constitutional -Amendment by which Congress is empowered to “enforce” the prohibition -of Slavery by “appropriate legislation.” Rightly you regard the -present proposition as “appropriate legislation” to this end. It is -so, unquestionably. But I should fail in frankness, if I did not give -notice that at the proper time I shall insist that every reason, -every argument, every consideration, by which you assert the power of -Congress for the protection of colored persons in civil rights, is -equally strong for their protection in political rights. There is no -difference between the two cases. In each you legislate to the same -end,--that the freedman may be maintained in that liberty so tardily -accorded; and the legislation is just as appropriate in one case as in -the other. - -All this, Sir, I have seen from the beginning; but I have been -unwilling to embarrass the present bill by any additional proposition. -The protection of colored persons in their civil rights by Act of -Congress will be a great event. It will be great in itself. It will be -greater still because it establishes the power of Congress, without -further Amendment of the Constitution, to protect colored persons in -all their rights, including of course the elective franchise. The -power is ample. I trust that you will not hesitate to exercise it. - -… - -The able and exhaustive argument of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. -TRUMBULL] has rendered all minute discussion of the veto superfluous. -He has taken it up paragraph by paragraph, and has shown how absolutely -unfounded it is in reason or authority. And then again, when the -Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] attempted to vindicate it, he has -most successfully quoted that Senator against himself. If argument -could avail, the veto is already lost, even without a vote. - -But there are considerations of a more general character, which I -desire to present very briefly; for at this stage of the debate I -cannot venture to trespass on your attention. - -Sir, you do not forget the Dred Scott decision, pronounced just as -Mr. Buchanan was coming into power,--fit decision to inaugurate such -a Presidency. Take it all in all, that decision must always stand -forth in bad eminence, as perhaps the most thoroughly perverse and -reprehensible in judicial history. Whether regarded in the light of -morals or politics or jurisprudence, or of juridical history, it was -simply shocking. It was an insult to conscience, to reason, and to -truth. - -The essential element of this decision was, that persons “guilty of -a skin not colored like our own” could not be citizens of the United -States; and this postulate was sustained by that remarkable assertion, -outrageously false in history, that at the adoption of the Constitution -colored persons were regarded as having no rights which the white -man was bound to respect,--when, in point of fact, at that time they -enjoyed the right of citizens in several States of the Union, while -in England, Scotland, France, and Holland, to say nothing of other -countries, it had been solemnly declared that all men within their -respective borders were free. - -In the lapse of time this decision passed out of sight. It seemed to -be dead. Blasted at once by an indignant public sentiment, it received -a more formal condemnation on two separate occasions: first, when the -Attorney General, in an elaborate opinion, declared that a colored -person was a citizen of the United States;[217] and, secondly, when -the Supreme Court of the United States admitted a colored person as a -counsellor at its bar.[218] We all thought this decision dead, and the -whole practice of the Government was altered accordingly. Passports -were issued to colored persons as citizens, and licenses to enter into -the country trade were awarded to colored persons as citizens. For the -time being that ill-begotten decision was practically dead. - -But now it is once more alive. Bursting the cerements of the grave, it -again stalks into this Chamber to fright us from our propriety. Not -now from the Supreme Court does it come, but from the President. That -public opinion which did not hesitate to condemn the Supreme Court -cannot hesitate now to condemn the President. - -The veto does not undertake to declare precisely that colored -persons are not citizens under the Constitution, but it forbids all -legislation positively declaring this citizenship. It is the Dred -Scott decision in a new draught. It is the same thing, only with a -new shake of the kaleidoscope. You cannot adopt this veto without -practically overturning the recent practice of the Government, and -setting aside that opinion of Attorney-General Bates which is one of -the most illustrious acts in the Administration of President Lincoln. -For myself, I have always regarded that production as of the first -importance in our recent history. The future historian, as he records -the events by which the Republic has been elevated, must dwell with -pride upon that simple act, where a single officer of the Government -did so much to fix the liberties of a race. - -I have said that this veto revives the Dred Scott decision. It does -more. It is bad to revive the worst decision in our history; but this -veto practically sets aside one of the best decisions in our history. -I refer to the case of _M’Culloch_ v. _Bank of Maryland_, where our -great magistrate, Chief Justice Marshall, expended all his marvellous -talent in expounding the powers of Congress under the Constitution. In -all the annals of the Supreme Court there is no decision more carefully -considered or wrought with a finer skill. In this remarkable judgment -it has been positively declared, that, where the Constitution confers -upon Congress certain powers, it is within the discretion of Congress -to determine when and how they shall be exercised. Here are the precise -words:-- - - “The government which has a right to do an act, and has imposed - on it the duty of performing that act, must, according to - the dictates of reason, be allowed to select the means; and - those who contend that it may not select _any appropriate - means_, that one particular mode of effecting the object is - excepted, take upon themselves the burden of establishing - that exception.… Let the end be legitimate, let it be within - the scope of the Constitution, and _all means_ which are - appropriate, which are plainly adapted to that end, which are - not prohibited, but consist with the letter and spirit of the - Constitution, are constitutional.”[219] - -According to this authoritative text, Congress must determine the -“means” it will employ in the exercise of its powers. But this veto -pretends to despoil Congress of this discretion. - -In the exercise of its discretion, Congress has undertaken to assure -civil rights to colored persons. It has been moved to this especially -in pursuance of the second clause of the Thirteenth Amendment, where -it is empowered to enforce the prohibition of Slavery by appropriate -legislation. The present bill is regarded as essential to enforce the -prohibition of Slavery, and Congress, in the exercise of its discretion -under the Constitution, has passed it. But the veto comes to arrest -this discretion. So far as its influence goes, it will neutralize and -nullify the great Amendment by which Slavery has been abolished. It -leaves the letter in the Constitution, but it takes away the powers by -which that letter is made a living soul. - - * * * * * - -I have said enough to condemn the veto. I have shown, first, that -it revives a most odious judgment, and, secondly, that it subverts -a received rule of interpretation, and degrades that Constitutional -Amendment which is the glory of our recent history. But I go further. - -… - - - - -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. - - - March 2d, the Board of Aldermen of Boston adopted unanimously - the following resolution, which was communicated to Mr. Sumner - by the Mayor. - - “_Resolved_, That we deem it fitting time to express - our profound sense of the eminent loyalty, patriotism, - and statesmanship of our distinguished Senator, Charles - Sumner,--to acknowledge the measureless debt of gratitude - which the Commonwealth and the nation owe him for his wise - counsels and constant and efficient services in this great - struggle to establish justice and to secure the prosperity - of the Union,--and our indignant conviction of the utter - falsehood of any accusation, no matter by whom made, which - likens him, either in theory or practice, to the traitor - chiefs of the Rebellion, or which charges him with any - lack of devotion or loyalty to that great cause of Freedom - and Nationality which he has watched with such untiring - vigilance and served with such masterly ability. - - “_Resolved_, That a copy of this resolution be forwarded by - his Honor the Mayor to Mr. Sumner.” - - This resolution was plainly aimed at President Johnson on - account of his speech of February 22d.[220] - - In reply Mr. Sumner wrote:-- - - SENATE CHAMBER, - March 5, 1866. - - DEAR SIR,--I have been honored by your communication of March 2d, - covering a resolution of the Board of Aldermen of the city of - Boston, expressing in most flattering terms the good feelings of - the Board toward me. - - I have read with pride and gratification this emphatic token - of confidence and regard. Coming as it does from the highest - functionaries of the city where I was born, educated, and have - always had my home, it has a value of its own. It is precious as - the approbation of friends and neighbors. - - While disclaiming all title to the praise so generously accorded - for the services I have been able to render in the discharge - of public duties, I have no hesitation in claiming for myself - such credit as may come from early, faithful, and persistent - devotion to the principles of Republican Government, and - especially to those ideas which from the beginning have been the - glory of Massachusetts. For these principles and these ideas - I have labored, and I shall continue to labor so long as life - lasts. If at any moment I could hesitate, your words would be - an encouragement to constancy. And permit me to add, the result - cannot be doubtful. Even through the present darkness it is - plainly visible. - - * * * * * - - Please tender to the Board of Aldermen my best thanks for the - honor they have done me, and believe me, Mr. Mayor, with much - respect, - - Your faithful fellow-citizen, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - HON. F. W. LINCOLN, JR., Mayor, &c. - - - - -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. - - - This second speech was in continuation of the debate on the - proposed Constitutional Amendment, and in reply to those who - had spoken after Mr. Sumner, especially Mr. Fessenden. The - history of the debate and its result appear in the Appendix to - the speech of February 5th and 6th.[221] - -MR. PRESIDENT,--I hesitate to intrude again into this debate, which -now, after the interposition of another debate on another question, is -again renewed. I do it with unfeigned reluctance, and I hope not to -trespass too much on your patience. - -The question before us, even in its simplest form, is of incalculable -importance; but it has added interest, as opening the whole vast -subject of Reconstruction. Into this field I shall not be tempted, -except to express a brief opinion on the general principles we should -seek to establish. Treason must be made odious, and to this end power -should be secured to loyal fellow-citizens. In doing this, two -indispensable conditions cannot be forgotten: first, all who have been -untrue to the Republic must, for a certain time, constituting the -_transition period_, be excluded from the partnership of government; -and, secondly, all who have been true to the Republic must be admitted -into the partnership of government, according to the sovereign rule -of the Constitution, which knows no distinction of color. Following -these two simple commandments, there will be safety and peace, together -with power and renown; neglecting these two simple commandments, there -must be peril and distraction, together with imbecility and dishonor. -In the one way, Reconstruction is easy; in the other way, it is in -any just sense impossible. It may seem for the moment to succeed; -but it must fail in the end. This is all I have to say at present on -Reconstruction, and I turn at once to the precise question before us. - - * * * * * - -Pardon me, Sir, if I remind you that there are two modes of debate. -One is to attack the previous speaker with personality of criticism -or manner. The other is to speak plainly on the question, and to deal -directly, according to your convictions, with the principles involved. -Sometimes the two modes are allowed to intermingle. If ever there was -occasion when the first should be carefully avoided, when the question -alone should be handled, and not the previous speaker, when attention -should be directed exclusively to principles involved, and not to any -subordinate point of mere form, it is now, when we are asked to insert -a new provision in the Constitution, fixing the basis of political -power at the expense of fellow-citizens counted by millions. In this -spirit I shall try to speak. To my mind, the occasion is too solemn for -personal controversy, and I shall not be drawn into it. - - * * * * * - -The proposition before you is the most important ever brought into -Congress, unless, perhaps, we except the Amendment abolishing Slavery; -and to my mind it is the most reprehensible. The sentiment which -inspired us to hail the abolition of Slavery with gratitude, as the -triumph of justice, should make us reject with indignation a device -to crystallize into organic law the disfranchisement of a race. With -intense regret I differ from valued friends about me, but I cannot -do otherwise. I bespeak in advance their candor, and most cheerfully -concede to all from whom I differ the indulgence which I claim for -myself. With me there is no alternative. Seeing this proposition as I -do, I must speak frankly, as on other occasions, in exposing the crime -against Kansas, or the infamy of that enactment which turned the whole -North into a hunting-ground where man was the game. The attempt now -is on a larger scale, if not more essentially bad. Such a measure, -so obnoxious to every argument of reason, justice, and feeling, so -perilous to the national peace, and so injurious to the good name -of the Republic, must be encountered as a public enemy. There is no -language which can adequately depict its character. Thinking of it, I -am reminded of words of Chatham, where he held up to undying judgment -a barbarous measure of the British Ministry. The Englishman did not -hesitate, nor did he tame his words, but exclaimed:-- - - “I am astonished, shocked, to hear such principles - confessed,--to hear them avowed in this House, or in this - country,--principles equally unconstitutional, inhuman, and - un-christian.… I call upon your Lordships and the united powers - of the State to stamp upon them an indelible stigma of the - public abhorrence.” - -Then, rising to still higher flight, he cried out:-- - - “My Lords, I am old and weak, and at present unable to say - more; but my feelings and indignation were too strong to - have said less. I could not have slept this night in my bed, - nor reposed my head on my pillow, without giving this vent - to my eternal abhorrence of such preposterous and enormous - principles.”[222] - -But what was the measure which thus aroused the veteran orator, -compared with that before us? It was only a transient act of wrong, -small in proportions. Here is an act of wrong permanent in influence, -colossal in proportions, operating in an extensive region, affecting -millions of citizens, positively endangering the peace of the country, -and covering its name with dishonor. Such is the character of the -present attempt. I exhibit it as I see it. Others may not see it so. Of -course, its supporters cannot see it so. The British Ministry did not -see the measure which Chatham denounced as he saw it, and as history -now sees it. Senators would not support the present proposition, if -they thought it disgraceful; nor would the British Ministry have -supported that earlier proposition, had they thought it disgraceful. -Unhappily, they did not think it so; but I trust you will be warned by -their example. - -With the eloquence of Chatham, another also from his place in the House -of Lords held up to reprobation that apprentice system which, under -the sanction of both Houses of Parliament, followed Emancipation in -the British West Indies. I refer to Brougham. He did not hesitate to -exclaim, “Prodigious, portentous injustice!” And then, continuing, he -denounced it as “the gross, the foul, the outrageous, the monstrous, -the incredible injustice of which we are daily and hourly guilty -towards the whole of the ill-fated African race.”[223] But how small -the injustice which aroused his reprobation, compared with that you are -asked to perpetuate in Constitutional Law! The wrong he arraigned was -against eight hundred thousand persons in distant islands, to whom the -people of Great Britain were bound by no peculiar ties, and who were to -them only fellow-men. The wrong I now arraign is against four million -persons, constituting a considerable portion of the “people” of the -United States, to whom we are bound by ties of gratitude, and who are -to us fellow-citizens. - -From the moment I heard this proposition first read at the desk I have -not been able to think of it without pain. The reflection that it -may find place in the National Constitution, or even that it may be -sanctioned by Congress, is intolerable. And this becomes more so, when -I call to mind the circumstances by which we are surrounded and the -exigency of the hour. - -Lord Bacon tells us that the highest function which men can be called -to perform on earth is that of founders of states, or, as he expresses -it, _conditores imperiorum_.[224] Such is our present duty. We are to -help in this great work by a fundamental provision fixing the basis of -our political system for an indefinite future. There are none among the -great lawgivers of history who have had a sublimer task. - -This duty is enhanced, when we consider that it is the consequence and -sequel of an unparalleled war. At a moment of peace such a duty would -be commanding; but it is now reinforced by exceptional considerations -arising from the exceptional condition of affairs. For four years, -Rebellion, of the greatest magnitude known to authentic history, -raged among us, threatening to rend the Republic in twain. Millions -of treasure were sacrificed. Lives more precious than any treasure -were heaped in hecatombs. Families were filled with mourning. In the -terrible struggle, while the country was bleeding at every pore and -the scales of battle hung doubtful, assistance came from an unexpected -quarter. Intermixed with the false men who warred on the Republic -were nearly four million slaves, shut out from rights of all kinds, -and compelled to do the bidding of masters. These slaves became our -benefactors. They were kind to our captive soldiers, sheltering them, -feeding them, supplying their wants, and guiding them to safety. Thus -in the very heart of the Rebellion there was a filial throb for the -Republic. At last arms were put into their hands, and two hundred -thousand brave allies, representatives of an unmustered host, leaped -forward in defence of the national cause. The Republic was saved. The -Rebellion was at an end. Meanwhile the good President who at that time -guided our affairs put forth his immortal Proclamation, declaring that -these slaves “are and henceforward shall be free”; and not stopping -with this declaration, he proceeded to announce that “the Executive -Government of the United States, including the military and naval -authorities thereof, will recognize and _maintain_ the freedom of said -persons.” Thus was the Republic solemnly pledged to these benefactors, -first, by ties of gratitude that should be enduring, and, secondly, by -an open promise in the face of the civilized world. And this pledge -was taken up and adopted by the people of the United States, when, by -Constitutional Amendment, they expressly empowered Congress to maintain -this freedom by appropriate legislation. - -And now, Sir, called to readjust the foundations of political power, -which are naturally changed by the disappearance of Slavery, and -called also to perform sacred promises to benefactors, in harmony with -sacred promises of our fathers, while at the same time we save the -name of the Republic from dishonor and see that the national peace is -not imperilled, Congress is about to liquidate all these inviolable -obligations by a new compromise of Human Rights, and, so far as it -can, to place this compromise in the text of the Constitution, thus -establishing a false foundation of political power, violating the -national faith, dishonoring the name of Republic, and imperilling the -national peace. Others have dwelt on the inadequacy of this attempt, -even for its avowed purposes. This is plain. Conceived in a desire to -do indirectly what ought to be done directly, it must naturally share -the conditions of such a device. - -Looking at the proposition in its most general aspect, it reminds me, -if you will pardon the illustration, of that leg of mutton, served -for dinner on the road from London to Oxford, which Dr. Johnson, with -characteristic pungency, described “as bad as bad could be,--ill-fed, -ill-killed, ill-kept, and ill-dressed.”[225] So this measure--I adopt -the saying of an eminent friend, who insists that it cannot be called -an “amendment,” but rather a “detriment,” to the Constitution--is as -bad as bad can be; and even for its avowed purpose uncertain, loose, -cracked, and rickety. _Regarding it as a proposition from Congress -to meet the unparalleled exigencies of the hour_, it is no better -than the “muscipular abortion” sent into the world by the “parturient -mountain.”[226] But only when we look at the chance of good is it -“muscipular.” In every other aspect it is gigantic, inasmuch as it -makes the Constitution a well-spring of insupportable thraldom, and -once more lifts the sluices of blood destined to run until it rises to -the horse’s bridle. Adopt it, and you put millions of fellow-citizens -under the ban of excommunication, you hand them over to a new anathema -maranatha, you declare that they have no _political_ rights “which -the white man is bound to respect,”--thus repeating in new form the -abomination that has blackened the name of Taney. Adopt it, and you -stimulate anew the war of race upon race. Slavery itself was a war of -race upon race, and this is only a new form of the terrible war. The -proposition is as hardy as gigantic; for it takes no account of the -moral sense of mankind, which is the same as if in rearing a monument -we took no account of the law of gravitation. It is the paragon and -master-piece of ingratitude, showing more than any other act of history -what is so often charged and we so fondly deny, that republics are -ungrateful. The freedmen ask for bread, and you send them a stone. -With piteous voice they ask for protection; you thrust them back -defenceless into the cruel den of former masters. Such an attempt, -thus bad as bad can be, thus abortive for all good, thus perilous, -thus pregnant with a war of race upon race, thus shocking to the moral -sense, and thus treacherous to those whom we are bound to protect, -cannot be otherwise than shameful. - -I shall not content myself with describing the device. This is not -enough. You have seen it in its general character only. You shall see -it now in its guilty parts, each one of which is sufficient to arouse -the conscience against it. - - * * * * * - -1. Of course you cannot fail to be struck by its language. Here words -become things. In express terms there is _admission of the idea of -Inequality of Rights founded on race or color_. That this unrepublican -idea should be allowed to find place in the text of the Constitution -must excite especial wonder, when it is considered how conscientiously -our fathers excluded from that text the kindred idea of property in -man. The saying of Mr. Madison cannot be too often repeated:-- - - “He thought it _wrong_ to admit in the Constitution the idea - that there could be property in men.”[227] - -But is it less wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea of -Inequality of Rights founded on race or color? Surely the authors of -this proposition have acted inconsiderately and with little regard to -the spirit of the Fathers. Imagine it introduced into the Convention -which framed the Constitution. Not many words would have been used; -but evidently it would have found no place in that text, which, with -pious care, was to be guarded against degradation. And now mark the -change. After the lapse of generations, when our obligations have -increased with increasing light, at an epoch of history when mankind -are more than ever before sensitive to the claims of human rights, -and when among ourselves there is more than ever before a desire and -a duty to fulfil all the promises of the Declaration of Independence, -we are invited to make the Constitution disown the Declaration of -Independence, insult the conscience of mankind, and disregard all the -obligations pressing upon us. But this is a mild way of stating the -character of the attempt plainly apparent in the words. Its essential -uncleanness is not disclosed. Adopt this proposition, and you will -imitate those ancient birds who defiled the feast that was spread. The -Constitution is the feast spread for our country, and you hurry to drop -into its text a political obscenity, and to diffuse over its page a -disgusting ordure,-- - - “Defiling all you find, - And parting leave a loathsome stench behind.”[228] - -Only by plain language can this attempt be adequately exposed. Only -in this way can it be seen in its true character. Only in this way -can you be moved to shrink from it with proper repugnance. In this -spirit the religious press of the country is beginning to speak. The -Boston “Recorder,” the most venerable of all the religious papers of -New England, and perhaps of the whole country, which for more than -half a century has been a weekly teacher at uncounted firesides, thus -solemnly appeals to the conscience of patriots and of statesmen:-- - - “The proposed Amendment to the Constitution of the United - States, which passed the House of Representatives last week by - a vote of 120 to 46, will, if it should become the fundamental - law of the land, _inflict upon our free institutions greater - infamy than anything contained in our written Constitution_. - There are things there which were sufficiently disgraceful in - their intent and purpose. That the slave-trade should not be - prohibited before 1808, that three fifths of the slaves should - be represented in Congress by the votes of their owners, that - fugitive slaves should be returned to their owners,--these were - scandalous provisions to which our noble fathers submitted - only because without them we could have no common national - existence. But they couched these offensive propositions - in terms that, on the cessation of Slavery, would have no - objectionable meaning. This event they anticipated much earlier - than it has actually occurred. And now that it is a fact, no - one wishes the clauses of the Constitution to which we have - alluded to be stricken out. - - “But now it is proposed to ingraft upon this revered instrument - a principle implying that a State may decree that all men are - not born equal, and may disfranchise a majority of her citizens - and their sons and their sons’ sons forever! Good jurists have - declared that the Constitution, as it now stands, would forbid - any such State action, and that all constitutions and laws - disfranchising citizens because of their parentage, color, - race, or descent, are null and void.… We are not aware of any - attempt to refute this view with a shadow of success. - - “And now it cannot be that we shall give up our vantage-ground, - _and stain the triumph_ bought with so much precious blood - with _a concession which might be turned to so base a use_. - - “Let every patriot, to whom the good name of America is dear, - bestir himself. Let every Christian who believes that God is no - respecter of persons, let every father who would not leave to - his children a legacy of national discord and a birthright in a - nation yet to bleed in Helot conspiracies, let every statesman - who believes that even justice is the only sure foundation of - national tranquillity, arouse himself.”[229] - -I have heard somewhere a strange apology for this amendment. It is said -that it is “punitive,” and that the idea of Inequality of Rights is to -be admitted into the Constitution for punishment, and not for sanction. -As well say that the term “three fifths of all other persons” in the -Constitution was “punitive.” It was no such thing. It was a compromise; -and such is the precise character of the present attempt, which, by its -very words, is a plain license to tyranny, in consideration that the -tyrants pay in political power. The primary element, standing out in -“darkness visible,” is the license; the secondary element is the pay. -Here is nothing less than a mighty house that shall be nameless, which -it is proposed to license constitutionally for a consideration. Even -if political power is curtailed, it is only as a consideration for the -license. It is a new sale of “indulgences,” on a larger scale than that -of Tetzel. The latter, returning from Rome into Germany, became vendor -of licenses for adultery, robbery, theft; but the outrage aroused -Martin Luther, and the Reformation began. As well say, that, since pay -was required, therefore the indulgences of Tetzel were “punitive.” - -Thus far I have spoken of the attempt only as it appears in its words, -without analyzing it in detail. - - * * * * * - -2. One of its elementary parts and consequences is that _it sanctions -the acknowledged tyranny of taxation without representation_. A -whole race, constituting a considerable part of the people of the -United States, and embraced under the words of the preamble to the -Constitution, “We the people,” are left without representation in the -Government, but nevertheless held within the grasp of taxation, direct -and indirect, tariff and excise, State and National. Sir, this is -tyranny,--or else our fathers were wrong, when they protested against a -kindred injustice. The principle is fundamental. You cannot violate it -without again dishonoring the Fathers. - -To the application of this principle there have been two replies: -first, that in its origin it was a claim of representation for -communities only, and not for individuals; and, secondly, that -in its nature it embraces women as well as men. And from these -two considerations it is argued that it cannot be invoked for the -protection of four million people whose only offence is a dark skin. -Even if it had been originally a claim for communities only, and -not for individuals, it is difficult to see how it can be rejected -as a rule in determining the rights of fellow-citizens counted by -millions. Our fathers, when they cried out that taxation without -representation is tyranny, were not more than two millions and a half. -Our fellow-citizens now renewing the same cry are more than four -millions, possessing the weight of numbers, if not of organization. But -it is a mistake to suppose that the original claim was for communities -only, and not for individuals. This is a question of history, to be -considered with the gravity of history, and as such I ask attention to -it. - -In opening this debate, I carried you to that Provincial Court in -Massachusetts, where, in assailing Writs of Assistance, James Otis -first launched the thunderbolt, “Taxation without representation is -tyranny.” You remember how careful he was to insist that without -representation there could be no taxation of any kind, direct or -indirect, on land or on trade, and that the representation must be -substantial, real, and not merely imaginary, or, as it was expressed at -that time, “virtual.” In developing this principle, he announced the -equal rights of all, without distinction of color. On this ground he -stood, when he uttered those memorable words, which the whole country -adopted at once with patriotic frenzy, and which I insist you shall not -deny in our organic law. - -But, to show more precisely the meaning of Otis, I let him be his own -interpreter. Again and again he asserts the equality of men. This was -his fundamental principle, which on an important occasion he thus -expressed: “The first simple principle is equality and the power of the -whole.”[230] Nor did he allow this to be limited in application by any -distinction of color. John Adams, who was present when the orator first -raised his great cry, says: “Nor were the poor negroes forgotten. Not -a Quaker in Philadelphia, or Mr. Jefferson, of Virginia, ever asserted -the rights of negroes in stronger terms.”[231] Otis, in another form, -assailed directly the distinction of color, saying: “Will short, -curled hair, like wool, instead of Christian hair, as ’tis called -by those whose hearts are as hard as the nether millstone, help the -argument?”[232] Such, then, were his premises,--the equal rights of -all, without distinction of color. From these his conclusion was easy:-- - - “The very act of taxing, exercised over those who are not - represented, appears to me to be depriving them of one of their - most essential rights as freemen, and, _if continued, seems - to be, in effect, an entire disfranchisement of every civil - right_. For what one civil right is worth a rush, after a man’s - property is subject to be taken from him at pleasure, without - his consent? If a man is not _his own assessor_, in person or - by deputy, his liberty is gone, or lays entirely at the mercy - of others.”[233] - -Stronger words for universal suffrage could not be employed. His -argument is, that, if men are taxed without being represented, they are -deprived of essential rights, and the continuance of this deprivation -despoils them of every civil right,--thus making the latter depend -upon the right of suffrage, which by curious neologism is known as -political instead of civil. Then, giving point to his argument, the -patriot insists, that, in determining taxation, “a man must be his -own _assessor_, in person or by deputy,” without which his liberty is -entirely at the mercy of others. Here, again, in different form, is the -original thunderbolt; and the claim is made not merely for communities, -but for “a man.” - -Such a principle naturally encountered opposition at that time, even as -now in this Chamber; but Otis was ready at all points. To the argument, -that Manchester, Birmingham, and Sheffield, like America, returned no -members to Parliament, he flashed forth in reply:-- - - “If they are not represented, they ought to be. _Every man of a - sound mind should have his vote._” - -And then again, taking up the reply, he exclaimed:-- - - “Lord Coke declares that it is against Magna Charta, and - against the franchises of the land, for freemen to be taxed but - by their own consent.”[234] - -Thus does he interpret again the flaming words, “Taxation without -representation is tyranny.” - -But, while thus positive, there is reason to believe that Otis so far -yielded to prevailing sentiment, and especially to the opinions of -Harrington, whose “Oceana” was much read at that time, as sometimes -to recognize property in determining the basis of political power. On -one occasion he said that Government could not be “rightfully founded -on property alone,” thus seeming to intimate that property might enter -into the foundation, although, as he derisively remarks, “the possessor -of it may not have much more wit than a mole or a musquash.”[235] But -it was doubtless obvious to his clear intelligence that a claim of -power founded on property was very different from a claim of power -founded on color. Property may be acquired; but color, from its -nature, is an insurmountable condition. The original Constitution of -Massachusetts recognized property as an element of political power; but -it rejected all discrimination founded on color. If, therefore, under -the maxim of Otis, there may be discrimination founded on property, -most clearly, according to reason and early practice, there can be -none founded on color; so that at the present hour his maxim is of -vital force as a claim, not merely for the community, but for the -individual. Let the country now, as aforetime, take it up and repeat it -until it becomes the watchword of patriotism. - -But Otis was not the only interpreter of this maxim of Liberty. The -Legislature of Massachusetts, on repeated occasions, made the same -claim. In solemn resolutions, drawn by Samuel Adams, and adopted -unanimously, it declared, in substance, that, “by the Law of Nature, no -man has a right to impose laws more than to levy taxes upon another”; -that “the freeman pays no tax, as the freeman submits to no law, but -such as emanates from the body in which he is represented.”[236] Surely -this claim is not merely for the community, but for the individual -freeman also. - -Virginia was not behind Massachusetts. In her Declaration of Rights, -drawn by that determined patriot, George Mason, and adopted June 12, -1776, anterior to the Declaration of Independence, is the following -emphatic claim:-- - - “All men having sufficient evidence of permanent common - interest with and attachment to the community _have the right - of suffrage, and cannot be taxed or deprived of their property - for public uses without their own consent_ or that of their - representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they - have not in like manner assented for the public good.”[237] - -Here again the claim is not merely for the community, but for “all -men,” and it is set forth thus positively in a Declaration of Rights. - -And now listen to Benjamin Franklin. I quote a statement found -among his papers, and placed by his excellent editor under date of -1768-9, while the Colonists were echoing the cry, “Taxation without -representation is tyranny.” - - “That _every man_ of the commonalty, excepting infants, insane - persons, and criminals, is of common right, and by the laws of - God, a freeman, and entitled to the free enjoyment of liberty. - - “_That liberty or freedom, consists in having an actual share - in the appointment of those who frame the laws_, and who are to - be the guardians of every man’s life, property, and peace; for - the _all_ of one man is as dear to him as the _all_ of another, - and the poor man has an _equal_ right, but _more_ need, to have - representatives in the Legislature than the rich one. - - “That they who have no voice nor vote in the electing of - representatives _do not enjoy liberty, but are absolutely - enslaved to those who have votes and to their representatives_; - for to be enslaved is to have governors whom _other men - have set over us_, and be subject to laws _made by the - representatives of others_, without having had representatives - of our own to give consent in our behalf.”[238] - -Here is no claim for communities merely, but expressly for “every man,” -including especially “the poor man,” and without distinction of color. - -This American testimony is fitly crowned by the Declaration of -Independence, which, beginning with the proclamation that “all men -are created equal,” proceeds to assert that governments “derive their -just powers from the consent of the governed.” Here again is no claim -for communities, but for “all men”; and this is the most authoritative -interpretation of the original claim thundered forth by Otis, and -echoed throughout the land. It is idle to show that in certain -instances the Fathers failed to apply the sublime principles they -declared. Their failure can be no apology for us, on whom the duty is -now cast. - -But there is still another interpreter. The maxim of Otis was not -original with him. It is found in the writings of John Locke, so -remarkable for masculine sense and an exalted love of liberty. On a -former occasion I adduced his authority, which is plain and positive. -Pardon me, if I call attention to it once more. After asserting that -Government cannot take the property of any one without his own consent, -being the consent of the majority, the philosopher thus expresses -himself:-- - - “For, if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on - the people by his own authority _and without such consent of - the people_, he thereby invades the fundamental law of property - and subverts the end of government; for what property have I - in that which another may by right take, when he pleases, to - himself?”[239] - -Mr. Hallam, commenting on this text, does not hesitate to say, that it -“in some measure seems to charge with usurpation all the established -governments of Europe,”--that “neither the Revolution of 1688 nor the -administration of William the Third could have borne the test by which -Locke has tried the legitimacy of government.”[240] - -A later English writer, Mr. Tremenheere, commenting also on this text, -sets forth its two propositions as follows: “First, that a political -society can only be bound by the act of the majority; second, that -taxation without representation is tyranny.”[241] Such are the two -propositions this English writer finds in Locke, and which he cites -for condemnation. Thus, if we repair with Otis to the very source from -which he drew, we find that there was no claim for communities merely, -but for the individual man, without distinction of color. - -Mr. Bright, our English friend, in one of his admirable speeches,[242] -has recently furnished an additional illustration. He has brought to -light a resolution from no less an authority than Lord Somers, on an -important occasion, kindred to the present, when it was proposed to -disfranchise all who were not of the Established Church, as it is now -proposed to disfranchise all who are not of a certain color. Speaking -for the House of Lords, in conference with the Commons, this great -constitutional lawyer insisted:-- - - “That though the Lords allow that no man hath a place by - birthright, or but few such examples in our Government, yet - that _giving a vote for a Representative in Parliament is - the essential privilege whereby every Englishman preserves - his property_, and that whatsoever deprives him of such vote - deprives him of his birthright.”[243] - -Here again is the very cry of Otis; and you cannot fail to observe that -the claim is not for communities merely, but for “every Englishman,” -without distinction of color. - -Surely this is enough. But it is said that the claim is as applicable -to women as to men, especially where women are tax-payers. To this I -reply, that Locke, Somers, Otis, and Franklin, in making the claim, did -not give it any such extent, and the question which I submit is simply -as to their meaning in the words “Taxation without representation is -tyranny.” Clearly their claim was for _men_, believing, as they did, -that _women_ were represented through men; and it is hardly candid to -embarrass the present debate, involving the rights of an oppressed -race, by another question entirely independent. In saying that the -claim was for men, I content myself with the authority of Theophilus -Parsons, afterward the eminent Chief Justice of Massachusetts, who, -in a masterly state-paper, known as the “Essex Result,” which was -the prelude to the Constitution of Massachusetts, thus discloses the -opinion of the Fathers on this precise point:-- - - “Every freeman, who hath sufficient discretion, should have - a voice in the election of his legislators.… All the members - of the State are qualified to make the election, unless they - have not sufficient discretion, or are so situated as to - have no wills of their own. Persons not twenty-one years old - are deemed of the former class, from their want of years and - experience.… Women, what age soever they are of, are also - considered as not having a sufficient acquired discretion,--not - from a deficiency in their mental powers, but from the natural - tenderness and delicacy of their minds, their retired mode of - life, and various domestic duties. These, concurring, prevent - that promiscuous intercourse with the world which is necessary - to qualify them for electors. Slaves are of the latter class, - and have no wills.”[244] - -The reasons assigned for the exclusion of women may be very -unsatisfactory; but they show at least that the Fathers, when insisting -that taxation and representation must go together, did not regard -women, any more than minors, within the sphere of this commanding -principle. And here I leave this head of the argument, concluding as I -began, that you cannot adopt this pretended Amendment without setting -at defiance the great maxim of constitutional liberty which was the -rallying cry of our fathers. - - * * * * * - -3. Continuing the dissection, I exhibit this proposition as a new form -of _concession to State Rights_. Such it is plainly on its face; such -it is in reality; and the more you examine it, the more complete the -concession appears. Already it has been announced as such by those who -seek to commend it in quarters of doubtful loyalty. Here, for instance, -is a speech of Hon. John E. King, claimant of a seat in Congress from -Louisiana, only a few days ago addressed to the Legislature of his -State, where, after calling attention to the present attempt, he exults -in what seemed to him the prospect of its adoption:-- - - “The present Congress is proceeding to amend without the - eleven States that are unrepresented in that body. _However, - there is some good in all this evil._ If this Amendment should - pass,--and the speaker said that himself and colleagues had no - doubt that it would,--it will settle forever the right of the - States to legislate, each for itself, as to who shall be the - voters therein.”[245] - -Thus, while deprecating Amendments to the Constitution in the absence -of the eleven Rebel States, the partisan of State Rights is reconciled -to the pending proposition, inasmuch as it is a triumph of this -sectional pretension. Alas, that now, at the close of a rebellion in -the name of State Rights, we should be considering calmly how to assure -this pernicious heresy new support in the Constitution itself! - -Let me be understood. I suggest no interference with the just rights -of the States. These belong to the harmonies of the Union. But, in the -name of Justice, I insist that nothing further shall be done to invest -the States with peculiar local power. If not taught by the lessons -of the late war, then be taught by the principles avowed at the very -beginning of the Government. - -The object of the Constitution was to ordain, under authority of -the people, a national government possessing unity and power. The -Confederation had been merely an agreement “between the States,” -styled “a league of firm friendship.” Found to be feeble and -inoperative, through the pretension of State Rights, it gave way to -the Constitution, which, instead of a “league,” created a “Union” in -the name of the people of the United States. Beginning with these -inspiring and enacting words, “We, the people,” it was popular and -national. Here was no concession to State Rights, but a recognition -of the power of the people, from whom the Constitution proceeded. The -States are acknowledged; but they are all treated as component parts of -the Union in which they are absorbed under the National Constitution, -which is the supreme law. There is but one sovereignty, and that is the -sovereignty of the people of the United States. - -On this very account the adoption of the Constitution was opposed -by Patrick Henry and George Mason. The first pronounced: “That this -is a consolidated government is demonstrably clear.” “The question -turns on that poor little thing, the expression, ‘We, the people,’ -instead of ‘the States’ of America.”[246] The second exclaimed: -“Whether the Constitution be good or bad, the present clause [‘We, -the people’] clearly discovers that it is a national government, and -no longer a confederation.”[247] But against this powerful opposition -the Constitution was adopted in the name of the people of the United -States. Throughout the discussion, State Rights were treated with -little favor. Madison said, the States were “only political societies,” -and “never possessed the essential rights of sovereignty.”[248] -Gerry said, the States had “only corporate rights.”[249] Wilson, the -philanthropic member from Pennsylvania, afterward a learned judge of -the Supreme Court of the United States, and author of the “Lectures on -Law,” said: “Will a regard to State Rights justify the sacrifice of the -Rights of Men? If we proceed on any other foundation than the last, our -building will neither be solid nor lasting.”[250] Such were the voices -at that heroic day. And now, at the end of an unparalleled war to abase -State Rights, we are asked to naturalize in the Constitution a new -provision confirming to the States an odious pretension, shocking to -the moral sense. But its character belongs to another head. - - * * * * * - -4. Proceeding with the dissection, I now exhibit the proposition, -not only as a concession to State Rights, which is admitted by a -Louisiana supporter, but, if unhappily adopted, as the _constitutional -recognition of an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, and Monopoly founded -on color_. All this appears on the face; and as you examine it, the -intolerable consequence becomes still more apparent. Thus far we have -been saved from such shame. The proposition before us assumes that -the elective franchise may be denied or abridged constitutionally on -account of race or color, and thus sanctions the usurpation,--thereby -investing those who deny or abridge it with exclusive political -control, without regard to number, though they may be a minority -or even a small fraction of the people. What, Sir, is this rancid -pretension, if it be not an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, and monopoly -founded on color, under sanction of the Constitution? It is all these -together, having beyond question the distinctive features of each and -the distinctive discredit of each,--therefore odious in government, -odious in religion, odious in economy, and altogether constituting an -outrageous indecency. - -It is idle to say that this is done already in the States. It may be -done _in fact_. But now you propose to give this criminal fact the -support of the Constitution, and lift it into perpetual vigor. - -The country has been harassed and degraded for generations by the Slave -Power, which was nothing but an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, and -monopoly; and now, when this power has been overcome in battle, it is -proposed to inaugurate it anew, with slight change of name, but with -the same field of action, and the same malignant spirit to wield its -energies. By your concession it tyrannized before, and now by your -concession it will tyrannize again. The citizens it once trampled on as -slaves it will continue to trample on as outcasts, and it will set up -your permission emblazoned in the Constitution itself. - - * * * * * - -5. Proceeding with this proposition, I exhibit it as petrifying in the -Constitution the wretched _pretension of a white man’s government_. At -this moment, when we are striking the word “white” from the national -statutes, when this word has disappeared even from Post-Office laws, -when, by a vote of the House of Representatives, it has been condemned -in the laws regulating the elective franchise in the District of -Columbia, it is proposed to insert an equivalent in the Constitution -itself. To exhibit this shame is surely enough to make you turn away -from it. Do not say that this is not proposed. What is the concession -that the elective franchise may be denied or abridged “on account of -race or color” but an insertion of the word “white” in the National -Constitution? In that text, as it still stands, from beginning to end, -from the preamble to the signature of George Washington, or the last -word of the last Amendment, there is no recognition of “color.” For the -sake of decency, keep it so. - - * * * * * - -6. Proceeding still further with the proposition, I exhibit it as -assuming, what is false in Constitutional Law, _that color can be a -qualification for an elector_. The Constitution says that “the electors -in each State shall have the _qualifications_ requisite for electors -of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” Of course this -leaves open the question, What is meant by “qualifications”? But this -word must be interpreted in the light of the Constitution, which knows -no “color,” and again in the light of the Declaration of Independence, -which knows no “color,” and yet again in the light of common sense, -which refuses to recognize “color” as a “qualification,” in any just -sense of the term. Consult the dictionaries of the day, and you will -find it means “fitness,” “ability,” “accomplishment,” “the state of -being qualified”; but it does not mean “color.” It is applicable to -the conditions of age, residence, character, education, property, and -the payment of taxes; but it cannot be applicable to “color.” The -English dictionaries most in vogue at the time of our fathers were -those of Bailey and Johnson. According to Bailey, who was the earliest, -“qualification” is defined:-- - - “(1.) That which fits any person or thing for any particular - purpose.” - - “(2.) A particular faculty or endowment, an accomplishment.” - -According to Johnson, who is the highest authority, it is defined:-- - - “(1.) That which makes any person or thing fit for anything.” - - “EXAMPLE.--It is in the power of the prince to make piety and - virtue become the fashion, if he would make them necessary - _qualifications_ for preferment.--SWIFT.” - - “(2.) Accomplishment.” - - “EXAMPLE.--Good _qualifications_ of mind enable a magistrate - to perform his duty, and tend to create a public esteem of - him.--ATTERBURY.” - -According to these definitions “qualification” means “fitness” or -“accomplishment,” and according to examples from classical writers it -means qualities like “piety” and “virtue,” or like “mind.” Obviously -it cannot embrace color, which is a physical condition, insurmountable -in nature. An insurmountable condition is not a _qualification_, but -a _disfranchisement_. As well say that the quality of the hair or the -length of the foot should be a “qualification,” as the color of the -skin. The whole pretension is one of the false glosses fastened upon -the National Constitution by Slavery, which must now be sloughed off. - - * * * * * - -7. Again, I exhibit the proposition as positively _tying the hands of -Congress in its interpretation of a republican government_, so that, -under the guaranty clause, it must recognize an oligarchy, aristocracy, -caste, and monopoly founded on color, with the tyranny of taxation -without representation, as _republican in character_, which I insist -they are not. At present the hands of Congress are not tied. Congress -is free to act generously, nobly, truly, according to the highest -idea of a republic, discountenancing all inequality of rights and the -tyranny of taxation without representation. Let this pretension find -place in the Constitution, and the guaranty clause will be restricted -in operation. The two clauses taken together, as they must be, will -read substantially: “The United States shall guaranty to every State in -this Union a republican form of government: it being understood that -the denial or abridgment of the elective franchise on account of race -or color, and the tyranny of taxation without representation, are not -inconsistent with a republican government.” In other words the denial -or abridgment of the elective franchise on account of race or color, -and the tyranny of taxation without representation, will be recognized -in the Constitution as republican in character. Of course all attempt -to enforce this guaranty against an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, and -monopoly founded on color, or against the tyranny of taxation without -representation, will be from this time impossible. The precious power -now existing will be lost forever. - - * * * * * - -8. Again, I exhibit the proposition as _positively tying the hands of -Congress in completing and consummating the abolition of Slavery_. -By the second clause of the recent Constitutional Amendment Congress -is expressly empowered to “enforce” the abolition of Slavery by -“appropriate legislation.” Accordingly, the Senate, by what is known -as the Civil Rights Bill, has already undertaken to establish equality -of civil rights in all the States and Territories, so that hereafter, -in our courts at least, there shall be no discrimination of color. It -was justly insisted that such “legislation” is needed to “enforce” -the abolition of Slavery, and on this account is constitutional. The -Senate acted accordingly. The bill has passed this body by more than -a two-thirds vote. Obviously by the same title equality in political -rights can be established also under this Amendment, if such equality -shall be deemed important to “enforce” the abolition of Slavery, or, in -other words, to complete and consummate the good work. In the exercise -of a granted power Congress is sole judge of the “means” it employs; -and this conclusion is sustained not only by reason, but by the Supreme -Court of the United States in solemn judgments. You will remember the -familiar precedents, which I insist are decisive. And now, in the face -of these judgments, in the face of reason, and with the authoritative -precedent of the Senate establishing equality of civil rights before -us, it is proposed to insert in the Constitution a provision despoiling -Congress of its power under the Constitutional Amendment, so that -hereafter that Amendment, which should be interpreted generously and to -advance Liberty, will be changed so as to read: “Congress shall have -power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation: it being -understood that it shall not interfere for this purpose with any denial -or abridgment of the elective franchise in any State on account of race -or color.” Thus again will a beneficent power be lost at a moment when -all is needed for the safety and renown of the Republic. - - * * * * * - -9. Again, I exhibit this proposition as _installing recent rebels to -govern loyal citizens_ under sanction of the Constitution. The ruling -class began and sustained the Rebellion. The citizens you disfranchise -were loyal, and some of them poured out their red blood for the -Republic; and yet we are asked to intrench this ruling class in the -Constitution, so that they can wield unchecked power, while loyal -millions are humbled at their feet. The bare statement offends reason -and conscience. - -Pray, who may justly look to the Republic for protection? Is it the -rebel or the loyal? Is it the citizen who has caused all your woes, -and now gnashes his teeth at your triumph,--or is it the citizen who -has watched your flag with sympathetic pride, and now rejoices in your -triumph? Who can hesitate? And yet the proposition before the Senate -gives the palm of power and honor to the rebel class, and fixes this -preëminence in the National Constitution. You cannot say, more than -Cain, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” You are your brother’s keeper; and -you must see that he is saved from cruel oppression. - - * * * * * - -10. And, lastly, I denounce this proposition as a _compromise of human -rights_, the most questionable of any in our history. Persons out of -the Senate have sought to vindicate it, as other compromises in times -past, by representing it as something which it is not. This is done -by exhibiting one side only of the compromise, and thus calling it -“punitive”; as if in 1850 the admission of California, which was one -side of the compromise, had been exhibited, while the unutterable -atrocity of the Fugitive Slave Bill, which was the other side, had been -concealed from view. The present compromise, like other compromises, -has two sides; in other words, it is a concession for a consideration. -On one side it is conceded that the States may, under the Constitution, -exclude citizens counted by the million from the body politic, and -practise the tyranny of taxation without representation, provided, on -the other side, there is a corresponding diminution of representative -power in the lower House of Congress, without, however, touching -the representative power in the Senate. The glaring feature of this -compromise is the criminal concession, constituting the sacrifice of -brave defenders, and even of a whole race, to whom we owe protection. -The consideration is small. It will be forgotten, when the monstrous -concession looms in history as a landmark of dishonor. - -There have been other compromises of human rights in times past. But, -considering the grandeur of the occasion, the promises of the Fathers, -the extent of present obligations, the promptings of gratitude, the -demands of public faith, the exigencies of public security, and -the good name of the Republic, all now involved, I am sure that no -compromise so discreditable and disastrous was ever before proposed. A -feeble prototype may be found in that intolerable treaty known as the -Assiento, from which every Englishman turns with a blush, where, at the -end of an unprecedented war, England bartered all that had been won by -the victories of Marlborough for the privilege of supplying slaves to -the Spanish colonies. The slave-trade received solemn sanction, and -England pocketed the dishonest profits,--just as now a kindred offence -on a grander scale is to receive solemn sanction, and we who sanction -it are to pocket the profits in political power. Do not talk, Sir, of -this measure as “punitive,” unless you mean that it is punitive of -benefactors,--for this is the only character it can bear in history. On -a former occasion I entreated you not to copy the example of Pontius -Pilate, who handed over the Saviour of the world, in whom he found -no fault at all, to be scourged and crucified. It is my duty now to -remind you that you go further than Pontius Pilate. He was a mocker -and a jester;[251] but he received nothing for what he did. You do. -Not content with resolving the Senate into a Prætorium, I feel rather -that you imitate Judas, who betrayed the Saviour for thirty pieces of -silver, and imitate the soldiers who appropriated to themselves the -raiment of the Saviour. Do not answer me with a sneer. Has not the -Saviour himself told us that what we do to the least we do to Him? -Ay, Sir, in offering fellow-citizens to be sacrificed, in betraying -them for less than “thirty” Representatives in Congress, and in -appropriating their political raiment, you do all this to the Saviour -himself. Pardon this necessary plainness. I speak for my country, -which I seek to save from dishonor; I speak for fellow-citizens whom I -would save from outrage; and I speak for that public faith and public -security in which is bound up the welfare of all. - - * * * * * - -Mr. President, such is the argument for the rejection of this pretended -Amendment. Following it from the beginning, you have seen, first, how -it carries into the Constitution the idea of Inequality of Rights, thus -defiling that unspotted text; secondly, how it is an express sanction -of the acknowledged tyranny of taxation without representation; -thirdly, how it is a concession to State Rights at a moment when we -are recovering from a terrible war waged against us in the name of -State Rights; fourthly, how it is the constitutional recognition of -an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, and monopoly founded on color; -fifthly, how it petrifies in the Constitution the wretched pretension -of a white man’s government; sixthly, how it assumes, what is false in -Constitutional Law, that color can be a “qualification” for an elector; -seventhly, how it positively ties the hands of Congress in fixing the -meaning of a republican government, so that under the guaranty clause -it will be constrained to recognize an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, -and monopoly founded on color, together with the tyranny of taxation -without representation, as not inconsistent with such a government; -eighthly, how it positively ties the hands of Congress in completing -and consummating the abolition of Slavery according to the second -clause of the Constitutional Amendment, so that it cannot for this -purpose interfere with the denial of the elective franchise on account -of color; ninthly, how it installs recent rebels in permanent power -over loyal citizens; and, tenthly, how it shows forth its unmistakable -character as a compromise of human rights, the most questionable of any -in our history. - - * * * * * - -And now the question occurs, What shall be done? To this I answer, -Reject at once the pretended Amendment; show it no favor; give it no -quarter. Let the country see that you are impatient of its presence. -But there are other propositions, in the form of substitutes. For any -one of these I can vote. They may differ in efficiency, but there is -nothing in them immoral or shameful. There is, _first_, the proposition -to found representation on voters instead of population, and, -_secondly_, the proposition to secure equality in political rights by -Constitutional Amendment or by Act of Congress. - - * * * * * - -The proposition to found representation on voters instead of population -was originally introduced by me during the last Congress. Almost at -the same time I presented a series of resolutions declaring not only -the power, but the duty, of the United States to guaranty republican -governments in the Rebel States on the basis of the Declaration of -Independence, so that the new governments should be founded on the -consent of the governed and the equality of all persons before the law. -Thus, while proposing to found representation on voters, I at the same -time asserted the power of Congress under the Constitution to secure -equality in political rights. The proposition with regard to voters -was much discussed during the recess of Congress. At the beginning of -the present session it seemed to find favor. But at last statistics -were adduced tending to show that it would transfer power from Eastern -States to Western States in proportion to the excess of females over -males in the former; and this abnormal circumstance was made an -argument against it. Since then it has given place to the offensive -attempt now pending. - -The proposition to found representation on voters instead of population -may be seen, _first_, in what it does not, and, _secondly_, in what it -does. - -Seeing it in what it does not, all will confess that it does not -carry into the Constitution itself the idea of Inequality of Rights, -thus defiling that unspotted text; that it gives no sanction to the -acknowledged tyranny of taxation without representation; that it makes -no concession to State Rights, at a moment when we are recovering from -a terrible war waged against us in the name of State Rights; that it -does not recognize an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, and monopoly -founded on color; that it does not petrify in the Constitution the -wretched pretension of a white man’s government; that it does not -assume, what is false in Constitutional Law, that color can be a -“qualification” for a voter; that it does not positively tie the -hands of Congress in fixing the meaning of a republican government, -so that under the guaranty clause it will be constrained to recognize -an oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, and monopoly founded on color, -together with the tyranny of taxation without representation, as not -inconsistent with such a government; that it does not positively tie -the hands of Congress in completing and consummating the abolition -of Slavery according to the second clause of the Constitutional -Amendment; that it does not install recent rebels in permanent power -over loyal citizens; that it does not show forth in unmistakable -character as a compromise of human rights, the most questionable of any -in our history. All these things, so offensive to the conscience and -the reason, this proposition avoids. In all these respects it is at -least blameless. - -On the other hand, without inflicting any stigma upon the Constitution -or upon the Republic, without abandoning any principle, without making -any concession to the States, without tying the hands of Congress, and -without any compromise of human rights, it does rearrange the basis -of representation so as to accomplish all that is proposed even by -the most sanguine supporters of the other attempt, and it does this -effectually, without the opportunity for evasion afforded by the other -proposition. The alleged inequality in operation, owing to excess of -females over males in certain States, may make you hesitate; but better -take representation founded on voters, even with any such alleged -inequality, than do a grievous wrong. Better wrong yourselves than -wrong others. - -Let me confess that I was tempted to this proposition by the conviction -that I was carrying out the cherished idea of Massachusetts embodied -in her own Constitution. According to a recent Amendment, the -representation in both branches of the Legislature is founded on “legal -voters,” and not on population. Here are the words. - - “A census of the _legal voters of each city and town_ on the - first day of May shall be taken and returned into the office of - the Secretary of the Commonwealth.… The enumeration aforesaid - shall determine the apportionment of Representatives for the - periods between the taking of the census. - - “The House of Representatives shall consist of two hundred and - forty members, which shall be apportioned by the Legislature, - at its first session after the return of each enumeration - as aforesaid, to the several counties of the Commonwealth, - _equally, as nearly as may be, according to their relative - numbers of legal voters_, as ascertained by the next preceding - special enumeration.… - - “The Senate shall consist of forty members. The General Court - shall, at its first session after each next preceding special - enumeration, divide the Commonwealth into forty districts - of adjacent territory, _each district to contain, as nearly - as may be, an equal number of legal voters_, according to - the enumeration aforesaid.… Each district shall elect one - Senator.”[252] - -Obviously, in adopting this rule, Massachusetts has followed what seems -a correct principle. Representative government is an invention of -modern times. It was unknown in antiquity. Athens was a democracy where -the people met in public assembly for the government of the state: -there was no representative body chosen by the people for this purpose. -The public assembly was practicable in that age, as the state was -small, and the assembly seldom exceeded six thousand citizens,--a large -town meeting, or mass meeting, which Milton has termed “that fierce -democratie.” But where the territory was extensive and the population -scattered and numerous, there could be no assembly of the whole body -of citizens. To meet this precise difficulty the representative system -was devised. By a machinery so obvious that we are astonished it was -not employed in the ancient commonwealths, the people, though scattered -and numerous, are gathered, through their chosen representatives, -into a small and deliberative assembly, where, without tumult or -rashness, they may consider and determine all questions which concern -them. In every representative body properly constituted the people are -practically present. - -If, then, the representative body is a substitute for the people -themselves meeting in primary assemblies, it would seem that it must -be founded upon the people who compose the primary assemblies,--in -other words, upon legal voters. Ordinarily there may be little -difference between the proportion of legal voters and the proportion -of population; but, strictly, the representative system is the agent -of legal voters, and therefore the logic of the case is better -satisfied, if it be founded on legal voters rather than on population. -With me this is no new idea. On another occasion, in my own State, I -asserted it. This was in a Convention for revising the Constitution -of Massachusetts, as long ago as 1853. Pardon me, if I read a brief -passage from a speech in that Convention, not from any importance which -I attach to it, but as showing how completely at that time this rule -seemed to me just. - - “A practical question arises here, whether this rule should - be applied to the whole body of population, including women, - children, and unnaturalized foreigners, or to those only who - exercise the electoral franchise,--in other words, to voters. - It is probable that the rule would produce nearly similar - results in both cases, as voters, except in few places, would - bear a uniform proportion to the whole population. But it is - easy to determine what the principle of the Representative - system requires. Since its object is to provide a practical - substitute for meetings of the people, it should be founded, - in just proportion, on the numbers of those who, according to - our Constitution, can take part in those meetings,--that is, - upon the qualified voters. The representative body should be a - miniature or abridgment of the electoral body,--in other words, - of those allowed to participate in public affairs.”[253] - -In this view I found myself supported by two illustrious names in our -history. Mr. Jefferson, shortly after the victory at Yorktown had -rescued Virginia from invasion and secured national independence, -prepared the draught of a Constitution for his native State, which -expressly provided that “the number of delegates which each county -may send shall be _in proportion to the number of its qualified -electors_, and the whole number of delegates for the State shall be -_proportioned to the whole number of qualified electors in it_.”[254] -This proposition, which is substantially the Rule of Three applied to -voters, was not adopted, but it remains a record of opinion. Some time -afterward, in the debates in the Convention which framed the National -Constitution, Mr. Madison gave his authority to the same conclusion. - - “It had been very properly observed that representation was an - expedient by which the meeting of the people themselves was - rendered unnecessary, and _that the representatives ought, - therefore, to bear a proportion to the voters which their - constituents, if convened, would respectively have_.”[255] - -Thus representation founded on voters seems commended by authority and -principle. Its adoption would at least give symmetry to our national -system, and make the representative more precisely the embodied -presence of his constituents, while at the same time it would tend to -enlarge the suffrage, and to harmonize sectional pretensions with the -national will, when exerted for human rights. If representation were -founded on voters, the States would care little, if Congress should -annul all inequality in the elective franchise on account of color. The -way would be open to Congress. - - * * * * * - -There are other propositions to my mind more satisfactory, because they -reach the special necessity of the hour, and provide the only effectual -remedy. Speaking in the name of national justice and for the national -safety, they cannot be put aside with indifference; nor is it wise to -say that any measure of justice is not practical. I refer, of course, -to the propositions, in different forms, to secure that great guaranty, -_equality in political rights_, by Constitutional Amendment, or by Act -of Congress, or by both. - -A Constitutional Amendment placing equality of political rights under -the safeguard of a specific text may be superfluous, but it is not -unconstitutional or immoral. It will be supplementary to provisions -already in the Constitution, and in the nature of a declaratory -statute removing all doubts and cavils. It will be like an additional -force in mechanics, or like a reinforcement in the field. It will be -reduplication in a new form. On such an occasion, where such a cause is -in issue, I welcome every alliance; and such I regard the proposition -of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. HENDERSON]. - - * * * * * - -The other proposition, looking to the direct action of Congress under -the National Constitution and existing Amendments, is obviously the -simplest and most practical, inasmuch as it deals with the exigency -promptly, frankly, and according to the necessities of the hour. It -does not undertake to act by indirection; nor does it postpone to an -indefinite future what cannot be postponed without detriment to the -Republic. Refusing to procrastinate, it saves all. Such a proposition -is commended by every argument of reason, humanity, and patriotism. -To say that it is not constitutional is to say that the Constitution -itself is not constitutional; for it is derived from the very heart of -the Constitution, and is filled with all its best life-blood. - -Something has been said of the form in which the proposition is -presented. There is the bill of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. -YATES], which he has maintained in a speech of singular originality -and power, that has not been answered, and I do not hesitate to say -cannot be answered. By this bill it is provided that all citizens -in any State or Territory shall be protected in the full and equal -enjoyment and exercise of civil and political rights, including the -right of suffrage. This is founded on the consideration that by the -abolition of Slavery the slave became at once a citizen, subject only -to such disabilities as are common to other citizens, and that by the -second clause of the Constitutional Amendment Congress is empowered to -enforce the abolition of Slavery by appropriate legislation. On this -foundation the Senator places his bill, assuming, that, to complete -the abolition of Slavery, all restrictions, penalties, or deprivations -of right, resulting from Slavery in any State or Territory, must be -made to cease. The proposition that I have had the honor of presenting -is a joint resolution, which, after declaring the duty of Congress -to guaranty a republican form of government in States where the -governments have lapsed, and also the duty to complete the abolition -of Slavery by the removal of all relics of this wrong, proceeds to -provide that there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or -monopoly, nor any 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.[256] Not doubting the power of -Congress to carry out this principle everywhere within the jurisdiction -of the United States, I content myself for the present by asserting it -only in the lapsed States lately in rebellion, where the twofold duty -to guaranty a republican government and to enforce the abolition of -Slavery is beyond question. To that extent I now urge it. - - * * * * * - -Both these propositions are opposed as informal and inoperative, -because without machinery or penalty. Such is the objection, if I -understand it. As it has been made, I answer it. Each on its face is -an Act of Congress prohibiting denial of certain rights on account of -color. In this respect each is at least a Congressional interpretation -of the Constitution, and it is by no means clear that it could not be -enforced in the courts. The bill which has already passed the House of -Representatives, striking out the word “white” in the electoral laws of -the District of Columbia, is without machinery or penalty; but it is at -least a Congressional declaration, to be followed, of course, by other -legislation with proper machinery and penalty; and this is the precise -character of the measures presented by the Senator from Illinois and -myself. Objection, if valid at all, must be equally valid against the -bill for enfranchisement in the District of Columbia, and against every -other Congressional declaration without machinery or penalty. It is, -at most, one of form, which I put aside and advance to the substance. -The question is too vast and the times are too serious for a special -demurrer. It must be tried on its merits. The question is on the power -of Congress to establish equality of political rights, at least in the -Rebel States. If Congress has this beneficent power, then exercise it -in such form as shall seem best, with machinery and penalty or without -machinery and penalty; but, in God’s name, exercise it, for the sake of -the country, which suffers from your delay. - -Has Congress power to secure equality of political rights, at least in -the Rebel States? I do not at this time raise the question of its power -throughout the United States, but in the Rebel States. If this question -were less transcendent in its relations, or if it could be approached -calmly and without prejudice, in the light of reason, I cannot doubt -the judgment. But you must bring to its determination the same simple -desire for truth, undisturbed by external influences, which would -control a judicial tribunal; for, in the determination of your powers -under the Constitution, you are a judicial tribunal. It will not be -enough to deny the beneficent power, or to mock at those who find it in -the Constitution. You must answer their arguments. - - * * * * * - -1. I need not dwell on what has been so often discussed and so much -misunderstood; and yet I must remind you of the power of Congress -over the Rebel States from _the necessity of the case_; because, after -the overthrow of legitimate governments, whose members were sworn to -support the Constitution of the United States, there was no other -rule possible for these States than that of Congress,--precisely as -the Territories, according to Chief Justice Marshall, in a famous -judgment, fell under “the power and jurisdiction of the United States” -from the necessity of the case.[257] I do not say that a State becomes -a technical Territory, as that term is understood among us; but I do -say, that, in the lapse of the Rebel States, and in the absence of -legitimate governments with members sworn to support the Constitution, -these States fell under “the power and jurisdiction of the United -States,”--meaning, practically, Congress,--until such time as they are -reorganized according to the requirement of the Constitution. In the -exercise of such a power and jurisdiction thus cast upon it, Congress -must see that all loyal citizens, without distinction of color, take -part in the formation of the new governments.[258] - - * * * * * - -2. Nor need I dwell on another source of power, found in _the rights -of war_; but this, too, must be made plain. Nobody doubts that the -United States were justified in asserting supremacy in the Rebel States -by force of arms. But the war, when once begun, was subject to all -the conditions of war, according to the rights of war found in the -Law of Nations,--doubly obligatory on us, first, because we belong to -the family of nations, and, secondly, because the Law of Nations is -expressly recognized by the Constitution itself. Now, according to -the rights of war found in the Law of Nations, a conquering power is -justified in requiring not only indemnity for the past, but security -for the future. It depends upon the people of the United States, -represented in Congress, to determine the guaranties of this security. -In support of this conclusion, I ask attention to a familiar authority, -whose statement seems to cover the case. I read from Vattel:-- - - “The whole right of the conqueror comes from that just - self-defence which comprehends the maintenance and prosecution - of his rights. When, therefore, he has entirely subdued a - hostile nation, he may undoubtedly, in the first place, do - himself justice with regard to that which gave rise to the - war, and indemnify himself for the expenses and damages it has - caused him; he may, according to the exigency of the case, - impose penalties upon the conquered nation by way of example; - he may even, if prudence require, _render it incapable of doing - harm so easily in future_.”[259] - -The offending party, when conquered, may be rendered incapable of doing -harm so easily in future. This is according to natural justice. Then -again the same familiar authority says:-- - - “If the inhabitants have been personally guilty of any criminal - attempt against the conqueror, _he may by way of punishment - deprive them of their rights and franchises_. This, again, he - may do, if the inhabitants have taken up arms against him and - thus directly rendered themselves his enemies. He then owes - them nothing more than what is due from a humane and equitable - conqueror to subjugated enemies.”[260] - -Surely, out of this ample power Congress cannot hesitate in requiring -justice to the wards and allies of the Republic through whom the -Rebellion was crushed, especially when without justice to them security -in the future is nothing but a mockery and a phantasmagoria. - - * * * * * - -3. From these sources of power I pass to that other found in _the -constitutional obligation to guaranty to every State of the Union a -republican form of government_. Here is the text:-- - - “The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union - a republican form of government.” - -This obligation is peremptory, and not discretionary. It is _shall_, -and not _may_. The United States _must_ do it. Of course, in executing -the guaranty, you must affix a meaning to the term “republican form of -government.” To do this I have in this debate endeavored to show the -essential principles our fathers had at heart when they founded the -Republic. I shall not weary you again with the historic statement. It -is enough, if I present the conclusion. According to the Fathers, all -men are equal in rights, and, as corollaries from this truth, all just -government is founded on the consent of the governed, and taxation -without representation is tyranny. Such was their idea of a republican -government. - -It is idle to allege against this definition, that there were property -“qualifications” in most of the States, by which the number of voters -was essentially limited. This is true. But it must not be forgotten -that a property “qualification,” unless unreasonably large, is not -a disfranchisement. It is a condition, sometimes onerous, but not -in its nature insurmountable, as the condition of color, and it is -equally applicable to all. And yet it is apparent, from the recorded -opinions of the Fathers, that even this “qualification” was regarded as -inconsistent with the genius of republican institutions. - -It is idle also to allege against this definition the toleration of -Slavery. This was sad enough; but the Fathers who tolerated Slavery -regarded it as absolutely exceptional. According to the definition -of a slave, he has no will of his own, and can give no “consent” -to government. Therefore he was not considered as belonging to the -“body politic.” But not being represented, he was not taxed, except -as property. Indeed, a careful examination of his relations to the -government shows how completely in his case the rights of “the people” -are left untouched. He was not regarded as one of “the people,” and -therefore was not under the safeguard of the rights of “the people.” -But all this was changed when he became a freeman. He was then one of -“the people,” whose property could not be taken by taxation without -representation, and whose consent was essential to government. The -difference was not between whites and blacks, but between slaves and -freemen. All freemen, without distinction of color, were citizens. -Listen, if you please, to the “Federalist,” in an article attributed -to each of the three eminent authors of that collection, and which the -Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] assumed was by Madison, but which -is claimed for Hamilton, in the last edition of the “Federalist,” by -his son. I quote a second time the important words:-- - - “It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed - the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is denied - to them in the computation of numbers; AND IT IS ADMITTED, - THAT, IF THE LAWS WERE TO RESTORE THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEN - TAKEN AWAY, THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN EQUAL - SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH THE OTHER INHABITANTS.”[261] - -Such is the exposition of the actual Constitution by Hamilton. -According to him, “If the laws were to restore the rights which have -been taken away, _the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share -of representation_ with the other inhabitants.” But this very hour has -sounded. The laws have restored the rights which had been taken away, -and it is now your duty to see that the people who have regained their -rights are no longer refused an equal share of representation. The -opinion of Hamilton on this vital question is still further attested -by his saying that the liberty for which our fathers fought was the -right of “each individual” to “a share in the government”;[262] that -“the electors are to be _the great body of the people_ of the United -States”;[263] and still further, by the proposition in his Plan of a -Constitution:-- - - “Representatives shall be chosen, except in the first instance, - by _the free male citizens and inhabitants_ of the several - States comprehended in the Union, all of whom, of the age of - twenty-one years and upwards, _shall be entitled to an equal - vote_.”[264] - -In this proposition, which, though not adopted in terms, may be -regarded as the pole-star of our fathers, the distinguished author -followed the Continental Congress, which recommended the apportionment -of the war expenses among the “free citizens and inhabitants,” without -distinction of color.[265] - -This rule is in entire conformity with that matured by ancient -experience, especially in Greece, where, according to the universal -master, Aristotle,-- - - “The whole body of the inhabitants of a country enjoying the - protection of its laws, including the young who are still under - the legal age, and the very old who have passed the time of - action, and all others under any other species of disability, - are in a certain wide and general sense citizens; but the full - and complete definition of a _citizen_ is confined to those who - participate in the governing power.”[266] - -Proving, as I have, that colored persons are citizens, this very -definition teaches that they cannot be refused participation in the -governing power. - -The historian Thirlwall, in his studies of Greek polity, recognized -this rule, when he wrote:-- - - “But a finished democracy, that which fully satisfied the Greek - notion, was one in which every attribute of sovereignty might - be shared, without respect to rank or property, by _every - freeman_.”[267] - -In recognizing the right of “every freeman” to the full enjoyment of -the elective franchise, our fathers followed the early example. - -Curiously enough, we find confirmation of the true principle, where -you would little expect it, in that very Dred Scott decision which -undertook to blast a race. Chief Justice Taney on that occasion laid -down a rule which at this moment is applicable to every “citizen,” -without distinction of color:-- - - “The words, ‘people of the United States’ and ‘citizens’ - are synonymous terms, and mean the same thing. They both - describe the political body, who, according to our republican - institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and - conduct the government through their representatives. They are - what we familiarly call the ‘sovereign people’; _and every - citizen is one of this people, and a constituent member of this - sovereignty_.”[268] - -This is strong enough; but Mr. Justice Daniel is still more precise:-- - - “There is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of - writers on Government, or in any actual experiment heretofore - tried, an exposition of the term _citizen_, which has not been - understood as conferring _the actual possession and enjoyment, - or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire - equality of privileges, civil and political_.”[269] - -Thus does that terrible judgment, once a ban to the colored race, now -testify to their indisputable rights as “citizens.” - -Therefore I cannot hesitate to say, that, when the slaves of our -country became “citizens,” they took their place in the “body politic” -as a component part of the “people,” entitled to equal rights, and -under protection of two guardian principles,--first, that all just -government stands on the consent of the governed, and, secondly, that -taxation without representation is tyranny; and these rights it is the -duty of Congress to guaranty as essential to the idea of a republic. -The aspiration of Abraham Lincoln, in his marvellous utterance at -Gettysburg, was, that “government of the people, by the people, and for -the people should not perish from the earth.” But who will venture to -exclude from the “people” millions of citizens? - -If governments in the Rebel States are brought to this criterion, -they must fail. The departure from the true standard is not merely -theoretical, as it might be regarded in States where the disfranchised -are few in number, but there is an absolute failure to come within -the conditions required. It is not decent to call a State republican, -where more than a majority of its “people,” constituting the larger -part of the “body politic,” is permanently disfranchised; nor is it -decent to call a State republican, where any considerable portion of -the “people,” constituting an essential part of the “body politic,” is -permanently disfranchised. If in times past such a State could have -been treated as republican, it will not do to treat it so now. It lacks -the vital elements, and must be treated accordingly. I do not dwell on -this point, for it seems absurd to call it in question. - -Clearly it is your duty to enforce the guaranty. By your oaths to -support the Constitution, you must take care that in all the States -where governments have lapsed this guaranty shall be carried out. -In performance of this duty you may proceed either by an _enabling -act_, establishing in advance the conditions of restoration to -“practical relation with the Union,” or by an act directly annulling -all constitutions and laws inconsistent with a republican government. -The power is in Congress. It has been recognized in formal terms -by the Supreme Court; and you are the final judge of the “means” to -be employed. To say that you have not the power is to abdicate at a -great exigency and renounce the very means of salvation. It is to -fling away your arms in the very face of the enemy. It is to spike the -Constitution at a moment when its full cannonade is needed for the -overthrow of wrong. Clearly the power is yours, and upon your heads -will be the fearful responsibility, if you fail to exercise it. - - * * * * * - -4. From this power in the Constitution I pass to another, also in the -Constitution, supplied by the _second clause of the Constitutional -Amendment_. It is there provided that Congress shall “enforce” the -abolition of Slavery by “appropriate legislation.” Here, according to -all rules of interpretation and the judgments of the Supreme Court, -Congress is empowered to do what in its discretion seems best to this -end. It may adopt any “means” which seem “appropriate.” It may select -any weapon in the arsenal. I do not stop to cite judgments of the -Court, or to dwell on this power. The case is clear, and I challenge -contradiction. As the grant is recent, it is not open to any suggestion -of loss or waiver by desuetude or non-user. It is fresh as the -abolition of Slavery itself, and at this moment is just as vital. You -may as well deny the one as the other. - -Here, even at the cost of repetition, allow me to remind you that -already, during the present session, the Senate, in pursuance of this -power, has undertaken to pass “a bill to _protect all persons in the -United States in their civil rights_, and furnish the means of their -vindication.” The declared object of the bill, in its very title, is -the protection of all persons in the United States in their civil -rights; and this object is carried out by the following provision:-- - - “There shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities - among the inhabitants of _any State or Territory of the United - States_ on account of race, color, or previous condition of - slavery.” - -The bill proceeds to provide machinery and penalties for the -enforcement of this prohibition. Mark, if you please, that this is -not merely in the Rebel States, nor even in the States where Slavery -was recently abolished, but everywhere throughout the United States. -All this is done by virtue of that very clause of the Constitutional -Amendment which I adduce. It is done by Congress, in the exercise of -its discretion, in order to “enforce” the abolition of Slavery. It is -the “means” which Congress adopts. It is the weapon which Congress -selects from the arsenal. But surely, if Congress, in order to -“enforce” the abolition of Slavery, can secure all persons throughout -the United States in _civil rights_, it can, out of the same abundant -power, secure all persons throughout the United States in _political -rights_; and this is precisely what is proposed by the bill of the -Senator from Illinois. My own proposition, as I now present it, aims -for the present at securing _political rights_ throughout the Rebel -States; but the irresistible argument is the same in each case. Each is -to “enforce” the abolition of Slavery. - -I do not stop to exhibit the elective franchise as essential to the -security of the freedman, without which he will be the prey of Slavery -in some new form, and cannot rise to the stature of manhood. In opening -this debate I presented the argument fully. Suffice it to say, that -Emancipation will fail in beneficence, if you do not assure to the -former slave all the rights of the citizen. Until you do this, your -work will be only _half done_, and the freedman only _half a man_. - - * * * * * - -Such, Sir, are four sources of power,--each ample: first, the necessity -of the case, as with Territories, where there is no other jurisdiction; -secondly, the rights of war, under which all needful safeguards for the -future may be required; thirdly, the duty to guaranty to every State in -the Union a republican form of government; and, fourthly, the authority -to “enforce” the abolition of Slavery by “appropriate legislation.” Out -of each and all Congress may derive its power. It only remains that it -should act as becomes the representatives of the American people. - - * * * * * - -Mr. President, as I am about to close, allow me to remind you once -more, that, from the nature of the case and from the character of -your obligations, the work of Emancipation must be completed by the -National Government. It cannot be left to become the sport of sectional -prejudice or wayward passion. It began with you, and it is for you to -give it that final assurance to be found only in Enfranchisement. It -is for you to “maintain” the former slave in the liberty he received -at your hands. Such a duty cannot be renounced or delegated. It must -be sacredly performed by the National Government, according to its -original pledge in the Proclamation of Emancipation, and according to -all the suggestions of reason. Humanity, too, joins in the cry. You -cannot consent that the child Emancipation, born of your breath, shall -be surrendered to the custody of enemies. Take it in your arms, I -entreat you, and nurse it into strength. Be instructed by the examples -of history, teaching that the masters of slaves cannot be trusted -to legislate for them,--a conclusion announced by the best English -statesmen, speaking from their experience, in words which I have -often quoted. I refer to the concurring voice of Edmund Burke, George -Canning, and Henry Brougham. Thus, by testimony as well as by reason, -in harmony with the national pledge, we are admonished that the work -must be done by the Nation. - -Do not say that you have not the power, when the will only is needed. -It is the part of a good judge to amplify his jurisdiction: _Boni -judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem_. Such is an approved maxim of law, -handed down from early days. Kindred in character are other maxims, -which enjoin the duty of inclining always in favor of Liberty, to -the extent of catching at anything, even a twine thread, by which to -save it. But on this occasion the good Congress need not amplify its -jurisdiction. Enough, if it enforces what plainly exists. It need not -catch at any twine thread to save Liberty. The great cables of the -Constitution, with mighty anchors, are at command. - -Sir, the freedman must be protected, and not sacrificed. You can do it, -but only in one way. Paper will not do it. Parchment will not do it. -Compromise will not do it. Give him the strength which comes from the -fulness of citizenship, and he will then be protected. Only principles -can be followed. They are like Divine promises, which, when properly -understood and applied, answer every case of difficulty or distress, -and, as in the Pilgrim’s Progress, “will open any lock in Doubting -Castle.” Have faith. Before the earnest man difficulties disappear. -To the boatman who said it was impossible to brave the storm then -raging, William Tell, inspired by patriotic purpose, replied, “I know -not whether it be possible, but I know that it must be attempted,”--and -the deliverer reached his destination. The same courage is needed now. -The attempt at least must be made; and who can say that it will fail? -On its side will be Providence, the prayers of good men, Nature in her -manifold attributes, and the awakened judgment of the civilized world. -The time has gone by, when the spirit of caste can continue to bear -sway. See to it, Senators, that this spirit has no foothold in the -Constitution of our country. To this duty I summon you now, by every -obligation of statesmanship, for the sake of the Republic and for your -own sakes. To the spirit of caste answer back in the spirit of that -Christian truth which you have been taught. Recall the precious words -of the early English writer, who, describing “the Good Sea-Captain,” -tells us that he “counts the image of God nevertheless His image, cut -in ebony, as if done in ivory.”[270] The good statesman must be like -the good sea-captain. His ship is the State, which he keeps safe on its -track. He, too, must see the image of God in all his fellow-men, and, -in the discharge of his responsible duties, must set his face forever -against any recognition of inequality in human rights. Other things you -may do; but this you must not do. - - - - -OPPOSITE SIDES ON THE MEANING OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. - -FINAL SPEECH IN THE SENATE ON THIS AMENDMENT, MARCH 9, 1866. - - - When Mr. Fessenden sat down, after his closing speech, Mr. - Sumner took the floor and made the following remarks. - -MR. PRESIDENT,--Allow me to remind you of that famous shield suspended -in the highway, and so often adduced as a lesson of candor. Two -travellers approaching from opposite quarters, and standing face to -face, read the inscription as each saw it. Straightway there was -difference and contest. Each insisted; but closer observation showed -that the two sides were different. So it is on the present occasion. -The measure before the Senate has two sides. The Senator from Maine -[Mr. FESSENDEN], as he approaches it, sees only the side which limits -the representation. As I approach it, I see the recognition of a caste -and the disfranchisement of a race. He defends it; I condemn it. But -he defends only what he sees; I condemn only what I see. It is the -misfortune of the measure that it has two sides with two opposite -inscriptions. This is especially unhappy at this moment, when we are -bound to be frank and loyal, and to do nothing which may be interpreted -in a double sense. Above all should this be the case with regard to -an Amendment of the Constitution. But the present proposition does -not fall within these conditions. It is enough that there are at this -moment two opposite opinions with regard to its meaning. - -Now, Sir, it will not be denied that there are opposite opinions on its -meaning. The Senator from Maine affixes one meaning; I affix another. -The Senator sees nothing bad; I see nothing good,--or rather, all -that it proposes is absorbed, merged, and lost in the evil. Against -it I am earnest, and I speak so. For those from whom I differ I have -nothing but personal kindness; but I must condemn the text they seek -to inject into the Constitution. What is debate? It is the expression -of opinions, conclusions, and convictions. These must be expressed -fully, freely, and according to the conscience of the speaker. If a -measure is deemed bad, unjust, scandalous, founded in wrong principles, -and calculated to produce infinite mischief, all this must be said; -and it must be said with plainness, according to the nature of the -exigency. To this end language is given. The measure must be exposed. -There are no terms to be spared which may be needed in this exposition, -whether to reach the judgment or the feelings. Of course, on this -occasion I see only the subject. The Senator reminds you of the -friends whose votes I arraign,--cherished colleagues in both Houses, -valued associates in political opinion, and two thirds of the House of -Representatives. All this increases my sorrow. It gives me a pang; but -it cannot make me change convictions springing from the very depths of -conscience,--nor my course. - -But I am not alone in my interpretation. Only the other day I -presented the petition of the editor of the Boston “Recorder,” in -which he was moved to protest against it in strongest terms, inasmuch -as it disfranchised a race and offended against the Declaration -of Independence. I have here papers and testimonies showing how -extensively this interpretation prevails. Here, for instance, is a -communication from an honored citizen of New York, once a member of the -other House, one of the Old Guard of Abolitionists, who, from the first -gun at Fort Sumter, has seen our duties with a sensitive conscience and -a patriotic soul: I mean Gerrit Smith. Mark, if you please, that I cite -his words simply as showing how an ingenuous nature is touched by this -attempt. - - “I see that the House of Representatives approves, and by a - very strong vote, the proposed Apportionment Amendment of - the Constitution. I see, too, that nearly all the members - who are the most radical friends of Freedom are included in - this vote, and that there is, therefore, no room in the case - for questioning motives. Freedom may, however, be wounded - unwittingly. Nay, she may be wounded even in the house of her - friends. Such is her fate in the present instance. And no - less deep and dangerous is the wound, but, on the contrary, - all the deeper and more dangerous, because inflicted by hands - which aimed not to harm, but to help her. Moreover, though - it is always consoling to be able to trace an error to the - understanding, the error may, nevertheless, be quite as - pernicious as if the heart were involved in it. - - … - - “A disgraceful, if not indeed fatal, blot upon the Constitution - and country will be this one. Disgraceful is it to a government - to license the gambling-house, even though it be on the - condition of being paid for the license. Disgraceful to it to - license the brothel or the dram-shop, even though on such - condition. But how emphatically disgraceful for a government - to license Slavery, that crime of crimes, even though the - consideration in return for the license be very great, and the - pay very tempting! This, however, is the deep disgrace with - which the Apportionment Amendment threatens the Constitution - and the country.… It is true that Slavery is not literally in - the Amendment. It is true, too, that proscription from the - ballot-box does not always mean Slavery. But it is also true, - that, where such proscription is of one race by another, there - is an instance where the proscribed are enslaved. The power, - therefore, which this Amendment will give the Southern whites - to withhold the ballot from the Southern blacks will be the - power to enslave them. If they shall withhold from them the - ballot, they will also withhold from them freedom. - - … - - “I notice that a common excuse among the friends of Freedom - for favoring this Apportionment Amendment is, that we can get - nothing better. I know not how that may be; but I do know that - we can get nothing much worse, and that it would be far better - to get nothing than to get this.” - -I have also presented the petition of George T. Downing, Frederick -Douglass, and others, representing the colored race in Washington, in -which they give their opinions. Protesting against this proposition, -as authorizing disfranchisement on account of race or color, they pray -Congress - - “To favor no Amendment of the Constitution of the United States - which will grant or allow any one or all of the States of this - Union to disfranchise any class of citizens on the ground of - race or color.” - -They then proceed:-- - - “In the Constitution, as it now stands, there is not a sentence - nor syllable conveying any shadow of right or authority by - which any State may make color or race a disqualification for - the exercise of the right of suffrage, and the undersigned - will regard as a real calamity the introduction of any words - expressly or by implication giving any State or States such - power; and we respectfully submit, that, if the Amendment now - pending shall be adopted, it will enable any State to deprive - any class of citizens of the elective franchise.” - -Such is the testimony of these very intelligent representatives of -colored fellow-citizens. They speak with peculiar authority, from the -interest they necessarily have in the question. They speak for the -freedmen. - - * * * * * - -Mr. President, I do not wish to argue the main question again. I have -said enough,--the Senator has reminded you several times how much. I -am sorry to have trespassed so often and so long. I will not trespass -now. Of course, there is a radical difference between the Senator and -myself. We see opposite things, when we look at this proposition; -and permit me to say, we see opposite things, when we look at the -Constitution itself. I cannot see as he sees. I do not believe, that, -under the Constitution, even as it exists, the disfranchisement of a -considerable portion of fellow-citizens is consistent with a republican -government. Still further, I do not believe that “color” can be a -“qualification” for an elector. He does. And here is a point of -divergence which carries us far apart. He consents willingly to this -fatal text. I cannot. - -I have listened to all that has been said. But the proposition is to me -as obnoxious as ever. I cannot see it otherwise. Feeling that caste -and disfranchisement on account of color are utterly irreligious, -unrepublican, and scandalous, you must pardon me, if I strive to -prevent their introduction into the Constitution of my country, -especially at a moment when we are under such obligations of gratitude -to these outcasts, and when injustice to them is so full of peril to -the Republic. I have spoken strongly; you will pardon it to the ardor -of my nature and to the strength of my convictions. I have fought a -long battle with Slavery, and I confess solicitude, when I see anything -looking like concession to this wrong. It is not enough to show me that -a measure is expedient; you must show me also that it is right. Ah, -Sir, can anything be expedient which is not right? From the beginning -of our history, the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is -by compromise that human rights have been abandoned. I insist that -this shall cease. After all its trials, the country needs repose,--it -deserves repose; but repose can be found only in everlasting -principles. It cannot be found by inserting in your Constitution the -disfranchisement of a race. - -This proposition can be fully appreciated in its “bad eminence” only -when it is considered as the offering of Congress at this time for -the protection of fellow-citizens to whom we are under obligations of -gratitude. This is our panacea, our balm of Gilead. This is what we -are to do. And the Senate is warned not to give the protection found -in the elective franchise, either by Constitutional Amendment or by -Act of Congress,--that such a Constitutional Amendment would not be -adopted by the people, and therefore we ought not to present it,--and -that Congress has not the power to establish equality in political -rights. Sir, I do not despair of the Republic,--I will not, I cannot. -But, if ever I were disposed to despair, it would be when listening to -such arguments and excuses. The people are in advance, and will sustain -us, if we are courageous. They will adopt any Constitutional Amendment -that ought to be adopted. They will adopt anything that is true, just, -and noble, for the protection of benefactors, and to carry out the -principles of our Government; they will sustain any legislation having -such object. This is what they expect. It is what the freedmen expect. -It is what the Unionists of the South expect. Not willingly will they -be surrendered to the tender mercies of Rebels. They ask Congress to -protect them; and they see that this can be only by giving the ballot -to the freedmen. I have in my hand a letter from one Southern Unionist -addressed to another, and received only yesterday, dated February 25th, -and written in the very heart of Alabama, which thus speaks of this -very question:-- - - “All men of common sense must now see that there can now be - no loyal civil governments in these States, if the negroes - are not permitted to neutralize with their votes the votes of - Rebels. On this account I do hope the joint resolution recently - introduced in the Senate by Mr. Sumner will prevail. Whatever - may have been our former notions in regard to the negro, it is - now very evident that practically they are better citizens than - the majority of whites, in some portion of the Rebel States. - The Declaration of Independence is the true and just basis upon - which these State governments must be founded.” - -Such is the voice of a Unionist of Alabama. He looks to Congress. God -forbid that Congress should abdicate its beneficent powers! They are -all needed for the safety and welfare of the Republic. I cannot, I dare -not, help in any such abdication. - - The history of the debate and its result appear in the Appendix - to the Speech of February 5th and 6th.[271] - - - - -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. - - - March 12th, in the Senate, the bill for the admission of the - State of Colorado was taken up for consideration, when Mr. - Sumner commenced an opposition, in which he persevered. The - question was, in his judgment, of peculiar importance, as - involving the true principle of Reconstruction; so that, while - insisting upon equal rights in Colorado, he was contributing to - the same cause. - - In a speech of some length he set forth “three distinct - objections at this moment to the admission of Colorado as - a State,” which he considered in their order: first, the - irregularity of the proceedings, ending in the seeming adoption - of the Constitution; secondly, the smallness of the population; - and, thirdly, that its Constitution was not republican in form, - and consistent with the Declaration of Independence, according - to the requirement of the Enabling Act. In the course of his - remarks on the two latter heads, he said:-- - -I have here a table of the total vote at the elections in different -years. In August, 1861, it was 10,580; in December, 1861, 9,354; in -October, 1862, 8,224; in September, 1864, 5,769; in September, 1865, -5,895: so that you will perceive from 1861 to 1865 the vote constantly -diminishing, being at the beginning upward of 10,000, and at the end -less than 6,000. And when the Constitution was submitted, only 3,025 -voted for it, while 2,870 voted against it. The present question is, -whether 5,895 voters shall be invested with the powers of a State; -whether they shall send into this Chamber two Senators, whose votes -shall be equal to the vote of New York, of Pennsylvania, of Ohio, or of -Massachusetts. Is that just? Is it fair? When a State is once admitted -into the Union, we all know, that, under the National Constitution, -it is on a footing of perfect equality; therefore, in advance, before -we receive a State into that high equality, we should well consider -whether it is in its population entitled to such eminence. - -It is no answer to say that Pennsylvania, New York, Ohio, and -Massachusetts have large political weight in the other House, which -this new State, if received, will not have. The question is, whether in -the Senate it will not have a weight to which such a number of voters -cannot be justly entitled. This leads me to consider for one moment the -functions of the Senate. The Senate of the United States is a peculiar -body, utterly without precedent or parallel in the history of any -other constitutional government, differing from the upper House of the -English Parliament, from the upper House of the French Chambers, from -the upper House in Prussia, from the upper House in Italy, inasmuch -as it has three functions,--one legislative, one diplomatic, and one -executive. By its legislative function, it acts, in coöperation with -the other House, in the making of laws; by its diplomatic function, -it acts, without coöperation with the other House, on treaties with -foreign powers; and by its executive function, it acts, without the -other House, on the nominations of the President. A preponderance of -power possessed by the larger States in the House of Representatives -cannot affect the last two functions, the diplomatic and the executive; -and the precise question is, whether a few voters, not numbering six -thousand, in a distant Territory, shall be organized so as to enter -this Chamber, and on questions of diplomacy and on executive questions -to neutralize the vote of a large State. Even conceding that on -legislative questions, through the preponderance of the large States -in the other House, there may be a certain remedy to this disorder, -there is no such remedy in the exercise of these two other important -functions of the Senate. I submit, therefore, that it is not advisable -at this moment to invest this small number of voters with these vast -political powers. They must wait a little longer,--wait until they are -more numerous,--at least until entitled to one Representative in the -other House. At the proper time we shall gladly welcome them; but the -time has not come. - - * * * * * - -There is another objection, which stands forth on the face of their -constitution. It is not republican in form, or in harmony with the -Declaration of Independence. The requirement of the Enabling Act, under -which they pretend to proceed, but which, as I have shown, was already -exhausted before they entered upon these proceedings, has these words:-- - - “That the Constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and - not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the - principles of the Declaration of Independence.”[272] - -Look now at this Constitution. Article III., entitled “Suffrage and -Elections,” begins as follows:-- - - “SECTION 1. Every _white male citizen_ of the age of - twenty-one years and upwards, who is by birth, or has become - by naturalization or by treaty, or shall have declared his - intention to become, a citizen of the United States according - to the laws thereof, and who shall have resided in the State - of Colorado for six months preceding any election, and shall - have been a resident for ten days of the precinct or election - district where he offers to vote, shall be deemed a qualified - elector, and entitled to vote at the same.” - -Note well the text, “every white male citizen”: in other words, nobody -who is not “white,” under this constitution, is recognized as entitled -to the elective franchise. Now, Sir, I insist--and I here challenge -reply from any Senator on this floor--that such a constitution does -not comply with the requirement of the Enabling Act, that it is -not republican, and that it is repugnant to the principles of the -Declaration of Independence. I say that it is not republican; for the -first principle of republican government is equality. Let that be -denied, and you fail in republican government. - - MR. MCDOUGALL [of California]. In what age of the world was - there a republic where there was equality? Please answer me - that.… I would like to have the single instance where it - existed in ancient times, in the middle ages, or in the modern - ages. - -MR. SUMNER. Speaking on that subject lately, I took occasion to show -that there was no such case. The Senator is nearly right. There had -been no such case. It was for our fathers, it was left to them, when -they undertook to constitute a new government, to declare equality the -essential and cardinal principle of a republic. My answer is precise: -there had been no such case. But the true idea of a republican -government began with our fathers, and its definition is found in their -Declaration of Independence. Were they not sufficiently explicit? Is -their language vague? Call it “a glittering generality,”--but there it -is, in immortal text, whose truth will be recognized more and more as -time advances. You may not recognize it now, but others after you will -do it reverence. - -I say, therefore, that this constitution is repugnant to the principles -of the Declaration of Independence. I say that the government which -it constitutes is not a republican government. And now the question -is, how that difficulty shall be met. I know well that Senators may -say, But there are States in the Union with the same discrimination. -Connecticut has it; New York also. But permit me to say, these -instances do not at all touch the argument. We are not called now to -review the constitution of Connecticut or New York, but we are called -at this moment, in the discharge of a solemn duty, to review the -constitution of this proposed State. If called in this Chamber, under -the responsibilities of official position, to review the constitution -of Connecticut or New York, my course would be clear to say that it was -not republican in form; but there is no such occasion, and therefore -we have no such responsibility. There are other States with regard -to which we have at this moment that responsibility, and I allude to -them for illustration: I mean the States lately in rebellion. Their -constitutions have been overthrown or subverted; new constitutions have -been set up, which it becomes the solemn duty of Congress to examine, -to see whether they are republican in form, and not repugnant to the -principles of the Declaration of Independence. We have, in relation -to those States, the very responsibility now pressing upon us with -regard to this new candidate, distant Colorado. We must examine the -constitutions, and see whether or not they are in conformity with those -sublime principles which enter into the true idea of a republican -government. - -Again, Sir, I would urge, that, at this moment, when the whole -country is agitated by the great question, What shall be done for the -protection of the colored race?--to what extent we shall exercise -the high powers of Congress to carry that protection into the Rebel -States,--it will be hardly decent for us, in reviewing the constitution -of a new State, not to apply the highest possible test. It will not do -for us now to recognize this constitution of Colorado as republican -in form. We owe it to ourselves to set an example, and to require -that in a State organized under our influence a good example shall -prevail. How many of us heard with regret the result last autumn in -Connecticut, and again in Wisconsin, by which suffrage to the colored -race was denied! We felt that by those two votes Liberty had suffered, -that an enfranchised race was placed in jeopardy, that its rights were -dishonored by those who ought to have upheld them; and now, Sir, you -have cast upon you in this Chamber that same identical responsibility. -You are, with reference to the constitution of Colorado, in the -precise position of the people of Connecticut with regard to their -own constitution, and the people of Wisconsin with regard to theirs. -Some of us have regretted poignantly the policy of those two States: -I hope there will be no occasion to regret any similar policy in this -Chamber. And now, Sir, in order to bring the Senate to a vote on that -question, I send to the Chair an amendment to the bill. - - The Secretary read the amendment, namely:-- - - “Insert at the end of the second section the following - proviso:-- - - “_Provided_, That this Act shall not take effect except - upon the fundamental condition that within the State there - shall be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any - other rights, on account of race or color, but all persons - shall be equal before the law. And the people of the - Territory shall, by a majority of the voters, at public - meetings to be convened by the Governor of the Territory, - declare their assent to this fundamental condition; and - the Governor shall transmit to the President of the United - States an authentic statement of such assent, whenever - the same shall be given, upon receipt whereof he shall by - proclamation announce the fact; whereupon, without any - other proceedings on the part of Congress, this Act shall - take effect.” - - This amendment was similar to that offered by Mr. Sumner on the - Louisiana Bill,[273] and was modelled on what is known as the - Missouri precedent, which he proceeded to explain, and then - said:-- - -Possibly a question may arise as to the effect of such a fundamental -condition. I do not think there can be any question. I do not doubt -that such a fundamental condition, especially if sanctioned by the -popular vote according to the terms of the proviso, will be absolutely -obligatory on the State. I believe that you may apply to it the -language of Mr. Webster’s great speech in reply to Mr. Hayne, where, -describing and vindicating the Ordinance for the government of the -Northwest Territory, he used this very striking, and, to my mind, -exquisitely beautiful language, as simple as it is expressive:-- - - “It laid the interdict against personal servitude in original - compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper also - than all local constitutions.”[274] - -Now, Sir, I call upon the Senate to do for this far Western Territory -the same in kind as was done by our fathers for the whole vast -Northwest Territory,--to lay an interdict against all inequality of -rights in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but -deeper than all local constitutions. Let that be done, and one of the -objections to the admission of Colorado will be removed. - - Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, followed Mr. Sumner. - - March 13th, the debate was resumed, when Mr. Pomeroy, of - Kansas, Mr. Lane, of Kansas, Mr. McDougall, of California, - Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, Mr. Cragin, of New Hampshire, Mr. - Ramsey, of Minnesota, and Mr. Williams, of Oregon, spoke for - the admission; Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, - Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Mr. Doolittle, of - Wisconsin, and Mr. Conness, of California, spoke against the - admission. The chief topics were the Enabling Act and the want - of population. In the course of the debate, Mr. Sumner insisted - that the population had diminished, and then said:-- - -But, unhappily, this is not the only way in which this community has -fallen,--fallen in population, as my friend says,--fallen, as I shall -proceed to show positively, in another respect, far more important than -population. - - He then showed[275] that the Legislative Assembly of the - Territory, at its first session under the organic act, by an - act approved November 6, 1861, had provided “that _every male - person_” with qualification of residence should be deemed - a qualified voter; but that was amended by another act, - approved March 11, 1864, by inserting the words “not being a - negro or mulatto,” which reappeared in the limitation of the - constitution before the Senate. He then said:-- - -Between the introduction of the Enabling Act and the date of its -approval, the legislative body of this distant Territory undertook to -make this fundamental change in its electoral law; and then I say that -people fell more than in the fall of their population. Their population -has diminished; but they, unhappily, have deteriorated in political -character, and have not now the same noble elements of political life -by which they were once commended. - -Sir, I might say more on the question, whether any power can be -derived under this Enabling Act. I think, however, that has been -enough discussed. All must see, that, whatever its original character, -whatever powers may have proceeded from it, they have all been -exhausted, and the act has practically expired; it is _functus -officio_,--it is a dead act; and this Territory is no more authorized -to proceed under it than any other Territory is authorized to proceed -under it. It is not in any respect applicable. It has ceased to have -any legislative potentiality. Therefore, Sir, whatever this people -have undertaken to do they have done without any Enabling Act; -they are a voluntary body, proceeding by voluntary action, without -previous sanction of Congress, and all that they do is submitted to -the judgment of Congress, which is in no respect bound or compromised -in the least by any previous proceeding. We approach the question now -precisely as if there had been no Enabling Act,--as if the name of -Colorado (a pleasant name I trust it may be hereafter in these Halls) -had never before found echo here. The whole question is absolutely -new from beginning to end; and we must approach it under all the -responsibilities of our position, looking at it on the evidence, -according to the facts, in order to determine whether now, at this -moment, under these circumstances, we shall be justified in ceding to -this community all these great powers. - -There was one argument of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. LANE] which was -an appeal to us personally,--to my excellent friend from Ohio, to my -excellent colleague, and to other Senators who had been here in other -days, when Kansas was in danger, and in that - - “well-foughten field - We kept together in our chivalry.” - -Sir, it is the pride of my life that at that time I was able to do -something for the State which the Senator represents on this floor. I -did it sincerely, honestly believing it my duty at the time, because I -saw well the peril of dependent condition, and that it could be saved -only by the interference of Congress, the swiftest intervention, which -would not brook delay. Therefore, Sir, for the sake of peace, and as I -would succor a fellow-man in agony, I exerted myself in every way to -invest Kansas with all the privileges and self-protecting powers of a -State. The case was peculiar and exceptional; it was also historic. It -cannot be cited as a precedent now. As well cite what you do to save a -drowning man just sinking for the last time, as a proper precedent for -conduct in daily life. The case of Colorado is to be met on the facts; -it is not an exceptional case; it is a simple case. Meet it, therefore, -on the facts and on its simplicity. - - At the suggestion of others, and in order to reach an immediate - vote on the bill, Mr. Sumner withdrew his amendment. - - On the question of its engrossment for a third reading, the - bill was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 21. - - * * * * * - - March 14th, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, who had voted with - the majority, moved that the Senate reconsider the vote - rejecting the bill, thus keeping the question open for further - debate. - - * * * * * - - April 17th, the motion to reconsider was taken up during - the morning hour, when Mr. Sumner declared his continued - opposition to the proposed State, and his sense of the mistake - the Senate would make in reconsidering the late vote. In the - course of these remarks, he said:-- - -I hope, therefore, that the Senate will not proceed to reconsider -the vote which, to their honor, they have already recorded. They -did well, when, after two days’ debate, by a large vote, they -deliberately refused to receive this Territory into the Union. Has -anything occurred since to cause a reversal of opinion? Is there any -new evidence? Are there new facts? Is there anything which can change -your responsibilities, or make you see your duty in a different light? -Has that constitution been amended? Has the word “white” been struck -out? Why, Sir, at this moment the most important practical question -before the country is, whether we shall allow the word “white” in the -constitutions of the late Rebel States. Sir, with what just weight can -you insist that this word shall be excluded from those constitutions, -when you deliberately receive into the Union a new State openly -announcing this rule of exclusion? I say, therefore, for the sake of my -country, for the sake of public tranquillity, and in loyalty to those -fundamental principles on which so much depends, and which, whether as -Senator or citizen, I can never forget, I appeal to you, Sir, and to -my associates on this floor, not to allow this question to be revived. -Let Colorado wait at least until she recognizes the Declaration of -Independence. - - The morning hour expired as Mr. Sumner finished, and the - question was dropped. - - * * * * * - - April 19th, Mr. Wilson moved that the Senate proceed with the - motion to reconsider. Mr. Sumner then said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT, I hope the Senate will not proceed with that question -to-day, and I assign two reasons. The first is, that, looking about -the Senate, I see many absent who ought to be here. The second is, -that this day, here in the national capital, is dedicated to the cause -of human freedom and human rights,--the great cause of Emancipation. -The streets to-day are filled with a happy people, emancipated by Act -of Congress, and now celebrating the anniversary of their rights. It -is, Sir, no proper day to recognize human inequality by receiving into -the Union a community which chooses to appear here with a constitution -setting at defiance the fundamental principles of the Declaration -of Independence. Sir, this is no day for the consideration of that -question. I insist that this day shall be kept sacred to human -rights,--not be given up to their overthrow. - -I may be told, Sir, that there are but ninety colored persons in -this distant Territory,--only ninety to be sacrificed. If there were -but one, that would be enough to justify my opposition. Out of those -ninety, more than seventy-five have borne arms for you in the late -war; and yet these people are now positively disfranchised in the -constitution it is proposed to recognize. Sir, if you choose to do it, -if you do not hesitate to insult the public sentiment of the age by -such an act, do not do it to-day. - - Mr. Wilson followed. He said, that, on the 3d day of March, - 1863, his colleague voted that the people of Colorado should - be authorized to frame a constitution; that he did not then - propose that she should not make the offensive discrimination; - that he never suggested it; that he did not dream of it; that - he did not think it fair play to refuse the application of this - Territory on account of a distinction they have made, when we - imposed no conditions on them, and did not even suggest any. - - Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said: “I believe that there is no - instance in the whole history of the admission of new States - where that word ‘white’ has not been the prefix to the - qualification for holding office and voting.” - - MR. SUMNER. Is it not time to begin? - - MR. LANE. It is perhaps time to begin; but we should have - begun when we passed the Enabling Act, and the vigilance of - the Senator from Massachusetts should not have slumbered on - that occasion. - - MR. SUMNER. It did not, as I shall show you presently. - - Mr. Trumbull also insisted that in good faith Congress was - committed to the people of Colorado by the Enabling Act. In the - course of reply, Mr. Sumner said:-- - -… - -What I did say, however, was this: that on that occasion the suggestion -was made, which my excellent colleague made to-day, that I was guilty -of inconsistency; and I said that then and there I answered that -argument. My colleague, not being here, did not hear the answer, and -therefore to-day, without knowing the facts, he has revived the charge. - -… - -I showed you, that, when the Enabling Act was pending in the Senate, -all persons, without distinction of color, were authorized to vote. -That was my answer before; it is my answer now. Therefore, Sir, -do I say that I did not vote with any idea that there could be a -discrimination founded on color; on the contrary, I voted with the -positive conviction that all possibility of such discrimination was -excluded,--and, still further, knowing that this Act contained words in -themselves an antidote to any such wrong:-- - - “The constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not - repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the - principles of the Declaration of Independence.” - -Now, Sir, I insist that the constitution presented to us is not -republican; and I further insist that it is inconsistent with the -Declaration of Independence. My excellent colleague will certainly -not maintain the contrary. He will not say that a constitution which -undertakes to exclude persons from equal rights on account of color -is consistent with the fundamental principles of the Declaration of -Independence; and that, Sir, is the very requirement of the Enabling -Act. - -… - -I think it ought not to be proceeded with at all. I think the cause -of human rights suffers every moment you give to this question. But I -began this morning by simply opposing the consideration of it to-day. -If you choose to make a sacrifice of human rights, do it on some other -day than this. - - After interchange of opinion, the question was postponed till - the next Tuesday, the 24th instant, when it was made the - special order. - - * * * * * - - April 24th, the debate was renewed, when Mr. Sumner said:-- - -MR. PRESIDENT, on the 13th of March last, after a debate of two days, -the Senate rejected a bill for the admission of Colorado as a State -into the Union. This was by a vote of 21 nays to 14 yeas, being a -majority of 7. And now, after an interval of more than a month, a -motion is brought forward to reconsider that vote. An attempt is made -to revive a question which at that time seemed buried. Of course, those -who press this motion have a right to do so, if they are satisfied in -their minds that it ought to be pressed. I do not complain of them. -But I meet the attempt on the threshold. I do not content myself with -waiting to another stage and entering into the discussion after we have -allowed the reconsideration. I oppose the reconsideration. I insist -that this subject, once closed by such a majority, and on such good -grounds, shall not again be opened here. - -Sir, the proposition is nothing less than the admission of a State into -this Union. I need not remind you that in other days no such attempt -could be made in this Chamber without exciting great and wide-spread -interest. Some of the most remarkable debates in the Senate have been -on such occasions. The proposition has two aspects: first, as it -concerns the people in the Territory itself, who, I submit, are not -prepared to assume the responsibilities of a State government; and, -secondly, as it concerns the other States in the Union, who, I submit -also, ought not to be obliged at this moment to receive this community -into full equality as a State. - -Formerly I felt it my duty to remind you of the position, the -responsibilities, the powers, and the prerogatives of a State in -this Union. I held up before you what you would convey to this small -community, if you invested it with the character of a State. I showed -you that you would impart to it a full equality in this Chamber with -the largest States in the Union,--with New York, with Pennsylvania, -with Ohio, with Massachusetts,--and that, in the exercise of this -constitutional equality, Senators from this small community, on all -questions of legislation, of diplomacy, and of appointments, might -counterbalance the Senators of one of these large States. Assuming -that this small community was already a State in the Union, I had no -criticism to make on that equality of power; but I did present to you -as an unanswerable argument, that a community so small in the proper -attributes of a State should not be admitted to the enjoyment of that -high equality. - -Permit me to say, Sir, that you cannot adequately consider this -case without giving some attention to the present condition of the -country. We are, happily, at the close of a long, bloody, and most -expensive war, throughout which there was one question dominating -all others: it was the question of justice to the colored race. And -now, Sir, that the war is closed, and our soldiers are no longer in -the tented field, that same question enters perpetually into your -debates, challenging decision; it is before you at every stage of -legislation. With this question staring you in the face, what do we -behold? A small community in a remote part of the country, petty in -population,--even according to the statements of its friends not -amounting in numbers to more than twenty-five or thirty thousand -people, according to the statements of others even as few in numbers -as ten or fifteen thousand,--with agricultural products already -diminishing, with mining resources that during the last two or three -years have been constantly failing, with accounts at the Post-Office -which during the past year have been reduced,--we have this small -community coming forward and asking admission to equality as a State in -the Union, with a constitution that tramples on human rights. This new -candidate, pressing for recognition, holds up a constitution excluding -all persons from the electoral franchise who are not white; and the -question before you is, whether this small body, so slender in every -respect, of such inferior condition, and with a declaration of human -inequality in its constitution, shall be admitted to the equality of -States in this Union. You are not obliged to admit it. Your discretion -is ample. The language of the Constitution is plain: “New States _may_ -be admitted into this Union,”--not must, but “may.” You may admit, -or you may reject. Therefore, when called to act, you must exercise -your discretion. You cannot decline to exercise it. You must bring -your judgment to bear upon the case; you must consider well all the -facts and all the elements which enter into the civilization of this -candidate community; you must consider, of course, its population, its -resources, and also the character of its constitution. In doing so, -you can have no feeling except of kindness and sympathy for the people -there. God knows that I wish them well from the bottom of my heart; -there is no aspiration which I do not offer for their welfare; but on -this occasion we must consider the requirements of duty. And here the -way is clear. - -With these few words of introduction, I arrive at this proposition: -that such a community as now exists in Colorado, deficient in -population, declining already in agriculture, failing also in mineral -resources, and with a constitution which sets at defiance the first -principle of human rights, should not at this moment be recognized as a -State of the Union. Mark me, if you please,--I say at this moment, and -under these circumstances; for, whatever might be done at another time -and under other circumstances, I insist that this thing is impossible -now, when by every obligation we are solemnly bound to maintain the -rights of the colored race. Oh, no! we cannot give the hand to such a -community, so inferior in population and resources, with a constitution -audaciously denying those rights. - -Thus much, Sir, I have to say by way of introduction; all this simply -opens in one word the magnitude of the question, and the general -principles which govern it; but before I sit down it will be my duty -to consider with some minuteness the actual condition and prospects of -this Territory. - -… - -Sir, consider, that, when this Territorial Act was passed, in March, -1864, the country was still struggling in that terrible war involving -the great question of justice to the colored race. At that moment, -this secluded people, already aspiring to be a State, undertook to -put their feet upon the colored population beginning to gather under -their jurisdiction. We are told they are few in number,--perhaps a -hundred; yet out of that hundred are some seventy who promptly went -forth as soldiers to do battle for your flag, but, returning to -their homes, they found the franchise they had enjoyed taken from -them,--that they who had perilled life to save the Republic and to -aid in establishing the rights of all, when once more at their own -firesides, were despoiled of their own. Sir, am I wrong, when I say -that here was retrogression in republican principles,--that here was -departure from those fundamental truths essential to our Government? It -was, I say, departure and retrogression,--because this community had -begun right. It began by recognizing these truths; but, as if blasted -by some evil genius, the same failure that attended it in population, -in agriculture, in mining, and in other respects, descended upon its -moral sense. - -I do not use too strong language. I say it was a fall, when this -community, which had solemnly enacted justice, after the lapse of three -years reversed its own decree, and solemnly enacted injustice. There it -stands on the statute-book. You must recognize it. You cannot avoid it. -You cannot be insensible to such a thing. It is a fact in the history -of this Territory. No other Territory in our national history has ever -been thus guilty. No other Territory which has risen to the height of -justice has ever descended again so low. No other Territory which has -recognized the rights of man has afterward undertaken to overthrow them. - -The Governor of the Territory, in the message which I hold in my hand, -speaking of this question, says, in language which does him honor: -“It seems incredible, and, were it not for the record, it would be -incredible, that such a measure could have been adopted at such a time.” - -The Governor, in the same message, shows that these same colored men, -while despoiled of the elective franchise, are nevertheless compelled -by taxation to support the public schools, from which their children -are excluded. Some of the more prosperous, in order to secure education -for their children, have sent them to distant parts of the country, to -repair the wrong done by this churlish and unjust community. All this -is set forth by the Governor in his formal message. He then adds:-- - - “I do not propose in this connection to discuss the question of - equality of race, about which so many words and so much labor - have been wasted; but I submit without argument the fact that - the colored people in Denver and various parts of the Territory - are taxed to pay for educating white children, while their own - children are excluded from the public schools; and your action - will determine how long the humiliating spectacle shall be - presented to the world.”[276] - -Could anything be more flagrant? Yet this community now appeals for -your favor and countenance and welcome as a State! - -I have quoted from the message of the Governor. I cite another -authority, being a telegraphic despatch from a colored citizen of -Colorado, which has travelled over the wires a very long distance. - - “DENVER CITY, COLORADO, - January 15, 1866. - - “The law adopted by the Territorial Legislature in 1861 allowed - all persons over twenty-one to vote, without distinction of - color. The law passed in 1864, signed by Governor Evans, - deprived colored citizens of the right, at the very time when - appealing to them to help save the country. The admission - of Colorado under her present constitution makes that law - permanent. If not admitted now, this can be corrected. - - “WILLIAM J. HARDING, - _A colored citizen_.” - - * * * * * - - After adducing additional evidence, Mr. Sumner proceeded to - consider the obligations upon Congress from the Enabling Act, - and here he said:-- - -If I understand the argument, it is, that Congress, by a statute, -pledged itself in advance to admit this community as a State into the -Union; that we are bound by such statute, so that we cannot escape the -obligation; that, in short, we are tied up by our own statute. This is -a strong assumption; but I believe it is an accurate statement of the -position of the other side. - -Now, Sir, I think I can easily show that here is a great mistake. I -may remind you that the President, to whom the question was naturally -submitted, has expressly stated in a message to the Senate that in -his opinion the new constitution was not formed in pursuance of the -Enabling Act. - -… - -I have said that the Enabling Act had expired. These parties can claim -nothing under it. It is like an obsolete statute, which we read in the -statute-book, but never adduce for authority. It stands as a monument, -showing what Congress required, and showing also what this community -failed to perform. In adducing it, you bring authority against the -present pretension; for you show clearly that the pretension had no -foundation in the statute. - -But, Sir, even assuming that the Enabling Act was in a condition to -be employed for the organization of this Territory,--which I claim it -was not,--then it is my duty to go further, and show you that these -parties, as the colored telegraphic correspondent from Denver alleges, -did not in any respect comply with the Enabling Act.[277] Why, Sir? By -the Enabling Act the Convention was to be called by the Governor. But -it was called by the executive committees of political parties, being -so many caucuses. Such was the origin of the convention to give you a -new State. What authority for that do you find in the Enabling Act? Be -good enough to point out a single word to justify any such transaction. -And yet we are gravely told that this strange political hocus-pocus -was by virtue of the Enabling Act,--as if in every respect it was not -plainly inconsistent with the Act. - -But the Enabling Act declares that “the constitution, when formed, -shall be republican.” This is a fundamental condition. And here I -repeat what I have so often said, but which at this hour cannot be too -often sounded in the ears of the Senate. I affirm with confidence, -that a constitution which denies the first principle of human rights -cannot be republican in form. Do you answer, that there are States -having such constitutions? Then I reply: We are not called to sit in -judgment on those constitutions; we have no power to revise them; we -are not to vote upon them; but we are called to sit in judgment upon -this constitution, to revise it, and to vote upon it. You are now to -declare by your votes whether this constitution which tramples upon the -principle of human equality is republican in form. I insist that it is -not. - -Still further, this Enabling Act declares that “the constitution shall -not be repugnant to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” -Need I ask you, What is the first principle of the Declaration of -Independence? Is it not, in solemn words, that “all men are created -equal,” and that all just government stands on “the consent of the -governed”? Does any one deny that these are the words? You know them by -heart; your children learn them in their earliest infancy; and whatever -is done in the Territory is to be brought to this great ordinance, -as to a touchstone. Such is the requirement of the Enabling Act. -Therefore, even if you argue that the Enabling Act is authority for -this proceeding, then do I reply, that this community has not in any -respect brought itself within its terms. It has not complied with its -requirements of principle or of proceeding. The proceedings were not -according to the Enabling Act; the principles are in defiance of the -Enabling Act. Tried by either standard, the whole effort must miserably -fail. - - Mr. Sumner was here interrupted by Mr. Trumbull, who, quoting - from the Territorial election law of 1861 a provision requiring - voters to be citizens, remarked, that, while he would not be - understood as saying that in his opinion a colored person is - not a citizen, such was the understanding in Colorado. Mr. - Sumner replied:-- - -The Governor of the Territory, whose message I hold in my hand, does -not put upon the statute the interpretation the Senator does.[278] I -have great respect for the opinion of my friend, as he knows; but on -this matter I submit, that the Governor of the Territory, on the spot, -in a formal communication to the Legislature, is a better authority -even than my honorable friend. - - MR. TRUMBULL. Better than the statute? - -MR. SUMNER. I am coming to that. The statute enumerates first in the -class of voters citizens of the United States; and my honorable friend -himself is obliged to confess that in his opinion colored persons are -citizens of the United States. He does not doubt it. If he did, it -would be my duty to remind him of an opinion by the Attorney-General -of the United States, in 1862, more than a year prior to the Enabling -Act, declaring colored persons citizens of the United States.[279] -I refer to this opinion with something more than respect: I refer to -it with reverence. I do think, humbly speaking, that this opinion was -one of the most remarkable and one of the grandest acts in the history -of the late Administration. I do not doubt that hereafter, when the -annals of these times are written, the historian will dwell with honest -pride upon that admirable document, where one man reversed the whole -policy of the Nation, fixing the law of this country forever,--that -all colored persons are citizens of the United States. And that was -the law of Colorado. The Senator from Illinois does not doubt it. -Therefore, when the Territorial Legislature added the words “citizens -of the United States,” it did not alter the case by a hair’s breadth: -all persons could vote, without distinction of color. The Senator is -informed that no colored persons did vote. I have been informed the -contrary. But I insist, that, beyond all question, by the Territorial -statute colored persons were entitled to vote. - -… - -Mr. President, such are the facts against the admission of Colorado as -a State into this Union. I do not see how you can admit it, without, in -the first place, injustice to its own population, at this moment unable -to bear the burdens of a State government; secondly, without injustice -to the other States, which ought not to find themselves “paired” in -this Chamber by two Senators from this small community; and, in the -third place, without sacrificing a principle which at this moment is of -incalculable importance to the peace of the country. In other times we -have heard the cry, _No more Slave States!_ There is kindred cry which -must be ours,--_No more States with inequality of rights!_ Against all -this I catch a whisper, not an argument. It is breathed that we need -two more votes on this floor. Sir, there is something that you need -more than two more votes. It is constancy in the support of that great -principle so essential to the harmony of the Republic. Better far than -any number of votes will be loyalty to this commanding cause. Tell me -not that it is expedient to create two more votes in this Chamber. -Nothing can be expedient that is not right. If I were now about to -pronounce the last words that I could ever utter in this Chamber, I -would say to you, Senators, do not forget that right is always the -highest expediency. You can never sacrifice the right without suffering -for it. - - April 25th, the question was taken on Mr. Wilson’s motion to - reconsider, and was carried,--Yeas 19, Nays 13. The bill was - again before the Senate. - - Mr. Sumner then moved his proviso, that the Act should not - take effect except upon the fundamental condition that within - the State there should be no denial of the elective franchise - or of any other rights on account of color or race, which was - lost,--Yeas 7, Nays 27. - - The bill was then passed by the Senate,--Yeas 19, Nays 13. Mr. - Edmunds, of Vermont, Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, Mr. Grimes, of - Iowa, Mr. Morgan, of New York, Mr. Poland, of Vermont, and Mr. - Sumner were the only Republicans voting in the negative. - - * * * * * - - May 3d, the bill passed the House of Representatives,--Yeas 81, - Nays 57,--among the latter Mr. Stevens,--and was duly presented - to the President for his signature. - - * * * * * - - May 16th, the bill was returned to the Senate, with the - objections of the President to its becoming a law. On motion - of Mr. Wade, of Ohio, the message was laid on the table. May - 21st, on motion of Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, it was taken up - and made the special order for May 29th. On this motion, Mr. - Sumner, after discussing the order of business, remarked:-- - -I have said enough in answer to observations on the order of business -by Senators who have preceded me; but there seems to have been a -disposition to open the main question. Senators have expressed opinions -with more or less fulness on that. I shall not follow them. This is not -the time for such a discussion. That time may come. It has already been -in this Chamber, and then I had ample opportunity to say what I chose. -I may deem it proper to take another opportunity; but I am in no haste. -I have no disposition to press the matter. - -I cannot take my seat, however, without one remark, in reply to my -friend from Ohio. He says that he is for the admission of Colorado -now, notwithstanding the veto of the President. I rejoin, that I am -against the admission of Colorado now, with or without the veto of the -President. If alone, I mean to insist always, that, from this time -forward, no State shall be received into the Union with a constitution -disavowing the first principle of the Declaration of Independence; and -I shall take advantage of every opportunity to uphold that principle, -whether given me by a Senator on this floor or by the President of the -United States. - - The veto was never considered, and the effort for the admission - of Colorado expired for that session. Had the veto been - considered, Mr. Sumner would have said:-- - -Months have passed since the application of Colorado was presented to -Congress, with a constitution disregarding that vital principle which -constitutes the essential element of republican government, without -which a republican government is a name and nothing more. For months -representatives of Colorado have struggled to triumph over this -benign principle. Meanwhile the popular voice has been heard, sounding -in the ears of members of Congress, and still the efforts of these -representatives of Colorado are continued. I regret this much. I regret -that they did not return home and crown their labors by making the new -State an example to the country. - -On this occasion I shall sustain the veto of the President. I must -do this, because I agree with him, that Colorado should not now be -admitted as a State. - -There are reasons assigned by the President which are applicable and -sufficient. There is at least one other assigned by him which is -inapplicable, and, of course, insufficient. When he objects to the -reception of a new State with so small a population as Colorado, to -exercise equal power, legislative, diplomatic, and executive, with New -York, in this Chamber,--and when again he objects to this new State on -the ground that the people there are not yet ripe and ready for the -responsibilities of a State government,--clearly, in these two cases -he has reason on his side. All that he says is at once applicable -and sufficient. But I must be pardoned, if I cannot adopt his other -reason,--that we should not undertake to admit new States while our -late Rebel States are still unrepresented in Congress. This reason is -obviously inapplicable, and, of course, insufficient. He might as well -object to the validity of elections because criminals have not been -let out of the prisons and penitentiaries to vote. States hardly yet -washed clean from the blood of rebellion cannot expect to be received -instantly into the great copartnership of the National Government. For -the present, the business must be done by the loyal members. - -There is another reason, at once applicable and sufficient, which the -President has forgotten to assign. That he should forget it may seem -strange, when we consider, that, on an important occasion in Tennessee, -standing on the steps of the Capitol, he openly announced himself as -the “Moses” of an oppressed race. But, Sir, are we not told by the poet -that the soul can reach heights which it cannot keep? Clearly, in this -utterance, so grandiose in promise, our President reached heights he -has not been able to keep. He is mortal, and the early inspiration has -passed from him. Had it been otherwise, he would not have forgotten -to rebuke this young Colorado coming forward with a constitution that -openly sets at nought that equality of rights which attaches to the -loyal citizens of an oppressed race. Here is reason enough for the -rejection. As in times past there has been the cry, “No more Slave -States!” the cry now must be, “No more States with the word ‘white’!” -I trust the Territories west of the Mississippi will take notice, and -govern themselves accordingly. - - At the next session, another bill was promptly introduced - by Mr. Wade, and then reported by him from the Committee on - Territories. Meanwhile a bill for the admission of Nebraska - was taken up, and, after a protracted discussion, in which Mr. - Sumner took part, that Territory was admitted as a State, on - the fundamental condition of Equal Rights.[280] - - * * * * * - - January 9, 1867, immediately on the passage of the Nebraska - Bill in the Senate, the bill for the admission of Colorado was - taken up. The proviso requiring equal rights as a fundamental - condition was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 18,--and the bill then - passed the Senate,--Yeas 23, Nays 11,--Mr. Sumner voting in the - affirmative. - - January 15th, in the House of Representatives, the proviso - adopted by the Senate was changed so as to require the assent - of the State Legislature,--Yeas 84, Nays 65,--and the bill then - passed the House,--Yeas 90, Nays 60. The Senate concurred, but - President Johnson returned the bill with his objections. - - March 1st, on the question of the passage of the bill, - notwithstanding the objections of the President, the vote - stood, Yeas 29, Nays 19. Two thirds not having voted for the - bill, it did not become a law. Nebraska was more fortunate. - - * * * * * - - Although Colorado failed to be admitted as a State, the long - and earnest debate was not without result. The power of - Congress to require Equal Rights as a fundamental condition was - affirmed. - - - - -OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THE BASIS OF -REPRESENTATION. - -LETTER TO THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER, MARCH 15, 1866. - - - SENATE CHAMBER, - March 15, 1866. - - TO THE EDITORS OF THE BOSTON DAILY ADVERTISER. - - GENTLEMEN,--My attention has been called to an editorial article - in your paper,[281] where you say that Mr. Sumner “aided in - defeating” the proposed Constitutional Amendment, “because in his - opinion it fell short of what was needed.” - - Permit me to say that this does not state my position accurately. - - My objection to the proposed Amendment was twofold: first, that - it carried into the Constitution by express words the idea of - inequality of rights, which, in my opinion, would be a defilement - of the text; and, secondly, that it lent the sanction of the - Constitution to a wholesale disfranchisement on account of race - or color. Thus far, nothing of the kind had been allowed to find - place in its text. To my mind it was clear that nothing of the - kind could rightly be allowed to find place in its text. - - You will see, therefore, that my opposition was not because the - proposed Amendment “fell short of what was needed,”--although - this was too true,--but because it did what in my judgment ought - not to be done. Its objectionable character became more apparent, - when it was considered that it did this at a crisis when complete - justice to the freedmen was at once the prompting of gratitude - and the requirement of necessity for the sake of national peace - and the good name of the Republic. But the special objection to - the proposed Amendment was not that it “fell short,” but that it - was bad in itself. It is sometimes said, “Half a loaf is better - than no bread,” and this has been called “half a loaf.” But - nobody would accept “half a loaf,” if it were poisoned. Here was - a poisonous ingredient. The proposition to found representation - on voters, besides being more surely effective to the same end, - had no poison in it. - - Others did not see the proposed Amendment as I did. Had they seen - it so, they must have voted against it. But, seeing it as I did, - I think you will agree that I could not hesitate in opposition to - it. - - I do not write now for any purpose of controversy, but simply - that my position may not be misunderstood. - - I am, Gentlemen, your faithful servant, - - CHARLES SUMNER. - - - - -FOOTNOTES - - -[1] Afterwards Minister and Consul General to the Government of Hayti. - -[2] _Post_, Vol. XIV. pp. 228-231. - -[3] Blackstone, Commentaries, Vol. IV. p. 278. - -[4] _Post_, p. 22. - -[5] _Post_, pp. 113, 123. - -[6] _Post_, p. 271. - -[7] _Post_, pp. 315, seqq. - -[8] This same oath appears in another bill, introduced by Mr. Sumner -on the same day, entitled “A Bill prescribing an oath to maintain a -republican form of government in the Rebel States”; this oath to be -taken by 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. -See, _ante_, p. 12. - -[9] Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 255-258. - -[10] The Senate Chamber. - -[11] Mr. Butler. - -[12] Congressional Globe, 34th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 640, March 12, 1856. - -[13] See the engraving of Retzsch. - -[14] _Ante_, Vol. XI. p. 365: Speech of Mr. Sumner on the Recognition -of Arkansas, June 13, 1864. - -[15] First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801: Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 4. - -[16] Act of July 13, 1861: Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 255-258. - -[17] Congressional Globe, 38th Cong. 2d Sess., February 4, 1865, p. 591. - -[18] Horne, Commentary on the Psalms: Ps. xi. 3. - -[19] See, _ante_, p. 42. - -[20] Executive Documents, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., Senate, No. 1, pp. -2-105. - -[21] Burke, Letter to Henry Dundas, April 9, 1792: Works (Boston, -1865-67), Vol. VI. p. 261. - -[22] _Ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 312-314. - -[23] Affranchissement des Serfs: Traduction des Documents Officiels, -Résumés Explicatifs et Annotations (St. Petersburg, 1861). - -[24] Constitution of Massachusetts, Declaration of Rights, drawn by -John Adams. - -[25] _Ante_, p. 17. - -[26] _Ante_, p. 14. - -[27] _Post_, pp. 136, seqq. - -[28] Letters from New Orleans, October, 1865: Nation, October 26, 1865, -Vol. I. pp. 523, 524. - -[29] He had already united with President Johnson in his “policy.” - -[30] Act to establish and regulate the Domestic Relations of Persons of -Color, etc., Sec. XVII. [Approved December 21, 1865.] - -[31] Ibid., Sections L., LII., LIII. - -[32] Later evidence showed that this hope was without foundation. - -[33] Senate Journal, 1865-66, p. 151. - -[34] Code of Tennessee, § 3808. - -[35] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 50. - -[36] The Necessity of Universal Suffrage in Reconstruction; Letter -to the Editor of the New York _Nation_, October, 1865: Speeches and -Addresses, pp. 585-596. - -[37] Speech in the House of Commons, on the Address of Thanks, December -13, 1792: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XXX. col. 13. - -[38] _Ante_, p. 14. - -[39] _Post_, p. 123. - -[40] Debates in the Federal Convention, August 25, 1787: Madison -Papers, Vol. III. pp. 1429, 1430. - -[41] Act to protect all Persons in the United States in their Civil -Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication. It passed the -Senate February 2d, and became a law, notwithstanding the veto of -President Johnson, April 9th.--_Statutes at Large_, Vol. XIV. p. 27. - -[42] Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun: Characters, prefixed to Political -Works, (Glasgow, 1749,) p. viii. - -[43] _Ante_, p. 113. - -[44] _Ante_, Vol. X. p. 167, Our Domestic Relations, Power of Congress -over the Rebel States; Vol. XII. p. 305, The National Security and the -National Faith. See, also, Vol. IX. p. 1, Rights of Sovereignty and -Rights of War. - -[45] Speech in Washington, April 11, 1865: McPherson’s Political -History of the United States during the Rebellion, p. 609. - -[46] Constitution of the Confederate States, Art. IV., Sec. 3, Clause -4: Statutes at Large (Richmond, 1864), p. 21. See, also, Appleton’s -Annual Cyclopædia, 1861, art. _Public Documents._ - -[47] Of Reformation in England, Book II.: Works (London, 1851), Vol. -III. p. 34. - -[48] No. XXI. - -[49] Notes on the Confederacy, April, 1787: Letters and other Writings, -Vol. I. p. 322. - -[50] Madison Papers, Vol. III., Appendix, No. 5. - -[51] Works, Vol. II. pp. 463-466. - -[52] Debates in the Federal Convention, May 29, 1787: Madison Papers, -Vol. II. pp. 731, 734. - -[53] Ibid., June 20, 1787, p. 913. - -[54] Ibid., May 29, 1787, p. 734. - -[55] Debates in the Federal Convention, June 11 and July 18, 1787: -Madison Papers, Vol. II. pp. 844, 1139, 1141. - -[56] Ibid., August 6, 30, and September 12, 15, 1787: Madison Papers, -Vol. II. p. 1241, Vol. III. pp. 1466, 1467, 1558, 1590, 1621. - -[57] The Federalist, No. XLIII. See, also, Story’s Commentaries on the -Constitution, Vol. III. § 1811. - -[58] Argument in the Supreme Court of the United States, January 27, -1848, in the Case of Luther _v._ Borden et als.: Works, Vol. VI. p. 230. - -[59] Politics, Book I. ch. 1. - -[60] Ibid., Book III. ch. 1. - -[61] Ibid., Book III. ch. 7. - -[62] Politics, Book IV. ch. 4. - -[63] De Republica, Lib. I. c. 25. - -[64] Ibid., c. 31. - -[65] John Adams, Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the -United States: Works, Vol. IV. p. 370. - -[66] Brief of Argument on the Constitution of the United States: Works, -Vol. II. p. 463. - -[67] Defence of the Constitutions: Works, Vol. V. p. 453. - -[68] Letter to J. H. Tiffany, March 31, 1819: Ibid., Vol. X. pp. 377, -378. - -[69] Letter to J. H. Tiffany, April 30, 1819: Works, Vol. X. p. 378. - -[70] Defence of the Constitutions: Ibid., Vol. IV. p. 358. - -[71] De l’Esprit des Lois, Liv. III. ch. 3; IV. 5; V. 2, 3. - -[72] Ibid., Liv. II. chs. 1, 2. - -[73] De Republica, Lib. II. c. 1. - -[74] Histoire de nostre Temps, de l’Estat de la Religion et _de la -République de France_, soubz le Roy Henry second, François second et -Charles neuviesme: Vies des Hommes Illustres et Capitaines François, -Discours LVIII.: Œuvres Complètes du Seigneur de Brantôme (Paris, -1822), Tom. II. p. 310. - -[75] Brantôme, Vies des Hommes Illustres et Capitaines François, -Discours LXII.: Œuvres, Tom. II. p. 395. - -[76] Histoire de France (4me édit.), Tom. IX. p. 391. - -[77] John Adams, Novanglus: Works, Vol. IV. p. 106. - -[78] Politics, Book III. ch. 16. - -[79] Historical View of the English Government (London, 1818), Vol. -III. p. 326. - -[80] John Adams, Letter to J. H. Tiffany, March 31, 1819: Works, Vol. -X. p. 378. - -[81] Enquiry into Vulgar and Common Errors, Book III. ch. 27, § 3. - -[82] Du Contrat Social, Liv. III. ch. 4: Œuvres (Paris, 1821), Tom. V. -p. 175. - -[83] Letter to John Penn: Works, Vol. IV. p. 204. See also Letter to -George Wythe: Ibid., p. 194. - -[84] Speech on Motion for a Reform in Parliament, May 7, 1793: -Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XXX. col. 915. - -[85] Three Letters to Governor Shirley, December, 1754: Works, ed. -Sparks, Vol. III. pp. 56, seqq. - -[86] Discourses concerning Government (London, 1751), pp. 14, 54, Ch. -I. §§ 6, 20. - -[87] Two Treatises on Government, Book II. ch. 11, § 140: Works -(London, 1812), Vol. V. pp. 422, 423. - -[88] Introduction to the Literature of Europe (London, 1847), Vol. III. -p. 445, Part IV. ch. 4, § 95. - -[89] Mémoires, Liv. V. ch. 19: Petitot, Mémoires relatifs à l’Historie -de France, Tom. XII. p. 298. - -[90] Preface to Vol. III. Thucydides, p. xv (Oxford, 1842). - -[91] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. I. p. 403. - -[92] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. IX. p. 110. - -[93] John Adams, Letter to William Tudor, December 18, 1816: Works, -Vol. X. p. 233. - -[94] John Adams, Letter to William Tudor, June 9, 1818: Works, Vol. X. -p. 319. - -[95] John Adams, Works, Vol. II. pp. 521-525; Vol. X. pp. 244-249, -314-362. Tudor’s Life of Otis, Chs. V., VI. - -[96] Letter to William Tudor, March 29, 1817: Works, Vol. X. pp. 247, -248. - -[97] Letter to William Tudor, March 29, 1817: Works, Vol. X. p. 248. - -[98] John Adams, Letter to William Tudor, April 5, 1818: Works, Vol. X. -pp. 300-312. - -[99] See Bancroft’s History of the United States, Vol. V. pp. 290, 291. - -[100] Rights of the British Colonies, p. 14. - -[101] Ibid., p. 37. - -[102] Rights of the British Colonies, p. 37. - -[103] Ibid., p. 29. - -[104] Ibid., p. 38. - -[105] Rights of the British Colonies, Appendix, p. 69. Wells’s Life of -Samuel Adams, Vol. I. pp. 46-48. - -[106] Resolves, October 26, 1765: Journal of House of Representatives, -pp. 151-153; Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts, Vol. III. pp. -476-478, Appendix. - -[107] Answer to Governor’s Speech, October 24, 1765: Journal of House -of Representatives, p. 135; Hutchinson’s History of Massachusetts, Vol. -III. p. 474, Appendix. - -[108] _Ante_, p. 157. - -[109] Considerations on the Propriety of imposing Taxes in the British -Colonies (2d edit., London, 1766), p. 5 and Preface. - -[110] Wirt’s Life of Patrick Henry (3d edit.), p. 63. - -[111] Resolves, September 21, 1765: Votes and Proceedings of the House -of Representatives, Vol. V. p. 426. - -[112] Authentic Account of the Proceedings of the Congress held at New -York in 1765 (London, 1767), pp. 5, 6. - -[113] The Justice and Necessity of Taxing the American Colonies -Demonstrated (London, 1766), pp. 13, 14. - -[114] Votes and Proceedings of the Town of Boston, October 28th and -November 2d, 20th, 1772, pp. 9, 10. Wells’s Life of Samuel Adams, Vol. -I. p. 506. - -[115] Bancroft’s History of the United States, Vol. V. p. 294. - -[116] Instructions to the Delegates from Hanover County to the Virginia -Convention, August 1, 1774: Wirt’s Life of Patrick Henry, p. 99, note. - -[117] Novanglus, No. VIII.: Works, Vol. IV. p. 131. - -[118] Journals of Congress, Vol. I. p. 29, October 12, 1774. - -[119] Ibid., pp. 38, 39, October 21, 1774. - -[120] Journals of Congress, Vol. I. p. 60, October 26, 1774. - -[121] Ibid., p. 70, October 26, 1774. - -[122] Speech on Motion for withdrawing Confidence from Ministers, March -15, 1782: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XXII. col. 1184. - -[123] Speech on the Address of Thanks, January 14, 1766: Ibid., Vol. -XVI. col. 100. - -[124] Journal of Congress, April 26, 1783, Vol. VIII. p. 201. - -[125] Writings, ed. Sparks, Vol. VIII. pp. 567, 568, Appendix, No. XIII. - -[126] On Government, No. I.: Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. II. p. 279. - -[127] Some Good Whig Principles: Ibid., pp. 372, 373. - -[128] Writings, Vol. VII. p. 75. - -[129] Ibid., Vol. VI. p. 605. - -[130] Writings, Vol. VI. p. 607. - -[131] Notes on Virginia, Query XIV.: Ibid., Vol. VIII. p. 385. - -[132] Thoughts on Lotteries, February, 1826: Ibid., Vol. IX. p. 508. - -[133] Debates in the Federal Convention, June 6, 1787: Madison Papers, -Vol. II. pp. 805, 806. - -[134] Ibid., August 7, 1787, Vol. III. p. 1253. - -[135] Ibid., Note to Speech of August 7, 1787, Appendix, No. 4, Vol. -III. p. ix. - -[136] Ibid., p. xii. - -[137] Ibid., p. xiii. - -[138] Federalist, No. XXXIX. - -[139] Letters and other Writings, Vol. I. p. 322. - -[140] Letters and other Writings, Vol. III. p. 190. - -[141] Ibid., Vol. IV. p. 60. - -[142] Remarks in the Federal Convention: Works, Vol. II. pp. 416, 417. - -[143] Remarks in the Federal Convention: Works, Vol. II. p. 418. - -[144] Phocion, Letter II.: Ibid., pp. 315, 316. - -[145] Ibid., p. 316. - -[146] The Federalist, No. LIV.--J. C. Hamilton, in the Historical -Notice prefixed to his edition of the Federalist (Philadelphia, 1864), -furnishes strong grounds for ascribing this important paper to his -father. See pp. xcv-cvi, and cxix-cxxvii. - -[147] Correspondence between John Adams and Samuel Adams on Government, -Letter IV., November 20, 1790: Works of John Adams, Vol. VI. p. 421. - -[148] Correspondence on the Constitution, Letter I., July 20, 1789: -Ibid., p. 437. - -[149] Works, Vol. IV. p. 293. - -[150] Speech in the South Carolina Convention, May 14, 1788: Elliot’s -Debates (2d edit.), Vol. IV. pp. 326, 328. - -[151] Debates in the Federal Convention, August 21, 1787: Madison -Papers, Vol. III. p. 1388. - -[152] Elliot’s Debates, Vol. I. p. 374. - -[153] Debates in the Federal Convention, August 7, 1787: Madison -Papers, Vol. III. p. 1252. - -[154] Construction Construed, p. 312. - -[155] Address at laying the Corner-Stone of the Addition to the -Capitol, July 4, 1851: Works, Vol. II. p. 601. - -[156] Argument in the Supreme Court of the United States, in the Case -of Luther _v._ Borden, January 27, 1848: Works, Vol. VI. p. 222. - -[157] The State _v._ Manuel, 4 Devereux and Battle, R., 25. - -[158] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. IV. pp. 133, 134. - -[159] Opinion of Richard West, January 16, 1723, addressed to the -Right Honorable the Lords Commissioners of Trade and Plantations, on -an Act of Virginia “tending to prevent free black men from voting at -elections.”--CHALMERS, _Opinions of Eminent Lawyers on Various Points -of English Jurisprudence, chiefly concerning the Colonies_, Vol. II. p. -113. - -[160] Petition of Joseph Boone to the Lords Proprietors of Carolina: -Dalcho, Historical Account of the Protestant Episcopal Church in South -Carolina, p. 83. See, also, p. 178. - -[161] Essais, Liv. I. chs. 3, 19. - -[162] See, _ante_, p. 149. - -[163] P. Janet, Histoire de la Philosophie Morale et Politique, Tom. -II. p. 371. - -[164] Considérations sur le Gouvernement de la France, quoted by Henri -Martin, Histoire de France, Tom. XV. p. 358. See, also, his Mémoires, -Tom. III. p. 313, Tom. V. p. 312. - -[165] Idées Républicaines, §§ 13, 43: Œuvres (1784), Tom. XXIX. pp. -190, 203. - -[166] Dictionnaire Philosophique, art. DÉMOCRATIE: Ibid., Tom. XXXIX. -p. 254. - -[167] Ce que les Citoyens ont Droit d’attendre de leurs Représentants, -10 Avril, 1793: Œuvres, par O’Connor et Arago, (Paris, 1847-49,) Tom. -XII. p. 567. - -[168] Institutions du Droit de la Nature et des Gens (Paris, 1851), -Tom. I. pp. 51, 52, Liv. I. ch. 5, § 4. - -[169] Buchez et Roux, Histoire Parlementaire de la Révolution -Française, Tom. XXXVIII. p. 458. - -[170] Proclamation, 10 Juillet, 1802, pour l’Anniversaire du 14 -Juillet, 1789: Correspondance du Napoléon I., No. 6180, (Paris, 1861, -Imprim. Impér. 4to,) Tom. VII. p. 660. - -[171] Garnier-Pagès, Histoire de la Révolution de 1848, Tom. V. p. 338. - -[172] Ibid., p. 348. - -[173] Garnier-Pagès, Histoire de la Révolution de 1848, Tom. VII. p. -407. - -[174] De la Démocratie en Amérique (14me édit.), Tom. III. pp. 526, -527, Ch. 7. - -[175] Block, Dictionnaire de la Politique, art. RÉPUBLIQUE. - -[176] Additional Observations on the Nature and Value of Civil Liberty -(London, 1777), Introduction, p. ix. - -[177] Wheaton, History of the Law of Nations (New York, 1845), p. 751. - -[178] Ashby _v._ White et als., Lord Raymond, R., 953. - -[179] No. XIV. - -[180] De Republica, Lib. II. c. 6. - -[181] Literature of Europe, Part II. ch. 4, § 52. - -[182] Politics, Book III. ch. 7 [12]. - -[183] Sarpi, Opinione come debba governarsi internamente la Republica -di Venezia per avere il perpetuo Dominio, p. 13. - -[184] Luther _v._ Borden et al.: 7 Howard, R., 42. - -[185] Elliot’s Debates (2d edit.), Vol. III. p. 367. - -[186] M’Culloch _v._ Bank of Maryland: 4 Wheaton, R., pp. 409, 421. - -[187] Martin _v._ Hunter’s Lessee: 1 Wheaton, R., 326. - -[188] Lives, tr. Langhorne: Solon, c. 14. - -[189] Morals, ed. Goodwin: Of Brotherly Love, c. 12. - -[190] Virgil, Æneid, tr. Pitt, Book VI., 204, 205 [143, 144]. - -[191] Gray, Ode for Music, st. v. - -[192] Coke, Institutes, Third Part, p. 44. - -[193] Plutarch, Of Isis and Osiris, Ch. IX. - -[194] Euripides, The Suppliants: Tragedies, tr. Wodhull, Vol. II. p. -20.--Milton, in his Answer to Salmasius, has used this text; and in the -English repetition of that tract he has turned it into prose: “I have -advanced the people themselves into the throne, having freed the city -from slavery, and admitted the people to a share in the government, _by -giving them an equal right of suffrage_.”--_Defence of the People of -England, in Answer to Salmasius_, Ch. VI.: Works (London, 1851), Vol. -VIII. p. 163. - -[195] Ezekiel, xxxvii. 19. - -[196] Speech on the Bill to establish a Territorial Government in -Oregon, June 27, 1848: Works, Vol. IV. pp. 511, 512. - -[197] _Post_, pp. 294, seqq. - -[198] Less than two fifths. By census of 1790, whole population -748,308; slaves 293,427. - -[199] _Post_, p. 282. - -[200] _Post_, p. 338. - -[201] _Ante_, p. 114. - -[202] May 8, 1866: Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., pp. -2459-60. - -[203] Act of March 2, 1867: Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. p. 429. - -[204] Revue des Deux Mondes, 1 Mars, 1866, Tom. LXII. pp. 245, 246. - -[205] McPherson’s Political History of the United States during -Reconstruction, pp. 53-55. - -[206] Ibid., p. 61. - -[207] _Ante_, p. 255. - -[208] Boston Daily Advertiser, March 3, 1866. - -[209] See, _post_, p. 280. - -[210] _Ante_, p. 4. - -[211] Statutes at Large, Vol. XIV. pp. 225, 226. - -[212] _Ante_, p. 2. - -[213] _Ante_, Vol. VIII. pp. 305, seqq. - -[214] _Ante_, Vol. XI. pp. 389, seqq. - -[215] Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st Sess., p. 1291, March 9, 1866. - -[216] 4 Wheaton, R., 316. - -[217] Attorney-General Bates, On Citizenship, November 29, 1862: -Opinions of Attorneys General, Vol. X. pp. 382, seqq. - -[218] See, _ante_, Vol. XII. pp. 97, seqq. - -[219] 4 Wheaton, R., pp. 409-421. - -[220] _Ante_, p. 267. - -[221] _Ante_, pp. 238, seqq. - -[222] Speech on the Employment of Indians in the American War, November -20, 1777: Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. XIX. col. 368-370. - -[223] Speech on Negro Emancipation, February 20, 1838: Hansard’s -Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser. Vol. XL. col. 1307, 1308. - -[224] Essays: Of Honor and Reputation. - -[225] Boswell’s Life of Johnson, ed. Croker, (London, 1853,) Vol. VIII. -p. 285, June 3, 1784. - -[226] “Parturient mountains have ere now produced muscipular -abortions.”--_Johnson’s Ghost_: Rejected Addresses. - -[227] Debates in the Federal Convention, August 25, 1787: Madison -Papers, Vol. III. pp. 1429, 1430. - -[228] Æneid, tr. Dryden, Book III. 295, 296 [227, 228]. - -[229] Boston Recorder, February 9, 1866. - -[230] Rights of the British Colonies Asserted and Proved (Boston, -1764), p. 14. - -[231] Letter to William Tudor, June 1, 1818: Works, Vol. X. p. 315. - -[232] Rights of the British Colonies, p. 29. - -[233] Ibid., p. 38. - -[234] Hutchinson’s Correspondence, quoted by Bancroft, History of the -United States, Vol. V. pp. 290, 291. - -[235] Rights of the British Colonies, p. 8. - -[236] Life of John Adams, by C. F. Adams; Works, Vol. I. p. 78. - -[237] Hening, Statutes at Large, Vol. IX. p. 110. - -[238] Some Good Whig Principles: Works, ed. Sparks, Vol. II. p. 372. - -[239] Two Treatises of Government: Of Civil Government, Book II. ch. -11, § 140: Works (London, 1812), Vol. V. p. 423. - -[240] Introduction to the Literature of Europe (London, 1847), Vol. -III. pp. 445, 448, Part IV. ch. 4, §§ 95, 100. - -[241] Political Experience of the Ancients, p. 129. - -[242] Addressed to his constituents, and appearing in the newspapers. -See also a later speech, in the House of Commons, March 13, 1866: -Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 3d Ser., Vol. CLXXXII. col. 223. - -[243] Free Conference on the Bill of Occasional Conformity, December -16, 1702: Chandler’s History and Proceedings of the House of Commons, -Vol. III. p. 229; Hansard’s Parliamentary History, Vol. VI. col. 80. - -[244] Memoirs of Theophilus Parsons by his Son, Appendix, pp. 375, 376. - -[245] New Orleans Delta, February 13, 1866. - -[246] Debates in the Virginia Convention, June 4 and 5, 1788: Elliot -(2d edit.), Vol. III. pp. 22, 44. - -[247] Ibid., June 4, 1788: Elliot, Vol. III. p. 29. - -[248] Yates’s Minutes of the Debates of the Federal Convention, June -29, 1787: Elliot, Vol. I. p. 461. - -[249] Ibid., p. 464. - -[250] Ibid., June 30, 1787, p. 467. - -[251] “‘What is truth?’ said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an -answer.”--BACON, _Essays_: Of Truth. - -[252] Articles of Amendment, XXI., XXII. - -[253] Speech on the Representative System, July 7, 1853: _Ante_, Vol. -IV. p. 46. - -[254] Notes on Virginia, Appendix, No. II.: Writings, Vol. VIII. p. 443. - -[255] Debates in the Federal Convention, July 14, 1787: Madison Papers, -Vol. II. p. 1102. - -[256] _Ante_, pp. 113, 114. - -[257] American Insurance Co. _v._ Canter, 1 Peters, S. C. R., 542. - -[258] This was done in the Act of March 2, 1867, “to provide for the -more efficient government of the Rebel States.”--_Statutes at Large_, -Vol. XIV. p. 428. - -[259] Le Droit des Gens, Liv. III. ch. 13, § 201. - -[260] Ibid., § 199. - -[261] The Federalist, No. LIV. - -[262] Phocion, Letter II.: Works, Vol. II. p. 316. - -[263] The Federalist, No. LVII. - -[264] Works, Vol. II. p. 396. Madison Papers, Vol. III., Appendix, No. -5, p. xxi. - -[265] _Ante_, p. 189. - -[266] Politics, Book III. ch. 1. See abstract by Tremenheere, Political -Experience of the Ancients, p. 11. - -[267] History of Greece (London, 1835), Vol. I. p. 409, Ch. X. - -[268] Dred Scott _v._ Sandford, 19 Howard, R., 404. - -[269] Ibid., 476. - -[270] Fuller, Holy State: The Good Sea-Captain. - -[271] _Ante_, pp. 238, seqq. - -[272] Section 4. - -[273] _Ante_, Vol. XII. p. 185. - -[274] Works, Vol. III. p. 264. - -[275] From Acts of the Legislative Assembly, as quoted in Special -Message of the Governor, January 23, 1866, pp. 1, 2. - -[276] Special Message of Governor Cummings to the Legislative Assembly, -Colorado Territory, January 23, 1866, pp. 2, 3. - -[277] Despatch, January 18, 1866: Congressional Globe, 39th Cong. 1st -Sess., p. 2139. - -[278] See, _ante_, p. 353. - -[279] Opinion of Attorney-General Bates, November 29, 1862: Official -Opinions of the Attorneys General of the United States, Vol. X. pp. -382, seqq. - -[280] _Post_, Vol. XIV. p. 147. - -[281] March 12, 1866. - - - - - -End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Charles Sumner; his complete works, -volume 13 (of 20), by Charles Sumner - -*** END OF THIS PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK CHARLES SUMNER, COMPLETE WORKS, 13 *** - -***** This file should be named 50159-0.txt or 50159-0.zip ***** -This and all associated files of various formats will be found in: - http://www.gutenberg.org/5/0/1/5/50159/ - -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) - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for the eBooks, unless you receive -specific permission. If you do not charge anything for copies of this -eBook, complying with the rules is very easy. You may use this eBook -for nearly any purpose such as creation of derivative works, reports, -performances and research. They may be modified and printed and given -away--you may do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks -not protected by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the -trademark license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country outside the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - 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'll have to check the laws of the country where you - are located before using this ebook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm web site -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from both the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation and The -Project Gutenberg Trademark LLC, the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark. Contact the Foundation as set forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - - - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's principal office is in Fairbanks, Alaska, with the -mailing address: PO Box 750175, Fairbanks, AK 99775, but its -volunteers and employees are scattered throughout numerous -locations. Its business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, Salt -Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up to -date contact information can be found at the Foundation's web site and -official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -For additional contact information: - - Dr. Gregory B. Newby - Chief Executive and Director - gbnewby@pglaf.org - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without wide -spread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg Web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our Web site which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This Web site includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. - |