Chapter 11

What Mr. Trumbull calls â€œthe recordâ€ in this case, and which Mr. Sumner, in the surprise of the occasion, seemingly accepts, according to the obvious import of the term, as substantially the complete record, inspection of either the Congressional Globe or the Senate Journal shows to be very far from complete. The vote following the Presidential veto was by no means the only one in which Mr. Sumnerâ€™s name appears: between this and the vote which would seem from the representation to have next preceded, designated as â€œthe vote on the passage of the bill,â€ there intervened another, involving in an important degree the character and fate of the whole measure.The bill in its original form, as it came from the House, was purely, as indicated by its title, â€œa bill to provide for the more efficient government of the insurrectionary States,â€ dividing them into military districts and placing them under military rule,â€”this being deemed the only effectual means of suppressing the outrages continually perpetrated upon the loyalists of the South, black and white,â€”its Reconstruction features, which included the provision for colored suffrage, being engrafted upon it by the Senate, coupled with considerable modifications of its military details. It was on the votes at this stage, February 16th, that Mr. Sumnerâ€™s name was wanting.On the return of the bill to the House for concurrence in these amendments, it at once encountered on the Republican side severe animadversion, aptly expressed in the remark,â€”â€œWe sent to the Senate a proposition to meet the necessities of the hour, which was Protection without Reconstruction, and it sends back another which is Reconstruction without Protection.â€ Concurrence was refused, and a committee of conference asked. The Senate insisting, and declining the proposed conference, the House proceeded alone, supplementing the Reconstruction provisions with others guarding against Rebel domination,[234]and crowning their work with the emphatic vote of 128 Yeas to 46 Nays. To this vote the Senate yielded, by a concurrent vote of Yeas 35, Nays 7,â€”with â€œthe effect,â€ as announced, â€œof passing the bill.â€ Mr. Sumner, hailing these amendments as what he had required, of course voted with the Yeas,â€”and his name so stands on both of the official registers, in immediate conjunction with Mr. Trumbullâ€™s.[235]This was on the 20th of February. The vote consequent upon the Veto was ten days later, when his name was again recorded with the Yeas.[236]These two were the only votes in the Senate on the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, in the completeness of its provisions, as it appears in the Statute-Book.[237]February 10th, 1870, the bill for the admission of Mississippi having come up for consideration in the Senate, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, availed himself of the opportunity to reopen the personal controversy with Mr. Sumner, in an acrimonious speech denying his claim to the authorship of the provision for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and ascribing it to Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, a member of the other House,â€”quoting Mr. Sumnerâ€™s opening declaration on this point, but resisting the reading of what followed in explanation and support of that declaration, under the plea that â€œhe did not want it printed as part of his own speech.â€[238]On the conclusion of Mr. Stewartâ€™s speech, Mr. Sumner answered as follows:â€”

The bill in its original form, as it came from the House, was purely, as indicated by its title, â€œa bill to provide for the more efficient government of the insurrectionary States,â€ dividing them into military districts and placing them under military rule,â€”this being deemed the only effectual means of suppressing the outrages continually perpetrated upon the loyalists of the South, black and white,â€”its Reconstruction features, which included the provision for colored suffrage, being engrafted upon it by the Senate, coupled with considerable modifications of its military details. It was on the votes at this stage, February 16th, that Mr. Sumnerâ€™s name was wanting.

On the return of the bill to the House for concurrence in these amendments, it at once encountered on the Republican side severe animadversion, aptly expressed in the remark,â€”â€œWe sent to the Senate a proposition to meet the necessities of the hour, which was Protection without Reconstruction, and it sends back another which is Reconstruction without Protection.â€ Concurrence was refused, and a committee of conference asked. The Senate insisting, and declining the proposed conference, the House proceeded alone, supplementing the Reconstruction provisions with others guarding against Rebel domination,[234]and crowning their work with the emphatic vote of 128 Yeas to 46 Nays. To this vote the Senate yielded, by a concurrent vote of Yeas 35, Nays 7,â€”with â€œthe effect,â€ as announced, â€œof passing the bill.â€ Mr. Sumner, hailing these amendments as what he had required, of course voted with the Yeas,â€”and his name so stands on both of the official registers, in immediate conjunction with Mr. Trumbullâ€™s.[235]This was on the 20th of February. The vote consequent upon the Veto was ten days later, when his name was again recorded with the Yeas.[236]These two were the only votes in the Senate on the Reconstruction Act of March 2, 1867, in the completeness of its provisions, as it appears in the Statute-Book.[237]

February 10th, 1870, the bill for the admission of Mississippi having come up for consideration in the Senate, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, availed himself of the opportunity to reopen the personal controversy with Mr. Sumner, in an acrimonious speech denying his claim to the authorship of the provision for colored suffrage in the Reconstruction Act of 1867, and ascribing it to Mr. Bingham, of Ohio, a member of the other House,â€”quoting Mr. Sumnerâ€™s opening declaration on this point, but resisting the reading of what followed in explanation and support of that declaration, under the plea that â€œhe did not want it printed as part of his own speech.â€[238]

On the conclusion of Mr. Stewartâ€™s speech, Mr. Sumner answered as follows:â€”

Mr. President,â€”You will bear witness that I am no volunteer now. I have been no volunteer on any of these recurring occasions when I have been assailed in this Chamber. I have begun no question. I began no question with the Senator from Nevada. I began no question with the other Senator on my right [Mr.Trumbull]. I began no question yesterday with the Senator from New York [Mr.Conkling].[239]I began no question, either, with the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr.Carpenter].[240]But I am here to answer; and I begin by asking to have read at the desk what I did say, and what the Senator from Nevada was unwilling, as he declared, to have incorporated in his speech. I can understand that he was very unwilling. I send the passage to the Chair.

The passage referred to, embracing the first three paragraphs of Mr. Sumnerâ€™s statement in answer to Mr. Trumbull, January 21st,[241]having been read, he proceeded:â€”

That statement is to the effect that on my motion that important proposition was put into the bill. Does anybody question it? Has the impeachment of the Senator to-day impaired that statement by a hairâ€™s-breadth? He shows that in another part of this Capitol patriot Representatives were striving in the same direction. All honor to them! God forbid that I should ever grudge to any of my associates in this great controversy any of the fame that belongs to them! There is enough for all, provided we have been faithful. Sir, it is not in my nature to take from any one credit, character, fame, to which he is justly entitled. The world is wide enough for all. Let each enjoy what he has earned. I ask nothing for myself. I asked nothing the other day; what I said was only in reply to the impeachment, the arraignment let me call it, by the Senator from Illinois.

I then simply said it was on my motion that this identical requirement went into the bill. The Senator, in reply, seeks to show that in the other Chamber a similar proposition was brought forward; but it did not become a part of the bill. He shows that it was brought forward in this Chamber, but did not become a part of the bill. It was on my motion that it did become a part of the bill. It was not unnatural, perhaps, that I should go further, as I did, and say that in making this motion I only acted in harmony with my life and best exertions for years. I have the whole record here. Shall I open it? I hesitate. In doing so I break a vow with myself. And yet it cannot be necessary. You know me in this Chamber; you know how I have devoted myself from the beginning to this idea, how constantly I have maintained it and urged it from the earliest date.

The first stage in this seriesâ€”you [Mr.Anthony, of Rhode Island, in the chair] remember it; you were here; the Senator from Nevada was not hereâ€”goes to February 11, 1862, when

â€œMr. Sumner submitted resolutions declaratory of the relations between the United States and the territory once occupied by certain States, and now usurped by pretended governments without constitutional or legal right.â€

In these resolutions it is declared, that, after an act of secession followed by war,

â€œThe territory falls under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, as other territory, and the State becomes, according to the language of the law,felo de se.â€

The resolutions conclude as follows:â€”

â€œAnd that, in pursuance of this duty cast upon Congress, and further enjoined by the Constitution, Congress will assume complete jurisdiction of such vacated territory where such unconstitutional and illegal things have been attempted, and will proceed to establish therein republican forms of government under the Constitution, and, in the execution of this trust, will provide carefully for the protection of all the inhabitants thereof, for the security of families, the organization of labor, the encouragement of industry, and the welfare of society, and will in every way discharge the duties of a just, merciful, and paternal government.â€[242]

Sir, there was the beginning of Reconstruction in this Chamber. That was its earliest expression.

On the 8th of February, 1864, it appears that

â€œMr. Sumner submitted resolutions defining the character of the national contest, and protesting against any premature restoration of Rebel States without proper guaranties and safeguards against Slavery and for the protection of freedmen.â€[243]

And on the same day it appears that he submitted the following Amendment to the Constitution, which, had it been adopted then, would have cured many of the difficulties that have since occurred, entitledâ€”

â€œAmendment of the Constitution, securing Equality before the Law and the Abolition of Slavery.â€

It is as follows:â€”

â€œAll persons are equal before the law, so that no person can hold another as a slave; and the Congress shall have power to make all laws necessary and proper to carry this declaration into effect everywhere within the United States and the jurisdiction thereof.â€[244]

There, Sir, was the beginning of Civil-Rights Bills and Political-Rights Bills. On the same day it appears that Mr. Sumner introduced into the Senate â€œA bill to secure equality before the law in the courts of the United States.â€[245]

The debate went on. On the 25th of February, 1865, a resolution of the Judiciary Committee was pending, recognizing the State Government of Louisiana. Mr. Sumner on that day introduced resolutions thus entitled:â€”

â€œResolutions declaring the duty of the United States to guaranty Republican Governments in the Rebel States on the basis of the Declaration of Independence, so thatthe new governmentsâ€â€”

that is, the reconstructed governmentsâ€”

â€œshall be founded on the consent of the governed and the equality of all persons before the law.â€

Of this series of resolutions I will read two.

â€œThat the path of justice is also the path of peace; and that for the sake of peace it is better to obey the Constitution, and, in conformity with its requirements, in the performance of the guaranty, to reÃ«stablish State governments on the consent of the governed and the equality of all persons before the law, to the end that the foundations thereof may be permanent, and that no loyal majorities may be again overthrown or ruled by any oligarchical class.â€

Then comes another resolution:â€”

â€œThat considerations of expediency are in harmony with the requirements of the Constitution and the dictates of justice and reason, especially now, when colored soldiers have shown their military value; that, as their muskets are needed for the national defence against Rebels in the field, so are their ballots yet more needed against the subtle enemies of the Union at home; and that without their support at the ballot-box the cause of Human Rights and of the Union itself will be in constant peril.â€[246]

On the resolution reported by the Senator from Illinois for the admission of Louisiana without Equal Rights, I had the honor of moving the very proposition now in question, under date of February 25, 1865:â€”

â€œProvided, That this shall not take effect, except upon the fundamental conditionthat within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral franchise or of any other rights on account of color or race, but all persons shall be equal before the law.â€[247]

Here was the first motion in this Chamber for equality of suffrage as a measure of Reconstruction. I entitled it at the time â€œthe corner-stone of Reconstruction.â€ But here, Sir, it was my misfortune to encounter the strenuous opposition of the Senator from Illinois. I allude to this with reluctance; I have not opened this debate; and I quote what I do now simply in reply to the Senator from Nevada. Replying on that occasion to the Senator from Illinois, I said:â€”

â€œThe United States are bound by the Constitution to â€˜guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government.â€™ Now, when called to perform this guaranty, it is proposed to recognize an oligarchy of the skin. The pretended State government in Louisiana is utterly indefensible, whether you look at its origin or its character. To describe it, I must use plain language. It is a mere seven-monthsâ€™ abortion, begotten by the bayonet in criminal conjunction with the spirit of Caste, and born before its time, rickety, unformed, unfinished, whose continued existence will be a burden, a reproach, and a wrong. That is the whole case; and yet the Senator from Illinois now presses it upon the Senate at this moment, to the exclusion of the important public business of the country.â€[248]

The Louisiana Bill, though pressed by the Senator from Illinois, was defeated; and the equal rights of the colored race were happily vindicated. His opposition was strenuous.

But, Sir, I did not content myself with action in this Chamber. Our good President was assassinated. The Vice-President succeeded to his place. Being here in Washington, I entered at once into relations with him,â€”hoping to bring, if possible, his great influence in favor of this measure of Reconstruction; and here is a record, made shortly afterward, which I will read.

â€œDuring this period I saw the President frequently,â€”sometimes at the private house he then occupied, and sometimes at his office in the Treasury. On these occasions the constant topic was â€˜Reconstruction,â€™ which was considered in every variety of aspect. More than once I ventured to press upon him the duty and the renown of carrying out the principles of the Declaration of Independence, and of founding the new governments in the Rebel States on the consent of the governed, without any distinction of color. To this earnest appeal he replied, on one occasion, as I sat with him alone, in words which I can never forget: â€˜On this question, Mr. Sumner, there is no difference between us: you and I are alike.â€™ Need I say that I was touched to the heart by this annunciation, which seemed to promise a victory without a battle? Accustomed to controversy, I saw clearly, that, if the President declared himself in favor of the Equal Rights of All, the good cause must prevail without controversy.â€[249]

Then followed another incident:â€”

â€œOn another occasion, during the same period, the case of Tennessee was discussed. I expressed the hope most earnestly that the President would use his influence directly for the establishment of impartial suffrage in that State,â€”saying, that, in this way, Tennessee would be put at the head of the returning column, and be made an example,â€”in one word, that all the other States would be obliged to dress on Tennessee. The President replied, that, if he were at Nashville, he would see that this was accomplished. I could not help rejoining promptly, that he need not be at Nashville, for at Washington his hand was on the long end of the lever, with which he could easily move all Tennessee,â€”referring, of course, to the powerful, but legitimate, influence which the President might exercise in his own State by the expression of his desires.â€[250]

Then, again, as I was about to leave on my return home to Massachusetts, in an interview with him I ventured to express my desires and aspirations asfollows: this was in May, 1865:â€”

â€œAfter remarking that the Rebel region was still in military occupation, and that it was the plain duty of the President to use his temporary power for the establishment of correct principles, I proceeded to say: â€˜First, see to it that no newspaper is allowed which is not thoroughly loyal and does not speak well of the National Government and of Equal Rightsâ€™; and here I reminded him of the saying of the Duke of Wellington, that in a place under martial law an unlicensed press was as impossible as on the deck of a ship of war. â€˜Secondly, let the officers that you send as military governors or otherwise be known for their devotion to Equal Rights, so that their names alone will be a proclamation, while their simple presence will help educate the peopleâ€™; and here I mentioned Major-General Carl Schurz, who still held his commission in the Army, as such a person. â€˜Thirdly, encourage the population to resume the profitable labors of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, without delay,â€”but for the present to avoid politics. Fourthly, keep the whole Rebel region under these good influences, and at the proper moment hand over the subject of Reconstruction, with the great question of Equal Rights, to the judgment of Congress, where it belongs.â€™ All this the President received at the time with perfect kindness; and I mention this with the more readiness because I remember to have seen in the papers a very different statement.â€[251]

Before I left Washington, and in the midst of my interviews with the President, I was honored by a communication from colored citizens of North Carolina, asking my counsel with regard to their rights, especially the right to vote. I will not readtheir letter,â€”it was published in the papers of the time, and much commented upon,â€”but I will read my reply.[252]

â€œWashington, May 13, 1865.â€œGentlemen,â€”I am glad that the colored citizens of North Carolina are ready to take part in the organization of Government. It is unquestionably their right and duty.â€œI see little chance of peace or tranquillity in any Rebel State, unless the rights of all are recognized, without distinction of color. On this foundation we must build.â€œThe article on Reconstruction to which you call my attention proceeds on the idea, born of Slavery, that persons with a white skin are the only â€˜citizens.â€™ This is a mistake.â€œAs you do me the honor to ask me the proper stand for you to make, I have no hesitation in replying that you must insist on all the rights and privileges of a citizen. They belong to you; they are yours; and whoever undertakes to rob you of them is a usurper and impostor.â€œOf course you will take part in any primary meetings for political organization open to citizens generally, and will not miss any opportunity to show your loyalty and fidelity.â€œAccept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen, faithfully yours,â€œCharles Sumner.â€

â€œWashington, May 13, 1865.

â€œGentlemen,â€”I am glad that the colored citizens of North Carolina are ready to take part in the organization of Government. It is unquestionably their right and duty.

â€œI see little chance of peace or tranquillity in any Rebel State, unless the rights of all are recognized, without distinction of color. On this foundation we must build.

â€œThe article on Reconstruction to which you call my attention proceeds on the idea, born of Slavery, that persons with a white skin are the only â€˜citizens.â€™ This is a mistake.

â€œAs you do me the honor to ask me the proper stand for you to make, I have no hesitation in replying that you must insist on all the rights and privileges of a citizen. They belong to you; they are yours; and whoever undertakes to rob you of them is a usurper and impostor.

â€œOf course you will take part in any primary meetings for political organization open to citizens generally, and will not miss any opportunity to show your loyalty and fidelity.

â€œAccept my best wishes, and believe me, Gentlemen, faithfully yours,

â€œCharles Sumner.â€

Such was my earnestness in this work, that, when invited by the municipality of Boston, where I was born and have always lived, to address my fellow-citizens in commemoration of the late President, I deemed it my duty to dedicate the day mainly to a vindication of Equal Rights as represented by him. I hold in my hand the address on that occasion, from whichI will read one passage. This was on the 1st of June, 1865.

â€œThe argument for Colored Suffrage is overwhelming. It springs from the necessity of the case, as well as from the Rights of Man. This suffrage is needed for the security of the colored people, for the stability of the local government, and for the strength of the Union. Without it there is nothing but insecurity for the colored people, instability for the local government, and weakness for the Union, involving of course the national credit.â€[253]

This was followed by a letter, dated Boston, July 8, 1865, addressed to the colored people of Savannah, who had done me the honor of forwarding to me a petition asking for the right to vote, with the request that I would present it to the President. After saying, that, had I been at Washington, I should have had great pleasure in presenting the petition personally, but that I was obliged to content myself with another method, I proceeded in this way:â€”

â€œAllow me to add, that you must not be impatient. You have borne the heavier burdens of Slavery; and as these are now removed, believe the others surely will be also. This enfranchised Republic, setting an example to mankind, cannot continue to sanction an odious oligarchy whose single distinctive element is color. I have no doubt that you will be admitted to the privileges of citizens.â€œIt is impossible to suppose that Congress will sanction governments in the Rebel States which are not founded on â€˜the consent of the governed.â€™ This is the corner-stone of republican institutions. Of course, by the â€˜governedâ€™ is meant all the loyal citizens, without distinction of color. Anything else is mockery.â€œNever neglect your work; but, meanwhile, prepare yourselves for the privileges of citizens. They are yours of right, and I do not doubt that they will be yours soon in reality. The prejudice of Caste and a false interpretation of the Constitution cannot prevail against justice and common sense, both of which are on your side,â€”and I may add, the Constitution also, which, when properly interpreted, is clearly on your side.â€œAccept my best wishes, and believe me, fellow-citizens, faithfully yours,â€œCharles Sumner.â€[254]

â€œIt is impossible to suppose that Congress will sanction governments in the Rebel States which are not founded on â€˜the consent of the governed.â€™ This is the corner-stone of republican institutions. Of course, by the â€˜governedâ€™ is meant all the loyal citizens, without distinction of color. Anything else is mockery.

â€œNever neglect your work; but, meanwhile, prepare yourselves for the privileges of citizens. They are yours of right, and I do not doubt that they will be yours soon in reality. The prejudice of Caste and a false interpretation of the Constitution cannot prevail against justice and common sense, both of which are on your side,â€”and I may add, the Constitution also, which, when properly interpreted, is clearly on your side.

â€œAccept my best wishes, and believe me, fellow-citizens, faithfully yours,

â€œCharles Sumner.â€[254]

This was followed by an elaborate speech before the Republican State Convention at Worcester, September 14, 1865, entitled â€œThe National Security and the National Faith: Guaranties for the National Freedman and the National Creditor,â€â€”where I insisted that national peace and tranquillity could be had only fromimpartial suffrage; and I believe that it was on this occasion that this phrase, which has since become a formula of politics, was first publicly employed. My language was as follows:â€”

â€œAs the national peace and tranquillity depend essentially upon the overthrow of monopoly and tyranny, here is another occasion for special guaranty against the whole pretension of color.No Rebel State can be readmitted with this controversy still raging and ready to break forth.â€

Mark the words, if you please.

â€œSo long as it continues, the land will be barren, agriculture and business of all kinds will be uncertain, and the country will be handed over to a fearful struggle, with the terrors of San Domingo to darken the prospect. In shutting out the freedman from his equal rights at the ballot-box, you open the doors of discontent and insurrection. Cavaignac, the patriotic President of the French Republic, met the present case, when, speaking for France, he said: â€˜I do not believe repose possible, either in the present or the future, except so far as you found your political condition on universal suffrage, loyally, sincerely, completely accepted and observed.â€™â€[255]

I then proceeded,â€”not adopting the term â€œuniversal suffrage,â€ employed by the eminent Frenchman,â€”as follows:â€”

â€œIt isimpartial suffragethat I claim, without distinction of color, so that there shall be one equal rule for all men. And this, too, must be placed under the safeguard of Constitutional Law.â€[256]

I followed up this effort by a communication to that powerful and extensively circulated paper, the New York â€œIndependent,â€ under date of Boston, October 29, 1865, where I expressed myself as follows:â€”

â€œFor the sake of the whole country, which suffers from weakness in any part,â€”for the sake of the States lately distracted by war, which above all things need security and repose,â€”for the sake of agriculture, which is neglected there,â€”for the sake of commerce, which has fled,â€”for the sake of the national creditor, whose generous trust is exposed to repudiation,â€”and, finally, for the sake of reconciliation, which can be complete only when justice prevails, we must insist upon Equal Rights as the condition of the new order of things.â€

Mark, if you please, Sir, â€œas the condition of the new order of things,â€â€”or, as I called it on other occasions, the corner-stone of Reconstruction.

â€œSo long as this question remains unsettled, there can be no true peace. Therefore I would say to the merchant who wishes to open trade with this region, to the capitalist who would send his money there, to the emigrant who seeks to find a home there, Begin by assuring justice to all men. This is the one essential condition of prosperity, of credit, and of tranquillity. Without this, mercantile houses, banks, and emigration societies having anything to do with this region must all fail, or at least suffer in business and resources. To Congress we must look as guardian, under the Constitution, of the national safety.â€[257]

Meanwhile the President adopted a policy of reaction. I was at home in Massachusetts, and from Boston, under date of November 12, 1865, I addressed him a telegraphic dispatch, as follows:â€”

â€œTo the President of the United States, Washington.â€œAs a faithful friend and supporter of your administration, I most respectfully petition you to suspend for the present your policy towards the Rebel States. I should not present this prayer, if I were not painfully convinced that thus far it has failed to obtain any reasonable guaranties for that security in the future which is essential to peace and reconciliation. To my mind, it abandons the freedmen to the control of their ancient masters, and leaves the national debt exposed to repudiation by returning Rebels. The Declaration of Independence asserts the equality of all men, and that rightful government can be founded only on the consent of the governed. I see small chance of peace, unless these great principles are practically established. Without this the house willcontinue divided against itself.â€œCharles Sumner,â€œSenator of the United States.â€[258]

â€œTo the President of the United States, Washington.

â€œAs a faithful friend and supporter of your administration, I most respectfully petition you to suspend for the present your policy towards the Rebel States. I should not present this prayer, if I were not painfully convinced that thus far it has failed to obtain any reasonable guaranties for that security in the future which is essential to peace and reconciliation. To my mind, it abandons the freedmen to the control of their ancient masters, and leaves the national debt exposed to repudiation by returning Rebels. The Declaration of Independence asserts the equality of all men, and that rightful government can be founded only on the consent of the governed. I see small chance of peace, unless these great principles are practically established. Without this the house willcontinue divided against itself.

â€œCharles Sumner,â€œSenator of the United States.â€[258]

Not content with these efforts, in an article more literary than political in its character, which found a place in the â€œAtlantic Monthlyâ€ for December, 1865, entitled, â€œClemency and Common Sense: a Curiosity of Literature, with a Moral,â€ I again returned to this same question. I will quote only a brief passage.

â€œAgain, we are told gravely that the national power which decreed Emancipation cannot maintain it by assuring universal enfranchisement, because an imperial government must be discountenanced,â€”as if the whole suggestion of â€˜Imperialismâ€™ or â€˜Centralismâ€™ were not out of place, until the national security is established, and our debts, whether to the national freedman or the national creditor, are placed where they cannot be repudiated. A phantom is created, and, to avoid this phantom, we drive towards concession and compromise, as from Charybdis to Scylla.â€[259]

The session of Congress opened December 4, 1865, and you will find that on the first day I introduced two distinct measures of Reconstruction, with Equality before the Law as their corner-stone. The first was a bill in the following terms:â€”

â€œA Bill in part execution of the guaranty of a republican form of government in the Constitution of the United States.â€œWhereas 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,â€œBe it enacted, &c., 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.â€[260]

â€œA Bill in part execution of the guaranty of a republican form of government in the Constitution of the United States.

â€œWhereas 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,

â€œBe it enacted, &c., 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.â€[260]

The second was â€œA Bill to enforce the guaranty of a republican form of government in certain States whose governments have been usurped or overthrown.â€[261]Read this bill, if you please, Sir. I challenge criticism of it at this date, in the light of all our present experience. It is in twelve sections, and you will find in it the very proposition which is now in question,â€”being the requirement of Equal Rights for All in the reconstruction of the Rebel States.

â€œSec. 5.And be it further enacted, That the delegatesâ€â€”

that is, the delegates to the Convention for the reÃ«stablishment of a State governmentâ€”

â€œshall be elected bythe loyal male citizensof 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.â€[262]

And then the bill proceeds to provide,â€”

â€œSec. 8.â€¦ 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:â€”â€

After oneâ€”twoâ€”threeâ€”four provisions, the section proceeds as follows:â€”

â€œFifthly, 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.â€

And the section concludes:â€”

â€œSixthly, These provisions shall be perpetual, not to be abolished or changed hereafter.â€[263]

Nor is this all. On the same day I introduced â€œA Bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery,â€[264]of which I will read the third section:â€”

â€œThat, 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.â€[265]

Still further, on the same day I introduced â€œResolutions declaratory of the duty of Congress in respect to guaranties of the national security and the national faith in the Rebel States.â€ One of these guaranties which I proposed to establish was as follows:â€”

â€œThe 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 color or race; but justice shall be impartial, and all shall be equal before the law.â€

I added also a provision which I was unable to carry,â€”it was lost by a tie vote,â€”as follows:â€”

â€œThe organization of an educational system for the equal benefit of all, without distinction of color or race.â€[266]

Such, Sir, were the measures which I had the honor of bringing forward at the very beginning of the session. During the same session, in an elaborate effort which occupied two days, February 5 and 6, 1866, and is entitled â€œThe Equal Rights of All: the great Guaranty and present Necessity, for the sake of Security, and to maintain a Republican Government,â€ I vindicated the necessity of the colored suffrage in order to obtain peace and reconciliation, and I placed it on the foundations of Constitutional Law as well as naturaljustice. Here is a passage from this speech:â€”

â€œAnd 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, andthe only sufficient guaranty,â€”being in itself peacemaker, reconciler, schoolmaster, and protector,â€”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.â€

The speech closed as follows:â€”

â€œThe 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,â€”if this be a fault, it is a fault I shall be slow to renounce,â€”if this be an illusion, it is an illusion which I pray may wrap the world in its angelic forms.â€[267]

The discussion still proceeded, and only a month later, March 7, 1866, I made another elaborate effort with the same object, from which I read my constant testimony:â€”

â€œI 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 onlyhalf done, and the freedman onlyhalf a man.â€

This speech closed as follows:â€”

â€œRecall the precious words of the early English writer, who, describing â€˜the Good Sea-Captain,â€™ tells us that he â€˜counts the image of God nevertheless His image, cut in ebony, as if done in ivory.â€™[268]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.â€[269]

I do not quote other efforts, other speeches, but pass to the next session of Congress, when, at the beginning, under date of December 5, 1866, I introduced resolutions thus entitled:â€”

â€œResolutions declaring the true principles of Reconstruction, the jurisdiction of Congress over the whole subject, the illegality of existing governments in the Rebel States, and the exclusion of such States with such illegal governments from representation in Congress and from voting on Constitutional Amendments.â€

Of these resolutions the fourth is as follows:â€”

â€œThat, in determining what is a republican form of government, Congress must follow implicitly the definition supplied by the Declaration of Independence, and, in the practical application of this definition, it must, after excluding all disloyal persons, take carethat new governments are founded on the two fundamental truths therein contained: first, that all men are equal in rights; and, secondly, that all just government stands only on the consent of the governed.â€[270]

Meanwhile the subject of Reconstruction was practically discussed in both Houses of Congress. In this Chamber a bill was introduced by the Senator from Oregon [Mr.Williams], providing a military government. In the House there was another bill, and on that bill good Representativesâ€”to whom be all honor!â€”sought to ingraft the requirement of colored suffrage. This effort, unhappily, did not prevail. The bill came to this Chamber without it. In this Chamber the same effort was made; but the bill, while it was still immatured, passed into our caucus. The effort which had thus far failed was then renewed by me in the committee, where it again failed. It was then renewed by me in the caucus, where it triumphed. This is the history of that proposition. I claim nothing for myself. I alluded to it the other day only in direct reply to the arraignment of the Senator from Illinois. I allude to it now reluctantly, and only in direct reply to the arraignment of the Senator from Nevada. I regret to be obliged to make any allusion to it. I think there is no occasion for any. I have erred, perhaps, in taking so much time in this explanation; but when the Senator, after days and weeks of interval, came here with his second indictment, I felt that I might without impropriety throw myself upon the indulgence of this Chamber to make the simple explanation that I have made.

I have shown that as early as February 25, 1865, I proposed in this Chamber to require the colored suffrage as the corner-stone of Reconstruction. I have shown that in an elaborate bill introduced December 4, 1865, being a bill of Reconstruction, I required the very things which were afterward introduced in the Reconstruction Act of 1867; and I have shown also that here in this Chamber, at home among my constituents, in direct intercourse with the President, and also in communication with colored persons at the South, from the beginning, I insisted upon the colored suffrage as the essential condition of Reconstruction. It so happened that I was a member of the committee appointed by the caucus to consider this question, giving me the opportunity there of moving it again; and then I had another opportunity in the caucus of renewing the effort. I did renew it, and, thank God, it was successful.

Had Mr. Bingham or Mr. Blaine, who made a kindred effort in the House, been of our committee, and then of our caucus, I do not doubt they would have done the same thing. My colleague did not use too strong language, when he said that then and there, in that small room, in that caucus, was decided the greatest pending question on the North American Continent. I remember his delight, his ecstasy, at the result. I remember other language that he employed on that occasion, which I do not quote. I know he was elevated by the triumph; and yet it was carried only by two votes. There are Senators who were present at that caucus according to whose recollection it was carried only by one vote. The Postmaster-General, in conversing with me on this subject lately, told me that he had often, in addressing his constituents, alluded to this result as illustratingthe importance of one vote in deciding a great question. The Postmaster-General was in error. It was not by one vote, but by two votes, that it was carried.

Back to Index Next