Chapter 12

Mr. Carpenter.Will my friend allow me,—not for the purpose of interrupting him, but to come to the point? Suppose Congress should pass a law that in no church in this country should the Host be exalted during divine service.

Mr. Sumner.The Senator knows well the difference. This is a religious observance.

Congress cannot interfere with any religious observance. Congress can do nothing to set up a religious establishment. It can make no law respecting an establishment of religion. But the Senator must see that in the case he puts, the proposed law would be the very thing prohibited by the Constitution. I thank him for that instance. I propose no interference with any religious observance,—not in the least: far from it.

Sir, the case is clear as day. All that I ask is, that, in harmony with the Declaration of Independence, there be complete equality before the law everywhere,—in the inn, on the highway, in the common school, in the church, on juries,—ay, Sir, and in the last resting-place on earth. The Senator steps forward and says: No,—I cannot accept equality in the church. There the Constitutional Amendments interpreted by the Declaration are powerless; there a White Man’s Government shall prevail. A church organization may be incorporated by National or State authority, and yet allowed to insult brothers of the human family on account of the skin. In the church this outrage may be perpetrated,—because to forbid it would interfere with religion and set up an establishment.

Such, Sir, is the argument of the Senator; and he makes it in the name of Religious Liberty! Good God, Sir! Religious liberty! The liberty to insult a fellow-man on account of his skin! You listened to his eloquent, fervid appeal. I felt its eloquence, but regretted that such power was employed in such a cause.

I said, that, consciously or unconsciously, he had copied Petroleum V. Nasby, in the letter of that renowned character entitled, “Goes on with his Church,” from which I read a brief passage:—

“Church of St. Vallandigum,“June the 10th, 1863.“We hed a blessid and improvin time yisterday. My little flock staggered in at the usual hour in the mornin, every man in a heavenly frame uv mind, hevin bin ingaged all nite in a work uv mercy, to wit: a mobbin uv two enrollin officers. One uv em resisted, and they smote him hip and thigh, even ez Bohash smote Jaheel. (Skriptooral, wich is nessary, bein in the ministry.) He wuz left for dead.“We opened servis by singin a hym, wich I writ, commencin ez follows:—“Shel niggers black this land possess,And mix with us up here?O, no, my friends; we rayther guessWe’ll never stand that ’ere.”[230]

“Church of St. Vallandigum,“June the 10th, 1863.

“We hed a blessid and improvin time yisterday. My little flock staggered in at the usual hour in the mornin, every man in a heavenly frame uv mind, hevin bin ingaged all nite in a work uv mercy, to wit: a mobbin uv two enrollin officers. One uv em resisted, and they smote him hip and thigh, even ez Bohash smote Jaheel. (Skriptooral, wich is nessary, bein in the ministry.) He wuz left for dead.

“We opened servis by singin a hym, wich I writ, commencin ez follows:—

“Shel niggers black this land possess,And mix with us up here?O, no, my friends; we rayther guessWe’ll never stand that ’ere.”[230]

“Shel niggers black this land possess,

And mix with us up here?

O, no, my friends; we rayther guess

We’ll never stand that ’ere.”[230]

[Laughter.]

I ask if that is not the Senator’s speech? [Laughter.] I know not whether it is necessary for me to go further. Something more, I might say. Very well, I will; the Senator rather invites me.

The Senator becomes here the representative of Caste; and where, Sir? In a Christian church; and while espousing that cause, he pleads the National Constitution. Now, Sir, I have to repeat—and here I am determined not to be misunderstood—we have no right to enter the church and interfere in any way with its religious ordinances, as with the raising of the Host; but when a church organization asks the benefit of the law by an act of incorporation, it must submit to the great primal law of the Union,—the Constitution of the United States, interpreted by the Declaration of Independence. The Senator smiles again; I shall come to that by-and-by. Whenever a church organization seeks incorporation, itmust submit to the great political law of the land. It can have the aid it seeks only by submitting to this political law. Here is nothing of religion; it is the political law, the law of justice, the law of Equal Rights. The Senator says, No; they may do as they please in churches, because they are churches, because they are homes of religion, of Christianity; there they may insult on account of the skin. I call that a vindication of Caste, and Caste in one of its most offensive forms. You all know, Sir, the history of Caste. It is the distinction of which we first have conspicuous record in the East, though it has prevailed more or less in all countries; but it is in the East that it showed itself in such forms as to constitute the type by which we describe the abuse. It is an offensive difference between persons founded on birth, not unlike that maintained among us on account of a skin received from birth.

And now pardon me, if I call attention to the way in which this discrimination has been characterized by the most eminent persons familiar with it. I begin with the words of an estimable character known in religion and also in poetry,—Bishop Heber, of Calcutta, who pictured Caste in these forcible terms:—

“A system which tends, more than anything else the Devil has yet invented, to destroy the feelings of general benevolence, and to make nine-tenths of mankind the hopeless slaves of the remainder.”[231]

Then comes the testimony of Rev. Mr. Rhenius, a zealous and successful missionary in the East:—

“I have found Caste, both in theory and practice, to be diametrically opposed to the Gospel, which inculcates love, humility, and union; whereas Caste teaches the contrary. It is a fact, in those entire congregations where Caste is allowed, the spirit of the Gospel does not enter; whereas in those from which it is excluded we see the fruits of the Gospel spirit.”

Mr. Carpenter.Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him to ask whether these commentaries are read for the purpose of construing the Constitution of the United States? That is the only point of difference between us.

Mr. Sumner.The Senator will learn before I am through. I shall apply them.

After quoting other authorities, Mr. Sumner proceeded:—

These witnesses are strong and unimpeachable. In Caste, Government is nurturing a tremendous evil,—a noxious plant, by the side of which the Graces cannot flourish,—part and parcel of Idolatry,—a system which, more than anything else the Devil has yet invented, tends to destroy the feelings of general benevolence. Such is Caste,—odious, impious, accursed, wherever it shows itself.

Now, Sir, I am ready to answer the inquiry of the Senator, whether I read these as an interpretation of the Constitution of the United States. Not precisely; but I do read them to exhibit the outrage which seems to find a vindicator in the Senator from Wisconsin,—in this respect, at least, that he can look at the National Constitution, interpreted by the National Declaration, proclaiming the Equal Rights of All, and find no word empowering Congress to provide that in churches organized by law this hideous outrage shall cease. I think I do no injustice to the Senator. He finds no power. Hetells us that if we exercise this power we shall have an Established Church, and he invokes the National Constitution. Sir, I, too, invoke the National Constitution,—not in one solitary provision, as the Senator does, but from its Preamble to its last Amendment,—and I invoke the Declaration of Independence. The Senator may smile. I know how he treats that great charter. I know how in other days he has treated it. But, Sir, the Declaration survives. It has been trifled with, derided, insulted often on this floor, but it is more triumphant now than ever. Its primal truths, announced as self-evident, are more commanding and more beaming now than when first uttered. They are like the sun in the heavens, with light and warmth.

…

Sir, is not the Senator answered? Is not the distinction clear as noonday between what is prohibited by the Constitution and what is proposed by my amendment? The difference between the two is as wide as between the sky and the earth. They cannot be mingled. There is no likeness, similitude, or anything by which they can be brought together. The Senator opposes a religious amendment. I assert that there shall be no political distinction; and that is my answer to his argument on churches.

And now, Sir, may I say, in no unkindness, and not even in criticism, but simply according to the exigencies of this debate, that the Senator from Wisconsin has erred? If you will listen, I think you will see the origin of his error. I do not introduce it here; nor should I refer to it, if he had not introduced it himself. The Senator hasnever had an adequate idea of the Great Declaration. The Senator smiles. I have been in this Chamber long enough to witness the vicissitudes of opinion on our Magna Charta. I have seen it derided by others more than it ever was by the Senator from Wisconsin.

Mr. Carpenter.I should like to ask the Senator from Massachusetts when he ever heard me deride it.

Mr. Sumner.The Senator will pardon me; I am coming to that. The Senator shall know. The person who first in this Chamber opened assault upon the Declaration was John C. Calhoun, in his speech on the Oregon Bill, June 27, 1848. He denounced the claim of equality as “the most false and dangerous of all political errors”; and he proceeded to say that it “has done more to retard the cause of Liberty and Civilization, and is doing more at present, than all other causes combined.” He then added, that “for a long time it lay dormant, but in the process of time it began to germinate and produce its poisonous fruits,”[232]—these poisonous fruits being that public sentiment against Slavery which was beginning to make itself felt.

This extravagance naturally found echo from his followers. Mr. Pettit, a Senator from Indiana, after quoting “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,” proceeded:—

“I hold it to be a self-evident lie. There is no such thing. Sir, tell me that the imbecile, the deformed, the weak, the blurred intellect in man is my equal, physically, mentally, or morally, and you tell me a lie. Tell me, Sir, that the slave in the South, who is born a slave, and with but little over one-half the volume of brain that attaches to the northern European race, is his equal, and you tell what is physically a falsehood. There is no truth in it at all.”[233]

This was in the Senate, February 20, 1854. Of course it proceeded on a wretched misconstruction of the Declaration, which announced equality of rights and not any other equality, physical, intellectual, or moral. It was a declaration of rights,—nor more nor less.

Then, in the order of impeachment, followed a remarkable utterance from a much-valued friend of my own and of the Senator, the late Rufus Choate, who, without descending into the same particularity, seems to have reached a similar conclusion, when, in addressing political associates, he characterized the Declaration of Independence as “that passionate and eloquent manifesto of a revolutionary war,” and then again spoke of its self-evident truths as “the glittering and sounding generalities of natural right.”[234]This was in his letter to the Maine Whig State Central Committee, August 9, 1856. In my friendship for this remarkable orator, I can never think of these too famous words without a pang of regret.

This great question became a hinge in the memorable debate between Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln in the contest for the Senatorship of Illinois, when the former said, in various forms of speech, that “the Declaration of Independence only included the white people of the United States”;[235]and Abraham Lincoln replied, that “the entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence up to within three years ago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one single man, that the negro was not included in the Declaration.”[236]This was in Mr. Lincoln’s speech at Galesburg, October 7, 1858. Elsewhere he repeated the same sentiment.

Andrew Johnson renewed the assault. After quoting the great words of the Declaration, he said in this Chamber, December 12, 1859:—

“Is there an intelligent man throughout the whole country, is there a Senator, when he has stripped himself of all party prejudice, who will come forward and say that he believes that Mr. Jefferson, when he penned that paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, intended it to embrace the African population? Is there a gentleman in the Senate who believes any such thing?… There is not a man of respectable intelligence who will hazard his reputation upon such an assertion.”[237]

All this is characteristic of the author, as afterward revealed to us.

Then, Sir, in the list we skip to April 5, 1870, when the Senator from Wisconsin ranges himself in the line, characterizing the great truths of the Declaration as “the generalities of that revolutionary pronunciamento.” In reply to myself, he rebuked me, and said that it was my disposition, if I could not find a thing in the Constitution, to seek it in the Declaration of Independence,—and if it were not embodied in “the generalities of that revolutionary pronunciamento,” then to go still further.[238]

I present this exposition with infinite reluctance; but the Senator makes it necessary. In his speech the other day, he undertook to state himself anew with regard to the Declaration. He complained of me because I made the National Constitution and the National Declaration coëqual, and declared, that, if preference be given to one, it must be to the Declaration. To that he replied:—

“Now the true theory is plain.”

Mr. President, you are to have the “true theory” on this important question:—

“If the Senator from Massachusetts says, that in doubtful cases it is the duty of a court, or the duty of the Senate, or the duty of any public officer, to consider the Declaration of Independence, he is right. So he must consider the whole history of this country; he must consider the history of the Colonies, the Articles of Confederation, all anterior history. That is a principle of Municipal Law. A contract entered into between two individuals, in the language of the cases, must be read in the light of the circumstances that surrounded the parties who made it. Certainly the Constitution of the United States must be construed upon the same principle; and when we are considering a doubtful question, the whole former history of the country, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Washington and of Jefferson and of Madison, the writings in ‘The Federalist,’—everything that pertained to that day and gives color and tone to the Constitution, must be considered.”[239]

Plainly, here is improvement. There is no derision. The truths of the Declaration are no longer “the generalities of that revolutionary pronunciamento.”

Mr. Carpenter.Oh, yes, it is; I stand by that.

Mr. Sumner.The Senator stands by that. Very well.

Mr. Carpenter.I glory in it. I glory in all the history of that revolutionary period, our revolutionary fathers, our revolutionary war. It is the Revolution that I make my stand upon.

Mr. Sumner.Then, as the Senator from Vermont [Mr.Edmunds] remarks, the Senator should give some effect to what he glories in. I hope he will not take it all out in glory, but will see that a little of it is transfused into Human Rights.

Mr. Carpenter.All that is consistent with the express provisions of the Constitution.

Mr. Sumner.I shall come to that. The point is, that the Senator treats the Declaration of Independence as no better than the writings of Washington, of Jefferson, of Madison, “The Federalist,” and everything that pertains to that day. It is only part and parcel of contemporary history,—of no special consequence, no binding character, not supreme, but only one of the authorities, or at least one of the witnesses, by which we are to read the Constitution. Sir, is it so regarded by Congress,—or at least is it so regarded by the committee of this body under whose direction is printed what is known familiarly as “The Constitution, Rules, and Manual”? Here is the little volume, to which we daily turn. I find that the first document is the National Declaration, preceding the National Constitution. Sir, it precedes the Constitution in time, as it is more elevated in character. The Constitution is a machine, great, mighty, beneficent. The Declaration supplies the principles giving character and object to the machine. The Constitution is an earthly body, if you please; the Declaration is the soul. The powers under the Constitution are no more than the hand to the body; the Declaration is the very soul itself. But the Senator does not see it so. He sees it as no better than a letter of Jefferson or Madison, or as some other contemporary incident which may help us in finding the meaning of the Constitution. The Senator will not find many ready to place themselves in the isolation he adopts. It was not so regarded by the historian who has described it with more power and brilliancy than any other,—Mr. Bancroft. After setting forth what it contains, he presents it as a new and lofty Bill of Rights:—

“This immortal state-paper, which for its composer was the aurora of enduring fame, was ‘the genuine effusion of the soul of the country at that time,’ the revelation of its mind, when, in its youth, its enthusiasm, its sublime confronting of danger, it rose to the highest creative powers of which man is capable.The bill of rights which it promulgatesis of rights that are older than human institutions, and spring from the eternal justice that is anterior to the State.”[240]

The vivid presentment of this state-paper, in its commanding character, like an ordinance for mankind, above all other contemporary things, shows its association with our great national anniversary.

“The nation, when it made the choice of a day for its great anniversary, selected not the day of the resolution of independence, when it closed the past, but that of the declaration of the principles on which it opened its new career.”[241]

Shall I remind you, Sir, of that famous letter by John Adams to his wife, written the day after the Resolution of Independence, and pending the Declaration? Of this epoch he predicts, in words quoted with annual pride, that it “will be the most memorable in the history of America,—celebrated by descending generations as the great anniversary festival,—commemorated as the day of deliverance, by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty,—solemnized with pomp and power, with cheers, games, sports, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other, from this time forward forevermore.”[242]And yet this Declaration, annually celebrated, having the first pages of our statute-book, placed in the fore-front of the volume of rules for our guidance in this Chamber, this triumphant Magna Charta, is to be treated as “the generalities of a revolutionary pronunciamento,” or at best as of no more value than the letter of a contemporary statesman. Sir, the Senator misconceives the case; and there, allow me to say, is his error.

Mr. Carpenter.The Senator understood me to say, at least I said, in construing the Constitution you must undoubtedly look to the Declaration of Independence, as you must look to all the contemporary history of that day. Did I say there was no difference in the different documents? Did I say that nomore importance was to be attached to the Declaration of Independence than to a letter of Madison or Washington? No, Sir,—I said no such thing.

Mr. Sumner.The Senator shall speak for himself. He has spoken now, and you shall hear what he said before:—

“Certainly the Constitution of the United States must be construed upon the same principle.”

That is, as “a contract entered into between two individuals.”

“And when we are considering”—

What?—

“a doubtful question, the whole former history of the country, the Declaration of Independence, the writings of Washington and of Jefferson and of Madison, the writings in ‘The Federalist,’ everything that pertained to that day and gives color and tone to the Constitution, must be considered.”

I am happy in any word of respect for the Declaration,—because the claim of Equal Rights stands on the Constitution interpreted by the Declaration.

This brings me again to the main question. We have the National Constitution from the Preamble to the signature of George Washington, and then we have the recent Amendments, all to be interpreted by the National Declaration, which proclaims, as with trumpet:—

“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.”

Unquestionably the Constitution supplies the machinery by which these great rights are maintained. I say it supplies the machinery; but I insist, against the Senator, and against all others, that every word in the Constitution must be interpreted by these primal, self-evident truths,—not merely in a case that is doubtful, as the Senator says, but constantly and always, so that the two shall perpetually go together, as the complement of each other; but the Declaration has a supremacy grander than that of the Constitution, more sacred and inviolable, for it gives the law to the Constitution itself. Every word in the Constitution is subordinate to the Declaration.

Before the war, when Slavery prevailed, the rule was otherwise, naturally; but, as I have already said, the grandest victory of the war was the establishment of the new rule by which the Declaration became supreme as interpreter of the Constitution. Take, therefore, any phrase in the Constitution, take any power, and you are to bring it all in subordination to those supreme primal truths. Every power is but the agent by which they are maintained; and when you come to those several specific powers abolishing slavery, defining citizenship, securing citizens in their privileges and immunities, guarding them against any denial of the equal protection of the laws, and then again securing them the right to vote, every one of these safeguards must be interpreted so as best to maintain Equal Rights. Such I assert to be Constitutional Law.

Sir, I cannot see it otherwise. I cannot see this mighty Magna Charta degraded to the level of a casual letter or an item of history. Why, Sir, it is the baptismal vow of the Republic; it is the pledge which our fathers took upon their lips when they asked the fellowship of mankind as a free and independent nation. It is loftier than the Constitution, which is a convenience only, while this is a guide. Let no one smile when it is invoked. Our fathers did not smile on the great day. It was with them an earnest word, opening the way to victory, and to that welcome in the human family with which our nation has been blest. Without these words what would have been the National Declaration? How small! Simply a dissolution of the tie between the Colonies and the mother country; a cutting of the cord,—that is all. Ah! it was something grander, nobler. It was the promulgation of primal truths, not only for the good of our own people, but for the good of all mankind. Such truths can never die. It is for us to see that they are recognized without delay in the administration of our own Government.

Mr. Carpenter replied at some length. Mr. Sumner followed.

The Senator insists that I am willing to disregard the Constitution. On what ground can the Senator make any such assertion? Does he suppose that his oath is stronger with him than mine with me?

Mr. Carpenter.Will the Senator allow me to answer him?

Mr. Sumner.Certainly.

Mr. Carpenter.I assume that, for the reason that when we come here to discuss a constitutional question, the power of Congress to do a certain thing, the Senator flies from the Constitution and goes to the Declaration of Independence, and says that is the source of power.

Mr. Sumner.The Senator ought to know very well that I have never said any such thing. The Senator proclaims that I fly from the Constitution to the Declaration, which I insist is the source of power. I now yield the floor again, and ask the Senator when I said what he asserts.

Mr. Carpenter.The Senator said that the Declaration was coördinate in authority with the Constitution. What did he mean by that? I supposed he used the word in the ordinary acceptation; and if he did, he meant to say that the Declaration was a coördinate grant of power.

Mr. Sumner.Just the contrary, Mr. President. Senators will bear me witness. I appeal to you all. I said just the contrary. Repeatedly I said that in my judgment the Declaration of Independence was not a grant of power, but coëqual with the Constitution,—the one being a grant of power, and the other a sovereign rule of interpretation. That is what I said. And now the Senator, in the face of my positive words, not heeding them at all, although they are found in the “Globe,” vindicates himself by putting into my mouth what I never said or suggested, and then proceeds to announce somewhat grandly that I set the Constitution at nought. I challenge the Senator again to point out one word that has ever fallen from my lips, during my service in this Chamber, to sustain him in his assertion. I ask him to do it. He cannot. But why this imputation? Is the oath we have all taken at that desk binding only on him? Does he assume that he has a monopoly of its obligations; that other Senators took it with levity, ready to disregard it,—or at least that I have taken it so? Such is the assumption; at least it is his assumption with regard to me.

Now I tell the Senator, and I beg him to understandit for the future, that I shall not allow him to elevate himself above me in any loyalty to the Constitution. Willingly do I yield to the Senator in all he can justly claim of regard and honor. But I do not concede precedence in that service, where, if he does not magnify himself, he degrades me.

I have served the National Constitution longer than he has, and with such fidelity as I could command. I have served it at moments of peril, when the great principles of Liberty to which I have been devoted were in jeopardy; I have served it when there were few to stand together. In upholding this Constitution, never did I fail at the same time to uphold Human Rights. That was my supreme object; that was the ardent aspiration of my soul. Sir, I know how often I have failed,—too often; but I know that I never did fail in devotion to the Constitution, for the true interpretation of which I now plead. The Senator speaks without authority, and, he must pardon me if I say, with levity, when he makes such an allegation against one whose record for the past twenty years in this Chamber is ready to answer him. I challenge him to point out one word ever uttered by me to justify his assault. He cannot do it. He makes his onslaught absolutely without one tittle of evidence.

Sir, I have taken the oath to support the Constitution, but it is that Constitution as I understand it. In other days, when this Chamber was filled with intolerant slave-masters, I was told that I did not support the Constitution, as I have been told to-day by the Senator, and I was reminded of my oath. In reply I borrowed the language of Andrew Jackson, and announced, that, often as I had taken that oath, I had taken it always to support the Constitution as I understood it; and it isso now. I have not taken an oath to support the Constitution as the Senator from Wisconsin understands it, without its animating soul. Sir, my oath was to support the National Constitution as interpreted by the National Declaration. The oath of the Senator from Wisconsin was different; and there, Sir, is the precise divergence between us. He swore, but on his conscience was a soulless text. I am glad that my conscience felt that there was something more.

The Senator must hesitate before he assaults me again for any failure in devotion to the Constitution. I put my life against the life of the Senator; I put my little service, humble as it is, against the service of the Senator; I put every word uttered by me in this Chamber or elsewhere against all that has been said by the Senator,—and the world shall pronounce between us on the question he has raised. If I have inclined in favor of Human Rights, if I have at all times insisted that the National Constitution shall be interpreted always so that Human Rights shall find the greatest favor, I have committed no error. In the judgment of the Senator I may have erred, but I know that in the judgment of the American people I have not erred; and here I put myself upon the country to be tried.

Sir, on that issue I invoke the sentiments of mankind and posterity when all of us have passed away. I know that it will be then written, that the National Constitution is the Charter of a mighty Republic dedicated to Human Rights, dedicated at its very birth by the Great Declaration, and that whoever fails to enlarge and ennoble it by the interpretation through which Human Rights are most advanced will fail in his oath to support the Constitution: ay, Sir, fail in his oath!

The debate was continued successive days: Mr. Thurman of Ohio, Mr. Ferry of Connecticut, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Kelly, both of Oregon, Mr. Hill of Georgia, Mr. Stevenson of Kentucky, and Mr. Tipton of Nebraska speaking against Mr. Sumner’s bill; Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, in favor of it; and Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, declaring his support, if Mr. Sumner would modify its provisions as to “churches.”The substitute of Mr. Carpenter was rejected,—Yeas 17, Nays 34. A motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen to make the bill inapplicable to “churches” was carried,—Yeas 29, Nays 24. The next question was on a motion of Mr. Carpenter to strike out the clause relating to “juries.” This was earnestly debated by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sumner remarked:—

The substitute of Mr. Carpenter was rejected,—Yeas 17, Nays 34. A motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen to make the bill inapplicable to “churches” was carried,—Yeas 29, Nays 24. The next question was on a motion of Mr. Carpenter to strike out the clause relating to “juries.” This was earnestly debated by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sumner remarked:—

There is a famous saying that comes to us from the last century, that the whole object of government in England—of King, Lords, and Commons—is to bring twelve men into a jury-box. Sir, that is the whole object of government, not only in England, but in every other country where law is administered through popular institutions; and especially is it the object of government here in the United States; and the clause in this bill which it is now proposed to strike out is simply to maintain that great principle of popular institutions.

This amendment was rejected,—Yeas 12, Nays 42. Other amendments were moved and rejected.The question was then taken on Mr. Sumner’s bill as an amendment to the Amnesty Bill, and it was adopted by the casting vote of Vice-President Colfax,—the Senate being equally divided, Yeas 28, Nays 28, as follows:—Yeas,—Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Brownlow, Cameron, Chandler, Clayton, Conkling, Cragin, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Osborn, Patterson, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Sherman, Spencer, Sumner, West, Wilson, Windom, and Wright,—28.Nays,—Messrs. Blair, Boreman, Carpenter, Cole, Corbett, Davis of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Texas, Hill, Hitchcock, Johnston, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Norwood, Pool, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz, Scott, Stevenson, Stockton, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, and Vickers,—28.Absent,—Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Buckingham, Caldwell, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Flanagan, Hamilton of Maryland, Howe, Kellogg, Lewis, Nye, Pratt, Sprague, and Stewart,—17.The announcement of the adoption of the amendment was received with great applause in the galleries.The provisions relating to Amnesty were then taken up, and after some modification of them Mr. Sumner declared his purpose to vote for the Bill as amended,—that it was now elevated and consecrated, and that whoever voted against it must take the responsibility of opposing a great measure for the assurance of Equal Rights.The question was then taken on the passage of the bill as amended, when it was rejected,—Yeas 33, Nays 19,—two-thirds not voting in the affirmative. Democrats opposed to the Civil Rights Bill voted against Amnesty with this association.The attention of the Senate was at once occupied by other business, so that Amnesty and Civil Rights were for the time superseded.May 8th, another Amnesty Bill, which had passed the House, being under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the Civil Rights Bill. Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, promptly objected that the amendment was not in order; but Vice-President Colfax overruled the point, and was sustained by the Senate. The next day Mr. Ferry moved to strike out of Mr. Sumner’s bill the words applicable to “common schools and other public institutions of learning,” which was rejected,—Yeas 25, Nays 26. Mr. Blair, of Missouri, then moved that “the people of every city, county, or State” should “decide for themselves the question of mixed or separate schools,” and this was rejected,—Yeas 23, Nays 30. Mr. Carpenter moved to strike out the section relating to “juries,” and this was rejected,—Yeas 16, Nays 33. On a motion by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to strike out the first five sections of Mr. Sumner’s bill, the votes being Yeas 29, Nays 29, the casting vote of Vice-President Colfax was given in the negative, amidst manifestations of applause in the galleries. The question was then taken on the motion to substitute the Civil Rights Bill for the Amnesty Bill, and it was lost,—Yeas 27, Nays 28. Mr. Sumner at once moved the Civil Rights Bill as an addition, with the result,—Yeas 28, Nays 28, and the adoption of the amendment by the casting vote of the Vice-President. This amendment as in Committee of the Whole was then concurred in by the Senate,—Yeas 27, Nays 25. On the passage of the bill thus amended, the vote stood, Yeas 32, Nays 22; so that, two-thirds not voting in the affirmative, the bill was rejected.Again there was a lull in the two measures.May 10th, Mr. Sumner introduced another Supplementary Civil Rights Bill, being his original bill with such verbal changes and emendations as had occurred during its protracted consideration, and the bill was placed on the calendar of the Senate without reference to a committee.May 21st, the Senate having under consideration a bill to extend the provisions of the Enforcement Act in the Southern States, known as the Ku-Klux Act, and entering upon a “night session” in order to pass the bill, Mr. Sumner, who was an invalid, contrary to his habit left the Chamber. In the early morning the bill was passed, when the Senate, on motion of Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, took up Mr. Sumner’s Civil Rights Bill, and, striking out all after the enacting clause, inserted a substitute, imperfect in machinery, and with no allusion to schools, institutions of learning, churches, cemeteries, juries, or the word “white.” The bill thus changed passed the Senate in Mr. Sumner’s absence. Meanwhile Mr. Spencer, of Alabama, had moved an adjournment, saying, “It is unfair and unjust to take a vote upon this bill during the absence of the Senator from Massachusetts.… I insist on the motion to adjourn, as the Senator from Massachusetts is not here.” The motion was rejected. A messenger from the Senate informed Mr. Sumner of the effort making, and he hurried to the Chamber; but the bill had been already acted on, and another Amnesty Bill on the calendar taken up, on motion of Mr. Robertson, of South Carolina, and pressed to a final vote. Mr. Sumner arrived in season to protest against this measure, unless associated with Equal Rights. At the first opportunity after reaching his seat, he said:—

This amendment was rejected,—Yeas 12, Nays 42. Other amendments were moved and rejected.

The question was then taken on Mr. Sumner’s bill as an amendment to the Amnesty Bill, and it was adopted by the casting vote of Vice-President Colfax,—the Senate being equally divided, Yeas 28, Nays 28, as follows:—

Yeas,—Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Brownlow, Cameron, Chandler, Clayton, Conkling, Cragin, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan, Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan, Morrill of Vermont, Morton, Osborn, Patterson, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Sherman, Spencer, Sumner, West, Wilson, Windom, and Wright,—28.

Nays,—Messrs. Blair, Boreman, Carpenter, Cole, Corbett, Davis of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Hamilton of Texas, Hill, Hitchcock, Johnston, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of Maine, Norwood, Pool, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz, Scott, Stevenson, Stockton, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, and Vickers,—28.

Absent,—Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Buckingham, Caldwell, Casserly, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Flanagan, Hamilton of Maryland, Howe, Kellogg, Lewis, Nye, Pratt, Sprague, and Stewart,—17.

The announcement of the adoption of the amendment was received with great applause in the galleries.

The provisions relating to Amnesty were then taken up, and after some modification of them Mr. Sumner declared his purpose to vote for the Bill as amended,—that it was now elevated and consecrated, and that whoever voted against it must take the responsibility of opposing a great measure for the assurance of Equal Rights.

The question was then taken on the passage of the bill as amended, when it was rejected,—Yeas 33, Nays 19,—two-thirds not voting in the affirmative. Democrats opposed to the Civil Rights Bill voted against Amnesty with this association.

The attention of the Senate was at once occupied by other business, so that Amnesty and Civil Rights were for the time superseded.

May 8th, another Amnesty Bill, which had passed the House, being under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved to strike out all after the enacting clause and insert the Civil Rights Bill. Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, promptly objected that the amendment was not in order; but Vice-President Colfax overruled the point, and was sustained by the Senate. The next day Mr. Ferry moved to strike out of Mr. Sumner’s bill the words applicable to “common schools and other public institutions of learning,” which was rejected,—Yeas 25, Nays 26. Mr. Blair, of Missouri, then moved that “the people of every city, county, or State” should “decide for themselves the question of mixed or separate schools,” and this was rejected,—Yeas 23, Nays 30. Mr. Carpenter moved to strike out the section relating to “juries,” and this was rejected,—Yeas 16, Nays 33. On a motion by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to strike out the first five sections of Mr. Sumner’s bill, the votes being Yeas 29, Nays 29, the casting vote of Vice-President Colfax was given in the negative, amidst manifestations of applause in the galleries. The question was then taken on the motion to substitute the Civil Rights Bill for the Amnesty Bill, and it was lost,—Yeas 27, Nays 28. Mr. Sumner at once moved the Civil Rights Bill as an addition, with the result,—Yeas 28, Nays 28, and the adoption of the amendment by the casting vote of the Vice-President. This amendment as in Committee of the Whole was then concurred in by the Senate,—Yeas 27, Nays 25. On the passage of the bill thus amended, the vote stood, Yeas 32, Nays 22; so that, two-thirds not voting in the affirmative, the bill was rejected.

Again there was a lull in the two measures.

May 10th, Mr. Sumner introduced another Supplementary Civil Rights Bill, being his original bill with such verbal changes and emendations as had occurred during its protracted consideration, and the bill was placed on the calendar of the Senate without reference to a committee.

May 21st, the Senate having under consideration a bill to extend the provisions of the Enforcement Act in the Southern States, known as the Ku-Klux Act, and entering upon a “night session” in order to pass the bill, Mr. Sumner, who was an invalid, contrary to his habit left the Chamber. In the early morning the bill was passed, when the Senate, on motion of Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, took up Mr. Sumner’s Civil Rights Bill, and, striking out all after the enacting clause, inserted a substitute, imperfect in machinery, and with no allusion to schools, institutions of learning, churches, cemeteries, juries, or the word “white.” The bill thus changed passed the Senate in Mr. Sumner’s absence. Meanwhile Mr. Spencer, of Alabama, had moved an adjournment, saying, “It is unfair and unjust to take a vote upon this bill during the absence of the Senator from Massachusetts.… I insist on the motion to adjourn, as the Senator from Massachusetts is not here.” The motion was rejected. A messenger from the Senate informed Mr. Sumner of the effort making, and he hurried to the Chamber; but the bill had been already acted on, and another Amnesty Bill on the calendar taken up, on motion of Mr. Robertson, of South Carolina, and pressed to a final vote. Mr. Sumner arrived in season to protest against this measure, unless associated with Equal Rights. At the first opportunity after reaching his seat, he said:—

Mr. President, I understand that in my absence, and without any notice to me from any quarter, the Senate have adopted an emasculated Civil Rights Bill, with at least two essential safeguards wanting,—oneconcerning the Common Schools, and the other concerning Juries. The original bill contains both, and more; and I now ask the Senate, most solemnly, to consider whether, while decreeing equal rights for all in the land, they will say that those equal rights shall not prevail in the common school and in the jury. Such I understand to have been the vote of the Senate. What will ensue, should it be confirmed by the other House? The spirit of Caste will receive new sanction in the education of children; justice will find a new impediment in the jury.

Sir, I plead for the colored race, who unhappily have no representative on this floor. I ask the Senate to set its face against the spirit of Caste now prevailing in the common schools, against the injustice now installed in the jury. I insist that the Senate shall not lose this great opportunity. You recognize the commanding principle of the bill. Why not, then, apply it throughout, so that hereafter there shall be no question? For, Sir, be well assured, there is but one way of settling this great cause, and that is by conceding these equal rights. So long as they are denied you will have the colored people justly complaining and knocking at your doors,—and may I say, so long as I remain in this Chamber you will have me perpetually demanding their rights. I cannot, I will not cease. I ask, Sir, that this terrible strife be brought to an end, and the cause settled forever. Now is the time. But this cannot be, except by the establishment of equal rights absolutely and completely wherever the law can reach.

Sir, early in life I vowed myself to nothing less than the idea of making the principles and promises of the Declaration of Independence a living reality. This was my aspiration. For that I have labored. And now atthis moment, as its fulfilment seems within reach, I appeal to my fellow-Senators that there shall be no failure on their part. Make, I entreat you, the Declaration of Independence in its principles and promises a living letter; make it a practical reality.

One word more. You are about to decree the removal of disabilities from those who have been in rebellion. Why will you not, with better justice, decree a similar removal of disabilities from those who have never injured you? Why will you not accord to the colored race the same amnesty you offer to former Rebels? Sir, you cannot go before the country with this unequal measure. Therefore, Sir, do I insist that Amnesty shall not become a law, unless at the same time the Equal Rights of All are secured. In debate this winter I have often said this, and I repeat it now with all the earnestness of my nature. Would I were stronger, that I might impress it upon the Senate!

A motion by Mr. Sumner to append his bill was rejected,—Yeas 13, Nays 27,—and the question returned on the Amnesty Bill.Mr. Sumner then declared his purpose to vote against the Amnesty Bill:—

A motion by Mr. Sumner to append his bill was rejected,—Yeas 13, Nays 27,—and the question returned on the Amnesty Bill.

Mr. Sumner then declared his purpose to vote against the Amnesty Bill:—

Mr. President, I long to vote for amnesty; I have always hoped to vote for it; but, Sir, I should be unworthy of my seat as a Senator if I voted for it while the colored race are shut out from their rights, and the ban of color is recognized in this Chamber. Sir, the time has not come for amnesty. How often must I repeat, “Be just to the colored race before you are generous to former rebels”? Unwillingly I press this truth; but it belongs to the moment. I utter it with regret; for I long to record my name in behalf of amnesty. And now let it not go forth that I am against amnesty. I here declare from my seat that I am foramnesty, provided it can be associated with the equal rights of the colored race; but if not so associated, then, so help me God, I am against it.

The Amnesty Bill was then passed, with only two dissenting votes,—Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Nye, of Nevada.Mr. Sumner then made an ineffectual effort to obtain a reconsideration of the votes just taken, so that on another day, in a full Senate, he could be heard. Here he said:—

The Amnesty Bill was then passed, with only two dissenting votes,—Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Nye, of Nevada.

Mr. Sumner then made an ineffectual effort to obtain a reconsideration of the votes just taken, so that on another day, in a full Senate, he could be heard. Here he said:—

Mr. President, I had supposed that there was an understanding among the friends of civil rights that the bill for their security should be kept on a complete equality with that for amnesty,—which could be only by awaiting a bill from the House securing civil rights, precisely as we have a bill from the House securing amnesty. The two measures are not on an equality, when the Senate takes up a House bill for amnesty and takes up simply a Senate bill for civil rights. I will not characterize the transaction; but to me it is painful, for it involves the sacrifice of the equal rights of the colored race,—as is plain, very plain. All this winter I have stood guard here, making an earnest though unsuccessful effort to secure those rights, insisting always that they should be recognized side by side with the rights of former Rebels. Many Senators agreed with me; but now, at the last moment, comes the sacrifice. The Amnesty Bill, which has already prevailed in the House, passes, and only awaits the signature of the President; while an imperfect Civil Rights Bill, shorn of its best proportions, which has never passed the House, is taken up and rushed through the Senate. Who can tell its chances in the other House? Such, Sir, is the indifference with which the Senate treats the rights of an oppressed people!

Sir, I sound the cry. The rights of the colored race have been sacrificed in this Chamber, where the Republican Party has a large majority,—that party, by its history, its traditions, and all its professions, bound to their vindication. Sir, I sound the cry. Let it go forth that the sacrifice has been perpetrated. Amnesty is adopted; but where are the equal rights of the colored race?—still afloat between the two Houses on an imperfect bill. And what is their chance? Pass the imperfect bill and still there is a denial of equal rights. But what is the chance of passing even this imperfect measure? Who can say? Is it not a sham? Is it not a wrong which ought to ring through the land?

Sir, I call upon the colored people throughout the country to take notice how their rights are paltered with. I wish them to understand, that here in this Chamber, with a large majority of Republicans, the sacrifice has been accomplished; and let them observe how. They will take note that amnesty has been secured, while nothing is secured to them. Now, Sir, would you have your work effective, you should delay amnesty until a bill for civil rights has passed the House, and reaching this Chamber the two measures will then be on a complete equality. Anything else is sacrifice of the colored race; anything else is abandonment of an imperative duty.

Back to Index Next