SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO MAINTAIN FREEDOM IN THOSE STATES,
DECEMBER 20, 1865.
On the day after the “whitewashing” incident, Mr. Sumner
seized an opportunity of setting forth the actual condition
of the States lately in rebellion, and the duty of Congress
with regard to them. He took the floor on a bill, introduced
by his colleague, Mr. Wilson, “to maintain the freedom of
the inhabitants in the States declared in insurrection and
rebellion by the Proclamation of the President of the first of
July, 1862,” and spoke as follows.
MR. PRESIDENT,--When I think of what occurred yesterday in this
Chamber, when I call to mind the attempt to whitewash the unhappy
condition of the Rebel States, and to throw the mantle of official
oblivion over sickening and heartrending outrages, where Human Rights
are sacrificed and Rebel Barbarism receives a new letter of license,
I feel that I ought to speak of nothing else. Years ago, in the days
of Kansas, I stood here when one small community was surrendered to
the machinations of slave-masters. I stand here again, when, alas!
an immense region, with millions of people, is surrendered to the
machinations of slave-masters. Sir, it is the duty of Congress to
arrest this fatal fury. Congress must dare to be brave; it must dare
to be just. I shall not be diverted from the question before the
Senate, although, in unfolding the necessity of present legislation for
the protection of freedmen, I shall be led necessarily and logically to
speak of the condition of the Rebel States.
All must admit that the bill of my colleague is excellent in purpose.
It proposes nothing less than to establish Equality before the Law,
at least so far as civil rights are concerned, in the Rebel States.
This is done simply to carry out and maintain the Proclamation of
Emancipation, by which the Republic is solemnly pledged to “maintain”
the emancipated slave in freedom. Here is our pledge: “The Executive
Government of the United States, including the military and naval
authorities thereof, will recognize and _maintain the freedom of said
persons_.” The pledge is without limitation in space or time. It is as
extended and as immortal as the Republic itself. Does anybody call it
vain words? I trust not. To that pledge we are solemnly bound. Wherever
our flag floats, as long as time endures, we must see that it is
sacredly observed.
The performance of this pledge cannot be intrusted to another; least
of all can it be intrusted to ancient slave-masters, embittered
against the slave. It must be performed by the National Government.
The power that gave freedom must see that freedom is maintained. This
is according to reason. It is also according to examples of history.
In the British West Indies we find this teaching. Three of England’s
greatest orators and statesmen, Burke, Canning, and Brougham, at
successive periods united in declaring, from experience in the British
West Indies, that whatever the slave-masters undertook to do for their
slaves was always “arrant trifling,” and that, whatever might be its
plausible form, it always wanted “an executory principle.”[21] More
recently the Emperor of Russia, when ordering Emancipation, declared
that all efforts of his predecessors in this direction had failed,
because left to “the spontaneous initiative of the proprietors.” I
might say much more on this head, but this is enough. I assume that no
such blunder will be made by us,--that we shall not leave to the old
proprietors the maintenance of that freedom to which we are pledged,
and thus break our own promises and sacrifice a race.
* * * * *
Elsewhere I have alluded to Emancipation in Russia.[22] But the example
is worthy our deepest study, unless we purposely reject history. All
know that in 1861 the Emperor by solemn proclamation gave freedom to
upward of twenty-three million serfs; but it is not generally known by
what supplementary provisions this freedom was assured.
I have in my hands an official copy of this great act, published at St.
Petersburg, by which it is declared that the serfs, after an interval
of two years, are “entirely enfranchised.”[23] Under this Proclamation,
a new set of local magistrates is constituted, with “special court” and
“justices of the peace” in each district, to superintend the working of
the Proclamation, and to examine on the spot all questions arising from
Emancipation. The provision is not unlike our Bureau of Freedmen, which
is vindicated by this example.
The good work did not stop here. The Emperor did not leave the
freedmen without protection, handed over to the tender mercies of
former owners. By a careful series of “Regulations” accompanying the
Proclamation, prepared with minutest care, and divided into chapters
and sections, their rights are secured beyond question. A copy of this
remarkable document shows it to be a model for generous imitation.
These “Regulations” begin with a formal declaration, that the freedmen
by the act of Emancipation “acquire the rights belonging to free
farmers.” The language is general. It is “the rights of free farmers,”
not in certain particulars, but in all particulars,--not merely
in exemption from the authority of their masters, but in complete
enfranchisement. Surely this is an example for us.
The “Regulations” then proceed in formal words to fix and assure these
rights, civil and political. They are not left to inference or to
future discussion, but positively declared with all possible detail.
By one section the freedman is secured in all his _rights of family_
and _rights of contract_, as follows:--
“The articles of the Civil Code on the rights and obligations
of the family are extended to the freedmen; consequently they
acquire the right, without the authorization of the proprietor,
to contract marriage, and to make any arrangement whatever
concerning their family affairs; they can equally enter into
all agreements and obligations authorized by the laws, as
well with the state as with individuals, on the conditions
established for free farmers; they can inscribe themselves in
the guilds, and exercise their trades in the villages; and they
can found and conduct factories and establishments of commerce.”
Here is a beautiful example for us.
By another section the freedman is secured in _rights of property_.
He may acquire and alienate property of all kinds, according to the
general law; and, besides, “the possession of the homestead” on which
he has lived is guarantied to him on certain conditions. Here is
another example for us.
By further provision the freedman is secured complete _Equality in the
courts_:--
“He shall have the right of action, whether civilly or
criminally, to commence process, and to answer personally or by
attorney, to make complaint, and to defend his rights by all
the means known to the law, _and to appear as witness and as
bail conformably to the common law_.”
Mark these words. He may appear “as witness and as bail.” It is an
example for us.
By other provisions the freedman is secured _Equality in political
rights_, according to the measure of such rights in Russia, thus:--
“On the organization of the towns, he shall be entitled to take
part in the meetings and elections for the towns, and to vote
on town affairs, and to exercise divers functions; and he shall
also take part in assemblies for the district, and shall vote
on district affairs, and choose the chairman.”
From all the provisions on this head it appears that the freedman
enjoys rights to choose local officers, and to be chosen in turn. Here
also is an example for us.
By still another section the freedman is secured _Equality at school
and in education_, thus:--
“He may place his children in the establishments for
public education, to embrace the career of instruction or
the scientific career, or to take service in the corps of
surveyors.”
Here again is an example for us.
Then, still further, for the general protection of the freedman, it
is provided that he “cannot lose his rights, or be restrained in
their exercise, except after the judgment of the town according to
fixed rules”; and still further, that he “cannot be subjected to any
punishment, otherwise than by notice of a judgment, or according to
the legal decision of the town to which he belongs.” Here, too, is an
example for us.
Thus does Russia, by careful provisions, supplementary to the act of
Emancipation, assure her freedmen in all their rights: first, the right
of family and the right of contract; secondly, the right of property,
including a homestead; thirdly, complete Equality in the courts;
fourthly, Equality in political rights; fifthly, Equality at school and
in education; and, finally, all these precious safeguards are crowned
by declaring that they cannot lose their rights, or be punished, except
after judgment according to fixed rules: thus completely fulfilling
that requirement of our fathers, that government should be “a
government of laws, and not of men.”[24]
I trust that this grand example is none the less worthy of imitation
because from an empire which is not supposed to sympathize with
liberal ideas. The Republic cannot in this respect lag behind the
Empire. Besides, all that we hear shows that the experiment has been
successful. An experiment inspired so completely by the spirit of
justice cannot fail.
My colleague is right in introducing his bill and pressing it to a
vote. The argument for it is irresistible. It is essential to complete
Emancipation. Without it Emancipation will be only _half done_. It is
our duty to see that it is wholly done. Slavery must be abolished not
in form only, but in substance, so that there shall be no Black Code,
but all shall be Equal before the Law.
As to the power of Congress over this question, I cannot doubt it.
My colleague assumes the power, without tracing it to any particular
source. It may be a military power, precisely as the Proclamation
of Emancipation,--and here the authority is as clear and absolute
as in the District of Columbia; or it may be in pursuance of the
Constitutional Amendment, which provides that Congress may “enforce
this Article by appropriate legislation”; or it may be to carry out the
guaranty of a republican form of government.
There are measures of my own, already introduced by me, now on your
table, looking to the same result as the pending bill, which proceed
specifically on the two latter grounds.
One of these is entitled “A bill supplying appropriate legislation to
enforce the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery,” from
which I read two sections.
Here Mr. Sumner read sections 3 and 4, as given on a previous
page.[25]
This bill proceeds on the idea that the Amendment is now part of
the Constitution to all intents and purposes. And who can doubt
this? Already it is adopted by three fourths of the States having
Legislatures,--in other words, by “the Legislatures of three fourths
of the several States.” The States having no Legislatures at the time
of its proposition by Congress cannot be counted. Of what value is the
enforced consent of disloyal and barbarous bodies pretending to act for
certain States at the dictation of military power? Military power may
govern during the war; but it is impotent to make a republican State,
or to adopt an Amendment of the Constitution.
Another bill introduced by me, and now on the table, is founded on the
guaranty clause. I give its title: “A bill in part execution of the
guaranty of a Republican form of Government in the Constitution of the
United States.”[26]
Both these bills are broader even than that of my colleague; for
they point to the absolute obliteration of all legal discriminations
founded on color, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box; and
to this conclusion we must come at last. But I confess that I feel the
dignity, the grandeur, and the substantial value which would be found
in a declaration of Congress, that an oligarchical government, denying
rights to a whole race, undertaking to tax without representation, and
discarding “the consent of the governed” as its just foundation, cannot
be “republican.”
The most explicit, the most positive, the most mandatory words in the
Constitution are, “The United States shall guaranty to every State
in this Union a republican form of government.” This great duty is
thrown not upon any individual branch of the Government, but upon
the United States. It is a duty to “guaranty”--which in itself is a
strong term--what? A republican form of government. Now, by the lapse
of State governments in the Rebel States, this duty is cast upon the
United States. But the United States are represented in Congress, or
rather by Act of Congress, which in itself is the embodied will of
both Houses and of the President. Congress must, therefore, determine
what is a republican form of government. Into this question I do not
now enter. At the proper time I hope to consider it.[27] For the
present I content myself with the remark, that it is absurd to say
that a community founded on oligarchical pretensions, excluding from
all participation in the government any considerable proportion of its
tax-paying citizens, and ignoring the consent of the governed, can be
considered a republican form of government. On this proposition I hope
to be heard at an early day. Here is one of the greatest questions of
our history.
* * * * *
After this brief review of the object to be accomplished, I am brought
to consider the practical necessity of such legislation; and here it is
my duty to expose the actual condition of the Rebel States, especially
as regards loyalty and the treatment of the freedmen. On this head I
shall adduce evidence in my possession. In the endeavor to bring what
I say within reasonable proportions, I shall adduce only a small part
of what has passed under my eye; but it will be more than enough. In
bringing it forward, the difficulty is of selection and abridgment.
I begin with something relating to the condition of the Rebel States
generally, and shall then consider the different States successively.
And now, first, as to the Rebel States generally. I know no testimony
that has found its way to the public, with regard to the general
condition of the South, which will compare in value with a series
of letters by A. Warren Kelsey, a business agent of character and
intelligence above question, who has travelled through the Rebel
States. His communications with his employers show singular powers of
observation, and are expressed with great clearness. Of course I can
give only a few extracts.
“In travelling about, as I have, from one section of the
country to the other, I have been able to compare opinions,
and, as you know, I have had peculiar and favorable
opportunities for ascertaining the views they have in common.
I have endeavored to trace the motives from which they have
acted and which now animate them, and their _real_ purpose
for the future, if they have one. In giving you my opinion
now, it is proper to say that I have taken no one individual
as a criterion of the whole, and have judged them only by
the opinions I find they are generally agreed upon; neither
have I any one’s statement for their thoughts and actions. My
opinions, deductions, and conclusions are derived from my own
experience and observation among them, and, whether they shall
be confirmed or denied by others, are, notwithstanding, my
honest and sincere convictions.
…
“While I am able to say that they have made up their minds
that Emancipation is a fact, and not to be avoided, I am
obliged to state my earnest opinion, that, so far as secession
is concerned,--that is, the doctrine of State Rights,--it is
more deeply rooted than ever among them. They are perfectly
united in the belief that the division of this country is
both right from a moral stand-point and politic as a measure
of expediency. They have simply changed their base from the
battle-field to the ballot-box, believing, as they very frankly
admit, that greater triumphs await them there than they could
ever hope for in the field. In almost every house hangs the
old, worn Confederate uniform, which is displayed with pride
and satisfaction to all comers. So far from repenting of the
stand they took, they glory in it. They regret the result, and
their non-success, it is true, but not one in a thousand will
admit they were in the wrong.
…
“They argue that at least ninety-five in every two hundred
votes at the North are sure to be thrown in their favor, and
they can now rule the Union by giving up, which is cheaper
than to persist in their idea of a separate government. That
idea, however, is only laid aside for a time. Every boy at the
South is being educated in the belief that the relations the
South to-day sustains toward the North are the same as those of
Hungary or Venetia toward Austria, or of Poland to Russia. They
bide their time. They have adopted for their motto, ‘Patience,
and shuffle the cards.’ The snake, so far from being killed, is
barely ‘scotched.’ Meantime they deem it better to rule in the
Union than to serve in the Confederate army.
…
“As to their affection for their military leaders, you will
find proof in the elections at Richmond and South Carolina.
No man has a better claim to their sympathy, and none stand a
better chance of election, than those who were the last to give
up. Motives of policy may induce them to nominate others, but
the fact remains as I have stated. I repeat, that General Lee
and Wade Hampton are the two most popular and best loved men in
the South to-day. I have heard but one disparaging remark made
of General Lee since I was at the South, and that was in this
connection. I was riding one night in a hack across the gap
in a railway, made by Wilson, and, as usual, the conversation
turned on political affairs and the condition and prospects of
the Southern people. One man said that General Lee stood the
best chance for the next Presidency,--by the way, that is a
very prevalent idea here at the South,--when another remarked
that he would rather have Andrew Johnson. I was curious to
know why, and inquired. He replied, that ‘he had but little
confidence in Lee since he favored negro soldiers, and in his
opinion he was not much better than a Black Republican.’
…
“At present every one at the South is occupied in his personal
and family interests. There are no political parties,--very
little coherence of opinion as to the policy best to be
pursued. But I find among the knowing ones, particularly
those who have been on to the North, and remained some time
in New York or Washington, a sanguine belief that they can
easily resume the reins of office; and these men are the only
Unionists in the South to-day. You can depend upon it, that
the Southern States in the future will present one solid,
unanimous front; their leaders have them well in hand. And
this is precisely what ninety-nine in every hundred of the
men, women, and children believe sincerely as to the situation
to-day: first, that the South of right possesses, and always
possessed, the right of secession; secondly, that the war only
proved that the North was the strongest; thirdly, that Negro
Slavery was and is right, but has been abolished by the war.
The Southerners are too smart not to see that Slavery is dead,
but many of them hope as long as the black race exists here
to be able to hold it in a condition of practical serfdom.
All expect the negro will be killed in one way or another by
Emancipation. The policy of those who will eventually become
the leaders here at the South is, for the present, to accept
the best they can get, to acquiesce in anything and everything,
but to strain every nerve to regain the political power and
ascendency they held under Buchanan. This they believe cannot
be postponed longer than up to the next Presidential election.
They will do all in their power to resist Negro Suffrage,
to reduce taxation and expenditures, and would attack the
national debt, if they saw any reason to believe repudiation
possible. They will continue to assert the inferiority of the
African; and they would to-day, if possible, precipitate the
United States into a foreign war, believing they could then
reassert and obtain their independence. They will, most of
them, take any oaths you may cause to be adopted, and break
them immediately, and without scruple. In one word, this people
have placed themselves in resolute antagonism to the North,
and _this_ generation, at least, will always hate the Northern
people, while the boys are being educated to the same idea.
…
“On the whole, looking at the affair from all sides, it amounts
to just this: if the Northern people are content to be ruled
over by the Southerners, they will continue in the Union; if
not, the first chance they get, they will rise again.”[28]
Other testimony is in harmony. For instance, a trustworthy traveller,
who has recently traversed the Gulf States, thus writes in a private
letter to myself:--
“The former masters exhibit a most cruel, remorseless, and
vindictive spirit toward the colored people. In parts where
there are no Union soldiers I saw colored women treated in
the most outrageous manner. They have no rights that are
respected. They are killed, and their bodies thrown into ponds
or mud-holes. They are mutilated by having ears and noses cut
off.”
Such a people already talk of repudiating the national debt. To the
question, “Would it be safe to trust white men at the South with the
power to repudiate the national debt?” a person in gray uniform at once
replied: “Repudiate? I should hope they would. I’m whipped, and I’ll
own it; but I’m not so fond of a whipping that I’m going to pay a man’s
expenses while he gives it to me. Of course there are not ten men in
the whole South that wouldn’t repudiate.” Such is the spirit of these
States. But a candidate for Congress in Virginia undertook to speak for
the Rebel States.
“I am opposed to the Southern States being taxed at all for
the redemption of this debt, either directly or indirectly;
and, if elected to Congress, I will oppose all such measures,
_and I will vote to repeal all laws that have heretofore been
passed for that purpose_; and, in doing so, I do not consider
that I violate any obligations to which the South was a party.
_We have never plighted our faith for the redemption of the war
debt._ The people will be borne down with taxes for years to
come, even if the war debt is repudiated. It will be the duty
of the Government to support the maimed and disabled soldiers,
and this will be a great expense; and if the United States
Government requires the South to be taxed for the support of
Union soldiers, we should insist that all disabled soldiers
should be maintained by the United States Government, _without
regard to the side they had taken in the war_.”
A late writer, who within a few days has returned from an extensive
tour in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and who now enjoys
a seat in your Reporters’ Gallery, thus testifies with regard to the
national debt:--
“The national debt doubtless seems to you beyond the reach
of any hand. Yet I regard it as very probable that one or
two or all of three things will be attempted within three
years after the Southern members of Congress are admitted to
seats,--the repudiation of the National debt, the assumption
of the Confederate debt, or the payment of several hundred
million dollars to the South for property destroyed and slaves
emancipated. I met several shrewd and intelligent men who
expressed the belief that Confederate bonds will be worth
something in two or three years. One told me that large amounts
were held in New York and England, and he expected steps would
be taken within five years toward paying them from the National
Treasury. I heard no man openly advocate the repudiation of the
National debt, but scores argued to me that it would not be
fair to make the South pay any part of it; and one man said he
believed, if the case were only carried up, that the Supreme
Court would so decide. The idea that the nation will pay the
South for her slaves extensively prevails both in Georgia and
South Carolina. It is incorporated into the new Constitution
of Georgia, and is openly advocated by many influential men
in South Carolina. Wherefore, I say, the national debt needs
watching.”
Let the Secretary of the Treasury[29] take notice, and not expose the
national finances to the peril which menaces them.
* * * * *
Passing from this testimony, which is general, I come to the neighbor
State of Virginia. I read from a private letter received by myself from
a Government officer there:--
“We who are here have a much better opportunity of knowing
the feeling of the people than you at a distance, for they will
not speak as freely before you as they will before us here
and among themselves. The feeling of disloyalty is as strong
here now as it was during the war, but they cannot show it as
they did then; and with regard to the freedmen there is every
disposition on their part to make them odious. They constantly
talk of insurrection, insubordination, thieving, idleness, and
every species of crime and vice; all of which I assure you is
entirely false. They are perfectly subordinate to every law,
and, so far as thieving is concerned, such an assertion is
gratuitous or false; for all cases of thieving, certainly, I am
sorry to say, are done by the whites.”