I.

Necessity is a peremptory instructor. It gives the law which no man can

disregard. It will not hearken to apology or postponement. With a voice

of command it insists that its behests shall be obeyed. And now this

very necessity speaks with familiar tones.

Twice already, since Rebel Slavery rose against the Republic, it has

spoken, insisting, first, that the slaves should be declared free, and,

secondly, that muskets should be put into their hands for the common

defence. Yielding to necessity, these two things were done. Reason,

humanity, justice were powerless; but necessity was irresistible.

And the result testifies how wisely the Republic acted. Without

Emancipation, followed by arming the slaves, Rebel Slavery would not

have been overcome. With these, victory was easy.

At last the same necessity, which insisted first upon Emancipation and

then upon arming the slaves, insists with the same unanswerable force

upon admission of the freedman to complete equality before the law, so

that there shall be no ban of color in court-room or at the ballot-box,

and government shall be fixed on its only rightful foundation, the

consent of the governed. Reason, humanity, and justice, all of which

are clear for the admission of the freedman, may fail to move you;

but you must yield to necessity, now requiring these promises to be

performed.

The demand I make stands on necessity. You must grant it, or you will

peril the peace of the Republic, and postpone indefinitely the great

day of security and reconciliation. Therefore, in the name of that

national safety which is the supreme law, I begin my appeal. Whatever

is required for the national safety is constitutional. Not only it

_may_ be done, but it _must_ be done. Not to do it is to fail in duty.

The Republic must be saved.

When I speak of necessity, I mean that overruling compulsion which

cannot be disobeyed. In the present case it is compounded of moral duty

and the instinct of self-preservation. The moral duty to perform these

promises is plain as the Decalogue. The instinct of self-preservation,

impelling us to save the Republic, is in harmony with the requirement

of moral duty. In denying justice now, you are not only guilty of

grievous wrong, but you expose your country to incalculable calamity.

The case is too clear for debate.

The irresistible argument for Emancipation was always twofold,--first,

its intrinsic justice, and, secondly, its necessity for the safety of

the Republic; all of which was expressed by President Lincoln in the

closing words of his great Proclamation:--

“And upon this act, sincerely believed to be _an act of justice

warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity_, I

invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious

favor of Almighty God.”

But the argument for Enfranchisement, which is nothing but the

complement of Emancipation, is the same. Enfranchisement is not only

intrinsically just, but necessary to the safety of the Republic. There

is no reason, point, or argument once urged for Emancipation which may

not be urged now for Enfranchisement. I do not err, when I say that

Emancipation itself will fail without Enfranchisement.

By Enfranchisement I mean the establishment of the Equal Rights

of All, so that there shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or

political, founded on color, and the promises of the Fathers shall be

fulfilled. Such a measure will be, in the words of President Lincoln,

“an act of justice warranted by the Constitution upon military

necessity.”

As an act of justice, Enfranchisement has a necessity of its own. No

individual and no people can afford to be unjust. Such an offence

carries a curse, which, sooner or later, must drag its perpetrator to

ruin. But here necessity from considerations of justice is completed

and intensified by positive requirements of the national safety,

plainly involved in the performance of these promises.

Look at the unhappy freedman blasted by the ban of exclusion. He has

always been loyal, and now it is he, and not the Rebel master, who pays

the penalty. From the nature of the case, he must be discontented,

restless, anxious, smarting with sense of wrong and consciousness of

rights denied. He does not work as if taken by the hand and made to

feel the grasp of friendship. He is idle, thriftless, unproductive.

Industry suffers. Cotton does not grow. Commerce does not thrive.

Credit fails; nay, it dies before it is born. On the other hand, his

Rebel master, with hands still red with the blood of fellow-countrymen,

is encouraged in that assumption of superiority which is part of the

Barbarism of Slavery; he dominates as in times past; he is exacting as

of old; he is harsh, cruel, and vindictive; he makes the unprotected

and trembling freedman suffer for the losses and disappointments of the

Rebellion; he continues to insult and prostitute the wife and children,

who, ceasing to be chattels, have not ceased to be dependants; he

follows the freedman to by-ways and obscure places, where once again he

plays master and asserts his ancient title as lord of the lash. Scenes

of savage brutality and blood ensue. All this, which reason foretells,

the short experience of a few months already confirms. And all this you

sanction, when you leave the freedman despoiled of his rights.

But the freedman, though forbearing and slow to anger, will not always

submit to outrage. He will resist. Resistance will be organized. And

here begins the terrible war of races foreseen by Jefferson, where

God, in all His attributes, has none which can take part with the

oppressor. The tragedy of San Domingo will be renewed on a wider

theatre, with bloodier incidents. Be warned, I entreat you, by this

historic example. It was the denial of rights to colored people, upon

successive promises, which caused that fearful insurrection. After

various vicissitudes, during which the rights of citizenship were

conferred on free people of color and then resumed, the slaves at last

rose; and here the soul sickens at the recital. Then came Toussaint

l’Ouverture, a black of unmixed blood, who placed himself at the head

of his race, showing the genius of war, and the genius of statesmanship

also. Under his magnanimous rule the beautiful island began to smile

once more: agriculture revived; commerce took a new start; the whites

were protected in person and property; and a Constitution was adopted

acknowledging the authority of France, but making no distinction of

race or color. In an evil hour this policy was reversed by a decree

of Napoleon Bonaparte. War revived, and the French army was compelled

to succumb. The connection of San Domingo with France was broken,

and this island became a black republic. All this dreary catalogue

of murder, battle, sorrow, and woe began in denial of justice to the

colored race. And only recently we have listened to a similar tragedy

from Jamaica, thus swelling the terrible testimony. Like causes produce

like effects; therefore all this will be ours, if we madly persist in

the same denial. The freedmen among us are not unlike the freedmen of

San Domingo or Jamaica; they have the same “organs, dimensions, senses,

affections, passions,” and, above all, the same sense of wrong, and the

same revenge.

To avoid insurrection and servile war, big with measureless calamity,

and even to obtain the security essential to industry, agriculture,

commerce, and the national credit, you must perform the promises of

the Republic, originally made by our fathers, and recently renewed by

ourselves. But duty done will not only save you from calamity and give

you security; it will also prepare the way for the great triumphs of

the future, when through assured peace there shall be tranquillity,

prosperity, and reconciliation, all of which it is vain to expect

without justice.

The freedman must be protected. To this you are solemnly pledged by

the Proclamation of President Lincoln, which, after declaring him

“free,” promises to _maintain_ this freedom, not for any limited

period, but for all time. But this cannot be, so long as you deny him

the shield of _impartial laws_. Let him be heard in court, and let him

vote. Let these rights be guarded sacredly. Beyond even the shield of

_impartial laws_, he will then have the protection which comes from

the consciousness of manhood. Clad in the full panoply of citizenship,

he will feel at last that he is a man. At present he is only a recent

chattel, awaiting your justice to be transmuted into manhood. Would

you have him respected in his rights, you must begin by respecting him

in your laws. Would you maintain him in freedom, you must begin by

maintaining him in the equal rights of citizenship.

And now the national safety is staked on this act of justice. You

cannot sacrifice the freedman without endangering the peace of the

country and the stability of our institutions. Everything will be kept

in jeopardy. The national credit will suffer. Business of all kinds

will feel the insecurity. The whole land will gape with volcanic fire,

ready to burst forth in fatal flood. The irrepressible conflict will

be prolonged. The house will continue divided against itself. From all

these things, Good Lord, deliver us! But, under God, there is but one

deliverance, and this is through justice.

I have said that the national credit will suffer; but this does

not disclose the whole financial calamity. It is idle to suppose

that recent rebels, restored to privileges of citizenship, will

vote cordially for the national debt incurred in the suppression

of their rebellion, or that they will willingly tax themselves for

interest on the enormous outlays by which their darling Slavery has

been overthrown. The evidence shows them already set against any

such contribution. As time advances, and their power is assured, in

conjunction with Northern sympathizers, they will openly oppose it; or,

if they consent to recognize it, they will impose the condition that

the Rebel debt shall be recognized also. All this is inevitable, if you

give them the power; it is madness to tempt them. But they will not

have the power, if the promises to the freedman are performed. Here

again justice to the freedman becomes a necessity.

Sometimes it is said that we must not require justice to the freedman,

because justice is still denied to the colored citizen in Connecticut

and New York. Idle words, of inconceivable utterance! as if the two

cases bore any imaginable resemblance! There are rivers in the North

and rivers in the South, but who says that on this account the two

regions are alike? The denial of justice to the colored citizens in

Connecticut and New York is wrong and mean; but it is on so small a

scale that it is not perilous to the Republic, nor is it vital to the

protection of the colored citizen and the protection of the national

creditor. You are moved to Enfranchisement in Connecticut and New York

for justice to a few individuals only; but you are moved to it in the

Rebel States for justice to multitudes, also to save the Republic,

imperilled by injustice on a gigantic scale, and to supply needful

protection to the national freedman and the national creditor. From

failure on our part, there is in one case little more than shame,

while in the other there is positive danger, involving the fate of

the national freedman and the national creditor, to whom we are bound

by the most solemn ties. To a good man, injustice, even on a small

scale, is not tolerable; he feels the necessity of resisting it; but

where the victims are counted by millions, this necessity becomes a

transcendent duty, quickened and invigorated by all the instincts of

self-preservation. Therefore, I say again, for the national safety,

redeem these promises of the Fathers, and your own.

It is sometimes asserted that the National Constitution expressly

reserves to the States the power of determining who shall vote,

because it declares that “the electors in each State shall have the

_qualifications_ requisite for electors of the most numerous branch

of the State Legislature.” But this assumption proceeds on the fatal

error, that, at any time under the Constitution, which makes no

distinction of color, there can be any such oligarchical distinction

as a “qualification” founded on color. Even assuming that in a period

of peace this might be done, yet, beyond all doubt, at the present

moment, from the necessity of the case, from the Rights of War, from

the Constitutional clause of guaranty, and from the Constitutional

Amendment, Congress, by its quadruple powers, is completely authorized

to do all it thinks best for the national security and the national

faith in the Rebel States. As well question Farragut in the maintop of

his steamer, Sherman in his march across Georgia, or Grant in the field

before Richmond, as question the authority of Congress in the present

crisis. But, if the authority exists, it must be exercised.