“It is a noble declaration, but a simple declaration,--a
paper bullet, that kills no one, and fixes and maintains
the rights of no one.”
Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, Mr.
Clark, of New Hampshire, Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr.
Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Buckalew,
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Saulsbury,
of Delaware, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, and Mr. Wilson, of
Massachusetts, all spoke at length. Of these, Mr. Henderson,
Mr. Yates, and Mr. Pomeroy sustained Mr. Sumner, in opposition
to the House expedient, although the first preferred to assure
suffrage by a Constitutional Amendment ordaining it: while
insisting upon the ballot for the colored citizen, he doubted
the power of Congress. Mr. Johnson thought the claim of our
fathers, in their cry against Taxation without Representation,
was for communities, and not for individuals. Mr. Sumner
afterwards replied at length to this opinion.[197] In the
course of Mr. Henderson’s speech, occupying two days, the
following colloquy occurred.
MR. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend as insisting that the
denial of the franchise is consistent with a republican
government? Take the State of South Carolina, which denies
the franchise to more than half its population.
MR. HENDERSON. In theory it is not. Under the Constitution
it was regarded as a republican State at the time of the
adoption of the instrument.
MR. SUMNER. It did not deny the franchise to half its
citizens and more. I say citizens. Most excluded were
slaves.
MR. HENDERSON. It then had only one hundred and forty
thousand whites, and had one hundred and seven thousand
slaves. It also had eighteen hundred free negroes. I
think it more nearly a republican State now than then.
Practically, the question of suffrage was left to the
States----
MR. SUMNER. But that is the question, whether they were
left to deny suffrage to any freeman on account of color.
MR. HENDERSON. If that be the question, then the point is
against my friend; for both South Carolina and Virginia did
deny the suffrage to the free negroes on account of color
only, at the time when the Constitution was made, and when
it was adopted. Virginia had upward of twelve thousand free
negroes thus denied.
MR. SUMNER. But the question is--I cannot anticipate my
friend’s conclusion on that point----
MR. HENDERSON. My conclusion is, that a mistake was made
in recognizing a Constitution as republican that permitted
Slavery. I know of no way to get rid of it except by
Constitutional Amendment. I think another mistake was
committed in leaving each State to so far abridge the right
of suffrage as to change, in theory, the republican form.
But such is the Constitution, and you cannot change it by
Act of Congress. That is my conclusion.
MR. SUMNER. You are wrong. It is a question of theory
with regard to republican government, and I say that the
Constitution must be interpreted according to this theory.
MR. HENDERSON. But our fathers did not deal with it in the
Constitution as a question of theory, but as a question of
fact. Whatever may have been their theories, I mean only to
say that the text of the Constitution does not carry them
out----
MR. SUMNER. The practical point is, Did our fathers concede
to any State the power of disfranchising citizens on
account of color? I utterly deny it, and I challenge my
friend to show any authority for it.
MR. HENDERSON. Why, Mr. President, if I have already
failed to show it, I must fail in the future. I have shown
that the suffrage was left to the States, and that they
did exclude their negroes,--that they held in slavery
in Virginia almost half of their population,[198] and
that Virginia was called a republican State. Indeed, she
was most prominent in making the very provisions we are
discussing. She excluded the slaves and----
MR. SUMNER. Ah! slaves. That is another thing. The question
is, whether you are allowed to disfranchise freemen on
account of color,--whether you are allowed to deny freemen
rights as citizens. That I deny. The exception was slaves,
who were not regarded as members of the “body politic.”
They were treated as minors, or as women, represented
by their masters. But every freeman, no matter what his
color, was recognized as entitled to all the privileges of
citizenship; he was one of the sovereigns. The proposition
cannot be met, if my friend will consult the history of his
country.
MR. HENDERSON. It was not slaves only that were
disfranchised, but I have shown that free negroes were also
disfranchised. But I have no controversy with the Senator
in what we mutually aim at.
MR. SUMNER. I know that, and I concede to my excellent
friend all that I claim for myself. We are in search of the
best. I applaud his zeal, and thank him for his courtesy.
MR. HENDERSON. I am certainly very much obliged to the
Senator from Massachusetts. I feel now ten times better
than I did before. [_Laughter._]--I cannot longer detain
the Senate in presenting objections to the exercise
of legislative power under the guaranty clause. It is
sufficient to control my own action, that I believe by the
letter, and even spirit of the Constitution, the suffrage
was placed exclusively under the control of State action.
I think that the error of so placing it is as clear as the
error made in tolerating Slavery. To rid ourselves of the
evil, however, we must amend the Constitution.
MR. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend that a State might
adopt a rule founded on the color of the hair, so that
all men with light hair should be excluded from suffrage?
I insist that a State is not authorized, under the
Constitution, to make any exclusion on account of color.
MR. HENDERSON. It ought not to be, you mean.
MR. SUMNER. No,--it cannot be. Color cannot be a
qualification. There may be a qualification founded on age,
or residence, or knowledge, or crime.
MR. HENDERSON. You are now coming in conflict with the
Committee of Fifteen, who declare by their resolution
that the States now have the power, and may yet exclude
everybody of a particular race or color.
MR. SUMNER. The Committee propose to place that in the
Constitution, which is one reason why I object to their
report. I say that they propose to do what our fathers
never did.
MR. HENDERSON. The Senator from Massachusetts is in theory,
perhaps, correct. He is speaking, however, of an ideal
Constitution.
The following colloquy also occurred.
MR. HENDERSON. The Senator from Massachusetts proposes to
do by an Act of Congress what I think can only be done by
a Constitutional Amendment. That is the difference now
between the Senator from Illinois [Mr. YATES] and myself.
I think the Amendment can be adopted. Indeed, I feel
confident of it.
MR. SUMNER. What Amendment?
MR. HENDERSON. An Amendment to the Constitution preventing
any discrimination against the negro in the right of
suffrage because of color.
MR. SUMNER. It cannot.
MR. HENDERSON. I thought in the bright lexicon of the
Senator from Massachusetts there was no such word as “fail.”
MR. SUMNER. I thought the Senator meant that this
proposition of the Reconstruction Committee could be
adopted.
MR. HENDERSON. Oh, no! I never thought that.
MR. SUMNER. I believe that the Senator’s proposition can be
adopted--gratefully adopted--by the country; but the other
cannot be.
Mr. Williams, of Oregon, hesitated with regard to Mr. Sumner’s
substitute, although he seemed to sympathize with the speech.
“Sir, I listened with profound admiration to the speech
which the Senator delivered in favor of the proposed
substitute. It was worthy of the subject, worthy of the
occasion, worthy of the author; and when those who heard it
shall be forgotten, the echoes of its lofty and majestic
periods will linger and repeat themselves among the
corridors of History. I cordially indorse the prevailing
sentiment of that speech. I believe that the founders of
this Republic intended that all freemen should participate
in the political and civil rights of the country. I think
the distinction which they made was not between white men
and black men: that distinction is of modern origin: but
the distinction which they made was between freemen and
slaves.”
He took objection to the substitute.
“Pass that law at this session, and it becomes an issue
in the next political campaign; and those who sustain it
and pass it here will be committed to its support, and
those who oppose it will strive to elect men in favor of
its repeal. A majority of this Congress may believe in the
constitutionality and expediency of such legislation; but
another Congress, if a majority should happen to sympathize
with the honorable Senator from Kentucky, would abrogate
the law, and so the political rights of millions of people
would be as varying as the capricious fortunes of the
political parties of the country.”
In the intervening debate on the Reconstruction Resolution
of the House of Representatives, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania,
made an elaborate speech on the pending Amendment, in which he
pictured the compromise involved in it.
“This Committee proposes in this Amendment to sell out four
million (radical count) negroes to the bad people of those
States forever and ever. In consideration of what? I am
asked. O shame, where is thy blush? I answer, in dust and
ashes, For about sixteen members of Congress. Has there
ever been before, Sir, in the history of this or any other
country, such a stupendous sale of negroes as that? Never!
never! It is saying to the Southern States, You may have
these millions of human beings, whom we love so dearly, and
about whom we have said so much, and for whom we have done
so much,--you may do with them as you please in the way of
legislative discrimination against them, if you will only
agree not to count them at the next census, except as your
sheep and oxen are counted; waive your right to sixteen
members of Congress, and the great compromise is sealed,
the long agony is over, the nation’s dead are avenged, the
nation’s tears are dried, and the nation’s politics are
relieved of the negro.”
March 7th, Mr. Sumner spoke at length in reply to Mr. Fessenden
and others who had opposed his substitute. This speech appears
in the present volume, according to its date.[199] He was
followed by his colleague, Mr. Wilson, who was strenuous for
the House Amendment.
“Mr. President, there are indications, not to be mistaken,
that this Amendment is doomed to defeat. To me this result
will be a subject of sincere and profound regret. My heart,
my conscience, and my judgment approve of this Amendment,
and I support it without qualification or reservation.”
March 9th, Mr. Fessenden spoke again, criticizing especially
Mr. Yates and Mr. Sumner.
Mr. Sumner followed Mr. Fessenden in a brief reply, which will
be found under its date.[200]
Mr. Wilson declared again his adhesion to the pending
Amendment, saying: “I would go to the scaffold joyfully before
the sun goes down, if I could put this proposed Amendment into
the Constitution of my country; for, if it were there, there
would be but one result and one end to it, and that is the
enfranchisement of every black man within the bounds of the
United States.”
The voting then commenced on the various substitutes for the
Amendment adopted by the House of Representatives.
First came the counter proposition of Mr. Sumner, altered,
in conformity with the original draught,[201] so as to be
applicable only to States that had lapsed, being “lately
declared to be in rebellion,” without republican government.
Mr. Henderson moved to strike out all of the counter
proposition, and in lieu of it insert a Constitutional
Amendment securing the suffrage to colored citizens:--
“ARTICLE 14. No State, in prescribing the qualifications
requisite for electors therein, shall discriminate against
any person on account of color or race.”
Mr. Henderson felt obliged to move his amendment as a
substitute for the counter proposition of Mr. Sumner in order
to compel a vote upon it.
Mr. Sumner stated that he was for this proposition, and that he
should vote for it, and, on its failure, press his own.
The question, being taken by yeas and nays on Mr. Henderson’s
amendment, resulted--Yeas 10, Nays 37--as follows:--
YEAS,--Messrs. Brown, Chandler, Clark, Henderson, Howe,
Pomeroy, Sumner, Wade, Wilson, and Yates.
NAYS,--Messrs. Anthony, Buckalew, Conness, Cowan, Cragin,
Creswell, Davis, Dixon, Doolittle, Fessenden, Foster, Grimes,
Guthrie, Harris, Hendricks, Johnson, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana,
Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Morgan, Morrill, Nesmith, Norton,
Nye, Poland, Ramsey, Riddle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Sprague,
Stewart, Stockton, Trumbull, Van Winkle, Willey, and Williams.
ABSENT,--Messrs. Foot, Howard, and Wright.
So the amendment to the amendment was rejected.
The question then recurred on the substitute of Mr. Sumner,
when the vote stood,--Yeas 8, Nays 39; so it was rejected.
Those voting in the affirmative were Messrs. Gratz Brown, of
Missouri, Chandler, of Michigan, Howe, of Wisconsin, Pomeroy,
of Kansas, Sumner, Wade, of Ohio, Wilson, of Massachusetts, and
Yates, of Illinois.
Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, then moved to amend the House
proposition by striking out the proviso and inserting these
words, being an amplification of the proviso:--
“Whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or
abridged in any State in the election of Representatives
to Congress, or of any other officer, municipal, State,
or national, on account of race, color, descent, or
previous condition of servitude, or by any provision of
law not equally applicable to all races and descents,
all persons of such race, color, descent, and condition
shall be excluded from the basis of representation, as
prescribed in the second section of the first article of
the Constitution.”
This amendment was adopted,--Yeas 26, Nays 20. It was
afterwards withdrawn by the mover, with the unanimous consent
of the Senate.
The next question was on a legislative substitute, not unlike
that of Mr. Sumner, moved by Mr. Yates:--
“That no State or Territory of the United States shall,
by any constitution, law, or other regulation whatever,
heretofore in force or hereafter to be adopted, make,
or enforce, or in any manner recognize, any distinction
between citizens of the United States, or of any State
or Territory, on account of race or color or previous
condition of slavery; and that hereafter all citizens,
without distinction of race, color, or previous condition
of slavery, shall be protected in the full and equal
enjoyment and exercise of all their civil and political
rights, including the right of suffrage.”
This was rejected,--Yeas 7, Nays 38.
Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, then moved to amend the proposition
of the House of Representatives by inserting after the word
“legislatures” the words “next hereafter to be chosen in each
State.” The motion was rejected,--Yeas 12, Nays 31.
Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the proviso in the House
proposition, as amended on the motion of Mr. Clark, and in lieu
thereof insert,--
“And the elective franchise shall not be denied or abridged
in any State on account of race or color.”
In moving this Constitutional Amendment, Mr. Sumner remarked
that it was “a direct, positive proposition, slightly different
from that [Mr. HENDERSON’S] on which the Senate had voted.” It
was rejected,--Yeas 8, Nays 38.
Mr. Sumner then moved to add at the end of the House
proposition the words, “And they shall be exempt from taxation
of all kinds.”