When Mr. Fessenden sat down, after his closing speech, Mr.
Sumner took the floor and made the following remarks.
MR. PRESIDENT,--Allow me to remind you of that famous shield suspended
in the highway, and so often adduced as a lesson of candor. Two
travellers approaching from opposite quarters, and standing face to
face, read the inscription as each saw it. Straightway there was
difference and contest. Each insisted; but closer observation showed
that the two sides were different. So it is on the present occasion.
The measure before the Senate has two sides. The Senator from Maine
[Mr. FESSENDEN], as he approaches it, sees only the side which limits
the representation. As I approach it, I see the recognition of a caste
and the disfranchisement of a race. He defends it; I condemn it. But
he defends only what he sees; I condemn only what I see. It is the
misfortune of the measure that it has two sides with two opposite
inscriptions. This is especially unhappy at this moment, when we are
bound to be frank and loyal, and to do nothing which may be interpreted
in a double sense. Above all should this be the case with regard to
an Amendment of the Constitution. But the present proposition does
not fall within these conditions. It is enough that there are at this
moment two opposite opinions with regard to its meaning.
Now, Sir, it will not be denied that there are opposite opinions on its
meaning. The Senator from Maine affixes one meaning; I affix another.
The Senator sees nothing bad; I see nothing good,--or rather, all
that it proposes is absorbed, merged, and lost in the evil. Against
it I am earnest, and I speak so. For those from whom I differ I have
nothing but personal kindness; but I must condemn the text they seek
to inject into the Constitution. What is debate? It is the expression
of opinions, conclusions, and convictions. These must be expressed
fully, freely, and according to the conscience of the speaker. If a
measure is deemed bad, unjust, scandalous, founded in wrong principles,
and calculated to produce infinite mischief, all this must be said;
and it must be said with plainness, according to the nature of the
exigency. To this end language is given. The measure must be exposed.
There are no terms to be spared which may be needed in this exposition,
whether to reach the judgment or the feelings. Of course, on this
occasion I see only the subject. The Senator reminds you of the
friends whose votes I arraign,--cherished colleagues in both Houses,
valued associates in political opinion, and two thirds of the House of
Representatives. All this increases my sorrow. It gives me a pang; but
it cannot make me change convictions springing from the very depths of
conscience,--nor my course.
But I am not alone in my interpretation. Only the other day I
presented the petition of the editor of the Boston “Recorder,” in
which he was moved to protest against it in strongest terms, inasmuch
as it disfranchised a race and offended against the Declaration
of Independence. I have here papers and testimonies showing how
extensively this interpretation prevails. Here, for instance, is a
communication from an honored citizen of New York, once a member of the
other House, one of the Old Guard of Abolitionists, who, from the first
gun at Fort Sumter, has seen our duties with a sensitive conscience and
a patriotic soul: I mean Gerrit Smith. Mark, if you please, that I cite
his words simply as showing how an ingenuous nature is touched by this
attempt.
“I see that the House of Representatives approves, and by a
very strong vote, the proposed Apportionment Amendment of
the Constitution. I see, too, that nearly all the members
who are the most radical friends of Freedom are included in
this vote, and that there is, therefore, no room in the case
for questioning motives. Freedom may, however, be wounded
unwittingly. Nay, she may be wounded even in the house of her
friends. Such is her fate in the present instance. And no
less deep and dangerous is the wound, but, on the contrary,
all the deeper and more dangerous, because inflicted by hands
which aimed not to harm, but to help her. Moreover, though
it is always consoling to be able to trace an error to the
understanding, the error may, nevertheless, be quite as
pernicious as if the heart were involved in it.
…
“A disgraceful, if not indeed fatal, blot upon the Constitution
and country will be this one. Disgraceful is it to a government
to license the gambling-house, even though it be on the
condition of being paid for the license. Disgraceful to it to
license the brothel or the dram-shop, even though on such
condition. But how emphatically disgraceful for a government
to license Slavery, that crime of crimes, even though the
consideration in return for the license be very great, and the
pay very tempting! This, however, is the deep disgrace with
which the Apportionment Amendment threatens the Constitution
and the country.… It is true that Slavery is not literally in
the Amendment. It is true, too, that proscription from the
ballot-box does not always mean Slavery. But it is also true,
that, where such proscription is of one race by another, there
is an instance where the proscribed are enslaved. The power,
therefore, which this Amendment will give the Southern whites
to withhold the ballot from the Southern blacks will be the
power to enslave them. If they shall withhold from them the
ballot, they will also withhold from them freedom.
…
“I notice that a common excuse among the friends of Freedom
for favoring this Apportionment Amendment is, that we can get
nothing better. I know not how that may be; but I do know that
we can get nothing much worse, and that it would be far better
to get nothing than to get this.”
I have also presented the petition of George T. Downing, Frederick
Douglass, and others, representing the colored race in Washington, in
which they give their opinions. Protesting against this proposition,
as authorizing disfranchisement on account of race or color, they pray
Congress
“To favor no Amendment of the Constitution of the United States
which will grant or allow any one or all of the States of this
Union to disfranchise any class of citizens on the ground of
race or color.”