“Insert at the end of the second section the following
proviso:--
“_Provided_, That this Act shall not take effect except
upon the fundamental condition that within the State there
shall be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any
other rights, on account of race or color, but all persons
shall be equal before the law. And the people of the
Territory shall, by a majority of the voters, at public
meetings to be convened by the Governor of the Territory,
declare their assent to this fundamental condition; and
the Governor shall transmit to the President of the United
States an authentic statement of such assent, whenever
the same shall be given, upon receipt whereof he shall by
proclamation announce the fact; whereupon, without any
other proceedings on the part of Congress, this Act shall
take effect.”
This amendment was similar to that offered by Mr. Sumner on the
Louisiana Bill,[273] and was modelled on what is known as the
Missouri precedent, which he proceeded to explain, and then
said:--
Possibly a question may arise as to the effect of such a fundamental
condition. I do not think there can be any question. I do not doubt
that such a fundamental condition, especially if sanctioned by the
popular vote according to the terms of the proviso, will be absolutely
obligatory on the State. I believe that you may apply to it the
language of Mr. Webster’s great speech in reply to Mr. Hayne, where,
describing and vindicating the Ordinance for the government of the
Northwest Territory, he used this very striking, and, to my mind,
exquisitely beautiful language, as simple as it is expressive:--
“It laid the interdict against personal servitude in original
compact, not only deeper than all local law, but deeper also
than all local constitutions.”[274]
Now, Sir, I call upon the Senate to do for this far Western Territory
the same in kind as was done by our fathers for the whole vast
Northwest Territory,--to lay an interdict against all inequality of
rights in original compact, not only deeper than all local law, but
deeper than all local constitutions. Let that be done, and one of the
objections to the admission of Colorado will be removed.
Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, followed Mr. Sumner.
March 13th, the debate was resumed, when Mr. Pomeroy, of
Kansas, Mr. Lane, of Kansas, Mr. McDougall, of California,
Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, Mr. Cragin, of New Hampshire, Mr.
Ramsey, of Minnesota, and Mr. Williams, of Oregon, spoke for
the admission; Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Grimes, of Iowa,
Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Mr. Doolittle, of
Wisconsin, and Mr. Conness, of California, spoke against the
admission. The chief topics were the Enabling Act and the want
of population. In the course of the debate, Mr. Sumner insisted
that the population had diminished, and then said:--
But, unhappily, this is not the only way in which this community has
fallen,--fallen in population, as my friend says,--fallen, as I shall
proceed to show positively, in another respect, far more important than
population.
He then showed[275] that the Legislative Assembly of the
Territory, at its first session under the organic act, by an
act approved November 6, 1861, had provided “that _every male
person_” with qualification of residence should be deemed
a qualified voter; but that was amended by another act,
approved March 11, 1864, by inserting the words “not being a
negro or mulatto,” which reappeared in the limitation of the
constitution before the Senate. He then said:--
Between the introduction of the Enabling Act and the date of its
approval, the legislative body of this distant Territory undertook to
make this fundamental change in its electoral law; and then I say that
people fell more than in the fall of their population. Their population
has diminished; but they, unhappily, have deteriorated in political
character, and have not now the same noble elements of political life
by which they were once commended.
Sir, I might say more on the question, whether any power can be
derived under this Enabling Act. I think, however, that has been
enough discussed. All must see, that, whatever its original character,
whatever powers may have proceeded from it, they have all been
exhausted, and the act has practically expired; it is _functus
officio_,--it is a dead act; and this Territory is no more authorized
to proceed under it than any other Territory is authorized to proceed
under it. It is not in any respect applicable. It has ceased to have
any legislative potentiality. Therefore, Sir, whatever this people
have undertaken to do they have done without any Enabling Act;
they are a voluntary body, proceeding by voluntary action, without
previous sanction of Congress, and all that they do is submitted to
the judgment of Congress, which is in no respect bound or compromised
in the least by any previous proceeding. We approach the question now
precisely as if there had been no Enabling Act,--as if the name of
Colorado (a pleasant name I trust it may be hereafter in these Halls)
had never before found echo here. The whole question is absolutely
new from beginning to end; and we must approach it under all the
responsibilities of our position, looking at it on the evidence,
according to the facts, in order to determine whether now, at this
moment, under these circumstances, we shall be justified in ceding to
this community all these great powers.
There was one argument of the Senator from Kansas [Mr. LANE] which was
an appeal to us personally,--to my excellent friend from Ohio, to my
excellent colleague, and to other Senators who had been here in other
days, when Kansas was in danger, and in that
“well-foughten field
We kept together in our chivalry.”
Sir, it is the pride of my life that at that time I was able to do
something for the State which the Senator represents on this floor. I
did it sincerely, honestly believing it my duty at the time, because I
saw well the peril of dependent condition, and that it could be saved
only by the interference of Congress, the swiftest intervention, which
would not brook delay. Therefore, Sir, for the sake of peace, and as I
would succor a fellow-man in agony, I exerted myself in every way to
invest Kansas with all the privileges and self-protecting powers of a
State. The case was peculiar and exceptional; it was also historic. It
cannot be cited as a precedent now. As well cite what you do to save a
drowning man just sinking for the last time, as a proper precedent for
conduct in daily life. The case of Colorado is to be met on the facts;
it is not an exceptional case; it is a simple case. Meet it, therefore,
on the facts and on its simplicity.
At the suggestion of others, and in order to reach an immediate
vote on the bill, Mr. Sumner withdrew his amendment.
On the question of its engrossment for a third reading, the
bill was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 21.
* * * * *
March 14th, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, who had voted with
the majority, moved that the Senate reconsider the vote
rejecting the bill, thus keeping the question open for further
debate.
* * * * *
April 17th, the motion to reconsider was taken up during
the morning hour, when Mr. Sumner declared his continued
opposition to the proposed State, and his sense of the mistake
the Senate would make in reconsidering the late vote. In the
course of these remarks, he said:--
I hope, therefore, that the Senate will not proceed to reconsider
the vote which, to their honor, they have already recorded. They
did well, when, after two days’ debate, by a large vote, they
deliberately refused to receive this Territory into the Union. Has
anything occurred since to cause a reversal of opinion? Is there any
new evidence? Are there new facts? Is there anything which can change
your responsibilities, or make you see your duty in a different light?
Has that constitution been amended? Has the word “white” been struck
out? Why, Sir, at this moment the most important practical question
before the country is, whether we shall allow the word “white” in the
constitutions of the late Rebel States. Sir, with what just weight can
you insist that this word shall be excluded from those constitutions,
when you deliberately receive into the Union a new State openly
announcing this rule of exclusion? I say, therefore, for the sake of my
country, for the sake of public tranquillity, and in loyalty to those
fundamental principles on which so much depends, and which, whether as
Senator or citizen, I can never forget, I appeal to you, Sir, and to
my associates on this floor, not to allow this question to be revived.
Let Colorado wait at least until she recognizes the Declaration of
Independence.
The morning hour expired as Mr. Sumner finished, and the
question was dropped.
* * * * *
April 19th, Mr. Wilson moved that the Senate proceed with the
motion to reconsider. Mr. Sumner then said:--
MR. PRESIDENT, I hope the Senate will not proceed with that question
to-day, and I assign two reasons. The first is, that, looking about
the Senate, I see many absent who ought to be here. The second is,
that this day, here in the national capital, is dedicated to the cause
of human freedom and human rights,--the great cause of Emancipation.
The streets to-day are filled with a happy people, emancipated by Act
of Congress, and now celebrating the anniversary of their rights. It
is, Sir, no proper day to recognize human inequality by receiving into
the Union a community which chooses to appear here with a constitution
setting at defiance the fundamental principles of the Declaration
of Independence. Sir, this is no day for the consideration of that
question. I insist that this day shall be kept sacred to human
rights,--not be given up to their overthrow.
I may be told, Sir, that there are but ninety colored persons in
this distant Territory,--only ninety to be sacrificed. If there were
but one, that would be enough to justify my opposition. Out of those
ninety, more than seventy-five have borne arms for you in the late
war; and yet these people are now positively disfranchised in the
constitution it is proposed to recognize. Sir, if you choose to do it,
if you do not hesitate to insult the public sentiment of the age by
such an act, do not do it to-day.
Mr. Wilson followed. He said, that, on the 3d day of March,
1863, his colleague voted that the people of Colorado should
be authorized to frame a constitution; that he did not then
propose that she should not make the offensive discrimination;
that he never suggested it; that he did not dream of it; that
he did not think it fair play to refuse the application of this
Territory on account of a distinction they have made, when we
imposed no conditions on them, and did not even suggest any.
Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said: “I believe that there is no
instance in the whole history of the admission of new States
where that word ‘white’ has not been the prefix to the
qualification for holding office and voting.”
MR. SUMNER. Is it not time to begin?
MR. LANE. It is perhaps time to begin; but we should have
begun when we passed the Enabling Act, and the vigilance of
the Senator from Massachusetts should not have slumbered on
that occasion.
MR. SUMNER. It did not, as I shall show you presently.
Mr. Trumbull also insisted that in good faith Congress was
committed to the people of Colorado by the Enabling Act. In the
course of reply, Mr. Sumner said:--
…
What I did say, however, was this: that on that occasion the suggestion
was made, which my excellent colleague made to-day, that I was guilty
of inconsistency; and I said that then and there I answered that
argument. My colleague, not being here, did not hear the answer, and
therefore to-day, without knowing the facts, he has revived the charge.
…
I showed you, that, when the Enabling Act was pending in the Senate,
all persons, without distinction of color, were authorized to vote.
That was my answer before; it is my answer now. Therefore, Sir,
do I say that I did not vote with any idea that there could be a
discrimination founded on color; on the contrary, I voted with the
positive conviction that all possibility of such discrimination was
excluded,--and, still further, knowing that this Act contained words in
themselves an antidote to any such wrong:--
“The constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and not
repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the
principles of the Declaration of Independence.”
Now, Sir, I insist that the constitution presented to us is not
republican; and I further insist that it is inconsistent with the
Declaration of Independence. My excellent colleague will certainly
not maintain the contrary. He will not say that a constitution which
undertakes to exclude persons from equal rights on account of color
is consistent with the fundamental principles of the Declaration of
Independence; and that, Sir, is the very requirement of the Enabling
Act.
…
I think it ought not to be proceeded with at all. I think the cause
of human rights suffers every moment you give to this question. But I
began this morning by simply opposing the consideration of it to-day.
If you choose to make a sacrifice of human rights, do it on some other
day than this.
After interchange of opinion, the question was postponed till
the next Tuesday, the 24th instant, when it was made the
special order.
* * * * *