GENTLEMEN,--My attention has been called to an editorial article
in your paper,[281] where you say that Mr. Sumner “aided in
defeating” the proposed Constitutional Amendment, “because in his
opinion it fell short of what was needed.”
Permit me to say that this does not state my position accurately.
My objection to the proposed Amendment was twofold: first, that
it carried into the Constitution by express words the idea of
inequality of rights, which, in my opinion, would be a defilement
of the text; and, secondly, that it lent the sanction of the
Constitution to a wholesale disfranchisement on account of race
or color. Thus far, nothing of the kind had been allowed to find
place in its text. To my mind it was clear that nothing of the
kind could rightly be allowed to find place in its text.
You will see, therefore, that my opposition was not because the
proposed Amendment “fell short of what was needed,”--although
this was too true,--but because it did what in my judgment ought
not to be done. Its objectionable character became more apparent,
when it was considered that it did this at a crisis when complete
justice to the freedmen was at once the prompting of gratitude
and the requirement of necessity for the sake of national peace
and the good name of the Republic. But the special objection to
the proposed Amendment was not that it “fell short,” but that it
was bad in itself. It is sometimes said, “Half a loaf is better
than no bread,” and this has been called “half a loaf.” But
nobody would accept “half a loaf,” if it were poisoned. Here was
a poisonous ingredient. The proposition to found representation
on voters, besides being more surely effective to the same end,
had no poison in it.
Others did not see the proposed Amendment as I did. Had they seen
it so, they must have voted against it. But, seeing it as I did,
I think you will agree that I could not hesitate in opposition to
it.
I do not write now for any purpose of controversy, but simply
that my position may not be misunderstood.