MR. PRESIDENT,--In the construction of a machine the good mechanic
seeks the simplest process, producing the desired result with the
greatest economy of time and force. I know no better rule for Congress
on the present occasion. We are mechanics, and the machine we are
constructing has for its object the conservation of Equal Rights.
Surely, if we are wise, we shall seek the simplest process, producing
the desired result with the greatest economy of time and force. How
widely Senators are departing from this rule will appear before I have
done.
* * * * *
Rarely have I entered upon any debate in this Chamber with a sense of
sadness so heavy as oppresses me at this moment. It was sad enough
to meet the champions of Slavery, as in other days they openly
vindicated the monstrous pretension and claimed for it the safeguard
of the Constitution, insisting that Slavery was national and Freedom
sectional. But this was not so sad as now, after a bloody war with
Slavery, and its defeat on the battle-field, to meet the champions
of a kindred pretension, for which they claim the safeguard of the
Constitution, insisting also, as in the case of Slavery, upon State
Rights. The familiar vindication of Slavery in those early debates was
less sickening than the vindication now of the intolerable pretension,
that a State, constituting part of the Nation, and calling itself
“Republican,” is entitled to shut out any citizen from participation
in government simply on account of race or color. To denominate such
pretension as intolerable expresses very inadequately the extent of its
absurdity, and the utterness of its repugnance to all good principles,
whether of reason, morals, or government.
I make no question with individual Senators; I make no personal
allusion; but I meet the odious imposture, as I met the earlier
imposture, with indignation and contempt, naturally excited by anything
unworthy of this Chamber and unworthy of the Republic. How it can enter
here and find Senators willing to assume the stigma of its championship
is more than I can comprehend. Nobody ever vindicated Slavery, who did
not lay up a store of regret for himself and his children; and permit
me to say now, nobody can vindicate Inequality and Caste, whether
civil or political, the direct offspring of Slavery, as intrenched in
the Constitution, beyond the reach of national prohibition, without
laying up a similar store of regret. Death may happily come to remove
the champion from the judgment of the world; but History will make its
faithful record, to be read with sorrow hereafter. Do not complain, if
I speak strongly. The occasion requires it. I seek to save the Senate
from participation in an irrational and degrading pretension.
Others may be cool and indifferent; but I have warred with Slavery too
long, in all its different forms, not to be aroused when this old enemy
shows its head under an _alias_. Once it was Slavery; now it is Caste;
and the same excuse is assigned now as then. In the name of State
Rights, Slavery, with all its brood of wrong, was upheld; and now, in
the name of State Rights, Caste, fruitful also in wrong, is upheld.
The old champions reappear under other names and from other States,
each crying out, that, under the National Constitution, notwithstanding
even its supplementary Amendments, a State may, if it pleases, deny
political rights on account of race or color, and thus establish that
vilest institution, a Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin.
This perversity, which to careless observation seems so
incomprehensible, is easily understood, when it is considered that the
present generation grew up under an interpretation of the National
Constitution supplied by the upholders of Slavery. State Rights were
exalted and the Nation was humbled, because in this way Slavery might
be protected. Anything for Slavery was constitutional. Such was the
lesson we were taught. How often I have heard it! How often it has
sounded through this Chamber, and been proclaimed in speech and law!
Under its influence the Right of Petition was denied, the atrocious
Fugitive Slave Bill was enacted, and the claim was advanced that
Slavery travelled with the flag of the Republic. Vain are all our
victories, if this terrible rule is not reversed, so that State Rights
shall yield to Human Rights, and the Nation be exalted as the bulwark
of all. This will be the crowning victory of the war. Beyond all
question, the true rule under the National Constitution, especially
since its additional Amendments, is, that _anything for Human Rights
is constitutional_. Yes, Sir; against the old rule, _Anything for
Slavery_, I put the new rule, _Anything for Human Rights_.
* * * * *
Sir, I do not declare this rule hastily, and I know the presence in
which I speak. I am surrounded by lawyers, and now I challenge any
one or all to this debate. I invoke the discussion. On an occasion
less important, Mr. Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham, after saying that
he came not “with the statute-book doubled down in dog’s-ears to
defend the cause of Liberty,” that he relied on “a general principle,
a constitutional principle,” exclaimed: “It is a ground on which I
stand firm, on which I dare meet any man.”[42] In the same spirit I
would speak now. No learning in books, no skill acquired in courts, no
sharpness of forensic dialectics, no cunning in splitting hairs can
impair the vigor of the constitutional principle which I announce.
Whatever you enact for Human Rights is constitutional. There can be no
State Rights against Human Rights; and this is the supreme law of the
land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary
notwithstanding.
A State exercises its proper function, when, within its own
jurisdiction, it administers local law, watches local interests,
promotes local charities, and by local knowledge brings the
guardianship of Government to the home of the citizen. Such is
the proper function of the State, by which we are saved from that
centralization elsewhere so absorbing. But a State transcends its
proper function, when it interferes with those Equal Rights, whether
civil or political, which by the Declaration of Independence and
repeated texts of the National Constitution are under the safeguard
of the Nation. The State is local in character, and not universal.
Whatever is justly local belongs to its cognizance; whatever is
universal belongs to the Nation. But what can be more universal than
the Rights of Man? They are for “all men,”--not for all white men, but
for all men. Such they have been declared by our fathers, and this
axiom of Liberty nobody can dispute.
* * * * *
Listening to the champions of Caste and Oligarchy under the National
Constitution, and perusing their writings, I think I understand
the position they take. With as much calmness as I can command, I
note what they have to say in speech and in print. I know it all.
I do not err, when I say that this whole terrible and ignominious
pretension is traced to direct and barefaced perversion of the National
Constitution. Search history, study constitutions, examine laws, and
you will find no perversion more thoroughly revolting. By the National
Constitution it is provided, that “the electors in each State shall
have the _qualifications_ requisite for electors of the most numerous
branch of the State Legislature,”--thus seeming to refer the primary
determination of what are called “qualifications” to the States; and
this is reinforced by the further provision, that “the times, places,
and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives
shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the
Congress may at any time by law make or alter such _regulations_.” This
is all On these simple texts, conferring plain and intelligible powers,
the champions insist that “color” may be made a “qualification,” and
that under the guise of “regulations” citizens whose only offence
is a skin not colored like our own may be shut out from political
rights,--and that in this way a monopoly of rights, being at once a
Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin, is placed under the safeguard of
the National Constitution. Such is the case of the champions; this is
their stock-in-trade. With all their learning, all their subtlety, all
their sharpness, this is what they have to say in behalf of an infamous
pretension under the National Constitution. Everything from them
begins and ends in a perversion of two words,--“qualifications” and
“regulations.”
Now to this perversion I oppose point-blank denial. These two words
are not justly susceptible of any such signification, especially in a
National Constitution, which is to be interpreted always so that Human
Rights shall not suffer. I do not stop now for dictionaries. The case
is too plain. A “qualification” is something that can be acquired. A
man is familiarly said to “qualify” for an office. Nothing can be a
“qualification” which is not in its nature attainable,--as residence,
property, education, or character, each of which is within the possible
reach of well-directed effort. Color cannot be a “qualification.” If
the prescribed “qualification” were color of the hair or color of the
eyes, all would see its absurdity; but it is none the less absurd, when
it is color of the skin. Here is an unchangeable condition, impressed
by Providence. Are we not reminded that the leopard cannot change his
spots, or the Ethiopian his skin? These are two examples of enduring
conditions. Color is a quality from Nature. But a “quality” is very
different from a “qualification.” A quality inherent in man and part of
himself can never be a “qualification” in the sense of the National
Constitution. On other occasions I have cited authorities,[43] and
shown how this attempt to foist into the National Constitution a
pernicious meaning is in defiance of all approved definition, as it is
plainly repugnant to reason, justice, and common sense.
The same judgment must be pronounced on the attempt to found this
outrage upon the power to make “regulations,”--as if this word had not
a limited signification which renders such a pretension impossible.
“Regulations” are nothing but rules applicable to a given matter; they
concern the manner in which a business shall be conducted, and, when
used with regard to elections, are applicable to what may be called
incidents, in contradistinction to the principal, which is nothing less
than the right to vote. A power to regulate is not a power to destroy
or to disfranchise. In an evil hour Human Rights may be struck down,
but it cannot be merely by “regulations.” The pretension that under
such authority this great wrong may be done is another illustration of
that extravagance which the champions do not shrink from avowing.
The whole structure of Caste and Oligarchy, as founded on two words,
may be dismissed. It is hard even to think of it without impatience,
to speak of it without denouncing it as unworthy of human head or
human heart. There are honorable Senators who shrink from any direct
argument on these two words, and, wrapping themselves in pleonastic
phrase, content themselves with the general assertion, that power
over suffrage belongs to the States. But they cannot maintain this
conclusion without founding on these two words,--insisting that color
may be a “qualification,” and that under the narrow power to make
“regulations” a race may be broadly disfranchised. To this wretched
pretension are they driven. And now, if there be any such within the
sound of my voice, I ask the question directly,--Can “color,” whether
of hair, eyes, or skin, be a “qualification” under our National
Constitution? under the pretence of making “regulations” of elections,
can a race be disfranchised? With all the power derived from both these
words, can any State undertake to establish a Caste and organize an
Oligarchy of the Skin? To put these questions is to answer them.
* * * * *
Such is the case as presented by the champions. But looking at the
National Constitution, we shall be astonished still more at this
pretension. On other occasions I have gone over the whole case of
Human Rights vs. State Rights under the National Constitution. For the
present I content myself with allusions only to the principal points.
It is under the National Constitution that the champions set up their
pretension; therefore to the National Constitution I go. And I begin
by appealing to the letter, which from beginning to end does not
contain one word recognizing “color.” Its letter is blameless; and its
spirit is not less so. Surely a power to disfranchise for color must
find some sanction in the Constitution. There must be some word of
clear intent under which this terrible prerogative can be exercised.
This conclusion of reason is reinforced by the positive text of our
Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly
announced that all men are equal in rights, and that just government
stands only on the consent of the governed. In the face of the National
Constitution, interpreted, first by itself, and then by the Declaration
of Independence, how can this pretension prevail?
But there are positive texts of the National Constitution, refulgent
as the Capitol itself, which forbid it with sovereign, irresistible
power, and invest Congress with all needful authority to maintain the
prohibition.
There is that key-stone clause, by which it is expressly declared
that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a
republican form of government”; and Congress is empowered to enforce
this guaranty. The definition of a republican government was solemnly
announced by our fathers, first, in that great battle-cry which
preceded the Revolution, “Taxation without representation is tyranny,”
and, secondly, in the great Declaration at the birth of the Republic,
that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands
only on the consent of the governed. A Republic is where taxation and
representation go hand in hand, where all are equal in rights, and
no man is excluded from participation in the government. Such is the
definition of a republican government, which it is the duty of Congress
to maintain. Here is a bountiful source of power, which cannot be
called in question. In the execution of the guaranty Congress may--nay,
must--require that there shall be no Inequality, Caste, or Oligarchy of
the Skin.
I know well the arguments of the champions. They insist that the
definition of a Republican Government is to be found in the State
Constitutions at the adoption of the National Constitution; and as
all these, except Massachusetts, recognized Slavery, they find that
the denial of Human Rights is republican. But the champions forget
that Slavery was regarded as a temporary exception,--that the slave,
who was not represented, was not taxed,--that he was not part of the
“body-politic,”--that the difference at that time was not between
white and black, but between slave and freeman, precisely as in the
days of Magna Charta,--that in most of the States all freemen, without
distinction of color, were citizens,--and that, according to the
history of the times, there was no State which ventured to announce in
its Constitution a discrimination founded on color, except Virginia,
Georgia, and South Carolina,--this last the persevering enemy of
republican government for successive generations; so that, if we look
at the State Constitutions, we find that they also testify to the true
definition.
There are words of authority which the champions forget also. They
forget Magna Charta, that great title-deed called “the most august
diploma and sacred anchor of English liberties,” where, after declaring
that “there shall be but _one measure_ throughout the realm,”[44] it is
announced in memorable words, that “_no freeman_ shall be disseized of
his freehold or liberties but by legal judgment of his peers or by the
law of the land,”[45] meaning, of course, the law of the whole land,
_in contradistinction to any local law_. The words with which this
great guaranty begin still resound: _Nullus liber homo_, “No freeman,”
shall be denied the liberties which belong to freemen.
The champions also forget that “The Federalist,” in commending the
Constitution, at the time of its adoption, insisted, that, if the
slaves became free, they would be entitled to representation. I have
quoted the potent words before,[46] and now I quote them again:--
“It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed
the negroes into subjects of property, that a place is denied
to them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted,
that, if the laws were to restore the rights which have been
taken away, the negroes could no longer be refused an equal
share of representation with the other inhabitants.”[47]
The champions also forget, that, in the debates on the ratification
of the National Constitution, it was charged by its opponents, and
admitted by its friends, that Congress was empowered to correct any
inequality of suffrage. I content myself with quoting the weighty words
of Madison in the Virginia Convention:--
“Some States might regulate the elections on the principles of
_Equality_, and others might regulate them otherwise.… Should
the people of any State by any means be deprived of the right
of suffrage, _it was judged proper that it should be remedied
by the General Government_.… If the elections be regulated
properly by the State Legislatures, the Congressional control
will very probably never be exercised. The power appears to me
satisfactory, and as unlikely to be abused as any part of the
Constitution.”[48]
The champions also forget that Chief Justice Taney, in that very Dred
Scott decision where it was ruled that a person of African descent
could not be a citizen of the United States, admitted, that, if
he were once a citizen, that is, if he were once admitted to be a
component part of the body-politic, he would be entitled to the equal
privileges of citizenship. Here are some of his emphatic words:--
“There is not, it is believed, to be found in the theories of
writers on Government, or in any actual experiment heretofore
tried, an exposition of the term _citizen_ which has not been
understood as conferring _the actual possession and enjoyment,
or the perfect right of acquisition and enjoyment, of an entire
equality of privileges, civil and political_.”[49]
Thus from every authority, early and late,--from Magna Charta,
wrung out of King John at Runnymede,--from Hamilton, writing in
“The Federalist,”--from Madison, speaking in the Convention at
Richmond,--from Taney, presiding in the Supreme Court of the United
States,--is there one harmonious testimony to the equal rights of
citizenship.
If in the original text of the Constitution there could be any doubt,
it was all relieved by the Amendment abolishing Slavery and empowering
Congress to enforce this provision. Already Congress, in the exercise
of this power, has passed a _Civil Rights Act_. It only remains that
it should now pass a _Political Rights Act_, which, like the former,
shall help consummate the abolition of Slavery. According to a familiar
rule of interpretation, expounded by Chief Justice Marshall in his
most masterly judgment, Congress, when intrusted with any power, is
at liberty to select the “means” for its execution.[50] The Civil
Rights Act came under the head of “means” selected by Congress, and a
Political Rights Act will have the same authority. You may as well deny
the constitutionality of the one as of the other.
The Amendment abolishing Slavery has been reinforced by another, known
as Article XIV., which declares peremptorily that “no State shall make
or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities
of citizens of the United States,” and again Congress is empowered
to enforce this provision. What can be broader? Colored persons
are citizens of the United States, and no State can abridge their
privileges or immunities. It is a mockery to say, that, under these
explicit words, Congress is powerless to forbid any discrimination
of color at the ballot-box. Why, then, were they inscribed in the
Constitution? To what end? There they stand, supplying additional and
supernumerary power, ample for safeguard against Caste or Oligarchy of
the Skin, no matter how strongly sanctioned by any State Government.
But the champions, anxious for State Rights against Human Rights,
strive to parry this positive text, by insisting, that, in another
provision of this same Amendment, the power over the right to vote
is conceded to the States. Mark, now, the audacity and fragility of
this pretext. It is true, that, “when the right to vote … is denied
to any of the male inhabitants of a State, … or in any way abridged,
except for participation in rebellion or other crime,” the basis of
representation is reduced in corresponding proportion. Such is the
penalty imposed by the Constitution on a State which denies the right
to vote, except in a specific case. But this penalty on the State does
not in any way, by the most distant implication, impair the plenary
powers of Congress to enforce the guaranty of a republican government,
the abolition of Slavery, and that final clause guarding the rights of
citizens,--three specific powers which are left undisturbed, unless the
old spirit of Slavery is once more revived, and Congress is compelled
again to wear those degrading chains which for so long a time rendered
it powerless for Human Rights.
The pretension, that the powers of Congress, derived from the
Constitution and its supplementary texts, were all foreclosed, and that
the definition of a republican government was dishonored, merely by the
indirect operation of the clause imposing a penalty upon a State, is
the last effort of the champions. They are driven to the assumption,
that all these beneficent powers have been taken away by indirection,
and that a provision evidently temporary and limited can have this
overwhelming consequence. They set up a technical rule of law,
“_Expressio unius est exclusio alterius_.” It is impossible to see the
application of this technicality. Because the basis of representation
is reduced in proportion to any denial of the right to vote, therefore,
it is argued, the denial of the right to vote is placed beyond the
reach of Congress, notwithstanding all its plenary powers from so many
sources. It is enough to say of this conclusion, that it is as strong
as anything founded on the “argal” of the grave-digger in “Hamlet.”
Really, Sir, it is too bad that so great a cause should be treated with
such levity.
* * * * *
Mr. President, I make haste to the conclusion. Unwilling to protract
this debate, I open the question in glimpses only. Even in this
imperfect way, it is clearly seen, first, that there is nothing,
absolutely nothing, in the National Constitution to sustain the
pretension of Caste or Oligarchy of the Skin, as set up by certain
States,--and, secondly, that there is in the National Constitution a
succession and reduplication of powers investing Congress with ample
authority to repress any such pretension. In this conclusion, I raise
no question on the power of States to regulate the suffrage; I do
not ask Congress to undertake any such regulation. I simply propose,
that, under the pretence of regulating the suffrage, States shall not
exercise a prerogative hostile to Human Rights, without any authority
under the National Constitution, and in defiance of its positive texts.
* * * * *
I am now brought directly to the proposed Amendment of the
Constitution. Of course, the question stares us in the face, Why amend
what is already sufficient? Why erect a supernumerary column?
So far as I know, two reasons are assigned. The first is, that the
power of Congress is doubtful. It is natural that those who do not
sympathize strongly with the Equal Rights of All should doubt. Men
ordinarily find in the Constitution what is in themselves; so that
the Constitution in its meaning is little more than a reflection of
their own inner nature. As I am unable to find any ground of doubt, in
substance or even in shadow, I shrink from a proposition which assumes
that there is doubt. To my mind the power is too clear for question. As
well question the obligation of Congress to guaranty a republican form
of government, or the abolition of Slavery, or the prohibition upon
States to interfere with the rights and privileges of citizenship, each
of which is beyond question.
Another reason assigned for a Constitutional Amendment is, its
permanent character in comparison with an Act of Congress, which may
be repealed. On this head I have no anxiety. Let this beneficent
prohibition once find place in our statute-book, and it will be lasting
as the National Constitution itself, to which it will be only a
legitimate corollary. In harmony with the Declaration of Independence,
and in harmony with the National Constitution, it will become of equal
significance, and no profane hand will touch its sacred text. It will
never be repealed. The elective franchise, once recognized, can never
be denied,--once conferred, can never be resumed. The rule of Equal
Rights, once applied by Congress under the National Constitution, will
be a permanent institution as long as the Republic endures; for it will
be a vital part of that Republican Government to which the nation is
pledged.
Dismissing the reasons for the Amendment, I turn to those which make us
hesitate. There are two. The Amendment admits, that, under the National
Constitution as it is, with its recent additions, a Caste and an
Oligarchy of the Skin may be set up by a State without any check from
Congress; that these ignoble forms of inequality are consistent with
republican government; and that the right to vote is not an existing
privilege and immunity of citizenship. All this is plainly admitted by
the proposed Amendment,--thus despoiling Congress of beneficent powers,
and emasculating the National Constitution itself. It is only with
infinite reluctance that I consent to any such admission, which, in the
endeavor to satisfy ungenerous scruples, weakens all those texts which
are so important for Human Rights.
The hesitation to present the Amendment is increased, when we consider
the difficulties in the way of its ratification. I am no arithmetician,
but I understand that nobody has yet been able to enumerate the States
whose votes can be counted on to assure its ratification within any
reasonable time. Meanwhile this great question, which cannot brook
delay, which for the sake of peace and to complete Reconstruction
should be settled at once, is handed over to prolonged controversy in
the States. I need not depict the evils which must ensue. A State will
become for the time a political caldron, into which will be dropped
all the poisoned ingredients of prejudice and hate, while a powerful
political party, chanting, like the Witches in “Macbeth,”
“Double, double, toil and trouble;
Fire, burn; and, caldron, bubble,”
will use this very Amendment as the pudding-stick with which to stir
the bubbling mass. Such a controversy should be avoided, if possible;
nor should an agitation so unwelcome and so sterile be needlessly
invited. “Let us have peace.”
Of course, if there were no other way of accomplishing the great
result, the Amendment should be presented, even with all its delays,
uncertainties, and provocations to local strife. But happily all
these are unnecessary. The same thing may be accomplished by Act of
Congress, without any delay, without any uncertainty, and without any
provocation to local strife. The same vote of two thirds required for
the presentation of the Amendment will pass the Act over the veto of
the President. Once adopted, it will go into instant operation, without
waiting for the uncertain concurrence of State Legislatures, and
without provoking local strife so wearisome to the country. The States
will not be turned into political caldrons, and the Democratic party
will have no pudding-stick with which to stir the bubbling mass.
I do not depart from the proprieties of this occasion, when I show how
completely the course I now propose harmonizes with the requirements of
the political party to which I belong. Believing most sincerely that
the Republican party, in its objects, is identical with country and
with mankind, so that in sustaining it I sustain these comprehensive
charities, I cannot willingly see this agency lose the opportunity of
confirming its supremacy. You need votes in Connecticut, do you not?
There are three thousand fellow-citizens in that State ready at the
call of Congress to take their place at the ballot-box. You need them
also in Pennsylvania, do you not? There are at least fifteen thousand
in that great State waiting for your summons. Wherever you most need
them, there they are; and be assured they will all vote for those who
stand by them in the assertion of Equal Rights. In standing by them you
stand by all that is most dear in the Republic.
Pardon me,--but, if you are not moved by considerations of justice
under the Constitution, then I appeal to that humbler motive which
is found in the desire for success. Do this and you will assure the
triumph of all that you can most desire. Party, country, mankind,
will be elevated, while the Equal Rights of All will be fixed on a
foundation not less enduring than the Rock of Ages.
The bill offered by Mr. Sumner as a substitute for the original
joint resolution was rejected; and the latter, embodying the
proposed Amendment to the Constitution, failed for want of the
requisite two-thirds of the votes cast,--these standing, Yeas
31, Nays 27.