“A little talking sometimes does a great deal of good; and that
expended in the late canvass I heard in a voice of thunder on
the 6th of July, when the people of your noble old Commonwealth
declared themselves against vandalism, fraud, and treachery.
Virginia has freed herself from the tyranny of a horde of
greedy cormorants and unprincipled carpet-baggers, who came
to sap her very vitals. I have no other feeling but that of
pity for the opposition party, who were deceived and led by
adventurers having only their own personal aggrandizement
and aims in view, with neither interest, character, nor
self-respect at stake; for this a majority of them never had.”
Now, Sir, what are the operative words of this remarkable speech? That
this very Governor Walker, who finds a vindicator--I may say, adopting
a term of the early law, a compurgator--in the Senator from Illinois,
announces that by this recent election Virginia has “declared against
vandalism, fraud, and treachery,--has freed herself from the tyranny of
a horde of greedy cormorants and unprincipled carpet-baggers, who came
to sap her very vitals.”
Such is the language by which this Governor characterizes loyal people
from the North, from the West, from all parts of the country, who since
the overthrow of the Rebellion have gone there with their household
gods, with their energies, with their character, with their means,
to contribute to the resources of the State! Sir, what does all this
suggest? To my mind unhappy days in the future; to my mind anything but
justice for the devoted loyal people and Unionists of that State. And
now, Sir, while I make this plea for them, again let me say I present
no exclusive claim to represent them; I speak now only because others
do not speak; and as in other days when I encountered the opposition of
the Senator from Illinois I was often in a small minority, sometimes
almost alone, I may be so now; but I have a complete conviction that
the course I am now taking will be justified by the future. Sad enough,
if it be so! I hope it may be otherwise.
Mr. Drake’s amendment was rejected. Another, thereupon offered
by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, and as subsequently amended,
requiring members of the Legislature before taking or resuming
their seats, and State officers before entering upon office,
to make oath to past loyalty or removal of disabilities, was
adopted. Other provisions, against exclusion from civil rights
on account of race or color, either by future amendments of
the existing State Constitution or by rescinding the State’s
ratification of any amendment to the National Constitution,
were moved as “fundamental conditions” of admission. In an
argument, January 14th, maintaining the validity of such
conditions, the pending question being on a provision of this
character offered by Mr. Drake, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--Something has been said of the term by which this
proposition should be designated. One will not call it “compact,”
finding in this term much danger, but at the same time he refuses to
the unhappy people in Virginia now looking to us for protection such
safeguard as may be found in this proposition. For myself, Sir, I make
no question of terms. Call it one thing or another, it is the same,
for it has in it protection. Call it a compact, I accept it. Call
it a law, I accept it. Call it a condition, I accept it. It is all
three,--condition, law, compact,--and, as all three, binding. The old
law-books speak of a triple cord. Here you have it.
My friend from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER] falls into another
mistake,--he will pardon me, if I suggest it,--which I notice with
regret. He exalts the technical State above the real State. He
knows well what is the technical State, which is found in form, in
technicality, in privilege, if you please,--for he has made himself
to-night the advocate of privilege. To my mind the State is the people,
and its highest office is their just safeguard; and when it is declared
that a State hereafter shall not take away the right of any of its
people, here is no infringement of anything that belongs to a State. I
entreat my friend to bear the distinction in mind. A State can have no
right or privilege to do wrong; nor can the denial of this pretension
disparage the State, or in any way impair its complete equality with
other States. The States have no power except to do justice. Any power
beyond this is contrary to the Harmonies of the Universe.
Since the Senator spoke, I sent into the other room for the Declaration
of Independence, in order to read a sentence which is beyond question
the touchstone of our institutions, to which all the powers of a State
must be brought. Here it is:--
“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of
America in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme
Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do,
in the name and by the authority of the good people of these
Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United
Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent
States.”