“That considerations of expediency are in harmony with the
requirements of the Constitution and the dictates of justice
and reason, especially now, when colored soldiers have shown
their military value; that, as their muskets are needed for
the national defence against Rebels in the field, so are their
ballots yet more needed against the subtle enemies of the Union
at home; and that without their support at the ballot-box
the cause of Human Rights and of the Union itself will be in
constant peril.”[246]
On the resolution reported by the Senator from Illinois for the
admission of Louisiana without Equal Rights, I had the honor of moving
the very proposition now in question, under date of February 25, 1865:--
“_Provided_, That this 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 color or race, but all persons shall be equal before
the law_.”[247]
Here was the first motion in this Chamber for equality of suffrage as a
measure of Reconstruction. I entitled it at the time “the corner-stone
of Reconstruction.” But here, Sir, it was my misfortune to encounter
the strenuous opposition of the Senator from Illinois. I allude to
this with reluctance; I have not opened this debate; and I quote what
I do now simply in reply to the Senator from Nevada. Replying on that
occasion to the Senator from Illinois, I said:--
“The United States are bound by the Constitution to ‘guaranty
to every State in this Union a republican form of government.’
Now, when called to perform this guaranty, it is proposed
to recognize an oligarchy of the skin. The pretended State
government in Louisiana is utterly indefensible, whether you
look at its origin or its character. To describe it, I must use
plain language. It is a mere seven-months’ abortion, begotten
by the bayonet in criminal conjunction with the spirit of
Caste, and born before its time, rickety, unformed, unfinished,
whose continued existence will be a burden, a reproach, and
a wrong. That is the whole case; and yet the Senator from
Illinois now presses it upon the Senate at this moment, to the
exclusion of the important public business of the country.”[248]
The Louisiana Bill, though pressed by the Senator from Illinois,
was defeated; and the equal rights of the colored race were happily
vindicated. His opposition was strenuous.
But, Sir, I did not content myself with action in this Chamber. Our
good President was assassinated. The Vice-President succeeded to his
place. Being here in Washington, I entered at once into relations with
him,--hoping to bring, if possible, his great influence in favor of
this measure of Reconstruction; and here is a record, made shortly
afterward, which I will read.
“During this period I saw the President frequently,--sometimes
at the private house he then occupied, and sometimes at his
office in the Treasury. On these occasions the constant
topic was ‘Reconstruction,’ which was considered in every
variety of aspect. More than once I ventured to press upon
him the duty and the renown of carrying out the principles
of the Declaration of Independence, and of founding the new
governments in the Rebel States on the consent of the governed,
without any distinction of color. To this earnest appeal he
replied, on one occasion, as I sat with him alone, in words
which I can never forget: ‘On this question, Mr. Sumner, there
is no difference between us: you and I are alike.’ Need I say
that I was touched to the heart by this annunciation, which
seemed to promise a victory without a battle? Accustomed to
controversy, I saw clearly, that, if the President declared
himself in favor of the Equal Rights of All, the good cause
must prevail without controversy.”[249]