“That, in determining what is a republican form of
government, Congress must follow implicitly the definition
supplied by the Declaration of Independence, and, in the
practical application of this definition, it must, after
excluding all disloyal persons, take care _that new governments
are founded on the two fundamental truths therein contained:
first, that all men are equal in rights; and, secondly,
that all just government stands only on the consent of the
governed_.”[270]
Meanwhile the subject of Reconstruction was practically discussed
in both Houses of Congress. In this Chamber a bill was introduced
by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. WILLIAMS], providing a military
government. In the House there was another bill, and on that bill
good Representatives--to whom be all honor!--sought to ingraft the
requirement of colored suffrage. This effort, unhappily, did not
prevail. The bill came to this Chamber without it. In this Chamber
the same effort was made; but the bill, while it was still immatured,
passed into our caucus. The effort which had thus far failed was then
renewed by me in the committee, where it again failed. It was then
renewed by me in the caucus, where it triumphed. This is the history
of that proposition. I claim nothing for myself. I alluded to it the
other day only in direct reply to the arraignment of the Senator from
Illinois. I allude to it now reluctantly, and only in direct reply to
the arraignment of the Senator from Nevada. I regret to be obliged
to make any allusion to it. I think there is no occasion for any. I
have erred, perhaps, in taking so much time in this explanation; but
when the Senator, after days and weeks of interval, came here with his
second indictment, I felt that I might without impropriety throw myself
upon the indulgence of this Chamber to make the simple explanation that
I have made.
I have shown that as early as February 25, 1865, I proposed in this
Chamber to require the colored suffrage as the corner-stone of
Reconstruction. I have shown that in an elaborate bill introduced
December 4, 1865, being a bill of Reconstruction, I required the very
things which were afterward introduced in the Reconstruction Act
of 1867; and I have shown also that here in this Chamber, at home
among my constituents, in direct intercourse with the President, and
also in communication with colored persons at the South, from the
beginning, I insisted upon the colored suffrage as the essential
condition of Reconstruction. It so happened that I was a member of the
committee appointed by the caucus to consider this question, giving
me the opportunity there of moving it again; and then I had another
opportunity in the caucus of renewing the effort. I did renew it, and,
thank God, it was successful.
Had Mr. Bingham or Mr. Blaine, who made a kindred effort in the House,
been of our committee, and then of our caucus, I do not doubt they
would have done the same thing. My colleague did not use too strong
language, when he said that then and there, in that small room, in
that caucus, was decided the greatest pending question on the North
American Continent. I remember his delight, his ecstasy, at the result.
I remember other language that he employed on that occasion, which I
do not quote. I know he was elevated by the triumph; and yet it was
carried only by two votes. There are Senators who were present at that
caucus according to whose recollection it was carried only by one vote.
The Postmaster-General, in conversing with me on this subject lately,
told me that he had often, in addressing his constituents, alluded to
this result as illustrating the importance of one vote in deciding a
great question. The Postmaster-General was in error. It was not by one
vote, but by two votes, that it was carried.
Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, following with personal recollections
concerning the provision for colored suffrage in the
Reconstruction Act of 1867, said it was his “impression” that
the motion for its adoption “in caucus” was made by “the
Senator’s colleague [Mr. WILSON],” “but undoubtedly the other
Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] made it in committee,
and advocated it,”--adding, however, “Neither the Senator from
Massachusetts nor any other Senator can claim any great merit
in voting for universal suffrage in February or March, 1867.
His record was made long before that.” In reference to the
latter Mr. Sherman remarked:--
“The Senator from Massachusetts needs no defender of his
course on the question of universal suffrage. No man can
deny that from the first, and I think the very first, he
has advocated and maintained the necessity of giving to
the colored people of the Southern States the right to
vote.… Early and late he has repeated to us the necessity
of conferring suffrage upon the colored people of the
South as the basis of Reconstruction. I think, therefore,
that he is justified in stating that he was the first to
propose it in this body; and why should the Senator deem
it necessary to spend one hour of our valuable time now to
prove this fact? In my judgment it would be just as well
for George Washington to defend himself against the charge
of disloyalty to the American Colonies, for whom he was
fighting, as for the honorable Senator to defend his record
on this question.”
After further remarks by Mr. Stewart and Mr. Trumbull, of the
same character as the first, Mr. Wilson rose and addressed the
Chair; but a previous motion for adjournment being insisted
upon and prevailing, he was cut off, and the matter subsided.