THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
The Bill referred to the Judiciary Committee and reported
back -- Speech by the Chairman of the Committee -- Mr.
Rogers -- Mr. Cook -- Mr. Thayer -- Mr. Eldridge -- Mr.
Thornton -- Mr. Windom -- Mr. Shellabarger -- Mr. Broomall
-- Mr. Raymond -- Mr. Delano -- Mr. Kerr -- Amendment by Mr.
Bingham -- His Speech -- Reply by his Colleague --
Discussion closed by Mr. Wilson -- Yeas and Nays on the
Passage of the Bill -- Mr. Le Blond's proposed title --
Amendments of the House accepted by the Senate.
On the 5th of February, four days after the passage of the Civil Rights
Bill in the Senate, it came before the House of Representatives, and
having been read a first and second time, was referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary. On the 1st of March, the Chairman of the
Judiciary Committee, Mr. Wilson, brought the bill again before the
House, proposing some verbal amendments which were adopted. He then
made a motion to recommit the bill, pending which, he made a speech on
the merits of the measure. He referred to many definitions, judicial
decisions, opinions, and precedents, under which negroes were entitled
to the rights of American citizenship. In reference to the results of
his researches, he said:
"Precedents, both judicial and legislative, are found in sharp
conflict concerning them. The line which divides these precedents is
generally found to be the same which separates the early from the
later days of the republic. The further the Government drifted from
the old moorings of equality and human rights, the more numerous
became judicial and legislative utterances in conflict with some of
the leading features of this bill."
He argued that the section of the bill providing for its enforcement
by the military arm was necessary, in order "to fortify the
declaratory portions of this bill with such sanctions as will render
it effective." In conclusion he said:
"Can not protection be rendered to the citizen in the mode prescribed
by the measure we now have under consideration? If not, a perpetual
state of constructive war would be a great blessing to very many
American citizens. If a suspension of martial law and a restoration of
the ordinary forms of civil law are to result in a subjection of our
people to the outrages under the operation of State laws and municipal
ordinances which these orders now prevent, then it were better to
continue the present state of affairs forever. But such is not the
case; we may provide by law for the same ample protection through the
civil courts that now depends on the orders of our military
commanders; and I will never consent to any other construction of our
Constitution, for that would be the elevation of the military above
the civil power.
"Before our Constitution was formed, the great fundamental rights
which I have mentioned belonged to every person who became a member of
our great national family. No one surrendered a jot or tittle of these
rights by consenting to the formation of the Government. The entire
machinery of Government, as organized by the Constitution, was
designed, among other things, to secure a more perfect enjoyment of
these rights. A legislative department was created, that laws
necessary and proper to this end might be enacted; a judicial
department was erected to expound and administer the laws; an
executive department was formed for the purpose of enforcing and
seeing to the execution of these laws; and these several departments
of Government possess the power to enact, administer, and enforce the
laws 'necessary and proper' to secure those rights which existed
anterior to the ordination of the Constitution. Any other view of the
powers of this Government dwarfs it, and renders it a failure in its
most important office.
"Upon this broad principle I rest my justification of this bill. I
assert that we possess the power to do those things which governments
are organized to do; that we may protect a citizen of the United
States against a violation of his rights by the law of a single State;
that by our laws and our courts we may intervene to maintain the proud
character of American citizenship; that this power permeates our whole
system, is a part of it, without which the States can run riot over
every fundamental right belonging to citizens of the United States;
that the right to exercise this power depends upon no express
delegation, but runs with the rights it is designed to protect; that
we possess the same latitude in respect to the selection of means
through which to exercise this power that belongs to us when a power
rests upon express delegation; and that the decisions which support
the latter maintain the former. And here, sir, I leave the bill to the
consideration of the House."
Mr. Rogers, of New Jersey, followed with an argument against the bill,
because it interfered with "States' Rights." Under its provisions,
Congress would "enter the domain of a State and interfere with its
internal police, statutes, and domestic regulations." He said:
"This act of legislation would destroy the foundations of the
Government as they were laid and established by our fathers, who
reserved to the States certain privileges and immunities which ought
sacredly to be preserved to them.
"If you had attempted to do it in the days of those who were living at
the time the Constitution was made, after the birth of that noble
instrument, the spirit of the heroes of the Revolution and the ghosts
of the departed who laid down their lives in defense of the liberty of
this country and of the rights of the States, would have come forth as
witnesses against the deadly infliction, and the destruction of the
fundamental principle of the sovereignty of the States in violation of
the Constitution, and the breaking down of the ties that bind the
States, and the violation of the rights and liberties of the white men
and white women of America.
"If you pass this bill, you will allow the negroes of this country to
compete for the high office of President of the United States. Because
if they are citizens at all, they come within the meaning and letter
of the Constitution of the United States, which allows all
natural-born citizens to become candidates for the Presidency, and to
exercise the duties of that office if elected.
"I am afraid of degrading this Government; I am afraid of danger to
constitutional liberty; I am alarmed at the stupendous strides which
this Congress is trying to initiate; and I appeal in behalf of my
country, in behalf of those that are to come after us, of generations
yet unborn, as well as those now living, that conservative men on the
other side should rally to the standard of sovereign and independent
States, and blot out this idea which is inculcating itself here, that
all the powers of the States must be taken away, and the power of the
Czar of Russia or the Emperor of France must be lodged in the Federal
Government.
"I ask you to stand by the law of the country, and to regulate these
Federal and State systems upon the grand principles upon which they
were intended to be regulated, that we may hand down to those who are
to come after us this bright jewel of civil liberty unimpaired; and I
say that the Congress or the men who will strip the people of these
rights will be handed down to perdition for allowing this bright and
beautiful heritage of civil liberty embodied in the powers and
sovereign jurisdiction of the States to pass away from us.
"I am willing to trust brave men--men who have shown as much bravery
as those who were engaged on battle-fields against the armed legions
of the North; because I believe that even when they were fighting
against the flag, of their country, the great mass of those people
were moved by high and conscientious convictions of duty. And in the
spirit of Christianity, in the spirit which Jesus Christ exercised
when he gave up his own life as a propitiation for a fallen world, I
would say to those Southern men, Come here in the Halls of Congress,
and participate with us in passing laws which, if constitutionally
carried into effect, will control the interests and destinies of four
millions people, mostly living within the limits of your States."
Mr. Cook, of Illinois, replied: "Mr. Speaker, in listening to the very
eloquent remarks of the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers], I have
been astonished to find that in his apprehension this bill is designed
to deprive somebody, in some State of this Union, of some right which
he has heretofore enjoyed. I am only sorry that he was not specific
enough; that he did not inform us what rights are to be taken away. He
has denounced this bill as dangerous to liberty, as calculated in its
tendency at least to destroy the liberties of this country. I have
examined this bill with some care, and, so far as I have been able to
understand it, I have found nothing in any provision of it which tends
in any way to take from any man, white or black, a single right he
enjoys under the Constitution and laws of the United States.
"I would have been glad if he would have told us in what manner the
white men of this country would have been placed in a worse condition
than they are now, if this becomes the law. This general denunciation
and general assault of the bill, without pointing out one single thing
which is to deprive one single man of any right he enjoys under the
Government, seems to me not entitled to much weight.
"When those rights which are enumerated in this bill are denied to any
class of men, on account of race or color, when they are subject to a
system of vagrant laws which sells them into slavery or involuntary
servitude, which operates upon them as upon no other part of the
community, they are not secured in the rights of freedom. If a man can
be sold, the man is a slave. If he is nominally freed by the amendment
to the Constitution, he has nothing in the world he can call his own;
he has simply the labor of his hands on which he can depend. Any
combination of men in his neighborhood can prevent him from having any
chance to support himself by his labor. They can pass a law that a man
not supporting himself by labor shall be deemed a vagrant, and that a
vagrant shall be sold. If this is the freedom we gave the men who have
been fighting for us and in defense of the Government, if this is all
we have secured them, the President had far better never have issued
the Proclamation of Emancipation, and the country had far better never
have adopted the great ordinance of freedom.
"Does any man in this House believe that these people can be safely
left in these States without the aid of Federal legislation or
military power? Does any one believe that their freedom can be
preserved without this aid? If any man does so believe, he is
strangely blind to the history of the past year; strangely blind to
the enactments passed by Legislatures touching these freedmen. And I
shuddered as I heard the honorable gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Rogers] claiming that he was speaking and thinking in the spirit which
animated the Savior of mankind when he made atonement for our race;
that it was in that spirit he was acting when he was striving to have
these people left utterly defenseless in the hands of men who were
proving, day by day, month by month, that they desire to oppress them,
for they had been made free against their consent. Every act of
legislation, every expression of opinion on their part, proves that
these people would be again enslaved if they were not protected by the
military arm of the Federal Government; without that they would be
slaves to-day. And I submit, with all deference, that it is any thing
but the spirit which the gentleman claims to have exercised, which
prompted the argument he has made.
"For myself, I trust that this bill will be passed, because I consider
it the most appropriate means to secure the end desired, and that
these people will be protected. I trust that we will say to them,
Because upon our call you aided us to suppress this rebellion, because
the honor and faith of the nation were pledged for your protection, we
will maintain your freedom, and redeem that pledge."
On the following day, the House of Representatives resumed the
consideration of this bill. A speech was made by Mr. Thayer, of
Pennsylvania. He said:
"This bill is the just sequel to, and the proper completion of, that
great measure of national redress which opened the dungeon-doors of
four million human beings. Without this, in my judgment, that great
act of justice will be paralyzed and made useless. With this, it will
have practical effect, life, vigor, and enforcement. It has been the
fashion of gentlemen, holding a certain set of opinions, in this House
to characterize that great measure to which I have referred as a
revolutionary measure.
"Sir, it was a revolutionary measure. It was one of the greatest, one
of the most humane, one of the most beneficial revolutions which ever
characterized the history of a free State; but it was a revolution
which, though initiated by the conflict of arms and rendered necessary
as a measure of war against the public enemy, was accomplished within
and under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. It
was a revolution for the relief of human nature, a revolution which
gave life, liberty, and hope to millions whose condition, until then,
appeared to be one of hopeless despair. It was a revolution of which
no freeman need be ashamed, of which every man who assisted in it
will, I am sure, in the future be proud, and which will illumine with
a great glory the history of this country.
"There is nothing in this bill in respect to the employment of
military force that is not already in the Constitution of the United
States. The power here conferred is expressly given by that
instrument, and has been exercised upon the most stupendous scale in
the suppression of the rebellion. What is this bill? I hope gentlemen,
even on the opposite side of the House, will not suffer their minds to
be influenced by any such vague, loose, and groundless denunciations
as these which have proceeded from the gentleman from New Jersey. The
bill, after extending these fundamental immunities of citizenship to
all classes of people in the United States, simply provides means for
the enforcement of these rights and immunities. How? Not by military
force, not through the instrumentality of military commanders, not
through any military machinery whatever, but through the quiet,
dignified, firm, and constitutional forms of judicial procedure. The
bill seeks to enforce these rights in the same manner and with the
same sanctions under and by which other laws of the United States are
enforced. It imposes duties upon the judicial tribunals of the country
which require the enforcement of these rights. It provides for the
administration of laws to protect these rights. It provides for the
execution of laws to enforce them. Is there any thing appalling in
that? Is that a military despotism? Sir, it is a strange abuse of
language to say that a military despotism is established by wholesome
and equal laws. Yet the gentleman declaimed by the hour, in vague and
idle terms, against this bill, which has not a single offensive,
oppressive, unjust, unusual, or tyrannical feature in it. These civil
rights and immunities which are to be secured, and which no man can
conscientiously say ought to be denied, are to be enforced through the
ordinary instrumentalities of courts of justice.
"While engaged in this great work of restoration, it concerns our
honor that we forget not those who are unable to help themselves; who,
whatever may have been the misery and wretchedness of their former
condition, were on our side in the great struggle which has closed,
and whose rights we can not disregard or neglect without violating the
most sacred obligations of duty and of honor. To us they look for
protection against the wrongs with which they are threatened. To us
alone can they appeal in their helplessness for succor and defense. To
us they hold out to-day their supplicating hands, asking for
protection for themselves and their posterity. We can not disregard
this appeal, and stand acquitted before the country and the world of
basely abandoning to a miserable fate those who have a right to demand
the protection of your flag and the immunities guaranteed to every
freeman by your Constitution."
Mr. Eldridge, of Wisconsin, opposed the bill, in a speech of which the
following are the concluding remarks:
"I had hoped that this subject would be allowed to rest. Gentlemen
refer us to individual cases of wrong perpetrated upon the freedmen of
the South as an argument why we should extend the Federal authority
into the different States to control the action of the citizens
thereof. But, I ask, has not the South submitted to the altered state
of things there, to the late amendment of the Constitution, to the
loss of their slave property, with a cheerfulness and grace that we
did not expect? Have they not acquiesced more willingly than we dared
to hope? Then why not trust them? Why not meet them with frankness and
kindness? Why not encourage them with trust and confidence?
"I deprecate all these measures because of the implication they carry
upon their face, that the people who have heretofore owned slaves
intend to do them wrong. I do not believe it. So far as my knowledge
goes, and so far as my information extends, I believe that the people
who have held the freedmen slaves will treat them with more kindness,
with more leniency, than those of the North who make such loud
professions of love and affection for them, and are so anxious to pass
these bills. They know their nature; they know their wants; they know
their habits; they have been brought up together, and have none of the
prejudices and unkind feelings which many in the North would have,
toward them.
"I do not credit all these stories about the general feeling of
hostility in the South toward the negro. So far as I have heard
opinions expressed upon that subject, and I have conversed with many
persons from that section of the country, they do not blame the negro
for any thing that has happened. As a general thing, he was faithful
to them and their interests until the army reached the place and took
him from them. He has supported their wives and children in the
absence of the husbands and fathers in the armies of the South. He has
done for them what no one else could have done. They recognize his
general good feeling toward them, and are inclined to reciprocate that
feeling toward him.
"I believe that is the general feeling of the Southern people to-day.
The cases of ill-treatment are exceptional cases. They are like the
cases which have occurred in the Northern States where the unfortunate
have been thrown upon our charity. Take for instance the stories of
the cruel treatment of the insane in the State of Massachusetts. They
may have been barbarously confined in the loathsome dens, as stated in
particular instances, but is that any evidence of the general ill-will
of the people of the State of Massachusetts toward the insane? Is that
any reason why the Federal arm should be extended to Massachusetts to
control and protect the insane there?
"It has also been said that certain paupers in certain States have
been badly used--paupers, too, who were whites. Is that any reason why
we should extend the arm of the Federal Government to those States to
protect the poor who are thrown upon the charities of the people
there?
"Sir, we must yield to the altered state of things in this country. We
must trust the people; it is our duty to do so; we can not do
otherwise. And the sooner we place ourselves in a position where we
can win the confidence of our late enemies, where our counsels will be
heeded, where our advice may be regarded, the sooner will the people
of the whole country be fully reconciled to each other and their
changed relationship; the sooner will all the inhabitants of our
country be in the possession of all the rights and immunities
essential to their prosperity and happiness."
Mr. Thornton, of Illinois, feared there was "something hidden,
something more than appears in the language" of the bill. He feared "a
design to confer the right of suffrage upon the negro," and urged that
a proviso should be accepted "restricting the meaning of the words
'civil rights and immunities.'" He remarked further: "The most serious
objection that I have to this bill is, that it is an interference with
the rights of the South. It was remarked by my friend from Wisconsin
that it has often been intimated on this floor, and throughout the
country, that whenever a man talks about either the Constitution or
the rights of the States, he is either a traitor or a sympathizer with
treason. I do not assume that the States are sovereign. They are
subordinate to the Federal Government. Sovereignty in this country is
in the people, but the States have certain rights, and those rights
are absolutely necessary to the maintenance of our system of
government. What are those rights? The right to determine and fix the
legal _status_ of the inhabitants of the respective States; the local
powers of self-government; the power to regulate all the relations
that exist between husband and wife, parent and child, guardian and
ward; all the fireside and home rights, which are nearer and dearer to
us than all others.
"Sir, this is but a stepping-stone to a centralization of the
Government and the overthrow of the local powers of the States.
Whenever that is consummated, then farewell to the beauty, strength,
and power of this Government. There is nothing left but absolute,
despotic, central power. It lives no longer but as a naked despotism.
There is nothing left to admire and to cherish."
Mr. Windom, of Minnesota, next obtained the floor. Referring to the
speech of Mr. Rogers, he said: "I wish to make another extract from
the speech of the gentleman from New Jersey. He said, 'If you pass
this bill, you will allow negroes to compete for the high office of
the President of the United States.' You will actually allow them to
compete for the Presidency of the United States! As for this fear
which haunts the gentleman from New Jersey, if there is a negro in the
country who is so far above all the white men of the country that only
four millions of his own race can elect him President of the United
States over twenty-six millions of white people, I think we ought to
encourage such talent in the country.
"Sir, the gentleman has far less confidence in the white race than I
have, if he is so timid in regard to negro competition. Does he really
suppose that black men are so far superior to white men that four
millions of them can elect a President of their own race against the
wishes of thirty millions of ours? Ever since I knew any thing of the
party to which the gentleman belongs, it has entertained this same
morbid fear of negro competition; and sometimes I have thought that if
we were to contemplate the subject from their stand-point we would
have more charity than we do for this timidity and nervous dread which
haunts them. I beg leave, however, to assure the gentleman that there
is not the slightest danger of electing a black President, and that he
need never vote for one, unless he thinks him better fitted for the
office than a white man."
With more direct reference to the merits of the question, Mr. Windom
said: "Our warrant for the passage of this bill is found in the genius
and spirit of our institutions; but not in these alone. Fortunately,
the great amendment which broke the shackles from every slave in the
land contains an express provision that 'Congress shall have power to
enforce this article by appropriate legislation.'
"When this amendment was acted upon, it was well understood, as it is
now, that although the body of slavery might be destroyed, its spirit
would still live in the hearts of those who have sacrificed so much
for its preservation, and that if the freedmen were left to the tender
mercy of their former masters, to whose heartless selfishness has been
superadded a malignant desire for vengeance upon the negro for having
aided us in crushing the rebellion, his condition would be more
intolerable than it was before the war. And hence the broad grant of
power was made to enable Congress to enforce the spirit as well as the
letter of the amendment. Now, sir, in what way is it proposed to
enforce it? By denying to any one man a single right or privilege
which he could otherwise constitutionally or properly enjoy? No. By
conferring on any one person or class of persons a single right or
immunity which every other person may not possess? By no means. Does
it give to the loyal negro any preference over the recent would-be
assassins of the nation? Not at all. It merely declares that hereafter
there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among
the citizens of any State or territory of the United States on account
of race, color, or previous condition of slavery, and that every
person, except such as are excluded by reason of crime, shall have the
same right to enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give
evidence, to inherit, purchase, sell, hold, and convey real and
personal property, and to full and equal benefit of all laws and
proceedings for the security of person and property, and shall be
subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other.
"We know, and the whole world knows, that when in the hour of our
extremity we called upon the black race to did us, we promised them
not liberty only, but all that that word liberty implies. All remember
how unwilling we were to do any thing which would inure to the benefit
of the negro. I recall with shame the fact that when, five years ago,
the so-called Democracy--now Egyptians--were here in this capital, in
the White House, in the Senate, and on this floor, plotting the
destruction of the Government, and we were asked to appease them by
sacrificing the negro, two-thirds of both houses voted to rivet his
chains upon him so long as the republic should endure. A widening
chasm yawned between the free and slave States, and we looked wildly
around for that wherewith it might be closed. In our extremity we
seized upon the negro, bound and helpless, and tried to cast him in.
But an overruling Providence heard the cries of the oppressed, and
hurled his oppressors into that chasm by hundreds of thousands, until
the whole land was filled with mourning, yet still the chasm yawned.
In our anguish and terror, we felt that the whole nation would be
speedily ingulfed in one common ruin. It was then that the great
emancipator and savior of his country, Abraham Lincoln, saw the danger
and the remedy, and seizing four million bloody shackles, he wrenched
them from their victims, and standing with these broken manacles in
his hands upraised toward heaven, he invoked the blessing of the God
of the oppressed, and cast them into the fiery chasm. That offering
was accepted, and the chasm closed.
"When the reports from Port Hudson and Fort Wagner thrilled all loyal
hearts by the recital of the heroic deeds of the black soldier, we
were not reminded that if the negro were permitted to enjoy the same
rights under the Government his valor helped to save that are
possessed by the perjured traitors who sought its destruction, it
would 'lead to a war of races.' O no! Then we were in peril, and felt
grateful even to the negro, who stood between us and our enemies. Then
our only hope of safety was in the brave hearts and strong arms of the
soldier at the front. Now, since by the combined efforts of our brave
soldiers, white and black, the military power of the South has been
overthrown, and her Representatives are as eager to resume their
places on this floor as five years ago they were to quit them for a
place in the rebel army, we are told that, having been victorious, it
becomes a great nation like ours to be magnanimous. I answer, it is
far more becoming to be just. I am willing to carry my magnanimity to
the verge of justice, but not one step beyond. I will go with him who
goes furthest in acts of generosity toward our former enemies, unless
those acts will be prejudicial to our friends. But when you advise me
to sacrifice those who have stood by us during the war, in order to
conciliate unrepentant rebels, whose hearts still burn with
ill-suppressed hatred to the Government, I scorn your counsel."
Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, said: "I agree with the gentleman on the
other side of the House, that this bill can not be passed under that
clause of the Constitution which provides that Congress may pass
uniform rules of naturalization. Under that clause it is my opinion
that the act of naturalization must not only be the act of the
Government, but also the act of the individual alien, by which he
renounces his former allegiance and accepts the new one. And that
proposition and distinction will be found, I think, in all judicious
arguments upon the subject.
"There is another class of persons well recognized, not only in our
constitutional history, but also by the laws of nations, who are not
foreigners, who occupy an intermediate position, and that intermediate
position is defined by the laws of nations by the word 'subjects.'
Subjects are all persons who, being born in a given country, and under
a given government, do not owe an allegiance to any other government.
"To that class in this country, according to the decisions of our
courts hitherto, belong American Indians and slaves, and, according to
the Dred Scott decision, persons of African descent whose ancestors
were slaves. All these were subjects by every principle of
international as well as of settled constitutional law in this
country.
"Now, then, to that class belong the persons who are naturalized by
this bill. If they were not, indeed, citizens hitherto, they were at
least subjects of this Government, by reason of their birth, and by
reason of the fact that they owed no foreign allegiance.
"That brings me to the next remark, and it is this: that these
subjects, not owing any foreign allegiance, no individual act of
theirs is required in order to their naturalization, because they owe
no foreign allegiance to be renounced by their individual acts, and
because, moreover, being domiciled in our own country, and continuing
here to reside, it is the individual election of each member of the
tribe, or race, or class, to accept our nationality; therefore, no
additional individual act is required in order to his citizenship.
"That being proved, it is competent for the nationality, or for the
government, wherever that subject may reside, to naturalize that class
of persons by treaty or by general law, as is proposed by the
amendment of the gentleman from New York [Mr. Raymond]. It is the act
of the sovereign alone that is requisite to the naturalization of that
class of persons, and it may be done either by a single act
naturalizing entire races of men, or by adopting the heads of families
out of those races, or it may be done to any extent, greater or less,
that may please the sovereign. For this proposition, I refer gentlemen
who desire to examine this subject to the authorities that may be
found collected in any judicious work on public law, and they will
find them very fully collected, certainly, in the notes to Wheaton.
"Now, then, what power may do that act of naturalization, and how may
it be exercised? That is also answered by these same authorities. It
may be done in this country either by an act of Congress, or it may be
done by treaty. It has been done again and again and again in both
ways in this country. It was done once in the case of the Choctaw
Indians, as you will find in the Statutes-at-Large, where, in case the
heads of families desired to remain and not to remove to the West, it
was provided by the treaty of September 27, 1830, that those families
should be naturalized as a class.
"Then, again, it was done in the other way, by an act of Congress, in
the case cited by my learned friend from Iowa [Mr. Wilson], in the
case of the Stockbridge Indians.
"It was done again, as you may remember, in the case of the Cherokees,
in December, 1835. There again a class was naturalized by treaty."
Some amendments having been proposed, the bill was recommitted to the
Committee on the Judiciary, with the understanding that it should be
returned for consideration on Thursday of the following week.
Accordingly, on that day, March 8, the consideration of the bill being
resumed, Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, addressed the House, He viewed
the bill as beneficent in its provisions, since it made no
discriminations against the Southern rebels, but granted them, as well
as the negro, the rights of citizenship.
"A question might naturally arise whether we ought again to trust
those who have once betrayed us; whether we ought to give them the
benefits of a compact they have once repudiated. Yet the spirit of
forgiveness is so inherent in the American bosom, that no party in the
country proposes to withhold from these people the advantages of
citizenship; and this is saying much. With a debt that may require
centuries to pay; with so many living and mutilated witnesses of the
horrors of war; with so many saddened homes, so many of the widowed
and fatherless pleading for justice, for retribution, if not revenge,
it speaks well for the cause of Christian civilization in America that
no party in the country proposes to deprive the authors of such
immeasurable calamity of the advantages of citizenship.
"But the election must be made. Some public legislative act is
necessary to show the world that those who have forfeited all claims
upon the Government are not to be held to the strict rigor of the law
of their own invoking, the decision of the tribunal of their own
choosing; that they are to be welcomed back as the prodigal son,
whenever they are ready to return as the prodigal son.
"The act under consideration makes that election. Its terms embrace
the late rebels, and it gives them the rights, privileges, and
immunities of citizens of the United States, though it does not
propose to exempt them from punishment for their past crimes.
"I might consent that the glorious deeds of the last five years should
be blotted from the country's history; that the trophies won on a
hundred battle-fields, the sublime visible evidences of the heroic
devotion of America's citizen soldiery, should be burned on the altar
of reconstruction. I might consent that the cemetery at Gettysburg
should be razed to the ground; that its soil should be submitted to
the plow, and that the lamentation of the bereaved should give place
to the lowing of cattle. But there is a point beyond which I will
neither be forced nor persuaded. I will never consent that the
Government shall desert its allies in the South, and surrender their
rights and interests to the enemy, and in this I will make no
distinction of caste or color, either among friends or foes."
Mr. Raymond, of New York, was impressed with the importance of the
measure. "Whether we consider it by itself, simply as a proposed
statute, or in its bearings upon the general question of the
restoration of peace and harmony to the Union, I regard it as one of
the most important bills ever presented to this House for its action,
worthy, in every respect, to enlist the coolest and the calmest
judgment of every member whose vote must be recorded upon it."
He was in favor of the first part of the bill, which declares "who
shall be citizens of the United States, and declares that all shall be
citizens without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, who are, have been, or shall be born within the limits and
jurisdiction of the United States.
"Now, sir, assuming, as I do, without any further argument, that
Congress has the power of admitting to citizenship this great class of
persons just set free by the amendment to the Constitution of the
United States abolishing slavery, I suppose I need not dwell here on
the great importance to that class of persons of having this boon
conferred upon them.
"We have already conferred upon them the great, inestimable, priceless
boon of personal liberty. I can not for one moment yield to what seems
to be a general disposition to disparage the freedom we have given
them. I think the fact that we have conferred upon four million people
that personal liberty and freedom from servitude from this time
forward for evermore, is one of the highest and most beneficent acts
ever performed by any Government toward so large a class of its
people.
"Having gone thus far, I desire to go on by successive steps still
further, and to elevate them in all respects, so far as their
faculties will allow and our power will permit us to do, to an
equality with the other persons and races in this country. I desire,
as the next step in the process of elevating that race, to give them
the rights of citizenship, or to declare by solemn statute that they
are citizens of the United States, and thus secure to them whatever
rights, immunities, privileges, and powers belong as of right to all
citizens of the United States. I hope no one will be prepared or
inclined to say this is a trifling boon. If we do so estimate this
great privilege, I fear we are scarcely in the frame of mind to act
upon the great questions coming before us from day to day here. I, for
one, am not prepared or inclined to disparage American citizenship as
a personal qualification belonging to myself, or as conferred upon any
of our fellow-citizens."
Mr. Raymond expressed doubts as to the constitutionality of that part
of the bill "that provides for that class of persons thus made
citizens protection against anticipated inequality of legislation in
the several States."
In this direction he was desirous of avoiding a veto. He said:
"Moreover, on grounds of expediency, upon which I will not dwell, I
desire myself, and I should feel much relieved if I thought the House
fully and heartily shared my anxiety, not to pass here any bill which
shall be intercepted on its way to the statute-book by well-grounded
complaints of unconstitutionality on the part of any other department
of the Government."
Mr. Delano, of Ohio, followed, expressing doubts as to the
constitutionality of the measure. He considered it a serious
infringement of the rights of the States. He said: "Now, sir, should
this bill be passed, that law of the State might be overthrown by the
power of Congress. In my opinion, if we adopt the principle of this
bill, we declare, in effect, that Congress has authority to go into
the States and manage and legislate with regard to all the personal
rights of the citizen--rights of life, liberty, and property. You
render this Government no longer a Government of limited powers; you
concentrate and consolidate here an extent of authority which will
swallow up all or nearly all of the rights of the States with respect
to the property, the liberties, and the lives of its citizens."
He added, near the close of his address: "I am not to be understood as
denying the power of this Government, especially that great war power
which, when evoked, has no limit except as it is limited by necessity
and the laws of civilized warfare. But, sir, in time of peace I would
not and I can not stand here and attempt the exercise of powers by
this General Government, which, if carried out with all the logical
consequences that follow their assumption, will, in my opinion,
endanger the liberties of the country."
Mr. Kerr, of Indiana, maintained the theory that the States should
settle questions of citizenship as relating to those within their
borders; that "the privileges and immunities of citizenship in the
States are required to be attained, if at all, _according to the laws
or Constitutions of the States_, and never in _defiance_ of them." To
sustain this theory, he read from a number of authorities, and finally
remarked:
"This bill rests upon a theory utterly inconsistent with, and in
direct hostility to, every one of these authorities. It asserts the
right of Congress to regulate the laws which shall govern in the
acquisition and ownership of property in the States, and to determine
who may go there and purchase and hold property, and to protect such
persons in the enjoyment of it. The right of the State to regulate its
own internal and domestic affairs, to select its own local policy, and
make and administer its own laws, for the protection and welfare of
its own citizens, is denied. If Congress can declare what rights and
privileges shall be enjoyed in the States by the people of one class,
it can, by the same kind of reasoning, determine what shall be enjoyed
by every class. If it can say who may go into and settle in and
acquire property in a State, it can also say who shall not. If it can
determine who may testify and sue in the courts of a State, it may
equally determine who shall not. If it can order the transfer of suits
from the State to the Federal courts, where citizens of the same State
alone are parties, in such cases as may arise under this bill, it can,
by parity of logic, dispense with State courts entirely. Congress, in
short, may erect a great centralized, consolidated despotism in this
capital. And such is the rapid tendency of such legislation as this
bill proposes."
On the succeeding day, March 9th, Mr. Wilson having demanded the
previous question, on the motion to recommit, was entitled to the
floor, but yielded portions of his time to Mr. Bingham and Mr.
Shellabarger.
The former had moved to amend the motion to recommit, by adding
instructions "to strike out of the first section the words, 'and there
shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among
citizens of the United States, in any State or Territory of the United
States, on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery,'
and insert in the thirteenth line of the first section, after the word
'right,' the words, 'in every State and Territory of the United
States.' Also, to strike out all parts of said bill which are penal,
and which authorize criminal proceedings, and in lieu thereof to give
to all citizens injured by denial or violation of any of the other
rights secured or protected by said act, an action in the United
States courts with double costs in all cases of recovery, without
regard to the amount of damages; and also to secure to such persons
the privilege of the writ of _habeas corpus_."
Mr. Bingham said: "And, first, I beg gentlemen to consider that I do
not oppose any legislation which is authorized by the Constitution of
my country to enforce in its letter and its spirit the bill of rights
as embodied in that Constitution. I know that the enforcement of the
bill of rights is the want of the republic. I know if it had been
enforced in good faith in every State of the Union, the calamities,
and conflicts, and crimes, and sacrifices of the past five years would
have been impossible.
"But I feel that I am justified in saying, in view of the text of the
Constitution of my country, in view of all its past interpretations,
in view of the manifest and declared intent of the men who framed it,
the enforcement of the Bill of Rights, touching the life, liberty, and
property of every citizen of the republic, within every organized
State of the Union, is of the reserved powers of the States, to be
enforced by State tribunals and by State officials, acting under the
solemn obligations of an oath imposed upon them by the Constitution of
the United States. Who can doubt this conclusion who considers the
words of the Constitution, 'the powers not delegated to the United
States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?' The
Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to
punish offenses against the life, liberty, or property of the citizen
in the States, nor does it prohibit that power to the States, but
leaves it as the reserved power of the States, to be by them
exercised. The prohibitions of power by the Constitution to the States
are express prohibitions, as that no State shall enter into any
treaty, etc., or emit bills of credit, or pass any bill of attainder,
etc. The Constitution does not prohibit States from the enactment of
laws for the general government of the people within their respective
limits.
"The law in every State should be just; it should be no respecter of
persons. It is otherwise now, and it has been otherwise for many years
in many of the States of the Union. I should remedy that, not by
arbitrary assumption of power, but by amending the Constitution of the
United States, expressly prohibiting the States from any such abuse of
power in the future. You propose to make it a penal offense for the
judges of the States to obey the Constitution and laws of their
States, and for their obedience thereto to punish them by fine and
imprisonment as felons. I deny your power to do this. You can not make
an official act, done under color of law, and without criminal intent,
and from a sense of public duty, a crime."
[Illustration: James F. Wilson.]
Mr. Shellabarger of Ohio said: "I do not understand that there is now
any serious doubt anywhere as to our power to admit by law to the
rights of American citizenship entire classes or races who were born
and continue to reside in our territory or in territory we acquire. I
stated, the other day, some of the cases in which we naturalized
races, tribes, and communities in mass, and by single exercises of
national sovereignty. This we did by the treaty of April 30, 1800, by
which we acquired Louisiana; also in the treaty of 1819, by which we
acquired Florida; also in the treaty of 1848, by which we acquired
part of Mexico; also by the resolution of March 1, 1845, annexing
Texas, and the act of December 29, same year, admitting Texas into the
Union, we made all the people not slaves citizens; also by the treaty
of September 27, 1830, we admitted to citizens certain heads of
families of Choctaws; also by the treaty of December 29, 1855, we did
the same as to the Cherokees; also by the act of March 3, 1843, we
admitted to full citizenship the Stockbridge tribe of Indians."
Referring to the first section which his colleague had proposed to
amend, he said: "Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first
section. It secures, not to all citizens, but to all races as races
who are citizens, equality of protection in those enumerated civil
rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any races. Now,
sir, can this Government do this? Can it prevent one race of free
citizens from being by State laws deprived as a race of all the civil
rights for the securement of which his Government was created, and
which are the only considerations the Government renders to him for
the Federal allegiance which he renders? It does seem to me that that
Government which has the exclusive right to confer citizenship, and
which is entitled to demand service and allegiance, which is supreme
over that due to any State, may--nay, must--protect those citizens in
those rights which are fairly conducive and appropriate and necessary
to the attainment of his 'protection' as a citizen. And I think those
rights to contract, sue, testify, inherit, etc., which this bill says
the races shall hold as races in equality, are of that class which are
fairly conducive and necessary as means to the constitutional end;
to-wit, the protection of the rights of person and property of a
citizen. It has been found impossible to settle or define what are all
the indispensable rights of American citizenship. But it is perfectly
well settled what are some of these, and without which there is no
citizenship, either in this or any other Government. Two of these are
the right of petition and the right of protection in such property as
it is lawful for that particular citizen to own."
The debate was closed by Mr. Wilson, Chairman of the Judiciary
Committee. He said: "This bill, sir, has met with opposition in both
houses on the same ground that, in times gone by, before this land was
drenched in blood by the slaveholders' rebellion, was urged by those
who controlled the destinies of the southern portion of the country,
and those who adhered to their fortunes in the North, for the purpose
of riveting the chains of slavery and converting this republic into a
great slave nation. The arguments which have been urged against this
bill in both houses are but counterparts of the arguments used in
opposition to the authority the Government sought to exercise in
controlling and preventing the spread of slavery.
"Citizens of the United States, as such, are entitled to certain
rights, and, being entitled to those rights, it is the duty of the
Government to protect citizens in the perfect enjoyment of them. The
citizen is entitled to life, liberty, and the right to property. The
gentleman from Ohio tells us, in the protection of these rights, the
citizen must depend upon the 'honest purpose of the several States,'
and that the General Government can not interpose its strong right arm
to defend the citizen in the enjoyment of life, liberty, and in
possession of property. In other words, if the States of this Union,
in their 'honest purpose,' like the honesty of purpose manifested by
the Southern States in times past, should deprive the citizen, without
due process of law, of life, liberty, and property, the General
Government, which can draw the citizen by the strong bond of
allegiance to the battle-field, has no power to intervene and set
aside a State law, and give the citizen protection under the laws of
Congress in the courts of the United States; that at the mercy of the
States lie all the rights of the citizens of the United States; that
while it was deemed necessary to constitute a great Government to
render secure the rights of the people, the framers of the Government
turned over to the States the power to deprive the citizen of those
things for the security of which the Government was framed. In other
words, the little State of Delaware has a hand stronger than the
United States; that revolted South Carolina may put under lock and key
the great fundamental rights belonging to the citizen, and we must be
dumb; that our legislative power can not be exercised; that our courts
must be closed to the appeal of our citizens. That is the doctrine
this House of Representatives, representing a great free people, just
emerged from a terrible war for the maintenance of American liberty,
is asked to adopt.
"The gentleman from Ohio tells the House that civil rights involve all
the rights that citizens have under the Government; that in the term
are embraced those rights which belong to the citizen of the United
States as such, and those which belong to a citizen of a State as
such; and that this bill is not intended merely to enforce equality of
rights, so far as they relate to citizens of the United States, but
invades the States to enforce equality of rights in respect to those
things which properly and rightfully depend on State regulations and
laws. My friend is too sound a lawyer, is too well versed in the
Constitution of his country, to indorse that proposition on calm and
deliberate consideration. He knows, as every man knows, that this bill
refers to those rights which belong to men as citizens of the United
States and none other; and when he talks of setting aside the school
laws, and jury laws, and franchise laws of the States, by the bill now
under consideration, he steps beyond what he must know to be the rule
of construction which must apply here, and, as the result of which
this bill can only relate to matters within the control of Congress."
Comparing Mr. Bingham's proposed amendment with the original bill, Mr.
Wilson said: "What difference in principle is there between saying
that the citizen shall be protected by the legislative power of the
United States in his rights by civil remedy and declaring that he
shall be protected by penal enactments against those who interfere
with his rights? There is no difference in the principle involved. If
we may adopt the gentleman's mode, we may also select the mode
provided in this bill. There is a difference in regard to the expense
of protection; there is also a difference as to the effectiveness of
the two modes. Beyond this, nothing. This bill proposes that the
humblest citizen shall have full and ample protection at the cost of
the Government, whose duty it is to protect him. The amendment of the
gentleman recognizes the principle involved, but it says that the
citizen despoiled of his rights, instead of being properly protected
by the Government, must press his own way through the courts and pay
the bills attendant thereon. This may do for the rich, but to the
poor, who need protection, it is mockery. The highest obligation which
the Government owes to the citizen, in return for the allegiance
exacted of him, is to secure him in the protection of his rights.
Under the amendment of the gentleman, the citizen can only receive
that protection in the form of a few dollars in the way of damages, if
he shall be so fortunate as to recover a verdict against a solvent
wrong-doer. This is called protection. This is what we are asked to do
in the way of enforcing the bill of rights. Dollars are weighed
against the right of life, liberty, and property. The verdict of a
jury is to cover all wrongs and discharge the obligations of the
Government to its citizens.
"Sir, I can not see the justice of that doctrine. I assert that it is
the duty of the Government of the United States to provide proper
protection and to pay the costs attendant on it. We have gone out with
the strong arm of the Government and drawn from their homes, all over
this land, in obedience to the bond of allegiance which the Government
holds on the citizen, hundreds of thousands of men to the
battle-field; and yet, while we may exercise this extraordinary power,
the gentleman claims that we can not extend the protecting hand of the
Government to these men who have been battling for the life of the
nation, but can only send them, at their own cost, to juries for
verdicts of a few dollars in compensation for the most flagrant wrong
to their most sacred rights. Let those support that doctrine who will,
I can not."
At the conclusion of Mr. Wilson's speech, Mr. Eldridge, of Wisconsin,
moved to lay the whole subject on the table. This motion was
rejected--yeas, 32; nays, 118.
The House then rejected Mr. Bingham's proposed amendment, and
recommitted the bill to the Committee on the Judiciary.
On the 13th of March the bill was reported back from the committee
with some amendments, one of which was to strike out in section one
the following words:
"Without distinction of color, and there shall be no
discrimination in civil rights, or immunities among citizens
of the United States in any State or Territory of the United
States on account of race, color, or previous condition of
slavery."
The words were omitted to satisfy some who feared that it might be
held by the courts that the right of suffrage was conferred thereby.
Another amendment proposed was the addition of a section to the bill,
to-wit:
"_And be it further enacted_, That upon all questions of law
arising in any case under the provisions of this act, a
final appeal may be taken to the Supreme Court of the United
States."
Other amendments proposed and adopted were chiefly of a verbal
character.
The main question was finally taken, and the bill passed by the
following vote:
YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, James M.
Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Baxter, Beaman, Bidwell,
Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy,
Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis,
Dawes, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont,
Eliot, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell,
Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Higby, Hill, Holmes, Hooper,
Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas Hubbard, John
H. Hubbard, Hulburd, James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Jenckes,
Julian, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George
V. Lawrence, William Lawrence, Loan, Longyear, Lynch,
Marston, Marvin, McClurg, McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead,
Morrill, Morris, Moulton, Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth,
Paine, Perham, Pike, Plants, Price, Alexander H. Rice,
Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger, Sloan, Spalding,
Starr, Stevens, Thayer, Francis Thomas, John L. Thomas,
Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn, Ward, Warner,
Elihu B. Washburne, William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth,
Whaley, Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson,
Windom, and Woodbridge--111.
NAYS--Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Bingham, Boyer, Brooks,
Coffroth, Dawson, Denison, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider,
Aaron Harding, Harris, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, Jones, Kerr,
Latham, Le Blond, Marshall, McCullough, Nicholson, Phelps,
Radford, Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Ritter,
Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Taber,
Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, and Winfield--38.
NOT VOTING--Messrs. Delos R. Ashley, Barker, Benjamin,
Brandegee, Chanler, Reader W. Clarke, Culver, Defrees,
Eckley, Eggleston, Eldridge, Finck, Griswold, Hale,
Henderson, Hotchkiss, James R. Hubbell, James M. Humphrey,
Johnson, Kasson, McIndoe, McKee, Niblack, Noell, Patterson,
Pomeroy, Raymond, John H. Rice, Rollins, Stilwell, Strouse,
Robert T. Van Horn, Henry D. Washburn, and Wright--34.
It is an illustration of the opinion which the minority entertained of
the bill to the last, that after it had finally passed, and the
previous question had been moved on the adoption of the title, Mr. Le
Blond moved to amend the title of the bill by making it read, "A bill
to abrogate the rights and break down the judicial system of the
States."
On the 15th of March the amendments made by the House came before the
Senate for adoption in that body. While these were under consideration
by the Senate, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, made two motions to amend,
which were rejected. He then moved to lay the bill on the table, and
was proceeding to make a speech, when he was informed that his motion
was not debatable. He then withdrew his motion to lay on the table,
and moved to postpone the bill until the first Monday of December
following. Finding that the last amendment proposed by the House of
Representatives was before the Senate, and that his motion could not
be entertained, he proceeded to make a speech on the question before
the Senate. He asserted that "Congress has no authority or
jurisdiction whatever" over the subject of legislation which the bill
contains. He closed his remarks with the following words: "I
therefore, on the grounds that I have stated, oppose this bill. I know
that they weigh nothing with the dominant power here. What care I for
that? What care I for the manner in which my suggestions may be
received by the majority? Nothing--less than nothing, if possible. I
am performing my duty according to my sense of that duty; and in
despite of all opposition, of frowns or scoffs, or of any other
opposition, come in what form it may, I will stand up to the last hour
of my service in this chamber, and will, endeavor, as best I can, to
perform my duty whatever may betide me."
The amendments of the House were agreed to, and the CIVIL RIGHTS BILL
wanted only Executive approval to become a law of the land.