THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION--IN THE HOUSE.
First work of the Joint Committee -- The joint resolution
proposing a constitutional amendment -- Mr. Stevens' reasons
for speedy action -- Protracted discussion commenced --
Objections to the bill by Mr. Rogers -- Defense by Mr.
Conkling -- Two other modes -- How States might evade the
Law -- Not a finality -- Wisconsin and South Carolina --
Amendment for Female Suffrage proposed -- Orth on Indiana
and Massachusetts -- Obscuration of the sun -- More Radical
remedy desired -- A Kentuckian gratified -- Citations from
the Census -- Premium for Treason -- White Slaves -- Power
to amend well-nigh exhausted -- Objections to the Suffrage
Basis -- "Race" and "Color" ambiguous -- Condition of the
Question -- Recommitted -- Final passage.
Although the Joint Committee of Fifteen were assiduous in their
attention to the work assigned them, it was not until the 22d of
January, 1866, that they were ready to make a partial report and
recommend a practical measure for the consideration of Congress.
On that day Mr. Fessenden, of the Senate, and Mr. Stevens, of the
House of Representatives, brought before those bodies respectively a
partial report from the committee, recommending the passage of the
following joint resolution:
_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the
United States of America in Congress assembled_, (two-thirds
of both houses concurring,) That the following article be
proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an
amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which,
when ratified by three-fourths of the said Legislatures,
shall be valid as part of said Constitution, namely:
ARTICLE--. Representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the several States which may be included
within this Union according to their respective numbers,
counting the whole number of persons in each State,
excluding Indians not taxed: _Provided_, That whenever the
elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State
on account of race or color, all persons of such race or
color shall be excluded from the basis of representation.
In the Senate this subject was laid over, and was not reached for
several days, as the Freedmen's Bureau Bill was then under discussion.
The subject was pressed upon the attention of the House for immediate
action. Mr. Stevens had no intention to make a speech, since the
question had been under consideration by every member for the last six
weeks. He remarked, however: "There are twenty-two States whose
Legislatures are now in session, some of which will adjourn within two
or three weeks. It is very desirable, if this amendment is to be
adopted, that it should go forth to be acted upon by the Legislatures
now in session. It proposes to change the present basis of
representation to a representation upon all persons, with the proviso
that wherever any State excludes a particular class of persons from
the elective franchise, that State to that extent shall not be
entitled to be represented in Congress. It does not deny to the States
the right to regulate the elective franchise as they please; but it
does say to a State, 'If you exclude from the right of suffrage
Frenchmen, Irishmen, or any particular class of people, none of that
class of persons shall be counted in fixing your representation in
this House. You may allow them to vote or not, as you please; but if
you do allow them to vote, they will be counted and represented here;
while if you do not allow them to vote, no one shall be authorized to
represent them here; they shall be excluded from the basis of
representation.'"
As indicative of the apparent harmony of sentiments prevailing on the
question, Mr. Wilson said that the Committee on the Judiciary had
determined to report a proposition substantially identical with that
offered by Mr. Stevens.
It was deemed important to have the joint resolution passed as soon as
possible, that it might go before the State Legislatures then in
session for their ratification before their adjournment. The member
who had the measure in charge desired, after one or two speeches on
either side, to have the question put to vote, and have the resolution
passed before the sun went down. Such action, however, seemed to the
House too hasty, and a discussion of the measure was entered upon,
which ran through many days.
Mr. Rogers, a member of the committee, offered a minority report, and
addressed the House in opposition to the proposed amendment of the
Constitution. He thus presented his view of the object of the measure
proposed: "It appears to have in its body, in its soul, and in its
life only one great object and aim; that is, to debase and degrade the
white race, and to place upon a higher footing than the white men are
placed, under the Constitution, this African race. It is a proposition
to change the organic law of the land with regard to one of the
fundamental principles which was laid down by our fathers at the
formation of the Constitution as an axiom of civil and political
liberty, that taxation and representation should always go together.
If gentlemen will examine this proposed amendment of the Constitution,
they will see that it is in violation of that great doctrine which was
proclaimed by the fathers of the republic when they enunciated the
Declaration of Independence, and protested against the tyranny and
despotism of England, because she attempted to tax the people of the
colonies without allowing them representation in the councils of the
kingdom. The amendment now under consideration proposes the very same
identical thing that the Parliament of England proposed when it
attempted to inflict upon the American colonies taxation without
allowing the people of the colonies to have representatives in the
Parliament of England to represent them upon the question whether they
should be taxed by the mother country or not.
"The first objection I have to the passage of this joint resolution
is, that it is violative of the main principle upon which the
Revolutionary War was conducted, and which induced our fathers to
enter the harbors of Boston and New York and throw the tea into the
water. Because the British people attempted to inflict taxation upon
them with regard to that tea, and refused to allow them representation
in the Parliament of England, our fathers rebelled against their
mother country. What has come over the fortunes and happiness of the
people of this country that the great principle of the Constitution
should now be violated, that principle for which our fathers spilt
their blood to sustain, the great axiom of American liberty, that
taxation never should be imposed upon a people unless that people have
a corresponding representation? If this amendment to the Constitution
should be carried into effect, it will prevent any State, North or
South, from allowing qualified suffrage to its colored population,
except upon forfeiture of representation; and if qualified suffrage
should be allowed to the colored population of any State in this
Union, on account of race of color, and but one single negro should be
deprived of his vote by failure to meet the requirements of the
qualification imposed, that State would be denied representation for
the whole of that colored population--men, women, and children.
"More than that: this bill attempts, in an indirect manner, to have
passed upon, by the Legislatures of the different States, a question
which the party in power dare not boldly and openly meet before the
people of this country, because there can be but one object lying at
the foundation of this bill--an object which has been explained and
expatiated upon in this House--and that object, as I have said, is,
through the Federal power, to force the States to adopt unqualified
negro suffrage, by holding over them the penalty of being deprived of
representation according to population.
"But I object to this joint resolution upon another ground--upon the
same ground that I objected to the passage of the Negro Suffrage Bill
for the District of Columbia--without consulting the people. It has
been said in this country that all power emanates from the people. And
I say that to submit this grave question to the consideration and
decision of partisan Legislatures in the different States--Legislatures
which were elected without any regard to this question--is violative
of the great principles which lie at the foundations of the liberties
of this country; that no organic law, affecting the whole people,
should be passed before submitting it to the people for their
ratification or rejection. Now this joint resolution proposes simply
to submit this amendment for ratification to the Legislatures of the
different States. The Legislatures are not the States; the
Legislatures are not the people in their sovereign capacity;
Legislatures are not the source from which all power emanates. But the
people, the _sacred people_, in the exercise of their sovereign power,
either at the ballot-box or in conventions, are the only true and
proper forum to which such grave and serious questions should be
submitted.
"I maintain that the Constitution of the United States, as it now
exists, is not as liberal toward the Southern States, now that slavery
has been abolished, as it was before the abolition of slavery. Why,
sir, in the days of the past, under our Constitution, the Southern
States have been allowed a representation for a population that was
not classed as citizens or people; they were allowed a representation
for people who had no political _status_ in the State; persons who
were not entitled even to exercise the right of coming into a court of
civil justice as a plaintiff or defendant in the prosecution or
defense of a suit.
"Now, after the raging fires of war have swept from the domain of
every State in the South the pernicious institution of slavery; after
the result has been that every slave has received his freedom; after
the slaves have gained more by the success of this war than any other
class of people in the United States, white men, men who are the
representatives of the white race, come here proposing to compel the
States, on pain of being deprived of a portion of their
representation, to allow all the negroes within their limits to vote,
without regard to qualification or any thing else, while under the
same provision the State may, by its organic law, impose
qualifications and conditions upon the exercise of the right of
suffrage by the white population. The proposed amendment to the
Constitution undertakes to consolidate the power in the Federal
Government. It throws out a menace to the States, and the inevitable
result of the passage would be to induce every State in the Union to
adopt unqualified negro suffrage, so as not to deprive them of the
great and inestimable right of representation for that class of
population in the halls of the legislation of the United States."
Mr. Conkling, also a member of the Reconstruction Committee, made an
argument in favor, of the proposed amendment: "Emancipation vitalizes
only natural rights, not political rights. Enfranchisement alone
carries with it political rights, and these emancipated millions are
no more enfranchised now than when they were slaves. They never had
political power. Their masters had a fraction of power as masters. But
there are no masters now. There are no slaves now. The whole
relationship in which the power originated and existed is gone. Does
this fraction of power still survive? If it does, what shall become of
it? Where is it to go?
"We are told the blacks are unfit to wield even a fraction of power,
and must not have it. That answers the whole question. If the answer
be true, it is the end of controversy. There is no place, logically,
for this power to go, save to the blacks; if they are unfit to have
it, the power would not exist. It is a power astray, without a
rightful owner. It should be resumed by the whole nation at once. It
should not exist; it does not exist. This fractional power is
extinct.
"A moral earthquake has turned fractions into units, and units into
ciphers. If a black man counts at all now, he counts five-fifths of a
man, not three-fifths. Revolutions have no such fractions in their
arithmetic; war and humanity join hands to blot them out. Four
millions, therefore, and not three-fifths of four millions, are to be
reckoned in here now, and all these four millions are, and are to be,
we are told, unfit for political existence.
"Did the framers of the Constitution ever dream of this? Never, very
clearly. Our fathers trusted to gradual and voluntary emancipation,
which would go hand in hand with education and enfranchisement. They
never peered into the bloody epoch when four million fetters would be
at once melted off in the fires of war. They never saw such a vision
as we see. Four millions, each a Caspar Hauser, long shut up in
darkness, and suddenly led out into the full flash of noon, and each,
we are told, too blind to walk, politically. No one foresaw such an
event, and so no provision was made for it. The three-fifths rule gave
the slaveholding States, over and above all their just representation,
eighteen Representatives beside, by the enumeration of 1860.
"The new situation will enable those States, when relationships are
resumed, to claim twenty-eight Representatives beside their just
proportion. Twenty-eight votes to be cast here and in the Electoral
College for those held not fit to sit as jurors, not fit to testify in
court, not fit to be plaintiff in a suit, not fit to approach the
ballot-box! Twenty-eight votes to be more or less controlled by those
who once betrayed the Government, and for those so destitute, we are
assured, of intelligent instinct as not to be fit for free agency!
"Shall all this be? Shall four million beings count four millions, in
managing the affairs of the nation, who are pronounced by their
fellow-beings unfit to participate in administering government in the
States where they live, or in their counties, towns, or precincts; who
are pronounced unworthy of the least and most paltry part in local
political affairs? Shall one hundred and twenty-seven thousand white
people in New York cast but one vote in this House, and have none but
one voice here, while the same number of white people in Mississippi
have three votes and three voices? Shall the death of slavery add
two-fifths to the entire power which slavery had when slavery was
living? Shall one white man have as much share in the Government as
three other white men merely because he lives where blacks outnumber
whites two to one? Shall this inequality exist, and exist only in
favor of those who without cause drenched the land with blood and
covered it with mourning? Shall such be the reward of those who did
the foulest and guiltiest act which crimsons the annals of recorded
time? No, sir; not if I can help it."
Two other modes of meeting the case had been considered by the
committee, namely: _First_, To make the basis of representation in
Congress and the Electoral College consist of sufficiently qualified
voters alone; _Second_, To deprive the States of the power to
disqualify or discriminate politically on account of race or color.
After presenting some reasons why the committee saw proper to
recommend neither of these plans, Mr. Conkling further argued in favor
of the proposed amendment: "It contains but one condition, and that
rests upon a principle already imbedded in the Constitution, and as
old as free government itself. That principle I affirmed in the
beginning; namely, that representation does not belong to those who
have not political existence, but to those who have. The object of the
amendment is to enforce this truth. It therefore provides that
whenever any State finds within its borders a race of beings unfit for
political existence, that race shall not be represented in the Federal
Government. Every State will be left free to extend or withhold the
elective franchise on such terms as it pleases, and this without
losing any thing in representation if the terms are impartial as to
all. Qualifications of voters may be required of any kind--qualifications
of intelligence, of property, or of any sort whatever, and yet no loss
of representation shall thereby be suffered. But whenever in any
State, and so long as a race can be found which is so low, so bad, so
ignorant, so stupid, that it is deemed necessary to exclude men from
the right to vote merely because they belong to that race, in that
case the race shall likewise be excluded from the sum of Federal power
to which the State is entitled. If a race is so vile or worthless that
to belong to it is alone cause of exclusion from political action, the
race is not to be counted here in Congress."
Mr. Conkling maintained that the pending proposition commended itself
for many reasons. "_First._ It provides for representation coëxtensive
with taxation. I say it provides for this; it does not certainly
secure it, but it enables every State to secure it. It does not,
therefore, as the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers] insists,
violate the rule that representation should go with taxation. If a
race in any State is kept unfit to vote, and fit only to drudge, the
wealth created by its work ought to be taxed. Those who profit by such
a system, or such a condition of things, ought to be taxed for it. Let
them build churches and school-houses, and found newspapers, as New
York and other States have done, and educate their people till they
are fit to vote. 'Fair play,' 'A fair day's wages for a fair day's
work,' 'Live and let live'--these mottoes, if blazoned over the
institutions of a State, will insure it against being cursed for any
length of time with inhabitants so worthless that they are fit only
for beasts of burden. I have said that the amendment provides for
representation going hand in hand with taxation. That is its first
feature.
"_Second._ It brings into the basis both sexes and all ages, and so it
counteracts and avoids, as far as possible, the casual and
geographical inequalities of population.
"_Third._ It puts every State on an equal footing in the requirement
prescribed.
"_Fourth._ It leaves every State unfettered to enumerate all its
people for representation or not, just as it pleases.
"Thus every State has the sole control, free from all interference, of
its own interests and concerns. No other State, nor the General
Government, can molest the people of any State on the subject, or even
inquire into their acts or their reasons, but all the States have
equal rights. If New York chooses to count her black population as
political persons, she can do so. If she does not choose to do so, the
matter is her own, and her rights can not be challenged. So of South
Carolina. But South Carolina shall not say, 'True, we have less than
three hundred thousand "persons" in this State, politically speaking,
yet we will have, in governing the country, the power of seven hundred
thousand persons.'
"The amendment is common to all States and equal for all; its
operation will, of course, be practically only in the South. No
Northern State will lose by it, whether the Southern States extend
suffrage to blacks or not. Even New York, in her great population, has
so few blacks that she could exclude them all from enumeration and it
would make no difference in her representation. If the amendment is
adopted, and suffrage remains confined as it is now, taking the census
of 1860 as the foundation of the calculation, and the number of
Representatives as it then stood, the gains and losses would be these:
Wisconsin, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania,
Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Maine would gain one Representative
each, and New York would gain three; Alabama, Kentucky, North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee would each lose one; Georgia,
Louisiana, and Virginia would each lose two, and Mississippi would
lose three."
On the following day, January 23d, the proposed joint resolution came
up in the regular order of business.
Mr. Jenckes, of Rhode Island, feared that a construction might be put
upon the bill which would be fatal to its efficiency for the purposes
had in view by its friends. He said: "It says nothing about the
qualification of property. Suppose this amendment is adopted by
three-fourths of the States, and becomes a part of the fundamental law
of the land, and after its adoption the State of South Carolina should
reinstate the constitution of 1790, striking out the word 'white' and
reëstablishing the property qualification of fifty acres of land, or
town lots, or the payment of a tax, there would then be no
discrimination of color in the State of South Carolina, yet the number
of electors would not be enlarged five hundred, and the basis of
representation would be exactly as it is, with the addition of
two-fifths of the enfranchised freedmen. A Representative to this
House would be reëlected by the same voting constituency as now,
perhaps with the addition of five hundred black men in the State. If
it bears this construction, and I believe it does, I shall vote
against it.
"If any of the States should establish property qualification based
upon lands, then the same oligarchy would be enthroned on the whole
basis of representation, entitled to a larger number of
Representatives than now in this House, and elected by a slightly
enlarged number of qualified electors, giving power more firmly to
that very aristocracy we have sought to overthrow."
A number of queries were propounded, several amendments proposed, and
a considerable desire for discussion expressed, until Mr. Stevens,
much disappointed at the reception the measure met in the House,
withdrew the demand for the previous question, and left the subject
open for unlimited debate.
Mr. Blaine, of Maine, addressed the House, detailing some objections
to the measure. He said: "While I shall vote for the proposition, I
shall do so with some reluctance unless it is amended, and I do not
regret, therefore, that the previous question was not sustained. I am
egotistic enough to believe that the phraseology of the original
resolution, as introduced by me, was better than that employed in the
pending amendment. The phrase 'civil or political rights or
privileges,' which I employed, is broader and more comprehensive than
the term 'elective franchise,' for I fear, with the gentleman from
Illinois, [Mr. Farnsworth,] that under the latter phrase the most
vicious evasions might be practiced. As that gentleman has well said,
they might make suffrage depend on ownership of fifty acres of land,
and then prohibit any negro holding real estate; but no such mockery
as this could be perpetrated under the provisions of the amendment as
I originally submitted it."
In relation to taxation, Mr. Blaine remarked: "Now, I contend that
ordinary fair play--and certainly we can afford fair play where it
does not cost any thing--calls for this, namely, that if we exclude
them from the basis of representation they should be excluded from the
basis of taxation. Ever since this Government was founded, taxation
and representation have always gone hand in hand. If we shall exclude
the principle in this amendment, we will be accused of a narrow,
illiberal, mean-spirited, and money-grasping policy. More than that,
we do not gain any thing by it. What kind of taxation, is distributed
according to representation? Direct taxation. Now, we do not have any
direct taxation. There has been but twenty millions of direct taxation
levied for the last fifty years. That tax was levied in 1861, and was
not collected, but distributed among the States and held in the
Treasury Department as an offset to the war claims of the States; so
that, as a matter of fact, we are putting an offensive discrimination
in this proposition and gaining nothing by it except obloquy."
Mr. Donnelly, of Minnesota, said: "It follows, as a logical
conclusion, that if men have no voice in the National Government,
other men should not sit in this hall pretending to represent them.
And it is equally clear that an oppressed race should not lend power
to their oppressors, to be used in their name and for their
destruction. It is a mockery to say that a man's agent shall be his
enemy, and shall be appointed without his consent and against his
desire, and by other enemies.
"In fact, I can not see how any Northern man can vote against this
measure, unless he wishes to perpetuate an injustice to his section,
because the effect of it will clearly be to increase the
representation of the North and decrease that of the South; and this,
too, upon a basis of undoubted justice. It means simply that those who
do not take part in the Government shall not be represented in the
Government."
Mr. Donnelly did not, however, regard the proposed amendment as "a
grand panacea for all the ills that affect the nation." He would vote
for the law, "not as a finality, but as a partial step as one of a
series of necessary laws." Said he, "When we vote for this measure, it
must be because we think it right and necessary, not that it may
furnish us with an excuse for failing to do all other right and
necessary things expected of us by the people. We must take direct,
not sidelong measures. We must make laws, not arguments. We must
enforce, not induce.
"To pass this law and then hope that South Carolina, moved by the hope
of future power, would do justice to the negro, is absurd. She has
291,300 whites and 412,406 negroes. To pass such a law would be for
the governing power to divest itself of the government and hand it
over to a subject and despised caste, and that, too, for a faint hope
of some future advantage that might never be realized under the most
favorable circumstances, and certainly could never be realized by the
aspiring class abdicating and relinquishing power. The same is true,
more or less, of all the South. In Mississippi there are 353,901
whites, and 436,631 negroes; and in all the States the negro vote
would be large enough to turn the scale against the disloyal party."
Mr. Sloan, of Wisconsin, thus presented the practical workings of the
"Constitution as it is:" "Look at the practical operation of the
question we are discussing to-day. In the State I represent there are
eight hundred thousand free white people loyal to the Constitution,
who have done their whole duty in sustaining their Government during
this terrible war. The bones of our soldiers are moldering in the soil
of every rebel State. They have stood around our flag in the deadly
hail of every battle of the war. The State of Wisconsin has six
Representatives on this floor. South Carolina has three hundred
thousand white inhabitants, disloyal, who have done all in their power
to overthrow and destroy the Government, and yet, sir, under the
Constitution as it now stands, the three hundred thousand disloyal
white inhabitants of South Carolina will exercise as much political
power in the Government as the eight hundred thousand loyal people of
the State of Wisconsin."
Mr. Sloan called attention to a proposition which he had submitted to
the preceding Congress, providing that the right of representation
should be based upon the right of suffrage--upon the numbers allowed
the right to vote in the respective States.
In answer to a supposed objection to this plan, that "there might be
some inequality in the representation of the respective States," he
said: "We all know that the young men of the old States go out in
large numbers to settle in the new States and Territories, while the
women and children do not emigrate to so great an extent, and hence
there would be a larger number of voters in the new States in
proportion to population than in the old. And yet this is a
consideration which, in my judgment, ought not to weigh a hair with
any member on this floor. It would be only a temporary inequality. In
the rapidly increasing settlement and in the natural increase of
population of our new States, that inequality would very soon be
entirely swept away. I believe the difference to-day between
Massachusetts and Wisconsin would be very slight, if any, so rapid has
been the increase of our population and the settlement of our State.
We are now proposing to adopt an amendment to the Constitution which
we expect to stand for all time, and any temporary inequality which
could continue but for a few years ought not to have any weight."
Mr. Brooks, of New York, thought that Mr. Stevens would better "at the
start have named what are States of this Union. The opinion of the
honorable gentleman himself, that there are no States in this Union
but those that are now represented upon this floor, I know full well;
but he knows as well that the President of the United States
recognizes thirty-six States of this Union, and that it is necessary
to obtain the consent of three-fourths of those thirty-six States,
which number it is not possible to obtain. He knows very well that if
his amendment should be adopted by the Legislatures of States enough,
in his judgment, to carry it, before it could pass the tribunal of the
Executive chamber it would be obliged to receive the assent of
twenty-seven States in order to become an amendment to the
Constitution."
Mr. Brooks, in the course of his speech, presented a petition from
certain ladies of New York, asking an amendment of the Constitution,
prohibiting the several States from disfranchising any of their
citizens on the ground of sex. He then proposed to amend the joint
resolution by inserting the words "or sex" after the word "color," so
that it would read, "_Provided_, That whenever the elective franchise
shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color
or sex, all persons of such race or color or sex shall be excluded
from the basis of representation."
"Is the gentleman in favor of that amendment?" asked Mr. Stevens.
"I am," replied Mr. Brooks, "if negroes are allowed to vote."
"That does not answer my question," said Mr. Stevens.
"I suggested that I would move it at a convenient time," said Mr.
Brooks.
"Is the gentleman in favor of his own amendment?" Mr. Stevens again
asked.
"I am in favor of my own color in preference to any other color, and I
prefer the white women of my country to the negro," was the response
of Mr. Brooks, which was followed by applause in the galleries.
Mr. Orth, of Indiana, obtained the floor for the purpose of offering
an amendment, which he prefaced with the following remarks: "My
position is that the true principle of representation in Congress is
that voters alone should form the basis, and that each voter should
have equal political weight in our Government; that the voter in
Massachusetts should have the same but no greater power than the voter
in Indiana; and that the voter in Indiana should have the same power,
but no greater, than the voter in the State of South Carolina. The
gentleman from Maine, however, states that the census tables will show
that by the amendment which I desire to offer at this time you will
curtail the representative power of the State of Massachusetts. And
why? Because he has shown by his figures that although Massachusetts
has a male population of 529,244, her voting population is only
175,487, being a percentage of twenty-nine, while Indiana, with a
white male population of 693,469, has a voting population of 280,655,
being about forty per cent. Why is this difference? Is it because our
voting population is so much greater in proportion than the voting
population of Massachusetts? Not at all. The difference arises from
the fact that the State of Massachusetts has seen fit to exclude a
portion of her citizens from the ballot-box. Indiana has done the same
thing. Indiana has excluded one class of citizens; Massachusetts has
excluded another class. Indiana has seen fit, for reasons best known
to herself, to exclude the colored population from the right of
suffrage; Massachusetts, on the contrary, has seen fit to exclude from
the ballot-box those of her citizens who can not read or write. While
we in Indiana are governed by a prejudice of color, the people of
Massachusetts, I might say, are governed by a prejudice as regards
ignorance. But here is the difference: under the amendment that I
propose, while Indiana excludes the black man from the right to
participate in the decisions of the ballot-box, she does not ask that
the black man shall be represented on this floor. On the contrary,
while Massachusetts excludes black and white persons who can not read
and write, she yet asks that that population excluded from the ballot
shall have representation on this floor. I regard this as wrong in
theory, wrong in principle, and injurious to the State which I have
the honor to represent, giving to Massachusetts a power upon this
floor of which my State is deprived. Why? Because the exclusion which
drives from the ballot-box in Massachusetts a large portion of her
citizens, yet admits them to representative power on this floor."
Mr. Orth's amendment proposed that Representatives should "be
apportioned among the several States according to the number of male
citizens over twenty-one years of age, having the qualifications
requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State
Legislature." There being objection to the reception of this amendment
under the rules of the House, it could not be considered.
Mr. Chanler, of New York, alluding to Mr. Stevens' desire to have the
joint resolution passed on the day of its introduction, before the sun
went down, said: "Sir, this measure, if passed, will tend to obscure
the sun from which the liberties of this country derive their
nourishment and life, the brilliant orb, the Constitution, whose light
has spread itself to the farthest ends of the earth. The vital
principle of that Constitution, the soul of its being, is that balance
of power between the States which insures individual liberty to every
citizen of each State, and harmony among all the States of the Union.
"I affirm, sir, that the discussion of this subject in the
Constitutional Convention of 1787 was conducted in a spirit worthy of
a great people, and resulted in the noble instrument under whose
authority we now live. That era furnishes us a sad comparison with the
present epoch, when it may well be said that our Rome has 'lost the
breed of noble bloods,' and when, so far as the agitation of these
fanatical and partisan questions is concerned, reason seems to have
'fled to brutish beasts.' How differently and with what wise
moderation did the framers of the Constitution act! No narrow and
fanatical partisanship marks their opinions or their acts."
After reading an extract from Curtis' History of the Constitution, Mr.
Chanler, contrasting former legislation with the present on the
subject of suffrage, said: "From the above historical statement, it
will be found that the framers of the Constitution considered the
question of suffrage of so vital importance in fixing the balance of
power between the States, that it was, after full discussion in
Congress by the whole body, referred to a select committee of one from
each State, again reported and fully discussed, and then referred to a
committee of five, whose thorough examination of the subject gave rise
to new difficulties, and caused the matter to be referred to another
committee of one member from each State. All differences were
compromised in a spirit of patriotism and justice. How different is
all this from the hasty partisan legislation on this very suffrage
question by the present Congress!
"A caucus met before Congress organized, and chalked out a line of
policy and action for the Republican party on the floor of Congress.
The whole matter of reconstruction was referred to a grinding
committee, whose dictation should govern Congress in every measure
brought before it for consideration. Is this wise, just, or
reasonable? I hold that this resolution is too narrow to be of use and
too weak to last. It will totter to an untimely grave, and hobble, a
feeble and contemptible instrument, from this Congress to every State
Legislature to which it may be submitted, to be rejected for its
feebleness in a time like this, amid the overwhelming issues which
agitate this country."
Mr. Farnsworth, of Illinois, remarked: "It is necessary, it seems to
me, that whatever constitutional provision we may make should be made
clear, manifest, certain. If possible, we should make it enforce
itself, so that by no cunningly-devised scheme or shift can they
nullify it. It seems to me that the resolution reported by the joint
Committee on Reconstruction is not so clear as it ought to be; I am
afraid that it will be worthless. A State may enact that a man shall
not exercise the elective franchise except he can read and write,
making that law apply equally to the whites and blacks, and then may
also enact that a black man shall not learn to read and write, exclude
him from their schools, and make it a penal offense to instruct or to
teach him, and thus prevent his qualifying to exercise the elective
franchise according to the State law. And they may do in regard to the
elective franchise just what they are doing now in regard to slavery.
They may provide that no man shall exercise the elective franchise who
has been guilty of a crime, and then they may denounce these men as
guilty of a crime for every little, imaginary, petty offense. They may
declare that no man shall exercise the right of voting who has not a
regular business or occupation by which he may obtain a livelihood,
and then they may declare that the black man has no settled occupation
and no business. It seems to me, therefore, necessary that we should,
by some provision in this amendment, settle this beyond a
peradventure, so that none of these shifts or devices may defeat the
purpose of the enactment."
Mr. Farnsworth was in favor of more radical remedies: "I protest here
that I will not accept any such constitutional amendment as this as a
substitute for that full measure of justice which it is our duty to
mete out. I will not promise that hereafter I will not propose, and
vote for, and advocate with whatever power I possess, a measure which
will give to all the people of the States that which is their due. By
no vote of mine shall there be incorporated in the Constitution a
provision which shall, even by implication, declare that a State may
disfranchise any portion of its citizens on account of race or color.
We have no right to give our countenance to any such injustice. All
provisions in reference to representation which are based upon any
other principle than that of the people of this country, who are the
subjects of government, have the right to vote and to be represented,
are false in principle. Such a measure may, perhaps, answer for a
temporary expedient, but it will not do as a fundamental rule to be
embodied in the Constitution for the people of this country to live
by. I deny that a State has the right to disfranchise a majority or
even a minority of its citizens because of class or race. And I say
that that provision of the Constitution which makes it the duty of the
General Government to 'guarantee to every State in this Union a
republican form of government' ought to be taken into consideration by
this Congress and enforced. Does a State that denies the elective
franchise to one-half of its citizens possess a republican form of
government? Where a large portion of the citizens of a State--the men
who are required to pay taxes and perform military duty, to contribute
their money and their strength in support of the Government--are
denied the elective franchise, is that a republican form of
government? I say that it is a libel upon republicanism; it is not a
republican form of government; it is neither republican in form nor in
substance."
Mr. Baker, of Illinois, although anxious to have an amendment of the
Constitution "achieving the general purpose of supplying a more just
basis of representation," saw points of objection to the proposition
before the House, some of which had been raised by previous speakers.
He said: "I am reluctant to indorse an amendment to the Constitution
framed in this day of growing liberty, framed by the party of
progress, intended to make representative power in this Government
correspond with the quantum of political justice on which it is based,
and yet which leaves any State in the Union perfectly free to narrow
her suffrage to any extent she pleases, imposing proprietary and other
disqualifying tests, and still strengthening her aristocratic power in
the Government by the full count of her disfranchised people, provided
only she steers clear of a test based on race or color."
Mr. Jenckes was desirous of having a more just and comprehensive
enactment than the one proposed: "In my judgment," said he, "justice
requires that the qualification of electors for members of this House
and for electors of President and Vice-President of the United
States--in other words, for the two popular branches of this great
Government--should be defined in the fundamental law. Upon this point
let me quote the words of Madison, written in his mature years to a
distinguished son of the republic seeking advice from him. He says:
'The right of suffrage, the rule of apportioning representation, and
the mode of appointing to and removing from office, are fundamentals
in a free government, and ought to be fixed by the Constitution.'
"Certainly, sir, it is less difficult, in a Congress composed of less
than three hundred men, to agree to a proposition which will meet the
views of the whole country on this question of suffrage than to adopt
a proposition which, when submitted to and adopted by the requisite
number of States, must be carried into effect by as many Legislatures
as there are States, and in a different manner by each, and which, in
being carried into effect, must be acted upon by as many thousands of
men in State conventions and Legislatures as there are hundreds in
this Congress.
"There is no equality, and there can be no equality, in the proposed
amendment. It seems to me, therefore, if we undertake to amend the
fundamental law at all in this respect, we ought to agree upon what
should be the qualification of voters for members of this House,
embodying them in the proposed amendments to submit to the
Legislatures of the States. Then there would be a definite
proposition; and that, I believe, if it emanated from this House,
would have substantial equality and justice--would have the elements
of equality and uniformity, and be enforced without difficulty in
every State of the Union."
Referring to a mode which might be adopted for evading the legitimate
results of the proposed amendment, Mr. Jenckes remarked: "I was
alluding to another one. Some of the Southern States, up to the
breaking out of the war, had constitutions which prescribed a property
qualification. Suppose this amendment were adopted, and the State of
South Carolina chose to annul the Constitution recently proclaimed and
to go back to that of 1790, and that the word 'white' should be
stricken out of it, I desire to ask how many freedmen, how many
persons of African descent, can be found who own in fee fifty acres of
land or a town lot, or who have paid a tax of three shillings
sterling. As far as I can ascertain from the statistics, there would
not be, if that constitution were restored and the word 'white'
omitted, over five hundred additional qualified voters in that State.
"Ever since the adoption of the Constitution of 1790 down to the time
of firing on Fort Sumter, South Carolina was in practical relation to
this Government as a State of this Union. She had been considered as
having a republican form of government, and that which we had
guaranteed as such for many years we would be bound to guarantee to
her hereafter. Stronger than ever this oligarchy would be enthroned
upon their old seat of power, not upheld merely by slaves beneath it,
but by the power of the General Government above and around it. She
might make any of the discriminations which I have suggested, of age,
of residence, of previous servitude, and of ignorance or poverty."
Mr. Trimble, of Kentucky, was "exceedingly gratified at the
disposition manifested among the party in opposition here, by reason
of their own differences of opinion, to allow an opportunity to us to
present our objections to the measure now under consideration. This
subject of amending the Constitution under which we have lived so
long, so happily, and so prosperously, is one of great moment; and
while I have some confidence in the ability and capacity of some of
the friends on the opposite side to make a constitution, yet I prefer
the Constitution as made by our fathers eighty years ago.
"In my opinion, the amendment proposed is in violation of the reserved
rights of the people of the States under that instrument. The object
and purpose of this resolution is to enfranchise a million men in this
country whom no political party in this country ever had the boldness
to propose the enfranchisement of prior to the present session of
Congress. I remember that, in 1860 and 1861, the party known in this
country as the Union party took the ground, from one end of the
country to the other, that neither Congress nor the people of the
States had the power, under the Constitution of the United States, to
interfere with slavery in the States where it existed; much less, sir,
did they claim the power not only to destroy it, but to strike down
the provisions of the Constitution that protected me and my
constituents in our right to our property. Sir, there was an amendment
submitted then for the purpose of peace, for the purpose of restoring
peace and quiet throughout the country. It met, at the time, my hearty
support, and I regret, from the bottom of my heart, that the people,
North, South, East, and West, did not agree to that proposition, and
make it part and parcel of the Constitution. I refer to the amendment
proposed in 1861, declaring that Congress should never thereafter
interfere with the question of slavery in the States.
"Sir, it is a well-established principle that no one should be
permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. If the party in power
have succeeded in freeing the slaves of the South, ought they not, at
least, to allow the Southern States to enjoy the increased
representation to which, according to the rule established by the
Constitution, they are now entitled? Or, if the Northern States
sincerely desire that the negroes of the South shall vote and shall be
represented in Congress, let them transport those negroes to the North
and take them under their guardianship; they are welcome to them.
"I believe that the people of Kentucky, whom I in part represent, and
I have no doubt the people of the whole South, will submit in good
faith to the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. While they
may believe that the amendment is revolutionary and unjust, in
violation of the rights of Kentucky and the South, still the Southern
States, having in a way yielded up this question, for representation
and peace, they will stand by the Constitution as amended."
Finally, Mr. Trimble presented the following argument against the
measure: "This proposition is a direct attack upon the President of
the United States; it is a direct attack upon the doctrines and
principles taught by that distinguished man now holding the
presidential chair. This amendment is in violation, in my judgment, of
every principle that that man has held from his boyhood up to the
present hour. Sir, the President of the United States does not believe
that the Congress of the United States has the right, or that the
people have the right, to strike down the inalienable right of the
States to settle for themselves who shall be clothed with that high
privilege--suffrage."
The subject being resumed on the following day, January 24th, Mr.
Lawrence, of Ohio, addressed the House, premising his remarks by a
motion that the resolution and amendments be recommitted to the
Committee on Reconstruction, "with instructions to report an amendment
to the Constitution which shall, first, apportion direct taxes among
the States according to property in each; and which shall, second,
apportion Representatives among the States on the basis of adult male
voters who may be citizens of the United States."
He argued that "the rule which gave representation to three-fifths of
the slave population was wrong in principle, and unjust in practical
results. It was purely arbitrary, the result of compromise, and not of
fixed political principles, or of any standard of abstract justice. If
slavery was a just element of political strength, I know of no rule
which could properly divide it into 'fractional quantities;' if it was
not a just element of political strength, I know of no rule which
could properly give it 'fractional power.'
"The basis of representation was unjust in practical results, because
it gave to chattel slavery political power--a power accorded to no
other species of property--thus making what the slave States regarded
as wealth an element of political strength."
After having given a statistical table showing how representation was
apportioned among the several States having free and slave population,
Mr. Lawrence deduced the following facts: "New Hampshire, with a white
population of 325,579, has but three Representatives, while Louisiana,
with a white population of 357,629, had five. California, with a white
population of 323,177, has but three Representatives, while
Mississippi, with a similar population of 353,901, had five. In South
Carolina 72,847 white persons had one Representative, while the ratio
of representation is one for 127,000 persons.
"Under this mode of apportionment, the late slave States had eighteen
Representatives, by the census of 1860, more than their just share, if
based on free population. The whole political power of Ohio was
counterbalanced by slave representation. It was equal to two-thirds of
all the representation from New England. In South Carolina 14,569
votes carried as much political power as 25,400 in the free States."
Freedom having been given to the slaves, "the effect will be, so soon
as lawful State Governments are created in the rebel States, to
largely increase their representation in Congress and the Electoral
College. The slave population, by the census of 1860, was 3,950,531.
Three-fifths of this, or 2,370,318, has heretofore entered into the
basis of representation. Now, the additional 1,580,213 is to be added
to that basis. This will give ten additional Representatives to the
late slave States--in all twenty-eight more than their just proportion
upon a basis excluding the late slaves. If this injustice can be
tolerated and perpetuated, and the late rebel States shall soon be
admitted to representation, they will enjoy as the reward of their
perfidy and treason an increased political power. This will reward
traitors with a liberal premium for treason."
As to the proper time for amending the Constitution, Mr. Lawrence
said: "But if ever there could be a time for making fundamental changes
in our organic law, and ingrafting on it irreversible guarantees, that
time is now. The events of the past four years demonstrate their
necessity, and our security for the future imperatively demands them
at our hands. The great events which have transpired, and the altered
circumstances that surround us, admonish us that we will be recreant
to our trusts if we fail to inscribe justice on the Constitution, and
fortify it against the encroachments of treason, so that it shall be
eternal. One of the elements of our past misfortunes, and which gave
power for evil to the enemies who assailed us in this temple, was
unequal and unjust representation--political power wielded by a
dominant class, augmented by concessions on behalf of a disfranchised
and servile race, insultingly declared almost in the very citadel of
national justice as having no rights which a white man was bound to
respect. By this amendment we strike down the iniquity of one class
wielding political power for another, and arrogant because in the
exercise of unjust power."
Maintaining that representation should be based upon suffrage, Mr.
Lawrence said: "The reason which conclusively justifies it is, that a
people declared by law, if in fact unprepared for suffrage, should not
be represented as an element of power by those interested in forever
keeping them unprepared. But children never can be qualified and
competent depositaries of political power, and, therefore, should not
enter into the basis of representation. It never has been deemed
necessary for the protection of females that they should be regarded
as an element of political power, and hence they should not be an
element of representation. If the necessity shall come, or if our
sense of justice should so change as to enfranchise adult females, it
will be time enough then to make them a basis of representation."
Mr. Shellabarger, of Ohio, though having "fifteen times as much
respect for the opinions of the Committee on Reconstruction" as for
his own, yet suggested the following as objections to their report:
"1. It contemplates and provides for, and in that way, taken by
itself, authorizes the States to wholly disfranchise entire races of
its people, and that, too, whether that race be white or black, Saxon,
Celtic, or Caucasian, and without regard to their numbers or
proportion to the entire population of the State.
"2. It is a declaration made in the Constitution of the only great and
free republic in the world, that it is permissible and right to deny
to the races of men all their political rights, and that it is
permissible to make them the hewers of wood and drawers of water, the
mud-sills of society, provided only you do not ask to have these
disfranchised races represented in that Government, provided you
wholly ignore them in the State. The moral teaching of the clause
offends the free and just spirit of the age, violates the foundation
principles of our own Government, and is intrinsically wrong.
"3. The clause, by being inserted into the Constitution, and being
made the companion of its other clauses, thereby construes and gives
new meanings to those other clauses; and it thus lets down and spoils
the free spirit and sense of the Constitution. Associated with that
clause relating to the States being 'republican,' it makes it read
thus: 'The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union
a republican form of government;' provided, however, that a government
shall be deemed to be republican when whole races of its people are
wholly disfranchised, unrepresented, and ignored.
"4. The report of the committee imposes no adequate restraint upon
this disfranchisement of races and creation of oligarchies in the
States, because after a race is disfranchised in a State it gives to
one vote cast in such State by the ruling race just the same power as
a vote has in a State where no one is disfranchised.
"5. These words of the amendment, to-wit, 'denied or abridged on
account of color,' admit of dangerous construction, and also of an
evasion of the avowed intent of the committee. Thus, for example, the
African race may, in fact, be disfranchised in the States, and yet
enumerated as part of the basis of representation, by means of a
provision disfranchising all who were slaves, or all whose ancestors
were slaves.
"6. The pending proposition of the committee is a radical departure
from the principles of representative republican government, in this,
that it does not provide for nor secure the absolute political
equality of the people, or, relatively, of the States. It does not
secure to each vote throughout the Government absolute equality in its
governing force. It, for example, permits twenty-five thousand votes
in New York city to elect two members of Congress, provided one-half
of its population should happen to be foreigners unnaturalized, and
not electors of the State, whom the law deems unfit to vote; whereas,
twenty-five thousand votes in Ohio would elect but one member of
Congress, provided her citizens were all Americans instead of
foreigners."
Mr. Eliot submitted an amendment to the effect that population should
be the basis of representation, and that "the elective franchise shall
not be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color."
He stated the following grounds of objection to the resolution offered
by the committee: "First, the amendment as it is now reported from the
committee is objectionable, to my mind, because it admits by
implication that a State has the right to disfranchise large masses of
its citizens. No man can show that in that Constitution which the
fathers made, and under which we have lived, the right is recognized
in any State to disfranchise large masses of its citizens because of
race. And I do not want now, at this day, that the Congress of the
United States, for the purpose of effecting a practical good, shall
put into the Constitution of the land any language which would seem to
recognize that right.
"The next objection I have to the amendment is this: that it enables a
State, consistently with its provisions, by making the right to vote
depend upon a property qualification, to exclude large classes of men
of both races. A State may legislate in such a way as to be, in fact,
an oligarchy, and not a republican State. South Carolina may legislate
so as to provide that no man shall have the right to vote unless he
possesses an annual income of $1,000, and holds real estate to the
amount of five hundred acres. Every one sees that that would exclude
multitudes of all classes of citizens, making the State no longer
republican, but oligarchical. Yet gentlemen say that under the
Constitution Congress is bound to see to it that each State shall have
a republican form of government.
"The third objection I have to this amendment is, that it controls by
implication that power; because, while the Constitution now says that
Congress shall guarantee to every State a republican form of
government, this amendment, as reported by the committee, admits by
implication that, although a State may so legislate as to exclude
these multitudes of men, not on account of race or color, but on
account of property, yet, nevertheless, she would have a republican
form of government, and that Congress will not and ought not to
interfere."
Mr. Pike, of Maine, had, on the assembling of Congress after the
holidays, offered a resolution, expressing the idea contained in the
report of the committee, but on reflection had come to the conclusion
that the resolution would not accomplish the purpose desired. He
stated his reasons for changing his opinion. He thought that the
provisions of the proposed amendment might be evaded. "Suppose," said
he, "this constitutional amendment in full force, and a State should
provide that the right of suffrage should not be exercised by any
person who had been a slave, or who was the descendant of a slave,
whatever his race or color. I submit that it is a serious matter of
doubt whether or not that simple provision would not be sufficient to
defeat this constitutional amendment which we here so laboriously
enact and submit to the States."
Mr. Conkling thought that this criticism could have no practical
importance, from the fact that the proposed amendment was to operate
in this country, where one race, and only one, has been held in
servitude.
Mr. Pike replied: "In no State in the South has slavery been confined
to any one race. So far as I am acquainted with their statutes, in no
State has slavery been confined to the African race. I know of no
slave statute, and I have examined the matter with some care, which
says that Africans alone shall be slaves. So much for race. As to
color, it was a common thing throughout the whole South to advertise
runaway slaves as having light hair and blue eyes, and all the
indications of the Caucasian race, and 'passing themselves off for
white men.' I say further to the honorable gentleman from New York,
that well-authenticated instances exist in every slave State where men
of Caucasian descent, of Anglo-Saxon blood, have been confined in
slavery, and they and their posterity held as slaves; so that not only
free blacks were found every-where, but white slaves also abounded."
Mr. Kelley, who next addressed the House, also brought proof to
controvert the "hasty assertion" that but one race had been enslaved:
"The assertion that white persons have been sold into slavery does not
depend on common report, but is proven by the reports of the superior
courts of almost every Southern State. One poor German woman, who had
arrived in our country at thirteen years of age, was released from
slavery by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, but not until she had
become the mother of three mulatto children, her owner having mated
her with one of his darker slaves. Toward the close of the last
century, the Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that American Indians
could be reduced to and legally held in slavery. And so long ago as
1741 white slave women were so common in North Carolina, that the
Legislature passed a law dooming to slavery the child of every 'white
servant woman' born of an Indian father."
Mr. Kelley thought that the enforcement of this long-dormant power of
the Constitution would be for the benefit not merely of the poor, the
ignorant, and the weak, but also of the wise, "the strong, and the
wealthy of our country." "There is now pending," said he, "before the
Legislature of regenerated and, as gentlemen would have us believe,
reconstructed Virginia, a bill to require five years' residence on the
part of citizens of other States who may invest their capital and
settle within the sacred limits of the Old Dominion before they can
acquire citizenship. If they may pass a limitation of five years, why
may they not pass a limitation of fifty? Why will not any limitation
that comes within the ordinary duration of human life be admissible?"
Mr. Bromwell, obtaining the floor, inquired whether the question was
in such condition that any amendment or substitute could be offered.
The Speaker replied: "Six amendments are pending now. The only one
that could be offered would be to amend the amendment of the gentleman
from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] which was, to add the word 'therein'
in the fifteenth line. No other amendment would be in order now, the
whole legislative power to amend being exhausted."
Mr. Bromwell had desired to offer an amendment which, in his opinion,
would obviate many of the objections to pending joint resolution, and
the amendments thereto; but the way not being open for this, he
addressed the House in a brief speech. He said: "When this amendment
was introduced, on last Monday morning, the differences of opinion
which have been developed in reference to the principles of the
amendment were not anticipated. But to-day we see that it has, so far,
not an advocate upon this floor. Such may be the result with every
amendment which may be presented. It is difficult to see, among all
the amendments which are now pending, any one of them, or any
combination of them, that will meet the desire of the majority, not to
say two-thirds of this House. I apprehend that the members of this
House desire to act so as to secure the support of a proper majority
here. I apprehend, also, that they desire to make this amendment such
that it will meet with the sanction of a sufficient number of the
States of the Union to make it effectual. Now, sir, it is in vain for
this Congress to launch an amendment which shall die on the road
through the Legislatures."
Notwithstanding the difficulties in the way of all the plans proposed,
Mr. Bromwell was heartily in favor of modifying the basis of
representation. "I think," said he, "seventy years is long enough for
fifteen, twenty, or thirty Representatives to sit here and make laws
to apply to Northern people, with no constituencies behind them. I
think it has been seen long enough that a large number of persons
called property, made property by the laws of the States, shall give
to the oligarchs of those particular districts of country the right to
outvote the independent men of the North, of the free States, where
some approximation has been made to securing God-given rights to all
inhabitants. I think that it is wrong that the further a State recedes
from common right and common justice the more power the oligarchy
which controls it shall grasp in their hands; and I desire that this
amendment shall be made so that it shall bear down upon that abuse
with the crushing power of three-fourths of the legislatures of the
Union."
After the House had heard so many objectors to the basis of
representation, as proposed by the committee, Mr. Cook, of Illinois,
took the floor in favor of the measure. He said: "We have now, as I
believe, the golden opportunity to remedy this evil which will never
come again to the men of this generation. The system of slavery has
fallen. The States whose representation was increased by it have, with
two or three exceptions, destroyed their loyal and legal State
governments, and now seek reconstruction. The adoption of this
amendment by the States lately in rebellion should be one of the
guarantees to be insisted upon as a condition precedent to their
taking equal authority and rank in the Union with the loyal States."
To the proposition that the basis of representation should be voters
only, Mr. Cook presented the following objections:
"1. It is difficult to enumerate voters accurately; their
qualifications are fixed by State laws. We can not send Federal
officers into every State to adjudicate, in disputed cases, the rights
of those claiming to be voters under the State laws, as we should have
to do.
"2. It would not be just; the voters of the country are unequally
distributed. The old States have fewer, the new States more, voters
according to the white population. In other words, there is a greater
proportion of women and children in the old States. These should be
and are represented. They are represented, in the true sense of that
word, by their fathers and brothers. The man who represents them does
so really and practically, and not by legal fiction, like the man who
represents 'three-fifths of all other persons.'
"3. It takes from the basis of representation all unnaturalized
foreigners. I do not wish to discuss the question whether this would
be judicious or not, but I do not want a measure of this almost
supreme importance loaded down with these questions, and its passage
jeopardized by the incorporation of provisions which, would render it
so liable to attack and misrepresentation."
Mr. Cook referred as follows to some objections urged against the
basis of representation proposed by the Reconstruction Committee: "It
is said that the Southern States may impose a property qualification,
and so exclude the negroes, not on account of race or color, but for
want of a property qualification, or that they might provide for a
qualification of intelligence, and so disfranchise the negroes because
they could not read or write, and still enumerate them. To do this
they must first repeal all the laws now denying suffrage to negroes;
and, second, provide qualifications which will disfranchise half their
white voters; two things neither of which will, in any human
probability, occur. And in the event that it was possible that both
these measures should be adopted, and all the blacks and half the
whites disqualified, it would become a grave question whether the
provision of the Constitution which requires the United States to
guarantee to each State a republican form of government would not
authorize the Government to rectify so gross a wrong. There is no
measure to which fanciful objections may not be urged; but I believe
this to be the least objectionable of any measure which has been
suggested to meet this evil. But above all, I am well persuaded that
it is the only measure that can meet the approval of three-fourths of
the States; consequently, that this is the only practical measure
before the House."
Mr. Marshall, of Illinois, declared the proposition, as reported by
the committee, to be "wholly untenable, is monstrous, absurd, damnable
in its provisions, a greater wrong and outrage on the black race than
any thing that has ever been advocated by others."
He thus set forth the measure in the light of injustice to the negro:
"The gentlemen who report it profess to be, and doubtless are, the
peculiar advocates of the African race. I wish to ask them upon what
principle of justice, upon what principle of free government, they
have provided that if, after this amendment is adopted, South
Carolina, Mississippi, or any other State shall adopt a provision that
all white men over twenty-one years of age shall be voters, and all
black men who have two hundred dollars' worth of property, and if
there shall be ten thousand legal black voters in such State, upon
what principle will you place in the Constitution of the United States
a provision which would deprive these ten thousand legal black voters
of any representation upon the floor of Congress, or of being
considered in the basis of representation? And I wish to ask the
honorable gentleman who reported this amendment if that is not the
effect and result of the amendment reported from the committee."
In reference to the time and place of inaugurating constitutional
amendments, Mr. Marshall used the following language: "If any
amendments are necessary to the Constitution of our country, this is
not the time, and more especially is this not the place, to inaugurate
such amendments. I believe, notwithstanding the conceded wisdom,
ability, and virtue of this House, that the fathers who framed our
glorious Constitution were wiser, better, and nobler than we are; yet
every day we have offered here some dozen or twenty proposed
amendments to the Constitution, offered as if we were discussing
resolutions in a town meeting."
[Illustration: Robert C. Schenck.]
Among the propositions before the House relating to this subject, was
an amendment proposed by Mr. Schenck, of Ohio, providing that
representation should be based upon "the number of male citizens of
the United States over twenty-one years of age, having the
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of
the State legislature."
Mr. Schenck addressed the House, and thus gave a history of his own
connection with the measure: "At a very early day in this session, I
was one of those disposed to ask the attention of Congress to the
subject, to propose in proper form the submission of the question to
the Legislatures of the several States. On the first day of the
session, on the 4th of December last, as soon as the House was
organized, I gave notice that I would on the next, or some succeeding
day, introduce a proposition to amend the Constitution. On the ensuing
day I did accordingly present a joint resolution. It stands as House
Resolution No. 1 of the session.
"In that I propose representation hereafter shall be based upon
suffrage. I propose that representation shall be apportioned among the
several States of the Union according to the number of voters having
qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of
the Legislature of the State where they reside, following in this the
language of the Constitution; these voters, however, to be further
limited in their descriptions and definitions as being male citizens
of the United States over twenty-one years of age. Now, whether the
proposition be a good one or not; whether the limitation be such as
should commend itself to the masses of our people, I will not for the
present inquire. I will only remark they have seemed to me to embrace
as many qualifications as we ought to include when we are going to lay
down a new organic law on this subject."
An objection urged by Mr. Schenck against the plan proposed by the
committee was, that it failed to offer inducements for a gradual
enfranchisement of the negro. He said: "Now, sir, I am not one of
those who entertain Utopian ideas in relation, not merely to the
progress, but to the immediate change of sentiment, opinions, and
practice among the people of those States that have so lately been
slave States, and so recently in rebellion. I believe that, like all
other people, their growth toward good and right and free institutions
must necessarily be gradual; and if we pass the amendment which I have
proposed, or any thing similar to it, and say to them, 'You shall have
representation proportioned to the portion of your population to which
you extend this inestimable franchise,' my belief is that they will
not, on the next day after it becomes a part of the organic law of the
United States, at once enfranchise all the negroes in their midst. I
am not sure that they ought to do it; but we are dealing with the
matter now as it presents itself as a practical question. What will
they probably do? My belief is, that if you persuade them to do right,
if you hold out to them an inducement for letting their negroes vote,
and striking out these disqualifications and putting all upon the
basis of manhood, they will probably begin, after the amendment
becomes part of the organic law, by extending this right to those who
have acquired certain property; perhaps they will also extend it,
after awhile, to those who have certain qualifications of education.
However they may proceed, whether rapidly or slowly, it will be a work
of progress and a work of time. But by this amendment you would say to
them, 'We do not want you to enter upon any such gradual bringing up
of these people to the level plain of right to be enjoyed by them
equally with others of other races in your midst.' We say to them,
'You may enfranchise one-third or one-fourth of your people who are
black and deprived of the privilege of voting by introducing the
qualification of property, up to which one-third or one-fourth may
come; you may introduce a qualification of education, up to which a
number of them may come; but that will all be of no value; so long as
there is any denial or any abridgement of the right to vote of a
single man on account of his race or color, you shall have no part of
the population of that race or color counted to measure to you your
share of representation.'
"Now, I will not go into the abstract question whether they ought to
enfranchise the negroes at once or not; I will not go into the
question of how soon they ought to do it as a matter of expediency; I
say that, in all human probability, when they come to enfranchise, if
they do it at all, this portion of their population, they will do it
gradually; yet, by this amendment, as it comes from the committee, you
say that they shall not be represented for any part of it at all till
they completely enfranchise them and put them on the same footing with
the white population."
In conclusion, Mr. Schenck remarked: "New England, if she should even
lose a vote, or two votes, or a fraction of a vote, can not afford,
any more than Ohio or Indiana, or any other of those States can,
having these particular objections to the scheme, to let the
opportunity go by now and not introduce a general amendment which will
remedy the one great evil under which we are all laboring together. I
hold that Ohio must give up her objections on account of her negro
population; that the North-western States must give up their
objections on account of the fact that they are permitting persons to
vote who are not yet citizens of the United States. Those persons
would have to wait, 'to tarry at Jericho until their beards are
grown,' I hold that New England must give up her objections; and, if
we are to amend the organic law at all, we must do it by uniting upon
a common principle, a common sympathy, a common feeling, at least on
this side of the House, upon which the entire responsibility is
thrown, acting harmoniously, and adopting such an amendment to the
organic law as shall be entirely democratic and fair in all its scope
and action upon all the people of the States of this Union."
The discussion was continued on the day following, Mr. Eldridge, of
Wisconsin, having the floor for the first speech. After having
expressed his satisfaction that the sun was allowed to go down on the
deliberations upon this resolution, he confessed himself opposed to
the amendment of the Constitution. He said: "I believe that this is
not the time for its amendment, and I believe, further, that there are
other States than those represented upon this floor which are entitled
to deliberate with us on that question, and to that point I shall
mainly address the remarks which I have to make at this time."
He made a protracted speech on the general subject of reconstruction.
At the close of his remarks, he said: "It would much more comport with
the dignity and sense of justice of the American Congress to let the
legally elected members from the Southern States be admitted, and
participate in the proceedings and debates, especially in matters of
so great importance as a change in our organic law. Let us have a
representation for our whole country. Wherever the American flag
floats, from the St. Lawrence to the Gulf of Mexico--wherever the
Star-spangled Banner waves--that is our country. And let us legislate
as Americans, as Representatives of our whole country, in a spirit of
justice, liberality, and patriotism, and we will again have one
country."
Mr. Higby, of California, was opposed to the joint resolution from the
fact that the proviso in the proposed amendment is in conflict with
that portion of the Constitution which requires that "the United
States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a republican form
of government." "I say it," said he, "without fear or favor, that that
amendment will allow any State government in its organization to
exclude one-half of its population from the right of suffrage; and I
say such State governments will not be republican in form."
In a conversation which ensued with some members, Mr. Higby maintained
that no State excluding any class of citizens on account of race or
color was republican in form. "I do not believe," said he, "there is a
single State in the Union, except it may be one of the New England
States, which is an exception to that general rule."
Mr. Hill, of Indiana, asked whether the gentleman would favor the
House with his opinion as to what would be a republican form of
government.
Mr. Higby was sorry that the gentleman had lived to his time of life,
and obtained a position as the Representative of a large constituency,
without finding out what a republican form of government is. "I will
ask the gentleman," said he, "if he thinks that those States that have
excluded and disfranchised more than half of their native population
have a republican form of government?"
"In my opinion," said Mr. Hill, "when the framers of the Constitution
placed in that instrument the declaration or the provision that the
Government of the United States would guarantee to each State a
republican form of government, they spoke with reference to such
governments as then existed, and such as those same framers recognized
for a long time afterward as republican governments."
"Well, that is a very good answer," said Mr. Higby. "It is an answer
from a stand-point seventy-five years ago. I speak from the
stand-point of the present time."
Mr. Higby desired that the joint resolution should go back to the
committee. He said: "I do not wish it disposed of here, to be voted
down. I want, if it is possible, that it shall be so framed that it
shall receive the full constitutional majority required, and be a
proposition that shall operate with full force in all those States
that now have a great population excluded from the rights of
citizenship."
"If the gentleman proposes," said Mr. Stevens, "to send it back to the
committee without instructions, I would ask him what we are to do.
There are not quite as many views upon this floor as there are
members; but the number lacks very little of it. And how are we to
gather up all those views spread through all this discussion, and
accommodate all, when each view would now probably receive from one to
three votes in its favor?"
"I have only this to say," replied Mr. Higby: "with my views of the
Constitution, I never can vote for this proposition with this proviso
in its present language. I say that it gives a power to the States to
make governments that are not republican in form."
"I say to my friend," said Mr. Stevens, "that if I thought, that by
any fair construction of language, such an interpretation could be
given as he gives, I would vote against it myself; but I do not
believe there is any thing in that objection."
Mr. Bingham took the floor in favor of the proposed joint resolution.
In "giving this and other amendments to the Constitution my support,"
said he, "I do not subject myself to the gratuitous imputation of a
want of reverence either for the Constitution or its illustrious
founders. I beg leave, at all events, to say, with all possible
respect for that gentleman, that I do not recognize the right of any
man upon this floor, who was a representative of that party which
denied the right to defend the Constitution of his country by arms
against armed rebellion, to become my accuser.
"In seeking to amend, not to mar, the Constitution of the United
States, we ought to have regard to every express or implied limitation
upon our power imposed by that great instrument. When gentlemen object
to amending the Constitution, when they talk sneeringly about
tinkering with the Constitution, they do not remember that it is one
of the express provisions of that instrument that Congress shall have
power to propose amendments to the Legislatures of the several States.
Do gentlemen mean, by the logic to which we have listened for the past
five days on this subject of our right to amend, that we are not to
add any thing to the Constitution, and that we are to take nothing
from it? I prefer to follow, in this supreme hour of the nation's
trial, the lead of a wiser and nobler spirit, who, by common consent,
was called, while he lived, 'the Father of his Country,' and, now that
he is dead, is still reverenced as 'the Father of his Country,' and to
be hailed, I trust, by the millions of the future who are to people
this land of ours as 'the Father of his Country.' In his Farewell
Address, his last official utterance, Washington used these
significant words, which I repeat to-day for the consideration of
gentlemen: "The basis of our political systems is the right of the
people to make and to alter their constitutions of government.' We
propose, sir, simply to act in accordance with this suggestion of
Washington. We propose, in presenting these amendments, to alter, in
so far as the changed condition of the country requires, the
fundamental law, in order to secure the safety of the republic and
furnish better guarantees in the future for the rights of each and
all.
"The question that underlies this controversy is this: whether we will
stand by the Constitution in its original intent and spirit, or, like
cravens, abandon it. I assert it here to-day, without fear of
contradiction, that the amendment pending before this House is an
amendment conforming exactly to the spirit of the Constitution, and
according to the declared intent of its framers.
"My friend from California [Mr. Higby] has informed us that there are
one hundred thousand more free colored citizens of the United States
in the State of Mississippi to-day than there are of white citizens;
that there are one hundred thousand more free colored citizens of the
United States in South Carolina than there are of white citizens; and
then we are gravely told that we must not press this amendment,
because we are abandoning the Constitution and the intent of our
fathers. That is a new discovery, one for which the Democracy ought to
take out letters patent, that it was ever intended that a minority of
free citizens should disfranchise the majority of free male citizens,
of full age, in any State of the Union! For myself, I will never
consent to it."
In answer to the objection that the proviso in the proposed amendment
seemed to acknowledge the right to deny or abridge the elective
franchise on account of race or color, Mr. Bingham said: "I beg the
gentleman to consider that a grant of power by implication can not be
raised by a law which only imposes a penalty, and nothing but a
penalty, for a non-performance of a duty or the violation of a right.
Within the last hundred years, in no country where the common law
obtains, I venture to say, has any implication of a grant of power
ever been held to be raised by such a law, and especially an implied
power, to do an act expressly prohibited by the same law. The
guarantee of your Constitution, that the people shall elect their
Representatives in the several States, can not be set aside or
impaired by inserting in your Constitution, as a penalty for
disregarding it, the provision that the majority of a State that
denies the equal rights of the minority shall suffer a loss of
political power.
"I have endeavored to show that the words of the Constitution, the
people of 'the States shall choose their Representatives,' is an
express guarantee that a majority of the free male citizens of the
United States in every State of this Union, being of full age, shall
have the political power subject to the equal right of suffrage in the
minority of free male citizens of full age. There is a further
guarantee in the Constitution of a republican form of government to
every State, which I take to mean that the majority of the free male
citizens in every State shall have the political power. I submit to my
friend that this proviso is nothing but a penalty for a violation on
the part of the people of any State of the political right or
franchise guaranteed by the Constitution to their free male
fellow-citizens of full age.
"The guarantee in the first article of the second section of the
Constitution, rightly interpreted, is, as I claim, this: that the
majority of the male citizens of the United States, of full age, in
each State, shall forever exercise the political power of the State
with this limitation: that they shall never by caste legislation
impose disabilities upon one class of free male citizens to the denial
or abridgement of equal rights. The further provision is, that the
United States shall guarantee to each State a republican form of
government, which means that the majority of male citizens, of full
age, in each State, shall govern, not, however, in violation of the
Constitution of the United States or of the rights of the minority."
In closing his address, Mr. Bingham said: "I pray gentlemen to
consider long before they reject this proviso. It may not be the best
that the wisest head in this House can conceive of, but I ask
gentlemen to consider that the rule of statesmanship is to take the
best attainable essential good which is at our command. The reason why
I support the proposed amendment is, that I believe it essential and
attainable. I do not dare to say that it could not be improved. I do
dare to say that it is in aid of the existing grants and guarantees of
the Constitution of my country, that it is simply a penalty to be
inflicted upon the States for a specific disregard in the future of
those wise and just and humane grants 'to the people' to elect their
Representatives and maintain a republican government in each State.
"Mr. Speaker, the republic is great; it is great in its domain, equal
in extent to continental Europe, abounding in productions of every
zone, broad enough and fertile enough to furnish bread and homes to
three hundred million freemen. The republic is great in the
intelligence, thrift, industry, energy, virtue, and valor of its
unconquered and unconquerable children, and great in its matchless,
wise, and beneficent Constitution. I pray the Congress of the United
States to propose to the people all needful amendments to the
Constitution, that by their sovereign act they may crown the republic
for all time with the greatness of justice."
Mr. Broomall, of Pennsylvania, presented an objection to the
resolution which had not been alluded to by any gentleman on the
floor. He said: "The resolution provides that whenever the elective
franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State, on account of race
or color, all persons of such race or color shall be excluded from the
basis of representation. Now, there is a great deal of indefiniteness
in both those terms, 'race' and 'color.'
"What is a race of men? Writers upon the subject of races differ very
materially on this point. Some of them would make four or five races;
others fifteen; and one, whom I might name, seems inclined not to
limit the number short of a thousand. I myself am inclined to think
that the Celtic race is a distinct one from ours. I think that any
gentleman who has studied this subject attentively will at least have
doubts whether or not the race that appears to have inhabited Europe
in the early historic period, and has been partly dispossessed there
by ours, is not a distinct race from ours.
"Again: the word 'color' is exceedingly indefinite. If we had a
constitutional standard of color, that of sole-leather, for example,
by which to test the State laws upon this subject, there might be less
danger in incorporating this provision in the Constitution. But the
term 'color' is nowhere defined in the Constitution or the law. We
apply the term to persons who are of African descent, whether their
color is whiter or darker than ours. Every one who is familiar with
the ethnological condition of things here in the United States, and
who sees the general mixing up of colors, particularly in the
Democratic portion of the country--I allude to that portion south of
Mason and Dixon's line--must say with me that the word 'color' has no
very distinct meaning when applied to the different peoples of the
United States of America."
Two Representatives from New York--Mr. Davis and Mr. Ward--expressed
opinions favorable to a modification of the basis of representation,
and yet were opposed to the details of the proposition before the
House.
Mr. Nicholson, of Delaware, in emphatic terms, denounced the acts of a
majority of the House in attempting to amend the Constitution. "If
they shall finally triumph," said he, "in the mad schemes in which
they are engaged, they will succeed in converting that heretofore
sacred instrument, reverenced and obeyed till the present dominant
party came into power, from a bond of union to a galling yoke of
oppression--a thing to be loathed and despised."
The discussion was still much protracted. Many members had an
opportunity of presenting their views and opinions without adding much
to the arguments for or against the measure. The power of debate, as
well as "the power of amendment," seemed to have exhausted itself, and
yet gentlemen, continued to swell the volume of both through several
days.
On Friday, January 26th, Mr. Harding, of Kentucky, made a violent
political speech, ostensibly in opposition to the measure before the
House. The following is an extract from his remarks:
"The Republican party have manufactured a large amount of capital out
of the negro question. First they began with caution, now they draw on
it as if they thought it as inexhaustible as were the widow's barrel
of meal and cruse of oil. The fact that the negro question has
continued so long has been owing to the great care with which the
Republican party has managed it."
Mr. McKee, of Kentucky, followed. Referring to his colleague who had
preceded him, he said: "I regret extremely that he has pursued the
same line of policy that gentlemen belonging to the same political
party have pursued ever since the idea took possession of the
Government that the negro was to be a freeman. His whole speech has
been made up of the negro and nothing else.
"I would like it if the amendment could go a little beyond what it
does. I would like so to amend the Constitution that no man who had
raised his hand against the flag should ever be allowed to participate
in any of the affairs of this Government. But it is not probable that
we can go that far. Let us go just as far as we can.
"Gentlemen say that they are not willing to vote for an amendment that
strikes off a part of the representation of the States; they are not
willing to vote for an amendment that lessens Kentucky's
representation upon this floor. The whole course of my colleague's
remarks on this point is as the course of his party--and I may say of
the loyal party in Kentucky--has been through a great part of the war,
that Kentucky is the nation, and the United States a secondary
appendage to her."
Mr. Kerr, of Indiana, did not desire to be heard at length upon the
main question before the House, but upon some questions incidentally
connected with it. He then proceeded to discuss the question whether
Congress has "the power so to regulate the suffrage as to give the
right of suffrage to every male citizen of the country of twenty-one
years of age." "I propose now," said he, "for a few moments, to
examine this question with a somewhat extensive reference to the
history of the Constitution in this connection, and if possible to
arrive at a conclusion whether the honorable gentleman from
Pennsylvania has given greater attention to the history of this
question than the President, and whether the conclusion which he has
reached is a safer one for the country, or more in harmony with the
history and true intent of the Constitution, than that of the
President."
Near the close of his remarks, referring to the measure before the
House, Mr. Kerr remarked: "I can see but one single clear result that
will follow from this amendment if it is adopted by the people of this
country, and that is an effect that will inure not to the advantage of
the nation, nor of any State in the Union, nor of any class or race of
men in any State; but it will inure solely to the benefit and
advantage of the Republican party. In my judgment, the only persons
who will gain by this provision will be the now dominant party in this
country. They will thereby increase their power; they will thereby
degrade the South; they will reduce her representation here, and
relatively increase their own representation; they will confirm the
sectional supremacy of the North in the legislation and administration
of the Government. They may thus compel the South to become suppliants
at their feet for justice, and it may be for mercy."
Mr. Kasson, of Iowa, and Mr. Wright, of New Jersey, made extended
remarks, avowedly in opposition to the measure, but dwelling, for the
greater portion of their time, upon subjects remotely connected with
the resolution before the House.
Discussion was resumed in the House on Monday, January 29th. The
question having become much complicated by the numerous propositions
to amend, the Speaker, by request of Mr. Conkling, stated the exact
position of the subject before the House, and the various questions
pending. The Speaker said: "The committee having reported this joint
resolution, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Stevens] moved to
amend by inserting the word 'therein' after the words 'all persons,'
in the last clause of the proposed amendment to the Constitution.
"Pending that motion, the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley]
moved an entirely new proposition in the nature of a substitute for
the joint resolution reported from the joint committee, proposing an
amendment to the Constitution differing from the one reported from the
committee. The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Baker] also submitted for
his colleague [Mr. Ingersoll] a proposition in the nature of a
substitute for the one reported from the committee, as an amendment to
the amendment.
"Pending those two propositions, the gentleman from Ohio [Mr.
Lawrence] moved to recommit the joint resolution to the joint
committee with certain instructions. The gentleman from Massachusetts
[Mr. Eliot] moved to amend the instructions, and the gentleman from
Ohio [Mr. Schenck] moved to amend the amendment.
"The gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Le Blond] also moved to commit the whole
subject to the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union. The
first question will, therefore, be upon the motion to commit to the
Committee of the Whole, as that committee is higher in rank than the
joint Committee on Reconstruction.
"Next after that will be the various motions to recommit with
instructions. If all those propositions should fail, then the motion
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania, [Mr. Stevens,] being for the
purpose of perfecting the original proposition, will come up for
consideration. Then propositions in the nature of substitutes will
come up for consideration; first the amendment to the amendment,
proposed by the gentleman from Illinois, [Mr. Baker,] and next the
substitute amendment of the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Kelley]."
Mr. Raymond, of New York, made a speech three hours in length, in
opposition to the proposed amendment to the Constitution. He discussed
the general questions of reconstruction, affirming that the Southern
States had resumed their functions of self-government in the Union,
that they did not change their constitutional relations by making war,
and that Congress should admit their Representatives by districts,
receiving only loyal men as members.
The closing words of Mr. Raymond's speech excited great sensation and
surprise. They were as follows: "The gigantic contest is at an end.
The courage and devotion on either side which made it so terrible and
so long, no longer owe a divided duty, but have become the common
property of the American name, the priceless possession of the
American Republic through all time to come. The dead of the contending
hosts sleep beneath the soil of a common country, and under one common
flag. Their hostilities are hushed, and they are the dead of the
nation forever more. The victor may well exult in the victory he has
achieved. Let it be our task, as it will be our highest glory, to make
the vanquished, and their posterity to the latest generation, rejoice
in their defeat."
Mr. Julian could not accept heartily the proposition reported by the
joint committee. He thus presented what he considered a preferable
plan: "Under the constitutional injunction upon the United States to
guarantee a republican form of government to every State, I believe
the power already exists in the nation to regulate the right of
suffrage. It can only exercise this power through Congress; and
Congress, of course, must decide what is a republican form of
government, and when the national authority shall interpose against
State action for the purpose of executing the constitutional
guarantee. No one will deny the authority of Congress to decide that
if a State should disfranchise one-third, one-half, or two-thirds of
her citizens, such State would cease to be republican, and might be
required to accept a different rule of suffrage. If Congress could
intervene in such a case, it could obviously intervene in any other
case in which it might deem it necessary or proper. It certainly might
decide that the disfranchisement by a State of a whole race of people
within her borders is inconsistent with a republican form of
government, and in their behalf, and in the execution of its own
authority and duty, restore them to their equal right with others to
the franchise. It might decide, for example, that in North Carolina,
where 631,000 citizens disfranchise 331,000, the government is not
republican, and should be made so by extending the franchise. It might
do the same in Virginia, where 719,000 citizens disfranchise 533,000;
in Alabama, where 596,000 citizens disfranchise 437,000; in Georgia,
where 591,000 citizens disfranchise 465,000; in Louisiana, where
357,000 citizens disfranchise 350,000; in Mississippi, where 353,000
citizens disfranchise 436,000; and in South Carolina, where only
291,000 citizens disfranchise 411,000. Can any man who reverences the
Constitution deny either the authority or the duty of Congress to do
all this in the execution of the guarantee named? Or if the 411,000
negroes in South Carolina were to organize a government, and
disfranchise her 291,000 white citizens, would any body doubt the
authority of Congress to pronounce such government anti-republican,
and secure the ballot equally to white and black citizens as the
remedy? Or if a State should prescribe as a qualification for the
ballot such an ownership of property, real or personal, as would
disfranchise the great body of her people, could not Congress most
undoubtedly interfere? So of an educational test, which might fix the
standard of knowledge so high as to place the governing power in the
hands of a select few. The power in all such cases is a reserved one
in Congress, to be exercised according to its own judgment, with no
accountability to any tribunal save the people; and without such power
the nation would be at the mercy of as many oligarchies as there are
States. It is true that the power of Congress to guarantee republican
governments in the States through its intervention with the question
of suffrage has not hitherto been exercised, but this certainly does
not disprove the existence of such power, nor the expediency of its
exercise now, under an additional and independent constitutional
grant, and when a fit occasion for it has come through the madness of
treason. Why temporize by adopting half-way measures and a policy of
indirection? The shortest distance between two given points is a
straight line. Let us follow it in so important a work as amending the
Constitution.
"How do you know that the broad proposition I advocate will fail in
Congress or before the people? These are revolutionary days. Whole
generations of common time are now crowded into the span of a few
years. Life was never before so grand and blessed an opportunity. The
man mistakes his reckoning who judges either the present or the future
by any political almanac of bygone years. Growth, development,
progress are the expressive watchwords of the hour. Who can remember
the marvelous events of the past four years, necessitated by the late
war, and then predict the failure of further measures, woven into the
same fabric, and born of the same inevitable logic?"
On Monday, January 30th, the proposed constitutional amendment was
recommitted to the joint Committee on Reconstruction. On the following
day Mr. Stevens reported back the joint resolution, with an amendment
striking out the words "and direct taxes," so as to fix simply the
basis of representation in Congress upon population, excluding those
races or colors to which the franchise is denied or abridged.
Mr. Schenck offered a substitute making "male citizens of the United
States over twenty-one years" the basis of representation. Mr. Schenck
occupied a few minutes in advocating his proposition.
On the other hand, Mr. Benjamin, of Missouri, objected to the
substitute as greatly to the detriment of Missouri, since it would
reduce her representation in Congress from nine to four, because she
has endeavored to place the Government in loyal hands by
disfranchising the rebel element of that State. In doing this, she had
disfranchised one-half her voters.
The previous question having been called, Mr. Stevens made the closing
speech of the protracted discussion. In the opening of his speech, Mr.
Stevens said: "It is true we have been informed by high authority, at
the other end of the avenue, introduced through an unusual conduit,
that no amendment is necessary to the Constitution as our fathers made
it, and that it is better to let it stand as it is. Now, sir, I think
very differently, myself, for one individual. I believe there is
intrusted to this Congress a high duty, no less important and no less
fraught with the weal or woe of future ages than was intrusted to the
august body that made the Declaration of Independence. I believe now,
if we omit to exercise that high duty, or abuse it, we shall be held
to account by future generations of America, and by the whole
civilized world that is in favor of freedom, and that our names will
go down to posterity with some applause or with black condemnation if
we do not treat the subject thoroughly, honestly, and justly in
reference to every human being on this continent."
That the above paragraph may be understood, it will be necessary to
state that the President of the United States himself had taken part
in the discussion of the measure pending before Congress. The "unusual
conduit" was the telegraph and the press--the means by which his
opinions were given to Congress and the public. The President's
opinions were expressed in the following paper, as read by the Clerk
of the House, at the request of several members:
"The following is the substance of a conversation which took
place yesterday between the President and a distinguished
Senator, as telegraphed North by the agent of the Associated
Press:
"The President said that he doubted the propriety at this
time of making further amendments to the Constitution. One
great amendment had already been made, by which slavery had
forever been abolished within the limits of the United
States, and a national guarantee thus given that the
institution should never exist in the land. Propositions to
amend the Constitution were becoming as numerous as
preambles and resolutions at town meetings called to
consider the most ordinary questions connected with the
administration of local affairs. All this, in his opinion,
had a tendency to diminish the dignity and prestige attached
to the Constitution of the country, and to lessen the
respect and confidence of the people in their great charter
of freedom. If, however, amendments are to be made to the
Constitution, changing the basis of representation and
taxation, (and he did not deem them at all necessary at the
present time,) he knew of none better than a simple
proposition, embraced in a few lines, making in each State
the number of qualified voters the basis of representation,
and the value of property the basis of direct taxation. Such
a proposition could be embraced in the following terms:
"'Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union according to
the number of qualified voters in each State.
"'Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
which may be included within this Union according to the
value of all taxable property in each State.'
"An amendment of this kind would, in his opinion, place the
basis of representation and direct taxation upon correct
principles. The qualified voters were, for the most part,
men who were subject to draft and enlistment when it was
necessary to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, and quell
domestic violence and insurrection. They risk their lives,
shed their blood, and peril their all to uphold the
Government, and give protection, security, and value to
property. It seemed but just that property should compensate
for the benefits thus conferred by defraying the expenses
incident to its protection and enjoyment.
"Such an amendment, the President also suggested, would
remove from Congress all issues in reference to the
political equality of the races. It would leave the States
to determine absolutely the qualifications of their own
voters with regard to color; and thus the number of
Representatives to which they would be entitled in Congress
would depend upon the number upon whom they conferred the
right of suffrage.
"The President, in this connection, expressed the opinion
that the agitation of the negro-franchise question in the
District of Columbia, at this time was the mere
entering-wedge to the agitation of the question throughout
the States, and was ill-timed, uncalled for, and calculated
to do great harm. He believed that it would engender enmity,
contention, and strife between the two races, and lead to a
war between»them which would result in great injury to both,
and the certain extermination of the negro population.
Precedence, he thought, should be given to more important
and urgent matters, legislation upon which was essential for
the restoration of the Union, the peace of the country, and
the prosperity of the people."
"This," said Mr. Stevens, "I take to be an authorized utterance of one
at the other end of the avenue. I have no doubt that this is the
proclamation, the command of the President of the United States, made
and put forth by authority in advance, and at a time when this
Congress was legislating on this very question; made, in my judgment,
in violation of the privileges of this House; made in such a way that
centuries ago, had it been made to Parliament by a British king, it
would have cost him his head. But, sir, we pass that by; we are
tolerant of usurpation in this tolerant Government of ours."
In answer to those who contended that Congress should regulate the
right of suffrage in the States, Mr. Stevens said: "If you should take
away the right which now is and always has been exercised by the
States, by fixing the qualifications of their electors, instead of
getting nineteen States, which is necessary to ratify this amendment,
you might possibly get five. I venture to say you could not get five
in this Union. And that is an answer, in the opinion of the committee,
to all that has been said on this subject. But it grants no right. It
says, however, to the State of South Carolina and other slave States,
True, we leave where it has been left for eighty years the right to
fix the elective franchise, but you must not abuse it; if you do, the
Constitution will impose upon you a penalty, and will continue to
inflict it until you shall have corrected your actions.
"Now, any man who knows any thing about the condition of aspiration
and ambition for power which exists in the slave States, knows that
one of their chief objects is to rule this country. It was to ruin it
if they could not rule it. They have not been able to ruin it, and now
their great ambition will be to rule it. If a State abuses the
elective franchise, and takes it from those who are the only loyal
people there, the Constitution says to such a State, You shall lose
power in the halls of the nation, and you shall remain where you are,
a shriveled and dried-up nonentity instead of being the lords of
creation, as you have been, so far as America is concerned, for years
past.
"Now, sir, I say no more strong inducement could ever beheld out to
them; no more severe punishment could ever be inflicted upon them as
States. If they exclude the colored population, they will lose at
least thirty-five Representatives in this hall; if they adopt it, they
will have eighty-three votes."
Mr. Stevens urged several objections to the proposition of Mr.
Schenck. He said: "If I have been rightly informed as to the number,
there are from fifteen to twenty Representatives in the Northern
States founded upon those who are not citizens of the United States.
In New York I think there are three or four Representatives founded
upon the foreign population--three certainly. And so it is in
Wisconsin, Iowa, and other Northern States. There are fifteen or
twenty Northern Representatives that would be lost by that amendment
and given to the South whenever they grant the elective franchise to
the negro.
"Now, sir, while I have not any particular regard for any foreigner
who goes against me, yet I do not think it would be wise to put into
the Constitution or send to the people a proposition to amend the
Constitution which would take such Representatives from those States,
and which, therefore, they will never adopt.
"But I have another objection to the amendment of my friend from Ohio.
His proposition is to apportion representation according to the male
citizens of the States. Why has he put in the word 'male?' It was
never in the Constitution of the United States before. Why make a
crusade against women in the Constitution of the nation? [Laughter.]
Is my friend as much afraid of their rivalry as the gentlemen on the
other side of the House are afraid of the rivalry of the negro?
[Laughter.] I do not think we ought to disfigure the Constitution with
such a provision. I find that every unmarried man is opposed to the
proposition. Whether married men have particular reason for dreading
interference from that quarter I know not. [Laughter.] I certainly
shall never vote to insert the word 'male' or the word 'white' in the
national Constitution. Let these things be attended to by the
States."
In answer to the objection that the amendment proposed by the
committee "might be evaded by saying that no man who had ever been a
slave should vote, and that would not be disfranchisement on account
of race or color," Mr. Stevens said: "Sir, no man in America ever was
or ever could be a slave if he was a white man. I know white men have
been held in bondage contrary to law. But there never was a court in
the United States, in a slave State or a free State, that has not
admitted that if one held as a slave could prove himself to be white,
he was that instant free. And, therefore, such an exclusion, on
account of previous condition of slavery, must be an exclusion on
account of race or color. Therefore that objection falls to the
ground."
In reply to the closing paragraph of Mr. Raymond's speech, Mr. Stevens
said: "I could not but admire (an admiration mingled with wonder) the
amiability of temper, the tenderness of heart, the generosity of
feeling which must have prompted some of the closing sentences of the
excellent and able speech delivered by the gentleman on last Monday.
His words were these:
"'The gigantic contest is at an end. The courage and
devotion on either side, which made it so terrible and so
long, no longer owe a divided duty, but have become the
common property of the American name, the priceless
possession of the American Republic, through all time to
come. The dead of the contending hosts sleep beneath the
soil of a common country, under their common flag. Their
hostilities are hushed, and they are the dead of the nation
for evermore.'
"Sir, much more than amiable, much more than religious, must be the
sentiment that would prompt any man to say that 'the courage and
devotion' which so long withstood our arms, prolonging the terrible
conflict of war, and sacrificing the lives of thousands of loyal men,
are hereafter to be the common boast of the nation, 'the priceless
possession of the American Republic through all time to come;' that it
is the pride of our country so many infamous rebels were so ferocious
in their murders.
"Sir, we are to consider these dead on both sides as the dead of the
nation, the common dead! And so, I suppose, we are to raise monuments
beside the monuments to Reynolds and others, to be erected in the
cemetery on the battle-field of Gettysburg. We must there build high
the monumental marble for men like Barksdale, whom I have seen in this
hall draw their bowie-knives on the Representatives of the people; men
who died upon the battle-field of Gettysburg in arms against the
Government, and where they now lie buried in ditches, 'unwept,
unhonored, and unsung!' They are, I suppose, to be raised and put into
the fore-front ranks of the nation, and we are to call them through
all time as the dead of the nation! Sir, was there ever blasphemy
before like this? Who was it burnt the temple of Ephesus? Who was it
imitated the thunder of Jove? All that was poor compared with this
blasphemy. I say, if the loyal dead, who are thus associated with the
traitors who murdered them, put by the gentleman on the same footing
with them, are to be treated as the 'common dead of the nation'--I
say, sir, if they could have heard the gentleman, they would have
broken the cerements of the tomb, and stalked forth and haunted him
until his eye-balls were seared."
The question was first taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Schenck,
which was rejected by a vote of one hundred and thirty-one to
twenty-nine.
The question was then taken on agreeing to the joint resolution as
modified by the committee, and it was decided in the affirmative by
the following vote:
YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, James M.
Ashley, Baker, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin,
Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee,
Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke,
Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis,
Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley,
Eggleston, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell,
Griswold, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Hill, Holmes,
Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard,
Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd,
James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso,
Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William
Lawrence, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg,
McIndoe, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris,
Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham,
Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H.
Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger,
Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Stilwell, Thayer, Francis
Thomas, John L. Thomas, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn,
Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne,
William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, James F.
Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge--120.
NAYS--Messrs. Baldwin, Bergen, Boyer, Brooks, Chanler,
Dawson, Dennison, Eldridge, Eliot, Finck, Grider, Hale,
Aaron Harding, Harris, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M.
Humphrey, Jenckes, Johnson, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond,
Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps,
Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Ritter,
Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Strouse,
Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Voorhees, Whaley, and
Wright--46.
NOT VOTING--Messrs. Ancona, Delos R. Ashley, Culver, Driggs,
Dumont, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Henderson, Higby, Jones,
Loan, McRuer, Newell, Radford, Trowbridge, and Winfield--16.
Two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the Speaker declared the
joint resolution adopted.
The strong vote by which this measure was passed, after so general an
expression of dissent from it, excited some surprise. Many gentlemen
evidently surrendered their individual preferences for the sake of
unanimity. They believed that this was the best measure calculated to
secure just representation, which would pass the ordeal of Congress
and three-fourths of the States. They accepted the "rule of
statesmanship," to "take the best attainable, essential good which is
at our command."
A disposition to rebuke supposed Executive dictation had some effect
to produce an unexpected unanimity in favor of the measure. One Rhode
Island and two Massachusetts members insisted on national negro
suffrage, and voted against the amendments. Mr. Raymond and Mr. Hale,
of New York, were the only Republicans who voted against the measure
in accordance with the President's opinions. Of the border slave State
members, ten voted for the amendment and sixteen against it.