THE RECONSTRUCTION AMENDMENT--IN THE HOUSE.
A Constitutional Amendment Proposed and Postponed --
Proposition by Mr. Stewart -- The Reconstruction Amendment
-- Death of its Predecessor Lamented -- Opposition to the
Disfranchisement of Rebels -- "The Unrepentent Thirty-three"
-- Nine-tenths Reduced to One-twelfth -- Advice to Congress
-- The Committee Denounced -- Democratic and Republican
Policy Compared -- Authority without Power -- A Variety of
Opinions -- An Earthquake Predicted -- The Joint Resolution
Passes the House.
While the joint resolution proposing a modification of the basis of
representation was the subject of consideration in the Senate, a
constitutional amendment relating to the rights of citizens was made
the topic of brief discussion in the House. It had been previously
introduced and referred to the Committee of Fifteen. From this
committee it was reported back by Mr. Bingham. It was proposed in the
following form:
"ARTICLE--. That Congress shall have power to make all laws
which shall be necessary and proper to secure to the
citizens of each State all privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States, and to all persons in the
several States equal protection in the rights of life,
liberty, and property."
This proposition was introduced on the 26th of February, and was
debated during the sessions of three successive days.
Many members of the legal profession saw in the final clause a
dangerous centralization of power. It was considered objectionable as
seeming to authorize the General Government to interfere with local
laws on the subject of property, the legal rights of women, and other
matters hitherto considered wholly within the domain of State
legislation; hence the Republican majority unanimously voted to
postpone the amendment until April.
After this postponement, and the failure of the amendment relating to
the basis of representation to pass the Senate, the subject of
reconstruction was in the hands of the Committee of Fifteen until the
30th of April.
Individuals had, from time to time, introduced propositions on the
subject, which were referred to the appropriate committee. The one
which attracted most attention and excited greatest interest was a
proposition in the Senate, by Mr. Stewart, of Nevada. This was in
favor of a joint resolution providing that each of the States lately
in rebellion shall be recognized as having resumed its relations with
the Government, and its Representatives shall be admitted to Congress
whenever it shall have amended its Constitution so as to provide--
"1. There shall be no distinction in civil rights among its
citizens by reason of race or color or previous condition of
servitude; 2. That all debts incurred in aid of the
rebellion shall be repudiated; 3. That all claim for
compensation for liberated slaves shall be relinquished; and
4. That the elective franchise be extended to all persons on
the same terms, irrespective of race, color, or previous
condition, provided that none be disfranchised who were
qualified voters in 1860; and that upon these conditions
being ratified by a majority of the present voting
population of each State, (including all qualified to vote
in 1860,) a general amnesty shall be proclaimed as to all
who engaged in the rebellion."
This proposition had peculiar significance, since it emanated from a
gentleman who, though elected as a Republican, had ever since the veto
of the Freedmen's Bureau acted with the Conservatives. Mr. Sumner,
"with open arms," welcomed the Senator from Nevada as "a new convert
to the necessity of negro suffrage." Mr. Wilson was thankful to the
author of this proposition for placing the whole question "on the
basis of universal liberty, universal justice, universal suffrage, and
universal amnesty." The resolution was referred to the Committee of
Fifteen, with whom Mr. Wilson had no doubt it would receive "serious
consideration."
On the 30th of April, Mr. Stevens reported from the Committee of
Fifteen a joint resolution providing for the passage of the following
amendment to the Constitution:
"ARTICLE--.
"SEC. 1. "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of
life; liberty, or property without due process of law; nor
deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.
"SEC. 2. Representatives 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. But whenever in any State the elective franchise
shall be denied to any portion of its male citizens not less
than twenty-one years of age, or in any way abridged, except
for participation in rebellion or other crime, the basis of
representation in such State shall be reduced in the
proportion which the number of male citizens shall bear to
the whole number of such male citizens not less than
twenty-one years of age.
"SEC. 3. Until the 4th day of July, in the year 1870, all
persons who voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection,
giving it aid and comfort, shall be excluded from the right
to vote for Representatives in Congress and for electors for
President and Vice-President of the United States.
"SEC. 4. Neither the United States nor any State shall
assume or pay any debt or obligation already incurred, or
which may hereafter be incurred, in aid of insurrection or
of war against the United States, or any claim for
compensation for loss of involuntary service or labor.
"SEC. 5. The Congress shall have power to enforce, by
appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."
This proposed amendment to the Constitution was accompanied by two
bills, one of which provided that when any State lately in
insurrection should have ratified the amendment, its Senators and
Representatives, if found duly elected and qualified, should be
admitted as members of Congress. The other bill declared the high
ex-officials of the late Confederacy ineligible to any office under
the Government of the United States.
The proposed constitutional amendment was by a vote of the House made
the special order for Tuesday, the 8th of May. On that day Mr. Stevens
occupied the attention of the House with a brief argument in favor of
the amendment. Referring to the death in the Senate of the amendment
previously proposed, Mr. Stevens said: "But it is dead, and unless
this (less efficient, I admit) shall pass, its death has postponed the
protection of the colored race perhaps for ages. I confess my
mortification at its defeat. I grieved especially because it almost
closed the door of hope for the amelioration of the condition of the
freedmen. But men in pursuit of justice must never despair. Let us
again try and see whether we can not devise some way to overcome the
united forces of self-righteous Republicans and unrighteous
Copper-heads. It will not do for those who for thirty years have
fought the beasts at Ephesus to be frightened by the fangs of modern
catamounts."
Of the present proposition, Mr. Stevens said: "It is not all that the
committee desired. It falls far short of my wishes, but it fulfills my
hopes. I believe it is all that can be obtained in the present state
of public opinion. Not only Congress, but the several States are to be
consulted. Upon a careful survey of the whole ground, we did not
believe that nineteen of the loyal States could be induced to ratify
any proposition more stringent than this."
Referring to the section prohibiting rebels from voting until 1870,
Mr. Stevens said: "My only objection to it is that it is too lenient.
Here is the mildest of all punishments ever inflicted on traitors. I
might not consent to the extreme severity denounced upon them by a
provisional governor of Tennessee--I mean the late lamented Andrew
Johnson of blessed memory--but I would have increased the severity of
this section."
Mr. Blaine called attention to the fact that most of the persons whom
the third section of the amendment was designed to disfranchise, had
their political rights restored to them by the Amnesty Proclamation,
or had been pardoned by the President.
Mr. Finck opposed the proposition in a speech of which the following
are extracts: "Stripped of all disguises, this measure is a mere
scheme to deny representation to eleven States; to prevent
indefinitely a complete restoration of the Union, and perpetuate the
power of a sectional and dangerous party.
"Sir, the whole scheme is revolutionary, and a most shallow pretext
for an excuse to exclude the vote of eleven States in the next
Presidential election. You can not exact conditions in this way from
any State in the Union; no more from Georgia than from Massachusetts.
They are each equal States in the Union, held together by the same
Constitution, neither being the superior of the other in their
relation to the Federal Government as States."
Commenting on the first section, designed to insert a recognition of
civil rights in the Constitution, Mr. Finck said: "If it is necessary
to adopt it in order to confer upon Congress power over the matters
contained in it, then the Civil Rights Bill, which the President
vetoed, was passed without authority, and is clearly unconstitutional."
To this inference, Mr. Garfield replied: "I am glad to see this first
section here, which proposes to hold over every American citizen
without regard to color, the protecting shield of law. The gentleman
who has just taken his seat undertakes to show that because we propose
to vote for this section, we therefore acknowledge that the Civil
Rights Bill was unconstitutional. The Civil Rights Bill is now a part
of the law of the land. But every gentleman knows it will cease to be
a part of the law whenever the sad moment arrives when that
gentleman's party comes into power. It is precisely for that reason
that we propose to lift that great and good law above the reach of
political strife, beyond the reach of the plots and machinations of
any party, and fix it in the serene sky, in the eternal firmament of
the Constitution, where no storm of passion can shake it, and no cloud
can obscure it. For this reason, and not because I believe the Civil
Rights Bill unconstitutional, I am glad to see that first section
here."
Mr. Garfield opposed the section disfranchising rebels as "the only
proposition in this resolution that is not bottomed clearly and
plainly upon principle--principle that will stand the test of
centuries, and be as true a thousand years hence as it is to-day."
Mr. Thayer, while favoring the proposed amendment in all other
particulars, was opposed to the third section. "I think," said he,
"that it imperils the whole measure under consideration. What will
continue to be the condition of the country if you adopt this feature
of the proposed plan? Continual distraction, continued agitation,
continued bickerings, continued opposition to the law, and it will be
well for the country if a new insurrection shall not spring from its
bosom."
Mr. Boyer denounced the proposition as "an ingenious scheme to keep
out the Southern States, and to prevent the restoration of the Union
until after the next Presidential election."
Mr. Kelley, if he "could have controlled the report of the Committee
of Fifteen, would have proposed to give the right of suffrage to every
loyal man in the country." He advocated the amendment, however, in all
its provisions. He especially defended the third section. "This
measure," said he, "does not propose to punish them; on the contrary,
it is an act of amnesty, and proposes, after four years, to reinvest
them with all their rights, which they do not possess at this time
because of their crime."
The passage of the resolution was next advocated by Mr. Schenck.
Referring to the third section, he denied the principle advanced by
Mr. Garfield that there was any thing inconsistent or wrong in making
it an exclusion for a term of years instead of exclusion altogether.
"If there be any thing in that argument," said he, "in case of crime,
you must either not sentence a man to the penitentiary at all, or else
incarcerate him for the term of his natural life. Or, to compare it to
another thing, which perhaps better illustrates the principle
involved, when a foreigner arrives upon our shores we should not say
to him, 'At the end of five years, when you have familiarized yourself
with our institutions, and become attached to them, we will allow you
to become a citizen, and admit you to all the franchises we enjoy,'
but we should require that he be naturalized the moment he touches our
soil, or else excluded from the rights of citizenship forever."
Mr. Schenck thought the loyal and true people throughout the land were
"full ready to declare that those who have proved traitors, and have
raised their parricidal hands against the life of the country, who
have attempted to strike down our Government and destroy its
institutions, should be the very last to be trusted to take any share
in preserving, conducting, and carrying on that Government and
maintaining those institutions."
Mr. Smith opposed the resolution in a speech which, if it added
nothing to the arguments, contributed, by its good humored
personalities and its harmless extravagancies, to the amusement of the
auditors.
On the following day, May 9th, the consideration of the subject was
resumed, and Mr. Broomall addressed the House in favor of the
resolution. He began by counting the votes that would probably be cast
against the amendment. "It would meet the opposition," said he, "of
the unrepentant thirty-three of this body. It was also to be expected
that the six Johnsonian new converts to Democracy would oppose and
vote against this measure, commencing with the gentleman from New
York, [Mr. Raymond,] who, I believe, has the disease in the most
virulent form, thence down to the gentleman from Kentucky, [Mr.
Smith,] who preceded me on this question, and who has the mildest and
most amiable type of the infection. Upon them, too, arguments are
useless. There must, then, be thirty-nine votes against the measure,
and I want there to be no more."
To the objection urged against the third section of the proposed
amendment, that it would disfranchise nine-tenths of all the voters of
the South, Mr. Broomall replied: "This is a grand mistake. There were
in 1860 one million one hundred and twenty thousand voters in those
eleven States. We may take seven hundred and fifty thousand as the
number of individuals in the South who rendered aid and comfort to the
enemy, not counting the comparatively few though powerful leaders who
rendered aid and comfort outside of the army. But, sir, we do not
propose to disfranchise even these seven hundred and fifty thousand.
Supposing two hundred and fifty thousand of the rebel army were lost,
we have five hundred thousand actual voters in the South to be
disfranchised by this measure, if they come within the meaning of it.
But do they come within the meaning of this provision? Why, sir, it
does not embrace the unwilling conscripts; it does not embrace the men
who were compelled to serve in the army. It would be fair to say three
hundred thousand of these people belonged to the unwilling class, who
were forced into the army by rigid conscription laws and the various
contrivances of the leading rebels. This will leave two hundred
thousand; and I say now it is utterly impossible, in my opinion, that
the number of people in the South who can be operated upon by this
provision should exceed two hundred thousand, if, indeed, it should
reach the one half of that number. Is this nine-tenths of the voters
of the South? Why, it is about one in every twelve."
Mr. Shanklin opposed the amendment as intended "to disfranchise the
people of the Southern States who have gone into this rebellion, until
the party in power could fasten and rivet the chains of oppression for
all time to come, and hedge themselves in power, that they may rule
and control those people at will."
Mr. Shanklin closed his speech with the following advice to Congress:
"Discharge your joint Committee on Reconstruction; abolish your
Freedmen's Bureau; repeal your Civil Rights Bill, and admit all the
delegates from the seceded States to their seats in Congress, who have
been elected according to the laws of the country and possess the
constitutional qualification, and all will be well."
Mr. Raymond spoke in favor of the amendment, except the
disfranchisement clause. He had opposed the Civil Rights Bill on the
ground of want of constitutional power in Congress to pass it. He
favored the first section of this amendment, since it gave the
previous acts of Congress a constitutional basis.
In answer to Mr. Broomall's "ingenious argument," Mr. Raymond said:
"It seems to me idle to enter into such calculations, which depend on
a series of estimates, each one of which can not be any thing more
than a wild and random guess. I take it that we all know perfectly
well that the great masses of the Southern people 'voluntarily adhered
to the insurrection;' not at the outset not as being originally in
favor of it, but during its progress, sooner or later, they
voluntarily gave in their adhesion to it, and gave it aid and comfort.
They did not all join the army. They did not go into the field, but
they did, at different times, from various motives and in various
ways, give it aid and comfort. That would exclude the great body of
the people of those States under this amendment from exercising the
right of suffrage."
Mr. Raymond asserted that all that was offered to the rebel
legislatures of the Southern States, in return for the concessions
required of them, was "the right to be represented on this floor,
provided they will also consent not to vote for the men who are to
represent them! The very price by which we seek to induce their assent
to these amendments we snatch away from their hands the moment that
assent is secured. Is there any man here who can so far delude himself
as to suppose for a moment that the people of the Southern States will
accede to any such scheme as this? There is not one chance in ten
thousand of their doing it."
Mr. McKee advocated the amendment. He thought that opposition to its
third section was a rebuke to those States which had passed laws
disfranchising rebels. To obviate all objections to this section,
however, he proposed a substitute forever excluding "all persons who
voluntarily adhered to the late insurrection" from holding "any office
under the Government of the United States."
Mr. Eldridge did not intend "to make an argument on the merits of the
joint resolution." His remarks were mostly in derogation of the
committee by whom the measure was recommended. "The committee," said
he, "report no facts whatever, and give us no conclusion. They simply
report amendments to the Constitution. Was that the purpose for which
the committee was organized? Was it to change the fundamental law of
the land under which we of the loyal States assembled here? Was that
the duty with which the committee was charged? Were they to inquire
and report an entire change of the fundamental law of the nation which
would destroy the States and create an empire? I say they were charged
with no such duty. The resolution can not fairly be construed as
giving to the committee any such power, any such jurisdiction. The
committee stands resisting the restoration of this Union, and I hope
that no further business will be referred to it. It has rendered
itself unworthy of the high duty with which it was charged."
Mr. Eldridge asserted: "The whole scheme is in the interest of party
alone, to preserve and perpetuate the party idea of this Republican
disunion party."
The debate thus entering "the domain of partisan controversy," Mr.
Boutwell, in a speech which followed, undertook to show how the
proposition before the House "traverses the policy of the Democratic
party with reference to the reconstruction of the Government." Mr.
Boutwell described the policy of the Democratic party, "which," said
he, "they laid down as early as 1856 in the platform made at
Cincinnati, wherein they declared substantially that it was the right
of a Territory to be admitted into this Union with such institutions
as it chose to establish, not even by implication admitting that the
representatives of the existing Government had any right to canvass
those institutions, or to consider the right of the Territory to be
recognized as a State.
"Now, sir, from that doctrine, which probably had its origin in the
resolutions of 1798, the whole of their policy to this day has
legitimately followed. First, we saw its results in the doctrine of
Mr. Buchanan, announced in 1860, that, while the Constitution did not
provide for or authorize the secession of a State from this Union,
there was no power in the existing Government to compel a State to
remain in the Union against its own judgment. Following that doctrine,
they come legitimately to the conclusion of to-day, in which they are
supported, as I understand, by the President of the United States upon
the one side, and, as I know, by the testimony of Alexander H.
Stephens, late Vice-President of the so-called Confederacy, upon the
other. That doctrine, is that these eleven States have to-day, each
for itself, an existing and unquestionable right of representation in
the Government of this country, and that it is a continuous right
which has not been interrupted by any of the events of the war."
On the other hand, Mr. Boutwell thus defined the position of "the
Union party," which, he said, "stands unitedly upon two propositions.
The first is equality of representation, about which there is no
difference of opinion. The second is, that there shall be a loyal
people in each applicant State before any Representative from that
State is admitted in Congress. And there is a third: a vast majority
of the Republican party, soon to be the controlling and entire force
of that party, demand suffrage for our friends, for those who have
stood by us in our days of tribulation. And for myself, with the
right, of course, to change my opinion, I believe in the
Constitutional power of the Government to-day to extend the elective
franchise to every loyal male citizen of the republic."
Mr. Spalding favored the amendment, including the third section, to
which exception had been taken by some of his friends. He asked, "Is
it exceptionable? Is it objectionable? If it be so, it is, in my
judgment, for the reason that the duration of the period of incapacity
is not extended more widely. I take my stand here, that it is
necessary to ingraft into that enduring instrument called the
Constitution of the United States something which shall admonish this
rebellious people, and all who shall come after them, that treason
against the Government is odious; that it carries with it some
penalty, some disqualification; and the only one which we seek to
attach by this amendment is a disqualification in voting--not for
their State and county and town officers, but for members of Congress,
who are to be the law-makers, and for the Executive of the United
States, this disqualification to operate for the short period of four
years."
Mr. Miller advocated all the sections of the proposed amendment except
the third. Of this he said: "Though it seems just on its face, I doubt
the propriety of embodying it with the other amendments, as it may
retard, if not endanger, the ratification of the amendment in regard
to representation, and we can not afford to endanger in any manner a
matter of such vital importance to the country."
Mr. Eliot had voted against the former amendment, which was passed by
the House and rejected by the Senate. The present proposed amendment,
while it was not all he could ask, was not open to the objections
which then controlled his vote. In advocating the third section, he
said: "It is clear, upon adjudged law, that the States lately in
rebellion, and the inhabitants of those States, by force of the civil
war, and of the Union triumph in that war, so far have lost their
rights to take part in the Government of the Union that some action on
the part of Congress is required to restore those rights. Pardon and
amnesty given by the President can not restore them. Those men can not
vote for President or for Representatives in Congress until, in some
way, Congress has so acted as to restore their power. The question,
then, is very simple: Shall national power be at once conferred on
those who have striven, by all means open to them, to destroy the
nation's life? Shall our enemies and the enemies of the Government, as
soon as they have been defeated in war, help to direct and to control
the public policy of the Government--and that, too, while those men,
hostile themselves, keep from all exercise of political power the only
true and loyal friends whom we have had, during these four years of
war, within these Southern States?"
It had been argued against the third section that it could not be
enforced, that it would be inoperative. To this objection Mr.
Shellabarger replied: "It will not require standing armies. You can
have registry laws. Upon this registry list you may place the names of
men who are to be disqualified, and you may also have the names of all
who are qualified to vote under the law. There they will stand, there
they will be, to be referred to by your Government in the execution of
its laws. And when it comes to this House or to the Senate to
determine whether a man is duly elected, you can resort to the
ordinary process applicable to a trial in a contested election case in
either body, as to whether he has been elected by the men who were
entitled to elect him."
Thursday, May 10th, was the last day of this discussion in the House.
Mr. Randall first took the floor and spoke in opposition to the joint
resolution. To the friends of the measure he said: "It is intended to
secure what you most wish: an entire disagreement to the whole scheme
by the eleven Southern States, and a continued omission of
representation on this floor."
Mr. Strouse, in opposing the amendment, occupied most of his time in
reading an editorial from the New York Times, which he characterized
as "sound, patriotic, statesmanlike, and just."
Mr. Strouse expressed, as his own opinion, "that the States are, and
never ceased to be, in law and in fact, constituent parts of our
Union. If I am correct in this opinion, what necessity exists for
these amendments of the Constitution? Let the States be represented in
the Senate and House by men who can conscientiously qualify as
members; and after that, when we have a full Congress, with the whole
country represented, let any amendment that may be required be
proposed, and let those most interested have an opportunity to
participate in the debates and deliberations of matters of so much
moment to every citizen."
Mr. Banks regarded the pending amendment as the most important
question which could be presented to the House or to the country. "It
is my belief," said he, "that reörganization of governments in the
insurgent States can be secured only by measures which will work a
change in the basis of political society. Any thing that leaves the
basis of political society in the Southern States untouched, leaves
the enemy in condition to renew the war at his pleasure, and gives him
absolute power to destroy the Government whenever he chooses.
"There are two methods by which the change I propose can be made: one
by extending the elective franchise to the negro, the other by
restrictions upon the political power of those heretofore invested
with the elective franchise--a part of whom are loyal and a part of
whom are disloyal, a part of whom are friends and a part of whom are
enemies.
"I have no doubt that the Government of the United States has
authority to extend the elective franchise to the colored population
of the insurgent States, but I do not think it has the power. The
distinction I make between authority and power is this: We have, in
the nature of our Government, the right to do it; but the public
opinion of the country is such at this precise moment as to make it
impossible we should do it. The situation of opinion in these States
compels us to look to other means to protect the Government against
the enemy.
"I approve of the proposition which disfranchises the enemies of the
country. I think it right in principle. I think it necessary at this
time. If I had any opinion to express, I should say to the gentlemen
of the House that it is impossible to organize a government in the
insurgent States, and have the enemies of the country in possession of
political power, in whole or in part, in local governments or in
representation here.
"An enemy to the Government, a man who avows himself an enemy of its
policy and measures, who has made war against the Government, would
not seem to have any absolute right to share political power equally
with other men who have never been otherwise than friends of the
Government.
"A pardon does not confer or restore political power. A general act of
amnesty differs from an individual pardon only in the fact that it
applies to a class of offenders who can not be individually described.
It secures immunity from punishment or prosecution by obliterating all
remembrance of the offense; but it confers or restores no one to
political power.
"There is no justification for the opinion so strongly expressed, that
this measure will fail because the rebel States will not consent to
the disfranchisement of any portion of their own people. The
proposition is for the loyal States to determine upon what terms they
will restore to the Union the insurgent States. It is not necessary
that they should participate in our deliberations upon this subject,
and wholly without reason that they should have the power to defeat
it. It is a matter of congratulation that they have not this power. We
have the requisite number of States without them.
"I do not believe that there is a State in this Union where at least a
clear majority of the people were not from the beginning opposed to
the war; and could you remove from the control of public opinion one
or two thousand in each of these States, so as to let up from the
foundations of political society the mass of common people, you would
have a population in all these States as loyal and true to the
Government as the people of any portion of the East or West.
"The people knew that it was the rich man's war and the poor man's
fight. The legislation of the insurgent States exempted, to a great
degree, the rich men and their sons, on account of the possession of
property, while it forced, at the point of the bayonet, and oftentimes
at the cost of life, the masses of the people to maintain their cause.
There is nothing in the whole war more atrocious than the cruel
measures taken by the rebel leaders to force the people who had no
interest in it, and were averse to sharing its dishonor and peril."
Mr. Banks remarked of the amendment: "It will produce the exact result
which we desire: the immediate restoration of the governments of the
States to the Union, the recognition of the loyal people, and the
disfranchisement of the implacable and unchangeable public enemies of
the Union, and the creation of State governments upon the sound and
enduring basis of common interest and common affection."
Mr. Eckley advocated the joint resolution, citing a number of
historical and political precedents in favor of its provisions. Of the
disfranchising clause, he said: "The only objection I have to the
proposition is, that it does not go far enough. I would disfranchise
them forever. They have no right, founded in justice, to participate
in the administration of the Government or exercise political power.
If they receive protection in their persons and property, are
permitted to share in the nation's bounties, and live in security
under the broad ægis of the nation's flag, it is far more than the
nation owes them."
Mr. Longyear favored the amendment, but disliked the third section, of
which he said: "Let us then reject this dead weight, and not load down
good provisions, absolutely essential provisions, by this, which,
however good in and of itself, can not be enforced. I regard this
provision, if adopted, both worthless and harmless, and, therefore, I
shall vote for the proposed amendment as a whole, whether this be
rejected or retained."
Mr. Beaman held a similar opinion. He said: "We very well know that
such a provision would be entirely inoperative, because electors for
President and Vice-President can be appointed by the Legislatures,
according to a practice that has always obtained in South Carolina.
The provision does not extend to the election of Senators, and,
consequently, it can operate only to affect the election of members of
this House, and that only for a period of four years."
Mr. Rogers denounced the proposed amendment in emphatic terms. He
said: "The first section of this programme of disunion is the most
dangerous to liberty. It saps the foundation of the Government; it
destroys the elementary principles of the States; it consolidates
every thing into one imperial despotism; it annihilates all the rights
which lie at the foundation of the union of the States, and which have
characterized this Government and made it prosperous and great during
the long period of its existence. It will result in a revolution worse
than that through which we have just passed; it will rock the earth
like the throes of an earthquake, until its tragedy will summon the
inhabitants of the world to witness its dreadful shock.
"In the third section, you undertake," said Mr. Rogers, "to enunciate
a doctrine that will, if carried out, disfranchise seven or eight
million people, and that will put them in a worse condition than the
serfs of Russia or the downtrodden people of Poland and Hungary, until
the year 1870."
Mr. Farnsworth advocated the amendment, but did not regard the third
section as of any practical value. It did not provide punishment
adequate to the guilt of the various offenders. "There is a large
class of men," said he, "both in the North and South, equally--yea,
and more--guilty than thousands of the misguided men who will be
disfranchised by this provision, who will not be affected by it. I
allude to those politicians and others at the South, who, keeping
themselves out of danger, set on the ignorant and brave to fight for
what they were told by these rascals were 'their rights;' and to other
politicians, editors, 'copper-heads' in the North, some of whom were
and are members of Congress, who encouraged them and discouraged our
soldiers."
Mr. Bingham spoke in favor of the amendment. He preferred that the
disfranchising clause should be embodied in an act of Congress. "I
trust," said he, "that this amendment, with or without the third
section, will pass this House, that the day may soon come when
Tennessee--loyal Tennessee--loyal in the very heart of the rebellion,
her mountains and plains blasted by the ravages of war and stained
with the blood of her faithful children fallen in the great struggle
for the maintenance of the Union, having already conformed her
constitution and laws to every provision of this amendment, will at
once, upon its submission by Congress, irrevocably ratify it, and be,
without further delay, represented in Congress by her loyal
Representatives and Senators.
"Let that great example be set by Tennessee, and it will be worth a
hundred thousand votes to the loyal people in the free North. Let this
be done, and it will be hailed as the harbinger of that day for which
all good men pray, when the fallen pillars of the republic shall be
restored without violence or the noise of words or the sound of the
hammer, each to its original place in the sacred temple of our
national liberties, thereby giving assurance to all the world that,
for the defense of the republic, it was not in vain that a million and
a half of men, the very elect of the earth, rushed to arms; that the
republic still lives, and will live for evermore, the sanctuary of an
inviolable justice, the refuge of liberty, and the imperishable
monument of the nation's dead, from the humblest soldier who perished
on the march, or went down amid the thunder and tempest of the dread
conflict, up through all the shining roll of heroes and patriots and
martyrs to the incorruptible and immortal Commander-in-chief, who fell
by an assassin's hand in the capital, and thus died that his country
might live."
The hour having arrived when, by understanding of the House, the
discussion should close, Mr. Stevens closed the debate with a short
speech. "I am glad," said he, "to see great unanimity among the Union
friends in this House on all the provisions of this joint resolution
except the third one. I am not very much gratified to see any division
among our friends on that which I consider the vital proposition of
them all. Without that, it amounts to nothing. I do not care the snap
of my finger whether it be passed or not if that be stricken out. I
should be sorry to find that that provision was stricken out, because,
before any portion of this can be put into operation, there will be,
if not a Herod, a worse than Herod elsewhere to obstruct our actions.
That side of the house will be filled with yelling secessionists and
hissing copper-heads. Give us the third section or give us nothing. Do
not balk us with the pretense of an amendment which throws the Union
into the hands of the enemy before it becomes consolidated. Do not, I
pray you, admit those who have slaughtered half a million of our
countrymen until their clothes are dried, and until they are reclad. I
do not wish to sit side by side with men whose garments smell of the
blood of my kindred. Gentlemen seem to forget the scenes that were
enacted here years ago. Many of you were not here. But my friend from
Ohio [Mr. Garfield] ought to have kept up his reading enough to have
been familiar with the history of those days, when the men that you
propose to admit occupied the other side of the House; when the mighty
Toombs, with his shaggy locks, headed a gang who, with shouts of
defiance on this floor, rendered this a hell of legislation.
"Ah, sir, it was but six years ago when they were here, just before
they went out to join the armies of Catiline, just before they left
this hall. Those of you who were here then will remember the scene in
which every Southern member, encouraged by their allies, came forth in
one yelling body because a speech for freedom was being made here;
when weapons were drawn, and Barksdale's bowie-knife gleamed before
our eyes. Would you have these men back again so soon to reënact those
scenes? Wait until I am gone, I pray you. I want not to go through, it
again. It will be but a short time for my colleague to wait. I hope he
will not put us to that test."
At the close of his remarks, Mr. Stevens moved the previous question.
Mr. Garfield hoped that it would be voted down, that he might have an
opportunity to offer a substitute for the third section, forever
excluding the persons therein specified "from holding any office of
trust or profit under the Government of the United States."
Nevertheless, the previous question was sustained, and a vote was
taken on the joint resolution proposing the constitutional amendment
as it came from the committee. The following are the yeas and nays:
YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, Delos R.
Ashley, James M. Ashley, Baker, Baldwin, Banks, Barker,
Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin, Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow,
Boutwell, Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W.
Clarke, Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom,
Darling, Davis, Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon,
Dodge, Donnelly, Driggs, Dumont, Eckley, Eggleston, Eliot,
Farnsworth, Perry, Garfield, Grinnell, Griswold, Abner C.
Harding, Hart, Hayes, Henderson, Higby, Holmes, Hooper,
Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard, Demas
Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd, James Humphrey,
Ingersoll, Jenckes, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso, Ketcham,
Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William Lawrence,
Loan, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, McClurg, McIndoe, McKee,
McRuer, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris, Moulton,
Myers, Newell, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham,
Pike, Plants, Price, William H. Randall, Raymond, Alexander
H. Rice, John H. Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield,
Shellabarger, Spalding, Stevens, Stilwell, Thayer, Francis
Thomas, John L. Thomas, Trowbridge, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt
Van Horn, Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B.
Washburne, Henry D. Washburn, William B. Washburn, Welker,
Williams, James F. Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom,
Woodbridge, and the Speaker--128.
NAYS--Messrs. Ancona, Bergen, Boyer, Chanler, Coffroth,
Dawson, Eldridge, Finck, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Grider,
Aaron Harding, Harris, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond, Marshall,
McCullough, Niblack, Phelps, Radford, Samuel J. Randall,
Ritter, Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith,
Strouse, Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Whaley, Winfield,
and Wright--37.
Applause on the floor and in the galleries greeted the announcement
that two-thirds of the House having voted in the affirmative the joint
resolution was passed.
The heavy majority by which this measure passed the House indicated an
effect of the President's steady opposition, the opposite of what was
anticipated. The amendment secured two votes which were cast against
the Civil Rights Bill, while it lost no vote which that measure
received.
It is remarkable that the joint resolution should have been carried
with such unanimity when so many Republicans had expressed
dissatisfaction with the third section. This is accounted for,
however, by the pressure of the previous question, in which fifteen
Democrats joined forces with the radical Republicans to force the
undivided issue upon the House. A large minority of the Republican
members were thus prevented from voting against the clause
disfranchising the late rebels until 1870.
In the Senate, as will be seen, the amendment assumed a shape more in
accordance with their wishes.