NEGRO SUFFRAGE.
Review of the Preceding Action -- Efforts of Mr. Yates for
Unrestricted Suffrage -- Davis's Amendment to Cuvier -- The
"Propitious Hour" -- The Mayor's Remonstrance -- Mr.
Willey's Amendment -- Mr. Cowan's Amendment for Female
Suffrage -- Attempt to Out-radical the Radicals -- Opinions
for and against Female Suffrage -- Reading and Writing as a
Qualification -- Passage of the Bill -- Objections of the
President -- Two Senators on the Opinions of the People --
The Suffrage Bill becomes a Law.
On the reässembling of the Thirty-ninth Congress for the second
session, December 3d, 1866, immediately after the preliminaries of
opening had transpired, Mr. Sumner called up business which had been
introduced on the first day of the preceding session--a year
before--which still remained unfinished--the subject of suffrage in
the District of Columbia. In so doing, the Senator from Massachusetts
said: "It will be remembered that it was introduced on the first day
of the last session; that it was the subject of repeated discussions
in this chamber; that it was more than once referred to the Committee
on the District of Columbia, by whose chairman it was reported back to
the Senate. At several different stages of the discussion it was
supposed that we were about to reach a final vote. The country
expected that vote. It was not had. It ought to have been had. And
now, sir, I think that the best way is for the Senate in this very
first hour of its coming together to put that bill on its passage. It
has been thoroughly debated. Every Senator here has made up his mind
on the question. There is nothing more to be said on either side. So
far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that the vote shall be
taken without one further word of discussion; but I do think that the
Senate ought not to allow the bill to be postponed. We ought to seize
this first occasion to put the bill on its passage. The country
expects it; the country will rejoice and be grateful if you will
signalize this first day of your coming together by this beautiful and
generous act."
Objection being raised to the immediate consideration of the subject,
it was decided that it must be deferred under a rule of the Senate
until after the expiration of six days from the commencement of the
session.
It is proper here to present a brief record of the proceedings upon
the subject during the preceding session. The passage of a bill in the
House of Representatives, and the discussion upon the subject in that
body are given in a preceding chapter. This bill, as Mr. Morrill
subsequently said in the Senate, was not an election bill, and
conferred no right of voting upon any person beyond what he had
before. It was a mere declaration of a right to vote. As such, the
bill was favorably received by the Senate Committee to whom it was
referred, and was by them reported back with favor, but was never put
upon its passage.
Meanwhile the Senate Committee had under consideration a bill of their
own, which they reported on the 10th of January. This bill provided
for restricted suffrage, requiring the qualification to read and
write. Mr. Yates, an original and uncompromising advocate of universal
suffrage was opposed to this restriction. He was a member of the
Committee on the District of Columbia, but had been prevented from
being present in its deliberations when it was resolved to report the
bill as then before the Senate. Fearing that the bill might pass the
Senate with the objectionable restrictions, Mr. Yates moved that it be
recommitted, which was done.
At a meeting of the committee called to reconsider the bill, Mr. Yates
argued at length and with earnestness against disfranchisement on the
ground of inability to read and write. The committee reversed their
former decision, and reported the bill substantially in the form in
which it subsequently became a law. The bill being before the Senate
on the 16th of January, 1866, Mr. Garrett Davis opposed it in a speech
of great length. He made use of every argument and referred to every
authority within his reach to prove the inferiority of the negro race.
After giving Cuvier's definition of the "negro," the Senator remarked:
"The great naturalist might have added as other distinctive
characteristics of the negro; first, that his skin exhales perpetually
a peculiar pungent and disagreeable odor; second, that 'the hollow of
his foot makes a hole in the ground.'" The Senator drew a fearful
picture of the schemes of Massachusetts to use the negro voters, whom
it was her policy to create in the South.
This subject did not again come up in the Senate until after the lapse
of several months. On the 27th of June it was "disentombed" from what
many supposed was its final resting place. Mr. Morrill proposed as an
amendment that the elective franchise should be restricted to persons
who could read and write. This was rejected; fifteen voting in the
affirmative, and nineteen in the negative.
Mr. Willey opposed the bill before the Senate in a speech of
considerable length. He advocated the bestowal of a qualified and
restricted suffrage upon the colored people of the District. His chief
objection to the measure before the Senate was that it was untimely.
"Any thing not essential in itself," said he, "or very material to the
welfare of the nation, or a considerable part of the nation, if it is
calculated to complicate our difficulties, or inflame party passions
or sectional animosities, had better be left, it appears to me, to a
more propitious hour."
The "propitious hour" hoped for by the Senator, did not come around
until after the opening of the second session. The subject did not
again seriously occupy the attention of the Senate, with the exception
of Mr. Sumner's effort to have it taken up on the first day of the
session, until the 10th day of December, 1866.
On that day, Mr. Morrill, who, as Chairman of the Committee on the
District of Columbia, had the bill in charge, introduced the subject
with a speech of considerable length. "This measure," said he, "not
only regulates the elective franchise in this District, but it extends
and enlarges it. The principal feature of the bill is that it embraces
the colored citizens of the District of Columbia. In this particular
it is novel, and in this particular it is important. In this
particular it may be said to be inaugurating a policy not only
strictly for the District of Columbia, but in some sense for the
country at large. In this respect it is, I suppose, that this bill has
received so large a share of the public attention during the last
session and the recess of the Congress of the United States."
Mr. Morrill called attention to the remonstrance of the Mayor of
Washington, who had informed the Senate that in an election held for
the purpose of ascertaining the sentiments of the voters of the city
upon the subject, some six thousand five hundred were opposed to the
extension of the elective franchise, while only thirty or forty were
in favor of it.
"These six or seven thousand voters," said Mr. Morrill, "are only one
in thirty at most of the people of this District, and it is very
difficult to understand how there could be more significance or
probative force attached to these six or seven thousand votes than to
an equal number of voices independent of the ballot, under the
circumstances. This is a matter affecting the capital of the nation,
one in which the American people have an interest, as indirectly, at
least, touching the country at large. What the National Congress
pronounce here as a matter of right or expediency, or both, touching a
question of popular rights, may have an influence elsewhere for good
or for evil. We can not well justify the denial of the right of
suffrage to colored citizens on the protest of the voters of the
corporation of Washington. We may not think fit to grant it simply on
the prayer of the petitioners. Our action should rest on some
recognized general principle, which, applied to the capital of the
nation, would be equally just applied to any of the political
communities of which the nation is composed."
In closing his speech, Mr. Morrill remarked: "In a nation of professed
freemen, whose political axioms are those of universal liberty and
human rights, no public tranquillity is possible while these rights
are denied to portions of the American people. We have taken into the
bosom of the Republic the diverse elements of the nationalities of
Europe, and are attempting to mold them into national harmony and
unity, and are still inviting other millions to come to us. Let us not
despair that the same mighty energies and regenerating forces will be
able to assign a docile and not untractable race its appropriate place
in our system."
Mr. Willey's amendment, proposed when the subject was last considered
in the previous session, six months before, being now the pending
question, its author addressed the Senate in favor of some
restrictions upon the exercise of the elective franchise. "There ought
to be some obligation," said he, "either in our fundamental laws in
the States, or somewhere, by some means requiring the people to
educate themselves; and if this can be accomplished by disqualifying
those who are not educated for the exercise of the right of suffrage,
thus stimulating them to acquire a reasonable degree of education,
that of itself, it seems to me, would be a public blessing."
"I am against this qualification of reading and writing," said Mr.
Wilson; "I never did believe in it. I do not believe in it now. I
voted against it in my own State, and I intend to vote against it
here. There was a time when I would have taken it, because I did not
know that we could get any thing more in this contest; but I think the
great victory of manhood suffrage is about achieved in this country."
"Reading and writing, as a qualification for voting," said Mr.
Pomeroy, "might be entertained in a State where all the people were
allowed to go to school and learn to read and write; but it seems to
me monstrous to apply it to a class of persons in this community who
were legislated away from school, to whom every avenue of learning was
shut up by law."
Some discussion was elicited by a proposition made by Mr. Anthony to
attach to Mr. Willey's amendment a provision excluding from the right
to vote all "who in any way voluntarily gave aid and comfort to the
rebels during the late rebellion."
This was opposed by Mr. Wilson. "We better not meddle with that matter
of disfranchisement," said he. "There are but few of these persons
here, so the prohibition will practically not amount to any thing. As
we are to accomplish a great object, to establish universal suffrage,
we should let alone all propositions excluding a few men here.
Disfranchisement will create more feeling and more bitterness than
enfranchisement."
Mr. Willey's amendment was finally so much "amended" that he could not
support it himself, and it received but one affirmative vote, that of
Mr. Kirkwood.
Mr. Cowan proposed to amend the bill by striking out the word "male"
before the word "person," that females might enjoy the elective
franchise. "I propose to extend this privilege," said he, "not only to
males, but to females as well; and I should like to hear even the most
astute and learned Senator upon this floor give any better, reason for
the exclusion of females from the right of suffrage than there is for
the exclusion of negroes.
"If you want to widen the franchise so as to purify your ballot-box,
throw the virtue of the country into it; throw the temperance of the
country into it; throw the purity of the country into it; throw the
angel element--if I may so express myself--into it. [Laughter.] Let
there be as little diabolism as possible, but as much of the divinity
as you can get."
The discussion being resumed on the following day, Mr. Anthony
advocated Mr. Cowan's amendment. "I suppose," said he, "that the
Senator from Pennsylvania introduced this amendment rather as a satire
upon the bill itself, or if he had any serious intention, it was only
a mischievous one to injure the bill. But it will not probably have
that effect, for I suppose nobody will vote for it except the Senator
himself, who can hardly avoid it, and I, who shall vote for it because
it accords with a conclusion to which I have been brought by
considerable study upon the subject of suffrage."
After having answered objections against female suffrage, Mr. Anthony
remarked in conclusion: "I should not have introduced this question;
but as it has been introduced, and I intend to vote for the amendment,
I desire to declare here that I shall vote for it in all seriousness,
because I think it is right. The discussion of this subject is not
confined to visionary enthusiasts. It is now attracting the attention
of some of the best thinkers in the world, both in this country and in
Europe; and one of the very best of them all, John Stuart Mill, in a
most elaborate and able paper, has declared his conviction of the
right and justice of female suffrage. The time has not come for it,
but the time is coming. It is coming with the progress of civilization
and the general amelioration of the race, and the triumph of truth,
and justice, and equal rights."
Mr. Williams opposed the pending amendment. "To extend the right of
suffrage to the negroes in this country," said he, "I think is
necessary for their protection; but to extend the right of suffrage to
women, in my judgment, is not necessary for their protection. Wide as
the poles apart are the conditions of these two classes of persons.
The sons defend and protect the reputation and rights of their
mothers; husbands defend and protect the reputation and rights of
their wives; brothers defend and protect the reputation and rights of
their sisters; and to honor, cherish, and love the women of this
country is the pride and the glory of its sons.
"When the women of this country come to be sailors and soldiers; when
they come to navigate the ocean and to follow the plow; when they love
to be jostled and crowded by all sorts of men in the thoroughfares of
trade and business; when they love the treachery and the turmoil of
politics; when they love the dissoluteness of the camp, and the smoke
of the thunder, and the blood of battle better than they love the
affections and enjoyments of home and family, then it will be time to
talk about making the women voters; but until that time, the question
is not fairly before the country."
Mr. Cowan defended his amendment and his position. "When the time
comes," said he, "I am a Radical, too, along with my fellow Senators
here. By what warrant do they suppose that I am not interested in the
progress of the race? If the thing is to be bettered, I want to better
it."
Mr. Morrill replied to the speech of Mr. Cowan. "Does any suppose,"
said Mr. Morrill, "that he is at all in earnest or sincere in a single
sentiment he has uttered on this subject? I do not imagine he believes
that any one here is idle enough for a moment to suppose so. If it is
true, as he intimates, that he is desirous of becoming a Radical, I am
not clear that I should not be willing to accept his service, although
there is a good deal to be repented of before he can be taken into
full confidence. [Laughter.]
"When a man has seen the error of his ways and confesses it, what more
is there to be done except to receive him seventy and seven times?
Now, if this is an indication that the honorable Senator means to
out-radical the Radicals, 'Come on, Macduff,' nobody will object,
provided you can show us you are sincere. That is the point. If it is
mischief you are at, you will have a hard time to get ahead. While we
are radical we mean to be rational. While we intend to give every male
citizen of the United States the rights common to all, we do not
intend to be forced by our enemies into a position so ridiculous and
absurd as to be broken down utterly on that question, and who ever
comes here in the guise of a Radical and undertakes to practice that
probably will not make much by the motion. I am not surprised that
those of our friends who went out from us and have been feeding on the
husks desire to get in ahead; but I am surprised at the indiscretion
and the want of common sense exercised in making so profound a plunge
at once! If these gentlemen desire to be taken into companionship and
restored to good standing, I am the first man to reach out the hand
and say, 'Welcome back again, so that you are repentant and
regenerated;' but, sir, I am the last man to allow that you shall
indorse what you call Radicalism for the purpose of breaking down
measures which we propose!"
"He alleges," replied Mr. Cowan, "that I am not serious in the
amendment I have moved; that I am not in earnest about it. How does he
know? By what warrant does he undertake to say that a brother Senator
here is not serious, not in earnest? I should like to know by what
warrant he undertakes to do that. He says I do not look serious. I
have not perhaps been trained in the same vinegar and persimmon
school, [laughter;] I have not been doctrinated into the same solemn
nasal twang which may characterize the gentleman, and which may be
considered to be the evidence of seriousness and earnestness. I
generally speak as a man, and as a good-natured man, I think. I hope I
entertain no malice toward any body. But the honorable Senator thinks
that I want to become a Radical. Why, sir, common charity ought to
have taught the honorable Senator better than that. I think no such
imputation, even on the part of the most virulent opponent that I
have, can with any justice be laid to my door. I have never yielded to
his radicalism; I have never truckled to it. Whether it be right or
wrong, I have never bowed the knee to it. From the very word 'go' I
have been a Conservative; I have endeavored to save all in our
institutions that I thought worth saving."
Mr. Wade had introduced the original bill, and had put it upon the
most liberal principle of franchise. "The question of female
suffrage," said he, "had not then been much agitated, and I knew the
community had not thought sufficiently upon it to be ready to
introduce it as an element in our political system. While I am aware
of that fact, I think it will puzzle any gentleman to draw a line of
demarcation between the right of the male and the female on this
subject. Both are liable to all the laws you pass; their property,
their persons, and their lives are affected by the laws. Why, then,
should not the females have a right to participate in their
construction as well as the male part of the community? There is no
argument that I can conceive or that I have yet heard that makes any
discrimination between the two on the question of right.
"I shall give a vote on this amendment that will be deemed an
unpopular vote, but I am not frightened by that. I have been
accustomed to give such votes all my life almost, but I believe they
have been given in the cause of human liberty and right and in the way
of the advancing intelligence of our age; and whenever the landmark
has been set up the community have marched up to it. I think I am
advocating now the same kind of a principle, and I have no doubt that
sooner or later it will become a fixed fact, and the community will
think it just as absurd to exclude females from the ballot-box as
males."
Mr. Yates opposed the pending amendment, deeming it a mere attempt on
the part of the Senator from Pennsylvania to embarrass this question.
"Logically," said he, "there are no reasons in my mind which would not
permit women to vote as well as men, according to the theory of our
government. But that question, as to whether ladies shall vote or not,
is not at issue now. I confess that I am for universal suffrage, and
when the time comes, I am for suffrage by females as well as males."
"While I will vote now," said Mr. Wilson, "or at any time, for woman
suffrage as a distinct, separate measure, I am unalterably opposed to
connecting that question with the pending question of negro suffrage.
The question of negro suffrage is now an imperative necessity; a
necessity that the negro should possess it for his own protection; a
necessity that he should possess it that the nation may preserve its
power, its strength, and its unity."
"Why was the consideration of this measure discontinued at the last
session, and the bill not allowed to pass the Senate?" asked Mr.
Hendricks.
"The bill passed the House of Representatives early in the session,"
replied Mr. Wilson. "It came to the Senate early in December. That
Senator, I think, knows very well that we had not the power to pass it
for the first five or six months of the session; that is, we had not
the power to make it a law. We could not have carried it against the
opposition of the President of the United States, and we had
assurances of gentlemen who were in intimate relations with him that
his signature would not be obtained. It would not have been wise for
us to pass the bill if it was to encounter a veto, unless we were able
to pass it over that veto. The wise course was to bide our time until
we had that power, and that power came before the close of the
session, but it came in the time of great pressure, when other
questions were crowding upon us, and it was thought best by those who
were advocating it, especially as the chairman of the committee, the
Senator from Maine, [Mr. Morrill,] was out of the Senate for many days
on account of illness, to let the bill go over until this December."
Mr. Johnson opposed the pending amendment. "I think if it was
submitted to the ladies," said he--"I mean the ladies in the true
acceptation of the term--of the United States, the privilege would not
only not be asked for, but would be rejected. I do not think the
ladies of the United States would agree to enter into a canvass and
undergo what is often the degradation of seeking to vote, particularly
in the cities, getting up to the polls, crowded out and crowded in. I
rather think they would feel it, instead of a privilege, a dishonor."
Mr. Johnson was unwilling to vote for the amendment with a view to
defeat the bill. "I have lived to be too old," said he, "and have
become too well satisfied of what I think is my duty to the country to
give any vote which I do not believe, if it should be supported by the
votes of a sufficient number to carry the measure into operation,
would redound to the interests and safety and honor of the country."
"The women of America," said Mr. Frelinghuysen, "vote by faithful and
true representatives, their husbands, their brothers, their sons; and
no true man will go to the polls and deposit his ballot without
remembering the true and loving constituency that he has at home. More
than that, sir, ninety-nine out of a hundred, I believe nine hundred
and ninety-nine out of a thousand, of the women in America do not want
the privilege of voting in any other manner than that which I have
stated. In both these regards there is a vast difference between the
situation of the colored citizens and the women of America.
"The learned and eloquent Senator from Pennsylvania said yesterday
with great beauty that he wanted to cast the angel element into the
suffrage system of America. Sir, it seems to me, that it would be
ruthlessly tearing the angel element from the homes of America; and
the homes of the people of America are infinitely more valuable than
any suffrage system. It will be a sorry day for this country when
those vestal fires of piety and love are put out."
On the next day, December 12th, the discussion being resumed, Mr.
Brown advocated the amendment. "I stand," said he, "for universal
suffrage, and as a matter of fundamental principle do not recognize
the right of society to limit it on any ground of race, color, or sex.
I will go further and say that I recognize the right of franchise as
being intrinsically a natural right; and I do not believe that society
is authorized to impose any limitation upon it that does not spring
out of the necessities of the social state itself."
Believing "that the metaphysical always controls the practical in all
the affairs of life," Mr. Brown gave the "abstract grounds" upon which
he deemed the right of woman to the elective franchise rested. Coming
finally to the more practical bearings of the subject, he answered the
objection, that "if women are entitled to the rights of franchise,
they would correspondingly come under the obligation to bear arms."
"Are there not large classes," he asked, "even among men in this
country, who are exempt from service in our armies for physical
incapacity and for other reasons? And if exemptions which appertain to
males may be recognized as valid, why not similar exemptions for like
reasons when applied to females? Does it not prove that there is
nothing in the argument so far as it involves the question of right?
There are Quakers and other religious sects; there are ministers of
the Gospel; persons having conscientious scruples; indeed, all men
over a certain age who under the laws of many of the States are
released from service of that character. Indeed, it is the boast of
this republic that ours is a volunteer military establishment. Hence I
say there is nothing in the position that because she may not be
physically qualified for service in your army, therefore you have the
right to deny her the franchise on the score of sex."
In closing an extended speech, Mr. Brown remarked: "Even though I
recognize the impolicy of coupling these two measures in this manner
and at this time, I shall yet record my vote in the affirmative as an
earnest indication of my belief in the principle, and my faith in the
future."
Mr. Davis made another protracted speech against both the amendment
and the original bill. "The great God," said he, "who created all the
races, and in every race gave to man woman, never intended that woman
should take part in national government among any people, or that the
negro, the lowest, should ever have coördinate and equal power with
the highest, the white race, in any government, national or
domestic."
In conclusion, Mr. Davis advised the late rebels to "resist this
great, this most foul, cruel, and dishonoring enslavement. Men of the
South, exhaust every peaceful means of redress, and when your
oppressions become unendurable, and it is demonstrated that there is
no other hope, then strike for your liberty, and strike as did your
fathers in 1776, and as did the Hollanders and Zealanders, led by
William the Silent, to break their chains, forged by the tyrants of
Spain."
"When it is necessary," said Mr. Sprague, "that woman shall vote for
the support of liberty and equality, I shall be ready to cast my vote
in their favor. The black man's vote is necessary to this at this
time. Do not prostrate all the industrial interests of the North by a
policy of conciliation and of inaction. Delays are dangerous,
criminal. When you shall have established, firmly and fearlessly,
governments at the South friendly to the republic; when you shall have
ceased from receiving terms and propositions from the leaders of the
rebellion as to their reconstruction; when you shall have promptly
acted in the interest of liberty, prosperity will light upon the
industries of your people, and panics, commercial and mercantile
revolutions, will be placed afar off; and never, sir, until that time
shall have arrived. And as an humble advocate of all industrial
interests of the free people of the North, white and black, and as an
humble representative of these interests, I urge prompt action to-day,
to-morrow, and every day until the work has been completed. Let no
obstacle stand in the way now, no matter what it may be. You will save
your people from poverty and free principles from a more desperate
combat than they have yet witnessed. Ridicule may be used in this
chamber, calumny may prevail through the country, and murder may be a
common occurrence South to those who stand firmly thus and who
advocate such measures. Let it be so; for greater will be the crowning
glory of those who are not found wanting in the day of victory. Let
us, then, press to the vote; one glorious step taken, then we may take
others in the same direction."
"The objection," said Mr. Buckalew, "which I have to a large extension
of suffrage in this country, whether by Federal or State power, is
this: that thereby you will corrupt and degrade elections, and
probably lead to their complete abrogation hereafter. By pouring into
the ballot-boxes of the country a large mass of ignorant votes, and
votes subjected to pecuniary or social influence, you will corrupt and
degrade your elections and lay the foundation for their ultimate
destruction."
"After giving some considerable reflection to the subject of
suffrage," said Mr. Doolittle, "I have arrived at the conclusion that
the true base or foundation upon which to rest suffrage in any
republican community is upon the family, the head of the family;
because in civilized society the family is the unit, not the
individual."
Mr. Pomeroy was in favor of the bill without the proposed amendment.
"I do not want to weigh it down," said he, "with any thing else. There
are other measures that I would be glad to support in their proper
place and time; but this is a great measure of itself. Since I have
been a member of the Senate, there was a law in this District
authorizing the selling of these people. To have traveled in six years
from the auction-block to the ballot with these people is an immense
stride, and if we can carry this measure alone, of itself, we should
be contented for the present."
The vote being taken on Mr. Cowan's amendment conferring the elective
franchise upon women, the result was yeas, nine; nays, thirty-seven.
The following are the names of those who voted in the affirmative:
Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Foster, Nesmith,
Patterson, Riddle, and Wade.
Mr. Dixon then moved to amend the bill by adding a proviso:
"That no person who has not heretofore voted in this
District shall be permitted to vote unless he shall be able,
at the time of offering to vote, to read and also write his
own name."
"I would deny to no man," said Mr. Dixon, "the right of voting solely
on account of his color; but I doubt the propriety of permitting any
man to vote, whatever his race or color, who has not at least that
proof of intelligence which the ability to read and write furnishes."
"What is the test?" asked Mr. Saulsbury. "A person who can read and
write. Is it his name, or only read and write?"
"His name," said one.
"Read and write his name!" continued Mr. Saulsbury. "A wonderful
amount of education to qualify a man for the discharge of the high
office and trust of voting! Great knowledge of the system of
government under which we live does this impart to the voter!"
"If this were really an intelligence qualification," said Mr. Cowan,
"I do not know what I might say; but of the fact that the ability of a
man merely to write his own name and read it, is intelligence, I am
not informed. To write a man's name is simply a mechanical operation.
It may be taught to any body, even people of the most limited
capacity, in twenty minutes; and to read it afterward certainly would
not be very difficult."
"I understand the amendment to include," said Mr. Willey, "the
qualification of reading generally, and also of writing his name; two
tests, one the reading generally, and the other the writing his own
name."
"Where is its precision?" asked Mr. Cowan; "where is it to end, and
who shall determine its limits? I will put the case of a board
belonging to the dominant party, and suppose they have the statute
amended by my honorable friend from Connecticut before them, and a
colored man comes forward and proposes to vote. They put to him the
question, 'Can you write your name and read?' 'Oh, yes.' 'Well, let us
see you try it.' He then writes his name and he reads it; and he is
admitted if he is understood to belong to that party. But suppose, as
has recently happened, that this dark man should come to the
conclusion to vote on the other side, and it were known that he meant
to vote on the other side, what kind of a chance would he have? Then
the man of the dominant party, who desires to carry the election,
says, 'You shall not only write your name and read it, but you must
read generally. I have read the senatorial debates upon this question,
and the honorable Senator from West Virginia, who originated this
amendment, was of opinion that a man should read generally. Now, sir,
read generally, if you please.' 'Well,' says he, 'what shall I read?'
Read a section of the _Novum Organum_, or some other most difficult
and abstruse thing, or a few sections from Okie's Physiology."
On the 13th of December, the last day of the discussion, Mr. Anthony
occupied the chair during a portion of the session, and Mr. Foster
took the floor in favor of the amendment proposed by his colleague.
"The honorable Senator from Pennsylvania," said he, "from the manner
in which he treats this subject, I should think, was now fresh from
his reading of 'Much A-do about Nothing,' and was quoting Mr. Justice
Dogberry, who said, 'To be a well-favored man is the gift of fortune,
but to read and write comes by nature.' The Senator from Pennsylvania
and others seem inclined to say, 'Away with writing and reading till
there is need of such vanity.' I believe that the idea of admitting
men to the elective franchise who can neither read nor write is going
backward and downward.
"Who are the men who come forward to deposit their ballots in the
ballot-boxes? They are the people of this country, to whom all
questions must ultimately go for examination and correction. They
correct the mistakes which we make, and which Congress makes, and
which the Supreme Court makes. The electors at the ballot-boxes are
the grand court of errors for the country. Now, sir, these Senators
propose to allow men who can not read and write to correct our
mistakes, to become members of this high court of errors.
"The honorable Senator from Massachusetts says he wants to put the
ballot into the hands of the black man for his protection. If he can
not read the ballot, what kind of protection is it to him? A Written
or printed slip of paper is put into the hands of a man, black or
white, and if he can not read it, what is it to him? What does he know
about it? What can he do with it? How can he protect himself by it? As
well might the honorable Senator from Massachusetts put in the hands
of a child who knew nothing of firearms a loaded pistol, with which to
protect himself against his enemies. The child would be much more
likely to endanger himself and his friends by the pistol than to
protect himself. A perfectly ignorant man who can not read his ballot
is much more likely to use it to his own detriment, and to the
detriment of the country, than he is to use it for the benefit of
either."
"The argument in favor of making the right to vote universal," said
Mr. Frelinghuysen, in making a second speech upon the question, "is
that the ballot itself is a great education; that by its encouraging
the citizen, by its inspiring him, it adds dignity to his character,
and makes him strive to acquire learning. Secondly, that if the voting
depended on learning, no inducement is extended to communities
unfavorable to the right of voting in the colored man to give him the
opportunity to learn; they would rather embarrass him, to prevent his
making the acquisition, unless they were in favor of his voting; while
if voting is universal, communities, for their own security, for their
own protection, will be driven to establish common schools, so that
the voter shall become intelligent."
Pursuing a similar line of thought, Mr. Wilson said: "Allow the black
men to vote without this qualification and they will demand education,
the school-houses will rise, school-teachers will be employed, these
people will attend the schools, and the cause of education will be
carried forward in this District with more rapidity than at any other
period in its history. Give the negro the right of suffrage, and
before a year passes round, you will see these men, who voted that
they should not have the right to vote, running after them, and
inquiring after the health of their wives and children. I do not think
the Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Davis] will be examining their pelvis
or shins, or making speeches about the formation of their lips, or the
angle of their foreheads on the floor of the Senate. You will then see
the Democracy, with the keen scent that always distinguishes that
party, on the hunt after the votes of these black men, [laughter;] and
if they treat them better than the Republicans do, they will probably
get their votes, and I hope they will.
"And it will be just so down in these rebel States. Give the negroes
of Virginia the right to vote, and you will find Wise and Letcher and
the whole tribe of the secessionists undertaking to prove that from
the landing at Jamestown in 1620 the first families of the Old
Dominion have always been the champions and the special friends of the
negroes of Old Virginia, and that there is a great deal of kindred
between them, [laughter;] that they are relations, brethren; that the
same red blood courses in the veins of many of them. They will
establish all these things, perhaps by affidavits. [Laughter.] And I
say to you, sir, they will have a good opportunity to get a good many
of their votes, for in these respects they have the advantage of us
poor Republicans."
Of the pending amendment, Mr. Hendricks said: "I propose to vote for
it, not because I am in favor, as a general proposition, of an
intelligence qualification for the right to vote, but because in this
particular instance, I think it to be proper to prescribe it."
"I shall vote," said Mr. Lane, "to enfranchise the colored residents
of this District because I believe it is right, just, and proper;
because I believe it is in accordance with those two grand central
truths around which cluster every hope for redeemed humanity, the
common fatherhood of God above us and the brotherhood of universal
mankind."
"The bill for Impartial Suffrage in the District of Columbia," said
Mr. Sumner, "concerns directly some twenty thousand colored persons,
whom it will lift to the adamantine platform of equal rights. If it
were regarded simply in its bearings on the District it would be
difficult to exaggerate its value; but when it is regarded as an
example to the whole country under the sanction of Congress, its value
is infinite. It is in the latter character that it becomes a pillar of
fire to illumine the footsteps of millions. What we do here will be
done in the disorganized States. Therefore, we must be careful that
what we do here is best for the disorganized States.
"When I am asked to open the suffrage to women, or when I am asked to
establish an educational standard, I can not on the present bill
simply because the controlling necessity under which we act will not
allow it. By a singular Providence we are now constrained to this
measure of enfranchisement for the sake of peace, security, and
reconciliation, so that loyal persons, white or black, may be
protected and that the Republic may live. Here in the District of
Columbia we begin the real work of reconstruction by which the Union
will be consolidated forever."
The question was taken upon Mr. Dixon's amendment, which was lost;
eleven voting for, and thirty-four against the proposition. The vote
was then taken upon the bill to regulate the elective franchise in the
District of Columbia. It passed the Senate, thirty-two voting in the
affirmative, and thirteen in the negative.
On the following day, December 14th, the bill came before the House of
Representatives and passed without discussion; one hundred and
eighteen voting in the affirmative, and forty-six in the negative.
On the 7th of January, the President returned the bill to the Senate
with his objections. The Veto Message was immediately read by the
Secretary of the Senate.
The President's first objection to the bill was that it was not in
accordance with the wishes of the people to whom it was to apply, they
having "solemnly and with such unanimity" protested against it.
It seemed to the President that Congress sustained a relation to the
inhabitants of the District of Columbia analogous to that of a
legislature to the people of a State, and "should have a like respect
for the will and interests of its inhabitants."
Without actually bringing the charge of unconstitutionality against
this measure, the President declared "that Congress is bound to
observe the letter and spirit of the Constitution, as well in the
enactment of local laws for the Seat of Government, as in legislation
common to the entire Union."
The Civil Rights Bill having become a law, it was, in the opinion of
the President, a sufficient protection for the negro. "It can not be
urged," said he, "that the proposed extension of suffrage in the
District of Columbia is necessary to enable persons of color to
protect either their interests or their rights."
The President argued that the negroes were unfitted for the exercise
of the elective franchise, and "can not be expected correctly to
comprehend the duties and responsibilities which pertain to suffrage.
It follows, therefore, that in admitting to the ballot-box a new class
of voters not qualified for the exercise of the elective franchise, we
weaken our system of government instead of adding to its strength and
durability. It may be safely assumed that no political truth is better
established than that such indiscriminate and all-embracing extension
of popular suffrage must end at last in its destruction."
The President occupied a considerable portion of his Message with a
warning to the people against the dangers of the abuse of legislative
power. He quoted from Judge Story that the legislative branch may
absorb all the powers of the government. He quoted also the language
of Mr. Jefferson that one hundred and seventy tyrants are more
dangerous than one tyrant.
The statements of the President in opposition to the bill were
characterized by Mr. Sherman as "but a _resume_ of the arguments
already adduced in the Senate," hence but little effort was made by
the friends of the measure to reply.
Mr. Sherman, in noticing the President's statements in regard to the
danger of invasions by Congress of the just powers of the executive
and judicial departments, said, "I do not think that there is any
occasion for such a warning, because I am not aware that in this bill
Congress has ever assumed any doubtful power. The power of Congress
over this District is without limit, and, therefore, in prescribing
who shall vote for mayor and city council of this city it can not be
claimed that we usurp power or exercise a doubtful power.
"There can be but little danger from Congress; for our acts are but
the reflection of the will of the people. The recent acts of Congress
at the last session, those acts upon which the President and Congress
separated, were submitted to the people, and they decided in favor of
Congress. Unless, therefore, there is an inherent danger from a
republican government, resting solely upon the will of the people,
there is no occasion for the warning of the President. Unless the
judgment of one man is better than the combined judgment of a great
majority, he should have respected their decision, and not continue a
controversy in which our common constituency have decided that he was
wrong."
The last speech, before taking the vote, was made by Mr. Doolittle.
"Men speak," said he, "of universal negro suffrage as having been
spoken in favor of in the late election. There is not a State in this
Union, outside of New England, which would vote in favor of universal
negro suffrage. When gentlemen tell me that the people of the whole
North, by any thing that transpired in the late election, have decided
in favor of universal, unqualified negro suffrage, they assume that
for which there is no foundation whatever."
The question being taken whether the bill should pass over the
President's veto, the Senate decided in the affirmative by a vote of
twenty-nine yeas to ten nays.
The next day, January 8th, the bill was passed over the veto by the
House of Representatives, without debate, by a vote of one hundred and
thirteen yeas to thirty-eight nays. The Speaker then declared that
notwithstanding the objections of the President of the United States,
the act to regulate the elective franchise in the District of Columbia
had become a law.