The protection of the loyal people of the South claimed also the
attention of Negro Congressmen. When, therefore, the House had under
consideration the bill to enforce the 14th Amendment, Robert C. De
Large made eloquent remarks replying to Cox of New York, who had
denounced the "ignorant" rulers of South Carolina for their
"rapacity," which in his opinion justified the activities of the Ku
Klux Klan.[69] It was in the defense of the bill for the protection
of life and property in the South[70] that Robert B. Elliott had
occasion to speak. He showed that the argument upon the pending bill
had proceeded upon a question of constitutional law, the opponents
denying that its provisions were warranted by the Constitution of the
United States, and questioning the data upon which the proposed bill
was founded. The probable efficacy of the bill, as a measure of relief
and protection for the loyal men of the South from the extraordinary
system of oppression to which they were subjected, had not been
assailed. Elliott, therefore, undertook to prove that the proposed
bill was not obnoxious to the spirit of the Constitution, that it was
founded on reason, and that in view of the state of affairs then
existing in the South, it was, as a measure of protection, not only
warranted, but imperatively demanded.
For his first task, Elliott was compelled to sustain the position that
the government of the United States has the right, under the
Constitution, to protect a citizen of the United States in the
exercise of his vested rights as an American citizen, by the exercise
of direct force, or the assertion of immediate jurisdiction through
its courts, without the appeal of the State in which the citizen is
domiciled. Asserting the legal maxim that where power is given the
means of its execution are implied, he sought to establish that the
power had been given by Article IV of the Constitution, which imposes
upon the Federal Government the duty to protect the States against
domestic violence. He attempted, moreover, to establish by the
authority of the preamble to the Constitution the violence of the
"presumption that the majority of the people of a State may be
oppressively subordinated to the minority." To support his own
constructions of the Constitution, Elliott quoted Justice Story on
this same issue, pointed out the inconsistencies in the argument of
his chief opponent, defined within the meaning of the Constitution a
republican form of government and thereafter affirmed that the bill
in hand came within the limits of the Constitution.
Elliott had next to establish the validity of the facts upon which the
proposed bill was founded. Little difficulty, indeed, was experienced
in bringing forward convincing evidence. There were presented before
the House numerous editorials from Southern newspapers showing the
animus of the enemies of the Negro; the report of the partisan
committees of Charleston in 1868; communications appearing in the
Newberry, South Carolina, _Herald_ of July 17 in 1868; the Ku Klux
Klan order appearing in the Charleston _News_ of January 31, 1871; and
the printed allegements of leading unreconstructed Southerners, all of
which tended to indicate to what extent violence had superseded law,
and exactly how unsafe were the lives and property of the loyal people
of the South. Elliott quite properly affirmed, therefore, the urgent
need for the passage of the bill as a measure of relief and protection
to those in the South, whose liberties had been assailed.
On the political conditions in the South during the decline of the
Reconstruction régime many Congressmen spoke with seeming authority.
Two speeches of note on Southern conditions were made, during the
Forty-second Congress, by Robert Brown Elliott. On May 30, 1872, he
addressed the House on the subject of the Ku Klux Klan. In this
speech, he exposed the whole scheme of domination by violence as
effected by that element of the Southern whites who would either
"rule[71] or ruin the governments of the several States." The second
speech followed remarks by Voorhees, of Indiana, on the misconduct in
financial matters of the administration of South Carolina. Replying to
the specific charge that his party had been guilty of an over-issue of
bonds, Elliott reviewed briefly the financial history of his State for
the period in question and, in conclusion, pointed out, first, that
"in a legal sense an over-issue of bonds is an issue made in excess of
such issue authorized by law," and second, that no act of the General
Assembly of South Carolina had limited the extent of bonds to be
issued in that State.[72]
An unceasing interest in the political conditions of the South was
manifested by John R. Lynch of Mississippi throughout his three terms
in Congress. He was quite active in proposing legislation relating to
the Southern judicial districts of Mississippi, and he offered also an
amendment to the federal election laws.[73] Remarks made by him
comprehended discussions of such subjects as the political affairs of
the South, reconstruction and restoration of white rule in
Mississippi, and "the Southern Question."[74] In his analysis of the
"Southern Question," Lynch attributed the condition of the South to
certain underlying causes, namely: (1) "A continuous and unnecessary
opposition of the impracticable element within the ranks of the
Democratic Party to the system of reconstruction finally adopted by
Congress, and a stubborn refusal on their part to acquiesce in the
results of the War"; (2) "the persistent and uncharitable opposition
of this same element--the element that had obtained control of the
party organization and therefore shaped its policy--to the civil and
political rights of Negroes"; and (3) "the methods of the so-called
white-league whereby an armed military organization was maintained to
effect a condition of white supremacy." Lynch, in concluding, appealed
to the fairminded and justice-loving people of America to unite in a
common effort to eradicate these evils and secure to the Negroes the
rights that they so justly merited.
Referring to the same situation, Charles E. Nash, a representative
from Louisiana to the Forty-fourth Congress, held to be unjustified
the attacks upon the character of the white men and the integrity and
ability of Negroes in the South, who had joined purposes to promote
the principles of justice and of sectional harmony. Furthermore, he
entered a general denial of the charge that liberty in Louisiana had
been destroyed, and pointed out the need of a policy of cooperation
between the whites and blacks, to the end that the education of both
races might be fostered, that the indiscriminate and illegal killing
of Negroes might be eliminated, and that the reign of terror effected
by a union of the ruffian whites and ignorant blacks might be
prevented. Nash then extolled the record of the party in power for its
fairness to the Negro, and arraigned the attitude of the opposition to
all measures designed to ameliorate the condition of the race.
Concluding his remarks, Nash preached the sound doctrine that
sectional animosities should be buried and that all units and sections
of the nation should cooperate to the end that a greater, more humane
and more powerful America might be evolved.[75]
The most comprehensive remarks of Smalls of South Carolina concerned
the electoral vote and the policy of parties in his State.[76] In this
he pointed out that ruffians had intimidated the black voters, had
driven out the white, and had perpetrated crimes and election frauds
to the end that the political control of the State might be
recommitted to the hands of reactionaries. Concerning the frauds
committed in the election held prior to the Forty-fourth Congress,
facts and figures were presented in great detail to verify his
contentions.
During his discussion of the proposal to investigate the frauds in the
late election in Mississippi, B. K. Bruce, a senator from that State,
came fearlessly to the defense of his State government. On this
occasion, also, he put into the record valuable statistics showing the
progress of the freedmen in Mississippi. The Negroes, he believed, had
suffered on account of leadership, but they had, at that time, better
leaders who, though not all educated, yet understood the duties of
citizenship. Senator Bruce[77] believed that the thing needed was
peace and good order at the South, but it could come only by the
fullest recognition of the rights of all classes. The opposition would
have to concede the necessity of change, not only in the temper, but
in the philosophy of their party organization and management. The
sober American judgment would have to obtain in the South, as
elsewhere in the Republic, since the only distinctions upon which
parties can be safely organized in harmony with our institutions, are
differences of opinion relative to principles and policy of
government; because differences of religion, nationality, race, can
neither with safety nor propriety be permitted to enter into the party
contests. The unanimity with which the Negro voters acted with a party
was not referable to any race prejudice. On the contrary, the Negroes
invited the political cooperation of their white brethren, and voted
as a unit because proscribed as such. They deprecated the
establishment of the color line by the opposition, not only because
the act was unwise and wrong in principle, but because it isolated
them from the white man of the South and forced them in sheer
self-protection and against their inclination to act seemingly upon
the basis of race prejudice which they neither respected nor
entertained. As a class he believed they were free from prejudices and
had no uncharitable suspicions against their white fellow citizens,
whether native born or settlers from the Northern States. "When
Negroes," continued he, "can entertain opinions and select party
affiliations without proscription, and cast their ballots as other
citizens and without jeopardy to person or privilege, they can safely
afford to be governed by the considerations that ordinarily determine
the political actions of American citizens." Senator Bruce asked,
therefore, not for new laws, but rather for the enforcement of the
old. Peace in the South could come, he believed, only by guaranteeing
the protection of the law.
Replying in part to the remarks of Senator Colquitt, from Georgia,
Miller, a representative from South Carolina in the Fifty-first
Congress, spoke impressively on the subject, "Southern Affairs."[78]
The colleague of Miller in this Congress, John M. Langston of
Virginia, spoke at great length on the federal election laws, pointing
out the need for an adequate legislation and its proper
enforcement.[79] He offered, moreover, a measure directing an inquiry
relative to the instructions of the Attorney-General concerning
elections.
To the bill to repeal all statutes relating to supervisors of
elections and special deputy marshals, George W. Murray, a member of
the Fifty-third and Fifty-fourth Congresses, took vigorous
exception.[80] Asserting that such action would have the effect of
promoting the election frauds of the reactionaries in the South, and
that already in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South
Carolina, a decided minority of the voting population of each
Congressional district elected regularly the representative to
Congress, he maintained that the present law should not only remain
unchanged, but rather, be vigorously enforced. He introduced,
moreover, measures designed to assure minority representation in
federal elections[81] and to investigate the political conditions in
the State of South Carolina.