SENATE CHAMBER, April 20, 1867.
MY DEAR SIR,--You wish to have the North “reconstructed,” so
at least that it shall cease to deny the elective franchise on
account of color. But you postpone the day by insisting on the
preliminary of a Constitutional Amendment. I know your vows to
the good cause; but I ask you to make haste. We cannot wait.
Of course, we can always wait for the needful processes; but
there are present reasons why we should allow no time to be lost.
_This question must be settled forthwith_: in other words, it
must be settled before the Presidential election, now at hand.
Our colored fellow-citizens at the South are already electors.
They will vote at the Presidential election. But why should they
vote at the South, and not at the North? The rule of justice is
the same for both. Their votes are needed at the North as well
as the South. There are Northern States where their votes can
make the good cause safe beyond question. There are other States
where their votes will be like the last preponderant weight in
the nicely balanced scales. Let our colored fellow-citizens vote
in Maryland, and that State, now so severely tried, will be fixed
for Human Rights forever. Let them vote in Pennsylvania, and
you will give more than twenty thousand votes to the Republican
cause. Let them vote in New York, and the scales, which hang
so doubtful, will incline to the Republican side. It will be
the same in Connecticut. I mention these by way of example. But
everywhere the old Proslavery party will kick the beam. Let all
this be done, I say, before the next Presidential election.
Among the proposed ways is a new Constitutional Amendment. But
this is too dilatory. It cannot become operative till after
the Presidential election. Besides, it is needless. Instead of
amending the Constitution, read it.
Another way is by moving each State, and obtaining through
local legislation what is essentially _a right of citizenship_.
But this again is too dilatory, while it turns each State into
a political maelström, and submits a question of _National_
interest to the chances of local controversy and the timidity of
local politicians. This will not do. Emancipation was a National
act, proceeding from the National Government, and applicable
to all the States. Enfranchisement, which is the corollary
and complement of Emancipation, must be a National act also,
proceeding from the National Government, and applicable to all
the States. If left to the States individually, the result,
besides being tardy, will be uncertain and fragmentary.
There is another way, at once prompt, energetic, and
comprehensive. It is by Act of Congress, adopted by a majority of
two thirds, in spite of Presidential veto. The time has passed
when this power can be questioned. Congress has already exercised
it in the Rebel States. I do not forget its hesitations. Only
a year ago, when I insisted that it must do so, and introduced
a bill to this effect, I was answered that a Constitutional
Amendment was needed, and I was voted down. A change came, and
in a happy moment Congress exercised the power. What patriot
questions it now? But the power is unquestionable in the other
States also. It concerns the rights of citizenship, and this
subject is as essentially national as the army or the navy.
Even without either of the recent Constitutional Amendments,
I am at a loss to understand how a denial of the elective
franchise simply on account of color can be otherwise than
unconstitutional. I cannot see how, under a National Constitution
which does not contain the word “white” or “black,” there can be
any exclusion on account of color. There is no such exclusion
in the Constitution. Out of what text is this oligarchical
pretension derived? But, putting aside this question, which will
be clearer to the jurists of the next generation than to us,
I vouch the authoritative words of the National Constitution,
making it our duty to guaranty a republican form of government
in the States. Now the greatest victory of the war, to which all
other victories, whether in Congress or on the bloody field, were
only tributary, was the definition of a republican government
according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
A government which denies the elective franchise on account of
color, or, in other words, sets up any “qualifications” of voters
in their nature insurmountable, cannot be republican; for the
first principle in a republican government is Equality of Rights,
according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence.
And this definition, I insist, is the crowning glory of the war
which beat down Rebellion under its feet. It only remains for
Congress to enforce it by appropriate legislation.
There are two recent Constitutional Amendments, each of which
furnishes ample and cumulative power.
There is, first, the Amendment abolishing Slavery, with its
clause conferring on Congress the power to enforce it by
appropriate legislation, in pursuance of which Congress has
already passed the Civil Rights Act, which is applicable to the
North as well as the South. Clearly, and most obviously beyond
all question, if it can pass a Civil Rights Act, it can also pass
a Political Rights Act; for each is appropriate to enforce the
abolition of Slavery, and to complete this work. Without it the
work is only half done.
There is yet another Amendment, recently adopted by three
fourths of the loyal States, which is itself an abundant source
of power. After declaring that all persons born or naturalized
in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof
are “citizens,” this Amendment proceeds to provide that “no
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the
privileges or immunities of _citizens_ of the United States”; and
Congress is empowered to enforce this provision by appropriate
legislation. Nothing can be plainer than this.
Here, then, are three different sources of power in the
Constitution itself, each sufficient, the three together three
times sufficient,--each exuberant and overflowing, the three
together three times exuberant and overflowing. How, in the face
of these provisions, any person can doubt the power of Congress
I cannot understand. But, alas! there are doubters always.
I have already sent you a copy of my bill to settle this question
by what I call “the short cut.” Give us your vote. Of course, you
will. Believe me, my dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,