“_And be it further enacted_, That all the provisions of
this Act, and of the Acts to which this is supplementary,
shall be construed liberally, to the end that all the
intents thereof may be fully and perfectly carried out.”
There was no objection of order to this amendment, and it was
agreed to without a division.
After further amendment the bill was ingrafted upon a House
bill on the same subject and passed,--Yeas 32, Nays 6. Being
referred to a Conference Committee, the report of the Committee
was adopted: in the Senate, Yeas 31, Nays 6,--and in the House,
Yeas 111, Nays 23.
* * * * *
July 13th, on the report of the Conference Committee in the
Senate, Mr. Sumner said:--
And now, as we are about to dismiss this subject for the present
session, I cannot forbear again expressing regret that the measure has
not been made more complete,--in one word, more radical. This is the
third bill of Reconstruction on which we have acted. We ought never
to have acted on more than one; and had the Senate been sufficiently
radical, had it founded its bill on clear, definite principle, there
would have been no occasion for more than one. Just so far as we have
failed to found ourselves on clear, definite principle, our bills have
failed; and should there be failure under the present bill, it will be
precisely on that account.
I shall never cease to lament that Congress did not at once assume
jurisdiction of the whole region, and in the exercise of its plenary
authority establish civil governments, supplying ample military
support. Such a Reconstruction would have been founded on principles
to defy the criticism of history. I trust that what we have done will
be judged leniently hereafter. I know, however, that it is not above
criticism. Of course, such Reconstruction would have removed out of
sight all existing State governments and municipal governments set up
by Rebel authority, or by the President in the exercise of usurped
power. In my opinion, it is not too late to do this last work. Even
if you decline to establish civil governments, I think, that, under
the Military Bill, you should go forward and brush away all the
existing governments there. From information, private and public, out
of every one of the Rebel States, I am led to this conclusion. Those
governments, whether State or municipal, are just so many engines of
Rebel influence. They stand in the way of Reconstruction. They prevent
the beneficent operation of your work. But the Senate has declined that
path. I regret it, and now at this last moment record my regret.
I am sorry to add that the Senate has declined to require of these
people conditions which I think essential to republican government. One
of these is a system of public education. I can never cease to mourn
the failure in this regard. Here is a paper from New Orleans, which
has come to me since I have been at my desk to-day, edited by colored
persons,--and an excellent paper it is,--“The New Orleans Tribune” of
July 9, 1867, which contains an article entitled “Public Schools,” from
which I will read a brief sentence:--
“Who will open the public schools to all children? We are of
opinion that it will only be done by a colored mayor with
colored members of the city council. This opinion is justified
by facts.”
The article then sets forth the impediments in the way of public
schools. And yet, in the face of such intelligence from the Rebel
States, we decline to require a system of public education as an
essential element in these new governments. I lament it; and I desire
again to record this sentiment.
I fear also, Mr. President, that in the operation of this bill you
will find that we have not been sufficiently explicit in the exclusion
of Rebel influence. I have made my best effort to remove doubts and
to enlarge the exclusion. But, in saying this, I desire to add, that,
in my judgment, all exclusions belong to what I call the transition
period. When Reconstruction is accomplished, the time will come for us
to open the gates,--but not till then.
July 19th, the bill was vetoed by the President, and on the
same day it was re-passed by a two-thirds vote of both Houses:
in the Senate, Yeas 30, Nays 6,--and in the House, Yeas 109,
Nays 25; so that it became a law.[234]
SUFFRAGE WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES BY
ACT OF CONGRESS.
REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO ENFORCE SEVERAL PROVISIONS OF THE
CONSTITUTION BY SECURING THE ELECTIVE FRANCHISE TO COLORED CITIZENS,
JULY 12, 1867.
March 26, 1867, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent
obtained, leave to introduce a bill to enforce the several
provisions of the Constitution abolishing Slavery, declaring
the immunities of citizens, and guarantying a republican form
of government, by securing the elective franchise to colored
citizens, which was read twice by its title and printed. He
then remarked on the importance of the bill, and said that it
was intended to cut the Gordian knot of the Suffrage question
throughout the country.
At the session beginning July 3d, he made constant efforts for
its consideration, challenging objection and argument.
July 12th, he moved its consideration, calling it “the Capstone
of Reconstruction”; but the Third Reconstruction Bill was
pressed by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to the exclusion of the
other. Mr. Sumner would not antagonize his bill with that. As
soon as the other measure was disposed of, he pressed his bill
again. It was objected to by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, as not in
order under the rule of the session limiting business,[235] and
the question of order was referred to the Senate. On this Mr.
Sumner said:--
My argument is precisely this, and I ask the attention of my friend
from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON]. We all know his eminence at the bar of
the Supreme Court, and I submit to him this: We have already by
Reconstruction Acts conferred the suffrage upon colored persons in the
Rebel States; now is it not important that our legislation should be
completed and rounded by conferring the suffrage in the other States
as conferred in the Rebel States? You have conferred it in the Rebel
States.
MR. JOHNSON. What has that to do with the other States?
MR. SUMNER. Will you have the great right of suffrage depend upon Act
of Congress in one half of the Union, and not upon Act of Congress
in the other half? If you can pass an Act for one half, can you not
for the other half? I know the answer, that in the Rebel States the
fact of rebellion gives a power we have not in the other States. But
the present bill is founded not simply on the fact of rebellion, but
on the clause in the National Constitution by which we are bound to
guaranty a republican form of government throughout the whole country;
also on the other clause by which Slavery is abolished throughout the
whole country, and we are empowered by proper legislation to enforce
it; also that further clause by which the rights of citizens are
secured throughout the whole country, and we are empowered by proper
legislation to enforce it. Here are three sources of power, equally
applicable to all the States, Rebel or Loyal. And now I submit that
such an Act for the Loyal States is only the just complement to our
action in the Rebel States.
How can you look the Rebel States in the face, when you have required
colored suffrage of them and fail to require it in the other States? Be
just; require it in the Loyal States as you have required it in the
Rebel States. There is an unanswerable argument, and I submit it on the
question of order. If we are privileged to consider only matters in
aid of the original Reconstruction measures, then do I say that this
bill is in aid of those measures, for it gives to them completeness and
roundness. Without this bill your original measures are imperfect, ay,
radically unjust. I know it is said there is one title to legislation
over the Rebel States which we have not with regard to the Loyal
States,--to wit, that they have been in rebellion. But the great
sources of power in the two cases are identical; they are one and the
same.
There is the guaranty clause in the National Constitution, the sleeping
giant of the Constitution, never until this recent war awakened, but
now it comes forward with a giant’s power. There is no clause like it.
There is no text which gives to Congress such supreme power over the
States. Then, as I have so often said, are the two other clauses. Your
power under the Constitution is not less complete than beneficent.
I am not to be betrayed into the constitutional argument. I am now on
the question of order. I say that this bill is essential to perfect
the original Reconstruction measures. You should not return to your
homes without this additional Act by which Reconstruction is finished.
If any Senator has any reason to bring against this bill, if any
one can suggest a doubt of its constitutionality, I should like to
hear the reason or the doubt, and I shall be ready to answer it. I
invite discussion. I challenge the expression of any reason against
it, or of any doubt with regard to its constitutionality; and I ask
Senators to look at it as a great measure of expediency as well as of
justice. How will you settle this question in the Loyal States? Here
are Delaware, Maryland,--my friend over the way will not be sensitive
when I allude to his State,--and Kentucky, in each of which this
measure will be the salvation of Union citizens. In other States, like
Pennsylvania, it will rally at once--I am speaking now on the question
of expediency--twenty thousand votes to the Union cause. In Indiana,
too, it will settle the Suffrage question. I say nothing of Iowa. There
is Wisconsin.
MR. TRUMBULL. They all vote there now.
MR. SUMNER. Under the decision of the Supreme Court. So much the
better. There is Connecticut. It would obtain three thousand votes
there for the good cause. A short Act of Congress will determine the
political fortunes of Connecticut for an indefinite period by securing
three thousand additional votes to the right side. There is New York,
also, where the bill would have the same excellent beneficent influence.
Who, then, can hesitate? Look at it in any light you please. Regard it
as the completion of these Reconstruction measures, as a constitutional
enactment, or as a measure of expediency to secure results we all
desire at the approaching elections, and who can hesitate? There has
been no bill before you for a long time of more practical value than
this. I hope there will be no question about proceeding with it, and
that we may pass it before we separate to-night.
MR. EDMUNDS. I agree with my friend from Massachusetts, that
the bill has very great merit. It has supreme moral merit. I
agree to every word of it. I am a little afraid, it is true,
that there is a higher law that will bind us not to pass it,
for want of power.
MR. SUMNER. Want of power! Will the Senator be good enough to
state the reason?
MR. EDMUNDS. No, not on this point, because it is not relevant
to this question of order.
MR. SUMNER. But, as the Senator is going into the question of
the want of power, I really wish he would deign to enlighten us
upon that.
MR. EDMUNDS. My friend will have to go without it, so far as I
am concerned, for I shall not make it.
MR. SUMNER. Then I shall begin to think the Senator cannot.
MR. EDMUNDS. That is not a very dangerous state of things; but
there are others who can.
* * * * *
The Senate decided the motion out of order,--Yeas 12, Nays 22.
* * * * *
July 13th, and again on the 15th, Mr. Sumner made another
effort, by a resolution suspending the rule limiting business,
so as to allow the consideration of this bill; but he could not
get a vote on the resolution. The Senate rose without touching
it.