SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION DECLARING TENNESSEE AGAIN
ENTITLED TO SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS, JULY 21, 1866.
The Senate considered a joint resolution from the House of
Representatives “declaring Tennessee again entitled to Senators
and Representatives in Congress,” for which a substitute was
reported by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Judiciary
Committee. The joint resolution from the House and the proposed
substitute each had a preamble. In the debate, Mr. Sumner
said:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--The question, as I understand it, is between two
preambles. I agree with my friend from Illinois, that the preamble
reported by him in many respects has the advantage of that from the
House. It is fuller, and in its structure better. I am glad it sets
forth how Tennessee lost her representation here, and also how she may
again be rehabilitated. But, while according merit to the Senator’s
preamble in that respect, there are other particulars in which it
fails. He himself has already recognized that it is no better than that
of the House, when it sets forth that
“the body of the people of Tennessee have, by a proper spirit
of obedience, shown to the satisfaction of Congress the return
of said State to due allegiance to the Government, laws, and
authority of the United States.”
Here the two preambles are alike; there is no advantage in one over
the other. But I understand the Senator is willing to alter this
clause. If he consents to the alteration, and the alteration is made,
then in this respect his preamble will be superior to that of the
House. Clearly, Sir, the assumption is false; “the body of the people
of Tennessee have” not, “by a proper spirit of obedience, shown to the
satisfaction of Congress the return of said State to due allegiance
to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States.” I may
go too far, when I say it is false that Tennessee has shown a proper
spirit, to the satisfaction of Congress,--because, if Congress votes
that, it will not be for me, or for any one else, to say it has voted
a falsehood; but I do say Tennessee has not shown a proper spirit of
obedience in the body of her people. All the evidence which thickens
in the air from that State, and has been darkening our sky during all
this winter, shows that Tennessee has not that spirit of obedience in
the body of her people. Why, Sir, only this winter, the other House
has been constrained to send a commission to Tennessee to investigate
an outrage of unparalleled atrocity growing out of this very rebel
spirit. How can the Senate aver that the body of that people, thus
saturated with the spirit of disloyalty, thus set on fire and inflamed
by this hatred to the Union, have shown to the satisfaction of Congress
a proper spirit of obedience? Sir, you err, if you put in your
statute-book any such assertion, which is historically untrue. You
cannot make it true by your averment. History hereafter, when it takes
up its avenging pen, will record the falsehood to your shame.
Mr. Sumner then adduced evidence of the actual spirit in
Tennessee, when he was interrupted by Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, who
referred to the testimony of generals and civilians. Mr. Sumner
continued:--
That does not go to the question whether we can aver that there is a
proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. No general says
there is a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. I
challenge the Senator to cite the testimony showing a proper spirit of
obedience in the body of her people. Generals testify that in their
opinion it would be better to admit representatives from Tennessee on
this floor and the floor of the other House. That is another question.
Logically, it is not before me yet. I am now speaking of the erroneous
character of this preamble. But I understand that the Senator from
Illinois is willing to alter his preamble. I believe I am right,--am I
not?
MR. TRUMBULL. Yes, Sir; I am willing those words should go out.
MR. SUMNER. They ought to go out; and if they do go out, it will make
his preamble in this respect superior to that from the House.
But there is another allegation in the Senator’s preamble, which I
must say is as erroneous as that on which I have remarked. He there
declares, and calls upon us to declare, that the constitution adopted
by Tennessee is republican in form. A constitution which disfranchises
more than one quarter of its population republican in form! What,
Sir, is a republican form of government? It is a government founded
on the people and the consent of the governed. Sir, the constitution
of Tennessee is not founded on the consent of the governed. It cannot
invoke in its behalf that great principle of the Declaration of
Independence; therefore it is not republican in form. And when you
allege that it is republican in form, permit me to say, you make an
allegation false in fact. I do not raise any question of theory, but
I submit that a constitution which on its face disfranchises more
than one fourth of the citizens cannot be republican in form. You,
Sir, will make a terrible mistake, if at this moment of your history
you undertake to recognize it as such. You will inflict a blow upon
republican institutions. I hope the Senator from Illinois, as he has
consented to one amendment, will consent to another, and will strike
out the words declaring this constitution republican in form and in
harmony with the Constitution of the United States. Do not compel us
to aver what history will look at with scorn. Who can doubt, when
this war is considered gravely and calmly in the tranquillity of the
future, that the historian must bring all these events to the rigid
test of principle? Bringing them to such test, it will be impossible to
recognize any government like that of Tennessee either as republican in
form or in harmony with the National Constitution.
Mr. Trumbull then moved to strike out the first clause objected
to, and insert instead, “and has done other acts proclaiming
and denoting loyalty,” which was agreed to. Mr. Sumner then
moved to strike out the words “republican in form and not
inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United
States,” which was also agreed to.
Mr. Sumner then moved his proviso, already moved in the
Louisiana bill and the Colorado bill,[41] that the Act should
not take effect “except upon the fundamental condition that
within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral
franchise, or of any other rights, on account of race or color,
but all persons shall be equal before the law.” This was
lost,--Yeas 4, Nays 34. The four affirmative votes were, Mr.
Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Wade, of
Ohio, and Mr. Sumner.
The bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 28, Nays 4,--and was
approved by the President.[42] The four negative votes were,
Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania,
Mr. McDougall, of California, and Mr. Sumner. Its preamble had
been amended according to Mr. Sumner’s desire, but he was not
ready to receive Representatives and Senators from Tennessee
except on the fundamental condition moved by him.