SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE ADMISSION OF NEBRASKA AS A STATE, JULY
27, DECEMBER 14 AND 19, 1866, AND JANUARY 8, 1867.
The question of admitting Nebraska as a State followed that of
Colorado, and with the same effort on the part of Mr. Sumner
to require equal rights without distinction of color in the
constitution of the new State. Nebraska, like Colorado, failed
in this respect. Unquestionably, the discussion on these two
cases prepared the way for the requirement of equal suffrage in
the Rebel States.
* * * * *
July 27th, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Chairman of the Committee on
Territories, moved to proceed with the bill for the admission
of the State of Nebraska into the Union, and urged its passage.
Mr. Sumner followed.
MR. PRESIDENT,--I am very sorry to occupy the attention of the Senate
even for one minute, but I shall be very brief. The Senator [Mr.
WADE] tells us that the majority of the people in favor of the State
government was about one hundred and fifty; and by such a slender, slim
majority you are called to invest this Territory with the powers and
prerogatives of a State. The smallness of the majority is an argument
against any present action; but, going behind that small majority,
and looking at the number of voters, the argument increases, for the
Senator tells us there were but eight thousand voters. The question
is, Will you invest those eight thousand voters with the powers and
prerogatives now enjoyed in this Chamber by New York and Pennsylvania
and other States of this Union? I think the objection on this account
unanswerable. It would be unreasonable for you to invest them with
those powers and prerogatives at this time.
But, Sir, I confess that with me the prevailing objection is, that
the State does not present itself with a constitution republican in
form, and on this question I challenge the deliberate judgment of my
excellent friend, the Senator from Ohio, who is now trying to introduce
this Territory into the Union as a State. I challenge the distinguished
Senator to show that a constitution which disqualifies citizens on
account of color can be republican in form. Sir, I say it is not a
republican government, and I am sorry that my distinguished friend
lends his countenance to a government of such a character. I wish that
my friend would lift himself to the argument that such a government
cannot be republican, and must not be welcomed as such on this floor.
I forbear entering into the argument. Again and again I have presented
it. Senators have made up their minds. Each must judge for himself.
It is not without pain and trouble that I find myself constrained to
differ from valued friends and associates, with whom I am always proud
to agree; but I cannot recognize a constitution with the word “white”
as republican. With such conviction, it is my duty to oppose the
welcome of this Territory as a State just so long as I can.
Mr. Wade said in reply: “It is republican in form, but is not
that kind of republicanism that I approve of. If I had my way
about it, nobody would be excluded from the franchise that was
a male citizen of proper age, let his color be what it would.
That would be the color of republicanism that I should like the
best. But to deny that under the Constitution of the United
States this constitution is republican in form is to deny that
we have a republic at all.… The State of Massachusetts is a
little forward on this subject. I am glad of it.”
Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Mr.
Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, Mr. Garrett
Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, Mr. Buckalew, of
Pennsylvania, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Nye, of Nevada, and
Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, took part in the debate. In the course
of Mr. Nye’s remarks, the following occurred.
MR. NYE. But my conscientious friend from Massachusetts,
I am terribly afraid, mistakes twinges of dyspepsia for
constitutional scruples. [_Laughter._]
MR. SUMNER. I never had the dyspepsia in my life.
MR. NYE. I am glad to hear it; it is some other disease,
then. [_Laughter._] This word “white” is the nightmare of
his mind.
Mr. Wade, speaking again, said: “The Senator from Massachusetts
has a certain one idea that covers the whole ground.… All the
opposition that he really has to it is because they put the
word ‘white’ in their constitution.”
Mr. Sumner moved the proviso already moved on the Louisiana
and Colorado bills, requiring as a fundamental condition that
within the State there should be no denial of the elective
franchise or of any other right on account of race or color,
and that this condition should be ratified by the voters of
the Territory; which was lost,--Yeas 5, Nays 34. The Senators
voting yea were Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, Mr. Fessenden, of
Maine, Mr. Morgan, of New York, Mr. Poland, of Vermont, and Mr.
Sumner.
The bill then passed the Senate,--Yeas 24, Nays 18. It also
passed the House of Representatives, but did not receive the
signature of the President.
* * * * *
At the next session of Congress, Mr. Wade introduced another
bill for the admission of Nebraska, which he afterwards
reported from the Committee on Territories. Notwithstanding its
constitution with the word “white,” December 14th, he moved to
proceed with the consideration of this bill. Mr. Sumner was
against taking it up.
…
I hope you do not forget the great act of yesterday. By solemn vote,
you have recorded yourselves in favor of Human Rights, and have
established them here at the National Capital. And now, Sir, you are
asked to set aside Human Rights, and to forget the triumph and example
of yesterday. Before you is a constitution with the word “white,”--a
constitution creating a white man’s government, such as is praised
by Senators on the other side,--and you are asked to recognize that
disreputable instrument. I am against any such government, and I trust
the Senate will not proceed with its consideration.
Do not to-day undo the good work of yesterday, nor imitate that ancient
personage who unwove at night the web woven during the day, so that her
work never proceeded to any end. Do not, I entreat you, unweave to-day
the beautiful web of yesterday.
Instead of undoing, let us do always; nor is there any lack of measures
deserving attention. There is the Bankrupt Bill, practical and
beneficent in character, and involving no sacrifice of Human Rights.
This is a measure of real humanity, calculated to carry tranquillity
and repose into the business of the country. Besides, it has been too
long postponed.
Mr. Wade replied with some warmth, when the following passage
occurred.
MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, I hope to be pardoned, if I make one word
of reply to the Senator. He seemed to think his argument advanced by
personal allusions to myself. If I understand him, he sought to show
inconsistency on my part.
MR. WADE. Yes, I think I did.
MR. SUMNER. I am at a loss to understand how the Senator can find
inconsistency, unless he chooses to misunderstand facts. He assumed
that I voted for the admission of Tennessee.
MR. WADE. When you said you did not, I gave it up.
MR. SUMNER. My name is recorded, on all the yeas and nays, and they
were numerous, against the admission of Tennessee; and the reason I
assigned was, that the constitution contained the word “white.”
MR. WADE. You voted for the Constitutional Amendment.
MR. SUMNER. Yes, I did vote for the Constitutional Amendment, in its
final form;[46] but does the Senator consider himself bound to admit
a Rebel State refusing the suffrage to freedmen? I wish my friend to
answer that.
MR. WADE. No, I do not.
MR. SUMNER. I knew he did not.
MR. WADE. I do not know that I understand the Senator. Let me
say that I should consider myself bound by the Constitutional
Amendment, if the Southern States complied with it within a
reasonable time; and that reasonable time, in my judgment, is
nearly elapsed.
MR. SUMNER. Even with the word “white” in a constitution?
MR. WADE. Without regard to that.
MR. SUMNER. Without regard to the rights of the freedman?
MR. WADE. On complying with the requisitions of the
Constitutional Amendment, I should vote for them.
MR. SUMNER. I do not agree with the Senator. I distinctly stated,
when the Amendment was under discussion, that I did not accept it as
a finality, and that, so far as I had a vote on this floor, I would
insist that every one of these States, before its Representatives
were received in Congress, should confer impartial suffrage, without
distinction of color; and now I ask my friend what inconsistency there
is, when I insist upon the same rule for Nebraska.
MR. WADE. I cannot see how the Senator could have misled the
Southern States with that. When they complied with all we asked
of them in the Constitutional Amendment, I supposed we could
not refuse to let them in on those terms.… Certainly I am as
much for colored suffrage as any man on this floor; but when I
make such an agreement as that, I stand by it always.
MR. SUMNER. When I make an agreement, I stand by it. But I entered into
no such agreement, and I do not understand that the Senate or Congress
entered into any such agreement. I know that certain politicians and
editors have undertaken to foist something of this sort into the
Constitutional Amendment; but there was no authority for it. The
Committee on Reconstruction may have reported a resolution to that
effect, but they never called it up, and I know well that I offered a
resolution just the contrary.
MR. DOOLITTLE. The Senator from Massachusetts will allow me?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
MR. DOOLITTLE. The Committee on Reconstruction reported a
resolution, that, if each State should adopt this Amendment,
and the Amendment should become a part of the Constitution, be
adopted by a sufficient number of States, then the States might
be accepted. That was what they reported.
MR. JOHNSON. It was a bill.
MR. WADE. That was the understanding I alluded to.
MR. BROWN. That was not acted upon.
MR. SUMNER. It was not acted on. I suppose that those who had
it in charge did not venture to invite a vote upon it.
MR. DOOLITTLE. It was laid on the table by a vote in the House
of Representatives, upon the yeas and nays.
MR. SUMNER. It never became in any respect a legislative act; therefore
nobody entered legislatively into the agreement attributed to me.
How the Senator could attribute it to me, in the face of constant
asseveration that I would not be a party to any such agreement,
surpasses comprehension.
…
So far as the Senator considered the merits of the question, I will
not now reply. There may be a time for that, and the magnitude of the
issue may justify me even in setting forth arguments already adduced.
If I repeat myself, it is because you repeat an effort which ought
never to have been made. But I enter my most earnest protest. To my
mind this is a most disastrous measure. I use this word advisedly; it
is disastrous because it cannot fail to impair the moral efficiency
of Congress, injure its influence, and be something like a bar to the
adoption of a just policy for the Rebel States. Sir, we are now seeking
to obliterate the word “white” from all institutions and constitutions
there; and yet Senators, with that great question before them, rush
swiftly forward to welcome a new State with the word “white” in its
constitution. In other days we all united, and the Senator from Ohio
was earnest among the number, in saying, “No more Slave States!” I now
insist upon another cry: “No more States with the word ‘white’!” On
that question I part company with my friend from Ohio. He is now about
to welcome them.
The motion of Mr. Wade was adopted,--Yeas 21, Nays 11,--and the
bill was before the Senate for consideration. Mr. Gratz Brown
then offered the proviso, offered formerly by Mr. Sumner,[47]
requiring, as a fundamental condition, that there should be
no denial of the elective franchise or of any other right on
account of race or color, and upon the further condition that
this requirement be submitted to the voters of the Territory.
In the earnest debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke repeatedly,
especially in reply to Mr. Wade, setting forth again the
objections already made to the admission of Colorado.
* * * * *