I have another word for the Senator from Ohio. He does not see the
importance of this question. It is the question of every day, a
commonplace question. There is the precise difference between the
Senator from Ohio and other Senators. There have been times when the
Senator has most clearly seen the importance of a question of Human
Rights. The Senator has not forgotten a contest in which he took part
with myself against an effort to precipitate Louisiana back into this
Chamber with a constitution like that of Nebraska. Now the Senator
remembers it well. The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] tried to
put that constitution through the Senate; but, with all his abilities
and the just influence that belonged to his position, he could not
do it. The Senator from Ohio will not be instructed by that example.
He now makes a kindred effort, seeking to introduce into the Union a
State which defies the first principle of Human Rights. The Senator
becomes the champion of that community. He who has so often raised his
voice for Human Rights now treats the question as trivial: it is a
technicality only; that is all.
Sir, can a question of Human Rights be a technicality? Can a
constitution which undertakes to disfranchise a whole race be treated
in that effort as only a technicality? And yet that is the position
of the Senator. Why, Sir, the other day he did openly arraign the
constitution of Louisiana, and the effort of our excellent President,
Abraham Lincoln, who pressed it upon us. The constitution of Louisiana
was odious; it should not have been presented to the Senate; and I
doubt if there is any Senator on the right side who does not now
rejoice that it was defeated.
Then followed a passage with Mr. Kirkwood, of Iowa, who
volunteered to consider that Mr. Sumner had attacked the
constitution of Iowa, when he had made no allusion to it.
MR. KIRKWOOD. He compares the case of the Territory of
Nebraska to that of the lately rebellious States. I think
there is a great difference between them. The people of the
Territory of Nebraska are loyal men; the people of the late
rebellious States are not loyal; and when he compares the
one with the other, I think he does injustice to himself
and to the people of that Territory.
MR. SUMNER. I made no such comparison.
MR. KIRKWOOD. He speaks of the constitution submitted by
some persons in Louisiana as odious, as offensive, and
compares the constitution of Nebraska and the constitution
of that State, or proposed State, intending to convey the
idea, I presume, that the constitution of Nebraska is
odious and offensive. Now I wish to say to that Senator
that the constitution of Nebraska and the constitution of
Iowa in this particular are identical. Does he call the
constitution of Iowa odious and offensive?… The people of
Iowa are as loyal as the people of Massachusetts are.
MR. SUMNER. No doubt about it. I never said otherwise.
MR. KIRKWOOD. But he said our constitution was offensive.
MR. SUMNER. I made no allusion to the constitution of Iowa.
MR. KIRKWOOD. But you made an allusion to a constitution
precisely similar in this identical point to that of
Iowa.… I repeat again, I cannot see the difference between
characterizing the constitution of Iowa as odious and
offensive and characterizing the constitution of another
State that agrees with it precisely in terms in that way.
MR. SUMMER. May I ask the Senator if he considers that
provision in the constitution of Iowa right or wrong?
MR. KIRKWOOD. I conceive it to be the business of the
people of Iowa, and not the business of the Senator from
Massachusetts. The people of Iowa will deal with it in
their own way, when they see fit; and, as a loyal people,
they have the right to do so; and so, I apprehend, have the
people of Nebraska.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator from Iowa has not been in this body very long.
Had he been here longer, he would have known that toward the people of
Iowa, by vote and voice, I have always been true. One of my earliest
efforts in this Chamber, now many years ago, was in protection of
the interests of the people of Iowa. On that occasion, as the record
shows, I received from the Senators of Iowa expressions of friendship
and kindness which I cannot forget. I have never thought of that
State except with kindness and respect. I have never alluded to that
State except with kindness and respect. I have made no allusion to
Iowa to-night. I have not had Iowa in my mind to-night. And, Sir, for
one good reason: it is my habit, when I speak, so far as I am able,
to speak directly to the question. Iowa has not been before us; her
constitution has not been under discussion; therefore I have had no
occasion to express any opinion upon it.
But there is another constitution which has been before us, and on
which I have been asked to vote. On that constitution I express an
opinion. I say it contains an odious and offensive principle; and I
doubt if the Senator from Iowa would undertake to say that an exclusion
from rights on account of color would be properly characterized
otherwise than as odious and offensive. I did not know that the
constitution of Iowa was open to that objection, or at least it was
not in my mind, when I spoke; but I do know that the constitution of
Nebraska is open to that objection, and therefore I pronounce it odious
and offensive. It contains a disfranchisement of men on account of
color, and it is a little difficult to speak of that without losing
a little patience. It is difficult at this time, when we have such
great responsibilities with regard to the States lately in rebellion,
to look upon a candidate State like that of Nebraska, coming forward
with a constitution containing this principle of disfranchisement,
without the strongest disposition to use language which I do not want
to use,--language of the utmost condemnation. Such a constitution at
this moment from a new State does not deserve any quarter. Such a
constitution ought to be a hissing and a by-word; and I am at a loss
to understand how any Senator, at this time, not entirely insensible
to our great responsibilities with regard to the States lately in
rebellion, can look upon a new constitution like this except as a
hissing and a by-word. Sir, it is a shame to the people that bring it
here; and it will be a shame to Congress, if it gives it its sanction.
I use that language purposely, and I stand by it, even at the expense
of the criticism of the Senator from Iowa.
But, in saying this, I intend no reflection upon Iowa. That State is
not before us. Iowa is not a new State, or Territory rather, applying
for admission; nor is it, thank God, a rebel State; but it is a true
loyal State, which in other days, some years ago, in haste and under
sinister influence, introduced words into its constitution which the
Senator from that State now brings forward in this Chamber, not for
condemnation, but from his tone I should suppose for praise. Sir, he
should rather follow another example, and throw a cover over that part
of the constitution of his State which is unworthy the civilization of
our times.
I am sorry to have been led into these remarks. I was astonished that
the Senator should compel me to make them. When I go back to the
earlier days, I think that perhaps I might have expected other things
from a Senator of Iowa.
And now, Sir, I come again to the question which in the opinion of
the Senator from Ohio is so trivial,--nothing more than a question of
_assumpsit_.
MR. WADE. A common count in _assumpsit_.
MR. SUMNER. A common count.
…
January 8th, after the holidays, the question was resumed, when
Mr. Sumner said:--
…
But, Sir, the course of the Senate on this bill fills me with anxiety.
Since the unhappy perversity of the President, nothing has occurred
which seems to me of such evil omen. It passes my comprehension how
we can require Equal Rights in the Rebel States, when we deliberately
sanction the denial of Equal Rights in a new State, completely within
our jurisdiction and about to be fashioned by our hands. Others may
commit this inconsistency; I will not. Others may make the sacrifice; I
cannot.
It seems as if Providence presented this occasion in order to give
you an easy opportunity of asserting a principle infinitely valuable
to the whole country. Only a few persons are directly interested;
but the decision of Congress now will determine a governing rule for
millions. Nebraska is a loyal community, small in numbers, formed out
of ourselves, bone of our bone and flesh of our flesh. In an evil hour
it adopted a constitution bad in itself and worse still as an example.
But neither the tie of blood nor the fellowship of party should be
permitted to save it from judgment. At this moment Congress cannot
afford to sanction such wrong. Congress must elevate itself, if it
would elevate the country. It must itself be the example of justice, if
it would make justice the universal rule. It must itself be the model
it recommends. It must begin Reconstruction here at home.
With pain I differ from valued friends around me, and see a line of
duty which they do not see. Such is my deference to them, that, if the
question were less clear or less important, I should abandon my own
conclusions and accept theirs. But when the question is so plain and
duty so imperative, I have no alternative.
Let me add, that, in taking the course I do, I have nothing but
friendly feelings for the Territory of Nebraska, or for the men she has
sent to represent her in the Senate. I wish to see Nebraska populous
and flourishing, and the home of Human Rights secured by irrevocable
law; and as for her Senators, I know them now so well that I shall have
peculiar pleasure in welcoming them on this floor. But there are voices
from Nebraska which I wish you to hear.
Here Mr. Sumner read letters against the admission of Nebraska
with her present constitution, and then proceeded.
In looking at this question, we are met at the threshold by the fact
that in a vote of nearly eight thousand there was a majority of only
one hundred in favor of this disreputable constitution.[48] At the
call of less than four thousand voters, you are to recognize a State
government which begins its independent life by defiance of fundamental
truths. I am at a loss to understand the grounds on which this can be
done, unless, in anxiety to gratify the desires of a few persons and
to welcome the excellent gentlemen from Nebraska, you are willing to
set aside great principles of duty at a critical moment of national
history. It is pleasant to be “amiable”; but you have no right to be
amiable at the expense of Human Rights. It is pleasant to be “lenient,”
as the Senator [Mr. WADE] who is urging this bill expresses it; but
take care, that, in lenity to this Territory, you are not unjust. There
can be no such thing as “lenity” where Human Rights are in question.
The other Senator from Ohio [Mr. SHERMAN] does not leave room for
discretion. He says we are bound by the Enabling Act passed some time
ago. Assume that the Senator is right, and that the Enabling Act
creates an obligation on the part of Congress,--all of which I deny,--I
insist that there has been no compliance with this Act, either in form
or substance.
Looking at the Enabling Act, we find that it has not been complied
with in form. This can be placed beyond question. By this Act it
is provided that a “Convention” of the people of Nebraska shall be
chosen by the people, that the election for such “Convention” shall
be held on “the first Monday in June thereafter,” and that “the
members of the Convention thus elected shall meet at the capital of
said Territory on the first Monday in July next.” Now, in point of
fact, such Convention was duly chosen, and it met, according to the
provisions of the Enabling Act. Thus far all was right. But, after
meeting, it voluntarily adjourned or dissolved, without framing a
constitution. Afterward the Territorial Legislature undertook to do
what the Convention failed to do. The Territorial Legislature adopted
a constitution, and submitted it to the people; and this is the
constitution before you. Plainly there has been no compliance with the
Enabling Act, so far as it prescribes the proceedings for the formation
of a constitution. Nothing can be clearer than this. The Act prescribes
a Convention at a particular date. Instead of a Convention at the date
prescribed, we have the Legislature acting at a different date; so that
there is an open non-compliance with the prescribed conditions. It is
vain, therefore, to adduce it. As well refer to Homer’s Iliad or the
Book of Job.
But the failure in substance is graver still. By the Enabling Act
it is further provided “that the constitution, when formed, shall be
republican, and not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States
and the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” Here are
essential conditions which must be complied with. The constitution must
be “republican.” Now I insist always that a constitution which denies
Equality of Rights cannot be republican. It may be republican according
to the imperfect notions of an earlier period, or even according to
the standard of Montesquieu; but it cannot be republican in a country
which began its national life in disregard of received notions and the
standards of the past. In fixing for the first time an authoritative
definition of this requirement, you cannot forget the new vows to Human
Rights uttered by our fathers, nor can you forget that our republic is
an example to mankind. This is an occasion not to be lost of acting not
only for the present in time and place, but for the distant also.
But there is another consideration, if possible, more decisive. I
say nothing now of the requirement that the new constitution shall be
“not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States,” but I call
attention to the positive condition that it must be “not repugnant to
the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” And yet, Sir, in
the face of this plain requirement, we have a new constitution which
disfranchises for color, and establishes what is compendiously called
“a white man’s government.” This new constitution sets at nought the
great principles that all men are equal and that governments stand on
the consent of the governed. Therefore, I say confidently, it is not
according to “the principles of the Declaration of Independence.” Is
this doubted? Can it be doubted? You must raze living words, you must
kill undying truths, before you can announce any such conformity. As
long as those words exist, as long as those truths shine forth in
that Declaration, you must condemn this new constitution. I remember
gratefully the electric power with which the Senator from Ohio [Mr.
WADE], not many years ago, confronting the representatives of Slavery,
bravely vindicated these principles as “self-evident truths.” “There
was a Brutus once that would have brooked the eternal Devil” as easily
as any denial of these. Would that he would speak now as then, and
insist on their practical application everywhere within the power of
Congress, and thus set up a wall of defence for the downtrodden!
Thus the question stands. The Enabling Act has not been complied with
in any respect, whether of form or substance. In form it has been
openly disregarded; in substance it has been insulted. The failure in
form may be pardoned; the failure in substance must be fatal, unless in
some way corrected by Congress.
Nobody doubts that Congress, in providing for the formation of a
State constitution, may affix conditions. This has been done from the
beginning of our history. Search the Enabling Acts, and you will find
these conditions. They are in your statute-book, constant witnesses to
the power of Congress, unquestioned and unquestionable.
Thus, for instance, the Enabling Act for Nebraska requires three things
of the new State as conditions precedent.
_First._ That Slavery shall be forever prohibited.
_Secondly._ That no inhabitant shall be molested in person or property
on account of religious worship.
_Thirdly._ That the unappropriated public lands shall remain at the
sole disposition of the United States, without being subject to local
taxation, and that land of non-residents shall never be taxed higher
than that of residents.
Read the Act, and you will find these conditions. Does any Senator
doubt their validity? Impossible.
But this is not all. In addition to these three conditions are three
others, which in order, if not in importance, stand even before these.
They are contained in words already quoted, but strangely forgotten in
this debate:--
“That the constitution, when formed, shall be republican, and
not repugnant to the Constitution of the United States and the
principles of the Declaration of Independence.”
Consider this clause: you will find it contains three conditions, each
of vital force.
_First._ The constitution must be “republican.” It does not say “in
form” merely, but “republican”: of course “republican” in substance and
reality.
_Secondly._ The constitution must be “not repugnant to the Constitution
of the United States.” But surely any constitution which contains
a discrimination of rights on account of color must be “repugnant”
to the Constitution of the United States, which contains no such
discrimination. The text of the National Constitution is blameless; but
the text of this new constitution is offensive. Hence its repugnancy.
_Thirdly._ The constitution must be “not repugnant to the principles
of the Declaration of Independence.” These plain words allow no
equivocation. Solemnly you have required this just and noble
conformity. But is it not an insult to the understanding, when you
offer a constitution which contains a discrimination of rights on
account of color?
Now in all these three requirements, so authoritatively made the
conditions of the new constitution, Nebraska fails, wretchedly fails.
It is vain to say that the people there were not warned. They were
warned. These requirements were in the very title-deed under which they
claim.
Mr. President, pardon me, I entreat you, if I am tenacious. At this
moment there is one vast question in our country, on which all others
pivot. It is justice to the colored race. Without this I see small
chance of security, tranquillity, or even of peace. The war will still
continue. Therefore, as a servant of truth and a lover of my country,
I cannot allow this cause to be sacrificed or discredited by my vote.
Others will do as they please; but, if I stand alone, I will hold this
bridge.
The persistence of Mr. Sumner was encountered by Mr. Wade, who
said:--
“I think it is the business of the statesman to overlook
these little small technicalities which gentlemen argue
about in this body. They make a great fuss about the word
‘white’ in a constitution of a State where there are no
blacks,--where the question is a simple abstraction.”
Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, dealt with the question of
Equality, but with pleasantry.
“My honorable friend, the Senator from Massachusetts, is
six feet three inches in height, and weighs two hundred and
twenty pounds; I am six feet three inches in height, and
weigh one hundred and ninety pounds, if you please. That is
not equality. My honorable friend from Maine here is five
feet nine inches”----