I am in favor of each of these bills. Each is excellent. One is
the beginning of a true Reconstruction; the other is the beginning
of a true Protection. Now in these Rebel States there must be
Reconstruction and there must be Protection. Both must be had, and
neither should be antagonized with the other. The two should go on
side by side,--guardian angels of the Republic. Never was Congress
called to consider measures of more vital importance. I am unwilling to
discriminate between the two. I accept them both with all my heart, and
am here now to sustain them by my constant presence and vote.
But, Sir, what we know as the Louisiana Bill came into this Chamber
first; it was first made familiar to us; it has precedence. On that
account it seems to me it ought to come up first, it ought to lead the
way. I am not going to say that this is better than the other, or that
the other is better than this. Each is good; and yet, I doubt not, each
is susceptible of amendment. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN] has
already foreshadowed an important amendment on the bill reported by the
Committee of which he is Chairman; I have already sent to the Chair an
amendment which at the proper time I may move on the other bill. But I
desire to make one remark with regard to amendments. I am so much in
earnest for the passage of these bills, that I shall cheerfully forego
any amendment of my own, if I find it to be the general sentiment of
those truly in earnest for the bills that we ought not to attempt
amendments. If, however, amendments seem to be preferable, then I shall
propose those I have sent to the Chair.
February 15th, the Senate began the consideration of the
Military Bill, continuing in session until three o’clock in
the morning of the next day. Speeches and motions showed
great differences on the subject. Some were content with a
purely military bill, contemplating simply the protection of
the people in the Rebel States. Others wished to add measures
of Reconstruction; and here again there were differences.
Some were content with the requirement of suffrage without
distinction of color in the new constitutions, making no
provision for the exclusion of Rebels, leaving the organization
in the hands of the existing electors, and providing, that, on
the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment, and of a State
constitution securing equal suffrage, any such State should be
entitled to representation in Congress.
In the hope of putting an end to these differences, a caucus
of Republican Senators was held the next forenoon, when a
committee was appointed, as follows: Mr. Sherman, of Ohio,
Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, Mr. Harris,
of New York, Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr. Trumbull,
of Illinois, and Mr. Sumner, to consider the pending bill and
amendments and report to the caucus. The committee withdrew
from the Senate, leaving a Senator making a long and elaborate
speech, and proceeded with their work. The House bill was
taken as the basis, and amended in several particulars, to
which Mr. Sumner afterwards alluded in the Senate. An effort
by Mr. Sumner to require equal suffrage found no favor; nor
did what was known as the Louisiana Bill, which he proposed
as a substitute; nor an effort to exclude Rebels. He felt
it his duty to say to the committee, that, on the making of
the report, he should appeal to the caucus, which he did.
The caucus, by 15 Yeas to 13 Nays,--Senators standing to be
counted,--voted to require equal suffrage in the choice of the
constitutional conventions; also in the new constitutions,
and in their ratification. But the bill was left without any
exclusion of Rebels, and with the declaration, that, doing
these things and ratifying the Amendment to the National
Constitution, a State should be entitled to representation in
Congress. In these latter respects it seemed to Mr. Sumner
highly objectionable.
The vote of the caucus to require suffrage without distinction
of color seemed a definitive settlement of that question for
the Rebel States. At that small meeting, and by those informal
proceedings, this great act was accomplished. For Mr. Sumner it
was an occasion of especial satisfaction, as his long-continued
effort was crowned with success. These volumes show how,
by letter, speech, resolution, and bill, he had constantly
maintained this duty of Congress. His bill, introduced on the
first day of the preceding session, “to enforce the guaranty
of a republican form of government in certain States whose
governments have been usurped or overthrown,” contained the
specific requirement now adopted, while the debates on the
Louisiana Bill,[84] the Colorado Bill,[85] the Nebraska
Bill,[86] and the Constitutional Amendment,[87] attested his
endeavor to apply this requirement.
During the evening session, Mr. Sherman, chairman of the
caucus committee, moved the bill accepted by the caucus, as a
substitute for the House bill. It was understood that it would
receive the support of the Republican Senators without further
amendment, and, as they constituted a large majority, its
passage was sure. Under these circumstances, Mr. Sumner left
the Chamber at midnight. The vote was taken a little after six
o’clock, Sunday morning,--Yeas 29, Nays 10.
In the other House, the substitute of the Senate was the
occasion of decided differences, not unlike those in the Senate
on the House bill. Many felt that the Unionists were left
without adequate protection. Mr. Stevens, of Pennsylvania,
after saying that the Senate had sent “an amendment which
contains everything else but protection,” exclaimed: “Pass this
bill and you open the flood-gates of misery,--you disgrace,
in my judgment, the Congress of the United States.” Mr.
Boutwell, of Massachusetts, said: “My objection to the proposed
substitute of the Senate is fundamental, it is conclusive. It
provides, if not in terms, at least in fact, by the measures
which it proposes, to reconstruct those State governments
at once through the agency of disloyal men.” Mr. Williams,
of Pennsylvania, said: “We sent to the Senate a proposition
to meet the necessities of the hour, which was Protection
without Reconstruction, and it sends back another, which is
Reconstruction without Protection.” At length, on motion of Mr.
Stevens, the House refused to concur in the amendment of the
Senate, and asked a committee of conference on the disagreeing
votes of the two Houses.
* * * * *
February 19th, the excitement of the House was again
transferred to the Senate, where Mr. Williams, of Oregon,
moved that the Senate insist upon its amendment, and agree to
the conference. An earnest debate ensued, in which Mr. Sumner
favored the conference committee, and also explained what he
wished to accomplish by the bill. Mr. Williams withdrew his
motion, when Mr. Sherman moved that the Senate insist on its
amendment to the House bill and that the House be informed
thereof. Mr. Trumbull sustained the motion. Mr. Sumner followed.
MR. PRESIDENT,--In what the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] has
said of the failure by the President to discharge his duties under
existing laws I entirely agree. He touches the case to the quick. It is
impossible not to see that the special difficulty of the present moment
springs from the bad man who sits in the executive chair. He is the
centre of our woes. More than once before I have recalled the saying
of Catholic Europe, “All roads lead to Rome.” So now, among us, do all
roads lead to the President. We attempt nothing which does not bring us
face to face with him, precisely as during the Rebellion we attempted
nothing which did not bring us face to face with Jefferson Davis. I
mention this, not to deter, but for encouragement. We have already
conquered the chief of the Rebellion. I doubt not that we shall conquer
his successor also. But this can be only by strenuous exertion. It is
no argument against legislation that the President will not execute it.
We must do our duty, and insist always that he shall do his.
Therefore I am in favor of some measure of Reconstruction, the best
we can secure, the more thorough the better. And I ask you to take
such steps as will best accomplish this result. There is a difference
between the two Houses, and at this stage the customary proceeding is
a conference committee. But the Senator from Illinois is against any
such committee in a case of such magnitude. To my mind his argument
should be directed against the rule of Parliamentary Law which
provides a conference committee at this precise stage of parliamentary
proceedings. Let him move to change the Parliamentary Law, so that
in cases of peculiar importance the common rule shall cease to
be applicable. Let this be his thesis. But, so long as the _Lex
Parliamentaria_ exists, I submit that it is hardly reasonable to resist
its application, especially when the House has asked a conference
committee on a bill of theirs which you have amended.
…
I differ from the Senator [Mr. SHERMAN, of Ohio] radically, when he
intimates that the bill needs only “slight” amendments. With this
opinion I can understand that he should urge a course which I fear may
cut off amendments to me essential.
Mr. President, I would speak frankly of this measure, which has in
it so much of good and so much of evil. Rarely have good and evil
been mixed on such a scale. Look at the good, and you are full of
grateful admiration. Look at the evil, and you are impatient at such
an abandonment of duty. Much is gained, but much is abandoned. You
have done much, but you have not done enough. You have left undone
things which ought to be done. The Senator from Maine [Mr. FESSENDEN]
was right in asking more. I agree with him. I ask more. All the good
of the bill cannot make me forget its evil. It is very defective.
It is horribly defective. Too strong language cannot be used in
characterizing a measure with such fatal defects. But nobody recognizes
more cordially than myself the good it has. Pardon me, if I do my best
to make it better.
This is the original House bill for the military government of
the Rebel States, revised and amended by the Senate in essential
particulars. As it came from the House it was excellent in general
purpose, but imperfect. It was nothing but a military bill, providing
protection for fellow-citizens in the Rebel States. Unquestionably it
was improved in the Senate. It is easy to mention its good points, for
these are conspicuous and seem like so many monuments.
Throughout the bill, in its title, in its preamble, and then again in
its body, the States in question are designated as “Rebel States.” I
like the designation. It is brief and just. It seems to justify on the
face any measure of precaution or security. It teaches the country
how these States are to be regarded for the present. It teaches these
States how they are regarded by Congress. “Rebel States”: I like the
term, and I am glad it is repeated. God grant that the time may come
when this term may be forgotten! but until then we must not hesitate to
call things by their right names.
More important still is the declaration in the preamble, that “no
legal State governments” now exist in the enumerated Rebel States. This
is a declaration of incalculable value. For a long time, too long, we
have hesitated; but at last this point is reached, destined to be “the
initial point” of a just Reconstruction. For a long time, again and
again, I have insisted that those governments are _illegal_. Strangely,
you would not say so. The present bill fixes this starting-point of a
true policy. If the existing governments are “illegal,” you have duties
with regard to them which cannot be postponed. You cannot stop with
this declaration. You must see that it is carried out in a practical
manner. In other words, you must brush away these illegal governments,
the spawn of Presidential usurpation, and supply their places. The
illegal must give place to the legal; and Congress must supervise and
control the transition. The bill has a special value in the obligations
it imposes upon Congress. Let it find a place in the statute-book, and
your duties will be fixed beyond recall.
Another point is established which in itself is a prodigious triumph.
As I mention it, I cannot conceal my joy. It is the direct requirement
of universal suffrage, without distinction of race or color. This
is done by Act of Congress, without Constitutional Amendment. It
is a grand and beneficent exercise of existing powers, for a long
time invoked, but now at last grasped. No Rebel State can enjoy
representation in Congress, until it has conferred the suffrage upon
all its citizens, and fixed this right in its constitution. This is the
Magna Charta you are about to enact. Since Runnymede, there has been
nothing of greater value to Human Rights.
To this enumeration add that the bill is in its general purposes a
measure of protection for loyal fellow-citizens trodden down by Rebels.
To this end, the military power is set in motion, and the whole Rebel
region is divided into districts where the strong arm of the soldier is
to supply the protection asked in vain from illegal governments.
Look now at the other side, and you will see the defects. By
an amendment of the Senate, the House bill, which was merely a
military bill for protection, has been converted into a measure of
Reconstruction. But it is Reconstruction without machinery or motive
power. There is no provision for the initiation of new governments.
There is no helping hand extended to the loyal people seeking to lay
anew the foundations of civil order. They are left to grope in the
dark. This is not right. It is a failure on the part of Congress, which
ought to preside over Reconstruction and lend its helping hand, by
securing Education and Equal Rights to begin at once, and by appointing
the way and the season in which good citizens should proceed in
creating the new governments.
I cannot forget, also, that there is no provision by which the freedmen
can be secured a freehold for themselves and their families, which has
always seemed to me most important in Reconstruction.
But all this, though of the gravest character, is dwarfed by that other
objection which springs from the present toleration of Rebels in the
copartnership of government. Here is a strange oblivion, showing a
strange insensibility.
The Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] argued that the bill would
put the new governments into loyal hands. Has he read it? My precise
objection is, that it does not put the government into loyal hands.
Look at it carefully, and you will see this staring you in the face
at all points. While requiring suffrage for all, without distinction
of race or color, it leaves the machinery and motive power in the
hands of the existing governments, which are conducted by Rebels.
Therefore, under this bill, Rebels will initiate and conduct the work
of Reconstruction, while loyal citizens stand aside. The President
once said, “For the Rebels back seats.” This bill says, “For the loyal
citizens back seats.” Nobody is disfranchised. There is no traitor,
red with loyal blood, who may not play his part and help found the
new government. The bill excepts from voting only “such as _may be_
disfranchised for participation in the Rebellion.” It does not require
that any body shall be disfranchised, but leaves this whole question to
the existing government, who will, of course, leave the door wide open.
Looking at this feature, I cannot condemn it too strongly. It is true
that suffrage is at last accorded to the colored race; but their
masters are left in power to domineer, and even to organize. With
experience, craft, and determined purpose, there is too much reason
to fear that all safeguards will be overthrown, and the Unionist
continue the victim of Rebel power. This must not be. And you must
interfere in advance to prevent it. You must exercise a just authority
in disfranchising dangerous men. On this point there must be no
uncertainty, no “perhaps.” It is not enough to say that Rebels _may be_
disfranchised; you must say _must_. Without this is surrender.
Such a surrender Congress cannot make. Therefore do I rejoice with my
whole heart that the House of Representatives has given to the Senate
the opportunity of reconsidering its action and taking the proper
steps for amending the bill. The new governments must be on a loyal
basis. Loyal people must be protected against Rebels. Here I take my
stand. I plead for those good people, who have suffered as people never
suffered before. I appeal to you as Senators not to miss this precious
opportunity. Take care that the bill is amended, so that it may be the
fountain of peace, and not the engine of discord and oppression.
Mr. Sherman followed in an earnest speech, in the course of
which the following passage occurred.
MR. SHERMAN. The Senator from Massachusetts now for the
first time in the Senate has stated his opposition to this
bill.
MR. SUMNER. Allow me to correct the Senator. The Senator
was not here, when, at two o’clock in the morning, I
denounced this amendment as I have, to-day, and much more
severely.
MR. SHERMAN. He now states that the ground of his
opposition is, that the bill does not disfranchise the
whole Rebel population of the Southern States.
MR. SUMNER. I beg the Senator’s pardon. I take no such
ground. I say it does not provide proper safeguards against
the Rebel population. I have not opened the question to
what extent the disfranchisement should go.
The motion of Mr. Sherman was agreed to, and the bill, with the
Senate amendment, was returned to the House, which proceeded
promptly to its consideration. The substitute of the Senate
was concurred in, with a further amendment,--(1.) excluding
from the conventions, and also from voting, all persons
excluded from holding office under the recent Constitutional
Amendment; (2.) declaring civil governments in the Rebel States
provisional only and subject to the paramount authority of the
United States; (3.) conferring the elective franchise upon
all, without distinction of color, in elections under such
provisional governments; and (4.) disqualifying all persons
from office under provisional government who are disqualified
by the Constitutional Amendment. The vote of the House
was,--Yeas 128, Nays 46.
* * * * *
February 20th, in the Senate, Mr. Williams moved concurrence
with the House amendments. After brief remarks by Mr. Sherman,
Mr. Sumner said:--
I differ from the Senator [Mr. SHERMAN], when he calls this a small
matter. It is a great matter.
I should not say another word but for the singular speech of the
Senator yesterday. He made something like an assault on me, because I
required the very amendments the House have now made; and yet he is to
support them. I am glad the Senator has seen light; but he must revise
his speech of yesterday. The Senator shakes his head. What did I ask?
What did I criticize? It was, that the bill failed in safeguard against
Rebels. I did not say how many to exclude. I only said some must be
excluded, more or less. None were excluded. That brought down the
cataract of speech we all enjoyed, when the Senator protested with all
the ardor of his nature, and invoked the State of Ohio behind him to
oppose the proposition of the Senator from Massachusetts. And now, if
I understand the Senator from Ohio, he is ready to place himself side
by side with the Senator from Massachusetts in support of the amendment
from the House embodying this very proposition. I am glad the Senator
is so disposed. I rejoice that he sees light. To-morrow I hope to
welcome the Senator to some other height.
MR. COWAN [of Pennsylvania]. Excelsior!
MR. SUMNER. And I hope the word may be applicable to my friend from
Pennsylvania also. [_Laughter._]
But there was another remark of the Senator which struck me with
astonishment. He complained that I demanded these safeguards now,
and said that I had already in the bill all that I had ever demanded
before,--that universal suffrage, without distinction of race or
color, was secured; and, said he, “the Senator from Massachusetts has
never asked anything but that.” Now I can well pardon the Senator for
ignorance with regard to what I have said or asked on former occasions.
I cannot expect him to be familiar with it. And yet, when he openly
arraigns me with the impetuosity of yesterday, I shall be justified in
showing how completely he was mistaken.
Here Mr. Sumner referred to his speech before the Massachusetts
Republican State Convention, September 14, 1865, entitled
“The National Security and the National Faith, Guaranties for
the National Freedman and the National Creditor,” and showed
how completely at that time he had anticipated all present
demands.[88] He then continued:--
And yet, when I simply insisted upon some additional safeguard against
the return of Rebels to power, the Senator told us that I was asking
something new. Thank God, the other House has supplied the very
protection which I desired; it has laid the foundation of a true peace.
That foundation can be only on a loyal basis.
Two Presidents--one always to be named with veneration, another always
most reluctantly--have united in this sentiment. Abraham Lincoln
insisted that the new governments should be founded on loyalty; that,
if there were only five thousand loyal persons in a State, they were
entitled to hold the power. His successor adopted the same principle,
when, in different language, he compendiously said, “For the Rebels
back seats.” What is now required could not be expressed better. “For
the Rebels back seats,” until this great work of Reconstruction is
achieved.
Mr. Sherman, and Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, spoke especially in
reply to Mr. Sumner, congratulating him upon his acceptance of
the result. Mr. Sumner followed.
I am sorry to say another word; and yet, if silent, I might expose
myself to misunderstanding. I accept the amendments from the other
House as the best that can be had now; but I desire it distinctly
understood that I shall not hesitate to insist at all times upon
applying more directly and practically the true principles of
Reconstruction. There is the Louisiana Bill on our table. The time,
I presume, has passed for acting on it at this session; but in the
earliest days of the next session I shall press that subject as
constantly as I can. I believe you owe it to every one of these States
to supply a government in place of that you now solemnly declare
illegal. In such a government you will naturally secure a true loyalty,
and I wish to be understood as not in any way circumscribing myself by
the vote of to-day.
It may be that it will be best to require of every voter the same oath
required of all entering Congress, which we know as the test oath.
At least something more must be done; there must be other safeguards
than those supplied by this very hasty and crude act of legislation. I
accept it as containing much that is good, some things infinitely good,
but as coming short of what a patriotic Congress ought to supply for
the safety of the Republic.
Let it be understood, then, that I am not compromised by this bill,
or by blandishments of Senators over the way [Messrs. SHERMAN and
STEWART]. I listen to them of course with pleasure, and to all their
expressions of friendship I respond with all my heart. I like much to
go with them; but I value more the safety of my country. When Senators,
even as powerful as the Senator from Ohio and the Senator from Nevada,
take a course which seems to me inconsistent with the national
security, they must not expect me to follow.
After further debate, late in the evening of February 20th
the vote was reached, and the House amendments were concurred
in,--Yeas 35, Nays 7. The effect of this was to pass the bill.
* * * * *
March 2d, the bill was vetoed. The House, on the same day, by
138 Yeas to 51 Nays, and the Senate, by 38 Yeas to 10 Nays,
passed the bill by a two-thirds vote, notwithstanding the
objections of the President, so that it became a law.[89]