SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION BILL, MARCH
15 AND 16, 1867.
To counteract the malign influence of President Johnson, and
to protect the public interest jeopardized by his conduct,
Congress provided for a session to commence March 4, 1867,
immediately after the expiration of its predecessor. The new
Congress was signalized by a second Reconstruction Bill,
“supplementary to an Act to provide for the more efficient
government of the Rebel States,” passed March 2, 1867, which
was promptly introduced into the House of Representatives and
passed.
As early as March 13th, the House bill was reported to the
Senate from the Judiciary Committee, with a substitute, and for
several days thereafter it was considered. Among the various
amendments moved was one by Mr. Drake, of Missouri, providing
that the registered electors should declare, by their votes of
“Convention” or “No Convention,” whether a convention to frame
a constitution should be held, which was rejected,--Yeas 17,
Nays 27.
March 15th, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved an amendment,
that the commanding general should furnish a copy of the
registration to the Provisional Government of the State; and
whenever thereafter the Provisional Government should by legal
enactment provide that a convention should be called, the
commanding general should then direct an election of delegates.
In the debate on this proposition, Mr. Sumner said:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--In voting on the proposition of the Senator from Maine,
I ask myself one question: How would the Union men of the South vote,
if they had the privilege? They are unrepresented. We here ought to be
the representatives of the unrepresented. How, then, would the Union
men of the South vote on the proposition of the Senator? I cannot
doubt, that, with one voice, they would vote No. They would not trust
their fortunes in any way to the existing governments of the Rebel
States. Those governments have been set up in spite of the Union men,
and during their short-lived existence they have trampled upon Union
men and upon their rights. That region might be described as bleeding
at every pore, and much through the action of the existing governments,
owing their origin to the President. So long as they continue, their
influence must be pernicious. I hear, then, the voice of every Union
man from every one of the Rebel States coming up to this Chamber and
entreating us to refuse all trust, all power, to these Legislatures. I
listen to their voice, and shall vote accordingly.
But I feel, nevertheless, that something ought to be done in the
direction of the proposition of the Senator from Maine. I listened to
his remarks, and in their spirit I entirely concur; but it seems to
me that his argument carried us naturally to the proposition of the
Senator from Missouri. To my mind, that proposition is founded in good
sense, in prudence, in a just economy of political forces. It begins
at the right end. It begins with the people. The Senator proposes
that the new governments, when constituted, shall stand on that broad
base. The proposition of the Committee stands the pyramid on its apex.
I am therefore for the proposition of the Senator from Missouri, and
I hope that at the proper time he will renew it, and give us another
opportunity of recording our votes in its favor.
The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 33.
March 16th, Mr. Sumner moved to insert “all” before “electors,”
and to substitute “registered” for “qualified,” so as to read,
“ratified by a majority of the votes of all the electors
registered as herein specified.” After debate, the amendment
was rejected,--Yeas 19, Nays 25.
Mr. Drake subsequently renewed his rejected amendment, with a
modification that the result should be determined by a majority
of those voting, and it was adopted. Mr. Conkling, of New York,
moved to reconsider the last vote, so as to provide that the
result should be determined by a majority of all the votes
registered, instead of a majority of all the votes given. On
this motion, Mr. Sumner remarked:--
I said nothing, when the question was up before; but I cannot allow the
vote to be taken now without expressing in one word the ground on which
I shall place my vote.
We have just come out from the fires of a terrible Rebellion, and our
special purpose now is to set up safeguards against the recurrence
of any such calamity, and also for the establishment of peace and
tranquillity throughout that whole region. There is no Senator
within the sound of my voice who is not anxious to see that great
end accomplished. How shall it be done? By founding government on a
majority or on a minority? If these were common times, then I should
listen to the argument of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. DRAKE], and
also of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON], to the effect that the
government might be founded on a majority of those who actually vote,
although really a minority of the population; but at this moment, when
we are seeking to recover ourselves from the Rebellion, and to guard
against it in future, I cannot expose the country to any such hazard.
I would take the precaution to found government solidly, firmly, on
a majority,--not merely a majority of those who vote, but a majority
of all registered voters. Then will the government be rooted and
anchored in principle, so that it cannot be brushed aside. How was it
when the Rebellion began? Everything was by minorities. A minority in
every State carried it into rebellion. I would have the new government
planted firmly on a majority, so that it can never again be disturbed.
I can see no real certainty of security for the future without this
safeguard.
The motion to reconsider prevailed,--Yeas 21, Nays 18; but
the amendment of Mr. Conkling was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays
22,--when Mr. Drake’s amendment was again adopted. Then, on
motion of Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, it was provided “that such
convention shall not be held, unless a majority of all such
registered voters shall have voted on the question of holding
such convention,”--Yeas 21, Nays 18.
Mr. Drake then moved to require in the new constitutions,
“that, at all elections by the people for State, county, or
municipal officers, the electors shall vote by ballot,” and
this was adopted,--Yeas 22, Nays 19. Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois,
at once moved to reconsider the last vote, and was sustained
by Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, and Mr.
Morton, of Indiana. Mr. Sumner sustained the amendment.
MR. PRESIDENT,--The argument of the Senator from Oregon proceeds on
the idea that this is a small question. He belittles it, and then puts
it aside. He treats it as of form only, and then scorns it. Sir, it
may be a question of form, but it is a form vital to the substance,
vital to that very suffrage which the Senator undertakes to vindicate.
Does the Senator know that at this moment the special question which
tries British reformers is the ballot? To that our heroic friend, John
Bright, has dedicated his life. He seeks to give the people of England
vote by ballot. He constantly looks to our country for the authority
of a great example. And now the Senator is willing to overturn that
example. I will not, by my vote, consent to any such thing. I would
reinforce the liberal cause, not only in my own country, but everywhere
throughout the world; and that cause, I assure you, is staked in part
on this very question.
No, Sir,--it is not a small question. It cannot be treated as trivial.
It is a great question. Call it, if you please, a question of form; but
it is so closely associated with substance that it becomes substance.
I hope the Senate will not recede from the generous and patriotic vote
it has already given. I trust it will stand firm. Ask any student of
republican institutions what is one of their admitted triumphs, and he
will name the vote by ballot. There can be no doubt about it. Do not
dishonor the ballot, but see that it is required in the constitutions
of these Rebel States. The Senator from Oregon raises no question of
power. Congress has the power. That is enough. You must exercise it.
Mr. Drake then modified his amendment, so that, instead of
“all elections by the people for State, county, or municipal
officers,” it should read, “all elections by the people,” and
it was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays 22. Mr. Sumner then remarked:--
The Senate has been occupied for two days in the discussion of
questions, many merely of form. I propose now to call attention to one
of substance, with which, as I submit, the best interests of the Rebel
States and of the Republic at large are connected. I send to the Chair
an amendment, to come in at the end of section four.