MR. LANE (of Kansas). Will the Senator from Massachusetts
permit me to withdraw my motion?
MR. SUMNER. If the motion is withdrawn, I have nothing
further to say.
MR. LANE. I withdraw the motion.
The motion to postpone was not pressed, and the resolution came
up in regular order. After an elaborate speech against it by
Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, Mr. Howard, of Michigan, obtained the
floor, when his colleague, Mr. Chandler, moved to proceed with
the bill to regulate commerce among the States, known as the
Railroad Bill. In the debate that ensued, Mr. Sumner spoke of
the latter bill as “a reality,” and called the resolution “a
shadow.” Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, vindicated the resolution
as “the great measure of this Congress,” and said, “It is not
for the Senator from Massachusetts, with all his boastful
friendship for Freedom and free States, to join hands with the
Senator from Kentucky, and undertake to prevent the recognition
of the free State of Louisiana.” In reply, Mr. Sumner said:--
This measure, I say, Sir, is a shadow. So far as it is calculated to
exercise any influence, it is to bring disaster. Sir, I do not stand
here as a prophet, and I will not at this moment, on this incidental
question, be carried into debate; but I warn the Senator from
Wisconsin, as he loves Human Freedom, ay, Sir, as he represents a State
dedicated to Freedom, to hesitate, before he throws his influence on
the side of such a proposition, opening the way to an ominous future.
Sir, I am not disposed to go on, and yet there is one other remark
of the Senator to which I must reply. The Senator insists constantly
upon foisting an unconstitutional idea in the way of establishing
Emancipation throughout this country. He says the vote of Louisiana is
needed to the Constitutional Amendment. Sir, the vote of Louisiana is
not needed; and when the Senator makes the assertion, he interposes an
obstacle to the Amendment. Is he a friend to it? Why, then, interpose
an obstacle by an untenable and erroneous interpretation of the
Constitution? The Constitution declares that an Amendment shall become
to all intents and purposes a part of the Constitution, when ratified
by the Legislatures of three fourths of the States.
MR. DOOLITTLE. “When ratified by the Legislatures of three
fourths of the several States.”
MR. SUMNER. Very well,--“when ratified by the Legislatures of three
fourths of the several States”; but if no Legislatures exist in States,
will the Senator make that an excuse for avoiding the establishment of
the Amendment? I will not recognize the Rebellion to such extent; I
will not recognize the independence of the Rebel States, as the Senator
does. I insist, Sir, that these States shall not control the National
Government at this moment, in this great period of our history, and
thwart the establishment of human freedom throughout the land.
After remarks from other Senators, the motion to take up the
Railroad Bill was lost,--Yeas 10, Nays 25. Mr. Henderson, of
Missouri, made an elaborate speech in favor of the admission,
claiming that its Constitution was republican in form, in the
course of which the following colloquy occurred.
MR. HENDERSON. The Senator from Kentucky thinks the
Constitution of Louisiana is the offspring of military
usurpation, but he does not say that the Constitution
itself is antirepublican.
MR. SUMNER. I do.
MR. HENDERSON. You do?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
MR. HENDERSON. In what particular? Mr. President, I have
been in the Senate for nearly four years, and I believe now
candidly that the Rebellion is about at an end, and, if
there were no other evidence of it, that evidence would be
presented to-night in the close alliance and affiliation of
my friend from Massachusetts and my friend from Kentucky.
Truly, the lion and the lamb have lain down together.
MR. JOHNSON (of Maryland). Who is the lion, and who is the
lamb?
MR. HENDERSON. That is for the gentlemen themselves to
settle. [_Laughter._] The Senator from Massachusetts says
that these State Constitutions are not republican in form.
Will he tell me in what respect?
MR. SUMNER. Because they do not follow out the principles
of the Constitution of the United States.
MR. HENDERSON. I should like to know in what particular.
The answer is a very general one, indeed. He refuses,
then, to specify. The Senator can answer more particularly
hereafter, if he chooses. He says these Constitutions do
not follow the Constitution of the United States. I have
looked over them, and I find no objection to them.… The
Senator from Massachusetts says the act of secession took
the States out. In the name of sense, cannot the act of the
loyal men bring them back?…
MR. SUMNER. Does the Senator refer to me as having ever
said that the act of secession took a State out?
MR. HENDERSON. I understand the Senator to claim that these
States are in a territorial condition,--that they are not
States,--that, by losing their State Governments in the act
of secession, they lose their specific identity as States.
MR. SUMNER. I would rather the Senator should use my
language than his own, when he undertakes to state my
position. I have never said that any act of secession
took a State out. I have always said just the contrary.
No act of secession can take a State out of this Union.
Whatever may be attempted, the State continues under the
Constitution of the United States, subject to all its
requirements and behests. The Government of the State is
subverted by secession; the Senator does not recognize the
existing Government as legal or constitutional, any more
than I do. Where, then, is the difference between us? There
is no Government which he or I recognize; but we do hold
that the whole region, the whole territory, is under the
Constitution, to be protected and governed by it.
MR. HENDERSON. The Senator, then, admits that the States
are in the Union. Now I ask him if we can restore the Union
without restoring State Governments in the seceded States.
MR. SUMNER. That is the desire I have most at heart. I wish
to restore State Governments in those States.
MR. HENDERSON. Then I desire to ask the Senator, if
the loyal men in one of those States acquiesce in the
Constitution presented here, are they not entitled to
govern the State under it?
MR. SUMNER. _If the loyal men, white and black, recognize
it, then it will be republican in form. Unless that is
done, it will not be._
MR. HENDERSON. Now, Mr. President, I desire to ask the
Senator if the Congress of the United States can interfere
with the right of suffrage in one of the American States of
this Union. I put the question to him as a constitutional
lawyer.
MR. SUMNER. I answer at once, as a constitutional
lawyer, that at the present time, under the words of the
Constitution of the United States, declaring that the
United States shall guaranty to every State a republican
form of government, it is the bounden duty of the United
States by Act of Congress to guaranty complete freedom to
every citizen, immunity from all oppression, and absolute
equality before the law. No Government failing to guaranty
these things can be recognized as republican in form, when
the United States are called to enforce the constitutional
guaranty.
In the course of the speech of Mr. Henderson, this further
colloquy occurred.
MR. HENDERSON. To secure national supremacy, you must have
the aid of State authority. For legitimate State authority
you must rely upon the _loyal voters_.
MR. SUMNER. _There is where I agree precisely with the
Senator; and I should like to hold him to it._ He says the
loyal men must form the Government, and we should recognize
that Government; and yet he insists upon a mere oligarchy
forming it, and an oligarchy of the skin.
MR. HENDERSON. The Senator says he agrees with me in my
position, but insists that I am in favor of an oligarchy.
If I am in favor of an oligarchy, and he agrees with me,
then he also wants an oligarchy. [_Laughter._]
MR. SUMNER. The Senator plays upon words.
Mr. Henderson continued at length, answering various objections
to the Louisiana State Government on account of irregularity
in the proceedings. Upon his statement that the failure of
the Rebels to vote did not harm the great principles of
Republicanism, the following passage occurred.
MR. SUMNER. It was the failure of loyal citizens to vote
that did the damage.
MR. HENDERSON. I answer that by asking, What loyal men did
General Banks prevent from voting?