MR. SUMNER. The Senator ought to know it.
MR. JOHNSON. I do not think that is in the Constitution.
MR. SUMNER. I beg the Senator’s pardon; it is in the
Constitution.
MR. JOHNSON. The United States Constitution, or your State
Constitution?
MR. SUMNER. Yes, Sir,--in our State Constitution.
MR. JOHNSON. But it is not in the constitution of your
people. You sometimes do, or have done, acts of injustice.
What I mean to say is this,--and I am sure the honorable
member will not be able successfully to controvert it,
certainly not by authority,--that there is no difference
between the State of Massachusetts and any other State in
the Union with reference to its State powers. That is what
I mean to say.
MR. SUMNER. I mean to say that the State of Massachusetts
has no power to do an act of wrong,--no power
constitutionally, morally, politically, or in any way.
MR. JOHNSON. What is an act of wrong? Who is to judge of it?
MR. SUMNER. To enslave a fellow-man.
MR. JOHNSON. You had them there.
MR. SUMNER. Not since the Constitution.
Afterwards came the following question and answer.
MR. SUMNER. Does the Senator from Maryland, who now
calls in question the validity of the Proclamation of
Emancipation, question that the Supreme Court of the United
States, with its present Chief Justice, would affirm the
complete validity of that Proclamation everywhere within
the Rebel States strictly according to its letter?
MR. JOHNSON. If I am perfectly satisfied, as I am, that the
Chief Justice is abundantly capable of filling the high
office he has, I do not think he would; but whether he
would or not does not settle the question, what the Court
would do. He is but one of ten.
At the close of Mr. Johnson’s speech, Mr. Sumner offered the
following proviso, to come at the end of the resolution:--
“_Provided_, That this shall not take effect, except upon
the fundamental condition that within the State there shall
be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any other
rights, on account of color or race, but all persons shall
be equal before the law. And the Legislature of the State,
by a solemn public act, shall declare the assent of the
State to this fundamental condition, and shall transmit to
the President of the United States an authentic copy of
such assent, whenever the same shall be adopted; upon the
receipt whereof, he shall, by proclamation, announce the
fact; whereupon, without any further proceedings on the
part of Congress, this joint resolution shall take effect.”
Mr. Sumner remarked, that he desired to call attention to
the precedent on which this proviso was modelled, and he was
induced to do so from the very elaborate way in which Mr.
Johnson had seemed to anticipate it. He has announced that it
would be futile; but those who preceded us did not think so;
and Mr. Sumner then read the resolution for the admission of
Missouri into the Union on a certain condition, where is a
proviso, as he insisted, similar in character.
Mr. Henderson moved to amend the proviso by inserting after the
word “race” the words “or sex.” Meanwhile occurred a desultory
debate, in which the proviso was opposed by Mr. Henderson
and Mr. Johnson,--also by Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas. The latter
said: “I usually vote for everything that the Senator from
Massachusetts brings forward on the Antislavery question; but
I am opposed to this amendment,--in the first place, because I
do not suppose that we have the right to say what shall be the
qualifications of voters in any State in the Union.… I shall
vote against all amendments that look like dictation on the
part of Congress to any State, whether they will let the right
of suffrage be enjoyed by a whole or a part of the people.”
After some time, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, remarked, that it had “got
now to be pretty late in the evening,” and he moved that the
resolution be postponed till the first Monday in December next.
While this was pending, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, moved an
adjournment, which was lost,--Yeas 11, Nays not counted. After
debate, the question was put on the motion of Mr. Wade, which
was lost,--Yeas 12, Nays 17. Mr. Howard, of Michigan, then
moved an adjournment, which was lost,--Yeas 12, Nays 19. Mr.
Howard then moved that the whole subject be laid on the table,
which was lost,--Yeas 12, Nays 18.
MR. SUMNER. I agree with the Senator from Michigan in the impropriety
of pressing a measure of this importance. Perhaps it is the most
important measure we have had before us. I shall regard its passage
as a national calamity. It will be the political Bull Run of this
Administration, sacrificing a great cause and the great destinies of
the Republic. I will not go into debate at this time. I think the
Senate is not in a condition to vote finally upon it. There are many
who would unquestionably like to record their names upon it who are not
here. We ought to give them an opportunity. We ought also to give an
opportunity for further discussion. It never has been the habit of the
Senate, except in those days which we ought not to imitate,----
MR. FOSTER (of Connecticut). Will the honorable Senator allow
me to ask him a question?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
MR. FOSTER. I will ask the honorable Senator if he is not fully
prepared to vote on the question.
MR. SUMNER. I certainly am prepared to vote on it.
MR. FOSTER. I will merely say I am.
MR. SUMNER. … I think, on his account, it would be well that the
question should be postponed for another day. It is never too late to
mend; and it is not impossible that even the Senator, coming from New
England, representing, as I doubt not he does, liberal ideas, devoted
as he must be to the cause of Human Freedom and of his country, may
think there is something in this question to justify the most mature
consideration,--something on which the Senate ought to deliberate
carefully, without rushing precipitately to a vote. Sir, this question
ought not to be closed to-night, and I therefore move an adjournment;
and on that I ask for the yeas and nays.
The motion was lost,--Yeas 11, Nays 18.
Mr. Trumbull then appealed for a vote, saying: “The Senator
from Massachusetts has fought it day after day to prevent
it coming up; and when a large majority of the Senate has
overruled him time and again, and decided that it should come
up, he stands here, at half after ten o’clock on Saturday
night, making dilatory motions.” He also protested against what
he called “manifestations of a determination to browbeat the
Senate on the part of a minority.” Mr. Sumner followed.
The Senator from Illinois draws upon his imagination, which, on this
occasion, is peculiarly lively. I know not that anybody has undertaken
to browbeat. Certainly nobody on the side with which I am associated
has done any such thing, or, I believe, imagined doing it.
MR. TRUMBULL. I heard it said that there should be no vote
to-night.
MR. SUMNER. Well, Sir, is that browbeating?
MR. TRUMBULL. I think it is undertaking to decide for the
Senate.
MR. SUMNER. Is that browbeating? No, Sir; it is only undertaking to
decide the conduct of an individual Senator with regard to an important
public measure. The question between the Senator from Illinois and
myself is simply this: he wishes to pass the measure, and I do not wish
to pass it. He thinks the measure innocent; I think it dangerous, and,
thinking it dangerous, I am justified in opposing it, and in employing
all the means to be found in our arsenal. But, Sir, I mean to employ
them properly and in a parliamentary way. In no other way can I act in
this Chamber.
The Senator is entirely mistaken, if he supposes that this measure can
be passed to-night. I tell him it cannot. Parliamentary Law is against
him; and the importance of the question justifies a resort to every
instrument that Parliamentary Law supplies. The Senator knows it well.
I need not even suggest it.
And now, Sir, I have to counsel the Senator,--perhaps he would say
that I am taking too great a liberty, and even dictating,--but I would
first advise the Senator to look at the clock. He will see that on this
evening of Saturday it is twenty-five minutes of eleven,--that it is
approaching Sunday. Then let him remember that we have been here all
day, and ask himself whether, all things considered, it is advisable
to press such a revolutionary measure after this protracted session,
and at this late hour. I think his better judgment will come to the
conclusion that it is not. At any rate, should he not come to that
conclusion, I think he will make a mistake, and all his efforts will
be fruitless. There is a certain character of Antiquity who was found
sowing salt in the sand by the sea-shore, and ploughing it in. The
Senator will be engaged in an occupation just about as profitable.
Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, then moved a call of the Senate, which
being ruled out of order, as never entertained by the Senate,
Mr. Sumner moved an adjournment, which was lost,--Yeas 8, Nays
19. In the desultory debate that ensued, Mr. Doolittle, of
Wisconsin, criticized Mr. Sumner, who replied. Mr. Hendricks,
of Indiana, followed, and, in the course of his remarks, said:
“The question is, What is to be done with the four million
negroes, when they are set free? There are Senators upon
the Republican side who feel that it is a very troublesome
question. That is the trouble here to-night.… The Senator from
Massachusetts is determined that none of these States shall
ever be heard in the Halls of Congress, until the men who speak
from those States speak the voice of the negroes as well as
of the white men. Other Senators say that shall not be. We
Democrats are a unit upon that question.” On motion of Mr.
Lane, of Kansas, the Senate adjourned shortly before midnight,
leaving the resolution pending.
February 27th, the resolution came up in regular order, when
Mr. Sherman moved to proceed with the Internal Revenue Bill,
and then called attention to the Indian Appropriation Bill,
the Civil Appropriation Bill, the Tariff Bill, also the Army
and Navy Appropriation Bills, all of which must be considered
before March 4th, when the session closed. In the debate that
followed, Mr. Sumner said:--
MR. PRESIDENT,--I remember that good fortune last summer threw me in
the path of a distinguished gentleman just returned from Louisiana. I
think he had been present at the sittings of the Convention whose work
finds such an advocate in my friend from Illinois; at any rate, he had
been in New Orleans at the time, in the discharge of important public
duties. In reply to an inquiry with regard to that Convention, he said
compendiously, that it was “nothing but a stupendous hoax,”--yes, Sir,
nothing but a stupendous hoax, and the product of that Convention----
Here Mr. Sumner was called to order by Mr. Sherman, for
discussing the merits of the measure, when only the order of
business was in question. He was also interrupted by Mr.
Grimes, of Iowa, who said, that, if the Senate would give him a
committee, he would show fraudulent voting.
MR. SUMNER. I doubt not that my friend from Iowa is right; but I am
aware that it is not proper to discuss the merits of the question on
this preliminary motion, and I shall not. I was simply characterizing
it, and I was going on to say that in my opinion the resolution the
Senator from Illinois so earnestly presses upon the Senate, when we
consider its origin and character, is itself very little different
from “a stupendous hoax.” I say nothing about the Convention, for
I was not there, I did not see it. On that point I simply cite the
testimony of another. But the resolution of the Senator is before
us; we are familiar with its nature. Every moment gives new glimpses
of the violence and fraud with which it is associated. Perhaps the
expression I have quoted is hardly grave enough in speaking of such a
matter, where, in forming the Constitution of a State, military power
and injustice to a whole race have been enlisted in defiance of the
self-evident truths of the Declaration of Independence. The United
States are bound by the Constitution to “guaranty to every State in
this Union a republican form of government.” Being called to perform
this guaranty, you are asked to recognize an oligarchy of the skin, and
on this very question the Senate is now called to vote.
The pretended State Government in Louisiana is utterly indefensible,
whether you look at its origin or its character. To describe it, I
must use plain language. It is a mere seven-month’ abortion, begotten
by the bayonet in criminal conjunction with the spirit of caste, and
born before its time, rickety, unformed, unfinished,--whose continued
existence will be a burden, a reproach, and a wrong. That is the whole
case; and yet the Senator from Illinois now presses it upon the Senate,
to the exclusion of the important public business of the country. For
instance,----
Here Mr. Sherman insisted on confining the debate to the
pending motion. The vote was then taken, and resulted,--Yeas
34, Nays 12; so the resolution for the admission of Louisiana
was postponed, never to be resumed.
During the next Congress, Mr. Sumner urged a bill for the
organization of Louisiana, with safeguards for Equal Rights,
including suffrage without distinction of color; but the Senate
was not inclined to consider it.
* * * * *
The failure of the Louisiana resolution attracted attention
at the time. Some journals spoke of Mr. Sumner’s course with
severity; others were rejoiced at the result. The New York
_Herald_ said:--
“The factious opposition of Mr. Sumner has probably
defeated the recognition of the new government of Louisiana
by the Senate at the present session, … although probably
two thirds of the Senate are in favor of recognition.”
One journal said, in figurative language, that Mr. Sumner
had “kicked the pet scheme of the President down the marble
steps of the Senate Chamber,” and that, as a consequence, the
intimate relations which he had sustained with the President
must cease.
President Lincoln was too good a man to be influenced by an
honest opposition on political grounds. A few days later, Mr.
Sumner received from him the following note.
“EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 5, 1865.
“HON. C. SUMNER.
“My dear Sir,--I should be pleased for you to accompany
us to-morrow evening, at ten o’clock, on a visit of half
an hour to the Inaugural Ball. I enclose a ticket. Our
carriage will call for you at half past nine.
“Yours truly,
“A. LINCOLN.”
At the appointed time the carriage was at Mr. Sumner’s
lodgings. During the ball he was with the Presidential
party, which gave occasion to comment; the New York _Herald_
remarking, “It was presumed that the President had indorsed
his Reconstruction theories.” There is reason to believe that
he had not; but he recognized the right of Mr. Sumner to his
own individual judgment.
The following extract from the letter of a newspaper
correspondent at Washington illustrates the course of the
President towards Mr. Sumner.
“Mrs. Lincoln went down the Potomac this morning for City
Point and Richmond, escorted by Mr. Sumner, who remains in
Washington to exert his influence in the right direction
in closing up the war. Nor let any man suppose that Mr.
Sumner’s influence is slight over this Administration, when
Congress is in session. I know of no man who has more. The
President disagrees entirely with Mr. Sumner in his views
respecting Reconstruction. He was almost indignant at the
Senator’s course towards Louisiana, adverting to it over
and over again in the presence of strangers. But still he
respects Mr. Sumner, confers with him, and perhaps fears
him. Besides, the Senator has great influence with Mr.
Stanton and Mr. Welles. Mr. Sumner is a clever diplomatist,
and has always been friendly with Mr. Lincoln. So long as
‘peace negotiations’ are talked of, Mr. Sumner will not
leave Washington but for a day or two, I presume.”
The effort of Mr. Sumner on the Louisiana question found a warm
and cordial response, as amply appears from letters at the time.