MR. PRESIDENT, asking you to unite now in an act of justice to
a much-oppressed race, which is no payment of that heavy debt
accumulated by generations of wrong, I am encouraged by the pending
measure of Amnesty, which has the advantage of being recommended in
the President’s Annual Message. I regretted, at the time, that the
President signalized by his favor the removal of disabilities imposed
upon a few thousand Rebels who had struck at the life of the Republic,
while he said nothing of cruel disabilities inflicted upon millions
of colored fellow-citizens, who had been a main-stay to the national
cause. But I took courage when I thought that the generosity proposed
could not fail to quicken that sentiment of justice which I now invoke.
Toward those who assailed the Republic in war I have never entertained
any sentiment of personal hostility. Never have I sought the punishment
of any one; and I rejoice to know that our bloody Rebellion closed
without the sacrifice of a single human life by the civil power. But
this has not surprised me. Early in the war I predicted it in this
Chamber.[219] And yet, while willing to be gentle with former enemies,
while anxious not to fail in any lenity or generosity, and while always
watching for the moment when all could be restored to our common
household with Equality as the prevailing law, there was with me a
constant duty, which I could never forget, to fellow-citizens, white
and black, who had stood by the Republic; and especially to those large
numbers, counted by the million, still suffering under disabilities
having their origin in no crime, and more keenly felt than any imposed
upon Rebels. Believing that duty to these millions is foremost, and
that until they are secured in equal rights we cannot expect the
tranquillity which all desire,--nay, Sir, we cannot expect the blessing
of Almighty God upon our labors,--I bring forward this measure of
justice to the colored race. Such a measure can never be out of order
or out of season, being of urgent necessity and unquestionable charity.
There are strong reasons why it should be united with amnesty,
especially since the latter is pressed. Each is the removal of
disabilities, and each is to operate largely in the same region of
country. Nobody sincerely favoring generosity to Rebels should hesitate
in justice to the colored race. According to the maxim in Chancery,
“Whoso would have equity must do equity.” Therefore Rebels seeking
amnesty must be just to colored fellow-citizens seeking equal rights.
Doing this equity, they may expect equity.
Another reason is controlling. Each is a measure of reconciliation,
intended to close the issues of the war; but these issues are not
closed, unless each is adopted. Their adoption together is better
for each, and therefore better for the country, than any separate
adoption. Kindred in object, they should be joined together and never
put asunder. It is wrong to separate them. Hereafter the Rebels should
remember that their restoration was associated with the equal rights of
all, contained in the same great statute.
Clearly, between the two the preëminence must be accorded to that
for the equal rights of all, as among the virtues justice is above
generosity. And this is the more evident, when it is considered, that,
according to Abraham Lincoln, the great issue of the war was Human
Equality.
* * * * *
In making the motion by which these two measures are associated, I
seize the first opportunity since the introduction of my bill, nearly
two years ago, of obtaining for it the attention of the Senate. Beyond
this is with me a sentiment of duty. In the uncertainties of life, I
would not defer for a day the discharge of this immeasurable obligation
to fellow-citizens insulted and oppressed; nor would I postpone that
much-desired harmony which can be assured only through this act of
justice. The opportunity is of infinite value, and I dare not neglect
it. My chief regret is that I cannot do more to impress it upon the
Senate. I wish I were stronger. I wish I were more able to exhibit the
commanding duty. But I can try; and should the attempt fail, I am not
without hope that it may be made in some other form, with increased
advantage from this discussion. I trust it will not fail. Earnestly,
confidently, I appeal to the Senate for its votes. Let the record
be made at last, which shall be the cap-stone of the reconstructed
Republic.
I make this appeal for the sake of the Senate, which will rejoice to
be relieved from a painful discussion; for the sake of fellow-citizens
whom I cannot forget; and for the sake of the Republic, now dishonored
through a denial of justice. I make it in the name of the Great
Declaration, and also of that Equality before the Law which is the
supreme rule of conduct, to the end especially that fellow-citizens
may be vindicated in “the pursuit of happiness,” according to the
immortal promise, and that the angel Education may not be driven
from their doors. I make it also for the sake of peace, so that at
last there shall be an end of Slavery, and the rights of the citizen
shall be everywhere under the equal safeguard of national law. There
is beauty in art, in literature, in science, and in every triumph
of intelligence, all of which I covet for my country; but there
is a higher beauty still in relieving the poor, in elevating the
down-trodden, and being a succor to the oppressed. There is true
grandeur in an example of justice, making the rights of all the same
as our own, and beating down prejudice, like Satan, under our feet.
Humbly do I pray that the Republic may not lose this great prize, or
postpone its enjoyment.
Mr. Vickers, of Maryland, on the same day, made an elaborate
effort on the position of the South and Amnesty, which he
opened by saying:--
“It is not my purpose to follow the Senator from
Massachusetts [Mr. SUMNER] in the remarks which he has
made, because his amendment is not only not germane to
the subject-matter properly before the Senate, but is so
palpably unconstitutional that I consider it unnecessary to
make any comment upon it.”
January 17th, Mr. Sumner spoke again at length, introducing
testimony, being letters, resolutions, and addresses from
various parts of the country, and especially from the South,
showing the necessity of Congressional action for the
protection of Equal Rights, and that such protection was
earnestly desired by colored fellow-citizens.
At the close he remarked on the importance of equality in the
school-room.
One of the most important aspects of the pending measure is its
operation on the common school, making it what is implied in its name,
a school open to all. The term “common” explains itself. Originally,
in England, under the law, it designated outlying land near a village
open to all the inhabitants; and the common school is an institution of
education open to all. If you make it for a class, it is not a common
school, but a separate school,--and, as I have said frequently to-day,
and also before in addressing the Senate, a separate school never can
be a _substitute_ for the common school. The common school has for its
badge _Equality_. The separate school has for its badge _Inequality_.
The one has open doors for all; the other has open doors only for those
of a certain color. That is contrary to the spirit of our institutions,
to the promises of the Declaration of Independence, and to all that
is secured in the recent Constitutional Amendments. So long as it
continues, the great question of the war remains still undecided;
for, as I explained the other day, that transcendent issue, as stated
by Jefferson Davis, and then again accepted by Abraham Lincoln, was
Equality. Only by maintaining Equality will you maintain the great
victory of the war.
Here in Washington this very question of separate schools has for some
time agitated the community. The colored people have themselves acted.
They speak for Equal Rights. I have in my hand a communication to
the Senate from the Secretary of the Interior, under date of January
18, 1871, covering a report from the trustees of the colored schools
of Washington and Georgetown, in which they make most important and
excellent recommendations. How well at last the colored people speak!
Who among us can speak better than they in the passages I am about to
read?
After reading these passages,[220] which he pronounced
“unanswered and unanswerable,” Mr. Sumner proceeded:--
Sir, I bring this testimony to a close. I have adduced letters,
resolutions, addresses from various States, showing the sentiments of
the colored people. I have adduced them in answer to allegations on
this floor that the pending measure of Equal Rights is not needed,
that the pending measure is for social equality. Listening to these
witnesses, you see how they all insist that it is needed, and that it
is in no respect for social equality. It is a measure of strict legal
right.
I adduce this testimony also in answer to the allegation, so loftily
made in debate the other day, that the colored people are willing to
see the former Rebels amnestied, trusting in some indefinite future to
obtain their own rights. I said at the time that such an allegation was
irrational. I now show you that it is repudiated by the colored people.
They do not recognize the Senators who have undertaken to speak for
them as their representatives. They insist upon their rights before you
play the generous to Rebels. They insist that they shall be saved from
indignity when they travel, and when they offer a child at the common
school,--that they shall be secured against any such outrage before you
remove the disabilities of men who struck at the life of this Republic.
Now, Sir, will you not be just before you are generous? Or if you do
not place the rights of the colored people foremost, will you not at
least place them side by side with those of former Rebels? Put them
both where I seek now to put them, in the same statute,--so that
hereafter the Rebels shall know that generosity to them was associated
with justice to their colored fellow-citizens,--that they all have a
common interest,--that they are linked together in the community of a
common citizenship, and in the enjoyment of those liberties promised by
the Declaration of Independence and guarantied by the Constitution of
the United States.
Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, followed with remarks
chiefly in criticism of the form of the bill, and made several
suggestions of amendment. Mr. Sumner stated that his object was
“to get this measure in the best shape possible,” and that he
should welcome any amendment from any quarter; that he did not
feel as strongly as the Senator “the difference between his
language and the text,” but that he was anxious to harmonize
with him. Mr. Sumner afterwards modified his bill in pursuance
of Mr. Frelinghuysen’s suggestions.
The debate was continued on different days,--Mr. Sawyer, of
South Carolina, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, Mr. Morrill, of Maine,
Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, speaking
strongly against the bill of Mr. Sumner. Mr. Sawyer objected
to it as an amendment to the Amnesty Bill. Mr. Nye of Nevada,
and Mr. Flanagan of Texas spoke for the bill. The latter, after
saying that he had read the Constitution for himself, and was
“satisfied that the proposed amendment was constitutional,”
added other reasons:--
“One is, that I discover, that, if we should remain here,
as we certainly shall do, for a very considerable period,
petitions will come in to such a degree, requiring so much
paper, that really the price will be vastly enhanced, and
it will thereby become a considerable tax to the Government
of the United States; for the Senator is receiving, I might
almost say, volumes--I know not what the quantity is; it is
immense, however--from all parts of the nation.”