“We all, Sir, the whole colored population of Virginia,
make this appeal through you to a generous Senate, and
pray, for the sake of humanity, justice, and all that is
good and great, that equal common rights may be bestowed
on a grateful and loyal people before disabilities shall
have been stricken from those who struck at the very
heart-strings of the Government.”
Can any Senator listen to that appeal and not feel that this Virginian
begins to answer the Senator from Maine? He shows an abuse; he
testifies to a grievance. Sir, it is the beginning of the argument. My
friend seemed almost to ignore it. He did not see the abuse; he did not
recognize the grievance.
MR. MORRILL. I certainly did see it, and I certainly recognize
it. The only difference between the Senator and myself, so far
as the argument is concerned, is one simply of power.
MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that. But first is the point, whether the
Senator recognizes the grievance; and here let me tell my excellent
friend, that, did he see the grievance as this colored citizen sees it,
did he feel it as this colored citizen feels it,--Sir, did he simply
see it as I see it,--he would find power enough in the Constitution to
apply the remedy. I know the generous heart of the Senator; and I know
that he could not hesitate, did he really see this great grievance.
He does not see it in its proportions. He does not see how in real
character it is such that it can be dealt with only by the National
power. I drive that home to the Senator. It is the beginning of the
argument in reply to him, that the grievance is such that it can be
dealt with adequately only by Congress. Any other mode is inefficient,
inadequate, absurd. I begin, therefore, by placing the Senator in that
position. Unhappily he does not see the grievance. He has no conception
of its vastness, extending everywhere, with ramifications in every
State, _and requiring one uniform remedy, which, from the nature of the
case, can be supplied only by the Nation_.
And now I come to the question of power; and here I allow a colored
fellow-citizen to be heard in reply to the Senator. I read from a
letter of E. A. Fulton, of Arkansas:--
“I have seen and experienced much of the disabilities which
rest upon my race and people from the mere accident of color.
Grateful to God and the Republicans of this country for our
emancipation and the recognition of our citizenship, I am
nevertheless deeply impressed with the necessity of further
legislation for the perfection of our rights as American
citizens.”
This colored citizen is impressed, as the Senator is not, with the
necessity of further legislation for the perfection of his rights as an
American citizen. He goes on:--
“I am also thoroughly persuaded that this needed legislation
should come from the National Congress.”
So he replies to my friend.
“Local or State legislation will necessarily be partial and
vacillating. Besides, our experience is to the effect that the
local State governments are unreliable for the enforcement or
execution of laws for this purpose.
“In Arkansas, for example, a statute was enacted by the General
Assembly of 1868 for the purpose of securing the equal rights
of colored persons upon steamboats, railroads, and public
thoroughfares generally. The provisions of the statute were
deemed good, if not entirely sufficient; yet to the present
time gross indignities continue to be perpetrated upon colored
travellers, men and women, while those charged under oath to
see the laws faithfully executed look on with seeming heartless
indifference while the law remains a dead letter on the
statute-book.
“With a care and anxiety which one vitally interested alone can
feel I have examined and weighed this subject.”
Here, Sir, he replies again to my friend. I should like the Senator to
notice the sentence:--
“With a care and anxiety which one vitally interested alone can
feel”--
as, of course, my friend cannot feel, since he has not that vital
interest--
“I have examined and weighed this subject.”
What does he conclude?
“I am fully persuaded that nothing short of national
legislation, and national authority for its enforcement, will
be found sufficient for the maintenance of our God-given rights
as men and women, citizens of this great and free country.”
* * * * *
MR. MORRILL. As my honorable friend emphasizes that particular
point, will he be kind enough to say whether he reads that
letter as an authority showing that Congress has the power to
do what he asks, or whether it is simply an individual opinion
that some such legislation is necessary?
MR. SUMNER. I think my friend must know that I do not read the letter
as an authority, according to his use of the term. By-and-by I shall
come to the authority. I read it as the opinion of a colored citizen--
MR. MORRILL. As to the necessity of legislation?
MR. SUMNER. Who has felt the grievance, and testifies that the remedy
can only be through the Nation. There is where he differs from my
friend.
MR. MORRILL. It is not necessary to read evidence to me that
the colored people think there ought to be legislation by
Congress. The question between the Senator and myself is
precisely this: What is your authority?
MR. SUMNER. I am coming to that. This is only the beginning.
MR. MORRILL. When you come to that, and make an issue with me,
I shall be ready to answer.
MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that in due season, and give the Senator
the opportunity he desires. I shall speak to the question of power.
Meanwhile I proceed with the letter:--
“I have read with joy your recently presented Supplementary
Civil Rights Bill. It meets my hearty approval. In the name of
God and down-trodden humanity, I pray you press its enactment
to a successful consummation.
“Such a law, firmly enforced, coupled with complete amnesty”--