“Another section says, ‘This Constitution, and the laws of
the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,
shall be the supreme law of the land.’ Another section says,
‘The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be
necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers
vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United
States.’ Will it be said that the power is not vested in the
Government of the United States to protect the rights of its
citizens, and that it is not necessary and proper to do so?
“The Senator admits that there is a constitutional inhibition
against proscribing men because of their race or color in
the enjoyment of rights and privileges, but he denies the
existence of a constitutional right on the part of Congress to
act in defence of the supreme law, when a State may disregard
the Constitution in this respect. I read the Constitution
otherwise. I conclude, that, when the supreme law says of right
a thing shall not be, Congress, which has that supreme law as
its guide and authority, has the power to enforce the same.”
That, Sir, is the reply of a colored fellow-citizen to the speech of my
excellent friend. I ask Senators to sit in judgment between the speech
and the reply. I ask if my excellent friend is not completely answered
by George T. Downing? If the latter has been able to do this, it is
because of the innate strength of his own cause and the weakness of
that espoused by the Senator. Our colored commentator places himself on
the texts of the Constitution, and interprets them liberally, justly,
for the equal rights of his race. The Senator places himself on
those same texts, but in an evil moment surrenders to that malignant
interpretation which prevailed before the war and helped to precipitate
the Rebellion.
Sir, I ask, Is not the constitutionality of this measure vindicated?
Does any one really doubt its constitutionality? Can any one show a
reason against it? Sir, it is as constitutional as the Constitution
itself. You may arraign that great charter; you may call it in doubt;
you may say that it is imperfect, that it is wrong; but I thank God it
exists to be our guide and master, so that even my excellent friend,
the able and ingenious Senator, snatching reasons, if not inspiration,
from _ante bellum_ arguments, when State Rights were the constant cry,
and from speeches in other days, cannot overturn it. The Constitution
still lives, and as long as it lives it must be interpreted by the
Declaration of Independence to advance human rights.
This is my answer to the Senator on the question of power, to which he
invited attention. I have spoken frankly, I hope not unkindly: but on
this question I must be plain and open. Nor is this all.
Sir, there is a new force in our country. I have alluded to a new rule
of interpretation; I allude now to a new force: it is the colored
people of the United States counted by the million; a new force with
votes; and they now insist upon their rights. They appear before you
in innumerable petitions, in communications, in letters, all praying
for their rights. They appeal to you in the name of the Constitution,
which is for them a safeguard,--in the name of that great victory over
the Rebellion through which peace was sealed; and they remind you that
they mean to follow up their appeal at the ballot-box. I have here an
article in the last “New National Era,” of Washington, a journal edited
by colored persons,--Frederick Douglass is the chief editor,--and
devoted to the present Administration. What does it say?
“Here, then, is a measure, just and necessary, the embodiment
of the very principles upon which the Government is founded,
and which distinguish it from monarchical and aristocratic
Governments,--a measure upon which there should be no division
in the Republican Party in Congress, and of which there is
no question as to its being of more importance than Amnesty.
Without this measure Amnesty will be a crime, merciless to the
loyal blacks of the South, and an encouragement of treason
and traitors. We have met colored politicians from the South
who think that the Amnesty proposition is an attempt to gain
the good-will of the white voters of the South at the expense
of the colored voters. Should this feeling become general
among the colored people, there is danger of a division of the
colored vote to such an extent as to defeat the Republican
Party. Give us the just measure of protection of our civil
rights before the pardoning of those who deny us our rights and
who would destroy the nation, and the colored people can feel
assured that they are not to be forced into a back seat, and
that traitors are not to be exalted.”
Is not this natural? If you, Sir, were a colored citizen, would you
not also thus write? Would you not insist that you must doubt any
political party, pretending to be your friend, that failed in this
great exigency? I know you would. I know you would take your vote in
your hand and insist upon using it so as to secure your own rights.
The testimony accumulates. Here is another letter, which came this
morning, signed, “An Enfranchised Republican,” dated at Washington,
and published in the “New York Tribune.” It is entitled, “President
Grant and the Colored People.” The writer avows himself in favor of
the renomination of General Grant, but does not disguise his anxiety
at what he calls “the President’s unfortunate reply to the colored
delegation which lately waited on him.”
Now, Sir, in this sketch you see a slight portraiture of a new force
in the land, a political force which may change the balance at any
election,--at a State election, at a Presidential election even. Take,
for instance, Pennsylvania. There are colored voters in that State
far more than enough to turn the scale one way or the other, as they
incline; and those voters, by solemn petition, appeal to you for their
rights. The Senator from Maine rises in his place and gravely tells
them that they are all mistaken, that Congress has no power to give
them a remedy,--and he deals out for their comfort an ancient speech.
Sir, I trust Congress will find that it has the power. One thing I
know: if it has the power to amnesty Rebels, it has the power to
enfranchise colored fellow-citizens. The latter is much clearer than
the former. I do not question the former; but I say to my excellent
friend from Maine that the power to remove the disabilities of colored
fellow-citizens is, if possible, stronger, clearer, and more assured
than the other. Unquestionably it is a power of higher necessity and
dignity. The power to do justice leaps forth from every clause of
the Constitution; it springs from every word of its text; it is the
inspiration of its whole chartered being.
Mr. President, I did not intend to say so much. I rose to-day merely to
enable the absent to speak,--that colored fellow-citizens, whose own
Senators had failed them, might be heard through their written word. I
did not intend to add anything of my own; but the subject is to me of
such incalculable interest, and its right settlement is so essential to
the peace of this country, to its good name, to the reconciliation we
all seek, that I could not resist the temptation of making this further
appeal.
February 1st, Mr. Carpenter, of Wisconsin, in an elaborate
speech, replied to Mr. Sumner, and criticized his bill,
especially so far as it secured equal rights in churches and
juries.
February 5th, in pursuance of the opposition announced in
his speech, Mr. Carpenter moved another bill as a substitute
for Mr. Sumner’s. Mr. Norwood, of Georgia, sustained the
substitute; Mr. Wilson of Massachusetts, Mr. Frelinghuysen of
New Jersey, and Mr. Morton of Indiana predicated the earlier
proposition. Mr. Sumner then replied to Mr. Carpenter.
Before the vote is taken, I hope the Senate will pardon me, if I
explain briefly the difference between the two amendments.
First let me say a word in regard to the way in which the amendment
moved by me comes before the Senate. Even this circumstance has been
dwelt on in this debate, and I have been criticized--I think not always
justly--on that account. Here is a memorandum made for me at the
desk from the Journal of the Senate, which shows the history of this
amendment. I will read it.[225]
…
At last, during this session, before the holidays, when the present
measure of Amnesty was under consideration, I found for the first time
a chance. Twice had I introduced the bill, and on my motion it was
referred to the Judiciary Committee, who had twice reported against
it. Sir, was I to be discouraged on that account? No committee enjoys
higher authority on this floor than the Judiciary Committee; but I
have been here long enough to know that its reports do not always find
favor. Have we not during this very session, within a very few days,
seen that committee overruled on the Apportionment question?