“It was under a solemn consciousness of the dangers from
ecclesiastical ambition, the bigotry of spiritual pride, and
the intolerance of sects, thus exemplified in our domestic as
well as in foreign annals, that it was deemed advisable to
exclude from the National Government all power to act upon the
subject.”[228]
To act upon what? The subject of a religious establishment. No pretence
here of denying to Congress the establishment of police regulations,
if you please, or the enforcement by law of the fundamental principles
of the Declaration of Independence. There is nothing in this text
inconsistent with such a law. The Constitution forbids all interference
with religion. It does not forbid all effort to carry out the
primal principles of republican institutions. Now, Sir, here is no
interference with religion. I challenge the Senator to show it. There
is simply the assertion of a political rule, or, if you please, a
rule of political conduct. Why, Sir, suppose the manners and morals
which prevailed among the clergy of Virginia during the early life
of Mr. Jefferson, and recently revealed by the vivid pen of one of
our best writers, should find a home in the churches of Washington.
You have read Mr. Parton’s account in a late number of the “Atlantic
Monthly.”[229] Suppose Congress, taking into consideration the peculiar
circumstances, should give expression to public sentiment and impose
a penalty for such scandalous conduct here under our very eyes; would
that be setting up an Established Church? Would that be a violation of
the National Constitution, in the provision which the Senator invokes,
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion”?
And yet, in the case I suppose, Congress would enter the churches;
it might be only in the District of Columbia; but the case shows how
untenable is the position of the Senator, according to which the effort
of Congress to preserve churches from the desecration of intemperance
would be kindred to setting up an established religion. There is a
desecration as bad as intemperance, which I now oppose. I introduce the
case of intemperance only as an illustration.
And now, Sir, I come to the question. Suppose Congress declares that no
person shall be excluded from any church on account of race, color, or
previous condition; where is the interference with the constitutional
provision? Is that setting up a church establishment? Oh, no, Sir! It
is simply setting up the Declaration of Independence in its primal
truths, and applying them to churches as to other institutions.
MR. CARPENTER. Will my friend allow me,--not for the purpose of
interrupting him, but to come to the point? Suppose Congress
should pass a law that in no church in this country should the
Host be exalted during divine service.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator knows well the difference. This is a religious
observance.
Congress cannot interfere with any religious observance. Congress can
do nothing to set up a religious establishment. It can make no law
respecting an establishment of religion. But the Senator must see
that in the case he puts, the proposed law would be the very thing
prohibited by the Constitution. I thank him for that instance. I
propose no interference with any religious observance,--not in the
least: far from it.
Sir, the case is clear as day. All that I ask is, that, in harmony with
the Declaration of Independence, there be complete equality before the
law everywhere,--in the inn, on the highway, in the common school,
in the church, on juries,--ay, Sir, and in the last resting-place
on earth. The Senator steps forward and says: No,--I cannot accept
equality in the church. There the Constitutional Amendments interpreted
by the Declaration are powerless; there a White Man’s Government
shall prevail. A church organization may be incorporated by National
or State authority, and yet allowed to insult brothers of the human
family on account of the skin. In the church this outrage may be
perpetrated,--because to forbid it would interfere with religion and
set up an establishment.
Such, Sir, is the argument of the Senator; and he makes it in the name
of Religious Liberty! Good God, Sir! Religious liberty! The liberty
to insult a fellow-man on account of his skin! You listened to his
eloquent, fervid appeal. I felt its eloquence, but regretted that such
power was employed in such a cause.
I said, that, consciously or unconsciously, he had copied Petroleum V.
Nasby, in the letter of that renowned character entitled, “Goes on with
his Church,” from which I read a brief passage:--
“CHURCH OF ST. VALLANDIGUM,
“_June the 10th, 1863_.
“We hed a blessid and improvin time yisterday. My little flock
staggered in at the usual hour in the mornin, every man in a
heavenly frame uv mind, hevin bin ingaged all nite in a work
uv mercy, to wit: a mobbin uv two enrollin officers. One uv
em resisted, and they smote him hip and thigh, even ez Bohash
smote Jaheel. (Skriptooral, wich is nessary, bein in the
ministry.) He wuz left for dead.
“We opened servis by singin a hym, wich I writ, commencin ez
follows:--
“Shel niggers black this land possess,
And mix with us up here?
O, no, my friends; we rayther guess
We’ll never stand that ’ere.”[230]
[_Laughter._]
I ask if that is not the Senator’s speech? [_Laughter._] I know not
whether it is necessary for me to go further. Something more, I might
say. Very well, I will; the Senator rather invites me.
The Senator becomes here the representative of Caste; and where, Sir?
In a Christian church; and while espousing that cause, he pleads the
National Constitution. Now, Sir, I have to repeat--and here I am
determined not to be misunderstood--we have no right to enter the
church and interfere in any way with its religious ordinances, as
with the raising of the Host; but when a church organization asks the
benefit of the law by an act of incorporation, it must submit to the
great primal law of the Union,--the Constitution of the United States,
interpreted by the Declaration of Independence. The Senator smiles
again; I shall come to that by-and-by. Whenever a church organization
seeks incorporation, it must submit to the great political law of the
land. It can have the aid it seeks only by submitting to this political
law. Here is nothing of religion; it is the political law, the law of
justice, the law of Equal Rights. The Senator says, No; they may do as
they please in churches, because they are churches, because they are
homes of religion, of Christianity; there they may insult on account
of the skin. I call that a vindication of Caste, and Caste in one of
its most offensive forms. You all know, Sir, the history of Caste. It
is the distinction of which we first have conspicuous record in the
East, though it has prevailed more or less in all countries; but it
is in the East that it showed itself in such forms as to constitute
the type by which we describe the abuse. It is an offensive difference
between persons founded on birth, not unlike that maintained among us
on account of a skin received from birth.
And now pardon me, if I call attention to the way in which this
discrimination has been characterized by the most eminent persons
familiar with it. I begin with the words of an estimable character
known in religion and also in poetry,--Bishop Heber, of Calcutta, who
pictured Caste in these forcible terms:--
“A system which tends, more than anything else the Devil has
yet invented, to destroy the feelings of general benevolence,
and to make nine-tenths of mankind the hopeless slaves of the
remainder.”[231]
Then comes the testimony of Rev. Mr. Rhenius, a zealous and successful
missionary in the East:--
“I have found Caste, both in theory and practice, to be
diametrically opposed to the Gospel, which inculcates love,
humility, and union; whereas Caste teaches the contrary. It is
a fact, in those entire congregations where Caste is allowed,
the spirit of the Gospel does not enter; whereas in those from
which it is excluded we see the fruits of the Gospel spirit.”
* * * * *
MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him to
ask whether these commentaries are read for the purpose of
construing the Constitution of the United States? That is the
only point of difference between us.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator will learn before I am through. I shall apply
them.