The Senator insists that I am willing to disregard the Constitution. On
what ground can the Senator make any such assertion? Does he suppose
that his oath is stronger with him than mine with me?
MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to answer him?
MR. SUMNER. Certainly.
MR. CARPENTER. I assume that, for the reason that when we
come here to discuss a constitutional question, the power of
Congress to do a certain thing, the Senator flies from the
Constitution and goes to the Declaration of Independence, and
says that is the source of power.
MR. SUMNER. The Senator ought to know very well that I have never said
any such thing. The Senator proclaims that I fly from the Constitution
to the Declaration, which I insist is the source of power. I now yield
the floor again, and ask the Senator when I said what he asserts.
MR. CARPENTER. The Senator said that the Declaration was
coördinate in authority with the Constitution. What did he
mean by that? I supposed he used the word in the ordinary
acceptation; and if he did, he meant to say that the
Declaration was a coördinate grant of power.
MR. SUMNER. Just the contrary, Mr. President. Senators will bear me
witness. I appeal to you all. I said just the contrary. Repeatedly
I said that in my judgment the Declaration of Independence was not
a grant of power, but coëqual with the Constitution,--the one being
a grant of power, and the other a sovereign rule of interpretation.
That is what I said. And now the Senator, in the face of my positive
words, not heeding them at all, although they are found in the “Globe,”
vindicates himself by putting into my mouth what I never said or
suggested, and then proceeds to announce somewhat grandly that I set
the Constitution at nought. I challenge the Senator again to point
out one word that has ever fallen from my lips, during my service in
this Chamber, to sustain him in his assertion. I ask him to do it. He
cannot. But why this imputation? Is the oath we have all taken at
that desk binding only on him? Does he assume that he has a monopoly
of its obligations; that other Senators took it with levity, ready
to disregard it,--or at least that I have taken it so? Such is the
assumption; at least it is his assumption with regard to me.
Now I tell the Senator, and I beg him to understand it for the future,
that I shall not allow him to elevate himself above me in any loyalty
to the Constitution. Willingly do I yield to the Senator in all he can
justly claim of regard and honor. But I do not concede precedence in
that service, where, if he does not magnify himself, he degrades me.
I have served the National Constitution longer than he has, and with
such fidelity as I could command. I have served it at moments of peril,
when the great principles of Liberty to which I have been devoted were
in jeopardy; I have served it when there were few to stand together.
In upholding this Constitution, never did I fail at the same time to
uphold Human Rights. That was my supreme object; that was the ardent
aspiration of my soul. Sir, I know how often I have failed,--too often;
but I know that I never did fail in devotion to the Constitution,
for the true interpretation of which I now plead. The Senator speaks
without authority, and, he must pardon me if I say, with levity, when
he makes such an allegation against one whose record for the past
twenty years in this Chamber is ready to answer him. I challenge him to
point out one word ever uttered by me to justify his assault. He cannot
do it. He makes his onslaught absolutely without one tittle of evidence.
Sir, I have taken the oath to support the Constitution, but it is that
Constitution as I understand it. In other days, when this Chamber was
filled with intolerant slave-masters, I was told that I did not support
the Constitution, as I have been told to-day by the Senator, and I
was reminded of my oath. In reply I borrowed the language of Andrew
Jackson, and announced, that, often as I had taken that oath, I had
taken it always to support the Constitution as I understood it; and
it is so now. I have not taken an oath to support the Constitution as
the Senator from Wisconsin understands it, without its animating soul.
Sir, my oath was to support the National Constitution as interpreted
by the National Declaration. The oath of the Senator from Wisconsin
was different; and there, Sir, is the precise divergence between us.
He swore, but on his conscience was a soulless text. I am glad that my
conscience felt that there was something more.
The Senator must hesitate before he assaults me again for any failure
in devotion to the Constitution. I put my life against the life of the
Senator; I put my little service, humble as it is, against the service
of the Senator; I put every word uttered by me in this Chamber or
elsewhere against all that has been said by the Senator,--and the world
shall pronounce between us on the question he has raised. If I have
inclined in favor of Human Rights, if I have at all times insisted that
the National Constitution shall be interpreted always so that Human
Rights shall find the greatest favor, I have committed no error. In
the judgment of the Senator I may have erred, but I know that in the
judgment of the American people I have not erred; and here I put myself
upon the country to be tried.
Sir, on that issue I invoke the sentiments of mankind and posterity
when all of us have passed away. I know that it will be then written,
that the National Constitution is the Charter of a mighty Republic
dedicated to Human Rights, dedicated at its very birth by the Great
Declaration, and that whoever fails to enlarge and ennoble it by the
interpretation through which Human Rights are most advanced will fail
in his oath to support the Constitution: ay, Sir, fail in his oath!
The debate was continued successive days: Mr. Thurman of Ohio,
Mr. Ferry of Connecticut, Mr. Corbett and Mr. Kelly, both of
Oregon, Mr. Hill of Georgia, Mr. Stevenson of Kentucky, and
Mr. Tipton of Nebraska speaking against Mr. Sumner’s bill; Mr.
Harlan, of Iowa, in favor of it; and Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New
Jersey, declaring his support, if Mr. Sumner would modify its
provisions as to “churches.”
The substitute of Mr. Carpenter was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays
34. A motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen to make the bill inapplicable
to “churches” was carried,--Yeas 29, Nays 24. The next
question was on a motion of Mr. Carpenter to strike out the
clause relating to “juries.” This was earnestly debated by Mr.
Edmunds, of Vermont. Before the vote was taken, Mr. Sumner
remarked:--
There is a famous saying that comes to us from the last century,
that the whole object of government in England--of King, Lords, and
Commons--is to bring twelve men into a jury-box. Sir, that is the whole
object of government, not only in England, but in every other country
where law is administered through popular institutions; and especially
is it the object of government here in the United States; and the
clause in this bill which it is now proposed to strike out is simply to
maintain that great principle of popular institutions.
This amendment was rejected,--Yeas 12, Nays 42. Other
amendments were moved and rejected.
* * * * *
The question was then taken on Mr. Sumner’s bill as an
amendment to the Amnesty Bill, and it was adopted by the
casting vote of Vice-President Colfax,--the Senate being
equally divided, Yeas 28, Nays 28, as follows:--
YEAS,--Messrs. Ames, Anthony, Brownlow, Cameron, Chandler,
Clayton, Conkling, Cragin, Fenton, Ferry of Michigan,
Frelinghuysen, Gilbert, Hamlin, Harlan, Morrill of Vermont,
Morton, Osborn, Patterson, Pomeroy, Ramsey, Rice, Sherman,
Spencer, Sumner, West, Wilson, Windom, and Wright,--28.
NAYS,--Messrs. Blair, Boreman, Carpenter, Cole, Corbett, Davis
of West Virginia, Ferry of Connecticut, Goldthwaite, Hamilton
of Texas, Hill, Hitchcock, Johnston, Kelly, Logan, Morrill of
Maine, Norwood, Pool, Robertson, Saulsbury, Sawyer, Schurz,
Scott, Stevenson, Stockton, Thurman, Tipton, Trumbull, and
Vickers,--28.
ABSENT,--Messrs. Alcorn, Bayard, Buckingham, Caldwell,
Casserly, Cooper, Davis of Kentucky, Edmunds, Flanagan,
Hamilton of Maryland, Howe, Kellogg, Lewis, Nye, Pratt,
Sprague, and Stewart,--17.
The announcement of the adoption of the amendment was received
with great applause in the galleries.
The provisions relating to Amnesty were then taken up, and
after some modification of them Mr. Sumner declared his purpose
to vote for the Bill as amended,--that it was now elevated and
consecrated, and that whoever voted against it must take the
responsibility of opposing a great measure for the assurance of
Equal Rights.
The question was then taken on the passage of the bill as
amended, when it was rejected,--Yeas 33, Nays 19,--two-thirds
not voting in the affirmative. Democrats opposed to the Civil
Rights Bill voted against Amnesty with this association.
The attention of the Senate was at once occupied by other
business, so that Amnesty and Civil Rights were for the time
superseded.
* * * * *
May 8th, another Amnesty Bill, which had passed the House,
being under consideration, Mr. Sumner moved to strike out
all after the enacting clause and insert the Civil Rights
Bill. Mr. Ferry, of Connecticut, promptly objected that the
amendment was not in order; but Vice-President Colfax overruled
the point, and was sustained by the Senate. The next day Mr.
Ferry moved to strike out of Mr. Sumner’s bill the words
applicable to “common schools and other public institutions
of learning,” which was rejected,--Yeas 25, Nays 26. Mr.
Blair, of Missouri, then moved that “the people of every city,
county, or State” should “decide for themselves the question
of mixed or separate schools,” and this was rejected,--Yeas
23, Nays 30. Mr. Carpenter moved to strike out the section
relating to “juries,” and this was rejected,--Yeas 16, Nays
33. On a motion by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, to strike out
the first five sections of Mr. Sumner’s bill, the votes being
Yeas 29, Nays 29, the casting vote of Vice-President Colfax
was given in the negative, amidst manifestations of applause
in the galleries. The question was then taken on the motion to
substitute the Civil Rights Bill for the Amnesty Bill, and it
was lost,--Yeas 27, Nays 28. Mr. Sumner at once moved the Civil
Rights Bill as an addition, with the result,--Yeas 28, Nays 28,
and the adoption of the amendment by the casting vote of the
Vice-President. This amendment as in Committee of the Whole
was then concurred in by the Senate,--Yeas 27, Nays 25. On the
passage of the bill thus amended, the vote stood, Yeas 32, Nays
22; so that, two-thirds not voting in the affirmative, the bill
was rejected.
Again there was a lull in the two measures.
* * * * *
May 10th, Mr. Sumner introduced another Supplementary Civil
Rights Bill, being his original bill with such verbal changes
and emendations as had occurred during its protracted
consideration, and the bill was placed on the calendar of the
Senate without reference to a committee.
* * * * *
May 21st, the Senate having under consideration a bill to
extend the provisions of the Enforcement Act in the Southern
States, known as the Ku-Klux Act, and entering upon a “night
session” in order to pass the bill, Mr. Sumner, who was an
invalid, contrary to his habit left the Chamber. In the early
morning the bill was passed, when the Senate, on motion of Mr.
Carpenter, of Wisconsin, took up Mr. Sumner’s Civil Rights
Bill, and, striking out all after the enacting clause, inserted
a substitute, imperfect in machinery, and with no allusion
to schools, institutions of learning, churches, cemeteries,
juries, or the word “white.” The bill thus changed passed the
Senate in Mr. Sumner’s absence. Meanwhile Mr. Spencer, of
Alabama, had moved an adjournment, saying, “It is unfair and
unjust to take a vote upon this bill during the absence of the
Senator from Massachusetts.… I insist on the motion to adjourn,
as the Senator from Massachusetts is not here.” The motion
was rejected. A messenger from the Senate informed Mr. Sumner
of the effort making, and he hurried to the Chamber; but the
bill had been already acted on, and another Amnesty Bill on
the calendar taken up, on motion of Mr. Robertson, of South
Carolina, and pressed to a final vote. Mr. Sumner arrived in
season to protest against this measure, unless associated with
Equal Rights. At the first opportunity after reaching his seat,
he said:--
MR. PRESIDENT, I understand that in my absence, and without any notice
to me from any quarter, the Senate have adopted an emasculated Civil
Rights Bill, with at least two essential safeguards wanting,--one
concerning the Common Schools, and the other concerning Juries. The
original bill contains both, and more; and I now ask the Senate, most
solemnly, to consider whether, while decreeing equal rights for all
in the land, they will say that those equal rights shall not prevail
in the common school and in the jury. Such I understand to have been
the vote of the Senate. What will ensue, should it be confirmed by
the other House? The spirit of Caste will receive new sanction in the
education of children; justice will find a new impediment in the jury.
Sir, I plead for the colored race, who unhappily have no representative
on this floor. I ask the Senate to set its face against the spirit of
Caste now prevailing in the common schools, against the injustice now
installed in the jury. I insist that the Senate shall not lose this
great opportunity. You recognize the commanding principle of the bill.
Why not, then, apply it throughout, so that hereafter there shall be no
question? For, Sir, be well assured, there is but one way of settling
this great cause, and that is by conceding these equal rights. So long
as they are denied you will have the colored people justly complaining
and knocking at your doors,--and may I say, so long as I remain in this
Chamber you will have me perpetually demanding their rights. I cannot,
I will not cease. I ask, Sir, that this terrible strife be brought
to an end, and the cause settled forever. Now is the time. But this
cannot be, except by the establishment of equal rights absolutely and
completely wherever the law can reach.
Sir, early in life I vowed myself to nothing less than the idea of
making the principles and promises of the Declaration of Independence
a living reality. This was my aspiration. For that I have labored. And
now at this moment, as its fulfilment seems within reach, I appeal to
my fellow-Senators that there shall be no failure on their part. Make,
I entreat you, the Declaration of Independence in its principles and
promises a living letter; make it a practical reality.
One word more. You are about to decree the removal of disabilities
from those who have been in rebellion. Why will you not, with better
justice, decree a similar removal of disabilities from those who have
never injured you? Why will you not accord to the colored race the
same amnesty you offer to former Rebels? Sir, you cannot go before
the country with this unequal measure. Therefore, Sir, do I insist
that Amnesty shall not become a law, unless at the same time the Equal
Rights of All are secured. In debate this winter I have often said
this, and I repeat it now with all the earnestness of my nature. Would
I were stronger, that I might impress it upon the Senate!
A motion by Mr. Sumner to append his bill was rejected,--Yeas
13, Nays 27,--and the question returned on the Amnesty Bill.
Mr. Sumner then declared his purpose to vote against the
Amnesty Bill:--
MR. PRESIDENT, I long to vote for amnesty; I have always hoped to vote
for it; but, Sir, I should be unworthy of my seat as a Senator if I
voted for it while the colored race are shut out from their rights,
and the ban of color is recognized in this Chamber. Sir, the time has
not come for amnesty. How often must I repeat, “Be just to the colored
race before you are generous to former rebels”? Unwillingly I press
this truth; but it belongs to the moment. I utter it with regret; for
I long to record my name in behalf of amnesty. And now let it not go
forth that I am against amnesty. I here declare from my seat that I am
for amnesty, provided it can be associated with the equal rights of
the colored race; but if not so associated, then, so help me God, I am
against it.
The Amnesty Bill was then passed, with only two dissenting
votes,--Mr. Sumner, and Mr. Nye, of Nevada.
Mr. Sumner then made an ineffectual effort to obtain a
reconsideration of the votes just taken, so that on another
day, in a full Senate, he could be heard. Here he said:--
MR. PRESIDENT, I had supposed that there was an understanding among the
friends of civil rights that the bill for their security should be kept
on a complete equality with that for amnesty,--which could be only by
awaiting a bill from the House securing civil rights, precisely as we
have a bill from the House securing amnesty. The two measures are not
on an equality, when the Senate takes up a House bill for amnesty and
takes up simply a Senate bill for civil rights. I will not characterize
the transaction; but to me it is painful, for it involves the sacrifice
of the equal rights of the colored race,--as is plain, very plain.
All this winter I have stood guard here, making an earnest though
unsuccessful effort to secure those rights, insisting always that they
should be recognized side by side with the rights of former Rebels.
Many Senators agreed with me; but now, at the last moment, comes the
sacrifice. The Amnesty Bill, which has already prevailed in the House,
passes, and only awaits the signature of the President; while an
imperfect Civil Rights Bill, shorn of its best proportions, which has
never passed the House, is taken up and rushed through the Senate. Who
can tell its chances in the other House? Such, Sir, is the indifference
with which the Senate treats the rights of an oppressed people!
Sir, I sound the cry. The rights of the colored race have been
sacrificed in this Chamber, where the Republican Party has a large
majority,--that party, by its history, its traditions, and all its
professions, bound to their vindication. Sir, I sound the cry. Let it
go forth that the sacrifice has been perpetrated. Amnesty is adopted;
but where are the equal rights of the colored race?--still afloat
between the two Houses on an imperfect bill. And what is their chance?
Pass the imperfect bill and still there is a denial of equal rights.
But what is the chance of passing even this imperfect measure? Who can
say? Is it not a sham? Is it not a wrong which ought to ring through
the land?
Sir, I call upon the colored people throughout the country to take
notice how their rights are paltered with. I wish them to understand,
that here in this Chamber, with a large majority of Republicans, the
sacrifice has been accomplished; and let them observe how. They will
take note that amnesty has been secured, while nothing is secured
to them. Now, Sir, would you have your work effective, you should
delay amnesty until a bill for civil rights has passed the House, and
reaching this Chamber the two measures will then be on a complete
equality. Anything else is sacrifice of the colored race; anything else
is abandonment of an imperative duty.
The Senate then adjourned at ten o’clock and twenty minutes on
the morning of May 22d.
Nothing further occurred on this interesting subject during
the remainder of the session. The Amnesty Bill became a law.
The Civil Rights Bill was not considered in the House; so that
even this imperfect measure failed. At the next session of
Congress Mr. Sumner was an invalid, under medical treatment,
and withdrawn from the Senate, so that he was unable to press
his bill; nor did any other Senator move it.
* * * * *
December 1, 1873, on the first day of the session, Mr. Sumner
again brought forward his bill in the following terms:--
A Bill supplementary to an Act entitled “An Act to protect
all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and
furnish the means of their vindication,” passed April 9,
1866.
_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives
of the United States of America in Congress assembled_,
That no citizen of the United States shall, by reason
of race, color, or previous condition of servitude,
be excepted or excluded from the full enjoyment of
any accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege
furnished by innkeepers; by common carriers, whether on
land or water; by licensed owners, managers, or lessees
of theatres or other places of public amusement; by
trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers, or
other officers of common schools and public institutions of
learning, the same being supported by moneys derived from
general taxation or authorized by law; also of cemetery
associations and benevolent associations supported or
authorized in the same way: _Provided_, That private
schools, cemeteries, and institutions of learning,
established exclusively for white or colored persons,
and maintained respectively by voluntary contributions,
shall remain according to the terms of their original
establishment.
SEC. 2. That any person violating any of the provisions
of the foregoing section, or aiding in their violation,
or inciting thereto, shall, for every such offence,
forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to the
person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action
on the case, with full costs, and shall also, for every
such offence, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and,
upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not less than
five hundred nor more than one thousand dollars, or shall
be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than
one year: _Provided_, That the party aggrieved shall not
recover more than one penalty; and when the offence is a
refusal of burial, the penalty may be recovered by the
heirs-at-law of the person whose body has been refused
burial.
SEC. 3. That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby
conferred, and the same duties enjoined upon the courts
and officers of the United States in the execution of this
Act, as are conferred and enjoined upon such courts and
officers in sections three, four, five, seven, and ten
of an Act entitled “An Act to protect all persons in the
United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means
of their vindication,” passed April 9, 1866, and these
sections are hereby made a part of this Act; and any of
the aforesaid officers, failing to institute and prosecute
such proceedings herein required, shall, for every such
offence, forfeit and pay the sum of five hundred dollars to
the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action
on the case, with full costs, and shall, on conviction
thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined
not less than one thousand dollars nor more than five
thousand dollars.
SEC. 4. That no citizen, possessing all other
qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law,
shall be disqualified for service as juror in any court,
National or State, by reason of race, color, or previous
condition of servitude; and any officer or other person
charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of
jurors, who shall fail to summon any citizen for the reason
above named, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than one thousand
dollars nor more than five thousand dollars.
SEC. 5. That every discrimination against any citizen on
account of color, by the use of the word “white,” or any
other term in law, statute, ordinance, or regulation,
National or State, is hereby repealed and annulled.
On the reïntroduction of this bill, the original clause
relating to “churches” was omitted, in order to keep it in
substantial harmony with the votes of the Senate.