Chapter II: Front Matter (2)

4. _Resolved_, That, where, by reason of rebellion, there is a lapse in the State government, and it becomes the duty of Congress to provide a government, none can be accepted as “a republican form of government,” where numerous native-born citizens, charged with no crime and no failure of duty, and compelled to pay taxes, are left wholly unrepresented; and especially where a particular race is singled out and denied representation, although compelled to pay taxes; more especially where such race constitutes the majority of the citizens, and the enfranchised minority has for the time forfeited its rights by rebellion; and more especially still, where by such exclusion the oligarchical enemies of the Republic can practically compel it to break faith with national soldiers and national creditors, to whose generosity it was indebted during a period of peril.

These resolutions were read and ordered to be printed. They
were also entered at length on the Journal of the Senate.

THE LATE SENATOR COLLAMER.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON HIS DEATH, DECEMBER 14, 1865.

MR. PRESIDENT,--Since Henry Clay left this Chamber by the gate of death, no Senator has passed that way crowned with the same honorable years as Mr. Collamer; nor has any Senator passed that way whose departure created such a blank in the public councils, unless we except Mr. Douglas. He was our most venerable associate; but his place here had not shrunk with time. Nor was he, when we last saw him, less important to our debates and to our conclusions than ever before. He still possessed all those peculiar powers of argument and illustration, seasoned with a New England salt, which he had from the beginning. He was not so old that he was not often the life of the body.

When he came into the Senate, it was after long and various experience as lawyer, judge, representative in the other House, member of the Cabinet, and then again as judge, in all which characters he had been single, pure, honest, faithful, and laborious. Though little of a traveller, he had seen much. He had also read much, and he had done much. But all the results of observation, study, and action had so passed into his nature as to become part of himself. If he expressed an opinion, even on law, it seemed to come from himself, and not from books. He was the authority. And yet he was fond of books, whether in his own profession or in other departments of study.

His fidelity assumed the form of accuracy in all that he said or did. He spoke accurately, and he was especially accurate with his pen. Perhaps nobody was apter in the style or language of legislation. He was an expert draughtsman, although, without doubt, too professional for a taste not exclusively professional,--indulging in traditional phrases, and those favorite superfluities of the lawyer, “said” and “aforesaid.” The great Act of July 13, 1861,[9] which gave to the war for the suppression of the Rebellion its first Congressional sanction, and invested the President with new powers, was drawn by him. It was he that set in place the great ban, not yet lifted, by which the Rebel States were shut out from the communion of the Union. This is a landmark in our history, and it might properly be known by the name of its author, as “Collamer’s statute.”

All who ever sat with him in the committee-room will long remember the carefulness with which he gave his counsels, and the completeness with which he explained them. Perhaps his wisdom and facility in business were nowhere more manifest. I seize this occasion to confess most gratefully my own personal obligations to him in this interesting relation.

The same character which appeared in the committee-room showed itself in conversation, enlivened by constant humor. He, too, had his “little story” for illustration; but in this respect he differed from the late President as one of his own Vermont mountains differs from an outstretched laughing prairie of the West. In manner he was Socratic. The curious observer, fond of tracing resemblances, might fancy that in the form of his head, and even of his person, he was not unlike the received image of Socrates, while his colloquial powers might again recall Socrates, as pictured by the affectionate Xenophon, “handling all who conversed with him just as he pleased.” He had also the same antique simplicity, and I doubt not he would have followed the wise man of Athens barefoot in the waters of the Ilissus. I would not push the resemblance too far, and I use it only for illustration, not for parallel; and yet, as I bring to mind our departed friend, he seems to assume this classical figure. Call him, then, if you please, the Green Mountain Socrates.

Debate, except on the highest occasions, is only conversation in public. With him it was conversation always. He spoke as he conversed, with the same pith and humor, and with the same facility. But his facility did not tempt him. In this gilded amphitheatre,[10] where the speaker is sacrificed to the galleries, as of old the gladiator was offered up to make a Roman holiday, he declined all display, and simply conversed; and such was the desire to hear him, that we gathered near to catch his words. He was not a frequent speaker, and he never spoke except when he had something to say; nor did he speak for effect abroad, but only for effect in the debate. Of course, he was too honest and too considerate of the Senate to speak without the preparation of reflection and study. Though at times earnest, he was never bitter. He never dropped into the debate any poisoned ingredients.

Sometimes he spoke with much effect, especially on law, or finance, or business. On the great question which for a generation overshadowed all others, and finally wrapped the country in the “living cloud of war,” he was sincerely antislavery, but with certain shortcomings which in this impartial tribute ought not to be concealed. His lenity toward our monster enemy showed itself unconsciously when he spoke of malignant Rebels as “those Southern gentlemen who had seceded,” and then again, when, at an earlier date, he spoke of “two civilizations”; but he bore kindly the reply, that civilization was only on one side. And yet on two occasions in this Chamber he strove for the Right very bravely, so that his position became historic. One of these was many years ago, shortly after he came into the Senate; the other was only last year. The historian and the biographer will describe these scenes. One of them is the fit subject of Art.

The earliest of these occasions was when, under the influence of the President of that day, backed by Jefferson Davis in the Cabinet, an illegal government was set up in a distant Territory, which, in defiance of the people there, proceeded to institute an infamous Black Code borrowed from Slavery. The President countenanced the illegal government, and smiled upon the Black Code. The representatives of Slavery in both Houses of Congress, with their Northern allies, indifferent to human rights, and greedy only of political power, sustained the President in his disregard of a fundamental principle of the Declaration of Independence, that governments derive “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The contest was unequal. On one side was a struggling people, insulted and despoiled of their rights; on the other side was the President, with all the vast powers of the Republic, with patronage less than now, but very prevailing, and with a great political party yielding an unhesitating support. The contest reached this Chamber. Naturally it came before the Committee on Territories, where happily the good cause was represented by Jacob Collamer, of Vermont. The interest increased with each day; and when the Committee reported, a scene ensued without example among us.

The reports of committees are usually handed in and ordered to be printed; but now, at the impassioned call of a Senator from South Carolina,[11] the report of the Committee, whitewashing incredible outrages, was read by the Chairman at the desk of the Secretary of the Senate. The Chairman left his seat for this purpose, and stood face to face with the Senate.[12] For two hours the apology for that usurpation which had fastened a Black Code upon an inoffensive people sounded in this Chamber, while the partisans of Slavery gloated over the seeming triumph. There was a hush of silence, and there was sadness also with some, who saw clearly the unpardonable turpitude of the sacrifice. Mr. Collamer followed with a minority report, signed by himself alone, which he read at the desk of the Secretary, standing face to face with the Senate. Jesse D. Bright was at the time our President, but he had installed in the chair on that momentous occasion none other than that most determined artificer of treason and drill-sergeant of the Rebellion, John Slidell, who sat behind, like Mephistopheles looking over the shoulder of Truth,[13] while the patriot Senator, standing before, gravely unfolded the enormities that had been perpetrated. Few then present now remain; but none then present can fail to recall the scene. The report which Mr. Collamer read belongs to the history of the country. But the scene comes clearly within the domain of Art. In the long life of our departed friend it was his brightest and most glorious moment,--beyond anything of honor or power, whether in the cabinet or on the bench. For what is office, compared to the priceless opportunity, nobly employed, of standing as a buttress for human rights?

The other signal occasion, when he showed much of the same character, and was surely inspired by the same sentiment, was during the last year, when the illustrious President, who now reposes in immortality, undertook, in disregard of Congress, and solely by executive power, to institute civil governments throughout that region of the Union where civil governments had been overthrown,--imitating, in the agencies he employed, the Cromwellian system of ruling by “major-generals.” The case of distant and oppressed Kansas was revived. Who can forget the awakened leonine energy of the aged Senator, when, contrary to his custom, he interrupted another in debate to declare his judgment against the power of the President to institute permanent civil governments “to last beyond the war”?[14] The dividing line was clear. The President might exercise a temporary military power, but Congress must lay the foundations of permanent peace. This simple principle was, of course, only the corollary of that rule of Jefferson, which has become one of the commonplaces of our political system, asserting “the supremacy of the civil over the military authority.”[15] The eggs of crocodiles can produce only crocodiles; and it is not easy to see how eggs laid by military power can be hatched into an American State.

This interjected judgment was afterward developed in a speech, which for sententious wisdom and solid sense is, perhaps, the best he ever delivered. It is not long, but, like the Roman sword, it is effective from its very shortness. He spoke with the authority of years, but he spoke also with another peculiar authority; for it was he who drew the Act of Congress which placed the Rebel States under the ban.[16] Positively, earnestly, and most persuasively, he insisted that Congress should not abdicate its control of this question. His conclusion was repeated again and again. It was for Congress, he said, to say when that state of things existed which would entitle the Rebel States to perform their functions as integral parts of the Union. It was for Congress to decide this question, and not for the President, except so far as the President unites in an Act of Congress by his signature. And he asked, “When will and when ought Congress to admit these States as being in their normal condition?” To which he answers: “It is not enough that they stop their hostility and are repentant. They should present fruits meet for repentance. They should furnish to us, by their actions, some evidence that the condition of loyalty and obedience is their true condition again, and Congress must pass upon it; _otherwise we have no securities_.… And I insist that the President, making peace with them, if you please, by surceasing military operations, _does not alter their status, until Congress passes upon it_.” Then, again, filled with the thought, he exclaims, “The great and essential thing now to insist upon is, that Congress shall do nothing which can in any way create _a doubt_ about our power over the subject.” And still pleading against executive interference, he says: “I believe, that, when reëstablishing the condition of peace with that people, Congress, representing the United States, has power, in ending this war, as any other war, to get some security for the future. It would be a strange thing, if it were not true that this nation, in ending a civil as well as a foreign war, could close it and make peace by obtaining, if not indemnity for the past, _at least some security for future peace_.”[17] This was among the last utterances of our patriot Senator. It is his dying legacy to his country. Let all, from President to citizen, heed its words. The aspiration so often expressed to-day, that he were now alive to take part in the restoration of the Rebel States, is fulfilled. He lives in his declared opinions, echoed from the tomb.

Say not that I err, because here at his funeral, seeking to do him honor, I exhibit him bravely standing front to front with executive power wielded by a President instigated by Jefferson Davis, and then again bravely standing front to front with executive power wielded by the gentle hand of Abraham Lincoln. In the first case it was to save an outraged people; in the other it was to vindicate the powers of the people of the United States in Congress assembled to provide guaranties and safeguards against the wickedness and perjury which had deluged his beloved country with blood. Say not that I err, because now, at his funeral, anxious that his best actions should not be forgotten, I commemorate this championship. He is dead, but the good he has done cannot die. And hereafter faithful Senators, struggling with executive power, will catch a new inspiration from his example. A bishop of the Church tells us that “all is not over, while there is a man left to reprove error and bear testimony to the truth; and a man who does it with becoming spirit may stop a prince or senate when in full career, and recover the day.”[18] Where this spirit has been shown, where an honored associate has earned this title to fame, I insist that it shall be made known.

“WHITEWASHING” BY THE PRESIDENT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A MESSAGE OF PRESIDENT JOHNSON ON THE CONDITION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES, DECEMBER 19, 1865.

December 19th, a message was read from President Johnson
with regard to the condition of the Southern States, which
was represented as “more promising than, in view of all the
circumstances, could well have been expected.” The President
said:--

“From all the information in my possession, and from that
which I have recently derived from the most reliable
authority, I am induced to cherish the belief that
sectional animosity is surely and rapidly merging itself
into a spirit of nationality, and that representation,
connected with a properly adjusted system of taxation, will
result in a harmonious restoration of the relations of the
States to the National Union.”

Accompanying the message was a report to the President by
Lieutenant-General Grant, who had recently made a tour of
inspection through several of the States lately in rebellion,
where he said, “I am satisfied that the mass of thinking men
of the South accept the present situation of affairs in good
faith.” In this spirit the report speaks of the “universal
acquiescence in the authority of the General Government”; it
declares that “the good of the country and economy require that
the force kept in the interior, where there are many freedmen,
should all be white troops,”--that “the presence of black
troops, lately slaves, demoralizes labor, both by their advice
and by furnishing in their camps a resort for the freedmen for
long distances around,”--that “the citizens of the Southern
States are anxious to return to self-government within the
Union as soon as possible”; and it adds, that “they are in
earnest in wishing to do what they think is required by the
Government, not humiliating to them as citizens.”

Nothing was said in the message or the report of the condition
of the freedmen, or of the continued denial of their rights.

Both these documents were read at length by the Secretary of
the Senate. A report by Major-General Carl Schurz was also
communicated; but this was not read. It was understood that
this report was elaborate, and that it set forth the condition
of the freedmen. Mr. Sumner, ascertaining that it accompanied
the message, said: “If it is there, I think it had better be
read.”

SEVERAL SENATORS. It is very long.

MR. SUMNER. At any rate, we can begin it.

THE PRESIDENT _pro tempore_. The reading of the report of
General Carl Schurz is called for. It will be read, if
there be no objection.

MR. JOHNSON [of Maryland]. I have no objection to the
reading of the report; I should like to hear it; but the
reading will take a good while, and it can all be printed
in a day or two.

MR. SUMNER. Let the reading be begun.

MR. JOHNSON. I submit to the Senator from Massachusetts
that the printing of it, perhaps, will answer every
purpose. It is a very long report, I see; at least, it
seems to be so. I have, personally, not the slightest
objection to its being read.

MR. SUMNER. It is a very important document. The Senate will
remember, that, when the report was made on the condition of
Kansas, every word of it was read at the desk.[19] Now the
question before the country is immeasurably more important
than that of Kansas. We have a message from the President
which is like the whitewashing message of Franklin Pierce with
regard to the enormities in Kansas. Such is its parallel. I
think the Senate had better at least listen to the opening of
Major-General Schurz’s report.

MR. JOHNSON. I have no objection, if the Senate think they
have time to listen to it; but I did not expect to hear any
assault, direct or indirect, upon the President at this
time.

MR. SUMNER. No assault at all.

Mr. Johnson then said: “I have seen nothing in the message
which would warrant a reflection that any improper purpose had
actuated the President in sending it here. He does not mean, as
I suppose, to whitewash anybody who has offended.”

The Secretary proceeded to read the introductory paragraphs
of General Schurz’s report, in which he states through what
portion of the South he travelled, the points at which he
stopped, his facilities for obtaining information, and the
order in which the results of his observation would be detailed.

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, “would much prefer to read this document
in print,” and he moved to dispense with its further reading.

Mr. Sumner replied:--

I shall not object, if the Senator from Ohio thinks it proper, on this important occasion, to dispense with the reading. In my judgment the Senate cannot listen to anything of more consequence than this accurate, authentic, most authoritative report with regard to the actual condition of things in the States lately in rebellion. Here is an eminent citizen, lately a major-general in the army of the United States, sent by the President on a special mission to visit those States and to report upon their condition. The visit has been made,--not a hasty one, like that of General Grant, for instance, or of other officers or citizens, but a sojourn occupying time, extending through different States,--and the results are recorded in a careful document. Now, Sir, if the question were trivial, if it were transitory, I should think the Senator was right; but, if he persists in his motion, I shall not oppose it.

Mr. Sherman insisted upon his motion, and said: “It is unusual
to read documents in this way.” Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin,
called attention to a remark of Mr. Sumner, which he thought
he ought “to qualify at least, if not altogether retract.” The
objectionable remark was then stated. “Speaking of the message
just received from the President of the United States, he said
that it was like the whitewashing message of Franklin Pierce,
to cover up the transactions in Kansas.… Now, Mr. President, I
think the Senator from Massachusetts must have let fall that
expression without due consideration”; and he concluded by
saying: “I believe, Sir, certainly I think I ought to believe,
that the honorable Senator from Massachusetts will at least
modify or qualify, if he does not wholly retract, this strong
expression.”

Mr. Sumner followed:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have nothing to retract, nothing to modify, nothing to qualify. In former days there was one Kansas suffering under illegal power; there are now eleven Kansases suffering as that one; therefore, as eleven is more than one, so is the enormity of the present time more than the enormity in the day of Franklin Pierce.

Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, said: “A charge has been directly
made here by the Senator that the President has sent in a
whitewashing report.… When such a charge as that is brought
in the Senate, I think it calls for some notice, and I
take the liberty, with all my respect for the Senator from
Massachusetts, to deny that there is anything in that report
of a whitewashing character.” Mr. Doolittle spoke again:
“I was not pained because the honorable Senator differed
from the President; I knew he differed from the President
on this question; but I was pained, and I confess very much
disappointed, to hear that Senator, as I should be to hear any
other Senator on the floor of the Senate, question the truth,
the integrity, or the patriotism of the President, however much
he might disagree with me in opinion.”

Mr. Sumner spoke again:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I am sorry that I have given pain to honorable friends. I certainly did not intend it. They suggest that a question has been raised as to the policy of the President. I have raised no such question, and have expressed no opinion in regard to it. The Senator from Wisconsin dwells on that point, and reminds the Senate that the policy of the President was not in question. I knew it was not in question, and therefore I expressed no opinion upon it; for, when I speak here, I try to speak directly to the question. There was then no question on the policy of the President. Had there been, I should have been ready to meet it. At the proper time I shall meet it fully, plainly, unequivocally, I trust, as becomes a member of this body.

The only question, then, was on the character of the document just read; and that I exhibited, compendiously, as whitewashing; and then my honorable friends rise, one after the other, and, like two lexicographers, proceed with a definition of “whitewash.” I do not accept their definition. I intended no such thing as either the Senator from Connecticut or the Senator from Wisconsin attempted to impute. I have no reflection to make on the patriotism or the truth of the President. Never, in public or in private, have I made any such reflection, and I do not begin now. When I spoke, it was of the document read at the desk. I characterized it as I thought I ought.

My memory goes back in this Chamber further than that of many about me. I remember that other scene, when a whitewashing message came from Franklin Pierce. We all at that time called it whitewashing; and I am not aware that any one, even on the other side, undertook to play the part that my honorable friends from Wisconsin and Connecticut undertake to perform. The message was so called because we all felt that it was whitewashing; and I undertook at once, to-day, on listening to the document read at the desk, to characterize it precisely as the patriotic party of 1856 characterized the message of Franklin Pierce.

Mr. Dixon added, that, if Mr. Sumner had said that he did
not intend his remarks in an offensive tone, but considered
“whitewashing” a polite and proper word to apply to the message
of the President, he should have accepted his explanation.
Mr. Trumbull expressed a hope “that this unprofitable debate
might cease.” Mr. Fessenden remarked: “This is a mere matter
of definitions, and it ought to be referred to some maker of
dictionaries.”

The motion of Mr. Sherman prevailed without a division, and the
message and accompanying documents were ordered to be printed.

The report of General Schurz was a remarkable document, founded
on an official visit, at the appointment of President Johnson,
and with its accompanying papers occupied more than a hundred
pages.[20] It bristled with testimony, not only from his own
observation, but from that of generals and other officers on
the spot. “An utter absence of national feeling”; “an entire
absence of that national spirit which forms the basis of
true loyalty and patriotism”; “although the freedman is no
longer considered the property of the individual master, he is
considered the slave of society,” with the notion “that the
elevation of the blacks will be the degradation of the whites”;
“the practice of corporal punishment is still continued to a
great extent”; “the habit is so inveterate with a great many
persons as to render, on the least provocation, the impulse to
whip a negro almost irresistible”; “the maiming and killing of
colored men seems to be looked upon by many as one of those
venial offences which must be forgiven to the outraged feelings
of a wronged and robbed people”; “the number of murders and
assaults perpetrated upon negroes is very great”: these are
words of General Schurz. The accompanying testimony supplies
fearful details. All this was painfully inconsistent with the
message of the President and the report of General Grant.

* * * * *

The marked effect of this incident shows the sensitive
condition of the public mind. The word “whitewashing” became a
text for the press on opposite sides. The interest also found
expression in letters.

* * * * *

Wendell Phillips, the orator, always sympathizing with every
earnest word for Human Rights, wrote from Boston:--

“Glorious! just the truth, and just the time and place to
speak it, was your graphic and most effective description
of the President’s message. I say this, not that you need
confirmation, but because, hearing the clamor against you,
it seems right you should have the ‘cheers’ as well as the
‘hisses.’”

Rev. Justin D. Fulton, a successful Baptist preacher, wrote
from Boston:--

“Before I can begin my sermon, I want to send you my thanks
for your noble stand in the Senate of the United States
against the President and for the country. Last Sabbath,
in the great congregation, I publicly thanked God that
you used the word ‘whitewashing.’ The same thing I did in
Albany; the same thing I do now.”

Hon. Thomas Russell, Judge of the Superior Court, and
afterwards Collector of the port of Boston, wrote from Boston:--

“I only write to thank you heartily for your courage and
fidelity. I would say, ‘Go on,’ but that is needless.”

Edward W. Kinsley, a merchant, who never forgot the claims of
Human Rights or of personal friendship, wrote from Boston:--

“I know you are too busy to read any letter from me; but I
cannot let the day pass without thanking you for the course
you are taking in the Senate this session. Thank God, we
have one man on the watch-tower who will not slumber or
sleep.”

Hon. Samuel E. Sewall, the able lawyer and Abolitionist, wrote
from Boston:--

“I do not know any man who is doing so much for the
country, in the present crisis, as you are by your speeches
and writings. We are all here watching the course of
Congress with the deepest anxiety.”

Nathaniel Moody, always on the side of Humanity, wrote from
Chelsea, Massachusetts:--

“Permit me, as one of your constituents, to thank you for
the noble stand you have taken in regard to Reconstruction,
which I regard of quite as much importance as was the
persistent prosecution of the war just brought to a
successful conclusion. I did expect no less from you,
considering your former great efforts in the true cause of
Humanity.”

Mrs. John Davis, widow of Mr. Sumner’s first colleague in the
Senate, wrote from Worcester, Massachusetts:--

“We hope the whitewashing is over, and that common sense,
to say nothing of justice, will resume the sway.”

Rev. George N. Richardson wrote from Westborough,
Massachusetts:--

“You are bearing yourself so bravely and faithfully in
behalf of a cause very dear to me, that it is the impulse
of my heart to thank and bless you.”

Rev. Richard S. Storrs, the eminent Congregational clergyman,
wrote from Braintree, Massachusetts:--

“It must be a great satisfaction to you to know that
you have the unlimited confidence and sympathy of your
constituents; and I am sure you have the approval of all
loyal men and _angels_, while struggling against the
devices of the arch enemy of God and man.”

Rev. J. R. W. Sloane, a pastor of the Presbyterian Church,
wrote from New York:--

“To yourself and Thaddeus Stevens the nation is now
looking as the defenders of Truth and Justice. Thanks for
your just rebuke of the President’s ‘whitewashing’ message.
The statements of this paper are directly in the face of
what I know to be the state of things in the South. I
rejoice that it did not pass unrebuked.”

E. Burt wrote earnestly from Cleveland, Ohio:--

“Thanks be to our Heavenly Father, dear Sir, that there are
no Brookses in Congress this year, to raise their canes
over any man’s head. Now, Sir, my prayer is, that God may
give you strength to do your duty this year, as no other
man in or out of Congress can do it; for no other man has
shown up the barbarism of Slavery like yourself. Sir, when
but a few days ago you asked the reading of Carl Schurz’s
report, and it was not granted, my blood started with such
a rush in my veins that I could hardly contain myself.
‘What!’ said I, ‘has it come to this, after the loss of so
many of the most valuable lives of our dear countrymen, so
much of blood and treasure?’”

Thomas D. Hoxsey wrote from Paterson, New Jersey:--

“You have to fight your old battle over again, and I only
hope and trust that you may have the physical health to
stand firm where your late speeches place you.”

Colonel Wentworth Higginson, who served so well at the head of
colored troops, and does such honor to American literature,
in a letter from Newport, Rhode Island, thanking Mr. Sumner
for speeches, added, “especially that one word _whitewashing_,
which was the best speech of all.”

* * * * *

These brief utterances illustrate the sentiment beginning to
prevail. The issue with the President, already foreseen, had
come.

ENFRANCHISEMENT AND PROTECTION OF FREEDMEN.

ACTUAL CONDITION OF THE REBEL STATES.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL TO MAINTAIN FREEDOM IN THOSE STATES, DECEMBER 20, 1865.

On the day after the “whitewashing” incident, Mr. Sumner
seized an opportunity of setting forth the actual condition
of the States lately in rebellion, and the duty of Congress
with regard to them. He took the floor on a bill, introduced
by his colleague, Mr. Wilson, “to maintain the freedom of
the inhabitants in the States declared in insurrection and
rebellion by the Proclamation of the President of the first of
July, 1862,” and spoke as follows.

MR. PRESIDENT,--When I think of what occurred yesterday in this Chamber, when I call to mind the attempt to whitewash the unhappy condition of the Rebel States, and to throw the mantle of official oblivion over sickening and heartrending outrages, where Human Rights are sacrificed and Rebel Barbarism receives a new letter of license, I feel that I ought to speak of nothing else. Years ago, in the days of Kansas, I stood here when one small community was surrendered to the machinations of slave-masters. I stand here again, when, alas! an immense region, with millions of people, is surrendered to the machinations of slave-masters. Sir, it is the duty of Congress to arrest this fatal fury. Congress must dare to be brave; it must dare to be just. I shall not be diverted from the question before the Senate, although, in unfolding the necessity of present legislation for the protection of freedmen, I shall be led necessarily and logically to speak of the condition of the Rebel States.

All must admit that the bill of my colleague is excellent in purpose. It proposes nothing less than to establish Equality before the Law, at least so far as civil rights are concerned, in the Rebel States. This is done simply to carry out and maintain the Proclamation of Emancipation, by which the Republic is solemnly pledged to “maintain” the emancipated slave in freedom. Here is our pledge: “The Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and _maintain the freedom of said persons_.” The pledge is without limitation in space or time. It is as extended and as immortal as the Republic itself. Does anybody call it vain words? I trust not. To that pledge we are solemnly bound. Wherever our flag floats, as long as time endures, we must see that it is sacredly observed.

The performance of this pledge cannot be intrusted to another; least of all can it be intrusted to ancient slave-masters, embittered against the slave. It must be performed by the National Government. The power that gave freedom must see that freedom is maintained. This is according to reason. It is also according to examples of history. In the British West Indies we find this teaching. Three of England’s greatest orators and statesmen, Burke, Canning, and Brougham, at successive periods united in declaring, from experience in the British West Indies, that whatever the slave-masters undertook to do for their slaves was always “arrant trifling,” and that, whatever might be its plausible form, it always wanted “an executory principle.”[21] More recently the Emperor of Russia, when ordering Emancipation, declared that all efforts of his predecessors in this direction had failed, because left to “the spontaneous initiative of the proprietors.” I might say much more on this head, but this is enough. I assume that no such blunder will be made by us,--that we shall not leave to the old proprietors the maintenance of that freedom to which we are pledged, and thus break our own promises and sacrifice a race.

* * * * *

Elsewhere I have alluded to Emancipation in Russia.[22] But the example is worthy our deepest study, unless we purposely reject history. All know that in 1861 the Emperor by solemn proclamation gave freedom to upward of twenty-three million serfs; but it is not generally known by what supplementary provisions this freedom was assured.

I have in my hands an official copy of this great act, published at St. Petersburg, by which it is declared that the serfs, after an interval of two years, are “entirely enfranchised.”[23] Under this Proclamation, a new set of local magistrates is constituted, with “special court” and “justices of the peace” in each district, to superintend the working of the Proclamation, and to examine on the spot all questions arising from Emancipation. The provision is not unlike our Bureau of Freedmen, which is vindicated by this example.

The good work did not stop here. The Emperor did not leave the freedmen without protection, handed over to the tender mercies of former owners. By a careful series of “Regulations” accompanying the Proclamation, prepared with minutest care, and divided into chapters and sections, their rights are secured beyond question. A copy of this remarkable document shows it to be a model for generous imitation.

These “Regulations” begin with a formal declaration, that the freedmen by the act of Emancipation “acquire the rights belonging to free farmers.” The language is general. It is “the rights of free farmers,” not in certain particulars, but in all particulars,--not merely in exemption from the authority of their masters, but in complete enfranchisement. Surely this is an example for us.

The “Regulations” then proceed in formal words to fix and assure these rights, civil and political. They are not left to inference or to future discussion, but positively declared with all possible detail.

By one section the freedman is secured in all his _rights of family_ and _rights of contract_, as follows:--

“The articles of the Civil Code on the rights and obligations
of the family are extended to the freedmen; consequently they
acquire the right, without the authorization of the proprietor,
to contract marriage, and to make any arrangement whatever
concerning their family affairs; they can equally enter into
all agreements and obligations authorized by the laws, as
well with the state as with individuals, on the conditions
established for free farmers; they can inscribe themselves in
the guilds, and exercise their trades in the villages; and they
can found and conduct factories and establishments of commerce.”

Here is a beautiful example for us.

By another section the freedman is secured in _rights of property_. He may acquire and alienate property of all kinds, according to the general law; and, besides, “the possession of the homestead” on which he has lived is guarantied to him on certain conditions. Here is another example for us.

By further provision the freedman is secured complete _Equality in the courts_:--

“He shall have the right of action, whether civilly or
criminally, to commence process, and to answer personally or by
attorney, to make complaint, and to defend his rights by all
the means known to the law, _and to appear as witness and as
bail conformably to the common law_.”

Mark these words. He may appear “as witness and as bail.” It is an example for us.

By other provisions the freedman is secured _Equality in political rights_, according to the measure of such rights in Russia, thus:--

“On the organization of the towns, he shall be entitled to take
part in the meetings and elections for the towns, and to vote
on town affairs, and to exercise divers functions; and he shall
also take part in assemblies for the district, and shall vote
on district affairs, and choose the chairman.”

From all the provisions on this head it appears that the freedman enjoys rights to choose local officers, and to be chosen in turn. Here also is an example for us.

By still another section the freedman is secured _Equality at school and in education_, thus:--

“He may place his children in the establishments for
public education, to embrace the career of instruction or
the scientific career, or to take service in the corps of
surveyors.”

Here again is an example for us.

Then, still further, for the general protection of the freedman, it is provided that he “cannot lose his rights, or be restrained in their exercise, except after the judgment of the town according to fixed rules”; and still further, that he “cannot be subjected to any punishment, otherwise than by notice of a judgment, or according to the legal decision of the town to which he belongs.” Here, too, is an example for us.

Thus does Russia, by careful provisions, supplementary to the act of Emancipation, assure her freedmen in all their rights: first, the right of family and the right of contract; secondly, the right of property, including a homestead; thirdly, complete Equality in the courts; fourthly, Equality in political rights; fifthly, Equality at school and in education; and, finally, all these precious safeguards are crowned by declaring that they cannot lose their rights, or be punished, except after judgment according to fixed rules: thus completely fulfilling that requirement of our fathers, that government should be “a government of laws, and not of men.”[24]

I trust that this grand example is none the less worthy of imitation because from an empire which is not supposed to sympathize with liberal ideas. The Republic cannot in this respect lag behind the Empire. Besides, all that we hear shows that the experiment has been successful. An experiment inspired so completely by the spirit of justice cannot fail.

My colleague is right in introducing his bill and pressing it to a vote. The argument for it is irresistible. It is essential to complete Emancipation. Without it Emancipation will be only _half done_. It is our duty to see that it is wholly done. Slavery must be abolished not in form only, but in substance, so that there shall be no Black Code, but all shall be Equal before the Law.

As to the power of Congress over this question, I cannot doubt it. My colleague assumes the power, without tracing it to any particular source. It may be a military power, precisely as the Proclamation of Emancipation,--and here the authority is as clear and absolute as in the District of Columbia; or it may be in pursuance of the Constitutional Amendment, which provides that Congress may “enforce this Article by appropriate legislation”; or it may be to carry out the guaranty of a republican form of government.

There are measures of my own, already introduced by me, now on your table, looking to the same result as the pending bill, which proceed specifically on the two latter grounds.

One of these is entitled “A bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery,” from which I read two sections.

Here Mr. Sumner read sections 3 and 4, as given on a previous
page.[25]

This bill proceeds on the idea that the Amendment is now part of the Constitution to all intents and purposes. And who can doubt this? Already it is adopted by three fourths of the States having Legislatures,--in other words, by “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.” The States having no Legislatures at the time of its proposition by Congress cannot be counted. Of what value is the enforced consent of disloyal and barbarous bodies pretending to act for certain States at the dictation of military power? Military power may govern during the war; but it is impotent to make a republican State, or to adopt an Amendment of the Constitution.

Another bill introduced by me, and now on the table, is founded on the guaranty clause. I give its title: “A bill in part execution of the guaranty of a Republican form of Government in the Constitution of the United States.”[26]

Both these bills are broader even than that of my colleague; for they point to the absolute obliteration of all legal discriminations founded on color, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box; and to this conclusion we must come at last. But I confess that I feel the dignity, the grandeur, and the substantial value which would be found in a declaration of Congress, that an oligarchical government, denying rights to a whole race, undertaking to tax without representation, and discarding “the consent of the governed” as its just foundation, cannot be “republican.”

The most explicit, the most positive, the most mandatory words in the Constitution are, “The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” This great duty is thrown not upon any individual branch of the Government, but upon the United States. It is a duty to “guaranty”--which in itself is a strong term--what? A republican form of government. Now, by the lapse of State governments in the Rebel States, this duty is cast upon the United States. But the United States are represented in Congress, or rather by Act of Congress, which in itself is the embodied will of both Houses and of the President. Congress must, therefore, determine what is a republican form of government. Into this question I do not now enter. At the proper time I hope to consider it.[27] For the present I content myself with the remark, that it is absurd to say that a community founded on oligarchical pretensions, excluding from all participation in the government any considerable proportion of its tax-paying citizens, and ignoring the consent of the governed, can be considered a republican form of government. On this proposition I hope to be heard at an early day. Here is one of the greatest questions of our history.

* * * * *

After this brief review of the object to be accomplished, I am brought to consider the practical necessity of such legislation; and here it is my duty to expose the actual condition of the Rebel States, especially as regards loyalty and the treatment of the freedmen. On this head I shall adduce evidence in my possession. In the endeavor to bring what I say within reasonable proportions, I shall adduce only a small part of what has passed under my eye; but it will be more than enough. In bringing it forward, the difficulty is of selection and abridgment.

I begin with something relating to the condition of the Rebel States generally, and shall then consider the different States successively.

And now, first, as to the Rebel States generally. I know no testimony that has found its way to the public, with regard to the general condition of the South, which will compare in value with a series of letters by A. Warren Kelsey, a business agent of character and intelligence above question, who has travelled through the Rebel States. His communications with his employers show singular powers of observation, and are expressed with great clearness. Of course I can give only a few extracts.

“In travelling about, as I have, from one section of the
country to the other, I have been able to compare opinions,
and, as you know, I have had peculiar and favorable
opportunities for ascertaining the views they have in common.
I have endeavored to trace the motives from which they have
acted and which now animate them, and their _real_ purpose
for the future, if they have one. In giving you my opinion
now, it is proper to say that I have taken no one individual
as a criterion of the whole, and have judged them only by
the opinions I find they are generally agreed upon; neither
have I any one’s statement for their thoughts and actions. My
opinions, deductions, and conclusions are derived from my own
experience and observation among them, and, whether they shall
be confirmed or denied by others, are, notwithstanding, my
honest and sincere convictions.

…

“While I am able to say that they have made up their minds
that Emancipation is a fact, and not to be avoided, I am
obliged to state my earnest opinion, that, so far as secession
is concerned,--that is, the doctrine of State Rights,--it is
more deeply rooted than ever among them. They are perfectly
united in the belief that the division of this country is
both right from a moral stand-point and politic as a measure
of expediency. They have simply changed their base from the
battle-field to the ballot-box, believing, as they very frankly
admit, that greater triumphs await them there than they could
ever hope for in the field. In almost every house hangs the
old, worn Confederate uniform, which is displayed with pride
and satisfaction to all comers. So far from repenting of the
stand they took, they glory in it. They regret the result, and
their non-success, it is true, but not one in a thousand will
admit they were in the wrong.

…

“They argue that at least ninety-five in every two hundred
votes at the North are sure to be thrown in their favor, and
they can now rule the Union by giving up, which is cheaper
than to persist in their idea of a separate government. That
idea, however, is only laid aside for a time. Every boy at the
South is being educated in the belief that the relations the
South to-day sustains toward the North are the same as those of
Hungary or Venetia toward Austria, or of Poland to Russia. They
bide their time. They have adopted for their motto, ‘Patience,
and shuffle the cards.’ The snake, so far from being killed, is
barely ‘scotched.’ Meantime they deem it better to rule in the
Union than to serve in the Confederate army.

…

“As to their affection for their military leaders, you will
find proof in the elections at Richmond and South Carolina.
No man has a better claim to their sympathy, and none stand a
better chance of election, than those who were the last to give
up. Motives of policy may induce them to nominate others, but
the fact remains as I have stated. I repeat, that General Lee
and Wade Hampton are the two most popular and best loved men in
the South to-day. I have heard but one disparaging remark made
of General Lee since I was at the South, and that was in this
connection. I was riding one night in a hack across the gap
in a railway, made by Wilson, and, as usual, the conversation
turned on political affairs and the condition and prospects of
the Southern people. One man said that General Lee stood the
best chance for the next Presidency,--by the way, that is a
very prevalent idea here at the South,--when another remarked
that he would rather have Andrew Johnson. I was curious to
know why, and inquired. He replied, that ‘he had but little
confidence in Lee since he favored negro soldiers, and in his
opinion he was not much better than a Black Republican.’

…

“At present every one at the South is occupied in his personal
and family interests. There are no political parties,--very
little coherence of opinion as to the policy best to be
pursued. But I find among the knowing ones, particularly
those who have been on to the North, and remained some time
in New York or Washington, a sanguine belief that they can
easily resume the reins of office; and these men are the only
Unionists in the South to-day. You can depend upon it, that
the Southern States in the future will present one solid,
unanimous front; their leaders have them well in hand. And
this is precisely what ninety-nine in every hundred of the
men, women, and children believe sincerely as to the situation
to-day: first, that the South of right possesses, and always
possessed, the right of secession; secondly, that the war only
proved that the North was the strongest; thirdly, that Negro
Slavery was and is right, but has been abolished by the war.
The Southerners are too smart not to see that Slavery is dead,
but many of them hope as long as the black race exists here
to be able to hold it in a condition of practical serfdom.
All expect the negro will be killed in one way or another by
Emancipation. The policy of those who will eventually become
the leaders here at the South is, for the present, to accept
the best they can get, to acquiesce in anything and everything,
but to strain every nerve to regain the political power and
ascendency they held under Buchanan. This they believe cannot
be postponed longer than up to the next Presidential election.
They will do all in their power to resist Negro Suffrage,
to reduce taxation and expenditures, and would attack the
national debt, if they saw any reason to believe repudiation
possible. They will continue to assert the inferiority of the
African; and they would to-day, if possible, precipitate the
United States into a foreign war, believing they could then
reassert and obtain their independence. They will, most of
them, take any oaths you may cause to be adopted, and break
them immediately, and without scruple. In one word, this people
have placed themselves in resolute antagonism to the North,
and _this_ generation, at least, will always hate the Northern
people, while the boys are being educated to the same idea.

…

“On the whole, looking at the affair from all sides, it amounts
to just this: if the Northern people are content to be ruled
over by the Southerners, they will continue in the Union; if
not, the first chance they get, they will rise again.”[28]

Other testimony is in harmony. For instance, a trustworthy traveller, who has recently traversed the Gulf States, thus writes in a private letter to myself:--

“The former masters exhibit a most cruel, remorseless, and
vindictive spirit toward the colored people. In parts where
there are no Union soldiers I saw colored women treated in
the most outrageous manner. They have no rights that are
respected. They are killed, and their bodies thrown into ponds
or mud-holes. They are mutilated by having ears and noses cut
off.”