Chapter V: Section 2: Debts and liabilities incurred in aid of rebellion are (1)

without any just consideration, and void; and no tax, duty, or impost shall be laid, nor shall any appropriation of money be made by the United States, or by any one of the States, or by any county, town, or corporation therein, for the payment of any such debt or liability, or any part thereof.

June 20th, Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Committee on the
Judiciary, reported this to the Senate, with the recommendation
that it be indefinitely postponed, and it was so postponed.
Meanwhile both Houses had adopted the Fourteenth Constitutional
Amendment, reported by the Joint Select Committee on
Reconstruction, which contains a kindred proposition.

KIDNAPPING OF FREEDMEN.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION OF INQUIRY, JANUARY 9, 1866.

January 9th, Mr. Sumner offered the following resolution:--

“Whereas it is reported that persons declared free by the
Proclamation of Emancipation and by the recent Amendment of
the Constitution are now kidnapped and transported to Cuba
and Brazil, to be held as slaves, and that in this way a
new slave-trade has been commenced on our southern coast:
Therefore,

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be
directed to inquire if any further legislation is needed to
prevent the kidnapping of freedmen and the revival of the
slave-trade on our southern coast.”

The Senate proceeded to its consideration, when Mr. Sumner
explained it.

Before the vote is taken, I desire to state some of the information that has come to my possession. For instance, here is a letter from Alabama, from which I will read a short extract.

“Another big trade is going on,--that of running negroes to
Cuba and Brazil. They are running through the country, dressed
in Yankee clothes, hiring men, giving them any price they
ask, to make turpentine on the bay, sometimes on the rivers,
sometimes to make sugar. They get them on the cars. Of course
the negro don’t know where he is going. They get him to the
bay, and tell him to go on the steamer to go around the coast,
and away goes poor Cuffee to slavery again. They are just
cleaning out this section of the country of the likeliest men
and women in it. Federal officers are mixed up in it, too.”

* * * * *

MR. JOHNSON [of Maryland]. Who writes the letter? Give the name
of the writer.

MR. SUMNER. It is from a person in Alabama, whose name I am requested not to communicate; but the writer is well known to members of the other House. I have also a letter from the District Judge of Florida,--his name is familiar, and will be found in the official lists of the country,--communicating a letter received from a person well known to him, and for whom he vouches, in Florida, dated December 14, 1865, from which I read a brief extract.

“I am advised that certain parties here intend to make a
business of importing negroes into Cuba. It is said that there
have gone two vessel-loads of them already. Titus & Co. have
bought a steamer for the ostensible purpose of carrying fish
from Indian River to Charleston, but most people think that his
will be carried the other way. There have been more gunboats
ordered down in that region to look out for the fishmongers.”

Here are two letters from different States, Alabama and Florida. Add also verbal communications received during the last week from Texas, from Louisiana, and from Mississippi, three other States, all to the same effect, that in each of those States a system of kidnapping has already been commenced, and a new slave-trade started on that coast. I do not know that the laws on our statute-book are sufficient to meet this untold enormity. I desire that our Committee, in which we repose such confidence, should apply themselves to it, and see if there is any remedy for this terrible crime. I desire, also, that every branch of the Government should do its duty in this business: that the Department of State should address all its agents in Cuba and in Brazil, requiring them to look after the liberty of these people, to which we are pledged; that the Navy Department should forward proper instructions to our cruisers; that the War Department should send proper instructions to our troops in that region; and that the President himself should take notice of this unexpected enormity of outrage, and see to it that everything possible is done to arrest it.

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, thought it “altogether probable that
the Yankees have reopened the slave-trade.”

The resolution was adopted.

* * * * *

February 7th, Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, from the Judiciary
Committee, reported “A Bill to prevent and punish Kidnapping,”
which he stated was upon a resolution introduced by Mr. Sumner.
February 15th, the Senate proceeded to its consideration, and
it passed that body.

May 18th, the bill passed the House of Representatives, and,
May 21st, it was approved by the President.[35]

THE LATE HENRY WINTER DAVIS.

ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK INDEPENDENT, JANUARY 11, 1866.

The death of Henry Winter Davis at this moment is a national calamity. His rare powers were in their perfect prime, and he had dedicated all to his country. At this crisis, when the best statesmanship, inspired by the best courage, is so much needed, it is hard to part with him.

He was born at Annapolis, Maryland, August 16, 1817; was a Representative of Baltimore in the Thirty-Fourth, Thirty-Fifth, Thirty-Sixth, and Thirty-Eighth Congresses; died in Baltimore, December 30, 1865. His career in Congress made him famous.

Nature had done much for this remarkable man. Elegant in person, elastic in step, and winning in manner, he arrested the attention of all who saw him, and when he spoke, the first impressions were confirmed. He was rapid and direct. He went straight to the point. He abounded in ideas. Language lent her charms. Among the living orators of the country he had few peers. Professional studies and political experience added to his powers. Had he lived, I know not what height he might have reached. Never before had he been so completely master of himself, and never before did he see so clear and glorious a line of duty. As the occasion was vast, so I doubt not would have been his efforts. He looked to nothing less than the complete enfranchisement of his country, and the redemption of all the promises of our fathers in the Declaration of Independence. In this cause he was a leader.

In a recent publication[36] he had touched this great question to the quick, when he said that a State which denied the elective franchise to a considerable portion of its citizens could not be considered “a republican government,” and he earnestly insisted that all such States should be reformed. He was right. All honor to the champion! Alas that he is not here to help in the battle now at hand! With what force and beauty, with what intensity and eloquence, he would have illustrated the congenial theme!

He was zealous, and, like all zealous men, when great questions are in issue, sometimes gave offence. It is hard to strike strong blows without leaving bruises. It is hard to restrain the rage of a generous indignation so that it will not seem severe. There are times when justice is severity. There are times when gentleness will not do. Falkland, in England, and Barnave, in France, were gentle in nature. Honor them for their virtues, but do not expect everybody to carry into the deadly controversy with Slavery that softness which must surely fail. Sterner stuff is needed. Fox had a heart which overflowed with human kindness, like that of our friend; but when duty called, he was terrible in debate. Words boiled and bubbled from his wrought soul, and he did not hesitate to call things by their right names. On one occasion this great parliamentary orator exclaimed: “I state it to be my firm opinion that there is not one fact asserted in his Majesty’s speech which is not false, not one assertion or insinuation which is not unfounded.”[37] On another occasion he said, in words which I seem almost to hear from the lips of the late Representative of Baltimore: “Oh for the good old parliamentary word _jealousy_, instead of its modern substitute, _confidence_!” This was the exclamation of Charles James Fox. It embodies the spirit of Henry Winter Davis. There were things he could not bear. His warm nature glowed at the thought of wrong or usurpation; nor could he check the currents of his soul, even if they threatened to dash against persons powerful in place or influence. A President like Abraham Lincoln was not above his honest, fearless criticism.

His country owes much to him. Living in a State which panted with the throes of the Rebellion, and surrounded by a disloyal population, he was from the beginning austere in patriotism. He made no compromises. He stood by the flag at all hazards. And as the conflict deepened, he was among the foremost to see that Slavery was the great Rebel. Against Slavery he struck. He had the inexpressible satisfaction to witness the first stages of its overthrow, and he was girding himself for the final battle with the transcendent offender under the new form it assumed. In striking against Slavery, he set an example to his fellow-citizens everywhere. If he, whose home was in a Slave State, and whose friends were slave-masters, could strike such blows, it was hard to see how citizens of other places, where Slavery did not prevail, could hesitate. Hereafter, when recent events are recorded in faithful annals, his name will be mentioned proudly and gratefully.

There is one community that will cherish his memory with especial reverence. It is his native State of Maryland. Among all the sons she has given to the country, there is none who can be named before him. I do not forget William Pinkney, the finished lawyer, or Charles Carroll, the signer of the Declaration of Independence; but there is nothing in the career of either of these to evince superiority over that of Henry Winter Davis. Hereafter, when Maryland is fully redeemed, and a happy people rejoices in all the manifold blessings secured, then will hearts throb and eyes glisten at the mention of this noble name. Better for his memory than any triumph of genius at the bar will be his devoted championship of Human Freedom. Maryland may not now be ready to do fit honor to her departed son; but the time cannot be long postponed. Her advance in civilization may well be measured by sympathy with his name.

POSTSCRIPT.

Since writing this tribute to an heroic spirit, I have received a journal from Baltimore, published by colored persons, which contains his best eulogy. Such praise is more than any other praise, for it comes from neighbors and wards who knew him well, and it is the voice of that oppressed race he had served so faithfully. Better than any official order of mourning are these artless, feeling words:--

“We are sorely grieved to chronicle the death of so great and
good a man as Hon. Henry Winter Davis, who departed this life
on Saturday, 30th ult., 1865, after a short illness of about
three days. Mr. Davis was an accomplished gentleman, a true
patriot, and a finished statesman. He was true to his country,
and _a tried friend_ to the colored people,--_never_ faltering
in the time of need. In Congress he fought as a hero for our
people, and at home he labored assiduously for the bondman, and
espoused the cause of _Liberty, Justice, and Truth_, up to the
time of his death. The memory of Henry Winter Davis should live
in every colored American’s heart for ages to come, and _all_
loyal citizens should give his very interesting family their
full sympathy; for Henry Winter Davis, at _his own_ peril,
stood invincible for his country, knew no flag but the flag of
_free_ America, even when his nearest friend would impeach him
for his acts, and almost threaten his life. Henry Winter Davis
was _firm_, defying all prejudiced parties to dare advance;
but he was such a statesman and elocutionist, he kept them at
bay, until God, in His own time, has seen it His pleasure to
remove him from our midst; and we humble beings can do nothing
but trust that God, in His all-wise and tender mercy, may raise
erelong another Henry Winter Davis.”

DISFRANCHISEMENT INCONSISTENT WITH REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON THE CREDENTIALS OF A SENATOR FROM FLORIDA, JANUARY 19, 1866.

January 19th, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, presented the
credentials of Hon. William Marvin as Senator of Florida. Mr.
Sumner, seizing the occasion to declare what he thought an
essential element of republican government to be observed in
Reconstruction, said:--

I have no desire to discuss the question arising on the presentation of these credentials, and I may say that there are reasons for the expression of personal respect toward the gentleman who appears as Senator from Florida. In many particulars--not in all, unhappily--he has done well where he was placed. I say, unhappily not in all particulars; for no person can read his speeches and say that in everything he has done what a governor of one of those States at this time should do. But I have no desire to discuss his case.

The Senator has alluded to the actual condition of Florida. I also ask attention to the actual condition of things there, as represented by thoroughly competent witnesses, whose character is vouched by the first citizens of that State.

Mr. Sumner here read two communications, mentioning that
four fifths of the Legislature were Rebel officers, and
setting forth the programme of the Rebel States hostile to
Reconstruction, and declaring that the only hope of Union men
was in Congress. He then said:--

There, Sir, is testimony direct from Florida. Besides, we have the Constitution which the recent pretended Convention has put forward,--a Constitution which, after recognizing the abolition of Slavery, and therefore the citizenship of those once slaves, proceeds to decree their disfranchisement; and Senators are expected to receive this document as creating a republican form of government,--a Constitution which begins by the denial of equality to nearly one half its citizens! The question is entirely changed since the abolition of Slavery, for all are now citizens; and I insist, and at a proper time shall argue the question, that no State, where the government has lapsed, can be recognized as republican in form, while disfranchising any considerable portion of its citizens, especially if it founds any right, immunity, or privilege on color.

The credentials were laid on the table, and never afterwards
considered.

IMPANELLING OF JURIES, AND TRIAL OF JEFFERSON DAVIS.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A BILL REMOVING CERTAIN OBJECTIONS TO JURORS, JANUARY 22, 1866.

Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, called up a bill, reported by
the Judiciary Committee, “in relation to the qualifications
of jurors and to writs of error in certain cases.” The first
section removed the objection to jurors serving in certain
cases by reason of having formed or expressed an opinion
founded upon common notoriety, public rumor, or statements in
public journals. The other section provided a writ of error on
questions of law, where the punishment was death.

Mr. Sumner remarked:--

I see no objection to the second section. Here I agree with the Senator from New Hampshire. I am not so sure about the first section. There seem to me two objections to it. Whether they are sufficiently strong to justify the rejection of the bill will be for the Senate to determine. I simply call attention to them.

The first is, that it positively sets aside what, down to this day, on the ruling of the highest magistrate of our country, has been the law in impanelling juries. To this the Senator aptly replies, that it is important to obtain uniformity of practice in the United States courts. There I agree with him. If the proposition involved nothing else, I should not venture even a suggestion with regard to it; but it reaches further. It sets aside what my friend, the learned Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] knows well was the decision of Chief Justice Marshall, and what has been also the practice in many States of the Union. It is the practice in my own State. It is the practice also in the District of Columbia. Against that practice I can venture only with a certain hesitation.

Then comes another consideration of greater importance. So far as I comprehend the special bearing of this provision, it is to meet an actual case of unprecedented historical importance; it is to prepare the way for the trial of that grandest criminal in the world’s history, now in the custody of the National Government. Sir, that trial should be approached carefully, most discreetly, and I humbly submit, unless reasons to the contrary are found of the strongest character, with absolute reference to the existing law of the land. I shrink from any change in the law to meet an individual case, even though of transcendent importance, like that to which I refer. Indeed, the very importance of the case, and especially its political character, puts us on our guard.

I would also ask whether there is not in the proposition something of an _ex post facto_ character. I am not going to argue against the power of Congress to make changes in modes of procedure and of trial after the crime has been perpetrated; but I cannot doubt, that, in view of the positive limitation of the Constitution, it is a very doubtful course to enter upon.

Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, who was not disposed to agree with
Mr. Sumner, said: “I certainly very heartily approve of
the opinions and sentiments expressed by the Senator from
Massachusetts.”

The bill was postponed, and allowed to drop.

CARRYING OUT THE GUARANTY OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY.

JOINT RESOLUTION IN THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 2, 1866.

The following joint resolution, introduced February 2d, is
a modification of a bill introduced at the beginning of the
session.[38]

Joint Resolution carrying out the guaranty of a Republican Form of Government in the Constitution of the United States, and enforcing the Constitutional Amendment for the Prohibition of Slavery.

Whereas it is provided in the Constitution, that the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government;

And whereas, by reason of the failure of certain States to maintain governments which Congress can recognize, it has become the duty of the United States, standing in the place of guarantor where the principal has made a lapse, to secure to such States, according to the requirement of the guaranty, governments republican in form;

And whereas, further, it is provided in a recent Constitutional Amendment, that Congress may “enforce” the prohibition of Slavery by “appropriate legislation,” and it is important to this end that all relics of Slavery should be removed, including all distinction of rights on account of color:

Now, therefore, to carry out the guaranty of a republican form of government, and to enforce the prohibition of Slavery,

_Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That in all States lately declared to be in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or monopoly invested with peculiar privileges or powers, and there shall be no denial of rights, civil or political, on account of race or color; but all persons shall be equal before the law, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box. And this statute, made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the land, anything in the Constitution or laws of any such State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The joint resolution was printed and laid on the table. Mr.
Sumner gave notice that at the proper time he should move it
as a counter proposition to the resolution of the House of
Representatives proposing a Constitutional Amendment.[39]

THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL: THE GREAT GUARANTY AND PRESENT NECESSITY, FOR THE SAKE OF SECURITY, AND TO MAINTAIN A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE CONSTITUTION FIXING THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION, FEBRUARY 5 AND 6, 1866. WITH APPENDIX.

Taxation without representation is Tyranny.--THE REVOLUTIONARY
FATHERS.

* * * * *

Remember, O my friends, the laws, the rights,
The generous plan of power delivered down
From age to age by your renowned forefathers,
So dearly bought, the price of so much blood:
Oh, let it never perish in your hands!”

ADDISON, _Cato_, Act III. Scene 5.

* * * * *

But if any among you thinks that Philip will maintain his
power by having occupied forts and havens and the like, this
is a mistake.… Impossible is it, impossible, Athenians, to
acquire a solid power by injustice and perjury and falsehood.
Such things last for once, or for a short period; maybe, they
blossom fairly with hope; but in time they are discovered and
drop away. As a house, a ship, or the like, ought to have the
lower parts firmest, so in human conduct, I ween, the principle
and foundation should be just and true.--DEMOSTHENES, _Second
Olynthiac_, tr. Kennedy.

* * * * *

Yet ye say, The way of the Lord is not equal. Hear now, O
house of Israel! Is not my way equal? are not your ways
unequal?--EZEKIEL, xviii. 25.

* * * * *

’Twere better, O my son,
To cultivate Equality, who joins
Friends, cities, heroes in one steadfast league;
For by the laws of Nature through the world
Equality was established: …
Equality, among the human race,
Measures and weights and numbers hath ordained.

EURIPIDES, _The Phœnician Damsels_, tr. Wodhull.

* * * * *

That all might free and equal all remain.

LUCAN, _Pharsalia_, tr. Rowe, Book IX. 336.

* * * * *

Upon what principle is it that the slaves shall be computed
in the representation? Are they men? Then make them citizens,
and let them vote.--GOUVERNEUR MORRIS: _Debates in the Federal
Convention_, August 8, 1787: Madison Papers, Vol. III. p. 1264.

* * * * *

He took his ground carefully, and propounded only what he felt
sure that Hardy himself would at once accept,--what no man
of any worth could possibly take exception to. He meant much
more, he said, than this, but for the present purpose it would
be enough for him to say, that, whatever else it might mean,
_Democracy in his mouth always meant that every man should have
a share in the government of his country_.--HUGHES, _Tom Brown
at Oxford_, Vol. II. Chap. XIX.

* * * * *

The Equal Rights of the colored race occupied the constant
attention of Congress in different forms. One measure was
known as the Civil Rights Bill, securing the right to sue and
testify in court, introduced by Mr. Trumbull January 5, and
passed April 9, 1866. Others were intended to secure suffrage
for colored citizens in the District of Columbia and generally
in the Rebel States. The efforts of Mr. Sumner were applicable
to all these measures. He insisted always upon the equal title
of all to rights of white citizens, whether civil or political,
and he wished to act directly. Not doubting the plenary powers
of Congress to provide for the equal rights of all, political
as well as civil, especially since the Constitutional Amendment
prohibiting Slavery, he pressed action by “appropriate
legislation.”

Meanwhile the House of Representatives undertook to meet
the Suffrage question indirectly, and by a proposition for
an Amendment of the Constitution, reported by Hon. Thaddeus
Stevens from the Joint Committee on Reconstruction. Proceeding
originally from Hon. James G. Blaine, a Representative from
Maine, afterwards Speaker, it was known familiarly as “the
Blaine Amendment.” After elaborate discussion, the joint
resolution containing the Amendment was adopted by the House,
January 31st,--Yeas 120, Nays 46,--in the following terms:--

“Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union according
to their respective numbers, counting the whole number
of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed:
_Provided_, That, whenever the elective franchise shall
be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or
color, all persons therein of such race or color shall be
excluded from the basis of representation.”

Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, who was the Senate Chairman of the
Joint Committee on Reconstruction, promptly gave notice that
he should call for its consideration in the Senate February
5th. This opened the whole subject in all its branches, and Mr.
Sumner seized the earliest opportunity to discuss it, beginning
the important debate. His speech, after asserting the equal
rights of all, vindicated the plenary powers of Congress,
especially under the clause requiring the United States to
guaranty a republican form of government. Though made on the
Constitutional Amendment, it was equally applicable to Mr.
Trumbull’s Civil Rights Bill, then pending, as also to the Bill
for Enfranchisement in the District of Columbia, and to all
measures of Reconstruction.

SPEECH.

MR. PRESIDENT,--I begin by expressing my acknowledgments to the Senator from Maine, who yields the floor to-day, and also my sincere regret that anything should interfere with the opening of this debate by him. It is his right, and I enter upon it now only by his indulgence.

I am not insensible to the responsibility assumed in setting myself against a proposition already adopted in the other House, and having the recommendation of a Committee to which the country looks with such just expectation, and to which, let me say, I look with so much trust. But, after careful reflection, I do not feel that I can do otherwise. Knowing, as I do, the eminent character of the Committee, its intelligence, its patriotism, and the moral instincts by which it is moved, I am at a loss to understand the origin of an attempt which seems to me nothing else than another compromise of Human Rights, as if the country had not already paid enough in costly treasure and more costly blood for such compromises in the past. I had hoped the day of compromise with wrong had gone forever. Ample experience shows that it is the least practical mode of settling questions involving moral principle. A moral principle cannot be compromised.

Here are important words of the Amendment:--

“_Provided_, That, whenever the elective franchise shall be
denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color,
all persons therein of such race or color shall be excluded
from the basis of representation.”

I may be mistaken, Sir, but I think it difficult to read this proposition without being painfully impressed by the discord and defilement it will introduce into the National Constitution, having among specific objects the guaranty of a republican form of government. The discord appears on the face. The defilement is none the less apparent. Go back, if you please, to the adoption of the Constitution, and you will gratefully acknowledge that the finest saying of the times was when Madison, evidently inspired by the Declaration of Independence, and determined to keep the Constitution in harmony with it, insisted, in well-known words, that it was “WRONG to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”[40] Of all that has come to us from that historic Convention, where Washington sat as President, and Franklin and Hamilton sat as members, there is nothing with so much of imperishable charm. It was wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that man could hold property in man. In this spirit the Constitution was framed. This offensive idea was not admitted. The text, at least, was kept blameless. And now, after generations have passed, surrounded by the light of Christian truth and in the full blaze of Human Freedom, it is proposed to admit in the Constitution a twin idea of Inequality in Rights, and thus openly set at nought the first principles of the Declaration of Independence, and the guaranty of a republican government itself, while you blot out a whole race politically. For some time we have been carefully expunging from the statute-book the word “white,” and now it is proposed to insert in the Constitution itself a distinction of color. An amendment, according to the dictionaries, is “an improvement,” “a change for the better.” Surely the present proposition is an amendment which, like the crab, goes backward.

Such is the appearance, when you regard it merely in form, without penetrating its substance; but here it is none the less offensive. The case is plain. Still among us are four million citizens robbed of all share in the government of a common country, while, at the same time, according to their means, they are taxed, directly and indirectly, for the support of the Government. Nobody will question the statement. And this bare-faced tyranny of taxation without representation it is now proposed to recognize as not inconsistent with fundamental right and the guaranty of a republican government. Instead of blasting it, you go forward to embrace it as an element of political power.

If you expect to induce the recent slave-master to confer suffrage without distinction of color, you will find the proposition a delusion and a snare. He will do no such thing. Even the bribe offered cannot tempt him. If, on the other hand, you expect to accomplish a reduction of his political power, permit me to say that success is more than doubtful, while the means employed are unworthy. Tricks and evasions are possible, and the cunning slave-master will drive his coach and six through your Amendment, stuffed with all his representatives. Should he cheat you, it will only be a proper return for the endeavor on your part to circumvent him at the expense of fellow-citizens to whom you are bound by every obligation of public faith.

I know not if others will see this uncertainty as I see it; but there are two practical consequences, having direct influence on the times, which all must discern as following at once from the adoption of the so-called Amendment. In the first place, it will be a present renunciation of all power under the Constitution to apply the remedy for a grievous wrong, when the remedy, even according to your own recent example, is actually in your hands. You have already in this Chamber, only last Friday, decreed civil rights without distinction of color.[41] Who can doubt that by the same title you may decree political rights, also, without distinction of color? But, having the power, it is your duty to exercise it. You cannot evade this duty without becoming partakers in wrong. And this brings me to the second practical consequence that must ensue from the adoption of this proposition. You hand over wards and allies, through whom the Republic has been saved, and therefore our saviours, to the control of vindictive enemies, to be taxed and governed without their own consent; and this you do for a consideration “nominated in the bond,” by virtue of which men may do a great wrong, provided they submit, as a _quid pro quo_, to a proportionate abridgment of political power. Who does not admire the Scottish patriot of whom it was said that he “would lose his life readily to _serve_ his country, but would not do a base thing to _save_ it”?[42] I hope we may act in this spirit. Above all, do not copy the example of Pontius Pilate, who surrendered the Saviour of the World, in whom he found no fault at all, to be scourged and crucified, while he set at large Barabbas, of whom the Gospel says in simple words, “Now Barabbas was a robber.”

I speak with sincere deference for cherished friends from whom I differ; but I submit that the time has come, at last, when we should deal directly, and not indirectly, with the great question before us, and when all compromise of Human Rights should cease, and especially there should be no thought of a three-headed compromise, which, after degrading the Constitution, renounces a beneficent power essential to the safety of the Republic, and, lastly, borrowing an example from Pontius Pilate, turns over a whole race to sacrifice. These objections I present briefly on the threshold, without argument, and advance to the main question which must dominate this whole debate. By way of introduction, I send to the Chair a counter proposition, which I wish read. It is entitled “A joint resolution carrying out the guaranty of a republican form of government in the Constitution of the United States, and enforcing the Constitutional Amendment for the prohibition of Slavery.”

This was the joint resolution introduced February 2d,[43] in
anticipation of this debate, but made applicable “anywhere
within the limits of the United States or the jurisdiction
thereof.” After its reading by the Secretary of the Senate, Mr.
Sumner proceeded.

MR. PRESIDENT,--In opening this great question, I begin by expressing a heartfelt aspiration that the day may soon come, when the States lately in rebellion may be received again into the copartnership of political power and the full fellowship of the Union. But I see too well that it is vain to expect this day, so much longed for, until we have obtained that security for the future which is found only in the Equal Rights of All, at the ballot-box as in the court-room. This is the Great Guaranty without which all other guaranties will fail. This is the sole solution of present troubles and anxieties. This is the only sufficient assurance of peace and reconciliation. To the establishment of this Great Guaranty, as a measure of safety and of justice, I now ask your best attention.

* * * * *

The powers of Congress over this subject are ample as they are beneficent. From four specific fountains they flow, each sufficient, all four swelling into an irresistible current, and tending to one conclusion: first, the necessity of the case, by which, according to analogy of the Territories, disloyal States, having no local government, lapse under the authority of Congress; secondly, the Rights of War, which do not expire or lose their grasp, except with the establishment of all needful guaranties; thirdly, the constitutional injunction to guaranty a republican form of government; and, fourthly, the Constitutional Amendment, by which Congress, in words of peculiar energy, is empowered to “enforce” the abolition of Slavery by “appropriate legislation.” According to the proverb of Catholic Europe, all roads lead to Rome; and so do all these powers lead to the jurisdiction of Congress over this whole subject. No matter which road you take, you arrive at the same point. The first two have already been discussed exhaustively.[44] The two latter have been considered less, and it is on these that I shall speak especially to-day. I propose, with the permission of the Senate, to show the necessity and duty of exercising the jurisdiction of Congress so as to secure that essential condition of a republican government, the Equal Rights of All. And I put aside, at the outset, the metaphysical question, worthy of schoolmen in the Dark Ages, whether certain States are _in_ the Union or _out of_ the Union. That is a question of form, and not of substance,--of words only, and not of facts; for the substance is clear, and the facts are unanswerable. All are agreed, according to the authority of President Lincoln, in his latest utterance before his lamented death, that these States have ceased to be in “practical relation with the Union”;[45] and this is enough to sustain the jurisdiction of Congress, even without the plain words of the Constitution in two separate texts.

The time has passed for phrases, which have been the chief resource in opposition to a just reconstruction. It is not enough to say “a State cannot secede,” “a State cannot get out of the Union,” “Louisiana is a State in the Union.” These are mere words, having no positive meaning, and improper for this debate. So far as they have meaning, they confound law and fact. It is very obvious that a State may, in point of _law_, be still in the list of States, and yet, in point of _fact_, its relations to the Union may have ceased through violence, foreign or domestic. In point of law, no man can commit suicide; but in point of fact, men do. The absurdity of denying that a man has committed suicide, because it is unlawful, is equalled by the kindred absurdity of saying that a State cannot do a certain thing, because it is unlawful. Unhappily, in this world, the fact is not always in conformity with the law.

Therefore I put aside all fine-spun theories running into the metaphysics of Constitutional Law. All such subtilties are absolutely futile. They must end in nothing. I found myself on existing facts, which are undeniable. Of these I select two.

Whatever may have been the effect of the acts of Secession in point of law, it is plain that _de facto_ the Rebel States have ceased to take any part in the National Government. All loyal government in those States has been _de facto_ subverted. They are all without magistrates or officers bound by oath to support the National Constitution according to its requirement, so that _de facto_ there are no magistrates or officers of the Union in these States; nor are there any _de facto_ Senators or Representatives in Congress from those States. Such are unquestionable facts, all of which concentre in the great unquestionable _fact_, that for the time being there are no State Governments in these States which the National Government can recognize as such.

There is another fact equally unquestionable. It is that the Rebel States have been _de facto_ in war against the National Government. Armies have been mustered, battles have been fought, and the whole country has been convulsed by this war. An immense national debt, mourning families, widows and orphans, attest this terrible fact.

Everything has a natural consequence, and the consequence of this condition of things is that necessity which I have announced. These States cannot subsist without legal governments in just correlation with the other States and with the Nation.

Necessity and duty commingle. If what is necessary is not always according to duty, surely duty is always a necessity. On the present occasion they unite in one voice for the Great Guaranty. It is at once necessity and duty. Glancing at the promises of the Fathers, I shall exhibit,--

_First_, the overruling necessity of the times;

And, _secondly_, the positive mandate of the Constitution, compelling us to guaranty “a republican form of government,” and thus to determine what is meant by this requirement; all of which has been fortified by continuing Rights of War, and by the Constitutional Amendment authorizing Congress to enforce the abolition of Slavery.

* * * * *

In the life of a nation, as in that of an individual, there are moments when outstanding promises must be performed under peril of ruin and dishonor. Such is the present moment in the life of the Republic. Sacred promises, beginning with our history, are yet unperformed, although the hour has sounded when continued failure on our part will open the door to a long train of woes. And there are yet other promises, recently made, for the national defence against a wicked rebellion, which, like those of earlier date, are also unperformed. But the latter are all included in the former; so that our whole present duty centres in the performance of sacred promises coëval with the national life.

Our fathers solemnly announced the Equal Rights of all men, and that government had no just foundation except in the consent of the governed; and to the support of the Declaration heralding these self-evident truths they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. Looking at this Declaration now, it is chiefly memorable for the promises it made. Mighty words! Fit utterance for the infant giant then born! Fit device for the great Republic taking its place in the family of kings! Fit lesson for mankind! And now the moment has come when these vows must be fulfilled to the letter. In securing the Equal Rights of the freedman, and his participation in the Government which he is taxed to support, we shall perform the early promises of the Fathers, and at the same time supplementary promises only recently made to the freedman as the condition of alliance and aid against the Rebellion. Failure here is moral and political bankruptcy. It is repudiation of moral and political duties, ending in repudiation of the financial obligations. So are duties to the national freedman linked with obligations to the national creditor, that you cannot repudiate the former without impairing the latter. Whoever disowns any of the promises of the Republic leads the way in repudiation.

But you cannot be thus guilty. Even if indifferent to the vows of the Fathers, necessity, in harmony with the plain injunction of the Constitution, will constrain you. On this there can be no doubt. You must perform these promises; and this brings me to the overruling necessity of the times.

I.

Necessity is a peremptory instructor. It gives the law which no man can disregard. It will not hearken to apology or postponement. With a voice of command it insists that its behests shall be obeyed. And now this very necessity speaks with familiar tones.

Twice already, since Rebel Slavery rose against the Republic, it has spoken, insisting, first, that the slaves should be declared free, and, secondly, that muskets should be put into their hands for the common defence. Yielding to necessity, these two things were done. Reason, humanity, justice were powerless; but necessity was irresistible. And the result testifies how wisely the Republic acted. Without Emancipation, followed by arming the slaves, Rebel Slavery would not have been overcome. With these, victory was easy.

At last the same necessity, which insisted first upon Emancipation and then upon arming the slaves, insists with the same unanswerable force upon admission of the freedman to complete equality before the law, so that there shall be no ban of color in court-room or at the ballot-box, and government shall be fixed on its only rightful foundation, the consent of the governed. Reason, humanity, and justice, all of which are clear for the admission of the freedman, may fail to move you; but you must yield to necessity, now requiring these promises to be performed.

The demand I make stands on necessity. You must grant it, or you will peril the peace of the Republic, and postpone indefinitely the great day of security and reconciliation. Therefore, in the name of that national safety which is the supreme law, I begin my appeal. Whatever is required for the national safety is constitutional. Not only it _may_ be done, but it _must_ be done. Not to do it is to fail in duty. The Republic must be saved.

When I speak of necessity, I mean that overruling compulsion which cannot be disobeyed. In the present case it is compounded of moral duty and the instinct of self-preservation. The moral duty to perform these promises is plain as the Decalogue. The instinct of self-preservation, impelling us to save the Republic, is in harmony with the requirement of moral duty. In denying justice now, you are not only guilty of grievous wrong, but you expose your country to incalculable calamity. The case is too clear for debate.

The irresistible argument for Emancipation was always twofold,--first, its intrinsic justice, and, secondly, its necessity for the safety of the Republic; all of which was expressed by President Lincoln in the closing words of his great Proclamation:--

“And upon this act, sincerely believed to be _an act of justice
warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity_, I
invoke the considerate judgment of mankind and the gracious
favor of Almighty God.”

But the argument for Enfranchisement, which is nothing but the complement of Emancipation, is the same. Enfranchisement is not only intrinsically just, but necessary to the safety of the Republic. There is no reason, point, or argument once urged for Emancipation which may not be urged now for Enfranchisement. I do not err, when I say that Emancipation itself will fail without Enfranchisement.

By Enfranchisement I mean the establishment of the Equal Rights of All, so that there shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or political, founded on color, and the promises of the Fathers shall be fulfilled. Such a measure will be, in the words of President Lincoln, “an act of justice warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity.”

As an act of justice, Enfranchisement has a necessity of its own. No individual and no people can afford to be unjust. Such an offence carries a curse, which, sooner or later, must drag its perpetrator to ruin. But here necessity from considerations of justice is completed and intensified by positive requirements of the national safety, plainly involved in the performance of these promises.

Look at the unhappy freedman blasted by the ban of exclusion. He has always been loyal, and now it is he, and not the Rebel master, who pays the penalty. From the nature of the case, he must be discontented, restless, anxious, smarting with sense of wrong and consciousness of rights denied. He does not work as if taken by the hand and made to feel the grasp of friendship. He is idle, thriftless, unproductive. Industry suffers. Cotton does not grow. Commerce does not thrive. Credit fails; nay, it dies before it is born. On the other hand, his Rebel master, with hands still red with the blood of fellow-countrymen, is encouraged in that assumption of superiority which is part of the Barbarism of Slavery; he dominates as in times past; he is exacting as of old; he is harsh, cruel, and vindictive; he makes the unprotected and trembling freedman suffer for the losses and disappointments of the Rebellion; he continues to insult and prostitute the wife and children, who, ceasing to be chattels, have not ceased to be dependants; he follows the freedman to by-ways and obscure places, where once again he plays master and asserts his ancient title as lord of the lash. Scenes of savage brutality and blood ensue. All this, which reason foretells, the short experience of a few months already confirms. And all this you sanction, when you leave the freedman despoiled of his rights.

But the freedman, though forbearing and slow to anger, will not always submit to outrage. He will resist. Resistance will be organized. And here begins the terrible war of races foreseen by Jefferson, where God, in all His attributes, has none which can take part with the oppressor. The tragedy of San Domingo will be renewed on a wider theatre, with bloodier incidents. Be warned, I entreat you, by this historic example. It was the denial of rights to colored people, upon successive promises, which caused that fearful insurrection. After various vicissitudes, during which the rights of citizenship were conferred on free people of color and then resumed, the slaves at last rose; and here the soul sickens at the recital. Then came Toussaint l’Ouverture, a black of unmixed blood, who placed himself at the head of his race, showing the genius of war, and the genius of statesmanship also. Under his magnanimous rule the beautiful island began to smile once more: agriculture revived; commerce took a new start; the whites were protected in person and property; and a Constitution was adopted acknowledging the authority of France, but making no distinction of race or color. In an evil hour this policy was reversed by a decree of Napoleon Bonaparte. War revived, and the French army was compelled to succumb. The connection of San Domingo with France was broken, and this island became a black republic. All this dreary catalogue of murder, battle, sorrow, and woe began in denial of justice to the colored race. And only recently we have listened to a similar tragedy from Jamaica, thus swelling the terrible testimony. Like causes produce like effects; therefore all this will be ours, if we madly persist in the same denial. The freedmen among us are not unlike the freedmen of San Domingo or Jamaica; they have the same “organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions,” and, above all, the same sense of wrong, and the same revenge.

To avoid insurrection and servile war, big with measureless calamity, and even to obtain the security essential to industry, agriculture, commerce, and the national credit, you must perform the promises of the Republic, originally made by our fathers, and recently renewed by ourselves. But duty done will not only save you from calamity and give you security; it will also prepare the way for the great triumphs of the future, when through assured peace there shall be tranquillity, prosperity, and reconciliation, all of which it is vain to expect without justice.

The freedman must be protected. To this you are solemnly pledged by the Proclamation of President Lincoln, which, after declaring him “free,” promises to _maintain_ this freedom, not for any limited period, but for all time. But this cannot be, so long as you deny him the shield of _impartial laws_. Let him be heard in court, and let him vote. Let these rights be guarded sacredly. Beyond even the shield of _impartial laws_, he will then have the protection which comes from the consciousness of manhood. Clad in the full panoply of citizenship, he will feel at last that he is a man. At present he is only a recent chattel, awaiting your justice to be transmuted into manhood. Would you have him respected in his rights, you must begin by respecting him in your laws. Would you maintain him in freedom, you must begin by maintaining him in the equal rights of citizenship.

And now the national safety is staked on this act of justice. You cannot sacrifice the freedman without endangering the peace of the country and the stability of our institutions. Everything will be kept in jeopardy. The national credit will suffer. Business of all kinds will feel the insecurity. The whole land will gape with volcanic fire, ready to burst forth in fatal flood. The irrepressible conflict will be prolonged. The house will continue divided against itself. From all these things, Good Lord, deliver us! But, under God, there is but one deliverance, and this is through justice.

I have said that the national credit will suffer; but this does not disclose the whole financial calamity. It is idle to suppose that recent rebels, restored to privileges of citizenship, will vote cordially for the national debt incurred in the suppression of their rebellion, or that they will willingly tax themselves for interest on the enormous outlays by which their darling Slavery has been overthrown. The evidence shows them already set against any such contribution. As time advances, and their power is assured, in conjunction with Northern sympathizers, they will openly oppose it; or, if they consent to recognize it, they will impose the condition that the Rebel debt shall be recognized also. All this is inevitable, if you give them the power; it is madness to tempt them. But they will not have the power, if the promises to the freedman are performed. Here again justice to the freedman becomes a necessity.

Sometimes it is said that we must not require justice to the freedman, because justice is still denied to the colored citizen in Connecticut and New York. Idle words, of inconceivable utterance! as if the two cases bore any imaginable resemblance! There are rivers in the North and rivers in the South, but who says that on this account the two regions are alike? The denial of justice to the colored citizens in Connecticut and New York is wrong and mean; but it is on so small a scale that it is not perilous to the Republic, nor is it vital to the protection of the colored citizen and the protection of the national creditor. You are moved to Enfranchisement in Connecticut and New York for justice to a few individuals only; but you are moved to it in the Rebel States for justice to multitudes, also to save the Republic, imperilled by injustice on a gigantic scale, and to supply needful protection to the national freedman and the national creditor. From failure on our part, there is in one case little more than shame, while in the other there is positive danger, involving the fate of the national freedman and the national creditor, to whom we are bound by the most solemn ties. To a good man, injustice, even on a small scale, is not tolerable; he feels the necessity of resisting it; but where the victims are counted by millions, this necessity becomes a transcendent duty, quickened and invigorated by all the instincts of self-preservation. Therefore, I say again, for the national safety, redeem these promises of the Fathers, and your own.