Chapter X: Part 10

MR. PRESIDENT,--The Senator from Oregon has made no criticism on the resolutions, but nevertheless he objects to proceeding with them now; he desires reference, he would have the aid of a committee, before he proceeds with their consideration. If I can have the attention of the Senator, it seems to me that this will be as good as a committee. The resolutions are on the table; they are plain; they are unequivocal; they are perfectly intelligible; and they make a declaration of principle and of purpose which at this moment is of peculiar importance.

Congress has undertaken to provide for the military government of the Rebel States, and has made certain requirements with regard to Reconstruction, and there it stops. It has presented no complete system, and it has provided no machinery. From this failure our friends at the South are at this moment in the greatest anxiety. They are suffering. Former Rebels, or persons representing the Rebellion, are moving under our bill to take a leading part. Already the Legislature of Virginia, packed by Rebels, full of the old Rebel virus, has undertaken to call a convention under our recent Act. Let that convention be called, and what is the condition of those friends to whom you owe protection? Unless I am misinformed by valued correspondents, the position of our friends will be very painful. I have this morning a letter from Mr. Botts,--I mention his name because he is well known to all of us, and I presume he would have no objection to being quoted on this floor,--in which he entreats us to provide some protection for him and other Unionists against efforts already commenced by Rebels or persons under Rebel influence.

I am anxious for practical legislation to that end; but, to pave the way for such legislation, I would have Congress, at the earliest possible moment, make a declaration in general terms of its purposes. The Senator says these resolutions do not propose practical legislation. I beg the Senator’s pardon: they do not propose what we call legislation, but they announce to these Rebel States what we propose to do; they foreshadow the future; they give notice; they tell the Rebels that they are not to take part in Reconstruction; and they tell our friends and the friends of the Union that we mean to be wakeful with regard to their interests. Such will be their effect. They are in the nature of a declaration. At the beginning of the war there was a declaration, which has been often quoted in both Houses, with regard to the purposes of the war. Very often in times past declarations of policy were made in one House or the other, and sometimes by concurrent resolutions of the two Chambers. If the occasion requires, the declaration ought to be made. In common times and under ordinary circumstances there would be no occasion for such a declaration, but at this moment there seems peculiar occasion; you must give notice; and the failure of our bill to meet the present exigency throws this responsibility upon us.

The next question is as to the character of the notice. It begins in its title by declaring that certain further guaranties are required in the Reconstruction of the Rebel States. Can any Senator doubt that such guaranties are required? I submit that on that head there can be no question. I am persuaded that my excellent friend from Oregon will not question that general statement.

Mr. Sumner then took up the several points of the resolutions
in order and explained them. Coming to that declaring the
necessity of a homestead for the freedman, he proceeded:--

I believe that all familiar with the processes of Reconstruction have felt that our work would be incomplete, unless in some way we secured to the freedman a piece of land. Only within a few days, gentlemen fresh from travel through these States have assured me, that, as they saw the condition of things there, nothing pressed upon their minds more than the necessity of such a provision. The more you reflect upon it, and the more you listen to evidence, the stronger will be your conclusion as to this necessity.

Do you ask as to the power of Congress? Again I say, you find it precisely where you found the power to confer universal suffrage. To give a homestead will be no more than to give a vote. You have done the one, and now you must do the other. We are told that to him that hath shall be given; and as you have already given the ballot, you must go further, and give not only education, but the homestead. Nor can you hesitate for want of power. The time for hesitation has passed.

MR. FESSENDEN [of Maine]. I should like to ask my friend a
question, with his permission.

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. FESSENDEN. The Senator put the granting of the ballot
on the ground that without it the Government would not be
republican in form, as I understood his argument.

MR. SUMNER. Yes.

MR. FESSENDEN. Now I should like to know if he puts the
possession by every man of a piece of land on the same ground.

MR. SUMNER. I do not.

MR. FESSENDEN. The Senator assimilated the two, and said, that,
having done the one, we must do the other. I supposed, perhaps,
the same process of reasoning applied to both.

MR. SUMNER. No; the homestead stands on the necessity of the
case, to complete the work of the ballot.

MR. GRIMES [of Iowa]. Have we not done that under the Homestead
Law?

MR. SUMNER. The freedmen are not excluded from the Homestead
Law; but I would provide them with a piece of land where they
are.

MR. FESSENDEN. That is more than we do for white men.

MR. SUMNER. White men have never been in slavery; there is no emancipation and no enfranchisement of white men to be consummated. I put it to my friend, I ask his best judgment, can he see a way to complete and crown this great and glorious work without securing land? My friend before me [Mr. GRIMES] asks, “How are we to get the land?” There are several ways. By a process of confiscation we should have had enough; and I have no doubt that the country would have been better, had the great landed estates of the South been divided and subdivided among the loyal colored population. That is the judgment of many Unionists at the South. I say nothing on that point; but clearly there are lands through the South belonging to the United States, or that have fallen to the United States through the failure to pay taxes. It has always seemed to me that in the exercise of the pardoning power it would have been easy for the President to require that the person who was to receive a pardon should allot a certain portion of his lands to his freedmen. That might have been annexed as a condition. A President properly inspired, and disposed to organize a true Reconstruction, could not have hesitated in such a requirement. That would have been a very simple process. I am aware that Congress cannot affect the pardoning power; but still I doubt not there is something that can be done by Congress. Where Congress has done so much, I am unwilling to believe it cannot do all that the emergency requires. Let us not shrink from the difficulties. With regard to the homestead there may be difficulties, but not on that account should we hesitate. We must assure peace and security to these people, and, to that end, consider candidly, gently, carefully, the proper requirements, and then fearlessly provide for them.

There is still another, which I have not named in these resolutions, though I have employed it in the careful and somewhat extended Reconstruction Bill which I have laid on the table of the Senate, and which some time I may try to call up for discussion,--and that is, the substitution of the vote by ballot for the vote _viva voce_. Letters from Virginia, and also from other parts of the South, all plead for this change. They say, that, so long as the vote _viva voce_ continues, it will be difficult for the true Union men to organize; they will be under check and control from the Rebels. I have a letter, received only this morning, from a Unionist, from which I will read a brief passage.

…

Now does my excellent friend from Oregon, who wishes to bury this effort in a committee, doubt the concluding resolution? Can he hesitate to say that every one of these requirements is in the nature of a guaranty, without which we shall not obtain that complete security for the future which our country has a right to expect? There they are. That the illegal governments must be vacated. Who can doubt that? That provisional governments must be constituted as temporary substitutes for the illegal governments. Who can doubt that? That the new governments must be founded on an unalterable basis of loyalty, and to that end no Rebels must be allowed to exert influence or agency in the formation of the new governments. Who can doubt that? Then, again, education: who can doubt? Certainly not my friend from Oregon: he will not doubt the importance of education as a corner-stone of Reconstruction. It is a golden moment. We have the power. Let us not fail to exercise it. Exercising it now, we can shape the destinies of that people for the future. There remains the homestead. I see the practical difficulties; but I do not despair. Let us apply ourselves to them, and I do not doubt that we can secure substantially to every head of a family among the freedmen a piece of land, and we may then go further, and, in the way of machinery, provide a vote by ballot instead of a vote _viva voce_.

Now I insist that all these are in the nature of guaranties of future peace, and we should not hesitate in doing all within our power to secure them. I hope, therefore, that Senators will act on these resolutions without reference to a committee. I see no occasion for a reference. There is one objection, at least, on the face: it will cause delay. Let these resolutions be adopted and go to the country, and you will find that the gratitude of the American people, and of all Union men at the South, will come up to Congress for your act.

Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, deprecated the adoption of the
resolutions. The bill recently passed “purported to be final.…
It provided certain terms, harsh and severe in the extreme,
upon which the States formerly in rebellion should be restored
to the Union.” He then remarked: “These resolutions come from
the right quarter. Whatever may be my opinion of his [Mr.
SUMNER’S] political views, I will say for that Senator, that
for the last two years he has been prophetic; what he has
announced, what he has declared, what he has said must be law,
has become law upon many subjects.… Let us know what is coming;
let us see the worst.… While I was very glad to find--if I
understood them correctly--that the Senator from Maine [Mr.
FESSENDEN] and some other Senators about me did not coincide
with the views of the Senator from Massachusetts, I could not
forget that two years ago I heard a Senator on this floor say
that upon another subject there was not a single Senator here
who agreed with the Senator from Massachusetts; and yet upon
that very subject I believe every Senator on the majority side
of the Senate now, if not at heart concurring with him, acts
and votes with him.”

Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, opposed the resolutions. It seemed to
him “not exactly fair or just or ingenuous to the Southern
people to add new terms, or require of them additional
guaranties, as conditions to the admission of representation.”

Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, voted for the recent bill
because he thought he saw in opinions of Mr. Sumner, “and a few
others who concur with him, that, if the measure then before
the Senate was not adopted, harsher, much harsher, measures
would in the end be exacted of the South.”

Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, thought the resolutions
“unfair to Congress and unfair to the country.”

Mr. Sumner said in reply:--

The objects which I seek in Reconstruction are regarded in very different lights by myself and by Senators who have spoken. The Senator from New Jersey, the Senator from Maryland, and the Senator from Ohio all regard these requirements as in the nature of burdens or penalties. Education is a burden or penalty; a homestead is a burden or penalty. It is a new burden or penalty which I am seeking--so these distinguished Senators argue--to impose upon the South. Are they right, or am I right? Education can never be burden or penalty. Justice in the way of a homestead can never be burden or penalty. Each is a sacred duty which the nation owes to those who rightfully look to us for protection.

Now, at this moment, in the development of events, the people at the South rightfully look to us for protection. They rightfully look to us, that, in laying the foundation-stone of future security, we shall see that those things are done which will make the security real, and not merely nominal. And yet, when I ask that the security shall be real, and not merely nominal, I am encountered by the objection that I seek to impose new burdens,--that I am harsh. Sir, if I know my own heart, I would not impose a burden upon any human being. I would not impose a burden even upon those who have trespassed so much against the Republic. I do not seek their punishment. Never has one word fallen from my lips asking for their punishment, for any punishment of the South. All that I ask is the establishment of human rights on a permanent foundation. Is there any Senator who differs from me? I am sure that my friend from Ohio seeks the establishment of future security; but he will allow me to say, that to my mind he abandons it at the beginning,--he fails at the proper moment to require guaranties without which future security will be vain.

This is not the first time that the Senator from Ohio has set himself against fundamental propositions of Reconstruction. When, now more than four years ago, I had the honor of introducing into this Chamber a proposition declaring the jurisdiction of Congress over this whole question, and over the whole Rebel region, I was met by the Senator, who reminded me that I was alone, and did not hesitate to say that my position was not unlike that of Jefferson Davis.

Here Mr. Sumner sent to the desk the speech of Mr. Sherman,
April 2, 1862, and the Secretary read what he said of Mr.
Sumner’s position.

I have not called attention to these remarks in any unkind spirit, for I have none for the Senator; I have no feeling but kindness and respect for him; but as I listened to him a few minutes ago, remonstrating against the position I now occupy, I was carried back to that early day when he remonstrated, if possible, more strenuously against the position I then occupied. I had the audacity then to assert the paramount power of Congress over the whole Rebel region. That was the sum and substance of my argument; and you have heard the answer of the Senator. And now, in the lapse of time, the Senator has ranged himself by my side, voting for that measure of Reconstruction which is founded on the jurisdiction of Congress over the whole Rebel region.

As time passed, the subject assumed another character. It was with regard to the suffrage. A year ago I asserted on this floor that we must give the suffrage to all colored persons by Act of Congress and without Constitutional Amendment, founding myself on two grounds. One was the solemn guaranty in the Constitution of a republican form of government; and I undertook to show that any denial of rights on account of color was unrepublican to such extent that the government sanctioning it could not be considered in any just sense republican. I then went further, and insisted, that, from the necessity of the case, at the present moment, Congress must accord the suffrage to all persons at the South, without distinction of color. I argued that the suffrage of colored citizens was needed to counterbalance the suffrage of the Rebels.[92] One year has passed, and now, by Act of Congress, you have asserted the very power which the Senator from Ohio, and other distinguished Senators associated with him, most strenuously denied. That Senator and other Senators insisted that it could be only by Constitutional Amendment. I insisted that it could be under the existing text of the Constitution; nay, more, that from the necessity of the case it must be in this way. And in this way it has been done.

But, in doing it, you have unhappily failed to make proper provision for enforcing this essential security. You have provided no machinery, and you have left other things undone which ought to be done. And now, urging that these things should be done, I am encountered again by my friend from Ohio, whom I had encountered before on these other cardinal propositions; and he now, just as strenuously as before, insists that it is not within our power or province at this moment to make any additional requirements of the Rebel States. He is willing that the bill in certain particulars shall be amended. I do not know precisely to what extent he would go; but he will make no additional requirements, as he expresses it, in the nature of burdens. Sir, I make no additional requirements in the nature of burdens. I have already said, I impose no burdens upon any man; but I insist upon the protection of rights. And now, at this moment, as we are engaged in this great work of Reconstruction, I insist that the work shall be completely done. It will not be completely done, if you fail to supply any safeguards or precautions that can possibly be adopted.

A great orator has told us that he had but one lamp by which his feet were guided, and that was the lamp of experience.[93] There is one transcendent experience, commanding, historic, which illumines this age. It is more than a lamp; it is sunshine. I mean the example afforded by the Emperor of Russia, when he set free twenty million serfs. Did he stop with their freedom? He went further, and provided for their education, and also that each should have a piece of land. And now, when I ask that my country, a republic, heir of all the ages, foremost in the tide of time, should do on this question only what the Emperor of Russia has done, I am met by grave Senators with the reproach that I am imposing new burdens. It is no such thing. I am only asking new advantages for all in that distracted region, with new securities for my country, to the end that it may be safe, great, and glorious.

After remarks by Mr. Howard, of Michigan, the resolutions, on
motion of Mr. Frelinghuysen, were laid on the table,--Yeas 36,
Nays 10.

March 12th, the resolutions were again considered, when Mr.
Morton, of Indiana, spoke in favor of education, and Mr. Howe,
of Wisconsin, sustained the resolutions generally.

July 3d, Mr. Sumner made another attempt to have them
considered, speaking specially upon the importance of a
homestead for freedmen.

GENEROSITY FOR EDUCATION.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION GIVING THE THANKS OF CONGRESS TO GEORGE PEABODY, MARCH 8, 1867.

March 5th, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained,
leave to bring in the following joint resolution, which was
read twice and ordered to be printed.

“JOINT RESOLUTION presenting the thanks of Congress to
George Peabody.

“_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That
the thanks of Congress be, and they hereby are, presented
to George Peabody, of Massachusetts, for his great and
peculiar beneficence in giving a large sum of money,
amounting to two million dollars, for the promotion of
education in the more destitute portions of the Southern
and Southwestern States, the benefits of which, according
to his direction, are to be distributed among the entire
population, without any distinction, except what may be
found in needs or opportunities of usefulness.

“SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the
duty of the President to cause a gold medal to be struck,
with suitable devices and inscriptions, which, together
with a copy of this resolution, shall be presented to Mr.
Peabody in the name of the people of the United States.”

March 8th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the joint resolution was
taken up for consideration, when the latter said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I hope sincerely that there can be no question on this resolution. It expresses the thanks of Congress for an act great in itself, and also great as an example.

I recall no instance in history where a private person during life has bestowed so large a sum in charity. Few after death have done so much. The bequest of Smithson, which Congress accepted with honor, and made the foundation of the institution bearing his name and receiving our annual care, was much less than the donation of Mr. Peabody for purposes of education in the South and Southwestern States, to be distributed among the whole population, without any distinction other than needs or opportunities of usefulness to them.

I hail this benefaction as of especial value now: first, as a contribution to education, which is a sacred cause never to be forgotten in a republic; secondly, as a charity to a distressed part of our country which needs the help of education; and, thirdly, as an endowment for the equal benefit of all, without distinction of caste. As it is much in itself, so I cannot but think it will be most fruitful as an example. Individuals and communities will be moved to do more in the same direction, and impartial education may be added to recent triumphs.

I am not led to consider the difference between the widow’s mite and the rich man’s endowment, except to remark, that, when a charity is so large as to become historic, it is necessarily taken out of the category of common life. Standing apart by itself, it challenges attention and fills the mind, receiving homage and gratitude. Such, I am sure, has been the prevailing sentiment of our country toward Mr. Peabody. In voting this resolution, Congress will only give expression to the popular voice.

I should be sorry to have it understood that the thanks of Congress can be won only in war. Peace also has victories deserving honor. A public benefactor is a conqueror in the perpetual conflict with evil. He, too, meets the enemy face to face. Let him also have the reward of victory.

Already in England our benefactor has signalized himself by a generous endowment of the poor. The sum he gave was large, but not so large as he has given for education in our country. The sentiments of the British people found expression through the Queen, who honored him with a valuable present, her own portrait, and an autograph letter declaring her grateful sense of his beneficence. Kindred sentiments may justly find expression through Congress, which is empowered to write the autograph of the American people.

If it be said that such a vote is without precedent, I reply that this is a mistake. You voted thanks to Mr. Vanderbilt for the present of a steamer, and to Mr. Field for generous enterprise in establishing the telegraphic cable between the two continents. But even if there were no precedent, then, do I say, make a precedent. Your vote will be less unprecedented than his generosity.

At this moment, when we are engaged in the work of Reconstruction, this endowment for education in the Southern and Southwestern States is most timely. Education is the foundation-stone of that Republican Government we seek to establish. On this account, also, I would honor the benefactor.

I have not asked a reference to a committee, because it seemed that the resolution was of such a character that the Senate would be glad to act upon it directly. The thanks we offer will be of more value, if promptly offered.

The joint resolution was adopted by the Senate,--Yeas 36, Nays
2. March 13th it passed the House unanimously, was approved by
the President, and became a law.[94]

RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN.

THE BALLOT AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPEN TO ALL.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION BILL, MARCH 15 AND 16, 1867.

To counteract the malign influence of President Johnson, and
to protect the public interest jeopardized by his conduct,
Congress provided for a session to commence March 4, 1867,
immediately after the expiration of its predecessor. The new
Congress was signalized by a second Reconstruction Bill,
“supplementary to an Act to provide for the more efficient
government of the Rebel States,” passed March 2, 1867, which
was promptly introduced into the House of Representatives and
passed.

As early as March 13th, the House bill was reported to the
Senate from the Judiciary Committee, with a substitute, and for
several days thereafter it was considered. Among the various
amendments moved was one by Mr. Drake, of Missouri, providing
that the registered electors should declare, by their votes of
“Convention” or “No Convention,” whether a convention to frame
a constitution should be held, which was rejected,--Yeas 17,
Nays 27.

March 15th, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved an amendment,
that the commanding general should furnish a copy of the
registration to the Provisional Government of the State; and
whenever thereafter the Provisional Government should by legal
enactment provide that a convention should be called, the
commanding general should then direct an election of delegates.
In the debate on this proposition, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--In voting on the proposition of the Senator from Maine, I ask myself one question: How would the Union men of the South vote, if they had the privilege? They are unrepresented. We here ought to be the representatives of the unrepresented. How, then, would the Union men of the South vote on the proposition of the Senator? I cannot doubt, that, with one voice, they would vote No. They would not trust their fortunes in any way to the existing governments of the Rebel States. Those governments have been set up in spite of the Union men, and during their short-lived existence they have trampled upon Union men and upon their rights. That region might be described as bleeding at every pore, and much through the action of the existing governments, owing their origin to the President. So long as they continue, their influence must be pernicious. I hear, then, the voice of every Union man from every one of the Rebel States coming up to this Chamber and entreating us to refuse all trust, all power, to these Legislatures. I listen to their voice, and shall vote accordingly.

But I feel, nevertheless, that something ought to be done in the direction of the proposition of the Senator from Maine. I listened to his remarks, and in their spirit I entirely concur; but it seems to me that his argument carried us naturally to the proposition of the Senator from Missouri. To my mind, that proposition is founded in good sense, in prudence, in a just economy of political forces. It begins at the right end. It begins with the people. The Senator proposes that the new governments, when constituted, shall stand on that broad base. The proposition of the Committee stands the pyramid on its apex. I am therefore for the proposition of the Senator from Missouri, and I hope that at the proper time he will renew it, and give us another opportunity of recording our votes in its favor.

The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 33.

March 16th, Mr. Sumner moved to insert “all” before “electors,”
and to substitute “registered” for “qualified,” so as to read,
“ratified by a majority of the votes of all the electors
registered as herein specified.” After debate, the amendment
was rejected,--Yeas 19, Nays 25.

Mr. Drake subsequently renewed his rejected amendment, with a
modification that the result should be determined by a majority
of those voting, and it was adopted. Mr. Conkling, of New York,
moved to reconsider the last vote, so as to provide that the
result should be determined by a majority of all the votes
registered, instead of a majority of all the votes given. On
this motion, Mr. Sumner remarked:--

I said nothing, when the question was up before; but I cannot allow the vote to be taken now without expressing in one word the ground on which I shall place my vote.

We have just come out from the fires of a terrible Rebellion, and our special purpose now is to set up safeguards against the recurrence of any such calamity, and also for the establishment of peace and tranquillity throughout that whole region. There is no Senator within the sound of my voice who is not anxious to see that great end accomplished. How shall it be done? By founding government on a majority or on a minority? If these were common times, then I should listen to the argument of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. DRAKE], and also of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON], to the effect that the government might be founded on a majority of those who actually vote, although really a minority of the population; but at this moment, when we are seeking to recover ourselves from the Rebellion, and to guard against it in future, I cannot expose the country to any such hazard. I would take the precaution to found government solidly, firmly, on a majority,--not merely a majority of those who vote, but a majority of all registered voters. Then will the government be rooted and anchored in principle, so that it cannot be brushed aside. How was it when the Rebellion began? Everything was by minorities. A minority in every State carried it into rebellion. I would have the new government planted firmly on a majority, so that it can never again be disturbed. I can see no real certainty of security for the future without this safeguard.

The motion to reconsider prevailed,--Yeas 21, Nays 18; but
the amendment of Mr. Conkling was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays
22,--when Mr. Drake’s amendment was again adopted. Then, on
motion of Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, it was provided “that such
convention shall not be held, unless a majority of all such
registered voters shall have voted on the question of holding
such convention,”--Yeas 21, Nays 18.

Mr. Drake then moved to require in the new constitutions,
“that, at all elections by the people for State, county, or
municipal officers, the electors shall vote by ballot,” and
this was adopted,--Yeas 22, Nays 19. Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois,
at once moved to reconsider the last vote, and was sustained
by Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, and Mr.
Morton, of Indiana. Mr. Sumner sustained the amendment.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The argument of the Senator from Oregon proceeds on the idea that this is a small question. He belittles it, and then puts it aside. He treats it as of form only, and then scorns it. Sir, it may be a question of form, but it is a form vital to the substance, vital to that very suffrage which the Senator undertakes to vindicate. Does the Senator know that at this moment the special question which tries British reformers is the ballot? To that our heroic friend, John Bright, has dedicated his life. He seeks to give the people of England vote by ballot. He constantly looks to our country for the authority of a great example. And now the Senator is willing to overturn that example. I will not, by my vote, consent to any such thing. I would reinforce the liberal cause, not only in my own country, but everywhere throughout the world; and that cause, I assure you, is staked in part on this very question.

No, Sir,--it is not a small question. It cannot be treated as trivial. It is a great question. Call it, if you please, a question of form; but it is so closely associated with substance that it becomes substance. I hope the Senate will not recede from the generous and patriotic vote it has already given. I trust it will stand firm. Ask any student of republican institutions what is one of their admitted triumphs, and he will name the vote by ballot. There can be no doubt about it. Do not dishonor the ballot, but see that it is required in the constitutions of these Rebel States. The Senator from Oregon raises no question of power. Congress has the power. That is enough. You must exercise it.

Mr. Drake then modified his amendment, so that, instead of
“all elections by the people for State, county, or municipal
officers,” it should read, “all elections by the people,” and
it was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays 22. Mr. Sumner then remarked:--

The Senate has been occupied for two days in the discussion of questions, many merely of form. I propose now to call attention to one of substance, with which, as I submit, the best interests of the Rebel States and of the Republic at large are connected. I send to the Chair an amendment, to come in at the end of section four.

The Secretary read the proposed amendment, as follows:--

“_Provided_, That the constitution shall require the
Legislature to establish and sustain a system of public
schools open to all, without distinction of race or color.”

Mr. Sumner proceeded to say:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I shall vote for this bill,--not because it is what I desire, but because it is all that Congress is disposed to enact at the present time. I do not like to play the part of Cassandra,--but I cannot forbear declaring my conviction that we shall regret hereafter that we have not done more. I am against procrastination. But I am also against precipitation. I am willing to make haste; but, following the ancient injunction, I would make haste slowly: in other words, I would make haste so that our work may be well done and the Republic shall not suffer. Especially would I guard carefully all those who justly look to us for protection, and I would see that the new governments are founded in correct principles. You have the power. Do not forget that duties are in proportion to powers.

I speak frankly. Let me, then, confess my regret that Congress chooses to employ the military power for purposes of Reconstruction. The army is for protection. This is its true function. When it undertakes to govern or to institute government, it does what belongs to the civil power. Clearly it is according to the genius of republican institutions that the military should be subordinate to the civil. _Cedant arma togæ_ is an approved maxim, not to be disregarded with impunity. Even now, a fresh debate in the British Parliament testifies to this principle. Only a fortnight ago, the Royal Duke of Cambridge, cousin to the Queen, and commander of the forces, used these words:--

“The practice of calling out troops to quell civil disturbances
is exceedingly objectionable; _but it must not be forgotten
that the initiative in such cases is always taken by the civil
authorities themselves_.”[95]

This declaration, though confined to a particular case, embodies an important rule of conduct, which to my mind is of special application now.

By the system you have adopted, the civil is subordinate to the military, and the civilian yields to the soldier. You accord to the army an “initiative” which I would assure to the civil power. I regret this. I am unwilling that Reconstruction should have a military “initiative.” I would not see new States born of the bayonet. Leaving to the army its proper duties of protection, I would intrust Reconstruction to provisional governments, civil in character and organized by Congress. You have already pronounced the existing governments illegal. Logically you should proceed to supply their places by other governments, while the military is in the nature of police, until permanent governments are organized, republican in form and loyal in character. During this transition period, permanent governments might be matured on safe foundations and the people educated to a better order of things. As the twig is bent the tree inclines: you may now bend the twig. These States are like a potter’s vessel: you may mould them to be vessels of honor or of dishonor.

From the beginning I have maintained these principles. Again and again I have expressed them in the Senate and elsewhere. At the last session I insisted upon the Louisiana Bill in preference to the Military Bill. In the earliest moments of the present session I introduced a bill of my own, prepared with the best care I could bestow, in which was embodied what seemed to me a proper and practical system of Reconstruction, with provisional governments to superintend the work and pave the way for permanent governments. This measure, which I now hold in my hand, is entitled “A Bill to guaranty a republican form of government in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, and to provide for the restoration of these States to practical relations with the Union.” Its character is seen in its title. It is not a military bill, or a bill to authorize Reconstruction by military power; but it is a bill essentially civil from beginning to end.

The principles on which this bill proceeds appear in its preamble, which, with the permission of the Senate, I will read.

“Whereas in the years 1860 and 1861 the inhabitants of
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida,
Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas changed
their respective constitutions so as to make them repugnant to
the Constitution of the United States;

“And whereas the inhabitants of these States made war upon the
United States, and after many battles finally surrendered,
under the rules and usages of war;

“And whereas the inhabitants of these States, at the time of
their surrender, were without legal State governments, and,
as a rebel population, were without authority to form legal
State governments, or to exercise any other political functions
belonging to loyal citizens, and they must so continue until
relieved of such disabilities by the law-making power of the
United States;

“And whereas it belongs to Congress, in the discharge of its
duties under the Constitution, to secure to each of these
States a republican form of government, and to provide for the
restoration of each to practical relations with the Union;

“And whereas, until these things are done, it is important
that provisional governments should be established in these
States, with legal power to protect good citizens in the
enjoyment of their rights, and to watch over the formation of
State governments, so that the same shall be truly loyal and
republican: Therefore”----

With this preamble, exhibiting precisely the necessity and reasons of Reconstruction, the bill begins by declaring that the provisional governments shall convene on the fourth Monday after its passage, and shall continue until superseded by permanent governments, created by the people of these States respectively, and recognized by Congress as loyal and republican. It then establishes an executive power in each State, vested in a governor appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and not to be removed except by such advice and consent. The legislative power is vested in the governor and in thirteen citizens, called a legislative council, appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and not to be removed except by such advice and consent. All these, being officers of the United States, must take the test oath prescribed already by Act of Congress; and the bill adds a further oath to maintain a republican form of government, as follows:--

“I do hereby swear (or affirm) that I will at all times use my
best endeavors to maintain a republican form of government in
the State of which I am an inhabitant and in the Union of the
United States; that I will recognize the indissoluble unity of
the Republic, and will discountenance and resist any endeavor
to break away or secede from the Union; that I will give my
influence and vote to strengthen and sustain the National
credit; that I will discountenance and resist every attempt,
directly or indirectly, to repudiate or postpone, in any part
or in any way, the debt which was contracted by the United
States in subduing the late Rebellion, or the obligations
assumed to the Union soldiers; that I will discountenance
and resist every attempt to induce the United States or any
State to assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid
of rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the
loss or emancipation of any slave; that I will discountenance
and resist all laws making any distinction of race or color;
that I will give my support to education and the diffusion of
knowledge by public schools open to all; and that in all ways I
will strive to maintain a State government completely loyal to
the Union, where all men shall enjoy equal protection and equal
rights.”

I know well the whole history of oaths, and how often they are the occasion of perjury by the wholesale. But I cannot resist the conclusion that at this moment, when we are taking securities for the future, we ought to seize the opportunity of impressing upon the people fundamental principles on which alone our Government can stand. You may exclude Rebels; but their children, who are not excluded, have inherited the Rebel spirit. The schools and colleges of the South have been nurseries of Rebellion. I would exact from all seeking the public service, or even the elective franchise, a pledge to support a republican government; and to make this pledge perfectly clear, so that all may understand its extent, I would enumerate the points which are essential. If a citizen cannot give this pledge, he ought to have no part in Reconstruction. He must stand aside.

From this requirement the bill proceeds to enumerate certain classes excluded from office and also from the elective franchise. This is less stringent than what is known as the Louisiana Bill. It does not exclude citizens who have not held office, unless where they have left their homes within the jurisdiction of the United States and passed within the Rebel lines to give aid and comfort to the Rebellion,--or where they have voluntarily contributed to any loan or securities for the benefit of any of the Rebel States or the central government thereof,--or where, as authors, publishers, editors, or as speakers or preachers, they have encouraged the secession of any State or the waging of war against the United States.

The bill then provides for executive and judicial officers, and for their salaries, under the provisional government; also for grand and petit juries; also for a militia. But all officers, jurors, and militiamen must take the oath that they are not in the excluded classes, and also the oath to support a republican form of government.

The bill then annuls existing legislatures; also the acts of conventions which framed ordinances of secession, and the acts of legislatures since, subject to certain conditions; and it provides that the judgments and decrees of court, which have not been voluntarily executed, and which have been rendered subsequently to the date of the ordinance of secession, shall be subject to appeal to the highest court in the State, organized after its restoration to the Union. Safeguards like these seem essential to the protection of the citizen.

The bill does what it can for education by requiring--

“That it shall be the duty of the governor and legislative
council in each of these States to establish public schools,
which shall be open to all, without distinction of race or
color, to the end, that, where suffrage is universal, education
may be universal also, and the new governments find support in
the intelligence of the people.”

Such are the provisional governments.

The bill then provides for permanent governments republican and truly loyal. For this purpose the governor must make a registration of male citizens twenty-one years of age, of whatever color, race, or former condition, and, on the completion of this register, invite all to take the oath that they are not in the excluded classes, and also the oath to maintain a republican form of government; and if a majority of the persons duly registered shall take these oaths, then he is to order an election for members of a convention to frame a State constitution. Nobody can vote or sit as a member of the convention except those who have taken the two oaths; but no person can be disqualified on account of race or color. All qualified as voters are eligible as members of the convention.

The constitution must contain in substance certain fundamental conditions, never to be changed without consent of Congress:--

First, That the Union is perpetual;

Secondly, That Slavery is abolished;

Thirdly, That there shall be no denial of the elective franchise, or of any other right, on account of race or color, but all persons shall be equal before the law;

Fourthly, That the National debt, including pensions and bounties to Union soldiers, shall never be repudiated or postponed;

Fifthly, That the Rebel debt, whether contracted by a Rebel State or by the central government, shall never be recognized or paid; nor shall any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave, or any pension or bounty for service in the Rebellion, be recognized or paid;

Sixthly, That public schools shall be established, open to all without distinction of race or color;

Seventhly, That all persons excluded from office under this Act shall be excluded by the constitution, until relieved from disability by Act of Congress.

The constitution must be ratified by the people and submitted to Congress. If Congress shall approve it as republican in form, and shall be satisfied that the people of the State are loyal and well-disposed to the Union, the State shall be restored to its former relations and the provisional government shall cease.

Such is the bill which I should be glad to press upon your attention, creating provisional governments and securing permanent governments. It is not a military bill; and on this account, in spirit and form, if not in substance, it might be preferred to that which you have begun to sanction. Besides, it contains abundant safeguards. I regret much that something like this cannot be adopted. It is with difficulty that I renounce a desire long cherished to see Reconstruction under the supervision of Congress, according to the forms of civil order, without the intervention of military power. I am sure that such a bill would be agreeable to the Unionists of the Rebel States; and this with me is a rule of conduct which I am unwilling to disregard. They are without representation in Congress. Let us be their representatives. I hear their voices gathered into one prayer. I cannot refuse to listen.

* * * * *

If this bill cannot be adopted, then I ask that you shall take at least one of its provisions. Require free schools as an essential condition of Reconstruction. But I am met by the objection, that we are already concluded by the Military Bill adopted a few days ago, so that we cannot establish any new conditions. This is a mistake. There is no word in the Military Bill which can have this interpretation. Besides, the bill is only a few days old; so that, whatever its character, nothing is as yet fixed under its provisions. It contains no compact, no promise, no vested right, nothing which may not be changed, if the public interests require. There are some who seem to insist that it is a strait-jacket. On the contrary, this very bill asserts in positive terms “the paramount authority of the United States.” Surely this is enough. In the exercise of this authority, it is your duty to provide all possible safeguards. To adopt a familiar illustration, these States must be “bound to keep the peace.” Nothing is more common after an assault and battery. But this can be only by good laws, by careful provisions, by wise economies, and securities of all kinds.

Sometimes it is argued that it is not permissible to make certain requirements in the new constitutions, although, when the constitutions are presented to Congress for approval, we may object to them for the want of these very things. Thus it is said that we may not require educational provisions, but that we may object to the constitutions, when formed, if they fail to have this safeguard. This argument forgets the paramount power of Congress over the Rebel States, which you have already exercised in ordaining universal suffrage. Who can doubt, that, with equal reason, you may ordain universal education also? And permit me to say that one is the complement of the other. But I do not stop with assertion of the power. The argument that we are to wait until the constitution is submitted for approval is not frank. I wish to be plain and explicit. We have the power, assured by reason and precedent. Exercise it. Seize the present moment. Grasp the precious privilege. There are some who act on the principle of doing as little as possible. I would do as much as possible, believing that all we do in the nature of safeguard must redound to the good of all and to the national fame. It is in this spirit that I now move to require a system of free schools, open to all without distinction of caste. For this great safeguard I ask your votes.

You have prescribed universal suffrage. Prescribe now universal education. The power of Congress is the same in one case as in the other. And you are under an equal necessity to employ it. Electors by the hundred thousand will exercise the franchise for the first time, without delay or preparation. They should be educated promptly. Without education your beneficent legislation may be a failure. The gift you bestow will be perilous. I was unwilling to make education the condition of suffrage; but I ask that it shall accompany and sustain suffrage.

Mr. President, I plead now for Education. Nothing more beautiful or more precious. Education decorates life, while it increases all our powers. It is the charm of society, the solace of solitude, and the multiple of every faculty. It adds incalculably to the capacity of the individual and to the resources of the community. Careful inquiry establishes what reason declares, that labor is productive in proportion to its education. There is no art it does not advance. There is no form of enterprise it does not encourage and quicken. It brings victory, and is itself the greatest of victories.

In a republic education is indispensable. A republic without education is like the creature of imagination, a human being without a soul, living and moving blindly, with no just sense of the present or the future. It is a monster. Such have been the Rebel States,--for years nothing less than political monsters. But such they must be no longer.

It is not too much to say, that, had these States been more enlightened, they would never have rebelled. The barbarism of Slavery would have shrunk into insignificance, without sufficient force to break forth in blood. From the returns before the Rebellion[96] we learn that in the Slave States there were not less than 493,026 native white persons over twenty years of age who could not read and write,--while in the Free States, with double the native white population, there were but 248,725 native whites over twenty years of age thus blighted by ignorance. In the Slave States the proportion was 1 in 5; in the Free States it was 1 in 22. The number in Free Massachusetts, with an adult native white population of 470,375, was 1,055, or 1 in 446; the number in Slave South Carolina, with an adult native white population of only 120,136, was 15,580, or 1 in 8. The number in Free Connecticut was 1 in 256, in Slave Virginia 1 in 5; in Free New Hampshire 1 in 192, and in Slave North Carolina 1 in 3. In this prevailing ignorance we may trace the Rebellion. A population that could not read and write naturally failed to comprehend and appreciate a republican government.