Chapter VII: Part 7

At other times the conversation was renewed. Such was my interest in the question, that I could not see the President without introducing it. As I was about to return home, I said that I desired, even at the risk of repetition, to make some parting suggestions on the constant topic, and that, with his permission, I would proceed point by point, as was the habit of the pulpit in former days. He smiled, and observed pleasantly, “Have I not always listened to you?” I replied, “You have; and I am grateful.” After remarking that the Rebel region was still in military occupation, and that it was the plain duty of the President to use his temporary power for the establishment of correct principles, I proceeded to say: “First, see to it that no newspaper is allowed which is not thoroughly loyal, and does not speak well of the National Government and of Equal Rights”; and here I reminded him of the saying of the Duke of Wellington, that in a place under martial law an unlicensed press is as impossible as on the deck of a ship of war. “Secondly, let the officers that you send, as military governors or otherwise, be known for devotion to Equal Rights, so that their names alone will be a proclamation, while their simple presence will help educate the people”; and here I mentioned Major-General Carl Schurz, who still held his commission in the army, as such a person. “Thirdly, encourage the population to resume the profitable labors of agriculture, commerce, and manufactures without delay,--but for the present to avoid politics. Fourthly, keep the whole region under these good influences, and at the proper moment hand over the subject of Reconstruction, with the great question of Equal Rights, to the judgment of Congress, where it belongs.” All this the President received with perfect kindness, and I mention this with the more readiness because I remember to have seen in the papers a very different statement.

Only a short time afterwards there was a change, which seemed like a somersault or an apostasy; and then ensued a strange sight. Instead of faithful Unionists, recent Rebels thronged the Presidential antechambers, rejoicing in new-found favor. They made speeches at the President, and he made speeches at them. A mutual sympathy was manifest. On one occasion the President announced himself a “Southern man” with “Southern sympathies,” thus quickening that sectional flame which good men hoped to see quenched forever. Alas! if, after all our terrible sacrifices, we are still to have a President who does not know how to spurn every sectional appeal and make himself representative of all! Unhappily, whatever the President said or did was sectional. He showed himself constantly a sectionalist. Instead of telling the ex-Rebels who thronged the Presidential antechambers, as he should have done, that he was their friend, that he wished them well from the bottom of his heart, that he longed to see their fields yield an increase, with peace in all their borders, and that, to this end, he counselled them to pursue agriculture, commerce, and manufactures, and for the present to say nothing about politics,--instead of this, he sent them away talking and thinking of nothing but politics, and frantic for the reëstablishment of a sectional power. Instead of designating officers of the army as military governors, which I had supposed he would do, he appointed ex-Rebels, who could not take the oath required by Congress of all officers of the United States, and they in turn appointed ex-Rebels to office under them; so that participation in the Rebellion found reward, and treason, instead of being made odious, became the passport to power. Everywhere ex-Rebels came out of hiding-places. They walked the streets defiantly, and asserted their old domination. Under auspices of the President, a new campaign was planned against the Republic, and they who failed in open war now sought to enter the very citadel of political power. Victory, purchased by so much loyal blood and treasure, was little better than a cipher. Slavery itself revived in the spirit of Caste. Faithful men who had been trampled down by the Rebellion were trampled down still more by these Presidential governments. For the Unionist there was no liberty of the press or liberty of speech, and the lawlessness of Slavery began to rage anew.

Every day brought tidings that the Rebellion was reappearing in its essential essence. Amidst all professions of submission, there was immitigable hate to the National Government, and prevailing injustice to the freedman. This was last autumn. I was then in Boston. Moved by desire to arrest this fatal tendency, I appealed by letter to members of the Cabinet, entreating them to stand firm against a “policy” which promised nothing but disaster. As soon as the elections were over, I appealed directly to the President himself, by a telegraphic despatch, as follows:--

“BOSTON, November 12, 1865.

“TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, WASHINGTON.

“As a faithful friend and supporter of your administration,
I most respectfully petition you to suspend for the present
your policy towards the Rebel States. I should not present
this prayer, if I were not painfully convinced that thus
far it has failed to obtain any reasonable guaranties for
that security in the future which is essential to peace and
reconciliation. To my mind, it abandons the freedmen to the
control of their ancient masters, and leaves the national debt
exposed to repudiation by returning Rebels. The Declaration of
Independence asserts the equality of all men, and that rightful
government can be founded only on the consent of the governed.
I see small chance of peace, unless these great principles are
practically established. Without this, the house will continue
divided against itself.

“CHARLES SUMNER,
“_Senator of the United States_.”

Reaching Washington Saturday evening, immediately before the opening of the last session of Congress, I lost no time in seeing the President. I was with him that evening three hours. I found him changed in temper and purpose. How unlike that President who, only a few days after arrival at power, made me feel so happy in the assurance of agreement on the great question! No longer sympathetic, or even kindly, he was harsh, petulant, and unreasonable. Plainly, his heart was with ex-Rebels. For the Unionist, white or black, who had borne the burden of the day, he had little feeling. He would not see the bad spirit of the Rebel States, and insisted that the outrages there were insufficient to justify exclusion from Congress. The following dialogue ensued.

THE PRESIDENT. Are there no murders in Massachusetts?

MR. SUMNER. Unhappily, yes,--sometimes.

THE PRESIDENT. Are there no assaults in Boston? Do not men
there sometimes knock each other down, so that the police is
obliged to interfere?

MR. SUMNER. Unhappily, yes.

THE PRESIDENT. Would you consent that Massachusetts, on this
account, should be excluded from Congress?

MR. SUMNER. No, Mr. President, I would not.

And here I stopped, without remarking on the entire irrelevancy of the inquiry. I left the President that night with the painful conviction that his whole soul was set as flint against the good cause, and that by the assassination of Abraham Lincoln the Rebellion had vaulted into the Presidential chair. Jefferson Davis was then in the casemates at Fortress Monroe, but Andrew Johnson was doing his work.

“Ah! what avails it, …
If the gulled conqueror receives the chain,
And flattery subdues, when arms are vain?”

From this time forward I was not in doubt as to his “policy,” which asserted a condition of things in the Rebel region inconsistent with the terrible truth. It was, therefore, natural that I should characterize one of his messages, covering over the enormities there, as “whitewashing.” This mild term was thought by some too strong. Subsequent events have shown that it was too weak. The whole Rebel region is little better than a “whited sepulchre.” It is that saddest of all sepulchres, the sepulchre of Human Rights. The dead men’s bones are the remains of faithful Union soldiers, dead on innumerable fields, or stifled in the pens of Andersonville and Belle Isle,--also of constant Unionists, white and black, whom we are sacredly bound to protect, now murdered on highways and by-ways, or slaughtered at Memphis and New Orleans. The uncleanness is injustice, wrong, and outrage, having a loathsome stench; and the President is engaged in “whiting” over these things, so that they shall not be seen by the American people. To do this, he garbles a despatch of Sheridan, and abuses the hospitality of the country by a travelling speech, where every word, not foolish, vulgar, and vindictive, is a vain attempt at “whitewashing.”

* * * * *

Meanwhile the Presidential madness is more than ever manifest. It has shown itself in frantic effort to defeat the Constitutional Amendment proposed by Congress for adoption by the people. By this Amendment certain safeguards are established. Citizenship is defined, and protection is assured at least in what are called civil rights. The basis of representation is fixed on the number of voters, so that, if colored citizens are not allowed to vote, they will not by their numbers contribute to representative power, and one voter in South Carolina will not be able to neutralize two voters in Massachusetts or Illinois. Ex-Rebels who had taken an oath to support the Constitution are excluded from office, National or State. The National debt is guarantied, while the Rebel debt and all claim for slaves are annulled. All these essential safeguards are rudely rejected by the President.

The madness that would set aside provisions so essentially just, whose only error is inadequacy, has broken forth naturally in brutal utterance, where he has charged persons by name with seeking his life, and has stimulated a mob against them. It is difficult to surpass the criminality of this act. The violence of the President has provoked violence. His words were dragon’s teeth, which have sprung up armed men. Witness Memphis; witness New Orleans. Who can doubt that the President is author of these tragedies? Charles the Ninth of France was not more completely author of the Massacre of St. Bartholomew than Andrew Johnson is author of the recent massacres now crying out for judgment. History records that the guilty king was pursued in the silence of night by the imploring voices of murdered men, mingled with curses and imprecations, while ghosts stalked through his chamber, until he sweated blood from every pore; and when he came to die, his soul, wrung with the tortures of remorse, stammered out, “Ah, nurse, my good nurse! what blood! what murders! Oh, what bad counsels I followed! Lord God, pardon me! have mercy on me!” Like causes produce like effects. The blood at Memphis and New Orleans must cry out until heard, and a guilty President may suffer the retribution which followed a guilty king.

The evil he has done already is on such a scale that it is impossible to measure it, unless as you measure an arc of the globe. I doubt if in all history there is any ruler who in the same brief space of time has done so much. There have been kings and emperors, proconsuls and satraps, who have exercised tyrannical power; but facilities of communication now lend swiftness and extension to all evil influences, so that the President is able to do in a year what in other days would have taken a life. Nor is the evil confined to any narrow spot. It is coextensive with the Republic. Next to Jefferson Davis stands Andrew Johnson as its worst enemy. The whole country has suffered; but the Rebel region has suffered most. He should have sent peace; instead, he sent a sword. Behold the consequences!

In support of a cruel “policy” he has not hesitated to use his enormous patronage. President Lincoln said, familiarly, that, as the people had continued him in office, he supposed they meant that others should be continued also; and he refused to make removals. But President Johnson announces “rotation in office”; and then, warming in anger against all failing to sustain his “policy,” he roars that he will “kick them out.” Men appointed by the martyred Lincoln are to be “kicked out” by the successor, while he pretends to sustain the policy of the martyr. The language of the President is most suggestive. He “kicks” the friends of his well-loved predecessor; and he also “kicks” the careful counsel of that well-loved predecessor, that we must “build up from the sound materials.”

That I may give practical direction to these remarks, let me tell you plainly what must be done. In the first place, Congress must be sustained in its conflict with the One Man Power; and, in the second place, ex-Rebels must not be hurried back to power. Bearing in mind these two things, the way is easy. Of course, the Constitutional Amendment must be adopted. As far as it goes, it is well; but it does not go far enough. More is necessary. Impartial suffrage must be established. A homestead must be secured to every freedman, if in no other way, through the pardoning power. If to these is added education, there will be a new order of things, with liberty of the press, liberty of speech, and liberty of travel, so that Wendell Phillips may speak freely in Charleston or Mobile. There is an old English play under the name of “The Four P’s.” Our present desires may be symbolized by four E’s,--standing for Emancipation, Enfranchisement, Equality, and Education. Securing these, all else will follow.

I can never cease to regret that Congress hesitated by proper legislation to assume temporary jurisdiction over the whole Rebel region. To my mind the power was ample and unquestionable, whether in the exercise of belligerent rights or in the exercise of rights directly from the Constitution itself. In this way everything needful might have been accomplished. Through this just jurisdiction the Rebel communities might have been fashioned anew, and shaped to loyalty and virtue. The President lost a great opportunity at the beginning. Congress has lost another. But it is not too late. If indisposed to assume this jurisdiction by an Enabling Act constituting provisional governments, there are many things Congress may do, acting indirectly or directly. Acting indirectly, it may insist that Emancipation, Enfranchisement, Equality, and Education shall be established as conditions precedent to the recognition of any State whose institutions have been overthrown by rebellion.[66] Acting directly, it may, by Constitutional Amendment, or by simple legislation, fix all these forever.

* * * * *

You are aware that from the beginning I have insisted upon Impartial Suffrage as the only certain guaranty of security and reconciliation. I renew this persistence, and mean to hold on to the end. Every argument, every principle, every sentiment is in its favor. But there is one reason which at this moment I place above all others: it is _the necessity of the case_. You require the votes of colored persons in the Rebel States to sustain the Union itself. Without their votes you cannot build securely for the future. Their ballots will be needed in time to come much more than their muskets were needed in time past. For the sake of the white Unionists, and for their protection,--for the sake of the Republic itself, whose peace is imperilled, I appeal for justice to the colored race. Give the ballot to the colored citizen, and he will be not only assured in his own rights, but the timely defender of yours. By a singular Providence your security is linked inseparably with the recognition of his rights. Deny him, if you will: it is at your peril.

But it is said, Leave this question to the States; and State rights are pleaded against the power of Congress. This has been the cry: at the beginning, to prevent effort against the Rebellion; and now, at the end, to prevent effort against a revival of the Rebellion. Whichsoever way we turn, we encounter the cry. But yielding now, you will commit the very error of President Buchanan, when at the beginning he declared that we could not “coerce” a State. Nobody now doubts that a State in rebellion may be “coerced”; and to my mind it is equally clear that a State just emerging from rebellion may be “coerced” to the condition required by the public peace.

There are powers of Congress, not derived from the Rebellion, which are adequate to this exigency; and now is the time to exercise them, and thus complete the work. It was the Nation that decreed Emancipation, and the Nation must see to it, by every obligation of honor and justice, that Emancipation is secured. It is not enough that Slavery is abolished in name. The Baltimore platform, on which President Johnson was elected, requires the “utter and complete _extirpation_ of Slavery from the soil of the Republic”; but this can be accomplished only by the eradication of every inequality and caste, so that all shall be equal before the law.

Be taught by Russia. The Emperor there did not content himself with naked Emancipation. He followed this glorious act with minute provisions for rights of all kinds,--as, to hold property, to sue and testify in court, _to vote_, and _to enjoy the advantages of education_. All this by the same power which decreed Emancipation.

Be taught also by England, speaking by her most illustrious statesmen, who solemnly warn against trusting to any local authorities for justice to the colored race. I begin with Burke, who saw all questions with the intuitions of the statesman, and expressed himself with the eloquence of the orator. Here are his words, uttered in 1792:--

“I have seen what has been done by the West Indian Assemblies
[in reference to the improvement of the condition of the
negro]. It is arrant trifling. They have done little; and
what they have done is good for nothing,--_for it is totally
destitute of an executory principle_.”[67]

Should we leave this question to the States, we, too, should find all they did “arrant trifling,” and wanting “an executory principle.”

Edmund Burke was followed shortly afterwards by Canning, who, in 1799, exclaimed:--

“There is something in the nature of the relation between the
despot and his slave which must vitiate and render nugatory and
null whatever laws the former might make for the benefit of the
latter,--which, however speciously these laws might be framed,
however well adapted they might appear to the evils which they
were intended to alleviate, must infallibly be marred and
defeated in the execution.”[68]

Then again he says:--

“Trust not the masters of slaves in what concerns legislation
for slavery. However specious their laws may appear, depend
upon it, they must be ineffectual in their application. It is
in the nature of things that they should be so.… Their laws
can never reach, will never cure the evil.… There is something
in the nature of absolute authority, in the relation between
master and slave, which makes despotism, in all cases and under
all circumstances, an incompetent and unsure executor even of
its own provisions in favor of the objects of its power.”[69]

The same testimony was repeated at a later day by Brougham, who, in one of his most remarkable speeches, while protesting against leaving to the colonies legislation for the freedmen, said,--

“I entirely concur in the observations of Mr. Burke, repeated
and more happily expressed by Mr. Canning: that the masters of
slaves are not to be trusted with making laws upon slavery;
that nothing they do is ever found effectual; and that, if, by
some miracle, they ever chance to enact a wholesome regulation,
it is always found to want what Mr. Burke calls _the executory
principle_,--it fails to execute itself.”[70]

Such is the concurring authority of three statesmen orators, whose eloquent voices unite to warn against trusting the freedmen to their old masters.

Reason is in harmony with this authoritative testimony. It is not natural to suppose that people who have claimed property in their brethren, God’s children,--who have indulged that “wild and guilty fantasy that man can hold property in man,”--will become at once the kind and just legislators of freedmen. It is unnatural to expect it. Even if they have made up their minds to Emancipation, they are, from inveterate habit and prejudice, incapable of justice to the colored race. There is the President himself, who once charmed the country and the age by announcing himself the “Moses” of their redemption; and yet he now exerts all his mighty power against the establishment of safeguards without which there can be no true redemption. In present discussion, the old proslavery spirit that was in him, with hostility to principles and to men, comes out anew,--as, on the application of heat, the old tunes frozen up in the bugle of Baron Munchausen were set a-going and broke forth freshly. People do not change suddenly or completely. The old devils are not all cast out at once. Even the best of converts sometimes backslide. From so grave a writer as Southey, in his History of Brazil, we learn that a woman accustomed to consider human flesh an exquisite dainty was converted to Christianity in extreme old age. The faithful missionary strove at once to minister to her wants, and asked if there was any particular food she could take, suggesting various delicacies; to all which the venerable convert replied: “My stomach goes against everything. There is but one thing which I think I could touch. If I had the little hand of a little tender Tapuya boy, I think I could pick the little bones. But, woe is me! there is nobody to go out and shoot one for me!”[71] In similar spirit our Presidential convert now yearns for a taste of those odious pretensions which were a part of Slavery.

Now, when a person thus situated, with great responsibilities to his country and to history, bound by public professions and by political associations, who has declared himself against Slavery, and has every motive for perseverance to the end,--when such a person openly seeks to preserve its odious pretensions, are we not admonished again how unsafe it must be to trust old masters, under no responsibility and no pledge, with the power of legislating for freedmen? I protest against it.

I claim this power for the Nation. If it be said that the power has never been employed, then I say that the time has come for its employment. I claim it on at least three several grounds.

1. There is the Constitutional Amendment, already adopted by the people, which invests Congress with plenary powers to secure the abolition of Slavery,--ay, its “extirpation,” according to the promise of the Baltimore platform,--including the right to sue and testify in court, and the right also to vote. The distinction attempted between what are called _civil_ rights and _political_ rights is a modern invention. These two words in their origin have the same meaning. One is derived from the Latin, and the other from the Greek. Each signifies what pertains to a _city_ or _citizen_. Besides, if the elective franchise seem “appropriate” to assure the “extirpation” of Slavery, Congress has the same power to secure this right that it has to secure the right to sue and testify in courts, which it has already done. Every argument, every reason, every consideration, by which you assert the power for the protection of colored persons in what are called _civil_ rights, is equally strong for their protection in what are called _political_ rights. In each case you legislate to the same end,--that the freedman may be maintained in the liberty so tardily accorded; and the legislation is just as “appropriate” in one case as in the other.

2. There is also that distinct clause of the Constitution requiring the United States to “guaranty to every State in this Union _a republican form of government_.” Here is a source of power as yet unused. The time has come for its use. Let it be declared that a State which disfranchises any portion of its citizens by a discrimination in its nature insurmountable, as in the case of color, cannot be considered a republican government. The principle is obvious, and its practical adoption would ennoble the country and give to mankind a new definition of republican government.

3. Another reason with me is peremptory. There is no discrimination of color in the allegiance you require. Colored citizens, like white citizens, owe allegiance to the United States; therefore they may claim protection as an equivalent. In other words, allegiance and protection must be reciprocal. As you claim allegiance of colored citizens, you must accord protection. One is the consideration of the other. And this protection must be in all the rights of citizens, civil and political. Thus again do I bring home to the National Government this solemn duty. If this has not been performed in times past, it was on account of the tyrannical influence of Slavery, which perverted our Government. But, thank God! that influence is overthrown. Vain are the victories of the war, if this influence continues to tyrannize. Formerly the Constitution was interpreted always for Slavery. I insist, that, from this time forward, it shall be interpreted always for Freedom. This is the great victory of the war,--or rather, it is the crowning result of all the victories.

One of the most important battles in the world’s history was that of Tours, in France, where the Mahometans, who had come up from Spain, contended with the Christians under Charles the Hammer. On this historic battle Gibbon remarks, that, had the result been different, “perhaps the interpretation of the Koran would now be taught in the schools of Oxford, and her pulpits might demonstrate to a circumcised people the sanctity and truth of the revelation of Mahomet.”[72] Thus was Christianity saved; and thus by our victories has Liberty been saved. Had the Rebels prevailed, Slavery would have had voices everywhere, even in the Constitution itself. But it is Liberty now that must have voices everywhere, and the greatest voice of all in the National Constitution and the laws made in pursuance thereof.

In this cause I cannot be frightened by words. There is a cry against “Centralization,” “Consolidation,” “Imperialism,”--all of which are bad enough, when dedicated to any purpose of tyranny. As the House of Representatives is renewed every two years, it is inconceivable that such a body, fresh from the people and promptly returning to the people, can become a Tyranny, especially when seeking safeguards for Human Rights. A government inspired by Liberty is as wide apart from Tyranny as Heaven from Hell. There can be no danger in Liberty assured by central authority; nor can there be danger in any powers to uphold Liberty. Such a centralization, such a consolidation,--ay, Sir, such an imperialism,--would be to the whole country a well-spring of security, prosperity, and renown. As well find danger in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution itself, which speak with central power; as well find danger in those central laws which govern the moral and material world, binding men together in society and keeping the planets wheeling in their orbits.

Often during recent trials the cause of our country has assumed three different forms, each essential in itself and yet together constituting a unit, like the shamrock, or white clover, with triple leaf, originally used to illustrate the Trinity. It was Three in One. These three different forms were: first, the national forces; secondly, the national finances; and, thirdly, the ideas entering into the controversy. The national forces and the national finances have prevailed. The ideas are still in question, and even now you debate with regard to the great rights of citizenship. Nobody doubts that the army and navy fall plainly within the jurisdiction of the National Government, and that the finances fall plainly within this jurisdiction; but the rights of citizenship are as thoroughly national as army and navy or finances. You cannot without peril cease to regulate the army and navy, nor without peril cease to regulate the finances; but there is equal peril in abandoning the rights of citizens, who, wherever they may be, in whatever State, are entitled to protection from the Nation. An American citizen in a foreign land enjoys the protecting hand of the National Government. That protecting hand should be his not less at home than abroad.

* * * * *

Fellow-citizens, allow me to gather the whole case into brief compass. The President, wielding the One Man Power, has assumed a prerogative over Congress utterly unjustifiable, while he has dictated a fatal “policy” of Reconstruction, which gives sway to Rebels, puts off the blessed day of security and reconciliation, and leaves the best interests of the Republic in jeopardy. Treacherous to party, false to the great cause, and unworthy of himself, he has set his individual will against the people of the United States in Congress assembled. Forgetful of truth and decency, he has assailed members as “assassins,” and has denounced Congress itself as a revolutionary body, “called or assuming to be the Congress of the United States,” and “hanging upon the verge of the Government,”[73]--as if this most enlightened and patriot Congress did not contain the embodied will of the American people. To you, each and all, I appeal to arrest this madness. Your votes will be the first step. The President must be taught that usurpation and apostasy cannot prevail. He who promised to be Moses, and has become Pharaoh, must be overthrown. And may the Egyptians that follow him share the same fate, so that it shall be said now as aforetime, “And the Lord overthrew the Egyptians in the midst of the sea!”

THE OCEAN TELEGRAPH BETWEEN EUROPE AND AMERICA.

ANSWER TO INVITATION TO ATTEND A BANQUET AT NEW YORK, IN HONOR OF CYRUS W. FIELD, NOVEMBER 14, 1866.

On the 15th November, a banquet was given to Cyrus W. Field,
at New York, to exchange congratulations on the happy result
of his efforts in uniting by telegraph the Old and New World.
Many distinguished guests were present. There were also
communications from President Johnson, Chief Justice Chase,
Secretary Seward, Secretary Welles, General Grant, Admiral
Porter, Sir Frederick Bruce, the British Minister, Lord Moncke,
Governor-General of Canada, and many others. Mr. Sumner wrote:--

BOSTON, November 14, 1866.

GENTLEMEN,--I regret much that it is not in my power to unite
with you in tribute to Mr. Field, according to the invitation
with which you have honored me.

There are events which can never be forgotten in the history of
Civilization. Conspicuous among these was the discovery of the
New World by Christopher Columbus. And now a kindred event is
added to the list: the two worlds are linked together.

In this work Mr. Field has been pioneer and discoverer. As such
his name will be remembered with that gratitude which is bestowed
upon the world’s benefactors. Already his fame has begun.

Accept my thanks, and believe me, Gentlemen,
faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

THE COMMITTEE, &C.

ENCOURAGEMENT TO COLORED FELLOW-CITIZENS.

LETTER TO A CONVENTION OF COLORED CITIZENS, DECEMBER 2, 1866.

December 2, 1866.

DEAR SIR,--I am glad that our colored fellow-citizens are about
to assemble in convention to consider how best to promote their
welfare, and to secure those equal rights to which they are
justly entitled.

You seek nothing less than a revolution. But you will succeed.
The revolution must prevail. What are called civil rights have
been accorded already; but every argument for these is equally
important for political rights, which cannot be denied without
the grossest wrong. Let the colored citizens persevere. Let them
calmly, but constantly, insist upon those equal rights which are
the promise of our institutions. They should appeal to Congress,
and they should also appeal to the courts.

I cannot doubt the power and duty of Congress and of the courts
to set aside every inequality founded on color. It will be the
wonder of posterity that a constitution absolutely free from all
discrimination of color was so perverted in its construction as
to sanction this discrimination,--as if such a wrong could be
derived from a text which contains no single word even to suggest
it. The fountain-head is pure: the waters which flow from it must
be equally pure.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir,
faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

J. M. LANGSTON, ESQ.

THE TRUE PRINCIPLES OF RECONSTRUCTION.

ILLEGALITY OF EXISTING GOVERNMENTS IN THE REBEL STATES.

RESOLUTIONS AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 5, 1866.

Resolutions declaring the true principles of Reconstruction,
the jurisdiction of Congress over the whole subject, the
illegality of existing governments in the Rebel States, and the
exclusion of such States, with such illegal governments, from
representation in Congress, and from voting on Constitutional
Amendments.

_RESOLVED_, (1.) That in the work of Reconstruction it is important that no false step should be taken, interposing obstacle or delay, but that, by careful provisions, we should make haste to complete the work, so that the unity of the Republic shall be secured on permanent foundations, and fraternal relations once more established among all the people thereof.

2. That this end can be accomplished only by following the guiding principles of our institutions as declared by our fathers when the Republic was formed, and that neglect or forgetfulness of these guiding principles must postpone the establishment of union, justice, domestic tranquillity, the general welfare, and the blessings of liberty, which, being the declared objects of the National Constitution, must therefore be the essential aim of Reconstruction itself.

3. That Reconstruction must be conducted by Congress, and under its constant supervision; that under the National Constitution Congress is solemnly bound to assume this responsibility; and that, in the performance of this duty, it must see that everywhere throughout the Rebel communities loyalty is protected and advanced, while the new governments are fashioned according to the requirements of a Christian commonwealth, so that order, tranquillity, education, and human rights shall prevail within their borders.

4. That, in determining what is a republican form of government, Congress must follow implicitly the definition supplied by the Declaration of Independence; and, in the practical application of this definition, it must, after excluding all disloyal persons, take care that new governments are founded on the two fundamental truths therein contained: first, that all men are equal in rights; and, secondly, that all just government stands only on the consent of the governed.

5. That all proceedings with a view to Reconstruction originating in Executive power are in the nature of usurpation; that this usurpation becomes especially offensive, when it sets aside the fundamental truths of our institutions; that it is shocking to common sense, when it undertakes to derive new governments from a hostile population just engaged in armed rebellion; and that all governments having such origin are necessarily illegal and void.

6. That it is the duty of Congress to proceed with Reconstruction; and to this end it must assume jurisdiction of the States lately in rebellion, except so far as that jurisdiction has been already renounced, and it must recognize only the Loyal States, or States having legal and valid legislatures, as entitled to representation in Congress, or to a voice in the adoption of Constitutional Amendments.

These resolutions were read and ordered to be printed. Mr.
Sumner, after remarking that he saw “no chance for peace in
the Rebel States until Congress does its duty by assuming
jurisdiction over that whole region,” proposed to read a letter
he had just received from Texas.

MR. MCDOUGALL [of California]. Allow me to ask the Senator
to read the signature. Let the name of the writer be given.

MR. SUMNER. I shall not read the signature----

MR. MCDOUGALL. Ah! ha!

MR. SUMNER. And for a very good reason,--that I could not
read the signature without exposing the writer to violence,
if not to death.

MR. DAVIS [of Kentucky]. Mr. President, I rise to a
question of order. I ask if the reading of the letter by
the Senator from Massachusetts is in order.

THE PRESIDENT _pro tempore_. In the opinion of the Chair, a
Senator, in making a speech to the Senate, has a right to
read from a letter in his possession, if he deems proper.

MR. DAVIS. I ask whether it is in order for the Senator
from Massachusetts to make a speech at this time.

THE PRESIDENT _pro tempore_. The Chair sees nothing
disorderly in it.

Mr. Sumner then read the letter, and remarked:--

I should not read this letter, if I were not entirely satisfied of the character and intelligence of the writer. It is in the nature of testimony which the Senate cannot disregard. It points the way to duty. We must, Sir, follow the suggestions of this patriot Unionist, and erase the governments under which these outrages are perpetrated. The writer calls them “sham governments.” They are governments having no element of vitality. They are disloyal in origin, and they share the character of the Rebellion itself. We must go forth to meet them, and the spirit in which they have been organized, precisely as in years past we went forth to meet the Rebellion. The Rebellion, Sir, has assumed another form. Our conflict is no longer on the field of battle, but here in this Chamber, and in the Chamber at the other end of the Capitol. Our strife is civic, but it should be none the less strenuous.

FEMALE SUFFRAGE, AND AN EDUCATIONAL TEST OF MALE SUFFRAGE.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON AMENDMENTS TO THE BILL CONFERRING SUFFRAGE WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, DECEMBER 13, 1866.

December 10th, the Suffrage Bill for the District of Columbia,
considered in the former session of Congress,[74] was again
taken up for consideration, when Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania,
moved to amend it by striking out the word “male,” so that
there should be no limitation of sex. December 12th, after
debate, this motion was rejected,--Yeas 9, Nays 37. The
Senators voting in the affirmative were Mr. Anthony, of
Rhode Island, Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Buckalew,
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Foster,
of Connecticut, Mr. Nesmith, of Oregon, Mr. Patterson, of
Tennessee, Mr. Riddle, of Delaware, and Mr. Wade, of Ohio.

The following amendment was then moved by Mr. Dixon, of
Connecticut:--

“_Provided_, That no person who has not heretofore voted in
this District shall be permitted to vote, unless he shall
be able, at the time of offering to vote, to read, and also
to write his own name.”

December 13th, at this stage of the debate, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have already voted against the motion to strike out the word “male,” and I shall vote against the pending proposition to fix an educational test. In each case I am governed by the same consideration.

In voting against striking out the word “male,” I did not intend to express any opinion on the question, which has at last found its way into the Senate Chamber, whether women shall be invested with the elective franchise. That question I leave untouched, contenting myself with the remark, that it is obviously the great question of the future,--at least one of the great questions,--which will be easily settled, whenever the women in any considerable proportion insist that it shall be settled. And so, in voting against an educational test, I do not mean to say that under other circumstances such test may not be proper. But I am against it now.

The present bill is for the benefit of the colored race in the District of Columbia. It completes Emancipation by Enfranchisement. It entitles all to vote without distinction of color. The courts and the rail-cars of the District, even the galleries of Congress, have been opened. The ballot-box must be opened also. Such is my sense not only of the importance, but of the necessity of this measure, so essential does it appear to me for the establishment of peace, security, and reconciliation, which I so earnestly covet, that I am unwilling to see it clogged, burdened, or embarrassed by anything else. I wish to vote on it alone. Therefore, whatever the merits of other questions, I have no difficulty in putting them aside until this is settled.

The bill for Impartial Suffrage in the District of Columbia concerns directly some twenty thousand colored persons, whom it will lift to the adamantine platform of Equal Rights. If regarded simply in its influence on the District, it would be difficult to exaggerate its value; but when regarded as an example to the whole country, under the sanction of Congress, its value is infinite. In the latter character it becomes a pillar of fire to illumine the footsteps of millions. What we do here will be done in the disorganized States. Therefore we must be careful that what we do here is best for the disorganized States.

If the bill could be confined in influence to the District, I should have little objection to an educational test as an experiment. But it cannot be limited to any narrow sphere. Practically, it takes the whole country into its horizon. We must, therefore, act for the whole country. This is the exigency of the present moment.

Now to my mind nothing is clearer than the present necessity of suffrage for all colored persons in the disorganized States. It will not be enough, if you give it to those who read and write; you will not in this way acquire the voting force needed there for the protection of Unionists, whether white or black. You will not secure the new allies essential to the national cause. As you once needed the muskets of blacks, so now you need their votes,--and to such extent that you can act with little reference to theory. You are bound by the necessity of the case. Therefore, when asked to open suffrage to women, or when asked to establish an educational standard for our colored fellow-citizens, I cannot, on the present bill, simply because the controlling necessity under which we act will not allow it. By a singular Providence, we are constrained to this measure of Enfranchisement for the sake of peace, security, and reconciliation, so that loyal persons, white or black, may be protected, and that the Republic may live. Here, in the national capital, we begin the real work of Reconstruction, by which the Union will be consolidated forever.

The amendment of Mr. Dixon was rejected,--Yeas 11, Nays 34.
The Senators voting in the affirmative were Mr. Anthony, Mr.
Buckalew, Mr. Dixon, Mr. Doolittle, Mr. Fogg, Mr. Foster, Mr.
Hendricks, Mr. Nesmith, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Riddle, and Mr.
Willey.

The bill then passed the Senate,--Yeas 32, Nays 13. On the
next day it passed the other House, and, being vetoed by
President Johnson, it passed both Houses by a two-thirds vote,
so that it became a law.[75]

PROHIBITION OF PEONAGE.

RESOLUTION AND REMARKS IN THE SENATE, JANUARY 3, 1867.

January 3d, in the Senate, Mr. Sumner introduced the following
resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be
directed to consider if any further legislation is needed
to prevent the enslavement of Indians in New Mexico or
any system of peonage there, and especially to prohibit
the employment of the army of the United States in the
surrender of persons claimed as peons.”

Mr. Sumner then called attention to facts showing the necessity
of action. He said:--

I think you will be astonished, when you learn that the evidence is complete, showing in a Territory of the United States the existence of slavery which a proclamation of the President has down to this day been powerless to root out. During the life of President Lincoln, I more than once appealed to him, as head of the Executive, to expel this evil from New Mexico. The result was a proclamation, and also definite orders from the War Department; but, in the face of proclamation and definite orders, the abuse has continued, and, according to official evidence, it seems to have increased.

Mr. Sumner here read from the Report of the Commissioner on
Indian Affairs, also from the Report of a Special Agent,
containing the correspondence of army officers, including an
order from the Assistant Inspector General in New Mexico to aid
in the rendition of fugitive peons to their masters, and then
remarked:--

The special Indian agent who reports this correspondence very aptly adds:--

“The aid of Congress is invoked to stop the practice.”

I hope the Department of War will communicate directly with General Carleton, under whose sanction this order has been made, and I hope that our Committee on the Judiciary will consider carefully if further legislation is not needed to meet this case. A Presidential proclamation has failed; orders of the War Department have failed; the abuse continues, and we have a very learned officer in the army of the United States undertaking to vindicate it.

The reference was changed to the Committee on Military Affairs,
and the resolution was adopted. Subsequently, Mr. Wilson, of
Massachusetts, Chairman of the Committee on Military Affairs,
reported a bill to abolish and forever prohibit the system of
peonage in the Territory of New Mexico and other parts of the
United States, which became a law.[76]

PRECAUTION AGAINST THE REVIVAL OF SLAVERY.

REMARKS IN THE SENATE, ON A RESOLUTION AND THE REPORT OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, JANUARY 3 AND FEBRUARY 20, 1867.

January 3, 1867, in the Senate, Mr. Sumner introduced the
following resolution:--

“_Resolved_, That the Committee on the Judiciary be
directed to consider if any action of Congress be needed,
either in the way of legislation or of a supplementary
Amendment to the Constitution, to prevent the sale of
persons into slavery for a specified term by virtue of a
decree of court.”

In its consideration, he called attention to cases like the
following:--

“PUBLIC SALE. The undersigned will sell at the court-house
door, in the city of Annapolis, at twelve o’clock, M., on
Saturday, 8th December, 1866, a negro man named Richard
Harris, for six months, convicted at the October term,
1866, of the Anne Arundel County Circuit Court, for
larceny, and sentenced by the Court to be sold as a slave.

“Terms of sale, cash.

“WM. BRYAN,
“_Sheriff Anne Arundel County_.

“December 3, 1866.”

He then remarked:--

It seems to me, Sir, that these cases throw upon Congress the duty at least of inquiry; and I wish the Committee on the Judiciary, from which proceeded the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery, would enlighten us on the validity of these proceedings, and the necessity or expediency of further action to prevent their repetition. I do not know that the Civil Rights Bill, which was afterward passed, may not be adequate to meet these cases; but I am not clear on that point.

When the Constitutional Amendment was under consideration, I objected positively to the phraseology. I thought it an unhappy deference to an original legislative precedent at an earlier period of our history. I regretted infinitely that Congress was willing, even indirectly, to sanction any form of slavery. But the Senate supposed that the phrase “involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted,” was simply applicable to ordinary imprisonment. At the time I feared that it might be extended so as to cover some form of slavery. It seems now that it is so extended, and I wish the Committee to consider whether the remedy can be applied by Act of Congress, or whether we must not go further and expurgate that phraseology from the text of the Constitution itself.

After remarks by Mr. Reverdy Johnson and Mr. Creswell, of
Maryland, Mr. Sumner said:--

The remarks of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] seem to justify entirely the resolution I have brought forward. I have simply called attention to what was already notorious, but with a view to action. I am not sure, that, under the Constitutional Amendment, this abuse may not be justified, and I desire to have the opinion of the Committee after ample consideration.

This, Sir, is not the first time in which incidents like this have occurred. I remember, that, many years ago, when I first came into this Chamber, the good people whom I represent were shocked at reading that four colored sailors of Massachusetts had been sold into slavery in the State of Texas. I did what I could to obtain their liberation, but without success. I applied directly to the Senator from Texas at that time, who will be remembered by many as the able General Rusk, beside whom I sat on the other side of the Chamber. He openly vindicated the power of the court to make such a sale, and I have never heard anything of those poor victims from that time to this. Under the operation of the Constitutional Amendment I trust they are now emancipated; but I am not sure of that, since they are in Texas.

The resolution was adopted. Subsequently Mr. Creswell moved the
printing of a bill, introduced by him at the preceding session,
to protect children of African descent from being enslaved in
violation of the Constitution of the United States.

February 20th, Mr. Poland, from the Committee on the Judiciary,
to whom this bill had been referred, reported that its object
was accomplished by the Civil Rights and the Habeas Corpus
Acts, and that no further legislation was needed. In a
conversation that ensued, Mr. Sumner said:--

It strikes me the practical question is, whether recent incidents have not admonished us that there is a disposition to evade the statute, and under the protection of State laws----

MR. TRUMBULL [of Illinois]. That is the very thing the statute
guards against.

MR. SUMNER. But the statute was not effective to prevent those incidents.

MR. TRUMBULL. Will any statute, if it is not executed?

MR. SUMNER. But when apprised of an evasion, I ask whether it is not expedient to counteract that evasion specifically and precisely, so that there shall be no possible excuse? Liberty is won by these anxious trials. Those who represent her are accustomed to take case by case and difficulty by difficulty,--overcoming them, if they can. Secure first the general principle, as in the Constitutional Amendment,--then legislation as extensive or minute as the occasion requires. Let it be “precept upon precept, line upon line,” so long as any such outrage can be shown.

I would not seem pertinacious, though I do not know that I can err by any pertinacity on a question of Human Liberty. I feel that we are painfully admonished, by incidents occurring under our very eyes, that we ought to do something to tighten that great Constitutional Amendment. It contains in its text words which I regret. I regretted them at the time; I proposed to strike them out; and now they return to plague the inventor. There should have been no recognition in the Constitutional Amendment of any possibility of Slavery. The reply is, that the Amendment, if properly interpreted, does not recognize the possibility of Slavery being legal in any just sense. But it is misinterpreted,--has been so in an adjoining State; and who can tell that it will not be so now in every one of the Southern States? I am sorry that the Committee has not reported the bill.

The Senate last night passed a bill, on the report of my colleague, to prohibit slavery and peonage in New Mexico. Under the Constitutional Amendment, I take it, that bill was unnecessary, it was superfluous. But we have found a difficulty in that Territory. There has been outrage; slavery in some form exists there; and consequently my colleague was right, when he brought his Committee to the conclusion that they must meet it by specific enactment. Where the abuse appears, we must root it out. That is Radicalism. So long as a human being is held as a slave anywhere under this flag, from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, there is occasion for your powerful intervention; and if there is ambiguity or failure in existing statutes, then you must supply another statute.

PROTECTION AGAINST THE PRESIDENT.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE TENURE OF OFFICE BILL, JANUARY 15, 17, AND 18, 1867.

This session of Congress was occupied by efforts to restrain
and limit the appointing power of the President. The
differences between the President and Congress increased daily.
Among measures considered by Congress was a bill to regulate
the tenure of offices, known as the Tenure of Office Bill.

January 15th, Mr. Sumner moved to amend this bill by adding a
new section:--

“_And be it further enacted_, That all officers or agents,
except clerks of Departments, now appointed by the
President or by the head of any Department, whose salary
or compensation, derived from fees or otherwise, exceeds
one thousand dollars annually, shall be nominated by the
President and appointed by and with the advice and consent
of the Senate; and the term of all such officers or agents
who have been appointed since the first day of July, 1866,
either by the President or by the head of a Department,
without the advice and consent of the Senate, shall expire
on the last day of February, 1867.”

Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, who reported the pending bill, opposed
the amendment. Mr. Sumner followed.