Chapter VII: Part 7

The word MAN is thought to carry somewhat of dignity in its
sound; and we commonly make use of this, as the last and the
most prevailing argument against a rude insulter, “I am not
a beast, a dog, but I am a Man as well as yourself.” Since,
then, human nature agrees equally to all persons, and since
no one can live a sociable life with another who does not own
and respect him as a Man, it follows, as a command of the
Law of Nature, that _every man esteem and treat another as
one who is naturally his equal, or who is a Man as well as
he_.--PUFENDORF, _Law of Nature and Nations_, tr. Kennett, Book
III., Ch. 2, § 1.

* * * * *

Carrying his solicitude still farther, Charlemagne recommended
to the bishops and abbots, that, in their schools, “they should
take care to make no difference between the sons of serfs
and of freemen, _so that they might come and sit on the same
benches to study grammar, music, and arithmetic_.”--GUIZOT,
_History of France_, tr. Black, (London, 1872,) Vol. I. p. 239.

INTRODUCTION.

May 13, 1870, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent
obtained, leave to bring in a bill “Supplementary to an
Act entitled ‘An Act to protect all persons in the United
States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their
vindication,’ passed April 9, 1866,” which was read the
first and second times by unanimous consent, referred to the
Committee on the Judiciary, and ordered to be printed.

July 7th, only a few days before the close of the session, Mr.
Trumbull, Chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, reported
a bundle of bills, including that above mentioned, adversely,
and all, on his motion, were postponed indefinitely.

January 20, 1871, Mr. Sumner again introduced the same bill,
which was once more referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.

February 15th, Mr. Trumbull, from the Committee, again reported
the bill adversely; but, at the suggestion of Mr. Sumner, it
was allowed to go on the Calendar. Owing to the pressure of
business in the latter days of the session, he was not able to
have it considered, and the bill dropped with the session.

* * * * *

At the opening of the next Congress, March 9, 1871, Mr. Sumner
again brought forward the same bill, which was read the first
and second times, by unanimous consent, and on his motion
ordered to lie on the table and be printed. In making this
motion he said that the bill had been reported adversely twice
by the Committee on the Judiciary; that, therefore, he did not
think it advisable to ask its reference again; that nothing
more important could be submitted to the Senate, and that it
should be acted on before any adjournment of Congress. In reply
to an inquiry from Mr. Hamlin, of Maine, Mr. Sumner proceeded
to explain the bill, which he insisted was in conformity
with the Declaration of Independence, and with the National
Constitution, neither of which knows anything of the word
“white.” Then, announcing that he should do what he could to
press the bill to a vote, he said: “Senators may vote it down.
They may take that responsibility; but I shall take mine, God
willing.”

At this session a resolution was adopted limiting legislation
to certain enumerated subjects, among which the Supplementary
Civil Rights bill was not named. March 17th, while the
resolution was under discussion, Mr. Sumner warmly protested
against it, and insisted that nothing should be done to prevent
the consideration of his bill, which he explained at length.
In reply to the objection that the session was to be short,
and that there was no time, he said: “Make the time, then;
extend the session; do not limit it so as to prevent action
on a measure of such vast importance.” An amendment moved by
Mr. Sumner to add this bill to the enumerated subjects was
rejected. The session closed without action upon it.

* * * * *

At the opening of the next session, Mr. Sumner renewed his
efforts.

December 7, 1871, in presenting a petition from colored
citizens of Albany, he remarked: “It seems to me the Senate
cannot do better than proceed at once to the consideration of
the supplementary bill now on our Calendar, to carry out the
prayer of these petitioners”; and he wished Congress might
be inspired to “make a Christmas present to their colored
fellow-citizens of the rights secured by that bill.”

December 20th, the Senate having under consideration a bill,
which had already passed the House, “for the removal of the
legal and political disabilities imposed by the third section
of the Fourteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of
the United States,” Mr. Sumner, insisting upon justice before
generosity, moved his Supplementary Civil Rights Bill as an
amendment. A colloquy took place between himself and Mr. Hill,
of Georgia, in which the latter opposed the amendment.

MR. SUMNER. I should like to bring home to the Senator that
nearly one half of the people of Georgia are now excluded
from the equal rights which my amendment proposes to
secure; and yet I understand that the Senator disregards
their condition, sets aside their desires, and proposes
to vote down my proposition. The Senator assumes that the
former Rebels are the only people of Georgia. Sir, I see
the colored race in Georgia. I see that race once enslaved,
for a long time deprived of all rights, and now under
existing usage and practice despoiled of rights which the
Senator himself is in the full enjoyment of.

MR. HILL. … I never can agree in the proposition that,
if there be a hotel for the entertainment of travellers,
and two classes stop at it, and there is one dining-room
for one class and one for another, served alike in all
respects, with the same accommodations, the same attention
to the guests, there is anything offensive, or anything
that denies the civil rights of one more than the other.
Nor do I hold, that, if you have public schools, and you
give all the advantages of education to one class as you do
to another, but keep them separate and apart, there is any
denial of a civil right in that. I also contend, that, even
upon the railways of the country, if cars of equal comfort,
convenience, and security be provided for different classes
of persons, no one has a right to complain, if it be a
regulation of the companies to separate them.…

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, we have a vindication on this
floor of inequality as a principle and as a political rule.

MR. HILL. On which race, I would inquire, does the
inequality to which the Senator refers operate?

MR. SUMNER. On both. Why, the Senator would not allow a
white man in the same car with a colored man.

MR. HILL. Not unless he was invited, perhaps. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. The Senator mistakes a substitute for equality.
Equality is where all are alike. A substitute can never
take the place of equality. It is impossible; it is absurd.
I must remind the Senator that it is very unjust,--it is
terribly unjust. We have received in this Chamber a colored
Senator from Mississippi; but according to the rule of
the Senator from Georgia we should have put him apart by
himself; he should not have sat with his brother Senators.
Do I understand the Senator as favoring such a rule?

MR. HILL. No, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not.

MR. HILL. I do not, Sir, for this reason: it is under the
institutions of the country that he becomes entitled by law
to his seat here; we have no right to deny it to him.

MR. SUMNER. Very well; and I intend, to the best of
my ability, to see that under the institutions of the
country he is equal everywhere. The Senator says he is
equal in this Chamber. I say he should be equal in rights
everywhere; and why not, I ask the Senator from Georgia?

MR. HILL. … I am one of those who have believed, that,
when it pleased the Creator of heaven and earth to make
different races of men, it was His purpose to keep them
distinct and separate. I think so now.…

MR. SUMNER. The Senator admits that in the highest
council-chamber there is, and should be, perfect equality
before the law; but descend into the hotel, on the
railroad, within the common school, and there can be no
equality before the law. The Senator does not complain
because all are equal in this Chamber. I should like to ask
him, if he will allow me, whether, in his judgment, the
colored Representatives from Georgia and South Carolina in
the other Chamber ought not on railroads and at hotels to
have like rights with himself? I ask that precise question.

MR. HILL. I will answer that question in this manner: I
myself am subject in hotels and upon railroads to the
regulations provided by the hotel proprietors for their
guests, and by the railroad companies for their passengers.
I am entitled, and so is the colored man, to all the
security and comfort that either presents to the most
favored guest or passenger; but I maintain that proximity
to a colored man does not increase my comfort or security,
nor does proximity to me on his part increase his, and
therefore it is not a denial of any right in either case.

MR. SUMNER. May I ask the Senator if he is excluded from
any right on account of his color? The Senator says he
is sometimes excluded from something at hotels or on
railroads. I ask whether any exclusion on account of color
bears on him?

MR. HILL. I answer the Senator. I have been excluded from
ladies’ cars on railroads. I do not know on what account
precisely; I do not know whether it was on account of my
color; but I think it more likely that it was on account of
my sex. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. But the Senator, as I understand, insists that
it is proper on account of color. That is his conclusion.

MR. HILL. No; I insist that it is no denial of a right,
provided all the comfort and security be furnished to
passengers alike.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not seem to see that any rule
excluding a man on account of color is an indignity, an
insult, and a wrong; and he makes himself on this floor the
representative of indignity, of insult, and of wrong to
the colored race. Why, Sir, his State has a large colored
population, and he denies their rights.

MR. HILL. If the Senator will allow me, I will say to him
that it will take him and others, if there should be any
others who so believe, a good while to convince the colored
people of the State of Georgia, who know me, that I would
deprive them of any right to which they are entitled,
though it were only technical; but in matters of pure
taste I cannot get away from the idea that I do them no
injustice, if I separate them on some occasions from the
other race.…

MR. SUMNER. The Senator makes a mistake which has been
made for a generation in this Chamber, confounding what
belongs to society with what belongs to rights. There is no
question of society. The Senator may choose his associates
as he pleases. They may be white or black, or between the
two. That is simply a social question, and nobody would
interfere with it. The taste which the Senator announces
he will have free liberty to exercise, selecting always
his companions; but when it comes to rights, there the
Senator must obey the law, and I insist that by the law of
the land all persons without distinction of color shall be
equal in rights. Show me, therefore, a legal institution,
anything created or regulated by law, and I show you what
must be opened equally to all without distinction of color.
Notoriously, the hotel is a legal institution, originally
established by the Common Law, subject to minute provisions
and regulations; notoriously, public conveyances are common
carriers subject to a law of their own; notoriously,
schools are public institutions created and maintained by
law; and now I simply insist that in the enjoyment of these
institutions there shall be no exclusion on account of
color.

…

MR. HILL. I must confess, Sir, that I cannot see the
magnitude of this subject. I object to this great
Government descending to the business of regulating the
hotels and the common taverns of this country, and the
street railroads, stage-coaches, and everything of that
sort. It looks to me to be a petty business.…

MR. SUMNER. I would not have my country descend, but
ascend. It must rise to the heights of the Declaration of
Independence. Then and there did we pledge ourselves to
the great truth that all men are equal in rights. And now
a Senator from Georgia rises on this floor and denies it.
He denies it by a subtilty. While pretending to admit it,
he would overthrow it. He would adopt a substitute for
equality.

…

MR. HILL. With the permission of the Senator, I will ask
him if this proposition does not involve on the part of
this Government an inhibition upon railroad companies of
first, second, and third class cars?

MR. SUMNER. Not at all. That is simply a matter of price.
My bill is an inhibition upon inequality founded upon
color. I had thought that all those inequalities were
buried under the tree at Appomattox, but the Senator digs
them up and brings them into this Chamber. There never can
be an end to this discussion until all men are assured in
equal rights.…

MR. HILL. … I do not know, that, among the guests that the
Senator entertains of the colored race, he is visited so
often by the humble as I myself am. I think those who call
upon him are gentlemen of title and of some distinction;
they may be Lieutenant-Governors, members of the two Houses
here, members of State Legislatures, &c. My associations
have been more with the lower strata of the colored people
than with the upper.

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, there is no personal question
between the Senator and myself--

MR. HILL. None whatever.

MR. SUMNER. He proclaims his relations with the colored
race. I say nothing of mine; I leave that to others. But
the Senator still insists upon his dogma of inequality.
Senators have heard him again and again, how he comes round
by a vicious circle to the same point, that an equivalent
is equality; and when I mention the case of Governor
Dunn travelling from New Orleans to Washington on public
business, I understand the Senator to say that on the cars
he should enjoy a different treatment from the Governor.

MR. HILL. No, Sir; I have distinctly disclaimed that. When
he pays his money, he is entitled to as much comfort and as
much convenience as I am.

MR. SUMNER. Let me ask the Senator whether in this world
personal respect is not an element of comfort. If a person
is treated with indignity, can he be comfortable?

MR. HILL. I will answer the Senator, that no one can
condemn more strongly than I do any indignity visited upon
a person merely because of color.

MR. SUMNER. But when you exclude persons from the comforts
of travel simply on account of color, do you not offer them
an indignity?

MR. HILL. I say it is the fault of the railroad companies,
if they do not provide comforts for all their passengers,
and make them equal where they pay equal fare.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator says it is the fault of the
railroad company. I propose to make it impossible for the
railroad company to offer an indignity to a colored man
more than to the Senator from Georgia.

MR. HILL. Right there the Senator and I divide upon this
question.… I confess to having a little _penchant_ for the
white race; and if I were going on a long journey, and
desired a companion, I should prefer to select him from my
own race.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator comes round again to his taste. It
is not according to his taste; and therefore he offers an
indignity to the colored man.

MR. HILL. No, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. It is not according to his taste; that is
all. How often shall I say that this is no question of
taste,--it is no question of society,--it is a stern,
austere, hard question of rights? And that is the way that
I present it to the Senate.

…

In old days, when Slavery was arraigned, the constant
inquiry of those who represented this wrong was, “Are you
willing to associate with colored persons? Will you take
these slaves, as equals, into your families?” Sir, was
there ever a more illogical inquiry? What has that to do
with the question? A claim of rights cannot be encountered
by any social point. I may have whom I please as friend,
acquaintance, associate, and so may the Senator; but I
cannot deny any human being, the humblest, any right of
equality. He must be equal with me before the law, or the
promises of the Declaration of Independence are not yet
fulfilled.

And now, Sir, I pledge myself, so long as strength remains
in me, to press this question to a successful end. I
will not see the colored race of this Republic treated
with indignity on the grounds assigned by the Senator.
I am their defender. The Senator may deride me, and may
represent me as giving too much time to what he calls a
very small question. Sir, no question of human rights is
small. Every question by which the equal rights of all are
affected is transcendent. It cannot be magnified. But here
are the rights of a whole people, not merely the rights of
an individual, of two or three or four, but the rights of a
race, recognized as citizens, voting, helping to place the
Senator here in this Chamber, and he turns upon them and
denies them.

MR. HILL. The Senator is not aware of one fact, … that
every colored member of the Legislature of my State, even
though some of them had made voluntary pledges to me,
voted against my election to this body. I was not sent
here receiving a single vote from that class of men in the
Legislature.

MR. SUMNER. I am afraid that they understood the Senator.
[_Laughter._]

MR. HILL. That may be, Sir. I would not be surprised, if
they had some distrust. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. And now, Mr. President, that we may understand
precisely where we are, that the Senate need not be
confused by the question of taste or the question of
society presented by the Senator from Georgia, I desire to
have my amendment read.

The Supplementary Civil Rights Bill was then read at length, as
follows:--

SEC.--That all citizens of the United States, without
distinction of race, color, or previous condition of
servitude, are entitled to the equal and impartial
enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, facility, or
privilege furnished by common carriers, whether on land
or water; by innkeepers; by licensed owners, managers, or
lessees of theatres or other places of public amusement;
by trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers,
or other officers of common schools and other public
institutions of learning, the same being supported or
authorized by law; by trustees or officers of church
organizations, cemetery associations, and benevolent
institutions incorporated by National or State authority:
and this right shall not be denied or abridged on any
pretence of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

SEC.--That any person violating the foregoing provision,
or aiding in its violation, or inciting thereto, shall
for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of $500
to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an
action on the case, with full costs and such allowance for
counsel fees as the court shall deem just, and shall also
for every such offence be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor,
and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than
$500 nor more than $1,000, and shall be imprisoned not
less than thirty days nor more than one year; and any
corporation, association, or individual holding a charter
or license under National or State authority, violating
the aforesaid provision, shall, upon conviction thereof,
forfeit such charter or license; and any person assuming
to use or continuing to act under such charter or license
thus forfeited, or aiding in the same, or inciting thereto,
shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor
more than $5,000, and shall be imprisoned not less than
three nor more than seven years; and both the corporate and
joint property of such corporation or association, and the
private property of the several individuals composing the
same, shall be held liable for the forfeitures, fines, and
penalties incurred by any violation of the ---- section of
this Act.

SEC.--That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby
conferred and the same duties enjoined upon the courts and
officers of the United States, in the execution of this
Act, as are conferred and enjoined upon such courts and
officers in sections three, four, five, seven, and ten
of an Act entitled “An Act to protect all persons in the
United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means
of their vindication,” passed April 9, 1866, and these
sections are hereby made a part of this Act; and any of the
aforesaid officers failing to institute and prosecute such
proceedings herein required shall for every such offence
forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved
thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case, with
full costs and such allowance for counsel fees as the court
shall deem just, and shall on conviction thereof be deemed
guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000
nor more than $5,000.

SEC.--That no person shall be disqualified for service as
juror in any court, National or State, by reason of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude: _Provided_, That
such person possesses all other qualifications which are by
law prescribed; and any officer or other persons charged
with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, who
shall exclude or fail to summon any person for the reason
above named, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty
of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000 nor
more than $5,000.

SEC.--That every law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or
custom, whether National or State, inconsistent with this
Act, or making any discriminations against any person on
account of color, by the use of the word “white,” is hereby
repealed and annulled.

SEC.--That it shall be the duty of the judges of the
several courts upon which jurisdiction is hereby conferred
to give this Act in charge to the grand jury of their
respective courts at the commencement of each term thereof.

Objection was at once raised to the admission of any amendment
whatever, as imperilling the pending bill,--Mr. Alcorn, of
Mississippi, while pressing this, objected further, urging the
hazard to the measure embraced in the proposed amendment from
attachment to a bill requiring for its passage a two-thirds’
vote instead of the usual simple majority.

* * * * *

December 21st, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, objected to the amendment
of Mr. Sumner, on the ground suggested by Mr. Alcorn,--raising
the point of order, that, “being a measure which, if it stood
by itself, could be passed by a majority vote of the Senate,
it cannot be offered as an amendment to a bill that requires
two-thirds of the Senate.” The objection being overruled, and
Mr. Thurman appealing from the decision of the Chair, a debate
ensued on the question of order,--Mr. Thurman, Mr. Bayard of
Delaware, Mr. Trumbull of Illinois, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, and
Mr. Sawyer of South Carolina sustaining the objection, and Mr.
Conkling of New York, Mr. Carpenter of Wisconsin, Mr. Edmunds
of Vermont, and Mr. Sumner opposing it. In the course of his
speech Mr. Sumner remarked:--

Does not the Act before us in its body propose a measure of reconciliation? Clemency and amnesty it proposes; and these, in my judgment, constitute a measure of reconciliation. And now I add justice to the colored race. Is not that germane? Do not the two go together? Are they not naturally associated? Sir, can they be separated?

Instead of raising a question of order, I think the friends of amnesty would be much better employed if they devoted their strength to secure the passage of my amendment. Who that is truly in favor of amnesty will vote against this measure of reconciliation?

Sir, most anxiously do I seek reconciliation; but I know too much of history, too much of my own country, and I remember too well the fires over which we have walked in these latter days, not to know that reconciliation is impossible except on the recognition of Equal Rights. Vain is the effort of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. ALCORN]; he cannot succeed; he must fail, and he ought to fail. It is not enough to be generous; he must learn to be just. It is not enough to stand by those who have fought against us; he must also stand by those who for generations have borne the ban of wrong. I listened with sadness to the Senator; he spoke earnestly and sincerely,--but, to my mind, it is much to be regretted, that, coming into this Chamber the representative of colored men, he should turn against them. I know that he will say, “Pass the Amnesty Bill first, and then take care of the other.” I say, Better pass the two together; or if either is lost, let it be the first. Justice in this world is foremost.

The Senator thinks that the cause of the colored race is hazarded because my amendment is moved on the Act for Amnesty. In my judgment, it is advanced. He says that the Act of Amnesty can pass only by a two-thirds vote. Well, Sir, I insist that every one of that two-thirds should record his name for my measure of reconciliation. If he does not, he is inconsistent with himself. How, Sir, will an Act of Amnesty be received when accompanied with denial of justice to the colored race? With what countenance can it be presented to this country? How will it look to the civilized world? Sad page! The Recording Angel will have tears, but not enough to blot it out.

The decision of the Chair was sustained by the vote of the
Senate,--Yeas 28, Nays 26,--and the amendment was declared in
order. On the question of its adoption it was lost,--Yeas 29,
Nays 30.

Later in the day, the Amnesty Bill having been reported to
the Senate, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment. In the debate
that ensued he declared his desire to vote for amnesty; but he
insisted that this measure did not deserve success, unless with
it was justice to the colored race. In reply to Mr. Thurman,
he urged that all regulations of public institutions should
be in conformity with the Declaration of Independence. “The
Senator may smile, but I commend that to his thoughts during
our vacation. Let him consider the binding character of the
Declaration in its fundamental principles. The Senator does not
believe it. There are others who do, and my bill is simply a
practical application of it.”

Without taking any vote the Senate adjourned for the holiday
recess, leaving the Amnesty Bill and the pending amendment as
unfinished business.

* * * * *

January 15, 1872, the subject was resumed, when Mr. Sumner made
the following speech.

SPEECH.

MR. PRESIDENT,--In opening this question, one of the greatest ever presented to the Senate, I have had but one hesitation, and that was merely with regard to the order of treatment. There is a mass of important testimony from all parts of the country, from Massachusetts as well as Georgia, showing the absolute necessity of Congressional legislation for the protection of Equal Rights, which I think ought to be laid before the Senate. It was my purpose to begin with this testimony; but I have changed my mind, and shall devote the day to a statement of the question, relying upon the indulgence of the Senate for another opportunity to introduce the evidence. I ask that the pending amendment be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was to append to the
Amnesty Bill, as additional sections, the Supplementary Civil
Rights Bill.

Mr. Sumner resumed:--

MR. PRESIDENT, Slavery, in its foremost pretensions, reappears in the present debate. Again the barbarous tyranny stalks into this Chamber, denying to a whole race the Equal Rights promised by a just citizenship. Some have thought Slavery dead. This is a mistake. If not in body, at least in spirit, or as a ghost making the country hideous, the ancient criminal yet lingers among us, insisting upon the continued degradation of a race.

Property in man has ceased to exist. The human auction-block has departed. No human being can call himself master, with impious power to separate husband and wife, to sell child from parent, to shut out the opportunities of religion, to close the gates of knowledge, and to rob another of his labor and all its fruits. These guilty prerogatives are ended. To this extent the slave is free. No longer a chattel, he is a man,--justly entitled to all that is accorded by law to any other man.

Such is the irresistible logic of his emancipation. Ceasing to be a slave, he became a man, whose foremost right is Equality of Rights. And yet Slavery has been strong enough to postpone his entry into the great possession. Cruelly, he was not permitted to testify in court; most unjustly, he was not allowed to vote. More than four millions of people, whose only offence was a skin once the badge of Slavery, were shut out from the court-room, and also from the ballot-box, in open defiance of the great Declaration of our fathers, that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent of the governed. Such was the impudent behest of Slavery, prolonged after it was reported dead. At last these crying wrongs are overturned. The slave testifies; the slave votes. To this extent his equality is recognized.

EQUALITY BEFORE THE LAW.

But this is not enough. Much as it may seem, compared with the past, when all was denied, it is too little, because all is not yet recognized. The denial of any right is a wrong darkening the enjoyment of all the rest. Besides the right to testify and the right to vote, there are other rights without which Equality does not exist. The precise rule is Equality before the Law, nor more nor less; that is, that condition before the law in which all are alike,--being entitled, without discrimination, to the equal enjoyment of all institutions, privileges, advantages, and conveniences created or regulated by law, among which are the right to testify and the right to vote. But this plain requirement is not satisfied, logically or reasonably, by these two concessions, so that when they are recognized all others are trifles. The court-house and the ballot-box are not the only places for the rule. These two are not the only institutions for its operation. The rule is general; how, then, restrict it to two cases? It is, _All are equal before the law_,--not merely before the law in two cases, but before the law in all cases, without limitation or exception. Important as it is to testify and to vote, life is not all contained even in these possessions.

The new-made citizen is called to travel for business, for health, or for pleasure; but here his trials begin. His money, whether gold or paper, is the same as the white man’s; but the doors of the public hotel, which from the earliest days of jurisprudence have always opened hospitably to the stranger, close against him, and the public conveyances, which the Common Law declares equally free to all alike, have no such freedom for him. He longs, perhaps, for respite and relaxation at some place of public amusement, duly licensed by law; and here also the same adverse discrimination is made. With the anxieties of a parent, seeking the welfare of his child, he strives to bestow upon him the inestimable blessings of education, and takes him affectionately to the common school, created by law, and supported by the taxation to which he has contributed; but these doors slam rudely in the face of the child where is garnered up the parent’s heart. “Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me”: such were the words of the Divine Master. But among us little children are turned away and forbidden at the door of the common school, because of the skin. And the same insulting ostracism shows itself in other institutions of science and learning, also in the church, and in the last resting-place on earth.

Two instances occur, which have been mentioned already on this floor; but their eminence in illustration of an unquestionable grievance justifies the repetition.

CASE OF FREDERICK DOUGLASS.

One is the well-known case of Frederick Douglass, who, returning home after earnest service of weeks as Secretary of the Commission to report on the people of San Domingo and the expediency of incorporating them with the United States, was rudely excluded from the table, where his brother commissioners were already seated, on board the mail-steamer of the Potomac, just before reaching the President, whose commission he bore. This case, if not aggravated, is made conspicuous by peculiar circumstances. Mr. Douglass is a gentleman of unquestioned ability and character, remarkable as an orator, refined in manners, and personally agreeable. He was returning, charged with the mission of bringing under our institutions a considerable population of colored foreigners, whose prospective treatment among us was foreshadowed on board that mail-steamer. The Dominican Baez could not expect more than our fellow-citizen. And yet, with this mission, and with the personal recommendation he so justly enjoys, this returning Secretary could not be saved from outrage even in sight of the Executive Mansion.

CASE OF LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR DUNN.

There also was Oscar James Dunn, late Lieutenant-Governor of Louisiana. It was my privilege to open the door of the Senate Chamber and introduce him upon this floor. Then, in reply to my inquiry, he recounted the hardships to which he had been exposed in the long journey from Louisiana,--especially how he was denied the ordinary accommodations for comfort and repose supplied to those of another skin. This denial is memorable, not only from the rank, but the character of the victim. Of blameless life, he was an example of integrity. He was poor, but could not be bought or bribed. Duty with him was more than riches. A fortune was offered for his signature; but he spurned the temptation.

And yet this model character, high in the confidence of his fellow-citizens, and in the full enjoyment of political power, was doomed to suffer the blasting influence which still finds support in this Chamber. He is dead at last, and buried with official pomp. The people, counted by tens of thousands, thronged the streets while his obsequies proceeded. An odious discrimination was for the time suspended. In life rejected by the conductor of a railway because of his skin, he was borne to his last resting-place with all the honors an afflicted community could bestow. Only in his coffin was the ban of color lifted, and the dead statesman admitted to that equality which is the right of all.

REQUIREMENT OF REPUBLICAN INSTITUTIONS.

These are marked instances; but they are types. If Frederick Douglass and Oscar James Dunn could be made to suffer, how much must others be called to endure! All alike, the feeble, the invalid, the educated, the refined, women as well as men, are shut out from the ordinary privileges of the steamboat or rail-car, and driven into a vulgar sty with smokers and rude persons, where the conversation is as offensive as the scene, and then again at the roadside inn are denied that shelter and nourishment without which travel is impossible. Do you doubt this constant, wide-spread outrage, extending in uncounted ramifications throughout the whole land? With sorrow be it said, it reaches everywhere, even into Massachusetts. Not a State which does not need the benign correction. The evidence is on your table in numerous petitions. And there is other evidence, already presented by me, showing how individuals have suffered from this plain denial of equal rights. Who that has a heart can listen to the story without indignation and shame? Who with a spark of justice to illumine his soul can hesitate to denounce the wrong? Who that rejoices in republican institutions will not help to overthrow the tyranny by which they are degraded?

I do not use too strong language, when I expose this tyranny as a degradation to republican institutions,--ay, Sir, in their fundamental principle. Why is the Declaration of Independence our Magna Charta? Not because it declares separation from a distant kingly power; but because it announces the lofty truth that all are equal in rights, and, as a natural consequence, that just government stands only on the consent of the governed,--all of which is held to be self-evident. Such is the soul of republican institutions, without which the Republic is a failure, a name and nothing more. Call it a Republic, if you will, but it is in reality a soulless mockery.

Equality in rights is not only the first of rights, it is an axiom of political truth. But an axiom, whether of science or philosophy, is universal, and without exception or limitation; and this is according to the very law of its nature. Therefore it is not stating an axiom to announce grandly that only white men are equal in rights; nor is it stating an axiom to announce with the same grandeur that all persons are equal in rights, but that colored persons have no rights except to testify and vote. Nor is it a self-evident truth, as declared; for no truth is self-evident which is not universal. The asserted limitation destroys the original Declaration, making it a ridiculous sham, instead of that sublime Magna Charta before which kings, nobles, and all inequalities of birth must disappear as ghosts of night at the dawn.

REAL ISSUE OF THE WAR.

All this has additional force, when it is known that this very axiom or self-evident truth declared by our fathers was the real issue of the war, and was so publicly announced by the leaders on both sides. Behind the embattled armies were ideas, and the idea on our side was Equality in Rights, which on the other side was denied. The Nation insisted that all men are created equal; the Rebellion insisted that all men are created unequal. Here the evidence is explicit.

The inequality of men was an original postulate of Mr. Calhoun,[174] which found final expression in the open denunciation of the self-evident truth as “a self-evident lie.”[175] Echoing this denunciation, Jefferson Davis, on leaving the Senate, January 21, 1861, in that farewell speech which some among you heard, but which all may read in the “Globe,” made the issue in these words:--

“It has been a belief that we are to be deprived in the Union
of the rights which our fathers bequeathed to us, which has
brought Mississippi into her present decision. _She has heard
proclaimed the theory that all men are created free and
equal, and this made the basis of an attack upon her social
institutions; and the sacred Declaration of Independence has
been invoked to maintain the position of the equality of the
races._”[176]

The issue thus made by the chief Rebel was promptly joined. Abraham Lincoln, the elected President, stopping at Independence Hall, February 22d, on his way to assume his duties at the National capital, in unpremeditated words thus interpreted the Declaration:--

“It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight
should be lifted from the shoulders of all men, _and that all
should have an equal chance_.”

Mark, if you please, the simplicity of this utterance. All are to have “an equal chance”; and this, he said, “is the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence.” Then, in reply to Jefferson Davis, he proceeded:--

“Now, my friends, can this country be saved upon that basis?
If it can, I shall consider myself one of the happiest men in
the world, if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved
upon that principle, it will be truly awful. But if this
country cannot be saved without giving up that principle, I was
about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot than
surrender it.”

Giving these words still further solemnity, he added:

“I have said nothing but what I am willing to live by, and, if
it be the pleasure of Almighty God, to die by.”

And then, before raising the national banner over the historic Hall, he said:--

“It is on such an occasion as this that we can reason together,
and reaffirm our devotion to the country and the principles of
the Declaration of Independence.”[177]

Thus the gauntlet flung down by Jefferson Davis was taken up by Abraham Lincoln, who never forgot the issue.

The rejoinder was made by Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President of the Rebellion, in a not-to-be forgotten speech at Savannah, March 21, 1861, when he did not hesitate to declare of the pretended Government, that--

“Its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests, upon _the
great truth that the Negro is not equal to the white man_.”

Then, glorying in this terrible shame, he added:--

“This, our new Government, is the first, in the history of the
world, based upon this great physical, philosophical, and moral
truth.”

“This stone, which was rejected by the first builders, is
become the chief stone of the corner.”[178]

To this unblushing avowal Abraham Lincoln replied in that marvellous, undying utterance at Gettysburg,--fit voice for the Republic, greater far than any victory:

“Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth
on this continent a new Nation, _conceived in Liberty, and
dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal_.”

Thus, in precise conformity with the Declaration, was it announced that our Republic is dedicated to the Equal Rights of All; and then the prophet-President, soon to be a martyr, asked his countrymen to dedicate themselves to the great task remaining, highly resolving

“that this Nation, under God, shall have a new birth of
Freedom; and that Government of the people, by the people, and
for the people shall not perish from the earth.”[179]

The victory of the war is vain without the grander victory through which the Republic is dedicated to the axiomatic, self-evident truth declared by our fathers, and reasserted by Abraham Lincoln. With this mighty truth as a guiding principle, the National Constitution is elevated, and made more than ever a protection to the citizen.

All this is so plain that it is difficult to argue it. What is the Republic, if it fails in this loyalty? What is the National Government, coextensive with the Republic, if fellow-citizens, counted by the million, can be shut out from equal rights in travel, in recreation, in education, and in other things, all contributing to human necessities? Where is that great promise by which “the pursuit of happiness” is placed, with life and liberty, under the safeguard of axiomatic, self-evident truth? Where is justice, if this ban of color is not promptly removed? Where is humanity? Where is reason?

TWO EXCUSES.

The two excuses show how irrational and utterly groundless is this pretension. They are on a par with the pretension itself. One is, that the question is of society, and not of rights, which is clearly a misrepresentation; and the other is, that the separate arrangements provided for colored persons constitute a substitute for equality in the nature of an equivalent,--all of which is clearly a contrivance, if not a trick: as if there could be any equivalent for equality.

NO QUESTION OF SOCIETY.

Of the first excuse it is difficult to speak with patience. It is a simple misrepresentation, and wherever it shows itself must be treated as such. There is no colored person who does not resent the imputation that he is seeking to intrude himself socially anywhere. This is no question of society, no question of social life, no question of social equality, if anybody knows what this means. The object is simply Equality before the Law, a term which explains itself. Now, as the law does not presume to create or regulate social relations, these are in no respect affected by the pending measure. Each person, whether Senator or citizen, is always free to choose who shall be his friend, his associate, his guest. And does not the ancient proverb declare that “a man is known by the company he keeps”? But this assumes that he may choose for himself. His house is his “castle”; and this very designation, borrowed from the Common Law, shows his absolute independence within its walls; nor is there any difference, whether it be palace or hovel. But when he leaves his “castle” and goes abroad, this independence is at an end. He walks the streets, but always subject to the prevailing law of Equality; nor can he appropriate the sidewalk to his own exclusive use, driving into the gutter all whose skin is less white than his own. But nobody pretends that Equality in the highway, whether on pavement or sidewalk, is a question of society. And permit me to say that Equality in all institutions created or regulated by law is as little a question of society.

In the days of Slavery it was an oft-repeated charge, that Emancipation was a measure of social equality; and the same charge became a cry at the successive efforts for the right to testify and the right to vote. At each stage the cry was raised, and now it makes itself heard again, as you are called to assure this crowning safeguard.

EQUALITY NOT FOUND IN EQUIVALENTS.

Then comes the other excuse, which finds Equality in separation. Separate hotels, separate conveyances, separate theatres, separate schools and institutions of learning and science, separate churches, and separate cemeteries,--these are the artificial substitutes. And this is the contrivance by which a transcendent right, involving a transcendent duty, is evaded: for Equality is not only a right, but a duty.

How vain to argue that there is no denial of Equal Rights when this separation is enforced! The substitute is invariably an inferior article. Does any Senator deny it? Therefore, it is not Equality; at best it is an equivalent only. But no equivalent is Equality. Separation implies one thing for a white person and another thing for a colored person; but Equality is where all have the same alike. There can be no substitute for Equality,--nothing but itself. Even if accommodations are the same, as notoriously they are not, there is no Equality. In the process of substitution the vital elixir exhales and escapes: it is lost, and cannot be recovered; for Equality is found only in Equality. “Nought but itself can be its parallel”; but Senators undertake to find parallels in other things.

As well make weight in silver the equivalent for weight in diamonds, according to the illustration of Selden in his famous “Table-Talk.” “If,” remarked the learned interlocutor, “I said I owed you twenty pounds in silver, and you said I owed you twenty pounds of diamonds, which is a sum innumerable, ’tis impossible we should ever agree.”[180] But Equality is weight in diamonds, and a sum innumerable,--which is very different from weight in silver.

Assuming--what is most absurd to assume, and what is contradicted by all experience--that a substitute can be an equivalent, it is so in form only, and not in reality. Every such assumption is an indignity to the colored race, instinct with the spirit of Slavery; and this decides its character. It is Slavery in its last appearance. Are you ready to prolong the hateful tyranny? Religion and reason condemn Caste as impious and unchristian, making republican institutions and equal laws impossible; but here is Caste not unlike that which separates the Sudra from the Brahmin. Pray, Sir, who constitutes the white man a Brahmin? Whence his lordly title? Down to a recent period in Europe the Jews were driven to herd by themselves, separate from the Christians; but this discarded barbarism is revived among us in the ban of color. There are millions of fellow-citizens guilty of no offence except the dusky livery of the sun appointed by the Heavenly Father, whom you treat as others have treated the Jews, as the Brahmin treats the Sudra. But, pray, Sir, do not pretend that this is the great equality promised by our fathers.

In arraigning this attempt at separation as a Caste, I say nothing new. For years I have denounced it as such; and here I followed good authorities, as well as reason. Alexander von Humboldt, speaking of the negroes of New Mexico when Slavery prevailed, called them a Caste.[181] A recent political and juridical writer of France uses the same term to denote not only the discrimination in India, but that in our own country,--especially referring to the exclusion of colored children from the common schools as among “the humiliating and brutal distinctions” by which their Caste is characterized.[182] The principle of separation on the ground of hereditary inferiority is the distinctive essence of Caste; but this is the outrage which flaunts in our country, crying out, “I am better than thou, because I am white. Get away!”

THE REMEDY.

Thus do I reject the two excuses. But I do not leave the cause here. I go further, and show how consistent is the pending measure with acknowledged principles, illustrated by undoubted law.

The bill for Equal Rights is simply supplementary to the existing Civil Rights Law, which is one of our great statutes of peace, and it stands on the same requirements of the National Constitution. If the Civil Rights Law is above question, as cannot be doubted, then also is this supplementary amendment; for it is only the complement of the other, and necessary to its completion. Without this amendment the original law is imperfect. It cannot be said, according to its title, that all persons are protected in their civil rights, so long as the outrages I expose continue to exist; nor is Slavery entirely dead.

Following reason and authority, the conclusion is easy. A Law Dictionary, of constant use as a repertory of established rules and principles, defines a “freeman” as “one in the possession of _the civil rights_ enjoyed by the people generally.”[183] Happily, all are freemen now; but the colored people are still excluded from civil rights enjoyed by the people generally,--and this, too, in the face of our new Bill of Rights intended for their especial protection.

By the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery Congress is empowered “to enforce this article by appropriate legislation”; and in pursuance thereof the Civil Rights Law was enacted. That measure was justly accepted as “appropriate legislation.” Without it Slavery would still exist in at least one of its most odious pretensions. By the Civil Rights Law colored persons were assured in the right to testify, which in most of the States was denied or abridged. So closely was this outrage connected with Slavery, that it was, indeed, part of this great wrong. Therefore its prohibition was “appropriate legislation” in the enforcement of the Constitutional Amendment. But the denial or abridgment of Equality on account of color is also part of Slavery. So long as it exists, Slavery is still present among us. Its prohibition is not only “appropriate,” but necessary, to enforce the Constitutional Amendment. Therefore is it strictly Constitutional, as if in the very text of the National Constitution.

The next Constitutional Amendment, known as the Fourteenth, contains two different provisions, which augment the power of Congress. The first furnishes the definition of “citizen,” which down to this time had been left to construction only:--

“_All persons_ born or naturalized in the United States, and
subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are _citizens_ of the
United States, and of the States wherever they reside.”

Here, you will remark, are no words of race or color. “_All_ persons,” and not “_all white_ persons,” born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are “citizens.” Such is the definition supplied by this Amendment. This is followed by another provision in aid of the definition:--

“No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge
the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law, _nor deny to any person
within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws_.”

And Congress is empowered to enforce this definition of Citizenship and this guaranty, by “appropriate legislation.”