Chapter XIV (3)

The previous question having been called, Mr. Stevens made the closing speech of the protracted discussion. In the opening of his speech, Mr. Stevens said: "It is true we have been informed by high authority, at the other end of the avenue, introduced through an unusual conduit, that no amendment is necessary to the Constitution as our fathers made it, and that it is better to let it stand as it is. Now, sir, I think very differently, myself, for one individual. I believe there is intrusted to this Congress a high duty, no less important and no less fraught with the weal or woe of future ages than was intrusted to the august body that made the Declaration of Independence. I believe now, if we omit to exercise that high duty, or abuse it, we shall be held to account by future generations of America, and by the whole civilized world that is in favor of freedom, and that our names will go down to posterity with some applause or with black condemnation if we do not treat the subject thoroughly, honestly, and justly in reference to every human being on this continent."

That the above paragraph may be understood, it will be necessary to state that the President of the United States himself had taken part in the discussion of the measure pending before Congress. The "unusual conduit" was the telegraph and the press--the means by which his opinions were given to Congress and the public. The President's opinions were expressed in the following paper, as read by the Clerk of the House, at the request of several members:

"The following is the substance of a conversation which took
place yesterday between the President and a distinguished
Senator, as telegraphed North by the agent of the Associated
Press:

"The President said that he doubted the propriety at this
time of making further amendments to the Constitution. One
great amendment had already been made, by which slavery had
forever been abolished within the limits of the United
States, and a national guarantee thus given that the
institution should never exist in the land. Propositions to
amend the Constitution were becoming as numerous as
preambles and resolutions at town meetings called to
consider the most ordinary questions connected with the
administration of local affairs. All this, in his opinion,
had a tendency to diminish the dignity and prestige attached
to the Constitution of the country, and to lessen the
respect and confidence of the people in their great charter
of freedom. If, however, amendments are to be made to the
Constitution, changing the basis of representation and
taxation, (and he did not deem them at all necessary at the
present time,) he knew of none better than a simple
proposition, embraced in a few lines, making in each State
the number of qualified voters the basis of representation,
and the value of property the basis of direct taxation. Such
a proposition could be embraced in the following terms:

"'Representatives shall be apportioned among the several
States which may be included within this Union according to
the number of qualified voters in each State.

"'Direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States
which may be included within this Union according to the
value of all taxable property in each State.'

"An amendment of this kind would, in his opinion, place the
basis of representation and direct taxation upon correct
principles. The qualified voters were, for the most part,
men who were subject to draft and enlistment when it was
necessary to repel invasion, suppress rebellion, and quell
domestic violence and insurrection. They risk their lives,
shed their blood, and peril their all to uphold the
Government, and give protection, security, and value to
property. It seemed but just that property should compensate
for the benefits thus conferred by defraying the expenses
incident to its protection and enjoyment.

"Such an amendment, the President also suggested, would
remove from Congress all issues in reference to the
political equality of the races. It would leave the States
to determine absolutely the qualifications of their own
voters with regard to color; and thus the number of
Representatives to which they would be entitled in Congress
would depend upon the number upon whom they conferred the
right of suffrage.

"The President, in this connection, expressed the opinion
that the agitation of the negro-franchise question in the
District of Columbia, at this time was the mere
entering-wedge to the agitation of the question throughout
the States, and was ill-timed, uncalled for, and calculated
to do great harm. He believed that it would engender enmity,
contention, and strife between the two races, and lead to a
war between»them which would result in great injury to both,
and the certain extermination of the negro population.
Precedence, he thought, should be given to more important
and urgent matters, legislation upon which was essential for
the restoration of the Union, the peace of the country, and
the prosperity of the people."

"This," said Mr. Stevens, "I take to be an authorized utterance of one at the other end of the avenue. I have no doubt that this is the proclamation, the command of the President of the United States, made and put forth by authority in advance, and at a time when this Congress was legislating on this very question; made, in my judgment, in violation of the privileges of this House; made in such a way that centuries ago, had it been made to Parliament by a British king, it would have cost him his head. But, sir, we pass that by; we are tolerant of usurpation in this tolerant Government of ours."

In answer to those who contended that Congress should regulate the right of suffrage in the States, Mr. Stevens said: "If you should take away the right which now is and always has been exercised by the States, by fixing the qualifications of their electors, instead of getting nineteen States, which is necessary to ratify this amendment, you might possibly get five. I venture to say you could not get five in this Union. And that is an answer, in the opinion of the committee, to all that has been said on this subject. But it grants no right. It says, however, to the State of South Carolina and other slave States, True, we leave where it has been left for eighty years the right to fix the elective franchise, but you must not abuse it; if you do, the Constitution will impose upon you a penalty, and will continue to inflict it until you shall have corrected your actions.

"Now, any man who knows any thing about the condition of aspiration and ambition for power which exists in the slave States, knows that one of their chief objects is to rule this country. It was to ruin it if they could not rule it. They have not been able to ruin it, and now their great ambition will be to rule it. If a State abuses the elective franchise, and takes it from those who are the only loyal people there, the Constitution says to such a State, You shall lose power in the halls of the nation, and you shall remain where you are, a shriveled and dried-up nonentity instead of being the lords of creation, as you have been, so far as America is concerned, for years past.

"Now, sir, I say no more strong inducement could ever beheld out to them; no more severe punishment could ever be inflicted upon them as States. If they exclude the colored population, they will lose at least thirty-five Representatives in this hall; if they adopt it, they will have eighty-three votes."

Mr. Stevens urged several objections to the proposition of Mr. Schenck. He said: "If I have been rightly informed as to the number, there are from fifteen to twenty Representatives in the Northern States founded upon those who are not citizens of the United States. In New York I think there are three or four Representatives founded upon the foreign population--three certainly. And so it is in Wisconsin, Iowa, and other Northern States. There are fifteen or twenty Northern Representatives that would be lost by that amendment and given to the South whenever they grant the elective franchise to the negro.

"Now, sir, while I have not any particular regard for any foreigner who goes against me, yet I do not think it would be wise to put into the Constitution or send to the people a proposition to amend the Constitution which would take such Representatives from those States, and which, therefore, they will never adopt.

"But I have another objection to the amendment of my friend from Ohio. His proposition is to apportion representation according to the male citizens of the States. Why has he put in the word 'male?' It was never in the Constitution of the United States before. Why make a crusade against women in the Constitution of the nation? [Laughter.] Is my friend as much afraid of their rivalry as the gentlemen on the other side of the House are afraid of the rivalry of the negro? [Laughter.] I do not think we ought to disfigure the Constitution with such a provision. I find that every unmarried man is opposed to the proposition. Whether married men have particular reason for dreading interference from that quarter I know not. [Laughter.] I certainly shall never vote to insert the word 'male' or the word 'white' in the national Constitution. Let these things be attended to by the States."

In answer to the objection that the amendment proposed by the committee "might be evaded by saying that no man who had ever been a slave should vote, and that would not be disfranchisement on account of race or color," Mr. Stevens said: "Sir, no man in America ever was or ever could be a slave if he was a white man. I know white men have been held in bondage contrary to law. But there never was a court in the United States, in a slave State or a free State, that has not admitted that if one held as a slave could prove himself to be white, he was that instant free. And, therefore, such an exclusion, on account of previous condition of slavery, must be an exclusion on account of race or color. Therefore that objection falls to the ground."

In reply to the closing paragraph of Mr. Raymond's speech, Mr. Stevens said: "I could not but admire (an admiration mingled with wonder) the amiability of temper, the tenderness of heart, the generosity of feeling which must have prompted some of the closing sentences of the excellent and able speech delivered by the gentleman on last Monday. His words were these:

"'The gigantic contest is at an end. The courage and
devotion on either side, which made it so terrible and so
long, no longer owe a divided duty, but have become the
common property of the American name, the priceless
possession of the American Republic, through all time to
come. The dead of the contending hosts sleep beneath the
soil of a common country, under their common flag. Their
hostilities are hushed, and they are the dead of the nation
for evermore.'

"Sir, much more than amiable, much more than religious, must be the sentiment that would prompt any man to say that 'the courage and devotion' which so long withstood our arms, prolonging the terrible conflict of war, and sacrificing the lives of thousands of loyal men, are hereafter to be the common boast of the nation, 'the priceless possession of the American Republic through all time to come;' that it is the pride of our country so many infamous rebels were so ferocious in their murders.

"Sir, we are to consider these dead on both sides as the dead of the nation, the common dead! And so, I suppose, we are to raise monuments beside the monuments to Reynolds and others, to be erected in the cemetery on the battle-field of Gettysburg. We must there build high the monumental marble for men like Barksdale, whom I have seen in this hall draw their bowie-knives on the Representatives of the people; men who died upon the battle-field of Gettysburg in arms against the Government, and where they now lie buried in ditches, 'unwept, unhonored, and unsung!' They are, I suppose, to be raised and put into the fore-front ranks of the nation, and we are to call them through all time as the dead of the nation! Sir, was there ever blasphemy before like this? Who was it burnt the temple of Ephesus? Who was it imitated the thunder of Jove? All that was poor compared with this blasphemy. I say, if the loyal dead, who are thus associated with the traitors who murdered them, put by the gentleman on the same footing with them, are to be treated as the 'common dead of the nation'--I say, sir, if they could have heard the gentleman, they would have broken the cerements of the tomb, and stalked forth and haunted him until his eye-balls were seared."

The question was first taken on the substitute offered by Mr. Schenck, which was rejected by a vote of one hundred and thirty-one to twenty-nine.

The question was then taken on agreeing to the joint resolution as modified by the committee, and it was decided in the affirmative by the following vote:

YEAS--Messrs. Alley, Allison, Ames, Anderson, James M.
Ashley, Baker, Banks, Barker, Baxter, Beaman, Benjamin,
Bidwell, Bingham, Blaine, Blow, Boutwell, Brandegee,
Bromwell, Broomall, Buckland, Bundy, Reader W. Clarke,
Sidney Clarke, Cobb, Conkling, Cook, Cullom, Darling, Davis,
Dawes, Defrees, Delano, Deming, Dixon, Donnelly, Eckley,
Eggleston, Farnsworth, Farquhar, Ferry, Garfield, Grinnell,
Griswold, Abner C. Harding, Hart, Hayes, Hill, Holmes,
Hooper, Hotchkiss, Asahel W. Hubbard, Chester D. Hubbard,
Demas Hubbard, John H. Hubbard, James R. Hubbell, Hulburd,
James Humphrey, Ingersoll, Julian, Kasson, Kelley, Kelso,
Ketcham, Kuykendall, Laflin, George V. Lawrence, William
Lawrence, Longyear, Lynch, Marston, Marvin, McClurg,
McIndoe, McKee, Mercur, Miller, Moorhead, Morrill, Morris,
Moulton, Myers, O'Neill, Orth, Paine, Patterson, Perham,
Pike, Plants, Pomeroy, Price, Alexander H. Rice, John H.
Rice, Rollins, Sawyer, Schenck, Scofield, Shellabarger,
Sloan, Spalding, Starr, Stevens, Stilwell, Thayer, Francis
Thomas, John L. Thomas, Upson, Van Aernam, Burt Van Horn,
Robert T. Van Horn, Ward, Warner, Elihu B. Washburne,
William B. Washburn, Welker, Wentworth, Williams, James F.
Wilson, Stephen F. Wilson, Windom, and Woodbridge--120.

NAYS--Messrs. Baldwin, Bergen, Boyer, Brooks, Chanler,
Dawson, Dennison, Eldridge, Eliot, Finck, Grider, Hale,
Aaron Harding, Harris, Hogan, Edwin N. Hubbell, James M.
Humphrey, Jenckes, Johnson, Kerr, Latham, Le Blond,
Marshall, McCullough, Niblack, Nicholson, Noell, Phelps,
Samuel J. Randall, William H. Randall, Raymond, Ritter,
Rogers, Ross, Rosseau, Shanklin, Sitgreaves, Smith, Strouse,
Taber, Taylor, Thornton, Trimble, Voorhees, Whaley, and
Wright--46.

NOT VOTING--Messrs. Ancona, Delos R. Ashley, Culver, Driggs,
Dumont, Glossbrenner, Goodyear, Henderson, Higby, Jones,
Loan, McRuer, Newell, Radford, Trowbridge, and Winfield--16.

Two-thirds having voted in the affirmative, the Speaker declared the joint resolution adopted.

The strong vote by which this measure was passed, after so general an expression of dissent from it, excited some surprise. Many gentlemen evidently surrendered their individual preferences for the sake of unanimity. They believed that this was the best measure calculated to secure just representation, which would pass the ordeal of Congress and three-fourths of the States. They accepted the "rule of statesmanship," to "take the best attainable, essential good which is at our command."

A disposition to rebuke supposed Executive dictation had some effect to produce an unexpected unanimity in favor of the measure. One Rhode Island and two Massachusetts members insisted on national negro suffrage, and voted against the amendments. Mr. Raymond and Mr. Hale, of New York, were the only Republicans who voted against the measure in accordance with the President's opinions. Of the border slave State members, ten voted for the amendment and sixteen against it.