Part 1

Statesman Edition VOL. XIII

Charles Sumner

HIS COMPLETE WORKS

With Introduction BY HON. GEORGE FRISBIE HOAR

BOSTON LEE AND SHEPARD MCM

COPYRIGHT, 1874, BY FRANCIS V. BALCH, EXECUTOR.

COPYRIGHT, 1900, BY LEE AND SHEPARD.

Statesman Edition. LIMITED TO ONE THOUSAND COPIES. OF WHICH THIS IS No. 565

Norwood Press: NORWOOD, MASS., U.S.A.

CONTENTS OF VOLUME XIII.

PAGE

A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT OUR FIRST DUTY AND THE ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF PEACE. Bills and Resolutions in the Senate, at the Opening of the Session of Congress, December 4, 1865 1

COLORED SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Bill in the Senate, December 4, 1865 5

IMPARTIAL JURORS FOR COLORED PERSONS. Bill in the Senate, December 4, 1865 10

OATH TO MAINTAIN A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT IN THE REBEL STATES. Bill in the Senate, December 4, 1865 12

PART EXECUTION OF THE GUARANTY OF A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Bill in the Senate, December 4, 1865 14

EQUAL RIGHTS OF COLORED PERSONS TO BE PROTECTED BY THE NATIONAL COURTS. Bill in the Senate, to enforce the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery, December 4, 1865 16

REPRESENTATION ACCORDING TO VOTERS. Joint Resolution in the Senate, to amend the Constitution, December 4, 1865 19

SCHEME OF RECONSTRUCTION ON THE BASIS OF EQUAL RIGHTS. Bill in the Senate, to enforce the Guaranty of a Republican Form of Government in Certain States, December 4, 1865 21

ADOPTION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ABOLISHING SLAVERY. Concurrent Resolutions in the Senate, declaring the Adoption, December 4, 1865 30

FIVE CONDITIONS OF RECONSTRUCTION. Resolutions in respect to Guaranties of the National Security and the National Faith, December 4, 1865 33

RIGHTS OF LOYAL CITIZENS, AND A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. Resolutions in the Senate, declaring the Duty of Congress, December 4, 1865 35

THE LATE SENATOR COLLAMER. Speech in the Senate, on his Death, December 14, 1865 38

“WHITEWASHING” BY THE PRESIDENT. Remarks in the Senate, on a Message of President Johnson on the Condition of the Southern States, December 19, 1865 47

ENFRANCHISEMENT AND PROTECTION OF FREEDMEN. ACTUAL CONDITION OF THE REBEL STATES. Speech in the Senate, on a Bill to maintain Freedom in those States, December 20, 1865 55

THE WHITES _vs._ COLORED SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA. Remarks in the Senate, on presenting a Petition from Citizens of the District, December 21, 1865 98

PROTECTION OF THE NATIONAL DEBT, AND REJECTION OF EVERY REBEL DEBT. Constitutional Amendment in the Senate, January 5, 1866 99

KIDNAPPING OF FREEDMEN. Remarks in the Senate, on a Resolution of Inquiry, January 9, 1866 101

THE LATE HENRY WINTER DAVIS. Article in the New York Independent, January 11, 1866 104

DISFRANCHISEMENT INCONSISTENT WITH REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. Remarks in the Senate, on the Credentials of a Senator from Florida, January 19, 1866 109

IMPANELLING OF JURIES, AND TRIAL OF JEFFERSON DAVIS. Remarks in the Senate, on a Bill removing Certain Objections to Jurors, January 22, 1866 111

CARRYING OUT THE GUARANTY OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT, AND ENFORCEMENT OF THE PROHIBITION OF SLAVERY. Joint Resolution in the Senate, February 2, 1866 113

THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL: THE GREAT GUARANTY AND PRESENT NECESSITY, FOR THE SAKE OF SECURITY, AND TO MAINTAIN A REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT. Speech in the Senate, on the Proposed Amendment of the Constitution fixing the Basis of Representation, February 5 and 6, 1866. With Appendix 115

DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS WITH THE REPUBLIC OF DOMINICA. Bill in the Senate, February 6, 1866 270

PROTECTION OF CIVIL RIGHTS. Remarks in the Senate, February 9, 1866 271

THE CITY OF BOSTON AND MR. SUMNER. Letter to the Mayor of Boston, in Acknowledgment of a Resolution of the Board of Aldermen, March 5, 1866 280

POLITICAL EQUALITY WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR. NO COMPROMISE OF HUMAN RIGHTS. Second Speech in the Senate on the Proposed Amendment of the Constitution fixing the Basis of Representation, March 7, 1866 282

OPPOSITE SIDES ON THE MEANING OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Final Speech in the Senate on this Amendment, March 9, 1866 338

NO MORE STATES WITH THE WORD “WHITE” IN THE STATE CONSTITUTION. Speeches in the Senate, on the Bill for the Admission of the State of Colorado into the Union, March 12 and 13, April 17, 19, and 24, and May 21, 1866 346

OPPOSITION TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT ON THE BASIS OF REPRESENTATION. Letter to the Boston Daily Advertiser, March 15, 1866 375

A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT OUR FIRST DUTY AND THE ESSENTIAL CONDITION OF PEACE.

BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS IN THE SENATE, AT THE OPENING OF THE SESSION OF CONGRESS, DECEMBER 4, 1865.

This session of Congress was occupied by Reconstruction, especially the question of suffrage for the colored race, with differences between Congress and President Johnson, culminating at the next Congress in his impeachment.

Mr. Sumner, on the first day of the session, as soon as he could obtain the floor, introduced the following measures.

A bill to carry out the principles of a republican form of government in the District of Columbia.

A bill to preserve the right of jury trial, by securing impartial jurors in the courts of the United States.

A bill to prescribe an oath to maintain a republican form of government in the Rebel States.

A bill in part execution of the guaranty of a republican form of government in the Constitution of the United States.

A bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery.

A bill to enforce the guaranty of a republican form of government in certain States whose governments have been usurped or overthrown.

A joint resolution proposing an Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Concurrent resolutions declaring the adoption of the Constitutional Amendment abolishing Slavery.

Resolutions declaring the duties of Congress in respect to guaranties of the National Security and the National Faith in the Rebel States.

Resolutions declaring the duty of Congress, especially in respect to loyal citizens in the Rebel States.

This series of propositions attracted the attention of the country. Expressions of sympathy and gratitude were abundant. Colored fellow-citizens at Philadelphia addressed Mr. Sumner in earnest words.

“PHILADELPHIA, PA., December 6, 1865.

“HON. CHARLES SUMNER:--

“DEAR SIR,--At a large and enthusiastic meeting of the colored citizens of this city, held in the Philadelphia Institute this evening, the undersigned were charged with the duty of conveying to you, in behalf of twenty-five thousand disfranchised Americans here, their most heartfelt gratitude for the noble, fearless, patriotic stand taken by you at the opening of the present Congress. No day of our lives seems brighter than that upon which the foremost champion of Freedom boldly directs the attention of the nation to a series of clear, sound, statesmanlike measures looking to the complete enfranchisement of America.

“We speak but faintly, though truthfully, when we say that four millions of Americans will ever cherish with the warmest gratitude of their hearts, and hand down as a precious legacy to their children, the name of Charles Sumner,--Charles Sumner, who has at all times and under all circumstances, even when friends faltered and foes exulted, stood firm, unflinching, immovable, _uncompromising_, on the rock of Justice and Liberty.

“God bless the Christian gentleman and scholar, the ablest of American statesmen! God bless the noble, spotless man, Charles Sumner! is the fervent prayer of four millions of disfranchised Americans, not less than of

“Yours, admiringly and sincerely,

“EBENEZER D. BASSETT,[1] ISAIAH C. WEAR, NATHANIEL W. DEPEE.”

Parker Pillsbury, the devoted Abolitionist, wrote at once from the office of the _Antislavery Standard_, in New York:--

“No need of many words to-day. Your openings yesterday were sublime,--a genuine Apocalypse! God grant it be but the key-note to the grandest oratorio ever performed by less than the morning stars and all the sons of God shouting together!”

Rev. Joshua Leavitt, an editor of the New York _Independent_, and a constant Abolitionist of great practical sense, wrote from New York:--

“We look to you to forbear when necessary, and to dare when the time is right.”

William Lloyd Garrison, an honored leader in the long warfare with Slavery, who had just returned from a lecture tour in the West as far as the Mississippi, wrote from Boston:--

“I have found but one opinion, whether the test was made publicly or privately, in regard to that _questio vexata_, Reconstruction,--and that is, that not one of the revolted States should be admitted into the Union without being put under a longer probation.… Thanks for your prompt action and untiring vigilance in this matter, in the series of resolutions presented by you to the Senate.”

William E. Walker wrote from Trenton, New Jersey:--

“You have ever been in the foremost rank in guarding and defending the rights of the colored people of this country with a sacred jealousy. I hail with inexpressible joy your manly, bold, and intelligent avowal of their civil and political rights, on the opening of the session of Congress. I feel assured that they will be opposed, and strongly opposed; but God grant to you, and the other fearless champions of Freedom’s cause, strength and ability to successfully defeat all opposition!”

Hon. Theophilus Parsons, the learned Law Professor and law writer, wrote from Cambridge:--

“Congress has hard work before it,--about as hard as Grant had to take Richmond; but I suppose it will be done somehow.”

Hon. Charles W. Upham, a scholar and writer, formerly Representative in Congress from the Essex District in Massachusetts, wrote from Salem:--

“Stick to the noble ground you have taken, and let reason and events put the President in harmony with you and the people.”

With such voices from the people the great work of the session began.

The bad spirit which belonged to the days of Slavery seemed also to return. The following, to Mr. Sumner from ----, dated “Paymaster General’s Office, Washington, December 11, 1865,” recalled other days.

“I conceive it to be my duty to impart the following information, in which you may be interested.

“Calling your name yesterday, in conversation with a citizen of this city, he casually remarked that you would probably be killed before the expiration of this session,--that two or three were sworn against you.

“I paid no apparent attention to the remark at the time, nor asked any question with regard to it; but, if I can serve you in the matter any further, I am at your command.”

Mr. Sumner did not notice this letter, or follow it with any inquiry. He was accustomed to such reports.

COLORED SUFFRAGE IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

BILL IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 4, 1865.

A Bill to carry out the principles of a Republican form of Government in the District of Columbia.

_Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That no person, in other respects qualified to vote within the District of Columbia, shall be excluded from that right by reason of race or color.

SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That any person whose duty it shall be to receive votes at any election within the District of Columbia, who shall refuse to receive or shall reject the vote of any person entitled to such right under this Act, shall be liable to an action of tort by the person injured, and shall be liable, upon indictment and conviction, if such act was done knowingly, to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year, or to both. And where the person injured is of African descent, one half the jury impanelled to try the action or indictment shall be of African descent.

SEC. 3. _And be it further enacted_, That any person who shall molest any person entitled to vote under this Act, in the exercise of such right, shall, upon indictment and conviction, be liable to a fine not exceeding three thousand dollars, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months, or to both; and if the person molested was of African descent, one half the jury impanelled to try the indictment shall be of African descent.

This bill was read, passed to a second reading, and ordered to be printed.

December 6th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, it was referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

* * * * *

At the formation of the Committee, Mr. Sumner became, for the first time, a member of the Standing Committee on the District of Columbia. According to usage in the Senate, the Standing Committees are formed in a caucus of the predominant political party, acting on the report of a Nominating Committee appointed by the caucus. At the opening of the present session Mr. Sumner was a member of the Nominating Committee. While occupied in arranging the Committee on the District of Columbia, he remarked that his only wish with regard to this Committee was, that it should be so constituted as to report in favor of suffrage without distinction of color in the District. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, who was a member of the Nominating Committee, said at once, “Then you must go on it.” Mr. Sumner replied, that he was much occupied on the Committee on Foreign Relations, of which he was Chairman, but that, if the Nominating Committee chose to assign him this new duty, he could not decline it. He was accordingly placed on this Committee, where he continued until the opening of the session in December, 1872, when, at his own request, founded on ill health, he was excused from all service on committees.

The members of the Committee were Mr. Morrill, of Maine, Chairman, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, Mr. Sumner, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, and Mr. Riddle, of Delaware. At the earliest meeting of the Committee, Mr. Wade’s bill to regulate the franchise in the District of Columbia, being first on the calendar, was proceeded with. At once the question arose of a general bill regulating suffrage in the District. To relieve the Committee from this embarrassment, and reach a prompt conclusion on the main question, Mr. Sumner moved, “That the Committee will report a bill simply prohibiting any exclusion from the elective franchise on account of color, with proper provisions to carry out this prohibition, and without undertaking to regulate the qualifications.” This motion was adopted.

* * * * *

December 20th, Mr. Morrill reported Mr. Wade’s bill with amendments, and, in reply to inquiry from Mr. Sumner, said that he was “inclined to call it up at the earliest possible time, but probably not before the contemplated adjournment [for the holidays].” Mr. Sumner then said:--

“I am very glad my excellent friend proposes to proceed with the consideration of that measure at an early day. I believe the country requires promptitude in such act of justice.”

* * * * *

January 10, 1866, the Senate, on motion of Mr. Morrill, proceeded with the bill, and adopted several of the amendments. An amendment providing that the elector “shall be able to read the Constitution of the United States in the English language, and write his name,” excited discussion, when the bill, on motion of Mr. Yates, was recommitted.

January 12th, Mr. Morrill reported the original bill with an amendment as a substitute. January 16th, it was taken up for consideration, when Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, spoke at length against it. From that date until June 27th it was not resumed, but the Senate during this interval heard suffrage discussed, especially on the Constitutional Amendment concerning representation. At the latter date it was taken up, on motion of Mr. Morrill. In the substitute there was no requirement of reading and writing as a qualification; but Mr. Morrill moved the amendment on this subject which had been reported before. On this important proposition the vote stood, Yeas 15, Nays 19. So it was rejected. After an elaborate speech from Mr. Willey, in which he proposed a qualified suffrage, the bill went over to another day, but was not resumed until the next session of Congress. The pressure of business, the fact that there would be no election until after the next session, the growing sense that the suffrage must be without educational qualification, and the uncertainty of carrying such a bill over the veto of the President, were the reasons for this delay.

* * * * *

Meanwhile, after a debate of several days, the House of Representatives, on the 18th of January, passed a short bill, striking the word “white” from the election laws of the District, and declaring that no person should be disqualified on account of color.

* * * * *

December 3, 1866, being the first day of the session, Mr. Sumner moved that the Senate proceed with the consideration of the Suffrage Bill, and then remarked:--

“It will be remembered that this bill was introduced on the first day of the last session,--that it was the subject of repeated debate in this Chamber,--that it was more than once referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia, by whose chairman it was reported back to the Senate. At several different stages it was supposed that we were about to reach a final vote. The country expected that vote. It was not had. It ought to have been had. And now, Sir, I think it best for the Senate, in this very first hour of its coming together, to put that bill on its passage. It has been thoroughly debated. Every Senator has made up his mind. There is nothing more to be said on either side. So far as I am concerned, I am perfectly willing that the vote shall be taken without one further word; but I think that the Senate ought not to allow the bill to be postponed. We should seize this first occasion to put the bill on its passage. The country expects it; the country will rejoice and be grateful, if you will signalize this first day of your coming together by this beautiful and generous act.”

The Chair, after recognizing the motion, ruled it not in order, according to a former precedent.

* * * * *

December 10th, on motion of Mr. Morrill, the Senate proceeded with the Suffrage Bill. Mr. Sumner joined in urging it:--

“Let us, so far as the Senate can do it, give suffrage to the colored race in the District; let us signalize this first day of actual business by finishing this great act.”

Debate ensued for four days, in which Mr. Morrill, Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, Mr. Wilson, of Massachusetts, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Anthony, of Rhode Island, Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Reverdy Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, Mr. Sprague, of Rhode Island, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, Mr. Doolittle, of Wisconsin, Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut, Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Foster, of Connecticut, Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Lane, of Indiana, and Mr. Sumner, took part. The remarks of the last will appear in their proper place, according to date.[2] Among the amendments considered was one by Mr. Cowan to strike out the word “male,” so as to open suffrage to women, which was rejected,--Yeas 9, Nays 37. The amendment by Mr. Dixon, making reading and writing a qualification, was also rejected,--Yeas 11, Nays 34.

December 13th, the bill passed the Senate,--Yeas 32, Nays 13. The announcement of its passage was followed by applause in the galleries. On the next day the bill passed the other House,--Yeas 128, Nays 46.

January 7, 1867, the bill passed the Senate over the veto of President Johnson, by a two-thirds vote,--Yeas 29, Nays 10. On the next day it passed the other House by a two-thirds vote,--Yeas 113, Nays 38. And so it became a law, and also a model for similar legislation in the reconstruction of the Rebel States.

IMPARTIAL JURORS FOR COLORED PERSONS.

BILL IN THE SENATE, DECEMBER 4, 1865.

A Bill to preserve the right of trial by jury, by securing impartial jurors in the Courts of the United States.