Part 5

These “Regulations” begin with a formal declaration, that the freedmen by the act of Emancipation “acquire the rights belonging to free farmers.” The language is general. It is “the rights of free farmers,” not in certain particulars, but in all particulars,--not merely in exemption from the authority of their masters, but in complete enfranchisement. Surely this is an example for us.

The “Regulations” then proceed in formal words to fix and assure these rights, civil and political. They are not left to inference or to future discussion, but positively declared with all possible detail.

By one section the freedman is secured in all his _rights of family_ and _rights of contract_, as follows:--

“The articles of the Civil Code on the rights and obligations of the family are extended to the freedmen; consequently they acquire the right, without the authorization of the proprietor, to contract marriage, and to make any arrangement whatever concerning their family affairs; they can equally enter into all agreements and obligations authorized by the laws, as well with the state as with individuals, on the conditions established for free farmers; they can inscribe themselves in the guilds, and exercise their trades in the villages; and they can found and conduct factories and establishments of commerce.”

Here is a beautiful example for us.

By another section the freedman is secured in _rights of property_. He may acquire and alienate property of all kinds, according to the general law; and, besides, “the possession of the homestead” on which he has lived is guarantied to him on certain conditions. Here is another example for us.

By further provision the freedman is secured complete _Equality in the courts_:--

“He shall have the right of action, whether civilly or criminally, to commence process, and to answer personally or by attorney, to make complaint, and to defend his rights by all the means known to the law, _and to appear as witness and as bail conformably to the common law_.”

Mark these words. He may appear “as witness and as bail.” It is an example for us.

By other provisions the freedman is secured _Equality in political rights_, according to the measure of such rights in Russia, thus:--

“On the organization of the towns, he shall be entitled to take part in the meetings and elections for the towns, and to vote on town affairs, and to exercise divers functions; and he shall also take part in assemblies for the district, and shall vote on district affairs, and choose the chairman.”

From all the provisions on this head it appears that the freedman enjoys rights to choose local officers, and to be chosen in turn. Here also is an example for us.

By still another section the freedman is secured _Equality at school and in education_, thus:--

“He may place his children in the establishments for public education, to embrace the career of instruction or the scientific career, or to take service in the corps of surveyors.”

Here again is an example for us.

Then, still further, for the general protection of the freedman, it is provided that he “cannot lose his rights, or be restrained in their exercise, except after the judgment of the town according to fixed rules”; and still further, that he “cannot be subjected to any punishment, otherwise than by notice of a judgment, or according to the legal decision of the town to which he belongs.” Here, too, is an example for us.

Thus does Russia, by careful provisions, supplementary to the act of Emancipation, assure her freedmen in all their rights: first, the right of family and the right of contract; secondly, the right of property, including a homestead; thirdly, complete Equality in the courts; fourthly, Equality in political rights; fifthly, Equality at school and in education; and, finally, all these precious safeguards are crowned by declaring that they cannot lose their rights, or be punished, except after judgment according to fixed rules: thus completely fulfilling that requirement of our fathers, that government should be “a government of laws, and not of men.”[24]

I trust that this grand example is none the less worthy of imitation because from an empire which is not supposed to sympathize with liberal ideas. The Republic cannot in this respect lag behind the Empire. Besides, all that we hear shows that the experiment has been successful. An experiment inspired so completely by the spirit of justice cannot fail.

My colleague is right in introducing his bill and pressing it to a vote. The argument for it is irresistible. It is essential to complete Emancipation. Without it Emancipation will be only _half done_. It is our duty to see that it is wholly done. Slavery must be abolished not in form only, but in substance, so that there shall be no Black Code, but all shall be Equal before the Law.

As to the power of Congress over this question, I cannot doubt it. My colleague assumes the power, without tracing it to any particular source. It may be a military power, precisely as the Proclamation of Emancipation,--and here the authority is as clear and absolute as in the District of Columbia; or it may be in pursuance of the Constitutional Amendment, which provides that Congress may “enforce this Article by appropriate legislation”; or it may be to carry out the guaranty of a republican form of government.

There are measures of my own, already introduced by me, now on your table, looking to the same result as the pending bill, which proceed specifically on the two latter grounds.

One of these is entitled “A bill supplying appropriate legislation to enforce the Amendment to the Constitution prohibiting Slavery,” from which I read two sections.

Here Mr. Sumner read sections 3 and 4, as given on a previous page.[25]

This bill proceeds on the idea that the Amendment is now part of the Constitution to all intents and purposes. And who can doubt this? Already it is adopted by three fourths of the States having Legislatures,--in other words, by “the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States.” The States having no Legislatures at the time of its proposition by Congress cannot be counted. Of what value is the enforced consent of disloyal and barbarous bodies pretending to act for certain States at the dictation of military power? Military power may govern during the war; but it is impotent to make a republican State, or to adopt an Amendment of the Constitution.

Another bill introduced by me, and now on the table, is founded on the guaranty clause. I give its title: “A bill in part execution of the guaranty of a Republican form of Government in the Constitution of the United States.”[26]

Both these bills are broader even than that of my colleague; for they point to the absolute obliteration of all legal discriminations founded on color, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box; and to this conclusion we must come at last. But I confess that I feel the dignity, the grandeur, and the substantial value which would be found in a declaration of Congress, that an oligarchical government, denying rights to a whole race, undertaking to tax without representation, and discarding “the consent of the governed” as its just foundation, cannot be “republican.”

The most explicit, the most positive, the most mandatory words in the Constitution are, “The United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government.” This great duty is thrown not upon any individual branch of the Government, but upon the United States. It is a duty to “guaranty”--which in itself is a strong term--what? A republican form of government. Now, by the lapse of State governments in the Rebel States, this duty is cast upon the United States. But the United States are represented in Congress, or rather by Act of Congress, which in itself is the embodied will of both Houses and of the President. Congress must, therefore, determine what is a republican form of government. Into this question I do not now enter. At the proper time I hope to consider it.[27] For the present I content myself with the remark, that it is absurd to say that a community founded on oligarchical pretensions, excluding from all participation in the government any considerable proportion of its tax-paying citizens, and ignoring the consent of the governed, can be considered a republican form of government. On this proposition I hope to be heard at an early day. Here is one of the greatest questions of our history.

* * * * *

After this brief review of the object to be accomplished, I am brought to consider the practical necessity of such legislation; and here it is my duty to expose the actual condition of the Rebel States, especially as regards loyalty and the treatment of the freedmen. On this head I shall adduce evidence in my possession. In the endeavor to bring what I say within reasonable proportions, I shall adduce only a small part of what has passed under my eye; but it will be more than enough. In bringing it forward, the difficulty is of selection and abridgment.

I begin with something relating to the condition of the Rebel States generally, and shall then consider the different States successively.

And now, first, as to the Rebel States generally. I know no testimony that has found its way to the public, with regard to the general condition of the South, which will compare in value with a series of letters by A. Warren Kelsey, a business agent of character and intelligence above question, who has travelled through the Rebel States. His communications with his employers show singular powers of observation, and are expressed with great clearness. Of course I can give only a few extracts.

“In travelling about, as I have, from one section of the country to the other, I have been able to compare opinions, and, as you know, I have had peculiar and favorable opportunities for ascertaining the views they have in common. I have endeavored to trace the motives from which they have acted and which now animate them, and their _real_ purpose for the future, if they have one. In giving you my opinion now, it is proper to say that I have taken no one individual as a criterion of the whole, and have judged them only by the opinions I find they are generally agreed upon; neither have I any one’s statement for their thoughts and actions. My opinions, deductions, and conclusions are derived from my own experience and observation among them, and, whether they shall be confirmed or denied by others, are, notwithstanding, my honest and sincere convictions.

…

“While I am able to say that they have made up their minds that Emancipation is a fact, and not to be avoided, I am obliged to state my earnest opinion, that, so far as secession is concerned,--that is, the doctrine of State Rights,--it is more deeply rooted than ever among them. They are perfectly united in the belief that the division of this country is both right from a moral stand-point and politic as a measure of expediency. They have simply changed their base from the battle-field to the ballot-box, believing, as they very frankly admit, that greater triumphs await them there than they could ever hope for in the field. In almost every house hangs the old, worn Confederate uniform, which is displayed with pride and satisfaction to all comers. So far from repenting of the stand they took, they glory in it. They regret the result, and their non-success, it is true, but not one in a thousand will admit they were in the wrong.

…

“They argue that at least ninety-five in every two hundred votes at the North are sure to be thrown in their favor, and they can now rule the Union by giving up, which is cheaper than to persist in their idea of a separate government. That idea, however, is only laid aside for a time. Every boy at the South is being educated in the belief that the relations the South to-day sustains toward the North are the same as those of Hungary or Venetia toward Austria, or of Poland to Russia. They bide their time. They have adopted for their motto, ‘Patience, and shuffle the cards.’ The snake, so far from being killed, is barely ‘scotched.’ Meantime they deem it better to rule in the Union than to serve in the Confederate army.

…

“As to their affection for their military leaders, you will find proof in the elections at Richmond and South Carolina. No man has a better claim to their sympathy, and none stand a better chance of election, than those who were the last to give up. Motives of policy may induce them to nominate others, but the fact remains as I have stated. I repeat, that General Lee and Wade Hampton are the two most popular and best loved men in the South to-day. I have heard but one disparaging remark made of General Lee since I was at the South, and that was in this connection. I was riding one night in a hack across the gap in a railway, made by Wilson, and, as usual, the conversation turned on political affairs and the condition and prospects of the Southern people. One man said that General Lee stood the best chance for the next Presidency,--by the way, that is a very prevalent idea here at the South,--when another remarked that he would rather have Andrew Johnson. I was curious to know why, and inquired. He replied, that ‘he had but little confidence in Lee since he favored negro soldiers, and in his opinion he was not much better than a Black Republican.’

…

“At present every one at the South is occupied in his personal and family interests. There are no political parties,--very little coherence of opinion as to the policy best to be pursued. But I find among the knowing ones, particularly those who have been on to the North, and remained some time in New York or Washington, a sanguine belief that they can easily resume the reins of office; and these men are the only Unionists in the South to-day. You can depend upon it, that the Southern States in the future will present one solid, unanimous front; their leaders have them well in hand. And this is precisely what ninety-nine in every hundred of the men, women, and children believe sincerely as to the situation to-day: first, that the South of right possesses, and always possessed, the right of secession; secondly, that the war only proved that the North was the strongest; thirdly, that Negro Slavery was and is right, but has been abolished by the war. The Southerners are too smart not to see that Slavery is dead, but many of them hope as long as the black race exists here to be able to hold it in a condition of practical serfdom. All expect the negro will be killed in one way or another by Emancipation. The policy of those who will eventually become the leaders here at the South is, for the present, to accept the best they can get, to acquiesce in anything and everything, but to strain every nerve to regain the political power and ascendency they held under Buchanan. This they believe cannot be postponed longer than up to the next Presidential election. They will do all in their power to resist Negro Suffrage, to reduce taxation and expenditures, and would attack the national debt, if they saw any reason to believe repudiation possible. They will continue to assert the inferiority of the African; and they would to-day, if possible, precipitate the United States into a foreign war, believing they could then reassert and obtain their independence. They will, most of them, take any oaths you may cause to be adopted, and break them immediately, and without scruple. In one word, this people have placed themselves in resolute antagonism to the North, and _this_ generation, at least, will always hate the Northern people, while the boys are being educated to the same idea.

…

“On the whole, looking at the affair from all sides, it amounts to just this: if the Northern people are content to be ruled over by the Southerners, they will continue in the Union; if not, the first chance they get, they will rise again.”[28]

Other testimony is in harmony. For instance, a trustworthy traveller, who has recently traversed the Gulf States, thus writes in a private letter to myself:--

“The former masters exhibit a most cruel, remorseless, and vindictive spirit toward the colored people. In parts where there are no Union soldiers I saw colored women treated in the most outrageous manner. They have no rights that are respected. They are killed, and their bodies thrown into ponds or mud-holes. They are mutilated by having ears and noses cut off.”

Such a people already talk of repudiating the national debt. To the question, “Would it be safe to trust white men at the South with the power to repudiate the national debt?” a person in gray uniform at once replied: “Repudiate? I should hope they would. I’m whipped, and I’ll own it; but I’m not so fond of a whipping that I’m going to pay a man’s expenses while he gives it to me. Of course there are not ten men in the whole South that wouldn’t repudiate.” Such is the spirit of these States. But a candidate for Congress in Virginia undertook to speak for the Rebel States.

“I am opposed to the Southern States being taxed at all for the redemption of this debt, either directly or indirectly; and, if elected to Congress, I will oppose all such measures, _and I will vote to repeal all laws that have heretofore been passed for that purpose_; and, in doing so, I do not consider that I violate any obligations to which the South was a party. _We have never plighted our faith for the redemption of the war debt._ The people will be borne down with taxes for years to come, even if the war debt is repudiated. It will be the duty of the Government to support the maimed and disabled soldiers, and this will be a great expense; and if the United States Government requires the South to be taxed for the support of Union soldiers, we should insist that all disabled soldiers should be maintained by the United States Government, _without regard to the side they had taken in the war_.”

A late writer, who within a few days has returned from an extensive tour in North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, and who now enjoys a seat in your Reporters’ Gallery, thus testifies with regard to the national debt:--

“The national debt doubtless seems to you beyond the reach of any hand. Yet I regard it as very probable that one or two or all of three things will be attempted within three years after the Southern members of Congress are admitted to seats,--the repudiation of the National debt, the assumption of the Confederate debt, or the payment of several hundred million dollars to the South for property destroyed and slaves emancipated. I met several shrewd and intelligent men who expressed the belief that Confederate bonds will be worth something in two or three years. One told me that large amounts were held in New York and England, and he expected steps would be taken within five years toward paying them from the National Treasury. I heard no man openly advocate the repudiation of the National debt, but scores argued to me that it would not be fair to make the South pay any part of it; and one man said he believed, if the case were only carried up, that the Supreme Court would so decide. The idea that the nation will pay the South for her slaves extensively prevails both in Georgia and South Carolina. It is incorporated into the new Constitution of Georgia, and is openly advocated by many influential men in South Carolina. Wherefore, I say, the national debt needs watching.”

Let the Secretary of the Treasury[29] take notice, and not expose the national finances to the peril which menaces them.

* * * * *

Passing from this testimony, which is general, I come to the neighbor State of Virginia. I read from a private letter received by myself from a Government officer there:--

“We who are here have a much better opportunity of knowing the feeling of the people than you at a distance, for they will not speak as freely before you as they will before us here and among themselves. The feeling of disloyalty is as strong here now as it was during the war, but they cannot show it as they did then; and with regard to the freedmen there is every disposition on their part to make them odious. They constantly talk of insurrection, insubordination, thieving, idleness, and every species of crime and vice; all of which I assure you is entirely false. They are perfectly subordinate to every law, and, so far as thieving is concerned, such an assertion is gratuitous or false; for all cases of thieving, certainly, I am sorry to say, are done by the whites.”

I also read from another private letter:--

“The clash of arms has subsided, the serried hosts of Rebels have been disbanded, and the huge paraphernalia of war have been scattered; but, notwithstanding these facts, the low mutterings of sullen discontent are yet heard, and the desire to persecute and break down all truly loyal men is exhibited on every hand with even more sly ferocity than while the war of sections raged.

“We are residents of this city, each engaged in public business, and consequently thrown into contact with all classes of citizens. Hourly we hear denunciations of the Government, and prayers for the removal of the military. And why these denunciations and these prayers, if the oath of allegiance had been honestly taken, to be sacredly observed? No, Gentlemen, the spirit of rebellion is not dead, and will never die while Democratic leaders in the South are relieved of their treachery and turned loose to stir up sedition and to incite rebellion. The men make loud professions of loyalty, and their press reverberates the echo from hill and valley; but you have only to read their fanfaronades on loyalty to satisfy yourselves of the bitter hatred that fills their breasts against the Union, and the burning hate with which they will proceed to pour out the vials of their wrath upon all Union men, when once they can secure seats in Congress and get possession of the reins of State government. In their hearts they cling as ardently to State sovereignty as ever, and once give them the power and they will tax the loyal people to the full value of the slave property destroyed by the war. Mark this prediction.”

Another private letter, from a person so situated as to be singularly well informed, thus foreshadows a system of Peonage:--

“The necessity of the courts is beyond all question. Even with these courts it requires watchfulness to protect the blacks. If they were left without these courts, the whites would keep them forever in bondage, by keeping them in debt; and I am afraid that the legislation of the States will be to the effect to establish here the Mexican system of Peonage, by using some very extraordinary terms to coerce ‘hatched-up’ accounts against the blacks.”