Part 22

July 3d, Mr. Sumner made another attempt to have them considered, speaking specially upon the importance of a homestead for freedmen.

GENEROSITY FOR EDUCATION.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON A JOINT RESOLUTION GIVING THE THANKS OF CONGRESS TO GEORGE PEABODY, MARCH 8, 1867.

March 5th, Mr. Sumner asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in the following joint resolution, which was read twice and ordered to be printed.

“JOINT RESOLUTION presenting the thanks of Congress to George Peabody.

“_Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled_, That the thanks of Congress be, and they hereby are, presented to George Peabody, of Massachusetts, for his great and peculiar beneficence in giving a large sum of money, amounting to two million dollars, for the promotion of education in the more destitute portions of the Southern and Southwestern States, the benefits of which, according to his direction, are to be distributed among the entire population, without any distinction, except what may be found in needs or opportunities of usefulness.

“SEC. 2. _And be it further enacted_, That it shall be the duty of the President to cause a gold medal to be struck, with suitable devices and inscriptions, which, together with a copy of this resolution, shall be presented to Mr. Peabody in the name of the people of the United States.”

March 8th, on motion of Mr. Sumner, the joint resolution was taken up for consideration, when the latter said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I hope sincerely that there can be no question on this resolution. It expresses the thanks of Congress for an act great in itself, and also great as an example.

I recall no instance in history where a private person during life has bestowed so large a sum in charity. Few after death have done so much. The bequest of Smithson, which Congress accepted with honor, and made the foundation of the institution bearing his name and receiving our annual care, was much less than the donation of Mr. Peabody for purposes of education in the South and Southwestern States, to be distributed among the whole population, without any distinction other than needs or opportunities of usefulness to them.

I hail this benefaction as of especial value now: first, as a contribution to education, which is a sacred cause never to be forgotten in a republic; secondly, as a charity to a distressed part of our country which needs the help of education; and, thirdly, as an endowment for the equal benefit of all, without distinction of caste. As it is much in itself, so I cannot but think it will be most fruitful as an example. Individuals and communities will be moved to do more in the same direction, and impartial education may be added to recent triumphs.

I am not led to consider the difference between the widow’s mite and the rich man’s endowment, except to remark, that, when a charity is so large as to become historic, it is necessarily taken out of the category of common life. Standing apart by itself, it challenges attention and fills the mind, receiving homage and gratitude. Such, I am sure, has been the prevailing sentiment of our country toward Mr. Peabody. In voting this resolution, Congress will only give expression to the popular voice.

I should be sorry to have it understood that the thanks of Congress can be won only in war. Peace also has victories deserving honor. A public benefactor is a conqueror in the perpetual conflict with evil. He, too, meets the enemy face to face. Let him also have the reward of victory.

Already in England our benefactor has signalized himself by a generous endowment of the poor. The sum he gave was large, but not so large as he has given for education in our country. The sentiments of the British people found expression through the Queen, who honored him with a valuable present, her own portrait, and an autograph letter declaring her grateful sense of his beneficence. Kindred sentiments may justly find expression through Congress, which is empowered to write the autograph of the American people.

If it be said that such a vote is without precedent, I reply that this is a mistake. You voted thanks to Mr. Vanderbilt for the present of a steamer, and to Mr. Field for generous enterprise in establishing the telegraphic cable between the two continents. But even if there were no precedent, then, do I say, make a precedent. Your vote will be less unprecedented than his generosity.

At this moment, when we are engaged in the work of Reconstruction, this endowment for education in the Southern and Southwestern States is most timely. Education is the foundation-stone of that Republican Government we seek to establish. On this account, also, I would honor the benefactor.

I have not asked a reference to a committee, because it seemed that the resolution was of such a character that the Senate would be glad to act upon it directly. The thanks we offer will be of more value, if promptly offered.

The joint resolution was adopted by the Senate,--Yeas 36, Nays 2. March 13th it passed the House unanimously, was approved by the President, and became a law.[94]

RECONSTRUCTION AGAIN.

THE BALLOT AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPEN TO ALL.

SPEECHES IN THE SENATE, ON THE SUPPLEMENTARY RECONSTRUCTION BILL, MARCH 15 AND 16, 1867.

To counteract the malign influence of President Johnson, and to protect the public interest jeopardized by his conduct, Congress provided for a session to commence March 4, 1867, immediately after the expiration of its predecessor. The new Congress was signalized by a second Reconstruction Bill, “supplementary to an Act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States,” passed March 2, 1867, which was promptly introduced into the House of Representatives and passed.

As early as March 13th, the House bill was reported to the Senate from the Judiciary Committee, with a substitute, and for several days thereafter it was considered. Among the various amendments moved was one by Mr. Drake, of Missouri, providing that the registered electors should declare, by their votes of “Convention” or “No Convention,” whether a convention to frame a constitution should be held, which was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays 27.

March 15th, Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, moved an amendment, that the commanding general should furnish a copy of the registration to the Provisional Government of the State; and whenever thereafter the Provisional Government should by legal enactment provide that a convention should be called, the commanding general should then direct an election of delegates. In the debate on this proposition, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--In voting on the proposition of the Senator from Maine, I ask myself one question: How would the Union men of the South vote, if they had the privilege? They are unrepresented. We here ought to be the representatives of the unrepresented. How, then, would the Union men of the South vote on the proposition of the Senator? I cannot doubt, that, with one voice, they would vote No. They would not trust their fortunes in any way to the existing governments of the Rebel States. Those governments have been set up in spite of the Union men, and during their short-lived existence they have trampled upon Union men and upon their rights. That region might be described as bleeding at every pore, and much through the action of the existing governments, owing their origin to the President. So long as they continue, their influence must be pernicious. I hear, then, the voice of every Union man from every one of the Rebel States coming up to this Chamber and entreating us to refuse all trust, all power, to these Legislatures. I listen to their voice, and shall vote accordingly.

But I feel, nevertheless, that something ought to be done in the direction of the proposition of the Senator from Maine. I listened to his remarks, and in their spirit I entirely concur; but it seems to me that his argument carried us naturally to the proposition of the Senator from Missouri. To my mind, that proposition is founded in good sense, in prudence, in a just economy of political forces. It begins at the right end. It begins with the people. The Senator proposes that the new governments, when constituted, shall stand on that broad base. The proposition of the Committee stands the pyramid on its apex. I am therefore for the proposition of the Senator from Missouri, and I hope that at the proper time he will renew it, and give us another opportunity of recording our votes in its favor.

The amendment of Mr. Fessenden was rejected,--Yeas 14, Nays 33.

March 16th, Mr. Sumner moved to insert “all” before “electors,” and to substitute “registered” for “qualified,” so as to read, “ratified by a majority of the votes of all the electors registered as herein specified.” After debate, the amendment was rejected,--Yeas 19, Nays 25.

Mr. Drake subsequently renewed his rejected amendment, with a modification that the result should be determined by a majority of those voting, and it was adopted. Mr. Conkling, of New York, moved to reconsider the last vote, so as to provide that the result should be determined by a majority of all the votes registered, instead of a majority of all the votes given. On this motion, Mr. Sumner remarked:--

I said nothing, when the question was up before; but I cannot allow the vote to be taken now without expressing in one word the ground on which I shall place my vote.

We have just come out from the fires of a terrible Rebellion, and our special purpose now is to set up safeguards against the recurrence of any such calamity, and also for the establishment of peace and tranquillity throughout that whole region. There is no Senator within the sound of my voice who is not anxious to see that great end accomplished. How shall it be done? By founding government on a majority or on a minority? If these were common times, then I should listen to the argument of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. DRAKE], and also of the Senator from Indiana [Mr. MORTON], to the effect that the government might be founded on a majority of those who actually vote, although really a minority of the population; but at this moment, when we are seeking to recover ourselves from the Rebellion, and to guard against it in future, I cannot expose the country to any such hazard. I would take the precaution to found government solidly, firmly, on a majority,--not merely a majority of those who vote, but a majority of all registered voters. Then will the government be rooted and anchored in principle, so that it cannot be brushed aside. How was it when the Rebellion began? Everything was by minorities. A minority in every State carried it into rebellion. I would have the new government planted firmly on a majority, so that it can never again be disturbed. I can see no real certainty of security for the future without this safeguard.

The motion to reconsider prevailed,--Yeas 21, Nays 18; but the amendment of Mr. Conkling was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays 22,--when Mr. Drake’s amendment was again adopted. Then, on motion of Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, it was provided “that such convention shall not be held, unless a majority of all such registered voters shall have voted on the question of holding such convention,”--Yeas 21, Nays 18.

Mr. Drake then moved to require in the new constitutions, “that, at all elections by the people for State, county, or municipal officers, the electors shall vote by ballot,” and this was adopted,--Yeas 22, Nays 19. Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, at once moved to reconsider the last vote, and was sustained by Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr. Stewart, of Nevada, and Mr. Morton, of Indiana. Mr. Sumner sustained the amendment.

MR. PRESIDENT,--The argument of the Senator from Oregon proceeds on the idea that this is a small question. He belittles it, and then puts it aside. He treats it as of form only, and then scorns it. Sir, it may be a question of form, but it is a form vital to the substance, vital to that very suffrage which the Senator undertakes to vindicate. Does the Senator know that at this moment the special question which tries British reformers is the ballot? To that our heroic friend, John Bright, has dedicated his life. He seeks to give the people of England vote by ballot. He constantly looks to our country for the authority of a great example. And now the Senator is willing to overturn that example. I will not, by my vote, consent to any such thing. I would reinforce the liberal cause, not only in my own country, but everywhere throughout the world; and that cause, I assure you, is staked in part on this very question.

No, Sir,--it is not a small question. It cannot be treated as trivial. It is a great question. Call it, if you please, a question of form; but it is so closely associated with substance that it becomes substance. I hope the Senate will not recede from the generous and patriotic vote it has already given. I trust it will stand firm. Ask any student of republican institutions what is one of their admitted triumphs, and he will name the vote by ballot. There can be no doubt about it. Do not dishonor the ballot, but see that it is required in the constitutions of these Rebel States. The Senator from Oregon raises no question of power. Congress has the power. That is enough. You must exercise it.

Mr. Drake then modified his amendment, so that, instead of “all elections by the people for State, county, or municipal officers,” it should read, “all elections by the people,” and it was rejected,--Yeas 17, Nays 22. Mr. Sumner then remarked:--

The Senate has been occupied for two days in the discussion of questions, many merely of form. I propose now to call attention to one of substance, with which, as I submit, the best interests of the Rebel States and of the Republic at large are connected. I send to the Chair an amendment, to come in at the end of section four.

The Secretary read the proposed amendment, as follows:--

“_Provided_, That the constitution shall require the Legislature to establish and sustain a system of public schools open to all, without distinction of race or color.”

Mr. Sumner proceeded to say:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I shall vote for this bill,--not because it is what I desire, but because it is all that Congress is disposed to enact at the present time. I do not like to play the part of Cassandra,--but I cannot forbear declaring my conviction that we shall regret hereafter that we have not done more. I am against procrastination. But I am also against precipitation. I am willing to make haste; but, following the ancient injunction, I would make haste slowly: in other words, I would make haste so that our work may be well done and the Republic shall not suffer. Especially would I guard carefully all those who justly look to us for protection, and I would see that the new governments are founded in correct principles. You have the power. Do not forget that duties are in proportion to powers.

I speak frankly. Let me, then, confess my regret that Congress chooses to employ the military power for purposes of Reconstruction. The army is for protection. This is its true function. When it undertakes to govern or to institute government, it does what belongs to the civil power. Clearly it is according to the genius of republican institutions that the military should be subordinate to the civil. _Cedant arma togæ_ is an approved maxim, not to be disregarded with impunity. Even now, a fresh debate in the British Parliament testifies to this principle. Only a fortnight ago, the Royal Duke of Cambridge, cousin to the Queen, and commander of the forces, used these words:--

“The practice of calling out troops to quell civil disturbances is exceedingly objectionable; _but it must not be forgotten that the initiative in such cases is always taken by the civil authorities themselves_.”[95]

This declaration, though confined to a particular case, embodies an important rule of conduct, which to my mind is of special application now.

By the system you have adopted, the civil is subordinate to the military, and the civilian yields to the soldier. You accord to the army an “initiative” which I would assure to the civil power. I regret this. I am unwilling that Reconstruction should have a military “initiative.” I would not see new States born of the bayonet. Leaving to the army its proper duties of protection, I would intrust Reconstruction to provisional governments, civil in character and organized by Congress. You have already pronounced the existing governments illegal. Logically you should proceed to supply their places by other governments, while the military is in the nature of police, until permanent governments are organized, republican in form and loyal in character. During this transition period, permanent governments might be matured on safe foundations and the people educated to a better order of things. As the twig is bent the tree inclines: you may now bend the twig. These States are like a potter’s vessel: you may mould them to be vessels of honor or of dishonor.

From the beginning I have maintained these principles. Again and again I have expressed them in the Senate and elsewhere. At the last session I insisted upon the Louisiana Bill in preference to the Military Bill. In the earliest moments of the present session I introduced a bill of my own, prepared with the best care I could bestow, in which was embodied what seemed to me a proper and practical system of Reconstruction, with provisional governments to superintend the work and pave the way for permanent governments. This measure, which I now hold in my hand, is entitled “A Bill to guaranty a republican form of government in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas, and to provide for the restoration of these States to practical relations with the Union.” Its character is seen in its title. It is not a military bill, or a bill to authorize Reconstruction by military power; but it is a bill essentially civil from beginning to end.

The principles on which this bill proceeds appear in its preamble, which, with the permission of the Senate, I will read.

“Whereas in the years 1860 and 1861 the inhabitants of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, and Texas changed their respective constitutions so as to make them repugnant to the Constitution of the United States;

“And whereas the inhabitants of these States made war upon the United States, and after many battles finally surrendered, under the rules and usages of war;

“And whereas the inhabitants of these States, at the time of their surrender, were without legal State governments, and, as a rebel population, were without authority to form legal State governments, or to exercise any other political functions belonging to loyal citizens, and they must so continue until relieved of such disabilities by the law-making power of the United States;

“And whereas it belongs to Congress, in the discharge of its duties under the Constitution, to secure to each of these States a republican form of government, and to provide for the restoration of each to practical relations with the Union;

“And whereas, until these things are done, it is important that provisional governments should be established in these States, with legal power to protect good citizens in the enjoyment of their rights, and to watch over the formation of State governments, so that the same shall be truly loyal and republican: Therefore”----

With this preamble, exhibiting precisely the necessity and reasons of Reconstruction, the bill begins by declaring that the provisional governments shall convene on the fourth Monday after its passage, and shall continue until superseded by permanent governments, created by the people of these States respectively, and recognized by Congress as loyal and republican. It then establishes an executive power in each State, vested in a governor appointed by the President by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and not to be removed except by such advice and consent. The legislative power is vested in the governor and in thirteen citizens, called a legislative council, appointed by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, and not to be removed except by such advice and consent. All these, being officers of the United States, must take the test oath prescribed already by Act of Congress; and the bill adds a further oath to maintain a republican form of government, as follows:--

“I do hereby swear (or affirm) that I will at all times use my best endeavors to maintain a republican form of government in the State of which I am an inhabitant and in the Union of the United States; that I will recognize the indissoluble unity of the Republic, and will discountenance and resist any endeavor to break away or secede from the Union; that I will give my influence and vote to strengthen and sustain the National credit; that I will discountenance and resist every attempt, directly or indirectly, to repudiate or postpone, in any part or in any way, the debt which was contracted by the United States in subduing the late Rebellion, or the obligations assumed to the Union soldiers; that I will discountenance and resist every attempt to induce the United States or any State to assume or pay any debt or obligation incurred in aid of rebellion against the United States, or any claim for the loss or emancipation of any slave; that I will discountenance and resist all laws making any distinction of race or color; that I will give my support to education and the diffusion of knowledge by public schools open to all; and that in all ways I will strive to maintain a State government completely loyal to the Union, where all men shall enjoy equal protection and equal rights.”

I know well the whole history of oaths, and how often they are the occasion of perjury by the wholesale. But I cannot resist the conclusion that at this moment, when we are taking securities for the future, we ought to seize the opportunity of impressing upon the people fundamental principles on which alone our Government can stand. You may exclude Rebels; but their children, who are not excluded, have inherited the Rebel spirit. The schools and colleges of the South have been nurseries of Rebellion. I would exact from all seeking the public service, or even the elective franchise, a pledge to support a republican government; and to make this pledge perfectly clear, so that all may understand its extent, I would enumerate the points which are essential. If a citizen cannot give this pledge, he ought to have no part in Reconstruction. He must stand aside.