Part 18

1. By the Constitution it is provided that “the electors in each State shall have the _qualifications_ requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature.” On this clause Senators build the impossible pretension that a State cannot be interrupted in its disfranchisement of a race. Here is the argument: Because a State may determine the _qualifications_ of electors, _therefore_ it may deprive a whole race of equal rights and of participation in the Government. Logically speaking, here are most narrow premises for the widest possible conclusion. On the mere statement, the absurdity is so unspeakable as to recall the kindred pretension of Slavery, that, because commerce is lawful, therefore commerce in human flesh is lawful also. If the consequences were not so offensive, this “argal” might be handed over to consort with that of the Shakespearean grave-digger. But the argument is not merely preposterous, it is insulting to the human understanding, and a blow at human nature itself. If I use strong language, it is because such a proclamation of tyranny requires it. Admitting that the States may determine the “qualifications” of electors, what then? Obviously it must be according to the legitimate meaning of this word. And here, besides reason and humanity, two inexhaustible fountains, we have two other sources of authority: first, the Constitution, in which the word appears, and, secondly, the dictionaries of the English language, out of both of which we must condemn the intolerable pretension.

The Constitution, where we find this word, follows the Declaration of Independence, and refuses to recognize any distinction of color. Search, and you will confess that there is no word of “color” in its text; nor is there anything there on which to found any disfranchisement of a race. The “qualifications” of different officers, as President, Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives, are named; but “color” is not among these. The Constitution, like the Ten Commandments and the Beatitudes, embraces all alike within its mandates and all alike within its promises. There are none who must not obey it; there can be none who may not claim its advantages. By what title do you exclude a race? The Constitution gives no such title; you can only find it in yourselves. The fountain is pure; it is only out of yourselves that the waters of bitterness proceed.

The dictionaries of our language are in harmony with the Constitution. Look at “Qualification” in Webster or Worcester, the two best authorities of our time, and you will find that the word means “fitness,” “capability,” “accomplishment,” “the condition of being qualified”; but it does not mean “color.” It embraces age, residence, character, education, and the payment of taxes,--in short, all those conditions which, when honestly administered, are in the nature of _regulation_, not of _disfranchisement_. The English dictionaries most used by the framers of the Constitution were Bailey and Johnson. According to Bailey, who was the earliest, this important word is thus defined:--

“(1.) _That which fits any person or thing for any particular purpose._”

“(2.) _A particular faculty or endowment, an accomplishment._”

According to Johnson, who is the highest authority, it is thus defined:--

“(1.) _That which makes any person or thing fit for anything._”

EXAMPLE.--“It is in the power of the prince to make piety and virtue become the fashion, if he would make them necessary _qualifications_ for preferment.--SWIFT.”

“(2.) _Accomplishment._”

EXAMPLE.--“Good _qualifications_ of mind enable a magistrate to perform his duty, and tend to create a public esteem of him.--ATTERBURY.”

By these definitions this word means “fitness,” or “accomplishment,” and, according to the well-chosen examples from Swift and Atterbury, it means qualities like “piety” and “virtue,” or like faculties “of mind,” all of which are more or less within the reach of every human being. But it is impossible to extend this list so as to make “color” a quality,--absolutely impossible. Color is a physical condition affixed by the God of Nature to a large portion of the human race, and insurmountable in its character. Age, education, residence, property,--all these are subject to change; but the Ethiopian cannot change his skin. On this last distinctive circumstance I take my stand. _An insurmountable condition is not a qualification, but a disfranchisement._ Admit that a State may determine the “qualifications” of electors, it cannot, under this authority, arbitrarily exclude a whole race.

Try this question by examples. Suppose South Carolina, where the blacks are numerous, should undertake to exclude the whites from the polls on account of “color”; would you hesitate to arrest this injustice? You would insist that a government sanctioning such a denial of rights, under whatever pretension, could not be republican. Suppose another State should gravely declare that _all with black eyes_ should be excluded from the polls, and still another should gravely declare that _all with black hair_ should be excluded from the polls, I am sure that you would find it difficult to restrain the mingled derision and indignation which such a pretension must excite. But this fable pictures your conduct. All this is now gravely done by States; and Senators gravely insist that such exclusion is proper in determining the “qualifications” of electors.

2. Like unto the pretension founded on a misinterpretation of “qualifications” is that other founded on a misinterpretation of the asserted power of a State to make “regulations.” Listen to this pretension. Assuming that a State may _regulate_ the elections without the intervention of Congress, it is insisted that it may disfranchise a race. Because a State may regulate the elective franchise, _therefore_ it may destroy this franchise. Surely it is one thing to regulate, and quite another thing to destroy. The power to regulate cannot involve any such conclusion of tyranny. To every such wretched result, howsoever urged, there is one sufficient reply,--_Non sequitur_.

According to the Constitution, “the _times, places, and manner_ of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such _regulations_, except as to the places of choosing Senators.” Here is the text of this portentous power to blast a race. In these simple words no such power can be found, unless the seeker makes the Constitution a reflection of himself. The times, places, and manner of holding elections are referred to the States,--nothing more; and even these may be altered by Congress. Being matters of form and convenience only, in the nature of _police_, they are justly included under the head of “regulations,” like the sword and uniform of the army. Do we not familiarly speak of a _regulation_ sword and a _regulation_ sash? Who will dare to say that under this formal power of _regulation_ a whole race may be despoiled of equal rights and of all participation in the Government? This very pretension was anticipated by Mr. Madison, and condemned in advance. Here are his decisive words in the Virginia Convention:--

“Some States might regulate the elections on the principles of equality, and others might regulate them otherwise.… Should the people of any State by any means be deprived of the right of suffrage, _it was judged proper that it should be remedied by the General Government_.”[232]

Thus was it expressly understood, at the adoption of the Constitution, that Congress should have the power to prevent any State, under the pretence of regulating the suffrage, from depriving the people of this right, or from interfering with the principle of _Equality_.

Kindred to this statement of Mr. Madison is that other contemporary testimony which will be found in the “Federalist,” where the irrepealable rights of citizens are recognized without distinction of color. This explicit language cannot be too often quoted. Here it is:--

“It is only under the pretext that the laws have transformed the negroes into subjects of property that a place is denied to them in the computation of numbers; and it is admitted, that, if the laws were to restore the rights which have been taken away, _the negroes could no longer be refused an equal share of representation with the other inhabitants_.”[233]

This testimony is as decisive as it is authentic. Consider that it was given in explanation and vindication of the Constitution. Consider that the Constitution was commended for adoption by the assertion, that, on the termination of Slavery, “the negroes could no longer be refused an _equal share_ of representation with the other inhabitants.” In the face of this assurance, how can it be now insisted, that, under the simple power to regulate the suffrage, a State may deny to a whole race that “equal share of representation” which was promised? Thus from every quarter we are brought to the same inevitable conclusion.

Therefore I dismiss the pretension founded on the power to make _regulations_, as I dismiss that other founded on the power to determine _qualifications_. Each proceeds on a radical misconception. Admit that a State may determine _qualifications_; admit that a State may make _regulations_; it cannot follow, by any rule of logic or law, that, under these powers, either or both, it may disfranchise a race. The pretension is too lofty. No such enormous prerogative can be wrung out of any such moderate power. As well say, that, because a constable or policeman may keep order in a city, therefore he may inflict the penalty of death,--or, because a father may impose proper restraint upon a child, therefore he may sell him into slavery. We have read of an effort to extract sunbeams out of cucumbers; but the present effort to extract a cruel prerogative out of the simple words of the Constitution is scarcely less absurd.

* * * * *

I conclude as I began, in favor of requiring conditions from States on their admission into the Nation; and I insist that it is our especial duty, in every possible way, by compact and by enactment, to assure among these conditions the Equal Rights of All, and the participation of every citizen in the government over him, without which the State cannot be republican. For the present I confine myself to the question of conditions on the admission of States, without considering the broader obligation of Congress to make Equal Rights coextensive with the Nation, and thus to harmonize our institutions with the principles of the Declaration of Independence. That other question I leave to another occasion.

Meanwhile I protest against the false glosses originally fastened upon the Constitution by Slavery, and, now continued, often in unconsciousness of their origin, perverting it to the vilest uses of tyranny. I protest against that exaggeration of pretension which out of a power to make “regulations” and to determine “qualifications” can derive an unrepublican prerogative. I protest against that pretension which would make the asserted Equality of States the cover for a denial of the Equality of Men. The one is an artificial rule, relating to artificial bodies; the other is a natural rule, relating to natural bodies. The one is little more than a legal fiction; the other is a truth of Nature. Here is a distinction which Alexander Hamilton recognized, when, in the debates of the Convention, he nobly said:--

“As States are a collection of individual men, which ought we to respect most,--the rights of the people composing them, or of the artificial beings resulting from the composition? Nothing could be more preposterous or absurd than to sacrifice the former to the latter.”[234]

High above States, as high above men, are those commanding principles which cannot be denied with impunity. They will be found in the Declaration of Independence, expressed so clearly that all can read them. Though few, they are mighty. There is no humility in bending to their behests. As man rises in the scale of being while walking in obedience to the Divine will, so is a State elevated by obedience to these everlasting truths. Nor can we look for harmony in our country until these principles bear unquestioned sway, without any interdict from the States. That unity for which the Nation longs, with peace and reconciliation in its train, can be assured only through the Equal Rights of All, proclaimed by the Nation everywhere within its limits, and maintained by the national arm. Then will the Constitution be filled and inspired by the Declaration of Independence, so that the two shall be one, with a common life, a common authority, and a common glory.

ELIGIBILITY OF A COLORED CITIZEN TO CONGRESS.

LETTER TO AN INQUIRER AT NORFOLK, VA., JUNE 22, 1868.

This letter appeared in a Richmond paper.

SENATE CHAMBER, June 22, 1868.

DEAR SIR,--I have your letter of the 18th, in reference to the eligibility of a colored man to Congress.

I know of no ground on which he could be excluded from his seat, if duly elected; and I should welcome the election of a competent representative of the colored race to either House of Congress as a final triumph of the cause of Equal Rights. Until this step is taken, our success is incomplete.

Yours truly,

CHARLES SUMNER.

INDEPENDENCE, AND THOSE WHO SAVED THE ORIGINAL WORK.

LETTER ON THE SOLDIERS’ MONUMENT AT NORTH WEYMOUTH, MASS., JULY 2, 1868.

SENATE CHAMBER, July 2, 1868.

MY DEAR SIR,--I wish that I could take part in the interesting ceremonies to which you invite me; but my duties will keep me here.

On the anniversary of the birth of our Nation you will commemorate the death of patriots who gave their lives that the Nation might live. Grateful to our fathers, who at the beginning did so much, we owe an equal debt to those who saved the original work.

The monument which you rear will be national in its character. Dedicated on the anniversary of Independence, it will have for its special object to guard forever the memory of those through whom the first fruits of Independence have been secured.

Our fathers established the National Independence; our recent heroes have made it perpetual through those vital principles which can never die. Honor to the fathers! Honor also to the sons, worthy of the fathers!

Accept my best wishes; believe me, my dear Sir, very faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

GEN. B. F. PRATT.

COLORED SENATORS,--THEIR IMPORTANCE IN SETTLING THE QUESTION OF EQUAL RIGHTS.

LETTER TO AN INQUIRER IN SOUTH CAROLINA, JULY 3, 1868.

The following letter, from a South Carolina paper, is one of many in the same sense which found its way to the public.

SENATE CHAMBER, July 3, 1868.

DEAR SIR,--I have never given any opinion in regard to the Senatorial question in your State, except to express regret that the golden opportunity should be lost of making a colored citizen Senator from South Carolina.

Such a Senator, if competent, would be a powerful support to the cause of Equal Rights. His presence alone would be a constant testimony and argument. Nothing could do so much to settle the question of Equal Rights forever in the United States. The howl against the negro, which is sometimes heard in the Senate, would cease. A colored Senator would be as good as a Constitutional Amendment, making all backward steps impossible.

I write now frankly, in reply to your inquiry, and without any purpose of interfering in your election. You will pardon my anxiety for the cause I have so much at heart.

Accept my best wishes, and believe me, dear Sir, faithfully yours,

CHARLES SUMNER.

To THADDEUS K. SASPORTAS, Esq., Columbia, S. C.

FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION THROUGH PUBLIC FAITH AND SPECIE PAYMENTS.

SPEECH IN THE SENATE, ON THE BILL TO FUND THE NATIONAL DEBT, JULY 11, 1868.

We denounce all forms of Repudiation as a national crime [_prolonged cheers_]; and the national honor requires the payment of the public indebtedness, _in the utmost good faith_, to all creditors, at home and abroad, _not only according to the letter, but to the spirit of the laws under which it was contracted_. [_Applause._]--CHICAGO PLATFORM, May, 1868.

* * * * *

Fundamentum est autem justitiæ fides, id est, dictorum conventorumque constantia et veritas.--CICERO, _De Officiis_, Lib. I. Cap. 7.

SPEECH.

The Senate having under consideration the Bill for funding the National Debt and for the Conversion of the Notes of the United States, Mr. Sumner said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--After a tempest sweeping sea and land, strewing the coast with wrecks, and tumbling houses to the ground, Nature must become propitious before the energy of man can repair the various losses. Time must intervene. At last ships are launched again, and houses are built, in larger numbers and fairer forms than before. A tempest has swept over us, scourging in every direction; and now that its violence has ceased, we are occupied in the work of restoration. Nature is already propitious, and time, too, is silently preparing the way, while the national energies are applied to the work.

To know what to do, we must comprehend the actual condition of things, and how it was brought about. All this is easy to see, if we will only look.

* * * * *

It is a mistake of too constant occurrence to treat the financial question by itself, without considering its dependence upon the abnormal condition through which the country has passed. The financial question, in all its branches, depends upon the political, and cannot be separated. I might use stronger language. It is a part of the political question; and now that Reconstruction seems about to be accomplished, it is that enduring part which still remains.

* * * * *

Our present responsibilities, whether political or financial, have a common origin in that vast Rebellion, when the people of eleven States, maddened by Slavery, rose against the Nation. As the Rebellion was without example in its declared object, so it was without example in the extent and intensity of its operations. It sought nothing less than the dismemberment of our Nation and the establishment of a new power with Slavery as its quickening principle. The desperate means enlisted by such a cause could be encountered only by the most strenuous exertions in the name of Country and of Human Rights. Here was Slavery, barbarous, brutal, vindictive, warring for recognition. The tempest or tornado can typify only feebly the ravage that ensued. There were days of darkness and despair, when the national existence was in peril. Rebel armies menaced the Capitol, and Slavery seemed about to vindicate its wicked supremacy.

Looking at the scene in its political aspects, we behold one class of disorders, and looking at it in its financial aspects, we behold still another,--both together constituting a fearful sum-total, where financial disorder mingles with political. Turn, first, to the political, and you will see States, one after another, renouncing their relations with the Nation, and constituting a new government, under the name of Confederacy, with a new Constitution, making Slavery its corner-stone,--all of which they sought to maintain by arms, while, in aggravation of these perils, Foreign Powers gave ominous signs of speedy recognition and support. Look next to the financial side, and you will see business in some places entirely prostrate, in others suddenly assuming new forms; immense interests destroyed; property annihilated; the whole people turned from the thoughts of peace to the thoughts of war; vast armies set on foot, in which the youthful and strong were changed from producers to destroyers, while life itself was consumed; an unprecedented taxation, commensurate with the unprecedented exigency; and all this followed by the common incidents of war in other countries and times,--first, the creation of a national debt, and, secondly, the substitution of inconvertible paper as a currency. In this catalogue of calamities, political and financial, who shall say which was the worst? Certainly it is difficult to distinguish between them. One grew out of the other, so that they belong together and constitute one group, all derived ultimately from the Rebellion, and directly depending upon it. So long as Slavery continued in arms, each and all waxed in vastness; and now, so long as any of these remain, they testify to this same unnatural crime. The tax-gatherer, taking so much from honest industry, was born of the Rebellion. Inconvertible paper, deranging the business of the country at home and abroad, had the same monstrous birth. Our enormous taxation is only a prolongation of the Rebellion. Every greenback is red with the blood of fellow-citizens.

To repair these calamities, political and financial, the first stage was the overthrow of the Rebellion in the field, thus enabling the Nation to reduce its armaments, to arrest its accumulating debt, and to cease anxiety on account of foreign intervention so constantly menaced. Thus relieved, we were brought to a resting-place, and the Nation found itself in condition to begin the work of restoration.

* * * * *

Foremost came the suppression of Slavery, in which the Rebellion had its origin. Common prudence, to say nothing of common humanity, required this consummation, without which there would have been a short-lived truce only. So great a change necessarily involved other changes, while there was the ever-present duty to obtain from the defeated Rebels, if not indemnity for the past, at least security for the future. It was impossible to stop with the suppression of Slavery. That whole barbarous code of wrong and outrage, whose first article was the denial of all rights to an oppressed race, was grossly inconsistent with the new order of things. It was necessary that it should yield to the Equal Rights of All, promised by the Declaration of Independence. The citizen, lifted from Slavery, must be secured in all his rights, civil and political. Loyal governments, republican in form, must be substituted for Rebel governments. All this being done, the States, thus transformed, will assume once more their ancient relations to the Nation. This is the work of Political Reconstruction, constituting the new stage after the overthrow of the Rebellion.

* * * * *

Meanwhile there has been an effort and a longing for Financial Reconstruction also,--sometimes without sufficiently reflecting that there can be small chance for any success in this direction until after Political Reconstruction. Here also we must follow Nature, and restore by removing the disturbing cause. This is the natural process. Vain all attempt to reconstruct the national finances while the Rebellion was still in arms. This must be obvious to all. Vain also while Slavery still domineered. Vain also while Equal Rights are without a sure defence against the oppressor. Vain also while the Nation still palpitates with its efforts to obtain security for the future. Vain also until the States are all once more harmonious in their native spheres, like the planets, receiving and dispensing light.