Part 15

I think, therefore, the suggestion of my colleague, that this matter be postponed for several days, is proper; it is only according to the ordinary course of business of the Senate, and it is sustained by manifest reason in this particular case. I should prefer that the postponement were till next Monday, and I will be precise in assigning my reason. It is nothing personal to myself. My friend from New York said, or intimated, that, if the Senator from Massachusetts wished to be accommodated, he would be ready, of course, to consent to gratify him. Now I would not have it placed on that ground; I present it as a question of business; and I, as a Senator interested in the decision of this business, wish to have time to peruse these papers and to obtain that knowledge which will enable me to decide ultimately on the case. I have not now the knowledge that I desire with reference to the actual condition of things in Virginia. I am assured by those in whom I place confidence that in the course of a few days that evidence will be forthcoming. Will not the Senate receive it? Will it press hastily, heedlessly, recklessly, to a conclusion, which, when reached, it may hereafter find occasion to regret? Let us, Sir, so act that we shall have hereafter no regrets; let us so act that the people of Virginia hereafter may be safe, and that they may express their gratitude to the Congress of the United States which has helped to protect them.

The Senator from Nevada said, that, if we oppose the present bill, we sacrifice the Legislature of the State. I suggest to that Senator, that, if we do not oppose this bill, we sacrifice the people of the State. What, Sir, is a Legislature chosen as this recent Legislature has been chosen in Virginia, composed of recent Rebels still filled and seething with that old Rebel fire,--what is that Legislature in the scale, compared with the safety of that great people? Sir, I put in one scale the welfare of the State of Virginia, the future security of its large population, historic and memorable in our annals, and in the other scale I put a Legislature composed of recent Rebels. To save that Legislature the Senator from Nevada presses forward to sacrifice the people of the State.

The motion to postpone was rejected,--Yeas 25, Nays 26,--and the debate on the Joint Resolution proceeded: the first question being on an amendment offered by Mr. Drake, of Missouri, providing that the passage by the Legislature of Virginia, at any time thereafter, of any act or resolution rescinding or annulling its ratification of the Fifteenth Article of Amendment to the Constitution of the United States should operate to exclude the State from representation in Congress and remand it to its former provisional government.

January 11th, Mr. Sumner, following Mr. Morton, of Indiana, in support of Mr. Drake’s proposed amendment, and, with him, maintaining the continued power of Congress over a State after reconstruction, said:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--I have but one word to say, and it is one of gratitude to the Senator from Indiana for the complete adhesion he now makes to a principle of Constitutional Law which I have no doubt is unassailable. The Congress of the United States will have forevermore the power to protect Reconstruction. No one of these States, by anything that it may do hereafter, can escape from that far-reaching power. I call it far-reaching: it will reach just as far as the endeavor to counteract it; it is coextensive with the Constitution itself. I have no doubt of it, and I am delighted that the distinguished Senator from Indiana has given to it the support of his authority.

While I feel so grateful to my friend from Indiana for what he has said on this point, he will allow me to express my dissent from another proposition of his. He says that we are now bound under our Reconstruction Acts to admit Virginia. I deny it.

MR. MORTON. Will the Senator allow me one moment?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. MORTON. I do not pretend that there is any clause in the Reconstruction Acts which in express words requires us to admit Virginia upon the compliance with certain conditions; but what I mean to say is, that there went forth with those laws an understanding to the country, as clear and distinct as if it had been written in the statute, that upon a full and honorable compliance with them those States should be admitted. I will ask my friend from Massachusetts if that understanding did not exist?

MR. SUMNER. My answer to the Senator is found in the last section of the Act authorizing the submission, of the Constitutions of these States, as follows:--

“That the proceedings in any of said States shall not be deemed final, or operate as a complete restoration thereof, until their action respectively shall be approved by Congress.”[191]

What is the meaning of that? The whole case is brought before Congress for consideration. We are to look into it, and consider the circumstances under which these elections have taken place, and see whether we can justly give to them our approval. Is that vain language? Was it not introduced for a purpose? Was it merely for show? Was it for deception? Was it a cheat? No, Sir; it was there with a view to a practical result, to meet precisely the case now before the Senate,--that is, a seeming compliance with the requirements of our Reconstruction policy, but a failure in substance.

Now I will read what was in the bill of March 2, 1867, entitled “An Act to provide for the more efficient government of the Rebel States.”[192] It declares in the preamble that “it is necessary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States,”--strong language that!--“until loyal and republican State governments can be legally established.” That is what Congress is to require. To that end Congress must look into the circumstances of the case; it must consider what the condition of the people there is,--whether this new government is loyal, whether it is in the hands of loyal people. To that duty Congress is summoned by its very legislation; the duty is laid down in advance.

And so you may go through all these Reconstruction statutes, and you will find that under all of them the whole subject is brought back ultimately to the discretion of Congress. This whole subject now is in the discretion of Congress. I trust that Congress will exercise it so that life and liberty and property shall be safe.

January 12th, Mr. Sumner presented a memorial from citizens of Virginia then in Washington, claiming to represent the loyal people of that State, in which they declare themselves “anxious for the prompt admission of the State to representation upon such terms that a loyal civil government may be maintained and the rights of loyal men secured; which,” they say, “we feel assured cannot be the case, if any condition less than the application of the test oath to the Legislature shall be imposed by the Congress.” As the grounds of this conviction, they point, among other matters, to the continued manifestations of the Rebel spirit in the community,--the ascendency of the Rebel party in the recently elected Legislature, gained, as they insist, “by intimidation, fraud, violence, and prevention of free speech,”--and particularly to the evidences of disloyalty, and of meditated bad faith in regard to the new State Constitution, exhibited in speeches and other utterances of the Governor and Members of Assembly,--utterances, on the part of some of the latter, accompanied with gross contumely of a distinguished Member of Congress from Massachusetts: all of which, the memorialists say, “if a hearing can now be had, and which we respectfully request may be granted, we pledge ourselves to show by sworn witnesses of irreproachable character, residing in Virginia.”

The memorial was received with denunciation, as “disrespectful,” “unjust and abusive,” “merely the wailing of those who were defeated,” “originating with the view of keeping out Virginia,” “trifling with our own plighted faith and honor,”--and its presentation criticized with corresponding severity,--the Senators from Nevada leading the assault. Mr. Sumner responded:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--Has it come to this, that the loyal people of Virginia cannot be heard on this floor? that a petition presented by a member of this body, proceeding from them, is to have first the denunciation of the Senator from Nevada on my right [Mr. NYE], and then the denunciation of the Senator from Nevada on my left [Mr. STEWART]? Why are the loyal people of Virginia to be thus exposed? What have they done? Sir, in what respect is that petition open to exception? The Senator says it is disrespectful. To whom? To this body? To the other Chamber? To the President of the United States? To any branch of this Government? Not in the least. It is disrespectful, according to the Senator from Nevada, to the present Governor of Virginia, and he undertakes to state his case.

Now, Sir, I have nothing to say of the present Governor of Virginia. I am told that he is on this floor; but I have not the honor of his acquaintance, and I know very little about him. I make no allegation, no suggestion, with regard to his former course. He may have been as sound always as the Senator from Nevada himself; but the petitioners from Virginia say the contrary. They are so circumstanced as to know more about him than the Senator from Nevada, or than myself; and they are so circumstanced as to have a great stake in his future conduct. Thus circumstanced, they send their respectful petition to this Chamber, asking a hearing; and what is the answer? Denunciation from one Senator of Nevada echoed by denunciation from the other Senator of Nevada. The voice of Nevada on this occasion is united, it is one, to denounce a loyal petition from Virginia.

Was I not right in presenting the petition? Shall these people be unheard? The Committee which the Senator represents, led by the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL], and now led by himself, are pressing this measure to a precipitate conclusion. These petitioners, having this great interest in the result, ask for a hearing. Several days ago I presumed, respectfully, deferentially, to ask that this measure should be postponed a few days in order to give an opportunity for such a hearing. I was refused. The Senator from Nevada would not consent, and with the assistance of Democrats he crowds this measure forward. Sir, it is natural, allow me to say, that one acting in this new conjunction should trifle with the right of petition. When one begins to act with such allies, I can well imagine that he loses something of his original devotion to the great fundamental principles of our Government.

Something was said by my friend, the other Senator from Nevada [Mr. NYE], on another passage of the petition, referring to a distinguished colleague of my own. Why, Sir, that very passage furnishes testimony against the cause represented by the Senator from Nevada. It shows how little to be trusted are these men. It shows the game of treachery which they have undertaken. It shows how they are intending to press this measure through Congress so as to obtain for Virginia the independence of a State. Are you ready for that conclusion? Are you ready to part with this great control which yet remains to Congress, through which security may be maintained for the rights of all?

Something has been said by different Senators of plighted faith. Sir, there is a faith that is plighted, and by that I will stand, God willing, to the end. It is nothing less than this: to secure the rights of all, without distinction of color, in the State of Virginia. When I can secure those rights, when I can see that they are firmly established beyond the reach of fraud, beyond the violence of opposition, then I am willing that that State shall again assume its independent position. But until then I say, Wait! In the name of Justice, in the name of Liberty, for the sake of Human Rights, I entreat the Senate to wait.

January 13th, in response to criticisms by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, Mr. Sumner said:--

It was in pursuance of the effort I made on the first day of this week that yesterday I presented a memorial from loyal citizens of Virginia here in Washington. I presented it as a memorial, and asked to have it read. The Senator from Nevada [Mr. STEWART], in the remarks which he so kindly made with regard to me later in the day, said that in asking to have it read I adopted it. I can pardon that remark to the Senator from Nevada, who is less experienced in this Chamber than the Senator from Illinois; but the latter Senator has repeated substantially the same remark. Sir, this is a new position, that in presenting a memorial one adopts it, especially when he asks to have it read. Why, Sir, what is the right of petition? Is it reduced to this, that no petition can be presented unless the Senator approves it, or that no petition can be read at the request of a Senator unless he approves it? Such a limitation on the right of petition would go far to cut it down to its unhappy condition in those pro-slavery days which some of us remember. Sir, I was right in presenting the memorial, and right in asking to have it read.

And now what is its character? It sets forth a condition of things in Virginia which might well make the Senate pause. I think no candid person can have listened to that memorial without seeing that it contains statements with regard to which the Senate ought to be instructed before it proceeds to a vote. Do you consider, Sir, that when you install this Legislature you consign the people of Virginia to its power? Do you consider that to this body belongs the choice of judges? The whole judiciary of the State is to be organized by it. This may be done in the interests of Freedom and Humanity, or in the ancient interests of the Rebellion. I am anxious that this judiciary should be pure and devoted to Human Rights. But if the policy is pursued which finds such strenuous support, especially from the Senator from Illinois, farewell then to such a judiciary!--that judiciary which is often called the Palladium of the Commonwealth, through which justice is secured, rights protected, and all men are made safe. Instead of that, you will have a judiciary true only to those who have lately been in rebellion. You will have a judiciary that will set its face like flint against those loyalists that find so little favor with the Senator from Illinois. You will have a judiciary that will follow out the spirit which the Senator has shown to-day, and do little else than pursue vindictively these loyalists.

* * * * *

There has been allusion to the Governor of Virginia. The Senator says I have made an assault upon him. Oh, no! How have I assaulted him? I said simply that I understood he was on the floor, as the member-elect from Richmond was on the floor. That is all that I said. But now there is something with regard to this Governor to which I should like to have an answer: possibly the Senator may be able to answer it. I have here a speech purporting to have been made by him at an agricultural fair in the southwest part of Virginia after the election, from which, with your permission, but, Sir, without adopting it at all or making myself in any way responsible for its contents, I will read.

Mr. Walker, addressing the audience, says:--

“A little talking sometimes does a great deal of good; and that expended in the late canvass I heard in a voice of thunder on the 6th of July, when the people of your noble old Commonwealth declared themselves against vandalism, fraud, and treachery. Virginia has freed herself from the tyranny of a horde of greedy cormorants and unprincipled carpet-baggers, who came to sap her very vitals. I have no other feeling but that of pity for the opposition party, who were deceived and led by adventurers having only their own personal aggrandizement and aims in view, with neither interest, character, nor self-respect at stake; for this a majority of them never had.”

Now, Sir, what are the operative words of this remarkable speech? That this very Governor Walker, who finds a vindicator--I may say, adopting a term of the early law, a compurgator--in the Senator from Illinois, announces that by this recent election Virginia has “declared against vandalism, fraud, and treachery,--has freed herself from the tyranny of a horde of greedy cormorants and unprincipled carpet-baggers, who came to sap her very vitals.”

Such is the language by which this Governor characterizes loyal people from the North, from the West, from all parts of the country, who since the overthrow of the Rebellion have gone there with their household gods, with their energies, with their character, with their means, to contribute to the resources of the State! Sir, what does all this suggest? To my mind unhappy days in the future; to my mind anything but justice for the devoted loyal people and Unionists of that State. And now, Sir, while I make this plea for them, again let me say I present no exclusive claim to represent them; I speak now only because others do not speak; and as in other days when I encountered the opposition of the Senator from Illinois I was often in a small minority, sometimes almost alone, I may be so now; but I have a complete conviction that the course I am now taking will be justified by the future. Sad enough, if it be so! I hope it may be otherwise.

Mr. Drake’s amendment was rejected. Another, thereupon offered by Mr. Edmunds, of Vermont, and as subsequently amended, requiring members of the Legislature before taking or resuming their seats, and State officers before entering upon office, to make oath to past loyalty or removal of disabilities, was adopted. Other provisions, against exclusion from civil rights on account of race or color, either by future amendments of the existing State Constitution or by rescinding the State’s ratification of any amendment to the National Constitution, were moved as “fundamental conditions” of admission. In an argument, January 14th, maintaining the validity of such conditions, the pending question being on a provision of this character offered by Mr. Drake, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows:--

MR. PRESIDENT,--Something has been said of the term by which this proposition should be designated. One will not call it “compact,” finding in this term much danger, but at the same time he refuses to the unhappy people in Virginia now looking to us for protection such safeguard as may be found in this proposition. For myself, Sir, I make no question of terms. Call it one thing or another, it is the same, for it has in it protection. Call it a compact, I accept it. Call it a law, I accept it. Call it a condition, I accept it. It is all three,--condition, law, compact,--and, as all three, binding. The old law-books speak of a triple cord. Here you have it.

My friend from Wisconsin [Mr. CARPENTER] falls into another mistake,--he will pardon me, if I suggest it,--which I notice with regret. He exalts the technical State above the real State. He knows well what is the technical State, which is found in form, in technicality, in privilege, if you please,--for he has made himself to-night the advocate of privilege. To my mind the State is the people, and its highest office is their just safeguard; and when it is declared that a State hereafter shall not take away the right of any of its people, here is no infringement of anything that belongs to a State. I entreat my friend to bear the distinction in mind. A State can have no right or privilege to do wrong; nor can the denial of this pretension disparage the State, or in any way impair its complete equality with other States. The States have no power except to do justice. Any power beyond this is contrary to the Harmonies of the Universe.

Since the Senator spoke, I sent into the other room for the Declaration of Independence, in order to read a sentence which is beyond question the touchstone of our institutions, to which all the powers of a State must be brought. Here it is:--

“We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the World for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States.”

And then it proceeds to say that--

“They have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.”

Here is the claim, with its limitation,--the great claim, and its great limitation. The claim was Independence; the limitation was Justice.

“Which independent States may of right do”: nothing else, nothing which a State may not of right do. Now, Sir, bear in mind, do not forget, that there is not one thing prohibited by these fundamental conditions that a State may of right do. Therefore, Sir, in the name of Right, do I insist that it is binding upon the State. It is binding, even if not there; and it is binding, being there. Its insertion is like notice or proclamation of the perpetual obligation.

MR. CARPENTER. Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?

MR. SUMNER. Certainly.

MR. CARPENTER. In speaking of a State of this Union, does not the Senator understand the term to apply to the corporation, so to speak,--the Government of the State?

MR. SUMNER. I do not.

MR. CARPENTER. I ask the Senator, then, in what way the State of Virginia got out of the Union, except by destroying the State Government which was a member of the Union? Her territory was always in; her people were always subject to the laws of the United States.

MR. SUMNER. There I agree with the Senator. Her people were always in; her territory was always in.

MR. CARPENTER. But her Government was not.

MR. SUMNER. Not out. Her Government was destroyed.

MR. CARPENTER. Yes, and thereby she ceased to be a member of the Union.

MR. SUMNER. Rather than say that she had ceased to be a member of the Union, I would say that her Government was destroyed. She never was able to take one foot of her soil or one of her people beyond the jurisdiction of the Nation. The people constitute the State in the just sense, and it has been always our duty to protect them, and this I now propose to do.

* * * * *

I return to the point, that what it is proposed to prohibit by these fundamental conditions no State can of right do. Therefore to require that Virginia shall not do these things is no infringement of anything that belongs to a State, for a State can have no such privilege. My friend made himself, I said, the advocate of privilege. He complained, that, if we imposed these conditions, we should impair the “privileges” of a State. No such thing. The State can have no such thing. The Senator would not curtail a State of its fair proportions. When will it be apparent that the license to do wrong is only a barbarism?