Part 15

MR. SUMNER. Very well; and I intend, to the best of my ability, to see that under the institutions of the country he is equal everywhere. The Senator says he is equal in this Chamber. I say he should be equal in rights everywhere; and why not, I ask the Senator from Georgia?

MR. HILL. … I am one of those who have believed, that, when it pleased the Creator of heaven and earth to make different races of men, it was His purpose to keep them distinct and separate. I think so now.…

MR. SUMNER. The Senator admits that in the highest council-chamber there is, and should be, perfect equality before the law; but descend into the hotel, on the railroad, within the common school, and there can be no equality before the law. The Senator does not complain because all are equal in this Chamber. I should like to ask him, if he will allow me, whether, in his judgment, the colored Representatives from Georgia and South Carolina in the other Chamber ought not on railroads and at hotels to have like rights with himself? I ask that precise question.

MR. HILL. I will answer that question in this manner: I myself am subject in hotels and upon railroads to the regulations provided by the hotel proprietors for their guests, and by the railroad companies for their passengers. I am entitled, and so is the colored man, to all the security and comfort that either presents to the most favored guest or passenger; but I maintain that proximity to a colored man does not increase my comfort or security, nor does proximity to me on his part increase his, and therefore it is not a denial of any right in either case.

MR. SUMNER. May I ask the Senator if he is excluded from any right on account of his color? The Senator says he is sometimes excluded from something at hotels or on railroads. I ask whether any exclusion on account of color bears on him?

MR. HILL. I answer the Senator. I have been excluded from ladies’ cars on railroads. I do not know on what account precisely; I do not know whether it was on account of my color; but I think it more likely that it was on account of my sex. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. But the Senator, as I understand, insists that it is proper on account of color. That is his conclusion.

MR. HILL. No; I insist that it is no denial of a right, provided all the comfort and security be furnished to passengers alike.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator does not seem to see that any rule excluding a man on account of color is an indignity, an insult, and a wrong; and he makes himself on this floor the representative of indignity, of insult, and of wrong to the colored race. Why, Sir, his State has a large colored population, and he denies their rights.

MR. HILL. If the Senator will allow me, I will say to him that it will take him and others, if there should be any others who so believe, a good while to convince the colored people of the State of Georgia, who know me, that I would deprive them of any right to which they are entitled, though it were only technical; but in matters of pure taste I cannot get away from the idea that I do them no injustice, if I separate them on some occasions from the other race.…

MR. SUMNER. The Senator makes a mistake which has been made for a generation in this Chamber, confounding what belongs to society with what belongs to rights. There is no question of society. The Senator may choose his associates as he pleases. They may be white or black, or between the two. That is simply a social question, and nobody would interfere with it. The taste which the Senator announces he will have free liberty to exercise, selecting always his companions; but when it comes to rights, there the Senator must obey the law, and I insist that by the law of the land all persons without distinction of color shall be equal in rights. Show me, therefore, a legal institution, anything created or regulated by law, and I show you what must be opened equally to all without distinction of color. Notoriously, the hotel is a legal institution, originally established by the Common Law, subject to minute provisions and regulations; notoriously, public conveyances are common carriers subject to a law of their own; notoriously, schools are public institutions created and maintained by law; and now I simply insist that in the enjoyment of these institutions there shall be no exclusion on account of color.

…

MR. HILL. I must confess, Sir, that I cannot see the magnitude of this subject. I object to this great Government descending to the business of regulating the hotels and the common taverns of this country, and the street railroads, stage-coaches, and everything of that sort. It looks to me to be a petty business.…

MR. SUMNER. I would not have my country descend, but ascend. It must rise to the heights of the Declaration of Independence. Then and there did we pledge ourselves to the great truth that all men are equal in rights. And now a Senator from Georgia rises on this floor and denies it. He denies it by a subtilty. While pretending to admit it, he would overthrow it. He would adopt a substitute for equality.

…

MR. HILL. With the permission of the Senator, I will ask him if this proposition does not involve on the part of this Government an inhibition upon railroad companies of first, second, and third class cars?

MR. SUMNER. Not at all. That is simply a matter of price. My bill is an inhibition upon inequality founded upon color. I had thought that all those inequalities were buried under the tree at Appomattox, but the Senator digs them up and brings them into this Chamber. There never can be an end to this discussion until all men are assured in equal rights.…

MR. HILL. … I do not know, that, among the guests that the Senator entertains of the colored race, he is visited so often by the humble as I myself am. I think those who call upon him are gentlemen of title and of some distinction; they may be Lieutenant-Governors, members of the two Houses here, members of State Legislatures, &c. My associations have been more with the lower strata of the colored people than with the upper.

MR. SUMNER. Mr. President, there is no personal question between the Senator and myself--

MR. HILL. None whatever.

MR. SUMNER. He proclaims his relations with the colored race. I say nothing of mine; I leave that to others. But the Senator still insists upon his dogma of inequality. Senators have heard him again and again, how he comes round by a vicious circle to the same point, that an equivalent is equality; and when I mention the case of Governor Dunn travelling from New Orleans to Washington on public business, I understand the Senator to say that on the cars he should enjoy a different treatment from the Governor.

MR. HILL. No, Sir; I have distinctly disclaimed that. When he pays his money, he is entitled to as much comfort and as much convenience as I am.

MR. SUMNER. Let me ask the Senator whether in this world personal respect is not an element of comfort. If a person is treated with indignity, can he be comfortable?

MR. HILL. I will answer the Senator, that no one can condemn more strongly than I do any indignity visited upon a person merely because of color.

MR. SUMNER. But when you exclude persons from the comforts of travel simply on account of color, do you not offer them an indignity?

MR. HILL. I say it is the fault of the railroad companies, if they do not provide comforts for all their passengers, and make them equal where they pay equal fare.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator says it is the fault of the railroad company. I propose to make it impossible for the railroad company to offer an indignity to a colored man more than to the Senator from Georgia.

MR. HILL. Right there the Senator and I divide upon this question.… I confess to having a little _penchant_ for the white race; and if I were going on a long journey, and desired a companion, I should prefer to select him from my own race.

MR. SUMNER. The Senator comes round again to his taste. It is not according to his taste; and therefore he offers an indignity to the colored man.

MR. HILL. No, Sir.

MR. SUMNER. It is not according to his taste; that is all. How often shall I say that this is no question of taste,--it is no question of society,--it is a stern, austere, hard question of rights? And that is the way that I present it to the Senate.

…

In old days, when Slavery was arraigned, the constant inquiry of those who represented this wrong was, “Are you willing to associate with colored persons? Will you take these slaves, as equals, into your families?” Sir, was there ever a more illogical inquiry? What has that to do with the question? A claim of rights cannot be encountered by any social point. I may have whom I please as friend, acquaintance, associate, and so may the Senator; but I cannot deny any human being, the humblest, any right of equality. He must be equal with me before the law, or the promises of the Declaration of Independence are not yet fulfilled.

And now, Sir, I pledge myself, so long as strength remains in me, to press this question to a successful end. I will not see the colored race of this Republic treated with indignity on the grounds assigned by the Senator. I am their defender. The Senator may deride me, and may represent me as giving too much time to what he calls a very small question. Sir, no question of human rights is small. Every question by which the equal rights of all are affected is transcendent. It cannot be magnified. But here are the rights of a whole people, not merely the rights of an individual, of two or three or four, but the rights of a race, recognized as citizens, voting, helping to place the Senator here in this Chamber, and he turns upon them and denies them.

MR. HILL. The Senator is not aware of one fact, … that every colored member of the Legislature of my State, even though some of them had made voluntary pledges to me, voted against my election to this body. I was not sent here receiving a single vote from that class of men in the Legislature.

MR. SUMNER. I am afraid that they understood the Senator. [_Laughter._]

MR. HILL. That may be, Sir. I would not be surprised, if they had some distrust. [_Laughter._]

MR. SUMNER. And now, Mr. President, that we may understand precisely where we are, that the Senate need not be confused by the question of taste or the question of society presented by the Senator from Georgia, I desire to have my amendment read.

The Supplementary Civil Rights Bill was then read at length, as follows:--

SEC.--That all citizens of the United States, without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of servitude, are entitled to the equal and impartial enjoyment of any accommodation, advantage, facility, or privilege furnished by common carriers, whether on land or water; by innkeepers; by licensed owners, managers, or lessees of theatres or other places of public amusement; by trustees, commissioners, superintendents, teachers, or other officers of common schools and other public institutions of learning, the same being supported or authorized by law; by trustees or officers of church organizations, cemetery associations, and benevolent institutions incorporated by National or State authority: and this right shall not be denied or abridged on any pretence of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.

SEC.--That any person violating the foregoing provision, or aiding in its violation, or inciting thereto, shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered in an action on the case, with full costs and such allowance for counsel fees as the court shall deem just, and shall also for every such offence be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be fined not less than $500 nor more than $1,000, and shall be imprisoned not less than thirty days nor more than one year; and any corporation, association, or individual holding a charter or license under National or State authority, violating the aforesaid provision, shall, upon conviction thereof, forfeit such charter or license; and any person assuming to use or continuing to act under such charter or license thus forfeited, or aiding in the same, or inciting thereto, shall, upon conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000, and shall be imprisoned not less than three nor more than seven years; and both the corporate and joint property of such corporation or association, and the private property of the several individuals composing the same, shall be held liable for the forfeitures, fines, and penalties incurred by any violation of the ---- section of this Act.

SEC.--That the same jurisdiction and powers are hereby conferred and the same duties enjoined upon the courts and officers of the United States, in the execution of this Act, as are conferred and enjoined upon such courts and officers in sections three, four, five, seven, and ten of an Act entitled “An Act to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and furnish the means of their vindication,” passed April 9, 1866, and these sections are hereby made a part of this Act; and any of the aforesaid officers failing to institute and prosecute such proceedings herein required shall for every such offence forfeit and pay the sum of $500 to the person aggrieved thereby, to be recovered by an action on the case, with full costs and such allowance for counsel fees as the court shall deem just, and shall on conviction thereof be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000.

SEC.--That no person shall be disqualified for service as juror in any court, National or State, by reason of race, color, or previous condition of servitude: _Provided_, That such person possesses all other qualifications which are by law prescribed; and any officer or other persons charged with any duty in the selection or summoning of jurors, who shall exclude or fail to summon any person for the reason above named, shall, on conviction thereof, be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and be fined not less than $1,000 nor more than $5,000.

SEC.--That every law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, whether National or State, inconsistent with this Act, or making any discriminations against any person on account of color, by the use of the word “white,” is hereby repealed and annulled.

SEC.--That it shall be the duty of the judges of the several courts upon which jurisdiction is hereby conferred to give this Act in charge to the grand jury of their respective courts at the commencement of each term thereof.

Objection was at once raised to the admission of any amendment whatever, as imperilling the pending bill,--Mr. Alcorn, of Mississippi, while pressing this, objected further, urging the hazard to the measure embraced in the proposed amendment from attachment to a bill requiring for its passage a two-thirds’ vote instead of the usual simple majority.

* * * * *

December 21st, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, objected to the amendment of Mr. Sumner, on the ground suggested by Mr. Alcorn,--raising the point of order, that, “being a measure which, if it stood by itself, could be passed by a majority vote of the Senate, it cannot be offered as an amendment to a bill that requires two-thirds of the Senate.” The objection being overruled, and Mr. Thurman appealing from the decision of the Chair, a debate ensued on the question of order,--Mr. Thurman, Mr. Bayard of Delaware, Mr. Trumbull of Illinois, Mr. Davis of Kentucky, and Mr. Sawyer of South Carolina sustaining the objection, and Mr. Conkling of New York, Mr. Carpenter of Wisconsin, Mr. Edmunds of Vermont, and Mr. Sumner opposing it. In the course of his speech Mr. Sumner remarked:--

Does not the Act before us in its body propose a measure of reconciliation? Clemency and amnesty it proposes; and these, in my judgment, constitute a measure of reconciliation. And now I add justice to the colored race. Is not that germane? Do not the two go together? Are they not naturally associated? Sir, can they be separated?

Instead of raising a question of order, I think the friends of amnesty would be much better employed if they devoted their strength to secure the passage of my amendment. Who that is truly in favor of amnesty will vote against this measure of reconciliation?

Sir, most anxiously do I seek reconciliation; but I know too much of history, too much of my own country, and I remember too well the fires over which we have walked in these latter days, not to know that reconciliation is impossible except on the recognition of Equal Rights. Vain is the effort of the Senator from Mississippi [Mr. ALCORN]; he cannot succeed; he must fail, and he ought to fail. It is not enough to be generous; he must learn to be just. It is not enough to stand by those who have fought against us; he must also stand by those who for generations have borne the ban of wrong. I listened with sadness to the Senator; he spoke earnestly and sincerely,--but, to my mind, it is much to be regretted, that, coming into this Chamber the representative of colored men, he should turn against them. I know that he will say, “Pass the Amnesty Bill first, and then take care of the other.” I say, Better pass the two together; or if either is lost, let it be the first. Justice in this world is foremost.

The Senator thinks that the cause of the colored race is hazarded because my amendment is moved on the Act for Amnesty. In my judgment, it is advanced. He says that the Act of Amnesty can pass only by a two-thirds vote. Well, Sir, I insist that every one of that two-thirds should record his name for my measure of reconciliation. If he does not, he is inconsistent with himself. How, Sir, will an Act of Amnesty be received when accompanied with denial of justice to the colored race? With what countenance can it be presented to this country? How will it look to the civilized world? Sad page! The Recording Angel will have tears, but not enough to blot it out.

The decision of the Chair was sustained by the vote of the Senate,--Yeas 28, Nays 26,--and the amendment was declared in order. On the question of its adoption it was lost,--Yeas 29, Nays 30.

Later in the day, the Amnesty Bill having been reported to the Senate, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment. In the debate that ensued he declared his desire to vote for amnesty; but he insisted that this measure did not deserve success, unless with it was justice to the colored race. In reply to Mr. Thurman, he urged that all regulations of public institutions should be in conformity with the Declaration of Independence. “The Senator may smile, but I commend that to his thoughts during our vacation. Let him consider the binding character of the Declaration in its fundamental principles. The Senator does not believe it. There are others who do, and my bill is simply a practical application of it.”

Without taking any vote the Senate adjourned for the holiday recess, leaving the Amnesty Bill and the pending amendment as unfinished business.

* * * * *

January 15, 1872, the subject was resumed, when Mr. Sumner made the following speech.

SPEECH.

MR. PRESIDENT,--In opening this question, one of the greatest ever presented to the Senate, I have had but one hesitation, and that was merely with regard to the order of treatment. There is a mass of important testimony from all parts of the country, from Massachusetts as well as Georgia, showing the absolute necessity of Congressional legislation for the protection of Equal Rights, which I think ought to be laid before the Senate. It was my purpose to begin with this testimony; but I have changed my mind, and shall devote the day to a statement of the question, relying upon the indulgence of the Senate for another opportunity to introduce the evidence. I ask that the pending amendment be read.

The Chief Clerk read the amendment, which was to append to the Amnesty Bill, as additional sections, the Supplementary Civil Rights Bill.

Mr. Sumner resumed:--

MR. PRESIDENT, Slavery, in its foremost pretensions, reappears in the present debate. Again the barbarous tyranny stalks into this Chamber, denying to a whole race the Equal Rights promised by a just citizenship. Some have thought Slavery dead. This is a mistake. If not in body, at least in spirit, or as a ghost making the country hideous, the ancient criminal yet lingers among us, insisting upon the continued degradation of a race.

Property in man has ceased to exist. The human auction-block has departed. No human being can call himself master, with impious power to separate husband and wife, to sell child from parent, to shut out the opportunities of religion, to close the gates of knowledge, and to rob another of his labor and all its fruits. These guilty prerogatives are ended. To this extent the slave is free. No longer a chattel, he is a man,--justly entitled to all that is accorded by law to any other man.

Such is the irresistible logic of his emancipation. Ceasing to be a slave, he became a man, whose foremost right is Equality of Rights. And yet Slavery has been strong enough to postpone his entry into the great possession. Cruelly, he was not permitted to testify in court; most unjustly, he was not allowed to vote. More than four millions of people, whose only offence was a skin once the badge of Slavery, were shut out from the court-room, and also from the ballot-box, in open defiance of the great Declaration of our fathers, that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent of the governed. Such was the impudent behest of Slavery, prolonged after it was reported dead. At last these crying wrongs are overturned. The slave testifies; the slave votes. To this extent his equality is recognized.