Part 19

I adduce this testimony also in answer to the allegation, so loftily made in debate the other day, that the colored people are willing to see the former Rebels amnestied, trusting in some indefinite future to obtain their own rights. I said at the time that such an allegation was irrational. I now show you that it is repudiated by the colored people. They do not recognize the Senators who have undertaken to speak for them as their representatives. They insist upon their rights before you play the generous to Rebels. They insist that they shall be saved from indignity when they travel, and when they offer a child at the common school,--that they shall be secured against any such outrage before you remove the disabilities of men who struck at the life of this Republic.

Now, Sir, will you not be just before you are generous? Or if you do not place the rights of the colored people foremost, will you not at least place them side by side with those of former Rebels? Put them both where I seek now to put them, in the same statute,--so that hereafter the Rebels shall know that generosity to them was associated with justice to their colored fellow-citizens,--that they all have a common interest,--that they are linked together in the community of a common citizenship, and in the enjoyment of those liberties promised by the Declaration of Independence and guarantied by the Constitution of the United States.

Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, followed with remarks chiefly in criticism of the form of the bill, and made several suggestions of amendment. Mr. Sumner stated that his object was “to get this measure in the best shape possible,” and that he should welcome any amendment from any quarter; that he did not feel as strongly as the Senator “the difference between his language and the text,” but that he was anxious to harmonize with him. Mr. Sumner afterwards modified his bill in pursuance of Mr. Frelinghuysen’s suggestions.

The debate was continued on different days,--Mr. Sawyer, of South Carolina, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, speaking strongly against the bill of Mr. Sumner. Mr. Sawyer objected to it as an amendment to the Amnesty Bill. Mr. Nye of Nevada, and Mr. Flanagan of Texas spoke for the bill. The latter, after saying that he had read the Constitution for himself, and was “satisfied that the proposed amendment was constitutional,” added other reasons:--

“One is, that I discover, that, if we should remain here, as we certainly shall do, for a very considerable period, petitions will come in to such a degree, requiring so much paper, that really the price will be vastly enhanced, and it will thereby become a considerable tax to the Government of the United States; for the Senator is receiving, I might almost say, volumes--I know not what the quantity is; it is immense, however--from all parts of the nation.”

And then again:--

“Again I am reminded that it is best to try to get rid of the imposing Senator [Mr. SUMNER] on that subject, just as the lady answered her admirer. The suitor had been importuning her time and again, and she had invariably declined to accept the proposition. At length, however, being very much annoyed, she concluded to say ‘yes,’ just to get rid of his importunity. I want to go with the Senator to get rid of this matter, [_laughter_,] because, really, Mr. President, we find his bill here as a breakwater. A concurrent resolution was introduced here for the adjournment of Congress at a particular day. Well, you saw that bill thrust right on it. ‘Stop!’ says he, ‘you must not adjourn until my bill is passed.’ There it was again; here it is now; and we shall continue to have it; and I am for making peace with it by a general surrender at once. [_Laughter._] I stop not there, Mr. President; I go further, and I indorse the Senator to the utmost degree in his proposition.”[221]

Mr. Morrill, in an elaborate argument, denied point-blank the constitutionality of the bill,--insisting, and repeating with different forms of expression, that “the exercise of this power on the part of Congress would be a palpable invasion of the rights of the people of the States in their purely domestic relations.… This Constitution has given us no such authority and no such power.”[222]

January 31st, Mr. Sumner replied to Mr. Morrill.

REPLY TO MR. MORRILL.

MR. PRESIDENT, before this debate closes, it seems to me I shall be justified in a brief reply to the most extraordinary, almost eccentric, argument by my excellent friend, the Senator from Maine [Mr. MORRILL]. He argued against the constitutionality of the pending amendment,--you all remember with how much ingenuity and earnestness. I shall not follow him in the details of that speech. I shall deal with it somewhat in the general, and part of the time I shall allow others to speak for me.

But before I come upon that branch of the case, I feel that in justice to colored fellow-citizens I ought to see that they have a hearing. Senators whom they helped elect show no zeal for their rights. Sir, they have a title to be heard. They are able; they can speak for themselves; but they are not here to speak. Therefore they can be heard only through their communications. Here is one from a member of the Virginia House of Delegates. It came to my hands yesterday, and is dated “Richmond, January 29, 1872.” I wish the Senate would hear what this member of the Virginia House says on the pending amendment.

The letter, as read by Mr. Sumner, concluded as follows:--

“We all, Sir, the whole colored population of Virginia, make this appeal through you to a generous Senate, and pray, for the sake of humanity, justice, and all that is good and great, that equal common rights may be bestowed on a grateful and loyal people before disabilities shall have been stricken from those who struck at the very heart-strings of the Government.”

Can any Senator listen to that appeal and not feel that this Virginian begins to answer the Senator from Maine? He shows an abuse; he testifies to a grievance. Sir, it is the beginning of the argument. My friend seemed almost to ignore it. He did not see the abuse; he did not recognize the grievance.

MR. MORRILL. I certainly did see it, and I certainly recognize it. The only difference between the Senator and myself, so far as the argument is concerned, is one simply of power.

MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that. But first is the point, whether the Senator recognizes the grievance; and here let me tell my excellent friend, that, did he see the grievance as this colored citizen sees it, did he feel it as this colored citizen feels it,--Sir, did he simply see it as I see it,--he would find power enough in the Constitution to apply the remedy. I know the generous heart of the Senator; and I know that he could not hesitate, did he really see this great grievance. He does not see it in its proportions. He does not see how in real character it is such that it can be dealt with only by the National power. I drive that home to the Senator. It is the beginning of the argument in reply to him, that the grievance is such that it can be dealt with adequately only by Congress. Any other mode is inefficient, inadequate, absurd. I begin, therefore, by placing the Senator in that position. Unhappily he does not see the grievance. He has no conception of its vastness, extending everywhere, with ramifications in every State, _and requiring one uniform remedy, which, from the nature of the case, can be supplied only by the Nation_.

And now I come to the question of power; and here I allow a colored fellow-citizen to be heard in reply to the Senator. I read from a letter of E. A. Fulton, of Arkansas:--

“I have seen and experienced much of the disabilities which rest upon my race and people from the mere accident of color. Grateful to God and the Republicans of this country for our emancipation and the recognition of our citizenship, I am nevertheless deeply impressed with the necessity of further legislation for the perfection of our rights as American citizens.”

This colored citizen is impressed, as the Senator is not, with the necessity of further legislation for the perfection of his rights as an American citizen. He goes on:--

“I am also thoroughly persuaded that this needed legislation should come from the National Congress.”

So he replies to my friend.

“Local or State legislation will necessarily be partial and vacillating. Besides, our experience is to the effect that the local State governments are unreliable for the enforcement or execution of laws for this purpose.

“In Arkansas, for example, a statute was enacted by the General Assembly of 1868 for the purpose of securing the equal rights of colored persons upon steamboats, railroads, and public thoroughfares generally. The provisions of the statute were deemed good, if not entirely sufficient; yet to the present time gross indignities continue to be perpetrated upon colored travellers, men and women, while those charged under oath to see the laws faithfully executed look on with seeming heartless indifference while the law remains a dead letter on the statute-book.

“With a care and anxiety which one vitally interested alone can feel I have examined and weighed this subject.”

Here, Sir, he replies again to my friend. I should like the Senator to notice the sentence:--

“With a care and anxiety which one vitally interested alone can feel”--

as, of course, my friend cannot feel, since he has not that vital interest--

“I have examined and weighed this subject.”

What does he conclude?

“I am fully persuaded that nothing short of national legislation, and national authority for its enforcement, will be found sufficient for the maintenance of our God-given rights as men and women, citizens of this great and free country.”

* * * * *

MR. MORRILL. As my honorable friend emphasizes that particular point, will he be kind enough to say whether he reads that letter as an authority showing that Congress has the power to do what he asks, or whether it is simply an individual opinion that some such legislation is necessary?

MR. SUMNER. I think my friend must know that I do not read the letter as an authority, according to his use of the term. By-and-by I shall come to the authority. I read it as the opinion of a colored citizen--

MR. MORRILL. As to the necessity of legislation?

MR. SUMNER. Who has felt the grievance, and testifies that the remedy can only be through the Nation. There is where he differs from my friend.

MR. MORRILL. It is not necessary to read evidence to me that the colored people think there ought to be legislation by Congress. The question between the Senator and myself is precisely this: What is your authority?

MR. SUMNER. I am coming to that. This is only the beginning.

MR. MORRILL. When you come to that, and make an issue with me, I shall be ready to answer.

MR. SUMNER. I shall come to that in due season, and give the Senator the opportunity he desires. I shall speak to the question of power. Meanwhile I proceed with the letter:--

“I have read with joy your recently presented Supplementary Civil Rights Bill. It meets my hearty approval. In the name of God and down-trodden humanity, I pray you press its enactment to a successful consummation.

“Such a law, firmly enforced, coupled with complete amnesty”--

You see the point, Mr. President,--“coupled with complete amnesty”--

“for political offences to those who once held us in bondage, will furnish, as I believe, the only sound basis of reconstruction and reconciliation for the South.”

Now my friend will not understand that I exaggerate this letter. I do not adduce it as authority, but simply as testimony, showing what an intelligent colored fellow-citizen thinks with regard to his rights on two important points much debated: first, as to the necessity of remedy through the National Government; and, secondly, as to the importance of uniting this assurance of Equal Rights with Amnesty, so that the two shall go together.

Before coming directly to the authority on which my friend is so anxious, I call attention to another communication, from the President of the Georgia Civil Rights Association, which I think should be read to the Senate. It is addressed to me officially; and if I do not read it, the Senate will not have the benefit of it. There is no Senator from Georgia to speak for the Civil Rights Association. I shall let them speak by their President, Captain Edwin Belcher:--

“I realize more and more, every day, the necessity of such a measure of justice as your ‘Supplementary Bill.’ When that becomes a law, the freedom of my race will then be complete.”

I call attention to that point. This writer regards the pending measure essential to complete the Abolition of Slavery; and I hope you will not forget this judgment, because it will be important at a later moment in vindicating the constitutional power of Congress. “When that becomes a law, the freedom of my race will then be complete,”--not before, not till then, not till the passage of the Supplementary Civil Rights Bill. Down to that time Slavery still exists. Such, Sir, is the statement of a man once a slave, and who knows whereof he speaks; nor can it be doubted that he is right.

After reading the letter at length, Mr. Sumner proceeded:--

This instructive letter is full of wise warnings, to which we cannot be indifferent. It is testimony, but it is also argument.

The necessity of this measure appears not only from Georgia, but even from Pennsylvania. I have in my hands an article by Richard T. Greener, the principal of the Colored Institute at Philadelphia, where he vindicates the pending bill. I read a brief passage, and simply in reply to the Senator from Maine, on the necessity of Congressional action. Mr. Greener is no unworthy representative of his race. He knows well how to vindicate their rights. Here is what he says:--

“Not three weeks ago, the Committee which waited on the President from this city, in behalf of Mr. Sumner’s bill, were refused accommodations at the dépôt restaurant in Washington, and only succeeded in being entertained by insisting upon just treatment. It has scarcely been three months since the secretary of the American legation at Port-au-Prince, Rev. J. Theodore Holly, with his wife and three children, was refused a state-room on the steamer running between New Haven and New York city.”

Then he shows the necessity:--

“Should Minister Bassett himself, indorsed by the Union League, return home and arrive late at night, there are probably not two hotels, such as a gentleman of his station would wish to stop at, where he could be accommodated,--not a theatre or place of amusement which he could visit without insult or degrading restrictions,--not a church, except it be a Quaker or Catholic one, where he would not be shown into the gallery, or else be made to feel uncomfortable: so outrageous are the current American ideas of common hospitality and refinement; so vindictive is this persecution of a humble class of your fellow-citizens.”

Lastly he vindicates the pending measure, and asks for a two-thirds vote:--

“The Supplementary Bill ought to pass by a two-thirds vote. If it passes by a simple majority, we shall, of course, be satisfied, and understand the reason why. If Republican Senators, elected by colored votes, give their influence and votes against this measure, it might be well for them to remember that Negroes, along with instinct, have ‘terrible memories.’”

And now, Sir, after these brief illustrations, where our colored fellow-citizens have spoken for themselves, showing the necessity of legislation by the Nation, because only through the Nation can the remedy be applied, I come to the precise argument of the Senator. He asks for the power. Why, Sir, the National Constitution is bountiful of power; it is overrunning with power. Not in one place or two places or three places, but almost everywhere, from the Preamble to the last line of the latest Amendment; in the original text and in all our recent additions, again and again. Still further, in that great rule of interpretation conquered at Appomattox, which, far beyond the surrender of Lee, was of infinite value to this Republic. I say a new rule of interpretation for the National Constitution, according to which, in every clause and every line and every word, it is to be interpreted uniformly and thoroughly for human rights. Before the Rebellion the rule was precisely opposite. The Constitution was interpreted always, in every clause and line and word, for Human Slavery. Thank God, it is all changed now! There is another rule, and the National Constitution, from beginning to end, speaks always for the Rights of Man. That, Sir, is the new rule. That, Sir, is the great victory of the war; for in that are consummated all the victories of many bloody fields,--not one victory, or two, but the whole,--gleaming in those principles of Liberty and Equality which are now the pivot jewels of the Constitution.

My excellent friend from Maine takes no notice of all this. He goes back for his rule to those unhappy days before the war. He makes the system of interpretation, born of Slavery, his melancholy guide. With such Mentor, how can he arrive at any conclusion other than alien to Human Rights? He questions everything, denies everything. He finds no power for anything, unless distinctly written in positive and precise words. He cannot read between the lines; he cannot apply a generous principle which will coördinate everything there in harmony with the Declaration of Independence.

When I refer to the Declaration, I know well how such an allusion is too often received on this floor. I have lived through a period of history, and do not forget that I here heard our great title-deed arraigned as “a self-evident lie.” There are Senators now, who, while hesitating to adopt that vulgar extravagance of dissent, are willing to trifle with it as a rule of interpretation. I am not frightened. Sir, I insist that the National Constitution must be interpreted by the National Declaration. I insist that the Declaration is of equal and coördinate authority with the Constitution itself. I know, Sir, the ground on which I stand. I need no volume of law, no dog-eared page, no cases to sustain me. Every lawyer is familiar with the fundamental beginning of the British Constitution in Magna Charta. But what is Magna Charta? Simple concessions wrung by barons of England from an unwilling monarch; not an Act of Parliament, nothing constitutional in our sense of the term; simply a declaration of rights: and such was the Declaration of Independence. And now, Sir, I am prepared to insist, that, whenever you are considering the Constitution, so far as it concerns human rights, you must bring it always to that great standard; the two must go together; and the Constitution can never be interpreted in any way inconsistent with the Declaration. Show me any words in the Constitution applicable to human rights, and I invoke at once the great truths of the Declaration as the absolute guide to their meaning. Is it a question of power? Then must every word in the Constitution be interpreted so that Liberty and Equality shall not fail.

My excellent friend from Maine takes no notice of this. He goes back to days when the Declaration was denounced as “a self-evident lie,” and the Constitution was interpreted always in the interest of Slavery. Sir, I object to this rule. I protest against it with all my mind and heart and soul. I insist that just the opposite must prevail, and I start with this assumption. I shall not make a long argument, for the case does not require it. I desire to be brief. You know the Amendment:--

“SECTION 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

“SECTION 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Here is an Amendment abolishing Slavery. Does it abolish Slavery half, three-quarters, or wholly? Here I know no half, no three-quarters; I know nothing but the whole. And I say the article abolishes Slavery entirely, everywhere throughout this land,--root and branch,--in the general and the particular,--in length and breadth, and then in every detail. Am I wrong? Any other interpretation dwarfs the great Amendment, and permits Slavery still to linger among us in some of its insufferable pretensions. Sir, I insist upon thorough work. When I voted for that article, I meant what it said,--that Slavery should cease absolutely, entirely, and completely. But, Sir, Congress has already given its testimony to the true meaning of the article. Shortly after its adoption, it passed what is known as the Civil Rights Law, by which the courts of justice throughout the country, State as well as National, are opened to colored persons, who are authorized not only to sue and be sued, but also to testify,--an important right most cruelly denied, even in many of the Northern States, making the intervention of the Nation necessary, precisely as it is necessary now. That law was passed by both Houses of Congress, vetoed by the President, and passed then by a two-thirds vote over the veto of the President, and all in pursuance of these words:--

“Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.”

Remark, if you please, the energy of that expression; I have often had occasion to call attention to it. It is a departure from the old language of the Constitution:--

“The Congress shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.”

It is stronger,--more energetic:--

“Congress shall have power to _enforce_”--

Mark, Sir, the vitality of the word--

“to _enforce_ this article by appropriate legislation.”

The whole field of apt legislation is open to be employed by Congress in enforcing Abolition. Congress entered upon that field and passed the original Civil Rights Act. And who among us now, unless one of my friends on the other side of the Chamber, questions the constitutionality of that Act? Does any one? Does any one doubt it? Does any one throw any suspicion upon it? Would any one have it dropped from the statute-book on any ground of doubt or hesitation? If there is any Senator in this category, I know him not. I really should like to have him declare himself. I will cheerfully yield the floor to any one willing to declare his doubts of the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Act. [_After waiting a sufficient time._] Sir, there is no Senator who doubts it.