Mr. Sumner. In the caucus on Reconstruction I moved the amendment that in the future constitutions of the Rebel States the ballot should be required. A division was had. I allude to it now because interrogated openly in the Senate. A division was had, and there were two stand-up votes, when the motion was carried by a vote of 15 to 13. By 15 to 13 in that caucus it was voted to require suffrage for all in the future constitutions of the Rebel States.

Mr. Sumner. To repudiate a proposition in favor of human liberty would have been a very different thing from repudiating a proposition against human liberty.

Mr. Sumner. Very well, does not the Senator say the same?

Mr. Sumner. The question is, whether the man does promise. There is the point.

Mr. Sumner. I will make the distinction clear. I have never said there was a promise in the case of the thirteen, as I insist there was no promise in the recent caucus. Had the Senator felt it his duty to come into the Senate and oppose the report, I should have been pained to find him on the side of wrong; but I am not ready to say that he would have been constrained by the caucus. But, plainly, the repudiation of a caucus vote for Human Rights is to be judged differently from the repudiation of a caucus vote adverse to Human Rights,—assuming, as I do, that there is no promise in either case.

…

Sir, I am tired of this talk of honor, in connection with the public business. This is too solemn; we are under too great responsibilities. Every Senator acts with honor. The Senator from Maine acts with honor, when he seeks to impose a rule which I think offensive to the spirit of the Constitution. The Senator from Illinois acts with honor, when he says that he will not be bound by the vote of this caucus in a particular case. Other Senators act with honor, when they refuse to be bound by the resolution in any of its terms. Every Senator acts with honor. He only acts otherwise who makes injurious imputations upon his associates.

Yes, Sir, let us have this caucus code. If it is to be administered with such severity, let us know it in advance, its terms and its conditions,—what extent of dishonor is to be visited upon those who do not adopt the caucus conclusions, and what extent of honor upon those who so steadfastly and violently carry them forward. Let us have the code. I believe, Sir, that the true code for the Senate is found in the National Constitution, in the rules of this body, and in the sentiments of right and wrong which animate every honest soul; and I believe that no advantage can be taken of any Senator by reminding him that he forbore at a particular moment to register his objection, just as if we were all there on trial, to be saved by speaking promptly. It was no such debate; we were there with friends and brothers, each respecting the sensibilities and convictions of his associates, and, by interchange of opinions, seeking harmony, but not submitting to a yoke.

I have simply done my duty, in calling attention to the past precedent which had been introduced into the discussion. When it was introduced by the Senator from Maine, I had no means of replying to it. I had not the Journal or the Globe with me, and I supposed, from the statement of the Senator, that it was a resolution practically adopted in this Chamber. I was not aware of what followed. I was not aware of the extent to which the whole spirit of the proposition was denounced. Nor was I aware that its original mover, Mr. Clay, was obliged to abandon his proposition,—that he magnanimously, justly, and considerately abandoned it. That is the true precedent in this body; and that is the precedent which, I submit, it would be better for the Senate to follow. Nothing, surely, could be lost by following it.

The resolution adopted by the Senate on Friday, while it remains, will only be of evil example. If hereafter quoted as a precedent, it may be at last for some purpose of oppression, when Senators will not all be as just as those I now have the honor of addressing. It may be seized then as an engine of tyranny. For one, Sir, I would leave no such weapon in this Chamber to be grasped hereafter by any hand.

RECONSTRUCTION ONCE MORE.
PUBLIC SCHOOLS; OFFICERS AND SENATORS WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR.

Mark, if you please, the stages. At every step there has been battle. Nothing could be proposed which was not opposed, often with feeling, sometimes even with animosity. I do not speak now of the other side, but of friends on this side of the Chamber, some of whom have fought every measure.

To my mind nothing has been plainer from the beginning than the jurisdiction of Congress. Obviously it was not for the Executive, but for the Legislative. The President was commander-in-chief of the army; that function was his. But he could not make States or constitutions, or determine how States or constitutions should be made. All that he did to this end was gross usurpation, aggravated by motives and consequences.

Unquestionably the jurisdiction was in Congress; and I shall never cease to lament that it was not asserted promptly and courageously. Our delay has postponed the establishment of peace and reconciliation. Much as the President has erred, Congress has not been without error also. The President erred from assuming powers which did not belong to him; Congress erred from declining to assume powers which belonged to it. The sins of the President were of commission; the sins of Congress were of omission. The President did the things he ought not to have done; Congress left undone the things it ought to have done.

In the exercise of unquestioned jurisdiction, Congress should at once have provided civil governments, through whose influence and agency the Rebel States might have been shaped into republican forms. Such a proceeding would have been more constitutional and more according to the genius of our institutions than that which was adopted. It is hard to reconcile a military government, or any government born of military power, with the true idea of a republic. Tardily, too tardily, Congress entered upon the work; and then began hesitations of another character. Even when assuming jurisdiction, it halted.

For a long time it refused to confer the suffrage upon the colored race. At last this was done.

Then it refused to exclude Rebels from the work of Reconstruction; and when at last it attempted something, its rule of exclusion was so little certain that an ingenious lawyer by a written opinion has set it aside.

There have been bills with riders, and after the passage of these bills there has been a supplementary bill with riders. And still further legislation is needed.

Surely these successive failures have their lesson. They admonish us now to make thorough work.

If you will not establish civil governments, with the military power simply as a support, then at least do not hesitate to vacate the existing governments, which are so many roots and centres of sedition. All the officers of these governments, from highest to lowest, exercise an influence adverse to a just reconstruction. They are in the way of peace and reconciliation. They increase the essential difficulties of forming new governments. Through their influence a hostile spirit is engendered and sustained. Such an obstacle should be removed.

At the same time be careful that Rebel influence is not allowed to prevail in the new governments. Of course this can be only by excluding Rebels during this transition period, until the new governments are formed. The rule of exclusion may be properly changed, when loyal and republican governments are established. Attention has already been called to cases deserving notice: as, for instance, naturalized citizens who have taken an oath to support the National Constitution and afterward became Rebels, but yet are not excluded; cadets at the Military and Naval Academies; persons who have contributed to Rebel loans or invested money in Rebel bonds or securities; contractors who furnished Rebel supplies; also persons who, as authors, publishers, editors, contributors, or as speakers or preachers, encouraged the secession of any State or the waging of war against the United States.

Considering what we hear with regard to the boards of registration,—that in some States they are of doubtful principles, that in others colored fellow-citizens are excluded, so that a large proportion of the electors have no representation in the boards,—it seems to me that we ought by positive words to provide that the boards shall be constituted without distinction of color. Colored persons may be chosen to office, and I cannot doubt that we shall soon welcome colored Senators and Representatives to the National Capitol. Meanwhile the boards of registration must be kept as open as these Chambers; and no commanding general can be allowed to set up a rule adverse to the rights of a race.

A system of public schools without distinction of color should be required. This important duty must not be left to caprice, or to the triumph of truth through local influence. Its performance should be enforced as essential to republican government. We have required suffrage for all; we should require also education for all.

Provision should be made to invalidate the decrees of court in the Rebel States which have not been voluntarily executed. This is necessary for the protection of loyal persons. Look, for instance, at Texas, where, according to recent report, immense sums have been taken by unjust decrees. If the remedy is not applied now, it is doubtful if the opportunity will not be lost forever.

In submitting a constitution to the people, it seems to me advisable that it should not be complicated by any election of officers, State or National, but that all elections should be postponed until after approval of the constitution by Congress.

There should also be penalties for the violation of the Act. The pardon of the President must not be allowed to confer a title to vote; and since officials have shown such a disposition to impair the efficacy of an Act by interpretation, reducing it to a mere shadow, we ought to provide that it shall be interpreted liberally.

In making these propositions, I ask that you should not hesitate simply because they may not be embraced within the terms of the original Acts. I would do now all that we can to make this measure of Reconstruction just and beneficent. I know no other rule worthy of the Senate or adequate to the occasion.

In carrying out these ideas, I propose to offer several amendments, which I will send to the Chair in order. I begin by an amendment as an additional section:—

I am accustomed to that class of questions on this floor. When, some two or three years ago, I felt it my duty to move, on one bill after another, that there should be no exclusion from the street cars on account of color, I was encountered by learned lawyers, and by none more constantly than my friend opposite, the Senator from Maryland [Mr. Johnson], with precisely the suggestion which my friend from New York now makes: that in point of law it was unnecessary; that under the actual law, which was none other than the Common Law, there could be no exclusion on account of color: and yet, in the face of that Common Law, Senators all know that there was an exclusion from the cars on account of color, and the grossest outrages committed. Colored persons were precipitated into the streets, into the mud, under a pelting rain, and they could obtain no redress; and when I asked for redress, grave Senators said, “Let them apply to the courts”; and it was suggested that perhaps I had better volunteer as counsel in court rather than appear in this Chamber. Now the question of my friend from New York is precisely in the same spirit. I cannot doubt, that, under the existing Reconstruction law, there can be no exclusion on account of color,—that nobody is for that reason disqualified from the exercise of any function. What is there to prevent a colored person from being a Senator of the United States? and who can doubt that within a very few months it will be our business to welcome a colored Senator on this floor? I cannot doubt it.

Mr. Sumner. That I do not know. But I ask you who look to the colored vote in these States as the means of security and peace, through which you are to find protection for this Republic, and for white fellow-citizens there as well as for the colored themselves, to see that this stigma is not put upon them by any commanding general pretending to act by virtue of our legislation. It is not enough to tell me, that, under the actual law, colored persons may be designated. To that I reply, in the State of Virginia they have not been designated; and I wish now that Congress should declare that any exclusion on account of color is without the sanction of law.

And that brings me to the inquiry of my friend from Illinois, as to the penalty, I think, or as to the extent of the remedy.

Mr. Sumner. That I will answer. My proviso affords precisely the same remedy that it afforded on the Railroad Bills. It is in nearly the same terms. I followed those terms, because I know my friend likes good precedents, and we have enough of those on the question of the street cars. The Senate adopted that proviso at least half a dozen times. There it is, without penalty, and yet it has been most efficacious, not only in these streets, but as an example throughout the country. Adopt this proviso now, and I am sure it will be most efficacious with our generals even without any penalty. Should they exclude fellow-citizens on account of color, it will be a violation of law and a failure of duty; there can be no votes of thanks for them,—“no hope of golden spurs to-day.”

I will not spend time. There has been an abuse which has come to our knowledge. We know that in whole States colored persons are excluded from the boards, and this justifies our intervention.

My attention has often been called to the necessity of such a provision, by gentlemen from the South, and especially by lawyers there. They tell me that without some such provision the grossest injustice will be done. Throughout the whole Rebellion the local tribunals were sitting to administer justice; yet it was not justice, but injustice, that they administered. Under their decrees private rights were overthrown; and I doubt not that my friend from Illinois has recently read the account of an extensive injustice in Texas, where private property to an almost incalculable amount was taken away by these unjust decrees.

Should there not be a remedy? I think all will say that there should be. This is, if I may so express myself, the last time of asking. If those States are once organized as States and received into the Union, I know not if we have the power of applying a remedy. That we have now I am sure. I cannot doubt our constitutional power at this moment to set aside all those decrees, so far as they have not been voluntarily submitted to, or subject them, according to the provision of my amendment, to appeal in a higher tribunal after the reorganization of justice in these States. Is not the provision reasonable? Is it not to serve the ends of justice? If you do not accept it now, can you accept it at any time hereafter? And if you do not accept it now or hereafter, will not these parties go without remedy? On that question I do not pronounce dogmatically. I do not mean to say that they will be absolutely without remedy; but I do not easily see their remedy. I see difficulties in the way, while at this moment I see no difficulties in the way.

Then I encounter the objection that this is not in order. Why not? Is it not to carry out your Reconstruction Bill, to smooth difficulties, to remove wrong, to establish justice? It may not have been specially foreshadowed in the original bill or the supplemental bill; but I submit that it is entirely germane to both those bills. Besides, it is commended by an intrinsic justice, which should make it acceptable at any time.

And now, as we are about to dismiss this subject for the present session, I cannot forbear again expressing regret that the measure has not been made more complete,—in one word, more radical. This is the third bill of Reconstruction on which we have acted. We ought never to have acted on more than one; and had the Senate been sufficiently radical, had it founded its bill on clear, definite principle, there would have been no occasion for more than one. Just so far as we have failed to found ourselves on clear, definite principle, our bills have failed; and should there be failure under the present bill, it will be precisely on that account.

I shall never cease to lament that Congress did not at once assume jurisdiction of the whole region, and in the exercise of its plenary authority establish civil governments, supplying ample military support. Such a Reconstruction would have been founded on principles to defy the criticism of history. I trust that what we have done will be judged leniently hereafter. I know, however, that it is not above criticism. Of course, such Reconstruction would have removed out of sight all existing State governments and municipal governments set up by Rebel authority, or by the President in the exercise of usurped power. In my opinion, it is not too late to do this last work. Even if you decline to establish civil governments, I think, that, under the Military Bill, you should go forward and brush away all the existing governments there. From information, private and public, out of every one of the Rebel States, I am led to this conclusion. Those governments, whether State or municipal, are just so many engines of Rebel influence. They stand in the way of Reconstruction. They prevent the beneficent operation of your work. But the Senate has declined that path. I regret it, and now at this last moment record my regret.

I am sorry to add that the Senate has declined to require of these people conditions which I think essential to republican government. One of these is a system of public education. I can never cease to mourn the failure in this regard. Here is a paper from New Orleans, which has come to me since I have been at my desk to-day, edited by colored persons,—and an excellent paper it is,—“The New Orleans Tribune” of July 9, 1867, which contains an article entitled “Public Schools,” from which I will read a brief sentence:—

The article then sets forth the impediments in the way of public schools. And yet, in the face of such intelligence from the Rebel States, we decline to require a system of public education as an essential element in these new governments. I lament it; and I desire again to record this sentiment.

I fear also, Mr. President, that in the operation of this bill you will find that we have not been sufficiently explicit in the exclusion of Rebel influence. I have made my best effort to remove doubts and to enlarge the exclusion. But, in saying this, I desire to add, that, in my judgment, all exclusions belong to what I call the transition period. When Reconstruction is accomplished, the time will come for us to open the gates,—but not till then.

SUFFRAGE WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF COLOR THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES BY ACT OF CONGRESS.

My argument is precisely this, and I ask the attention of my friend from Maryland [Mr. Johnson]. We all know his eminence at the bar of the Supreme Court, and I submit to him this: We have already by Reconstruction Acts conferred the suffrage upon colored persons in the Rebel States; now is it not important that our legislation should be completed and rounded by conferring the suffrage in the other States as conferred in the Rebel States? You have conferred it in the Rebel States.

Mr. Sumner. Will you have the great right of suffrage depend upon Act of Congress in one half of the Union, and not upon Act of Congress in the other half? If you can pass an Act for one half, can you not for the other half? I know the answer, that in the Rebel States the fact of rebellion gives a power we have not in the other States. But the present bill is founded not simply on the fact of rebellion, but on the clause in the National Constitution by which we are bound to guaranty a republican form of government throughout the whole country; also on the other clause by which Slavery is abolished throughout the whole country, and we are empowered by proper legislation to enforce it; also that further clause by which the rights of citizens are secured throughout the whole country, and we are empowered by proper legislation to enforce it. Here are three sources of power, equally applicable to all the States, Rebel or Loyal. And now I submit that such an Act for the Loyal States is only the just complement to our action in the Rebel States.

How can you look the Rebel States in the face, when you have required colored suffrage of them and fail to require it in the other States? Be just; require it in the Loyal States as you have required it in the Rebel States. There is an unanswerable argument, and I submit it on the question of order. If we are privileged to consider only matters in aid of the original Reconstruction measures, then do I say that this bill is in aid of those measures, for it gives to them completeness and roundness. Without this bill your original measures are imperfect, ay, radically unjust. I know it is said there is one title to legislation over the Rebel States which we have not with regard to the Loyal States,—to wit, that they have been in rebellion. But the great sources of power in the two cases are identical; they are one and the same.

There is the guaranty clause in the National Constitution, the sleeping giant of the Constitution, never until this recent war awakened, but now it comes forward with a giant’s power. There is no clause like it. There is no text which gives to Congress such supreme power over the States. Then, as I have so often said, are the two other clauses. Your power under the Constitution is not less complete than beneficent.

I am not to be betrayed into the constitutional argument. I am now on the question of order. I say that this bill is essential to perfect the original Reconstruction measures. You should not return to your homes without this additional Act by which Reconstruction is finished. If any Senator has any reason to bring against this bill, if any one can suggest a doubt of its constitutionality, I should like to hear the reason or the doubt, and I shall be ready to answer it. I invite discussion. I challenge the expression of any reason against it, or of any doubt with regard to its constitutionality; and I ask Senators to look at it as a great measure of expediency as well as of justice. How will you settle this question in the Loyal States? Here are Delaware, Maryland,—my friend over the way will not be sensitive when I allude to his State,—and Kentucky, in each of which this measure will be the salvation of Union citizens. In other States, like Pennsylvania, it will rally at once—I am speaking now on the question of expediency—twenty thousand votes to the Union cause. In Indiana, too, it will settle the Suffrage question. I say nothing of Iowa. There is Wisconsin.

Mr. Sumner. Under the decision of the Supreme Court. So much the better. There is Connecticut. It would obtain three thousand votes there for the good cause. A short Act of Congress will determine the political fortunes of Connecticut for an indefinite period by securing three thousand additional votes to the right side. There is New York, also, where the bill would have the same excellent beneficent influence.

Who, then, can hesitate? Look at it in any light you please. Regard it as the completion of these Reconstruction measures, as a constitutional enactment, or as a measure of expediency to secure results we all desire at the approaching elections, and who can hesitate? There has been no bill before you for a long time of more practical value than this. I hope there will be no question about proceeding with it, and that we may pass it before we separate to-night.

OPENING OF OFFICES TO COLORED PERSONS IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA.

I think there can be no objection to this bill. It is simply to carry out what is understood to be the effect of existing legislation, but which practically does not seem to be its effect. At the late election in the District it appeared that by the terms of the charter colored persons could not be qualified as aldermen, as common-councilmen, or as assessors; and on examining the charter, which I have now on my desk, I find that by its terms, strictly construed, these offices are confined to free white persons. By our legislation, all persons, without distinction of color, can be voters, but nothing is said about being office-holders. I cannot doubt, that, under the Constitution, and particularly since the recent legislation, the discrimination adverse to colored persons is void; but practically it is not so regarded. I submit, therefore, that it is proper in Congress to remove this grievance.

NATURALIZATION WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF RACE OR COLOR.