Volume 11 — COLORED SUFFRAGE IN WASHINGTON.

Remarks in the Senate, on Bills to amend the City Charter, May 12, 26, 27, 28, 1864.

February 13th, Mr. Harlan, of Iowa, asked, and by unanimous consent obtained, leave to bring in a bill to amend section five of an Act entitled “An Act to continue, alter, and amend the charter of the city of Washington,” approved May 17, 1848, and further to preserve the purity of elections and guard against the abuse of the elective franchise, by a registration of electors for the city of Washington, in the District of Columbia; which was read the first and second time, and referred to the Committee on the District of Columbia.

March 8th, Mr. Dixon, from the Committee, reported the bill without amendment.

March 17th, the bill was taken up and amended in unimportant particulars.

May 6th, it was again taken up, when, after an amendment moved by Mr. Dixon, Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, moved to amend the bill in the first section by inserting the word “white” before the word “male,” so as to confine the right of voting in Washington to white male citizens. Mr. Sumner said at once, “I hope not.” Mr. Cowan then spoke in favor of his amendment.

May 12th, Mr. Cowan remarked that the bill “would have the effect, in some cases, of admitting negroes to the right of suffrage, which, I may say, is obnoxious to the vast bulk of the people of the Border States.” Mr. Harlan would vote for Mr. Cowan’s amendment, “first, because it is manifest to the Senate that the bill, without that provision in it, cannot now become a law.” Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, spoke elaborately against colored suffrage, winding up with this interrogatory: “Shall we, without any petitions from the people of this District, without anything before the Senate to indicate that this bill, in any of its parts, is required by the people of this District, undertake to say, of our own volition, that we will impose upon them a provision which is odious to them, and will, in my estimation, be disastrous in its results, not only here, but in its influence on popular opinion everywhere in this nation?”

Mr. Sumner followed.

MR. PRESIDENT,—Slavery dies hard. It still stands front to front with our embattled armies, holding them in check. It dies hard on the battle-field. It dies hard in the Senate Chamber. We have been compelled during this session to hear various defences of Slavery, sometimes in its most offensive forms. Slave-hunting has been openly vindicated. And now, to-day, the exclusion of colored persons from the electoral franchise, simply on account of color, is openly vindicated, and the Senator from West Virginia, newly introduced into this Chamber from a State born of Freedom, rises here to uphold Slavery in one of its meanest products.

Mr. Willey. Mr. President, I cannot pass that assertion without giving it an unequivocal, categorical denial. I have not vindicated Slavery in any of its aspects. I said to the Senator, what perhaps he did not hear before, that, when he has liberated by the sweat of his brow as many slaves as I have, he can get up and make such a remark in regard to me.

Mr. Sumner. I said, Sir, that the Senator vindicated Slavery in one of its meanest products. I repeat what I said. The Senator has spoken, I do not know how long by the clock, to vindicate an odious prejudice bequeathed by Slavery, having its origin in Slavery, and in nothing else. Had Slavery never existed among us, there would have been no such prejudice as that of which the Senator makes himself the representative. Far better would it be for that Senator, who comes into this Chamber as the representative of a new-born free State, had he surrendered generously to the sentiment in which West Virginia had its birth. But, instead, he comes forward and labors with unwonted earnestness to perpetuate at the national capital an odious feature derived from Slavery. The Senator says he has not vindicated Slavery. If he has not used the word, he has vindicated the thing, in one of its most odious features. He seeks to blast a whole race merely on account of color. Would he ever have proposed such injustice, but for the prejudices nursed by Slavery? Had not Slavery existed, would any such idea have found place in a Senator naturally so generous and humane? No, Sir,—he spoke with the voice of Slavery, which he cannot yet forget. He spoke under the unhappy and disturbing influences which Slavery has left in his mind.

Now, Sir, I am against Slavery, wherever it shows itself, whatever form it takes. I am against Slavery, when compelled to meet it directly; and I am against Slavery in all its products and its offspring. I am against Slavery, when encountering the beast outright, or only its tail. The prejudices of which the Senator makes himself the representative to-day, permit me to say, are nothing but the tail of Slavery. Unhappily, while we have succeeded in abolishing Slavery in this District, we have not yet abolished the tail; and the tail has representatives in the Senate Chamber, as the beast once had.

We have been reminded that we are engaged in a fearful conflict. The Senator has reminded us of it. Senators nearer to me have reminded us of it. This is too true; and now, as that conflict lowers, I invoke the spirit of our fathers. They went forth to battle with the Declaration of Independence on their lips, solemnly declaring that all men are born equal, entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They introduced no discrimination of color into that sacred text, nor into the contemporary Articles of Confederation, nor into the Constitution of the United States, which was the work of their hands. I am content to be guided by their example. As they went forth to meet the enemy, they placed themselves under the protection of the God of Justice. Let us imitate them.

I had not intended to say a word on this occasion; but I could not listen to the remarks of the Senator, so harsh and unfeeling toward a whole race, belonging to the human family, like himself, without interposing a solemn protest.

Since this debate began, I have sent to the Law Library for a volume containing the authoritative words of a distinguished Southern jurist, a slaveholder, with regard to the electoral franchise. It has been a question, in what States, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, colored persons enjoyed this franchise. I say nothing now about the more northern States; but there is a State, sometimes referred to, with regard to which there is peculiar evidence: I mean North Carolina. The enjoyment of the electoral franchise by colored persons in that State for a long time after the Constitution is not a matter of doubt. Her most eminent magistrate, the late Mr. Justice Gaston, accomplished as a jurist and as a man, whom I remember well in most agreeable personal intercourse, laid down the law of his State in emphatic words. Pronouncing the opinion of the Supreme Court of North Carolina in the case of The State v. Manuel, in 1838, he said:—

“Slaves manumitted here become freemen, and therefore, if born within North Carolina, are citizens of North Carolina; and all free persons born within the State are born citizens of the State.… The Constitution extended the elective franchise to every freeman who had arrived at the age of twenty-one and paid a public tax; and it is a matter of universal notoriety, that, under it, free persons, without regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise, until it was taken from free men of color a few years since by our amended Constitution.”[342]

There is still another case, that of The State v. Newsom, which was decided in 1844, where the Supreme Court of North Carolina, after citing the opinion of Judge Gaston from which I have just read, proceeds:—

“That case underwent a very laborious investigation, both by the bar and the bench.… The case was brought here by appeal, and was felt to be one of great importance in principle. It was considered with an anxiety and care worthy of the principle involved, and which gave it a controlling influence and authority on all questions of a similar character.”[343]

Therefore not hastily or carelessly did the Supreme Court of North Carolina declare colored persons to be voters under the State Constitution.

Such was the constitutional law of North Carolina, fashioned by our fathers under the influence of the Declaration of Independence. Sir, I am content with that law. I do not think the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Cowan], though he represents a Northern State, can mend that law from a Slave State. Nor do I think that any of us on this floor can feel humbled, if our judgment is postponed to that of Judge Gaston of North Carolina, who did not hesitate to declare positively the constitutional law of human rights, by virtue of which colored persons are citizens. And if they are citizens, how can you deny them the electoral franchise?

I am content to leave the question here, adding, that, as I understand it, I shall deem it my duty to vote against all propositions creating any discrimination of color. At this moment of revolution, when our country needs the blessing of Almighty God and the strong arms of all her children, this is not the time for us solemnly to enact injustice. In duty to our country, and in duty to God, I plead against any such thing. We must be against Slavery in its original shape, and in all its brood of prejudice and error.

This bill was never considered again; but the question of colored suffrage in Washington reappeared.

May 24th, Mr. Wade, from the Committee on the District of Columbia, reported a joint resolution to amend the charter of the city of Washington, which was read twice and considered as in Committee of the Whole. In reporting it, he said: “It relates to the registration of voters; and if it is to be passed at all, it ought to be passed immediately. I believe there is no objection to it. It alters none of the present qualifications of voters, but improves the present law as to registration, which is very defective.”

May 26th, the consideration of the joint resolution was resumed, when Mr. Sumner said:—

Examining this joint resolution, I find that it is entitled “A Resolution to amend the charter of the city of Washington.” In that aspect it is important. Looking into it, I find the provision,—

“That, in case any person shall offer and claim the right to vote at any election held in the city of Washington, whose name is not registered, his name shall be registered by the Commissioners of Election upon the terms and conditions following.”

It will be observed that the language is very broad. It is applicable to any person who shall offer and claim the right to vote at any election; and his name shall be registered upon certain specified conditions. The first condition is, that he shall take a certain oath; and if unable to understand the English language, it is further provided that the oath shall be interpreted to him: so that this clause actually contemplates that certain persons shall be registered who do not speak the English language. It then proceeds:—

“If in his answers on oath he shall state positively that he has resided in the city one year next preceding the day of said election, designating particularly the place of his residence, and that he possesses the other qualifications of an elector, and if, furthermore, some qualified elector of the city, not a candidate for any office at that election, shall take an oath before said Commissioners, which any one of them may administer, that he is well acquainted with such applicant, that he is, in fact, a resident in the city, and has been one year next previous to such election, and that he (qualified elector) has good reason to believe, and does believe, that all the statements of such applicant are true, the Commissioners shall cause his name to be registered by their clerk, and shall then receive the vote of said applicant.”

Now it is at once perceived from these words, that they are directly applicable, in the first place, to any person who shall offer and claim the right to vote at an election; but, after taking the oath, he is to show residence for a certain term in the city, and also that “he possesses the other qualifications of an elector.” What are “the other qualifications of an elector”? I presume, if we go back to the original charter, we shall find it is that qualification which, as I said the other day, is the tail of Slavery,—that discrimination of color left to us, unhappily, by the former presence of Slavery in the national capital. I know not if the Committee propose to keep alive that ancient and odious discrimination; but it seems to me, that, if the language of this joint resolution be interpreted according to its natural signification, and certainly as such language is apt to be interpreted here in Washington, it must operate to the exclusion of persons not of the favored color. I know my friend from Ohio does not contemplate such exclusion; but a joint resolution to amend the charter of the city of Washington ought to be made clear, and also in that respect unobjectionable; it ought not to be the means of continuing and of extending that odious discrimination. I therefore propose to amend it by adding these words:—

“Provided, That there shall be no exclusion of any person from the register on account of color.”

Mr. Wade was in favor of colored suffrage; but the Committee, in reporting this measure, did “not contemplate going into the question of the right of suffrage, or extending that right beyond those who are at present authorized to exercise it. It does not widen the suffrage; it does not narrow it.”

Mr. Sumner began a reply to Mr. Wade.

Mr. President,—The argument of my friend from Ohio was, that the measure now before the Senate is temporary in its character. That is inconsistent with the title of the joint resolution, which is as follows.

Mr. Wade. Let me explain. I say temporary, because we all know that there is a bill fixing the right of voting, that, I suppose, is intended as a permanent law. This is temporary in that view. That is all I meant.

Mr. Sumner. That certainly will not justify my friend in his argument, for on the face of it this is permanent. It is as permanent as anything else in the existing charter. Its title is, “A Resolution to amend the charter of the city of Washington.” When this is done, what assurance has my friend that anything else will be done? There is a bill on our tables. How many other bills are there on other matters which we may not reach during this session, or, if we reach, on which we cannot expect harmonious votes in the two Houses!

Here Mr. Sumner was interrupted by the Tax Bill, which was the order of the day.

May 27th, Mr. Sumner resumed.

I was interrupted yesterday by other business, called up while I was replying to my friend from Ohio [Mr. Wade]. I did not propose any extended reply.

It is with pain that I differ from friends. But with me there is no choice. Here is a measure which opens the whole question of suffrage in the national capital, and assumes the form of amendment to the charter of the city of Washington. It provides that certain persons shall be registered, including even those who cannot speak English; but in positive terms it continues and keeps alive the old rule founded on color. Now, Sir, I cannot sanction any such rule directly or indirectly.

But it is said, that, in pressing my amendment, the original proposition may be lost. This I shall regret much; for I desire its passage sincerely. But I can see no reason why a discrimination of color should be made in the bill, or in our proceedings. If white persons are kept out of their rights, so are colored persons; and I would ask my friend from Ohio, Which has been kept out the longest? I am for the rights of both, to the end that we may have at last in the national capital Equality before the law.

We are shocked daily by the report of outrages upon colored persons. In Tennessee a colored woman has been murdered under the lash. Near Fortress Monroe another colored woman has been cruelly treated under the lash. This must be stopped. But I know no way so effective as to set an example of justice and humanity. If we sanction slave-hunting, if we disregard the rights of colored persons, if we treat them as inferior in condition, unhappily, Sir, there are others who will follow our example, and add a vindictive cruelty.

Therefore, insisting upon the rights of colored persons here, I insist upon their rights everywhere. Nor do I see how I can abandon their rights here without abandoning them everywhere. We are Senators of the United States, bound to consider the whole country in all its extent, and to do nothing here which shall do mischief elsewhere; nor can we yield to any local pressure, or any imagined local interests, and thus forget the cause of justice.

It is vain to say that this measure is temporary; for, in plain terms, it undertakes to amend the charter of Washington. It is vain to say, also, that there is another bill now on your calendar regulating this whole question. Who can say that this bill will become a law? Ay, Sir, who can say, that, in the hurried hours of these closing days of a weary session, the bill will even be considered again? And yet on these grounds we are asked to abandon the present assertion of the rights of colored persons. If the bill conferring these rights can pass, so also can the present measure. If it be practical to assert these rights on one bill, it is equally practical to assert them on another, where such assertion is germane. It only remains that Senators should stand firm.

For myself, I will not sanction injustice; nor will I miss any opportunity of asserting the rights of an oppressed race. I may be alone; but, to the extent of my powers, I mean to be right.

Mr. Morrill appealed to Mr. Sumner to withdraw his opposition, saying: “Now, as a question of practical statesmanship, I submit to my honorable friend whether it is not the part of wisdom to say we will do this now and we will consider the other question when it comes up.” Mr. Harlan moved to amend by adding, “who have borne arms in the military service of the United States, and have been honorably discharged therefrom.” This amendment, limiting Mr. Sumner’s proposition, was agreed to,—Yeas 26, Nays 12.

May 28th, Mr. Sumner spoke again, and adduced the details of the recent outrage in Tennessee, saying, in conclusion:—

We all feel, Sir, the brutality of this act. It was done by a white man on the person of a colored woman. Would he have been the author of such a brutality, had the woman been white? No; because she was black, he thus insulted human nature, and performed an act never to be read without a blush that he is a member of the human family. And how are we to discountenance such acts? Is it by keeping alive this odious discrimination of color, by imparting to it the sanction of law, by investing it with the authority of this Chamber? I appeal to you, Senators, as men of humanity, do not continue a discrimination, which, proceeding from this Chamber, must exercise a far-reaching influence. It is not simply the question of a few voters more or less in the District, but it is a question of human rights everywhere throughout this land, involving the national character and its good name forevermore.

Again, in reply to Mr. Reverdy Johnson, Mr. Sumner said:—

But the Senator thinks that I am not logical, because I quote an outrage in Tennessee having its origin in the prejudice of color, and insist that here in this Chamber we shall not found legislation on a prejudice of color. Sir, I submit the question to the judgment of the Senate: Am I illogical, or is the Senator so? I insist, Sir, that you cannot sanction injustice here, especially you cannot sanction a prejudice founded on color, without quickening that prejudice, and sustaining it, wherever it now unhappily exists throughout our whole country.

At the next stage of the joint resolution, the question recurred on concurring with the amendment in Committee of the Whole:—

“Provided, That there shall be no exclusion of any persons from the register, on account of color, who have borne arms in the military service of the United States, and have been honorably discharged therefrom.”

And it was rejected,—Yeas 18, Nays 20. The joint resolution was then passed.

And so this second battle for colored suffrage was lost.