Volume 13 — OPPOSITE SIDES ON THE MEANING OF THE PROPOSED CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

Final Speech in the Senate on this Amendment, March 9, 1866.

When Mr. Fessenden sat down, after his closing speech, Mr. Sumner took the floor and made the following remarks.

MR. PRESIDENT,—Allow me to remind you of that famous shield suspended in the highway, and so often adduced as a lesson of candor. Two travellers approaching from opposite quarters, and standing face to face, read the inscription as each saw it. Straightway there was difference and contest. Each insisted; but closer observation showed that the two sides were different. So it is on the present occasion. The measure before the Senate has two sides. The Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessenden], as he approaches it, sees only the side which limits the representation. As I approach it, I see the recognition of a caste and the disfranchisement of a race. He defends it; I condemn it. But he defends only what he sees; I condemn only what I see. It is the misfortune of the measure that it has two sides with two opposite inscriptions. This is especially unhappy at this moment, when we are bound to be frank and loyal, and to do nothing which may be interpreted in a double sense. Above all should this be the case with regard to an Amendment of the Constitution. But the present proposition does not fall within these conditions. It is enough that there are at this moment two opposite opinions with regard to its meaning.

Now, Sir, it will not be denied that there are opposite opinions on its meaning. The Senator from Maine affixes one meaning; I affix another. The Senator sees nothing bad; I see nothing good,—or rather, all that it proposes is absorbed, merged, and lost in the evil. Against it I am earnest, and I speak so. For those from whom I differ I have nothing but personal kindness; but I must condemn the text they seek to inject into the Constitution. What is debate? It is the expression of opinions, conclusions, and convictions. These must be expressed fully, freely, and according to the conscience of the speaker. If a measure is deemed bad, unjust, scandalous, founded in wrong principles, and calculated to produce infinite mischief, all this must be said; and it must be said with plainness, according to the nature of the exigency. To this end language is given. The measure must be exposed. There are no terms to be spared which may be needed in this exposition, whether to reach the judgment or the feelings. Of course, on this occasion I see only the subject. The Senator reminds you of the friends whose votes I arraign,—cherished colleagues in both Houses, valued associates in political opinion, and two thirds of the House of Representatives. All this increases my sorrow. It gives me a pang; but it cannot make me change convictions springing from the very depths of conscience,—nor my course.

But I am not alone in my interpretation. Only the other day I presented the petition of the editor of the Boston “Recorder,” in which he was moved to protest against it in strongest terms, inasmuch as it disfranchised a race and offended against the Declaration of Independence. I have here papers and testimonies showing how extensively this interpretation prevails. Here, for instance, is a communication from an honored citizen of New York, once a member of the other House, one of the Old Guard of Abolitionists, who, from the first gun at Fort Sumter, has seen our duties with a sensitive conscience and a patriotic soul: I mean Gerrit Smith. Mark, if you please, that I cite his words simply as showing how an ingenuous nature is touched by this attempt.

“I see that the House of Representatives approves, and by a very strong vote, the proposed Apportionment Amendment of the Constitution. I see, too, that nearly all the members who are the most radical friends of Freedom are included in this vote, and that there is, therefore, no room in the case for questioning motives. Freedom may, however, be wounded unwittingly. Nay, she may be wounded even in the house of her friends. Such is her fate in the present instance. And no less deep and dangerous is the wound, but, on the contrary, all the deeper and more dangerous, because inflicted by hands which aimed not to harm, but to help her. Moreover, though it is always consoling to be able to trace an error to the understanding, the error may, nevertheless, be quite as pernicious as if the heart were involved in it.

…

“A disgraceful, if not indeed fatal, blot upon the Constitution and country will be this one. Disgraceful is it to a government to license the gambling-house, even though it be on the condition of being paid for the license. Disgraceful to it to license the brothel or the dram-shop, even though on such condition. But how emphatically disgraceful for a government to license Slavery, that crime of crimes, even though the consideration in return for the license be very great, and the pay very tempting! This, however, is the deep disgrace with which the Apportionment Amendment threatens the Constitution and the country.… It is true that Slavery is not literally in the Amendment. It is true, too, that proscription from the ballot-box does not always mean Slavery. But it is also true, that, where such proscription is of one race by another, there is an instance where the proscribed are enslaved. The power, therefore, which this Amendment will give the Southern whites to withhold the ballot from the Southern blacks will be the power to enslave them. If they shall withhold from them the ballot, they will also withhold from them freedom.

…

“I notice that a common excuse among the friends of Freedom for favoring this Apportionment Amendment is, that we can get nothing better. I know not how that may be; but I do know that we can get nothing much worse, and that it would be far better to get nothing than to get this.”

I have also presented the petition of George T. Downing, Frederick Douglass, and others, representing the colored race in Washington, in which they give their opinions. Protesting against this proposition, as authorizing disfranchisement on account of race or color, they pray Congress

“To favor no Amendment of the Constitution of the United States which will grant or allow any one or all of the States of this Union to disfranchise any class of citizens on the ground of race or color.”

They then proceed:—

“In the Constitution, as it now stands, there is not a sentence nor syllable conveying any shadow of right or authority by which any State may make color or race a disqualification for the exercise of the right of suffrage, and the undersigned will regard as a real calamity the introduction of any words expressly or by implication giving any State or States such power; and we respectfully submit, that, if the Amendment now pending shall be adopted, it will enable any State to deprive any class of citizens of the elective franchise.”

Such is the testimony of these very intelligent representatives of colored fellow-citizens. They speak with peculiar authority, from the interest they necessarily have in the question. They speak for the freedmen.

Mr. President, I do not wish to argue the main question again. I have said enough,—the Senator has reminded you several times how much. I am sorry to have trespassed so often and so long. I will not trespass now. Of course, there is a radical difference between the Senator and myself. We see opposite things, when we look at this proposition; and permit me to say, we see opposite things, when we look at the Constitution itself. I cannot see as he sees. I do not believe, that, under the Constitution, even as it exists, the disfranchisement of a considerable portion of fellow-citizens is consistent with a republican government. Still further, I do not believe that “color” can be a “qualification” for an elector. He does. And here is a point of divergence which carries us far apart. He consents willingly to this fatal text. I cannot.

I have listened to all that has been said. But the proposition is to me as obnoxious as ever. I cannot see it otherwise. Feeling that caste and disfranchisement on account of color are utterly irreligious, unrepublican, and scandalous, you must pardon me, if I strive to prevent their introduction into the Constitution of my country, especially at a moment when we are under such obligations of gratitude to these outcasts, and when injustice to them is so full of peril to the Republic. I have spoken strongly; you will pardon it to the ardor of my nature and to the strength of my convictions. I have fought a long battle with Slavery, and I confess solicitude, when I see anything looking like concession to this wrong. It is not enough to show me that a measure is expedient; you must show me also that it is right. Ah, Sir, can anything be expedient which is not right? From the beginning of our history, the country has been afflicted with compromise. It is by compromise that human rights have been abandoned. I insist that this shall cease. After all its trials, the country needs repose,—it deserves repose; but repose can be found only in everlasting principles. It cannot be found by inserting in your Constitution the disfranchisement of a race.

This proposition can be fully appreciated in its “bad eminence” only when it is considered as the offering of Congress at this time for the protection of fellow-citizens to whom we are under obligations of gratitude. This is our panacea, our balm of Gilead. This is what we are to do. And the Senate is warned not to give the protection found in the elective franchise, either by Constitutional Amendment or by Act of Congress,—that such a Constitutional Amendment would not be adopted by the people, and therefore we ought not to present it,—and that Congress has not the power to establish equality in political rights. Sir, I do not despair of the Republic,—I will not, I cannot. But, if ever I were disposed to despair, it would be when listening to such arguments and excuses. The people are in advance, and will sustain us, if we are courageous. They will adopt any Constitutional Amendment that ought to be adopted. They will adopt anything that is true, just, and noble, for the protection of benefactors, and to carry out the principles of our Government; they will sustain any legislation having such object. This is what they expect. It is what the freedmen expect. It is what the Unionists of the South expect. Not willingly will they be surrendered to the tender mercies of Rebels. They ask Congress to protect them; and they see that this can be only by giving the ballot to the freedmen. I have in my hand a letter from one Southern Unionist addressed to another, and received only yesterday, dated February 25th, and written in the very heart of Alabama, which thus speaks of this very question:—

“All men of common sense must now see that there can now be no loyal civil governments in these States, if the negroes are not permitted to neutralize with their votes the votes of Rebels. On this account I do hope the joint resolution recently introduced in the Senate by Mr. Sumner will prevail. Whatever may have been our former notions in regard to the negro, it is now very evident that practically they are better citizens than the majority of whites, in some portion of the Rebel States. The Declaration of Independence is the true and just basis upon which these State governments must be founded.”

Such is the voice of a Unionist of Alabama. He looks to Congress. God forbid that Congress should abdicate its beneficent powers! They are all needed for the safety and welfare of the Republic. I cannot, I dare not, help in any such abdication.

The history of the debate and its result appear in the Appendix to the Speech of February 5th and 6th.[271]