Volume 14 — TENNESSEE NOT SUFFICIENTLY RECONSTRUCTED.

Speech in the Senate, on a Joint Resolution declaring Tennessee again entitled to Senators and Representatives in Congress, July 21, 1866.

The Senate considered a joint resolution from the House of Representatives “declaring Tennessee again entitled to Senators and Representatives in Congress,” for which a substitute was reported by Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, from the Judiciary Committee. The joint resolution from the House and the proposed substitute each had a preamble. In the debate, Mr. Sumner said:—

MR. PRESIDENT,—The question, as I understand it, is between two preambles. I agree with my friend from Illinois, that the preamble reported by him in many respects has the advantage of that from the House. It is fuller, and in its structure better. I am glad it sets forth how Tennessee lost her representation here, and also how she may again be rehabilitated. But, while according merit to the Senator’s preamble in that respect, there are other particulars in which it fails. He himself has already recognized that it is no better than that of the House, when it sets forth that

“the body of the people of Tennessee have, by a proper spirit of obedience, shown to the satisfaction of Congress the return of said State to due allegiance to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States.”

Here the two preambles are alike; there is no advantage in one over the other. But I understand the Senator is willing to alter this clause. If he consents to the alteration, and the alteration is made, then in this respect his preamble will be superior to that of the House. Clearly, Sir, the assumption is false; “the body of the people of Tennessee have” not, “by a proper spirit of obedience, shown to the satisfaction of Congress the return of said State to due allegiance to the Government, laws, and authority of the United States.” I may go too far, when I say it is false that Tennessee has shown a proper spirit, to the satisfaction of Congress,—because, if Congress votes that, it will not be for me, or for any one else, to say it has voted a falsehood; but I do say Tennessee has not shown a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. All the evidence which thickens in the air from that State, and has been darkening our sky during all this winter, shows that Tennessee has not that spirit of obedience in the body of her people. Why, Sir, only this winter, the other House has been constrained to send a commission to Tennessee to investigate an outrage of unparalleled atrocity growing out of this very rebel spirit. How can the Senate aver that the body of that people, thus saturated with the spirit of disloyalty, thus set on fire and inflamed by this hatred to the Union, have shown to the satisfaction of Congress a proper spirit of obedience? Sir, you err, if you put in your statute-book any such assertion, which is historically untrue. You cannot make it true by your averment. History hereafter, when it takes up its avenging pen, will record the falsehood to your shame.

Mr. Sumner then adduced evidence of the actual spirit in Tennessee, when he was interrupted by Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, who referred to the testimony of generals and civilians. Mr. Sumner continued:—

That does not go to the question whether we can aver that there is a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. No general says there is a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. I challenge the Senator to cite the testimony showing a proper spirit of obedience in the body of her people. Generals testify that in their opinion it would be better to admit representatives from Tennessee on this floor and the floor of the other House. That is another question. Logically, it is not before me yet. I am now speaking of the erroneous character of this preamble. But I understand that the Senator from Illinois is willing to alter his preamble. I believe I am right,—am I not?

Mr. Trumbull. Yes, Sir; I am willing those words should go out.

Mr. Sumner. They ought to go out; and if they do go out, it will make his preamble in this respect superior to that from the House.

But there is another allegation in the Senator’s preamble, which I must say is as erroneous as that on which I have remarked. He there declares, and calls upon us to declare, that the constitution adopted by Tennessee is republican in form. A constitution which disfranchises more than one quarter of its population republican in form! What, Sir, is a republican form of government? It is a government founded on the people and the consent of the governed. Sir, the constitution of Tennessee is not founded on the consent of the governed. It cannot invoke in its behalf that great principle of the Declaration of Independence; therefore it is not republican in form. And when you allege that it is republican in form, permit me to say, you make an allegation false in fact. I do not raise any question of theory, but I submit that a constitution which on its face disfranchises more than one fourth of the citizens cannot be republican in form. You, Sir, will make a terrible mistake, if at this moment of your history you undertake to recognize it as such. You will inflict a blow upon republican institutions. I hope the Senator from Illinois, as he has consented to one amendment, will consent to another, and will strike out the words declaring this constitution republican in form and in harmony with the Constitution of the United States. Do not compel us to aver what history will look at with scorn. Who can doubt, when this war is considered gravely and calmly in the tranquillity of the future, that the historian must bring all these events to the rigid test of principle? Bringing them to such test, it will be impossible to recognize any government like that of Tennessee either as republican in form or in harmony with the National Constitution.

Mr. Trumbull then moved to strike out the first clause objected to, and insert instead, “and has done other acts proclaiming and denoting loyalty,” which was agreed to. Mr. Sumner then moved to strike out the words “republican in form and not inconsistent with the Constitution and laws of the United States,” which was also agreed to.

Mr. Sumner then moved his proviso, already moved in the Louisiana bill and the Colorado bill,[41] that the Act should not take effect “except upon the fundamental condition that within the State there shall be no denial of the electoral franchise, or of any other rights, on account of race or color, but all persons shall be equal before the law.” This was lost,—Yeas 4, Nays 34. The four affirmative votes were, Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Wade, of Ohio, and Mr. Sumner.

The bill passed the Senate,—Yeas 28, Nays 4,—and was approved by the President.[42] The four negative votes were, Mr. Gratz Brown, of Missouri, Mr. Buckalew, of Pennsylvania, Mr. McDougall, of California, and Mr. Sumner. Its preamble had been amended according to Mr. Sumner’s desire, but he was not ready to receive Representatives and Senators from Tennessee except on the fundamental condition moved by him.