You are earnestly asked to hand this after reading to
some other person who will also give it
careful consideration.
ADDRESS
BY THE
Hon. GEO. S. BOUTWELL
DELIVERED IN
Faneuil Hall, Boston, January i, I9°3
AT THE CELEBRATION OF THE
Fortieth Anniversary
OF THE
Emancipation Proclamation
BY THE COLORED PEOPLE
OF BOSTON AND
VICINITY.
after the delivery of the speech
it was unanimously voted
"That the thanks of the audience be given to Gov.
Boutwell for his address, and that it be printed.
W. H. Scott, Chairman."
A.DDHBSS
Friends and Fellow-Citizens: We have come together to
commemorate and to celebrate as well as we may, a great event
in American history. If we give rank, as we must give rank to
the Declaration of Independence, it follows that the Proclama¬
tion of Emancipation of Jan. 1, 1863, was the second important-
step by which America, in the lead of the world, moved out
from the despotism of dynastic institutions and the tyranny of
man over man into a higher civilization which recognizes equal¬
ity of rights in men, equality of opportunity, equality in honor
whenever and wherever there is equality in character and attain¬
ments.
Thus Jefferson and Lincoln are united as historical per¬
sonages, and thus are they kindred in the measure of service
rendered to mankind. Lincoln was a devoted and devout ad¬
mirer of the principles embodied in the Declaration of Inde¬
pendence, and Jefferson's remarks upon slavery are a sufficient
warrant for the Proclamation of Emancipation, The Proclama¬
tion was but the outcome of the principles announced in the
Declaration of Independence.
The emancipation of the American Negro was not due to
a policy that had been considered and sanctioned by the Amer¬
ican people. It was an event in a series of events, of which the
provisions in the constitution that were designed for the protec¬
tion of slavery must ever be considered the chief. The system
of taxation, the system of representation, the duty of returning
fugitives from service, made the question national, and trans¬
ferred the contest from individual States to the general Govern¬
ment.
If the slaves in the States had been treated as property in
the States, and as property only, there would have been no
adequate reason for limiting slavery by astronomical lines, or
for excluding it from the Territories of the Union. The contest
over the Missouri compromise of 1820, the organization of anti-
slavery societies throughout the North, the bitter debates in
Congress running through a half-century, the compromise meas¬
ures of 1850, the Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court,
the Kansas-Nebraska act of 1854, the bloody strife on the plains
of Kansas, the mobs that came into existence for the protection
or the rescue of fugitive slaves, the enactment of personal lib¬
erty bills, the creation of "Uncle Tom's Cabin," the large cir¬
culation and reading that were vouchsafed to that production of
genius, the formation of political parties dedicated to the abo¬
lition of slavery or to the limitation of its powers, the surrender
by Southern men of seats in the cabinet, in the Senate, in the
House of Representatives, the secession of States, the vain at¬
tempts to preserve slavery and to save the Union, the Civil
War freighted with horrors and illustrated by deeds of heroism,
the final surrender at Appomattox, the proclamations of Sep¬
tember, 1862, and January, 1863, were all, all the natural re¬
sults of the attempt to strengthen, to preserve, to perpetuate
the institution of slavery in America.
Thus it appears from this review that the abolition of Ne¬
gro slavery in America was not due to a humanitarian policy in
the people and Government of the country. Or rather it may
be said that your liberties are due to the attempt of your enemies
to make enforced servitude the perpetual inheritance of your
race.
Discarding all else, it is to be said that the war and the
extremity of the war in its demand for men and money consti¬
tute the basis on which the Proclamation was made to rest.
The choicest paragraph in the Proclamation originated
with Secretary Chase, and, as written, it was in these words:—
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice [and
of duty demanded by the circumstances of the country] I in¬
voke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the blessing of
Almighty God.
Mr. Lincoln omitted the words in brackets and inserted
these : Warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity.
Thus did Mr. Lincoln discard every idea involved in the
generality of language used by Mr. Chase.
The scope of the Proclamation was limited by the terms
employed and by the theory on which it was framed to the
States and parts of States then engaged in the Rebellion. The
issuance of the Proclamation involved questions of signal im-
porance. First- of all, it was uncertain whether the Supreme
Court would recognize the validity of the Proclamation. It waa
4
thought by some that the court would hold that the President
had no right to deprive citizens of the United States of their
property except by due process of law.
By others it was contended that the court would decline
to express any opinion beyond the declaration that the question
was a political military question which the President of the
United States as commander-in-chief of the army could dispose
of Upon his own judgment as -to what was necessary and expe¬
dient in the prosecution of the war.
Inasmuch as the Proclamation extended only to States and
parts of States that were engaged in rebellion on the first day
of January, 1863, there remained a line of States extending
from Delaware to Missouri, in which slavery existed upon the
basis of the constitution. It was apparent in the then existing
condition of things .that the Government might be re-established
with a line of free States south of the Potomac and on the Gulf
of Mexico, a line of slave States from Deleware to Missouri and
a line of free States north of the Ohio.
That arrangement could not be accepted as a permanent
arrangement for the distribution of power in the country. This
condition of things gave strength to the project for the abolition
of slavery by an amendment to the constitution. Hence the
thirteenth amendment was framed under the advice, and, it
may be said, under the direction of President Lincoln, and the
passage of the proposed amendment was urged and pressed by
all the means at the command of the Administration.
It was not, however, until the election of 1864 had given
to the Administration a two-thirds vote in the House of Repre¬
sentatives that the passage of the proposed amendment was
made certain. When the Thirty-Eighth Congress assembled at
the second session a number of Democrats accepted the situation
and voted for the resolution by which the proposed amendment
was submitted to the States. Its ratification by the States was.
announced the 18th of December, 1865, eight months after the
death of Mr. Lincoln.
The adoption of the thirteenth amendment did not dispose
of all the difficulties that existed growing out of the forcible
abolition of slavery in the States engaged in the Rebellion. By
the constitution the slaves had been represented in the propor¬
tion of three to five, but by the thirteenth amendment the per¬
sons who had been in slavery were counted as free men for the
purpose- of representation, and yet there was no security that
5
they would be entitled to the right to vote in the States where
they dwelt.
Assuming that the right to vote would not be extended
to those who had been in slavery, it followed that the whites in
the slave States, by the abolition of slavery, would be entitled
to about thirty representatives in Congress and about thirty
electors of President, in addition to the number which wouid
have been assigned to them if the system of slavery had bcnn
continued.
Ilence Congress was forced to consider the means by which
that inequality could be avoided, and hence the fourteenth
amendment. By that amendment it was declared that if the
right of suffrage was denied or abriged to any of the male in¬
habitants of any State who were twenty-one years of age and
citizens of the United States, the basis of representation should
be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male
citizens should bear to the whole number of male citizens
twenty-one years of age in such State.
When the fourteenth amendment was proposed to the Leg¬
islatures of the several States every effort to secure a declaration
by Congress in favor of universal suffrage had been a failure.
Upon the question) of the admission of Tennessee to the Union
in March, 1866, only twelve votes were given in the House of
Representatives for the extension of the right of suffrage to the
colored inhabitants of that State. In the month of February,
1866, upon the question of extending the right of suffrage to
all the male inhabitants of the country twenty-one years of age,
a majority of the committee of fifteen that finally reported the
fourteenth amendment opposed the motion.
The limitation of elective and representative power in the
country, for which provision was made in the fourteenth amend¬
ment, was designed to operate as a penalty upon the States that
should either deny the right or limit- its exercise to a portion of
its male inhabitants. It was not until the opening of the year
1869 that there was an opportunity for the extension of the
right of suffrage by a constitutional amendment to the male
inhabitants of the country upon a basis of equality.
By the fifteenth amendment it was declared that the
"right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be de¬
nied or abriged by the United States or by any State 1 on ac¬
count of race, color or previous condition! of servitude.' " This
amendment does not prevent distinctions among citizens for
6
other reasons, such as educational qualifications and the posses¬
sion of property. An amendment which might have prevented
distinctions for those reasons was at the time impracticable and
it was understood by those who favored the fifteenth amend¬
ment that such distinctions might be made and that probably
they would be made.
At that time a distinction existed in Massachusetts on the
basis of learning, and in Rhode Island a distinction existed on
the ground of property. The fifteenth amendment, therefore,
went as far as was possible at the time, and probably as far as
would be possible at the present time.
There are peculiarities in the history of the fifteenth
amendment which deserve notice. The amendment was not
adopted by Congress on the ground that the members of Con¬
gress were ardently in favor of the policy. There was a small
number of persons in Congress, less than a majority, and proba¬
bly less than a majority of the Republican party, who were in
favor of the amendment upon principle and for public political
reasons. Others were indifferent and some in the Republican
party were opposed to the proposition. The strength of the
proposition was to be found in this condition of public opinion.
In every congressional district in the old free States there
were men who favored the extension of the right of suffrage to
the Negro population, and who would have opposed the election
of a person to Congress who favored the exclusion of the Negro
race. They were men of positive opinions, and who would act
resolutely upon their opinions. On the other hand, a vote for
the amendment would not arouse any active opposition in any
district of the old free States.
Hence it happened that votes in Congress were given in
favor of the amendment by men who themselves did not ap¬
prove the measure, but who, acting with reference to their
fortunes as politicians, voted for a measure which they did not
approve. The same influences operated in the States of the
North. In most of the States the number of Negroes who might
be entitled to vote was not large, and it was understood that the
adoption of the amendment would not produce any confusion
in the old free States nor any change of party strength.
It is, therefore, to be said that the passage of the proposi¬
tion to amend the constitution giving equality of rights to citi¬
zens was the result of events rather than the result of a settled
purpose on the part of the people to grant the elecive franchise
7
to the Negro population of the country. Events were the mas¬
ters of the politicians and events were the saviors in a political
aspect of the Negro race of the country.
However the wisdom of the fifteenth amendment may be
denied or its policy criticised, the foundation was laid in that
amendment for the security of the Negro race in the United
States, and for their advancement ultimately to places of power
corresponding to the degree of power enjoyed by the white race
of the country.
From what has been said the inference might be drawn
that the Negro race of the country is not under any obligation
to the Republican party or to the nation. This view would be
an error. Immediately upon the fall of the Confederacy at
Appomattox the point was raised by the Democrats, led by
Alexander H. Stevens and actively supported by President
Johnson, with the concurrence of a small minority of Republi¬
cans, that the States which had been engaged in the Rebellion
"had never been separated from the Union, and that the individ¬
ual States could return, take their places in Congress, and re¬
establish their own governments, without the interference of
those States that had remained loyal.
This view of the rights of the States would have made it
impossible for the .National Government to control the elective
franchise. The Republican party, by a very large majority,
maintained the position that the loyal States could dictate the
terms on which the States that had been engaged in the Rebel¬
lion could return to their places in the Union. On this issue
the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth amendments were made
to rest, and through their adoption, the Negro population, in
respect to recognized rights under the constitution were placed
upon a footing with the white population.
It is manifest that if the Republican party had yielded to
the claims of the Democrats and of President Johnson, the Ne-
gro; population would have been left, in the several States, sub¬
ject to the control of those that the respective States chose to
accept as electors. It is at this point that the gratitude of the
Negro race is due to the Republican party of Mr. Lincoln's and
General Grant's Administrations, and to the nation as a whole.
,. i The -history of the work performed by the Republican
party and by the Administrations of Lincoln and Grant does
net end with the abolition of slavery in the United States, and
the security of the Negro population as a part of the elective
8
force of the country.
During those Administrations, and through their influence,
slavery was abolished in the colonies of Spain, in the colonies
of Portugal and in the empire of Brazil. Those movements
ended the traffic in slaves oni the ocean and on the continent of
Africa. That, in brief, is the record made by the first two
Republican Administrations.
If the Republican party of today is yet faithful to the
policy of the first two Administrations, it is entitled to your
support, and the question which you are called upon to examine
is involved in that proposition. In that aspect of the question,
you cannot do otherwise than investigate the proceedings of the
government under the lead of the Republican party of 1896
in Hawaii, Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands. If, upon
investigation, you reach the conclusion that the Republican
party has repudiated its early doctrines and is, in fact, re¬
establishing a policy in the islands not different from that
which existed in the slave States previous to 1863—saving
only that the sale of human beings has not been authorized,
although it has been tolerated in at least one of. the Philippine
Islands.
You are then to consider the course to be pursued by the
Negro population of the country. You are to reach a conclu¬
sion whether the large body of voters that you represent shall
co-operate with the Republican party in the work of enslaving
millions of the human race, or whether they shall accept the
example of Lincoln and Grant and co-operate with those who
are in favor of abandoning the policy of subjugation.
The Negro population of the United States is not less than
10,000,000 strong—one-eighth of the total population of the
country. This population is so distributed in several of the
Republican States that there is reasonable ground for the belief
that the politics of several States would be changed, should the
Negro voters desert the Republican party and co-operate with
the Democratic party, if that party should declare itself, without
reserve, in favor of giving the Philippine Islands entire free¬
dom.
It may be assumed that you have 3,000 votes in Connec¬
ticut, 13,000 in Illinois, 12,000 in Indiana, 15,000 in New
Jersey, 20,000 in Ohio, 20,000 in New York and 30,000 in the
State of Pennsylvania. Should these immense forces be wielded
against the Republican party the probability is that, with the
9
accumulations from Republicans who dissent from the policy of
the party, the electoral vote and the congressional vote might
be changed in some of these States.
The objection may arise, and probably it will be made on
the part of those who advocate the continued support of the
Republican party by the Negroes of the country, that a combi¬
nation of one class of people to secure a certain result in politics
and government has in it the quality of impropriety, if not of
wrong-doing. All rests upon one pre-existing fact:
If a body of people, whether they are Negroes or Scandi¬
navians, are of opinion that a certain public policy is pernicious
or criminal, they can properly co-operate to bring that policy
to an end, assuming, always, that neither bribery nor threats
are employed. The observation of Burke is always worthy of
acceptance: "When bad men combine the good must associate,
else they fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible
struggle."
In no other way can an evil policy be overthrown, in no
other way can wise and proper policies be established.
Assuming that you are prepared to accept the suggestion
that I now make, I offer a further consideration which is en¬
tirely appropriate. Should you be able, by your political action
in regard to the Philippine Islands, to bring the present policy
to an end, you will have so established your power in the coun¬
try, in the opinion of the body of voters and of the politicians,
as to give you consideration in reference to your own rights in
every State in the Union, South as well as North. By this
policy and action, the white population of every State in the
Union will be called to consider the question whether they can
afford to alienate a tenth part of the population of the country.
If you have any doubt as to the injustice of the power we
are exercising in the Philippine Islands, or if you have any
doubt as to the wickedness of the manner in which that power
is exercised, you should read the report made by Storey and
Codman, in which the enormities in crime perpetrated by the
army in the Philippine Islands are set forth with precision.
Now, after many weeks of opportunity, the Administration has
not been able to impair in any essential particular the truthful¬
ness of the statements made by those gentlemen.
In the Philippine Islands the right of trial by jury does
not exist; relief from improper and unjust imprisonment by a
writ of habeas corpus is denied; men are tried for criminal
10
offences, including murder, "by a judge who is not even bound
by bis oatb to support the Constitution of the United States.
In fact, the Constitution of the United States, which by a
general statute enacted in 1873 was extended over the Terri¬
tories, has been repudiated in the first section of the act for the
government of the Philippine Islands.
Your fortunes are involved in this struggle. Unless the
freedom of the Philippine Islands shall be secured, there can
be neither power nor justice for you in America. The Repub¬
lican party is indifferent to your fate. One Republican senator
has become responsible for the opinion that the abolition of
slavery was a mistake. Whether he was wise or unwise in the
expression, he is a consistent Republican of the party of Pres¬
idents McKinley and Roosevelt. Unless the abolition of slavery
in America was a mistake, the seizure of 10,000,000 unoffend¬
ing inhabitants of the Philippines was a crime; and that crime
was darkened and deepened by the policy of reconcentrati on,
by_torture made fatal by intensity, by military orders for the
indiscriminate slaughter of half-grown boys, by the burning of
homes and the waste of cultivated fields, followed by famine,,
without hope, and by pestilence, for which there was no relief.
The Republican party is no longer the friend of the Afri¬
can race, but the time has come when you are in possession of
power. By the proper use of that power you can create friends.
Submit to the laws as they exist, invoke the judgment of the
courts when attempts are made to deprive your race of equal
rights. Do not allow yourselves to be misled by the scheme of
the Administration that you may be transported to Hawaii to
supply the deficiency of labor caused by the exclusion of the
Chinese. It is an invitation to exchange freedom for serfdom.
Everywhere and under all circumstances it is your duty
to maintain the doctrine that whatever rights appertain to any
man, or to any class of men, are equally and alike the possession
of all other men.
Your fate in America is involved in the fate of the Phil¬
ippine Islands, and it may be that the fate of the Philippine
Islands is in your hands. The Republican party cannot main¬
tain the principles of freedom in America and at the same time
set up a government of tyranny in Asia.
My counsel is this: You will assume your equality with
the white population in all the departments of industry and in
all the walks of cultivated life. With such examples as Fred
11
Douglass and Booker Washington you can contend with confi¬
dence and with a fair degree of hope. It is not a wild vision
that the first orator and the first musician of the twentieth cen¬
tury will have come out of the Negro race. In the arena of
peaceful political strife I advise you to co-operate actively with
those who demand the freedom of the Philippines. This action
is the best security for the free and full enjoyment of your own
rights in America, and it is an opportunity to be prized by which
you may show your devotion to liberty as a common right and
not as a mere privilege which some only may possess and enjoy.
12