3. 1 >3> ^^h^ ^T .>^ iBti Oaff>':^ ? >s^ ^L^ J>^ - ^>^ >» >>■ ^> i<#:#'aJVJ'^S';;:>^o. >>>. >. O' )^ '^e*. > ILIBRARY OF CONGRESS.! ^ ,,_ # ^ ^^y^ LAL^ ^ '■ > > > ^^v l?^> I UNITED STATES OF MERICA. J ^S^? >>.■>» ■ < ■ > ? ^ - . ■'\' ^' "^ » ■>:>*> ' i ^.^^ '1^ ) > ->' J. ■>, -■ :j^ - -^-_^ :^ «►-'"> 5^ -^> >>j> ) ^ >> >.:» > i ^ > ■ ■->.>:"" >> > > 3> J>3> >^ >^ ^ X>JP>:^f^ >^> 3> 3 ►>> :>""> ► :> > > ► 3) :> ^> O ►>?' > »>;-• y 5 > :> xO > >:> > i'^:> s> > -> ^ 3 J> > - > - > > ^ REPRESENTATION IN CONGRESS. SPEECH HON. GEORGE VICKEES OF MARYLAND, HE UNITED STATES SENATE, JUNE 8, 1868. The Senate having under consideration the bill (H. R. No. 1058) to admit the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, Florida, and Alabama to representation in Congress — Mr, VICKERS said : Mr. President: The bill before the Sen- ate is "to admit the States of North Caro- lina, South Carolina, Louisiana, Georgia, and Florida to representation in Congress." The amendment proposed by the committee im- poses two conditions upon the admission of these States. The first is, that they shall ratify what is called the fourteenth amendment of the Constitution; and the second, "that there shall never be in such State any denial or abridgement of the elective franchise to any person by reason of or on account of race or color, excepting Indians not taxed." An amendment has also .been proposed to insert "Alabama" in connection with these States. I have discovered during ray brief experience in the Senate that upon a motion to amend, the merits of the bill are generally debated. My object, therefore, will be to discuss a few of the principles involved in the bill, and also of the reconstruction measures upon which it is founded. The third section of the fourth article of the Constitution authorizes the admission of new States. It does not, as alleged by the Senator from Vermont, [Mr. Edmunds,] as I under- stood him in the discussion of the bill for the admission of Arkansas, authorize Congress to reorganize new States upon republican prin- ciples and give to it plenary and absolute power to effect such organizations. I under- stand the admission of a State to be one with a constitution duly organized by the people of the State before admission is applied for, and the only condition upon which that admission is to be effected, is that the constitution in its principles shall be adapted to the political principles of the Government to which appli- cation is made, being homogeneous to it and formed by the people of the State. The power to admit presupposes a State duly organized before application is made for that admission, not a power to organize or reorganize States, but only a power to admit them when duly organized, if their constitutions are of such a character as should receive the approbation Congress. I have looked in vain for any clause in the Constitution which authorizes Congress to organize or reorganize States, or to impose conditions upon States that apply for admis- sion. If it is not in the simple power to admit, then I suppose it must be claimed under that to guaranty a republican form of government. But the same difficulty is presented here as in the case of admission, for the power to guar- anty presupposes something to be guarantied. It necessarily implies that the constitution which is to be guarantied is in form repub- lican. If a debt is to be guarantied, that debt must have a previous existence. The guarantee can apply only to that which has such existence; and so it is in regard to the guarantee of a republican form of government. The forty-third number of the Federalist, writ- ten by Mr. Madison, page 201, after quoting the provision in the Constitution which author- .VLB izes *.he Legislature to guaranty a republican form of government, says: " In a confederacy founded on republican prin- ciple? itnd composed of republican members, the superintending Government ought clearly to possess authority to defend tho system against aristocratic or monarchical innovations." Again, on page 202 : "But the authority extends no further than to a guaranteeofarepubliean form of government, which supi)oses a preexisting government of the form which is to be guarantied. As long, therefore, as the exist- ing republican forms are continued by the States, tliey are guarantied by the Federal Constitution. Whenever the States may choose to substitute other reimblican forms they have a right to do so and to claim the Federal guarantee for tho latter. The only restriction imposed on them is, that they shall not exchange republican for anti-republican constitu- tions ; a restriction which, it is presumed, will hardly be considered as a grievance." Again, in the thirty-ninth number of the Federalist, page 174, speaking of a republican government, Mr. Madison says: " If we resort, for a criterion, to the different prin- ciples on which different forms of government are established, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on a government which derives all its power directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by per- sons holding their offices during pleasure, for a lim- ited period, or during good behavior." I have also an authority from a distinguished member of the Senate, who has been long in public life, who has age, experience, and judg- ment, and has been associated with some of the most brilliant men in either House of Congress who shed luster upon the history of the country. I refer to a speech made by Hon. Bexjamin F. Wade, Senator from Ohio, on the 7th of March, 186G, upon the question of the admission of Nebraska into the Union. He said : " I do not desire to enter into a discussion ; but I will say that the committee had before them first the constitution of the State of Nebraska, which they examined and found a very liberal, and a very good constitution, analogous to most of the constitu- tionsof the States, indeed almost a copy of the con- stitutions of many of the western States. There is nothing in it to which any gentleman here would object, except that clause which restricts the fran- chise to white persons. That question I do not pro- pose to discuss, because no new light can possibly be thrown upon it." — Congressional Globe, first session Thirty-Ninth Congress, page 4207. Again, in the same speech, he said: "In the next place, as for the Senator from Massachusetts, he challenges mo to show that this constitution is republican in form. Well, sir, it is republican in form, but is not that kind of repub- licanism that I approve of. If I had my way about it nobody would be excluded from the fran- chise that was a male citizen of proper age, let his color be what it would. That would be the color of republicanism that I should like the best; but to deny that, under the Constitution of the United States, this constitution is repuKlican in form, is to deny that we have a rer)ublic at all, for when the Government was formed I believe there was not more than one State at all events that was republican in form unless this is republican in form. It is repub- lican in form and also in substance, for I do not sup- pose (and I am informed that there are not) that there are fifty colored persons in the whole Territory ; but they ought to vote if there was but one." — Ibid., page 4208. We have this high authority as to what con- stitutes a republican government. Here was a constitution presented in 18G6 with a restric- tion confining suffrage to white persons ; but the Senator from Ohio said that such a consti- tution, which prohibited free negroes from exercising the right of suffrage, was a repub- lican constitution ; and further, that there was perhaps but one State when the Union was formed whose constitution did not contain alike prohibition. He said further, that that constitution was not only republican in form, but republican in substance, although by it free negroes were excluded from the right of suflfrage. The policy of Congress in the bills which have been submitted to the consideration of the Senate, in regard to the admission of the southern States, must proceed upon the assump- tion that these States are out of the Union. Then I ask, having once been in the Union, when and how did they get out of it? Was it by the ordinances of secession? Did those ordinances separate or sever them from the Union? I understood the honorable Senator from Michigan, [Mr. Howard,] while discuss- ing this bill on Saturday — and if I am mis- taken in his position he will correct me — to say that the ordinances of secession on the part of these States did forfeit all their polit- ical rights. Mr. HOWARD. Followed by acts of war upon the Government of the United States was the ground upon which I put it. Mr. VICKERS. Followed by acts of war upon the Government of the United States ; and further, that by the conquest of those States all the political rights to which they had pre- viously been entitled were acquired by, and 8 accrued to, the Unit.'d States, who had the right to impose any conditions they pleased upon them. Was that the honorable Senator's posi- tion? Mr. HOWARD. Not exactly; but I will not interrupt you further. Mr. VICKERS. The ordinances of seces- sion of themselves certainly did not take these States out of the Union, because they were of a peaceable character; and if by peaceable measures they could become disunited from the Government, then the Government would not have prosecuted the war which they did upon those States; but it was upon the prin- ciple that the Union was indissoluble. It could not have been successfully waged upon any other principle. The whole North and the border States fought it out on the principle that the Union was not dissolved. If it had been proclaimed at the beginning of the war that these acts of secession, even if followed by acts of hostility, had taken those States out of the Union, the combat never could have been successfully ended. If the war was carried on to preserve the Union, not to restore it, it was upon constitu- tional principles, and the ordinances of seces- sion had no effect in dissolving the connection of these States with the Government of the United States. If it was fought to preserve the Union, I ask how is it possible that the success of our arms could eflPect that which the contest was prosecuted to prevent? Did the triumph of our arms in that great conflict dis- solve the Union? If the ordinances of seces- sion did not, how could the success of our arms produce that result? But I understood the Senator from Michigan to say that the ordinances of secession, followed by acts of war upon the Government, forfeited all rights on the part of those States. Mr. President, was that the view which Congress took in 1861? In the month of July, 1861, after the first battle of Manassas, did the Congress of the United States entertain the opinion that this Union had been dissolved ? No, sir. There was no declaration of war unless the declaration made by Congress of the objects and principles upon which it was prosecuted be considered such. Why, sir, had not this country a very serious difficulty with the Gov- ernment of Great Britain because that Govern- ment acknowledged the southern States to be belligerents ? If they were out of the Union they were a distinct and separate nation, and Great Britain had the right to acknowledge them as belligerents. That difficulty has not yet been fully adjusted. We have denied that they were belligerents or that that Government had any right to recognize them as such. Then upon what clause of the Constitution was this war prosecuted ? Not upon the power to make war, because there was no declaration of it; but upon the power to suppress insur- rection, to execute the laws, and to repel inva- sion. If there is any other portion of the Con- stitution under which this civil conflict was conducted, I have been unable to discover it. If the Union had been dissolved by the ordi- nances of secession would the war have been fought to suppress insurrection or to repel invasion or to execute the laws ? Does not the fact that insurrection and the execution of the laws negative the idea of a dissolution? The declaration which Congress made on the 24th of July, 1861, and which was proposed by the present President of the United States, then a Senator from the State of Tennessee, after the first battle, was in these words : "Resolved by the Senate, That the present deplor- able civil war has been forced upon the country by the disunionists of the southern States now in arms against the constitutional Government, and in arms around the Capital ; that in this national emergency, Congrees, banishing all feeling of mere passion or resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country; that this war is not waged on their part in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of con- quest or subjugation, or purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or established institu- tions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and to preserve the Union with all the dignity, equality, and rights of the several States unimpared; and that as soon as these objects are accomplished the war ought to cease." It was not prosecuted on the part of the United States for conquest or subjugation, not to interfere with any of the established institu- tions of the southern States, but merely to pre- serve the Union and the supremacy of the Con- stitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land ; and it was to enforce the suprem- acy of that law that the war was waged. Law is a rule of action. That rule must have been binding upon the southern States when this declaration was issued, or the supremacy of the law could not have been asserted over them. Then it was to assert the supremacy of this Constitution and of this law over those States that this declaration of Congress was made. It was not for the purpose of subjuga- tion, but merely to maintain and enforce the law, a law which bound the southern States, and was supreme because constitutional. It was for the execution of that law by all the power of the Government that the war was prosecuted, and not for the purpose of subju- gation or of conquest. Congress did not then consider that the Union was dissolved, or that the southern States had forfeited any rights which they had under the Government. On the contrary, they asserted that whenever the law was practically admitted to be supreme the war should cease ; that it was not prose- cuted for the purpose of impairing the dignity, equality, and rights of the southern States. It recognized those States as in the Union, and said that as soon as the war ceased they should have the same dignity, the same equality, and the same rights unimpaired that they had when the conflict commenced. That was the declara- tion Congress made, not only to the southern States, but to the whole nation ; a declaration upon which the war was fought ; and I say it could not have been successfully fought upon any other principles. Mr. President, if this bill passes, v/hat be- comes of the "dignity" of the southern States? Have they the same dignity that New York, Pennsylvania, or other States have in this Union? When they are commanded before their admission to accept the constitutional amendment, and never to alter or change their organic law ; that before they shall be admit- ted here, they shall be deprived and for ever deprived of the right to amend their constitu- tions, so as to make a distinction in regard to suffrage on the ground of race or color — is that the dignity of which the resolution of Congress spoke? Are those the equal rights which the other States possess, and which were meant by Congress when it passed this resolu- tion? Are these the rights which the southern States possessed when the rebellion commenced and when this proclamation of Congress was made? They are asked to come in not upon equal terms, not having the same dignity, not having equality of rights with the other States. I heard it said — I think it was by the honor- able Senator from Ohio, [Mr. Sherman,] when discussing the Arkansas bill — that Arkansas should be admitted because Congress had offered inducements to Arkansas, had made propositions to her. She had complied with all those propositions except one, which had reference to the ratification of the fourteenth article of amendment to the Constitution ; but that, as Arkansas had done all she could by a compliance with the propositions which Con- gress had submitted, therefore she ought to be received. Apply that doctrine to the amend- ment now before the Senate for the admission of Alabama. The amendment proposes to admit that State, not because she has complied with the propositions submitted to her by Con- gress, but because she has not complied with them. Arkansas was to be admitted because she had complied, and Alabama Is now to be admitted because she has not complied. The one complied with the requisitions of the law, and the other has not complied with those requisitions. Then upon what ground can Alabama be admitted ? It must be upon the ground of the absolute right of Congress to admit or reject without reference to the law which was sub- mitted to that State as a condition when she held her election. If she can be admitted because a majority of her registered voters have not ratified the constitution where is the necessity of requiring a majority of the votes cast at the elections in the other States to entitle them to admission? If Congress has the power to say to Alabama, " You shall be admitted because a majority of your people have not ratified the constitution," It has the same right to say to South Carolina and the other States that they shall be admitted although their majorities may or may not be in favor of the constitution. The fact that those States gavea majority for the Constitution does not alter the case nor vary the principle. If they had given majorities against the constitu- tion they could be admitted upon the same principle and with the same propriety that it is now proposed to admit Alabama. It o resolves itself into a question of power, and not of right. If the proposition submitted to Arkansas, as argued by the Senator from Ohio, should have force, should not this proposition, also, submit- ted to the whole country by Congress in 1861, when it declared the purposes for which the war was conducted? If the proposals of Con- gress to Arkansas should have force, should not these proposals submitted not only to the South, but to the nation, be respected? I understood the Senator from Vermont [Mr, Edmunds] to say, in his discussion of the Ark- aiisas bill, that a State had a right to enter into a compact to deprive itself of political power ; that the States could divest themselves of political power by a compact with the Gen- eral Government. But can the people of a State surrender the power to regulate suffrage? Can it be possible that a State can make a com- pact for the surrender of that right which affects the life of the State, which is the life of the State, to the General Government? It was well said by the honorable Senator from Wisconsin that if a State surrenders her power over suffrage she ceases to be republican. But the provisions in the bill now before the Senate in regard to suffrage appl}' not only to the election of President and members of the lower HoHse of Congress, but also to the elec- tion of a State Legislature. Can it be said that Congress has a right to prescribe terms to a State which are to affect her internal condi- tion, her local affairs, which have no connec- tion with the General Government? Can it be that Congress has a right to say to a State that the qualifications of electors for her Legisla- ture shall be of a certain description? Can a State bind her people in future generations to surrender a right which belongs to them as well as to the present generation ? The power over suffrage is inalienable. It is like some other powers which are not the subject of con- tract, and all compacts in reference to them are nugatory and void. It was said by the Senator from Vermont, in the discussion of the Arkansas bill, that a State had a right to surrender a portion of her sov- ereignty in regard to taxation, and also the administration of justice. But could a State government surrender to the General Govern- ment the whole power of taxation over her people? It would be impossible. Could she surrender to the General Government all power over descents ? These are inalienable powers, with which she cannot part. The cases cited by him relate to partial taxation for benefits received and the titles of individuals to certain property, which do not affect the sovereign character of the State. It must be recollected that the General Government is one of delegated limited and defined powers, not a nation as Great Britain or France, Austria or Prussia. It received its existence from the States for the purposes of common defense, general welfare, and the security of liberty, and is hedged in by defined boundaries. It is the creature of the States, made by a surrender of certain of their powers for specific purposes, the proper execution of which was to inure to the mutual benefit of all the States. It can exercise no power nor claim any attributes of sovereignty inconsistent with the independence, dignity, and equality of the States. The idea that the-child and creature of the States and the people of the States, created and brougl^t into being by their coijperation, to preserve, protect, and defend the common interests against foreign nations, and to pro- mote the general welfare, should become the master and monster to absorb the powers of the States, take from them their chief attributes of sovereignty, and degrade them, was never before heard of. In the forty-fifth number of the Federalist, written by Mr. Madison, I find these words : "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitu- tion to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce, with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the sev- eral States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of aCfairs, concern the lives, lib- erties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." Here is a Government of limited powers, expressed, defined, and bounded by provisions of the Constitution, while the powers remaining in the States are unlimited and indefinite : and now this Government of limited and dedned powers seeks to obtrude a constitution upon a 6 State ofunlimited and undefined powers. Could it, be said that under the Articles of Confedera- tion the Congress of the United States would have such a power as is now claimed by this Congress in regard to imposing restrictions' upon a sovereign State? No such power was given to the Confederacy, and no pretense was ever set up that any such had any legal exist- ence. If under the Articles of Confederation no such power existed, does any such exist under the Constitution of the United States? I read again from the forty-fifth number of the Federalist, written by Mr. Madison : "If the new constitution be examined with accu- racy and candor, it will be found that the change which it proposes consists much less in the addition of new powers to tlie Union than in the invigoration of its original powers. The regulation of commerce, it is true, is a new power; buk that seems to be an addition which few oppose, and from which no appre- hensions are entertained. The powers relating to war and peace, armies and fleets, treaties and finance, with the other more considerable powers, are all vested in the existing Congress by the Articles of Confederation. The proposed change does not enlarge these powers; it only substitutes a more effectual mode of administering them. The change relating to taxation maybe regarded as the most important; and yet the present Cofigress have as complete au- thority to require of tire States indefinite supplies of money for the common dEfense and general wel- fare, as the future Congress will have to require them of individual citizens; and the latter will be no more bound than the State? themselves have been to pay the quotas respectively taxed on them." No such power as that claimed by this Con- gress existed in Congress under the Articles of Confederation ; and if any one will take the trouble to read the preamble to those articles and the preamble to the Constitution they will find them substantially the same, with the addition that the Union was to be formed by the adoption of this Constitution. Here is a Constitution having no new powers but that in reference to the regulation of commerce; a Constitution with no enlarged powers ; no additional, except that with reference to com- merce ; a Constitution vvhich merely gave additional vigor to enforce the powers which were in Congress under the Articles of Confed- eration ; and under this Constitution, with such an interpretation as that, we are now called upon to exercise a power not in the Articles of Confederation, not in the Constitution, but which can be found only by some implication which T cannot discover nor understand. In regard to the rights of the States even after their admission, in the case of Pollard's Lessee vs. Hagan, in 3 Howard, which was re- ferred to in the discussion of the Arkansas bill , the Supreme Court of the United States say: "The right of Alabama, and of every other new State, to exercise all the powers of government which belong to and may be exercised by the ori- ginal States of the Union, must be admitted and remain unquestioned, except so far as they are tempo- rarily deprived of control over the public lands. " Whenever the United States shall have fully executed these trusts, the municipal sovereignty of the new States will be complete, throughout their respective borders, and they and the original States will be upon an equal footing in all respects what- ever. AVe therefore think the United States hold the public land within the new States by force of the deed of cession and the statutes connected with, them, and not by any municipal sovereignty which it may be supposed they possess or have reserved by compact with the new States for that particular pur- pose. The provision of the Constitution above re- ferred to shows that no such power can be exercised by the United States within a State. Such a power is not only repugnant to the Constitution, but it is inconsistent with the spirit and intention of the deed of cession." Further, the court say: " It cannot be admitted that the king of Spain could, by treaty or otherwise, impart to the United States any of his royal prerogatives; and much less can it be admitted that they have capacity to receive or power to exorcise them. Every nation acquiring territory by treaty or otherwise, must hold it subject to the constitution and laws of its own Government, and not according to those of the Government ced- ing it," The court say that although the king of Spain had this eminent domain, although he had a right to grant the land under the water, yet, when the United States took the territory they did not take with it such a power over the land covered by the water as that they could patent it ; in other words, that they took it in trust for the people of the United States ; that they could not take this right which the king of Spain had in the soil; they could not grant it; and that the State of Alabama could not be deprived of her use of the navigable waters by a grant of the land. The same doctrine v/as held in Withers vs Buckley, (20 Howard's Report, page 92,) where the Supreme Court in the opinion say : "It was contended that the Mississippi river, and the navigable rivers and waters leading into the same, shall be common highways and forever free as well to the inhabitants of the State of Mississippi as to other citizens of the United States. /" "In considering this act of Congress of March 1, 1S17, it is unnecessary to institute any examination or criticism as to its legitimate meaning, or opera- tion or binding authority, further than to affirm that it could have no effect to restrict the new State in any of its necessary attributes as an independent sovereign government, nor to inhibit or diminish its perfect equality with, the other members of the con- federacy with which it was to be associated. " These conclusions follow from the very nature and object of the confederacy, from the language of the Constitution adopted by the States, and from the rule of interpretation pronounced by this court in the case ofPollard's Lessee against Hagan, 311. p.779." Although the State of Mississippi made a compact with the General Government upon her admission, it was held that such was not valid, no such agreement could be entered into, and that the people of Mississippi had the right to the free waters of the State. Before the General Government can acquire power over the right of sufiFrage in the States there must be a change of the Constitution. It is contrary to the spirit and the genius of our Government that with such limited powers it should have the right to control suffrage or to make a contract for the control of it or its prohibition in any of the States. It has no existing capacity to acquire or use such polit- ical power. It could not obtain by treaty the absolute power to control the soil and waters ceded to it so as to make a condition relating to them in the nature of a compact when pro- viding by law for the admission of Alabama and Mississippi, because the exercise of sucti a power by a Government of limited and spe- cific powers was inconsistent with the nature and rights of State governments as they existed at the time of the formation of the Constitu- tion, and of all such which should be admitted into the Union, and which, of constitutional necessity, must be upon terms of equal dignity and rights. By what authority, express or implied, can it now receive and hold alleged forfeited rights of sovereign States in trust to be dispensed at pleasure on a subsequent rec- ognition of those States? The theory that the General Government can become a trustee of sovereign political State power is a pretension which finds no sanction or color of authority in the letter or spirit of the Constitution, nor in the history of the Government, nor in analogy, nor in any of the discussions of statesmen, com- mentaries, and written dissertations upon our frame of government, nor in any known tra- ditions or speculations prior to the year 1861. As a further illustration of the superiority of the State governments in reference to their reserved power and dignity, and of the proper relation of the General Government to the States, I refer to the forty-fifth number of the Federalist, which declares — " That the State governments will have the advan- tage of the Federal Government, whetherwecomparc them in respect to the immediate dependence of the one on the other; to the weight of personal influence which each side will possess; to the powers respect- ively vested in them; to the predilection and prob- able support of the people; to the disposition and faculty of resisting and frustrating the measures of each other. TheState governments may be regarded as constituent and essential parts of the Federal Government; while the latter is nowise essential to the operation or organization of the former. With- out the intervention of the State Legislatures tho President of the United States cannot be elected at all. They must in all cases have a great share iu his appointment, and will, perhaps, in most cases, of themselves determine it. The Senate will be elected absolutely and exclusively by the State Legislatures. Even the House of Representatives, though drawn immediately from tho people, will be chosen very much under the influence of that class of men whoso influence over the people obtains for themselves an election into the State Legislatures. Thus each of the principal branches of the Federal Government will owe its existence more or less to the favor of the State governments, and must consequently feel a dependence which is much more likely to beget a disposition too obsequious than too overbearing toward them." We have thus presented to us by the able and enlightened pen of Mr. Madison, who assisted to frame the Constitution, who understood thor- oughly the nature and extent of the powers. of the State governments, imparted and reserved, and without whose aid and influence the Con- stitution would probably not have been adopted, a statesman's account of the character, attri- butes, and relations of the States and General Government, and the dependence of the latter for its continued existence upon the former; and now at this enlightened period we liave the extraordinary exhibition of a Goveriuneiit which he foretold would be more likely to become obsequious, arrogating to itself original and sovereign functions and powers over the existence and organic laws of State govern- ments, sitting in judgment upon them, pre- scribing conditions of a fundamental nature upon their constitutions, and attempting to fasten a perpetual restriction upon the right 8 of the people to alter their form of govern- ment ! A pamphlet in reference to the State of South Carolina has been laid upon my table, and as that is one of the States included in the_,present bill, I beg permission to read some extracts from it. It is signed by Wade Hamp- ton, Joseph Daniel Pope, John P. Thomas, Samuel McGowau, F. W. McMaster, and W. M. Shannon, State Central Executive Com- mittee. These gentlemen say: "The State is now sadly impoverished. The prop- erty which her people had in her slaves hns been swept away; it is true, given up by and with the con- sent of the State; nevertheless, that property no longer represents capital and value. The ravages of war, the marks of the conqueror's torch, are every- where visible. The labor of the country is passing from one State to another, and is disturbed and de- moralized. The flower of the Commonwealth has fallen on the battle-field, and the broken fortunes and disappointed hopes of a proud people weigh heavily upon the energies of at least the old and the less san- guine among us. Yet, under these circumstances, affecting enough to touch the sympathies of every manly nature, and in violation, as we conceive it, of the political inheritance of our forefathers, here in South Carolina we are threatened with the onus of a monstrous plan of public spoliation under the guise of an equitable system of taxation. Under the forms of law it is proposed to take away the little that the war has left us. ' Taxation without representation' is combined with ' representation without taxation.' Thus, in South Carolina, it is contemplated to revive the tyranny of the British Parliamentinl776, and to add thereto anew and startling feature," The Constitution which we are now called upon to recognize, and upon which this State is to be admitted, was framed principally by negroes. I read from the same pamphlet : " The constitutional convention was composed of— Whites 47 Colored 74 121 Seventy-four colored pay of taxes $117 93 One alone paying 85 35 Hence seventy-three colored pay 32 58 or less than fifty cents each. Forty-seven whites pay 761 62 One white (conservative) paying 508 85 Hence forty-six whites pay $252 77 ,Gr less than six dollars each. " Of the forty-seven white members, twenty-three pay no tax at all, and of the seventy-four colored members, fifty-nine pay no tax at all. Of the whites, at least one fourth were Government employes and northern adventurers, and of the colored men, a goodly number were from abroad." I have thus given a description of the com- ponent parts of the convention which framed the constitution in South Carolina. Under that constitution they have elected a Legislature thus composed: " The Legislature elected under the new constitu- tion stands thus, exclusive of the districts of Marion and Lancaster, as the Democratic success in these districts is contested : Senate. Whites 20 Colored 12 Total 32 House of Representatives. Whites 37 Colored 86 Total 123 Recapitulation. Whites .57 Colored 98 Whole number 155 or nearly two colored to one white. Ninety-eight colored pay of taxes 8143 74 One colored paying 83 35 Hence ninety-seven colored pay S60 39 or less than seventy cents each. Fifty-seven whites pay §491 49 Eleven couservative whites pay 194 43 Hence forty-six whites pay $297 06 or less than seven dollars each. "Of these fifty-seven white members twenty-four pay no taxes at all. Of these ninety-eight colored members sixty-seven pay no taxes at all. " With regard to the State government : the officers consist of seven whites and one colored ; the colored man having the paid office of least profit. As to taxes: The Governor pays $00 00 The Secretary of State 00 00 The Comptroller General 00 00 The Treasurer 00 00 The Attorney General 00 00 The Superintendent of Education 00 00 The Lieutenant Governor 15 99 The Adjutant and Inspector General 1 00 Making $16 99 " Thus the eight members of the State corps of offi- cers pay on an average each $2 11." Mr. President, I ask if the Senate of the United States will receive a State into this Union on a constitution thus formed and a government thus instituted ? It was ' ' taxation without representation" that produced in a great degree the war of our independence ; it was one of the great burdens and evils com- plained of by our fathers that they were taxed without representation; but here in this Gov- ernment we have not only the people taxed without representation, but we have this griev- ance doubly intensified by having representa- tion virtually without taxation. Could there 9 be a more flagrant wrong upon any free people than we impose by accepting this constitution and form of government? In these southern States, according to their constitutions, the emancipated slaves are entitled to suffrage. They are more numerous in some than the white population ; while in all many of the whites are disfranchised. If I understood the Senator from New Hamp- shire, [Mr. Pattersox,] he said that intelli- gence was necessary for self-government as well as for political government. Now, I ask where is the intelligence upon which this con- stitution of South Carolina is based ? Where is the intelligence that elected her Legislature, composed principally of the recently emanci- pated slaves ? I have always been taught to believe that no republican Government could exist unless it was predicated upon the intelli- gence and virtue of the people. These negroes have had no opportunity to become intelligent. They were born and reared in ignorance, uneducated, unlettered, superstitious, and credulous, and I would almost be inclined to assert that one half of them never heard the word "loyalty" o'r the word " Union" until they were told when these elections were about to bo held. Why, sir, what do they know of the constituents of a republican Government? What about the coordinate departments of Government? the checks and balances that regulate a republic. They comprehend nothing in this respect, and in their present condition are unable to understand even the elementary principles of a republican Government ; and yet we are to admit a State founded by ignor- ance, not by intelligence. I know that " lib- erty and loyalty" is a favorite theme with some gentlemen here ; but are they alone a sufficient foundation for a republic? These people have no intelligence, not sufficient at least to engage in the formation of a constitu- tion or of ordinary legislation. What is our practice when we alter a constitution of one of our State governments? Is it not to elect the most intelligent men in the community? gentle- men of experience and of some political dis- tinction, who have a knowledge of the nature and the workings and operations ofgovernment ; but here we have a constitution formed by men who could not, perhaps, spell the word " con- stitution," and who know nothing of the rudi- ments of a constitution. To show that these people are ignorant, and known to be so, let me read au extract from a recent number of the New York Tribune : "Republicans in all the States had better make up their minds at once that there cannot be two policies in the party at once, one for the North and one for the South. We cannot give the ignorant millions of freedmen in the rebel States the ballot, and the same time refuse it to the educated thou- sands in the North. If we attempt such a jugglery we shall find out that we have not cheated the negro, but ourselves." I read this for the purpose of showing the opinion of one of the leading editors of this country, publishing, perhaps, one of the most influential papers, that these are "ignorant millions." Is it possible that we are to give to these "ignorant millions" the preponder- ance over the white race v/ho own the land and other property of the South, and enable them to impose taxes without limitation. The committee from South Carolina, to whom I have alluded, have given in their appeal the items of taxes to be raised in that State. I will not trouble the Senate by going over the details, but will give the aggregate, which is $2,230,950. These gentlemen say : "The late assessment of real estate throughout tho State, city, town, and country, is S70,507,075, on which a tax levied of three per cent, will raise $2,115,212. If real estate owners are to defray the expenses of the State, it will require more than three percent, to meet them. Formerly it was about one half percent., and that, too, when lands and real estate in general had not depreciated in value." Shall we, by the adoption of this bill, com- mit the whole property of that State, valued at $70,000,000, and the taxes of the State, amounting to $2,000,000, into the hands of these men who pay no taxes comparatively — many of whom pay none absolutely — and who therefore have no interest but to increase taxa- tion and expenditures? But upon what ground do we give to these people the elective franchise? Is it for their benefit? I have always understood that when a franchise of any sort was bestowed, it was intended for the advantage of the persons upon whom it was conferred. But is the elective franchise conferred upx)n these negroes who do not understand it. for their benefit and advan- tage, when they have not the qualifications to 10 exercise it? It cannot be bestowed on them for such a purpose, because they cannot appre- ciate nor properly enjoy it. But is it conferred on them as a punishment of others? If that be the object of it, I submit whether there is any constitutional power to punish any portion of the people of a State by giving the elective franchise to those who are not worthy of it? We ought to confine ourselves as closely to the Constitution as we can ; and upon that subject I have a very high authority which I will read to the Senate. It is a speech made on the 7th of March, 1860, by the Senator from Ohio who now occupies the Chair, in answer to a speech made by Mr. Toombs of Georgia. The debate was as to the right to carry property into the Territories. The Sen- ator from Ohio said : "Take another case, one that is, perhaps, likely to occur alittle sooner. Suppose Brigham Young should come from the State of Utah and bring with him his forty wives, and the State has a law that a man shall have but one wife. Brigham says ' These are my property; yea, more than my property ; yea, they arc forty ribs taken out of my body while I slept; I must bring them in here, or the State of Utah will not be on equal footing with the other States of the Union.' Away with such logic. There is no guarantee in the Constitution of the United States for such a position as that. Our safety, Mr. President, consists in keeping close to the Constitu- tion. AVhatever wo claim let us find the direct war- rant for itthere, orthe necessary implication to carry out some other power that is manifestly granted. The moment we go astray from this we are in the fog; we are in dispute; we endanger the harmony of our action; and it is done in this instance. In this great departure from the early principles of this Government you have involved portions of the na- tion in almost irretrievable hostility to each other. Let us go back to the Constitution and follow it." That is the language of a statesman who has had opportunities to acquire a knowledge of the Constitution and its principles, and these are his doctrines : " Keep close to the Consti- tution." Never was better advice given by any statesman or patriot. The closer we keep to the Constitution the better for the coun- try, for this Government, and for the States. " Whatever we claim, let us fiud the direct warrant for it there." I ask, where is the "direct warrant" for imposing these condi- tions on the southern States? Is there any warrant in the power to admit new States or in the clause relative to the guarantee of a republican form of Government? Is there any power anywhere in the Constitution of the United States to authorize such an assumption of authority as prescribing conditions to a free and sovereign State ? "The moment we go astray from this we are in ihe fog; we are in dispute; we endanger the harmony of our action, and it is done in this instance." Nothing truer was ever said. The very moment we depart from the Constitution, that moment we are in the fog ; the ship of State cannot be steered safely into harbor, but our only safety is in keeping "close to the Con- stitution." As I have stated, negroes cannot properly be associated with the whites in the govern- ments of the States or in the General Govern- ment. They ure of a different race, and their incorporation into government will not pro- duce harmony and concord. Let me read further from the same speech of the Senator from Ohio : " There is one thing more that I will say before I sit down ; but what I am now about to propose is not part and parcel of the Republican i)latform, that I know of. There is in these United States a race of men who aro poor, weak, uninfluential, incapable of taking care of themselves. I mean the free negroes, who are despised by all, repudiated by all ; outcasts upon the face of the earth without any fault of theirs that I know of; but they are the victims of a deep- rooted prejudice, and I do not stand here to argue whether that prejudice be right or wrong. I know such to be the fact. It is there immovable. It is perfectly impossible that these two races can inhabit the same place and be prosperous and happy. I see that this species of population are just as abhorrent to the southern States, and perhaps more so than to the North ; many of those States are now, as I think, passing most unjust laws to drive these men off or to subject them to slavery; they aro flocking now into the free States, and we have objections to them. Now, the proposition is, that this great Government owes it to justice, owes it to those individuals, owes it to itself and to the free white population of tho na- tion, to provide a means whereby this class of unfor- tunate men may emigrate to some congenial clime, where they maybe maintained, to the mutual ben- efit of all, both white and black. This will insure a separation of the races. Let them go into the trop- ics. There, I understand, are vast tracts of the most fertile and inviting lands, in a climateperfectlycon- genial to that class of men, where the negro will be predominant; where his nature seems to be improved, and all his faculties, both mental and physical, are fully developed, and where the white man degener- ates in tho same proportion as the black man pros- pers. Let them go there; let them be separated; it is easy to do it." That was in 18G0, and what was true then is true in 1868. He said that it was " impos- sible that these two races can inhabit the same place and be prosperous and happy;" that n A 11 they are " as abhorrent to the southern States, perhaps more so, than to the North;" "they are the victims of a deep-rooted prejudice ;" "it is there immovable." If this deep-rooted prejudice exists, if it is ineradicable, if the two races cannot live together prosperously and happily, I ask how they can live together when they participate in the same Government, with the same rights and privileges? If they cannot live together in an inferior state when this prejudice exists, howcau they live together amicably, prosperously, and happily when they are to have equal power with the white popula- tion ? Is it not absurd to suppose that they can get along peaceably and harmoniously when enjoying those equal rights and privileges, when there is this deep-rooted prejudice of which the Senator truly spoke ? But I have heard it said that these States are to be admitted because their loyal inhabitants have asked for their admission, that they have complied with the requisitions of Congress by forming constitutions and electing State Legis- latures, that these loyal citizens of the South now come and ask for admission. When did the negroes of the South become loyal? Was it during the war? Did they not labor to sup- port not only the armies of the rebellion, but the families of those who were engaged in it? They knew nothing about loyalty except to their owners. They were loyal to them, and labored with industry and fidelity, and by their efforts the a,rmies of the South were par- tially sustained. How, then, can it be said that these are loyal people now when they were neither loyal nor disloyal during the war ; or if they had any loyalty, it was to the South. Mr. President, a great responsibility devolves upon the Congress of the United States in reference to the matter under consideration. Perhaps no subject ever was presented to any deliberative body of such magnitude and in- volving such momentous consequences as this. It affects, or may affect the interests, the lives, and the property of millions of persons ; and the consequences will be with this Congress. Daniel Webster was once asked what was the greatest thought of which the human mind had ever conceived, and his reply was "individual responsibility." It reaches through the past, comprehends the present, and in it3 conse- quences may extend into the future. That responsibility is now upon the Senate of the United States and cannot be avoided ; neither can it be divided. It is indivisible in its nature. Every Senator who supports this measure will be answerable for the full and aggregate amount and weight of the responsi- bility which will grow out of it, if it shall prove disastrous and appalling. In my opinion this subject rises infinitely higher than all party considerations. It is one of such a character that party spirit ought not to approach it. It is a great constitutional question, such as no country ever had to con- sider. We can get no precedent from the his- tory of other countries and none from the annals of our own ; but we are to act upon it accord- ing to the lights we have before us and in view of its tremendous import and immensity. I contend that this bill ought to be post- poned, because it cannot be a permanent meas- ure. It is impossible in the nature of things that it can produce peace, harmony, and pros- perity in the South. I suppose no Senator who looks at it can fairly conclude that this measure can be permanent in its character and pro- ductive of happy and fortunate results. I know the question is a troublesome one to Congress, and I have no doubt they are anxious to dis- pose of it. I am as anxious as any member of the Senate ; but when it is disposed of let it be once and forever. If we pass this bill who will answer for the consequences that may fol- low if a conflict should ensue between the races ? Senators, it is not a permanent meas- ure ; it is not one fraught with good, but it may be with evil. I hope it is not. I earnestly hope that it may redound to the interests of my country ; but I can see nothing but trouble, strife, and calamity before us if it is forced upon the South. You had better defer it until a more auspicious period. Deal not harshly with these people. If we attempt to bring them again into political and personal fellowship, let us do it with fraternal affection and interest, and not in a manner calculated to embitter that relation and to keep alive the remembrance of the dreadful conflict through which they have passed. Let us not extend the right arm of friendship and Invite them to our embrace, and at the same moment \ 12 denounce thera n3 rebels and traitors — words which were opprobrioiisly applied to our fathers who won our independence, and which can 'never be used to promote unity and concord. We have decided by the wager of battle that we cannot be separated, but that we have a common country, Constitution, and destiny ; aiul have been joined together by political ties which can never be broken ; should we not resolve to live in unity and peace? Let us remember that these brethren of the South have passed through ordeals of fire and sword ; of blood, havoc, and ruin ; their bright- est jewels have been destroyed and lost ; their fondest hopes blighted and gone ; husbands, sons, wives, and daughters involved in a com- mon calamity ; that the passions have been lashed by events into the fury of the whirl- wind, and hate and anger inflamed by the torch and ravages of war ; that want and suifer- inghave succeeded plenty and luxury ; poverty, humiliation, and sorrow have entered the households where competency and comfort and happiness held sway. Let the softening hand of time be laid upon that unhappy and desolated country. Let the passions and ani- mosities engendered by the war have time to ebb and subside, and at a season not far dis- tant these people will be able to accommodate themselves to their new condition, and return in peace, and unite harmoniously with the Congress of the United States, under consti- tutions framed by themselves, in that spirit of justice and liberality which the progress and spirit of the age will prompt and justify, and which will place thera upon terras of perfect equality and dignity with the other States of the Union. M, I >^/^^?rv^*!^CC^^A^^ pSIUs^.' '^rW .^.■a;i#|R^^^ v_^?,RiQ/r^^^.:r 'mr^-'"'^^^^! ,^A^;^^^^^ ■',^/\/ " / ^ A/1/ 1155^ "■.- ^ ■ '- , ^« ^ v^/v ^ 1km >«'a> MM s^^^mh^'^c:-' P!-^^>.o::^^^^^ O^ft^Afi ^g'3^^>^-;ja^j W^I^^&^W^m^^ '^,':^'o.r::c^^^^ ly^^^'^C ■mfff^. :^*^^ftg ..-^^?^0r' ^^^^nA^:^' iS^^;^^-' ^nMM«r V^7^*y' . ,r^rA' 'n; u*-":^^^^:^V^S^^^.?:^.*«A».««>^^'^"^^ ?^:s?*^^c^j:::«6§?ii^