Yale University Lib rary 39002053501418 YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY SPEECH * HON. JOHN M. BROOMALL, OF PENNSYLVANIA, THE CIVIL RIGHTS BILL; DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 8, 18G6. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1866. RIGHTS OF CITIZENS. The House having under consideration tfie hill to protect all persons in the United States in "heir civil rights and to furnish the means for their vindica tion- Mr. BROOMALL said: Mr. Speaker : In some remarks which I had the honor to offer in the House a few weeks ago I said that "the Government of the United States above all other duties owes it to itself and to humanity to guard the rights of those who in the midst of rebellion periled their lives and fortunes for its honor, of whatever caste or lineage they be," and "that no system of reconstruction ought to be considered unless it shall effectually guaranty the rights of the Union men of the South." Everything that has transpired since then, from all departments of the Government, sat isfies me that these, our southern allies in the war waged to preserve the existence of the na tion, have nothing to trust to except the integ rity and firmness of the Union maj'ority in the two Houses of Congress. That majority, through its appropriate committees, presents the bill un der consideration as one of the measures on which it relies to carry out its great and patriotic purpose. The object of the bill is twofold — to declare who are citizens of the United States, and to secure them the protection which every Gov ernment owes to its citizens. It will hardly be said that these are not proper subjects of legislation, and especially the latter one. If the same thing has not been attempted before, it was partly because there never before was the same necessity, and partly because of the long continued and remarkable forbearance of those for whom what necessity there was wasted. The first provision of the bill declares that all persons born in the United States and not jubject to any foreign Power are citizens of the United States. As a positive enactment this Would hardly seem necessary. Even as a dec laration of existing law, a proposition that at most can only be said to embrace the true meaning of the word "citizen" would seem to find its more appropriate place in the element ary treatises upon law rather than upon the statuterbooks. What is a citizen but a human being who by reason of his being born within the jurisdiction of a Government owes alle giance to that Government? But modern Democratic political science dis covered and promulgated the dogma'that this is the country of the white man, and that no other man has rights here which the white man is bound to respect. When, therefore, this pe culiar science culminated in an attempt to overthrow the Government, and was itself overthrown, it is as well that a return to the principles of the founders of the Government should be made manifest to future generations by a declaration upon the statute-books. The objection to this part of the bill is that it calls the negro a citizen. And why should it not? Civilized man must of necessity be a citizen somewhere. He must owe allegiance to some Government. There is some spot upon the earth's surface upon which it is possible for him to commit treason. Now, the negro in America is civilized. Ask the minister of re ligion where he finds the most sincere devotion, the school-teacher where he finds the greatest desire to learn. Ask the very southern rebel, whose representatives are most earnest against the bill, where he found the most implicit and unquestioning obedience to law and order under circumstances hardly justifying the hope of obedience to law and order. _ The American negro is civilized, and of neces sity must owe allegiance somewhere. And until the opponents of this measure can point to the foreign Power to whichhe is subject, the African potentate to whom after five generations of absence he still owes allegiance, I will assume him to be'what the bill calls him, a citizeaof the country in which he was born. Let those who say with the air of such om nipotent authority that this is the country of the white man, explain how it happened that the Ruler of the universe suffered it lo be oc cupied by the red man for countless ages of the past. And then let them say, if they know, whether it may not be His purpose to suffer some small portion of it to be occupied by the black man for countless ages of the future. No, our country is the country of its inhabitants. Our Government is the Government of the governed. But there is another class of persons born within the limits of the United States whose status requires fixing by legislation. I allude to those who took upon themselves the respon sibilities and duties of allegiance to another power ; who forswore their citizenship and allegiance. There is nothing in our form of government, nothing in our institutions that contradicts the right of expatriation. True, that right is not anywhere expressly granted, but our naturalization laws are founded upon the idea that such right is inher/ent in man, and I believe this is true. Most certainly if the confederation had sus tained itself its citizens would have ceased to be citizens of the United States, and by a pro cess that would have related back to the very commencement of the rebellion. Now, the fact that it did not sustain itself was the result of no merit of these men. They did all they could to succeed. As far as intention is con cerned their condition of expatriation is com plete. Why may not the Government take them at their word and assume that the posi tion they took upon themselves is their true one, that they are no longer entitled to the ben efits of the allegiance they forswore? Why may they not be estopped from contradicting their own oaths, from pleading their own crime? If they are citizens they have forfeited their lives to the outraged laws of their country ; out of humanity, then, why may we not hold them to have lostthat dangerons characteristic ? Look at the question in another point of view. By the doctrine laid down by all the writers upon public law, so clearly expressed by the Supreme Court in the prize cases, 2 Black, 673, in civil wars the belligerent that claims sover eign rights may in all cases elect between the civil law and the laws of war, may treat its opponents either as citizens or public enemies, may hang for treason or hold as prisoners of war. The unavoidable consequence of this doc trine is that if that belligerent shall be the vic tor, the question of the citizenship of its oppo nents is for it to decide. If I am right in all this, then it is for the Gov ernment to elect whether or not it will hereafter treat the rebels as citizens or banish them as alien enemies. Now, if this were the mere de cision of a right, it would be within the province o&»the courts of justice ; if it were the an- nouncementof a great fact, the Executive might do ife but being the exercise of a discretion, and the granting or withholding of a favor, nothing but the supreme law-making power can per form the function. A question might naturally arise whether we ought again to trust those who have once be» trayed us ; whether we ought to give them the benefits of a compact they have once repudi ated. Yet the spirit of forgiveness is so in herent in the American bosom that no party in the country proposes to withhold from these people the advantages of citizenship ; and this is saying much. With a debt that may require centuries to pay, with so many living and mu tilated witnesses of the horrors of war, with so many saddened homes, so many of the wid owed and fatherless pleading for justice, for ret ribution, if not revenge, it speaks well for the cause of Christian civilization in America that no party in the country proposes to deprive the authors of such immeasurable calamity of the advantages of citizenship. But tfe election must be made. Some pub lic legislative act is necessary to show the world that those who have forfeited all claims upon the Government are not to be held to the strict rigor of the law of their own invoking, the de cision of the tribunal of their own choosing j that they are to be welcomed back as the prod igal son whenever they are ready to return as the prodigal son. The act under consideration makes that elec tion. Its terms embrace the • late rebels, and it gives them the rights, privileges, and immu nities of citizens of the United States, though it does not propose to exempt them from pun ishment for their past crimes. But it is said by- the minority in this bodj that we have no right under the Constitution to pass the law ; that the General Government was never intended to be intrusted with the power to protect individual persons ; that that was to be left to the States. What, then, does the preamble mean ? An ordinary reader would look there for the object and intent of the document: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the eommon de fense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." This certainly has the appearance of being designed to protect the rights of individuals within as well as beyond the jurisdiction of the Government. Yet, strange as it may seem, while the Government has been always held competent to protect its meanest citizen within the domain of any European potentate, ti has been considered powerless to guard the citizen of Pennsylvania against the illegal arrest, under color of State law, of the most subordinate offi cer of the most obscure municipality in Vir ginia. Strange as it may seem, while the Gov ernment of the United States has been held competent to protect the lowest menial of the minister of the most obscure prince in Europe. anywhere between the two oceans, and 'from the Lakes to the Gulf, it had no power to pro tect the personal liberty of the agent of the State of Massachusetts in the city of Charles ton, or enable him to sue in the State courts. If the Government has not the power, by 'impropriate legislation, to protect its citizens within as well as without its jurisdiction, I would like to know what the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution means when it empowers Congress to provide for the gen eral welfare of the United States, and when it empowers Congress to pass all laws necessary for that purpose. Does it not pertain to the " general welfare " that " the citizens of each State," in the language of the second section of the fourth article of that instrument, "shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?" But throwing aside the letter of the Consti tution, there are characteristics of Governments that belong to them as .such, without which they would cease to be Governments. The rights and duties of allegiance and protection are corresponding rights and duties. Upon what ever square foot of the earth' s surface I owe allegiance to my country, there it owes me pro tection, and wherever my Government owes me no protection I owe it no allegiance and can commit no treason. In the very nature of things this position is incapable of being over thrown, and while it stands it demonstrates not only the right but the duty to protect American citizens by appropriate legislation. An unexpected argument has been adduced by the leader of the Opposition in this body, (Mr. Rogers,] that this bill will permit the negro to vote in the several States of the Union. Kit is rather ludicrous than otherwise that the committee having it in charge have agreed to put in a provision to quiet the alarm of the op posite party. I I am willing to concede of late that if the Democrats are to be kept above the negroes in the social scale there must be some discriminating legislation in their favor. I used to think the white man a better man than the negro, but an experience of three winters south of Mason and Dixon's line has partly satisfied me that this depends somewhat upon the white man's politics. Does not the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers] know that the Constitution of the United States fixes the qualification of voters among its citizens? Does be not know that without a change of that instrument Con gress cannot extend the right of suffrage in the States ? The bill declares women and children citizens, yet it did not occur to the gentle'man that this might make them electors. Let me now ask our opponents ' upon this floor, and in other departments of the Gov eminent, how they propose to protect the citi zens of the United States within the domain of the United States. They will surely not deny the duty. They will not say-that we have a Government for the purpose of allegiance and for the punishment of treason, but none for the protection of the citizen. Will they say that the rights of citizens of the United States can be safely intrusted to the governments of the several States ? If this were true it might afford some excuse for neglecting to provide the appropriate legisla tion, but none for refusing it. But it is not true. For thirty years prior to 1860 everybody knows that the rights and 'immunities of citi zens were habitually and systematically denied in certain States to the citizens of other States : the right of speech, the right of transit, the right of domicil, the right to sue, the writ of habeas corpus, and the right of petition. It will be said that this state of things was owing to the existence of what we politely called "the peculiar institution," but will it be said that with the disappearance of the peculiar institu tion this state of things also disappeared ? Within the jurisdiction of the United States there never was a time when more black free men, citizens of the United States, were en slaved without even the color of law, and denied the right to process of law to test the validity of the claim of those who pretend to own them. There never was a time when more black freemen, citizens of the United States, were kidnapped and sold into other countries against positive law, and yet denied the process of law to enforce the right and to avenge the wrong. But the opponents of this bill have one answer to all appeals for justice against this species of wrong — an answer furnished from the political speeches of the judges of the Supreme Court of the United States on the occasion of their assembling to celebrate the election of James Buchanan, called in mockery their decision in the Dred Scott case: "A negro has no rights which a white man is bound to respect." As my object is to satisfy our political oppo nents of the necessity of the pending measure, I choose to admitthe force of this answer. Yetl might say with truth that American statesman ship could go no further in that direction ; that even Democracy could assume no meaner posi tion. But are the evils complained of limited to the black man? While I would blush if I could admit that that fact, if acknowledged, would in any degree lessen the necessity for the passage of this law, I nevertheless maintain and hold myself ready to prove that white men, citizens of the United States, have been, and are now being- punished under color of State laws for refusingto commit treason against the United States at the bidding of Democratic candidates for the Pres idency ; that white men, soldiers of the Repub lic, have been arraigned in State courts, under State laws, for the crime of shooting down trai tors on the field of battle by the command of their military superiors, and only saved from beinn- hanged, on conviction of murder, by the interposition of that branch of the military forces of the Government known as the Freed- 6 men' s Bureau. I maintain further, that white ' men, citizens of the United States, have been driven from their homes, and have had their lands confiscated in State courts, under State laws, for the crime of loyalty to their country, and that now they are begging in vain for a redress of wrongs in the courts of the recon structed South. Our political opponents will not deny these allegations. They are fully conscious of the state of things, existing at the South. They know that there loyalty is the crime and treason the virtue ; not throughout the entire country, because there are honorable excep tions, but throughout more than half of the eleven States lately in rebellion. The very fact that the President of the United States, armed with the war power, is now annulling legislative enactments in those States, quash ing the decrees of courts, and standing guard over the rights of the loyal people, is conclu sive proof, binding upon the entire Democratic party, that citizens of the United States need the protection of their Government in the sev eral States of the Union. Mr. Speaker, it is alleged that this species of legislation will widen the breach existing be tween the two sections of the country, will of fend our southern brethren. Do not gentle men know that those who are most earnestly asking this legislation are our southern breth ren themselves? They are imploring us to protect them against the conquered enemies of the country, who, notwithstanding their sur render, have managed, through their skill or our weakness, to seize nearly all the conquered territory. This is not the first instance in the world's history in which all that had been gained by hard fighting was lost by bad diplo macy. But they, whose feelings are entitled to so much consideration in the estimation of those who urge this argument, are not our southern brethren, but the southern brethren of our po litical opponents ; the conquered rebels, par doned and unpardoned ; traitors priding them selves upon their treason. These people are fastidious. The ordinary terms of the English language must be per verted to suit their tastes. Though they sur rendered in open and public war, they are not to be treated as prisoners. Though beaten in the last ditch of the last fortification, they are not to be called a conquered people. The decis ion of tho forum of their own choosing is to be explained away into meaningless formality for their benefit. Though guilty of treason, murder, arson, and all the crimes in the cal endar, they are " our southern brethren." The entire decalogue must be suspended lest it should offend these polished candidates for the contempt and execration of posterity. Out of deference to the feelings of these sensitive gentlemen, an executive construction must be given to the word "loyalty," so that it shall embrace men who only are not hanged because they have been pardoned, and who only did not destroy the Government because they could not. Out of deference to the feel ings of these sensitive gentlemen, too, a dis tinguished public functionary, once the cham pion of the rights of man, a leader in the cause of human progress, a statesman whose keen foreknowledge could point out the "irrepress ible conflict between slavery and freedom," cannot now see that treason and loyalty are uncompromising antagonisms. It is charged against us that the wheels of Government are stopped by our refusal to ad mit the representatives of these southern com munities. "When we complain that Europe ia underselling us in our own markets, and de mand protection for the American laborer, we are told to ' ' admit the southern Senators and Representatives." When we complain that excessive importations are impoverishing the country and rapidly bringing on financial ruin, we are told to ' ' admit the southern Senators and Representatives. ' ' When we complain that an inflated currency is making the rich richer and the poor poorer, keeping the prices of even the necessaries of life beyond the reach of wid ows and orphans who are living upon fixed in comes, the stereotyped answer comes, "Admit the southern Senators and Representatives." When we' demand a tax upon cotton to defray the enormous outlay made in dethroning that usurping " king of the world," still the answer comes, and the executive parrots everywhere repeat it, "Admit the southern Senators and Representatives. ' ' The mind of the man who can see in that prescription a remedy for all political and social diseases must be curiously constituted. Would these Senators and Representatives vote a tax upon cotton ? Would they protect American industry by increasing duties? Would they prevent excessive importations? To believa this requires as unquestioning a faith as to be lieve in the sudden conversion of whole commu nities from treason to loyalty. We are blocking the wheels of Government! Why, the Government has managed to get along for four years, not only without the aid of the southern Senators "and Representatives, but against their efforts to destroy it ; and in the mean time has crushed a rebellion that would have destroyed any other Government under heaven. Surely the nation can do without the services of these men, at least during the timfl required to examine their claims and to pro tect by appropriate legislation our southern brethren. None but a Democrat would think of consulting the wolf about what safeguard should be thrown around the flock. Those who advocate the admission of tha Senators and Representatives from the States lately reclaimed from the rebellion, as a means of protecting the loyal men iu those States, an4 as a substitute for the system of legislation of which this bill is part, well know that the majon ity in both Houses of Congress ardently deai» the full recognition of those States, and only ask that the rights and interests of the truly loval men in those States shall be first satisfactorily secured. Much useless controversy has been had about the legal status of those States. There is' no difference between the two parties of the country cm that point. The actual point of difference is this: the Democrats affiliate with their old political friends in the South, the late rebels, the friends and followers of Breckinridge, Lee, and Davis. The Union majority, on theKother hand, naturally affiliate with the- loyal men in the South, the men who have always supported the Government against Breckinridge, Lee, and Davis. Each party wants the South recon structed in the hands of its own "southern brethren*' ' In short, the northern party corresponding with the loyal men of the South ask that the legitimate results of Grant's victory shall be carried out, while the northern party corre sponding with the rebels of the South ask that things should be considered as if Lee had been tie conqueror, or at least as if there had been a drawn battle, without victory on either side. This brings the rights of those in whose be half the opponents of the bill under consider ation are acting directly in question, and in order to limit down the field of controversy as far as possible, let us inquire how far all par ties agree upon the legal status of the commu nities lately in rebellion. Now, the meanest of all controversies is that which comes from dia lectics. Where the disputants attach different meanings to the same word their time is worse than thrown away. I have always looked upon the question whether the States are in or out of the Union as only worthy of the schoolmen of tie middle ages, who could write volumes upon a mere verbal quibble. The disputants would agree if they were compelled to use the word "State" in the same sense. I will endeavor to avoid this trifling. All parties agree that at the close of the re bellion the people of North Carolina, for exam ple, had been "deprived of all civil govern ment." The President, in his proclamation of May 29, 1865, tells the people of North. Caro- Ena this in so many words, and he tells the people of the other rebel States the same thing in his several proclamations to them. This concludes the Conservatives and Dem ocrats, who, however they may disagree, aj least agree in this, that the President shall do their thinking. ., ,.-,,• The Republicans subscribe to this doctrine, though they differ in their modes of expressing it. Some say that those States have ceased to possess any of the rights and powers of govern ment as States of the Union. Others say, with the late lamented President, that < those States are out of practical relations with the Govern ment. ' ' Others hold that the State organiza tions are out of the Union. And stall others that the rebels are conquered, and therefore that their organizations are at the will of the conqueror. The President has hit upon a mode of expression which embraces concisely all these ideas. He says that the people of those States were, by the progress of the rebellion and by its termination, "deprived of all civil government." One step further. All parties agree that the people of these States, being thus disorganized for all State purposes, are still, at the election of the Government, citizens of the United States, and as such, as far as they have not been dis qualified by treason, ought to be allowed to form their own State governments, subject to the requirements of the Constitution of the United States. Still one step further. All parties agree that this cannot be done by mere unauthorized con gregations of the people, but that the time, place, and manner must be prescribed by some department of the Government, according to the argument of Mr. Webster and the spirit of the decision of the Supreme Court in Luther vs. Borden, 7 Howard, page 1. Yet another step in the series of propositions. All parties agree that as Congress was not in ses sion at the close of the rebellion, the President, as Commander-in- Chief, was bound to take pos session of the conquered country and establish such government as was necessary. Thus far all is harmonious ; but now the di vergence begins. At the commencement of the present session of Congress three fourths of both Houses held that when the people of States are "deprived of all civil government," and* when, therefore, it becomes necessary to pre-' scribe the time, place, and manner in and by which they shall organize themselves again into States, while the President may take temporary measures, yet only the law-making power of the Government is competent to the full accom plishment of the task. In other words, that only Congress can enable citizens of the United States to create States. I have said that at the commencement of the session three fourths ot both Houses held this opinion. The proportion is smaller now, and by a judicious use of exec utive patronage it may become still smaller ; but the truth of the proposition will not be affected if every Representative and Senator should be manipulated into denying it. On the other hand, the remaining fourth, composed of fhe supple Democracy and its accessions, maintain that this State-creating power is vested in the President alone, and that he has already exercised it. The holy horror with which our opponents affect to contemplate thedoctrine of destruction of Statesis thatmuchpolitical hypocrisy. Every man who asks the recognition of the existing local governments in the South thereby commits himself to that doctrine. The only possible claim that can be set up m favor .of the existing governments is based upon the theory that the old ones have been destroyed. The present organizations sprang up at the bidding of tha 8 President after the conquest among a people who, he said, had been " deprived of all civil government." If the President's "experiment" had re sulted in organizing the southern communities in loyal hands, the majority in Congress would have found no difficulty in indorsing it and giving it the necessary efficiency.by legislative enactment. In this case, too, the President never would have denied the power of Con gress in the premises. He never would have set up the theory that the citizens of the United States, through their representatives, are not to be consulted when those who have once broken faith with them ask to have the compact re newed. Our opponents have no love for the Presi dent. They called him u, usurper and a tyrant in Tennessee. They ridiculed him as the negro 1 ' Moses. ' ' They tried to kill him, and failing that, they accused him of beingjprivy to the mur der of his predecessor. But when, his "ex periment' ' at reconstruction was found to result in favor of their friends, the rebels, then they hung themselves about his neck like so many millstones, and tried to damn him to eternal in famy by indorsing his policy. Will they suc ceed? Will he shake them off, or go down with them? But let us suffer these discordant elements to settle their own terms of combination as best they may. The final result cannot be doubt ful. If ten righteous men were needed to save Sodom, even Andrew Johnson will find it im possible to save the Democratic party. Our path of duty is -plain before us. Let us pass this bill and such others as may be necessary to secure protection to trie loyal men of the South. If our political opponents thwart our purposes in this, let us go to the country upon that issue. I am by no means an advocate of extensive punishment, either in the way of hanging or confiscation, though some of both might be sal utary. I do not ask that full retribution be enforced against those who have so grievously sinned. I am willing to make forgiveness the rule and punishment the exception ; yet I have my ultimatum. I might excuse the pardon of the traitors Lee and Davis, even after the hang- ingof Wirz, who but obeyed their orders, orders which he would have been shot for disobeying. I might excuse the sparing of the master after killing the dog whose bite but carried with it the venom engendered in the master's soul. I might look calmly upon a constituency ground down by taxation, and tell the complainants that they have neither remedy nor hope o'f vengeance upon the authors of their wrongs. I might agree to turn unpityingly from the mother whose son fell in the Wilderness, and the widow whose husband was starved at Andersonville, and tell them that in the nature of things retrib utive justice is denied them, and that the mur derers of their kindred may yet sit in the councils of their country ; yet even I have my uliifnatum. I might consent that the glorious deeds of the last five years should be blotted from the country's history : that the trophies won on