Debate ensued. Mr. Sherman, of Ohio, thought “the amendment ought not to be adopted.” Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, thought it tended to depreciate the value of investments made on the faith of former legislation. Mr. Willey, of West Virginia, declared his opposition, saying, “It is a matter to be regulated by the interests of the Company, the convenience of the people, and especially the tastes of the people.” Mr. Powell, of Kentucky, said: “If the Senator from Massachusetts is such a vehement friend of this down-trodden race, as he is a lawyer, why did he not undertake their case, and propose to argue it for them before the courts? That would have indicated that he really felt for the negro.… The Senator shows his devotion to this down-trodden race here, and only in words.… The Senator’s staple is this fanatical idea. He wants this little hobby to ride through Massachusetts on, and to feed a fanatical flame there. He can fool nobody here with this kind of thing. Take the negro out of the Senator’s vocabulary, and, rich as it is, it would be exceedingly barren.” Mr. Trumbull, of Illinois, also opposed the amendment. In the course of the debate, Mr. Sumner spoke as follows, especially in reply to Mr. Trumbull.
Mr. President,—The Senator from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull], in former days, was a sincere, intelligent, devoted supporter of the Wilmot Proviso. As I understand that Proviso, it was simply a prohibition of Slavery in the Territories. Now I know not whether the Senator held, as I did, that, even without that prohibition, yet, by a strict interpretation of the Constitution, Slavery could not go into the Territories. I presume he did; most of us did. For myself, I held it resolutely and sincerely. I always regarded the Wilmot Proviso, if the Constitution were properly interpreted, as mere surplusage, sheer supererogation; and yet I never hesitated, in season or out of season, to vindicate it; and I believe the Senator never hesitated, in season or out of season, to do the same. I remember that my earliest admiration of that Senator was founded on his brave and able support of that very prohibition. Not then was he deterred from a humane provision because without it, according to his interpretation of the Constitution, Slavery could not enter the Territories. Nor was he deterred because the provision might be offensive to persons of weak nerves. No, Sir; openly and courageously he maintained the principle that Slavery must be prohibited. And on the same principle—if I may pass from great things to smaller, I admit, but not small—I insist that this proviso should also be adopted.
Our experience shows that the law as the Senator expounds it is not so accepted by this railroad corporation. He knows as well as I that colored persons are daily insulted. Some of these victims will compare in respectability of conduct with any whom I now have the honor to address. My colleague alluded to a colored clergyman whom he saw thrust out only the other day. We know of an officer of the United States, wearing the national uniform, thrust out; and the Senator from Illinois will allow all these things to be done, and not interfere. He tells us that it is contrary to law, and yet he allows it to proceed under the very eyes of the Senate. Sir, I insist that the Senate, when such outrage occurs, shall show that it has power, and is willing to exercise it on the side of justice.
But the Senator reminds us that in other days the Fugitive Act was passed here, and made especially offensive; and he pleads with us not to imitate that bad example, by introducing anything that may be offensive. I do not like the comparison of the Senator. Does he not know well that everything introduced into the Fugitive Slave Bill was in the interest of Slavery, and contrary to every sentiment of humanity, and that it was intended to give offence? The proposition now moved is opposite in character. It is to sustain the principles of humanity, to uphold human rights, to vindicate human equality, and with no purpose of offence,—none, not the least. The illustration of the Senator is entirely out of place. True it is that in those other days we were offended, and it was part of the hardships to which we were exposed. As, in the days which preceded our Revolution, the British officers said they would cram the stamps down the throats of the American people, so, in the same malignant spirit, the Slave-Masters insisted upon cramming Slavery down the throats of the Senate and the country. There was nothing but brutality then. Slavery in all its features is bad, but one of its most odious manifestations was the revolting insensibility to every sentiment of delicacy and humanity which it created in its supporters.
Sir, the Senator from Illinois knows well that it is in a very different spirit that propositions like the present are brought forward. It is always in the interest of human rights, and I need not say to that Senator, so far as I am concerned, with no other purpose than that patent in the proposition itself, and with no idea of offending any human being,—on the contrary, with a desire to avoid offence, if I possibly can. In that spirit I wish to do my duty on this floor. I would never give offence to any one, here or elsewhere, if I knew how to avoid it, while in all things I faithfully discharge my public duty.
The debate continued, when Mr. Grimes, of Iowa, said he should like to have Mr. Sumner answer one question. “Suppose we pass this amendment and put it into the law, and the Company goes on and does exactly as it has been doing, excluding these men, what are these colored men going to do? Have they not got to go to law then? Will they not be compelled to enforce their rights in court? Will they not be compelled to employ lawyers? If that be so, what advantage will it be to them to adopt this amendment under the present condition of things?”
Mr. Sumner. I will answer. Because the Company will not dare to continue this outrage in the face and eyes of a positive provision of statute. That is the answer.
On the Yeas and Nays, the amendment was lost,—Yeas 14, Nays 16,—several Republicans uniting with the Democrats against it.
At the next stage of the bill, Mr. Sumner renewed his amendment, when it was adopted,—Yeas 17, Nays 16. The bill passed the Senate, and was the subject of conference between the two Houses, but it never became a law.