EQUAL SUFFRAGE AT ONCE BY ACT OF CONGRESS RATHER THAN CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.
Letter to the New York Independent, April 20, 1867.
Senate Chamber, April 20, 1867.
MY DEAR SIR,—You wish to have the North “reconstructed,” so at least that it shall cease to deny the elective franchise on account of color. But you postpone the day by insisting on the preliminary of a Constitutional Amendment. I know your vows to the good cause; but I ask you to make haste. We cannot wait.
Of course, we can always wait for the needful processes; but there are present reasons why we should allow no time to be lost. This question must be settled forthwith: in other words, it must be settled before the Presidential election, now at hand. Our colored fellow-citizens at the South are already electors. They will vote at the Presidential election. But why should they vote at the South, and not at the North? The rule of justice is the same for both. Their votes are needed at the North as well as the South. There are Northern States where their votes can make the good cause safe beyond question. There are other States where their votes will be like the last preponderant weight in the nicely balanced scales. Let our colored fellow-citizens vote in Maryland, and that State, now so severely tried, will be fixed for Human Rights forever. Let them vote in Pennsylvania, and you will give more than twenty thousand votes to the Republican cause. Let them vote in New York, and the scales, which hang so doubtful, will incline to the Republican side. It will be the same in Connecticut. I mention these by way of example. But everywhere the old Proslavery party will kick the beam. Let all this be done, I say, before the next Presidential election.
Among the proposed ways is a new Constitutional Amendment. But this is too dilatory. It cannot become operative till after the Presidential election. Besides, it is needless. Instead of amending the Constitution, read it.
Another way is by moving each State, and obtaining through local legislation what is essentially a right of citizenship. But this again is too dilatory, while it turns each State into a political maelström, and submits a question of National interest to the chances of local controversy and the timidity of local politicians. This will not do. Emancipation was a National act, proceeding from the National Government, and applicable to all the States. Enfranchisement, which is the corollary and complement of Emancipation, must be a National act also, proceeding from the National Government, and applicable to all the States. If left to the States individually, the result, besides being tardy, will be uncertain and fragmentary.