There is another way, at once prompt, energetic, and comprehensive. It is by Act of Congress, adopted by a majority of two thirds, in spite of Presidential veto. The time has passed when this power can be questioned. Congress has already exercised it in the Rebel States. I do not forget its hesitations. Only a year ago, when I insisted that it must do so, and introduced a bill to this effect, I was answered that a Constitutional Amendment was needed, and I was voted down. A change came, and in a happy moment Congress exercised the power. What patriot questions it now? But the power is unquestionable in the other States also. It concerns the rights of citizenship, and this subject is as essentially national as the army or the navy.
Even without either of the recent Constitutional Amendments, I am at a loss to understand how a denial of the elective franchise simply on account of color can be otherwise than unconstitutional. I cannot see how, under a National Constitution which does not contain the word “white” or “black,” there can be any exclusion on account of color. There is no such exclusion in the Constitution. Out of what text is this oligarchical pretension derived? But, putting aside this question, which will be clearer to the jurists of the next generation than to us, I vouch the authoritative words of the National Constitution, making it our duty to guaranty a republican form of government in the States. Now the greatest victory of the war, to which all other victories, whether in Congress or on the bloody field, were only tributary, was the definition of a republican government according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. A government which denies the elective franchise on account of color, or, in other words, sets up any “qualifications” of voters in their nature insurmountable, cannot be republican; for the first principle in a republican government is Equality of Rights, according to the principles of the Declaration of Independence. And this definition, I insist, is the crowning glory of the war which beat down Rebellion under its feet. It only remains for Congress to enforce it by appropriate legislation.
There are two recent Constitutional Amendments, each of which furnishes ample and cumulative power.
There is, first, the Amendment abolishing Slavery, with its clause conferring on Congress the power to enforce it by appropriate legislation, in pursuance of which Congress has already passed the Civil Rights Act, which is applicable to the North as well as the South. Clearly, and most obviously beyond all question, if it can pass a Civil Rights Act, it can also pass a Political Rights Act; for each is appropriate to enforce the abolition of Slavery, and to complete this work. Without it the work is only half done.
There is yet another Amendment, recently adopted by three fourths of the loyal States, which is itself an abundant source of power. After declaring that all persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof are “citizens,” this Amendment proceeds to provide that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States”; and Congress is empowered to enforce this provision by appropriate legislation. Nothing can be plainer than this.
Here, then, are three different sources of power in the Constitution itself, each sufficient, the three together three times sufficient,—each exuberant and overflowing, the three together three times exuberant and overflowing. How, in the face of these provisions, any person can doubt the power of Congress I cannot understand. But, alas! there are doubters always.
I have already sent you a copy of my bill to settle this question by what I call “the short cut.” Give us your vote. Of course, you will. Believe me, my dear Sir,
Very faithfully yours,
Charles Sumner.
Theodore Tilton, Esq.