“I do not stop to exhibit the elective franchise as essential to the security of the freedman, without which he will be the prey of Slavery in some new form, and cannot rise to the stature of manhood. In opening this debate I presented the argument fully. Suffice it to say that Emancipation will fail in beneficence, if you do not assure to the former slave all the rights of the citizen. Until you do this, your work will be only half done, and the freedman only half a man.”
This speech closed as follows:—
“Recall the precious words of the early English writer, who, describing ‘the Good Sea-Captain,’ tells us that he ‘counts the image of God nevertheless His image, cut in ebony, as if done in ivory.’[268] The good statesman must be like the good sea-captain. His ship is the State, which he keeps safe on its track. He, too, must see the image of God in all his fellow-men, and, in the discharge of his responsible duties, must set his face forever against any recognition of inequality in human rights. Other things you may do, but this you must not do.”[269]
I do not quote other efforts, other speeches, but pass to the next session of Congress, when, at the beginning, under date of December 5, 1866, I introduced resolutions thus entitled:—
“Resolutions declaring the true principles of Reconstruction, the jurisdiction of Congress over the whole subject, the illegality of existing governments in the Rebel States, and the exclusion of such States with such illegal governments from representation in Congress and from voting on Constitutional Amendments.”
Of these resolutions the fourth is as follows:—
“That, in determining what is a republican form of government, Congress must follow implicitly the definition supplied by the Declaration of Independence, and, in the practical application of this definition, it must, after excluding all disloyal persons, take care that new governments are founded on the two fundamental truths therein contained: first, that all men are equal in rights; and, secondly, that all just government stands only on the consent of the governed.”[270]
Meanwhile the subject of Reconstruction was practically discussed in both Houses of Congress. In this Chamber a bill was introduced by the Senator from Oregon [Mr. Williams], providing a military government. In the House there was another bill, and on that bill good Representatives—to whom be all honor!—sought to ingraft the requirement of colored suffrage. This effort, unhappily, did not prevail. The bill came to this Chamber without it. In this Chamber the same effort was made; but the bill, while it was still immatured, passed into our caucus. The effort which had thus far failed was then renewed by me in the committee, where it again failed. It was then renewed by me in the caucus, where it triumphed. This is the history of that proposition. I claim nothing for myself. I alluded to it the other day only in direct reply to the arraignment of the Senator from Illinois. I allude to it now reluctantly, and only in direct reply to the arraignment of the Senator from Nevada. I regret to be obliged to make any allusion to it. I think there is no occasion for any. I have erred, perhaps, in taking so much time in this explanation; but when the Senator, after days and weeks of interval, came here with his second indictment, I felt that I might without impropriety throw myself upon the indulgence of this Chamber to make the simple explanation that I have made.