Listening to the champions of Caste and Oligarchy under the National Constitution, and perusing their writings, I think I understand the position they take. With as much calmness as I can command, I note what they have to say in speech and in print. I know it all. I do not err, when I say that this whole terrible and ignominious pretension is traced to direct and barefaced perversion of the National Constitution. Search history, study constitutions, examine laws, and you will find no perversion more thoroughly revolting. By the National Constitution it is provided, that “the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature,”—thus seeming to refer the primary determination of what are called “qualifications” to the States; and this is reinforced by the further provision, that “the times, places, and manner of holding elections for Senators and Representatives shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by law make or alter such regulations.” This is all On these simple texts, conferring plain and intelligible powers, the champions insist that “color” may be made a “qualification,” and that under the guise of “regulations” citizens whose only offence is a skin not colored like our own may be shut out from political rights,—and that in this way a monopoly of rights, being at once a Caste and an Oligarchy of the Skin, is placed under the safeguard of the National Constitution. Such is the case of the champions; this is their stock-in-trade. With all their learning, all their subtlety, all their sharpness, this is what they have to say in behalf of an infamous pretension under the National Constitution. Everything from them begins and ends in a perversion of two words,—“qualifications” and “regulations.”
Now to this perversion I oppose point-blank denial. These two words are not justly susceptible of any such signification, especially in a National Constitution, which is to be interpreted always so that Human Rights shall not suffer. I do not stop now for dictionaries. The case is too plain. A “qualification” is something that can be acquired. A man is familiarly said to “qualify” for an office. Nothing can be a “qualification” which is not in its nature attainable,—as residence, property, education, or character, each of which is within the possible reach of well-directed effort. Color cannot be a “qualification.” If the prescribed “qualification” were color of the hair or color of the eyes, all would see its absurdity; but it is none the less absurd, when it is color of the skin. Here is an unchangeable condition, impressed by Providence. Are we not reminded that the leopard cannot change his spots, or the Ethiopian his skin? These are two examples of enduring conditions. Color is a quality from Nature. But a “quality” is very different from a “qualification.” A quality inherent in man and part of himself can never be a “qualification” in the sense of the National Constitution. On other occasions I have cited authorities,[43] and shown how this attempt to foist into the National Constitution a pernicious meaning is in defiance of all approved definition, as it is plainly repugnant to reason, justice, and common sense.
The same judgment must be pronounced on the attempt to found this outrage upon the power to make “regulations,”—as if this word had not a limited signification which renders such a pretension impossible. “Regulations” are nothing but rules applicable to a given matter; they concern the manner in which a business shall be conducted, and, when used with regard to elections, are applicable to what may be called incidents, in contradistinction to the principal, which is nothing less than the right to vote. A power to regulate is not a power to destroy or to disfranchise. In an evil hour Human Rights may be struck down, but it cannot be merely by “regulations.” The pretension that under such authority this great wrong may be done is another illustration of that extravagance which the champions do not shrink from avowing.
The whole structure of Caste and Oligarchy, as founded on two words, may be dismissed. It is hard even to think of it without impatience, to speak of it without denouncing it as unworthy of human head or human heart. There are honorable Senators who shrink from any direct argument on these two words, and, wrapping themselves in pleonastic phrase, content themselves with the general assertion, that power over suffrage belongs to the States. But they cannot maintain this conclusion without founding on these two words,—insisting that color may be a “qualification,” and that under the narrow power to make “regulations” a race may be broadly disfranchised. To this wretched pretension are they driven. And now, if there be any such within the sound of my voice, I ask the question directly,—Can “color,” whether of hair, eyes, or skin, be a “qualification” under our National Constitution? under the pretence of making “regulations” of elections, can a race be disfranchised? With all the power derived from both these words, can any State undertake to establish a Caste and organize an Oligarchy of the Skin? To put these questions is to answer them.
Such is the case as presented by the champions. But looking at the National Constitution, we shall be astonished still more at this pretension. On other occasions I have gone over the whole case of Human Rights vs. State Rights under the National Constitution. For the present I content myself with allusions only to the principal points.
It is under the National Constitution that the champions set up their pretension; therefore to the National Constitution I go. And I begin by appealing to the letter, which from beginning to end does not contain one word recognizing “color.” Its letter is blameless; and its spirit is not less so. Surely a power to disfranchise for color must find some sanction in the Constitution. There must be some word of clear intent under which this terrible prerogative can be exercised. This conclusion of reason is reinforced by the positive text of our Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly announced that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent of the governed. In the face of the National Constitution, interpreted, first by itself, and then by the Declaration of Independence, how can this pretension prevail?
But there are positive texts of the National Constitution, refulgent as the Capitol itself, which forbid it with sovereign, irresistible power, and invest Congress with all needful authority to maintain the prohibition.
There is that key-stone clause, by which it is expressly declared that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government”; and Congress is empowered to enforce this guaranty. The definition of a republican government was solemnly announced by our fathers, first, in that great battle-cry which preceded the Revolution, “Taxation without representation is tyranny,” and, secondly, in the great Declaration at the birth of the Republic, that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent of the governed. A Republic is where taxation and representation go hand in hand, where all are equal in rights, and no man is excluded from participation in the government. Such is the definition of a republican government, which it is the duty of Congress to maintain. Here is a bountiful source of power, which cannot be called in question. In the execution of the guaranty Congress may—nay, must—require that there shall be no Inequality, Caste, or Oligarchy of the Skin.
I know well the arguments of the champions. They insist that the definition of a Republican Government is to be found in the State Constitutions at the adoption of the National Constitution; and as all these, except Massachusetts, recognized Slavery, they find that the denial of Human Rights is republican. But the champions forget that Slavery was regarded as a temporary exception,—that the slave, who was not represented, was not taxed,—that he was not part of the “body-politic,”—that the difference at that time was not between white and black, but between slave and freeman, precisely as in the days of Magna Charta,—that in most of the States all freemen, without distinction of color, were citizens,—and that, according to the history of the times, there was no State which ventured to announce in its Constitution a discrimination founded on color, except Virginia, Georgia, and South Carolina,—this last the persevering enemy of republican government for successive generations; so that, if we look at the State Constitutions, we find that they also testify to the true definition.