I adduce this testimony also in answer to the allegation, so loftily made in debate the other day, that the colored people are willing to see the former Rebels amnestied, trusting in some indefinite future to obtain their own rights. I said at the time that such an allegation was irrational. I now show you that it is repudiated by the colored people. They do not recognize the Senators who have undertaken to speak for them as their representatives. They insist upon their rights before you play the generous to Rebels. They insist that they shall be saved from indignity when they travel, and when they offer a child at the common school,—that they shall be secured against any such outrage before you remove the disabilities of men who struck at the life of this Republic.
Now, Sir, will you not be just before you are generous? Or if you do not place the rights of the colored people foremost, will you not at least place them side by side with those of former Rebels? Put them both where I seek now to put them, in the same statute,—so that hereafter the Rebels shall know that generosity to them was associated with justice to their colored fellow-citizens,—that they all have a common interest,—that they are linked together in the community of a common citizenship, and in the enjoyment of those liberties promised by the Declaration of Independence and guarantied by the Constitution of the United States.
Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, followed with remarks chiefly in criticism of the form of the bill, and made several suggestions of amendment. Mr. Sumner stated that his object was “to get this measure in the best shape possible,” and that he should welcome any amendment from any quarter; that he did not feel as strongly as the Senator “the difference between his language and the text,” but that he was anxious to harmonize with him. Mr. Sumner afterwards modified his bill in pursuance of Mr. Frelinghuysen’s suggestions.
The debate was continued on different days,—Mr. Sawyer, of South Carolina, Mr. Thurman, of Ohio, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, Mr. Davis, of Kentucky, speaking strongly against the bill of Mr. Sumner. Mr. Sawyer objected to it as an amendment to the Amnesty Bill. Mr. Nye of Nevada, and Mr. Flanagan of Texas spoke for the bill. The latter, after saying that he had read the Constitution for himself, and was “satisfied that the proposed amendment was constitutional,” added other reasons:—
“One is, that I discover, that, if we should remain here, as we certainly shall do, for a very considerable period, petitions will come in to such a degree, requiring so much paper, that really the price will be vastly enhanced, and it will thereby become a considerable tax to the Government of the United States; for the Senator is receiving, I might almost say, volumes—I know not what the quantity is; it is immense, however—from all parts of the nation.”
And then again:—
“Again I am reminded that it is best to try to get rid of the imposing Senator [Mr. Sumner] on that subject, just as the lady answered her admirer. The suitor had been importuning her time and again, and she had invariably declined to accept the proposition. At length, however, being very much annoyed, she concluded to say ‘yes,’ just to get rid of his importunity. I want to go with the Senator to get rid of this matter, [laughter,] because, really, Mr. President, we find his bill here as a breakwater. A concurrent resolution was introduced here for the adjournment of Congress at a particular day. Well, you saw that bill thrust right on it. ‘Stop!’ says he, ‘you must not adjourn until my bill is passed.’ There it was again; here it is now; and we shall continue to have it; and I am for making peace with it by a general surrender at once. [Laughter.] I stop not there, Mr. President; I go further, and I indorse the Senator to the utmost degree in his proposition.”[221]
Mr. Morrill, in an elaborate argument, denied point-blank the constitutionality of the bill,—insisting, and repeating with different forms of expression, that “the exercise of this power on the part of Congress would be a palpable invasion of the rights of the people of the States in their purely domestic relations.… This Constitution has given us no such authority and no such power.”[222]
January 31st, Mr. Sumner replied to Mr. Morrill.