History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States

by William Horatio Barnes

CHAPTER XV.

THE BASIS OF-REPRESENTATION—IN THE SENATE.

The Joint Resolution goes to the Senate —
Counter-proposition by Mr. Sumner — He Speaks Five Hours —
Mr. Henderson's Amendment — Mr. Fessenden — Mr. Henry S.
Lane — Mr. Johnson — Mr. Henderson — Mr. Clark's
Historical Statements — Fred. Douglass' Memorial — Mr.
Williams — Mr. Hendricks — Mr. Chandler's "Blood-letting
Letter" — Proposition of Mr. Yates — His Speech — Mr.
Buckalew against New England — Mr. Pomeroy — Mr. Sumner's
Second Speech — Mr. Doolittle — Mr. Morrill — Mr.
Fessenden meets Objections — Final Vote — The Amendment
Defeated.

The joint resolution, providing for amending the basis of representation, having passed the House of Representatives on the last day of January, 1866, the action of that body was communicated to the Senate. The Civil Rights Bill at that time occupying the attention of the Senate, Mr. Fessenden gave notice that unless something should occur to render that course unwise, he would ask that the consideration of the proposed constitutional amendment should be taken up on the following Monday, February 5th.

On the second of February, Mr. Sumner gave notice of his intention to move a joint resolution as a counter-proposition to the proposed constitutional amendment. Mr. Sumner's resolution was as follows:

Whereas, it is provided in the Constitution that the United States shall guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government; and whereas, by reason of the failure of certain States to maintain Governments which Congress can recognize, it has become the duty of the United States, standing in the place of guarantor, where the principal has made a lapse, to secure to such States, according to the requirement of the guarantee, governments republican in form; and whereas, further, it is provided in a recent constitutional amendment, that Congress may 'enforce' the prohibition of slavery by 'appropriate legislation,' and it is important to this end that all relics of slavery should be removed, including all distinction of rights on account of color; now, therefore, to carry out the guarantee of a republican form of government, and to enforce the prohibition of slavery.

"Be it resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That in all States lately declared to be in rebellion there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or monopoly invested with peculiar privileges or powers, and there shall be no denial of rights, civil or political, on account of color or race; but all persons shall be equal before the law, whether in the court-room or at the ballot-box; and this statute, made in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be the supreme law of the land, any thing in the constitution or laws of any such State to the contrary notwithstanding."

According to notice given by the Chairman of the joint Committee on Reconstruction on the part of the Senate, the proposed constitutional amendment came up for consideration on the fifth of February.

Mr. Sumner addressed the Senate in opposition to the measure. His speech was five hours in length, and occupied parts of the sessions of two days in its delivery. Mr. Sumner argued that the proposed amendment would introduce "discord and defilement into the Constitution," by admitting that rights could be "denied or abridged on account of race or color," and that by its adoption Congress would prove derelict to its constitutional duty to guarantee a republican form of government to each State, and that having already legislated to protect the colored race in civil rights, it is bound to secure to them political rights also.

Concerning the Committee on Reconstruction and their proposition, Mr. Sumner said: "Knowing, as I do, the eminent character of the committee, its intelligence, its patriotism, and the moral instincts by which it is moved, I am at a loss to understand the origin of a proposition which seems to me nothing else than another compromise of human rights, as if the country had not already paid enough in costly treasure and more costly blood for such compromises in the past. I had hoped that the day of compromise with wrong had passed forever. Ample experience shows that it is the least practical mode of settling questions involving moral principles. A moral principle can not be compromised."