\p^ u ^3/ THE ONLY SALVATION, EaUALITY OF RIGHTS. SPEECH HON. RICHAED YATES, OF ILLINOIS, IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, FEBRUAEY 19, 1866. The Senate Laving under consideration the joint resolution (II. R. No. 51) proposing to amend the Con- stitution of the United States — Mr. YATES said : Mr. President : I send to the desk to be read Senate bill No. 106, which I introduced on the 2'Jth J anuary last, and in favor of which I pro- pose to speak to-day. The Secretary read the following bill : A bill to protect citizens of the United States in their civil aud political rights. Whereas the Constitution of the United States abol- ishes slavery in all the States and Territories of the United States, whereby all constitutions, laws, or reg- ulations of any State or Territory in aid of slavery or growing out of the same are null and void; and whereas, by virtue of said abolition of slavery, all men in all the States and Territories are citizens, entitled to all the rights and privilegesof citizens, subject only to the legal disabilities applicable to white persons; and whereas, also, it is expressly provided that Con- gress shall have power to enforce by appropriate legis- lation the aforesaid power abolishing slavery, which cannot be done without protecting all citizens against all restrictions, penalties, or deprivations of right resulting from slavery, and securing to fhem all their civil and political rights, including the elective fran- chise: Therefore, Be it enacted hti the Senate and House of Jiepresenta- tivesofthe United Stutes of America in Congress assem- bled. That no State or Territory of the United States shall, by any constitution, law, or other regulation whatever, heretofore in force or hereafter to be adopted, make or enforce, or in any manner recog- nize any distinction between citizens of the United States or of any State or Territory on account of race or color or oondrtion. and that hereafter all citizens, without distinction of race, color, or condition, shall be protected in the full and equal enjoyment and exercise of all their civil and political rights, includ- ing the right of sutfrace. Mr. YATES. I confess, sir, to some em- l)arrassraent in addressing the Senate at t^is time, and the greater because I know that the positions which I assume will be different from those of honorable Senators for whose opinions I have verygreat respect, and to whom it would seem becoming that one so humble as myself should defer. But, sir, the opinions which I have seem to me very important ; and it appears to me that I cannot discharge my duty as a representative of the State which I have the honor in part to represent on this floor without expressing them. In doing so, it is with the conviction that this question, as was remarked by the distinguished Senator from Indiana [Mr. Hendricks] the other day, is the gravest which has ever been discussed by the American Sen- ate. The duty of this Congress, it seems to me, is one of tremendous responsibility. Our action ought not only to be effectual, but it ought to be timely aad final. A mistake now will be fatal. Delays breed danger. We ought to do to-day what it will be too lat6 to do to-morrow. It will not do to receive the rebellious States into full fellowship in the Union now, because they are not fit to come in. It will not do to keep them out, for it is dangerous to keep them out too long. We desire a restored Union. In union there is strength ; but in union there is weak- ness if the parts, like oil and water, will flot coa- lesce. A rope of sand will not hold together. We should aim to do what Mr. Lincoln almost always did, the right thing at the right time, in the right way, and at the right place. It should be our aim as legislators to legislate, not for a part of the country only, but for the whole coun- try, upon principles that will stand the test of time by standing the test of impartiality, of equality, of justice, and righteousness. And, sir, if this Congress having the power, as I believe it clearly has, by a general law to i-estore, through harmonious adjustment, the rebellious States, instead of fearlessly and promptly exercising that power, waits for some coustltulional amendment which cannot be adopted, or which if adopted is not founded on correct principles, we shall be recreant to our duty, and we shall incur and deserve to incur the reproach of the nation and of mankind. In discussing the bill which I have had the honor to Introduce, I shall not attempt to con* trovert any of the principles which have been entertained heretofore by either the Republican Union party or the Democratic party so far as the jurisdiction of the States over the question of slavery was concerned under the Constitu- tion of the United States ; nor shall I contro- vert the proposition that the States have the power under the second section of the first article of the Constitution to regulate the quali- fications of the electors in the States. I shall attempt to show, on the other hand, that by the amendment to the Constitution abolishing sla- very, Congress already has the power by a gen- eral law to do all that is proposed to be done by the various amendments which have been submitted to both Houses of Congress. If we shall fail, having that power, to exercise it, then by reason of the long and dangerous delay which will occur, and by reason of the almost criminal omission on the part of Congress to exercise its plain constitutional duty, this Government is m danger of passing into the hands of a party whose action and sympathies have been opposed to the prosecution of the war for the suppres- eion of the rebellion, who voted our glorious war a miserable failure at the expiration of four years of brilliant service, who opposed the proc- lamation of emancipation, who opposed the amendment abolishing slavery in all the States and Territories in the United States, who to- morrow, if they had the power, would repeal your test oaths, who would pardon Jeff. Davis, who at this very session of Congress are upon the record in opposition to the protection of the rights of the freedmen, and who stand ready now to receive in the Senate and House of Rep- resentatives Senators and llepresentatives-elect fresh from secession State Legislatures and from battle-fields where their hands were imbrued in the blood of our loyal countrymen. This is the aspect of affairs as it seems to me to-day. There is only one way of salvation for the country. Your amendments to the Consti- tution of the United States cannot be adopted. If we have not the power now under the Con- stitution of the United States to secure full free- dom, then, sir, we shall not have it, and there is no salvation whatever for the country. Let not freedom die in the house and by the hands of her friends. Mr. President, the work of reconstructing a Government, of restoring rebellious States to their former condition, is a more dilficult work than building up a new Government. The statesmanship which attempts to restore rebel- lious and shattered States to their former rela- tions to the Government must encounter pre- judices growing out of local State governments, State regulations, the conventionalities and usages of society, judicial decisions, the con- flicts of Federal and State authority, and all the numerous and divergent ojjinions of men with regard to the fundamental rights of the citizen and the mode of securing those rights and udtninistf-ririg the (Jovernment. 'i'he workof our fathers, though one of sublime magnitude, as herculean as it was grand, yet was an exceedingly simph! one. Though its funda- mental object, to carry out their principles by the machinery of wcll-adju.stcd and regulated government, required the picked men of the world, whom God in His kind providence fur- nished the nation, yet the object they had in view was exceedingly plain, simple, and easy to be understood. What was that object? To establish freedom, to secure equality to all men, to secure the right of the majority to rule; or, to use the language of the present President of the United States, "to secure exact justice to all men; special j^rivileges to none." Who will deny that these were the objects for which the Revolution was fought, and for which the Declaration of Independence was made? These being the objects of our fathers, I do not deny that when thej' came to form a Government they encountered an institution which was hos- tile to th(! principle which they attempted to establish. I do not deny that in an evil hour of compromise, for the sake of concord among the States and to secure the adojition of the Constitution, they most reluctantly recognized the institution of slavery in the Constitution of the United States, as is proven by the fact that representation was denied to the colored man' in the slave States except through the white electors, and the other clause of the Constitu- tion which permitted the forcible arrest of the fugitive slave and his return to his master. But it was from no fault of the principles of our fathers that our national troubles sprang up ; it was from a departure from their ])rinciples in the respect to which I have alluded. Slavery, which they supposed to be so small an element, which they supposed to be temporary in its char- acter, which they in their hearts believed the States themselves would very soon abolish, grew from a few persons to millions in number, and the institution became so profitable and so cherished that the leaders of the South finally planted themselves ujion it as the very basis and corner-stone of society and government. Two systems of government and civil society existed in the country, two systems of labor, both supported by great and powerful interests and energies, warring, jarrnig, antagonistic, belligerent, each striving for supremacy. Sla- very, in fact, through adroit politicians, became the balance of j^nver, and, wielded and for a time shaped and controlled the policy and legis- lation of the country. Slavery became almost the Government of the country, and no impor- tant question could be discussed in the country except by its relative bearing upon the institu- tion of slavcrj'. It doomed to ignorance, pros- titution, and crime nearly four million {)eople, apjjropriated the proceeds of their labor, en- forced ignorance upon them by severe penal- ties against education, and secured obedience by the lash, the revolver, and the bloodhound. The slavehold(>r, rioting in wealth from the bended back and shrill agonies of the crouching slave, became arrogant and aristocratic, and learned not only to believe in African slavery, but bcddly to denounce free society as a failure, and hence tin; condition of tlie ]ioor white man of the South became scarcely more tolerable than that of the slaves themselves. r But, sir, I will not follow this history, the fierce, domineering, bullying spirit of slavery in our national Capitol, its attempt to establish itself by force upon Kansas, &c., but simply say that its front became so brazen, and its aims and demands were at such hostile variance with our free institutions, that it became evident that the two systems of freedom and slavery could not exist in the same land. And when Abra- ham Lincoln, the great emancipator, came be- fore the American people to define and to as- sert the great proposition that this nation could not remain half slave and half free, when the slaveholders saw that the power was departing from them by the admission into the Union of new free States, when they saw that they could no longer rely upon full cooperation from their northern sympathizers, and a resolute spirit in the northern States to resist the further en- croachment of slavery, then they waxed wroth, and in the pride and insolence which the system had engendered thc.v drew the sword and struck at the life of the nation. It was under such cir- cumstances as these that the rebel States raised the banner of revolt, ordained themselves out of the Union, fired upon our flag, and forced us into that self-defensive war which, thank God and our brave Army, resulted in the total ex- termination of the monster slavery, and planted our flag wherever traitor hands had pulled it down. What was this war about? "State rights." It was a question whether the Constitution and laws of the United States were to be the su- preme law of the land, or whether State sov- ereignty, as it was termed, was to be the supreme law. It was whether a State, at its mere pleas- ure and volition, had a right to secede from the Union and to establish a separate and inde- pendent government. It was State rights, which we now see resuscitated, creeping up again, and peering out from manifestoes in high quar- ters, and interpolated, in my humble judgment, without any proper connection, into funeral ora- tions. "State rights," whichsaysifCongressat- tempts to assert its power Kentucky will go out of the Union. ' ' State rights, ' ' which the honor- able Senator from Maryland says, if Congress attempts to regulate the qualification of electors in the States, they will claim the right to resist the act even to the i:)oint of revolution. Let me here say by way of parenthesis, God forbid we should have any more revolution ; but, sir, I am here to say — not in the language of threat- ening, but speaking for the State which I rep- resent, covered all over with glory as she is, having sent two hundred aiul fifty thousand of her brave volunteers to the field to put down the late rebellion — should traitor hands again fire on the flag, she is just as ready now as she was then to send five hundred thousand more men to crush out the fell spirit of rebellion and disunion. [Great applause in the galleries.] The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Doout- TLE in the chair.) The interruption has been so frequent of late in the gallery that the Chair feels called upon to enforce the order of the Senate and to direct that the galleries be cleared. The Sergeant-at-Arms will clear the gallery on the right of the Chair. The Sergeant-at-Arms proceeded to execute the orders of the Presiding Ofiicer. Mr. GUTHRIE. I think the applause was an inadvertence on the part of the galleries, and I would be very glad if the Chair, on re- consideration, would reverse its order. I will almost pledge myself for the galleries that the disturbance will not be repeated. Mr. HOWARD. I hope so, too. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair will submit the question to the Senate whether the order to clear the galleries shall be reversed or not. The question being put, the order was re- versed. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair understood the suggestion of the Senator from Kentucky to be that the order made by the Chair be reversed with the express understanding that if there is any repetition of the disturb- ance in the galleries the order will hereafter be strictly enforced. Mr. GUTHRIE. That is my understand ing, and I hope it will never take place again The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Chair therefore, under the direction of the Senate will withdraw the order to clear the galleries with that understanding. Mr. YATES. Yes, sir, "State rights" is again the bugle note! "State rights," as though one refractory child in a family had the right to control not only all his brothers and sisters, but the father from whom he derived being and support. I had in the simplicity of my heart supposed that " State rights," being the issue of the war, had been decided. I had supposed that we had established the proposi- tion that there is a living Federal Government and a Congress of the LTnited States. I do not mean a consolidated Government, but a central Federal Government which, while it allows the States the exercise of all their ap- propriate functions as local State governments, can hold the States well poised in their appro- priate spheres, can secure the enforcement of the constitutional guarantees of republican gov- ernment, the rights and immunities of citizens in the several States, and carry out all the ob- jects provided for in the preamble of the Con- stitution, "provide for the common defense," "promote the general welfare," " establish jus- tice," and " secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and to our posterity." Is it to be pretended uoav that we are to leave to thirty-six States the determination of the fundamental question of citizenship? Can it be expected that the local politicians of the States will adjust upon a right basis the rela- tions of the freedmen? Why shall we throw this bone of contention again into the States to breed a new and dangerous agitation ? If we leave these questions to an outside power, to the Congress of the United States, who ex- ercises its power according to the Coiistitution and under the Constitution, even if it confers suffrage upon the freedmiin, all will submit and rejoice in the end. They are even now pre- pared to surrender these questions upon the ground of the late conquest of the Govern- ment. But if we leave them to the States, then we have no security for the citizen ; we cannot have uniformity of legislation ; if we give up to the States the power to decide the fundamental question of citizenship upon which the life of the Government depends, then Ave must expect wrangling and distinctions of classes, which may result in a war quite as bloody and as fatal as that which recently has shrouded our land in the weeds of sorrow. Let us not commit the fearful error of our fathers by a departure from the organic prin- ciples of justice and equal rights, and sow the seeds of a future conflict of races, of future war and permanent disunion. Mr. President, while I do not agree with all the propositions contained in the able and mas- terly speech of the Senator from Wisconsin, [Mr. DoOLiTTLE,] yet I do agree with him in one proposition, and that is, that these States are not out of the Union. That was what we were fighting about. They appealed to the sword. They threw all they had and all they were into the contest, and they lost, and these States are still in the Union, and by the blessing of Almighty God they shall ever stay in this Union. But I agree with our late President that this is a most pernicious abstraction. I presume that the difference between gentlemen on this question results from impressions that the legislation of Congress lor their reorganiza- tion depends upon their status in this regard. It is not so at all. To illustrate: both the Senators from Wisconsin, [Messrs. Doolit- TLE and Howe,] -while they disagree so widely on the question whether the States are in the Union, yet they sufficiently agree on all the questions which we are practically to consider. They both agree upon the proj^iosllion that to Congress is left tlie question of reopening our doors to the admission of Senators and Eep- rosentatives from the rebel States. Tliey l)oth agree upon the other vital question, that these States are not to be permitted to resume their practical relation with the Union until they by their conduct show that tliey are willing to give an unfeigned and heartfelt allegiance to the Union, or that they arc willing to come into tlie Union upon terms which sliall forever settle this question, and upon such a basis as will prevent the recurrence of another war, and secure, if not indemnity for t!ie past, at least security for the future. But, sir, we can accom- modate Ijolh of these gentlemen witliout any trouljle whatever. 'J'lie Slates are in the Union in law; they are out ol" the Union in fact. So far as any legislation tluit we projiose to apply to them to preserve our territorial integrity and submission to the laws is concerned, they are in the Union, and yet we juay regard the reljellious population as out of tlie Union for all purposes of representation until they comply with such just requirements as we may impose for securing protection to loyal men and pun- ishment to criminals. The case is anomalous ; national self-preservation is the paramount law of our action. We have not treated them either as States in full fellowship, nor entirely as States without government. It is simply a question of fact whether they are in a condition to be restored to all their rights in the Union or not. Upon that question I am sorry to disagree with my friend from Wis- consin, now in the chair, [Mr. Doolittle.] I have regarded him as a statesman ; I still so regard him ; and since my acquaintance with him I have feelings for him warmer than admi- ration. But I cannot account for the delusion — I will take back that term, and say that he is vastly and lamentably at fault when he is will- ing to open our doors wide to the readmission of the rebellious States into full fellowship into the Union with their present hostile feelings to the United States without further guarantees on their part or protective legislation upon our part. j Why, sir, look at the facts that boldly and de- fiantly stand out upon the record of southern disloyalty, and stare us like ghastly specters in the face. We see the Governor of Alabama appointing two rebel Senators judges of the supreme court but recently. AVe know that the only passport to southern office, to the Legis- lature and to Congress, is fidelity in the rebel army and in the rebel cause. We know there is a bitter and unrelenting hostility toward the freedmen who have been emancipated by the constitutional amendment, as is proven by the orders of General Terry in Virginia, General Sickles in South Carolina, General Thomas in Mississippi, and by the general order of Gen- eral Grant, interposing the strong arm of mili- tary authority to prohibit oppressive discrim- inations against the freedmen in those States. They are as defiant in their dangerous dogma of State sovereignty as when the war began. They are clamoring for the payment of the rebel debt. They are opposing the payment of the debt incurred by the United States. They are demanding compensation for their slaves. They treat our test oath as a nullity. They jeer our glorious flag. They caricature our institutions in tlielr theaters and public assemblages ; and in their hearts tlu'y curse the day they were made to submit to the authority of the Union. Mr. President, does that lionorable Senator propose that these States shall be received into this Union, that the rebels shall be allowed to go to the polls and exercise the riglit of suf- frage, wliile the loyal men who have bared their breasts to the storm of liattle in obedience to the call of Abraham Lincoln, and with his promise that they should be maintained in their freedom — yes, '^ »iaiiit(tiiii'd,'^ that's the word — while they are disfrauoliised? While the tragedies of the cruel war, traitorously provoked, are fresh in our memories and the blood of our countrymen cries to us fVom tin; ground, is my friend from Wisconsin willing to turn over the government of those States to secessionists and rebels, to the virtual exclusion and disfranchisement of the brave Union men who have borne aloft our flag amid the storm and thunder of battle ? Sir, until that promise of Abraham Lincoln is re- deemed, that the freedmen shall be "main- tained in their freedom, ' ' is made good to those men who wore the United States uniform, those men who rallied under the glorious folds of our old flag by the side of our brave boys and min- gled their warm blood in the same current with theirs upon many a gory battle-field ; those men who flashed two hundred thousand bayonets in the face of Jefferson Davis and traitors, I will never consent that those States be received into full brotherhood in the Union. They shall be vouchsafed at least eveiy right which the rebels themselves shall enjoy. And I appeal to you, Mr. President, I ap- peal to Senators, by the bloody memories of the war; by the tears of the soldier's widow and the soldier's orphan boy; by the sufferings and miseries and death of those In'ave men who in obedience to God went forth to fight the battles of the country, and whose bones now lie in un- marked graves upon southern soil ; by the grand solemnities which surround the murder and memory of Abraham Lincoln ; by the love we bear our country, for which they fought and fell ; and by all our hopes for lasting peace and per- manent Union, that now, having the power, we will plant the pillars of the Government upon the granite foundations of God's eternal justice and upon the undying principles of individual and universal human libertj'. While I speak thus, I say to the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. Doolittle] that I will be as prompt as he whenever they by their conduct evince the proper spirit; whenever they show that they renounce their old ideas of allegiance to the South alone, and will give unfeigned, heartfelt allegiance to the Government, and will present to us constitutions republican in form and laws equal and impartial to all, I will join that Senator and hail the auspicious day when as of yore, on the land and the sea, and over all the States reunited, high over all, shall float the star-spangled banner. Sir, there is one basis upon which these dif- ficulties can be settled, and only one, and that is to return to the fundamental principles which were aimed to be established by our fathers, and to give rights to those men whom in an evil hour they most reluctantly disfranchised. Vain is the hope of the statesman, however high he may be, who expects that we can set- tle these questions upon any other basis than upon the basis of the principles laid down in the Declaration of Lidependence. If this Con- gress does not adopt it, the next Congress will. There is (I say it with deference in this great presence) only one salvation. If you do not seize the splendid opportunity, the next Con- gress will. All your amendments must fail. They lack the motive power. They are like a watch with all its machinery beautifully adapted, butwithout the mainspring.. They are without the motive power, that living element of republican Governments, the popular will; and without that they cannot be adopted. Is it reasonable to suppose that even all the free States will adopt the amendment which has been reported by the honorable chairman of the committee on reconstruction? I simply submit the proposition, and know the answer of every gentleman. Is it reasonable to sup- pose that the slave States will either consent to curtail their representation one half, or that they will confer the right of franchise upon the freedmen? And in the mean time are we lo keep up a standing army or Freedmen's Bu- reau, with thousands of officials, to hold them in subjection to the Government? I do not say now that I may or may not vote for any of these amendments. It is not material to my proposition whether I do or not. I may vote for them in view of the one thousandth chance that they may pass. I consider the whole of them imperfect, and as postponing the period of restoration to a' day far too remote for the future security and peace of the coun- try. It is entirely immaterial so far as the position I take is concerned, for I contend that Congress has the power now as fully and as completely in every respect as it could be given to them by any amendment to the Con- stitution, by general law, under the recent amendment, to secure the reorganization of the Government upon the basis of justice and equality. I believe it was the distinguished Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Wilson] who said that he did not expect to wait until there was a change of heart in the southern people. I agree with him, and more than that, I say that if we wait until the southern people shall learn to love the Yankees and to hate slavery and to love the Government by whose strong arm and chastening rod they have been whipped into obedience, the time will be long, and I fear so far in the future that in the mean time our long and dangerous delay and our omission to use the power we already clearly have might result in a calamitous change of parties and in the restoration of the rebellious States in a condi- tion quite as ol)jectionable as when they first rebelled with all the chances and probabilities of a future war and final separation. I hope that Congress will not attempt the im- possible task of making the South love the Union, but what I do hope, and what is reason- able to hope, is that we shall remove foreverthe causes which have divided us, and settle all dif- ferences upon principles which will prevent any cause of quai-rel or division in the future, and lay the foundation for perpetual peace and union, and which can only bo done upon the principle of equality to all, and removing all distinctions of class, race, color, or any pre- vious condition growing out of the institution of slavery. Sir, by the bill which I presented I nail the colors of universal suffrage to the masthead — not in South Carolina or Georgia or Kentucky, but I meet the vital issue of the hour, and pro- 6 claim that under the Constitution as amended it is not only our right but our duty to extend the suffi-age to every American citizen in every State, and to all the country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. I also wish, by way of prelude to my argu- ment, to remark that the questions at issue are fundamental; they are organic, and we can arrive at no correct conclusions without inves- tigating all the rights — natural, civil, and polit- ical — to which every American citizen is enti- tled. It involves the settlement of several ques- tions. What is slavery ? What is freedom? Who is a citizen ? Who makes, or how does a person become a citizen ? What are the rights of a citizen? How are the rights of a citizen secured to him? These questions are asked not in reference to citizenship in some foreign Government, not in reference to the common law, but in refer- ence to the United States of America, where we have founded a Government upon the basis of equal laws and universal liberty. All these questions I shall not answer in detail, but all will be embraced in the positions I shall as- sume. I will only remark generally that in the United States, on account of the democratic features thereof, all the terms I have used have a distinctive national meaning, applicable to our nation alone. For instance, Webster, in giving the various definitions to the word "citizen," defines that in the United States a citizen means "a person, native or natural- ized, who has the privilege of exercising the elective franchise, or the qualifications which enable him to vote for others and to purchase and liold real estate." While I admit that in law others than voters may he citizens, in this country no man considers himself a full citizen till he has the right to vote. The minor does not consider himself free, "his own man," until he can vote. So of the foreigner; and by universal consent the ballot is recognized as the badge of the American citizen. Since I introduced my Ijill, the honorable Senator from Massachusetts [Mr. Sumxer] has introduced a Ijill in which he founds the right to secure universal suflrage to all freemen in the rebellious Slates upon that clause of the Consti- tution which "guaranties to every State a re- publican government," and [ understand him to found his argument upon the idea that before the adoption of the amendment to tlu' (Consti- tution, Congress had ]>()wer to cnforci' the pro- visions of that guarantee in every State in the Union. 1 am sorry to disagree with the hon- orable gentlemu!!, for the reason I luivc already stated, that under tiic late Constitution of the United States, an I understand it, our fathers in an o\[\ lu)ur com])roniiscd. and recognized the existence of slavery, and that under a de- cision of the Supreme Court of the United States it was decided that a man who was a slave, or who was the descendant of a slave, or who was liable to be bought and sold, or who was excluded from the society of our fathers at the time the Constitution was adopted, was not a citizen, and therefore under that decision the States had the power to exclude black persons from the exercise of the right of suflrage. The Senator from Massachusetts is right, however, in presenting that clause as part of his argu- ment, because under the amendment abolish- ing slavery no State constitution can be repub- lican in form which disfranchises any citizen of the United States. The bill of the distinguished Senator is objectionable because it is partial and operates only upon the rebellious States. All, however, turns upon the simple proposi- tion contained in the bill which I have ofi'ered, the guarantee to all citizens of their rights under the recent amendment to the Constitution. Then, sir, I come to the only proposition which is feasible, and which, if not adopted by this Congress, will be by the next. I say this with deference to others. The recent amendment abolishes slavery in all the States and Territories of the United States ; not in South Carolina or Georgia alone, but in Illinois and every other State, and by that amendment, as I understand the distin- guished Senator from Kentucky [Mr. Gcthrie] to admit — and I honor and thank him for the admission — all constitutions, laws, and civil reg- ulations in support of slavery as a matter of course fall to the ground. Congress by this amendment attempted, what? It undertook to secure freedom to four millions of our people who had formerly been in bondage ; and how? It has been asked, if slavery is already abolished and all laws and institutions growing out of slavery fall to the ground, why pass a law by Congress to enforce that provision of the Con- stitution? I will tell you why. Because a law is necessary by the very terms of the second clause of the amendment to give efl'ect and operation to the clause abolishing slavery. "Congress shall have power," to do what? "To enforce;" enforce what? Enforce the foregoing clause of the Constitution abolish- ing slaver}'. How shall it enforce it ? By legis- lation. AVhat sort of legislation? By"a]')pro- priate legislation." How " appropriate?" By legislation appropriate to the end in view. What is the end in view? It is the freedom of these fourmillionhuman beings, who have been eman- cipated into the people of the United States. My distinguished colleague asked the question, is it possible that we will set four million human beings free in the United States and will not guaranty to then\ the protection of their civil rights? I extend the question, and 1 ask, shall we set four million human beings free in the United States and not extend to them their political rights ? But it is said the right to vote is a mere political right. At the hazard of l)eing a little tedious I shall attemj)t to show that civil and political rigiits, according to the construction of the courts, are entirely synony- moiis. Wendell's Blackstone, volume one, page 123, says: "And, therefore, the principal view of human law is, or .ouslit always to be, to explain, protect, and enforce such rights as are absolute, which in them- selves arc lew and simple; atid then such rights as are relative, which arising from a variety of connec- tions will be far more numerous and more compli- cated." Does any Senator on this floor say that there is not the same duty to secure the relative or political rights to the citizen that there is to secure hira in the enjoyment of Lis natural rights? The reason why it is made the first duty to secure to a man his natural rights is because they are first simply in order. First, natural rights from the necessity of the case, and then the relative rights, which are more numerous, are to be secured ; not that one is more important than the other, no more than in the orders of the Senate petitions are to be considered as more important than the consid- eration of bills because they are first intro- duced. They are alike equally important, and it is as much the duty of tlie Government to secure the political rights as it is the civil rights. On page 125, Blackstone says: "Bi'<^ every man when he enters into society gives up apart uf his natural liberty as the part of to valu- able a imrchuse, and in consideration of receiving the advantages of mutual commerce, obliges himself to confoim to those laws which the community has thought proper to establish." What is a civil right ? It is such a limitation or extension of the natural right as is conferred by statute. That makes it a civil regulation; that makes it a civil law ; that makes it a civil right. For instance, every man in a state of nature has a right to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, but when the Legislature interposes and by law says that he shall convey it by deed, or that the first deed recorded shall be evidence of title, that is a civil regulation. Now, let me ask you whether in a state of nature, when men have organized themselves into a cominunity, is it not the natural right of every man to have a voice in the afi'airs of that community? Is not that a natural right? If he confers that right upon representatives or upon somebody else to administer, and a law is passed declaring that he shall give expression to that voice by the ballot, then it becomes both a civil and political regulation at the same tini'ei Sir, go back to the days of our colonial history, and in all our colonial assemblages, where our foreiathers met to discuss the afi'airs pertaining to the colonies ; where they fired their hearts for the great Revolution in which they were soon to be engaged, how did, they decide all matters of controversy? By a show of hands. Each man raising his hand voted whether or not the measure for taxation or for public im- provement or for educational purposes or for any olher purpose should be adopted. When it is pi'oposed that he shall exercise that voice by a statutory provision establishing a ballot, does it become any less a natural right? Is it any less a civil right? It is a natural, civil, and political right. But again, to show that this is a distinction without a difi'erence, I refer you to Blackstone, on the same page, wherein he says: "Political, therefore, or civil liberty, which is that of a member of society, is no other than natural lib- erty so far restrained by human laws (and no further) as is necessary and expedient for the general advan- tage of the public." The meaning of that is, that civil and polit- ical liberty are synonymous terms. Blackstone applies the same definition to both. 1 hope I shall be pardoned now if I refer to a decision of the Supreme Court which is conclusive upon that point. I quote from Judge Daniels, one of the assenting judges in the Dred Scott de- cision. He says in 19 Howard, page 476: "Hence it follows necessarily, that a slave, the pe- cvliumor property of a master, and possessing within himself no civil nor political rights or capacities, can- not be a citizen. I'or who, it may be asked, is a cit- izen? What do the character and status of citizen import? AVithout fear of contradiction, it does not import the condition of being private property, the subject of indiTidual power and ownership. Upon a principle of etymology alone, the term citizen, as de- rived from civitas, conveys the ideas of connection or identification with the State or Government, and a participation of its functions. But beyond this, there is not, it is believed, to be found, in the theories of writers on government or in any actual experiment heretofore tried, an exposition of the term citizen which has not been understood as conferring the act- ual possession and enjoyment or the pertect right of acquisition and enjoyment of an entire equality of privileges, civil and political." He declares it to be not only his own opinion, but that it is the universal opinion of all legal writers upon the question, that by the term cit- izen is meant one who is entitled to both eivil and political rights. The object of the constitutional amendment was to secure freedom to the slave and to those ■ who have suffered from the institution of sla- very. It will not be pretended that Congress ever meant to set four million slaves free, to emancipate them into freedom, and at the same time leave them without the civil and political rights which attach to the free citizen. And hence, sir, the Senate at this session have passed the bill introduced by my colleague [Mr. Trivm- bull] to protect all persons in the United States in their civil rights, and also to provide courts and laws with adequate penalties for the vindi- cation of those rights. It provides that "-the inhabitants, of every race and color, without any regard to the previous condition of slavery," shall have the same " right to make and enforce contracts, to sue and be parties and give evi- dence, to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property; and to full and equal benefit of all laws and proceedings for the security of i)erson and ijropcrty."' Here, sir, I contend, we have fully established the prin- ciple, and upon the same principle have full right and constitutional power to pass the bill which I have proposed, protecting the inhabit- ants, of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery, in all their civil and political riglrts, including the right of suffrage. The Dred Scott decision is referred to, to show that the negroes are not citizens; but 8 that decision was made under the Constitution of the United States before this amendment was adopted. That decision, overturning, as it did, the whole line of judicial authority, and abhorrent to the civilization and Christianity of the age in which we live, went so far as to say that the negro at the period of the adop- tion of the Constitution had no rights which a white man was bound to respect, and to lay down the doctrine that slavery could go into all the Territories of the United States, indejxind- ent of popular sovereignty, of the will of the people, or of the Constitution of the United States. But, sir, that decision is wiped out; it has gone down to a kindred doom with the institution which it was intended it should per- petuate ; and I now quote from the decision itself to show that under the existing state of affairs, under the constitutional amendment, the fi'eedmen are citizens by the irresistible deduc- tions and inferences from the Dred Scott de- cision itself. In the celebrated case of Dred Scott vs. Sanford, which is reported in 19 How- ard, page 404, is the following language ; I read from the opinion of Chief Justice Taney: "The words, 'people of the United States' and 'citizens' are synonymous terms and mean the same thing. They both describe the political body, who, according to our republican institutions, form the sovereignty, and who hold the power and conduct the Government through their representatives. They are what we familiarly call the sovereign people,' and every citizen is one of this people and are constit- uent members of this sovereignty." Now, sir, if that was the case, why was Dred Scott not a citizen? We shall find out. The decision then jiroceeds to state why negroes were n6t included as a portion of the people and constituent members of the sovereignty: "Because they were at that time considered as a subordinate and inferior class of beings who had been Bubjugated by the dominant race, and whether eman- cipated or not, yet remained subject to their authority, and had no right or privileges but such as those who held the power and the Government might choose to grant them." Is not the inference irresistible that if by any subsequent amendment oft he Constitution they became a part of the people, they would be cit- izens and entitled to the same rights and privi- leges with all tlie other citizens of the United States? The decision goes on to quote the words of the Declaration of Inde]iendence : " We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal," &c. The Chief Justice then jiroceeds to comment on that clause, as follows : "The general words above quoted would socm to embrace the whole human family, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day would be so undorslood. I'utitistoo clear fordii^puto that the enslaved African race were not intended to be in- cluded, ami formed no partof the people who framed and mlnplcd lliis Dc'claration ; for if Iho language, as undcrnlood nt th;it day, would embrace tlicin, the conduct ol' tlio distinguished men who framed the Duolarntioii of Independence would have been utterly and flagrantly inconsistent with the principles they aaserted: and instead of the synipa thy of mankind, I o which tliey so conlidi'iitly ai)|)ealcd, they would have dcBcrvcd and received universal rebuke and repro- bation." And DOW what shall be said of us at this day, when they are clearly included in the terms of the Constitution, and by special clauses therein are made free people, if we fail to carry out the full spirit and fair interpretation of the Consti- tution of the United States with regard to this long oppressed race of our fellow-citizens? Will we not be utterly and flagrantly inconsistent if now, by the vei-y terms of the Constitution, we are required to treat them as people and as citizens, and we fail to do so? Mr. SAULSBURY. While the honorable Senator is on this point, will he allow me to put a question to him? Mr. YATES. Certainly. Mr. SAULSBURY. Under the registering law of the State of Maryland more than one half of tlie former voters of that State arc ex- cluded from the right of suffrage, although they have never been convicted of any crime. Many of the most prominent citizens of the State, who have never been convicted of crime, or sus- pected by any fair-minded man of liaving been guilty of crime, are excluded from tlie right of voting. Are those men, more than one half the former voters of the State, who are now excluded from voting in that Stat?, citizens, or are they not? Mr. YATES. I will answer that question in the course of my remarks, and will only make the statement now, that neither any State in this Union, nor the Congress of the United States, has power under the Constitution or under the decision of the Supreme Court to deprive a citizen of the prerogative of the elect- ive franchise. That is the position I assume. I have but just now read from the decision of the Supreme Court, by Chief Justice Taney himself, to show that the "people" of the United States were the " citizens" of the Uni- ted States. Who made the Constitution of the UnitedStates? " We the people" "do ordain and establish this Constitution." Did thoCon- stitution make the people of the United States? No, sir. The moment a man is a freeman, by any law, by any constitution in the United States, that man becomes one of the body- politic. He passes into the body of the sov- ereignty, as it is termed by the decision of the Supreme Court. He is one of the people. He is one of the citizens of the United States of America; and as I shall presently show, no State, nor Congress, except by constitutional amendment, has any right whatever to deprive a citizen entirely of the right of suffrage. I will read further from the same decision. This decision goes on to say, on page 4'2() of the same volume : "No one, wo prcsumo,suppo.scs that any change in public opinion or feeling in relation to this unfortu- nate race, in the civilized nations of i;uroi)e or ni this country, should induce the court to give to the words of the Constitution aiuore liberal construction in llieir favor than they were intended to bear when the instrument was framed and adopted." * * * * "If any of its provisions arc deemed unjust, there is a mode iirescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended, but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was under- stood at the time of its adoption." 9 But it has been altered ; the negro is no longer regarded as a slave or belonging to a subject race, but as the gentleman from Maryland. [Mr. JoHNSox,] even, admits, he is a man, and susceptible of the highest cultivation. It is in the light of this new estimate of the freedman that we are to consider the provisrons for his emancipation now in the Constitution, and to confer upon him the full and equal en- joyment of all his rights. Sir, I do not believe our fathers had any such low estimate as was attributed to them in that decision, but that they did most reluctantly compromise for rea- sons before stated. I vindicate them from the black stain implied by any construction which would go to show that they meant "all men" except the negro "are created equal." I said, I did not believe the framers of the Declaration meai>t to exclude any particular class or race of men, when they declared all men equal. Sir, facts are stubborn things, and no logic, not even of the most astute and pro- found lawyer, can destroy the force of any im- portant fact. It is a stern, stubborn, historical fact thatat the time of the adoption of the Constitution the freedmen, inhabitants of the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina, were not only citizens of those States but possessed the franchise of electors on equal terms with the other citizens, and, sir, were not only in- cluded in the body of the people of the United States by whom the Constitution was made, but voted on the question of its adoption. Is it not strange that the framers meant to say that they were not included in the Declaration of In- dependence who were suffered to vote whether or not the Constitution should be ordained and established? There is another stubborn fact which goes to show that the fathers did not design to make the distinction in favor of white men only, and that fact is this, that while the Articles of Con- federation were under the consideration of Con- gress, on the 2;M June, 1778, the delegates from South Carolina moved to amend the fourth of the fundamental Articles of the Confederation, which reads as follows : "The free inhabitants of each of these States, pau- pers, vagabondri. and fugitives from justice excepted, shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of the free citizens of the several States." They moved to amend this fourth article by inserting after the word "free," and before the word "inhabitants," the word "white;" so that the privileges and immunities of general citizenship would b* secured only to white persons. Only two States voted for it, while eight voted against it, and the vote of one State was divided, and the language of tho article remained unchanged and went into the Con- stitution of the United States without any re- striction to white persons. But whether or not the fathers meant to ex- clude free colored persons, the decision in the Dred Scott case was made under the Consti- tution before the recent amendment, and the court, in the following emphatic language, leaves the inference irresistible that the decision would be different in case of an amendment of that instrument. I quote from 19 Howard, page 42G: " No one, we presume, supposes that any change in public opinion or feeling iu relation. to this unfortu- nate race in tlie civilized nations of Europe, or in this country, should induce the court to give to the words 01 the Constitution a more liberal construction in their favor than they were intended to bear when the in- strument was framed and adopted." * * * * "If any of its provisions are deemed unjust, there is a mode prescribed in the instrument itself by which it may be amended; but while it remains unaltered, it must be construed now as it was understood at the time of Its adoption." The meaning of this, sir, was that a slave or a descendant of a sL-we could not be a citizen under the Constitution as originally adopted, and that it must be so construed until the Con- stitution is altered. It has been altered, and conforms to public opinion of the present day, which demands the recognition of the manhood of the negro. And there is not a word in that whole decis- ion which, under the Constitution as altered, does not go to support the proposition that the freedman, under the amendment, stands upon the same footing of civil and political equality with the white man ; subject to the same stat- utory disabilities, and entitled to all the rights and privileges of the white man. Now, sir, I come to the point to which the Senator from Delaware has referred, and ac- cording to the decision relied upon especially by that Senator, the decision in the Dred Scott case, I here take the position that Congress has no power to make a citizen, except to natural- ize a foreigner, or to make him a citizen by naturalization ; nor has a State any such right. Mr. S AULSBURY. Had the State of Mary- land the right to enact that law? That is my question. Mr. YATES. The State of Maryland can- not exclude any man in the United States who has in himself the inherent rights, the God- given rights of manhood and freedom. Mary- land cannot do it, and Illinois cannot do it. and all the power of the Congress of the United States cannot do it, except by an amendment to the Constitution conferring upon Congress that power. I refer next to the same decision upon the question of the rights of citizens in the several States. I admit that according to this decision every State had a right to exchule an African citizen, and the constitution of that State or the law of that State was not anti-republican in its form ; but when a man becomes a citizen of the United States he cannot be excluded by any State. I read from the same decision, page 423 of the same volume, where you will see that Chief Justice Taney was trying to show that all these State laws would be unconstitu- tional if the negro was a citizen, tliat he could come into the State in spite of the power of the constitution of the State and claim the right.s of a citizen, and the Chief Justice goes on to 10 show what would be the consequences of such a construction : "If persons of the African race arc citizens of a State and of the United States they would be entitled to all of these iirivilcges and immunities in every State, and the State could not restrict them; for they would hold these privilcRes and immunities under the paramount authority of the Federal Government, and its courts would be bound to enforce them, the consti- tution and laws of the State to the contrary notwith- standing:. And if the States could limit or restrict them, or place the party in an inferior grade, this clause of the Constitution would be unaieaninsr, and could have no operation, and would give no ri^'hts to thecitizen when in another State, lie would liavo none but what the State itself chose to allow him. Thfs is evidently not the construction or meaning ot the clause in question. It guaranties rights to the citizen, and the State cannot withhold them." If the Senator from Maine [Mr. Fessexdex] were now in his seat I wyuld show hitu where the penalty is for such a law as I propose. Whenever a law in any State is unconstitutional the courts are boutid to enforce the Constitu- tion. There is the penalty. We can receive theni or not receive their members-elect of Con- gress or members of the State Legislature. There is penalty again. And now, if such legis- lation is not absolutely necessary, yet it is highly expedient that at least a declaratory law should be passed so that uniform construction and uniform obedience and submission to the Constitution luay be secured from all the States. Now, sir, I come to the other proposition, and it is equally clear, that neither Congress nor a State make a citizen, except that Congress may naturalize foreigners, and is founded on good sense and reason. I read now from page 419, Chief Justice Taney's decision: " The Constitution upon its adoption obviously took from the States all jiower by any subsequent legisla- tion to introduce as a citizen into the political family of the United St:itcs any one, no matter where liewas born, or what might be his character or condition; and it gave to Congress the power to confer this char- a<-t('r upon those only who were born outside of the dominions of the United States." The decision goes on to say that therefore no law of Congress or of any State can deprive a citizen of his rights. Sir, there was one view upon which this de- cision did deprive the freedman of the right to vote. What was that? It was upon the saiue view that a woman is deprived of the right to vote. What was that? Because he could not come to the support of and defend the Govern- ment ; and I have the decision of tlie Supreme Court here, wliicli is irresistible on that jioint. If a man can come to the sujiport and defense of the (Jovenimcnt, lie is necessarily one of the body-politic and one of the people of the Uni- ted States. J dwell upon these points at some length knowing that they are tedious, but 1 am making them not only for the Senate but for the country, for it is the reflex influence of our great consliluency on Congress to which 1 look for the passage of the bill I propose. In tlie same volume. J^agc Hr), the Chief. lustiee cites tlie casi' of N(!w JlampHliire to show that the negroes were not cilizi^ns under tlie Constitu- tion of the United States, and gives as a rea- son that they were not enrolled in the militia of the United States. Let us see what he says : "The alien is excluded, because, being born in a foreign country, he caunot be a member of the com- munity until he is naturalized; but why arc the Af- rican race, born in the State, not permitted to share in one of the highest duties of the citizen? The an- swer is obvious. He is not, by the institutions and laws of the State, numbered among its people. He forms no part of the sovereignty of the State, and is not therefore called on to uphold and defend it." The rnomentthe United States of America per- mitted the name of the freedman to lie enrolled on that list of immortal names who l)ore the ban- ner of the Republic in triumph, and planted its victorious folds upon the battlements of the en-_ emy, this Government, by the proclamation of Abraham Lincoln, declaring that his freedom should be maintained, and by its pledge made to the civilized world, said, that he should be uot only a citizen in war but a citizen in peace. I know that we are met on every hand l)y the argu- ment that women are excluded froiu the right of suffrage. The answer to that is very easy and very plain. I am not proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States ; and there is no power in the Constitution to confer the right of suffrage uj)on a woiuan. According to the spirit of the decision to which 1 have referred, and by the universal consent of man- kind, she is not a part of the body-politic so_ as to exercise the right of suffrage. Now, if these gallant gentlemen are so anxious to con- fer suffrage on the ladies, and have them min- gle in the broils of parties and elections, let them b'ring in an amendment, and I am not sure that I will not vote for it. When it is asked why may she not vote since she is often a tax-payer, I answer that there are restrictions which are inevitable. Minority is such a restriction. Woman is excluded by the inevitable proprieties of the case. The ballot is in politics what the bayonet is in war. 'i'liose only who wield the sword are, by the universal consent of both ancient and modern civiliza- tion, supposed capable of wielding tlie ballot. We should most certainly violate the lu-opi-ie- ties of humanity were we to conqiel the softer sex to take part in the bloody work of physical warfare. And yet, sir, to thrust wonuin into the arena of political strife is quiteas abhorrent, in a degree, and would be quite as destructive of her womanly qualities, as to compel her to take part in the shock of arms. The only exception to the rule of ancient times, that woman should not bear arms, is to be found in traditions regarding the Amazons. They are represented a very warlike race of women as having deprived themselves of the right breast, that they might be the lietlerable to wielif the weapons of warfare. Would my friend from Missouri [I\Ir. IlENnr.nsox] per- mit such an act of barbarlly in the c:is(! of the elegant ami majestic ladles of his Slate, so re- markable ibr tlicir beauty and so irresistible in the fascination of their womanly charms? I know what his answer would be. Well, would he do what is worse, have her do morally what 11 the Amazons did physically, by thrusting her into the strifes and stern conflicts of politics and elections, part with those softer, more deli- cate, more lovable qualities, which constitute her the ornament of society, and which, as Edmund Burke says, "inspire in man the high- est and noblest passions of human life? " I am not proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States. If any of the gentlemen who propose to amend the Constitution wish to dis- play their gallantry, let them propose to amend it in this respect. There are some reasoiTs which are applicable to them which are not applicable to the male portion of the people. They do not bear all the l)urdens of the Gov- ernment; do not work the roads ; they do not fight in the Army. I come, then, to the question, how is a citizen of the United States made ? How does a man become a citizen of the United States? Those ■who were citizens of the United States at the adoption of the Constitution were the people. "We, the people, do ordain and establish this Constitution." The words "people" and " cit- izen'^'^re synonymous, as I have shov.'n. Now, sir, I show that by the amendment to the Consti- tution of the United States the former slave has become a freeman ; his disability is removed ; he is no longer one of a subject race; he can- not be bought and sold ; he steps from his con- dition of slavery into the family of freedom, becomes one of the body-politic, and is one of the sovereign people. And, sir, if no State can make him a citizen, and if the Congress of the United States cannot make him a citizen, ex- cept through an alteration of the Constitution so as to confer upon Congress the power, then he never can be a citizen except through the operation of the recent amendment, and he and his descendants forever must be deprived of this great right of franchise. Sir, they are cit- izens, or they are slaves. They are subjects, or they are sovereigns. This is exclusively a white man's Government, or it is. a Government for all men. What, then, is the objection to passing the bill for which I contend ? It is evident that you cannot confer freedom upon the slave without exercising your power under the Constitution. If you go betbre the people with constitutional amendments they will be voted down in the slave States and in some of the free States. The result will be that the people, determined to do justice to this class of men, will find the power wliere it properly belongs, in the consti- tutional amendment securing to them freedom, and in the subsequent clause which makes it the duty of Congress to enforce by appropriate legislation the prohibition of slavery and to secure full freedom, civil and political, to all citizens. Why will we not manfully meet the issue, and exercise the power we already have, and by a general law of Congress enforce the provision of the Constitution in all the States alike — in Illinois and Tennessee, in Maine and in South Carolina? I deny the conclusion of the Sena- tor from Missouri that there is reason to believe the Supreme Court, even under the hard ruling of the Dred Scott case, would decide the law unconstitutional. Whatcourt, after the Dred Scott decision, will again incur the infomy of all history by such a decision as this would be against justice and the enlightened convictions of the wise and good everywhere? I know what the politician's objection is. The politician's objection is, "Why take this out of the hands of the people of the States?" Sir, we do not take it out of the hands of the people of the States. The people of the States have by the Constitution conferred the power upon us ; they have placed the responsibility upon us ; and they will brand us with moral cowardice if, waiting to pass amendments which never can be adopted, we fail to exercise the power which we clearly have. I like the amendment of the Senator from Misssouri, [Mr. Hendp:rson,] but it can never be adopted. But I am opposed to it because we have already the power in the Constitution to do the same thing. Is there any statesman here who dares rise in his place and say that we haye the right to secure to the freedman all his civil rights, to give him the right to enforce con- tracts, to testify and be a party to suits, to acquire, hold, and dispose of property, but cannot secure him in his most essential right, the right by which he protects himself in the enjoyment of all his civil rights, of his person, of his family, his life, and his reputation ? I say, sir, that you cannot abolish slavery, you cannot secure freedom to the slave unless, by appropriate legislation, you pass a bill to give him that freedom in all the States and Terri- tories of the United States. Sir, let gentlemen come forward and meet the issue like men. Let them come forward and do what they have by the Constitution the clear power to do, and that is a sine qua non in order to carry into effect the constitutional pro- hibition of slavery. As for me, I would rather face the music and meet the responsibility like a man and send to the people of the State of Illinois the boon of universal suffrage and of a full and complete emancipation than meet the taunt of northern demagogues that I would force suffrage upon North Carolina and Ten- nessee and Delaware while I had not the cour- age to prescribe it for our own free States. Sir, it will be the crime of the century if now, having the power, as we clearly have, we lack the nerve to do the work that is given us to do. Let me say to my Republican friends, you are too late. You have gone too far to recede now. Four million people, one seventh of your whole population, you have set free. Will you start back appalled at the enchantment your own wand has called up? The sequences of your own teachings are upon you. As tor me, I start not back appalled when universal suf- frage confronts me. When the bloody ghost of slavery rises, I say, " Shake your gory locks at me; I did it." 1 accept the situation. I 12 fight not against tlie logic of events or the de- crees of Providence. I expected it, sir, and I meet it half way. I am for universal suf- frage. I bid it " all hail ! " "all hail ! " _ Four million people set free ! What will pro- tect them ? The ballot. What alone will give us a peaceful and harmonious South? The ballot to all. What will quench the fires of dis- cord, give us back all the States, a restored Union, and make us one people? The ballot, and that alone. Is there no other way? None other under the sun. There is no other sal- vation. Senators, go to the country with it. Write it upon the sky. Inscribe it upon your banners, and hang them on the outer walls. It is the flaming symbol of victory. Sir, tell me not that "the people will vote us down on this propo- sition." Address that argument to cowards. ' ' With the free and the bravo it avails nothing. ' ' You give- the white rebel the right to tax the loyal freedman, and to impose whatever bur- dens he pleases upon him, and you call that freedom. Liberty without equality is no boon. Talk not to me of civil without political emancipa- tion! It is the technical pleading of the law- yer ; it is not the enlarged view of the states- man. If a man has no vote for the men and the measures which tax himself, his family and his property and all which determine his repu- tation, that man is still a slave. You say that the citizen may have all his rights, to testify in courts, to enforce contracts, to acquire and'dis- pose of property ; but he shall not have his most essential riglit, the right to vote, because, you say, the right to vote is not a natural or a civil right, but a political right. Suppose that is true : what of it? It is a distinction without a difference. It is a special plea, and too narrow for statesmanship. The only way to give effect to your constitutional amendment — the only practical way — is to exercise the power which you have to secure every right, natural, civil, political, to all the people. I here positively deny that wo can give effect to the constitutional amendment giving free- dom to tlie slave, and yet debar him of the only weapon with which he can protect himself in that freedom. Emancipation, in tlie light of our Government, means not only the breaking of the chains of slavery, not only destroying the statiifiot' the slave, but it means conferring upon him every right which everj' American citizen enjoys. The legislation which secures the bal- lot is the only ' • appropriate' ' legislation. Your Freedmen's Bureaus are well enough as a tem- porary measure; but if yon will give the freed- man (h(> ballot, he needs no such law. (Jive him equaliiy in fact, the law will follow. The laws as they are for all other persons will be all he needs. (Jive him the ballot, and he will become an idenlilied element in soci(^ty, and the politicians who now Jeer and deride him, who i)()int to his infuinilios. will |iander to him. and he will become self sustaining. Sir, the ballot will finish tho negro question ; it will settle everything connected with this question. Give the frefedman the ballot, and we need no Freedmen's Bureau, we need no militavy regime, we need no vast expenditures, we need no standing army. The ballot will be his standing army. The ballot is the cheap and impregnable fortress of liberty. I may be pardoned for quoting the oft-quoted stanza: " There is a weapon surer yet And better than the bayonet ; A weapon that comes down as still As snow-flakes fall upon the sod, And executes a freeman's will As lightning does the will of God ; A weapon that no bolts nor locks Can bar — it is the ballot-box." The ballot will lead the freedman over the Red sea of our troubles. It will be the brazen serpent, upon which he can look and live. It will be his pillar of cloud by day and his pillar of fire by night. It will lead him to Pisgah'a shining height, and across Jordan's stormy waves, to Canaan's fair and happy land. Sir, the ballot is the freedman' s Moses. So far as man is concerned, I might say that Mr. Lin- coln was the Moses of the freedman ; but who- ever shall be the truest friend of human free- dom, whoever shall write his name highest upon the laorizon of public vision as the friend of human liberty, that man — and I hope it may be the present President of the United States — will be the Joshua- to lead the people into the land of deliverance. i Mr. President, there is one clause of the Con- stitution which I confess, when I commenced examining the Constitution to find this power in favor of equality, seemed to me an objection to the exercise of power which I have proposed, and that is this clause in section two, article one: "The House of Representatives shall be composed of members chosen every second year by the people of the several States, and the electors in each State shall have the qualifications ruiuisitc for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." If there was any force in that provision of the Constitution before the present amend- ment was adopted, there is none now. If the States could exclude an elector or any citizen from the right of suffrage before the adoption of the amendment, they cannot do so now, and why? Because the amendment being the last clause inserted in the Const! tut ion, repeals every former clause in conffict with it. It is thesub- sequent organic act of the people, and by the adoption of this amendment every freedman becomes one of the people, a citizen of the United States, and no Legislature has any power to dislVancliise him. It has the right to regulate the qualifications of whom? Of elect- ors; of those men who have a right to vote; of those nu^n who do vote. It can n^strict them by certain limitations and qualifications. Butdoes the word "regulate "' imply a power to destroy, or does it mean to preserve? The word "reg- ulate" means to make rules. Its derivation is from the Latin word regiila, a rule. It is to pre- scribe (jualifications for the citizens, for those who are entitled to vote, but there is no power whatever to destroy the rights of a citizen or to disfranchise a citizen ; and though the freed- man might have been disfranchised before the amendment, because not then a citizen, he is now a citizen by the operation of the amend- ment, and there is no power in the State to disfranchise him. Mr. Clay, when he contended that Congress, under the jjower in the Constitution "to regu- late commerce" among the several States, "had the right and the power to build up commerce, to establish lines of steamers between this country and foreign countries, and to build railroads between the several States," never claimed that under that power ' ' to regulate com- merce" Congress had a right to destroy com- merce. And there was one universal opinion among the Democratic party that the word "regulate" simply meant to prescribe the rules and regulations by which commerce already in existence should be carried on. This clause means that the States shall determine, not who shall vote, but when, how, and where the elect- ors shall vote, and that it may determine the time and place and manner in which they shall vote, and impose restrictions, not disfranchise- ment. I can make this question plain to any one. I ask the Senator from Oregon whether the Legislature of the State of Oregon can ever disfranchise him — can ever deprive him of his God-given right of suffrage ? I ask the Sena- tor from Minnesota whether there is any power in that State to deprive me of the right of fran- chise if I remove there? Is there any power to deprive any of my descendants of that right ? Is there any power to deprive any of the people of the United States of that right? If the power exists, and it can exclude me, may it not ex- clude one half or three fojirths of the people, and leave the governing power in the hands ot an oligarchy? I ask you whether the State of South Caro- lina can have a provision that no Yankee shall vote in that State? If they could, they would adopt it with a will and a vengeance. Can any State in this Union decide that no German shall exercise the right of suffrage? I very much doubt the constitutionality of the law of Mas- sachusetts, which says that the German shall not vote until he can read the flnglish language, because that may amount to a virtual disfran- chisement of some. I can say that it would be a very inexpedient law anyhow, for some of the best voting that is done in this country is pure unadulterated German. Suppose that Brigham Young should organize a sort of iwt- periinn in iniperio in Utah, and after that State was admitted into the Union the Legislature should decide that none but disciples of the Mormon faith should vote, or, as all tests of religion are excluded by the Constitution, sup- pose that State were to decide that no man who had not two wives should be allowed the right of suffrage, would it not be the duty of Con- gress to interfere and protect the right of the citizens who may go into that State ? I will ask another question. Suppose, as has often been the case, a white man is declared a slave and he becomes free, is there any power in the State ofMaine or any other State in this Union to disfranchise him, to take away from him en- tirely the right of suffrage ? You will answer, no. Well, sir, does the tinge of complexion alter the inalienable, the intrinsic, the inherent, the God-given rights of the American citizen? I admit that the States may prescribe qualifica- tions, not to destroy but to preserve the elective franchise of the freeman. There may be regis- try laws to protect the purity of the ballot and to prevent frauds; the minor under twenty- one years of age may be excluded. In the very nature of things there must be a period of ma- jority affixed to infancy ; but do you deprive that minor of the right to vote altogether ? No, sir. '■'■Dormitur aliquando jus^ moritur nunquam''' — "the right may sleep, but it dies never." But there is another point in this article one, section two, to which I desire to call attention. Observe that the clause reads: "The House of Representatives," &c., "shall be chosen every second year by the people of the several States." Now, who are the people of the several States ? Are they not the whole people? If there are any people in the several States not included in this clause, who are they? But Judge Taney says that people and citizens are synonymous. And it has been universally understood that the people of the States means all male citizens thereof over twenty-one years of age. There is no limitation in the words of the Constitution, and there can have been none, if by the people that formed the Constitution was meant the whole people of all the States, granting the exception as to the subject race according to the Dred Scott decision. But that excep- tion no longer existing, then the words ' peo- ple of the several States ' ' must and do mean the whole people thereof, minors and women excepted. Mr. President, I had intended, in the course of these remarks, to present my views against that class of legislation which is designed to secure what is called intelligent suffrage. I shall not now argue the point, but will merely say that I am unalterably opposed to any legis- lation whatever which shall determine the rights of the citizen by any test of wealth, intelligence, birth, or rank. I wish to say to my Kepub- lican Union friends that whenever they admit that principle, the test of Intelligence, they admit away their argument. If we prescribe intelligence for the negro and not for the white man, it is unequal, it is class legislation. That is not the shibboleth of equality of rights for all, which you have been crying. Well, if we apply it to all who cannot read or write, we exclude a large portion of our fellow-citizens who have always since the foundation of the Government, for eighty-five years past, exer- cised the right of suffrage, and exercised it well. Why now exclude them? Why, to reach the case of the poor freeman, and in order to inflict a tyrannous and barbarous restriction 14 upon him, exclude those who for eighty-five years have exercised the right of suffrage, and exercised it well ? Sir, sUch a proposition as that cannot obtain five votes in any western Legis- lature. The party which commits itself to an exclusion of those men, who for eighty-five years have exercised this inestimable right of freemen, is already doomed, and ought to be doomed forever I am not opposed to intelligence. I believe that intelligence and virture are the rock-bound foundations of our national prosperity and our national perpetuity. But if the success of our institutions depends more upon the one than the other — and I think they are inseparable for this purpose — it depends more on virtue. The poor loyal slave of the South was more religious and more loyal than his slave-master, andalmost as intelligent, perhaps, as the mass of the whites themselves. While I believe it might possibly be safe for the country to permit all to vote, I do not think it would be safe for the country to exclude either class altogether, or any large mass of the people. I believe in the foundation theories of our Government, that there is more intelligence and more virtue in all the people than in any part of the people. That is the doctrine for which I contend. I contend that the strong common sense of the populace of America is a safe element in this Government. The ballot is the greatest educator. Let a man have an interest in the Government, a voice as to the men and measures by which his taxes, his property, his life, and his reputation shall be determined, and there will be a stimu- lus to education for that man. As the elective franchise has been extended in this country we have seen education become more universal. Look throughout all our north- ern States at our schools and colleges, our acad- emies of learning, our associations ; the pulpit, the press, and the numerous agencies for the promotion of intelligence, all the inevitable off- spring of our free institutions. Here is the high training which inspires the eloquence of the senate, the wisdom of the cabinet, the address of the di])lomatist, and which has developed and Ijrouglit to light that intelligent and ener- getic mind which has elevated the character and contributed to vhe prosperity of the country. It is the ballot which is the stimulus to improve- ment, which fires the heart of youthful ambition, which stimulates honorable aspiration, which penetrates the thick shades of the forest, and takes the jjoor rail-splitter by liie hand and points him to the shining heiglit of human achievement, or wjiich goes into the log hut of the tailor Iioy and opens to him the avenue to the jiresidcntial mansion. Th(!re will be risk, it is said, in so much ig- norance in the body of electors. Has there not always been risk? Will there not always be risk in every democratic Government? lias not I'^urope poured annually her millions into oui' borders, sonic of whom cannot reail or write, and some of whom cannot speak our language? Have any of these Senators who propose to prescribe a qualification of intelligence ever thought of amending the naturalization laws, so as to require from foreigners that they should read and write? Sir, the masses may err, but it is not to their interest to err. If they do err, they are always ready to correct the mistakes which passion and prejudice have brought upon them. But how is it with an aristocracy? Look at this mournful illustration ; look at the rebellion of the edu- cated slave oligarchy of the South; look at the devastations of the bloody war which resulted from that rebellion. History, upon many a dark and Ijloody page, gives sad and mournful evi- dence that the limitation of the powers of Gov- ernlnent to the educated oligarchy or to an individual has resulted in wicked machinations against the welfare of the people, in the decay of empire, in bloody wars, leaving fearful devastations in the track of time. Why, sir, I will say that there has been in all time no usurpation, no conspiracy against the rights of the freemen, except upon the spe- cious plea of superior intelligence in the usurper or conspirators. We shall have to risk some- thing. So we shall, sir, and we must trust that one ignorant force will counterpoise another in the future as it has in the past. But, sir, if we prescribe intelligence as a guide, what grade of intelligence shall we have? When we propose to say that a man who can barely read and write shall vote, suppose I move to amend your proposition, addingthat theman who understands English grammar and the ground rules of arithmetic alone shall vote ; suppose I move to amend by saying that he shall have a libei-al common-school education ; suppose I move to, amend by saying that he shall have graduated with academic honors. Sir, that is the argument ad ahsunliim. The only safe rule is to extend the franchise to all, that all the virtue, all the intelligence, all the jiractical common sense, all the wisdom, and all the learning of all the people shall be em- ployed in the administration of the affairs of the Government. I admit that there are restric- tions which, as I have said, are inevitable ; they must be continued, and must be made appli- cable to all. They are the mere regulation of the suffrage. I was never a "Native American," although much of the foreign vole was cast against the old Whig party to which 1 belonged ; I)ut 1 am like the noble old Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wauk] when he said, '"I am willing to give to every man every right that I possess," and if by meritorious endeavor, if by playing well my part, if by developing any moral and intellec- tual faculties, 1 can attain to a higher position of eminence than he, then give me credit for it; but to what praise am I entitled if my su- perior fortune is the result of exclusive privi- leges which I deny to my unfortunate fellow- citizens ? I wish it distinctly understood that in all I have said here I am no cue- idea man. I never 15 had ''negro on the brain." [Laughter.] I always fight with the people and for the people. I never belonged to the Wendell Phillips or Geri'itt Smith party. I do not say this from want of respect for thera, for they were noble pioneers in the cause of human liberty ; but I am for the black man, not as a black man ; I am for the white man, notas a white man, but I am for man irrespective of race or color; I am for God's humanity here, elsewhere, and everywhere. Sir, Mr. Lincoln never said so beautiful a thingin all his life, accordingto my judgment, as when he said, "In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to the free." If we would preserve freedom for ourselves and our poster- ity, let us see to it that all are free, that there are no warring, wrangling, discordant races or classes out of which is to grow a future conflict of races, future war, and final disunion. My distinguished friend on my left,- [Mr. Davis,] the compeer of Mr. Clay and Mr. Crit- tenden, for whom I have such high respect, ? [noted from numerous authors to show that the reedmen belonged to an inferior race, to which I refer for this reason : if the Senator from Ken- tucky, the loyal and jjartriotic Senator from Ken- tucky, through the prejudices of education, can, with almost barbarous cruelty, parade, in long array, authorities from historians to show that the negro is an inferior race and not entitled to equal privileges with the white man, what may we not expect from the southern rebels whom negro valor has chastised, and whose secession principles negro votes shall yet vote down ? Mr. Lincoln made another beautiful remark in his letter to Governor Hahn. He said: "In some trying time the vote of the black man may serve to keep the jewel of .liberty in the family of freedom." Sir, the time may arrive when the southern slaveholders and their northern sympathizers may come so near having the control of the Government, that the loyal black vote may be the balance of power and cast the scale in favor of Union and liberty. If universal suffrage is wrong, our Govern- ment is wrong. I am willing to conform to the principles of my Government wherever they may lead. If it turns out, as I fondly hope it may not, that our fathers were wrong, and that our people are incapable of self-govern- ment, and that a wealthy few, an intelligent few, or a single monarch ought to govern them, I cannot help it, but that is not the principle for which I am fighting. I am fighting to carry out to its legitimate conclusion, to its logical sequence, what I believe to be the decree of Almiglity God, that all men are created equal. Gentlemen ask me ' ' if I will go before the peo- ple of Illinois with such a proposition as this." Ay, indeed, and welcome it. I have no fear of the result. Through the clouds of the pres- ent I see the brightness of the future. There is, deep seated in the hearts of the American people everywhere, the firm conviction that this negro question, however unpalatable its discussion may be, will never be settled until it is adjusted upon the principle of justice and equality. Sir, I can see now plainly the beginning of the end. I now seethe apotheosis of that living principle which fied the persecutions of the Old World ; which sought a home amidst the sterile rocks of New England ; which remonstrated against taxation without representation ; which exhibited its opposition to class legislation upon the bloody field of Bunker Hill, and which finally culminated in the greatest and most majestic and dominant idea of the world — the Declaration of American Independence. Sir, I am a man of the people ; twenty-five years of public service make me believe that I understand something of the temper and dispo- sition of the people; and I am here to-day to say that it is my conscientious conviction that if every Senator on this fioor and every Repre- sentative in the other House and the President of the United States should with united voices attempt to oppose this grand consummation of universal equality, they will fail. It is too late for that. You may go to the head waters of the Mississippi and turn off the little rivulets, but you cannot go to the mouth, after it has collected its waters from a thousand rivers and with accumulated volume is pouring its foam- ing waters into the Gulf, and say, "Thus far shalt thou go, and no further." Politicians may choose their course ; they ma}' become frightened at the radical march of events ; they may throw pebbles into the mighty current of popular opinion. But the grand old river of progress, of liberty and humanity, and God's eternal justice, will roll on. Gentlemen may erect altars to conservatism ; but they will go down to that vortex into which so many compromisers. Union savers, and conserva- tives have already gone — ' ' that bourne whence no political adventurer ever returns." Sir, I care not who the man may be. though he be a Senator upon the floor or the President of the United States, however high his title or proud his name, if he is false to human freedom "the places which know him now shall soon know him no more forever!" I remember well what the noble old Senator from Ohio [Mr. Wade] said in his speech ; how he was threatened with the anathemas of public vengeance when he was in a slim and hated minority ; but, thank God, he still lives to look on the graves of his political opponents and revilers. Having fought the fight, having kept the faith, and come upthrough great trib- ulation, he is not here to surrender the citadel of liberty to a few guerrilla bands and the raw recruits who are wasting their ineffectual fires upon the fortifications which have withstoo'd unshaken the roar and thunder of the whole pro-slavery army. I, sir, though a younger man, have a similar experience. I stood side by side with the noble Lincoln in every phase of these questions. I have fought the fight and lived to enjoy the delightful pleasure of telling the last Legislature of my State to sweep with a speedy, resistless hand the black laws 16 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS iliilllliiiiilllllil 013 786 490 3 from our code. And they did it. They did not alter, modify, or amend them, but they eviscerated them, body and soul, from the statute-book, and scattered their black and blood-stained leaves upon the simoom of popu- lar indignation. Sir, what made Abraham Lincoln President of the United States ? I know he was good, very good ; he was great, very great, in all those qualities which constitute the statesman ; but it was his persistent advocacy of the doctrines of the Declaration of American Independence, in his debates with Stephen A. Douglas, in his speeches at the Cooper Institute in New York, in Connecticut, and in Kansas ; it was his clear definition of the principles of human freedom ; it was those God-inspired words — "This Union cannot permanently endure half slave and half free; the Union will not be dissolved, but the house will cease to be divided" — it was this which riveted the attention of the nation, and made him President of the United States. And why, sir? Because, despite the prejudices of education, which we all have, despite centuries of wrong and oppression, there is somewhere, away down in the depths of the human soul — and that soul is deeper than oceans ; it is like infinite space and has no boundaries — there Is somewhere in the unfath- omable depths of the human soul the love of liberty and the hatred of oppression. That chord Lincoln struck, and thus made himself President and his name Immortal. Why are you Senators here from every northern State? Is It because you are able men? But you are not the only able men in your States. There are men distinguished for great ability and illus- trious service in your States. You are here, because you have been true to truth, to justice, to liberty, and to equal laws. It is too late to change the tide of human progress. The enlightened convictions of the masses, wrought by the thorough discussions of thirty years, and consecrated by the baptism of precious blood, cannot now be changed. The hand of a higher power than man's is in this revolution, and it will not move backward. It is of no use to fight against destiny. God, not man, created men equal. Deep laid in the solid foundations of God's eternal throne, the prin- ciple of equality is established, indestructible and immortal. My way to settle our national troubles is to punish some traitors, not for the sake of venge- ance, but for the sake of example. There ought to be some example made in order to inculcate the idea that treason is a crime in this country, and that it will be punished. I would then extend pardon to all the rebel masses ; I would withhold it from the leaders of the rebel- lion. I would confer upon the freedmen, made free by the Constitution and laws of the land, universal suffrage. Mr. President, as I said in a speech on the 4th day of July last — and I wish to repeat it here now, to show that these are no new-formed opinions — 1 say again : " This is the genius of our Government. I am will- ing to trust the people; ancj I believe that our Gov- ernment, founded upon the will of all, protected by the power of all, and maintaining the rights of all, will survive the storms of civil and external convul- sion, and growing in grandeur and power, will be- come one of the mightiest nations on the face of the earth. Therefore I am opposed to slavery and seces- sion, for an undivided Union, for universal freedom, and universal suffrage." Senators, sixty centuries of the past are look- ing down ujDon you. All the centuries of the future are calling upon you. Liberty, strug- gling amid the rise and wrecks of empires in the past, and yet to struggle for life in all the nations of the world, conjures you to seize this great opportunity which the providence of Al- mighty God has placed in your hands to bless the world and make your names immortal, to carry to a full and triumphant consummation the great work begun liy your fathers, and thus lay permanently, solidly, and immovably the cap- stone upon the pyramid of human liberty. Printed at the Congressional Globe Office. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS I I II II 013 786 490 3 , p6iinulipe« pH8^