154 



CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



as not inconsistent with such a government ; 

 eighthly, how it positively ties the hands of Con- 

 gress in completing and consummating the 

 abolition of slavery according to the second 

 clause of the constitutional amendment, so 

 that it. cannot for this purpose interfere with 

 the denial of the elective franchise on account 

 of color ; ninthly, how it installs recent rebels 

 in permanent power over loyal citizens ; and, 

 tonthly, how it shows forth in unmistakable 

 character as a compromise of human rights, the 

 most immoral, indecent, and utterly shameful 

 of any in our history. All this you have seen, 

 with pain and sorrow, I trust. Who that is 

 moved to sympathy for his fellow-man can listen 

 to the story without indignatioa? Who that 

 has not lost the power of reason can faS to see 

 the cruel wrong ? 



" And now the question occurs, what shaL 

 be done ? To this I answer, reject at once the 

 pending proposition ; show it no favor ; give it 

 no quarter. Let the country see that you are 

 impatient of its presence. But there are other 

 propositions in the form of substitutes. For any 

 one of these I can vote. They may differ in 

 efficiency ; but there is nothing in them im- 

 moral or shameful. There is, first, the propo- 

 sition to found representation on voters instead 

 of population, and, secondly, the proposition to 

 secure equality in political rights by constitu- 

 tional amendment or by act of Congress." 



Mr. Fessenden, of Maine, followed, in reply 

 to the objections which had been urged, say- 

 ing : " The Senator from Massachusetts makes 

 several points against this proposition, to which 

 my answer is the same. His first point is, that 

 it recognizes ' the idea of inequality of rights 

 founded on race or color.' I deny in toto the 

 correctness, or even the plausibility to a man 

 of sense, of any point that he has raised on the 

 subject. There is not one of them that is ten- 

 able ; and more than that, there is not one of 

 them but what is just as tenable against the 

 proposition he is in favor of, to found repre- 

 sentation on voters, as this. What lawyer in 

 the world ever Keard that a denial is an admis- 

 sion ? What lawyer ever heard that a penalty 

 is a permission ? By this proposition we say 

 simply this : ' If in the exercise of the power 

 that you have under the Constitution you make 

 an inequality of rights, then you are to suffer 

 such and such consequences.' What sane man 

 could ever pretend that that was saying, ' Make 

 an inequality of rights and we will sanction it ? ' 

 We do not deny, nobody can deny that the pow- 

 er may be thus exercised. What we say by this 

 amendment is, ' If you attempt to exercise it in 

 this wrongful way, you create an inequality of 

 rights ; and if you do create an inequality of 

 rights' not we, but you 'if you undertake 

 to do it under the power which exists in the 

 Constitution, then the consequence follows that 

 you are punished by a loss of representation.' 

 That is all there is in it. Does not the same 

 thing follow with reference to the proposition 

 to base representation upon voters ? Suppose we 



put it upon voters ; what is the consequence 1 

 What have they got to do. If they do not ad- 

 mit colored men to vote, they lose their repre- 

 sentation. If they do admit them to vote, they 

 have the representation. The effect is precisely 

 the same in both cases, only in one case we put 

 it in a different form, and say -directly, ' If you 

 do make this distinction, founding it on popu- 

 lation, then this consequence will follow.' " 



The amendment offered ty Mr. Henderson 

 was rejected by yeas 10, nays 37. 



Mr. Sumner modified his amendment so as 

 to read, after the enacting clause, as follows : 



That in all States lately declared to be in rebellion 

 there shall be no oligarchy, aristocracy, caste, or 

 monopoly invested with peculiar privileges and pow- 

 ers ; and there shall be no denial of rights, civil or 

 political, on account of color or race, but all persona 

 shall be equal before the law, whether in the court- 

 room or at the ballot-box. And this statute, made 

 in pursuance of the Constitution, shall be the su- 

 preme law of the land, any thing in the Constitution 

 or laws of any such State to the contrary notwith- 

 standing. 



It was then rejected yeas 8, nays 39. 

 Mr. Clark, of New Hampshire, offered the 

 following amendment : 



But whenever the elective franchise shall be de- 

 nied or abridged in any State in the election of Rep 

 rescntatives to Congress or other offices, municipal, 

 State, or national, on account of race, color, or de- 

 scent, or previous condition of servitude, or by any 

 provision of law not equally applicable to all races 

 and descents, all persons of such race, color, descent, 

 and condition, shall be excluded from the basis of 

 representation as prescribed in the second section 

 of the first article of the Constitution. 



It was adopted by the following vote : 



YEAS Messrs. Anthony, Brown, Chandler, Clark, 

 Conness, Cragin, Creswell, Fessenden, Foster, 

 Grimes, Harris, Henderson, Howard, Howe, Lane 

 of Indiana, Morgan, Merrill, Nye, Poland, Pomeroy, 

 Sprague, Sumner, Trumbull, Wade, Willey, Wilson, 

 and Yates 26. 



NAYS Messrs. Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, Dixon, 

 Doolittle, Guthrie, Hendricks, Johnson, Kirkwood, 

 Lane of Kansas, McDougall, Nesmith, Norton, Rid- 

 dle, Saulsbury, Sherman, Stewart, Stockton, Van 

 Winkle, and Williams 20. 



ABSENT Messrs. Foot, Howard, Ramsey, and 

 Wright 4. 



Other amendments were offered and rejected, 

 when the resolution was reported from the 

 committee to the Senate, and Mr. Clark's 

 amendment withdrawn. 



On March 9th a vote was taken on the joint 

 resolution as it came from the House, as fol- 

 lows : 



YEAS Messrs. Anthony, Chandler, Clark, _Con- 

 ness, Cragin, Creswell, Pessenden, Foster, Grimes, 

 Harris, Howe, Kirkwood, Lane of Indiana, McDou- 

 gall, Morgan, Morrill, Nye, Poland, Ramsey, Sher- 

 man, Sprague, Trumbull, Wade, Williams, and Wil- 

 son 25. 



NAYS Messrs. Brown, Buckalew, Cowan, Davis, 

 Dixon, Doolittle, Guthrie, Henderson, Hendricks, 

 Johnson, Lane of Kansas, Nesmith, Norton, Pome- 

 roy, Riddle, Saulsbury, Stewart, Stockton, Sumner, 

 Van Winkle, Willey, and Yates 22. 



ABSENT Messrs. Foot, Howard, and Wright 3. 



Two-thirds of the Senate having failed tc 

 vote for it, it was not agreed to. 



