CONGRESS, UNITED STATES. 



171 



tution, were dissolved by war for four years, 

 and have never yet been restored. Why ? Be- 

 cause the terms of restoration prescribed by 

 Congress have never yet been fulfilled. Had 

 not Congress the right to prescribe those 

 terms ? Had it not a right to say when and 

 on what conditions those rebel States might 

 again take part in the Government they had 

 renounced, warred against, and attempted to 

 overthrow ? If not, then are we conquered by 

 the conquered, and our fathers formed a Gov- 

 ernment which has no power to keep itself out 

 of the hands of its enemies and destroyers ? If 

 this be true, then should our cry be, not * VCB 

 metis I ' but ' VCB victori ! ' Woe to the con- 

 queror! woe to the conqueror! But, sir, I 

 leave the letter of the Constitution, and invoke 

 the decision of this question on higher grounds. 



" No nation can live and not have the abso- 

 lute and unassailable right, through its very 

 existence, as a nation, to say who may and who 

 may not share in its government. To say that 

 rebels, because they constitute States, cannot 

 be for their rebellion debarred from a share in 

 that Government, is to set a part above the 

 whole, to break down constitutions and laws, 

 and to snap every ligament which can bind a 

 people in unity of popular or governmental 

 organization. And as the greater includes the 

 less, if you can debar them you can readmit 

 them on terms, such terms as you please, and 

 the Constitution affords them no remedy. 

 When, therefore, as in this amendment, you 

 say to Arkansas that she may come back upon 

 the condition therein expressed, you exercise 

 a clear and undoubted right, for which you find 

 a warrant not only in the Constitution, but in 

 that primal law of self-preservation, which 

 belongs to nations as well as individuals, and 

 is high above all constitutions. 



"But Senators assert that to impose this con- 

 dition on Arkansas is to deprive her of equality 

 among the States. Sir, what means this much- 

 talked-of equality of States ? Does it depend 

 on their internal organization ? If one State 

 lets negroes vote, and another does not, is there 

 therefore inequality between them? If one lets 

 women or foreigners, or Indians or Chinamen 

 vote, and others do not, is there for that rea- 

 son inequality between them ? If one requires 

 a property qualification in voters, and another 

 does not, are they therefore unequal ? I look in 

 vain for any such inequality. But suppose it 

 to exist, where is there any thing in the Con- 

 stitution which forbids it ? There is not a word 

 there about the equality of the States, except 

 in the single point of representation in this 

 Senate. In every other respect, even in rep- 

 resentation in the other branch of Congress, 

 the States were unequal at the adoption of the 

 Constitution, and have been so ever since, and 

 will continue to be so always. 



" There is a gross mistake or perversion in all 

 this talk about the equality of the States, which 

 proceeds, doubtless, from the language of the 

 acts admitting new States, declaring that a 



State is admitted into the Union ' on an equal 

 footing with the original States.' Does that 

 import that the new State is equal to any other 

 State ? By no means ; but that it is admitted 

 to take part in the Government of the Union 

 on an equal footing with the others ; possessing 

 its relative share of power, subject to its rela- 

 tive quantum of burdens, and enjoying alike 

 with the others the rights, immunities, and 



Erivileges secured by the Constitution to tho 

 tates respectively, as participants in that Gov- 

 ernment. It therefore follows that when a State 

 is admitted with her two Senators, she is the 

 exact coequal of every other State in this body ; 

 and if she have the number of Representatives 

 which her population entitles her to, she is 

 relatively, as nearly as practicable, the coequal 

 of every other State in the House of Represent- 

 atives ; and, therefore, for all purposes of par- 

 ticipation in the governmental Union, is on 

 an equal footing with the original States ; and 

 this is the whole scope of the vaunted equality 

 of States. Internally they may be, as we all 

 know they are, totally unequal in every material, 

 moral, and political respect, but in their rela- 

 tions to the Government of the Union they are 

 as nearly on an equal footing as they can well 

 be put. 



"Sir, in requiring Arkansas never to deny or 

 abridge the elective franchise to any person on 

 account of his color, do we deprive her of that 

 equal footing? Do we thereby take away her 

 equal participation in the Government of the 

 Union ? Not in the least degree. If not, we 

 violate no part of the Constitution in exacting 

 from her this guarantee of the rights of citi- 

 zens of the United States, whose rights we are 

 bound by honor and justice to protect and de- 

 fend." 



Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, followed, saying : 

 "Mr. President, the question which is before 

 the Senate on the bill which is now upon the 

 table is a very interesting one ; and although 

 the honorable member from Missouri (Mr. 

 Drake) and those who concur with him think 

 that Congress has the power to impose such 

 conditions as are suggested, I think it very clear 

 that the power does not exist. The condition 

 in the bill as reported by the Judiciary Com- 

 mittee is, that the right of suffrage as it now 

 exists, or will exist under the constitution of 

 the State if the State should be admitted, shall 

 not at any time be changed so as to take from 

 the parties who are entitled to vote under the 

 present constitution that right hereafter. I 

 suppose, if any thing be true, whether we con- 

 sult the debates in the convention by which the 

 Constitution was framed, or consult the debates 

 in the several conventions by which the Con- 

 stitution was ratified, or consult the words of 

 the Constitution itself and the interpretation 

 put upon it in the particular in question, nothing 

 is more clear than that the States were left to 

 control the franchise among themselves just 

 as they had the authority to control it before 

 the Constitution was adopted. 



