Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

admission of such loyal Senators and Representatives of the now unrepresented States as have been, or as may hereafter be, chosen in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States. ANDREW JOHNSON.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, June 20, 1866. To the President:

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred the concurrent resolution of the two Houses of Congress of the 18th instant, in the following words that the President of the United States be requested to transmit forthwith to the Executives of the several States of the United States, copies of the article of amendment proposed by Congress to the State Legislatures, to amend the Constitution of the United States, passed June 18, 1866, respecting citizenship, the basis of representation, disqualification for office, and validity of the public debt of the United States, etc., to the end that the said States may proceed to act upon the said article of amendment, and that he request the Executive of each State that may ratify said amendment to transmit to the Secretary of State a certified copy of such ratification"-has the honor to submit the following report, namely, that on the 16th instant, Hon. Amasa Cobb, of the Committee of the House of Representatives on Enrolled Bills, brought to this Department and deposited therein an enrolled resolution of the two Houses of Congress, which was thereupon received by the Secretary of State and deposited among the rolls of the Department, a copy of which is hereunto annexed.

Thereupon the Secretary of State, on the 16th instant, in conformity with the proceeding which was adopted by him in 1865, in regard to the then proposed and afterward adopted congressional amendment of the Constitution of the United States, concerning the prohibition of slavery, transmitted certified copies of the annexed resolution to the Governors of the several States, together with a certificate and circular letter. A copy of both of these communications is hereunto annexed. Respectfully submitted,

WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

[merged small][ocr errors]

That all persons of African descent born in the United States are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States, and there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery, etc.

He said: "Mr. President, I regard the bill to which the attention of the Senate is now called as the most important measure that has been under its consideration since the adoption of the constitutional amendment abolishing slavery. That amendment declared that all persons in the United States should be free. This measure is intended to give effect to that declaration, and secure to all persons within the United States practical freedom. There is very little importance in the general declaration of abstract truths and principles unless they can be carried into effect, unless the persons who are to be affected by them have some means of

availing themselves of their benefits. Of what avail was the immortal declaration 'that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,' and 'that to secure these rights governments are instituted among men,' to the millions of the African race in this country who were ground down and degraded and subjected to a slavery more intolerable and cruel than the world ever before knew? Of what avail was it to the citizen of Massachusetts, who, a few years ago, went to South Carolina to enforce a constitutional right in court, that the Constitution of the United States declared that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States? And of what avail will it now be that the Constitution of the United States has declared that slavery shall not exist, if in the late slaveholding States laws are to be enacted and enforced depriving persons of African descent of privileges which are essential to freemen?

"Since the abolition of slavery, the Legislatures which have assembled in the insurrectionary States have passed laws relating to the freedmen, and in nearly all the States they have discriminated against them. They deny them certain rights, subject them to severe penalties, and still impose upon them the very restrictions which were imposed upon them in consequence of the existence of slavery, and before it was abolished. The purpose of the bill under consideration is to destroy all these discriminations, and to carry into effect the constitutional amendment. The first section of the bill, as it is now proposed to be amended, declares that all per

sons of African descent shall be citizens of the United States, and—

That there shall be no discrimination in civil rights or immunities, among the inhabitants of any State or Territory of the United States on account of race, color, or previous condition of slavery; but the inhabitants of every race and color, without regard to any previous condition of slavery or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall have the same right to make and enforce contracts, to sue, be parties, and give evidence, 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 person and property, and shall be subject to like punishment, pains, and penalties, and to none other, any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to the contrary notwithstanding.

"This section is the basis of the whole bill. The other provisions of the bill contain the necessary machinery to give effect to what are declared to be the rights of all persons in the first section, and the question will arise, has Congress authority to pass such a bill? Has Congress authority to give practical effect to the great declaration that slavery shall not exist in the United States? If it has not, then nothing has been accomplished by the adoption of the constitutional amendment. In my judgment, Congress has this authority."

Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, followed, in opposition to the bill, saying: "Mr. President, I regard this bill as one of the most dangerous that was ever introduced into the Senate of the United States, or to which the attention of the American people was ever invited. During the last four or five years I have sat in this chamber and witnessed the introduction of bills into this body which I thought obnoxious to many very grave and serious constitutional objections; but I have never since I have been a member of the body seen a bill so fraught with danger, so full of mischief, as the bill now under consideration. Deeming it to be of this character, duty to my country, duty to my State, duty to myself as a man, as a citizen, and as a legislator, duty to my children, and duty to my fellowcitizens everywhere, demands that I should utter my protest against its enactment into a law. Before, however, I proceed to consider it in the light of the Constitution as it existed previous to the recent amendment, let me notice the basis of authority for it as claimed by the honorable Senator from Illinois.

"I presume that honorable Senator would not contend that, independently of the constitutional amendment, Congress had a right to eract this law, although I know that many have claimed powers equally extensive. But from the argument of the honorable Senator, I infer that the sole basis of authority in his judgment for passing the bill is the amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery. If that be so, it is admitted that before the adoption of that amendment Congress had not the right to enact such a law as this. Let us consider then for one moment whether the adoption of that amendment gave to Congress such an authority.

"What was that amendment? That neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should exist in the United States, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party should have been daly convicted. Now, here is a complete answer, in my judgment, to the argument of the bonorable Senator, based upon the authority conferred by that amendment. Before and at the time of the adoption of that amendment the people of the United States were composed of persons of different races, the two main portions of which were white and black; the whites were free; a portion of the black population were free and a portion were slaves. In the State of Maryland about one-half of the black population were free and one-half slaves. In myown State there were about ten free negroes to one slave. In Kentucky and in most of the slaveholding States there were large free negro populations, as we supposed.

"I should like to know whether persons belonging to the African race in the State of Maryland, and the State of Delaware, and the other slaveholding States, who had been emancipated by their owners either by deed or will, or who were never in bondage, were, at the time of the adoption of the constitutional amendment, free

or slave. Were they not freemen? What was the objection urged by many against the enactment of the fugitive slave law? It was that under that enactment a freeman-a free colored man, as they called him; a free negro, as I uniformly call him-might be kidnapped, carried far from his home, and reduced to slavery. Had the Congress of the United States, previous to the adoption of the amendment, the power to pass this law, to say that the free negroes in the States of Maryland and Delaware, and the other slaveholding States, or the free negroes all over the United States, should be the equals of the white man before the law, and possess the powers which this bill proposes to confer? Had you the power, before the enactment of the constitutional amendment, to pass such a law? If you had not, did the passage of that amendment, setting free that portion who were in slavery, and putting them on an equality in reference to their status with the free negroes that then existed in the United States, give you the power to legislate beyond the persons you set free and in reference to the whole negro race in the United States, a portion of which were free before? Is the amendment to the Constitution so potential that if there was but one slave negro in the United States you could, under and by virtue of the clause which says you may carry the amendment into effect by appropriate legislation, bestow all the rights which this bill proposes to bestow upon the whole free negro population of the United States? Sir, it needs but a statement of the facts to show that under the constitutional amendment you have no such power. If you have the power under it, you had the power before the amendment to do the same thing in reference to that portion of the negro population who were not in a state of slavery but who were free.

"If the power to pass such an act as this exists anywhere, it must exist in the Constitution as originally framed. Sir, was it ever pretended by any statesman before that that Constitution conferred such a power as this? Look at the powers enumerated in the Constitution and see whether it is possible for the ingenuity of man to arrive at the conclusion that any such power exists; for, Mr. President, the Constitution is the bond of agreement according to the terms of which the States agreed to live together, and all the powers which Congress possesses are found in the eighth section of the first article of the Constitution. They are: 'to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,' etc., to borrow money,' to 'establish uniform rules of naturalization,' to 'coin money,' to 'provide for the punishment of counterfeiting,' to 'establish post-offices,' to 'promote the progress of science and arts,' to constitute tribunals' of justice, to define and punish piracy,' etc., to

declare war,' to 'raise and support armies,' to 'provide a navy,' to make rules for the gov ernment and regulation of the land and naval forces,' to 'provide for calling forth the militia,' etc., to provide for organizing, arming, and

[ocr errors]

disciplining the militia,', etc., to 'exercise exclusive legislation in all cases' over this District, or such district as should be established as the seat of Government, and to 'make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers.'" Mr. Cowan, of Pennsylvania, followed, saying: "I am entirely opposed to the whole of this first section; and, in my judgment, it has not a particle of constitutional warrant. As I understand the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, he takes his ground upon an amendment to the Constitution of the United States recently passed. The first section of that amendment is in these words:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States or any place subject to their jurisdic

tion.

Now, Mr. President and gentlemen of the Senate, in all good faith, what was the meaning of that? What was its intent? Can there be any doubt of it? Is there a sane man within the sound of my voice who does not know precisely what was intended by the American people in adopting that amendment to the Constitution? I may say there is no shirking this thing; there is no way of dodging it or avoiding it. We must meet it; and if we are men we will meet it, and we will meet it in the spirit in which it was made. That amendment, everybody knows and nobody dare deny, was simply made to liberate the negro slave from his master. That is all there is of it. Will the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary or anybody else undertake to say that that was to prevent the involuntary servitude of my child to me, of my apprentice to me, or the quasi servitude which the wife to some extent owes to her husband? Certainly not. Nobody pretends that it was to be wider in its operation than to cover the relation which existed between the master and his negro African slave.

"Now, mark it, that particular relation, and the breaking of it up, is the subject of that first clause of the amendment, and it does not extend any further, and cannot by any possible implication, contortion, or straining, be made to go further among honest men. That was followed by another clause, and a very proper clause, which everybody at the time understood, and which I have never known anybody to be mistaken about until I came into the SenIate of the United States this session. That other clause was this:

Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

"Enforce what? The breaking of the bond by which the negro slave was held to his master; that is all. It was not intended to overturn this Government and to revolutionize all the laws of the various States everywhere. It was intended, in other words, and a lawyer would have so construed it, to give to the negro the privilege of the habeas corpus; that is, if

anybody persisted in the face of the constitutional amendment in holding him as a slave, that he should have an appropriate remedy to be delivered. That is all."

Mr. Howard, of Maine, replied, saying: "I happened to be a member of the Judiciary Committee at the time this amendment was drafted and adopted, and reported to the Senate. I recollect very distinctly what were the views entertained by members of that committee at the time it was under consideration before them. And notwithstanding the very vehement style of the Senator from Pennsylvania, in placing a narrow and utterly ineffectual construction upon it, I take this occasion to say that it was in contemplation of its friends and advocates to give to Congress precisely the power over the subject of slavery and the freedmen which is proposed to be exercised by the bill now under our consideration.

"It was easy to foresee, and of course we foresaw, that in case this scheme of emancipation was carried out in the rebel States it would encounter the most vehement resistance on the

part of the old slaveholders. It was easy to look far enough into the future to perceive that it would be a very unwelcome measure to them, and that they would resort to every means in their power to prevent what they called the loss of their property under this amendment. We could foresee easily enough that they would use, if they should be permitted to do so by the General Government, all the powers of the State governments in restraining and circumscribing the rights and privileges which are plainly given by it to the emancipated negro. If I understand correctly the interpretation given to the article by the Senator from Delaware and the Senator from Pennsylvania, it is this: that the sole effect of it is to cut and sever the mere legal ligament by which the person and the service of the slave was attached to his master, and that beyond this particular office the amendment does not go; that it can have no effect whatever upon the condition of the emancipated blacks in any other respect. In other words, they hold that it relieves him from his so-called legal obligation to render his personal service to his master without compen sation; and there leaves him, totally, irretriev ably, and without any power on the part of Congress to look after his well-being from the moment of this mockery of emancipation. Sir, such was not the intention of the friends of this amendment at the time of its initiation here and at the time of its adoption; and I undertake to say that it is not the construction which is given to it by the bar throughout the country, and much less by the liberty-loving people.

"But let us look more closely at this narrow construction. Where does it leave us? We are told that the amendment simply relieves the slave from the obligation to render service to his master. What is a slave in contemplation of American law, in contemplation of the laws of all the slave States? We know full well;

the history of two hundred years teaches us that he had no rights, nor nothing which he could call his own. He had not the right to become a husband or a father in the eye of the law, he had no child, he was not at liberty to indulge the natural affections of the human heart for children, for wife, or even for friend. He owned no property, because the law prohibited him. He could not take real or personal estate either by sale, by grant, or by descent or inheritance. He did not own the bread he earned and ate. He stood upon the face of the earth completely isolated from the society in which he happened to be; he was nothing but a chattel, subject to the will of his owner, and unprotected in his rights by the law of the State where he happened to live. His rights, did I say? No, sir, I use inappropriate language. He had no rights; he was an animal; he was property, a chattel. The Almighty, according to the ideas of the times, had made him to be property, a chattel, and not a

[ocr errors]

"Now, sir, it is not denied that this relation of servitude between the former negro slave and his master was actually severed by this amendment. But the absurd construction now forced upon it leaves him without family, without property, without the implements of husbandry, and even without the right to acquire or use any instrumentalities of carrying on the industry of which he may be capable; it leaves him without friend or support, and even without the clothes to cover his nakedness. He is a waif upon the current of time; he has nothing that belongs to him on the face of the earth except solely his naked person. And here, in this state, we are called upon to abandon the poor creature whom we have emancipated. We are coolly told that he has no right beyond this, and we are told that under this amendment the power of the State within whose limits he happens to be is not at all restrained in respect to him, and that the State through its Legislature may at any time declare him to be a vagrant, and as such commit him to jail, or assign him to uncompensated service.

"Now, Mr. President, I ask these gentlemen -I appeal not only to their knowledge of the true principles of construction, but I appeal to their humanity-to say whether it is possible innocently and sincerely to ascribe to the advocates of this amendment any such cruel and inhuman purpose as this? No, sir; I think they cannot lay their hands upon their hearts and say that in advocating this amendment we intended to leave the negro in so helpless and destitute a condition. But if theirs be the true construction, then it is competent for the Legislature of each State to declare by law that no negro who has once been a slave shall ever, within the limits of that State, have the right or privilege of earning and purchasing property; of having a home under which to shelter him and his family, if he has one; of having a wife and family, or of eating the bread he

earns; thus leaving it in the power of these interested States to expatriate him at any moment and drive him beyond their limits; to deprive him of a home, to deprive him of all the fruits of his toil and his industry, and finally to reduce him to a condition infinitely worse than that of actual slavery, by compelling him to labor at such price as the old master may see fit to pay him, while at the same time he, not being a slave, has no claim whatever upon the old master for support, thus treating him as a nuisance upon the face of the earth. "No, sir, such was not the intention of the advocates of this amendment. Its intention was to make him the opposite of a slave, to make him a freeman. And what are the attributes of a freeman according to the universal understanding of the American people? Is a freeman to be deprived of the right of acquiring property, of the right of having a family, a wife, children, home? What definition will you attach to the word 'freeman' that does not include these ideas? The once slave is no longer a slave; he has become, by means of emancipation, a free man. If such be the case, then in all common sense is he not entitled to those rights which we concede to a man who is free?

[ocr errors]

Mr. Guthrie, of Kentucky, said: "I consider that there is no warrant in the Constitution for such legislation as this, and it is impossible that there should be, and besides, it will be the most impolitic law that ever was passed. The gentleman from Illinois says that this is simply a bill providing that all persons shall have their rights. I might return the compliment by saying that it is simply a bill declaring that we have established a military despotism, and the laws are to be enforced at the point of the bayonet. This bill and the one passed last week invoke military power everywhere, and throw the protection of the military over any thing. Gentlemen, is this a proper answer to this war, to the gallantry of our officers and soldiers, and to the hope of the American people that we should have a restored Union? Is it a proper answer to those who have lent you their money and whom you yet owe, to sow this cause of dissension between the States, this pestering interference that will lead to dissension, and God knows what else it will lead to? I say that this bill, as well as the kindred measure passed last week, should not be passed on account of economy. It should not be passed on account of your creditors. How many creditors have you now knocking at your doors for money and property seized and put into your Treasury, whom you cannot pay, whom you are afraid to make appropriations for? And yet you are taking by these bills more money from the Treasury than would pay probably the principal of the debt due to these men. Is it just to the creditors to whom you owe this money that you should leave their claims unsettled, and that you should attempt to carry on this Government by such legislation as this?"

Mr. Hendricks, of Indiana, said: "This bill is a wasp; its sting is in its tail. Sir, what is the bill? It provides, in the first place, that the civil rights of all men, without regard to color, shall be equal; and, in the second place, that if any man shall violate that principle by his conduct, he shall be responsible to the court; that he may be prosecuted criminally and punished for the crime, or he may be sued in a civil action and damages recovered by the party wronged. Is not that broad enough? Do Senators want to go further than this? To recognize the civil rights of the colored people as equal to the civil rights of the white people, I understand to be as far as Senators desire to go; in the language of the Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. Sumner), to place all men upon an equality before the law; and that is proposed in regard to their civil rights.

"Why, sir, this bill provides that there shall be commissioners, not ordinary commissioners that the courts in the exercise of their judgment and discretion shall appoint, but extraordinary commissioners, and from its language it seems to contemplate that there shall be a commissioner in every county of the United States, and these commissioners are authorized to appoint as many agents or deputy marshals as they may see fit to appoint, and these deputy marshals may call upon the body of the people, for what purpose? To pursue a runaway white man. Oh, I recollect how the blood of the people was made to run cold within them when it was said that the white man was required to run after the fugitive slave; that the law of 1850 made you and me, my brother Senators, slave-catchers; that the posse comitatus could be called to execute a writ of the law for the recovery of a runaway slave under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States; and the whole country was agitated because of it. Now slavery is gone; the negro is to be established upon a platform of civil equality with the white man. That is the proposition. But we do not stop there; we are to reenact a law that nearly all of you said was wicked and wrong; and for what purpose? Not to pursue the negro any longer; not for the purpose of catching him; not for the purpose of catching the great criminals of the land; but for the purpose of placing it in the power of any deputy marshal in any county of the country to call upon you and me, and all the body of the people to pursue some white man who is running for his liberty because some negro has charged him with denying to him equal civil rights with the white man.'

Mr. Lane, of Indiana, said: “What are the objects sought to be accomplished by this bill? That these freedmen shall be secured in the possession of all the rights, privileges, and immunities of freemen; in other words, that we shall give effect to the proclamation of emancipation and to the constitutional amendment. How else, I ask you, can we give them effect than by doing away with the slave codes of the respective States where slavery was lately tol

erated? One of the distinguished Senators from Kentucky (Mr. Guthrie), says that all these slave laws have fallen with the emancipation of the slave. That, I doubt not, is true, and by a court honestly constituted of able and upright lawyers, that exposition of the constitutional amendment would obtain.

"But why do we legislate upon this subject now? Simply because we fear and have reason to fear that the emancipated slaves would not have their rights in the courts of the slave States. The State courts already have jurisdiction of every single question that we propose to give to the courts of the United States. Why, then, the necessity of passing the law? Simply because we fear the execution of these laws if left to the State courts. That is the necessity for this provision."

Various amendments to the bill were offered and rejected. Mr. Saulsbury, of Delaware, moved to amend the second line of the first section by adding after the words "civil rights" the words "except the right to vote in the States." He said: "I do hold that under the words 'civil rights' the power to vote is given, because it is a civil right. The honorable chairman of the Judiciary Committee, who has this bill under charge, says he does not mean to confer that right. His meaning cannot control the operation or the effect of this law, if the bill shall become a law. I believe that if this bill is enacted into a law your judges in most of the States will determine that under these words the power of voting is given. The honorable Senator cited an authority the other day, from Maryland I think it was, in which it was decided that that right was conferred after domicile had been acquired according to the laws of the State. Sir, I wish to exclude that very idea; and if you do not mean to confer that power I want you to say so. However highly I esteem the learning of the honorable chairman of the Judiciary Committee, I am not will ing to trust to his declaration that that power is not to be conferred, and I want this Congress to say that in conferring these civil rights they do not mean to confer the right to vote.

"Talk to me, sir, about the words 'civil rights' not including the right to vote! What is a civil right? It is a right that pertains to me as a citizen. And how do I get the right to vote? I get it by virtue of citizenship, and I get it by virtue of nothing else. When this act is passed into a law, and I find a Repub lican judge in any of the States of this coun try deciding that under it a negro has the right to vote, I am not going to quarrel with the opinion of that judge, because I believe he is deciding the law correctly. Sir, if you do not intend to confer that right, say so. If you do not mean to invade the States of this Union, and take from them the right to prescribe the qualifications of voters, say so. That is all I ask. Do not leave it in doubt."

The amendment was rejected, and the bill reported to the Senate and concurred in. It

« FöregåendeFortsätt »