Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 11 (of 20)Sumner, Charles
History
Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 11 (of 20)
Sumner, Charles
Slavery -- United States; Speeches, addresses, etc., American
It is enough that the loyal authorities were overthrown, and there
were no functionaries holding office under the State government bound
by oath to support the Constitution of the United States; and since a
State government is necessarily composed of such functionaries thus
bound by oath, there was no State government we could recognize. Sir,
does any Senator recognize the Rebel governor of Arkansas? Does any
Senator recognize the Rebel functionaries who held the offices of the
State? Of course not. It follows, then, that the offices were empty.
And this was the practical conclusion of Andrew Johnson, when he began
to reorganize Tennessee, in an address as early as 18th March, 1862.
Here are his words:--
“I find most, if not all, of the offices, both State and
Federal, _vacated_, either by actual abandonment or by the
action of the incumbents, in attempting to subordinate their
functions to a power in hostility to the fundamental law of the
State and subversive of her national allegiance.”[359]
If the offices were vacated, the machine of government could not work.
And now the practical question is, how this machine shall be again
put in motion. Obviously, not by any power within, but by some power
without.
It may be said that the new State organization is authorized by
the President’s proclamation of amnesty, and that the claimant’s
case stands good according to the promises of this exceptional
paper. A glance is enough to dispel this pretension. True it is
that the President put forward a plan for reorganizing loyal State
governments in the Rebel territory, and he proffered a guaranty to
these communities against domestic violence and Rebel invasion; but
he neither proposed nor promised any representation in Congress or in
the Electoral College. Nor would such a proposition or promise by him
have possessed the slightest validity; because, by the Constitution,
“each House is to be the judge of the elections, returns, and
qualifications of its own members.” This provision is inconsistent
with any prerogative of the President over this question, even if such
prerogative were not controlled by that other provision which reserves
to Congress the power to admit new States into the Union.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account