Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 13 (of 20)Sumner, Charles
History
Charles Sumner: his complete works, volume 13 (of 20)
Sumner, Charles
Slavery -- United States; Speeches, addresses, etc., American
Mr. Johnson, of Maryland, Mr. Henderson, of Missouri, Mr.
Clark, of New Hampshire, Mr. Williams, of Oregon, Mr.
Hendricks, of Indiana, Mr. Yates, of Illinois, Mr. Buckalew,
of Pennsylvania, Mr. Pomeroy, of Kansas, Mr. Saulsbury,
of Delaware, Mr. Morrill, of Maine, and Mr. Wilson, of
Massachusetts, all spoke at length. Of these, Mr. Henderson,
Mr. Yates, and Mr. Pomeroy sustained Mr. Sumner, in opposition
to the House expedient, although the first preferred to assure
suffrage by a Constitutional Amendment ordaining it: while
insisting upon the ballot for the colored citizen, he doubted
the power of Congress. Mr. Johnson thought the claim of our
fathers, in their cry against Taxation without Representation,
was for communities, and not for individuals. Mr. Sumner
afterwards replied at length to this opinion.[197] In the
course of Mr. Henderson’s speech, occupying two days, the
following colloquy occurred.
MR. SUMNER. Do I understand my friend as insisting that the
denial of the franchise is consistent with a republican
government? Take the State of South Carolina, which denies
the franchise to more than half its population.
MR. HENDERSON. In theory it is not. Under the Constitution
it was regarded as a republican State at the time of the
adoption of the instrument.
MR. SUMNER. It did not deny the franchise to half its
citizens and more. I say citizens. Most excluded were
slaves.
MR. HENDERSON. It then had only one hundred and forty
thousand whites, and had one hundred and seven thousand
slaves. It also had eighteen hundred free negroes. I
think it more nearly a republican State now than then.
Practically, the question of suffrage was left to the
States----
MR. SUMNER. But that is the question, whether they were
left to deny suffrage to any freeman on account of color.
MR. HENDERSON. If that be the question, then the point is
against my friend; for both South Carolina and Virginia did
deny the suffrage to the free negroes on account of color
only, at the time when the Constitution was made, and when
it was adopted. Virginia had upward of twelve thousand free
negroes thus denied.
MR. SUMNER. But the question is--I cannot anticipate my
friend’s conclusion on that point----
MR. HENDERSON. My conclusion is, that a mistake was made
in recognizing a Constitution as republican that permitted
Slavery. I know of no way to get rid of it except by
Constitutional Amendment. I think another mistake was
committed in leaving each State to so far abridge the right
of suffrage as to change, in theory, the republican form.
But such is the Constitution, and you cannot change it by
Act of Congress. That is my conclusion.
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