MR. SUMNER. You are wrong. It is a question of theory with regard to republican government, and I say that the Constitution must be interpreted according to this theory. MR. HENDERSON. But our fathers did not deal with it in the Constitution as a question of theory, but as a question of fact. Whatever may have been their theories, I mean only to say that the text of the Constitution does not carry them out---- MR. SUMNER. The practical point is, Did our fathers concede to any State the power of disfranchising citizens on account of color? I utterly deny it, and I challenge my friend to show any authority for it. MR. HENDERSON. Why, Mr. President, if I have already failed to show it, I must fail in the future. I have shown that the suffrage was left to the States, and that they did exclude their negroes,--that they held in slavery in Virginia almost half of their population,[198] and that Virginia was called a republican State. Indeed, she was most prominent in making the very provisions we are discussing. She excluded the slaves and---- MR. SUMNER. Ah! slaves. That is another thing. The question is, whether you are allowed to disfranchise freemen on account of color,--whether you are allowed to deny freemen rights as citizens. That I deny. The exception was slaves, who were not regarded as members of the “body politic.” They were treated as minors, or as women, represented by their masters. But every freeman, no matter what his color, was recognized as entitled to all the privileges of citizenship; he was one of the sovereigns. The proposition cannot be met, if my friend will consult the history of his country. MR. HENDERSON. It was not slaves only that were disfranchised, but I have shown that free negroes were also disfranchised. But I have no controversy with the Senator in what we mutually aim at. MR. SUMNER. I know that, and I concede to my excellent friend all that I claim for myself. We are in search of the best. I applaud his zeal, and thank him for his courtesy.