But, Mr. President, I am unwilling that this debate should close without at least one remark applicable to the future. You are about to decree that colored persons shall enjoy the same civil rights as white persons,--in other words, that with regard to civil rights there shall be no distinction of color; and this you do under the Constitutional Amendment by which Congress is empowered to “enforce” the prohibition of Slavery by “appropriate legislation.” Rightly you regard the present proposition as “appropriate legislation” to this end. It is so, unquestionably. But I should fail in frankness, if I did not give notice that at the proper time I shall insist that every reason, every argument, every consideration, by which you assert the power of Congress for the protection of colored persons in civil rights, is equally strong for their protection in political rights. There is no difference between the two cases. In each you legislate to the same end,--that the freedman may be maintained in that liberty so tardily accorded; and the legislation is just as appropriate in one case as in the other. All this, Sir, I have seen from the beginning; but I have been unwilling to embarrass the present bill by any additional proposition. The protection of colored persons in their civil rights by Act of Congress will be a great event. It will be great in itself. It will be greater still because it establishes the power of Congress, without further Amendment of the Constitution, to protect colored persons in all their rights, including of course the elective franchise. The power is ample. I trust that you will not hesitate to exercise it. … The able and exhaustive argument of the Senator from Illinois [Mr. TRUMBULL] has rendered all minute discussion of the veto superfluous. He has taken it up paragraph by paragraph, and has shown how absolutely unfounded it is in reason or authority. And then again, when the Senator from Maryland [Mr. JOHNSON] attempted to vindicate it, he has most successfully quoted that Senator against himself. If argument could avail, the veto is already lost, even without a vote. But there are considerations of a more general character, which I desire to present very briefly; for at this stage of the debate I cannot venture to trespass on your attention. Sir, you do not forget the Dred Scott decision, pronounced just as Mr. Buchanan was coming into power,--fit decision to inaugurate such a Presidency. Take it all in all, that decision must always stand forth in bad eminence, as perhaps the most thoroughly perverse and reprehensible in judicial history. Whether regarded in the light of morals or politics or jurisprudence, or of juridical history, it was simply shocking. It was an insult to conscience, to reason, and to truth.