GENTLEMEN,--My attention has been called to an editorial article in your paper,[281] where you say that Mr. Sumner “aided in defeating” the proposed Constitutional Amendment, “because in his opinion it fell short of what was needed.” Permit me to say that this does not state my position accurately. My objection to the proposed Amendment was twofold: first, that it carried into the Constitution by express words the idea of inequality of rights, which, in my opinion, would be a defilement of the text; and, secondly, that it lent the sanction of the Constitution to a wholesale disfranchisement on account of race or color. Thus far, nothing of the kind had been allowed to find place in its text. To my mind it was clear that nothing of the kind could rightly be allowed to find place in its text. You will see, therefore, that my opposition was not because the proposed Amendment “fell short of what was needed,”--although this was too true,--but because it did what in my judgment ought not to be done. Its objectionable character became more apparent, when it was considered that it did this at a crisis when complete justice to the freedmen was at once the prompting of gratitude and the requirement of necessity for the sake of national peace and the good name of the Republic. But the special objection to the proposed Amendment was not that it “fell short,” but that it was bad in itself. It is sometimes said, “Half a loaf is better than no bread,” and this has been called “half a loaf.” But nobody would accept “half a loaf,” if it were poisoned. Here was a poisonous ingredient. The proposition to found representation on voters, besides being more surely effective to the same end, had no poison in it. Others did not see the proposed Amendment as I did. Had they seen it so, they must have voted against it. But, seeing it as I did, I think you will agree that I could not hesitate in opposition to it. I do not write now for any purpose of controversy, but simply that my position may not be misunderstood. I am, Gentlemen, your faithful servant, CHARLES SUMNER. FOOTNOTES [1] Afterwards Minister and Consul General to the Government of Hayti. [2] _Post_, Vol. XIV. pp. 228-231. [3] Blackstone, Commentaries, Vol. IV. p. 278. [4] _Post_, p. 22. [5] _Post_, pp. 113, 123. [6] _Post_, p. 271. [7] _Post_, pp. 315, seqq. [8] This same oath appears in another bill, introduced by Mr. Sumner on the same day, entitled “A Bill prescribing an oath to maintain a republican form of government in the Rebel States”; this oath to be taken by every person in any State lately declared to be in rebellion, before he shall be allowed to vote at any election, State or National, or before he shall enter upon the duties of any office, State or National, or become entitled to the salary or other emoluments thereof. See, _ante_, p. 12. [9] Statutes at Large, Vol. XII. pp. 255-258.