^ filass L GG % / THE EQUAL RIGHTS OF ALL; The Great Giiaraatee and Present Necessity, ^or the Sake of Security, mn\ to Maintain a Itepublican Governmeut SPEECH OF OF MASSACHUSETTS, IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, FEBRUARY 6 AND 7, 1866. Taxation without representation is Tyranny.— T/te Revolutionary Fathers. > " The laws, the rights, The generous plan of power delivered down From ago to age, by our renowned forefathers So dearly bought, the price of so much blood, Ohl let it never perish in our hands." — Addison's Cato, "But, if any among you think that Philip will maintain his power by having occupied forts and havens nd the like, this is a mistake. Inipo.ssiljle is it— impossible, Athenians— to acquire a solid power by injustice nd perjury and falsehood. Such tilings hist for once, or for a short period; may be, they blofsom fairly "Ith hope; but in time they are discovered and drop away. As a house, a ship, or the like, ought to have s lower part firmest, so in human conduct, I ween, the principle and foundation should be just and rue," — Demosthenes, 2d Olymthiac. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. 1866. ME(SHUI9t EQUAL RIGHTS TO ALL, K The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, pro- ceeded to consider the following joint resolution (H. R. No. 51) proposing to amend the Constitution of the United States: Resolved hy the Senate and House of Representatives «>/ the United States of America in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring:,) That the fol- lowing article be proposed to the Legislatures of the several States as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States; which, when ratified by three fourths of said Legislatures, shall be valid as part of V'aid Constitution, namely: Article—. Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States which may bo included within this Union according to their respective nuin- bers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed: Provided, That whenever the elective franchise shall be denied or abridged in any State on account of race or color, all persons therein of such race or color shall be excluded from the basis of representation. Mr. SUMNER said: Mr. President: I begiu by expressing my acknowledgments to the Senator from Maine, who yields the floor to me to-day, and also my sincere regret that anything should interfere with the opening of this debate by him. It is his right, and I enter upon it now only by his indulgence. I am not insensible to the responsibility which I assume in setting myself against a OToposition already adopted in the other House, i'se))roniises is asjjlain as the decalogue. The instinct of self-preser- vation, impelling us to save the Republic, is in iiarmony with the requirements of moral duty. In denying justice now, you will not only be guilty of grievous wrong, but you will expose your country to incalculable calamity. 'J'he case is too clear for debate. The irresistible! argument for Kniaiicipation was always twofold: first, its intrinsic justice, and secondly, its necessity for the salcty of the Republic; all of which wa.s expressed by Pres- ident Lincoln in the closing words of his great Proclamation, when he said: "And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice wnrranfed Inj the Constitution upon military nncexsity, I invoke the considerate judgment of man- kind and the gracious favor of Almighty God." Butthe argument forEnfranchisement, which is nothing but the complement of Emancipa- tion, is the same. Enfranchisement is not only intrinsically just, but it is necessary to the safety of the Republic. There is no reason, point, or suggestion once urged for Emancipation which may not be urged now for Enfranchise- ment. I shall not err if I say that Emancipa- tion itself will fail without Enfranchisement. By Enfranchisement I mean the establish- ment of the Equal Rights of All, so that there shall be no exclusion of any kind, civil or po- litical, founded on color, and the promises of the Fathers shall be fulfilled. Such an act will be, in the words of President Lincoln, " an act of justice warranted by the Constitution upon military necessity." As an act of justice, Enfranchisement has a necessity of its own. No individual and no people can afford to be unjust. Such an offense will carrj' with it a curse, which, sooner or later, must drag its perpetrator to the earth. Bu*' here the necessity from considerations of justice is completed and intensified by the positive re- quirements of the national safety, plainly in- volved in the performance of these promises. Look at the unhappy freedman blasted by the ban of exclusion. He has always been loyal, and now it is he and not the rebel master who pays the penalty. From the nature of the case, he must be discontented, restless, anxious, smart- ing with a sense of wrong and a consciousness of rights denied. He will not work as if taken by the hand aiul made to feel the grasp of friend- ship. He will be idle, thriftless, unproductive. Industry will suffer. Cotton will not grow. Commerce will not thrive. Credit will fail; nay, it will die before it is born. On the other hand, his rebel master, with hands still red with the blood of his fellow-countrymen, will be en- couraged in that assumption of superiority which is a part of the Barbarism of Slavery ; he will predominate as in times past; he will be exact- ing as of old ; he will be harsh, cruel, and vin- dictive; he will make the unprotected and from- ' bling freednmn sutler for the losses and disap- pointments of the Rebellion: lie will continue to insult and prostitute the wife and children who, in ceasing to be chattels, have not ceased to be dependents; he will follow the freedman to by-ways and to obscure places, where he will once again play the master and assert his ancient title as lord of tin; lash. Sccuiesof sav- age brutal'ty and blood must ensue. All tliis, whicli reason foretells, the short experience of a few months already confirms. And all this you sanction, when you leave the freedman despoiled of hit rights. But the frcedman, though forbearing and slow to anger, will not submit to outrage always. He will resist. Resistance will be organized. And here will begin the terrible war of races foreseen by Jefferson, where God, in all His attributes, has none which can take part with the oppressor. The tragedy of St. Domingo will be renewed on a wider theater, with bloodier incidents. Be warned, I entreat you, by this historic example. It was the denial of rights to colored people, after successive promises, which caused that fearful insurrection. After various vicissitudes, during which the rights of citizenship were conferred on free people of color and then resumed, the slaves at last rose, and here the soul sickens at the recital. Then luCame Toussaint L'Ouverture, a black of un- mixed blood, who pjlaced himself at the head of his race, showing the genius of war, and the genius of statesmanshija also. Under his mag- nanimous rule the beautiful island began to smile once more ; agriculture revived ; com- merce took a new start ; the whites were pro- tected in person and property : and a constitu- tion was adopted acknowledging the authority of France, but making no distinction on account of color or race. In an evil hour this policy was reversed by a decree of Napoleon Bona- parte. War revived, and the French army was compelled to succumb. The connection of St. Domingo with France was broken, and this island became a black republic. All this dreary 'catalogue of murder, battle, sorrow, and woe began in the denial of justice to the colored race. And only recently we have listened to a similar tragedy from Jamaica, thus swelling the terrible testimony. Like causes produce like effects ; therefore, all this will be ours if we madly persist in the same denial of justice. The freedmen among us are not unlike the freedmen of St. Domingo or Jamaica ; they have the same ''organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions." and above all, the same sense of wrong, and the same revenge. To avoid insurrection and servile war, big with measureless calamity, and even to obtain that security which is essential to industry, ag- riculture, commerce, and the national credit, you must perform the promises of the Repub- lic, originally made by our lathers, and recently renewed by ourselves. But duty done will not *'nly save you from calamity, and give you se- — curity ; it will also prepare the way for all the triumphs of the future, when through assured peace there shall be tranq;; illity_, prosperity, and reconciliation, all of which it is vain to expect without justice. The freedman must be protected. To this you are specially pledged l>y the Proclamation of President Lincoln, which, after declaring him "free,"' promises io maintain this free- dom, not for any limited period, but for all time. But this cannot be done so long as you deny him the shield oiimpartial laws. Let him be heard in court and let him vote. Let these rights be guarded sacredly. Beyond even the shield of impartial laws, he will then have that protection which comes from the conscious- ness of manhood., Clad in the full panoply of citizenship he will feel at last that he is a man. At present he is only a recent chattel, awaiting your justice to be transmuted into manhood. ,Jf you would have him respected in his rights, you must begin by respecting him in your laws. If yoti would maintain him in his freedom, you must begin by maintaining him in the equal rights of citizenship. And now the national safety is staked on this act of justice. You cannot sacrifice the freed- man without endangering the peace of the coun- try, and the stability of our institutions. Every- thing will be kept in jeopardy. The natioual credit will suffer. Business of all kinds will feel the insecurity. The whole land will gape with volcanic fire, ready to burst forth in a fatal flood. The irrepressible conflict will be pro- longed. The house will continue divided against itself. From all these things. Good Lord, deliver us! But, under God, there is but one deliverance, andthis is thorough justice. I have said that the national credit will suffer; but this does not disclose the whole financial calamity. It is idle to suppose that recent rebels, restored to the privileges of citi- zenship, will give their votes cordially for that national debt which has been incurred in the suppression of their rebellion, or that they will willingly tax themselves for the interest on those enormous outlays by which their darling Slavery has been overthrown. The evidence shows that they are already set against any such contribu- tion. As time advances, and their power is assured, in conjunction with northern sym- pathizers, they will openly oppose it ; or if they consent to recognize it, they will impose the condition that the rebel debt shall be recog- nized also. All this is inevitable, if you give them the power ; it is madness to tempt them. But they will not have the power if the prom- ises to the freedmen are performed. Here again justice to the freedman becomes a necessity. It is sometimes said that we must not require justice to the freedman in the rebel States, be- cause justice is still denied to the colored citi- zen in Connecticut and New York. Idle words of inconceivable utterance ; as if the two cases bore any imaginable resemblance. There are rivers in the North and rivers in the South, but who says that on this account the two regions are alike? The denial of justice to the colored citizens in Connecticut and New York, is wrong and mean ; but it is on so small a scale that it is not perilous to the Republic, nor is it vital to the protection of the colored citizen, and the protection of the national creditor. You are moved to Enfranchisement in Connecticut and New York, simply in order to do justice to a few indmduals ; but you are moved to it in the rebel 8 States, in order to do justice to multitudes, also to save the Republic, wliicli is imperiled by in- justice on such a gigantic scale, and to supply needful protection to the national f reedman and the national creditor. From'failure on our part there is in one case little more than shame, while in the other case there is positive danger to the Republic, involving the late of the na- tional freedman and the national creditor, to whom we are bound by the most solemn ties. To a good man injustice, even on a small scale, cannot be tolerable. He will feel the neces- sity of resisting it ; but where the victims are counted by millions, this necessity becomes a transcendent duty, quickened and invigorated by all the instincts of self-preservation. There- fore, I again say, for the national safety, do not fail to keep these promises. It is sometimes said that the Constitution of the United States expres.sly reserves to the States, the jiower of determining who shall vote, iDCcause it declares, that "the electors in each State shall have the qualifications re- quisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature." But this assump- tion proceeds on the fatal error, that, at any time under the Constitution, which makes no distinction of color, there can be any such oligarchical distinction as a "qualification," founded on color. But even assuming that this • might be done in a period of peace, yet, beyond all doubt, at the present moment, from the ne- cess'ty of the case — from the Rights of War — from the Constitutional clause of guarantee — and from the Constitutional Amendment, Con- gi-ess, by its quadruple powers, is completely authorized to do all that it thinks best for the national security and the national faith in the rebel States. As well question Farragut in the maintop of his steamer — Sherman in his march across Georgia — or Grant in the field before Richmond, as question the authority of Con- gress on this occasion. But if the authority exists it must be exercised. GUARANTEE OF A BEPUBLICAN FOllM OF GOVERN- MENT. II. And this brings mc to the next form of this necessity and duty, as they appear in the guarantee clause of tlio Constitution. It is expr(!ssly declared that "the United States shall guaranty to every State iu this Union a Re- publican form of government." These words, when properly understood, leave no alternative. They speak to us ^^^th no uncertain voice. The magnitude of the question now before us may be seen in the postulate wilii which I begin. Assuming that there bus been a lapse of govern- ment in any State, so as to impose upon the United States the duty of executing this gnar- untee, then do I insist that it is tiie boiinden duty of the Un'ted States to see that sueli State has a '"Republican government," and, in the dis- charge of this boundcn duty, they must declare that a State, which in the foundation of its gov- ernment, sets aside* "the consent of the govr erned" — which imposes taxation without rep- resentation — which discards the principle of Equal Rights, and which lodges power exclu- sively with an Oligarchy, Aristocracy, Caste, or Monopoly, cannot be recognized as a " Repub- lican government," according to the require- ment of Afeierican Institutions. Even if it may satisfy some definition handed down from an- tiquity or invented in monarchical Europe, it cannot satisfy the solemn injunction of our Con- stitution. For this question I now ask a hear- ing. Nothing in the present debate can equal it in importance. Its correct determination will be an epoch for our country and for mankind. Believe me, sir, this is no question of theory ■ or abstraction. It is a practical question which you are summoned to decide. Here is the posi- tive text of the Constitution, and you must now affix its meaning. You cannot evade it ; you cannot forget it, without an abandonment of duty. Others iu vision or aspiration have dwelt on the idea of a Republic, and they have been lifted in soul. You must consider it. not merely in vision or aspiration, but practically as legis- lators, in order to settle its precise definition, to the end that the constitutional "guarantee" may be performed. Your powers and duties are involved iu this definition. The character of the Government founded by our fathers is also involved in it. There is another consider^' ation, which must not be forgotten, in affixing the proper meaning to the text, and determin- ing what is a " ILepublican government," you act as a court in tlie last resort from which there is no aj^peal. You are sole and exclusive judges. You may decide as you i^lease. Rarely in history has such an opportunity been offered to the statesman. You may raise the name of Republic to majestic heights of justice and truth, or you may let it drag low down in tlie depths of wrongand falsehood. You may makeit fulfill the idea of Jolni Milton, when he .said that "a commonwealth ought to be butas one huge Chris- tian personage, one mighty growth or stature of an honest man, as big and compact in virtue as in body ;" or you may let it shrink into the ignoble form of a pretender, with the name of Republic, but without its soul. OUIGIN OP THE GUARANTEE. '> Before considering this vital question, it will be proper to look -at the origin of this "guar- antee," and see how it obtained a place iu the Constitution. Perhaps there is no clause which was more cordially welconujd ; nor dues it ap- pear that it w.'is .sultjected to any serious criti- cism in the National Coiivontiou, or in any State Convention. It is not found in the Articles of Confederation. But we learn from the Feder- alist (No. 21) "that the wanf^of this provision was felt as a capital defect in the plan of the Confederation." Mr. Madison, in a private 9 record made in advance of the National Con- vention, and wliicli has only recently seen the light, enumerates among the defects of the Con- federation what he calls ' ' want of guaranty to the States of their Constitutions and la^YS against internal violence, ' ' and he then proceeds to anti- cipate danger from slavery, which could be coun- teracted only by such a " guarantee. ' ' In show- ing why this was needed he says that, "accord- ing to republican tlieori/, right and power being both vested in the majority, are held to be syn- onymous ; according to fact and experience, a minority may, in an appeal to force, be an over- match for the majority," and he then adds, in words which furnish a key to the "guarantee " Kafterwards adopted, "where slavery exists the /•e^v/.'^>//c«HM(?o;-.i/becomesstillmore fallacious;" (Madison's IFritings, vol. i, p. 322) — thus show- ing (hat, at its very origin, it was regarded as a check upon slavery. Hamilton was not less positive than Madison. In his sketch of a Constitution, submitted to the National Convention at an early stage of its proceedings, this ' ' guarantee ' ' will be found, and in the elaborate brief of his argument on the Constitution, (Hamilton's Works, vol. ii, p. 403,) it is specified as one of its "miscella- neous advantages." The last words of this re- markable paper are "guarantee of Republican Governments." Randolph, of Virginia, in his ^sketch of a Constitution proposed the "guar- 'antee," and, in a speech setting forth the evils of the old sj'stem, he said that "the remedy must be in the republican principle.'''' (Elliot's Debates, vol. v, pp. 127, 128.) Colonel Mason, of ^'irginia, taking up the same strain, said that, though the people might be unsettled on some points, they were settled as to others, among which he put foremost "an attachment io republican governments^ {Ibid, 217.) The proposition in its earliest form was ' ' that a republican government, and the territory of each State, ought to be guarantied by the Uni- ted States to each State." {Ibid, VIS.) This was afterward altered so as to read, "that a republican Constitution and its existing laws ought to be guarantied to each State by the United States. ' ' Gouverneur Morris made haste to say that the proposition in this form was ■^'very objectionable," and he added that he should be very unwilling that such laws as " exist in Rhode Island should be guarantied. {Ibid, 332. ) After discussion, it was amended, on tlie motion of Mr. Wilson, the learned and philosophical delegate from Pennsylvania, af- terward of the Supreme Court of the United States, so as to read, "that a rcpuhlican form of government shall be guarantied to each State, and that each fitate shall I)e protected against foreign and domestic violence," {Ibid, 333;) and, in this form, it was unanimously adopted. {Journal of Convention, 113-189.) Afterward it underwent modifications in the Committee of Detail and the Committee on Style, {Ibid, 381, ) until it received the final form which it now has in the Constitution, as follows : " Tlie Unif/d StateniiJtall flitrii'cinh/ to every State inthis Unioiia lUpubllcan furmof aovernment, andshall pro- tect each ot them a!,'ainst invasion; and on applica- tion of tbeLegislature.orofthe Executive, when the Lesislatare cannot bo convened, against domestic violence." Thus stands the ' ' guarantee. ' ' If any further reason be required for Its Introduction into the Constitution It will be found in the prophetic language of the Federalist : "Itmaypossiblybcaskcd, what need there could he of such a precaution and whether it may not become a pretext for alterations in the State governments without the concurrence of the States themselves. These questions admit of ready answers. If the inter- positiou of the General Government should not be needed, the provision for such an event will be a harmless superfluity only in the Constitution. But who can say wlint experiment may be produced by the caprice of particular Slates, by the ambition of enterpris- ing leaders, or by the intrigue and influence of foreign Powers?"— The Federafist, No. xxi;_see also Story's Commentaries on the Constitution, vol. ii, sec. 1811. The very crisis herein anticipated has arrived. "The caprice of particular States," and "the ambition of enterprising leaders" have done theirworst. And now the "guarantee " must be performed, not only for the sake of Indi- vidual States, but for the sake of the Union to which they all belong, and to advance the declared objects of the Constitution, specified in its preamble. The text of this great undertaking Is worthy of study. No stronger or more comprehensive words could be employed, whether we regard the object, the party guarantying, or the party guarantied. The express object is a "republi- can form of government. ' ' This Is plain enough. The party guarantying is not merely the Exec- utive or some specified branch of the National Government, but "the United States," or in other words,, the Nation. The Republic, which is the impersonation of all, guaranties a "re- publican form of government," and every branch of the National Government must sus- tain the " guarantee," Including especially Con- gress, where is the collected will of the peoi^le. The obligation is not less broad, when we con- sider the party guarantied. Here there can be no evasion. 1'he ' ' guarantee' ' is not merely for the advantage of individual States, but for the common defense and the general welfare. It Is a "guarantee" to each In the interest of all; and, therefore a ' ' guarantee' ' to all. And such is the solidarity of States In the Union, that the good of all Is Involved in the good of each. ¥ov each and all, then, this "guarantee" mu!»t be performed when the casus foederis arrives. As a guai'antor, the Republic, according to a familiar principle, is called to act on the default of the party guarantied ; l)ut when the default has occurred, then the duty Is fixed in all its amplitude. WHAT IS A KEPUIU.ICAX GOVERXMENT? The question then returns, what is "a Ke- 10 publican form of government, ' ' according to the requirement of the Constitution of the United States? Mark, if you please, that it is not the meaning of this term, according to Plato and Cicero ; not even according to the examples of history; nor according to the detinitions of mo- narchical writers or lexicographers ; but what is "a Republican form of government" accord- ing to the requirements of the Constitution of the United States? Of course these important words were not introduced and unanimously adopted without a purpose. They must be in- terpreted so as to have a real meaning. Any interpretation which renders them insignificant is on this account to be discarded as irrational and valueless, if not dishonest. They cannot be treated as a phrase only ; nor as a dead letter ; nor as an empty figure-head. Nor can they be treated as a mere profession and nothing more, so that the Constitution shall merely seem to be republican ; reversing the old injunction " to be rather than to seem " — Esse quam videri. They must be treated as real. Thus interpreted they become at once a support of Human Rights and a balance-wheel to our whole political system. REJECTED DEFINITIONS. In determining their signification, I begin by putting aside what is vague, unsatisfactory, and inapplicable, in order to bring the inquiry di- rectly to American Institutions. I put aside all illustration derived from the speculations of ancient philosophers, because, on careful examination, it appears that the term "Republic," as used by them, was so absolutely different from any idea among us as to exclude their definition from the debate. This capti- vating term is of Roman origin. It is the same as Commonwealth and means the public inter- ests. As orginally employed, it was not a spe- cific term, describing a particular form of gov- ernment, but a general term, embracing all Governments, whether kingly, aristocratic, dem- ocratic, or mixed. Its equivalent in Greece was "Polity," which was the general term for all Governments. Therefore, the definition of a Republic, according to these ancient masters, is simply the definition of an organized Govern- ment, whether kingly, aristocratic, democratic, or mixed. Following this definition the words of the Constitution arc only the "guarantee" of an organized Govcrninont, without d(;t(;rmin- ing its character. 'J'his, of course, leaves open the very question now under consideraliini. • While tlie nomenclature of ancient philoso- pher.s cannot be cited in determining the defi- nition of a Republic, we may, nevertheless, be encouraged by them in demanding that all gov- ernment, under whatever name it may be called, shall be to cstaijlish justice and secure thegen- Hral welfare. 'J'hus i'lato, who commenced th(!se int(;resting speculations, is pleased to liken government to u Just man, delighting in justice always, however he may be treated by others ; and the philosopher insists that every man is a government to himself, as every com- munity is a government to itself According to him, every well-ordered man, like every well- ordered community, is a Republic. Aristotle, in a different vein, and with more precision, says, in most suggestive words, that "every i:)olitical society is a sort of community or part- nership," (Aristotle's Politics, book i, cap. i,) that "the object of all good government is the common good," (book iii, cap. iv, ) that "it is the best plan to admit to a participation in the governing power as many as can be ad- mitted with safety ; for where large numbers are excluded, there will be discontent and danger," (Ibid, book iii, cap. vi,) and that "when tbci One, the Few, or the Many govern well and for the common good, theirs must be called a good Government." (lb.) Cicero gives to the same ideas new fervor and expansion, when he says, "A Republic is for the good of the whole people. But by the people I do not mean every assemblage of men, anyhow gathered together, but an assemblage united by a common accord respecting rights, and a common enjoyment of the public weal." [De liepublica, cap. xxv. ) And then again, in another place, the Roman philosopher says, "Liberty can have no certain dwelling in any state except where the laws are equal and the power of public opinion is su- preme." (/6i(i,cap.xxxi.) But all these require' ments or aspirations are applicable to any Gov- ernment, of whatever form ; and it is well known that Cicero recorded his preference for a Gov- ernment tempered by an admixture of the three different kinds ; so that -we are not advanced in our definition, unless we insist that our Re- public should have all those virtues M-hich are accorded to the ideal Commonwealth. And yet there are two principles which all these philosophers teach us: the first is justice, and the second is the duty of seeking the general welfare. I next put aside the examples of history, as absolutely fallacious and inapplicable. Gov- ernments in all ages have been called Repub- lics, which can be no example to us. Indeed, there is hardly a government, from that of the great hunter, Nimrod, down to insulted and partitioned Poland, which has not been calW. i a " Repul)lic." In 177-!, only a few years before the adoption of the XatioiKil Constitution, Rus- sia, Austria, and Prussia, after dividing Poland, undertook to establish certain fundamental laws for this conquered country, one of which was as follows: "The {rovcrniiKMit of Poliind shiill bo forever free, indcponili-nt ((;ir/ ;v7)i//i/((ff/i ui /<,,»/. The tnioprin- cijile of SiiiJ povcniiiK'nt euiisist.iii:,' in the stiict e.\e- cution of its laws ami tin: e(|iiilil)riuiii of tlio three estates, niiiiiclj'. tin- kinp, the si'iiatc, and tlie eques- trian order." — ./«/<» Atlamx'n Worlitt, vol. iv, i>. 370. But a governmint thus composed cannot be recognized in this debate as "republican in form." 11 At the adoption of the Constitution, the most competent persons, who disagreed on other things, agreed in discarding these examples. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams met here ■ on common ground. The former, in the brief of his argument on the Constitution, thus ex- hibits the various forms of government to which the term "Republic'' has been applied : "A republic, a word used in various senses. Has been applied to aristocracies and monarchies. (1.) To Rome under kines. (2.) To Sparta, though a Senate for lite. (3.) To Carlhaco, th.)iigh thesame. (4.) To United Netherlands, thoush Stadtholdcr, and hered- itary nobles. (5.) To Pulaud, tlioujh :iristocraey and monarchy. (6.) To Great Britain, though a monar- chy." — Hamilton, Works, vol. ii, p. 463. John Adams, in his Defense of the American K Constitutions written immediately anterior to the adoption of the National Constitution, thus concurs with Hamilton : " But of all the words in aH languages, perhaps there has been none so much abused in this way as the words Jiepublic, Commonwealth, and Popular State. In the Eerum imbi icanuii Collcctio, of which there are fifty and odd volumes, and many of them very incorrect, France, Spain, and Portugal, the four great empires, the Babylonian, Persian, Greek, and Roman, and even the German, are all denominated 'Republics.'" — John Adams's Works, vol. v, i). 453. In his old age, the patriarch expressed himself in the same sense and with equal force : "The customary meaning of the words reptihlic and commoiuccalth have been infinite. They have been applied to every government under heaven; that of '^ Turkey and that of Spain, as well as that of Athens andof Rome, of Geneva and San Marino," — Ibid, vol. X, p. 378; Letter of 3Ut March, 1819. And then again he said : "In some writing or another of mine, I happened curreiitecalnmo, to drop the phrase, The word republic, as it is used, may signify anything, everything, or nothing. For this escape I have been pelted, for twenty or thirty years, with as many stones as ever were thrown at St. Stephen, when St. Paul held the clothes of the stoners. But the aphorism is literal, strict, solemn truth. To speak technically, or scien- tifically, if you will, there are monarchical, aristocrat- ical, anddemocratieal republics. The government of Great Britain and that of Poland are asstrictly repub- lics as that of Rhode Island or Connecticut." — Ibid, X, 379 ; Letter of 30th April, 1819. In this latter remark, Mr. Adams simply re- peats what he says in his treatise, when he calls England and Poland "monarchical or regal republics.'''' {Ibid, vol. iv, p. 359.) It is plain that our fathers, when they adopted ^ the " guarantee" of "a republican form of gov- ernment" intended something certain, or which at least, if not certain on the foce, could be made certain. But this excludes the author- ity of incongruous and inconsistent examples. They did not use words to signify "anything, everything, or nothing;" nor did they use words I which were as applicable to England and Po- land as to the United States. 'J'herefore, I can- not err when I put aside all these examples, ■which, however they may illustrate the defini- tion of Republican Government in times past, are utterly out of place as a guide to the inter- pretation of our Constituticu. Something bet- ter must be found for this purpose; nor is it wanting. I put aside also the definitions of European writers and lexicographers anterior to the Con- stitution; for all of these have the vagueness and uncertainty of political truth at that time in Europe. Among these none is of higher authority than Montesquieu, who brought to political science study, genius, and a liberal spirit. But even this great writer, who profited by all his predecessors, quickens and elevates without furnishing a satisfactory guide. He taught that ' ' virtue' ' was the inspiring principle of a Republic, and by "virtue," hesaysthathe meant the love of country, which, he says, is the love of Equality. This is beautiful; but, with curious inconsistency, he proceeds to include "democracy" and "aristocracy" under the term "Republic," the former being where the people in mass have the sovereign , power and the latter "where the sovereign power is in the hands of a j^art of the people. ' ' When defining "democracy" he expresses the importance of the suffrage as one of the fundamentals of gov- ernment, saying, among other things, that it was as important to regulate by ichom the suf- frage should be given, as in a monarchy to know who is the monarch. (Esprit des Lois, liv. ii, chap. 2 and 3.) But among all these glimpses of truth there is no definition of " a Republican form of government" which can help us essen- tially in interpreting the Constitution. Surely an ai'istocracy, "where the sovereign power' is in the hands of a jJart of the people,^^ cannot find a just place in our political system. It may be a " Republican form of government," according to Montesquieu, but it cannot be according to American institutions. One of the ablest of the predecessors of Mon- tesquieu, in modern times, was the Frenchman, John Bodin, who wrote nearly two centuries earlier. He uses the term " Republic" as it is used by the ancient writers, to embrace Mon- archy, Aristocracy, and Democracy, which he calls "three kinds of Republics" — trivrii re- rumpublicarum genera. If the Republic is in the power of one, penes uniiin. it is a monarchy ; if in the power of a few, jjcnes 2)ancos, it is an aristocracy; if in the power of all, p&nes vni- versos, it is a democracy. Proceeding further he says, that a Democracy is "where all or the major part of all citizens, major pars om- nium civitim, collected together, have the su- preme power." (Bodin dc Jiej^iiblica, lib. ii, cap. 1.) Here the philosopher plainly follows the rule of jurisprudence in the case of corpo- rations : but this definition seems to sanction the exclusion of a part of the citizens, less than a majority, while it is inadequate in other respects. It says nothing of equality of rights or of that great touchstone of the republican idea, the de- pendence of taxation upon representation. There are other definitions which may be put aside. Thus, for instance, it has been oftea 12 said, tliat a Republic is " a government of laws and not of men." and this saying found favor ■with some among our fathers. (John Adams's Works, vol. iv, p. 106.) Long before them Aristotle had declared, that such a government "would be the kingdom of God." But this condition, though marking an advanced degree of civilization and of course essential to a Re- public, cannot be recognized as decisive. Qn its face it is vague from its comprehensiveness. It is enough to say that it would embrace Eng- land, whose government our fathers renounced in order to build a Republic. And still further, it would throw its shield over a government which had "framed iniquity into law." This will not do. There is also a plausible definition by MiUer, the learned author of the work on the British Constitution, who states, hypothetically, that by ReimMic may be meant "a government in which there is no king or hereditary chief ma- gistrate." (Miller's I'7e!t', vol. iii, p. 326.) But this again must be rejected as leaving aris- tocracies and oligarchies in the category of republics. Sometimes it has been said, that a Govern- ment with an elective Chief Magistrate is a Republic. Here again nothing is said of aris- tocracy or oligarchy, which obviously may co- exist with an elective Chief Magistrate, as in the case of Venice, where the elected Doge was surrounded by an oligarchy of nobles ; and in the case of Holland, where the elected Stadt- holder was a prince surrounded by princes. But there are other instances which make this definition unsatisfactory, if not absurd. The Pope of Rome is an elective Chief Magis- trate : so also is the Grand Lama ; but surely the States of the Church are not republican, nor is Thibet. Rejecting the definition founded on the elect- ive character of the Chief Magistrate, we must also reject another, founded on "the sover- eignty of more than one man." It has been said positively, by one who has written much on this subject, that "the strict definition of a Re- public is that in which the sovereignty resides in more than one man." (John Adams's Woi-Jcs, vol. X, p. 378.) But this strict definition will embrace aristocracies and oligarchies. I conclude these rejected definitions with that of Dr. Johnson in his Dictionary, which appeared before American Indopendence : " Ufipublick; (1) — Commonwealth, slate in, xohich the power in /n'lynd in vwre than one, (2) — Common interest,- thepiihllclc." I Tlicse definitions are all as little to the pur- pose as the " vulgar error," chronicled by Sir Thomas Browne, that storks lived only in re- Sublics, or the saying of Rous.scau, at a later ay, that a society of gods would govern them- selves democratically, or the remark of John Adams, that "all good government is, and must be republican." It is evident that we must turn elsewhere for the illumination which we need. If others thus far have fulled, it is because they have looked across the sea instead of looking at home, and have searched foreign history and example, instead of simply recog- nizing the history and example of their own country. They have imported inapplicable and uncertain definitions, forgetting that the Fathers, by positive conduct, by solemn dec- lara tions, by declared opinions, and by public acts, all in harmony and constituting one over- whelming testimony, have exhibited their idea of a Republican Government in a way which is at once applicable and certain. They are the natural interpreters of their own Constitution. Mr. Fox, the eminent English statesman, ex- . claimed on one occasion in debate that, if by some interposition of Divine Providence all the wise men who ever lived in the world were as- sembled together, they could not invent even a tolerable Constitution ; meaning, of course, that a Constitution must be derived from habits and convictions, and not from any invention. There is sound sense in the remark ; and it is in this spirit that I turn from a discussion which has only this value, that it shows how little there is in the past to interpret the meaning of the Fathers. TRUE SOURCE OF DEFINLTIOX. Every Constitution embodies the principles of its framers. It is a transcript of their minds. If its meaning in any place is open to doubt, or if words are used which seem to have no fixed signification, we cannot err if we turn to the framers ; and their authority increases in pro- portion to the evidence which they have left on the question. By a "' republican form of govern- ment" our fathers plainly intended that Gov- ernment v.'hich embodied the principles for which they had struggled. Now, if it appears, that, through years of controversy they had in- sisted on certain principles as vital to free gov- ernment even to the extenfof encountering the mother country in war ; that afterward, on solemn occasions, they had heralded these jn-in- ciples to the world as "self-evident truths;" that also, in declared opinions, they had sus- tained these principles ; and that, in public acts, they had embudied these principles — then is it bej'ond dispute, that these principles mustliave ent,ered into the idea of that government which they took pains to place under the ' ' guarantee' ' of the United States. But all these things can bo shown unanswerably. In these words of hj'pothesis, I have already foreshadowed the four dilferout heads under which these principles may l)e seen : First, as asserted by the lathers throughout the long revolutionary controversy which culminated in war; Sccoitdl//, as announced in solemn declarations ; T/n'rdli/, as sustained in declared opinions; and Fourthly, as embodied in public acts. 13 PRIXCIPLES ASSERTE'^ BT OUR FATHERS PRECED- ING IHE REVOLtTTIOJf. (1.) I begin with the principles asserted by our fathers throughout the protracted contro- versy that preceded the Revolution. If Sena- tors ask why our fathers struggled so long in coutroversj' with the mother country, and then went forth to battle, they will iind that it was to establish the very principles for which I uow contend. To secure the natural rights of men, and especially to vindicate tlio controlling maxim that there can be no taxation without representation, they fought with argument and then with arms. Had these been conceded at that time there would have been no Lexington or Bunker Hill, and the Colonies would have continued yet longer under transatlantic rule.'. The first object proposed was not independence but the establishment of these principles ; and when at last independence was proposed, it was because it became apparent that these principles could be secured in no other way/ Therefore, the triumph of independence was the triumph of these principles, which neces- sarily entered into and became the animating soul of the Republic which was then and there born. The evidence is complete, and if I dwell on it with some minuteness, it is be- cause of its decisive character on the present occasion. The great controversey opened with the pre- tension on the part of Parliament to tax the colonies. This pretension was first disclosed to Benjamin Franklin as early as 1754. It was at the time a profound secret ; but this patriot philosopher, whose rare intelligence embraced the natural laws of government not less than those of science, in a few masterly sentences exposed the injustice of taxation without rep- resentation. For a moment the ministry shrank back ; but at last, when the power of France had been humbled, and the colonies were no longer needed as allies in war, George Gren- ville, blind to principle and only seeing an in- crease of revenue, renewed the irrational claim. The colonies were to be taxed by the Parliament in which they had no representation. Two mil- lion and a half of people — for such was the colonial population then — were to pay taxes without any voice in determining them. The men of that day listened to the tidings with dis- may. They saw in this ministerial outrage the overthrow of their libeiiies, whether founded ouiij^tural rights or on the rights of British sub- jects. In their conclusions they were confirmed by two names of authority in British history — Algernon Sidney and. I ohn Locke, each of whom had solemnly asserted those liberties which were now in danger. One had borne his testimony on the scaffold ; the other in exile. Sidney, in his Discourses on Government, did not hesitate to say "that God has left to nations the liberty of setting up such Govern- ments as best pleased themselves," and then again, ' ' that all just magistratical power is from the people." (Discourses, p. 30, 14.) Such words were calculated to strengthen the senti- ment of human freedom ; but it was Locke who gave fornuil expression to the very principles which were now assailed. In a famous passage of his work on Civil Government, written dur- ing his exile in Holland, this eminent English- man bore his testimony thus : "It is true government cannot be supported with- out great charge, aud it i.s fit every one who enjoys his share of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the maintenance of it. But still it must be \yith his own consent: i. e., the consent of the majority, giving it either Ijij themxi^lvef or their rep- resentatives chosen by them; for, if any one shall claim a power to lay and levy taxes on the peor>le by his own authority and icithout xueh consent of the people, he therehy invades the fundamental law of property and subverts tlie end of government; for what prop- erty have I in that which another may by right take, when he pleases, to himself?" — Locke's Civil Govern- ment, book ii, eh. 7; ch. 14. Here is a plain enunciation of two capital truths: first, that all political society stands only on the consent of the governed; aud, sec- ondly, that taxation without represeirtation is an invasion of fundamental right. It was these truths that our fathers embraced in the contro- versy before them, and these same truths, happily characterized byHallam as "fertile of great revolutions and perhaps pregnant with more," are as fertile and as pregnant now as then. Unquestionably, Sidney and Locke exercised more influence over the popular mind, j^reced- ing the revolution, than any other v,-riters. They were constantly quoted, and their names were held in reverence. But their authority has not ceased. As they spoke to our fathers, they now speak to us. Sicut pafribus, sic nobis. The cause of human liberty, in this great con- troversy, found a voice in James Otis, a young lawer of eloquence, learning, and courage, whose early words, like the notes of the morn- ing bugle mingling with the dawn, awakened the whole country. Asked by the merchants of Bos- ton to speak at the bar against ■wTits of assist- ance, which had been issued to enforce ancient Acts of Parliament, he spoke, not only as a law- yer, but as a patriot. His speech was the most important, that, down to that occasion, had ever been made on this side of the ocean. An emi- nent contemporary, who was present, says, "No harangue of Demosthenes or Cicero ever had such effect upon the globe as this speech." (John Adams's Woi'ks, vol. x, page 233.) It was the harbinger of a new era. For five hours the brilliant orator unfolded the character of these Acts of Parliament ; for five hours he held the court-room in attentive and ;istonished admiration ; but his effort ascended into states- manship, when, after showing that tiie colonists were without representation in Parliament, he cried out, that, notwithstanding this cxclusioUi Parliament had undertaken "to im])ose taxes and enormous taxes, burdensome, oppressive 14 taxes, ruinous, intolerable taxes," and, then, glowing with a generous indignation at this in- justice, he launched that thunderbolt of polit- ical truth, " Taxation without rejoresentation is Tyranny." From the narrow court-room where he spoke, the thunderbolt passed, smiting and blasting the intolerable pretension. It was the idea of J ohn Locke ; but the fervid orator, with tongue of liame, had given to it the intensity of his own genius. He had found it in a book of philosophy ; l)ut he sent it forth as a winged messenger, blazing in the sky. John Adams, who, as a young man just admitted to the bar, was present at this scene, dwells on it often with sympathetic delight. There, in the old Town House of Boston, sat the five judges of the province, with Hutchinson as Chief Justice, in robes of scarlet, with cam- bric bands and judicial wigs ; and there too in gowns, bands, and tie-wigs were the barristers. Conspicijous on th"e wall were full-length por- traits of two British Monarchs, Charles II and James II ; while in the corners were the like- nesses of Massachusetts Governors. In this presence the great oration was delivered. The patriot lawyer had refused compensation. "In such a cause," said he, "I despise all fees." He spoke for his country and for mankind. Fii-mly he planted himself on the rights of man, which he insisted were, by the everlasting law of nature, inherent and inalienable ; and these rights he nobly proclaimed, were common to all, without distinction of color. To supjiose them surrendered in any other way than by equal rules and general consent was to suppose men idiots or madmen, whose acts are not bind- ing. But he especially flew at two arguments of tyranny: first, that the colonists were "vir- tually" represented; and secondly, that there was such a difference between direct and in- direct taxation, that while the former might be questionable, the latter was not. To these two apologies he replied: first, that no such phrase as "virtual representation" was known in law or constitution — that it is altogether a subtlety and an illusion, wholly unfounded and absurd — and that we must not be cheated by any such phantom or any other fiction of law or politics, or any monkish trick of deceit and hypocrisy; and, then, in the second place, he said with the same crushing force, that, in the absence of representation, all taxation, wliether direct or indirect, whether internal or external, whether on land or on trade, was equally obnoxious to the same unhesitating condemnation. The effect of this effort was electric. The judges were stunned into silence, and postponed their judgment. The peoi)le were aronscil to a frenzy of {)Utriotism. "American Independence," Bays John Adams, in the record of his impres- sions, " was theii and there born : the seeds of patriots and heroes were tlien and there sown, to defend the vigorous youth. Every man of a crowded audience appeared to go away as I did, ready to take arms against writs of assist- ance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born." (J. Adams's Works, vol. X, p. 247; see also pp. 293-375; Tudor's Life of Otis, pp. 71-77.) But this great birth is inseparably associated with the principle, then and there declared, that " Taxation with- out representation is Tyranny." From this time forward Otis dedicated him- self singly to the cause he had so bravely up- held, and the popular heart clove to him. He became the favorite of his fellow-countrymen. His arguments were repeated ; his words were gratefully adopted, and the saying, "Taxation without representation is tyranny," became a '' maxim of patriotism. In May 17U1, only a few weeks after this utterance, he was chosen a rep- resentative of Boston, in the Legislature, by an almost unanimous vote. The Crown officers were dismayed by this most significant election, and one of them, speaking with prophetic lam- entation, said that "It would shake the prov- ince to its foundation," on which John Adams remarked, many years later when some of its results were already visible, ' ' That election has shaken two continents and will shake four." {Ibid, p. 248.) Of course this was simply be- cause it affirmed and invigorated a practical truth of government, by which all the people are lifted to political power. At his new post of duty, Otis became the acknowledged leader, constant, fer- vid, eloquent, and according to his own lan- guage "daring to speak plain English." While still declaring an unhesitating loyalty to the Crown, and even pledging "the last penny and the last droj) of blood, rather than, by any back- wardness, his Majesty's measures should be em- barrassed," he made haste to announce in words, where humor blends with truth, "that God made all men naturally equal; that the ideas of earthly superiority are educational and not in- nate ; that no government has a right to make hobby-horses, asses, and slaves of the subject, nature having made sufficient of the two former for all the lawful purposes of man, from the harmless peasant in the field to the most refined politician in the cabinet; but none of the last, wiiieh infiillibly proves they are unnecessary." But the case would have been imiierfectly stated, f. if thien lo represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the euFicst method of raisins (hem, and must them- selves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the onlii necnrity ngainut hurdeiinonie titration and the distinsnishing characteristic olBritishiieedom, with- out which the ancient constitution cannot exist." — Wirt' a Life of Patrick Henry, p. 57. Pennsylvania, by her House of Assembly, spoke also to the same effect as follows : "Renohcrl, Ncm. Con. That this House think it their duty thus firmly to assert with modesty and decency, their i»//^r';H6. _ As time advanced the old ajidaeity was re- vived ; and, under the lead of the reckless Charles Townsend, taxes were imposed by Par- liament on tea, glass, lead, paper and painters' colors. The old opposition in the colonies was revived also, and taxation without representa- tion was again denounced. Committees of cor- respondence were established and the work of organization began. The whole country was in a fever. _ Massachusetts, as in times past, did not hesitate to proclaim the true principle. At a Town meeting of Boston in 177l>. there was a declaration of rights, "which no man or bodyofmen, consistently with their own rights as men and citizens or members of society ,'^can for themselves give up or take away from oth- ers;" and here we meet again familiar words : " The supreme power cannot justly take from any man any part of his property without his consent in person or by his representatives."— Pofre 10. Against all Parliamentary taxation, as often as It showed itself, this was the impenetrable buckler that was raised. But the mother coun- try was perverse. Ship-loads of tea arrived. At Boston the tea was thrown into the harbor. The colonies entered into an agreement of non- importation. Then came troops, and the Bos- ton Port Bill, by which this harbor was vindic- tively closed tigainst commerce. The whole country, including even South Carolina, made common cause with Massachusetts. Gadsden exclaimed, " Massachusetts sounded the trum- pet, but to Carolina is it owing that it was at- tended to." And Virginia exclaimed, " We mil never he taxed but by our representatives. This IS the great badge of freedom, ^^■hether the people in Ijoston were warranted by justice when they destroyed the tea, we knowiiot; but this we know, that tiie Parliament, by their pro- ceedings, have made us and all North America, parties in the present dispute." (A\'irt"s Life of Patrick Henry, p. 9.-.v. ai'tintr directly and [icrsi in ally, accorrf- ing to rides estalJislied by the majority : and that every other Government is more or less rei)ublican, in pro- portion as it lias in its composition more or less of this ingredient of the direct action of the citizens."— J(/- ferson's Works, vol. vii, p. 605. Here again, while confessing the unquestion- able vagueness of the term according to old examples, he assumes that in a Republic all the citizens must have a voice. And in another place he thus- indignantly condemns denial of representation : "And also that one half of our brethren who fight and pay taxes are excluded, like Helots, from the rights of representation, as if society were instituted for the soil and not for the men inhabiting it, or one half of these rou/il dispose of the riylils and the will of the other half icithout their consent." — Ibid, p. 607. Thus did he scout the whole wretched preten- sion of oligarchy and monopoly by which citi- zens are deprived of equal rights. Madison was colder in nature than Jeffer- son, but they were associates in opinion, as in political life. Tke former ia the debates on the Constitution thus condemned the denial of rights on account of color : " We have seen the mere distinction of color, made in the most enliirhtened period of time, a ground of the most oppressive dominion ever exercised by man over man." — Elliot's Debutes, vol. iv, p. 162. Speaking directly of the right of suffrage, he uses the following language : " The right of suffrage is certainly one of the funda- mental articles of republican government, and ought not to be left to be regulated by the legislature. A grad- ual abridgment of this right has been the mode in which aristocracies have been built on the ruins of popular forms." — Elliot's Debates, vol. v, p. 388. Thus declaring himself against "aristocra- cies," he naturally recognized the true idea, and here he was perplexed by the question of a prop- erty qualification, which he says in one j)lace, ' ' does not satisfy the fundamental principle that men cannot be justly bound by laws in making which they have no part." {Ibid, p. 580. ) And then again in another place, "It violates the vital principle of free government, that those who are to be bound by laws, ought to have a voice in making them, and the violation would becomemorestrikinglyunjust as the law-makers become the minority." {Ibid, p. iJ82.) Thus completely recognizing the great American principle that just government can stand only on "the consent of the governed," he is brought to this conclusion: "Under every view of the subject, it seems indis- pensable that the mass of citizens should not be with- out a voice in making the laws which they arc to obey and in choosing the magistrates who are to administer them."— /6i(/, p. 583. In one of the most remarkable chapters in the Federalist, Madison gives expansion to this idea in his formal definition of a llepublic : "If we resort for a criterion to the diflFerent princi- ples on which ditt'erent forms of government arc estab- lished, we may define a republic to be, or at least may bestow that name on, « government which derives all its poirers directly or indirectly from the great body of the people, and is administered by ofiiccrs holding their oQiees during i)leasure, for a limited time, or during good Ijcliavior. It is essential for such a government that it be derived from the great body of the society, not from an inconsiderable iinmort ion, ou A l-'AVOUKD CLASS OF IT; otherwise a handful of tyrannical nobles, exer- cising their oppressions l)y a delegation of their pow- ers, tnidht asjiire totherank of republicans, and claim fur their government the honorable title of repub- lic. "—/'t(/(/-«^W, No. 39, by Madison. Thus, in these few significant words, does this authority teach that a Republic is a govern- ment " derived from the great body of the peo- ple," and not from "a favored class of it." Better words could not be found for the Ameri- can definition. Hamilton follows with, purliaps, equal au- thority. Though ap]>roachiiig political ques- tions from opposite points of view, we find him on this occasion uniting with Fraidvlin, .leifer- son, and Madison. Here is a glimpse of the definition he would supply: "As long as offices are open for all and uo eonsti- tutional rank is established, it is pure republican- ism." — Hamilton's Works, vol. ii, p. 47. Not for an oligarchy, but for all is a Republio 20 created. Then again lie testifies for Equal Riglits and against partial distinctions : " There can be no truer principle than this, that evenj individual of the communitii has an equal right to the protection of government," * * * * "We propose a free government. Can it be so, ii partial dis- tinctions are made?" — J bid, p. 418. And then again he says in positive words : " A share in the sovereignty of the State, which is exercised by the citizens at large in voting at elec- tions, is one of the most important risrhts of the sub- ject, a7id in a Republic ought to stand foremost in the estimation of the law. It is that right by which we ex- ist as a free people." — Hamilton, Works, vol. ii, p. 315. He then portrays the principles of the Revo- lution as follows : "They taught the inhabitants of this country to risk their lives and fortunes in asserting their liberty, or, in other words, their right in a share in the government. That portion of the sovereignty to which each indi- vidual is entitled, can never be too highly prized. It is that for which we have fought and bled. — Ibid. More could not be said in the few words em- ploj'ed. But it is when Hamilton comes to con- sider the Constitution of the United States and to expound its provisions, that, while recog- nizing the anomalous condition of Slavery, and exposing what he calls "the compromising expedient of the Constitution,'' by which "the sZare is divested of two fifths of the man,'' he yet declares "the equal level of free inhabit- ants,"' and announces " that if the laws are to restore the rights which have been taken away the negroes could no longer he refused an eqval share of representation icith the other inhab- itants.''^ Here are the important words: "It is only under the pretext that the laws have transferred the negroes into subjects of jiropcrty, that a place is disputed them in the computation of num- bers: AND IT IS ADMITTED TUAT IK THE I.AWS WERE TO BESTORK THIO RIGHTS WHICr. HAVK liKKN TAKEN AWAY, THE NEGROES COUI.U XO LONGER BE REFUSED AX EQUAL SHARE OE REPRESESTATIOX WITH THE OTHER INHAB- ITANTS." — The Federalist, No. 54, by Hamilton. Thus, according to Hamilton, if the slaves are restored to the rights which have been taken away — in other words, if tliey become free- men — they will be on the same equal level, and will be entitled to the same equal share of rep- resentation \^ith the other inhabitants. The two ideas of Equality and of a right to repre- sentation, which were so early and so constantly avowed by the Fathers, are here again recog- nized as essential conditions of government; and this is the true definition of a Republic. With these great representative names to illustrate the American idea of a Republic, I might close this catalogue. Surely this is enoitgh. But there are yet others, whose au- thority cannot be disregarded. HfTeisthe testimony of that inflexible spirit, who had thought and acted much, Samuel Adams, iu a letterto his kinsman,. John Adams : " That the sovereignty renidis in theproplf is a po- litical doctrine which I have iieverheurd an American politician scriouHly deny." •***•' We, the piuiilf, is the style of the Federal Constitution. They lulopled it ; and, conformably to it, they dele- gate the exercise of the powers of tfovernmeutto par- ticular persons, who, after short intervals, resign their powers to the people, and they will reelect them, or appointothers, asthey see fit." — John Adams's Works, vol. vi, p. 421. Here also is the testimony of another Re- publican, who signed the Declaration of Inde- pendence, Roger Sherman, in a letter to John Adams : "What especially denominates it a republic is its dependence on Xh^public. or people at large, without any hereditary powers. But it is not of so much im- portance by what appellation the government is dia- tinguished, as to haveit constituted to secure the rights, ■ji/ia advance thehappiness of the community," — Ibid, p. 437. There also was John Adams himself, who was the least distinct of all the fathers on this question ; but we find in the introduction to his J Defense ofthe American Constitutions apassag« which is full of prophetic meaning. Here it la: "Thirteen governments, thus founded on the nat%e- ral autliority of the people alone, without a pretense ot miracle or mystery, and which arc destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter o? the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rigJU* of manhind." — /. Adams's ^YorJc«, vol. iv, p. 293. Here is a plain assertion that our thirteen States were founded "on the natural authority of the people alone,'' and that they were des- tined to spread over all North America. Here also is a voice from South Carolina, in a speech of Charles Pinckhey, on the adoption of the Constitution : "Thodoctrine of representation is the fundamental i of a Republic." * * * * "As to the United Netherlands, it is such a confusion of states and assemblies, that I have always been at a loss what species of government to term it. According to my idea of the word, it is not a Republic ; f- r I con- ceive it as indispensable in a Republic that all author- ity should flow from the people." * * * * " A Republic is -where the people at large, either col- lectively or by representation, form the Legisla- ture." — Elliot's Debates, vol. iv, pp. 32G-328. Colonel Mason, of Virginia, who always spoke with so much point, said in the National Convention : "The true idea was that every man having evidence of atlaclnnoiit to and permanent common interest with the sorioty, ought to share in all its riglits aiKl duties."— A7/io<'« Debutes, vol. v, p. 397. Again we have a plain recognition of the rev- olutionary idea. Here, also, is another voice from Virginia. I quote the words of a Virijinitv writer on government — John Tsylor, of Caro- line : " r "The end of this guarantee is 'a republican fbrm of govcrumont.' The meaning of this expression is not so unsettled here as in other countries, because wo agree in one descriptive character as essential to the existence of a republican fnrm of trovci nment. This is rcjiresentaiion. We do nut ailniit ti (iovem- mrnttitbe even in itsorigin repubtiean, nnhxK it in intti- tuteil by representation; nor do we allow il to be SO, unless Its legislation is also f undcil uiiou rciirc-enta- t\on."—ConstrHclioii Construed, by Jidin Taylor, of Caroline, p. 312. I close this arra)% illustrative of opinion, by the words of Daniel Webster, iu harmony with the rest: "Now, fellow-citizens, I will venture to state in a few words what 1 take these American principles in 21 substance to be. They consist, as I think, in the first place, in the establishment of popular governments on the basis of representation." * « * * '* Th is reprtscntutioii in to be made as equal as circum- aiancesiciU allow."— Webster's Works, vol. ii, p. GUI. Thus, at every stage, from the opening, when Otis announced the master principle, "Taxa- tion without representation is Tyranny," all along to Daniel Webster, we find "represen- tation " an essential element in the American detinition of a republican Government. PUBLIC ACTS OF THE STATES. (4.) Fi'om authoritative opinions I now pass to public acts, which testify to the true idea of Republican Government. These public acts are of two different classes : first, by the United States, in their collective character ; and sec- ondly, by the States individually. Looking at the States, in their collective char- acter, we shall find that at the adoption of the National Constitution they had refused to rec- ognize any exclusion from the elective fran- chise on account of color or race. The Fathers knew too well the requirements of a Republican Government to sanction any such exclusion. Recognizing Slavery as a transitory condition, which would soon cease, they threw over it a careful oblivion ; but they were none the less jealous of the rights of all freemen. The slave did not pay taxes, and, so far as he was a person and not property, he was a part of the family of his master, by whom he was represented,_ so that the commanding principle of the Revolution was not disturbed in his case. But, on becom- ing a freeman, the slave stepped at once within the pale of taxation, and therefore necessarily of representation, -since the two were insepa- rable. And this consideration was the guide to our fathers. The Congress of the Confederation refused point blank to insert the word "white"' in the Articles of Confederation. The question came up 2-5th June, 1778, on these words: "The FFvEE ixHABiTAXTS of cach of thcsc States (pau- pers, vagabonds and fugitives from justice ex- cepted) shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of free citizens in the several States." The delegates from South Carolina moved, in behalf of their State, to limit this guarantee to "free white inhabitants." On the question of inserting the word "white," eleven States voted ; two in favor of the insertion ; one was divided ; and eight were against it. South Carolina, not disheartened, made another at- tempt, by moving to add, after the words "the several States," the further clause, "according to the law of such States respectively for the gov- ernment of their own free WHiTE.inhabitants," thus seeking again to limit the operation of this guarantee. This proposition was also voted down by the same decisive majority of eight to three. And thus did our fathers testify to the right of representatioq without distinction of color. On other occasions, for successive years, they constantly gave the same testimony. By two different acts of the Confederation, one in April, 1783, and another in April, 1784, the war expenses were apportioned among the several States, according to "the number of white and other free citizens and inliabltants,^' thus positively embracing colored persons. In the Act for the temporary government of the territory " ceded or to be ceded" to the United States, dated April 23, 1784, and drawn by Jef- ferson, the voters are declared to be the " free males of fuUage," without distinction of color. In the famous Ordinance for the government of the Northwestern Territory, drawn by Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, adopted by the Con- federation July 13, 1787, and then reenacted by our Congress, after the adoption of the Con- stitution, the voters are declared to be "free male inhabitants of full age" ^ — again without distinction of color. Then came successive acts of Congress for the government of Ten-itories, where the rule in the Ordinance for th& north- western Territories was followed, and there was no distinction of color. If this rule was changed, it was only when the partakers in the Revolu- tion and the authors of the Constitution bad ceased to exercise their influence over public affairs. The testimony of the Fathers was con- stant, and it is only of this that I speak on this occasion. Turning from the States collectively, and looking at them individually, we shall find the same testimony. By tlio^ Constitution of New Hampshire, at the time of the adoption of the National Constitution, the suffrage was vested in "every male inhabitant of each town and parish" with certain qualifications, but without any exclusion on account of color. By the Con- stitution of Massachusetts, the suffrage was vested in "every male person" with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. Rhode Island, at the adoption of the Constitution, was under her original colonial charter, which provided for elections by "the major part of the freemen of the respective towns or places," without distinction of color. Connecticut was likewise under her original colonial charter, which required that the voters should have " maturity in years, quiet and peaceable behavior, a civil conversation and forty shillings freehold or forty pounds personal estate," without distinctiorf of color. By the Constitution of New York, the snliVa^c was vested in " every male inhabitant of full age," with certain specified qualilications, but with- out distinction of color. By ihc Constitution of New .Jersey it was vested in •• all inhabitants ofthis colony of fulhige," witli certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. By the Constitution of Pennsylvania it was vested in "every freeman of the full ago of twenty-one years," with certain specilied qual- ifications, but without distinction of color. By 22 fhe Declaration of Rights prefixed to the Con- stitution of Delaware, it was announced that "every freeman, having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest, with an attach- ment to the community, hath the right of suf- frage," without distinction of color. By the Constitution of Maryland the suffrage was vested in ''all freemen above twenty-one years of age," with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. I3v the Dec- laration of Rights prefixed to the' Constitu- tion of Virginia it was announced that "all MEx having sufficient evidence of permanent common interest, with an attachment to the community, have the right of the suffrage," without distinction of color. And it is added that ' ' they cannot be taxed or deprived of their property for public use, withovt their men con- sent or that of their representatives so elected, nor bound by any law to which they have not in like manner assented for the public good." By the Constitution of North Carolina the suf- frage was vested in "all freemen of the age of twenty-one years," with certain specified qualifications, and without distinction of color ; and this rule continued down to 1835, when the Constitution was amended or rather, let me say perverted. That eminent citizen, Chief Justice Gaston, of North Carolina, in giving judgment at a later day, said: " It is a matter of univer- sal noioricAyihai free persons, loithout regard to color, claimed and exercised the franchise.^' (4 Dev. and Battle, Rep. 35. Tlie State r.";. Manual. ) By the Constitution of Georgia in 1790 the suffrage waa vested in "citizens and in- habitants," with certain specified qualifications, but without distinction of color. To these States I may add Tennessee, which was carved out of North Carolina, and followed her benign ex- ampje. Her Constitution, which was adopted in 17'J6, vested the suffrage in " every freeman of twenty-one years," with certain qualifica- tions, but without distinction of color; and this rule continued down to the perversion of the Constitution in 1834. Mr. Cave Johnson, of Tennessee, once Postmaster General, is re- ported to have said thathe was originally elected to Congress ))y the votes of colored persons, and I have heard Mr. John Bell make the same confession with regard to himself. It only remains to speak of South Carolina, the early and constant marplot of republican institutions, where, by the Constitution, the suf- frage was vested "in every free while man, and no other person," with certain specified quali- ficalions.^ This was the only Stal(>, among the original Tliirtcen, unless (ieorgia be grouped with South Carolina, whicli at that time allowed :i discriniinalioii. founded on color, to liud a place in its Constitution. It was the only Stale which. afU'r uniting in a National Declaration, that "all men are created equal," openly and auda- ciously commenced the example t)f a"wbite man'sGovernment." Thisapostateidea, which hassince played such a part as a disturber of the national peace, was then and there born, as the opposite idea was born in Massachusetts, under the inspiring words of James Otis. And the other States, in their constitutions, followed this patriot Voice. They spoke of ' ' persons, " "in- habitants," "freemen," or better still "men," without any prefix of ' ' white. ' ' Color was not mentioned. But even in South Carolina, which introduced the discreditable tyranny into her Constitution, this exclusion was more apparent than real. In point of fact, even as late as 1790, when the first census was taken, there were in this State only one thousand eight hun- dred and one free colored citizens. Of course their exclusion was wrong, mean, and unre- publican ; but I do not assert that it was on such^a scale as to justify the interference of the Nation to reform it, especially where the-e was no lapse of the State Government. On the other hand its sufferance cannot be interpreted into a waiver of the principles for which the Revolution was fought. Such are the public acts of the States collect- ively and individually at the time of the adop- tion of the National Constitution, illustrating with rare harmony the American idea of a Re- public, and testifying against any exclusion founded on color. Add to these that the Na- tional Constitution, which carefully excepts "Indians not taxed'' from the basis of repre- sentation, pays an open homage to the princi- ple that there can be no taxation without repre- sentation. Add then, that it expressly founds the Government upon "the people," not only in the preamble, which begins " we, the people," but also in providing that the House of Repre- sentatives shall be ' ' chosen by the people of the several States." Add also the crowning fiict, that it recognizes no distinction of color— that it treats all with the same impartial justice — and who are you, sir, who will dare to ibict into this Magna Carta an oligarchical idea which can find no sanction in its republican text? AMEIUCAX UEFIXITIOX OF A REPUBLICAX GOVERN- MEXT. And here T bring this part of the argument to a close. We have seen the origin of the con- troversy which led to the Revolution, when Otis, with such wise hardihood, insisted upon Equal Rights, and then giving practical effect to the lofty demand, sounded the battle-cry that "Taxation without Representation is Tyr- anny." We have followed this controversy ia its anxious stages, where these ]n-incip!es were constantly asserted and ron.stantly denied, until it broke forth in battle; we have seen these principles adopted as the very frontlet of the Ke]mbfic, when it assumed its place in the fam- ily of nations, and then again when it ordained itsConstitulion ; we have seen them avowed and illustrated in memorable words by the greatest authorities of the time; lastly, we have seen them embodied in public acts of the States col- 23 ledtively and individually ; and now, out of this concurring, cumulative, and unimpeachable testimony, constituting a speaking aggregation absohitely without precedent, I offer you the American definition of a Republican form of government. It is in vain that you cite phi- losophers or publicists, or the examples of for- mer history. Against these I put the early and constant postulates of the Fathers, the corpo- rate declarations of the Fathers, the avowed opinions of the Fathers, and the public acts of the Fathers, all with one voice proclaiming: first, that all men are Equal in rights ; and sec- ondly, that Governmentsderivetheirjustpowers from the consent of the governed ; and here is the American idea of a Republic, which must be adopted in the interpretation of the National Constitution. You cannot reject it. As well reject the decalogue in determining moral du- ties, or as well reject the multiplication table in determining a question of arithmetic. _ Counter to this irresistible conclusion there can be only one suggestion having any seeming plausibility, and this is founded on the conteru- porary recognition of slavery. On this point it is enough if I remind you, first, that our fathers did not recognize slavery as a permanent part of our system, but treated it as exceptional and transitory, while they concealed it from view by words which might mean something else ; secondly, that the slave was always regarded, legally and politically, as a part of the family of his master, according to the nomenclature of Blackstone's Commentaries, which were much read at the time, where master and servant were grouped with husband and wife, parent and child, and, as in the case of wife and child, the slave icas represented by the head of the famil)/, who also paid the taxes on his account, so that, in his case, the cardinal principle of the Revo- lution, associating representation and taxation together, was not in any respect violated ; and thirdly, that by the acts of the Continental Congress, and by all the State Constitutions, except that of South Carolina, all distinction of color was discarded in determining the elect- ive franchise, and that one of the authorized expounders of the National Constitution at the time Alexander Hamilton announced in the Federalist, as if anticipating the very question now before us, if the laws were to restore THE RIGHTS WHICH HAVE BEEX TAKEX AWAY, THE NEGROES COULD NO LONGER BE REFUSED AN EQUAL SHARE OF REPRESENTATION WITH OTHER INHABITANTS. Such was the undci-stiinding. and such was the promise at the adoption of the Constitution. Such was the declared mean- ing of oar fathers, according to the contempo- rary testimo.-:y of Alexander Hamilton. Thore- fore, while confessing sorrowiully their incon- sistency in recognizing slavery, and throwing over their shame the mantle which the son of Noah threw over his father, we must reject eveiy argument or inference on this account against the true idea of a Republic, which is none other than where all the citizens have an equalvoicein the Government. As Washington, by his august example, gave to mankind a new idea of political greatness, so did the Fathers, by their great e.xample, give to mankind a new idea of government. Do you ask again for authority? I offer it to you. It is an early Dictionary of James Otis, Samuel Adams, Pat- rick Henry, and Benjamin Franklin. It is in the Lexicon of the Revolution. It is in the Thesaurus of our national history. It is in the Collection of Public Acts. This new idea was the great discovery of our fathers. Rob them of this, and you take from them their highest title to gratitude. Columbus, venturing into an unknown sea, discovered a New World of space ; but our fathers, venturing likewise, discovered a New World of public duty. It is for us, their children, not to forget their discovery. RECENT FRENCH DEFINITIONS. After our own country, there is one other only which can help in determining what is a Repub- lican form of government, and this is France. There, as in the United States, a Republic has been declared. If in the former country it failed to be maintained ; still the generous ef- fort has been made, and we have its testimony. This is explicit. As the Provisional Govern- ment in 1848 proclaimed the Republic, it was careful, after proper deliberation to proclaim at the same time "universal suffrage," which Lamartine, standing on the steps of the Hotel de Ville, and speaking in the name of tlie gov- ernment, said was "the first truth and only basis of every National Republic." (Gamier Pag^s, Histoiredela Revolution., torn, i, p. 328.) The proclamation of the Republic M'as itself submitted to the vote of "all the citizens;" and on the terms of this submission another member of the Government, of solid sense and perfect fidelity, thus expresses himself: " ]5y these words — nil the citizem — tho PrDvisional (rovoinuicnt intended to consucrato definitively tho funilanuntal principle of democracy; jt intended to prochiiin openly and forever the iualienablo, impre- scriptiliU) ri,i,'ht, inherent in each member of society, to p;ivtici|Kito citizens, being more than alhirdof its whole "people." There is Alabama, which disfranchises lotj, 030 citizens, being nearly one half of its whole "people." 'J'here Is Louisiana, which disfran- chises 3.30,54i; citizens, being one half of its whole " people." There is Missi.ssii)iii, which disfranchises 437, 40-1 citizens, being much more than one half of its whole "peoph'." And there is South Carolina, wliicli disfranchises 412.408 eitizens, being nearly two iliirds of Its whole "peoi)le." A Republic Is a ijyramld 25 standing on the broad mass of the people as a base ; but here is a pyramid balanced on its point. To call such a government "repub- lican" is a mockery of sense and decency. A monarch, "surrounded by republican institu- tions.'' whicli at one time was the boast of France, vrould be less offensive to correct prin- ciples, and give more security to Human Righrs. It is not difficult to classify these States. They are axistocracies or oligarchies. An ar- istocracy, according to the etymology of the word, is the government of the best. An oli- garchy is the government of the few, and is not even an aristocracy, but an abuse of aristocracy, as despotism is the abuse of monarchy. Per- haps these States may be characterized in either way ; and yet the term aristocracy, especially in its origin, has something respectable which cannot be attributed to a combination, whose single distinctive element is the color of the skin. The eminent publicist, Bodin, in his defini- tion of an aristocracy, says that it exists tchere a smalhr bodi/ of citizens governs the greater, and this definition has been adopted by others, especially by Montesquieu. But this is not sat- isfactory". Hallam, whose judgment is of the highest value, after discussing the merits of this definition, proposes the following most sug- gestive substitute: "We misht better say, th^ which are not commnnicrtble to other citizen>i sim- ply bu rin;/lhinfi they can thenifielves do to obtain them." — Hu/lam's Literature of Europe, vol. ii, cap. 4, sec. 52. These words completely characterize the aris- tocracy of aolor ; for such an aristocracy_ is plainly in the enjoyment of privileges, which are not communicable to other citizens, by any- thing they can themselves do to obtain them. To show that our rebel States are aristocra- cies or oligarchies is enough for the present occasion. But we must not forget that, born of Slavery, they have the spirit of that iniquity, so that they are essentially of a low type. Founded on the color of the skin, tlicy are, beyond all question, the most senseless and dis- g-usting of all history. Would j'ou know to what they might incline? Listen to the frank words of the greatest Venetian writer, the famous Father Paul, while he counsels the privileged class, in a state refined by art and elevated by glory, how to use their powers. " If a noble, " ' says' he, "injure a plebeian, justify him by all possible means ; but should that be found quite impossible, punish more in appearance than in reality. If a plebeian insult a noble, punish him with the greatest severity, that the commonalty may know how perilous it is to insult a noble." (Sarpi, Opinione per il perpetno Dominio di Vemzia, p. 13.) Such is the terrible rule laid dov.n in a document, which taught how to make the puwer of Venice perpetual. But this same spirit predominates still in the rebel Stales. It rages there with more revolting cruelty than it ever raged in Venice. And such is the govern- ment which now claims recognition as " rci»ub- lican." The pretension thus organized is hateful on another ground. It is nothing less than a Caste, which is at once irreligious and unrepublican. A Caste cannot exist except in defiance of the first principles of Christianity and the first prin- ciples of a llepublic. It is Heathenism in reli- gion and tyranny in government. The Brali rains and the Sudras in India, from generation to generation, have been separated, as the two races are now separated in these States. If a Sudra presumed to sit on a Brahmin's carpet he was punished with banishment. But our recent rebels undertake to play the part of Bramhins, and exclude citizens, with better title than themselves, i'rom essential rights, simply on the ground of Caste, which, according to its Portuguese origin, casta, is only another term for race. But this pretension is in yet other respects hostile to good government. It is essentially a Monojioly in a couniiy which sets its face against all monopolies as unequal and immoral. If any monopoly deserves unhesitating judg- ment it must be that which absorbs the rights of others and engrosses political power. How vain it is to condeuin the petty monopolies of commerce and then allow this vast, all-embra- cing monopoly of Human Plights. Clearly, most clearly, and beyond all ques- tion, such a government cannot be considered "republican in form." Call it an Oligarchy, call it an Aristocracy, call it a Caste, call it a Monopoly; but do not call it a Republic. DUTY OF COXGRESS. Of course 'such a government can exist only in defiance of the Constitution, and it is the duty of Congress to interfere against it. Pres- ident Johnson, in his annual message, says: "In case of the usurpation of the irovernmont of a State bv one man or an Oiignrchy,\\ becomes thoduty of the United States to make good the guarautcc to that State of a Republican form of govern^ucnt." The President forgets to mention an Aristoc- racy, and does not add, what is true, that the authority which must make good the guaran- tee is the sole judge of the exigency. To this end everything centers in Congress whose pow- ers are commensurate with the occasion. In aid of the "guarantee" clause are those other words in the Constitution, providing that Con- gress "shall have power to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carry- ing into execution the powers vested in the Government of the United States." Under this ample provision there is a duty to W per- formed, by any means which may soi in l)est. The jurisdiction is complolc and it H_in Con- gress'. If any authority i'or this proposition were needed it would be found in the words of Chief 26 Justice Taney, speaking for the Supreme Court of the United States: " The fourth scotion of the fourth article of the Con- stitution of the United States provides that the Uni- ted States shall guaranty to every State in the Union a republican form of government, and shall protect each of them against invasion; and, on the applica- tion of the Legislature or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic violence. "Under this article of the Constitution, it rests with Congress to dec ide tvhat government is th e establish ed- one Ml a State. For, as the Uiiited States guaraiity to each State a Republican government. Congress must neees- aarily decide ichat government is established in the State before it can determine whether it is Republican ornot."—7 Howard Rep. 42, Luther vs. Borden. In the exercise of this power two courses at least are open. One is to impose an irrepealable condition upon the unrepublican States, requir- ing them, before recognition, to reform their governments to the satisfaction of Congress. The other,_and more direct course, is by Act of Congress, in performance of the "guarantee," and according to the plenary authority "for car- rying into execution the powers vested in the GoYerument of the United States," to provide all needful safeguards in the unrepublican States, and especially t» place the Equal Rights of All undor the guardianship of National Law. Against the exercise of this power there are btft two arguments. First, that the Constitu- tion, by providing that "the electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State Legislature," lias reserved to each State tJie power of excluding citizens merely on ac- count of color, even though constituting more than a majority of the population. The other argument is that, since certain States at the North have disfranchised the few colored per- sons within their borders, the United States are so far constrained by this examjile that they cannot protect the millions of freedmen in the rebel States from disfranchisement, and cannot save the Republic from the peril of such a crying injustice. I know not which of these two argu- ments is tlie least reasonable, or ratlier, which is the most reprehensible. They are Ijoth un- reasonable and 1)oth reprehensible. They looth do violence to the true principles of the Con- stitution, if not to common sense. It is true that, according to the text of the Constitution, each State may determine the "qualifications" of electors, but this can have no application to an exigency like the present, where, at the close of a nrolonged and desper- ate rebellion, the United States are obliged to guaranty to certain States a republican form of government. In the performance of this "guarantee," the United States can look only rA the essential elements of such a government ; nor more nor less ; without regard to State laws. J5iit I am not willing to rest the argu- ment hen>. Kvon assumingtliatthere has been no lapse of State governments, so as to bring the "guarantee" into operation— assuming that we are in a condition of assured peace — then I utterly deny that the power to determine the " qualifications' ' of electors can give any power to disfranchise actual citizens. It is "qualifi- cations" only which the States can determine, meaning, by this limited term, those require- ments of personal condition which are regarded as essential to the security of the franchise. These ".qualifications" cannot be in their na- ture permanent or insurmountable. Color can- not be a "qualification," any more than size or the quality of the hair. A permanent or insur- mountable "qualification" is equivalent to a deprivation of the suffrage — in other words, it is the tyranny of taxation without representa- tionj and this tyranny, I insist, is Rot intrusted to any State of this Union. This is the very ground taken by Mr. Madison, when, defend- ing the National Constitution in the Virginia convention, he said : "Some States might regulate the elections on the principle ol Equality, and others might regulate them otherwise." « * * * "Should the people of any State, by any means, be deprived of the right of suffrage, it was judged proper that it shouldbe remedied by the General Government." * * s= * "If the elections be regulated properly bvthe State Legisla- tures, the congressional control will very probably never be exercised. This power ai.pears to be satis- factory and unliJ