# U. S. Senate Speeches and Remarks of Carl Schurz/State of Georgia

“The Senate resumed, as in Committee of the Whole, the consideration of the bill (H. R. 1335) to admit the State of Georgia to representation in the Congress of the United States...” (Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, April 19, 1870, p. 514). The text of the speech is from The Congressional Globe, 41st Congress, 2nd Session, pp. 2814-2819. The initial remarks by George F. Edmunds, senator from Vermont, regard Carl Schurz's fellow senator from Missouri, Charles D. Drake.
STATE OF GEORGIA.
Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, it is now half past four o'clock, and I suppose the Senate is tired, and I would be the last man to inflict myself upon my associates here, so that I shall be glad to give way for a motion for a recess now, if that be the pleasure of the Senate.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I hope not; I hope the Senator will go on.
Several Senators. Go on.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Senate determined by unanimous consent that the recess should commence at five o'clock.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If the Senator from Missouri does not wish to go on at this time, I should like to occupy about three minutes.
Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly; I yield with the greatest pleasure.
Mr. EDMUNDS. I shall not occupy more than three minutes. All that I rise for, Mr. President, is not to go over this question again, but to pay the homage of my respectful admiration to my friend from Missouri, [Mr. Drake,] who I am sorry to see is not here, for the first-rate notice which he gave me yesterday, and which I see has been duly advertised in the organ.
“The head and front of my offending” is that I have been heartless about this business, that I have been cold, something like the weather. Well, sir, it is quite true that all my heat on political subjects and for human rights has not been expended in any one day. It has been spread over quite a large space of time; a space of time so wide that it will date back to the time when I was befriending the colored man in Vermont, and my friend from Missouri was not doing it in Missouri. I will not exactly say what he is supposed to have
been doing. I only say that the difference between us has been that his zeal, like that of most new-born converts, explodes on some single day, while mine has continued somewhat steadfastly from the beginning. I rather imagine, looking to the future from the past, that I may be found and my constituents whom I represent may be found to be upholding steadily human rights, adapting the best means to the best ends, when my friend from Missouri will have again gone off at some tangent and be for something else.
Now, Mr. President, on the subject of this very State of Georgia I find, on looking up the old files, that on the 5th of March, 1869, I introduced a bill which recited these very outrages that are now being mouthed so much, and which provided that the act of June 25, 1868, which looked to the setting up of the State of Georgia into an independent condition should be repealed; and that the military arm of the Government by all its power should be devoted to repressing this violence and punishing offenders, remitting the State of Georgia again to a provisional condition in order to protect human rights and human life. That bill was referred to the Judiciary Committee, which some newspaper has waggishly said constitutes the third party in this body, and that committee, in eleven days afterward, by my friend from Illinois [Mr. Trumbull] reported the bill favorably with a single unimportant amendment of detail, and recommended the Senate to pass it; and on more than one occasion I took the vote of this body by a division, asking them to consider it then, because we foresaw the end from the beginning; and yet Senators, I believe including my friend from Missouri — I am not certain; I have not looked at the Globe — refused to consider it, and chose to consider some question about currency, which was antagonized against it. And so the Judiciary Committee, according to its destiny, was put down, not adversely to human rights exactly, but when we were endeavoring to obtain the action and the sanction of this body to protect life in Georgia in the spring of 1869; and a year has gone over our heads, in spite of that committee's appeals to this body to interfere and protect life and property and liberty there.
Now, sir, I think it comes with rather an ill grace for my friend from Missouri, or any other friend, either here or through the advertising medium, to accuse me, or to accuse that committee of having been slow to redress these outrages and to correct these grievances. The contrary is entirely true; and if fault lies at anybody's door that we have not interfered before and set this matter right, it does not lie at the door of the committee, or of the humble member of it who now addresses you.
As I said, I did not rise to go over again these arguments about the best way to accomplish a result that we all desire, but to remind Senators that it is not altogether safe, in the interest of truth and justice and fairness, to accuse other Senators who may not exactly agree with them as to the best way to reach a common object, of being cold, or heartless, or of being connected with the Democracy. I have known our foremost friend here for human rights, who sits not far behind me, from the old Bay State, [Mr. Sumner,] before now, to be voting with the Democracy, or, as he would put it, having the Democracy vote with him, in the interest of human rights frequently. This is all I have to say.
Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, it was not my intention to take part again in this debate, but a few points have been presented which it seems to me deserve some consideration. I shall not go over the constitutional argument again; I shall at present not indulge in legal reasoning, for it seems to me that branch of the subject is entirely exhausted. Nor do I think that our learned friend from Nebraska [Mr. Thayer] has added anything new to it this afternoon. I believe the strength of the
constitutional argument is so overwhelmingly on our side that nothing more need be said about it.
We are on the point now of passing some legislation to remedy certain evils which exist in a certain part of the country. In my opinion there is but one safe basis for that legislation, and that is the truth. I have a strong liking, I might almost say a weakness, for the truth; and when dealing with such questions I am always determined to ascertain, as far as may be possible, the facts as they are.
We in this country are fearfully given to superlatives. The inclination to exaggerate has become one of our national foibles; and when we look at our public oratory, how much its value is enhanced sometimes in common appreciation by an ingredient of the sensational! I see sitting near me my friend from Ohio [Mr. Thurman] smiling. I listened to him a few days ago when he made his speech on this very question, and I must confess I was then very strongly reminded of this fact, for I heard him describe the oppressions under which the late rebels of the South were laboring, and if I remember rightly he compared their condition, in very eloquent language, with that of the oppressed patriots of Poland groaning under the despotic sway of Russia ---
Mr. HOWARD. Will the Senator allow me to interrupt him?
Mr. SCHURZ. Certainly, sir.
Mr. HOWARD. The Senator from Missouri charges us with the national vice of exaggeration, which he intends to apply, I suppose, to the present matter. Let me ask the honorable Senator whether there is any exaggeration in an official report which he had the honor to make to the President of the United States respecting the condition of the southern States at the close of the war, for that work contains all the evidence I wish to guide my action on this subject?
Mr. SCHURZ. Not the least exaggeration in it. On the contrary, I think that report was the most temperate statement of the case at that time; and I am now ready to stand by every line of that report as it was then written. But I think the honorable Senator from Michigan mistook my purpose when he interrupted me; for this time I was going to speak about the exaggerations indulged in by our Democratic friends. [Laughter.] I was just saying that I listened with some astonishment to my learned and highly esteemed friend from Ohio, when he so eloquently described the oppressions under which the late rebels of the South were suffering and compared them with the sufferings of the patriots of Poland under the hard rule of Russia. This comparison has been used so frequently in the country that I have reasons to believe it has created great mischief; for it was calculated to inflame the excitable imagination of the southern people, and to make them really believe that they were suffering all the terrible wrongs that ever were heaped by a despotic Government upon the most fearfully oppressed people. What truth is there in it? My friend is a scholar, and undoubtedly the history of the world is familiar to his mind. Does he not remember how many executions took place after the failure of the Polish revolution of 1830, and of later insurrectionary attempts? Does he not know how many hundreds and thousands of patriots, men and women, were led in chains over thousands of miles away from their homes to drag out their miserable lives in the snows of Siberia?
but let us pass to more civilized countries. Let us see how the Hungarian revolution ended. He certainly remembers the rows of gallows which were then erected, and upon which the principal generals of the Hungarian army were hung. He certainly remembers the thousands of exiles that were scattered almost over all the countries of the globe.
Let us pass even further westward to a still more civilized country — to France. He certainly remembers the hundreds of deportations to the deadly climate of Cayenne, which took place after the insurrection of June, 1848, under the republic, not to speak of the punishments that were inflicted upon revolutionists after Napoleon's coup d'état.
Nay, let us cast a look back on the history of this country and remember that after the war of the Revolution almost all the States exiled the Tories, and some of them confiscated their estates.
And now compare the fate of the late southern rebels with the fate of the patriots of Poland, of Hungary, of France, and even of the Tories of the American Revolution! Looking at it candidly with an impartial eye, do you not find that all the atrocities heaped upon the defeated rebels of the South consisted simply in this one fact, that we did not mean to permit those who but yesterday strove to destroy the Republic to rule it to-day; that we fulfilled our duty to protect the conquerors in the South against the evil spirit of the conquered?
Examine the whole history of military government in the late rebel States. Can you point out to me one single act that was not commanded by this duty? What, then, remains of this thrilling comparison with the oppression of the Polish patriots, or those of Hungary, or those of France? No; I assert and maintain that the history of the world does not exhibit a single instance of such exceeding magnanimity as that meted out by the conquerors in our great struggle to the conquered — not one. Show me the dungeon in which a single man languishes for political offenses; show me the gallows upon which a single one expiated his crime of treason; show me the exiles in foreign countries that might not this very moment return unmolested to their homes. Where are they?
I repeat there is not a single example of such magnanimity in the history of the world, and it may be truly said that in acting as it did this Republic was a century ahead of its time. No, sir; we cannot compare our action in the premises with that of Russia in relation to Poland without slandering the high character of the American people, and I hope we shall never again hear of it on the floor of the Senate of the United States.
The Senator from Michigan will have perceived that his interruption was at least a little ill-timed on this occasion. I will now turn over to the exaggerations on the other side.
Mr. HOWARD. I understood the honorable Senator to apply the term “exaggeration” to the whole of the nation, as being a fault of the whole people of the United States.
Mr. SCHURZ. I said we were rather inclined that way.
Mr. HOWARD. I beg to deny the justice of the allegation.
Mr. SCHURZ. Then I will solemnly exculpate the Senator from Michigan from the charge.
Mr. HOWARD. I do not speak of myself; I speak of the nation.
Mr. SCHURZ. I ask the Senator, are we not really inclined to paint with rather high colors, or, to express it in popular parlance, to indulge in big talk? I submit it here to any one of my friends, the Senator from Michigan always excepted, and let him decide whether it is so or not. I gave a very fair example of it in citing the language used by our Democratic friends in regard to the oppressions suffered by the late rebels, and I fear we may find another fair example of it in examining a little more closely the stories laid before us on the other side.
We listened to the speech of the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton,] in which he unrolled before us a most gloomy and bloody tableau of the horrors that are of daily occurrence in the South. I admit it was thrilling; but, reading over that speech, the fact struck me somewhat forcibly that a great many of
the things he related had occurred in and before the year 1868; and if my friend from Michigan will look into my report which he has just quoted, and by every line of which I shall always be willing to stand ---
Mr. SUMNER. An admirable document.
Mr. SCHURZ. Was it? [Laughter.] Yes, sir, every statement in it was conscientiously made, every conclusion conscientiously drawn; and I wish my distinguished friend from Massachusetts, who does me the honor to call taht report an admirable document, would take some of those conclusions to heart. They would, perhaps, change his position a little with regard to the subject now under consideration. But I say the facts then submitted in my report belonged to the summer of the year 1865. Are not things changing under the influence of time? Is improvement entirely out of the question? Is it not possible that a little change for the better may have occurred since 1865, and even since 1868?
Still, while saying that a great many of the facts laid before us by the Senator from Indiana were of rather old date, I am certainly willing to admit that the condition of things in some parts of the South is in a high degree unsatisfactory. It is undoubtedly true that a great many crimes are being committed there. It is undoubtedly true that those midnight organizations of which we have heard so alarming an account do exist. It is undoubtedly true that they are indulging in the most atrocious excesses, although the measure in which those excesses take place has undoubtedly been exaggerated by grouping together facts that have occurred in a series of years. However, I shall allow the Senator from Indiana and all those who agree with him to have the full benefit of their statements.
I listened with great pleasure and satisfaction a few days ago to the speech of the Senator from North Carolina, [Mr. Pool] a speech admirable for the candor of its statements and the value of its suggestions. The Senator stated very correctly the difference which exists between the crimes thus perpetrated in the South and similar crimes perpetrated in the northern States. He said that in the northern States the criminal is actuated by avarice, by passion; but that in the southern States the crimes which have been adverted to are the result of organized combination made for a purpose, are the result of political animosity, and in some measure, as he showed us, of political calculation.
We may go further, and say that while in the North public sentiment is strongly united in the condemnation of such things, while we always can find witnesses to testify against the criminals and juries to convict them, we find in the South, especially in the case of crimes of a political character, criminals, witnesses, and juries, if not judges, all on the same side.
Nobody will dispute these facts; and what do they prove? They prove simply a depraved public sentiment. They authorize the further conclusion that if we want to stop the source of these crimes, we must reform that depraved public sentiment and educate it up to a higher standard. My colleague [Mr. Drake] said the other day, when speaking of the Kuklux outrages in the South, that there was nothing in history to be compared with them except the religious organization of the Thugs in India. He need not have traveled so far; he might have found occurrences and organizations very similar to these, a public sentiment very similar to this, in Spain and in Italy, shortly before, during, and after almost every insurrection.
Now, what is the remedy? When I spoke upon this question a few weeks ago, I said that the evil does not consist in this man's or that man's possessing and wielding political power in the South; and of this we have as clear a proof before us as we can possibly obtain from any historical evidence. There is a significant phenomenon to be observed; and it struck me very forcibly when I listened the other day to
the speeches delivered by the Senator from North Carolina on my right, [Mr. Abbott,] and the Senator from Indiana, [Mr. Morton.] There is the State of Tennessee, which has a Democratic State government. There are the States of North Carolina, of Louisiana, of Alabama, which have Republican State governments. There is Georgia, which is under military rule. So you see all the three distinct classes of State governments which can possibly fall under our consideration; and yet under all these different governments the condition of things, as has been shown to us, is in all essentials exactly the same.
What does it prove? It proves what I stated before, that the evil does not consist in this man's or that man's having political power, but that the evil will assert itself in spite of this party or that party being in office. Is it not so? Must we not go deeper to find its source? Must we not look for remedies which are outside of the beaten track of policy that has here been advocated? For neither Democratic nor Republican nor military rule has as such shown its efficiency in exercising the necessary measure of influence upon the public sentiment of the South; something more is evidently required. I do by no means deny that we can by legislative action, or, in extreme cases, executive interference on the part of the national Government, facilitate and accelerate the process of improvement. Certainly we can do some important things, and I hope we shall. We can strengthen our laws to protect every man in his civil and political rights by an efficient constitutional machinery. We can and we shall, I trust, pass the necessary legislation to enforce the fourteenth and the fifteenth amendments; and when called upon by a Governor or a Legislature to suppress domestic violence I think we ought to be swift in striking the blow with a strong hand. We may perhaps strengthen the laws which exist for that end. All these things I think we can and we ought to do, and in doing them I hope we shall go to the full extent of our constitutional powers; not beyond them, indeed; for if we do that our main weapon, the moral force of the measures we may resolve upon, will then be impaired.
Now, sir, while we can and will do all this, still I think it will be insufficient to produce as general and permanent an effect as we must desire. Look at it from whatever point of view we may, the loyal people of the South will have to perform a part of this business themselves, and for aught I know the more important part. Certainly, the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Pool] was right when he said the other day that as they are at present situated we must not expect too much of them, that the negro population has never had much self-reliance, and although it may have more now than it had when it was in slavery, yet it has not enough now to confront the old master class with the spirit necessary for self-protection. I admit that it would be extremely difficult for them to protect themselves alone and unaided; neither in the nature of things can we do for them all that is required. Even the machinery of military interference and of martial law cannot be omnipresent, and it cannot be everlasting, so that it cannot everywhere prevent these outrages from taking place, nor can it prevent their repetition when it is withdrawn.
The principal value of all the measures I have indicated will be that they are auxiliary to that which southern society can and must do for itself. Its main reliance society must place in those means of protection which it holds in its own hands. This I think is American. This is common sense. It seems to me we have accustomed the loyal people of the South a little too much to look to Congress for all they believe themselves to stand in need of. They cannot always be looked upon as our wards; we cannot always act as their guardians in every emergency. While we shall gladly
and zealously do our duty to them, we should never forget to direct their thoughts to those elements of strength which they wield with their own hands in their own country, and which are always present with them.
Mr. EDMUNDS. If my friend from Missouri will yield, as it is within a minute of five o'clock, I will move to extend the recess for fifteen minutes, as we are all here and shall be glad to hear him.
Mr. SCHURZ. Unless it will please the Senate better, now that the dinner hour has arrived, to give me time to finish my speech after the recess, before the Senator from Illinois commences. I can assure you that will please me better.
Mr. WILLIAMS. How long do you want?
Mr. SCHURZ. About twenty or twenty-five minutes after we return. [“Agreed!” “Agreed!”]
The VICE PRESIDENT. Is there objection to extending the afternoon session until the Senator from Missouri concludes his remarks?
Mr. EDMUNDS. I understand the Senator from Missouri would prefer, with the permission of the Senator from Illinois, to go on after the recess.
Mr. SCHURZ. If the Senator from Illinois has no objection, I think it would be better for all of us now to go home and take our dinners, and return.
Mr. TRUMBULL. I have no objection.
Mr. SCHURZ. Then I can conclude before the Senator from Illinois commences to-night. [“Agreed!”]
The VICE PRESIDENT. The hour of five o'clock having arrived, the Senate now takes a recess until half past seven o'clock.
EVENING SESSION.
The Senate reassembled at half past seven o'clock p. m.
HOUSE BILL REFERRED.
The bill (H. R. No. 1823) to provide for the apportionment of Representatives to Congress among the several States was read twice by its title, and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary.
STATE OF GEORGIA.
The VICE PRESIDENT. The Georgia bill is before the Senate.
Mr. THURMAN. I will avail myself of the absence of the Senator from Missouri [Mr. Schurz] to make a brief statement. There have been some things said in this discussion to which it will be proper, whether necessary or not, for me to make a reply. I have not, however, sought the floor for that purpose, because to do so would exclude from the floor Senators who had not addressed the Senate on this bill, and who were therefore better entitled to it than I was, but I wish to say now that on some proper occasion in the future I shall ask the attention of the Senate to a reply to some remarks which have been made, not personal to myself at all, but affecting the party to which I belong.
ABBOT Q. ROSS [etc.]
STATE OF GEORGIA.
The Senate, as in Committee of the Whole, resumed the consideration of the bill (H. R. No. 1335) to admit the State of Georgia to representation in the Congress of the United States, the pending question being on the amendment of Mr. Pomeroy to the amendment of Mr. Stewart. The amendment of Mr. Stewart was to strike out the first proviso to the bill, in the following words:
Provided, That nothing in this act contained be construed to vacate any of the offices now filled in the State of Georgia, either by the election of the people or by the appointment of the Governor thereof, by and with the advice and consent of the senate of said State; neither shall this act be construed to extend the official term of any officer of said State beyond the term limited by the constitution thereof, dating from the election or appointment of such officer; nor to deprive the people of Georgia of the right, under their constitution, to elect Senators and Representatives of the State of Georgia in the year 1870; but said election shall be held in the year 1870, either on the day named in said constitution of said State, or such other day as the present Legislature may designate by law.
The amendment to the amendment was to strike out the proviso and insert the following:
That the existing government in the State of Georgia is hereby declared to be provisional; and the same shall continue subject to the provisions of the acts of Congress of March 2, 1867, and March 23, 1867, and of July 19, 1867, until the admission of said State by law to representation in Congress; and for this purpose the State of Georgia shall continue the third military district.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted. That in accordance with the provisions of and under the powers and limitations provided in said acts, an election shall be held in said State on Tuesday the 15th day of November, 1870, for all the members of the General Assembly of said State provided for in the constitution of said State adopted by its convention on the 11th day of March, 1868, at which election all persons who by said constitution are electors shall be entitled to vote. And said General Assembly so elected shall assemble at the capital of said State on the 13th day of December, 1870, and organize preparatory to the admission of the State to representation in Congress; and the powers and functions of the members of the existing General Assembly shall cease and determine on the said 13th day of December, 1870.
Mr. SCHURZ. Mr. President, when I was interrupted this afternoon I had just expressed the opinion, and endeavored to maintain it by argument, that although we, by congressional legislation or by executive interference may accelerate and facilitate a favorable development of things in the South, yet that the principal means of protection rested in the hands of the southern people themselves. They are by no means as helpless as they are frequently represented to be. The means of self-protection which they hold in their own hands are partly of a physical, partly of a moral nature. This fact was brought very vividly to my mind by a letter which I received a few days ago from a gentleman who introduced himself to me as a Democrat living in the State of Georgia. You will permit me to read to the Senate a few sentences of it:
“That crimes are committed here is admitted; that in some instances the colored people are maltreated is conceded; but that there is any disloyalty to the Government is not true. We have a great State in resources, and no people have shown so much of recuperative power since the war as we have. We want peace. We can govern ourselves if let alone. We are now in the midst of the planting season” —
And to this passage I desire to call the especial attention of the Senate —
“We are now in the midst of the planting season. Vast expenditures are being made to insure a heavy crop of our staple. With a new lease of power, Governor Bullock's party will put in motion schemes which will prostrate the labor of the country and palsy every arm raised for production. Take the one measure, loyal militia, which means black militia. The great inducement to be held out to enlist will empty our fields in many places, and the constant contact of this “army with banners” with the laborers in the fields will so demoralize them that we can put no dependence on what little labor will be left. No crops can be made if the programme is carried out, and the result will be private bankruptcy and ruin.
“But these are not the worst of the evils. You can well imagine the dangers to society in other respects. Some of them you foresaw and stated. It must be apparent to you, with the evidence before you, that Governor Bullock does not want to perpetuate himself and Legislature for party ends merely. It is a well-known fact that Democrats are in his combination for public plunder.
“It has been said the rebels will rejoice over the success of the Bingham amendment; but the truth is nine tenths of our people and all who have our interests at stake, all who want peace and security for their homes and their families, do not regard the issue as a party one, but one which seriously affects our life, homes, and prosperity.”
I did not read this letter for the purpose of laying before the Senate anything directed by a Georgia Democrat against Governor Bullock; but I desire to call your attention to those sentences in the letter which apply to the economical condition of the State of Georgia. I think I may with propriety answer this letter in public. I would say to the writer and his friends: Gentlemen, you who are Democrats and have great material interests at stake, you want peace. So do we. If you do want peace you can have it very easily. You Democrats in the South can suppress all the disorders which disturb you without difficulty by your own influence. Did we not hear a few days ago on this floor the Senator from North Carolina [Mr. Abbott say that there was only one prominent Democrat in the State of North Carolina who had boldly and forcibly pronounced himself against the Kuklux organization and the excesses committed by them, and from that very time there was not a single case of outrage in his county upon record? So it appears that if you Democrats in Georgia really want peace and order you have only to follow the example of that Democrat in North Carolina; the only thing necessary is that you should pronounce yourselves boldly, fearlessly, and emphatically against the outrages that are committed by your party friends. But if you do not fulfill that plain duty to yourselves, to your families, to the prosperity of your State, then you must not complain if we employ those means which you predict will be so disastrous to your material interests. You say that if a loyal militia be organized, which in your opinion means a black militia, it will take the laborers from your fields, and that by the continued contact between this “army with banners” and the laborers the whole labor of the State will be disturbed and demoralized; that the crop will go to waste, and ruin and bankruptcy will be the consequence. Very well, then, if you want peace and order, if you want to save your crops, if you want to develop your prosperity, if you want to avoid the necessity of a black militia, suppress the disorders yourselves by the moral and physical force which you possess over your friends. If you do not, then you cannot find fault with us if we employ all the means which are necessary for the purpose, whatever the result as to your bankruptcy and ruin may be. Then we are justified in organizing the black militia you are so much afraid of; justified in taking you labor from your very fields, and letting your cotton rot on the ground where it was raised, and thus holding you responsible for not performing a duty as plain as daylight and as important to yourselves as to others. Public order is a common good. You are not entitled to its blessings if you discard its obligations.
This would be my answer to the language of that letter. Now, Senators, do you not think if those who act as the leaders of the loyal men in Georgia and the other reconstructed States held language and followed a policy based upon such principles, if they employed with judgment and determination all those means which bear directly upon the material welfare of men of all political parties — do you not think it would have a most salutary effect in establishing and maintaining that condition of quiet and order which the interests of society so urgently demand? Do you not think that in such a way more permanent results may be accomplished than by anything we can do?
I give this only as an example, in order to show you that material interests can be made to coöperate in securing and maintaining a tolerable state of order in many ways. It can be done under an intelligent and energetic management, aided by auxiliary action on our part, but not dependent upon it.
But there are other things of a moral nature which the loyal people of the southern States must do for themselves. They must develop the moral power of their good cause in the southern States. Already the Senator from Alabama [Mr. Warner] alluded to it this afternoon, and it is well known and cannot be denied that during the confusion of the reconstruction period men have risen in some of the late rebel States into prominence and office
utterly unfit for responsible position, and that things have been done under their leadership which would have brought disgrace and destruction upon any party in any State ever so free from rebel spirits and from Kuklux organizations. Sir, I say this with fearless frankness; I say this as an honest man; I say it as an earnest Republican. Our strength is in the conscience of the people, and we shall outrage that conscience if we attempt to cover profligacy and corruption with the shield of partisanship. We owe it to our great cause that we should neither be deaf to the just complaints of our opponents nor be blind to the shortcomings of our friends. We should uncover them in order to correct them.
I repeat, that while in some of the southern States the leaders of the Republican party are such as to gratify our pride, in others things have been managed in a manner so scandalous as to justify me in saying that the Republican party there and the loyal people have some of their worst and most dangerous enemies in their own ranks. Into those States you may send ever so many districts under martial law, and yet the Republican party will not become fairly grounded there until it delivers itself of its corrupt elements; for in order to secure the adhesion of the masses you must first command the respect and confidence of the people. If the loyal men of the South desire the Republican party to strike a firm root in their soil, they must see to it that only their very best men are raised to places of influence, power, and responsibility. They must learn to estimate at their true value those who disguise with vociferous, extravagant, vindictive demonstrations of radicalism their unscrupulous propensity to place their individual advantage over the common good. In one word, they must show that they are able and determined to give good and honest governments to those States.
What I say may have a harsh sound; but I repeat, I entertain a strong liking for the truth; for I know the bold recognition of the truth is the strength of a good cause.
Let it not be said that I attack the loyal people of the South. Nothing could be further from my mind or more repugnant to my heart. I honor, I venerate those who stood by the flag of their country in the hour of their country's need, who sacrificed and jeopardized far more than we did. I know they are deserving of the very best reward that is held in store for good men; and just for this reason I more deeply despise and detest those who abuse the generous confidence of these deserving men, rising to power by their favor, and then obeying only the instincts of gross selfishness; and the sooner the Republican party of the South is delivered of such leaders the better it will be for its power and prosperity. I repeat, sir, I delight in honoring the southern leaders who come up to the standard of what Republican leaders ought to be, and I am glad to say there are not a few of them. But such leaders must be chosen in all the States. If they are not, I warn you whatever efforts you may make to establish and maintain Republican ascendency there they will all be in vain.
This, sir, is my view of the situation in the South in general and in Georgia in particular, and of some of the physical and moral remedies to be applied.
Now, sir, let us see what is proposed here. I have already brought back to the remembrance of the Senate the gloomy description which was given of the condition of things in the South a few days ago by the Senator from Indiana and others. It is not necessary that I should unroll before your eyes again that picture of blood, of distress, and of misery. I hung with great expectation upon his lips when I heard him recount act after act, horror after horror, one more atrocious than another, one proving more strongly than another how great the disease is and how powerful a remedy is
required. I say I hung with anxious expectation on his lips, waiting for the moment when he should disclose to us what prescription he had in store; and what was it? For all these terrible evils the main cure, as far as Georgia is concerned, is to consist in a continuation of this present Legislature for two years beyond its constitutional term. What a vain illusion! Why, sir, we have had Republican State government under Governor Bullock in Georgia for nearly two years, aided and supported by military power under one of the ablest and most energetic officers who adorn the American Army; and according to their own admission they have accomplished nothing. They have accomplished just as little as Republican Legislatures and Republican Governors have accomplished in other southern States. And now an effort is made to make us believe that the Georgia Legislature will accomplish wonders if we will only continue it for two years beyond its constitutional term, even without the aid of the military!
I beg you to consider for a moment the circumstances in which that State government will be placed, circumstances far more difficult, embarrassing, and perplexing than those which ever surrounded any reconstructed State government in the South. Look at it. The legitimacy of its very existence being denied, and not without reason; its own party being broken to pieces and demoralized by this very act of usurpation; its enemies, those who were formerly detested as mere rebels, being enabled in their wild efforts to baffle its rule to represent themselves as champions of sound constitutional principles; their very acts of crime being clothed with the color of lawful resistance to an unlawful power — I ask you, what authority can such a Legislature be expected to exercise? Where will be that moral power which is so necessary for the accomplishment of its great task? Are we, indeed, so childish as to indulge in the fantastical delusion that so rickety a State government as that, the very incarnation of moral weakness, a State government whose very existence is a provocation, will accomplish things which have not yet been accomplished in other States by Republican State governments with the full force of their moral power behind them, even aided by the strong arm of the military power of the United States?
Truly, sir, when I heard the Senators tell us that tale of blood, and when they at last came to this most lame and impotent conclusion, I was but too forcibly reminded of the mountain in travail which brought forth so egregiously ridiculous a mouse. Think once more of that gloomy picture of danger, distress, and desolation. Why, sir, I thought nothing would and could satisfy those Senators but a levy of at least fifty thousand men to be marched straight into Georgia to put down the most atrocious of civil disorders; and now, now they are satisfied if Governor Bullock can only have the management of that same Legislature for another season beyond its constitutional term. If half they told us was true, then I should think military government of the strongest kind would be an absolute necessity; and I must confess, even as things are now, I shall ten times rather vote for the amendment proposed by the Senator from Kansas, which orders the election of a Legislature next fall under military protection, than permit this poor scheme — a scheme impotent and lawless at the same time — which has been submitted to us by those who have told us such fearful tales about the condition of things in the southern States to go into execution.
Senators, permit me to call your attention to the spectacle presented here; a spectacle very significant indeed. See here the statesmanship of the Senate of the United States in the leading-strings of some political schemers. I speak out frankly, for so it is. See how we are told by lobbyists that the condition of things in Georgia is bad, very bad; so very bad, indeed, as to
render the continuation of that Legislature beyond its constitutional term absolutely necessary; but, mark you, not exactly bad enough to require military government. Do you not see how illogical, how preposterous, how ridiculous this proposition is? Do you not feel that it is an outrage to the dignity of your own understanding? Has it not observed and watched the lobbyists who thus play fast and loose, who represent the state of things there now as hardly to be overcome by the strongest military measure, and then the next moment tell you that they can overcome it by the mere continuation of this Legislature — has it not occurred to you that on the very front of their arguments the mark of dishonesty is apparent? Has it not occurred to you that there must be something else behind them than a profound and honest solicitude for the welfare of their people? Do you deem it consistent with your dignity; will your consciences permit you to follow the lead of men who attempt to move you forward and backward like chess-men on a board, and who by their very tricks demonstrate their insincerity?
Now, sir, permit me to sum up. I do not say by any means that we should stand by idly and coldly while the loyal people of the South are in danger. We should exert all our constitutional power to aid them with appropriate legislation, and if need be even with executive interference, according to the fundamental laws of the land. While thus supporting them we should encourage them to use those means of protection which they hold in their own hands; thus awakening and developing in them that self-reliance the absence of which has been so far one of the greatest and the most prolific sources of their weakness and their danger. Finally, we should stimulate in them that moral sense which will lead them to cast out all unclean elements and to place themselves upon the only ground on which their permanent ascendency can grow. By following this policy we shall confer an infinitely greater benefit upon the loyal people of the South than be increasing their demoralization with the idea that their wire-pullers can come up here whenever they please and make us accept and carry out any scheme, ever so illegal, ever so reckless, ever so corrupt, ever so scandalous, if they only adroitly raise a cry of distress. By this policy we shall confer a far greater benefit upon them than by that political quackery which vents itself in furious and sensational declamation, and when asked for its remedies brings forth only such as are ridiculous for their inefficiency or impracticable for their extravagance.
I remember, sir, that time and again in the course of this debate the charge of a desire to deliver the loyal people of the South into the hands of their enemies has been flung into our faces. I deny that charge and I repel it; nay, more, I assert and maintain that those who advocate the illegal perpetuation of that Legislature are about to deliver the loyal people far more surely into the hands of their enemies, for they will provoke the most violent of reactions and at the same time strip the loyal people in that State of all moral power with which to resist it. Of all the measures that have been proposed this certainly is not only the most illogical, not only the weakest, not only the most barren of good, but the most prolific of evil; it is the most cruel to the loyal people of Georgia themselves that could be invented.
Mr. President, I admit there are means other than those I have indicated to establish and maintain a certain degree of law and order in the southern States. Those are the means by which Russia maintained and established order in Poland; by which France is in the habit of establishing and maintaining law and order in unruly districts in Algeria. Arbitrary government, despotism, is quite efficient in such cases, as long as it lasts; but I apprehend in a country like this, where the people still believe that a constitutional Government is able to solve even
the most perplexing problems, arbitrary government will not last long; and one thing is certain, that in its fall it will drag down with it those who have supported it. And yet something like this has been proposed on the floor of the Senate.
This debate has been an exceedingly interesting and instructive study to me. It showed most strikingly how an honest zeal for a laudable object may sometimes lead men to dangerous extremes by leaving everything else, aside from that one object, out of view. We have listened to some Senators, who in order to protect the loyalists of the State of Georgia gravely deduced from the constitutional amendments and the guarantee clause the power of Congress not only to enforce those amendments by appropriate legislation, not only to correct unrepublican features in the form of a State government, but the power of Congress by its own arbitrary act to prolong the tenure of a State Legislature beyond its constitutional term. Sir, were not those who proposed that evidently forgetting that such a doctrine is utterly subversive of our whole structure and mechanism of local self-government, which has conferred such incalculable blessings on this country?
We have heard Senators denounce all constitutional objections to such doctrines as paltry, contemptible technicalities, evidently forgetting that where constitutional forms are systematically trodden under foot, there constitutional guarantees will very soon lose their value; evidently forgetting how often in the struggles for human liberty constitutional technicalities have served as strong bulwarks of the rights and liberties of men, and how soon in our own history we may again have occasion to appeal to constitutional technicalities to perform the same office; evidently forgetting that this Constitution of ours is now at last what we want it to be; that we have every reason in the world to insist upon its strict observance; that we ought to be the very last to set to our opponents the dangerous example of trifling with it.
We listened to other Senators proposing to invest military officers in districts under martial law with the arbitrary power to levy contributions in money on whomsoever and to whatever amount they please. I have no doubt, sir, that this proposition sprang from good intentions; but have those Senators forgotten that great revolutions have been made, and that thousands of lives have been sacrificed in the history of the world for the abolition of just such practices as they now coolly propose to introduce in this country? Have they forgotten that the enormity they are advocating may in its consequences become infinitely more dangerous than the very excesses for the suppression of which it is intended? I hear the ready and often-repeated reply that it is the duty of the Government to protect the rights and the property of its citizens. Certainly, sir, that is the duty of the Government; but must we, in order to fulfill that duty, select means which, to protect the rights and the property of some, place the rights and the property of all at the mercy of the most irresponsible, the most arbitrary, the most despotic power political philosophy knows of — a military officer?
We heard another Senator in the course of this debate demanding the passage of a law giving the President of the United States power to march troops in to a State and to interfere with its affairs in a military way without any request from the Governor or the Legislature of that State, palpably, directly in the face of an explicit constitutional provision. Did that Senator, in thus conferring a military dictatorship over the States upon the President of this Republic, never think of it that in the course of human affairs the constitutional privileges of local authorities may again become as important for the protection of our rights and our liberties as we suppose at this moment the
power of the central Government to be? Did he consider how utterly reckless a proceeding it would be to throw down all those checks and barriers which prevent the undue and dangerous aggrandizement of the central power? Did he forget how absurd, how suicidal it would be, in order to sustain republican government in a part of the country, to legalize means calculated to undermine and to subvert republican government in the whole of it?
I have alluded to these things, sir, merely in order to point out the dangers into which we shall run by this wild policy of extreme measures — a policy which in order to remedy one evil thoughtlessly disregards things of the most essential value, even to the most precious results of the struggles of centuries.
It is indeed time for us to remember that we are living under a constitutional Government; that this constitutional Government is worth having and worth preserving; that the spirit of this constitutional Government ought to be held sacred; and that this spirit is living in and through its forms; that some of its principal and most valuable safeguards of popular liberty consist in the very salutary and well-balanced restraints it provides to curb the self-aggrandizing tendency of political powers. Remembering this, I beseech the Senate not to set any precedent of usurpation, not to make any laws, not to inaugurate any habits which will inevitably recoil upon those who originate them, and in the course of time put the rights and liberties of the citizen in greater and far more general jeopardy than that against which we are now called upon to provide.