The daily union. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1845-1857, 1857-03-06

a
Hence you fad that nnder that clause OF the consttu
tion State of New York allows negroes to vote for
members Of Congress provided they own property to the
he has intelligence enough to vote but he does not
that amount OF property he has not sense enough to vote
such is the rule in New York Ia your own State the
good old State Of North Carolina Mr BIsGs In the chair
for which have much affection and respect you al
lowed late day free negroes to vote not only for
members of Congress- but for your local and believe your
State officers Would you tell that because Me-, Car
ona allowed negro to vote am ttrror compelled to
allow negro to vote in alnnesoa2 remind my friend
from 100, that up to few years ago his State
free negroes 70 vote on equal footing, believe
with white msn il not certain conditions like those
in New York. Is he compelled to insist free negroes
voting in Minnesota because allowed in Tennessee
and North Carona7
1t is this argument to say that since that
time, within the last few years, within my recollection,
Tennessee and North Carolina have changed their laws and
constitutions in this respect and have prohibited negroes
from voting They had right TO make that change |
They had right deprive the negro OF the privilege
voting to allow him TO vote, they pleased. tch
State had the right We in Illinois, have the right
to allow negro If choose We insist upon
right and would fight for 1t because il our rights yet
never with my consent will negro be allowed to vote in
that State. We have right, alse, to prohibit It, We
choose to prohibit their voting We hold that that State
is State Of white people that our government was made
by white people for the benefit of white peoples and what
negroes there will give them all the rights and
privileges that think negroes class, capable pf
enjoying We are our own Judges on that subject
not ask New England to tell to change our black laws
We do not thank New York for interfering with rights
in that respect nor abolition brethren enemies as
they choose to call themselves in any part of the Union
Make your laws to suit yourselves give the negroes what
rights please let them vote not vote let them te
G not testify let them aries or exclude them
let them in the militia prohibit it, as you please
it is your own right it does not us shall not
quarrel with you about but ysu must not come to us
and tell us that we must allow negro to vote with the
political and social rights the white ran oh an
equal footing with ourselves in ouf own State.
My friend from South Carolina Mr. BuTLERl informs
me that black man BY the law OF 1913 passed by Con-
gress could in the militia Exclude them them
from the argument Still the question arises hiss not each
State right TO say who may be jurors within its own
mits2 Has not right to let negro serve or to ex-
clude him. Has not each State right to prescribe the
rules of evidence In its courtsf May 1t not admit
negro exclude him. Has not each State right to pre-
scribe the Qualifications of voters for itscf2 May it not
admit negro exclude him? Hence the argument is
complete that each State must be left free to decide II
| pleases on all these questions
This brings to consider another Question faised iii
the debate Gentlemen have denied the right of any
reign State Of the Union to allow nnnaupslzed foreign
to vote because they say that under the constitution
but citizens be allowed vote Did North Caro-
lima hold that be the doctrine when she allowed es
negroes to vote Did other savehoding States hold that
doctrine when they allowed free negroes to vote
| an equality with white men?
| Mr. REID Will the senator permit to interrupt
him.
| Mr. DOUGLAS Certainly
Mr. REID. My impression is, that In North Carolina
free negro could constitatohay vote The practice
was however, 10 SOME portions Of the State to permit it.
In 1885, when our constitution amended that point
My recollection is that the constitution of North Carolina
now is that every free man. with certain qualifications,
shall voe yet under our constitution it is held that
foreigner cannot vote Nor in my opinion free ne
gro In the OF the constitution free Neither do
regard foreigner there in the of consitu
| ton, as a free man.
Mr. DOUGLAS. am not going TO enter into discus
sion with my friend from North Carolina whether the
people of that State construed their constitution right
for half century not 1t is enough for my purpose
| that her people thus construed it.
Mr. REID The construction was different in different
places
| Mr.. DOUGLAS Then, in large portion Of the State
they thus construed it, the courts decided other
wise suppose my friend may recollect historical incl
dent in his own county, in North Carolina where some OF
the parties were not very remotely unknown II not re-
moteIy connected with both Of u.s. distinguished man
freed large number of his negroes in order to make
Laughterl 1t while there being told of that histor
zeal incident connected with family which my friend
and myself respect much that learned the history
OF the North Carolina practice on the right OF negro
voting.
Mr. President, think it is too late in the day deny
the right of each State in the Union to prescribe the quail
State legislature and all local officers it pleases II
may include exclude negroes may include or ex
clude Indians it may include all white men, or may ex-
clude portion Of them 1t may include women or
not children not You at that whenever you
lay down the rule that State cannot prescribe the
qualifications of its own voters by allowing unnatural
lied vote you attack all the old States which did
allow negroes to vote.
Ionce had occasion examine this question n court of
twenty years ago the OF
every State in the Union and came to the conclusion on
that examination that among the original thirteen States
nearly every of them perhaps with only two three
EXCEPTIONS allowed negroes to under certain crcum
stances and with certain limitations. My friend from
South Carolina says what is more they voted for gentle
men generally. Laughter. trust so. ! had supposed
that but gentlemen could be elected and took it for
granted they did SO vote
What am saying is that each State bad right,
under IFS constitution to do as 1t peased exercised that
right to suit and other State then dared to inter-
ere with the sovereign will of each State TO Judge for it
self 1t is doctrine therefore, sprung lately that
we must have uniformity in our laws uniformity in the
elective franchise uniformity in institutions respect
ing labor Permit to say that this doctrine was
rne not the doctrine of the federal constitution Our
orethers foresaw when they made this government that
the local laws which would suit the granite hills of New
Hampshire would be adapted to the rice plantations Of
Georgia and South Carolina They foresaw that the laws
which would suit the tobacco plantations OF Virginia
saw that the laws which would suit the Atlantic slope
would not be well adapted to the condition of things in
the Mississippi valley, and especially the Pacific ocean,
when should spread the continent Hence the
first great principle of confederation that each
State should be sovereign all things relating to its do
nestle concerns with right to do it pleased and that
other State should interfere with it, The right of
late labor another of those reserved rights Connect
cut permit to tell my friend from that State bad as
good right In the early part of history, TO hold
slaves, as she has now to prohibit slavery.
Mr.. TOUCEY. Certainly.
Mr.. DOUGLAS New York. under the constitution, had
Georgia South Carolina any other State and had
much right TO prohibit slavery when she did any
other State which has prohibited it. every save State
in the Union has to pcrpetuate slavery Ii not