History of the Thirty-Ninth Congress of the United States

o the Judiciary Com

the Chairman of t

- Mr. Thayer - M

dom - Mr. Shellaba

. Delano - Mr. Ker

peech - Reply b

by Mr. Wilson - Ye

ll - Mr. Le Blond

he House accept

1st of March, the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Mr. Wilson, brought the bill again before the House, proposing some verbal amendments which were adopted. He then made a motion to recommit the bill, pending which, he made a speech

und to be the same which separates the early from the later days of the republic. The further the Government drifted from the old moorings of eq

litary arm was necessary, in order "to fortify the declaratory portions of thi

ordinary forms of civil law are to result in a subjection of our people to the outrages under the operation of State laws and municipal ordinances which these orders now prevent, then it were better to continue the present state of affairs forever. But such is not the case; w

signed, among other things, to secure a more perfect enjoyment of these rights. A legislative department was created, that laws necessary and proper to this end might be enacted; a judicial department was erected to expound and administer the laws; an executive department was formed for the purpose of enforcing and seeing to the execution

ntain the proud character of American citizenship; that this power permeates our whole system, is a part of it, without which the States can run riot over every fundamental right belonging to citizens of the United States; that the right to exercise this power depends upon no express delegation, but runs with the rights it is

red with "States' Rights." Under its provisions, Congress would "enter the domain of a St

they were laid and established by our fathers, who reserved to the States ce

arted who laid down their lives in defense of the liberty of this country and of the rights of the States, would have come forth as witnesses against the deadly infliction, and the destruction of the fundamental princ

tes. Because if they are citizens at all, they come within the meaning and letter of the Constitution of the United States, whic

in behalf of those that are to come after us, of generations yet unborn, as well as those now living, that conservative men on the other side should rally to the standard of sovereign and independent States, an

y hand down to those who are to come after us this bright jewel of civil liberty unimpaired; and I say that the Congress or the men who will strip the people of these rights will

mass of those people were moved by high and conscientious convictions of duty. And in the spirit of Christianity, in the spirit which Jesus Christ exercised when he gave up his own life as a propitiation for a fallen world, I would say to those So

t which he has heretofore enjoyed. I am only sorry that he was not specific enough; that he did not inform us what rights are to be taken away. He has denounced this bill as dangerous to liberty, as calculated in its tendency at least to destroy the liberties of this country

tion than they are now, if this becomes the law. This general denunciation and general assault of the bill, without pointing out one

is a slave. If he is nominally freed by the amendment to the Constitution, he has nothing in the world he can call his own; he has simply the labor of his hands on which he can depend. Any combination of men in his neighborhood can prevent him from having any chance to support himself by his labor. They can pass a law that a man not supporting himself by labor

he honorable gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Rogers] claiming that he was speaking and thinking in the spirit which animated the Savior of mankind when he made atonement for our race; that it was in that spirit he was acting when he was striving to have these people left utterly defenseless in the hands of men who were proving, day by day, month by month, that they desire to oppress them, for they had been made f

that these people will be protected. I trust that we will say to them, Because upon our call you aided us to suppress this rebellion

s resumed the consideration of this bill. A speec

hout this, in my judgment, that great act of justice will be paralyzed and made useless. With this, it will have practical effect, life, vigor, and enforcement. It has

necessary as a measure of war against the public enemy, was accomplished within and under the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. It was a revolution for the relief of human nature, a revolution which gave life, liberty, and hope to millions whose c

ple in the United States, simply provides means for the enforcement of these rights and immunities. How? Not by military force, not through the instrumentality of military commanders, not through any military machinery whatever, but through the quiet, dignified, firm, and constitutional forms of judicial procedure. The bill seeks to enforce these rights in the same manner and with the same sanctions under and by which other laws of the United States are enforced. It imposes duties upon the judicial tribunals of the country which require the enforcement of these rights. It provides for the administration of laws to protect

egard or neglect without violating the most sacred obligations of duty and of honor. To us they look for protection against the wrongs with which they are threatened. To us alone can they appeal in their helplessness for succor and defense. To us they hold out to-day their supplicating hands, asking for

the bill, in a speech of which the f

States to control the action of the citizens thereof. But, I ask, has not the South submitted to the altered state of things there, to the late amendment of the Constitution, to the loss of their slave property, with a cheerf

mation extends, I believe that the people who have held the freedmen slaves will treat them with more kindness, with more leniency, than those of the North who make such loud professions of love and affection for them, and are so anx

untry, they do not blame the negro for any thing that has happened. As a general thing, he was faithful to them and their interests until the army reached the place and took him from them. He has supported their wives and children i

own upon our charity. Take for instance the stories of the cruel treatment of the insane in the State of Massachusetts. They may have been barbarously confined in the loathsome dens, as stated in particular instances, but

too, who were whites. Is that any reason why we should extend the arm of the Federal Governm

where we can win the confidence of our late enemies, where our counsels will be heeded, where our advice may be regarded, the sooner will the people of the whole country be fully reconciled to

It was remarked by my friend from Wisconsin that it has often been intimated on this floor, and throughout the country, that whenever a man talks about either the Constitution or the rights of the States, he is either a traitor or a sympathizer with treason. I do not assume that the States are sovereign. They are subordinate to the Federal Government. Sovereignty in this country is in the people, but the States have certain rights, a

Whenever that is consummated, then farewell to the beauty, strength, and power of this Government. There is nothing left but a

compete for the high office of the President of the United States.' You will actually allow them to compete for the Presidency of the United States! As for this fear which haunts the gentleman from New Jersey, if there is a negro in the cou

thirty millions of ours? Ever since I knew any thing of the party to which the gentleman belongs, it has entertained this same morbid fear of negro competition; and sometimes I have thought that if we were to contemplate the subject from their stand-point we would have more charity th

genius and spirit of our institutions; but not in these alone. Fortunately, the great amendment which broke the shackles from every

e to enable Congress to enforce the spirit as well as the letter of the amendment. Now, sir, in what way is it proposed to enforce it? By denying to any one man a single right or privilege which he could otherwise constitutionally or properly enjoy? No. By conferring on any one person or class of persons a single right or immunity which every other person may not possess? By no means. Does it give to the loyal negro any preference over the recent would-be assassins of the nation? Not at all. It merely declares that hereafter there shall be no discrimination in

ase them by sacrificing the negro, two-thirds of both houses voted to rivet his chains upon him so long as the republic should endure. A widening chasm yawned between the free and slave States, and we looked wildly around for that wherewith it might be closed. In our extremity we seized upon the negro, bound and helpless, and tried to cast him in. But an overruling Providence heard the cries of the oppressed, and hurled his oppressors into that chasm by hundreds of thousands, until the whole land was filled with mourning, yet st

our only hope of safety was in the brave hearts and strong arms of the soldier at the front. Now, since by the combined efforts of our brave soldiers, white and black, the military power of the South has been overthrown, and her Representatives are as eager to resume their places on this floor as five years ago they were to quit them for a place in the rebel army, we are told that, having been victorious, it becomes a great nation like ours to be magnanimous. I answer, i

gress may pass uniform rules of naturalization. Under that clause it is my opinion that the act of naturalization must not only be the act of the Government, but also the act of the indiv

oreigners, who occupy an intermediate position, and that intermediate position is defined by the laws of nations by the word 'subjects.' S

slaves, and, according to the Dred Scott decision, persons of African descent whose ancestors were slaves. All

were not, indeed, citizens hitherto, they were at least subjects of this Government, by

, because they owe no foreign allegiance to be renounced by their individual acts, and because, moreover, being domiciled in our own country, and continuing here to reside, it is

of the sovereign alone that is requisite to the naturalization of that class of persons, and it may be done either by a single act naturalizing entire races of men, or by adopting the heads of families out of those races, or it may be done to any extent, greater or less,

, or it may be done by treaty. It has been done again and again and again in both ways in this country. It was done once in the case of the Choctaw Indians, as you will find in the Statutes-at-La

Congress, in the case cited by my learned friend from I

he case of the Cherokees, in December, 1835.

the Committee on the Judiciary, with the understanding that it sho

vania, addressed the House, He viewed the bill as beneficent in its provisions, since it made no discrim

the country proposes to withhold from these people the advantages of citizenship; and this is saying much. With a debt that may require centuries to pay; with so many living and mutilated witnesses of the horrors of war; with so many saddened homes, so many of the

ims upon the Government are not to be held to the strict rigor of the law of their own invoking, the decision of the tribunal of

and it gives them the rights, privileges, and immunities of citizens of the United St

e altar of reconstruction. I might consent that the cemetery at Gettysburg should be razed to the ground; that its soil should be submitted to the plow, and that the lamentation of the bereaved should give place to the lowing of cattle. But there is a point beyond w

earings upon the general question of the restoration of peace and harmony to the Union, I regard it as one of the most important bills ever presented to

s, and declares that all shall be citizens without distinction of race, color, or previous condition of

s great class of persons just set free by the amendment to the Constitution of the United States abolishing slavery, I

position to disparage the freedom we have given them. I think the fact that we have conferred upon four million people that personal liberty and freedom from ser

them the rights of citizenship, or to declare by solemn statute that they are citizens of the United States, and thus secure to them whatever rights, immunities, privileges, and powers belong as of right to all citizens of the United States. I hope no one will be prepared or inclined to say this is a trifling boon. If we

he bill "that provides for that class of persons thus made citizens protec

f, and I should feel much relieved if I thought the House fully and heartily shared my anxiety, not to pass here any bill which shall be interc

of Congress. In my opinion, if we adopt the principle of this bill, we declare, in effect, that Congress has authority to go into the States and manage and legislate with regard to all the personal rights of the citizen-rights of life, liberty, and property. You re

except as it is limited by necessity and the laws of civilized warfare. But, sir, in time of peace I would not and I can not stand here and attempt the exercise of powers b

rs; that "the privileges and immunities of citizenship in the States are required to be attained, if at all, according to the laws or Cons

al policy, and make and administer its own laws, for the protection and welfare of its own citizens, is denied. If Congress can declare what rights and privileges shall be enjoyed in the States by the people of one class, it can, by the same kind of reasoning, determine what shall be enjoyed by every class. If it can say who may go into and settle in and acquire property in a State, it can also say who shall not. If it can determine who may testify and sue in

ious question, on the motion to recommit, was entitled to the floor,

previous condition of slavery,' and insert in the thirteenth line of the first section, after the word 'right,' the words, 'in every State and Territory of the United States.' Also, to strike out all parts of said bill which are penal, and which authorize criminal proceedings, and in lieu thereof to give t

letter and its spirit the bill of rights as embodied in that Constitution. I know that the enforcement of the bill of rights is the want of the republic. I know if it h

r the solemn obligations of an oath imposed upon them by the Constitution of the United States. Who can doubt this conclusion who considers the words of the Constitution, 'the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people?' The Constitution does not delegate to the United States the power to punish offenses against the life, liberty, or property of the citizen in

amending the Constitution of the United States, expressly prohibiting the States from any such abuse of power in the future. You propose to make it a penal offense for the judges of the States to obey the Constitution and laws of their States,

ion: James

December 29, 1855, we did the same as to the Cherokees; also by the act of March 3, 1843, we admitted to full citizenship the Stockbridge tribe of Indians." Referring to the first section which his colleague had proposed to amend, he said: "Self-evidently this is the whole effect of this first section. It secures, not to all citizens, but to all races as races who are citizens, equality of protection in those enumerated civil rights which the States may deem proper to confer upon any races. Now, sir, can this Government do this? Can it prevent one race of free citizens from being by State laws deprived as a race of all the civil rights for the securement of which his Government was created, and which are the only considerations the Government renders to him for the Federal allegiance which he renders? It does seem to me that that Government which has the exclusive right to confer citizenship, and which is entitled

ebellion, was urged by those who controlled the destinies of the southern portion of the country, and those who adhered to their fortunes in the North, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery and converting this republic into a great

ke the honesty of purpose manifested by the Southern States in times past, should deprive the citizen, without due process of law, of life, liberty, and property, the General Government, which can draw the citizen by the strong bond of allegiance to the battle-field, has no power to intervene and set aside a State law, and give the citizen protection under the laws of Congress in the courts of the United States; that at the mercy of the States lie all the rights of the citizens of the United States; that while it was deemed necessary to constitute a great Government to render secure the rights of the people, the framers of the Govern

the United States, but invades the States to enforce equality of rights in respect to those things which properly and rightfully depend on State regulations and laws. My friend is too sound a lawyer, is too well versed in the Constitution of his country, to indorse that proposition on calm and deliberate consideration. He knows, as every man knows, that this bill refers to those rights w

ffectiveness of the two modes. Beyond this, nothing. This bill proposes that the humblest citizen shall have full and ample protection at the cost of the Government, whose duty it is to protect him. The amendment of the gentleman recognizes the principle involved, but it says that the citizen despoiled of his rights, instead of being properly protected by the Government, must press his own way through the courts and pay the bills attendant thereon. This may do for the rich, but to the poor, who need protection, it is mockery. The highest obligation which the Government owes to the citizen

this land, in obedience to the bond of allegiance which the Government holds on the citizen, hundreds of thousands of men to the battle-field; and yet, while we may exercise this extraordinary power, the gentleman claims that we can not extend the protecting hand of the Govern

e, of Wisconsin, moved to lay the whole subject on th

roposed amendment, and recommitted the

m the committee with some amendments, one of which

ts, or immunities among citizens of the United States in any State or Territory o

ared that it might be held by the courts that

d was the addition of a s

ising in any case under the provisions of this act, a final a

d and adopted were chief

lly taken, and the bill pa

y, Allison, Ames,

dwin, Banks, Baxte

ll, Bromwell, Brooma

Conkling, Cook, Cul

ing, Dixon, Donnel

Farquhar, Ferry,

art, Hayes, Higby,

Chester D. Hubbard,

d, James Humphrey,

so, Ketcham, Kuyken

iam Lawrence, Loa

Clurg, McRuer, Merc

oulton, Myers, New

e, Plants, Price,

ofield, Shellabarge

ayer, Francis Thom

Van Aernam, Burt Va

William B. Washbur

James F. Wilson,

nd Woodbr

na, Bergen, Bingh

enison, Glossbrenne

s, Hogan, Edwin N. H

arshall, McCullough

Randall, William

au, Shanklin, Sitgr

on, Trimble, a

. Delos R. Ashley

, Reader W. Clarke

, Eldridge, Finck

s, James R. Hubbell

Indoe, McKee, Nibla

ohn H. Rice, Rollin

n, Henry D. Washb

ly passed, and the previous question had been moved on the adoption of the title, Mr. Le Blond moved to amend the ti

ing. Finding that the last amendment proposed by the House of Representatives was before the Senate, and that his motion could not be entertained, he proceeded to make a speech on the question before the Senate. He asserted that "Congress has no authority or jurisdiction whatever" over the subject of legislation which the bill contains. He closed his remarks with the following words: "I therefore, on the grounds that I have stated, oppose this bill. I know that they weigh nothing w

and the CIVIL RIGHTS BILL wanted only Exec