« SebelumnyaLanjutkan »
dom to perceive the advantage of leaving to the people of each State the control and management of their local State matters. “Believing this to be wise, believing that nothing but evil will grow out of allowing the Representatives of one State to have a voice as to the local affairs of another, I have believed, and all my teaching and experience confirm me, that we should have power in the Federal Government only over those matters as to which the people of all the States have a common, general interest, and as to which the people of a State could not act for themselves. “Now, Mr. President, in my judgment this wise principle which has worked so well in the past is violated by the proposed amendment reported to the Senate by the Judiciary Committee, and which is now under consideration.” Mr. Morton: “I should like to ask the Senator this question, whether the amendment as it came from the House does not violate the principle for which he is contending?” Mr. Kernan: “I answer with entire frankness that to some extent it does.” Mr. Edmunds: “It does to every extent as far as it goes.” Mr. Kernan: “I will answer frankly that I believe that the matter of educating children may be wisely left to the people of each State. I believe that it is a home right; I believe that it will be exercised best in that way. I believe that our experience shows that there is no serious difficulty in its being exercised wisely and well by the people of each State for themselves. But I recognize that moneys raised to support common public schools are a fund to support a system which pervades the Union; this system is regarded with great interest by a large portion of our people; and it is a single subject. Inasmuch as there was danger that sectarian dissensions would arise in regard to the common-school moneys, inasmuch as it was asserted that efforts were being made to divide these moneys between the religious denominations, and there was great danger that the subject of the common schools would be made a political question, and sectarian prejudices aroused as an element in political contests, I was willing to adopt the Blaine amendment, in the hope and belief that it would quiet these groundless fears as to the common schools, and avert the evils which spring from religious prejudices. “Therefore I say that while I believe it is wiser and better to leave the people of each State free to maintain their schools as they see fit, and I do not believe there will be any diversion of money raised for the support of common schools to other purposes, especially as in many State constitutions, as in that of New York, there are provisions which forbid the application of money raised for common schools to any other object: yet if it would allay that which I regard as the greatest evil that ever comes among a community, strife and bitterness in reference to religious creed,
I was willing to vote for the Blaine amend. ment, although, as the Senator from Indiana says, it is against the principles I believe to be wise. But I consider the proposed amendment now before the Senate as going far beyond that proposed by Mr. Blaine; . in my judgment, instead of allaying strife and dissension, it will increase them and bring evil to our schools, to our institutions, and to the people of our country.” Mr. Whyte, of Maryland, said: “Mr. Presi. dent, Protestant though I am, and sprung from ancestors who belonged to the straitest sect of Irish Presbyterians, and imbibing the prejudices which I must confess attach to such surroundings, nevertheless I fail not to remember that I was born in a State colonized by Roman Catholics, in whose soil the banner of religious toleration was first planted on this American Continent. For the obtension of religious as well as civil liberty the Roman Catholics of Maryland, represented by the atriotic Carroll of Carrollton, pledged their H. their fortunes, and their sacred honors in the Revolutionary struggle. Should I, as a representative of Maryland, vote for this amendment, I should deem myself faithless to the spirit of the history of my native State. In my judgment the danger is not present which this article, proposed in response to an ephem. eral popular demand, is designed to avert: and it seems to me, to use plain words, nearly an accusation against a large body of fellowcitizens as loyal to republican liberty as we proclaim ourselves to be.” Mr. Edmunds: “Will the Senator allow me to ask him a question?” Mr. Whyte: “I am going to speak but three minutes by the watch, and I begmy friends not to interrupt me. I will yield, however, for a question if the Senator desires to put one.” Mr. Edmunds: “The question I wished to ask was precisely in point to what the Senator was saying, that there was no present danger of the kind to which he alludes, whether he had read the mandate ordinarily called the ency: lical letter and the syllabus of errors promuk gated by the holy Pontiff in 1864 on this very subject?” Mr. Whyte: “Yes; but 1864 is not 1876 by along shot.” Mr. Edmunds: “It lacks twelve years of it." Mr. Whyte: “And a good many things which people did in 1864 they do not do to: day, I am happy to add.” Mr. Edmunds: “Does the Senator mean to say that he understands that the principles of declarations of this letter have been changel, or withdrawn, or modified?” Mr. Whyte: “Yes, sir.” Mr. Edmunds: “I should like to see the proof of it.” Mr. Whyte: “Has the Senator read Arch: bishop Purcell's recent letter on this very subject?”
Mr. Edmunds: “Archbishop Purcell is not the Pope.” Mr. Whyte: “But Archbishop Purcell, I suppose, would not speak in opposition to the desires of the Pope—” Mr. Edmunds: “I do not know.” Mr. Whyte: “Any more than some gentlemen here speak in opposition to the will of the Republican party. “I was about to say that the first amendment to the Constitution prevents the establishment of religion by congressional enactment; it prohibits the interference of Congress with the free exercise thereof, and leaves the whole power for the propagation of it with the States exclusively; and so far as I am concerned I propose to leave it there also. “Called away from this Chamber, Mr. President, to discharge other duties for my State, and fearing that I may be absent when the vote on this amendment is taken, I desire thus publicly to record my opposition to the passage of any such amendment, whether coming from the House of Representatives or emanating from the Judiciary Committee of the Senate.” Mr. Christiancy, of Michigan, said: “Mr. President, I have already once called attention to the resolution as it came from the House. That resolution proposed to amend the Constitution of the United States so as to prevent any moneys raised for public schools, or lands dedieit:d for public-school purposes, from being under the control of any religious sector denom. inition, or from being divided among them, and that is all there is of it. It did not propose to prohibit any State or the United States from raising any amount of money by taxation, or from voting any amount of property for the support of any religious sect or denomination, or for any sectarian or denominational school, but the diversion of money already raised for public schools or the diversion of property already dedicated to the support of public schools is in the most solemn manner by this resolution of the House declared by the House and every man who voted for it a great public evil; not only an evil, but an evil of such magnitude and of such imminence as to call for a constitutional prohibition. Such is the clear declaration which the House have made to us, and every man who voted for that resolution has made to us, of the evil to be guarded against., What is this evil? In what does the evil consist? Certainly it is no greater evil to lothis wrong, for the resolution admits it to be a wrong, indirectly than it would be to do it directly. What, then, is the evil, and what are the principles which would be violated without this constitutional provision? I take it to be this: In a country situated like ours, where the conscience is left free, where religious toleration is universal, where the people are divided into a great number of churches and *cts, with a very large proportion, if not a majority, of the population belonging to no
church or sect, and where our public schools could never be maintained unless placed upon a footing of substantial equality among all people who may choose to send to them, it would be wrong to raise money by taxation or to appropriate property belonging to the whole people for the support of any one of those denominations. That I take it is the real principle upon which it becomes wrong to do this very thing which the House proposes to prohibit. The principles, it will be seen, therefore, are much broader than the resolution; and what has been an enigma to me is that those who can go so far as to admit the evil stop so far short of a remedy. “Now, Mr. President, is the thing itself any worse when done indirectly, by first raising the money or devoting the property to public schools and then dividing it among the various sects for the support of their sectarian schools, than if the same result were accomplished directly by raising the tax or appropriating the money or property directly for the purpose of supporting the same sectarian or denominational schools? If there be any difference, is not the latter the more obvious and manifest, and the one which would naturally first occur to the mind of any man seeking by a constitutional amendment to provide a remedy? What would be thought of the law-makers who should provide carefully for the punishment of aiders and abettors in a crime, but leave the principal offenders to go free and unpunished? Able and honest minds, in attempting to provide an enactment against a direct wrong, or one committed by direct means, do sometimes from a failure to foresee the various methods by which the same wrong may be indirectly committed fail to make sufficient provision against it when committed by indirect means. But this is the most notable instance which has ever come under my observation where the author of an important prohibitory provision has so clearly seen and provided against the wrong when attempted indirectly and has yet been utterly oblivious of, and made no provision against, the same wrong when done or attempted directly. But such is the fact. While this resolution prohibits the division among sects or for sectarian schools of any money first raised by taxation for or property which may have been devoted to public schools, it leaves both the national and State governments at perfect liberty to raise by taxation any amount of money and to appropriate any amount of money or property directly to or for the use of any such religious sects or denominations and for any schools or institutions under their control or direction, though the main or entire purpose of such schools may be instruction in and the propagation of the peculiar denominational or sectarian system of religion or religious belief or catechism of such sect or denomination. It does not prohibit even the diversion or division to or among such sects or sectarian schools of any money or public property unless raised by taxation for or devoted to public schools. Now we all know that as a general thing and in most of the States the various church or denominational schools are private schools and not properly included under the designation of ‘public schools' at all. “But, Mr. President, believing that neither any church nor any denominational school , should be supported or aided by taxation or by appropriation of public property, I have from my youth up steadily advocated this view. It is a principle essential to the success of any system of public education in this country, and is, or at least should be, far above all mere party politics, and I am as intensely desirous as any man can be to place it entirely beyond and outside of the field of party politics, where it may always be safe, whatever party may be in power. This is a favorable time to accomplish this desirable end, and I hope we shall avail ourselves of it and ward off at once and forever all the threatened dangers to arise from the violation of this great principle. All this will be accomplished if the resolution reported by the committee shall pass and become a part of the Federal Constitution.” Mr. Stevenson, of Kentucky, said: “Mr. President, I was one of the Committee on the Judiciary who did not concur in this amendment. I should not have voted for it if I had been present in the Chamber when it was adopted. I have seen no necessity for it. While I impugn no man's motives here, a religious discussion, appealing to passions which do not in my judgment belong to a deliberative body, at the end of a long session of Congress, seems to be out of taste, and to be accompanied by no practical good. “I am not a Catholic; I am a Protestant from head to foot; but I will tell the honorable Senator from Vermont what the doctrine of the Democratic party is on this subject. Long before this Constitution was formed, Mr. Jefferson, who more than any other man deserves the credit of being the father of the Democratic party, was the author of that act of religious freedom in the State of Virginia, adopted in 1785. He would have indorsed all that the Senator from Vermont has said, but he would have accomplished it by a different mode. Friend as he was of religious freedom, he would never have consented that the States which brought the Constitution into existence, upon whose sovereignty this instrument rests, which keep it within its expressly limited powers, should be degraded and that the Government of the United States, a Government of limited authority, the mere agent of the States with prescribed powers, should undertake to take possession of their schools and of their religion; and had the speech of the honorable Senator from Vermont been uttered before Mr. Jefferson, he would have told him that he did not know what free government was. “No, sir; this power is not in the Federal
Government. Kentucky does not want New England and other States to dictate to her what her schools shall be or what her taxes shall be, and least of all what her religion shall be; and whenever any religious denomination undertakes to interfere with this great right of religious freedom the free people of every State will find themselves potential enough and willing enough and able enough to crush it. There is our safety. But when you undertake to bring to the Federal Government the power of making the States hewers of wood and drawers of water you destroy the whole foundationstone upon which this Government was reared and upon which only it can be preserved. 4. §. man can mistake the object of this debate. We all see where it tends. But I hope the great issues of this campaign will not be covered up, however, in such system as this, of in this nineteenth century attempting to go to the Pope of Rome to scare the people of the free thirty-seven States of this confederacy that they cannot manage their schools and their religion and their various instrumentalities within their States, and which was reserved to themselves when the Constitution was formed of managing in their own way.” The President pro tempore: “The question is on the passage of the resolution.” The result was announced, as follows: YEAs—Messrs. Allison, Anthony, Booth, Boutwell, Bruce, Burnside, Cameron of Wisconsin, Christiancy, Clayton, Conkling, Çragin, Edmunds, Ferry, Frelinghuysen, Harvey, Jones of Nevada, Logan, McMillan, Mitchell, Morrill, Morton, Qgleby, Paddock, Patterson, Šargent, Spencer, Wadlcigh, and West—28. Ays—Messrs.-Bogy, Cockrell, Cooper, Davis, Eaton, Gordon, Jones of Florida, Kelly, Kernan, Key, McCreery, McDonald, Maxey, Norwood, Rando ph, and Stevenson—16. Absent—Messrs. Alcorn, Barnum, Bayard, Cameron of Pennsylvania, Conover, Dawes, Dennis, Dorsey, Goldthwaite, Hamilton, amlin, Hitchcock, Howe, Ingalls, Johnston, Merrimon, Ransom, Robertson, Saulsbu Sharon. Sherman, Thurman, Wallace, W.Wi. Withers, and Wright27.
The President pro tempore: “Two-thirds of the Senators present not having voted to agree to the resolution, the same is not passed."
In the House, on August 10th, Mr. Lord, of New York, offered the following resolution:
Whereas, The right of suffrage prescribed by the constitutions of the several States is subject to the fifteenth amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which is as follows: --“ARTICLE XV., Section 1.—The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of ser witude. “Sec. 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.” And whereas the exercise of the right of suffrage so prescribed and regulated should be faithfully maintained and observed by the United States and the several States and the citizens thereof; an whereas it is asserted that the exercise of the right of suffrage is in some of the States, notwithstanding the efforts of all good citizens to the contrary resisted and controlled by fraud, intimidation, and violence, fo that in such cases the object of the amendment is defeated; and whereas all citizens, without distinction of race, or class, or color, are entitled to the protection conferred by such article: Therefore— B. it resolved by the House of Representatives, That all attempts by force, fraud, terror, intimidation, or otherwise to prevent the free exercise of the right of suffrage in any State, should meet with certain, condign, and effectual punishment, and that in any case which has heretofore occurred or that may hereafter occur in which violence or murder has been or shall be committed by one race or class upon the other, the prompt prosecution and punishment, of the criminal or criminals in any court .#. tion is imperatively demanded, whether the crime be one punishable by fine or imprisonment or one demanding the penalty of death.
Mr. Lord: “I move the adoption of that resolution.” Mr. Kasson: “I second the motion.” The Speaker pro tempore : “The question is on seconding the demand for the previous question on the resolution submitted by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Lord).” The House divided; and the tellers reported —yeas 133, nays 18. So the previous question was seconded. The main question was then ordered to be put. The Speaker pro tempore: “The question must first be taken upon the resolution and then the preamble.” The question was taken on agreeing to the resolution, and resulted as follows: Yeas–Messrs. Ainsworth, Anderson, Ashe, Atkins, Bagby o: A. Bagley, John H. Bagley, Jr., John H. Baker, William H. Baker, Balion. Banks, Banning, Beebe, Blair, Boone, Bradford 'Bradley, Bright, william R. Brown, Horatio C. 'Burgharā, Burleigh, Cabell, John H. Caldwell, Cannon, Caswell, Cate, John B. Clarke of Kentucky, John B. Clark, Jr., of Missouri, Clymer, Cochrane, Conger, o Cox, Crounse, Cutler, Danford, Darrall, Dawis * Dibrell, işurand. Durham, Eames £den, Egber vans. Faulkner 'Felton, Finley, Forney, Fort, Foster, Franklin, Freeman, Frye, Garfield, ouse, Goodin, Gunter, Hale, Andrew H. Hamilton, Hancock, Hardenbergh, Benjamin W. Harris, John F. Harris, Hartzell, Haymond, Henderson,. Hereford, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, Hoar, Holman, Hooker, Hopkins, House, Hunton, Hurd, Hurlbut, Hyman, Thomas L. Jones, Joyce, Kasson, Kehr, Kimball, King, Franklin Landers, Lane, Lapham, Lawrence, Hoy, Lewis, Lord, Luttrell, Lynch #". Magoon, Mish, MacDougall, McCrary, M.Disi. Mofar and, Mohon, Metcalfe, Miller, Monroe, Mor an, Morson, Mutchler, Nash, New, Norton, Odell, Packer, one, Pierce, Piper, Poppleton, Potter, Pratt, oney, Rea, john Reilly, James, B., Reilly, Rice, Follo, John Robbins, William M. Robbins, Roberts, *inson, Miles Ross, Rusk, Sampson, Savage, Sales, Schleicher, Sheakley, Singleton, sinnickson, Semons, A. Herr Smith, william E. smith, Spencer, pringer, Strait, Stenger, Stevenson, Stone, Taro, Terry, Thomas, T ompson, Thornbur h.washon Townsend, Tufts, Turney, Van Vorhes, John *Vance, Robert B. Vance, Waddell, Wait, Erastus Wells, whiting, Whitthorne, wigginton, Willard, Alpheus S. Williams, James Williams, James D. Williams, Jeremiah N. Williams, William B. Wilo willis, Wilshire, James Wilson, and Yeates Mars-Messrs. Bland and Reagan—2.
Not WormNg–Messrs. Abbott, Adams, Bass, Bell, Blackburn, Bliss, Blount, John...Young Brown, Buckner, Samuel D. Burchard, William P., Caldwell, Campbell, Candler, Cason, Caulfield, Chapin, Çhittenden, Collins, Qowan, Crapo, Quiberson, De Bolt, Denison, Dobbins, Douglas, Dunnell, Ellis, Ely, Fuller, Gibson, Glover, Goode, Robert Hamilton, Haralson, Henry R. Harris, Harrison, Hartridge, Hatcher, Hathorn, Hays, Hendee, Henkie, Aton's Hewitt, Hiii, Hogg, Hoskins, 'Hubboli, Hunter, Jenks, Frank Jones, Reliev, Knott, Lamar, George M. Landers, Leavenworth, Le Moyne, Mackey, Meade, Milliken, Mills, Money eal, Q'Brien...Qliver, O'Neill, Page, Phelps, John F. Philips, William A. Phillips; Plaisted, Platt, Powell, Purman, Randall, Sobieski Ross, *g. Schumaker, Seelye, Smalls, Southard, Sparks, Stowell, Swann, Teese, Throckmorton, Martin I. Townsend, Tucker, Waldron, Charles C. B. Walker, Gilbert C. Walker, Alexander S. Wallace, John W. Wallace, Walling, Walsh, Ward, Warren, G. Wiley Wells, Wheeler, White, Whitehouse, Wike, Andrew Williams, Charles G. Williams, Benjamin Wilson, Alan Wood Jr., Fernando Wood, Woodburn, Woodworth, an Young—109.
So the resolution was agreed to. The question was taken on agreeing to the preamble, and resulted as follows:
YEAs—Messrs. Ainsworth, Anderson, Ashe, Atkins, Bagby, John H. Bagley, Jr., William II. Baker, Ballou, Banks, Banning; Biało, Boone, Bradley, William R. Brown, Horatio C. Burchard, Burleigh, Cannon, Caswell, Cate, Conger, Crounse, Cutler, Danford, Davis, Davy, Durand, Eames, Eden, Egbert, Evans, Finley, Fort, Foster, Freeman, Frye, Garfield, Goodin, Gunter, Hale, Andrew H. Hamilton, Hancock, Hardenbergh, Benjamin W. Harris, Hartzell, Haymond, Henderson, Hoar, Hooker, Hopkins, House, Hurlbut, Hyman, Thomas L. Jones, Joyce, Kasson Kehr, Kimball, King, Franklin Landers, Lane, Lapham Lawrence, forå Luttrell, Lynch, Lynde, Magoon, Maish MacDougail, McCrary, Modifi. McFarland, McMahon, Metcalfe, Miller, Monroe, Morgan, Nash, New, Norton, Packer, Payne, Pierce, Bottur, tratt, Rainey, Rea, John Reilly, James B. Reilly, Riddle, John Robbins, Robinson, Rusk, Sampson, Savage, Singleton, Sinnickson. Simons. A fiersmith, William E. Smith, Spencer, Springer, Strait, Stenger, Stevenson, Stone, Thompson, Thornburgh, Washington Townsend, Tufts, Turney, Van Vorhes, Robert B. Vance, Wait, White, Whiting. Witthorne, Wiggintoni...Willard, Alpheus S.Williams, James Williams, william B. Williams, Willis, James Wilson, and Yeates—125.
NAys—Messrs. Bland, Bradford *::: Cabell, John H. Caldwell, John B. Clarke o Kentucky, Clymer, Cook, Dibrell, Durham, Felton, Forney, Franklin, Hereford, Goldsmith W. Hewitt, Hunton, Hurd, Lewis, Mutchler, Piper, Poppleton, Reagan, Rice, William M. Robbins, Tarbox, Terry, Thomas, Throckmorton, John L. Vance, Waddell, and Jeremiah N. Williams—31.
Not Woting—Messrs. Abbott, Adams, George A. Bagley, John H. Baker, Bass, 'Boobe, Bell, Blackburn, Bliss, Blount, John Young Brown, Buckner, Samuel D. Burchard, William P. Caldwell, Campbell, Candler, Cason, Caulfield, Chapin, Chittenden, John B. Clark, Jr., of Missouri, Cochrane, Collins, Cowan, Cox, Crapo, Culberson, Darrall, De Bolt, Denison, Dobbins, Douglas, Dunnell, Eilis. Ely, Faulkner, Fuller, Gause, Gibson, Glover, Goode, Robert Hamilton, Haraison, Henry R. Harris, John T. Harris, Harrison, Hartridge, Hatcher, Hathorn, Hays, Hendee, Henkle, Abram S. Hewitt, Hill, Hoge, Holman Hoskins, Hubbell, Hunter, Jenks, Frank Jones, kefiey, Knott, Lamar, George M. Landers, Leavenworth, Le Moyne, Levy, Mackey, Meade, Milliken, Mills, Money, Morrison, Neal, O'Brien,
In the House, on January 10th, Mr. Randall, of Pennsylvania, moved to suspend the rules and proceed to consider the bill on the Speaker's table known as the amnesty bill. The Speaker: “The Clerk will read the bill.” The bill, entitled “A bill to remove the disabilities imposed by the third section of the fourteenth article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States,” was read. It proposes (two-thirds of each House concurring) in its first section to remove all the disabilities imposed and remaining upon any person by virtue of the third section of the fourteenth article of the amendments of the Constitution of the United States, and relieves therefrom forever each and every person. It provides in its second section that whenever any person from whom disabilities are removed by this act shall be elected or appointed to any post or office of honor or trust under the Government of the United States, he shall take the oath prescribed by section 1757 of title 19 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, or such other official oath as may be hereafter prescribed in such cases by any future act of Congress. The Speaker: “The question is on the motion of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) that the rules be suspended, that the House may proceed to the consideration of the amnesty bill.” The question being taken, the rules were suspended (two-thirds voting in the affirmative). Mr. Randall: “I now demand the previous question.” The question being taken on seconding the demand for the previous question, The House divided; and the tellers reported —yeas 159, nays 95. So the previous question was seconded. The Speaker: “The question before the House is, “Shall the main question be now put?’” The question was then taken upon ordering the main question; and there were—yeas 164, nays 100, not voting 27. So the main question was ordered. The question was taken; and it was decided in the negative—yeas 175, nays 97, not voting 18. The Speaker: “Two-thirds not having voted in favor of the bill, it is rejected.”
Mr. Blaine, of Maine, said: ‘Mr. Speaker, I rise to a privileged question. I move to reconsider the vote which has just been declared. I propose to debate that motion, and now give notice that if the motion to reconsider is agreed to it is my intention to offer the amend. ment which has been read several times. I will not delay the House to have it read again.
“Every time the question of amnesty has been brought before the House by a gentleman on that side for the last two Congresses, it has been done with a certain flourish of magnanimity which is an imputation on this side of the House, as though the Republican party which has been in charge of the Gov. ernment for the last twelve or fourteen years had been bigoted, narrow, and illiberal, and is though certain very worthy and deserving gentlemen in the Southern States were ground down to-day under a great tyranny and oppression, from which the hard-heartedness of this side of the House cannot possibly be prevailed upon to relieve them.
“If I may anticipate as much wisdom s ought to characterize that side of the House, this may be the last time that amnesty will be discussed in the American Congress. I there. fore desire, and under the rules of the House, with no thanks to that side for the privilege, to place on record just what the Republican party has done in this matter. I wish to place it there as an imperishable record of liberality, and large-mindedness, and magnanimity, and mercy, far beyond any that has ever been shown before in the world's history by conqueror to conquered.
“With the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Randall) I entered this Congress in the midst of the hot flame of war, when the Union was rocking to its foundations, and no man knew whether we were to have a country or not. I think the gentleman from Pennsylvania would have been surprised when he and I were novices in the Thirty-eighth Congress, if he could have foreseen, before our joint service ended, we should have seen sixty-one gentle. men, then in arms against us, admitted to equal privileges with ourselves, and all by the grace and magnanimity of the Republican party. When the war ended, according to the universal usage of nations, the Government, then under the exclusive control of the Republican party, had the right to determine what should be the political status of the people who had been defeated in war. Did we inaugurate any measures of persecution? Did we set forth on a career of bloodshed and vengeance? Did we take property? Did we prohibit any man all his civil rights? Did we take from him the right he enjoys to-day, to vote?
“Not at all. But, instead of a general and sweeping condemnation, the Republican party placed in the fourteenth amendment to the Constitution only this exclusion: after considering the whole subject, it ended in simply coming down to this: