The President last
evening addressed a large concourse who assembled under a call of soldiers and
sailors who desired to serenade and thank him for a proclamation in their favor
for government employment. His speech is bold and well enough if it was
advisable that the Chief Magistrate should address such gatherings.
Senator Trumbull
called upon me this morning for the first time in several months. It was to ask
a favor, and for Mrs. Trumbull more than himself. I regretted that I could not
without violating regulations grant it, for both of them have been a little
miffed because I opposed his two great measures which have been vetoed. The
speech of the President last evening was alluded to, and Trumbull was very
emphatic in condemning Presidential speechmaking. We did not greatly differ on
this subject, for it has never been regarded favorably by me. Sometimes it may
be excusable, but omission is better than compliance with calls from
irresponsible gatherings. Frequent harangues to promiscuous crowds lessen the dignity
of the President.
Passing from this
subject to the condition of the country, he asked me if I was willing, or would
consent, that Senators and Representatives should be admitted to take part in
the Government, coming from Rebel States and districts. I told him I was most
assuredly willing, provided they were loyal and duly and properly elected.
"Then," inquired he, "how could you deny one a seat in Congress
from South Carolina during the existence of the Rebellion?" "That,"
said I, "is a different question, but I am by no means prepared to say I
would not have been glad to have seen a true and loyal man like Andrew Johnson,
or yourself, here from that State during the War. I regretted that more did
not, like Johnson, remain in 1861. Would you have expelled them?" Without
answering me direct, Trumbull became a good deal excited and was very emphatic
against the Rebels. I said we would have no controversy on that point. I was
not their apologist, though I was not their persecutor, now that the Rebellion
was suppressed. They had greatly erred and wronged us, had slain our kindred
and friends, wasted our treasure, etc., but he and I should not bear
resentment. We had a country to care for and should, I thought, exert ourselves
to promote reconciliation and reëstablish the Union in all its integrity at the
earliest attainable moment.
"Without
conditions?” inquired he. "The Constitution," replied I,
"provides for all that is necessary to be done. The condition of affairs
is anomalous, but the path is plain. Each State is entitled to the Senators and
Representatives according to population. Why are eleven unrepresented and
denied their rights by an arbitrary and despotic majority of Congress?"
He imputed the
difficulty chiefly to the President, who, he declared, had failed to act up to
the principles of his message; and he quoted a passage. I told him the course
of the President I thought perfectly consistent and I knew it was honest. But
why was Tennessee, for instance, more loyal than Kentucky, excluded from
representation in either branch of Congress? He said the President was to blame
for that, for had he not put his veto on the Freedmen's Bureau Bill, Tennessee,
and he thought Arkansas and Louisiana also, would long before this have had
their Representatives in Congress. I told him this did not appear to me very
enlightened and correct statesmanship. Why those States should be denied their
undoubted constitutional rights, because the President and Congress disagreed,
I could not understand. He complained that the President was not frank, that he
had advised civil rights in his message to all, and yet vetoed the very bill
which confirmed those rights.
I remarked that the
subject of civil rights—personal rights—belonged to the States, not to the
Federal Government. The amendment to the Constitution had abolished slavery,
and the blacks had the same remedies that the whites had to preserve their
freedom. That undoubtedly some of the States would, at least for a time, make
discriminating laws. Illinois, I presume, did, and I thought Connecticut also.
He denied that Illinois made any distinction affecting the civil rights of the
negro, and asked when and in what respects the civil rights were affected in
Connecticut.
"Both
States," said I, "deny them suffrage, which is claimed as a right by
the extreme Radicals in Congress. He said there were not ten men in Congress
who took that view; there were just eight, he finally remarked in the Senate,
and perhaps double that number in the House. "But," said he,
"suffrage is a privilege, not a right." I remarked I so considered
it, but Sumner and others took a different view. "Well, then," said
he, "in what other respects are the civil rights of the negro
affected?" "He is not," said I, "by our laws put on terms
of equality. He is not permitted to get into the jury box; he is not allowed to
act as an appraiser of property under any circumstances, and there are other
matters wherein distinctions are made." "These," replied he,
"are all matters of privilege.”
What, then,"
said I, "do you mean by civil rights? Please to define it." "The
right," replied he, "to his liberty, to go and come as he pleases,
have the avails of his own labor, not to be restricted in that respect. Virginia,"
continued he, "has passed a law that they shall not leave the estate on
which they reside without a permit." I know not that Virginia denies or
restricts the right to emigrate. The other rights mentioned the negro
possesses.
SOURCE: Gideon
Welles, Diary of Gideon Welles, Secretary of the Navy Under Lincoln and
Johnson, Vol. 2: April 1, 1864 — December 31, 1866, p. 487-90
No comments:
Post a Comment