University of South Carolina Libraries
Jjolitiqs, and Ihij (farrtnt $tivs o)f (fit Jan. ?*- vol. x.-new ser.es. union c. h., south caeofl^j^r.une 20, is79. number 25. HAMPTON'S GREAT SPEECH. Mr. Hampton : Mr. President. I beg to Acknowledge my obligation to the, son a tor from Delaware (Mr. Bayard") for the courtesy which onablcs me "to submit a few remarks to the Senate ; and in. taking up the bill which he has laid before the Senate, 1 do uot propose to discuuss it speoia|ly; I jjSjBfc rather prefer to make general remarks upon the subjects which havo been under disjjx eussion during this session. wfjk The main reason why I do not desiro to speak particularly to this bill is that I can hardly suppose there is a senator on this strikedfetL^t^ho^statmto booF^ one of the i-r h fnost infamous laws which have over disgraced legislation. It is simply to strike off a law which was placed there, if not by mistake, by fraud, and I therefore do not feci that it is necessary for me to eutcr into i the discussiou further than simply to give j an illustration of how the present law can be used to tyrannize pver the people of the ha> couutry. In the recent trials in the United States Circuit Court at Charleston a short time ago, a jury was summoned. One of the judges who was on the bench could not take the test oath. The district attorney had been iu the Confederate Army ; the assistant attorney had likewise beeu in that army. They of course could not take the test oath. And yet when the jurors were brought up every Democrat had that oath applied to him ; while all men who wero not Democrats, men who had served through the whole war, if they were Republican), wore allowed to tako their places upon that jury without having the oath administered to them. 1 think it is not necessary to say anything more to show the impropriety, to say the least, of allowing a law of that sort to stand. There are many reasous which make me reluctant to obtrude my views on t lie Senate at this time. I recognize fully the propriety of that unwritten rule of the Senate which imposes silcucc upon the new and iucxpcricuccd members of this body uulil they have become familiar by association with the experience of their older and wiser colleagues. The physical disability under which I labor not only makes all exertion paiuful to me, but unfits me to do justice either to the great questions now pending or to myself, aud I cannot, therefore, address, the Senate at length. Nor is is necessary to do so. Argument, rhetoric, invective and denunciation have bccu exhausted by our opponcuts, aud I can scarcely hope that any utterances of mine will allay the prejudices which have been aroused or carry conviction to the minds of the people. These arc potent reasons to enforce my silence, and under ordiuary circumstances I sh >uld have adhered to my determination to take no part iu the debates of this session. Jiut the subjects which have engaged the attention of Congress and of the couutry during the presont session are not of ordi nary importance, ana tlie toae and temper of the debate, which has been prolonged through weeks of vehement and angry denunciation, impose upon the representatives of the South at least. TIIE DUTY OP HONEST PltOTEST. Against my wishe3, therefore, and under every disadvantage imposed upon me by my physical condition, ? must, as one of those representatives, ask the indulgence of the Senate while I place upon record my earnest protest against the injustice aud the unfairness with which we have been treated. The Presidmtpro tempore: The Chair would state to the Senator from South Carolina that if at any time it would be more convenient for him to speak sitting he is at perfect liberty to do so. Mr. Hampton : I thank you, sir. Hay after day have we listened while senator? of great reputation, high ability, ?iiiil whnsn word* iim r.lin nrnml nl' ili.iiwiniU of conscientious and patriotic citizens have denounced the opinions and actions of .Southern men as revolutionary aud treasonable. It has been declared that the Democratic caucus rules the Senate, and that the Southern members rule the caucus, dictating the policy to be pursued. The able and distinguished senator from Ohio (Mr. Thurmau) with equal truth, justice and candor has, it is true, met and refuted that Charge by assuming for the Northern and Western Democracy the responsibility of the present political situation. Hut in spite of this generous assumption of responsibility on his part, the truth still remains that wo of tho South do make the Democratic majority in this Chamber, and we are thus as responsible for what we approve and support as for what we suggest. I have not the presumption to make any claim to leadership here, but while not attempting to lead it is my duty co know where and whom I follow, and for any vote which I may cast here I shall never endeavor to shield myself from responsibility behind any man or any party, if the policy T support is revolutionary, I am tlic revolutionist: if there is treason in my vote, I am the traitor. Hut, sir, I ask in all seriousness, what are the issues before the Senate to which such language is appropriated ? 1 might demand i of senators on the other side the proof that any action of ours was revolutionary ; I might open the Constitution and, reading its precise and emphitfio definition to treason, ask who of us is "levying war against the United States or giving aid and comfort to their enemies," or what overt uct of violence we aro proposing to commit t But I do not desire to auake a mere technical argument. 1 desire to moot tho accusation in its spirit as well as in its letter. WHAT ARE THE ISSUES BEFORE U8 ? Lop us understand them distinctly. But first let me say whMi are not the issues we arc discussing. To uie there is no question; there can be none, as to the propriety & departments. Upon this point there shall oc no misapprehension ot uiy position. Uy no vote of mino will the appropriations necessary for the efficient maintenance of tho army be refused. It is competent for Congress to dcclaro under what limitations and upon what conditions the appropriation is to be made. The form in which this is 1 dono I regard as immaterial In my judgment it would have been best to adhere to the usual form ; but as it has been deemed advisable to uiaka the necessary appropriations in auother manner, I shall, in order to secure unauimity, acquiesce in the decision of the majority. IJut in no event can I couseut to aid iu disbanding the army or in impairing its efficiency. It is the army of the South as well as of tho North ; it is the army of the whole country. In its history, from the days of the revolution through its achievements of 1812 aud the glories of >u. t i v.. tuu iut'A.iuuu war, 1 nave aouiu ruusuii, uy right of birth and of blood, to be proud.? In the late civil contest, on many a bloody field, I tested its valor, and uo word nor act of miuc shall depreciate its value or lessen its usefulness. Hut because I so regard it no act of mine shall tend to degrade its rank and file into a police squad nor convert its officers iuto detectives. I will not so legislate that against its owu honorable instincts and traditions it shail be. the iustruuicnt of tyranny iu the hand of a factious party or of an executive who might be so unscrupulous as to use it unlawfully. Nor shall I consent, because of any difference of sopinion upou matters of legislation between the majority and tho minority or between the majority and the President, to close the courts of justice, stop tho administration of the departments and embarrass the ueccssary and orderly life of the Government. Tho Constitution, which I have not idly sworn to support, has provided a means by which an appeal to the country j can be taken, and it is for the people to i decide whether tlie i'resideutial veto has been wisely and patriotically used to defeat the will of this Cougress which represents a vast majority of the citizens of the Uuitcd States. My duty will have been performed when I have used all the power with which that Constitution has entrusted me. The President and the minority in Congress must be responsible for the use of theirs.? And while these arc my geueral views of my duty, I cortainly have no inducement, no disposition, to embarrass the present administration. It is a source of profound regret to uie that the President could not lind himself able to approve the bills ho has vetoed. To me they seem to embody but simple declarations of constitutional principles, and to I.., r. .u. ?1:.~ UU lit WUtllt lyWIilUt HillJ \T llll I II U JJUIIUJ which lie has announced repeatedly as the one that he would pursue. Hut 1 am not disposed on account of this differennc, grave though it be, to denounce his action nor to impugn his motives. I aui well aware that his positiou is not easy nor his responsibility light. 1 remember, and the people whom I represeut reuieuibtr, that in A CRITICAL PERIOD OP OUR HISTORY, in disregard of the passions and in opposition to the wishes of the party who placed him iu his present position, with doubt as to the result of his independent action, movod, as 1 honestly believe, by liis convictions of duty, ho withdrew the Federal troops from the Statc-llouscs of South Carolina and Louisiana, thus enabling the people of thoso States to restore their local governments to those who represent the ....r,..!'.- ...II ?o ? - ?i.~ ~i ?i.~ n nif uo nun uo vuu viiuiiiuiui ) viiu intelligence, and the property of the two States. For this action, wise and patriotic as I am sure that history will record it, 1 for one ain grateful. And while in the honcstand necessary party differences which must arise in a free country it will he my duty, with all the energy aud ability I possess, to oppose the partisau policy of which he is the representative, my opposition shall not be captious. Nor shall L by bitter and acrimonious corsuro drive him into dependence on those who would in their selfish rush for power trample on him and on us. I trust, therefore, in what I have to say that I shall be able to speak with truth and soberness. What, then, let me ask again, arc the issues before the country upon which any action ot ours can be called revolutionary or treasonable ? If the repealing acts which have been suggested were pissed to day. we should simply be remanded to the legislation under which the country has lived and moved and had its being for soventyfive years of its existence. Can such a restoration be revolution or treason i Surely not, unless the intervening war has so changed onr ro lotions to each other that tho <j|Jb eoostitu tioaal legislation is ho longer ^fyKeable to our condition j and yet this*!* attlty what senators on tho other aido woul&\ bive the countrj believe. I ask, in all pMfl^woulil such legislation as we nqw aamSforepeal have been conceived or defe^jfet \jj any statesman before the late war ?? Yjtoldi any President from 178'J to 18t?fc.*v?r have dreamed of sending the armju* thiTJaited States to keep the pcacq >tlft Mpa or of appointing Federal supervjsoralnff uiarshali to superintend tho popular ballot? If not, then the necessity for the Aaiiitftoaace of this legislation arises from ' jfeapthfeg new WiTTany senator p^l out what that new element is r it any exist, what is tho difference in tho relations a State holds to the Union to-day and those of the same State before tho war ? If there is none, and I venture to say that noue cau be pointed out, wherein consists the necessity for any such legislation to-day which did not exist then? This question should, 1 think, be fairly ntiswered, because it is the poiut upon which the accusations against the South rest. If all that we ask is what existed for three-quarters of a century of our existence, how can it bo revolutionary or treasonable to make this deinaud ? If the Democratic doctrine that Federal troops cauuot lawfully be used at the polls, or canuot interfere in State matters unless specially requested to do so by the constituted authorities of a State be a heresy, we have the strongest republican authority to sustain thdt horsy. In his message to the Legislature of Pennsylvania, iu January, 1871, GOVEKNOU JOHN W. UEAHY used the following language : "The employment of tro.,ps of the United ?tales at elections, without the consent of the local aud State governments, has already received considerable attention aud reprehension. * * * Uuder any circumstances, in my opinion, it is unsafe aud antagonistic to the principles that should govern our Republican institutions. At the last October elections, United States troops were stationed in Philadelphia for the avowed purpose of enforcing the election laws. This was done without the conscut or even the knowledge of the civil authorities of cither the city or the State, and without any expressed desire on the part of the citizens, and, as far ns call bo ascertained, without existing necessity." The Democratic party stands to-day where Governor Geary, a staunch Republican, stood then. Nor are wo without other aud equally as high Republican authority to sustaiu the position taken by our party. Hon. CAltL CIIUHZ, now a distinguished member of the present Cabinet, in his place on this floor, made this memorable protest against the scundalous aud unconstitutional use of Federal soldiery iu Louisiana : "United States soldiers, with fixed bayonets, decided the case against them, and took theui out of the Imr'nlnlirn Loll liu - -~e "J force. * * * I cannot, therefore, escape froui the deliberate conviction, a conviction conscientiously formed, that the deed done on the 4th of January, in the Statehouse of Louisiua, by the military forces of tho United States, constitutes a gross and manifest violation of the Constitution and laws of this Republic. * * * If this can be done iu Louisiana, uud if such things be sustained by Congress, how long will it be before it can be done iu Massachusetts and Ohio. lie who in a place like ours fails to stop, or even justifies a blow at the fundamental laws of the land, makes himself the accoui* plicc of those who strike at the life of the Republic and at the liberties of the people." The preseutable secretary of State, .MR. EVART8, in his great speech on the same subject iu New York, was even more emphatic than It is colleague in the Cabinet, and his words could well be adopted now to formulate the creed of the Democratic party. lie used the following language: "Whcu men vote, aud when their chosen officers meet, and when without violeucc and without demonstration of insurrcctiou ?hcy undertake to conduct the affairs of their political government, uo soldiers can interfere. There arc two very distinct firm lines of limitation, which observed will protect the machinery of the government for the people to-day ; that is, that the sole intervention of the Federal nownr within fitiin on r " ------ MU thority shall be to suppress violence, and that their ofliee after that shall not assume to go further unless when invited by the supreme authority of the State. What use is it to {jive the purso and the sword to th3 House of Commons if tho King or tho President by military power can determine what shall be tho constitution of the House of Commons or the House of Congress ? And that is what they fought for in Kngland. * * And for this reason the people of tho United States are justified in assuming that the supremo civil power shall dominate over the military, and that no merging of them or interference with them shall be permitted." >iow, Mr. President, shall we be denounced simply because we plant ourselves not only where the fathers of the Kepub ? Ho stood, hut where the great lights of the > Kepublicau party have declared the ouly ? true oonstitutioaal positiou can be fouud ? t Now, sir, I venture to assert that undcrly i mg toe whole argument on the other side aro two assumptions: first, that the war ; has so developed tho independeut existence ' of the Federal Goverumout, as distinguished ! from tho States, as to give it greater power, I larger influence, and rnoro direct iuterest in Congressional elections than it possessed i before; sccoud, that the Administration, as , the representative -of that party which elected it and in control of the Federal rnachin(?. i ery, is bound to use that power and influM eooe-in the protcotion of these interests.? In other words, that tho privileges and pre rogatives of the States are to bo obliterated, not by force,but by the subtler though uotless destructive influences of two great national parties using tho powers of the Federal Government as weapons of party warfare. Now, I do not propose to make any constitutional argument on this subject. It is 1 sufficient for uie to say that I hold TIIE FORM AND CHARACTER OK OUR OOVKRNMENT to have been unaltered by the late war, and | that the mutual relations of the Geucral Government and the several States of the Union remaiu precisely as they were wheu the Uuicu was formed. 1 hold that the rcceut constitutional amendments have wrought uo change in these relations ; and in these views. I nm eusiaincd by the language of the Supreme Court of the United States in tho cose of the Collector vs. Day, reported in tho eleventh Wallaco. In this esse, Justice Nelson, iu delivering the opiuion of the Court, used the following language : Tho general government and the State, although both exist within the same tentorial limits, are separate and distinct sovereignties. acting separately aud iudependeutly of j each other within their respective spheres. ( Iu the same decree the cusuing words arc used : Such being the sera rate and independent 1 condition of the States in our complex sys- 1 torn, as recognized by the Coustituliou, and the existence of which is so iudispcusablo that without them the General Government . itself would disappear from the family oi nations, &c. I maintain, therefore, that THE CONSTITUTION HAS NOT HE EN CHANGED in its essential features, by the late auicudmcuts, and that it is therefore uow .vhat it was before the war, so that when the country demanded the preservation of the Union by a restoration of the States it meant such a Union and such States as the Constitution recognized. Can any advocate of a strong government, which is hut uuothcr tcrui for centralization, suppose for one instant that the founders of our Republic contemplated or would have countenanced the exercise of sircli powers by the Federal (jroverninervt ac are claimed for it by the legislation /re are seek lug to repeal ? Docs any senator here believe that this is a safe, a wholesome condition of public affairs? Putting aside all extremo theories of State rights, does not every senator recognize the fact that one of the elements of our political safety has been the manner in which local State interests have acted aud reacted within the States upon national politics, so that until just before the war we never have had great national pa ties which divided the country between them simply on Federal issues. Local influences had always to be considered. Put if in the future we arc to have only great national parties in behalf j of one or the other of which the aduiinis tration is to interfere directly, we nre on the high road to a consolidation even more dangerous bccauso more violent and variable than a recognized change in tho government. My objection, therefore, to this legislation which the war called forth is not its immediate danger. It is not the actual army which I fear or its direst Jnfluonoo.-? Hut I do most strenuously object to any legislation which aifords any excuse or justification to the government that it has the right or interest in any way or in any degree to interfere with the perfect freedom of elections. The roughness or even riot of an election is no greater than any other violation of the pcaco ; and no State in this Union is without ample means of suppression. And if the State authorities are unable or unwilling to do their duty, you have not now, you will not have for generations to come, au army strong enough to tako their place. It is better ho; better that in one or two great cities, nay, in one or two great States, there should be temporary turbulence, confusion, than that in the whole country there should bo military despotism. Congress has the right to dccido who bhall tulco his ceat as representative and who shall take his seat as representative and who shall not. Congress can I'UNIStl WITH DISFRANCHISEMENT any community which would force into these halls an improperly elected member ; and that is a safer, a surer, a more constii tutioual safeguard than tho exercise of any doubtful or unlawful power by the Federal Government. Hut, Mr. President, unjust as L?vo been , the assumptions against the South to which f linvo alluded, there arc others not kss Ull I 1J - - ? L-.1I-A.M - L 11 J.L. , gruvc. There has run through this whole discussion the stroug anil steady current of iusiuualiou that the South is not true to the Uniou ; that its object io pressing tho repeal of those measures which wo dccui dangerous to our liberties is to giro us a freer field for conspiracy and a better opportunity to suppress by force aud fraud tho real voice of tl?o Southeru people. Wo are tauntingly told that proof of theso charges is found iu the presence on this floor of twenty-two members who served iu tho Confederate aruiy, and the South is reproached, nay, deuouucod, for sending such men to represent her here. Sir, the auswer to this churgo is simple. Nearly every man in the South who could bear arms was in ber armies, aud she cau soarcely be reproached with justico for trusting and honoring iu pence the men who risked their fortunes and their lives for her iu war. And when the fact is cited that while the South sends so many of her ,.ia ? . i? .. LMU SU1UICI3 IU icprescill Iiur tu 11) IS august assembly the North scuds but four, 1 submit that the reproach, rest if reproneh anywheres, belongs father to the North than, to the South. I feel that I but speak the scntitncnts^>f every uiau here who. was in tho Confederate servico wheu I express my deep regret that there are not in this Chamber more of the men, who met us in battle, for if opposed tous politically they would, if true soldiers and gontlemcn, treat us with tho respect U?a men never fail to accord to cachi other. And, sir, had these great o|ipuo\U?) armies which for four years confronted each, other in a death grapple been left to make and enforce the terms of peace, not only, would the country havo been spared much, of the suffering ami the humiliation it has experienced, but it would have enjoyed a peace honorable alike to the conquerors ami conquered. We should long ere this have seen a Union re established ou the halis of FRATERNAL RECONCILIATION, . and a whole people bouud together by tho indissoluble bauds of mutual respect, com* mou interests, and a common destiuy.? Such, at least, is the firm couvictiou of ovory true soldier in the South, aud all her.sons were soldiers. Nor is thie conviction, wanting among the bravo soldiers of the North, for I have heard it expressed by thcm? tiuio and again. That the men who truly represent tho South are here fo-day is due mainly to otif friends on the other side. Wheu you insisted that the States should return to tho Union; when you called upon tlicui to send back their representatives, did you uiearu what you said or did you mean the Southern States to be rotten borough*- to be lilledl by nominations of the republican party ? ? Indeed, did you not for fifteen years mako them so ? And 1 will leave it to the candor of Rep tblicau senators to say whether.' they arc satisfied with the result of the experiment they made at such a frightful cost to us and to the whole country. We arc here because we do rcprescut the popular majority, the character, the intelligence andthe property of the States which have sent us. We are here because, left to themselves,, the insticts of the recently enfranchised voters have taught thein that their interests are identical with ours. Wo are here because, belonging to your own race, trained, in the same political experience as your own, taught by years of rule how to govern, wc could not be subordinated, and the pcoplo of the conutry did not wish us to bo subordinated, to such a mass of ignorant voters as you had rashly and suddenly created. We are here, wo trust, for the good oi me wnoic country. >v nat wo wcro you knew when you insisted that ws should still be part and parcel of this Union. For the past you ennuot expect us to apologize ; to do so would be to sacrifice our own self-respect and to forfeit the respect of all honorable men. IN THE HEAT OK CONFLICT u-o sfriift lmrd hlnws, nod doubtless we spoke hard words. But docs remembering or repeating them now bring us auy nearer to the peace and harmony for which the whole country so ardently longs? The uien who served in the opposing armies arc now the strongest advocates of a true reconciliation. Wo learned in a common school how to respect our enemies ; we learned that personal courage and honor and truth wero better guarantees of patriolis _n than constitutional learning or eloquent speech ; wo learned at least that in spite of differences, even unto death, there was a common country which we could better servo in friend_t.!~ * t ! _ L i 1 ? - biii}) man in uiiiruu, auu were our antagonists of the late war here to day, in the contents on this floor as in ficrcier battles of yoro, whoever might bo tho victor, wo should be assured of a fair field and an honest surrcuder. [Applause in the galleries.] Judgo us uioro by our acta The presiding officer (Mr. Wallace in tho chair:) The Senator will suspend. Tho Chair gives notice that if further applauso occurs in the galleries he will order them to bo cleared. Order must be preserved. Mr. jiumpton: Judge us now by our acts; and again I ask whit arc they to provoke distrust? We ask you to strike from tho statute-book legislation which was as much the instrument of war, the exjiression of dis] ContludcH on 1 th Payc.] %i.: . JL A