The weekly Union times. [volume] (Union C.H., South Carolina) 1871-1894, June 20, 1879, Image 1
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