Now, when a person thus situated, with great responsibilities to his country and to history, bound by public professions and by political associations, who has declared himself against Slavery, and has every motive for perseverance to the end,--when such a person openly seeks to preserve its odious pretensions, are we not admonished again how unsafe it must be to trust old masters, under no responsibility and no pledge, with the power of legislating for freedmen? I protest against it.
I claim this power for the Nation. If it be said that the power has never been employed, then I say that the time has come for its employment. I claim it on at least three several grounds.
1. There is the Constitutional Amendment, already adopted by the people, which invests Congress with plenary powers to secure the abolition of Slavery,--ay, its “extirpation,” according to the promise of the Baltimore platform,--including the right to sue and testify in court, and the right also to vote. The distinction attempted between what are called _civil_ rights and _political_ rights is a modern invention. These two words in their origin have the same meaning. One is derived from the Latin, and the other from the Greek. Each signifies what pertains to a _city_ or _citizen_. Besides, if the elective franchise seem “appropriate” to assure the “extirpation” of Slavery, Congress has the same power to secure this right that it has to secure the right to sue and testify in courts, which it has already done. Every argument, every reason, every consideration, by which you assert the power for the protection of colored persons in what are called _civil_ rights, is equally strong for their protection in what are called _political_ rights. In each case you legislate to the same end,--that the freedman may be maintained in the liberty so tardily accorded; and the legislation is just as “appropriate” in one case as in the other.
2. There is also that distinct clause of the Constitution requiring the United States to “guaranty to every State in this Union _a republican form of government_.” Here is a source of power as yet unused. The time has come for its use. Let it be declared that a State which disfranchises any portion of its citizens by a discrimination in its nature insurmountable, as in the case of color, cannot be considered a republican government. The principle is obvious, and its practical adoption would ennoble the country and give to mankind a new definition of republican government.