Primary Source: Charles Sumner, One Man Power vs. Congress (1866)

Charles Sumner (R-MA) was a leading radical voice in the U.S. Senate during the Civil War and Reconstruction. He often stood alone politically, representing the most ambitious stands on issues of racial equality and Southern reconstruction. With the outbreak of the Civil War, the Republican Congress divided over how best to conceive of the political status of the ex-Confederate States. Offering a bold theory, Sumner argued that when the ex-Confederate States seceded from the Union, they had committed state “suicide” and reverted to the status of mere territories of the United States. As a result, Congress had broad authority to govern the ex-Confederate States and impose various conditions on them before they could be readmitted to the Union. On the opening day of its new session in December 1865, the Republican-controlled Congress excluded Southern representatives until the ex-Confederate states met certain requirements. In this powerful speech, Sumner defended Congress’s authority to exclude the Southern representatives. He also attacked President Andrew Johnson for undermining congressional efforts to reconstruct the ex-Confederate states, protect the rights of African Americans, and ensure a Second Founding for post-Civil War America.

It is now more than a year since I last had the honor of addressing my fellow citizens of man. On that occasion I dwelt on what seemed to be the proper policy towards the states recently in rebellion—insisting that it was our duty, while renouncing indemnity for the past, to obtain at least security for the future; and this security I maintained could be found only in the exclusion of ex-rebels from political power . . . .

During the intervening months the country has been agitated by this question, which was perplexed by an unexpected difference between the President and Congress: The President insists upon installing ex-rebels in political power, and sets at naught the claim of guarantees and the idea of security for the future, while he denies to Congress any control over this question and takes it all to himself. Congress has asserted its control and has endeavored to shut out ex-rebels from political power and to establish guarantees, to the end that there might be security for the future. Meanwhile the states recently in rebellion, with the exception of Tennessee, are without representation in Congress. Thus stands the case. . . .

The two parties to the controversy are the President on the one side and the people of the United States in Congress assembled on the other side; the first representing the Executive; the second representing the Legislative. It is the One Man Power vs. Congress. Of course each of these performs its part in the government; but until now it has always been supposed that the Legislative gave the laws to the Executive, not that the Executive gave the law to the Legislative.

Perhaps this irrational assumption becomes more astonishing when it is considered, that the actual President, besides being the creature of an accident, is inferior in ability and character, while the House of Representatives is eminent in both respects. A President, who has already sunk below any other president, even Buchanan, madly undertakes to give the law to a House of Representatives, which there is reason to believe is the best that has sat since the formation of the Constitution. Thus, in looking at the parties, we are tempted to exclaim - such a President dictating to such a Congress! . . .

The question at this time is one of the vastest ever presented for practical decision, involving the name and weal of this Republic at home and abroad. It is not a military question; it is a question of statesmanship. We are to secure by counsel what was won by the war. Failure now will make the war itself a failure, surrender now will undo all our victories.

Let the President prevail, and straightway the plighted faith of the Republic will be broken; the national creditor and the national freedman will be sacrificed; the Rebellion itself will flaunt its insulting power; the whole country in its length of wealth will be disturbed; and the rebel region will be handed over to misrule and anarchy.

Let Congress prevail and all this will be reversed; the plighted faith of the Republic will be preserved; the national creditor and the national freedman will be protected; the Rebellion itself will be trampled out forever; the whole country in its length and breadth will be at peace; the rebel region, no longer harassed by controversy and injustice, will enjoy richest fruits of security and reconciliation. To labor for this cause may well tempt the young and rejoice the old. . . .