Show me a man who in a Rebel State stands faithful to the national cause, and I go forth to meet him with heart in hand.
Charles Sumner
The Public Record
Charles Sumner was an American lawyer and statesman who represented Massachusetts in the United States Senate from 1851 until his death in 1874. Before and during the American Civil War, he was a leading American advocate for the abolition of slavery, and after the war he was a key figure in the Reconstruction era, during which he and other Radical Republicans successfully fought to end slavery and ensure basic rights for Black Americans. He continued advocating for racial equality until his death, lobbying in his final days for a civil rights bill that served as a model for the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Historians credit Sumner with coining the phrase "equality before the law," which he first used as part of an early attempt to integrate Boston's public school system.
To have been true at a time when truth was disowned is enough for honor as well as thanks.
If individual merits, universally recognized, could save a State to present rights in the Union, Tennessee would not now be a self-condemned exile.
Ten men might have saved Sodom; but he was in himself more than ten men.
It is enough, under the Constitution, that he is “a natural born citizen.” He may be of the District of Columbia, or of a Territory, or of a Rebel State; for these are all equally within the rightful jurisdiction of the United States, and…
Therefore, I repeat again, we must look beyond the virtues of individuals.
Not all the virtues under heaven can suffice to make a State of this Union, or establish any claim for restoration to ancient rights, where there is failure to comply with essential requirements.
President, I am against the admission of Arkansas to representation in the National Government at this time and under existing circumstances.
There may be a time, and there may be circumstances, when such representation will be proper; but clearly at this moment it is improper, unreasonable, and dangerous.
It is superfluous to say that such representation is inconsistent with republican principles, and can be vindicated only by overruling necessity.
But this point becomes of peculiar importance, when it is considered that the minority asking representation has acquiesced in rebellion, and, still further, that some of those composing the minority have actively assisted the public enemy.
By action of the State Legislature, and of a Convention called by this Legislature, followed by a popular vote, the State was made de facto a member of the Rebel Confederacy.
However much we may deny the rightfulness or the legality of the proceeding, there is no question with regard to the fact.
As a fact it must be recognized, whatever the consequences, precisely as truth is recognized.
But this unquestionable fact was followed by a general acquiescence of the people of Arkansas; so that this State became in fact, as in name, a Rebel State, linked with other Rebel States arrayed in arms against the National Government.
This objection, of course, may be removed by time; but it existed in full force at the election of the claimant, and is decisive upon the question before us.
Unquestionably, it is according to the genius of our Government that the majority should rule.
To found a republic on a minority is scarcely less impracticable than to stand a pyramid on its apex.
The proposed representation of Arkansas in the Senate is unjust and inequitable in relation to the representation of the loyal States; and if extended to representation in the House of Representatives and in the Electoral Colleges, it…
By the original terms of union, the other States have agreed that the whole people of Arkansas shall have two Senators, and Representatives according to a fixed proportion,--and also electoral votes for President and Vice-President…
The military occupation of Arkansas, and the unsettled condition of the community there, cannot be forgotten, when we are considering whether to admit the representatives of a newly organized civil government in that State.
Military occupation is practically inconsistent with civil government.
Even if the former does not absolutely exclude the latter, yet it is evident that it must exercise a controlling influence.
It is impossible in time of war to preserve the conditions of peace,--especially in time of civil war.
Military power, when engaged in subduing rebellion, cannot be insensible to political forces.





