If the Fourteenth Amendment is not now a part of the Constitution of the United States, then the Amendment prohibiting Slavery is not a part of the Constitution of the United States.
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.
gutenberg.org
Everywhere in the Rebel States disloyal persons are struggling for power; and now at the door of the Senate we witness a similar struggle.
The case is plainer now than then, inasmuch as there is now an explicit text requiring loyalty as a “qualification.” Formerly we were left to something in the nature of inference; now the requirement is plain as language can make it.
They lay down a rule from which there is no appeal; and this rule is not merely in the statutes, but in the Constitution.
It is the plain declaration that loyalty is a requirement in a Senator and Representative.
If we do not apply it to ourselves now, it is difficult to see with what consistency we can apply it to others.
Therefore, by the spirit of the Constitution, and also by its letter, this Amendment is now a part of the Constitution, binding on all of us.
But behind and above these is another “qualification,” which is of substance, in contradiction to form only.
So supreme is this, that it is placed under the safeguard of an oath.
It is easy to see how infinitely more important is this than either of the others,--than age, than citizenship, or than inhabitancy in the State.
On the other hand, a Senator failing in loyalty is a public enemy, whose presence in this council-chamber would be a certain peril to the Republic.
Loyalty is made a “qualification” in the Amendment to the Constitution; and then again in the original text, when, in the most solemn way possible, it is distinguished and guarded by an oath.
But no man can be allowed to take the oath as Senator, when, on the evidence before the Senate, he is not competent.
Especially if it appear that he fails in the all-important “qualification” of loyalty, he cannot be allowed to go to that desk.
A false oath, taken with our knowledge, would compromise the Senate.
We who consent will become parties to the falsehood; we shall be parties in the offence.
It is futile to say that the oath is one of purgation only, and that it is for him who takes it to determine on his conscience if he can take it.
The Senate cannot forget the evidence; nor can its responsibility in the case be swallowed up in any process of individual purgation.
On the evidence we must judge, and act accordingly.
The “open sesame” of this Chamber must be something more than the oath of a suspected applicant.
But, under the Constitution of the United States and existing statutes, a political infidel cannot be sworn as a Senator.
Whatever may be his inclination or motive, he must not be allowed to approach your desk.
The country has a right to expect that all who enter here shall have a sure and well-founded loyalty, above all question or suspicion.
No person who has voluntarily given even “countenance” or “encouragement” to another engaged in the Rebellion can be allowed to take that oath.
It was an act of disloyalty to be blasted by indignant history, even if your judgment fails now.
Politicians like Charles Sumner
