It is different, however, with that highest condition of all, that the State shall be republican.

Here is the argument: Because a State may determine the qualifications of electors, therefore it may deprive a whole race of equal rights and of participation in the Government.

Logically speaking, here are most narrow premises for the widest possible conclusion.

On the mere statement, the absurdity is so unspeakable as to recall the kindred pretension of Slavery, that, because commerce is lawful, therefore commerce in human flesh is lawful also.

But the argument is not merely preposterous, it is insulting to the human understanding, and a blow at human nature itself.

If I use strong language, it is because such a proclamation of tyranny requires it.

And here, besides reason and humanity, two inexhaustible fountains, we have two other sources of authority: first, the Constitution, in which the word appears, and, secondly, the dictionaries of the English language, out of both of which…

The Constitution, where we find this word, follows the Declaration of Independence, and refuses to recognize any distinction of color.

Search, and you will confess that there is no word of “color” in its text; nor is there anything there on which to found any disfranchisement of a race.

The “qualifications” of different officers, as President, Vice-President, Senators, and Representatives, are named; but “color” is not among these.

There are none who must not obey it; there can be none who may not claim its advantages.

The Constitution gives no such title; you can only find it in yourselves.

The fountain is pure; it is only out of yourselves that the waters of bitterness proceed.

Color is a physical condition affixed by the God of Nature to a large portion of the human race, and insurmountable in its character.

Age, education, residence, property,--all these are subject to change; but the Ethiopian cannot change his skin.

Admit that a State may determine the “qualifications” of electors, it cannot, under this authority, arbitrarily exclude a whole race.

Suppose South Carolina, where the blacks are numerous, should undertake to exclude the whites from the polls on account of “color”; would you hesitate to arrest this injustice?

You would insist that a government sanctioning such a denial of rights, under whatever pretension, could not be republican.

Because a State may regulate the elective franchise, therefore it may destroy this franchise.

Surely it is one thing to regulate, and quite another thing to destroy.

The power to regulate cannot involve any such conclusion of tyranny.

In these simple words no such power can be found, unless the seeker makes the Constitution a reflection of himself.

Who will dare to say that under this formal power of regulation a whole race may be despoiled of equal rights and of all participation in the Government?

Thus was it expressly understood, at the adoption of the Constitution, that Congress should have the power to prevent any State, under the pretence of regulating the suffrage, from depriving the people of this right, or from interfering…

Madison is that other contemporary testimony which will be found in the “Federalist,” where the irrepealable rights of citizens are recognized without distinction of color.