Search history, study constitutions, examine laws, and you will find no perversion more thoroughly revolting.

Now to this perversion I oppose point-blank denial.

It is hard even to think of it without impatience, to speak of it without denouncing it as unworthy of human head or human heart.

But they cannot maintain this conclusion without founding on these two words,--insisting that color may be a “qualification,” and that under the narrow power to make “regulations” a race may be broadly disfranchised.

I know no way, short of universal specie payments, by which the national credit can be so effectually advanced.

And now, if there be any such within the sound of my voice, I ask the question directly,--Can “color,” whether of hair, eyes, or skin, be a “qualification” under our National Constitution? under the pretence of making “regulations” of…

With all the power derived from both these words, can any State undertake to establish a Caste and organize an Oligarchy of the Skin?

And I begin by appealing to the letter, which from beginning to end does not contain one word recognizing “color.” Its letter is blameless; and its spirit is not less so.

Surely a power to disfranchise for color must find some sanction in the Constitution.

This conclusion of reason is reinforced by the positive text of our Magna Charta, the Declaration of Independence, where it is expressly announced that all men are equal in rights, and that just government stands only on the consent of the…

In the face of the National Constitution, interpreted, first by itself, and then by the Declaration of Independence, how can this pretension prevail?

But there are positive texts of the National Constitution, refulgent as the Capitol itself, which forbid it with sovereign, irresistible power, and invest Congress with all needful authority to maintain the prohibition.

There is that key-stone clause, by which it is expressly declared that “the United States shall guaranty to every State in this Union a republican form of government”; and Congress is empowered to enforce this guaranty.

A Republic is where taxation and representation go hand in hand, where all are equal in rights, and no man is excluded from participation in the government.

In the execution of the guaranty Congress may--nay, must--require that there shall be no Inequality, Caste, or Oligarchy of the Skin.

The words with which this great guaranty begin still resound: Nullus liber homo, “No freeman,” shall be denied the liberties which belong to freemen.

If in the original text of the Constitution there could be any doubt, it was all relieved by the Amendment abolishing Slavery and empowering Congress to enforce this provision.

The Amendment abolishing Slavery has been reinforced by another, known as Article XIV., which declares peremptorily that “no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United…

Colored persons are citizens of the United States, and no State can abridge their privileges or immunities.

It is a mockery to say, that, under these explicit words, Congress is powerless to forbid any discrimination of color at the ballot-box.

There they stand, supplying additional and supernumerary power, ample for safeguard against Caste or Oligarchy of the Skin, no matter how strongly sanctioned by any State Government.

But the champions, anxious for State Rights against Human Rights, strive to parry this positive text, by insisting, that, in another provision of this same Amendment, the power over the right to vote is conceded to the States.

It is true, that, “when the right to vote … is denied to any of the male inhabitants of a State, … or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion or other crime,” the basis of representation is reduced in corresponding…

The pretension, that the powers of Congress, derived from the Constitution and its supplementary texts, were all foreclosed, and that the definition of a republican government was dishonored, merely by the indirect operation of the clause…

It is enough to say of this conclusion, that it is as strong as anything founded on the “argal” of the grave-digger in “Hamlet.” Really, Sir, it is too bad that so great a cause should be treated with such levity.