tend to state what have ever been my ideas
of the true foundations of republican govern-
ment.
Let us start first with the inquiry, what is
the true basis, or the true bases if they are
mixed, of all representative governments?—
Necessarily they must be one of three different
characters. Outside of these three different
bases there exist none other. Then I say that
the foundations of representative government
must be either persons or property, or a
mixed basis of persons and property. Lati-
tude, longitude, city, country, do not affect
the case in the least, in any fair argument
upon this point.
What is the true theory of republican gov-
ernment? It is the political equality of all
men who are peers in the State, and the right
of every man, a political peer in the State, to
an equal degree and amount of representa-
tion in the representative body. That one
man resides down upon the Potomac, and
that another man reaides in Baltimore city,
affects this no more than that one man is
named George and another Harry. All who
are political peers in the State have an equal
right in that representative body which is
supposed to set forth and organize public sen-
timent into law. Who denies a proposition
so plain as that?
And yet, under our present system, who
does not know that the citizen of Charles, the
peninsular citizen, as they have been very
well termed, is represented, at least in this
hall, to the extent of five or ten citizens resid-
ing elsewhere. Is that right? Is the system
which tolerates it right in its organization ?
I say that upon the ground that every free
citizen in this hall is the political peer of eve-
ry other, it is wrong just as clearly as that it
takes five units to make five, or ten units
to make ten. Then I say that upon the doc-
trine of persons alone being the proper basis
of representation our present system is clearly
wrong.
Suppose then you declare that property is
the basis of representation, as some have ar-
gued, and said let us have representation
according to taxation. It must be according
to population, according to taxation, or by
mixing the two and making a mixed repre-
sentation of persons and property. What
other 7 All this talk about the negro in rep-
resentation, mark you, is altogether sound
and fury, signifying nothing. My friends
come into this hall and charge me with incon-
sistency because having said the negro was a
human being with human rights, denying at
all times religious, social or political equality,
I refuge him representation now. I would
like to know where they put their jewel, con-
sistency, when they come into this house and
deny the negro any rights at all, and as soon
as we give him human rights, demand for
him all the white man's rights, and say that
he is entitled to representation ? |
Mr, CLARKE. Under the present constitu-
tion the negro has representation?
Mr. SANDS, I meant to mention that, and
to show you where it is lodged. I make this
point of consistency; and I am willing to let
the world put mine opposite theirs. I come
here and declare for the negro human rights ;
the right to be a husband, a father, a free
man; and there I stop, denying the equality
of the race, or that they could enjoy social or
political equality with the white man. That
was my doctrine. The doctrine upon the
other side was that the negro was only fit fur
slavery; bad not even the right of personal
liberty; that he had not a right to the fruit
of one drop of big sweat, or one hour of hi«
toil; and as soon as we set up our doctrine,
they go way beyond us and say that he net
only has the rights we would accord him, but
has the same rights that I have and you have
to be represented here. Measure the incon-
sistencies, and where mine goes a furlong my
friends will go a whole mile.
The doctrine has been urged here that the
negro has been represented in the federal gov-
ernment. I say that that is just as false in fact
as it is true in thory. Who denies that in the
Constitution of the United States representa-
tion was accorded to the States under the
three-fifths rule for their negro population?
Who denies that, as a matter of theory? Now,
I ask the gentleman, as a matter of fact,
where a single negro slave ever had a represen -
tative in the halls of our national legislature?
Gentlemen must recollect that the negroes
number millions, and if they had been enti-
tled lo representation they would have had a
delegation there, strong in numbers, almost
equal in numbers to that of their white masters;
and those representatives would have been
the first men to inaugurate what are called
the abolition doctrines there, and push them
to the wall. I say it is a logical monstrosity
to assert that four millions of negroes, if they
had been represented on the floors of your
national legislature, would not at all times
have been crying out for their liberties.
These are the reasons why I assert that in
fact it is as false that negroes have ever been
represented, as it is true in theory that they
are. The theory is one thing. The fact, as
my friends know, for they can see it just as
clearly as I can, is another. They know that
in point of fact three or four million negroes
were never represented.
How have they been represented, if repre-
sented at all? Represented by a species of leg-
islation which has been intended to spread
and perpetuate, to eternalize if possible, the
institution of slavery. They have it in the
Constitution of the United States; they have
it in the act of 1793; and they have it in the
act of 1850, which passed by the votes of the
representatives, as gentlemen pretend, of
these three or four millions of negroes, bound
tighter than ever by the votes of the men who |
