and of being loyal.
If you can find one man in the South who gives evidence of the
fact that he has ceased to renounce the laws of Congress as
unconstitutional, has ceased to oppose them, and respects them and
favors the carrying of them out, I am in favor of removing his
disabilities; and if you can find one hundred men that the same is
true of, I am in favor of removing their disabilities. If you can find
a whole State that this is true of, I am in favor of removing the
disabilities of all its people."[46]

Revels at that time had reasonable grounds for supporting amnesty, but
conditions soon changed. Speaking in the 42nd Congress as it regarded
the enforcement of the 14th Amendment, Rainey felt that too much
amnesty had led to the murderous activities of the disloyal after they
had reached the point of acquiescing. He said:[47] "If the
Constitution which we uphold and support as the fundamental law of
the United States is inadequate to afford security to life, liberty,
and property--if, I say, this inadequacy is proven, then its work is
done, then it should no longer be recognized as the magna charta of a
great and free people; the sooner it is set aside the better for the
liberties of the nation." Another member of the 42nd Congress, Robert
C. De Large of South Carolina, while speaking on the bill for the
removal of political disabilities, made it quite clear that he would
not support the bill unless the gentlemen for it would support a
measure to protect the loyal people of the South.[48]

Notable among the speeches on the question of amnesty was that made by
Elliott protesting against a bill to this effect by Beck of Kentucky.
Contending that the men now seeking relief were responsible for the
crimes perpetrated against the loyal men of the South, Elliott
maintained that the passage of the bill would be nothing less than the
paying of a premium on disloyalty and treason at the expense of those
who had remained loyal. Pointing out the cause of their
disfranchisement, he demanded in the name of the "law-abiding people
of his constituency, whites as well as Negroes," the rejection of this
bill and the protection of those whose "only offense was their
adherence to the principles of freedom and justice."[49] That the
proposed bill was defeated[50] was perhaps in some measure due to his
masterful arraignment of its purposes.

Contemporaneous with the question of amnesty, and lasting throughout
the thirty years duri