lass. 
 
 -£^_i.ii^ 
 
 SMITIISONLVV DKl'OSrr 
 
yfot. 
 1^ 
 
SPEECH 
 
 HON. JAMES F. SIMMONS, 
 
 OF RHODE ISLAND, 
 
 THE STATE OF THE UNION. 
 
 Ix^^ 
 
 DELIVEEED IN THE SENATE OP TEE, UNITED STATES, JANUARY 16, 1861. 
 
 The Senate being in Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union, and 
 having in considei'ation the amendment offered by Mr. Clark to the resolutions of 
 Mr. Crittenden, Mr. SIMMON'S said: 
 
 Mr. President : I intimated yesterday, that when this question came up 
 again I desired to submit a few remarks to the Senate ; and I do not know 
 but that it is as well to do so on the amendment as on the original propo- 
 sition. I am opposed to the amendments of the Constitution proposed in 
 these resolutions; but before I proceed to point out the particular objec- 
 tions to these amendments, I will try to explain what I understand to be 
 the Constitution we now have. 
 
 The Senator from Texas, (Mr. Wigfall,) the other day, in some remarks 
 to the Senate, said that when this Constitution was framed, by the aid of 
 Connecticut, seconded by Mr. Patersou, of New Jersey, the framers of the 
 instrument were prevented from making it a national system, and through 
 the aid of Connecticut and New Jersey, made it a federative system, I 
 do not intend to argue that question, whether or not, at this day, we are 
 living under a Confederation or a Constitution ; but I will state the propo- 
 sition as made in the convention upon which he based this declaration, and 
 I ask my friend and colleague — as he can see better than I can, and also 
 read a great deal better — to read this debate. There are several pages of 
 it. I think it explains more clearly than I could what the fathers intended 
 this instrument to be. The proposition was this: Mr. Ellsworth moved 
 that it be referred to the Legislatures of the States for ratification ; Mr. 
 Paterson seconded the motion ; and here is the debate upon it, which I 
 shall make a part of my speech. 
 
 Mr. Anthony read, as follows : 
 
 " Mr. Ellswoiith moved that it be referred to tht Legislatures of the States for 
 ratification. 
 
 "Mr. Paterson seconded the mot'^a. 
 
 " Colonel Masox considered a rf nice of the plan to the authority of the people 
 as one of the most important a' essential of the resolutions. The Legislatures 
 have no power to ratify it. They are the mere creatures of the State constitutions, 
 and cannot be greater than their creators. And he knew of no power in any of 
 
3 
 
 
 their constitutions— be knew there was no power in some of them — that could b 
 competent to tliis object. Wiiither, then, must we resort? To the people wit 
 •whom all power remains that has not been given up in the constitutions derive- 
 from Uiem. It was of great moment, he observed, that this doctrine should b 
 cherished, as the basis of free Government. Another strong reason was, that, ad 
 mitting the Legislatures to have a competent authority, it would be wrong to refe 
 the plan to them, because succeeding Legislatures, having equal authority, couh 
 undo tiie acts of their predecessors; and the national Government would s"tand, ii 
 each State, on the weak and tottering foundation of an act of Assembl}'. Ther 
 was a remaining consideration of some weight. In some of the States the govern 
 ments were not derived from the char and undisputed authority of the peopk 
 This was tiie case in Virginia. Some of the best and wisest citizens consideied th 
 constitution as established by an assumed authority. A national constitution de 
 rived trom such a source would be exposed to the severest criticisms. 
 
 "Mr. Randoli'h. One idea has pervaded all our proceedings, (o wit: that oppc 
 Bition, as well from the States as from individuals, will be made to the system to b 
 proposed. Will it not then be highl_y imprudent to furnish any unnecessary pretex 
 by the mode of ratifying it? Added to other objections against a ratification by th 
 legislative authority only, it may be remarked that there liave been instances ii 
 whicli the authority of the common law has been set up in part-ieidar States agains 
 that of the Confederation, which has had no higher sanction than legislative ratili 
 cation. Whose opposition will be most likely to be excited against the system 
 That of the local demagogues who will be degraded by it, from the importance thei 
 now hold. These will spare no elTorts to imjiede that progress in the popular mini 
 which will be necessar}' to the adoption of the plan, and which ^■^&v\ member wil 
 find to have taken plice in his own, if he will compare his present opinions witl 
 those he brought^with him into the convention. It is of great importance, there 
 fore, that the consideration of this subject should be transferred from the Legisla 
 tures, where this class of men have their full influence, to a field in which thei 
 efforts can be less mischievous. It is, moreover, worthy of consideration, that somi 
 of the States are averse to any change in their constitutions, and will not take thi 
 requisite steps unless expressly called upon, to refer the question to the j-eople. 
 
 "Mr. Gerry. The arguments of Colonel Mason and Mr. Randolph prove to( 
 much. They prove an unconstitutionality in the present Federal systeiu, and evei 
 in some of the State governments. Inferences drawn from such a source must b( 
 inadmissible. Both the State governments and the Federal Government have beei 
 too long acquiesced in to be now shaken. He considered the Confederation to b( 
 paramount to any state constitution. The last article oHt, authorizing alterations 
 must consequently be so as well as the others; and everything done in pursuanc( 
 of the article must have the same high authority with the article. Great confusion 
 he was confident, would result from a recurrence to the people. They would nevei 
 agree on anything. He could not see any ground to suppose that the people will d( 
 ■what their rulers will not. The rulers will either conform to or influence the sens< 
 of the people. 
 
 "Mr. GoRUAM was against referring the plan to the Legislatures. L Men chosei 
 by the people for the particular purpose will discuss the subject more candidly thar 
 members of the Leglisluture, who are to lose the power which is to be given up tc 
 the General Government. 2. Some of the Legislatures are composed of severa' 
 branches. It will consequently be more diflifult, in these cases, to get the plar 
 through the Legislature than through a convention. 3. In the States many of th< 
 ablest men are excluded from the Legislatures, but may be elected into a conven 
 tion. Among these may be ranked U'any of the clerg}', who are generally friends 
 to good governvuent. Their services were found to be valuable in the fornuilion auc 
 establishment of the constitution of Massachusetts. 4. The Legislatures will be in 
 terrupted with a variety of little business; by artfull}' pressing which, designing 
 men will find means to delay from year to year, if not to frustrate altogether, tht 
 national system. 5. If the last article of the Confederation is to be pursued, the 
 unanimous concurrence of the States will be necessary. But will anj^ one say that 
 all the States are to sufter themselves to be ruined, if Rhode Island should persist in 
 her opposition to general meastn-es? Some other States might also tread in hei 
 steps. The present advantage, which New York seems to be so much attached to, ol 
 taxing her neighbors by the regulation of her f.rade, makes it very probable that sht 
 •will be of the nundjcr. It would therefore deserve serious con^idcr:ition, whethei 
 provision ought not to be made for giving effect to the system without waiting fot 
 the unanimous concurrence of the States. 
 
"Mr. Ellsworth. If there be any Legislatures who should find themselves in- 
 competent to the ratification, he should be content to let them advise with their 
 constituents, and pursue such a mode as would be competent. He thought more 
 was to be expected from the Legislatures than the people. The prevailing wish of 
 the people in the eastern States is, to get rid of the public debt; and the idea of 
 strengthening the National Government carries with it that of strengthening the 
 public debt. It was said by Colonel Mason, in the fi.rst place, that the Legislatures 
 have no authority in this case ; and in the second, that their successors, having equal 
 authority, could rescind their acts. As to the second point, he could not admit it 
 to be well founded. An act to which the States, by their Legislatures, make them- 
 selves parties, becomes a compact from which no one of the parties can recede of 
 itself. As to the first point, he observed that a new set of ideas seem to have crept 
 in since the Articles of Confederation were established. Conventions of the people, 
 or with power derived expressly from the people, were not then thought of. The 
 Legislatures were considered as competent. Their ratification has been acquiesced 
 in without complaint. To whom have Congress applied on subsequent occasions for 
 further powers? To the Legislatures, not to the people. The fact is, that we exist 
 at present, and we need not inquire how, as a Federal society, united by a charter, 
 one article of which is, that alterations therein may be made by the legislative au- 
 thority of the States, it has been said that, if the Confederation is to be observed, 
 the States must unanimously concur in the proposed innovations. He would answer 
 that, if such were the urgency and necessity of our situation as to warrant a new 
 compact among a part of the States, founded on the consent of the people, the same 
 pleas would be eqnallj' valid in favor of a partial compact, founded on the consent 
 of the Legislatures. 
 
 "Mr. Williamson thought the resolution (the nineteenth) so expressed as that it 
 might be submitted either to the Legislatures or to conventions recommended by 
 the Legislatures, lie observed that some Legislatures were evidently unauthorized 
 to ratify the system. He thought, too, that conventions were to be preferred, as 
 more likely to be composed of the ablest men in the States. 
 
 " Mr. GouvERNEUR Morris considered the inference of Mr. Ellsworth from the plea 
 of necessity, as applied to the estnblifhraent of a new system on the consent of the 
 people of a part of the States, in favor of a like establishment on the consent of a 
 part of the Legislatures as a non sequitur. If the Confederation is to be pursued, 
 no alteration can be made without the unanimous consent of the Legislatures. Leg- 
 islative alterations, not conformable to the Federal compact, would clearly not be 
 valid. The judges would consider them as null and void. Whereas, in case of an 
 appeal to the people of the United States, the supreme authority, the Federal com- 
 pact may be altered by a majority of them, in like manner as the Constitution of a 
 particular State may be altered by a majority of the people of the State. The 
 amendment moved by Mr. Ellsworth erroneously supposes that we are proceeding 
 on the basis of the Confederation. This convention is unknown to the Confedera- 
 tion. 
 
 "Mr. King thought with Mr. Ellsworth, that the Legislatures had a competent 
 authority, the acquiescence of the people of America in the Confederation being 
 equivalent to a formal ratification by the people. He thought with Mr. Ellsworth, 
 also, that the plea of necessity was as valid in the one ease as in the other. At the 
 same time he preferred a reference to the authority of the people, especially dele- 
 gated to conventions, as the most certain means of obviating all disputes and doubts 
 concerning the legitimacy of the new Constitution, as well as the most likely means 
 of drawing forth the best men in the States to decide on it. He remarked that, 
 among other objections made in the State of New York to granting powers to Con- 
 gress, one had been that such powers as would operate within the Slates could not 
 be reconciled to the Constitution, and therefore were not grantable by the legislative 
 authority. He considered it as of some consequence, also, to get rid of the scruples 
 which some members of the State Legislatures might derive from their oaths to sup- 
 port and maintain the existing constitutions. 
 
 " Mr. Madison thought it clear that the Legislatures were incompetent to the pro- 
 posed changes. These" changes would make essential inroads on the State constitu- 
 tions; and it would be a novel and dangerous doctrine that a Legislature could 
 change the constitution under which it held its existence. There might, indeed, be 
 some constitutions within the Union^ which had given a power to the Legislature to 
 concur in alterations of the Federal compact. But there were certainly some which 
 had not ; and, in the case of these, a ratification must of necessity be obtained from th« 
 people. He considered the diflference between a system founded on the Legifllatur«B 
 
only, and one founded on the people, to be the true difference between a league or 
 treaty and a constitution. The ft>rmer, in point of moral obligation, might be a?invio- 
 lable'as tlie latter; in point of political operation, there were two important distinc- 
 tions in favor of the latter; first, a law viohitiiig a treaty ratified by a pre-existing law 
 might be respected by tiie judges as a law, tiiough an unwise or perfidious one. A 
 law violating a Constitution established by tlie people themselves would be consid- 
 ered by the judges as null and void. Secondly, the doctrine laid down by the law 
 of nations in the case of treaties is, that a breach of any one article by any of the 
 parties, frees the other parties from their engagements. In the case of a union of 
 people under one constitution, the nature of tlie fact has always been understood to 
 exclude such an interpretation. Comparing the two modes, in point of expediency, 
 he tluHiglit all the considerations which recommended this convention in preference 
 to Congress, for proposing the reform, were in favor of State conventions in prefer- 
 ence to the Legislatures for examining and adopting it. 
 
 "On the question, on Mr. Ellsworth's motion, to refer the plan to the Legislatures 
 of the States — 
 
 "Connecticut, Delaware, Maryland — aye, 3. 
 
 "New Hampshire, Massachusetts. Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South 
 Carolina, Georgia — no, 7." — The 3fadi.ion Papern ; Containing Dtbates on the Con- 
 federation and Constitution. Supplement to Elliott's Debates, vol. 5; pp. 352, 353, 
 354, 335, 35(>. 
 
 Mr. Simmons. Mr. President, that explains wlmt the framers of this 
 Government intended it should bg ; and yet men will refer to that very 
 question there decided — seven against it, and three for it — and say that 
 that decision was in favor of making a confederation, instead of a national 
 Government ; and every ai'gumeut that has been made on the opposite side 
 of the Chamber has treated this Constitution as if it were a league or treaty, 
 A compact broken in one part is broken itl all parts, said Mr. Webster, I 
 ao-ree with that; but did he ever say this Constitution was a compact? 
 Never ; never ; on the contrary, he expressly denied it. Quotations are 
 made from eminent men, who make speeches either to get votes or to get 
 nominations, and are adduced here as constitutional authority. I read 
 this very debate and another here fourteen years ago, in the presence of the 
 Senator from Virginia, (Mr. Mason.) I read what that gentleman's dis- 
 tinguished ancestor said on this constitutional question. I read it, too, 
 upon another portion of this subject that T shall call his attention to. 
 Every Senator who has made an argument upon this question in favor of 
 the right of a State to secede, has based it upon the argument, and solely 
 upon the argument, that the Constitution is a treaty, and not a Constitu- 
 tion. I agree that a treaty which is broken in one part is broken in all, 
 and frees everybody. That was Mr. Madison's doctrine; but he said that 
 a constitution formed by the people is not a compact, but a pact that ex- 
 cludes such an interpretation. Yet, everybody on the other side says it is 
 a compact; and the distinguished Senator from Texas says that the old 
 men who made this Constitution, of all things in the world, knew nothing 
 about it; that they were very good men for generals, and such like, but 
 knew nothing about the Constilution. Well, sir, they are good enough 
 authoi ity for me. I would rather read their authority than any other. I 
 make no argument upon it, 
 
 I call the attention of the Senator from Virginia to what he said this 
 morning about referring these resolutions to the ])eoi)le. He said he was 
 againstietting the people vote on them. His distinguished ancestor said 
 he held it of the lirst importance, that this Government should rest on the 
 •will of the people ; but it has got to be unfiishionable now ; the peoj)Ie are 
 not to be trusted in this age. I have as abiding faith in them now as the 
 fathers had when they made this Constitution; and how did they come 
 
out? Look at your seventy years' experience under this Constitution. 
 Did tliey trust the people in vain? I hope not, 1 know they did not. It 
 was the faith of the fiithers. Let us live by it, and stand by it. But I 
 shall be tedious if T go into that debate ; and therefore dismiss it. 
 
 Mr. Mason. Will the Senator allow me to interpose a word! 
 Mr. Simmons. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. Mason. What I said implied no distrust of the people whatever. 
 What I said referred entirely to the theory of this Government. This 
 Government, as I understand, is a confederation of States; and when the 
 people are spoken of in the Constitution, it means the people of each State 
 separatim, as a separate independent political community, each State being 
 sovereign. Now, I understand the scope of this resolution is to refer a 
 question of constitutional amendment, not to the States or to the people of 
 the States, as separate indepeadent political communities, but to refer it to 
 the people of all the States as a general mass. I sa}' that the Constitution 
 never contemplated that the people of the United States, as a mass, a 
 homogeneous mass, should be the parties to the Federal Government; and 
 therefore, without any disti'^ist of the people in their separate States, I 
 never can agree to convert the form of government we now have, from a 
 confederation of Republics into a consolidated Government. And, inter- 
 rupting the Senator for a moment longer, I would refer to the fact, that 
 when the Constitution contemplates amendments to be made to it, they 
 are amendments to be made to it by the States, as States, either by their 
 Legislatures or by conventions, as may be arranged ; but in each instance 
 the amendments are to be made by States, and those amendments would 
 not be carried by a popular vote, but each State would give one single vote 
 and one only upon the amendments. The State which the honorable Sen- 
 ator represents, with its population, would give a vote equal to the State 
 represented by the Senator from N#w York — a single vote. There was no 
 idea of referring it broadcast to the people, as a consolidated mass. That 
 is all I wish to say. 
 
 Mr. Simmons. I did understand the Senator to make the objection. If 
 r read these resolutions aright, these amendments are to be adopted if they 
 are appioved of by the people of three-foui ths of the States, each State 
 having one vote. That is the way I read them. One of them, I am pretty 
 sure, says so. I read it yesterday. I agree that the Senator is riglit in 
 saying that the amendments are to be referred to the people of the States, 
 and that the original proposition was made to the people of the States; 
 and why ? Because this Constitution took from the State authorities many 
 of the powers that the people had given to their State Legislatures ; and 
 they were not going to have a mass meeting, and let the people of Vir- 
 ginia take away the rights that had been given by the people of South 
 Carolina to their State Legislature. It must be the same constituent body 
 that granted these rights to their State government, that should take them 
 back again and grant them to this Government. That is the distinction. 
 Nobody was competent to take away the rights of the Legislature of Rhode 
 Island but the people of Rhode Island, and so it is with all the rest of the 
 States. That is the reason, ?lvA the only reason, that this Constitution was 
 Bent to the people of the States; not because it was a confederation, as the 
 Senator reiterates again to-day, but, because powers v/ere given in the Con- 
 stitution to the national Government that could not be taken from the' 
 States by anybody but those who gave those powers to the State Legisla- 
 
6 
 
 tures ; and tLey took those powers from the Stales in ratifying this Consti- 
 tution, and gave -them to the national Government. I have no doubt the 
 Senator from Kentucky, in his resohitions, has provided the same mode 
 that 16 pointed out in the Constitution, to let the people vote in each State 
 for or against these amendments. Am I mistaken in that? 
 
 Mr. Crittenden. The resolutions wliich I offered provided no means 
 of that sort; but the Senator from Pennsylvania (Mr. Bigler) has been 
 so good as to introduce a bill here prescribing the mode in which the vote 
 shall be taken, as.it was taken at the presidential election, and by the same 
 oflScers. 
 
 Mr. Simmons. I have seen it somewhere in the printed proceedings. 
 That would certainly be the way. There is no other way to do it under 
 the Constitution. Every suggestion, every argument made use of by every 
 man who spoke in tbis debate in the Convention as to whether the Consti- 
 tution should be ratified by the Legislatures or by tlie people, no matter 
 whether they were in fav,or of a Confederation or in favor of a national 
 Government, furnishes a complete ansv/er to all the arguments that have 
 been brought up here in favor of the right o^a State to secede. Mi'. Ells- 
 worth, as much of a Federalist as he was, denied that right even ui.der 
 the confederation and every national man from that time down has always 
 denied it. 
 
 Mr. President, having disposed of that question, so far as I choose to 
 speak on it in this connection, I come to the provisions for its araendiu*'nt; 
 and I have to say to my worthy and distinguished friend from Kentucky 
 that I consider his plan grossly violative of the Constitution itself. He 
 knows that I speak of it kindly; but I cannot in my conscience believe 
 otherwise than I have stated. I know these troubles. I feel as much re- 
 gret as I know he feels at such unwarrantable troubles brought uiion us 
 from so trifling causes, as I conceive; but I cannot vote for these resolu- 
 tions, because 1 think they violate the very spirit of the instrument under 
 which we sit here. Here is a proposition to add five new sections to the 
 Constitution, and to make them and two clauses of the present Consti- 
 tution irrepealayle and unalterable. I ask the Senator if he has thought 
 enough, to be certain, that these propositions are sound enough to 
 make them, like the laws of the Medes and Persians, unalterable, in a free 
 Government? I have read them over but twice. I know they would be 
 wholly impracticable in Rhode Island. We have in Rhode Island no 
 county organization that you can sue to recover the value of a slave. 
 You must have somebody to sue. You must have an organization. I 
 have not read them with a view to criticise, but I ain speaking of them 
 generally. Here is an instrument founded by our fathers. Our Constitu- 
 tion has been in oi)eration three-quarters of a century, and the country 
 has nourished under it as no other country has ever before done under 
 heaven. There is in that instrument but one single clause irrepealable, 
 and that is the clause which gives the State of Rhode Island as many 
 Senators as the State of Kentucky. That you cannot repeal without 
 unanimous consent, and that is the only, one that now remains. There 
 was another in reference to the imgortation of slaves, but that has become 
 obsolete. 
 
 I will put a case to tlie Senator from Kentucky. Supjjose that he and my- 
 self and eleven others had formed a partnership, and had paid in $1000 
 fiach for raising water-rotted hemp iu Kentucky, and had put into our 
 
agreement that any or.e who wouhl pay in $1000 could join us, upon an 
 equal footin<r with the orr^inal partners, and that tbe business might be 
 changed, by the votes of three-fourths of the partners. This would be 
 Mr. Well, we went on, took in partners, and raised hemp, and divided 
 twelve per cent, per annum. That would be a fair business— not so pros- 
 perous as this country has been, but it would be remunerative. Suppose 
 we admitted new partners until we had thirty nine, beside the original 
 thirteen, a constitutional majority, and they conclude among themselves at 
 a meeting in Wall street, (for if it paid twelve per cent, it would be from 
 there these new partners would come, and not from among farmers, as we 
 are,) and determining by their thirty-nine votes against our thirteen, to quit 
 hemp-raising and go^into slave-trading. We should remonstrate, and say: 
 "That is an^'illegai business;" it is profitable to be sure, but illegal— and 
 you have no right to make our concern an illegal one. They would an- 
 swer, "it was Tegal when the partnership was formed— you old fogies 
 have altered the taws since, and not we— it was lawful business when the 
 contract was drawn— we persist in it." We should look over the contract, 
 and find it so, and though opposite to what we expected to be done, we 
 should be obliged to submit. We are law-abiding men, and believe in the 
 validity of contracts. But suppose that after getting us into the slave- 
 trade, they should make another provision ia the contract itself, that the 
 business should be continued, unless unanimously voted otherwise, and 
 that we must carry on this piratical trade as long as there was a thief or 
 a liar in the concern. What would he say to that? We would not agree 
 to it I know. He would say, " That is carrying things too far.'' 
 
 That is just the proposition here. We are asked to alter this Constitu- 
 tion from what the fathers made it. We must alter the mode of its amend- 
 ment, and put in seveia new clauses that can never be repealed, no matter 
 what public sentiment may be, without a unanimous vote; so that one 
 single State, if we have forty, cau prevent the repeal of any one of them. 
 I Tinow, when I address myself as I do to the honorable Senator from Ken- 
 tucky, that he would not vote for that proposition himself under any cir- 
 cumstances. He would contrive some other method to heal these troubles ; 
 and I 'would go with him with all my heart; but do not let us tear up this 
 old instrument under which we have prospered, which he glories in as much 
 as I do. I do not want to make a speech about it ; but I know when I love 
 my country and its Constitution. No man can make me believe that I do 
 not venerate that instrument; that I do not venerate the Union that it 
 formed. I am under no apprehension whatever that there is a man who 
 hears me that doubts my regard for every one of these States in the Union, 
 and their institutions. I love Kentucky. I love South Carolina. _ I lived 
 among them more than fifty years ago. I have partaken of their hospi- 
 talities. I have walked to the same churches with them, and knelt at the 
 same altar; and a more hospitable people never lived. But as much as I 
 love them, I say their presfnt conduct is utterly unworthy of them; and 
 the Senator from Kentucky must know that as well as I do. Because they 
 want to cut up capers, are we going to "tear up that instrument to appease 
 them? Not we. Let them have "^a little bit of a frolic, if they want to. 
 I do not want to whip them. That is not my notion. I do not want to 
 hurt them. 
 
 I love Georgia. I lived with them fifty years ago. I have been out 
 there on patrol in the night to watch. They were frightened about insur- 
 rection. There is always danger, they think. I never was afraid there in 
 
8 
 
 my life. The only place where I ever saw any of this negro equality, as 
 it is called, was in Georgia. A man kept a hotel in what was formerly the 
 seat of government. It was a tavern, a very large one, kept by a French- 
 man of the name of Posener. lie invited me one day to go up and see 
 his wife. I was a boy at the time. I went up, and found she was a great, 
 burly uegress. (Laughter.) I have nothing to say about her. That was 
 the only time I ever saw that, and I was disgusted with it. I never saw it 
 in New England in my life, much as the talk is about negro equality there. 
 These Georgia people can stand their own troubles very well ; but when 
 there are any troubles down in Massachusetts, they get in a violent passion. 
 They will have it that there is amalgamation and negro equality there; but 
 I do not want to say anything about it. I dislike it, to be sure; but it is 
 not best to make a noise about it. 
 
 The Republican party cannot insert a portion of the Declaration of In- 
 dependence into its platform, but it is said that we mean the social equality 
 of the negroes. I wonder if Jetierson meant that when he wrote it. These 
 old men that signed it did not think any such thing. It is "young America" 
 that has brought their doctrine into disrepute. Our distinguished Vice 
 President, in a speech last year, read an old resolution of the Republican 
 party of 1856, in which the word " equality " was not in. It was left out 
 for some reason or other. It was copied from that old-fashioned Declara- 
 tion ; and he said that a careful scrutiny of it would show it meant negro 
 equality. There was not a word about equality in it. I do not know where 
 he got it; but I suppose all that was there was copied from Jeft'erson. We 
 cannot make a platform but what a diseased imagination can torture it into 
 anything, especially in these times. I have been to these national conven- 
 tions ever since I can remember — not always as a delegate. The first one 
 I went to, as a delegate, Rhode Island had the honor of voting for the 
 author of these resolutions for Vice President of the United States; and if 
 the rest had been as wise as we were, we should have had power to this 
 day, in my deliberate judgment, taking what providentially happened ; but 
 we caught a Tartar. 
 
 I have never voted for a President in my life, and I have voted {or forty 
 years or more, when I did not prefer a man born in a slave State. In all 
 the conventions I have been a member of, we have selected for President 
 a man born in a slave State; and whenever there has been anybody up for 
 President, and there were electors running in my State for a man born in 
 a slave State, I voted for him without caring where he was born. I was 
 for Mr. Clay in 1824; although Mr. Adams was a good man and gave us 
 one of the best administrations I ever knew. I never had but one idol, and 
 I never mean to have another in the shape ot man. It is almost as bad 
 as to set up cotton for king. i, 
 
 I mean to treat this subject with all the gravity that its dimensions de- 
 mand. I know it is one of the most difficult qwesiions. I have thought 
 of it, and looked into the fire more than a hundred hours since I have been 
 here, not saying a word, to try if I could see the way out peaceably ; and 
 I am just as young as my youngest boy about it. Nobody has any expe- 
 rience in such questions as this; for nobody ever dreamt that mankind 
 would have such folly as is now exhibited. What are they quarreling about? 
 Literally nothing. This Government has been in their hands, as was said 
 by the Senator from Ohio, (Mi'. Wade,) for the last eight years. Practi- 
 cally, the South have had this Government for sixty years out of seventy- 
 two; and they talk about sectionalism, and some of the remedies to get 
 
rid of a sectional porty are, to make a sectional constitution, run a line 
 through, and give half the territory and oflices to the side that has but one 
 third of the people. A double portion is, with them, equality. The Sen- 
 ator from Virginia (Mr. Hunter) wants a sort of double Executive — after 
 the Siamese pattern — a first king and a second king. (Laughter.) He 
 wants to elect them both, and let both have a veto. We have been pestered 
 enough witli vetoes since I have been here ; and I would rather take the 
 veto away from the one man than give it to two. You cannot get along 
 with this Government, it seems, unless you let the minority rule some way 
 or other. That is the question now. The minority want to rule, and they 
 are afraid of the people — literally so. 
 
 I wish I could see a proposition that I could hear somebody who was 
 disaffected say would satisfy him. I have Hot heard one of them say so. 
 The Senator from Texas said if we would do about forty things that he 
 knew we would not do, he would then consider. That is the nearest ap- 
 proach to a settlement that I have heard. (Laughter.) If we would stop 
 the pulpits, burn the school-houses, suppress the newspapers, imprison the 
 Abolitionists, and break up this Government, he would think about stay- 
 ing in. (Laughter.) He would take it into consideration; he would not 
 pledge himself, he said. Oh, no ! (Laughter.) Well, now, I like the 
 Senator fi'om Texas. I like him on account of his " better half." (Laugh- 
 ter.) She was from Rhode Island ; and he will take anything I say kindly 
 on that account. 
 
 Mr. President, it is a great question. These people who have seceded 
 will find a bigger sum than they ever ciphered out before. I want to see 
 how they will cipher it out before we move. Let those people that are 
 afraid take care. I am not afraid. If I were, I should take care. I would 
 do anything in reason to remove this dissatisfaction. I feel sad when I 
 think of it. But I wish somebody that is troubled, and wants it relieved, 
 would suggest how we can relieve it. Kentucky is as loyal a State as ever 
 was in the Union. They want something, I know. The people have been 
 aroused by this election, as is natural. All presidential elections excite a 
 great deal of feeling ; and for that reason it is the worst time in the world 
 to try to amend the Constitution. They have talked it so long that they 
 begin to believe it themselves, that the Republican party means to en- 
 danger their institutions. I said here four years ago, that if I found ray- 
 self in a party that undertook to disturb the institutions of the South, I 
 would quit it immediately. So I will. I have been in it now four years, 
 and have yet to see or hear the first man in it propose any such thing. 
 Nothing could induce rae to remain in a party that I thought meant to 
 break the Constitutio'ii.' 
 
 As to the Presider.. e^o t, be is from Kentucky. All Ins social ties are 
 with Kentucky. As has been well remarked by a Senator, he has not only 
 said what he would do, but he has said what he would not do ; and I do 
 not believe there can be two inferences about that. Some candidates only 
 say what they will do ; but Mr, Lincoln has not left you to infer what he 
 will not do. He has told you himself what he will not do. That is the 
 man we have elected ; and you can find in his record that he will not dis- 
 turb slavery anywhere. He is against any such thing ; and if he were not, 
 he has family connections, social ties, and kindred, that would prevent him. 
 These are higher guarantees than parchment. I would rather have the fer- 
 vent, effectual prayer of a righteous man for this Union, than all you can 
 write on parchment to save it. 
 
10 
 
 I thought wlien I got up that I would keep my voic3 from rising, because 
 when men's voices rise, sometimes their feelings get the better of them. I 
 thought I would talk as if I was talking to my brothers, making not argu- 
 ments but suggestions. No man felt more deeply impressed with the 
 beautiful effort of the Senator from New Yoik, (Mr. Seward,) than I did. 
 It came from the right quarter to give peace. But the very next speech 
 that was made after it, w;is the bitterest I have heard in the Senate. That 
 was the rcs]>ouse. I say this with the utmost kindness to my friend from 
 Missouri, (Mr. Polk,) who made that speech. It was very bitter. The 
 effort of the Senator from New York did not seem to have appeased hirn 
 at all. I think the Senator from New York went a great way. Why, Mr. 
 President, it is something for a party in the majority to agree to conciliate 
 in the present aspect of this country, I will do anything that T can do 
 that Avill not demoralize the Government. I am afraid of that — absolutely 
 afraid of it. I am afraid to do anything that will bring reproach upon the 
 Government I love. The Senator from New York said, that to threats, he 
 would offer conciliation. That I would do. He said that to exactions he 
 would grant concessions. That I am not quite certain I would do. He 
 said that to hostile array he would give the right hand of brotherhood. 
 That is good. I have faith that the millennium will come; but I do not 
 think it is here now. Ttiat would be good doctrine then. But, sir, the 
 millennium has not come. I know the reading of scripture, but I suppose 
 it was wrongly rendered. I could never interpret the scripture there where 
 it said that that generation should see it; but I suppose the translators 
 rendered it wrongly ; they did not quite understand the original tongue. 
 But, sir, the millennium did not come while Judas Iscariot lived, nor will 
 it come while others like him fester and pester the society in which they 
 live, shame their country, and dishonor tlieir race. It will not come while 
 such men are here. They will be disposed of before that time comes. 
 
 The Senator from Kentucky believes with me in that respect. I shall 
 not utter a sentiment that he will not agree with. If I do, I will take it 
 back immediately! He and I have lived too long together for me to say 
 anything disrespectful to him, I never had any uneasiness in reference to 
 him but about one thing, and that was about my children, I was not 
 afraid that they would love him any better than I did ; but I was afraid 
 they would love him better than they did me, (laughter,) and that is the 
 case with all Rhode Island. There is no Prince of Wales or his mother, 
 or any other crowned head of Europe, that Pthode Islanders would travel 
 80 far to see as the Senator from Kentucky. And so it has been for the 
 last quarter of a century. 
 
 I have now said all that I intend to say about making the proposed 
 amendment perpetual. I hope the Senator from Kentucky will run out in 
 his own mind the idea that I give him about that, and will feel just as I do 
 in regard to it. The series of resolutions introduced by Edmund Randolph 
 into the convention, declared that there ought to be a Government which 
 could be changed by a majority less than the whole. That was one of the 
 cardinal principles laid down when this Government was formed. Now, it 
 is proposed to make this proposition so that it cannot be changed. The 
 Senator from Kentucky loves the Constitution as well as I do. He was 
 brought up under its teachings. He has illustrated it in every speech he 
 has made, and his whole life has illustrated it. Guarantees to slavery are 
 proposed as if the Republican party intended to invade the rights of slave- 
 holders. Why, sir, they would not have a corporal's guard with them in 
 
11 
 
 either House of Congress if tliey attempted it. It would not be as large as 
 the Tyhn' party, and tliat consisted of but five. 
 
 I made some memoranda when Senators were speaking, for I thought I 
 would answer some of their arguments in detail ; but I never did write a 
 sheet of paper over with notes but it bothered me, for I never can read 
 them. I am sorry it has got to be the fashion to take them at all except 
 by the reporters. Sir, [ want the Senator from Kentucky to turn his mind 
 and his energies to some method of composing these difficultits that shall 
 not destroy the Government. I am willing to say that any interference 
 with slavery in the States by the General Government is not among the 
 powers granted to Congress, and ought not to be granted or exercised for 
 all time. I do not believe the Gener?il Government has any such power, 
 I never did believe it; and if you want to make it any clearer I would put 
 that in. The powers of this Government are as distinct and as independ- 
 ent as if there were no States. The pov/ers delegated to the National Gov- 
 ernment are to be exercised as if there were no States. On the other hand, 
 the powers that are retained by the States, and the people of the States, 
 are as independent of those as if there was no National Government. That 
 is my doctrine. I am a State-rights man as well as a national man ; and 
 the powers are clearly defined — defined in tiie book and defined by the 
 practical experience of seventy years. I should like to see a man bold 
 enough to say that, under the authority of the Constitution, the General 
 Government it created could interfere with slavery in the States in any 
 way, directly or indirectly. I believe in no such doctrine, and I do not 
 believe there is anybody who holds it; at least I have never seen him, nor 
 do I believe there is a public man in the United States big enough to ob- 
 tain a vote for President that would ever think of it, of whatever party'he 
 may be. We have nothing to do with protecting it or disturbing it in the 
 States; but in regard to the Territorie-, I do not agree with the new-fash- 
 ioned notion. I believe we have a right to do either in the Territories. 
 We have a right to govern the Territoiies as we please. I do not agree in 
 the notion that this Government is a trustee" of the States for the Territories. 
 I never heard of such a doctrine until lately. 
 
 The Senator from Oregon (Mr. Lane) says that he is for having the 
 'equal rights of all tlie States in this league. Why, sir, they had an alli- 
 ance in Europe in 1815 — I think it was the treaty of Vienna — where the 
 five great Powers agreed together to take care of the rest of the world, and 
 formed what was called "The Holy Alliance;" and I believe it is in being 
 yet, and that there was a talk of calling them together to take care of Italy. 
 That alliance consisted of England, France, Russia, Prussia, and Austria. 
 If either of those Powers, during the last forty-five years, had discovered a 
 new country, do you suppose it would give up its own title to it, and say 
 it held it for the alliance ? If a treaty of alliance for boundaries and the 
 balance of power in Europe, had defined stipulated powers, anything they 
 did they would do in common as we do ; but is there any power here to 
 discovei' territory? That is not one of the express powers granted in the 
 Constitution, and on the theory of all these secessionists, when a ship of 
 John Jacob Astor's discovered the mouth of the Columbia river, and took 
 possession of it, that territory would belong t") the State of New York. 
 The Constitution gives this Government no power to acquire territory. 
 Why is not that territory New York's ? The power that discovers a coun- 
 try, by taking possession of tlie mouth of a river, takes all the slopes that 
 run into it. That is the doctrine. Upon this idea, it would belong to 
 
12 
 
 New York, manifestly ; but it is a power incident to the national sover- 
 eignty ; and so the sailor himself understood it, and he hoisted the stars 
 and stripes there, instead of the flag of New York. What right have any 
 of these other States to control slavery in that territory by virtue of our 
 being trustees for the States? It is moonshine, utter moonshine. The ter- 
 ritory belongs to the Government of the United States as an incident of its 
 sovereignty ; and every sailor that could hand, reef or steer would know 
 what flag to put up on a discovered country, without consulting any con- 
 stitutional lawyers. It would be the national flag. 
 
 My frieuil from Kentucky knows that. He believes it. We acquire 
 territory in consequence of our national sovereignty. There is no ex\iress 
 power in the Constituti«:)n for it. It is an incident to sovereignty, an inci- 
 dent to the war and treaty-making powers. We own the territory. The 
 States have no more to do with it than the Emperor of France — not a bit 
 more; and this Government has nothing to do with their local aflairs, ex- 
 cept to protect them. That we are bound to do. We have given them 
 guarantees to take care of them, to save them from themselves, if they 
 have disturbances among themselves, and call upon us; and we ought to 
 do it. I am ready to do it if there is any disturbance. There is no roan 
 here but is willing to prevent any invasion of any State for the purposes 
 of injury and annoyance, and to punish those engaged in it. 
 
 It "has been charged that the Republican party were not willing to do 
 this. Everything that has been done for the last twenty years is charged 
 to the Republican party, which in our State did not exist until four years 
 ago last May. That was tlfe fiist meeting they ever held there under their 
 organization — the first time they ever gut together. When were the per- 
 sonal liberty bills, which are said to be an infi-actiou of this treaty, passed? 
 Massachusetts is arraigned here every other day for having passed personal 
 liberty bills infracting the Constitution. Why, sir, if they are unconsti- 
 tutional, they are utterly void. Everybody knows that. But who passed 
 them ? The first personal liberty bill that has been bandied about here all 
 over the Senate, was passed when both Houses of Massachusetts Legisla- 
 ture were Democratic, with a Democratic Governor approving of it; and 
 the negro equality law passed the same month. This charge of n^ro 
 equality came from the fact that Massachusetts that year repealed th.e 
 law which forbade the intermarriage of different races. That was done by 
 the Democrats, and the next year the Democratic Governor, who approved 
 those acts, beat " Honest John Davis." I went there and made speeches to 
 try to elect John Davis ; but he was beaten. Our candidate was not elected 
 by the people ; nor was the other man in 1842, but he was elected by the Le- 
 gislature, and next year he beat us one vote. The third year we had a na- 
 tional contest, and we beat them in Massachusetts ; but we were beaten our- 
 selves in the country in 1844; and that same Governor, who signed this 
 personal liberty bill and the negro equality bill, was sent into the Senate for 
 the best office in New England, nominated by Mr. Polk, and every Demo- 
 cratic Senator voted for him who knew, or might have known these facts. 
 If they did, they would not care a fig about it, if he was on their side, but 
 they would say : " this man probably had to get in by promising the Abo- 
 litionists to do something if he got their votes;" and that is the way he 
 ■ did get in. Their idea is, " it wiU do very well if our folks do it ; only let 
 it work for the benefit of the Democratic party, and you may pass personal 
 liberty bills or negro equality bills to your heart's content." But now 
 they get up here and lay these bills to the Republican party, when the first 
 
13 
 
 Republican Governor elected in Massachusetts brougbt to tbe notice of the 
 Legislature the very provisions in that bill which were wrong, and that 
 Legislature altered thein, although they had been on the statute-book 
 twelve years with all sorts of Governors, and nobody ever thought of them 
 until Governor l^anks called attention to them. And yet these are the 
 grave charges thrown up here against the Republican party, ami made the 
 occasion for breaking up this Government — sucdi things as these ! 
 
 I do not care what kind of laws they pass in Georgia or South Carolina 
 affecting themselves ; only I do not like to see those laws impiisoning our 
 sailors because they are poor and good fellows. South Carolina made a law 
 of that kind ; but when she wanted to get trade with England, she repealed 
 it in reference to foreign countries, but kept it on in reference to her own 
 brothers. Tliat is the way they treat us ; but we are not going to fight about 
 it, or quarrel over it. Our law in Rhode Island was passed six or eight years 
 before there ever was a Republican party there — and there were more than 
 six times as many Whigs who voted against it as there were Democrats. 
 Two of the leading Whig members made speeches against it ; but they were 
 beaten. Afterwards, one of those men who opposed it came to be chief 
 justice of our State. He was on the committee to revise the statutes — to 
 make a code — and he pared the act down, so that it was inoffensive; and 
 he said that, if it were not for making a noise, he would strike it out alto- 
 gether. When the virus, that is, every part of it that even savored of un- 
 constitutionality, was taken out, the Republican Legislature voted for it 
 unanimously. We do not want any unconstitutional laws in Rhode Isl- 
 and, nor do they in Massachusetts. I know they have been pretty high 
 strung in Massachusetts ever since I knew them. I never did like them 
 any too much. They banished our ancestors, hung the Quakers, and 
 killed folks for being witches. (Laughter.) I do not believe in that doc- 
 trine ; but still, Massachusetts is a pretty considerable State. She was 
 thought so in the time of the Revolution ; and I made up my mind, on 
 account of what she did then, never to harbor any hard feeling "toward her 
 for what she had done before, although she had done many bad things. I 
 do not mean to have any hard feelings toward any State, or the people of 
 any State, but I cannot go quite as far as the Senator from New York; 
 for I think the miilenium has not come, though I have full faith that it 
 will.^ I do not know of a man in the country who could say as much as 
 he did with as much propriety. It is something like a pendulum — the 
 further it swings one way, of its own momentum, it will swing just so much 
 further the other way. I keep pretty nearly- right up and down, as well as 
 I can. I do not want to be so straight that I must lean backward, al- 
 though I am bent a little by age; and therefore I do not mean to go very 
 far from my moorings. I have always held to these opinions, and do not 
 mean to change them if I can help it. There may be circumstances 
 which will obli.e me to do so. 
 
 _ But I regretted, more than anything else in this debate, to see a sort of 
 disposition to heap everything upon this Republican party, as if they made 
 this fuss. ^ The Senator from Illinois, (Mr. Douglas.) says : " I told you so 
 three or four years ago." I do not know but he did. There is a great 
 deal of logic in facts, and we have been " told so" until we have carried 
 pretty nearly all the free States. A great deal of this result came from its 
 being charged that we meant to ruin the country. I have said for the last 
 three years to my friends of the South, whom I have met at the Springs, 
 that I believed they had got to this pass, that nothing would convince them 
 
14 
 
 that we were not a pack of pickpockets and thieves, but for us to get power, 
 and then their stump-orators would cease to be liars; because we should 
 show them we had no intention of hurting them, and nothing else would 
 prove it but our acts. I consider it providential that we have got power 
 so that these men, before we all die out — old fogies as they call us — may 
 see that this Government can be administered by a Republican President 
 to the benefit of all his fellow-citizens in harmony and peace. 
 
 Now, I make what are called stump speeches in my State and others; 
 but I never made a speech that T would not utter in the presence of every 
 candidate before the people ; never. I vi-as told that up in Ilarrisburg, by 
 a former distinguished Senator from Virginia, Watkins Leigh, lie said 
 ■we must make stump speeches ; and as we did not know, he told us how. 
 He said that we must not say anything on the stump that ^we would not 
 say before a court of justice under oath. That was his rule, and I have 
 observed it ever since. I said on the stump that I knew all the candidates 
 before the country ; and I believed they were all eminently able to adminis- 
 ter the Government. I would not say it now, because I have seen some 
 things which make it a little doubtful. I think some of them are getting 
 to be sectional. But I said it then, and believed it ; and I should not be a 
 great ways of!" now if I were to say it. I think they are all good men 
 now; but I think they have got excited, and are a little disposed to give 
 up the doctrines that they maintained then. If they think they were 
 wrong, I commend them for giving them up. 
 
 I do not think there is a doctrine in our platform that is subject to any 
 just criticism, not one. Now, why should we give it up ? It says that 
 we mean to protect the States in their rights, and especially the right to 
 regulate their own institutions in their own way. We polled nearly two 
 ■ million of votes, and these voters stand pledged to that doctrine. The 
 Senator from Illinois received twelve or thirteen hundred thousand. Cer- 
 tainly they stand pledged to it, and against this doctrine of interfering for 
 the purpose of protecting slave property in the Territories. There are 
 three million three hundred thousand voters opposed to any such inter- 
 ference. They are all against it. I consider Mr. Bell's vote just as much 
 on the Republican side as I do Mr, Lincoln's. I count anybody who voted 
 against the other candidate. I wanted our voters, where they could not 
 help our candidate, but could help Bell, to vote for him. That was 
 my feeling. I think him an honorable, high-minded, and good man ; and 
 so I may say of the other ca;adidate ; but I do not believe he could have 
 got three hundred thousand votes in this country upon the secession doc- 
 trine. Out of four million six hundred thousand votes, he could not have 
 got three hundred thousand in the country upon this secession platform, 
 in my dehberate judgment. He did not get more than one-sixth of the 
 votes as it was. AH the rest of the candidates were diametrically opposed 
 to this doctrine. Those six hundred thousand^now come here and demand 
 that all the others shall throw up their platform, and break the Constitution, 
 in order to appease them. 
 
 That is just the case, as I see it. That is the logic of these facts ; and I 
 cannot make anything else out of them. I ask the Senator Trom Ken- 
 tucky, if that is fair? He would not do it. He and I wdl do anything 
 that is right; but there is no propriety in denouncing great parties that 
 have polled their million votes and more. Men have principles, feelings, 
 love of country, and they will not be outraged by the surrender of their ^ 
 
15 
 
 doctrines. Wfe cannot mate our people do it. They wouUl be mortified 
 and chagrined at a surrender of principle, 
 
 I should like to make a congressional declaration, if it is needed — and 
 such declarations go a great way — and let every man put his name on the 
 call of the yeas and nays in favor of it, assuring the disquieted • people of 
 this country that they are safe in our hands ; that we mean to protect thera 
 in their rights; that we mean to do everything that brothers ought to do 
 to brotheis. I will vote for such a declaration. I will do anything that I 
 'can to api.ease these feelings that so agitate the country, and even agree 
 to alter the Constitution to do it, if you do not put so many things in it. 
 But I would not undertake now to read these resolutions through, and find 
 out exactly their positions in a fortnight. I want to think of a thing as 
 much as a week after I have read it, to see how it is coming out, before I 
 am willing to speak on it. The time has been when I could get up here 
 at will and speak better, without knowing much about llie sul)ject ; give 
 free vent to my feelings, and go it at large. (Laughter.) But I am old 
 enough to know it is the easiest thing in the world to be mistaken. I would 
 now rather look it over awhile. I hope I have some reputation for speak- 
 ing pretty nearly what I think, after I do look it over; and 1 do not want 
 to lose it. 
 
 I tjave been told tint tliere were propositions here that would satisfy 
 some of the old thirteen States. I cannot help having a little more regard 
 •for them. I do not want Georgia to leave us. I do not want South Car- 
 olina to leave us. As to one or two of the "boughten" States, 1 do not 
 believe we shall miss thera much, anyhow. They cost us ten times as 
 much as they are worth, and if they went to-morrow, it would not worry 
 me as much as it would to lose one of the old thirteen, in which I have 
 lived. I have lived under every President that ever was elected in this 
 country. They were pretty good men. I like the old thirteen. I do not 
 want Georgia or South Carolina to go out. I remember, when I talked 
 about their banks in South Carolina, they complimented me very much ; 
 and I received letters every day thanking me for defending them against 
 one of their Senators, who never meant to say anything to injure thera ; 
 but they took the notiou that he did. I wish I could talk to them about 
 going out of this Union. I would beg of them, plead with them, and im- 
 plore them not to go. I would assure them that they should have always 
 a comfortable berth in this Union — better than they can get out of it. 
 
 As I have said, I have strong personal reasons for loving Georgia, and 
 wish she would stay in the Union. Rhode Island has great public ones 
 for doing so, and desiring it. Georgia has the ashes of one of the noblest 
 of our revolutionary worthies ; one whom the fathers regarded as second 
 only to him " who was peerless among men." That dust must not go out 
 of this Union. If Georgia does, we must take it to Rhode Island, his native 
 land, and lay it with his kindred, where, when the last "morniug drum 
 beat" shall summon his spirit to reanimate that dust, he may rise with the 
 same flag waving over him which was borne by grateful and gallant 
 Georgians when they laid him to rest. It then was, is now, and, I trust, 
 ever shall be the flag of the Union. 
 
 Printed by Lemuel Towers, at §1 00 per hundred copies