^^. bt ' • o* 'Vi> 'bl 0^ ,/,-^i'-\. ./..'>^->^. ..**\-^^'.X <^^ *"^- ^« V ^i::^ 1^ . ■* • » ''^v L» ~;t reprcsenti'd, and, from their local and other circumstances, cannot properly be represented in the British Parliaiiient, they are entilied to a free and exclusive power of legislation in the'\r several prorhicia/ LefjixUttai-es, where their right of representation can alone, bo preserved in all cases of taxation and internal polity, subject "only to the negative of the sovereign, in such manner as lias been heretofore used and accustomed." Here is an unequivocal declaration that the colonists were entitled to. a free and exclusive power of legislation — not in any general Congress or Legislature of the colonies, for there had been no such Legislature, but in their several provincial Legislatures— showing that the provinces were, from the beginning, totally distinct aiiS ocpa,.«tft fi-om each other. The styl^ of tUo prooooJing^ In Congress was, in some instances, by the title of the United Colonies; in others, by that ot ths United Colonies of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, ifec, enumerating the whole — these titles being the equivalent of each other. The United Colonies, dissolving all* political connection between themselves and Great Britain, declared themselves to be. free and independent States, and not a single free and independent State or nation. This aet, though done by the colonies united in Congress, was in fact the act of each one of the colonies. Each of the colonics had instructed, expressly or virtually, their respective delegates to unite in such declaration. It was ujton the instructions from Virginia that the motion was oftered in convention, and those instructions expressly reserved the right of Belf-government to the States. The several colonies were — and had been for some period — in a de facto state of independence. Hostilities commencing at Lexington in April, 1*775, liad been vigorously prosecuted. Massachusetts, in the same mouth, voted to raise thirteen thousand six hundred men; Rhode Island, fifteen hundred; Connecticut, six regiments ; New Hampshire, in May, three regiments. In March, 1776, South Carolina established a constitution; Virginia had her bill of rights and frame of government; the allegiance of the citizens of the different colonies was claimed as due to such colony, and not to Great Britain. Such was the opinion and declaration of Congress on the 24th June, 1770, to the effect that — "All persons, members of, or owing allegiance to, any of the United Colonies, who shall levy war against any of the said colonies within the same, or be adherent to the King of Great Britain, or oUier enemies of the said colonies, or any of them, within the same, giving to him or them aid and comfort, are guilty of treaioii against suehcolony." These facts, and others of like character prior to the Declaration of Independence, prove that the colonies, while exerting their joint efforts for the common defence, had each assumed the rights and powers of sovereignty within their own limits. They were substantially independent; and whether each declared such fact sepa- rateh', or whether all united in the declaration, under the authority given by each to its agents for that purpose, cannot affect the great truth that the United States were independent, for the reason atid upon the sole ground that each State was absolved from its allegiance to the British Crown, and was an independent State. The States snbseqii^eutly adopted written articles of confederacy, which were entitled Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, between the States of New United States of America, and, by the stipulation of the second article, each State expressly retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, isrisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled. In the treaty of peace the thirteen United States, by their respective titles, were acknowledged by Great Britain to be Iree and independent States. ^ ■,.,•* r ». These facts are conclusive that the colonies were Mparate and distinct from eacn other; that they were represented as distinct bodies in Congress— voted as such ; 8 X tbat, as States, they remained separate and distinct; that there was no euch com- "- munity known or recognized as the people of the United Colonies or the peo])le of the United States; bnt the polilical communities were the people of the several colotiies — afterwards the people of the several States — it being expressly declared in their compact that each State retained its sovereignty, and every power not granted to the Confederacy. The several States being sovereign members of this the first Confederacy, did they (^'Cease to be sovereign by their act in the adoption of the Federal Constitution? Did they become a single nation, or a consolidated political unity, or did thej- remain a Confederacy of States? That they acted as States, as separate sovereign communi- ties, in the framing and ratification of the Constitution, is undeniable. The vote ia convention was b}^ States, each State by its delegates having hut one vote. The Constitution was transmitted through the Congress of the Confederation to the Legislatures of the several States, and was by them respectively submitted to State conventions elected and assembled under the law of each State. It was ratified by conventions severally of each State acting for itself, and became obligatory by the article declaring that " the ratifications of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same." The first State in the process of ratification was Delav^'are, on the 12th December, 1787 ; the ninth. New Hampshire, on the 21st June, 1788. The Consti- tution was tliPn established as a chart of Government between the nine ratifying States, and had it gone into immediate operation, Virginia. New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island would have been foreign States, separate and iudependcnt of the Confederacy and of each other. And when the new Government went into opera- tion in March, 1789, North Carolina and Rhode Island having declined to ratify, were foreign States, and were treated as such in the act of July 81, 1789. The ratifi- cations of the eleven States could not impose the Constitution on North Carolina and Rhode Island; and the ratifications of twelve could not impose it on Rhode Island, and had she never acceded to the Constitution she would have remained to this daj' as separate and independent as France, England, or other foreign Power. Each State acted for itself, and was bound by its own fict, and that alone, in the adoption of the Constitution. But the States, though sovereign, had, it may be said, the power to abandon their sovereignty; to annihilate themselves, and create a new nation; and it is insisted that this has been effected, and that the grants and prohibitions of the Constitutioa extinguish, at least joro tanlo, the sovereignty itself of the States. But this propo- sition is a misconception, confounding the distinction between sovereignty and the functions and powers of sovereigntj-. The latter, in representative Governments, must be exercised by agents; but the sovereignty itself remains in the principal, namply, the people from whom the powers are derived and by whom they may be recalled. It is generally conceded that the grants of powers in the constitution of a State do not effect the sovereignty which remains in the jiolitical body, namely, the people, ■who can alter, modify, and revoke such constitution. This being admitted, can it be contended tliat the delegation, by several States, of certain powers of sovereignty to be exercised conjointl}' by a Federal Goverument or common agency, institutea by them for that [mrpose, impairs the sovereignty of each of the States? Thee* powers being delegated, remain the powers of the principal. By the delegation of a portion of its powers, the State is not annihilated. She still retains her separate organization ; iwr existence as a distinct political community ; her independent Leg- islature ; her control over the property', social and domestic relations, and criminal jurisdiction of the country, every right and power not delegated, and, in faei, her body politic iu every respect; and has not lost that sovereignty residing as an active, regulated, recognized, and all controlling power in the people of the State. And such is the authoiitative opinion of most distinguished publicists on the sovereignty of States in confederation. Vattel (B. 1. c. 184,) says: " Every nation tliat govema itself, under what form soever, witiioat dependence on any roreign Power, is a sovereign State." And section ten : Several sovereign and independent States may unite themselvcB by a perpetual confederacy wilfc- out ceasing to be earli, individually, a perfect State. They will together constitute a federal i». public. Tlieir joint deliberations will not impair the sovereignty of each member, though they may Jn certain respects, put gome restraint on the exercise of it, in virtue of voluntary engagemenl^ A person does not cease to be free and independent when he ia obliged to fulfill engagements whitii be has voluatarlly contracted. " Such were formally the cities of Greece ; such are at present the seven United Provinces of the Netherlands; and such tlie members of the Helvetic body." Judge Tucker, the distinguished commeutator oa Blaekstone, treats this subject itt a very lucid manner, aa follows: " This independency of States, and their being distinct political bodies from each other, is not obstructed by any alliance or confederacies vi'hatsoever, about exercising jointly any parts of the su- preme power; such as those of peace and war, in leagues offensive and defensive. Two States, notwithstanding such treaties, are separate bodies and independent. " They are, then, only deemed polilically united when some one person or council is constituted ■with a right to exercise some essential powers for both, and to hinder either from exercising them separately. If any person or council is empowered to exercise all tliese essential powers for both, they are then one State : such is the state of England and Scotland, since the act of Union made at the beginning of the eighteenth century, whereby the two kingdoms were incorporated into one, all parts ol the supreme power of both kingdoms being thenceiorward united and vested in the three estates of the realm of Great Britain ; by wliich entire coalition, though both kingdoms re- tain their ancient laws and usages in many respects, they are as effectually united and incorporated as the several petty kingdoms wliich composed the heptarchy were before that period. "But when only a portion of the supreme civil power is vested in one person or council for both, such as that of peace and war, or of deciding controversies between different States, or their sub- jects, wjiilst each State wilhiii itself exercises other parts of the supreme power, independently of all the others; in tliise;isf tlu^y are called xi/.ste »i n of iitates, vih\cliBar\aiDaqu\ defines to be sin assem- blage of perfect governments, strictly united l>y some common bond, so that they seem to make but a single body with respect to those affairs which interest them in common, though each preserves its sovereignty full and entire, independently of all the others." * * * "And in this case, he adds, the confederate States engage to each other only to exercise with common consent certain parts of the sovereignty, especially those which relate to their mutual defense against foreign enemies. But each of the confederates retains an entire liberty or exercising as It thinks proper those parts of the sovereignty which ai-o not mentioned in the treaty of union as parts that ought to be exer- cised in common. And of this nature is the American Confederacy, in which each State has re- signed the exercise of certain jiarts of the supreme civil power which they possessed before — ex- cept in common with the other States included in the Confederacy— reserving to themselves all their former jiowers, which are not delegated to the United States by the common bond of Union. "A ^ isilib- ilislinclion, and not less important than obvious, occurs to our qjiservalion in compar- ing these diffs as between them a compact, or league, although it is a frame of Government for those upon whom it operates; and the States "being sovereign members of this league, or con- federacy, have a right, as stable as the foundalions of international law, to renounce the league at any time, and withdraw from the federation. They arc bound to their confederates by the tics of good faith. The trampiillity and security ot maukind depend upon a due regard \o the rights of others. But each State can, with or without cause, separate from the others, being answerable as one nation is to another. If a treaty has been already violated by the otiier parties, her separation is no just cause of war. Each party or nation must judge for itself; and if her confederates will make waTr upon a seceding State, with or without cause, she must abide the issue. The right of secession depends on international law. It is above and inde- pendent of the Cunstitudon. If, however, sovereignty itself was but a right, then it exists iu the Stntf, among the reserved right's under the Constitution. Such right has not been prolubited to the States. But sovereignty is the creator, not the crea- ture of constitutions. The Constitution does not deal with sovereignty in any other manner except as receiving all its grants and authority from that source. If the States be sovereign, the act of withdrawal cannot, without an utter mis- conception and confusion of terms, be pronounced rebellion. This is the open re- nunciation of the authority of the Government to which one owes allegiance. The distinction between a rebel and an enemy is, that the former owes allegiance to the Government he attacks. Now, a soverefgn State owes no allegiance to any power. Its citizen owes obedience to the Government of the United States as long as the State remains a member of the Union, acknowledging its jurisdiction, and clamung the benefit of its protection. He owes this obedience solely from the act and con- ■ent of his State to the Constitution. When this consent is recaUed by a State ; when, in the like sovereign capacity iu which she gave her assent, it is revoked, she dissevers the ties between her citizens and the General -Government, and expunges their obligation to obey the Constitution or laws of the United States. _ The act of a sovereign, declaring a compact, league, or treaty, no longer binding on him, has never been defined or treated as rebellion. Whether there be or not pst cause for such declaration, it is no violation of his allegiance, for he owes none to the cosovereign parties in the league; and the act of the sovereign binds the citizen, and absolves him from obedience to the compact. The citizen I's not indi- vidually responsible for the acts of the State to which his allegiance is due. The State is responsible. The citizen owes his allegiance to the State, and is bound to obey her acts; and these are a justification in law of his refusal to obey the laws of the United States. It would be to extinguish all the lights of international law to hold that the withdrawal of a sovereign State from a confederac}-, and her mandate that the laws of such confederacy should no longer have force within the limits of her territory, are of no higher authority than the declaration of the people of a county that the laws of the State should not be executed within the limits of that county. This would be rebellidn ; a violation of the allegiance owing to the State. The county is but a part of a consolidated political unity ; has no sovereignty, and is entitled to none of its rights or powers. But the act of a sovereign State, declaring a compact at an end, revoking a.l the powers she may have delegated, is not only no rebellion, but no cause of war on the part of other confederates, unless such withdrawal menace the safety or the ex- istence of the other States. It is of the deepest importance to the peace and tran- quillity of these States, t<* the cause of humanity itself, that the legal principles ap- plicable to the act of secession be clearly understood and eonclusiveh-established. If recession be rebellion, and coercive measures be used for its suppression, the citi- zens of the State, act as they may, would be treated as traitors on the one hand to the United States, and on the other to the State. This may be said to be an ordi- 8 nary, though cruel, contingency of rebellion. But if no coercion be used, (although the act be proclaimed rebellion,) then the citizens who support the State, though prcclaimed traitors, pass unmolested; but how unhappy and miserable the fate of those who exhibit fidelity and attachment to the United States. Deceived and en- snared by the denunciations of the Federal authorities that secession is unlawful, seditious, and rebellious, they might, to maintain the Union, be induced to appose this denounced rebellion by force of arms. Their " fidelity" would receive no sup- port from the C4overnment to which they had devoted their lives; they would be abandoned to the mercy of those who had been denounced traitors by the Federal Government, and would be laughed to scorn for their folly in putting their trust in the words of this great and powerful Government. But this confusion, this mon- strous incongruity, the fruitful source of mischief and civil internecine war, would vanish if the fundamental principles of the Union, as a compact between sovereign parties, were recognized and appreciated. The withdrawal by a State for just cause would be peaceful. Before secsssion, the citizens of the State might oppose the separation, if they deemed it impolitic or inexpedient, by all lawful means. But after separation, which ipm facto releases them from obedience to the Federal au- thority, it becomes their duty to support the State in the operation of its independ- ence, and as the sovereign to whom they owe their allegiance. On these plain and conclusive principles there would, if war supervened, be no rebellion, no treason. There would be enemies, but no rebels. I shall not enumerate the violations of the compact, the wrongs inflicted on the South, and the dangers with which she is menaced. These have e'ngendered discord, little less calamitous than actual hostilities. They have been often depicted in the glowing language of eloquence and truth; and f shall not repeat them. Senators are familiar with the gloomy details of the insults and wrongs to the South, and of the causes which are rending this vast' Confederacy into fragments. I may remind Senators, however, that a most powerful consideration inducing the consentof Texas to annexation was the apprehension of hazard to the institution of slavery from the diplomacy of Great Britain ; and now, when she discovers that instead of finding security she has encountered peril, when dangers are thickening around, threaten- ing the safety of the institution which lies at the foundation of her social organiza- tior, and is the life-blood of her existence, it cannot be surprising that she should secure herself against these instant and pressing evils, by abandoning the Confede- racy, and adopting such measures as will effectually protect her rights, and the tranquil enjoyment of her liberties. But the controversy about the causes of separation is no longer the question of primary interest. It has passed that stage in its progress. The process of disinte- gration has begun, and is making rapid advances; and the absorbing issue is: shall this sepai-ation be effected in peace, or result in war? Several of the States have, by solemn ordinances of conventions acting in their highest sovei-eign capacity, re- sumed their delegated powers, withdrawn from the Confederacy, and declared them- selves separate and independent States. Has this Government the power under the Constitution to reduce, by military force, a seceding State or her citizens to obedi- ence? That such power is not expressly' granted in the Constitution, is admitted. That it was deliberately refused, is shown bv the journals of the convention. In the plans submitted by Mr. Randolph and Mr. Paters'on, there was provisi(m to employ the ]>ower of the Union to enforce obedience to the laws of the United States. la the discussion, Mr. Madison observed that — "The more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the i)ractioalMlity, the justice and efficiency of it, when applied to people collectively and not individually. A Union of States, con- taining; such ;m ingredient, seemed to provide for its own destruetion. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would proba- bly be considered, by the party attacked, a dissolution of all the previous contracts by which it might be bound." — Madison Pape7-s, p. 761. The clause was then postponed, and never resumed. Mr. Masou denounced the plan of military coercion in very emphatic terms, as follows: " The most jarring elements of nature— fire and water— themselves, are not more incompatible than such a mixture of civil liberty and military execution." * * * "In one point of view he was strucli with horror at the prospect of recurring to this expedient. To punish the non-payment of taxes with death, was a severity not yet adopted by despotism itself; yet this unexampled cruelty would be mercy, compared to a military collection of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no discrimination between the innocent and the gwWly.'"— Madison Papers, p. 914. Mr. Hamilton, on moie than one occasion, reprobated the scheme of employing force against States. In a speech iii the New York convention, he insisted that the 9 radical vice of tlie old confcileration wa?, that the laws of the Union applied to the States in their corporate capacity ; that. States executed requisitions only as suited their convenience or ndvantnge; and, in reference to the coercion of delinquent States, he said : "To coerce the States is one of llio maildest projci'ls tliat was ever devised. A fiiilurn of com- pliance will tuner be contliied to a Mw^lv Slalo. This beiiiR the case, can we Nuppom- it wIhc lo hazard a civil war V Suppose Massacliiisclts, ur any lar-jc Stale, should refuse, and CoiiRrcss tliould . attempt to compel thoin : would they not have Inlluence lo procure assistance, especially I'roiii those States who arc ill the same situation as themselves? What picture doos this idea ))re8cnl lo onr view. Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of anottier— this Slate, collecting auxiliaries, and forming, jierhaps, a majority against its Federal head V JTt re is a nation at war with itself. Can any reasonable man be well disjiosed towards a Cfovernment whiih iiiakes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself— a OoverDment that can exist only by the swurdY' The plan of the coercion of a State by force of arms was no new scheme, iipon which tiie members of the convention expressed hasty and ill-digested opinions. As the laws applied to States under the old Confederacy, and not generally to in- dividuals, it was not necessary for a State to approve a hiw. If tlie State did not act, the law wa.s defeated. If coercion by force against States was necessary or admissible under any federative Union, it was under the old Confederation. The States were often deh'nquent, and the Government of the Union reduced to a shadow ; and yet the United States could ijot obtain power to compel the States to fulfill their Federal engagements. Tiie proposition for military force against States had been discussed forj'ears; and the opposition of the convention, and the re''usal to grant such power in the new Constitution, was the result of mature deliberation. But it may be said that the denunciation of military force was to induce and commend to popular favor the change by which the Federal laws were made to ope- rate immediately on individuals, and not, as formerly, on the States in their corpo- rate capacity. That this consideration had its inlluence, appears from the debates them.-elves. One scheme was called the coercion of force; the other, the coercion of law. Mr. Ellsworth, in the Connecticut convention, after jiainting in strong coloi's the imbecility of the Confederacy from the want of a coercion of force— that without coercion there could be no Government — said : • "The only question is, shall it be a coercion of law or a coercion of arms? There is no other possible alternative. Where will those who oppose a coercion of law come out? Where will they end? A necessary consequence of their principles is a war of the States, one airainst the other. I am for coercion by law — that coercion wl\ieh acts on delinquent individuals. This Constitution doi-s not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies— States in their political cepacity. No coercion is ap- plicable to such bodies but that of an armed force. If we should attempt to e.xecute the laws of tlie Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent State, it would involve the good and bad, the innocent and the guilty, in thesame calamity.'' — 2 EllioVs Debate, p. 199. Can it be imagined that the framers of the Constitution, denouncing as they did the coercion of arms against a .State in the strongest terms, intended that the power to enforce the law? against individuals, through peaceable processes before the ordi- nary magistracy, should be so perverted as to authorize the use of force against States; thus effecting, by fraud and stratagem, that which they openly denounced and solemni}' refused? The very statement of the case confutes the supjiosition. Every argument which had been urged for years against force to coerce States, was as potent under the new Union as the old Confederation. The change from the ac- tion of the laws on Slates to individuals infused, it is true, vast energy into the Government. Under the laws of Congress, the Government may, in aid of civil tribunals, resort to force to suppress insurrections of disorderly* and refractory indi- viduals against its authority. The insurrection niaj- bo wide-spread, embriicing vast massses of individuals; but if the resistance be not organized under the au- thority of a State, it is but an insurrection or rebellion, and may be suppressed by the whole force of the United States. But this power against insurgents was never to be used against States. Our fathers suffered the Confederacy to fall into total impoteney rather than allow mili- tary force against States. To remedy thi.s, they granted, in sid^.^lance, power, civil and military, against individRials ; but never t» be converted into an instrument against the States in the cases which would very rarely occur of active organized resistance by them against the laws of the Federal Union. Mr. Hamilton, in the sixteenth number of the Federalist, denounces the use of military force against the sovereign States of a Confederacy, declares the effect to be civil and bloody wars ; commends the Constitution, on the ground that it carries its agency to the persona of the citizens, and can employ the arm of the ordinary magistracy to exeeute its resolutions; and in answer to the objection that a State, disaffected to the authority 10 of the Union, could at B.'^y time obstruct the execution of its laws, does not recom- mend the employment of force against the State; disapproves of the experiment; but expresses, in substance, that through the concurrence of the majority of the Legislature, of the courts of justice, and of the body of the people, such resistance would meet with success, and, that attempts of the kind would not be often made. In the twenty-eighth number of the Federalist, Mr. Hamilton says: " It may safely be received as an axiom in our political system, that the State Government will, in all possiljle continfjencies, afford complete security against invasions of public liberty by the na- tional authority. Pi'ujecta of usurpation cannot bemasked under pretenses so likely to e.scape the penetration of "select bodies of men, as of the people at lar^e. The Legislature will have better means of information; they can discover the danger at a distance; and possessing all the organs of civil |)<)wer, and the confidence of the people, they can at once adoi)t a regular plan of opposi- tion, in which they can coml>inc all the resources of'the community. They can readily communi- cate wilh each otlier in the ditl'erent States, and unite their common forces for the protection of their common liberty." But, if military force was denied to the old Confederacy for the execution of any of its laws; if the grant for the like purpose was refused under the present Consti- tution ; and if there be no pretext that, under the plea of enforcing laws against individuals, coercion of arms may be employed against a sovereign State, — can there be a shadow of claim in the General Government to coerce a State into submission, that has by solemn ordinance dissolved all connection with the Union, and resumed its separate sovereignty and independence ? The objection to a military force against a State was that it would involve war and bloodshed. If this be valid, even when a State is in the Union, it acquires pro- digious power against any attempt to employ force against a State which has as- sumed separate sovereignty, claiming no advantage from the Union and owing it no duties or obligations. The tiue ground of objection to force against a State is its sovereignty. If this is a consolidated Government, if the States are provinces or departments — if they hold the position to the Union that a district or county does to a State, then the denunciations of military force are unmeaning. England and Scotland were independent kingdoms. They were united into the kingdom of Great Britain. Neither Madison, Hamilton, or any statesman or publicist, would denounce the use of force against Scotland were she to resist the laws of Great Britain or attempt to secede, for the reason tliat Scotland had relinquished her sov- ereign charact'-r, and is but a province or territorial division of the new kingdom. Will any one contend that the States hold tiie relative position to the Union that Scotland does to the kingdom of Great Britain ? Scotland has no independent Legis- lature, no civil state, no control over life, liberty, or property; no reserved powers, as has each State of this Union; and military coercion which may be applied to the first as a rebellious province, a part of a political unity, cannot, at least without express grant, be used against the latter, which is a sovereignty, not a part of a po- litical unity, but a political unit itself, which, with other units, make the multij^le of the Union, or, out of tiie Union, a complete and independent sovereignty. As the question of force against a seceding State depends mainl}' upon the charac- ter of the Government, whether consolidated or a confederation by compact of Bovereign States, and as the sovereignty of the States and the right of secession were never asserted with more felicitj' and cogency than in the resolutions offered by Mr. Randolph, at Charlotte, in 1852, I will read them as a part of my argument : '■'• Resolved, That "Virginia is, and ought to be, a free, sovereign, and independent State ; that she became so by her separate act, which has since been recognized by the civilized world, and has never been disavowed, retracted, or in anywise impaired or weakened by any subsequent act of hers. . ■ ^^He^oloed, That when, for common defence and common welfare, Virginia entered into a strict league o( amity with the other twelve colonies of British North America, she parted with no por- tion of her Hovereirjnty, although, from the necessity of the case, the authority to cnforcii obedience thereto was, in certain cases, and for certain purposes, delegated to the common agents of the whole confederacy.- '■'■Renal eed, Tliat Virginia has never parted with the right to recall the authority so delegated, for good and suflicient eause, nor with the right to judge of the sufficiency of such cause, and to se- cede from the Confederacy whensoever she shall And the benelts of Union exceeded by. its evils — union being the means of securing liberty and happiness, ana not an end to which these should be sacrificed. '■'■Remlved, That the allegiance of the people of Virginia is due to her; that to her their allegi- ance is due, while to them she owes the protection against the consequences of such obedience." In the languge of the resolution, Virginia has not parted with the authority to recall her delegated powers. Siie expressly reserved her right in her act of ratifi- cation, declaring that powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, ■may be reserved by them whenever the same shall 11 be perverted to their injury or oppression, and tliat every power not f^rnnted thereby remains with them, anil ix\ tiicir will. The language is wanting in precision, but its meaning cannot be mistaken. It speaks of tlie people of the United States. Hut as they\lid not eoUectively, or as a political body, grant any powers, so none can be resumed by them. The people of each State granted powers; and they can be resumed only by the people of each State. Virginia was acting for her own people, and could speak only for them. In the nititication by New York, the delegation of power by the people of the State, and their right of resumption, are e.xpressed in terms of great clearness: "That all power is orifjinally vostcl in, and consequently derlverl from, the pcoplo, and that government is instituted by tliem for their common interest, protection, and security. That the powers of Government may be reassunied by tlie people, whensoever it shall become nece»*ary to their liapi)ines8; that every power, jurisdiction, iind ri;;lit, which is not l)y the said constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State governments, to whom they may have granted the same." Khode Island also declared : "That a^l power is naturally vested in, and consequently derived from the people ; that magis- trates, therefore, are their trustees and agents, and at all times amenable to them. That the pow- ers of government may be rednisumed by the i>eo)iile whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness." What would these provisions mean if inserted in the constitution of a State? That the powers of Government could be resumed, but only through war and blood? Certairdy not. They aflirin in Americ»vn political science a recognized, peaceful right of resumption by the people of the several States, the grantors, whether the grant were to the government of the State or the Government of a confederated Republic. Small would have been our advance in the paths of liberty, in vain would the blood of the Revolution have been shed, if this be but the assertion of a right which a down-trodden serf may claim, with a halter round his neck and the gallows as his doom, if his resistance through blood and carnage be unsuccessful. Having established the positions that the States relinquished no portion of sov- ereignty, and that their right to resnme their delegated powers is perfect, the act of secession furnishes no legal or justifiable ground for war against a State by its former confederates. The c< mpact was broken by the North, and it is no cause of hostility that it should now be treated as broken' by the South. We are at pence with all the world, and the separation of one or more States from the Confederaey does not endanger the safety or the existence of others. But admit that secession is rebellion, will you make war on five States, five million people, increased pi'oba- bly to fifteen States and twelve million ? Can you possibly dream of conquest in a war of this character? You cannot employ the forces of the United States unless in aid of judicial processes; and how can these be obtained when among the mil- lions you are attempting to coerce none can be fonnd who would hold office under your Government? But should you disregard the provisions of the Constitution, declare martial law, and attempt to crush out the spirit of liberty, be not deceived with the delusion that you will triumph in this wicked warfare, nor that the war would spend all its furj" in the South. Assaults can be best repelled by assuming the'offensive. If for peace we are to have desolation, the butchery of our finest youths, the mangled limbs of men, the shrieks of the virgin, the smoke and ashes of consumed habitations, think you that these scenes of horror will not be enacted in your opu- lent and magnificent cities, your great towns, and beautiful hamlets? If war should ccme, its ealamities will be inflicted on the whole eountiy, and blood will redden the streams of tlie North as well as South. Let no countenance be given the delusion that slavery is an element of weakness, or that the South would be endangered from slave" insurrections. The heroes and conquering nations of antiquity were slaveholders. I was born in the South, have lived long upon the earth, and have never witnessed even an attempt at an insurrection. Of the rumors of this charac- ter, but very few have any foundation other than the causeless alarm, or, though rarely, a spfrit of mischief. The phantasm that there is no sense of security in the South, is utterly groundless and superlatively absurd. Many of the slaves, raised with their masters, joining with them in all the sports of boyhood, the constant re- cipients of their kindness "in sickness and health, would eagerly sacrifice their livea in their defence. And all of them, regarding their masters very justly as their guardians and protectors, would most willingly encounter danger and render sei^- vice to secure their triumph. But this would not be necessary; the slaves would 12 continue their agricultural labors, while the war would rage in a sphere above them. Thf food and sujiplies of tlie country would thus be constantly produced, while these would be very much endangered in the free-labor sections, where every inhabitant may be dragged from his field to the camp. Such very few insurrections as have occurred, aud the plans of risings that have been detected, have invariably been partial — limited to a neighborhood, county, or small district. The alarms have been partial, aud very quickly subside ; and the idea that the South would be required to employ part of its forces to prevent in- surrection could have originated only in the disordered brain of a fanatic; and I dismiss it as unworthy of consideration. Bad men may attempt excitement, and may create irritation; but they will have no more success in disturbing the loyalty of the slave population than did John Brown in his raid at Harper's Ferry. ^Yhy sliould tliere be war between the United States of the North and the United States of the South. If the United States of Mexico and the States of America now live in peace to the mutual advantage of both countries, why should not the con- federacies that are now springing into life be at peace? The dissolution of this Union is not an end of free Government. Its power gives security and, repose to the people; and this is the cause of their rapid advancement in all the elements of prosperity and greatness. But this development and prosperity will flow on in in- creased volume and gi-andeur under any free Govei-nmeuts strong enough to repel foreign aggression and repress domestic dissension. The two confederacies would, in a few years, be each of them more powerful than the existing Government; and if there be ainity between them, (there being no internal elements of discord in either confederacy,) the progress and improvement of each would attain a height and gi'eatness of which history furnishes no example. I will notice but very briefly the charge of ingratitude against the State of Texas, should she attempt a separation from the United States. It must be remembered that the United States did not, by the annexation of Texas, propose exclusively or mainly the benefit of the latter. The official records show that the honor, peace, and safety of the United States were the principal considerations. Among other proofs of this I refer to the inau- gural message of President Polk. He said: "Noae c.in fail to see the danger to our safety and future peace if Texas remains an independent State, or becomes au ally or dependency of some foreign nation more powerful tlian herself. Is there one among our citizens who would not prefer perpetual peace wUh Texas to occasional wars, which so often occur between bordering independent nations? Is there one who would not prefer free intercourse with her, to high duties on all our products and manufactures which enter I er ports or cross her frontiers? Is there one who would not prefer an unrestricted communication with her citizens, to the iroutier obstructions which must occur if she remaius out of the Union?" I will recur very briefly to the conditions of annexation. The United States de- manded the unconditional surrender of the arms and f(>rts of Texas, and all the means of public defence; although now, when their own arms and foits are in ques- tion, the savage cry of the swarming millions of the North is, "we will have the forts or we will have b!ood." I will not comment on the terms in relation to slavery. The statement of them would be their coudemnatiou. This vast accession to the United States of fertile territory, in a delightful climate, was characterized in the President's message of December 2, 1845, as a "bloodless achievement." The sword had no part, nor did the purse have any in the victory. True, Texas retained her public lands; but those, after the surrender of the reve- nue from customs, was her principal resource for the extinguishment of the sacred debt of the war of independence, and for the support of tiie government and the existence of the Republic. But Texas is charged — at least indirectly — with being the cause of the war with Mexico, with its enormous expenditures of money, and of the blood and lives of thousands who fell upon the battle-field, covered with imperishaVjle honors. Can it be possible that all these vast expenditures were in- curred, that State after State of Mexico was overrun, that its proud Capital was occupied by our victoiious armies — and all this for the defence of Texas, and the integrity of her soil? Let its examine the facts. Mr. Polk, in his message of December, 1846, declares that the war with Mexico was not j)rovoked by the United States; that — "After years of endurance of aggravated and unredressed wrongs on our part, Mexico, in viola- tion of solemn treaty stipulations, and of every principle of justice recognized by civilized nations, commenced hostilities ; and thus, by her own act, forced the war upon us. Long before the advance of our Army, to the left bank of the Eio Grande, we had ample cause of war against Mexico." 18 He presents a gloomy list of the insults and spoliation?, the •wrongs nn.l outrnpeff, coinniilte.l by Mexico Hi;aiiist the citiztMiH of the United Sliites for a I'crio.l of more tlian twentj- years; that if these had been resented, the war woiihl have been avoided; tluit" Mie annexation of Texas was no just cause of ofl'enee to Mexico; that Texas iiad been an independent State for more ihan ten yeais; that tlie threats of Mexico to invade tiie territory of Texas beuanie more iinpo.-inf;^ ns it l)eeame more apparent that Texas would decide in favor of annexation ; tliat it, wouUl have been a violation of good faith to the people of Texas to have refusi.-d aid dtsainst a threat- ened iuua&ion to which they had been exposed by their free detcrmiualion to annex tht'inneli'es to our Union. "The war has not been wascd with a view to conquest; but having been commencefl l)y Mexico, it has been carriuJ into the enemy's country, anil will be vigorously ijrosecuted there, with a view to obtain an honorable peace, and Ihereby to secure an ample indemniti/for t/ie erpeiixefi <arnow exists between our Government and the Govern- ment of Mexico. For many years our citizens have been subjected to rej)ealed insults and injuries, our vessels and cargoes have been seized and confiscattd, our luerchiints have been plinidered, maimed, imprisoned, without cause and without reparation. At length your Government acknowl- edged the justice of our claims, and agreed, by treity, to make salK-fiiction, Ijy payment of several niiliion dollars; but this trealv has been violated by your rulers, and the stipulated payments have been withheld. Our late effort to terminate alldifficulties by peaciful negotiation has been rejected by the Dictator Paredes; and our minister of peace, whom your ruler.-* had agreed to receive, has been refused a hearing. He has been treated with indignity and insult, and Paredes has announced that war exists between us." And here are the purposes for which the war is waged: "We come to obtain reparation for repeated wrongs and injuries; we come to ol)tain indemnity for the past and security for the future." The only indemnity for the long-deferred claims of our citizens, and the reim- bursement of the expenses of the war, was stated in the message of December, 1847, to be a cessiou of a portion of the Territory of Mexico to the United States. That the doctrine of "no territory was no indemnity," and if sanctioned, would be a public acknowledgment that our country was wrong, tliat the war declar<'d by Con- gress with extraordinary unauimitj was unjust, and should be abandoned ; " an ad- mission unfounded in fact, and degrading to the national character." This is an unequivocal acknowledgement, that no matter with what intent Mexico may liave stricken the tirst blow, or in other words, shed "American blood on American soil," yet the United States prosecuted the war to obtain indemnity for the grievous and accumulated wrongs of tlieir citizens. Texas is surely not resjionsible, morally or otherwise, at least to but a limited ex- tent, for the vast expenditures of money, or for the lives of so many valiant and heroic men sacrificed in the prosecution of this war of conquest, to indemnify citi- zens of tiie United Stales, aijd secui'e thera against future wrongs. One effect of the war was to secure Texas against foreign aggression ; and for that she has not been wanting in gratitude. Another result was the cession of New Mexico and California to the UTiited States, or rive hundred and twenty six thousand and seventy eight square miles west of the Rio Grande. Tiie latter, namely, California, has supplied the world with *.500,00<),U')0 of its circulation, all drawn from the rich mineral lands of the United States. If the gold be extracted by squatters without right or title, it is the misfortune of the Government, but does not iiiq)air the value o; the acqui- sition. ■ ' _ , The fortifications and the arms and military stores of the United States in Texas, are too utterly insignificant to deserve notice. Of the more than thirty million dol- lars expended for fortifie;.tions in the United Slates, but sSOi) have been laid out in Texas. There is but a beggarly account of email arms iu the United Slates arsenals 14 in Texas — a few more, perhaps, than five thousand, including the serviceable and unserviceable. The sale, four years after annexation, of a large portion of the territory of Texas to the United States has frequently been made the subject of reproach. The cry that our title was not good, insulting and groundless as it is, lias become stale from repetition. ^ The boundary of Texas, from the mouth of the Rio Grande to its source, was proclaimed b^- Texas from the commencement of her revolution, and was re- cognized in the first law on her statute-book, in ISSG. That this was the boundary of Texas, fixed by legislation, was known to Mexico; it was known to the United States, and to the great Powers of Europe, among whom we took rank as a nation. The war between Texas and Mexico was not about boundary. Mexico claimed the whole country ; and so did Texas ; though during the progress of annexation, Mex- ico proposed to acknowledge the independence of Texas, leaving the boundary to future negotiations. By the articles of annexation, Texas authorized the United States to adjust all questions of boundary that might arise with Mexico. The title of Texas to the whole of her territory was founded upon the sword. She was under no moral, legal, or international obligation to restrict the limits of the Republic to the lines of the old province of Texas; nor did the validity of her title, at least with respect to the United States, depend upon the actual possession and jurisdiction over every foot of her territory. And such was the opinion of the United States in sending troops to the lower Rio Grande. The country in the immediate vicinity of that river had been and was then in the occupation of the Mexican authorities; and all the acts of that de facto Government relative to private rights, up to possession by the American troops, have been recognized by thejudicial tribunals as valid and binding. But yet the United States asserted the right of Texas, and declared that the blood of her soldiers poured out on the battle-fields of Palo Alto and Resaca de la Palma was "American blood shed upon American soil." The United States, from annexation, in 1846, to 1850, recognized the validity of our title to the country east of the upper Rio Grande. Gi-neral Kearny, in taking possession of New Mexico, in August, 1846, speakiqg in the name of his Gove: nment, declared to the people that he considered, and had for some time considered, the country as a part of the territory of the United States. This was an assertion of the title of Texas. It could not possibly have been a part of the United States unless by being a part of Texas. The President, in February, 1847, admitted that the possession of the country by the United States was held in subjerviency to the title of Texas. This will be seen by reference to his-special message of July 24, 1848. Here is the message of Mr. Polk : " Under the circumstances existing din-inR the pcmlency of the war, .and while tlie whole of New Mexico, as claimed by our enemy, was in our military occupation, I was not unmindful of the rights of Texas to that portion of it which she chximed to be within her limits. In answer to a lottf r .from the Governor of Texas, dated on the 4tli of January, 1847, the Secretary of State, by my direction, informed him, in a letter of the 12th of February, 1S47, that, in the President's annual niessa.e of December, 184G, 'you have already perceived that New Mexico is at present in the temporary ocou- F alien of the troops of the United States, and the government over it is military in its character, t is merely such a government as must exist under the laws of nations and of war, to preserve order, and protect the rights of the inhabitants, and will cease on the conclusion of a treaty of peace with Mexico. Nothing, therefore, can be more certain than that this temporary government, result- ing from necessity, can never injuriously aiTect the right which the President believes to be justly asserted by Texas to the whole territory on this aide of the Rio Grande whenever the Mexican claim to it shall have been extinguished to it by treaty. But this is a subject which more properly belonge to the legislative than the executive branch of the Government.' "The result of the whole is, that Texas had asserted a right to that part of New Mexico east of the Rio Grande, which is believed, under the acts of Congress for the annexation and admission of Texas into the Union as a State, and under the constitution and laws of Texas, to bo well founded." Pending the negotiations, Mr. Trist, our commissioner, asserted the obligation of the United States to defend the title of Texas. He said that — "Until ascertained by a compact or agreement between the United States and Mexico, the boun- dary between the two llepublics, when considered with reference to the national obligation to pro- tect their territory from invasion, could be none other than that very boundary which had been asserted by Texas herself." On the 12th of October, 1848, the Secretary of War, Governor Marcy, in bis in- etructions to the commanding officer at Santa Fe, declared that — " In regard to that part of what the Mexicans call New Mexico, lying east of the Rio Grande, the civil authority which Texas has established, or may establish there, is to be respected, and in no manner to be interfered with by the military force in that department, otherwise than to lend aid on proper occasions in enforcing it." 15 These extracts aj-e eviaence of the opinions of the Administration at tlie time of the annexation uf.TcxiiP, that prosecuUHl the war against M.-xic-, noLr-.tialed tUa treaty, an.l had a thorough knowledge uf all -nioi^tions growing out of t he annexa- tion policy and the war with Mcxiro. Hul the im|.ri'gnab!e bar^m of tl.e title ol Texas wa^ that she \v;is admitted as a State witli bovindariea wlueli were not elmnged, modified, or restricted by the treaty witli Mexico; that the boundary of tic Umtea States was so extended as to emUfaee the utmost limits of Texas . <>'• ^''^s^ ^jLf^ the United States became utterly powerless with regard to the ti^le of lexiis ilio boundary of Texas could no more be disturbed by the United Stales than could the boundary of any other State, or of even any foreign nation. It has been settled since the foundation of the (Government that Congress has no power over tlie boun- daries of a State; and the United States admitted the doctrine for years alter the annexation of Texas. The United States was the trustee of Texas in settlii.g the boundary question, and could not have acquired the subject-matter in opposition to the right of the principal. The act would be a fraud ot inelTable baseness, void in all courts and countries where right and equity are recognized. She was in one sense the umpire; and could she end the controversy by tortiously converting tlie property to her own use? , _, ,,, But, notwithstanding the acts and admissions through the four years of Mr. 1 oik a administration, and the indisputable validity of the title of Texas, the succeeding Administration evinced hostility, which culminated in the message of August C, I80O, menacing punishment against all attempts to enforce the laws of Texas; tliat the troops under the command of the State of Texas should be treated as intruders and trespassers, and that the forces of the United States would be employed to coerce a sovereign State, punish her citizens acting in obedience to her eonimand as criminal^ and eject her authorities and laws from a large portion of her prescribed and dehued limits. Under such circumstances, with the ui>liited sword in the onehaud and the purse in the other, the United States proposed a purchase of tlie Territory. Texas was in no condition to accept hostilities. She had, prior to annexation, befen exhausted by the troubles with Mexico and the savage. She was hourly ac- quiring strength by repose and tranquillity. She chose the alternative that truo policy dictated. Peace was everything to her. War would have blasted her pros- perity. She determined to disregard the offensive circumstances ol the proposal to purchase, and accept it as most conducive to her highest interest, and solid and per- manent advantEge. The alternative was painful. The dismemberment of a nation 8 territory iiierces the heart of every citizen. It is never submitted to unless to avoid still greater evil. And shall the United States, who extorted this territory from Texas at almost literally the point of bayonet, in order to conceal the odium of tlie outrai'e, be suffered to pervert the whole transaction, and even invoke sympathy as a purchaser of a defective title? Will the despoiler fill the air with his cries and coni4)laiiits as if he himself liad been the victim? But I forbear. 1 have said etiough to vindieate the title of Texas. And whether her title were good or bad, the Lnited States ought to be forever silent; or if she spoke, to pray that the angel of mercy might expunge the whole act from the pages of history. _ /^ n I have spoken to repel assault; but in no captious or querulous spirit. On the behalf of Texas, I disdain the language of complaint. I vindicate the truth of his- tory ; nothing more. , . Freely, without price, Texas brought an empire to the United States. Her admis- siou wa--> the instrumentality by reason of which there was acquired to the United Sta-es the vast region from the Rio Grande to the Pacific, with its countless mineral, agricultural, and commercial riches. In the wide domain of Texas the Government has constructed no forrs, no court-houses, finished no arsenals, no custom-houses, and stored but a very limited supply of arms. Thirty million people cannot be drawn into war for the defence of any miserable forts on the oast of Texas. We have none. The United States have expended large amounts annually in maintaining the troops in Texas. Troops, in well orgariized military arrangements, are stationed on<|f the frduliers of a country; these frontiers have been desolated by the savage. One hundred lives were sacrificed last year; and within a month or two thirty were massacred with the most shocking barbarities. The troops must be supported, let them be stationed where they wiU. Texas will never forget the benefits she has derived from the Union. She has received none from direct legislation. But she has had peace and tranquillit3\ She has had a sense of security; and she has in- creased from one hundred thousand to six hundred thousand persons, and advanced rapidly in all the elements of wealth and power. Texas appreciated the advantages she derived from Mexico, the immense grants of land, exemption from taxation, tUo 16 • mild adminisfiTk^ion of berlSws. But for cau^s justified by th.e world, Texas was impelled to a separation >and now, on grounds deemed esseiitial*-^o lier security and happiness, she will feel herself constrained to dissolve connection with this Confed- eracy; fling again her glorious and triumphant banner to the breeze, and establish on secure basis the rights, the liberties, and the happiness of her people. X. v'v. , x^-- ^*:^^^.r ^^ A^^ _► ^' ,«* '^*. c° / V* .♦ ^*<.'-?^'*/ %-.fyyA'' *<->»r'> %•■' °=^^9'S' .o"^ I BOOKSINOI^C * .^^ '^ .^