)<^U^ 
 
E 440 riTUTmALITY AXD RIGIITFULXESS OF SECESSIOxN. 
 
 .5 ■ 
 
 .J66 
 
 Copy 1 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. ANDREW JOHNSON- OF TENNESSEE, 
 
 jy/' IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES, 
 
 SyX ON TUESDAY AND WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER IS AND 19, 1S60. 
 / 
 
 The qucsficn pending being i'le Joint Resolution {S. JVo. 48) introduced by Mr. Johnson, 
 on Thursdan the loth of December, l^QQ , proposing amendments to the Constitution of 
 the United States. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, o*"Tennessee. Mr. President, 
 by ibe joint reso'uron now before Tie Senate, 
 tliree amendments to the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted Siates are proposed. One proposes to change 
 the mode of election of President and Vice Presi- 
 dent of the United States from the electoral col- 
 lege to a vote substantially and directly by tiie 
 ])eopie. The second proposes tluitthe Senators of 
 the United Siates shall be elected bv the people, 
 once in six year3. instead of by li>e Legislatures 
 of the respective States. The third provides that 
 the Supreme Court shal' be divided into three 
 classes: the term of the first class to expire 'n 
 four years from the time that the classification is 
 made; of the second class in eight years; and of 
 the third class in twelve years; and as these vacan- 
 cies occu'- they are to be filled by persons chosen, 
 one half from the slave Smtes and the other ha'f 
 tVom the non-slavehoidin^ States, thereby taking 
 the judges o "the Supreme Court, from the respec- 
 tive divisions of the country. 
 
 i\Ir. President, if these amendments had been 
 made, and the Constitution had been in the shape 
 now proposed, 1 think the difficulties that are now 
 upon the country would have been obviated. It 
 would have been required that either the President 
 or the Vice President should be taken from the 
 South, and that would have destroyed, to some ex- 
 tent, the sectional character of our recent election. 
 The next provision of the amendment would re- 
 quire the votes cast for President and Vice Presi- 
 *■ 'nt to be cast by districts; and if we are to take 
 ^^'^'Sji indication the returns to the House of Rep- 
 rest tj^^ypg Qj-j^ majority of twenty-seven against 
 the 11 .filling Administration, it is pretty conclu- 
 sive ^ ' a President differing in politics and sen- 
 ^"^^l\^j\m the one v/ho has been recently elected 
 would li-^^ been chosen. Each district would 
 have vo -rectly for the President and Vice 
 ?' J a ma' United States. The individual 
 having '-^ 'V of the votes in that district 
 
 ■would be cons.' . . i . i 
 
 """ . t as we '^''^ ^^ receiving one electoral 
 ^^^P ^'"o-.-pss H<-'J ^^^ votes for one member 
 spective districts ha if all the votes in the re- 
 
 eiple; 
 
 we s 
 
 hould in' 1 cast on the same prin- 
 xt Congress have a 
 
 i majority of twenty-seven in oppositioi to the 
 incoming i\dministration in the House of Rep- 
 I resentatives; for they would have given us a ma- 
 jority in the electoral colleges. It seems to me, if 
 these propositions were adopted and made a part 
 of the Constitution, that, to a very great extent, 
 the diffculty and complaint that is now manifested 
 in different portions of tlie country would be ob- 
 viated, and especially so with some improvement 
 or modification of the law which provides for the 
 restoration of fugitives from labor. 
 j Ic is not my purpose, sir, to discus's these prop- 
 os ions to amend the Constitution in detail to- 
 day, and 1 shall say but little more in reference 
 to them and to their practical operation; but, as 
 we are now, as it were, involved in revolution, 
 (for there is a revolution, in fact, upon the coun- 
 t-y,) I think it behooves every man, and espe- 
 cially every one occupying a public place, to indi- 
 cate, insome manner, his opinions and sentiments 
 in reference to the questions that agitate and dis- 
 tract the public mind. I shall be frank on this 
 occasion in giving my views and taking my po- 
 sitions, as I have always been upon questions 
 that involve the public interest. I believe it is the 
 imperative duty of Congress to make some effort 
 to save the country from impending dissolution; 
 and he that is unwilling to make an effort to pre- 
 serve the Union, or, in other words, to preserve 
 the Constitution, and the Union as an incident 
 resulting from the preservation of the Constitu- 
 tion, is unworthy of public confidence, and the 
 respect and gratitut'e of the American people. 
 
 In most that I shall say on this occasion, I 
 shall noi differ very csstintially from my southern 
 friends. The difference will consist, as I think, 
 from what I have heard and what I see published 
 in the various [jeriodicals of the day, in the mode 
 and manner by which this great end is to be ac- 
 complished. Some of our southern friends think 
 that secession is the mode by which these ends 
 can be accomplished; that if the Union cannot be 
 preserved in its spirit, by secession they will get 
 those rights secured and perpetuated that they 
 have failed to obtain within the Union. I am 
 opposed to secession. I believe it is no remedy 
 
•S 
 
 V 
 
 for the evils complained of. Instead of acting 
 with that division of mv southern friends who take 
 ground for secession, li shall take other grounds, 
 *ftils I try to accomplish the same end. 
 
 i think that this battle ought to be fought not 
 .<ut3ide, but inside of the Union, and upon the 
 jvUtlenients of (ho Constitution itself. I am un- 
 willing voluntarily tn walk out of the Union which 
 ^.is been the result of a Constitution made by the 
 -)>\triot9 of the Revolution. Th«-y formt-d the Con- 
 stitution; and this Union that is so much spoken 
 of, and which all of us are so desirous to preserve, 
 grows outof the Constitution; and 1 repeat, I am 
 not willing to walk out of a Union growing out 
 of the Constitution, that was formed by the pa- 
 triots and, I may say, the soldiers of the R,evolu- 
 tion. So far as I am concerntd, and I believe I 
 may speak with some degree of confidence for 
 the people of my State, we intend to fight that bat- 
 tle inside and not outside of the Union; and if 
 anybody must go outof the Union, it must be those 
 who violate it. We do not intend to go out. It 
 is our Constitution; it is our Union, growing out 
 of the Constitution; and we do not intend to be 
 driven from it or out of the Union. Those who 
 have violated the Constitution either in the pas- 
 sage of what are denominatid personal liberty 
 bills, or bv their refusal to execute the fugitive 
 slave law— thev having violated the mstrument 
 that binds us together — must go out and not we. 
 I do not think we can ^c> before the country with 
 the same force of position demanding of the North 
 a compliance with the Constitution and all its 
 guarantees, if wt- violate the Constitution by going j 
 out onrselv.'S, that we shall if we stand inside of 
 the Constitution,demandingacompliance with its 
 provisions and its guarantees; or if need be, as I i 
 think it is, to demand additional securities. We i 
 should maki' liiat demand inside of the Constitu- ; 
 tion, and in the manner and mode pointed out by ! 
 the instrument itself. Then we keep ourselves ; 
 in the right; we put our adversary in the wrong; j 
 and though it may take a little longer to accom- 
 plish the end, we take the right means to accom- 
 plish an end that is right in itsflf. 
 
 I know that sometimes we talk about compro- 
 mises. I am not a compromiser, nor a conserva- 
 tive, in the usual acceptation of those terms. I 
 have been generally considered radical, and I do 
 not come forward to-day in anything that I shall 
 say or propose, asking for anything to be done 
 upon the principle of compromise. If we ask for 
 anything, it should be for that which is right and 
 reasonable in itself. It being right, those of whom 
 we ask it, upon the great principle of right, are 
 bound to grant it. Compromisfe! I know in the 
 common acceptation of the-term it is to agree upon 
 certain propositions in which some things are con- 
 ceded on one side and others conceded on the other. 
 I shall go for enactments by Co. , . t-ss or for amend- 
 ments to the Constitution, upon tne principle that 
 they are right and upon no other ground. I am 
 not for compromising right with wrong. If we 
 have no right, we ought not to demand it. If we 
 are in the wrong, they should not grant us what 
 we ask. 1 approach this momentous subject on 
 the great principles of right, asking for nothing 
 and demanding nothing but what is right in itself 
 
 and which every right-minded man and a right- 
 minded community and a right-minded people, 
 who wish the preservation of tlvis Government, 
 will bp disposed to grant. 
 
 In jightiiiglhis battle, I shall do it upon the basis 
 laid dcwn by a portion of the people of my own 
 State, in a lar^i- and very intelligent meeting. A 
 committee of the most intelligent men in the coun- 
 try reported, in thi- shape of resolutions, to this 
 meeting the basis upon which I intend to fight 
 this great battle for our rights. They reported 
 this resolution: 
 
 ^^ Resolved, Tliat we deeply Rvnipathize witti our sister 
 southern Slates, and freely ailinit that there is good cauae 
 lor dissatisfaction and complaint on their part, dm account 
 of the recent election of sectional candidates to the Presl 
 dency and Vice Presidency »t the United States; yet we, 
 as a portion of the people of a ^lavelloldingeomlnUMity,are 
 not tor secedini! or breaking up the union o'" these States 
 until every fair and honorable means iias been exhausted 
 in trying to obtain, on the part of the non-slaveholding 
 States, a compliance with the spirit and letter of the Cnn- 
 stilution and all its guarantees; and when this shall have 
 been done, and the States now in open rebellion against the 
 laws of tile United States, in refusing to execute the fugl 
 tive slave law, shall persist in their present unconstitu- 
 lional course, and tlie Federal Government shall fail or 
 reiUse to execute the laws in good faith, it (the Govern- 
 ment) will not have accomplished the great design of its 
 creation, and will therefore, in fact, be a practical dissolu- 
 tion, ana all the States, as parties, be released from the 
 compact which formed the Union." 
 
 t The people of Tennessee, irrespective of party, 
 igo on and declare further: 
 
 " That in tlie opinion of this meeting no State has the 
 j constitutional right to secede from the Union without the 
 I consent of the other States which ratified the compact. 
 JThe conipacl, when ratified, formed the Union without 
 I making any provision whatever lor its dissolution. It (the 
 ' compact) was adopted by the States in toto and forever, 
 I ' ivithoutiTCscivation or candilinn :" hence a secession of one 
 i or more'Slates from the Union, without the consent of the 
 others ratTfving the compact, would be revolution, leadin; 
 in the endto civil, and perhaps servile war. While we 
 , deny JiM^^ght of ,i State, constitutionally, to secede from 
 ' theUnron, we admit the great and inherent right of revo- 
 lution, abiding and remaining with every people, but a right 
 which should not be exercised, except in extreme cases, 
 and in the last resort, when grievances are without redress, 
 and oppression has become intolerable." 
 
 j They declare further: 
 
 I " That in our opinion, we can more successfhily resist 
 the aggression of Black Kepuhlicanism by remaining within 
 
 I the Union, than we can by guing outof it ; and more espe- 
 cially s<<, while there is a nnjority of both branches in the 
 National Legislature opposul to it, and the Supreme Court 
 of the United Suites is on the side of law and tlie Consti- 
 tution." 
 
 They go on, and declare further: 
 "That we are not willing to abandon our northern friend^' 
 who have stood by the Constitution of the United Stat^ 
 and in standing by it have vindicated our rights, an^ ^ 
 tlieir vindication have been struck down ; and now, i'/i^ 
 extremity, we cannot and will not desert tliem by sec' =' 
 or otherwise breaking up the Union." /' 
 
 This is the basis upon which a portig^ "* 
 people of Tennessee, irrespective ^^f J?^'i,',. f ™" 
 pose to fight this battle. We t;e'i<'v^Jf den v the 
 position is inside of the Union. J^ gj^^j^j^^^ 
 doctrine of secession; we deny tj{|,j,.g^^ ^^_ 
 ,the power, of its own volition, '^Jing j^ ^^ ^^^ 
 the Confederacy. We are noio coerce others 
 [unconstitutional act, to indu^n of the United 
 I to comply with the Con^/^vith the Conslitu- 
 ii States. We prefer comp^ 
 
 >^.,i 
 
tion and fighting our battle, and making our de- 
 mand inside of the Union. 
 
 I know, Mr. President, that there are some who 
 believe — and we see that some of the States are 
 acting on that principle — that a State has the right 
 to secede; that, of its own will, it has a right to 
 withdraw from the Confederacy. I am inclined 
 to think, and I know it is so intact, that in many 
 portions of the country this opinion has resulted 
 from the resolutions of your own State, sir, [Mr. 
 Mason in the chair,] of 1798 and 1799. 1 propose 
 to-day to examine liiat subject, fori know from the 
 examination of it that there has been a false m- 
 pressiori made upon my own mind in reference to 
 tho.se resolutions, and tlie power proposed to be 
 exercised by a State in seceding upon its own will. 
 When we come to examine those resolutions, we 
 find that the third reads as follows: 
 
 "That tliis Assembly doth explii'itly and ppreinptnrily 
 declare that it views Hit: powers ol tlie Federal Goveriiiiiein , 
 ts resultiii!: from llie compact, to which the States are par 
 ties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the iii- 
 Btruinentconstituiiiigthat compact, as no luither valid than 
 tiiey arc authorized by the grunts enumerated in thut com- 
 pact; and that in case of a delibi^iate, palpable, and dan- 
 gerous exercise of other powers, not granted by the said 
 compact, the States who are parties thereto have tlie right, 
 and are in duty bound, to interpose for arresting the progress 
 of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective 
 limits, tlie authorities, riglils, and liberties appertaining lo 
 lUein." • 
 
 The phra.seology of the Kentucky resolutions 
 is somewhat broader and more extensive than that 
 u State, of its own will, has the right to secede or 
 withdraw from the Union. The Kentucky reso- 
 lution goes on to declare that a State has the right 
 to judge of the infraction of the Constitution, as 
 well as the mode and measure of redress. This 
 is what IS declared by that resolution which is 
 rejieated by so many in speeches and j)ublications j 
 inade through the country. Now, letMr. Madison 
 speak for himself as to what he meant by that ; 
 resolution. Mr. Madison, in his report upon 
 those resolutions, goes on and states expressly 
 that in the resolution the word " States" is used, 
 notwithstanding the word " respective" is used. 
 Mr. Madison says: 
 
 " It appears to your committee to be a plain principle, 
 founded iu common sense, illustrated by common prac- 
 tice, and essential to the nature of compacts, that, where ■ 
 resort can be had to no tribunal superior to the authority of ' 
 parties, the parties themselves must be the rigliti'ul judges, 
 in the la;t resort, whether the bargain made has been pur- i 
 sued or violated. The Constitution of the United States 1 
 was formed by the sanction of tlie States, given by each | 
 In its sovereign capacity. It adds to tlie stability and dig- 
 nity, as well as to the authority of the Constitution, that ii. | 
 rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, 
 Uien, being the parties to the constitutional compact, and 
 in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity, that 
 there can be no tribunal above their authority, to decide, 
 in the last resort, whether the compact made by them be ' 
 violated; and, consequently, that, as the parties to it, they j 
 Miust themselves [that is the Stales] decide, in the last re- } 
 sort, such questions as may be of sutfieient magnitude to j 
 require their interposition." 
 
 " The States" is the idea that is kept up through 
 the report. He further remarks: 
 
 " But the resolution has done more than guard against 
 nisconstructicm, by expressly referring to cases of a delih- 
 rate,iialpalile, and dangerous nature. It specifies the ob- 
 ,ect of the interposition, which it contemplates lo be solely 
 Uiat of uresUn; the progress of the evil of usurpation, and 
 
 1 Ol iinintalnlng the authorities, rights, and liberties appor- 
 ' taining to the States, as parties to the Constitution." 
 
 t Now we find, by the examination of this sub- 
 ject, that Mr. Madison, in his report, explains it, 
 and repudiates the idea that a State, as a member 
 of the compact, has a right to judge of an infrac- 
 tion of the Constitu'ion or any other grievance, 
 and, upon its own v. \;tion, withdraw from the 
 Confederacy. I will here read a letter of Mr. 
 Madison to Nicholas P. Trist, in explanation of 
 this very proposition: 
 ' " MoNTPEUER, December 23, 1832. 
 
 " Dear Sir : I have received yours of the 19th. inclosing 
 some South Carolina papers. There are in one of them some 
 interesting views ol the doctrine of secession, among which 
 one that had oo in red to me, and which for the first time 1 
 have seen i i print, namely: that if one State can at will 
 withdraw Irom the others, the others can withdraw from 
 her, and turn her, nolentcm colenlcm, out of the Union. 
 
 " Until of late there is not a Slate that would have ab- 
 horred such a doctrine more than South CJarolina, or more 
 dreaded an application of it to herself. The same may be 
 said of the doctrine ot nullilicaiinn, which she now preaches 
 1 the only doctrine hv wliicli the Union. can be saved. 
 
 '■ . p,:r!ake o!th \ iii.er that the men you name should 
 view seces^iiin in uie light mentioned. Tlie essential ditler- 
 ence between a free Government and a Government not 
 Ire-! is, ihat the former is founded in compact, the parties 
 to \ hicli are mutually and equally bound by it. Neither 
 of III III, therefore, can have a greater right lo break off 
 from ihe bargain tliaii the other or others have to hold him 
 to it; and certainly there is nothing in the Virginia reso 
 lutions of 1798 adverse to this piineiple, which is tliat of 
 common sense and common justice. 
 
 " The fallacy which draws a dirterent conclusion from 
 them lies in ecnifoun i .g a single party with the parties to 
 the constiliuionil compact of the United States. The lat- 
 ter, having made the compact, may do what they will with 
 it. The former; as one of the parties, owes fidelity lo it 
 till released by consent or absolved by an intolerable abu.se 
 of the power cr ^.ted. In the Virginia resolutions and re- 
 port the "' i.i. number (States) is in every instance used 
 wliencv r reference is made to the authority which pre- 
 sided over the Government." 
 
 He says theplural is used; that " States" is the 
 word that is used; and when we turn to the res- 
 olution we find it just as Mr. Mailison represents 
 it, thereby excluding the idea that a State can sep- 
 arately and alone determine the question, and have 
 the right to secede from the Union. 
 
 "As I am now known to have drswn those documents. 
 I may say, as I do with a distinct recollection, tliat it was 
 intentional. It was in fact required by the course of rea- 
 soning employed on the occasion. Tlie Kentucky resolu- 
 tions, being less guarded, have been more easily perverted. 
 The pretext for the liberty taken witii those of Virginia is 
 the word 'respective' prefixed to the ' rights, &.C.' lo be 
 secured within the States. Could the abuse of the expres- 
 sion have been foreseen or suspected, the liirm of it would 
 doubtless have been varied. But what can be more con- 
 sistent with common sense than that all having the rights, 
 &.C., should unite in contending for the security of them to 
 each .' 
 
 " It Is remarkable how closely the nuliifiers, who make 
 the name of Mr Jeft'erson the pedestal for their colossal 
 heresy, shut their eyes and lips whenever his authority is 
 ever so clearly and emphatically against them. You have 
 noticed what he says iu his letters to Monroe and Carring- 
 ton (pp. 43 and 203, vol. 2) with respect to the power of the 
 old Congress to coerce delinquent States ; and his reason 
 for preferring for the purpose a naval to a military force ; 
 and, moreover, his remark that it was not necessary to find 
 a right to coerce in the Federal articles, that being inherent 
 in the nature of a compact. It is high time that the claim 
 to SI cede will should be put down by the public opinion, 
 and 1 am guiu lo see the task commenced by one who under- 
 stands the subject. 
 
 " I know nothing of what Is passing at Richmond more 
 than what Is seen in Uie newspapers. You were right in 
 your foresight of the effect of passages in the late procla- 
 
matlon. They have proven a leaven for much fermenta- 
 tion there, and created an alarm asainstthe danger of con- 
 sol'dat'on balancing that of disuuiuii. 
 "With cordial salutations, 
 
 "JAMES MADISON. 
 •'Nicholas P. Trist." 
 
 I have another letter of Mr. Madison, written 
 in 1833, sustaining and carrying out the same 
 interpretation of the resolutions of 1798 and 1799. 
 I desire to read some extracts from that letter. 
 Mr. Madison says: 
 
 "Much use has been made of the term 'respective' in 
 the third resolution of Virginia, which asserts the right of 
 :he States, in case of sutficient magnitude, to interpose ' for 
 maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, 
 Stc, appertaining to thorn ; the term ' respective'being con- 
 strued to mean a constitutional right in eacli State, sepa- 
 rately, to decide on and resist by force encroachments 
 within its limits. A foresight or apprehension of the mis- 
 construction might easily have guarded against it. But, to 
 say nothingof the distinction between ordinary and extreme 
 cases, it is observable that in this, as in other instances 
 throughout the resolutions, the plural number {States) is 
 used in referring to them; that a concurrence and coopeia- 
 tion of all might well be contempia •! in interpoi;itions for 
 effecting the objects within reach ; and that the laiiguage 
 of the closing resolution corresponds with this view of the 
 third. The course of reasoning in the report on the reso- 
 lutions required the distinction between a State and t'le 
 States. 
 
 " It surely does not follow, from the fact of the Statf s, or 
 rather the people embodied in them, having, as parties to 
 the constitutional compact, no tribunal above them, that 
 in controverted meanings of the compact, a minority of the 
 parties can rightfully decide against the majority, still less 
 that a single party can decide against th(^ rest, and as little 
 that it can at will withdraw itself altogether from its com- 
 pact with the rest. 
 
 " The characteristic distinction between free govern- 
 ments and governments not free, is that the former are 
 founded on compact, not between the governnientand those 
 for whom it acts, but among the parties creating the gov- 
 ernment. Each of these beingequal, neither can have more 
 right to say that the compact has been violated and d' 
 solved than every other has to deny the fact, and to insist 
 on the execution of the bargain. An inference from tlie 
 doctrine that a single State has a right to secede at will 
 from the rest, is that the rest would have an equal right to 
 secede from it; in other words to turn it, against its will, 
 out of its union with them. Such a doctrine would not, 
 till of late, have been palatable anywhere, and nowhere less 
 go than where it is now most contended for." 
 
 When these letters are put together they are 
 clear and conclusive. Take the resolutions; take 
 the report; take Mr. Madison's expositions of 
 them in 1832 and 1833; his letter to Mr. Trist; 
 his letter to Mr. Webster; his letter to Mr. Rives; 
 and when all are summed up, this doctrine of a 
 State, either assuming her highest political atti- 
 tude or otherwise, having the right, of her own 
 will, to dissolve all connection with this Confed- 
 eracy, is an absurdity, and contrary to the plain 
 intent and meaning of the Constitution of the 
 United States. I hold that the Constitution of the 
 United States makes no provision, as said by the 
 President of the United States, for its own de- 
 struction. It makes no provision for breaking 
 up the Government, and no State has the consti- 
 tutional right to secede and withdraw from the 
 Union. 
 
 In July, 1788, when the Constitution of the 
 United States was before the conveimua oi New 
 York for ratification, Mr. Madison was in the city 
 of New York. Mr. Hamilton, who was in the 
 convention, wrote a letter to Mr. Madison to 
 know if Ne^v York could be admitted into the 
 
 Union with certain reservations or conditions. 
 One of those resi'rvations or conditions was, as 
 Mr. Hamilton says in his letter, that they should 
 have the privilege of receding within five or seven 
 years if certain alterations and amendments were 
 not made to the Constitution of the United States. 
 Mr. Madison, in rc-ply to that letter, makes use 
 of the following emphatic language, which still 
 further corroborat(_'S and carries out the idea that 
 the Constitution makes no provision for break- 
 ing up the Government, and that no State has a 
 right to secede. Mr. Madison says: 
 
 " New York, Sunday evening;. 
 " My dear Sir : Yours of yesterday is this instant come 
 to hand; and I have but a few miniUes to answer it. lam 
 sorry that your situation obliges you to listen to proposi- 
 tions of the nature you describe. My opinion is, that a 
 reservation of a right to withdraw if amendments be not 
 decided on under the form of the Constitution within a 
 certain time, is a conditional ratification ; that it does not 
 make New York a member of the new Union, and conse- 
 quently that she could not be received on that plan. Com- 
 pacts must be reciprocal — this principle would not in such 
 a case be preserved. The Constitution requires an adop- 
 tion in toto and/orere?'." 
 
 This is the language of James Madison. 
 
 " It has been so adopted by the other States. An adop- 
 tion for a limited time would be as defective as an adoption 
 of some of the articles only. In short, any coni/iVioii what- 
 ever must vitiate the ratification. What the new Congress, 
 by virtue of the power to admit new States, aiay be aWe and 
 disposed to do in such case, I do not inquire, as I suppose 
 that is not the material point at present, f have not a mo- 
 ment to add more than my fervent wishes for your success 
 and hap|)iness. The idea of reserving a right to withdraw 
 was started at Richmond, and considered as a conditional 
 ratification, which was itself abandoned as worse than a 
 rejection. 
 
 •' Yours, JAMES MADISON, Jr." 
 
 I know it is claimed, and I see it stated in some of 
 the newspapers, that Virginiaand someoftheother 
 States made a reservation, upon the ratification of 
 the Constitution, that certain conditions were an- 
 nexed; that they came in upon certain conditions, 
 and therefore they had a right, in consequence of 
 those conditions, to do this or the other thing. 
 When we examine the journal of the conven- 
 tion, we find that no mention is made of any res- 
 ervation on tiie ratification of the Constitution by 
 the State of Virginia. We find that Mr. Madison 
 says, in his letter to Mr. Hamilton, that this idea 
 was first nfiooted at Richmond, and was aban- 
 doned as worse than a rejection. His letter was 
 written after the ratification of the Constitution 
 of the United States by the State of Virginia: 
 hence he spoke with a knowledge of the fact that 
 no reservation was made: but if it had been made 
 by one of the parties, and not sanctioned by the 
 other parties to the compact, what would it have 
 amounted to.' Then we see that Mr. Madison 
 repudiates the doctrine that a State has the right 
 to secede. We see that his resolutions admit of 
 no such construction. We see that Mr. Madi- 
 son, in his letter to Mr. Hamilton, puts the inter- 
 pretation that this Constitution was adopted in 
 toto a.nd forever, without reservation and without 
 condition. 
 
 I know that the inquiry may be made, how is 
 a State, then, to have redress .' There is but one 
 way, and that is expressed by the people of Ten- 
 j nessee. You have entered into this compact; it 
 I was mutual; it was reciprocal; and you of your 
 
own volition liave no riojht to witlidraw and break 
 the compart, without tJic consent of the other 
 parties. What remedy, then, lias the State ? It 
 has a remedy that remains and abides with every 
 people npon the face of the eaith. When g;riev- 
 ances are witiiout a remedy, or without redress; 
 when oppression becomes intolerable, they have 
 the great, the inherent right of revolution. 
 
 Sir, if the doctrine of secession is to be carried 
 out upon the mere whim of a State, this Govern- 
 ment is at an end. I am as much opposed to a 
 strong, or what may be called by some a consol- 
 idated Government, as it is possible for a man to 
 be; but while I am greatly opposed to that, I want 
 a Government strong enough to preserve its own 
 existence: that will not fall to pieces by its own 
 weight or whi'iiever a little dissatisfaction takes 
 place in one of its members. If the States have 
 the right to secede at will and pleasure, for real 
 or imaginary evils or oppressions, I repeat again, 
 this Goverimient is at an end; it is not stronger 
 than a rope of sand ; its own weight will crumble 
 it to pieces, and it cannot exist. Notwithstanding 
 this doctrine may suit some who are engaged in 
 this perilous and impending crisis that is now 
 ujion us, duty to my country, duty to my State, 
 and duty to my kind, require me to avow a doctrine 
 that I believe will result in the preservation of the 
 Government, and to repudiate one that I believe 
 will result in its overthrow, and the consequent 
 disasters to the people. of the United States. 
 
 If a State can secede at will and pleasure, and 
 this doctrine is maintained, why, I ask, on the 
 other hand, and as Mr. Madison argues in one of 
 his letters, cannot a majority of the States com- 
 bine and reject a State out of the Confederacy.' 
 Have a majority of these States, under the com- 
 pact that they have made with each other, the 
 right to combine and reject any one of the States 
 from the Confederacy .' They have no such right; 
 tlie compact is reciprocal. It was ratified with- 
 out reservation or condition, and it was ratified 
 " in toto and forever;" such is the language of 
 James Madison; and there is but one way to get 
 out of it without the consent of the parties, and 
 that is, by revolution. 
 
 I know that some touch the subject with trem- 
 bling and fear. They say, here is a State that, 
 perhaps by this time, has seceded, or if not, she 
 IS on the road to secession, and we must touch 
 tills subject very delicately; and that if the State 
 secedes, conceding the power of the Constitution 
 to her to secede, you must talk very delicately 
 upon the subject of coercion. I do not believe 
 the Federal Government has the power to coerce 
 a State; for by the eleventh amendment of the 
 Constitution of the United States it is expressly 
 provided that you cannot even put one of the 
 States of this Confederacy before one of the courts 
 of tiie country as a party. As a State, the Fed- 
 eral Government has no power to coerce it; but 
 it is a member of the compact to which it agreed 
 in common with the other States, and this Gov- 
 ernment has the right to pass laws, and to enforce 
 those laws upon individuals within the limits of 
 each State. While the one proposition is clear, 
 "the other is equally so. This Government can, 
 by the Constitution of the country and by the 
 
 laws enacted in conformity with the Constitution 
 operate upon individuals, and has the right ano 
 the power, not to coerce a State, but to enforc 
 and execute the law upon individuals within the 
 limits of a State. 
 
 I know that the term, " to coerce a State," is 
 used in an ad caplandmn manner. It is a sover- 
 eignty that is to be crushed ! How is a State in 
 the Union? Wiuit is her connection with it.' AH 
 the connection she has with the other States is 
 that which is agreed uj)on in the compact between 
 the States. I do not know whether you may con- 
 sider it in the Union or oui of the Union, or 
 whether you simply consider it a connection or a 
 disconnection witli the other States; but to the 
 extent lliat a State nullifies or sets aside any law 
 or any provision of the Constitution, to that ex- 
 tent it has dissolved its connection, and no more. 
 I think the States that have passed their personal 
 liberty bills, in violation of the Constitution of th(j 
 United States, coming in conflict with the fugitive 
 slave law, to that extent have dissolved tlieir con- 
 nection, and to that extent it is revolution. But 
 because some of the free States have passed laws 
 violative of the Constitution; because they have, 
 to some extent, dissolved their connection with 
 this Government, does that justify us of the South 
 in following that bad example? Because they have 
 passed personal liberty bills, and have, to thatex- 
 tent, violated the compact which is reciprocal, 
 shall we turn round, on the other hand, and vio- 
 late the Constitution by coercing them to a com- 
 pliance with it? Will we do so? 
 
 Then I come back to the starting point: let us; 
 stand in the Union and upon the Constitution; 
 and if anybody is to leave this Union, or violate 
 its guarantees, it shall be those who have taken 
 the initiative, and passed their personal liberty 
 bills. I am in the Union, and intend to stay in 
 it. I intend to hold on to the Union, and the 
 •guarantees under which this Union has grown; 
 and I do not intend to be driven from it, nor out 
 of it, by their unconstitutional enactments. 
 
 Then, Mr. President, suppose, for instance, that 
 a fugitive is arrested in the State of Vermont to- 
 morrow, and under the personal liberty bill of that 
 State, or the law — I do not remember its precise 
 title now — which prevents, or is intended to pre- 
 vent, the faithful execution of the fugitive slave 
 law, Vermont undertakes to rescue him, and pre- 
 vent the enforcement of the law: what is it? It is 
 nullification; it is resistance to the laws of the Uni- 
 ted States, made in conformity with the Constitu- 
 tion; it is rebellion; and it is the duty of the Pres- 
 ident of the United States to enforce the law, at 
 all hazards and to the last extremity. And, if 
 the Federal Government fails or refuses to exe- 
 cute the laws made in conformity with the Ccn- 
 stitution, and those States persist in their viol 
 tion and let those unconstitutional acts remai 
 upon their statute-books, and carry them ini 
 practice; if the Government, on the one hand, fail 
 to execute the laws of iho United States, and thosi 
 States, by their enactments, violate them on tht 
 other, the Government is at an end, and the par- 
 ties are all released from the compact. 
 
 Mr. COLLAMER explained that the Vermon; 
 legislation, to which allusion bad been made, wa.^ 
 
6 
 
 anterior to the passage of the fugitive slave law; 
 and besides, the laws of Vermont were referred 
 to a board of revision, by which, as well as by 
 the courts of that State, no enactment would be 
 sanctioned that was in conflict with the Consti- 
 tution of the United States. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. 1 do not think I 
 the honorable Senator's explanation is entirely 
 satisfactory, inasmuch as, though one law was 
 anterior,anotherwas passed in 1858. The Senator 
 is a lawyer; he has presided in the courts of his 
 State; and he has been a long time in the coun- ! 
 cils of the country; and therefore I had reason 
 to expect a direct answer. 
 
 I think it will be determined by the courts and 
 by the judgment of the country, that the acts 
 passed in 1850 and 1858 by the Legislature of' 
 Vermont are a violation, a gross, palpable viola- , 
 tion of the Constitution of the United States. It 
 is clear and conclusive to my mind, that a State 
 passing an unconstitutional net intended to im- 
 
 Eede or lo prevent the execution of a law passed 
 ythe Congress of the United States which is con- i 
 stitutional, is thereby placed, so far as the initia- 
 tive is concerned, in a state of rebellion. It is an 
 open act of nullification. I am not aware that 
 there has been any attempt in Vermont to wrest 
 any persons out of the hands of the officers of the i 
 United States, or to imprison or to fine any per- i 
 son under the operation of this law; but the pas- 
 sage of such an act is to initiate rebellion. I think 
 it comes inconflictdirectly with the spirit and let- 
 ter of the Constitution of the United States, and \ 
 to that extent's an act of nullification, and places ^ 
 the State in open rebellion to the United States. ' 
 I have stated that there is no power conferred ' 
 upon the Congress of the United States, by the : 
 Constitution, to coerce a State in its sovereign ca- 
 pacity; that there is no power on the part of the , 
 Congress of the United States even to bringa State 
 into the supreme tribunal of the country. You 
 cannot put a State at the barof the Supreme Court . 
 of the United States. The Congress of the Uni- 
 ted States has the power to pass laws to operate ^ 
 upon individuals within the limits of a State, by ; 
 which all the functions of this Governmentcan be | 
 executed and carried out; and if Vermont, either] 
 by an act of secession, which I take to be uncon- j 
 stitutional, or without first having seceded from 
 the Union of the States by open force, in con- 
 formity with the laws of the State, should resist! 
 or attempt to resist the execution of the laws of [ 
 the United States, it would be a practical rebel- 
 lion, an overt act; and this Government has the , 
 authority under the Constitution to enforce the 
 laws of the United States, and it has tiie authority 
 to call to its aid such means as are deemed neces- , 
 eary and proper for the execution of the laws, [ 
 even if it were to lead to the calling out of the ' 
 militia, or calling into service the Army and Navy 
 of the United States to execute the laws This 
 principle applies to every State placing herself in , 
 an attitude of opposition to the execution of the , 
 laws of the United States. 
 
 I do not think it necessary, in order to preserve 
 this Union, or to keep a State within its sphere, 
 that the Congress of the United States should ! 
 have the power to coerce a State. All that is ne- • 
 
 cessary is for the Government to have the power 
 to execute and to carry out all the powers con- 
 ferred upon it by the Constitution, whether they 
 apply to the State or otherwise. This, I think, 
 the Government clearly has the power to do; and 
 so long as the Government executes all the laws 
 in good faith, denying the right of a State con- 
 stitutionally to secede, so long the State is in the 
 Union, and subject to all the provisions of the 
 Constitution and the laws passed in conformity 
 with it. For example: the power is conferred on 
 the Federal Government to carry the mails through 
 the several States; to establish post offices and 
 post roads; to establish courts in the respective 
 States; to lay and collect taxes, and so on. The 
 various powers are enumerated, and each and 
 every one of these powers the Federal Govern- 
 ment has the constitutional authority to execute 
 within the limits of the States. It is not an inva- 
 sion of a State for the Federal Government to 
 execute its laws, to take care of its public prop- 
 erty, and to enforce the collection of its revenue; 
 but if, in the execution of the laws; if, in the en- 
 forcement of the Constitution, it meets with resist- 
 ance, it is the duty of the Government, and it has 
 the authority, to put down resistance, and etTect- 
 ually to execute the laws as contemplated by the 
 Constitution of the country. 
 
 But this is a diversion from the line of my 
 argument. I was going on to show that, accord- 
 ing to the opinions of the fathers, not only (^f the 
 country but of the Constitution itself, no State, 
 of its ovn volition, has the right to withdraw from 
 the Confederacyafter having entered into the com- 
 pact. I have referred to the last letter ]Mr. Mad- 
 ison wrote upon this suliject — at least it is the 
 last one that I have been able to find — in which he 
 summed up this subject in a conclusive and mas- 
 terly manner. In his letter to Mr. Webster of 
 March 15, 1833, upon the receipt of Mr. Webster's 
 speech, after the excitement had subsided to some 
 extent and the country had taken its stand, Mr. 
 Madison said: 
 
 " Tlie Constitution of tlie Uiiitcil Slates IjelnfrcstaWiphed 
 by a competent authority, by that of the sovercisrn people 
 of the several f5tates who were parties to it, it remains only 
 to inquire what the Constitution is ; and here it speaks for 
 itself. It organizes a Govennnent into the usual leeislativc, 
 executive, and judiciary departments; invests itwithspeci- 
 i\cS powers, leaving others to the parties to the Constitu 
 tion. It makes the Government, like other Governments, 
 to operate directly on the people; places at its command 
 the needful physical means of executing its powers ; and 
 finally proclaims its supremacy, and that of the laws made 
 in pursuance of it, over the constitutions and laws of the 
 States, the powers of thp Government being exorcised, as 
 in other elective and responsible Governments, under the 
 control of its constituents, people, and the Legislatures of 
 the States, and subject to the revolutionary rights of tlie 
 people in extreme oases. 
 
 "Such Is the Constitution of the United States rfc Jure 
 and ile facto; and the name, whatever It be, that may be 
 given 10 it, can make it nothing more or less than what 
 it is." 
 
 This is clear and conclusive, so far as Mr. Mad- 
 ison goes on the subject. 1 have already shown 
 that in 1789, in making his report upon the Vir- 
 ginia resolutions, he gave the true interpretation 
 to those resolutions, and explair.;d what was 
 meantby the word " respective "before " States." 
 In his letter, in 1832, to Mr. Rives, and in his 
 
letter of 1832, to Mr. Trist, having had lime to 
 reflect on tlie operation of the various provisions 
 of the Constitution upon the couiUry, in the de- 
 cline of life, when he had S(;en the experiment 
 fairly made, when his mind was matured upon 
 every single point and [irovision in tlv Cunstitu- 
 tion, lie, at that late period, sums up the doctrine 
 and comes to the conclusion that I am contending 
 for on the pn^sent occasion. 
 
 In addition to this, Mr. Ji'fferson, who prior 
 to the formation of thf Constitution WHS in Paris, 
 writing letters on the subject of the formation of 
 a stable Government hfre,sawthe trn^at defect in 
 the Federal head under the old Articles of Con- 
 federation, and he pointed with tiieunej-ring finger 
 of phih>sophy and C'Ttainty to what is now in 
 the Constitution, as what was wanting in the old 
 Articles of Confederation. Mr. Jefferson, in his 
 letter to Colonel Monroe, dated Paris, August 11, 
 1786, speaks thus: 
 
 " Therp never will be money In the Treasury till the 
 Conledcraey shows its teeth. The States mu:it see the rod ; 
 perhaps it must he felt hy some one of them. I am per 
 puadeil all of them would rejoice to Bee ever>- one ohlit;ed 
 to furnish its contributions. It is not the difficulty of fur- 
 nishing them whieli beggars the Treasurj', but the fear that 
 others will not furnish as much. Every rational citizen 
 must wish to see an effective instrument of coercion, and 
 should fear to see it on any other element than the water."' 
 
 Here Mr. Jefferson, seeing the difficulty that, 
 under the old Articles of Confederation, the Fed- 
 eral Government had not the power to execute 
 its laws, that it could not collect revenue, points 
 to what should be in the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States when formed. Mr. Jefferson, upon the 
 same idea which was in his inind, and which was 
 afterwards embodied in the Constitution, said, in 
 a letter to E. Carringlon, dated Paris, August 4, 
 1787: 
 
 " I confess I do not jro as far in the reforms thousiht neces- 
 sary, as s<Mne of my correspondents in America ; but if the 
 convention should adopt such propositions, I shall suppose 
 them nece.ssary. My general plan would bo, to make the 
 States one as to ever>"iliina; connected with foreign nations, 
 and several as to ever) thing purely domestic. But, with 
 all the imperfections of our present Government, it is with- 
 out comparison the best existing, or that ever did eiist. 
 Its greatest defect is the imperfect manner in which mat- 
 ters of commerce have been provided for. It has been so 
 often said, as to be generally i)elieved, that Congress have 
 no power by the Confederation to enforce anything — for 
 example, contributions of money. It was not necessary to 
 give them that power expressly ; they have it by the law of j 
 nature. When tiro parties make ii compact, there results to | 
 each a jioicer of compelling the other to execute it." 
 
 If it was not even expressed in the Constitution, | 
 the power to jireserve itself and maintain its au- • 
 thority would be possessed by the Federal Gov- 1 
 eminent upon the great principle that it must have i 
 the power to preserve its own existence. But we I 
 find that, in plain and ex|)ress terms, thisauthority | 
 is delegated. The very powers that Mr. Jeffer- I 
 Bon ])ointed out as being wanting in the old Gov- ■ 
 ernmeiit, under the Articles of Confederation, are 
 granted by the Constitution of the United States 
 10 the present Government by cxjjress delegation. 
 Congress has the power to lay and collect taxes; 
 Congress has the power to pass laws to restore 
 fugitives from labor escaping from one Stale into 
 another; Congress has the power to establish post 
 offices and post roads; Congress has the ppwerto 
 tnutbliiih court! in th» ilitferent Statei; an^ having 
 
 these powers,ithas the authority to do everything 
 necessary to sustain the collection of the revenue, 
 the enforcement of the judicial system, and the 
 carrying of the mails. Because Congress, having 
 the power, undertakes to execute its laws, it will 
 not do to say that the Govennnent is placed in 
 the position of an aggressor. Not so. It is only 
 acting within the scope of the; Constitution, and 
 in compliance with its delegated power.s. But a 
 State that resists the exercis<! oftho.se powers be- 
 comes the aggi'essor, and places itself in a rebel- 
 lious or imllifying attitude. It is the duly of this 
 Government to execute its laws in good faith. 
 Wiien the Federal Government shall fail to exe- 
 cute all the laws that are made in strict conformity 
 with the Constitution, if our sister States shall 
 pass laws violative of that Constitution, and ob- 
 structing the laws of Congress ])assed in conform- 
 ity with it, then, and not till then, will this Gov- 
 ernment have failed to accomplish the great object* 
 of its creation. Then it will be at an end, and 
 all the parties to the compact will be released. 
 
 But I wish to go a little further into the author- 
 ities as to the power of a State to secede frora 
 the Union, and to quote an opinion of Judge Mar- 
 shall, given at a very early day. I know it is 
 very common to denounce him as a Federalist; 
 but I care not where the truth comes from, or 
 where a sound argument may be found to sustain 
 a proposition that is right in itself, I am willing 
 to adopt it; and I have put myself to the trouble 
 to hunt up these unquestionable authorities on 
 this subject, knowing that they would have more 
 influence before the country, and bet\)re my con- 
 stituents, liian anything that I could say. Though 
 I am not a lawyer, though I have not made the 
 legal profession my study and my pursuit, 1 claim 
 to have some little common sense and understand- 
 ing as to the application of general principles. I 
 find that Judge iVIarshall, in speaking on the ques- 
 tion of the right of a State upon its own volition 
 logo out of the Confederacy, in the case of Co- 
 hans vs. Virginia, said: 
 
 '' It i^ very true, that whenever hostility to the existlnf 
 system shall become universal" — 
 
 That is, the system of our Government — 
 " It will be also Irresistible. The people made the Consti- 
 tution, and tlie people can unmake it." 
 
 I care not whether he speaks here of the people 
 in the aggregate or not. The application of the 
 principle is just as clear, whether you say the 
 people, through the States, made the Constitu- 
 tion, or leave out the qualifying words " through 
 the States." 
 
 " It is the creature of their will, and lives only by their 
 will. But this supreme and irresistible power to make and 
 unmake resides only in the whole body of the people; not 
 in any subdivision of them. The attempt of any of the 
 parts to exercise it is usur]>ation, and ouilit to be repelled 
 by those to whom the people have delei;ated their power 
 of repelling it." — IVheaton's Reports, vol. 6, p. 389. 
 
 Now, whether you apply that, in a general 
 sense, to the people in the aggregate, or to the 
 States occupying the same relation to the Federal 
 Government that the people do to the States, the 
 principle is just the same; and when yon speak of 
 States ratifying and making the Constitution of 
 the United States, one State, an ingredii-nt— one 
 of the oommuQiljT th»i madt* the Co^UluUon— 
 
8 
 
 has no right, without the consent of the other | 
 States, to withdraw from the compact, and set the j 
 Constitution at naught. It is the principle that I 
 seek; and the principle applies as well to a com- i 
 munity of States as it does to a community of in- ' 
 dividuals. Admitting that this Federal Govern- | 
 ment was made by a community of States, can 
 one of that community of States, of its own will, 
 without the consent of the rest, where the compact 
 is recijirocal, set it aside, and withdraw itself from 
 the operation of the Government? I have given 
 you the opinion of Judge Marshall, one of the 
 most distinguished jurists that ever presided in 
 this country, though he is called by some a Fed- 
 eralist. His mind was clear; he lived in that day 
 when the Constitution should be understood, and 
 when it was understood — in the days of Mndison 
 and Jefferson; and this is his opinion upon that 
 subject, as far back as 1821. 
 
 In this connection, I would call the attention of 
 the Senate to General Jackson's views upon this 
 subject; and I would also call their attention to 
 Mr. Webster's views, if it were necessary, for 
 he is conceded, by some at least, lo be one o.' the 
 most able expounders of the Constitution of the 
 United States. General Jackson , though not cel- 
 ebrated for his legal attainments, was celebrated 
 for his sagacity, his strong common sense, his 
 great intuitive power of reaching correct conclu- 
 sions, and understanding correc. principles. In 
 1833, General Jackson, in his proclamation, takes 
 identically the same ground; and declares that, 
 first, a State has no power of itself to nullify a 
 law of Congress within its limits; and next, that 
 notwithstanding a State may claim to hav-e se- 
 ceded, it has no constitutional power to withdraw 
 itself from the Union of the States, and thereby 
 set at naught the laws and the Constitution. He 
 argues this question forcibly and clearly; and 
 comes to the unerring conclusion, according to- 
 my judgment, that no State has the constitutional 
 power to withdraw itself from this Confederacy 
 without the consent of the other States; and it 
 may do good to reproduce his views on the sub- 
 ject. He says, in his famous proclamation, speak- 
 ing of the nul'ification ordinance of South Car- 
 olina: 
 
 " And whereas the said ordinance prescribes to the peo- 
 ple of South (Carolina a course of conduct in direct viola- 
 tion of theirdutyas citizens of tlie United States, contrary 
 to the laws of their counti-y, subversive of its Constitution, 
 and having for its object the df^struction of the Union — 
 that Union wliich, coeval with our political existence, led 
 ourfathers, without any otlier ties to unite them than those 
 of patriotism and a common cause, tliroui.;li a sanguinary 
 struggle to a HJorious independence — that sacred Union, 
 hitherto inviolate, which, perfected by our happy Consti- 
 tution, has brouelit us, by the favor of Heaven, to a state 
 of prosperity at home, and high consideration al)road, rarely, 
 if ever, equaled in the history of nations. 'J'o preserve 
 this bond of our political existence from destruction ; to 
 maintain inviolate this state of national honor and pros- 
 perity, and to justify the confidence my fellow-citizens 
 have reposed in me, 1, Andrew Jackson, President of the 
 United States, liave thought proper to issue this my procla- 
 mation, stating my views of the Constitution and the laws 
 applicable to the measures adopted by the convention of 
 South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth to 
 eustain them, declaring Ui ■ course which duty will require 
 me to pursue, and, ap|)e,iliMg to the understanding and pa- 
 triotism of the people, warn them of the consequences that 
 must inevitably result from an observance of the dictates 
 of the convention." 
 
 He argues the question at length: 
 
 " This right to secede is deduced fiom the nature of the 
 Constitution, which, they say, is a compact between sov- 
 ereign States, who have preserved their whole sovereignty, 
 and therefore are subject to no superior ; that because they 
 made the compact they can break it when, in their opinion, 
 it has been departed from by the other States. Fallacious 
 as this course of reasoning' is, it enlists State pride, and 
 finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those w!io have 
 not studied the nature of our Government sufficiently to 
 see the radical error on which it rests." * * * 
 
 •' The people of the United States formed the Constitu- 
 tion, acting through the State Legislatures in making the 
 compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in 
 separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; 
 but the terms used in its construction show it to be a Gov- 
 ernment in which tiie people of all the States collectively 
 are represented. We are one people in the choice of the 
 President and Vice President. Hence the States have no 
 other agency than to direct the mode in which the votes 
 shall be given. The can<lidates having the majority of all 
 the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of the 
 States may have given their votes for one candidate, ard 
 yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and not 
 the States, are represented in the executive branch." 
 
 "The Co"stitulion of the United States, then, forms a 
 Government, not a league; and whether it be formed by 
 compact between the States, or in any other manner, its 
 character is the same. It is a Government in which all the 
 people are represented; which operates directly on the 
 people individually, not upon the States— they retained all 
 the power they did not grant. But each State having ex- 
 pressly parted will so many powers as to constitute, jointly 
 with the other States, a single nation, cannot, from that 
 period, possess any riyiit to secede; because such secession 
 does not break a league but destroys the unity of a nation ; 
 and any injury to that unity is not only a breach, which 
 would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is 
 an otfensc against the whole Union. To say that any State 
 may, at pleasure, secede Irom the Union, is to say that the 
 United States are not a nation ; because it would be a sole- 
 cism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its 
 connection with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, 
 without committing any (/ffense. Secession, like any other 
 revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extrem- 
 ity of oppression ; but to call it a constitutional right, is 
 confounding the mi'aning of terms, and can only be done 
 through gross error, or to deceive those who jrre willing to 
 assert a right but would pause before they made r revolu- 
 tion, or incurred the penalties consequent on a failure. 
 
 •' Because the Union was formed by compact, it is said 
 the parties to that compact may. when they feel themselves 
 aggrieved, depart from it ; but it is precisely because it is 
 a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement 
 or binding oliligtition. It may by its terms have a sanction 
 or pr-nnlty for its hrepeh, or it may not. If it contains no 
 sanction, it may be broken, with no other consequence than 
 moral guilt; if it have a sanction, then the breach insures 
 the designated or implied penalty. A league between in- 
 dependent nations, generally, has no sanction other than a 
 moral one ; or if it should contain a penalty, as there is no 
 common superior, it cannot be enforced. A Government, 
 on the contrary, always has a sanction expressed or im- 
 plied; and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and 
 expressly given. An attempt, by force of arms, to destroy 
 a Government, is an oft'ense by whatever means the con- 
 stitutional compact may have been forund, and such Gov- 
 ernmi'nt has the rinlil. by the law of seif-dcfcnse, to pass 
 acts for punishing llii^ ntlender, unh'ss that right isiyodificd, 
 restrained, or resumed by the constitutional act. In our 
 system, although it is modified in the case of trea.son, yet 
 autliority is expressly given to p,;ss all laws necessary lo 
 carry its poviers into effect, and under this grant, provision 
 has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due 
 administration of the laws.'- * * i it \i 
 
 treats, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sover- 
 eignty of the .States, and on their having formed, in this 
 sovereign capacity, a compact which is called the Consti- 
 tution, from which, because they made it, they have the 
 right 10 secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and 
 some of the arguments to prove them so, have been anti- 
 cipated. 
 , " The States, severally, have not retained their entire 
 sovereignty. It has been siiown that in becoming parts of 
 
9 
 
 a nation, not members of a league, they siirremli'red many 
 of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make 
 treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judi- 
 cial and lesislativ.^ powtrs, were all of them functions of 
 sovereisn power. Tlic States, then. for all these purposes, 
 were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of theircitizeiis 
 was transferred, in the first instance, to the Government of 
 tlie United States: they became American citizens, and 
 owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, 
 and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested 
 in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot 
 be, denied. How, tlien, can that State be said to be sov- 
 ereign and independent wliosi! citizens owe obedience to 
 laws not made bv it, and whose magistrates are sworn to 
 disregard tliose laws when they come in conflict witli those 
 passed by another? What shows conclusively that the 
 States cannot he said to have reserved an undivided sov- 
 ereigntv is, that thev expressly ceded the right to punish 
 treason', not treason against their separate power, but trea- 
 son against the United States. Treason is an oliense against 
 sovereignty, an<l sovereigiitv must reside with the powcrto 
 punish it. Uut the reserved rights of the States are not 
 loss sacred because they have, for their common interest, 
 made the General Government t!ie depository of those 
 powers." ******** 
 
 " So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, 
 that it is necessary onlv to allude to them. The Union was 
 formed lor the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual 
 sacrifices of interest and opinions. Can tliese sacrifices be 
 recalled.' Can the States, who magnanimously surrendered 
 their title to the territories of the West, recall the grant ? 
 Will the inhabitants of tlie inland States agree to pay tlie 
 duties that may be imposed witliont tlicir assent by those 
 on the Atlantic or the Gulf for their own benefit.' Shall 
 there be a free port in one Slate, and onerous duties in an- 
 other.' No man believes that any right exists in a single 
 State to involve all the others in tliese and countless other 
 evils, contrary to the engagement solemnly made. Every 
 one must see that the orher States, in self-defense, must 
 oppose it at all hazards." 
 
 Having traveled thus far, the qtiestion arises, 
 in what sense are we to construe the Constitution 
 of the United States .' I assume what is assumed 
 in one of Mr. Madison's letters, tliat.the Consti- 
 tution was formed for perpetuity, that it never 
 was iiuended to be broken up. It was commenced, 
 it is true, as an experiment; but the founders of 
 the Constitution intended that this exi)eriment 
 should g;o on; and by way of makina; it perpetual, 
 they provided for its amendment. Tliey provided 
 that this instrument could be amended and im- 
 proved, from time to time, as the changing cir- 
 cumstances, as the changing pursuits, as the 
 changing notions of men might require; but they 
 made no provision whatever for its destruction. 
 The old Articles of Confederation were formed for 
 the purpose of making " a perpetual union." In 
 1787, wiuui the convention concluded their delilj- 
 erationy and adopted the Constitution, what do 
 they say in the very jireainblo of tiiat Constitu- 
 tion.' Having in their mind the idea that was 
 eliadowed forth in the old Articles of Confedera- 
 tion, that the Union was to be perpetual, they 
 say, at the commencement, that it is to make " a 
 more perfect union" than the union under the old 
 Articles of Confederation, which they called " per- 
 petual." 
 
 What furthermore do we find .' The Constitu- 
 tion of the United States contains a provision 
 that it is to be submitted to the Suates respect- 
 ively for their ratification; baton nine States rati- 
 fiying it, it shall be the Constitution for them. In 
 that way the Government was created; and in 
 that way provision was made to perfect it. What 
 more do we find.- The Constitution, as I have 
 just remarked, provides for its own amendment, 
 
 its improvement, its perpetuation, its continu- 
 ance, by pointing out and by prescribing the 
 mode and manner in which improvements shall 
 be made. That .still preserves the idea that it is 
 to be perpetual. We find, in addition, aprovision 
 that Congress shall have power to admit now 
 Slates. 
 
 Hence, in traveling along through the instru- 
 ment, we find how t)ie Government is created, 
 how it is to be perpetuated, and how it may be 
 enlarged in reference to the number of States con- 
 stitutmg the Confederacy; but do we find any 
 provision for winding it up, except on that great 
 inherent principle that it may be wound top by 
 the States — not by a State, but by the Suites 
 which spoke it into existence — and by no other 
 means. That is a means of taking down the 
 Go%'ernment that the Constitution could not pro- 
 vide for. It is above the Constitution; it is be- 
 yond any provision that can be made by mortal 
 man. 
 
 Now, to expose the absurdity of the pretension 
 that there is a right to secede, let me press this 
 argument a little further. The Constitution has 
 been formed; it has been made perfect, or, in other 
 words, means have been provided by which it 
 can be made perfect. It was intended to be per- 
 petual. In reference to the execution of the laws 
 under it, what do we find.' As early as 1795, 
 Congress passed an excise law, taxing distilleries 
 throughout the country, and what were called 
 the wliisky boys of Pennsylvania resisted the 
 law. The Government v/anted means. It taxed 
 distilleries. The people of Pennsylvania resisted^ 
 it. What is the diflercnce between a portion of 
 the people resisting a constitutional law, and all 
 of the people of a State doing so? But because 
 you can apply the term coercion in one case to a 
 State, and m the other call it simply the execu- 
 tion of the law against individuals, you say there 
 is a great distinction ! We do not assume tho 
 power to coerce a State, but we assurne that Con- 
 gress has power to lay and collect taxes, and Con- 
 gress has the right to enforce that law when ob- 
 structions and impediments are opposed to its 
 enforcement. The people of Pennsylvania did 
 object; they did resist and oppose the legal au- 
 thorities of the country. Was that law enforced ? 
 Was it called coercion at that day to enforce it.' 
 Suppose all the people of the State of Pennsyl- 
 vania had resisted: would not the law have ap- 
 plied with just the same force, and would it not 
 have been just as constitutional to execute it 
 against all the people of the State, as it was to 
 execute it upon a part of their citizens.' 
 
 George Washington, in his next annual mes- 
 sage to the Congress of the United States, referred 
 to'the subject; and it will be seen what George 
 Washington considered to be his duty in the ex- 
 ecution of the laws of the United States upon 
 the citizens of the States: 
 
 " Thus the painful alternative could not be discarded. I 
 ordered the militia to march, alter once more ndmonishing 
 the insurgents, iu my proclamation of the 25tU of Septem- 
 ber laift. 
 
 " It was a task too difficult, to ascertain wltli precision 
 the lowest degree of force competent to the quelling of the 
 insurrection. From a respect, indeed, to economy, and the 
 ease of my fellow-citizt;4id belonging to the niilitla, U would 
 
10 
 
 bave gratified me to accompUsh such an estimate. My very 
 reluctance to ascribe too much importance to the opposi- 
 tion, had its extent been accurately seen, would have been 
 n decided Inducement to the smallest efficient numbers. 
 In this uncertainty, therefore, I put in motion fifteen thou- 
 sand men, as being an army which, according to all human 
 calculation, would be prompt and adequatt; in every view, 
 and jnight, perhaps, by rendering resistance desperate, pre- 
 vent the eftusion of blood. Quotas liad been assigned to 
 the States of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Maryland, and 
 Virginia ; the Governor of Pennsylvania having declared, 
 on this occasion, an opinion which Justified a requisition 
 to the other States. 
 
 " As commander-in-chief of the militia, when called into 
 the actual service of the United States, I liave visited the 
 places of general rendezvous, to obtain more exact inform- 
 ation, and to direct a plan for ulterior movements. Had 
 there been room for persuasion that the laws were secure 
 from obstruction ; that the civil magistrate vi-as able to bring 
 to justice such of the most culpable as have not embraced 
 the profl'ered terms of amnesty, and may be deemed fit ob- 
 jects of example; that the friends to peace and good gov- 
 ernment were notiin need of that aid andcountenance which 
 they ought always to receive, and, I trust, ever will receive, 
 against the vicious and turbulent ; I should have caught 
 with avidity the opportunity of restoring the militia to their 
 families and homes. But succeeding intelligence has tended 
 to manifest the necessity of what has been done ; it being 
 now confessed by those who were not inclined to exagger- 
 ate the ill conduct of the insurgents, that their malevolence 
 was not pointed merely to a particular law, but that a spirit 
 inimical to all order has actuated many of the ofl'enders. 
 If the state of things had aflbrded reason for the continu- 
 ance of my presence with the Army, it would not have 
 been withholden. But every appearance assuringsuch an 
 Issue as will redound to the reputation and strength of the 
 United States, I have judged it most proper to resume my 
 duties at the seat of Government, leaving the chief com- 
 iniind with the Governor of Virginia." * * * " 
 
 " While there is cause to lament thatoccurrencesof this 
 nature should have disgraced the name or interrupted the 
 tranquillity of any part of our community, or should have 
 diverted to anew application any portion of the public re- 
 sources, there are not wanting real and substantial consola- 
 tions for the misfortune. It has den)onstrated that our pros- 
 perity rests on solid foundations, by furnishing an additional 
 proof that my fellow-citizens understand the true principles 
 of Government and liberty ; that they feel their inseparable 
 union; that, notwithstanding all the devices which have 
 been used to sway them from their interest and duty, they 
 are now as ready to maintain the authority of the laws 
 against licentious invasions as they were to defend their 
 rights against usurpation. It has been a spectacle, display- 
 ing to the highest advantage the value of republican Gov- 
 ernment, to "behold the most and the least wealthy of our 
 citizens standing in the same ranks as private soldiers, pre- 
 eminently distinguished by being the army of the Consti- 
 tution, undeterred by a march of three hundred miles over 
 rugged mountains, by the approach of an inclement season, 
 or by any other discouragement. Noroughtl to omittoac- 
 knowledge the eflicacious and patriotic cooperation which 
 I have experienced from the Chief Magistrates of the States 
 to which my requisitions have been addressed." — Ameri- 
 can State Papers — Miscellaneous, vol. 1., p. 85. 
 
 President Washington thought there was power 
 In this Government to execute its laws; he con- 
 sidered the militia the army of the Constitution; 
 and he refers to this Union as being inseparable. 
 This is the way that the laws were executed by the 
 Father of his Country, the man who sat as president 
 of the convention thalmade the Constitution. Here 
 was resistance interposed — opposition to the exe- 
 cution of the laws ; and George Washington , then 
 President of the United States, went in person at 
 tlie head of the militia; and it showed his saga- 
 city, h\n correct comprehension of men, and the 
 effect that an immediate movement of that kind 
 would have upon them. He ordered fifteen thou- 
 sand of his countrymen to the scene of action, 
 and went there in person, and stayed there till he 
 was satisfied that the insubordination was quelled . 
 
 That is the manner in which George Washing- 
 ton put down rebellion. That is the manner in 
 which he executed the laws. 
 
 Here, then, we find General Washington exe- 
 cuting the law, in 1795, against a portion of the 
 citizens of Pennsylvania who rebelled; and, I re- 
 peat the question, where is the difference between 
 executing the law upon a part and upon the 
 whole .' Suppose the whole of Pennsylvania had 
 rebelled and resisted the excise law; had refused 
 to pay taxes on distilleries: was it not as compe- 
 tent and as constitutional for General Washing- 
 ton to have executed the law against the whole 
 as against a part? Is there any difference.' Gov- 
 ernmental afiairs must be practical as well as our 
 own domestic affairs. You may make nice meta- 
 physical distinctions between the practical oper- 
 ations of Government and its theory; you may 
 refine upon what is a State, and point out a differ- 
 ence between a State and a portion of a State ; but 
 what is it when you reduce it to practical opera- 
 tion, and square it by common sense .' 
 
 In 1832, resistance was interposed to laws of 
 the United States in another State. An ordinance 
 was passed by South Carolina, assuming to act as 
 a sovereign State, to nullify a law of the United 
 States. In 1833, tlie distinguished man who filled 
 the executive chair, who now lies in his silent 
 grave,lovedandrespectedforhi3 virtue, hishonor, 
 his integrity, his patriotism, his undoubted cour- 
 age, and his devotion to his kind, with an eye 
 single to the promotion of his country's best in- 
 terests, issued the proclamation extracts from 
 which I have already presented. He was sworn 
 to support the Constitution, and to see that the 
 laws were foithfuUy executed; and he fulfilled 
 the obligation. He took all the steps necessary 
 to secure the execution of the law, and he would 
 have executed it by the power of the Government 
 if the point of time had arrived when it was ne- 
 cessary to resort to power. We can see that ho 
 acted upon similar principles to those acted upon 
 by General Washington. He took the precau- 
 tion of ordering a force there sufficient for the pu r- 
 pose of enabling him to say effectually to the rebel- 
 lious, and those who were interposing opposition 
 to the execution of the laws: "The laws which 
 we made according to the Constitution, the laws 
 that provide for the collection of the revenue to 
 sustain this Government, must be enforced, and 
 the revenue must be collected. It is a part of 
 the com]iact; it is a part of the engagement you 
 have undertaken to perform, and you of your 
 own will have no power or authority to set it 
 aside." The duties were collected; the law was 
 enforced; and the Government went on. In his 
 proclamation, he made a powerful appeal. Ho 
 told them what would be done; and it would have 
 been done, as certain as God rules on high, if the 
 time had arrived which made it necessary. 
 
 Then we see where General Washington stood, 
 and where General Jackson stood. Now, how 
 does the present case stand .' The time has come 
 when men should speak out. Duties are mine; 
 consequences are God's. I intend to discharge 
 my duty, and I intend to avow my understanding 
 of the Constitution and the laws of the country. 
 ! Have we no authority or power to execute the 
 
11 
 
 laws in the State of South Carolina as well as in 
 Vermont and Pennsylvania? I think we have. 
 As 1 before said, although a State may, by an 
 ordinance, or by a resolve, or by an act of any 
 other kind, declare that they absolve their citizens 
 from all allegiance to this Government, it does 
 not release them from the compact. The com- 
 pact is reciprocal-, and they, in coming into it, 
 undertook to perform certain duties and abide by 
 the laws made in conformity with the compact. 
 Now, sir, what is the Government to do in South 
 Carolina .' If South Carolina undertakes to drive 
 the Federal courts out of that State, the Fed- 
 eral Government has the right to hold those 
 courts there. She may attempt to exclude the 
 mails, yet the Federal Goverinnent has the right 
 to establish post offices and post roads and to 
 carry the mails there. She may resist the collec- 
 tion of revenue at Charleston, or any other point 
 that the Government has provided tor its collec- 
 tion; but the Government has the right to collect 
 it and to enforce the law. She may undertake 
 to take pctssession of the property belonging to 
 the Government which was originally ceded by 
 the State, but the Federal Government has the 
 right to provide the means for retaining posses- 
 sion of that property. If she makes an advance 
 either to dispossess the Government of that which 
 it has purchased, or to resist the execution of the 
 revenue laws, or of our judicial system, or the 
 carrying of the mails, or the exercise of any other 
 power conferred on the Federal Government, she 
 puts herself in the wrong, and it will be the duty 
 of the Government to see that the laws are faith- 
 fully executed. By reference to the records, it 
 will be seen that, on 
 
 "Decemberig, 1805, SoiitliCarollnii granted all therl^lit, 
 title, and claim of the State to all tlie lands reserved for 
 Fort Moultrie, on Sullivan's Island, not exceeding five 
 acres, with all the forts, fortifications, £10., thereon ; canal, 
 &.C.; Uie higli lands, and part of the marsh, belonging to 
 Fort Johnson, not exceeding twenty acres; the land on 
 which Fort Pinckney is built, and three acres around it ; a 
 portion of the sandbank on the southeasternniost point of 
 Charleston, not exceeding two acres ; not exceeding four 
 acres for a battery, or fort, &c.. on BIythe's Point, at the 
 mouth of Sanipit river; Mustaid Island, in Beaufort river, 
 opposite Parris's Island; not exceeding seven acres of land 
 on St. Helena Island, for a principal fort ; the whole on 
 condition that the United States should, within three years, 
 repair forts, &.c. ; the United States t<» compensate indi- 
 viduals for property; the lands, &.C., to be free from taxes 
 to the State." 
 
 Here is a clear deed of cession. The Federal 
 Government has complied with all the conditions, 
 and has, in its own right, the land on which these 
 forts are constructed. The conditions of the ces- 
 sion have been complied with; and the Govern- 
 ment has had possession from that period to the 
 present time. There are its forts; there is its 
 arsenal; there are its dock-yards; there is the 
 property of the Government; and now, under the 
 Constitution, and under the laws made in pursu- 
 ance thereof, has South Carolina the authority 
 and the right to expel the Federal Government 
 from its own property that has been given to it 
 by her own act, and of which it is now in pos- 
 session ? By resisting the execution of the laws; 
 by atteiTtpting to dispossess the Federal Govern- 
 ment, docs she not put herself in the wrong.? 
 Does she not violate the laws of the United States ? 
 
 Docs she not violate the Constitution ? Does she 
 not put herself, within the meaning and purview 
 of the Constitution, in the attitude of levying war 
 against the United States ? The Constitution de- 
 fines and declares what is treason. Let us talk 
 about things by their right names. I know that 
 some hotspur or madcap may declare that these 
 are not times for a government of law; that we 
 are in a revolution. I know that Patrick Henry 
 once said, " if this be treason, make the most of 
 it." If anything can be treason in the scope and 
 purview of the Constitution, is not levying war 
 upon the United States treason.' Is not an at- 
 tempt to take its property treason .' Is not an 
 attempt to expel its soldiers treason ? Is not an 
 attempt to resist the collection of the revenue, or 
 to expel your mails, or to drive your courts from 
 her borders, treason.' Are not these powers clearly 
 conferred in the Constitution on the Federal Gov- 
 ernment to be exercised ? What is it, then, I ask 
 in the name of the Constitution, in the meaning 
 of the term as there defined? It is treason, and 
 nothing but treason; and if one State, upon its 
 own volition, can go out of this Confederacy with- 
 out regard to the effect it is to have upon tho 
 remaining parties to the compact, what is your 
 Government worth? What will it come to ? In 
 what will it end? It is no Government at all 
 upon such a construction. 
 
 But it is declared and assumed that, if a State 
 secedes, she is no longer a member of the Union, 
 and that, therefore, the laws and the Constitution 
 of the United States are no longer operative within 
 her limits, and she is not guilty if she violates 
 them. This is a matter of opinion. I have tried to 
 show, from the origin of the Government down to 
 the present time,what this doctrine of secession is, 
 and there is but one concurring and unerring con- 
 clusion reached by all the great and distinguished 
 men of the country. Madison, who is called the 
 Father of the Constitution, denies the doctrine. 
 Washington, who was the Father of his Country, 
 denies the doctrine. Jefferson, Jackson, Clay, 
 and Webster, all deny the doctrine; and yet all 
 at once it is discovered and ascertained that a 
 State, of its own volition, can go out of this Con- 
 federacy, without regard to consequences, without 
 regard to the injiu-y and woe that may be inflicted 
 on the remaining members from the act! 
 
 Suppose this doctrine to be true, Mr. President, 
 that a State can withdraw from this Confederacy; 
 and suppose South Carolina has seceded, and is 
 now out of the Confederacy: in what an attitude 
 does she place herself? There might be circum- 
 stances under which the States ratifying the com- 
 pact might tolerate the secession of a State, she 
 taking the consequences of the act. But there 
 might be other circumstances under which the 
 States could not allow one to secede. Why do I 
 say so ? Some suppose — and it is a well-founded 
 supposition — that by the secession of a State all 
 the remaining States might be involved in disas- 
 trous consequences; they might be involved in 
 war; and by the secession ot one State, the ex- 
 istence of the remaining States mijjht be involved. 
 Then, without regard to the Constitution, dare the 
 other States permit one to secede when it endan- 
 gers and involves all the remaining States ? The 
 
12 
 
 question arises in this connection, wliethci- tlie 
 States are in a condition to tolerate or will toler- 
 ate the secessioii of South Carolina. That is a 
 matter to be determined by the circumstances; 
 that is a matter to be determined by the emergency; 
 that is a matter to be doterniiued when it comes 
 up. It is a question which must be left open to 
 be determined by the surrounding; circumstances, 
 when the occasion arises. 
 
 But conceding, for argument's sake, the doc- 
 trine of secession, and admitting that the State 
 of South Carolina is now upon your coast, a for- 
 eign Power, absolved from all connection with 
 the Federal Government, out of the Union: what 
 then? There was a doctrine inculc-jited in 1823, 
 by Mr. Monroe, tliat this Government, keeping 
 in view the safety of the people and the existence 
 of our institutions, would permit no Euroiiean 
 Power to plant any more colonics on this conti- 
 nent. Now, suppose that South Carolina is out- 
 side of the Confederacy, and this Government is 
 in possession of the foct that she is forming an 
 alliance with aforeign Power — witli France, with 
 England, with Russia, with Austria, or with all 
 of the principal Powers of Europe; that there is 
 to be a great naval station estaijlishcd there; an 
 immense rendezvous for their army, with a view 
 to ulterior objects, with a view of making ad- 
 vances upon the rest of these States: let me ask the 
 Senate, let me ask the country, if they dare per- 
 mit it? Under and in compliance with the great 
 law of self-preservation, we dare not lot her do it; 
 and if she were a sovereign Power to-day, out- 
 side of the Confederacy, and was forming an alli- 
 ance that we deemed inimical to our institutions, 
 and 'the existence of our Government, we should 
 have aright to conquer and hold her as a province 
 — a term which is so much used with scorn. 
 
 Mr. President, I have referred to the manner in 
 which this Government was formed. I have re- 
 ferred to the provision of the Constitution which 
 provides for the admission of new States. Now, 
 lot me ask, can any one believe that, in the crea- 
 tion of this Government, its founders intended 
 that it should have the power to acquire territory 
 and form it into States, and then permit them to 
 go out of the Union? Let us take a case. How 
 long has it been since your armies were in Mex- 
 ico? How long has it been since your brave men 
 were exposed to the diseases, the privations, the 
 sufferings, which are incident to a campaign of 
 that kind? How long has it been since they were 
 bearing your eagles in a foreign land, many of 
 them falling at the pointof the bayonet, consigned 
 to their long, narrow home, with no winding-sheet 
 but their blankets saturated with their blood ? 
 How many victories did they win? How many 
 laurels did they acquire? How many trophies did 
 they bring back? The country is full of them. 
 What did it cost you ? One hundred and twenty 
 million dollars. What did you pay for the coun- 
 try you acquired, besides? Fifteen million dol- 
 lars. Peace was made; territory was acquired; 
 and, in a few years, from that territory California 
 erected herself into a free and independent State, 
 and, under the provisions of the Constitution, we 
 admitted her as a member of this Confederacy. 
 After having expended ^$120,000,000 in the war; 
 
 I after liaving lost many of our bravest and most 
 
 1 gallant men; after having paid jJ,15, 000,000 to Mox- 
 
 i ico for the territory, and admitted it into the Union 
 
 I as a State, now that the people of California have 
 
 jgot into the Confederacy and can stand alone, 
 
 I according to this modern doctrine, your Govern- 
 
 ] ment was just made to let tlieni in, and then to lot 
 
 them stop out. Is not the conclusion illogical ? 
 
 Is it not absurd to say that, now tiiat California 
 
 is in, she, on her own volition — without regard to 
 
 the consideration paid for her; without regard to 
 
 the policy which dictated her acquisition by the 
 
 United States — can walkout and bid you deiiawce? 
 
 Is it not an absurdity, if you take the reason and 
 
 object of Government ? 
 
 But v/e need not stop here; let us go to Texas. 
 Texas was engaged in a revolution with Mexico, 
 She succeeded in the assertion and establishment 
 of her independence; and she became a sovereign 
 and independent Power outside of this Union. 
 She applied for admission, and she was admitted 
 into this family of States. After she was in, she 
 was oppressed by the debts of her %yar which 
 resulted in her separation from Mexico; she was 
 harassed by the Indians upon her border; and in 
 1850, by way of relief to Texas, what did wo do? 
 There was an extent of territory that lies north, 
 if my memory serves me right, embracing what 
 is now called the Territory of New Mexico. 
 Texas had it not in her power to protect the citi- 
 zens that were there. It was a dead limb, para- 
 lyzed, lifeless. The Federal Government came 
 along asakind physician, saying, " We will take 
 this dead limb from your body, and vitalize it, 
 by giving protection to the people, and incorpo- 
 rating it ir)to a territorial government: and in ad- 
 dition to that, we will give you $10,000,000, and 
 you may retain your own j)ublic lands;" and the 
 other States were taxed in common to pay the 
 gilO,000,000. Now, after all this is done, Texas, 
 forsooth, upon Jier own volition, is to say, "I 
 will walk out of this Union!" Wore there no 
 other parties to that compact? We are told the 
 compact is recipi'ocal. Did we take in California, 
 did we take in Texas, just to ben(;fit them ? No; 
 but to add to this great family of Slates; and it is 
 appaient, from the fact of their coming in, tliat 
 the compact is reciprocal; and having entered into 
 the compact, they have no right to withdraw 
 without the consent of the remaining States. 
 
 Again: take the case of Louisiana. What did 
 we pay for her in 1803, and for what was she 
 wantca? Just to get Louisiana into the Confed- 
 eracy ? Just for the benefit of tliat particular 
 locality? Was not the mighty West looked to? 
 Was It not to secure the free navigation of the 
 Mississippi river, the mouth of which was then 
 in possession of France, shortly before of Spain, 
 passing about between those two Powers ? Yes, 
 the navigation of that river was wanted. Sininly 
 for Louisiana? No, but for all the States. The 
 United States paid $15,000,000, and France passed 
 the country to the United States. It remained in 
 a territorial condition for a while, sustained and 
 protected by the strong arm of the Federal Gov- 
 erment. We acquiredthe territory and the navi- 
 gation of the river; and the money was paid for 
 the benefit of all the Suites, and not of Louisiana 
 
13 
 
 exclusively. And now that this groat valley is 
 filled up; now that the navigation of the Missis- 
 sifipi is one hundred times more important than it ' 
 was then; now, after the United States have paid 
 tlie money, have acquired the title to Louisiana, 
 and have incorporated her into the Confederacy, 
 it is proposed that she shall go out of the Union ! 
 In 1815, when her shores were invaded; when 
 her city was about to be sacK'ed; when her booty 
 and her beauty were about to fall a prey to British 
 aggression, the bravo men of Tennessee, and of 
 Kentucky, and of the surrounding States, rushed 
 into her borders and ujion her shores, and under 
 the lead of their own gallant Jackson, drove the 
 invading forces away. And now, afu-r all this; 
 after the money has been paid; after the free nav- 
 igation of tlie nver has been obtained — not for the 
 benefit of Louisiana alone, but for her in common 
 with all the States — Louisiana says to the other 
 Slates, "We will go out of this Confederacy; we 
 do not care if you did fight our battles; we do 
 not care if you did acquire the free navigation of 
 this river from France; we will go out if wo think 
 proper, and constitute ourselves an independent 
 Power, and bid defiance to the other States." It 
 is an absurdity; it is a contradiction; it is illogi- 
 cal; it is not dcduciblc from the structure of the 
 Government itself. 
 
 It may be that, at this moment, there i.s not a 
 citizen in the State of Louisiana who would think 
 of obstructing the free navigation of the river; but 
 are not nations controlled by their interests in va- 
 rying circumstances? It strikes rac so; and here- 
 after, when a conflict of interest arises; when dif- 
 f.ulty may spring up btawecn two separate Powers, 
 Louisiana, having the control of the mouth of the 
 river, might feel disposed t-o tax our citizens going 
 down there. It is a power that I ain not willing 
 to concede to be exercisi.'d at the discretion of any 
 authority outside of this Govei'nment. So sen- 
 sitive have been the people of my State upon the 
 free navigation of that river, that as far back as 
 179G, now sixty-fi)ur years ago, in their bill of 
 rights, before they passed under the jurisdiction 
 of the United States, they declared: 
 
 "Thai an equal participation of the free navigation of 
 the Mississippi in one of the inlicrent rights of the citizens 
 of this State : it cannot, therefore, he conceded to any 
 prince, potentate, Power, person, or persons whatever." 
 
 This shows the estimate that the people fixed 
 on this stream sixty-four years ago; and now we 
 are told, if Louisiana does go out, it i.s not her 
 intention at this time to tax the people above. 
 Who can tell what may be the intention of Lou- 
 isiana hereafter.' Are we willing to place the 
 rights, the travel, and the commerce of our cit- 
 izens, at the discretion of any Power outside of I 
 this Government.' I will not. 
 
 How long has it been since Florida lay on our j 
 coast an annoyance to us.' And now she has got i 
 entirely feverish about being an independent ami | 
 separate Government, wiiile she has not as many j 
 qualified voters as there are in one congressional | 
 district of any other State. What condition did 
 Florida occupy in 1811.' She was in the posses- 
 sion of Spain. What did the United States think 
 about having adjacent territory outside of their | 
 jurisdiction .' Let us turn to the authorities, and ' 
 
 see what proposition they were willing to act upon. 
 I find, in the statutes of tlie United States, this 
 joint resolution: 
 
 "Taking into view the peculiar situation of Spain, and 
 of lier American provinces, and consid<'rini; the inliiiencfi 
 which the destiny of the territory adjoining the soutlieni 
 horder of tlie United States may have upon their security, 
 tranf|Uillity, and commerce: Therefore, 
 
 ^^Ucsoived by the Senate and Ilonsc of Representatives of 
 the United States of Jim erica in Coiigress assemhlcd, That 
 the United Statos,'umlcr the peculiar circumstances of the 
 existing crisis, cannot, without serious inquietude, see any 
 part of tlic said territory pass into the hands of any foreign 
 j'ower; and tliat a due regard to their own safety compels 
 tluMM to provide, undi'r cmtain contingencies, for tlu^ tiun- 
 ])orary occupation of tlie said territory. They, at the same 
 time, declare that the said territory .'^hall, in their hands, 
 remain subject to future negotiation." 
 
 What principle is set forth there .' Florida was 
 in the possession of Spain. English spies were 
 harbored in her territory. Spain was inimical to 
 the Uiiited States; and in view of the great priti- 
 ciple of sell'-preservation, the Congress of the 
 United States passed a resolution declaring that 
 if Spain attempted to transfer Florida into the 
 hands of any other Power, the United States 
 would take possession of it. Yet Congress were 
 gracious and condescending enough to say that it 
 should remain open to future negotiation. That 
 is to say, " Hereafter, if we can make anegotiatioii 
 that Will suit us, we will make it; if we do not, 
 we will keep the territory;" that is all. There 
 was the territory lying upon our border, outside 
 of the jurisdiction of the United States; and we 
 declared, by an act of Congress, that no foreign 
 Power should possess it. 
 
 We wentstillfurtherand appropriated $100,000, 
 and authorized the President to enter and take 
 possession of it with the means placed in his 
 liaiids. Afterwards, we negotiated with Spain, 
 and gave !ft6,000,000 for the Territory; and wo 
 established a territorial government for it. What 
 next.' We undertook to drive out the Seminole 
 Indians, and we had a war in which this Govern- 
 ment lost more than it lost in all the other wara 
 it was engaged in; and we paid the sum of 
 $25,000,000 to get the Seininoles out of the 
 swamps, so that the Territory could be inhabited 
 by white men. Wo paid for it, we took posses- 
 sion of it; and I remember, when I was in tlie 
 other House, and Florida was knocking at the 
 door for admission, how extremely anxious her 
 then able Delegate was to be admitted. He now 
 sits before me, [IVIr. Yulee.] I remember how 
 important he thought it was then to come under 
 the protecting wing of the United States as one 
 of the stars of our Confederacy. But now the 
 Territory is paid for, England is driven out, 
 §25, 000, 000 have been expended; and they want 
 no longer the protection of this Government, but 
 will go out without consulting the other States, 
 without reference to the efleclupon the remaining 
 parties to the compact. Where will she go.' Will 
 she attach herself to Sjiain again .' Will she pass 
 back under the jurisdiction of the Seminoles.' 
 After having been nurtured and protected and 
 fostered by all those States, now, without regard 
 to them, is she to be allowed, at her own volition, 
 to withdraw from the Union? I say she ha.s no 
 constitutional right to do it; and when she does it 
 
14 
 
 it is an act of aggression . If she succeeds, it will 
 only be a successful revolution. If she does not 
 succeed, she must take the penalties and terrors 
 of the law. 
 
 But, sir, there is another question that suggests 
 itself in this connection. Kansas, during the last 
 Congress, applied for admission into this Union. 
 She assumed to be a State, and the difficulty in 
 the way was a provision in her constitution, and 
 the manner of its adoption. We did not let Kan- 
 sas in. We did not question her being a State; 
 but on account of the manner of forming her con- 
 stitution and its provisions, we kept Kansas out. 
 What is Kansas now? Is she a State, or is she 
 a Territory? Does she revert back to her terri- 
 torial condition of pupilage ? Or, having been a 
 State, and having applied for admission and been 
 refused, is she standing out a State ? You hold her 
 as a territory; you hold her as a province. You 
 
 Erescribe the mode of electing the members of her 
 legislature, and pay them out of your own Treas- 
 ury. Yes, she is a province controlled by Fed- 
 eral authority, and her laws are made in conform- 
 ity with the acts of Congress. Is she not a Ter- 
 ritory? I think she is. 
 
 Suppose the State of California withdraws from 
 the Union. We admitted her. She was territory 
 acquired by the United States, by our blood and 
 our treasure. Now, suppose she withdraws from 
 the Confederacy: does she pass back into a terri- 
 torial condition, remain a dependency upon the 
 Federal Government, or does she stand out as a 
 separate government? Let me take Louisiana, 
 for which we paid $15,000,000. That was a Ter- 
 ritory for a number of years — yes, a province. It 
 is only another name for a province. It is a pos- 
 session held under the jurisdiction of the United 
 States. We admitted Louisiana into the Union 
 as a State. Suppose we had refused to admit her: 
 would she not still have remained a Territory ? 
 Would she not have remained under the protec- 
 tion of the United States? But now, if she lias 
 the power to withdraw from the Union, does she 
 not pass back into the condition in which she was j 
 before we admitted her into the Union ? In what 1 
 condition does she place herself? When those 
 States which were at first Territories cease their 
 connection with this Government, do they pass | 
 back into the territorial condition ? When Florida ; 
 is going out, when Louisiana is going out, and j 
 these other States that were originally Territories [ 
 go out of the Union, in what condition do they j 
 place themselves ? Are they Territories or States ? j 
 Are they merely on probation to become members | 
 of this Confederacy, or arc they States outside of j 
 the Confederacy? 
 
 I have referred to the acts of Congress for ac- 
 quiring Florida as setting forth a principle. Let 
 me read another of those acts: 
 
 " An act to enal)le the President of tlie United States, under 
 certain contingencies, to lalie posses.<!ion of tlic country 
 lying east of the river Perdido, and south of the State of 
 Georgia and the Mississippi Territory, and lor other pur- 
 poses. 
 
 " Be it enacted by the Senate and Horuse of Representatives 
 of the United States of Jimerica in Congress assembled. That 
 the President of llie United States be, and he is liereby, 
 authorized to take possession of and occupy all or any part 
 of the territory Iving east of the river Perdido. and south 
 of the State of 6oorgia and the Mississippi Territory, In 
 
 case an anan^ement has been or shall be made with the 
 local authorities of the said territory for the deliverins! 
 up the possession of tiie same or any part thereof to the 
 United States, or in the event of an attempt to occupy the 
 said territory or any part thereof by any foreign Govern- 
 ment; and he may, for the purpose of taking possession 
 and occupying the territory aforesaid, in order to maintain 
 therein the authority of the United States, employ any part 
 of the Army and Navy of the United States which he may 
 deem necessary." 
 
 What is the principle avowed here ? That from 
 the geographical relations of this territory to the 
 United States, from its importance to the safety 
 and security of the institutions of the United States, 
 we authorized the President to expend '«ilOO,000 
 to get a foothold there, and especially to take pos- 
 session of it if it were likely to pass to any foreign 
 Power. We see the doctrine and principle there 
 established and acted upon by our Government. 
 This principle was again avowed by distinguished 
 men at Ostend. A paper was drawn up there by 
 Mr. Buchanan, Mr. Soule of Louisiana, and Mr. 
 Mason of Virginia, our ministers to the three 
 principal Courts in Europe. They met at Ostend 
 and drew up a paper in which they laid down 
 certain doctrines in strict conformity with the act 
 of Congres.'s that I have just read. They say in 
 that paper, signed by James Buchanan, J. Y. 
 Mason, and Pierre Soule: 
 
 " Then, 1. It must be clear to every reflecting mind, 
 tliat, from the peculiarity of its geographical position, and 
 the considerations attendant on it, Cuba is as necessary to 
 the North American Republic as any of its present mem- 
 bers, and that it belongs, naturally, to that groat family of 
 States of which the Union is the providential n irsery, 
 
 " From its locality it commands the mouth of the Mis- 
 sissippi, and the immense and annually increasing trade 
 which must seek this avenue to the ocean. 
 
 " On the numerous navigable streams, measuring an ag- 
 gregate course of some thirty thousand miles, which dis- 
 embogue themselves through this magnificent river into the 
 Gulf of Mexico, the increase of the population within the 
 last ten years amounts to more than that of the entire Union 
 at the time Louisiana was annexed to it. 
 
 "The natural and main outlet to the products of this 
 entire population, the highway of their direct intercourse 
 with the Atlantic and Pacific States, can never be secure, 
 but must ever be endangered while Cuba is a dependency 
 of a distant Power in wliose possession it has proved to be 
 a source of constant annoyance and embarrassment to their 
 Interests." **** ** »* 
 
 " The system of immigration and labor lately organized 
 within its limits, and the tyranny and oppression which 
 characterize its immediate rulers, threaten an insurrection 
 at any moment which may result in direful consequences 
 to the American people. 
 
 " Cuba has thus become to us an unceasing danger, and a 
 permanent cause of anxiety and alarm." » * » 
 
 " Self-preservation is the first law of nature, with States 
 as well as with individuals. All nations have, at different 
 periods, acted upon this maxim. Although it has been 
 1 been made the pretext for committing flagrant injustice, as 
 1 in the partition of Poland, and other similar cases which 
 history records, yet the principle itself, though often abused, 
 has always been recognized." * * * * "Our 
 past history forbids that we should acquire the Island of 
 Cuba without the consent of Spain, unless justified by the 
 great law of self-preservation. We must, in any event, 
 preserve our own conscious rectitude, and our own self- 
 respect." 
 
 Mark you, we are never to acquire Cuba unless 
 it is necessary to our self-preservation: 
 
 " While pursuing this course we can aflbrd to disregard 
 the censuresof the world, to which we have been so often 
 and so unjusllv exposed. 
 
 '' After we shall have off'ered Spain a price for Cuba far 
 beyond its present value, and this shall have been refused, 
 it will then be tirao to consider the question does Cuba, In 
 
15 
 
 the possession of Spain, seriously endanscr our internal 
 peace and the existence of our cherished Union ? 
 
 " Should this question be answered in the affirmative, 
 then, by ever\- law, luinian and divine, we sliall be justified 
 in wresting it from tJpain if we possess the power ; and this 
 upon tlie very same principle that would justifvan individ- 
 ual in tearing down the burning house of his' neighbor, if 
 there were no other means of preventing tlie flames from 
 destroying his own home." 
 
 Now, this is nil pretty sound doctrine. I am 
 for all of it. 
 
 " Under such circumstances wc ought neitlierto count the 
 cost nor regard the odds which Spain might enlist against 
 us. We forbear to enter into the question, whether the 
 present condition of the island would justify such a meas- 
 ure? We should, however, he recreant to our dutv, be un- 
 worthy of our gallant fore(athers,and commit base treason 
 against our nosterity, should we permit Cuba to be Afri- 
 canized and become a second St. Domingo, with all its at- 
 tendant liorrors to the wliitc race, and sutler the flames to 
 extend to our own neighboring shore, seriously to endanger 
 or actually to consume the fair fabric of our Union." 
 
 We find in this document, signed by our three 
 ministers, and approved by the American people,] 
 the doctrine laid down clearly that if the United , 
 States believed that Cuba was to be transferred j 
 by Spain to England or to France, or to some I 
 other Power inimical to the United States, the 
 safety of the American people, the safety of our 
 institutions, the existence of the Government, 
 being imperiled, we should have a right, without 
 regard to money or blood, to acquire it. 
 
 Where does this carry us .' We find that this 
 doctrine was not only laid down, but practiced, 
 in the case of Florida. Suppose Louisiana wa-s 
 now out of the Confederacy, holding the key to 
 the Gulf, the outlet to the commerce of the groat 
 West: under the doctrine laid down by these 
 ministers, and practiced by the Congress of the 
 United States, would not this Government have 
 the right, in obedience to the great principle of 
 self-preservation, and for the safety of our insti- 
 tutions, to seize it and pass it under the jurisdic- 
 tion of the United States, and hold it as a province 
 suliject to the laws of the United States .' I say 
 it would. The same principle will apply to Flor- 
 ida. The same principle would apply to South 
 Carolina. I regret that she occupies the position 
 that she has assumed, but I am arguing a prin- 
 ciple, and do not refer to her out of any disrespect. 
 If South Carolina were outside of the Confeder- 
 acy, an independent Power, having no connection 
 with the United States, and our institutions were 
 likely to be endangered, and the existence of the 
 Government imperiled by her remaining a sepa- 
 rate and independent Power, or by her forming as- 
 sociations and alliances with some foreign Power, 
 I say we should have a right, on the principle laid 
 down by Mr. Mason, Mr. Buchanan, and Mr. 
 Soule, and upon the principle practiced by the 
 Congress of the United States in the case of Flor- 
 ida, to seize her, pass her under the jurisdiction 
 of the United States, and hold her as a province. 
 Mr. President, I have spoken of the possibility 
 of a State standing in the position of South Car- 
 olina making alliances with a foreign Power. 
 What do we see now.' Ex-Governor Manning, 
 of that State, in a speech made not long since at 
 Columbia, made these declarations: 
 " Cotton Is king, and would enable us In pence to rule 
 
 in war. The millions in France and England engaged In 
 its manufacture, are an effectual guarantee of the friendship 
 of those nations. If necessary, their armies would stand 
 to guard its uninterrupti-d and peaceful cultivation, and 
 their men-of-war would line our coasts to guard It in its 
 transit from our ports." 
 
 Ah ! are we prepared, in the face of doctrines 
 like these,' to permit a State that has been a mem- 
 ber of our Confederacy to go out, and erect her- 
 self into an independent Power, when she points 
 to the time when she will become a dependent of 
 Great Britain, or when she will want the pro- 
 tection of France.? What is the doctrine laid down 
 by Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Mason and Mr. Soule.' 
 If Cuba is to pass into the hands of an unfriendly 
 Power, or any Power inimical to the United 
 States, we have a right to seize and to hold her. 
 Where is the difference between the two cases.' 
 
 If South Carolina is outside of the Confederacy 
 as an independent Power, disconnected from thi.s 
 Government, and wc find her forming alliances to 
 protect her, I ask what becomes of that great prin- 
 ciple, the law of self-preservation.' Does it not 
 apply with equal force.' We are told, upon pretty 
 high authority, that Great Britain is operating in 
 the United States; that she is exerting a power- 
 ful influence. I find that, in a paper issued from 
 the executive office. Little Rock, Arkansas, and 
 addressed to the militia of the State of Arkansas, 
 the following language is used: 
 
 " It Is my opinion, that the settled and secret policy of 
 the Uritisli Government is to disturb the domestic tranquil- 
 lity of the United States ; that its object is to break up and 
 destroy our Government, get rid of a powerful rival, extend 
 the area of the British dominions on this Contineiu, an3 
 become the chief and controlling Power in America." 
 
 I will not read it all. He gives many reasons 
 why it is so. He says: 
 
 " I believe that such a conspiracy exists against our Fed- 
 eral Government, and that, if all the secret laets and trans- 
 actions connected with it, and the names of the secret 
 agents and emissaries of the British Government, distrib- 
 uted throughout the United States, could be ascertained, 
 well authenticated, and made public, the patriotic people 
 of the United Slates would be filled with astonishment ; 
 and having discovered the real author and histi^ator of Ihe 
 mischief, all discord between the free States aiid the slave 
 States would at once be allayed, if not entirclv cease, anti 
 that then they would become fraternally and 'more firmly 
 united ; and that the united indignation of the patriotic 
 citizens of tiie whole Union against the British Govern- 
 ment and its agents and emissaries would be so great that 
 war would be declared against Uie British Government In 
 less than twelve months." 
 
 The Governor of the State of Arkansas say.s, 
 that if all the secret workings of Great Britain in 
 this country could be ascertained, war would be 
 declared in less than twelve months against the 
 Govcrnmentof Great Britain. What further does 
 he say: 
 
 " Entertaining these opinions, I deem It mv duty to the 
 people of the State of Arkansas, to warn them to go to work 
 in earnest and make permanent and tli^rnugh jrreparatioru, 
 so that tliey may at all times be roadv to protect themsclvcB 
 and our State against evils which I bi-lleve the British 
 Government intends shall not be temporary and trifling, 
 but continuous and aggravated, 'irrepressible' and terri- 
 ble." 
 
 This is signed by " Elias N. Conway, Governor 
 of the State of Arkansas, and commander-in- 
 chief of tiie army of said State, and of the militia 
 thereof." But ex-Governor Manning, of South 
 Carolina, declares that cotton is king, and that 
 
 Uicnationsofth€worki,of successfully to eacounterthefn 11 the armies of Great Britain, and the fleets ef 
 
16 
 
 France, and their men of war, would protect them ; 
 the one in the peaceful production of cotton, and 
 the other in its exportation to the ports of the 
 world. What sort of times are we falling on? 
 Where are we going? Are these the threats that 
 we are to be met with? Is the United States to be 
 told by one of the States attempting" to absolve 
 itself from its allegiance, without authority, and 
 in fact in violation of the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States, that being disconnected with the Con- 
 federacy, it will, upon our coast, form an alliance 
 with France and with England, which will protect 
 her more securely than the protection which she 
 nowreceives from the United States? The question 
 recurs, have we not an existence, have we not 
 institutions, to preserve; and in compliance with 
 the great law of self-preservation, can we permit 
 one of these States to take the protection of a for- 
 eign Power that is inimical and dangerous to the 
 Eeaceful relations of this Government? I do not 
 elieve that we can. I repeat, for fear it may 
 be misunderstood, that there are certain circum- 
 stances and conditions under which the remaining 
 States, parties to the compact, might tolerate the 
 secession of one Slate; and there are other cir- 
 cumstances and other conditions under which 
 they dare not do it, in view of the great prin- 
 ciple of self-preservation of which I have been 
 speaking. When any State takes such an atti- 
 tude what will be our course of policy? The case 
 must be determined by the existing circumstances 
 at the time. 
 
 ■ But it is expected and said by some that South 
 Carolina, in making this movement, intends to 
 carry the other States along with her; that they 
 will be drawn into it. Now, Mr. President, is that 
 the way for one sister, for one rebellious State, to 
 talk to others ! Is that the language in wiiich they 
 should be addressed? I ask my friend from Cal- 
 ifornia to read an extract from the message of 
 Governor Gist, of South Carolina. He will do 
 mc a favor by so doing; and then we shall see the 
 basis upon which we stand, and the attitude in 
 which we are to be placed. Not only is South 
 Carolina to go out of the Union in violation of the 
 Constitution, impeding and resisting the execu- 
 tion of the laws, but the other States are to be 
 dragged along with her, and we are all to be in- 
 voJved in one common i-uin. 
 
 Mr. LATHAM read the following extract from 
 the message of Governor Gist to the Legislature 
 of South Carolina: 
 
 " Tlic iiitrotUiotion of slaves from otlier Stntcs which may 
 not l)ocomo membcMof the soulhcM-ii coiifedi^rnoy, mid jinr- 
 tidilarly the border StatCH, sliniild lie proliihiU'd liy legisla- 
 tive enactment; and by this means tlicy will tie liroii!;!jt to 
 see that tlieir safety dopemls ujioii a wiilulravval from tlieir 
 enemies and an iniioii witli tlieir iVieiuls and natural alliis. 
 If tliey sliould coiuiiiiie their niiioii with llie non-slave- 
 holding States, let them kttep their slave property in their 
 own borders, and the only alternative left them will b(! eman- 
 cijiation by ihelr own act, or by the action of their own 
 confederates. We cannot consent to relieve them from their 
 cnibarrassinj; situation by iierinitfin;^ them to realize the 
 money value for their slaves by siilini; them to us, and thus 
 prepare them, without any loss of property, to aceonnno- 
 date themselves to tlie northern free-soil idea, liut should 
 tlioy unite their desUny with us, and become stars in the 
 southern galaxy — members of a great southern confedera- 
 tion—we will receive them with open arms and an entliu- 
 siastie grueling." ******* 
 
 'f All liope, therefore, of concerted action by a southern 
 convention beinglost, there is but one course left for South 
 Carolina to pursue consistent with her honor, interest, and 
 safety, and that is, to look neither to the right or the left, 
 but go straight forward to the consummation of her pur- 
 pose. It is too late now to receive pro|iositions for a con- 
 terence ; and the Htate would be wanting in self-respect, 
 after having deliberately decided on her own course, to en- 
 tertain any proposition looking to a continuance of the pres- 
 ent Union. VVe can get no better or safer guarantee than 
 the present Constitution ; and that has proved impotent to 
 protect us against the fanaticism of the North. Tlie Insti- 
 tution of slavery must be under the exclusive control of 
 those directly interested In its preservation, and not left to 
 the mercy of those that believe it to be their duty to de- 
 stroy it." 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. If my friend 
 will read an extract from thi; speech of Mr. Keitt, 
 of South Carolina, it will show the determination 
 and policy to be pursued. It is done with all 
 respect to him; for he is a man upon whom I look 
 as a perfect and entire gentleman, from all my 
 acquaintance with him; out I merely want to 
 quote from his speech to get at the policy they 
 wish to pursue. 
 
 Mr. LATHAM read, as follows: 
 " Hon. Ij.lM. Kkitt was sc'renaded at Columbia on Mon- 
 day evening; and in response to the compliment lie spoke at 
 considerable length in favor of separate State action. He 
 said South Carolina could nottake one step backward now 
 without receiving the curses of posterity. South Carolina, 
 single and alone, was bound to go out of this accursed 
 Union : he would lake her out if but three men went witli 
 him, and if slaves took her back it would be to her grav(!- 
 yard. Mr. Ciiclianan was pledged to secession, and he meant 
 to hold him to it. The policy of the State should he pru- 
 dent and bold. His advice was, inovo on, side by side. He 
 ref|ue»ted union and harmony among tiiose embarked in 
 the same great cause ; but yield not, a day too long, and when 
 the time comes let it come speedily. Take your destinies 
 in your own hamls,and shatter this accursed Union. South 
 Carolina could do it alone. But if she could not, she could 
 at least throw her arms around the pillars of the Constitu- 
 tion, and involve all the States in a common ruin. Mr. 
 Keitt was greatly applauded throughout liis address." 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Mr. President, 
 I have referred to these extracts to show the pol- 
 icy intended to be pursued by our seceding sister. 
 What is the first threat thrown out? It is an in- 
 timidation to the border Stales, alluding especially, 
 I suppose, to Virginia, Maryltind, Kentucky, and 
 Missouri. They constitute the first tier of the 
 border slave States. The next tier would be 
 North Carolina and Tennessee and Arkansas. 
 We in the South have complained of and con- 
 demned the position assumed by the Abolition- 
 ists. We have complained that their intention 
 is to Item slavery in, so that, like the scorpion 
 when surrounded by fire, if it did not die from 
 the intense heat of the scorching flames, it would 
 perish from its own poisonous sting. Now,oursi.s- 
 tur, without consulting her sisters, withoutcaring 
 fur their interest or their consent, says that she 
 will move forward; that she will destroy the Gov- 
 ernment under which we have lived, and that 
 hereafter, when she forms a Government or a 
 Constitution, unless the boi-der States come in, 
 she will pass laws prohibiting the im|)ortation of 
 slaves into herState from thoseStates, and thereby 
 obstruct the slave trade among the States, and 
 throw the institution back upon the border States, 
 so that they will be compelled to emancipate their 
 slaves upon the principle laid down by the Ab- 
 ohtion party. That ia the rod held over us ! 
 
17 
 
 I tell our sisters in the South that so far as Ten- 
 nessee is concerned, she will not be dragged into 
 a southern or any other confederacy until she 
 has had time to consider; and then she will go 
 when she believes it to be her interest, and not 
 before. I tell our northern friends, who are re- 
 sisting the execution of the laws made in con- 
 formity with the Constitution, that we will not 
 be driven on the other hand into their confed- 
 acy, and we will not go into it unless it suits us, 
 and they give us such guarantees as we deem 
 right and proper. We say to you of the South, 
 we are not to be frightened and coerced. Oh, 
 when one talks about coercing a State, how mad- 
 dening and insulting to the State; but wIkmi you 
 want to bring the other Slates to terms, how easy 
 to point out a means by which to coerce them! 
 But, sir, we uo not intend to be coerced. 
 
 We are told that certain States will go out and 
 tear this accursed Constitution into fragments, 
 and drag the pillars of this mighiy edifice down 
 upon us, and involve us all in one common ruin. 
 Will the border States submit to such a threat? 
 No. If they do not come into the movemeuL, the 
 pillars of tlrs stupendous fabric of human free- 
 dom and greatness and goodness are to be pulled 
 down, and all will be involved in one common 
 ruin. Such is the threatening language used. 
 " You shall come into our confederacy, or we will 
 coerce you to the emancipation of your slaves." 
 That is the language which is held toward us. 
 
 There are many ideas afloat ai)out this threat- 
 ened dissolution, and it is time to speak out. The 
 question arises in reference to the protection and 
 preservation of the institution of s'avery, whether 
 dissolution is a remedy or will give to it protection. 
 I avow here, to-day, that if I were an Abolition- 
 ist, and wanted to accomplish the overthrow and 
 abolition of the institution of slavery in the south- 
 ern States, the first step that I would take would 
 be 10 break the bonds of this Union, and dissolve 
 this Government. I believe the continuance of 
 slavery depends upon the preservation of this 
 Union, and a compliance with all the guarantees 
 of the Constitution. I believe an interference 
 with it will break up the Union; and I believe a 
 dissolution of the Union will, in the end, though 
 it may be some time to come, overthrow the in- 
 stitution of slavery. Hence we find so many in 
 the North who desire the dissolution of these 
 States as the most certain and direct and eiTectual 
 means of overthrowing the institution of slavery. 
 
 What protection would it be to us to dissolve 
 this Union ? What protection would it be to us 
 to convert this nation into two hostile Powers, the 
 one warring- with the other.' Whose property is 
 at slake ? Who.se interest is endangen^d .' Is it 
 not the property of the border State's ? Suppose 
 Canada were moved down upon our Ijorder, and 
 the two separated sections, then different nations, 
 were hosti'e: what would the institution of slavery 
 be worth on the border ? Every man who has 
 common sense will see that the institution would 
 take up its march and retreat, as certainly and as 
 unerringly as general laws can oj)erate. Yes; it 
 would commence to retreat the very moment iliis 
 Government was converted into hostile Powers, 
 and you made ihc line between the siavehold- ' 
 
 ing and non-slaveholding States the line of di- 
 vision. 
 
 Then, what remedy do we get for the institution 
 of slavery ? Must we keep up a standing army? 
 Must we keep up forts bristling with arms aloiig 
 the whole border .' This is a question to be con- 
 sidered, one that involves the future; and no step 
 should be taken without mature reflection. Be- 
 fore this Union is dissolved and broken up, we in 
 Tinmessee, as one of the slave States, want to be 
 consulted; we want to know what protection we 
 are to have; whether we are simply to be made 
 outposts and guards to protect the property of 
 others, at the same time that we sacrifice and lose 
 our own. We want to understand this question. 
 
 Again: if there is one division of the States, 
 will there not be more than one? I heard a Sen- 
 ator say the other day that he would rather see 
 this Government separated into thirty-ihree frac- 
 tional parts than to see it consolidated; but when 
 you once begin to divide, when the first division 
 js made, who can tell when the next will be made ? 
 When these States are all turned loose, and a dif- 
 ferent condition of things is jiresented, with com- 
 plex and abstruse interests to be considered and 
 weighed and understood, whatcombinations may 
 take place no one can tell. I am oppof.ed to the 
 consolidation of Government, and I am as much 
 for the reserved rights of States as any one; but, 
 rather than see this Union divided into thirty- 
 three petty Governments, with a little prince in 
 one, a poterjtate in another, a little aristocracy in 
 a third, a little democracy in a fourth, and a re- 
 public somewhere else; a citizen not being able 
 to pass from one State to another without a pass- 
 port or a commission from his Government; with 
 quarreling and warring amongst the little petty 
 Powers, which would result in anarchy; I would 
 rather see this Government to-day — I proclaim 
 it here inmyiilace — converted into a consolidated 
 Government. It would be better for the Ameri- 
 can people; it would be better for our kind; it 
 would be better for humanity; better for Chris- 
 tianity; better for all that tends to elevate and en- 
 noble man, than breaking up this splendid, this 
 magnificent, th's stupendous fabric of human 
 government, the most perfect that the world evrr 
 saw, and which has succeeded thus fiir without a 
 parallel in the history of the world. 
 
 When you come to break up and turn loose the 
 diflerent elements, there is no telling what com- 
 binations may take place in the future. Ii may 
 occur, for instance, to the middle States that they 
 will not get so good a Government by going a 
 little further south as by remaining where we are. 
 It may occur to North Carolina, to Tennessee, to 
 Kentucky, to Virginia, to Mary land, to Missouri — 
 and perhajis Illinois might fall in, too — that, by 
 erecting themselves into a central, iiidepiMulcnt 
 republic, disconnected either with the North or 
 the South, they could stand as a peace-maker — 
 could stand as a great breakwater, resisting the 
 heated and serging waves of the South, and the 
 fanatical al)olitionism of the North. They might 
 think that they could stand there and lift them- 
 selv'-s up above the two extremes, with the sin- 
 cere hope that the lime would arrive when the 
 extremes would come together, and reunite once 
 
18 
 
 more, and we could reconstruct this tieatest and 
 best Government the world has ever «-.-<:ii. Or it 
 might so turn out, our institution of sltivtry being 
 exposed upon the northern line, that i y looking 
 to Pennsylvania, to New York, and to some of 
 the other Slates, instead of having thein as hos- 
 tile Powers upon our frontiers, they might come 
 to this central republic, and give us such consti- 
 tutional guarantees, and such assurances that tliey 
 would be executed, that it might be to our inter- 
 est to form an alliance with tliem, and have a pro- 
 tection on our frontier. 
 
 I throw these out as considerations. There will be 
 various projects and various combinations made. 
 Memphis is now connected with Norfolk, in the 
 Old Domuiion: Memphis is connectrd with Balti- 
 more within two days. Here is a <'oast that lets 
 us out to the commerce of the world. When we 
 look around in the four States of Tennessee, Ken- 
 tucky, Virginia, and Maryland, thei-e are things 
 about which our memories, our attachments, and 
 our associations linger with pride and with pleas- 
 ure. Go down into the Old Dominion; there is 
 the place where, in 1781, Cornwallis surrendered 
 his sword to the immortal Washington. In the 
 bosom of her soil are deposited her greatest and 
 best sons. Move along in that trail, and there we 
 find Jefferson and Madison and Monroe, and a 
 long list of worthies. 
 
 We come next to old North Carolina, my na- 
 tive State, God bless her! She is my mother. 
 Though she was not my cherishing mother, to 
 use the language of the classics, she is the mother 
 whom I love, and I cling to her with undying af- 
 fection, as a son should cling to an affectionate 
 mother. We find Macon, who was associated 
 with our early history, deposited in her soil. Go 
 to King's Mountain, on her borders, and you there 
 find the place on which the battle was fought that 
 turned the tide of the Revolution. Yes, within 
 her borders 1 he signal battle was fought that turned 
 the tide which resulted in the siin-ender of Corn- 
 wallis at Yorktown,in the Old Dominion. 
 
 Travel on a little further, and we get back ;o Ten- 
 nessee. 1 shall be as modest as I can in reference 
 to her, but she has some association? *hal make 
 her dear to the people of the United Slates. In 
 Tennessee we have our own illustrii-us Jackson. 
 There he sleeps — that Jackson who issued his 
 proclamation in 1833, and saved this Government. 
 vVe have our Polk and our Grundy, and a long 
 list of others who are worthy of remembrance. 
 
 And who lie in Kentucky.' Your Hardings, 
 your Boons, your Roanes, your Clays, are amonir 
 ihe dead; your Crittkkden among the living. 
 All are identified and associated with the history 
 of ilie country. 
 
 Maryland has her Carroll of Carrollton, and a 
 long list of worthies, who are embalmed in the 
 hearts of the American people. And you arc 
 talking about breaking up this Republic, with this 
 cluster of associations, these ties of all'ection, 
 around you. May we not expect that some means 
 may be devised by which they can be preserved 
 together? 
 
 Here, too, in the center ot the Republic, is the 
 scatof Government, which was founded by Wasli- 
 jngtont and bears his immortal name. Who dare 
 
 appropriate it exclusively .' It is within the bor- 
 ders of the States I have enumerated, in whose 
 limits are found the graves of Washington, of 
 Jackson, of Polk, of Clay. From themisitsup- 
 posed that we will be torn away? No, sir; we 
 will cherish these endearing associations with the 
 hope, if this Republic shall be broken, that we 
 may speak words of peace and reconciliation to 
 a distracted, a divided, I may add, a maddened 
 people. Angry waves may be lashed into fury 
 on the one hand; on the other blustering winds 
 may rage; but we stand immovable upon our 
 basis, as on our own native mountains — present- 
 inir their crag^cy brows, their unexplored caverns, 
 their summits " rock-riljbed and as ancient as the 
 siui" — we stand speaking peace, association, and 
 concert, to a distracted Republic. 
 
 But, Mr. President, will it not be well before 
 we lireak up this great Government, to inquire 
 what kind of a government this new government 
 iti the South is tu be, with which we are threatened 
 unless we involve our destinies with this rash and 
 precipitate movement. What intimation is there 
 in reference to its character? Before my State 
 and those States of which I have been speaking, 
 go into a southern or northern confederacy, ought 
 they not to have some idea of the kind of gov- 
 ernment that is to be formed? What are the in- 
 timations in the South, in reference to the form- 
 ation of a new government? The language of 
 some si)eakers is that they want a southern gov- 
 ernment obliterating alt State lines — a government 
 of consolidation. It is alarming and distressiiic 
 to i.ntpilain the proposition here. What ruin 
 and disaster would follow, if we are to have a 
 consolidated government here! But the idea is 
 afloat and current in the South that a southern 
 government is to be established, in the language 
 of some of the speakers in the State of Georgia, 
 " obliterating all State lines;" and is that the kind 
 of entertainment to wliich the people are to be 
 invited? Is that tlie kind of government under 
 which we are to pass; and are we to be forced to 
 emancijiate our slaves unless we go into it? An- 
 other suggestion in reference to a southern govern- 
 ment is, that we shall have a southern confederacy 
 of great strength and power, with a constitutional 
 provision preventing any State from changing its 
 domestic instiiulions without the consent of three 
 fourths, or some great number to be fixed upon, 
 i.s that the kind of governmetU under which we 
 want (o pass? 1 avow here, that so far as I am 
 concerned, I will never enter, with my consent, 
 any government, North or South, less republi- 
 can, less democratic, tiian the one under which 
 we now live. 
 
 Where are we drifting? What kind of breakers 
 are ahead? Have v/e a glimpse through the fog 
 that develops the r()ck i)n which the vessel of 
 State is drifting ? Should we not consider ma- 
 turely, in giving up this old Government, what 
 kind of government is to succeed it? Ought we 
 not to have time to think? Are we not entitled 
 to respect and consideration? In one of the lead- 
 ing Georgia papers we find some queer sugges- 
 tions; and, as the miners would say, these may 
 be considered as mere surface-indications, that 
 lievelop what is below. We ought to know ^Ke 
 
19 
 
 ind of government that is to be established, y 
 A^'hen we read the allusions made in various 
 ,inpers, and by various speakers, we find thai 
 there is one party who are willing to give up this 
 form of government; to change its character; and, 
 in fact, to pass under a monarchical form of gov- 
 ernment. I hope that my friend will read the 
 extracts which I will hand him. 
 
 Mr. LATHAM read the following extracts: 
 
 " If thp Federal system is a failure, the qviestion may well 
 l)e asketi, is not tlie'wlwle republican stistem a failure 1 Very I 
 many wise, ihinkiiis men, say so. \Ve formed the Federal \ 
 iJnveniment beoause the separate States, it was thought, 
 
 V -re not strong enoush to stand alone, and because they 
 
 V -re likelv to prove disadvantageous, if not dangerous, 
 .■..- ch to the other, in their distinct orfranization. and with | 
 r. eir varyinc interests. When we break up. will the dis- 
 nvanUiges and dangers of separate States be ."ucli as to j 
 1. luire thi-> formation of anew confederaey of those wliioh 
 
 . le, at present, supposed to be homoseneous? If we do 
 form a new confederacy, when the old is gone, it would \ 
 teem to lie neither vise, priulent, nor itatemuinlike to frame ' 
 i after the pattern of the old. New safesuards and guar- 
 iiitees must necessarily be required, and none but a lieed- 
 Ii ^smaiiiac would seek to avoid looking this matter square- 
 ii in the tacc. 
 
 •' It is true thai we might make a constitution for the fif- i 
 I. en southern States, which would seeure llie rights of all, 
 at jn-eseut, from hr.rm. or, at least, wliicli would require a 
 dear violation of its letter, so plainly that the world could 
 disceniit, when unconstitutional action was eonsummated. 
 But then, in the course of years, as men changed, times 
 <-li;insed. interests chansed, business changed, productions 
 .•;i:inged, a violation of thesiim* might occur, which would 
 not be clearly a violation ot the letter. It may be said that 
 ihe constitut'ion might provide for its own change as times 
 clanged. Well, tliat was the design when our present Con- 
 Klitution was formed, and, still, we say. it was a failure. 
 How more earet'nilv could a n- w cme b- arranged.' Men 
 will say that we of the South incoiie, anil that we shall get 
 along well enough. But thev who say it know neither his- 
 tor^' nor human nature. When the Union was fornu-d, 
 twelve of the thirteen States were slaveholding; and ifthe 
 cotton gin had not been invented tliere would not probably 
 lo-dav have been an African slave in North America. 
 
 "But how about the State organizations.' This is an 
 important consideration, for whether we consult with the 
 .itlier southern Slates or not, it is certain that each State 
 must act for itself, in the first instance. When any State 
 goes out of the present Federal Union, it then becomes a 
 foreign Povcr as to all the other States, as well as to Hie 
 world. Whether it will unite again with any of the States, 
 nr stand alone, is tor it to determine. The new Confeder 
 ncv must Ihen be made by tho~e States which desire it— 
 and it Georgia, or any other State, does not lind the pro- 
 (K»sed terms" of federation agreeable, she can maintain her 
 own separate form of government, or at least try it. Well, 
 what form of government shall we have.' This is more 
 .-.ihily asked tlian answered. 
 
 •• Some of the wisest and he^f citizenx pmyose a herkd 
 ; TARY coNSTlTtiTioNAL MONARCHY ; but. liowevergood that 
 ni.iy be in itself, the most important point to discover is, 
 \\ liether or not the people are prepared for it. It is thought, 
 n/'ain, by others, thai we shall be able logo on for a «cner- 
 atwn or ttro, in a new confederacy, with additional safe- 
 guards ; such, for instance, as an Executive f<jr life, a vastly 
 rc-^tricted suj'raee. Senators elected for life, or for a lom^ 
 ,,eriod,inv tuentxf one years, and the mo-t popular branch 
 <■{ the assemblv elected for seien years. Ihe judiciary abso 
 lUiely Independent, and for life, or good behavior. 'J'he 
 ■ r quency of elections, and the univer>ality of suflrage, with 
 tlie attendant arousing of the people's passions, and the 
 in oessary sequence of demagogues being elevated to hisli 
 suuion. are Uioughl by many to be the ^rcat causes of trouble 
 umong us. 
 
 '• We throw out these puggestions that tlie people may 
 I jnkof ihem, and act as their interests require. Our own 
 -.pinion is that the South might be the greatest nation on 
 .ne earth, and might maintain, on the b.isis of African 
 slaverj', not only a splendid Govcniment, but a secure re- 
 publican Governinent. But still our fears are that through 
 aitarcky w€ sltall reach the despotism of military chieftains, 
 
 and finally he raised again to a monarchy.-' — Cupula 
 (Georgia) Chronicle and Sentinel of December 8, 1860. 
 
 [From the Columbus (Georgia) Times.] 
 "Let OS Reason Tooether. — Permit a humble indi- 
 vidual to lay before you a few thoughts thai are burnt Into 
 his heart of' hearts by their very truth. 
 
 "The first great thought is Uiis : The institution known 
 as the ' Federal Government,' established by the people of 
 the United Slates of America, is a. failure. This is a fact 
 which cannot be gainsayed. It has ncocr been in the power 
 of the ' Federal Government' to enforce all its own law* 
 within its own territory ; it has, therefore, been measurably 
 a failure from the beginning ; but its first convincing evi- 
 ' dence of weakness was in allowing one br.inch of its or- 
 ' ganization to pass an unconstiiulional law, (the Missouri 
 compromise.) Its next evidence of decrepitude was its 
 inability to enforce a constitutional law, (the iugilive slave 
 law,) the whole I'abric being shaken to its foundation by 
 the onlv attempt of enforcement made by its chief officer, 
 (Presid'?nt Pierce.) 1 need not enlarge in this direction. 
 The ' Federal Government' is a failure. 
 
 " What then.' The States, of course, revert to their orl 
 "inal position, each sovereign within itself. There can be 
 no other just conclusion. This, then, being our position, 
 the question for sober, thinking, earnest men is, what shall 
 we do for the future.' 1 take it for granted that no man In 
 his senses would advocate ihe remaining in so many petty 
 sovereignties. We should be worse than Mexicanizi.d by 
 thai process. What, then, shall we do.' In the first place, 
 I would say. let us look around and see if there is a gov- 
 ernment of an enlightened nation that has not yet proven 
 a failure, but whicii is now, and has ever been, productive 
 , of happiness to all its law abiding people. If such a gov- 
 ernment can be found— a government whose first and only 
 ! object is the goorf. the real good (i\nt fancied good, an 
 i'nis fatuus which I fear both our fathers and ourselves 
 have'too much run after in this country) of all its people— 
 if such a government exists, let u-- exiimme it careiully ; if 
 it has apparent errors, (as wliat humnn institution has not.') 
 let us avoid them. Its beneficial arrangements let Uf adopt. 
 Let US not be turned aside by its name, nor he lured by its 
 ' pretensions. Try it by its works, and adopt or condemn it 
 by its fruits, ifo more experiments. • I speak a^ to wise 
 men; judge ye what I say." 
 : *' I am one of a few who ever dared to think that repub- 
 licanism wiis a failure iVoin its inception, and 1 have never 
 : shrunk from giving my opinion when it was worth while. 
 I have never wished to see this Union disrupted ; but if it 
 must be, then 1 raise my voice for a return to a 
 I "CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHY." 
 
 j " Columbia, South CAROt.iNA, December 5, ISTiO. 
 
 ; " Yesierdav the debate in the House of Uepresentatives 
 '■\ was unusually warm. The parties arrayed .igainst each 
 ' other in the matter of organizing an army, and the manner 
 ! '' of appointing the commanding odicers, used scathing lan- 
 ! guage, and debate ran high throughout the session. So lar 
 as I am able to judge, both the opposing parties are led on 
 by bitter prejudices. The Joint Military ConimiUee, with 
 two or three e.\c-ptions, have pertinaciously clung to the 
 ' idea that a standing army of paid volunteers, to he raised 
 at once, to have tfe power ol' choosing their ofliccrs, up to 
 captain, and to reiiuire all above to be apjiointeil by the 
 Governor, is the organization lor the times. .Mr. Cunning- 
 ham, of the H<mse, who is put forward by the committee 
 to take all the responsibility of extrcMne sentinuiils, ha.x 
 openly avowed his hatred of democracy in the camp. He 
 considered the comnnin soldier as incapable of an elective 
 choice. He and others of his party wage a bitter war 
 against democracy, and indicate an utter want of laith in 
 tiie abilitv of the people to make proper choice in elections. 
 "The party o|iposed to this, tin- predominant party, is 
 osten>.iblv led in the House by iMr. McGowan, of Abbeville, 
 and !Mr. 'Moore, of ,\nderson. These gentlemen have a 
 hard fight of it. They represent the democratic sentiment? 
 I of the rural districts, and are in opposition to the Charles- 
 ton clique, who are urged on by Edwaril Uliett, Thomas Y. 
 Simmons, ai.d B. H. Khett. jr., of the riiarleston .Mercmy. 
 The tendencies of these gentlemen ar. all towards a dicta- 
 torship, or monarchical fonn of govenmient; at least it ap- 
 pears so to my mind, and I finil myself not alone in the 
 opinion. They fi^'ht heart and soul for an Increase of guber- 
 natorial power ; and one of their number, as I have already 
 
20 
 
 stated, openly avows his desire to make the Governor a 
 niilirary chieftain, with sovereign power." — Correspond- 
 ence of the Baltimore American. 
 
 Mr. JOHNSON, of Tennessee. Mr. President, 
 I have merely called attention to these surface in- 
 dication.s for the purpose of sustaining the assump- 
 tion that even the people in the southern States 
 ought to consider what kind of government they 
 are going to pass under, before they change the 
 present one. We are told that the present Con- 
 stitution would be adopted by the new confed- 
 eracy, and in a short time everything would be 
 organized under il. We find here other indica- 
 tions, ami we are told from another quarter that 
 another character of government is more prefer- 
 able. We know that. North and South, there is 
 a portion of our fellow-citizens who are opposed 
 to a government based on the intelligence andwill 
 of the people. We know that power is always 
 stealing from the many to the few. We know 
 that it is always vigilant and on the alert; and 
 now that we arein arevolution,andgreat changes 
 are to be made, should we not, as faithful senti- 
 nels, as men who are made the guardians of the 
 interests of the Government, look at these indica- j 
 tionsand call the attention of the country to them? 
 Is it not better to 
 
 " Bear those ills we have, 
 Than fly to others that we krow not of.'" 
 
 We see, by these indications, that it is contem- ] 
 plated to establish a monarchy. We see it an- 
 nounced that this Government has been a failure 
 from the beginning. How has it been a failure? 
 Now, in the midst of a revolution, while the peo- 
 ple are confused, while chaos reigns, ii; is sup- 
 posed by some tliat we can be induced to return 
 to a constitutional or absolute monarchy. Who 
 can tell that we may not have some Louis Napo- 
 leon among us, who may be ready to make a 
 coup d'etat, and enthrone "himself upon the rights I 
 and upon the lioerlies of the people? Who can j 
 tell what kind of government may grow up?' 
 Hence the importance, in advance, of considering 
 maturely and deliberately ijefore we give up the 
 old one. 
 
 1 repeat again that the people of Tennessee will 
 never pass under another government that is less 
 republican, less democratic in all its bearings, 
 than the one under which we row live, I care not 
 whether it is formed in the North or the South. 
 We will occupy an isolated, a separate and dis- 
 tinct position, before we will do it. We will pass 
 into that fractional condition to which I have 
 alluded before we will pass under an absolute 
 or a constitutional monarchy. 1 do not say that 
 this is the design North or South, or perhaps of 
 any but a very small portion; but il shows that 
 there are some who, if they could find a favorable 
 opportunity, would fix the descrifition of govern- 
 ment I have alluded to on the great mass of the 
 people. Sir, I will stand by the Constitution of 
 the country as it is, and by all its guarantees. I 
 am not for breaking up this great Confederacy. 
 I am for holding on to it as it is, with the mode 
 and manner pointed out in the instrument for its 
 own amendment. It was good enough for Wash- 
 ington, for Adums, for Jefferson, and for Jackson . 
 It is good enowgh lOr us. 1 intend to stand by it. 
 
 and to insist on a compliance with all its guaran 
 tees, North and Soutli. 
 
 Notwithstandiiig we want to occupy the posi- 
 tion of a breakwater between the northern and 
 the southern extremes, and bring all together if we 
 can, I tell our northern friends that the constitu- 
 tional guarantees must be carried out; for the time 
 may come when, after we have exhausted all hon- 
 orable and fair means, if this Government still 
 fails to execute the laws, and protect us in our 
 rights, it will be at an end. Gentlemen of the 
 North need not deceive themselves in that partic- 
 ular; but we intend to act in the Union and under 
 the Constitution, and not out of it. We do not 
 intend that you shall drive us out of this house 
 that was reared by the hands of our fathers. It 
 is our house. It is the constitutional house. We 
 have a right here; and because you come forward 
 and violate the ordinances of this hou.se, I do not 
 intend to go out; and if you persist in the violation 
 of the ordinances of the house, we intend to eject 
 you from the building and retain the possession 
 ourselves. We want,"if we can, to stay the heated, 
 and I am compelled to say, according to my judg- 
 ment, the rash and precipitate action of some of 
 our southern friends, that indicates red hot mad- 
 ness. I want to say to those in the North, com- 
 ply with the Constitution and preserve its guaran- 
 tees, and in so doing save this glorious Union 
 and all that pertains to it. I intend to stand by 
 the Constitution as it is, insisting upon a compli- 
 ance with all its guarantees. I intend to stand by 
 it as the sheet anchor of the Government; and I 
 trust and hope, though it seems to be now in the 
 very vortex of ruin, though it seems to be running 
 between Charybdis and Scylla, the rock on the 
 one hand and the whirlpool on the other, that it 
 will be preserved, and will remain a beacon to 
 guide, and an example to be imitated by all the 
 nations of the earth. Yes, I intend to hold on to 
 it as the chief ark of our safety, as the palladium 
 of our civil and our religious liberty. 1 intend to 
 cling to it as the shipwrecked mariner clings to 
 the last plank, when the night and the tempest 
 close around him. It is the last hope of human 
 freedom. Although denounced as an experiment 
 by some v/ho want to see a constitutional mon- 
 archy, it has been a successful experiment. I 
 trust and I hope it will be continued; that this 
 great work may go on. 
 
 Why should we go out of the Union ? Have 
 weanythingto fear? Wha. are we alarmed about? 
 We say that vou of the North have violated the 
 Constitution; that you have trampled under foot 
 its guarantees; but we intend to go to you in a 
 proper way, and ask you to redress the wrong, 
 and to comply with the Constitution. We believe 
 the time will come when you will do it, and we 
 do not intend to break up the Government until 
 the fact is ascertained that you will not do it. 
 Where is the grievance; wliere is the complaint 
 that presses on our sister. South Carolina, now? 
 Is it that she wants to carry slavery into the 
 Territories; that she wants protection to slavery 
 there? How long has it been since, upon this 
 very floor, her own Senators voted that it was not 
 necessary to make a statute now for the protec- 
 tion of slavery in the Territories? No longer ago 
 
21 
 
 than the last session. Is that a good reason?' 
 They declared, in the resolutions adopted by the 
 Senate, that when it was necessary they had the 
 power to do it; but tliat it was not necessary then. 
 Are you going out for a grievance that lias not 
 occurred, and which your own Senators then said 
 had not occurred? Is it because you want to 
 carry slaves to the Territories ? You were told 
 that you had all the protection needed; that the 
 courts had decided in your belialf, under the Con- 
 stitution; and tiuit, under the decisions of the 
 courts, the law must be executed. 
 
 We voted for the passage of resolutions that 
 Congress had the jiowor to protect slavery, and 
 that Congress ought to protect slavery when neces- 
 sary and wherever protection was needed. Was 
 there not a majority on this floor for it; and if it 
 was necessary then, could we not have passed a 
 bill for that purpose without passing a resolution 
 saying that it should be protected wherever neces- 
 sary? 1 was here; 1 know what tlie substance of 
 the proposition was, and the whole of it was sim- , 
 ply to declare the principle that we had the power, 
 and that it was the duty of Congress, to protect 
 slavery when necessary, in the Territories or 
 wherever else protection was needed. Was it 
 necessary then ? If it was, we had the power, 
 and why did wc not pass the law? 
 
 The Journal of the Senate records that on the 
 25th of May last — 
 
 " On motion by Mr. Brown, to amend the resolution by 
 striking out all alter the word ' resolved,' and in lieu thereof 
 iiisertinc : 
 
 " That experience having already sliown that the Con- 
 stitution and the common law, unaided hy statutory enact- 
 ments, do not atiord adequate and sutlicient protection to 
 slave property ; some of the Territories having failed, oth- 
 ers having refused, to pass such enactments, it has become 
 the duty of Congress to interpose and pass sueh laws as 
 will artord to slave property in the Territories that protec- 
 tion which is given to other kinds of property. 
 
 " It was determined in the negative — yeas 3, nays 42. 
 " On motion by .Mr. Brown, the yeas and nays being 
 desired by one fifth of the Senators present. Those who 
 voted in tlie atfirmative, are : 
 
 " Messrs. Brown, Johnson of Arkansas, and Mallory. 
 '• Those who voted in the negative, are : 
 " .Messrs. Benjamin, Bigler, Bragg, Bright, Chesnut, 
 Clark, (^lay, Clingman. Crittenden, Davis, Dixon. Doolit- 
 tlc, Fiizpatrick, Foot, Foster, Green, Grimes, Gwin, Ham- 
 lin, Harlan, Hemphill, Hunter, Iverson, Johnson of Ten- 
 nessee, Lane, Latham, Mason, Nicholson, Pearee, Polk, 
 Powell, Puijh, Rice, Sebastian, Slidell, Ten Eyck, Thom- 
 son, Toombs, Trumbull, VVigfall, Wilson, and Yulee." 
 
 I was going on to say that the want of protec- 
 tion to slavery in the Territories cannot be con- 
 sidered a grievance now. That is not the reason 
 why she is going out, and going to break up the 
 Confederacy. What is it, then? Is tiiere any 
 issue between South Carolina and the Federal 
 Goverimient? Has the Federal Government failed 
 to comply with, and to carry out, the obligations 
 that it owes to South Carohna? In what has the 
 Federal Goverinnent failed? In what has it neg- 
 lected the interest of South Carolina ? What law 
 has it undertaken to enforce upon South Carolina 
 that is unconstitutional and oppressive? 
 
 If there are grievances, why cannot we all go 
 together, and write them down, and point them 
 out to our northern friends after we have agreed 
 on what those grievances ar\ and say, " here 
 is what we demand; here our wrongs are enu- 
 merated; upon these terms we have agreed; and 
 
 now, after we have given you a reasonable time 
 to consider these additional guarantees in order 
 to protect ourselves against these wrongs, if you 
 refu.se them, then, having made an honorable 
 effort, having exhausted all other means, we may 
 declare the association to be broken up, and we 
 may go into an act of revolution." We can then 
 say to them, " You have refused to give us guar- 
 antees that we think are needed for the protection 
 of our institutions and for the protection of our 
 other interests." When they do this, I will go 
 as far a.s he who goes the furthest. 
 
 I tell them here to-day, if they do not do it, 
 Tennessee will be found standing as firm and 
 unyielding in her demands for those guarantees 
 in the way a State should stand, as any other 
 State in this Confederacy. She is not quite so bel- 
 ligerent now. She is not making quite so much 
 noise. She is not as blustering as Senipronius 
 was in the council in Addison's play of Cato, who 
 declared that his " voicewas still forwar." There 
 was another character there, Lucius, who wiis 
 called upon to state what his opinions were; and 
 he replied that he must confess his thoughts were 
 turned on peace; but when the extremity came, 
 Lucius, who was deliberative, who was calm, and 
 whose thoughts were upon peace, was found true 
 to the interests of his country. He proved him- 
 self to be a man and a soldier; while the other 
 was a traitor and a coward. We will do our 
 duty; we will stand upon principle, and defend 
 it to the last extremity. 
 
 1 We do not think, though, that we have just 
 ' cause for going out of the Union now. We have 
 just cause of complaint; but we are for remaining 
 in the Union, and fighting the battle like men. 
 We do not intend to be cowardly, and turn our 
 backs on our own camps. We intend to stay and 
 fight the battle here upon this consecrated ground. 
 Why should we retreat? Because Mr. Lincoln 
 has been elected President of the United States? Is 
 this any cause why we should retreat ? Does not 
 e/eryman. Senator or otherwise, know that if 
 i.ir. Breckinridge had been elected, we should not 
 be to-day for dissolving the Union? Then wiiat 
 is the issue ? It is because we have not got our 
 man. If we had got our man, we should not have 
 been for breaking up the Union; but as Mr. Lin- 
 coln is elected, vi'e are for breaking up the Union ! 
 I say no. Let us show ourselves men, and men 
 of courage. 
 
 How has Mr. Lincoln been elected, and how 
 have Mr. Breckinridge and Mr. Douglas been 
 defeated? By the votes of the American people, 
 cast according to the Constitution and the forms 
 of law, though it has been upon a sectional issue. 
 It is not the first time in our history that two 
 candidates have been elected from the same sec- 
 tion of country. General Jackson and Mr. Cal- 
 houn were elected on the same ticket; but nobody 
 considered that cause of dissolution. They were 
 from the South. I oppose the sectional spirit 
 that has produced the election of Lincoln and 
 Hamlin, yet it has been done according to the 
 Constitution and according to tlie forms of law. 
 I believe we have the power in our own liands, 
 and I am not willing to shrink from the respons- 
 ibility of exercising that power. 
 
22 
 
 How has Lincoln been elected, and upon what 
 basis doi's he stand? A minority President by 
 nearly a million votes; but had the election taken 
 place upon the plan proposed in my amendment 
 of the Constitution, by districts, he would have 
 been this day defeated. But It has been done 
 according to the Constitution and according to 
 law. I am for abiding by the Constitution: and 
 ill abiding by it I want to maintain and retain my 
 
 Clace here and put down Mr. Lincoln and drive 
 ack his advances upon southern institutions, 
 if he designs to make any. Have we not got the 
 brakes in our hands ? Have we not got the power? 
 We have. Let South Carolina send her Senators 
 back; let all the Senators come; and on the 4th 
 of March next we shall have a majority of six 
 in this body against him. This successful sec- 
 tional candidate, who is in a minority of a mil- 
 lion, or nearly so, on the popular vote, cannot make 
 his Cabinet on the 4th of March next unless this 
 Senate will permit him. 
 
 Am I to be so great a coward as to retreat from 
 duty ? I will stand here and meet the encroach- 
 ments upon the institutions of my country at the 
 threshold; and as a man, as ont- that loves my 
 country and my constituents, 1 will stand here 
 and resist all encroachments and advances. Here 
 is the place to stand. Shall I desert the citadel, 
 and let the enemy come in and take possession? 
 No. Can Mr. Lincoln send a foreign minister, 
 or even a consul, abroad, unless he receives the' 
 sanction of the Senate? Can he appoint a post- 1 
 master whose salary is over a thousand dollars a 
 year without the consent of the Senate ? Shall i 
 we desert our posts, shrink from our responsi- 1 
 bilities, and permit Mr. Lincoln to come with his : 
 cohorts, as we consider them, from the North, to j 
 carry olf everything? Are we so cowardly that i 
 now that we are defeated, not conquered, we shall 
 do this? Yes, we are defeated according to the | 
 forms of law and the Constitution: but the real 
 victory is ours — the moral force is with us. Are 
 we going to desert that noble and that patriotic 
 band who have stood by us at the North; who 
 have stood by us upon principle, and upon the \ 
 Constitution ? They stood by us and fought the i 
 battle upon principle; and now that we have been j 
 defeated, not conquered, are we to turn our backs ; 
 upon them and leave them to their fate ? I, for' 
 one, will not. I intend to stand by them. How , 
 many votes did we get in the North? We got; 
 more votes in the North against Lincoln than 
 the entire southern States cast. Are they not 
 able and faithful allies? They are; and now, on 
 account of this temporary defeat, are we to turn | 
 our backs upon them and leave them to their fate? 
 Wc find, when all the North is summed up, 
 that Mr. Lincoln's majority there is only about 
 two hundred thousand on the popular vote; and 
 when that is added to the othervote cast through- 
 out the Union, he stands to-day in a minority of 
 nearly a million votes. What, then, is neces- 
 sary to be done ? To stand to our posts like men, 
 and act upon principle; stand for the country; 
 and in four years from this day, Lincoln and his 
 administration will be turned out, the worst-de- 
 feated and broken-down party that ever came | 
 into power. It is an inevitable result from the 
 
 combination of elements that now exist. Whni 
 cause, then, is there to break up the Union? What 
 reason is there for deserting our posts and destroy- 
 ing this greatest and best Government that wa."i 
 ever spoken into existence? 
 
 I voted against him; I spoke against him; 1 
 spent my money to defeat him; but still I lovf 
 my country; 1 love the Constitution; I intend t' 
 insist uDon its guarantees. There, and there alone. 
 I intend to plant myself, with the confident hop 
 and belief that if the Union remains together, i.-i 
 less than four years the now triumphant par jr 
 will be overthrown. In less time, I have thehoj)e 
 and belief that we shall unite and agree upon our 
 grievances here and demand their redress, not sm 
 suppliants at the footstool of power, but as pm • 
 ties to a great compact; we shall say that we w;ii!t 
 additional guarantees, and that they are necessury 
 to the preservation of this Union; and then, wlien 
 they are refused deliberately and calmly, if we 
 cannot do better, let the South go together, and 
 let the North go together, and let us have a divis- 
 ion of this Government without the shedding '»t 
 blood, if such a thing be possible; let us havi- a 
 division of the property; let us have a division 1 
 the Navy; let us have a division of the Armv. 
 and of the public lands. Let it be done in peace, 
 and in a spirit that should characterize and dis- 
 tinguish this people. I believe we can obtain all 
 our guarantees. I believe there is too much good 
 sense, too much intelligence, too much patriot- 
 ism, too much capability, too much virtue, in the 
 I great mass of people to permit this Government 
 i to be overthrown. 
 
 ' I have an abiding faith, I have an unshaken 
 ' confidence in man's capability to govern himself. 
 I will not give up this Government that is now 
 called an experiment, which some are prepared 
 to abandon for a constitutional monarchy. No; 
 ] I intend to stand by it, and I entreat every man 
 throughout the nation who is a patriot, and who 
 [ has Seen, and is compelled to admit, the success 
 of this great experiraent, to come forward, not in 
 ! heat, not in fanaticism, not in haste, not in p e 
 cipitancy, but in deliberation, in full view of ali 
 that is before us, in the spirit of brotherly love 
 and fraternal affection, and rally around the altar 
 of our common country, and lay the Constitution 
 upon it as ourlast libation, and swear by our God, 
 and all that is sacred and holy, that the Consti- 
 tution shall be saved, and the Union preserved. 
 ■ Yes, in the language of the departed Jackson, .ei 
 us exclaim that the Union, " the Federal Unii-n. 
 it must be preserved." 
 
 I Are we likely, when we get to ourselves, North 
 j and South, to sink into brotherly love? Are \vt 
 1 likely to be so harmonious in that condition as 
 ! some suppose? What did we find here the other 
 ! day among our brother Senators, one of whom 
 I referred to a southern Governor? I allude to :i 
 1 only to show the feeling that exists even amont 
 ourselves. I am sometimes impressed with th»' 
 force of Mr. Jefferson's remark, that we may aa 
 well keep the North to quarrel with, for if we have 
 j no North to quarrel with, we shall quarrel among 
 I ourselves. We are a sort of quarrelsome, pug- 
 nacious people; and if we cannot get a quarrel 
 from one quarter, we shall have it from another 
 
/ 
 
 23 
 
 and I would mthpr quarrel a littlf now with the ; on your p»rt. It is no supplinncy on ours, but 
 North than be^iiuarreling with ourselves. Because I simply a 'fptnnnd of ri^ht. What concession is 
 the Governor ot" a southern State was refusing; to ' there in dunj,' ri^ht? Then, come forward. We 
 convene the Le^islaiurf to liasten this movement ' have it in our power — yes, this Congress hereto- 
 ihat was i^oinff on throughout the South; and hi- ' day has it in its power to save this Union, even 
 cause he o!)jeciid to that' course of conduct, what j after South Carolina has ffone out. Will they 
 
 did a Senator say h^re in the American Senate.' 
 The question was asked if there was not some 
 TfXan Hruius tiiat would rise upand rid the coun- 
 try of the hoarj'-headed traiccu-I This is the lan- 
 guage that a Senator used. This is the way we 
 begin to speak of southern Governors. Yes; to 
 remove an obstacle in our way, we nuist have a 
 modern Brutus who will go m the capital of a 
 State and assassinate a Governor to accelerate the 
 movemtM)t. If we are so unscrupulous in refer- 
 ence to oMiselvts, and in ref-rence to the means 
 we are willing to employ to consummate this dis- 
 solution, then it does not look very much like 
 
 not (In u ■ V'ou can do it. Who is willing to take 
 the ure.uifui alternative without making an hon- 
 oroli'v'eiJDi t to save this Goveriunent ? This Con- 
 gress l:;■^• It in its power to-day to arrest this thing, 
 at least for a season, until there is time to con- 
 sider nb^ut it, until we can act discreetly and pru- 
 dently, nnd I believe arrest it altoirelher. 
 
 Shall we give all this up to the Vandals and the 
 Goths.- Shall we shrink from our duty, and de- 
 sert the Government as n sinking ship, or shall 
 we stani by it.' I, for one, will stand here until 
 the high behest of my constituents demands me 
 to desert my post; and instead of laying hold of 
 
 harmony among ourselves after we get out of i the columns of this fabric and pulling it down, 
 
 Mr. President, I have said much more than 1 
 anticipated when I commenced; and I have said 
 more now (though external appearances seem 
 dillerent) than [ have strength or liealth to say; 
 Init if there is any effort of mine that would pre- 
 serve this Government till there is time to think, 
 till there is time to consider, even if it cannot he 
 preserved any longer; if that end could besecure(i 
 Ijy making a sacrifice of my existence and ofFer- 
 ing up my blood, I would be willing to consent 
 to it. Let us pause in this mad career; let us hes- 
 itate; let us consider well what we are dning be 
 fore we luake a moveiuent. I believe that, to a 
 certain extent, dissolution is going to take place. 
 1 .tav to the North, you ought to come up in the 
 .i|>irll which should characterize and control the 
 .North on this question; and you ought to give 
 these indications in good faith that will approach 
 wiat the South demands. It will be no sacrifice 
 
 though I may not be much of a prop, i will stand 
 with my shoulder supporting the edifice as long 
 as human effort can do it. 
 
 In saying what I have said on this occasion, 
 Mr. President, I have done it in view of a duty 
 that I felt I owed to my constituents; to my chil- 
 dren; to myself. Without regard to consequences, 
 [have taken my position; and when the tug comes, 
 when Greek shall meet Greek, and our rights ore 
 refused after all honorable means have been ex- 
 hausted, then it is that I will perish in the last 
 l>reach: yes, in the language of the patriot Em- 
 met, " 1 will dispute every inch of ground; ] will 
 burn every blade of grass; and the last intrench- 
 inent of freedom shall be my grave." Then, let 
 ris stand by the Constitution; and in preserving 
 the Constitution we shall save the Union; and in 
 saving the Union, we save this, the greatest Gov- 
 ernment on eartli. 
 
 I thank the Senate for their kind attention. 
 
LIBRfiRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 iliilllillililllllilillliiiiiiiiiiiii 4 
 002 533 535 1 • 
 
UBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 DDD5S33S351 
 
 ^ 
 
 pennulifeo