^ '.'g-^-* '0- ^' -"%isii^** «5'*' "^ "^^ 40^ 0* ^°^^^ V % ^"^ * V-^^ » 4P ^< [p g E © [[] OF y l"iil ''iiiii'iii'i ■''■..iiiuii' ''liiil '''iiiii SlUil '® ''8 m ''C SJ DELIVERED At the Great Union Festival, < HELD AT JACKSON, MISSISSIPPI, On the lOtli day of October, 1§51 REPORTED ESPECIALLY FOR THE NATCHEZ COURIER. NOTCHES: rrinted at the Book and Job Office of the Natchez Courier. .-el's I iii 'iiiiiii ''liiiii F \^®ma g. i. [B®¥©o JUDGE BOYD remarked: Fei-low-Citizens, — We have passed through a Bevere contest, and achieved a signal victory. It was an American contest, and a constitutional victory. In no other land beneath the sun could a similar result have been brought about by simi- lar means. It is not necessary to search the re- cords of ancient history to shew how these strug- gles of opinion have hitherto been conducted. — This truth is strikingly illustrated by the conflicts which have convulsed modern Europe, and are still shaking the foundations of society with a half-smothered violence. These are but struggles of opinion, and yet they have caused seas of blood to flow. Witness the sad scenes of sanguin- ary strife in glorious Italy, in Germany, Hungary, and indeed throughout central Europe ! Behold the melancholy spectacle of France, the so-called Republican France, marching her armies and lending the voice of her caunon to assist Despot- ism in crushing the holy aspirations of the Roman people for that freedom which was to them a birth- right — the brightest inheritance from past ages of glory! This is the shame-spot on the civilization of the nineteenth century. The newest-born of Democracies turning* ler scarcely recovered pow- ers with brutal ferocity, against the oldest of Re- publics, and crushing with the horrible engines of destruction, the kindling sparks of Liberty, re- awakening in the ancient temple of Freedom ! But the agitation which has affected this country throughout its length and breadth, is thus far peaceable, and the only true Republic on earth, the only government under which genuine liberty — liberty regulated by law — is enjoyed, is still unstained with the blood shed in domestic strife. True, there are Northern fanatics and Southern ultras, but their designs are yet unattended by success. Many who are acting with these men are ignorant of the fact that the agitation which they are mutually inflaming, had its origin in British designs upon the prosperity of this country, and the integrity of the Union. This is the truth, however. In 1833, England emancipated her slaves in her West India Colonies ; and in 1835 she commenced by her emissaries the work of abo- litionism here. And from that day to the present, the war of opinion in reference to the institution of slavery has been going on. She has pursued it with an eye that never slept,and a hand that never wearied in the cause. She has kept constantly be- fore her the single object, of controlling by all and every means the manufacturing industry of the world, and adding that conquest to her boasted commercial supremacy over the seas. The atti- tude of Mississippi on this subject has been ther same throughout. Her position has been to main- tain the Constitution unchanged; her cause hag been triumphant, and danger from this source — imminent danger — has disappoMred forever. To understand fully our candition, it is neces- sary to bear in mind the nature of the danger we apprehended. It was that the Constitution did not afford the South a sufficient protection on this vital interest ; or rather, that its guarantees in our favor would not be respected or enforced ; that the legislative powers of the Government might be turned from their proper, constitutional channels, and perverted to our great injury and perhaps ul- timate destruction. Upon these points, Mississip- pi spoke in language not to be misunderstood. The grounds taken by her in her preliminary Con- ventions of May and October 1849, were that she never would consent to the exercise of the powers (4 of the General Government to her oppression, or in any way to the prejudice of her interest in slave property. She would never submit to the abolition by Congress of slavery in the District of Columbia, nor to the prohibition of the internal slave trade between the States. She would not tolerate any action which would affect slavery iu the different States of the Republic. She asserted that she would not submitto any of the anti-slave- ry provisos that had been proposed at different times in Congress as a portion of the governmental law to be given to the territories. Again and again she took and reiterated the position, that she would not permit any change in the organic law on this subject, and would insist to the last, that all her rights in this respect under that instrument should be secured and respected. By a reference to the resolutions passed at those Conventions, these facts will appear beyond dispute. This was all that was asked. Respect for the organic law as it is, and a rigid enforcement of the laws under it, AVe are then solemnly called on to determine, what has been done by the General Government — not by mobs or lawless individuals — to violate any of these declarations of the rights and wishes of the people of Mississippi. To consider this ques- tion was the sole object of the Convention to meet in November next; to deliberate upon the rela- tions between the Federal Government, and the government and people of the State of Mississippi. That Convention was not called upon to say whether the speculative opinions entertained in this or that section of the nation were correct ; nor whether the views of distinguished statesmen, AVebster and Clay, or Cass and Dickinson, were orthodox; nor whether the Northern or Southern ultras were right or wrong in their reasonings ; but to determine the point whether Congress had by any of its acts violated the national compact of Union. The language of the aet calling the Con- vention directs its members "to consider the (then) existing relations between the Government of the United States and the Govarnment and peo- ple of the State of Mississippi, to devise and carry into effect the means of redress for the past and ob- tain certain security for the future, and to adopt such measures for vindicating the sovereignty of the State and the protection of its institutions, as shall appear to them to be demanded." Such, and such alone, is the duty which, by re- peated instructions from the people, your Dele- gates will be bound to perform in the coming Con- vention, and such is, in fact, our duty in thia hour of patriotic conference and re-union. To understand fully the groundwork of dissatis- factioH and complaint, it is absolutely indiapensa- ble to examine in detail, the five measures of com- promise passed at the last session of Congress, and to ascertain their true character when squared by the Constitution. Three out of the five were con- fessedly Southern measures, and the other two, it will be easy to show, involve no violation of the Constitution. The first one in the list of grievances complain- ed of, was the Bill " to suppress the slave trade in the District of Columbia." This act prohibited the bringing into the District of any slave what- ever, "for the purpose of being sold, or for the pur- pose of being placed in depot to be subsequently transferred to any other State or place, to be sold as merchandize." And for any infraction of this law "by the owner or by the authority or consent of the owner, such slave thereupon became libera- ted and free." It is asserted that by this act, Con- gress usurped, and actually exercised the power of emancipating a slave. This is a great error, and one so often committed, that it seems proper to ex- amine it minutely. In the first place, the Act in question is not an act directed to the subject of slavery. Its sole ob- ject is the punishment of an offence, and it comes under the head of crimes and misdemeanors, and not of emancipation, or intermeddling with prop- erty. It is penal in its nature, and the penalty for a violation of it is the loss of the slave. The slave so emancipated or made free, does not obtain his freedom by virtue of this legislation of Con- gress, but by the act of his master himself. The crime of themr.stir is punished by the loss of his slave, but the luss thus incurred is not the result of the law. By no means : this law might remain in force forever, and the relation of master and slave in the District be in no way affected by it. The loss would be the same to the master, and be traceable to the exercise of the same kind of power by Congress, if the penalty had been a sale of the slave. It would have been only a different meth- od of exercising an admitted power. An illustra- tion that cannot be misunderstood, is found in the passage of all those Acts of Congress within the District, which provide for the capital punishment of slaves. In all such cases, no one supposes that the property is taken from the owner by the law, or lost to the master by force of the statute. But another view of the matter is quite as satis- factory. It may be confldantly asserted that the whole operative part of this act is derived from Maryland, and not from the United States Govern- ment. The District of Columbia was ceded to the United States in I'm. By the articles of cession, it was stipulated " that the jurisdiction of the laws of this State over the persons and property of in- dividuals residing within the limits of the cessioa aroresaul, shall not cease or terminate until Con- gress sliall by law provide for the government thereof under their jurisdiction, in manner provi- ded by the article in the Constitution before reci- ted." The eighth Section, Article 1st, of the Constitu- tion, authorizes Congress, "to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever, over such dis- trict (not exceeding ten miles square) as may, by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of Government of the United States." After the cession, and before any legislation on the subject, Maryland in 1796 passed a law, "pro- hibiting the introduction into that State," by land or water, of " any negro, mulatto, or other slave, for SALK, OR TO RESIDE within this State; arid any person brought into this State as a slave, contrary to this act, if a slave before, shall thereiqion cease to he the property of the person or persons so import- iitij or bringing such slave within the State, and shall bejree." Inasmuch as the Act of ] 791 did not expressly provide for future legislation by Maryland, Con- gress expressly adopted the act of 1796 just refer- red to, by a law passed in ISOl, during the admin- istration of Mr. Jefferson. That enactment pro- vided that " the laws of the State of Maryland as they now exist, shall be and continue in force in that part of the said District which was ceded by that State to the United States." It will thus be clearly perceived, that there was a law of Mary- land in force in the District from 1796 to 1850 — the date of the Compromise Acts — by which it was unlawful to bring into the District any slave either " FOR SALE or TO RESIDE," and that the penalty of this act was the freedom of the slave. And the Supreme Court of the United States have twice given their deliberate sanction to this view of the law and its penalty — once in 1S35, and again, as late as 1844. Now the Act of Congress which we are consider- ing, did not alter the law of Maryland as to the crime or penalty, except to render it lawful to in- troduce slaves into the District, for the use of the inhabitants, or to reside there. Congress did but re-enact the Maryland law, which was and is in force whether re-enacted or not, and repeal the prohibition contained in that law against residents of the District introducing slaves for their own use. That provision pressed severely on them. It was repealed by Congress; and this is the only part of the act which derives its force and sanction from Congress. The rest comes from Maryland. If the act of 1850 should be declared void to-mor- row, the Maryland law — a much more oppressive 'one— would still be in force. The former is the least obnoxious of the two. It is but an affirma- tion of tho old law, leaving out that which was most objectionable in it. Congress has not abol- ished slavery by the legislation referred to in tho District of Columbia; and when at the late session a direct attempt M'as made to effect that object, it received but five votes, and was, in connection with what has been actually done, a virtual ac- knowledgment that no power existed in the legis- lative department to accomplish that end. As to the total absence of such power in Con- gress there can be no reasonable doubt. And that the consent of Maryland cannot give it is equally clear. If it exists at all, it must be by virtue of the Constitution alone, for Congress has no powers not traceable to that source, and the consent of all the inhabitants in the District, cannot add one jot to the constitutional functions of Congress. Tho right to destroy property in slaves is not a legis- lative power. No legislature even of the States, can exercise it. It belongs to the people in their highest capacity, and unless granted by their Con- stitutions, has no existence at all. But if this act were as objectionable as it is con- tended, what would be the remedy ? Not nullifi- cation or secession ! Every injur}' inflicted under it, would furnish a case for the action of the judi- ciary, to which the judicial power of the Govern- ment expressly applies. Nor until that, and an effort at repeal, and every other proper and lawful means of redress had been exhausted, could Stato interposition be appealed to. This is the extreme medicine of the Constitution, and ought to be ap- plied only where all other remedies fail, and when the disease would otherwise prove fatal. He is a bad adviser in civil contests, who takes a final posi- tion which he cannot maintain. He thus gives a double strength to his adversary; and the South- ern man who makes a precedent where none exists, may possibly be patriotic, but he is certainly not very wise. The time may not be distant, when the acts of such men may produce more difficulty and embarrassment lo the South, than all the covert designs and secret machinations of our avowed foes. We have thus gained one of the chief points always contended for by Mississippi, that Congress shall not abolish slavery in the District of Co- lumbia. The next feature in the Compromise, was the Fugitive Slave Bill. Is auy person here dissatisfied with it? — Would any one vote for its repeal ? Did any deny the power of Congress to pass it? These are questions to bo put to every Mississippian, and they cover the whole controversy on this point. Nothing was said in cither of our Conventions in Jlay and October, 1S49, en «) this sulfject— why I know not— yet it was the turning point on which all the agitation had hinged. It was the Experimenlum Criicis of the Constitution ! In one essen- tial particular, it was of more importance to us than all the other measures of compromise put together. It is the precise point, in which the non-slaveholding States are made to feel and acknowledge the pressure of the organic law ; to feel that slavery is their institution as well as ours ; a, basis of their constitution as well as ours; a thing recognized, guaranteed and protected by that highest law — the fundamental law, common to both sec- tions of the Union. This bill was passed by Southern men for the defence of the South. It was for the protection of the South, but to be executed by the North. Every letter and line of it was prepared by its friends, without hindrance from any quarter, and with that single object. Indeed so anxious were the Senators from the non-slaTcholding States, to leave the whole matter to their Southern colleagues, that they allowed it to run through all its stages, even to the ' final passage, without even voting on it ; leaving it throughout, with those who were most interested in its terms and execution. The defects of the act of 1793 were all remedied by it, and the'duty of enforcing it, was plac- ed in the hands of Federal, and not State officers. Ad- mitting it were true that the laws, so framed and passed, cannot be executed, the blame does not fall on Congress • it cannot be said that the law-making power has failed to performits duty,and its whole duty. It may be said that the people of the North have been, in some instances, re- miss, or even criminal on this subject, but no censure will lie on Congress. In regard to all the other acts of the Compromise, there might bo some differences of opi- nion among us ; but this was the act of acts ; the only one of them all by which the people — all the people— of the several states, were made to feel the national obliga- tions of the Constitution upon them. Wherever that law goes, non-intervention ceases ! It requires an active and not apas.sive patriotism ! It makes personal action, and not inaction, the national duty, of every man, wo- man and child in the Republic! Doubtless the law may be and has been obstructed. It is not self-executing, and cannot be so. No law can execute itself, and every law that may be enforced may also be resisted. And this law has been resisted even unto blood! But all this has found no sanction in the social systems or, organizations of the free states. It has proceeded from secret machin- tions, treasonable combinations, or lawless mobs : and these may exist anywhere, and under any government. If the day should ever come, when a solemn and deli- berate intention is evinced by the non-slaveholding states to deny the obligation of this law, and to render it nuga- tory, or to deny us in effect the full benefit of the express guarantees of the Constitution in our favor, then I say it\ij}ll he time tor us to take counsel together and to con- si4cr soberly and uuitedly the proper mode and measure of redress. Should such a contingency arise in my day, I for one shall not be found wanting in my duty to my country. The Constitution that will have ceased to protect us, will no longer be worthy of support. But no such design has been exhibited by the States, or the people. Just enough of outbreak and restlessness has been manifested, to arouse them from their apathy, and compel them to their duty. And there is no suffici- ent reason to doubtof the result. They may be willing, when the times arc 'luict and untroubled, to allow our fugitive.- to find an asylum in their midst. They tnigh! even not object to giving thefii "aid and comfort," in a quiet and peaceable manner. But when such a course comes to involve them in the harboring a band of out- laws and murderers ; when they are called on to resist the highest law of the land, and commit treason on their behalf, they will no longer remain passive. If they cannot relieve themselves from this reproach as communities, they will take the short method of driving them beyond their borders,' and sweeping them away as with the besom of destruction! No state can afford to risk the consequences of a contrary course. And the result has already begun to show itself. You will see it in the recent action of Indiana, in incorporating into heT constitution by an overwhelming majority, a prohibition against all future emigration of colored persons. The Na- tional and State Judiciaries, too, have hitherto been faithful. In Michigan, Vermont, Pennsylvania, New York and Massachusetts, they have sustained your rights, and have set forth and illustrated the obligations of the law and the duties connected with it, in a manner that it woiild bo difficult for Southern jm-ists to surpass. I have heard of but one juilge in the U. States, who has ventur- ed the assertion that the law is not constitutional, and ought not to be enforced. And this opinion is without weight, for it partook of the indiscriminate phren.^iy of the inebriate politician, rather than the deliberate! wisdom of the Judge. The fugitive slave law is a wise, just and constitutional law, and will, I doubt not, be fin- ally faithfully executed. Meanwhile, you have all the assurance that can be required, that no violation of if can occur, without bringing down upon the offenders,tho full powers of the I'ederaland State Governments. A conspicuous portion of the platform of the South, at the opening of this controversy was, that we would not permit anti-slavery provisoes to be afiixed to any bills for the govei-nlnent of the territories acquired from Mexico, Have any such provisoes been attached to those bills ? — Was there any thing enacted in either of them, to prevent a Southern man going there with his slaves ? None — em- phatically, none ! Congress had carefully abstained from the exercise of any such power. And this was what we insisted on in our Jfay and October Conventions. I am aware it has been insisted on high authority, that the law of Mexico prohibiting slavery, prevails in the terri- tories acquired from her by war and treaty, and that it so prevails in virtue of the Law of Nations. I shall un- dertake to prove the contrary, and as the point is some- what difficult, you will pardon me for asking your special attention. No one will contend that one nation can make laws that shall of themselves, or by their own inherent force, be binding on any other nation. No government can rightfully u.^urp the legislative functions of another. The laws that bind apeople, must proceed from the law-mak- ing power which they have established for themselves. The principles of the Laws of Natioas contended for, do not, when properly understood, conflict with this view. They are not the result of direct enactment, but rather a Code of conventional rules adopted from time to time, to meet the exigencies of society, in those relations that are not provided for by direct municipal regulations. — ■ They form the rules of action and guidance for nations in their intercourse with each other, whether in peace or war. Their operation in every particular State, depends n-jt absolutely on their intrinsic force, but may always be '') rcfvrrefl to silent aciiuicaccnco or aJoption. As anciently known and rccognizca, tliuy have 8i>runf; up from im- memorial time, among nations having regal or despotic powers, and of a homogeneous character. I mean by this, that their goverumeuts were of such a character, that each and all of them might accede to the National Code, without violating any principle of their separate governments. This indeed flows as a corollary, from the fact thj,t their elfect in each particular state is derived from adoption. For the adoption of any law, is the creat" ing it, as to the people by whom and over whom, it is ad- opted. Examining now, thi:; alleged principle iu its ap- plication to our country and government, and admit- ting its existence within certain limits, you will see why it cannot be applied to the prejudice of the Southern States, on the question of slavery in conquered; or other- wise acquired territory. I take these two positions. First. The principle of the Law of Nations ou this head is based upon, and limited by considerations of hu- manity, that apply to the conquered people — and not to the conqueror, otherwise than as he identifies himself with them. And SECOND. That under our government and consti- tution, no such principle can be acquiesced in, adopted or enacted, because there is no power in any or all of the departments of the General Government to create or de- stroy slavery anywhere. When one nation conquers another in war, a new re- lation springs up between them. The political existence of the one is destroyed or merged in the other. But the force of arms is not directed against the municipal regu- lations of any people ; it has no other object than to beat down the uplifted arm of the belligerent, and silence or overcome his resistance. When this is done, a new state of things arises; a new sovereign is acquired by the conquered, and a new people by the conqueror. New du- ties — of obligation, on the one hand, and protection, on the other — immediately commence. Doubtless the con- queror may by the exercise of his law-making power, wherever that may be lodged, repeal all the old munici- pal laws, and establish others in their stead ; but until he does so, they remain from necessity, the nature of the case, and the claims of hvimanity. It is not to be tolerated that a civilized and organized community, forced to yield to a superior military force, should be deprived of all rules of ordinary government, for the guidance of its people in the variovis relations of society, and be thrown back to a state of barbarism. Hence those and such like rules remain in force until repealed. But their only object is to save the conquered race from anarchy. It is for their benefit, and not for the benefit or to the prejudice of the conqueror. Should any of the subjects of the conquering power go into such territory, doubtless their oonduct in what was to be done or transacted by themselves, or in reference to any relations of contract or obligation there created, would be subject to the same regulations as the resident or native citizen ; because there would be no other law there, under which any rights could be ac- quired. This is the extent, and shows the limit of the principle. It excludes all idea of the political power re- maining after the conquest ; it confines the operation of it to the territory. Thus understood, this principle can have no application to slavery, or any other relation ac- tually and lawfully eiistjug under the ]aw>i cf the con- queror, and wholly independent for its creation upon the foriegn law. An illustration will suffice for this part of the argument. Supposing slavery to be forbidden in Mexico by the Mexican law. Then it would be impossible for a Mexican or an American, since the conquest of those territories to go there, and establish or create that relation described in our Constitution as " the relation of service or labor under the laws of a State." Not because such a relation cannot c.xistthere, but because there is no method of creating it by any law there in force. The same may be said of every other contract or relation of society, concerning which their laws difTor from ours, or else make no provisions what- ever upon the subject. Marriage, legitimacy, bond- service and every species of contract, come under the same principle. A different case is, however, presented, when it is contended that these foreign laws act back on the conqueror, and destroy rights, relations and contracts lawfully subsisting among his people. If, without seeking to establish the-se relations under the territory or its laws, a s\lbj«ct of the conqueror goes there to enjoy his pre-ex- isting rights — rights existing under his own laws — no rule of law or reason can, or will allow such rights to be annulled, such relations to be destroyed, or such contracts avoided. A citizen of America may go to the territories acquired from Mexico, with his wife and children, his servants, whether bound for a term of years by contract, or held for life to service and labor under the laws of a State, without fear that he will be divorced, bis offspring bastardized, and his relation of master destroyed by any fancied rule of national law. I will pursue this part of the subjectno further. My second position is, that there is no power in the Government to adopt or assert such a princi- ple of the Law of Nations, if it exists elsewhere. Ours is a Constitutional Government, and no mu- nicipal law can be binding on our citizens any- where, unless it can be traced in some way to the Legislative power. There is no legislative power in the General Government, but what is granted by the Constitution ,• and that — all of it — is "ves- ted in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Treaties are a part of our Supreme Law, but they are chiefly operative by furnishing rules of na- tional intercourse, and are not designed to pre- scribe municipal regulations for the government of the citizen : at all events, they cannot be employ- ed to create rules of action which are forbidden to the legislative power, or are not within its scope. They may therefore be thrown out of the view in this enquiry, since there is no pretence that our treaty with Mexico eittier could or did abolish (S) slavery in the territory. The American negotia- tor refused even to listen to such a proposal. Looking then to the legislative power under our Constitution, and that alone, it maybe confidently asserted that such a right, as that claimed to pro- hibit slavery in those territories does not exist ; and if this is admitted, then the legislative power cannot adopt a law existing there which does pro- hibit it, for that would be in substance and effect, the enactment of a prohibition. This must be so, unless the local law has effect there, in and of itself, which has been already disproved. Could our own people have passed such laws there, had they found the territory vacant? No one contends for this, until they are in the act of forming a Consti- tution, and then they can act as they please on the whole subject. How then can the vanquished Mexican pass laws against his conqueror, which our own citizens could not do ? It is not denied that other Governments differ- ently constituted, might be bound by a different rule. But ours is limited by the Constitution, and cannot directly or indirectly exceed the grants of power there given. There are, and must be there- fore,many principles of the Laws of Nations, which liave not, and cannot be made to have anj' bearing upon us as a nation. This very point has been clearly stated by Chief Justice Taney, in reference to the duties levied by our army at Tampico, while that port was in possession of our troops. He de- clared that conquest, under the laws of nations, made the subjugated territory a part of the prop- erty of the conqueror. But that under our Con- stitution, neither the Army nor the Executive could add to the boundaries of the Union, by subjecting neighboring provinces to our swayj but that the treaty-making power alone extended to such a case. Gen. "Washington gave a similar intimation in 1794, when urged by Mr. Hamilton and Mr. Ran- dolph, to give certain positive assurances and guar- antees as President, to Great Britain, concerning indemnity to be allowed by our government under Jay's Treaty, for British vessels taken by French privateers, contrary to established rules. He con- sidered that anything beyond a mere expression of opinion, would be an interference with the proper prerogatives of the Legislative department, and declined to comply with their request. Ho said: "Although the usage of Nations may be oppo- sed to this practice, the difference may result from the difference between their Constitutions and ours, and from the prerogatives of their Executives. The powers of the Executive of this country are more definite and better understood, perhaps, than those of any other country; and my desire has been and will be, neither to stretch nor relax them, in any instaneo whatever, uulcss compelled to it by imperious circumstances.'' — Vol. 10, Spark's Life, &c., pp. 419—422. In fact the whole idea in reference to this point, so prejudicial to us, has derived its force from the recognition of Governments, whose Executive pos- sessed a portion of legislative power. It couies from the civil law writers, who define Law to be that which the King or Prince wills — " Qntcquid placuit rerji, hahuit vifjorem legia" — and Liberty the right to do that, which is not forbidden by law or the will of the Prince. Thus in 1774, Lord Mansfield declared : "No question was ever started before that the King had a right to a legislative authority, over a conquered country; it was never denied in West- minster Hall ; it never was questioned in Parlia- ment." So Lord Coke in the time of James the First as- serted : " If a King come to a Kingdom, by conquest he may, at his pleasure, change and alter the laws of that Kingdom, but until he doth make an altera- tion of those laws, the ancient laws of the King- dom remain." And again Lord Mansfield used the following language, which has been ever since adopted, to state the proposition : — " The laws of a conquered country continue in force, until they are altered by the conqueror." — They were adopted or silently acquiesced in hy the Icfjislative x>ower of the King, and that rendered them subject to the important corollary stated by Lord Mansfield in his Sixth Proposition : " If the King, and when I say the King, I al- ways mean the King, without the concurrence of Parliament, has the power to alter the old and in- troduce new laws, in a conquered country, the legislative 2yower being subordinate to his own au- thority in Parliament, he cannot make any new change contrary to fundamental princi^iles. He cannot exempt an inhabitant from that particular dominion, as for instance, from the laics of trade, from the potoer of Parliament, or give him privi- leges exclusive of his other subjects, and so in many other instances." You will thus see that these limitations on the Laws of Nations, so clearly set forth by the most learned Judge of his day, are sufficient to prevent the application of them to the question of slavery in the territories. Because it would be indirectly legislating out of existence a "fundamental prin- ciple " of our Constitution, and destroying by the law-making power one of its bases. By keeping in mind, that there is no legislative power in our Government but what belongs to Congress, the application of these principles and reasonings will be readily made. You will especially observe how idle a thing it is, to require Congress to repeal the alleged Mexican laws, which never could have had any existence against us. The erroneous views entertained on this subject have been snore injurious to the South, than any direct doc- (0 triuc of Abolitiouisiu. It was owiuj; to tbeir existeuce that the Cliiyton Coirniromisc bill was lost, at a moment when the whole difficulty could and would have been settled satisfactorily to us all. To the same cause we trace two other of the most j-crnlcicus opinions, ■with ■which we have had to contend, and the existence of which is still felt. I speak, first, of the idea that posi- tive legislation was necessary to authorise the introduc- tion of slaves into the Mexican territories ; and second, of the mischievous hoi-esy of Non-intervention, as under- stood in the non slaveholdiug States. This doctrine has placed our chief pecuniary interest beyond the pale of the Constitution ; has isolated us from the protection of law, and given countenance to the prevalent idea, that the citi- zen of the North has no duty under the law enacted for oiir benefit but a passive one, when our safety requires a constant, bold and active one on his part, by which alone the integrity of the Ilopublic can be main- tained. Thanks bo to Ood, that the scales are falling from the • eyes of those blind loaders of the blind, who have incul- cated these notions, and our rights are again placed under the poustitution, as they were in the beginning. The action of the Nashville Convention on this subject •was decisive and important, and as it seems to be misun- derstood in this and oth(^r particulars, I crave your at- tention to an examination of it, somewhat in detail. You arc aware that I was associated with the three Judges of the High Court of Errors and Appeals, to represent the State at large in that assembly. The honor was confer- red without solicitation on my part, and my election was the first notice I had of the intention of the legislature. So far as concerned me, no pledges were asked or required. Having no political aspirations, and wholly regardless of that popularity which is, however remotely, connected with office or place, and being deeply interested in the re. suit of the questions then agitating the public, and with the conviction that the integrity of the Republic was in imminent jeopardy from ultraism in both its sections, I entered this Council of Southernmen, with afull determin- ation to use my humble abilities with fidelity to the State, to allay all unnecessary heat and excitement, to obtain a united, firm and just exposition of our rights under the Constitution, and to insist on their remaining untouched by the action of the General Government. I confess I had fears— many fears— that rash counsels might prevail, or that there might be a siiccessful eftort to commit us to extreme opinions. Every thing looked threatening, and it appeared to me the only chance of safety lay in a firm adherence to the Constitution. I never hesitated to meet Southern men in council, and thought if we could not agree among ourselves, it would be hopeless to expect others to unite with us. There had been Conventions in other parts of the country in refer- ence to other great interests — the iron-mongers, the wool- growers, the manufacturers and the abolitionists, had all endeavored to push forward their peculiar views by that sort of concert ensured by meetings and conventions. It is the American way of obtaining objects of general mo- ment, and the interests of the slave States were impor- tant enough, and in peril enough, to warrant a resort to ■ it. I had no hesitation on the subject, and cheerfully con- sented to act as a delegate. The first thing done after the organization, was to ap- point a Committee on resolutions and propositions, con- siating of two members ixom each State, (except Tesas, which had but one delegate,) to whom w«r to be referred every resolution and proposition which might be the sub- ject of debate. This arrangement, it is evident, lodged the wliolo power of the Convention in the Committee, and here it remained necessarily until it reported. Ifav- ing been on that Committee, it is proper I should spc:ik ofits action, on certain points of great interest. A series of resolutions was referred to the Committee, as soon as it was organized. They had been offered by a gentleman from Alabama, and are chiefly what Were finally pass- ed, and constitute the first thirteen of tho published Kc- solutions of the Convention. I am unable to say i?hO was their author, but my belief is that they were prepar- ed by Mr. Rhett, who was not a member of the Commit- tee, bul who was the author of the Address subsequently adopted. I judge so from their similarity in expression, and from a statement in the original Address, which was stricken out in its pi'ogress. It is as follows : " In the resolutions loa have adopted, and submit to your approba- tion, you will perceive that we recommend you to assent to the admission of California as a State, on certain condi- tions." It is important to notice that the series of resol vcs as pass- ed, relates almost wholly to the territorial questions, and as soon as they wore passed, the same gentleman who had oflcred them, notified the Committee that an Address had been prepared, which he doubted not would meet with their sanction, and requested the chairman to specify a time for calling them together to take action upon it. — Some objection was made, as another Committee had been appointed to frame an Address. The Committee was however called together, the Address read, and pushed forward to its final passage, with great zeal. Without- particularizing or stating the grounds of my belief, which have since been much strengthened, I came to the con elusion; First — That that there was a design to keep open the agitation on the subject of slavery, particularly in the territories, and Secondly, to commit the Convention to an ultimatum of some kind on this subject; to cause them to take a final step leading ultimately to separate State action or Secession ; or as it was sometimes phrased, to " equality • in the Union or Independence out of it!" To prevent either of these results became from that time my sole purpose. My first attempt was to amend the address so as to conform to the thir- teen resolutions already agreed upon, and then it was my intention, if successful, to add a series of resolutions filling up tho gap left by the Com- mittee, and covering the whole ground of slavery under the Constitution. For two days I labored alone and faithfully to secure the passage of such amendments, bvit without success. Al- though it was evident that tho address, as it stood, could not be adopted by the Convention save by a bare majority of States, and a minority of mem- bers, still its friends were so wedded to it that all efibrt at change became hopeless. And yet this address, intended to speak for nine Southern States, contained such expressions as these ! — "You have waited until the Constitution of the United States hiis heen virtvalhj abolished, or what j is worbe, is onl^ what the mnjcrity in Ccncfress tMnk 2 ( 10 •pro2'>er lomaJceit. That great princiiple on which our system of free government rests, — of so divid- ing the powers of government, that to a common government only those powers should be gmnted, •which must afl'ect all the people composing it equally in their operation, whilst all powers over all interests, local or sectional, should be reserved to local and sectional governments, — is uprooted from their Constitutions." " The power to emancipate the slaves in the District of Columbia is i\i.us claimed and exercised by Congress." "Fugitive slaves are put," by the Constitution, "on the footing of fugitive criminals, and are to be delivered up hy the State authorities." "Although the Constitution requires that fugitive slaves, like fugitives from justice, should be ren- dered vp bi/ the Stales to which they may have fled," &c. Ac. "This (slavery) alone sets apart the Southern States as a peculiar people, with whom indepen- dence as to their external policy is the condition of their existence; they must rule themselves or perish." "But if our view of its provisions is correct, instead of ' a compromise,' it is a comprehensive system of emancipation .'" Besides these extraordinarj^ and unjust expres- sions of opinion, there is a sin of omission in regard to the address, which cannot be too severely repro- bated. In undertaking to explain the compromise bill as it relates to Utah and New Mexico, not one ■jvord is said about the Wilmot proviso being omit- ted from its provisions. Such a thing appears wholly irreconcileable with any just notion of can- dor and fair dealing. Having failed in obtaining any amendments to the address, I again endeavored to do the next best thing, by drafting a series of resolutions hav- ing the effect of preventing any injurious inferen- ces from it, and at the same time of setting forth our whole claim of right under the Constitution. Here allow me to introduce and read the 19th, 20th, 21st, 22d, 23d, 24th, 25th and 27th resolu- tions of the Convention, as follows : 19. Iicsnlved, That the whole legislative power of the United Stat«s (iovernment is derived from the Constitu- tion and delegated to Congress, and cannot be increased or diminished but by an amendment of the Constitution. 20. Jicsoltu'.d, That the acquisition of territory by the "United States, whether occupied or vacant, either by purchase, conquest or treaty, adds nothing to the legisla- tive power of Congress, as granted and limited in the Constitution. 21. Resolved, That the adoption of a foreign law exist- ing at the time, in territory purchased, ceded, or granted, is the exercise of legislative power, and cannot be done unless the law is of such a character as might rightfully be enacted by Congress under the Constitution, without reference to its pre-existence as aforeign law. 22. Jiesulved, That the alleged principle of the law of Nations, recognizing, to some extent, the perpetuation of foreign laws in existence within a territory at the time of its acquisition by purchase, oon(iuest. or treaty, cannot under our Constitution and form of government, goto the extent of continuing in force, in such territory, any law that could not be directly enacted by Congress, by virtue of the powers of legislation delegated to "it by the Constitution. 23. Resolved, That no power of doing any act or thing ll*y any of the Departments of our tJoverument, can be based upon the principles of any foreign law, or of thu laws of nations, beyond whatexi tsin such Department under the Constitution of the United States, -without ref erence to svieh foreign law or the laws of Nations. 2-1. Resolved, That .slavery exists in the United States independent of the Constitution. That it is recognized by the Constitution in a threetold aspect, first as proper- ty, second as a domestic relation of .service or labor under the law of a State, and lastly as a basis of political pow- er. And viewed in any or all of these lights, Congress has no power under the Constitution, to create or destroy it anywhere; nor can such power be derived from foreign law.s, conqui st, cession, treatj', or the laws of nations, nor from any other source but an amendment of the Con- stitution itself. 25. Resolved, That the Constitution confers no power upon Congress: to regulate or prohibit the sale and trans- fer of slaves between the States. 27. Resolved, That is the duty of Congress to provide ef- fectual means of executing the 2d section of the 4th ar- ticle of the Constitution, relating to the restoration of fugitives from service or labor. These, as you will see, forever put to rest the two preposterous ideas shadowed forth in the Ad- dress. First, that the Mexican laws prohibiting slavery were still in force in the territories, and must be repealed by an express act ; and Secondly, that Congress has any power to establish or abol- ish slavery, either below or above 36° 30', N. L. I found at first a serious opposition to these reso- lutions from several gentlemen, whose subsequent course as secessionists explains their motives of action. I cannot doubt that this opposition was owing solely to the fact, that they destroyed all pretence for agitation or complaint in regard to the recognition of slavery by Congress below 30° 30', as well as to any alledged force in the ancient laws of Mexico. My propositions were accordingly declared a string of truisms, and they asserted that we did not meet to enunciate mere axiomatic truths ! If you, fellow-citizens, and the people of the South shall concur in this view, I shall consider it the highest compliment of my life. For it will be as- serting that my efforts were successful in placing the rights of the South under the Constitution, m reference to the whole subject of slavery every- where, upon grounds so simple that they admit of no dispute ! These resolutions, with those already spoken of, and some others relating to Texas, constitute the whole action of the Convention ; and by them, and them alone, should it be judged, and not by the address promulgated. I am satisfied to be judged of now and hereafter, in respect to my fidelity to the South and the Union, by the spirit and sense of the resolutions above quoted. But the address, no earthly power could or can induce me to sign or approve. I resisted it in every stage of its pro- gress, and now hope it is placed in a position where it will be powerless of mischief! Before proceeding to show that the Address was not concurred in by the Convention, I desire to refer briefly to the 11th Resolution. This resolution was not intended as a proposi- 11 tion of the line of 3G" 30' as an Hltiniatani, or as a measure desired by the Convention in any event. It was merely an indication of a willingness to acquiesce in that line being run, not as an exten- sion of the Missouri compromise, but merely as a dividing line of property ; the one party to take what was above, and the other what was below, as his own separate propert}', without any legislation by Congress on either side as to slavery. It was therefore neither a proposition, nor the Missouri compromise, nor intended as an ultimatum. The first part of it shows that it was not even a thing to be acquiesced in, unless "in the event that a dominant majority shall refuse to recognize the great constitutional rights we assert, and shall con- tinue to deny the obligations of the Federal Gov- ernment to maintain them." The phrase, "AS an KXTREME CONCESSION," was inserted at the request of a gentleman from South Carolina, after the Committee had discussed and abandoned the word " ultimatum," and was intended to indicate that we considered we had a full right above as well as below °36 80', and the concession was, in being willing to divide the property and take half in ab- solute ownership, instead of an undivided interest in the whole, liable to be interfered with by anti- slavery restrictions. And in that direction, and with that view, it was as far as we were,willing to go. We would accede to it, but would not propose it; nor could we do so consistently with the prin- ciples avowed in the resolutions already referred to. The action of Congress upon this subject has prevented the contingency suggested from arising, as they have not refused "to recognize the great constitutional rights we assert, nor continued to deny the obligations of the Federal Government to maintain them." On the contrary. Congress has abandoned the right to pass the Wilmot pro- viso, to abolish slavery in the District, to prevent the transportations of slaves from State to State for sale ; has reversed the principle of the Missouri compromise greatly to our advantage in regard to New Mexico and Utah, the whole of the last and much of the first being above 36.30, and now open to slavery ; and has given us a law fully to exe- cute the constitutional provisions for the delivery up of our fugitives from labor and service. This is the result of the action of the last Congress, if you are satisfied to regard it as " a settlement, a Jiual settlemsnt, in principle and substance, of the exciting subjects embraced in the compromise mea- sures !" The twenty-fourth of this series of resolutions, analyzes the constitutional features of slavery as it exists in the States. It places it on three grounds, — a fourth, that of a personal relation, being in- cluded in the second. They are as follows : First, us property. In this aspect no one can rightfully maintain that Congress can create or destroy it. Second, as a piersnnal and domestic relation " of service or labor under the laws of a State." Thig, to us the most important, least objectionable and strongest view, has not been sufficiently noticed. The maddest fanatic on earth would hardly claim any authority in Congress to regulate the domestic relations existing under the laws of the separate States, or to take any action in reference to them that would tend, however remotely, to afi'ect them within the limits of the Union. The Government was formed for no such purpose ; the necessity for it grew out of no such interests or concerns. It was established solely to act upon affairs of a gen- eral nature, affecting all the people alike, such as commerce, navigation, war,peace and revenue. The grades and divisions of the social relations were not in jeopardy, either under the colonial rule or the Ar- ticles of Confederation. It was not with a view to touch them in any way or any where, that " tho more perfect union" of the Constitution was re- quired or formed. The enormity and injustice of the attempt to wrest the powers of the government in a different direction, cannot be more effectually shown than by this consideration. AVe have too often been led off, and wasted our strength in con- sidering other phases of slavery; but this is its strongest defence, and most interesting character. We are unjust to oursevles when we forget it. The n 3arer we bring it to what it really is, a part of our social arrangement, and domestic, household life j the more favorably before the world do we place it, and the stronger under the Constitution. Could we relieve it entirely from any other condition, and cause it to be looked on no longer as a mere means of safe or profitable investment, we should do more for the safety and prosperity of the South, than by any achievement made since the Declaration of Independence. Our enemies would be disarmed, and our section of the Union be covered by an abounding prosperity we have never dreamed of, in the release of large amounts from a precarious and over-crowded staple production, to be employ- ed in increasing a thousand-fold the spread of the mechanic and manufacturing arts among us, ac- companied with all that diversity of persuit, which constitutes the source of the greatest prosperity, wealth and happiness of States and nations. Thirdly, as a basis of 2}olitical piower under the Constitution. It needs no argument to show that Congress cannot change the source from which all its powers flow, nor displace one stone from the foundations of the Republic. Congress is the creature, and the Constitution the creator; and the former cannot succeed in any war upon the latter. ( 12) These arc the sentiments of the Nashville Con- vention as unanimously expressed in the 24th Res- olution, ami I trust they are satisfactory to you, and will be so to the country. The "Texas Boundary Bill'' was incorporated •with the New Mexican territorial bill, and they became a law in their united condition. The State of Mississipppi in neither of its conventions, had expressed any opinion on this measure. [Judge Boyd here read that portion of the Nashville reso- lutions upon this subject, and briefly commented on their meaning. The 18th of them contained an important admission, applying equally to the whole subject. The language used was that the right of the people of Texas "is clear and unqxiestionable, and cannot be strewjthened hy any mere legislative construction or guarantee." This, he said, was a clear constitutional principle. These legislative acknowledgments are of no importance to our rights, and may be prejudicial by encouraging the idea that they are really within the reach and con- trol of legislation. He then proceeded to examine the Boundary Bill as follows:] The purchase from Texas of her claim was certainly very far from being a denial of her rights. And, consid- ering the amount paid, the acknowledgment of those lights would appear sufficient to satisfy the most fastid- ious. She was not forced to abandon it, but sold it volun- tarily for what she considered a fair equivalent. The bill leaves the right of the people of Texas to form at the proper time, with the consent of that State, four new slave States out of its territory, clear and unquestiona- ble, neither strengthened nor weakened " by any mere legislative construction or guarantee" — a right that is as fully acknowleged by leading statesmen at the North as at the South. The assertion so often made, that a portion of Texas slave territory has been surrendered to free-soilism, is wholly untrue. I humbly hope I have already proved that the right to slavery exists in New Mexico under the territorial government, and is not in the least degree af- fected by any ot the ancient laws of Mexico. It is un- necessary to repeat the argument. It' may be briefly said, that until New Mexico shall form a constitution pro- hibiting slavery, no part of that territory has been, or can be surrendered to free-soil influence. Of her right to do that, no southern man dare to make a question. Is it ne- cessary to so into any labored defence of the right of Tex- as to settle her disputed boundary as she did ? That right •was the absolute ant? necessary result of the ownership of co-terminous boundaries, and must be so, if she had a right toany boundaries at all. The claim ofTexas as against the Federal Government, appears to me was well made and unanswerable, however it may have been against Mexico. But the people of New Mexico and the Federal Govern- ment took a different view, and in this condition of af- fairs, there were but two ways of adjusting the difference. Resort must be made to either negotiation or war. The first was wisely adopted, and the result was satisfactory to the authorities and people of Texas. He who claims to be a State Itights man, and denies the right of Texas to accede to this peaccful-settlement, besides the horrible alternative which he alone leaves hof, presents the siflg'tJ- lar anomaly, of insisting on the perfect right of a State to secede with all her territory and to di.sposo of it as she pleases, and j'et of denjiug hev just authority to sell a part, In adjusting a disputed boundary, and to prevent a i-esort to ai-ms! After the purchase of Florida from Spain, Alabama and Mississipiii from Georgia, and the Mexican Territory from Mexico, it seems late in the day to question the con- .stitutional adjustment of the boundary of Texas, in con- sideration of an equivalent satisfactory to her I Under the Constitution of the United States, she had a much more extensive power than this ; and quite large enough to include it — I mean, the power to assent to forming a new State out of her territory. Her most distinguished Senator has since declared, that Texas had but a claim to this part of her territory, and th.T,t she had greatly weakened it, by treating with New Jlexico as having an equal claim with her. By this settlement the South actually gained a virtual repeal of the principle of the Missouri Compromise. Be- cause all that part of Texas ceded to the Federal Govern- ment above 36 30, was freed from the restriction contain- ed in the resolutions of annexation, and left at liberty to come into the Union as a free or a slave state according as the people willed. And something more tjian this was done by it in our favor. For if, as is contended, while a part of Texas it was .all slave territory, then by incorporat- ing it into and with New Mexico, without any restriction, it caused a part at least of the latter to be slave territory; and no distinction being made in the territorial bill, as to t'le source from which the countrywas acquired, in regard to the rights of the inhabitants, the door of New Mexico was actually opened to slavery instead of free-soilism ! — The Texas Boundary Bill violated no rights of the South, but on the contrary was conformable to established precedents, and greatly beneficial to all parties concerned in it. I now proceed to show that the Address of the Nash- ville Convention was not approved of by that body. When ■ first reported from the Committee, several gentlemen were prepared to suggest various alterations. In fact so many propositions were made that its friends perceived it was in danger of being greatly modified or entirely de- feated. At this stage, General Pillow made a few sugges- tions so reasonable, that they were at once concurred in by the Convention. Their character may be seen by com- paring the extracts I have read from the original address, with that published in the final proceedings. Having produced a temporary calm, and a more conciliatory state of feeling among the members, the General pro- ceeded to make a master stroke, by which the huge and rampant monster was to be deprived of sting and. venom, and reduced to the harmless ferocity of "a sucking dove." I would you could have seen how gently and soothingly, how pleasantly and courteously , how without any ap- parent interest or anxiety, 'on t only as if it were a mere matter of course, he executed the difficult task. Indeed it was done so handsomely, with so little shock to the nerves, that I doubt if the surrounding friends were conscious of tlie change produced upon their idol ! Without heat, but calmly, deliberately. and with an air of indifference, as ifhe were only about to correct a mere ver- bal error, he handed to the chair the following amendment to the last clause of the Address, stating that it would har- monize matters much to pass it, and would probably sa- 13 t'lsfy the Tennessee Jelosation, wliicb, by tLo way, com- prised nearly half of the assembly. Here it is; read it and ponder over it : and seo if men ever certified further to their own fully, thaa those who concurred in ;uloiitinK this Address, and putting it forlli to the world al'lfr it waa so amended. " It is proper to state to yon, that while we are iinani- mous in approving the resolutions accompany in^; this ad- dress, the Uelejiates to this Ccmveution ar<; nut nidireli/ unanimoHsin appronwj all ihr.niriumnits cantained in U. particulnrly such as rkalclo the cnmprimuse bill jiendiiifj »»o;iier, lehich iDill pervade the whole Union, in as energetic a manner, as the authority of the State Governments extends over the several States," Can anything more clearly foreshadow the com- ing Constitution ? Again : During the same year, he was applied to, to use his influence in putting down the insur- rectionary movements in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. The insurgents were in open rebel- lion, and defying the public authority. Hear the Father of his Country, once again uttering his words of wisdom ! "Influence is not Government. Let us have a Government, by which our lives, liberties and pro- perty will be secured, or let us know the worst at once. If they have real grievances, redress them, if possible, or acknowledge your inability to do it at the moment. If they have not, employ the force of the Government against tlem at once." You can fancy you hear him say to his country- "^len — If I had the influence to put down a thou- sand revolutionary movements, it would only show I could create as many more. No, no ! Rebellions must be fi'fst put down by the government, or your government is not worth having. The govern- ment that cannot protect you from the violence of the wildest surges of factiofl, is not entitled to your confidence ! I will not interfere. The opinion of Mr. Jefferson is just as decided. In 1787, and alluding to the old confederation, he wrote thus : "It has been so often said, as to be generally believed, that Congress have no power by the con- federation to enforce anything ; for example, con- tributions of money. It loas not necessary to give them that power expressly ; they have it by the law of nature. When tico parties make a coni])act, there results to each a power of compelling the other to execute it." The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions of 1798 and 1799, are referred to in vain to support the doctrine of secession. It requires a perversion of their whole import and language, to deduce the modern idea of nullification from them; but se- session can not even by such means find any coun- tenance in them. They recommended nothing but a protest, and united expression of opinion by the parlies aggrieved, so as to produce a repeal of the obnoxious acts of Congress, or an amendment of the Constitution. Every State in the Union re- sponded to them, and not one of them even hints at any thing being contained in them looking, however remotely, towards secession. Mr. Madison, who drew the celebrated report upon them, and ought to have known their mean- ing, as well as any man living, bore the strongest testimony to their true character. In 1833 he reviewed the whole ground, with all the power and vigor of hiSi best days, and proved by a train of argu- ment wholly unacswerable, that secession was an " extra and ultra-constitutional remedy." Human language could not be more exact and emphatic ! It seems as if the design had been in this case, as in that before cited from Washington, to furnish a maxim, so pointed, so brief, and so true, that it would be indelibly impressed on the memory of his countrymen, and thus to furnish them with an ever-present and sufficient protection, hanging like an amulet or charm around their necks, against the insidious arts and wily devices of " sedition, privy conspiracy and rebellion" ! And in the last moments of his glorious life, he embodied that idea into a parting legacy to the whole American Peo- (19 pie ! Great father of tlio Constitution ! bond down from the abodes of bliss, and hear a huuible wor- shipper in the Temple reared by your hands, v )-.v lidelity to the Union, and swear to observe your last request and dying injunction to your countrymen ! Mr. Jefferson concurred with the opinion of Mr. Madison. Tho evidence of this was furnished du ring the sitting of the Virginia Convention in 18- 30, and given to the world in the papers of the day. and nothing more is required to show a perfect uniformity of views between these two founders of the Republic. Their joint opinion is contained in Mr. Madison's letter to Mr. Everett in 1833, Do you desire to hear GeneralJackson's views regarding nullification and secession ? I refer you not to the page of history, but to your own me- mory, for his course in re'"ird to South Carolina, in 1832 and 1833. He thero assumed that historic position, which he will ever 1 11 in the annals of our country ! On other occasions he was great, often very great, but here he was sublime ! He ap- pears to have summoned into action all the won- derful powers of his inmost soul, and concentra- ting them into one grand effort of indomitable will, to have placed his iron heel upon the kindling sparks of Rebellion, and crushed them out for- ever! This was the crowning act of his glorious life! Tliere he stands! Behold him, as he will remain, in the minds of men forever ! Proud, resolute, defiant, God-like,— the champion of the Union under the Constitution, the very Genius of America! This is his fame that can never die! The glory of that day's doing will be re;-: ■,.],, led to the latest ages, preserved by tongue ui elo- quence and the voice of song, long after the laurels gathered in war shall have perished, and the brass and the marble, that chronicle his military deeds shall have crumbled into dust! But for the pat- riotism, the wisdom, the justness and the firmness of his successor in these times of trouble, our whole country would raise one supplicating cry— "Oh, that the present hour would lend Aiiothei-dfijpot ut llie kind ! Such chains a« his wero sure to hind !" But his spirit is with us; tho crisis is XJast; th \' »i.^% <^ aO »' f^*^ "^ A** <:"^ jr. S '%