SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 
 HON. JOHN 0. BRECKINRIDGE, 
 
 OF KENTUCKY, 
 
 ON 
 
 EXECUTIVE USURPATION; 
 
 DELIVERED 
 
 - \° 
 
 IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 
 
 JULY 16, 1861. 
 
 
 
 WASHINGTON: 
 
 PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE 
 1861. 
 
 \ 
 
 \ 
 
 s 
 
 x 
 
 

 
SPEECH. 
 
 The Senate having under consideration Joint Resolution 
 No. 1, to approve and confirm certain acts of the President 
 of the United States for suppressing insurrection and rebel- 
 lion — 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE said : 
 
 Mr. President : The grounds of opposition to 
 the joint resolution now before the body have 
 been very fully stated by the Senator from Mis- 
 souri [Mr. Polk] and by my colleague, [Mr. 
 Powell.] I have heard no defense of this joint 
 resolution offered by tlje majority party in the 
 Chamber. Underordinary circumstances I should 
 content myself with a simple vote; but regarding 
 the subject as one of immense importance, I am 
 unwilling to see the resolution pass without a 
 brief expression of the reasons of my opposition 
 to it. 
 
 It proposes, sir, after enumerating certain acts 
 of the President done since the 4th of March last, 
 to declare that — 
 
 " All of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and order.-, 
 hereinbefore mentioned, be, and the same are hereby, ap- 
 proved and declared to be in all respects legal and valid, 
 to the same intent, and with the same eflcct, as if they had 
 been issued and done under the previous express authority 
 and direction of the Congress of the United States." 
 
 The joint resolution would seem, upon the face 
 of it, to admit that the acts of the President were 
 not performed in obedience to the Constitution 
 and the laws. If that be true, I should be glad to 
 hear some reasons assigned by gentlemen show- 
 ing the powerof the Congress of the United States, 
 by joint resolution, to cure a breach Of the Con- 
 stitution or to indemnify the President against 
 violations of the Constitution and the laws. If, 
 in any respect, that officer has violated the laws, 
 he has also violated the Constitution; because one 
 clause of that instrument declares that " he shall 
 
 ; take care that the laws be faithfully executed." 
 . j It confers on him the power to see that they air 
 
 executed; but no power to violate them. 
 
 I deny, Mr. President, that one branch of this 
 Government can indemnify any other branch of 
 the Government for a violation of the Constitu- 
 tion or the laws. The powers conferred upon the 
 General Government by the people of the States 
 are the measure of its authority. Those powers 
 have been confided to the different departments, 
 and the boundaries of those departments determ- 
 ined with perfect exactitude. The President has 
 his powers and rights conferred on him by the 
 Constitution; the legislative authority its power? 
 and rights; the judicial authority its powers and 
 rights; and I deny that either can encroach upon 
 the other, or that either can indemnify the other 
 for a usurpation of powers not confided to it by 
 the Constitution. Sir, Congress, by a joint res- 
 olution, has no more right, in my opinion, to 
 make valid a violation of the Constitution and the 
 laws by the President, than the President would 
 have by an entry upon the executive journal to 
 make valid a usurpation of the executive power 
 by the legislative department. Congress has no 
 more right to make valid an unconstitutional act 
 of the President, than the President would have 
 to make valid an act of the Supreme Court of the 
 United States encroaching upon executive power-, 
 or than the Supreme Court would have the right 
 to make valid an act of the Executive encroach;, 
 upon the judicial power. 
 
 To say that Congress, by joint resolution, may 
 indemnify the President against a breach of the 
 Constitution is substantially to declare that Con- 
 gress may alter the Constitution in a manner not 
 provided by the instrument; may add to it or take 
 
 \ 
 
from it. If a bare majority of the two Houses 
 of Congress can, by resolution, make that con- 
 stitutional and valid which was unconstitutional, 
 by the same authority it may confer upon the 
 President in the future powers not granted by the 
 Constitution; so that, sir, in whatever aspect the 
 subject maybe viewed, it appears to me the prin- 
 ciples involved in this joint resolution are utterly 
 subversive of the Constitution, and contain the 
 very essence of a Government without limitation 
 of powers. I had supposed that these general 
 principles were too clear and too well recognized 
 in this country to need statement or illustra- 
 tion. 
 
 But it may be well, Mr. President, to inquire, 
 has the President of the United States assumed 
 powers not delegated by the Constitution or the 
 laws? I speak not now, sir, of many acts of the 
 President not enumerated in this resolution. I 
 shall confine myself, for the present, to the enu- 
 meration here. I think that the acts here enumer- 
 ated were usurpations on the part of the Exec- 
 utive of the United States; and that so far from a 
 resolution being passed ratifying and approving 
 them, I think the Chief Magistrate of the coun- 
 try — and I have a right in my place to say it — 
 should be rebuked by the vote of both Houses of 
 Congress. 
 
 The President of the United States, first, has 
 established a blockade of the whole southern 
 coast, and an interior blockade of the chief rivers. 
 By what authority has he done it? Where is the 
 clause of the Constitution that authorized him? 
 An attempt was made at the last session of Con- 
 gress to confer the authority by bill. It did not 
 pass. Congress refused to grant this authority 
 by law in face of the fact that seven States had 
 then withdrawn from the Federal Union. Will 
 any Senator say that the power exists, under the 
 Constitution, upon the part of the President to 
 establish a blockade? It is an incident of war, 
 sir; it is the exercise of the war power; and the 
 Constitution of the United States declares that 
 Congress shall pass an act to declare war, or ex- 
 ercise that power. 
 
 But, Mr. President, since no argument has been 
 made in favor of the constitutional right of the 
 President to do this thing, I might rest the case 
 here. I propose, however, to fortify what I have 
 said by a little authority. I remember, sir, during 
 the last session of Congress, that questions arose 
 here in regard to the right of the President to 
 collect the revenue without the ports of the seceded 
 
 States, or the right of the President to institute 
 a blockade; when the late Senator from Illinois 
 (Senator Douglas) delivered a speech upon this 
 floor against the power to blockade those ports, 
 which was not only not answered, but, in my 
 opinion, was unanswerable. 1 read a brief ex- 
 tract from what he then said. It was a speech 
 delivered upon the 15th day of March last in this 
 body: 
 
 " But we are told that the country is to be precipitated 
 into war by blockading all the southern ports ; blockading 
 ports within the United States ; blockading our own ports 
 with our own Army and Navy ! Where is the authority 
 for that ? What law authorizes the President of the United 
 States to blockade Federal ports at discretion ? He has no 
 more authority to blockade New Orleans or Charleston than 
 he has to blockade New York or Boston'' — 
 
 Remember, the state of facts which exists now 
 existed then. Those States had set up a govern- 
 ment of their own, and withdrawn from the 
 Union — 
 
 " and no more legal right to blockade Mobile than Chicago. 
 Sir, I cannot consent that the President of the United 
 States may, at his discretion, blockade the ports of the 
 United Stales or of any other country. Fie can do only 
 what the Constitution and laws authorize him to do. He 
 dare not attempt to obstruct commerce at the mouth of the 
 Mississippi river, or at Mobile, or at any other port in the 
 seceded States, or even tho* that have remained loyal to> 
 the Constitution and to the Union. The intimation that 
 he is to do this implies a want of respect for the integrity 
 of the President, oran ignorance of the laws of the land 
 on the part of those who arc disturbing the harmony and 
 quiet of the country by threats of illegal violence." 
 
 At this point, the Senator from New York [Mr. 
 King] suggested that, under the right to prevent 
 smuggling, the President might have the power 
 to blockade the southern coast; to which Mr. 
 Douglas replied: 
 
 " I am not talking about smuggling. It is his duty to en- 
 force the laws of the land in respect to smuggling. But, 
 sir, it is not his duty to prevent smuggling in any other mode 
 or by any other means than those provided by law. Will 
 the Senator from New York intimate to the Senate and to 
 the country that, under the pretext of preven ting smuggling, 
 the President can close a port created by law, am! stop all 
 commerse connected with it? Will he intimate that, under 
 suspicion that if the revenue cutter allows a vessel to en- 
 ter the port of New Orleans she will nut pay any duties, 
 therefore the President will prevent her going there ? The 
 law gives him no such power, no such discretion. The 
 suggestion, therefore, of the Senator from Mew York, that 
 these ports of the United States are to be blockaded by the 
 Navy at the discretion of the President, under pretense of 
 [inventing smuggling, only shows how loosely even Sen- 
 ators talk about the powers and duties of the President. It 
 is not necessary to argue the question. There is no law 
 that authorizes it. To do the act, or attempt it, would be 
 
one of those high crimes and usurpations that would justly 
 subject the President of the United States to impeach- 
 ment." 
 
 That, sir, was the language uttered by that Sen- 
 ator a* that time. I will read also a few words 
 uttered by one who ought to be authority with 
 * many in this Chamber, and, indeed, ought to be 
 an authority with all Americans upon questions 
 of constitutional law. It is an attract from some 
 remarks made by Daniel Webster, during the 
 troubles in South Carolina in 1832-33, when it was 
 suggested that President Jackson would blockade 
 the port of Charleston. That eminent statesman 
 uttered the following language: 
 
 " Sir, for one, 1 protest in advance against such remedies 
 as I have heard hinted. The Administration itself keeps a 
 profound silence, but its friends have spoken for it. We are 
 told, sir. that the President will immediately employ the mil- 
 itary force, and at once blockade Charleston \ A military 
 remedy, a remedy by direct military operation, has thus been 
 suggested, and nothing else has been suggested, as the in- 
 tended means of preserving the Union. Sir, there is no little 
 reason to think that this Suggestion is true. We cannot be 
 altogether unmindful of the past, and therefore we cannot be 
 altogether unapprehensive for the future. For one, 1 raise 
 my voice beforehand against the unauthorized employment 
 of military power, against superseding the authority of the 
 laws by an armed force, under pretense of putting down 
 nullification. The President has no authority to blockade 
 Charleston ; the President has no authority to employ mil- 
 itary force, till he shall be duly required so to do, by law, 
 and by the civil authorities. His duty is to cause the laws 
 to be executed . His duty is to support the civil authority." 
 
 Sir, I approve these sentiments uttered by these 
 eminent men. They were formerly regarded as 
 sound and true, and I'trust the time will come 
 again when it will not be considered treason to 
 maintain them. 
 
 It is proposed, sir, to approve and make valid 
 the act of the President in enlisting men for three 
 and five years. I ask you by what authority of 
 • Constitution or law he has done this act ? The 
 power is not conferred in the Constitution; it has- 
 not been granted by the law. It is, therefore, 
 an unconstitutional and illegal act of executive 
 power. The President, of his own will — and that 
 is one of the acts enumerated in this joint resolu- 
 tion, which it is proposed to approve and ratify — 
 « has added immensely to the force of the regular 
 Army. The Constitution says that Congress shall 
 raise armies, and a law now upon your statute- 
 book limits the number of the regular force, offi- 
 cers and men. Hence, sir, that ia an act in dero- 
 gation both of the Constitution and of the laws. 
 The President has added immensely to the 
 Navy of the United Stales. The Constitution 
 
 says that Congress shall provide and maintain a 
 navy, and theYe is now a law upon the statute- 
 book limiting the number of men to lie employed 
 in the Navy. That, like the rest, sir, will not 
 bear argument. I doubt if an attempt will be 
 made to defend it upon constitutional or legal 
 grounds. I pronounce it a usurpation. 
 
 Again : this resolution, after reciting the author- 
 ity conferred by the Presidentupon the Command- 
 ing General of the Army, " to suspend the writ of 
 habeas corpus at any point on or in the vicinity of 
 any military line between the city of Philadelphia 
 and the city of Washington," and reciting the 
 fact that " he did, on the 10th day*of May last, 
 issue a proclamation authorizing the commander 
 of the forces of the United States on the coast 
 of Florida to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, 
 if necessary," proposes to ratify and make that 
 I valid. Mr. President, we have had a good deal 
 of talk about rights, the rights of States, and the 
 | rights of individuals; some of them have been 
 I said to be shadowy and imaginary; but the right 
 ! of every citizen to be arrested only by warrant, 
 and his right to have his body brought before a 
 judge, the judicial authority, in order that Ihe 
 grounds of that arrest may be determined upon, 
 is a real right. There can be no dispute about 
 I that. It is a right of rights. It belongs to all — 
 high, low, rich, poor. It is especially the right 
 of that class whom his Excellency the President 
 calls plain people. It is a right, the respect for 
 which is the measure of progress and of civiliza- 
 tion. It is a right that has been struggled for, 
 fought for, guarded by laws, and locked up in 
 constitutions. To have maintained it by arms, 
 to have suffered for it, and then to have estab- 
 lished it upon foundations so immutable that the 
 authority of the sovereign cannot shake it, is the 
 chief glory of the British people, from whom we 
 derive it. I need not say to the Senate that in 
 England, whence we derive this right, the legis- 
 lative power alone can suspend it. We all know, 
 sir, that the monarch of England cannot suspend 
 that writ; but transatlantic I'm nien seem to be 
 eager to approve and ratify acts which a Euro- 
 pean monarcHi would not dare to perform. 
 
 Mr. President, it needs no elaborate argument 
 to show that the executive authority of the Uni- 
 ted States has no right to suspend the writ of 
 habeas corpus^ I content myself here, unless some 
 defense be offered upon this floor, with referring 
 to the fact that the privilege to suspend the writ 
 in* case of rebellion or invasion is classed among 
 
6 
 
 the legislative powers of the Constitution. That 
 ; i rticlc of the Constitution which refers to the pow- 
 ers of the President, executive powers, touches 
 not the question. I may add, that upon no oc- 
 casion lias it ever been asserted in the Congress 
 of the United States, as far as I recollect our his- 
 tory, that this power exists upon the part of the 
 Executive. On one memorable occasion in our 
 history, Jefferson thought a period had arrived 
 when, perhaps, that writ might properly be sus- 
 pended. He did not undertake to do it himself. 
 He submitted the question to Congress. He did 
 not even recommend that it should be done; and 
 in the long debates that occurred in this and the 
 other branch of Congress upon the question of 
 suspending the writ, which finally was not sus- 
 pended, not one intimation was given by any 
 speaker in either House, as far as I remember, 
 that the power existed on the part of the Presi- 
 dent. I then point to the Constitution, and ask 
 Senators who desire to approve this act, to point 
 me to that clause in it which gives the right, or 
 deduces it by fair construction from any provis- 
 ion of that instrument. 
 
 What part of the Constitution is it, sir, which 
 confers upon the President the right to do this act 
 more than upon any other officer, executive or 
 judicial, of the Government? Surely it is not that 
 portion of the Constitution which declares that 
 he shall take care that the laws be faithfully ex- 
 ecuted. The most eminent commentators on the 
 Constitution of the United States concur in say- 
 ing that it is purely a legislative act. Justice 
 Story, one of the most eminent judicial lights of 
 New England, in his Commentaries on the Con- 
 stitution, declares it to belong to the Legislature, 
 and not to the Executive. The Supreme Court 
 of the United States have determined that Con- 
 gress alone can suspend the privilege of the writ. 
 Upon a recent occasion, in a case which arose in 
 Maryland, the present Chief Justice, in an opin- 
 ion which has never been answered, and never 
 will be answered, exhausts the argument, and 
 makes all other reference to the subject idle and 
 superfluous. 
 
 Sir, one of the worst signs of the\imes,I ven- 
 ture to say here, is the manner in which that opin- 
 ion has been received. A subordinate military 
 officer in the cjty of Baltimore arrests a private 
 citizen by military force without warrantof law, 
 and confines him in a fortress. His friends at- 
 
 iii]'! i" get out a writ of habeas corpus before the 
 Chief Justice of the United States, and the reply 
 
 is that he will not be delivered up by the mili- 
 tary. The Chief Justice then gives an opinion, 
 which has commanded the respect and acquies- 
 cence, not only of the profession of which he is 
 so great an ornament, but of almost all thought- 
 ful men in the country; and, sir, I must express 
 my admiration for the prudence and the wisdom 
 of those who, while they are determined that the 
 military power shall usurp the judicial authority, 
 do not undertake to defend it. The newspapers 
 of the country, and men excited by the violent 
 passions which mark the times, have denounced 
 the Chief Justice, but they have not answered his 
 opinion. There it stands, sir; and it is one of 
 those productions which will add to his renown. 
 The abuse of the press, the refusal to respect just 
 authority, the attempt to make that eminent ju- 
 dicial officer odious, will yet recoil upon those 
 who attempt it. I honor him, sir — I honor him 
 for the courage with which he did his duty, as 
 well as for the calm, temperate, conclusive man- 
 ner in which he performed it. I am glad that he 
 yet remains among us, a man so remarkable for 
 his honored length of years, for his eminent pub- 
 lic services, and for the rectitude of his private 
 life, as that he may be justly ranked among the 
 most illustrious Americans, living or dead. 
 
 You propose to make that valid; you propose 
 to approve it, without making a defense of it either 
 upon constitutional or legal grounds. What will 
 be the effect, sir? In approving what the Presi- 
 dent has done in this regard in the past, you in- 
 vite him to do the like in the future; and the whole 
 country will lie prostrate at the feet of executive 
 power when, in the opinion of the President, the 
 the time shall have come to suspend the rights 
 of individuals, and to have substituted military 
 power for judicial authority. 
 
 Mr. President, although there are but few of 
 us here who take the view of the Constitution and 
 of right which I am advocating to-day, I trust 
 that we will not, under any circumstances, fail to 
 protest, in temperate, but manly language, against 
 what we consider usurpations of the Constitution. 
 Let me call the attention of the Senate and the 
 country briefly to other acts, against which, in 
 my place, I protest in the name of the Constitu- 
 tion, and in the name of the people I represent. 
 
 You have, sir, practically, martial law estab- 
 lished all over this land. The houses of private 
 citizens are searched without warrant. The right 
 of citizens to bear arms is made nugatory by their 
 being taken from them without judicial process, 
 
and opon mere suspicion. Individuals are seized 
 without legal warrant and imprisoned; and they 
 cannot be taken from prison by judicial process. 
 They are taken upon suspicion and confined by 
 military authority. The other day, since Con- 
 gress met, a military officer in the city of Balti- 
 more appointed a marshal for that city. Will 
 any man defend that act? Is it not martial law? 
 Does it not override all other law? Is it not sub- 
 stituting the will of a military commander for the 
 laws of the land? What more authority had that 
 officer to appoint a marshal for the city of Balti- 
 more than he had to appoint a pastor for one of 
 its congregations, or a president for one of its 
 banks? The Constitution undertakes to guard the 
 right of the people against unreasonable searches 
 or seizures, or any seizure without warrant of 
 judicial authority. Has not the President of the 
 United States, by one broad and sweeping act, 
 laid his hands upon the private correspondence of 
 the whole community, ranging through some one 
 or two years ? Who defends it as conformable to 
 the Constitution? 
 
 I am told, sir, (and if I had the power to do it, 
 I would have it inquired into in the name of the 
 public liberties,) that at this moment, in the city 
 of Washington, in the jail of this city, are indi- 
 viduals who have been taken by the military 
 authorities, in Maryland, in other States, and in 
 this District, who now lie here and cannot be 
 got out by judicial process; and in some instances 
 such an oblivion, in the hurry of events, has 
 come over the imprisonment that it has been ab- 
 solutely forgotten. I was told by a Senator of 
 one instance in which a man was seized by mili- 
 tary authority without any process of law what- 
 ever, put in jail here, and remained perhaps 
 for some weeks, forgotten — forgotten, sir, as if 
 he had been in the Bastile. His friends at last 
 made application at one of the Departments of the 
 Government. They looked into his case, found 
 nothing against him, and he was ultimately dis- 
 charged; but in the rush of events the very exist- 
 ence of the man and the cause of his imprison- 
 ment had been forgotten. 
 
 Mr. President, we may pass this joint resolu- 
 tion to approve these acts; we may upon the face 
 of the joint resolution make them valid; but we 
 cannot make them valid in fact. I know, sir, that 
 Congress, in the exercise of its legislative func- 
 tions, may appropriate money which has been ex- 
 pended by the President without warrant of law; 
 but whatever unconstitutional act he may have 
 
 committed cannot be cured by a joint resolution of 
 Congress; but stands there, and will stand forever, 
 a breach of the Constitution. Nor can this 
 Congress, by a joint resolution, prevent any suc- 
 ceeding one from holding any officer of the Gov- 
 ernment responsible for any violation of the Con- 
 stitution. I enumerate what I regard as usurpations 
 of the Executive to go upon the record as a protest 
 of those of us who are not willing to see the Con- 
 stitution subverted, and the public liberty tram- 
 pled underfoot, under whatever pretext, of neces- 
 sity or otherwise. 
 
 The Constitution declares that Congress alone 
 shall have power " to declare war." The Presi- 
 dent has made war. Congress alone shall have 
 power " to raise and support armies." The Pres- 
 ident has raised and supported armies on his own 
 authority. Congress shall have power " to pro- 
 vide and maintain a navy." The President has 
 provided an immenseNavy,and maintains it with- 
 out authority of law. The Constitution declares 
 that no money shall be taken from the Treasury 
 except in pursuance of appropriations made by- 
 law. The President has taken money from the 
 Treasury without appropriations made by law 
 for the purpose of carrying out the preceding un- 
 constitutional acts. One of the amendments to the 
 Constitution declares that — 
 
 " A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security 
 of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear 
 arms shall not be infringed." 
 
 They have been disarmed, and disarmed with- 
 out criminal charge and without warrant. One of 
 the amendments to the Constitution declares that — 
 
 " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, 
 houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches 
 and seizures, shall not be violated ; and no warrants shall 
 issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirm- 
 ation, and particularly describing'the place to be searched 
 and the persons or things to be seized." 
 
 The people have not been exempt from unrea- 
 sonable searches and seizures. Their property 
 has been taken from them; their houses have been 
 searched without authority of law, and by a pur 
 military authority. 
 
 " No person" — 
 
 Says one of the amendments to the Constitu- 
 tion — 
 
 '•shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise Infa- 
 mous crime, unlaw on a presentment or Indictment of a 
 grand jury." 
 
 Many persons have been held to answer for in- 
 famous crimes withoutprcscntment or indictment, 
 
8 
 
 and without warrant, by military authority. The 
 same amendment continues: 
 
 " Nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a 
 witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or 
 property, without due process of law." 
 
 Citizens have, by military authority, been de- 
 prived of liberty and property without due process 
 of law. 
 
 These great and fundamental rights, sir, the 
 sanctity of which is the measure of progress and 
 of civilization, which have been carefully guarded 
 and locked up in your Constitution, have been 
 trampled under foot by military power, are being 
 now every day trampled under foot by military 
 power here and hereabouts in the presence of the 
 two houses of Congress; and yet, so great upon 
 the one side is the passion of the hour, and so 
 astonishing the stupid amazement on the oiher, 
 that we receive it as natural, as right, as of course. 
 We are rushing, and with rapid strides, from a 
 constitutional government to a military despotism . 
 
 The Constitution says the freedom of speech 
 and of the press shall not be abridged. Three days 
 ago, in the city of St. Louis, a military officer, 
 with four hundred soldiers — that was his warrant 
 — went into a newspaper office of that city, re- 
 moved the types, and declared that it should no 
 longer be published , giving, among other reasons, 
 that it was fabricating reports injurious to the Uni- 
 ted States soldiers in Missouri. Mr. President, 
 is there a Senator here, is there a citizen in all the 
 land, who will say that the slightest color of 
 authority exists on the part of a military officer, 
 either to deprive a citizen of his liberty without 
 warrant, or of his property, or to suppress the 
 freedom of the press ? We are told in the same 
 dispatch that the proprietors of the paper submit- 
 ted, and intended to* make their appeal — where, 
 and to whom ? To the judicial authorities? No, 
 sir; but to Major General Fremont when he should 
 reach St. Louis; to appeal from General Lyon to 
 General Fremont. The civil authorities of the 
 country are paralyzed, and a practical martial law 
 is being established all over the land. The like 
 never happened in this country before, and would 
 not be tolerated in any country in Europe which 
 pretends to the elements of civilization and regu- 
 lated liberty. George Washington carried the 
 thirteen colonies through the war of the Revolu- 
 tion without martial law. The President of the 
 United States cannot conduct the Government 
 three months without resorting to it. 
 
 Mr. President, I presume every Senator here 
 
 has read the opinion of the Chief Justice to which 
 I have referred. I content myself by reading a 
 few extracts from the close, as expressive of my 
 opinions of the public danger. The Chief Jus- 
 tice says: 
 
 " The Constitution provides, as I have before said, that 
 ' no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, 
 without due process of law.' It declares that ' the right of 
 the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and 
 effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall 
 not be violated, and no warrant shall issue but upon prob- 
 able cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu- 
 larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons 
 or things to be seized.-' It provides that the party accused 
 shall be entitled to a speedy trial in a court of justice. 
 
 " And these great and fundamental laws, which Congress 
 itself could not suspend, have been disregarded and sus- 
 pended, like the writ ofkabeas corpus, by a military order, 
 supported by force of arms. Such is the case now before 
 me, and I can only say that if the authority which the Con- 
 stitution has confided to the judiciary department and 
 judicial officers, may thus, upon any pretext or under any 
 circumstances, be usurped by the military power at its dis- 
 cretion, the people of the United States are no longer living 
 under a Government of laws, but every citizen holds life, 
 liberty, and property, at the will and pleasure of the Army 
 officer in whose military district he may happen to be 
 found." 
 
 I cannot say whether this great judge will be 
 able to preserve the Constitution of his country; 
 but we owe him, and posterity will owe him, a 
 debt of gratitude for the vindication of the prin- 
 ciples of constitutional liberty and of personal 
 liberty which antedated and possibly may survive 
 the Federal Constitution. 
 
 Then , Mr. President, the Executive of the United 
 States has assumed legislative powers. The Ex- 
 ecutive of the United States has assumed judicial 
 powers. The executive power belongs to him by 
 the Constitution. He has, therefore, concentrated 
 in his own hands executive, legislative, and judi- 
 cial powers, which, in every age of the world, has 
 been the very definition of despotism, and exer- 
 cisesthem to-day, while wesitin theSenateCham- 
 ber, and the other branch of the legislative author- 
 ity at the other end of the Capitol. What is the 
 excuse; what is the justification; what is the plea? 
 Necessity. Necessity? I answer, first, there was 
 no necessity. Was it necessary > *o preserve the 
 visible emblems of Federal authority here, that 
 the southern coast should have been blockaded ? 
 Did not the same necessity exist when Congress, 
 at its last session, refused to pass the force bill, 
 that existed at the time the President assumed 
 these powers? As Congress refused to do it, and 
 adjudged that there was no necessity at that time, 
 
9 
 
 what was the additional necessity afterwards ? 
 Was it necessary, until Congress should meet, 
 to the existence of the Union of these States, 
 and of its Constitution, that powers not confer- 
 red by the instrument should be assumed? Was 
 there any necessity for overrunning the State of 
 Missouri ? Was there a necessity for raising the 
 largest armies ever assembled upon the Amer- 
 ican continent, and fitting out the largest fleets 
 ever seen in an American harbor? What I mean 
 to say is, that there was none of that overriding 
 necessity for present preservation and existence 
 which is sometimes made the plea of unconstitu- 
 tional usurpation. In the case of the man in 
 Maryland, who has been confined so long in Fort 
 McHenry , and upon whose case the question arose 
 which drew out the opinion of the Chief Justice, 
 to which I have referred, was there a necessity, 
 in the view gentlemen take of it, for holding that 
 man in that fortress, instead of turning him over 
 to the civil authorities? What was the charge? 
 The chief charge, I believe, was that weeks be- 
 fore he had been concerned in treasonable acts, 
 and in burning down bridges. Was not the judi- 
 cial authority there to take charge of it, try him, 
 and, if guilty, to convict him and punish him? 
 Will any Senator point out the necessity for the 
 occurrences which are now taking place every 
 day, of arresting individuals without warrant of 
 law ? If that be a necessity in the present condi- 
 tion of affairs, and when Congress is in session 
 here, what a long necessity we have before us, 
 and impending over us ! Sir, let Congress adjourn 
 approving and ratifying these acts, and the same 
 character of necessity precisely, even stronger 
 perhaps, will justify the President in superseding 
 the laws in every State of this Union where, in 
 his opinion, it should be done; and, sir, there will 
 not be a vestige of civil authority left to rise after 
 the passing tread of military power. 
 
 But, Mr. President, I deny this doctrine of ne- 
 cessity. I deny that the President of the United 
 States may violate the Constitution upon the 
 ground of necessity. The doctrine is utterly sub- 
 versive of the Constitution ; it is utterly subversive 
 of all written limitations of government; and it 
 substitutes, especially where you make him the 
 ultimate judge of that necessity, and his decision 
 not to be appealed from, the will of one man for 
 a written constitution. Mr. President, the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States, which draws its 
 life from the Constitution, and which was made 
 by that instrument, does not rest as does the Con- 
 
 stitution in many other countries, upon usage or 
 upon implied consent. It rests upon express 
 written consent. The Government of the United 
 States may exercise such powers, and such only, 
 as are given in this written form of government 
 and bond which unites the States; none others. 
 The people of the States conferred upon this agent 
 of theirs just such powers as they deemed neces- 
 sary, and no more; all others they retained. That 
 Constitution was made for all contingencies; for 
 peace and for war. They conferred all the pow- 
 ers they deemed necessary, and more cannot "be 
 assumed, to carry on the Government. They 
 intended to provide for all contingencies that they 
 thought ought to be provided for, and they re- 
 tained to the States all the powers not granted by 
 the instrument. If in any instance it may be 
 supposed that the powers conferred are not suffi- 
 cient, still none others were granted, and none 
 others can be exercised. Will this be denied, sir? 
 Or is the doctrine to be advanced that all consti- 
 tutional questions are to be made entirely subor- 
 dinate to the opinions and ideas that may prevail 
 at the hour in reference to political unity and as- 
 sociation ? It has been held heretofore — I thought 
 it was axiomatic, and received everywhere — that 
 the terms of the Constitution of the United States 
 were the measure of power on one side, and of 
 obedience on the other; and let us take care how 
 we establish a principle that, under the presumed 
 stress of circumstances, powers not granted may 
 be assumed; take care that you do not furnish an 
 argument which the world and history will re- 
 spect upon the part of people and States, to throw 
 off an authority which no longer respects its own 
 limitations. 
 
 Mr. President, these are a few of the reasons 
 which control me in voting against this resolution. 
 It seems to me that Congress should express some 
 opinion upon it, and I trust it will be voted upon. 
 If the vote shall be as I fear it will, it will be an 
 invitation to the President of the United States, in 
 the absence of other legislation, to do the like -acts, 
 of usurpation whenever he thinks they are neces- 
 sary. What will be the effect of it? Herein Wash- 
 ington, in Kentucky, in Missouri, everywhere 
 where the authority of the President extends, in 
 his discretion he will feel himself warranted by 
 the action of Congress upon this resolution to sub- 
 ordinate the civil 10 the military power; to impris- 
 on citizens without warrant of law; to suspend 
 the writ oHiabeas corpus; to establish martial law: 
 to make seizures and searches without warrant; 
 
10 
 
 to suppress the press; to do all those acts which 
 rest in the will and in the authority of a military 
 commander. In'my judgment, sir, if we pass it, 
 we are upon the eve of putting, so far as we can, 
 in the hands of the President of the United States 
 the power of a dictator. 
 
 "With such a beginning as that, what are we to 
 expect in the future ? Sir, when I see men impris- 
 oned within hail of the Capitol, without a war- 
 rant, and the courts paralyzed, and Congress not 
 rising to protest in indignant tones" against it, my 
 mind is filled with gloomy forebodings of the 
 future. What may we expect, except a line of 
 conduct in keeping with what has occurred? 
 
 Mr. President, is this contest to preserve the 
 Constitution ? If so, then it should be waged in 
 a constitutional manner. Is the doctrine to obtain 
 that the provisions of the Federal Constitution 
 are to be entirely subordinated to the idea of po- 
 litical unity ? Shall the rallying cry be, " the 
 Constitution and the Union," or are we prepared 
 to say, " the Constitution is gone, but the Union 
 survives?" What sort of Union would it be? Let 
 this principle be announced, let us carry on this 
 contest with this spirit, and wink at or approve 
 violations of this sacred instrument, and, sir, the 
 people will soon begin to inquire what will be-' 
 come of their liberties at the end of the strife. 
 The pregnant question, Mr. President, for us to 
 decide is, whether the Constitution is to be re- 
 spected in this struggle; whether we are to be 
 called upon to follow the flag over the ruins of 
 the Constitution ? Without questioning the mo- 
 tives of any, I believe that the whole tendency 
 of the present proceedings is to establish a Gov- 
 ernment without limitations of powers, and to 
 change radically our frame and character of Gov- 
 ernment. 
 
 I was told the other day, by a very excellent 
 and distinguished man, who was not long since 
 in the service of the Government abroad, with 
 whom I was con versing upon the present extraor- 
 dinrii y condition of publicafFairs, that many Amer- 
 icans abroad, when they are asked by foreigners, 
 in view of the present condition of things here, 
 " We supposed that your Federal Government 
 rested upon consent: how do you propose to 
 maintain it by force?" — often, he says, the an- 
 swer coming from citizens of the United States 
 would be, " it was intended to rest upon consent; 
 it has failed; it is not strong enough; we intend 
 to make it stronger; we will change the character 
 of the Government, and we will give it all the 
 
 strength that we deem essential, without regard 
 to the provisions of the Constitution, which was 
 made some eighty years ago, and is found not to 
 fit the present condition of affairs." 
 
 Sir, I think it is quite time that the attention of 
 the Senate were called to the tendency of the day. 
 I know that there are thousands and hundreds of 
 thousands of true, conservative, thoughtful men, 
 who love the Constitution of their country, scat- 
 tered all through the adhering States, and who 
 never would consent to conduct this contest with 
 arms one step further or one day longer if they 
 believed that any purpose existed substantially 
 to change the character of our system, to interfere 
 with personal rights, or the rights of political 
 communities, and who are willing to go just as 
 far as the Constitution warrants them, and no 
 further. There are many who are of a different 
 opinion, and have a different purpose to pursue. 
 I read the other day in a leading, able, influential 
 paper in one of the northern States, some sugges- 
 tions which are abroad in this land, which fill 
 many heads and many hearts, and which derive 
 strength and consistency and point from much 
 that I see passing around us here. That able 
 paper says: 
 
 " The war may soon pass away ; wc may have a quick 
 and vital battle-field, and the North prove its prowess, as 
 certainly it will ; but the truth of national unity and power 
 that these events have given endures — combined, con- 
 densed, concentrated — in Army and Navy. 
 
 " It is the cbaracteristic of the history of our times, that 
 it gives to years the labor which was the burden in other 
 times for ages ; and the sudden rushing into one bounding 
 artery of all the life-blood of the North may now create 
 us. We shall ask the question, Why all these State lines? 
 Why all this needless, cumbersome, intricate entangle- 
 ment of different powers to make law and to decree judg- 
 ment ? We can afford now to efface the old colonial geog- 
 raphy. It is the admitted powers of States within the 
 nation that has been the source of all our trouble. Nor 
 will the removal of State power, and the creation of a na- 
 tionality, be a task so formidable." * * * * 
 
 "This artificial difficulty of State rights is not an insur- 
 mountable one. It must yield to the greatest good of one 
 power; we are not strangers and strange to each other." 
 * ' * * * " We need netall these Legislatures, 
 all these sovereignties. Wc are one, ami to move as.one." 
 
 That, sir, in my opinion, is the purpose of a 
 growing party in this country, and is the inevit- 
 able tendency of the present conduct of affairs. 
 I remember to have read, not long since, a speech 
 made by the present able Secretary of War, in 
 this city, in which he said that the southern States 
 must be subdued, and that at the end of this con- 
 test there would be no more Virginians as such, 
 
11 
 
 or Carolinians as such; but only Americans all. 
 Sir, the name of American is a proud one, and I 
 love it; but it is the preservation of the names of 
 Virginians and Pennsyl vanians, and the distinctive 
 existence of all these States, which alone can keep 
 the name of American a proud one. I never want 
 to see them blotted out. 
 
 I said, sir, that in my opinion, the tendency was 
 to change our character of Government, and that 
 the purpose, if not avowed, is acted upon to con- 
 duct those proceedings without regard to the limit- 
 ation of the Constitution. These things I have 
 enumerated go to show it. This joint resolution 
 goes to show it. I call upon Senators to defend 
 the constitutionality of these acts, or else to ad- 
 mit that we intend to conduct this contest without 
 regard to the Constitution. Sir, the character of, 
 the contest itself gives a fearful foreboding of it. 
 The whole subject has been argued over and over 
 again, and I will not weary the patience of the 
 Senate in speaking of the character of the Govern- 
 ment now. I content myself with saying that it 
 never was in contemplation, by the framers of 
 the Constitution that this Government should be 
 maintained by military force to subjugate the 
 different political communities that compose the 
 States. It was declared by Madison, ay, and by 
 Hamilton, the great Federalist, himself a member 
 of the convention that framed the Constitution, 
 that it was not in the competency of the Govern- 
 ment thus to preserve it. But look at the contrast. 
 An army of half a million men concentrating 
 from all points, not to execute the laws against 
 individuals; not a military force employed in aid 
 of the civil power — the civil power of the Uni- 
 ted States does not exist in the States which have 
 withdrawn — but for the purpose of military sub- 
 jugation. Call it what you will, it is military 
 subjugation if successful. Suppose the Federal 
 troops are able to overcome all the opposition 
 before them: what is contemplated and avowed? 
 They are to march through Virginia, through the 
 Carolinas, through all the Gulf States clown to New 
 Orleans, to occupy them, to subdue them, in the 
 language of the press, and in the language of em- 
 inent gentlemen, who represent the feelings and 
 •the purposes of the majority. That, sir, is pros- 
 ecuting the war unconstitutionally. Even (f there 
 was a warrant in the Constitution to carry it on 
 in that way, it would be the overthrow of the 
 Constitution finally, and of the public liberty. 
 There is no warrant in the Constitution to con- 
 duct the contest in that form. 
 
 Sir, in further proof of my statement, that the 
 disposition is to conduct this contest without re- 
 gard to the Constitution, witness the remarks 
 that fell the other clay from the able and very elo- 
 quent Senator from Oregon, [Air. Bakkr.] He 
 is a constitutional lawyer; he knows what the 
 Constitution of his country is — no man better. 
 He declared, in the presence of the Senate and 
 the country, that he meant direct war, and that 
 forthat purpose nothing was so good as a dictator; 
 he therefore was for conferring upon the Presi- 
 dent of the United States almost unlimited pow- 
 ers. I give his words. Nobody so good as a dic- 
 tator to conduct this sort of war we were in, and 
 of which he is in favor! Is anything necessary 
 more than to state this to show that, at least so 
 far as that Senator is concerned, he proposes to 
 conduct it without regard to the Constitution: I 
 heard no rebuke administered to that eminent 
 gentleman. Upon the contrary, I saw warm 
 congratulations from more than one Senator, ap- 
 parently upon the sentiments and the character of 
 the address. 
 
 In the course of the same speech to which I 
 have referred, that eminent Senator declared that 
 not only must that country be ravaged by armies, 
 but that unless the people of those States paid 
 willing and loyal obedience to the Federal Gov- 
 ernment, their State form must be changed, and 
 they must be reduced to the condition of Terri- 
 j tories; to be governed by Governors sent from 
 j Massachusetts and Illinois. This was said seri- 
 ously; and afterwards, when referred to by my 
 
 I colleague on a subsequent day, reaffirmed by that 
 eminent Senator. If necessary, reduced to the 
 condition of Territories! Is there authority in 
 the Constitution to do it ? 
 
 Mr. BAKER. Mr. President 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER, (Mr. Sherman- 
 'in the chair.) Does the Senator from Kentucky 
 yield to the Senator from. Oregon ? 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Certainly. 
 
 Mr. BAKER. I deem myself very unfortunate 
 that I cannot get either of the Senators from Ken- 
 tucky, junior or senior, to understand what I did 
 say, whether it was well said or ill. Now, with 
 great respect for the Senator, I will try once 
 more; and because I am so misrepresented, I 
 hope he will bear with me one or two moments; 
 it will not hurt his speech. I was making a 
 i h the other day against giving too much 
 power to the President. I was occupying my 
 
 II usual constitutional-guarded position against the 
 
12 
 
 increase of a standing army. I gave, as an ex- 
 cuse for voting for an army at all, the present 
 condition of public affairs; and in that light and 
 with that purpose, I did say, "in a speech very 
 well reported, that, in order to save the Union, I 
 would take some risk of despotism. I repeat that 
 now: I will risk a little to save all. 
 
 Again: I expressed my sincere hope — perhaps 
 I may have added my conviction — that in a better 
 and not a very distant day, the southern States 
 would not only return to their allegiance, but 
 would become loyal in sentiment, as well as opin- 
 ion. I expressed then what I feel now, a fervent 
 hope that the people for whom, he well knows,! 
 pleaded, with his friends as well as mine, during 
 the last session of Congress, should again be one 
 with us, in feeling and in destiny. But I declared 
 then what no comment of his or his colleague will 
 drive me from, that if, contrary to that hope — if 
 I may not add that conviction — they did not do 
 it, if they would not send members here to gov- 
 ern them, it was better, for the sake of ultimate 
 peace, for freedom, civilization, humanity, that 
 they should be governed as Territories are gov- 
 erned, rather than permit perpetual anarchy, con- 
 fusion, discord, and civil war. [Manifestations 
 of applause in the galleries.] I did say that, and 
 I do believe that new; and I think the events of 
 the next six months will show that it would be 
 better for the country and the world and the Sen- 
 ator himself, if he believed it. [Applause in the 
 galleries.] 
 
 The PRESIDING OFFICER. It is the duty 
 of the Chair to inform citizens in the galleries that 
 there must be no interruption. There must be 
 no marks of approbation or disapprobation. The 
 Sergeant-at-Arms and the doorkeepers will see 
 that the order of the Senate is strictly enforced, 
 and will arrest any person who violates the rules. 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Mr. President, I did* 
 not misunderstand the position of the Senator from 
 Oregon, and I think that I stated it in substance 
 as he has stated it himself. I accept, however, 
 his statement, if it \aries from the one I made. 
 The declaration just made by the Senator is addi- 
 tional proof that the Constitution of the United 
 States is not to be the measure of the authority 
 exercised by the Government in the prosecution 
 of this contest; and the approval of the public, in 
 so far as that public is represi nted here, is addi- 
 tional evidence to my mind that the sanctity of 
 the instrument is ceasing to influence the feelings 
 and actions of the people. Sir, I want the coun- 
 
 try at large, I want the people of the United States, 
 to understand distinctly what the issue is. How- 
 ever they may determine it, it may be well to let 
 them understand what it is. In the valley of the 
 Ohio and the Upper Mississippi, they are, I think, 
 resting under the impression that the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States is not to be violated; and 
 they are not yet prepared to take the ground that 
 the principle of political unity shall beheld supe- 
 rior to the provisions of the Constitution. Now, 
 the Senator reaffirms upon this floor that, if it 
 should become necessary in the opinion of Con- 
 gress, he would be in favor of reducing these States 
 to a territorial condition. Well, sir, if they are 
 out of the Union, I suppose we have the power 
 to make war on them under that general power, 
 which exists in all people to make war, and con- 
 quer them and do as we please with them; but if 
 they are regarded as still being States in this Union, 
 and to be treated according to the provisions and 
 the powers conferred by the Federal Constitution, 
 there is no pretense of argument, none will be 
 made, that the instrument contains any authority 
 to reduce them to the territorial condition. It is 
 an additional proof of the statement I made, that 
 the Constitution of the United States is put aside 
 in this contest. I want the people to know it. 
 Let them determine. They will determine as they 
 think best for their own interest and their own 
 destiny. Perhaps, sir, they will pause and con- 
 sider what is likely to become of their own liber- 
 ties after this spirit shall have worked out itself. 
 
 I consider it not only subversive of the Consti- 
 tution, .but I consider it subversive of the public 
 liberty, to clothe any man with dictatorial pow- 
 ers, and to undertake, under a republican form of 
 government, to govern ten million people as if 
 they were in a territorial condition. This Union 
 is composed of States. The people of the States 
 made it. The Constitution declares, in express 
 terms, that '.' the United States shall guaranty to 
 every State in this Union a republican form of 
 government;" and yet it is announced upon the 
 floor of the American Senate, by a Senator of the 
 United States, that, in a certain contingency, he 
 would destroy a State itself and make it a Terri- 
 tory. 
 
 Mr. President, as a further proof, I will accu- 
 mulate two or three more. The excellent Sena- 
 tor from Connecticut, [Mr. Dixox,] heretofore 
 always regarded as one of the most moderate and 
 conservative in the political organization to which 
 he is attached, unless I misheard him yesterday 
 
13 
 
 in some remarks which he was making just as I 
 entered the Chamber, said in substance that, if 
 the institution of African slavery stood in the%ray 
 of the Union, it must be abolished. I may not 
 give his words; but I think I have given the sub- 
 stance of his idea, and he nods approval. Well, 
 Mr. President 
 
 Mr. Dixon rose. 
 • The PRESIDING OFFICER. Does the Sen- 
 ator from Kentucky give way ? 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. DIXON. I have here what I said yester- 
 day, as reported in the Globe. I have marked 
 the passage to which the Senator alludes; and I 
 ask the Secretary to read it. ' , 
 
 The Secretary read, as follows: 
 
 " I speak for only one State ; and the voice of that State 
 is, that this rebellion must be crushed. Let It require a 
 longer or a shorter time, let it cost more or less money, a 
 greater or less sacrifice of tinman life, still it can be, it 
 must and will be, crushed. If the ordinary means of war- 
 fare can do ibis, let them, as I hope they may, suffice ; but 
 if more shall be required, more must be resorted to. It may 
 be, should the war continue to drag its slow length along, 
 that means, which seem to us terrific in their conse- 
 quences, may be required; but it ought to be understood 
 now, in the beginning, that whatever means may be neces- 
 sary to preserve the territorial integrity of the United States 
 and the unity of the nation, will, when the necessity shall 
 arise, be used freely, fully, and unhesitatingly. If, in the 
 course of events, it shall appear that either slavery or this 
 Government must perish, then the voice of a united people 
 will declare, let slavery perish, and let the Government live 
 forever. Such is the stern determination to which thou- 
 sands have come, who have been considered heretofore 
 men of moderate views. I will not enlarge on this point. 
 It is enough to state it. It is the calm, deliberate opinion 
 of that great conservative class who. in the outset of these 
 troubles, were anxious, if possible, to find a peaceful solu- 
 tion of our difficulties. Finding this impossible, they have 
 come to the conclusion that the Government shall be saved 
 from destruction whatever else may perish. 
 
 " Let me not be misunderstood. T-he object of the strug- 
 gle we are now engaged in, on the part of the loyal States, 
 is not the abolition of slavery ; but if it shall prove a long 
 continued contest, that may be its inevitable consequence. 
 Let those most interested consider this truth in all its bear- 
 ings." 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I believe, sir, that I 
 did not misrepresent the position taken by the 
 Senator from Connecticut. Let us pause one mo- 
 ment, Mr. President, and consider to what that 
 leads. Men who love the Constitution and the 
 Union of the States as sincerely and cordially as 
 the Senator himself could possibly do, consider 
 the Union not an end, but a means — a means by 
 which, under the terms of the Constitution, lib- 
 
 erty may be maintained, "property and personal 
 rights protected, and genera! happiness secured. 
 The substance of what is there declared by the 
 Senator is, that the unity of the Government shall 
 survive not only the Constitution, but all rights 
 both of persons and of property, # 
 
 The institutions of the southern States existed 
 before the Constitution was formed", and were 
 intended to be secured by it. Their political 
 rights are no more sacred in the view of the Con- 
 stitution than their other rights. Their property 
 of any other description is no more sacred in view 
 of the Constitution, or of their own laws, than the 
 description of property to which the Senator re- 
 ferred. To declare that this contest shall be pros- 
 ecuted, if necessary, to the abolition of slavery in 
 the southern States, is in principle to declare that, 
 if it becomes necessary, it shall be prosecuted to 
 the total subversion of all State authority, to the 
 total overthrow of all rights, personal and politi- 
 cal, and to the entire subversion of their liberties, 
 possibly of ours. The conclusions are not too 
 large which I draw from the principle announced 
 by the Senator; and taken in connection with the 
 declaration of the Senator from Oregon, taken in 
 connection with the acts which are treated in this 
 joint resolution, and the other acts which I have 
 enumerated, it proves what I^fear^and what I 
 desire the country to understand, that the Con- 
 stitution of the United States is no longer to be 
 held as the measure of power on one side and 
 of obedience on the other, but that it is to be 
 put aside to carry out the purposes of the ma- 
 jority. 
 
 I hold, sir, that it is no legitimate mode to pre- 
 serve the Union of the States by trampling the 
 Constitution under foot; and I do not believe that 
 the people of the adhering States are willing to 
 go into this strife with vast armies, make war, 
 abolish institutions and political communities 
 themselves, struggling simply for the idea of ter- 
 ritorial integrityand national unity, finding, when 
 they come out of the contest, the Constitution 
 gone, and the^mselves at se\ as to the character of 
 the institutions with which they shall emerge 
 from it. 
 
 Sir, I have accomplished my object if I have 
 i called attention in a broken , but plain and pointed 
 | way, to the fact that these acts which I have 
 ' enumerated , and these declarations, and these pro- 
 ceedings which are occurring around us, prove 
 that the Constitution is not to be the measure of 
 I J action; and strangely enough it sounds for gen- 
 
14 
 
 tlemen to declare that they do all these things to 
 preserve the Constitution of their country ! 
 
 Mr. President, in my jugdment, the people of 
 the United States are not for this; and, in my opin- 
 ion, they will not agree to wage war for any such 
 purpose with any such results. They will not 
 agree to let an y of the functionaries to whom they 
 have confided power, under whatever patriotic pre- 
 text, wander away from the Constitution. If they 
 shall become at any time satisfied that the tend- 
 ency of this conflict, whether it be the purpose or 
 not, shall be either to abolish the existence of any 
 of the States or to abolish any of their institutions, 
 including, I will add, that of slavery, however ob- 
 noxious to many, they will never consent to let 
 the war be waged for that purpose. 
 
 Mr. President, I regret to say that what may be 
 called the more extreme violent and resolute men 
 of the Republican organization appear to have 
 control of its destiny at this time, and all efforts 
 are being made for the purpose of preventing 
 any return-to peace, and of inflaming the public 
 passions against the institutions of the South. I 
 heard a bill read at that table this morning by 
 its title; and how did it read? "A bill to sup- 
 press the slaveholders' rebellion." If it had 
 had a title, "A bill to provide for the execution 
 of the laws," or any other parliamentary title 
 known heretofore in American legislativeproceed- 
 ings, of course I should not have been astonished; 
 but when I see in a deliberative body an attempt 
 made, through the very heading of a bill, to create 
 odium and prejudice against a particular interest, 
 which is equally protected with others under the 
 Constitution of your country, it shows a frame of 
 mind which leads all thoughtful men to despair 
 both of the Constitution and the country, if such 
 a spirit can prevail. Yes, sir, there is now upon 
 your Calendar, or has been referred to a commit- 
 tee, a bill, the title of which is, "A bill to suppress 
 the slaveholders' rebellion." I have not seen the 
 bill, but I am informed by a Senator near me that 
 in the body of the bill there is a proposition to 
 set free all the slaves in the States that have with- 
 drawn. I suppose it will be printed. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. Will the Senator from Ken- 
 tucky allow me to ask him a question? 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. Will the Senator be 
 kind enough to wait until I get through? 'Unless 
 it bears on what I am now saying, I prefer not to 
 be interrupted. 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. The question I wished to 
 ask did bear on what the Senator was now saying. 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I will hear the Sen- 
 ntor. 
 
 IN? r. BINGHAM. I wish to ask the Senator 
 if he denies that the present rebellion is a slave- 
 holders' rebellion ? 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I do, sir. I have 
 no doubt that the question of Slavery, and their 
 rights as connected with that institution, as they 
 understand them, had a great deal to do first with* 
 the controversies which preceded the separation, 
 and then with the act of separation itself; but it 
 is perfectly manifest to any one who takes the 
 trouble to make himself acquainted through the 
 public press and otherwise with the opinion in 
 those,States, that whereas the proportion of slave- 
 holders to non -slaveholders is very small, the 
 sentiments of the population are almost unani- 
 mous, without regard to the ownership of that 
 description of property. Allow me to ask the 
 Senator a question. Does he approve the title of 
 that bill, and of what is represented to be con- 
 tained in the body of it? 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I have not read the bill. 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I have told what it 
 contains. Does the Senator think it an appro- 
 priate title for a bill, and does he approve the con- 
 tents of the bill? 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I do notknow what are the 
 contents of the bill; but I do approve of its title. 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. The Senator did not 
 answer the other part of my question. I will ask 
 him whether he is in favor of freeing the slaves 
 in the seceded States ? 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM. I will answer the Senator 
 that I agree entirely with the remarks of the hon- 
 orable Senator from Connecticut. If it be a ne- 
 cessity, I am. 
 
 Mr. BRECKINRIDGE. I am very happy 
 that I asked the Senator the question, and that he 
 has answered. I regret to hear that answer; I 
 regret that the fact is so; but it serves to bring the 
 mind of the country to consider the actual con- 
 dition of affairs, and the danger which is impend- 
 ing over us. 
 
 Mr. President, there were some other aspects 
 of this question which I proposed to discuss; but 
 I will not now. I may, or I may not, at some 
 time during the session, speak of them. The field 
 is a boundless one. I say I may, or I may not, 
 speak of them. I am quite aware that nothing 
 which the few of us who are here, who take the 
 same views that I do, can utter, will have the 
 slightest effect; and I would not now detain the 
 
15 
 
 Senate with these broken and plain remarks, but 
 that I consider it a public duty. 
 
 Mr. President, some of us came to this session 
 of Congress with a lingering hope that something 
 might yet be done to avert war; with a hope that 
 words of peace might be heard from the Ex- 
 ecutive Mansion, or, if not there, might be heard 
 from the Halls of Congress. We have been dis- 
 appointed. In one branch of Congress, it is out 
 of order to propose peace; and here it would be 
 vain and idle. I have no proposition to make; 
 none would be listened to; certainly -none could 
 succeed. But let the country know that war, un- 
 relenting war, is resolved upon, and that the Con- 
 gress of the United States has deliberately refuser} 
 to embrace perhaps the last opportunity that was 
 offered to avert the horrors of this internal strife. 
 
 Unconditional submission, it is said, is the al- 
 ternative of war. What man's influence could or 
 would produce this result? I know, you know, 
 Senators, that there is no human power that could 
 induce a peace upon those terms; because ten mil- 
 lion people, earnest and sincere, never yet sur- 
 rendered at discretion. The man who speaks of 
 peace is looked upon with suspicion, if he is not 
 openly accused of treason. 
 
 Let it also be remembered, history will record 
 the fact, that when efforts were made at the last 
 session of Congress, earnestly and persistently 
 made, to heal our then existing difficulties, the 
 gentlemen of the majority refused to listen to any 
 terms, although what has since happened was pre- 
 dicted. It was stated upon the floor of the Sen- 
 ate, by the late Senator from Illinois, and I hap- 
 pened personally to know the fact myself, that 
 the leading statesmen of the lower southern States 
 were willing to accept the terms of settlement which 
 were proposed by the venerable Senator from Ken- 
 tucky, my predecessor. Senator after Senator, 
 most of them from the southern States, a number 
 from the northern States, offered and pressed here 
 ter^ns of adjustment. Everything was rejected and 
 everything was refused. Was it worth 'while to 
 bring the country to this condition for the sake of 
 a political platform ? Was it worth while, for the 
 purpose of getting an opportunity to vindicate the 
 power of the Government at the expense of the 
 Constitution, to bring the country to this condi- 
 tion; to obstinately reject every proposition for 
 adjustment? 
 
 My colleague has this moment handed me the 
 bill that bears the novel title, " A bill to suppress 
 
 the slaveholders' rebellion - " The enacting clause 
 of the bill, as might have been anticipated from 
 the title, reads as follows: 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That 
 from and after the passage of this act, then shall be no sla- 
 very <>r involuntary servitude in any of the States of this 
 Union that claim to have teci ded from the Government 
 and are in open and armed resistance to the execution of 
 the laws and the provisions of the Constitution of the Uni- 
 ted States. 
 
 I believe that is to be carried out by a procla- 
 mation of the President: 
 
 And be it further enacted, That immediately after the 
 passage of this act, the President of the United States shall 
 cause his proclamation to be issued, setting forth the Im- 
 mediate and unconditional emancipation of all persons held 
 as slaves in any of the aforesaid States under the laws 
 thereof, and also ordering all officers to give protection to 
 all such emancipated slave-, and to accept the'seiviees of 
 all who may tender them in behalf of the Government, if, 
 in the judgment of such officers, such services shall be use- 
 ful or necessary to the prosecution of this vyar. 
 
 It is not only a congressional act of emancipa- 
 tion, but it is intended to arm the slaves against 
 the masters. It is not only to confiscate the whole 
 property, but it is to foment a servile war. That 
 is a proposition offered in the Senate of the Uni- 
 ted States! Sir, I shall find myself denounced in 
 the newspapers to-morrow morning as a man who 
 was uttering treason here, for speaking a word in 
 favor of the Constitution; but not one word will 
 be uttered against a Senator who deliberately pro- 
 poses to trample that Constitution under his feet, 
 and to plunge the country into all the horrors of 
 civil and of servile war. 
 
 Why argue the question further? I have done, 
 sir; I shall trouble the Senate no longer. I know 
 that argument and appeal are all in vain. The 
 Senate pants for action. I shall not, for my part, 
 longer delay it. I have-cherished all my life an 
 attachment to the Union of the States under the 
 Constitution; and I have always revered that in- 
 strument as one of the wisest of human works. 
 Now, I see it put aside by the Executive of the 
 United States, and that act about to be approved 
 by the Senate; and I see proceedings in regard to 
 it which, in my opinion, will not only subvert the 
 Constitution but destroy the public liberty. It is 
 vain to oppose it. I am quite aware that, in the 
 present temper of Congress, one might as well 
 oppose his uplifted hand to the descending waters 
 of Niagara as to reason or to appeal against the 
 
16 
 
 contemplated proceedings. The few of us left 
 here who are faithful to our convictions can only 
 look with sadnessupon the melancholy drama that 
 is being enacted before us. We can only hope that 
 this flash of frenzy may not assume the form of 
 
 chronic madness, and that in any event Divine 
 Providence may preserve for us and for posterity, 
 out of the wreck of a broken Union, the priceless 
 principles of constitutional libertyand of self-gov- 
 ernment. [Applause in the galleries.] 
 
 LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 026 246 4 
 
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 026 246 4 
 
 Hollinger Corp. 
 pH8.5