Qass Book _i^4__ i£ THE FASSAG-ES POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, ixctxdixct the CAUSES OF TILE WAR BETWEEN THE SECTIONS. BY / WILLIAM CIIAUNCEY FOWLER, LL. D. NEW YORK: CTAPwLES SCEIBNER, 124 GRAND STREET. 18G2. Entered aocording li> Act of Coiigrr", in trio yjsr 1S62, by JOHN F. TKOW. In the Clerk's Onicc" of the District Court of the United States for the Southern Distric*of Now York. J(my F. TROW, rni'JTrn. nTrnrnTYrrn. atd Ei.ECTnoTm%,* tr,, 48 ft M r.rirnc Street, New York. • . '' iV^-' f^ PREFACE. In tlie year 1850, the week before Mr. "Webster delivered his memorable speech on the seventh of March, I had the pleas- ure, in Washington, of taking tea with my old friend and class- mate, Governor McDowell, then a member of Congress. When I rose to take m}^ leave of him, he said he was not willing to part without telling me of a burden which was resting on his mind. " I am couAnnced, my dear friend," said lie, " that there will be a disunion of the States. There is a great change going on at the South. Two years ago, when I delivered my speech for the Union, all were melted down into a common feeling of love for the Avhole country. Men of all parties in the House gave me their hands and congratulated me on what they were pleased to call my patriotic speech. " But now some of the same men are not willing to hear a word on the subject of the Union. I am not in the councils of these Southern men, though I suppose I might be, if I would think and act with them. Every thing is tending to disunion ; and I wanted to tell you so before you return to the ISTorth." As he said this to me in earnest, tender tones, and with eyes filled with tears, I felt that his sad forebodings ought to be heeded, and their grounds investigated. ISTot very far fi'om this- time. I made the acquaintance of Judge BuENET, of Cincinnati, at Union Hall, Saratoga, and was greatly interested in his intelligence, wisdom, and patriotism. In repeated conversations, he said to me, in substance : " These IV PREFACE. States cannot long hold together — they will separate." On my replying, I can hardly believe that the Southern States will he so nnwise, he answered, " Ah, my dear sir, the difficulty is with Is"orthcrn men. Great numbers of them do not value the Union so much as they do their doctrines on slavery, which, in their working, are hostile to the Union. A spirit of disunion exists at the North which will continue to increase in extent and intensity until it has produced a separation of the States." After hearing the testimony of these two patriot statesmen, the one speaking of the South and the other of the ISTorth, I resolved to investigate the following questions, chiefly for my own satisfaction : I. Is the traditionary sentiment in favor of the Union dying out in the hearts of the people of the States ? II. Is the bond of Union, namely, the Constitution, growing weaker in the respect and confidence of politicians ? III. As a consequence, are the States drifting along, to some extent, unconsciously, toward disunion ? IV. What are the causes of this alarming condition of the country ? V. Which section of the Union is resj)onsible for the opera- tion of these causes ? While investigating these questions, m^' historical collec- tions, in their bearing on their solution, grew to such an amount, and assumed so much importance in my estimation, that I con- cluded to p-esent them to the public in the following pages, as furnishing a satisfactory answer to these questions. In adopting a chronological arrangemeu/t of my materials, I have endeavored to bring distinctly into view the lyrominent questions in dispute hetween the two sections in the successive eras, from the first set- tlement of the country down to the close of President Buchanan's administration. The answer to the former set of questions depends on the answer to the latter. For the statement of PREFACE. these latter questions, and for the arguments on each side, I have quoted I^orthern utterances and Southern utterances. These, with the " Remarks " inserted at the close of each chap- ter, will enable the careful reader, at a small expense of time, to obtain a knowledge of the 'princi'pal sectional questions M'hich have agitated the country from the first to the present time. He cannot fail to see that the same questions, under dif- ferent forms, appear, disaj)pear, and reappear, on the tide of time, as if they had not already been discussed, and as if one generation of politicians must again settle what had been re- garded as settled by a former generation. Every political as- pirant in each section has been ready to show his prowess in attacking some supposed political heresy in the other section, even though it had been often confuted ; just as formerly " every young churchman militant would try his arms in thun- dering on Ilobbes's Steel Cap." Disguise it as we will, bitter feuds have existed between the Xortli and the South, for a generation at least, reckoning a generation at thirty years. In that period men have come for- ward into life in each section who think of those born in the other section, only to hate them or despise them, or, at least, to misunderstand them. "Where does the blame rest? IN'ot solely on the Xorth, nor solely on the South. Iliacos intra muros peccatur, et extra. The careful reader of this small volume will be satisfied that all the political intelligence and virtue of the country is not to be found north of Mason and Dixon's line, nor south of it ; and that political and sectional pride, and intolerance, and hatred, and desire of ofiice, confined to neither section, have brought the Union of the States to the verge of ruin. "When the rapid current of events in 1861 outran the fears of the ridiculed " Union-savers," and hurried on the dreaded catas- trophe, the civil war, then begun, was but tlie logical sequence of foregoing events. Bitter feelings long cherished, bitter VI PKEFACE. words often uttered, injuries inflicted, insults oflered, naturally germinated and grew into deeds of violence and blood. Dra- gons' teeth had been plentifully sown, and they started up armed men. And yet multitudes, at the time, were so ignorant of the prevalent sectional feelings and purposes, that, in surprise, they asked, " What are they fighting for ? " The people of the two sections of the country, are, to a large extent, ignorant of each other, and hence, in their estimate of each other's institutions, they are misled by illusions of tlic imagination. For the purpose of distributing information among the peo- ple, this volume, which might be entitled " Histokical Collec- tions," is offered to various classes of readers. I. To all, whether North or South, who are ignorant of the political history of the United States, and who have not an op- portunity of referring to original sources. II. To all, M'hethcr North or South, who have strong sec- tional prejudices. III. To all, whether Korth or South, who wish for the res- toration and the preservation of the Union. IV. To all, whether Xorth or South, who wish to under- stand the causes of the war between the sections. V. To all, whether North or South, who value the prosper- ity of the country more than they do the success of their party. YI. To all, whether North or South, who believe that mere- 1}' defeating the armies of the Southern States will bring back the Union. VII. To all, whether North or South, who wish to under- stand the constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Government. VIII. To all, whether North or South, whose hearts, not limited by party or section, are large enough to embrace the interests of the whole country, and of all the States. I'KEFACE. Vii The final issue of the sectional controversy lies in the future, beyond the ken of mortal vision, wrapped up in the hollow of God's mysterious hand. He only, who presides over the des- tiny of nations, '' sees the end from the beginning." But though thus limited in vision, man can gather from the past the lessons of wisdom for his guidance in the future. And may we not indulge the pleasing hope that the people of the States, gathering wisdom from the mistakes of the past, in the sec- tional controversy, may become qualified to enjoy, in the long future, the blessings of union under the Federal Constitution ^ W. C. R New York, 18G2. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. Original sectional diversities, .... Additional sectional diversities, . . . . Bond of sympathy between the colonies, Birth of the spirit of Union, Sectional feeling yielding to love of country, Sectional opinions in the Continental Congress, Proposed sectional Convention of the Eastern States, Sectional feeling in the Revolutionary army. Remarks, . . ...... 8 9 10 10 11 12 12 CHAPTER II. The Constitutional Conveution, Xavigation Acts, . The slave trade, Proposal of Gouverneur Morris, Debate in the Convention on the slave trade, and navigation acts, Spirit of the Committee of Eleven, ..... Gain and loss to each section by the " bargain," Virginia not a pa>ty to the bargain, ..... Slaves recognized as property in the Constitution, The word " slave " not used in the Constitution, . Fugitive slaves, ......... Representation and taxation, ...... Remarks, 14 14 15 16 If; IS 19 19 20 21 22 2.S 24 CHAPTER III. General Washington's Administration, ........ SO Duties on tonnage and imports, ......... 30 Submission of the South to these duties, ....... 31 Sectional discussion of slavery, ......... 32 Bank of the United States a sectional measure, ...... 33 The Excise law a sectional measure, 34 Assumption of State Debts a sectional measure, 34 X CONTENTS. PAGE Location of the scut of Government a sectional measure, . . .35 Bargain in Congress, .......••.■ 36 Fugitives from justice and from labor, ........ 39 Jefl'erson's letter to General Washington, 40 Remarks, -11 CHAPTER IV. John Adams' Administration, 44 Assertion of State rights, 44 Doctrine of State rights, 45 Luther Martin's letter, with the opinions of Johnson, Ellsworth, Hamilton, and Madison and others on State rights and military coercion, . . . 40-52 Remarks, 52 CHAPTER V. Mr. Jefferson's Administration, ' . . 54 Mr. Jefferson elected by the States voting in Congress assembled, ... 54 Sectional spirit of the times, 55 Restrictions upon commerce, • . 58 Sectional opposition, ........... 59 The purcliasc of Louisiana, 59 Sectional opposition, 60 Remarks, 6*^ CHAPTER VI. Mr. Madison's Administration, Gl Sectional opposition to commercial restrictions, 02 Sectional opposition to the war of 1812, 63 The Hartford Convention, 65 Proposed alterations of the Constitution, • 65 State Commissioners sent to Washington, 67 Contemporaneous views of Northern men, John Lowell, Gouvernenr Morris, De- witt Clinton, John Quincy Adams, C7-71 Remarks, ............. 71 CHAPTER VII. Mr. Monroe's Administration, 76 Restriction of slavery in Missouri proposed and urged by Northern men, . . 76 Resistance by Southern men, 77-79 Great sectional excitement, 79 The compromise bill passed, 80 The compromise not carried out by Northern members, .... 80-81 Admission of Missouri, 82 Remarks, ■ S3 CONTENTS. Xi CHAPTER VIII. PAGE John Quincy Adams' Administration, ./...,.. 88 Tariff of 1828, 88 Jlr. Clay's and Mr. Webster's speeches in 1824, 89, 90 Protest of Georgia, ........... 92 Protest of South Carohua, 94 Remarks, 98 CHAPTER IX. General Jac'Kson s Administration, 100 Nullification. Hayne. Webster, 101 Ordinance passed by South Carolina, 109 Passage of the Revenue Collection bill, ....... 109 Passage of the Compromise bill, 109 Remarks, 110 CHAPTER X. Mr. Van Buren s Administration, 115 Mr. Pinekney's resolutions, 117 Vermont anti-slavery resolutions, . . . 118 Mr. Slade's motion, 119 Withdrawal of Southern members, . . • 1 24 Mr. Calhoun's resolutions, 126 Remarks, . , 128 CHAPTER XI. General Harrison's and Mr. Tyler's Administration, lo3 Annexation of Texas, . . ........ 133 Proposal of Massachusetts to amend the Constitution, 135 Remarks, 130 CHAPTER XII. James K. Polk's Administration, 137 Tariff of 1846, • . . 137 Oregon Territory, ........... 144 The Wilmot Proviso, 144 Remarks, 145 CHAPTER XIII. (leneral Taylor's and Mr. Fillmore's Administration, 148 Danger of Disunion, 149 Mr. Clay's Compromise resolutions, .149 Mr. Calhoun's speech, 150 Xn CONTENTS. PAGE Mr. Webster's speech 164 Mr. Clay's speech, 167 Remarks, 170 CHAPTER XIV. Gen. Pierce's Administration, ... 175 Appeal of Senators Chase, and Sumner and others on the subject of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, 176 Clerical protest, 178 Remarks, 184 CHAPTER XV. Mr. Buchanan's Administration, 187 Is the Republican party sectional ? IBS The Dred Scott decision, 191 Helper's Book, 193 The John Brown inva.sion, .......... 197 Sympathy with Brown, 200 Personal hberty bills, 201 Is slavery a creature of local law ? 202 Northern Abolition and disunion sentiments, ...... 204 Caleb Cushing in Boston, 1859, • . . 209 Davis's resolutions on the relations of the States to the General Government, . 210 Power of Congress over Territories, 211 Territory of Louisiana, 211 Who were the parties to the constitutional compact ? . . • . . 213 Mr. Webster's resolutions in the Senate in 1832, 214 Ordinance of secession passed by Georgia, 216 Mr. Madison on secession, . . . . . . . . . . 217 Declaration of the Convention of South Carolina of the causes of secession, . 224 The peace Congress, 229 Mr. Crittenden's resolutions, .......... 229 Letters of Senators Bingham and Chandler, 230 Remarks, 232-268 THE SECTIONAL COXTEOVERSY. CHAPTER I. OEIGIN^U:. SECTIOXAL DIVEKSITIES. Before the American Eevolntioiij tliere were ou the great eastern slope of !N"orth America, along the shores of the At- lantic Ocean, thirteen separate colonics. These colonies were, indeed, connected with England, as their mother conntry ; hnt in their relations to each other they were independent and sov- ereign nations. Moreover, they were, to sonic extent, alien to one another in race, in religion, and in political affinities. The inhabitants of Isew nampshire, Massachnsetts, and Connecticnt, were de- scended from that class of the English who were Pnritan in their religion, and Ronndhead in their politics. The inhab- itants of Xew York and Xew Jersey were largely descendants of the Dntch. The English Quakers, the original settlers, ga^'e a certain character to Pennsylvania, just as the Roman Catho- lics did to Maryland, just as the j)rclatical cavaliers did to Virginia, iust as did the French Huguenots to South Carolina. ADDmONAL SECTIONAL DIVERSITIES. But other diversities were, in process of time, created by climate, education, industrial pursuits, social institutions, and 8 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKST. government. Tlie people of New Hampshire, ISTew Jersey, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, were mider what was called a Provincial Government, in which the Governors were' appointed hy the Crown. The people of Maryland, Pennsyl- vania, and Delaware, were under what was called a Projprietary Government, in which the Governors were appointed by certain individuals called proprietaries. Massachusetts, Kliode Island, and Connecticut, were under what was called a Charter Gov- ernnnent, in which the* Governor was appointed by the freemen of the colony. In Massachusetts, after 1002, the Governors were appointed by the Crown. Xor were the existing diversities diminished by personal intercourse between the colonies, or by the press. In those times there were but few travelling, whether for the purposes of business or pleasure ; and the press had but a limited circu- lation for the few newspapers which it sent forth. So great were these diversities, that in Rivington's Gazette, p. 32, they are thus noticed : " I^othing has surprised peoj)le more than the Virginians and Marylanders joining with so much warmtli with the New England Republicans in their opposition to tlieir ancient Constitution, which has been the glory of the English in every part of the world. As there are certainly no nations un- der heaven more ojipositc than these colonies, it would be A'ery difficult to account for it on the principle of religion and sound j^olicy, had not the Virginians discovered their indifference to l)Otli, so highly revered by their illustrious ancestors." BOND OF SYilPATUY LLTWEEX TUE COLONIES. But it was also true that the colonies, generally, were of com- mon blood, and spoke a common language, and were familiar with the same traditions, and, in relation to Great Britain, had common rights and interests at stake, and common habits of reasoning about tlicm. It is not surprising, therefore, that when the crown encroached on the rights of Massachusetts, that all the colonies should express the liveliest interest in her sufferings. Her fate might soon be theirs. It is not surprising that Virginia should take the lead in the declaration, that the interests of all the colonies were concerned in what was done by the British BOND OF SYArPATJIV JUCi'WKKN THE COI-ONIES. U Government, in respect to Massachusetts. The Assembly of Virginia warned the king of the danger that woiTld ensue, " if any person in any part of America should bo seized and carried beyond sea for trial," May IG, 1TG9. Of the resolves j^assed by Yirginia at this time, Bancroft says : " Is it asked who was the adviser of the measure ? None can tell. Great things were done, tranquilly and modestly, without a thought of the glory that was their due. Had the Ancient Dominion been silent, I will not say that Massachu- setts might have faltered ; but mutual confidence would have been wanting. American freedom was more prepared by cour- ageous counsel for successful war." Ills. Am. Rev.., vol. iii,, p. 310. In another place he says : " The Boston committee were already (1774) in close correspondence with the other New England colonies, Avith Kew York, and Peimsylvania. Old jealousies were removed, and perfect harmony subsisted between all. " Union " was the cry, a union which should reach from Florida to the icy plains of Canada ; " p. 541. Under a common impulse, in view of common interests at stake, all the colonies, except Georgia, sent delegates to the first Continental Con- gress, which assembled at Philadelphia on the 5th of Septem- ber, 1774. It is not surprising that Patrick Henry should, in that Congress, scout the idea of sectional distinctions and of in- dividual interests. "All America," said he, " is thrown into one mass. Where are your landmarks, your boundaries of colo- nies ? They are all thrown down. The distinction between Yirginians, Pennsylvaniaus, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virgiman, hid an American.'''' Un- der a common impulse all the States sent delegates to the second Continental Congress, which assembled at Philadelphia on the 10th of May, 1775, which unanimously appointed George Washington commander-in-chief of the continental forces in the united colonies. Under a common impulse, all the colonies, on the 4th of July, 1776, voted, through their delegates, " that the united colonies ought to be Free and Independent States." Under the same common impulse, the States, eleven of them, adopted the articles of confederation in 1778, one in 1779, and the remaining one in 1781, by which the union of the States was consummated. XO TUE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. SECTIONAL FEELINCr YIELDING TO LOVE OF COUNTRY. It is not to be supposed tliat the appointment of George "Washington to the supreme command, or that the draft of the Declaration of Independence by another Yirginian, or that the action of the Continental Congress would entirely avoid the manifestation of sectional feelings. Such feelings were, indeed, called forth, hut they were cxi)elled from the heart of the people of the colonies by the new and stronger affection, namely, love of country. The sectional feeling, which led some of the North- ern delegates, in the Continental Congress in 1T75, to prefer Artemas Ward or some New England man to be commander-in- chief, they nobly sacrificed on the altar of patriotism, and gave their voices and their votes for a Yirginian, who was selected partly on sectional grounds. The sectional feelings naturally aroused by the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, prepared by Mr. Jefferson, v/as allayed by striking from it the objectional clauses. These arc his words : " The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving of the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, wished to continue it. Our IsTorthern brethren, also, I believe, felt a little tender under those cen- sures ; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others." — Jejjerson^s WorJiS, SECTIONAL OPINIONS IN TUE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS, In the Continental Congress, it was proposed, July 12, 17TC, " that the expenses of the Confederation should be borne by each colony, in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age and quality, except Indians, not paying taxes in each col- ony ; a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhab- itants, shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the Assem- bly of the United States." Mr. Chase, of Maryland, moved " tliat the quota should be paid, not by the number of inhabitants, but by the icldU inhab- itants." PROPOSED SECTIONAL CONVENTTOX. 11 John Adams, of Massacliusetts, and Mr. Wilson, of Pennsyl- vania, spoke in opposition to tliis amendment. The amendment was rejected by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Khode Island, Connecticut, 'New York, Xew Jersey, Pennsyl- vania, against those of Maryland, Virginia, Xortli Carolina, South Carolina, Delaware ; Georgia being divided. March 28, 1783, on the same subject, it was voted that slaves be taxed 3 to 5. New Hampshire, aye ; Massachusetts, 7io ; Rhode Island, no ; New Jersey, aye; Pennsylvania, aye ; Dela- ware, no; Maryland, aye; Virginia, aye; North Carolina, aye; South Carolina, 720 ; Connecticut, ?i6»; New York, ffyc. PKOPOSED SECTIONAL CONVENTION. April 1, 1783. Mr. Goiimui, of Massachusetts, in the Con- gress of the Confederation, observed, as a cogent reason for hastening the business, " that the Eastern States, at the invitation of the Legislature of Massachusetts, were, with New York, about to form a convention for regulating matters of common concern, and that, if any plan should be sent out by Congress, they would probably cooperate with Congress in giving effi- cacy to it." Mr. Mekcer, of Virginia, expressed great disquietude at this information ; considered it as a dangerous precedent ; and '• that it behooved the gentleman to explain fully the object of the Con- vention, as it would be necessary for the Southern States to bo otherwise very circumspect in agreeing to any plans on the supposition that the general Confederacy was to continue.'' Mr. Osgood, of Massachusetts, and Mr. Goku^vjsi, explained "• that the object of the proposed Convention was to guard against an interference of taxes among States whose local situation re- quired such precautions." Mr. Bland, of A'irginia, said " he always considered these con- ventions as improper, and contravening the spirit of the general government. He said they had the aj)pearance of Young Con- GEESSES." Mr. Madison and Mr. Hamilton disapproved of those partial conventions, not as absolute violations of the Confederacy, but, as ultimately tending to them, and as, in the mean time, excit- 12 THE SKCnONAL CONTROVEKSY. ing i^ernieioiis jealousies ; tlie latter observing, " lie wished, in- stead of tlieiu, to see a Geneual Convention take place." SECTIONAL FEELING IN THE AEMY OF THE EEVOLETION. Nowhere were these sectional jealousies more prevalent than in the motley army assembled, from distant quarters, under Washington's own command. Eeed, the adjutant-general, speaking on this subject, observes: " The Southern troops, com- ]>rising the regiments south of tlie Delaware, looked with very unlcind feelings on those of New England." " It is with great concern," says Washington, in one of his general orders, " that the general understands that jealousies have arisen .among the troops from the different provinces, and reflections are thrown out which can only tend to irritate each other, and injure the noble cause in which we arc engaged, and which we ought to support with one hand and one heart." In a letter to Gen. Schuyler, 177G, he says : " I must entreat your attention to do away the unhappy and pernicious distinc- tions and jealousies between troops of different governments. Enjoin this upon the officers, and let them inculcate and press home to the soldiery the necessity of order and harmony among those who are engaged in one common cause, and mutually (iontending for all that freemen hold most dear." John Adams, speaking of the violent passions and discordant interests at work tln-oughout the country, from Florida to Cana- da, observes : " It rcrpiircs more serenity of temper, a deeper understanding, and more courage, than fell to the lot of Marl- borough, to ride in this whirlwind." Irving's Z?/<3 o/* ^Yashing- ton, vol. ii., p. 287. REMARKS. It is then manifest : 1. That there were original and acquired diversities of char- acter in the early settlers of the States, which were the founda- tion of sectional feelings at the commencement of the American Ttcvolution. 2. That these feelings, for the time, were overborne by the REMARKS. 13 common dangers and the common interests in respect to Great Britain, Avliicli established a strong bond of sympatliy between them. 3. Tliatj nevertheless, sectional interests were recognized and sectional feelings manifested in the Congress of the Confedera- tion, and in the army, that were a great embarrassment to the Government and to the commander-in-chief. 4. That, notwithstanding these sectional feelings in the minds of those who indnlged them, and in the hearts of the people generally, national feelings so far prevailed through the several States, that they contended successfully through a seven years' war with the mother country, and won the independence which they had declared, and took their place by common con- sent among the civilized nations of the earth, as a Confederacy, styled, The U^'ited States of Ajieeica. CHAPTER II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION. The common fear of Groat Britain liad caused the States to adopt tlie " Articles of Confederation." When that fear was removed by the treaty of i>eace, January, 1Y83, those articles had lost their power as a bond of union. The common fear of imbecility and anarchy, into which they were in danger of sinking down, after the excitements of the war had passed off, caused them to adopt the Constitution. The Convention was composed of gentlemen of high moral principle, of undoubted patriotism, and of courteous manners, of broad views, some of them accustomed to act together in the Continental Congress or in the army, and all of them entertain- ing a great respect for Washington, the President. The Con- vention assembled in May, 1787. Still sectional difficulties arose in that body, which, with others inherent in the subjects under discussion, threatened its dissolution, before they had accomplished the object for which they came together. Tlicse subjects were : 1. ISTavigation. 2. Slavery, The North insisted on having protection for their property in commerce ; the South insisted on having protection for their property in slaves. NAVIGATION. Tlie Committee of Detail had reported the follo\^^ing pro- posal : " No navigation act shall be j^assed (by Congress) with- out the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each House." This clause the Southern States were anxious to THE SLAVIO TEADi:. 15 retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much in Ihe power of the Eastern States ; but which the latter were anxious to reject, that thus a bare majority of Congress might pass navigation laws to their advantage, even though injurious to the Southern States. THE SLAVE TEADE. By the same committee, the slave trade was left just where the old Confederation had left it, without giving Congress the power to abolish it, or to lay any duty on imported slaves. This proj)osal was acceptable to the Southern States, but not to the Northern ; for the deleG:ates from the latter thouirht that slaves imported ought to be placed under the general provision for taxing imports, and some few of them also thought that they ought to favor morals by the abolition of the slave trade. Mr. King, of Massachusetts, "thought the subject ought to be viewed in aiwlitlcal light only. If two States (South Caro- lina and Georgia) will not agree to the Constitution as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the other, that great and equal opposition would be experienced from other States." He remarked that " the exemption of slaves from duty, while every other import was subject to it, is an inequal- ity that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the :N'orthern and Middle States." Gen. CoTEswoETH PixcKNEY, of Soutli Carolina, in his re- ply, said " that he thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think that South Carolina would stoj) the im- portation of slaves in any short time, but only stop it occasion- ally, as she now docs. lie moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal duty with other im- ports, which he thought right, and which would remove one difficulty which had been stated." Tuesday, August 21 and 22, 1TS7. — Mr. Ellswoeth, of Con- necticut, was for leaving the clause (which did not prohibit the importation of slaves) as it now stands. " Let every State import what it pleases. The wisdom or morality of slavery are con- sidercdions thcd helong to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole ; and the Stat-cs are the best judges 16 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVERSY. of their particular interests. Tlic old Confederation had not meddled witli this point, and ho did not sec any greater neces- sity for hringinii; it witliin the policy of the new one." !Mr. SnKinrAN, of Connccticnt, "■ was for leaving the clanse as it now stands. lie disapproved of the slave trade ; yet, as the States were nioio ^^ossesseel of the rigJtt to import deivcs, and as tlie public good did not require it to be taken from them, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of government, ho thought it best to leave the matter as we find it ; that is, not prohibit the importation of slaves." Mr. GouvEENEUR JSIoEKis, of Pennsylvania, wished to have the whole subject to be committed, including the clause relating to navigation acts. " These things, namely, the slave trade, to which some of the North was opposed, and the navigation act without a restriction, to which the South was opposed, may form a hetrgahi between the Northern and the Southern States." COilMITTEE or ONE EKOiM EACH STATE. The Committee of Eleven, to whom was referred the subject of the " bargain," reported, August 24, 178T, " in favor of not allowing the Legislature to prohibit the importation of slaves before 1800, but giving them power to impose a duty at a rate not exceeding the average of other imjyorts.'"' DEBATE IX THE CONVENTION. General Pinckney, August 25, moved to strike out the year 1800, and insert 1808. Mr. GoRiiAM, of Massachusetts, seconded the motion. It was then passed in the affirmative ; Xcw Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, voting in the affirmative (6) ; New Jersey, Pennsyh'ania, Delaware, and Virginia, in the negative (4). It was finally agreed, nem. con., to make the clause read, " but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not ex- ceeding ten dollars for each person." Ten dollars was considered by some of the members a '-'-fair average of other im])orts^'' DEBATE IN" THE CONVENTION. 17 comparing the price of a Blavc, at that time, with the price of " other articles" of importation, or five per cent, ad valorem, the money value of a slave. This sum, as a specific duty, there- fore, was inserted instead of " a fair average of other imports,'' the phrase used in the report of the committee. Thus the price of a slave was reckoned at two hundred dollars by the Con- vention. Mr. CuAKLES PiNCKNEY, of South Carolina, August 29, moved in Convention to postpone the report of the Committee of Eleven in favor of the following proposal : " Tliat no act of tlie Legislature for the purpose of regulating the commerce of the United States with foreign powers, among the United States, (the several States,) shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members of each House." Mr. Martin seconded the motion. Mr. Pinckney remarked, that there were five ditferent commercial interests : 1. The fisheries and West India trade, which belonged to the ISTew England States. 2. The interests of Is ew York lay in free trade. 3. Wheat and flour are the staples of the two Middle States, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 4. Tobacco, tlic staple of Virginia and Mary- hmd, and a part of ISTorth Carolina. 5. Pice and indigo, the staples of South Carolina and Georgia. These difiercnt inter- ests would be the source of oppressive regulations, if no cheek to a bare majority should be provided. States pursue their interests with less scruple than individuals. The power of regu- lating commerce was a jjure concession on the part of the Southern States. They did not need the ju-otcction of the maritime States for the j)resent." General C. C. Pinckney, of South Carolina, said " that it was the true interest of the Southern States to pass no regulation of commerce ; but, considering the loss brouglit on the comincrcc of tlie Eastern States by the Pevolution, their liberal coiiducf towards the views of South Carolina, (permission to import slaves,) and the interests the weak Southern States had in being united to the strong Eastern States, ho thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commer- cial regulations, and that his constituents, though j'^i'cjudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled by this liberality, (as to the slave trade.) lie had himself, he said, prejudices. 18 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. against tlic Eastern States before he came here, but would ac- knowledge that he had found thcui a:^ liberal and candid as any men whatever." Mr. Clymer, of Pennsylvania : '• The diversity of commercial interests of necessity creates difficulties which ought not to be increased by imnecessary regulations. The Korthern and Mid- dle States will 1)6 ruined^ if not allowed to defend themselves against foreign regulations." Mr. SnEKM.VN, of Connecticut, and Mr. Morris, of Pennsyl- vania, in behalf of the Eastern States, spoke against Mr. Charles Pinckney's motion. Mr. Butler, of South Carolina, " differed from those who considered the rejection of the motion as no concession on the part of the Southern States. lie considered the interests of these and the Eastern States as different as the interests of Rus- sia and Turkey. Being, notwithstanding, desirous of concilia- ting the affections of the Eastern States, he should vote against re(|uiring two-thirds instead of a majority." Colonel George Mason, of Virginia : "If the Government is lo be lasting, it must be founded in the confidence and affection i)i the people, and must be so construed as to obtain these. The majority will be governed by their interests. The Southern States are in the minority in both Houses. Is it to be expected that they will deliver themselves, bound hand and foot, to the Eastern States, and enable these to exclaim, in the words of Cromwell on a certain occasion, ' Tlic Lord hath delivered them into our hands ' ? " Mr. Pinckney's motion having failed to pass, the report of the committee, striking out the clause requiring a two-thirds vote to pass a navigation act, was then agreed to nem. con. THE SPIRIT OF the COMMITTEE OF ELEVEN. Tlic spirit of the committee that reported the terms of the foregoing " bargain," may be understood from the following- statement of Luther Martin, one of their number : " They met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the Eastern States, notwithstanding their aver- sion to slavery, were very willing to indulge the Southern States yniGmiA not a paety to the bargain. 19 with at least a temporary liberty to prosecute tlie slave trade, provided the Southern States would, in their turn, gratil'y them by laying no restriction on navigation acts ; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a large majority, agreed on a report." GAIN iiXD LOSS to EACH SECTION BY THE BAIiGAIN. In this hargaiuj the jSTorthern States gained : first, the right to pass navigation acts by a bare majority ; to tax the'tonnage of foreign nations for their own advantage as carriers ; to lay a duty on foreign imports for their own advantage as manufac- turers ; secondly, to put an end to the slave trade in twenty years, and thereby to prevent, in some degree, the increase of slave representation, for their own political advantage. What did they lose ? l^othing, excej)t their share of the profits in im- porting slaves, after enjoying it for that period. "What did the Southern States gain by this bargain ? They gained only the additional recognition of property m slaves by the Constitution ; while they lost much of what the Xorthern States gained. They did not gain the right to import slaves for twenty years which they enjoyed before ; while they lost the right to import them afterwards. Tlicy found themselves " bound hand and foot " by the tariff laws of 182S, and other tariffs. VIEGINIA NOT A BAETY TO THE EAEGAIN. One reason why Virginia did not unite with the Southern and Eastern States in making that bargain probably was, that she neither derived the profits received by the one class, from trans- porting slaves to the country, nor the profits received from pur- chasing and working them after their importation, enjoyed by the other class. She already had slaves enough of her own, so that she had no occasion to purchase, and she had comparatively few ships for transporting them to others. She could raise slaves cheaper than she could import them, and if she had any slaves for sale, the price of them would be lessened by the importation of negroes. Besides this, Yirginia had a long standing quarrel with the 20 THE SECTIOXAL COXTEOVEKSY. * Britisk king on account of his vetoing a bill for the suppression of the slave trade, drawn up by the youthful Jefferson, and in- troduced by him into the State Legislature, and then passed. The indignation caused by that regal act continued to burn in the heart of the mover, and in many a generous bosom throughout Virginia for a long time afterwards, and may have contributed to prevent her from voting to permit the continuance of the slave trade until 1S08. The course of Virginia in the Convention was somewhat equivocal, acting sometimes with the slave States, and sometimes with the non-slaveholding States. As she had taken the lead in forming a Constitution, she must have been anxious to carry it out to a successful issue. She felt the dignity of her position as the Ancient Dominion, as the inother of statesmen, and as hav- ino; her favorite son acting as President of the Convention. Mr. Madison, especially, was anxious to prevent a failure, and was disjjosed to conciliate both sections. lie and others, probably, desired to believe that the abolition of slavery would take place in all the States, and he was willing to encourage the hope of it in others. But after the completion of the " bargain " by which the slave trade was to be continued twenty years, he must have given up that belief. Lideed, he declared that, by that contiim- ance, all the evils of allowing the permanent continuance of the slave trade would be accomplished. The Pinckneys and others, who were better circumstanced to judge correctly, never en- couraged that belief, but the contrary. They made arrange- ments in the Constitution for the permanence of slavery in the United States, and for its increase : just what has happened. SLAVES EECOGNIZED AS PKOPEETY BY THE CONSTITCTIOX. But while the " bargain " was in the course of negotiation, it was particularly objected to by Roger Siiermax, on the ground that, by laying a duty on slaves as on other imports, it recognizes them as '■'• property. ^^ There were men in the Convention who had no objections to slaves being property, and to owning them as proi^crty, who thought that it was not judicious to name them as such, or to recognize them as such in the Constitution. That instrument THE AVOKD SLAVE NOT USED IN THE COKSTITUTIOX. 21 must go before the people of the several States, and "U'as likelv to encounter great opposition. They thought, therefore, that it was desirable that as few features as possible should belong to it, with which even the inost scrupulous and fastidious could find fault. But it became necessary to recognize them as propertv in the Constitution ; just as they were often spoken of as property in the debates, and classed as property by ISTorthern and South- ern delegates. Thus, Mr. '^VILSo^", of Pennsylvania, in the de- bate on this very subject, remarked : " As the section now stands, all articles (imported) are to be taxed, slaves only ex- empt ; " he thought it " unreasonable that slaves alone should be exempt, when all other articles are taxed or chtticd. They were, therefore, classed in the same category with other articles of property. THE WORD SLAVE NOT TSED IN THE CONSTITUTION. In regard to using the word " persons " in this section, and elsewhere, when slaves were meant and spoken of, Lutiiek Mak- TON has the following remark in his letter to the Legislature of Maryland : " The design of this clause is to prevent the general Government from prohibiting the importation of slaves ; but the same general reason which caused them to strike out the word " national," and not admit the word " stamp," influenced them to guard against the introduction of the word slaves. Tliey anx- iously sought to avoid any expression which might be odious in the ears of Americans ; although they were willing to admit into their system the things which the expression signified." It fully recognized slaves to be property, though it does not contain the word. Mr. Sherman liked " a description " better than the term, which was not pleasing to some people. Mr. Madison was unwilling to use the term slaves in the Constitution, or even to suggest the idea that they were property ; though he spoke of them as property in debate and elsewhere, and owned them as property. He would have the idea, but would not suggest the idea. The word slaves, would be disagreeable to men like the Quakers ; the word " national," would be oflensive to the staunch supporters of State rights ; and the word " stamp," would i^ 22 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOTERST. be disagreeable, because it called up the remembrance of the " stamp act." The phraseology used in describing the slave trade "was employed for the same purpose. Mr. Madison, in his letter to Robert Walsh, Nov. 1819, declares, in respect to the phrase the " migration and importation of such persons," that it means the importation of slaves. Tlie word " migration " was added as an expletive, that would weaken the impression pro- duced by the word importation when used alone. Tlie one word ^vould modify or explain the other. Gou\"EKNEUE Morris, of Pennsylvania, one of the leading JSTorthern men in the Convention, was anxious that the protec- tion of slavery should not be iw^^a prominent in the Constitution. His constituents were some of them Quakers, some of them members of abolition societies, who might oppose the adoption of the Constitution, if they saw, distinctly, the whole amount of protection afforded to slave property, as they would, if slaves were distinctly named. And yet he declared that, as a matter of fact, domestic slavery was the rcxo'ai prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution^ His perceptive mind saw clearly the exact meaning of the descrip- tive terms employed instead of the terms themselves. " A per- son held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof," was a description conveying as clear a meaning to his mmd, as if the word slave had been used instead of the " description." A description of the meaning of a word in a dictionary is a de- finition of the word, and shows its meaning. These statesmen did the same that theologians sometimes do. Instead of using odious words, they used equivalent terms. FUGITIVE SLAVES. General C. C. Pestckney, of South Carolina, at an early stage of the proceedings, declared that, unless provision should be made to secure the Southern States in the possession of their property in slaves, by i^reventing their cmancii)ation by escap- ing into other States, the Constitution would not be accepted by the State which he represented. After the committee of detail had made their report, without making this provision, he re- newed his demand for a provision " in favor of property in EEPKESENTATION AND TAXATION. 23 slaves ; " and in the course of tlie debate lie and Mr. C. Pinck- NEY moved to require fugitive slaves to be delivered up like criminals." Mr. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, said : " This would require the executive of a State to do it at public expense." Mr. SnEKM^i^, of Connecticut : " I see no more propriety in the public seizing and surrendering a slave, or servant, than a horse." It appears that both of these gentlemen voted for tliis provision, notwithstanding these objections. Mr. BuTLEK, of South Carolina, moved to insert, after article 15, " if any person, bound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the State to which they may escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their ser- vice or labor." Tliis was agreed to in Convention ncm. con. In the first revision of this clause, there were some changes in style not affecting the meaning of the terms. Thus, instead of "justly " the word " due " was substituted ; and instead of " any of the United States," " any State " was substituted. Thus the Convention, without a dissenting voice, secured to slaveholders their right of property in slaves, according to the demand of Gen. Pinckney, in every part of the country, and in every State where the slave could be found. Tlie States were expected to aid in the rendition of slaves. EEPKESENTATION AND TAXATION, In respect to the subject of taxation, it seemed to bo the wish of delegates from the Southern States that slaves should be reckoned as property, and not as persons ; while, with respect to representation, it was their wish, at least a portion of them, that the slaves should be reckoned as persons, and the full number of slaves should be counted as so many white men. On the other hand, the delegates from the Northern States seemed disposed to consider the slaves as persons with respect to the subject of taxation, but to consider them as property in respect to the subject of representation. It having just been established in the Convention, by the 24 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. votes of tlic States, that there should be a common measure for representation and taxation, it was afterwards decided, that, as slaves were viewed both as property and as persons, tliey should be taken into both representation and taxation in the pro- portion of three to five, that is, that five slaves should couni as much as three whites, Tims slaves are recognized as " persons " in the words of the Constitution, but as persons under the disability of being regarded as property by the laws of the State in which they reside. Had they been reckoned in their whole number, it would have been because they were regarded, in this matter, only as persons ; had they been excluded from the reckoning, it would be because they were, in this matter, reckoned only as prop- erty, just as they were originally by the Continental Congress. The constitutional Convention was dissolved September 14, 1787. REMARKS. 1. When the Constitution came from the Convention before the several States for adoption, so strong was the opposition to it in some of them, that it became evident that it could not be ratified by all of them, unless it should be amended either be- fore or after its adoption. It was finally concluded to adopt it on assurances that it would be amended afterwards. One of the proposed amendments respected State rights, which have since been the subject of sectional discussion. One of the articles of the old Confederation was this : " Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Con- federation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." This was omitted in the new Constitution, not from any objection to it, so far as is known to the present writer. Delegated powers are, of course, limited to the subjects delegated. Accordingly, after its adoption, the following article, among others, was added to it, as an equivalent to the above article of the old Confederation : '' The powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to all the States respectively, or the people," (that is, to the people of the States respectively.) At the time the Constitution was adopted, the citizens of REMAKES. 25 the different States were familiar witli tlic doctrine of tlie Dec- laration of Independence, that Governments derive their just " powers from the consent of the governed," and that " it is the right of the people to alter and abolish their Government, and to form a new one, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The " right of the people" hero spoken of generally, is ap- plied, in that instrument, to the right of the people of the colo- nies respectively, who were about to " alter their former sys- tems of government." The very clause containing the Declara- tion recognizes the same fact : '• We, therefore, tlie representa- tives of the Tnited States of America, in Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the Avorld for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and inde- pendent States." Each colony thus became an independent State. Thus each colony, acting for itself, but in concert with others, " altered its former system of government." And in the very act of changing the Government from that of the old Confederation, which was established by " articles of perpetual union," the several States recognized the right of " the people of the several States" to change the form of their government ; inasmuch as by their delegates, and then by their people, they changed the government, making it binding if nine States consent to the union, leaving out the remaining four. If the people of the several nine States had the right to change the government, notwithstanding they had adopted the " articles of perpetual union," then the four residuary States, namely, Virginia, Kew York, Ehode Island, and I^ortli Caro- lina, would be left in an awkward position, and might have some reason to complain ; but they could not deny the right. And it is not known to the present writer that they did deny the right. Tlie two former soon acceded to the Union, but Rhode Island delayed until May, 1790, nearly three years, and North Carolina until jS^ovember, more than three years. It should be added that these two States were not brought into the Union by coercion of any kind, but by conciliation. 26 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 2. After encountering a powerful opposition in the Conven- tion in Virginia, the Constitution was ratitied with the implied recognition of the right of the people of that State to resume the powers granted under it. " We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, do, in the name and behalf of the people of Vir- ginia, declare and make known, that powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, 7aau he resumed hj them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will," &c. In like manner the Convention of the State of New York assert the right of the people of New York to resume the 2^owers granted under tlio Constitution. They " declare and make known, that the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the Departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to whom they have granted the same," &c. The State of New York, or the people of the State, as a party to the compact, must judge when it shall be neces- sary to resume the powers granted. Without this recognition of the right of a State to resume the powers granted, there is no reason to believe that the Constitution would have been ratified by New York ; as there was a very powerful opposition to the measure. This recognition seems to have been substituted for another proposition, namely, to expressly reserve the right to recede after five or six years. Tlie Constitution, Avith this and other explanations, was ratified by a majority of only three. Ehode Island, also, expressly reserved the right to resume the powers granted. Thus three States, at least, not satisfied with the right which all the colonies were acknowledged to liave, to alter their form of government, made a distinct dec- laration of that right, when they ratified the Constitution. In those times, when the word "people" was used in reference to the civil Government, it svas understood to mean the people who acted by a Legislature, and Judges, and Governors of their own — i\\Q 2)C0]?le of a State. In this sense it is used in the arti- EEMAEKS. 27 cles of Confederation, and in tlic Constitution, though in the latter it is also used for smaller bodies ; but in no instance is it. used for all the citizens of the United States taken collectively. Who were the people that ordained and established the Consti- tution of the United States ? Evidently, the people of the sev- eral States, each State acting separately and for itself. The people of Massachusetts could not act for Virginia, but only for Massachusetts. The people of Virginia, when they claimed the right to resume the powers delegated, claimed that right for each of the States. 3. In the Convention which assembled in Philadelphia, May, 178T, the greatest difficulty arose from diversity of views in respect to State rights, though it did not, as afterwards, as- sume a sectional form. This will be noticed hereafter. 4. In respect to the " bargain" concerning navigation and the slave trade, it appears from the speech of General Pinckney, that the delegates of the Southern States were influenced bv generous and patriotic considerations. 5. The J^orthern States declared in the Convention that they had but one motive to form a Constitution, and that was " com- merce." By the bargain they gained wliai they vjanted. In ac- cordance with this, Fisher A:mes, in the Massachusetts Convention, assembled to ratify the Constitution, said : " But we shall put every thing to hazard by rejecting the Constitution. "We hav(> great advantages with respect of navigation ; and it is the gen- eral interest of the States that we should have them. But if we reject it, what security have we that we shall obtain them a second time against the local interests and prejudices of the other States ? " 6. The Northern States have since gained more than all the advantages which they expected by the encouragement jDrovided for their commerce and manufactures ; especially since high tariffs have been established by Congress. Y. The Southern States lost whatever of advantages there was in the slave trade, after, twenty years ; but they gained the acknowledgment that slaves under the Constitution are prop- erty, being taxable or dutiable like other articles of property ; rowLrSt^trs; :;! t^Cin-case of the ..^....W-^ 3 28 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. slaves, they shall he protected in their rights of proj^crty by aid, when necessary, from the non-slaveholding States. 8. In submitting to the rule of reckoning live slaves as equivalent to three whites in taxation and representation, the Southern States did not gain what it was expected they would gain in taxation, inasmuch as, with very few exceptions. Fed- eral taxes have not been assessed in the States, as the expenses of the Federal Government have been supported chiefly by revenue from imports ; while they have lost what they expected to lose in resjDcct to representation, namely, two-fifths of the slaves, which are not reckoned as the basis of representation. 9. It should be added that in 1807, when the vote was taken in Congi'ess to abolish the slave trade, the Southern States united with the Northern in passing that vote, which was nearly unanimous, showing that the power over the trade, which they gave up in the Constitution, they did not attempt to retain by Congressional action. AVhether the I^orthern States have been careful not to abuse the power acquired by the " bargain," respecting navigation laws and tariff laws, is a question not yet settled between the JSTorthern and the Southern States. Whether Northern States have faith- fully performed their obligations to " deliver up" fugitive slaves to theii* owners, is likewise a question between the two parties. An unprejudiced mind, acquainted with Congressional action for the last forty years, and with State legislation in passing personal liberty bills for the last ten years, can hardly fail to decide that the Northern States have al)used their power in the one case, and have not been faithful in the other. 10. Tlie Constitution was intended to secure to the Southern States the jyeaccciljla 2>osscssion of their slaves ^ and had it not been supposed that it did so, it would never have been adopted by them. It made slavery a part of our national institutions, so far as we have any national institutions ; and the Federal laws, and the decisions of the Federal judiciary, and the ac- tion of the Federal executive in treaties with Great Britain and otherwise, have recognized it as a national institution. That they have not enjoyed the peaceable possession of their slaves, events fot^.^tJianV/'^Wifeltv f""" /' ' ""^.T'^ ^"""^^'^^t- > . --t-..y ^tuif caitors have, for political Dui-poses, REMAT^KS. 29 extensively insinuated into Xortliern minds liatJ-ed of blaverv and slaveholders. 11. Covert or open attacks liave been made upon slavery, from political considerations. Some lifteeu or twenty years ago, when JSTorthern petitions, signed by men, women, and cliildi'en, and negroes, were flooding the floor of the lower House, as a leading ISTorthern member of Congress, who after- wards was a member of a Presidential Cabinet, was coming out from a heated debate, he was asked by the present writer, an old college friend, " Will you inform me what is the real reason why N"orthern members encourage these petitions ? " After considering for a moment, he said to me, " Tlie real reason is, that the South will not let us have a tarifi', and we touch them where they will foel it." 12. Tlie Constitution gives no authority to Congress to legis- late in favor of morals and religion ; these subjects are reserved for the action of the States. The Constitution treats slavery as a political matter only, and gives no authority to Congress to treat it in any other w^ay. CHAPTER III. GENERAL -VVASniNGTON's ADMINISTRATION. The Constitution jnst adopted embodied the principles of our Government ; tlic laws to be passed under it would furnish the rules for its administration. It was fortunate for the coun- try that the friends of the Federal Constitution had a jjaramount influence in the practical application of its ^^I'^^^ciples in the legislative, judicial, and executive departments. Especially was it fortunate that Washington, the President of the Convention, W'as President of the United States, and IlAanLTON, a leading member, v^-as Secretary of the Treasury, and Randolpjei, who, in the Convention, brought forward the phin that was adopted, was Attorney-General, and Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was Secretary of State. But as in the Convention, so in the first Congress and after- wards, sectional disputes arose, which, though conducted for the most part with decorum, shadowed dimly forth those future heated discussions in that Department, that have, from time to time, shaken like an earthquake the country to its centre. The in- terests of the Northern States were different from those of the Southern States, and when Congress was called to legislate on subjects connected wnth those interests, it is not strange tliat the members from tlie South, at their stand-point, should take a view of those subjects differing from that taken l)y iN'orthern members. DUTIES ON TONNAGE AND IMPORTS. Tlie duties on foreign tonnage and imports, pressed more heavily on the South than on the North, inasnmch as the former DUTIES ON TONNAGE AND IMPORTS. 31 liad fewer ships and fewer manufactures to be benefited. Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, said : " Gentlemen have endeavored to persuade us that a high tonnage duty will be beneficial to the Union ; but I would as soon be persuaded to throw myself out of a two-story window, as to believe that a high toimage will be favorable to South Carolina." And in respect to duties on im- ports, Mr. Madison remarked, " If there is a disposition repre- sented to complain of the oppression of government, have not the citizens of the Southern States more just ground of com- plaint than others ? " " The system can only be acceptable to them, because it is, essentially, necessary to be adopted for the public good." And yet, on another occasion Mr. Madison said, in reference to the same subject, '* I believe every gentleman who hears the observations from the different quarters of this House, discovers great reason for every friend of the United States to congratulate himself upon the evident disposition which has been displayed to conduct business with harmony and concert." And Mr. Ames said, " Tlie gentlemen from the southward who suppose their States most likely to be affected by a discrimination in the tonnage duty, have concluded their arguments with a candor which does honor to their patriotism." It is very evident that on this subject there was a spirit of conciliation on the part of leading men, and especially on the part of Southern gentlemen, who consented to sacrifice the in- terests of their States for the public good. The Xorthern States had wished for the establishment of the Constitution, chiefly, for the protection of their commercial interests. Tliis legislation of the first Congress under the Constitution secured to them this protection. The South patiently, or rather cheerfully, acquiesced in bearing the burdens imposed by this legislation. " If," said Mr. Ames, " I may judge of the feelings of the people by those of their representatives on this floor, I may venture to say that there never was less reason to apprehend envy and discord than at this time. I believe the fact is so, because I feel it." lie was conscious of a patriotic regard for the whole country. '• I look," said he, '• Avith an equal eye upon the succeso of every State through the whole extent of United America. I wish their interests to be equally consulted." Thus were the com- THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKSY. inercial sacrifices of tlie South appreciated, and tlicir patriotism, ■\vliieli made them submit to the sacrifices, reciprocated by a representative man of the North. In this contest the South yielded to the North fur the general good of the country. SECTIOXAL DISCUSSION OF SLAYEKY. In tlie Constitutional CouYention, tlic Southern States had obtained provisions "vvhicli secured to them their ]:>roperty in slaves, and the right to imj)ort slaves for twenty years. But in Congress, Feb. 11, 1790, " The Address of the Quaker Meeting," from certain Northern States, was presented against the contin- uance of the African slave trade, which was permitted by the Constitution, until 1808. And Feb. 11, 1790, '' The Memorial of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society " was presented, praying for the abolition of slavery in the United States, which, by the Constitution, was left under the States. Tlicsc two memorials were received in one spirit by Southern members, and in another and different S2:)irit by Northern mem- bers. The former saw clearly that the petitioners were aiming a blow at their pecuniary and their social interests, by urging Congress to pass unconstitutional laws on the subject of slavery, and by holding slaveholders up to the moral abhoiTcncc of the world ; as if Congress had the power to legislate for the promo- tion of morals and religion. The Northern members, some of them, seemed to give a warm welcome to the petitions, as if they were glad to ventilate their abhorrence of slave-trading and slaveholding. In this contest the Southern States retained, indeed, their constitutional rights, but they had to struggle earnestly for them. Tlic temper of Northern members shown on this occasion was manifested at times afterwards. Tims, Jan. 1795, Mr. Dextek, of Massachusetts, moved, as an amendment to a motion for nat- uralizing foreigners, " that each man naturalized should re- nounce the possession of slaves," and, as an amendment to this amendment, Mr. Tiiatciiek, of Massachusetts, moved, '■ and he never would possess slaves." Mr. Madison, in reply to Messrs. Dextek and Tiiatchek, BANK OF TllK UNITED STATES. 33 said " that the mention of such a thing would have a very bad effect on that species of property." Mr. W. Smith, of South Carolina, a distinguished member, in the course of the discussion on slavery, said " that tlu' Southern States never would have entered into the Confedera- tion unless their property (in slaves) had been guarantied to them." Mr. BouDiNOT, of New Jersey, said : " There is a wide dif- ference between justifying the ungenerous traffic, and supporting a claim to property vested at the time of the formation of the Constitution, and guarantied thereby." The effect of the motions of Messrs. Dexter and Thatchee, if they had prevailed, would have been to lessen emigration to the slave States, and thus to lessen their political power. BANK OF the UNITED STATES. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Hamilton, had advocated the establishment of a ISTational Bank, on the ground that it would promote the prosperous administration of the finances, and help to support the public credit. When a bill in conformity to his plan was, in 1701, sent down from the Senate, it was suffered to pass to its third reading without opposition. On the final question a powerful opposition was made to its passage by Mr. Madison and others. It was asserted by them that the powers of the Government of the United States which it might legitimately exercise, were enumerated in the Constitution. In this enumeration, the power to charter a bank was not to be found. They, moreover; insisted that it could not be implied from the powers that were given to the Government, and that, by any fair construction, no clause in the Constitution could be understood to imply so im- portant a power as that of creating a corporation. On the other side, in favor of the establishment of a bank, it was asserted, that incidental as well as express powers must, necessarily, belong to every government, and that when a power is delegated to effect particular objects, all the known and usual means of effecting them must pass also, and after taking a com- prehensive view of the powers given to the General Government, 34 THE SECTIONAL C0NTR0VEE8T. it was contended that a bank was a known and usual instrument, by which several of them were exercised. Taking into consid- eration the utility of a bank in managing the finances, and sup- porting public credit, the bill was passed in the House by a majority of nineteen voices. In the cabinet, the Attorney-Gen- eral, Mr. Randolph, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Jeffekson, were opposed to it on constitutional grounds, while the Secretary of the Treasury was in favor of it, and the President added his signature to the bill. "While the bill was under debate, Mr. Tuckee, of Georgia, remarked, " That a gentleman from Virginia has well observed that Ave appear to be divided by a geographical line ; not a gen- tleman !North of that line is opposed to the bill ; and wliere is the gentleman to the Southward that is in favor of it ? " The Northern States won the victory over the Southern, if not over the Constitution. THE EXCISE LAW. ' Tlie Excise law, by which a duty was laid on spirits distilled witldn the United States^ was oj)posed, very strongly, by a ma- jority of the members of Southern and Southwestern States, on the ground that it would operate very unequally and against the interests of their constituents, who used foreign distilled liquor to a very inconsiderable amount. The bill was passed by Northern members, influenced, it was said, by the fact that the commer- cial States depended chiefly on foreign spirits. Tlie whiskey in- surrection grew chiefly out of the opposition to this law. The law, thus operating unequally, was wisely repealed. THE ASSUMPTION OF STATE DEBTS. On the 0th of January, 1790, Mr. IIashlton, Secretary of the Treasury, gave notice to the House of RejDresentatives that he was ready to make his report on public credit, which he had prepared in obedience to the resolution of the 21st of Sept., 1789. In that celebrated report he proposed the Assumption of State debts, and to fund them in common with that which constituted l!ie proper debt of the Union, LOCATION OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. 35 This proposal was opposed by Soutliern members, on the ground that it would give undue influence to the General Gov- ernment, and would thus weaken the State Governments ; that it would not be justified by the Constitution, the powers of that instrument being specified, and this was not among them ; that it was unjust, because it would make no discrimination between those States which had taxed themselves to discharge the claims against them, and those which had not made the same exertions. In favor of the measure it was asserted by Northern mem- bers, that the debts contracted by the States were not contracted for the benefit of the individual States, but for the common good of the Union, in the war against the common enemy ; that tlie measure would put an end to speculation, by fixing the valu<; of the securities ; that it would restore public confidence. A large amount of these securities were owned at the ISorth, where they were obtained in the course of trade. Many of them had been purchased at very low rates, as was said, for a song. After a very heated debate, highly irritating to the j^arties, the resolution failed to pass, by a majority of two against it. LOCATION OF THE SEAT OF GOVEENMENT. July 9, 1790. Mr. Goodhue, of Massachusetts, moved in tlie House : " That the permanent seat of the General Government ought to be at some convenient place, on the east bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania." In support of his motion, he prefaced it Avitli the following remark : " The Eastern members, with the members from Iscw York, have agreed to fix on a place upon national principles, without regard to their own convenience, and have turned their minds to the Susquehanna." The place contemplated was Wright's Ferry, about 35 miles from navigable water. Tliis sectional movement on the part of Eastern and JS^orth- erii members, in favor of a place which had not a great deal to recommend it, awakened very strong sectional .feelings on the part of the Southern members, who were in favor of the l^ank of the Potomac, as an appropriate place. To this place the Northern members were strongly opposed, proposing, instead of it, if not Wright's Ferry, Germantown and Baltimore. 30 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. In ^iew of the above-mentioned combination of Nortbern members, Kicuakd H. Lek, in the course of his speech, said : " It is M'ell known with what dithculty the Constitution was adopted in Virginia. It was tlien said that there would be Con- federacies of the States east of Pennsylvania, which would destroy the Southern States ; that they would unite their coun- cils in discussing questions relative to their particular interests, and the Southern States would be disregarded. To these sus- picions it was answered : " No ! It was contended that the mag- luininious policy, arising from mutual interests and common dan- gers, would unite all the States, and make them pursue objects of general good. But if it should be found that there were such Confederacies as were predicted, that the Northern States did consult their partial interests, and form combinations to support them without regard to their Southern brethren, they would be alarmed, and the faith of all south of the Potomac would be shaken." Mr. Madison said, in the course of his remarks : " But give me leave now to say that, if proj^hets had arisen in that body, (the Convention of Virginia,) and brought the declarations and proceedings of this day to view, I as firmly believe Virginia might not have been a part of the Union at this moment." EAKGAIN IX CONGKESS. This measure became combined with the Assumption Bill. Each had failed by small majorities ; both were afterwards passed. The Eastern and Middle States were for the assump- tion ; the Southern States were against it ; the latter were for the Potomac for the seat of Government ; the former were for the Susquehanna. The discontent w^as extreme on each side, at losing its favorite measure. At last the two measures were com- bined. Two members from the Potomac, who had voted against the assumption, agreed to change their votes : a few from the Eastern and Middle States, who had voted against the Potomac agreed to change in its favor ; and so the two measures were passed. Mr. Jefferson gave this account of it, omitting his stric- tures : " This measure (the Assumption of State debts) produced BAEGAIN IX C0NGKES3. 37 the most bitter and angry contest ever known in Congress before or since the Union of the States. I arrived in the midst of it ; but a stranger to the ground, a stranger to the actors in it, so long absent as to liave lost all familiarity with the subject, and as yet unaware of its object. I took no concern in it. The great and trying question, however, was lost in the House of Eepresentativcs. . So high were the feuds excited on this sub- ject, that, on its rejection, husiness was suspended, Congress met and adjourned from day to day without doing any thing, the 23arties being too much out of temper to do business together. (The Eastern members threatened secession and dissolution.^ Hajiilton was in despair. As I was going to the President's one day, I met him in the street. He walked with me back- wards and forwards before the President's door for half an l^our. He ]3ainted pathetically the temper into which the Legislature had been wrought ; the disgust of those who were called the creditor States, (the ]S'orthern,)'^the danger of the secession of their members, and of the separation of the States. He ob- served that the members of the Administration ought to act in concert ; that though this question was not of my department, yet a common duty should make it a common concern ; that the President was the centre, in which all administrative questions ultimately rested, and that all of us should rally round him, and support, with joint efforts, measures approved by him, and that the question having been lost by a small majority only, that an appeal from me to the judgment and discretion of some of my friends might effect a change in the vote, and the machine of government, now suspended, might be again set in motion.)/ I told him I was really a stranger to the whole subject ; that, not having yet informed myself of the system of finances adopted, I knew not how far this was a necessary sequence ; that undoubt- edly, if its rejection endangered the dissolution of the Union at this incipient stage, I should deem that the most unfortunate of all consequences, to avert which all partial and temporary evils should be yielded. I proposed, however, to him, to dine with me, next day, and I would invite another friend or two, bring them into conference together, and I thought it impossible that reasonable men, consulting together coolly, could fail, by some mutual sacrifice of opinion, to form a compromise which would 38 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. save the Union. The discussion took place. I could take no part in it but an cxhortatory one, because I was a stranger to the circumstances which should govern it. But it was finally agreed that whatever importance was attached to the rejection of this proposition, the preservation of the Union and concord among the States was more important, and tlierefore it would be better that the vote of rejection should be rescinded — to eftect wliieh, some members should change their votes. But it was observed that this pill would be peculiarly bitter to the Southern States, and that some concomitant measure should be adopted to sweeten it to them. There had before been propositions to fix the seat of Government either at Philadelphia or at George- town, on the Potomac ; and it was thought that by giving it to Philadelphia for ten years, and to Georgetown permanently af- terwards, this might, as an anodyne, calm the ferment which might be excited by the other measure alone : so two of the Potomac members (White and Lee, but the former with a re- vulsion of stomach almost convulsive) agreed to change their votes, and Hamilton undertook to carry the other point."^ Abridgment of Debates^ vol. i., p. 250. '^ The Northern members contended with great earnestness against the Potomac for the seat of Government ; Mr. Boudinot, Mr. Ames, Mr. Laweence, severally, proposing the Delaware, Germantown, Baltimore, instead of the Potomac, which latter finally received a majority of the votes, probably through the influence of Hamilton. The Northern States, by the assump- tion of State debts by Congress, obtained millions, wliich en- riched many of their inliabitants, indeed, some of the members who helped to jxiss the bill. Tlic Southern States obtained for tlie seat of Government their favorite location, and a much bet- ter location than Wright's Ferry, which had been selected by the combination of Eastern members. •yl_ This is the first sectional comhinatlon in Congress for carry- ing a measure that I have seen noticed. The assumption of State debts furnished the occasion of the first threat of secession, and breaking up the Government. It was made by the North- ern members, v/ FUGrrrvES feom justice and feom labor. 39 FUGITIVES FKOJr JUSTICE AND FROM LABOR. July 5, 1793. The House proceeded to consider tlic bill sent from the Senate, entitled " An act respecting fugitives from jus- tice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," which lay on the table ; whereupon the said bill, with the amend- ments agreed to yesterday, was read the third time ; and on the question that the same do pass, it Avas resolved in the affirma- tive ; yeas, 48, nays, 7. The bill came down from the Senate, whose debates were not published, and seems to have passed the House without de- bate, and almost without discussion, there being but seven votes against, and two of these, Messrs. Mercer and Parker, from slave States. Isor does it appear to what part of the bill they objected, whether to the part in relation to fugitives from justice, or to those who fled from service, for both classes of fu- gitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed on a message from President Washington, founded on a communi- cation from the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugi- tive from justice Avho had taken refuge in Yirginia, and because it was necessary to have an act of Congress to give effect to the rendition clause in the Constitution. There was but little ne- cessity, in those times, and long after, for an act of Congress to authorize the recovery of fugitive slaves. The laws of the States and still more, the force of public opinion, were the owners' best safeguards. Public opinion was against the abduction of slaves ; and, if any one was seduced from his owner, it was done fur- tively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other moral offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner to a greater extent than the acts of Congress did or could. In Pennsylvania an act was passed in 1780, and repealed only in 1847, discriminating between the traveller and sojourner and the permanent resident, allowing the former to remain six months in the State before his slaves could become subject to emancipation laws ; and, in the case of a Federal Government officer, allowing as much more time as his duties required him to remain. New York had the same act, only varying in time, which was nine months. While these two acts yvom in ^-— —) and supported by public opinion, tlie traveller and sojourner 40 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. was safe with his slaves in these States, and the same in the other States. There was no trouble about fugitive slaves in those times. This act of 1793 did not grow out of any such troubles, but out of the case of a fugitive from justice. It was that ease which brought the subject before Congress, and in the :ict that was passed, the case of fugitives from justice was first provided for, the first and second sections of the act being given to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to the otlicr — all brief and plain, and executable -without expense or fuss. In the case of a slave, the owner was allowed to seize him Avherever he saw him, by day or by night, and Sundays or week days, just as if he were in his own State, and a penalty of $500 attached to any person who obstructed him in this seizure. Tlic only authority he wanted was after the seizure, and to justify the carrying back, and for that j)urpose the affidavit of the owner or his agent was sufficient. This act was perfect except in rely- ing upon State officers not being subject to the Federal law, and being forbid to act after slavery became a subject of political agitation. — Bento7i's Debates^ vol. i., p. 412. Tlio lav/ was judiciously drawn, and entirely satisfactory to both sections of the country ; but the l^orthem States, in the progress of years, refused to carry it out, and placed obstacles in the way. MK. JEFFEESON's LETTEK TO GENERAL WASHINGTON. " PniLADELPniA, JLTrty 23, 1792. •::• •;j •::- u True wisdom would direct, that they (means) should be temperate and peaceable ; but the division of senti- ment and interest happens, unfortunately, to be so geographical, that no mortal can say that what is most wise and temj)eratc would prevail against what is most easy and obvious. I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking up of the Union into two or more parts. Yet, when we consider the mass which opposed the original coalescence ; when we con- sider that it lay chiefly in the Southern quarter ; that the Leg- islature have availed themselves of no occasion of allaying it, ^»"<- on the contrary, when l^orthern and Southern prejudices have come into conUlcr, ilic latter have been sacrificed and the ME. Jefferson's letter to gen. Washington. 41 former soothed, that the owners of the debt are in the Sonthcni, and the holders in the IsTorthern division ; tliat the anti-federal champions are now strengthened in their arguments by the ful- Hlment of their predictions ; that this has been brought about by the monarchical federalists themselves, who have been for the new Government merely as a stepping-stone to monarchy, and who have adopted the very construction of the Constitution of which, when advocating its acceptance before the tribunal of the people, they had declared it unsusceptible ; that the repub- lican federalists who espoused the same Government for its in- trinsic merits, are disarmed of their weapons ; that which they deemed as prophecy having become true as history ; who can be sure that these things may not proselyte the small number which was wanting to place the majority on the other side ? And this is the event at which I tremble, and to prevent which I consider your continuing at the head of aifairs as of the last importance. Tlie confidence of the whole Union is centred in you. Your being at the helm will be more than an answer to every argument which can be used to alarm and lead the people in any quarter into violence and secession. ISTorth and South will hang together, if they have you to hang upon." "We have here the fact that sectional differences of opinion and sectional feelings existed of a dangerous character, and that Washington was urged to accept of the Presidency a second time, in order to prevent " violence and secession." Allusion is also made to the large construction given to the text of the Con- stitution by those who controlled some of the departments of the Government. A dominant party are always under a temptation to enlarge the powers of the General Government at the expense of the powers reserved to the people of the several States. They are apt to think that their favorite measure had better be passed in Congress, or sanctioned by the Executive, even at the expense of the Constitution. Party leaders, even during the administra- tion of Washington, form no exception to this love of power. REMARKS. 1. The administration of General Washington was distin- guished for the wisdom of its measures, for the energy with 42 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKST. whicli they were carried out, and for the great success which attended tliem. The several departments, the legislative, the judicial, and executive taking form, now for the first time, and lilled with men of experience, of undoubted patriotism, and of high talent, were in harmonv with one another. 2. And yet, there was a difference of opinion in Congress, and in the cabinet, as to the construction to be given to the Constitution, in its application to the purposes for which it was framed. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, the leading spirit in the Executive Department, was, in the Conven- tion, in favor of forming a strong government, and what he failed to accomplish in that body in the framework of the Con- stitution, he endeavored to work out in practice by a broad construction of that instrument, b}'- magnifying its " implied powers," and the " necessary powers." " Necessary powers " were understood to mean those powers that were deemed neces- sary to put the government in operation under the Consti- tution. The terms " necessary powers " and " implied powers " were vague, and would vary according to the character of the mind that should exercise a judgment concerning them. What would seem to be " necessary " and " implied " to one mind, would not seem " necessary " or " implied " to another mind. With Hamilton, his old companion in arms, Knox, the Secretary of War, acted in joromoting his views. Jefferson, Secretary of State, and Edmund Randolph, Attor- ney-General, differed from Hamilton in their views of the power granted to the General Government in the Constitution, and looked at the powers reserved to the States as well as at those delegated to the General Government. Hamilton, with his penetrating and logical mind, with his extraordinary energy, with his constructive and productive genius, had the ear of AVashington as well as of Ejiox, all of them military men, and all of them disgusted with the weak- ness of the old Confederation. Jefferson, with his gift of language, with his insight and fore- siffht. with his constructive mind, accustomofl to deal witli prin- ciples, Avas aided, in his view, by Ilandoli^li, whose plan of a Constitution had been adopted in the Convention, and who nn- EEMAEKS. 43 derstood accurately what was its meaning, and wlio was not dis- posed to magnify its implied powers. In both Houses of Congress were leading men, who were also divided in their views as to the " implied powers " of the Constitution, a portion of them being in favor of a " broad con- struction " of its powers, and another portion being in favor of a " strict construction." Tlie practical men of the Northern States, Avho valued the Constitution chiefly for " commercial purposes," and who felt the value of public credit, generally adopted the views of Mr. Hamilton. The statesmen of the South, who looked at political principles and relations, generally adopted the views of Mr. Jefferson. 3. Mr. Hamilton was an admirer of the British government, in which parliament has almost unlimited powers ; and it was supposed that he endeavored to assimilate the General Govern- ment to that, notwithstanding the rights reserved to the States. In his celebrated report of 1Y91 he claimed power for the Fed- eral Government to encourage learning, agriculture, and manu- factures, all under the authority to levy imports for the " gen- eral welfare." Mr. Jefferson was an admirer of the early prin- ciples of the French Kevolution, and was a hater of Great Britain, and in these respects he had the sympathy of the people of the United States, who remembered the wrongs they had re- ceived from the one nation, and the favors they had received from the other. The policy of the Administration in respect to the two nations was, to some extent, the ground of sectional difference of opinion, the leaders of the opposition being prin- cipally in the Southern States. CHAPTER lY. MK. JOnN ADAMS ADMINISTRATION. March 4, 1797— March 4, 1801. To the election of Mr. Adams there was an opposition in the Southern States, but not violent. It was generally conceded that liis patriotism, his talents, his experience, and services, en- titled him to the Presidency. But in the course of his administration, this sectional oppo- sition gained strength, chiefly on account of his war measures, l)y which eighty thousand men were subjected to his order, which was supposed to be contrary to the theory of our Gov- ernment ; the acts for increasing the navy ; and especially on account of the passage of the alien and sedition laws, and pros- ecutions under them. Tliis opposition was largely sectional, and was based chiefly on the exorbitant powers supposed to be (•laimed by the General Government. Tlie leading men in the opposition, for their defence, fell back on the Tesiduary jpower of the States secured by the Constitution^ as the means of pre- venting the establishment of a consolidated government instead of a Federal one. THE ASSERTION OF STATE EIGHTS. Yirglnia, at a meeting of her Legislature, early in the session of 1798, passed a scries of resolutions declaratory of State rights, and condemnatory of the alien and sedition laws, and other measures of the Government, as having a tendency to change THE ASSERTION OF STATE EIGHTS. 45 its character from a Federal to a national Government. Amonc; other things, these resolutions affirm, that " it (the Legislature) views the powers of the General Government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact ; and that in case of a delib- erate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of poAvers not granted in said compact, the States who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the prog- ress of the evil, and for maintaining within their resj)ective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." In the resolutions passed by the Legislature of Kentucky in 1798, it is declared " that whensoever the General Government assumes and delegates powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force ; that each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself the other party ; that the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, since that would have made its discretion and not the Consti- tution the measure of its powers ; that, as in all other cases of a compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as Avell of the infractions as the mode and measure of redress." The resolutions of Virginia were drawn up by Mr. Madison ; those of Kentucky were said to be sketched, but not fully pre- pared, by Mr. Jefferson. It was believed that the Administration, under the guidance of Northern men, had assumed powers not enumerated in the Constitution, and, in this way, had usurped powers belonging to the States. THE DOCTRINE OF STATE RIGHTS. As the doctrine of State rights has been adopted at different times, by both the South and the ITorth, in their relations to the General Government, it seems proper to give some account of its orio-in and its sectional influences. 46 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKST. LTrrnEE maetin s lettee. LrTiiER Maktin wrote a letter to tlie Legislature of Mary- land oil the formation of the Federal Constitution in 1787, and the composition of the Convention, of which the following is an extract : >jr " There was one party, whose object and wish is to abolish and annihilate all State Governments, and bring forward one General ' Governmeijt over this extensive continent, of a mo- narchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few ; yet it is equally true that there was a considerable number who did not openly avow it — who were, by myself and many others of the Convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment, and, acting uj)on those principles, covertly en- deavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and avowedly could not be accomplished. " The second party was not for the abolition of State Gov- ernments, nor for the introduction of a monarchical Government in any form ; but they wished to establish such a system as could give their own States undue power and influence in the Government over the other States. " A third party was what I considered truly Federal and Kepublican. Tliis l)arty was nearly equal in number with the other two, and was composed of the delegations from Connecti- cut, New York, Xew Jersey, and in part Maryland ; also of some individuals from other representations." efiect of this would be to abridge the rights of the States. Mr. Madison observed, " that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efiicacy of it, when applied to a people collectively and not individually. A union of the States, containing such an ingredient, seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. lie hoped such a sys- tem might be framed as would render this resource umiecessary, 50 THE SKCTIoNAL CONTROVERSY. and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to, neni. con.'''' — Madison Papers, p. T61. Alexander IlAiiiLTON used the followino; hano;ua.ir hope and consolation rest with the Legislature of our State, to whom it i.s coin])etcnt to devise means of reJiff against the iinconstitutional measures of the General Government ', that your power is ade- quate to this object, is evident yr{>??z. the organization of the Confederacy^ Other towns in Massachnsetts expressed the same sentiments to the Legislature in more decided terms, point- ing to resistance to the Federal Government. " If petitions do not produce a relaxation or removal of the embargo, the people ought immediately to assume a higher tone. The Government of Massachnsetts has also a duty to perform. The State is still sovereign and independent.^' — Boston Centincl^ September 10, 1808. Li the same spirit Northern statesmen spoke : '* To my mind the present crisis excites the most serious apprehensions. A storm seems to he gcdhering^ which portends not a tempest on the ocean, but domestic convidsions. I feel myself bound in conscience to declare, lest the blood of those who should fall in executing this measure (enforcing the embargo) may lie on my head, that I consider this to be an act which directs a mortal blow at the liberties of my country — an act containing uneou- stitutional provisions, to which the iKople are not hovnd, to snh- 7nit, and to which, in my opinion, they will not submit." — Speech of Mr. Hilliiouse, of Connecticut.^ in the Sencde of the United States, January, 1809. The embargo was repealed March 1, 1809. THE PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. To the proposal of Mr. Jefferson to purchase Louisiana the Eastern States were strongly opposed, though the great impor- tance of preserving the free navigation of the Mississippi M'as acknowledged. To prevent the purchase, ridicule, sarcasm without mercy, menace of the separation of the States, as well as argument, were employed by their representatives in Con- gress, and by the editors of newspapers. The ground of this violent opposition was the apprehension that the Southern and Western States would, by the admission 60 THE SECTIONAL COXTROVEKSY. of Louisiana, acquire an undue influence in the General Govern- ment. In the debate upon the admission of Louisiana, Mr. QuiNCY, of Massachusetts, used the following language in Con- gress, January 15, 1811 : " If this bill j)asses, it is my deliberate opinion " (wliich he committed to writing to prevent inisappre- liension) " that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union i that it will free the States from their moral obligation ; and, as it will be the right of all^ so it will be the duty of some Xo prepare for separation, amicably if they can, violently if they must." These were the sentiments of a large number in Kew England at that time. Most of them lived to adopt more patriotic views, when they saw the relation and value of Louisiana to the whole country. A committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 1813, reported the following : ^'■licsolved, that it is the interest and duty of the people of Massachusetts to oppose the admission of such States (Louisiana) into the L'nion, as a measure tending to dissolve the Confed- eracy." 1. By the election of Mr. Jeffekson, the Eastern States had lost much of their influence in the General Government. They accused him of being unfriendly to the interests of commerce, and of not taking energetic measures for its protection against the encroachments of England and France, and of laying the embargo in disregard of their interests. 2. Several of the Eastern States made a great mistake in voting for Aaeon Buer in opposition to Mr. Jefferson, on sec- tional grounds, Avlien the election came into the House of liep- resentatives. They had the constitutional right to do so ; but it was not to their honor to endeavor to thwart the wishes of the people of the several States, who had voted for electors who were in favor of Mr. Jefferson for President, and of Mr. Burr for Yice-Presidcnt. They voted for Mr. Burr, who proved to 1)0 a bad man, on sectional grounds. 3. The opposition to the purchase of Louisiana was largely sectional, springing as it did from the apprehension that the in- troduction of new States made from it would still further dimin- ish the influence of the Eastern States. Tlie purchase was, •confessedly, unconstitutional. CHAPTEE VI. ME. Madison's adjiinistkation. March 4, 1809— March 4, 1817. Mr. Madison Lad acted with the Xorth in framing the Con- stitution ; but he had acted with the South generally in the in- terpretation of its powers. The foreign policy adopted by Mr, Jeffekson in the admin- istration of the Government, was continued by Madison, inju- rious though it was to the interests of the commercial States. The commerce of the country was crushed between the upper and the nether millstones of the British orders in council, and the Berlin and Milan decrees. By the one, American ships were excluded from Great Britain ; and by the other, from France, to the ruin of our commerce. Mr. Madison, like Mr. Jefferson, was accused of favoring France rather than Eng- land, and thus of increasing the evil, first by a commercial con- test with the latter nation, by a non-intercourse act, and by an embargo of ninety days, in the way of reprisal, and then by the declaration of war. To these measures the Is'orthern States, and especially Kew England, were violently opposed. And their opposition was manifested in newspapers, speeches, and conventions, in bitter and determined language. During the embargo, their ships were rotting at the wharves or on the stocks. Tlieir seamen were idle, and restless, and unhappy. Grass grew in the streets of cities which had been marts of commerce. Bankruptcy was felt or feared. Their harbors were no longer whitened by the 62 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKST. sails of successful commercial adventure. Thousands could say, " My occupation is gone." The Southern States, on the other hand, generally sustained these anti-commercial measures, and thus provoked the resent- ment of the North, and the fiercest denunciations. As a speci- mcn of the feelings that prevailed, read the following, originally 2)uhlished in the Connecticut Journal, 1S12, from an article en- titled, ^'^ Slave Representation^'' by Bokeas: " ' Awake ! O spirit of the North.' " Tlie article authorizing the Southern negroes to be repre- sented in Congress is the rotten jj'^irt of the Constitution, and inust he amputated. Since the commencement of the Govern- ment, its whole undivided influence has been only putrefactive and deadly, although before the fatal change of men and meas- ures on the fourth of March, 1801, its effects were not percepti- bly felt on the sounder members of the body politic. That change was wholly eflected by slave representation. Tlie slave electoral votes first brought Mr. Jefferson into the Presidency ; and the slave votes in Congress have turned the majority in favor of many of the worst measures which the Virginia faction have dared to bring forward. '- "- "' " If this stain upon the face of the Constitution, this impress of mischief and dishonor, is ever to be blotted out, it must be done at a time when the ISTortu, roused by repeated injuries, and provoked by galling oppression, shall appeal directly to her own strength, and to ihcfeai^s and iveakness of the country OF SLAVES. " At a time when these injuries are deeply felt, and these op- pressions are boldly resisted, ^vould we call upon all the men of the North to unite as one man, and that a strong man, armed to take a solemn view of the magnitude and injustice of the grievance, and then at every hazard to apply the needed rem- edy. - * * " On this subject, all the ]S"ortli have a common interest. To the MEN OF TUE NORTH WO would boldly and directly make the solemn appeal : Will you suftcr the slave country to triumph any longer in this palpable fraud ? Will you still look coolly on and witness this foul blot on the page of the Constitution, this SECTIOXAX, OPPOSITION TO TUE AVAR OF 1812. 63 deep stigma on' the national lionor ? If you will, go, and for twelve long, weary years sec the commerce of tlie nation bound, her agriculture blasted, her coffers lavished, and her glory tram- pled in the dust, by the very man whom Southern slaves have lifted into office.'' SECTIONAL OPPOSITION TO THE WAE OF 1812. The JS'orthem States, having adopted the Federal Constitu- tion mainly for promoting their coiamercial interests, wei"e very indignant at the passage of the embargo act of 1807, on recom- mendation of Mr. Jefferson ; and threats were uttered, first in undertones and then loudly, that they would secede — at least a portion of them — from the Union, and form a new confederacy. On the first of March, 1809, just before the accession of Mr. Madison, the embargo act was repealed, " to appease the Isqw England States." War was declared against Great Britain, in due form, on the 18th of June, 1812, by a vote of T2 to 49 in the House of Representatives, and 19 to 13 in the Senate. To this war there was a strong opposition manifested in the Eastern States, in the pulpit, the press, in public speeches, and private conversation. Ministers of the Gospel called it an " unholy war," an " un- righteous war." At the time when our armies were invadino; Canada, some of them prayed " that all invading armies might be cut off," and " that they who take the sword might perish by the sword." The Kev. Mr. Gardiner, in a sermon preached July 23, 1812, in Boston, uses the following language : " The Union has long since been dissolved, and it is full time that this part of the United States should take cure of itself." Rev. Dr. Parish, in Byfield, Mass., delivered a sermon April 7, 1814, in which he uses the following language : " The Israelites became weary of yielding the fruit of their labor to pamper tyrants. They left their political woes. They separated. Where is our Moses ? Where is the rod of his miracles ? Where is our Aa- ron? Alas ! no voice from the burning bush lias directed him here." These are only specimens. The press teemed with similar sentiments. " My plan is to withhold our money, and make a separate peace with England." — 64 THE SECTIONAL COXTKOVEKSY. Boston Advertiser. " Tliat there will be a revolution, if the war coutiiiues, no one can doubt who is acquainted with human nature, and is accustomed to study cause and effect. The East- ern States are marching steadily and straightforward up to the object." — Federal Repuhlican. These are specimens. " "We call upon our State Legislature to protect us in the enjoyment of those privileges, to assert which our fathers died, and to defend which we profess ourselves ready to resist unto MoodP — Meviorial of the citizens of Neichuryport^ Mass., Janu- ary 13, 181-1. " Resolved, that we place the fullest confidence in the Governor and Legislature of Massachusetts, and in the State autiiorities of New England ; and that to them, under God, tlie chief Governor of the Tini verse, we look for aid and direction ; and that, for the present, until public opinion shall be known, "\ve will not enter our carriages, ^m?/ our Continental taxes, or aid, inform, or assist any officer in their collection." — Passed hy the inhabitants of Reading, 3fass., January 5, 1815. "yl separatio7i of the States will be an inevitable result. Mo- tives, numerous and urgent, will demand that measure. As they originate in oppression, the oppressors must be responsible for the momentous and contingent events arising from the dissolu- tion of the present Confederacy, and erection of separate govern- ments. It will be their work." — Iforthern Gnevances, p. 4, May, 181-i. Tliese are specimens. " Yes, sir, I consider this Administration as alien to us, so much so, that New England would be justified in declaring them like all foreign nations, enemies in war, in peace friends." " The States of New England can never be satellites in any sys- tem ; but, like the primary planets, they will revolve round the sun of Federalism, until the Almighty hand, which created them, shall dash them from their orbits forever." — Cykus King, of Massachusetts, in Congress, October 22, 181-1. " On or before the fourth of July next, if James Madison is not out of office, a new form of government "v^'ill be in operation in the Eastern section of the ZJnion. Listantly after, tlie con- test in many of the States will be, whether to adhere to the old, or to join the new Government." — Federal Iiepuhlican,^Q\QR\' ber 7, 1814. THE HAKTFOED CONVENTION. 65 THE HAETFOED CONVENTION. " Early in the year ISl-i, memorials from a great many to'vrns in Massachusetts, were forwarded to the Legislature of that State, j)raying that body to exert their authority to protect the citizens in their Constitutional rights and privileges, and suggesting the expediency of appointing delegates to meet dele- gates from such other States as may choose to appoint them, for the purpose of devising proper measures to procure the united efforts of the commercial States to obtain such amend- ments and explanations of the Constitution as "will secure them from further evils," Accordingly, on the 16tli of October, 1814, by a large ma- jority of the Legislature — 260 yeas, 90 nays — twelve men were appointed as delegates from Massachusetts to meet in conven- tion other delegates from the other !Ncw England States. The Convention met in Hartford on the 15th of December, 1814. There were twelve members from Massachusetts ; seven from Connecticut ; four from Khode Island ; three from I^ew Hampshire ; one from Yermont. They were gentlemen of the highest character for intelligence, wisdom, and j)atriotism. Af- ter a session of three weeks, they made a report of the result of their conference. In order to remo"S'e the evils under which they were suffer- ing, and prevent their recurrence, the Convention proposed cer- tain amendments to the Federal Constitution ; by which the slave States would be deprived of the slave representation, as at pres- ent provided ; and by which, new States would be prevented from coming into the L^nion, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses ; and by which. Congress would be deprived of power to lay an embargo for more than sixty days ; and by which. Congress shall not have power, without the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, to interdict the commercial inter- course between the United States and any foreign nation ; and by which, Congress shall not have power to make or declare war against a foreign nation, without the concurrence of two- thirds of both Houses ; and by which, persons naturalized here- t>6 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. lifter shall not be eligible to certain oflfices ; and by -^-hich, no jierson shall be a second time elected President. It was also resolved bj the Convention, that in the event of the continuance of the present evils, without a prospect of re- lief, it will, in the opinion of the Convention, be expedient for the Legislatures of the several States to send delegates to another Convention, to meet in June next. Provision was also made for calling another meeting of the Convention, if it should be desirable, before new delegates shall be chosen. Li that report, drawn up with great ability, they discuss the subject of the dissolution of the Union^ to which public atten- tion had been earnestly turned, and the formation of a new Con- federacy, as the means of escaping the evils under which the commercial States were suffering. Such a dissolution, they say, should " be the work of peaceable times and deliberate consent ; " " some new form of Confederacy should be substi- tuted among those States which shall intend to maintain a Federal relation to each other." " Whenever it shall appear that these causes (of our calamities) are radical and permanent, a separation, by mutual arrangement, will be preferable to an alliance, by constraint, among nominal friends but real enemies.*' Tliey argue, at length, against the claims of the General Gov- ernment upon the militia of the States, and justify Massachusetts and Connecticut in refusing to place the militia in the regular army and under United States officers. They complain that the " Constitutional Compact," as they term the Constitution, has been extensively violated by the General Government, and that so many abuses have been practised, under color of its au- thority, that the time for change is believed to be at hand. They declare that " acts of Congress in violation of the Consti- tution arc aljsoJutely voidy And, as the Governors of Massa- chusetts and Connecticut liad refused to jjlacc the militia of those States in the regular army, and under the officers of the General Government, they propose that a portion of the na- tional tax, raised by the State, should be paid into its treasury, to be used for its defence, for which the General Government liad neglected to provide, in the case of those States. They declare that they are " solicitous for the continuance of the Union as well as the sovereignty of the States." CONTEMPOEAlfEOUS VIEWS OF NORTHEKX MEN, GT The first amendment proposed, namely, to take from tlie South the representation of slaves, was designed to lessen the political power of the Sonth, The object of the second amend- ment proposed was substantially the same ; or, in the language of Harrison Gray Otis, " the object of the amendment was to diminish what the decision of the Missouri question is calculated to increase — the representation of slaves." This referred to the admission of Louisiana. The Legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut, on re- ceiving the report of the Hartford Convention, sent commission- ers to "Washington ; the former, Harrison Gray Otis, Thomas H, Perkins, and William Sullivan ; the latter, Xatuaniel Terry and Calvin Goddard. contemporaneous views of northern MEN. JOHN LOWELL. Li an ably-reasoned pamphlet, written by John Lowell, of Massachusetts, and published in 1812, the writer asked : " Is there no Constitutional right in the executive, judiciary, and people of the several States, to judge whether the militia are, or are not, Constitutionally called into service ? Li whom, from the very nature of the limitation in the Constitution, reposes the ultimate right to judge whether either of the three cases, (to execute the laws of the Union ; suppress insurrections ; and repel invasion,) provided by the Constitution, does exist I " We answer, generally in the constituent, not in the dele- gate ; in the master, not in the servant ; idtimatelt/ in the peo- ple, (of the several States ;) principallij from the necessity of the case in the commanders-in-chief of the several States. The very idea of limitation excludes the possibility that the delegate should be the judge. If he were, his powers would be limited only by his own judgment, or, in other words, by his own arbi- trary will, which is no limitation at all." Tlie General Govern- ment is regarded here as the delegate,, and the people of the sev- eral States as the constituent,, acting by their constituted au- thorities as Governors, Judges, or Legislatures. We have the distinct declaration of the doctrine of State rights, from one of 68 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. the ablest and best men of the times. If parried to its logical results it comes fully up to the Virginia resolutions of 1798, fully up to the teachings of Jefferson and Madison. GOCTEBNECR MOKniS. Goo'ERNEUR Morris was the veiy man in the Constitutional Convention who revised the language of the Constitution before its final adoption by that body, and must therefore have un- derstood what was its meaning and its bearings and the nature of the compact, and who were the parties to it. lie declared that it was a compact between the States, and not a compact between individuals scattered over the whole Union. These are his words : " That the Constitution was a compact, not be- tween solitary individuals, but between political societies, the people, not of America, but of the United States — each (State) enjoying sovereign power, and of course equal rights." Thus it differs from a State Constitution, which is a compact, so far as it can be called a compact, between individuals. It is a corn- fact between sovereignties. " ISTew England will, I trust, continue true to herself. Tlie appropriate course, pertinaciously pursued, must open the eyes even of the wilfully blind. You will unite with Massachusetts, and Kew York must connect herself, whether she will or no, with New England. The question of boundary to be solved, therefore, is the Delaware, Susquehanna, or Potomac." — Letter of Gowverneur Morris to Lewis Stxirejis^ Connecticut^ Nov. 1, 1814. " I supposed, also, that to such as would charge you with meditating a breach of the Union, you would calmly reply : ' The Union is already broken by this Administration. Should we now rely upon it, we should forfeit all claim to common sense.' " — Ldeni^ to LLarrison Gray Otis, JS^ov. 8, 1811. Having in the first extract stated what is the nature of the Constitutional Compact, and who are the parties to it, namely, the States, he then, in the next two, shows in what way the meditated separation of the States can be justified, and where might be the line of separation. John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, July, 1813, says : " The ^Northern States are now retaliating upon the DE wi'rr CLiNTox. 69 Southern States, their conduct from 1797 to ISOO." He al- ludes to the opposition to his own administration by the South- ern States, especially by Virginia and Kentucky. DE TTITT CLINTON'. "The opposition, now excited, is not an ordinary oj^position. It does not merely aim a blow at a rival party. Nor is it con- fined to the destruction of an individual. It takes a more daring and adventurous attitude. It bids defiance to our laws, and threatens the dissolution of the Union. It is, ])erhaps, known to but few, that the project of the dismemberment of this country is not a novel plan growing out of recent measures of the Government, as has been pretended. It has been cher- ished by a number of individuals for a series of years ; and a few months before the death of a distinguished citizen, whose death so strongly excited the public sensibility, it was proposed to him to enlist his great talents in the formation of this nefarious scheme ; and, to his honor be it spokeu, it was repelled by him with disdain. Some of the newspapers of New England have, at various times, inculcated the treasonable doctrines in elab- orate essays, and the match appears to be now lighted, to pro- duce an explosion, which will overwhelm us with all the evils of civil war. " Look at the storm that is gathering in the cast ; its clouds arc black, heavy, and portentous. Look at the resolves of several of the towns, and even of the capital of Massachusetts. Observe the disorganizing, Jacobinical, seditious, and traitorous spirit which pervades them. The Legislatures of the several States arc incited to array themselves against the General Govern- ment. The very men who a few years since were the strenuous advocates for putting down the State Governments, for a strong National Government, that would maintain the union of the States ; for an energetic, absorbing National Government, that would control and regulate the centrifuo;al force of the local Government, these men are now warm partisans of a State su- premacy, the devoted friends of the State Legislatures.'' — Si)eech of De Witt Clinton, in Senate of New YorT^. John Quincy Adams fully sustains the declarations of Mr. Clinton, and refers to the " distinguished citizen," who, it was 70 Till': SECTIOXAL CONTROVERSY. hoped, would lead the armies of the North, in a possible con- test with the Federal Government, and who was no other than Alexander Hamilton. The sentiments of disunion were in existence at the Xorth at an early period, certainly as early as 1796, not long after the ratification of Jay's treaty was opposed by Mr. Madison, Mr. Giles, and other leading men of the South, and just before the election of Mr. Adams, who was destined to meet with oppo- sition to his election from the Southern States, and then with embarrassments during his administration, and finally with de- feat when candidate a second time. The following is an extract from a very able series of papers, signed rELHA:^!, and published in the Connecticut Courcuit, in Hartford, 1796 : "I shall, in the future papers, consider some of the great events which ivill lead to a separation of the United States / show the importance of retaining their present Constitution, even at the expense of a separation ; endeavor to prove the re- sponsibility of a Union for a long period in future, both from the moralAud political habits of the citizens of the Northern States ; and finally, examine carefully to see whether we have not al- ready ajyproached to the era when they must he divided.''^ These sentiments gathered strength during Mr. Jefferson's administration, from the purchase of Louisiana and the restric- tions upon commerce, until, in 1809, they became so well known, that an agent, John Henry, was sent by the Governor-general of Canada, Sir James Craig, into New England, in reference to a co-operation with England, and a union with Canada. These sentiments still gathered strength during Mr. Madison's admin- istration, until they culminated in the appointment of the Hart- ford Convention, and brought the Eastern States to the very verge of disunion. For this the General Government was held responsible. " If, by your violence and oppression, you drive off New England from the Confederacy, you must answer for it. And you have already driven them to the very brink. One step more, and the union of these States is severed." — Fed- eral Itejpidjlican. Tliis was a matter of general notoriety throughout the coun- try. Tlie following is an extract from a letter addressed to REMAEKS. 71 Elbeidge Geeet, of Massachusetts, dated June 11, 1812, from Mr. Jeffeeson : " What then does this English faction with you mean ? Their newspapers say, rebellion, and that they will not continue united with us, unless we will permit them to govern the ma- jority. * * They count on British aid. But what can that avail them by land ? They would separate from their friends, who alone furnish employment for their navigation, to unite with their only rival, for that employment. * '^'' But I trust that such perverseness will not be that of the honest and well- meaning mass of the Federalists of Massachusetts ; and that when the question of separation and rebellion shall bo nakedly proposed to them, the Goees and the Pickeeings will find their levees crowded with silk stocking gentry, but no yeomanry ; an army of officers, but no soldiers." eemaeks. 1. When the North was the dominant section in the General Government, Southern statesmen placed themselves on the re- served rights of the States, to resist the encroachments of federal power, under the first two Presidents ; as in the case of the assumption of State debts, and of the charter of the United States Bank ; and of the alien and sedition laws. When the South became the dominant section in the Gen- eral Government, the ISTorthern States placed themselves on the same reserved rights of the States, to resist the encroachments of federal power, under Presidents Jeffeeson and Madison ; as in the case of the purchase of Louisiana, and of the restrictions upon commerce ; and of the requisition to place the militia of the States under federal ofiicers. In each case the dominant party was opposed to the doc- trines of State rights. The l^orth was opposed to the Virginia and the Kentncky resolutions. The South was opposed to the doctrines of the Hartford Convention. 2. The doctrine of State rights was asserted in 1798 by Yir- ginia, and in 1814 by Massachusetts, in a manner corresponding with the character of the people of the two States. In a letter, dated Dec. 18, 1814, addressed to James Lloyd, of Massachu- 72 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. setts, JoiiN Randolph writes : " A Virginia and a Xew England Republican are about as much alike as an English whig and a French democrat." And yet the doctrines of State rights, as enunciated by Northern statesmen and by Southern statesmen, are substantially the same. Tlie Northern view and the South- ern in these cases were nearly the same. a. That the Constitution is federal, namely, a compact be- tween the States, and M'as made by the States, namely by the people of each State, acting for the State, and not by solitary individuals, each acting for himself. — See Gouverneur Morris's Declaration, Dr. S. Johnson'' 8 Iteiiiarhs, &c. h. That the Constitution was formed for the States, and for individuals only as a citizen of a State. c. That all powers not distinctly given to the General Gov- ernment, are reserved to the States; and that it is just as im- portant that the reserved powers should remain unimpaired, as that the granted powers should be unimpaired. d. Tliat each State, as a party to the compact, must judge as to the powers granted, and of any violation of the compact. e. That if a dispute should arise between a State and its co- States, in respect to what powers are granted and what i)Owers are reserved, an amendment to the compact by a Convention of the States, or otherwise, must settle the doubtful point. f. That if the compact be broken by the States '* on one side, it is broken on all sides." 3. Violent resistance was, during the AYar of 1812, threatened against some of the requisitions of the Federal Government. Governor Tkumbull of Connecticut, took the ground, that on great emergencies, when the National Legislature had been led to overstep its Constitutional powers, it became the right and the duty of the State Legislatures '' to interpose their pro- tecting shield between the rights and the liberties of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." Gov- ernor Chittenden, of Vermont, had issued his proclamation, re- calling the Vermont militia. And when a member of Congress proposed to instruct the Attorney-general to prosecute Governor Chittenden, " Mr. Otis laid on the table of the Massachusetts senate a resolve expressive of the duty and readiness of Massa- chusetts, to aid with her whole power the Governor of Ver- KEMAEKS. 73 mout, and the people of any other State, in support of Consti- tutional rights, by -whomsoever infringed." By a legislative act, the authorities of the United States were forbid " to use the gaols in Massachusetts for the confinement of prisoners com- mitted by any other than judicial authority ; and the gaolers were directed, at the end of thirty days, to discharge all British officers, prisoners of war, committed to them for close confine- ment." A Bill for the enlistment of minors having passed Congress, the Legislatures of Connecticut and Massachusetts " proceeded to pass an act requiring the State judges to discharge, on habeas corpus, all minors enlisted without the consent of their parents or guardians, and subjecting to fine and imprisonment any per- sons concerned in any such enlistment, who should remove any minor out of the State, so that he could not be then discharged." ■i. Mr. Madisox was greatly disturbed and annoyed by the meeting of the Hartford Convention, and by the necessity of meeting the commissioners appointed by Massachusetts and Con- necticut. But the tidings of peace came, just as they arrived in Washington, and relieved him from the necessity of receiv- ing them in the character of commissioners, and of entering into negotiations with them on the subject of their mission ; but placed them in a very awkward position. On the arrival of the intelligence that a treaty of peace had been signed, the people of "Washington hastened to the Presi- dent's levee, in the fulness of their joy. One, who was present, told me, that the hilarity exceeded all common bounds ; that, not satisfied with congratulating pne another once, they would, many of them, repeat the congratulations, Mr. M^idisox acted as if a great load had been removed from his mind. Mrs. Mad- isox was more of a cpieen than ever. When the mirth was at the highest, the commissioners were announced. Immediately, from the shock, there was a uni- versal stillness, like that in a church. They were received by Mr. and Mrs. Madisox with all due courtesy ; but it was some minutes before the assembly relapsed into its former hilarity. and before the commissioners were restored to their natural dignity and self-possession. 5. What course would have been taken in ]^ew England, if T4 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVLKSY. peace had not been declared, it is impossible to say. How far tlic General Government might have been disposed to comply with the proposals or demands of tlie Hartford Convention, it is impossible to say. But this mnch can be said, that the men who were concerned in this sectional movement, in tlic State 1 Legislatures and the Convention, were men of the highest char- )acter for intelligence, virtue, and patriotism ; as also were those concerned in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions in 170S-'9. In each case they knew their rights, and knowing, they dared to maintain them. G. The reserved rights of the States need to be constantly kept before the minds of those who are called to act in the legislative, the 'executive, and the judicial departments of the General Government, lest they shonld lose their influence, and the granted powers become, in practice, too nnich enlarged. There is a strong centralizing tendency, arising from that love of power which is inherent in human nature, from a desire to carry out certain measures deemed useful, but which the Con- stitution does not authorize ; and especially from the great patronage of the Government, which it can use to induce men to support its usnrj)ation. 7. The relations of the Federal Government to the State Governments are not well understood. The following are the remarks of Mr. Jeffekson : " With respect to our State and Federal Governments, I do not think that their relations are correctly understood by for- eigners. They generally suppose the former to be subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. But you may ask, if the two departments should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide between them ? In cases of little importance and urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground ; but if it can neither be avoided, nor compro?nised, a Conveiitioji of ihe States must he called to ascrihe the doiibtful power to that department which they may think hest.^^ KossuTn, it is said, formed an exception to this general re- mark respecting foreigners ; for he understood at once the na- ture of the American Confederacy. " It is," said he, " a Ee- ])ublic, composed of republics." EEMAEKS. 75 But the relations of the Federal Government to the State Governments are not well nnclerstood, even by the native-born citizens. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions on the one hand, and on the other the doctrines taught in Massachusetts and Connecticut during the war, and, indeed, some years before that era, if carefully studied, will assist a citizen of the States to understand our double Government , and to learn what are the powers granted to the Federal Government, and what are the rights reserved to tlie States. 8. While ISTew England was meditating the separation of the States in certain contingencies, the general feeling in that sec- tion was, that a peaceful separation ought to take place, if at all ; or, in the language of the Hartford Convention, that " a separation by mutual arrangement will be preferable to an al- liance by constraint among nominal friends, but real enemies." John Quincy Adajnis, in a speech delivered in the city of Kew York, in 1839, just fifty years after the Federal Constitution went into operation, expressed the same sentiments : " But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States in this Confederation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come — may heaven avert it ! — when the affections of the people in these States shall bo alienated from each other — when the fraternal feeling shall give way to cold indifference, or collisions of in- terest shall foster into hatred — the bonds of political association will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the magnetism of conciliated interests and friendly sympathies ; and/ar Jjettev ivill it he for the ])eople of the disunited States to part in friendship from each other, than to be held together by constraint. Tlien will be the time for reverting to the pre- cedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separate parts to be united by the law of political gravitation to the centre." CHAPTEE yn. ME. monkoe's administkation. Maech 4, 1817— March 4, 1825, The period of Mr. Monkoe's administration has been styled the " era of good feeling," The war had, with some reverses, been triumphantly sustained. Old sectional feuds had died out. The Federal party having ceased to exist, new political friendships had been formed. Mr. Clay had brought from abroad an admiration of some of the institutions of Great Britain. Some of the old difficulties with that nation had been settled. The manufactures of the North had, to some extent, been protected by the tariff law of 1816, passed partly by Southern votes. The commercial interests of the North had been favored by the establishment of the United States Bank ; the bill having been signed by a Southern President, who had been opposed to a bank. Business revived. Internal improve- ments were projected. Hopes of general prosperity were rife in the land. President Monkoe made a tour through the North- ern and Eastern States, and was everywhere received with demon- strations of cordiality and good will. And yet in his adminis- tration, a sectional contest arose of the most bitter and dangerous character, threatening at once the unity and peace of the country. EESTKICTION OF SLAVERY IX MISSOUKI. February 13, 1810. — The bill, enabling Missouri to form a State Government, was taken up in the House of Representa- KESTEICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOURI. 77 lives ; tlie question being on the following amendment, moved by Mr. Tallmage of New York : " And provided^ Tliat the further introdnction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the pimishment of crimes, whereof the party has been duly convicted ; and that all children born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free at the ago of twenty-five years." Mr. Tayloe, of !N"ew York, in favor of the amendment, after speaking on the importance of the question, said there were two points at issue : 1. Has Congress the constitutional power to prohibit slavery as the condition of admission ; 2. If the power exists, is it wise to exercise it ? His arguments were drawn from that article in the Consti- tution, which declares that " the Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States ; " from the fact that slavery is wrong, being contrary to the Declaration of Independence, which asserts " that all men are created equal ;" from the fact that slavery is incompatible with republican in- stitutions. Mr. P. P. BxVEBOUR, of Virginia, opposed the amendment, on the ground that the Congress has no constitutional power to impose the restriction ; that Congress has power to " admit new States into the Union." "The term State has a fixed and deter- minate meaning. It imports the existence of a political com- munity, free and independent, and entitled to exercise the rights of sovereignty, such as the original States enjoyed. Virginia has slaves ; Pennsylvania has no slaves, but she has power to have them ; ought not Missouri to have the same power in this respect that Pennsylvania has \ " Other gentlemen who engaged in the discussion took similar grounds. The amendment passed in the Committee of the "Whole, TO to 67. On the 16tli of February, the House proceeded to consider the restriction. After an able discussion, the amendment was passed by a vote of 87 to 76, on the first branch ; and by a vote of 82 to 78, on the second branch. The Senate passed the bill to admit Missouri witJwut the re- 78 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEESY. stHction^ March 2d, On the motion to concur with the Senate, the vote was 7G yeas, 78 nays. Thus the bill failed, the Houses having failed to agree. " Tliis," says Benton, in the " Debates in Congress," " was the end of the bill, and it left the Houses geogrcqyhlcaUy divided, and the same division extending itself, with electric speed, to the States. It was a period of deep apprehension, filling with dismay the hearts of the steadiest patriots. It would be nine months before Congress would sit again. The agitation, great as it was, was to become greater, and no one could foresee its bounds. Tlie movement to put the slavery restriction on Ar- kansas greatly aggravated the Missouri question, and seemed to menace the slave States with total exclusion from Louisiana." It was during the agitation and suspense of the public mind, that Mr. Madisox wrote a letter to Ivobekt "Walsu, dated Kov. 27, 1819, just before the meeting of Congress, from which the following is an extract : " Parties, under some denomination or other, must always be expected in a free government like ours. When the individuals belonging to them are intermingled in every part of the whole country, they strengthen the union of the whole, while they divide every part. Should a state of parties arise, founded on geographical boundaries, and other physical and permanent distinctions which happen to coincide with them, what is then to control those great repulsive masses from awful shocks against each other ? " Tlie Southern States deeply felt, that by the action of tlie House, their constitutional rights had been denied to them, and that language had been used and arguments employed, derog- atory to their character. It was in reference to this state of things, and while the country was in a blaze of excitement, that Mr. Jefferson wrote, that the notes of alarm fell upon his ear like a " fire bell in the night." " Tlie Missouri question," he says, " is the most portentous one that ever threatened our Union. In the gloomiest moments of the Eevolutionary "War, I never had any apprehensions equal to what I feel from this source." In the early part of the next session in Congress, Jan. 3, 1820, it was proposed in the Senate to couple Missouri with Maine in one bill, the latter having applied to be admitted as KESTEICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOUEI. 79 a State into tlie Union. To this there was gi-cat opposition on the part of ^Northern members, and very extensive discussion, in which the evils of slavery formed an important part of the staple of a portion of the speeches. To show the absurdity of coupling them together, Mr. Robekts of Pennsylvania said : " What do we find in the front of the Constitution of Maine ? Article I. Section 1 : 'All men are born free and equal, and arc free to worship God in their own way.' Here is a substantial pledge to the good old faith. To her we may say, Come, sister, talvc your place in this constellation : the lustre of 3'our counte- nance will brighten the American galaxy. But do not urge us to admit Missouri under a pretence of congeniality — with the visage of a savage, deformed with the hideous cicatrices of bar- baric pride, with her features marred as if the finger of Lucifer had been drawn across it." Mr. PiNKNET, of Maryland, in his speech on the other side, said : " New States may be admitted by Congress into this Union. What is that Union ? a confederation of States equal in sovereignty, capable of every thing which the Constitution does not forbid, or authorize Congress to forbid. It is an equal union between parties equally sovereign. * '•'' By acceding to it, the new State is placed on the same footing as the original States. * * If it comes in shorn of its beams, crippled and disparaged beyond the original States — it is not into the original Union that it comes, for it is a different sort of union. The first was union inter fares / this is a union between disparates, be- tween giants and a dwarf, between power and feebleness, be- tween full-proportioned sovereignties and a miserable image of power, a thing which that very union has shrunk and shrivelled from its past size, instead of preserving it in its true dimen- sions." In the Senate, the vote for uniting the two bills was 23 in favor, and 21 against ; Feb. 16, 1820. At this stage of the business, it became evident, that though the Senate V\'as willing to receive Missouri upon an equal foot- ing with the other States, the House would j^ersist in excluding her, unless she would consent to come into the Union with im- paired sovereignty, and unable to determine what some of her internal institutions should be. What was to be done ? What was done ? 80 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOYEESY. THE COirPKOMISE. Mr. Thomas, of Illinois, j)roposed in tlio Senate to amend the bill, l)j striking out the restrictive clause, to pass the bill for the admission of Maine, and to prohibit slavery in all of the terri- tory north of 36° 30', that the Northern members might in this way allow Missouri to come into the Union without restriction, upon the same footing as the other States. His proposal was acceded to, and the amendment was passed in the Senate, March 2, 1S20, by a vote of 22 in favor, and 15 against it. In the House the amendment passed by a vote of 13-1 in favor, and 42 against it. Still Missouri did not obtain admittance into the Union. At the next session of Congress, for the third time Missouri presented herself for admission into the Union. Maine had been admitted, and her representatives were on the floor of Congress. Slavery was prohibited north of 36° 30'. But strange to say, the compromise was not can'ied out by the Northern members, with some honorable exceptions ! On the question in the House, Shall Missouri be admitted on the compromise of 1820? the vote stood, Feb. 13, 1821, 88 against admission, 67 in favor of admission. From Maine, 5 against, 2 in favor ; from New Hampshire 6, all against ; from Massachusetts 13, all against ; from Kliodc Island 1, and in favor ; from Connecticut, 6 against, and 1 in favor ; from Yer- mont 6, all against ; from New York, 17 against, and 7 in favor ; from New Jersey, 1 against, and 3 in favor ; from Penn- sylvania, 22 against, and 1 in favor ; from Ohio 6, all against ; from Indiana 1, and against ; from Illinois 1, and against. Thus the North rejected the compromise which had been made March 2, 1820, nearly a year before. AVcre the Northern States faithful to the compromise? Candor must admit, as the above votes show, that they were not. They had got their share, and it was the lion's share. Maine had been admitted into the Union. Slavery had been prohibited by a stretch of power, north of 36° 30', upon the com- promise by which Missouri was to be admitted, but they still refused to admit her into the Union. One of their number, Mr. THE COilPEOIVnSE. 81 Clakk of New York, who had voted against the compromise, did saj : " I consider myself bound by the 'pledge. I cannot for a moment consent, as a member of this Honse, to observe a punio faith even vrith Missouri." Others did not faithfully keep good faith, but punic faith. After the Northern members had thus refused to carry out the compromise, Mr. Bkown, of Kentucky, proposed to repeal the act prohibiting slavery north of 36° 30'. But they would not consent ; they would keep the consideration, but would not carry out the compromise by which they obtained the con- sideration. The Southern States regarded the compromise of 1820 as an agreement between their members and the Northern members, and they looked to the latter, with upbraiding or imploring eyes, to carry it out by the admission of Missouri. Yet still the latter refused. Proofs on both points are abundant. Hear Mr. Chaeles Pdvckney's testimony. He was, it will be recollected, a leading member of the Convention that formed the Constitution, and was at the present time a member of Con- gress from South Carolina who voted for the compromise. " I feel authorized to express this fear (of the dissolution of the Union) by the fact, that gentlemen in opposition now throw off the veil, and expressly declare that it is their intention to leave, if possible, this question to the next Congress, to leave to them, if possible, unfettered by any act of ours, the power to decide how far the true interests of the Union may then make it necessary to produce anew, and struggle for the imposition of the restric- tion on slavery, which has, during the three last sessions, shaken the Union to the very foundations. Tliey openly avow that they do not consider themselves bound by the compact of the last year^ confining the restriction to the north of 36° 30', but aver if they have the strength to do so, their intention to leave the Qiext Congress free to decide it as they please." Months had passed away, between the time when the com- promise bill had been passed and the succeeding session, and yet at this session the North still refused to admit Missom-i ! What was the real motive for this apjparently treacherous conduct on the part of the North ? It wees the desire to retain political power. This was the temptation to the political sin 82 THE SECTIONAL COXTEOYERSY. of still reusing to admit Missouri upon the same footing as tlie original States. AYliat was the pretext for this delay and this shirking the responsibility ? It was that Missouri had, in her constitution, made proYision to exclude free negroes and mulattoes from the State. It M'as but a pretext, because other States liaYC been ad- mitted without resistance or objection, in whose constitutions there were similar proYisions ; and Massachusetts had placed similar proYisions on her statute book as early as ITSS, just after the ratification of the Constitution. Missouri was finally admitted February 2S, 1S21. Petitions for the admission of Missouri were presented March IG, 1818. A bill was introduced into the House to enable Missouri to foiTU a State goYcrnment, February 13, 1819. The restriction was moYcd February 17, 1819. It thus took more than three years from the first-mentioned date, and more than two years from the second date, to procure the admission of Missom*i. She was finally admitted upon a Yote of 8G in faYor and 82 against. Of the Northern States, New Hampshire cast no vote in faYor ; Massachusetts, two Yotes ; Connecticut, one vote ; Vermont, no vote in favor ; New York, seven ; New Jersey, two ; Pennsylvania, four votes. Not a single Northern State gave its vote in favor of the admission of Missouri. Of the Northern votes cast in favor of the admission of Missouri upon the final vote, some were due to the sense of constitutional right which Missouri had to admission upon the original footing of other States, expressed in the early part of the debates ; others were due to the compromise, to which they remained faithful ; others still were due to political considerations of a patriotic or party character, " For a Y'liile," says Benton, in his " Thirty Years' Yiew," " this formidable Missouri question threatened the total over- throw of all political parties or principles, and the substitution of geographical parties, discriminated by a slave line, and of course destroying the first and proper action of the Federal Government, and leading eventually to a separation of the States. It was a Federal movement, accruing to the benefit of that party, and at first was overwhelming, sweeping all the Northern Democracy into its current, and giving the supremacy KEMAEKS. 83 to its adversaries. When this effect was perceived, the North- ern Democracy became alarmed, and only wanted a turn in the popular feeling at home, to take the first opportunity to get rid of the question by admitting the State, and reestablishing party lines upon the basis of political principles. This was the de- cided feeling when I arrived at "Washington, and many of the old JSTorthern Democracy took early opportunity to declare themselves to me to that effect, and showed that they were ready to vote for the admission of the State in any form that would answer the purpose, and save themselves from going so far as to lose their own State, and give the ascendant to their political adversaries." But patriotic considerations also operated upon another class of minds to induce them to vote for the admission of Missouri. The whole country was agitated and threatened with disunion. B}' voting to admit, the agitation would cease, and the danger of disunion be removed. Members of Congress from !N^orthern States, who voted for the admission of Missouri, were influenced : 1, by a regard for the constitutional right of Missouri to come into the Union upon the same footing as the original States ; or 2, by a regard for the Democratic party ; or 3, by a regard for the peace and union of the country ; or 4, by a regard to the compromise. There was at least one, Mr. Clakk, of New York, who was in- fluenced by the last consideration, though he did not vote for the compromise. How many are to be classed with him it is difficult to say. It is remarkable that every man belonging to New England, in the Lower House, who voted to admit Missouri, was ostra- cized from the confidence of the public, by the intolerant or un- forgiving spirit which prevailed. It Avas said of Mr. Shaw, one of them, that he was killed by the negroes, and that Mr. Dwight, of the same State, was killed by the Indians, (in the Georgia case.) I have seen no proof that New England was ever reconciled to the admission of Missour* EEMAEKS. 1. Mr. Monroe was the last of the Virginia dynasty. When he went out of office in 1825, the Government under the Con- 84 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEEST. stitution had been in operation thirty-six years, during which period a Virginian had been at the head of the Government thirty-two years. Washington, Jeffekson, Madison, and Mon- EOE, were each worthy of the place. But there grew up, natu- rally, in the breasts of Northern men, a bitter jealousy of the South, and especially of Virginia, whose sons had fo-r so long a time occupied the Presidential chair. These men had been elected to office by controlling Southern votes, aided, indeed, in each case, by votes of the ISTorth, and in one case, by all the electoral votes of the North. At six successive elections, North- ern men had brought forward their Presidential candidates only to suffer defeat and mortification. As a consequence, there grew up a strong desire to lessen the influence of the slavehold- ^ ing States, and to prevent the increase of their number. Tlie Northern States were under the influence of a great political temptation to do a great political wrong to Missouri and the slave States. The peo2)le of the North, generally, were prepared to enter into the feelings of their j)olitical leaders, in opposing the in- crease of the political power of the South ; and, in their desire to extend to all men the enjoyment of their natural rights, they were ready to overlook the constitutional rights of Missouri. 2. In order to show the true state of the case, in the estima- tion of enlightened statesmen, I quote the following extract from a speech of John Quincy Adams, delivered in Congress, 1835, in favor of the admission of Arkansas, whose constitution was ofi'ered for acceptance ; it being of the same character as that of Missouri, both of them j)ermitting slavery : " Mr. Chair- man, — I cannot, consistently with my sense of obligation as a citizen of the United States, and bound by oath to support their Constitution, I cannot object to the admission of Arkansas into the Union as a slave State. I cannot propose or agree to make it a condition of her admission into the Union, that a conven- tion of her people shall expunge this article from the Constitu- tion. She is entitled to admission us a slave State." The argu- ment against the admission of Missouri, from the Declaration of Independence, that " all men are created equal," is irrelevant. Tlie argmnent from the power of Congress to make " needful rules and regulations in respect to the Territory and other prop- KEMAEKS. 85 erty," is irrelevant, for this "power" relates to property. The argument from the clause, " New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union," is all on the other side, from the very meaning of the terms. The House, therefore, was wrong in im- posing the restriction as the condition of admitting Missouri, and the Senate was right in voting to admit her without this restriction. Thus much in regard to kestriction. 8. But did the North act honorably in respect to the com- PEOMisE ? This compromise was proposed by a Northern man, and was accepted by Southern men and by Northern men ; and yet it was not adhered to by Northern men, after the North had received the advantage of admitting the State of Maine, and after slavery had been prohibited north of 36° 30'. When Missouri a third time Iiad presented herself for admittance with this compact or compromise in her hand, she was again rejected by a vote of 87 against admission, and 67 in favor of it. 4. The difference between the " restriction " and the " com- promise," has not been well understood. " No words," says Beistton, in his " Debates," " have been more confounded than those of the restriction and the compromise ; so much so, that some of the eminent speakers of the time have had their speeches against the restriction quoted as being against the compromise, of which they were zealous advocates. Though confounded, no two measures could be more opposite in their nature and effects. The restriction was to operate on a State, the compromise on a Territory. Tlie restriction was to prevent the State of Missouri from admitting slavery ; the compromise was to admit slavery there, and to divide the rest of Louisiana about equally between free and slave soil. Tlie restriction came from the North, the compromise from the South. The restriction raised the storm, the compromise allayed it." 5. One of the most unfortunate circumstances attending the debate was, that some of the Northern members used intem^^er- atc and insulting language towards the Southern men and South- ern institutions, which were not soon forgotten. Instead of dis- cussing constitutional questions, by referring to the Constitution as the sole ground of argument, they uttered the language of in- vective and sarcasm against slavery itself, if not against slave- holders. Such men as Kueus King and Hakkison Gkay Otis 86 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEEST. were not guilty of these improprieties. But there were others who drew from tlieir quiver arrows envenomed by hatred, and sent them, at random or with deliberate aim, to rankle in the breast of the South. And the effect of their speeches upon the Xorth was to kindle up a bitter and intolerant spirit. Tlie present writer remembers that, in a most respectable Xorthern city, during the discussions respecting the admittance of Missouri, .1 small company of boys were employed to carry through the streets, on a flag, the picture of a chained African, uttering the words, " Am I not a man and a brother ? " and also another, in which the " noble Yirginians " were represented, with up- raised whips, driving the negroes at their field work. In this way, but more especially by speeches and inflammatory articles in newspapers, the jjassions of the people of the North were kindled into indignation. G. To men of this generation it may seem strange, that worthy men in both Houses should refuse to vote for the admis- sion of Missouri upon the gi'oimds alleged, and for the reasons given. But it should be borne in mind that the real reason was the fear of increasing the political power of the South. Under the influence of this fear, on the part of demagogues in Con- gress, the evils of slavery were magnified, and the constitutional powers of Congress were distorted, until the members, in given cases, felt that they should commit political suicide by votinix for the measure of admittino; Missouri. It was easier to excite the masses than it was to calm the excitement. In some cases they did commit political suicide. Tliey voted for the measure, but theh' constituents never forgave them. Some of the State Legislatm-es passed resolutions against the measure, which might operate to prevent the members from those States from acting in the premises, according to their own judgment. Y. Did Congress act Constitutionally in 2-)roliibiting slavery north of 3G° 30' ? This question did not come up in a very diir tinct form for discussion, though there were those, Mr. BAxooLrn among them, who refused to vote for the compromise on tliat ground. Ilis penetrating mind saw the constitutional objec- tion. But the Senate and the House were in an awkward rela- tion to each other, each insisting on its own bill. Missouri, with great reason, complained of the treatment she had experi- KEMAKKS. 87 eiiced. Maine was clamoring for admission. The whole coun- try was agitated. The power of Congress was greater over Territory than over States. The ordinance of 178T, which ex- cluded slavery, was remembered, while the difference between the two cases was not insisted on. Congress was tired of the subject. Some thought, perhaps, that it was best to do a great right and a little wrong. The bill, as amended, came from the Senate without very much discussion in that body, into the House, March 2, 1820, and was passed' the same day. The subject has since been more carefully examined, and the conviction has been produced upon some of the ablest states- men of the land, that the Constitution gives no power to inter- dict slavery in the Territories. The restriction of slavery in Missouri as the condition of admission into the Union, with the delay, after the restriction was struck out, of the bill, on the ground of an invidious dis- tinction between the States, opened a fountain of sectional feel- ing, the bitter waters from which at the time deluged the land. These waters from that fountain have not yet ceased to flow. CHAPTER VIII. JOITN QTJINCY ADAMs' ADMINISTRATIO^'. March 4, 1825— March 4, 1829, Me. Adams was elected by tlie House of Bepresentatlves over General Jackson, there having been a failure to make an election of President by the electoral votes. The friends of Mr. Clay united with the friends of Mr. Ada^is in placing the latter in the Presidential chair ; though General Jackson had the largest vote of the electors. Mr. Adams had large experience and undoubted honesty as a statesman, but was inclined to a broad interpretation of the Constitution ; and, like Mr, Clay, was in favor of a high tariff, as was supposed. It was very natural that Mr, Clay should unite his political fortunes with him, in preference to General Jackson ; but by doing so, they both lost some share of the public confidence, especially from the circumstance that Mr, Clay accepted of the office of Secretary of State under him. Sectional feelings were strongly excited during the Presidential contest, and especially during the administration of Mr, Adams. The protective policy, sanctioned by the tariff act of 1824, en- tered now, for the first time, into a Presidential contest. THE TARIFF OF 1828. Previous to the year 1816, protection to American manu- factures had been incidental. The Constitution gave Congress power to raise a revenue, but not to encoui'age one branch of THE TAEIFF OF 1828. 89 industry to the injury of another. As the powers granted by that instrument do not allow Congress to protect manufactures directly, they were forced to depend on such an amount of protec- tion as they could incidentally receive from the imposition of duties for revenue. By a judicious discrimination as to what imported articles should be dutied, and what should be the duty on each class, the American manufacturer had the advantage of the foreign manufacturer of the same class of articles, by the amount of the duty paid added to the expense of transportation ; while the consumer could not complain, because what he paid additional to what he would have to pay for the same articles if imported duty free, he paid only as revenue for the support of the Government. But in 181G a new policy Avas adopted. It had been found by the experience of the war, that the country had suffered great inconvenience from depending on foreign manufactures. Accordingly, patriotism was appealed to for the support of do- mestic manufactures, which would render the country more in- dependent of foreign nations. Besides, a large amount of capi- tal had been embarked in manufactures, which, at peace prices, with foreign competition, could not be sustained. The national debt must be paid. In this state of things the tariff law of 1816 was enacted, the opposition to it being based chiefly on the ground that it would produce an injurious effect upon com- merce. In 1821: a bill was passed, giving still further j^rotection to manufactures. It was in support of this bill that Mr. Clay made his celebrated speech in favor of what, by a strange mis- nomer, he called " an American system." It was the privilege of the present writer to hear that speech, and, indeed, all the speeches of importance delivered that session on the subject of the tariff. In a very taking and persuasive statement of the present distress of the country and the necessity of a change of policy in favor of manufactures, he presented the general and special arguments in favor of a protective tariff. He was aided by manufacturers or their agents, who were present to furnish him, and others imited with him, with facts which would operate on the minds of members to induce them to favor do- mestic industry employed in the manufacturing business. A 90 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. political party, if not formed already, vras about to bo formed on tliis issue among others. Mr. Clay -was still regarded as a democrat ; and such was his patriotism and his eminent per- sonal qualities, such were his eloquence and powers of reasoning, that he had great influence in carrying the bill through the House, notwithstanding the vigorous opposition against it. Mr. Webstee was opposed to the bill, and, in his reply, was more than equal to Mr. Clay in his arguments, and hardly in- ferior in eloquence. Massachusetts went against the bill with the South ; but it was earned by a vote in the House of 107 to 102, and in the Senate of 25 to 20. "With other distinguished men who were opposed to the " new policy," inaugurated by Mr. Clay, and so characterized by him, was Rurus King. Mr. Clay saw clearly that it would be opposed by Southern members, because it sacrificed the interests of their constituents for the benefit of other States. He spoke of the importance of preserving the harmony of the \vhole Union. He remarked that " if the North, the East, and the West formed an independ- . ent State, unassociated with the South, can there be a doubt that the restrictive system would be carried to the point of pro- hibition of every foreign fabric of which they produce the raw material, and which they could manufacture ? Such would be their policy if alone ; but they are fortunately connected with the South, which l)elievcs its interest to require a free admission of foreign manufacture." Mr. Clay evidently intended to act in the most conciliatory manner towards the South ; but he also was determined to carry the measure. Mr. McDuTTiE, in one of his speeches, said " that the honor- able Speaker had remarked that, in the legislation of this coun- try, the most scrupulous regard should be had to the general harmony. But he put it to the Speaker whether it was not the introduction of such a bill which was likely to disturb that har- mony, rather than its discussion." He went on to show that it is a question distinctly arraying against each other the two dif- ferent sections of the Confederacy. All the arguments by which the proposed duty is supported have been, therefore, and neces- sarily must be, of a sectional character. " "When gentlemen are attempting by legislation to aftect the interests of the two sec- tions of the Union relatively to each other, how can they throw THE TARIFF OF 1828. 01 upon lis the responsibility of that feeling, -^ivhicli the discussion may excite ? " Mr. "Webster replied to Mr. Clay on another point, in a manner equally triumphant. " On the general question, sir, allow me to ask if the doctrine of j)roliibition, as a general doc- trine, be not preposterous ? Suppose all nations to act upon it, they would be prosperous then precisely in proportion as they abolished intercourse with one another. The less of mutual commerce they had the better, upon this hypothesis. Protec- tion and encouragement may be, and are, doubtless, sometimes wise and beneficial, if kept within proper limits ; but when car- ried to an extravagant height, or the point of prohibition, the absurd character of the system manifests itself." Xotwithstanding the very able argumentation against the bill, it passed as already stated, by a small majority. Mr. Clay became identified with the protective system. It became a set- tled matter that he should promote the interests of the manufac- turers, and that they should act politically under his leadership. In 1828, the manufacturers applied to Congress for still fur- ther protection. They previously held a convention in Ilarris- burg, which met July 30, 1827, in which the subject of pro- tection was discussed with great earnestness ;: and having settled that question to their own satisfaction, the}'' addressed Congress in a memorial, in which they asked for a large increase of duties^. In the mean time Massachusetts, and ]^ew England gen- erally, though extensively opposed to the tariff of 1821, had ex- perienced a change in their interests or in their political pur-- jjoses, so that they were disposed to go for higher protective duties. Mr. Webster, who had supported the interests of com- merce, in opposition to the interests of manufactures, was now ready to vote for a high tariff bill, for the benefit of corporate capital. The Southern States, thus deserted by !N"ew England, became greatly alarmed at the impending additional burdens which were to be imposed on their industry. The President, and the Secretary of State, Mr. Clay, were in favor of protection, as were a majority of both Houses in Congress. But such men as John Randolph, Mr. McDuffie, General Hamilton, P. P. Barbour, and others, made very able speeches against the bill, 92 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. showing lip tliG fallacies of the Harrisburg address, and the "wrong of taxing one part of the country for the benefit of an- other part, beyond wliut is necessary for the purposes of rev- enue. The bill, however, Avas passed April 22, 1828, by a vote of 105 to 94. On the passage of the bill, Mr. Wilde moved to amend the title, by adding the words, " and for the encouragement of do- inestic manufactures." Mr. IvANDOLrii opposed the amend- ment, and said if the bill had its true name, it should be called, '' A bill to rob and plunder nearly one-half of the country for the benefit of the residue.'' Mr. Dkayton proposed to strike out all after " An act," and to insert, " to increase the duties upon i-ertaiu imports, for tlie purpose of increasing the profits of cer- tain manufactures." It would not have been decorous to pro- pose the additional amendment, " and to make a certain man President." PROTEST OF GEORGIA. Like the tariff act of 182-1, but with much greater empnasis, this tariff act of 1828 was passed in opposition to the determined opposition of the Southern States, an opposition which continued to manifest itself during its operation. A protest against it by the Legislature of Georgia, was introduced into the Senate of the United States, through the Vice-President, January 12, 1829, of which the following is an extract : " In her sovereign character, the State of Georgia protests against the act of the last session of Congress, entitled, ' An act in alteration of the several acts imj^osing duties on imports,' as deceptive in its title, fraudulent in its pretexts, oppressive in its exactions, par- tial and unjust in its operation, unconstitutional in its well- known objects, ruinous to commerce and agriculture, to secure a hateful monopoly to a combination of importunate manufac- turers. " Demanding the repeal of an act which has already dis- turbed the Union and endangered the public tranquillity, weak- ened the confidence of the whole States in the Federal Govern- ment, and diminished the afPection of large masses of the people to the Union itself, and the abandonment of the degrading sys- tem which considers the peoj^le as incapable of wisely directing PROTEST OF GEORGIA. 93 tlicir o\ni enterprise, which sets up the servants of tlic people in Congress as the exclusive judges of what pursuits are most ad- vantageous and suitable for those by whom they Avere elected, the State of Georgia expects that, in perpetual testimony there- of, the deliberate and solemn expression of her opinion will be carefully kept in the archives of the Senate ; and in justification of her character to the present generation and to posterity, if, unfortunately, Congress, disregarding the protest, and continu- ing to pervert powers granted for clearly defined and well-un- derstood purposes, to eftectuate objects never intended by the great parties by whom the Constitution was framed, to be in- trusted to the controlling guardianship of the Federal Govern- ment, should render necessary measures of a more decisive char- acter, for the protection of the people of the State, and the vin- dication of the Constitution of the United States." Mr. Bekkiex, on the occasion of its presentation, made, among other remarks, the following : " Forty years of success- ful experiment have proved the efficiency of this Government to sustain us in an honorable intercourse with the other nations of the world. Externally in peace and in war, amid the fluctua- tions of commerce and the strife of arms, it has protected our interests and defended our rights. One trial, one fearful trial, remains to be made. It is one, under the apprehension of which the bravest may iremble, which the wise and the good will anxiously endeavor to avoid. It is that experiment which shall test the competency of this Government to preserve our internal peace, whenever a question, vitally afifecting the bond which unites us as one people, shall come to be solemnly agitated be- tween the sovereign members of this Confederacy. In propor- tion to its dauo-ers should be our solicitude to avoid it, bv ab- staining on the one hand from acts of doubtful legislation, as well as by the manner of resistance on the other, to those Avliich are deemed imconstitutional. Between the independent mem- bers of this Confederacy, sir, there can be no common arbiter. They are necessarily remitted to their own sovereign will, delib- erately expressed, in the exercise of those reserved rights of sovereignty, the delegation of which would have been an act of political suicide. The designation of such an arbiter, sir, was, by the force of invincible necessity, ca-ms omissus amoug the 9i THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. provisions of a Constitution conferring limited powers, the in- terpretation of which was to be conlicled to the subordinate agents, created by tliose wlio were intrusted to administer it. '• I earnestly hope that the wise and conciliatory spirit of this Government, and of those of the several States, will post- pone to a period far distant, the day that will summon us to so fearful a trial. If, indeed, we arc doomed to encounter it, I as earnestly hope that it may be entered \ipon in the spirit of peace, and with cherished recollections of former amity." PROTEST OF SOUTH CAROLINA. J^ebruary 10, 1829. — Mr. W. Smith, Senator, presented to the Senate the protest of South Carolina against the tarifl act of 1828, for tlie following reasons : " 1. Because the good people of this commonwealth believe the poAvers of Congress were delegated to it in trust for the ac- complishment of certain specified objects, which limit and con- trol them, and that every exercise of them for any other purpose is a violation of the Constitution, as unwarrantable as the un- disguised assumption of substantive powers, not granted or ex- pressly withheld. " 2. Because the power to lay duties on imports is, and in its very nature can be, only the means of effecting the objects specified in the Constitution ; since no free Government, and, least of all, a Government of enumerated powers, can of right impose any tax (any more than a penalty) which is not at once justified by public necessity, and clearly within the scope and province of the social compact ; and since the right of confining appropriations of the public money to such legitimate and con- stitutional objects is as essential to the liberties of the people, as their unquestionable privilege to be taxed only by their own consent. " 3. Because they believe that the tariff law, passed by Con- gress at its last session, and all other acts of which the principal object is the protection of manufactures, or any other branch of domestic industry — if they be considered as the exercise of a supposed power in Congress to tax at its own good will and pleasure and to apply the money raised to objects not specified PROTEST OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 95 in tlie Constitution — is a violation of these fundamental princi- ples, a Lreacli of a well-defined trust, and a ]:>erversior. uf the high j^owers vested in the Federal Government for Federal pur- poses only. " 4. Because such acts considered in the light of a regula- tion of commerce, are equally liable to objection ; since, although the power to regulate commerce may, like other j)owers, be ex- ercised so as to i^rotect domestic manufactures, yet it is clearly distinguished from a power to do so co nomine^ both in the na- ture of the thing, and in the common acceptation of the terms ; and because the confounding of them would lead to the most extravagant results ; since the encouragement of domestic indus- try implies an absolute control over all the interests, resources, and pursuits of a people, and is inconsistent with the idea of any other than a simple consolidated Government. " 5. Because, from contemporaneous expositions of the Con- stitution in the numbers of the Federalist, (which is cited only be- cause the Supreme Court has recognized its authority.) it is clear that to regulate commerce was considered by the Convention as only incidentally connected with the encouragement of agri- culture and manufactures ; and because the laying imposts and duties on imports was not understood to justify, in any case, a prohibition of foreign commodities, except as a means of extend- ing commerce by coercing foreign nations to a fair reciprocity in their intercourse with us, or for some other Jjona fide com- mercial purpose. " G. Because, whilst the power to protect manufactures is nowhere expressly granted to Congress, nor can be considered as necessary and proper to carry into eficct any specified power, it seems to be expressly reserved to the States by the tenth sec- tion of the first article of the Constitution. " 7. Because, even admitting Congress have a constitutional right to protect manufactures by the imposition of duties, or by regulations of commerce, designed principally for that purpose, yet a tariff, the operation of Avliich is grossly unequal and op- pressive, is such an abuse of power as is incompatible with the principles of a free Government and the great end of civil socie- ty, and equality of rights and protection. " 8. Finally, because South Carolina, from her climate, situ- 96 ' THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. ation, and peculiar institutions, is, and must ever continue to 1)0, Avholly dependent upon agriculture and commerce, not only for lier prosperity, but for her very existence as a State ; because tlie valuable ])ro(lucts of her soil, the blessings by which Divine Providence seems to have designed to compensate for the dis- advantages mider which she suffers in other respects, are among the very few that can bo cidtivated by slave labor ; and if, by the loss of her foreign commerce, those products should be con- iincd to an inadequate market, tlic fate of this fertile State would be poverty and utter desolation ; her citizens, in despair, would emigrate to more fortunate regions, and the whole frame of her civil polity be impaired and deranged, if not dissolved entirely. " Deeply impressed with these considerations, the represent- atives of the good people of this commonwealth, anxiously de- siring to live in peace with their fellow-citizens, and to do all that in them lies to preserve and perpetuate the union of the States, and the liberties of which it is the surest pledge ; but feeling it to be their bounden duty to expose and resist all en- croachments upon the true spirit of the Constitution, lest an ap- parent acquiescence in the system of protecting duties should be drawn into precedent, do, in the name of the commonwealth of South Carolina, claim to enter upon the journals of the Sen- ate their protest against it, as unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust." Mr. Smith, who was a distinguished member of the first Congress, and enjoyed the confidence and friendship of Alex- ander Hamilton, in presenting the protest, among other things said : " South Carolina believed that when, as a sovereign State, she surrendered a portion of her authority, it was for cer- tain and specified objects ; and that, when those objects were accomplished, the authority ceded to the General Government was at an end ; that any measures pursued beyond the objects just contenq^latcd was a violation of the compact : it belonged to the States to resume their authority. South Carolina did not assent to the postulate that the authority was ever delegated to the Government, which the Government had assumed over in- dividuals and property composing the State. " We had been told that the high duties would be reduced ; PKOTEST OF SOL'TII CAROLINA. 97 but SO far from this, the manufactories had increased ; the pros- perity of one had induced others to embarlv in the business, and there had been constant application for new duties, which had been granted. South Carolina has protested against these du- ties ; he did not know that the Constitution acknowledged this principle ; lie did know that the Constitution had not lately been looked to. Constitutional arc-uments had been used which had never been replied to," Mr. IIayne, the other Senator, among other things said : " One of the most unhappy circumstances connected with the present condition of the Southern States, is the great, he might perhaps say, the insuperable difficulty of causing their senti- ments and feelings to be made known, so as to be understood and appreciated by their fellow-citizens in other quarters of the Union. Yiewing the United States as one country, the people of the South might almost be considered as strangers in the land of their fathers. The fruits of their industry had, from the pol- icy pursued by the Federal Government, been flowing to the North, in a current as steady and as undeviating as the waters of the great Gulf ; and as the sources of our prosperity were drying up, that reciprocal intercourse, which had softened as- perities and bound the different parts of the Union together in the bonds of sympathy and afi'ection, had in a great measure ceased. " That close and intimate communion, necessary to a full knowledge of each other, no longer existed, and in place of it there was springing up, (it is useless to disguise the truth,) among the people in opposite quarters of the Union, a spirit of jealousy and distrust, founded on the settled conviction, on the one part, that they are the victims of injustice, and on the other, that our complaints, if not groundless, may be safely disregarded. The people of the South are well aware of the evils growing out of this unhappy state of things, and of none are they more deeply sensible than that (from causes to which I shall now advert) the eyes of our brethren have been closed to our true condition, and their hearts shut against our just complaints. Althougli South Carolina, in common with several of her sister States, had, on former occasions, avowed the principles contained in the protest, yet it may well be doubted (if we can judge from 98 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEEST. what we see and hear around bs) whetlier it is believed north of the Potomac that she really entertains them : for, in the face of the solemn doclaratious of her people and their representa- tives, denoimcing the policy pm-sued by the Federal Govern- ment as involving them in ruin, we find the public ear abused and the public mind deluded by exaggerated statements of our iminterrupted prosperity and happiness. It has even been in- sinuated here, at the very seat of Government, that the enlight- ened public of the South is in favor of this policy, and that the excitement which prevails there is merely ' artificial,' if it has not been ' got up for party purposes.' " North Carolina also protested against the law ; and Alabama denied the power of Congress to lay duties for protection. -REMARKS. 1. Tariff laws, fi'om 1789 until 181G, had been enacted for the raising revenue for the support of the Government, and pay- ing off the national debts ; while the protection afforded by them to manufactures had been purely incidental. 2. In 1816, mainly from patriotic motives, the rates of tariff were raised, for the purpose of affording protection to manufac- turers, who could not maintain a competition with foreign man- ufacturers at peace prices. To this there was no sectional oppo- sition. It was generally felt to be desirable that the country ought to be more independent of foreign nations than it had been during the war, for the supply of manufactures. 3. In 1824 it became evident that politicians and manu- facturers had united their efforts to promote what Mr. Clay (•ailed the " American system," by which the former class might the l)etter rise to political power in the country, and by which the latter might accumulate large fortunes by the indirect bounty paid by their countrymen in the shape of a tariff for protection. Mr. Clay, having left the Democratic party, united his political fortunes with the Northern manufacturers. The interests of the Southern States lay in free trade. Party politics and the hopes of politicians likewise became connected with the -doctrines of free trade. 4. Tlie tariff of 1828 was not a " judicious tariff." Like the REMARKS. 99 tariff of 1824, it was established immediately before the Presi- dential election, which it was designed to influence and control. The address of the Ilarrisbnrg mannfactnrers' Convention was a strange medley of ideas, and yet it had a powerful influence •in certain quarters upon party politics of the time. It was de- signed, probably, among other things, to promote the election of some politician. to the Presidency who was in favor of a hifdi tariff, and who would satisfy the cravings of the manufacturers for large gains, 5. The Southern States naturally became very hostile to the strangely so-called " American system," which they viewed as adopted to enrich ISTorthern manufacturers, and exalt to ofiice its patrons. From the increasing demands of manufacturers, they came to regard the tariff for protection as a " daughter of the horse-leech which cries ' Give, give.' " It was not strange that the Southern States should have the same repugnance to Federal legishition in 1828, which imposed ruinous burdens upon their agricultural industry, which the ISTorthern States manifested during and some years before the war of 1812, towards Federal legislation, which imposed severe restrictions upon their commerce. However injudicious, it is not strange that they should look to nullification or secession as a relief from what they deemed unconstitutional burdens, just as some of the ISTorthern States then did. 6. Northern manufacturers, like Xorthern men generallv, were not acquainted with the agricultural interests of the South ; just as Southern planters were not acquainted with Northern interests. Tliey did not apprehend the real operation of the tarifl' upon the planting States. Politicians and manufacturers persuaded themselves that they understood the interests of the South better than Southern men did. They seriously attempted in Congress, in editorials, and in conversation, to show that it was for the benefit of Southern planters that they should jDay high duties to the Government, or high prices to ISTorthern manufacturers. They wrote or talked as if the ]S"orthern States were justified in forcing upon the South a high tariff for its benefit. CHAPTER IX. GENERAL JACKSOn's AD^IINISTRATIO^rw March 4, 1829— March 4, lb37. General Jackson was elected President by 178 electoral votes against 83 votes wliich were cast for Mr. Adams. Every State south of the Potomac cast its electoral vote for General Jackson. Every electoral vote of the New England States, except one from Maine, was cast for Mr. Adajnis. At his second election he received 210 votes ; Mr. Clay received 49 votes. He was in favor of a strict construction of the Constitution, by which tlie States would practically retain their reserved rights. He was opposed to that broad or large construction of the Constitution, by Avhich a United States Bank had been chartered, and by which a system of internal improvements had l.)ecn adopted or projected, and by which high protective tariffs had been established. In his inaugural address, he has the following paragraj^h in reference to the position of South Carolina and Georgia and other States in respect to the tariff of 1828. " In such measures as I may be called on to pursue, in regard to the rights of the separate States, I hope to be animated by a proper respect for those sovereign memljcrs of our Union ; taking care not to con- found the powers they have reserved to themselves, with those they have granted to the Confederacy." In liis first annual message, after speaking of the tariff and any attempts that may be made to connect it with the party jjolitics of the day, he adds : " Legislation, subjected to such influences, can never be SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. 101 just, and cannot long retain the sanction of a people whose active patriotism is not bounded by sectional limits, nor insen- sible to that spirit of concession and forbearance which fnvcs life to our political compact, and still sustains it. Discardini-- all calculations of political ascendency, the I^orth, the South, the East, the West, should uijite in diminishing any burthen of which either may justly complain." " I cannot, therefore, too strongly warn you against all encroachments upon the legiti- mate sphere of State Sovereignty." SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. In January, 1830, during the first session of Congress in General Jackson's Administration, the celebrated dispute upon Mr. Foot's Eesolution concerning the public lands took place in the Senate. In this debate, Mr. Hayne and Mr. Webster made their sectional sj)eeches, into which the subject of Nulli- fication largely entered. Mr. IIayne opened the debate on the subject of the public lands, and was followed by Mr. Webstee, in a speech in which he combated ojiinions on the subject of the Union, held by some of Mr. Hayne's friends, among whom was the Yice-President, (Mr. Calhoun,) then in the chair. This unexpectedly called out Mr. IIayne to defend these opinions, from which Mr. AYebstek had exonerated him, which he gen- erously did, in a speech of great ability and eloquence. To this Mr. Webstee replied, in a speech of equal or greater ability and eloquence. This produced a rejoinder by Mr. IIayne, which produced a surrejoinder by Mr. Webstee. These speeches were eminently sectional, and have had an influence to increase the strength of sectional feeling in the Korth and in the South. Mr. Webstee's eulogy upon Massa- chusetts and upon the Union, in his most elaborate speech on the occasion, are familiar as declamations to the colleges and schools of the I^ortli. In the speeches, both of Mr. IIayne and Mr. Webstee, there were fallacies which were sIioavji up by other speakers who addressed the Senate on the subject of Nul- lilication, among whom were Mr. Rowan, Mr. Geundy, Mr. Clayton, Mr. Woodbuey, and Mr. Edwaed Livingston. In the course of his speech, Mr. LmNOSTON spoke as follows : 102 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEESY. " My learned and honorable friend, the Senator near me, from Sontli Carolina, (Mr. IIayne,) comes, in the eloquent ar- guments he has made, to the conclusion, that whenever, in the language of the Virginia resolutions, (which he adopts,) there is, in the ojiinion of any one State, " a palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violation of tlie Constitution by a law of Congress,*' such State may, without ceasing to be a member of the Union, declare the law to be unconstitutional, and prevent its execu- tion within the State ; that this is a constitutional right, and that its exercise will produce a constitutional remedy, by oblig- ing Congress either to repeal the law, or to obtain an explicit grant of the power which is denied by the State, by submitting an amendment to the several States, and that, by the decision of the requisite number, the State, as well as the Union, would be bound. It would be doing injustice, both to my friend and to his argument, if I did not add, that this resort to the nullify- ing power, as it has been termed, ought to be had only in the last resort, when the grievance was intolerable, and all other means of remonstrance and appeal to the other States had failed. " In this opinion, I understand the honorable and learned Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. Rowan) substan- tially to agree, particularly in the constitutional right of pre- venting the execution of the obnoxious law. " The Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. Grundy,) in his speech, which was listened to with so much attention and pleasure, very justly denies the right of declaring the nullity of a law, and preventing its execution, to tlie ordinary Legislature, but erroneously, in my opinion, gives it to a convention. " My friend from New Hampshire, (Mr. Woodbury,) of whose luminous argument I cannot speak too highly, and to the greatest part of which I agree, docs not coincide in the assertion of a constitutional right of preventing tlie execution of a law believed to be unconstitutional, but refers opposition to the un- alienable right of resistance to oppression. " All these Senators consider the Constitution as a compact oetween the States in their sovereign capacity ; and one of them (Mr. Rowan) has contended that sovereignty cannot be divided ; from which it may be inferred that no part of. the sovereign power has been transferred to the General Government. SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. 103 " The Senator from Massacliusetts, (Mr. Webster,) in hk verj eloqnent and justly admired address on this subject, con- siders the Federal Constitution as entirely popular, and not created by compact, and from this position, very naturally shows that there can be no constitutional right of actual resist- ance to a law of that Government, but that intolerable and illegal acts may justify it on first principles. " However these opinions may differ, there is one consol- atory reflection, that none of them justify a violent opposition given to an unconstitutional law, until an extreme case of suffer- ing has occurred. Still less do any of them suppose the actual existence of such a case. " But tlie danger of establishing, on the one hand, a constitu- tional veto in each of the States, upon any act of the whole, to be exercised whenever, in the opinion of the Legislature of such State, the act they complain of is contrary to the Constitution ; and on the other, the dangers which result to the State Govern- ments by considering that of the Union as entirely popular, and denying the existence of any compact ; seem, both of them, to be so great, as to justify, and indeed demand, an expression of my dissent from both. " The arguments on the one side, to show that the Consti- tution is the result of a compact between the States, cannot, I think, be controverted ; and those which go to show that it is founded on the consent of the people, and, in one sense, a pop- ular government, are equally incontrovertible. Both of these propositions, seemingly so contradictory, are tnic, and both of them are false — true, as it respects one feature in the Constitu- tion ; erroiieous, if applied to the whole. " By a popular consolidated Government, I understand one that is founded on the consent, express or implied, of the people of the whole nation ; and which operates directly upon the people. " By a Federative Government, as contradistinguished from the former, I mean one composed of several independent States, bound together for specific purposes, and relying for the efficacy of its operations on its action upon the different States in their political capacity, not individually upon their citizens. " The old Confederation was a compact between the States ; 104 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. but among a number of stipulations strictly federative, it con- tained others wliich gave to the Congress powers which trenched upon the State sovereignties ; to declare war and to nuike peace ; to enter into treaties binding on the whole ; to establisli Courts of Admiralty, witli power to bind the citizens of the States in- dividually in cases coming under that jurisdiction ; to raise armies, equip fleets, coin money, emit bills of credit, and other similar powers. " In the Federal Constitution, this combination of the two characteristics of Government is more apparent. It was framed by delegates appointed by the States ; it was ratified by con- ventions of the people of each State, convened according to tlie laws of the respective States. It guarantees the existence of the States, wliicli are necessary to its own ; the States are rej)re- sented in one branch by Senators, chosen by the Legislatures ; and in the other, by Representatives taken from the people, but chosen by a rule which may be made and varied by the States, not by Congress — the qualifications of electors being difterent in difi'erent States. They may make amendments to the Constitu- tion. In short, the Government had its inception with them ; it depends on their political existence for its operation ; and its duration cannot go beyond theirs. The States existed before the Constitution ; they parted only with such powers as are specified in that instrument ; they continue still to exist, witli all the powers they have not ceded ; and the present Govern- ment would never, itself, have gone into operation, had not the States, in their political capacity, consented. That consent is a compact of each one with the whole ; not, as has been ar- gued, (by Mr. "Weestee, in order to throw a kind of ridicule on this convincing part of tlie argument of mj friend from South Carolina,) with the Government which was made by such com- pact. It is difficidt, therefore, it would appear, witli all these characters of a federative nature, to deny to the present Gov- ernment the description of one founded on compact, to M'hicli each State was a party ; and a conclusive proof, if any more were wanted, would be in the fact, that the States adopted the Constitution at difterent times, and many of them on conditions which were afterwards complied witli by amendments. .If it were strictly a popular Government, in the sense that is con- SPEECHES ON >rULLiriCATIOX. 105 tended for, the moment a majority of the 2-)cople of the United States had consented, it would liavc bound the rest ; and yet, after all the others, except one, had adopted the Constitution, the smallest still held out ; and if Rhode Island had not con- sented to enter into the Confederacy, she would, perhaps, at this time, have been unconnected with us. " But with all these proofs (and I think them incontrover- tible) that the Government could not have been brought into being without a compact, yet I am far from admitting that, because this entered so largely into its origin, therefore there are no characteristics of another kind, which impress on it strongly the marks of a more intimate union and amalgamation of the interests of the citizens of the different States, which gives to them the general character of citizens of the Unite- ject, namely the public lands, which had no necessary connec- tion with the subject of XuJUjication ; probably the mind of each was full of the latter subject ; and hence the facility 106 THE SECTIONAL C0NTK0VEE8Y. M-ith wliicli both entered on tlie discussion, after it had been distinctly introduced by Mr. Webster. President Jackson, in his annual message, at the opening of Congress, 1831, recommended the abolition of duties on nu- merous articles of necessity or comfort not produced at home. On the 9tli of January, 1832, Mr. Clay submitted a Resolution in relation to the tariff, and in a speech of three days' duration he supported his " American system," in subordination to ■which he proposed to make any reduction of duties which should be necessary. In opposition to Mr. Clay's resolution. General Samuel Smith of Maryland spoke as follows : " We have arrived at a crisis. Yes, Mr. President, a crisis more appalling than a day of battle. I adjure the Committee on Manufactures to pause ; to reflect on the dissatisfaction of the South. South Carolina has expressed herself strongly against the tariff of 1828, stronger than the other States are willing to speak. But, sir, the whole South feel deeply the op- pression of this tariff. In this respect there is no difference of opinion. The South, the whole Southern States, all consider it as oppressive. They have not yet spoken ; but when they do speak, it will be in a voice that will not implore, but will de- mand redress. " I am, Mr. President, one of the few survivors of those who fought in the War of the Revolution. We then thought we fought for liberty, for equal rights. We fought against taxa- tion, the proceeds of which were for the benefit of others. Where is the difference if the peoj^le are to be taxed by the manufacturers or by any others? I say manufacturers, and why do I say so ? When the Senate met, there was a strong disposition with all j)arties to ameliorate the tariff of 1828 ; but now I sec a change, which makes me almost despair of any thing effectual being accomplished. Even the small concessions made by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. Clay,) have been reprobated by the lobby members, the agents of the manufac- turers. I am told they have put their fiat on any change what- ever, and hence, as a consequence, the change in the course and language of gentlemen that precludes all hope. Tliose inter- ested may hang on the Committee of Manufactures like an TUE AMEKICAN SYSTEM, 107 inciibiTS. I say to that Committee, depend upon jonr own good judgment, discard sectional interests, and study only the common weal. Act with these views, and thus retain the afiec- tions of the South." Mr. Clay was deeply and anxiously sensible of the discon- tent in the Southern States in respect to a protective tariff. He would, if possible, avert the danger to the Union from that quarter, but he felt that there was a greater danger from another quarter if the " American system" should be given up. In his speech he exj)resses himself in the follov/ing terms : " And now, Mr. President, I have to make a few observa- tions on a delicate subject, which I apj)roach Avith all the re- spect that is due to its serious and grave nature. They have not, indeed, been rendered necessary by the sj)eech of the gentleman from South Carolina, (Mr. IIayne,) whose forbearance to notice the topic was commendable, as his argument throughout was characterized by an ability and dignity worthy of him and of the Senate. * '-^ But it is impossible to conceal from our view the fact that there is a great excitement in South Carolina, that the protective system is openly and violently denounced in public meetings, and that the Legislature itself has declared its purpose of resorting to counteracting measures ; a suspension of which has only been submitted to, for the purpose of allow- ing Congress to retrace its steps w^ith res^Dcct to this Union, Mr. President, the truth cannot be too generally proclaimed, nor too strongly inculcated, that it is necessary to the whole and to all the parts — necessary to those j)arts in diti'crcnt de- grees, but vitally necessary to each. " The danger to our Union does not lie on the side of per- sistence in the American system, but on that of its abandon- ment. If, as I have supposed and believe, the inhabitants of all north and east of James Eiver, and all Avest of the moun- tains, including Louisiana, are deeply interested in the preserva- tion of that system, would they be reconciled to its overthrow 'i Can it be expected that two-thirds or three-fourths of the people of the United States would consent to the destruction of a policy believed to be absolutely necessary to their prosperity ? Wlien, too, the sacrifice is made at the instance of a single interest, wdiich they verily believe will not be promoted by it. " " * 108 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. AVliat •would be the condition of this Union, if Pennsylvania and Xew York, those mammoth members of our confederacy, ^v•e^e tirmly persuaded that their industry was paralyzed and their prosperity blighted, by the enforcement of the British Colonial system, under the delusive name of free trade? They are now tranquil, and happy, and contented, conscious of their welfare, and feeling a salutary and rapid circulation of the products of liome manufactures and home industry throughout all their great arteries. But let that be checked, let them feel that a foreign system is to predominate, and the sources of their sub- sistence and comfort arc to be dried up ; let ISTew England and the Middle States all feel that they too arc the victims of a mis- taken i^olicy, and let those vast portions of our country despair of any favorable change, and then, indeed, might we tremble for the continuance of the Union." Here we are presented with the picture of disunion coming from the North, if the protective system should be abandoned. Mr. Clay thus intimates that if the North should not have the advantages of protection to their manufactures, it would adopt a course to destroy the Union. On January 23, 1832, Mr. Dkayton, of South Carolina, pre- sented a memorial of the members of the Legislature of South Carolina, opposed to nullification. They state " that they arc exceedingly aggrieved by the laws of the United States, im- posing high duties on foreign merchandise for the protection of manufactures ; " " that the policy, the justice, and the constitu- tionality of the present system of high i)rotective duties have been strenuously denied." " Tlie objections to the restrictive system are of the gravest character, and the sense of oppression and injustice, which it has excited, are widely diffused and deeply felt." Thus there appears to have been no difference of opinion in South Carolhia, in respect to the injurious effects of the tariff laws then in force. While this bill was under consideration, Mr. Choate, of Massachusetts, in an able and characteristic speech, said : " Still the difficulty recurs. There is a great sectional excitement, and that, whether groundless or not, is, 2?cr se, a case to act on. It is desirable to allay the excitement. Yes, certainly ; but how ? Sir, my humble scheme is this : I think, in the language of THE COMPEOMISE BILL. 109 medical men, tlie case requires topical treatment, local applica- tions. Search out the sectional grievance, if you can find it. Find what are the articles exclusively of Southern consumption, and important in tlie economy of the South, and relieve them of all protective duty. Strike them out of the statute. For so much let there be no tariif, and let them he fabricated in Eng- land, that the American Union may be preserved ; and let all others be as they are now effectually protected." He evidently was for concession and conciliation. The bill was passed in the House, June 27, 1832, and in the Senate, July 9, 1832, and was entirely unsatisfactory to the Southern States. In the next annual message. President Jackson, and in his report, the Secretary of the Treasury, recommended a change in the tariff laws. The Oedixaxce of the Convention of South Carolina was issued November 24, 1832, declaring the revenue laws of the United States null and void, and enjoining the Legislature to carry the decree into effect. The Legislature met and passed the necessary laws. The State authorities were now placed in opposition to the Federal laws. Tlie militia of the State Avere oro-anized and armed, to be readv for action. General Scott was sent to Charleston with Federal troops and two vessels of war, to be prepared to enforce the laws of the Federal Govern- ment for the collection of the revenue. The proclamation of General Jacksox, in view of that ordinance, was issued Decem- ber 11, 1832. His message was sent into the Senate and the House of Eepresentatives, in which he asked for authority and means to enforce the collection of revenue in South Carolina. A bill for that purpose was introduced into the Senate from the Committee on the Judiciary, January 28, 1833. But before that bill was passed, Mr. Clay introduced his compromise bill, February 12, 1833. This bill was passed in the House, February 22, 1833, and in the Senate, March 1, 1833. The revenue collection bill was passed in Senate, Feb- ruary 18, 1833, and in the House, February 28, 1833. The compromise bill satisfied South Carolina so far, that Governor IIa^iilton called the Convention together, and communicated to it the modification of the tariff. The Convention then passed 110 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. an ordinance repealing the nullification law. Tbns the sectional difficult}' was settled for the time. REMARKS. 1. The tariff laws of lS2i, 182S, 1832, were carried against the opinions and interests of the Southern States, by the com- bined influence of manufacturers and politicians. In 1824, a portion of the Eastern members were opposed to the tariff act, from a regard to the commercial interests of the States or dis- tricts which they represented. With some exceptions, the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 were I^orthern measures, for the benefit of the ISTorth. With some few exceptions, these laws were vig- orously opposed by the South, because they Avould operate in- juriously upon Southern interests. Louisiana, from a regard to her sugar crop, which was jorotected by the tariff laws, went in favor of those laws. The greed of gain and the greed of office conspired to pass those laws for the evident benefit of the Korth, for the doubtful benefit of the whole country, and to the mani- fest injury of the South, which had no manufactures to be ben- efited. 2. The Southern States felt that they were 02)pressed by these burdensome tariffs. According to the intimation of George Mason in the Constitutional Convention, they found themselves " bound hand and foot " in the power of the Eastern States. And if these did not exclaim, " The Lord hath deliv- ered them in our hands," still they talked about the " general welfare " as they understood it, and not about the rights of the States, or the provisions of the Constitution which secured those rights. As " a gift destroyeth the heart," so " oppression maketli a wise man mad." As the profits derived from pro- tected manufactures j^roduced narrow and sectional feelings at the I^orth, so the burdens imposed by extravagant tariff laws led the State of South Carolina to the madness or folly of nulli- fying those laws, on the ground that they were oppressive and unconstitutional. To relieve herself from the operation of these tariff laws. South Carolina passed the ordinance of nullification, -Avhich, whatever may be trac in the theory of the relationship of the EKilAKKS. m States, involves the practical absurdity that a State mav, at one and the same time, he in the Union for the enjoyment of its benefits, and out of the Union in bearing its burdens. South Carolina, in the ordinance, declares that in case of the applica- tion of physical force, on the part of the General Government, to execute the tariff laws, she will secede and set up a separate Government. To meet this threat. Senator Clayton declared and proved that State secession is a less evil than State nulli- fication. The country was in a very unhappy condition. South Caro- lina had passed the ordinance of nullification, and was threat- ening secession. The Southern States sympathized witli her. Virginia had passed a resolve that she expected both the Gen- eral Government and South Carolina to keep the peace. 3. General Jackson was the man for the occasion ; and yet his action in the premises and his motives have been misunder- stood. a. He was opposed to liigh tariffs, and thus agreed witli Southern men in regard to the cause of the difficulty. 1). lie earnestly advised the repeal, or rather a modification of the tarifi'laws, which had created the difficulty. This he did repeatedly in his messages to Congress, and j ust before the or- dinance was j)assed. c. lie claimed to be a native of South Carolina, and could, therefore, address the inhabitants of that State in a manner tliat would inspire confidence, in his endeavors to win them Ijack into the Union. While he thus claims kindred with them, they would feel inclined to allow his claims, and yield to his per- suasion. Listen to his language of kindness which he addresses to them in his proclamation : " Fellow-citizens of my native State ! Let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the 2">enalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would have over his children, whom he saw rushing to ruin. In that paternal language, with tliat paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by the men who arc either deceived themselves, (U- wish to deceive you." d. He asked authority from Congress to use force, if it should 112 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. Le necessary, in the collection of duties in South Carolina. Congress gave liim this authority, but it also passed the com- promise bill, which -would render the application of force un- necessary. He was resolute to execute the laws, even upon his native State, but he preferred a peaceful settlement of the diffi- culties, such as was accomplished by his own wisdom, and that of the very able men in the Cabinet, and in the Senate and House of Representatives. 4. Mr. Clay must liave been greatly disappointed in the result of the election of 1832 ; General Jacksox receiving 210 votes, and he only 49. Besides losing his election, which his friends hoped to carry by means of his " American system," he saw that the system itself was in danger. That system was made by his party one of the important issues in that election, and the decision of the Presidential electors seemed to be against that system as well as against himself. General Jack- son, too, in his recent message, had recommended an alteration of the tariff laws, a recommendation that would be very apt to take effect. Moreover, Mr. Clay, noble-spirited as he was, must have had some " compunctious visitings of nature," in view of the sectional difficulties which had been brought about by the in- troduction of his favorite system into the legislation of the coun- try. He had left the Democratic party, of which he was an ornament, to form a party of his own, which had been success- ful in carrying his favorite measure, but which had not been successful in the late Presidential campaign. Self-reliant as he M-as, he could hardly fail to have some misgivings as to the wisdom of his course, which had helped to bring the country into its present j^erilous condition. He was, without doubt, anxious to settle the sectional difficulties in a way honorable to both sections. When Mr. Clay introduced his compromise bill for the set- tlement of these difficulties, he accompanied it with the declara- tion " that, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the tarifT stands in imminent danger. If it should even be preserved during this session, it must fall at the next session." In the course of his speech, he said : " I wish to sec the tariff .'separated from the politics of the country, that business EEMARKS. 113 men may go to work in security, ^vitli some prospect of stability in our laws, and without every thing being staked on the issue of our elections, as it were on the hazards of the die." In reference to the state of sectional feeling for and against the tariff, he said : " I am anxious to find out some principle of mutual accommodation, to satisfy, as far as practicable, both parties ; to increase the stability of our legislation ; and, at some distant day, not too distant when we take into view the magnitude of the interests which are involved, to bring down the rate of duties to that revenue standard for Avhich our oppo- nents have so long contended." Mr. FoKSYTH, of Georgia, in his reply to Mr. Clay, re- marked : " Tlie avowed object of the bill would meet with uni- versal approbation. It was a project to harmonize the people, and it could come from no better source than from the 2:entle- man from Kentucky ; for to no one else were we more indebted than to him, for the discord and the discontent which agitate us." " The Senator from Kentucky says the tariff is in danger ; aye, sir, it is at its last gasp. It has received the irremediable wound ; no hellebore can cure it." Mr. John Davis, of Massachusetts, in the House of Repre- sentatives, said, in reference to this bill : " But I do object to a compromise which destines the East to the altar. No victim, in my judgment, is required — none is necessary ; and yet you propose to bind us hand and foot, to pour out our blood on the altar, and sacrifice us as a burnt-offering to appease the unnatu- ral and unfounded discontent of the South — a discontent, I fear, having deeper root than the tariff", and will continue when that is foro-otten." 5. Mr. Calhoux, like Mr, Clay, was worthy of the highest office in the gift of the nation, and, like him, he aspired after it. He was a leading member of the Democratic part}^, and had acted with Mr. Clay in promoting the war of 1812. To the " American system," which Mr. ClxIy had labored during three Presidential campaigns to establish, he was strongly opposed. lie was an advocate of free trade, except for the purposes of a revenue, and was in favor of only incidental protection to man- ufactures. He enjoyed the confidence of the Democratic party, and, indeed, of the whole country, as an able statesman and an 114 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKST. lionest iiican. It was predicted of liim at an early period, tliat if lie would bide liis time, lie would ccrtaiuly be President of the United States. But now in 1833, both he and Mr. Clay seemed to be as far off as ever from the position they both coveted. They need not, therefore, now be jealous of each other. They were both patriots ; they both hated General Jackson ; they were both willing to unite and save the country, and to thwart any mili- tary schemes for the subjugation of South Carolina. On the introduction of the compromise bill, Mr. Calhoun said : " He who loved the Union must desire to see this great agitating question brought to a termination. Until it should be termi- nated, we could not expect the restoration of peace and har- mony, or a sound condition of things throughout the country. He believed that to the unhappy divisions which had kept the Xorthern and Southern States apart from each other, the present entirely degraded condition of the country was solely attrib- utable." To Mr. Clay, and Mr. Calhoun, and General Jackson, it was principally owing that these sectional difficulties connected with the tariff were settled, and the land had rest for a time and a season. It is a remarkable fact that Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, States that had great difficulties with the General Government, during the Administration of Mr. Jefferson and Mr. IMadison, on account of their commercial interests, as set forth in the doings of the Hartford Convention, did not give a single vote for the settlement of the sectional difficulties, by the passage of the compromise bill proposed by Mr. Clay. CHAPTER X. ME. VAN BUEEn's ADMINISTEATIOK. Makcu 4, 1837— March 4, 1841. Me. Yan Bueen being regarded as a ITorthern man -n-itli Soutliern principles, was not elected upon sectional issues ; tlioiigli botli before and after his election such issues "were pressed upon the attention of the people, both North and South. In the latter part of General Jackson's Administration, and Mdiile the politicians Avere looking out upon the country for available Presidential candidates, the subject of slavery was forced upon the attention of Congress, in the shape of petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. One of these, signed by SOO ladies from the State of Xew York, was presented in the House of Pepresentatives in Febru- ary, 1835. And another in the same month was presented from Massachusetts, signed by l,2'i9 male citizens, and by 2,6J:3 ladies. Petitions like these from different portions of the JSTorthern States were pressed on the attention of both Houses of Congress for the space of four years, or until the session of Congress immediately before the next Presidential campaign. One of the last was presented by Mr. Clay, Feb. 13, 1810, as he said " in deference to the right of petition, which he admit- ted in its full force. He thought the crisis of this unfortunate agitation was passed ; it was certainly passed when Congress convened in December last. Whether the political uses which have since been made of it may not revive it, and revive it 116 THE SECTIONAL COXTEOVERSY. ' ' in a more imposing form, lie was not prepared to say." ' The abolition of slavery was provided for in this petition. The ground taken in the petitions generally, was, that slavery is wrong or improper, and that as by Article 1st, section 8th, Con\.\t in requisition to resist the passage of the bill. As an exponent of the general feeling, the " protest " of the clergymen of ISTew England may be taken. The object of the protest may be found in the circular which was " simultaneously sent to every clergyman in New Eng- land," and which was signed by Charles Lowell, Lyman Beechee, Baron Stowe, Sebastian Streeter, committee of clergymen of Boston, and was dated Feb. 22, 185L " It is lioped," that circular declares, " that every one of you will ap- pend your names to it, and thus furnish to the nation and the age the sublime and influential spectacle of the gi'eat Christian hocly of the North (?) united as one man in favor of freedom and of solemn plighted faith." 178 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEEST. " If you have already, either as a private Christian or as a clergyman, signed any similar document, please to sign this also, as it is earnestly desired to embrace in this movement the clerical voice of ISTew England. " It is respectfully submitted, whether the present is not a crisis of sufficient magnitude and imminence of danger to the liberties and integrity of our nation, to warrant and even de- mand the services of the clergy of all denominations, in arous- ing the masses of the people to its v^ompreheusion, through the press, and even the pulpit." CLEKICAL rUOTEST. " To the Honorahle the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled : " The undersigned, clergymen of different denominations in Xew England, hereby m the name of Almighty God, and in His presence, do solemnly j^ro^^s^ against what is known as the ISTebraska Eill, or any repeal or modification of the existing legal prohibition of slavery in that part of the national domain which it is proposed to organize into the territories of N^ebraska and Kansas. "We protest against it as a great moral wrong, as a breach of faith, eminently unjust to the moral principles of the community, and subversive of all confidence in national engagements ; as a measure full of danger to the peace, and even the existence, of our beloved Union, and exposing us to the righteous judgments of the Almighty; and your protest- ants, as in duty bound, will ever pray. — Boston, Massachusetts, March 1, 185i." My limits do not allow me to quote the remarks made in the Senate respecting the " appeal " and the " protest." The ground taken in the " appeal " in opposition to the bill for the repeal of the slavery restriction north of 3G^ 30' was, first, that it would be contrary to the " original settled policy of the United States," as proved by the ordinance of 1787, to permit slavery in the territories ; and secondly, that it would be a violation of a " sacred pedge," or compact made in 1820, in the Missouri Compromise. CLEEICAL PKOTEST. 179 Mr. Douglas denied that it was tlic " original settled policy " of the United States to prohibit slavery in the terri- tories, inasmuch as slavery was permitted and protected in the territory of Tennessee ; and in the legislation respecting Missis- sippi, the ordinance of 17S7 was adopted, with the excej)tio7i of the anti-slavery clause. " That the repeal was a gross violation of a sacred pledge," has been extensively denied both before and since its accom- plishment. The following are some of the grounds of the repeal, in the words of another : 1. " The South was not bound by that compact or compro- mise, because it Avas made without the least consideration ; that is, because she received nothing for what she conceded. For Missouri, as our adversaries now admit, had a perfect right to admission without any stipulation on the part of the South ; she had a perfect right to admission, says the Supreme Court of the United States, without any such terms or conditions, under and by the Federal Constitution alone. If she had to pay for this right, it was because the dominant party at the ISTorth then took their stand against the Constitution of the country, and nothing less, it was believed, would save the Union from shipwreck, dissolution, and ruin. The line of 36^ 30' was then obtained, or rather extorted, without a ' valuable consideration.' Here is what is called a nudum pactum, a con- tract that is void, and it imposed no sort of obligation either in law or in conscience. 2. " The South was not bound by the Compromise of 1820, because it was not fulfilled by the JN^orth." The facts on this point are to be found in the preceding pages. 3. " The South was not bound by the Compromise of 1820, because it was unconstitutional," as has since been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Moreover, some !N"orthern statesmen declared they did not esteem it binding as a compact, inasmuch as there were no competent parties to it. Mr. Douglas, after having spoken of what he deemed the impropriety of said " appeal " in the circumstances of its presen- tation, uses the following language : " I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geo- graphical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate, 180 THE SECTIONAL COXTROVEESY. and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish in- stitutions for a people ; yet out of a regard for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri Compromise so long as it vras in force, and advocated its exten- sion to the Pacific. Now when that has been abandoned, when it has Leon superseded, wlien a great principle of self-govern- ment has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that prin- ciple, and abide in good faith not only by the letter, but by the spirit, of the last compromise, (namely, that of 1850, in which the right of framing their own constitutions, wdiether by the admission or prohibition of slavery, was conceded to Utah and New Mexico.) '• Sir, I do not recognize the right of the Abolitionists of this country to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have done in their proclamation. Let them show when and where I have ever violated a compact. I have proved that I stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its con- tinuance in 1848. I have proved that the Freesoilers and Abolitionists were the guilty j)arties who violated that compro- mise then. I should like to compare notes with those Abo- lition confederates about adherence to compromises. When did they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made ? " Did not every Abolitionist and Freesoiler in America de- nounce the Missouri Compromise in 1820 ? Did they not for years hunt down ravenously for his blood every man who assisted in making that compromise ? Did they not in 1845, when Texas was annexed, denounce all of us who went for the annexation of Texas and for the continuation of the Missouri Compromise line through it ? Did they not in 1848 denounce me as a slavery propagandist for standing by the princij^les of the Missouri Compromise, and for proposing to continue the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean ? Did they not violate and repudiate it then ? Is not the charge of bad faith true as to every Abolitionist in America, instead of being true as to me and the committee, and those who advocate this bill? " They talk about the bill being a violation of the compro- CLERICAL PKOTEST. 181 mise measures of 1S50, Who can show me a man in cither House of Congress who was in favor of the compromise measures of 1850, and who is not now in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon the suljject of slavery according to the provisions of my bill ? Is there one ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado has been raised by the Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists alone. They have made an impression on the public mind in the way wliich I have mentioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts ; and this whole organization against the compromise measures of 1850 is an Abolition movement. I j)resume they had some hope of getting a few tender-footed Democrats into their plot; and acting on what they supposed they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that their address was signed by the Senators and a majority of the Representatives from the State of Ohio ; but when we come to examine the signatures we find no one Whig there, no one Democrat there, none but pure, unadulterated Abolitionists. * * " I^ow I ask the friends and the opponents of the measure to look at it as it is. Is not the question involved, the simple one. Whether the people of the territories shall be allowed to do as they please upon the cpiestion of slavery, subject only to the limitation of the Constitntion ? "- * ''' " When you propose to give them a territorial government, do you not acknowledge that they are capable of self-govern- ment ? Having made that acknowledgment, why should you not allow them to exercise the rights of legislation ? Oh, these Abolitionists are entirely willing to concede all this, with one exception. They say they are willing to trust the territorial legislature, under the limitations of the Constitution, to legislate on the rights of inheritance, to legislate in regard to religion, education, morals, to legislate in regard to the relations of hus- band and wife, of parent and child, and guardian and ward, upon every thing pertaining to the dearest rights and interests of white men, but they are not willing to trust them to legislate in regard to a few miserable negroes. That is their single ex- ception. They acknowledge that the people of the territories are capable of deciding for themselves concerning white men, but not in relation to neo-roes. The real irist of the matter is 182 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEHST. this : Does it require any higher degree of civilization, intelli- gence, bravery, and sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for white men ? If it does, we ought to adopt the Abolition doc- trine and go with them against this bill. If it does not, if we are willing to trust the people with the great, sacred, funda- mental right of prescribing their own institutions, consistent with the Constitution of the country, %ve must vote for this bill as reported by the Committee on Territories. That is the only question involved in the bill." Mr. Cass, while the Nebraska bill was under consideration in the Senate, delivered a speech in which the following para- graphs are found : " Mr. President, for some years we have heard a great deal about the fundamental articles of compact, by which govern- ments for the territory north-west of the Ohio were origi- nally instituted ; and a good many erroneous impressions have prevailed concerning them. What were they ? Having lived under a territorial government in that region many years of my life, the history of the organizations of these political communities is perfectly familiar to me. The Congress of the old Confederation, in 1787, passed a law establishing the north- western territory. It was styled an ordinance, and many have supposed that it derived peculiar solenmity from the use of this term. But this is a mistake. " Be it ordained," etc., was the formula of enactment before the Constitution, and this ordi- nance had no more validity than the usual acts of the old Con- gress. It has been supposed, too, that the whole of this act constituted a compact. That is an equal error. " Now, sir, what is a compact ? I have just adverted to the dictionary, to the old and standard English lexicographer, to ascertain its meaning, and here it is : 'A compact is a contract, an accord, or agreement between two or more to do or forbear something.' Now, sir, in applying this definition to the case before us, let us inquire who were the ' two or more ' parties or persons by whom this contract was made? It will be hard to find them. Tlie law was passed, as I have said, by the old Confederation ; and there never was, in fact, any other party to it. What did they undertake to do ? They undertook to establish five articles containing various provisions of more CLEEICAi PKOTEST. 1S3 or less importance, affecting the rights and interests of the people then occupying, or who might in all time to come oc- cupy, the region over which the ordinance extended. And they declared that they should never be altered but in the mode pointed out. And will any man seriously contend that is a compact ? What other party was there to it ? There were some thousands of people then living in that country, not one of whom heard of this contract, which was forever to bind them for years and years after its promulgation. It is an insult to common sense to say, that they and their posterity are bound by such a one-sided instrument as that. " Besides, if there had not been a single man in those re- gions, how could a compact be established which was forever to operate on a people thereafter to exist there, when no pro- vision was made for submitting it to their assent, under any circumstances or in any future time ? It is idle, sir, to talk of the obligatory nature of a compact thus declared to be such by one party, without the existence of any other party at the time, and without any arrangement for procuring its concurrence when such party should come into existence. This ordinance is destitute of the first essence of mutual obligation. " But, sir, independent of the fatal objection of the want of parties, there was another equally fatal, and that was the want of power. Xothing was more certain than that the Con- gress of the Confederation had not the slightest authority to establish territorial governments ; and there is no man who will turn to the Articles of Confederation and examine them, who will have the least doubt upon the subject." "Mr. Madison said, in speaking upon the subject, ' all this has been done,' that is, governments have been organized, ' without the least color of constitutional authority.' And Mr. Adams said ' that the ordinance of 1789 had been passed by the old Congress of the Confederation without authority from the States.' " These remarks prove that the States of the north-west terri- tory have full power to establish slavery in them if they see fit. " The Senator from Illinois, Mr. Douglas, told us the other day, proved to us, indeed, that his State recognized the exist- ence of slavery, notwithstanding its eternal interdiction in the 184 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. ordinance of 1789. And I have never heard, until recently, tliat the power of the other north-western States to do the same thing was either doubted or denied. If they cannot by their conventions regulate the condition of slavery as they please, they have not a just political equality in the Union," EEMAKKS. 1. After the ISTebraska bill was passed in the Senate, the '• Emigrant Aid Society " was incoq)orated by the Massachu- setts Legislature, on the 4th of May, 1854, which was some weeks before the bill passed the House and became a law. A new charter was received in February, 1855. The object of its formation was to make Kansas a free State, by furnishing aid to emigrants who would go there for that purpose. The gen- eral policy of Massachusetts had been to aid men to stay in the Commonwealth, by establishing manufactures, and by other means, rather than to aid them to leave it. 2. The debates in Washington, and the passage of the bill, created a powerful sectional excitement throughout the country, but esj)ecially in Kansas, where there was a severe struggle be- tween the pro-slavery and the Free-soil party for the political ascendency. Lecturers went through portions of the JSTorthern States to obtain recruits, and money, and arms, describing tlic physical advantages of the territory to be such that it could be made a terrestrial paradise. The love of adventure, the love of money, the love of liberty, and hatred or jealousy of the South, were appealed to successfully for obtaining emigrants. Isor were Southern men idle. Border ruffians and free State ruffians met in Kansas as a battle-ground. And elsewhere " shrieking, bleeding Kansas " was successfully employed by demagogues to electioneer for them, as the especial friends of liberty, or of slavery, as the case might be. Li Congress, too, those who spoke on this subject became, if possible, more intemperate in their language. Mr. Sumner's speech entitled " The crime against Kansas," and Mr. Brooke's assault on him for what he said in that speech concerning South Carolina and Senator Butlek, were exponents of the feeling which to some extent existed in the two sections of the country to wdiich these gentlemen be- EEMAKKS. 185 longed, and proved tlie means of extending that jealousy and making it more intense. 3. Was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which was the great measure of General Pierce's Administration so far as sectional interests were concerned, a judicious measure ? It seemed to be the occasion of aggravating, rather than of dimin- ishing the sectional difficulties and the sectional hatred. But if another course had been taken, it might have proved the oc- casion of as great or even greater sectional difficulties and sec- tional hatred. In this latter case, perhaps, there might not have been an opportunity to ring the changes upon the phrases, the " traitor Douglas," the " Kansas swindle." There might not have been so much blackguardism and disgraceful person- alities in Congress, or as much ruffianism and bad blood gen- erated in the States, or as much blood shed in the territory, or as many dragon's teeth sown broadcast over the laud which have since started up armed men. But when we undertake to judge of the comparative wisdom of two measures, one of which has been adopted, simply on the ground of results, we are in danger of running into error for the reason that one term of the comparison is wanting. One class of results we never can know, namely, the results of the meas- ure that was not adopted. Human passions are refractory sub- jects to deal with, especially as exhibited in two great ]3olitical parties, jealous of each other, each intent on the acquisition of political power, and they will often practically convert the wisest measures into causes of national arrogance and injury. After the passage of the Kansas and l!s"ebraska bill, if things had taken their natural course, and men had emigrated west- ward according to the more general practice along the same parallels of latitude ; if there had not been any unnatural stimu- lus given to emigration by " Emigrant Aid Societies " on the one hand, and " Friendly Societies " on the other ; if means had not been adopted to address the combativeness of young men and to inflame their passions and their conscience, and to appeal to their love of gain, and to put arms into their hands, as if they were to go against enemies to win an empire, the results of tlie repeal of the slavery restriction north of 36"^ 30' might have been very different from what they were, and the measure 186 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKST. might in this case have proved by the results to be a wise one. In regard to the application of physical force for coiTCCting the evils of tlie times connected with slavery, Mr. Sewakd, in his speech delivered at Detroit, speaks in the following judicious terms : " You ask, how are these great evils to be corrected, these great dangers to be avoided ? I answer, it is to be done not, as some of you have supposed, by heated debates, sustained by rifles and revolvers at "Washington ; nor yet by sending armies, and supplies, and Sharp's rifles into Kansas. I con- demn no necessary exercise of self-defence in any place where public safety is necessary to practice of the real duties of cham- pions of freedom. But this is a contest in which the race is not to the physically swift, nor the battle to those who have the most muscular streugth. Least of all is it to be won by retal- iation and revenge." It was unfortunate that the geographical line of 3G^ 30', established by the Missouri Compromise, was not made the rule of division afterwards, by being extended to the Pacific Ocean, according to the proposal of Mr. Douglas. It would have pre- vented the disputes that afterwards arose. This the ITorthern members repeatedly refused to do. Another mode for settling the difticulty had to be found, namely, the Constitutional mode. If the geographical mode of division adopted in the Compromise of 1820 could not be carried out, then the principles of the Com- promise of 1850 had to be applied, namely, the principle of popular sovereignty. In general, it may be asserted that the Missouri Compromise never ought to have been made ; that being made, it ought not to have been repealed ; and having been repealed, it ought never to be restored without some modification. 4. It is not known to the writer that any similar " appeal " by members of Congress, while a question was pending, was ever before made to the people of the United States. Neither is it known to the writer that any similar " protest " was ever addressed to Congress by the clergymen of JSTew England, in their professional character, as distinguished from "private citizens." CHAPTER XV. JAMES Buchanan's adjiinistkatiox. March 4, 1857— Makch 4, 18G1. Mk. Buchanan ■was the candidate of the Democratic party throughout both the Northern and the Soutliern States. Mr. Fillmore was the candidate of the Union party, embracing Conservative Whigs and Americans thronghout the Northern and the Southern States. John C. Fkemont was the candidate of the Re]3nblican party, which was confined mainly to the Xorthern or non-slaveliolding States. This Last party grew up out of the troubles and excitements connected with the settle- ment of Kansas, and was cemented by a common feeling of op- position to slavery and the common hope of gaining political power. It was composed, in part, of the old Liberty party and of the Freesoil party, and in part of the Abolition wing of the Whig party, and in part of others who were disgusted with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The origin of the party has been referred to an anti-ISTebraska convention hold in Au- burn, ]^cw York, Sept. 27, 185J:, which 2:)assed the following resolution : " liesolvcd that wo recommend that a convention of Delegates from the Free States, equal in number to their Eepresentatives in Congress, be held in Syracuse, JST. Y., on the 4th of July, 1856, to nominate candidates for the Presidency and the Yice-presidency of the United States for the next presiden- tial election." This resolution was adopted by tremendous cheering. It was also moved to call this the " Kepublican Or- ganization ; " which resolution was also carried. A leading member of that same convention declared it to be an object of that Republican party to " employ all constitutional measures to restrain and cripple slavery where it now exists." 13 188 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. The proposed convention was held in Philadelphia, in which only the Free States were represented. Among the Resolutions passed were the two following : " Resolved, That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of indi- viduals, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be main- tained. " Resolved, Tliat the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the Territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Terri- tories those twin relics of barbarism — polygamy and slavery." I do not quote these resolutions to show their evident incon- sistency in admitting the sovereignty of Congress over the Ter- ritories, with power to prohibit slavery therein ; and then de- nying the power to legislate slavery into any Territory, but only to exhibit the sectional relations and bearings, and the spirit of the convention. The ends aimed at were sectional, as were the means used, and the spirit manifested, and the men brought forward as candidates. IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SECTIONAL? Mr. Fillmore, in a speech delivered at Albany, in the sum- mer of 1856, not long after his return from abroad, held the fol- lowing language in relation to the politics of the country, and the approaching election : " Sir, you have been pleased to say that I have the union of these States at heart. This, sir, is most true ; for if there be one object dearer to me than any other it is the unity, prosper- ity, and glory of this great Republic. I confess frankly, sir, that I fear it is in danger. I say nothing of any particular sec- tion, much less of the several candidates before the peoj^le. I presume they are all honorable men. But, sir, what do we see ? An exasperated state of feeling between the IS'orth and the South on the most exciting of all topics, resulting in blood- shed and organized military array. But this is not all, sir. We see a political party presenting candidates for the Presidency THE REPUBLICAN TARTY SECTIONAL. 189 and tlie Yiee-Presidency selected for the first time from tlic Free States alone, witli tlie avowed purpose of electing these candi- dates by suffrages from one part of the Union only, to rule over the whole United States. " Can it be possible that those who are engaged in such a measure can have seriously reflected on the. consecpiences -which must inevitably follow in case of success ? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our Southern brethren would submit to be governed by such a Chief Magistrate? "Would he be required to follow the same rule prescribed by those who elected him, in making his appointments ? If a man living south of Mason and Dixon's line be not worthy to be President or "Vice-President, would it be proper to select one from the same cpiarter as one of his cabinet council, or to repre- sent the nation in a foreign country, or, indeed, to collect the revenue, or administer the laws of the United States ? If not, what new rule is the President to adopt for selection to office, that the peojDle themselves discard in selecting him ? " These are serious but practical questions, and in order to appreciate them fully, it is only necessary to turn the tables upon ourselves, and suppose that the South, having a majority of the electoral votes, should declare that they would only have slave-holders for President and Vice-President, and should select such by their exclusive suffrages to rule over us at the Xorth, do you think we would submit to it ? l^o, not for one moment. And do you believe your Southern brethren less sensible on this subject than you are, or less jealous of their rights ? If you do, let me tell you you are certainly mistaken. And therefore you must see, that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads in- evitably to the destruction of this beautiful fabric, reared by our forefathers, cemented by their blood, and bequeathed to us as a priceless inheritance. " I tell you, my friends, that I speak warmly on this sub- ject, for I feel that we are in danger. I am determined to make a clean breast of it. I will wash my hands of the conse- quences, whatever they may be ; and I tell you that we are treading on the brink of a volcano that is liable at any moment to burst forth and overwhelm the nation." There were many threats of disunion in case of the election 190 TUE SECTIOXAL CONTEOVEESY. of Mr. Feemont. Mr. Buenett, member of Congress from Kentucky, after speaking of the strong attachment of his State to the Union, goes on to say : " But, sir, if Jonx C, Fkemont should be elected, pledged as he is to make -war upon the insti- tutions of the South, composed as liis Administration would be of men from one se.ction of the Union, filled as the Federal offices would be with sectional men, all pledged to make a com- mon cause against the South, with a Congress backing up his Administration, such as the present House, who conceive no measure too unconstitutional, too revolutionary, too disgraceful, to meet their sanction, .so as it makes war upon the South, the frightful mien of disunion forces itself on them as far the prefer- able alternative between it and oppression and disgrace in the Union. They would then still be mindful of its past glories, the memories of its great statesmen, the heroic deeds of valor of its noted warriors, and prefer rather to cut short its existence than blacken those brilliant recollections with the record of its future disgrace." This is a type of the feeling that prevailed in the South generally, in opposition to the Bepublican party. And in the Republican party there was also a spirit of intol- erance and disunion. Mr. Horace Gkeelet declared : " I have no doubt but the Free and the Slave States ought to be sepa- rated ■^'^ "" The Union is not worth supporting in connection with the South." Mr. E. P. IIuklbukt, a lawyer in Herkimer, New York, made the following declaration : " Rather than ad- mit another slave State into the Confederacy, I would dissolve it. Rather than endure tlie curse of such another four years' governmental infamy as Pierce, Douglas, and Co. have inflicted on us, I would dissolve it, so help me Heaven." Mr. G. W. JuLiEN, who had been a member of Congress from Indiana, in a sj)eech made the following declaration on behalf of the Re- publican party : " I tell you we are a sectional party. It is not alone a fight between the North and the South ; it is a figlit between freedom and slavery ; between God and the Devil ; between heaven and hell." [Loud applause.] A. P. Burlin- GAME, member from Mass., said : " When we shall have elected a President, as we Avill, who will not be the President of a party, nor of a section, but the tribune of the people, and after we have exterminated a fcAv more miserable doughfaces from the THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 191 Korth, tlien if tlic slave Senate "U'ill not give way, ^ve will grind it between tlie upper and nctlier mill-stone of our power." SiMox Bkown, ex-Lieutenant-Governor of Massachusetts, said : " The object to be accomplished is this, for the Free States to take possession of the Government." Tkuman Smith, ex-Senator of Connecticut, declared : " Should Mr. Buchanan be elected, it may be written down as certam that, within two years from the fourth of March next, Kansas will be delivered up to the Mo- lochs of slavery. She will be brought in as a Slave State." These extracts show the state of feeling in both sections of the country. Extensively at the South there was a determina- tion to secede from the Union for the reasons stated by Mr. BuENETT, in case Mr. FuEiiONT should be elected President. THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. Just after President Buchanan's inauguration, the Supreme Court of the United States made the famous decision in the case of Deed Scott, which seemed to settle certain political cpiestions which had long been pending in the public mind. In the act of Congress, by which Kansas and ISTebrasha became Territories, the slavery restriction which ajjplied to all territoiy north of 36° 30' was repealed. Tlie scope and effect of the language of repeal were not left in doubt. It was declared in terms to be " the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own in- stitutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Deed Scott, in the year 1854, was a negro slave belonging to Dr. Emeeson, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year. Dr. E:meeson took the said Scott to the military post at Eock Island in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until April or May, 1856. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. E:irEESON removed to the military post at Fort Snelling, situated on the west bank of the Mississippi River, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States from France, and situated north of the lati- 192 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. tude of 3G° 30' north, and north of the State of Missouri. Dr. Emp:rson held the plaintiff, Deed Scott, in slavery nntil the year ISoS. The court decided that said Deed Scott did not ob- tain title to his liberty from the fact that his master took him first from Missouri to Illinois, where negro slavery docs not ex- ist by law, and next to the territory north of 3G° 30', -where, by the Missouri Compromise, slavery was prohibited. In deciding this case upon certain principles, those prin- ciples had to be examined and settled. 1. It was decided that a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a " citizen " within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. 2. It was decided that the clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was lawful to deal in as articles of property, and to hold as slaves. 3. It was decided that since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subserpient law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges se- cured to citizens by that instrument. 4. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now, according to its true meaning and intentions, when it was framed and adopted. 5. The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the territory and other property of the United States, applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were colonies of Great Britain, and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confed- eration of States, in the Treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government, by treaty or conquest from a foreign nation. 6. During the time it remains a territory. Congress may legis- late over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in re- lation to citizens of the United States, and may establish a Ter- helper's book. 193 ritorial Government, and the form of this local government must be regulated by the discretion of Congress, but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Con- stitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property. 7. The territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of the United States for tlieir common and equal benefit, through their agent or trustee, the Federal Government ; Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Government and the citizens both enter it with their re- spective rights defined and limited by the Constitution. 8. Congress has no right to prohibit the citizens of any par- ticular State or States from taking up their home there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Kor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to do to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and com- mon benefit, and if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same tenns. 9. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the terri- tory, any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognizes as property. 10. The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges the General Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description, than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. 11. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he re- moves to the territory in question to reside, is an exercise of authority over private property Avhich is not warranted by tlie Constitution ; and the removal of the plaintifi" by his owner to that territory gave him no title to freedom. helper's book. After the nomination for Speaker in the House of Kepresent- atives for the 36th Congress, on Dec. 5, 1859, Mr. Clark, member from Missouri, ofiered the following; resolution : 194 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVERSY. " "Whereas certain members of this House, now in nomination for Si^eaker, did endorse and recommend the book hereinafter mentioned, " licsolvcd, That the doctrines and sentiments of a certain book, called ' The impending crisis of the South — How to meet it,'' purporting to have been written by one IIinton Eowan Helper, are insurrectionary and hostile to the domestic peace and tranquillity of the country, and that no member of this House, who has endorsed and recommended it, or the compend from it, is fit to be Speaker of this House." The design of the book was to hasten the crisis which it pre- dicts as " impending," by detailing the wretchedness of the Slave States ; " the aim of the revolution " desired ; " the stupid masses in the South," who are described as the " white victims" of slavery ; the results as the " sum of all villanies," as slavery is described to be ; the dej)endence of the South on the ISTorth for the necessary or the convenient articles of life ; with " a revolutionary appeal to Southern non-slaveholders ; " with the declaration that " the North must seize the riches of the South," and " that the revolution must free the slaves ; " and that the l^orth is too scrupulous ; that the revolution must take place, " peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must." " The hanner to stand or die ly. Inscribed on the banner which we herewith unfurl to the world, with the fixed deter- mination to stand by it or die by it, unless one of more virtuous efiicacy shall be presented, are the mottoes which in substance embody the principles, as we conceive, that should govern us in our patriotic warfare against the most subtle and insidious foe that ever menaced the inalienable rights, and liberties, and dear- est interests of America." " 1. Thorough organization and independent political action on the part of the non-slaveholding whites at the South. "2. Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders; never another vote to any one who advocates the retention and perpetuation of human slavery. " 3. No co-operation with pro-slavery ; no fellowship with them in religion ; no affiliation with them in society. " 4. No patronage to pro-slavery merchants ; no guestship in pro-slavery hotels ; no fees to pro-slavery lawyers ; no employ- HELPER S BOOK. 195 ment of pro-slaveiy physicians ; no audience to pro-slavery parsons. " 5. No more hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders. " 6. Abrupt discontinuance of subscription to pro-slavery newspapers. " 7. The greatest possible encouragement to free white labor." These are portions of the extracts from Helpee's book, which, at the request of the mover, were read by the clerk of the House. Portions omitted are more outrageously bitter and insulting than the portions quoted. Mr. Clakk, the mover of the resolution, after the reading of the extracts, proceeded to say : " I have had that document read, in order that the country, as well as this body, might be informed of the position held by certain gentlemen of the lie- publican party, and especially by those who have been recom- mended for the Speakership of this House. The extracts which have been read, are, in substance, true extracts from the book itself, which is in the House. Those extracts have been exam- ined and marked. It appears by those extracts that nearly all the Republican members of the last Congress, and certain mem- bers of the present, recommended certain things to the non- slaveholders of the South ; and among them, non-fellowship either socially or politically, with slaveholders. If such be the purpose of the gentlemen of this House who signed that paper, let me ask, has it indeed come to this, that gentlemen of the !N^ortli who live under institutions secured to them by the Con- stitution of their country, which institutions Ave have never at- tempted to invade ; that gentlemen living in a bond of union, and under a Constitution that cost so much blood and so much treasure, and under which, by the co-operation of both Xortli and South, our country has grown to its present strength and importance — has it come to this, that tlicy have got their own consent, and expect the country will agree to it, to advise those of the South who do not happen to own slaves, to rise in rebel- lion and destroy the slave interest, part by non-intcrcourso in religion, or socially or politically ; and then by advising them not to wait to strike the blow until their arms are powerless, but to exterminate the odious institution, peaccablj' if they can, forcibly if they must ? Such are the directions recommended 19G THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. by the paper which was signed by at least two members of this Ilouse, who have been recommended by the Eepublicans for the Speakership. "'•" "'' " Sir : Do these gentlemen suppose that slaveholders who have won the confidence of tlieir constituents, and wlio have been sent here to assist in making laws and preserving the Con- stitution, and keeping the Government intact, feel themselves honored by their association ? If they do, they are greatly de- ceived. We have been on terms of personal intimacy with them. Every gentleman in this House who knows me, knows that my intercourse witli them has been marked with the ut- most urbanity. I have met Representatives in this Hall coming from all parts of the country, as my compeers in every relation in life. But can I continue to do so, except gentlemen disclaim having advised my constituents — half of whom are non-slave- holders, to have no intercourse with me ; not to visit the church where I worship ; to strike down and ostracize slaveholding ministers ; to abandon hotels where there are slave waiters ; to discountenance patronage to newspapers that are conducted by slaveholders ? If they expect to play this game, the sooner it is avowed the better. '-^ * " These gentlemen come in and say that the riches of the South are neglected by the bad management of the South ; that the accursed plague of slavery does it ; and, therefore, that the non-slaveholders of the South should rise in their majesty — peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must — take their arms, drive out the plague of slavery, take possession of the country, and dedicate it to freedom. " That is the sentiment of the book which those gentlemen recommend to have circulated gratuitously all over the South. Are such men fit to preside over the destinies of our common country ? " In this book occurs the following paragraph : " This is the outline of our scheme for the obliteration of slavery in the Southern States. Let it be acted upon with due promptitude, and as certain as truth is mightier than error, fifteen years will not elapse before every foot of territory from the mouth of the Delaware to the Eio Grande will glitter with the jewels of free- dom." THE JOHN BROWN INVASION. 197 Tliere was a siibscrij)tion set on foot in tlie city of New York for the gratuitous distribution of one hundred thousand copies. To the fund thus raised, it was said that the Governor of New York contributed one hundred dollars. Besides tlie sixty-eight members of Congress who recom- mended Helper's book, Senator Wade of Ohio said : " I had looked over the book, and saw nothing objectionable." Senator Seward also spoke favorably of it. A portion of a pamphlet was read, Dec. 20, 1859, at the re- quest of Mr. Yallandigham, " which was extensively circulated in the Northern, Southern, and "Western States of this Union, and which contains the plan of associations to be formed for the purpose of carrying on hostilities against a portion of this Con- federacy." After certain annunciation of principles, and after certain preliminaries, it was proposed " to land military forces in the Southern States, who shall raise the standard of freedom, and call the slaves to it, and such free persons as may be will- ing to join it. " Our plan is to make war openly or secretly as circum- stances may dictate, upon the property of the slaveholders and their abettors, not for its destruction, if that can be easily avoided, but to convert it to the use of the slaves. If it cannot thus be converted, we advise its destruction. Teach the slaves to hum their masters' h^dlcUngs, to kill their cattle and liogs, to conceal and destroy farming iitensils, to abandon labor in seed time and harvest, and let the crops perish. Make slave labor unprofitable in this way if it can be done in no other. "To make slaveholders objects of derision and contempt by flogging them whene\'er they shall be guilty of flogging their slaves." This plan John Brown attempted to carry into practice. Mr. Sherman, the candidate for the Speakership, and against whose election Mr. Clark's resolution was introduced, as one of the signers of the recommendation of Helper's book, was de- feated. THE JOHN EKOWN INVASION. John Brown, in the autumn of 1859, with twenty-three others, obtained forcible possession of the armory at Harper's 19S THE SECTIOXAL CONTROVERSY. Ferry, Yirginia. In the Senate of the United States, M;. Mason, Senator from Virginia, brought forward a resohition to appoint a committee to investigate the facts in the case. This resolution at its introduction liad to encounter an amendment offered by Mr. Trumbull, of Ilhnois, designed, it was asserted, to embarrass the action of the Senate in the matter. It also had to encounter the argument and ridicule of Senator Hale, in the same body. Mr. Hale, of ISTew Hampshire, December 6 : " I am free to say, sir, that while I desire now, as I have always desired, this Union may be perpetual, I confess I do see danger to it. I do not see danger from any thing we are doing in the Free States, not the slightest ; but I do see danger to this Union from the continued obloquy, reproach, and crimination which is heaped upon the people of the Free States, every time there is any thing calling attention to the subject in the South. * * " I do not see, for myself, how Southern gentlemen can con- sent to live in a Union, if they believe that those who are asso- ciated with them are the characters which the public press rep- resent us to be ; if we are so utterly false not only to the oaths that we have taken to support the Constitution, but to the moral obligations which ought to bind us as patriots and Chris- tians. If the sentiment, that we are so utterly wanting in all those qualities of character, is to be continually and eternally iterated and re-iterated from one of the sections of the country, where these transactions may take place, to the other, there will be a feeling generated which will be fatal to the Union." Mr. Hunter, of Virginia, on the same day spoke as follows : " Mr. President, I rise to express my surprise at the manner in which the resolution offered by my colleague has been received — a resolution temperate, proper, and made essentially neces- sary by circumstances of recent occurrence. I had j^resumcd that no obstacle would be thrown in the way, but that Senators on all sides of the House would agree to go into the inquiry. " It is known to all that a most atrocious outrage has been committed upon the State which I have the lienor in part to represent ; that the people of a town rei^osing in the hours of night, in all the confidence of peace and conscious innocence of all purposes of wrong to mankind, were suddenly invaded, and \ THE JOHN BKOWN INVASION. 199 attacked by a band of armed men from non-slaveliolding States ; that miarmed men were shot down in the streets ; that mnrders were committed ; that an attempt was openly made, not only to subvert the Constitution of the United States, but the Constitu- tion of Virginia ; that men were seized and dragged from their habitations at night, and that attempts were made to excite ser- vile insurrection and civil war in its most horrid form. It is known too, sir, that complicity has been charged, not on the part of the South, but by individuals professing to have been in the employment of persons and associations in the non-slave- holding States ; and it is also known to those who come from the South, at least, that the public mind has been startled, not so much by the foray of Beown and his twenty-three men, as by the open sympathy and approbation which have been man- ifested by portions of the ISTorth in regard to that attempt, and the apparent indifference with which it has been treated by those who, we had a right to hope, would have been more con- servative in their feelings and actions upon such a subject. " Sir, I had supposed that such indecent exhibitions of sym- pathy for crime would have been frowned down by an outburst of public opinion on the part of those in the midst of Avhom such things were perpetrated. '-^ "'"' " And now, sir, when my colleague proposes, in temperate language, merely to inquire into the facts of the case, and to raise a committee to see whether any thing can be done by the authorities of this Government to j^revent the repetition of such outrages, how is it met ? The Senator from Illinois pro- poses to stifle such inquiry by making a party issue, and turn- ing the whole subject into a matter of mere partisan warfare and discussion. ''' ''^ " Still less had we supposed that such a question was to be met with the levity of the Senator from New Hampshire. Why, sir, upon such occasions as these, upon such occasions as this — I will not say as these, for it has no parallel in the history of our Government — to see such a subject treated with the lev- ity in which he is disposed to deal with it, sounds to me, at least, like the laugh of the inebriate or the insensate in the chamber of death itself. I tell him, sir, that much depends upon what is the real state of Northern feeling in regard to 200 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. these matters. We know that we can defend ourselves against such outrages as this ; against the forays of men who may at- tempt to get up servile war among us ; we hope we can defend ourselves against all the hazards to which we may probably be exposed ; but it becomes a much graver question to say, how we are to deal with the subject if we become convinced that such attempts find support not only in the sympathy of the great mass of the iSTortli, but in contributions that may be act- ually raised for their assistance." Mr. Douglas, Jan. 23, 18C0 : " Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the Ilarjjcr's Ferry crime was the matured, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines and teachings of the Eepublican party, explained and enforced in their j^latforra, their partisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially of their leaders in and out of Congress. * " The great principle that underlies the organization of the Republican party is — violent, irreconcilaUe, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with a view to its ultimate extinction throughout the land. Sectional war is to be waged until the cotton fields of the South shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of ISTew York and Massachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor." SYilPATHT WITH BEOWN. Tlie admirers of John Brown made a distinction between his acts and his character, the means he employed and the end which he aimed at. The acts and the means they condemned, while his character and the end he aimed to accomplish they seemed to approve and admire. It appears that he spent some years in Kansas, where, being possessed by an evil spirit, he perpetrated acts which were denominated murder, theft, and robbery. " It cannot be disguised that the Northern heart sym- pathized with Broavn and his fate because he died in the cause of what they call liberty." On the day of his death bells were tolled in many places ; cannon fired ; prayers were ofi'ercd for him as if he were a martyr ; he was placed in the same category with Paul and Silas, for whom prayers were made by the PEESONAL LIBERTY BILLS. 201 Churcli ; clinrclies were draped in mourning ; a motion was made in tlie Senate of Massachnsetts, " tliat, in view of tlic fact that this was tlie day on which Jonx Beown was sentenced to be hanged, the Senate do now adjourn." The motion was lost ; the vote being 8 to 11. There were twenty absentees, wlio shirked the question. There was also a strong sympathy in the House for Beowx, though that, likewise, by a large majority refused to adjourn. It was moved in the House, " that for the great respect we have for the truthfulness and faith that John Beown had in man and his religion, and the strong sympathy for the love of liberty (the avowed principle of Massachusetts) for which he is this day to die, this House do now adjourn." Massachusetts elected, as governor, a man who presided at a meeting assembled to express sympathy for Beown. What was true of the general sentiment in favor of Beown in portions of Massachusetts, was true of many localities elsewhere in the Free States. This sectional sympathy at the Korth increased the sectional jealousy at the South. PEESOK-AL LIBERTY BILLS. Tlie effect of " personal liberty bills," was to throw obstruc- tions in the way of carrying out the provisions of the Constitu- tion for the restoration of fugitive slaves to their owners. States which prohihit their officers and citizens from aiding in the execution of the fugitive slave laws of 1793 and 1850 : Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, Yermont, YTisconsin, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jer- sey, Rhode Island. States that deny all lyuVlic edifices in aid of the mastcT : Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Yermont, Ehode Island. States that provide defence for the fugitive : Maine, Massa- chusetts, Pennsylvania, "Wisconsin, Yermont, New York, Mich- igan. States which declare the fugitives free, if brought hy their masters into the State : Maine, Yermont, New Hampshire. State that declares him to he free absolidely : New Hamp- shire. See Report of the Committee of the Legislature of Yirginia in 1860. 202 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEESY. EXTRACT FEOM A PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL OF YEEMONT. " Every person -who may have been licld as a slave, vrlio sliall come or who may be Lroiiglit into this State, with tlie consent of his or her alleged master or mistress, or who shall come or he hrouffht, or shall he in this State^ shall he free. " Every person who sliall hold, or attempt to hold, in this State in slavery as a slave, any free person, in any form or for any time, however short, under the pretence that such person is or has been a slave, shall, on conviction thereof, be impris- oned in the State prison for a term not less than five years, nor more than twenty, and be fined not less than $1,000, nor more than 810,000." Mr. AVebster, in his seventh of March speech, spoke as fol- lows : '• I will allude to other grounds of comjjlaint of the South, and especially to one which, in my opinion, furnishes just foun- dation of complaint, and that is, that there has been found at the Korth among individuals, and among legislatures, a disin- clination to perform fully their constitutional duties, in regard to the return of persons bound to service, who have escaped into the free States. In that resj^ect the South, in my judgment, -is right, and the l!^orth wrong. Every member of every Northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the coun- try, to support the Constitution of the United States ; and the article of the Constitution which says to these States, that they shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article." Mr. "Webster, in liis speech at Capon Springs, Virginia, in 1851, said : " I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restora- tion of fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side, is broken on all sides." IS SLAVERY A MERE CREATURE OF LOCAL LAW? Judge Story, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the decision in the Prigg case, declared that slavery is a mere creature of local law. This opinion became fashionable at the IS SLAVERY A MERE CREATURE OF SOCIAL LAW? 203 Xortli. But the same eminent jndge, in 1S27, wrote to Lord Stowel, that he fully concurred with him in his decision, in which he says that slavery " never was in Antigua the creature of law, but of that custom which operates with the force of law." Lord Stowel, in that decision, in effect says, that " the slave who goes to England or to Massachusetts, from a slave State, is still a slave, that he is still his master's property ; but that his master has lost control over him, not by reason of the cessation of his property, but because those States grant no remedy by which he can exercise his control," An invention is in the hisfhest sense the property of the inventor, and a work, of its author, but their rights of property cannot be enforced unless there are patent laws and copyright laws. In barbarous countries, the rights of property exist, though they cannot be enforced by law. Judge McLeax, in the Prigg case, said : " But the inquiry is reiterated. Is not the master entitled to his 2)'>'operty ? I an- swer that he is. His right is guaranteed hy the Constitution : and the most summary means are found for its enforcement in the act of Congress." The right of property in slaves exists un- der the Constitution. In the history of the rights of property, it appears that these rights have existed prior to any written law, and were protected by common law. " The current sug- gestion that slave property exists but by local law is no more true of this than it is of all other property. In fact, the Euro- pean socialists, who in wild radicalism (including the Assigna- tion doctrine) are the correspondents of the American abolition- ists, maintain the same doctrine as to all property, that the Abolitionists do as to slave property. He who has property, they argue, is the robber of him who has not. And the same precise theory of attack at the ISTorth upon the slave property of the South, would, if carried out to their legitimate, necessary, and logical consequences, and will, if successful in this, their first stage of action, superinduce attacks on all property, JSTorth and South." — Caleb Cushixg. " In the treaty with Great Britain formed in 17S2, stipula- tions were entered into that prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing any distinction or carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, c'cc," 14 204 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVERST. signed by Eiciiard Oswald, B. Fkanklix, John Jay, Henry Laurens. Thus the two nations recognized the right of property in negroes. Li the treaty of 1814, there is a similar provision in regard to " slaves and other property." This treaty was signed by Gambiee, Henry Coulbouen, William Adams, John Qulnxy Adams, J. A. Bayard, Henry Clay, Jonathan Russell, Al- bert Gallatin. If such men could thus recognize the riglit of property in slaves, why should not others ? " It is historically well known, that the object of this clause in the Constitution relating to persons owing service and labor in one State escaping into another, was to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete right and title of owner- ship in their slaves, as property in every State of the Union, into which they might escape from the State whence they were held in servitude."— Judge Story, 16 Peters' Be^orts, p. 540. northern abolition and disunion sentiments. Mr. Lincoln addressed a speech to the Bepublican State Convention assembled in Illinois in June, 1858, of which the following is an extract : " In my opinion it (the slavery agitation) will not cease until a crisis shall have reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the op- ponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in a course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States — old as well as new, JSTorth as well as South." Li his Bochcster speech in 1858, Senator Seward tells us " that the States must all become free, or all become slave ; that the South, in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North must triumph over the South, and drive slavery from its limits." " It is an irrepressible conflict," he says, " between opposing jSrOETHEKN ABOLITION AKD DISUNION SEJsTIMENTS, 205 and ordinary forces ; and it means tliat the United States must all become either entirely a slaveliolding nation, or entirely a free labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and Kew Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and ]^ew York must again be surrendered by them to slave culture and to the j)roduction of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men," " Slavery can be limited to its present bounds. It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it." — Mr. Sewakd in Ohio, 1848. Kev. Mr. Wheelock addressed a lars-e cono;reo-ation in Dover, New Hampshire, in a sermon, of which the following is an extract : " It is a great mistake to term this act (Beown's) the beginning of bloodshed and war. Never could there be a greater error. "We have had bloodshed and war for the last ten years. The campaign began on the 7th of March, 1850. The dissolution of the Union dates ft-om that day, and ice have had no constitution since. On that day Daniel Webster was put to death — and such a death ! And from that time to this, there has not been a month that has not seen the soil of freedom in- vaded and attacked, our citizens kidnapped, imj^risonecl, and shot, or driven by thousands into Canada," Gov. Chase said to W. D. Chadwick Glover, Dec. 27, 1859 : " I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master. I hate slavery. I hate a man that will own a slave," " There is really no union now between the North and the South ; and he believed no two nations on the earth entertain feelings of more bitter rancor towards each other, than these two nations of the Republic. Tlie only salvation, therefore, of the Union is to be found in dividing it entirely from the taint of slavery." — Senator "Wade, of Ohio, in Maine. " I have read the Impending Crisis of the South with great attention. It seems to me a work of great merit ; rich yet ac- curate in statistical information, and logical in analysis." — Williasi H. Sewakd, 1859. 206 THE SECTIOX.U. CONTEOTEEST. " The time is fast approaching when the ciy will become too overpowering to resist. Eatlier than tolerate national slavery as it now exists, let the Union be demolished at once, and then the sin of slavery will rest where it belongs." — New Yorh Trib- une. " I have no doubt but the free and slave States ought to be separated. * "'^ ■'■•'. The Union is not worth supporting in connection with the South." — Idem. A leadino; member of the Convention that nominated Mr. Fremont, namely, James Watson Webb, uttered the following as the sentiment of the people : " They (the people) ask us to give them a nomination which, when fairly put before the people, will unite public sentiment, and through the ballot-box will restrain and repel the pro-slavery extension, and this ag- gression of tlie slaveocracy. What else are they doing ? They tell you that they are willing to abide by the ballot-box, and willing to make that the last appeal. If we fail there^ what then ? We will drive it back sword in hand, so help me, God ! Believing them to he right, I am with themP "This sentiment was loudly cheered by the Convention." In July, 18G0, he de- clared : " If a Southern State should attempt to resist, she will be made to submit, and bear herself with deference and resj^ect thereafter to those who are morally and socially her equals, and 2)olit'icalbj ?i\\(\. 2)hy sic ally her superiors, and when provoked to demonstrate it, if need be, her masters." On page 648 of the Congressional Globe, of the first Session of the thirty-thii-d Congress, Mr. Giddings, Member of Congress from Ohio, is reported to have spoken as follows : " When the contest shall come ; when the thunder shall roll, and the lightning tlash ; when the slaves shall rise in the South ; when, in emulation of the Cuban bondmen, the Southern slaves shall feel that they are men ; when they shall feel the stirring emotions of immortality, and shall recognize the stirring truth that they are men, and entitled to the rights that God has be- stowed upon them ; when the slaves shall feel that, and when masters shall turn pale and tremble, when their dwellings shall smoke, and dismay shall sit on each countenance, then, sir, I do not .say, we shall laugh at your calamity and mock when your fear cometh ; but I do say, that when that time shall come, the NOETIIEKN ABOLITION AND DISUNION SENTIMENTS 207 lovers of our race will stand forth and exert tlie legitimate powers of this Government for freedom. We shall then have constitutional powder to act for the good of our country, and do justice to the slave. Then will we strike off the shackles from the limbs of the slave. Then will be a period when this Gov- ernment will have power to act between slavery and freedom, and when it can make peace by giving freedom to the slaves. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, tliat time hastens. It is rolling forward. The President is exerting a power that will hasten it, though not intended by him. I hail it as I do the dawn of that political and moral millennium, which I am well assured will come on the earth." " It is written in the Constitution of the United States, that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen, as a Imsis of rep- resentation, and it is written also, in violation of the Divine Law, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our fireside from his relentless pursuer." — Senator Sewaed in Ohio, ISiS. In an address delivered in Boston, 1855, Mr. Buklingame, Member of Congress, said : " If asked to state particularly what he would do, he would answer, first, repeal the ISTebraska bill ; second, repeal the fugitive slave law ; third, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia ; fourth, abolish the internal slave trade ; next, he would declare that slavery should not spread one inch in the Union ; he would then put the Government actually and perpetually on the side of freedom. * * * He would have judges that believed in a higher law ; an anti-slavery Constitution, an anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God. Having thus denationalized slavery, he would not menace it in the States where it now exists, but would say to the States, It is your local institution ; ling it to your bosom until it destroys you. But he would say, you must let our freedom alone. [Ap- plause.]. If you but touch the hem of her garment we will trample you to the earth. [Loud applause.] This is the only condition of repose, and it must come to this." On the 9th of June, 1841, John Quincy Adams said " that, in the event of a servile war, his own opinion would be, that if the free portion of people of this Union were called upon to support the institutions of the South by suppressing the slaves, 208 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. {ind a servile war in consequence of it, in that case lie wonld not say that Congress had no right to interfere with the institu- tions of the Soutli ; that the very fact, perhaps, that the free por- tion of the people of this Union were called to sacrifice their blood and their treasure for the purpose of suppressing a war in a case in which a most distinguished Southern man, the author of the Declaration of Independence, had declared that in that event the Almighty had no attribute that sided with the master, he would say, that if the free portion of this Union were called upon to expend their blood and their treasure to support that cause which had the curse and the displeasure of the Almighty upon it, he would say, that this same Congress would sanction an expenditure of blood and treasure, for that cause itself would come within the constitutional action of Congress, and there M'ould be no longer any pretension that Congress had not the right to interfere with the institutions of the South, inasmuch as the very fact that the people of the free portion of the Union marching to the support of the masters would be an interference with those institutions ; and that in the event of a war the re- sult of which no man could tell, the treaty-making power came to be equivalent to universal emancij^ation." " Mr. Ingeesoll, Membcx* from Pennsylvania, interrui^tcd Mr. Adajis Avith the expression of the deejiest indignation of his soul at the utterance of such a doctrine." On the 21st of February, 1843, Mr. Dellet, of Alabama, asked Mr. Adams whether he understood him on another occa- sion to say, " that in God's good time the abolition of slavery would come, and let it come." Mr. Dellet asked Mr. Adajvis if he understood him. Mr. Adams nodded assent, and said with great earnestness, " Let it come." Mr. Dellet. Yes, let it come. Xo matter what the con- sequences, let it come, said the gentleman. Let it come, though women and children should be slain, though blood should flow like water, though the Union itself be destroyed, though Gov- ernment shall be broken up. ISTo matter though five millions of the people of the South perish. Mr. Adams, (in his seat.) " Five hundred millions, let it come." Was this a mental paroxj-sm, or habitual feeling ? CALEB CUSUtNG IN BOSTON, 1859. 200 Senator Henky "Wilson, in Boston, Jan. 21, 1851 : " "We sliall arrest the extension of slavery, and rescue the Government from the grasp of the slave power. "We shall blot out slavery in the National Capitol. "We shall surround the slave States ■with a cordon of free States. "V\^e shall then appeal to the hearts and consciences of men, and, in a few years, notwithstanding the immense interests of mankind connected with the cause of oppression, we shall give liberty to the millions in bondage. 1 trust many of us shall live to see the chain stricken from the limbs of the last bondman in the Republic ! Bnt, sir, whenever that day shall come, living or dead, no man connected with the anti-slavery movement will be dearer to enfranchised millions, than the name of your guest, A\'iLLiAii Lloyd Gakeison." ' CALEB CUSIIING IN BOSTON, 1859. '• I showed you how, under the influence of their malign teachings, all party action, Xorth and South, was running in the channel of a desperate and deplorable sectionalism, and that, above all, here in Massachusetts, all the sectional influences dominant in this State were fouiided upon the single emotion of hate — ay, hate ; treacherous, ferocious hate of our fellow-citizens in the Southern States. [Applause, and cries of Good, good.] '' Under the influence of this monomania, they have set up in this Commonwealth a religion of hate — ay, a religion of hate and of blasphemy. O God ! that such things are in this our day ! " "What more, gentlemen ? "We have had our ears tilled with alleged sympathies for John Brown ; of apologies for his act ; of reproaches against the persons whom he was endeavoring to slaughter in cold blood ; of sneers at the State of Virginia ; of ridicule of the terror of the unarmed women and children of Virginia. I say, sympatliy for all this. Gentlemen, it is not sympathy for John Brown. It is another form of the mani- festation of that same intense and ferocious liatred of tlie people of the South which animates the persons of whom I am speak- ing. [Applause.] Hatred ! Hatred ! Xow the fact has been told us, that, in all times, hate must have its food of blood. IIow long are the people of Massachusetts to have their souls 210 THE SECTIONAL COXTEOVERSY. continually perverted ^vitli these preachings — ay, pulpit preach- in crs of hatred? " KELATIO^'S OF THE STATES TO THE GEXEEAL G0YEKN3IENT. Senator Davis, of Mississippi, Feb. 2, 1860, in the Senate, submitted six resolutions. In th.e^7'st, he speaks of the action of tlic States as independent sovereignties in forming the Con- i^titution of the United States, by delegating a portion of their l)Ower to be exercised by the General Government, In the second^ he speaks of negro slavery's being recognized by the Constitution. In the ihird, of the equality of the States, in re- spect to rights in the Territories. T\xq fourth is as follows : " lic'solved, That neither Congress nor a territorial legisla- ture, whether by direct legislation, or by legislation of an indi- rect and unfriendly nature, possess the power to annul or im- pair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the common territories ; but it is the duty of the Federal Government there to afford for that, as for other species of property, the needful protection ; and if experience should, at any time, prove that the judiciary does not possess power to insure adequate protection, it will become the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency." In the Jrfth, he declares that when a territory forms its con- stitution, the people can then, for the first time, have power to say whether slavery, as a domestic institution, shall be main- tained or prohibited in its jurisdiction ; and if Congress shall admit them as a State, they shall be received into the Union either witli or without slavery, as their constitution may pre- scribe, at the time of admission. In the s/.dli, he speaks of the opposition made by the States to the return of fugitive slaves, as hostile in its character, and subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in its effect. The South insists that what is recognized as property in the States, and wdiat is treated as property in the Constitution, and in treaties with other nations, and in congressional legislation, and in judicial decisions, shall be recognized as property in the territories, and protected as property. In opposition to this view, the Republican party, in their POWER OF CONGRESS OVER TERKITOEIES. 211 platform, Chicago, 1860, has the followiug dechiration : " Tliat the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slav^ery into anj or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit pro- visions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposi- tion, and with legislative and judicial precedents, is revolution- ary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country." POWER OF CONGRESS OVER TERRITORIES. As heretofore stated, Xorthern men have claimed for Con- gress the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories, on the strength of that clause in the Constitution which declares that " Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States ; " and for other reasons. Does "territory" here mean land or inhabitants? If " public lands " be substituted for " territory," it will then in tlie Constitution stand, " public lands " and other property ; but if you substitute " colony," that is, inhabitants, it will stand, " Congress shall have power to make all needful rules concerning the ' colony ' and other property." Where now is the power to dispose of the public lands ? See Senator Geyer's speech, in 1850. It is evident, then, that this clause conferred upon Congress no i)olitical power over the " territory " then owned l\v the United States, but only power to dispose of it, and make rules and regulations about it as " property." territory of LOnSIAXA. " The inhabitants of the ceded territory sliall "be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as pos- sible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, and advantages, and immunities of the citizens of the United States, and in the mean time shall be maintained ^w^ 'protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, Ijwperty^ and the religion they profess." — Treaty vydh France^ 1803. 212 THE SECTIONAL CONTIlO^^:EST. " At this time slaves were held by the people of Louisiana, through tlic ^vhole length of the Mississippi valley. These people had an unrestricted right of settlement with their slaves under legal protection throughout tlie entire ceded province. Here is a treaty promise to protect that property^ that slave l)ropcrty in that Territory before it should become a State. This promise was violated at the time of the Missouri Compro- mise, by Northern votes." Here by treaty the General Govern- ment engage to protect slave property. In 1820, Mr. Madison wrote : " The questions to be decided seem to be, first, whether a territorial restriction be "an assump- tion of illegitimate power ; or, second, a misuse of legitimate power; and if the latter only, whether the injury 'threatened to the nation from an acquiescence in the misuse, or from the frus- tration of it, be greater. On the first point, there is certainly room for a difference of opinion ; though, for myself, I must own that I have always leaned to the belief that the restriction was not icithin the true scope of the Constitution. This opinion of Mr. Madison, the " Father of the Constitution," is in har- mony with the Deed Scott decision. In the Republican platform, (I860,) there is the following declaration : " That the normal condition of the territory of the United States is that of freedom ; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in our national territory, or- dained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due j^rocess of law, it becoiries our duty, by congressional legislation, Avhenevcr such legislation shall become necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it ; and we deny the authority of Con- gress, of a territorial legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in the United States." On this declaration. Senator Toombs, of Georgia, remarks : " Then you declare that the treaties made by Mr. Jefferson, in 1803, are null and void, and no law ; then you declare that the acts by which property in slaves was protected and allowed, both by territorial and congressional acts, in Florida, in Louisiana, in Missouri, in Mississippi and Alabama, are all null, void, and no law ; you declare that the decision of the Suj^reme Court is WHO AVERE TAETIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT. 213 null, void, and no law ; tliat there is no Constitution but the Chicago platform ; yet you propose to come here and take pos- session of this, and swear to maintain the Constitution with this reading, and you are quite astonished at our having any objec- tions to the peaceable proceedings. '^ * But no matter what may be our grievances, the honorable Senator from Kentucky says we cannot secede. Well, what can we do ? Submit ? They say they are the strongest, and they will hang us. "Well, I suppose we must be thankful for that boon. We will take that risk. Wc will stand by the right. We will take the Con- stitution. We will defend it by the sword, with halter around our neck." WHO WEEE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COilPACT. March 8, 1860, in the Senate, Mr. Collamar, of Vermont : " I deny, in the first place, that the States, as States, entered into this compact. That is rej^eated so often, I do not know but it is believed. When a State acts, it acts in its organized ca- pacity, by its organs, by its Legislature, or by its Executive. There never was one of the States that acted in this way in tlic adoption of the present Constitution. The people of the United States, meeting in the Conventions in the several States, adopted the United States Constitution. The States never acted on it as States. It would be a paradox that they should have done so. How could the Legislature of JS^orth Carolina, for instance, invested as it was, at that time, by the people with the power to levy and collect duties upon imports, — how could the State in its organized capacity, through that organ, delegate that power to another body ? It could not be done. It never was done. It never was attempted to be done. The people of the United States had to meet in their several States in their origi- nal condition, as a people in convention, for these reasons : fii'st. it was more convenient ; next, if the people of North Carolina had invested their Legislature with the poM'cr to levy and col- lect duties, the people of IN'orth Carolina alone Avould have the power to invest that in another body, to wit, Congress. If you called the whole people of the United States, it would be a dif- ferent people — it would be a different set of people to take that 214 THE SECTIONAL CONTROTEEST. power away from tlic one that gave it. Xo, sir, it is not tnic that this is in that sense a Confederacy. It is a National Gov- erinncnt. Tin's is a clear statement of tlie theory that the States Averc not parties to the constitutional compact. But it is not supj)orted by facts or comparative weight of authority. MK. WEDSTEk's KESOLUTIOXS IX THE SENATE, 1832. 1. " That the Constitution of the United States is not a league, confederacy, or compact, between the people of the several States in their sovereign capacities ; but a Government proper, founded on the adojjtion of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals. 2. " That no State authority has power to dissolve these re- lations ; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution ; and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession with- out revolution. 3. " That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitu- tion of the United States, acts of Congress passed in pursuance of it, and treaties ; and that, in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit at law or equity. Congress must judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law, so often as it has occasion to pass acts of legislation ; and in cases assuming the character of a suit, the Suj^reme Court of the United States is the final interpreter. 4. "That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconsti- tutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the Gen- eral Government, and on the equal rights of other States, a plain violation of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency." These resolutions touching nullification, which was under consideration, rather than secession, were not adopted by the Senate. Mr. Madison, on the other hand, tahes a different view of the parties to the compact of the Constitution. " On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, MR. MADISON S VIEWS. 215 that the Constitution is to be fonnded on the assent and ratifi- cation of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose ; but on the other, that this assent and rati- fication is given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, hut as comijos'mg the distinct and independent States to which they Tespectivcly helong. " This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as compos- ing the distinct and. independent States to which they respec- tively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the sev- eral States, derived from the supreme authority in each State — the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a Fed- eral act. " That it will be a Federcd and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming an aggre- gate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people, nor from a majority of the States. It nmst result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, diff'ering no otherwise from their ordinary consent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves." Mr. Madison also said : An observation fell from a gentle- man on the same side as myself, which deserves to be attended to. " If we be dissatisfied with the IS'ational Government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence." Here Mr. Madison expresses his concurrence with the gentleman mentioned, in the declaration, that if the State of Virginia is dissatisfied with the General Government in its practical workings, she can renounce it. In reference to the Federal Government and its powers and purposes, in the forty-fifth number of the Federalist, this lan- guage is used : " The powers delegated to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which arc to remain to the State Govern- ment are numerous and indefinite." This, then, is the distinction between the two Governments. 216 THE SECnOXAL controveest. The powers granted to the Federal Government are " few and defined," those reserved to the States are " numerous and in- definite." " The former [the Federal Government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce ; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordi- nary course of affairs, concern the lives, the liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." " I have never beheved that a State could nullify, and re- main in the Union ; but I have always believed that a State might secede when it pleased, provided she would pay her pro- portion of the public debt ; and this right I have considered the best guard to public liberty and to public justice that could be devised, and it ought to have prevented what is now felt in the South — oppression." — ISTathaijiel Macon, of North Carolina, Feb. 9, 1833. Mr. Macon was regarded as an eminently wise man in the Senate of the United States, of which, for a long time, he was reirarded as the father. OEDINANCE OF SECESSION PASSED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, JANUARY 19, 1861. "We, the people of the State of Georgia, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the ordinance adopted by the people of Georgia in convention, in the year 1Y88, whereby the Constitution of tlie United States was assented to, ratified and adopted, and also acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated ; and we do further declare and ordain, tliat the Union now^ subsisting between the State of Georgia and the other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that this State is in the full possession of those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State." MR. MADISON OX SECESSION. 217 The people of South Carolina passed the ordinance secession Dec. 20, 1860, thus leading the way in .tliat great sectional movement. MR. MADISON ON SECESSION. In a letter written in 1833, Mr. Madison uses the following language : " It surely does not follow from the fact that the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having, as par- ties to the constitutional compact, no tribunal above them, that in controverted meanings of the compact a minority of the par- ties can rightfully decide against the majority, still less that a single party can at will withdraw itself altogether from its com- pact with the rest." In 1787 he used the following language : '' It has been alleged that the confederation, having been formed by unani- mous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous consent oidy. Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts ? Docs it arise from any particular stipulation on the articles of confed- eration ? If we consider the Federal Union as analogous to the fundamental compact by which individuals compose our society, and Avhich must, in its theoretic origin at least, have been the unanimous act of the component members, it cannot be said that no dissolution of the compact can be effected without unan- imous consent. A breach of the fundartiental ])rinci])les of the comjxict hy a imrt of the society ivoulcl certainly absolve the other 2Mrt from their obligations to itP " "Whether a State can or cannot secede, and what others may do towards her, or slie towards them — these are questions behind the Constitution of the United States, and, if I may say so without inconvenience, far above it. These are questions of political science and not of constitutional construction ; ques- tions upon which empires are often dismembered and dynasties overthrown." — Mr. Puon, in the Senate, Dec. 20, 1800. " The whole theory of our Government is built upon tlic expectation that the States will not secede, but that all will continue to be integral parts of the confederacy. If you ask, where is authority under the Constitution for a State to secede ? I would ask, where is there any thing in the Constitution to prevent its secession % " — Senator Pugii, Dec. 20, 1860. 218 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. " It depends on the State itself whether to retain or to abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will remain a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded ; which is, that the people have in all cases a right to determine how they will be gov- erned. " Tlie secession of a State from the Union depends on the will of the people of such State. The people alone, as we have already seen, have the power to alter the Constitution." — "Wil- liam Eaavle, of Pennsylvania, 1825. This very able man was offered the office of Attorney-Gen- eral, by TTasiiington. President Buchanan, in his annual Message, 1860 : " In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confed- eracy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty -three States may resolve themselves into as many petty jarring and hostile republics, each one retiring from tlie Union without responsibility, whenever any sudden ex'citemeiit might impel them to such a course. By this course a Union might be entirely broken up into fragments in a few weeks, which cost our fathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. " It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether founded on inference, not from any language contained in the instru- ment itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder ? In the language of Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution, it was formed by the States — that is, by the people in each of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity ; and formed, consequently, by the authority which formed the State Constitutions. " Nor is the Government of the United States created by the THE COERCION OF A STATE BY PHYSICAL FOrX'E. 219 Constitution less a Government in the strict sense of tlie term within the sphere of its powers, than the governments created by the Constitutions of the States are within their several spheres." The whole argument of President Buchanan in Ids annual Message of 1S60, is one of the ablest against secession. " I believe that it contravenes no provision of the Constitu- tion, for one or more of the States to secede from the Union ; not bj virtue of any power conferred upon them by that instru- ment, but in consequence of the States never having surrendered it to the General Government : the Constitution declares that ' the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or the people.' I appre- hend tliat it will be admitted that the States may exercise any or all of their reserved powers without a violation of the Con- stitution. If, then, they have never parted with their right to resume their original sovereignty, when, in their oj^inion, the Government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted, it is no violation of the Constitution for them to secede. If there is any clause in the Constitution by which they deprived themselves of this right, it has escaped my obser- vation." — Senator Huntek, of Virginia, Jan. 15, 1861. This expresses the Southern view, as President Buchanan in his message does the JSTorthern. THE COEKCION OF A STATE EY PHYSICAL FOECE. On the subject of coercion, Alexander Hamilton said : " It has been observed, to coerce the States is one of the saddest pro^ jects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State ; this being the case, can we sup- pose it wise to hazard a civil war ? Suppose Massachusetts, or any larger State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assist- ance, especially from those States that are in the same situation as themselves ? "What a picture does this idea present to our view ? A complying State at war with a non-complyiug State ; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another ; the State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its Federal head. Here is a nation at war 15 220 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEEST. witli i'tself. Can amj TeasonaMe man he well disjyosed towards a Government icldch malces war and carnage the only means of supporthuj itself? — a Government tliat can exist only "by the sword ? Every sucli war must involve the innocent witli the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government." On the same subject, George Masok, of Yirginia, said : " The most jarring elements of nature, sin and malice, are not more incompatible than such a mixture of civil liberty and military execution. "Will the militia march from one State into another, in order to collect the arrears of taxes from the delinquent members of the Eepublic? "Will they maintain an army for this purpose ? "Will not the citizens of the invaded States assist one another till they rise and shake off the Union altogether? '-^ " ■" To punish the non-payment of taxes with death, is a severity not yet adopted by despotism itself ; yet this unexam- pled cruelty would be mercy, compared to a military collection of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no distinction between tlie innocent and the guilty." — See Mr. Madison's views on this subject, page 49. John Quincy Adams, in his special Message, Feb. 5, 1827, in respect to the resistance of Georgia to Federal requisitions, said : " In abstaining at this stage of the proceedings from the application of any military force, I have been governed by con- sidei-ations which will, I trust, meet the concurrence of the Leg- islature. Among these, one of prominent importance has been, that these surveys have been attempted and partly effected under color of legal authority from the State of Georgia ; that tlie surveyors are, therefore, not to ho vieived in the light of indi- vidual and solitary transgressors, hut as the agents of a sover- eign State acting in ohedience to eudhority which they helieved to he hinding ujjon them.^'' Mr. Madison, on the 8th of June, ITST, said in convention : " Any Government for the United States formed on the sup- posed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and falla- cious as the Government of Congress," evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the Confederation. Mr. Buchanan in his annual address, ISGO, discusses the THE COERCION OF A STATE BY PHYSICAL FORCE. 221 question, " Has tlio Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission wliicli is attempting to withdraw, and has actually withdrawn from the confederacy ? If answered in the afiirmative it must be on tlic principle that power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the Fed- eral Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Con- stitution, that this is not among the enumerated powers granted to Congress ; and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not ' necessary and proper for carrying into execution ' any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the convention which formed the Constitution." See Madisox papers, p. 761. " Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. " But if we possessed this power would it be wise to exer- cise it under existing circumstances ? The object doubtless would be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it ; but would banish all hope of its peaceable re-construction." " " '"■ " The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in tlie affections of the people, it nmst one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in its hands to destroy it by force." These views he repeats in a special Mes- sage on the subject. President Buciiaxax, in his special Message, Jan. S, ISGl, after denying the right of secession, on the part of the States, and the right of coercion on the part of the General Govern- ment against seceding States, says : '• But the right and duty to use military force defensively against those who resist the Fed- eral officers in the execution of their legal functions, and against those who spoil tlic power of the Federal Government, is clear and undeniable." To this Senator Davis, of Mississippi, Jan. 10, 1861, replies : 222 THE 6ECTI0XAL CONTKOVEEST. " Is it SO ? Where does he get it ? Our fathers were so jealous of a standing army tliat they would scarcely permit the organ- ization and maintenance of any army. Where does he get the ' clear and undeniable ' power to use the force of the United States in the manner he then proposes ? To execute a process, troops may be summoned as a posse comitatus ; and here in the history of our Government, it is not to be forgotten that in the earlier, better days of the Eepublie — and painfully do we feel that they were better indeed — a President of the United States did not recur to the army ; he went to the peoi3le of the United States. Vaguely and confusedly, indeed, did the Senator from Tennessee (Andrew Johnson) bring forward the case of the great man, Washington, as one, in which he had used a power which was equivalent to the coercion of a State, for he said that Washington used the military power against a portion of the people of a State ; and why might he not have used it against the whole State ? " Let me tell that Senator that the case of General Washing- ton has no application as he supposes. It was a case of insur- rection within the State of Pennsylvania ; and the very mes- sage from which ho read communicated the fact that Governor Mifflin thought it necessary to call the militia of adjoining States to co-operate with those of Pennsylvania. He used the militia not as a standing army. It was by the consent of the Governor; it was by his advice. It was not the invasion of the State. It was not the coercion of the State ; but it was aiding the State to put down insurrection, and in the very man- ner provided in the Constitution itself " But, I ask again, what power has the President to use the army and navy except to execute process? Are we to have drumhead courts substituted for those which the Constitution and the laws provide ? Are we to have sergeants sent over the land instead of civil magistrates? Kot so thought the elder Adams. * " "' I say then, when we trace our history to its early foundation under the first two Presidents of the United States, we find that this idea of using the army and the navy to execute the laws at the discretion of the President, was not even entertained, still less acted upon, in any case." CAUSES OF THE SECESSIOX OF SOUTH CAKOOXA. 223 DECLAEATIOX BY THE COXVENTIOX OF SOUTH CAROLINA OF CAUSES ■WHICH LED TO THE SECESSIOX OF THAT STATE. Dec. 24, 1860. The people of the State of Soutli Carolina, in Convention assembled, on tlie 2d day of April, A. D. 1S52, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments npon tlie reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in their withdrawal from the Federal Union ; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she for- bore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time these encroachments have continued to increase, and further for- bearance ceases to be a virtue. And now the State of South Carolina, having resumed lier separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. Ill the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire em- bracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the Govern- ment of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colo- nies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the -ith of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, " that they are, and of right ought to be, fkee axd ESTDEPEXDEXT STATES ; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." They further solemnly declared, that whenever any " form of Government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government." Deeming the Govern- ment of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonics " are absolved from all alle- giance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of 224: THE SECTIOX^U. COXTEOVEEST. the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sover- eignty ; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of Government in all its departnients — Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. For purposes of defence they united their arms and their counsels ; and, in 1778, they entered into a League, known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to intrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first article, " that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and inde- pendence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the L^nited States in Congress assembled." Under this Confederation the War of the Hevolution was carried on ; and on the 3d of Sej^tember, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the Lidfipendence of the Colonies in the following terms : " AraiCLE 1. Ilis Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. : New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Bhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, I^ew York, Kew Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, IS^orth Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be fkee, sovEKEiGX, AND ixDErEXDEXT STATES ; that he trcats wi)th them as such ; and, for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof." Thus were established the two great j^rinciples asserted l\y the Colonies, namely, the right of a State to govern itself ; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And con- current with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother country as a free, sovekeigx, axd ixdepexdext state. In 1787, De2')uties were appointed -by the States to revise the articles of Confederation ; and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the L^nited States. CAUSES OF THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 225 Tlie parties to whom tins Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States ; they were to agree or disao-ree, and when nine of them agreed, the compact was to take cflect among those concurring ; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then to be invested Avith their authority. If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were — separate, sov- ereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Con- stitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven ; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation. By tliis Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers Avas restrained, which necessarily impelled their continued existence as sovereign States. But, to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May, 1T8S, South Carolina, by a Conven- tion of her people, passed an ordinance assenting to this Con- stitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken. Thus was established, by com]3act between the States, a Government with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or the people, and rendered unnecessary any specifi- cation of reserved rights. "We hold that the Government thus established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence ; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental prin- ciple, namely, the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual ; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to j^erfoi'ni i^ material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other ; and that, where no ai'biter is provided, each party is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences. 226 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEEST. In the present case, tliat fact is established with certainty. "\Ye assert that fourteen of the States liave deliberately refused for years past to fulfil their Constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own statutes for the proof. The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows : " No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to ■whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater num- ber of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had pre- viously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the Government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which obligations, and the laws of the General Government, have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hamp- shire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Wis- consin, and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service of labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Con- stitution. Tlie State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation ; but the current of Anti-Slavery feeling has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own laws and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals ; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and dis- regarded by the non-slaveholdiug States ; and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared I CAUSES OF THE SECESSION" OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 227 by itself to be " to form a more perfect Union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote tlie general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Gov- ernment, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights ; by giving them the right to represent, and burdening: them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves ; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years ; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. "We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions ; and have denied the rights of pro]3erty established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution ; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery ; they have permitted the open estab- lishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace of and cloin the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes ; and those who remain have been incited by emissaries, books, and pictures, to servile in- surrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily in- creasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitu- tion, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Con- stitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. lie is to be intrusted with the administration of the common Gov- ernment, because he has declared that that " Government can- not endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the 228 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the subversion of the Con- stitution has been aided, in some of the States, by elevating to citizenship persons Avho, by the supreme law of the land, are iucapablc of becoming citizens ; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety. On the 4th of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the Judicial tribunal shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guarantees of the Constitution will then no longer exist ; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self- protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy. Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation ; and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that the public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief. We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our dele- gates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State, with full power to levy war, conclude j)eace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." After making the above declaration, the Convention of South Carolina appointed E. "W. Baknwell, J. H. Adams, and Jas. L. Ore, commissioners to proceed to "Washington, as com- missioners to treat with the Government of the United States, on various subjects connected with the secession of the State. This they ineffectually attempted, Dec. 29, 1860, President Bu- chakan declinini? to receive them in their official character. THE CEITTEXDEX EESOLUTIOXS. 229 THE PEACE COXGKESS. On January 10, ISGl, tlio General Assembly of Virginia passed a preamble and resolutions inviting tbe States to send commissioners to "Washington to adjust the sectional difficulties Avhich threatened the integrity of the Union. These resolutions recommended the Ceittexdex resolutions as the basis of set- tlement. THE CErrTEXDEN" EESOLCTIOXS. In order to settle the sectional disputes, Senator Ceittexdex brouglit forward a resolution embracing several articles with the following preamble : " Whereas serious and alarming dis- sensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States, and whereas it is eminently desirable and proper that these dissen- sions, wliich now threaten the very existence of the Union, should be permanently qnieted and settled by constitutional j)ro visions which shall do eqnal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States • therefore, " Hesolvcd, hj the Senate and House of iLejyrescntatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both Houses concnrring,) that the following articles bo and licreby are proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and pur- poses, as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States." Article 1 — ^Provided for prohibiting slavery north of 30' 30' in all the territory now held or which may hereafter be held, and recognizing it as existing in all the territory south of that line, and for allowing any territory to come into the Union, wlien it has a sufficient population for a member of Congress, according to the then ratio of representation of the people of the United States, on an equal footing with the other States either with or without slavery, as the Constitution of such new State shall provide. 230 TIIE SECTIONAL CONTROVEEST. Article 2 — Declares that Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places iinder the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves. Article 3 — Declares that Congress shall not have j^ower to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia except on certain conditions. Article 4 — Declares that Congress shall not interdict the transportation of slaves from one State to another where the laws permit slavery. Article 5 — Declares that the fugitive slave law shall be modified in such a manner, that in case the owner meets with forcible obstruction from people to the recovery of his slave, the United States shall pay for such fugitive slave ; it being pro- vided that the county where this force, or intimidation, or rescue takes place, shall be liable for the amount paid, with authority to remunerate itself by a suit against the rescuers or wrong-doers. Article G — Provides that these and some other articles already in the Constitution shall not be altered hereafter. It also contained certain recommendations in respect to the personal liberty bills, and the fugitive slave law, and the slave trade. LETTEKS OF SENATORS BINCrHAM AND CIIANDLEK. Washington, Feb. 15, 18G1. Dear Sir, When Virginia proposed a convention in '\\'ashington, in reference to the disturbed condition of the country, I regarded it as another step to debauch the public mind, and a step towards obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power so insolently demands. I have no doubt, at pres- ent, that this was tlie design ; I was, therefore, pleased that the Legislature of Michigan was not disposed to put herself in a position to be controlled by such influences. The convention has met here, and within a few days the aspect of things is materiall}- changed. Every free State except Michigan and Wisconsin is represented, and we have been assured by friends upon whom we can relj', that if those two LETTEES OF SENATORS BINGHAM A:^D CHANDLEE. 231 States should send delegations of true unflinching men, there would probably be a majority in favor of the Constitution as it is, who would frown down rebellion by the enforcement of the laws. These friends have recommended the appointment of delegates from our State, and in compliance witli their request Mr, Chandler and myself telegraphed to you last night. It cannot be doubted that the recommendations of this convention will have considerable influence upon the public mind and upon the action of Congress. "'^ * * I have the honor with much respect, to be truly yours, Iv. S. BmGHAJM. His Excellency, Governor Blair. Washixgtox, Feh. 11, 1861. My dear Go'S'eenor, Governor Bingham and myself telegraphed to you on Saturday at the request of Massachusetts and Kew York, to send delegates to the peace or compromise congress. They admit that we were right and they were wrong ; that no Eepublican State should have sent delegates ; but they are here and cannot get away. Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois /''and now they beg us, for God's sake, to come to their rescue, and save the republican party from rupture. I hope you will send stiff- hacked men or none. The whole thing was got up against my judgment, and will end in thin smoke. Still I hope as a mat- ter of courtesy to some of our erring brethren, that you will send the delegates. Truly your friend, Z. Chandler. His Excellency ArsTix Blair. P. S. — Some of the manufacturing States think that a fight would be awful. Without a little blood-letting, this Union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush. The peace Congress was a failure. The South, goaded on by wrongs real, and -wi'ongs imaginary, was rushing into secession. The jS'orth called for " blood-letting." Blood was forthcoming. 232 TECE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. KEMAKKS. 1. Causes were in operation when Mr. Buchanan entered upon Ills administration, and during its continuance, Avhicli raised the sectional feeling, botli North and South, to such a degree of antagonism, that the Union of the States was ruptured by the secession of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missis- sippi, Louisiana, and Florida. What those causes were, both proximate and remote, may be seen or inferred from the facts stated in the preceding pages. The sectional character at- tributed to the Republican party ; the opposition to the Deed ScoTT decision ; the recommendation by sixty-eight Northern members of Congress of Helper's incendiary abolition book ; the John Brown invasio]i, and the sympathy expressed for him by Northern communities ; the personal liberty bills passed by the Legislatures of at least twelve Northern States ; the declaration of the Northern dominant party, that there should be no more slave territory ; the spirit with which that party was coming into power, the exclamation of the victorious Gauls, addressed to the conquered Romans, tw victis, being in their hearts, if not on their lips ; — these were some of the proximate causes of the secession. The sceptre was departing from Judah, and the lawgiver from between his feet. For fourteen presidential terms the candidate, favored by the South, had been elected ; while the favorite candidates of the North had been elected for only four presidential terms. And with respect to these four, who were the favorite candidates of the North, namely, John Adams, John Quincy Adams, General Haerison, and General Tayloe, there was no great dissatisfaction at the South, Tlie two latter were by birth Southern men, and in favor of protecting Southern institutions. But now, for the first time, an anti-slavery man, Mr. Lincoln, was elected presi- dent upon an anti-slavery platform, with the expectation on the part of the electors that anti-slavery men would " take possession of the Government," and would control the councils of the nation. Moreover, the Northern triumphant party, as be- longing to the most numerous section, expected to hold the Government in perpetuity, so that all that was left to the South KEilAKKS. 233 was to exclaim with the fallen statesman "Wolsey, " Farewell, a long farewell to all my greatness ! " But the K^orth might justly, in turn, complain against the South, on account of grievances which, to some extent, furnish an apology for the injuries just mentioned. It might justly com- plain tliiit it had hecn, for a long time, practically excluded from its appropriate share of influence, and office, and emolument, in the administration of the Federal Government. It might say. Yon of the South have had possession of the Federal Gov- ernment, with all its attendant advantages, for fifty-six years out of seventy-two ; and when you have refused to admit us to an equal participation in these advantages, and when you have foiled us again and again, in our attempts to gain the presidential election, you must not think it strange that we should, in our desperate efforts to obtain our rights, have used means that would be unpardonable in other circumstances. You must not think it strange, if you deprive ns of our ap- l^ropriate share of political power, that we, in retaliation, should deprive you of your appropriate share in the territories. You must not think it strange that, if the slave States go in ;i solid column against our presidential candidates, we should oppose the admission of new slave States. You must not think it strange that, if you attempt to nullify Tariff laws, which protect om' manufacturing property, we should, by our personal liberty bills, nullify your fugitive slave law, which protects your slave property. You must not think it strange that, if you attack our commercial interests, as you did during the administration of Mr. Jeffeeson and of Mr. Madison ; and our manufacturing interests, as you did during the administration of General Jackson and of Mr. Polk ; we should attack your interests in slaves. You must not think it strange, if you magnify the reserved rights of the States and threaten secession, that we should magnify the powers granted to the Federal Government, and threaten military coercion. 2. In the progress of years, a thorough alienation of feeling had grown up between large masses at the iN^orth, and large masses at the South. Men hate those whom they injure as well as those who injure them. In the Korth there was the feelmg of contempt mingled with the hatred, namely contempt 234 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. for the supposed imbecility and poverty of the South, and its dependence on tlie North for conveniences and necessaries of life manufactured at the !North. There was also a deep moral abhorrence of Southern men as slaveholders, inasmuch as slavery was supposed to include in it " the sum of all villanies." The supposed " barbarism of the South " furnished the staple for speeches, and newspaper articles, and local conversation. There were those, and not a few, who felt that those Southern barbarians were not any better entitled to equal rights in the teiTitories, according to the guarantees of the Constitution, than were the children of Ishmacl to the promises made exclusively to the seed of Isaac, or than were the descendants of Esau to a share with the children of Israel in the territories of the Promised Land. In short, they felt that, as " Saints," Northern men should " inherit the North " ; that they should take possession of the common territories by a direct grant from Congress, overriding the Constitution ; and that, in due time, under a patent from the Almighty, they should take pos- session of the Southern States, as fast as they could expel the Canaanites from the land. And, on the other hand, Southern men i-epaid, if possible, this Northern hatred with interest ; for their hatred was inten- sified by the fear of those who politically had power to injure them. Tliey distrusted men who claimed to have large powers from the Constitution to injure the South, while in cases in which the Constitution expressly protects the interests of the South, they would place themselves under the subterfuge of a " higher law," in order to violate their constitutional obliga- tions. They feared and distrusted men who would thus act under the Constitution with their own construction of it, or the higher law with their own construction of it, according as the one or the other would help to enlarge the rights of the North, and lessen the rights of the South. They distrusted, and feared, and hated men, who, under a pretence of the right of petition, and of the freedom of the press, and liberty of speech, would deluge the floor of Congress with insults and slanders, and fill the mail bags with incendiary publications ; and send insurrec- tionary apostles of abolitionism, to kindle the flames of rebel- lion in the South. They distrusted, and feared, and hated men, REMAKES. 235 sixty-eight of whose representatives had recommended a book, written to injure Southern institutions protected I)}'' the Con- stitution — men who sympathized witli a convict, and crowned him with sepulchral honors, because he hated slavery ; who, thirty years ago, would have been " hung like a felon, and buried like a dog." They distrusted, and feared, and hated men, who ostracized and excluded from office some of the ablest and best men in the Northern States, and put abo- litionists in their place, simply upon the suspicion that the former were national and not sectional in their politics ; who had let loose their war dogs to pursue their great man, Daniel Webstee, even into his grave ; and who, for a season, instead of allowing ministers of the Gospel to preach Christ and him crucified, demanded that they " should preach Douglas and him damned " ; all because they suspected these two men of favoring the South, They distrusted, and feared, and hated men, who could aid in passing personal liberty bills, which violate and nullify the Constitution in one of its clauses, and who can vilify and set at nought the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which many of them had never even read. Senator Ivekson of Georgia, Dec. 6, 1860, in the Senate, made the following remarks : " Sir, disguise the fact as you will, there is an enmity between the jSTorthern and the South- ern people that is deep, and you can never eradicate it — never. Look at the spectacle exhibited on this floor. How is it ? There are the Republican Northern Senators on that side. Here are the Southern Senators on this side. How much social intercourse between us ? You sit on that side, sullen and gloomy ; we sit on ours with portentous scowls. Yesterday I observed there was not a solitary man on that side of the chamber came over here, even to extend the civilities and courtesies of life ; nor did any of us go over there. Here are two hostile bodies, on this floor, and it is but a type of the feeling that exists in the two sections. We are enemies as much as if we were hostile States. I believe the Northern people hate the South worse than ever the English people hated France ; and I can tell my brethren over there, that there is no love lost on the part of the South. 16 230 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKST. " In this state of feeling, divided as Tve are by interest, by geographical position, by every thing that makes two people separate and distinct — I ask, why should we remain in the same Union together ? We have not lived in peace ; we are not now living in peace. It is not to be expected, or hoped, that we ever shall live in peace. My doctrine is, that whenever man and wife find that they nmst quarrel and cannot live in peace, they ought to separate ; and these two sections, the ^N^orth and the South, manifesting, as they have done and. do now, and probably ever will manifest, feelings of hostility, sejjarated as they are in interests and objects — my own opinion is, that they can never live in peace ; and the sooner they sepa- rate the better." 3. Does the Northern dominant party desire the extinction of slavery in the Southern States, and does it propose to adopt only political means to promote that extinction ? Senator Sewaed, in liis speech in Ohio, said : " Slavery can be limited to its present bounds. It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it." Mr. Douglas said of this : " Every appeal they make to Northern prejudice is against the institution of slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their abolition allies, the rank out-and-out abolitionists, unless they held out the liojic that it was tlie mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery in the States as well as territories of the Union." Tliey, the people of Ohio, and he, a New Yorker, must abolish slavery in Virginia. Mr. Joshua R. GroniNGs said of the Helper book : " Every sentence of the book finds a response in the hearts of all true Republicans." Senator Sumnek said, that " slaveholders are base, false, and heedless of justice. It is vain to expect that men, who had screwed themselves up to become the propagandists of this enormity, will be restrained by any compromise, compact, bargain, or plighted faith. As the less is contained in the greater, so there is no vileness of dishonesty, no denial of human rights, that is not plainly involved in the support of an institution, which begins by changing men, created in the image of God, into a chattel, and sweeps little children away to EEMAEKS. 237 the auction block." How strangely is tills in contrast to tlic language of anotlier Massaclinsetts Senator ! In 1S35, at a meeting in Faneuil Hall, Hakuison Gkey Otis, in reference to anti-slavery associations, said " that almost all the epithets of vituperation which the language affords, have been applied to slaveholders and their principles — to the principles of Washington, and Jeffersox, and Madison, and the RuTLEDGEs, and the Pinckneys ; and the thousands of other gi'eat and estimable persons who have held, or M'ho yet hohl slaves." He pointed to the portraits of Hancock and Wash- ington, which hung in the Hall, and said : " Let us imagine an interview between them, in the com- pany of friends, just after one had signed the commission of the other ; and, in ruminating on the lights and shadows of futurity, Hancock should have said : I congratulate my country on the choice she has made, and I foresee, that the laurels you gained in the field of Braddock's defeat, will be twined witli those which will be earned by you in the war of Independence ; yet, such are the prejudices in my part of the Union against slavery, that although your name and services may secure you from apprehension during your life, yet your countrymen, when the willows weep over your tomb, will be branded by mine as man-stealers and murderers; and the stain consequently annexed to your memory ! Would not such a prophecy have been imputed to a brain disturbed, and its accomplishment regarded as a chimera ? " And yet such a prophecy has been verified to a wide extent, not only in Massachusetts, but in the ^N'orth generally. Much that is uttered in conversation, in political speeches, in sermons, and in public prayers, can he accounted for only on the suppo- sition that there are large classes of men who desire the abolition of slavery in the States, as well as its exclusion from the territories, and that, if they had the political power, they would not scruple to use it for the attainment of both of those objects, whatever should be the consequences to the South. 4. Southern 2)rejudices.— As early as 1671, these prejudices existed. At that time, Sir William Berio^ey, Governor of Virginia, stated " that the Navigation Act cutting off" all trade with foreign countries was very injurious to them, (the Vir- 238 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKSY. ginians,) as tliey yvere obedient to the laws. And this is the cause why no great or small vessels are built here, for we are obedient to the laws, while the jS'ew England men trade to every place that their interests lead them." Mr. J. Taylok, in the Convention assembled to ratify the Constitution in North Carolina, said : " "We plainly see that men that come from New England are different from us ; they are ignorant of our situation ; they do not know the state of our country. They cannot legislate for us." • Many Southern statesmen have been under the impression, that the Northern States have very little reverence for the Con- stitution, and that they would be very ready to enlarge or diminish its powers, if, by so doing, they could advance their own material interests, and their own political power ; that :under the pretence of advancing the " general welfare," they would sacrifice the vested rights of the South ; that under the pretence of promoting " the greatest good of the greatest num- ber," they would violate sacred compacts ; that from their greed of money and their greed of political power, they are ready to sacrifice lienor and duty to self-interest, and that they love negroes only because they hate their masters. 5. "Was the new Confederacy or Union expected to be per- manent ? The Union of the Old England Colonies established in 1G43, though solemnly declared in the Constitution to be " perpetual," was dissolved. The Union, under the British Constitution, of the Colonies with the mother country, which was supposed to be organic, and claimed to be perjietual, was dissolved. The Union formed by the Federal Constitution, or " Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," and which was in that instrument solemnly declared to be perpetual, was dissolved. "Was the new Union, like those three Unions, expected to be dissolved and pass away ? The States were familiar with the idea, that " Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that " when any form of Government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new Government." By an article in the new Constitution, " the ratification of the EEMAEK3. 239 Convention of nine States shall be sufficient for the estab- lishment of this Constitution hctween the States ratifying the same ; " thus justifying the doctrine, that nine States might secede from the remaining four, notwithstanding the article in the old Constitution, namely, " And the Articles of this Con- federation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual ; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State." In the new Constitution there is no declaration that the Union shall be perpetual, no promise on the part of the States to abide in it, and no power delegated to the Federal Govern- ment to retain them in it by force. Will they stay in it ? Many of the fathers had their fears and misgivings. Even Washixgtox hardly dared to look into the future. " Let ex- perience," said he, " solve the question. To look to speculation in such a case were criminal." He evidently feared to reason on the subject, lest he should be carried to the conclusion, that the L^nion could not be preserved, however much he loved it. John' Adams expected the dissolution of the L^nion. "Tlio Kev. Mr. Coffin of ISTew England, who is now here soliciting donations for a College in Greene County, Tennessee, tells me that when he first determined to engage in this enterprise, he wrote a letter recommendatory of the enterprise, which he meant to get signed by clergymen, and a similar one for per- sons of a civil character, at the head of which he wished to have Mr. Adams to put his name, he being the President of the United States, and the application going only for his name, and not for a donation. Mr. Adams, after reading the paper, and considering, said he saw no possibility of continuing the Union of the States ; that their dissolution must necessarily take place ; that he therefore saw no propriety in recommend- ing to ISTew England men to promote an institution in the South ; that it was, in fact, giving strength to those who were to be their enemies, and therefore he would have nothing to do with it." — ^Jeffeeson's Works, Dec. 13, 1803. Li the following letter to Mr. Holmes, of Maine, April 22, 240 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVERSY. 1820, Mr. Jefferson makes known his own views : " I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you were so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents, on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had, for a long time, ceased to read the newspapers, or jjay any attention to public affairs, confident that they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our boat to the shore from which I am not far distant. But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled nic with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment, but this is a repriev'e only, not a final sentence. A (jeograpliical line coinciding with a marked ])rinciple^ moral and 'political^ and conceived and held tip hy the angry passions of men^ will never he oMiterated, and every new irritation will make it deeper and deeper. '^ * I regret, now, to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1770, to acquire self-government and hapj)iness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I do not live to weep over it." Many patriotic statesmen, like Washington, and Adams, and Jefferson, have looked with fear and trembling into the future condition of these States. They were apprehensive that the original thirteen States were too extensive for one Government. AVliat would they have said of the magnitude of the thirty-four States united in one Confederacy ? Suis et ipsa Roma virihus niit. But there are other considerations on this subject that have attracted the attention of another class of men. Coleridge, in his Tahle Talk^ 1833, p. 201, says : " Can there be any thor- ough national fusion of the Xorthcrn and the Southern States ? I think not. The fact is, the Union will be shaken almost to dislocation, whenever a very serious question between the States arises. The American Union has no centre, and it is impossible to make one. The more they e:^tend their borders into the Indian land, the weaker will the national cohesion be. I look upon the States as splendid masses to be used by-and-by in the composition of two or three Governments." A Russian writer, Iv^vn Golovin, remarked in 1856 : " A EEMAEKS. 241 A^sit to the United States has the strange property of cooling democrats. Again, I tell you, the manifest destiny of the States is disunion. I do not give the Union eight years to last." ALEXi\Js'DER Hamilton speaks of the new Constitution, when it was before the country for adoption, in the following terms : " If the Government be adoj^ted, it is probable General "Washington will be the President of the United States. Tiiis will insure a wise choice of men to administer the Government, and a good administration. A good administration will con- ciliate the confidence and aflections of the people, and perhaps enable the Government to acquire more consistency than the proposed Constitution seems to promise for so great a country. It may thus triumph altogether over the State Governments, and 7'educe them to an entire subordination, dividing the larger States into smaller districts. The organs of the General Gov- ernment may also acquire additional strength. " If this should not be the case, in the course of a few years, it is probable that the contests about the boundaries of power between the particular Governments and the General Gov- ernment and the momentum of the larger States, vnll produce a dissolution of the Union. This, after cdl, seems to he the most likely result.''^ Benjamin Hakrison, father of President IIaekison, in a letter to Gen. Washington, 1T87, says : " I cannot divest myself of the opinion, that the seeds of civil discord are plentifully sown in very many of the powers, given both to the President and the Congress ; and if the Constitution is carried into effect, the States south of the Potomac will be little more than ap- pendages to those northward." In the progress of time the seeds of civil discord germinated. Causes became apparent that threatened the dissolution of the Union. Washington, in his letter to Alexander Hamilton, July 27, 1792, says : " On my way home, and since my arrival here, I have endeavored to learn from sensible, moderate men, known friends of the Government, the sentiments that are entertained of public measures. These all agree that the country is pros- perous and happy, but they seem to be alarmed at that system 242 THE SECTIONAL CONTROYEKST. of policy, and tliose interpretations of tlic Constitution, -whicli liave taken place in Congress." These interjiretations tended to enlarge the powers of the General Government, as was sup- posed, at the expense of State rights. There were men all along, from the days of AVasuingtox to the present time, who understood the danger of disunion, and endeavored to avoid the causes that would produce it. They were prescient of the future, and saw events in their causes. In 1849, Robert E. Schenck, member from Dayton, Ohio, said : " If we of the Northern States will not vote for a South- ern man, merely because he is a Southern man, and men of the South will not vote for a Northern man, merely because he is a Northern man, and if that principle is to be carried out in all our national politics and elections, what must be the result ? Disunion. Tuat itself is disunion. You may disguise and cover it up as you please, but that it will be. It may be re- garded as but the iirst step in disunion, but its consequences follow as inevitably as fate. One section — the Xorth or the South — must always have the majority. Disfranchise all upon the other side, and the Union could not hold together a day ; It oufjld not to hold together iipoii such conditions a day.'''' On the other hand, from the first, there were those who never indulged any fears of secession and disunion. They were, indeed, inclined to ridicule the fears of others as entirely ground- less, in words like these : " The Southern States cannot be kicked out of the Union, and if they were inclined to go out, the Korth would not let them go. All the threats and all the fears of disunion are as wild as the visions of Southern fanatics and the dreams of Northern Union-savers. Tliey are all got up for political effect, and to carry on elections by frightening weak-minded Union-savers." 6. Meaning of certain Terms. — States. Tlie word State, says Mr. Madison, sometimes means territory occu])ied by a political society ; sometimes the Government established by that society ; sometimes the j)^'>P^^ composing that society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is used in this last sense when it is said that the State, or States, ratified the Constitu- tion or acceded to the Constitution. The people ratified the EEMARKS. 243 Constitution as the act of the State. Thus each State, acting by itself, and for itself, in Convention, became a party to the constitutional compact. It should be added, that the term State replaced the term colony, which Avas in use before the Declaration of Independence. The States made the Declaration of Independence, each State acting for itself, and each State becoming " free and inde- pendent." The States formed the articles of Confederation, each State still retaining its sovereignty as to all that was not delegated. The States formed the present Constitution. " The Convention which formed it, was called by a portion of the States ; its members were all appointed by the States ; received their authority from the separate States ; voted by States in forming the Constitution, transmitted it to Congress to be sub- mitted to the States for their ratification ; it was ratified by the people of each State in Convention, each ratifying by itself and for itself, and bound exclusively by its own ratification ; and by express provision it was not to go into operation unless nine out of twelve States should ratify, and then binding only be- tween the States ratifying. Any four States, great or small, could have defeated its adoption." KoGER Sherman and Oliver Ellsworth, in their letter to Governor Huntixgtox, say : ''■ AVe wish it, the Constitution, may meet with the approbation of the several States, and be a means of securing their rights, and lengthening out their tranquillity." The States retained their sovereignty for the reason that it was not delegated to the Constitution. In the case of the Bank of Augusta vs. Earle, 13 Peters' Reports, p. 590, it was decided by the Supreme Court that the " rules of international law apply to the States inter se, and the Chief Justice declared that they are sovereign States. The Constitution was a Federal compact, done in Convention, b}' the unanimous consent of the States present." Judge Chase, of the Superior Court of the United States, in Dallas' Reports, p. 199, says : " I consider the Declaration of Independence as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointl}', in a collective capacity, were independent States, but that each of them was an hidepejident StateT It asserts the separate and individual independence, freedom, and sovereignty 2i-i THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY. of eacli of the thirteen Stcates. The treaty with Great Britain recognizes the sovereignty of each State by name. United States. — This term replaced the term " United Colonies," on the Declaration of Independence. The use of the term United Colonies did not annul the separate distinc- tive rights of the Colonies. The use of the term United States does not annul the separate distinctive rights of the States, whether before the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, or after the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, or after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The word " United," used in these four different sets of circumstances, does not imply that the Colonies or the States were one people, in the sense in which a colony or a State is one, but only that the several Colonies before the Declaration of Independence, and the several States before the adoption of the Articles of Con- federation, and after their adoption, and after the adoption of the Constitution, united for certain 'purposes and hi certain respects. In the minds of the framers and friends of the Constitution, the plural idea was the ruling idea in the use of the term " United States." The term was equivalent to the " States of the Union." Thus General Washington, in his reply to Corn- planter : " The United States desire to be the friends of the Indians." "The United States will be true and faithful to tJieir engagements." But in the miuds of foreigners, and those ignorant of the structure of our Government, the singular idea is attached to the term. They sometimes say, '' the United States is able to take care of itself." In the Convention of Virginia, which ratified the Constitu- tion, Patrick IIenrt objected to the words, " We, the people of the United States," lest it might be su])posed that it meant the inhabitants of all the States as one homogeneous mass or aggregate. But Mr. Madison replied, " The j)arties to it are to be the people, but not the people as composing one great society^ but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.'' The acces- sion or adoption was the separate act of the people of «ach State, quite independent of the people of any other State. And the articles at the end arc declared to be " done in Convention Ly the unanimous consent of the States present." Peoplt2. — This term was used in application to the indi- viduals who composed a separate Colony or a separate State. " The good people of these Colonies," meant the good peoj^le in the several Colonies. It meant those for whom the deleo-ates severally acted, and it did not mean those people in the a2:gre- gate. The several peoples represented in the Convention acted by their respective delegates. Thus, the people of Connecticut acted for themselves by their delegates Eogee Suekmax, Saji- UEL HuxTixGTox, 'Willia:^ ^\'"illia3is, Olr-er AVolcott. In the Articles of Confederation, the following phrases are em- ployed : " among the people of the diilerent States " ; " and the people of each State " ; " their own people," that is, the people of the respective States. In the Constitution the word " people " is used only for reference to the inhabitants of the several States, or portions of the same, and in no case for the collective inhabitants of all the States in the aggregate. It is applied to those who were accustomed to act together under State authority, at a particular time or place, or to portions of them. Thus, '• The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re- served to the States or to the people," (that is, to the people of the States.) In the phrase, " We, the people of the United States," there is an equivalent for Ave, the people of ]^ew Hampshire, and the people of Massachusetts, tfee. Tlie articles of the Constitution was a compact " hetween the States ratify- ing the same." The '' style " of the Federal Union in the new Constitution was borrowed from the old, namely, the Articles of Confederation, and has the same meaning. The reason why the Constitution was submitted to the people of each State, and not to the several Legislatures, was because it was apprehended that the latter would oppose it. Said Wilson : " I know that they, the Legislatures and the State officers, will oppose it ; I am for carrying it to tlie people of each State." The ratification was the act of each State, and not of the Federal Government, which then had no existence, or of the aggregate people under that Government. 24:6 THE SECnOXAL CONTKOVERSY. Massachusetts, in Convention, in ratifying the " new Constitu- tion," speaks of the " riglits of the people," that is, the people of the several States ; and also uses the language, '" in the name and by the authority of the people of this Commonwealth." '• Tlic freedom of the people," was understood to mean the free- dom or the rights of the States, or of the people of the States, in distinction from tlie granted rights or powers of the Federal Government. Constitution. — The people in the Colonies were under the Beitisii Constitution. A Constitution was framed in 1G43 hy the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. It was composed of twelve articles. Tlie first fixes the name, '' The United Colonies of New England." Second : " The said United Colonies, for themselves and their posterity, do jointly and severally enter into a firm and ^;^?'^c'^'W«^ league of fiicnd- ship and amity, for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions, for their mutual safety and general welfare." Besides State Constitutions, the peojDle of the Colonics, when they became " free and independent States," through their Legislatures formed a Constitution under which they could act for specific purposes set forth in that instrument. Tliis was familiarly known as " the Articles of Confedera- tion," though it was also denominated the " Federal Con- stitution," in popular language, in the acts of the States, and in the Convention assembled to revise it. Thus, Mas- sachusetts, in the appointment of delegates to the Conven- tion which formed the " new Constitution," uses the term "'Federal Constitution" as equivalent to "the Articles of Confederation." It was solemnly ratified by all the Legislatures, and declared to be of perpetual obligation. " And the Articles of this Con- federation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall he 2)erpetual. Nor. shall any alteration, at any time hereafter, be made in any of them, unless such altera- tion be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislature of every State." EEMAKKS. 24:7 It is not strange that Luther Maetin should express the following reprobation of t\ie violation of federal obligation by forming a new Constitution in 1787 : " "Will yon toll ns that Ave onglit to trust you because you now enter into a solemn compact with us ? This you have done hefore^ and noio treat with the utmost contemjDt. Will you now make an appeal to the Supreme Being, and call on Him to guarantee your ob- servance of this compact ? The same you have formerly done for your observance of the Articles of Confederation, which you are now violating in the most wanton manner. The same reason which you now urge for destroying our present Federal Government, may be urged for abolishing the system, which you now propose to adopt." It should be kept in mind, that sectional views of the Con- stitution had an influence in producing a sectional ]3olicy in the administration of the Government. The South, from the start, favored a strict construction of the Constitution. The leadinfir statesmen of that section, from Thomas Jefferson to Jefferson Davis, generally inquired for the " enumerated powers," and the " delegated powers " contained in the Constitution, and insisted that federal action must be carefully limited by these l)owers. And if, in any case, the action of the Federal Govern- ment, in any of its branches, should go outside of these " granted powers," to usurp the j)Owers reserved to the States, it is then null and void, because unconstitutional. On the other hand, the Xortli has been inclined to a broad construction of the Constitution. The leading statesmen of that section, from Alexander Hamilton to Daniel "Webster, generally were disposed to magnify the " granted powers," though at the expense of the powers reserved to the States. ' To these general statements there are many exceptions, both in the ]Srorth and the South. Is a national bank constitutional ? Tlie Southern statesman examines the Constitution, and finding no grant of j^ower to Congress to establish such a bank, therefore pronounces the establishment of a bank unconstitutional. A Northern states- man, OH the other hand, while he acknowledges that the Con- stitution contains no express grant of power to Congress to establish a bank or any corporation, says that, inasmuch as a 24S THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. bank would be convenient or aj)pi*opriate for carrying into operation other grunts of power, it is therefore constitutionah Are internal improvements constitutional 'i On the same grounds as in the other case, the Southern statesman says no, the Northern yes. Are high tariffs for protection constitutional ? On tlie same ground as before the Southern statesmen say no, inasmuch as the Constitution empowers Congress to lay duties for revenue, but not for protection or jjrohibition. The l^orthern statesmen say yes ; because, as they judge, they are " necessary " in order to promote the " general welfare," or at least the welfare of tlieir section of the country. [Mr. Jefferson to Mr, Giles,] " MoNTiCELLO, Dec. 25, 1S25. " I see as you do, and with the deepest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal brancli of our Government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the States, and the consolidation in itself of all power, foreign and domestic ; and that, too, by constructions which, if legiti- mate, leave no limits to their power. Take together tlie de- cisions of the Federal Courts, the doctrines of the President, (J. Q. Adams,) and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislation of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three ruling branches of this de- partment, are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved to them ; and to exercise themselves all functions, foreign and domestic. * * And M'liat is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution ? Reason and argument ? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves ? They are found in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corruj^t ones, sufficient, voting together, to outnumber the sound party, and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Mr. Madison declared " that the divergence between us (Colonel Hamilton and myself) took place from his wishing to achmnistraiion, or rather to administer the Government (these KEMAKKS. 249' were Mr. Madison's very words) into what lie tliouglit it ought to be ; Avhile, on my part, I endeavored to make it conform to the Constitution, as understood by tlie Convention that pro- duced and recommended it, and particularly by the State Con- ventions that adopted it." Fedekal Government. — The word Federal is derived from the Latin word fa^dus, a league or compact. Ours is a Federal Government, as appears from the recommendation of Congress, 1787 : " Resolved, that in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday of May next, a Con- vention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the Federcd Constitution ade- quate to the exigencies of the Government and the preservation of the Union. With this the commissions from the States to the delegates corresponded. So intent were the Conventions upon making a Federal and not a consolidated Government, that, at the motion of Mr. Ellsworth, the terra " national Gov- ernment " was by an unanimous vote struck out from the Con- stitution, and instead of it the " Government of the United States " was substituted. ^ It is in its origin and nature Federal, having been framed by the States as parties, and depending for its existence on the action of the States. The letter addressed to Congress by General Washington, President of the Convention, and agreed to by that body, by paragraphs, speaks of the " Federal Government of these States,^'' and not of a national Government. The word Federal indicates that the Constitution is a compact between the States. The term " national Government " is used in a popular sense. Accede. — Mr. Webster, in his speech, Feb. 16, 1833, said, in regard to the first resolution of Mr. Calhoun, which declares that the several States " acceded " to the Constitution or con- stitutional compact, " that the M'ord accede is not found in the Constitution itself, or in the ratification of it by any of the 250 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVESSY. States. The natural converse of accession is secession, and therefore, when it is stated that the people of the States acceded to the Union, it may niore plausibly be argued that they may secede from it. If, in adojjting the Constitution, nothing was done but acccdinfj to a compact, nothing would seem to be necessary in order to break it u]), but to secede from the same compact. But the term is wJiolly out of jylaceP Tlie first resolution of Mr. Caluoun is in the following words : " Resolved^ that the people of the several States, com- jiosing these United States, are united as parties to a constitu- tional compact, to which the people of each State acceded as a separate and sovereign community, each binding itself by its own particular ratification ; and that the Union, of which the said com- pact is the bond, is a Union hetween the States ratifying the same." Is Mr. Webstek right in this declaration, that this term is wholly out of place ? Was Mr. Calhoun wrong in the use of the term ? Franklin says, vol. x., 351, " An eighth State has since acceded.''^ " The influence of each accession to the Constitution on the remaining States might be considerable." G. T. Cuetis, Ilis. Con., vol. ii., p. 529. The Governor of Rhode Island, 1789, says : " Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of Government formed and adopted by our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them." General "Washington, in his letter to Bushkod Washington, Xov. 10, 1787, says : " Let the opponents of the proposed Constitution in this State (Virginia) be asked, and it is a ques- tion they ought certainly to have asked themselves, What line of conduct they would advise it to adopt, if nine other States, of which 1 think there is no doubt, should accede to the Con- stitution. Would they recommend that it should stand single ? "\^''ill they connect it with Rhode Island ? " In a letter to James Madison, Dec. 7, 1787, he says : " If these, (South Carolina and Georgia,) with the States eastward and northward, should accede to the Federal Government, I think the citizens of this State will have no cause to bless the opposers of it here if they should carry their point." REMARKS. 251 In a letter to James Madisox, Jan. 10, 1Y88, lie says : " But of all the arguments that may be used at the Convention which is to be held, the most prevailing one will be that nine States, at least, have acceded to it, that is, to the Constitution. In his letter to Count Luzekne, Feb. 7, 1780 : " It is also said that Georgia has acceded^ Thus the language " accede to the Constitution," " accede to the Union," was current and correct long ago, as applied to the States. The phrase " members of the Union," as applied to States that had acceded to the Constitution, or ratified the Consti- tution, was also in use. The States are members of the Union. Secede, secession, are the opposite of accede, accession. The use of the two latter words, in relation to the Federal Constitu- tion, and their supposed correlation to the two former, have already been noticed. t "The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in unitino; together thev have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from tlie contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so." ; This opinion De Tocqijeville expresses in his work entitled " Democracy in America,^'' p. 419. He was as well qualified as any other foreigner to judge correctly con- cerning the nature of our institutions. <^" Any State may, at any time, constitutionally withdraw from the Union, and thus virtually dissolve it. It was not certainly created with tlie idea that the States, or several of them, would desire a separation. But whenever they chose to do it, they have no obstacle in the way." ' Thomas Colley Grattan's Civilised America, vol. i., js. 287. Mr. Macon, and Mr. Rawle, and Gouverneur Morris's opinions have been already quoted as agreeing with that of these distinguished foreigners. See pp. 68, 216, 218. The Northern members of Congress, on one occasion in the early part of General Washington's administration, " threatened secession and dissolution." See p, 37. Massachusetts and Con- necticut seemed at one time to believe in the right of secession, under certain circumstances. "We have the declaration of 17 252 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. I JouN Qcrs'CY Adams, " that the contimiaiiee of the embargo, in 1809, much longer would certainly be met by forcible resist- ance supported hy the Legislature, and probably by the ju- diciary of the State," (Massachusetts.) " That their object (the leaders of the party) was and had been for several years, a dis- solution of the Union," as he knew from " unequivocal evi- dence," that this design had been formed in the winter of 1803 and 1804, immediately after and as a consequence of the acquisition of Louisiana." ' See p. 70. Massachusetts interposed her authority, pronounced the embargo unconstitutional. Mr. Jeffeeson wisely yielded, and the embargo was repealed. In thus avoiding a collision with the State of Massachusetts, and showing his respect for State rights, he set an example which General Jackson intentionally or unintentionally followed, in advising tlie modification of the tariff laws in 1833, by which he wisely avoided a collision with South Carolina. The Boston Centinel of !Nov. 9, 1814, in noticing the ap- pointment of delegates from Connecticut and Rhode Island, to the Hartford Convention, says : " they are the second and third pillars of the new Federal edilice." ^JoHN QuiNCY Adams, in his oration delivered in 1830, on the jubilee of the Constitution, seems to countenance the right of secession under certain limitations : " To the people alone is thus reserved, as well the dissolving as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of conscience binding them to the retributive justice of heaven.^: With these qualifications we may admit the same rights vested in the 'pcojple of every State in the Union with reference to the General Government." The following from his Memoir, by JosiAu QuiNCY, p. 98, has a bearing on the same point : " There is now every appearance that the slave question will be carried by the superior ability of the slavery party. For this much is certain, that if institutions are to be judged by their results, in the composition of the councils of the Union, the slaveholders are much more ably represented than the simple freemen. With the exception of Rufus King, there is not one in either House of Congress, a member of the free States, able to cope in powers of the mind with William Pinkney and James Baeboue. In the House of Eepresentatives they have no one REMAKES. 253 to contend on equal terms with John Randolph or Clay. An- other misfortune to the free party is, that some of their ablest men are either on this question with their adversaries, or luke- warm in the cause. Tlie slave men have indeed a deeper im- mediate stake in the issue than the partisans of freedom. Tlieir passions and interests are more profoundly agitated, and they have stronger impulses to active energy than their antagonists, whose only individual interest in the case exists from its bear- ing on the balance of political power between the Xorth and the South." " The impression produced on my mind by the progress of this discussion (the Missouri) is, that the bargain between free- dom and slavery, contained in the Constitution of the United States, is morally and politically vicious ; inconsistent with the principles on which alone our revolution can be justified, cruel and oppressive, by riveting the chains of slavery, by pledging the faith of freedom to maintain and perpetuate the tyranny of the master ; and grossly unecpial and impolitic, by admitting that slaves are at once enemies to be kept in subjection, prop- erty to be secured and returned to tlieir owners, and persons not be represented themselves, but for whom their masters are privileged with many a double share of representation. " I have favored this Missouri Compromise, believing it to be all that could be effected under the present Constitution, and from extreme unwillingness to put the Union at hazard. But perhaps it would have been a wiser and a bolder cause to liave persisted in the restriction on Missouri, until it should have terminated in a Convention of the States to revise and amend the Constitution. This would have produced a new Union of thirteen or fourteen States^ unjpolluted with slavery^ with a great and glorious object, that of rallying to their standard the other States, by the universal emancipation of their slaves. If the Union must be dissolved, slavery is precisely the question upon which it ought to break." Coercion.— The founders of the Federal Government did not rely for its preservation, mainly upon physical force, as if it were a military despotism, but upon mutual confidence and " conciliated interests." We have no evidence that it Avas the 254: THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEKSY. intention of the Convention that formed the Constitution, or of the States that were parties to the compact, to clothe the Gov- ernment with power to use military coercion against a State that had placed itself on its reserved rights. If there was such an intention, where is it recorded ? What they did rely upon was legal coercion^ acting through the forms of law upon indi- viduals. Mr. CuKTis, in his excellent history of the Constitution, vol. ii., pp. G2, 63, says : " One of the leading objects in forming the Constitution, was to obtain for the United States the means of coercion, without a resort to force against the people of the States collectively." " The introduction, therefore, of the judi- cial department into the new plan of Government, of itself evinces an intention to clothe that Government with powers that could be executed jpeacefully^ and without the necessity of putting down the organized opposition of subordinate communities." "Washington, in a letter addressed to Alexandek Hamilton, Aug. 26, 1792, having spoken of " mutual forbearance and yielding on all sides," adds, " witliout these, I do not see how the reins of Government are to be managed, or how the Union of the States can much longer be preserved." With respect to the coercion of a State, I have found no evidence that Washington differed from Madison and Bu- chanan, with respect to the constitutional power to coerce a State. In the case of the whiskey insurrection, he acted in harmony with the executive authority of the State then repre- sented by Governor Mifflin, and also in harmony with the views of Judge Willson, of Pennsylvania, an associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. lie was careful to keep the military in subordination to the civil authority. In the farewell address of General Jackson, March 3, 1837, is the following : " But the Constitution cannot be maintained, nor the Union preserved in opposition to j^ublic feeling by the mere exertion of coercive powers of the Government. The foun- dations must be laid in the affections of the pcojyle, in the security it gives to life, liberty, and property in every quarter of the country ; and in the fraternal attachments which the citizens of the several States bear to one another, as members of one political family, matenally contributing to promote the happiness of each other." SEMARKS. 255 It appears evident' from tlie clel)ates in the United States Senate, Feb. 8, 1831, and from other facts, that General Jack- son endorsed the opinions of Mr. Hayne, on the subject of State rights, and not those of Mr. AVebster. The tone and langna^e of Mr. Webster's speeches, on that "\v ell-known occasion, were extremely well adapted to popular effect, and were greatly and deservedly admired even by many who felt that he leaned towards a construction of the Constitution which would make the Gen- eral Government consolidated rather than Federal. What the oj)inions of General Jackson were, in respect to nullification, in the case of South Carolina are well known from his proclamation, written by Edward Livengston", then Secre- tary of State. On that occasion he was in favor of carrying the olive branch in one hand and the swoi-d in the other. South Carolina was in the Union, and, of course, siibject to the laws of the Union. These laws General Jackson was deter- mined to execute, but he and other wise men on that occasion, pursued a conciliatory course that rendered the forcible execution of the laws unnecessary. " If it be supposed that, among the States which are united by the Federal tie, there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of Union, or whose prosperity depends on the duration of that Union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the Central Government in enforcing the obedience of others. But the Government would then be exciting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union ; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal Government -would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the States. " If one (or more) of the Confederate States have acquired a preponderance sufliciently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other States as subject provinces, and it will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the Sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in tlie name of the Federal Government, but in reality that Government will have ceased to exist. In both of these cases, the power which acts 256 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. in tlie name of the Confederation becomes stronger, the more it abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles of Confederation." — De Tocquevtlle, p. 419. " I understand the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. Hale, to proclaim not the gospel of peace between brethren, but a cir- cumspect waiting to ascertain w^hether Mr. Buchanan would or would not send a Federal army to coerce South Carolina. I trust, sir, if Mr. Buchanan should do so high-handed and fatal an act of violence as that, his term is not too brief, as President of the United States, for him to be arraigned at our bar by an impeachment. What would South Carolina be worth to herself or to us if she were dragged captive in chains ? I wish no State of this Union subjugated by her sisters. If she cannot be re- tained by the bonds of affection, by acts of kindness, why then, in God's name, horrible as I esteem such an alternative — let her depart in sorrowful silence." — Senator Puon, Dec. 10, 18G0. Mr. Clay, in deprecating a civil war, used the following lan- guage : '' But if they were to conquer, whom would they con- quer ? A foreign foe, one who had insulted our flag, invaded our shores, and laid our country w^aste ? Ko, sir, no. It would be a conquest loithout laurels, without glory, a self-suicidal con- quest, a conquest of brothers over brothers, obtained by one over another portion of the descendants of common ancestors, who, nobly pledging ' their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor,' had fought and bled side by side in many a hard battle on land and ocean, severed our country from the British crown, and established our national independence." It was provided in the Constitution that legal coercion should be exerted against inclividuals who violate the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. This, it was supposed, would su- persede the necessity of making any provision for the coercion of a State by military force. The Constitution recognizes treason agaijist a State as a crime, and requires a traitor who has fled into another State to be delivered up. It thus acknowledges the Sovereignty of the States : Treason is a crime against sovereignty. " The Consti- tution does not," in the language of Chief-Justice Ellsworth, '' attempt to coerce sovereign bodies." Such an attempt is KEMAKKS. 257 equivalent to an act of -vrar of a government of delegated sov- ereignty^ against a government of original and inherent sov- ereignty. CoxciLiATioN AND CoMPKOinsE. — In 1794, when combina- tions were formed in Pennsylvania to defeat the execution of the laws laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States, commissioners were appointed by the Federal Govern- ment to persuade the actors to return to their duty. Thus "WAsmNGTON pursued a conciliatory course, even in case of an insurrection which received no encouragement from a State, in its organized capacity. " Now, for one, I am not ready yet to take the responsibility of absolutely closing the door of reconciliation. I cannot per- suade myself to forget the warnings that have descended to us from many of the wisest and best statesmen of all time against this rigid and haughty mode of treating great discontents. I cannot overlook the fact that, in the days of our fathers, the im- perious spirit of Chatham did not feel itself as sacrificing any of his proud dignity by proposing to listen to their grievances, and even to concede every reasonable demand, long after they had placed themselves in armed resistance to all the power of Great Britain. Had George the Third listened to his words of wisdom, he might have saved the brightest jewel of his crown. He took the opposite course. He denied the existence of griev- ances. He rejected the olive branch. History records its ver- dict in favor of Chatham and against the king." — C. F. Adams, of Massachusetts, in the House of Kepresentatives, Jan. 31, 1861. This language of conciliation was in harmony with the feel- ings of a great portion of the people in the States both Xorth and South, at that time. On the other hand, Mr. Egerton, of Ohio, Jan. 31, 1S61, said : 1. " I will not compromise, because I have no ftiith tliat any compromise we can make would stand any longer than it minis- tered to slavery. 2. " I will not compromise, because I would not further strengthen slavery. 268 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVERST. 3. " I will not compromise, finally, because slavery is a sin, an ontrage against humanity, and an insult to God." This language was probably in harmony with the feelings of a large portion of people in some of the Northern States. " This is a mighty empire. Its existence spreads its influ- ence through the civilized world. Its overthrow will be the greatest shock that civilization and free governments have ever received ; more extensive in its consequences, more fatal to mankind, than the French Revolution, with all its blood, and with all its war and violence. And for what ? Upon questions concerning this line of division between slavery and freedom ? Why, Mr. President, suppose this day all the Southern States being refused their right, being refused this partition, being de- nied this privilege, were to separate from the Northern States, were to do it peaceably, and then were to come to you and say : * Let there be no war between us ; let us divide fairly this terri- tory of the United States ; ' could the Northern section of the country refuse so just a demand ? what would you then give them ? what would be the fair proportion ? K you allowed them their fair relative proportion, would you not give them as much as is now proposed to be assigned on the Southern side of that line, and would they not be at liberty to carry their slaves there if they pleased ? "—Mr. Ckittenden, Dec. 28, 1860. Mr. EvEEETT, May 29, 1860, made the following declaration : " Our political controversies have substantially assumed an almost purely sectional character — that of a fearful struggle between the North and the South. It would not be difficult to show at length the perilous nature and tendency of this strug- gle, but I can only say, on this occasion, that, in my opinion, it cannot much longer be kept up without rending the Union. * * * A spirit of patriotic moderation must be called into activity throughout the Union, or it will assuredly be broken up." Senator Brown, of Mississippi, Dec. 12, 1860, said : "If the same spirit could prevail which now actuated the Senator who has just spoken, (Mr. Dixon, of Connecticut,) a different state of things might prevail in twenty days." President Buchanan used the following language on this subject: "The proposition to compromise by letting the North EEMAEKS. 259 have the exclusive control of the territory above a certain line, and giving Southern institutions protection below that line, ought to receive universal approbation. In itself, it may not be entirely satisfactory, but when the alternative is between a rea- sonable concession on both sides, and the destruction of the Union, it is an imputation on the patriotism of Congress to as- sert that its members will hesitate for a moment." Listen, also, to the following patriotic sentiments from Sen- ator Sewaed : " Beyond a doubt. Union is vitally important to the Republican citizens of the United States; but it is just as important to the whole people. Republicanism and Union are not convertible terms. Republicanism is subordinate to Union as every thing else is ; Republicanism, Democracy, every other political name and thing — all are subordinate, and they ought to disappear in the presence of the great question of Union. So far as I am concerned, it shall be so." The plan of compromise proposed by Mr. Ckittenden, Jan. 12, 1861 — and which was regarded with favor by a large portion of the Peace Congress assembled at Washington, and which was acceptable generally to the Border States — was not satisfactory to the extremists either I^orth or South. The majority of the Senate was not in favor of it. Whether the greater share of the blame of the failure of this attempt at compromise was due to the North or to the South, it is not necessary here to inquire. The terrible consequences of the failure soon became alarmingly evident. " Blood-letting " was substituted for the counsels of peace and conciliation. Construction of the Constitution. — " It is evident that a Confederation so vast and so varied, both in numbers and in territorial extent, in habits and interests, could only be kept in national cohesion by the strictest fidelity to the principles of the Constitution, as understood by those wdio have adhered to the most restricted constructions of the powers given by the people and the States. Interpreted and applied according to those principles, the great compact adapts itself with healthy ease and freedom to an unlimited extension of that benign system of federative self-government, of which it is our glorious, and, I trust, immortal charter. Let us then, with redoubled vigilance. 260 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEKSY be on our guard against yielding to the temptation to the exer- cise of doubtful powers, even under the pressure of the motives of conceded temporary advantage and apparent temporary ex- pediency. " The minimum of Federal Government, compatible with the maintenance of national unity and efficient action in our relation with the rest of the world, should afford the rule and measure of construction of our powers under the general clauses of the Constitution. A spirit of strict deference to the sovereign rights and dignity of every State, rather than a disposition to subordinate the States into a provincial relation to the central authority, should characterize all our exercise of the respective powers temporarily vested in us as a sacred trust from the gener- ous confidence of our constituents." — Feanklln" Pierce. First Annual Message. Mr. Madison, in his letter to Mr. Webster, March 15, 1833, says : " The Constitution of the United States being established by a competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were parties to it, it remains only to in- quire what that Constitution is." The evidence in this inquiry is largely philological. The common rules for interpreting language must .be applied to the Constitution in order to learn what it is. The meaning attrib- uted to the several clauses by the Convention that formed it, and the several State Conventions which adopted it, may be safely considered as the true meaning. Practically, the true course to be pursued by the Federal Government in the construction of the Constitution, is never to ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE ANY DOUBTFUL POWERS. TllC benefit of a doubt should always accrue to the residuary powers reserved to the States, and never to the delegated powers intrusted by the Constitution to the Federal Government. The burden of proof rests on the Federal Government. In the last resort the parties to the constitutional compact nmst be the judges. See p. 268. GOUVERNEUR MoRRIS TO TiMOTHY PiCKERING, DeC. 22, 181-4. — " But, after all, what does it signify that men should have a written Constitution, containing unequivocal provisions and KEMAEKS. 2G1 limitations. The legislative lion will not be entangled in the meshes of a logical net. The Legislature will always make the power which it wishes to exercise, miles.? it be so organized as to contain, in itself, the sufficient check. Attempts to restrain it from outrage by other means will only render it the more outrageous. The idea of binding Legislatures by oaths is pue- rile. Having sworn to exercise the powers granted accord- ing to their true intent and meaning, they will, when they de- sire, go further and avoid the shame, if not the guilt of per- jury, by showing the true intent to be, according to their com- prehension, that which suits their purpose." " There is no difference between a Government having all power and a Government having the right to take Avhat power it pleases." — J. C. Calhoujst. In 1802, Alexander Hamilton called the Constitution the " frail and worthless fabric," and spoke of it as " a temporary bond." He had endeavored to infuse energy and strengtli into it by a broad or loose construction of its powers, but the States had decided against such a construction ; hence the epithets which he applied to it. Mr. Madison says of General Washington, " that he signed Jay's treaty, but he did not at all like it. He also signed the bank, but he was very near not doing so ; if he had refused, it would, in my opinion, have produced a crisis." " I am satisfied that had it been his veto, there would have been an effort to nullify it ; they would have arrayed them- selves in a hostile attitude." — Mr. Trist, 1S27. A dominant party in the Government is often tempted to enlarge the Federal powers at the expense of State rights ; and when the opposing party becomes dominant, it, in turn, is tempted to follow bad precedents, and thus sanction what it had asserted to be a violation of the Constitution. Thus Mr. Madison, with his party, opposed, with great ability, the charter of the first bank of the United States. But when his own party came into power, and passed a vote to charter the second bank of the United States, he, in opposition to his own declared con- stitutional views on the subject, gave his signature to the bill. An unconstitutional act in a given case " will be recorded as 263 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOYEItSY. a precedent, and many an error, by the same example, will rush into the State." Kevolution. — A revolution does not necessarily imply war or the shedding of blood, as it is supposed by many to do. What is the cause of this erroneous supposition ? Why, in the case of the American Revolution there was war and the shed- ding of blood. In the case of the French Revolution there was war and the shedding of blood, and so the conclusion is drawn that revolution necessarily implies war and the shedding of blood. " I acknowledge, to the fullest extent, the right of revolu- tion, if you call it a right, and of the destruction of the Govern- ment under which we live, if we are discontented with it, and on its ruins to erect another more in accordance with our wishes ; but they that undertake it, undertake it with this hazard : if they are successful, then all is right, and they are heroes ; if they are defeated, they are rebels." — Senator Wade, of Ohio, Dec. 17, 1850. " We are confusing language very much. Men speak of revolution, and when they sj^eak of revolution they mean blood. Our fathers meant nothing of the sort. When they spoke of revolution, they spoke of an inalienable i*ight." If our fathers had the " inalienable right " to change their " systems of Gov- ernment," where was the right of Great Britain in the premises to wage war against the States ? In Mr. Force's published volumes is a pamphlet, the title page of which is as follows : " An account of the late Revolu- tion in New England, together with the declaration of the gen- tlemen, merchants, and inhabitants of Boston and the country adjacent, April, 18, 1GS9 ; written by Nathaniel Byefield, a mercliant of Boston, in New England, to his friends in Lon- don." Concerning this revolution, it is said " through the good- ness of God there has heen no Ijlood shed.''^ In this revolution from the Government of James to that of William, Sir Edmond Andross, Kt., was ordered to " surrender and deliver up the Government and fortifications," and he consented without re- sistance. The great English revolution of 1689, when James TI. was dethroned, and William and Mary reigned in his stead. KEMAUKS. 263 ■was not attended by war or much, violence ; and yet, how be- neficent it proved ! Revolution is not necessarily connected with M'ar and bloodshed. SovEKEiGNTY OR SuPEEME PowEK. — In a dcspotism, the mon- arch is sovereign. In Great Britain, the sovereignty, or supreme power, is lodged with the Ivings, Lords, and Commons. In the United States, it rests with the people of the several States. In the Continental Congress, 177-i, Patrick Henry, speak- ing for Virginia, thought it would be unjust " for a little colony to weigh as much in the councils of America as a great one." Mr. SuLLrv'AJsr, of l^ew Hampshire, responded that " a little colony had its all at stake as much as a great one," thus an- nouncing in the outset the great doctrine of the equality of States, as sovereign and independent communities. Accord- ingly, it was resolved that " each colony shall have one vote." • In June 27, 1776, the Continental Congress declared " that all persons owing allegiance to any of the United Colonies, who shall bring war against any of the citizens, are guilty of trea- son " against the colony to which they owe allegiance, thus re- cognizing the sovereignty of each colony. In the Constitution, of Massachusetts, formed 1780, is the fol- lowing form : " I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, that the Commonwealth of Massa- chusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovei^eign^ and inde- pendent State ; and I do swear that I will bear true allegiance to the Commonwealth, and that I will defend the same against trai- torous conspiracies." Tlie States are sovereign in all that relates to the powers re- served to themselves, and which they did not delegate to the Federal Government in creating it. In creating the Federal Government, the States delegated a portion of their individual sovereignty to it, to be employed for the common benefit. The Federal Government was endowed, by the States acting in con- ventions, with the powers of exercising sovereignty in respect to war, taxation, and treaties with foreign nations, and other enumerated subjects. In the language of Mr. Madisox, the enu- merated powers vested in the Government of the United States are of as high and sovereign a character as any of the powers reserved to the State Governments. 261 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. " JSTor is the Government of tlie United States created by the Constitution, less a Government, in the strict sense of the term, within the scope of its j)Owers, than the Governments cre- ated by the Constitutions of the States are -svithiu their several spheres." " My own general idea was that the States should severally preserve their sovereignty^ and that the exercise of the Federal sovereignty should be divided among these several bodies, legislative, executive, and judiciary, as the State sovereignties are, and that some peaceable means should be contrived for the Federal head to force compliance on the part of the States." Tin's refers to legal coercion, to the exclusion of war. The people of each State, at the time they adopted the Fed- eral Constitution, delegated to the Federal Government a por- tion of the sovereignty which was inherent in the State, but they reserved to it all that was not delegated. They delegated to the Federal Government the power to act on individuals, but not to act against the State by military coercion. To act against a State in this way, would be to make war against a sovereign power, to which the people of the State, as individuals, owe allegiance as well as obedience, and against which they may commit treason by withholding allegiance and obedience, j AVhenever a question arises in regard to the line of ^.i vision between the delegated sovereignty of the Federal Government and the original sovereignty of the States, it was intended Jiftt the Federal Court shall, by its decision, settle that ^question in all those cases which can be brought before it for adjudication, and that the Executive'shall carry out those decisions in their applications to individuals. " This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the superior law of the land ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This ap- plies only to distinct and not to doubtful powers. But if a State should place itself on its reserved powers, and should deny the constitutionality of a Federal act, whether of the legislative, or executive, or the judicial branch of the KE:^LiEKS. 2G5 Government, then the true mode of settling the same question is to summon a Convention of the States to declare that act constitutional or otherwise, and thus prevent a dangerous colli- sion between the delegated sovereignty of the Federal Govern- ment and the residuary sovereignty of the States. War is a cojitest between sovo'eignties. " The Gordian knot of the Constitution seems to be in the problem of collision between the Federal and State powers, especially as eventually to be exercised by their respective tri- bunals. If the knot cannot be untied by the text of the Consti- tution, it ought not certainly to be cut by any political Alexan- der."— Mr. Madison, Jan. 29, 1S21. Allegiance. — On the 2d of July, ITTG, the Continental Congress passed the following resolution : liesolved, That the United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States ; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political con- nection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." On the passage of this resolution, a special committee was appointed to prepare a preamble declaring the causes which led to its adoption, to accompany its promulgation to the world. On the Fourth of July, this Declaration of Independence received the unanimous sanction of the delegates from each State, by the signature of their names. In 1Y7T, the following oath of " abjuration and allegiance" was adopted by the State of South Carolina : " I, A B, do ac- knowledge that the State of South Carolina is, and of right ought to be, a free, and independent, and sovereign State, and that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of Great Britain ; * * * and I do further swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the said State, and to the utmost of my power will support, maintain, and defend the freedom and independence thereof." The present Constitution of South Carolina contains the fol- lowing : " I solemnly swear (or afhrm) that I will l)e faithful, and true allegiance bear to the State of South Carolina, so long as I continue a citizen thereof." 266 THE SECTIOX^VL COXTROVERST. In the Constitution of Massaclnisetts, formed in 1780, is the following form : " I, A B, do testify and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, that the Commonwealth of Massa- cliusetts is, and of right ought to he, a free, sovereign^ and inde- l)endent State, and I do swear I will hear true allegiance to the Commonwx\alth, and that I will defend the same against all trai- torous conspiracies." Is allegiance due hoth to the State sovereignty and to the Federal sovereignty, also, in the scope of its delegated powers ? Can sovereignty, or at least its exercise, be divided between the State Government and the General Government ? May not a corresponding division be made of allegiance ? Why not ? There are those who say that allegiance cannot be divided. Tliey say that, under the Constitution of the United States, every citizen owes allegiance to the State, and obedience to the Federal Government. 4. JSI'orthern Yieios of Slave Property. — In March, 1798, when tlie bill for the erection of a Government in Mississippi Territory was before Congress, it was moved that the same should be in all respects similar to that established in the ISTorth- western Territory, except that " slavery should not be forbidden." Mr. Thatcher, of Massachusetts, moved to strike out the except- ing clause, thus excluding slavery from the Territory. Mr. Otis, of Massachusetts, " hoped his colleague would not withdraw his motion ; and the reason why he wished this was, that an opportunity might be given to gentlemen loho came from the same part of the Union with him to manifest that it is not their disposition to interfere with the Southern States as to that species of property in question. He thought it was not the business of those who had nothing to do with that kind of prop- erty to interfere with that right. If the amendment prevailed, it would declare that no slavery should exist in the ]^atches country. Tliis would not only be a sentence of banishment, but of war." The amendment did not prevail, and slavery was permitted in the Territory. Chief-Justice Shaw, of Massachusetts, 1836, in a legal deci- sion, said : " Slavery, to a certain extent, seems to have crept KEMARKS. 267 into the colonial government, not probably by force of law for none such is found to exist ; but either, it is presumed, from that universal custom pervading through the colonies, in the West Indies, and on the continent of America, and which M-as fos- tered and encouraged by the commercial policy of the times. That it was so established is shown by this : that by several provincial acts, passed at various times in the early part of the lust century, slavery was recognized as an existing fact, and va- l*ious regulations were prescribed in reference to it." Judge BissEL, of Conn., has said, 1S37, " that the principle was recognized and acted upon that one man might have prop- erty in another, might command his services for life without compensation, and dispose of him as he would of any other chattel." Judge Baldwin, of the United States Court, in the case of Johnson versics Tompkins, declares that " the foundations of this (the Federal) Government are laid, and rest on the rights of ^property in slaves, and the lohole fcd)ric mustfcdl hy disturhinrj the corner-stone.''' Alexaxdek IIamiltox remarks that " it is the unfortunate situation of the Southern States to have a great part of tluir population, as well as property, in blacks." lie, like other leading statesmen contemporaneous with him, had no difficulty in considering slaves as property. 7. Personal Liberty Bills. — " If the j^roperty of an Ameri- can citizen is taken by a foreign nation, and, upon a demand for redress, it is not given up, or paid for, war follows ; and if instead the foreign Government legislates to protect the wrongdoer, war is inevitable." '"■ It would be the case if the same thing took place between any foreign States. But M'e (the Southern States) are in a vastly worse condition than would be the people of any foreign State, because those States of the Union that legislate to prevent the recapture of our property are doing it with per- fect safely. The proceedings of the old Barbary powers, when they nsed to send out cruisers and captm*e property on the high seas, were brave and honorable enterprises compared with these proceedings, because they run the risk of having their cities bombarded." — Senator Clixgman, Dec. 4, ISGO. 18 268 THE siicTioNAL Cv>NTi:sr. This statement of the ease, evidently a fair one, places in a srrong light the injustice of certain personal liberty bills, vio- lating, as they do, the principles of the Constitution, and having the effect to defeat one of its provisions. Any State which has passed a personal liberty bill designed to defeat a plain provi- sion of the Constitution for the return of fugitive slaves, cannot consistently coni})lain of the States injured by those bills, if they refuse to act with tlicm in the Confederacy. AVithout the in- troduction of the article for the return of fugitive slaves, we know that the Constitution would not have been adopted, and if States, by their legislation, make that article null and void, they release the otlier States which hold slaves from their obli- gation to continue in the Confederacy. " A compact broken on one side is broken on all sides." 8. Who are to judge, in the last resort, in respect to the constitutionality of the acts of the Federal Government ? Evi- dently the same organized bodies that origlncdly adopted the Constitution, and that now have 'poioer to amend the Constitu- tion. " Nine," or three-quarters of the States that sent delegates to the Convention, had power to adopt the Constitution and make it binding hetween the States ; and three-quarters of the States now acting by their Legislatures or their Conventions, have power to amend the Constitution. They can declare what the meaning of the Constitution is in doubtful cases. In common cases, Avhicli are ca])able of assuming, and actu- ally assuming, the character of a suit, the Supreme Court of the United States is the interpreter. In cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit at law or in equity. Congress, when called to act, must interpret the Constitution in such a way as never to exercise any doubtful powers. "When the Supreme Court or Congress, or, more comprehen- sively, when the General Government exercnses doubtful power or powers that any of the States claim to be not delegated, but reserved, then the States, acting in Convention or by their Legis- latures, can determine whether the power in question is delegated or reserved. The States are to judge in the last resort of the constitutionality of the acts of the Federal Government. The Constitution gives to them this authority, in giving them power KK-AIAIiKS. 269 to amend the Federal Constitution. If three-fourths of the States refuse to act by their Legislatures or by Convention, in tlie manner prescribed by tlie Constitution, then the aggrieved States have to choose between bearing the evil complained of, or vindicating the right of revolution ; just as the colonies did when they made the Declaration of Independence, and sus- tained it by a seven years' war against the unreasonable de- mands of the mother country. And as the aggrieved States have in sucli a case the right to determine what it is their duty to do ; so in like manner the other States, acting through the forms of the Federal Government, have also the right to deter- mine what it is their duty to do in their relations to the ag- grieved States.