440 
 
 STATE OF THE UNION 
 
 B6 
 opy 1 
 
 SPEECH 
 
 OF 
 
 HON. JOHN A. BINGHAM, OF OHIO, 
 
 IN THE HOUSE OF REPEESENTATIVES, JANUARY 22, 1861. 
 
 ^1 
 
 The House having under consideration the report from 
 the select committee of thirty-three — 
 
 Mr. BINGHAM said: 
 
 Mr. Speaker: No man can regret more than I 
 do the fact that there is conspiracy in the Capitol 
 and wide-spread conspiracy in the country , against 
 the Constitution, the Union, and the laws. For 
 one, I am ready to say, that neither partisan feel- 
 ing, nor pride of opinion, nor the prejudices or 
 passions of the hour, shall deter me from an earn- 
 est support of any and all just legislation essen- 
 tial to the supremacy of the Constitution and the 
 maintenance' of the Union. But, sir, it is in vain 
 to endeavor to save the Constitution by a sacrifice 
 of the great principles which underlie it, and 
 which constitute its hfe. I cannot, and will not, 
 under any pressure, support any measure which 
 shall involve such a sacrifice. No, sir; I stand 
 here to-day for the Constitution as it is. I stand 
 to-day with millions of my countrymen of every 
 section of the Republic for the Constitution as it 
 is. By all the dread memories of the past, by all 
 the felt enjoyments of the present, by all the cher- 
 ished hopes of the future, we are commanded to 
 maintain intact and inviolate that matchless form 
 of civil polity— the Constitution of our common 
 country; that country which has but one Consti- 
 tution; that country which embraces every rood 
 of the Republic — the East, with its rock-bound 
 coast and its consecrated battle-grounds; the 
 North, with its Keystone and its Empire States; 
 the West, the boundless West, with its great riv- 
 ers and inland seas, with its exhaustless hidden 
 treasures and its fertile plains, now numbering 
 ten million freemen, and soon, I trust in the good 
 providence of God, to number one hundred mil- 
 lion freemen; and the South, the beautiful, sunlit 
 South, with its gallant, generous, but misled and 
 distracted people, with its sacred traditions and 
 its holy graves, the sepulchers of our dead heroes, 
 dead patriots, and dead statesmen. What are all 
 these several sections but parts of our common 
 country — that country which is the common her- 
 itage of every citizen of the Republic, whether 
 native or adopted, and into every part of which, 
 under the Constitution, every citizen has the right 
 to go, and there enjoy all the privileges and im- 
 
 munities of an American citizen, without let or 
 hinderance from any local State government, or 
 from any secession convention or lawless mob ? 
 
 But, sir, notwithstanding the clear guarantee 
 of the Constitution to every citizen, however 
 humble, that he shall be at Uberty to go, under 
 the protection of the laws, everywhere within the 
 jurisdiction of the Federal Constitution, into every 
 State, into every county and hamlet and city of 
 the Union, upon every water course, upon every 
 sea, all round the globe wherever your flag floats; 
 yet, day by day it is proclaimed here and in the 
 other end of the Capitol that this guarantee of the 
 Constitution, this right of the citizen, may be 
 swept away at any moment by a State secession 
 convention. Sir, I stand here to deny that prop- 
 osition. With uplifted hand, I deny that any 
 State of this Union, or all the States of this 
 Union combined, acting as States, can rightfully 
 deprive any citizen of his guarantied privileges. 
 In the name of the people of the Republic, I de- 
 clare that no power, save the sovereign power of 
 the people themselves, can rightfully separate 
 any portion of this country from the rest, or sever 
 the sacred ties which bind together its various 
 parts. And, above all — above all, sir, do I de- 
 clare that no State can rightfully strike down 
 that unity of government which, in the words 
 of Washington, constitutes us one people, and 
 which is the main pillar in the edifice of our real 
 independence, the support of our tranquillity at 
 home,ofourpeaceabroad,ofourhappiness,ofour 
 prosperity, and of that very liberty which we so 
 highly prize. And I further deny, in the name 
 of the American people, that any State can right- 
 fully let loose in our midst the demon of discord, 
 to breathe upon us from his shriveled lips famine, 
 pestilence and death, to blast our fields, and defile 
 our hearths and altars with the blood of fratri- 
 cide. 
 
 Now, that the Constitution has been wantonly 
 violated, and its supremacy defied; now, that 
 our flag — the flag of the Union, consecrated to 
 freedom by the sacrifice of blood — has been torn 
 down, and surrendered to .traitors; now, that our 
 forts, our arsenals, our custom-houses, our arms, 
 and our treasure have been unlawfully seized ; now, 
 that our citizens, charged and chargeable with no 
 

 ort'ense.savelheiiloyalty to the Constitution, and is otherwise. In the exercise of our legislative 
 
 their fidelity to their allegiance, have been driven powers, under the Constitution, the Representa- 
 
 by mobs into exile or cast by mobs into prison, we tives chosen in each State do not vote collectively, 
 
 are gravely told to deliberate, not wluither we will as the Representatives of any State, but vote indi- 
 
 niainlain the Constitution and the sujjremacy of vidually, each upon his own judgment, and all 
 
 the laws, but whether we will not make com'pro- for the whole country, and for no particular State. 
 
 niises with, and concessions to, rebels. 1 believe. The Constitution of the United States vests in the 
 
 sir, that the duty of to-day, enjoined by our oaths national Government the powers of general sov- 
 
 upon every Rt-itresentative and upon every Sena> ereignty; while each State government is invested 
 
 tor, is to strengthen the arm of the Executive by by the people therein with only the powers of 
 
 such additional legislation as will enable him to municipal authority. 
 
 summon the people of the whole country, from Who does not know, as the honorable gentle- 
 
 the North and the South, from the East and the man from Virginia [Mr. Millson] stated yester- 
 
 West, to the rescue of a violated Constitution, day, that State governments are governments of 
 
 I have believed this to be our first duly from the delegated authority? Who ever heard of a gov- 
 
 beginning of this trouble; and hence it was that crnment transferring its delegated powers, redel- 
 
 r voted against raising any committee of compro- egating them to another body-politic, to a new 
 
 misc. government.' No one. The Constitution of the 
 
 Acting upon this conviction, on the 12th of last United States came from the people, within the 
 
 December, I introduced a resolution, by leave of limits of their respective States. The people or- 
 
 this House, renuesting your special committee to dained the Constitution of the United States, and 
 
 report such additional legislation as would enable veeted the Government of the United States with 
 
 the Executiv"' to put down rebellion, to protect the general sovereignty of this country. By that 
 
 the property of this Government, its forts and sam^j.act they stripped every State \vithin the 
 
 its arms, its treasure and its munitions of war. Union of the general sovereignty which before 
 
 against unlawful seizure; especially to protect its that time was lodged in it. 
 
 loyal citizens everywhere, and in every place. That, sir, is my position. The people ordained 
 
 against the unlawful violence inflicted upon them the Constitution of the United States, not the 
 
 l)ecause of their fidelity to the Constitution. But, States. Mr. Pendleton, in the Virginia conven- 
 
 sir, these suggestions have, thus far, met with but tion, on the adoption of the Constitution, said: 
 
 little favor on either side of this House. Gentle- <i \vi,o tmt the peoplo can delegate powers ; who l)utthe 
 
 men may think — and their own judgment certainly people have a right to form governments." 
 
 must be and ought to be the rule of their conduct It requires no argument to prove that the people, 
 
 — that compromise is best, that conciliation is best, and the people alone, formed the Constitution of the 
 
 and that the surrender even of principle, to some United States; it is written on the fore-front of that 
 
 extent, is best. lam constrained to differ with instrument. " We, thepeopleoftheUnited Slates, 
 
 ihem; to dissent, totally dissent, from all such do ordain and establish this Constitution." That 
 
 opinions. Acting, sir, upon my own convictions was a sublime act; it was the organization of a 
 
 of duty — in order to check rebellion and assert nation under a common Government. The peo- 
 
 theauthorityot'theGovernment — I introducedinto piy ordained, and it wasdone. It was of tliis wise 
 
 this House, some three weeks ago, what is known and beneficent action of men that the great Roman 
 
 as the " force bill;" that law which proved so orator and statesman spoke, when he said: 
 
 efficient to suppress the rebellion of 1833 under «Ti,ero i^ nothing done upon earth more acceptable to 
 
 the administration of the patriot President, An- thatOod who rules the universe than in those assemblages 
 
 drew Jackson atiddeliberationsofmen,rightfully associating together and 
 
 As yet, this'important measure has received no constituting governments for nations." 
 
 consideration in this House; and allow me to add The Constitution is the law for the govern- 
 
 thri it is no fault of mine that it has not been ment of this great nation. By means of it, this 
 
 acted upon. Why, sir, when remedial legisla- people became one, and the nation came to be. 
 tion like this is proposed, we are told by the other All governmental powers under that Constitution 
 side of the House that every State has the right can be exercised only by the people, through their 
 to secede, and that the Government of tin; United duly chosen agents. 
 
 States cannot coerce a State; and that, therefore, 
 the only way in wiiich we can maintjiin the Con- 
 stitution and the laws is by making concessions 
 to, and compromises with, the si.-ceding States 
 
 What, then, becomes of the assertion that a State 
 has a right to secede from the Union .> That is 
 the basis of the argument for compromise and for 
 concession. I grant you that, if this asserted 
 
 Sir, whoever makr-s that assertion proceeds upon right i)e well founded, there is nothing left for us 
 the assumption that tlie Government of the Uni- to do tiian to make such compromises and to grant 
 ted States is dependent for its administration — such concessions as the seceding States may de 
 
 — nay, for its existcnci — upon the assent of each 
 and every State. And they must further assume 
 that the Government of the Uni ted States is the mere 
 creature of the Slates as such. I deny both these 
 assumptiiins. Gentlemen who thus speak must 
 suppose iliat thi-y still live under the Articles of 
 Confederation, and that all legislative power in 
 
 mand. But 1 deny this assi.-rted State right. Has 
 a Slate a right to secede from theUnion? Whatis 
 secession ? It is a jiartition of the Republic; it is a 
 contraction of the limits of the Rejuiblic; it is the 
 al)solute exclusion oftlie jurisdiction of the United 
 Stales, as a Governin-'iit, from the limits of the 
 seceding State; an<l filially, it is a total abrogation, 
 
 CongresK is exercised ijy uh only as the collectii'e witiiin tin; limits of the seceding State, of all the 
 Rcpresenuuives of independent Stales. The fact civil rights of thirty million freemen as Ameri- 
 
can citizens. That is secession. It is, therefore, 
 simply disunion. Disunion, secession! Tliis, 
 we are told, is a peaceable remedy for the redress 
 of grievances. A peaceable remedy ! whicli sun- 
 ders a great nation. A peaceable remedy ! wliich 
 strikes down a free constitution. A peaceable 
 remedy ! which extinguishes thy rights of thirty 
 million American citizens. A peaceable rem- 
 edy ! which blots a great people from the map of 
 nations. You might as well talk about a peace- 
 able earthquake, which rends the earth asunder 
 and buries its inhabitants in a common ruin . You 
 might as well talk to me of a peaceable storm, 
 which fills the heavens with darkness and the 
 habitations of men with desolation and death. 
 
 But, Mr. Speaker, we are told that peaceable 
 State secession is a constitutional remedy. A con- 
 stitutional remedy! I commend gentlemen, who 
 tell me that, to ponder upon these strong words 
 in the Constitution of the United Slates: 
 
 "This Constitution, and the laws and treaties niado in 
 pursuance thereor, shall be the supreme law of the land ; 
 and the judges of every State shall bu bound thereby, any- 
 thing in the Constitution and laws of any State to the con- 
 trary notwithstanding." 
 
 I also commend gentlemen to consider tliat other 
 provision of the Constitution, that the citizens 
 of each Slate shall be entitled to all the privileges 
 and immunities of American citizens in the seve- 
 ral States. When they have read those two pro- 
 visions, I ask them to tell me by what logic they 
 arrive at the conclusion that any State of this 
 Union, either through its convention or its Legis- 
 lature, may abolish the rights of citizens of the i 
 United States within its limits, or may make a i 
 law paramount to the Constitution of the United \ 
 States, and the laws and treaties made in pursu- i 
 ance thereof. I ask gentlemen to read the words 
 of the great commoner of Kentucky— Henry 
 Clay — who died too soon, I fear, for the interests 
 of his country, and who now sleeps in his hon- 
 ored grave at Lexington. He said, sir, "my 
 allegiance to my country is paramount; my al- 
 legiance to Kentucky is subordinate." He said, 
 too, that he would not adliere to Kentucky in her 
 resistance to the laws of his country; that he 
 would not follow her standard in unjust rebellion 
 against the Union. Never, never, never! So 
 spoke the patriot and the statesman. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, if this asserted constitutional right 
 of secession exists it follows that the powers of 
 this Government can only be exercised upon the 
 voluntary assent, expi-ess or implied, of each 
 State, and it results that our national Constitution 
 is a sham; that instead of forming a "more per- 
 fect Union," it has formed no Union, and is the 
 veriest embodiment of weakness and imbecility. 
 If this right of secession exists under the Con- 
 stitution, then all the people of the Republic may 
 not, and cannot by their laws, duly executed, 
 bind a State with but half the population of the 
 city of New York, if such State dissents and se- 
 cedes. If this right exists, each State is the sole 
 judge of the occasion for its exercise, and the 
 other States must acquiesce in the act of secession. 
 These are the lame and impotent conclusion.s of 
 those who assert the right of State secession. No 
 one, I think, can seriously adopt or even entertain 
 
 such conclusions. The very terms of the Con- 
 stitution exclude such conclusions. 
 
 Sir, the powers granted by the Constitution to 
 the National Government, and expressly with- 
 held from the States, very clearly leave no room 
 for the asserted right of secession . What are the 
 powers of this Government.' in general terms, 
 they are these: to regulate commerce, domestic 
 and foreign, between the several States, and with 
 all foreign nations; to make treaties; to coin money 
 and regulate its value; to define and punish fel- 
 onies committed on the high seas, and offenses 
 against the law of nations; to declare war; grant 
 letters of marque and reprisal; to raise and sup- 
 port armies; and to provide and maintain a navy, 
 and make rules for their government; to organize 
 and arm and call forth the militia to execute the 
 laws of the Union; suppress insurrections and re- 
 pel invasions; to declare the punishment of trea- 
 son; and to make all needful and proper laws lor 
 the execution of these powers, and all other pow- 
 ers vested by the Constitution in the Government 
 of the United States, or in any department or 
 officer thereof. All these powers thus vested in 
 the General Government are withheld from the 
 States, and by the words of the Constitution, 
 each State is expressly prohibited from exercising 
 i them. 
 
 In pursuanceof these grants of power Congress 
 has legislated; and every State law in contraven- 
 tion of this legislation of Congress is, by the 
 words, and every intendment of your Constitution, 
 I void. This Government has prescribed the pun- 
 ishment of treason, declaring that, if any person 
 or persons owing allegiance to the Government 
 of the United Stales of America, shall levy war 
 against them, or adhere to their enemies, giving 
 them aid and comfort within the United States or 
 elsewhere, such person or persons shall, upon 
 conviction, suffer death. Tlie citizens of every 
 State of the Union are citizens of the United 
 States; and every citizen, whether native or nat- 
 uralized, in accordance with the Federal law, owes 
 allegiance to this Government, and is prohibited 
 by its law from the crime of treason against the^ 
 Government. Can any State absolve a citizen of 
 the United Slates from his allegiance .' Can any 
 Slate legalize treason against the Government of 
 the United States, or shelter traitors from the just 
 punishment of the law ? No State can confer Uni- 
 ted Slates citizenship. The United Slates act of 
 1802 expressly provides that an alien may become 
 a citizen of the United Stales, or of any State, 
 only in pursuance of that act. 
 
 If a State may lawfully secede, it follows that, 
 by the act of secession, .the State may, and should, 
 release all the citizens of the United States from 
 their allegiance. There is no secession that does 
 not exclude from the territory of the seceding 
 State the jurisdiction and laws of the United 
 States, and absolve all citizens therein from alle- 
 giance to the Government of the United States. 
 
 Secession implies more than this. It implies 
 
 not only the release of the citizens of the United 
 
 States within its limits from their obligations of 
 
 ' fealty to the laws and Government of the United 
 
 i Slates, but the establishment of an absolute sov- 
 
 I ereignty by the act of the State, that is, by the act 
 
of its qualified electors and their chosen Repre- 1 
 sentatives. An absolute sovereignty nmy right- 
 fully levy war, conclude peace, contract treaty 
 alliances, regulate commerce, coin money, and do 
 all other acts and things which free and independ- 
 ent States may of ri^ht do. While your Consti- 
 tution stands — and f trust, it will stand forever — 
 can any State of this Union rightfully exercise any 
 of these great powers of sovereignty ? What says 
 the tenth section of the Constitution? No State 
 shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confedera- 
 tion; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin 
 money; emit bills of credit; make anything but 
 gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; 
 pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law 
 impairing the obligation of contracts ; or grant any 
 title of nobility; nor, without the consent of Con- 
 gress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or 
 exports, except what may be absolutely necessary 
 for executing its inspection laws; and the net pro- 
 duce of all duties and imposts laid by any State, 
 on imports or exports shall be for the use of the 
 Treasury of the United States; and all such laws 
 shall be subject to the revision and control ot 
 Congress. Nor shall any State, without the con- 
 sent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep 
 troops or ships-of-war in time of peace, enter into 
 any agreement or compact with another State or 
 with a foreign Power. Such are the limitations 
 imposed by the Constitution of the United States 
 upon every State of this Union. The Supreme 
 courtsays: 
 
 " The Constitution e.xcludos every sort of negotiation and 
 intercourse of a political character between tiie States them- 
 selves, or between either of them and a foreign State." 
 Holmes vs. Johnson, 14 Peters, p. 572. 
 
 Can a State rightfully repeal or annul these lim- 
 itations of the Constitution, and all the laws and 
 treaties of the United States made in pursuance ot 
 the Constitution.' That is secession. Against 
 this asserted State right I oppose the words of 
 Washington: 
 
 "The Constitution which at any time exists, till changed 
 by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people is 
 sacredly obligatory upon all." 
 
 But it is said by some that State secession is an 
 inherent right. States have no inherent rights; 
 they have only derivative or delegated rights. 
 That is the proclamation of America. That is the 
 jeweled word of our great Declaration: " Gov- 
 ernments derive their just powers from the con- 
 sent of the governed." 
 
 It is truly said that State secession is revolu- 
 tion; but the V greatly err who say that revolution 
 is a Stale riglit. The right of revolution does not 
 inhere in States, but in njp^fernot in their character 
 of citizens, but of men. It is a right sacred and 
 indefeasible, a right which men cannot surrender, 
 if they would. It is bound up with the elements 
 of the human soul. It is the right of .self-defense; 
 the right to resist oppres.sion and rediess wrong. 
 As expressive of the right and duty of revolution, 
 our failicrs borrowed from otie of England's hero- 
 marlyrM ih.- watchword, " RisLstancc to tyrants 
 is obedi.iicx. m God. " They i,'raved those thrill- 
 ing words upon their guns, and nad them by the 
 lurid light of battle. God forbid that 1 should 
 deny the people's right of revolution. But, sir, 
 
 ! that right can only be justly exercised under these 
 limitations: there must be grievances or just 
 cause; all peaceable means of redress must be first 
 fairly and honestly tried, and must fail; and the 
 cause of complaint, the grievance, must be so 
 onerous that submission to it would be more dan- 
 gerous to life and liberty than revolution or war. 
 
 1 What just cause of complaint has the South, or 
 any portion of her people, against this Govern- 
 ment.' There' is none. What peaceable means 
 have been employed by the South to redress any 
 imaginary grievance, in the absence of a real one? 
 None. What petitions for a redress of wrongs, 
 or remonstrances against wrongs, have been sent 
 here by the South .' None. It is said some north- 
 ern States have passed unconstitutional liberty 
 bills injurious to the South. If this be so, the 
 South has an aniple and complete remedy in the 
 Federal courts. But does the violation of the Con- 
 stitution by one citizen, or by many, justify addi- 
 
 ;tional violations by others.' 
 
 ! I agree that if this Government has inflicted 
 
 j wrongs upon a portion of our people; if redress 
 
 1 for those wrongs has been applied for, and been 
 denied; if the condition of submission to these 
 wrongs is more dangerous to the people than rev- 
 olution and war, then, with all my heart, I am 
 with them, and say they have the right to strike 
 for the redress of their grievances. But I ask, 
 
 ' and demand to know, what grievances any por- 
 tion of the people of the United States suffer under 
 by the act of the government of this country? 
 This rebellion, this revolution, with no colorable 
 
 J excuse, is waged against the United States, the 
 wisest and most beneficent Government on the 
 
 I globe. Why talk, then, about the right of revo- 
 lution, when there is no cause for revolution, no 
 wrong to be redressed ? 
 
 I conclude, then , my remarks upon the asserted 
 right of State secession, having shown that it is 
 not a constitutional right, nor an inherent State 
 right; that the people of the several States have 
 no cause of complaint against the Government 
 
 i which justifies them by act of revolution to over- 
 turn the Constitution. 
 
 ! How is this argument met? We are simply 
 told that States, with or without cause, with or 
 without right, are seceding from the Union, and 
 asserting their separate independence, and there- 
 fore we must amend the Constitution; we must 
 make compromises and concessions, or, as a gen- 
 tleman said yesterday, we must reconstruct the 
 Union. I do not so understand my duty. Rep- 
 resentatives are not here to compromise with re- 
 bellion, or to compound treason. I believe that 
 the duty of to-day is not to amend the Constitu- 
 tion, but to maintain and uphold the Constitution. 
 Upon that I stand. 
 
 I a.sk gentlemen, when they talk about revolu- 
 tion without cause, to remember that there is a 
 grievance in this land which might, by possibility, 
 justify revolution. That grievance is not inflicted 
 by till! General Government, but by State gov- 
 ernments and State organizations. I refer, sir, 
 to that great wrong which dooms four million men 
 
 , and their descendants forever to abject servitude. 
 
 ' Consider this giant wrong, how it blasts the 
 hopes and crushes out the life of its victim. The 
 
lettered page of material, the illumined page of 
 intellectual and immortal life are not for him. 
 The great law of human progress is not for him. ' 
 Knowledge, that knowledge which is power, and ] 
 which teaches men and nations how to live, is 
 not for him; the sanctities of home, its care and 
 culture, which attune the heart to the gentlest 
 and the sweetest charities of life, are not for him. ; 
 Beneath the crushing weight of this iron des- 
 potism, it is only left for him to sink down to a 
 level with the creeping things of the dust, to be- 
 come that sad and shattered wreck of humanity 
 which, for want of a better word, we call a slave ; 
 a thing of trade, with no acknowledged rights in 
 the present, with no hope of a heritage "in the 
 great hereafter, to whose darkened soul the uni- , 
 verse is voiceless, and even God himself seems 
 silent! [ 
 
 If that day comes — which I pray may not come \ 
 — when the right of revolution shall be asserted in i 
 the redress of this great wrong, I could only say | 
 with your own Jefferson , now speaking to us from 
 his quiet grave upon the heights of Monticello, 
 " I tremble for my country when I reflect that 
 God is just, and that he has notan attribute which 
 will allow Him to take sides with the aggressor 
 in that conflict." 
 
 I pray gentlemen who favor revolution for the 
 overthrow of the Union and the Constitution, for 
 the putting out of the sacred fires of civil and re- 
 ligious liberty which our fathers kindled upon 
 our altars, not to forget that in the Union is our 
 strength and our safety. Let us not in our mad- 
 ness throw away the shield of our defense, and 
 exchange its peaceful remedies for the dread ar- 
 bitrament of the sword, lest God in his anger 
 "should laugh at our calamity, and mock when 
 our fear cometh." 
 
 But, sir, because secession is threatened and 
 attempted without justifiable cause, we are told 
 on all sides of the House we must compromise, 
 we must concede. Compromise what.' Concede 
 what? Compromiee the Constitution, and con- 
 cede the right of rebellion ! What assurance has 
 any man tliat the compromises proposed will stay 
 the revolution or save the Union ? 
 
 The compromises proposed and reported by 
 the committee of thirty-three, and now under con- 
 sideration, are as follows: 
 
 1. An amendment to the Constitution, to the 
 effect that no amendment having for its object any 
 interference with slavery in the States shall ever 
 be made, unless the same shall originate with a 
 .slave State and be assented to by all the States. 
 
 2. An act for the admission of New Mexico as 
 a slave State, without further action of Congress. 
 
 3. An amendment of the fugitive slave law, so 
 that it shall be more efficient for the arrest of 
 fugitive slaves. 
 
 4. An amendment of the act for the rendition 
 of fugitives from justice, so as to give the Federal 
 courts exclusive jurisdiction, and make the indict- 
 ment p-ima/acie evidence against the accused. 
 
 I cannot give either of these propositions my 
 assent. The proposed amendment to the Consti- 
 tution strikes at the inherent right of the ^ople 
 to alter or amend it at their pleasure. The Con- 
 stitution originated with the people, and jealous 
 
 of their rights, and of the rights of all the States, 
 the people expressly reserved to themselves the 
 right to originate, and finally ratify or reject, 
 through their chosen Representatives, State and 
 national, such amendments as they might see fit 
 to adopt. This reserved power of amendment 
 now is subject to no limitation in the mode pre- 
 scribed, save that no State, without its consent, 
 shall be deprived of its equal suff'rage in the Sen- 
 ate. 1 think this inherent right, so carefully re- 
 served by the people, ought not to be surrendered 
 by them. What the people ought not to do, the 
 Representatives of the people should not ask them 
 to do. The words of Washington arc significant. 
 He says, " The basis of our political systems is 
 the right of the people to make and to alter their 
 constitutions of government." I think the amend- 
 ment before us proposes a surrender in the prem- 
 ises of this right to make or alter. The provision 
 that one class of States alone may originate an 
 amendment, and that a single State may prevent 
 an amendment, touching what may become an in- 
 terest of national concern, is not in keeping with 
 the genius of our institutions. 
 
 I submit that the terms of the amendment imply 
 that, under the Constitution as it now is, the Gov- 
 ernment of the United States has no power to in- 
 terfere in any icay with slavery in the States. If 
 there is no such power in the Government, why 
 insert this amendment; if there is such power in 
 the Government, will not the insertion of this 
 amendment be held by judicial construction to be 
 a limitation or a denial of that power by the act 
 of the people? I think it will, and especially by a 
 court that could make the Dred Scott decision. 
 
 In my judgment, under the Constitution of the 
 United States, this Government has power to in- 
 terfere with slavery in the States to this extent: 
 
 1. By a direct capitation tax apportioned among 
 the several States upon the basis of their repre- 
 sentative population, which includes three fifths 
 of their slaves as persons. 
 
 2. By emancipating the slaves in time of war, 
 and in the exercise of the war power vested with- 
 out limitation in this Government. 
 
 The first of these propositions rests upon the 
 express terms of the Constitution. In support of 
 the second, I adopt the words of Mr. John duincy 
 Adams, in his speech on the war with Great Britain 
 and Mexico. Mr. Adams says: 
 
 " I would leave that institution [slavery] to the exclu- 
 sive consideration and management of tlie States more pe- 
 culiarly interested in it, just as long as they can keep within 
 their own bounds." * * * * "I believe 
 that, so long as the slave States are able to sustain their in- 
 stitutions without going abroad or calling upon other parts 
 of the Union to aid them, or act on the subject, so long I 
 will consent never to interfere." * * * * 
 " But if they come to tlie free States, and say to them, you 
 must help us to keep down our slaves ; you must aid us in 
 an insurrection and a civil war; then, I say, with that call 
 comes a full and plenary power to this House and the Sen- 
 ate over the whole subject. It is a war power." * * 
 
 * * " Hay this down as the law of nations.'' * * 
 
 * * " So far from its being true, that the States where 
 slavery exists have the exclusive management of the sub- 
 ject, not only the President of the United States, but the 
 commander of the Army has full power to order the uni- 
 versal emancipation of the slaves." 
 
 I I will not consent to put into the Constitution 
 'an amendment which, by construction, forced 
 
thou":h it may be, may be held either to exempt 
 the sTftve Slatis from the payment of their fair 
 proportion of taxes, or to limit the war powers of 
 this Goveriinuiu. | 
 
 But, sir, aside from these considerations, I op- [ 
 pose this ami-ndmenton higher grounds. It is a 
 proposition to bind the twenty million freemen in 
 the iS'orth forever, or during the [ileasure of the 
 slave States and of each of them, to keep ward 
 and watch over four million men, and doom them 
 and their posterity, from age to age, to acrushing 
 despotism. That amendment, if adopted, will 
 startle the civilized world. It is (\ written con- 
 spiracy jigrtinst the liberties of four million men, 
 and their descendants forever. Thereby the free- 
 men of this land agree to lock hands, and by their 
 combined power declare that deliverance shall 
 never come to these millions of men or their chil- 
 dren, save that deliverance which comes, sooner 
 or later, to master and slave alike, by the hands 
 of the destroying angel. The American people 
 will rebuke this attempt to pledge them forever to 
 the maintenance of a perpetual despotism. Now 
 they must ]Hitdown slave insurrection. By this 
 amendment they must make insurrection, or the 
 cause of it, perpetual. They are content that the 
 slave States shall remain unmolested by them in 
 the enjoyment of their slave property, if they see 
 fit to retain it, and in the full enjoyment of all 
 their rights under the Constitution; but I entirely 
 mistake the character of the freemen of the North, 
 if they do not rebuke this insult offered to their 
 sense of humanity and justice. 
 
 I know this remark may be met with the sneer 
 that this is the "higher law." Pray, did not 
 Madison recognize a higher law when, in the con- 
 vention of 1787, he declared that it was wrong to 
 admit in the Constitution that there can be prop- 
 erty in man? Is there no reference to a higher 
 law in your sublime Declaration of Independence, 
 that immortal bill of rights, which will live as 
 long as our language lives, in the words " these 
 States are, and of right ought to be, free and in- 
 dependent States, and may do what independent 
 States may of right dor " — not of wrong, but 
 may of right do. No, sir; the fathers of the Re- 
 public never would have made their Constitution ; 
 they never would have borne the sacred ark of 
 liberty through a seven years' war, if they had 
 not believed in a higher law — in the eternal veri- 
 ties of truth and justice. That law is of perpet- 
 ual and of universal obligation. It is obligatory 
 alike upon individual and collective man; upon 
 the citizen and upon the State. It reveals to us, as 
 it revealed to our fathers, the right and the wrong 
 in human conduct. It enjoins upon us, as it en- 
 joined ui)nn them, human duty as duty. It dis- 
 closes to us, as it disclosed to lliein, the beautiful 
 form of goodness, and that virtue which rises 
 from the dcpthsoftrutli'smystm-ious bosom, and 
 " is bi'loved because 'tis virtue." It teaches us, as 
 illaughtthem, that the performance of duty — that 
 highest word revealed by God to man — is the 
 surest and noblest defcnsi; of nnni and nations. 
 For ihi.'Ke reasons, sir, I oUytni to the proposed 
 amendmi-ni. 
 
 What are the other propositions .' The admis- 
 sion of New Mexico as a slave Stale without fur- 
 
 ther action by Congress. I object to the admis- 
 sion of slave States under the Constitution, for 
 the reason that the Constitution did not provide 
 for their admission. In the original rejiorl of the 
 Consiiluiioii, in lh(^ convention which framed it, 
 that article which provides for the admission of 
 new States was in these words: " The Congress 
 may admit new States into the Union upon the 
 same terms with the original States." A motion 
 was made to strike out the words " upon the same 
 terms with the original Slates;" and they were 
 stricken out. For what purpose were theystricken 
 out ? That the Constitution might not oblige the 
 Congress of the United States to admit slave States 
 into the Union; or new States upon the same terms 
 with the original States, each of which entered the 
 Union with the power reserved to engage both in 
 the domestic and foreign slave trade for twenty 
 years. True to the spirit of the Constitution, in 
 1802, under the administration of Jefferson , when 
 Congress provided an enabling act for the admis- 
 sion of my own State of Ohio, they provided in 
 that act that Ohio should not come into the Union 
 upon the same terms with the original States; but 
 upon the express condition that, not only for the 
 six years that were still to elapse, during which 
 time the original States might carry on the for- 
 eign slave trade, but that thenceforwaYd and for- 
 ever she should be excluded from any participa- 
 tion in that traffic, either domestic or foreign. I 
 would apply the Jeffersonian rule, which was ap- 
 plied justly and wisely to my own State, to the 
 proposed State of New Mexico. 
 
 But, sir, I would oppose the admission of New 
 Mexico as a State on the further ground that she 
 is not fit to be admitted into the Union as a State 
 until she repeals her unjust legislation. She has to- 
 day upon her statute-book two slave codes, which 
 would bring blushes to the cheek of Caligula. 
 She provides by law that all free white laboring 
 men and women, contracting to do service, in- 
 cluding shepherds and agents sent on journeys, 
 shall be subjected, when their day's work is 
 done, to the insolent lash of the task-master, and 
 shall have no redress for the insult and wrong in 
 courts of justice. Is this the reward which is to 
 be meted out by American law to honest white men 
 and women.' Is that the just reward of honest 
 toil? Why, sir, I thought that, in this land of 
 ours, work was to be held sacred. I thought the 
 boasted maxim among the American ]3eople was 
 " a fair day 'swages for a day 's work." I thought 
 that long ago our people had learned " that all 
 true work is sacred; that there is a divineness in 
 it, from sweat of the face up to sweat of the 
 brain and sweat of heart, which last includes all 
 Kei)ler-calculations, all Newton-meditations, all 
 act(nl and suffered heroisms and martyrdoms; 
 up to that ' agony of bloody sweat' which all 
 men have called divine." I have read, sir, in 
 Holy Writ " thou shalt not muzzle the ox that 
 treadeth'out the corn." I have inferred and be- 
 lieve that we may not and should not fetter the 
 hand of homist toil that wrings from the earth its 
 increase, and feeds and clothes and shelters na- 
 tions. Never, sir, will I consent to the admission 
 of tluu State until she repeals that infamous en- 
 actment. 
 
But more than that. She has upon her statute- 
 book a black code, which provides that any per- 
 son may arrestany slave escaping; from liis master, 
 though he came from the remotest ends of the 
 earth — from Guinea or Algiers, from Cuba or 
 Brazil — and, without a hearing before a magis- 
 trate, commit him to an American jailor, whose 
 duty it shaJl be, at your cost, sir, and mine, to 
 imprison him six months, and advertise him, at 
 the cost of the American people, for a master; and 
 if no master comes, to take it for granted that he 
 ought to have a master, and imprison him for six 
 months longer, without a hcaruig; and at the end 
 of twelve months' imprisonment, sell him at the 
 door of your American court-house — at the altar 
 of American justice — to the highest bidderin cash. 
 This infamous statute further provides that the 
 sheriff's bill of sale shall vest in the purchaser a 
 good and indefeasible title against ail persons 
 whatever, even including the man's right to his 
 own soul. I recognize no bill of sale for a human 
 soul, unless it bears the seal of God Almighty. 
 That this statute might want no feature of atro- 
 city, it is further provided that the man thus 
 wronged and sold like a beast shall never testify 
 against a white man in courts of justice. The 
 statute first robs the man of his liberty, and then 
 seals his lips in perpetual silence. Let these infa- 
 mous statutes be repealed before New Mexico 
 comes into the Union. The bill for their repeal 
 is now in the Senate. It has passed this House. 
 Let it first become a law. 
 
 What other compromise is offered, in order to 
 save the Union? Why, an amendment to the fugi- 
 tive slave law. I can only stop to say here, touch- 
 ing that law, that the amendment proposed does 
 not remove the objections, in my mind insur- 
 mountable, to its'adoption by an American Con- 
 gress. It does not relieve the American people 
 from the unjust obligations imposed upon them 
 by the act of 1850, by which, at the beck of the 
 marshal, they are compelled to join in the hunt — 
 to make hue and cry on the track of a fugitive 
 slave woman who is fleeing, with her babe lashed 
 upon her breast, from the house of bondage. I 
 will not perform that service, and I ask any man 
 on that side whether he will.' 
 
 I object to the amendment proposed, for the fur- 
 ther reason thatit vests in commissioners unknown 
 to the Constitution, unauthorized by the Consti- 
 tution, not appointed according to the Constitu- 
 tion, the judicial power of the United States, to 
 dispose of the liberty of a human being. You 
 say it is but the liberty of a slave that is involved. 
 I say it is the liberty of a man that is involved; 
 and that the Constitution, in the administration 
 of justice, in the organization of tribunals for the 
 administration of justice, is no respecter of per- 
 sons. The word "citizen" in that connection is 
 not employed in your Constitution. The words 
 "white man" in that connection, are not em- 
 ployed in the Constitution. On the contrary, the 
 word "person" is adopted, a term comprehen- 
 sive enough to embrace all men when the Con- 
 stitution guaranties life and liberty and trial by 
 iury . The Constitution has the same care for the 
 rights of the stranger within your gates as for the 
 rights of the citizen. The people adopted that 
 
 Constitution, and established a'syatom of justice 
 on the principle of the great law given by God to 
 his people: " Ye shall have one manner of law as 
 well for the stranger as for one of your own coun- 
 try." I object to this proposition, then, because, 
 in my judgment, it is violative of the Constitution. 
 What is the other compromise or concession 
 proposed ? It is to amend the act for the rendi- 
 tion of fugitives from justice escaping from one 
 State into another. I object to the act proposed, 
 because it strips the State of the power which, 
 from the foundation of the Government, was sup- 
 posed to be reposed exclusively in the State, to 
 protect all of her citizens in all cases involving 
 their life or liberty, save where they are charged 
 with an offense against the Federal Government. 
 Under the act of 1793, for the rendition of fugi- 
 tives from justice, the jurisdiction was vested 
 in the Governors of the several States. Why ? 
 Because the State has the care of the lives and 
 liberties of its own citizens, and the right to de- 
 termine whether they are charged with an offense 
 committed against the laws of another State, for 
 which they should be delivered up to answer. 
 This bill transfers the State jurisdiction to the 
 Federal courts. 
 
 I object to this amendment on another ground: 
 that it makes the charge p-riina facie evidence of 
 the fact as charged; and, in my judgment, whether 
 intended so or not by those who framed it, will 
 be construed by the courts to require and author- 
 ize the rendition of persons charged with any of 
 fcnse prohibited and made indictable by the stat- 
 utes of the State in which the offense is alleged 
 to have been committed. That is not the law of 
 the land to-day. States, North and South, have 
 resisted any such construction of the act of 1793. 
 Kentucky, as well as Ohio, has done so. I deny 
 that citizens of the United States are to be made 
 liable, by force of Federal law, for mere political 
 offenses against the States. Why, sir? Because 
 it is written in the Constitution that Congress 
 shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech 
 or the freedom of the press. Umlerthat restriction, 
 can Congress make a law for the rendition of a 
 citizen of the United States for teaching a slave 
 to read in South Carolina, or publishing an article 
 against slavery therein contrary to the statutes of 
 that State? Whether this amendment will be con- 
 strued as I have indicated, is a matter about 
 which, perhaps, gentlemen might differ. It is my 
 belief that such will be its construction. So con- 
 strued, it is a law like all the rest proposed, which 
 will strengthen the power of slavery in this coun- 
 try. I do not believe the Constitution makes it 
 my duty to legislate especially in aid of State slave 
 codes. 
 
 I will not lend my vote to the support of any 
 such legislation. I conclude, then, what I have 
 to say on this subject, with the further remark, 
 that, inasmuch as these laws are objectionable, 
 on the ground of constitutionality, on the ground 
 of humanity, and on the ground of policy, they 
 are not likely either to save the Union or to give 
 any additional authority to the Executive for the 
 maintenance of the Constitution as it is: they 
 ought not to pass. At all events, they cannot 
 receive my sanction. 
 
8 
 
 What then remains to be doner Simply to up- 
 hold the Coustituiion ns it \a, by such additional 
 K-^islaHou as will enable the President of the Uni- 
 ted Slateti to eXfciue tile duty imposed upon him 
 by the words of the Constitution, " to see that 
 the laws U- faithfully executed." But it is said, 
 he cannot do that, for you i-aniiot coerce n State. 
 I ask gentlemen who say tiiat, can a State ltfi;al- 
 ize treason against the uoveriinient of the Uni- 
 ted States.' Can one Siiite coerce thirty-two 
 Slates.' Can a State lawtully shelter traitors 
 agnuist the Government of the United Slates .' No 
 one proposes to coerce States — but to enforce the 
 laws; to put down nbellion; and punish treason; 
 to recapture the forts, the arsenals, the arms, and 
 treasure of the United Slates. At all events, it 
 is our duty, by iust and needful let^i-slation, to try 
 the stnnyili of this Government and its power to 
 release an honest citizen from an unjust puiiish- 
 mont, who is charged with no olFense, save alle- 
 gi&jice to the Constitution of his country and 
 fidelity to orticial duty. 
 
 As 1 said before, I suuid by the Constitution as 
 it is. I ask you to consider whether, if the peo- 
 ple of the United States will not rally to the sup- 
 port and maintenance of the Constitution as it is, 
 witli all its sacred traditions, ihey will do so after 
 you shall have marred and mangled it with pro- 
 slavery amendments. 
 
 Mr. Speaker, I ask the people and the people's 
 Representatives to maintain the Constitution in 
 its integrity. Let us pass the laws which will 
 enable the Executive to summon the people, the 
 loyal people, not to the conquest of our country- 
 men, but to the defense of our Constitution. Let 
 the Constitution be saved from violence and over- 
 throw; it is filled with the wisdom and goodness 
 of its great founders; it is the carved work of 
 their poured out spirits. Maintain it ! maintain 
 it inviolate untilit fulfills its sublime mission, until 
 this goodly heritage of ours, slumbering between 
 two great oceans that engirdle the world, shall be 
 filled with free Commonwealths, in every one of 
 which, without violence to any liuman being or 
 any human habitation, every unjust fetter shall 
 be broken, and every inherent right maintained. 
 When no State will banish men because they are 
 just, or enslave men because they are weak, or 
 subject men to the perilous edge of battle because 
 they are strong, or strangle men like felons on ' 
 the gallows, because, in obedience to the Divine 
 command, they remember those that are in bonds 
 as bound with them. Maintain your Constitu- 
 tion until our temple of civil and religious liberty 
 shall be complete, lifting its head-stone of beauty 
 above the towers of watch and war, until all na- 
 tions shall flee unto it, and its glory shall fill the 
 whole earth. 
 
 Printed at the office of the Congressional Globe. 
 
 LIBRflRY OF CONGRESS 
 
 012 025 943 n