!'■ DDDDl7^tD^3l 1 ^H h '^^H ^H 1 M #^H t " i '^ijm ^^''-- •X V •*■'•, .\.^ K<' '%/ SPEECH OF V HOK JOHE A. ipCLERI^AND, OF ILLINOIS, ON THE STATE or THE UNION: DELIVERED IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 14, 1861. WASHINGTON: PRINTED AT THE CONGRESSIONAL GLOBE OFFICE. ■ ■ 18G1. SPEECH. Mr. McCLERNAND said: Mr. Chairman: When an impending danger can be no longer stayed or averted, is it not the part of wisdom and duty to meet, and, if possi- ble, overcome it? Such, I think, is a sound canon of statesmanship. Actingon this belief, I propose rather briefly to deal with the question of seces- sion now actually upon us. First, I deny the constitutional rigiit of any State to secede from the Union; second, I deprecate the exercise of any such assumed right as a measure of revolution, which, in the present case, must embroil the coun- try in a sanguinary and wasting civil war. Start- ing with these jiostulates, I proceed with the effort to make them good. Our fathers, just emerged from colonial thral- dom, and jealous of consolidated political power, when they come to frame the Articles of Confed- eration, adopted in 1778, run into the opposite ex- treme of dispersed and divided power. They formed an alliance, or at most a league, of sover- eign States, under what might be called a treaty between independent Governments. In the lan- guage of one of the articles, they entered into "a firm league of friendship with each other for the common defense;" no more. Hence the Gov- ernment, or Congress of thi' Confederation, was wholly destitute of any essential faculty of sov- ereignty. It had neither the right to prescribe a rule of action for its constituent body, nor the power to enforce one. It was without legislative, executive, or judicial authority. It could only ad vise, recommend, and en treat; and even the right to do that was closely circumscribed. Founded upon a league of sovereign and inde- pendent States, its exhibitions of authority were addressed to States whose interpretations of their Federal obligations might or might not bind them to compliance. It acted not upon individuals, nor had the right to do so ; but, without coherence, without unity of principle or of action, without the power to preserve itself or to conserve the interests of its authors, like the Amphyctionic Council, the Achaen League, the Helvetic, tha Germanic, and the Belgic Confederacies; like all mere national federations, it fell into pieces in consequence of its own weight, of its own inher- ent weakness and want of vitality. The evils of this system disclosed themselves I in two most striking forms: one in the domestic i relations of the States; the other in their relations , with foreign Governments. In regard to the 1 former, we learn that the period elapsing between ! the treaty of peace with the mother country and ^ the organization of the present Government, was one marked by angry controversies and rivalries. The conflicting views of the several Slates in re- ' gard to their commercial, agricultural, and man- i ufacturing interests often prompted them to un- ! friendly measures, not unfrequently in the form ! of legislative reprisals, having the effect not only i to cripple their internal trade, but their foreign commerce; and incessantly to threaten them with I the horrors of civil war. I Foreign nations were encouraged to take ad- ! vantage of this state of things. They imposed i upon our foreign navigation and commerce just i such restrictions as they deemed most conducive I to their own interests. They excluded our ship- pingfrom the benefits of thcirown commerce, while I they daringly and lawlessly strove to monopolize 1 the'benefits of ours. And, as a consequence of these and other kindred measures, our foreign navigation was ruined, our agriculture paralyzed, our mechanics impoverished, and the little money remaining in the country threatened with banish- ment from it. To boot of all this, the ordinary administration ofjustice was threatened with over- throw by the clamors and desperation of penniless debtors. Indeed, we are informed that such was the excess of wretchedness continually accumu- lating from the slow but progressive destruction of all the resources of industry and credit that the calamity overwhelming all classes was more hopeless than that occasioned by the ravages of the Revolution itself. To remedy these and other evils incident to the old system, the present Constitution was adopted. How remedy them? is the question now to be con- sidered. Was it by restoring the old league of independent sovereignties; by repeating the com- plete failure realized by it? Such, strange to say, is the argument of the secessionists; indeed, of all those who insist that the relations of the sev- eral States as co-members of this Union, depend upon the pleasure, nay the caprice, of each; that each has an absolute right, at any moment, to withdraw from it; that there is no paramount authority anywhere to prevent it. This doctrine, although countenanced, as I have already said, by the theory of the old confederation, is, never- theless, contradicted by many of the leading characteristics of the revolutionary epoch. Appealing to history, we find that the idea of the nationality of the American people is as old as the Revolution itself. The authority of the first Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, on the 4th ofSeptember, 1774, was proclaimed in the name I of the people of the colonies, and not in the name i of the colonial governments. So, the Declaration i of Independence was adopted in the name and by I the authority " of thepeople of theUnited States," and not in the name and by the authority of sep- arate sovereignties. It was a national act, and not the act of several parties; it was an act only competent to be performed by the whole people, because it involved a change of government as to all. So, the revolutionary war was a national measure prosecuted for seven years by the com- bined forces of all the colonies for the benefit of all. So, the treaty of peace, in 1783, was made, on the one part, by the United States as one na- tion, and by it Great Britain, on the other part, recognized our independence as one nation — the United States— and not as separate States. Such, I too, is the testimony of the Supreme Court of the United Slates — often repeated arguendo in the course of its adjudications. In Penhallow vs. Doane, (1. Pet. Con. Rep. 21.,) Justice Patter- son, delivering the opinion of that court, said: "The danger being imminent and common, it became necessary for the people or colonies to coalesce and act in concert, in order to divert the gathering storm. They ac- cordingly grew into union and formed one great political body, of wliich Congress was the directing principle and soul." "The truti) is that the States, individually, were not known nor recognized as sovereign by foreign nations, nor are they now." InWarei's.Hylion, (7(/em,p.99,) Judge Chase, delivering the opinion of the same court, said: " It appears to me that the powers of Congress during that whole period were derived from the people they rep- resented, expressly given through the medium of their State conventions or State Legislatures ; or that, after they were exercised, they were implicitly ratified by the acquiescence and obedience of the people." Again: in Chisholm's Executors vs. the Slate of Georgia, {Idem, p. 635,) Chief Justice Jay, de- livering the opinion of the same court, said: " The Revolution, or rather the Declaration of Independ- ence, found the people already united for general purposes, and, at the same time, provided for their more domestic concerns by State conventions, and other temporary ar- rangements. From the Crown of Great Britain, the sov- ereignty of their country passed to the people of it ; and thirteen sovereignties were considered as emerging from the principles of the Revolution, combined by local con- venience and considerations. The people, nevertheless, continued to consider themselves, in a national point of view as one people ; and they continued, without inter- ruption, to manage their national concerns accordingly." The same idea penetrated the convention that framed the Constitution, and ruling its counsels, stamped that instrument with its national impress. Both the proceedings of the convention, and the language of the Constitution, attest this fact. Early after the convention mot, Edmund Ran- dolph, of Virginia, offered for consideration apian of government, proposing to enlarge the powers of the Confederation; and, among other things, providing that the National Legislature should have power to " call forth the force of the Union against any member of the Union failing to fulfill its duties under the articles thereof." Another plan, however, contemplating a J^\dional, rather than a Federal Government, was finally adopted, and became the basis of the present Constitution. That plan is embodied in the following resolves; which were adopted by the convention: " 1. That a union of States, merely Federal, will not ac- complish the objects proposed by tlie Articles of Confed- eration, namely, common defense, security of liberty, and general welfare. "2. That no treaty or treaties amnns the whole or a part of the Slates, as individual sovereignties, would be suffi- cient. "3. Th&t A National Goeermnen;rved ; and, on the present occasion, this difficulty was increased by a difference among the several States as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular Interests. " In all our deliberations on this subject, we keptsteadily in our view that which appears to us the greatest interest of every true American — the consolidation of our Union — in which is involved our prosperity, felicity, safety, per- haps our national existence. This important considera- tion, seriously and deeply impressed onourmlnds, led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of infe- rior magnitude than might have been otherwise expected ; and thus the Constitution, which we now present, is the result of a spirit of amity, and of that mutual deterence and concession which the peculiarity of our political situation rendered indispensable. " That it will meet the full and entire approbation of every State is not, perhaps, to be expected ; but each will, doubt- less, consider, that had her interest been alone consulted, the consequences might have been particularly disagree- able or injurious to others. That it is liable to as few ex- ceptions as could reasonably have been expected, we hope and believe. That it may promote the lasting welfare of that country, so dear to us all, and secure her freedom and happiness, is our most ardent wish." I hardly need add that this letter was the unani- mous act of the convention; and after being signed by its president, George Washington, was com- municated to the Congi-ess of the Confederation by " unanimous order of the convention." And what is its import.' Certainly that the prime ob- ject of the convention was to consolidate "one Union" by disintegrating a portion of the sover- eignty of the States, and vesting the same " fully and effectually" in a common national Govern- ment; and that the infirmities of the Confedera- tion created the necessity for it. In the compre- hensive and perspicuous language of the conven- tion, " our prosperi/i/, /e/tci/i/, safety , perhaps our national existence" itself, depended upon it. I come now to inquire whether the language of the Constitution itself does not sustain this interpretation of its character. The Articles of Confederation declared themselves to be articles of "pei-pttual union," but were void of power to make good the declaration. The present Consti- tution, amending, extending and reorganizing the powers of the confederation, declares the same purpose. Its preamble is in these words: " We, the peo})lc of the United States, in order to form a 7nore perfect (/mon, establish justice, insure domestic tran- quillity, provide for the common defense, promote the gen- eral welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourse/res and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Hence, the Constitution, in its very preamble, proclaims itself to be the act oHhe people—'' of the people of the United States," and not of the States, as such, either collectively or individually; and at the same time styles the same people as anation —the " United States of America;" while, viewed 6 as an amendment to the Articles of Confedera- tion, it provides for "a more perfect union," as a means of insuring the " perpetual union " con- temphited by those articles. In no just view could the States have formed such an instrument. As governments created by j the people, they had no moral or legal right to | destroy themselves, or to abdicate or alienate their powers. Their powers were held by them, in trust, for the benefit of the people; who alone were competent to redispose of them, who alone are competent to make and unmake governments. As the people formed the State governments, so they formed the United States Government. Each, alike, sprung from the creative womb of the peo- ple; and alike derives its sovereignty from them. As to the process by which the national Gov- ernment was formed, it is simple enough. It was by the people resuming a portion of the sov- ereignty of the States and re-embodying it in the form of that government. The extent of its sov- ereignty, and of the prohibitions imposed upon that of the States, measures the diminution of the sovereignty of the latter. In one aspect it is national; in another it is federal. It is national in the objects of its powers, and federal in the limitation of those objects; it is national in what is delegated to it, and federal in what is reserved to the States. Its jurisdiction is of our external and common internal relations; while that of the States is of their respective internal and domestic affairs. Not only was the Constitution the act of the people in its creation, but still more, it is the act of the people by virtue of their subsequent formal ratification of it, through their directly-appointed agents. It is true that the act of ratification was performed by the people dividedly, as distinct, local communities, and not collectively; nevertheless, it was performed by ihc people, and the ichole people. And so said Mr. Monroe, substantially, in a re- sponsible official form— Mr. Monroe, who had opposed the adoption of the Constitution, for the very reasons here urged. He said: " Ttie great otnce of the (Federal) Constitution, by incor- porating tlie people of the several States, to the extent of its powers, into one community, and enabling it to act di- rectly on the people, (tlie only parties to it,) was to annul the powers of the State governments to that extent. The Government of the United States relics on its own means, for the execution of (all) its powers, as the State govern- ments do for the execution of theirs ; both governments liaving a common original sovereign, the people : the State governments, the people of each State ; the national Gov- ernment, the people of every State ; each being amenable to the power that created it. It is by executing its func- tions as a Government, thus originating and thus acting, that the Constitution of the United Slates holds the States together, and performs the office of a league. It is owing to the nature of its powers, that it performs that office better than the confederation, or any league which ever existed, being a compact which the State governments did r.ot form, to which they are not parties, and which exe- cutes its own powers independently of them." Moreover, the Constitution, in the first clause of the fourth article, draws an express distinction between the " United States" mentioned therein and the " confederation." That clause is in these words: " All debts contracted and engagements entered into be- fore the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution as under the confederation." If the Constitution was only a league or com- pact, soluble at the discretion of any of the par- ties to it, why this distinction.' If it was only a renewal of those articles, why its adoption at all.' There was no reason for adopting it if it had not been believed to be an improvement upon the sys- tem which it was designed to substitute. But, independent of this, the Constitution, in the character of other of its provisions, proves not only its popular origin, but its paramount au- thority and indissoluble nature. It organizes a legislative, judiciary, and an executive depart- ment, and confides to each its appropriate sover- eign functions. To the Legislature the enactment of laws; to the judiciary the exposition of them; and to the Executive the execution of them. It declares that " Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises;" to " borrow money," to " regulate commerce," to " coin money and regulate the value thereof," to " declare war, "to " raise andsupportarmies," to " provide and maintainaNavy, "and to " make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the foregoing powers, and all other powers vested by the " Constitution in the Government of the United States," &c. Mark, I repeat, the nature of those powers: they are not only eminently sovereign, but are admitted to be so by the plain language of the Constitution. The pow£r " to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises," is commen- surate with an absolute control over the substance of the people for the purposes defined in the Con- stitution. And the power " to declare war," and " to raise and support armies," and " to provide and maintain a Navy," involves an absolute con- trol of the sword; thus combining in the Govern- ment of the United States both the sinews and the weapon of war. On the other hand, the Constitution declares that: " No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or con federation, 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. " No State shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what maybe absolutely necessary for executing its inspec- tion laws ; and the net produce of all duties and injposts laid by any Stale on imports or exports, shall be for the use of Uie Treasury of the United States ; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Con- gress. " No State shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep uoopa or shiiw-of-war in time of peace, enter Into any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or In such imminent danger as will not admit of detay." In view of both of these provisions of the Con- stitution, one positive and the other nesjntive, how can it be said that the national Government, pro tanto, is not sovereign, and the Stales to the same extent subordinate? Any other conclusion seems to me to be equally irreconcilable wiih reason and the loiter of the Constitution. I say Iclier of the Conslitulion, because the 8cc<»nd clause of the sixth article of the Constitution declares that — "Tills ('(m.ititutlon, and the lawn of the Uiilu-d Slnii-s, which xhall be nuide in pursuance ihereol; and all treaUes made, or which shall be made, under the authority of tlie L'niteil States, shall be the supreme law of Uu- land ; and the judges in every Suite shall lie bound thereby, anything In the conslitulion or laws of any State to the contrary not- wltll^t«ndlng." And the Constitution, after thus proclaiming its own supremacy, makes that supremacy a test of official character, Ijy requiring every officer, whether of the Slate or national Government, to swear to that supremacy. Such is the efTect of the last clause of the article last quoted from, which is as follows: '•The Senators and Represcnlntlvcs before n)entloncd, and the members of the several State Legl«lalures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the I iiitcti Slates and of Ui«! several Suues, shall he boiutd byoalh or atfirm- aUon, to support the ConsUtutiou." Again: if it were true tliat the States, as arti- ficial bodies, had formed the General Government by contributions from their sovereiirniy, if this were so, does it follow that they would have any more or butter right to dissolve the Government than the people themselves, if it had been formed by them.' Surely not; for, in the one case, the States, as artificial persons, would stand in the same relation to the common Government, as the people, as natural persons, would in the other; while in neither case would it be lawful for a con- stituent member of the Government to withdraw from its jurisdiction, except by virtue of a consti- tutional amendment. Any other mode of with- drawing from it would be simply extra-constitu- tional and revolutionary. The inconvenience, too, ofsuch a doctrine would instantly reject it. What! leave it to any party to a contract of Governnient — whether that party be a State or individual — to throw off the obliga- tions of the contract at pleasure? The idea is absurd. It would lead to a subversion of all order, government, and stability. It would inaugurate a reign of anarchy, confusion, and chaos, which would ingulf in utter ruin the dearest interests of society. It would enable any recusant member of the body-politic to shirk the obligations of a public debt, or the responsibilities of a war which had been induced by his own action — to shirk all lite consequences of his own counsels. It would be wicked and abominable in the last degree. It is not to be tolerated or countenanced for a mo- ment. And is not this argument, in itself, a complete dissipation of the misty and frivolous disquisi- tions that have Uikcn place upon a mere philolo- gical question — the distinction between a compact and a contract of Government ? No such question can have any jiraclical or useful application to ourGovernmentjunless, indeed, the Government, in its very nature, be perverted to the conditions of an arbitrary and illogical definition. To recapitulate, then, no State has any lawful or constitutional right to withdraw from the con- tract of national Vnion: first, because that contract was made by the people and not the States; and second, because, if made by the States, still, as artificial persons, they are bound by it, and have no independent, constitutional right to withdraw from or rescind it. And, again, because in such case, the contract of Union subordinates the States to a paramount sovereignty ordained by their own act and consent. And, again, because that sov- ereignty acts directly upon the people of the " Uni- ted States;" and by its own independent force must act upon them, despite of whatever the States, as such, may do. Being sovereign, its first duty is to preserve itself; and being sovereign. 8 where is there a power more than sovereign to control it, disintegrate it, or dissolve it? When the States show their right to do so, the paradox ■will luive been established, that the minor is the greater proportion; that the inferior has the right to substitute himself for the superior; that infe- riority is sovereignty, and that sovereignly is subordination ? But, sir, admitting, for the sake of argument, the constitutional right of the Gulf States to se- cede from the Union; would it he just to the other States for them to do so? Again: would it be safe or expedient for the other States to acquiesce in such a measure? In answering these ques- tions it is necessary that I should take a survey of the past. All history teaches that coterminous, independ- ent nations arc more liable to quarrel and clash with each other than remote ones. Their very contact and neighborship, unregulated by a com- mon will, a common authority, in bringing out their mutual divergencies of opinion, feeling, and policy, necessarily make them so. The frequent wars occurring between the modern coterminous nations of Europe, and especially, between France and her immediate neighbors, abundantly estab- lish this fact. Influenced, in a great degree, by this consideration, our fathers were unwilling to continue their divided existence as isolated, in- dependent nationalities; and accordingly consol- idated the several States of which they were members into one common Union. The effect of the measure was not only to se- cure a common control over the people of all the States, as already mentioned, but to give to each State a domestic boundary; and to all of the States, as a nation, one common foreign boundary. That boundary, on the east, was a natural one — the Atlantic ocean. Hence the chances of strife and collision were diminished, even in a greater pro- portion than one to thirteen; and when, under this arrangement, collision should come, it would be between thirteen or more confederated States on one side, and a foreign and alien nation on the other. Besides, under the same arrangement, free and enduring access to that ocean became equally the right of the people of all the States. But what would be the effect if all the Atlantic Statesfrom Maine to Florida, inclusive, had taken it into their heads to secede from the Union, and in fact had done so? Would it not be to counter- vail all the reasoning, rights, and objects inducing the formation of the Union ? Would it not be to rcexpose the separated States to all the kazards of continually menaced war? Would it not be a usurpation of exclusive jurisdiction by the Atlan- tic States over the Atlantic seaboard ? Would it not be to deny the unalienable right of the other States to access to the Atlantic — to the use of its ports and harbors — except upon terms of conces- sion? What would Vermont say to that — Ver- mont claiming to be a revolutionary State ? Would she or any of the excluded States willingly sub- mit to it? I think not. Again: take an individual case — the case of Florida; who, as a Territory, was purchased from Spain in 1819, at a cost of $5,000,000 of the common treasure of all the States. And why, and for what purpose ? It was, as we are informed, for important national purposes. First, to get rid of a foreign neighbor; next, to round out our Union, and establish a natural boundary; next, to obtain the Florida point, as a means of con- trolling one of the outlets of the Mississippi and the Gulf of Mexico; and lastly, perhaps, to open an artificial communication, across the peninsula of Florida, between the Atlantic and the Gulf, as a means of avoiding the circuitous and dangerous navigation of the coasts of Florida. These were the purposes for which Florida was acquired; and since her acquisition she has cost us some thirty or forty million dollars more; ex- pended for the purpose of suppressing Indian hostilities, removing Indians from her borders, and fortifying her extended coasts. Now, shall Florida, with a population of one hundred thou- sand — less than one half of that of my district — shall she, having become a State by our paternal consent, withdraw from the Union, convert..her- self into a foreign nation, and setting up for her- self, thus defeat all the objects inducing her acqui- sition ? Who will say so ? As a foreign nation, in the vicissitudes to which weak States particularly are incident, would she be able to hold the fortifications erected by the United States at Key West and the Dry Tortugas, for the protection of one of the chief passages of the Gulf? Who believes it? In such an event, this Government standing aloof, would not these positions, sooner or later, fall into the hands of England, France, or Spain; and, in that event, would they not become to the Gulf and the great inland sea of the Mississippi what Gibraltar, in the hands of England, is to the Mediterranean? Nor would the danger of such a result be much diminished if a southern Confederacy, including 9 Florida, should succeed to the jurisdiction of those positions; for, as a non -maritime power, it would be unable to cope with the great maritime nations of Europe. While, if they should fall under the power of Spain or Great Britain— the lirstholding Cuba, and the latter the Islands of Jamaica anci Grand Cayman — either would be enabled abso- lutely to close the mouth of the Mississippi, by blocking up the narrow passage between Cuba and Yucatan on one side, and the same island and Florida on the other. Hence, in any event, the non-seceding and commercial States of the Union must need* retain those positions. Take still another example: that of Louisiana — the State of Louisiana. She is a part of what was once the French province of Louisiana; for which, in our infancy, we paid the sum of $15,000,000, when we were hardly able to pay anything; when we were small in population, overwhelmed with the revolutionary debt, bankrupt in credit, and continually menaced by the great wars between republicanism and monarchy upon the eastern continent. That sum then was more to us than >i^200,000,000 are now; but relatively as large as it was, it fell far short of the value of that province — ^^a province extending from the Mississippi river indefinitely westward — embracing the area of an empire, traversed by noble rivers, abounding in rich min- erals, and lands of surpassing fertility, and which was transllrrcd to us more in order to avoid Eng- land's seizing it, than as an equivalent for the really insignificant price paid for it. The French Consul Bonaparte, speaking of it, said: "I know the price of what I abaiuloii, and have sulfi- ciently proved the importance that I attach to it, since my first diplomatic act witli Spain liad for its object its recovery. I renounce it with tlie greatest re<,'ret. If I sliould re!;ulate my terms according to tlie value of tliese vast regions to the United States, the indemnity would have no limits. Per- haps it will bo objected to me that the Americans may be found too powerful for Europe in two or three centuries ; but my foresight does not embrace sucli remote fears." Again : he exclaimed upon the conclusion of the ti-eaty of cession: "This accession ofterritory strengthens forever the power of the (Jnited States ; and I have just given to England a maritime rival, that will sooner or later humble licr pride." Mr. Livingston, too, our minister at the French Government, upon the signing of the treaty, addressing his colleague, Mr. Monroe, and the French minister, Barbe Marbois, broke forth in the following rapturous strain: " We have lived long, but this is the noblest work of our whole lives. From this day the United States take their place among the Powers of the first rank ; the English lose all exclusive influence in the affairs of America. The Uni- ted States will reestablish the maritime rights of the world, which are now usinped by a single nation. The instruments which we have just signed will cause no tears to be shed ; they prepare ages of happiness for innumerable generations of human creatures. The Mississippi and Missouri will see them succeed one another, and multiply, truly wortliy of the regard and careof Providence, in the bosom of equal- ity, under just laws, freed from the errors of superstition and the scourges of bad government." I Such was the estimate of the Louisiana prov- ' ince by the greatest minds of that day. Such were the prophesies of Bonaparte and Livingston. And has not subsequent experience progressively, but rapidly, contributed towards their fulfillment? The destinies of that great province, as thus viv- idly and graphically portrayed by these eminent men, were not those of a "pent-up Utica" of a cotton confederacy, or a mere slave-State Union, but of an ocean-bound Republic, rising in the strength of the soaring eagle, flaunting the banner , of freedom, and boasting the proud title of the " United States of America." I This province, thus predestinated to unity with ; this Republic, and concurrence in the fulfillment of its glorious mission, has since been carved into ; a number of States and organized Territories — into the Statesof Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa, and into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, besides the State of Louisiana, which is the pass- way of all the former to the Gulf of Mexico; not only of them, but of Tennessee, Kentucky, west- ern Virginia, and Pennsylvania, and thesixnorth- western Slates. The whole Mississippi valley has its only navigable outlet to the Gulf through Lou- isiana. Close that outlet, and all the people in- habiting the upper shores of the Mississippi and its affluents, amounting to eleven or twelve million , at once become isolated and excluded from the Gulf. In that event the agricultural and other products of the upper valley annually descending the Mississippi to the Gulf, for an outlet to our eastern Atlantic cities and abroad, to the amount of $150,000,000, would be forced into some other direction, or be entirely stifled by insuperable dis- couragements. What, in the course of time, would be the effect of this deprivation upon the people inhabiting that valley ' Would it not sap their enterprise, blunt ' their spirit, enervate their character, and degrade ; them to an inferior condition? Will the brave and j hardy men of that valley consent to so ignomin-- II ious a fate? Will tlie men who, in one genera- 10 tion, have conquered the savage and the wilder- ness; who have built up an empire often million people in the West— an empire distinguished for arts and sciences; for its great cities and thriving villages; for its green fields and golden harvests; for its floating palaces and hurtling locomotives, for its free schools, its universities, its numerous churches, and its electrical communication of thought from Cairo to St. Anthony; will such a people be content to become subordinate — a na- tion of herdsmen r Perish rather ! And such, in effect, is the answer of Mr. Clay to the same question , in his great speech in the Senate in 1850. He said: " If this Union slialibeconie separated, new Unions, new confederacies, will arise; and with respect to tliis — if there be any — I hope there is no one in the Senate — before whose imagination is flitting the idea of a great southern confed- eracy to take possession of the Balizeand the mouth of the Mississippi, I say in my place, never! never ! never ! will we who occupy the broad waters of the Mississippi audits upper tributaries consent that a.ny foreign flag sliall float at the Balize, or upon the turrets of tlie Crescent City — never I KEVER !" Without the outlet of the Mississippi, what would have been the inducement to purchase Louisiana; what the inducement to people it; what the inducement to make it the seat of a great empire : Let me not be misunderstood. I do not desire war. I would avoid it by all honorable means, particularly a civil war between any of the States of this Union. Such a war would be fratricidal, unnatural, and most bloody. It would be a war between States equally jealous of their honor, and men equally brave. I would forfeit iny own self- respect, if I could disparage the courage of my brethren , either of the North or the South ; for cour- age is the distinction of neither, but the virtue of both. The only difference between them is, that the man of the South fights from impetuosity, the man of the North from purpose, and the man of the West from a restless spirit of adventure. Myself a Kentuckian by birth, and an Illinoisan by nurture and education, I would deplore such a war as the greatest calamity that could befall the country; yet, as a practical man, and a rep- resentative of the people, I must not shut my eyes to the logic of cause and effect— to the popular instinct of self-preservation. Some sixty years ago, when the white people of the Mississippi valley scarcely numbered two hundred thousand, and when Kentucky and Frankland (now Tennessee) were almost the only American settlements west of the Alleghanies, the peopleof that valley seriously deliberated whether they should transfer their allegiance to the Span- ish crown, or forcibly seize New Orleans for the purpose of securing the outlet of the Mississipp fiver. And, at a later date, they boldly offered to Spain the alternatives of war or a concession of the jurisdiction of that river to the United States. But let history speak for itself on these points. Gayarre, in his history of Louisiana, says: "In 1786, the western portion of North Carolina, which was called the Washington district, had declared itself in- dependent, and had constituted itselt Into the State of Frankland, which organized its government, and elected Colonel John Sevier as its first Governor. But Congress interfered in favor of North Carol ina, the authority of which was maintained, and the new State of Frankland term- inated its brief career in 1787. This first attempt in tlie West to throw oft' openly the allegiance due to the parent State had aroused intense excitement for and against it; and the secessionists, still persevering in their former designs, were watching for the opportunity to renew them. Tims, on the 12th of September, 1788, ex-Governor John Sevier had written to Gardoqui, to inform him that the inhabitants of Frankland were unanimous in their vehement desire to form an alliance and treaty of commerce with Spain, and put theinselvcs under her jirotcction. Wherefore, he begged for ammunition, money, and whatever other assistance Miro [Governor of Louisiana] colild grant, to aid the execution of the contemplated separation from North Carolina ; pledg- ing the faith of the State of Frankland for the payment of whatever sums Spain might advance, and whatever ex- penses she might incur, in an enterprise which would se- cure to her such durable and Important results." The same author gives the following passage, in a letter written by General Wilkinson on the 12lh of February, 1789, to Miro: "Thus, sir, if we review the policy [of annexation to Spain] favored by the inhabitants of Kentucky, we see that the most intelligent and wealthiest relish ourdesigns,which are opposed by only two men of rank, who, controlled by their fears of silly demagogues, and filling their followers with hopes from the expected action of the new Congress, have caused the suspension of the measures we had in view to unite the people, and thus to secure the success of our plans without involving the country in violent civil commotions." Again, the same author says: " Acting under the Influence of the same policy, and in order to prevent the afflux of Americans to New Orleans at a time which involved peculiar difliculties, the inlendant. Morales, issued an order suspending the right of dci)ositat that town, by a proclamation of the 16th of October, 180-2. This measure was extremely prejudicial to New Orleans, where it almost produced a famine, by stopping the supplies of flour and other western produce, necessary for the daily sustenance of its population. " Wlien this news reached the westernpeople, they were fired with indignation at an act which suspended their com- merce with New Orleans, and deprived them of an outlet 11 without which they could hardly exist. Numerous appeals, petitions, and even violent threats, were addressed to the General Government on the subject, and the protracted em- barrassments of the West were exposed to the whole peo- ple of the United Stales in so impressive a manner as to command their deep attention, and to force the Govern- ment into immediate and energetic action. Here is a spe- cimen of the language used on the occasion : ' The Mis- sissippi,' said the western people, ^ is ours by the law of nature ; it belongs to us by our numbers, and by the labor which we have bestowed on those spots which, before our arrival, were desert and barren. Our innumerable rivers swell it, and flow with it into the Gulf of Mexico. Its mouth is tlie only issue which nature has given to our waters, and we wish to use it for our vessels. No power in the world shall deprive us of this right. We do not pre- vent the {Spaniards and French from ascending theriverto our towns and villages. We wish in our turn to descend it, without any interruption, to its moutii, to ascend it again, and exercise our privilege of trading on it and nav- igating it at our pleasure. If our most entire liberty in this matter is disputed, nothing shall prevent our taking posses- sion of the Capital, and, when we are once master of ir, we shall know how to maintain ourselves there. If Congress refuses us effectual protection, if it forsakes us, we will adopt the measures which our safety requires, even if they endanger the peace of the Union and our connection with the other States. No protection, no allegiance.'" Mr. Mndison, as Secretary of State, writing to Mr. Livingston , (November 27 , 1802,) on the same subject — the suspension of the right of deposit, said: " From whatever source the measure may have pro- ceeded, the President exjiects th.it the Spanish Government will neither lose a moment in countermanding it, nor hesi- tate to repair every damage wliicli may result from it< You are aware of the sensibility of our western citizens to such an occurrence. This sensibility is justified by the interest they have at stake. The Mississippi to them is ererylhins;. It is the Hudson, the Delaware, the Potomac, and all the nao- i^ahle rivers of the Atlantic Slates, formed into one stream. The produce exported through that channel, last year, amounted to $1,622,672 from the district of Kentucky and Mississippi only, and will probably be fifty per cent, more this year, from the vv'hole western country. Kentucky alone has exported, for the first half of this year, .*591,'132 in value, a great part of which is now. or will shortly be, afloat for New Orleans, and consequently exposed to the ettects of this extraordinary exercise of power. While you presume, therefore, in your representations to the Spanish Govern- ment, that the conduct of its officer is no less contrary to its intentions tjian it is to its good faith, you will take care to express the strongest confidence that llie breach of the treaty will be repaired in every way wliich justice and a regard for a friendly neighborhood may require." Mr. Madison, again writing to Mr. Livingston (May 1, 1803) upon the cession of Louisiana by Spain to the French Republic, said: " The cession of Louisiana to France becomes daily more and more a source of painful apprehension. Notwithstand- ing the treatyof March, 1801, and notwithstanding the gen- eral belief in France on tlie subject, and the accounts from St. Domingo, that part of the armament sent to that island was eventually destined for Louisiana, a hope was still drawn from your early conversations with M. Talleyrand, that the French Government did not mean to pursue the object. Since the receipt of your last communications, no hope remains but from theaocumulatingditficulties of going through with the undertaking, and from the conviction you may be able to impress, that it must have an instant and powerful effect in changing the relations between France and the United States. The change is obvious ; and the : more it can be developed in candid and friendly appeals to ' the reflections of the French Government, the more it will urge it to revise and abandon the project. A mere neigh- borhood could not be friendly to the harmony wliieh both countries have so much an interest in cherishing ; but if a possession of the mouth of the Mississippi is to be added to the other causes of discord, the worst events are to be ap- prehended. You will consequently spare no efforts, that will consist with prudence and dignity, to lead the coun- cils of France to proper views of this subject, and to an abandonment of her present purpose." I Pursuing the same subject, Mr. Ross (Febru- ary 14, 1803) said: "To the free navigation of the Mississippi wo had an , undoubted right from nature, and from the position of our I western country. This right, and the right of deposit in the island of New Orleans, had been solemnly acknowl- 1 edged and fixed by treaty in 179."). That treaty had been in iictual operation and execution for many years ; and ; now, without any pretense of abuse or violation on our I part, the officers of the Spanish Government deny that , right, refuse the place of deposit, and add the most offen- . sive of all Insults, by forbidding us from landing, on any part of their territory, and shutting us out as a common 1 nuisance. " Why not seize, then, what is so essential to us as a nation .' Why not expel the wrong-doers — wrong-doers by their own confession — to whom by seizure we are doing 1 no injury .' Paper contracts, or treaties, have proved too feeble. Plant yourselves on the river, fortify the banks, invite those who have an interest at stake to delend it ; do justice to yourselves when your adversaries deny it ; and ' leave the event to Him who cojilrols the fate of nations." Subsequently, Mr. Ross offered a series of res- ! olutions for the consideration of the Senate, from ' wliich I quote, as follows: "That the President be authorized to take immediate possession of such place or places in the same island (New I Orleans) or the adjacent territories, as he may deem fit and convenient for the purposes aforesaid ; and to adopt such other measures for obtaining that complete security as to him. in his wisdom, shall seem meet. " That he be authorized to call into actual service any number of the militia of the States of South Carolina, Geor- gia, Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, or the Mississippi Terri- tory, which he may think proper, not exceeding fifty thou- sand, and to employ them, together with the military and naval forces of the Union, for effecting the objects above mentioned." His colleague, Mr. Maclay, addressing the Sen- ate in support of these resolutions, said: "These observations are urged upon the supposition that 12 il is in the power of the Government to restrain the impet- uosity of tlie western people, and to prevent their doing justice to tliemselvos; which, by the by, I beg to be under- stood as not believing, but expressly the contrary. They know their own strensth ; they know the feebleness of the enemy; tliey know the infinite importance of the stake; and tliey feel, permit me to say, sir, with more than mere sensibility, the insults and injuries they have received ; and I believe will not submit, even for the approaching season, to their present ruinous and liumlliating situation. You had as well pretend to riasn up the mouth of the Missis- sippi, and say to its restless waves, ye shall cease here, and never mingle with the ocean, as to expect they will be pre- vented from descending it. Without the free use of the river, and the necessary advantages of deposit below our line, their fertile country is not worth possession ; their pro- duce must be wasted in the fields, or rot in their granaries. These are rights not only guaranteed to them by treaty, but also given to tliem by the God of nature, and they will en- force them, with or without the authority of tlie Govern- ment ; and let me ask whether it is more dignified for the Government to lead or follow in the path of honor .' One it must do, or give up that western country." Mr. Morris, Senator from New York, also ad- vocated the seizure of the island of New Orleans; and finally, upon the motion of Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, Mr. Ross's resolutions were substi- tuted, and a bill passed more fully developing their suggestions, enacted to carry them into ef- fect. The substitute resolutions are as follows: " Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and lie is hereby, authorized, whenever he shall judge it expedient, to require of the executives of the several States to take etfcctual measures to arm and equip, according to law, and to hold in readiness to march, at a moment's warn- ing, eighty thousand effective militia, officers included. " That the President may, if he judges it expedient, au- thorize tlie executives of the several States to accept, as part of the detachment aforesaid, any corps of volunteers who shall continue in service for such time, not exceeding months, and perform such services as shall be pre- scribed by law. "That dollars be appropriated for paying and sub- sisting such part of the troops aforesaid, whose actual ser- vice may be wanted, and for defraying such other expenses, during the recess of Congress, as the President may deem necessary for the security of the territory of the United States. " That dollars be appropriated for erecting, at such place or places on the western waters as the President may judge most proper, one or more arsenals." On the 30th of April, 1803, the treaty with France ceding Louisiana to the United States was signed, and happily put an end to all further con- troversy in regard to the ownership of that prov- ince. In view of these historical fact^, can it be doubted what would be the course, nay, the ne- cessity, of the twelve or thirteen million people inhabiting the upper valley of the Mississippi if that river should be closed against them and their immense commerce.' If two hundred thousand people, with a comparatively insignificant com- merce, were ready to appeal to arms to secure the free navigation of that river in 1803, would sixty times the same number of people, with a corre- sponding commerce, do less now.' Only the man uninitiated in the springs of human action will say so. No, the Mississippi valley is a geographical unit. Its great river, with its intersecting tribu- taries reaching out in every direction to its utmost limits, is the hand of Almighty God, binding it together as onehomogeneous and complete whole. It is an organic body, inseparable except by vio- lence to the laws of nature and those other laws of commerce, education, and society, which are induced by the former. Let it be divided to-day, and ere long, when the frenzy of the hour shall have subsided, its dismembered parts will cleave I together again by irresistible attraction; will re- ! unite as the mutilated lips of an incised wound I by the first intention. A higher law than the i slave law must control the destiny of the Missis- ! sippi valley — the law of natural attraction and I cohesion. I say this in no offensive, but in a philosophical sense; and the reconstruction job- bers of the day, if they would make permanent work, must bear it in mind. Why, indeed, is not Missouri and the whole Southwest, including Texas, Tennessee, and Ken- tucky, closer in interest and natural affinity to Illinois and the whole Northwest, than the same States are to South Carolina, Geoi'gia, and Flor- ida.' Why, too, are not Virginia, Maryland, Delaware, and perhaps North Carolina, closer, in the affinities of agricultural products and economic policy, to Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, and the whole Northwest, than the same States are to South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Ala- bama, and Mississippi.' These are questions to be answered by reason and facts, and not by mo- mentary passion and prejudice. But in a wider, loftier view than mere sectional interest and official duty, is there not something to draw us, by earnest, eager, and irresistible attraction, to a fearless, faithful, and enduring embrace of this glorious Union .' What, with its memories of the past, its blessings of the present, and its hopes of the future, is it not worth to us.' Behold its youthful energies grasping a continent as the young warrior grasps his shield and buck- ler ! Behold its lofty stature piercing the vaulted 13 skies in the dim and distant peaks of the Alle- ghany and Rocky Mountains! Behold its com- merce whiteningevery seal Behold its agriculture strewing the land and gorging the rivers and the lakeswith its infinite profusion! Behold its toihng, tireless workshops and manufactories, forging and fabricating all that utility, luxury, or taste, can crave! Behold its constellations of schools, i colleges, and universities, sparkling as diamonds | upon its bosom, and illuminating its extended sphere with grace, beauty, and intelligence! Be- hold its expanded arms offering an asylum to the oppressed of all nations ! Behold its glancing ban- ner in the van of human progress ! Behold its em- blematic eagle soaring with unblenchinggaze full in the sunlight of a higher, nobler, and purer civ- ilization than ever before kindled the aspirations of any other people ! Behold this great federative system — behold it, built upon the Divine idea of the universe itself — with its central sun and plan- etary orbs, each revolving within its separate I United States, as " the supreme law of the land?" ' Is it coercion for us to maintain, peaceably if we I can, forcibly if we must, possession of the treas- ure and other property of the United States ? Is it coercion for us to stay the violent and lawless hand that would tear down the noble structure of our Government? Nay, more; is it coercion for us to let the flag of the Union stand upon the bosom of our country, where our fathers planted it; to let the eagle of America sweep with buoy- ant wing the wide domain of this great nation ? Is that coercion ? Why, sir, it is a perversion of all language, a mockery of all ideas, to say so. Rather is it coercion for a State to require of us I to submit to her spoliation of the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, custom-houses, post oiHces, and the arms and munitions of the United States. Such submission, sir, in my opinion, would be in the last degree reprehensible and disgraceful. Utter imbecility only can tolerate it; and if that be the condition of our Government, let us at once abol- sphere, and all revolving collectively, and as a j' ish it, and proclaim to the world the sad fact, that dependent whole, within the vast circle of its realm! Behold all this, and answer me whether tills wondrous political creation, the work of our fathers, and their loving legacy to us as their chil- dren, is not worth preserving? Patriotism, too, the sacred obligation of patriot- the last and most auspicious experiment of free government has signally failed. Can anything but madness countenance the scheme of secession ? Let it become a practical doctrine, and the most fatal consequences must follow. Not only will States secede from the ism, would prompt every loyal citizen, whether Union, but counties from States, and cities and in the North or in the South, to defend and main- towns tVom both; and thus the work of disintegra- tain the integrity of the Union and the authority ; tion and dissolution will go on until the whole of its common Government against the inroads of ,! frame of society and government will be ingulfed violence. Notonly the universal allegiance of all i in one bottomless and boundless chaos of ruin, citizens of the United States binds them to it; but j' Already it has induced civil war; indeed, in itself we, and all other public officers, especially are it is civil war. solemnly bound to it by our oaths. We cannot! Whatdowesee? Castle Pinckney, Fort Moul- avoid it if we would. We hear, however, the clamor of coercion — of coercion of States — a clamor got up, if not to make us all traitors, at least to frighten us out of our propriety. What is the foundation for thisclamor? Do the friends of the Union propose to invade trie, and the arsenal, and all other property of the United States, except Fort Sumter, in the harbor and city of Charleston, have been seized, and are now held by the revolutionary forces of South Carolina. And still later, we hear that a vessel sent by the United States, under the stars South Carolina for the purpose of subjugating her ! ' and stripes, with supplies to their garrison in Fort people? Do they propose to force her to send j Sumter, has been fired into by order of the Gov- her members of Congress back here, or to hold il ernorofthatState. More than that; she has placed any Federal office, or to perform any active Fed- ;' herself upon a complete war footing by organ- cralduty? Not so. All we propose is to protect !: izing and arming her militia, and votmg large the property and jurisdiction of the United States ; supplies of money to maintain her military estab- by defensive measures-no more. And is that |lishments. Georgia, too, has seized Forts Jack- coercion ? 'son, Pulaski, and Morgan; and Alabama the Again, sir: is it coercion of a Slate for us to do | United States arsenal atMobile, containing seven- what we are sworn to do-to support " the Con- j ty-eight thousand stand of arms, one thousand five siitution," and "the laws" and " treaties"of the || hundred boxes of powder, three hundred thou- 14 sand rounds of musket cartridges, and other mu- nitions of war; and thus the war commenced, goes on, thus mad men rush upon — " Lean famine, quartering steel, and climbin? lire." Oh, how ciianged the scene of yesterday!— warnings, and portents and evils ominous, are upon us. Behold! The genius of America, that fair divinity of peace, whose noble statue, vying the noblest work of Phidias, graces the Capitol grounds— alas ! behold, behold! she has fled affrighted from her empyreal throne; and Mars, the " mailed Mars, up to his ears in blood," has usurped her sway, and, in the hoarse dissonance of war, proclaims: "Put armor on thine ears, and on thine eyes ; Wliose proof, nor yells of niotliers, maids, norliabes, \or sight of priests in lioly vestments bleeding, Shall pierce a jot." But before passing from this topic, let me in- voke the solemn and eloquent warnings of the immortal Jackson upon the subject of disunion. He asks, in his farewell address to the American people: " What have you to gain by division and dissension .' Delude not yourselves with the belief that a breach once made, may be afterwards repaired. If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation, will then be tried in fields of battle, and determined by the sword. Neither should you deceive yourselves with the hope that the first line of sep- aration would be the permanent one, and that nothing but harmony and concord would be found in the new associa- tions formed upon the dissolution of the Union. Local interests would still be found there, and unchastened am- bition. And if the recollection of common dangers, in which the people of these United States stood side by side against the common foe ; the memory of victories won by their united valor'; the prosperity and happiness they have enjoyed under the present Constitution ; the proud name Ihey bear as citizens of this great Republic ; — if all these recollections and proofs of common interest are not strong enough to biiul us together as one people, what tie will hold united the new divisions of empire when these bonds have been broken, and this Union dissevered .' The first line of separation would not last for a single generation ; nev fragments would be torn off; new leaders would spring up ; and this great and glorious Republic would soon be broken into a multitude of petty States, without commerce, with- out credit, jealous of one another, armed for mutual aggres- sions, loaded with taxes to pay armies and leaders, seeking aid against each other from foreign Powers, insulted and trampled upon by the nations of Europe, until, harassed with conflicts and humbled and debased in spirit, they would b(! ready to submit to the absolute dominion of any inUitar>- adventurer, and surrender their liberty for the sake of repose. It is impossible to look on the consequences that would inevitably follow the destruction of this Gov- ernment, and not fei-1 indign;\nt when we hear cold calcu- lations about the value of the Union, and have so con- stantly before us a line of conduct so well calculated to weaken its ties." But it is answered by the seceding States that they are aggrieved, and must needs have redress. And what are their alleged grievances.' First, the nullification of the fugitive slave law by the so-called liberty bills of the northern States, and otherwise; second, the exclusion of slave prop- erty from the Territories of the United States; third, the continued agitation of the slavery ques- tion; and fourth, the election of Mr. Lincoln. This is the gravamen of the indictment lately drawn up by South Carolina, and published to the world. In part it is true, and in part untrue. So far as Illinois is concerned, except in a few instances of rescue, there has been no serious obstruction offered to the execution of the fugi- tive act, either under color of law or otherwise; and in the cases of rescue referred to, the parties implicated were promptly and exemplarily pun- ished by the courts and juries in the State. On the contrary, Illinois has had upon her statute- books, for more than twenty-five years, police laws operating efficiently in aid of the fugitive act. Without pausing to dwell upon these laws, I refer all who are concerned, and particularly her assailants, to them. Nor is it true that a ma- jority of her delegation in Congress has at any time voted to exclude slave property from the Territories. As a Representative from Illinois, I have always voted against excluding it, and in favor of the doctrine of non-intervention by Con- gress upon the subject. This has been my course from the date of the Wilmot proviso to the pres- ent day. As to our territorial acquisitions, and the op- portunities afforded for slavery expansion, surely there is no just ground of complaint by the South. What are the facts.' All the Territories hitherto acquired have been slave Territories, and in large part eminently adapted to slave labor. So it was of Louisiana, now embracing the cotton and su- gar-growing slave States of Louisiana and Ark- ansas; so of Florida, now another slave State; and so of Texas, still another slave State; and withouthinderance slavery has spread all overthis extensive area, quite up to, and even beyond its climatic ability to sustain itself — as in northern Missouri and Texas, and in the Territory of New Mexico. On the other hand, as often as our territory has been clipped, it has been on the north and free side — as in the case of Maine and 15 Massachusetts, under the Ashburton treaty, and of Oregon, under the Washington treaty. | It is true, however, and I admit the fact, that j several of the northern States have passed laws obstructive of the execution of the fugitive act, j and violative of a solemn guarantee of the Con- j stitution of the United States. And protesting against it, as a northern man I appeal to the moral , sense, the good faith and love of country of the people of those States, to repeal tiiose laws, re- 1 move this grievance, and right themselves in the | eyes of their countrymen. Will they not do it? ' I verily believe they will when their sober second 1 thought has had time to act upon the subject. Already the people of Pennsylvania, New York, Vermont, Maine, and Massachusetts, have led off upon the subject; and no doubt the people of the other delinquent States will follow their exam- ph.. Admitting, however, as I do, that the slavery agitation was commenced in the North, still I can- not say that the South is blameless in regard to it. On the contrary, both sections have been driven into excesses upon the subject by incendiary dem- agogues. In the North there are the Garrisons and Phillipses, who are but the counterparts of the Rhetts and Yanceys of the South. The one, re- garding the Constitution as a shield for slavery, denounces it as " a covenant with death and an agreement with hell;" while the other, regarding the Union as the enemy of slavery, denounces it as the coil of the anaconda crushing out the life- blood of the South. These characters, on the one side,as crusaders against slavery, assume to crush it out by authority of God; while on the other, as propagandists, they deem it their Heaven-ap- pointed mission to spread it everywhere. Such characters are but the incarnation of fanaticism. Transpose them geographically, one to the South and the other to the North, and each will em- brace the other's form of fanaticism — the Abo- litionist becoming a fire-cater, and the fire-eater an Abolitionist. It is^uch men who have led the way in formmg twa great sectional parties; one, the anti-slavery Republican party of the North; and the other, the pro-slavery disunion party of the South, which, respectively, have seized the control of their par- ticular sections, and are now grinding the Union into powder. "Tilt" one seem'd woman to the waist, and fair, But ended foul in many a scaly fold. Voluminous and vast." This was the parent; and the other: " Black it stood as niglu, Fierce as ten furies, terrible as hell. And shook a dreadful dan." This was the hideous offspring of the fraudful parent. And thus I am brought to the consideration of the last ground of complaint — the election of Abraham Lincoln." And who, let me inquire, is responsible for his election? Surely, not the reg- ular national Democracy, who were antagonized by the Republican party on the one side, and by the disunionists on the other. That party faith- fully and fearlessly resisted Mr. Lincoln 's election to the last. Occupying a middle ground, they counseled reason, moderation, and forbearance; but amid the storm of excitement that prevailed, their counsels were unheeded. Their brethren of the South seceded from the Democratic conven- tion, set up a new party test, bolted the regular Democratic nomination, and dividing its forces, by consequence beti-ayed its success. Therespons ibility, therefore, be upon others, not upon us. " Thou cans't not say, I did it ; never shake Thy gory locks at me." Such being the primary and secondary cause, I and such the disastrous result, we say now, to ' the Republicans, abjure your fanatical and pro- 1 1 scriptive dogmas ; and to the disunionists, or rather I to our conservative brethren of the South of all 1 1 parties, we say — to them we say, stay disunion — stay that fatal movement, at least until the people of the North, in their sober second thought, have had time to come to the rescue. Let us all — let all conservative men of all par- ties and of all sections, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Gulf of Mexico to the far lakes — rally in favor of the integrity of the Constitution and the Union. Let them merge the partisan in the patriot, and, coming up to the altar of their country, generously sacrifice every angry feeling and ambitious aim for the welfare and glory of that country. Let no man, whether he be Dem- ocrat, Republican, or American, refuse to yield something of his opinions and prepossessions in deference to others, and the higher claims of patriotism. All government, all authority, all human life, is a coiupromise. Christianity itself is a compromise between justice and mercy — be- tween disobedience and its predoomed punish- ment. Let us, therefore, in a spirit of conciliation and concession, compromise our existing differ- ences upon just and equitable terms; let us all do this for the ^ood of all. Our fathers set us such an 16 example in the formation of tlie Federal Consti- tution; and why cannot we follow it as the con- dition of preserving and perpetuating that sacred instrument? To do so would be no discredit or disparagement to any one, but an honor to all. The people, posterity, and future history, in the name of freedom and humanity, call for it. Personally, I would prefer compromise upon the basis of non-intervention by Congress with slavery in the Slates, in the Territories, and in the District of Columbia. My own choice would be, to leave the people of the States and Territo- ries each to decide for themselves whether they would or would not have slavery, and what should be the character of their other local insti- tutions. This would be my choice; butif such a. settlement is unacceptable to the majority, then I am willing to forego my strong objections to a geo- graphical line, and adopt the plan of adjustment recommended by a committee of the members from the border States, which is familiar to the members of the House, and which, as the peace- offering of conservative men, would no doubt meet the approbation of the great mass of the people; a plan which I understand my distin- guished friend from Arkansas [Mr. Rust] is pre- pared to bring before the House on the first op- portunity. 54 W IT •» AT «i» • .0^ •^^ ^;L • o V _ ^^ ^^ ^^.^* •*^ H ^u^» . ^^^jT. T!-t< % •X^' - ?S^^■■\^'^.•' -^^^ 0^ 4 Oj o. *,r^o» .o'