^O**^.'*0'^ V'-.^-'o,-^^ '\.*^-'%0' V.'-^VoO 
 

 
 % . 
 \.^* 
 
 
 
 '^^ 
 
 
 
 v^' 
 
 ^^0^ 
 
 • jJc'^S^ ,^*'^ O 
 
 •^0^ 
 
 •» <k 
 
 ,^^\. 
 
 ^oV° 
 
 
 ■4 o 
 
 
 
 
SPEECH 
 
 J 
 ION. SOLOMON W, DOWNS, 
 
 OF LOUISIANA, 
 
 RESOLUTION SUBMITTED BY MR. FOOTE, OF MISSISSIPPI, 
 
 PF.CLARIN'G 
 
 THE COMPROMISE MEASUPvES 
 
 A DEFINITIVE AD.TUSTMENT OP THE AGITATING aUESTIONS GROWING 
 OUT OF THE INSTITUTION OF DOMESTIC SLAVERY. 
 
 EELnKRtn IK THE SENATE OF THE UNSTF.D STATES JAKl'ARY 1 0, 1853 
 
 WASHINGTON : ---^.^:^^- 
 
 PRINTF.D BY DONELSON AND ARMSTRONG. 
 
 18-52. 
 

SPEECH. 
 
 Mr. DOWNS said : Mr. President, I had not arrived in this city whePi 
 the resolution under discussion was introduced, and, if I had been con- 
 suhed on the subject, I shou'd not have advised such a course. I do 
 not think there is much virtue in abstract resohitions in legislative bo- 
 dies ; I prefer actioHs to words ahva^rs ; and as Congress has acted on. 
 the subjects referred to in the resolution, and has evinced no disposition 
 to change the policy adopted in 1S50, but, on the contrary, as it seemed 
 to be sustained by more general approbation, both in and out of Con- 
 gress, and in all sections of the country, than when first adopted, aiid 
 has given peace, repose, and safety to the Union, I would not, if the 
 choice had been left to me, have renewed this discussion. However, as 
 it has been renewed without my agency, and has led to a general dis- 
 cussion of the compromise measures, in the course of which arguments 
 and opinions have been advanced, and facts stated, most erroneous and 
 dangerous to the country, and calculated to do injustice to those who are 
 responsible for those measures, I, too, find it my duty to address the 
 Senate on the subject. I appear not as the champion of ihe Com- 
 promise — I am willing that it should stand on its own merits — but to 
 defend it from the unjust assaults that have been mide against it. This 
 very discussion has shown that it is stronger in the affections of the peo- 
 ple than its best friends had supposed. Tlie clear, frank, and satisfactory 
 manner in which the honorable senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Brod- 
 head] vindicated his State and the North generally from the charge of 
 obstructing the fugitive-slave law will calm and satisfy the minds of 
 many in other quarters of the Union who have had their misgivings on 
 the subject. This is just what we expected from that gentleman, from 
 h's previous course in the other end of the Capitol, and before the 
 people, and from his noble State, now, as she has ever been, literally 
 and truly the keystone in the arch of this our glorious Union. In 
 another way this discusson will do good : it will show that the opposi- 
 tion to the Compromise is much narrower, and embraces fewer indi- 
 viduals than it did in 1850. Who makes war on it now ? Not one from 
 the South, I believe, except the senator from South Carolina on my left, 
 [Mr. Rhett ;] for I do not understand his colleague, [Mr. Butler] — 
 whose manly and successful opposition to immediate secession, in my 
 opinion, entitles him to the thanks and gratitude of the whole nation — as 
 wishing to renew the struggle ; and none from the North, whatever their 
 
course previously may have been, except some few agitators, whose pros- 
 pects, whose occupations, are gone when the peace and quiet of the 
 country are restored. The concert of action between the fanatics Norti^ 
 and South on this pohcy has been so well and so forcibly characterized 
 by my friend from Alabama, [Mr. Cle.mexs.] in his eloquent speech the 
 other day, that 1 will not dwell on it. I will refer to only one illustra- 
 tion of the fact. While the senator from South Carolina [Mr. Rhett] 
 attacks the territorial judges, the senator from New Hampshire [Mr. Hale] 
 attacks most violently the Supreme Court of the United States. His 
 attack is the highest mark of approbation to that high tribunal. The 
 judges of that court have done their duty nobly, and as everybody 
 expected they would, in relation to tiie fugitive-slave law. Without the 
 faithful execution of the law, the peace and quiet of the country could 
 not have been secured, or the durability of the measure vouched for. 
 Much of the credit for its full execution is due to the judges of that 
 Court. Without their prompt and energetic action, its success in some 
 quarters may be well doubted. When the record of this dangerous 
 crisis of our government comes to be inscribed on the page of his- 
 tory, nothing that was said or done during its existence ought to, or 
 will, in my judgment, occupy a more conspicuous place, or be dwelt on 
 with more interest, than Judge Nelson's charge to the grand jury, anc^t 
 similar opinions of Judge Woodbury and other members of the court. 
 For these they are entitled to the thanks of every true patriot, and they 
 v.'ill receive them, not the less from the contortions and writhing of the 
 honorable senator from New Hampshire. This attack reminds me forci- 
 bly of the story of the viper biting the file, which only wounded itself. 
 He says the Supreme Court is the '' citadel of slavery." It is indeed a 
 citadel ; but it is the citadel of the Constitution — of the Union — firmly, 
 and I hope forever, founded on a rock, from whose solid walls of granite 
 such light missiles as the senator and his associates may hurl against it 
 will fall as harmless as the load of a boy's pop-gun from the walls of you 
 monument to the Father of his Country, or (what is a more apposite 
 simile, for he deals much in wind) as the light arrow from the blow-gun 
 of the Indian falls from the sturdy oak of his native forest. 
 
 I shall now proceed to the main object of my speech — a reply to some 
 of the arguments on the extraordinary positions assumed by the senator 
 from South Carolina [Mr. Rhett] in this debate ; and first I shall notice 
 his objections to the Compromise. He says : 
 
 " If these enormous pretensions [the disposal of the territory] were eubniitted to, it would 
 give the North tlie power of organizing and bringing into the Union sixty-four free States. 
 ar.i the South would retain but fifteen, includincr Delaware." 
 
It might be a sufficient answer to this remark, that though these sixty- 
 four States — thirty two of which are, I beheve, to be west of the Rocky 
 mountains — may, hke some speculations in town lots or wild lands, look ■ 
 very well on paper, it will be long, indeed, if ever, before the idea will be 
 realized. '' Sufficient for the day is the evil thereof." When we take into 
 consideration the thousands of miles of limitless, barren, desert, and inac- 
 cessible mountains, where the enterprise of even the American emigrant 
 will not perhaps for a century raise a log-cabin, this must be considered 
 at once the wildest chimera. But if it be true, how are we to prevent it? 
 The danger, it is said, will consist in the North having power to exclude 
 from the Union new slave States. But that power has existed from the 
 foundation of the government. Has it ever been exercised to the injury 
 of the South ? I think history will show that it has not. But why should 
 we complain so much about the admission of free States ? Is it so 
 unusual a tiling ? The South has held her own well on this point. We 
 stand now relatively as to numbers just as we did when the constitution 
 was adopted. Of the old thirteen States, at that time a majority of seven 
 to si.v were really and practically free. They stand in the same relative 
 position still at this day, even after the admission of California, so much 
 complained of; for there have been eighteen new States admitted — nine 
 slave and nine free. But this is not all: Of these new States, seven 
 were formed from territory acquired since the Union was established; 
 and of these seven, five (Florida, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and 
 Texas) are slave States, and only five or six years since every one of the 
 States thus formed from foreign territory were slave States ; the two 
 free States, Iowa and California, having been since that time both 
 admitted. 
 
 But might we not well inquire of the honorable senator how much 
 better we should have done had we obtained the Missouri Compromise, 
 which he and the Nashville convention were so willing to take, and 
 thought so desirable that they are disposed to break up the Union 
 because they did not get it ? The whole territory acquired from Mexico 
 was ------ 525,478 square miles. 
 
 Tho State of California is - - - 158,000 « 
 
 Leaving in Utah and New Mexico, without 
 
 prohibition of slavery - - - 367,478 
 
 The quantity of the territory south of 36*^ 
 
 30", which is - - - - 204,383 
 
 Being dedvicted, will leave this as the advan- 
 tage which the Compromise gives to the 
 South over the Missouri Com.promise line - 163,095 
 
6 
 
 And this large area is left to the territorial bills in precisely the same situa- 
 tion as that south of 36° 30" would have been had that line been 
 adopted. But this is not all that may be said on this subject. If we add 
 to the - - - - - - - - 163,005 
 
 square mileS; as above stated, the area of Texas, which is - 325,520 
 
 it will make ...---. 4S8,615 
 square miles, which is the territory the South has got by the annexation 
 of Texas, and the acquisition oi territory from Mexico, in about two-thirds 
 of which slavery is established, and in the residue not prohibited ; while the 
 North got only 158,000 square miles (Cahfornia) out of the whole of the 
 recent acquisitions, amounting together to 850,998 square miles. Let it 
 not be supposed that I believe that full justice has been done the South 
 in the disposition of the new territory recently acquired. I believe it has 
 not. I fought against it on the Oregon bill; I fought against it on the 
 California bill, and would do so again. But what I do mean is: that 
 though not perfectly just, they are not sufficiently oppressive to justify 
 resistance and disunion; that like all other acts of legislation, par- 
 ticularly in a country so widely extended as ours, there must be ine- 
 quality m the operations of the laws; there must arise at times features of 
 injustice to some portions. But they do not show any settled purpose in 
 the North to oppress the South. California and Iowa, which gave tlie free 
 States a majority, have never yet aided in oppressing the South, and it 
 will be long before they will commence it. When they do, it will be 
 time enough to complain and to secede. It is a sufficient answer to the 
 reckless assertion so often made in the discussion of this subject, and on 
 this occasion repeated by tbe senator, that ''two States were wrested from 
 us in Texas" by the boundary bill, to state that by the Texas compro- 
 mise of 1845 slavery was prohibited forever in all the territory north of 
 36° 30"; while in the territory south of that line only the same option 
 was left — to admit or reject slavery — which is now extended by this 
 boundary bill from 36° 30" up to 42=', the Oregon boundary. 
 
 Objection has been made to the admission of California on constitu- 
 tional and other grounds. I cannot better reply to it than to read from a 
 speech made by nre on this subject in October last: 
 
 " I will now consider briefly the several measures called the Compromise ; and, first, the one 
 which has been most objected to — the admission of California as a State into the Union. 
 Although I voted against the bill as a separate measure, yet, as I was willing to vote for it as a 
 part of the Compromise, I will give you some of the reasons which brought me to this concUi- 
 s'on. I was disposed then to vote for this as a part of the Compromise, because my vote and 
 that of all of the members of the South against it would not prevent its passage. I knew it 
 would be passed in spite of us — and so in truth it was passed at last. But even if we could 
 have prevented the passage of it, that would have done us no good ; for slavery was prohibited 
 
by her constitution, and her state government organized before this measure was brought before 
 us, and it would have remained so just the same whether she was admitted or not. The only- 
 difference would have been, that she would not have been a State in the Union, and entitled to 
 her senators and representatives in Congress. Slavery was excluded by her great distance from 
 us, by the doubt and agitation as to the right to carry slaves there, and by many other causes, 
 lono- before this prohibition was made, or the State admitted. But it is said the State was admitted 
 irregularly, and without passing through the usual state of territorial probation. It may well 
 be objected to this argument that there is no uniform rule on the subject. Some States were 
 admitted in one form, and some in another. The constitution provides no form ; nor does Con- 
 gress. The power is plenary, and without condition or limit, except in one particular, and it is 
 that 'Congress may admit new States.' The plan of territorial governments has been frequently 
 adopted, but has been departed from in many previous cases. The first two new States admitted 
 into the Union were admitted without this formality. The first (Vermont) was admitted in 
 1791, on the application of her commissioners, on a constitution formed in 1777, before the 
 present constitution was adopted, precisely in the same way California was admitted ; and the 
 very next one (Kentucky) was admitted before she had any constitution at all by an act of 
 Congress authorizing the President to declare her admitted when she should present herself with 
 a republican constitution— just as it was proposed to do with California at one time ; and thus 
 she came in. There have been several other departures from the usual course : even Texas was 
 one of thtm only a short time before. Mr. Polk, during his adminstration, despairing of 
 settling the question otherwise, approved of a plan to admit California, prospectively, as in 
 he case of Kentucky. Such a measure was proposed by Judge Douglas, and, being referred 
 to the Judiciary Committee, I made a minority report, accompanied by a bill, in favor of it, but 
 it did not pass. If it had, and California (as she no doubt would) had adopted a constitution 
 prohibiting slavery. Congress would have had no more right to refuse to admit, her than Ken- 
 ■ tucky. Indeed, many members of Congress from the South, as well as the North, under this 
 idea, started by Mr. Polk, advised the Caiifornians to adopt this course. I think, indeed, it was 
 generally approved at first by southern men, until it began to be apprehended that slavery 
 would be abolished. Yet all must have known — as Mr. Calhoun declared in his resolution of 
 1S47 — that when the people of a new territory formed a constitution for themselves, they had 
 the 'unconditional righC to reject or admit slavery, as they might decide." 
 
 I do not deem it necessary to discuss the constitutional question j for 
 that was given up in the debate in the Senate on the protest in 1850. 
 
 The senator says the fugitive-slave law has not been executed, and he 
 mentions two or three instances in which its execution had been pre- 
 vented by the violence of mobs. But he ought to have recollected, as I 
 am sure the country will recollect, that, before the passage of this act, the 
 rule was that the law for the recapture of fugitives was not executed, and 
 the exceptions were where it was, and that now the rule is the other 
 way, and the few exceptions are where it has failed. It has been as fully 
 and as faithfully executed as any law ever was or will be. It has been 
 executed in every State in the West, and in other free States bordering 
 on slave States in every instance, except one in Pennsylvania. The 
 federal and State officers, civil and military, have done their duty. In no 
 instance has the State authority interposed to prevent its execution — not 
 even in Vermont, where alone a State legislature has attempted to inter- 
 fere since the passage of the act, and that in a moment of delusion, and 
 against the opinions of the ablest and best men even in that quarter of 
 
8 
 
 the Union. I will not further discuss this point, but will conclude what 
 I have to say on the subject with brief quotations from the speech of the 
 honorable senator from Virginia [Mr. Mason] who sits near me, who 
 differed very widely from me on the measures of the Compromise, and to 
 whose able remarks on this subject, the other day, we all listened with 
 so much pleasure: 
 
 " Now, I am not aware of one of the southern States, except the State of South Carolina, 
 wliich continues to protest against them. I am not aware of one of tlie south.ern States, 
 except the State of South CaroHna, which has not declared, in the most emphatic manner, to 
 the majority in this government. If you will stop there, and execute in good faith die law for 
 tlie reclamation of fugitive slaves, we will acquiesce in what has been done." 
 
 " As to the fugitive-slave law, I do not entirely agree with the honorable senator from 
 South Carolina [Mr. Butler] as to the practical effect of the law. I am not aware (unless it 
 be in the first instance, which occurred at Boston) of Efny instance where the officers of the 
 federal government, in the execution of that law, have failed to do their duty." 
 
 " Sir, I do not sympathize in the slightest degree with what fell from the honorable senator 
 from South Carolina, [Mr. Rhett,] who addressed us yesterday and the day before, when 
 he declared himself for disunion." 
 
 But why should we further discuss the compromise measures, when 
 the senator has himself admitted that he does not find in them sufficient 
 reason to justify the disunion movement which he has set on foot, and is 
 so recklessly and so violently urging upon the people of South Caro- 
 lina? — for he says, speaking of the compromise measures : 
 
 " If this had been the first instance in the operation of the government in which it had 
 departed from that course of impartiality which should characterize its dealings with all its 
 members, we should have sufficient reason perhaps to let it pass, as it would not be a result 
 from the nature of the system itself, but an aberration which might be transient in its 
 character. ' ' 
 
 This yields the point, and gives up all grounds of justification 
 of resistance, so far as the compromise measures are concerned. 
 It amounts to more than this : it is a solenni annunciation, made 
 for the first and I hope the last time in the Senate of the United 
 States by one of its members, that our system of government is a failure, 
 and ought to be abandoned j that we should give up at once those institu- 
 tions wnder which we have so much prospered, and are now so pros- 
 perous, and which are not only our dearest possessions, but, as was so 
 eloquently said the other day by the distinguished guest of the nation 
 now among us, offer the only hope to the rest of tlie world. 1 shall not 
 examine the other grounds of complaint stated by the senator, inasmuch 
 as I think they will have little weiglit with the public ; since it has been 
 so well remarked, in the course of this debate, that one of the most 
 objectionable of them, according to his arguments — the tarifl'of 1846 — 
 was voted for by him and all the other members of the South Carolina 
 delegation . 
 
I proceed now to his arguments -on secession. He opens this branch 
 of his subject by a denunciation of southern pusillanimity, of which he 
 speaks as flippantly and as coolly as if he had the sole right to vule in 
 questions of honor and propriety for our portion of the Union, and as if 
 liis doctrines had not been repudiated by all the most patriotic and 
 distinguished men of the South, and in his own State, and then proceeds 
 to the argument by an assumption as little sustained by our past history 
 as any that was ever made perhaps on this floor. He said : 
 
 . " The policy of the Union is under the control of northern sentiments and northern 
 interests." 
 
 Let us see how a few facts in our history will show the incorrectness of 
 this assumption : The commander-in-chief of the army of the revolution 
 was from the South ; the permanent seat of government was establie-hed 
 in the South ; an extent of seacoast has been acquired in the South 
 (embracing, too, the great outlet of the valley of the Mississippi) greater 
 than our whole extent of coast at the close of the revolution, while none 
 has been acquired in the North, on the Atlantic. Of the eleven Presi- 
 dents elected, seven were from the South and four from the North ; five 
 from the South served two terms— not one from the North. The South 
 has had the presidency nearly fifty out of sixty-four years that the present 
 government will have existed at the close of the present term. The office 
 of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has been held by two southern 
 men for more than half a century continuously. As it was in the past, 
 so it is at present : a southern man presides here, and in the other house, 
 and did during the last Congress ; the chairman of the most important 
 committees, in this and the other house, are southern men ; the com- 
 mander-in-chief of the army is a native of the South ; all three of the 
 commanders in the war with Mexico were natives, and two of them resi- 
 dents of the South. 
 
 I notice these things in no boastful spirit; they were, I know, brought 
 about without design, in the natural course of events, but they certainly 
 go far to show that the South are not that oppressed people which some 
 would represent them to be. 
 
 For the double purpose of illustrating the opinion I have here ad- 
 vanced, and to show that Mr. Jefferson rejected with horror such violent 
 remedies for injuries to the South as the senator has been propagating, I 
 beg leave to read an extract from a speech delivered by me in June last: 
 
 " More than a quarter of a century since (1825) Mr. Jefferson (I need apply no epithets to 
 him, his name is enough) tl ough there was at leaitas much reason to complain of the action 
 of the general government as any southern man can think now exists ; yet he, in the most de- 
 cided terms, disapproved of the remedy proposed by South Carolina, and those who concur 
 with her. He said in his letter to Mr. Giles : 
 
10 
 
 " ' I see as you do, and with the greatest affliction, the rapid strides with which the federal 
 branch of our government is advancing towards the usurpation of all the rights reserved to the 
 States, and the consolidation in itself of all powers, foreign and domestic; and that, too, by 
 construclions which, if legitimate, leave no limits to their power.' 
 
 "' And what is our resource for the preservation of the constitution? Reason and argument. 
 You might as well reason and argue to the marble columns encircling them!' 
 
 " ' Are we, then, to stand to our onus with the hot-headed Georgian ? No ! This must be the 
 last resource, not to be thought of unti' much longer and greater sufferings. If any infraction of a 
 compact of so many parties is to be resisted at once, as a dissolution of it, none could ever be form- 
 ed which could last one year. We must have patience and longer endurance with our brothers 
 while under delusion; give them time for reflection and experience of consequences ; keep our- ^ 
 selves in a situation to profit by the chapter of accidents, a.nii separate from our companions only 
 when the sole alternatives left are the dissolution of the Union with them, or submission to a 
 government without limitation of powers.' " 
 
 " Never came from his pen wiser or more pati-iotic words than these ! With what foresight 
 his philosopic mind dwelt on events favorable to the South that have already come to pass ! It 
 se^ms like prophecy ! Little more than a quarter of a century has elapsed ; yet what, in that 
 short space in the life of a nation, have been the ' chapter of accidents ' already recorded in our 
 history favorable to State rights and southern interests ! Five Presidents have since been elected, 
 and two acting Presidents ; three of the Presidents were from the South, as was also one of the 
 acting Presidents ; and one of the Presidents from the North was a native of the South. The 
 office of President has been actually held seventeen out of the last twenty-five years by southern 
 Presidents, and onlyeight years by northern Presidents. 
 
 " During the administration of three of these southern Presidents — one of them too by acci- 
 dent — three of the greatest limitations ever imposed on the constructive powers of the federal 
 government have been adopted in two cases by the executive power alone. President Jackson 
 restrained by the Maysville veto the power claimed for a general system of internal improve- 
 ments — the one at which Mr. Jefferson was more alarmed than any other — and Mr. Polk con- 
 firmed itin the yeto of the harbor bill in 184G. Mr. Tyler vetoed a Bank of the United States, 
 and made it an obsolete idea forever ; and the high tariff, which drove South Carolina to 
 nullification in 1832, was so much reduced under the advice of Mr. Polk, and his southern 
 Secretary of the Treasury, as to leave no cause of complaint on that score, even on the part 
 of South Carolina. Since 1825 seven new States have been admitted into the Union — four 
 free, and three slave States ; but the slave States thus admitted contain an area greater than 
 the four free States, and there is a clause in the act admitting Texas providing for four addi- 
 tional States within her boundaries. There are, too, ahead some ' accidents ' for the acquisi- 
 tion and admission of new States of the South which are not unworthy of consideration. I 
 think, then, after all, we have stood our ground pretty well for the last quarter of century, 
 and have no great reason to despair. Yes, we of the South have prospered greatly during that 
 time. The North has also prospered greatly, perhaps more than we have, but we ought not 
 to envy them, or quarrel with them for their good fortune. If they have made more money 
 than we have, we have had, as has been the case through the whole history of the government, 
 at least our share of the honor and power." 
 
 But if secession were a wise and safe remedy, have the States a right, 
 under the constitution, as the senator and, I regret to say, some others 
 of higher authority supposed, to resort to it ? I think not, except as a 
 revohitionary remedy. It is said to be a reserved right of the States; but 
 that cannot be, because many rights, and this among others, are pro- 
 hibited, as they would annul the grant of supreme power to the national 
 government, and be inconsistent with other special prohibitions to the 
 
11 
 
 States. An important part of tke 10th amendment of the constitution, 
 so often referred to, is the ^'powers prohibited to the States." Here it is 
 in full: 
 
 " The powers not delegfited to the United States by the constitution, nor prohibiledby it to 
 the Slates, are reserved to the States or to the people." 
 
 Are not both the powers delegated to the United States, and those 
 prohibited to the States wholly incompatible with such a right? 
 The senator says : 
 
 " It [the right of secession] is a necessary incident connected with the reserved sovereignty 
 of the States. One State could not give to another, and ihe constitution could not give to the 
 States, the right to secede. They have it originally." 
 
 Well, suppose they had: why could not the constitution take it away? 
 Was not one great object of the new constitution to take away certain 
 powers from the States, and give them to the national government? 
 And did it not take away State sovereignty, in a great degree at least?— 
 for to lessen it is to destroy it. Must it not exist in its totality, or exist 
 not at all? As there cannot exist in the same government two supreme 
 powers, so it would seem there cannot exist two sovereignties. There 
 are strong reasons to conclude it was taken away. The word is not, I 
 believe, mentioned in the constitution. Certainly no such right is ex- 
 pressly reserved to the States in that instrument. There was, though, 
 such an express reservation in the articles of confederation. Those 
 articles were the first organic and pre-existing law of the nation. The 
 constitution amended and enlarged them. A provision, dien, that was 
 in the first and omitted in the second, especially if inconsistent with the 
 new powers granted, must be considered as abrogated. The second 
 article of the confederation is : 
 
 " Each State regains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdic- 
 tion, and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in 
 Congress arsembled." 
 
 Mr. Madison, in his letter to Mr. Randolph, just before th(i meeting of 
 the convention in 1787, clearly thought the sovereignty must be given 
 up. He wrote : 
 
 " I hold it for a fundamental point that an individual independence of the States is utterly 
 in-econcilable with the idea of an aggregate sovereignty. I think, at the same time, that a con- 
 solidation of the States into one simple republic is not less unattainable than it would be m- 
 expedient. Let it be tried, then, whether any middle ground can be taken which will at once 
 support a due suppremacy of the national authority, and leave in force the local authorities, 
 so far as they can be siibordi7iately useful." 
 
 General Washington took a similar view of the subject in his letter as 
 president of the convention, in transmitting the constitution to Congress. 
 He used this language : 
 
 " It is obviously impracticable in the federal government of these States to secure all rights 
 of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all. Indi- 
 
12 
 
 ■s'uUials CRtering into society must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The mag- 
 nitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstance as on the object to 
 be attained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights 
 which must be surrendered and those which may be reserved ; and on the present occasion 
 tliis 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 sultject, we kept 
 steadily 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 — perhaps 
 our national existence. This important consideration, seriously and deeply impressed on 
 our minds, led each State in the convention to be less rigid on points of inferior 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 deference and concession which the pecu- 
 liarity of our political situation rendered indispensable." 
 
 Mr. Jefferson did not believe die States retained their entire sover- 
 eignty. I cannot find that he ever uses the word in speaking of State 
 rights ; and it is certainly to be inferred from his writings that he 
 thought it did not exist under our present constitution, but, on the con- 
 trary, he speaks of the genera) government as "acting on the citizens 
 directly and forcibli/.'^ (Letter to Mr. Livingston, p. 39L) 
 
 General Jackson's opinions accorded with General Washington's, Mr. 
 Jefferson's, and Mr. Madison's on this principle. Here is what he said 
 about it in the proclamation of the 10th December, 1832, and it applies 
 to the question of secession as well as that of State sovereignty : 
 
 " Men of the best intentions and the soundest views may differ in their construction of some 
 parts of the constitution ; but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can have no 
 doubt. Of this nature appears to be the assumeJ right of sere^sion. 
 
 " It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged undivided sovereignty of the States, and on their 
 having formed, in this sovereign capacity, a compact which is called the constitution, from 
 which, because they made it, tir.ey have the right to sei-ede. Both of these positions are erro- 
 neous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated. 
 
 " The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. 
 
 " It has been shown that, in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they sur- 
 rendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make trea ies, declare war, 
 levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legtflative powers, were all of them functions of sov- 
 ereign power. The States, then, for all these purposes, were no longer sovereign. The 
 allegiance of their citizens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the 
 United States ; they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the constitution of the 
 United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested in Congress. This 
 last position has not been, and cannot be, denied. How, then, can that State be said to be 
 sovereign and independent whose citizsns owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose 
 magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws when they come in conflict with those passed by 
 another? What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said to have reserved an undi- 
 vided sovereignty is, that they expressly ceded the right to punish treason— not treason 
 against their separate power, but treason against the United States. Treason is an offence 
 against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved 
 rights of the States are not less sacred because they have, for their common interest, made the 
 general government the depository of those rights. 
 
 " So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secrssion, that it is only necessary to allude to 
 them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifices of 
 
18 
 
 interests and opinions. Can those sacrifi es be recallerl ? Can the States who mngnanimnns'y 
 surrendered their title to the Territories of the West recall the grant ? Will the inhabitynts .)f 
 the inland States ogree to pay all the d ities that may be imiosed without their assent by those 
 on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own bentfi ? Shall there be a tree port in one State imd 
 onerous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single Slate to involve 
 another in these and countless other evils, contrary to the engagement solemnly made. Eve^y 
 one must see that the other States, in self-defence, must oppose it at all hazards." 
 
 Bat the senator has discovered a recognition of tlie sovereignty of tlie 
 States in that provision of the constitution relating to treason. He has, 
 in his quotation, interpolated words to help him ont ; but even that wi!} 
 not do. It is precisely this provision, and others on the same subject, 
 that induced General Jackson to conclude that the States had not re- 
 tained their entire sovereignty. 
 
 He [Mr. Rhett] quotes the constitution in these words : 
 
 " Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying \v;ir ngainst them (ihe 
 Stales) or in adhering to their enemies, {ihe enemies of Vie Stales,) giving them aid and comfuit." 
 
 In \he project of the constitution reported by the committee of detail in 
 the convention, and taken up as the basis of discussion, the words after 
 the United States "or any of them" was inserted in two places, b\u 
 struck ont on debate, which shows that treason was intended to be pro- 
 vided for against the United States alone. On the discussion of this 
 article in the convention, Governcur Morris said : 
 
 " He was for giving to the Union an exclusive right to declare what should be treason. In 
 case of a contest between the Unite 1 States and a particular S:ate, the people of the latter must; 
 under the disjunctive terms of the clause, be traitors to one or the other authority." 
 
 Dr. Johnson said: 
 
 " That treason could not be both against the United States and individual States, being an 
 offence against the sovereignty, which can be but one and the same community." 
 
 Mr. Madison said : 
 
 " That as the defiiitinn here was of treason against Ihe United Slates, it would seem that the 
 individual Stales would be left in possession of a concurrent power so far as to define and puiiish 
 treason, particularly against themselves, which might involve a dou''le punishment." 
 
 Mr. Wilson and Dr. Johnson moved that "or any of them," after the 
 "United States," be struck out, in order to remove the embarrassment; 
 which was agreed to nemcon. 
 
 Mr. Madison said: 
 
 *' This has not removed the embarrassment. The same act might be treason against the 
 United States, as now defined, and against a particular State according to its laws." 
 
 Mr. Ellsworth said: 
 
 "There can be no danger to the government authority from this, as the laws of the United 
 States are to be paramount." 
 
 Dr. Johnson was still of opinion — 
 "Thete could be no trea^o.i against a particular State." 
 
14 
 
 Colonel Mason said : 
 
 "The Uiii;ed States wi!l have a qualified sovereignly only. The individual States willra 
 tai'i a part of the sovereignty. An act may be tnason against a particular State vi'hich is 
 not so against the United States. He cited the rebellion of Bcicon in Virginia as an illustration 
 of the dortrine." 
 
 Dr. Johnson said: 
 
 "That case wmild amount to treason against the sovereign — the supreme sovereign, the 
 United S'ates." 
 
 Mr. King observed: 
 
 " That t'le controversy relating to treason might be of less magnitude than was supposed, as 
 the legislature might punish capitally under other names than treason." 
 
 Mr. Wilson said: 
 
 "In cases of a general nature treason can only ba against the United States ; and in such they 
 should have the sole right to declare the punishment of trfason." 
 
 The words "against the United Slates" were stricken out and after- 
 wards inserted, and the clause left as it now stands. The wisdom that 
 gnided the convention on tliis subject is shown by the fact that in all 
 our subsequent history, treason has been declared and punished by the 
 United States oidy, and that no difficulty has arisen from it or objection 
 made. 
 
 The authority of Mr. Jefferson and General Jackson are relied on to 
 sustain secession — with what justice may be seen from what follows: 
 
 " In his first inaugural address, Air. Jefferson sets down as among the vital principles of our 
 system, 'the freservatidn of Ihe general govcrnmtnl in its xohole constilutionnl vigor, as the shett- 
 anchsr of our peace at home and safely abroad ; a jealuus care of the rights of tlection by tht people ; a 
 mild and safe corrective of abuses whicfi are lopped off by the sword of revolution, where peaceable reme- 
 dies are unprovided ; absolute acquiescenc! 171 the decisions of the majority, the vital principles frc' 
 publics, from lohich is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism.'' " 
 
 And this is not all. Afterwards he told us what were his opinions, 
 upon a later occasion, when he had retired to private life. In 1824, 
 when this subject was again, as in 1799, to be brought up before the 
 Virginia legislature, in reference to the subject of internal improvements, 
 he drew up a project, or a set of resolutions, which he thought ought to 
 be adopted by the Virginia legislature under the circumstances. But did 
 he profess secession ? Not at all. But in the proposed resolutions, sent 
 in a letter to Mr. Madison, that tht^y should wait patiently, but protest 
 against this violation of the constitution by these resolutions, and then 
 postpone the question, and send these resolutions to other States, and 
 rouse up the nation upon the subject, as we had done in 1798 and 1799. 
 He never thought of secession. How, then, can he be quoted as 
 authority for secession? 
 
 He said : 
 
 " Whilst the general assembly thus declares the rights retained by the States — rights which 
 they have never yielded, and which this State will never voluntarily yield — they do not mean 
 
15 
 
 to raise the banner of disaffection or of separation from their sister States, c^-parti* s with them- 
 selves to this cmpact. They know and value too highly the blessings of their Union, as to 
 foreign nations and questions arising among themselves, to consider every infraction as to be 
 met by KCtual resistance. They respect too affectionately the opinions of those possessing the 
 same rights under the same instrument to make every difference of construction a ground of im- 
 mediate rupture. They vwould, indeed, consider such a rupture as among the greatest calami- 
 ties which could befall them, but not the greatest. There is yet one greater — submission to a 
 government of unlimited powers. It is only when the hope of avoiding this shall become abso- 
 lutely desperate, that further forbearance could not be indulged. Should a majority of the co- 
 parties, therefore, contrary to the expectation and hope of this assembly, prefer at this time 
 acquiescence in these assumptions of power by the federal member of the government, we will 
 be patient and suffer much, under the confidence that time, ere it be too late, will prove to them 
 also the bitter consequences in which that usurpation will involve us all. In the meanwhile we 
 will breast with them, rather than separate from them, every misfortune, save that only of living 
 under a government of unlimited powers. We owe every other sacrifice to ourselves, to our 
 federal brethren, and to the world at large, to pursue with temper and perseverance the great 
 experiment which shall prove that man is capaMe of living in society, governing itself by laws 
 self-imposed, and securing to its members the enjoyment of life, liberty, property, and peace ; 
 and further, to show that even when the government of its choice shall manifest a tendency to 
 degeneracy, we are not at once to despair but that the will and the watchfulness of its sounder 
 parts will reform iis aberrations, recall it to original and legitimate principles, and restrain it 
 ■within the rightful limits ef self-government. And these are the objects of this declaration and 
 protest." 
 
 I will not refer to the authority of Mr. Madison, for it is too well known 
 to need any such reference. The senator from Alabama [Mr. Clemens] 
 has already referred to him, and it would be useless for me to do so. But 
 I will say that he equally disclaimed that doctrine. These names are 
 worthy of some consideration and respect. 
 
 It is said sometimes that General Jackson's proclamation went further 
 than he intended, and that there were explanations and retractions in 
 regard to it given afterwards in the Globe or some other paper. I take a 
 very different view of that proclamation. It was published on the 10th 
 of December, while Congress was in session, and was discussed in the 
 G'obe and elsewhere. But I have examined those discussions, and I 
 find no such retraction or explanation as it has been said was made. But 
 if there was anything like that, still there is another document, Avhich 
 came from him some time afterwards, which supports my position. It is 
 his celebrated nullification message, sent in to Congress on the 16th of 
 January, more than a month after his proclamation. In that is the senti- 
 ment so often quoted against the secessionists. 
 
 General Jackson, in emphatic language, opposed the project of seces- 
 sion and nullification in 1833, and stated the principle involved as 
 follows : 
 
 " The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will, and without the con- 
 Fent of the other States, from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties md hap- 
 piness of the millions composing this Union, cannot be acknowledged. Such authority is be- 
 
16 
 
 iieveJ to be utterly repugnant botli to the principles upon which the c;enoral government is 
 constituted, and to the objects whieli it was expressly formed to attain. 
 
 " Against all acts which may be alleged to transcend the constitutional power of the govern- 
 ment, or which maybe inconvenient or oppressive in their operation, the constitution itwelf 
 has prescribed the modes of redress. It is the acknowledged attributt of free institutions, 
 that, under them, the empire of reason and law is substituted for tjiiat of the sword. To no 
 otlier source can appeals for supposed wrongs be made consistently with tlie obligations o* 
 South Carolina. To no other can such appeals be made with safety at any time ; and to their 
 decisions, when constitutionally pronounced, it becomes the duty no less of the public 
 authorities than of the people in every case to yield a patriotic submission. 
 
 " That £1 State, or any other great portion of the people suffering under long and intoleraljle 
 oppression, and having tried all constitutional remedies without the hope of redress, may 
 have a natural right, when their happiness can be no otherwise secured, and when they can 
 do so without greater injury to others, to absolve themselves from their obligations to the 
 government and appeal to the last resort, need not on the present, occasion be denied. 
 
 " The existence of this right, however, must depend upon the causes which may justify its 
 exercise. It is the uUima ratio, which presupposes that the proper appeals to all other means: 
 of redress have been made in good faith, and which can never be rightfully resorted to unless 
 it be unavoidable. It is not the right of the Stiite, but of the individual, and of all the indi- 
 viduals in the State. It is the right of mankind generally to secure, by all means in their 
 power, the blessings of liberty and happiness; but when, for these purposes, any body of 
 men have voluntarily associated themselves under a particular form of government, no portion 
 of them can dissolve the association without acknowledging tlie correlative right in the 
 remainder to decide whether that dissolution can be permitted consistently with the general 
 happiness. In this view, it is a right dependent upon the power to enforce it." 
 
 The gentleman has endeavored to weaken the force and aiitliority of 
 General Jackson in his celebrated proclamation and nullification message, 
 by suggesting that that proclamation was drawn up by Mr. Livingston, 
 and that, although Mr. liivingston was a republican once, he afterwards 
 became a federahst. This statement of the senator from South Carolina 
 [Mr. Rhett] in regard to this matter is full of errors and anachronisms. 
 He said that Mr. Jefferson wrote Mr. Livingston a letter in appro\'al of 
 his speech upon Foot's resolution. But that could not be so, as Mr. 
 Jefferson was dead four years before that speech was delivered. Mr. 
 Livingston had made the speech in 1830, and Mr. Jefferson died in 1S26. 
 Mr. Jetferson did write him a letter in 1S24, in relation to his speech 
 upon the subject of internal improvements. And he did not then approve 
 of his opinion; but, on the contrary, he disapproved of it * 
 
 * The Hon. Mr. Rhett, of South Carolina. — It ought not, perhaps, to surprise us that 
 this gentleman should continue to persevere in a course of policy whicli has been repudiated 
 by the people of his State, and is obviously at war with the best interests of his country, as 
 they are understood by the patriots and statesmen of both the great parties which have been 
 developed by our public experience. Those who have watched the course of the Southern 
 Preis, located in this city for the professed purpose of guarding what it deems southern inter- 
 ests, cannot have failed to see that the honorable senator from South Carolina has but faith- 
 fully echoed the notes of that organ. Disunion rather than acquiescence in the Compro- 
 mise — secession, not as a revolutionary remedy, but as a constitutional right — and the organ- 
 ization of the South in the attitude of resistance, suspending or nullifying the regular action 
 of the laws, until those laws can be made to take the form j>rescribeu by Mr, Rhett and his 
 followers— are the great and prominent grounds upon which these new lights would seek to 
 
17 
 
 But the gentleman has committed a still greater error in alleging that 
 at one time of his life Mr. Livingston was a federalist, or one who favored 
 the giving the strongest powers to the government of the United States. 
 
 But, Mr. President, the charge is made in order to lessen the weight of 
 the proclamation, that Mr. Livingston was the author of it. Bat that 
 matter has been so fully explained, that I will not now enter into it at any 
 length. It has been fully explained by one who was the private secre- 
 
 place our hopes to pi-eserve our republican institutions and transmit them unimpaii-ed to our 
 posterity. 
 
 But it is not so much our purpose on this occasion to point out the glaring enormities, both 
 in doctrine and argument, which render the position of the honorable senator referred to 
 offensive to the patriotic spirit of our people, as to correct an error into which he has fallen 
 respecting the views entertained by General Jackson during the nullification crisis of 1832. 
 The proclamation issued at that time, the honorable senator was understood to say, v/as not 
 written by the President, but by Mr. Livingston — who was represented as a changeling in 
 politics, and an acknowledged federalist. In making such statements the honorable senator 
 can find no pretext outside of the irresponsible declarations of the heretic organs whose airn 
 it was at that day to break up the government, and destroy tlie influence of the patriot who 
 threw himself into the breach, and risked all his character and fame in overthrowing a combi- 
 nation which was far more dangerous to the constitution than the invasion of the British in 
 1815 had been to our liberties. We defy the honorable senator to produce any respectable 
 authority for invalidating the declaration we now make respecting the preparation and issue 
 of that proclamation as a public document. 
 
 It is true that the document issued from the State Department, where all such papers are 
 recorded, and that Mr. Livingston, who was the Secretary of State, was the cabinet min- 
 ister chiefly consulted in its preparation. But it is utterly untrue that Mr. Livingston did 
 more than give form to sentiments cai-efidly drawn by the General's own hand, or by his pri- 
 vate secretary, or that the paper did not undergo the usual cabinet revision and consultation 
 before it was published. The writer of this article was that private secretary, and there ia 
 now in the Senate one of the cabinet oflicers of General .Jackson who took part in the consul- 
 tations on that paper, and who cannot have foi-gotten the careful attention which was given to 
 every word of it whilst in a state of preparation. At the last meeting of the cabinet on this 
 subject several passages in the paper were materially changed, in order that there miglit be 
 nothing in it, of either phraseology or sentiment, at whicli exception could be taken, or which 
 could give rise to the impression, now so anxiously sought to be created, that it was a docu- 
 ment which did not represent the opinions or feelings of the President. The following is one 
 among other passages that can be enumerated which was accepted as a substitute for the orig- 
 inal paragraph on the same subject, to which exception was taken by one of the cabinet. 
 
 "The people of the United States formed the constitution, acting through the State legis- 
 legislatures in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate 
 conventions when they ratified those provisions ; but the terms used in its construction show 
 it to be a government in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We 
 are one people in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no 
 other agency than to direct the mode in which the votes shall be given. The candidates 
 having the majority of the votes are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may have 
 given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The people, then, and 
 not the States, are represented in the executive branch." 
 
 This paragraph had the sanction of the lamented Woodbury, at whose instance it was 
 offered as a substitute for the original, which he deemed not quite guarded enough in the his- 
 torical account it gave of the manner in which the constitution came into existence as a com- 
 pact between the States. Mr. Woodbury referred to the language of Mr. Madison on this 
 subject, and thought it would be safer to adopt it than any other general terms which could 
 be framed ; and accordingly his suggestions prevailed, and superseded other expressions 
 which, though tantamount in substance, might have left room for cavillers to insinuate tha.t 
 there was a desire to evade or weaken the authority of the great statesman who had taken so 
 prominent a part in the debates on the adoption of the constitution, and of the Virginia reso- 
 lutions of 1798-'99. 
 
 Other passages could be pointed to in the proclamation which mark a change of the original 
 draught, but it is deemed unnecessary to notice them more particularly. We sliall hereafter 
 recur to the subject, and demonstrate that the explanations which afterwards appeared in the 
 G/o6e, and have been termed by some of the southern politicians recantations of the procla- 
 mation, were intended by General Jackson to show that his opinions, as expressed in that 
 
 2 
 
18 
 
 taiy of General Jackson at the timC; and I shall merely attempt to show 
 how utterly erroneous was the idea that General Jackson would allow 
 any other person to dictate for him anything of that kind . It is a great mis- 
 take to suppose that General Jackson drew his ideas from other men. No 
 doubt he had an able cabinet at that time, and no doubt Mr. Livingston 
 was a prominent member of it. General Jackson consulted with other 
 meu; and they may have induced him to make alterations; but the 
 character of the work is pre eminently his own. 
 
 To show how little foundation there is for the charge that Mr. Living- 
 ston inculcated the federal doctrines of Alexander Hamilton, I will refer 
 you to his celebrated speech on Mr. Foot's resolutions. It was well that 
 the gentleman tried to get clear of his authority, for it was a powerful 
 authority against him. It was necessary to devise some scheme to get 
 rid of it; and it will appear from the extracts from that speech, which I 
 shall read, that he inculcated the most liberal and pure principles of State- 
 rio-hls democracy. Mr. Livingston made upon those resolutions a most 
 eloquent speech, in which he differed from Mr. Webster, Mr. Hayne, Judge 
 Rowan, and others. The only person with whom he did agree in that 
 debate was a gentleman Avho I regret is now no mure, but then a distin- 
 guished member of the Senate— Judge Woodbury. And he never, to the 
 end of his life, retracted a single idea in that great speech. Yet the gen- 
 tleman says he was a federalist, and inculcated the principle of Alexander 
 
 document, were unaltered and unalterable. We remember to have heard Mr. Livingston 
 often speak of the advantageous impressions he received from the General when discussing 
 with him the difficulties created by the ordinance of South Carolina, an»J the practical mode of 
 counteracting them by the constitutional action of the federal authortty. He adverted to the 
 scenes at New Orleans, when he, as one of the most prominent legal advisers of the General, 
 felt overwhelmed by the declaration of martial law, and was startled at the summary proceed- 
 ings which followed the resort to that extreme measure. He declared that, until he read the 
 grounds of defence prepared by the General himself, he was not aware of the strength of his 
 case, and that there was not a lawyer in the city of New Orleaus who could have given the 
 masterly exposition which the General gave wiihout the aid of a single book. On that occa- 
 sion, and in'writing that defence, Mr. Livingston did no more than reduce into form the sub- 
 stance of the views hastily prepared by the General. It was the same with the proclamation, 
 except that the latter document had all the consideration and reflection that were proper to 
 secure it the lights which could be supplied by consultation with the most eminent statesmen 
 and by the most careful examinaion of our public records and authorities. 
 
 The Hon. Mr. Rhett has perhaps forgotten that General Jackson was a prominent politician 
 in 18U0, and understood perhaps quite as well the views of Jefferson and Madison as those 
 who now pretend to follow them when stirring up the South to organize resistance against 
 the Compromise. General Jackson was the friend of Mr. Jefferson in those days, came to 
 the Senate as a State-i-ights democrat, and never, by any act or deed, sanctioned a sentiment 
 which he deemed inconsistent with the original doctriiies of which Mr. Jefferson became the 
 honored champion and expounder. It was in those days, too, that he became acquainted 
 with Mr. Livingston, and learned to appreciate the consideration which entitled him, as a 
 distinguished jurist, to the friendship and confidence of Mr. Jefferson. The reproach of fed- 
 eralism, before it will tarnish the memory of such a man, must come from a source that is 
 kss questionable than that which proclaims disunion the policy of the southern half of our 
 confederacy, tuid the constitution a compact which can be dissolved by any of our States, 
 whenever they choose, and for whatever cause they may be pleased to assign for such an 
 extreme resort. If to oppose such violence be federalism, then was Wasliington a fedeialist, 
 and so were also Jefferson, Madison, Jackson, and all our most eminent patriots and states- 
 men . — Washington Union. 
 
19 
 
 Hamilion. Let me proceed to read from that speech, in which there was 
 so much wisdom, so much eloquence, and so much good doctrine: 
 
 " I have given the subject the most anxious and painful attention ; and differing, as I have 
 the misfortune to do, in a greater or less degree, from all the senators who have preceded me, I 
 feel an obligation to give my views on the subject. 
 
 " My friend from New Hampshire, [Mr. Woodbury,] of whose luminous argument I cannot 
 speak too highly, and to the greatest part of which I agree, does not coincide in the assertion of 
 a constitutional right of preventing the execution of a law believed to be unconstitutional, but 
 refers opposition to the inalienable right of resistance to oppression. 
 
 " All these senators consider the constitution as a compact between the States in their sover- 
 eign capacity, and one of them [Mr. Rowan] has contended that sovereignty cannot be divided ; 
 from which it may be inferred that no part of the sovereign power has been transferred to the 
 general government. 
 
 " The arguments, on the one sidp, to show that the constitution is the result of a compact 
 between the States, cannot, I think, be controverted ; and those which go to show that it is 
 founded on the consent of the people, and, in one sense of the word, a popular government, are 
 equally incontrovertible. 
 
 " Both of the positions, seemingly so contradictory, are true, and both of them are false — true 
 as respects one feature in the constitution — erroneous if applied to the whole. 
 
 " But with all these proofs (and I think them incontrovertible) that the government could 
 have been brought into being without a compact, yet I am far from admitting that because this 
 entered so largely into its origin, therefore there are no characteristics of another kind, which 
 impress on it a more intimate union and amalgamation of the interests of the citizens of the dif- 
 ferent Slates, which give to them the general character of citizens of the united nation. This 
 single fact will show that the entire sovereignty of the States individually has not been retained. 
 The relation of citizen and sovereign is reciprocal. To whatever power the citizen ow^es allegi- 
 ance, that power is his sovereign. There cannot be a double, although there may be a subor- 
 dinate fealty. The government, also, for the most part, (except in the election of senators? 
 representatives, and President, and some others,) act in the exercise of its legitimate powers 
 directly upon individuals, and not through the medium of State authorities. This is an essentia 
 character of a popular government. 
 
 " This government, then, is neither such a federative one, founded on a compact, as leaves to 
 all the parties their full sovereignty, nor such a consolidated popular government as deprives 
 them of the whole of that sovereign power. 
 
 " As to all these attributes of sovereignty, which, by the federal compact, v;ere transferred to 
 the general government, that government is sovereign and supreme ; the States have abandoned 
 and can never reclaim them. As to all other sovereign powers the States retain them. 
 
 " What is to be done ? The right of the State, says the gentleman, must be respected ; but, 
 unfortunately for the argument, the constitution does not say so ; unfoitunately, it says directly 
 the contrary. The President is bound by his oath to cause every constitntional law to be exe- 
 cuted. But he has approved this law ; therefore he believes it to be constitutional : but both 
 houses have passed it ; therefore they believed it so : but the judges have decreed it shall be 
 executed ; therefore they, too, have believed it to be constitutional. Must the President yield 
 his own conviction, fortified as it is by tliese authorities, to the opinion of a majority — perhaps 
 a small majority — in the legislature of a single State? If he must, again I say, show me tL 
 v/ritten authority — I cannot find it ; I cannot conceive it. I am not asking for the expression 
 of the reserved rights — I know that they are not enumerated — but I ask for the obligation to 
 obey that right. I ask for the written instruction to the Executive to respect it ; I ask for a pro- 
 vision that nothing but the grossest inattention or the most consummate folly could have omitted, 
 if the doctrine contended for be true. 
 
 " No, sir, adopt this as a part of our constitution, and we need no prophet to predict its fall. 
 The oldest of us may live long enough to weep over its ruins — to deplore the failure of the faires- 
 
20 
 
 experiment that was ever made of securing public prosperity and private happiness, based on 
 equal rights and fair representation — to die with the expiring liberties of our country, and trans, 
 mit to our children, instead of the fair inheritance of freedom received from our fathers, a legacy 
 of war, slavery, and contention. 
 
 " As 1 understand them, they assert the right of a State, in the case of a law palpably uncon- 
 etitutional and dangerous, to remonstrate against it, to call on the other States to co-operate in 
 procuring its repeal ; and, in doing this, they must of necessity call it unconstitutional, and, 
 if so, in their opinion null and void. Thus far I agree entirely with the language and substance 
 of the resolutions. This, I suppose, is meant by the expression, interpose for the purpose of 
 arresting the progress of the evil. I see in these resolutions no assertion of the right contended 
 for — as a constitutional and peaceable exercise of a veto — followed out by the doctrine that it is 
 to continue until, on the application of Congress for an amendment, the States are to decide. 
 If these are the true deductions from the "Virginia resolutions, I cannot agree to them, much as I 
 revere the authority of the great statesman whose production they are — I cannot consent to 
 them : and it is because I revere him and admire his talents that I cannot believe he intended to 
 go this length. I cannot believe it for another reason : He thought, and he conclusively proved, 
 the alien and sedition laws to be deliberate, unconstitutional, and dangerous acts— he declared 
 them so in his resolutions. Yet. sir, he never proposed that their execution should be resisted. 
 
 " I think that the constitution is the result of a compact entered into by the several States, by 
 which they surrendered a part of their sovereignty to the Union, and vested the part so surrend- 
 ered in a general government ; that the government is partly popular, acting directly on the 
 citizens of the diiferent Slates— partly federative, depending for its existence and action on the 
 existence and action of the several States. 
 
 " That by the institution of this government the States have unequivocally surrendered every 
 constitutional right of impeding or resisting the execution of any decree or judgment of the 
 Supreme Court, in any case of law and equity between persons or on matters of whom or on 
 which that court has jurisdiction, even if such decree or judgment should, in the opinion of the 
 States, be unconstitutional. 
 
 "That in cases in which a law of the United States may infringe the constitutional right of a 
 State, but which in its operation cannot be brought before the Supreme Court under the terms 
 of the Jurisdiction expressly given to it over particular persons or matters, that court is not 
 created the umpire between a State that may deem itself aggrieved and the general government. 
 
 "That, among the attributes of sovereignty retained by the States is that of watching over the 
 operations of the general government, and protecting its citizens against their unconstitutional 
 abuses; and that this can be done legally — 
 
 " First, in the case of an act in the opinion of the State palpably unconstitutional, but affirmed 
 in the Supreme Court in the legal exercise of its functions ; 
 
 " By remonstrating against it to Congress ; 
 
 " By an address to the people, in their elective functions, to change or instruct their repre- 
 sentatives ; 
 
 " By a similar address to the other States, ia which they will have a right to declare that they 
 consider the act as unconstitutional, and therefore void ; 
 
 " By proposing amendments to the constitution, in the manner pointed out by that instrument ; 
 
 " And, finally, if the act be intolerably oppressive, and they find the general government perse- 
 vere in enforcing it, by a resort to the natural right which every people have to resist extreme 
 oppression. 
 
 " Secondly, if the act be one of those few which in its operation cannot be submitted to the 
 Suprenae Court, and be one that will, in the opinion of the State, justify the risk of a withdrawal 
 frera the Union, that this last extreme remedy may be at once resorted to. 
 
 "That the right of resistance to the operation of an act of Congress, in the extreme cases 
 above alluded to, is not a right derived from the constitution, but can be justified only on the 
 Euppesition that the coostitution has been broken, and the State absolved from its obligation j 
 
21 
 
 and that whenever resorted to, it must be at the risk of all the penalties attached to an unsuc- 
 cessful resistance to established authority. 
 
 " That the alleged right of a State to put a veto on the execution of a law of the United 
 States which such State may declare to be unconstitutional, attended (as, if it exist, it must) 
 with a correlative obligation on the part of the general government to refrain from executing it, 
 and the further alleged obligation, upon the part of that government, to submit the question of 
 the States, by proposing amendments, are not given by the constitution, nor do they grow out 
 of any of the reserved powers. 
 
 "That the exercise of the powers last mentioned would introduce a feature in our govern- 
 ment not expressed in the constitution, not implied from any right of sovereignty reserved to 
 the States, not suspected to exist by the friends or enemies of the constitution, when it was 
 framed or adopted, not warranted by practice or contemporaneous exposition, nor implied by 
 the true construction of the Virginia resolutions of '98. 
 
 "That the introduction of this feature in our government would totally change its nature 
 make it inefficient, invite to discussion, and end, at no distant period, in separation ; and that if 
 it had been proposed in the form of an explicit provision in the constitution, it would have been 
 unanimously rejected, both in the convention which framed that mstrumeiit and in those which 
 adopted it. 
 
 " That the theory of the federal government, being the result of the general will of the people 
 of the United States in their aggregate capacity, and founded in no degree on compact between 
 the States, would tend to the most disastrous practical results ; that it would place three-fourths 
 of the States at the mercy of one-fourth, and lead inevitably to a consolidated government, and 
 finally to monarchy if the doctiine were generally admitted ; and if partially so, and opposed 
 to civil dissension. 
 
 " Arguments for and against the dissolution of the Union are canvassed in the public paper? 
 form the topic of dinner speeches, are condensed into toasts, and treated in every respect as if it 
 v/ere ' a knot of policy that might be unloosed familiar as a garter.' Sir, it is a Gordian knot 
 that can be severed only with the sword. The band cannot be unloosed until it is wet with the 
 blood of brothers. I cannot, therefore, conscientiously be silent : and, humbly as I think of 
 my influence or powers of persuasion, I should feel myself guilty if they were not exerted in 
 admonition to both prrties in this eventful controversy. 
 
 " Menace is unwise, because it is generally ineffectual ; and of all menaces, that which strikes 
 at the existence of the Union is most irritating. Have those who thus rashly used, who en- 
 deavor to familiarize the people to the idea — have they themselves ever done what they recom- 
 mend? Have they calculated, have they considered, what one, two, or three States would be 
 disjointed from the rest? Are they sure that they would not be disjointed themselves — that 
 parts of any State which might try the hazardous experiment might not prefer their allegiance 
 to the whole ? Even if civil war should not be the consequence of such disunion — an exemp- 
 tion from which 1 cannot conceive the possibility — what must be the state of such detached parts 
 of the mighty whole? Dependence on foreign alliances for protection against brothers and 
 friends ; degradation in the scale of nations ; disposed of by the protocols of allied monarchs to 
 one of their dependents like the defenceless Greeks. But I will not enlarge on ihis topic, so 
 fruitful of the most appalling apprehensions. Disunion ! The thought itself, the means by 
 which it may be effected, its frightful and degrading consequences, the idea, the very mention 
 of it, ought to be banished from our debates, from our minds. God deliver us from this worst, 
 this greatest evil !" 
 
 As a last and conclusive proof that a State has not the right peaceahly 
 to secede from the Union, I refer to the empliatic language used ratifying 
 the articles of confederation. It was stipulated in the most formal and 
 solemn manner that the Union formed by that instrument should be per- 
 
22 
 
 peiual. The States certainly had no right to secede under it. But the 
 present constitution was intended for and did estabhsh " a more perfect 
 imion.''^ How, then; can a State secede under it? Here is the article 
 referred to : 
 
 "Art. 13. Every State shall abide by the determinationa of the United States in Congress 
 assembled on all questions which, by this confederation, are submitted to them. And the arti- 
 cles of this confederation shall be inviolabhj observed by every State, and (he union shall be pei-jjehial^ 
 nor shall any alteration, at any time hereafter, be made in any of them, unless such alteration 
 be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislature 
 of every State. And whereas it has pleased the great Governor of the World to incline the 
 hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress to approve of and to authorize 
 us to ratify the said articles of confederation and pei-pelual union : know ye that we, the under- 
 sitrned delegates, by virtue of the power and authority to us given for that purpose, do, by 
 these presents, in the name and in behalf of our respective constituents, fully and entirely ratify 
 and confirm each and every of the said articles of coiifederation and perpetual union, and all and 
 tiiigular the matters and things therein contained. And we do further solemnly plight and engage 
 the faith oj our nspective co7\slituents, that tluy shall abide by the determinations of the United States in 
 Congress oisev.bled on all questions which, by the said confederation, are submitted to them ; 
 and that the articles thereof shall be inviolably observed by the States we respectfully represent, 
 and that the Union shall be pe»ye(unL" 
 
 From these authorities, and from these considerations, I conclude that 
 a State has no right peaceably to secede from the Union; that, as a revo- 
 hUionaty right, it may be resorted to in cases of extreme oppression: but 
 even then it finds its warrant, not in the constitution, but in the opinion 
 of mankind. 
 
 Let it not be supposed from what I have here said that 1 undervalue 
 or would diminish the powers and rights of the States. I would guard 
 and defend their rights as earnestly as 1 would the powers of the general 
 government. I believe they are equally as important and as necessary to 
 our safety and happiness and the duration of the Union. I am a strict 
 constructionist of the power granted to the national government, and 
 would not extend it by construction. Any power not written iu the 
 charter I would not see exercised. But at the same time I would not, 
 with approbation, see powers expressly given, or necessarily implied from 
 those granted, denied to the united government of all, or assumed by the 
 States. I would not make that a nullity which our ancestors, with 
 Washington, and Franklin, and Madison at their head, thought they had 
 constituted an efficient and self sustaining government. I am a State- 
 rights man — not in the modern sense, perhaps, which gives everything to 
 the States, and takes everything from the Union — but in the sense in 
 which .TefTerson and Madison, Jackson, Livingston, Woodbury, and Polk 
 understood it, that the powers of our government were by our constitu- 
 tion divided between the State and national authorities, and that our only 
 
23 
 
 safe and wise course is to preserve this division sacred and inviolate, and 
 permit neither set of functions to encroach on the other. 
 
 I have now conchided what I felt it my duty to say on the compro- 
 mise resokition before the Senate, and hope the discussion will soon be 
 closed, and the question involved put at rest forever. During the last 
 two years we have been exposed to a political storm such as our govern- 
 ment has seldom been exposed to; such as few governments, especially, 
 composed of different States widely separated in distance, in interest, 
 and in feeling, would have had the strength to ride out in safety. The 
 clouds are f.ist disappearing; and as they do, the heart of every true 
 patriot thrills with delight at seeing that not a star has paled or shot 
 from its orbit in our glorious constellation. A great crisis has been 
 passed. A nation of nearly twenty-five millions of people, thirty- 
 one States, ?.nd almost boundless territory, stretching from one great 
 ocean of the world to the other, and from the tropics to the frozen regions 
 of the North, differing in climate, in interests, in opinions, and in local 
 institutions, in this age of agitation and turmoil — for almost all the world 
 besides has been excited in the highest degree — yet not a hostile shot 
 has been fired, a funeral dium beaten, or an execution taken place, a 
 widow or an orphan made, or a homestead given to the flames. Yes, 
 licre we stand on the great platform of our Union, in peace and pros- 
 perity, looking down with sympathy, it is true, but with a proud con- 
 sciousness of our superior advantages, on the other less fortunnate por- 
 tions of the globe, struggling through all the miseries of revolution. 
 
 In the scenes through which we have just passed, though an humble, I 
 have not been an idle spectator. I have thought of the South and the 
 Union alone, and devoted all my feeble energies to sustain them. 
 Though a party-man all my life, I forgot my party and myself, and 
 thought only of my country. I was at no time unconscious of the 
 political danger and responsibility I incurred, and often adverted to it. 
 When I thought the President and other distinguished men of his party 
 did their duty — not better, but as well as others of my own party — in the 
 great crisis, I said so. I thought not of the effect on myself. 1 have 
 nothing to retract or regret on this subject in all the past. That 
 I have committed errors I do not doubt. But I have the proud con- 
 sciousness of feeling that I acted from good motives, and that the people 
 of my State, and the public generally, will award me this merit, though 
 politicians may not sustain me. If, from peculiar circumstances, I should 
 not be re-elected, be it so. I shall retire cheerfully to the shades of 
 private life, there to enjoy that peace and prosperity of the country which 
 my own course as a public man will have, in some degree, contributed 
 
24 
 
 to produce. But if I was ambitious, or not content with private life, 1 
 should desire nothing more than such a defeat to re-establish myself and 
 my party more iirmly than ever in the affections of the people of my State 
 in the great national and State elections approaching. 
 
W O Vi^ ^^ f 
 
 
 
 
 .^^^.o. 
 
 i^" 
 
 
 V^ 
 
 ^Oo 
 
 V ..<•'• 
 
 ^oV" 
 
 
 
 »•••'. 
 
 *-> ' • • • > "^^ 
 
 ^^0^ 
 
 V^ 
 
 S^ **. 
 
 
 
 ^ 
 
 % '•' 
 
 
 
 :- -^Ao^ r, 
 
 
 tb* , . ' * 
 
•^^ 
 
 ^ ^ ''^^°'^- / 'i^- Vo^' ';^- %/ '^ 
 
 ij# BOOKBINDING -'J^^S ■^ ^^ "'^^^^Z ^ '^ "''^'^^5^* ■<^'