THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY ; OE, FVASSAOES IN THE POLITICAL HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES, INCLUDING THE CAUSES OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE SECTIONS, WITH CERTAIN RESULTS. BY WILLIAM CHAUNCEY FOWLER, LL. IX N E W Y 11 K : CHARLES SCRIBNER AND COMPANY. 1868. IV PREFACE TO THE NEW EDITION. reign States in the management of their internal concerns ; who are responsible for that usurpation which, even until now, under the pretence of making slaves freemen, has practically made freemen slaves. W. C. F. DURHAM, CONN., July 1868. PREFACE. IN the year 1850, the week before Mr. WEBSTER delivered his memorable speech on the seventh of March, I had the pleas ure, in Washington, of taking tea with my old friend and class mate, Governor McDowELL, then a member of Congress. When I rose to take my leave of him, he said he was not willing to part without telling me of a burden which was resting on his mind. " I am convinced, my dear friend," said he, " that there will be a disunion of the States. There is a great change going on at the South. Two years ago, when I delivered my speech for the Union, all were melted down into a common feeling of love for the whole country. Men of all parties in the House gave me their hands and congratulated me on what they were pleased to call my patriotic speech. " But now some of the same men are not willing to hear a word on the subject of the Union. I am not in the councils of these Southern men, though I suppose I might be, if I would think and act with them. Every thing is tending to disunion ; and I wanted to tell you so before you return to the North." As he said this to me in earnest, tender tones, and with eyes filled with tears, I felt that his sad forebodings ought to be heeded, and their grounds investigated. ISTot very far from this time. I made the acquaintance of Judge BURNET, of Cincinnati, at Union Hall, Saratoga, and was greatly interested in his intelligence, wisdom, and patriotism. In repeated conversations, he said to me, in substance : " These VI PREFACE. words often tittered, injuries inflicted, insults offered, naturally germinated and grew into deeds of violence and blood. Dra gons teeth had been plentifully sown, and they started up armed men. And yet multitudes, at the time, were so ignorant of the prevalent sectional feelings and purposes, that, in surprise, they asked, " What are they fighting for ? " The people of the two sections of the country, are, to a large extent, ignorant of each other, and hence, in their estimate of each other s institutions, they are misled by illusions of the imagination. For the purpose of distributing information among the peo ple, this volume, which might be entitled " HISTORICAL COLLEC TIONS," is offered to various classes of readers. I. To all, whether North or South, who are ignorant of- the political history of the United States, and who have not an op portunity of referring to original sources. II. To all, whether North or South, who have strong sec tional prejudices. HI. To all, whether North or South, who wish for the res toration and the preservation of the Union. IY. To all, whether North or South, who wish to under stand the causes of the war between the sections. Y. To all, whether North or South, who value the prosper ity of the country more than they do the success of their party. YI. To all, whether North or South, who believe that mere ly defeating the armies of the Southern States will bring back the Union. VII. To all, whether North or South, who wish to under stand the constitutional relations between the States and the Federal Government. YIII. To all, whether North or South, whose hearts, not limited by party or section, are large enough to embrace the interests of the whole country, and of all the States. PREFACE. Vli The final issue of the sectional controversy lies in the future, beyond the ken of mortal vision, wrapped up in the hollow of God s mysterious hand. He only, who presides over the des tiny of nations, " sees the end from the beginning." But though thus limited in vision, man can gather from the past the lessons of wisdom for his guidance in the future. And may we not indulge the pleasing hope that the people of the States, gathering wisdom from the mistakes of the past, in the sec tional controversy, may become qualified to enjoy, in the long future, the blessings of union under the FEDEKAL CONSTITUTION ? W. C. F. NEW YORK, 1862. CONTENTS. CHAPTER I. PADS Original sectional diversities, 7 Additional sectional diversities, 1 Bond of sympathy between the colonies, 8 Birth of the spirit of Union, 9 Sectional feeling yielding to love of country, 10 Sectional opinions in the Continental Congress, 10 Proposed sectional Convention of the Eastern States, 11 Sectional feeling in the Revolutionary army, 12 Remarks, 12 CHAPTER II. The Constitutional Convention, 14 Navigation Acts, 14 The slave trade, . 16 Proposal of Gouverneur Morris, 16 Debate in the Convention on the slave trade, and navigation acts, . . .16 Spirit of the Committee of Eleven, 18 Gain and loss to each section by the " bargain," 19 Virginia not a party to the bargain, 19 Slaves recognized as property in the Constitution, 20 The word " slave " not used in the Constitution, 21 Fugitive slaves, 22 Representation and taxation, 2$ Remarks, 24 CHAPTER III. General Washington s Administration, 30 Duties on tonnage and imports, 30 Submission of the South to these duties, 31 Sectional discussion of slavery, ..32: Bank of the United States a sectional measure, The Excise law a sectional measure, 34 Assumption of State Debts a sectional measure, 34 X CONTENTS. PACK Location of the seat of Government a sectional measure, . .35 Bargain in Congress, 36 Fugitives from justice and from labor, 39 Jefferson s letter to General Washington, 40 Remarks, 41 CHAPTER IV. John Adams Administration, .44 Assertion of State rights, 44 Doctrine of State rights, 45 Luther Martin s letter, with the opinions of Johnson, Ellsworth, Hamilton, and Madison and others on State rights and military coercion, . . . 46-52 Remarks, . 52 CHAPTER Y. Mr. Jefferson s Administration, 54 Mr. Jefferson elected by the States voting in Congress assembled, . . 54 Sectional spirit of the times, 55 Restrictions upon commerce, 58 Sectional opposition, 59 The purchase of Louisiana, 69 Sectional opposition, 60 Remarks, 60 CHAPTER VI. Mr. Madison s Administration, 61 Sectional opposition to commercial restrictions, 62 Sectional opposition to the war of 1812, 63 The Hartford Convention, 65 Proposed alterations of the Constitution, 65 State Commissioners sent to Washington, 67 Contemporaneous views of Northern men, John Lowell. Gouverneur Morris, De- witt Clinton, John Quincy Adams, 67-71 Remarks, 71 CHAPTER VII. Mr. Monroe s Administration, 76 Restriction of slavery in Missouri proposed and urged by Northern men, . . 76 Resistance by Southern men, 77-79 Great sectional excitement, 79 The compromise bill passed, 80 The compromise not carried out by Northern members, .... 80-81 Admission of Missouri, 82 Remarks, 83 CONTENTS. Xi I CHAPTER VIII. PAGI John Quincy Adams Administration, 88 Tariff of 1828, 88 Mr. Clay s and Mr. Webster s speeches in 1824, 89, 90 Protest of Georgia, 92 Protest of South Carolina, 94 Remarks, 98 CHAPTER IX. General Jackson s Administration, 100 -Nullification. Hayne. Webster, . 101 Ordinance passed by South Carolina, 109 Passage of the Revenue Collection bill, 109 Passage of the Compromise bill, 109 Remarks, 110 CHAPTER X. Mr. Van Buren s Administration, 116 Mr. Pinckney s resolutions, 117 Vermont anti-slavery resolutions, . . . 118 Mr. Slade s motion, 119 Withdrawal of Southern members, . . 124 Mr. Calhoun s resolutions, 126 Remarks, 128 CHAPTER XI. General Harrison s and Mr. Tyler s Administration, 183 Annexation of Texas, . . . . 133 Proposal of Massachusetts to amend the Constitution, 18C Remarks, 186 CHAPTER XII. James K. Polk s Administration, 137 Tariff of 1846, . 137 Oregon Territory, 144 - The Wilmot Proviso, , 144 Remarks, 146 CHAPTER XIII. General Taylor s and Mr. Fillmore s Administration, 148 Danger of Disunion, 149 . Clay s Compromise resolutions, 149 160 Xll CONTENTS. PACK Mr. Webster s speech, ..164 Mr. Clay s speech, 167 Remarks, 170 CHAPTER XIV. Gen. Pierce s Administration, 175 Appeal of Senators Chase, and Sumnerand others on the subject of the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, 176 Clerical protest, 178 Remarks, 184 CHAPTER XV. Mr. Buchanan s Administration, 187 Is the Republican party sectional ? . .188 The Dred Scott decision, 191 Helper s Book, 193 -The John Brown invasion, 197 Sympathy with Brown, 200 Personal liberty bills, 201 Is slavery a creature of local law ? 202 Northern Abolition and disunion sentiments, 204 Caleb Gushing in Boston, 1859, . 209 Davis s resolutions on the relations of the States to the General Government, . 210 Power of Congress over Territories, 211 Territory of Louisiana, 211 Who were the parties to the constitutional compact ? . . * . .213 Mr. Webster s resolutions in the Senate in 1832, .... . . 214 Ordinance of secession passed by Georgia, 216 Mr. Madison on secession, 217 Declaration of the Convention of South Carolina of the causes of secession, . 224 The peace Congress. 229 Mr. Crittenden s resolutions, 229 Letters of Senators Bingham and Chandler, ....... 230 Remarks, 232-268 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. CHAPTER I. - " ORIGINAL SECTIONAL DIVERSITIES. BEFORE the American Revolution, there were on the great eastern slope of North America, along the shores of the At lantic Ocean, thirteen separate colonies. These colonies were, indeed, connected with England, as their mother country ; but in their relations to each other they were independent and sov ereign nations. Moreover, they were, to some extent, alien to one another in race, in religion, and in political affinities. The inhabitants of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, were de scended from that class of the English who were Puritan in their religion, and Roundhead in their politics. The inhab itants of New York and New Jersey were largely descendants of the Dutch. The English Quakers, the original settlers, gave a certain character to Pennsylvania, just as the Roman Catho lics did to Maryland, just as the prelatical cavaliers did to Virginia, iust as did the French Huguenots to South Carolina. ADDITIONAL SECTIONAL DIVERSITIES. But other diversities were, in process of time, created by climate, education, industrial pursuits, social institutions, and 8 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. government. The people of New Hampshire, New Jersey, Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia, were under what was called a Provincial Government, in which the Governors were appointed by the Crown. The people of Maryland, Pennsyl vania, and Delaware, were under what was called a Proprietary Government, in which the Governors were appointed by certain individuals called proprietaries. Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Connecticut, were under what was called a Charter Gov ernment, in which the Governor was appointed by the freemen of the colony. In Massachusetts, after 1692, the Governors were appointed by the Crown. Nor were the existing diversities diminished by personal intercourse .b^i^een the colonies, or by the press. In those times there were "but- few travelling, whether for the purposes r of? b<tjsiive$s or pleasure ;; and the press had but a limited circu lation for r the"few newspapers which it sent forth. So great were these diversities, that in Rivington s Gazette, p. 32, they are thus noticed : " Nothing has surprised people more than the Virginians and Marylanders joining with so much warmth with the New England Republicans in their opposition to their ancient Constitution, which has been the glory of the English in every part of the world. As there are certainly no nations un der heaven more opposite than these colonies, it would be very difficult to account for it on the principle of religion and sound policy, had not the Virginians discovered their indifference to both, so highly revered by their illustrious ancestors." BOND OF SYMPATHY BETWEEN THE COLONIES. But it was also true that the colonies, generally, were of com mon blood, and spoke a common language, and were familiar with the same traditions, and, in relation to Great Britain, had common rights and interests at stake, and common habits of reasoning about them. It is not surprising, therefore, that when the crown encroached on the rights of Massachusetts, that all the colonies should express the liveliest interest in her sufferings. Her fate might soon be theirs. It is not surprising that Virginia should take the lead in the declaration, that the interests of all the colonies were concerned in what was done by the British BOND OF SYMPATHY BKTWKKN THE COLONIES. 9 Government, in respect to Massachusetts. The Assembly of Virginia warned the king of the danger that would ensue, " if any person in any part of America should be seized and carried beyond sea for trial," May 16, 1769. Of the resolves passed by Virginia at this time, Bancroft says : " Is it asked who was the adviser of the measure ? None can tell. Great things were done, tranquilly and modestly, without a thought of the glory that was their due. Had the Ancient Dominion been silent, I will not say that Massachu setts might have faltered ; but mutual confidence would have been wanting. American freedom was more prepared by cour ageous counsel for successful war." Ills. Am. Rev., vol. iii., p. 310. In another place he says : " The Boston committee were already (1774) in close correspondence with the other New England colonies, with New York, and Pennsylvania. Old jealousies were removed, and perfect harmony subsisted between all. " UNION " was the cry, a union which should reach from Florida to the icy plains of Canada ; " p. 541. Under a common impulse, in view of common interests at stake, all the colonies, except Georgia, sent delegates to the first CONTINENTAL CON GRESS, w T hich assembled at Philadelphia on the 5th of Septem ber, 1774. It is not surprising that PATRICK HENRY should, in that Congress, scout the idea of sectional distinctions and of in dividual interests. "All America," said he, " is thrown into one mass. Where are your landmarks, your boundaries of colo nies ? They are all thrown down. The distinction between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American" Un der a common impulse all the States sent delegates to the second Continental Congress, which assembled at Philadelphia on the 10th of May, 1775, which unanimously appointed George Washington commander-in-chief of the continental forces in the united colonies. Under a common impulse, all the colonies, on the 4th of July, 1776, voted, through their delegates, " that the united colonies ought to be Free and Independent States." Under the same common impulse, the States, eleven of them, adopted the articles of confederation in 1778, one in 1779, and the remaining one in 1781, by which the union of the States was consummated. 10 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. \ SECTIONAL FEELING YIELDING TO LOVE OF COUNTRY. It is not to be supposed that the appointment of George Washington to the supreme command, or that the draft of the Declaration of Independence by another Virginian, or that the action of the Continental Congress would entirely avoid the manifestation of sectional feelings. Such feelings were, indeed. called forth, but they were expelled from the heart of the people of the colonies by the new and stronger affection, namely, love of country. The sectional feeling, which led some of the North ern delegates, in the Continental Congress in 1775, to prefer Artemas Ward or some New England man to be commander-in- chief, they nobly sacrificed on the altar of patriotism, and gave their voices and their votes for a Yirginian, who was selected partly on sectional grounds. The sectional feelings naturally aroused by the first draft of the Declaration of Independence, prepared by Mr. Jefferson, was allayed by striking from it the objectional clauses. These are his words : " The clause, too, reprobating the enslaving of the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, wished to continue it. Our Northern brethren, also, I believe, felt a little tender under those cen sures ; for, though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others." Jefferson s Works. SECTIONAL OPINIONS IN THE CONTINENTAL CONGRESS. In the Continental Congress, it was proposed, July 12, 1776, " that the expenses of the Confederation should be borne by each colony, in proportion to the number of inhabitants of every age and quality, except Indians, not paying taxes in each col ony ; a true account of which, distinguishing the white inhab itants, shall be triennially taken and transmitted to the Assem bly of the United States." Mr. CHASE, of Maryland, moved " that the quota should be paid, not by the number of inhabitants, but by the white inhab itants." PROPOSED SECTIONAL CONVENTION. 11 JOHN ADAMS, of Massachusetts, and Mr. WILSON, of Pennsyl vania, spoke in opposition to this amendment. The amendment was rejected by the votes of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsyl vania, against those of Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Delaware ; Georgia being divided. March 28, 1783, on the same subject, it was voted that slaves be taxed 3 to 5. New Hampshire, aye / Massachusetts, no / Rhode Island, no / New Jersey, aye ; Pennsylvania, aye Dela ware, no / Maryland, aye / Virginia, aye / North Carolina, aye South Carolina, no / Connecticut, no / New York, aye. PROPOSED SECTIONAL CONVENTION. April 1, 1783. Mr. GORHAM, of Massachusetts, in the Con gress of the Confederation, observed, as a cogent reason for hastening the business, " that the Eastern States, at the invitation of the Legislature of Massachusetts, were, with New York, about to form a convention for regulating matters of common concern, and that, if any plan should be sent out by Congress, they would probably cooperate with Congress in giving effi cacy to it." Mr. MERCER, of Virginia, expressed great disquietude at this information ; considered it as a dangerous precedent ; and " that it behooved the gentleman to explain fully the object of the Con vention, as it would be necessary for the Southern States to be otherwise very circumspect in agreeing to any plans on the supposition that the general Confederacy was to continue." Mr. OSGOOD, of Massachusetts, and Mr. GORHAM, explained " that the object of the proposed Convention was to guard against an interference of taxes among States whose local situation re quired such precautions." Mr. BLAND, of Virginia, said " he always considered these con ventions as improper, and contravening the spirit of the general government. He said they had the appearance of YOUNG CON GRESSES." Mr. MADISON and Mr. HAMILTON disapproved of those partial conventions, not as absolute violations of the Confederacy, but, as ultimately tending to them, and as, in the mean time, excit- 12 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. ing pernicious jealousies ; the latter observing, " he "wished, in stead of them, to see a GENERAL CONVENTION take place." SECTIONAL FEELING IN THE ARMY OF THE REVOLUTION. Nowhere were these sectional jealousies more prevalent than in the motley army assembled, from distant quarters, under Washington s own command. REED, the adjutant-general, speaking on this subject, observes : " The Southern troops, com prising the regiments south of the Delaware, looked with very unkind feelings on those of New England." " It is with great concern," says Washington, in one of his general orders, " that the general understands that jealousies have arisen among the troops from the different provinces, and reflections are thrown out which can only tend to irritate each other, and injure the noble cause in which we are engaged, and which we ought to support with one hand and one heart." In a letter to Gen. Schuyler, 1776, he says : " I must entreat your attention to do away the unhappy and pernicious distinc tions and jealousies between troops of different governments. Enjoin this upon the officers, and let them inculcate and press home to the soldiery the necessity of order and harmony among those w r ho are engaged in one common cause, and mutually contending for all that freemen hold most dear." JOHN ADAMS, speaking of the violent passions and discordant interests at work throughout the country, from Florida to Cana da, observes : " It requires more serenity of temper, a deeper understanding, and more courage, than fell to the lot of Marl- borough, to ride in this whirlwind." IRVING S -Z^/0 of Washing ton, vol. ii., p. 287. REMARKS. It is then manifest : 1. That there were original and acquired diversities of char acter in the early settlers of the States, which were the founda tion of sectional feelings at the commencement of the American Revolution. 2. That these feelings, for the time, were overborne by the REMARKS. 13 common dangers and the common interests in respect to Great Britain, wliicli established a strong bond of sympathy between them. 3. That, nevertheless, sectional interests were recognized and sectional feelings manifested in the Congress of the Confedera tion, and in the army, that were a great embarrassment to the Government and to the commander-in-chicf. 4. That, notwithstanding these sectional feelings in the minds of those who indulged them, and in the hearts of the people generally, national feelings so far prevailed through the several States, that they contended successfully through a seven years war with the mother country, and won the independence which they had declared, and took their place by common con sent among the civilized nations of the earth, as a Confederacy, styled, THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. CHAPTER II. THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONTENTION. THE common fear of Great Britain had caused the States to adopt the " Articles of Confederation." When that fear was removed by the treaty of peace, January, 17S3, those articles had lost their power as a bond of union. The common fear of imbecility and anarchy, into which they were in danger of sinking down, after the excitements of the war had passed off, caused them to adopt the Constitution. The Convention was composed of gentlemen of high moral principle, of undoubted patriotism, and of courteous manners, of broad views, some of them accustomed to act together in the Continental Congress or in the army, and all of them entertain ing a great respect for Washington, the President. The Con vention assembled in May, 1787. Still sectional difficulties arose in that body, which, with others inherent in the subjects under discussion, threatened its dissolution, before they had accomplished the object for which they came together. These subjects were : 1. Navigation. 2. Slavery. The North insisted on having protection for their property in commerce ; the South insisted on having protection for their property in slaves. NAVIGATION. The Committee of Detail had reported the following pro posal : " No navigation act shall be passed (by Congress) with out the assent of two-thirds of the members present in each Ilouse." This clause the Southern States were anxious to THE SLAVE TRADE. 15 retain, lest their commerce should be placed too much in the power of the Eastern States ; but which the latter were anxious to reject, that thus a bare majority of Congress might pass navigation laws to their advantage, even though injurious to the Southern States. THE SLAVE TRADE. By the same committee, the slave trade was left just where the old Confederation had left it, without giving Congress the power to abolish it, or to lay any duty on imported slaves. This proposal was acceptable to the Southern States, but not to the Northern ; for the delegates from the latter thought that slaves imported ought to be placed under the general provision for taxing imports, and some few of them also thought that they ought to favor morals by the abolition of the slave trade. Mr. KING, of Massachusetts, " thought the subject ought to be view r ed in a political light only. If two States (South Caro lina and Georgia) will not agree to the Constitution as stated on one side, he could affirm with equal belief on the other, that great and equal opposition would be experienced from other States." . He remarked that " the exemption of slaves from duty, while every other import was subject to it, is an inequal ity that could not fail to strike the commercial sagacity of the Northern and Middle States." Gen. COTESWORTH PINCKNET, of South Carolina, in his re ply, said " that he thought himself bound to declare candidly, that he did not think that South Carolina would stop the im portation of slaves in any short time, but only stop it occasion ally, as she now does. He moved to commit the clause, that slaves might be made liable to an equal duty with other im ports, which he thought right, and which would remove one difficulty which had been stated." Tuesday, August 21 and 22, 1787. Mr. ELLSWORTH, of Con necticut, was for leaving the clause (which did not prohibit the importation of slaves) as it now stands. " Let every State import what it pleases. The wisdom or morality of slavery are con siderations that belong to the States themselves. What enriches a part enriches the whole ; and the States are the best judges 16 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. of their particular interests. The old Confederation had not meddled with this point, and he did not see any greater neces sity for bringing it within the policy of the new one." Mr. SHERMAN, of Connecticut, " was for leaving the clause as it now stands. lie disapproved of the slave trade ; yet, as the States were now possessed of the right to import slaves, and as the public good did not require it to be taken from them, and as it was expedient to have as few objections as possible to the proposed scheme of government, he thought it best to leave the matter as we find it ; that is, not prohibit the importation of slaves." Mr. GorvERNEUR MORRIS, of Pennsylvania, wished to have the whole subject to be committed, including the clause relating to navigation acts. " These things, namely, the slave trade, to which some of the North, was opposed, and the navigation act without a restriction, to which the South was opposed, may form a bargain between the Northern and the Southern States." COMMITTEE OF ONE FROM EACH STATE. The Committee of Eleven, to whom was referred the subject of the " bargain," reported, August 24, 1787, " in favor of not allowing the Legislature to prohibit the importation of slaves before 1800, but giving them power to impose a duty at a rate not exceeding the average of other imports" DEBATE IN THE CONVENTION. General PINCKNEY, August 25, moved to strike out the year 1800, and insert 1808. Mr. GORIIAM, of Massachusetts, seconded the motion. It was then passed in the affirmative ; New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina, voting in the affirmative (6) ; New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, and Virginia, in the negative (4). It was finally agreed, nem. con., to make the clause read, " but a tax or duty may be imposed on such importation, not ex ceeding ten dollars for each person." Ten dollars was considered by some of the members a "fair average of other imports" DEBATE IN THE CONVENTION. 17 comparing the price of a slave, at that time, with the price of " other articles" of importation, or five per cent, ad valorem, the money value of a slave. This sum, as a specific duty, there fore, was inserted instead of " a fair average of other imports," the phrase used in the report of the committee. Thus the price of a slave was reckoned at two hundred dollars by the Con vention. Mr. CIIAHLES PIXCKNEY, of South Carolina, August 29, moved in Convention to postpone the report of the Committee of Eleven in favor of the following proposal : " That no act of the Legislature for the purpose of regulating the commerce of the United States with foreign powers, among the United States, (the several States,) shall be passed without the assent of two-thirds of the members of each House." Mr. MARTIN seconded the motion. Mr. PINCKNEY remarked, that there were five different commercial interests :. 1. The fisheries and West India trade, which belonged to> the New England States. 2., The interests of New York lay in free trade. 3. "Wheat and flour are the staples of the two Middle States, New Jersey and Pennsylvania. 4. Tobacco, the staple of Virginia and Mary land, and a part of North Carolina. 5. Rice and indigo, the staples of South Carolina and Georgia. These different inter ests would be the source of oppressive regulations, if no check to a bare majority should be provided. States pursue their interests with less scruple than individuals. The power of regu lating commerce w T as a pure concession on the part of the Southern States. They did not need the protection of the maritime States for the present." General C. C. PINCKNEY, of South Carolina, said " that it was the true interest of the Southern States to pass no regulation of commerce ; but, considering the loss brought on the commerce of the Eastern States by the Revolution, their liberal conduct towards the views of South Carolina, (permission to import, slaves,) and the interests the weak Southern States had in being united to the strong Eastern .States, he thought it proper that no fetters should be imposed on the power of making commer cial regulations, and that his constituents, though prejudiced against the Eastern States, would be reconciled by this liberality, (as to the slave trade.) He had himself, he said, prejudices, 18 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. against the Eastern States before lie came here, but would ac knowledge that he had found them as liberal and candid as any men whatever." Mr. CLYMER, of Pennsylvania : " The diversity of commercial interests of necessity creates difficulties which ought not to be increased by unnecessary regulations. The Northern and Mid dle States will tie ruined, if not allowed to defend themselves against foreign regulations." Mr. SHERMAN, of Connecticut, and Mr. MORRIS, of Pennsyl vania, in behalf of the Eastern States, spoke against Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY S motion. Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina, " differed from those who considered the rejection of the motion as no concession on the part of the Southern States. He considered the interests of these and the Eastern States as different as the interests of Rus sia and Turkey. Being, notwithstanding, desirous of concilia ting the affections of the Eastern States, he should vote against requiring two-thirds instead of a majority." Colonel GEORGE MASON, of Virginia : " If the Government is to be lasting, it must be founded in the confidence and affection of the people, and must be so construed as to obtain these. The majority will be governed by their interests. The Southern States are in the minority in both Houses. Is it to be expected that they will deliver themselves, bound hand and foot, to the Eastern .States, and enable these to exclaim, in the words of Cromwell on a certain occasion, ; The Lord hath delivered them into our hands ? " Mr. PINCKNEY S motion having failed to pass, the report of the committee, striking out the clause requiring a two-thirds vote to pass a navigation act, was then agreed to nem. con. THE SPIRIT OF THE COMMITTEE OF ELEVEN. The spirit of the committee that reported the terms of the foregoing " bargain," may be understood from the following statement of LUTHER MARTIN, one of their number : " They met and took under their consideration the subjects committed to them. I found the Eastern States, notwithstanding their aver sion to slavery* were very willing to indulge the Southern States VIRGINIA NOT A PARTY TO THE BARGAIN. 19 with at least a temporary liberty to prosecute the slave trade, provided the Southern States would, in their turn, gratify them by laying no restriction on navigation acts ; and, after a very little time, the committee, by a large majority, agreed on a report." GAIN AND LOSS TO EACH SECTION BY THE BARGAIN. In this "bargain, the Northern States gained : first, the right to pass navigation acts by a bare majority ; to tax the tonnage of foreign nations for their own advantage as carriers ; to lay a duty on foreign imports for their own advantage as manufac turers ; secondly, to put an end to the slave trade in twenty years, and thereby to prevent, in some degree, the increase of slave representation, for their own political advantage. What did they lose ? Nothing, except their share of the profits in im porting slaves, after enjoying it for that period. What did the Southern States gain by this bargain ? They gained only the additional recognition of property in slaves by the Constitution ; w r hile they lost much of what the Northern States gained. They did not gain the right to import slaves for twenty years which they enjoyed before ; while they lost the right to import them afterwards. They found themselves u bound hand and foot " by the tariff laws of 1828, and other tariffs. VIRGINIA NOT A PARTY TO THE BARGAIN. One reason why Virginia did not unite with the Southern and Eastern States in making that bargain probably was, that she neither derived the profits received by the one class, from trans porting slaves to the country, nor the profits received from pur chasing and working them after their importation, enjoyed by the other class. She already had slaves enough of her own, so that she had no occasion to purchase, and she had comparatively few ships for transporting them to others. She could raise slaves cheaper than she could import them, and if she had any slaves for sale, the price of them would be lessened by the importation of negroes. Besides this, Virginia had a long standing quarrel with the 20 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. British king on account of his vetoing a bill for the suppression of the slave trade, drawn up by the youthful Jefferson, and in troduced by him into the State Legislature, and then passed. The indignation caused by that regal act continued to burn in the heart of the mover, and in many a generous bosom throughout Virginia for a long time afterwards, and may have contributed to prevent her from voting to permit the continuance of the slave trade until 1808. The course of Virginia in the Convention was somewhat equivocal, acting sometimes with the slave States, and sometimes with the non-slaveholding States. As she had taken the lead in forming a Constitution, she must have been anxious to carry it out to a successful issue. She felt the dignity of her position as the Ancient Dominion, as the mother of statesmen, and as hav ing her favorite son acting as President of the Convention. Mr. Madison, especially, was anxious to prevent a failure, and was disposed to conciliate both sections. He and others, probably, desired to believe that the abolition of slavery would take place in all the States, and he was willing to encourage the hope of it in others. But after the completion of the " bargain " by which the slave trade was to be continued twenty years, he must have given up that belief. Indeed, he declared that, by that continu ance, all the evils of allowing the permanent continuance of the slave trade would be accomplished. The Pinckneys and others, who were better circumstanced to judge correctly, never en couraged that belief, but the contrary. They made arrange ments in the Constitution for the permanence of slavery in the United States, and for its increase : just what has happened. SLAVES RECOGNIZED AS PROPERTY BY THE CONSTITUTION. But while the " bargain " was in the course of negotiation, it was particularly objected to by ROGER SHERMAN, on the ground that, by laying a duty on slaves as on other imports, it recognizes them as "property" There were men in the Convention w r ho had no objections to slaves being property, and to owning them as property, who thought that it was not judicious to name them as such, or to recognize them as such in the Constitution. That instrument T1IE WORD SLAVE NOT USED IN THE CONSTITUTION. 21 must go before the people of the several States, and was likely to encounter great opposition. They thought, therefore, that it was desirable that as few features as possible should belong to it, with which even the most scrupulous and fastidious could find fault. But it became necessary to recognize them as property in the Constitution ; just as they were often spoken of as property in the debates, and classed as property by Northern and South ern delegates. Thus, Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, in the de bate on this very subject, remarked : " As the section now stands, all articles (imported) are to be taxed, slaves only ex empt ; " he thought it " unreasonable that slaves alone should be exempt, when all other articles are taxed or dutied. They were, therefore, classed in the same category with other articles of property. THE WORD SLAVE NOT USED IN THE CONSTITUTION. In regard to using the word " persons " in this section, and elsewhere, when slaves were meant and spoken of, LUTHER MAR- TON has the following remark in his letter to the Legislature of Maryland : " The design of this clause is to prevent the general Government from prohibiting the importation of slaves ; but the same general reason which caused them to strike out the word " national," and not admit the word " stamp," influenced them to guard against the introduction of the word slaves. They anx iously sought to avoid any expression which might be odious in the ears of Americans ; although they were willing to admit into their system the things which the expression signified." It fully recognized slaves to be property, though it does not contain the word. Mr. Sherman liked " a description " better than the term, which was not pleasing to some people. Mr. Madison was unwilling to use the term slaves in the Constitution, or even to suggest the idea that they were property ; though he spoke of them as property in debate and elsewhere, and owned them as property. He would have the idea, but would not suggest the idea. The word slaves, would be disagreeable to men like the Quakers ; the word " national," would be offensive to the staunch supporters of State rights ; and the word " stamp," would 22 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. be disagreeable, because it called up the remembrance of the " stamp act." The phraseology used in describing the slave trade was employed for the same purpose. Mr. Madison, in his letter to Robert "Walsh, "Nov. 1819, declares, in respect to the phrase the " migration and importation of such persons," that it means the importation of slaves. The word " migration " was added as an expletive, that would weaken the impression pro duced by the word importation when used alone. The one word would modify or explain the other. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, of Pennsylvania, one of the leading Northern men in the Convention, was anxious that the protec tion of slavery should not be rasAo, prominent in the Constitution. His constituents were eome of them Quakers, some of them- members of abolition societies, who might oppose the adoption of the Constitution, if they saw, distinctly, the whole amount of protection afforded to slave property, as they would, if slaves were distinctly named. And yet he declared that, as a matter of fact, domestic slavery was the most prominent feature in the aristocratic countenance of the proposed Constitution" His perceptive mind saw clearly the exact meaning of the descrip tive terms employed instead of the terms themselves. " A per son held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof," was a description conveying as clear a meaning to his rnind, as if the word slave had been used instead of the " description." A description of the meaning of a word in a dictionary is a de finition of the word, and shows its meaning. These statesmen did the same that theologians sometimes do. Instead of using odious words, they used equivalent terms. FUGITIVE SLAVES. General C. C. PINCKNEY, of South Carolina, at an early stage of the proceedings, declared that, unless provision should be made to secure the Southern States in the possession of their property in slaves, by preventing their emancipation by escap ing into other States, the Constitution would not be accepted by the State which he represented. After the committee of detail had made their report, without making this provision, he re newed his demand for a provision " in favor of property in REPRESENTATION AND TAXATION. 23 slaves ; " and in the course of the debate he and Mr. C. PINCK- NEY moved to require fugitive slaves to be delivered up like criminals." Mr. WILSON, of Pennsylvania, said : " This would require the executive of a State to do it at public expense." Mr. SHERMAN, of Connecticut : " I see no more propriety, in the public seizing and surrendering a slave, or servant, than a horse." It appears that both of these gentlemen voted for this provision, notwithstanding these objections. Mr. BUTLER, of South Carolina, moved to insert, after article 15, " if any person, bound to service or labor in any of the United States, shall escape into another State, he or she shall not be discharged from such service or labor in consequence of any regulation subsisting in the State to which they may escape, but shall be delivered up to the person justly claiming their ser vice or labor." This was agreed to in Convention ncm. con. <3 In the first revision of this clause, there were some changes in style not affecting the meaning of the terms. Thus, instead of "justly " the word " due " was substituted ; and instead of " any of the United States," " any State" was substituted. Thus the Convention, without a dissenting voice, secured to slaveholders their right of property in slaves, according to the demand of Gen. Pinckney, in every part of the country, and in every State where the slave could be found. The States were expected to aid in the rendition of slaves. REPRESENTATION AND TAXATION. In respect to the subject of taxation, it seemed to be the wish of delegates from the Southern States that slaves should be reckoned as property, and not as persons ; while, with respect to representation, it was their wish, at least a portion of them, that the slaves should be reckoned as persons, and the full number of slaves should be counted as so many white men. On the other hand, the delegates from the Northern States seemed disposed to consider the slaves as persons with respect to the subject of taxation, but to consider them as property in respect to the subject of representation. It having just beeu established in the Convention, by the 2 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. votes of the States, that there should be a common measure for representation and taxation, it was afterwards decided, that, as slaves were viewed both as property and as persons, they should be taken into both representation and taxation in the pro portion of three to five, that is, that five slaves should count as much as three whites. Thus slaves are recognized as " persons " in the words of the Constitution, but as persons under the disability of being regarded as property by the laws of the State in which they reside. Had they been reckoned in their whole number, it would have been because they were regarded, in this matter, only as persons ; had they been excluded from the reckoning, it would be because they were, in this matter, reckoned only as prop erty, just as they were originally by the Continental Congress. The constitutional Convention was dissolved September 14, 1787. REMARKS. 1. AVhen the Constitution came from the Convention before the several States for adoption, so strong was the opposition to it in some of them, that it became evident that it could not be ratified by all of them, unless it should be amended either be fore or after its adoption. It was finally concluded to adopt it on assurances that it would be amended afterwards. One of the proposed amendments respected State rights, which have since been the subject of sectional discussion. One of the articles of the old Confederation was this : " Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Con federation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." This was omitted in the new Constitution, not from any objection to it, so far as is known to the present writer. Delegated powers are, of course, limited to the subjects delegated. Accordingly, after its adoption, the following article, among others, was added to it, as an equivalent to the above article of the old Confederation : " The powers not delegated to the United States, are reserved to all the States respectively, or the people," (that is, to the people of the States respectively.) At the time the Constitution was adopted, the citizens of KEMAKKS. 25 the different States were familiar with the doctrine of the Dec laration of Independence, that Governments derive their just "powers from the consent of the governed," and that " it is the right of the people to alter and abolish their Government, and to form a new one, laying its foundation 011 such principles, and organizing its powers in such a form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." The " right of the people" here spoken of generally, is ap plied, in that instrument, to the right of the people of the colo nies respectively, who were about to " alter their former sys tems of government." The very clause containing the Declara tion recognizes the same fact : " We, therefore, the representa tives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly declare that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and inde pendent States." Each colony thus became an independent State. Thus each colony, acting for itself, but in concert with others, " altered its former system of government." And in the very act of changing the Government from that of the old Confederation, which was established by " articles of perpetual union," the several States recognized the right of " the people of the several States" to change the form of their government ; inasmuch as by their delegates, and then by their people, they changed the government, making it binding if nine States consent to the union, leaving out the remaining four. If the people of the several nine States had the right to change the government, notwithstanding they had adopted the " articles of perpetual union," then the four residuary States, namely, Virginia, New York, Rhode Island, and North Caro lina, would be left in an awkward position, and might have some reason to complain ; but they could not deny the right. And it is not known to the present writer that they did deny the right. The two former soon acceded to the Union, but Rhode Island delayed until May, 1790, nearly three years, and North Carolina until November, more than three years. It should be added that these two States were not brought into the Union by coercion of any kind, but by conciliation. 26 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. 2. After encountering a powerful opposition in the Conven tion in Virginia, the Constitution was ratified with the implied recognition of the right of the people of that State to resume the powers granted under it. " "We, the delegates of the people of Virginia, do, in the name and behalf of the people of Vir ginia, declare and make known, that powers granted under the Constitution, being derived from the people of the United States, may ~be resumed l>y them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression, and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will," &c. In like manner the Convention of the State of New York assert the right of the people of New York to resume the powers granted under the Constitution. They " declare and make known, that the powers of government may be resumed by the people, whensoever it shall become necessary to their happiness ; that every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by said Constitution clearly delegated to the Congress of the United States, or the Departments of the Government thereof, remains to the people of the several States, or to their respective State Governments to w^hom they have granted the same," &c. The State of New York, or the people of the State, as a party to the compact, must judge when it shall be neces sary to resume the powers granted. Without this recognition of the right of a State to resume the powers granted, there is no reason to believe that the Constitution would have been ratified by New York ; as there was a very powerful opposition to the measure. This recognition seems to have been substituted for another proposition, namely, to expressly reserve the right to recede after five or six years. The Constitution, with this and other explanations, was ratified by a majority of only three. Rhode Island, also, expressly reserved the right to resume the powers granted. Thus three States, at least, not satisfied with the right which, all the colonies were acknowledged to have, to alter their form of government, made a distinct dec laration of that right, when they ratified the Constitution. In those times, when the word " people" was used in reference to the civil Government, it was understood to mean the people who acted by a Legislature, and Judges, and Governors of their own the people of a State. In this sense it is used in the arti- REMAKEB. 27 clcs of Confederation, and in the Constitution, though in the latter it is also used for smaller bodies ; but in no instance is it used for all the citizens of the United States taken collectively. Who were the people that ordained and established the Consti tution of the United States ? Evidently, the people of the sev eral States, each State acting separately and for itself. The people of Massachusetts could not act for Virginia, but only for Massachusetts. The people of Virginia, when they claimed the right to resume the powers delegated, claimed that right for each of the States. 3. In the Convention which assembled in Philadelphia, May, IT8T, the greatest difficulty arose from diversity of views in respect to State rights, though it did not, as afterwards, as sume a sectional form. This will be noticed hereafter. 4. In respect to the " bargain" concerning navigation and the slave trade, it appears from the speech of General PINCKNEY, that the delegates of the Southern States were influenced by generous and patriotic considerations. 5. The Northern States declared in the Convention that they had but one motive to form a Constitution, and that was " com merce." * By the bargain they gained what they wanted. In ac cordance with this, FISHER AMES, in the Massachusetts Convention, assembled to ratify the Constitution, said : " But we shall put every thing to hazard by rejecting the Constitution. "We have great advantages with respect of navigation ; and it is the gen eral interest of the States that we should have them. But if we reject it, what security have we that we shall obtain them a second time against the local interests and prejudices of the other States ? " 6. The Northern States have since gained more than all the advantages which they expected by the encouragement provided for their commerce and manufactures ; especially since high tariifs have been established by Congress. 7. The Southern States lost whatever of advantages there w r as in the slave trade, after twenty years ; but they gained the acknowledgment that slaves under the Constitution are prop erty, being taxable or dutiable like other articles of property ; that they shall be " delivered up" as property, by the non- slaveholding States ; and that, in case of the insurrection of T, "_LL-T^ sin _ iii T"rTdiiTrd*L m. iri^ ^pr-itffr aifiitfS3Iir^" ijini: ~i& TI r nr J^ITT^ xt TFTCtsmr J -iigrrr :n -rrrf- "Sms? TT tfr^i ~~- mni r Sii:isflsai zi in ~i !? ^ -f*r I: i I."" - HL 3n j 3L Ik - " -JT"-- - " : -. _^-ii ;. :._ T^^.J __ ir "__ - ~> ~ -.:" ~ -j? *- J. fin "fiif- C TT>Ti:::: .n: . t(STT^ T __ . L; "1- 1* -. " " - * t "-__ - - _.: * >."_-._!. " " 1 _ " -- ~ _ - " - - "~ ~ . -r L . l^-r^ / ^unziisn- ssoiffe. - . :.". " ~ - - "i- - "_ d_ -_- " . " " ". " : - . ". " . : .. " a :yy~HfP i m^SHiHL itHTV ^flL "ULti: TV 7 ! 1 "7 ^T; amar- t mmL 3BT Tmft* -iiiST liilTlA ^^SJS!:^. Lill "V- illlL. iGESJr t-Hj^ irj liTTTi TT? ; nn, "p ..I.- Mir . " - .. " ;.. \ : ...... - - ; - j - ^ - | ^ - _ lit: ."_-/ .. -"- -. 11 ". -.":. " _"., . _Tl_Iir l . " ii^ at Tfim ivni L.. IZltTlJir . T tan iJi^ui T :>SnSHiini <iif s fur tSjg; jaffii irrr pi^s a far : Tl jcn i T*ZZT.*^i- ZLiETTcSr im" 1 ". ITT>; .gLT -jg. ^u y;; _. !^r*|. j, ^ r^=^^. -^ ir^a^ fi ii d j -iriVtfr vxj. CHAPTER III. THE Constitution just adopted embodied the principles of our Government ; the laws to be passed under it would furnish the rules for its administration. It was fortunate for the coun try that the friends of the Federal Constitution had a paramount influence in the practical application of its principles in the legislative, judicial, and executive departments. Especially was it fortunate that WASHINGTON, the President of the Convention, was President of the United States, and HAMILTON, a leading member, was Secretary of the Treasury, and RANDOLPH, who, in the Convention, brought forward the plan that was adopted, was Attorney-General, and JEFFERSON, the author of the Declaration of Independence, was Secretary of State. But as in the Convention, so in the first Congress and after wards, sectional disputes arose, which, though conducted for the most part with decorum, shadowed dimly forth those future heated discussions in that Department, that have, from time to time, shaken like an earthquake the country to its centre. The in terests of the Northern States were different from those of the Southern States, and when Congress was called to legislate on subjects connected with those interests, it is not strange that the members from the South, at their stand-point, should take a view of those subjects differing from that taken by Northern members. DUTIES ON TONNAGE AND IMPOETS. The duties on foreign tonnage and imports, pressed more heavily on the South than on the North, inasmuch as the former DUTIES OK TONNAGE AND IMPORTS. 31 had fewer sliips and fewer manufactures to be benefited. Mr. SMITH, of South Carolina, said : " Gentlemen have endeavored to persuade us that a high tonnage duty will be beneficial to the Union ; but I would as soon be persuaded to throw myself out of a two-story window, as to believe that a high tonnage will be favorable to South Carolina." And in respect to duties on im ports, Mr. MADISON remarked, " If there is a disposition repre sented to complain of the oppression of government, have not the citizens of the Southern States more just ground of com plaint than others ? " " The system can only be acceptable to them, because it is, essentially, necessary to be adopted for the public good." And yet, on another occasion Mr. MADISON said, in reference to the same subject, " I believe every gentleman who hears the observations from the different quarters of this House, discovers great reason for every friend of the United States to congratulate himself upon the evident disposition which has been displayed to conduct business with harmony and concert." And Mr. AMES said, " The gentlemen from the southward who suppose their States most likely to be affected by a discrimination in the tonnage duty, have concluded their arguments with a candor which does honor to their patriotism." It is very evident that on this subject there was a spirit of conciliation on the part of leading men, and especially on the part of Southern gentlemen, who consented to sacrifice the in terests of their States for the public good. The Northern States had wished for the establishment of the Constitution, chiefly, for the protection of their commercial interests. This legislation of the first Congress under the Constitution secured to them this protection. The South patiently, or rather cheerfully, acquiesced in bearing the burdens imposed by this legislation. " If," said Mr.- AMES, " I may judge of the feelings of the people by those of their representatives on this floor, I may venture to say that there never was less reason to apprehend -envy and discord than at this time. I believe the fact is so, because I feel it." He was conscious of a patriotic regard for the whole country. " I look," said he, " with an equal eye upon the success of every State through the whole extent of United America. I wish their interests to be equally consulted." Tims were the com- 32 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. mercial sacrifices of the South appreciated, and their patriotism, which made them submit to the sacrifices, reciprocated by a representative man of the North. In this contest the South yielded to the North for the general good of the country. SECTIONAL DISCUSSION OF SLAVERY. In the Constitutional Convention, the Southern States had obtained provisions which secured to them their property in slaves, and the right to import slaves for twenty years. But in Congress, Feb. 11, 1790, " The Address of the Quaker Meeting," from certain Northern States, was presented against the contin uance of the African slave trade, which was permitted by the Constitution, until 1808. And Feb. 11, 1790, " The Memorial of the Pennsylvania Abolition Society " was presented, praying for the abolition of slavery in the United States, which, by the Constitution, was left under the States. These two memorials were received in one spirit by Southern members, and in another and different spirit by Northern mem bers. The former saw clearly that the petitioners were aiming a blow at their pecuniary and their social interests, by urging Congress to pass unconstitutional laws on the subject of slavery, and by holding slaveholders up to the moral abhorrence of the world ; as if Congress had the power to legislate for the promo tion of morals and religion. The Northern members, some of them, seemed to give a warm welcome to the petitions, as if they were glad to ventilate their abhorrence of slave-trading and slaveholding. In this contest the Southern States retained, indeed, their constitutional rights, but they had to struggle earnestly for them. The temper of Northern members shown on this occasion was manifested at times afterwards. Thus, Jan. 1795, Mr. DEXTER, of Massachusetts, moved, as an amendment to a motion for nat uralizing foreigners, " that each man naturalized should re nounce the possession of slaves," and, as an amendment to this amendment, Mr. THATCHER, of Massachusetts, moved, " and he never would possess slaves." Mr. MADISON, in reply to Messrs. DEXTER and THATCHER, BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. 33 said " that the mention of such a thing would have a very bad effect on that species of property." Mr. "W. SMITH, of South Carolina, a distinguished member, in the course of the discussion on slavery, said " that the Southern States never would have entered into the Confedera tion unless their property (in slaves) had been guarantied to them." Mr. BOUDINOT, of ISTew Jersey, said : " There is a wide dif ference between justifying the ungenerous traffic, and supporting a claim to property vested at the time of the formation of the Constitution, and guarantied thereby." The effect of the motions of Messrs. DEXTER and THATCHER,. if they had prevailed, would have been to lessen emigration to the slave States, and thus to lessen their political power. BANK OF THE UNITED STATES. The Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. HAMILTON, had advocated the establishment of a National Bank, on the ground that it would promote the prosperous administration of the finances, and help to support the public credit. When a bill in conformity to his plan was, in 1791, sent down from the Senate, it was suffered to pass to its third reading without opposition. On the final question a powerful opposition was made to its passage by Mr. MADISON and others. It was asserted by them that the powers of the Government of the United States which it might legitimately exercise, were enumerated in the Constitution. In this enumeration, the power to charter a bank was not to be found. They, moreover;, insisted that it could not be implied from the powers that were given to the Government, and that, by any fair construction, no clause in the Constitution could be understood to imply so im portant a power as that of creating a corporation. On the other side, in favor of the establishment of a bank, ft was asserted, that incidental as well as express powers must, necessarily, belong to every government, and that when a power is delegated to effect particular objects, all the known and usual means of effecting them must pass also, and after taking a com prehensive view of the powers given to the General Government, oi THK SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. it was contended that a bank was a known and usual instrument, by which several of them were exercised. Taking into consid eration the utility of a bank in managing the finances, and sup porting public credit, the bill was passed in the House by a majority of nineteen voices. In the cabinet, the Attorney-Gen eral, Mr. RANDOLPH, and the Secretary of State, Mr. JEFFERSON, were opposed to it on constitutional grounds, while the Secretary of the Treasury was in favor of it, and the President added his signature to the bill. While the bill was under debate, Mr. TUCKER, of Georgia, remarked, " That a gentleman from Virginia has well observed that we appear to be divided by a geographical line ; not a gen tleman North of that line is opposed to the bill ; and where is the gentleman to the Southward that is in favor of it 1 " The Northern States won the victory over the Southern, if not over the Constitution. THE EXCISE LAW. The Excise law, by which a duty was laid on spirits distilled within the United States, was opposed, very strongly, by a ma jority of the members of Southern and Southwestern States, on the ground that it would operate very unequally and against the interests of their constituents, who used foreign distilled liquor to a very inconsiderable amount. The bill was passed by Northern members, influenced, it was said, by the fact that the commer cial States depended chiefly on foreign spirits. The whiskey in surrection grew chiefly out of the opposition to this law. The law, thus operating unequally, was wisely repealed. THE ASSUMPTION OF STATE DEBTS. On the 9th of January, 1790, Mr. HAMILTON, Secretary of the Treasury, gave notice to the House of Representatives that he was ready to make his report on public credit, which he had prepared in obedience to the resolution of the 21st of Sept., 1789. In that celebrated report he proposed the Assumption of State debts, and to fund them in common with that which constituted the proper debt of the Union. LOCATION OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. 35 Tliis proposal was opposed by Southern members, on the ground that it would give undue influence to the General Gov ernment, and would thus weaken the State Governments ; that it would not be justified by the Constitution, the powers of that instrument being specified, and this was not among them ; that it was unjust, because it would make no discrimination between those States which had taxed themselves to discharge the claims against them, and those which had not made the same exertions. O * In favor of the measure it was asserted by Northern mem bers, that the debts contracted by the States were not contracted for the benefit of the individual States, but for the common good of the Union, in the war against the common enemy ; that the measure would put an end to speculation, by fixing the value of the securities ; that it would restore public confidence. A large amount of these securities were owned at the North, where they were obtained in the course of trade. Many of them had been purchased at very low rates, as was said, for a song. After a very heated debate, highly irritating to the parties, the resolution failed to pass, by a majority of two against it. LOCATION OF THE SEAT OF GOVERNMENT. July 0, 1T90. Mr. GOODIIUE, of Massachusetts, moved in the House : " That the permanent seat of the General Government ought to be at some convenient place, on the east bank of the river Susquehanna, in the State of Pennsylvania." In support of his motion, he prefaced it with the following remark : " The Eastern members, with the members from New York, have agreed to fix on a place upon national principles, without regard to their own convenience, and have turned their minds to the Susquehanna." The place contemplated was "Wright s Ferry, about 35 miles from navigable water. This sectional movement on the part of Eastern and North ern members, in favor of a place which had not a great deal to recommend it, awakened very strong sectional feelings on the part of the Southern members, who were in favor of the bank of the Potomac, as an appropriate place. To this place the Northern members were strongly opposed, proposing, instead of it, if not "Wright s Ferry, Germantown and Baltimore. 3G THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. In view of the above-mentioned combination of Northern members, RICHARD II. LEE, in the course of his speech, said : " It is well known with what difficulty the Constitution was adopted in Virginia. It was then said that there would be Con federacies of the States east of Pennsylvania, which would destroy the Southern States ; that they would unite their coun cils in discussing questions relative to their particular interests, and the Southern States w r ould be disregarded. To these sus picions it was answered : " Xo ! It was contended that the mag nanimous policy, arising from mutual interests and common dan gers, would unite all the States, and make them pursue objects of general good. But if it should be found that there were such Confederacies as were predicted, that the Northern States did consult their partial interests, and form combinations to support them without regard to their Southern brethren, they would be alarmed, and the faith of all south of the Potomac would be shaken." Mr. MADISON said, in the course of his remarks : " But give me leave now to say that, if prophets had arisen in that body, (the Convention of Virginia,) and brought the declarations and proceedings of this day to view, I as firmly believe Virginia might not have been a part of the Union at this moment." BARGAIN IN CONGRESS. This measure became combined with the Assumption Bill. Each had failed by small majorities ; both were afterwards passed. The Eastern and Middle States w r ere for the assump tion ; the Southern States were against it ; the latter were for the Potomac for the seat of Government ; the former were for the Susquehanna. The discontent was extreme on each side, at losing its favorite measure. At last the two measures were com bined. Two members from the Potomac, who had voted against the assumption, agreed to change their votes : a few from the Eastern and Middle States, who had voted against the Potomac agreed to change in its favor ; and so the two measures were passed. Mr. JEFFERSON gave this account of it, omitting his stric tures : " This measure (the Assumption of State debts) produced BARGAIN IN CONGRESS. 37 the most bitter and angry contest ever known in Congress before or since the Union of the States. I arrived in the midst of it ; but a stranger to the ground, a stranger to the actors in it, so long absent as to have lost all familiarity with the subject, and as yet unaware of its object. I took no concern in it. The great and trying question, however, was lost in the House of Representatives. So high were the feuds excited on this sub ject, that, on its rejection, business was suspended. Congress met and adjourned from day to day without doing any thing, the parties being too much out of temper to do business together. The Eastern members threatened secession and dissolution. HAMILTON was in despair. As I was going to the President s one day, I met him in the street. He walked with me back wards and forwards before the President s door for half an hour. He painted pathetically the temper into which the Legislature had been wrought ; the disgust of those who were called the creditor States, (the Northern,) the danger of the secession of their members, and of the separation of the States. He ob served that the members of the Administration ought to act in concert ; that though this question was not of my department, yet a common duty should make it a common concern ; that the President was the centre, in which all administrative questions ultimately rested, and that all of us should rally round him, and support, with joint efforts, measures approved by him, and that the question having been lost by a small majority only, that an appeal from me to the judgment and discretion of some of my friends might effect a change in the vote, and the machine of government, now suspended, might be again set in motion. I told him I was really a stranger to the whole subject ; that, not having yet informed myself of the system of finances adopted, I knew not how far this was a necessary sequence ; that undoubt edly, if its rejection endangered the dissolution of the Union at this incipient stage, I should deem that the most unfortunate of all consequences, to avert which all partial and temporary evils should be yielded. I proposed, however, to him, to dine with me, next day, and I would invite another friend or two, bring them into conference together, and I thought it impossible that reasonable men, consulting together coolly, could fail, by some mutual sacrifice of opinion, to form a compromise which would 38 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. save the Union. The discussion took place. I could take no part in it but an exhortatory one, because I was a stranger to the circumstances which should govern it. But it was finally agreed that whatever importance was attached to the rejection of this proposition, the preservation of the Union and concord among the States was more important, and therefore it would be better that the vote of rejection should be rescinded to effect which, some members should change their votes. But it was observed that this pill would be peculiarly bitter to the Southern States, and that some concomitant measure should be adopted to sweeten it to them. There had before been propositions to fix the seat of Government either at Philadelphia or at George town, on the Potomac ; and it was thought that by giving it to Philadelphia for ten years, and to Georgetown permanently af terwards, this might, as an anodyne, calm the ferment which might be excited by the other measure alone : so two of the Potomac members (WniTE and LEE, but the former with a re vulsion of stomach almost convulsive) agreed to change their votes, and HAMILTON undertook to carry the other point." Abridgment of Debates, vol. i., p. 250. The Northern members contended with great earnestness against the Potomac for the seat of Government ; Mr. BOUDINOT, Mr. AMES, Mr. LAWRENCE, severally, proposing the Delaware, Germantown, Baltimore, instead of the Potomac, which latter finally received a majority of the votes, probably through the influence of HAMILTON. The Northern States, by the assump tion of State debts by Congress, obtained millions, which en riched many of their inhabitants, indeed, some of the members who helped to pass the bill. The Southern States obtained for the seat of Government their favorite location, and a much bet ter location than Wright s Ferry, which had been selected by the combination of Eastern members. This is the first sectional combination in Congress for carry ing a measure that I have seen noticed. The assumption of State debts furnished the occasion of the first threat of secession, and breaking up the Government. It was made by the North* ern members. FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE AND FROM LABOR. 39 FUGITIVES FROM JUSTICE AND FROM LABOR. July 5, 1793. The House proceeded to consider the bill sent from the Senate, entitled " An act respecting fugitives from jus tice and persons escaping from the service of their masters," which lay on the table ; whereupon the said bill, with the amend ments agreed to yesterday, w r as read the third time ; and on the question that the same do pass, it was resolved in the affirma tive ; yeas, 48, nays, 7. The bill came down from the Senate, whose debates were not published, and seems to have passed the House without de bate, and almost without discussion, there being but seven votes against, and two of these, Messrs. MERCER and PARKER, from slave States. Nor does it appear to what part of the bill they objected, whether to the part in relation to fugitives from justice, or to those who fled from service, for both classes of fu gitives were comprehended in the same bill. It was passed on a message from President Washington, founded on a communi cation from the Governor of Pennsylvania in relation to a fugi tive from justice who had taken refuge in Yirginia, and because it was necessary to have an act of Congress to give effect to the rendition clause in the Constitution. There was but little ne cessity, in those times, and long after, for an act of Congress to authorize the recovery of fugitive slaves. The laws of the States and still more, the force of public opinion, were the owners best safeguards. Public opinion was against the abduction of slaves ; and, if any one was seduced from his owner, it was done fur tively and secretly, without show or force, and as any other moral offence would be committed. State laws favored the owner to a greater extent than the acts of Congress did or could. In Pennsylvania an act was passed in 1780, and repealed only in 1847, discriminating between the traveller and sojourner and the permanent resident, allowing the former to remain six months in the State before his slaves could become subject to emancipation laws ; and, in the case of a Federal Government officer, allowing as much more time as his duties required him to remain. New York had the same act, only varying in time, which was nine months. While these two acts were in force, and supported by public opinion, the traveller and sojourner 4:0 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. tvas safe with his slaves in these States, and the same in the other States. There was no trouble about fugitive slaves in those times. This act of 1793 did not grow out of any such troubles, but out of the case of a fugitive from justice. It was that case which brought the subject before Congress, and in the act that was passed, the case of fugitives from justice was first provided for, the first and second sections of the act being given to that branch of the subject, and the third and fourth to the other all bcief and plain, and executable without expense or fuss. In the case of a slave, the owner was allowed to seize him wherever he saw him, by day or by night, and Sundays or week days, just as if he were in his own State, and a penalty of $500 attached to any person who obstructed him in this seizure. The only authority he wanted was after the seizure, and to justify the carrying back, and for that purpose the affidavit of the owner or his agent was sufficient. This act was perfect except in rely ing upon State officers not being subject to the Federal law, and being forbid to act after slavery became a subject of political agitation. Bentorfs Debates, vol. i., p. 412. The law was judiciously drawn, and entirely satisfactory to both sections of the country ; but the Northern States, in the progress of years, refused to carry it out, and placed obstacles in the way. ME. JEFFERSON S LETTER TO GENERAL WASHINGTON. " PHILADELPHIA, May 23, 1792. -* # -::- <c True wisdom would direct, that they (means) should be temperate and peaceable ; but the division of senti ment and interest happens, unfortunately, to be so geographical, that no mortal can say that what is most wise and temperate would prevail against what is most easy and obvious. I can scarcely contemplate a more incalculable evil than the breaking up of the Union into two or more parts. Yet, when we consider the mass which opposed the original coalescence ; when we con sider that it lay chiefly in the Southern quarter ; that the Leg islature have availed themselves of no occasion of allaying it, but, on the contrary, when Northern and Southern prejudices have come into conflict, the latter have been sacrificed and the MR. JEFFERSON S LETTER TO GEN. WASHINGTON. 41 former soothed, that the owers of the debt are in the Southern, and the holders in the Northern division ; that the anti-federal champions are now strengthened in their arguments by the ful filment of their predictions ; that this has been brought about by the monarchical federalists themselves, who have been for the new Government merely as a stepping-stone to monarchy, and who have adopted the very construction of the Constitution of which, when advocating its acceptance before the tribunal of the people, they had declared it unsusceptible ; that the repub lican federalists who espoused the same Government for its in trinsic merits, are disarmed of their weapons ; that which they deemed as prophecy having become true as history ; who can be sure that these things may not proselyte the small number which was wanting to place the majority on the other side? And this is the event at which I tremble, and to prevent which I consider your continuing at the head of affairs as of the last importance. The confidence of the whole Union is centred in you. Your being at the helm will be more than an answer to every argument which can be used to alarm and lead the people in any quarter into violence and secession. North and South will hang together, if they have you to hang upon." We have here the fact that sectional differences of opinion and sectional feelings existed of a dangerous character, and that Washington was urged to accept of the Presidency a second time, in order to prevent " violence and secession." Allusion is also made to the large construction given to the text of the Con stitution by those who controlled some of the departments of the Government/ A dominant party are always under a temptation to enlarge the powers of the General Government at the expense of the powers reserved to the people of the several States. They are apt to think that their favorite measure had better be passed in Congress, or sanctioned by the Executive, even at the expense of the Constitution. Party leaders, even during the administra tion of Washington, form no exception to this love of power. REMARKS. 1. The administration of General Washington was distin guished for the wisdom of its measures, for the energy with 42 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. wliicli they were carried out, and for the great success which attended them. The several departments, the legislative, the judicial, and executive taking form, now for the first time, and filled with men of experience, of undoubted patriotism, and of high talent, were in harmony with one another. 2. And yet, there was a difference of opinion in Congress, and in the cabinet, as to the construction to be given to the Constitution, in its application to the purposes for which it was framed. Alexander Hamilton, Secretary of the Treasury, the leading spirit in the Executive Department, was, in the Conven tion, in favor of forming a strong government, and what he failed to accomplish in that body in the framework of the Con stitution, he endeavored to work out in practice by a broad construction of that instrument, by magnifying its " implied powers," and the " necessary powers." " Necessary powers " were understood to mean those powers that were deemed neces sary to put the government in operation under the Consti tution. The terms " necessary powers " and " implied powers " were vague, and would vary according to the character of the mind that should exercise a judgment concerning them. What would seem to be " necessary " and " implied " to one mind, would not seem " necessary " or " implied " to another mind. "With Hamilton, his old companion in arms, Knox, the Secretary of War, acted in promoting his views. Jefferson, Secretary of State, and Edmund Randolph, Attor ney-General, differed from Hamilton in their views of the power granted to the General Government in the Constitution, and looked at the powers reserved to the States as well as at those delegated to the General Government. Hamilton, with his penetrating and logical mind, with his extraordinary energy, with his constructive and productive genius, had the ear of Washington as well as of Knox-, all of them military men, and all of them disgusted with the weak ness of the old Confederation. Jefferson, with his gift of language, with his insight and fore sight, with his constructive mind, accustomed to deal with prin ciples, was aided, in his view, by Randolph, whose plan of a Constitution had been adopted in the Convention, and who tin- KEMAJKKS. 43 derstood accurately what was its meaning, and who was not dis posed to magnify its implied powers. In both Houses of Congress were leading men, who were also divided in their views as to the " implied powers " of the Constitution, a portion of them being in favor of a " broad con struction " of its powers, and another portion being in favor of a "strict construction." The practical men of the Northern States, who valued the Constitution chiefly for " commercial purposes," and who felt the value of public credit, generally adopted the views of Mr. Hamilton. The statesmen of the South, who looked at political principles and relations, generally adopted the view r s of Mr. Jefferson. 3. Mr. Hamilton was an admirer of the British government, in which parliament has almost unlimited powers ; and it was supposed that he endeavored to assimilate the General Govern ment to that, notwithstanding the rights reserved to the States. In his celebrated report of 1T91 he claimed power for the Fed eral Government to encourage learning, agriculture, and manu factures, all under the authority to levy imports for the " gen eral welfare." Mr. Jefferson was an admirer of the early prin ciples of the French Revolution, and was a hater of Great Britain, and in these respects he had the sympathy of the people of the United States, who remembered the wrongs they had re ceived from the one nation, and the favors they had received from the other. The policy of the Administration in respect to the two nations was, to some extent, the ground of sectional difference of opinion, the leaders of the opposition being prin cipally in the Southern States. CHAPTER IV. ADMINISTRATION. MARCH 4, 1797 MARCH 4, 1801. To the election of Mr. ADAMS there was an opposition in.tho Southern States, but not violent. It was generally conceded that his patriotism, his talents, his experience, and services, en titled him to the Presidency. But in the course of his administration, this sectional oppo sition gained strength, chiefly on account of his war measures, by which eighty thousand men were subjected to his order, which was supposed to be contrary to the theory of our Gov ernment ; the acts for increasing the navy ; and especially on account of the passage of the alien and sedition laws, and pros ecutions under them. This opposition was largely sectional, and was based chiefly on the exorbitant powers supposed to be claimed by the General Government. The leading men in the opposition, for their defence, fell back on the residuary power of the States secured by the Constitution, as the means of pre venting the establishment of a consolidated government instead of a Federal one. THE ASSERTION OF STATE RIGHTS. "Virginia, at a meeting of her Legislature, early in the session of 1798, passed a series of resolutions declaratory of State rights, and condemnatory of the alien and sedition laws, and other measures of the Government, as having a tendency to change THE ASSERTION OF STATE EIGHTS. 45 its character from a Federal to a national Government. Among other things, these resolutions affirm, that " it (the Legislature) views the powers of the General Government as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact ; and that in case of a delib erate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of powers not granted in said compact, the States who are parties thereto have the right, and are in duty bound to interpose for arresting the prog ress of the evil, and for maintaining within their respective limits the authorities, rights, and liberties appertaining to them." In the resolutions passed by the Legislature of Kentucky in 1798, it is declared " that whensoever the General Government assumes and delegates powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force ; that each State acceded as a State, and is an integral party, its co-States forming as to itself the other party ; that the Government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to it, since that would have made its discretion and not the Consti tution the measure of its powers ; that, as in all other, cases of a compact among parties having no common judge, each party has an equal right to judge for itself, as well of the infractions as the mode and measure of redress." The resolutions of Virginia were drawn up by Mr. MADISON ; those of Kentucky were said to be sketched, but not fully pre pared, by Mr. JEFFERSON. It was believed that the Administration, under the guidance of Northern men, had assumed powers not enumerated in the Constitution, and, in this way, had usurped powers belonging to the States. THE DOCTRINE OF STATE RIGHTS. As the doctrine of State rights has been adopted at different times, by both the South and the North, in their relations to the General Government, it seems proper to give some account of its origin and its sectional influences. 46 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. LUTHER MARTIN S LETTER. LUTHER MARTIN wrote a letter to the Legislature of Mary land on the formation of the Federal Constitution in 1787, and the composition of the Convention, of which the following is an extract : " There was one party, whose object and wish is to abolish and annihilate all State Governments, and bring forward one General Government over this extensive continent, of a mo narchical nature, under certain restrictions and limitations. Those who openly avowed this sentiment were, it is true, but few ; yet it is equally true that there was a considerable number who did not openly avow it who were, by myself and many others of the Convention, considered as being in reality favorers of that sentiment, and, acting upon those principles, covertly en deavoring to carry into effect what they well knew openly and a vowed ]y could not be accomplished. " The second party was not for the abolition of State Gov ernments, nor for the introduction of a monarchical Government in any form ; but they wished to establish such a system as could give their own States undue power and influence in the Government over the other States. " A third party was what I considered truly Federal and Republican. This party was nearly equal in number with the other two, and was composed of the delegations from Connecti cut, New York, !N"ew Jersey, and in part Maryland ; also of some individuals from other representations." The first party here mentioned by Mr. MARTIN was supposed to include Mr. HAMILTON, GOUVERNEUR MORRIS, and some others. The second party was supposed to include the delegates from Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, and some other of the larger States. Colonel HUMPHREYS, in his letter to General WASHINGTON, of the 20th of January, 1787, describes the temper of a number of the States in the following language : " They have a mortal reluctance to divest themselves of the smallest attribute of inde pendent, separate sovereignties." This temper showed itself in the convention in the speeches of the delegates. Friday, June 29, 1787. Doctor JOHNSON, of Connecticut, THE DOCTRINE OF STATE EIGHTS. 47 said, in the Federal Convention : " The controversy must be endless, whilst gentlemen differ in the grounds of their argu ments ; those on one side considering the States as districts of people composing one political society ; and those on the other considering them as so many political societies. The fact is, the States do exist as so many political societies ; and a government is to ~be formed for them in their political capacity r , as well as for the individuals composing them. Does it not seem to fol low, that, if the States as such are to exist, they must be armed with some- power of self-defence ? " Mr. ELLSWORTH, in the same debate, said : " Under a national Government he should participate in the national security, as remarked by Mr. KING *, but that was all. What he wanted was domestic happiness. The national Government could not descend to the local objects on which this depended. It could only embrace objects of a general nature. He turned his eyes, therefore, for the preservation of his rights, to the State Govern ments. From these alone he could derive the greatest happi ness he expected in this life. His happiness depends on their existence as much as a new-born infant on its mother for nour ishment." So anxious was that distinguished statesman to preserve the rights of the States, that he moved in the Federal Convention that the term " national " should be stricken out of the Consti tution ; and his motion was passed without opposition, and the objectionable term was stricken out. He and others preferred the term " Federal," because it de scribed more accurately the nature of the Government which they w r ere forming. The term "Federal pertains to a league or compact, and is derived from an agreement or covenant be tween parties, particularly between nations." Hence the friends of the Constitution, which, was a compact or league between the States, were called Federalists. In a letter to Governor HUNTINGTON, dated New London, September 26, 1787, Mr. ELLSWORTH and Mr. SHERMAN unite in saying : " Some additional powers are vested in Congress, which was the principal object the States had in view in appointing the Convention ; those powers extend only to matters respecting 48 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the common interests of the Union, and are specially defined, so that the particular States retain their sovereignty in other mat ters." Dr. JOHNSON, in the State Convention in Hartford, convened January 14, 1788, to ratify the Federal Constitution, said : u The Constitution vests in the general Legislature a power to make laws in matters of national concern ; to appoint judges to decide upon those laws ; and to appoint officers to carry them into execution. This excludes the idea of an armed force. The power which is to enforce these laws is to be a legal power, vested in the magistrates. [Not military.] The force which is to be employed, is the energy of law ; and this force is to be employed only upon individuals who fail in their duty to their country. This is the glory of the Constitution, that it de pends upon the mild and equal energy of the magistracy for the execution of the laws." [Not upon military coercion.] OLIVER ELLSWORTH, Jan. 7, 1788, in the State Convention, Hartford, 1788, said : " We see how necessary for the Union is a coercive principle. No man pretends to the contrary. We all see and feel this necessity. The only question is, Shall it be a coercion of law, or a coercion of arms ? There is no other possible alternative. Where would those, who oppose a coer cion of law, come out ? Where will they end ? A necessary consequence of their principles is a war of the States, one against the other. I am for coercion by law ; that coercion which acts only upon delinquent individuals. The Constitution does not attempt to coerce sovereign bodies States in their political ca pacity. No coercion is applicable to such bodies but that of armed force. If we should attempt to execute the laws of the Union by sending an armed force against a delinquent State, it would involve the good and bad, the innocent and guilty, in the same calamity. But this legal coercion singles out the guilty individual, and punishes him for breaking the laws." Mr. LAW, in the same Convention, said : " Some suppose that the General Government, which extends over the whole, will annihilate the State Governments. But we ought to con sider that this General Government rests on the State Govern ments for its support. It is like a vast and beautiful bridge built upon thirteen strong and stately pillars. Now the rulers, \ THE DOCTRINE OF STATE EIGHTS. 49 those who occupy the bridge, cannot be so beside themselves as to knock away the pillars that support the whole fabric." The Constitution was formed on the idea that all powers granted to the General Government were " specially defined 71 or " enumerated" and that all powers, not " specially denned " or " not enumerated," are retained by each of the States. In the formation and adoption of the Constitution, the States were the only agents. The State Legislatures appointed the delegates to the Convention. While there, they voted by States. Each delegation made its repbrt to the Legislature or Governor of the States. The Convention which assembled in the several States to ratify or reject the Constitution, was appointed by the people of the several States. The parties to the " Constitu tional Compact " were the States. ROGER SHERMAN says : " And the Government of the United States being Federal, and insti tuted by a number of sovereign States for the better security of their rights, and the advancement of their interests," &c. Let ter to John Adams. The motion was made in the Convention to give Congress power to negative all State laws contravening the articles of Union, and thus to abridge the rights of the several States. This motion was rejected by a vote of seven States against three. Thursday r , May 31, 1787. In the plan of a Constitution proposed by Governor RANDOLPH, and generally adopted by the Convention, provision was made " authorizing the exertion of the force of the other States against a delinquent State." The effect of this would be to abridge the rights of the States. Mr. MADISON observed, " that the more he reflected on the use of force, the more he doubted the practicability, the justice, and the efficacy of it, when applied to a people collectively and not individually. A union of the States, containing such an ingredient, seemed to provide for its own destruction. The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound. He hoped such a sys tem might be framed as would render this resource unnecessary, 50 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. and moved that the clause be postponed. This motion was agreed to, nem. con" Madison Papers, p. 761. ALEXANDER HAMILTON used the following language on the same subject. After referring to the case of Shay s rebellion, in which military force could be properly employed, and for which " Massachusetts was making provision," by State author ity, he adds : " But how can this force be exerted on the States collectively ? (against State authority.) It is impossible. It amounts to a declaration of war between the parties. Foreign powers also will not be idle spectators. They will interpose ; the confusion will increase ; and a dissolution of the Union will ensue." Idem, p. 881. Thus it appears that no State can constitutionally be coerced by the other States by force of arms. In the Convention, so determined were the advocates of State rights not to give up certain of these to the General Government, that the Convention came to a dead stand, and was in danger of failing entirely to accomplish the object for which they assem bled. CHARLES PINCKNEY declared, that for nearly six weeks the small States pertinaciously struggled to obtain equal power in both branches. The term " United States " was in constant use when the Constitution was framed, with a fixed and definite meaning in the minds of men, namely, the same as in the Articles of Con federation. That document is described as " Articles of Con federation, and perpetual union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, &c. Article I. The style of this Confederacy shall be, The United States of America" Now it is evident that the term " United States," in the Constitution, means the same that it does in the Articles of Confederation, and is equivalent to New Hampshire, Massa chusetts, &c., united, or the States united. They formed a union by a compact between themselves. Article "VII. " The rat ification of the conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Constitution between the States so rati fying the same." Here the word is between, not over. The Constitution is a compact between the States. " "We the people of the United States," evidently must mean the same as we the THE DOCTRINE OF STATE EIGHTS. 51 people of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, &c., taken severally, and not collectively that is, the people of New Hampshire and the people of Massachusetts, &c. The people who voted for the Constitution by States must have understood the phrase as mean ing the same in the Constitution that it does in the Articles of Confederation, namely, the people of the several States, and not the people of America, taken collectively as one people. It was a majority of the people of each State acting by itself that adopted the Constitution, and not a majority of the people of all the States taken collectively. Indeed, the people of all the States have never acted to gether as one whole. Even in the election of President, the people vote by separate States, not for a President, but for State electors. A majority of the people of the whole country do not appoint electors, but a majority of each separate State. If the electors fail to elect a President, then the States as States in Congress assembled appoint the President ; Rhode Island having one vote and New York no more. And if the House of Representatives fail of making a choice, the Senate, ap pointed by the several States, shall elect a Yice-President, who shall act as President of the States. The Southern States became dissatisfied with Mr. ADAMS and his measures, and a portion of them looked to the doctrines of State rights for relief. To JOHN TAYLOR of Virginia, Mr. JEFFERSON addressed a letter, June, 1798. In it he says : " It is true that we are com pletely under the saddle of Massachusetts and Connecticut, and they ride us very hard, cruelly insulting our feelings, as well as exhausting our strength and subsistence. Their natural friends, the three other Eastern States, join them from a sort of family pride, and they have the art to divide certain other parts of the Union, so as to make use of them to govern the whole." "If we rid ourselves of the present rulers of Massachusetts and Connecticut, we break the Union ; will the work stop there ? Suppose the New England States alone cut off, will our nature be changed? Are there not men to the South with all the passions of men? Immediately we shall see a Pennsylvania and Yirginia party arise in the residuary Confederacy, and the public mind will be distracted with the same party spirit." 52 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. In another place lie says : " Mr. NEW showed me your letter on the subject of the protest, which gives me an opportunity of observing what you said as to the effect with you of public pro ceedings, and that it is not unwise now to estimate the sepa rate map of Virginia and North Carolina, with a view to their separate existence." " Seeing we must have somebody to quarrel with, I had rather keep our New England associates for that purpose, than to see our bickerings transferred to others. They are circumstanced within such narrow limits, and their population so full, that their numbers will soon be in the minor ity ; and they are marked, like the Jews, with such perversity of character, as to constitute, from that circumstance, the natural division of our parties." " During the Administration of Mr. ADAMS, Virginia was almost in open revolt against the national authority, merely because a Yankee, and not a Virginian, was President." Life of G. Morris, vol. iii., p. 196. JOHN ADAMS, when President, wrote as follows : " I have found this Congress like the last. When we first came together, I found a strong jealousy of us of New England, and of Mas sachusetts in particular." Life and Times of John Adams, vol. i., p. 176. " You inquire why so young a man as Mr. JEFFERSON was placed at the head of the committee for preparing the Declara tion of Independence ; I answer, it was the Frankfort advice to place Virginia at the head of every thing." Life and Times of John Adams, vol. ii., p. 513. REMARKS. 1. The sectional feeling, which existed during General WASHINGTON S Administration, became intensified, especially in the South, during the Administration of Mr. ADAMS ; he be ing a Northern man, and sustained chiefly by Northern men, and by several of the Northern States. In the view of the party opposed to him, his policy savored too much of mon archy, and tended to exalt and extend the powers of the General Government towards a conformity to the English government, to the disparagement of the reserved rights of the REMARKS. 53 States. The Yirginia and Kentucky Resolutions were pro fessedly brought forward in order to restrain that policy, and to preserve to the States their Constitutional relations to the Federal Government. But sectional or party feeling had much to do in this matter. It is somewhat remarkable, that Yirginia was, in the Con stitutional Convention, opposed to reserving large powers to the several States, on some important points, and yet was the first to place herself on her reserved powers, and, as some would say, to magnify those powers. Thus Virginia voted in favor of giving the Federal Legislature power to negative State laws contravening the articles of union, and voted against giving equal rights to the States in the Senate. PATRICK HENRY, in the Yirginia Convention, tauntingly said : " Why are such ex tensive powers given to the Senate ? Because the little States gained their point." The " little States " did, indeed, gain their point as against the large States, but they also gained their point for each of the large States as against the popular vote of the whole Union. In practice, Yirginia has enjoyed this ad vantage. 2. Some of the Northern States, while they had a prevailing influence during the presidency of General WASHINGTON and of Mr. ADAMS, were accused of endeavoring to enlarge the powers of the General Government ; and yet those same States, when that influence was impaired during the Administration of Mr. JEFFEESON and of Mr. MADISON, placed themselves on the reserved rights of the States, in their opposition to the Gen eral Government. This subject will be resumed in statements concerning Mr. MADISON S Administration. 3. The States were the only parties to the " Constitutional Compact." This phrase, equivalent to the word Constitution, and descriptive of it, is used in the Report of the Hartford Con vention, and by eminent statesmen. 4. The Constitution contains only delegated powers. " The State Governments may be regarded as constituent and essen tial parties of the Federal Government, while the latter is in no wise essential to the operation of the former." MADISON, No. 45 of The Federalist. The " constituent," by the force or mean ing of the term, is superior to the delegate. CHAPTER V. XTR. JEFFERSON S ADMINISTRATION. MARCH 4, 1801 MARCH 4, 1809. MR. JEFFERSON was friendly to France, rather than to Eng land ; was in favor of a strict construction of the Constitution, by which the rights of the several States, and of the people of those States, would be protected against any usurpations of the General Government. He received 73 electoral votes for the presidency, nearly all the Southern States voting for him. Mr. BURR received the same number of votes. Mr. ADAMS received 65 votes ; his strength lying chiefly in the Northern States. Mr. JEFFERSON and Mr. BURR received an equal number of votes ; it remained for the House of Representatives, voting by States, to determine the choice. A portion of the federal party, which had cast its electoral vote for JOHN ADAMS and CHARLES C. PINCKNEY, had resolved that States represented by that party should throw their votes for AARON BURR, himself a democrat, instead of JEFFERSON, whom the democrats wished to elect President. On the 17th February, 1801, after balloting in the House 36 times, THOMAS JEFFERSON was elected President, Connecticut, Massachusetts , New Hampshire, and Rhode, Island voting to the last for AARON BURR. Commercial Advertiser, New York, Feb. 23, 1801. " Our communications from the City of "Washington are as late as Thursday, half-past 3 o clock, A. M. At that time the ballot- SPIRIT OF THE TIMES. 55 ing had been postponed, an hour at a time ; when the hour expires and the members are called to proceed again, it is ludicrous to see some of them rushing with anxiety from the committee rooms, with their night caps on. Numbers of them are provided with pillows and blankets ; and the contest would seem to be who has the most strength of constitution, or who is most able to bear fatigue. Many of them lie down in their places, resolving (at least to sleep, if not) to die at their posts." SPIRIT OF THE TIMES. Washington Federalist, February 12, 1801. " Unworthy will he be, and consecrated his name to infamy, who, with a view to the permanency of our political system, has hitherto strenuously opposed the exaltation of Mr. JEFFERSON to the Presidential chair, shall now, meanly and inconsistently, lend his aid to promote it. Such conduct will be dishonorable in the extreme. Such conduct, therefore, cannot possibly char acterize the Federal party. * * * " But, say the bold and impetuous partisans of Mr. JEFFER SON, and that, too, in the teeth of the assembled Congress of America, Dare to designate any officer whatever, even tempo rarily to administer the government, in the want of the non- agreement, on the part of the House of Representatives, and we will march and dethrone him as a usurper. Dare, in fact, to exercise the right of opinion, and place in the Presidential chair any other than the sage of Monticello, and ten thousand Repub lican swords will leap from their scabbards in defence of the violated rights of the people. * * * " Are they, then, ripe for civil war, and ready to embrue their hands in kindred blood ? " If the tumultuous meetings of a set of factious foreigners in Pennsylvania, and a few fighting bacchanals in Virginia, mean the people, and are to dictate to the Congress of the United States whom to elect as President ; if the constitutional rights of this body are so soon to become the prey of anarchy and faction ; if we are already arrived at that disastrous period in the life of nations, when liberty consists in no longer rever encing either the laws or the authority ; if, in short, the scenes 56 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. that sadden the history of the elective monarchies of Europe are BO soon to be reacted in America, it would be prudent at once to prepare for the contest : the woful experiment, if tried at all, could never be tried at a more. favorable conjuncture. " With the militia of Massachusetts, consisting of seventy thousand, (regulars let us call them,) in arms ; with those of New Hampshire, united almost to a man ; with half the number of the citizens of the other States, ranged under the Federal ban ner in support of the Constitution, what could Pennsylvania do, aided by Virginia ? the militia of the latter, untrained and far cically performing the manual exercise with cornstalks instead of muskets, burdened besides with a formidable internal foe, whose disposition has been shown in not very agreeable colors, a foe, too, in contest against whom, Mr. JEFFERSON declares, the Almighty has no attribute which could induce him to take a part ; what, may it be asked, would be the issue of the strug gle ? Let these madmen reflect on these things. Let them for bear their menaces. Let them respect the decision of the con stituted authorities." In the Connecticut Courant, Hartford, September 22, 1800, a writer, signing himself BURLEIGH, after speaking of the evils of slavery, uses the following language : " To avoid sharing in these calamities, and, perhaps, with the hope of saving the Government, the Northern States will probably be disposed to separate the Union. This, though an evil of mighty magnitude, is less, far less, than anarchy or sla very. Should such an event take place, where the border States will be is not for me to say. Perhaps the Potomac, the Dela ware, or the Hudson, like the Rhine, may part rival hostile na tions, and the shores of one of them be perpetually crimsoned with the blood of the inhabitants." Hoston Gazette, December 24, 1801 : " IT WAS A GOOD THING, in the District Court of Connecticut, to let Mr. JEFFERSON know, that when he attempted to restore ~by his order to his good friends the French, the prize-money of a French schooner, which was captured and legally condemned as a lawful prize in the court, that he was feeling power and forgetting right. Mr. JEFFERSON has so long been accustomed to govern slaves, that he hardly knows how to act in the government of freemen. SPIRIT OF THE TIMES. 57 But, however implicitly his commands in a land of slavery may- have been obeyed, he must be careful how he orders without authority in New England, as he will surely get himself af fronted." From the Boston Gazette, December 28, 1801, and credited to the American Minerva : " New England people turned aris tocrats ! say the Southern gentlemen. This is very odd. Let us examine the fact, and compare New England aristocracy with Southern democracy. An Eastern aristocrat is a New England farmer. Nine out of ten of all these people are men of small landed estates, consisting of from fifty to two hundred acres of land, and worth one thousand to three thousand dollars. There is not one in twenty of them that ever owned a slave ; and those who have them are getting rid of them as fast as they can, without injury to the slaves. The farmer himself, his wife, his sons and daughters, all labor in person on the farm or at the spinning-wheel. A farmer in New England who does not labor in person, is no more to be found than a planter in Vir ginia or Carolina who does. Jf they have occasion to hire la boring men, they associate with them and eat at the same table. In the whole village there is little or no distinction of rank ; the farmers and mechanics, the justice of the peace, and the black smith, all associate on equal terms. There is no such thing as a farmer s commanding his workmen ; he treats them all as his equals. These people are generally very civil and obliging ; they make bows to each other, and teach their children to do the same. This is New England aristocracy. " Virginia democracy is a very different thing. A democrat, in the Southern States, is a planter or other person who owns a large number of slaves who is above labor himself, and not only so, but is above the drudgery of overseeing his own busi ness. He commits it to a steward and a negro driver. He es tablishes all the ranks of the feudal system in his own family. The planter is king or lord paramount ; his children are nobles ; the tutor, the steward, and clerk, are the commons ; and the laboring people and the blacks are the vassals. Yet this planter is a mighty democrat, a warm stickler for the rights of man, for liberty, and, what is more, equality. This little domestic mon arch writes and spouts incessantly about the funding system, 58 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. and the danger of power. He will not labor not he ; this is the business of slaves. He will not associate with the laboring people ; he will not eat at the same table. His sons must not labor; this would disgrace them. They are seen at a tavern from morning to night, sawing a fiddle or playing at billiards. " A New England Aristocrat, on Sunday, puts saddle and pillion on a team horse, takes his wife behind him and his child on a pillow before him, and rides to church ; and when he gets home, he reads a sermon, or a chapter in the Bible, and teaches his children some catechism. " The Southern Democrat, on Sunday, gets into his coach, if he has it, or can borrow one, and, accompanied by two or three dirty, ragged, half-naked slaves, rides to some friends or to some amusement. It is idle to deny these things ; thousands of wit nesses can attest them. Let the truth, then, be acknowledged. Let the charge of Aristocracy fall where it ought. The Northern people are the most Republican in the universe ; equality reigns among them in reality ; but they expect law and order, and when they have a government they wish to keep it." RESTRICTIONS UPON COMMERCE. In opposition to British encroachments, a memorial was pre sented to Congress by the Boston merchants, dated January 20, 1806, urging that " such measures should be promptly adopted as w T ill tend to disembarrass our commerce, assert our rights, and support the dignity of the United States." Similar memo rials were presented, about the same time, by the merchants of New York and of Philadelphia. The " Berlin Decree," by Napoleon, was declared November 1, 1806. The " British Orders in Council " were declared No vember 11, 1807. The " Milan Decree," by Napoleon, was de clared December 17, 1807. To meet these decrees and orders in council, ruinous as they were to American commerce, the embargo was laid on the 23d of December, 1807. " It w r as generally believed, at the North, that the embargo was the result of a combination between Southern and Western States, to ruin the Eastern." In a memorial from the town of THE PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. 59 Boston to the legislature of Massachusetts, January 25, 1809, requesting the " interposition " of that body to relieve the citi zens from their " grievances," is the following : " Our hope and consolation rest with, the Legislature of our State, to whom it is competent to devise means of relief against the unconstitutional measures of the General Government that your power is ade quate to this object, is evident from the organization of the Confederacy" Other towns in Massachusetts expressed the same sentiments to the Legislature in more decided terms, point ing to resistance to the Federal Government. " If petitions do not produce a relaxation or removal of the embargo, the people ought immediately to assume a higher tone. The Government of Massachusetts has also a duty to- perform. The State is still sovereign and independent" Boston Centinel, September 10, 1808. In the same spirit Northern statesmen spoke : " To my mind the present crisis excites the most serious apprehensions. A storm seems to he gathering , which portends not a tempest on the ocean, but domestic convulsions. I feel myself bound in conscience to declare, lest the blood of those who should fall in executing this measure (enforcing the embargo) may lie on my head, that I consider this to be an act which directs a mortal blow at the liberties of my country an act containing uncon stitutional provisions, to which the people are not hound to suh- mit, and to which, in my opinion, they will not submit." Speech of MR. HILLHOUSE, of Connecticut, in the Senate of the United States, January, 1809. The embargo was repealed March 1, 1809. THE PURCHASE OF LOUISIANA. To the proposal of Mr. JEFFERSON to purchase Louisiana the Eastern States were strongly opposed, though the great impor tance of preserving the free navigation of the Mississippi was acknowledged. To prevent the purchase, ridicule, sarcasm without mercy, menace of the separation of the States, as well as argument, were employed by their representatives in Con gress, and by the editors of newspapers. The ground of this violent opposition w r as the apprehension that the Southern and Western States would, bv the admission 60 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. of Louisiana, acquire an undue influence in the General Govern ment. In the debate upon the admission of Louisiana, Mr. QUINCY, of Massachusetts, used the following language in Con gress, January 15, 1811 : " If this bill passes, it is my deliberate opinion " (which he committed to writing to prevent misappre hension) " that it is virtually a dissolution of the Union that it will free the States from their moral obligation ; and, as it will be the right of all, so it will be the duty of some to prepare, for separation, amicably if they can, VIOLENTLY IF THEY MUST." These were the sentiments of a large number in New England at that time. Most of them lived to adopt more patriotic views, when they saw the relation and value of Louisiana to the whole country. A committee of the Legislature of Massachusetts, 1813, reported the following : "Resolved^ that it is the interest and duty of the people of Massachusetts to oppose the admission of such States (Louisiana) into the Union, as a measure tending to dissolve the Confed eracy." REMARKS. 1. By the election of Mr. JEFFERSON, the Eastern States had lost much of their influence in the General Government. They accused him of being unfriendly to the interests of commerce, and of not taking energetic measures for its protection against the encroachments of England and France, and of laying the embargo in disregard of their interests. 2. Several of the Eastern States made a great mistake in voting for AAEON BURR in opposition to Mr. JEFFERSON, on sec tional grounds, when the election came into the House of Rep resentatives. They had the constitutional right to do so ; but it was not to their honor to endeavor to thwart the wishes of the people of the several States, who had voted for electors who were in favor of Mr. JEFFERSON for President, and of Mr. BURR for Yice-President. They voted for Mr. BURR, who proved to be a bad man, on sectional grounds. 3. The opposition to the purchase of Louisiana was largely sectional, springing as it did from the apprehension that the in troduction of new States made from it would still further dimin- CHAPTER VI. MR. MADISON S ADMINISTRATION. MARCH 4, 1809 MARCH 4, 1817. MR. MADISON had acted with the North in framing the Con stitution ; but he had acted with the South generally in the in terpretation of its powers. The foreign policy adopted by Mr. JEFFERSON in the admin istration of the Government, was continued by MADISON, inju rious though it was to the interests of the commercial States. The commerce of the country was crushed between the upper and the nether millstones of the British orders in council, and the Berlin and Milan decrees. By the one, American ships were excluded from Great Britain ; and by the other, from France, to the ruin of our commerce. Mr. MADISON, like Mr. JEFFERSON, was accused of favoring France rather than Eng land, and thus of increasing the evil, first by a commercial con test with the latter nation, by a non-intercourse act, and by an embargo of ninety days, in the way of reprisal, and then by the declaration of war. To these measures the Northern States, and especially New England, were violently opposed. And their opposition was manifested in newspapers, speeches, and conventions, in bitter arid determined language. During the embargo, their ships were rotting at the wharves or on the stocks. Their seamen were idle, and restless, and unhappy. Grass grew in the streets of cities which had been marts of commerce. Bankruptcy was felt or feared. Their harbors were no longer whitened by the 62 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. sails of successful commercial adventure. Thousands could say, " My occupation is gone." The Southern States, on the other hand, generally sustained these anti-commercial measures, and thus provoked the resent ment of the North, and the fiercest denunciations. As a speci men of the feelings that prevailed, read the following, originally published in the Connecticut Journal, 1812, from an article en titled, " Slave Representation" by BOREAS : " Awake ! O spirit of the North. " The article authorizing the Southern negroes to be repre sented in Congress is the rotten part of the Constitution, and must ~be amputated. Since the commencement of the Govern ment, its whole undivided influence Las been only putrefactive and deadly, although before the fatal change of men and meas ures on the fourth of March, 1801, its effects were not percepti bly felt on the sounder members of the body politic. That change was wholly effected by slave representation. The slave electoral votes first brought Mr. JEFFERSON into the Presidency ; and the slave votes in Congress have turned the majority in favor of many of the worst measures which the Virginia faction have dared to bring forward. * * * " If this stain upon the face of the Constitution, this impress of mischief and dishonor, is ever to be blotted out, it must be done at a time when the NORTH, roused by repeated injuries, and provoked by galling oppression, shall appeal directly to Tier own strength, and to t}\Q fears and weakness of the COUNTRY OF SLAVES. " At a time when these injuries are deeply felt, and these op pressions are boldly resisted, would we call upon all the men of the North to unite as one man, and that a strong man, armed to take a solemn view of the magnitude and injustice of the grievance, and then at every hazard to apply the needed rem edy. * * * " On this subject, all the North have a common interest. To the MEN OF THE NORTH we would boldly and directly make the solemn appeal : "Will you suffer the slave country to triumph any longer in this palpable fraud ? Will you still look coolly on r\-r\ /I TTTT 4-ni /-\rn 4-\ \ T r< -rVvnl rvl /~wf s\v\ Tri* ~r\c\ f\*f\ r\T "fl^^i I .r\*n o4" i f~n f 1 r\T\ 4" M i C5 SECTIONAL OPPOSITION TO THE WAR OF 1812. 63 deep stigma on tlie national honor ? If you will, go, and for twelve long, iceary years see the commerce of the nation bound, her agriculture blasted, her coffers lavished, and her glory tram pled in the dust, by the very man whom Southern slaves have lifted into office." SECTIONAL OPPOSITION TO THE WAR OF 1812. The Northern States, having adopted the Federal Constitu tion mainly for promoting their commercial interests, were very indignant at the passage of the embargo act of 1807, on recon> mendation of Mr. JEFFERSON ; and threats were uttered, first in undertones and then loudly, that they would secede at least a portion of them from the Union, and form a new confederacy. On the first of March, 1809, just before the accession of Mr. MADISON, the embargo act was repealed, " to appease the Is ew England States." War was declared against Great Britain, in due form, on the 18th of June, 1812, by a vote of 72 to 49 in the House of Representatives, and 19 to 13 in the Senate. To this war there was a strong opposition manifested in the Eastern States, in the pulpit, the press, in public speeches, and private conversation. Ministers of the Gospel called it an " unholy war," an " un righteous war." At the time when our armies were invading Canada, some of them prayed " that all invading armies might be cut off," and " that they who take the sword might perish by the sword." The Rev. Mr. GARDINER, in a sermon preached July 23, 1812, in Boston, uses the following language : " The Union has long since been dissolved, and it is full time that this part of the United States should take care of itself." Rev. Dr. PARISH, in Byfield, Mass., delivered a sermon April 7, 1814, in which he uses the following language : " The Israelites became weary of yielding the fruit of their labor to pamper tyrants. -They left their political woes. They separated. Where is our Moses f Where is the rod of his miracles ? Where is our Aa ron ? Alas ! no voice from the burning bush has directed him here." These are only specimens, withholdour money, and make a separate peace withEnglanoT. 771 64 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. Boston Advertiser. " That there will be a revolution, if the war continues, no one can doubt who is acquainted with human nature, and is accustomed to study cause and effect. The East ern States are marching steadily and straightforward up to the object." Federal Republican. These are specimens. " We call upon our State Legislature to protect us in the enjoyment of those privileges, to assert which our fathers died, and to defend which we profess ourselves ready to resist unto blood" Memorial of the citizens of Neivburyport, Mass., Janu ary 13, 1814. " Resolved, that we place the fullest confidence in the Governor and Legislature of Massachusetts, and in the State authorities of New England ; and that to them, under God, the chief Governor of the universe, we look for aid and direction ; and that, for the present, until public opinion shall be known, we will not enter our carriages, pay our Continental taxes, or aid, inform, or assist any officer in their collection." Passed l)y the inhabitants of Heading, Mass., January 5, 1815. "A separation of the States will be an inevitable result. Mo tives, numerous and urgent, will demand that measure. As they originate in oppression, the oppressors must be responsible for the momentous and contingent events arising from the dissolu tion of the present Confederacy, and erection of separate govern ments. It will be their work." Northern Grievances, p. 4, May, 1814. These are specimens. " Yes, sir, .1 consider this Administration as alien to us, so much so, that New England would be justified in declaring them like all foreign nations, enemies in war, in peace friends." " The States of New England can never be satellites in any sys tem ; but, like the primary planets, they will revolve round the sun of Federalism, until the Almighty hand, which created them, shall dash them from their orbits forever." CYRUS KING, of Massachusetts, in Congress, October 22, 1814. " On or before the fourth of July next, if JAMES MADISON is not out of office, a new form of government will be in operation in the Eastern section of the Union. Instantly after, the con test in many of the States will be, whether to adhere to the old. or to join the new Government." Federal fiejyubli THE IIARTFOED CONVENTION. 05 TIIE IIARTFOED CONTENTION. "Early in the year 1814, memorials from a great many towns in Massachusetts, were forwarded to the Legislature of that State, praying that body to exert their authority to protect the citizens in their Constitutional rights and privileges, and suggesting the expediency of appointing delegates to meet dele gates from such other States as may choose to appoint them, for the purpose of devising proper measures to procure tho united efforts of the commercial States to obtain such amend ments and explanations of the Constitution as will secure them from further evils." Accordingly, on the IGth of October, 1S14, by a large ma jority of the Legislature 2GO yeas, 90 nays twelve men wero appointed as delegates from Massachusetts to meet in conven tion other delegates from the other New England States. The Convention met in Hartford on the 15th of December, 1814. There were twelve members from Massachusetts ; seven from Connecticut ; four from Rhode Island ; three from New Hampshire ; one from Vermont. They were gentlemen of tho highest character for intelligence, wisdom, and patriotism. Af ter a session of three weeks, they made a report of the result of their conference. In order to remove the evils under which they were suffer ing, and prevent their recurrence, the Convention proposed cer tain amendments to the Federal Constitution ; by which the slave States would be deprived of the slave representation, as at pres ent provided ; and by which, new States would be prevented from coining into the Union, except by a vote of two-thirds of both Houses ; and by which, Congress would be deprived of power to lay an embargo for more than sixty days ; and by which, Congress shall not have power, without the concurrence of two-thirds of both Houses, to interdict the commercial inter course between the United States and any foreign nation ; and by which, Congress shall not have power to make or declare war against a foreign nation, without the concurrence of two- thirds of both Houses ; and by which, persons naturalized here- 66 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. after shall not be eligible to certain offices ; and by which, no person shall be a second time elected President. It was also resolved by the Convention, that in the event of the continuance of the present evils, without a prospect of re lief, it will, in the opinion of the Convention, be expedient for the Legislatures of the several States to send delegates to another Convention, to meet in June next. Provision was also made for calling another meeting of the Convention, if it should be desirable, before new delegates shall be chosen. In that report, drawn up with great ability, they discuss the subject of the dissolution of the Union , to which public atten tion had been earnestly turned, and the formation of a new Con federacy, as the means of escaping the evils under which the commercial States were suffering. Such a dissolution, they say, should " be the work of peaceable times and deliberate consent ; " " some new form of Confederacy should be substi tuted among those States which shall intend to maintain a Federal relation to each other." " Whenever it shall appear that these causes (of our calamities) are radical and permanent, a separation, by mutual arrangement, will be preferable to an alliance, by constraint, among nominal friends but real enemies." They argue, at length, against the claims of the General Gov ernment upon the militia of the States, and justify Massachusetts and Connecticut in refusing to place the militia in the regular army and under United States officers. They complain that the " Constitutional Compact," as they term the Constitution, has been extensively violated by the General Government, and that so many abuses have been practised, under color of its au thority, that the time for change is believed to be at hand. They declare that " acts of Congress in violation of the Consti tution are absolutely void" And, as the Governors of Massa chusetts and Connecticut had refused to place the militia of those States in the regular army, and under the officers of the General Government, they propose that a portion of the na tional tax, raised by the State, should be paid into its treasury, to be used for its defence, for which the General Government had neglected to provide, in the case of those States. They declare that they are " solicitous for the continuance of the Union as well as the sovereignty of the States." CONTEMPORANEOUS VIEWS OF NORTHERN MEN. 67 The first amendment proposed, namely, to take from tlie South the representation of slaves, was designed to lessen the political power of the South. The object of the second amend ment proposed was substantially the same ; or, in the language of HARRISON GRAY OTIS, "the object of the amendment was to diminish what the decision of the Missouri question is calculated to increase the representation of slaves." This referred to the admission of Louisiana. The Legislatures of Massachusetts and Connecticut, on re ceiving the report of the Hartford Convention, sent commission ers to Washington ; the former, HARRISON GRAY OTIS, THOMAS IT. PERKINS, and WILLIAM SULLIVAN; the latter, NATHANIEL TERRY and CALVIN GODDARD. CONTEMPORANEOUS VIEWS OF NORTHERN MEN. JOHN LOWELL. In an ably-reasoned pamphlet, written by JOHN LOWELL, of Massachusetts, and published in 1812, the writer asked : " Is there no Constitutional right in the executive, judiciary, and people of the several States, to judge whether the militia are, or are not, Constitutionally called into service ? In whom, from the very nature of the limitation in the Constitution, reposes the ultimate right to judge whether either of the three cases, (to execute the laws of the Union ; suppress insurrections ; and repel invasion,) provided by the Constitution, does exist ? " We answer, generally in the constituent, not in the dele gate ; in the master, not in the servant ; ultimately in the peo ple, (of the several States ;) principally from the necessity of the case in the commanders-in-chief of the several States. The very idea of limitation excludes the possibility that the delegate should be the judge. If he were, his powers would be limited only by his own judgment, or, in other words, by his own arbi trary will, which is no limitation at all." The General Govern ment is regarded here as the delegate, and the people of the sev eral States as the constituent, acting by their constituted au thorities as Governors, Judges, or Legislatures. "We have the distinct declaration of the doctrine of State rights, from one of 68 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the ablest and best men of the times. If carried to its logical results it comes fully up to the Virginia resolutions of 1798, fully up to the teachings of JEFFERSON and MADISON. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS. GOUVERNEUR MORRIS was the very man in the Constitutional Convention who revised the language of the Constitution before its final adoption by that body, and must therefore have un derstood what was its meaning and its bearings and the nature O O of the compact, and who were the parties to it. He declared that it was a compact between the States, and not a compact between individuals scattered over the whole Union. These are his words : " That the Constitution was a compact, not be tween solitary individuals, but between political societies, the people, not of America, but of the United States each (State) enjoying sovereign power, and of course equal rights." Thus it differs from a State Constitution, which is a compact, so far as it can be called a compact, between individuals. It is a com pact between sovereignties. "New England will, I trust, continue true to herself. The appropriate course, pertinaciously pursued, must open the eyes even of the wilfully blind. You will unite with Massachusetts, and New York must connect herself, whether she will or no, with New England. The question of boundary to be solved, therefore, is the Delaware, Susquehanna, or Potomac." Letter of Gouverneur ^Morris to Lewis Sturgis, Connecticut* Nov. 1, 1814. " I supposed, also, that to such as would charge you with meditating a breach of the Union, you would calmly reply : 4 The Union is already broken by this Administration. Should we now rely upon it, we should forfeit all claim to common sense. r Idem, to Harrison Gray Otis, Nov. 8, 1S14. Having in the first extract stated what is the nature of the Constitutional Compact, and who are the parties to it, namely, the States, he then, in the next two, shows in what way the meditated separation of the States can be justified, and where might be the line of separation. JOHN ADAMS, in a letter to THOMAS JEFFERSON, July, 1813, says : " The Northern States are now retaliating upon the DE WITT CLINTON. GO Southern States, their conduct from 1797 to 1800." He al ludes to the opposition to his own administration by the South ern States, especially by Virginia and Kentucky. DE WITT CLINTON. " The opposition, now excited, is not an ordinary opposition. It does not merely aim a blow at a rival party. Nor is it con fined to the destruction of an individual. It takes a more daring and adventurous attitude. It bids defiance to our laws, and threatens the dissolution of the Union. It is, perhaps, known to but few, that the project of the dismemberment of this country is not a novel plan growing out of recent measures of the Government, as has been pretended. It has been cher ished by a number of individuals for a series of years ; and a few months before the death of a distinguished citizen, whose death so strongly excited the public sensibility, it was proposed to him to enlist his great talents in the formation of this nefarious scheme ; arid, to his honor be it spoken, it was repelled by him with disdain. Some of the newspapers of New England have, at various times, inculcated the treasonable doctrines in elab orate essays, and the match appears to be now lighted, to pro duce an explosion, which will overwhelm us with all the evils of civil war. " Look at the storm that is gathering in the east ; its clouds are black, heavy, and portentous. Look at the resolves of several of the towns, and even of the capital of Massachusetts. Observe the disorganizing, Jacobinical, seditious, and traitorous spirit which pervades them. The Legislatures of the several States are incited to array themselves against the General Govern ment. The very men who a few years since were the strenuous advocates for putting down the State Governments, for a strong National Government, that would maintain the union of the States ; for an energetic, absorbing National Government, that would control and regulate the centrifugal force of the local Government, these men are now warm partisans of a State su premacy, the devoted friends of the Stt. T.ogiolaiuics." Sjjvcch yf n, TTTOJ ^vtr, ,//<,, ^n Senate of New York. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS fully sustains the declarations of Mr. CLINTON, and refers to the " distinguished citizen," who, it was TO THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. hoped, would lead the armies of the North, in a possible con test with the Federal Government, and who was no other than ALEXANDER HAMILTON. The sentiments of disunion were in existence at the North at an early period, certainly as early as 1796, not long after the ratification of JAY S treaty was opposed by Mr. MADISON, Mr. GILES, and other leading men of the South, and just before the election of Mr. ADAMS, who was destined to meet with oppo sition to his election from the Southern States, and then with embarrassments during his administration, and finally with de feat when candidate a second time. The following is an extract from a very able series of papers, signed PELHAM, and published in the Connecticut Courant, in Hartford, 1796 : "I shall, in the future papers, consider some of the great events w r hich will lead to a separation of the United States / show the importance of retaining their present Constitution, even at the expense of a separation ; endeavor to prove the re sponsibility of a Union for a long period in future, both from the moral and political habits of the citizens of the Northern States ; and finally, examine carefully to see whether we have not al ready approached to the era when they must ~be divided" These sentiments gathered strength during Mr. JEFFERSON S administration, from the purchase of Louisiana and the restric tions upon commerce, until, in 1809, they became so well known, that an agent, JOHN HENRY, was sent by the Governor-general of Canada, Sir JAMES CRAIG, into New England, in reference to a co-operation with England, and a union with Canada. These sentiments still gathered strength during Mr. MADISON S admin istration, until they culminated in the appointment of the Hart ford Convention, and brought the Eastern States to the very verge of disunion. For this the General Government was held responsible. " If, by your violence and oppression, you drive off New England from the Confederacy, you must answer for it. And you have already driven them to the very brink. One step more, and the union of these States is severed." Fed eral Republican. This was a matter of general notoriety throughout me uuuii- try. The following is an extract from a letter addressed to REMARKS. 71 ELBRIDGE GERRY, of Massachusetts, dated June 11, 1812, from Mr. JEFFERSON : " What then does this English faction with you mean ? Their newspapers say, rebellion, and that they will not continue united with us, iinless we will permit them to govern the ma jority. * * They count on British aid. But what can that avail them by land ? They would separate from their friends, who alone furnish employment for their navigation, to unite with their only rival, for that employment. * * But I trust that such perverseness will not be that of the honest and well- meaning mass of the Federalists of Massachusetts ; and that when the question of separation and rebellion shall be nakedly proposed to them, the GORES and the PICKERINGS will find their levees crowded with silk stocking gentry, but no yeomanry ; an army of officers, but no soldiers." REMARKS. 1. When the North was the dominant section in the General Government, Southern statesmen placed themselves on the re served rights of the States, to resist the encroachments of federal power, under the first two Presidents ; as in the case of the assumption of State debts, and of the charter of the United States Bank ; and of the alien and sedition laws. When the South became the dominant section in the Gen eral Government, the Northern States placed themselves on the same reserved rights of the States, to resist the encroachments of federal power, under Presidents JEFFERSON and MADISON ; as in the case of the purchase of Louisiana, and of the restrictions upon commerce ; and of the requisition to place the militia of the States under federal officers. In each case the dominant party was opposed to the doc trines of State rights. The North was opposed to the Virginia and the Kentucky resolutions. The South was opposed to the doctrines of the Hartford Convention. 2. The doctrine of State rights was asserted in 1798 by Vir ginia, and in 1814 by Massachusetts, in a manner corresponding with the character of the people of the two States. In a letter, dated Dec. 18, 1814, addressed to JAMES LLOYD, of Massachu- 72 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. Belts, JOHN EANDOLPH writes : " A Virginia and a New England ^Republican are about as much alike as an English whig and a French democrat." And yet the doctrines of State rights, as enunciated by Northern statesmen and by Southern statesmen, are substantially the same, Tlie Northern view and the South ern in these cases were nearly the same. a. That the Constitution is federal, namely, a compact be tween the States, and was made by the States, namely by the people of each State, acting for the State, and not by solitary individuals, each acting for himself. See Gouvcrneur Morris s Declaration, Dr. /SI Johnson s Remarks, <&c. b. That the Constitution was formed for the States, and for individuals only as a citizen of a State. c. That all powers not distinctly given to the General Gov ernment, are reserved to the States ; and that it is just as im portant that the reserved powers should remain unimpaired, as that the granted powers should be unimpaired. d. Tli at each State, as a party to the compact, must judge as to the powers granted, and of any violation of the compact. e. That if a dispute should arise between a State and its co- States, in respect to what powers are granted and what powers are reserved, an amendment to the compact by a Convention of the States, or otherwise, must settle the doubtful point. f. That if the compact be broken by the States " on one side, it is broken on all sides." 3. Violent resistance was, during the TVar of 1812, threatened against some of the requisitions of the Federal Government. Governor TRUMBULL of Connecticut, took the ground, that on great emergencies, when the National Legislature had been led to overstep its Constitutional powers, it became the right and the duty of the State Legislatures " to interpose their pro tecting shield between the rights and the liberties of the people, and the assumed power of the General Government." Gov ernor CHITTENDEN, of Vermont, had issued his proclamation, re calling the Vermont militia. And when a member of Congress proposed to instruct the Attorney-general to prosecute Governor CHITTENDEN, " Mr. OTIS laid on the table of the Massachusetts senate a resolve expressive of the duty and readiness of Massa chusetts, to aid with her whole power the Governor of Vcr- KEMAEKS. 73 mont, and the people of any other State, in support of Consti tutional rights, by whomsoever infringed." By a legislative act, the authorities of the United States were forbid " to use the gaols in Massachusetts for the confinement of prisoners com mitted by any other than judicial authority ; and the gaolers were directed, at the end of thirty days, to discharge all British officers, prisoners of war, committed to them for close confine ment." A Bill for the enlistment of minors having passed Congress, the Legislatures of Connecticut and Massachusetts " proceeded to pass an act requiring the State judges to discharge, on habeas corpus, all minors enlisted without the consent of their parents or guardians, and subjecting to fine and imprisonment any per sons concerned in any such enlistment, who should remove any minor out of the State, so that he could not be then discharged." 4. Mr. MADISON was greatly disturbed and annoyed by the meeting of the Hartford Convention, and by the necessity of meeting the commissioners appointed by Massachusetts and Con necticut. But the tidings of peace came, just as they arrived in Washington, and relieved him from the necessity of receiv ing them in the character of commissioners, and of entering into negotiations with them on the subject of their mission ; but placed them in a very awkward position. On the arrival of the intelligence that a treaty of peace had been signed, the people of Washington hastened to the Presi dent s levee, in the fulness of their joy. One, \vlio was present, told me, that the hilarity exceeded all common bounds ; that, not satisfied with congratulating one another once, they would, many of them, repeat the congratulations. Mr. MADISON acted as if a great load had been removed from his mind. Mrs. MAD ISON was more of a queen than ever. When the mirth was at the highest, the commissioners were announced. Immediately, from the shock, there was a uni versal stillness, like that in a church. They were received by Mr. and Mrs. MADISON with all due courtesy ; but it was some minutes before the assembly relapsed into its former hilarity, and before the commissioners were restored to their natural dignity and self-possession. 5. What course would have been taken in Kew England, if 74: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. peace had not been declared, it is impossible to say. How far the General Government might have been disposed to comply with the proposals or demands of the Hartford Convention, it is impossible to say. But this much can be said, that the men who were concerned in this sectional movement, in the State Legislatures and the Convention, were men of the highest char acter for intelligence, virtue, and patriotism ; as also were those concerned in the Virginia and Kentucky resolutions in 179S-- 9. In each case they knew their rights, and knowing, they dared to maintain them. 6. The reserved rights of the States need to be constantly kept before the minds of those who are called to act in the legislative, the executive, and the judicial departments of the General Government, lest they should lose their influence, and the granted powers become, in practice, too much enlarged. There is a strong centralizing tendency, arising from that love of power which is inherent in human nature, from a desire to carry out certain measures deemed useful, but which the Con stitution does not authorize ; and especially from the great patronage of the Government, which it can use to induce men to support its usurpation. 7. The relations of the Federal Government to the State Governments are not well understood. The following are the remarks of Mr. JEFFERSON : " "With respect to our State and Federal Governments, I do not think that their relations are correctly understood by for eigners. They generally suppose the former to be subordinate to the latter. But this is not the case. They are co-ordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. But you may ask, if the two departments should claim each the same subject of power, where is the common umpire to decide between them ? In cases of little importance and urgency, the prudence of both parties will keep them aloof from the questionable ground ; but if it can neither be avoided, nor compromised, a Convention of the States must be called to ascribe the doubtful power to that department which they may tliink best" KOSSUTH, it is said, formed an exception to this general re mark respecting foreigners ; for he understood at once the na ture of the American Confederacy. " It is," said he, " a Re* public, composed of republics." KEMAEKS. 75 But the relations of the Federal Government to the State Governments are not well understood, even by the native-born citizens. The Virginia and Kentucky resolutions on the one hand, and on the other the doctrines taught in Massachusetts and Connecticut during the war, and, indeed, some years before that era, if carefully studied, will assist a citizen of the States to understand our double Government - 9 and to learn what are the powers granted to the Federal Government, and what are the rights reserved to the States. 8. While New England was meditating the separation of the States in certain contingencies, the general feeling in that sec tion was, that a peaceful separation ought to take place, if at all ; or, in the language of the Hartford Convention, that " a separation by mutual arrangement will be preferable to an al liance by constraint among nominal friends, but real enemies." JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, in a speech delivered in the city of New York, in 1839, just fifty years after the Federal Constitution went into operation, expressed the same sentiments : " But the indissoluble link of union between the people of the several States in this Confederation is, after all, not in the right but in the heart. If the day should ever come may heaven avert it! when the affections of the people in these States shall be alienated from each other when the fraternal feeling shall give way to cold indifference, or collisions of in terest shall foster into hatred the bonds of political association, will not long hold together parties no longer attracted by the- magnetism of conciliated interests and friendly sympathies ;. and/<zr better will it be for the people of the disunited States- to part in friendship from each other, than to be held, together by constraint. Then will be the time for reverting to the pre cedents which occurred at the formation and adoption of the Constitution, to form again a more perfect union by dissolving that which could no longer bind, and to leave the separate parta to be united by the law of political gravitation to the centre." CHAPTER VII. MK. MONROE S ADMINISTRATION. MARCH 4, 1817 MARCH 4, 1825. THE period of Mr. MONROE S administration has been styled the " era of good feeling." The war had, with some reverses, been triumphantly sustained. Old sectional feuds had died out. The Federal party having ceased to exist, new political friendships had been formed. Mr. CLAY had brought from abroad an admiration of some of the institutions of Great Britain. Some of the old difficulties with that nation had been settled. The manufactures of the North had, to some extent, been protected by the tariff law of 1816, passed partly by Southern votes. The commercial interests of the North had been favored by the establishment of the United States Bank ; the bill having been signed by a Southern President, who had been opposed to a bank. Business revived. Internal improve ments were projected. Hopes of general prosperity were rife in the land. President MONROE made a tour through the North ern and Eastern States, and was everywhere received with demon strations of cordiality and good will. And yet in his adminis tration, a sectional contest arose of the most bitter and dangerous character, threatening at once the unity and peace of the country. RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY IN ^MISSOURI. February 13, 1819. The bill, enabling Missouri to form a State Government, was taken up in the House of Representa- RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOURI. 77 lives ; the question being on the following amendment, moved by Mr. TALLMAGE of New York : " And provided, That the further introduction of slavery or involuntary servitude be prohibited, except for the punishment of crimes, whereof the party has been duly convicted ; and that all children born within the said State, after the admission thereof into the Union, shall be free at the age of twenty-five years." Mr. TAYLOR, of New York, in favor of the amendment, after speaking on the importance of the question, said there were two points at issue : 1. Has Congress the constitutional power to prohibit slavery as the condition of admission ; 2. If the power exists, is it wise to exercise it ? His arguments were drawn from that article in the Consti tution, which declares that " the Congress shall have power to dispose of, and make all needful rules respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States ; " from the fact that slavery is wrong, being contrary to the Declaration ol Independence, which asserts " that all men are created equal ;" from the fact that slavery is incompatible with republican in stitutions. Mr. P. P. BARBOUR, of Virginia, opposed the amendment, on the ground that the Congress has no constitutional power to impose the restriction ; that Congress has power to " admit new States into the Union." " The term State has a fixed and deter minate meaning. It imports the existence of a political com munity, free and independent, and entitled to exercise the rights of sovereignty, such as the original States enjoyed. Virginia has slaves ; Pennsylvania has no slaves, but she has power to have them ; ought not Missouri to have the same power in this respect that Pennsylvania has ? " Other gentlemen who engaged in the discvfesion took similar grounds. The amendment passed in the Committee of the Whole, 79 to 67. On the 16th of February, the House proceeded to consider the restriction. After an able discussion, the amendment was passed by a vote of 87 to 76, on the first branch ; and by a vote of 82 to 78, on the second branch. The Senate passed the bill to admit Missouri without the re- 78 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. etriction, March 2d. On the motion to concur with the Senate, the vote was 76 yeas, 78 nays. Thus the bill failed, the Houses having failed to agree. " This," says Benton, in the " Debates in Congress," " was the end of the bill, and it left the Houses geographically divided, and the same division extending itself, with electric speed, to the States. It was a period of deep apprehension, filling with dismay the hearts of the steadiest patriots. It would be nine months before Congress would sit again. The agitation, great as it was, was to become greater, and no one could foresee its bounds. The movement to put the slavery restriction on Ar kansas greatly aggravated the Missouri question, and seemed to menace the slave States with total exclusion from Louisiana." It was during the agitation and suspense of the public mind, that Mr. MADISON wrote a letter to ROBERT WALSH, dated JS r ov. 27, 1819, just before the meeting of Congress, from which the following is an extract : " Parties, under some denomination or other, must always be expected in a free government like ours. When the individuals belonging to them are intermingled in every part of the whole country, they strengthen the union of the whole, while they divide every part. Should a state of parties arise, founded on geographical boundaries, and other physical and permanent distinctions which happen to coincide with them, what is then to control those great repulsive masses from awful shocks against each other ? " The Southern States deeply felt, that by the action of the House, their constitutional rights had been denied to them, and that language had been used and arguments employed, derog atory to their character. It was in reference to this state of things, and while the country was in a blaze of excitement, that Mr. JEFFERSON wrote, that the notes of alarm fell upon his ear like a " fire bell in the night." " The Missouri question," he says, " is the most portentous one that ever threatened our Union. In the gloomiest moments of the Revolutionary War, I never had any apprehensions equal to w r hat I feel from this source." In the early part of the next session in Congress, Jan. 3, 1820, it was proposed in the Senate to couple Missouri with Maine in one bill, the latter having applied to be admitted as RESTRICTION OF SLAVERY IN MISSOURI. 79 a State into the Union. To tins there was great opposition on the part of Northern members, and very extensive discussion, in which the evils of slavery formed an important part of the staple of a portion of the speeches. To show the absurdity of coupling them together, Mr. ROBERTS of Pennsylvania said : " What do we find in the front of the Constitution of Maine ? Article I. Section 1 : All men are born free and equal, and are free to worship God in their own way. Here is a substantial pledge to the good old faith. To her we may say,* Come, sister, take your place in this constellation : the lustre of your counte nance will brighten the American galaxy. But do not urge us to admit Missouri under a pretence of congeniality with the visage of a savage, deformed with the hideous cicatrices of bar baric pride, with her features marred as if the finger of Lucifer had been drawn across it." Mr. PINKNEY, of Maryland, in his speech on the other side, said : " New States may be admitted by Congress into this Union. What is that Union ? a confederation of States equal in sovereignty, capable of every thing which the Constitution does not forbid, or authorize Congress to forbid. It is an equal union between parties equally sovereign. * * By acceding to it, the new State is placed on the same footing as the original States. * * If it comes in shorn of its beams, crippled and disparaged beyond the original States it is not into the original Union that it comes, for it is a different sort of union. The first was union inter pares j this is a union between disparates, be tween giants and a dwarf, between power and feebleness, be tween full-proportioned sovereignties and a miserable image of power, a thing which that very union has shrunk and shrivelled from its past size, instead of preserving it in its true dimen sions." In the Senate, the vote for uniting the two bills was 23 in favor, and 21 against ; Feb. 16, 1820. At this stage of the business, it became evident, that though the Senate was willing to receive Missouri upon an equal foot ing with the other States, the House would persist in excluding her, unless she would consent to come into the Union with im paired sovereignty, and unable to determine what some of her internal institutions should be. 80 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. THE COMPROMISE. Mr. THOMAS, of Illinois, proposed in the Senate to amend the bill, by striking out the restrictive clause, to pass the bill for the admission of Maine, and to prohibit slavery in all of the terri tory north of 36 30 , that the Northern members might in this way allow Missouri to come into the Union without restriction, upon the same footing as the other States. His proposal was acceded to, and the amendment was passed in the Senate, March 2, 1820, by a vote of 22 in favor, and 15 against it. In the House the amendment passed by a vote of 134 in favor, and 42 against it. Still Missouri did not obtain admittance into the Union. At the next session of Congress, for the third time Missouri presented herself for admission into the Union. Maine had been admitted, and her representatives were on the floor of Congress. Slavery was prohibited north of 36 30 . But strange to say, the compromise was not carried out by the Northern members, with some honorable exceptions ! On the question in the House, Shall Missouri be admitted on the compromise of 1820? the vote stood, Feb. 13, 1821, 88 against admission, 67 in favor of admission. From Maine, 5 against, 2 in favor ; from New Hampshire G, all against ; from Massachusetts 13, all against ; from Rhode Island 1, and in favor ; from Connecticut, 6 against, and 1 in favor ; from Ver mont C, all against ; from New York, IT against, and 7 in favor ; from New Jersey, 1 against, and 3 in favor ; from Penn sylvania, 22 against, and 1 in favor ; from Ohio 6, all against ; from Indiana 1, and against ; from Illinois 1, and against. Thus the North rejected the compromise which had been made March 2, 1820, nearly a year before. Were the Northern States faithful to the compromise? Candor must admit, as the above votes show, that they were not. They had got their share, and it was the lion s share. Maine had been admitted into the Union. Slavery had been prohibited by a stretch of power, north of 36 30 X , upon the com promise by which Missouri was to be admitted, but they still refused to admit her into the Union. One of their number, Mr. THE COMPROMISE. 81 CLARK of New York, who had voted against the compromise, did say : " I consider myself bound by the pledge. I cannot for a moment consent, as a member of this House, to observe a punic faith even with Missouri." Others did not faithfully keep good faith, but punic faith. After the Northern members had thus refused to carry out the compromise, Mr. BROWN, of Kentucky, proposed to repeal the act prohibiting slavery north of 30 30 X . But they would not consent ; they would keep the consideration, but w r ould not carry out the compromise by which they obtained the con sideration. The Southern States regarded the compromise of 1820 as an agreement between their members and the Northern members, and they looked to the latter, with upbraiding or imploring eyes, to carry it out by the admission of Missouri. Yet still the latter refused. Proofs on both points are abundant. Hear Mr. CHARLES PINCKNEY S testimony. He was, it will be recollected, a leading member of the Convention that formed the Constitution, and was at the present time a member of Con gress from South Carolina who voted for the compromise. " I feel authorized to express this fear (of the dissolution of the Union) by the fact, that gentlemen in opposition now throw off the veil, and expressly declare that it is their intention to leave, if possible, this question to the next Congress, to leave to them, if possible, unfettered by any act of ours, the power to decide how far the true interests of the Union may then make it necessary to produce anew, and struggle for the imposition of the restric tion on slavery, which has, during the three last sessions, shaken the Union to the very foundations. They openly avow that they do not consider themselves bound by the compact of the last year, confining the restriction to the north of 36 30 , but aver if they have the strength to do so, their intention to leave the next Congress free to decide it as they please." Months had passed away, between the time when the com promise bill had been passed and the succeeding session, and yet at this session the North still refused to admit Missouri ! "What was the real motive for this apparently treacherous conduct on the part of the North ? It was the desire to retain political power. This was the temptation to the political sin 02J THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. of still refusing to admit Missouri upon the same footing as the original States. What was the pretext for this delay and this shirking the responsibility ? It was that Missouri had, in her constitution, made provision to exclude free negroes and mulattoes from the State. It was but a pretext, because other States have been ad mitted without resistance or objection, in whose constitutions there were similar provisions ; and Massachusetts had placed similar provisions on her statute book as early as 1788, just after the ratification of the Constitution. Missouri was finally admitted February 28, 1821. Petitions for the admission of Missouri were presented March 16, 1818. A bill was introduced into the House to enable Missouri to form a State government, February 13, 1819. The restriction was moved February 17, 1819. It thus took more than three years from the first-mentioned date, and more than two years from the second date, to procure the admission of Missouri. She was finally admitted upon a vote of 86 in favor and 82 against. Of the Northern States, New Hampshire cast no vote in favor ; Massachusetts, two votes ; Connecticut, one vote ; Vermont, no vote in favor ; New York, seven ; New Jersey, two ; Pennsylvania, four votes. Not a single Northern State gave its vote in favor of the admission of Missouri. Of the Northern votes cast in favor of the admission of Missouri upon the final vote, some were due to the sense of constitutional right which Missouri had to admission upon the original footing of other States, expressed in the early part of the debates ; others were due to the compromise, to which they remained faithful ; others still were due to political considerations of a patriotic or party character. " For a while," says Benton, in his " Thirty Years Yiew," "this formidable Missouri question threatened the total over throw of all political parties or principles, and the substitution of geographical parties, discriminated by a slave line, and of course destroying the first and proper action of the Federal Government, and leading eventually to a separation of the States. It was a Federal movement, accruing to the benefit of that party, and at first was overwhelming, sweeping all the Northern Democracy into its current, and giving the supremacy REMARKS. 83 to its adversaries. When tins effect was perceived, the North- eni Democracy became alarmed, and only wanted a turn in the popular feeling at home, to take the first opportunity to get rid of the question by admitting the State, and reestablishing party lines upon the basis of political principles. This was the de cided feeling when I arrived at "Washington, and many of the old Northern Democracy took early opportunity to declare themselves to me to that eifect, and showed that they were ready to vote for the admission of the State in any form that would answer the purpose, and save themselves from going so far as to lose their own State, and give the ascendant to their political adversaries." But patriotic considerations also operated upon another class of minds to induce them to vote for the admission of Missouri. The whole country was agitated and threatened with disunion. By voting to admit, the agitation would cease, and the danger of disunion be removed. Members of Congress from Northern States, who voted for the admission of Missouri, were influenced : 1, by a regard for the constitutional right of Missouri to come into the Union upon the same footing as the original States ; or 2, by a regard for the Democratic party ; or 3, by a regard for the peace and union of the country ; or 4, by a regard to the compromise. There was at least one, Mr. CLARK, of New York, who was in fluenced by the last consideration, though he did not vote for the compromise. How many are to be classed with him it is difficult to say. It is remarkable that every man belonging to New England, in the Lower House, who voted to admit Missouri, was ostra cized from the confidence of the public, by the intolerant or un forgiving spirit which prevailed. It was said of Mr. SHAW, one of them, that he was killed by the negroes, and that Mr. DWIGHT, of the same State, was killed by the Indians, (in the Georgia case.) I have seen no proof that New England was ever reconciled to the admission of Missour REMARKS. 1. Mr. MONROE was the last of the Virginia dynasty. When he went out of office in 1825, the Government under the Con- 84: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. stitution had been in operation thirty-six years, during which period a Virginian had been at the head of the Government thirty-two years. WASHINGTON, JEFFERSON, MADISON, and MON- EOE, were each worthy of the place. But there grew up, natu rally, in the breasts of Northern men, a bitter jealousy of the South, and especially of Virginia, whose sons had for so long a time occupied the Presidential chair. These men had been elected to office by controlling Southern votes, aided, indeed, in each case, by votes of the North, and in one case, by all the electoral votes of the North. At six successive elections, North ern men had brought forward their Presidential candidates only to suffer defeat and mortification. As a consequence, there grew up a strong desire to lessen the influence of the slavehold- ing States, and to prevent the increase of their number. The Northern States were under the influence of a great political temptation to do a great political wrong to Missouri and the slave States. The people of the North, generally, were prepared to enter into the feelings of their political leaders, in opposing the in crease of the political power of the South ; and, in their desire to extend to all men the enjoyment of their natural rights, they were ready to overlook the constitutional rights of Missouri. 2. In order to show the true state of the case, in the estima tion of enlightened statesmen, I quote the following extract from a speech of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, delivered in Congress, 1835, in favor of the admission of Arkansas, whose constitution was offered for acceptance ; it being of the same character as that of Missouri, both of them permitting slavery : " Mr. Chair man, I cannot, consistently w T ith my sense of obligation as a citizen of the United States, and bound by oath to support their Constitution, I cannot object to the admission of Arkansas into the Union as a slave State. I cannot propose or agree to make it a condition of her admission into the Union, that a conven tion of her people shall expunge this article from the Constitu tion. She is entitled to admission as a slave State." The argu ment against the admission of Missouri, from the Declaration of Independence, that " all men are created equal," is irrelevant. The argument from the power of Congress to make " needful rules and regulations in respect to the Territory and other prop- EEMAKKS. 85 erty," is irrelevant, for this " power " relates to property. The argument from the clause, " New States may be admitted by Congress into the Union," is all on the other side, from the very meaning of the terms. The House, therefore, was wrong in im posing the restriction as the condition of admitting Missouri, and the Senate was right in voting to admit her without this restriction. Thus much in regard to RESTRICTION. 3. But did the North act honorably in respect to the COM- PEOMISE ? This compromise was proposed by a Northern man, and was accepted by Southern men and by Northern men ; and yet it was not adhered to by Northern men, after the Nortli had received the advantage of admitting the State of Maine, and after slavery had been prohibited north of 36 30 ; . When Missouri a third time had presented herself for admittance with this compact or compromise in her hand, she was again rejected by a vote of 87 against admission, and G7 in favor of it. 4. The difference between the " restriction " and the " com promise," has not been well understood. " No words," says BENTON, in his " Debates," " have been more confounded than those of the restriction and the compromise ; so much so, that some of the eminent speakers of the time have had their speeches against the restriction quoted as being against the compromise, of which they were zealous advocates. Though confounded, no two measures could be more opposite in their nature and effects. The restriction was to operate on a State, the compromise on a Territory. The restriction was to prevent the State of Missouri from admitting slavery ; the compromise was to admit slavery there, and to divide the rest of Louisiana about equally between free and slave soil. The restriction came from the North, the compromise from the South. The restriction raised the storm, the compromise allayed it." 5. One of the most unfortunate circumstances attending the debate was, that some of the Northern members used intemper ate and insulting language towards the Southern men and South ern institutions, which were not soon forgotten. Instead of dis cussing constitutional questions, by referring to the Constitution as the sole ground of argument, they uttered the language of in vective and sarcasm against slavery itself, if not against slave holders. Such men as Eurus KING and HARBISON GEAY OTIS 86 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. were not guilty of these improprieties. But there were others who drew from their quiver arrows envenomed by hatred, and sent them, at random or with deliberate aim, to rankle in the breast of the South. And the effect of their speeches upon the North was to kindle up a bitter and intolerant spirit. The present writer remembers that, in a most respectable Northern city, during the discussions respecting the admittance of Missouri, a small company of boys were employed to carry through the streets, on a flag, the picture of a chained African, uttering the words, " Am I not a man and a brother ? " and also another, in which the " noble Virginians " were represented, with, up raised whips, driving the negroes at their field work. In this way, but more especially by speeches and inflammatory articles in newspapers, the passions of the people of the North were kindled into indignation. 6. To men of this generation it may seem strange, that worthy men in both Houses should refuse to vote for the admis sion of Missouri upon the grounds alleged, and for the reasons given. But it should be borne in mind that the real reason was the fear of increasing the political power of the South. Under the influence of this fear, on the part of demagogues in Con gress, the evils of slavery were magnified, and the constitutional powers of Congress were distorted, until the members, in given cases, felt that they should commit political suicide by voting for the measure of admitting Missouri. .It was easier to excite the masses than it was to calm the excitement. In some cases they did commit political suicide. They voted for the measure, but their constituents never forgave them. Some of the State Legislatures passed resolutions against the measure, which might operate to prevent the members from those States from acting in the premises, according to their own judgment. 7. Did Congress act Constitutionally in prohibiting slavery north of 36 30 ? This question did not come up in a very dis tinct form for discussion, though there were those, Mr. RANDOLPH among them, who refused to vote for the compromise on that ground. His penetrating mind saw the constitutional objec tion. But the Senate and the House were in an awkward rela tion to each other, each insisting on its own bill. Missouri, with great reason, complained of the treatment she had experi- KEMAKKS. 87 enced. Maine was clamoring for admission. The whole coun try was agitated. The power of Congress was greater over Territory than over States. The ordinance of 1787, which ex cluded slavery, was remembered, while the difference between the two cases was not insisted on. Congress was tired of the subject. Some thought, perhaps, that it was best to do a great right and a little wrong. The bill, as amended, came from the Senate without very much discussion in that body, into the House, March 2, 1820, and was passed the same day. The subject has since been more carefully examined, and the conviction has been produced upon some of the ablest states men of the land, that the Constitution gives no power to inter dict slavery in the Territories. The restriction of slavery in Missouri as the condition of admission into the Union, with the delay, after the restriction was struck out, of the bill, on the ground of an invidious dis tinction between the States, opened a fountain of sectional feel ing, the bitter waters from which at the time deluged the land. These waters from that fountain have not yet ceased to flow. CHAPTER VHL JOHN QUINCY ADAMS ADMINISTRATION. MARCH 4, 1825 MARCH 4, 1829. MR. ADAMS was elected by the House of Representatives over General JACKSON, there having been a failure to make an election of President by the electoral votes. The friends of Mr. CLAY united with the friends of Mr. ADAMS in placing the latter in the Presidential chair ; though General JACKSON had the largest vote of the electors. Mr. ADAMS had large experience and undoubted honesty as a statesman, but was inclined to a broad interpretation of the Constitution ; and, like Mr. CLAY, was in favor of a high tariff, as was supposed. It was very natural that Mr. CLAY should unite his political fortunes with him, in preference to General JACKSON ; but by doing so, they both lost some share of the public confidence, especially from the circumstance that Mr. CLAY accepted of the office of Secretary of State under him. Sectional feelings were strongly excited during the Presidential contest, and especially during the administration of Mr. ADAMS. The protective policy, sanctioned by the tariff act of 1824, en tered now, for the first time, into a Presidential contest. THE TARIFF OF 1828. Previous to the year 1816, protection to American manu factures had been incidental. The Constitution gave Congress power to raise a revenue, but not to encourage one branch of THE TAEIFF OF 1828. 89 industry to the injury of another. As the powers granted by that instrument do not allow Congress to protect manufactures directly, they were forced to depend on such an amount of protec tion as they could incidentally receive from the imposition of duties for revenue. By a judicious discrimination as to what imported articles should be dutied, and what should be the duty 011 each class, the American manufacturer had the advantage of the foreign manufacturer of the same class of articles, by the amount of the duty paid added to the expense of transportation ; while the consumer could not complain, because what he paid additional to what he would have to pay for the same articles if imported duty free, he paid only as revenue for the support of the Government. But in 1816 a new policy was adopted. It had been found by the experience of the war, that the country had suffered great inconvenience from depending on foreign manufactures. Accordingly, patriotism was appealed to for the support of do mestic manufactures, which would render the country more in dependent of foreign nations. Besides, a large amount of capi tal had been embarked in manufactures, which, at peace prices, with foreign competition, could not be sustained. The national debt must be paid. In this state of things the tariff law of 1816 was enacted, the opposition to it being based chiefly on the ground that it would produce an injurious effect upon com merce. In 1824 a bill was passed, giving still further protection to manufactures. It was in support of this bill that Mr. CLAY. made his celebrated speech in favor of what, by a strange mis nomer, he called " an American system." It was the privilege of the present writer to hear that speech, and, indeed, all the speeches of importance delivered that session on the subject of the tariff. In a very taking and persuasive statement of the present distress of the country and the necessity of a change of policy in favor of manufactures, he presented the general and special arguments in favor of a protective tariff. He was aided by manufacturers or their agents, who were present to furnish him, and others united with him, with facts which would operate on the minds of members to induce them to favor do mestic industry employed in the manufacturing business. A 90 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVERSY. political party, if not formed already, was about to be formed on this issue among others. Mr. CLAY was still regarded as a democrat ; and such was his patriotism and his eminent per sonal qualities, such were his eloquence and powers of reasoning, that he had great influence in carrying the bill through the House, notwithstanding the vigorous opposition against it. Mr. WEBSTEK was opposed to the bill, and, in his reply, was more than equal to Mr. CLAY in his arguments, and hardly in ferior in eloquence. Massachusetts went against the bill with the South ; but it was carried by a vote in the House of 107 to 102, and in the Senate of 25 to 20. "With other distinguished men w T ho were opposed to the " new policy," inaugurated by Mr. CLAY, and so characterized by him, was RUFUS KING. Mr. CLAY saw clearly that it would be opposed by Southern members, because it sacrificed the interests of their constituents for the benefit of other States. He spoke of the importance of preserving the harmony of the whole Union. He remarked that " if the North, the East, and the West formed an independ ent State, unassociated with the South, can there be a doubt that the restrictive system w^ould be carried to the point of pro hibition of every foreign fabric of which they produce the raw material, and which they could manufacture ? Such would be their policy if alone ; but they are fortunately connected with the South, which believes its interest to require a free admission of foreign manufacture." Mr. CLAY evidently intended to act in the most conciliatory manner towards the South ; but he also was determined to carry the measure. Mr. McDuFFiE, in one of his speeches, said " that the honor able Speaker had remarked that, in the legislation of this coun try, the most scrupulous regard should be had to the general harmony. But he put it to the Speaker whether it was not the introduction of such a bill which was likely to disturb that har mony, rather than its discussion." He went on to show that it is a question distinctly arraying against each other the two dif ferent sections of the Confederacy. All the arguments by w r hich the proposed duty is supported have been, therefore, and neces sarily must be, of a sectional character. " When gentlemen are attempting by legislation to affect the interests of the two sec tions of the TJnion relatively to each other, how can they throw THE TARIFF OF 1828- 91 upon us the responsibility of that feeling, which the discussion may excite ? " Mr. WEBSTER replied to Mr. CLAY on another point, in a manner equally triumphant. " On the general question, sir, allow me to ask if the doctrine of prohibition, as a general doc trine, be not preposterous ? Suppose all nations to act upon it, they would be prosperous then precisely in proportion as they abolished intercourse with one another. The less of mutual commerce they had the better, upon this hypothesis. Protec tion and encouragement may be, and are, doubtless, sometimes wise and beneficial, if kept within proper limits ; but when car ried to an extravagant height, or the point of prohibition, the absurd character of the system manifests itself." Notwithstanding the very able argumentation against the bill, it passed as already stated, by a small majority. Mr. CLAY became identified with the protective system. It became a set tled matter that he should promote the interests of the manufac turers, and that they should act politically under his leadership. Jn JILL S, the manufacturers applied to Congress for still fur ther protection. They previously held a convention in Harris- burg, wliicn met July 30, 1827, in which the subject of pro tection was discussed with great earnestness ; and having settled that question to their own satisfaction, they addressed Congress in a memorial, in which they asked for a large increase of duties. In the mean time Massachusetts, and New England gen erally, though extensively opposed to the tariff of 1824, had ex perienced a change in their interests or in their political pur poses, so that they were disposed to go for higher protective* duties. Mr. WEBSTER, who had supported the interests of com merce, in opposition to the interests of manufactures, was now ready to vote for a jbigh_ tariff bilL for the benefit of corporate capital. The Southern States, thus deserted by New England, became, greatly alarmed at the impending additional burdens which were to be imposed on their industry. The President, and the Secretary of State, Mr. CLAY, were in favor of protection, as were a majority of both Houses in Congress. But such men as JOHN KANDOLPH, Mr. McDurFiE, General HAMILTON, P. P. BARBOUR, and others, made very able speeches against the bill, 92 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. showing up the fallacies of the Harrisburg address, and the wrong of taxing one part of the country for the benefit of an other part, beyond what is necessary for the purposes of rev enue. The bill, however, was passed April 22, 1828, by a vote of 105 to 94. On the passage of the bill, Mr. WILDE moved to amend the title, by adding the words, " and for the encouragement of do mestic manufactures." Mr. RANDOLPH opposed the amend ment, and said if the bill had its true name, it should be called, " A bill to rob and plunder nearly one-half of the country for the benefit of the residue." Mr. DRAYTON proposed to strike out all after " An act," and to insert, " to increase the duties upon certain imports, for the purpose of increasing the profits of cer tain manufactures." It would not have been decorous to pro pose the additional amendment, " and to make a certain man President." PROTEST OF GEORGIA. Like the tariff act of 1824, but with much greater empnasis, this tariff act of 1828 was passed in opposition to the determined opposition of the Southern States, an opposition which continued to manifest itself during its operation. A protest against it by the Legislature of Georgia, was introduced into the Senate of the United States, through the Yice-President, January 12, 1829, of w T hich the following is an extract : " In. her sovereign character, the State of Georgia protests against the act of the last session of Congress, entitled, An act in alteration of the several acts imposing duties on imports, as deceptive in its title, fraudulent in its pretexts, oppressive in its exactions, par tial and unjust in its operation, unconstitutional in its well- known objects, ruinous to commerce and agriculture, to secure a hateful monopoly to a combination of importunate manufac turers. " Demanding the repeal of an act which has already dis turbed the Union and endangered the public tranquillity, weak ened the confidence of the whole States in the Federal Govern ment, and diminished the affection of large masses of the people to the Union itself, and the abandonment of the degrading sys tem which considers the people as incapable of wisely directing PROTEST OF GEORGIA. 93 their own enterprise, winch sets up the servants of the people in Congress as the exclusive judges of what pursuits are most ad vantageous and suitable for those by whom they were elected, the State of Georgia expects that, in perpetual testimony there of, the deliberate and solemn expression of her opinion will be carefully kept in the archives of the Senate ; and in justification of her character to the present generation and to posterity, if, unfortunately, Congress, disregarding the protest, and continu ing to pervert powers granted for clearly defined and well-un derstood purposes, to effectuate objects never intended by the great parties by whom the Constitution was framed, to be in trusted to the controlling guardianship of the Federal Govern ment, should render necessary measures of a more decisive char acter, for the protection of the people of the State, and the vin dication of the Constitution of the United States." Mr. BERRIEX, on the occasion of its presentation, made, among other remarks, the following : " Forty years of success ful experiment have proved the efficiency of this Government to sustain us in an honorable intercourse with the other nations of the world. Externally in peace and in war, amid the fluctua tions of commerce and the strife of arms, it has protected our interests and defended our rights. One trial, one fearful trial, remains to be made. It is one, under the apprehension of which the bravest may tremble, which the wise and the good will anxiously endeavor to avoid. It is that experiment which shall test the competency of this Government to preserve our internal peace, whenever a question, vitally affecting the bond which unites us as one people, shall come to be solemnly agitated be tween the sovereign members of this Confederacy. In propor tion to its dangers should be our solicitude to avoid it, by ab staining on the one hand from acts of doubtful legislation, as well as by the manner of resistance on the other, to those which arc deemed unconstitutional. Between the independent mem bers of this Confederacy, sir, there can be no common arbiter. They are necessarily remitted to their own sovereign will, delib erately expressed, in the exercise of those reserved rights of sovereignty, the delegation of which would have been an act of political suicide. The designation of such an arbiter, sir, was, by the force of invincible necessity, casus omissus among the 1)1 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. provisions of a Constitution conferring limited powers, tlie in terpretation of which was to be confided to the subordinate agents, created by those who were intrusted to administer it. " I earnestly hope that the wise and conciliatory spirit of this Government, and of those of the several States, will post pone to a period far distant, the day that will summon us to so fearful a trial. If, indeed, we are doomed to encounter it, I as earnestly hope that it may be entered upon in the spirit of peace, and with cherished recollections of former amity." PROTEST OF SOUTH CAROLINA. February 10, 1829. Mr. W. SMITH, Senator, presented to the Senate the protest of South Carolina against the tariff act of 1828, for the following reasons : " 1. Because the good people of this commonwealth believe the powers of Congress were delegated to it in trust for the ac complishment of certain specified objects, which limit and con trol them, and that every exercise of them for any other purpose is a violation of the Constitution, as unwarrantable as the un disguised assumption of substantive powers, not granted or ex pressly withheld. " 2. Because the power to lay duties on imports is, and in its very nature can be, only the means of effecting the objects specified in the Constitution ; since no free Government, and, least of all, a Government of enumerated powers, can of right impose any tax (any more than a penalty) which is not at once justified by public necessity, and clearly within the scope and province of the social compact ; and since the right of confining appropriations of the public nioney to such legitimate and con stitutional objects is as essential to the liberties of the people, as their unquestionable privilege to be taxed only by their own consent. " 3. Because they believe that the tariff law, passed by Con gress at its last session, and all other acts of which the principal object is the protection of manufactures, or any other branch of domestic industry if- they be considered as the exercise of a supposed power in Congress to tax at its own good will and pleasure and to apply the money raised to objects not specified PROTEST OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 95 in the Constitution is a violation of these fundamental princi ples, a breach of a well-defined trust, and a perversion of the high powers vested in the Federal Government for Federal pur poses only. " 4. Because such acts considered in the light of a regula tion of commerce, are equally liable to objection ; since, although the power to regulate commerce may, like other powers, be ex ercised so as to protect domestic manufactures, yet it is clearly distinguished from a power to do so co nomine, both in the na ture of the thing, and in the common acceptation of the terms ; and because the confounding of them would lead to the most extravagant results ; since the encouragement of domestic indus try implies an absolute control over all the interests, resources, and pursuits of a people, and is inconsistent with the idea of any other than a simple consolidated Government. " 5. Because, from contemporaneous expositions of the Con stitution in the numbers of the Federalist, (which is cited only be cause the Supreme Court has recognized its authority,) it is clear that to regulate commerce was considered by the Convention as only incidentally connected with the encouragement of agri culture and manufactures ; and because the laying imposts and duties on imports was not understood to justify, in any case, a prohibition of foreign commodities, except as a means of extend ing commerce by coercing foreign nations to a fair reciprocity in their intercourse with us, or for some other bona fide com mercial purpose. " G. Because, whilst the power to protect manufactures is nowhere expressly granted to Congress, nor can be considered as necessary and proper to carry into effect any specified power, it seems to be expressly reserved to the States by the tenth sec tion of the first article of the Constitution. " 7. Because, even admitting Congress have a constitutional right to protect manufactures by the imposition of duties, or by regulations of commerce, designed principally for that purpose, yet a tariff, the operation of which is grossly unequal and op pressive, is such an abuse of power as is incompatible with the principles of a free Government and the great end of civil socie ty, and equality of rights and protection. " 8. Finally, because South Carolina, from her climate, situ- 96 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. ation, and peculiar institutions, is, and must ever continue to be, wholly dependent upon agriculture and commerce, not only for her prosperity, but for her very existence as a State ; because the valuable products of her soil, the blessings by which Divine Providence seems to have designed to compensate for the dis advantages under w r hich she suffers in other respects, are among the very few that can be cultivated by slave labor ; and if, by the loss of her foreign commerce, those products should be con- lined to an inadequate market, the fate of this fertile State would be poverty and utter desolation ; her citizens, in despair, would emigrate to more fortunate regions, and the whole frame of her civil polity be impaired and deranged, if not dissolved entirely. " Deeply impressed with these considerations, the represent atives of the good people of this commonwealth, anxiously de siring to live in peace with their fellow-citizens, and to do all that in them lies to preserve and perpetuate the union of the States, and the liberties of which it is the surest pledge ; but feeling it to be their boundcn duty to expose and resist all en croachments upon the true spirit of the Constitution, lest an ap parent acquiescence in the system of protecting duties should be drawn into precedent, do, in the name of the commonwealth of South Carolina, claim fo enter upon the journals of the Sen ate their protest against it, as unconstitutional, oppressive, and unjust." Mr. SMITH, who was a distinguished member of the first Congress, and enjoyed the confidence and friendship of ALEX ANDER HAMILTON, in presenting the protest, among other things said : " South Carolina believed that when, as a sovereign State, she surrendered a portion of her authority, it was for cer tain and specified objects ; and that, when those objects were accomplished, the authority ceded to the General Government was at an end ; that any measures pursued beyond the objects just contemplated was a violation of the compact : it belonged to the States to resume their authority. South Carolina did not assent to the postulate that the authority was ever delegated to the Government, which the Government had assumed over in dividuals and property composing the State. " We had been told that the high duties would be reduced ; PROTEST OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 97 but so far from this, the manufactories had increased ; the pros perity of one had induced others to embark in the business, and there had been constant application for new duties, which had been granted. South Carolina has protested against these du ties ; lie did not know that the Constitution acknowledged this principle ; he did know that the Constitution had not lately been looked to. Constitutional arguments had been used which had never been replied to." Mr. HAYNE, the other Senator, among other things said : " One of the most unhappy circumstances connected with the present condition of the Southern States, is the great, he might perhaps say, the insuperable difficulty of causing their senti ments and feelings to bo made known, so as to be understood and appreciated by their fellow-citizens in other quarters of the Union. Viewing the United States as one country, the people of the South might almost be considered as strangers in the land of their fathers. The fruits of their industry had. from the pol icy pursued by the Federal Government, been flowing to the North, in a current as steady and as undeviating as the waters of the great Gulf ; and as the sources of our prosperity were drying up, that reciprocal intercourse, which had softened as perities and bound the different parts of the Union together in the bonds of sympathy and affection, had in a great measure ceased. " That close and intimate communion, necessary to a full knowledge of each other, no longer existed, and in place of it there was springing up, (it is useless to disguise the truth,) among the people in opposite quarters of the Union, a spirit of jealousy and distrust, founded on the settled conviction, on the one part, that they are the victims of injustice, and on the other, that our complaints, if not groundless, may be safely disregarded. The people of the South are well aware of the evils growing out of this unhappy state of things, and of none arc they more deeply sensible than that (from causes to which I shall now advert) the eyes of our brethren have been closed to our true condition, and their hearts shut against our just complaints. Although South Carolina, in common with several of her sister States, had, on former occasions, avowed the principles contained in the protest, yet it may well be doubted (if we can judge from 08 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. what we see and hear around us) whether it is believed north of the Potomac that she really entertains them : for, in the face of the solemn declarations of her people and their representa tives, denouncing the policy pursued by the Federal Govern ment as involving them in ruin, we find the public ear abused and the public mind deluded by exaggerated statements of our uninterrupted prosperity and happiness. It has even been in sinuated here, at the very seat of Government, that the enlight ened public of the South is in favor of this policy, and that the excitement which prevails there is merely artificial, if it has not been got up for party purposes. North Carolina also protested against the law ; and Alabama denied the power of Congress to lay duties for protection. KEMAKKS. 1. Tariff laws, from 1789 until 181G, had been enacted for the raising revenue for the support of the Government, and pay ing off the national debts ; while the protection, afforded by them to manufactures had been purely incidental. 2. In 1816, mainly from patriotic motives, the rates of tariff were raised, for the purpose of affording protection to manufac turers, who could not maintain a competition with foreign man ufacturers at peace prices. To this there w r as no sectional oppo sition. It was generally felt to be desirable that the country ought to be more independent of foreign nations than it had been during the war, for the supply of manufactures. 3. In 1824 it became evident that politicians and manu facturers had united their efforts to promote what Mr. CLAY called the " American system," by which the former class might the better rise to political power in the country, and by which the latter might accumulate large fortunes by the indirect bounty paid by their countrymen in the shape of a tariff for protection. Mr. CLAY, having left the Democratic party, united his political fortunes with the Northern manufacturers. The interests of the Southern States lay in free trade. Party politics and the hopes of politicians likewise became connected with the doctrines of free trade. 4. The tariff of 1828 was not a " judicious tariff." Like the REMARKS. 99 tariff of 1824, it was established immediately before tlie Presi dential election, which it was designed to influence and control. The address of the Ilarrisburg manufacturers Convention was a strange medley of ideas, and yet it had a powerful influence in certain quarters upon party politics of the time. It was de signed, probably, among other things, to promote the election of some politician to the Presidency who was in favor of a high tariff, and who would satisfy the cravings of the manufacturers for large gains. 5. The Southern States naturally became very hostile to the strangely so-called " American system," which they viewed as adopted to enrich Northern manufacturers, and exalt to office its patrons. From the increasing demands of manufacturers, they came to regard the tariff for protection as a " daughter of the horse-leech which cries Give, give. It was not strange that the Southern States should have the same repugnance to Federal legislation in 1828, which imposed ruinous burdens upon their agricultural industry, which the Northern States manifested during and some years before the war of 1812, towards Federal legislation, which imposed severe restrictions upon their commerce. However injudicious, it is not strange that they should look to nullification or secession as a relief from what they deemed unconstitutional burdens, just as some of the Northern States then did. G. Northern manufacturers, like Northern men generally, were not acquainted with the agricultural interests of the South ; just as Southern planters were not acquainted with Northern interests. They did not apprehend the real operation of the tariff upon the planting States. Politicians and manufacturers persuaded themselves that they understood the interests of the South better than Southern men did. They seriously attempted in Congress, in editorials, and in conversation, to show that it was for the benefit of Southern planters that they should pay high duties to the Government, or high prices to Northern manufacturers. They wrote or talked as if the Northern States were justified in forcing upon the South a high tariff for its benefit. CHAPTER IX. MARCH 4, 1829 MARCH 4, 1837. GENERAL JACKSON was elected President by 178 electoral votes against 83 votes which were cast for Mr. ADAMS. Every State south of the Potomac cast its electoral vote for General JACKSON. Every electoral vote of the New England States, except one from Maine, was cast for Mr. ADAMS. At his second election he received 210 votes ; Mr. CLAY received 49 votes. He was in favor of a strict construction of the Constitution, by which the States would practically retain their reserved rights. He was opposed to that broad or large construction of the Constitution, by which a United States Bank had been chartered, and by which a system of internal improvements had been adopted or projected, and by which high protective tariffs had been established. In his inaugural address, he has the following paragraph in reference to the position of South Carolina and Georgia and other States in respect to the tariff of 1828. " In such measures as I may be called on to pursue, in regard to the rights of the separate States, I hope to be animated by a proper respect for those sovereign members of our Union ; taking care not to con found the powers they have reserved to themselves, with those they have granted to the Confederacy." In his first annual message, after speaking of the tariff and any attempts that may be made to connect it with the party politics of the day, he adds : " Legislation, subjected to such influences, can never be SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. 101 just, and cannot long retain the sanction of a people whose active patriotism is not bounded by sectional limits, nor insen sible to that spirit of concession and forbearance which gives life to our political compact, and still sustains it. Discarding all calculations of political ascendency, the North, the South, the East, the West, should unite in diminishing any burthen of which either may justly complain." "I cannot, therefore, too strongly warn you against all encroachments upon the legiti mate sphere of State Sovereignty." SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. In January/ 1830, during the first session of Congress in General JACKSON S Administration, the celebrated dispute upon Mr. FOOT S Resolution concerning the public lands took place in the Senate. In this debate, Mr. HAYNE and Mr. WEBSTER made their sectional speeches, into which the subject of Nulli fication largely entered. Mr. HAYNE opened the debate on the subject of the public lands, and was followed by Mr. WEBSTER, in a speech in which he combated opinions on the subject of the Union, held by some of Mr. HAYNE S friends, among whom was the Yice-President, (Mr. CALHOUN,) then in the chair. This unexpectedly called out Mr. HAYNE to defend these opinions, from which Mr. WEBSTER had exonerated him, which he gen erously did, in a speech of great ability and eloquence. To this Mr. WEBSTER replied, in a speech of equal or greater ability and eloquence. This produced a rejoinder by Mr. HAYNE, which produced a surrejoinder by Mr. WEBSTER. These speeches were eminently sectional, and have had an influence to increase the strength of sectional feeling in the North and in the South. Mr. WEBSTER S eulogy upon Massa chusetts and upon the Union, in his most elaborate speech on the occasion, are familiar as declamations to the colleges and schools of the North. In the speeches, both of Mr. HAYNE and Mr. WEBSTER, there were fallacies which were shown up by other speakers who addressed the Senate on the subject of Nul lification, among whom were Mr. ROWAN, Mr. GRUNDY, Mr. CLAYTON, Mr. WOODBURY, and Mr. EDWARD LIVINGSTON. In the course of his speech, Mr. LIVINGSTON spoke as follows : 102 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " Ify learned and honorable friend, the Senator near me, from South Carolina, (Mr. HAYNE,) comes, in the eloquent ar guments he has made, to the conclusion, that whenever, in the language of the Virginia resolutions, (which he adopts,) there is, in the opinion of any one State, " a palpable, deliberate, and dangerous violation of the Constitution by a law of Congress," such State may, without ceasing to be a member of the Union, declare the law to be unconstitutional, and prevent its execu tion within the State ; that this is a constitutional right, and that its exercise will produce a constitutional remedy, by oblig ing Congress either to repeal the law, or to obtain an explicit grant of the power which is denied by the State, by submitting an amendment to the several States, and that, by the decision of the requisite number, the State, as well as the Union, would be bound. It would be doing injustice, both to my friend and to his argument, if I did not add, that this resort to the nullify ing power, as it has been termed, ought to be had only in the last resort, when the grievance was intolerable, and all other means of remonstrance and appeal to the other States had failed. " In this opinion, I understand the honorable and learned Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (Mr. How AN) substan tially to agree, particularly in the constitutional right of pre venting the execution of the obnoxious law. " The Senator from Tennessee, (Mr. GRUXDY,) in his speech, which was listened to with so much attention and pleasure, very justly denies the right of declaring the nullity of a law, and preventing its execution, to the ordinary Legislature, but erroneously, in my opinion, gives it to a convention. " My friend from Xew Hampshire, (Mr. WOODBUBT,) 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 un- alienable right of resistance to oppression. " All these Senators consider the Constitution as a compact octween the States in their sovereign capacity ; and one of them (Mr. ROWAN) has contended that sovereignty cannot be divided ; from which it may be inferred that no part of the sovereign power has been transferred to the General Government. SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. 103 "The Senator from Massachusetts, (Mr. WEBSTER,) in his very eloquent and justly admired address on this subject, con siders the Federal Constitution as entirely popular, and not created by compact, and from this position, very naturally shows that there can be no constitutional right of actual resist ance to a law of that Government, but that intolerable and illegal acts may justify it on first principles. " However these opinions may differ, there is one consol atory reflection, that none of them justify a violent opposition given to an unconstitutional law, until an extreme case of suffer ing has occurred. Still less do any of them suppose the actual existence of such a case. " But the danger of establishing, on the one hand, a constitu tional veto in each of the States, upon any act of the whole, to be exercised whenever, in the opinion of the Legislature of such State, the act they complain of is contrary to the Constitution ; and on the other, the dangers which result to the State Govern ments by considering that of the Union as entirely popular, and denying the existence of any compact ; seem, both of them, to be so great, as to justify, and indeed demand, an expression of my dissent from both. " The arguments on the one side, to show that the Consti tution is the result of a compact between the States, cannot, I think, be controverted ; and those which go to show that it is founded on the consent of the people, and, in one sense, a pop ular government, are equally incontrovertible. Both of these propositions, seemingly so contradictory, are true, and both of them are false true, as it respects one feature in the Constitu tion ; erroneous, if applied to the whole. " By a popular consolidated Government, I understand one that is founded on the consent, express or implied, of the people of the whole nation ; and which operates directly upon the people. " By a Federative Government, as contradistinguished from the former, I mean one composed of several independent States, bound together for specific purposes, and relying for the efficacy of its operations on its action upon the different States in their political capacity, not individually upon their citizens. " The old Confederation was a compact between the States ; 104: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. but among a number of stipulations strictly federative, it con tained others which gave to the Congress powers which trenched upon the State sovereignties ; to declare war and to make peace ; to enter into treaties binding on the whole ; to establish Courts of Admiralty, with power to bind the citizens of the States in dividually in cases coming under that jurisdiction ; to raise armies, equip fleets, coin money, emit bills of credit, and other similar powers. " In the Federal Constitution, this combination of the two characteristics of Government is more apparent. It was framed by delegates appointed by the States ; it was ratified by con ventions of the people of each State, convened according to the laws of the respective States. It guarantees the existence of the States, which are necessary to its own ; the States are repre sented in one branch by Senators, chosen by the Legislatures ; and in the other, by Representatives taken from the people, but chosen by a rule which may be made and varied by the States, not by Congress the qualifications of electors being different in different States. They may make amendments to the Constitu tion. In short, the Government had its inception with them ; it depends on their political existence for its operation ; and its duration cannot go beyond theirs. The States existed before the Constitution ; they parted only with such powers as are specified in that instrument ; they continue still to exist, with all the powers they have not ceded ; and the present Govern ment would never, itself, have gone into operation, had not the States, in their political capacity, consented. That consent is a compact of each one with the whole ; not, as has been ar gued, (by Mr. WEBSTER, in order to throw a kind of ridicule on this convincing part of the argument of my friend from South Carolina,) with the Government which was made by such com pact. It is difficult, therefore, it would appear, with all these characters of a federative nature, to deny to the present Gov ernment the description of one founded on compact, to which each State was a party ; and a conclusive proof, if any more were wanted, would be in the fact, that the States adopted the Constitution at different times, and many of them on conditions which were afterwards complied with by amendments. If it were strictly a popular Government, in the sense that is con- SPEECHES ON NULLIFICATION. 105 tended for, tlic moment a majority of the people of the United States had consented, it would have bound the rest ; and yet, after all the others, except one, had adopted the Constitution, the smallest still held out ; and if Rhode Island had not con sented to enter into the Confederacy, she would, perhaps, at this time, have been unconnected with us. " But with all these proofs (and I think them incontrover tible) that the Government could not have been brought into being without a compact, yet I am far from admitting that, because this entered so largely into its origin, therefore there are no characteristics of another kind, which impress on it strongly the marks of a more intimate union and amalgamation of the interests of the citizens of the different States, which gives to them the general character of citizens of the United nation. * * The Government, also, for the most part, (except in the election of Senators, Representatives, and President, and some others,) acts in the exercise of its legitimate powers di rectly upon individuals, and not through the medium of State authorities. This is an essential character of a popular Govern ment. " I place little reliance on the argument which has been mostly depended on, to show that this is a popular Govern ment : I mean the preamble, which begins with the words, We, the people. It proves nothing more than the fact, that the people of the several States had been consulted, and had given their consent to the instrument. To give these words any other construction, would be to make them an assertion directly contrary to the fact. We know, and it never has been imagined or asserted, that the people of the United States, collectively, as a whole people, gave their assent, or were consulted in that capacity ; the people of each State were consulted, to know whether that State would form a part of the United States, under the Articles of the Constitution, and to that they gave their assent, simply as citizens of that State." The discussion, as already stated, came up unexpectedly to Mr. UAYNE and Mr. WEBSTER, certainly to the former, on a sub ject, namely the public lands, which had no necessary connec tion with the subject of Nullification ; probably the mind of each was full of the latter subject ; and hence the facilit} r 106 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. with which both entered on the discussion, after it had been distinctly introduced! by Mr. WEBSTER. President JACKSON, in his annual message, at the opening of Congress, 1831, recommended the abolition of duties on nu merous articles of necessity or comfort not produced at home. On the 9th of January, 1832, Mr. CLAY submitted a Resolution in relation to the tariff, and in a speech of three days duration he supported his " American system," in subordination to which he proposed to make any reduction of duties which should be necessary. In opposition to Mr. CLAY S resolution, G-eneral SAMUEL SMITH of Maryland spoke as follows : " We have arrived at a crisis. Yes, Mr. President, a crisis more appalling than a day of battle. I adjure the Committee on Manufactures to pause ; to reflect on the dissatisfaction of the South. South Carolina has expressed herself strongly against the tariff of 1828, stronger than the other States are willing to speak. But, sir, the whole South feel deeply the op pression of this tariff. In this respect there is no difference of opinion. The South, the whole Southern States, all consider it as oppressive. They have not yet spoken ; but when they do speak, it will be in a voice that will not implore, but will de mand redress. "I am, Mr. President, one of the few survivors of those who fought in the War of the Revolution. We then thought we fought for liberty, for equal rights. We fought against taxa tion, the proceeds of which were for the benefit of others. Where is the difference if the people are to be taxed by the manufacturers or by any others ? I say manufacturers, and why do I say so ? When the Senate met, there was a strong disposition with all parties to ameliorate the tariff of 1828 ; but now I see a change, which makes me almost despair of any thing effectual being accomplished. Even the small concessions made by the Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. CLAY,) have been reprobated by the lobby members, the agents of the manufac turers. I am told they have put their fiat on any change what ever, and hence, as a consequence, the change in the course and language of gentlemen that precludes all hope. Those inter ested may hang on the Committee of Manufactures like an THE AMERICAN SYSTEM. 107 incubus. I say to that Committee, depend upon your own good judgment, discard sectional interests, and study only the common weal. Act with these views, and thus retain the affec tions of the South." Mr. CLAY was deeply and anxiously sensible of the discon tent in the Southern States in respect to a protective tariff. lie would, if possible, avert the danger to the Union from that quarter, but he felt that there was a greater danger from another quarter if the " American system" should be given up. In his speech he expresses himself in the following terms : " And now, Mr. President, I have to make a few observa tions on a delicate subject, which I approach with all the re spect that is due to its serious and grave nature. They have not,, indeed, been rendered necessary by the speech of the gentleman, from South Carolina, (Mr. HAYNE,) whose forbearance to notice 1 the topic was commendable, as his argument throughout was characterized by an ability and dignity worthy of him and of the Senate. ~ x ~ * But it is impossible to conceal from our view the fact that there is a great excitement in South Carolina, that the protective system is openly and violently denounced in public meetings, and that the Legislature itself has declared its purpose of resorting to counteracting measures ; a suspension of which has only been submitted to, for the purpose of allow ing Congress to retrace its steps with, respect to this Union. Mr. President, the truth cannot be too generally proclaimed, nor too strongly inculcated, that it is necessary to the whole and to all the parts necessary to those parts in different der grees, but vitally necessary to each. " The clanger to our Union does not lie on the side of per sistence in the American system, but on that of its abandon ment. If, as I have supposed and believe, the inhabitants of all north and east of James River, and all west of the moun tains, including Louisiana, are deeply interested in the preserva tion of that system, would they be reconciled to its overthrow ? Can it be expected that two-thirds or three-fourths of the people* of the United States would consent to the destruction of a policy believed to be absolutely necessary to their prosperity ? "When, too, the sacrifice is made at the instance of a single interest, which they verily believe will not be promoted by it. * * * 8 108 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. What would be the condition of this Union, if Pennsylvania and New York, those mammoth members of our confederacy, were firmly persuaded that their industry was paralyzed and their prosperity blighted, by the enforcement of the British Colonial system, under the delusive name of free trade ? They are now tranquil, and happy, and contented, conscious of their welfare, and feeling a salutary and rapid circulation of the products of home manufactures and home industry throughout all their great arteries. But let that be checked, let them feel that a foreign system is to predominate, and the sources of their sub sistence and comfort are to be dried up ; let New England and the Middle States all feel that they too are the victims of a mis taken policy, and let those vast portions of our country despair of any favorable change, and then, indeed, might we tremble for the continuance of the Union." Here we are presented with the picture of disunion coming from the North, if the protective system should be abandoned. Mr. CLAY thus intimates that if the North should not have the advantages of protection to their manufactures, it w r ould adopt a course to destroy the Union. On January 23, 1832, Mr. DRAYTON, of South Carolina, pre sented a memorial of the members of the Legislature of South Carolina, opposed to nullification. They state " that they are exceedingly aggrieved by the laws of the United States, im posing high duties on foreign merchandise for the protection of manufactures ; " " that the policy, the justice, and the constitu tionality of the present system of high protective duties have been strenuously denied ." " The objections to the restrictive system are of the gravest character, and the sense of oppression and injustice, which it has excited, are widely diffused and deeply felt." Thus there appears to have been no difference of opinion in South Carolina, in respect to the injurious effects of the tariff laws then in force. While this bill was under consideration, Mr. CHOATE, of Massachusetts, in an able and characteristic speech, said : " Still the difficulty recurs. There is a great sectional excitement, and that, whether groundless or not, is, per se, a case to act on. It is desirable to allay the excitement. Yes, certainly ; but how ? Sir, my humble scheme is this : I think, in the language of THE COMPROMISE BILL. 109 medical men, the case requires topical treatment, local applica tions. Search out the sectional grievance, if you can find it. Find what are the articles exclusively of Southern consumption, and important in the economy of the South, and relieve them of all protective duty. Strike them out of the statute. For so much let there be no tariff, and let them be fabricated in Eng land, that the American Union may be preserved ; and let all others be as they are now effectually protected." He evidently was for concession and conciliation. The bill was passed in the House, June 27, 1832, and in the Senate, July 9, 1832, and was entirely unsatisfactory to the Southern States. In the next annual message, President JACKSON, and in his report, the Secretary of the Treasury, recommended a change in the tariff laws. The ORDINANCE of the Convention of South Carolina was issued November 24, 1832, declaring the revenue laws of the United States null and void, and enjoining the Legislature to carry the decree into effect. The Legislature met and passed the necessary laws. The State authorities were now placed in opposition to the Federal laws. The militia of the State were organized and armed, to be ready for action. General SCOTT was sent to Charleston with Federal troops and two vessels of war, to be prepared to enforce the laws of the Federal Govern ment for the collection of the revenue. The proclamation of General JACKSON, in view of that ordinance, was issued Decem ber 11, 1832. His message was sent into the Senate and the House of Representatives, in which he asked for authority and means to enforce the collection of revenue in South Carolina. A bill for that purpose was introduced into the Senate from the Committee on the Judiciary, January 28, 1833. But before that bill was passed, Mr, CLAY introduced his compromise bill, February 12, 1833, This bill was passed in the House, February 22, 1833, and in the Senate, March 1, 1833. The revenue collection bill was passed in Senate, Feb ruary 18, 1833, and in the House, February 28, 1833. The compromise bill satisfied South Carolina so far, that Governor HAMILTON called the Convention together, and communicated to it the modification of the tariff. The Convention then passed 110 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. an ordinance repealing the nullification law. Thus the sectional difficulty was settled for the time. REMARKS. 1. The tariff laws of 1824, 1828, 1833, were carried against the opinions and interests of the Southern States, by the com bined influence of manufacturers and politicians. In 1824, a portion of the Eastern members were opposed to the tariff act, from a regard to the commercial interests of the States or dis tricts which they represented. With some exceptions, the tariff laws of 1828 and 1832 were Northern measures, for the benefit of the North. "With, some few exceptions, these laws were vig orously opposed by the South, because they would operate in juriously upon Southern interests. Louisiana, from a regard to her sugar crop, which was protected by the tariff laws, went in favor of those laws. The greed of gain and the greed of office conspired to pass those laws for the evident benefit of the North, for the doubtful benefit of the whole country, and to the mani fest injury of the South, which had no manufactures to be ben efited. 2. The Southern States felt that they were oppressed by these burdensome tariffs. According to the intimation of GEORGE MASON in, the Constitutional Convention, they found themselves " bound hand and foot" in the power of the Eastern States. And if these did not exclaim, " The Lord hath deliv ered them in our hands," still they talked about the " general welfare " as they understood it, and not about the rights of the States, or the provisions of the Constitution which secured those rights. As " a gift destroyeth the heart," so u oppression maketh a wise man mad." As the profits derived from pro tected manufactures produced narrow and sectional feelings at the North, so the burdens imposed by extravagant tariff laws led the State of South Carolina to the madness or folly of nulli fying those laws, on the ground that they were oppressive and unconstitutional. To relieve herself from the operation of these tariff laws, South Carolina passed the ordinance of nullification, which, whatever may be true in the theory of the relationship of the REMARKS. Ill States, involves the practical absurdity that a State may, at one and the same time, be in the Union for the enjoyment of its benefits, and out of the Union in bearing its burdens. South Carolina, in the ordinance, declares that in case of the applica tion of physical force, on the part of the General Government, to execute the tariff laws, she will secede and set up a separate Government. To meet this threat, Senator CLAYTON declared and proved that State secession is a less evil than State nulli fication. The country was in a very unhappy condition. South Caro lina had passed the ordinance of nullification, and was threat ening secession. The Southern States sympathized with her. Virginia had passed a resolve that she expected both the Gen eral Government and South Carolina to keep the peace. 3. General JACKSON was the man for the occasion ; and yet his action in the premises and his motives have been misunder stood. a. He was opposed to high tariffs, and thus agreed with Southern men in regard to the cause of the difficulty. ~b. He earnestly advised the repeal, or rather a modification of the tariff laws, which had created the difficulty. This he did repeatedly in his messages to Congress, and just before the or dinance was passed. c. He claimed to be a native of South Carolina, and could, therefore, address the inhabitants of that State in a manner that would inspire confidence, in his endeavors to win them back into the Union. While he thus claims kindred with them, they would feel inclined to allow his claims, and yield to his per suasion. Listen to his language of kindness which he addresses to them in his proclamation : " Fellow-citizens of my native State ! Let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would have over his children, whom he saw rushing to ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by the men who are either deceived themselves, or wish to deceive you." d. He asked authority from Congress to use force, if it should 112 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. be necessary, in the collection of duties in South Carolina. Congress gave him this authority, but it also passed the com promise bill, which would render the application of force un necessary. He was resolute to execute the laws, even upon his native State, but he preferred a peaceful settlement of the diffi culties, such as was accomplished by his own wisdom, and that of the very able men in the Cabinet, and in the Senate and House of Representatives. 4. Mr. CLAY must have been greatly disappointed in the result of the election of 1832 ; General JACKSON receiving 219 votes, and he only 49. Besides losing his election, which his friends hoped to carry by means of his " American system," he saw that the system itself was in danger. That system was made by his party one of the important issues in that election, and the decision of the Presidential electors seemed to be against that system as well as against himself. General JACK SON, too, in his recent message, had recommended an alteration of the tariff laws, a recommendation that would be very apt to take effect. Moreover, Mr. CLAY, noble-spirited as he was, must have had some " compunctious visitings of nature," in view of the sectional difficulties which had been brought about by the in troduction of his favorite system into the legislation of the coun try. He had left the Democratic party, of which he was an ornament, to form a party of his own, which had been success ful in carrying his favorite measure, but which had not been successful in the late Presidential campaign. Self-reliant as he was, he could hardly fail to have some misgivings as to the wisdom of his course, which had helped to bring the country into its present perilous condition. He was, without doubt, anxious to settle the sectional difficulties in a way honorable to both sections. When Mr. CLAY introduced his compromise bill for the set tlement of these difficulties, he accompanied it with the declara tion " that, whether rightfully or wrongfully, the tariff stands in imminent danger. If it should even be preserved during this session, it must fall at the next session." In the course of his speech, he said : " I wish to see the tariff separated from the politics of the country, that business EEMARKS. 113 men may go to work in security, with some prospect of stability in our laws, and without every thing being staked 011 the issue of our elections, as it were on the hazards of the die." In reference to the state of sectional feeling for and against the tariff, he said : " I am anxious to find ont some principle of mutual accommodation, to satisfy, as far as practicable, both parties ; to increase the stability of our legislation ; and, at some distant day, not too distant when we take into view the magnitude of the interests which are involved, to bring down the rate of duties to that revenue standard for which our oppo nents have so long contended." Mr. FOKSYTII, of Georgia, in his reply to Mr. CLAY, re marked : " The avowed object of the bill would meet with uni versal approbation. It was a project to harmonize the people, and it could come from no better source than from the gentle man from Kentucky ; for to no one else were we more indebted than to him, for the discord and the discontent which agitate us." " The Senator from Kentucky says the tariff is in danger ; aye, sir, it is at its last gasp. It has received the irremediable wound ; no hellebore can cure it." Mr. JOHN DAVIS, of Massachusetts, in the House of Repre sentatives, said, in reference to this bill : " But I do object to a compromise which destines the East to the altar. No victim, in my judgment, is required none is necessary ; and yet you propose to bind us hand and foot, to pour out our blood on the altar, and sacrifice us as a burnt-offering to appease the unnatu ral and unfounded discontent of the South a discontent, I fear, having deeper root than the tariff, and will continue when that is forgotten." 5. Mr. CALHOCN, like Mr. CLAY, was worthy of the highest office in the gift of the nation, and, like him, he aspired after it. lie was a leading member of the Democratic party, and had acted with Mr. CLAY in promoting the war of 1812. To the " American system," which Mr. CLAY had labored during three Presidential campaigns to establish, he was strongly opposed. He was an advocate of free trade, except for the purposes of a revenue, and was in favor of only incidental protection to man ufactures. He enjoyed the confidence of the Democratic party, and, indeed, of the whole country, as an able statesman and an 114 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. honest man. It was predicted of him at an early period, that if he would bide his time, he would certainly be President of the United States. But now in 1833, both he and Mr. CLAY seemed to be as far off as ever from the position they both coveted. They need not, therefore, now be jealous of each other. They were both patriots ; they both hated General JACKSON ; they were both willing to unite and save the country, and to thwart any mili tary schemes for the subjugation of South Carolina. On the introduction of the compromise bill, Mr. CALHOUN said : " He who loved the Union must desire to see this great agitating question brought to a termination. Until it should be termi nated, we could not expect the restoration of peace and har mony, or a sound condition of things throughout the country. He believed that to the unhappy divisions which had kept the Northern and Southern States apart from each other, the present entirely degraded condition of the country w r as solely attrib utable." To Mr. CLAY, and Mr. CALHOUN, and General JACKSON, it was principally owing that these sectional difficulties connected with the tariff were settled, and the land had rest for a time and a season. It is a remarkable fact that Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island, States that had great difficulties with the General Government, during the Administration of Mr. JEFFERSON and Mr. MADISON, on account of their commercial interests, as set forth in the doings of the Hartford Convention, did not give a single vote for the settlement of the sectional difficulties, by the passage of the compromise bill proposed by Mr. CLAY. CHAPTER X. MR. VAN EUEEN S ADMINISTEATION. MARCH 4, 1837 MARCH 4, 1841. ME. VAN BUEEN being regarded as a Northern man with Southern principles, was not elected upon sectional issues ; though both before and after his election such issues were pressed upon the attention of the people, both North and South. In the latter part of General JACKSON S Administration, and while the politicians were looking out upon the country for available Presidential candidates, the subject of slavery was forced upon the attention of Congress, in the shape of petitions for the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. One of these, signed by 800 ladies from the State of New York, was presented in the House of Representatives in Febru ary, 1835. And another in the same month was presented from Massachusetts, signed by 1,240 male citizens, and by 2,643 ladies. Petitions like these from different portions of the Northern States were pressed on the attention of both Houses of Congress for the space of four years, or until the session of Congress immediately before the next Presidential campaign. One of the last was presented by Mr. CLAY, Feb. 13, 1840, as he said " in deference to the right of petition, which he admit ted in its full force. He thought the crisis of this unfortunate agitation was passed ; it was certainly passed when Congress convened in December last. "Whether the political uses which have since been made of it may not revive it, and revive it 116 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. in a more imposing form, he was not prepared to say." The abolition of slavery was provided for in this petition. The ground taken in the petitions generally, was, that slavery is wrong or improper, and that as by Article 1 st, section 8th, Congress has power " to exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over the District of Columbia," it is bound to abolish slavery in the District. It was in Congress declared to be " the Great National Question." The grounds of opposition to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia are the following : " The District was ceded, not to the United States, but to Congress, which can claim no rights of sovereignty, whatever the United States may : it was ceded by the ordinary Legislatures of Maryland and Vir ginia, which never pretended to sovereignty. We know that the sovereignty of each State resides in the people. The principle agreed on both hands, from which we are arguing, is, that Con gress, in exclusive legislation over the territory, property, and people of this District, are competent to do in respect to terri tory, property, and people of this District, whatever the Legis latures of Maryland and Virginia are competent to do in respect to the territory, property, and people of those States respec tively ; and (I add and insist) no more. Therefore, in order to show that Congress has Constitutional power to abolish the rights of slave property in this District, it must first be shown that the Legislatures of those two States have, and had, at the time of their cession, Constitutional power to abolish the rights of slave property within their limits. " I can venture to say that the great "body of the jurists of Virginia, as well as of the people, have always denied, and do yet deny, the Constitutional power of the ordinary Legislature to abolish the rights of slave property, without the consent of the individual owners. I do not know what opinion has been entertained in Maryland. I only know that the same reasoning is equally applicable to the legal institutions of both States. " I presume it can hardly be imagined that Congress can have derived from the acts of cession of Maryland and Virginia, that is, by virtue of those acts alone, any other or greater powers of legislation over the District, than those Legislatures themselves had at the time of the cession ; in other words, that the grantee lit lias acquired by the grant more power than the grantor had to cede." " If the provision of the Constitution of the United States, giving power to Congress to exercise exclusive legislation, in all cases whatsoever, over such District as may, by the cession of particular States, and acceptance of Congress, become the seat of Government of the United States, is to be taken as the only source and the only measure of the power of Congress ; if this provision is to be construed as conferring on Congress ab solute, sovereign, despotic authority over the people of the District, and their private rights of property, unlimited by the just measure of authority that belonged to the State Legisla tures by which the territory was ceded, unlimited by any con sideration of the nature, purposes, and exigencies of the trust for which the power of exclusive legislation was given, then it will follow that Congress may, in its wisdom, or in its folly, abolish property in lands as well as in slaves ; may enact an agrarian law ; nay, more, may abolish the principle of property entirely, and establish a community of goods. Kow, certainly, I do not apprehend any such absurd and mischievous legislation ; but it is fair, it is even necessary, to pursue this claim of power to its consequences in order to test its justice. The truth is, sir, that a grant of power of * exclusive legislation in all cases whatso ever, over a territory and the people in it, does not, in the just sense of that language, as used by American law-givers, import a grant of absolute, despotic, sovereign authority, or of any au thority at all to assume, abolish, or impair private rights of property. It imports a grant of the power of ordinary legisla tion. The proper as well as ordinary business of legislation is to regulate and secure the rights of property, never to annihilate them." Speech of Mr. Leigh in the Senate, Jan. 19, 1836. PINCKNEY S RESOLUTIONS. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 25, 1836. 1. Resolved, That Congress possesses no Constitutional au thority to interfere, in any way, with the institution of slavery in any of the States of this Confederacy ; passed ly a vote of 118 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 182 to 9 ; of which 6 were from New England, and 3 from Pennsylvania. 2. Resolved, That Congress ought not to interfere in any way with slavery in the District of Columbia ; passed by a vote of 132 yeas, and 45 nays. All the votes given by Massachu setts, Vermont, and Rhode Island, in the negative. And whereas it is extremely important and desirable that the agitation of this subject should be finally arrested, for the purpose of restoring tranquillity to the public mind, your com mittee respectfully recommend the adoption of the following resolution, viz. : 3. Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, resolutions, and papers, relating in any way, or to any extent whatever, to the subject of slavery or the abolition of slavery, shall, without be ing either printed or referred, be laid upon the table, and that no farther action whatever shall be had thereon. This was passed by a vote of 117 to 68. All the votes given by Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island were. in the neg ative. VERMONT ANTI-SLAVERY RESOLUTIONS. SENATE. Mr. SWIFT, of Vermont, presented, Dec. 19, 1837, a memorial and resolutions from the Legislature of Vermont in relation to " Texas and slavery in the District of Columbia." Mr. KING, of Alabama, said " he considered it an infamous libel and insult upon the South, let it come from what quarter it would ; it was a false statement in relation to the people of the South, when it charged them with disregard for the laws, and he expressed his surprise that gentlemen should present papers which they could not but feel were untrue." The me morial was withdrawn for future presentation. It was again presented January 16. Mr. SWIFT said "he would offer no other apology than the duty he owed to the State. The Resolutions spoke for themselves ; nor did Vermont require him to vindicate them on this floor. He expressed his regret, however, that they should have been so harshly assailed as they had been. Not only the sentiments contained in them, but the motives of those who adopted them, had been subjects of unjust censure and reproach." SECESSION OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS. 119 Mr. PRESTON, of South Carolina, " presumed the document would not nave been presented unless under authority of com mand in obedience to higher power, where the servant could exercise no discretion. Coming from a sovereign State, we were, he presumed, bound to treat it with respect and defer ence. Here was a report wantonly presented, characterized by language which, if used by an individual or senator of this body, would be rejected with disdain. In it the South is charged with immorality and irreligion ; and when with becoming dignity we repel the charge, we are uncourteous and i offensive in our language ; while we are stigmatized as debauched, sen sual, immoral, sinful, God-offending creatures; and when we speak of fanatics and incendiaries, we are rebuked and chidden. Was this fair ? "Was this proper ? " HOUSE. DECEMBER 20, 1837. The most angry and portentous debate which had yet taken place in Congress occurred at this time in the House of Repre sentatives. It was brought on by Mr. WILLIAM SLADE, of Ver mont, who, besides presenting petitions of the usual abolition character, and moving to refer them to a committee, moved their reference to a select committee, with instructions to report a bill in conformity to their prayer. This motion, inflammatory and irritating in itself, and without practical legislative object, as the great majority of the House was known to be opposed to it, was rendered still more exasperating by the manner of support ing it. The mover entered into a general disquisition on the subject of slavery, all denunciatory, and was proceeding to speak upon it in the State of Yirginia, and other States, in the same spirit, when Mr. LEGAEE, of South Carolina, interposed, and " Hoped the gentleman from Yermont would allow him to make a few remarks before he proceeded further. He sincerely hoped that gentleman would consider well what he was about before he ventured on such ground, and that he would take time to consider what might be its probable consequences. lie solemnly entreated him to reflect on the possible results of such a course, which involved the interests of a nation and a conti- 120 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. nent. He would warn him, not in the language of defiance, which all brave and wise men despised, but he would warn him in the language of a solemn sense of duty, that if there was * a spirit aroused in the North in relation to this subject, that spirit would encounter another spirit in the South full as stub born. He would tell them that, when this question w T as forced upon the people of the South, they would be ready to take up the gauntlet. He concluded by urging on the gentleman from Vermont to ponder well on his course before he ventured to proceed." Mr. SLADE continued his remarks, when Mr. DAWSON, of Georgia, asked him for the floor, that he might move an ad journment evidently to carry off the storm which he saw rising. Mr. SLADE refused to yield it ; so the motion to adjourn could not be made. Mr. SLADE continued, and was proceeding to answer his own inquiry, put to himself what was slavery f when Mr. DAWSON again asked for the floor, to make his motion of adjournment. Mr. SLADE refused it : a visible commotion be gan to pervade the House members rising, clustering together, and talking with animation ; Mr. SLADE continued, and was about reading a judicial opinion in one of the Southern States which defined a slave to be a chattel, when Mr. WISE called him to order for speaking beside the question the question being upon the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and Mr. SLADE S remarks going to its legal character, as property in a State. The Speaker, Mr. JOHN WHITE, of Kentucky, sustained the call, saying it was not in order to discuss the subject of slavery in any of the States. Mr. SLADE denied that he was doing so, and said he was merely quoting a Southern judicial decision as he might quote a legal opinion delivered in Great Britain. Mr. ROBERTSON, of Virginia, moved that the House adjourn. The Speaker pronounced the motion (and correctly) out of order, as the member from Vermont was in possession of the floor and addressing the House. He would, however, suggest to the member from Vermont, who could not but observe the state of the House, to confine himself strictly to the subject of his mo tion. Mr. SLADE went on at great length, when Mr. PETRIKIN, of Pennsylvania, called him to order; but the Chair did not SECESSION OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS. 121 sustain the call. Mr. SLADE went on, quoting from the Decla ration of Independence, and the Constitutions of the several States, and had got to that of Virginia, when Mr. WISE called him to order for reading papers without the leave of the House. The Speaker decided that no paper objected to could be read without the leave of the House. Mr. WISE then said : " That the gentleman had wantonly discussed the abstract question of slavery, going back to the very first day of the crea tion, instead of slavery as it existed in the District, and the powers and duties of Congress in relation to it. He was now examining the State Constitutions to show that as it existed in the States it was against them, and against the laws of God and man. This was out of order." Mr. SLADE explained, and argued in vindication of his course, and was about to read a memorial of Dr. FRANKLIN, and an opinion of Mr. MADISON on the subject of slavery, when the reading was objected to by Mr. GRIFFIN, of South Carolina ; and the Speaker decided they could not be read without the permission of the House. Mr. SLADE, without asking the per mission of the House, which he knew would not be granted, assumed to understand the prohibition as extending only to him self personally, said : " Then I send them to the cleric let him read them" The Speaker decided that this was equally against the rule. Then Mr. GRIFFIN withdrew the objection, and Mr. SLADE proceeded to read the papers, and to comment upon them as he went on, and was about to go back to the State of Vir ginia, and show what had been the feeling there on the subject of slavery previous to the date of Dr. FRANKLIN S memorial : Mr. KHETT, of South Carolina, inquired of the Chair what the opinions of Virginia fifty years ago had to do with the case ? The Speaker was about to reply, when Mr. WISE rose with warmth, and said : " lie has discussed the whole abstract question of slavery ; of slavery in my own district ; and I now ask all my colleagues to retire with me from this hall." Mr. SLADE reminded the Speaker that he had not yielded the floor ; but his progress was impeded by the condition of the House, and the many exclamations of members, among whom Mr. HALSEY, of Georgia, was heard calling on the Georgia delega tion to withdraw with him ; and Mr. RIIETT was heard pro- 122 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. claiming that the South Carolina members had already con sulted together, and agreed to have a meeting at three o clock in the committee room of the District of Columbia. Here the Speaker interposed to calm the House, standing up in his place and saying : " The gentleman from Vermont had been reminded by the Chair that the discussion of slavery, as existing within the States, was not in order ; when he was desirous to read a paper and it was objected to, the Chair had stopped him ; but the objection had been withdrawn, and Mr. SLADE had been suffered to proceed ; he was now about to read another paper, and ob jection w r as made ; the Chair would, therefore, take the ques tion on permitting it to be read." Many members rose, all addressing the Chair at the same time, and many members leaving the hall, and a general scene of noise and confusion prevailing. Mr. RHETT succeeded in raising his voice above the roar of the tempest which raged in the House, and invited the entire delegations from all the slave States to retire from the hall forthwith, and meet in the com mittee room of the District of Columbia. The Speaker again essayed to calm the House, and again standing up in his place, he recapitulated his attempts to preserve order, and vindicated the correctness of his own conduct, seemingly impugned by many: " What his personal feelings were on the subject (he was from a slave State) might easily be conjectured. He had endeavored to enforce the rules. Had it been in his power to restrain the discussion, he should promptly have exercised the power ; but it was not." Mr. SLADE, continuing, said the paper which he wished to read was of the Continental Congress of O 1Y74. The Speaker was about to put the question on leave, when Mr. COST JOHNSON, of Maryland, inquired whether it w r ould be in order to force the House to vote that the member from Vermont be not permitted to proceed? The Speaker replied it would not. Then Mr. JAMES J. McKAY, of North Carolina a clear, cool-headed, sagacious man interposed the objection which headed Mr. SLADE. There was a rule of the House, that when a member was called to order he should take his seat ; and if decided to be out of order, he should not be allowed to speak again, except on leave of the House. Mr. SECESSION OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS. 123 MC!VAY judged this to be a proper occasion for the enforcement of that rule ; and stood up and said : " That the gentleman had been pronounced out of order in discussing slavery in the States ; and the rule declared that when a member was so pronounced by the Chair, he should take his seat, and if any one objected to his proceeding again, he should not do so unless by leave of the House. Mr. McKAY did now object to the gentleman from Yermont proceeding any further." Redoubled noise and confusion ensued, a crowd of mem bers rising and speaking at once, who eventually yielded to the resounding blows of the Speaker s hammer upon the lid of his desk, and his apparent desire to read something to the House, as he held a book (recognized to be that of the rules) in his hand. Obtaining quiet so as to enable himself to be heard, he read the rule referred to by Mr. McILvy ; and said that, as ob jection had now for the first time been made under that rule to the gentleman s resuming his speech, the Chair decided that he could not do so without the leave of the House. Mr. SLADE attempted to go on : the Speaker directed him to take his seat until the question of leave should be put. Then Mr. SLADE, still keeping on his feet, asked leave to proceed as in order,, saying he would not discuss slavery in Virginia. On that ques tion, Mr. ALLEN, of Yermont, asked the yeas and nays. Mr. KENCIIEE, of North Carolina, moved an adjournment. Mr.. ADAMS, and many others, demanded the yeas and nays on this motion, which were ordered, and resulted in 106 yeas and 63 nays some fifty or sixty members having withdrawn. This opposition to adjournment was one of the worst features of that unhappy day s work ; the only effect of keeping the House to gether being to increase irritation, and multiply the chances for an outbreak. From the beginning, Southern members had been in favor of it, and essayed to accomplish it, but were prevented by the tenacity with which Mr. SLADE kept possession of the floor ; and now, at last, w r hen it was time to adjourn any way when the House was in a condition in which no> good could be expected, and great harm might be apprehended, there were sixty- three members being nearly one-third of the House willing to continue it in session. They were : 124: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " Messrs. ADAMS, ALEXANDER, H. ALLEN, J. "W. ALLEN, AY- CRIGG, BELL, BIDDLE, BOND, BORDEN, BRIGGS, W. B. CALHOUN, COFFIN, CORWIN, CRANSTON, CURTIS, GUSHING, DARLINGTON, DAVIES, DUNN, EVANS, EVERETT, EWING, J. FLETCHER, FILL- MORE, GOODE, GRENNELL, HALEY, HALL, BLASTINGS, HENRY, HEROD, HOFFMAN, LINCOLN, MARVIN, S. MASON, MAXWELL, McKENNAN, MlLLIGAN, M. MoRRIS, C. MoRRIS, T^AYLOR, NoYES, OGLE, PARMENTER, PATTERSON, PECK, PHILLIPS, POTTS, POTTER, RARIDEN, RANDOLPH, HEED, RIDGWAY, RUSSEL, SHEFFER, SIELEY, SLADE, STRATTON, TILLINGHAST, TOLAND, A. S. WHITE, J. WHITE, E. WHITTLESEY 63. " The House then stood adjourned ; and as the adjournment was being pronounced, Mr. CAMPBELL, of South Carolina, stood up on a chair, and calling for the attention of the members, said : " He had been appointed, as one of the Southern delegation, to announce that all those gentlemen who represented slave- holding States, were invited to attend the meeting now being held in the District Committee room." Members from the slaveholding States had repaired in large numbers to the room in the basement, where they were invited to meet. Various passions agitated them some violent. Ex treme propositions were suggested, of which Mr. RIIETT, of South Carolina, in a letter to his constituents, gave a full ac count of his own thus : " In .a private and friendly letter to the editor of the Charles ton Mercury, amongst other events accompanying the memor able secession of the Southern members from the hall of the House of Representatives, I stated to him, that I had prepared two resolutions, drawn as amendments to the motion of the member from Vermont, whilst he was discussing the institution of slavery in the South, declaring that the Constitution having failed to protect the South in the peaceable possession and en joyment of their rights and peculiar institutions, it was expe dient that the Union should be dissolved ; and the other, ap pointing a committee of two members from each State to report upon the best means of peaceably dissolving it. They were intended as amendments to a motion, to refer with instructions to report a bill, abolishing slavery in the District of Columbia. SECESSION OF SOUTHERN MEMBERS. 125 " I expected them to share the fate which inevitably awaited the original motion, so soon as the floor could have been ob tained, viz., to be laid upon the table. My design in presenting them was to place before Congress and the people, what, in my opinion, was the true issue upon this great and vital question ; and to point out the course of policy by which it should be met by the Southern States. " But extreme counsels did not prevail. There were mem bers present who well considered that although the provocation was great, and the number voting for such a firebrand motion was deplorably large, yet it was but little more than the one-fourth of the House, and decidedly less than one-half of the members from the Free States ; so that, even if left to the Free State vote alone, the motion would have been rejected. But the motion itself, and the manner in which it was supported, was most re prehensible ; necessarily leading to disorder in the House, the destruction of its harmony and capacity for useful legislation, tending to a sectional segregation of the members, the alienation of feeling between the North and the South, and alarm to all the slaveholding States. The evil required a remedy, but not the remedy of breaking up the Union ; but one which might prevent the like in future, while administering a rebuke upon the past. That remedy was found in adopting a proposition to be offered to the House, which, if agreed to, would close the door against any discussion upon abolition petitions in future, and assimilate the proceedings of the House in that particular to those of the Senate. This proposition was put into the hands of Mr. PATTON, of Virginia, to be offered as an amendment to the rules at the opening of the House the next morning. It was in these words : " Resolved, That all petitions, memorials, and papers, touch ing the abolition of slavery, or the buying, selling, or transfer ring of slaves in any State, District, or Territory of the United States, be laid on the table, without being debated, printed, read, or referred, and that no further action whatever shall be had thereon. " Accordingly, at the opening of the House, Mr. PATTON asked leave to submit the resolution, which was read for in formation. Mr. ADAMS objected to the grant of leave. Mr. 126 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. PATTON then moved a suspension of the rules, which motion required two-thirds to sustain it ; and, unless obtained, this salutary remedy for an alarming evil (which was already in force in the Senate) could not be offered. It was a test motion, and on which the opponents of abolition agitation in the House required all their strength ; for, imless two to one, they were defeated. Happily, the two to one were ready, and on taking the yeas and nays, demanded by an abolition member, (to keep his friends to the track, and to hold the free State anti-abolition ists to their responsibility at home,) the result stood 135 yeas to 60 nays ; the full two-thirds and fifteen over." BENTON S Thirty Years View, vol. ii., p. 150. ME. CALnOUN s RESOLUTIONS FRIDAY, JANUARY 12, 1838. 1. fiesolved, That, in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States adopting the same acted, severally, as free, independ ent, and sovereign States ; and that each for itself, by its own voluntary assent, entered the Union with the view to its in creased security against all dangers, domestic as well as foreign, and the more perfect and secure enjoyment of its advantages natural, political, and social. 2. Resolved, That, in delegating a portion of their powers to be exercised by the Federal Government, the States retained, severally, the exclusive and sole right over their own domestic institutions and police, to the full extent to which those powers were not thus delegated, and are alone responsible for them ; and that any intermeddling of any one or more States, or a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions and police of the others, on any ground, political, moral, or religious, or under any pretext whatever, with the view to their altera tion or subversion, is not warranted by the Constitution, tending to endanger the domestic peace and tranquillity of the States interfered with, subversive of the objects for which the Consti tution was formed, and, by necessary consequence, tending to weaken and destroy the Union itself. 3. Resolved, That this Government was instituted and adopted by the several States of this Union as a common agent, in order to carry into effect the powers which they had dele- 127 gated by the Constitution for their mutual security and pros perity, and that, in fulfilment of this high and sacred trust, this Government is bound so to exercise its powers, as not to inter fere with the stability and security of the domestic institutions of the States that compose the Union ; and that it is the solemn duty of the Government to resist, to the extent of its constitu tional power, all attempts by one portion of the Union to use it as an instrument to attack the domestic institutions of another, or to weaken or destroy such institutions. 4. Resolved, That domestic slavery, as it exists in the South ern and Western States of this Union, composes an important part of their domestic institutions, inherited from their ancestors, and existing at the adoption of the Constitution, by which it is recognized as constituting an important element in the appor tionment of powers among the States, and that no change of opinion or feeling on the part of the other States of the Union in relation to it, can justify them or their citizens in open and systematic attacks thereon, with the view to its overthrow ; and that all such attacks are in manifest violation of the mutual and solemn pledge to protect and defend each other, given by the States respectively, on entering into the Constitutional compact which formed the Union, and as such are a manifest breach of faith, and a violation of the most solemn obligations. 5. Resolved^ That the interference by the citizens of any of the States, with the view to the abolition of slavery in this District, is endangering the rights and security of the people of the District, and that any act or measure of Congress designed to abolish slavery in this District, would be a violation of the faith implied in the cessions by the States of Virginia and Mary land, a just cause of alarm to the people of the slaveholding States, and have a direct and inevitable tendency to disturb and endanger the Union. 6. And Resolved^ That any attempt of Congress to abolish slavery in any Territory of the United States in which it exists, would create serious alarm and just apprehension in the States sustaining that domestic institution ; would be a violation of good faith towards the inhabitants of any such Territory who have been permitted to settle with, and hold slaves therein, be cause the people of any such Territory have not asked for the 128 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. abolition of slavery therein, and because, when any such Terri tory shall be admitted into the Union as a State, the people thereof will be entitled to decide that question exclusively for themselves. The final vote upon the adoption of these resolutions, was : YEAS Messrs. ALLEN, BAYARD, BENTON. BLACK, BROWN, BUCHANAN, CALHOUN, CLAY of Alabama, CLAY of Ky., CRIT- TENDEN, CUTHBERT, FuLTON, GRUNDY, HuBBARD, KlNG, LuMPKIN, LYON, MERRICK, NICHOLAS, NILES, NORVELL, PIERCE, PRESTON, RIVES, ROANE, ROBINSON, SEVIER, SMITH of Connecticut, STRANGE, TIPTON, WALKER, WHITE, WILLIAMS, WRIGHT, YOUNG 35. NAYS Messrs. CLAYTON, of Delaware, DAVIS, KNIGHT, Mc- KEAN, of Pennsylvania, PRENTISS, ROBBINS, SMITH, of Indiana, SWIFT, and WEBSTER 9. Massachusetts, Yermont, and Rhode Island were the only States that voted in the negative. EEMARKS. 1. At the period of which this chapter treats, the sentiments of the people in the several Northern States had undergone a great change on the subject of slavery, since the formation of the Federal Constitution, and especially since the Declaration of Independence. While the people of those States possessed slaves, they could form an estimate of the advantages and dis advantages, the rectitude or the impropriety of slavery, from their own observation of its practical workings. Before the American Revolution, some of the best Christians in the North ern section owned slaves, as now some of the best Christians at the South do. Slavery was sanctioned by the British Govern ment, and by the Colonial Legislatures ; by statesmen and by clergymen. The relations of " superiors, inferiors, and equals," and the correlative duties of masters and servants were recog nized, not only in catechisms, but in the public instructions of the sanctuary. In 1749, the celebrated WHITEFIELD thus wrote : " One negro has been given me ; some more I propose to pur chase this week." " This confirms me in the opinion that Georgia never can be a flourishing province, without negroes are allowed." EEMAEKS. 129 But at this period in Vermont, and in Massachusetts, where it had ceased to exist for nearly sixty years or for two genera tions, and in other Northern States, there were those who be lieved that they understood the subject of slavery better than those in the Southern States who had seen its practical work ings. 2. There were at the time several classes of abolitionists, who urged Congress to emancipate the slaves in the District of Co lumbia : a. Those who were under the influence of a generous, yet unreflecting philanthropy, and who, from their disregard of con stitutional rights and obligations, were characterized as having " hearts larger than their heads." ~b. Those who believed that the Constitution authorized the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, and who felt disposed to use all constitutionl means to abolish slavery through out the land. c. Those who would free the slaves on the ground of natural rights as stated in the Declaration of Independence, which they placed on a level with the Constitution, or above it. Such de clared that the " Federal Constitution has neither any moral nor political right to tolerate slavery in any of the States be longing to the Federal Union, for a single day." d. Those who, from a real or a pretended regard for the right of petition, signed petitions to vindicate that right ; while they professed to care very little about the object petitioned for. e. Those who wished to promote political agitation for party purposes. f. Those who hated slavery and slaveholders ; and who, by memorials and petitions, could vent their wrath in the language of vituperation. Petitioning was the fashion of the times in some of the States. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, the champion of the North, declared on one occasion in Congress, that he had before him 350 petitions on which were from 34,000 to 35,000 names. 3. In opposition to these petitions and memorials, it was said in Congress and elsewhere : a. That they were an abuse of the right granted by the Con- 130 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. stitution " peaceably to assemble and petition for the redress of grievances," viz., their own grievances. Slavery was no new thing, but the existence of slavery as an institution recognized by the Constitution, and the right of property in slaves as re cognized in the Constitution, is not a grievance under the Con stitution to the people of Vermont. "The oppressed subject has a right to petition Government for the redress of griev ances." But the existence of slavery in the District of Colum bia is not a grievance to the people of Vermont ; but the abo lition of slavery, in opposition to the wishes of slaveholders in the District of Columbia, would be a grievance to them. In the early days of the Republic, the existence of slavery in the South was not thought of as a " grievance." 1). That a petition for a general object like that is imperti nent, inasmuch as Congress is better acquainted with the subject than the men, women, and children, who have never been in the District. Such a petition implies that Congress v/ill not attend to its duties without admonition. c. That the arguments used against slavery in the District of Columbia are covertly or openly intended to operate against slavery elsewhere ; and that the abolition of slavery in the Dis trict would be the entering wedge to the abolition of slavery in the States, as soon as Congress could get the power, by altering the Constitution. d. That the arguments or denunciations against slavery have the effect to create prejudice against slaveholders and slave- holding States. e. That some of these petitions contain falsehoods, and slan ders, and insulting statements, concerning slaveholders, and are therefore adapted to produce a spirit of disunion. f. That some of the petitions were got up in order to place certain members of Congress in the awkward position of pre senting petitions to which they were opposed. 4. At the first presentation of these petitions in Congress, the general sentiment in both Houses was opposed to them, as was the sentiment of the great Northern community Abolitionists were regarded with distrust or abhorrence. But in time anti- slavery sentiments so far prevailed, that candidates found an appeal to sectional feelings an effectual way to secure an elec- REMARKS. 131 tion. And after they had secured an election by such an ap peal, they felt themselves obliged to carry out in Congress the principles upon which they were elected. 5. In Congress, there was a great diversity of opinion as to what course should be taken with those petitions : a. Some of the petitions were received and reported on ad versely without producing any beneficial effect, or lessening the number of petitions. See Mr. fives speech, Dec. 1837. 1). Some of them were received and laid on the table. c. Some of them were disposed of by a motion to lay the question of reception on the table. None of these modes satisfied the anti-slavery views of the Northern delegations in Congress ; and many even of the mem bers who were opposed to the prayer of the petitioners, were disposed to complain that the right of petition was restricted by the latter course. G. In February, Mr. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, who, like some others in or out of the House, was disposed to magnify the right of petition above some other rights, presented a petition from " some ladies in Fredericksburg, Virginia," of whom Mr. PAT- TON, member from that place, declared that he believed all of them to be free negroes of a bad character. Mr. ADAMS also tendered a petition from twenty-two persons, who declared themselves to be slaves. And (June, 1838) he referred to his tendering such a petition. This act of his was severely con demned by individuals in the House. He escaped a vote of censure which was threatened. But the House voted " That slaves do not possess the right of petition, secured to the people of the United States by the Constitution." The vote was 162 in the affirmative and 18 in the negative. 7. A portion of the multitude of petitions offered during the Administration of Mr. VAN BUREN, were got up at the instiga tion of members of Congress, who for one reason and another took pleasure in presenting them. It was supposed that Mr. ADAMS, under the influence of a deep resentment against tho South, took a pleasure in presenting petitions for objects for which he himself would not vote. While the abolitionists were thus spreading their arguments and denunciations against slavery before the representatives of 132 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the nation at "Washington, and also before the State Legislatures at the North, they were sending incendiary publications through the Southern States by mail and otherwise. As these publica tions sprang from bitter sectional feelings at the North, so they created bitter sectional feelings at the South. President JACK SON, in his message, Dec. 1835, thus introduced the subject to the notice of Congress : " I must also invite your attention to the painful excitement produced in the South, by attempts to circulate through the mails inflammatory appeals addressed to the passions of the slaves, in prints and in various publica tions calculated to stimulate them to insurrection, and to pro duce all the horrors of a civil war." The effect of these petitions signed by hundreds of thou sands of petitioners was disastrous in producing a bitter sec tional spirit throughout the country. In justice to the North it ought to be added, that some of the ablest and best men in that section were utterly opposed to the movement, as wrong in the end aimed at, wrong in the means used, and wrong in the spirit with which it was con ducted. And some of them took the ground that they were wrong as a violation of the principles of international law which ought to control the several States in their relations to each other as sovereignties. There were those who felt that the abolition societies in the several States ought to be suppressed by State authority. They had the same opinion of them which General WASHINGTON ex pressed concerning the self-constituted societies in 1794. They considered their influence upon the country through their lec tures and publications as malign. CHAPTER XL GENERAL WILLIAM HENRY HARRISON AND JOHN TYLER. MARCH 4, 1841 MARCH 4, 1845. GENERAL HARRISON was elected by the "Whig party, and by the votes of Northern States. There was a wide-spread enthu siasm in his favor, created, it was said, to some extent, by log cabins, coon-skins, hard cider, and the influence of banks. So strong were the party feelings, that sectional considerations were, for the time, ignored. Both General HARRISON and Mr. TYLER were natives of Virginia. On the death of the former, about a month after his inauguration, the latter constitutionally became President. During his administration, sectional differences of opinion manifested themselves both in Congress and in the country at large. The bankrupt bill, an increase of the tariff, the distribu tion of the proceeds of the public lands, the establishment of a national bank, the repeal of the sub-treasury, were generally favored by Northern members and opposed by Southern. ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. But the principal source of sectional feeling during the ad ministration of President TYLER, was the annexation of Texas, of which he was strongly in favor. Texas had belonged to the United States from 1803, when Louisiana was ceded, until 1810, when, by a great political mistake, it was dismembered from the United States, and attached to Mexico. The people of Texas were in favor of annexation. It would add to the strength of the United States, and give them, with some exceptions, tho monopoly of the cotton trade of the world. It would help to 134: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. keep the slave States on an equality with the non-slave States. It would prevent the existence of a dangerous rival on our bor ders, who might make treaties with Great Britain to our injury. Mr. ADAMS, when President, aided by Mr. CLAY, Secretary of State, in 1825, and then again in 1827, endeavored to secure the annexation of Texas. General JACKSON, aided by Mr. YAN BUREN, Secretary of State, in 1829 ; and again in 1833, aided by his Secretary of State, Mr. LIVINGSTON ; and again in 1835, aided by his Secretary of State, Mr. FORSYTH, endeavored to secure the annexation of Texas. For this purpose he offered five millions of dollars. It would be of great commercial advantage to the Union, which otherwise a foreign nation would enjoy. The sentiment of the country, taken as a whole, was in favor of annexation. In opposition, it was asserted that the measure was uncon stitutional ; that it would involve the country in war with Mexico ; that it would increase the slave population of the country. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS declared in substance that, if Texas were free from slavery, and the consent of Mexico were obtained, he would vote for the annexation. So high did sectional feeling rise while the question was pending, that, in some of the Southern States, the motto was " Texas or disunion ; " while, in some of the Northern States, tens of thousands of names were affixed to petitions against the measure. In Massachusetts, so strong was the opposition, that the Senate passed a resolution censuring their Senators in Con gress, Messrs. BATES and CHOATE. Indeed,, the spirit manifested in that State came up to the measure of the spirit of disunion on the purchase and admission of Louisiana. The annexation of Texas was a measure properly belonging to Mr. TYLER S administration, though it was not completed until Mr. POLK was in the Presidential chair, December 16, 1845. The final vote in the Senate was 31 in favor, 14: against ; and in the House, 141 in favor and 56 against. On February 5, 1844, Mr. BEARDSLEY, of New York, present ed a petition from sundry citizens of New York, praying for an amendment to the Constitution, so as to effect the abolition of slavery in the Southern States. Mr. ADAMS presented the reso lutions of the Legislature of Massachusetts, " asking for an amendment to the Constitution, so as to exclude that portion of ANNEXATION OF TEXAS. 135 the representation of the Southern States which is based on their slave population." In the Senate, Mr. BATES presented the same resolves of the Massachusetts Legislature. The Senate refused to print them. March 22, 1844. " Mr. DEOMGOOLE, of Virginia, from the select committee on the resolutions of the Legislatures of Vir ginia and Alabama on the proposed amendment to the Consti tution so as to prevent slave representation, which was suggested by resolutions from the Legislature of Massachusetts, made a report, accompanied by several resolutions, on which he called for the yeas and nays, and demanded the previous question." "Resolved by the House of Representatives of the United States, That the rule established in the Constitution as the basis of representation and direct taxation, resulting from a spirit of con cession and compromise essential to the formation and preserva tion of the Union of the States, ought to be held sacred by the friends of the Union." This resolution passed by 158 yeas, 18 nays. " Resolved, That no proposition to alter or amend the Consti tution, in relation to representation or direct taxation among the States, ought to be recommended by Congress, but that every such proposition ought to be promptly and decisively con demned." This resolve was passed by a vote of 127 yeas, 41 nays. In the preamble to the report, the committee say : " This proposition (of Massachusetts) is strongly and unanimously con demned by the General Assembly of Virginia, and is regarded, in truth, as a proposition virtually to dissolve the Union. The committee, believing that the basis of representation and direct taxation, as regulated in the Constitution, was the result of a spirit of concession and compromise which was indispensable to the Union of the States, and to the formation and ratification of that Constitution as ordained and established, are of opinion that the proposed alteration of the compromise would produce a peaceable or violent dissolution of the Union." EEMAEKS. 1. After the election of General HAEEISON, and during the next four years, petitions for the abolition of slavery in the Dis- 136 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. trict of Columbia became comparatively infrequent. Why was this ? Was it because fche public sensibility had become im paired by being so long wrought upon ? Or was it because the anti-slavery leaders in the agitation found a more exciting topic in Texas ? Or was it because the Whigs, in Congress and out of Congress, having by the election come into power, no longer found agitation desirable ? Mr. CLAY was not in favor of anti- slavery agitation, though some of his party had been. 2. The persistent opposition to the annexation of Texas sprang from opposition to slavery, and the opposition to slavery was, to a greater or less extent, owing to a reluctance to in creasing the political power of the Southern section of the country. 3. The resolution of the Massachusetts Legislature, instruct ing their Senators, and requesting the representatives of that State to vote for such an amendment of the Constitution as will allow only free persons to be represented, or, in other words, to abrogate slave representation, excited deep dissatisfaction in Congress. Mr. KING, of the Senate, said : " He could not but regret that it had become the duty of the honorable Senator from Massachusetts (Mr. BATES) to present to the Senate a proposition from the Legislature of his State to dissolve the Union. Was there a man within the hearing of his voice that believed, for one moment, that such an amendment could be made ? and if it could be, by any possibility, that the Federal Government would last twenty-four hours after it was made ? It is a resolu tion framed almost identically like that which had been con cocted by inhabitants of Massachusetts, in another period in the history of this Government. It is such as was during the last war passed by the Hartford Convention. * * That the General Assembly of Massachusetts should take up one of these resolu tions, after so many attempts to explain them away, and get clear of the odium connected with them, and to adopt its very words, showed a feeling of hostility to an institution which, if persisted in, was calculated to sap the very foundations of the Government itself." CHAPTER XIL JAMES K. POLKAS ADMINISTRATION. MARCH 4, 1845 MARCH 4, 1849. ME. POLK was elected President by 170 electoral votes, against 105 csust for Mr. CLAY. The Southern States generally voted for the former. He was in favor of a strict construction of the Constitution in opposition to one that is broad or loose. In his inaugural address, he spoke in the following terms on that point : " It will be my first care to administer the Govern ment in the true spirit of that instrument, and to assume no powers not expressly or clearly implied in its terms. The Gov ernment of the United States is one of delegated and limited powers ; and it is by a strict adherence to the clearly granted powers, and by abstaining from the exercise of doubtful or un authorized implied powers, that we have the only sure guar antee against the recurrence of those unfortunate collisions be tween the Federal and State authorities which have, occasion ally, so much disturbed the harmony of our system, and even threatened the perpetuity of our glorious Union." " One great object of the Constitution was to restrain majorities from op pressing minorities, or encroaching on their just rights. Minor ities have a right to appeal to the Constitution, as a shield against such oppression." THE TARIFF OF 1846. The compromise tariff of 1833, according to the provisions of the bill, continued in operation until 1841. In that year the Home League was formed, with the same object in view as the 138 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. Harrisburg Convention, namely, restoring high duties. The doctrines of the Home League were approved by Mr. CLAY and his political friends. A bill was brought in, which passed in 1842. This bill was denounced by Mr. CALHOUX. In his speech he said : " I shall not dwell on the fact that it openly violates the compromise act, and the pledges given by its author and by Governor DAVIS of Massachusetts, that if the South would adhere to the compromise, while it was operating favorably for the manufacturers, they would stand by it when it came to operate favorably for the South. I dwell not on those double breaches of plighted faith, although they are of a serious character, and likely to exercise a very pernicious influence over our future legislation, by preventing amicable adjustments of questions that may hereafter threaten the peace of the coun try." Mr. McDuFFiE characterized the tariff law of 1842 as " a foul and faithless violation of the compromise act." Mr. CLAY and the manufacturers defended the measures as necessary to supply the wants of Government, which they regarded as par amount to other considerations. In his message, Dec., 1845, President POLK recommended a revision of the Tariff laws. He declared that " the object of im posing duties 011 imports should be to raise^a revenue to pay the necessary expenses of the Government. Congress may, un doubtedly, in the exercise of a sound discretion, discriminate in arranging the rates of duty on different articles ; but the dis criminations should be within the revenue standard, and be made with the view to raise money for the support of Govern ment." " The new Administration proposed three important measures in relation to the duties : The first to abandon the protective theory in favor of a revenue theory, that is, to reduce the rates of duty, to levy them ad valorem, to make the rates uniform, and to make them payable in cash ; the warehouse system to facilitate the carrying trade ; and the Independent treasury, by which the cash duties were to be collected in gold and silver only." The Secretary of the Treasury, EGBERT J. WALKER, made an elaborate report, recommending a revenue tariff in opposition to a protective tariff. A bill was introduced of such a character, and was passed in the House, July 2, 1846, by 114 votes in the affirmative, and 95 in the negative ; and in THE TARIFF OF 1846. 139 the Senate by a vote of 28 in the affirmative, and 27 in the neg ative. The strength of the South, in both Houses, was in the affirmative, and the strength of the North in the negative. This change in the tariff was advocated by the Southern members upon constitutional grounds, namely, that it was a change from a tariff for protection which is not authorized by the Constitution, unless that protection is incidental, to a tariff for revision which is the legitimate object of a tariff, and is authorized by the Constitution. It was opposed by Northern men on the ground, that sub stantive protection had become the policy of the Government ; and, also, because the tariff of 1846 could not be reasonably ex pected to produce as large a revenue as the tariff of 1842. Ex perience proved that the Northern members were mistaken. The average of the tariff of 1842 was twenty-six millions; the average of the tariff of 1840 was forty-six millions. As an apology for the failure of Northern predictions, it should be said that the unexpected gold discoveries in California averaged at once the exports and the imports, and thus the revenue. Mr. WEBSTER, in the course of his speech in opposition to the bill, said : " It is not a bill for the people. It is not a bill for the masses. It is not a bill to add to the comfort of those in middle life, or the poor. It is not a bill for employment. It is a bill for the relief of the Highest and most luxurious classes of the country, and a bill imposing onerous duties on the great industrial masses, and taking away the means of living from labor, everywhere throughout the land." Mr. McDuFFiE, in reply said : " The strong language of the Senator from Massachusetts, in characterizing this bill as an aristocratic measure, imposes upon me the duty of saying a few words before the question is taken, to disabuse the public mind of any such impression, if any such impression is made upon it. The honorable Senator has asked, with great confidence, and certainly not in the expectation of being replied to, where is the Democratic feature of this bill? Where is the provision in tended to operate in favor of the laboring classes of the coun try ? On the contrary he goes on to enumerate certain articles of luxury upon which the duties have been reduced, and leaving it to be inferred that these are the great and principal reduc- 140 Till: SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. tions. !Now, Mr. President, I will point out to the Senator the Democratic features of this bill. It has reduced the duty upon salt from eight cents to half a cent. It has reduced the duty upon sugar from two and a half cents to one cent per pound. It has reduced the duty on all that class of cotton manufactures, whether white or printed, which is consumed by the laborers, farmers, and mechanics of the United States, God knows how much ! But I sincerely believe that in this bill, on all that class of manufactures consumed by the poor and middle ranks, there is a reduction of duties greater than on any other class of articles contained in the bill ; and I have expressed the opinion, which I sincerely believe, that the repeal of the cotton mini- mums an invention which never was known until it was in troduced in the bill of 181G, and, I believe, unknown to the custom house laws of any other country, so far as my knowl edge extends I believe that the striking out of that will alone enable the people of the United States to consume an increase importation approaching to ten millions of dollars at prices little more than two-thirds of that which they have now to I was obliged to the Senator from Massachusetts for some little evidence in favor of the Democratic character of this bill, in certain resolutions passed in Boston, in the year 1820, drawn up, I believe, by the honorable member himself, and supported and sustained by him soon after the commencement of the spirit which has resulted in the establishment of the protective system. The duties then under the act of 1816 were about 20 per cent, or 25 per cent, on the great mass of manufactures made out of cotton, wool, and iron, and all the other duties were corresponding. The proposition was then to enhance the duties in about the degree of enhancement which took place under the tariff of 1824 ; and it was in opposition to this, that a meeting of the merchants of Boston, in which the honorable Senator from Massachusetts bore a distinguished part, passed certain resolutions some of which I now recollect. One of them I distinctly remember, and it affirmed that the effect of this protecting law upon the manufactures of the country would redound to the benefit of great capitalists, and not to that of the labor of the country. That was a great political propo sition. THE TARIFF OF 1846. 141 Mr. WEBSTER. Does the Senator happen to have those, resolutions in his desk ? I have no recollection of that. Mr. McDuFFiE. I am sorry to say that I have not got a copy of the resolutions, but I believe a copy can be obtained. Mr. WESTCOTT here laid on the desk of the Senator from South Carolina a file of the " Globe," which was supposed to contain the resolutions referred to. Mr. WEBSTER. I do not wish to trouble the gentleman now ; at his convenience, perhaps, he may be able to furnish the reso lutions. Mr. McDuFFiE proceeded. This, sir, was one of the resolu tions. Another was in answer to the allegation that the estab lishment of these factories would give an increased market to the farmer. One of these resolutions was in these words as far as I can recollect : " They cannot perceive how the farming interest can be benefited by a law which increases the price of every thing that they have to buy, and diminishes the price of every thing they have to sell." Now, sir, I quote this resolution simply with the view and for no other purpose than to answer a very confident interrog atory of the Senator where is the Democratic feature of this measure ? But, Mr President, I did not intend to make a speech, and I will not do so. As, ho\vever, the Boston Resolutions to which I referred have been handed to me since I alluded to them, I will ask the Clerk to read them. [The Clerk read the resolutions.] I want to say one word (Mr. McD. added) on this subject of the revenue. I had very strong views on that subject, but my de sire to see the vote taken led me to refrain from presenting them to the Senate, and so prolonging the discussion. I will take the article of wool, and present a view which seems to be entirely overlooked. He then went on to show that of woollens and cottons, the increase of importation would be very great under the new law, and the revenue be correspondingly aug mented. The amount of increase from the destruction of the minimums it was impossible to calculate. Mr. WEBSTER rose and said : The resolution read cannot be the one referred to by the Senator. I remember that meet- 142 THE SECTION AL CONTROVERSY. ing in Faneuil Hall. I dare say that may be the regular ac count of the proceedings. If it be it cannot be the full account, because there was another resolution passed at the same time to which my attention has been frequently since called in the Senate, and which has not been read in that series of resolu tions. However, I attended a meeting. Whether I drew the resolutions or assented to them I do not know. Whether I made a speech on the occasion I cannot tell. But I yield it all to the honorable member. Consider me as having drawn every word of these resolutions, and as having urged their adoption upon the people assembled. Suppose that to be any way. The first thing I have got to say now is, that the honorable member from South Carolina will admit that such is the in firmity of our nature that an honest man may change his .opin ion, and he may change it in two or three as well as in twenty years. I think the most powerful argument ever addressed to the people of the United States against the annexation of Texas was from the Governor of South Carolina ; and I think the greatest speech in favor of it was made by the Senator from South Carolina -eandem personam ! Mr. McDuFFiE. Texas was then an independent State and so recognized. Mr. WEBSTER. Yes, and I quote it for the purpose of show ing that an honest man may change his opinion. Well, sir, I believe that the honorable member from South Carolina was, at the time 1 had the honor of being associated with him in the House of Representatives, a most powerful advocate of internal improvements, and raised his voice in favor of that principle. Mr. McDuFFiE. Xot in favor of the exercise-power. Mr. WEBSTER. Was the power then to be barren ? Mr. McDuFFiE. Only to make surveys. Mr. WEBSTER. Why that was the first step. He that can make a survey for improvements, can make improvements. I believe the honorable gentleman also at one time entertained a very favorable opinion of the Bank of the United States, and at another time quite the contrary. Well, then, I stand before the Senate as a man who has found occasion to change his opinions. Mr. McDurriE. I made no unkind imputation. THE TARIFF OF 1846. 143 Mr. WEBSTER. Certainly not. A word, sir, about these resolutions of 1821. I remember the state of things very well. The commercial people of New England, in 1821, were in a considerable state of alarm. They had commerce all over the world. They thought that a policy had been begun at Wash ington which would interfere with their commerce, and it was of that, that they were afraid. How was this great evil, of which they had become afraid, fastened upon them ? By the minimums put upon them by South Carolina to cut off the New England India trade that s all. The minimum principle, so odious now, was moved in Congress by a most respectable and distinguished member from South Carolina not now living. It was carried by South Carolina against every vote of Massa chusetts. I do not think there was a vote of Massachusetts, not one in favor of the measure. "Well, then, it is not because the minimum principle is bad in itself. Why, sir, minimum is now spoken of here as if it were a Pawnee Indian, or one of the Camanches that eats up and destroys everybody and every thing. Mr. McDuFFiE. So it does ! Mr. WEBSTER. Well, bad as it is, it was introduced by South Carolina against every vote of Massachusetts. We all now see that the Senator from South Carolina is against it. Well, then, in 1820 or thereabouts, an eminent member of Con gress from Pennsylvania introduced a high protective tariff bearing among certain other things especially upon iron. I refer to Mr. BALDWIN, afterwards judge of the Supreme Court. That tariff went to protect every thing out of New England. Well, here was New England between the upper and nether mill-stone ; between the South Carolina tariff with its mini- mums on cottons which cut off the India trade, and the Penn sylvania tariff. I wish the gentleman had dwelt a little more, in his address to the Chair, on the effect of this bill upon the iron and coal of Pennsylvania. But now, sir, I agree, that whether it be owing to change of opinion wrought by circum stances, by a change in the condition of things in the country, or otherwise, I am of opinion that in the present state of things which has existed since 1824, there is no going back from that principle of protection which was established in 1824. The law of 1824 did not pass with the consent of Massachusetts. It re- 144 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. ceived but one vote, I think, in the entire delegation from Mass achusetts in both Houses of Congress. As I said the other day, New England had been addicted to commerce. But she sup posed the time had come, when she must conform herself to the law of the country and invest her capital for her labor was her capital and direct her industry to such pursuits as the country had promised to protect and uphold. Now, sir, if there be any thing inconsistent in that, I admit the inconsistency take it in the broadest sense and I agree to every word of the resolution of Faneuil Hall of 1821. In the present state of things there is an essential importance an absolute moral necessity for maintaining those habits, pursuits, business, and employ ments, into which men entered twenty-two years ago, upon the faith of the declared sentiments and policy of a majority of both Houses of Congress. OREGON TERRITORY. August 11, 1848. Mr. DOUGLAS, of the Committee on Ter ritories, moved to amend the Oregon territorial bill, by extend ing the line of 36 30 , agreed upon in the Missouri Compro mise, to the Pacific Ocean, and thus settle the slavery question in respect to territories. The vote in the Senate in favor of this amendment was 33, against it 21. Those in the negative were : ALLEN and CORWIN of Ohio, ATHERTON and HALE of New Hampshire, BALDWIN and NILES of Connecticut, BRADBURY and HAMLIN of Maine, BROWN of Illinois, CLARKE and GREENE of Hhode Island, DAVIS and WEBSTER of Massachusetts, DAYTON and AVELLS of New Jersey, Dix of New York, DODGE of Iowa, FETCH of Michigan, PIIFLPS and UPHAM of Vermont, WALKER of Wisconsin. In the House, this amendment was rejected by a vote of 121 against, and 82 in favor. Northern members refused to carry out the Missouri Compromise in its application to territories lying west of Missouri. This is an historical fact of great sig nificance in its relation to the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. THE WILMOT PROVISO. To a bill, proposed by Mr. McKAY, of North Carolina, for making peace with Mexico, introduced into the House of Rep-- KEMARKS. resentatives, Angnst 8, 1846, Mr. DAVID WILMOT, of Pennsyl vania, proposed the following amendment : provided, "That as an express and fundamental condition to the acquisition of any , territory from the Republic of Mexico by the United States, by virtue of any treaty which may be negotiated between them, and to the use by the Executive of the moneys herein appro priated, neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shall ever exist in any part of said territory, except for crime, whereof the party shall first be duly convicted." Mr. WICK moved to amend the amendment by inserting therein, after the word " territory," the words, " north of 36 30 north latitude." The amendment to the amendment was disagreed to ayes 54, noes 89. The question then recurring on the original amendment of Mr. "WILMOT, it was decided in the affirmative ayes 83, noes C-i. This amendment, with some modifications, came up for con sideration in the House, March 3, 1847. It was rejected by a vote of 97 in favor, and 102 against the proviso. The votes of the ISTew England States were in favor of the proviso ; the votes of the Southern States were opposed to the proviso. REMARKS. 1. As Northern views prevailed in Congress, during the Ad ministration of General HARRISON and Mr. TYLER ; so Southern views prevailed in regard to political principles and policy dur ing the Administration of Mr. POLK. 2. Mr. VAN BUREN expected the nomination to the Presi dency from the Democratic party in 1844, but failed of receivr ing it on account of his declared opposition to the immediate annexation of Texas, which prevented his receiving the votes of Southern delegates in the Convention. Mr. CLAY, for the same reason, failed of his election. He neither satisfied the South, nor all the free soilers of the K"orth, by his letters in re spect to Texas. 3. The adoption of the "Wilmot proviso in the House on its first introduction, alarmed and wounded the South. This at tempt to exclude Southern men and Southern institutions from 146 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the territories which were won by the common blood and the common treasure of the States, created a deep sense of injury in the hearts of Southern people. On the other hand, the legis latures of several Northern States passed resolves approving of the proviso, while the Northern press and Northern speech- makers were clamorous in its favor, and, to some extent, kindled up a fanatical spirit throughout that section. In opposition to these movements, resolutions were introduced by Mr. CALIIOUN into the Senate of the United States, declaring that the terri tories of the United States belong to the several States as joint property ; that Congress, as the joint agent of the States, has no right to discriminate between the States, so as to deprive any of them of its full and equal right in any territory of the United States ; that the enactment of any law which should deprive the citizens of any of the States from emigrating with their property into any of the territories of the Union, will make such discrimination, and would be a violation of the Constitu tion and the rights of the States from which such citizens emi grated. These resolutions, though never pressed to a vote, had their influence in Congress and the country. 4. It should be borne in mind that the Northern States claimed all of the territories for themselves, and their citizens, and their institutions. The Southern States claimed apart, or half of the territories for themselves, and their citizens, and their institutions. Which of the two sections was the more generous and liberal and just? 5. The following is one of a series of resolutions adopted by the Legislature of Virginia, March 8, 1847, and re-affirmed in 1849 : " Resolved unanimously r , That all territory which may be acquired by the arms of the United States, or yielded by treaty with any foreign power, belongs to the several States of this Union, as their joint and common property, in which each and all have equal rights ; and that the enactment, by the Fed eral Government, of any law which should directly, or by its effects, prevent the citizens of any State from emigrating with their property, of whatever description, into such territory, would make a discrimination unwarranted by, and in violation of, the compromises of the Constitution, and the rights of the REMARKS. 147 States from which such citizens emigrated, and in derogation of that perfect equality which belongs to the several States as members of this Union, and would directly tend to subvert the Union itself." This had a direct reference to the Wilmot pro viso, but it had also a wider application. 6. Did those members of Congress who voted against ex tending the line of the Missouri Compromise from the 36 30 to the Pacific Ocean, for the settlement of the sectional disputes in regard to territories, act judiciously and fairly ? Could they have foreseen the evils which consequently sprang up after wards, would they not have given a different vote, and thus have avoided those evils ? In the latter part of the Administration of Mr. POLK, the slave State members held nightly meetings, in which the so- called aggressions of Northern States w r ere dwelt upon, and measures considered for the defence and protection of the South. Out of these meetings grew an address to the people of the slave-holding States, signed by about forty members of Congress. In that address, the following language is used : " We allude to the conflict between the two great sections of the Union, growing out of a difference of feeling and opinion in reference to the relation existing between the two races, the European and the African, which inhabit the Southern section, and the acts of aggression and encroachment to which it has led. The conflict commenced not long after the acknowledgment of our independence, and has gradually increased until it has ar rayed the great body of the North against the South on this most vital subject. In the progress of this conflict, aggression has followed aggression, and encroachment encroachment, until they have reached a point w^hen a regard for peace and safety will not permit us to remain longer silent." CHAPTER XIII. GENERAL TAYLOR AND ME. FILLMORfi s ADMINISTRATION. MARCH 4, 1849 MARCH 4, 1853. GENERAL ZACHARY TAYLOR was elected by the Whig party, on the ground of availability, and not on the ground of political experience and qualifications. He was regarded as an honest man, and as " rough and ready " in war. Many of the Demo cratic party voted for him on the ground of his personal and popular qualities. He was elected on the platform of the Con stitution, the subject of slavery being ignored by the Convention which nominated him. Mr. CASS was nominated on. a platform which expressed no opposition to slavery, and was acceptable to the slaveholding States generally. Mr. VAN BUREN was nominated at Buffalo, by a portion of the Democratic party, in consequence of the rejection of the two sets of delegates from Xew York, by the Democratic nominating Convention at Baltimore. One of these factions in that State whose delegates had been rejected, determined to assert its claim to being the Democratic party of New York, by nominating a candidate of its own. President DWIGIIT once said that the old " Council of Appointment " in New York " was a hornet s nest in the kitchen." That Council had been long since abolished, but still, as late as 1848, difficulties existed connected with the appointing power. The hornet s nest had been removed, but the hornets remained. In the platform adopted at Buffalo, it was declared to be the duty of the Federal Government to abol ish slavery wherever it can constitutionally be done ; thus point ing to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. It DANGER OF DISUNION. was also declared in that platform that Congress alone can pre vent the existence of slavery in the Territories ; thus pointing to exclusion of slavery in the Territories. The party assumed the name of " Free soilers," or " Free-soil party," and rejoiced in the watchword, " Free speech," " Free labor," " Free men." The " Liberty party," or " Free-soil party," of New York, might have elected Mr. CLAY in 1844, or Mr. CASS in 1848, by throw ing their votes with the Whig party at the one election, or witli the Democratic party in the other. General TAYLOR came into office when there was strong sec ts tional feeling both North and South, excited by the attempt to pass the Wilmot proviso, and by many other aggressive move ments of the Northern States. These States, or large numbers in these, were disposed : 1. To exclude slaves from the Territories, and in this way to prevent any more slave States from coming into the Union. 2. To abolish slave representation in Congress, by an amend ment to the Constitution. This was limited to a few States. 3. To suppress the slave trade between the States, and in the District of Columbia. 4. To abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. 5. To prevent the capture of fugitive slaves, or at least not to aid in restoring them to their owners. 6. To abolish slavery in the States as soon as can constitu tionally be done, by an amendment to the Constitution. In pressing these subjects upon the attention of Congress, a very bitter feeling was awakened in both the Northern and Southern States, which threatened disunion as a natural conse quence. At this time there was an especial interest in the subject of ^ slavery restriction in the Territories, not only on account of the attempted imposition of the Wilmot proviso, but also on ac count of the projected admission of California. DANGER OF DISUNION. So deeply impressed was Mr. CLAY w r ith the danger of dis union, that he brought forward in the Senate, January 29, 1850, his celebrated Compromise Resolutions, for the settlement of 150 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the sectional difficulties. In his own language, " taken together in combination, they propose an amicable arrangement of all questions in controversy between the free and the slave States." Mr. CALHOUN, in a speech prepared by him with great care, but owing to his feeble health read by Mr. MASON, March 4, 1850, asserted that " The agitation has been permitted to pro ceed, with almost no attempts to resist it, until it has reached a period when it is no longer to be disguised or denied, that the Union is in danger." " What is it that has endangered the Union ? To this question there can be but one answer : that the immediate cause is the almost universal discontent which pervades all the States composing the Southern section of the Union. This widely-extended discontent is not of recent origin. It commenced with the agitation of the slavery question, and has been increasing ever since." lie goes on to ask, " What has caused this widely-diffused and almost universal discon tent ? " He then proceeds to show that it was not originated by demagogues ; that all the great political influences were ar rayed against excitement ; that the Southern Whigs wished to keep the peace with their brother Whigs at the North ; that the Southern Democrats wished to keep the peace with their brother Democrats at the North. " One of the causes is found in the long-continued agitation of the slave question on the part of the North, and the many aggressions made on the rights of the South during that time." " There is another cause lying back of it, with which this is so intimately connected that it may be regarded as the great and primary cause ; that is to be found in the fact that the equilibrium between the two sections of the Government, as it stood when the Constitution was ratified, and the Government put in action, is destroyed. At that time there was nearly a perfect equilibrium between the two, which afforded ample means to each to protect itself against the aggressions of the other ; but as it now stands, one section has the exclusive power of controlling the Government, which leaves the other without any adequate means of protecting itself against its encroach ment and oppression." The change arising from the increase of States and the increase of population, gives to the North a majority in the House of 50, and in the electoral college of 52. DANGER OF DISUNION. 151 " The great increase of Senators, added to the great increase of numbers in the House of Representatives and in the elec toral college, on the part of the North, which must take place under the next decade, will effectually and irretrievably destroy the equilibrium which existed when the Government com menced. " Had this destruction been the operation of time, without the interference of Government, the South would have had no reason to complain ; but such was not the fact. It was caused by the legislation of this Government, which was appointed as the common agent of all, and charged with the protection of the interests and security of all* ^ The legislation by which it has been effected may be c^asml under three heads : The first is that series of acts by whick the South had been excluded from the common territory belonging to all of the States, as the members of the Federal Union, and which soon had the effect of extend ing vastly the portion allotted to the Northern section, and re stricting within narrow limits the portion left to the South. The next consists in adopting a system of revenue and disbursements, by which an undue portion of the burden of taxation has been imposed on the South, and an undue proportion of the proceeds appropriated to the North. And the last is a system of political meHSures, by which the original character of the Government has been radically changed. " The first of the series of acts by which the South was de prived of its due share of the Territories, originated with the Confederacy, which preceded the existence of this Government. It is to be found in the ordinance of 1787. Its effect was to exr elude the South entirely from that vast and fertile region which lies between the Ohio and the Mississippi Rivers, now em bracing five States and one Territory. The next of the series is the Missouri Compromise, which excluded the South from that large portion of Louisiana which lies north of 36 30 , except what is included in the State of Missouri. The last in the series excluded the South from the whole Oregon Territory. All these, in the slang of the day, were what is called slave Territo ries, and not free soil ; that is, Territories belonging to slave- holding powers, and open to the emigration of masters with their slaves. By these several acts the South was excluded 152 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. from 1,238,025 square miles. To the South was left the portion of the Territory of Louisiana lying south of 36 30 , and the portion north of it included in the State of Missouri ; the por tion lying south of 36 30 , including the States of Louisiana and Arkansas ; and the Territory lying west of the latter and south of 36 30 , called the Indian country. These, with the Territory of Florida, now the State, makes in the whole 283,503 square miles. To this must be added the territory acquired with Texas. If the whole should be added to the Southern sec tion, it would make an increase of 325,520, which would make the whole left to the South 609,023. But a large part of Texas is still in contest between the two sections, which leaves it un certain what will be the real extent of the portion of territory that may be left to the South. " I have not included the territory recently acquired by the treaty with Mexico. The I^orth is making the most strenuous efforts to appropriate the w r hole to herself, by excluding the South from every foot of it. If she should succeed, it will add to^ that from which the S9iith has already been excluded, 526,078 square miles, and would increase the whole which the North has appropriated to herself to 1,764,023, not including the portion that she may succeed in excluding us from in Texas. To sum up the whole, the United States, since they declared their independence, have acquired 2,373,046 square miles of territory, from which the North will have excluded the South, if she should succeed in monopolizing the newly acquired ter ritories, from about three-fourths of the. whole, leaving to the South but about one-fourth. " Such is the first and great cause that has destroyed the equi librium between the two sections in the Government. " The next is the system of revenue and disbursements, which has been adopted by the Government. It is well known that the Government has derived its revenue mainly from duties on imports. I shall not undertake to show that such duties must necessarily fall mainly on the exporting States, and that the South, as the great exporting portion of the Union, has in reality paid vastly more than her due proportion of the rev enue ; because I deem it unnecessary, as the subject has on so many occasions been fully discussed. ISTor shall I, for the same DANGER OF DISUNION. 153 reason, undertake to show that a far greater portion of the rev enue has been disbursed at the North than its due share, and that the joint effect of these causes has been to transfer a vast amount from South to North, which, under an equal system of revenue and disbursements, would not have been lost to her. If to this be added, that many of the duties were imposed, not for revenue, but for protection ; that is, intended to put money, not in the treasury, but directly into the pockets of the manufac turers, some conception may be formed of the immense amount which, in the long course of sixty years, has been transferred from South to North. There are no data by which it can b6 estimated with any certainty ; but it is safe to say that it amounts to hundreds of millions of dollars. Under the most moderate estimate, it would be sufficient to add greatly to the wealth of the North, and thus greatly increase her population by attracting emigration from all quarters to that section. " This, combined with the great primary cause, amply ex plains why the North has acquired a preponderance over every department of the Government by its disproportionate increase of population and States. The former, as has been shown, has increased in fifty years 2,400,000 over that of the South. This increase of population during so long a period, is satisfactorily accounted for by the number of emigrants, and the increase of their descendants, which have been attracted to the Northern section from Europe and the South, in consequence of the ad vantages derived from the causes assigned. If they had not existed ; if the South had retained all the capital which has been extracted from her by the fiscal action of the Government ; and, if it had not been excluded by the ordinance of 87 and the Missouri Compromise from the region lying between the Ohio and the Mississippi Rivers, and between the Mississippi and the Rocky Mountains north of 36 30 , it scarcely admits of a doubt that it would have divided the emigration with the North, and by retaining her own people, would have at least equalled the North in population under the census of 1840, and probably under that about to be taken. She would also, if she had retained her equal rights in those territories, have main tained an equality in the number of States with the North, and have preserved the equilibrium between the two sections that 154: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. existed at the commencement of the Government. The loss, then, of the equilibrium is to be attributed to the action of this Government. But while these measures were destroying the equilibrium between the two sections, the action of the Govern ment was leading to a radical change in its character, by con centrating all the power of the system in itself. The occasion will not permit me to trace the measures by which this great change has been consummated. If it did, it would not be diffi cult to show that the process commenced at an early period of the Government ; that it proceeded almost without interruption, step by step, until it absorbed virtually its entire powers. But without going through the whole process to establish the fact, it may be done satisfactorily by a very short statement. .That the Government claims, and practically maintains, the right to decide, in the last resort, as to the extent of its powers, will scarcely be denied by any one conversant with the political his tory of the country. That it also claims the right to resort to force, to maintain whatever power she claims against all oppo sition, is equally certain. Indeed it is apparent, from what we daily hear, that this has become the prevailing and fixed opinion of a great majority of the community. Now, I ask, what limi tation can possibly be placed upon the powers of a Government claiming and exercising such rights ? And, if none can be, how can the separate Governments of the States maintain and pro tect the powers reserved to them by the Constitution, or the people of the several States maintain those which are reserved to them, and among others, the sovereign powers by which they ordained and established, not only their separate State Consti tutions and Governments, but also the Constitution and Gov ernment of the United States ? But, if they have no constitu tional means of maintaining them against the right claimed by this Government, it necessarily follows that they hold them at its pleasure and discretion, and that all the powers of the system are in reality concentrated in it. It also follows that the char acter of the Government has been changed, in consequence, from a Federal Republic, as it originally came from the hands of its framers, and that it lias been changed into a great national consolidated Democracy. It has indeed, at present, all the char acteristics of the latter, and not one of the former, although it DANGER OF DISUNION. 155 still retains its outward form. The result of the whole of these causes combined is, that the North has acquired a decided ascend ency over every department of this Government, and through it a control over all the powers of the system. A single section governed by the will of the numerical majority has now, in fact, the control of the Government, and the entire powers of the system. What was once a constitutional Federal Republic is now converted, in reality, into one as absolute as that of the autocrat of Russia, and as despotic in its tendency as any ab solute Government that ever existed. " As, then, the North has the absolute control over the Gov ernment, it is manifest that on all questions between it and the South, where there is a diversity of interests, the interests of the latter will be sacrificed to the former, however oppressive the effects may be, as the South possesses no means by which it can resist through the action of the Government. But if there was no question of vital importance to the South, in reference to which there was a diversity of views between the two sec tions, this state of things might be endured without the hazard of destruction to the South. But such is not the fact. There is a question of vital importance to the Southern section, in reference to which the views and feelings of the two sections are as opposite and hostile as they can possibly be. I refer to the relation between the two races in the Southern section, which constitutes a vital portion of her social organization. Every portion of the North entertains views and feelings more or less hostile to it. Those most opposed and hostile regard it as a sin, and consider themselves under the most sacred obliga tion to use every effort to destroy it. Indeed, to the extent that they conceive they have the power, they regard themselves as implicated in the sin, and responsible for suppressing it by the use of all and every means. Those less opposed and hostile, regard it as a crime an offence against humanity, as they call it ; and although not so fanatical, feel themselves bound to use all efforts to effect the same object ; while those who are least opposed and hostile, regard it as a blot and a stain on the char acter of what they call the nation, and feel themselves accord ingly bound to give it no countenance or support. On the contrary, the Southern section regards the relation as one which 156 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. cannot be destroyed without subjecting the two races to the greatest calamity, and the section to poverty, desolation, and wretchedness ; and accordingly they feel bound by every con sideration of interest and safety to defend it. "This hostile feeling on the part of the North towards the social organization of the South long lay dormant, but it only required some cause to act on those who felt most intensely that they were responsible for its continuance to call it into action. The increasing power of this Government, and of the control of the Northern section over all its departments, fur nished the cause. It was this which made an impression on the minds of many, that there was little or no restraint to prevent the Government from doing whatever it might choose to do. This was sufficient of itself to put the most fanatical portion of the North in action for the purpose of destroying the existing relation between the two races in the South. " The first organized movement towards it commenced in 1835. Then, for the first time, societies were organized, presses established, lecturers sent forth to excite the people of the North, and incendiary publications scattered over the whole South through the mail. The South was thoroughly aroused. Meetings were held everywhere, and resolutions adopted, calling upon the North to apply a remedy to arrest the threatened evil, and pledging themselves to adopt measures for their own pro tection, if it was not arrested. At the meeting of Congress, petitions poured in from the North, calling upon Congress to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, and to prohibit what they called the internal slave trade between the States, announcing at the same time that their ultimate object was to abolish slavery, not only in the District, but in the States and throughout the Union. At this period the number engaged in the agitation was small, and possessed little or no personal in fluence. " Neither party in Congress had, at that time, any sympathy with them or their cause. The members of each party pre sented their petitions with great reluctance. Nevertheless, as small and contemptible as the party then was, both of the great parties at the North dreaded them. They felt that, though small, they were organized in reference to a subject which had DANGER OF DISUNION. 157 a great and commanding influence over the Northern mind. Each party on that account feared to oppose their petitions, lest the opposite party should take advantage of the one who might do so by favoring their petitions. The effect was, that both united in insisting that the petitions should be received, and that Congress should take jurisdiction of the subject for which they prayed. To justify their course, they took the ex traordinary ground that Congress was bound to receive petitions on every subject, however objectionable it might be, and whether they had or had not jurisdiction over the subject. These views prevailed in the House of Representatives, and partially in the Senate, and thus the party succeeded in their first movements in gaining what they proposed a position in Congress from which agitation could be extended over the whole Union. This was the commencement of the agitation, which has ever since continued, and which, as is now acknowledged, has endangered the Union itself. As for myself, 1 believed, at that early period, if the party who got up the petitions should succeed in getting Congress to take jurisdiction, that agitation would follow, and that it would, in the end, if not arrested, destroy the Union. I then so expressed myself in debate, and called upon both par ties to take grounds against assuming jurisdiction, but in vain. Had my voice been heeded, and had Congress refused to take jurisdiction, by the united votes of all parties, the agitation which followed would have been prevented, and the fanatical zeal that gives impulse to the agitation, and which has brought us to our present perilous condition, would have become ex tinguished from the want of something to feed the flame*. - That was the time for the North to show her devotion to the Union ; but unfortunately both of the great parties of that section were so intent on obtaining or retaining party ascendency, that all other considerations were overlooked or forgotten. " What has since followed are but the natural consequences. With the success of their first movement, this small fanatical party began to acquire strength ; and with that to become an object of courtship to both the great parties. The necessary consequence was a further increase of power, and a gradual tainting of the opinions of both of the other parties with their doctrines, until the infection has extended over both ; and the 158 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. great masses of the population of the North who, whatever may be their opinion of the original abolition party, which still pre serves its distinctive organization, hardly ever fail, when it comes to acting, to co-operate in carrying out their measures. "With the increase of their influence, they extended the sphere of their action. In a short time after the commencement of their first movement, they had acquired sufficient influence to induce the Legislatures of most of the Northern States to pass acts which, in effect, abrogated the provision of the Constitu tion that provides for the delivering up of fugitive slaves. Not long after, petitions followed to abolish slavery in forts, maga zines, and dock-yards, and all other places where Congress had exclusive power of legislation. This was followed by petitions and resolutions of Legislatures of the Northern States and pop ular meetings, to exclude the Southern States from all terri tories acquired or to be acquired, and to prevent the admission of any State hereafter into the Union, which by its Constitution does not prohibit slavery. And Congress is invoked to do all this expressly with the view to the final abolition of slavery in the States. That has been avowed to be the ultimate object from the beginning of agitation until the present time ; and yet the great body of both parties of the North, with the full knowl edge of the fact, although disavowing the abolitionists, have co operated with them in almost all their measures. " Such is a brief history of the agitation, as far as it has yet advanced. Now, I ask Senators, what is there to prevent its further progress, until it fulfils the ultimate end proposed, un less some decisive measure should be adopted to prevent it ? Has any one of the causes, which have added to its increase from its original small and contemptible beginning until it has at tained its present magnitude, diminished in force ? Is the original cause of the movement, that slavery is a sin, and ought to be suppressed, weaker now than at the commencement ? Or are the Abolition party less numerous or influential, or have they less influence over, or control over the two great parties of the North in elections ? Or has the South greater means of influ encing or controlling the movements of this Government now, than it had when the agitation commenced ? To all these ques tions but one answer can be given : No, no, no ! The very re- DANGER OF DISUNION. 159 verse is true. Instead of being weaker, all the elements in favor of agitation are stronger now than they were in 1835, when it first commenced, while all the elements of influence on the part of the South are weaker. Unless something decisive is done, I again ask what is to stop this agitation, before the great and final object at which it aims the abolition of slavery in the States is consummated ? Is it, then, not certain, that if some thing decisive is not now done to arrest it, the South will be forced to choose between abolition and secession ? Indeed, as events are now moving, it will not require the South to secede to dissolve the Union. Agitation will of itself effect it, of which its past history furnishes abundant proof, as I shall next pro ceed to show. " It is a great mistake to suppose that disunion can be effected by a single blow. The cords which bind these States together in one common Union are far too numerous and powerful for that. Disunion must be the work of time. It is only through a long process, and successively, that the cords can be snapped, until the whole fabric falls asunder. Already the agitation of the slavery question has snapped some of the most important, and has greatly weakened all the others, as I shall proceed to show. " The cords that bind the States together are not only many but various in character. Some are spiritual or ecclesiastical ; some political ; others social. Some appertain to the benefit conferred by the Union, and others to the feeling of duty and obligation. " The strongest of those of a spiritual and ecclesiastical nature consisted in the unity of the great religious denominations, all of which originally embraced the whole Union. All these de nominations, with the exception, perhaps, of the Catholics, were organized very much upon the principle of our political institu tions ; beginning with smaller meetings corresponding with the political divisions of the county, their organizations terminated in one great central assemblage, corresponding very much with the character of Congress. At these meetings, the principal clergymen and lay members of the respective denominations from all parts of the Union met to transact business relating to their common concerns. It was not confined to what apper- 160 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. tained to the doctrines and discipline of the respective denom inations, but extended to plans for disseminating the Bible, establishing missionaries, distributing tracts, and of establishing presses for the publication of tracts, newspapers, and periodicals, with a view of diffusing religious information, and for the sup port of the doctrines and creeds of the denomination. All this combined, contributed greatly to strengthen the bonds of the Union. The strong ties which held each denomination together formed a strong cord to hold the whole Union together ; but, as powerful as they were, they have not been able to resist the explosive effect of slavery agitation. " The first of these cords which snapped, under its explosive force, was that of the powerful Methodist Episcopal Church. The numerous and strong ties which held it together are all broke, and its unity gone. They now form separate churches, and, instead of that feeling of attachment and devotion to the O interests of the whole Church which was formerly felt, they are now arrayed into two hostile bodies, engaged in litigation about what was formerly their common property. " The next cord that snapped was that of the Baptists, one of the largest and most respectable of the denominations. That of the Presbyterian is not entirely snapped, but some of its strands have given way. That of the Episcopal Church is the only one of the four great Protestant denominations which re mains unbroken and entire. " The strongest cord of a political character consists of the many and strong ties that have held together the two great parties, which have, with some modifications, existed from the beginning of the Government. They both extended to every portion of the Union, and strongly contributed to hold all its parts together. But this powerful cord has fared no better than the spiritual. It resisted for a long time the explosive tendency of the agitation, but has finally snapped under its force if not entirely/ in a great measure. Nor is there one of the remaining cords which has not been greatly weakened. To this extent the Union has already been destroyed by agitation, in the only way it can be, by snapping asunder and weakening the cords which bind it together. If the agitation goes on, the same force, acting with increased DANGER OF DISUNION. 161 intensity, as lias been shown, will finally snap every cord, when nothing will be left to hold the States together except force. But surely that can, with no propriety of language, be called a union, when the only means by which the weaker is held con nected with the stronger portion is force. It may, indeed, keep them connected ; but the connection will partake much more of the character of subjugation, on the part of the weaker to the stronger, than the union of free, independent, and sovereign States, in one confederation, as they stood in the early stages of the Government, and which only is worthy of the sacred name of union. " Having now, Senators, explained what it is that endangers the Union, and traced it to its cause, and explained its nature and character, the question again recurs, How can the Union be saved ? To this I answer, there is but one way by which it can be, and that is, by adopting such measures as will satisfy the States belonging to the Southern section that they can remain in the Union consistently with their honor and their safety. There is, again, only one way by which that can be effected, and that is, by removing the causes by which this belief has been produced. Do that, and discontent will cease, harmony and kind feelings between the sections be restored, and every apprehension of danger to the Union removed. The question then is, By what can this be done ? But, before I undertake to answer this question, I propose to show by what the Union cannot be saved. " It cannot, then, be saved by eulogies on the Union, however splendid or numerous. The cry of. c Union, Union, the glorious Union ! can no more prevent disunion than the cry of Health, Health, glorious Health ! J on the part of the phy sician, can save a patient lying dangerously ill. So long as the Union, instead of being regarded as a protector, is regarded in the opposite character, by not much less than a majority of the States, it will be in vain to attempt to conciliate them by pro nouncing eulogies on it. " Besides, this cry of Union comes commonly from those whom we cannot believe to be sincere ; it usually comes from our assailants. But we cannot believe them to be sincere ; for, if they loved the Union, they would necessarily be devoted to 1G2 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. the Constitution. It made the Union, and to destroy the Con stitution would be to destroy the Union. But the only reliable and certain evidence of devotion to the Constitution is to ab stain, on the one hand, from violating it, and to repel, on the other, .ail attempts to violate it. It is only by faithfully per forming these high duties that the Constitution can be pre served, and with it the Union. " But how stands the profession of devotion to the Union by our assailants, when brought to this test ? Have they abstained from violating the Constitution ? Let the many acts passed by the Northern States, to set aside and annul the clause of the Constitution providing for the delivery up of fugitive slaves, answer. I cite this, not that it is the only instance, (for there are many others,) but because the violation in this particular is too notorious and palpable to be denied. Again, have they stood forth faithfully to repel violations of the Constitution ? Let their course in reference to the agitation of the slavery ques tion, which was commenced and has been carried on for fifteen years, avowedly for the purpose of abolishing slavery in the States an object all acknowledged to be unconstitutional answer. Let them show a single instance, during this long period, in which they have denounced the agitators or their attempts to effect what is admitted to be unconstitutional, or a single measure which they have brought forward for that pur pose. How can we, with all these facts before us, believe that they are sincere in their profession of devotion to the Union, or avoid believing their profession is but intended to increase the vigor of their assaults, and to weaken the force of our re sistance ? " Nor can we regard the profession of devotion to the Union, on the part of those who are not our assailants, as sincere, when they pronounce eulogies upon the Union, evidently with the intent of charging us with disunion, without uttering one word of denunciation against our assailants. If friends of the Union, their course should be to unite with us in repelling these as saults, and denouncing the authors as enemies of the Union. Why they avoid this, and pursue the course they do, it is for them to explain. " K or can the Union be saved by invoking the name of the DANGKR OF DISUNION. 1C3 illustrious Southerner, whose mortal remains repose on the western bank of the Potomac. He was one of us a slave holder and a planter. We have studied his history, and find nothing in it to j ustify submission to wrong. On the contrary, his great fame rests on the solid foundation that, while he was careful to avoid doing wrong to others, he was prompt and de cided in repelling wrong. I trust that, in this respect, we pro fited by his example. "K"or can we find any thing in his history to deter us from seceding from the Union, should it fail to fulfil the objects for which it was instituted, by being permanently and hopelessly converted into the means of oppressing instead of protecting us. On the contrary, we find much in his example to encourage us, should we be forced to the extremity of deciding between sub mission and disunion. " There existed then, as well as now, a Union that between a parent country and her then colonies. It was a Union that had much to endear it to the people of the colonies. Under its protecting and superintending care, the colonies were planted, and grew up, and prospered, through a long course of years, until they became populous and wealthy. Its benefits were not limited to them. Their extensive agricultural and other pro ductions gave birth to a flourishing commerce, which richly re warded the parent country for the trouble and expense of estab lishing and protecting them. Washington was born and grew up to manhood under that Union. lie acquired his early dis tinction in its service, and there is every reason to believe that he was devotedly attached to it. But his devotion was a rational one. He was attached to it, not as an end, but as a means to an end. When it failed to fulfil its end, and, instead of afford ing protection, was converted into the means of oppressing the colonies, he did not hesitate to draw his sword, and head the great movement by which that Union was forever severed, and the independence of these States established. This was the great and crowning glory of his life, which has spread his fame over the whole globe, and will transmit it to the latest posterity." Mr. CALHOUN then went on to say, that neither the plan pro posed by the distinguished Senator from Kentucky, (Mr. CLAY,) nor that of the Administration, can save the Union. 164 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. u Having now shown what cannot save the Union, I return to the question with which I commenced, How can the Union be saved ? There is but one way with which it can with any certainty, and that is by a full and final settlement, on the prin ciples of justice, of all questions at issue between the two sec tions. The South asks for justice, simple justice, and less she ought not to take. She has no compromise to offer but the Constitution, and no concession or surrender to make. She has already surrendered so much that she has little left to surrender. Such a settlement would go to the root of the evil, and remove all cause of discontent, by satisfying the South that she could remain honorably and safely in the Union, and thereby restore the harmony and fraternal feelings between the sections which existed anterior to the Missouri agitation. Nothing else, can, with any certainty, finally and forever settle the questions at issue, terminate agitation, and save the Union. But can this be done ? Yes, easily ; not by the weaker party, for it can of itself do nothing not even protect itself but by the stronger. The North has only to will it to accomplish it ; to do justice l>y conceding to the South an equal right in the acquired territory, and to do her duty l)y causing the stipulation in regard to fugi tive slaves to ~be faithfully fulfilled ; to cease the agitation of the slave question, and to provide for the insertion in the Constitu tion of an amendment, which will restore to the South, in sub stance, the power she possessed of protecting herself before the equilibrium between the sections was destroyed by the action of the Government." MR. WEBSTER ON THE COMPROMISE, MARCH 7, 1850. " MR. PRESIDENT : I wish to speak to-day, not as a Massa chusetts man, nor as a Northern man, but as an American, and a member of the Senate of the United States. It is fortunate that there is a Senate of the United States a body not yet moved from its propriety, not lost to a just sense of its own dig nity, and its own high responsibilities, and a body to which the country looks with confidence for wise, moderate, patriotic, and healing counsels. It is not to be denied that we live in the midst of strong agitations, and surrounded by very considerable MR. WEBSTER ON THE COMPROMISE, MARCH 7, 1850. 1G5 dangers to our institutions of government. The imprisoned winds are let loose. The East, the West, the North, and the stormy South, all combine to throw the whole ocean into com motion, to top its billows to the skies, and to disclose its pro- foundest depth. I do not expect to hold or to be fit to hold the helm in this combat of the political elements ; but I have a duty to perform, and I mean to perform it with fidelity not without a sense of the surrounding dangers, but not without hope. I have a part to act, not for my own security or safety, for I am looking out for no fragment upon which to float away from the wreck, if wreck there must be, but for the good of the whole and the preservation of the whole ; and there is that which will press me to my duty during this struggle, whether the sun and the stars shall appear, or shall not appear, after many days. I speak to-day for the preservation of the Union. 4 Hear me for my cause. I speak to-day out of a solicitous and anxious heart, for the restoration to the country of that quiet and that harmony which make the blessings of the Union so rich and so dear to us all." Mr. WEBSTER then proceeded to give a history of some of the difficulties in respect to slavery ; spoke of the conquest of California ; of the gold mines there ; of the Constitution offered to Congress as the ground of admission into the Union, which Constitution contains the prohibition of slavery, which was not satisfactory to the South ; of the existence of slavery in other portions and ages of the world, and of the difference of opinion felt respecting the institution, by the North and the South ; of the unhappy di\ 7 ision in the Methodist church, growing out of the difference of opinion on this subject. He also spoke of the existence of slavery in this country ; of the views entertained of it at the time the Constitution was formed, by both North and South ; and of the subsequent change of views in both sections ; of the influence of cotton cultivation ; of the annexation of Texas ; of his opinion on the admission of slavery in the Terri tories ; of the "Wilmot proviso ; of his opposition to the admis sion of new territory ; of the exclusion of slavery by climate and the laws of nature ; of the grievances of the North and of the South ; of the complaint of the South, " that there has been found at the North among individuals and among the Legisla- 16(3 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. tures at the Xorth a disinclination to perform fully their consti tutional duties in regard to the return of persons bound to ser vice, who have escaped into the free States. In that respect it is my judgment that the South is right, and the Xorth is wrong." He also spoke of resolutions emanating from Legislatures at the Xorth, and sent here to us, not only on the subject of slavery in this District, but sometimes recommending Congress to consider the means of abolishing slavery in the States. He said that " it has become, hi my opinion, quite too common a practice for the State Legislatures to present resolutions on all subjects, and to instruct us here on all subjects." He said, in regard to abo lition societies, that " he does not think them useful.* He spoke of the violent language used in Congress with disappro bation ; of slave representation ; of the imprisonment of free blacks who go South in Northern vessels ; of Mr. HOAR S mis sion ; of the difficulties in the way of secession ; of the gift of Virginia to the United States in the cession of territory ; of his hopes that the Union may continue. This speech, one of the ablest ever made by Mr. WEBSTER, was intended by him to be catholic and liberal, and by catho lic and liberal men in every part of the country it was well re ceived, but not by the abolitionists. He had voted not to place in the Territorial bills the Wilmot proviso, and hence he in curred the censure of the abolition wing of the Whig party. In allusion to this in a subsequent speech, delivered June 17, he said : " When I see gentlemen from my own part of the country, no doubt from motives of the highest character, and for most conscientious purposes, not concurring in any of these great questions with myself, I am aware that I am taking on myself an uncommon degree of responsibility." He adds : " It is a great emergency, a great exigency, that this country is placed in." In relation to this censure, he remarks : u Xow, sir, I do not take the trouble to answer things of this sort that appear in the public press ; I know it would be useless." He closed his speech as follows : " Sir, my object is peace. My object is reconciliation. My purpose is not to make up a case for the Xorth, or to make up a case for the South. My object! is not to continue useless and irritating controversies. I am against agitation, Korth and South. I am against local 167 ideas Xorth or South, and against all narrow and local contests. I am an American, and I know no locality in America : that is tny country. My heart, my sentiment, my judgment demand of me, that I shall pursue such a course as shall promote the good and the harmony of the whole country. This I shall do, God willing, to the end of the chapter." MR. CLAY S SPEECH. " MR. PRESIDENT : In the progress of this debate, it has been again and again argued, that perfect tranquillity reigns through out the country, and that there is no disturbance threatening its peace, endangering its safety, but that which was produced by busy, restless politicians. It has been maintained that the sur face of the public mind is perfectly smooth, and undisturbed by a single billow. I most heartily wish I could concur in this picture of general tranquillity that has been drawn upon both sides of the Senate. I am no alarmist ; nor, I thank God, at the advanced age at which his providence has been pleased to allow me to reach, am I very easily alarmed by any human event. But I totally misread the signs of the times, if there bo that state of profound peace and quiet, that absence of all just cause of apprehension of future danger to this Confederacy, which appears to be entertained by some other Senators. Mr. President, all the tendencies of the times, I lament to say, are towards disquietude, if not more fatal consequences. When before, in the midst of profound peace with all the nations of the earth, have we seen a convention, representing a consider able portion of one great part of the Republic, meet to deliber ate about measures of future safety in connection with great interests of that quarter of the country ? When before have we seen, not one, but more some half a dozen legislative bodies solemnly resolving that if any one of these measures the ad mission of California, the adoption of the Wilmot proviso, of the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia should be adopted by Congress, measures of an extreme character, for the safety of the great interests to which I refer, in a particular sec tion of the country, would be resorted to ? For years, this sub ject of the abolition of slavery, even within this District of Co- 1G8 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. lumbia, small as is the number of slaves here, has been a source of constant irritation and disquiet. So of the subject of the re covery of fugitive slaves who have escaped from their lawful owners ; not as a mere border contest, as has been supposed although there, undoubtedly, it has given rise to more irritation than in other portions of the Union but everywhere through the slaveholding country it has been felt as a great evil, a great wrong, which required the intervention of Congressional power. But these two subjects, unpleasant as has been the agitation to which they have given rise, are nothing in comparison to those which have sprung out of the acquisitions recently made from the republic of Mexico. These are not only great and leading causes of just apprehension as respects the future, but all the minor circumstances of the day intimate danger ahead, whatever may be its final issue and consequence. Mr. President, I will not dwell upon other concomitant causes, all having the same tendency, and all well calculated to awaken, to arouse us if, as I hope the fact is, we are all of us sincerely desirous of preserving this Union to arouse us to dan gers which really exist, without underrating them upon the one hand, or magnifying them upon the other." In reply to Mr. HALE, Mr. CLAY, in another speech, July 26, 1850, said : " But I stand up here for this measure, and I do not want the Senator to deal in declamation. I ask him what right is sacrificed by the North in this measure ? Let him tell me if the North does not get almost every thing, and the South nothing but her honor her exemption from usurped au thority to the Texas land, which I have mentioned, together with the fugitive slave proposition, and an exemption from agi tation on the subject of slavery in the District of Columbia. I do not want general broad-cast declamation, but specifications. Let us meet them as men, point upon point, argument upon ar gument. Show us the power here to which Northern sacrifices are made. Show what sacrifices, what is sacrificed by the North in this bill. That is what I want." The compromise resolutions of Mr. CLAY, and the report of the Select Committee of Thirteen, to whom the whole subject had been referred, were in the main sustained by both Houses of Congress, but not in form. Instead of one bill, separate bills 169 were brought in and passed. California was admitted as a State, notwithstanding no territorial government had been es tablished over her, and notwithstanding the Constitution pro hibited slavery. Eighteen Southern Senators voted against her admission ; and ten Senators presented a protest against it, on the ground that the portion of the inhabitants of Cali fornia, who acted in the premises, did so without authority, and, in doing so, made an odious discrimination against the property of fifteen slaveholding States ; on the ground that the bill defeats the right of the slaveholding States to a common or equal enjoyment of the territory of the Union ; on the ground that " to vote for the bill would be to agree to a principle that may exclude forever, as it does now, the States w T hich we repre sent, from all enjoyment of the common territory of the Union " ; and also on other grounds. This protest the majority of the Senate refused to admit into its journal, twenty-two voting against admitting it, and nineteen in favor. The bill to estab lish a territorial government over New Mexico and Utah, with power to be admitted into the Union either with slavery or without slavery, was passed, ten Northern Senators voting against it. The fugitive slave law was passed, twelve Northern Senators voting against it. The Texas boundary bill was passed by a vote of thirty to twenty. The bill for the abolition of the slave-trade in the District of Columbia was also passed. In urging the Senate to pass these bills, Mr. CLAY, in his great speech, July 26, 1850, said : " "Will you go home and leave all in disorder, confusion all unsettled, all open ? The contentions and agitations of the past will be increased and augmented by the agitations resulting from our neglect to de cide them. Sir, we shall stand condemned by all human judg ment below ; and, of that above, it is not for rne to speak. "We shall stand condemned in our own consciences, by our own con stituents, and by our own country. * * The bill may be de feated. It is possible that, for the chastisements of our sins or transgressions, the rod of Providence may be applied to us, may be still suspended over us. But if defeated, it will be a triumph of ultraism and impracticability ; a triumph of the most extra ordinary conjunction of extremes ; a victory won by abolition ism ; a victory won by free-soilism ; the victory of discord 170 TIIE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. and agitation over peace and tranquillity ; and I pray to Al mighty God that it may not, in consequence of the inauspicious result, lead to the most unhappy and disastrous consequences to our beloved country." REMARKS. 1. The South felt injured by the efforts made by the North to exclude her institutions from the territories and the new States, on the ground of her unworthiness. She remembered the efforts of the North to prevent Missouri from being admitted into the Union upon an equal footing with the other States. She not only felt injured but also insulted by these efforts, and by the language used in Congress by Northern men,, and generally by the Northern press. The Southern States could not find any title-deed by which the landed estate was entailed upon the North, while the other members of the family were to be dismissed dow T erless, and upbraided. 2. Portions of the North had endeavored to deprive the South of her slave representation, by proposing an alteration of the Constitution. 3. Large portions of the people of the North refused to de liver up fugitive slaves on the claim of their masters ; and by thus refusing to perform their part of the stipulation, freed the South from its full obligations to keep the Constitution in its relation to them, as violators of the Constitution. Some of the States passed bills designed to obstruct the recovery of fugitive slaves. Pennsylvania, in 1780, passed an act of comity, allow ing masters to bring their slaves into the State, and sojourn there six months, without forfeiting them. Pennsylvania in time became intolerant, and repealed that act. New York also repealed her sojournment act, by which the master was allowed to sojourn in the State nine months with his slaves, without subjecting them to emancipation. The sentiments of the people had been such in the Northern States, that it was perfectly safe for an owner of slaves, on visiting the North, to bring such of them with him as he needed, without any intermeddling to deprive him of their services. That liberal and national senti ment was now giving place to an intolerant, jealous, and inter- KEMAEKS. 171 meddling spirit. The present writer distinctly remembers the time when Southern men brought on their slaves to Connecticut for a temporary sojournment, without experiencing any embar rassment in respect to their slaves, or any indignity to them selves. The present writer also remembers that afterwards, when an intolerant spirit became rife in New England, South ern men who brought their slaves simply on a visit to their friends and relatives for a few weeks, were informed that slave holders were abhorred of God and despised of men ; w r hile argu ments and persuasions were dishonorably addressed to their slaves, to entice them away from their masters. 4. Slave-stealing organizations were encouraged in the Northern States, so that by their agency, with the connivance of Northern men, the South lost a large number of slaves and a great amount of property annually, through what was called the underground railroad. 5. Southern clergymen were excluded from Northern pul pits, and Southern Christians from Northern communion tables, and Southern students were made uncomfortable by the intol erance of the abolition spirit of the North. In one of the North ern colleges, a respectable Southern clergyman was invited to preach on the Sabbath in the college chapel. Thereupon cer tain abolitionists among the students addressed a petition to the president, requesting that the clergyman should be excluded from the pulpit, after he had been invited by the proper au thority to occupy it. By this arrogant conduct of these stu dents, who were wise in their own conceits above their teachers, the college was thrown into a state of violent fermentation, and the Southern clergyman felt himself constrained to decline ful filling his engagement. In justice to that college, it should be added, that the students in all the classes, after discussing the bearing and nature of the petition for something like half a day in a public meeting, passed a vote that the president of the* college, who was likewise Professor of Divinity, was author ized to supply the pulpit for the instruction of the students a& he should see fit, without being controlled by the intermeddling of the students, thus censuring the petitioners. It should be added, that the invitation to the clergyman was not withdrawn by the president, or the officer whose place the Southern gen tleman was to fill on that Sabbath. 172 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 6. Incendiary publications, adapted to produce insurrection among the slaves, had been sent by Northern abolitionists through the Southern States by mail. 7. While the fugitive slave bill was under consideration in the Senate, Mr. DAVIS, of Massachusetts, moved to amend the bill in such a way as to protect free negroes going to Southern ports, against seizure and imprisonment. Such persons had been seized and imprisoned in Charleston, S. C., and elsewhere, under State laws, much to the dissatisfaction of Northern States, where these imprisoned negroes were considered as citi zens of the United States, because they were citizens of some of the Northern States. Massachusetts, the acknowledged champion of the North, resolved to try conclusions with South Carolina on the constitutionality of those acts of the latter by which the negro citizens of the former had been imprisoned. For this purpose, Mr. SAMUEL HOAR was appointed by the Governor of Massachusetts, under the authority of the Legis lature, as an agent to collect information concering those citi zens of Massachusetts, who had been imprisoned under the laws of South Carolina, and also to prosecute one or more suits in behalf of any citizen thus imprisoned, for the purpose of having the legality of such imprisonment tried and determined in the Supreme Court of the United States. It was declared in the Senate of the United States, " that Massachusetts has been anxious to do one single thing, and nothing else, and that is, to submit this question to the tribunal which the Constitution has provided for its final settlement." If these " laws are decided to be constitutional acts, she will acquiesce in the decision." Massachusetts thus claimed that, by adopting negroes as her own citizens, they should be reckoned elsewhere throughout the country as citizens of the United States. South Carolina, on the other hand, took the ground, that negroes are not citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution, and that the emissary sent by Massachusetts for the avowed purpose of interfering with her institutions and disturbing her peace, should be expelled from her territory. The mission of Mr. HOAR, and his expulsion, created bad blood in South Carolina and in Massachusetts. Massachusetts complained bitterly that she was not allowed by South Carolina REMARKS. 173 to try tlic constitutionality of her claim, that her free negro citizens should be considered as citizens of the United States. When the question was settled by the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott decision, that negroes are not citizens of the United States within the meaning of the Constitution, did Massachu setts acquiesce in the decision ? 8. There was great dissatisfaction in New England with the fugitive law, as there would have been with any law which would be efficacious in restoring fugitive slaves. The people of that section practically refused to obey the fugitive slave law of 1793, and also the law of 1850. When Mr. WEBSTER announced his intention of supporting a law for the more ef fectual reclamation of fugitive slaves, Mr. CALHOUN is said to have replied : " What if you do enact such a bill ? The people of New England will not submit to it." The fugitive, Sims, was recovered by his owner, but at an expense to him, it was said, of $3,000, aided though he was by the General Govern ment, and by some of the most able men of Boston. The fugi tive, Burns, was recovered, but at an expense to the Govern ment and his owner of as much as $30,000. The law has been practically a dead letter except in a few cases. Thus the South lost nearly all that it expected to gain by the Compromise Measures of 1850. The Northern States, in this respect, were not faithful to the Compromise Measures, as is proved by the personal liberty bills passed by different Legislatures, for the purpose of throwing obstacles in the w r ay of reclaiming fugitive slaves. " The entire moral impossibility of effecting the forcible reclamation of fugitive slaves in New England may therefore be solemnly regarded as a fixed state of things ; and the great problem to be solved by politicians and statesmen is, not how they can remove this state of things, but how they shall adapt the laws and institutions of the country to it." This language from a respectable pamphlet, published in 1850, expresses a sentiment that was common in New England at that time. Mr. WEBSTER exhorted Massachusetts to " conquer her prejudices " on this subject. New England needed the same exhortation, though not generally to the same extent, as Massachusetts. 9. What was the effect of the passage of the Compromise Measures upon the country ? Salutary and quieting, at least for 174: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. a season. The Senators, CASS, CLAY, COBB, DICKINSON, FOOTE, and others, who had promoted the compromise, were applauded by the country generally for their efforts to heal the sectional difficulties. Mr. CALHOUN had died, and Mr. "WEBSTER had re signed his place for a seat in the cabinet, before the measures were passed. Patriotic and moderate men of both political parties were generally disposed to be satisfied with the compro mises. The abolition wing of the "Whig party and the abolition wing of the Democratic party at the North were not satisfied with the fugitive slave law, and objected to making the North, a " slave-hunting ground," and with some intemperance of lan guage denounced a slave-catchers." By their united efforts they influenced the Legislatures of several Northern States to pass unconstitutional personal liberty bills for the purpose, it would seem, of defeating the object of the fugitive slave bill, and thus violating their constitutional obligations. The following resolution, with some others, passed by the Common Council of the city of Chicago, shows the temper of the times in certain sections of the Northern States. " Resolved, that the Senators and Representatives in Congress from the Free States, who aided and assisted in the passage of this infamous law, (the fugitive slave law,) and those who basely sneaked away from their seats, and thereby evaded the question, richly merit the reproach of all lovers of freedom, and are fit only to be ranked with the traitors, BENEDICT ARNOLD and JUDAS Is- CARIOT, who betrayed his Lord and Master for thirty pieces of silver." As the spirit indicated by this resolution prevailed exten sively in the Northern States, so it showed itself in the enact ment of personal liberty bills by State Legislatures ; in the or ganized support of underground railroads for carrying off slaves to Canada ; and in the rescue by Northern mobs of fugitives from the legal officers appointed by the General Government. Such an act of a mob the present writer once witnessed, stand ing within a few feet of the commissioner from whom the rescue was made. CHAPTER XIV. GENERAL PIERCED ADMINISTRATION". MARCH 4, 1853 MARCH 4, 1857. AT the election of General FRANKLIN PIERCE, the Demo cratic candidate, there was not a very extensive sectional feel ing. Both the successful and the unsuccessful candidate, Gen eral SCOTT, had supporters in both the Northern and the Southern sections of the country. The Abolition or sectional party threw about 150,000 votes for their candidate. Both the Democratic and the Whig national nominating conventions en dorsed the Compromise Measures of 1850. Still it must be admitted, that in the Northern States there was considerable opposition to one portion of the Compromise Measures, namely, the Fugitive Slave Law ; just as there had been to the law of 1793, and just as there would have been to any law that would be effectual in carrying out the provision of the Constitution on this s abject. Men were clamorous for its repeal, though they would retain other portions of the Com promise Measures which neVer could have been carried through Congress, except they had been connected with the fugitive slave law. So strong was the opposition to that law, that com munities by mobs or connivance, and State Legislatures by personal liberty bills, practically repealed it, and thus violated not only the Compromise of 1850, but also the Constitution. So strong was this opposition to that law in Boston, that Faneuil Hall was closed against DANIEL WEBSTER, because he had advocated the Compromise Measures. It was on that oc casion that he said, " Massachusetts must conquer her preju- 176 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. dices." Northern men were talking about a " higher law," which absolved them from obligation to carry out the provi sions of the Constitution. They showed as much opposition to the Compromise of 1850, as Northern men of the preceding generation did to the Missouri Compromise of 1820. There was only wanting an occasion to call forth a general sectional excitement. That occasion was forthcoming. On the 3d of March, 1854, the bill to organize the Terri tories of Kansas and Nebraska, was passed in the Senate by a vote of 37 to 14, by which the slavery restriction, passed by the Missouri Compromise, was removed, and the people in those territories were thus permitted to form their own institutions, without the interference of Congress. The intent and meaning of the Bill was, that " Congress should neither legislate slavery into the territories nor out of them." On the introduction of the bill by Mr. DOUGLAS, the chair man of the Committee on Territories, and before he could have an opportunity for discussing it, and thus showing to the coun try what were its merits, an u Appeal," in opposition to it, was addressed to the people of the United States. This Appeal bore date Jan. 19, 1854, and was signed by Senators CHASE of Ohio, and SUMNER of Massachusetts, and by members of the House, EDWARD WADE and J. E. GIDDINGS of Ohio, GERRITT SMITH of New York, and ALEXANDER DE WITT of Massachusetts. The following is a portion of that appeal : " SHALL SLAVERY BE PERMITTED IN NEBRASKA ? " " FELLOW-CITIZENS : As Senators and Eepresentatives in the Congress of the United States, it is our duty to warn our constituents (?) whenever imminent danger menaces the freedom of our institutions and the permanency of our Union. [Were the people of the United States their constituents ?] " Such danger, as we firmly believe, now impends, and we earnestly solicit your prompt attention to it. " We arraign this bill as a gross violation of a sacred pledge ; as a criminal betrayal of precious rights ; as part and parcel of an atrocious plot to exclude from a vast unoccupied region emi grants from the Old World, and free laborers from our own SHALL SLAVERY BE PERMITTED IN NEBRASKA? 177 States, and convert it into a dreary region of despotism inhab ited by masters and slaves. " We appeal to the people. We warn you that the dearest interests of freedom and the Union are in imminent peril. Demagogues may tell you, that the safety of the Union can be maintained only by submitting to the demands of slavery. We tell you that the safety of the Union can only be insured by the full recognition of the just claims of freedom and man. The Union was formed to establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty. When it fails to accomplish these ends, it will be worthless ; and when it becomes worthless, it cannot long endure. " We implore Christians and Christian ministers to inter pose. Their Divine religion requires them to behold in every man a brother, and to labor for the advancement and regenera tion of the human race. * * * " Let all protest, earnestly and emphatically, by corre spondence and through the press, by memorials and resolutions of public meetings and legislative bodies, and in whatever mode may seem expedient, against this enormous crime." Thus addressed, the people of the Northern States promptly responded to the call, in the very modes pointed out in this proclamation, as the " appeal " was styled in Congress. They were combustible, and this " appeal " supplied the torch. Forth with, the Northern regions of the Union were in a blaze of ex citement. The pen, the press, the pulpit, the political forum, and the halls of legislation, were pat in requisition to resist the passage of the bill. As an exponent of the general feeling, the " protest " of the clergymen of New England may be taken. The object of the protest may be found in the circular which was " simultaneously sent to every clergyman in New Eng land," and which was signed by CHARLES LOWELL, LYMAN BEECHER, BARON STOWE, SEBASTIAN STREETER, committee of clergymen of Boston, and was dated Feb. 22, 1854. " It is hoped," that circular declares, " that every one of you will ap pend your names to it, and thus furnish to the nation and the age the sublime and influential spectacle of the great Christian lody of the North (?) united as one man in favor of freedom and of solemn plighted faith." 178 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " If you have already, either as a private Christian or as a clergyman, signed any similar document, please to sign this also, as it is earnestly desired to embrace in this movement the clerical voice of New England. " It is respectfully submitted, whether the present is not a crisis of sufficient magnitude and imminence of danger to the liberties and integrity of our nation, to warrant and even de mand the services of the clergy of all denominations, in arous ing the masses of the people to its Comprehension, through the press, and even the pulpit." CLERICAL PROTEST. " To the Honorable the Senate and House of Representatives in Congress assembled : " The undersigned, clergymen of different denominations in New England, hereby in the name of Almighty God, and in His presence, do solemnly protest against what is known as the Nebraska Bill, or any repeal or modification of the existing legal prohibition of slavery in that part of the national domain which it is proposed to organize into the territories of Nebraska and Kansas. We protest against it as a great moral wrong, as a breach of faith, eminently unjust to the moral principles of the community, and subversive of all confidence in national engagements ; as a measure full of danger to the peace, and even the existence, of our beloved Union, and exposing us to the righteous judgments of the Almighty ; and your protest- ants, as in duty bound, will ever pray. Boston, Massachusetts -, March 1, 1854." My limits do not allow me to quote the remarks made in the Senate respecting the " appeal " and the " protest." The ground taken in the " appeal " in opposition to the bill for the repeal of the slavery restriction north of 36 30 was, first, that it would be contrary to the " original settled policy of the United States," as proved by the ordinance of ITS 7, to permit slavery in the territories ; and secondly, that it would be a violation of a " sacred pedge," or compact made in 1820, in the Missouri Compromise. CLERICAL PROTEST. 179 Mr. DOUGLAS denied that it was the " original settled policy " of the United States to prohibit slavery in the terri tories, inasmuch as slavery was permitted and protected in the territory of Tennessee ; and in the legislation respecting Missis sippi, the ordinance of 1787 was adopted, with the exception of the anti-slavery clause. " That the repeal was a gross violation of a sacred pledge," has been extensively denied both before and since its accom plishment. The following are some of the grounds of the repeal, in the words of another : 1. " The South was not bound by that compact or compro mise, because it was made without the least consideration ; that is, because she received nothing for what she conceded. For Missouri, as our adversaries now admit, had a perfect right to admission without any stipulation on the part of the South ; she had a perfect right to admission, says the Supreme Court of the -United States, without any such terms or conditions, under and by the Federal Constitution alone. If she had to pay for this right, it was because the dominant party at the North then took their stand against the Constitution of the country, and nothing less, it was believed, would save the Union from shipwreck, dissolution, and ruin. The line of 36 30 was then obtained, or rather extorted, without a t valuable consideration. Here is what is called a nudum pactum, a con tract that is void, and it imposed no sort of obligation either in law or in conscience. 2. " The South was not bound by the Compromise of 1820, because it was not fulfilled by the North." The facts on this point are to be found in the preceding pages. 3. " The South was not bound by the Compromise of 1820, because it was unconstitutional," as has since been decided by the Supreme Court of the United States. Moreover, some Northern statesmen declared they did not esteem it binding as a compact, inasmuch as there were no competent parties to it. Mr. DOUGLAS, after having spoken of what he deemed the impropriety of said " appeal " in the circumstances of its presen tation, uses the following language : " I do not like, I never did like, the system of legislation on our part, by which a geo graphical line, in violation of the laws of nature, and climate, 180 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. and soil, and of the laws of God, should be run to establish in stitutions for a people ; yet out of a regard for the peace and quiet of the country, out of respect for past pledges, out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all pledges, and out of a desire to adhere faithfully to all compromises, I sustained the Missouri Compromise so long as it was in force, and advocated its exten sion to the Pacific. ]S"ow when that has been abandoned, when it has been superseded, when a great principle of self-govern ment has been substituted for it, I choose to cling to that prin ciple, and abide in good faith not only by the letter, but by the spirit, of the last compromise, (namely, that of 1850, in which the right of framing their own constitutions, whether by the admission or prohibition of slavery, was conceded to Utah and New Mexico.) " Sir, I do not recognize the right of the Abolitionists of this country to arraign me for being false to sacred pledges, as they have done in their proclamation. Let them show when and where I have ever violated a compact. I have proved that I stood by the compact of 1820 and 1845, and proposed its con tinuance in 1848. I have proved that the Freesoilers and Abolitionists were the guilty parties who violated that compro mise then. I should like to compare notes with those Abo lition confederates about adherence to compromises. When did they stand by or approve of any one that was ever made ? " Did not every Abolitionist and Freesoiler in America de nounce the Missouri Compromise in 1820 ? Did they not for years hunt down ravenously for his blood every man who assisted in making that compromise ? Did they not in 1845, when Texas was annexed, denounce all of us who went for the annexation of Texas and for the continuation of the Missouri Compromise line through it ? Did they not in 1848 denounce me as a slavery propagandist for standing by the principles of the Missouri Compromise, and for proposing to continue the Missouri Compromise line to the Pacific Ocean ? Did they not violate and repudiate it then? Is not the charge of bad faith true as to every Abolitionist in America, instead of being true as to me and the committee, and those who advocate this bill? " They talk about the bill being a violation of the compro- CLERICAL PROTEST. 181 mise measures of 1850. "Who can show me a man in either House of Congress who^was in favor of the compromise measures of 1850, and who is not now in favor of leaving the people of Nebraska and Kansas to do as they please upon the subject of slavery according to the provisions of my bill ? Is there one ? If so, I have not heard of him. This tornado has been raised by the Abolitionists, and the Abolitionists alone. They have made an impression on the public mind in the way which I have mentioned, by a falsification of the law and the facts ; and this whole organization against the compromise measures of 1850 is an Abolition movement. I presume they had some hope of getting a few tender-footed Democrats into their plot ; and acting on what they supposed they might do, they sent forth publicly to the world the falsehood that their address was signed by the Senators and a majority of the Representatives from the State of Ohio ; but when we come to examine the signatures we find no one Whig there, no one Democrat there, none but pure, unadulterated Abolitionists. * * " Now I ask the friends and the opponents of the measure to look at it as it is. Is not the question involved, the simple one, Whether the people of the territories shall be allowed to do as they please upon the question of slavery, subject only to the limitation of the Constitution ? * * * " When you propose to give them a territorial government, do you not acknowledge that they are capable of self-govern ment ? Having made that acknowledgment, why should you not allow them to exercise the rights of legislation ? Oh, these Abolitionists are entirely willing to concede all this, with one exception. They say they are willing to trust the territorial legislature, under the limitations of the Constitution, to legislate on the rights of inheritance, to legislate in regard to religion, education, morals, to legislate in regard to the relations of hus band and wife, of parent and child, and guardian and ward, upon every thing pertaining to the dearest rights and interests of white men, but they are not willing to trust them to legislate in regard to a few miserable negroes. That is their single ex ception. They acknowledge that the people of the territories are capable of deciding for themselves concerning white men, but not in relation to negroes. The real gist of the matter is 182 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. this : Does it require any higher degree of civilization, intelli gence, bravery, and sagacity, to legislate for negroes than for white men ? If it does, we ought to adopt the Abolition doc trine and go with them against this bill. If it does not, if we are willing to trust the people with the great, sacred, funda mental right of prescribing their own institutions, consistent with the Constitution of the country, we must vote for this bill as reported by the Committee on Territories. That is the only question involved in the bill." Mr. CASS, while the Nebraska bill was under consideration in the Senate, delivered a speech in which the following para graphs are found : " Mr. President, for some years we have heard a great deal about the fundamental articles of compact, by which govern ments for the territory north-west of the Ohio were origi nally instituted ; and a good many erroneous impressions have prevailed concerning them. "What were they ? Having lived under a territorial government in that region many years of my life, the history of the organizations of these political communities is perfectly familiar to me. The Congress of the old Confederation, in 178T, passed a law establishing the north western territory. It was styled an ordinance, and many have supposed that it derived peculiar solemnity from the use of this term. But this is a mistake. " Be it ordained," &c., was the formula of enactment before the Constitution, and this ordi nance had no more validity than the usual acts of the old Con gress. It has been supposed, too, tha t the whole of this act constituted a compact. That is an equal error. " Now, sir, what is a compact ? I have just adverted to the dictionary, to the old and standard English lexicographer, to ascertain its meaning, and here it is : A compact is a contract, an accord, or agreement between two or more to do or forbear something. Now, sir, in applying this definition to the case before us, let us inquire who were the c two or more parties or persons by whom this contract was made? It will be hard to find them. The law was passed, as I have said, by the old Confederation ; and there never was, in fact, any other party to it. What did they undertake to do ? They undertook to establish five articles containing various provisions of more CLERICAL PROTEST. 183 or less importance, affecting the rights and interests of the people then occupying, or who might in all time to come oc cupy, the region over which the ordinance extended. And they declared that they should never be altered but in the mode pointed out. And will any man seriously contend that is a compact ? What other party was there to it ? There were some thousands of people then living in that country, not one of whom heard of this contract, which was forever to bind them for years and years after its promulgation. It is an insult to common sense to say, that they and their posterity are bound by such a one-sided instrument as that. " Besides, if there had not been a single man in those re gions, how could a compact be established which was forever to operate on a people thereafter to exist there, when no pro vision was made for submitting it to their assent, under any circumstances or in any future time ? It is idle, sir, to talk of the obligatory nature of a compact thus declared to be such by one party, without the existence of any other party at the time, and without any arrangement for procuring its concurrence when such party should come into existence. This ordinance is destitute of the first essence of mutual obligation. " But, sir, independent of the fatal objection of the want of parties, there was another equally fatal, and that was the want of power. Nothing was more certain than that the Con gress of the Confederation had not the slightest authority to establish territorial governments ; and there is no man who will turn to the Articles of Confederation and examine them, who will have the least doubt upon the subject." "Mr. MADISON said, in speaking upon the subject, < all this has been done/ that is, governments have been organized, without the least color of constitutional authority. And Mr. ADAMS said < that the ordinance of 1789 had been passed by the old Congress of the Confederation without authority from the States. " These remarks prove that the States of the north-west terri tory have full power to establish slavery in them if they see fit. " The Senator from Illinois, Mr. DOUGLAS, told us the other day, proved to us, indeed, that his State recognized the exist ence of slavery, notwithstanding its eternal interdiction in the 184 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. ordinance of 1T89. And I have never heard, until recently, that the power of the other north-western States to do the same thing was either doubted or denied. If they cannot by their conventions regulate the condition of slavery as they please, they have not a just political equality in the Union." REMARKS. 1. After the Nebraska bill was passed in the Senate, the " Emigrant Aid Society " was incorporated by the Massachu setts Legislature, on the 4th of May, 1854, which was some weeks before the bill passed the House and became a law. A new charter was received in February, 1855. The object- of its formation was to make Kansas a free State, by furnishing aid to emigrants who would go there for that purpose. The gen eral policy of Massachusetts had been to aid men to stay in the Commonwealth, by establishing manufactures, and by other means, rather than to aid them to leave it. 2. The debates in Washington, and the passage of the bill, created a powerful sectional excitement throughout the country, but especially in Kansas, where there was a severe struggle be tween the pro-slavery and the Free-soil party for the political ascendency. Lecturers went through portions of the Northern States to obtain recruits, and money, and arms, describing the physical advantages of the territory to be such that it could be made a terrestrial paradise. The love of adventure, the love of money, the love of liberty, and hatred or jealousy of the South, were appealed to successfully for obtaining emigrants. Nor were Southern men idle. Border ruffians and free State ruffians met in Kansas as a battle-ground. And elsewhere " shrieking, bleeding Kansas " was successfully employed by demagogues to electioneer for them, as the especial friends of liberty, or of slavery, as the case might be. In Congress, too, those who spoke on this subject became, if possible, more intemperate in their language. Mr. SUMNER S speech entitled " The crime against Kansas," and Mr. BROOKE S assault on him for what he said in that speech concerning South Carolina and Senator BUTLER, were exponents of the feeling which to some extent existed in the two sections of the country to which these gentlemen be- KEMAKKS. 185 longed, and proved the means of extending that jealousy and making it more intense. 3. Was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, which was the great measure of General PIERCE s Administration so far as sectional interests were concerned, a judicious measure? It seemed to be the occasion of aggravating, rather than of dimin ishing the sectional difficulties and the sectional hatred. But if another course had been taken, it might have proved the oc casion of as great or even greater sectional difficulties and sec tional hatred. In this latter case, perhaps, there might not have been an opportunity to ring the changes upon the phrases, the " traitor DOUGLAS," the " Kansas swindle." There might not have been so much blackguardism and disgraceful person alities in Congress, or as much ruffianism and bad blood gen erated in the States, or as much blood shed in the territory, or as many dragon s teeth sown broadcast over the land which have since started up armed men. But when we undertake to judge of the comparative wisdom of two measures, one of which has been adopted, simply on the ground of results, we are in danger of running into error for the reason that one term of the comparison is wanting. One class of results we never can know, namely, the results of the meas ure that was not adopted. Human passions are refractory sub jects to deal with, especially as exhibited in two great political parties, jealous of each other, each intent on the acquisition of political power, and they will often practically convert the wisest measures into causes of national arrogance and injury. After the passage of the Kansas and Nebraska bill, if things had taken their natural course, and men had emigrated west ward according to the more general practice along the same parallels of latitude ; if there had not been any unnatural stimu lus given to emigration by " Emigrant Aid Societies " on the one hand, and " Friendly Societies " on the other ; if means had not been adopted to address the combativeness of young men and to inflame their passions and their conscience, and to appeal to their love of gain, and to put arms into their hands, as if they were to go against enemies to win an empire, the results of the repeal of the slavery restriction north of 36 30 might have been very different from what they were, and the measure 186 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. might in this case have proved by the results to be a wise one. ^ In regard to the application of physical force for correcting the evils of the times connected with slavery, Mr. SEWARD, in his speech delivered at Detroit, speaks in the following judicious terms : " You ask, how are these great evils to be corrected, these great dangers to be avoided ? I answer, it is to be done not, as some of you have supposed, by heated debates, sustained by rifles and revolvers at "Washington ; nor yet by sending armies, and supplies, and Sharp s rifles into Kansas. I con demn no necessary exercise of self-defence in any place where public safety is necessary to practice of the real duties of cham pions of freedom. But this is a contest in w T hich the race is not to the physically swift, nor the battle to those who have the most muscular strength. Least of all is it to be won by retal iation and revenge." It was unfortunate that the geographical line of 36 30 , established by the Missouri Compromise, was not made the rule of division afterwards, by being extended to the Pacific Ocean, according to the proposal of Mr. DOUGLAS. It would have pre vented the disputes that afterwards arose. This the Northern members repeatedly refused to do. Another mode for settling the difficulty had to be found, namely, the Constitutional mode-. If the geographical mode of division adopted in the Compromise of 1820 could not be carried out, then the principles of the Com promise of 1850 had to be applied, namely, the principle of popular sovereignty. In general, it may be asserted that the Missouri Compromise never ought to have been made ; that being made, it ought not to have been repealed ; and having been repealed, it ought never to be restored without some modification. 4. It is not known to the writer that any similar " appeal " by members of Congress, while a question was pending, was ever before made to the people of the United States. Neither is it known to the writer that any similar " protest " was ever addressed to Congress by the clergymen of New England, in their professional character, as distinguished from "private citizens." CHAPTER XV. JAMES BUCHANAN S ADMINISTRATION. MARCH 4, 1857 MARCH 4, 1861. ME. BUCHANAN was the candidate of the Democratic party throughout both the Northern and the Southern States. Mr. FILLMOEE was the candidate of the Union party, embracing Conservative Whigs and Americans throughout the Northern and the Southern States. JOHN C. FEEMONT was the candidate of the Republican party, which was confined mainly to the Northern or non-slaveholding States. This last party grew up out of the troubles and excitements connected with the settle ment of Kansas, and was cemented by a common feeling of op position to slavery and the common hope of gaining political power. It was composed, in part, of the old Liberty party and of the Freesoil party, and in part of the Abolition wing of the "Whig party, and in part of others who were disgusted with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The origin of the party has been referred to an anti-Nebraska convention held in Au burn, New York, Sept. 27, 1854, which passed the following resolution : " Resolved that we recommend that a convention of Delegates from the Free States, equal in number to their Representatives in Congress, be held in Syracuse, N. Y., on the* 4th of July, 1856, to nominate candidates for the Presidency and the Yice-presidency of the United States for the next presiden tial election." This resolution was adopted by tremendous cheering. It was also moved to call this the " Republican Or ganization ; " which resolution was also carried.. A leading member of that same convention declared it to be- an object of that Republican party to " employ all constitutional measures to restrain and cripple slavery where it now exists. 77 13 188 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. The proposed convention was held in Philadelphia, in which only the Free States were represented. Among the Kesolutions passed were the two following : " Resolved, That we deny the authority of Congress, of a Territorial Legislature, of any individual or association of indi viduals, to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the United States, while the present Constitution shall be main tained. " Resolved, That the Constitution confers upon Congress sovereign power over the Territories of the United States for their government, and that in the exercise of this power it is both the right and the duty of Congress to prohibit in the Terri tories those twin relics of barbarism polygamy and slavery." I do not quote these resolutions to show their evident incon sistency in admitting the sovereignty of Congress over the Ter ritories, with power to prohibit slavery therein ; and then de nying the power to legislate slavery into any Territory, but only to exhibit the sectional relations and bearings, and the spirit of the convention. The ends aimed at were sectional, as were the means used, and the spirit manifested, and the men brought forward as candidates. IS THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SECTIONAL? Mr. PILLMORE, in a speech delivered at Albany, in the sum mer of 1856, not long after his return from abroad, held the fol lowing language in relation to the politics of the country, and the approaching election : " Sir, you have been pleased to say that I have the union of these States at heart. This, sir, is most true ; for if there be one object dearer to me than any other it is the unity, prosper ity, and glory of this great Republic. I confess frankly, sir, that I fear it is in danger. I say nothing of any particular sec tion, much less of the several candidates before the people. I presume they are all honorable men. But, sir, w^hat do we see ? An exasperated state of feeling between the North and the South on the most exciting of all topics, resulting in blood shed and organized military array. But this is not all, sir. We see a political party presenting candidates for the Presidency THE REPUBLICAN PARTY SECTIONAL. 189 and the Yice-Presidency selected for the first time from the Free States alone, with the avowed purpose of electing these candi dates by suffrages from one part of the Union only, to rule over the whole United States. " Can it be possible that those who are engaged in such a measure can have seriously reflected on the consequences which must inevitably follow in case of success ? Can they have the madness or the folly to believe that our Southern brethren would submit to be governed by such a Chief Magistrate ? Would he be required to follow the same rule prescribed by those who elected him, in making his appointments ? If a man living south of Mason and Dixon s line be not worthy to be President or Yice-President, would it be proper to select one from the same quarter as one of his cabinet council, or to repre sent the nation in a foreign country, or, indeed, to collect the revenue, or administer the laws of the United States ? If not, what new rule is the President to adopt for selection to office, that the people themselves discard in selecting him ? " These are serious but practical questions, and in order to appreciate them fully, it is only necessary to turn the tables upon ourselves, and suppose that the South, having a majority of the electoral votes, should declare that they would only have slave-holders for President and Yice-President, and should select such by their exclusive suffrages to rule over us at the North, do you think we would submit to it ? No, not for one moment. And do you believe your Southern brethren less sensible on this subject than you are, or less jealous of their rights? If you do, let me tell you you are certainly mistaken. And therefore you must see, that if this sectional party succeeds, it leads in evitably to the destruction -of this beautiful fabric, reared by our forefathers, cemented by their blood, and bequeathed to us as a priceless inheritance. "I tell you, my friends, that I speak warmly on this sub ject, for I feel that we are in danger. I am determined to make a clean breast of it. I will wash my hands of the conse quences, whatever they may be ; and I tell you that we are treading on the brink of a volcano that is liable at any moment to burst forth and overwhelm the nation." There were many threats of disunion in case of the election 190 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. of Mr. FREMONT. Mr. BURNETT, member of Congress from Kentucky, after speaking of the strong attachment of his State to the Union, goes on to say : " But, sir, if JOHN C. FREMONT should be elected, pledged as he is to make war upon the insti tutions of the South, composed as his Administration would be of men from one section of the Union, filled as the Federal offices would be with sectional men, all pledged to make a com mon cause against the South, with a Congress backing up his Administration, such as the present House, who conceive no measure too unconstitutional, too revolutionary, too disgraceful, to meet their sanction, so as it makes war upon the South, the frightful mien of disunion forces itself on them as far the prefer able alternative between it and oppression and disgrace in. the Union. They would then still be mindful of its past glories, the memories of its great statesmen, the heroic deeds of valor of its noted warriors, and prefer rather to cut short its existence than blacken those brilliant recollections with the record of its future disgrace." This is a type of the feeling that prevailed in the South generally, in opposition to the Eepublican party. And in the Republican party there was also a spirit of intol erance and disunion. Mr. HORACE GREELEY declared : " I have no doubt but the Free and the Slave States ought to be sepa rated * * The Union is not worth supporting in connection with the South." Mr. E. P. HURLBURT, a lawyer in Herkimer, New York, made the following declaration : " Rather than ad mit another slave State into the Confederacy, I would dissolve it. Rather than endure the curse of such another four years governmental infamy as PIERCE, DOUGLAS, and Co. have inflicted on us, I would dissolve it, so help me Heaven." Mr. G. "W. JULIEN, who had been a member of Congress from Indiana, in a speech made the following declaration on behalf of the Re publican party : " I tell you we are a sectional party. It is not alone a fight between the North and the South ; it is a fight between freedom and slavery ; between God and the Devil ; between heaven and hell." [Loud applause.] A. P. BURLIN- GAME, member from Mass., said : " When we shall have elected a President, as we will, who will not be the President of a party, nor of a section, but the tribune of the people, and after we have exterminated a few more miserable doughfaces from the THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. 191 North, then if the slave Senate will not give way, we will grind it between the upper and nether mill-stone of our power." SIMON BKOWN, ex-Lieutenant-Governor of Massachusetts, said : " The object to be accomplished is this, for the Free States to take possession of the Government." TRUMAN SMITH, ex-Senator of Connecticut, declared : " Should Mr. BUCHANAN be elected, it may be written down as certain that, within two years from the fourth of March next, Kansas will be delivered up to the Mo- lochs of slavery. She will be brought in as a Slave State." These extracts show the state of feeling in both sections of the country. Extensively at the South there was a determina tion to secede from the Union for the reasons stated by Mr. BUENETT, in case Mr. FEEMOST should be elected President. THE DEED SCOTT DECISION. Just after President BUCHANAN S inauguration, the Supreme Court of the United States made the famous decision in the case of DEED SCOTT, which seemed to settle certain political questions which had long been pending in the public mind. In the act of Congress, by which Kansas and Nebraska became Territories, the slavery restriction which applied to all territory north of 36 30 was repealed. The scope and effect of the language of repeal were not left in doubt. It was declared in terms to be " the true intent and meaning of this act, not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their own in stitutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." DEED SCOTT, in the year 1854-, was a negro slave belonging to Dr. EMEESON, who was a surgeon in the army of the United States. In that year, Dr. EMEESON took the said Scott to the military post at Rock Island in the State of Illinois, and held him there as a slave until April or May, 1856. At the time last mentioned, said Dr. EMEESON removed to the military post at Fort Snellirig, situated on the west bank of the Mississippi River, in the Territory known as Upper Louisiana, acquired by the United States from France, and situated north of the lati- 192 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. tude of 36 30 north, and north of the State of Missouri. Dr. EMERSON held the plaintiff, DRED SCOTT, in slavery until the year 1858. The court decided that said DRED SCOTT did not ob tain title to his liberty from the fact that his master took him first from Missouri to Illinois, where negro slavery does not ex ist by law, and next to the territory north of 36 30 , where, by the Missouri Compromise, slavery was prohibited. In deciding this case upon certain principles, those prin ciples had to be examined and settled. 1. It was decided that a free negro of the African race, whose ancestors were brought to this country and sold as slaves, is not a " citizen " within the meaning of the Constitution of the United States. 2. It was decided that the clauses in the Constitution which point to this race, treat them as persons whom it was lawful to deal in as articles of property, and to hold as slaves. 3. It was decided that since the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, no State can by any subsequent law make a foreigner or any other description of persons citizens of the United States, nor entitle them to the rights and privileges se cured to citizens by that instrument. 4. The change in public opinion and feeling in relation to the African race, which has taken place since the adoption of the Constitution, cannot change its construction and meaning, and it must be construed and administered now, according to its true meaning and intentions, when it was framed and adopted. 5. The clause in the Constitution authorizing Congress to make all needful rules and regulations for the government of the territory and other property of the United States, applies only to territory within the chartered limits of some one of the States when they were colonies of Great Britain, and which was surrendered by the British Government to the old Confed eration of States, in the Treaty of peace. It does not apply to territory acquired by the present Federal Government, by treaty or conquest from a foreign nation. 6. During the time it remains a territory, Congress may legis late over it within the scope of its constitutional powers in re lation to citizens of the United States, and may establish a Ter- 193 ritorial Government, and the form of this local government must be regulated by the discretion of Congress, but with powers not exceeding those which Congress itself, by the Con stitution, is authorized to exercise over citizens of the United States, in respect to their rights of persons or rights of property. 7. The territory thus acquired, is acquired by the people of the United States for their common and equal benefit, through their agent or trustee, the Federal Government ; Congress can exercise no power over the rights of persons or property of a citizen in the Territory, which is prohibited by the Constitution. The Government and the citizens both enter it with their re spective rights defined and limited by the Constitution. 8. Congress has no right to prohibit the citizens of any par ticular State or States from taking up their home there, while it permits citizens of other States to do so. Nor has it a right to give privileges to one class of citizens which it refuses to do to another. The territory is acquired for their equal and com mon benefit, and if open to any, it must be open to all upon equal and the same terms. 9. Every citizen has a right to take with him into the terri tory, any article of property which the Constitution of the United States recognizes as property. 10. The Constitution of the United States recognizes slaves as property, and pledges the General Government to protect it. And Congress cannot exercise any more authority over property of that description, than it may constitutionally exercise over property of any other kind. 11. The act of Congress, therefore, prohibiting a citizen of the United States from taking with him his slaves when he re moves to the territory in question to reside, is an exercise of authority over private property which is not warranted by the Constitution ; and the removal of the plaintiff by his owner to that territory gave him no title to freedom. After the nomination for Speaker in the House of Represent atives for the 36th Congress, on Dec. 5, 1859, Mr. CLAKK, member from Missouri, offered the following resolution : 194 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " Whereas certain members of this House, now in nomination for Speaker, did endorse and recommend the book hereinafter mentioned, " Resolved^ That the doctrines and sentiments of a certain book, called The impending crisis of the South How to meet it? purporting to have been written by one HINTON EOWAN HELPER, are insurrectionary and hostile to the domestic peace and tranquillity of the country, and that no member of this House, who has endorsed and recommended it, or the compend from it, is fit to be Speaker of this House." The design of the book was to hasten the crisis which it pre dicts as " impending," by detailing the wretchedness of the Slave States ; " the aim of the revolution " desired ; " the stupid masses in the South," who are described as the " white victims" of slavery ; the results as the " sum of all villanies," as slavery is described to be ; the dependence of the South on the North for the necessary or the convenient articles of life ; with " a revolutionary appeal to Southern non-slaveholders ; " with the declaration that " the North must seize the riches of the South," and " that the revolution must free the slaves ; " and that the North is too scrupulous ; that the revolution must take place, " peaceably if we can, forcibly if we must." " The banner to stand or die ~by. Inscribed on the banner which we herewith unfurl to the world, with the fixed deter mination to stand by it or die by it, unless one of more virtuous efficacy shall be presented, are the mottoes which in substance embody the principles, as we conceive, that should govern us in our patriotic warfare against the most subtle and insidious foe that ever menaced the inalienable rights, and liberties, and dear est interests of America." " 1. Thorough organization and independent political action on the part of the non-slaveholding whites at the South. " 2. Ineligibility of pro-slavery slaveholders ; never another vote to any one who advocates the retention and perpetuation of human slavery. " 3. No co-operation with pro-slavery ; no fellowship with them in religion ; no affiliation with them in society. " 4. No patronage to pro-slavery merchants ; no guestship in pro-slavery hotels ; no fees to pro-slavery lawyers ; no employ- HELPER S BOOK. 195 ment of pro-slavery physicians ; no audience to pro-slavery parsons. " 5. No more hiring of slaves by non-slaveholders. " 6. Abrupt discontinuance of subscription to pro-slavery newspapers. " 7. The greatest possible encouragement to free white labor." These are portions of the extracts from HELPER S book, which, at the request of the mover, were read by the clerk of the House. Portions omitted are more outrageously bitter and insulting than the portions quoted. Mr. CLAKK, the mover of the resolution, after the reading of the extracts, proceeded to say : " I have had that document read, in order that the country, as well, as this body, might be informed of the position held by certain gentlemen of the Re publican party, and especially by those who have been recom mended for the Speakership of this House. The extracts which have been read, are, in substance, true extracts from the book itself, w^hich is in the House. Those extracts have been exam ined and marked. It appears by those extracts that nearly all the Republican members of the last Congress, and certain mem bers of the present, recommended certain things to the non- slaveholders of the South ; and among them, non-fellowship either socially or politically, with slaveholders. If such be the purpose of the gentlemen of this House who signed that paper, let me ask, has it indeed come to this, that gentlemen of the North who live under institutions secured to them by the Con stitution of their country, which institutions we have never at tempted to invade ; that gentlemen living in a bond of union, and under a Constitution that cost so much blood and so much treasure, and under which, by the co-operation of both North and South, our country has grown to its present strength and importance has it come to this, that they have got their own consent, and expect the country will agree to it, to advise those of the South who do not happen to own slaves, to rise in rebel lion and destroy the slave interest, part by non-intercourse in religion, or socially or politically ; and then by advising them not to wait to strike the blow until their arms are powerless, but to exterminate the odious institution, peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must ? Such are the directions recommended 196 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. by the paper which was signed by at least two members of this House, who have been recommended by the Republicans for the Speakership. * * " Sir : Do these gentlemen suppose that slaveholders who have won the confidence of their constituents, and who have been sent here to assist in making laws and preserving the Con stitution, and keeping the Government intact, feel themselves honored by their association ? If they do, they are greatly de ceived. We have been on terms of personal intimacy with them. Every gentleman in this House who knows me, knows that my intercourse with them has been marked with the ut most urbanity. I have met Representatives in this Hall coming from all parts of the country, as my compeers in every relation in life. But can I continue to do so, except gentlemen disclaim having advised my constituents half of whom are non-slave holders, to have no intercourse with me ; not to visit the church where I worship ; to strike down and ostracize slaveholding ministers ; to abandon hotels where there are slave waiters ; to discountenance patronage to newspapers that are conducted by slaveholders ? If they expect to play this game, the sooner it is avowed the better. * * " These gentlemen come in and say that the riches of the South are neglected by the bad management of the South ; that the accursed plague of slavery does it ; and, therefore, that the non-slaveholders of the South should rise in their majesty peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must take their arms, drive out the plague of slavery, take possession of the country, and dedicate it to freedom. " That is the sentiment of the book which those gentlemen recommend to have circulated gratuitously all over the South. Are such men fit to preside over the destinies of our common country ? " In this book occurs the following paragraph : " This is the outline of our scheme for the obliteration of slavery in the Southern States. Let it be acted upon with due promptitude, and as certain as truth is mightier than error, fifteen years will not elapse before every foot of territory from the mouth of the Delaware to the Eio Grande will glitter with the jewels of free dom. 7 THE JOHN BROWN INVASION. 197 There was a subscription set on foot in the city of New York for the gratuitous distribution of one hundred thousand copies. To the fund thus raised, it was said that the Governor of New York contributed one hundred dollars. Besides the sixty-eight members of Congress who recom mended HELPER S book, Senator WADE of Ohio said : " I had looked over the book, and saw nothing objectionable." Senator Sewarct also spoke favorably of it. A portion of a pamphlet was read, Dec. 20, 1859, at the re quest of Mr. VALLANDIGHAM, " which was extensively circulated in the Northern, Southern, and Western States of this Union, and which contains the plan of associations to be formed for the purpose of carrying on hostilities against a portion of this Con federacy." After certain annunciation of principles, and after certain preliminaries, it was proposed " to land military forces in the Southern States, who shall raise the standard of freedom, and call the slaves to it, and such free persons as may be will ing to join it. " Our plan is to make war openly or secretly as circum stances may dictate, upon the property of the slaveholders and their abettors, not for its destruction, if that can be easily avoided, but to convert it to the use of the slaves. If it cannot thus be converted, we advise its destruction. Teach the slaves to burn their masters 1 buildings, to kill their cattle and hogs, to conceal and destroy farming utensils, to abandon labor in seed time and harvest, and let the crops perish. Make slave labor unprofitable in this way if it can be done in no other. " To make slaveholders objects of derision and contempt by flogging them whenever they shall be guilty of flogging their slaves." This plan JOHN BROWN attempted to carry into practice. Mr. SHERMAN, the candidate for the Speakership, and against whose election Mr. CLARK S resolution was introduced, as one of the signers of the recommendation of HELPER S book, was de feated. THE JOHN BROWN INVASION. JOHN BROWN, in the autumn of 1859, with twenty- three others, obtained forcible possession of the armory at Harper s 198 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. Ferry, Virginia. In the Senate of the United States, Mr. MASON, Senator from Virginia, brought forward a resolution to appoint a committee to investigate the facts in the case. This resolution at its introduction had to encounter an amendment offered by Mr. TRUMBULL, of Illinois, designed, it was asserted, to embarrass the action of the Senate in the matter. It also had to encounter the argument and ridicule of Senator HALE, in the same body. Mr. HALE, of New Hampshire, December 6 : " I am free to Bay, sir, that while 1 desire now, as I have always desired, this Union may be perpetual, I confess I do see danger to it. I do not see danger from any thing we are doing in the Free States, not the slightest ; but I do see danger to this Union from the continued obloquy, reproach, and crimination which is heaped upon the people of the Free States, every time there is any thing calling attention to the subject in the South. * * " I do not see, for myself, how Southern gentlemen can con sent to live in a Union, if they believe that those who are asso ciated with them are the characters w r hich the public press rep resent us to be ; if we are so utterly false not only to the oaths that we have taken to support the Constitution, but to the moral obligations which ought to bind us as patriots and Chris tians. If the sentiment, that we are so utterly wanting in all those qualities of character, is to be continually and eternally iterated and re-iterated from one of the sections of the country, where these transactions may take place, to the other, there will be a feeling generated which will be fatal to the Union." Mr. HUNTER, of Virginia, on the same day spoke as follows : " Mr. President, I rise to express my surprise at the manner in which the resolution offered by my colleague has been received a resolution temperate, proper, and made essentially neces sary by circumstances of recent occurrence. I had presumed that no obstacle would be thrown in the way, bat that Senators on all sides of the House would agree to go into the inquiry. " It is known to all that a most atrocious outrage has been committed upon the State which I have the honor in part to represent ; that the people of a town reposing in the hours of night, in all the confidence of peace and conscious innocence of all purposes of wrong to mankind, were suddenly invaded, and THE JOHN BROWN INVASION. 199 attacked by a band of armed men from non-slaveholding States ; that unarmed men were shot down in the streets ; that murders were committed ; that an attempt was openly made, not only to subvert the Constitution of the United States, but the Constitu tion of Virginia ; that men were seized and dragged from their habitations at night, and that attempts were made to excite ser vile insurrection and civil war in its most horrid form. It is known too, sir, that complicity has been charged, not on the part of the South, but by individuals professing to have been in the employment of persons and associations in the non-slave- holding States ; and it is also known to those who come from the South, at least, that the public mind has been startled, not so much by the foray of BKOWN and his twenty-three men, as by the open sympathy and approbation which have been man ifested by portions of the North in regard to that attempt, and the apparent indifference with which it has been treated by those who, we had a right to hope, would have been more con servative in their feelings and actions upon such a subject. " Sir, I had supposed that such indecent exhibitions of sym pathy for crime would have been frowned down by an outburst of public opinion on the part of those in the midst of whom such things were perpetrated. * * u And now, sir, w r hen my colleague proposes, in temperate language, merely to inquire into the facts of the case, and to raise a committee to see whether any thing can be done by the authorities of this Government to prevent the repetition of such outrages, how is it met ? The Senator from Illinois pro poses to stifle such inquiry by making a party issue, and turn ing the whole subject into a matter of mere partisan warfare and discussion. * * " Still less had we supposed that such a question was to be met with the levity of the Senator from New Hampshire. Why, sir, upon such occasions as these, upon such occasions as this I will not say as these, for it has no parallel in the history of our Government to see such a subject treated with the lev ity in which he is disposed to deal with it, sounds to me, at least, like the laugh of the inebriate or the insensate in the chamber of death itself. I tell him, sir, that much depends upon what is the real state of Northern feeling in regard to 200 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. these matters. We know that we can defend ourselves against such outrages as this ; against the forays of men who may at tempt to get up servile war among us ; we hope we can defend ourselves against all the hazards to which we may probably be exposed ; but it becomes a much graver question to say, how we are to deal with the subject if we become convinced that such attempts find support not only in the sympathy of the great mass of the North, but in contributions that may be act ually raised for their assistance." Mr. DOUGLAS, Jan. 23, 1860 : " Without stopping to adduce evidence in detail, I have no hesitation in expressing my firm and deliberate conviction that the Harper s Ferry crime was the matured, logical, inevitable result of the doctrines .and teachings of the Republican party, explained and enforced in their platform, their partisan presses, their pamphlets and books, and especially of their leaders in and out of Congress. * " The great principle that underlies the organization of the Republican party is violent, irreconcilable, eternal warfare upon the institution of American slavery, with a view to its ultimate extinction throughout the land. Sectional war is to be waged until the cotton fields of the South shall be cultivated by free labor, or the rye fields of New York and Massachusetts shall be cultivated by slave labor." SYMPATHY WITH BROWN. The admirers of JOHN BROWN made a distinction between his acts and his character, the means he employed and the end which he aimed at. The acts and the means they condemned, while his character and the end he aimed to accomplish they seemed to approve and admire. It appears that he spent some years in Kansas, where, being possessed by an evil spirit, he perpetrated acts which were denominated murder, theft, and robbery. " It cannot be disguised that the Northern heart sym pathized with BROWN and his fate because he died in the cause of what they call liberty." On the day of his death bells were tolled in many places ; cannon fired ; prayers were offered for him as if he were a martyr ; he was placed in the same category with Paul and Silas, for whom prayers were made by the PERSONAL LIBERTY BILLS. 201 Church ; churches were draped in mourning ; a motion was made in the Senate of Massachusetts, " that, in view of the fact that this was the day on which JOHN BROWN was sentenced to be hanged, the Senate do now adjourn." The motion was lost ; the vote being 8 to 11. There were twenty absentees, who shirked the question. There was also a strong sympathy in the House for BEOWN, though that, likewise, by a large majority refused to adjourn. It was moved in the House, " that for the great respect we have for the truthfulness and faith that JOHN BROWN had in man and his religion, and the strong sympathy for the love of liberty (the avowed principle of Massachusetts) for which he is this day to die, this House do now adjourn." Massachusetts elected, as governor, a man who presided at a meeting assembled to express sympathy for BROWN. What was true of the general sentiment in favor of BROWN in portions of Massachusetts, was true of many localities elsewhere in the Free States. This sectional sympathy at the North increased the sectional jealousy at the South. PERSONAL LIBERTY BILLS. The effect of " personal liberty bills," was to throw obstruc tions in the way of carrying out the provisions of the Constitu tion for the restoration of fugitive slaves to their owners. States which prohibit their officers and citizens from aiding in the execution of the fugitive slave laws of 1793 and 1850 : Maine, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, New York, Yermont, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Connecticut, Michigan, New Jer sey, Rhode Island. States that deny all public edifices in aid of the master: Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Yermont, Rhode Island. States that provide defence for the fugitive : Maine, Massa chusetts, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Yermont, New York, Mich igan. States which declare the fugitives free, if "brought "by their masters into the State : Maine, Yermont, New Hampshire. State that declares him to le free absolutely : New Hamp shire. See Report of the Committee of the Legislature of Yirginia in 1860. 202 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. EXTRACT FROM A PERSONAL LIBERTY BILL OF VERMONT. " Every person who may have been held as a slave, who shall come or who may be brought into this State, with the consent of his or her alleged master or mistress, or who shall come or be brought, or shall ~be in this State, shall be free. " Every person who shall hold, or attempt to hold, in this State in slavery as a slave, any free person, in any form or for any time, however short, under the pretence that such person is or has been a slave, shall, on conviction thereof, be impris oned in the State prison for a term not less than five years, nor more than twenty, and be fined not less than $1,000, nor more than $10,000." Mr. WEBSTER, in his seventh of March speech, spoke as fol lows : " I will allude to other grounds of complaint of the South, and especially to one which, in my opinion, furnishes just foun dation of complaint, and that is, that there has been found at the North among individuals, and among legislatures, a disin clination to perform fully their constitutional duties, in regard to the return of persons bound to service, who have escaped into the free States. In that respect the South, in my judgment, is right, and the North wrong. Every member of every Northern legislature is bound by oath, like every other officer in the coun try, to support the Constitution of the United States ; and the article of the Constitution which says to these States, that they shall deliver up fugitives from service, is as binding in honor and conscience as any other article." Mr. WEBSTER, in his speech at Capon Springs, Virginia, in 1851, said : " I do not hesitate to say and repeat, that if the Northern States refuse wilfully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Constitution which respects the restora tion of fugitive slaves, the South would no longer be bound to keep the compact. A bargain broken on one side, is broken on all sides." IS SLAVERY A MERE CREATURE OF LOCAL LAW? Judge STORY, of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the decision in the Prigg case, declared that slavery is a mere creature of local law. This opinion became fashionable at the IS SLAVERY A MEEE CKEATCKE OF SOCIAL LAW? 203 North. But the same eminent judge, in 1827, wrote to Lord STOWEL, that he fully concurred with him in his decision, in which he says that slavery " never was in Antigua the creature of law, but of that custom which operates with the force of law." Lord STOWEL, in that decision, in effect says, that " the slave who goes to England or to Massachusetts, from a slave State* is still a slave, that he is still his master s property ; but that his master has lost control over him, not by reason of the cessation of his property, but because those States grant no remedy by which he can exercise his control." An invention is in the highest sense the property of the inventor, and a work, of its author, but their rights of property cannot be enforced unless there are patent laws and copyright laws. In barbarous countries, the rights of property exist, though they cannot be enforced by law. Judge McLEAN, in the Prigg case, said : " But the inquiry is reiterated, Is not the master entitled to his property f I an swer that he is. His right is guaranteed ~by the Constitution: and the most summary means are found for its enforcement in the act of Congress." The right of property in slaves exists un der the Constitution. In the history of the rights of property, it appears that these rights have existed prior to any written law, and were protected by common law. " The current sug gestion that slave property exists but by local law is no more true of this than it is of all other property. In fact, the Euro pean socialists, who in wild radicalism (including the Assigna tion doctrine) are the correspondents of the American abolition ists, maintain the same doctrine as to all property, that the Abolitionists do as to slave property. He who has property, they argue, is the robber of him who has not. And the same precise theory of attack at the North upon the slave property of the South, would, if carried out to their legitimate, necessary, and logical consequences, and will, if successful in this, their first stage of action, superinduce attacks on all property, North and South." CALEB CUSIIING. " In the treaty with Great Britain formed in 1782, stipula tions were entered into that prisoners on both sides shall be set at liberty, and his Britannic Majesty shall, with all convenient speed, and without causing any distinction or carrying away any negroes or other property of the American inhabitants, &c.," 204 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. signed by RICHARD OSWALD, B. FRANKLIN, JOHN JAY, HENRY LAURENS. Thus the two nations recognized the right of property in negroes. In the treaty of 1814, there is a similar provision in regard to " slaves and other property." This treaty was signed by GAMBIER, HENRY COULBOURN, WILLIAM ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, J. A. BAYARD, HENRY CLAY, JONATHAN RUSSELL, AL BERT GALLATEST. If such men could thus recognize the right of property in slaves, why should not others ? " It is historically well known, that the object of this clause in the Constitution relating to persons owing service and labor in one State escaping into another, was to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete right and title of owner ship in their slaves, as property in every State of the Union, into which they might escape from the State whence they were held in servitude." Judge STORY, 16 Peters Reports^ p. 540. NORTHERN ABOLITION AND DISUNION SENTIMENTS. Mr. LINCOLN addressed a speech to the Republican State Convention assembled in Illinois in June, 1858, of which the following is an extract : " In my opinion it (the slavery agitation) will not cease until a crisis shall have reached and passed. A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this Government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the op ponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in a course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States old as well as new, North as well as South." In his Rochester speech in 1858, Senator SEWARD tells us " that the States must all become free, or all become slave ; that the South, in other words, must conquer and subdue the North, or the North must triumph -over the South, and drive slavery from its limits." " It is an irrepressible conflict," he says, " between opposing NORTHERN ABOLITION AND DISUNION SENTIMENTS. 205 and ordinary forces ; and it means that the United States must all become either entirely a slaveholding nation, or entirely a free labor nation. Either the cotton and rice fields of South Carolina, and the sugar plantations of Louisiana, will ultimately be tilled by free labor, and Charleston and New Orleans become marts for legitimate merchandise alone, or else the rye fields and wheat fields of Massachusetts and New York must again be surrendered by them to slave culture and to the production of slaves, and Boston and New York become once more markets for trade in the bodies and souls of men." " Slavery can be limited to its present bounds. It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it." Mr. SEWARD in Ohio, 1848. Rev. Mr. WHEELOCK addressed a large congregation in Dover, New Hampshire, in a sermon, of which the following is an extract : " It is a great mistake to term this act (BROWN S) the beginning of bloodshed and war. Never could there be a greater error. "We have had bloodshed and war for the last ten years. The campaign began on the 7th of March, 1850. The dissolution of the Union dates from that day, and we have had no constitution since. On that day DANIEL WEBSTER was put to death and such a death ! And from that time to this, there has not been a month that has not seen the soil of freedom in vaded and attacked, our citizens kidnapped, imprisoned, and shot, or driven by thousands into Canada." Gov. CHASE said to "W. D. CHADWICK GLOVER, Dec. 27, 1859 : " I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master. I hate slavery. I hate a man that will own a slave." " There is really no union now between the North and the South ; and he believed no two nations on the earth entertain feelings of more bitter rancor towards each other, than these two nations of the Republic. The only salvation, therefore, of the Union is to be found in dividing it entirely from the taint of slavery." Senator WADE, of Ohio, in Maine. " I have read the Impending Crisis of the South with great attention. It seems to me a work of great merit ; rich yet ac curate in statistical information, and logical in analysis." WILLIAM H. SEWARD, 1859. 206 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " The time is fast approaching when the cry will become too overpowering to resist. Rather than tolerate national slavery as it now exists, let the Union be demolished at once, and then the sin of slavery will rest where it belongs." New York Trib une. " I have no doubt but the free and slave States ought to be separated. * * * The Union is not worth supporting in connection with the South." Idem. A leading member of the Convention that nominated Mr. FKEMONT, namely, JAMES WATSON WEBB, uttered the following as the sentiment of the people : " They (the people) ask us to give them a nomination which, when fairly put before the people, will unite public sentiment, and through the ballot-box will restrain and repel the pro-slavery extension, and this ag gression of the slaveocracy. What else are they doing ? They tell you that they are willing to abide by the ballot-box, and willing to make that the last appeal. If we fail there, what then f We will drive it back sword in hand, so help me, God ! Believing them to le right, I am with them." " This sentiment was loudly cheered by the Convention." In July, 1860, he de clared : " If a Southern State should attempt to resist, she will be made to submit, and bear herself with deference and respect thereafter to those who are morally and socially her equals, and politically and physically her superiors, and when provoked to demonstrate it, if need be, her masters." On page 648 of the Congressional Globe, of the first Session of the thirty-third Congress, Mr. GIDDINGS, Member of Congress from Ohio, is reported to have spoken as follows : " When the contest shall come ; when the thunder shall roll, and the lightning flash ; when the slaves shall rise in the South ; when, in emulation of the Cuban bondmen, the Southern slaves shall feel that they are men ; when they shall feel the stirring emotions of immortality, and shall recognize the stirring truth that they are men, and entitled to the rights that God has be stowed upon them ; when the slaves shall feel that, and when masters shall turn pale and tremble, when their dwellings shall smoke, and dismay shall sit on each countenance, then, sir, I do not say, we shall laugh at your calamity and mock when your fear cometh ; but I do say, that when that time shall come, the NORTHERN ABOLITION AND DISUNION SENTIMENTS 207 lovers of our race will stand forth and exert the legitimate powers of this Government for freedom. We shall then have constitutional power to act for the good of our country, and do justice to the slave. Then will we strike off the shackles from the limbs of the slave. Then will be a period when this Gov ernment will have power to act between slavery and freedom, and when it can make peace by giving freedom to the slaves. And let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that time hastens. It is rolling forward. The President is exerting a power that will hasten it, though not intended by him. I hail it as I do the dawn of that political and moral millennium, which I am well assured will come on the earth." " It is written in the Constitution of the United States, that five slaves shall count equal to three freemen, as a basis of rep resentation, and it is written also, in violation of the Divine Law, that we shall surrender the fugitive slave who takes refuge at our fireside from his relentless pursuer." Senator SEWAED in Ohio, 1848. In an address delivered in Boston, 1855, Mr. BURLINGAME, Member of Congress, said : " If asked to state particularly what he would do, he would answer, first, repeal the Nebraska bill ; second, repeal the fugitive slave law ; third, abolish slavery in the District of Columbia ; fourth, abolish the internal slave trade ; next, he would declare that slavery should not spread one inch in the Union ; he would then put the Government actually and perpetually on the side of freedom. * * * He would have judges that believed in a higher law; an anti-slavery Constitution, an anti-slavery Bible, and an anti-slavery God. Having thus denationalized slavery, he would not menace it in the States where it now exists, but would say to the States, It is your local institution ; hug it to your bosom until it destroys you. But he would say, you must let our freedom alone. [Ap plause.]. If you but touch the hem of her garment we will trample you to the earth. [Loud applause.] This is the only condition of repose, and it must come to this." On the 9th of June, 1841, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS said " that, in the event of a servile war, his own opinion would be, that if the free portion of people of this Union were called upon to support the institutions of the South by suppressing the slaves, 208 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. and a servile war in consequence of it, in that case he would not say that Congress had no right to interfere with the institu tions of the South ; that the very fact, perhaps, that the free por tion of the people of this Union were called to sacrifice their blood and their treasure for the purpose of suppressing a war in a case in which a most distinguished Southern man, the author of the Declaration of Independence, had declared that in that event the Almighty had no attribute that sided w r ith the master, he would say, that if the free portion of this Union were called upon to expend their blood and their treasure to support that cause which had the curse and the displeasure of the Almighty upon it, he would say, that this same Congress would sanction an expenditure of blood and treasure, for that cause itself would come within the constitutional action of Congress, and there would be no longer any pretension that Congress had not the right to interfere with the institutions of the South, inasmuch as the very fact that the people of the free portion of the Union marching to the support of the masters would be an interference with those institutions ; and that in the event of a war the re sult of which no man could tell, the treaty -making power came to be equivalent to universal emancipation." " Mr. IXGERSOLL, Member from Pennsylvania, interrupted Mr. ADAMS with the expression of the deepest indignation of his soul at the utterance of such a doctrine." On the 21st of February, 1843, Mr. DELLET, of Alabama, asked Mr. ADAMS whether he understood him on another occa sion to say, " that in God s good time the abolition of slavery would come, and let it come." Mr. DELLET asked Mr. ADAMS if he understood him. Mr. ADAMS nodded assent, and said with great earnestness, " Let it come." Mr. DELLET. Yes, let it come. No matter what the con sequences, let it come, said the gentleman. Let it come, though women and children should be slain, though blood should flow like water, though the Union itself be destroyed, though Gov ernment shall be broken up. No matter though five millions of the people of the South perish. Mr. ADAMS, (in his seat.) " Five hundred millions, let it come." Was this a mental paroxysm, or habitual feeling ? CALEB GUSHING IN BOSTON, 1859. 209 Senator HENRY WILSON, in Boston, Jan. 21, 1851 : " We shall arrest the extension of slavery, and rescue the Government from the grasp of the slave power. We shall blot out slavery in the National Capitol. We shall surround the slave States with a cordon of free States. We shall then appeal to the hearts and consciences of men, and, in a few years, notwithstanding the immense interests of mankind connected with the cause of oppression, we shall give liberty to the millions in bondage. I trust many of us shall live to see the chain stricken from the limbs of the last bondman in the Republic ! But, sir, whenever that day shall come, living or dead, no man connected with the anti-slavery movement will be dearer to enfranchised millions, than the name of your guest, WILLIAM LLOYD GARRISON." CALEB GUSHING IN BOSTON, 1859. ! " I showed you how, under the influence of their malign teachings, all party action, North and South, was running in the channel of a desperate and deplorable sectionalism, and that, above all, here in Massachusetts, all the sectional influences dominant in this State were founded upon the single emotion of hate ay, hate ; treacherous, ferocious hate of our fellow-citizens in the Southern States. [Applause, and cries of Good, good.] " Under the influence of this monomania, they have set up in this Commonwealth a religion of hate ay, a religion of hate and of blasphemy. O God ! that such things are in this our day ! " What more, gentlemen ? We have had our ears filled with alleged sympathies for JOHN BROWN ; of apologies for his act ; of reproaches against the persons whom he was endeavoring to slaughter in cold blood ; of sneers at the State of Virginia ; of ridicule of the terror of the unarmed women and children of Virginia. I say, sympathy for all this. Gentlemen, it is not sympathy for JOHN BROWN. It is another form of the mani festation of that same intense and ferocious hatred of the people of the South which animates the persons of whom I am speak ing. [Applause.] Hatred ! Hatred ! Now the fact has been told us, that, in all times, hate must have its food of blood. How long are the people of Massachusetts to have their souls 210 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. continually perverted with these preachings ay, pulpit preach ings of hatred ? " RELATIONS OF THE STATES TO THE GENERAL GOVERNMENT. Senator DAVIS, of Mississippi, Feb. 2, 1860, in the Senate, submitted six resolutions. In thej^r^, he speaks of the action of the States as independent sovereignties in forming the Con stitution of the United States, by delegating a portion of their power to be exercised by the General Government. In the second, he speaks of negro slavery s being recognized by the Constitution. In the third, of the equality of the States, in re spect to rights in the Territories. The fourth is as follows : " JZesolved, That neither Congress nor a territorial legisla ture, whether by direct legislation, or by legislation of an indi rect and unfriendly nature, possess the power to annul or im pair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United States to take his slave property into the common territories ; but it is the duty of the Federal Government there to afford for that, as for other species of property, the needful protection ; and if experience should, at any time, prove that the judiciary does not possess power to insure adequate protection, it will become the duty of Congress to supply such deficiency." In theffth, he declares that when a territory forms its con stitution, the people can then, for the first time, have power to say whether slavery, as a domestic institution, shall be main tained or prohibited in its jurisdiction ; and if Congress shall admit them as a State, they shall be received into the Union either with or without slavery, as their constitution may pre scribe, at the time of admission. In the sixth, he speaks of the opposition made by the States to the return of fugitive slaves, as hostile in its character, and subversive of the Constitution, and revolutionary in its effect. The South insists that what is recognized as property in the States, and what is treated- as property in the Constitution, and in treaties with other nations, and in congressional legislation, and in judicial decisions, shall be recognized as property in the territories, and protected as property. In opposition to this view, the Republican party, in their POWER OF CONGRESS OVER TERRITORIES. 211 platform, Chicago, 1860, has the following declaration : u That the new dogma that the Constitution, of its own force, carries slavery into any or all of the territories of the United States, is a dangerous political heresy, at variance with the explicit pro visions of that instrument itself, with cotemporaneous exposi tion, and with legislative and judicial precedents, is revolution ary in its tendency, and subversive of the peace and harmony of the country." POWER OF CONGRESS OVER TERRITORIES. I As heretofore stated, Northern men have claimed for Con gress the power to prohibit slavery in the Territories, on the strength of that clause in the Constitution which declares that " Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory and other property belonging to the United States ; " and for other reasons. Does " territory " here mean land or inhabitants f If " public lands " be substituted for " territory," it will then in the Constitution stand, " public lands " and other property ; but if you substitute " colony," that is, inhabitants, it will stand, " Congress shall have power to make all needful rules concerning the colony and other property." "Where now is the power to dispose of the public lands ? See Senator GEYER S speech, in 1856. It is evident, then, that this clause conferred upon Congress no political power over the " territory " then owned by the United States, but only power to dispose of it, and make rules and regulations about it as " property." TERRITORY OF LOUISIANA. " The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union of the United States, and admitted as soon as pos sible, according to the principles of the Federal Constitution, to the enjoyment of all the rights, and advantages, and immunities of the citizens of the United States, and in the mean time shall be maintained BM& protected in the enjoyment of their liberty, property, and the religion they profess." Treaty with France, 1803. 212 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " At tftis time slaves were held by the people of Louisiana, through the whole length of the Mississippi valley. These people had an unrestricted right of settlement with their slaves under legal protection throughout the entire ceded province. Here is a treaty promise to protect that property, that slave property in that Territory before it should become a State. This promise was violated at the time of the Missouri Compro mise, by Northern votes." Here by treaty the General Govern ment engage to protect slave property. In 1820, Mr. MADISON wrote : " The questions to be decided seem to be, first, whether a territorial restriction be an assump tion of illegitimate power ; or, second, a misuse of legitimate power; and if the latter only, whether the injury threatened to the nation from an acquiescence in the misuse, or from the" frus tration of it, be greater. On the first point, there is certainly room for a difference of opinion ; though, for myself, I must own that I have always leaned to the belief that the restriction was not within the true scope of the Constitution. This opinion of Mr. MADISON, the " Father of the Constitution," is in har mony with the DEED SCOTT decision. In the Eepublican platform, (I860,) there is the following declaration : " That the normal condition of the territory of the United States is that of freedom ; that as our republican fathers, when they had abolished slavery in our national territory, or dained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, it becomes our duty, by congressional legislation, whenever such legislation shall become necessary, to maintain this provision of the Constitution against all attempts to violate it ; and we deny the authority of Con gress, of a territorial legislature, of any individual or association of individuals, to give legal existence to slavery in the United States." On this declaration, Senator TOOMBS, of Georgia, remarks : " Then you declare that the treaties made by Mr. JEFFERSON, in 1803, are null and void, and no law ; then you declare that the acts by which property in slaves was protected and allowed, both by territorial and congressional acts, in Florida, in Louisiana, in Missouri, in Mississippi and Alabama, are all null, void, and no law ; you declare that the decision of the Supreme Court is WHO WERE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT. 213 null, void, and no law ; that there is no Constitution but the Chicago platform ; yet you propose to come here and take pos session of this, and swear to maintain the Constitution with this reading, and you are quite astonished at our having any objec tions to the peaceable proceedings. * * But no matter what may be our grievances, the honorable Senator from Kentucky says we cannot secede. Well, what can we do? Submit? They say they are the strongest, and they will hang us. "Well, I suppose we must be thankful for that boon. We will take that risk. We will stand by the right. We will take the Con stitution. We will defend it by the sword, with halter around our neck." WHO WERE PARTIES TO THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMPACT. March 8, 18GO, in the Senate, Mr. COLLAMAR, of Vermont : " I deny, in the first place, that the States, as States, entered into this compact. That is repeated so often, I do not know but it is believed. When a State acts, it acts in its organized ca pacity, by its organs, by its Legislature, or by its Executive. There never was one of the States that acted in this way in the adoption of the present Constitution. The people of the United States, meeting in the Conventions in the several States, adopted the United States Constitution. The States never acted on it as States. It would be a paradox that they should have done so. How could the Legislature of North Carolina, for instance, invested as it was, at that time, by the people with the power to levy and collect duties upon imports, how could the State in its organized capacity, through that organ, delegate that power to another body ? It could not be done. It never was done. It never was attempted to be done. The people of the United States had to meet in their several States in their origi nal condition, as a people in convention, for these reasons : first, it was more convenient ; next, if the people of North Carolina had invested their Legislature with the power to levy and col lect duties, the people of North Carolina alone would have the power to invest that in another body, to wit, Congress. If you called the whole people of the United States, it would be a dif ferent people it would be a different set of people to take that 214 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. power away from the one that gave it. No, sir, it is not true that this is in that sense a Confederacy. It is a National Gov ernment. This is a clear statement of the theory that the States were not parties to the constitutional compact. But it is not supported by facts or comparative weight of authority. MR. WEBSTER S PROPOSITIONS IN THE SENATE, 1832. 1. " That the Constitution of the United States is not a league, confederacy, or compact, between the people of the several States in their sovereign capacities ; but a Government proper, founded on the adoption of the people, and creating direct relations between itself and individuals. 2. " That no State authority has power to dissolve these re lations ; that nothing can dissolve them but revolution ; and that, consequently, there can be no such thing as secession with out revolution. 3. " That there is a supreme law, consisting of the Constitu tion of the United States, acts of Congress passed in pursuance of it, and treaties ; and that, in cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit at law or equity, Congress must judge of, and finally interpret, this supreme law, so often as it has occasion to pass acts of legislation ; and in cases assuming the character of a suit, the Supreme Court of the United States is the final interpreter. 4. " That an attempt by a State to abrogate, annul, or nullify an act of Congress, or to arrest its operation within her limits, on the ground that, in her opinion, such law is unconsti tutional, is a direct usurpation on the just powers of the Gen eral Government, and on the equal rights of other States, a plain violation of the Constitution, and a proceeding essentially revolutionary in its character and tendency." These propositions touching nullification, which was under consideration, rather than secession, were not formally consider ed by the Senate. Mr. MADISON, on the other hand, takes a different view of the parties to the compact of the Constitution. " On examining the first relation, it appears, on one hand, MK. MADISON S VIEWS. 215 that the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratifi cation of the people of America, given by deputies elected for the special purpose ; but on the other, that this assent and rati fication is given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, ~but as composing the distinct and independent States to which they respectively belong. " This assent and ratification is to be given by the people, not as individuals composing one entire nation, but as compos ing the distinct and independent States to which they respec tively belong. It is to be the assent and ratification of the sev eral States, derived from the supreme authority in each State the authority of the people themselves. The act, therefore, establishing the Constitution, will not be a national, but a Fed eral act. " That it will be a Federal and not a national act, as these terms are understood by the objectors, the act of the people, as forming so many independent States, not as forming an aggre gate nation, is obvious from this single consideration, that it is to result neither from the decision of a majority of the people, nor from a majority of the States. It must result from the unanimous assent of the several States that are parties to it, differing no otherwise from their ordinary consent than in its being expressed, not by the legislative authority, but by that of the people themselves." Mr. MADISON also said : An observation fell from a gentle man on the same side as myself, which deserves to be attended to. " If we be dissatisfied with the National Government, if we should choose to renounce it, this is an additional safeguard to our defence." Here Mr. MADISON expresses his concurrence with the gentleman mentioned, in the declaration, that if the State of Virginia is dissatisfied with the General Government in its practical workings, she can renounce it. In reference to the Federal Government and its powers and purposes, in the forty-fifth number of the Federalist, this lan guage is used : " The powers delegated to the Federal Government are few and defined. Those which are to remain to the State Govern ment are numerous and indefinite." This, then, is the distinction between the two Governments. 216 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. The powers granted to the Federal Government are " few and defined," those reserved to the States are " numerous and in definite." "The former [the Federal Government] will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce ; with which last the power of taxation will for the most part be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordi nary course of affairs, concern the lives, the liberties, and the properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State." " I have never believed that a State could nullify, and re main in the Union ; but I have always believed that a State might secede when it pleased, provided she would pay her pro portion of the public debt ; and this right I have considered the best guard to public liberty and to public justice that could be devised, and it ought to have prevented what is now felt in the South oppression." NATHANIEL MACON, of North Carolina, Feb. 9, 1833. Mr. MACON was regarded as an eminently wise man in the Senate of the United States, of which, for a long time, he was regarded as the father. ORDINANCE OF SECESSION PASSED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA, JANUARY 19, 1861. "We, the people of the State of Georgia, in convention assembled, do declare and ordain, and it is hereby declared and ordained, that the ordinance adopted by the people of Georgia in convention, in the year 1788, whereby the Constitution of the United States was assented to, ratified and adopted, and also acts and parts of acts of the General Assembly ratifying and adopting amendments to the said Constitution, are hereby repealed, rescinded, and abrogated ; and we do further declare and ordain, that the Union now subsisting between the State of Georgia and the other States, under the name of the United States of America, is hereby dissolved, and that this State is in the full possession of those rights of sovereignty which belong and appertain to a free and independent State." MR. MADISON ON SECESSION. 217 The people of South Carolina passed the ordinance secession Dec. 20, 1860, thus leading the way in that great sectional movement. MR. MADISON ON SECESSION. In a letter written in 1833, Mr. MADISON uses the following language : "It surely does not follow from the fact that the States, or rather the people embodied in them, having, as par ties to the constitutional compact, no tribunal above them, that in controverted meanings of the compact a minority of the par ties can rightfully decide against the majority, still less that a single party can at will withdraw itself altogether from its com pact with the rest." In 1787 he used the following language : " It has been alleged that the confederation, having been formed by unani mous consent, could be dissolved by unanimous consent only. Does this doctrine result from the nature of compacts ? Does it arise from any particular stipulation on the articles of confed eration ? If we consider the Federal Union as analogous to the fundamental compact by which individuals compose our society, and which must, in its theoretic origin at least, have been the unanimous act of the component members, it cannot be said that no dissolution of the compact can be effected without unan imous consent. A breach of the fundamental principles of the compact l}y apart of the society would certainly absolve the other part from their obligations to it" " Whether a State can or cannot secede, and what others may do towards her, or she towards them these are questions behind the Constitution of the United States, and, if I may say so without inconvenience, far above it. These are questions of political science and not of constitutional construction ; ques tions upon which empires are often dismembered and dynasties overthrown." Mr. PUGII, in the Senate, Dec. 20, 1860. " The whole theory of our Government is built upon the expectation that the States will not secede, but that all will continue to be integral parts of the confederacy. If you ask, where is authority under the Constitution for a State to secede ? I would ask, where is there any thing in the Constitution to prevent its secession ? " Senator PUGH, Dec. 20, 1860. 218 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " It depends on the State itself whether to retain or to abolish the principle of representation, because it depends on itself whether it will remain a member of the Union. To deny this right, would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded ; which is, that the people have in all cases a right to determine how they will be gov erned. " The secession of a State from the Union depends on the will of the people of such State. The people alone, as we have already seen, have the power to alter the Constitution." WIL LIAM RAWLE, of Pennsylvania, 1825. This very able man was offered the office of Attorney-Gen eral, by WASHINGTON. President BUCHANAN, in his annual Message, 1860 : " In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the confed eracy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty jarring and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility, whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this course a Union might be entirely broken up into fragments in a few weeks, which cost our fathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish. " It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether founded on inference, not from any language contained in the instru ment itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder ? In the language of Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution, it was formed by the States that is, by the people in each of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity ; and formed, consequently j by the authority which formed the State Constitutions. " Nor is the Government of the United States created by the THE COERCION OF A STATE BY PHYSICAL FORCE. 219 Constitution less a Government in the strict sense of the term within the sphere of its powers, than the governments created by the Constitutions of the States are within their several spheres." The whole argument of President BUCHANAN in his annual Message of 1860, is one of the ablest against secession. " I believe that it contravenes no provision of the Constitu tion, for one or more of the States to secede from the Union ; not by virtue of any power conferred upon them by that instru ment, but in consequence of the States never having surrendered it to the General Government : the Constitution declares that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution are reserved to the States respectively, or the people. I appre hend that it will be admitted that the States may exercise any or all of their reserved powers without a violation of the Con stitution. If, then, they have never parted with their right to resume their original sovereignty, when, in their opinion, the Government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted, it is no violation of the Constitution for them to secede. If there is any clause in the Constitution by which they deprived themselves of this right, it has escaped my obser vation." Senator HUNTER, of Virginia, Jan. 15, 1861. This expresses the Southern view, as President BUCHANAN in his message does the Northern. THE COERCION OF A STATE BY PHYSICAL FORCE. On the subject of coercion, ALEXANDER HAMILTON said : " It has been observed, to coerce the States is one of the saddest pro jects that was ever devised. A failure of compliance will never be confined to a single State ; this being the case, can we sup pose it wise to hazard a civil war? Suppose Massachusetts, or any larger State should refuse, and Congress should attempt to compel them, would they not have influence to procure assist ance, especially from those States that are in the same situation as themselves ? "What a picture does this idea present to our view ? A complying State at war with a non-complying State ; Congress marching the troops of one State into the bosom of another ; the State collecting auxiliaries, and forming, perhaps, a majority against its Federal head. Here is a nation at war 15 220 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. with itself. Can any reasonable man "be well disposed towards a Government which makes war and carnage the only means of supporting itself? a Government that can exist only by the sword ? Every such war must involve the innocent with the guilty. This single consideration should be sufficient to dispose every peaceable citizen against such a Government." On the same subject, GEOKGE MASON, of Virginia, said : " The most jarring elements of nature, sin and malice, are not more incompatible than such a mixture of civil liberty and military execution. Will the militia march from one State into another, in order to collect the arrears of taxes from the delinquent members of the Republic ? Will they maintain an army for this purpose ? Will not the citizens of the invaded States assist one another till they rise and shake off the Union altogether? * * * To punish the non-payment of taxes with death, is a severity not yet adopted by despotism itself; yet this unexam pled cruelty would be mercy, compared to a military collection of revenue, in which the bayonet could make no distinction between the innocent and the guilty." See Mr. MADISON S views on this subject, page 49. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, in his special Message, Feb. 5, 1827, in respect to the resistance of Georgia to Federal requisitions, said : " In abstaining at this stage of the proceedings from the application of any military force, I have been governed by con siderations which will, I trust, meet the concurrence of the Leg islature. Among these, one of prominent importance has been, that these surveys have been attempted and partly effected under color of legal authority from the State of Georgia ; that the surveyors are, therefore, not to be viewed in the light of indi vidual and solitary transgressors, hut as the agents of a sover eign State acting in obedience to authority which they "believed to he binding upon them." Mr. MADISON, on the 8th of June, 17S7, said in convention : " Any Government for the United States formed on the sup posed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States, would prove as visionary and falla cious as the Government of Congress," evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the Confederation. Mr. BUCHANAN in his annual address, 1860, discusses the THE COERCION OF A STATE BY PHYSICAL FORCE. 221 question, " Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw, and has actually withdrawn from the confederacy ? If answered in the affirmative it must be on the principle that power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection, I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress, or to any other department of the Fed eral Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Con stitution, that this is not among the enumerated powers granted to Congress ; and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not i necessary and proper for carrying into execution any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the convention which formed the Constitution." See MADISON papers, p. Y61. " Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. " But if we possessed this power would it be wise to exer cise it under existing circumstances? The object doubtless would be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it ; but would banish all hope of its peaceable re-construction." * * * " The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it cannot live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in its hands to destroy it by force." These views he repeats in a special Mes sage on the subject. President BUCHANAN, in his special Message, Jan. 8, 1861, after denying the right of secession, on the part of the States, and the right of coercion on the part -of the General Govern ment against seceding States, says : " But the right and duty to use military force defensively against those who resist the Fed eral officers in the execution of their legal functions, and against those who spoil the pow r er of the Federal Government, is clear and undeniable." To this Senator DAVIS, of Mississippi, Jan. 10, 1861, replies : 222 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " Is it so ? "Where does lie get it ? Our fathers were so jealous of a standing army that they would scarcely permit the organ ization and maintenance of any army. Where does he get the clear and undeniable power to use the force of the United States in the manner he then proposes ? To execute a process, troops may be summoned as & posse comitatus and here in the history of our Government, it is not to be forgotten that in the earlier, better days of the Republic and painfully do we feel that they were better indeed a President of the United States did not recur to the army ; he went to the people of the United States. Vaguely and confusedly, indeed, did the Senator from Tennessee (ANDREW JOHNSON) bring forward the case of the great man, Washington, as one, in which he had used a power which was equivalent to the coercion of a State, for he said that "Washington used the military power against a portion of the people of a State ; and why might he not have used it against the whole State ? " Let me tell that Senator that the case of General Washing ton has no application as he supposes. It was a case of insur rection within the Stato of Pennsylvania ; and the very mes sage from which he read communicated the fact that Governor MIFFLIN thought it necessary to call the militia of adjoining States to co-operate with those of Pennsylvania. He used the militia not as a standing army. It was by the consent of the Governor; it was by his advice. It was not the invasion of the State, It was not the coercion of the State ; but it was aiding the State to put down insurrection, and in the very man ner provided in the Constitution itself. " But, I ask again, what power has the President to use the army and navy except to execute process ? Are we to have drumhead courts substituted for those which the Constitution and the laws provide ? Are we to have sergeants sent over the land instead of civil magistrates? Kot so thought the elder Adams. * * * I say then, when we trace our history to its early foundation under the first two Presidents of the United States, we find that this idea of using the army and the navy to execute the laws at the discretion of the President, was not even entertained, still less acted upon, in any case." CAUSES OF THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 223 DECLARATION BY THE CONVENTION OF SOUTH CAROLINA OF CAUSES "WHICH LED TO THE SECESSION OF THAT STATE. Dec. 24, 1860. The people of the State of South Carolina, in Convention assembled, on the 2d day of April, A. D. 1852, declared that the frequent violations of the Constitution of the United States by the Federal Government, and its encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified this State in their withdrawal from the Federal Union ; but in deference to the opinions and wishes of the other slaveholding States, she for bore at that time to exercise this right. Since that time these encroachments have continued to increase, and further for bearance ceases to be a virtue. And now the State of South Carolina, having resumed her separate and equal place among nations, deems it due to herself, to the remaining United States of America, and to the nations of the world, that she should declare the immediate causes which have led to this act. In the year 1765, that portion of the British Empire em bracing Great Britain, undertook to make laws for the Govern ment of that portion composed of the thirteen American Colo nies. A struggle for the right of self-government ensued, which resulted, on the 4th of July, 1776, in a Declaration, by the Colonies, " that thev are, and of ri":ht ought to be, FREE AND / O O INDEPENDENT STATES ; and that, as free and independent States, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." They further solemnly declared, that whenever any " form of Government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute a new Government." Deeming the Govern ment of Great Britain to have become destructive of these ends, they declared that the Colonies " are absolved from all alle giance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." In pursuance of this Declaration of Independence, each of THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the thirteen States proceeded to exercise its separate sover eignty ; adopted for itself a Constitution, and appointed officers for the administration of Government in all its departments Legislative, Executive, and Judicial. For purposes of defence they united their arms and their counsels ; and, in 1778, they entered into a League, known as the Articles of Confederation, whereby they agreed to intrust the administration of their external relations to a common agent, known as the Congress of the United States, expressly declaring, in the first article, " that each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and inde pendence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not, by this Confederation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Under this Confederation the "War of the Revolution was carried on ; and on the 3d of September, 1783, the contest ended, and a definite Treaty was signed by Great Britain, in which she acknowledged the Independence of the Colonies in the following terms : " ARTICLE 1. His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz. : New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, to be FREE, SOVEREIGN, AND INDEPENDENT STATES ; that lie treats wkh them as such ; and, for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the Government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and ever/ part thereof." Thus were established the two great principles asserted by the Colonies, namely, the right of a State to govern itself; and the right of a people to abolish a Government when it becomes destructive of the ends for which it was instituted. And con current with the establishment of these principles, was the fact, that each Colony became and was recognized by the mother country as a FREE, SOVEREIGN, AND INDEPENDENT STATE. In 1787, Deputies were appointed by the States to revise the articles of Confederation-; and on 17th September, 1787, these Deputies recommended, for the adoption of the States, the Articles of Union, known as the Constitution of the United States. CAUSES OF THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAROLINA. 225 The parties to whom this Constitution was submitted, were the several sovereign States ; they were to agree or disagree, and when nine of them agreed, the compact was to take effect among those concurring ; and the General Government, as the common agent, was then to be invested with their authority. If only nine of the thirteen States had concurred, the other four would have remained as they then were separate, sov ereign States, independent of any of the provisions of the Con stitution. In fact, two of the States did not accede to the Constitution until long after it had gone into operation among the other eleven ; and during that interval, they each exercised the functions of an independent nation. By this Constitution, certain duties were imposed upon the several States, and the exercise of certain of their powers was restrained, which necessarily impelled their continued existence as sovereign States. But, to remove all doubt, an amendment was added, which declared that the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. On the 23d May, 1788, South Carolina, by a Conven tion of her people, passed an ordinance assenting to this Con stitution, and afterwards altered her own Constitution to conform herself to the obligations she had undertaken. Thus was established, by compact between the States, a Government with defined objects and powers, limited to the express words of the grant. This limitation left the whole remaining mass of power subject to the clause reserving it to the States or the people, and rendered unnecessary any specifi cation of reserved rights. "We hold that the Government thus O established is subject to the two great principles asserted in the Declaration of Independence ; and we hold further, that the mode of its formation subjects it to a third fundamental prin ciple, namely, the law of compact. We maintain that in every compact between two or more parties, the obligation is mutual ; that the failure of one of the contracting parties to perform a material part of the agreement, entirely releases the obligation of the other ; and that, where no arbiter is provided, each party- is remitted to his own judgment to determine the fact of failure, with all its consequences. 226 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. In the present case, that fact is established with certainty. We assert that fourteen of the States have deliberately refused for years past to fulfil their Constitutional obligations, and we refer to their own statutes for the proof. The Constitution of the United States, in its fourth Article, provides as follows : " No person held to service or labor in one State under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." This stipulation was so material to the compact that without it that compact would not have been made. The greater num ber of the contracting parties held slaves, and they had pre viously evinced their estimate of the value of such a stipulation by making it a condition in the Ordinance for the Government of the territory ceded by Virginia, which obligations, and the laws of the General Government, have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution. The States of Maine, New Hamp shire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New York, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, "Wis consin, and Iowa, have enacted laws which either nullify the acts of Congress, or render useless any attempt to execute them. In many of these States the fugitive is discharged from the service of labor claimed, and in none of them has the State Government complied with the stipulation made in the Con stitution. The State of New Jersey, at an early day, passed a law in conformity with her constitutional obligation ; but the current of Anti-Slavery feeling -has led her more recently to enact laws which render inoperative the remedies provided by her own laws and by the laws of Congress. In the State of New York even the right of transit for a slave has been denied by her tribunals ; and the States of Ohio and Iowa have refused to surrender to justice fugitives charged with murder, and with inciting servile insurrection in the State of Virginia. Thus the constitutional compact has been deliberately broken and dis regarded by the non-slaveholding States.; and the consequence follows that South Carolina is released from her obligation. The ends for which this Constitution was framed are declared CAUSES OF THE SECESSION OF SOUTH CAEOLINA. 227 by itself to be " to form a more perfect Union, to establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity." These ends it endeavored to accomplish by a Federal Gov ernment, in which each State was recognized as an equal, and had separate control over its own institutions. The right of property in slaves was recognized by giving to free persons distinct political rights ; by giving them the right to represent, and burdening them with direct taxes for three-fifths of their slaves ; by authorizing the importation of slaves for twenty years ; and by stipulating for the rendition of fugitives from labor. We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions ; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution ; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery ; they have permitted the open estab lishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace of and eloin the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes ; and those who remain have been incited by emissaries, books, and pictures, to servile in surrection. For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily in creasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the forms of the Constitu tion, a sectional party has found within that article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Con stitution itself. / K geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be intrusted with the administration of the common Gov ernment, because he has declared that that " Government can not endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the 228 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. public mind must rest in the belief .that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction. This sectional combination for the subversion of the Con stitution has been aided, in some of the States, by elevating to citizenship persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens ; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its peace and safety. On the 4th of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the Judicial tribunal shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States. The guarantees of the Constitution will then no longer exist ; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self- protection, and the Federal Government will have become their , enemy. Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation ; and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that the public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanctions of a more erroneous religious belief. "We, therefore, the people of South Carolina, by our dele gates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State, with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do." After making the above declaration, the Convention of South Carolina appointed K. W. BAKNWELL, J. II. ADAMS, and JAS. L. ORR, commissioners to proceed to Washington, as com missioners to treat with the Government of the United States, on various subjects connected with the secession of the State. This they ineffectually attempted, Dec. 29, 1860, President BU CHANAN declining to receive them in their official character. THE CKITTENDEN RESOLUTIONS. 229 THE PEACE CONGRESS. On January 19, 1861, the General Assembly of Yirginia passed a preamble and resolutions inviting the States to send commissioners to Washington to adjust the sectional difficulties which threatened the integrity of the Union. These resolutions recommended the CKITTENDEN resolutions as the basis of set tlement. THE CRITTENDEN RESOLUTIONS. In order to settle the sectional disputes, Senator CKITTENDEN brought forward a resolution embracing several articles with the following preamble : " Whereas serious and alarming dis sensions have arisen between the Northern and Southern States, concerning the rights of the slaveholding States, and especially their rights in the common territory of the United States, and whereas it is eminently desirable and proper that these dissen sions, which now threaten the very existence of the Union, should be permanently quieted and settled by constitutional provisions which shall do equal justice to all sections, and thereby restore to the people that peace and good will which ought to prevail between all the citizens of the United States therefore, " JBesolved, ty the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States, in Congress assembled, (two-thirds of both Houses concurring,) that the following articles be and hereby are proposed and submitted as amendments to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and pur poses, as part of said Constitution, when ratified by conventions of three-fourths of the several States." Article 1 Provided for prohibiting slavery north of 36 30 in all the territory now held or which may hereafter be held, and recognizing it as existing in all the territory south of that line, and for allowing any territory to come into the Union, when it has a sufficient population for a member of Congress, according to the then ratio of representation of the people of the United States, on an equal footing with the other States either with or without slavery, as the Constitution of such new State shall provide. 230 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. Article 2 Declares that Congress shall have no power to abolish slavery in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress and within the limits of States that permit the holding of slaves. Article 3 Declares that Congress shall not have power to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia except on certain conditions. Article 4 Declares that Congress shall not interdict the transportation of slaves from one State to another where the laws permit slavery. Article 5 Declares that the fugitive slave law shall be modified in such a manner, that in case the owner meets with forcible obstruction from people to the recovery of his slave, the United States shall pay for such fugitive slave ; it being pro vided that the county where this force, or intimidation, or rescue takes place, shall be liable for the amount paid, with authority to remunerate itself by a suit against the rescuers or wrong-doers. Article 6 Provides that these and some other articles already in the Constitution shall not be altered hereafter. It also contained certain recommendations in respect to the personal liberty bills, and the fugitive slave law, and the slave trade. LETTERS OF SENATORS BINGIIAM AND CHANDLER. WASHINGTON, Feb. 15, 1861. DEAR SIR, When Virginia proposed a convention in "Washington, in reference to the disturbed condition of the country, I regarded it as another step to debauch the public mind, and a step towards obtaining that concession which the imperious slave power so insolently demands. I have no doubt, at pres ent, that this was the design ; I \vas, therefore, pleased that the Legislature of Michigan was not disposed to put herself in a position to be controlled by such influences. The convention has met here, and within a few days the aspect of things is materially changed. Every free State except Michigan and "Wisconsin is represented, and we have been assured by friends upon whom we can rely, that if those two LETTERS OF SENATORS BINGHAM AND CHANDLER. 231 States should send delegations of true unflinching men, there would probably be a majority in favor of the Constitution as it is, who would frown down rebellion by the enforcement of the laws. These friends have recommended the appointment of delegates from our State, and in compliance with their request Mr. CHANDLER and myself telegraphed to you last night. It cannot be doubted that the recommendations of this convention will have considerable influence upon the public mind and upon the action of Congress. * * * I have the honor with much respect, to be truly yours, K. S. BINGHAM. His Excellency, Governor BLAIR. WASHINGTON, Feb. 11, 1861. MY DEAR GOVERNOR, Governor BINGHAM and myself telegraphed to you on Saturday at the request of Massachusetts and New York, to send delegates to the peace or compromise congress. They admit that we were right and they were wrong ; that no Eepublican State should have sent delegates ; but they are here and cannot get away. Ohio, Indiana, and Rhode Island are caving in, and there is danger of Illinois ; and now they beg us, for God s sake, to come to their rescue, and save the republican party from rupture. I hope you will send sfiff- lacked men or none. The whole thing was got up against my judgment, and will end in thin smoke. Still I hope as a mat ter of courtesy to some of our erring brethren, that you will send the delegates. Truly your friend, Z. CHANDLER. His Excellency AUSTIN BLAIR. p. S. Some of the mamifacturing States think that a fight would be awful. "Without a little blood-letting, this Union will not, in my estimation, be worth a rush. The peace Congress was a failure. The South, goaded on by wrongs real, and wrongs imaginary, was rushing into secession. The North called for " blood-letting." Blood was forthcoming. 232 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. REMARKS. 1. Causes were in operation when Mr. BUCHANAN entered upon his administration, and during its continuance, which raised the sectional feeling, both North and South, to such a degree of antagonism, that the Union of the States was ruptured by the secession of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Missis sippi, Louisiana, and Florida. What those causes were, both proximate and remote, may be seen or inferred from the facts stated in the preceding pages. The sectional character at tributed to the Republican party ; the opposition to the DEED SCOTT decision ; the recommendation by sixty-eight Northern members of Congress of Helper s incendiary abolition book ; the JOHN BROWN invasion, and the sympathy expressed for him by Northern communities ; the personal liberty bills passed by the Legislatures of at least twelve Northern States ; the declaration of the Northern dominant party, that there should be no more slave territory ; the spirit with which that party was coming into power, the exclamation of the victorious Gauls, addressed to the conquered Romans, vce victis, being in their hearts, if not on their lips ; these were some of the proximate causes of the secession. The sceptre was departing from Judah, and the lawgiver from between his feet. For fourteen presidential terms the candidate, favored by the South, had been elected ; while the favorite candidates of the North had been elected for only four presidential terms. And with respect to these four, who were the favorite candidates of the North, namely, JOHN ADAMS, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, General HARRISON, and General TAYLOR, there was no great dissatisfaction at the South. The two latter were by birth Southern men, and in favor of protecting Southern institutions. But now, for the first time, an anti-slavery man, Mr. LINCOLN, was elected presi dent upon an anti-slavery platform, with the expectation on the part of the electors that anti-slavery men would " take possession of the Government," and would control the councils of the nation. Moreover, the Northern triumphant party, as be longing to the most numerous section, expected to hold the Government in perpetuity, so that all that was left to the South REMARKS. 233 was to exclaim with the fallen statesman "Wolsey, " Farewell, a long farewell to all my greatness ! " But the North might justly, in turn, complain against the Sou tli, on account of grievances which, to some extent, furnish an apology for the injuries just mentioned. It might justly com plain that it had been, for a long time, practically excluded from its appropriate share of influence, and office, and emolument, in the administration of the Federal Government. It might say, You of the South have had possession of the Federal Gov ernment, with all its attendant advantages, for fifty-six years out of seventy-two ; and when you have refused to admit us to an equal participation in these advantages, and when you have foiled us again and again, in our attempts to gain the presidential election, you must not think it strange that we should, in our desperate efforts to obtain our rights, have used means that would be unpardonable in other circumstances. You must not think it strange, if you deprive us of our ap propriate share of political power, that we, in retaliation, should deprive you of your appropriate share in the territories. You must not think it strange that, if the slave States go in a solid column against our presidential candidates, we should oppose the admission of new slave States. You must not think it strange that, if you attempt to nullify Tariff laws, which protect our manufacturing property, we should, by our personal liberty bills, nullity your fugitive slave law, which protects your slave property. You must not think it strange that, if you attack our commercial interests, as you did during the administration of Mr. JEFFERSON and of Mr. MADISON ; and our manufacturing interests, as you did during the administration of General JACKSON and of Mr. POLK ; we should attack your interests in slaves. You must not think it strange, if you magnify the reserved rights of the States and threaten secession, that we should magnify the powers granted to the Federal Government, and threaten military coercion. 2. In the progress of years, a thorough alienation of feeling had grown up between large masses at the North, and large masses at the South. Men hate those whom they injure as well as those who injure them. In the North there was the feeling of contempt mingled with the hatred, namely contempt THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY ,c supposed imbecility and poverty of ie South, and its idence on the North for conveniences ad necessaries of nanufactured at the North. There was Iso a deep moral Tencc of Southern men as Blaveholdrs, inasmuch as ry was supposed to include in it " the sui of all villanies." supposed ** barbarism of the South v finished the staple peeches, and newspaper articles, and 1 al conversation, j were those, and not a few, who felt th: those Southern irians were not any better entitled to c ual rights in the ories, according to the guarantees of ie Constitution, were the children of Ishmael to th promises made sively to the seed of Isaac, or than wer< the descendants au to a share with the children of Israeli) the territories e Promised Land. In short, they felt U.t, as " Saints," icrn men should " inherit the North " : hat they should possession of the common territories V a direct grant Congress, overriding the Constitution; nd that, in due under a patent from the Almighty, thcy-hould take pos- n of the Southern States, as fast as thr could expel the unites from the land. nd, on the other hand, Southern men reaid, if possible, Northern hatred with interest ; for their Ltred was inten- by the fear of those who politically ha< power to injure , They distrusted men who claimed to hre large powers the Constitution to injure the South, vale in cases in i the Constitution expressly protects thenterests of the i, they would place themselves under tin subterfuge of a her law," in order to violate their constutional obliga- They feared and distrusted men who vould thus act the Constitution with their own construcon of it, or the r law with their own construction of it, rcording as the r the other would help to enlarge the riglB of the Korth, ossen the rights of the South. They distnted, and feared, lated men, who, under a pretence of the rrht of petition, if the freedom of the press, and liberty c> speech, would V the floor of Congress with insults and sinders, and fill mil bags with incendiary publications ; an< send insurrec- ry apostles of abolitionism, to kindle the ames of rebel- u the South. They distrusted, and feared, nd hated men, REMARKS. \ sixty-eight of wh- e representatives had recommended a bo written to injure Southern institutions protected by the C stitution men wo sympathized with a convict, and crowr him with sepulchil honors, because he hated slavery; w thirty years ago. rould have been " hung like a felon, a buried like a do. They distrusted, and feared, and ha men, who ostrac:ed and excluded from office some of ablest and best len in the Northern States, and put a litionists in the! place, simply upon the suspicion that 1 former were natiual and not sectional in their politics ; TK had let loose the: war dogs to pursue their great man, DAN WEBSTER, even iio his grave ; and who, for a season, inste of allowing miners of the Gospel to preach Christ and h crucified, dumanod that they " should preach DOUGLAS a him damned"; il because they suspected these two men favoring the ui. They distrusted, and feared, and ha1 men, who could iid in passing personal liberty bills, whi violate and null - the Constitution in one of its clauses, a who can vilify a:i set at nought the decision of the Supre: Court of the lined States, which ^many of them had nei even read. Senator IVEE>N of Georgia, Dec. 6, 1860, in the Sena made the followig remarks : " Sir, disguise the fact as y will, there is an cmity between the Northern and the Sou em people that i.^leep, and you can never eradicate it nev Look at the spetacle exhibited on this floor. How is : There are the Bpublican Northern Senators on that si< Here are the Soiuern Senators on this side. How much soc intercourse bet\\ m us ? You sit on that side, sullen a gloomy ; we sit n ours with portentous scowls. Yesterd I observed then was not a solitary man on that side of t chamber came cer here, even to extend the civilities a courtesies of life nor did any of us go over there. Here i two hostile bodii, on this floor, and it is but a type of t feeling that exis in the two sections. We are enemies much as if we -ere hostile States. I believe the Northe people hate the buth worse than ever the English people hat France ; and I en tell my brethren over there, that there no love lost on tb part of the South. 16 236 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " In this state of feeling, divided as we are by interest, by geographical position, by every thing that makes two people separate and distinct I ask, why should we remain in the same Union together ? We have not lived in peace ; we are not now living in peace. It is not to be expected, or hoped, that we ever shall live in peace. My doctrine is, that whenever man and wife find that they must quarrel and cannot live in peace, they ought to separate ; and these two sections, the North and the South, manifesting, as they have done and do now, and probably ever will manifest, feelings of hostility, separated as they are in interests and objects my own opinion is, that they can never live in peace ; and the sooner they sepa rate the better." 3. Does the Northern dominant party desire the extinction of slavery in the Southern States, and does it propose to adopt only political means to promote that extinction ? Senator SEWARD, in his speech in Ohio, said : " Slavery can be limited to its present bounds. It can be ameliorated. It can and must be abolished, and you and I can and must do it." Mr. DOUGLAS said of this : " Every appeal they make to Northern prejudice is against the institution of slavery everywhere, and they would not be able to retain their abolition allies, the rank out-and-out abolitionists, unless they held out the hope that it was the mission of the Republican party, if successful, to abolish slavery in the States as well as territories of the Union." They, the people of Ohio, and he, a New Yorker, must abolish slavery in Virginia. Mr. JOSHUA R. GIDDINGS said of the Helper book : " Every sentence of the book finds a response in the hearts of all true Republicans." Senator SUMNER said, that " slaveholders are base, false, and heedless of justice. It is vain to expect that men, who had screwed themselves up to become the propagandists of this enormity, will be restrained by any compromise, compact, bargain, or plighted faith. As the less is contained in the greater, so there is no vileness of dishonesty, no denial of human rights, that is not plainly involved in the support of an institution, which begins by changing men, created in the image of God, into a chattel, and sweeps little children away to REMARKS. 237 the auction block." How strangely is this in contrast to the language of another Massachusetts Senator ! In 1835, at a meeting in Faneuil Hall, HARRISON GREY OTIS, in reference to anti-slavery associations, said " that almost all the epithets of vituperation which the language affords, have been applied to slaveholders and their principles to the principles of WASHINGTON, and JEFFERSON, and MADISON, and the RUTLEDGES, and the PINCKNEYS ; and the thousands of other great and estimable persons who have held, or who yet hold slaves." He pointed to the portraits of HANCOCK and WASH INGTON, which hung in the Hall, and said : " Let us imagine an interview between them, in the com pany of friends, just after one had signed the commission of the other ; and, in ruminating on the lights and shadows of futurity, HANCOCK should have said : I congratulate my country on the choice she has made, and I foresee, that the laurels you gained in the field of Braddock s defeat, will be twined with those which will be earned by you in the war of Independence ; yet, such are the prejudices in my part of the Union against slavery, that although your name and services may secure you from apprehension during your life, yet your countrymen, when the willows weep over your tomb, will be branded by mine as man-stealers and murderers ; and the stain consequently annexed to your memory ! Would not such a prophecy have been imputed to a brain disturbed, and its accomplishment regarded as a chimera ? " And yet such a prophecy has been verified to a wide extent, not only in Massachusetts, but in the North generally. Much that is uttered in conversation, in political speeches, in sermons, and in public prayers, can be accounted for only on the suppo sition that there are large classes of men who desire the abolition of slavery in the States, as well as its exclusion from the territories, and that, if they had the political power, they would not scruple to use it for the attainment of both of those objects, whatever should be the consequences to the South. 4. Southern prejudices. As early as 1671, these prejudices existed. At that time, Sir WILLIAM BERKLEY, Governor of Virginia, stated " that the Navigation Act cutting off all trade with foreign countries was very injurious to them, (the Vir- r 238 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. ginians,) as they were obedient to the laws. And this is the cause why no great or small vessels are built here, for we are obedient to the laws, while the New England men trade to every place that their interests lead them." Mr. J. TAYLOR, in the Convention assembled to ratify the Constitution in North Carolina, said : " We plainly see that men that come from New England are different from us ; they are ignorant of our situation ; they do not know the state of our country. They cannot legislate for us." Many Southern statesmen have been under the impression, that the Northern States have very little reverence for the Con stitution, and that they would be very ready to enlarge or diminish its powers, if, by so doing, they could advance - their own material interests, and their own political power ; that under the pretence of advancing the " general welfare," they would sacrifice the vested rights of the South ; that under the pretence of promoting " the greatest good of the greatest num ber," they would violate sacred compacts ; that from their greed of money and their greed of political power, they are ready to sacrifice honor and duty to self-interest, and that they love negroes only because they hate their masters. 5. "Was the new Confederacy or Union expected to be per manent ? The Union of the Old England Colonies established in 1643, though solemnly declared in the Constitution to be " perpetual," was dissolved. The Union, under the British Constitution, of the Colonies with the mother country, which was supposed to be organic, and claimed to be perpetual, was dissolved. The Union formed by the Federal Constitution, or " Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union," and which was in that instrument solemnly declared to be perpetual, was dissolved. Was the new Union, like those three Unions, expected to be dissolved and pass away ? The States were familiar with the idea, that " Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed," and that " when any form of Government becomes destructive of the ends for which it was established, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and institute a new Government." By an article in the new Constitution, " the ratification of the EEMAEKS. 239 Convention of nine States shall be sufficient for the estab lishment of this Constitution between the States ratifying the same ; " thus justifying the doctrine, that nine States might secede from the remaining four, notwithstanding the article in the old Constitution, namely, " And the Articles of this Con federation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual ; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them, unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislatures of every State." In the new Constitution there is no declaration that the Union shall be perpetual, no promise on the part of the States to abide in it, and no power delegated to the Federal Govern ment to retain them in it by force. Will they stay in it ? Many of the fathers had their fears and misgivings. Even WASHINGTON hardly dared to look into the future. " Let ex perience," said he, " solve the question. To look to speculation in such a case were criminal." He evidently feared to reason on the subject, lest he should be carried to the conclusion, that the Union could not be preserved, however much he loved it. JOHN ADAMS expected the dissolution of the Union. "The Rev. Mr. COFFIN of New England, who is now here soliciting donations for a College in Greene County, Tennessee, tells me that when he first determined to engage in this enterprise, he wrote a letter recommendatory of the enterprise, which he meant to get signed by clergymen, and a similar one for per sons of a civil character, at the head of which he wished to have Mr. ADAMS to put his name, he being the President of the United States, and the application going only for his name, and not for a donation. Mr. ADAMS, after reading the paper, and considering, said he saw no possibility of continuing the Union of the States ; that their dissolution must necessarily take place ; that he therefore saw no propriety in recommend ing to New England men to promote an institution in the South ; that it was, in fact, giving strength to those who were to be their enemies, and therefore he would have nothing to do with it." JEFFERSON S WOKKS, Dec. 13, 1803. In the following letter to Mr. HOLMES, of Maine, April 22, 240 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 1820, Mr. JEFFERSON makes known his own views : " I thank you, dear sir, for the copy you were so kind as to send me of the letter to your constituents, on the Missouri question. It is a perfect justification to them. I had, for a long time, ceased to read the newspapers, or pay any attention to public affairs, confident that they were in good hands, and content to be a passenger in our boat to the shore from which I am not far distant. But this momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night, awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed, for the moment, but this is a reprieve only, not a final sentence. A geographical line coinciding with a marked principle, moral and political, and conceived and held up ~by the angry passions of men, will never le obliterated, and every new irritation will make it deeper and deeper. * * I regret, now, to die in the belief that the useless sacrifice of themselves by the generation of 1TY6, to acquire self-government and happiness to their country, is to be thrown away by the unwise passions of their sons, and that my only consolation is to be, that I do not live to weep over it." Many patriotic statesmen, like WASHINGTON, and ADAMS, and JEFFERSON, have looked with fear and trembling into the future condition of these States. They w^ere apprehensive that the original thirteen States were too extensive for one Government. "What would they have said of the magnitude of the thirty-four States united in one Confederacy ? Suis et ipsa Roma viribus ruit. But there are other considerations on this subject that have attracted the attention of another class of men. COLERIDGE, in his Table Talk, 1833, p. 201, says : " Can there be any thor ough national fusion of the Northern and the Southern States ? I think not. The fact is, the Union will be shaken almost to dislocation, whenever a very serious question between the States arises. The American Union has no centre, and it is impossible to make one. The more they extend their borders into the Indian land, the weaker will the national cohesion be. I look upon the States as splendid masses to be used by-and-by in the composition of two or three Governments." A Russian writer, IVAN GOLOVIN, remarked in 1856 : " A BEMARKS. visit to the United States has the strange property of cooling democrats. Again, I tell you, the manifest destiny of the States is disunion. I do not give the Union eight years to last." ALEXANDER HAMILTON speaks of the new Constitution, when it was before the country for adoption, in the following terms : " If the Government be adopted, it is probable General WASHINGTON will be the President of the United States. This will insure a wise choice of men to administer the Government, and a good administration. A good administration will con ciliate the confidence and affections of the people, and perhaps enable the Government to acquire more consistency than the proposed Constitution seems to promise for so great a country. It may thus triumph altogether over the State Governments , and reduce them to an entire subordination, dividing the larger States into smaller districts. The organs of the General Gov ernment may also acquire additional strength. " If this should not be the case, in the course of a few years, it is probable that the contests about the boundaries of power between the particular Governments and the General Gov ernment and the momentum of the larger States, will produce a dissolution of the Union. This, after all, seems to le the most likely result" BENJAMIN HARRISON, father of President HARRISON, in a letter to Gen. WASHINGTON, 1787, says : " I cannot divest myself of the opinion, that the seeds of civil discord are plentifully sown in very many of the powers, given both to the President and the Congress ; and if the Constitution is carried into effect, the States south of the Potomac will be little more than ap pendages to those northward." In the progress of time the seeds of civil discord germinated. Causes became apparent that threatened the dissolution of the Union. WASHINGTON, in his letter to ALEXANDER HAMILTON, July 27, 1792, says : " On my way home, and since my arrival here, I have endeavored to learn from sensible, moderate men, known friends of the Government, the sentiments that are entertained of public measures. These all agree that the country is pros perous and happy, but they seem to be alarmed at that system 24:2 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. of policy, and those interpretations of the Constitution, which have taken place in Congress." These interpretations tended to enlarge the powers of the General Government, as was sup posed, at the expense of State rights. There were men all along, from the days of WASHINGTON to the present time, who understood the danger of disunion, and endeavored to avoid the causes that would produce it. They were prescient of the future, and saw events in their causes. In 1849, ROBERT E. SCHENCK, member from Dayton, Ohio, said : " If we of the Northern States will not vote for a South ern man, merely because he is a Southern man, and men of the South will not vote for a Northern man, merely because he is a Northern man, and if that principle is to be carried out in all our national politics and elections, what must be the result ? Disunion. THAT ITSELF is DISUNION. You may disguise and cover it up as you please, but that it will be. It may be re garded as but the first step in disunion, but its consequences follow as inevitably as fate. One section the North or the South must always have the majority. Disfranchise all upon the other side, and the Union could not hold together a day ; it ought not to hold together upon such conditions a day" On the other hand, from the first, there w r ere those who never indulged any fears of secession and disunion. They were, indeed, inclined to ridicule the fears of others as entirely ground less, in words like these : " The Southern States cannot be kicked out of the Union, and if they were inclined to go out, the North would not let them go. All the threats and all the fears of disunion are as wild as the visions of Southern fanatics and the dreams of Northern Union-savers. They are all got up for political effect, and to carry on elections by frightening weak-minded Union-savers." 6. Meaning of certain Terms. STATES. The word State, says Mr. MADISON, sometimes means territory occupied by a political society ; sometimes the Government established by that society ; sometimes the people composing that society in their highest sovereign capacity. It is used in this last sense when it is said that the State, or States, ratified the Constitu tion or acceded to the Constitution. The people ratified the KEMARKS. 243 Constitution as the act of the State. Thus each State, acting by itself, and for itself, in Convention, became a party to the constitutional compact. It should be added, that the term State replaced the term colony, which was in use before the Declaration of Independence. The States made the Declaration of Independence, each State acting for itself, and each State becoming " free and inde pendent." The States formed the articles of Confederation, each State still retaining its sovereignty as to all that was not "delegated. The States formed the present Constitution. " The Convention which formed it, was called by a portion of the States ; its members were all appointed by the States ; received their authority from the separate States ; voted by States in forming the Constitution, transmitted it to Congress to be sub mitted to the States for their ratification ; it was ratified by the people of each State in Convention, each ratifying by itself and for itself, and bound exclusively by its own ratification ; and by express provision it was not to go into operation unless nine out of twelve States should ratify, and then binding only be tween the States ratifying. Any four States, great or small, could have defeated its adoption." ROGER SHERMAN and OLIVER ELLSWORTH, in their letter to Governor HUNTINGTON, say : " We wish it, the Constitution, may meet with the approbation of the several States, and be a means of securing their rights, and lengthening out their tranquillity." The States retained their sovereignty for the reason that it was not delegated to the Constitution. In the case of the Bank of Augusta vs. Earle, 13 Peters Reports, p. 590, it was decided by the Supreme Court that the " rules of international law apply to the States inter se, and the Chief Justice declared that they are sovereign States. The Constitution was a Federal compact, done in Convention, by the unanimous consent of the States present." Judge CHASE, of the Superior Court of the United States, in Dallas Reports, p. 199, says : " I consider the Declaration of Independence as a declaration, not that the United Colonies jointly, in a collective capacity, were independent States, but that each of them was an independent State." It asserts the separate and individual independence, freedom, and sovereignty 244: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. of each of the thirteen States. The treaty with Great Britain recognizes the sovereignty of each State by name. UNITED STATES. This term replaced the term " United Colonies," on the Declaration of Independence. The use of the term United Colonies did not annul the separate distinc tive rights of the Colonies. The use of the term United States does not annul the separate distinctive rights of the States, whether before the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, or after the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, or after the adoption of the Federal Constitution. The word " United," used in these four different sets of circumstances, does not imply that the Colonies or the States were one people, in the sense in which a colony or a State is one, but only that the several Colonies before the Declaration of Independence, and the several States before the adoption of the Articles of Con federation, and after their adoption, and after the adoption of the Constitution, united for certain purposes and in certain respects. In the minds of the framers and friends of the Constitution, the plural idea was the ruling idea in the use of the term " United States." The term was equivalent to the " States of the Union." Thus General WASHINGTON, in his reply to CORN- PLANTER : " The* United States desire to be the friends of the Indians." " The United States will be true and faithful to their engagements." But in the minds of foreigners, and those ignorant of the structure of our Government, the singular idea is attached to the term. They sometimes say, " the United States is able to take care of itself." In the Convention of Virginia, which ratified the Constitu tion, PATRICK HENRY objected to the words, " We, the people of the United States," lest it might be supposed that it meant the inhabitants of all the States as one homogeneous mass or aggregate. But Mr. MADISON replied, " The parties to it are to be the people, but not the people as composing one great society, but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties" The acces sion or adoption was the separate act of the people of each State, quite independent of the people of any other State. And REMARKS. 245 the articles at the end are declared to be " done in Convention by the unanimous consent of the States present." PEOPLE. This term was used in application to the indi viduals who composed a separate Colony or a separate State. " The good people of these Colonies," meant the good people in the several Colonies. It meant those for whom the delegates severally acted, and it did not mean those people in the aggre gate. The several peoples represented in the Convention acted by their respective delegates. Thus, the people of Connecticut acted for themselves by their delegates ROGER S HERMAN, SAM UEL HuNTINGTON, WlLLIAM WlLLIAMS, OLIVER WoLCOTT. In the Articles of Confederation, the following phrases are em ployed : u among the people of the different States " ; " and the people of each State " ; " their own people," that is, the people of the respective States. In the Constitution the word " people " is used only for reference to the inhabitants of the several States, or portions of the same, and in no case for the collective inhabitants of all the States in the aggregate. It is applied to those who were accustomed to act together under State authority , at a particular time or place, or to portions of them. Thus, " The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are re. served to the States or to the people," (that is, to the people of the States.) In the phrase, " We, the people of the United States," there is an equivalent for we, the people of New Hampshire, and the people of Massachusetts, &c. The articles of the Constitution was a compact " between the States ratify ing the same." The " style " of the Federal Union in the new Constitution was borrowed from the old, namely, the Articles of Confederation, and has the same meaning. The reason why the Constitution was submitted to the people of each State, and not to the several Legislatures, was because it was apprehended that the latter would oppose it. Said WILSON : " I know that they, the Legislatures and the State officers, will oppose it ; I am for carrying it to the people of each State." The ratification was the act of each State, and not of the Federal Government, which then had no existence, or of the aggregate people under that Government. 24:6 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. Massachusetts, in Convention, in ratifying the " new Constitu tion," speaks of the " rights of the people," that is, the people of the several States ; and also uses the language, " in the name and by the authority of the people of this Commonwealth." " The freedom of the people," was understood to mean the free dom or the rights of the States, or of the people of the States, in distinction from the granted rights or powers of the Federal Government. CONSTITUTION. The people in the Colonies were under the BRITISH CONSTITUTION. A CONSTITUTION was framed in 1643 by the colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven. It was composed of twelve articles. The first fixes the name, " The United Colonies of New England." Second : " The said United Colonies, for themselves and their posterity, do jointly and severally enter into a firm and perpetual leagve of friend ship and amity, for offence and defence, mutual advice and succor upon all just occasions, for their mutual safety and general welfare." Besides State Constitutions, the people of the Colonies, when they became " free and independent States," through their Legislatures formed a Constitution under which they could act for specific purposes set forth in that instrument. This was familiarly known as " the Articles of Confedera tion," though it was also denominated the " FEDERAL CON STITUTION," in popular language, in the acts of the States, and in the Convention assembled to revise it. Thus, Mas sachusetts, in the appointment of delegates to the Conven tion which formed the " new Constitution," uses the term " Federal Constitution " as equivalent to " the Articles of Confederation." It was solemnly ratified by all the Legislatures, and declared to be of perpetual obligation. " And the Articles of this Con federation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual. Nor shall any alteration, at any time hereafter, be made in any of them, unless such altera tion be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the Legislature of every State." EEMAEKS. 24:7 It is not strange that LUTHER MAETIN should express the following reprobation of the violation of federal obligation by forming a new Constitution in 1787 : " Will you tell us that we ought to trust you because you now enter into a solemn compact with us ? This you have done before, and now treat with the utmost contempt. Will you now make an appeal to the Supreme Being, and call on Him to guarantee your ob servance of this compact ? The same you have formerly done for your observance of the Articles of Confederation, which you are now violating in the most wanton manner. The same reason which you now urge for destroying our present Federal Government, may be urged for abolishing the system, which you now propose to adopt." It should be kept in mind, that sectional views of the Con stitution had an influence in producing a sectional policy in the administration of the Government. The South^ from the start, favored a strict construction of the Constitution. The leading statesmen of that section, from THOMAS JEFFEESON to JEFFEESOX DAVIS, generally inquired for the " enumerated powers," and the " delegated powers " contained in the Constitution, and insisted that federal action must be carefully limited by these powers. And if, in any case, the action of the Federal Govern ment, in any of its branches, should go outside of these " granted powers," to usurp the powers reserved to the States, it is then null and void, because unconstitutional. On the other hand, the North has been inclined to a broad construction of the Constitution. The leading statesmen of that section, from ALEXANDEE HAMILTON to DANIEL WEBSTEE, generally were disposed to magnify the " granted powers," though at the expense of the powers reserved to the States. To these general statements there are many exceptions, both in the North and the South. Is a national bank constitutional ? The Southern statesman examines the Constitution, and finding no grant of power to Congress to establish such a bank, therefore pronounces the establishment of a bank unconstitutional. A Northern states man, on the other hand, while he acknowledges that the Con stitution contains no express grant of power to Congress to establish a bank or any corporation, says that, inasmuch as a 24:8 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. bank would be convenient or appropriate for carrying into operation other grants of power, it is therefore constitutional. Are internal improvements constitutional? On the same grounds as in the other case, the Southern statesman says no, the Northern yes. Are high tariffs for protection constitutional ? On the same ground as before the Southern statesmen say no, inasmuch as the Constitution empowers Congress to lay duties for revenue, but not for protection or prohibition. The Northern statesmen say yes ; because, as they judge, they are " necessary " in order to promote the " general welfare," or at least the welfare of their section of the country. [Mr. JEFFERSON to Mr. GILES,] " MONTICELLO, Dec. 25, 1825. u I see as you do, and with the deepest 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 power, foreign and domestic ; and that, too, by constructions which, if legiti mate, leave no limits to their power. Take together the de cisions of the Federal Courts, the doctrines of the President, (J. Q. ADAMS,) and the misconstructions of the constitutional compact acted on by the legislation of the federal branch, and it is but too evident that the three ruling branches of this de partment, are in combination to strip their colleagues, the State authorities, of the powers reserved to them ; and to exercise themselves all functions, foreign and domestic. * And what is our resource for the preservation of the Constitution ? Keason and argument ? You might as well reason and argue with the marble columns encircling them. The representatives chosen by ourselves ? They are found in the combination, some from incorrect views of government, some from corrupt ones, sufficient, voting together, to outnumber the sound party, and with majorities only of one, two, or three, bold enough to go forward in defiance. Mr. MADISON declared " that the divergence between us (Colonel HAMILTON and myself) took place from his wishing to administration, or rather to administer the Government (these REMARKS. were Mr. MADISON S very words) into what lie thought it ought to be ; while, on my part, I endeavored to make it conform to the Constitution, as understood by the Convention that pro duced and recommended it, and particularly by the State Con ventions that adopted it." FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. The word Federal is derived fron\. the Latin word fcedus, a league or compact. Ours is a Federal Government, as appears from the recommendation of Congress, 1787 : " Resolved, that in the opinion of Congress, it is expedient that, on the second Monday of May next, a Con vention of delegates, who shall have been appointed by the several States, be held at Philadelphia, for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation, and reporting to Congress and the several Legislatures, such alterations and provisions therein as shall, when agreed to in Congress and confirmed by the States, render the Federal Constitution ade quate to the exigencies of the Government and the preservation of the Union. "With this the commissions from the States to the delegates corresponded. So intent were the Conventions upon making a Federal and not a consolidated Government, that, at the motion of Mr. ELLSWORTH, the term " national Gov ernment " was by an unanimous vote struck out from the Con stitution, and instead of it the " Government of the United States " was substituted. It is in its origin and nature Federal, having been framed by the States as parties, and depending for its existence on the action of the States. The letter addressed to Congress by General "WASHINGTON, President of the Convention, and agreed to by that body, by paragraphs, speaks of the " Federal Government of these States" and not of a national Government. The word Federal indicates that the Constitution is a compact between the States. The term " national Government " is used in a popular sense. ACCEDE. Mr. WEBSTER, in his speech, Feb. 16, 1833, said, in regard to the first resolution of Mr. CALHOUN, which declares that the several States u acceded " to the Constitution or con stitutional compact, " that the word accede is not found in the Constitution itself, or in the ratification of it by any of the 250 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. States. The natural converse of accession is secession, and therefore, when it is stated that the people of the States acceded to the Union, it may more plausibly be argued that they may secede from it. If, in adopting the Constitution, nothing was done but acceding to a compact, nothing would seem to be necessary in order to break it up, but to secede from the same compact. But the term is wholly out of place" The first resolution of Mr. CALHOUN is in the following words : " Resolved, that the people of the several States, com posing these United States, are united as parties to a CQJistitu- tional compact, to which the people of each State acceded as a separate and sovereign community, each binding itself by its own particular ratification ; and that the Union, of which the said com pact is the bond, is a Union between the States ratifying the same." Is Mr. WEBSTER right in this declaration, that this term is wholly out of place ? Was Mr. CALHOUN wrong in the use of the term ? FRANKLIN says, vol. x., 351, "An eighth State has since acceded" " The influence of each accession to the Constitution on the remaining States might be considerable." G. T. CURTIS, His. Con., vol. ii., p. 529. The Governor of Rhode Island, 1780, says : " Our not having acceded to or adopted the new system of Government formed and adopted by our sister States, we doubt not, has given uneasiness to them." General WASHINGTON, in his letter to BUSHROD WASHINGTON, Nov. 10, 1787, says : " Let the opponents of the proposed Constitution in this State (Yirginia) be asked, and it is a ques tion they ought certainly to have asked themselves, What line of conduct they would advise it to adopt, if nine other States, of which I think there is no doubt, should accede to the Con stitution. Would they recommend that it should stand single ? Will they connect it with Rhode Island ? " In a letter to JAMES MADISON, Dec. 7, 1787, he says : " If these, (South Carolina and Georgia,) with the States eastward and northward, should accede to the Federal Government, L think the citizens of this State will have no cause to bless the opposers of it here if they should carry their point." REMARKS. 251 In a letter to JAMES MADISON, Jan. 10, 1788, lie says : " But of all the arguments that may be used at the Convention which is to be held, the most prevailing one will be that nine States, at least, have acceded to it, that is, to the Constitution. In his letter to Count LUZERNE, Feb. 7, 1780 : " It is also said that Georgia has acceded" Thus the language " accede to the Constitution," " accede to the Union," was current and correct long ago, as applied to the States. The phrase " members of the Union," as applied to States that had acceded to the Constitution, or ratified the Consti tution, was also in use. The States are members of the Union. Secede, secession, are the opposite of accede, accession. The use of the two latter words, in relation to the Federal Constitu tion, and their supposed correlation to the two former, have already been noticed. " The Union was formed by the voluntary agreement of the States, and in uniting together they have not forfeited their nationality, nor have they been reduced to the condition of one and the same people. If one of the States chose to withdraw its name from the contract, it would be difficult to disprove its right of doing so." This opinion DE TOCQTJEVILLE expresses in his work entitled "Democracy in America" p. 419. He was as well qualified as any other foreigner to judge correctly con cerning the nature of our institutions. " Any State may, at any time, constitutionally withdraw from the Union, and thus virtually dissolve it. It was not certainly created with the idea that the States, or several of them, would desire a separation. But whenever they chose to do it, they have no obstacle in the way." THOMAS COLLET GRATTAN S Civilized America, vol. i., p. 287. Mr. MACON, and Mr. KAWLE, and GOUVERNEUR MORRIS S opinions have been already quoted as agreeing with that of these distinguished, foreigners. See pp. 68, 216, 218. The Northern members of Congress, on one occasion in tho- early part of General WASHINGTON S administration, " threatened secession and dissolution." See p. 37. Massachusetts and Con necticut seemed at one time to believe in the right of secession,, under certain circumstances. We have the declaration of" 17 252 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, " that the continuance of the embargo, in 1809, much longer would certainly be met by forcible resist ance supported by the Legislature, and probably by the ju diciary of the State," (Massachusetts.) " That their object (the leaders of the party) was and had been for several years, a dis solution of the Union," as he knew from " unequivocal evi dence," that this design had been formed in the winter of 1803 and 1804, immediately after and as a consequence of the acquisition of Louisiana." See p. 70. Massachusetts interposed her authority, pronounced the embargo unconstitutional. Mr. JEFFERSON wisely yielded, and the embargo was repealed. In thus avoiding a collision with the State of Massachusetts, and showing his respect for State rights, he set an example which General JACKSON intentionally or unintentionally followed, in advising the modification of the tariff laws in 1833, by which he wisely avoided a collision with South Carolina. The Boston Centinel of ISTov. 9, 1814, in noticing the ap pointment of delegates from Connecticut and Rhode Island, to the Hartford Convention, says : " they are the second and third pillars of the new Federal edifice." JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, in his oration delivered in 1839, on the jubilee of the Constitution, seems to countenance the right of secession under certain limitations : " To the people alone is thus reserved, as well the dissolving as the constituent power, and that power can be exercised by them only under the tie of Conscience binding them to the retributive justice of heaven. With these qualifications we may admit the same rights vested in the people of every State in the Union with reference to the General Government." The following from his Memoir, by JOSIAH QUINCY, p. 98, has a bearing on the same point : " There is now every appearance that the slave question will be carried by the superior ability of the slavery party. For this much is certain, that if institutions are to be judged by their results, in the composition of the councils of the Union, the slaveholders are much more ably represented than the simple freemen. With the .exception of RUFUS KING, there is not one in either House of Congress, a member of the free States, able to cope in powers of the mind with WILLIAM PINKNEY and JAMES BARBOUR. In the House of Eepresentatives they have no one REMARKS. 253 to contend on equal terms with JOHN RANDOLPH or CLAY. An other misfortune to the free party is, that some of their ablest men are either on this question with their adversaries, or luke warm in the cause. The slave men have indeed a deeper im mediate stake in the issue than the partisans of freedom. Their passions and interests are more profoundly agitated, and they have stronger impulses to active energy than their antagonists, whose only individual interest in the case exists from its bear ing on the balance of political power between the North and the South." " The impression produced on my mind by the progress of this discussion (the Missouri) is, that the bargain between free dom and slavery, contained in the Constitution of the United States, is morally and politically vicious ; inconsistent with the principles on which alone our revolution can be justified, cruel and oppressive, by riveting the chains of slavery, by pledging the faith of freedom to maintain and perpetuate the tyranny of the master ; and grossly unequal and impolitic, by admitting that slaves are at once enemies to be kept in subjection, prop erty to be secured and returned to their owners, and persons not be represented themselves, but for whom their masters are privileged with many a double share of representation. " I have favored this Missouri Compromise, believing it to be all that could be effected under the present Constitution, and from extreme unwillingness to put the Union at hazard. Bat perhaps it would have been a wiser and a bolder cause to have persisted in the restriction on Missouri, until it should have terminated in a Convention of the States to revise and amend the Constitution. This would have produced a new Union of thirteen or fourteen States, unpolluted with slavery, with a great and glorious object, that of rallying to their standard the other States, by the universal emancipation of their slaves. If the Union must be dissolved, slavery is precisely the question upon which it ought to break." COERCION. The founders of the Federal Government did not rely for its preservation, mainly upon physical force, as if it were a military despotism, but upon mutual confidence and " conciliated interests." We have no evidence that it was the 254 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. intention of the Convention that formed the Constitution, or of the States that were parties to the compact, to clothe the Gov ernment with power to use military coercion against a State that had placed itself on its reserved rights. If there was such an intention, where is it recorded ? "What they did rely upon was legal coercion, acting through the forms of law upon indi viduals. Mr. CURTIS, in his excellent history of the Constitution, vol. ii., pp. 62, 63, says : " One of the leading objects in forming the Constitution, was to obtain for the United States the means of coercion, without a resort to force against the people of the States collectively." u The introduction, therefore, of the judi cial department into the new plan of Government, of itself evinces an intention to clothe that Government with powers .that could be executed peacefully, and without the necessity of putting down the organized opposition of subordinate communities." WASHINGTON, in a letter addressed to ALEXANDER HAMILTON, Aug. 26, 1792, having spoken of " mutual forbearance and yielding on all sides," adds, " without these, I do not see how the reins of Government are to be- managed, or how the Union of the States can much longer be preserved." With respect to the coercion of a State, I have found no evidence that WASHINGTON differed from MADISON and BU CHANAN, with respect to the constitutional power to coerce a State. In the case of the whiskey insurrection, he acted in harmony with the executive authority of the State then repre sented by Governor MIFFLIN, and also in harmony with the views of Judge WILLSON, of Pennsylvania, an associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. He was careful to keep the military in subordination to the civil authority. In the farewell address of General JACKSON, March 3, 1837, is the following : " But the Constitution cannot be maintained, nor the Union preserved in opposition to public feeling by the mere exertion of coercive powers of the Government. The foun dations must be laid in the affections of the people, in the security it gives to life, liberty, and property in every quarter of the country ; and in the fraternal attachments which the citizens of the several States bear to one another, as members of one political family, materially contributing to promote the happiness of each other." BEMARKS. 255 It appears evident from the debates in the United States Senate, Feb. 8, 1831, and from other facts, that General JACK SON endorsed the opinions of Mr. HAYNE, on the subject of State rights, and not those of Mr. WEBSTER. The tone and language of Mr. WEBSTER S speeches, on that well-known occasion, were extremely well adapted to popular effect, and were greatly and deservedly admired even by many who felt that he leaned towards a construction of the Constitution which would make the Gen eral Government consolidated rather than Federal. What the opinions of General JACKSON were, in respect to nullification, in the case of South Carolina are well known from his proclamation, written by EDWARD LIVINGSTON, then Secre tary of State. On that occasion he was in favor of carrying the olive branch in one hand and the sword in the other. South Carolina was in the Union, and, of course, subject to the laws of the Union. These laws General JACKSON was deter mined to execute, but he and other wise men on that occasion, pursued a conciliatory course that rendered the forcible execution of the laws unnecessary. " If it be supposed that, among the States which are united by the Federal tie, there are some which exclusively enjoy the principal advantages of Union, or whose prosperity depends on the duration of that Union, it is unquestionable that they will always be ready to support the Central Government in enforcing the obedience of others. But the Government would then be exciting a force not derived from itself, but from a principle contrary to its nature. States form confederations in order to derive equal advantages from their union ; and in the case just alluded to, the Federal Government would derive its power from the unequal distribution of those benefits among the States. " If one (or more) of the Confederate States have acquired a preponderance sufficiently great to enable it to take exclusive possession of the central authority, it will consider the other States as subject provinces, and it will cause its own supremacy to be respected under the borrowed name of the Sovereignty of the Union. Great things may then be done in the name of the Federal Government, but in reality that Government will have ceased to exist. In both of these cases, the power which acts 256 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. in the name of the Confederation becomes stronger, the more it abandons the natural state and the acknowledged principles of Confederation." DE TOCQUEVILLE, p. 419. " I understand the Senator from New Hampshire, Mr. HALE, to proclaim not the gospel of peace between brethren, but a cir cumspect waiting to ascertain whether Mr. BUCHANAN would or would not send a Federal army to coerce South Carolina. I trust, sir, if Mr. BUCHANAN should do so high-handed and fatal an act of violence as that, his term is not too brief, as President of the United States, for him to be arraigned at our bar by an impeachment. "What would South Carolina be worth to herself or to us if she were dragged captive in chains ? I wish no State of this Union subjugated by her sisters. If she cannot be re tained by the bonds of affection, by acts of kindness, why then, in God s name, horrible as I esteem such an alternative let her depart in sorrowful silence." Senator PUGII, Dec. 10, 1860. Mr. CLAY, in deprecating a civil war, used the following lan guage : " But if they were to conquer, whom would they con quer ? A foreign foe, one who had insulted our flag, invaded our shores, and laid our country waste ? No, sir, no. It would be a conquest without laurels, without glory, a self-suicidal con quest, a conquest of brothers over brothers, obtained by one over another portion of the descendants of common ancestors, who, nobly pledging their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, had fought and bled side by side in many a hard battle on land and ocean, severed our country from the British crown, and established our national independence." It was provided in the Constitution that legal coercion should be exerted against individuals who violate the laws made in pursuance of the Constitution. This, it was supposed, would su persede the necessity of making any provision for the coercion of a State by military force. The Constitution recognizes treason against a Slate as a crime, and requires a traitor who has fled into another State to be delivered up. It thus acknowledges the Sovereignty of the States : Treason is a crime against sovereignty. " The Consti tution does not," in the language of Chief-Justice ELLSWORTH, " attempt to coerce sovereign bodies." Such an attempt is REMAKES. 257 equivalent to an act of war of a government of delegated sov ereignty^ against a government of original and inherent sov ereignty. CONCILIATION AND COMPROMISE. In 1794, when combina tions were formed in Pennsylvania to defeat the execution of the laws laying duties upon spirits distilled within the United States, commissioners were appointed by the Federal Govern ment to persuade the actors to return to their duty. Thus WASHINGTON pursued a conciliatory course, even in case of an insurrection which received no encouragement from a State, in its organized capacity. " Now, for one, I am not ready yet to take the responsibility of absolutely closing the door of reconciliation. I cannot per suade myself to forget the warnings that have descended to us from many of the wisest and best statesmen of all time against this rigid and haughty mode of treating great discontents. I cannot overlook the fact that, in the days of our fathers, the im perious spirit of CHATHAM did not feel itself as sacrificing any of his proud dignity by proposing to listen to their grievances, and even to concede every reasonable demand, long after they had placed themselves in armed resistance to all the power of Great Britain. Had George the Third listened to his words of wisdom, he might have saved the brightest jewel of his crown. He took the opposite course. He denied the existence of griev ances. He rejected the olive branch. History records its ver dict in favor of CHATHAM and against the king." C. F. ADAMS, of Massachusetts, in the House of Representatives, Jan. 31, 1861. This language of conciliation was in harmony with the feel ings of a great portion of the people in the States both North and South, at that time. On the other hand, Mr. EGEETON, of Ohio, Jan. 31, 1861, said : 1. " I will not compromise, because I have no faith that any compromise we can make would stand any longer than it minis tered to slavery. 2. " I will not compromise, because I would not further strengthen slavery. 258 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 3. " I will not compromise, finally, because slavery is a sin, an outrage against humanity, and an insult to God." This language was probably in harmony with the feelings of a large portion of people in some of the Northern States. " This is a mighty empire. Its existence spreads its influ ence through the civilized world. Its overthrow will be the greatest shock that civilization and free governments have ever received ; more extensive in its consequences, more fatal to mankind, than the French Revolution, with all its blood, and with all its war and violence. And for what ? Upon questions concerning this line of division between slavery and freedom ? Why, Mr. President, suppose this day all the Southern States being refused their right, being refused this partition, being de nied this privilege, were to separate from the Northern Sta-tes, were to do it peaceably, and then were to come to you and say : 4 Let there be no war between us ; let us divide fairly this terri tory of the United States ; could the Northern section of the country refuse so just a demand ? what would you then give them ? what would be the fair proportion ? If you allowed them their fair relative proportion, would you not give them as much as is now proposed to be assigned on the Southern side of that line, and would they not be at liberty to carry their slaves there if they pleased ? "Mr. CRITTENDEN, Dec. 28, 1860. Mr. EVERETT, May 29, 1860, made the following declaration : " Our political controversies have substantially assumed an almost purely sectional character that of a fearful struggle between the North and the South. It would not be difficult to show at length the perilous nature and tendency of this strug gle, but I can only say, on this occasion, that, in my opinion, it cannot much longer be kept up without rending the Union. * * * A spirit of patriotic moderation must be called into activity throughout the Union, or it will assuredly be broken up." Senator BROWN, of Mississippi, Dec. 12, 1860, said : " If the same spirit could prevail which now actuated the Senator who has just spoken, (Mr. DIXON, of Connecticut,) a different state of things might prevail in twenty days." President BUCHANAN used the following language on this subject: "The proposition to compromise by letting the North REMARKS. 259 have the exclusive control of the territory above a certain line, and giving Southern institutions protection below that line, ought to receive universal approbation. In itself, it may not be entirely satisfactory, but when the alternative is between a rea sonable concession on both sides, and the destruction of the Union, it is an imputation on the patriotism of Congress to as sert that its members will hesitate for a moment." Listen, also, to the following patriotic sentiments from Sen ator SEWARD : " Beyond a doubt, Union is vitally important to the Republican citizens of the United States ; but it is just as important to the whole people. Republicanism and Union are not convertible terms. Republicanism is subordinate to Union as every thing else is ; Republicanism, Democracy, every other political name and thing all are subordinate, and they ought to disappear in the presence of the great question of Union. So far as I am concerned, it shall be so." The plan of compromise proposed by Mr. CRITTENDEN, Jan. 12, 1861 and which was regarded with favor by a large portion of the Peace Congress assembled at Washington, and which was acceptable generally to the Border States was not satisfactory to the extremists either North or South. The majority of the Senate was not in favor of it. "Whether the greater share of the blame of the failure of this attempt at compromise was due to the North, or to the South, it is not necessary here to inquire. The terrible consequences of the failure soon became alarmingly evident. " Blood-letting " was substituted for the counsels of peace and conciliation. CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION. "It is evident that a Confederation so vast and so varied, both in numbers and in territorial extent, in habits and interests, could only be kept in national cohesion by the strictest fidelity to the principles of the Constitution, as understood by those who have adhered to the most restricted constructions of the powers given by the people and the States. Interpreted and applied according to those principles, the great compact adapts itself with healthy ease and freedom to an unlimited extension of that benign system of federative self-government, of which it is our glorious, and, I trust, immortal charter. Let us then, with redoubled vigilance, 260 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY be on our guard against yielding to the temptation to the exer cise of doubtful powers, even under the pressure of the motives of conceded temporary advantage and apparent temporary ex pediency. " The minimum of Federal Government, compatible with the maintenance of national unity and efficient action in our relation with the rest of the world, should afford the rule and measure of construction of our powers under the general clauses of the Constitution. A spirit of strict deference to the sovereign rights and dignity of every State, rather than a disposition to subordinate the States into a provincial relation to the central authority, should characterize all our exercise of the respective powers temporarily vested in us as a sacred trust from the gener ous confidence of our constituents." FRANKLIN PIERCE. .First Annual Message. Mr. MADISON, in his letter to Mr. "WEBSTER, March 15, 1833, says : " The Constitution of the United States being established by a competent authority, by that of the sovereign people of the several States who were parties to it, it remains only to in quire what that Constitution is." The evidence in this inquiry is largely philological. The common rules for interpreting language must be applied to the Constitution in order to learn what it is. The meaning attrib uted to the several clauses by the Convention that formed it, and the several State Conventions which adopted it, may be safely considered as the true meaning. Practically, the true course to be pursued by the Federal Government in the construction of the Constitution, is NEVER TO ATTEMPT TO EXERCISE ANY DOUBTFUL POWERS. The benefit of a doubt should always accrue to the residuary powers reserved to the States, and never to the delegated powers intrusted by the Constitution to the Federal Government. The burden of proof rests on the Federal Government. In the last resort the parties to the constitutional compact must be the judges. See p. 268. GOUVERNEUR MoRRIS TO TlMOTHY PlCKERINO, DEC. 22, 1814. "But, after all, what does it signify that men should have a written Constitution, containing unequivocal provisions and REMARKS. 261 limitations. The legislative lion will not be entangled in the meshes of a logical net. The Legislature will always make the power which it wishes to exercise, unless it be so organized as to contain, in itself, the sufficient check. Attempts to restrain it from outrage by other means will only render it the more outrageous. The idea of binding Legislatures by oaths is pue rile. Having sworn to exercise the powers granted accord ing to their true intent and meaning, they will, when they de sire, go further and avoid the shame, if not the guilt of per jury, by showing the true intent to be, according to their com prehension, that which suits their purpose." " There is no difference between a Government having all power and a Government having the right to take what power it pleases." J. C. CALIIOCN. In 1802, ALEXANDER HAMILTON called the Constitution the " frail and worthless fabric," and spoke of it as " a temporary bond." He had endeavored to infuse energy and strength into it by a broad or loose construction of its powers, but the States had decided against such a construction ; hence the epithets which he applied to it. Mr. MADISON says of General WASHINGTON, " that he signed Jay s treaty, but he did not at all like it. He also signed the bank, but he was very near not doing so ; if he had refused, it would, in my opinion, have produced a crisis." " I am satisfied that had it been his veto, there would have been an effort to nullify it ; they would have arrayed them selves in a hostile attitude." Mr. TRIST, 1S2T. A dominant party in the Government is often tempted to enlarge the Federal powers at the expense of State rights ; and when the opposing party becomes dominant, it, in turn, is tempted to follow bad precedents, and thus sanction what it had asserted to be a violation of the Constitution. Thus Mr. MADISON, with his party, opposed, with great ability, the charter of the first bank of the United States. But when his own party came into power, and passed a vote to charter the second bank of the United States, he, in opposition to his own declared con stitutional views on the subject, gave his signature to the bill. An unconstitutional act in a given case " will be recorded as 262 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. a precedent, and many an error, by the same example, will rush into the State." REVOLUTION. A revolution does not necessarily imply war or the shedding of blood, as it is supposed by many to do. What is the cause of this erroneous supposition ? Why, in the case of the American Revolution there was war and the shed ding of blood. In the case of the French Revolution there was war and the shedding of blood, and so the conclusion is drawn that revolution necessarily implies war and the shedding of blood. " I acknowledge, to the fullest extent, the right of revolu tion, if you call it a right, and of the destruction of the Govern ment under which we live, if we are discontented with it, and on its ruins to erect another more in accordance with our wishes ; but they that undertake it, undertake it with this hazard : if they are successful, then all is right, and they are heroes ; if they are defeated, they are rebels." Senator WADE, of Ohio, Dec. IT, 1850. " We are confusing language very much. Men speak of revolution, and when they speak of revolution they mean blood. Our fathers meant nothing of the sort. When they spoke of revolution, they spoke of an inalienable right." If our fathers had the " inalienable right " to change their " systems of Gov ernment," where was the right of Great Britain in the premises to wage war against the States ? In Mr. FORCE S published volumes is a pamphlet, the title page of which is as follows : " An account of the late REVOLU TION in New England, together with the declaration of the gen tlemen, merchants, and inhabitants of Boston and the country adjacent, April, 18, 1689 ; written by Nathaniel Byefield, a merchant of Boston, in New England, to his friends in Lon don." Concerning this revolution, it is said " through the good ness of God there has "been no blood shed" In this revolution from the Government of JAMES to that of WILLIAM, Sir EDMOND ANDROSS, Kt., was ordered to " surrender and deliver up the Government and fortifications," and he consented without re sistance. The great English revolution of 1689, when JAMES II. was dethroned, and WILLIAM and MARY reigned in his stead, REMARKS. was not attended by war or much violence ; and yet, how be neficent it proved ! Revolution is not necessarily connected with war and bloodshed. SOVEREIGNTY OK SUPREME POWER. In a despotism, the mon arch is sovereign. In Great Britain, the sovereignty, or supreme power, is lodged with the Kings, Lords, and Commons. In the United States, it rests with the people of the several States. In the Continental Congress, 1774, PATRICK HENRY, speak ing for Virginia, thought it would be unjust " for a little colony to weigh as much in the councils of America as a great one." Mr. SULLIVAN, of New Hampshire, responded that " a little colony had its all at stake as much as a great one," thus an nouncing in the outset the great doctrine of the equality of States, as sovereign and independent communities. Accord ingly, it was resolved that " each colony shall have one vote." In June 27, 1776, the Continental Congress declared " that all persons owing allegiance to any of the United Colonies, who shall bring war against any of the citizens, are guilty of trea son " against the colony to which they owe allegiance, thus re cognizing the sovereignty of each colony. In the Constitution, of Massachusetts, formed 1780, is the fol lowing form : " I, A B, do truly and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, that the Commonwealth of Massa chusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovereign, and inde pendent State ; and I do swear that I will bear true allegiance to the Commonwealth, and that I will defend the same against trai torous conspiracies." The States are sovereign in all that relates to the powers re served to themselves, and which they did not delegate to the Federal Government in creating it. In creating the Federal Government, the States delegated a portion of their individual sovereignty to it, to be employed for the common benefit. The Federal Government was endowed, by the States acting in con ventions, with the powers of exercising sovereignty in respect to war, taxation, and treaties with foreign nations, and other enumerated subjects. In the language of Mr. MADISON, the enu merated powers vested in the Government of the United States are of as high and sovereign a character as any of the powers reserved to the State Governments. 264: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " Nor is the Government of the United States created by the Constitution, less a Government, in the strict sense of the term, within the scope of its powers, than the Governments cre ated by the Constitutions of the States are within their several spheres." " My own general idea was that the States should severally preserve their sovereignty , and that the exercise of the Federal sovereignty should be divided among these several bodies, legislative, executive, and judiciary, as the State sovereignties are, and that some peaceable means should be contrived for the Federal head to force compliance on the part of the States." This refers to legal coercion, to the exclusion of war. The people of each State, at the time they adopted the Fed eral Constitution, delegated to the Federal Government a por tion of the sovereignty which was inherent in the State, but they reserved to it all that was not delegated. They delegated to the Federal Government the power to act on individuals, but not to act against the State by military coercion. To act against a State in this way, would be to make war against a sovereign power, to which the people of the State, as individuals, owe allegiance as well as obedience, and against which they may commit treason by withholding allegiance and obedience. "Whenever a question arises in regard to the line of division between the delegated sovereignty of the Federal Government and the original sovereignty of the States, it was intended that the Federal Court shall, by its decision, settle that question in all those cases which can be brought before it for adjudication, and that the Executive shall carry out those decisions in their applications to individuals. " This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the superior law of the land ; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." This ap plies only to distinct and not to doubtful powers. But if a State should place itself on its reserved powers, and should deny the constitutionality of a Federal act, whether of the legislative, or executive, or the judicial branch of the REMARKS. 265 Government, then the true mode of settling the same question is to summon a Convention of the States to declare that act constitutional or otherwise, and thus prevent a dangerous colli sion between the delegated sovereignty of the Federal Govern ment and the residuary sovereignty of the States. War is a contest between sovereignties. " The Gordian knot of the Constitution seems to be in the problem of collision between the Federal and State powers, especially as eventually to be exercised by their respective tri bunals. If the knot cannot be untied by the text of the Consti tution, it ought not certainly to be cut by any political Alexan der." Mr. MADISON, Jan. 29, 1821. ALLEGIANCE. On the 2d of July, 1776, the Continental Congress passed the following resolution : Resolved, That the United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States ; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political con nection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved." On the passage of this resolution, a special committee was appointed to prepare a preamble declaring the causes which led to its adoption, to accompany its promulgation to the world. On the Fourth of July, this Declaration of Independence received the unanimous sanction of the delegates from each State, by the signature of their names. In 1777, the following oath of " abjuration and allegiance" was adopted by the State of South Carolina : " I, A B, do ac knowledge that the State of South Carolina is, and of right ought to be, a free, and independent, and sovereign State, and that the people thereof owe no allegiance or obedience to George the Third, King of Great Britain ; * * * and I do further swear that I will bear faith and true allegiance to the said State, and to the utmost of my power will support, maintain, and defend the freedom and independence thereof." The present Constitution of South Carolina contains the fol lowing : " I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful, and true allegiance bear to the State of South Carolina, so long as I continue a citizen thereof." 266 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. In the Constitution of Massachusetts, formed in 1780, is the following form : " I, A B, do testify and sincerely acknowledge, profess, testify, and declare, that the Commonwealth of Massa chusetts is, and of right ought to be, a free, sovereign, and inde pendent State, and I do swear I will bear true allegiance to the Commonwealth, and that I will defend the same against all trai torous conspiracies." Is allegiance due both to the State sovereignty and to the Federal sovereignty, also, in the scope of its delegated powers ? Can sovereignty, or at least its exercise, be divided between the State Government and the General Government ? May not a corresponding division be made of allegiance ? Why not ? There are those who say that allegiance cannot be divided. They say that, under the Constitution of the United States, every citizen owes allegiance to the State, and obedience to the Federal Government. 4. Northern Views of Slave Property. In March, 1798, when the bill for the erection of a Government in Mississippi Territory was before Congress, it was moved that the same should be in all respects similar to that established in the North western Territory, except that " slavery should not be forbidden." Mr. THATCHER, of Massachusetts, moved to strike out the except ing clause, thus excluding slavery from the Territory. Mr. OTIS, of Massachusetts, " hoped his colleague would not withdraw his motion ; and the reason why he wished this was, that an opportunity might be given to gentlemen who came from the same part of the Union with him to manifest that it is not their disposition to interfere with the Southern States as to that species of property in question. lie thought it was not the business of those who had nothing to do with that kind of prop erty to interfere with that right. If the amendment prevailed, it would declare that no slavery should exist in the batches country. This would not only be a sentence of banishment, but of war." The amendment did not prevail, and slavery was permitted in the Territory. Chief- Justice SHAW, of Massachusetts, 1836, in a legal deci sion, said : " Slavery, to a certain extent, seems to have crept REMARKS. 267 into the colonial government, not -probably by force of law, for none such is found to exist ; but either, it is presumed, from that universal custom pervading through the colonies, in the "West Indies, and on the continent of America, and which was fos tered and encouraged by the commercial policy of the times. That it was so established is shown by this : that by several provincial acts, passed at various times in the early part of the last century, slavery was recognized as an existing fact, and va rious regulations were prescribed in reference to it." Judge BISSEL, of Conn., has said, 1837, " that the principle was recognized and acted upon that one man might have prop erty in another, might command his services for life without compensation, and dispose of him as he would of any other chattel." Judge BALDWIN, of the United States Court, in the case of Johnson versus Tompkins, declares that " the foundations of this (the Federal) Government are laid, and rest on the rights of property in slaves, and the whole fabric must fall by disturbing the corner-stone" ALEXANDER HAMILTON remarks that " it is the unfortunate situation of the Southern States to have a great part of their population, as well as property, in blacks." He, like other leading statesmen contemporaneous with him, had no difficulty in considering slaves as property. 7. PERSONAL LIBERTY BILLS. " If the property of an Ameri can citizen is taken by a foreign nation, and, upon a demand for redress, it is not given up, or paid for, war follows ; and if instead the foreign Government legislates to protect the wrongdoer, war is inevitable." " It would be the case if the same thing took place between any foreign States. But we (the Southern States) are in a vastly worse condition than would be the people of any foreign State, because those States of the Union that legislate to prevent the recapture of our property are doing it with per fect safety. The proceedings of the old Barbary powers, when they used to send out cruisers and capture property on the high seas, were brave and honorable enterprises compared with these proceedings, because they run the risk of having their cities bombarded." Senator CLINGMAN, Dec. 4, 1860. 18 268 THE SECTIONAL CONTEST. This statement of tlie case, evidently a fair one, places in a strong light the injustice of certain personal liberty bills, vio lating, as they do, the principles of the Constitution, and having the effect to defeat one of its provisions. Any State which has passed a personal liberty bill designed to defeat a plain provi sion of the Constitution for the return of fugitive slaves, cannot consistently complain of the States injured by those bills, if they refuse to act with them in the Confederacy. Without the in troduction of the article for the return of fugitive slaves, we know that the Constitution would not have been adopted, and if States, by their legislation, make that article null and void, they release the other States which hold slaves from their obli gation to continue in the Confederacy. " A compact broken on one side is broken on all sides." 8. Who are to judge, in the last resort, in respect to the constitutionality of the acts of the Federal Government ? Evi dently the same organized bodies that originally adopted the Constitution, and that now have power to amend the Constitu tion. " Nine," or three-quarters of the States that sent delegates to the Convention, had power to adopt the Constitution and make it binding between the States ; and three-quarters of the States now acting by their Legislatures or their Conventions, have power to amend the Constitution. They can declare what the meaning of the Constitution is in doubtful cases. In common cases, which are capable of assuming, and actu ally assuming, the character of a suit, the Supreme Court of the United States is the interpreter. In cases not capable of assuming the character of a suit at law or in equity, Congress, when called to act, must interpret the Constitution in such a way as never to exercise any doubtful powers. When the Supreme Court or Congress, or, more comprehen sively, when the General Government exercises doubtful power or powers that any of the States claim to be not delegated, but reserved, then the States, acting in Convention or by their Legis latures, can determine whether the power in question is delegated or reserved. The States are to judge in the last resort of the constitutionality of the acts of the Federal Government. The Constitution gives to them this authority, in giving them power REMARKS. 269 to amend the Federal Constitution. If three-fourths of the States refuse to act by their Legislatures or by Convention, in the manner prescribed by the Constitution, then the aggrieved States have to choose between bearing the evil complained of, or vindicating the right of revolution ; just as the colonies did when they made the Declaration of Independence, and sus tained it by a seven years war against the unreasonable de mands of the mother country. And as the aggrieved States have in such a case the right to determine w r hat it is their duty to do ; so in like manner the other States, acting through the forms of the Federal Government, have also the right to deter mine what it is their duty to do in their relations to the ag grieved States. CHAPTEK XYI. MARCH 4, 1861 MARCH 4, 1865. MR. LINCOLN was the candidate of the Republican or Anti- slavery party. In his platform, adopted by the party at Chi cago, 1860, is the following declaration or resolution : " That the maintenance, inviolate, of the rights of the States, and espe cially of the right of each State, to order and control its own domestic institutions, according to its own judgment exclu sively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfec tion and endurance of our political fabric depends." This was supposed to contain such an amount of the doctrine of state rights as would satisfy the conservative portion of that party. There was also in it the following declaration: "That the normal condition of the territory of the United States is that of freedom." This, with other kindred declarations in the platform, was supposed to contain such an amount of anti- slavery doctrine as would satisfy the free-soilers and aboli tionists. As a whole, the platform was not as insulting to the South, and to the Federal Constitution, as that of Fre mont, inasmuch as it did not contain the expression, " the twin brothers of barbarism, slavery and polygamy," which was found in that. JOHN C. BRECKENRIDGE was the candidate of the Southern Democracy. His platform, adopted at Charleston and Balti more, besides the Cincinnati platform, contained the following declaration : " That the government of a Territory, organized by an act of Congress, is provisional and temporary ; and during its existence all citizens of the United States have an PRESIDENT LINCOLN S QUALIFICATIONS. 271 equal right to settle with their property in the Territory, without their rights of person or property being destroyed or impaired by congressional or territorial legislation." This is in accordance with the previous decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, and leaves to the State, when it shall be formed, the right, as Sovereign, to say what is property, and to establish or to abolish slavery. STEPHEN A. DOUGLAS was the candidate of the Northern Democracy. His platform, adopted in 1860, at Charleston and Baltimore, reaffirmed the Cincinnati platform of 1856, and declared " That the Democratic party will abide by the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States on the questions of constitutional law." This was satisfactory to the South as to the present, but not as to the future ; for it im plied that the Democratic party would change its opinion as to the rights of the master over his slaves in the Territories, if the decision of the Supreme Court, which had affirmed those rights, should afterwards be reversed. JOHN BELL was the candidate of the Union party. His platform, adopted at Baltimore, 1860, was, " The Constitution of the country, the union of the States, and the enforcement of its laws." The first of these platforms was described as double in its meaning ; the second, as pro-slavery / the third, as evasive y the fourth, as indefinite. The electoral vote for Mr. LINCOLN was 180 ; for Mr. BKECKENRIDGE, 72 ; for Mr. DOUGLAS, 12 ; for Mr. BELL, 39. The popular vote for LINCOLN was 1,857,610 ; for BRECKEN- RIDGE, 847,953; for DOUGLAS, 1,365,976; for BELL, 590,631. Majority against Mr. LINCOLN, 746,950. He was the first President elected by a sectional vote upon sectional issues. PRESIDENT LINCOLN S QUALIFICATIONS. He was described by his friends as an honest man, a shrewd lawyer before a jury, with rough good sense, and a vein of humor which made him a good story-teller and a popular stump-speaker. In the canvass with Mr. DOUGLAS for the Senatorship, in Illinois, he could sometimes turn the 2<2 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. argument and the laugh against him, though a man of ac knowledged talents and an able debater. Under good train ing he had run well in that race, though distanced by Mr. DOUGLAS ; and it was urged that, in the great race in which there was the Presidential prize, he would be sure to come out winner. Two rails which he had split were brought into the Convention which nominated him, as the symbols of his qualifications. His opposers, on the other hand, asserted, that in legal knowledge he was superficial ; that in education he was more deficient than any former President ; that in political experience he was more deficient than any excepting President TAYLOR ; that in his reasoning he did not exhibit the internal relations of the subject, on the basis of principles, but leaned on some analogy, however vulgar, or remote, or ludicrous, which often led him into error, from his not comprehending the points of difference as well as those of agreement ; that he was vacillating in his purposes, and was not qualified to stand as a pilot at the helm of the ship, now reeling in the storm. DISUNION SENTIMENTS AND PURPOSES FROM AN EARLY PERIOD. 1789. PRESIDENT WASHINGTON was inaugurated under the new Federal Constitution, March 4, 1789. Congress continued in session from that date until the 29th of September. In this first session, PIERCE BUTLER, Senator from South Carolina, in a speech in the Senate, " threatened a dissolution of the Union with regard to his State," in a very earnest, ex cited manner. The occasion of this threat was this : Mr. BUTLER, as a member of the Convention that framed the Federal Constitu tion, had consented to give up that part of the report of the committee of detail which required " a vote of two-thirds of the members present in each House to pass a Navigation Act" This requirement was intended to protect the interests of the Southern States against the action of the commercial States ; and leading Southern members of the Convention were very strongly in favor of it ; but it was imprudently given up by the Southern States. EARLY DISUNION SENTIMENTS AND PURPOSES. 273 Mr. BUTLER, in the Convention, said " he considered the interests of the Southern States and the Northern States as different as the interests of Russia and Turkey. Being, not withstanding, desirous of conciliating the affection of the Eastern States, he should vote against requiring two-thirds instead of a majority." On the other hand, GEORGE MASON, of Virginia, said : " The Southern States are in a minority in both Houses. Is it to be expected that they will deliver themselves bound hand and foot to the Eastern States, and enable them to exclaim in the words of CROMWELL on a certain occasion : The Lord hath delivered them into our hands ? : Mr. BUTLER, when he came to act under the Constitution as a Senator, found that a " Report had come in, with very high duties, amounting to a prohibition." He felt mortified that he had, in the Convention, surrendered the interest of the Southern States by his vote, and indignant that those whom he endeavored to " conciliate " were taking an ungenerous 7 O O advantage of his concession. This seems to have been the first threat of disunion in Congress. 1790. In the second session of the first Congress, a bill for the Assumption of State Debts had been lost in the House by a majority of two. The Eastern members, who were in favor of the bill, upon this " threatened secession and dissolution." So strong were their feelings, that Congress could do no busi ness for some days. See pp. 34-38. 1796. In the Connecticut Courant, at that time the most ably conducted newspaper in the State, a series of articles, written with great force, were published over the signature of " PELHAM," for the purpose of preparing the minds of the people for a severance of the Union. In the first article, the writer uses the following language : " The Northern States can subsist as a nation, a republic, without any connection vnth the Southern States. It cannot be contested that, if the Southern States were possessed of the same political ideas, a Union would be still more desirable than a separation. But when it becomes a serious question, whether THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. we shall give up our Government or part with the States south of the Potomac, no man north of that river, whose heart is not thoroughly Democratic, can hesitate what decision to make. " I shall, in the future papers, consider some of the great events which will lead to a separation of the United States ; show the importance of retaining their present Constitution, even at the expense of a separation ; endeavor to prove the impossibility of a Union for any long period in future, both from the moral and political habits of the citizens of the South ern States / and, finally, examine carefully to see whether we have not already approached to the era when they must he divided" And in order to inflame the passions of the people of the State against the Southern States, the writer, in the- same article, adds : " Negroes are in all respects, except in regard to life and death, the cattle of the Southern States,, If they were good for food, the probability is that even the power of destroying their lives would be enjoyed by their owners, as fully as it is over the lives of their cattle. It cannot be that their laws prohibit the owners from killing their slaves, be cause their slaves are human beings, or because it is a moral evil to destroy them." Connecticut held slaves at this time. This is one of the first lessons in political and moral hatred given by their teachers to the people of New England. It is to be considered that, about this time, JOHN TRDMBULL, the author of " McFingal," JOEL BARLOW, OLIVER WOLCOTT, LEM UEL HOPKINS, Dr. NATHAN STRONG, THEODORE DWIGHT, all of them able men, and some of them political writers, resided in Hartford. And what was the occasion of sentiments like these ? The Southern States, in the pending election, had declared a prefer ence for Mr. JEFFERSON, rather than for a Northern candidate. 1800. For the state of feeling about this time, see p. 56. 1804. It is generally known that, after the election of Mr. JEFFERSON in 1801, against the strongest opposition in New England (see p. 54), leading politicians in that section, being also strongly opposed to the principles upon which he was EARLY DISUNION SENTIMENTS AND PURPOSES. 275 elected, and the measures adopted by him, became desirous of a division of the Union. On this subject new facts have been recently brought to light, by the publication of a very valuable work, HAMILTON S History of the Republic." In vol. vii. p. 771, is a paper, drawn up by his father, ALEXANDER HAMILTON, in which, speaking of New England, he says : " The ill opinion and jealousy of the ambition of Yirginia is no inconsiderable proof of good principles in that country. But these causes are leading on to an opinion that a dismemberment of the Union is expedient. It would probably suit Mr. BURR S views to promote this result, to ~be chief of the Northern por tion and, placed at the head of the State of New York, no man would be more likely to succeed." A Senator from New Hampshire, WILLIAM PLUMMER, speak ing in the Senate of the purchase of Louisiana, said : " Admit this western world into the Union ; and you destroy at once the weight and importance of the Eastern States, and compel them to establish a separate, independent empire " p. 775. A clergyman of Massachusetts soon after Feb. 2, 1804 writes to this Senator : " If we were peaceably severed from the rest of the States joined to us, and left to manage our own affairs, in our own way, I think we should do much better than now." This Senator replied : " I hope the time is not far dis tant, when the people east of the North river will manage their affairs in their own way, without being embarrassed by regu lations from Yirginia, and that the sound part will le separate from the corrupt / " p. 726. " Late in February, 1804," says an officer of the late army of the United States, " I fell in company with an old acquaint ance, who told me that a division of the United States was talked of, the dividing line to be the Potomac or the Susque- hanna. About the first \veek in March, I saw General HAM ILTON at Albany, and acquainted him with what I had heard, mentioning my authority, which was very respectable. The idea of disunion he could not hear of without impatience, and expressed his reprobation of it in strong terms. The bare attempt to carry such a plan of disunion into effect, he said, would necessarily throw the people of the United States into 276 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. two great parties, geographically defined ; that the Northern division must prevail in the struggle that must ensue, but, whichever might prevail, the result must be the DESTRUCTION OF THE PRESENT CONSTITUTION, and eventually the establishment of separate governments, formed on principles hostile to civil liberty." (From a letter dated March 30, 1829, Washington ; signed by Major HOOPS, p. 779.) Senator PLUMMER, afterwards Governor of New Hamp shire, stated : " There was no man with whom I conversed so often, and fully, and freely, as with ROGER GRISWOLD, then a Member of Congress from Connecticut, and afterwards Gov ernor of that State. He was, without doubt or hesitation, decidedly in favor of dissolving the Union, and establishing a Northern Confederacy. He thought it might be effected peaceably, without a recourse to arms ; and entered into a particular detail of the mode of effecting it ; " p. 781. The following are extracts from a letter, to use the editor s words, from a " leading Member of Congress " * to OLIVER "WoLcoiT, Secretary of the Treasury under WASHINGTON, March 11, 1804. After some remarks upon the opposition felt at the North towards Virginia, and on the formation of a " Northern interest in Congress " by the union of parties, and of AARON BURR as a candidate for the office of Governor of the State of New York, who, if elected, might be placed at the head of that Northern interest, and of an interview with BURR, for the pur pose of ascertaining his views as to the sectional movement, he proceeds to say : u In forming the Northern party, it is im portant to consider what the ultimate views of that party ought to be, and to avoid, as much as possible, embarrassing the party with men who will oppose the accomplishment of their ultimate objects. "I have no hesitation myself in saying, that there will be no safety to the Northern States without a separation from the Confederacy. The balance of power under the present Government, is decidedly in favor of the Southern States ; nor can that balance be changed o,r destroyed. The extent * This " leading Member of Congress " must have been ROGER GRISWOLD, of Connecticut. EARLY DISUNION SENTIMENTS AND PURPOSES. 27 and increasing population of those States must forever secure to them the preponderance which, they now possess. What ever changes, therefore, take place, they cannot permanently restore to the Northern States their influence in the Govern ment ; and a temporary relief can be of no importance. The question, then, is, can it be safe to remain under a government in whose measures we can have no effective agency ? If the views of the Southern States were in unison with ours if the system of policy which they wish to pursue equally affected every part of the Union, there would be some security under their management ; and although we might be excluded from a participation in the power, yet we might expect to find our interests promoted by measures which promoted their own. But, unfortunately, that is not the case. Their enmity to Commerce, on which our prosperity depends, is riveted and unyielding. Besides, there is an inveterate enmity and jeal ousy of the Northern States, which pervades every part of the Southern and Middle States. This spirit is evidently in creasing. Since they have obtained the power, they have become arrogant, and appear determined to carry this spirit into all classes of society, with a view of riveting the preju dices so strongly as to prevent a union of views between North and South, under all future circumstances. What, then, are we to expect under the management of the most intelligent of those people ? Must we not continue to pay the principal part of the expenses of Government, without receiving, in return, either patronage or protection ? * * * " With these views, I should deem it unfortunate to be compelled to place any man at the head of the Northern interest, who would stop short of the object, or would only use his influence and power for the purpose of placing himself at the head of the whole Confederacy as it now stands. If gentlemen in New York should entertain similar opinions, it must be very important to ascertain what the ultimate objects of Col. BURR are. It must occur to every Federal man that objections of a very serious nature oppose the election of Col. BURR, whether that election is viewed in relation to a general union of the Northern States, or in relation to the power which the office will give a man of Col. BURR S talents and ability to 278 V THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. oppose a more partial Union, if it should be attempted. But, my dear sir, what else can we do ? If we remain inactive, our ruin is certain. Our friends will make no attempt alone. By supporting Mr. BURR, we gain some support, although it is of a doubtful nature, of which God knows we have cause enough to be jealous. In short, 1 see nothing else left for us. The project which we had formed, was to induce, if possible, Legis latures of the three New England States who remain Federal, to commence measures which should call for a reunion of the Northern States. The extent of these measures, and the rapidity with which they shall be followed up, must be gov erned by circumstances. The magnitude and jealousy of Mas sachusetts would render it necessary that the operation should be commenced there." P. 781. In this expected interview between GRISWOLD and BURR, the latter declared that " the Northern States must be governed by Virginia, or govern Virginia, and that there was no middle course." He also presented other views satisfactory to the former. P. 784. So thoroughly convinced was ALEXANDER HAMILTON that there was a plan in progress for the separation of the Union, that, on the Saturday before the duel to which he was chal lenged by AARON BURR, he said to Col. JOHN TRUMBULL, " with a look of deep meaning : " " You are going to Boston. You will see the principal men there. Tell them from ME, as MY request, for God s sake to cease their conversations and threat- enings about a separation of the Union. It must hang together as long as it can be made to." P. 822. (This advice was. as it were, his dying bequest.) It is interesting to observe that the position of the Northern States and the reasonings of her statesmen in 1804, were sub stantially the same as the position of the South and the reason ings of her statesmen in 1860. In both cases there had been a palpable violation of the Federal Constitution ; in one case by the purchase of Louisiana, and in the other by the personal liberty laws of fourteen Northern States. The North did not feel secure in the one case, and the Southern States did not feel secure in the other. The Northern States felt released from EAKLY DISUNION SENTIMENTS AND PURPOSES. 279 their obligations to the compact in the one case, and the South felt released from their obligations to the compact in the other. Both reasoned correctly from the same premises. In the one case, Mr. JEFFERSON was again coming into office, deemed hostile to the North; in the other, Mr. LINCOLN was coming into office, deemed hostile to the South. Many at the North believed, in 1804, that they could prosper more without the Southern States. Many at the South believed, in 1860, that they could prosper more without the Northern States than with them. Both wanted a peaceable separation. This letter from ROGER GKISWOLD is remarkable as coming from the most able and influential man of Connecticut at that time from a man who was regarded by both political parties as one of the ablest in the whole country. It was the boast of JOHN RANDOLPH that " he was elected to Congress to talk down ROGER GRISWOLD," whom he afterwards spoke of as a " saga cious statesman." He was a leading Member of Congress thirteen years ; was appointed Secretary of War, but declined the appointment ; was Judge of the Supreme Court of Con necticut ; was Governor of the State ; was a man of the highest patriotism, and of the highest moral sentiment. This letter was addressed to OLIVER WOLCOTT, formerly Secretary of the Treasury, a man of the strictest integrity, of large good sense and practical wisdom. Many throughout Massachusetts, and other parts of New England, entertained the same views and purposes. 1808. The embargo was laid by Congress on the 22d of De cember, 1807. In 1808, there were strong demonstrations of op position to it. We have the authority of JOHN QUINCY ADAMS for saying that " the people were constantly instigated to forcible resistance against it, and juries often acquitted the violators of it upon the ground that it was unconstitutional, assumed in the face of a solemn decision of the District Court of the United States." A separation of the Union was stimulated in the pub lic prints, and a convention of delegates from the New Eng land States, to meet in New Haven, was intended and pro posed. Mr. JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, in his letter to Mr. GILES, urged 19 280 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. that a " continuance of the embargo much longer would cer tainly be met by forcible resistance, supported by the Legis lature (of Massachusetts), and probably by the judiciary of the State." ** That the object of the leaders had been, for several years, the dissolution of the Union, and the estab lishment of a separate confederation, he knew from unequivocal evidence, although not provable in a court of law." NILES Register, vol. 35, p. 138. These threatenings and omens of the dissolution of the Union, had an effect to procure the repeal of the embargo. March 1, 1809, just before the retirement of Mr. JEFFERSON from the Presidential office. See p. 59. The ground taken by the people of New England in their violent opposition to the embargo, was, that it was unconstitutional ; that the East ern States adopted the Constitution for the protection of their commerce, and that it should not be perverted to its destruction. It is somewhat remarkable that, while disunion sentiments existed during the era marked by the foregoing epochs, the manifestation of them was more marked about the time of each Presidential election. The two principal grounds of complaint against the Federal Government and the South were, that the commercial interests of the North were sacrificed by that Government, and that the North did not have its share of the Federal offices. It had been distinctly stated in the Federal Convention, by Mr. RUFUS KING and Mr. GORHAM, members from Massachusetts, that the East ern States expected certain commercial advantages from the new Federal Constitution ; and FISHER AMES declared, in the Con vention of Massachusetts that adopted that Constitution, that the State had secured " great advantages with respect to navi gation." When Massachusetts and Connecticut found that they had lost those advantages, by the restrictions upon commerce im posed by the Federal Government namely, the embargo, the non-intercourse, and the war they became convinced that the Union had lost its value, and the Constitution its binding force. Hence the leading men, and the best men, looked towards a separation of the States as a relief from those restrictions. They hoped to accomplish this separation peaceably, and to EARLY DISUNION SENTIMENTS AND PURPOSES. 281 act honorably in the discharge of their share of the public debt. Mr. GRISWOLD, in the letter mentioned above, says: "I have examined the interest which the people of the Northern States have in the funds, and I find that it is considerably less than the proportion of the debts that these States ought to pay. This arises from the large purchases made by foreigners in the funded debt, so that it will be in our power to charge ourselves only with our just proportion of the debt, and still do justice to our own people." Very little, you might almost say nothing, was said about the right to separate from the other States. Their whole history had familiarized their minds to the idea that governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed ; that this was true of the colonial governments, and of the State govern ments. They had exercised the right to change their govern ment when they left the tyrannical government of England, and formed governments of their own on Massachusetts Bay, and on Connecticut river. They had exercised this right when they formed the Confederation of 1643, which was declared to be a perpetual ; " and they had separated from that confederacy in the exercise of the same right. They had exercised that right in throwing off their allegiance to England, and claiming allegiance to the State, each being independent. They had exercised that right in adopting a Federal Constitution, called " The Articles of Confederation," by which they formed a Union, which was, in those articles, declared to be " perpet ual ; " and then, in the exercise of the same right, they had separated themselves from that Confederation or Union. In the exercise of that right, they had formed a new Confederation or Union, by the adoption of a New Federal Constitution ; and, in the exercise of the same right, they felt that they could separate from that Confederation or Union whenever they judged that it did not answer the ends for which they had adopted the Constitution which created it. The current question in those times was, " Would a division of the Union be beneficial ? " This question was discussed more or less in colleges, in newspapers, and in private circles. It was during this period, when restrictions were forced upon commerce, by the embargo, and non-intercourse, and the war, 282 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. that Massachusetts and Connecticut passed certain laws, which would have the effect to nullify certain laws passed by Congress, and certain Presidential acts. The following Resolutions, adopted by the Legislature of Connecticut, February, 1809, show the views prevalent at that time. After adverting, in their Address to the People of Connecticut, to violations of the Constitution by the Federal Government, to the importance of preserving the " reserved rights of the State," and " its sover eignty," they say, " After solemn deliberation and advisement thereon, the General Assembly are decided in the opinion, and do Resolve, that the Acts aforesaid are a permanent system of measures, abandoning undeniable rights ; interdicting the exercise of con stitutional privileges, and unprecedented in the annals of na tions ; and do contain provisions for exercising arbitrary powers grievous to the good people of this State, dangerous to their common liberties, incompatible with the Constitution of the United States, and encroaching upon the immunities of this State. " Resolved, That to preserve the Union, and support the Constitution of the United States, it becomes the duty of the Legislatures of the States, in such a crisis of affairs, vigilantly to watch over, and vigorously to maintain, the powers not dele gated to the United States, but reserved to the States respect ively, or to the people ; and that a due regard to this duty will not permit this Assembly to assist, or concur in giving effect to the aforesaid unconstitutional Act, passed to enforce the em bargo. " Resolved, That this Assembly highly approved of the con duct of his Excellency, the Governor, in declining to designate persons to carry into effect, by the aid of military power, the Act of the United States enforcing the embargo ; and that his letter addressed to the Secretary for the Department of War, containing his refusal to make such designation, be re corded in the public records of this State, as an example to persons who may hold places of distinguished trust in this free and independent republic. u Resolved, That the persons holding executive offices under this State are restrained, by the duties which they owe this State, from affording any official aid or cooperation in the EARLY DISUNION SENTIMENTS AND PURPOSES. 283 execution of the Act aforesaid ; and that his Excellency, the Governor, be requested, as commander-in-chief of the military force of this State, to cause these resolutions to be published in general orders : And that the Secretary of this State be, and he is hereby, directed to transmit copies of the same to the several sheriffs and town-clerks. " Resolved, That his Excellency, the Governor be requested to communicate the foregoing resolutions to the President of the United States, with an assurance that this Assembly regret that they are thus obliged, under a sense of paramount public duty, to assert the unquestionable right of this State to abstain from any agency in the execution of measures which are uncon stitutional and despotic. " Resolved, That this Assembly accord in sentiment with the Senate and House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, that it is expedient to effect certain alterations in the Constitution of the United States ; and will zealously cooperate with that Commonwealth, and any other of the States, in all legal and constitutional measures for procuring such amendments to the Constitution of the United States as shall be judged necessary to obtain more protection and defence for commerce ; and to give to the commercial States their fair and just consideration in the Union, and for affording perma nent security, as well as present relief, from the oppressive measures under which they now suffer." 1812-1815. Louisiana was admitted into the Union as a State, April 8, 1812. To this there was strong opposition at the North so strong, that the admission was declared to be a sufficient ground for dissolving the Union ; see p. 60. Wai- was declared against Great Britain, June 18, 1812. To this there was very strong opposition. The Federal party prevailed in the elections in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and New York. The opposition to the war culminated in the Convention which assembled in Hartford, December, 15, 1814-. To this Convention Massachusetts sent twelve delegates, Connecticut seven, and Rhode Island four, by the action of their Legisla tures. Three were sent by local conventions in New Hamp shire and Vermont. See pp. 65-67. 284 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. These States put themselves squarely on the Federal Con stitution. They regarded the State governments as coordinate with the Federal government, and entitled to judge of the con duct of that government, created, as it was, by the States. When the Executive of the Federal government called on Mas sachusetts, in 1812, to supply troops to carry on war against Great Britain, Governor CALEB STRONG, who was a member of the Federal Convention that framed the Constitution, laid before the Supreme Judicial Court of that State the following questions : I. Whether the commanders-in-chief of the militia of the several States have a right to determine whether any of the exigencies contemplated by the Constitution of the United States exist, so as to require them to place the militia, or any part of it, in the service of the United States, to be commanded by him, pursuant to Acts of Congress. II. Whether, when either of the exigencies exist authorizing the employment of the militia in the service of the United States, the militia thus employed can be lawfully commanded by any officer but of the militia, except by the President of the United States ? THEOPHILUS PARSONS was at that time Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, who, in judicial wisdom, was on the same level with JOHN JAY, OLIVER ELLSWORTH, and JOHN MARSHALL. The answer of the Court was, " That the Governors of the States could alone determine whether the exigencies alluded to existed ; and if they did so determine, the President could command them only through the State militia officers. Because, if the President and Congress had exclusive right to determine when such exigencies existed, which author ize the calling out of the militia, and the exclusive command of them when called out, there was at once a military consolidation of the States, without any constitutional remedy." See vol. viii. Mass. Reports. President MADISON took no measures to procure a compli ance with the unconstitutional requisition. He had too much wisdom to attempt to enforce a requisition with which the Governor of Massachusetts had refused to comply, upon con stitutional ground. EARLY DISUNION SENTIMENTS AND PURPOSES. 285 All thanks to " high-minded men, who their duties know, but know their rights, and, knowing, dare maintain." This was the sentiment that pervaded those two States at that time, when Governor STRONG and Governor GRISWOLD refused to call out the militia, at the call of the Secretary of War. The Legis latures of the two States approved of the course of the two chief magistrates. 1820. MISSOURI applied for admission into the Union, Feb ruary 13, 1829. A Northern man moved an amendment to the Bill, that the inhabitants of Missouri should not be allowed to hold slaves, which was adopted by Northern votes, in the House. It was a disunion movement in its origin and effects. So it was regarded at the time by great numbers, among whom was Mr. JEFFERSON. u The coincidence," said he, u of a marked principle, moral and political, with a geographical line once conceived, I feared would never be obliterated from the mind ; that it would be recurring on every occasion, and renewing irritation, until it would kindle such a mutual and mortal hatred as to render separation preferable to eternal discord." See p. 76, and onward. 1824-1828-1832. The Tariff laws of these years were Northern measures, passed by Northern members, in opposi tion to the votes of the Southern States, with some exceptions. Their influence produced disunion sentiments and measures, as the Ordinance of Nullification, and Resolutions passed by the Legislatures of Southern States. See pp. 100-114. 1836-1840. The presentation of petitions, by Northern Members of Congress, on the subject of slavery, and the circu lation of incendiary publications by Northern Abolitionists, who were themselves opposed to the Federal Union, produced disunion sentiments in the Southern States. See pp. 115-132. 1841-1845. The admission of Texas into the Union created great sectional animosity, especially in Massachusetts, the Legis lature of which sent a proposition to one of her Senators, to be presented to Congress, for a dissolution of the Union. See pp. 133-136. 286 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 1845-1849. The Wilmot Proviso, passed in the lower House in Congress, produced a strong disunion feeling at the South. See pp. 145, 146, 147. 1849-1853. For this era, in which the Compromise Mea sures were passed, see pp. 148-174. 1853-1857. For the disunion sentiments prevailing in this era, while Kansas was under consideration, see pp. 175-186. 1857-1861. For the sectional and disunion sentiments prevailing in this era, when HELPER S book was indorsed by Members of Congress, and JOHN BROWN invaded Virginia, see pp. 185-231. PEACE PROPOSITIONS. I. The RESOLUTIONS of the General Assembly of Virginia, January 19, 1861. See p. 229. II. THE PEACE CONGRESS, assembled at Washington, Feb ruary 4, 1861, composed of delegates from Maine, New Hamp shire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, Kentucky, Tennessee, and Missouri. Ex-President JOHN TYLER was appointed president. A committee was appointed, of one from each State, of which JAMES GUTHRIE, of Kentucky, was chairman. He brought forward a Report of the Majority, recommending that several amendments be made to the Constitution. ROGER T. BALDWIN, of Connecticut, brought forward a Minority Report dissenting from the other, or rather reject ing it. ARTICLE xiii., SEC. 1. In all the present territory of the United States, north of the parallel of 36 30 of north latitude, 287 involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime, is pro hibited. In all the present territory south of that line, the status of persons held to involuntary service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed ; nor shall any law be passed by Congress, or the Territorial Legislature, to hinder or prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said territory, nor to impair the rights arising from said relation ; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, within such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original States, with or without involuntary servitude, as the constitution of such State may provide. SEC. 2. No territory shall be acquired by the United States, except by discovery and for naval and commercial stations, depots, and transit routes, without the concurrence of a majority of all the Senators from States which allow involuntary servitude, and a majority of all the Senators from States which prohibit that relation ; nor shall territory be acquired by treaty, unless the votes of a majority of the Senators from each class of States hereinbefore mentioned be cast as a part of the two-thirds majority necessary to the rati fication of such treaty. SEC. 3. Neither the Constitution, nor any amendment thereof, shall be construed to give Congress power to regulate, abolish, or control, within any State, the relation established or recognized by the laws thereof touching persons held to labor or involuntary service therein, nor to interfere with or abolish in voluntary service in the District of Columbia, without the con sent of Maryland, and without the consent of the owners, or making the owners who do not consent just compensation ; nor the power to interfere with or prohibit Representatives and others from bringing with them to the District of Columbia, retaining, and taking away, persons so held to labor or service ; nor the power to interfere with or abolish involuntary service in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States 288 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. within those States and Territories where the same is established or recognized ; nor the power to prohibit the removal or trans portation ofpersons held to labor or involuntary service in any State or Territory of the United States to any other State or Territory thereof where it is established or recognized by law or usage, and the right, during transportation by sea or river, of touching at ports, shores, and landings, and of landing in case of distress, shall exist ; but not the right of transit in or through any State or Territory, or of sale or traffic, against the laws thereof. Nor shall Congress have power to authorize any higher rate of taxation on persons held to labor or service than on land. The bringing into the District of Columbia of persons held to labor or service, for sale, or placing them in depots to be after wards transferred to other places for sale as merchandise, is pro hibited. SEC. 4. The third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution shall not be construed to pre vent any of the States, by appropriate legislation, and through the action of their judicial and ministerial officers, from enforc ing the delivery of fugitives from labor to the person to whom such service or labor is due. SEC. 5. The foreign slave-trade is hereby forever prohibited ; and it shall be the duty of Congress to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to service or labor, into the United States and the Territories, from places beyond the limits thereof. SEC. 6. The first, third, and fifth sections, together with this section of these amendments, and the third paragraph of the second section of the first article of the Constitution, and the third paragraph of the second section of the fourth article thereof, shall not be amended or abolished without the consent of all the States. SEC. 7. Congress shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full value of his fugitive from labor, in all cases where the marshal, or other officer whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing by violation or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblages ; or when, after arrest, such fugitive was rescued by like violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of the same ; and 289 the acceptance of such payment shall preclude the owner from further claim to such fugitive. Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each State the privileges and im munities of citizens in the several States. Section 1 of Mr. GUTHRIE S Report, was adopted by the Peace Congress, all the New England States, except Rhode Island, voting against it. Section 2 was adopted, the New England States voting against it, except Ehode Island. Section 3 was adopted, the New England States voting against it, except Rhode Island. Section 4 was adopted, the New England States voting against it, except Rhode Island. Section 5 was adopted, the New England States voting for it, except Maine and Massachusetts. Section 6 was adopted, the New England States voting against it, except Rhode Island. Section 7 was adopted, the New England States voting against it, except Rhode Island and New Hampshire ; Massachu setts, as appears, not voting. The vote of New York was divided on these several votes, and so lost. The votes of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Indiana, were given in the affirmative. The votes of the Southern Border States were given in the affirmative, except Missouri, which, on the last, was given in the negative. The plan of adjustment, thus voted for, was, by the request of the Convention, presented by President TYLER to Congress, through Vice-President BRECKENRIDGE. The Senate immediately appointed a committee of five, of which Mr. CRITTENDEN was chairman, who reported in favor of it, next day, February 28, 1861. Mr. SEWARD presented the counter Report, and a substitute. Mr. CRITTENDEN moved that the above plan of adjustment and conciliation should be substituted for his own. This was defeated, seven Senators voting for the motion, and twenty- four against. The question of adopting the CRITTENDEN Compromise came up, whereupon Mr. CLARKE, of New Hampshire, proposed a substitute. This substitute, which, in substance, was, " The 290 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. Constitution, as it now is, is sufficient," was adopted by a vote of twenty-five Republicans in favor, and of twenty-one Demo crats and two BELL-EVEEETT conservatives, opposed to it, and in favor of the CRITTENDEN Compromise. It is noteworthy that this substitute, thus adopted, declares that " the provisions of the Constitution are ample for the pre servation of the Union and the protection of all the material interests of the country." Yet many of them who adopted it did not afterward find a the provisions of the Constitution ample for the preservation of the Union," but went outside of the Constitution, trampling it under their feet, for the alleged purpose of preserving the very Union they would not take legitimate means to save. Had those Senators seen fit to vote for the CRITTENDEN Compromise, they would have satisfied a majority of the country, and even such men as Senator DAVIS and Senator TOOMBS, as Mr. DOUGLAS declared in the Senate. III. THE COMMISSIONERS of South Carolina were sent to Washington for the purpose of preserving peace and friendly relations. See p. 228. IY. THE COMMISSIONERS of the Confederate States, JOHN FORSYTH and MARTIN CRAWFORD, were sent to Washington for the purpose of " negotiating peace and friendly relations." See p. 314. Y. NEGOTIATIONS for peace were entrusted to ALEXANDER II. STEPHENS, July, 1863, when he, at Hampton Roads, was rebuffed by the authorities at Washington. YI. NEGOTIATIONS for peace, undertaken by C. C. CLAY and J. J. HOLCOMBE, and GEORGE SANDERS, through HORACE GEEELEY, July, 1864, at Niagara Falls, which failed in consequence of Mr. LINCOLN S changing his mind. The Southern States had a right to expect a peaceable solu tion. The Federal Constitution gives no authority to the Fed eral Government to make war on a delinquent State. Presi dent BUCHANAN very properly declared, in his Message in De cember, 1860, that under the Federal Constitution, there is no PROPOSITIONS FOR PEACE. 293 authority to coerce a State. Congress adjourned on the 3d of March, 1861, without making any provision for the employment of military force, though their attention had "been repeatedly called to the subject. Leading editors in different parts of the country had declared that it was better to let the seceded States depart, than to keep them in the Union by force. For instance, the New York Tribune, November 9, 1860 : " Whenever a considerable section of our Union shall deliberately resolve to go out, we shall resist all coercive measures to keep them in." SALMON P. CHASE, according to the testimony of General FRANK BLAIR, said, about the commencement of the war : " They are not worth fighting for." General SCOTT, in his letter of January, 1861, says, at the close : " But even this refusal would be unnecessary, as the foregoing views eschew the idea of invading a seceded State." On the 3d of March, 1861, he gave this advice : " In the highly disordered condition of our (late) so happy and glorious Union, say to the seceded States 4 Wayward sisters, depart in peace. EDWARD EVERETT, in a letter dated Washington, January 2, 1861, to a committee of citizens of Boston who were about to assemble in Faneuil Hall, said : " To expect to hold fifteen States in the Union by force, is presumptuous. The idea of a civil war, accompanied as it would be by a servile insurrection, is too monstrous to be entertained for a moment. If our sister States must leave us, in the name of Heaven, let them go in peace." Mr. LINCOLN, when in Congress, 1848, used the following language : " Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing Government, and form a new one that suits them better. Nor is this right confined to cases where the people of one existing government may choose to exercise it. Any people that can, may revolutionize, putting down a minority intermingled with or near about them, who may oppose them." And after the inauguration of Mr. LINCOLN, his Secretary of State, WILLIAM H. SEWARD, in a letter of instructions to Mr. C. F. ADAMS, United States Minister at London, says : " For these reasons, he (Mr. LINCOLN) would not be disposed to reject a cardinal doctrine of 292 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. theirs (the secessionists), namely, that the .Federal Government could not reduce the seceding States to obedience by conquest, even although he were disposed to question that proposition. But, in fact, the President accepts it as true. Only an imperial or despotic government could subjugate thoroughly disaffected and insurrectionary members of the State. This Federal Repub lican system of ours is, of all forms of government, the very one most unfitted for such a labor." SPEECH OF ME. DOUGLAS IN THE SENATE, MARCH 15, 1861. " I prefer such an amicable settlement to peaceable dis union ; and I prefer it a thousand times to civil war. If we can adopt such amendments as will be satisfactory to Yirginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and the other border States, the plan of pacification which will satisfy them will create a Union party in the cotton States, which will soon embrace a large majority of the people in those States, and bring them back of then* own free will and accord ; and thus restore, strengthen, and perpetuate this glorious old Union forever. I repeat, what ever guarantees will satisfy Maryland and the border States (the States now in the Union), will create a Union party in the seceded States that will bring them back by the voluntary action of their own people. You can restore and preserve the Government in that mode. You can do it in no other. " War is disunion. War is final, eternal separation. Hence, disguise it as you may, every Union man in America must advocate such amendments to the Constitution as will preserve peace and restore the Union ; while every disunionist, whether openly or secretly plotting its destruction, is the advo cate of peaceful secession, or of war as the surest means of rendering reunion and reconstruction impossible. I have too much respect for his intellect to believe, for one moment, that there is a man for war who is not a disunionist per se. Hence I do not mean, if I can prevent it, that the enemies of the Union men plotting to destroy it shall drag this country into war, under the pretext of protecting the public property and enforcing the laws and collecting revenue, when their SPEECH OF MR. DOUGLAS. 293 object is disunion, and war the means of accomplishing a cherished purpose. " The disunionists, therefore, are divided into two classes : the one open, the other secret, disunionists. The one is in favor of peaceful secession and a recognition of independence ; the other is in favor of war as the surest means of accomplishing the object, and of making the separation final and eternal. I am a Union man, and hence against war ; but if the Union must be temporarily broken by a revolution, and the establish ment of a de facto government by some of the States, let no act be done that will prevent restoration and future preserva tion. Peace is the only policy that can lead to that result. " But we are told, and we hear it repeated everywhere, that we- must find out whether we have got a government. Have we a government ? is the question ; and we are told we must test that question by using the military power to put down all discontented spirits. Sir, this question, Have we a govern ment ? has been propounded by every tyrant who has tried to keep his feet on the necks of the people since the world began. When the barons demanded Magna Charta from King John at Kunnymede, he exclaimed, Have we a govern ment ? and called for his army to put down the discontented barons. When Charles I. attempted to collect the ship money in disregard of the rights of the people, and was resisted by them, he exclaimed, l Have we a government ? We cannot treat with rebels ; put down the traitors ; we must show that we have a government. When James II. was driven from the throne of England for trampling on the liberties of the people, he called for his army, and exclaimed, c Let us show that we have a government. When George III. called upon his army to put down the rebellion in America, Lord North cried lustily, ~No compromise with traitors ; let us demonstrate that we have a government. When, in 1848, the people rose upon their tyrants all over Europe, and demanded guarantees for their rights, every crowned head exclaimed, Have we a gov ernment \ and appealed to the army to vindicate their author ity and enforce the law. " Sir, the history of the world does not fail to condemn the folly, weakness, and wickedness of that government which draws 294 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. its sword upon its own people when they demanded guarantees for their rights. This cry, that we must have a government, is merely following the example of the besotted Bourbon, who never learned anything by misfortune, never forgave an injury, never forgot an affront. Must we demonstrate that we have got a government, and coerce obedience without reference to the justice or injustice of the complaint? Sir, whenever ten million people proclaim to you, with one unanimous voice, that they apprehend their rights, their fireside, and their family altars are in danger, it becomes a wise government to listen to the appeal, and to remove the apprehension. History does not record an example where any human government has been strong enough to crush ten million people into subjection when they believed their rights and liberties were imperilled, without first converting the government itself into a despotism, and destroying the last vestige of freedom." In another speech, delivered in the Senate on the 3d of January, 1861, he used the following language in reference to the CRITTENDEN Compromise : " I believe this to be a fair basis of amicable adjustment. If you of the Republican side are not willing to accept this, nor the proposition of the Senator from Kentucky, Mr. CRITTENDEN, pray tell us what you are willing to do. I address the inquiry to the Republicans alone, for the reason that, in the Committee of Thirteen, a few days ago, every member from the South, including those from the cotton States (Messrs. DAVIS and TOOMBS), expressed their readiness to accept the proposition of my venerable friend from Ken tucky, as a final settlement of the controversy, if tendered and sustained by the Republican members. Hence, the sole respon sibility of our disagreement, and the only difficulty in the way of an amicable adjustment, is with the Republican party." Why did we not have peace instead of war ? Because there were certain men who chose war rather than peace. They felt that the Southern slaveholders " were sinners above all others." Their language was : " Do I not hate them, O Lord, that hate Thee ? Yea, I hate them with perfect hatred." They talked about " a holy indignation," " a sacred animosity," using the INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF JEFFERSON DAVIS. 295 term " sacred " in the sense of holy, and not in the other sense, accursed. "What they wanted, was the emancipation of the slaves and the subjugation of the whites. And afterwards, when the armies of the North held in their power the people of the South, as completely as the Samnites held the Roman army at the Caudine Forks, there were those who talked about exterminating the whites, and giving their lands to the negroes; and, at all events, hanging the traitorous leaders. While, indeed, there were those who adopted the magnani mous declaration, " The Union is the one condition of peace," there were others who burned with the desire, that the people of the Southern States should be stripped, and pass under the yoke, as the Roman soldiers did. THE SOUTHERN CONFEDERACY. On the 8th of February," 1861, the six cotton States, namely, SOUTH CAROLINA, FLORIDA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, GEORGIA, LOUISIANA, and TEXAS, by their delegates at Mont gomery, Alabama, adopted a constitution substantially the same as the Federal Constitution, but more explicit. On the 9th of February they made choice of JEFFERSON DAVIS, of Mis sissippi, as President, and ALEXANDER IT. STEPHENS, of Georgia, as Vice President. INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF JEFFERSON DAVIS. " Our present condition (February 18, 1861), achieved in a manner unprecedented in the history of nations, illustrates the Amercian idea, that governments rest upon the consent of the governed, and that it is the right of the people to alter and abolish governments whenever they become destructive to the ends for which they were established. The declared compact of the Union from which we have withdrawn was to establish justice, ensure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity ; and when, in the judgment of the sovereign States now composing this Con- 20 296 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. federacy, it has been perverted from the purposes for which it was ordained, and ceased to answer the ends for which it was established, a peaceful appeal to the ballot-box declared that, so far as they were concerned, the government created by that compact should cease to exist. In this they merely asserted a right which the Declaration of Independence of 1776 defined to be inalienable. Of the time and the occasion of its exercise, they, as sovereigns, were the final judges, each for itself. The impartial, enlightened verdict of mankind will vindicate the rectitude of our conduct ; and He who knows the hearts of men will judge of the sincerity with which we labored to preserve the Government of our fathers in its spirit." " The right solemnly proclaimed at the birth of the States, and which has been affirmed and reaffirmed in the bills of rights of the States subsequently admitted into the Union of 1789, undeniably recognizes in ttie people the power to resume the authority delegated for the purposes of government." " An agricultural people, w r hose chief interest is the export of a commodity required in every manufacturing country, our true policy is peace, and the freest trade which our necessities will permit." " Actuated solely by a desire to preserve our own rights and promote our own welfare, the separation of the Confed erate States has been marked by no aggression upon others, and followed by no domestic convulsion." " We have changed the constituent parts, but not the system of our government. The Constitution formed by our fathers is that of these Confederate States. In their exposition of it, and in the judicial construction it has received, we have a light which has revealed its true meaning." If a just perception of mutual interest shall permit us peace ably to pursue our separate political career, my most earnest wish will have been fulfilled. But if this be denied us, and the integrity of our territory and jurisdiction be assailed, it w^ill remain with us, with, a firm resolve, to appeal to arms, and invoke the blessing of Heaven on a just cause." From these extracts the meaning and the drift of the mes sage can be understood. Mr. DAVIS takes the Federal Con- CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES. 297 stitution as his rule of action ; claims the right of resuming the rights delegated in that instrument ; expresses a desire for a peaceable separation ; and declares that the responsibility of war, if there should be a war, must rest on the assailants, and not 6n the Confederate States. He assumes that the States in the Federal Union, under the Federal Constitution, bear the same relation to that Union and that Constitution which the Colonies did to their union with Great Britain and to the British Constitution ; and that the separation of the seceded States from the Federal Government was justified on the same grounds as the separation of the Colonies from the British Government. CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES. This Constitution, in nearly all its parts, has the precise language of the Constitution of the United States, and in the order of arrangement of the articles and sections is the same as that. There are, however, certain points of difference between the two, which may be clearly seen from the following state ment, from " McPHERSON s History : " The preamble is changed in the following respects : The words, " United States" near the beginning, are stricken out, and the following words inserted in their place : " Confederate States, each State acting in its sovereign and independent char acter." Also, the words, " more perfect union" are stricken out, and the words, "permanent federal government" inserted in their place. Also, the following words are omitted : " Pro vide for the common defence, promote the general welfare" Also, after the word "posterity" the following words are inserted : " invoicing the favor and guidance of Almighty God" Also, the word " Confederate " takes the place of " United" preceding the word "States" This last change takes place throughout the entire instrument, with a single exception, which will be noted in the appropriate place. ARTICLE I. SEC. 1. The word "granted" is stricken out, and the 298 THE SECTIONAL CONTKOVEKSY. word " delegated " inserted in its place. Also, the word " United " preceding the word " States " is stricken out, and the word " Confederated " inserted in its place. SEC. 2. This section is changed as follows : In the first paragraph, after the words, " in each State shall" the follow ing words are inserted : " ~be citizens of the Confederate States, and" Also, the following words are added to tin s paragraph : " but no person of foreign birth, and not a citizen of the Con federate States, shall be allowed to vote for any officer, civil or political, State or Federal." In the second paragraph, the words, " been seven years a citizen of the United" are stricken out, and the words, " be a citizen of the Confederate" inserted in place of them. In the third paragraph, the word " Union " is stricken out, and the word " Confederacy " substituted. Also the words, " other persons" are stricken out and the word " slaves " sub stituted. Also the word " thirty" preceding the word " thou sand" is stricken out, and the word "fifty " substituted. Also, all the words in this paragraph after the words, " the State of" are stricken out, and the following words substituted : " South Carolina shall le entitled to choose six, the State of Georgia ten, the State of Alabama nine, the State of Florida two, the State of Mississippi seven, the State of Louisiana six, and the State of Texas six." No change is made in the fourth paragraph ; and the fifth paragraph is changed by adding the following words : " except that any judicial or other federal officer, resident, and acting solely within the limits of any State, may be impeached by a vote of two thirds of both branches of the Legislature thereof" SEC. 3. In the first paragraph after the the words, " thereof for six years" the words, " at the regular session next imme diately preceding the commencement of the term of service" are inserted. No change is made in the second paragraph. In the third paragraph, the words, " been nine years a citizen of the United" are stricken out, and the words, " be a citizen of the Confede rate" substituted. SEC. 4. The first paragraph of this section is changed by inserting the words, " subject to the provisions of this Condi- CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES. 299 tution" between the word "thereof" and the word " but" Also, the words, u times and" are inserted near the close, before the word "places." SEC. 5. In the second paragraph of this section, the words, " of the whole number" are inserted between the word " two thirds " and the word "-expel" SEC. 6. This section is changed by striking out the word "felony " after the word " treason" in the first paragraph. The second paragraph is changed by adding thereto the following words : " But Congress may by law grant to the principal officer in each of the executive departments a seat upon the floor of either House, with the privilege of discuss ing any measures appertaining to his department" SEC. 7. The following changes are made in this section : In the second paragraph the words, " the House of Repre sentatives and the Senate" are stricken out, and the words " both Houses " substituted. Also the word " such " is inserted between the word " all " and the word " cases" Also the following words are added to the end of this para graph : " The President may approve any appropriation and disapprove any other appropriation in the same bill. In such case he shall, in signing the bill, designate the appropriations disapproved, and shall return a copy of such appropriations, with his objections, to the House in which the bill shall have originated ; and the same proceedings shall then be had as in case of other bills disapproved by the President" The third paragraph is changed by striking out the words, " The Senate and House of Representatives" in both places where they occur, and inserting in their places, in both cases, the words, " both Houses" Also by substituting the word " may " for the word " shall" after the words, " disapproved by him" SEC. 8. In the first paragraph, after the word " excises" the words, "for revenue necessary" are inserted. Also the word " and " after the word " debts " is omitted. Also the words, "and general welfare of the United States ; but," are stricken out, and the following words substituted : " and carry on the government of the Confederate States ; but no bounties shall be granted from the Treasury, nor shall any duties or 300 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. taxes on importations from foreign nations be laid to promote or foster any branch of industry ; and" The third paragraph is changed by adding thereto the following words : " but neither this, nor any other clause con tained in the Constitution, shall ever be construed to delegate the power to Congress to appropriate money for any internal improvement intended to facilitate commerce ; except for the purpose of furnishing lights, beacons, and buoys, and other aids to navigation upon the coasts, and the improvement of harbors, and the removing of obstructions in river navigation / in all such cases such duties shall be laid on the navigation facilitated thereby, as may be necessary to pay the costs and expenses thereof." The fourth paragraph is changed by adding thereto the following words : " but no law of Congress shall discharge any debt contracted before the passage of the same" The seventh paragraph is changed as follows : The last word " roads " is changed to " routes," and the following words added thereto : " but the Post-office Department, after the first day of March, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and sixty-three, shall be paid out of its own reve nues" In the fifteenth paragraph, the word u Union " is stricken out, and the words, " the Confederate States," substituted. SEC. 9. The whole of the first paragraph is stricken out, and the following words substituted therefor : " The impor tation of negroes of the African race. from, any foreign coun try other than the slaveholding States or Territories of the United States of America is hereby forbidden ; and Congress is required to pass such laws as shall effectually prevent the same. Congress shall also have power to prohibit the intro duction of slaves from any State not a member of, or territory not belonging to this Confederacy" In the third paragraph, after the word " law" the words, " or law denying or impairing the right of property in negro slaves," are inserted. The fifth paragraph is changed by adding thereto the following words : " except by a vote of two thirds of both Houses" CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES. 301 The sixth paragraph is changed by the omission of all after the word " another" The following clauses are inserted after the seventh para graph : " Congress shall appropriate no money from the Treas ury except by a vote of two thirds of both Houses, taken ~by yeas and nays, unless it he asked and estimated for hy some one of the heads of departments , and submitted to Congress hy the President ; or for the purpose of paying its own expenses and contingencies ; or for the payment of claims against the Confederate States, the justice of which shall have been judi cially declared by a tribunal for the investigation of claims against the Government, which is hereby made the duty of Congress to establish." " All bills appropriating money shall specify in Federal currency the exact amount of each appropriation, and the purposes for which it is made ; and Congress shall grant no extra compensation to any public . contractor, officer, agent, or servant, after such contract shall have been made or such service rendered" This section is further changed by adding to it the first eight Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, followed by this paragraph : " Every law or resolution having the force of law shall relate to but one subject, and that shall be expressed in the title" SEC. 10. The first paragraph is changed by striking out the following words : " emit " " bills of credit" Also, by inserting the word " or " between the word " attainder " and the words " ex post facto" The third paragraph is changed by inserting, after the word " tonnage " the following words : " except on sea-going vessels, for the improvement of its rivers and harbors navigated by the said vessels / but such duties shall not conflict with any treaties of the Confederate States with foreign nations ; and any surplus of revenue thus derived shall, after making such improvement, be paid into the common Treasury / nor shall any State." Also the following clause is added to this para graph : " But when any river divides or flows through two or more States, they may enter into compacts with each other to improve the navigation thereof" 302 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. ARTICLE II. SEC. 1. The first paragraph is so altered as to read as follows : " The executive power shall ~be vested in a President of the Confederate States of America. He and the Vice- President shall hold their offices for the term of six years ; but the President shall not be re eligible. The President and Vice- President shall be elected as follows : " The third paragraph is stricken out, and the twelfth article of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States substituted. The fifth paragraph is changed in the following respects : the words, " or a citizen of the United States" are stricken out, and the words, " of the Confederate States, or a citizen thereof" substituted. Also, after the word " Constitution " the following words are inserted : " or a citizen thereof lorn in the United States, prior to the %Qth of December, 1860." Also the words, " United States" at the close of the paragraph, are stricken out, and the words, " limits of the Confederate States, as they may exist at the time of his election" are substituted. The eighth paragraph is changed by substituting the word " enters " for the word u enter" The last paragraph is changed by striking out the words, " of the United States," at the close, and substituting the word " thereof." SEC. 2. The second paragraph is changed by adding thereto the words following : " The principal officer in each of the executive departments, and all persons connected with the diplomatic service, may be removed from office at the pleasure of the President. All other civil officers of the executive department may be removed at any time by the President, or other appointing power, when their services are unnecessary, or for dishonesty, incapacity, inefficiency, mis conduct, or neglect of duty / and when so removed, the removal shall be reported to the Senate, together with the reasons therefor" The third paragraph is changed by dropping the word " up " after the word "fill." CONSTITUTION, OF THE CONFEDERATE STATES. 303 SEC. 3. This section is changed in the following respects : The first word, " He" is stricken out, and the words, " The President" substituted. Also the word " Union " is stricken out, and the word " Confederacy " substituted. ARTICLE III. SEC. 1. In this section, the word " Supreme " is stricken out, and the word "Superior" substituted, in the first sentence of the first paragraph. SEC. 2. This section is changed as follows : After the clause, " citizens of another State" the following clause is inserted : " where the State is plaintiff" Also, the next sim ple sentence is changed by inserting the words, " claiming lands under grants" between the word " citizens " and the word " of" Also the following clause is stricken out : " be tween citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of different States" Also the following clause is added to the first paragraph : " ~but no State shall he sued by a citizen or subject of any foreign State" Also, in the first part of this paragraph, the following clauses, " in law and equity" and " arising under this Constitution" are transposed. In the third paragraph, in the clause, " where the said crimes shall have been committed" the word " crimes " is changed to the word " crime" ARTICLE IV. SEC. 1. No change. SEC. 2. The first paragraph is changed by adding thereto the following clauses : " and shall have the right of transit and sojourn in any State of this Confederacy, with their slaves and other property / and the right of property in such slaves shall not he thereby impaired" The third paragraph is changed in the following respects : After the first word " JVo" the words, "slave or" are inserted. Also, the words, " one /State" are stricken out, and the words, " any State or Territory of the Confederate States" are sub stituted. Also, after the word " escaping" the words, " or lawfully carried into," are inserted. Also, the words, " slave 304 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. belongs, or to whom such" are inserted between the word " such " and the word " service" near the close of the para graph. SEC. 3. The first paragraph is changed by striking out all the words to and including the -word " Union" and substituting O * O the words, " Other States may 1)6 admitted into this Confed eracy by a vote of two thirds of the whole House of Represen tatives , and two thirds of the Senate, the Senate voting ~by States." The second paragraph is changed by striking out all after the word " regulations" and inserting the following clauses : " concerning the property of the Confederate States, including the lands thereof. " The Confederate States may acquire new territory , and Congress shall have power to legislate and provide governments for the inhabitants of all territory belonging to the Confederate States lying without the limits of the several States, and may permit them, at such times and in such manner as it may by law provide, to form States to he admitted into the Confederacy. In all such territory the institution of negro slavery as it now exists in the Confederate States, shall he recognized and pro tected by Congress and by the Territorial government, and the inhabitants of the several Confederate States and Territories shall have the right to take to such territory any slaves lawfully held by them in any of the States or Territories of the Confed erate States." SEC. 4. This section is changed as follows : The words, " in this Union," are stricken out, and the words, " that now is, or hereafter may become, a member of this Confederacy" inserted. Also, after the word " Legislature" the words u cannot be convened " are dropped, and the words, " is not in session" substituted. Also this entire section is omitted, as a section, and placed at the end of section 3, as a paragraph thereof. ARTICLE Y. This article is stricken out entirely, and the following sub stituted : " Upon the demand of any three States, legally assembled in their several conventions, the Congress shall sum- CONSTITUTION OF THE CONFEDEEATE STATES. 305 mon a convention of all the States, to take into consideration such amendments to the Constitution as the said States shall concur in suggesting at the time when the said demand is made ; and should any of the proposed amendments to the Constitution be agreed on by said convention voting by States, and the same be ratified by the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, or by conventions in two thirds thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the general convention they shall henceforward form a part of this Constitution. J3ut no /State shall, without its consent, be deprived of its equal representation in the Senate" ARTICLE YI. This article is preceded by the following paragraph : " The Government established by this Constitution is the successor (f the Provisional Government of the Confederate States of America, and all laws passed by the latter shall continue in force until the same shall be repealed or modified ; and all the officers appointed by the same shall remain in office until their successors are appointed and qualified or the offices abolished" The first paragraph is changed by striking out the word " Confederation" and substituting the words, " Provisional Government" In the second paragraph, the words, " which shall be," following the word " States," are stricken out. This article is also changed by adding thereto the 9th and 10th articles of the Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as two additional paragraphs, after adding to the 9th article the words, " of the several States" AETICLE VII. The first paragraph is changed by substituting the word "five" for the word "nine" preceding the word "States" Also, the following paragraph is added to the foregoing, as amended : " When five States shall ratify this Constitution, in the manner before specified, the Congress under the Provisional Constitution shall prescribe the time for holding the election 306 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. of President and Vice- President ; and for the meeting of the electoral college ; and for counting the votes and inaugu rating the President. They shall also prescribe the time for holding the first election of members of Congress under this Constitution, and the time for assembling the same. Until the assembling of such Congress, the Congress under the Pro visional Constitution shall continue to exercise the legislative powers granted them, not extending beyond the time limited by the Constitution of the Provisional Government" The final paragraph : " Done in convention by the unani mous consent" &c., is omitted, and the words following sub stituted : " Adopted unanimously, March 11, 1861." In his Inaugural Message, Mr. LINCOLN says : " Apprehen sion seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that, by the accession of the Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security are endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehen sion. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches, when I declare, i I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it- exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so ; and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me, did so with the full knowledge that I had made this, and made many other similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this they placed in the platform, for my acceptance and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution, which I now read : " i Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially of the right of each State to order and control its domestic institutions according to its own judgment, exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political PRESIDENT LINCOLN S DECLAEATIONS ON THE CKISIS. 307 fabric depends ; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. This, from the first part of his Message, promises well ; but did he prove the sincerity of his declarations in his practice ? We shall see. It should be observed that he does not quote the anti-slavery portion of the platform, which afforded ground for alarm. He quotes, moreover, the clause in the Constitution for the restoration to their masters of fugitive slaves, as of binding obligation ; but as to the laws enacted for performing that obligation, his declarations are loose, suggesting that, if the fugitive slave laws of 1793 and of 1850 were insufficient, another law should be passed. He does not state that the real difficulty in the case was, not in those laws, but in the opposition of the North to the execution of any law that would le effectual in carrying out that provision of the Constitution ; an opposition stimulated by himself and others of his party. It will be observed that he, in the language of the platform, " denounces the invasion of any State as among the gravest of crimes." And, as if conscious from his past history that he was exposing himself to the charge of insincerity, he adds : " I take the official oaths to-day with no mental reservation." He further says : " The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government, and collect the duties and imports ; but beyond these objects there will be no invasion, no using force against or among the people anywhere" Was the truthfulness of this declaration confirmed or invalidated by his subsequent acts? He also makes some remarks designed to impair the binding force of the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States ; professing not to make " any assault on the Court and the judges," while he was actually making it. This assault may be construed into an attack on the decision of that Court in the case of DEED SCOTT, which stood in the way of the Kepublican party ; and likewise on the platform of the DOUGLAS party, who had declared that they would " abide 308 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the decisions of the Supreme Court on questions of consti tutional law." " If by the mere force of numbers," he remarks, " a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution ; it certainly would, if the right were a vital one. But such is not our case." The people of the Southern States could say, in reply, that the right to recover from the Northern States their fugitive slaves, which was, practically and by legislative enactments, denied by the latter, was a " vital one " so vital that, without it, the Constitution would never have been adopted. He also says : " Suppose you go to war : you cannot fight always ; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical questions as to terms of intercourse are upon you." This involves a true doctrine. "War does not change the original terms of compact ; force can not alter opinions, or change wrong to right. It is a little remarkable that, while Mr. LINCOLN gives great prominence to the oath taken by him "to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution," he should speak of the " American people " as " his rightful masters," when that people never act together directly, but only by agents (electors) appointed by the States ; and that a great majority, acting through their agents, were opposed to him. Mr. LINCOLN at this time probably wished for peace, if he could have it without weakening the Republican party by giving up some of their dogmas. But rather than do this, urged on by his party, he preferred war. Just after this Message was delivered, Mr. DOUGLAS, in the Senate, declared that it meant peace. Mr. BRECKENKIDGE, on the other hand, declared that it meant war. These two different opinions were entertained of it through the country. Mr. GUTHRIE said of it : "It spoke like a serpent with a forked tongue." Mr. LINCOLN failed to meet the exigencies of the occasion. 309 Had he, like a broad-minded statesman, recommended in substance the adoption of the CKETTENDEN plan of settlement, he would have carried the great majority of the country with him, both North and South. But by his temporizing, double, or at least doubtful course, he lost the confidence of the border States, and prepared his Northern supporters to " cry havoc, and let slip the dogs of war." Had he done what General JACKSON did in the time of Nullification, when he recom mended the repeal of the offensive Tariff laws / had he done what Mr. CLAY did on the same occasion, when he surren dered, to a large extent, his favorite American system ; had he done what Mr. WEBSTER did, when he declared, on the Tth of March, 1850, that he spoke " not as a Northern man or a Southern man, but as an American," he might have taken his place with them as a patriot and a large-hearted man, however inferior to them in talents and in statesmanship. He might have saved the country from the unutterable woes of the late war. The present writer was at Willard s Hotel, in Washington, just after Mr. LINCOLN S arrival there, and just before the rising of the Peace Convention, which held its sessions in the same house. He enjoyed the privilege of being introduced to Mr. and Mrs. LINCOLN, and of conversing with several mem bers of the Peace Convention during the intervals of their daily sessions. The multitude of office-seekers generally seemed to have implicit faith that Mr. LINCOLN, by his his good sense and humor, would throw oil on the troubled waters, which were tossing their billows over the wide sea, and, like another Nep tune, that he would rise, with his serene countenance, and speak the words that would scatter the clouds and bring back the sun ; or, like another Jesus, the Saviour, that he would say, " Peace, be still," and there would be " a great calm. 5 They had apotheosized him, and now they expected from him the works of a God. The fact, moreover, that a Peace Congress was in session in Washington inspired the belief or hope in the masses that peace would in some way be preserved ; that the South, or the North, would give up its pretensions, or that some compromise would be made. 310 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. On my way to Connecticut, I took tea, in New York, at the house of a Republican friend, where I met with an active Republican member of the Peace Convention. He expressed the fullest convictions that there would be no war ; because, as he very fluently and distinctly stated, the chief ground of complaint on the part of the South was, that " their slave- property was not protected in the Territories." " Now," said he, earnestly, " they cannot be so foolish and so mad as to rush into all the horrors of war for so small an object as that." I then said to him : " If the object is so small* why not give it up to them ? " He was taken aback for the moment, but then replied : " Why, it would destroy the Republican party." In Connecticut, I met with a leading and able divine, a distinguished Doctor of Divinity, who said to me : " If the Southern States are determined to go out of the Union, it is better to let them go, and not have a war to keep them in." The general sentiment in Connecticut was against a war with the Southern States. And from the city of Boston, a petition containing the names of 22,000 citizens was presented to Congress, in favor of the compromise measures. Congress, with a full knowledge of the facts, though their attention was repeatedly called to them by President BUCHANAN, made no provision for the existing state of things, and refused to grant either men or money for carrying on war with the seceded States. Still there were those in Congress, and elsewhere, who thirsted for blood, and who felt that Mr. LINCOLN ought to be punisher of the Southern States, performing the duties of the fabled NEMESIS, the daughter of Jupiter, and Necessitas. They thought that he ought to arm himself with the thunder-bolts forged by the party that elected him, and, under the plea of necessity, send them from his red right hand upon the guilty people of the South. While he was gradually yielding to these malign influences, we can easily believe, to use his poetic language in his Mes sage, that his u mystic cords of memory " sometimes, u touched by the better angels of our nature," put to flight the demon of war from his soul ; as the evil spirit was driven, by the harp of David, from Saul, only to return. DIPLOMACY. 311 DIPLOMACY. SOUTH CAROLINA AND PRESIDENT BUCHANAN. As mentioned, page 228, the commissioners appointed by South Carolina came to Washington. On the 29th of Decem ber, 1860, they addressed a letter to President BUCHANAN : u SIR : We have the honor to transmit to you a copy of the full powers from the convention of the people of South Carolina, under which we are authorized to treat with * the Government of the United States for the delivery of the forts, magazines, light-houses, and other real estate, with their appurtenances, in the limits of South Carolina ; and also for an apportion ment of the public debt, and for a division of all other property held by the Confederated States of which South Carolina was recently a member ; and generally to negotiate as to all other measures and arrangements proper to be made and adopted, in the existing relations of the parties, and for the continuance of peace and amity between this commonwealth and the Gov ernment at Washington." They also say : " But events of the last twenty -four hours, render this assurance impossible." These " events " were the removal of the troops from Tort Moultrie to Fort Sumter. At the close of the letter they say : " And in conclusion, we would urge upon you the withdrawal of the troops from the harbor of Charleston. Under present circumstances, they are a standing menace, which renders negotiations impossible, and, as our recent experience shows, threatens speedily to bring to a bloody issue, questions which ought to be settled with temperance and judgment. We have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servants, R. W. BAENWELL, J. II. ADAMS, JAMBS L. OER." In his answer to this communication, the President said : " I have to say, that my position as President of the United States was clearly defined in the Message to Congress, on the 3d instant. In that, I stated that, apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He possesses 21 312 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. no power to change the relations hitherto existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that State. ... It is, therefore, my duty to submit to Congress the whole question in all its bearings. " Such is my opinion still. I could, therefore, meet you only as private gentlemen, of the highest character, and was entirely willing to communicate to Congress any proposition you have to make to that body upon the subject. Of this you are well aware. It was my earnest desire that such a disposition should be made of the whole subject, by Congress, who alone possess the power, as to prevent the inauguration of a civil war between the parties in regard to the possession of the Federal forts in the harbor of Charleston. u In conclusion, you urge upon me the immediate with drawal of the troops from the harbor of Charleston, stating that, under present circumstances, they are a standing menace. In order to understand what is meant, by " present circum stances," and " the events of the last twenty-four hours," the following statement is necessary : When the State of South Carolina seceded, December 20, 1860, Major ROBERT ANDERSON commanded a small body of men about fifty stationed at Fort Moid trie, in the harbor of Charleston. It appears that the authorities at Washington and the authorities at Charleston were anxious to prevent any collision between the Federal Government and the State Gov ernment, in relation to that fort, and the command stationed within it. The Representatives in Congress, JOHN McQuEEN, M. L. BONHAM, W. W. BOYCE, and LAWRENCE M. KEIT, in a letter to President BUCHANAN, say : " We now express our strong convictions that neither the constituted authorities, nor any body of the people of the State of South Carolina, will either attack or molest the United States forts in the harbor of Charleston, previously to the act of the Convention ; and, we hope and believe, not until an offer has been made, through an accredited representation, to negotiate for an amicable arrangement of all matters between the State and the Federal Government ; provided that no reinforcements shall be sent DIPLOMACY. 313 iuto these forts, and their respective military status shall remain as at present," This was the declaration for South Carolina. The following is the declaration for the administration of the Federal Government. D. P. BUTLER, Adjutant-General, gives the following instructions to Major ANDERSON, which were approved by JOHN B. FLOYD, Secretary of War : " You are carefully to avoid every act which would needlessly pro voke aggression ; and for that reason, you are not, without necessity, to take up any position which could be construed into a hostile attitude ; but you are to hold possession of the forts in the harbor, and, if you are attacked, you are to defend yourself to the last- extremity. The smallness of your force will not permit you to occupy more than one of the three forts ; but an attack on, or attempt to take possession of either of them, will be regarded as an act of hostility, and you may then put your command into either of them which you deem most proper, to increase the power of resistance. You are also authorized to take similar steps whenever you have tangible evidence of a design to proceed to a hostile act." This was the attitude on both sides, each deprecating a hostile act. But, on December 25, 1860, Major ANDERSON evacuated Fort Moultrie, and conveyed all the troops to Fort Sumter, the stronger fort, having spiked the guns in Fort Moultrie, and l)urnt the carriages. This was a hostile act, or at least must " be construed into the assumption of a hostile attitude." In thus acting beyond his written orders from the Adjutant-General, he assumed the responsibility, and the blame , whatever it is. At least, this act of his was an unfortunate one in its effects on the public mind, already sufficiently excited. This happened after the arrival at "Washington of the Commissioners of South Carolina, and is alluded to as "the events of the last twenty-four hours," and as the " present circumstances." They naturally felt greatly provoked, as if there was a breach of faith. President BUCHANAN must also naturally have felt greatly dissatisfied. " My first prompt ings," he said, " were to order him back to his former posi tion." But there were difficulties in the way of restoring the 314 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. former, status ; arid he refused to comply with the urgent request of the Commissioners, that the troops be withdrawn from the harbor of Charleston. Thus the negotiations w r ere a failure. Major ANDERSON was applauded in Congress, and elsewhere, for doing what he did ; just as Commodore WILKES was applauded for violating the law of nations in forcibly taking MASON and SLIDELL from a British steamer, though afterwards condemned. DIPLOMACY. THE CONFEDERATE STATES AND PRESIDENT LINCOLN. Not long after the Inauguration of Mr. DAVIS, the Con federate Congress passed a resolution recommending the appointment of Commissioners to the Federal Government, by President DAVIS, " for the purpose of negotiating friendly relations between that Government and the Confederate States of America, and for the settlement of all questions of disagree ment between the two Governments, upon the principles of right, justice, equity, and good faith." The Commissioners appointed were JOHN FORSYTH, MARTIN CRAWFORD, and A. B. ROMAN. The two former of these, on March 12, 1861. addressed a letter to Mr. SEWARD, Secretary of State, requesting an inter view with the President, in order to accomplish the objects of their mission. This request w T as, by Mr. SEWARD and the President refused, in a letter dated March 15. They made the request on the ground that " Seven States of the late Federal Union, having, in the exercise of an inherent right of every free people to change or reform their political institu tions, and through conventions of their people, withdrawn from the United States and reassumed the attributes of sovereign power delegated to it, have formed a government of their own. The Confederate States constitute an independent nation, de facto and de jure, and possess a government perfect in all its parts, and endowed with all the means of self-support." Mr. SEWARD refused their request, on the ground that he considers what they call a government, " only a perversion of DIPLOMACY. 315 a temporary partisan excitement to the inconsiderate purposes of an unjustifiable and unconstitutional aggression upon the rights and authority vested in the Federal Government, and hitherto benignly exercised, as from their very nature they always must be so exercised, for the maintenance of the Union, the preservation of liberty, and the security, peace, welfare, happiness, and aggrandizement of the American people." On the 9th of April, the Commissioners addressed another letter to the Secretary of State, in which they spoke of "having approached the Government of the United States with the olive branch of peace," in order " to adjust the great questions pend ing between them, in the only way to be justified by the con science and common sense of good men, who had nothing but the welfare of the two Confederacies at heart. " Your Government have not chosen to meet the under signed in the conciliatory and peaceful spirit in which they are commissioned. " The undersigned clearly understand that you have declined to appoint a day to enable them to lay the objects of the mis sion, with which they are charged, before the President of the United States, because so to do would be to recognize the independence and separate nationality of the Confederate States. This is the vein of thought that pervades the memorandum before us. The truth of history requires that it should distinctly appear upon the record, that the under signed did not ask the Government of the United States to recognize the independence of the Confederate States. They only asked an audience to adjust, in a spirit of amity and peace, the new relations springing from a manifest and accomplished revolution in the Government of the late Fed eral Union. Your refusal to entertain these overtures for a peaceful solution, the active naval and military preparations of this Government, and a formal notice to the commanding general of the Confederate forces in the harbor of Charleston, that the President intends to provision Fort Sumter by forci ble means, if necessary, are viewed by the undersigned, and can only be received by the world as a declaration of war against the Confederate States ; for the President of the 316 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. United States knows that Fort Sumter cannot be provisioned without the effusion of blood." To the letter containing these extracts, signed by the three Commissioners, Mr. SEWAED replies, that he is not at liberty to hold any official communication with them. While the Commissioners were in Washington, namely, from the 5th of March to the 9th of April, the administration was not idle. General SCOTT advised the evacuation of Fort Sumter, as a military necessity the United States having no use for the fort as against a foreign enemy ; Mr. SEWAED encouraged the idea, and had declared that it would be evacuated ; the country at large, namely, the people in both sections, were led to hope that the evacuation would afford time for a peaceful solution of the difficulties. And yet the President in that time secretly fitted out, and sent for the relief of Fort Sumter, a fleet of 8 vessels, 26 guns, and 1,380 men. At the very time that the Commissioners were flattered by false hopes, and Mr. SEWAED had signified that Fort Sumter would be evacuated, and, as late as the 7th of April, in reply to Judge CAMPBELL, had written, " Faith as to Sumter fully kept ; wait, and sec / " and Captain Fox, of the Federal Xavy, had been sent to Charleston and received on the profession of peaceful purposes, Mr. LINCOLN was contriving how he might relieve Fort Sumter. This deceitful agent, having by this pre tence carried despatches to Major ANDEESON, the commander of the fort, used his opportunity to devise a plan to relieve Fort Sumter. In antique style, he went out a fox and came back a lion. His opinion, in opposition to that of General SCOTT, had its influence upon the President, who informed him that he had concluded to send an expedition to Charleston. A portion of the fleet sailed on the 6th of April ; and two days after namely, on the 8th Governor PICKENS, of South Carolina, received, by Lieutenant TALBOT, an Agent of the Federal Government, the following message : " I am directed, by the President of the United States, to notify you to expect an attempt will be made to supply Fort Sumter with provisions only : and if such attempt be not resisted, no effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, will be made, without further notice, or in case of an attack on the fort." By this wily DIPLOMACY. 31 T notice, Mr. LINCOLN retained the power to " throw in men, arms, and ammunition," upon any notice, however short. The first notice of an attempt to supply the fort " with provisions " implied a subsequent notice of an attempt to supply it with " men, arms, and ammunition ; " when the fleet should gain a position for supplying the one, they would be in a position to supply the other. The problem which Mr, LINCOLN tried to work out, was to put things in such a shape that the South would appear to commence hostilities ; as when A approaches B with a pistol, and thus provokes a blow, and then charges B with commencing the fight. The object of Mr. LINCOLN seems to have been to draw the fire of the Confederates, and then to charge them with commencing the war. In this he was unfor tunately but too successful. It was respectful, on the part of the Confederate Govern ment, to send Commissioners to Washington. Why were they not received as such ? Would the British Ministry have refused to receive Commissioners immediately before or after the com mencement of the War of the Revolution? Did not that Ministry actually send Commissioners to treat with the States in 1778 ? Did not General WASHINGTON send Commissioners to treat with the " leaders " and others of the Whiskey Insur rection, while they were still in array ? In order to understand the position of the Administration from the 4th of March to the 13th of April, it is necessary to read the letter of JOHN A. CAMPBELL, who was a Judge of the Supreme Court of the United States, to Mr. SEWAED, dated April 13, 1861, in which he relates the conversations between himself and Mr. SEWAED, in the presence of Judge NELSON of the same Court. In reviewing carefully all this diplomacy and its issue, was it strange that there were those, when speaking of Mr. LINCOLN as the responsible head of the Administration, who should say that " a double-minded man is unstable in his ways ; " or that others should say, that " it was his purpose to dupe and over reach the Southern Commissioners ; " or that JEFFEESON DAVIS, in a Message to the Southern Congress, should say, " The crooked paths of diplomacy can scarcely furnish an example so wanting in courtesy, in candor, and directness, as was the 318 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. course of the United States Government towards our Commis sioners in "Washington." LETTER OF JUDGE JOHN A. CAMPBELL. WASHINGTON CITY, Saturday, April 13, 1861. SIR : On the, 15th March tilt., I left with Judge CRAWFORD, one of the Commissioners of the Confederate States, a note in writing to the effect following : " I feel entire confidence that Fort Sumter will be evacuated in the next ten days. And this measure is felt as imposing great responsibility on the Admin istration. " I feel entire confidence that no measure changing the existing status, prejudiciously to the Southern Confederate States, is at present contemplated. " I feel an entire confidence that an immediate demand for an answer to the communication of the Commissioners, will be productive of evil, and not of good. I do not believe that it ought at this time to be pressed." The substance of this statement I communicated to you the same evening by letter. Five days elapsed, and I called with a telegram from General BEAUREGARD, to the effect that o Sumter was not evacuated, but that Major ANDERSON was at work making repairs. The next day, after conversing with you, I communicated to Judge CRAWFORD in writing, that the failure to evacuate Sumter was not the result of bad faith, but was attributable to causes consistent with the intention to fulfil the engage ment ; and that, as regarded Pickens, I should have notice of any design to alter the existing status there. Mr. Justice NELSON was present at these conversations, three in number, and I submitted to him each of my written communications to Judge CRAWFORD, and informed Judge C. that they had his (Judge NELSON S) sanction. I gave you, on the 22d March, a substantial copy of the statement I had made on the 15th. The 30th of March arrived, and at that time a telegram came from Governor PICKENS inquiring concerning Colonel LAMON, whose visit to Charleston he supposed had a connec tion with the proposed evacuation of Fort Sumter. LETTER OF JUDGE JOHN A. CAMPBELL. 319 I left that with you, and was to have an answer the follow ing Monday (1st April). On the 1st of April I received from you the statement in writing : " I am satisfied the Government will not undertake to supply Fort Sumter without giving notice to Governor PICKENS." The words, " I am satisfied," were for me to use as expressive of confidence in the remainder of the declaration. The proposition, as originally prepared, was, " The Presi dent may desire to supply Sumter, but will not do so," &c. ; and your verbal explanation was that you did not believe any such attempt would be made, and that there was no design to reinforce Sumter. There was a departure here from the pledges of the previous month, but with the verbal explanation I did not consider it a matter then to complain of ; I simply stated to you that I had that assurance previously. On the 7th April, I addressed you a letter on the subject of the alarm that the preparations by the Government had created, and asked you if the assurances I had given were well or ill founded. In respect to Sumter, your reply was, " Faith as to Sumter fully kept ; wait and see." In the morning s paper I read : " An authorized messenger from President LINCOLN informed Governor PICKENS and General BEATJKEGAKD, that provisions will be sent to Fort Sumter peaceably, or otherwise by force" This was the 8th of April, at Charleston, the day following your last assurance, and is the evidence of the full faith I was invited to wait for and see. In the same paper I read that intercepted despatches disclose the fact that Mr. Fox, who had been allowed to visit Major ANDERSON, on the pledge that his purpose was pacific, employed his opportunity to devise a plan for supplying the fort by force, and that this plan had been adopted by the Washington Government, and was in process of execution. My recollection of the date of Mr. Fox s visit carries it to a day in March. I learn he is a near connection of a member of the Cabinet. My connection with the Commissioners and yourself was superinduced by a conversation with Justice NELSON. 320 THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. He informed me of your strong disposition in favor of peace, and that you were oppressed with a demand of the Commissioners of the Confederate States, for a reply to their lirst letter, and that you desired to avoid it, if possible, at that time. I told him I might, perhaps, be of some service in arranging the difficulty. I came to your office entirely at his request, and without the knowledge of the Commissioners. Your depression was obvious to both Judge NELSON and myself. I was gratified at the character of the counsels you were desirous of pursuing, and much impressed with your observation, that a civil war might be prevented by the suc cess of my mediation. You read a letter of Mr. WEED, to show how irksome and responsible the withdrawal of troops from Fort Sumter was. A portion of my communication to Judge CEAWFOED, on the 15th of March, was founded upon these remarks, and the pledge to evacuate Sumter is less forcible than the words you employed. Those words were, " Before this letter reaches you (a proposed letter by me to President DAVIS), Sumter will have been evacuated." The Commissioners who received those communications conclude they have been abused and overreached. The Montgomery Government hold the same opinion. The Com missioners have supposed that my communications were with you, and upon the hypothesis prepared to arraign you before the country in connection with the President. I placed a peremptory prohibition upon this, as being contrary to the terms of my communications with them. 1 pledged myself to them to commmunicate information upon what I considered as the best authority, and they were to confide in the ability of myself, aided by Judge NELSON, to determine upon the credibility of my informant. I think no candid man who will read over what I have written, and consider for a moment what is going on at Sum ter, will agree that the equivocating conduct of the Adminis tration, as measured and interpreted in connection with promises, is the proximate cause of the great calamity. I have a profound conviction that the telegrams of the 8th of April, of General BEATTEEGABD, and of the 10th of April, of General "WALKEE, the Secretary of War, can be referred to EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF SUHTEE. 321 nothing else than their belief that there has been systematic duplicity practised upon them throughout. It is under an oppressive sense of the weight of this responsibility that I submit to you these things for your explanation. Yery respectfully, JOHN A. CAMPBELL. Hon. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. THE EFFECTS OF THE FALL OF SUMTEE UPON THE SOUTH. On the intelligence that Fort Sumter, in Charleston harbor, had fallen into the hands of the Confederates, on the 13th of April, 1861, without the loss of a man on either side, great joy and exultation were manifested in many parts of the Southern States. Thus the Confederate Secretary of War, L. POPE WALKEE, said, at a public meeting at Montgomery, the seat of Government : " No man can foretell the events of the war inaugurated ; but I venture to predict that the flag that now floats on the breeze, will, before the first of May, float over the dome of the old Capitol at Washington ; and if they choose to try Southern chivalry, and test the extent of Southern resources, will eventually float over Faiieuil Hall in Boston." Nothing could be more ill-judged than such predictions and rhodomontade from a man high in authority. The Southern States had asked " to be let alone," and now the Secretary of War threatens invasion. " The Southern heart was fired " elsewhere also to utter, in burning w r ords, extravagant hopes and boastful threatenings. To be consistent, he should have said that the South was acting only on the defensive. By saying what he did say, he put the South in a false position. ITS EFFECTS UPON THE NORTH. The attack upon Fort Sumter and its fall, attended by the above boastful threats, had also the effect to fire the Northern heart to arouse the indignation of the people, not merely 322 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the ever-wakeful wrath of the Abolitionists, but the slumbering resentment of Conservatives. A popular frenzy spread through the land, like fire on the prairies. Mr. LINCOLN, April 15, 1861, without showing any authority of law or of the Constitution, called upon the Governors of the States to furnish him, from the militia, with seventy -five thou sand men. " The first service," he says, " will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and property which have been seized from the Union ; and in every event, the utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to avoid any devastation, any destruction of, or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens of any part of the country." The Governors of the Northern States, under Republican rule, eagerly complied with the requisition. Like hounds " crouching for employment," they sprang from the leash towards the game now in sight. Governor BURTON, of Delaware, issued his proclamation, May 26, recommending the formation of volunteer companies for the protection of Delaware ; these companies not to be subject to the call of the Executive, but having the option of offering their service to the General Government. Governor HICKS issued his proclamation, May 14, saying that the troops would be employed in Maryland, and for the defence of the Capital. Governor LETCHER, of Virginia, replied that " the militia of Virginia will not be furnished to the powers at Washington for any such purpose. Your object is to subjugate the South ern States, and the requisition made upon me for such an object an object, in my judgment, not within the purview of the Constitution, or the Act of 1795 will not be complied with. You have chosen to inaugurate civil war, and having done so, w r e will meet it in a spirit as determined as the Ad ministration has exhibited towards the South." Governor ELLIS, of North Carolina, in his reply, says : " Your despatch is received, and, if genuine -which its extra ordinary character leads me to doubt I have to say, in reply, that I regard the levy of troops, made by the Administration, for the purpose of subjugating the States of the South, as in POSITION OF THE AGGRIEVED STATES. 323 violation of the Constitution, and a usurpation of power. I can be no party to this wicked violation of the laws of the country, and to this war upon the liberties of a free people." Governor MAGOFFIN, of Kentucky, answered : " Your de spatch is received. In answer, I say emphatically, Kentucky will furnish no troops, for the wicked purpose of subduing her sister Southern States." Governor HARRIS, of Tennessee, said, in reply: "Tennessee will not furnish a single man for coercion, but fifty thousand, if necessary, for the defence of our rights and those of our Southern brethren." Governor JACKSON, of Missouri, replied : " Your requi sition is illegal, unconstitutional, revolutionary, inhuman, and diabolical, and cannot be complied with." Governor HECTOR, of Arkansas, replied : " None will be furnished. The demand is only adding insult to injury." These eight Governors refused to comply with an uncon stitutional requisition, just as the New England Governors did in the war of 1812. POSITION OF THE AGGRIEVED STATES. SOUTH CAROLINA, by an ordinance of secession, see page 223, December, 1860, resumed the powers delegated by the State when she adopted the Federal Constitution ; MISSISSIPPI, on the 9th of January, 1861 ; FLORIDA, on the 10th ; ALABAMA, on the 17th ; GEORGIA, on the 25th ; LOUISIANA, on the 1st of February ; TEXAS, on the 6th of May ; ARKANSAS, on the 21st ; TENNESSEE, on the 24th of June ; and VIRGINIA, on the 24th, severally resumed the powers delegated to the Federal Gov ernment. KENTUCKY assembled the Legislature, January 17, 1861. The House, by a vote of 87 to 6, resolved to resist the invasion of the South. The Legislature, on the 27th, adopted the Vir ginia Resolutions, requiring the Federal Government to protect slavery in the Territories, and to guarantee the right of transit of slaves through the Free States. On February 2d, the Senate passed a vote, appealing to the Southern States to stop the revo- 324 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. lution, and protesting against Federal coercion. On May 20th, Governor MAGOFFIN issued a neutrality proclamation. In MARYLAND, the House of Delegates passed resolutions declaring that Maryland protests against the war, and beseech ing and imploring the President to make peace with the Con federate States ; and also, " that the State of Maryland desires the peaceful and immediate independence of the Confederate States." On the 13th, Committees were appointed to visit the Presi dent of the United States, and the President of the Southern Confederacy. On the 20th, the House of Delegates, and, 011 June 22d, the Senate, adopted resolutions unqualifiedly protest ing against the arrest of Eoss WINANS, and sundry other citizens of Maryland, " as an oppressive and tyrannical assertion and exercise of military jurisdiction within the limits of Maryland over the persons and property of her citizens by the Govern ment of the United States." MISSOURI assembled a Convention February 28, 1861 ; re fused to take the oath to support the Constitution of the United States ; were opposed to secession, and to the coercion of the seceding States, and in favor of the CRITTENDEN Reso lutions. The Senate passed a vote instructing their Senators, and requesting their representatives in Congress to oppose the passage of all acts granting supplies of money and men to coerce the seceding States. Mr. LINCOLN, having practically declared war against the Confederate States, on the 15th of April, 1861, on the same day, summoned Congress to assemble, on the 4th of July. The Congress that had been in session until the 4th of March, refused to do any thing involving a war, though well acquainted with the condition of the country. Instead of convening Con gress immediately, as common prudence required that he should, four months passed away before the extra session, during which term the President did every thing in his own way, whether constitutional or not. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ILLEGAL ACTS. 525 In his message, delivered July 4, 1861, the President apologizes for going contrary to the advice of General SCOTT and other military men, who considered the surrender of Fort Sumter as a " military necessity" by saying, that " the necessity under which it was done would not be fully understood ; and that by many it would be considered as a part of a voluntary policy." The people had not then been so schooled in the doctrine of " necessity " as they were afterwards, when many of them considered it as the grand central political doctrine, superior to the Constitution. Having thus described how, for the sake of appearances, he had refused to surrender the fort, and how he had contrived to draw fire upon it, he, in view of the issue, says : " No choice was left l)ut to call out the war power of the Government" That is, he had contrived to place the affair in such a state, that he had no choice " but to call out the war power." Where did Mr. LINCOLN get the authority to " call out the war power ? " By the Constitution, Congress only have power " to declare war, and raise and support armies ; " but not the President. He also makes a sort of apology for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus. He also disclaims " any coercion, any conquest, any subjugation, in any just sense of those terms." What were the illegal acts of which he was guilty, will appear from the following resolution. RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ILLEGAL PRESIDENTIAL ACTS. The joint resolution approving of the President s acts was read in the Senate on the 10th day of July, 1861, and was as follows : " Whereas, Since the adjournment of Congress, on the 4th day of March last, a formidable insurrection in certain States of this Union has arrayed itself in armed hostility to the Gov ernment of the United States, constitutionally administered ; and whereas the President of the United States did, under the extraordinary exigencies thus presented, exercise certain powers 326 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. and adopt certain measures for the preservation of this Govern ment that is to say : First. He did, on the 15th day of April last, issue his proclamation calling upon the several States for seventy-five thousand men to suppress such insurrectionary combinations, and to cause the laws to be faithfully executed. Secondly. He did, on the 19th day of April last, issue a proclamation setting on foot a blockade of the ports within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Missis sippi, Louisiana, and Texas. Thirdly. He did, on the 27th day of April last, issue a proclamation establishing a blockade of the ports within the States of Virginia and North Carolina. Fourthly. He did, by order of the 27th day of April last, addressed to the Commanding General of the Army of the United States, authorize that officer to suspend the writ of habeas corpus at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line between the city of Philadelphia and the city of Wash ington. Fifthly. He did, on the 3d day of May last, issue a procla mation calling into the service of the United States forty-two thousand and thirty-four volunteers, increasing the Regular Army by the addition of twenty-two thousand seven hundred and fourteen men, and the Navy by an addition of eighteen thousand seamen. Sixthly. He did, on the 10th day of May last, issue a proclamation authorizing the commander of the forces of the United States on the coast of Florida to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, if necessary. All of which proclamations and orders have been submitted to this Congress. Now, therefore, Be it Resolved, by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America assembled, That all of the extraordinary acts, proclamations, and orders, hereinbefore men tioned, be and the same are hereby approved, and declared to be in all respects legal and valid, to the same intent, and with the same effect, as if they had been issued and done under the previous express authority and direction of the Congress of the United States. PRESIDENT LINCOLN S ILLEGAL ACTS. 327 111 his Inaugural Message, Mr. LINCOLN gave great promi nence to the binding force of the oath of office, to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution. It seemed as if his con science had great sensibility on this point. In five different paragraphs he alluded to his official oath. Yet, in less than two months after he took that oath, and in his Message paraded it before the people of the States, he violated that oath, by six different formal acts. These acts we have just seen, for doing which, his friends brought in this joint resolution, by which Congress might grant him absolu tion. This joint resolution, after being thoroughly debated, never came to a direct vote ; the violations of the Constitution being so palpable and flagrant, that some of his own party refused to pass it. By the Constitution, Congress only has power " to declare war " and " raise and support armies." In the cases first and third mentioned above, he usurped that power. E"o President before ABE AH AM LINCOLN had ever dared to do such an out rageous act. Even General JACKSON asked Congress for a law to enable him to act ; just as President BUCHANAN did in the session of 1860-1861. Hear what DANIEL WEBSTER said at Worcester, in 1832 : " The President has no authority to employ military force until he should be duly required to do so by law and the civil authorities. His duty is to cause the law to be executed. His duty is to support the civil author ities. His duty is, if the laws be resisted, to employ the mili tary force of the country, if necessary for that support, that execution ; but to do all this in compliance only with law, and the decisions of the tribunals. " If, by any ingenious device, those w r ho resist the laws, escape from the reach of the judicial authority, as it is now provided to be exercised, it is entirely competent in Congress to make such new laivs as the exigency of the case may de mand." In the same strain, Mr. DOUGLAS said, in the United States Senate, March 15, 1861 : " If, on the contrary, the insurrection be against the laws of the United States, instead of a State, the President can use the military, only as a posse comitatus, in aid of the Marshal, in cases that are so extreme that the judicial 22 328 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. authority and the power of the Marshal cannot put down the obstruction. The military cannot be used, in any case what ever, except in aid of the civil process, to aid the Marshal in executing a writ." Instead of heeding teachings like these, he hastened, in his O o / own language, and that of his subsidized retainers, " to call out the war power," in violation of his oath. So, in the second and sixth cases he violated the Constitu tion by his blockade proclamations. The Constitution gives to Congress the power " to regulate commerce with foreign nations," and declares that " no preference shall be given, by any regulation of commerce or revenue, to the ports in one State over those of another." If the States named above were still in the Union, then neither Congress nor the President had any right to blockade the ports, and thus " give a preference to the ports of one State over those of another State." If they were not in the Union, and therefore are to be treated as foreign States, then only Congress, and not the President, had power to blockade those ports. Mr. WEBSTER, also in the same speech, denies the right of President JACKSON to blockade the port of Charleston. " We are told, Sir, that the President will immediately order the military force to blockade the port of Charleston. A military remedy, a remedy by direct belligerent operation, has thus been suggested as the intended means of preserving the Union. * * * For one, Sir, I raise my voice beforehand against the unauthorized employment of military power, and against superseding the authority of the laws by an armed force under pretence of putting down Nullification." And yet Mr. LINCOLN arrogated to himself the authority to blockade the Southern ports, and thus violated his oath. So, in the third and sixth cases, he violated the Constitu tion by the order and the proclamation suspending the writ of habeas corpus. Judge TANEY, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, decided that the President, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, " cannot suspend the privilege of the writ of hcibeas corpus, nor authorize any military officer to do so." This opinion, which had never been questioned, he sus- CENSURE OF THE PRESIDENT. 329 tained by incontrovertible evidence. It is true that Attorney- General BATES, a member of his Cabinet, in a misty, meta physical argument, endeavored, in vain, to sustain the Presi dent in his usurpation. Thus again the President violated his oath. This joint Resolution was afterwards, in part, passed upon in the Senate in the way of approving some of the Presidential acts. But Congress, afterwards, in 1861 and 1863, vindicated its own powers, by passing a bill suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus / thus putting the President to shame for his usurpation. While the bill with respect to Mr. LINCOLN S illegal acts was under consideration, Mr. YALLANDIGHAM brought forward the following Resolutions : CENSURE OF THE PRESIDENT. On the 15th day of July, 1861, Mr. YALLANDIGHAM offered the following Resolutions in the House, and moved their refer ence to the Committee of the Whole on the state of the Union : "Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States confers upon Congress alone the power to i raise and support armies and to c provide and maintain a navy ; and therefore the President, in the proclamation of May 3, 1861, and the orders and action, by his authority, of the War and Navy Departments, increasing the Army and Navy, and calling for and accepting the services of volunteers for three years without warrant of law, usurped powers belonging solely to Congress, and so violated the Constitution. " Resolved, That the right to declare a blockade as against an independent power, is a belligerent right, depending upon the existence of a state of war ; and that as Congress, and Congress alone, have the power to declare or recognize the existence of war, the President has no right to order a blockade until after Congress shall have declared or recognized war with the power whose ports are to be blockaded ; and further, that Congress alone can abolish or shut up the ports of entry of any State within the Union ; and that, therefore, the President, in 330 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. blockading and shutting up the ports of entry in certain of the States of the Union, without the authority of Congress, violated the Constitution. " Resolved, That Congress alone have the constitutional power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus / and that until the writ has been suspended by act of Congress, it is the duty of the President, and all other officers, civil and military, to obey it ; and that therefore the President, in suspending said writ himself, or attempting to authorize certain military officers to suspend it, or to disobey it, or in sustaining them in disobe dience to it, violated the Constitution. " Resolved, That by the Constitution, < no money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law ; and that in ordering the drawing from the Treasury of money unappropriated, or appropriated for one purpose, and applying the same to purposes for which no appropriations had been made by law, the President violated the Constitution. " Resolved, That the search of certain telegraph offices in the month of May last by officers and agents of the Executive, without search warrant upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the things to be siezed ; and the seizure of papers and despatches in said offices, was a violation of the constitutional right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures ; and that the President, in ordering said searches and seizures, violated the Constitution. " Resolved, That neither Congress, nor the President, nor the judiciary, have any constitutional power to abridge the freedom of speech or of the press ; and that the suspension of newspaper presses by military authority and force, and the arrest of citizens by military or civil authority, for the expres r sion by speech, or through the press, of opinions upon political subjects or subjects of srny kind, is a violation of the Consti tution. " Resolved, That the arrest, without civil process, of persons not subject to the rules and articles of war, nor in cases arising in the land or naval forces or in the militia, when in actual PERVERSION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 331 service, by soldiers in the service of the United States, is a breach of the Constitution, and a violation of the constitutional liberty of the person." These Resolutions were laid on the table by the majority ; thus stifling discussion, which they dared not encounter. PERVERSION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. As soon as it was found that war was to be waged against the seceded States, for which the Federal Constitution makes no provision, there started up several ingenious and eloquent writers, who undertook to find in it powers not delegated to the Federal Government. Some of them went so far as to affirm that the Federal Constitution, framed as it was with great care, and adopted with great caution by the States, might, by a kind of legerdemain interpretation, be made to mean any thing that the powers that be at Washington wished to have it mean ; so that, in this way, the reserved rights of the States might be made to dwindle into insignificance, while the delegated powers might be made to assume giant propor tions. This, some of them did under the influence of what one of them calls a "passionate loyalty," a loyalty not to the Con stitution, but to the existing authorities at Washington. One of these EDWARD EVERETT who was more guarded in statements than some others, published an address, a portion of which was delivered on the 4th of July, 1861, learned, eloquent, and instructive, but greatly at variance with his former ex pressed opinions. These former opinions I put against his declarations in the address as their best refutation. Another Massachusetts man, though residing abroad Mr. MOTLEY addressed a letter in May, 1861, to the London Times, which is false frequently in the facts stated or defective and illogical in its conclusions. This letter may have suited his purpose with British readers, but is too superficial and flippant to satisfy intelligent Americans who are acquainted with the history and provisions of the Federal Constitution. If this letter on " The Causes of the Civil War " is a fair specimen of the manner in which he investigates historical questions, his 332 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. volumes of history, however eloquently written, are worthy of but little confidence. Thus he says : " The body politic known as the United States, is not a Confederacy" " It was an accepted fact that the United States was not a Confederacy." In opposition to these dogmatic assertions I would ask, Why did the first Senate assembled under the Federal Consti tution call the United States a " Confederated Republic ? " And why did President WASHINGTON, in reply to their address, call it a " Confederated Republic ? " Why did JOHN QUINCY ADAMS call the Union a " Federation, composed partly of free and partly of slave States ? " Why did MARSHALL call it a Confederacy ? Why did Judge McLEAN call it a Confederacy ? Mr. MOTLEY can hardly have the arrogance to say that he understands the nature of the Federal Union better than these statesmen did. Mr. MOTLEY says, as printed in the " Rebellion Record," in one place, the Constitution does not speak " the word con federacy." In another place he says, " the word (confederacy) was never used in the Constitution but once." This is contra diction. The word u confederation "is used twice. The term United States is a union of States, and not a union of people, considered as individuals, and does not mean the same as united people. It means the same as the term Federal Union, or Confederate Union, or Confederate Repub lic, or Confederacy, or the Union. These can be used inter changeably, though the shortest term has been used most fre quently. Mr. MOTLEY affirms that " the Constitution of 1787 made us a nation." This it did, but only in a qualified sense, and these qualifications he omits to state. - The States that is, the United States in the old Federal Constitution called " the Articles of Confederation," delegated to Congress the power to exercise certain rights of sovereignty, such as declaring war, &c., and so far fortli made us a nation. The new Federal Constitution, framed in 1787, delegated to Congress and the Executive and the judiciary that is, to the Federal Govern ment the power to exercise still larger rights of sovereignty, and so far forth made us a nation. But in each case there PEKVEKSION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 333 were large rights reserved to the States severally, and so far as these reserved rights are concerned, each State has the attributes of nationality. This is in accordance with the judg ment of the Supreme Court of the United States. Following Mr. MOTLEY S mode of reasoning, I might say that the Federal Constitution says not one word about being a nation, does not even use the word itself in a single instance. More than this, the Constitutional Convention, by vote, even struck the word " national " out of the Constitution, as having no place there. See p. 47, S. C. The power to exercise certain functions that are national was delegated by the States, and this power can be resumed by a vote of the States, acting as Federal or Con federate, through their legislatures or conventions. Mr. MOTLEY asserts that " the Constitution was not drawn up by the States, it was not promulgated in the name of the States, it was not ratified by the States. The States never acceded to it." By whom then was it drawn up, and promul gated, and ratified ? The true answer is, that it was drawn up by the Conven tion, each State sending its own delegates to it, each State voting upon it having an equal vote with the others, and thus was drawn up by the States and so declared, " Done in Con vention by the unanimous consent of the States present." If either the Convention or Congress promulgated it, the States promulgated it ; for in both those bodies the voting was by States. It was ratified by States, each State acting in and by a Convention. As to the declaration of Mr. MOTLEY that " the States never acceded to it," I have only to refer the reader to page 250, where it appears that WASHINGTON and FKANKLIN, &c., contradict the assertion of Mr. MOTLEY. As a matter of fact, each State, in order, acceded to the Constitution. Mr. MOTLEY asserts that the Constitution was ordained and established " by the people of the whole land in their aggregate capacity." This is a very extraordinary assertion. Does he mean that a majority of the people in the whole land, made it obligatory upon the people of any one State without its con sent ? What was the number of that majority ? Where is it to be found ? Did the adoption of the Constitution by nine 334 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. States, make it binding upon the four remaining ones ; upon Rhode Island and North Carolina, which, for two years or more, refused to " accede " to it ? The Constitution itself settles this question, Article VII. " The ratification of the Conventions of nine States shall be sufficient for the establish ment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the same" The word between shows that it was a Federal or Confederate act. In adopting the Federal Constitution, each State acted by itself and for itself. The States acted sever ally, and not in their aggregate capacity. It was the majority in each State that is, a majority in the Convention in each State that ratified it. Mr. MOTLEY quotes from the letter written by the Conven tion, recommending the Constitution, not to the people, as he incorrectly says, but to the States in Congress assembled : " We have kept steadily in view that which appeared to us the greatest interest of every true American, the consolidation of the Union, in which is involved our prosperity, safety, perhaps our national existence." A consolidated Union is one thing, a consolidated Government is quite another. The recom mendation b} the Convention of a consolidated Government might have weakened or destroyed the Union. He then quotes from PATRICK HENRY S speech, which he uttered under a misapprehension : " That this is a consolidated Government, is demonstrably clear. The language is we the people, instead of we the States. It must be one great con solidated National Government." Mr. MOTLEY does not quote the reply of Mr. MADISON, in which he corrects the misapprehension of Mr. HENRY. After saying that the proposed Government is not entirely Consoli dated nor entirely Federal, he goes on to say : " Who are the parties to it ? The people ; but not the people as composing one great body ; but the people as composing thirteen sove reignties. Were it, as the gentleman asserts, a consolidated Government, a consent of a majority of the people would be sufficient ; and as a majority have adopted it (eight States) already, the remaining States would be bound by the act of the majority, even if they unanimously reprobated it. Were it such a Government as is suggested, it would be now binding PERVERSION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 335 on the people of this State, without having had the privilege of deliberating on it. But no State is bound by it without its own consent. Should all the States adopt it, it will then be a Government established by the Thirteen States of America ; not by the Legislatures, but by the people (of each State) at large." This reply of Mr. MADISON, a leading member of the Fed eral Convention, appears to have satisfied the " Forest born Demosthenes " on this point ; and ought to satisfy Mr. MOT LEY. Mr. MADISON himself, Mr. PENDLETON, the President of the Virginia Convention, Governor RANDOLPH, GEORGE MASON, as well as Mr. HENEY, were opposed to a consolidated Govern ment ; and Mr. MADISON showed distinctly that " we the people " meant the people in the several States, acting separately, fed erally, and not the " people in the aggregate." Mr. MOTLEY also says : u The Constitution was not a compact. Who ever heard of a compact to which there were no parties ? Or who ever heard of a compact made by a single party with himself? " If the above statement of Mr. MADISON is not sat isfactory on this point, as it ought to be, I would refer him to leading statesmen in Massachusetts, and of the country at large. Or I would refer him to the Dictionary of Dr. NOAH WEBSTER. It should be borne in mind that Mr. WEBSTER was one of the original proposers of the present Federal Constitu tion, and was invited to New York by JOHN JAY, RUFUS KING, and others, to establish a newspaper to defend that Constitu tion, which he did with great ability. In his Dictionary, under the word " Federal," he says, " 2. Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between States and nations ; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agree ment ; as a federal government, such as that of the United States" See also the word " compact." Mr. MOTLEY also says, that Congress, under the old Federal Constitution or Articles of Confederation, " had no power to act on individuals." This is not true ; for it had power to act on individuals in certain cases, as may be seen, Article IX. He says, moreover, that under it (the old Constitution), "No insurrections could be suppressed." Under it, SHAY S insurrection was suppressed. What other insurrection was there? 336 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. He also says, " The same power which established the Con stitution may justly destroy it," namely, a " national conven tion, and then, the people voting in their primary assemblies." This is not a full or fair statement, coming, as it does, from one who, throughout the letter, magnifies the powers of the Federal Government, and underrates the reserved rights of the States. The true account of the matter is, that after the action of two thirds of the States, and the necessary action of Congress conse quent upon it, or the action of two thirds of both Houses of Congress, the States, either in State Conventions or in State Legislatures, have power to alter or " destroy the Constitu tion." The States created the Constitution and can " destroy it." Mr. MOTLEY says the President " knows nothing of States." And yet the States, by the Constitution, elect him to office, not the people, and by the same Constitution he is Commander-in- Chief " of the militia of the several States when called into the actual service of the United States." And yet, forsooth,- the President knows nothing of the States ! He says the Constitution " talked not of sovereign States." Neither does it talk of the sovereignty of the United States. The true and the fair statement is, that the States delegated to the United States the power to exercise sovereignty over certain subjects, and retain their sovereignty over all besides. The Constitution and the laws in pursuance thereof are the supreme law of the land ; and the laws of the State in pursuance of its own Constitution, are the supreme law of the State, so far as the reserved rights of the States extend. The United States cannot, without usurpation, take from the States severally their reserved rights, but the States can take from the United States the dele gated powers. Thus the States, in the language of the old logicians, are sovereign in esse as to the reserved rights, and sovereign in posse as to the delegated powers. In this way I might go on to show the errors which pre dominate in the letter, the many cases of false assertions, and also of the suggestio falsi, and of the suppressio veri. He has successfully sought for the graces of style, but he should have remembered that the reigning beauty, the prima venus, in history, is truth. I am aware that he can plead the authority PEKVERSION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION. 337 of Dr. SAMUEL JOHNSON, in defence of arbitrary power, in his " Taxation no Tyranny ; " both had their reward from their respective Governments, though Mr. MOTLEY S was much the largest, if regard be had to the merit of the two performances. From such writers as Mr. MOTLEY, and others who attempted to be more profound, certain editors and politicians, like parrots, caught up certain phrases, and, for a time, turned the attention of the people from the words of truth and soberness to deeds of usurpation and blood. They were taught that the Federal Constitution, as hitherto understood, was to be set aside, in its practical application, and that it means any thing that the ex igencies of the country, in the opinion of the President and Congress, require it to mean, thus allowing them to be despots. The people, by such sophistry, felt released from their obligations, and were prepared to yield to their passions that obedience which they ought to yield to the Federal Constitu tion. Had this state of things existed in classic lands, their writers would have declared that the fabled daughters of Night and Acheron, the Eumenides, the three Furies, careering through the air, had each breathed into the ears and the souls of multi tudes the malignity of their own fierce natures, inspiring them, the one, with revenge, the second with avarice, the third with lust. Thus inspired, they laughed to scorn the provisions of the Federal Constitution, which protect personal and private rights. Their language was, " Constitution or no Constitution, we are going to hunt out and punish traitors in the North." And seizing the torch and the chains of those three furies, they hurried over the land to discover and arrest and imprison sus pected persons, who were entirely innocent, against whom 110 charges were preferred. " The little bell " tinkled at Wash ington ; the order clicked along the wires of the telegraph ; spies and detectives, armed with arbitrary orders and revolvers, prostrating law and the constituted authorities, ruled lords para mount ; but paying then- homage to the Throne in "Washington. FEDERAL USURPATION. FREEDOM OF SPEECH ABRIDGED. The Federal Constitution declares, that Congress shall make 338 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. no law " abridging freedom of speech." Yet Mr. LINCOLN, who had sworn to support the Constitution, by his minions arrested men who had violated no law, but only expressed themselves in opposition to his policy. What does he, who has been called " the expounder of the Constitution," say about freedom of speech f " It is the ancient and undoubted prerogative of the people to canvass public measures, and the merits of public men. It is a home-bred right, a fireside privilege. It has been enjoyed in every house, cottage, and cabin of the nation. It is as un doubted as the right of breathing the air or walking on the earth. Belonging as it does to private life as a right, it belongs to public life as a duty ; and it is the last duty which those, whose representatives we are, shall find us to abandon. Aim ing at all times to be courteous and temperate in its use, except where the right itself is questioned, we shall place ourselves on the extreme boundary of our own right, and bid defiance to any arm that would move us from our ground. This high Con stitutional privilege we shall defend and exercise in all places, in time of peace, in time of war, and at all times. Living, we will assert it ; and, should we leave no other inheritance to our children, by the blessing of God we will leave them the inherit ance of free principles, and the example of a manly and inde pendent and constitutional defence of them." In violation of this right, the Administration, directly or indirectly, encouraged detectives, spies, and informers, through whose agency men were thrown into prison, and brought before military courts, only for criticising the policy of the Adminis tration, or the conduct of some of its employees. The case of this kind that attracted special notice, was that of CLEMENT L. YALLANDIGHAM. He was an able lawyer in Dayton, Ohio ; was a leading Member of Congress, an eloquent speaker, and was candidate for the office of Governor of Ohio. This emi nent citizen was taken from his house by armed soldiers ; was, in violation of the Constitution, tried by a court martial, " though he did not belong to the land or naval forces, nor to the militia in active service ; " was, by caprice or petty spite, varnished over with " loyalty," sentenced " to be placed in close confinement in some fortress of the United States." This FEDERAL USURPATION. FREEDOM OF SPEECH ABRIDGED. 339 sentence was changed by the jocose President into banishment into Confederate territory. This outrage created great indig nation among intelligent, right-minded, law-abiding people, though it was approved by the advocates of military despotism. A meeting was held in Albany, May 16, 1863, which adopt ed resolutions, that were sent to Mr. LINCOLN ; also, resolutions were adopted by the Democratic State Convention of Ohio, and sent to Mr. LINCOLN, which are quoted below. In those resolu tions they declare that there was, in his trial and banishment, a palpable violation of the provisions of the Constitution of the United States. 1. " Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for redress of griev ances." 2. " The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated ; and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the per sons and things to be seized." 3. a jNo person shall be held to answer for a capital or otherwise infamous crime, unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land and naval forces, or in the militia when in actual service, in time of war or public danger." 4. " In all cases of criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy public trial by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been com mitted, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law." " And we furthermore denounce said arrest, trial, and ban ishment, as a direct insult offered to the sovereignty of the people of Ohio, by whose organic law it is declared that no person shall be transported out of the State for any offence committed against the same." And how does President LINCOLN reply to these two com munications from Albany and Ohio ? He replies in two letters, not as a statesman, not as a Constitutional lawyer, but just as 340 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. if he must say something, and knew not what to say. "What he says is chiefly made up of what the dictionary calls " twad dle," which is defined as " silly talk." The Supreme Court of the United States has since decided that such military arrests, and trials, and punishments, are un constitutional. If Mr. LINCOLN did not know this before, he was an ignorant man. If he did know it before, and still did the act, directly or indirectly, he was a perjured man, and a tyrant. At that military trial, what was the pretended crime of which Mr. VALLANDIGHAM was guilty ? Why, forsooth, that he had violated Order 38 of General BURNSIDE, the hero of Fred- ericksburg ! This arbitrary order abridged freedom of speech. Mr. YALLANDIGHAM S opinions as to his rights come out to his honor, as gold tried in the furnace ; Mr. LINCOLN S opinions come out as dross, to his disgrace. FREEDOM OF THE PRESS ABRIDGED. That portion of the Constitution which guarantees the " free dom of the press " has already been quoted. That freedom had always been enjoyed ever since the adoption of the Constitu tion, and before, in peace and war, and at all times, as a right to which a free people are entitled, and as indispensable to the existence of free institutions. Editors and writers generally have felt justified in discussing and criticising the measures of Government freely, and in advocating such measures as they believe would be conducive to the common weal. Contrary to this provision of the Constitution, this " freedom of the press " was abridged in a multitude of cases. August 16, 1861, the Grand Jury in the city of New York presented, in the Circuit Court in the city of New York, the Journal of Commerce, the Daily News, the Day-Book, the Freeman s Journal, papers published in New York, and the Eagle, a paper published in Brooklyn, on the charge that they were aiders and abettors of treason. " The conduct of these disloyal papers," they say, " is of course condemned and ab horred by all loyal men ; but the Grand Jury will be glad to FREEDOM OF THE PEESS ABRIDGED. 341 learn from the Court that it is also subject to indictment and condign punishment." If this jury were men of common intelligence, they knew already that these presses were not " subject to indictment and condign punishment." Why hypocritically pretend ignorance \ The duty of the Grand Jury is to inquire into crimes and offences against the laws of the State or of the United States. This jury knew, if they were men of common intelligence, that there was no law of the United States against these presses doing in substance the very same thing that they themselves did, in publishing the views that they did publish in this pre sentment. And if they were not men of common intelligence, they could have obtained the necessary information from the District Attorney. The truth seems to be, that they, from political motives, were disposed to magnify their office beyond its legitimate boundaries, and, by an appeal to popular feeling, to widen and deepen the abhorrence of which they speak against men as patriotic as themselves. It is not known to the author that the Court gave them information on the subject. On the 22d of August, 1861, six days after the present ment of the Grand Jury, the Postmaster-General, MONTGOMERY BLAIR, in his disloyalty to the Federal Constitution, by an arbitrary act, directed the postmaster of the city of New York to receive into the mail none of the papers thus presented by this officious Grand Jury of New York, " as dangerous from their disloyalty." May 19, 1864, the Secretary of War, Mr. STANTON, with his well-known disregard of law and right, acting on bis own authority, or that of the President, ordered the soldiery in New York to seize the offices of the New York Journal of Com merce and of the New York World, and hold them, and also to put the editors in a military prison. Acordingly, these military men obeyed the order in regard to the offices, and held them several days ; but the order to imprison the editors was so out rageous, that it was not executed. The pretence on this occasion upon which this was done, may be understood by the following letter from Governor HORATIO SEYMOUR. (These editors had innocently published a hoax on the President.) 342 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVEESY. " To A. OAKEY HALL, District Attorney for the County of New York: " SIK : I am advised that, on the 19th instant, the office of the New York Journal of Commerce, and that of the New York World, were entered by armed men, the property of the owners seized, and the premises held by force for several days. It is charged that these acts of violence were done without due legal process, and without the sanction of State or National authority. If this be true, the offenders must be punished. . . . Unless all are made secure in their rights of person and property, no one can be protected. If the owners of the above- named journals have violated State or National laws, they must be proceeded against and punished by those laws. Any action against them outside of legal proceedings is criminal. At this time of civil war and disorder, the majesty of the law must be upheld, or society will sink into anarchy. " I call upon you to look into the facts connected with the seizure of the Journal of Commerce and the New York World. If these acts were illegal, the offenders must be punished. In making these inquiries, and in prosecuting the parties impli cated, you will call upon the sheriff of the county, and the heads of the police department, for any needed force or assist ance. The failure to give this, by any official under my con trol, will be deemed a sufficient cause for his removal." The following is a part of Judge RUSSELL S charge to the jury in regard to this matter : " The first part of the order (relating to the imprisonment of the editors) was never fully executed. The latter part was, and the forcible possession maintained several days. The au thor of the fraud, it is said, has been discovered, and the news papers in question have been exonerated from all suspicion of guilt or blame. If this be so, this is an instance of innocent men being summarily interfered with, or trespassed upon, in the sanctity of their persons and property. As such, it is a violation of both the Federal and the State Constitutions, and it is your duty to examine into it." The jury, thus charged, refused to examine into the subject, m violation of their duty, and their oaths ! After a few clays, UNCONSTITUTIONAL EMANCIPATION. 343 the papers were allowed to be published ; but without any apology or remuneration to the editors who were injured in their property and personal rights. Each of them spoke from the press, in a voice that must have made the ears of the Presi dent and of his minions tingle, unless they were " like the deaf adder that stoppeth her ear." While high officials, in violation of their oaths, were abridg ing the " freedom of the press," rnobs were excited to do the same. On the 24th of August, 1861, a body of men went from Bridgeport, ten miles to Stepney, in the town of Monroe, and by violence dispersed a peace-meeting, took possession of the platform erected for the occasion, appointed ELIAS HOWE for chairman, and P. T. BAKNUM, the showman, secretary. Hav ing passed certain denunciatory resolutions, they returned to Bridgeport, bearing in triumph the peace-flag. Here, between sundown and dark, after listening to an harangue by the said BARNUM, in front of the Sterling House, they went to the print ing office of the Bridgeport Farmer, smashed in the doors, broke to pieces what they could find in the establishment a three-story building threw out of the window presses, types, cases, fixtures, paper, &c. All this was done in the presence of two or three thousand people, and no effort was made to stop the work of destruction. The Mayor and police found it convenient to be out of the way until the miscreants had accomplished their work. These shameful outrages, be it remembered, were committed in the respectable city of Bridgeport, in the land of steady habits, where the people profess to live under a Government of laws. These are but specimens of the spirit of anarchy and mob rule, and Executive misrule, which disgraced the dominant party. UNCONSTITUTIONAL EMANCIPATION. On September 22d, 1862, President LINCOLN issued a procla mation, prospective in its operation, namely: "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State, or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall 23 344: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free ; and the Executive Govern ment of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they make for their actual free dom. "That the Executive will, on the first day of January afore said, by proclamation, designate the States, or parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof respectively shall then be in rebellion against the United States ; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto, at an election wherein the qualified voters shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not in rebellion against the United States." As none of the States, or portions of the States referred to, adopted the terms dictated by the President, he, on the 1st of January, 1863, issued a proclamation containing the following : " And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforth shall be, free ; and that the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons." On the 11 th of December, 1862, before the issue of the threatened proclamation, Mr. YEAMAN, of Kentucky, in the House, brought in a resolution that the proclamation of the 22d of September was not constitutional,- and was inexpedient ; which was laid on the table by the majority. On the 15th of the same month, Mr. S. C. FESSENDEN, of Maine, brought for ward resolutions that the said proclamation was constitutional and expedient. These resolutions were passed. It is remark able that in both cases no debate was allowed by the majority ! There is a " tyranny aggregate, as well as a tyranny sole." For a time. Congress and the President were competitors for the prize in the race of despotism. UNCONSTITUTIONAL EMANCIPATION. 345 It is very remarkable that this unconstitutional assumption of despotic power should be attempted by Mr. LINCOLN, who, in his inaugural address on the 4th of March, 1861, declared : " I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." He also, in his interview with the deputation from the religious denominations in Chicago, used the following language : " What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, espe cially as we are now situated ? I do not want to issue a docu ment that the whole world will see must be necessarily inopera tive, like the Pope s bull against the comet." That the proclamation of the President was unconstitu tional, is proved by the fact that the President and his party of despotism found it necessary to change the Constitution ~by a vote of three fourths of the States in order to make emancipa tion of the slaves valid. As a lame apology for Mr. LINCOLN, it may be that he did it under u pressure," to use his own expression ; or, to use the expression of his friend, Mr. RICHARDSON, in the Plouse, August 1, 1861 : " I am afraid that he has not the will to stand up against the wily politicians who surround him, and knead him to their purposes" Mr. LINCOLN, in the proclamation, calls himself " THE EX ECUTIVE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES." Who made him the Government ? He also speaks of " the military and naval authority." The army and navy are the mere agencies of the civil authority, but are no authority themselves. The whole proclamation is but the language of usurpation, the language of a despot. A proclamation of the President of the United States may declare what the law is, but it cannot make law. He deceived multitudes into the support of an abolition war, and, after he had strongly committed them by contributions of men and money and votes, cast off the mask in which he had played the juggler s part. And in justification of Mr. LINCOLN acting a double part, some of the radical abolitionists attributed the success of the Federal armies to the negro soldiers obtained by emancipation ; as if the white soldiers of the North were inferior to the soldiers of the Confederate States. The wor- 346 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. shipped negro was represented by some of his votaries as supe rior in soldierly qualities to the whites. UNCONSTITUTIONAL LEGAL-TENDER BILL. There is no power delegated in the Federal Constitution to " emit bills of credit," and make them " legal tenders." A proposition was made in the Federal Convention to delegate that power, and it was voted down by nine States voting aye and two States voting nay. The country had suffered enough by " continental money and legal tenders," and the States re fused to delegate the power. HAMILTON declares that Con gress have not the power. WEBSTER says : " No State not even Congress itself can make any thing a tender but gold and silver in the payment of debts." CALHOUN takes the same ground. On February 6, 1862, the House voted to authorize the issue of one hundred and fifty million dollars of Treasury notes, " which shall be lawful money, and a legal tender in the payment of public and private debts within the United States." The bill in which this was included became a law by the vote of the Senate and the signature of the President. Of this law, Judge GRIER, of the United States Court, says : " As this is the first act in which this high prerogative of sovereignty has been exercised (by the Federal Legislature), it should be construed strictly. It is doubtful in policy, and dan gerous as a precedent." Thus a political party, that for years had shown but little regard for the constitutional rights of the Southern States, by the legal-tender act, as by other acts, showed they had no regard for the Constitution itself. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSCRIPTION BILL. DECISION OF JUDGE G. W. WOODWARD IN RESPECT TO THE CONSCRIPTION ACT OF MARCH 3, 1863. 1. " The Constitution of the United States recognizes only two sorts of military land forces, viz., the militia, and the < regular or standing army. THE UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONSCEIPTION BILL. 347 2. " The Conscription Act of March 3, 1863, is not founded on that clause of the Constitution which provides for calling forth the militia, because the persons drafted under the act are not to be armed, organized, and disciplined under the militia law, nor are they called forth under State officers, as required by the Constitution. 3. " There is no power given to recruit the regular army by forced levies. This can only be done by voluntary enlistments. 4. " The mode of * raising armies by forced recruiting, for the suppression of rebellion or insurrection, is not authorized by the Constitution, because such cases are expressly provided for by the power therein given for calling out the dormant forces, or militia. 5. " The Constitution authorizes c levies of the militia of the States in its organized form in cases of rebellion and inva sion, but in no other case or mode than is therein provided. 6. " The mode of coercion provided for this purpose by the Act of March 3, 1862, is unconstitutional, because (1). " It is incompatible with the provisions of the Constitu tion relative to the militia. (2.) " It exhausts the militia force of the several States, which existed as an institution before the formation of the Fed eral Government, and was not only not granted away, but ex pressly reserved at the formation of the Constitution ; annuls the remedy for insurrection expressly provided by the Consti tution, and substitutes a new one not therein provided for ; and converts into National forces, as part of the regular army of the General Government, the whole militia force of the States, not on the contingency therein provided for, nor in the form therein prescribed, but entirely irrespective thereof. (3.) " It incorporates into this new National force every civil officer of the State except the Governor, and every officer of its social institutions and military organization within the pre scribed age ; thus subjecting the civil, social, and military organizations of the State to the Federal power to raise armies. (4). " It provides for a thorough fusion of the army and militia two forces which are kept distinct by the Constitution by investing the President with power to assign the soldiers obtained by the draft to any corps, regiment, or branch of ser vice, at his pleasure. 348 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. (5.) " It subjects the citizen to the rules and articles of war before he is in f actual service, and proposes to effect this pur pose by merely drawing his name from a wheel, and serving notice of that fact upon him. " The great vice of the Conscript Law is, that it is founded on an assumption that Congress may take away, not the State rights of the citizen, but the security and foundation of his State rights. And how long is civil liberty expected to last, after the securities of civil liberty are destroyed ? The Consti tution of the United States committed the liberty of the citizen in part to the Federal Government, but expressly reserved to the States and the people all that it did not delegate. It gave to the General Government a standing army, but it left to the States their militia. Its purpose in all this balancing of powers was wise and good ; but this legislation disregards these distinc tions, and upturns the whole system of the Government, when it converts the State militia into National forces, and claims to use and govern them as such." A bill of a like character was brought into Congress in the war of 1812, designed to take from the States their rights over the milita, reserved to them in the Federal Constitution. But it was opposed by some of the ablest men in Congress, among whom was Judge DAGGET, afterwards Chief-Justice of Con necticut, on substantially the same ground as that taken by Judge WOODWARD ; and the bill failed to pass. ARBITRARY ARRESTS BY ORDER OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN. The Constitution provides that " no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." It declares that " the right of the people to be secure in their per sons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particu larly describing the place to be searched, and the persons and things to be seized." It also declares that, "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right of a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury." ARBITRARY ARRESTS BY ORDER OF PRESIDENT LINCOLN. 349 In violation of these provisions of the Federal Constitution, hundreds of men were seized in their homes, were hurried off to another State, were imprisoned upon bare suspicion, or from malice or party spirit, by some swaggering provost-marshal, or some creature in the shape of an army officer, acting under authority from Mr. LINCOLN. They were kept in prisons for weeks and months and years, without any charges being brought against them ; and sometimes dismissed without even having been informed why they were thus abused and op pressed. Even members of the Legislature of Maryland, on then- way to the seat of the Legislature, were arrested without law, and imprisoned. And when, in the Senate of the United States, a resolution was brought to inquire by what authority such arrests were made, a majority of that body, recreant to their duty as sworn defenders of civil liberty under the Consti tution, opposed the resolution. Thus they encouraged des potism. The following, from an address delivered by Hon. GEORGE TICKNOR CURTIS, author of the well-known " History of the Constitution of the United States," presents the true view of the matter : " I use the language deliberately I affirm that, when the Constitution repeated the words of Magna Charta, not as a statute, but as a fixed provision of fundamental law, and declared that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, and property, without due process of law, it meant to make a rule for all time and all circumstances, shutting the door for ever against any supposed public necessity for violating the rights of the citizen. In like manner, I affirm that, when the Constitution reserved to the States or the people all political powers not granted to the Federal Government, it meant to preclude every ground of necessity for the assumption by that Government of the powers thus withheld." He adds, in a note : " It is, in my opinion, a monstrous fallacy to suppose that the implied authority for suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus warrants indefinitely the arrest and de tention of citizens, without judicial process. This implied authority was given in the original Constitution. But after the adoption of that instrument, the people came forward and annexed to it the prohibitions of Magna Charta, making that 350 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. provision a part of the supreme law. The two clauses of the Constitution must, therefore, be so construed and applied as not to render nugatory the one last adopted, and so as to give effect to its stringent declarations." As a practical comment on the above, Secretary SEWARD, it is said, in a conversation with Lord LYONS on the 14th of Sep tember, used the following language : " I can touch a bell on my right hand, and order the arrest of a citizen of Ohio. I can touch the bell again, and order the arrest of a citizen of New York. Can Queen Victoria do as much ? " Here we have the essence of despotism, and a boast of it. REPEAL OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE LAWS. June 13, 1864, the House passed a bill repealing the Fugi tive Slave Law passed in 1793, in the administration of WASH INGTON ; and also the Fugitive Slave Law passed in 1850, in the administration of FILLMORE. This bill was passed in the Sen ate, June 22, 1864. No other law was passed to carry out the provision of the Constitution in regard to fugitive slaves. This act of Congress justified the truth of the charges brought against the Northern States, namely, that they were unwilling to carry out the provision of the Constitution for the benefit of the Southern States. On June 9, 1864, slavery was, by the vote of the Senate, prohibited in the territories of the United States ; and on June 17, the House concurred. This legislation was in violation of the Federal Constitution, and the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States. The following extract from a sermon preached in opposition to the Fugitive Slave Law shows the spirit that prevailed to a considerable extent in 1850 : " In conclusion, therefore, my application of the subject is : Disobey this law. If you have ever dreamed of obeying it, repent before God, and ask His forgiveness." " But if a fugitive claim your help on his jour ney, break the law and give it him." " Feed him, clothe him, harbor him by day and by night, and conceal him from his pur suers, and the officers of the law." This sermon, preached by UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF INDEMNITY. 351 Rev. CHARLES BEECHER, Newark, New Jersey, is entitled, " The Duty of Disobedience to Wicked Laws." This is only a sam ple of the stuff then in the market. UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT OF INDEMNITY, PASSED JANUARY 28, 1863. So many were the unconstitutional acts of Mr. LINCOLN, injuring private individuals, that, to protect him and his agents against suits at law, to which they were exposed, Congress passed the above-named Indemnity Act. While this was pend ing, thirty-six members of the House signed a protest against the Act, a portion of which is as follows. They protest against the passage of the bill : " 1. Because it purports to deprive the citizen of all exist ing, peaceful, legal modes of redress for admitted wrongs, and thus constrains him tamely to submit to the injury inflicted, or to seek illegal and forcible remedies. " 2. Because it purports to indemnify the President, and all acting under his authority, for acts admitted to be wrongful, at the expense of the citizen upon whom the wrongful acts have been perpetrated, in violation of the plainest principles of jus tice, and the most familiar precepts of constitutional law. " 3. Because it purports to confirm and make valid, by act of Congress, arrests and imprisonments which were not only not warranted by the Constitution of the United States, but were in palpable violation of its express prohibitions. " 4. Because it purports to authorize the President, during this rebellion, at any time, as to any person, and everywhere throughout the limits of the United States, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus / whereas, by the Con stitution, the power to suspend the privilege of that writ is con fided to the discretion of Congress alone, and is limited to the place threatened by the dangers of invasion or insurrection." REMARKS. 1. SOVEREIGNTY OF THE STATES. SOVEREIGNTY, is the right of command. It is the correlative of Allegiance, the one im- 352 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. plying the other. A sovereign State is one that is indepen ,dent, and has the right of command in its own territory, and claims the allegiance of the citizens. The thirteen colonies were allowed, by their charters or otherwise, to exercise some of the rights of sovereignty ; still, though practically sovereign to a large extent, they were not sovereign, but owed allegiance to the British Crown, as having the right of command. On the 4th of July, 1776, they, in conjunction, made the " Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen States of America in Congress assembled," by which each colony, acting by itself and for itself, declared itself a " free and independent State." It is true that the colony of New Hampshire had, on the 5th of January, 1776, virtually declared its independence, by adopting a constitution providing for self-government, and entire independence of the Crown. South Carolina, March 26, 1776, did substantially the same, its constitution leaving room for reconciliation with the mother country. Virginia, on the 29th of June, 1776, formed a constitution, by which she de clared herself, in like manner, free and independent. On the 2d of July, New Jersey adopted a constitution. Massachu setts, April 1, 1776, by her General Court, altered the style of writs, and other legal processes, by substituting " the people and Government of Massachusetts," instead of " George the Third ; " thus claiming sovereignty for the colony. On May 4, Rhode Island directed that the oath of allegiance be taken to the colony ; thus asserting her sovereignty. New York, on the 9th of July, 1776, authorized her delegates to declare the colony a free and independent State ; and thus asserted her own sovereignty. Thus each State asserted its own indepen dence in its own time. A letter from JOHN ALSOP, a member of the Continental Congress from New York, to a member of the Assembly in that State, puts the matter in its true light. PHILADELPHIA, June 16, 1776. " Yesterday, our President, JOHN HANCOCK, read in Con- REMARKS. 353 gress a resolve of your honorable body, dated the 9th, in which you declare New York a free and independent State." Thus each of the thirteen colonies became a free and independent State, claiming the allegiance of its citizens, and armed with authority to punish treason against itself; six before the 4th of July, six on the 4th, and one on the 9th of July. In November, 1777, a FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, or Articles of Confederation, was proposed, and was finally adopted March, 1781 ; so that, for five years nearly, each of the States was sov ereign, and exercised the rights of sovereignty in the fullest sense. They acted in conjunction with each in contributing men and supplies for the army ; just as they acted in conjunc tion when they made the Declaration of Independence. They were called United States, just as they were called United Colonies while they were still subject to the mother country, and before each had declared itself a free and independent State. There was unity of action for a common object, by their delegates in Congress ; but each State retained its sov ereignty. By this Federal Constitution, adopted in 1781, they " dele gated " to the United States in Congress assembled, the power to exercise certain rights of sovereignty which they possessed ; that is, they empowered Congress, as their agent, to act for them in certain matters ; just as one may employ an agent or attorney to act for him in certain matters, without giving him any power on other matters. " Sovereignty is indivisible." Sovereignty, strictly consid ered, cannot be delegated / as may be understood, exvi termini, from the very meaning of the term " delegate." But the power to exercise certain rights of sovereignty can be delegated by a sovereign State ; while that State retains its sovereignty. " Delegated " power can be resumed at the will of the con stituent. Each sovereign State was the constituent. The United States was the delegate. Therefore, in perfect accordance with the nature of " sov ereignty," and with the nature of " delegated power," the legislatures of the several States, representing the people in 354: THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. those several States, in this old Federal Constitution, or Articles of Confederation, in which they delegate the power to exercise certain rights of sovereignty, placed the following article : " AETICLE 2. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States in Congress assembled." Thus the States severally delegated to the United States in Congress assembled the power to exercise certain rights of sov ereignty, some of these rights being of a high character ; while the States severally retained each its own sovereignty. " Sov ereignty can be abdicated, or surrendered, but it cannot be delegated." Allegiance was still due to the States. Treason, a crime against sovereignty, could be committed only against some one of the States. u The people " are mentioned in this old Constitution as people of the several States ; just as, before the " Declaration," " the people " were not the people of the colonies in the aggre gate, but of the colonies severally. The Government of Great Britain was one power, and the people of each colony was another power. The colony was the people, as afterwards the State was the people. Sovereignty resided in the States ; that is, in the people of the State. These States were now thirteen independent republics, thirteen sovereign nations, but united by their Federal Constitution in certain respects and for certain definite purposes ; so that the United States in Congress assem bled had some of the attributes of a national government, and could treat with foreign nations, as the agent of the several States. Accordingly, on the 3d of November, 1783, the Federal Government formed a treaty with Great Britain, in which the following is the first article : " His Britannic Majesty acknowl edges the United States, namely : New Hampshire, Massachu setts Bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecti cut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Mary land, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, tO be FREE, SOVEREIGN, AND INDEPENDENT STATES ; and that for himself, his heirs and successors, he relinquishes all claim to the REMARKS. 355 government, property, and territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof." They had claimed to be " sovereign States " in the treaty of alliance or compact between themselves, and now they were acknowledged, by those who knew what sovereignty is namely, the British ministry to be SOVEREIGN STATES. They had dele gated to their agent, the United States in Congress assembled, the power to exercise certain rights of sovereignty, but they were sovereign still ; they could resume the exercise of those rights, though the " Articles " declared that the union formed by it was to be " perpetual." This Constitution, or Articles, contained no provision for amendment, except by a vote of all the States. Some of the States, having become dissatisfied with this old Federal Constitution, at a meeting of the States held in 1787, a new Federal Constitution was formed by them, or a portion of them, was adopted by a portion of them in 1788, and went into operation in 1789. They resumed the powers delegated in the old Federal Constitution. In the framing, in the adopting, in the carrying out, by the organization of the Government, the States are the only actors. Congress, appointed by States, and voting by States, recommended the calling of a Convention. The members of the Convention were appointed by States, and the voting in the Convention was by States. The new Federal Constitution framed in that Convention was adopted by States that is, by the people of the several States. The members of Congress under the new Constitution, thus ratified, were appointed by the States, each State determining who should be voters. The Senate was appointed by the States, namely, by a vote of the several legislatures. The President was appointed by the States, each State voting only for electors. If the electors failed to make choice of a President, the House in Congress makes the appointment, Congress voting by States. Thus the sovereign States delegated powers to a new agent. In this new Federal Constitution the States delegated more powers to the Federal Government which it created than they did in the old Federal Constitution, and reserved fewer powers to themselves ; yet, in one important respect, they reserved 356 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. more power to themselves in the new Constitution. Three fourths of the States can amend or abolish the new or present Federal Constitution, while only the whole number of States could amend that. The legislatures or conventions of three fourths of the States can abolish the present Federal Constitu tion, while under this Constitution the United States have no power to abolish a State constitution. They can dissolve the union or confederacy, but the confederacy or union cannot blot a State out of existence. We are now prepared to see what is the full meaning of the * following article of the Constitution : " The powers not dele gated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." The word " people " here means the people of the States respectively. Thus we see that the several States, in virtue of the powers reserved to them, are sovereign, and can exercise each its sov ereignty ; can, by its own constitution, provide for the punish ment of treason committed against itself. The Federal Consti tution recognizes treason against a State as a crime. Besides being sovereign in respect to reserved rights, the States are sovereign in respect to delegated powers, inasmuch as they can constitutionally resume them. The legislatures of three fourths of the States can resume the powers delegated to the Federal Government, and exercise those powers themselves. The Federal Government has no inherent sovereignty, but only the delegated power to exercise sovereignty in certain cases or over certain subjects, which power it can hold only during the pleasure of the States. It is in its very nature dependent on the States for its existence. If the States refuse to appoint senators, or presidential electors, the Government must cease to exist. If the States, or three fourths of them, should resume the powers delegated, it would cease to exist. The Federal Government is not an integer, as the British Government is, but is the fraction of an integer. A State gov ernment is not an integer, but the fraction of an integer. Each is supreme in its own sphere ; the one in the sphere of dele gated powers, the other in the sphere of reserved rights. These two fractional governments, added together, make an REMARKS. 357 integer, or one government, as complete as the British Govern ment. Each of these governments derives its binding force in each of the States, from the sovereign people of that State, who delegated certain powers to the Federal Government to be exercised by that agency, and retained all the other rights of an independent government, to be exercised by its own agent, the State Government. The eminent statesmen of the land, the constitutions of many of the States, and the writings of able politicians, all recognize the doctrine of the sovereignty of the States. Thus the Constitution of Massachusetts contains the following affirma tion of the doctrine : " The people of this commonwealth have the sole and exclusive right of governing themselves, as a free, SOVEREIGN, and independent State, and do and forever hereafter shall exercise and enjoy every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not or may not hereafter be by them EXPRESSLY dele gated to the United States." Mr. CLAY : " What is the nature of this Government ? It is emphatically Federal vested with an aggregate of specific powers for general purposes, conceded by existing sovereignties, who have themselves retained what is not conceded." VIRGINIA, by her Assembly, in 1798, among other resolu tions of the same character, passed the following : " The Con stitution of the United States was formed by the sanction of the States, given by each in its sovereign capacity. It adds to the stability and dignity as well as the authority of the Constitu tion, that it rests on this legitimate and solid foundation. The States, then, being parties to the constitutional compact, and in their sovereign capacity, it follows of necessity that there can be no tribunal above their authority, in the last resort, on such questions as may be of sufficient magnitude to require their interposition. The authority of constitutions over governments, and of the sovereignty of the people over the constitution, are truths which are at all times necessary to be kept in mind." See pp. 44, 45. BOUNDARY BETWEEN DELEGATED POWERS AND RESERVED RIGHTS. The powers delegated respect chiefly what is exter nal : as treaties with foreign nations, war, peace, commerce, 358 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. and what could not be settled by the individual States, as coin ing money, weights and measures, postal service. These re served rights respect all beside what is internal : as titles to property, the descent of estates, morals, education, religion. As the Federal Constitution forms the boundary between the delegated powers and the reserved rights, the Federal Govern ment is not only bound not to pass that boundary, but to show that it does not pass that boundary. The onus probandi, the burden of proof, rests on it to show that it has authority for what it does. When the boundary is doubtful or obscure, it must always be careful not to transgress it. In a given case of transgression by a Federal enactment, there is no obligation to obey it, either on the part of States or individuals. THE TRANSGRESSION OF THE BOUNDARY DELEGATED POWERS. If the executive branch of the Federal Government should deliberately, plainly, palpably transgress this boundary, it becomes the duty of the legislative branch to object to this transgression ; and, if the case can be made to assume a suit at law, it is the duty of the judicial branch to declare the act to be unconstitutional. If the legislative branch should deliber ately, plainly, palpably transgress this boundary, it then be comes the duty of the executive to object to this transgression ; and, if the case can be made to assume a suit at law, it is the duty of the judicial branch to declare the law unconstitutional and null. If the legislative and the executive should, under the influence of party spirit, or for any reason, unite in the transgression, it then becomes the duty of the judicial branch, if the case can be made to assume a suit at law, to declare the law or the act unconstitutional and null. If the three branches should conspire to transgress, deliber ately, plainly, palpably, the boundary of delegated powers, it then becomes the duty of the States to place themselves on their reserved rights, and interpose objections ; just as, in one way or another, Virginia did in 1798 ; Kentucky did in 1798 ; Massachusetts did, at different times ; as Connecticut did ; as South Carolina did. The protest of a single State ought to have influence to correct the error, as it did when General JACKSON was President. REMAKES. 359 But the true, the appropriate remedy for all dangerous en croachments of the Federal Government upon the reserved rights of States, and of the people of the States, is that pro vided by the Federal Constitution, namely, the amendment of the Constitution itself. That instrument contains no prohibi tion against any State s resuming the powers which it delegated to the Federal Government ; no grant of power to coerce a State to remain in the Union contrary to its interests or its decisions ; but it does provide for its own amendment, that it may thus continue to be a bond of union between the States, by preventing all collisions between the States and the Federal Government. It is a historical fact, that the Federal Constitution would never have been adopted by several of the leading States, such as Virginia, Massachusetts, and New York, unless with the understanding that important amendments would be made to it. Mr. JEFFERSON, that most sagacious statesman, proposed that the Constitution should be so amended that Louisiana could constitutionally belong to the Union. The Hartford Conven tion proposed that eight amendments be made to the Constitu tion. In 1860- 61, when the Southern States were dissatisfied with the aggressions of the Northern States upon their rights, Mr. CRITTENDEN, and afterwards the Peace Congress, proposed certain amendments to the Federal Constitution, as healing measures. These amendments were most unfortunately reject ed. By rejecting them, the Republican party rejected the means provided by the framers of the Federal Constitution for preserving the peace and union of the States, and thus took the responsibility and the blame as to the deplorable consequences which followed. Instead of amending the Constitution, they chose to violate it. Some of them, from political ambition and political hatred, appear to have been willing to injure those whom they hated ; and then, in accordance with the remark of the philosophic Roman historian, they, in turn, hated those whom they had injured, even to this day. 2. CHANGE OF INTERPRETATION. Massachusetts had always been distinguished for her strenuous maintenance of Colony rights and State rights, against the encroachments of Regal 24 360 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. and Federal authority. When the present Federal Constitu tion was brought before the State Convention for adoption, it proposed nine^mendments, most of them designed to limit the power of the Federal Government, and to increase the reserved rights of the States. JOHN HANCOCK and SAMUEL ADAMS were always stanch supporters of State rights. So were the leading men of the State generally, until about 1830. About that time there were several causes in operation to produce a change in the opinions of some of the leading men. As the State had taken the highest ground of State rights, against the Federal Government, in defence of her commerce, so it need not seem strange that she should oscillate into the other extreme of exaggerating Federal authority, for protecting her manufactures ; especially as her pride had been gratified by having her son, JOHN QUINCY ADAMS, placed at the head of that government, himself in favor of a broad or loose con struction of the Constitution. As South Carolina and the Southern States had placed themselves on their reserved rights, in opposition to high tariffs, which were hostile to their interests, so Massachusetts characteristically placed herself on the delegated powers of the Federal Constitution, for the pro motion of her interests. NATHAN DANE had been an advocate of State rights ; had written in favor of the amendment of the Federal Constitution in 1793, in regard to the suability of the States ; was a member of the Hartford Convention, whicfr placed itself in opposition to the Federal Government on the reserved rights of the States. In his Appendix to his " General Abridgment of American Law" he has the following remark : " It is the State nulli fying doctrine, and State separation, which, at present, almost exclusively demand the serious attention of every friend of the Union." So " exclusively " did Mr. DANE look at the doctrine of nullification, that, instead of looking at the Federal Con stitution in order to understand and describe it as it is, he looked at it to find an argument against South Carolina nullification. Hence, instead of giving us solid truth, he exhibits, in his statements, political metaphysics and philologi cal distortions not much to the credit of his consistency. He REMARKS. 361 could bear Massachusetts nullification better than he could that of South Carolina. Thus, with all his learning and ability, he has been a false guide, leading some of the sensible men of Massachusetts astray from the old and safe paths in which their fathers walked. There was another Massachusetts man who exerted a wider and more decided influence by his learning, legal ability, and fascinating manners and conversation, namely, Judge STORY. After he went upon the bench of the Supreme Court of the United States, in the language of his son, " he proceeded upon a liberal construction of the Constitution, as creating a govern ment of efficiency and supreme powers over the United States." By a " liberal construction," he probably means such a con struction as would increase the delegated powers of the Gene ral Government, and diminish the reserved rights of the States. And by the " supreme powers over the United States," he may mean that the federal Government has supreme power over the reserved rights of the States. Some of the statements of Judge STORY lead to the impression that such was his opinion in regard to the " supreme powers over the United States." The fallacy of some of his statements may be seen in a review of his " Commentaries " by Judge UPSHTJR. The false or lax teachings of Judge STORY had an influence, especially upon the younger lawyers of Massachusetts, in leading them from the true views of the Constitution taught by former jurists and statesmen. They felt proud to follow such a leader, even when he was wrong. Mr. WEBSTER also, about the same time, swerved from his own view, or the true view of the nature of the Federal Gov ernment. In 1830, in a debate between himself, on the one hand, and Senators BENTON and HAYNE on the other, see p. 101, in speaking of the Federal Constitution, he says : "It is the original bargain, the compact / let it stand. Let the advantage of it be fully enjoyed. The Union is too full of benefits to be hazarded in propositions for changing its original basis. I go for the Constitution as it is, and for the Union as it is. But I am resolved not to submit, in silence, to accusations, either 362 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. against myself individually, or against the North, wholly unfounded and unjust ; accusations which impute to us a disposition to evade the constitutional compact, and to extend the power of the Government over the internal laws and domestic condition of the States." And yet, strange to say, Mr. WEBSTER, see p. 214, declares that the Constitution is not a " compact " between the people of the several States. It has been a matter of surprise that Mr. WEBSTER should have made this strange declaration. But it should be remembered that he made it in a discussion with Mr. CALHOTJN, a statesman of a highly trained logical mind, who might take advantage of any concession that he should make. Hence it was said of Mr. WEBSTER that, on that occa sion, " he denied first principles." At least he denied what afterwards he admitted. Besides the quotations from his speech at Capon Springs, in 1851, see p. 202, in which he calls the Constitution a " com pact," his speech before the " Young Men at Albany," May 28, 1851, furnishes several instances in which he does the same : " Now, under this state of things, gentlemen, when the Con stitution was framed, its framers, and the people who adopted it, came to a clear, express, unquestionable stipulation and compact" " Here was the constitutional compact >, nevertheless, still binding." " When called on to fulfil a, compact, the question is, will you fulfil it 2 " "If the compact of the Con stitution is fair, and was fairly entered into, it is none the worse, one would think, for its having been found useful." In his speech delivered before the " Reform Convention of Maryland" at Annapolis, March 25, 1851, he speaks of u the laws of Congress, passed to carry into effect the compacts of the Constitution" It was unfortunate for Mr. WEBSTER, in his discussion with Mr. CALHOUN, 1833, that he " appeared to deny first princi ples," and thus led some of his many admirers into errors con cerning the nature of the Federal Government. In the speech just mentioned, Mr. WEBSTER shows most fully that he was opposed to a consolidated government, and an advocate of State rights. Mr. CALHOUN showed up his inconsistency ; and in his later speeches he seems to have virtually admitted it, as REMARKS. 363 in the quotations above, and in the following : " In the lapse of years, and in the rising of one generation after another, it may possibly happen, and we are sure it does happen, that the exact principles of the union of these States are not always properly understood. It. may not be amiss to recur now to what I conceive to be the original principle upon which the Colonies were united ; the objects for which they were united ; and the limitations upon these objects. These thirteen colo nies, all of English origin, were settled on this continent at different times, and under different circumstances. They had differences of religious opinions ; they established differences of local law and administration ; they were, some of them, quite remote from one another, but they were all subject to the crown of England. And when, in the course of events, they all thought, and thought truly, they had just cause of complaint against the tyranny of England, their object was to unite in a common cause against a common enemy. How unite ? For what purposes unite ? For what ends unite ? Why, it never entered into their conceptions that they were to consolidate themselves into one integral government ; that they were to cease to be Virginia, Maryland, Massachusetts, and Carolina ; not at all. But they were to unite for those great purposes which would enable them to make a stand against the injustice of the English Government. They were to unite for the common defence and the general welfare. They were to come to an agreement upon things necessary for that pur pose, and nothing else. The objects of common defence and the general welfare, and afterwards the objects connected with commerce and revenue, which were important to all, were all they adopted as principles and objects of union and associa tion. Nothing beyond that. " As I have said, they had differences of religious opinions. Maryland, your Maryland, was settled as a Catholic country, always tolerant, always liberal, persecuting nobody. Virginia was rather inclined to the religious notions of the Episcopal Church of England. The people of the North were not only Protestants, but Dissenters. They were of the school of CROMWELL and Sir HENRY VANE. But what of that ? When all the colonies came together for the general purpose of 364: THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. defence against a common enemy, what did they do ? Did they seek to merge and confound and consolidate all these States into one great community? No such thing. They meant to unite upon those objects which were necessary for the common defence ; and they meant to leave every thing else in the control of the States, to do just as they thought proper. That was a day of liberality and justice. It was a day in which religious opinions produced no effect upon the general sentiments of the country, in regard to the association of the States for common objects. Why, sir, did any body at the North ; did any Protestant, descending from ancestors inherit ing the principles of CROMWELL or of HENRY VANE, whoever he was, feel any less confidence in the integrity and entire patriotism of CHARLES CARROLL, because he was a Catholic? Not at all. Nor did Maryland hesitate to accord the meed of patriotism, whenever it was due, to the ADAMSES, to ALEX ANDER HAMILTON, to RUFUS KING, or whoever else belonged to the North, because they were of different sentiments in religion. Their association was political. It was founded on general policy and union ; a sort of confederacy, at that time, to resist the common enemy, and to do what was necessary for the common good. Gentlemen, I hope, for one, never to see this original idea departed from. " Now we come to other propositions. There were differ ences of laws. The Southern States, without their own fault, by a course of events for which they were not responsible, had slavery established among them. Did not all the States know that ? Did they not deal with them upon that basis ? Did they not recognize that state of things? Entirely, entirely. That was a matter of local legislation, of State right and State administration, with which the North at that time had not the slightest inclination to interfere in any respect whatever ; and they ought not to have had, because it was one of those things that did not enter into the general scope of that political asso ciation which the colonies meant to establish." It is unfortunate for Mr. WEBSTER that in his celebrated debate with Mr. HAYNE, in which occurs some of the finest rhetoric, he should have taken up the refuted objection of PATRICK HENRY, an opposer of the Federal Constitution, and REMARKS. 365 should intimate tliat " we, the people of the United States," meant the people in the aggregate, and not the people of the several States. Probably Mr. WEBSTER saw his error, espe cially as it was pointed out in the Senate by EDWARD LIVING STONE. It was also unfortunate that in his debate with Mr. CALHOUN, he denied that the Federal Constitution is a com pact ; but this he afterwards admitted, as above. In his debate with Mr. HAYNE, Mr. WEBSTER showed him self, in his very able speeches, to be an accomplished rheto rician, particularly in his eulogy upon Massachusetts and the Union. In his debate with Mr. CALHOUN, 1833, in his very able speeches, he showed himself to be an able advocate and an acute logician. In the speeches delivered in the last years of his life, he showed himself to be a patriotic and broad- minded American statesman ; a light for the whole country. 3. Mr. DOUGLAS, in the Senate, March 15, 1861, said : " In my opinion, we must choose, and that promptly, between one of three lines of policy. "1. The restoration and preservation of the Union, by such amendments to the Constitution as will ensure the domestic tranquillity, safety, and equality of the States, and thus restore peace, unity, and fraternity to the whole country. " 2. A peaceful dissolution of the Union, by recognizing the independence of such States as refuse to remain in the Union, without such constitutional amendments, and the estab lishment of a liberal system of commercial and social inter course with them, by treaties of commerce and amity. " 3. War, with a view to the subjugation and military occupation of those States that have seceded, or may secede from the Union. " In my opinion, the first proposition is the best, and the last, the worst." Mr. HALE, in his speech, delivered on the 18th, was in favor of the second : " Instead of asking the States that have gone out to come back, he would request more to go out, who are not willing to stay in the Union as our fathers made it." The speech in which these alternatives are presented, was the last great speech of Mr. DOUGLAS in the Senate for the 366 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. preservation of the Union, and in opposition to war. Sc powerful were his arguments, that it was beyond the ability of his opponents to make an adequate reply. They accord ingly resorted to insulting personalities, the subterfuge of a certain class of minds, when they feel helpless at the bar of reason. This he distinctly charges upon Messrs. FESSENDEN, WILSON, and HALE. In the progress of the debate, Mr. DOUGLAS took occasion to say, that Mr. LINCOLN could not pursue a certain course without the authority of law, because, if he did, he would perjure himself, and that " he did not intend to perjure him self." If Mr. DOUGLAS had lived a few months longer, would he not have said that he did perjure himself? Educated in the school of WEBSTER and CLAY and CAL- HOUN and JACKSON, to understand the nature of our double government, the powers delegated to the Federal Union, and the rights reserved to the States, with his far-reaching mind, he could, as with a prophet s ken, see effects in their causes. Having done what a statesman and a patriot could do to save his country, he went home to die, and to leave as a legacy to his children his injunction : " TELL THEM TO SUPPORT THE CON STITUTION AND THE LAWS." 4. Mr. SEWARD, in the Senate, 1850, on the compromise measures, said : " We deem the principle of the law, for the recapture of fugitive slaves, unjust, unconstitutional, and im moral." After quoting the clause from the Constitution which requires the restoration of fugitive slaves, he went on to say : " This is from the Constitution of the United States, framed 1787, and the parties were the Republican States of the Union. The law of nations disavows such compacts ; the law of nature, written on the hearts and consciences of pure men, repudiates them. Armed powers could not enforce them, because there is no public conscience to sustain them." He here states what was the real difficulty, which was, not in the fugitive slave laws enacted by Congress, but the clause in the Constitution, " in pursuance of which " the laws were enacted. The conscience of the people in the free States was justly opposed to that clause, and therefore could not be car ried out ; this is his argument. REMARKS. 367 But if the conscience of the people in the slaveholding States required that it should be carried out, which conscience ought to prevail an unconstitutional conscience, or a constitu tional conscience ? This clause was vital to the formation of the Federal Constitution. See p. 22. And if the Northern States refused to carry it out, were not the Southern States released from their obligations to the constitutional compact ? Who helped to form that conscience ? Did not he who would now use it for his own party purposes ? Mr. SEWARD, as reported in the Senate, March 18, 1861, in a speech to a delegation from Illinois, about the time of the inauguration of President LINCOLN, used the following lan guage : " Formerly I called your attention away from the Union, when it was not in danger, to the principles of freedom, when they were in danger ; so now, having secured firmly the principles of freedom, as we Republicans understand them, I call your attention away from those principles, not in danger, to the Union, which is in danger ; and we must preserve the Union as the means of securing the triumph of those princi ples." i The Union was not in danger ? " The Union was in danger ; and a party arose called the " Union Party," which was ridiculed by the Republicans, and called, in derision, " Union Savers," because they believed the Union was in danger. Mr. SEWARD finally opened his eyes to the fact that the Union was in danger. A statesman ought to see effects in their causes ; he ought to have seen that he was, with others, putting causes into operation that would produce their legiti mate effects, namely, a separation of the States. He and others had put in their wedge between the States, and driven it with all the force which party machinery could apply ; and now, when seven States were rifted off, he opens his eyes to the discovery that the " the Union is in danger ! " And now, forsooth, the " Union must be preserved ; " and why ? That it may be the " means of securing the triumph of those principles," rather of the excited passions which he calls, by an abuse of terms, " principles." Here we have the con fession, that the Union must be preserved in order that the Republican party should triumph. 368 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. Here, too, we have disclosed the reason of the change of the name of the party, from that of "Kepnblican" to that of " Union ! " The sectional party, the disunion party, assumes to itself the name of the " Union party," to carry out Kepnb lican principles triumphantly. " The Liberty Party," " the Free Soil Party," " the Anti-slavery Party," " the Abolition Party," " the Republican Party," all become " the Union Party ; " as if men could be deceived by a name. Men were deceived, hurried into a war for " the Union," and came out of it only to find that they had been fighting for " disunion " as an end, by the use of means that must produce disunion in their effects. Having taken the name " Union," a name which they had ridiculed and despised, they were prepared to bestow the name of " Copperhead " upon all who were opposed to them. 5. LOOSE NOTIONS OF THE CONSTITUTION. Mr. LINCOLN, in his letter to A. G. HODGES, of Kentucky, April 4, 1864, said: " I did understand, however, that my oath to preserve the Constitution, to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that govern ment, that nation, of which the Constitution is the organic law. Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the Con stitution ? By general law, life and limb must be protected ; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life ; but a life is never wisely given up to preserve a limb. I felt that meas ures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful by be coming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and 1 now avow it" "We have in this case a sample of Mr. LINCOLN S reasoning. His mind was analogical, not logical, and hence he was led astray to make the worse appear the better reason, in this as in other cases. The analogy does not meet the case. He took an oath to " preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" This oath says nothing about the "nation" The word " nation " is not even in the Constitution, and was carefully excluded from it. Why does he introduce the word " Govern ment " in connection with his oath, when the oath says nothing EEMAEKS. 369 about the Government. Nor does the Constitution, in Article II., which describes the duties of the President, say one word about the "Government." It does not even contain the word. Thus it appears that Mr. LINCOLN avows that he violated the Constitution which he had sworn to " preserve, protect, and defend," and became a perjured man, in order that he might preserve the " Government " and the " nation," which he did not take an oath to preserve. The Constitution, in the words of that instrument, and the laws of the United States, " made in pursuance thereof" * * " shall be the supreme law of the land." That supreme law, in violation of his oath, Mr. LINCOLN saw fit to violate. It has been said of Shakespeare, that " a quibble was to him the fatal Cleopatra for which he lost the world, and was content to lose it." An analogy or a joke was Mr. LINCOLN S " fatal Cleopatra." With a similar inconsistency in his Inaugural Message, he speaks of the " people as his rightful masters." This is a very submissive declaration ; flattering in the extreme. How much sincerity was there in it ? In his last Annual Message, he says : " If the people should, by whatever means, make it an executive duty to recnslave such persons (namely, those whom he pretend ed to make free by his Emancipation Proclamation), another, and not I, must be the instrument to perform it." In the one message he flattered the people ; in the other he set them at defiance. In his proclamation, September 22, 1862, Mr. LINCOLN said : " And the Executive Government of the United States, includ ing the military and naval authority thereof." Where did Mr. LINCOLN find a justification of this language ? The Constitution created a government consisting of three branches : the Legisla tive, the Judicial, and the Executive. And it is just as absurd to call the Executive the Government of the United States, as it would be to call the Judicial branch the Government. In this use of language was Mr. LINCOLN an ignorant man, or a usurper ? It is true that others, in their desire to magnify the powers of the President, used similar language. They were willing to clothe him with dictatorial or regal power, in their frenzied love 370 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. of a " strong Government." From these sycophants he may have borrowed the improper phrase. He speaks of " the military and naval authority. " The army and the navy are only agents of the civil power, and have no authority in themselves. The civil power has no authority, except what is derived from the Federal Constitution. As he is the Commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, in this, as in the proclamation at large, he uses the language of a usurper. In contrast to Mr. LINCOLN S loose notions, read the follow ing declaration of General Jackson at the close of his Nullifica tion Proclamation : " It being shown to be the duty of the Executive to execute the laws by all constitutional means, it remains to consider the extent of those already at his disposal, and what may^be proper further to provide." WENDELL PHILLIPS could frankly say, " The Constitution of our fathers was a mistake. Tear it to pieces, and make a better." Mr. LINCOLN and his party tore it to pieces under pretence of saving it. In his Message, March 6, 1862, he says : " In my judgment, gradual, and not sudden emancipation is better for all." On September 22 of the same year he published his proclamation for " sudden emancipation." Loose notions of the Constitution became general, and extended to courts, as may be seen by many decisions. Thus the Constitution declares that " Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture, except during the life of the person so attainted." Under this provision, Judge JOHN C. UNDERWOOD, of the United States Court of Eastern Virginia, decided that all right is forfeited after the death of the person attainted, so that the children cannot inherit, after the death of the father ; thus setting philology, justice, and the Constitution aside. The judges, in many cases, seemed to consider it safer to make their decisions in accordance with the views of the Executive, who usurped power which belonged to the other departments of the Government, than to oppose those views by making their decisions in accordance with the Constitution. KEMAEKS. 371 " State necessity," a necessity created by themselves, was, by Mr. LINCOLN and his party, regarded as the measure of the Con stitution. Mr. JENNINGS, in his work, published in 1868, entitled, "Eighty Years of Republican Government in the United States" p. 54, makes this remark : " Any man who entered on the presidency with his mind imbued with the precepts of the Constitution and the teachings of the fathers, would ruin his cause and himself in a twelvemonth. 5 Mr. LINCOLN was not " imbued with precepts of the Con stitution, and the teachings of the fathers ; " and, moreover, he was determined not to ruin his party and himself. In his speech at Indianapolis, when on his way to Washing- tori to be inaugurated, he said : " By the way, in what consists the special sacredness of a State ? " " If a State and a country, in a given case, should be equal in extent of territory, and equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter of principle, is the State better than the country ? " The President elect here furnishes a specimen of his loose notions of the Federal Constitution created by the States. In his Message, July 4, 1861, he says : " Tested by this, no one of the States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty." Did he not know that, at least until 1788. the States were sovereign, and in the Articles of Confederation declared their sovereignty ? And again he says, " the Union was older than the States." But the Union was a union of States ; and how could a union of States be formed until after the States existed ? They could not act in forming a union until after they existed. These are but specimens of his loose notions of the Federal Constitution and Government. It should be added that, as soon as it became necessary that the powers vested in Congress or the President by the Con stitution should be increased, in order, apparently, to justify some act of usurpation or despotism, ingenious writers stood ready to prove, by metaphysical arguments, that the usurped and despotic powers were constitutional ; and that the Consti tution itself could be stretched or contracted by the Govern ment, at its will, to meet all possible exigencies ! 372 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. 6. CANT WORDS. Loyalty was, in the war, used as a cant word, often with a vague meaning, and sometimes with a false meaning. To illustrate the latter use, the following quotations are made from a sermon, published in 1863, by HENRY W. BELLOWS, D.D., of New York, entitled, " Unconditional Loy alty." Speaking of President LINCOLN, he uses the following language : " He can truly say, with Louis XI V., 6 The State, it is I. Dishonor me, and you disgrace the nation. "Weaken me, and you undermine the country." 1 "We ought to feel that he fully represents both the expressed or constitutional, and the reserved rights of the people ; that his oath of office was solemnly binding not only on him, but also on us, for whom he took it." "Remember that he speaks as the Gov ernment, and for the Government, with all the wisdom and capacity the Government has." The fallacy of the above statements can be easily under stood, from considering that the Federal Government is three fold the Legislative power, the Judicial, the Executive each being delegated. The Congress is not the Government ; the Judiciary is not the Government ; the Executive is not the Government ; but all, taken together, are the Government. Dr. BELLOWS mistake consists in attributing to one, what be longs to three. Having made this mistake, we need not be surprised that he runs into another that of requiring men to be faithful to President LINCOLN, as if a prince or a despot. If Dr. BELLOWS does not know, he ought to know, that, under the Federal Constitution, men cannot exercise loyalty in the English sense of the word, as men now exercise loyalty towards Queen VICTORIA ; as the Tories, in the Revolutionary War, exercised loyalty towards GEORGE III. ; or as abbettors of arbitrary power in France did to Louis XIY. In England it is a maxim, that the King can do no wrong ; it is not a maxim in this country, that a President can do no wrong. But Dr. BELLOWS not only insists upon loyalty to the Presi dent, but upon " unconditional loyalty." The English were loyal to their kings, but they beheaded CHARLES I. The French were loyal to their kings, but they beheaded Louis XVI. They acted on the principle that there is a limit REMARKS. 373 beyond which loyalty ought not to be exercised towards the king. Their loyalty was not unconditional. Dr. BELLOWS seenis to favor loyalty without limitation, when he says the Chief Magistrate is a " sacred person," and that " he fully rep resents the expressed or constitutional and reserved rights of the people." The absurdity of this is so evident, that it cannot fail to be seen by any one who understands the nature of the twofold Government under which we live. Loyalty, in the American sense, is fidelity to the Federal Constitution and the State Constitution ; the one as expressing the powers delegated to the Federal Government, and the other as expressing some of the reserved rights of the State, and both governments deriving their authority from the people of the State, who adopted the two Constitutions as complements of each other. Unconditional loyalty is fidelity to those funda mental laws in all circumstances, and is not fidelity to the Chief Magistrate, whether he supports or violates those laws ; whether he is Mr. BUCHANAN, Mr. LINCOLN, or Mr. JOHNSON. To the violation of these fundamental laws by the President, the reverend preacher seems to attach very little importance, notwithstanding he alludes to the official oath which the Presi dent had taken. The following quotation shows the spirit and discrimination of the preacher : " But no plea is so specious and so dangerous, among those under which disloyalty seeks to conceal its fangs, as that which seeks to distinguish between the Administration and the Government." Dr. BELLOWS does not show the iden tity of the Administration and the Government. In this, as in other parts of his sermon, instead of giving us a logical analy sis, or even a logical statement, he goes off into rhetorical analogies and graphical flourishes, which show the fertility of his imagination and the dearth of his reason, and his admira tion of European governments. Is Dr. BELLOWS so ignorant of the nature of the Federal Government as not to know that there is a wide difference be tween that " Government " and the " Administration " ? Let him look into the Federal Constitution ; let him read the politi cal history of the United States, in which the collisions between the different branches of the government are described ; let THE SECTIONAL CONTEOVEESY. him understand the nature of the conflict between President JOHNSON and Congress, and he will be able to understand that there is a distinction between the Administration and the Gov ernment, and that every man who sets up to be a teacher of politics from the pulpit ought to recognize that distinction ; unless, as a sycophant, he wishes to flatter power, or, as a demagogue, to mislead the people. It is the duty of the people to support the government created by the Federal Constitution, and to criticise and displace an Administration that violates that constitution, or pursues a policy injurious to the interests of the country. Whether or not Dr. BELLOWS ever read the JLeviathan of HOBBES, or the Federalist, his opinions, expressed in this politi cal sermon, are more in accordance with the former, as to the absolute power of rulers, than with the latter. According to the doctrines of the sermon, he who upheld the unconstitutional acts of the President was loyal ; he who upheld the Federal Constitution was disloyal. In other words, he who upheld the administration of Mr. LINCOLN was loyal ; he who opposed it, was disloyal. In a letter to Mr. ADAMS, Minister to England from this country, Mr. SEWAED, in 1861, wrote as follows : " In this country it is a habit, not only entirely consistent with the Con stitution, but essential to its stability, to regard the Administra tion at the time existing as distinct and separate from the Gov ernment itself, and to canvass the proceedings of the one, with out a thought of disloyalty to the other." " Politics and the pulpit are terms that have little agree ment. No sound ought to be heard in the church but the heal ing voice of Christian charity. The cause of civil liberty and civil government gains as little as that of religion by this con fusion of duties. Those who quit their proper character to assume. what does not belong to them, are, for the greater part, ignorant both of the character they have, and of the character they assume. Wholly unacquainted with the world in which they are so fond of meddling, and inexperienced in all its affairs, on which they pronounce with so much confidence, they have nothing of politics but the passions they excite. Surely the church is a place where one day s truce ought to be allowed REMARKS. 375 to the dissensions and animosities of mankind. BURKE, " Re flections on the French Revolution" Let Dr. BELLOWS, and other clergymen who feel inclined to leave religion, which they do understand, and preach politics, which they do not understand, read the above for their admo nition, " not to boast in another man s line." War-Power. Mr. LINCOLN, in his Message, July 4, 1861, said " there was no choice left but to call out the war-power of the Government." Editors of party newspapers echoed the term, until it became current as a cant word. The " war- power " was spoken of as some mysterious personage, some spirit, such as OWEN GLENDOWER could call " from the vasty deep " ; some genius, such as ALADDIN could call up with his wonderful lamp. What is its meaning ? It means, if it means anything, in the words of the Constitution : " Congress shall have power to declare war ; " " to raise and support armies ; " " to make rules for the government of the land and naval forces." Mr. LIN COLN usurped the power of Congress in calling out the " war- power." In his vocabulary, the " war-power " was a new name for an old thing military despotism. I am aware that ingenious men wrote essays and pamphlets magnifying the war-powers of the President, at the expense of other plain provisions of the Constitution. They were like some of the old commentators on the Bible, who could find " moun tains of meaning " in some texts, while they did not notice others ; or the naturalist, who exhibits to his admiring class an insect under the solar microscope magnified into enormous pro portions. A Republican Form of Government. This expression, found in the Federal Constitution, was placed there to prevent a State, on its reserved rights, from putting itself under a king or a military despotism. The Radicals construe this to mean negro suffrage, and, by its incessant use, degraded it into a cant phrase. Did not Connecticut and Virginia, who owned slaves at that time, have a republican form of government ? Who should be voters, was expressly left to the States. To justify 25 376 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. the views of those Radicals, who thus pervert the meaning of the phrase, the Constitution ought to read, " Congress shall have power to guarantee to every State a Hack Republican form of government." Necessity, " the tyrant s plea," became a cant word. It was spoken of as superior to the Constitution, the law, moral ity, humanity ; just as, in pagan mythology, Fate was superior to the gods. If the Federal Government can justify what is wrong on the plea of necessity, why may not a State govern ment, or an individual, do the same ? Logic of Events. This was spoken of as paramount to the logic of the Constitution. If the Southern Confederacy, or the Northern Confederacy, should bring things into such a condi tion that it would become more convenient for the Federal Government to violate the Constitution than to obey it, then the Government is justified in violating it, by u the logic -of events." There were many other current cant words and phrases containing current fallacies, which had their influence in mis leading the people. 7. ARBITRARY ARRESTS. These arrests were not only a dis grace to the Administration, but to the country, which permit ted them, under a Constitution which forbade them. In order to understand their enormity, as political crimes committed by men high in office, who had sworn not to do what they did do, we are to call to mind that several thousands were arrested in different parts of the country, often without any charges alleged against them at that time, or when dismissed after months of confinement ; that great numbers of them were injured in health and property ; that this tyranny began to be exercised as early as April 24, 1861 ; that Fort Lafayette, New York, Fort Warren, Boston, Fort McHenry, and prisons elsewhere, were filled with victims, many of them guiltless of any crime ; that those unhappy persons some, or many of them were not permitted to employ counsel ; that, in some cases, the attempt REMARKS. 377 to employ counsel was imputed to them as a crime ; that judges, women, youth, clergymen, were arrested ; as said before, without any charge against them. My limits do not allow me to state particulars. One in stance must suffice. On Sunday morning, February 9th, 1862, the Rev. R. J. STEWART, a minister of the Protestant Episcopal church in Alexandria, was seized by a ruffian with a captain s epaulettes on his shoulders, while he was at prayer in the church, and dragged from his knees by the soldiers. What was his alleged crime ? He omitted to pray for the President of the United States ! Ex uno disce omnes. Whoever will read the history of the sufferings of some of the prisoners thus arrested, in violation of the Constitution of the United States, will find a parallel in the sufferings of those who were confined in the Black Hole of Calcutta, or in the old Bastile of Paris. Whoever would find a parallel of the atroci ties of sending them thus into prison, may find it in the arbi trary acts of the Doge of Yenice, in the worst period of the government there, or in the doings of the Inquisition, in its most tyrannical acts. Messrs. LINCOLN, SEWARD, CAMERON, and STANTON must stand in history high on the roll of infamy, as long as there is any regard in this country for constitutional liberty. The following is an extract from a letter addressed by GEORGE GOULD, Judge of the Superior Court, New York, to President LINCOLN, in behalf of G. GOLDEN TRACY, who had been arrested and put in prison in Fort Lafayette, New York : " The young man is the grandson of that URIAH TRACY who lived and died a Senator of the United States from Connecti cut, who was the first man buried in the Congressional burying- ground at Washington, and whose ashes are insulted by this atrocious invasion of the liberties of the people in the person of his descendant. u I am not speaking merely my own opinion of such arrests. I know the opinions and the feelings of my brethren of the bench. And if the Government is desirous of so proceeding as to make public our opinions, they will be heard, not merely in the writ of habeas corpus, bat in open declaration to the world. 378 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. " Had I been, a few hours earlier, made aware of this case, I would not have troubled you with a word ; but I would have seen that the process of the Supreme Court of this State was so executed as to protect its citizens accused of such offences from arrest, other than under the appropriate process of the court/ These words have the ring of the true metal. They show that the intellect and the spirit of URIAH TRACY still live in the soul of his grandson. As showing the same disregard of law, the arrest and murderous execution of Mrs. SURRATT should be mentioned. This was done unconstitutionally by a military court, without sufficient evidence of guilt. In like manner, Captain WIRTZ was arrested and executed under sentence of an unconstitu tional military court, in defiance of law. Captain WIRTZ was charged with cruelty to prisoners at Andersonville. The real criminal, it appears, was Secretary STANTON, who refused or neglected to remove the prisoners, though he knew that he had full permission from Colonel OULD to do so. HABEAS CORPUS. HENRY LAURENS was President of the Continental Congress in 1779. In 1780 he was sent as Minis ter to Holland. On his way he was captured, and imprisoned in the Tower of London for fourteen months. When Lord SHELBURNE became Premier, LAURENS was brought up on habeas corpus, and released. After his release, he was treated with great kindness and respect by the British authorities. He dined with Lord SHELBURNE. After dinner, the conversation turned on the separation of the two countries. Lord SHEL BURNE remarked : " I am sorry for your people." " Why so ? " asked LAURENS. " They will lose the habeas corpus" was the reply. " Lose the habeas corpus ! " said LAURENS. " Yes," said Lord SHELBURNE. " We purchased it with centuries of wrangling, many years of fighting, and had it confirmed by at least fifty acts of Parliament. All this taught the nation its value ; and it is so ingrained into their creed, as the very foun dation of their liberty, that no man or party will ever dare to trample on it. Your people will pick it up, and attempt to use it ; but, having cost them nothing, they will not know how to appreciate it. At the first great internal feud that you have, EEMARKS. 379 the majority will trample upon it, and the people will permit it to be done, and so will go your liberty." Published Journal of HENRY LAURENS. This prophecy was fulfilled in 1861, and afterwards. 8. CURRENT SLANDERS. The great masters of reason have shown why and how it is that passion leads the mind into errors of opinion. When the public mind was excited by those pas sions which war generates, errors were rife in the land. Sus picion took the place of evidence, and " trifles light as air Were confirmations strong as proof of Holy Writ " against men perfectly innocent. A word uttered by a Demo crat was sufficient to ground a charge upon. The following are specimens of current slanders and perversions of the truth : When Governor HORATIO SEYMOUR, for the purpose of dis persing a mob in the city of New York, said to them, in a cour teous way, at the opening of his speech, " My Friends," he was charged, on the ground of using these two words, that lie approved of the doings of the mob, and was one with them in feeling and opinion. This slanderous charge was, upon this evidence, reiterated for a long time, contrary to what every right-minded man knew to be the fact. For a considerable time it was as much as a man s reputation for patriotism was worth to utter a word about " the Prince of Peace." When, in April, 1864, ALEXANDER LONG, Member of Congress from Ohio, brought forward a resolution in favor of peace, and acknowledging the independence of the Seceded States, some of the small DANTONS and MARATS of that body brought forward resolutions for censuring or expelling him, on the hypocritical charge of aiding traitors. This was a current charge made by Republicans against a man who differed from them on measures of public policy. Chief-Justice TANEY for years has been slanderously charged with deciding, in the case of "DRED SCOTT," that " the negro has no rights which a white man is bound to respect." This charge has been repeated by editors of papers, candidates for Congress, members of Congress, and others in 380 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. high standing in the Republican party ; when they had only to read what he did say, in order to know the falsity of the charge, if they were willing to know it. But there are certain minds that have an affinity for falsehoods, especially profitable falsehoods. What he did say was this : " They had, for more than a century before, been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations ; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect ; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." This is only the statement of an historical fact. Another falsehood, which some of the Republican party, in their wanton attacks npon the Administration of President BUCHANAN, uttered, was the following charge against Hon. ISAAC TOUCEY, his Secretary of the Navy : " He scattered the vessels then under his command all over the world, so that, when another and a worthier citizen of your State came to administer the affairs of the same department, the whole navy under his command was one vessel with five guns spiked" This slander was uttered by Senator JOHN SHERMAN, of Ohio, in a speech delivered in Bridgeport in the spring of 1866. From the published statement of Report of Committee No. 37 of the Senate, it appears that there was not the slightest foun dation for the charge. Mr. TOUCEY, as he always has done, can stand before the world without fear and without reproach ; while Mr. SHERMAN must stand before the country as he did when he acknowledged that he recommended HELPER S book without having read it. 9. PERVERSION OF PHILOLOGY. It is not necessary to show what were Dr. NOAH WEBSTER S eminent qualifications for giv ing correct definitions of political terms, especially of those which relate to our own institutions. As he composed an American Dictionary of the English language, he was careful to give exact definitions of political terms, according to their use in this country. He remarks, in the Preface : " In many cases, the nature of our Governments " (State and Federal), " and of our civil institutions, requires an appropriate language REMARKS. 381 in the definition of words, even when the words express the same thing." He expected " the people of England," as well as the " youth of the United States, , to look to an American Dictionary as their " guide " to the American meaning of words. In the year 1864 an edition of WEBSTER S Dictionary was published, in which the definitions of certain political terms were altered, so that they do not show the meaning which he attached to those words as exhibited in the work prepared by himself. And it so happens that the definitions, as they stand in Dr. WEBSTER S work prepared by himself, are in accordance with the opinions and teaching of the framers and fathers of the Federal Constitution, and of the ablest statesmen and writers, among whom may be reckoned himself ; while the definitions now standing in the book bearing his name, and published in 1864, are more in accordance with the notions of certain politi cal sciolists who sprang up during the war. The following are some of the alterations : COMPACT. " It is more generally applied to agreements be tween nations and States, as treaties and confederacies. So the Constitution of the United States is a political contract between the States ; a national compact" Republican sciolists said the Constitution of the United States is not a compact between the States ; so this statement of Dr. WEBSTER is omitted in the edition of 1864. CONGRESS. " The Assembly of the Senators and delegates of the several United States of North America, according to the present Constitution, or political compact, by which they are united in a Federal republic" This, too, is omitted in the edition of 1864. CONSTITUTION. " In free States, the Constitution is para mount to the statutes or laws enacted by the Legislature, limit ing and controlling its powers ; and in the United States the Legislature is created and its powers designated by the Consti tution." This definition of Dr. WEBSTER does not agree with the notions of those sciolists who exalted the power of Congress and the President above the Constitution. This was omitted in the edition of 1864. 382 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. CONFEDERATION. " The United States are sometimes called a " confederation" This is omitted in the edition of 1864. DEMOCRAT. " One who adheres to a government by the people, or favors the extension of the right of suffrage to all classes of men." This is omitted in the edition of 1864. FEDERAL. " Consisting of a compact "between parties, par ticularly and chiefly between States and nations ; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal gov ernment, such as that of the United States" This does not suit the notions of the political sciolists. This is omitted in the edition of 1864. SOVEREIGNTY. " Supreme power ; supremacy ; the posses sion of the highest power, or uncontrollable power." This- is omitted in the edition of 1864, and the following incorrect defi nition substituted : " The exercise of, or the right to exercise, supreme power." If alterations like these are not a fraud on the public, they are an indignity to Dr. WEBSTER, who, being dead, is not allowed to speak to his friends, the people of the United States. 10. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECEIVED THE NORTH. When the Southern Confederacy was tricked into the unwise and imprudent attack upon Fort Sumter, the cry was raised all over the Northern States, " The Constitution must be main tained ; " " The Union must be preserved ; " " The flag must be sustained." To these cries, to these declarations, the people responded, " Amen" In proof of the sincerity of these decla rations, the platform of the Republican party was appealed to, which declares the inviolability of State rights ; the inaugural message of Mr. LINCOLN was appealed to, in which he declares that he had no right nor inclination to interfere with slavery in the States ; the Resolution of Congress in July, 1861, introduced in the House by Mr. CRITTENDEN, and by ANDREW JOHNSON in the Senate, which was passed by an almost unanimous vote, was appealed to. In this Resolution Congress say : " That in this national emergency, Congress, banishing all feeling of mere passion and resentment, will recollect only its duty to the whole country ; that this war is not waged, on otir part, in any spirit of oppression, or for any purpose of conquest or subjuga- REMAKES. 383 tion, or of overthrowing or interfering with the rights or estab lished institutions of those States, but to defend and maintain the supremacy of the Constitution, and preserve the Union, with all the dignity and equality of the rights of the United States unimpaired ; and that, as these objects are obtained, the war ought to cease." The Secretary of "War, Mr. CAMERON, in August, 1861, wrote a letter to General BUTLER, in which he says : " It is the desire of the President that all existing rights in all the States be fully respected and maintained. The war now prosecuted on the part of the Federal Government is a war for the Union, for the preservation of all the constitutional rights of the States, and of the citizens of the States in the Union." In consequence of these declarations and appeals, urged by the press, the conservative men of the North, under the im pulse of patriotism, poured out their money, their blood, and their lives on Southern soil. Having thus deluded the people of the North into support ing the war, the Federal Government violated the Constitution ; violated the rights of the States and of the individual citizens thereof; dismissed General MCCLELLAN because he adhered to their promises, which they violated ; issued an emancipation proclamation, and changed what was professed to be a constitu tional war into an abolition war. It seduced the North by false professions, deceived the Democratic party, and the patriotic and brave soldiers, whose blood now cries from the ground against their deceivers. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT DECEIVED THE SOUTH. By the declarations and appeals above mentioned, it persuaded multi tudes to withhold themselves from the Secession movement, and afterwards, by proclamations and otherwise, it encouraged the Southern States to return, only to find the doors of Con gress closed against their Senators and Representatives. If the Southern States look back upon the inducements offered them to return to the Union by President LINCOLN, and by the Secretary of State in his foreign correspondence, and by other prominent men and oflicials ; if they look back upon the high-raised and reasonable hopes generally entertained in the 384 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. country of the speedy restoration of the seceded States to their former relations in the Union, when the armies of LEE and JOHNSON surrendered in good faith to the armies of GRANT and SHERMAN ; and if they call to mind the bitter reception they met with, the language employed about the South, such as was employed by the enemies of Israel about Jerusalem, " Raze it ! raze it ! " such as was employed in the Roman Senate about Carthage, " Delenda est Carthago ! delenda est Carthago ! " if they thus call to mind the contrast between promise and per formance, they can hardly fail to exclaim, in view of the per fidy, " Oh, worse than Punic faith ! " 11. OBJECT OF THE SECESSION OF THE SOUTHERN STATES. The declared object was, to maintain their constitutional rights. These rights, they averred, had been infringed by a loose and false construction of the Constitution, which practically, through a long series of years, increased the delegated powers, and diminished the reserved rights, to an alarming extent ; par ticularly in regard to internal improvements, the tariff, the rights in territories, the rights of the States to manage their internal concerns, the interference of the North with the insti tution of slavery, and the refusal of Northern States, by legisla tive enactments, to perform their constitutional obligation in regard to the restoration of fugitive slaves. They professed a strong attachment to the Union, which they had proved by their obedience to the Constitution and their defence of its provisions, from the first to 1860. The object of the Southern States in seceding is declared by the Commissioner, Judge A. H. HANDY, sent by Mississippi to the State of Maryland in 1861, as follows : " Secession is not in tended to break up the present Government, but to perpetuate it. We do not propose to go out by way of breaking up or destroying the Union, as our fathers gave it to us, but we go out for the purpose of getting further guarantees and securities for our rights not by a convention of all the Southern States, nor by Congressional tricks, which have failed in time past, and will fail again ; but our plan is, for the Southern States to with draw from the Union for the present, to allow amendments to the Constitution to be made, guaranteeing our just rights ; and REMAKES. 385 if the Northern States will not make the amendments by which those rights shall be secured to us, then we must secure them the best way we can. This question of slavery must be secured now, or never. The country has been agitated by it for the last twenty or thirty years. It has been a festering sore upon the body politic, and many remedies have failed ; we must try amputation to bring it to a healthy state. We must have amendments to the Constitution, and if we cannot get them, we must set up for ourselves." 12. POLITICAL RIGHT OP SECESSION. That the sovereign States have a right to resume the powers which they had dele gated to the Federal Government, was the current doctrine until 1861. In the work already mentioned " Eighty Years of Republican Government in the United States " written by an intelligent Englishman, and published in 1868, is the follow ing truthful remark : " The doctrine that the States were left free to choose whether they would remain in the Union, or detach themselves from it, was never refuted, though it was occasionally contradicted, until the Southern States unwisely precipitated the decision in 1861." This doctrine was announced distinctly in the Declaration of Independence, as well in the words of that instrument as in the fact of the secession of the States from the union with Great Britain. "When JOHN QUINCY ADAMS presented a petition from citi zens of Massachusetts for the dissolution of the Union, a motion was made to expel him. Mr. ADAMS, in his defense, called on the clerk to read the first two paragraphs of the Declaration of Independence. After the clerk had read the sentence which declares " the right and duty to throw off such governments," Mr. ADAMS added, " Right and duty to abolish it. Now, sir, if there is a principle sacred on earth, and established by the instrument just read, it is the right of the people to alter, to change, to destroy the government, if it becomes oppressive to them." Each one of the thirteen States made its own distinct decla ration in favor of the right of secession. Disregarding equally her charter and the laws of England, Massachusetts established 386 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. for herself an independent government, similar to those of the Grecian republics. CHALMERS, vol. i., 682. Again, in the very act of departing from the Union formed by the old Federal Constitution, and forming a new Union under the new Federal Constitution, the States recognized the right of secession. Moreover, several of the States in their act in convention of adopting the Constitution, reserved to the people of the States the right to resume the powers delegated to the Federal Government. In the Convention of Virginia, where it received the fullest and most able discussion, the fact that the State could resume the delegated powers was assigned as a reason why they should adopt the Constitution as a matter of experi ment. Every one who has studied the constitutional history of this country, knows that the States, in 1787-8, placed a higher value on their reserved rights than they did on the present Fed eral Constitution ; that they would not have adopted that in : strument unless they had considered those rights as completely secured to them ; that they were thoroughly opposed to con solidation ; that they were thoroughly determined to preserve those precious rights in which their liberties were involved. Common sense declares that, if the Federal Government should practically, directly or indirectly, abolish any of those precious vital rights, the States would be justified in taking appropriate means for their preservation. They are indeed under as great, or greater obligations to protect their reserved rights against the encroachments of the Federal Government, as they are to protect the powers which they delegated to the Federal Government against the encroachments of foreign na tions. To say that these precious reserved rights ought not to be protected, if need be, at every hazard, would be to say that they are of no value, and that the States ought not to have any reserved rights, and that the State governments ought all to be swept away ; which would be an absurdity. Better far would it be for the States to retire peaceably from the Union, if they could not preserve their reserved rights in it. In this way they would only show that, like the States in 1787-8, they value REMAEKS. 387 their reserved rights more than a Union, just as those States then did. Mr. LINCOLN S opinion on the right of secession has already been quoted. Mr. SEWAED, in 1856, used the following lan guage : u Then the free States and the slave States of the Atlantic, divided, and warring with each other, would disgust the free States of the Pacific, and they would have abundant reason and justification for withdrawing from a union produc tive no longer of peace and liberty to themselves. 33 In 1843, the Legislature of Massachusetts passed the follow ing resolutions : u 1. Resolved, That the annexation of Texas is ipso facto a dissolution of the Union. 2. Resolved, That Texas, being annexed, Massachusetts is out of the Union." Such, and other facts and arguments, were urged by the Southern States in favor of the political right of secession. The validity of such arguments, though long extensively admitted in the Northern States, was, in 1861, denied. Two branches of the Federal Government, representing only those States, took strong ground against the right of secession, and the validity of the ordinances of secession adopted in 1860-1 by the Southern States. This was done by the President in his messages and proclamations ; by the Secretary of State in his correspondence with the Southern Commissioners, and with our Ministers abroad, and by the other members of the Cabinet ; by Congress ; by the Northern press generally. It is believed that in 1860-1, and for a considerable period afterwards, that it was the general, if not the universal opinion of the Republican party, that the seceded States, so-called, were still in the Union / but that many of the inhabitants were, as individuals, rebels. This was the theory upon which the war was commenced, and for a long time waged by the Northern States. But afterwards, when revenge had ascended to the seat of justice, it became convenient for Congress to act occasionally upon either of two theories, according as the one or the other w^ould enable it to inflict the greatest amount of injury upon the South namely, that the States were in the Union to suf fer all the evils of rebellion, and that they were out of the Union to suffer all the evils of a conquered foreign nation ; 388 THE SECTIONAL CONTROVERSY. while they were not allowed to have the advantages of either position, but the disadvantages of both. 13. A PROPHETIC VOICE. While the difficulties between Parliament and the American colonies were pending, Lord CHATHAM, in a celebrated speech, said : " I rejoice that Amer ica has resisted ; " because they resisted upon constitutional grounds. While the Ministers were pressing the adoption of measures of military coercion, in the same speech he said : " In such a cause your success will be hazardous. America, if she fell, would fall like a strong man ; she would embrace the pil lars of the State, and pull down the Constitution along with her." Fortunately for Great Britain, America did not fall, and did not pull dow r n the pillars of the English Constitution. The States had experienced enough of military coercion from Great Britain ; and accordingly they did not grant, in the Federal Constitution, the right of the Federal Government to coerce themselves by military force. Unfortunately for the North, it entered on a war for which the Constitution makes no provision ; it carried it on " outside of the Constitution ; " and has attempted " to reconstruct " the Southern States " outside of the Constitution." The South fell like a strong man she embraced the pillars of the State, and pulled down the Constitution along with her. A govern ment of constitutional laws became a government of men. " Where law ends, tyranny begins" In April and May, 1861, President LINCOLN, by six formal acts, and afterwards, until the close of his life, by many acts, violated the Federal Constitution, and, thus far, made an end of the supreme law of the land, and brought in tyranny in its place. In July, 1861, Congress began a series of violations of the Constitution, continued to the present time, and, thus far have made an end of the supreme law of the land, and brought in tyranny in its place. Under this tyranny, the country has been suffering for seven long years. Will the suffering people of the States arise in their might and restore constitutional liberty ? May a gracious Providence encourage them to return to the first principles of our Federal Government, and " restore judges as at the first, and counsellors as at the beginning." 14 DAY USE RETURN TO DESK FROM WHICH BORROWED LOAN DEPT. This book is due on the last date stamped below, or on the date to which renewed. Renewed books are subject to immediate recall. C D W25B5-8P REC D LC T995 -i _ BECJOFFITT ^12^2004 - DEC* LD 21A.-60m-3, 65 General Library University of California Berkeley General Ubrar UnivershyofCab ^ 2Sfer65Sr I