UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA 

 
 -^^i?^" 
 
 / 
 
 f 
 
 a^iw^ 
 
 ' ■tv 
 
 'A 
 
 "1 
 
 / 
 
 J 
 
 Oryi/K^'e^'^U^: /sst 
 
 5S 8
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS 
 
 FROM A SOUTHERN VIEW OF THEM. 
 
 By o. ns/^. :k.obeik:;Ts, 
 
 AUSTIN, TEXAS. 
 
 COPYRIGHTED, 1892. 
 
 • - ••••.♦. 
 
 a • • < • 
 
 • t « 
 
 » • • <^ * • 
 
 
 I • 
 • > » 
 
 • • • ' 
 
 
 AUSTIN, TEXAS: 
 
 EUGENE VON BOECKMANN, PRINTER. 
 1892.
 
 A DEDICATION. 
 
 Perpetual change is the law of creation. When will man be wise 
 enough, and good enough, to prevent the changes in organized 
 society from^being evils to some persons, and special benefits to 
 others ? 
 
 Possibly, when he learns, and acts on the conviction, that there 
 are other precious things to live for, besides gold for himself and 
 over others. 
 
 ^To the young men, who will aspire to reach that elevatio'" f 
 human excellence, this little work is respectfully dedicate*^ 
 
 I 
 
 • • • 
 
 • • . « 
 
 • t > • 
 
 ' • • • «
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 This little volume consists of Lectures, and Addresses, intended 
 to exhibit our Federal Relations, from a Southern standpoint. 
 They were prepared during busy engagements in other employ- 
 ments, without any effort to attain to literary excellence; the lead- 
 ing object being to bring to view such facts of history, such acts 
 of the government, and such views relating to them, as would tend 
 to give the young men of the present time a fair general under- 
 standing of the subject. It has been published at the request, and 
 with the assistance of, the Law Classes of the University of Texas, 
 at its present session, 1891-2. 
 
 The two addresses have been introduced with the lectures, to 
 exhibit more strikingly the sentiments of the people of Texas, in 
 regard to their Federal relations, at the times to which they relate, 
 and when they were published. 
 
 It will be found, that the same facts and conclusions are con- 
 tained in several of the lectures to the extent, that was necessary 
 to elucidate the subjects under consideration in each one of them 
 which however, may but serve to make a more thorough compre - 
 hension of the subjects. The Author. 
 
 January i, 1892. 
 
 ^4Gyi2
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 Page. 
 
 Lecture : The Causes that led to the War between the 
 States North and South 5 
 
 Address : On the Crisis in i860, then imposing a duty 
 upon the People of the South, and exhibiting the 
 Wrongs done by the Northern States 21 
 
 Lecture : On Sovereignty; its location and effects in the 
 Governments of America 50 
 
 Lecture : On the Close of the War, and President Andrew 
 Johnson's Reconstruction of the Southern States, in- 
 cluding the State of Texas 69 
 
 Address : In 1S67, by the Texas Delegation elected to 
 Congress, giving reasons for their admission, and mak- 
 ing a protest against the Military Government and Rev- 
 olutionary Measures then being prepared by Congress. 
 Drawn up by O. M. Roberts, and signed by the others 
 present in Washington, and published in the National 
 Intelligencer, January 10, 1867 81 
 
 6. Lecture : The Congressional Reconstruction of the 
 
 Southern States, and especially its revolutionary change 
 
 of the Federal Government, and its operation in Texas 94 
 
 7. Lecture : A Supplement to the two Reconstructions, ex- 
 
 hibiting the effects of the action of the Military Author- 
 ities, in the effort to govern the People 1 1 1 
 
 8. Lecture : Constitutional Goverment in the United States. 
 
 Its revolutionary changes in its Powers and Objects, by 
 construction and assumption 128 
 
 9. Lecture : On the Violations of the Rights of Private 
 
 Property, by American Governments 146 
 
 10. Lecture : On the History and Burden of Taxation in 
 
 the United States and in Texas 160 
 
 APPENDIX NO. I. 
 
 11. Lecture : In the University of Texas, by O. M. Roberts, 
 
 Law Professor, February 26, 1892, — On the Use and 
 Misuse of the Principle in the Expressions in the Dec- 
 laration of Independence, written by Thomas Jefferson: 
 "All men are created equal; that they are endowed by 
 their Creator with certain inalienable rights ; that 
 among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness" --. 1-23 
 
 APPENDIX NO. 2. 
 
 12. Lecture: On the Evolution of the Government of the 
 
 United States, from a Federal Government in 1790, to 
 a National and Paternal Government in 1890, by its 
 action during one hundred years 1-16
 
 THE CAUSES OF THE WAR BETWEEN THE STATES, 
 
 PUBLIC LECTURE IN THE UNIVERSITY BY O. M. ROBERTS, LAW PROF. 
 
 The causes which led to the late civil war between the North 
 and South may be traced back to the formation of the government 
 of the United States. The very great and good men who were in 
 the Convention that framed the Constitution, were not agreed 
 among themselves as to the shape and powers of a goverament 
 which would be best suited to the American States. A portion of 
 them were in favor of the erection of a strong central govern- 
 ment; while others were in favor of interfering as little as pos- 
 sible with the rights of the States. The Constitution was a com- 
 promise of these conflicting views. It was a compromise, under a 
 pressure, by the use of general terms, that harmonized their action 
 for the time, without changing or remoulding their respective 
 opinions. As an entirety, it was not responsive to the judgment of 
 either party. The same difference of opinion existed among the 
 people of the States for whom it was made, and has continued to 
 exist to the present time. The Constitution, from its brevity and 
 generality, is necessarily the subject of construction; and each 
 party has been inclined to construe it so as to make this govern- 
 ment, in existence under it, conform to their own views of what it 
 should be. 
 
 The preponderance of the Northern mind has ever been predis- 
 posed to extend and enlarge the powers and objects of the general 
 government by a liberal construction. The preponderance of 
 Southern mind has been predisposed to a strict construction, by 
 which the action of the general government should be confined 
 within its well recognized powers and objects. Massachusetts, the 
 mother of Northern States, is the type of the former principle. 
 Virginia the mother of Southern States, and author of their leading 
 ideas, is the type of the latter. As a matter of mere philosophical 
 enquiry, without any partisan bias, it is easy to perceive that Massa- 
 chusetts must have had greatly the advantage of Virginia in this 
 struggle, from the continual influence of the prevailing interests, 
 prejudices, passions, and changes of public sentiment, in a popular 
 government. Virginia statesmen were placed in the position of 
 demanding the "bond" in every instance, although it miglit pre- 
 sent a case of great public inconvenience or hardship; whereas
 
 6 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 the liberal constructionist could avail himself of every popular 
 furor, every pressing necessity, or plausible pretext of interest, to 
 enlarge the powers and objects of the general government. 
 
 Without discussing, in detail, the various important measures 
 and events, which mark the history of the general government, it 
 will here suffice to say, that this struggle of enlarging the powers 
 and objects of government on the one hand, and of confining and 
 restraining them on the other, entered, with more or less influence, 
 into almost every one of them; so that the conflict has been in- 
 cessant from the origin of the government to the present day. 
 When one subject would rise up into public action, pass through 
 the ordeal, and find either a permanent or temporary quietus, by 
 the popular verdict on one side, or by concessions and compromise, 
 another subject would soon be found to raise the same questions, 
 and elicit the same strife. Sometimes the government has been 
 administered upon one principle, and sometimes upon the other, 
 and sometimes upon a combination of both for a time; but how- 
 ever allayed for a season, in every turn of public affairs, the two 
 principles would rise up in antagonism. The breach between them 
 has regularly grown with the growth and expansion of the govern- 
 ment, and, instead of being healed, continued to widen more and 
 more with the settlement of every question. This has resulted, \n 
 part, from an increasing diversity of interests influencing the minds 
 of those who governed the country, and in part from the diversity 
 in the force of political obligation upon the minds and conciences 
 of men, induced by different mental training, and different mental 
 organizations. In the first days of the Republic, the difference of 
 interest between two sections, north and south, had not become so 
 great as to manifest an immediate localization of these different 
 principles of construction. By degrees however, they were more 
 and more localized in proportion as the South became more exclu- 
 sively agricultural in its industrial pursuits, and the North devoted 
 itself to commerce, manufactures and shipping. 
 
 The merchant, the manufacturer, the ship owner, the ship, 
 builder, and the capitalist generally who make profit on 
 trade, are ever ready to enlist the action of government in aid of 
 their profits or speculations; and their business relations, wealth 
 and intelligence generally give them an influence sufficient to ac- 
 complish their objects. The agriculturist, on the other hand, is 
 isolated, and rarely ever claims any bounty for his labor other 
 than that which is conferred by a generous soil and his own indus- 
 try, with his rights of person and property protected. 
 
 Thus, the Northern people acquired the habit of applying to the 
 general government for aid directly or indirectly in their leading 
 pursuits, and were consequently constantly seeking to enlarge the 
 powers and objects of its action. This was granted to the preju- 
 dice of the Southern people, who obtained no corresponding ad-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. f 
 
 vantages to their pursuits, from the action of the general govern- 
 ment, 
 
 A country shapes the character of its inhabitants. Its charac- 
 teristics and surroundings influence largely their destiny. The 
 North abounded with good harbors and inlets, navigable rivers 
 and lakes; was situated in the northern portion of the temperate 
 zone, near the northern fisheries, with a rugged surface, compari- 
 tively barren soil, and cold climate, and its people were therefore 
 naturally led to manufacturing and commercial pursuits. The 
 South had but few good harbors and navigable rivers, and was 
 spread out in fertile plains, with a genial climate, adapted to the 
 richest staples of commerce, cotton, tobacco, rice and sugar. 
 The European immigration followed the channel of commerce, 
 and poured into the northern parts with a constantly swelling tide, 
 making labor abundant, which is the foundation of national wealth. 
 This, with the enhanced value of tillable lands, rendered slave 
 labor valueless there, and caused the Northern States, to pass 
 emancipation laws, by which the negro slaves, instead of being set 
 free, were transported to the South, and sold to those who could 
 use them with profit in agriculture. After iSoS, by a provision in 
 the Constitution, no more African slaves could be imported, and 
 European emigrants had a repugnance to settle in a slave-labor 
 country; by which the South was made dependent, for an increase 
 of population and labor, in the main, upon the natural increase of 
 its own white and negro population; and in consequence of its vast 
 extent of fertile territory, labor was always^ scarce, and not ade- 
 quate to its development. 
 
 Under the state of things here presented in the North, individ- 
 ual prosperity sought an investment of its surplus in companies or 
 associations, private or public, by which they were taught the 
 advantages of combination — combination of capital, of effort, and 
 of mind — which resulted in building up their common schools,^ 
 their high schools, their commerce, their manufactories, their 
 shipping, their railroads, canals, other internal improvements, their 
 domestic economy, and their improved agriculture. And in all 
 these pursuits, whatever could not be done by individual enter- 
 prise was consummated by the co-operation of individuals, or the 
 aid of goverment, state or federal, applied either directly or in- 
 directly. 
 
 Under the state of things here presented in the South, an exactly 
 opposite result was produced. Individual prosperity sought an 
 investment, for its surplus, in the acquisition of broader fields, and 
 more slaves for laborers. The more wealthy the individual became, 
 the more exclusive he became, and the less he was inclined to seek 
 co-operation in anything, and the less he looked for, governmental 
 appliances for aid. All he asked or wanted from government 
 was to be let alone, with only the general protection of the laws.
 
 8 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 Thus were the people of the two sections being stamped with 
 distinctly diflferent characters in their industrial pursuits, and hab- 
 its of life. The one, skilled in all the arts of co-operative effort, 
 exstending from the private co-partnership, up through all the 
 diversity of combinations, to the co-operative action of the gov- 
 ernment, state and federal. The other was exclusive in individual 
 effort, self-reliant, without co-operative aid, whether of individuals 
 or of governments. With the one, government was made for general 
 equal protection, and not for private advantage otherwise. 
 
 This view may serve somewhat to explain why the Northern peo- 
 ple, without apparent consciousness of wrong, have so persistently 
 sought to enlist the general government in aid of their various in- 
 dustries, interests, and peculiar views; and, when necessary for 
 that purpose, to enlarge the powers and objects of the general gov- 
 ernment; as well as why the South, in dismay, and with the repug- 
 nance of what to them seemed unreasonable exactions for private 
 advantage, and dangerous aggressions, have declined to seek their 
 own private aggrandizement from the action of the general gov- 
 ernment, have so often asked "to be let alone," and have continu- 
 ally sought to keep the action of the general government within the 
 scope of its recognized powers and objects, as originally designed 
 by its framers. 
 
 The great West, varying in its leading characteristics from both 
 North and South, being nevertheless peopled mostly by emigrants 
 from, and tributary in its commercial relations, to the North, has 
 always been more allied, m sentiment and action, to the North 
 than to the South. The contrast here exhibited must also be un- 
 derstood with the qualification that it is only an attempt to delin- 
 eate the general preponderance of character, and of public senti- 
 ment of each section; for there have always been individual in- 
 stances, even to the extent of sometimes controlling States, wherein 
 a strict construction has prevailed at the North, and a liberal con- 
 struction at the South. Upon such subjects as the alien and sedi- 
 tion laws, a national bank, internal improvements, a protective 
 tariff, the acquisition of territory, the exercise of the veto, nullifi- 
 cation direct and indirect by a State, the right of secession, and 
 the like, some diversity, and often very great diversity of opinion 
 was to be found in each section, notwithstanding the general pre- 
 ponderance as previously portrayed. The difference in the origi- 
 nal organizations, habits of thought, theories of government, and 
 educational bias, in different persons cf each section was sufficient 
 to produce some difference of opinion and action on most if not 
 all of such subjects, notwithstanding the interest of each section 
 might point to a construction different from that of the other. 
 
 At last, however, a subject was found which, in the end, com- 
 pletely enlisted and arrayed the controlling sentiments of the North 
 on one side, and those of the South on the other; and that was the
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 9 
 
 subject of the institution of African slavery in the South, existing 
 in fifteen States in the Union. As this subject, in its origin, pro- 
 gress and results, presents one of the most remarkable phenomenon 
 of any age, constitutes a new era in the history of America, and 
 will likely in the end change fundamentally its whole system of 
 government, it may be well now to take our reckoning, so as to as- 
 certain the theories of the government, as evolved by the other 
 antecedent subjects, that had moved it into action. 
 
 The following propositions may be regarded as sufficiently pre- 
 senting the theory of the strict constructionist. First, the Consti- 
 tution of the United States is a written compact, entered into be- 
 tween independent sovereign States, by which they formed a gen- 
 eral government of delegated, limited powers, and, in addition 
 thereto, bound themselves as States to do and refrain from doing 
 certain things therein specified; which resulted not only in form- 
 ing a general government of all the States for special objects, but 
 also in regulating a whole system of governments in federative 
 union, each government, state and federal resting upon the basis of 
 delegated authority, derived from the people of each State as a sub- 
 sisting sovereignty. 
 
 Second. From this it follows, that if the general government 
 exceeded its delegated authority, or used the power delegated to it 
 for the purpose of accomplishing objects not contemplated in the 
 scope of its direct action, or if the general government, to the prej- 
 udice of any of the Stales, failed to perform its approiiriate func- 
 tions to the extent of the powers delegated to preserve the equal 
 rights of all of them; or if the States themselves failed to perform 
 the obligations which they had assumed to the other sister States, 
 by the stipulations contained in the Constitution of the United 
 States, the State so aggrieved, in the exercise of an inherent right, 
 never delegated or parted with, might withdraw the powers which 
 it had delegated to the general government, as contained in the 
 Constitution of the United States, and thereby dissolve its federa- 
 tive connection with the other States, leaving the Union still perfect 
 as to those States that chose to remain in it. 
 
 Those who entertained such views regarded the safety of the 
 Union, with all of its blessings and benefits, to depend upon the 
 good faith of the States in performing their assumed obligations, 
 upon confining the action of the general governmentwithin its cer- 
 tain constitutional limits, and in avoiding a construction that 
 would lead to the exercise of doubtful powers, or their perversion 
 to objects not contemplated in the Constitution. 
 
 The following propositions may be regarded as sufficiently pre- 
 senting the theory of the liberal constructionists. First: The Con- 
 stitution of the United States is a social compact, entered into be- 
 tween the mass of i>eople of all the States, forming a government of 
 limited powers, constituting a new nation, a new sovereignty, carv-
 
 10 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 ed out of the sovereignty of the several States, leaving in the States 
 a portion of their original sovereignty, upon which their State gov- 
 ernments are founded, forming an indissoluble union of States part- 
 ly confederative and partly consolidated; and constituting, with 
 the States composing the union what is sometimes denominated a 
 compositive government, each one of the separate States having a 
 divided sovereignty. Second: That the Constitution furnishes all 
 of the peacable remedies for grievances in the ballot-box, in repre- 
 sentation, in the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United 
 States, and in a change of the Constitution. Third: That outside 
 and above the Constitution, is the right of revolution, which is 
 simply the right of might. While some, who have entertained this 
 theory of the government, have been strict constructionists, the 
 liberal constructionists have universally entertained it as the cor- 
 rect one. 
 
 Amidst the galaxy of governments thus associated, the general 
 government has always been most conspicuous, and has most at- 
 tracted the attention and concern of the people of all the States. In- 
 deed, its measures and action have given direction to the political 
 parties, and political action of all the State governments. Liberal 
 constructionists, who have constantly looked. upon it as the gov- 
 ernment of a "nation," have naturally enough fallen into the habit 
 of looking to it to develop the resources of the "nation," and to 
 provide for the general welfare; and therefore have sought to con- 
 strue its powers to be adequate to those ends, either by direct or 
 indirect action. 
 
 The North, as liberal constructionists, could get an advantage 
 over the South, in the action of the general government, by the 
 fixed unchangeable industrial pursuits of each section. For in- 
 stance, the South could not manufacture for the want of labor and 
 capital to be devoted to it; the North could and did. The gen- 
 eral government was not made to foster and build up manufacto- 
 ries; still it was caused to accomplish that very object by the indi- 
 rection of a specific protective tariff" upon such articles of com- 
 merce as were manufactured in the North. It was not made to 
 encourage the catching and importing of fish, still it was caused 
 to accomplish that very object by the indirection of a fish bounty, 
 as a substitute for a draw-back on the salt used in curing the fish 
 that were exported. It was not made to relieve the monetary dis- 
 tresses of commercial communities by the facilities of paper 
 money, still it was caused to accomplish that object by the indi- 
 rection of regulating the currency through a national bank. It 
 was not made to improve agriculture ; still, to meet the wants of 
 improved agriculture, it was caused to attempt that project by cov- 
 ertly attaching an agricultural bureau to the patent office, which 
 has matured into a department. The same may be said of vari- 
 ous other measures, as well as these, which the liberal construe-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. IX 
 
 tionists were continually struggling to engraft upon the govern- 
 ment ; and which the strict constructionists were ever earnestly 
 struggling to prevent. Still, this was the extent to which the con- 
 troversy and conflict had reached when abolition arose, as a black 
 speck upon the Northern horizon. 
 
 From the year 1840, the abolitionists had put up a candidate of 
 their own at every presidential election. This was done to secure 
 and preserve a separate organization. Birney was twice their 
 nominee, then Hale, then Van Buren, then, in 1856, Fremont. 
 Under none of these was there a perfect alliance between aboli- 
 tionism and federalism, which was so necessary to attain their 
 objects. Without such connection abolitionism, in its varied 
 modifications in form and in intensity, was wholly powerless to 
 affect slavery within the States, or otherwise, by any action of the 
 general government. The power and compass of intellect neces- 
 sary to effect their union all over the North, are attributed to Mr. 
 William H. Seward, more than to any and all other politicians (it 
 is believed deservedly so), and it found its full public authoritative 
 expression in the political platform under which Mr. Lincoln was 
 elected president. 
 
 Some remarkable circumstances attended the rise and progress 
 of this sentiment of hostility to Southern institutions, which deserve 
 to be noticed. It first took firm foot-hold in the New England 
 States, and spread westward in the regions most remote from slav- 
 ery, and gradually approached the Southern States, moving south- 
 ward. The borders of the States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana 
 and Illinois, which were nearest to, in contact with, and the best 
 informed about, the institution of slavery, were the least and last 
 arrayed against it. 
 
 In its origin, the statesmen of all parties opposed abolitionistn 
 directly, and continued to repress it from rising into public action, 
 by all of the party machinery which they could bring to bear upon 
 it. By degrees it displaced all those in position that would not 
 yield directly or indirectly to its influences, and supplanted them 
 by bringing upon the stage of public action new and unheard of 
 actors, either partially or wholly devoted to their cause, just as 
 they might hold the balance of power, or entire control in their 
 elections. Under its influence, all of the old standards of public 
 sentiment disappeared, and were numbered with the the things of 
 the past. 
 
 The Northern idea of the destiny of Northern civilization has 
 also had much to do in all this struggle for supremacy. It is the 
 bold conception of the supreme excellence of the civilization 
 planted on Plymouth Rock by the Puritan fathers, destined to 
 spread itself, first, over the United States, then over the American 
 continent, and lastly, to revolutionize the world, by its example 
 and power. In it is embraced their ideas "^f progressive religion^
 
 12 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 education, society, industry and government. It embodies all the 
 pride and ambition of the Northern people, both as a universally 
 inspiring individual, and a concentrated, aggregated national sen- 
 timent. Southern slavery stood in its way, resisting its progress, 
 as a wall of stone more powerful than that of China, erected to 
 withstand the despoiling inroads of northern barbarians. That 
 wall has fallen before the angry surges of its overwhelming tide. 
 
 Such are some of the proximate causes of the downfall of the 
 institution of slavery in the South. If, however, we look back 
 through the history of the country, we will find more remote 
 causes, which fixed its future destiny; the first one of which was 
 the concession of Virginia of the northwestern territory to the 
 United States, accompanied with the prohibition of slavery there- 
 in. That excluded slavery from the vast region of fertile country 
 in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois, into which the slaves of the Northern 
 States would have been carried, instead of being pressed down 
 upon the South for a market, and into which slaves would have 
 been carried by emigrants from Maryland, Virginia and North 
 Carolina in the regular tide of emigration westward. Most of that 
 country was well adapted to slave-labor had slaves remained cheap. 
 While their importation from Africa continued, their usual price, 
 in the towns on the sea-board where they were landed, was one 
 dollar per pound. So, too, the Missouri compromise in 1820, ex- 
 cluding slavery in all of the territories of the United States north 
 of 36^ degrees, north latitude, had the same effect. But above 
 all other of those causes was the grant of the power to Congress 
 in the Constitution of the United States, of prohibiting the African 
 slave trade after the year 1808. That was the prospective surren- 
 der of slavery as a permanent institution on the North American 
 continent. It made slaves become dear; so that they could only 
 be profitably employed in the mild climate of the South. It di- 
 minished the number of slave owners. That diminution continued 
 relatively to increase in proportion to the general increase of pop- 
 ulation in the United States, not only from the natural increase, 
 but also from the large influx of white emigrants flowing in a con- 
 stant stream from Europe, and filling up the Northern and Western 
 States. This acquisition by immigration continued to increase 
 until it reached a fourth of a million annually. The South ac- 
 quired but few immigrants comparatively. Hence the North 
 greatly outstripped the South in the material development of their 
 country, as well as in voting population. And hence, also, they 
 gradually acquired a superiority over the South in wealth, and in 
 influence in the councils of the country. 
 
 The agitation of the slavery question was started in England, 
 and was formally commenced in America by the formation of abo- 
 lition societies in the North. As early as 1833, a great Southern 
 senator (Mr. Calhoun) pointed out the danger of recognizing, in
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I3 
 
 the general government, the overwhelming centralizing powers 
 then so popular, and warned the country that the people of the 
 North, believing slavery to be a sin, and a great political as well 
 as moral evil, would feel themselves responsible for what the gov- 
 ernment, with such powers, through their vote and influence, might 
 reform; and would petition Congress to abolish slavery. In 1837, 
 only four years later, such petitions as he had anticipated were 
 sent in great numbers to both houses of Congress, from the aboli- 
 tion sections of the Northern States. He resisted their reception 
 upon the ground that, as Congress had no constitutional right to 
 act upon them, it was no violation of the right of petition to reject 
 them; and that the abolitionist only at that time sought to have 
 them received, in order to make Congress the central arena of the 
 slavery agitation. Many statesmen, even from the South, to defend 
 the constitutional right of petition, took the ground that the peti- 
 tions should be received, notwithstanding Congress had no power 
 to grant the relief prayed for in them, A medium course was 
 adopted, of receiving the petitions, and of laying them on the 
 table, such action not requiring any further notice of them. This 
 controversy was itself sufficient to foist the subject into public 
 notoriety, and raise it from the arena, where it had been previously 
 agitated, the societies, the pulpit, the schools, the social circle, and 
 the press, of the North, into the great political arena of the halls 
 of the National Congress. And that was the object of the peti- 
 tioners. During the discussions upon this subject, that far-sighted 
 statesman made some remarkable predictions. In his place in the 
 Senate of the United States, he said : "As widely as this incendi- 
 ary spirit has spread, it has not yet infected this body, nor the 
 great mass of the intelligent and business portion of the North; 
 but unless it is speedily stopped, it will spread and work upward 
 until it brings the two great sections of the Union into deadly con- 
 flict I look not for aid to this government or to the 
 
 other States; not but that there are kind feelings towards us on the 
 part of the great body of non-slave-holding States; but as kind as 
 their feelings may be, we may rest assured that no political party 
 in these States will risk its ascendency for our safety. If we do 
 not defend ourselves, none will defend us; if we yield, we will be 
 more and more oppressed as we recede; and if we submit, we will 
 be trampled under foot. Be assured that emancipation itself would 
 not satisfy these fanatics; that gained, the next step would be to 
 raise the negroes to a social and political equality with the whites; 
 and that being effected, we would soon find the present condition 
 of the two races reversed. They and their Northern allies would 
 be the masters and we the slaves. . . . Of all passions, avarice 
 is the most blind and compromising, the last to see and the first 
 to yield to danger. I dare not hope that anything I can say will 
 arouse the South to a due sense of danger. I fear it to be beyond 
 
 k
 
 14 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 the power of mortal voice to awaken it in time from the fatal 
 security into which it has fallen." 
 
 Had he lived to this day, to have portrayed in general terms the 
 facts of history in connection with that subject, he could not have 
 done it better than he then did in advance of their having hap- 
 pened. Yet, so improbable and far-fetched were they then re- 
 garded generally, in the South, as well as in the North, that they 
 attached to him, for a time, the designation of "the great alarm- 
 ist;" and to prove the truth of the imputation, letters of inquiry 
 were written to, and answers elicited from, many of the distinguished 
 citizens and statesmen of the North, in which it was represented 
 to the public, that the abolitionists, as a class, were insignificant 
 in numbers, and disreputable in character; and that no serious 
 danger was to be apprehended from their efforts or influence. 
 Such, indeed, was the general opinion of the mass of intelligent 
 people of all parties then in the United States. Still, there was, 
 at that very time, forming in Northern society a widespread, strong, 
 deep current of anti-slavery sentiment, not fully appreciable by the 
 statesmen who were being wafted along with and by the waves of 
 the surface. The rattle of the brisk shower upon the house-top 
 concealed the distant roar of the coming storm. 
 
 It is true that the abolition societies were held in abhorrence 
 and contempt at first. Those who attempted to speak in public, 
 in favor of the agitation of the subject of slavery as a political 
 question, were often subjected in the North, to maltreatment 
 amounting even to violence. In some places their printing presses 
 were destroyed. Public opinion seemed, from all outward demon- 
 strations, to be arrayed against them as common disturbers of the 
 public peace, and as dangerous disorganizers. They seemed to 
 work blindly, without any attainable object. Slavery was sanc- 
 tioned by the law of nations, had existed immemorially, had been 
 introduced into the American colonies and States, without any 
 special enactment for that purpose, upon the general recognized 
 principle, that slaves constituted property, as well as any other 
 useful thing; and slaves might be held in any state or nation, 
 where slavery was not specially prohibited by its own local law. 
 In addition to this, all of the States except Massachusetts had 
 slaves when the Constitution was formed; and that Constitution 
 not only recognized slavery in the States, by their partial repre- 
 sentation in Congress, but protected it by requiring fugitives slaves 
 to be surrendered by the several States in which they might be 
 found. Fifteen of those States still had slaves amounting, in the 
 aggregate, to the number then perhaps of over four millions, by 
 whose labor the great importing staples of the country were pro- 
 duced, that had added and continued to add to the prosperity of 
 the whole county. 
 
 The Southern people were not dissatisfied with the institution of
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 15 
 
 slavery; and if they had been, they saw no means of relieving 
 themselves of it without producing greater evils to themselves and 
 to the slaves. Notwithstanding all these considerations, which 
 made the attempt at abolition appear to be futile in the ex- 
 treme — the mere wild ravings of a crazy brain — these societies 
 were formed for that purpose; — not in the South where the evil 
 existed, if an evil it was, but in the North, where there was no such 
 thing. The incidental questions pertaining to slavery had fre- 
 quently been discussed before in the convention as to its represen- 
 tation and protection, and in Congress afterwards as lo the slave 
 trade; and also upon the admission of Missouri as a State in 1820, 
 as to its prohibition in the territories north of a line west of the 
 southern boundary of that State, commonly known as the "Mis- 
 souri Compromise." These discussions were engaged in by states- 
 men seeking to regulate public affairs in relation to this institution, 
 according to what they considered the interests of their own re- 
 spective States or sections, and not in direct hostility to it. They 
 understood and acted upon their responsibility as public men, 
 with reference to what they regarded as the proper province and 
 constitutional powers of the government. Not so, however, with 
 the leaders and members of these societies. They were, for the 
 most part, private persons, having no connection with the govern- 
 ment other than as private citizens, not unfrequently including 
 women as well as men. They were the foam upon the surface of 
 the simmering cauldron of the Northern mind, heated by the uni- 
 versal religious sentiment that slavery was a sin, and would be a 
 national curse, for which they were in part responsible. This 
 sentiment had been forming for half a century or more, and 
 pervaded all classes. The preachers of the North, who have real- 
 ly led in every political excitement there, from the landing of the 
 Puritan Pilgrims upon Plymouth Rock, fostered it in the family, 
 preached it in their pulpits, and made it the fashionable and pop- 
 ular doctrine of all the churches; pressed it into the schools^ and 
 filled the press with it — both secular and religious. 
 
 It was not a new sentiment just started by these abolition socie- 
 ties, it was then old. What was then new about it was the elYort 
 to raise the subject of slavery from its moral, social and religious 
 sphere, in which they had so long confined it, into the sphere of 
 political action. There was every imaginable variety of belief as 
 to when or how this sentiment could or could not, be applied 
 to the action of government; but the sentiment itself was cathoHc 
 and orthodox. Opposition to it* was schismatic and heretical. 
 Politicians of all the old parties were careful to thank their God 
 that they lived in a State free from the stain and sin of slavery, 
 while they were pouring out their contemptuous ridicule and abuse 
 upon the despicable abolitionists and their societies. But the 
 arguments in the pulpit were all on one side. He was safe at his
 
 l6 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 sacred desk — safe from ridicule, safe from answer, safe from oppo- 
 sition, in all species of popular orthodoxy. He did not assume to 
 meddle in politics; that was below his calling; but he told his 
 hearers that the institutions of fifteen Southern States were sinful; 
 and prayed to save them from the national curse. 
 
 The Northern politician told the people that these United States 
 constituted one nation; and that the great principle that underlay 
 all American governments, was, that the people rule — the majority 
 had a right to govern. The conscientious Christian, guided by 
 these teachings, and aroused to a full sense of their import, could 
 not and would not understand why such a sin could not be put 
 away, and the national curse be averted. If no one poi.nted out 
 the way, he blazed out one of his own, or followed any one who 
 would lead in that direction. 
 
 By degrees it began to work itself up into political action, first 
 in small communities, then in larger sections of country, — grad- 
 ually growing all the time. It became the one engrossing idea of 
 those who espoused it, as a polilical idea, which like Aaron's rod, 
 swallowed up all the rest. Its adherents forsook every other poli- 
 tical party; or would act with any other political party, to gain in- 
 fluence or to accomplish an object. Very soon, in many places in 
 the North, they were able to hold the balance of power between 
 the two great national parties — Whigs and Democrats. This was 
 their great lever power; and they plied it well and without ceasing, 
 wherever and whenever they could. By it, they got control, first, 
 of counties and sections of States, and finally, of whole States; 
 and by it, eventually they crushed out and overwhelmed all of the 
 other parties, leaving opposed to them only a remnant, — and that 
 a disorganized remnant — of the Democratic party. 
 
 Before they could enlist the States in the cause of protecting 
 fugitive slaves from capture by their masters in the free States, they 
 had organized bodies of men who concealed them, or privately 
 conveyed them away out of his reach; and, as public opinion be- 
 came more in their favor, they raised mobs for the protection of 
 fugitive slaves. This induced Congress to pass more stringent 
 laws for the capture of slaves by their masters, in the free States, 
 in pursuance to the Constitution of the United States. That but 
 provoked them to greater and bolder efforts; and finally the North- 
 ern States were induced to pass laws which made it a penal offense, 
 and in some cases a penitentiary crime, for any one to aid the 
 master in the capture of them, thereby, in effect, nullifying a plain 
 law of Congress, and abrogating a plain provision of the Consti- 
 tution, which required every State to deliver up fugitive slaves 
 escaping into its territory. Thus, by the force of public opinion, 
 and the aid of the State authorities arrayed in their favor, they 
 were enabled to set at naught the action of the general govern-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 1 7 
 
 ment in support of the constitutional rights of the Southern peo- 
 ple. 
 
 They must aspire higher still. Having subjected the Northern 
 States to their will, they struck for the supremacy in the national 
 council. The exclusion of slavery from the territories and from 
 the District of Columbia, became the favorite subjects of political 
 agitation. The war with Mexico, superinduced by the annexation 
 of Texas and the acquisition of territory at its termination, furnished 
 a fair field for the free-soil agitators in Congress. Through their 
 influence California was slipped into the Union as a free State, 
 without having been organized as a territory; such was their power 
 while yet in the minority in Congress. Congress, however, after a 
 great struggle, determined against them, and established the law 
 that the citizens -of the Southern States had the constitutional right 
 to carry slaves into the territories, thereby repealing the rule made 
 in the Missouri Compromise. The Supreme Court decided against 
 them, that a free negro of African descent was not a citizen of the 
 United States. Nothing daunted, they denounced the Supreme 
 Court, and struggled on in opposition to Congress. Massachusetts 
 chartered a company, with a capital of five millions of dollars, 
 styled "The Immigration Aid Society"; and by its instrumentality 
 the territory of Kansas, west of Missouri, was filled with abolition 
 immigrants, settled on the land of the company, and furnished 
 with arras to protect themselves, ostensibly against Southern set- 
 tlers. An irregular war ensued, which resulted in favor of the 
 North, and which resulted in making Kansas a free State. New 
 Mexico was taken possession of and held by the United States, as 
 part of Texas, in the Mexican war. When peace was made, Texas 
 claimed it as part of its territory. The North clamored for New 
 Mexico as free territory, and disputed our title. The federal gov- 
 ernment hesitated and prevaricated, holding it under military rule. 
 The people of Texas were aroused with indignation, and were ready 
 to go to any extremes to protect their claim. Its legislature formed 
 a judicial district in New Mexico, and elected a district judge, 
 (Spruce M. Baird, then of Nacogdoches) who went to Santa Fe to 
 execute the duties of his office, and was uot allowed to do it by 
 the military autorities then in control of the country, Congress 
 passed a series of measures in 1850, commonly called the "Com- 
 promise Measures," one of which (called the Pierce bill) provided 
 for the surrender of New Mexico, by a vote of the people of Texas, 
 for the consideration of ten millions of dollars, one half of which 
 was to be retained under the control ot Congress for the payment 
 of the revolutionary debt of Texas. Another one of these meas- 
 ures abolished the slave trade in the District of Columbia. .'\n- 
 other one of them settled the constitutional right of citizens to 
 be protected in their slave properly in the territories. This, how- 
 ever, was couched in such language of dubious import, as that the
 
 l8 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 North construed it to give o* admit of the right of the people in 
 the territory, under a territorial government, to exclade slavery; 
 and the South construed it to mean that the people of a territory, 
 only when they came to form a constitution as a State, could ex- 
 clude slavery. This dubious language was adopted on purpose to 
 produce an agreement apparently, and to allay the pending excite- 
 ment, when in fact, they were not agreed in Congress, and could 
 not have agreed to either one of the constructions, if the language 
 used had been unequivocal. It was a subterfuge upon an emergen- 
 cy. Like all other dodges of the main issue, it swelled the tide of 
 public opinion in the North against the institutions of the South. 
 And that subterfuge caused a sectional division of the democratic 
 party, which secured the election of Mr. Lincoln as President in 
 i860. Mr. Douglas was the candidate for President representing 
 the Northern Democratic construction. Mr. Brackenridge was the 
 candidate for President representing the Southern Democratic con- 
 struction. Mr. Bell was the candidate for President representing 
 nothing, under the laconic platform, "the Constitution, Law and 
 Order." Mr. Lincoln was the candidate for President, represent- 
 ing federalism and abolitionism, combined for the first time in 
 harmony and co-operation under a new name, styled the "Repub- 
 lican party," combining the great positive, aggressive and revolu- 
 tionary idea, that the general government could and must be used 
 to place slavery upon a sure basis of extinction; that it was neces- 
 sary to the salvation of the North itself under the doctrine, the 
 expression of which he was said to have been the author, of "the 
 irrepressible conflict between free and slave labor," in which was 
 embraced the sentiment so terrible to the North, "that all of the 
 States must be free, or all of the States must have slaves." This 
 was a happy hit in language, — not for its truthfulness, but for its 
 availability to alarm and unite the North. 
 
 This leading, positive idea of ultimately freeing the slaves of the 
 South, was stimulated and intensified in the North, by being a part 
 of the religion of the people. It was fostered also by a great many 
 popular kindred or auxiliary ideas, — such as universal liberty, 
 universal equality, the unity of the races, and the susceptibility of 
 all of them to political and social equality by education; the 
 respectability of labor; the laborer is worthy of his hire; the pub- 
 lic lands are the heritage of the white man, and should not be oc- 
 cupied by slaves to his exclusion; jealousy and envy towards the 
 Southerner, whose wealth consisted mainly in his slaves; the im- 
 puted barbarity of the slave owners, drawn from an occasional 
 and exceptional instance of cruelty, heralded in writings and pic- 
 tures so as to excite the sympathy and horror of the masses. 
 These and many more such, served to inflame the Northern mind 
 with the strongest, most active, and all-absorbing sentiment that 
 ever possessed the American mind. It was equaled only by that
 
 b 
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I9 
 
 which pervaded all Europe, when Peter the Hermit preached the 
 first crusade, to induce Christendom to take posession of the Holy- 
 Land by arms. 
 
 Positive, affirmative ideas always have an advantage, in popular 
 governments, over negative, defensive ideas. But when inflated 
 and inflamed by religion, sentiment, and prejudice, into a fanatical 
 enthusiasm, it is seldom resisted. By such means was Abraham 
 Lincoln elected President of the United States, by the votes of the 
 Northern States, without a single electoral vote in his favor from 
 the South, and by a minority of the voters in the United States. 
 
 During all this agitation of slavery in the North, the minds of 
 the people of the South were gradually undergoing a change, both 
 on the right of sovereignty of the States, and on the merits of 
 slavery as a social institution. 
 
 Before it commenced the doctrine of State sovereignty was far 
 from being a universal sentiment in the South. Nor was slavery 
 universally approved, as many persons had voluntarily manumitted 
 slaves, by which there were a considerable number of free negroes 
 in the Southern States. 
 
 The anti-slavery agitation in the North was looked upon by the 
 Southern people as an officious intermeddling in their affairs by 
 people who had no right or interest in the matter. That prompted 
 them to a more general acquiescence in the political doctrines 
 that afforded protection to their peculiar interest, as well as to a 
 more general assent to the merits of slavery as a social institution, 
 just in proportion to the progress and influence of the anti-slavery 
 movement in the Northern States. Hence the defense of slavery 
 became general, even by most persons who did not own slaves, as 
 well as by those who did. They considered the actions of the 
 Northern States as unconstitutional and unjust in the highest degree, 
 as calculated to injure their rightful property, and to e.xcite servile 
 insurrections. On the northern borders of the slave States, slave 
 property had already become subject to depredations; and the 
 laws of Congress furnished no adequate remedy; and the Northern 
 States being placed in hostility to the institution, a most resentful 
 feeling was engendered in the minds of the people of the Southern 
 States generally. 
 
 The strong feeling of antagonism between the two sections, 
 North and South, was reached in twenty years after the anti slavery 
 agitation began to have a practical influence in public affairs, 
 though the feeling was not at that stage universal in either section. 
 It, however, continued to increase in intensity, and became more 
 general with the occurrence of every public event upon which it 
 could be brought to bear. Already had the Northern States claimed 
 that the acts of Congress to aid slave owners in tlie capture of their 
 fugitive slaves were unconstitutional, and therefore were not bind- 
 ing upon them. The principle was assumed that a right of prop-
 
 20 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 erty could not be vested in human beings as slaves, notwithstand- 
 ing it had been decided by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States that slavery was lawful by the law of nations, except where 
 it was prohibited locally. 
 
 By the great struggle in the presidential election in i860, the 
 controlling public sentiment in each section reached its extreme 
 culmination, that made them two distinct people, both in political 
 doctrines and in regard to slavery and other material interests. 
 In the North, it was settled that the States united constituted a na- 
 tion, the life of which in its integrity the general government had 
 a right to preserve; and that its powers could and should be right- 
 fully used in the discouragement of slavery in any and every way 
 practicable, except only by a direct emancipation of slaves within 
 the States; and that the Northern States were justified in resisting 
 or evading the laws of Congress designed to aid the slave holders 
 in the capture of their slaves- that fled to the free States. In the 
 South it was settled that the North had placed itself in hostile 
 enmity to their domestic institutions; and that, having not been 
 able to defend them while the general federal government was act- 
 ing in their favor, it would be vain to attempt their defense after 
 the government should be in control of their political enemies. 
 They considered themselves warranted in that conclusion by the 
 fdct that before that election occurred, slavery had, in effect, been 
 practically excluded from all of the territories in which it could 
 be made useful, and that therefore there could be no motive for 
 the further agitation in the North other than to wield the govern- 
 ment of the United States against slavery within the slave States. 
 It was settled also that, under the doctrine of federalism and na- 
 tional supremacy over the States, dominant in the North, their 
 other peculiar interests, as States of the Union, could not be equally 
 protected. And further, it was settled that the States retained their 
 sovereignty, and that they had the right to withdraw from the gov- 
 ernment of the United States the powers delegated by them to that 
 government, and form another central government based on prin- 
 ciples consistent with their views of what the United States was 
 originally, and not inimical to their domestic institutions and other 
 material interests. Their effort to do this, although done in a 
 peaceful manner, brought into active operation the assumed right 
 of the general government, under the control of the Northern sen- 
 timent, to prevent the withdrawal, and thereby "to preserve the 
 life of the nation"; and that produced the great civil war between 
 the States.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 21 
 
 THE IMPENDING CRISIS. 
 
 SPEECH OF JUDGE O. M. ROBERTS, OF THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS, 
 AT THE CAPITOL, ON DECEMBER I, 1860. 
 
 Hon. O. M. Roberts: 
 
 Sir: — Ihe undersigned having had the pleasure of listening to 
 your able and instructive address, delivered in the Capitol building 
 on- Saturday last, most earnestly request a copy of the same for 
 publication. 
 
 Signed, James H. Fry, Clement R. Johns, James E. Rector, J. 
 M. Claiborne, Jno. A. Green, C. R. Johns, Jr., George M. Flournoy, 
 J. Q. St. Clair, C. H. Randolph, George J. Durham, H. W. Raglin, 
 Bird Holland, John B. Costa, E. Rust, R. D. Harris, Wm. Byrd, 
 A. R. Crozier, Geo. W. White, Darius Marsh, M. C. Burditt, H. J. 
 Burditt, H. McBride, T. J. Hill, E. P. Hill, Geo. W. Bowers, Wm. 
 Rust, A. F. Logan, James P. Neal, W. S. Oldham, Ed. Clark. 
 
 [There were three thousand copies of this address published and 
 circulated all over the State. As an evidence of its favorable re- 
 ception by the people, O. M. Roberts was elected president of the 
 Secession Convention by acclamation, in January, 1861. Its pub- 
 lication now may enable the young men of to-day to better under- 
 stand how our Federal relations were regarded by public men in 
 i860, after the election of Abraham Lincoln, President of the 
 United States.] 
 
 Fellow-Citizens: 
 
 A public expression of my views in reference to the impending 
 crisis, has been solicited by gentlemen of all parties. It is a time 
 for all men to speak out. I shall not hesitate to express my opin- 
 ions freely. 
 
 The revolutionary party of the North, have for years past, ad- 
 vanced step by step, towards the destruction of our domestic in- 
 stitutions. It has enlisted State after State in its cause, and now, 
 by an overwhelming sectional vote, has elected a President of the 
 United States. The purpose is, to wield the executive" arm of the 
 Federal Government, for the accomplishment of its object. 
 
 An indignant and outraged people throughout the whole South,
 
 2 2 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 at once set themselves in action. Our sister Southern States are 
 assembling their collectire wisdom in Legislatures, and in conven- 
 tions of the people, to devise measures, singly or together, to pro- 
 tect their reserved rights. Before the 4th of March next, South 
 Carolina will declare herself out of the Union. Georgia, Alabama, 
 .Mississippi, Louisiana aud Arkansas, are all moving, and will prob- 
 ably follow her example, or place themselves in the attitude of 
 readiness to do so at pleasure. Virginia and other States are arm- 
 ing and disciplining their people. A single federal gun aimed at 
 a withdrawing State, will kindle a blaze of war from the Potomac 
 to the Rio Grande. The "Lone Star" flag now floats over every 
 city, town, village and hamlet throughout all Texas. 
 
 What shall Texas do? As one of her citizens, I am for State ac- 
 tion, — action by the constituted authorities of the State, — action 
 singly and conjointly with other Southern States, until we are made 
 secure in our rights, liberties and honor. 
 
 Such action should be prompt, calm, deliberate, harmonious and 
 well directed, so as to secure the desired object, and at the same 
 time preserve peace and social order among ourselves. Our alle- 
 giance is due to both state and federal governments, because the 
 sovereign power of Texas, at the time of our annexation to the gen- 
 eral government, so ordained it, as its will. And until the same 
 sovereign power shall be brought into action, and declare a differ- 
 ent will, it is our duty as citizens, to make ourselves subservient to 
 the one as well as the other. 
 
 What action then may the people rightfully adopt, in so serious 
 a crisis? The legislature being convened by the governor, may de- 
 clare the rights of the State, and the infraction of those rights, so 
 as to call the attention of all the States and federal government, to 
 the grievances complained of, in order to effect a remedy, if pos- 
 sible, through public opinion and the ballot-box; and it may pro- 
 vide the means and measures, within its constitutional power, to 
 enable the State to protect its people and their rights from unau- 
 thorized aggression. This is what Virginia and Kentucky did in 
 1798 and '99. They presented an issue, and the verdict of the 
 American people upon it, prostrated federalisiji from its seat of 
 power, and consigned it to the tomb, for a time. 
 
 The legislature may make application to Congress to call a con- 
 vention of all the States to propose amendments of the Constitu- 
 tion. (Con, of U. S., Art. V.) Could we hope to get two-thirds of 
 the States to join us in a call of a general convention, or otherwise 
 two-thirds of both houses of Congress to propose amendments, and 
 then a ratification of the amendments so proposed, we might hope 
 to obtain more effectual guarantees for the fulfillment of the con- 
 stitutional compact. 
 
 The legislature may also provide for a convention of delegates 
 representing the people in their sovereign capacity. Or such con-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 23: 
 
 vention may be assembled without a call from the legislature, or 
 from any department of the State government, by concert among 
 the people themselves. Such has been the mode of making the 
 constitutions of several of the States, (Tennessee, Michigan, Arkan- 
 sas and New York,) which were acquiesced in by the previously 
 constituted authorities, and went quietly and peaceably into opera- 
 tion. There is no authority specially delegated to any department 
 of the existing government to call into action this high power of 
 the people. Nor is its exercise made dependent upon any will but 
 its own. Nor is there any invariably established mode of evidenc- 
 ing the sovereign will, so that it may be recognized as the funda- 
 mental law of the land, otherwise than by its being declared, and 
 be put in force by general acquiescence, and by the power of the 
 the people. Or, in other words, there is, and can be no artificial 
 test devised, for ascertaining when the controlling intellectual and 
 physical strength of a people has manifested its will in any partic- 
 ular instance. Should the pre-existing government fail to recog- 
 nize the act of a convention, as declaring the will of the sovereign 
 power (because it did not represent the people fairly, or for any 
 other reason that might be assigned), there might be a conflct be- 
 tween the old and the new government; which would only be de- 
 cided by force. Being a political question, courts of judicature 
 are not competent to decide it. Hence, it is important, when 
 practicable, that the legislature of the State should take the initia- 
 tory steps for regularly ascertaining the will of the people. If both 
 bodies should be in session at the same time, and the legislature 
 should recognize the convention as competent to represent the 
 sovereign power of the State, the same object would be attained, 
 and all conflict would be avoided. 
 
 Such convention, however assembled, might declare the griev- 
 ances of the State, appoint delegates to sister States, to devise a 
 plan of common redress within the Union, or it might indicate 
 terms upon which the State would continue quietly to perform its 
 duties within the Union. All this might be done without any con- 
 flict with the authority of either government, State or federal. By 
 such State action as this, South Carolina made a crisis, which re- 
 sulted in divorcing the general government from an unconstitu- 
 tional, discriminating, protective tariff. 
 
 Should such convention be assured that it represented the will 
 of the people, the controlling, intellectual and physical strength of 
 the State (which can generally be very well ascertained by the 
 unanimity, ardor, and firmness, with which the mass of the people 
 enter into the movement), and should the violations of the federal 
 compact be deemed so flagrant and dangerous as to require an ex- 
 treme remedy, it may declare the people absolved from their feal- 
 ty to the general government, and devise such measures as may be 
 necessary to protect their rights and liberties as an independent
 
 24 ' OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 sovereign power. If the officers of the State, and those of the fed- 
 eral government within the State, should not resist the action of 
 the convention of the people, the result would be a peaceful with- 
 drawal of the State from the confederacy. Such action of the 
 constituted authorities, in harmony with, or at least not in opposi- 
 tion to, the sovereign will and power of the people, must always be 
 very desirable, as promotive of social order, whenever a State is 
 driven by the impending danger to resort to this remedy. The 
 remedy itself may be adopted conditionally, for the purpose of 
 placing the State on equal terms in treating for an adjustment of 
 satisfactory guarantees against future violations of its rights, or ab- 
 solutely for the purpose of final separation. 
 
 In all these stages of State action, too great solicitude cannot 
 be felt by all parties, to preserve social order, so that if the federal 
 government should refuse to recognize the right of the State to ex- 
 ercise its reserved right of changing its form of government, and 
 should endeavor to subjugate it, the energies of the people may be 
 united in repelling the invasion. Which one of these remedies 
 may be adopted, it is for the people to say when they shall have 
 found the means of expressing their will. It is my purpose now, to 
 show that the present attitude of public affairs justifies them in 
 adopting either of the remedies that they may think necessary for 
 their safety. I have no fears that inconsiderate rashness will con- 
 trol them. They have pondered upon the issues of this crisis long 
 and well. It is not unexpected. They have their minds made up 
 about it. There is no agrarian spirit abroad in this country. There 
 is no war of classes. There is no conflict between labor and cap- 
 ital. Our people are not asking or seeking to extort any favors 
 from the government to themselves, or deprive others of any rights. 
 They have no motive or desire for a social rapture at home. Their 
 excitement arises from an entirely opposite cause, — a high resolve 
 now to throw themselves into the breach, not to destroy, but to 
 protect rights; not to destroy property, but to protect property; not 
 to destroy life, but to make life worth having; not to produce dis- 
 cord, but to end it. Their excitement is not a shallow, noisy rififie, 
 but a deep, irresistible current, founded on the firmest conviction 
 of the mind. I do not distrust the people of my State. I will not 
 yield to any argument founded on their want of discretion, want of 
 intelligence, want of integrity to act for themselves in a serious 
 emergency, and to act upon it now. They are not disaffected toward 
 the government at all. They love the Constitution of their coun- 
 try; and would regard it now as a great boon to be allowed to live 
 in peace under it, and at the same time to preserve their property, 
 their State equality, and their honor as freemen. But the truth is, 
 that their patience is exhausted by this endless wrangling, raging 
 discord, with which they have so long been beset, this intermed- 
 dling interference with their own rights by other people, — this ar-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 25 
 
 rogantly assumed control of their destinies by pothers, the oft-re- 
 peated and continued violations of plighted faith, and disregard of 
 a sacred compact. And justly alarmed by the rapid progress of 
 an infuriate revolutionary spirit, vvriich, under the guise and forms 
 of government, threatens to overwhelm them, and destroy their 
 civilization, and ultimately to lay their country in waste, they are 
 rising in their might of outraged manhood, to settle this question. 
 While yet they have strength to maintain the right, they will settle 
 it. Come weal or come woe, now I trust it will be settled. They 
 are in earnest. And now they will demand all their rights, and if 
 they do not get them, they will wrest the Constitution from the 
 grasp of those who mutilate, pervert, and contemn it, and retain it 
 over those States that have always revered and obeyed it. And it 
 shall be our Constitution. And under that Constitution, if we be 
 men worthy to succeed to those who made it and gave it to us, we 
 will shape for ourselves a glorious destiny, as the Confederacy of 
 the South. Or, if we should prefer it, let the flag that arose tri- 
 umphant upon the plain of San Jacinto, and that now flutters in 
 the breeze throughout Texas, be our flag forever. 
 
 The great question before the American people is, shall the in- 
 stitution of slavery be put upon a sure basis of gradual extinction. 
 The Northern controlling majorities say it shall. The South say it 
 shall not. And that is the issue. This is our institution, — not 
 theirs. It is a part of our political government, and so recognized 
 in the Constitution of the United States and of the States. It is a 
 part of our social organization. Our industrial pursuits are largely 
 based upon it. It constitutes a great portion of our capital. It is, 
 in its results, the controlling influence that characterizes the civil- 
 ization peculiar to the Southern States. It composes one-third of 
 our population (about 4,000,000). It is beneficial to both races, 
 the white and the black. Its tendency is to prevent the conflict 
 between capital and labor. There is no conflict between free and 
 slave labor here, one being an advantage to the other. It tends to 
 the perpetuation of our republican instutions, by establishing an 
 inferior class, fixed by law, and known by color; and by promoting 
 the equality of the superior white race. Nor is this a legalized 
 fiction. For the African race is indeed the inferior, intellectually, 
 and for that reason the better fitted for its' position of servitude. 
 Domestic servitude of some sort, is a necessary consequence of any 
 social organization, elevated above barbarism, by its wealth and 
 refinement. Although African slavery is established by power, it 
 is equally true, that, in its absence, the servitude of the weaker and 
 poorer portions of the white race would be forced upon them by 
 the laws which protect property. It is not a matter of choice ever. 
 Being a neeessity of society, that same society finds the means di- 
 rectly or indirectly, through the body politic, to force it upon 
 some one. We prefer the enslavement of the African race, because
 
 26 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 we believe it is right, — morally and politically right, — that it is 
 sanctioned by revelation, and by the immemorial custom of man- 
 kind, and was never questioned until lately, — very lately, — when 
 British interest and religious bigotry made the discovery, that it 
 was exceedingly sinful. We think it better to make servants of the 
 black race than of the white. We do not complain of those who 
 differ with us in opinion. The difference between the North and 
 the South, in procuring menial services required by society, is sim- 
 ply in the mode of applying the force of the body politic, and not 
 in the principle, except that we apply the force to an inferior race, 
 and they to a part of their own, the sons and daughters of their 
 white neighbors. 
 
 This crisis involves a great social matter, as well as political. 
 If we were disposed to yield the point, we cannot do so without 
 ruin. What would we do with our slaves. We have no place to 
 send them to, as did the Northern people. They, under the oper- 
 ation of their gradual emancipation laws, did not free their slaves, 
 but floated them down upon us, and got the money for them. We 
 cannot turn them loose amongst us. It would be an act of inhu- 
 manity to them. They would have no one to protect them. They 
 would descend to the vilest barbarism. A war of races would 
 ensue, and if they were not exterminated, they would hang upon 
 our society, a demoralizing, degrading element, dragging us down 
 in the scale of civilization. 
 
 Our industrial pursuits would also be ruined. The resources of 
 this country cannot be developed, and its prosperity continued 
 without slave labor. In fine, it would make us a different 
 people, in all our leading characteristics, moral, social, domes- 
 tic, industrial and political. That is simply revolution. 
 And that is what Northern majorities are seeking to force 
 upon us. To us, it is in its final results, a matter of 
 life and death, — politically, socially, and economically. To 
 them, it is speculative experiment, for their and our good, if noth- 
 ing worse. If we yield to their endeavor to spread their order of 
 civilization over us, it will be a failure. For the mass of free-negro 
 element amongst us, would inevitably prevent it. The nominal 
 freedom of the slave would be purchased at the price of the degra- 
 dation of the great mass of both races. We cannot, and will not 
 yield. Our domestic institutions belong to our guardianship. No 
 authority has been delegated to any power to circumvent and de- 
 stroy them. We have reserved the right to control our own destiny 
 on that subject. It is humiliating to have to discuss the propriety 
 of maintaining our reserved rights, with those whom they do not 
 properly concern, and who are intermeddling with them. This ag- 
 gressive party do not deny our right to maintain slavery within the 
 Southern States where it exists; but they do claim to have 
 the right, derived from their connection with us in the same general
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 27 
 
 government, to use such means as will eventually so act upon us, 
 as to eradicate slavery within the States. And now, the position 
 which I assume is, that the measures they have adopted, and 
 and have put in operation, and those which must follow in the 
 same tram, constitute a character of aggression, that cannot be 
 successfully opposed, or averted, except by prompt State action, 
 and that we are justified in pursuing that remedy to any extremity 
 that may be necessary to secure our endangered rights. 
 
 In pursuing this inquiry, the following propositions may be laid 
 down, as embracing the established theory of our government, in 
 relation to the matters now to be discussed. 
 
 ist. The Constitution of the United States is a written com- 
 pact, entered into between independent sovereign States, by which 
 they formed a general government, of delegated limited powers, 
 and bound themselves to do, and to refrain from doing certain 
 things therein specified, which results in regulating a whole sys- 
 tem of governments, within the territorial limits of the Union, all 
 resting upon the basis of delegated authority, derived from the 
 people of the several sovereign States. 
 
 2nd. Each State, in assenting to, and adopting this Constitu- 
 tion, has in its sovereign capacity, bound itself, its internal State 
 government, its tribunals, officers, and citizens to comply with the 
 obligations thereof, and to support the general government, creat- 
 ed by, and administered in accordance with it. 
 
 3rd. If this compact, thus entered into, be palpably broken by 
 the deliberate action, or non-action of some of the States, or of the 
 general government, so that important rights of the people of a 
 State are taken away, or permanently rendered insecure, it has the 
 right to judge for itself of the existence and effect of such infrac- 
 tion, and of the means necessary to be adopted for the preserva- 
 tion of such rights; and if, upon mature consideration, it should 
 deem it to be necessary and proper, it may rightfully, acting in its 
 sovereign capacity, pronounce the Compact at an end, so far as it 
 is concerned, and use its combined, intellectual and physical 
 strength, to maintain its separate independence, or it may reinvest 
 the delegated powers, thus resumed, in another confederacy, should 
 one be formed by it and other States. 
 
 These propositions are intended to embrace a repudiation of 
 federalism in the general government, of nullification by the 
 States while in the Union, and a recognition of a subsisting right 
 of a State to exercise its sovereign power to protect the rights of 
 its people, in the event of a dangerous violation of the compact 
 either by other States, or by the general government. 
 
 The leading characteristic of our American government is, that 
 there is a power of governing the people, within the territorial 
 limits of the State, delegated to magistrates, legislators, officers 
 and voters, who, in the exercise of the rights and powers entrusted
 
 28 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 to them by a written constitution, and laws enacted in pursuance 
 thereto, constitute the actual government, which is the State; and 
 at the same time there is a power, resting and forever abiding in 
 the mass of the people, within such limits, which, when they choose 
 to exert it, is above and superior to the Constitution and the ex- 
 isting governments, and can make and unmake them, which is sov- 
 ereignty, and the people embraced in, and composing it are also 
 denominated a State. The former is the body politic organized. 
 The latter is a mass of individuals united in the same community, 
 by the existence of some common or controlling elements of social 
 cement and combination. Each of the several sovereign States 
 divided the powers of government that it wished exercised, and 
 entrusted a portion of them, in common with other States, to a 
 general government, which the same delegation of power by each 
 created, and entrusted other powers to its State government, and 
 others it reserved from all governments. One of the powers re- 
 served, was that inherent right of the people to make and unmake 
 governments, "to alter, reform or abolish their form of govern- 
 ment." This was expressly reserved by the people of Texas in 
 their Constitution, and is declared in the Constitution of nearly 
 every State of the Union. New York and Rhode Island, expressly 
 reserved the right to resume the powers delegated to the general 
 government, in the resolutions of their conventions ratifying the 
 Constitution of the United States. There is nothing in the pre- 
 vious history of the States, or in the mode of framing and adopt- 
 ing the Constitution of the United States, or in the provisions 
 thereof, that properly lead to the conclusion, that the States in- 
 tended to relinquish their State sovereignty, and blend the sover- 
 eignty of each and all, into one mass, making one people, — a new 
 nation, then created. The only ground for such an assumption, 
 arising upon the words of the preamble: ''We, the people of the 
 United States," etc., "do ordain and establish this Constitution of 
 the United States," is swept away by its history tn the convention. 
 When first adopted,, and as it stood, until about the completion of 
 the instrument, it read: " We, the people of the States of Massachu- 
 setts^ Virginia,''^ etc., enumerating thirteen States. The revising 
 committee, whose province was merely literary, changed it, so as 
 to read as it does now, for the obvious reason, that some of those 
 States therein enumerated, might not ratify it. And so it was after- 
 wards adopted. The general government is federative in its crea- 
 tion and organic structure; that is, it was adopted by separate 
 State action, and its executive and Isgislature are elected by 
 States, each manifesting its will through its own majorities. It is 
 national, only in the results of its action, — that is, by acting di- 
 rectly upon the people of all the States, and by its intercourse 
 with foreign nations, just as if the States were one consolidated 
 people. Such nationality in its action is not in the least incon-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 29 
 
 sistent with the separate sovereignty of the several States. For it 
 is no destruction or loss of sovereignty for a State or nation to per- 
 mit and authorize another power to act on its people for certain 
 objects, by agents appointed by such foreign power. And it surely 
 is no loss of separate sovereignty for two or more States to appoint 
 a common agent, though that agent be itself a government, and 
 associate themselves for common objects, so as to act together as 
 a unit in their foreign relations. 
 
 It must be admitted that a State has reserved rights; among 
 which, are her domestic institutions. What use is such a reserva- 
 tion unless she has the right of protecting them? There can be no 
 such a thing as an exclusively reserved right, without the inciden- 
 tal right of protecting it. The very existence of reserved rights in 
 the States, makes the existence of sovereignty in such States a ne- 
 cessity, indespensable in the theory of our constitutional govern- 
 ment. Do we hold our reserved rights, subject to the will of ma- 
 jorities in in Massachusetts, Michigan ..ad Oregon? If so, it is 
 simply absurd to say that they have been reserved. If that were 
 the nature of our government, it would be well to strike at once for 
 a change, for M'e would have no rights pertaining to our internal 
 aflfairs, which might not be taken from us by majorities one thou- 
 sand miles from us, by persons entirely ignorant of bur condition 
 and interests, and against our unanimous consent. An absolute 
 despot nearer home would be more tolerable. There is certainly 
 no declaration in the Constitution, establishing a loss of sover- 
 eignty by the States; and surely so high a power, so seduously 
 guarded, will not be taken to have been lost by mere inference, 
 unless the facts establishing it are irresistibly convincing. 
 
 The facts of history are all on the other side. For the purpose 
 of protecting the rights of its citizens, the State may use its State 
 government, or its sovereign power, just as the one or the other 
 may be applicable and adequate. Which one shall be used, and 
 to what extent it may be rightfully exerted, depends upon the na- 
 ture of the aggression. If the aggression be in the shape of a phys- 
 ical hostile attack upon their lives or property, either the civil au- 
 thority or military power of the State government, just as the one 
 or the other, or both may be necessary, may be used for their pro- 
 tection. 
 
 If the aggression be in the shape of an unconstitutienal act of 
 Congress, acting directly on its ctiizens (as the sedition act under 
 the elder Adams), then the State government can, as the guardian 
 of the invaded rights of its citizens, remonatrate so as to influei)ce 
 public opinion and the ballot-box; or it may propose condemna- 
 tory amendments of the Constitution. Or, if necessary, the sover- 
 eign power of the State may be called into action to protest against 
 the aggression, and address itself to their sister States, as well as 
 to the general government, indicating its determination not to sub-
 
 30 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 mit to a government that thus usurps authority; or indicating the 
 terras of its submission. The State cannot, however, while within 
 the Union, rightfully nullify such law of Congress, by the use of 
 any of its powers, however high. For while within the confederacy, 
 it has bound itself by a different rule of supremacy than its own 
 will in reference to acts of Congress. 
 
 In ratifying the Constitution, it made all its provisions a part of 
 its own fundamental law, which prescribes that "the Constitution 
 and 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 supreme 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 not- 
 withstanding." (Art. VI. Sec. 2, Con. U. S.) 
 
 Congress must necessarily decide in the first instance, whether 
 its enactment is made in pursuance to the Constitution. This it 
 does in passing the law. If it meet the sanction of the executive 
 department as well as the legislative, which it does in its passage, 
 and is also sanctioned by the judiciary (if it be a subject within 
 judicial cognizance), it must be regarded as having undergone all 
 the tests of constitutionality, which have been provided in our sys- 
 tem of government, and must therefore, within the purview of our 
 system, be regarded as the "supreme law of the land." As to the 
 State government, it could not contravene or nullify such law, .be- 
 cause it is a creature of delegated limited authority, as well as the 
 general government, and no power has been, or could be given to 
 it, to veto a law of Congress, as long as the above quoted provision 
 stands in force. The State in its sovereign capacity could not 
 nullify the law within the Union, and while assuming to act as part 
 and parcel of the system of government, instituted by the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, because it has reserved to itself no 
 such veto power as part of such system; and because, although 
 sovereignty from its very nature, cannoi irrevocably bind itself to 
 one form of government (the right to change it being an inherent, 
 inalienable right of the people), still it can well bind itself, for, 
 and in consideration of the benefits derived from an associated 
 system of government formed by difi'erent equal sovereignties, to 
 conform to a rule of supremacy (to wit, the expressed will of the 
 associated sovereignties) variant from its own will, so long as it 
 may remain a part of, and receive the benefits of such associated 
 government. 
 
 A cardinal principle of ©ur system of government is the equal- 
 ity of the States, in proportionally and mutually bearing the bur- 
 dens, and receiving the benefits of the general government. This 
 would be utterly destroyed if a few powerful States could refuse to 
 bear the burdens, while they received the benefits equally with 
 the weaker States that did bear them.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. ^1 
 
 Such has ever been, and ever will be, the wide difference be- 
 tween the several States in their industrial pursuits, habits of life, 
 domestic institutions, political opinions, moral sentiments and prej- 
 udices, that the recognition of a veto power in a State as a part 
 of the system would cause it frequently to be acted upon by the 
 States; the effect of which would be to destroy the universal and 
 equal operation of the laws in all the States of the Union; which 
 universality is another equally cardinal principle in our system of 
 government. Perhaps the most prominent reason for the formation 
 of a more perfect union by this Constitution, was to obviate this 
 very difficulty, growing out of the failure of the several States to 
 carry into operation with equal punctuality, the laws of the old 
 confederation. The wise men who framed it, would surely not 
 have omitted to declare and define such a check in the govern- 
 ment, if it had been intended to be exercised, as a part of the 
 grand system of government, they were with so much care, wisdom 
 and experience devising. Nullification by the States is to the ex- 
 tent of its operation a destruction of our system of government. 
 
 If the aggression upon the rights of the people of a State be 
 made in the shape of a failure of the sister States, or the general 
 government, to perform their constitutional obligations, the matter 
 complained of will, from its nature, be beyond the reach of State 
 power within the Union, exept by operating upon public opinion 
 and the ballot-box, by an appeal to the sister States and to the 
 general government, as previously indicated. As this character of 
 aggression may be so flagrant and dangerous, as is now evidenced 
 by the impending crisis, as to lead to the exertion of the highest 
 powers within a State, for the protection of the rights of its people, 
 we may better be prepared for its consideration by taking a broader 
 view of the Constitution than has heretofore been developed. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States not only furnishes the 
 structure of a general government, but it does more, — it contains 
 provisions, which are in the nature of treaty-stipulations between 
 the States, to the observance of which they are mutually bouad, 
 by being adopted and established by the highest sovereign power 
 of each State. They are more than treaty-stipulations between 
 sovereign States, by being thus made the fundamental law of each. 
 Regarded in this comprehensive aspect (and so it must be regard- 
 ed for its true spirit and grand purposes to be properly appreciated 
 and understood), the Constitution regulates a whole system of gov- 
 ernments, so as to act in concert and harmony with each other, 
 and with the common government, which it institutes for all, with 
 specific limited powers. 
 
 These are the obligations assumed by the States, that do not 
 necessarily enter into or pertain to the structure or direct opera- 
 tions of the general government: 
 
 •'No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation.
 
 32 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 grant letters of marque or reprisal, coin money, emit bills of credit, 
 make anything but gold and silver coin a legal tender, in payment 
 of debts, pass any bill of attainder, ex-post facto law, or law im- 
 pairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility." 
 So they shall not without the consent of Congress lay import du- 
 ties, etc., duty on tonnage, keep troops or ships of war, or enter 
 into an agreement with another State or with a foreign power, or 
 engage in war unless actually invaded, etc. (Sec. X, Art. i, Con. 
 U. S.) 
 
 "Full faith and credit shall be given in each State to the public 
 acts, records and judicial proceedings of every other State," etc. 
 
 "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges 
 and immunities of citizens in the several States." 
 
 "A person charged in any State with treason, forgery or other 
 crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another State, 
 shall on demand of the executive authority of the State from 
 which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having 
 jurisdiction of the crime." 
 
 "No person who shall be 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 on cliim of the party to whom 
 such service or labor may be due." (Art. IV, Con.) 
 
 This will sufiice to show the class of provisions referred to. 
 They are of much more binding force than mere treaty stipula- 
 tions between governments. They are binding upon the State 
 government and every department thereof and upon the officers 
 and citizens, just as is their own State Constitution. It does not 
 require any action of the federal government under them to make 
 them of binding force in each State as its fundamental law. A 
 State could not coin money, even if the federal government failed 
 to do so. A State is bound to deliver up slaves who escape from 
 their masters and enter it, though Congress had passed no law 
 upon the subject, and as much so, as it is bound to do anything 
 else by the terms of its own State Constitution. This duty is gen- 
 erally recognized and acted upon in the case of criminals, who are 
 fugitives from justice, on demand of an executive of a State, with- 
 out any law of Congress. 
 
 These provisions and their faithful observance are exceedingly 
 important to our system of government in two respects, having 
 reference to the diversity of interests, opinions, habits, pursuits, 
 and prejudices which have always existed, and must continue to 
 prevail in the different States of so extended a Union. 
 
 ist. That the general government may be allowed to perform 
 those functions of government, which are indispensable to the 
 existence and preservation of a common government for all. 
 
 2nd. That the rights of each State which it enjoys under its re-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 33 
 
 served powers, however peculiar they may be, in response to the 
 interests, opinions, habits, pursuits or prejudices of its own peo- 
 ple, may be respected and accorded to it by the public authorities 
 and citizens of every other State in the Union. Some such regu- 
 lation as this is absolutely necessary to the friendship and peace 
 of any two independent equal nations that have any intercourse 
 with each other. Between foreign nations, it is secured ordinarily 
 by treaty, or accorded by an enlightened comity. It was well known 
 to the enlightened statesmen, who were the authors of our system, 
 that the strong do not always accord this right fully to the weak, 
 however ready they may be to demand it from others. And to 
 place the States, however great or small, on a perfect equality in 
 the mutual recognition of each other's peculiar rights, they did not 
 leave it to fraternal affection, or an enlarged liberality, to an en- 
 lightened comity, or even to agreements or treaty stipulations, 
 afterwards to be made by consent of Congress; but they secured it 
 by the strongest obligations they could devise, the Constitution to 
 be adopted by the sovereign power of each State, and thereby to 
 become the fundamental law of each State. 
 
 These provisions are as material parts of the compact as any 
 other, and their reciprocal observance punctually by each State, 
 constitutes a substantial part of the consideration to every other 
 State, upon which it was and is founded. Mr. Madsion, in his 
 letter to Edward Everett in 1830, said, that "when the Constitution 
 was adopted as a whole, it is certain that there were many parts, 
 which if separately proposed, would have been promptly rejected. 
 It is far from impossible, that every part of the Constitution might 
 be rejected by a majority, and yet taken as a whole, be unani- 
 mously accepted. Free constitutions will rarely if ever be formed 
 without reciprocal concessions, — 7vithout articles conditioned on, 
 and balancing each other.'" No one can suppose for a moment, 
 that this Constitution would have been adopted by the Southern 
 States, or even by the Middle States, where many slaves were then 
 held, without the provision for the delivery of escaped slaves. 
 Without the adoption of most of these prohibitions upon the 
 States, the Constitution could not have been adopted; such, for 
 instance, as the prohibition to coin money, to make anything but 
 gold and silver a lawful tender, to make treaties, alliances and 
 confederations, to keep troops or ships of war; likewise, also, the 
 obligation to give full faith and credit to records, to deliver crim- 
 inals, and to grant to the citizens of each State all the privileges 
 and immunities of citizens in the several States. Indeed, the same 
 may be said of many of the provisions, which enter into the struc- 
 ture and powers of the general government itself. 
 
 'I'he States should neither violate these obligations by its own 
 action, directly or indirectly, nor should they permit their citizens 
 to violate them within their limits.
 
 34 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 But suppose they do? Suppose the Northern States, believing 
 slavery to be a sin and a great social and political evil, and having 
 nursed and cultivated a virulent antipathy towards this institu- 
 tion, should permit a set of fanatics to prowl along the borders of 
 the free States, watching an opportunity to decoy a slave from his 
 master, and have him conveyed, by the aid of his associates and 
 the connivance of the sympathizing community, beyond the reach 
 of his owner; or if the master should pursue his property, an in- 
 furiated mob of free negroes and worse white people, rescue the 
 slave and defy the laws of the State and of Congress, and perhaps 
 avail themselves of some imprudence of the indignant and out- 
 raged owner, slay him with impunity, and the State permits it, or 
 what is worse, discharges the culprits, after a trial which is made 
 a mockery of justice by the same mob filling the court-house, and 
 making another rescue by the by the force of perjury. But that 
 is not enough, for good men there are in those States, who, what- 
 ever may be their moral convictions as to their ownership of such 
 property, will not stand by and see a stranger outraged and robbed, 
 who will not see the laws of their country trampled upon, who re- 
 gard robbery and murder, and resistance to lawful federal author- 
 ity, as more heinous offenses than owning and pursuing a fugitive 
 slave. The hands of these good men must be tied so as to let the 
 motley mob execute the higher law of public opinion. To accom- 
 plish this, the liberty bill is passed by the States (a number of them 
 at least). That bill, as usually shaped, not only ties the hands of 
 the good men, who would assert and maintain the right, but should 
 the owner escape death from the mob, he makes his claim accord- 
 ing to the laws of the United States, under the hazard of being 
 buried alive for many years in the penitentiary, by a prosecution 
 and conviction in the courts of such States. Suppose further, by 
 some such process as this, variant in different States of the North, 
 the Southern people should lose one-half a million to a million of 
 dollars annually, and have their slave property on the borders 
 much diminished in value from its insecurity. It is certain that 
 by such and similar means, the fugitive slave law of Congress, is 
 virtually nullified by the permission and legislative action of the 
 Northern States. In most of them, indeed, this provision of the 
 Constitution, for the delivery of fugitive slaves, is a mere dead let- 
 ter, — erased from the Constitution by the broad black scrawl, 
 drawn across it by the hand of anti-slavery fanaticism. 
 
 Now, suppose in the spirit of retaliation, the people of the 
 Southern States should commit some outrages upon men whom 
 they suspect to be here for some incendiary purpose, and further, 
 the States themselves should pass evasive laws, so devised as to 
 prevent attorneys and agents from collecting Northern debts, or 
 laws to discourage the sale of Northern made goods (which I hope
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 35 
 
 and trust no one in the South will ever think of seriously, as a rem- 
 edy for our wrongs). 
 
 Suppose that California should establish a mint, and coin her 
 own gold, upon a pretext or evasion. Suppose that Ohio and other 
 States, following her example, should refuse to deliver up fugitives 
 from justice, because they could not recognize any criminality in 
 stealing a negro slave, or some such ground. Let every peculiar 
 interest, opinion or prejudice manifest itself, by similar attempts 
 to evade and defeat the performance of these and other plain con- 
 stitutional obligations, and our system of government would be 
 virtually disorganized and destroyed. It would be changed, and 
 would have failed to accomplish the objects for which it was in- 
 tended. It was under a full sense of the calamitous results of such 
 a course that Mr. Webster said, in a speech in Virgiuia in 1S51: 
 "I do not hesitate to say, and repeat, that if the Northern States re- 
 fuse, willfully and deliberately, to carry into effect that part of the 
 Constitution which requires the restoratiou of slaves, the South 
 would no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain 
 broken on one side is broken on all sides." Nearly ten years 
 have elapsed since that was uttered. During all that time many 
 of the Northern States, if not most of them, have not only passive- 
 ly but actively refused "willfully and deliberately" to carry into 
 effect that provision; or, what is exactly the same thing in sub- 
 stance, judged of by any honest mind that is unbiased by the fury 
 of fanaticism, that very result has been produced by their counter- 
 acting laws and permission, which were intended by them to pro- 
 duce it, and which could have been intended for nothing else. 
 " The South would no longer be bound to observe the contract. A 
 bargain broken on one side is broken on all sides." A willful and 
 deliberate violation of the compact by the Northern States would 
 absolve the people of the Southern States from their allegiance to 
 the general government, if they choose to be absolved thereby. It 
 is a standing, continuing violation by the Northern States, put into 
 operation and practically acted on, and ready to be acted on by 
 their citizens and officers, every day in the year, whenever a sub- 
 ject presents itself. It is not a past, but a continuing violation, — 
 looking to the perpetual future. We are not absolved upon a con- 
 dition that the President will march an army into the field to dis- 
 perse any mob that may be raised in any spot throughout the 
 whole area of twelve or fifteen Northern States. We are not ab- 
 solved upon the condition that the Northern people will not en- 
 courage such rescuing mobs. There is but one condition in the 
 proposition, a»d that is, "if the Northern States refuse willfully 
 and deliberately to carry into effect" the provision. It is imma- 
 terial about the means they employ. The cjuestion is, do they 
 "refuse willfully and deliberately." The subject addresses itself, 
 not immediately through the general government, but directly to
 
 36 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 the States themselves. The States are bound by the obligation, 
 and they cannot shelter themselves under the broad cover of the 
 general government. 
 
 Such is the verdict upon the action of those Northern States, by 
 the man, who for twenty-five years before he pronounced it, was the 
 great intellectual champion of the Union party, and by them rec- 
 ognized as the greatest constitutional expounder of their princi- 
 ples which America has produced. 
 
 The object of calling special attention to this opinion, deliber- 
 ately expressed, is to show that he placed the States upon their 
 own responsibility in the performance of their constitutional obli- 
 gations, and that such a violation by them, equally as by the gen- 
 eral government, would be destructive of the system of government 
 instituted and regulated by the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Such indeed must be the case. He who regards the Constitu- 
 tion as only instituting a general government, has but half compre- 
 hended the grand designs of its formation. It is also our inter- 
 national code, as it may be termed, securing the equality of the 
 States, securing the mutual recognition of each other's reserved 
 rights and peculiar interests, enforcing an enlarged and liberal 
 comity between the States in their internal administrations, enforc- 
 ing strict justice in rights of action, and rights of properiy to citi- 
 zens of diflerent States, in fine, regulating the "balance of power" 
 upon a harmonious fraternity of feelings and interests, which in 
 Europe requires a million of bayonets to adjust. 
 
 The States must also be actively co-operative in the execution of 
 this system, in the performance of the constitutional obligations, 
 which rests on them severally, as well as electing officers to admin- 
 ister the general government, so as to put the States in active har- 
 mony with one another, and each and all of them in harmony and 
 in active co-operation with the general government. It is not to 
 be a forced c®-operation in the system, by the hand of power. It 
 must be voluntary. Upon no other principle can our free govern- 
 ments be administered, which in nearly all their departments, act- 
 ing on the people, require the citizens to participate in, or directly 
 aid in the administration and execution of the laws of the land. 
 When States, or large sections of country in a State, have to be 
 forced by the military power to the performance of their constitu- 
 tional obligations, the whole theory of our government will have to 
 be changed, and the sword will be of much higher authority than 
 precedents in law books; and the cannon's roar will be more con- 
 vincing than the eloquence of statesmen. 
 
 Gen. Jackson at the end of a long life, spent in the service of his 
 country, in the most trying positions, all of which, his intellectual 
 power mastered, and who never shrank from the use of power, 
 when he believed it to be right, and whose devotion to the Union 
 is impressed upon every page of his history, and while for the last
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 37 
 
 time surveying his whole country, which his strong arm had so 
 nobly protected, and his wisdom directed, left his farewell admoni- 
 tion to his countrymen upon the very subject which now convulses 
 the whole country : 
 
 " But the Constitution cannot be maintained, nor the Union pre- 
 served in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the 
 coercive powers confided to the general government. The founda- 
 tion must be laid in the affections of the people; in the security it 
 gives to life, liberty, character, 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 politi- 
 cal family, mutually contributing to promote the happiness of each 
 other. Hence, the citizens of every State should studiously avoid 
 everything calculated to wound the sensibility, or offend the just 
 pride of the people of other States, and they should frown upon 
 any proceedings in their own borders likely to disturb the tran- 
 quility of their political brethren in other portions of the Union. 
 
 " Each State has the unquestionable right to regulate its own 
 internal concerns, according to its own pleasure; and while it does 
 not interfere with the rights of the people of other States, or the 
 rights of the Union, every State must be the sole judge of the 
 measures proper to secure the safety of its citizens, and promote 
 their happiness; and all efforts on the part of the people of other 
 States, to cast odium upon their institutions, and all measures cal- 
 culated to disturb the rights of property, or to put in jeopardy their 
 peace and internal tranquility, are in direct opposition to the spirit 
 in which the Union was formed, and must endanger its safety.'' 
 
 The hero and sage of the Hermitage, though resting in his tomb, 
 still speaks to his country the words of wisdom. 
 
 This refusal of the Northern States to deliver fugitive slaves, is 
 but a part of a well concerted scheme of continuous aggression, 
 the full development of which is necessary to form a correct esti- 
 mate of the powers of the State adequate to repel it, and of the 
 mode in which it must be exercised. 
 
 The Constitution of the United States is of course not the gov- 
 ernment. The exercise of the powers delegated by that instrument 
 to the federal authorities, its departments, officers and agents con- 
 stitute the general government. And while they perform the duties 
 imposed, and exercise just the powers conferred for the objects 
 intended by it, the government in operation under it, is exactly the 
 government which the States contracted for, and bound themselves 
 to submit to when they formed it. It was contemplated in its for- 
 mation, that the march of civilization would make such changes 
 in the habits, interests and wants of society, as fo demand a change 
 in the actual government. Hence provision was made to effect 
 such change by amendments to the Constitution, so as to in- 
 crease, modify or diminish the powers to be exercised, and duties 
 
 4.4(J0J 
 
 «>
 
 38 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 to be performed by the federal authorities. Such change, how- 
 ever, can only be made by the consent of "the legislatures of three- 
 fourths of the States, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof." 
 That is, the change can only be made by the ascertained will and 
 consent of the people of each State, to the number of three-fourths 
 of the whole. 
 
 Out of the thirty-three States, twenty-five States, irrespective of 
 the aggregate amount of population, must agree to the change be- 
 fore those States, that dissent from it, are bound to submit to it, 
 whatever may be the demonds of public opinion throughout the 
 Union as to the propriety or necessity for the change. 
 
 Now, majorities in one more than half the States (seventeen), 
 may control every department of the actual government which is 
 administered under the Constitution. A much less number than 
 half, from the numerical strength of their population may control 
 the executive department, and the House of Representatives in 
 Congress, and thereby hold the whole government in check and 
 infuse an influence in the actual government which is administered 
 in accordance with the will of such controlling States. The check 
 is itself an influence infused into the government, by preventing 
 action unless it shall be shaped to suit the checking power. And 
 each department, particularly the executive, must infuse a positive 
 influence into the government by the exertion, and the mode of 
 exertion of its powers, which are not subject to be controlled or 
 checked by any other department. Thus it is obvious, that the 
 governing powers, — the majorities that control the part or the 
 whole, which gives shape to the actual government, may be very 
 variant from the changing power, — the majorities that are required 
 to amend the Constitution. 
 
 This presents a peculiarity in our government. In Great Britain 
 the law-making power resides in the same bodies, the three estates 
 of the realm, that can by a concurrence, amend the Constitution. 
 Its government can therefore keep pace with the concurrent will of 
 the three estates, the queen, lords and commons. This provision 
 is intended to secure our government from the frequent changes 
 which great excitement, or fluctuating public opinion upon new 
 questions might produce, and also to cause respect for the interests 
 and wishes of a respectable minority, that might be unwilling to 
 make such a change. It is admitted that the powers and^ objects 
 of the general government are limited. There is no power dele- 
 gated to the general government or any department thereof, to de- 
 stroy or even to discourage slavery. On the contrary, it is recog- 
 nized in the Constitution, by the representation given to the States 
 for their slaves, by the provision obligating the States to return 
 fugitive slaves, and by the provision which restricts Congress 
 before 1808 from passing any law against the importation of more
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 39 
 
 slaves. Without these provisions the Constitution would not have 
 been assented to by many of the States. 
 
 In the progress of events, new objects and new views of govern- 
 mental action present themselves, which are sought to be adopted 
 by the governing majorities that control the government, but which 
 are not adopted by the greater number of majorities, that are re- 
 quired to change the Constitution. This produces a conflict be- 
 tween the governing majorities that wish to advance, and the mi- 
 nority that has a right to hold them back, and prevent any change 
 in the actual government. There has always been a tendency in 
 the governing majorities to adopt a liberal construction as to the 
 powers delegated, in order to make the general government keep 
 pace with, what they considered, the true interest and policy of 
 the country. This induces a continual effort to find powers in the 
 Constitution, that are in fact, not expressed, and were never intended 
 to be delegated. By this means the powers of the government are 
 sought to be enlarged, and the government is perverted, by being 
 made the instrument directly and indirectly of accomplishing favor- 
 ite objects, not at all embraced within its scope of constitutional ac- 
 tion. This is a change of the government. But it is a change without^ 
 the consent of a majority in two -thirds of the States, and therefore un- 
 constitutional. It is a change by the infusion of extraneous elements 
 of action into the government, through the perversion of its pow- 
 ers, or through the usurpation of additional powers not granted. 
 It is a change under the forms of administering the government. 
 It is the government itself making a revolution without the consent 
 of the States, that alone have the right to revolutionize. If the 
 change should materially prejudice or jeopardize their rights, not 
 having contracted for such a government, they are not bound to 
 submit to it; for the general government has no right to exercise 
 those that have been delegated, in a manner and with a design to 
 accomplish an object not embraced within the intended scope of 
 the government. 
 
 The preponderance of Northern mind has been predisposed thus 
 to enlarge the powers and objects of the general government. 
 Hence federalism of which this is the essence, though often beaten 
 back, as often renews its form of development, and seeks to en- 
 graft itself upon the government, and now more than ever, bold, 
 triumphant, and arrogant demands its admission into the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The preponderance of Southern mind, has resisted this usurpa- 
 tif)n and perversion of government. Massachusetts, the mother of 
 Northern States, and author of their leading ideas, is the type of 
 the former principle; and Virginia, the mother of Southern States, 
 and author of their leading ideas, is the type of the latter. Here- 
 tofore this federal principle has advanced the claims of measures 
 and objects, which admitted a division of opinion both in the
 
 40 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 North and South. At last it has found an object, which fastens 
 itself upon the great mass of Northern mind, and is being infused 
 as an element of action, into the government. That element is 
 the universal freedom of ?nan, without distinction of color. When 
 the Constitution was adopted, all the States had slaves, with one 
 or two exceptions. Hence the provisions before referred to were 
 inserted, to permit the States to acquire more slaves, and to pro- 
 tect their property in slaves, and to require every State to respect 
 such rights of property. More than half the States since that time 
 have become opposed to the whole institution of slavery; still not 
 enough of them to change the powers and objects of the govern- 
 ment by a regular change of the Constitution. The controlling 
 majorities in the Northern States have determined to change the 
 government on this subject, at all hazards, by construction, per- 
 version and evasion of its powers, so as to discourage and destroy 
 slavery, rather than protect it. Their acts and words concurring, 
 establish this plainly. 
 
 The object of a platform is to indicate and avow the principles 
 upon which the party agree to administer the government. 
 
 The leading principle thus avowed by the Republican party is in 
 the following language to-wit: 
 
 ^'■Resolved, That the maintenance of the'Federal Constitution is 
 essential to the preservation of our republican institutions, and 
 shall be preserved; that we solemnly re-assert the self-evident 
 truths, that all are endowed by their creator with certain inalien- 
 able rights, among which, are those of life, liberty and the pursuit 
 of happiness; that governments are instituted among men to secure 
 the enjoyment of those rights." 
 
 Here is the great object avowed — universal freedom — and the 
 instrument of its accomplishment— ^(?z;<?r«;/^(f«/j', which they have 
 been and are now with rapid strides converting to their purpose, 
 both State and Federal. This is not intended as the assertion of 
 a fascinating abstraction. For they "deny the authority of Con- 
 gress, of a territorial Legislature, or of any individuals to give 
 legal existence to slavery in any territory of the United States." 
 They also condemn the action of the present administration, "in 
 construing the personal relation between master and servant, to in- 
 volve an unqualified property in persons," etc., "in its attempts at 
 the enforcement everywhere on land and sea, through the interven- 
 tion of^Congress and the Federal Courts of the extreme pretensions 
 of a purely local interest." 
 
 The doctrine upon which they plant themselves is, that there is 
 to be no recognition of the right of slavery, except within the 
 limits of the slave States. They simply deny themselves the right 
 now to make a direct assault upon slavery within the slave States. 
 All other means of attack is to open to them in attaining their 
 ultimate object of universal freedom, through the instrumentality
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 4I 
 
 of the p«\ver and influence of the State governments North, and of 
 the Federal government. They now deny themselves the right to 
 pass a law in Congress abolishiag slavery in the States, but claim 
 the right to use the governments they may be able to control or 
 influence, as instruments of every sort of indirect attack for its 
 ultimate extinction within those States. 
 
 Why announce this principle of universal freedom, in reference 
 to the contemplated action of the government upon the persons 
 who belong to the Northern States? No one there is controverting 
 it in its application to those States, nor are we. It can have no 
 application but in reference to the slaves of Southern masters. It 
 points out two things distinctly, to-wit: the direction they will give 
 to all governments and departments thereof, which they may be 
 able to control, in an indirect attack upon slavery within the States, 
 and the basis upon which the government shall rest, when they 
 shall have accomplished their ultimate object. The very best evi- 
 dence that we can have of the purpose that actuates men, is what 
 they themselves declare, and what they have done and are doing 
 in correspondence with such declarations. If that test be applied, 
 there can be no doubt as to what is their purpose, in getting pos- 
 session of, and in controlling their State governments, and the 
 Federal government. To exhibit their whole scheme of operations, 
 — let us suppose it were proposed by a man from the North, in a 
 convention of all the States now assembled, to propose amend- 
 ments to the Constitution, that slavery should be put upon a sure 
 basis of gradual extinction; that the means used should not be by 
 the passage of a law of Congress abolishing it, but by a non-deliv- 
 ery of fugitive slaves, — by its exclusion from all the territories, by 
 the general recognition of universal freedom (except only within 
 the slave States), by the refusal of governors in the free States to 
 deliver up negro thieves, upon the ground that stealing a man, 
 could not be regarded as an offence,— man not being a subject of 
 property; by the use of the patronage and influence of the Execu- 
 tive of the Federal*government, and when practicable, of all its 
 departments, to discriminate against slave labor, and the owner- 
 ship of slaves, — by protecting a free press and free speech, so as 
 to foment agitation, discord and division in the slave States, and 
 intensify the feeling of hostility to slavery in the Northern States; 
 by sending ministers abroad to array the public sentiment of the 
 world against the institution; by giving a premium to free labor in 
 manufactures and mechanic arts (which mainly exist at the North), 
 and to the capital that employs it, through the operation of a spe- 
 cific protective tariff;* by manifesting the public disapprobation of 
 the government in preventing the slave traffic in the District of 
 Columbia, under the penalty of setting the slave free, if brought 
 there and sold — which, when safe to do it, involves the right to 
 abolish slavery in that district; by the States incorporating emi-
 
 42 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 gration aid societies, to direct the redundant population of the 
 Eastern and Northern States into the border slave States; by agi- 
 tating the question until all the departments of the Federal govern- 
 ment are enlisted in the cause, so as to adopt such measures from 
 time to time as may be pressed without a rupture, so as to keep 
 the slave owner perpetually alarmed for the safety of his property. 
 All these efforts must be directed towards the driving in the bor- 
 ders of slavery from State to State, until it shall be hemmed into 
 a small compass upon the Gulf and Atlantic, where it will destroy 
 itself. Then the final object will have been attained and a hnmo- 
 genous population be spread throughout the whole Union, upon 
 the basis of universal freedom. (It cannot be doubted that such 
 is the plan of operations and designs of the Black Republican 
 party.) 
 
 Would the Southern States entertain such a proposition? Would 
 they not say that "you propose to put our own government in di- 
 rect antagonism to the rights of the South, and make it an instru- 
 ment of destruction, and thereby subvert the objects of govern- 
 ment, which is to protect not to destroy the rights of its citizens; 
 you propose to give money, as a premium to the labor of the North 
 of a particular class, and add to the capital that employs it, which 
 is not protecting property, but giving it without any consideration 
 out of means unjustly taken from others. 
 
 In other words, you subvert the very object of government, 
 which is to protect rights, — not either to donate them gratuitously 
 to one section, — or to destroy them in another. You propose to 
 strike one clause entirely out of the Constitution, which is import- 
 ant for the protection of our rights, the delivery of fugitive slaves. 
 You propose to give the right to abolish slavery in the District of 
 Columbia." It is useless to enumerate further. For it is too ob- 
 vious that such measures would produce a change in the govern- 
 ment, thoroughly radical in reference to the domestic institutions 
 of the Southern States, and infuse an element of action, that its 
 founders never thought of being embraced in if, and which would 
 not be assented to, if now proposed, by a single Southern State. 
 In the effort to attain the unconstitutional object, the change of 
 the domestic institutions of the States, the General Government 
 would itself be changed, through the governing majorities of a 
 little over half the States, and not by the consent of three-fourths 
 of them. It would be changed by flagrant and dangerous perver- 
 sions of its powers to objects not intended, and by an usurpation 
 of powers not granted. The whole system instituted by the Con- 
 stitution would be disorganized and perverted, by the States failing 
 to perform their constitutional obligations, and by using their 
 powers to attack and endanger the rights of sister States. 
 
 Why then wait for an overt act after Lincoln is inaugurated ? 
 These are palpable, deliberate and dangerous violations of the
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. . 43 
 
 Constitution, Some of which have already been done and are be- 
 ing done, and the rest certainly contemplated and intended. — They 
 are not violations waived by acquiescence. They are subsisting, 
 continuing, progressing, and increasing violations. The election 
 of Lincoln shows that they are sanctioned and affirmed, and there- 
 by shown to be the deliberate will of the controlling majorities in 
 the Northern States, By his election under the avowed principles 
 of his party, the whole attitude of the Northern States, impressed 
 upon them by that ruling party, is an overt act; an array of the 
 powers of their States, and of the Federal Executive and of the 
 checking influence within the general government itself, against 
 our constitutional, and reserved rights, in reference to slaves and 
 slavery. This overt act is evidenced, not by two witnesses, but by 
 the million, or perhaps millions of voiers in the late election. 
 The intention, only not treasonable because manifested by the con- 
 trolling majorities under the forms of the Constitution, is openly 
 avowed by all the leaders of the conspiracy, and needs not to be 
 proved by inference from their acts- 
 Overt act by a direct attack upon slavery in the States! Who 
 expects it? They do themselves disclaim it. That is not the way 
 of the battle. Their whole scheme of battle is a siege, — a pro- 
 tracted siege. It is a siege for years to come. They have gained 
 nearly all the positions they want or need. Let them retain them, 
 and get well fortified in them, and they will environ us with their 
 easy leisure. Our defeat will be a matter of time only. Are those 
 who are waiting for the overt act, looking out for the storming 
 party to advance? It will not come shortly. It will never come 
 until we are shut in on all sides, worn down, dispirited, divided 
 and not able to resist. — Then will it come to win an easy victory. 
 But even in that dreadful day, if come it must, I expect to see some 
 brave spirits stand upon the outer wall, and fall as freemen, rather 
 than see the black flag of fanaticism waving triumphantly over 
 their beloved South. 
 
 The virtual refusal of many of the Northern States to deliver 
 f jgitive slaves in pursuance of their constitutional obligation, and of 
 a law of Congress, which they have in effect nullified all over the 
 North, either by the unrestrained action of the people, or by State 
 enactments, is itself a dangerous violation of the compact, which must 
 result in driving in the borders of slavery while the hostility is kept 
 up. The exclusion of slavery from Kansas, and their readiness to do 
 so from any other territory by State action, in incorporating emi- 
 gration aid societies, and thereby organizing capital and individ- 
 ual enterprise in the accomplishment of a political object, injurious 
 to the people of the Southern States, and devised for their exclu- 
 sion, is an outrage upon the spirit of the compact; which enjoins 
 comity, fraternity and equality among the States. The infusion of 
 the free-soil element into the general government, by abolishing
 
 44 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 the slave traffic in the District of Columbia, instead of regulating 
 the traffic within the city of Washington, as a mere police arrange- 
 ment, and also by the election of a Speaker of the Lower House, 
 with the influence that it gives in influencing the action of Con- 
 gress and the public opinion of the country, is to the extent of their 
 operation a perversion of the government to an object not intended 
 to be within its scope. 
 
 Thes things with others that might be named, might be borne 
 with while there was hope of a returning sense of justice rectify- 
 ing the wrong. But they are parts of the scheme, and the late 
 election is an authorative sanction of them, by their controlling 
 majorities, and it is much more, it is what they knew to be a haz- 
 ardous forced march, to reach the main central point in their 
 scheme of operations, possession of the executive arm of the gov- 
 ernment, with all its power, patronage and influence — which, if 
 maintained, will enable them to gradually put in operation their 
 whole scheme, without any further shock upon the body politic, 
 and insure its progress and ultimate consummation. 
 
 To properly appreciate the danger we are in from this — the turn- 
 ing point of the project of invasion, it must be recollected that the 
 present crisis involves not only these political questions upon which 
 the revolution of both the Federal and our Southern State govern- 
 ments depend, but also religious, social and industrial questions, 
 which cluster around, and are connected with them, tending to 
 increase their force, and to insure their durability. 
 
 European society, since the extinction of villenage and serfdom, 
 has assumed and rests upon the basis, that every person of lawful 
 age must provide for himself, and the liberty and the means of 
 doing it are controlled by the few, — the governing class. Society, 
 in the Northern States, has made an advance upon this, and has for 
 its basis, that every person of lawful age must provide for himself 
 (and family), and that the liberty and means of doing so are con- 
 trolled by the great mass of male citizens of lawful age; and in 
 those States where free-negro suffrage is allowed, the point has 
 been reached, to which they are all in theory tending, that all men 
 are free and politically equal. Whereas Southern society is based 
 on this same principle as to the white race, but as to the black 
 race, some one is required by law to provide for them, and own 
 them as slaves, and that they are neither free, nor have any con- 
 trolling power in our States. This difference lies at the foundation, 
 and is the leading cause of the difference in the two orders of 
 civilization prevailing at the North, and at the South; and which 
 is fast tending to make, if it has not already made us so antago- 
 nistic in principle, as to render it difftcull, if not impossible, to 
 maintain even a federative connection. It has arrayed the North 
 against the South. This difficulty is not of our seeking, and there 
 is no necessity for it. It is forced upon us by the controlling ma-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 45 
 
 jorities, now becoming overwhelming, and by the propagationist 
 spirit, which has become a part of their national character, and is 
 impelling them in the effort to spread their order of civilization 
 eventually, throughout the whole country. In the township divis- 
 ion of the North, is exhibited in miniature, the fundamental ele- 
 ments which form Northern civilization. — There, they have the 
 school-house, the church, the farm, the store-house, the work-shop, 
 the township meeting for police and government, anjj in some 
 places the ship. Each interest struggles to elevate itself; and each 
 is discussed by all, and the activity of each in harmony with the 
 others, elevates each and all together, embracing education, relig- 
 ion, morals, labor, commerce, manufacture, shipping government, 
 and all others. From the township it ascends to the county, to 
 State, and to the whole Northern section; throughout which the 
 press, the pulpit, lectures and speeches are the great medium of 
 active communication, and reciprocal interchange of opinions, and 
 of the establishment of leading ideas in common throughout the 
 country. Those leading ideas, being in harmony with each other, 
 and continually acting and re-acting on each other, intensify each 
 and all, to a degree rarely ever found in any other country. And 
 there is a continual tendency of all the leading ideas, thus generated 
 and intensified, to pass up from the religious, moral, social, indus- 
 trial and commercial sphere in which they originate; into the po- 
 litical, and to impress themselves upon the government of our 
 country. Their preachers have been leaders in all the political 
 excitements, from the day of Cotton Mather, to the present time, 
 and this practice has givengreat prominence to political measures, 
 which involved moral or religious questions. All this is signally 
 displayed in the rise, progress and political adoption of the anti- 
 slavery sentiment of the North. The figures representing the 
 strength of this party, in the different elections for President since 
 1840, is well calculated to deceive, as to the original formation, 
 and character of the present Black Republican party. 
 
 They stand thu*: 
 
 1840 — votes, 7,000 — Birney. 
 
 1844— " 62,140— " 
 
 1848 — " 296,232 — Van Buren and Gerrit Smith. 
 
 1852 — " 157,296 — Hale.- • 
 
 1856 — 1,341,812 — (127 electors) Fremont. 
 
 i860 — enough to elect — T^incoln. 
 
 Was this gain an accumulative increase by the conversion of in- 
 dividuals to the principle from time to time? By no means. The 
 great substratum of moral sentiment throughout the whole North 
 fifty years ago, was the conviction that African slavery was a sin — 
 a moral, social and political evil. For some time it remained, ex- 
 cept in occasional outbursts, a moral and religious question. By 
 the Northern process of intensifying their favorite ideas, it by de-
 
 46 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 grees became inflamed into a burning enthusiasm, that struggled 
 to exhibit itself into political action. The political parties re- 
 pressed it with a strong hand, and long kept its agitation down 
 within the religious and moral sphere. It brought to its aid a 
 whole cluster of associated ideas, and where one failed another 
 was sure to plead its cause. These were universal freedom, polit- 
 ical equality, respectability of labor, a cultivated sentiment of 
 humanity, the missionary feeling which prompted the desire to 
 spread free labor, and Northern institutions over the continent, 
 political and sectional jealousy, and various others of less conse- 
 quence. Aided by all these, the excitement became active and 
 wide-spread. It struggled as a volcano, seeking a vent for its pent 
 up fires. In a remote region of Ohio, where the appliances of 
 political party management were weakest, and where men were 
 free to put their moral convictions into action, it burst forth and 
 sent Joshua Giddings into Congress, a fit representative of the 
 great substratum of moral sentiment, to proclaim its advent into 
 the political arena at the capitol. So in other parts it broke 
 through the pressure and sent a Wade, a Chase, a Hale and others. 
 No rebuke, no abuse, no party training could repress Jit, no threats 
 intimidate, no ridicule abate its ardor. It marched on with its in- 
 tensity increased by every opposition. Cast down prostrate, it 
 arose with ten-fold strength. Smothered in one place, it blazed 
 forth in an hundred other places. One by one it took possession 
 of their State governments. It is filling up Congress with mem- 
 bers approaching to majorities in both houses. Twice has it elect- 
 ed a speaker of the lower house, with an apparent minority. It 
 has scattered and broken to pieces, or swallowed up all other po- 
 litical parties. 
 
 Perhaps as long as twenty years ago, Joshua Giddings told us 
 that he was the true representative of the mass of Northern senti- 
 ment, and that the people would speak out. He has lived to see 
 his words verified by the outburts all over the North, which now 
 makes Lincoln President. Having conquered all opposition at 
 home, it will now find fields abroad to conquer. It can now gather 
 up its strength, and throw its whole force against the only point 
 of antagonism that resists the spread of Northern civilization over 
 all the Slates. This is no new principle, just being espoused by a 
 party in the North. It is old, and the only thing new about it is, 
 in raising it from the moral and religious to a political sphere of 
 action, in getting the consent of the ruling majorities to use the 
 governments, State and Federal, as instruments in aid of Northern 
 public opinion, to besiege slavery, and gradually beat it back from 
 State to State, until Northern civilization shall be spread over the 
 Southern, as well as over the Northern States. 
 
 The ordinary means of seeking a remedy for infractions of the 
 Constitution, where the people of different sections are divided
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 47 
 
 upon the questions involved, are now wholly unavailing. We have 
 no means of reaching sister States that nullify the laws of Con- 
 gress, or the majorities of the section that control the executive 
 arm of the Federal government, and which will eventually (if not 
 checked) control all its departsments. From the very nature of 
 the attack upon our constitutional and reserved rights, we have no 
 remedy but for State to address State through its sovereign power, 
 and demand a return to the compact, as a condition of future 
 union. 
 
 If we cannot protect our rights within the Union from the ag- 
 gressions of the controlling Northern majorities attacking them, 
 through the general government, through their State governments 
 and through the unlawful conduct of their citizens, under the in- 
 fluence of vitiated public opinion, we may rightfully withdraw from 
 the Union to protect them. Otherwise the States have no reserved 
 rights. Rights of a State are not and cannot be reserved, which 
 may be controlled or taken away by majorities in other States 
 against the will of the whole people of such State. This is too 
 plain for argument. 
 
 The only hope for saving the Union is for the Southern States to 
 act promptly, and act together, in such way as to present the al- 
 ternative to those Northern majorities, requiring them to choose 
 between anti-slavery and the Union. 
 
 They cannot have both. We might thereby enable the valiant 
 friends of the Constitution at the North to beat back this fanatical 
 domination, and destroy it forever. Mere party promises will not 
 avail us. They may be just as fair as the bow of promise that 
 spans the heavens, and yet just as unsubstantial. What we have 
 to do now is with the people of the Northern States in their sover- 
 eign capacity. A radical change of purpose towards «s, so mani- 
 fested, is the only thing that will secure our safety in the Union any 
 longer. If this cannot be obtained, the Southern States must leave 
 the Union, if they intend to remain free. The Southern States 
 have not for ten years past been able to maintain their rights 
 against the aggressions of this party acting in and through the 
 Northern States, while the federal government, in all of its depart- 
 ments. Executive, Legislative and Judicial, were in our favor. 
 
 What are we to expect, when the general government is used to 
 assist, and not as heretofore to oppose their efforts against us? 
 Can a free people permanently submit to a government possessed 
 and used for the avowed purpose of circumventing, undermining 
 and ultimately destroying their Tital interests, by the known and 
 declared enemies of their domestic institutions? Must we live 
 under a government that we look upon as an unrelenting enemy 
 and still be free? It is impossible. If the Northern mind is fixed 
 in its anti-slavery purpose, as I fear it is, then the point of antag- 
 onism has been reached, that makes us two people, and a paper
 
 48 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 Union is no Union at all The two sections might now receive 
 benefit from the wise example of Abraham and Lot, and part in 
 peace, if they can no longer live in harmony. 
 
 The question is sometimes asked, can the Southern States pro- 
 tect their rights against this aggressive assault, out of the Union 
 any better than in it. Admit that we cannot, are freemen to sub- 
 mit to the perpetual degredation of inequality, let the consequences 
 be what they may? Has a nation, a people, a State, no spirit to 
 be outraged, or is it a collection of pelf and animal life? But then 
 we can protect ourselves. The Southern States have all the ele- 
 ments of national strength in a brave people, intelligence, wealth, 
 extent of country, soil, climate and labor. Out of the Union we 
 would cease paying a heavy tribute, which we have always paid 
 uncomplainingly, to Northern labor, capital and enterprise, as an 
 incidental advantage, which they have derived from the operation 
 of the general government; while our great interests have received 
 little or no incidental advantages from it. I refer to the millions 
 paid to Northern labor, capital and enterprise, in their monopoly 
 of our foreign commerce, in our coast-wise trade, and navigation 
 and shipping interests; in their fish-bounty in their inventions and 
 book making; in their manufactures and mechanic arts of all 
 sorts, incidentally protected by a tariff that raises from sixty to 
 eighty millions of dollars revenue; in their government contracts 
 for fortifications, ships of war, navy and army supplies, or the like. 
 
 But further, this fanatical sentiment of the North will not con- 
 tinue its aggressions upon us if we are a separate nation, — because 
 the Northern people will not feel themselves responsible for what 
 they now regard as the sin of slavery. Other political questions, 
 pertaining to their own interest, will divide and occupy their at- 
 tention, and this one will become obsolete for want of an object to 
 operate upon, and parties can no longer be arrayed upon it. The 
 excessive cultivation of a class of ideas such as the respectability 
 of labor, labor deserves its wages, capital i7iust employ and pay 
 labor, will give them employment, terrible employment, at home, 
 sooner or later. They will be interested in maintaining amity 
 with us for trade and exchange, which they cannot expect to do 
 if the aggression continues. We have nothing to fear from the 
 moral sentiment of the civilized world upon this subject. The re- 
 action has already commenced. The cooley trade proves it. Be- 
 sides that, Spain maintains slavery in Cuba, and Brazil maintains 
 slavery. Russia has millions of serfs, white people in bondage. 
 Our cotton, tobacco and other staples will cause friendly relations 
 with us to be sought throughout all Western Europe. So that if 
 we are driven out of the Union to secure the preservation of our 
 rights against this arrogant revolutionary party, I have no fears 
 that the South will not maintain its rights, and secure its pros- 
 perity.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 49 
 
 I trust that Texas, before the fourth of March next, will have as- 
 sembled her wisdom, taken her position, and be in readiness to 
 co-operate with her sister Southern States, whether it be in or out 
 of the Union. 
 
 It has been suggested that an effort is being made to hold an 
 election in Texas for delegates to a convention, on the 8th of Jan- 
 uary, next. 1 hope that it will be done. That is an appropriate 
 day for it. 
 
 Texans may cast their votes on that day, inspired by the brill- 
 iant achievement that made it memorable: — Southern valor driv- 
 ing back the enemy that dared to invade Southern soil.
 
 to OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 A LECTURE. 
 
 UPON THE RIGHT OF SOVEREIGNTY; ITS LOCATION, AND USES, IN THE 
 DIFFERENT AMERICAN GOVERNMENTS. 
 
 [It was first delivered as a public lecture, in the University of 
 Texas, and afterwards, by request of a number of citizens, it was 
 repeated to an audience in the capitol of the State.] 
 
 "■' IN THE CAPITOL. 
 
 Fellow Citizens — I have prepared this lecture with no desire 
 of raising a political issue, nor with any expectation of its having 
 any influence in political action at the present time. In doing it 
 I have sought to present, in condensed shape, the facts of history 
 upon which the right of sovereignty was based, according to the 
 opinion of the people in eleven Southern States, under which they 
 seceded from the Union in i860 and 1861. 
 
 The subject has not been one of public discussion for the last 
 twenty years past. It is due from those who were participants in 
 the great events of that period, to furnish information to the young 
 men of the present generation, from which they may conclude 
 that the right was assumed in good conscience on the part of those 
 who were the actors in it. 
 
 To contribute my mite in doing that, and that alone, is my pur- 
 pose in this lecture. 
 
 The professors of the University, every fortnight during the 
 session, have a public lecture delivered by one of them, in the 
 University, upon such subject as he may select. 
 
 Having in my turn delivered this lecture, and some persons in 
 the city, who were not present, having expressed a desire to hear 
 it, I have consented to repeat it here. And now I must crave 
 your patience in hearing it. As the mariner on a long voyage may 
 have to stop at ports of no great interest on the way, still they may 
 be necessary to be passed in the route to reach the port of desti- 
 nation. So it may be found in this lecture, that facts of history 
 that may not be of great importance intrinsically, are referred to, 
 which are still necessary to reach the final result. 
 
 In every independent State or Nation that has a settled constitu- 
 tion, written or unwritten, there must be a sovereign power. The 
 American doctrine is, that it exists and abides with the people,.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 5 1 
 
 and that they have delegated certain powers, by which the fed- 
 eral government is created and carried on, and a state government 
 is established and carried on in each of the States. The delega- 
 tion of the power to establish and carry on a government, does 
 not detract from or diminish the entirety of sovereignty still abid- 
 ing with the people. Our governments, therefore, do not exercise 
 sovereign powers. The people only exercise sovereign powers, in 
 the formation and adoption of their constitutions. In and by 
 those constitutions, they delegate to certain persons, with the re- 
 quired qualifications, legislative, executive and judicial powers of 
 government. The power to vote even is a delegated power, grant- 
 ed to persons having the requisite qualifications, as prescribed in 
 the constitutions. It is not by his being a unit in the sovereignty, 
 that he exercises the elective franchise ; for on that principle, 
 women and minors would vote, as they constitute parts of the 
 sovereignty, — the people. 
 
 These American governments, as they existed at different peri- 
 ods, in their foundation, structure and mode of action, are sui 
 generis^ different from all other governments, ancient or modern. 
 The language used in reference to them and to their action, should 
 be indicative of their peculiar organization, and of the distinctive 
 character of the powers exercised by them. Unfortunately, very 
 often that has not been the case, with law writers, commentators, 
 eminent judges, and great statesmen. This is exhibited in such 
 expressions as the following, to-wit : "I'he government of the 
 United States was erected by the free voice of the people of Amer- 
 ica for their common defense and general welfare." "It is clothed 
 with the principal attributes of political sovereignty" .... 
 "The association of the American people into one body politic 
 took place while they were colonies of the British empire." 
 
 "By the Declaration of Independence the colonies were made 
 independent States, as declared by the Congress." "The power 
 of making laws is the supreme power in a State." "The Continen- 
 tal Congress assumed and exercised sovereign powers, and was a 
 revolutionary government, acquiesced in by the colonies." 
 
 In speaking of our system of federal and state governments, it is 
 represented as the "unity of nationality, and yet diversity of na- 
 tionality." "An indestructible Union, composed of indestruct- 
 ble States." "The States, though declared to be sovereign and in- 
 dependent, were never so in their individual character." "The 
 powers of sovereignty are divided between the government of the 
 Union and those of the States. They are each sovereign with ref- 
 erence to the objects committed to it." "The residuum of of sov- 
 ereignty is deposited by the (Constitution in the States." The Con- 
 stitution in the States "was the creation of the people of the coun- 
 try, acting as such in the exercise of their high prerogative as a 
 nation.' "The Constitution was a creation of the whole people
 
 52 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 of the United States in their aggregate collective capacity, as the 
 one people of one nation or state." "The present government of 
 the United States is the representation of the national govern- 
 ment, that always existed over the American people in some shape." 
 The acts of Congress, and of the Legislatures of the States are 
 spoken of as the exercise of sovereign powers. It is said that 
 practically sovereignty is vested in the voters. These expressions, 
 extracted from the writings of Marshall, Storey, Kent, Wharton, 
 Cooley, and others, represent conclusions drawn from the facts of 
 history, and from provisions in the constitutions, federal and 
 state, and from views entertained of the nature of the preceding 
 governments. They are for the most part theoretical generalities, 
 not calculated to convey definite ideas to the enquiring student of 
 American governments. Those who use such expressions, assume 
 that the people in mass of all the States was the sovereign power 
 that created the Constitution of the United States, and that they 
 thereby erected a consolidated government, and not a federation, 
 as it certainly was previously.. My purpose is to show that it cre- 
 ated a federative government by a compact between sovereign 
 States, without diminishing or destroying the separate and dis- 
 tinctive sovereignty of any one or all of the States; that it is 
 shown to be federative by the independent States adopting it as 
 parties to it; by the antecedent and contemperaneous facts leading 
 to its adoption; by its organic structure, mode of action and 
 amendment, and by its being a creature of delegated, limited 
 powers, dependent on the States for its perpetuation. The subject 
 of sovereignty has been selected as a theme, a proper discussion 
 of which, will lead to the developemnt of more definite ideas in 
 regard to the history and nature of our governments. What will 
 be said will be in the spirit of philosophic investigation, and not 
 in that of partisan political bias. 
 
 In treating of the subject of political sovereignty, the first re- 
 quirement is, to understand its nature, how it is created, and how 
 it acts, and may be acted on. 
 
 The sovereignty of the whole earth theoretically is vested in 
 each one equally of all mankind. It is not practical for them to 
 exercise it, otherwise than in associations of people, bound together 
 by common ties, located in certain territories of the earth. Sov- 
 ereignty is the right which a certain person has, or which persons, 
 few or many have to control all the individuals in any one such 
 association, and all of the objects, capable of being controlled, 
 within the territory occupied by them. 
 
 It is controlled by no law or mode of action foreign to itself. 
 It is a law unto itself. It is created or acquired by assumption, 
 which may be by one person, by a few, or by many persons. The 
 acquiescence by all may be either voluntary or forced. The right 
 may be assumed after the consent given, as in d, plebecite in France.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 5J 
 
 ■» 
 
 The mode is various, and is not natural, so that there is an assump- 
 tion of the right, and an acquiescence in the assumption. A per- 
 son having the right may govern directly, and in person, or he may 
 depute the power to govern to others, with or without rules for gov- 
 erning having been prescribed beforehand. More persons than 
 one having conjointly the right, may prescribe rules, and appoint 
 persons as their agents to execute them. The mass of the people, 
 having the right may personally by joint action prescribe rules of 
 action, or they may depute the power to particular persons to do 
 it, and to others to execute them. This sovereign right must exist 
 in a person or persons of flesh and blood and mind, and not in an 
 ideal creation to which a name is given for convenience in expres- 
 sion. This may be illustrated approximately by a corporation 
 aggregate. In its creation certain persons by name, called corpo- 
 rators, are granted certain powers to act in a certain way with ref- 
 erence to certain objects, and the combination of the persons thus 
 formed is called an artificial person. That is not an entity, — a real 
 thing, but merely an invented name to designate the organized 
 combination of persons clothed with the powers of action granted 
 to them. The right to act was not granted to this ideal person, but 
 to the real persons named in the charter of incorporation, and to 
 their successors, when organized for action in the mode prescribed. 
 So the right of sovereignty does not exist in any mere ideal thing 
 called sovereignty, but in a real person or in persons; and so the 
 powers of government do not exist in some ideal thing called gov- 
 ernment, but in persons in whom they are invested, when acting in 
 such mode of organization, or otherwise as may have been pre- 
 scribed for them. Ours is not a government of constitutions and 
 laws, as is sometimes said, but a government of men, to whom the 
 powers of governing in accordance with the constitution and 
 Laws, have been granted by the sovereign power. Sovereignty 
 must be a unit in its action. It may be existent in different per- 
 sons, or bodies of persons, composing it. When they exercise the 
 right, it is by their united co-operation, in the accomplishment of 
 auy one object. 
 
 If two persons were to assume the '•ight of sovereignty over an 
 organized association of people, and e-"h one of them was to act 
 according to his own discretion, independently of the other, 
 neither one would be sovereign. The result would be anarchy, or 
 continual conflict. If they were to divide between themselves the 
 objects of government, which each should have the absolute right 
 of controlling sei)arately, in the government of the people of the 
 association, then practically both could not be equally sovereign. 
 Because the various objects of government are so intertwined, re- 
 lated to, and dependent upon each other, that no such division can 
 be made, as could or would fix a certainly defined boundary in the 
 objects, upon which each one of the persons should have an ex-
 
 54 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 elusive province in his separate action. And it would be totally 
 impracticable for each person to be equally and absolutely sover- 
 eign over the objects allotted to him, if one of them was given, or 
 assumed and exercised the right to determine the extent of his 
 powers of action. 
 
 A person or persons, having the right of sovereignty, may dele- 
 gate to different persons different powers of government, embrac- 
 ing different objects for the delegated powers to be exercised upon, 
 without any continuous disharmony, or permanent conflict, be- 
 cause the sovereign right, not being impaired or diminished, by 
 the delegation of governmental powers, stands ready at discretion 
 to check or confine the delegated powers, coferred on the different 
 persons, or bodies of persons, within the sphere of action assigned 
 to them; just as a principal, having a great diversity of business, in 
 the management of his private affairs, may appoint different 
 agents to transact different parts of it, under powers of attorney 
 given to each of them, the abuse or usurpation of unauthorized 
 power by any of his agents may be checked, or corrected by the 
 principal. But if the different agents were given general and in- 
 definite powers, embracing the same objects in part, and set 
 adrift, without the control of the principal, to engage in a scram- 
 ble for the extension of their powers, by direct or indirect action, 
 it would be an accident if some one agent, having the greatest 
 force of character and influence, did not usurp the powers of the 
 others, and place them in a subordinate position in the discharge 
 of their powers. 
 
 The distinction must be kept in mind between the right of sov- 
 ereignty, existing and abiding in certain persous, and the powers 
 of government granted by them to some part of themselves, or to 
 other persons, who constitute no part of the sovereignty. This 
 may be illustrated by reference to the system of government in 
 England. There the right of sovereignty exists in "the three es- 
 tates of the realm," to-wit: in the persons, who may for the time 
 be the king, and those who may compose the House of Peers and 
 House of Commons, — each estate being created, and acting ac- 
 cording to its own mode of existence and of action, separately; 
 and all concurring in their action upon any one object to be ac- 
 complished, or principle in government to be established. Thus 
 their concurrent action constitutes a combined unit in an act of 
 sovereignty by them. 
 
 The king by immemorial custom, which is tantamount to a grant 
 of power by the sovereignty, exercises powers of government 
 separately, which however may be changed or even taken away 
 from him entirely, by the united action of those constituting the 
 sovereignty. Some of these powers of government are the execu- 
 tion of the laws, by commissioned officers to perform duties under 
 the laws, to grant to persons the vacant unappropriated domain of
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 55 
 
 the empire, and to grant charters of incorporation, such as were 
 granted to the persons who established the American colonies, 
 and corporations, and franchises of various kinds. The power to 
 execute the laws carries with it from necessity the delegation of 
 the power to judges to administer the laws in the several courts. 
 All such powers granted to the king, and through him to others, are 
 govermental and not sovereign powers, that may be altered or 
 abrogated by the sovereign power, according to its discretion. 
 
 The right of sovereignty of a people may be annihilated by force, 
 as in the case of Poland, and also in that of Southern States, after 
 the late civil war. It may also be merged with another, as in the 
 case of Scotland, by the union with England, or gradually lost by 
 submission to the aggressions of some other power. 
 
 The origin of the leading characteristics of most states or na- 
 tions may be traced back to an early period of their existence, 
 however much they may have been changed in the manner of be- 
 ing exhibited by the intervening circumstances, attending iheir 
 progress through time. Much that distinguishes England of to-day 
 in her love of freedom at home, and in her conquest for profit 
 abroad, by sea and on land, may be traced back to the three little 
 tribes on the continent, the Anglaise, Saxons and Jutes, that for- 
 cibly took possession of her territory. Though Mexico has had a 
 republican form of government, patterned in a degree after that of 
 the United States of the North, for more than sixty years, its most 
 prominent feature now is the centralism, impressed upon it by the 
 royalty, while a part of the Spanish dominions. 
 
 So with the States of our Union, all of whose leading character- 
 istics, as governments, originated from the charter-governments of 
 the colonies, while they were under the sovereignty of Great 
 Britain, which existed over them, from their first settlement, until 
 after the commencement of hostilities in 1775. 
 
 Our federal government had its origin in the union of some of 
 the colonies in 1643, 1690 and 1754, for co-operation in defense 
 against the Indians and French, and afterwards when co-operation 
 was sought to obtain relief from the imposition of taxes upon them 
 by the mother country, in the Congresses of 1765, 1774-5-6, and 
 in each year thereafter until and after the formation of the Federa- 
 tion by the Articles of Confederation. All this was only a co- 
 operation by and as distinct governments, acting together for some 
 common object, and was never a political union of their people 
 in one association ol government. At every stage in this progres- 
 sion, the principle of representation, either in co-operation or in 
 govermental action was adopted and practiced. 
 
 The expression in the 10th amendment to the Constitution of 
 the United States, 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," in its neces-
 
 56 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 sary implication, that the powers, that had been granted to the 
 government of the United States by the States, were only delegated 
 powers, and was nothing new, then brought to view, in giving 
 shape to the government created by the Constitution. It, in sub- 
 stance, was as old as Ihe first colonial charter that was granted, and 
 gave shape and character to every agency and government, that 
 had acted for the American people in their public affairs. It was 
 the theory of English government, that the vacant unappropriated 
 lands, within the domains of the empire, belonged to the king, — 
 subject to be granted to persons by him, in his official capacity, 
 but as one of the estates of the realm, holding and granting them 
 for and on behalf of the government of which he was the instru- 
 ment, in his royal capacity. On the same principle he granted 
 charters of incorporation to persons. This, however, was not an 
 irrevocable act of sovereignty. For the parliament, composed of 
 king, lords and commons, by their concurrent action as matter of 
 right and power could change, repeal, or annul any charter that might 
 have been granted by the king. The English government claimed 
 them as "crown lands," by right of discovery. This proprietorship of 
 the lands was given to them, to enable them to convey, and settle 
 colonists within their respective grants of territory, — thereby ac- 
 complishing an object of public benefit to England, in the exten- 
 sion of its dominions, and the increase of its commerce. 
 
 These colonial charters provided for some sort of representative 
 body, to whom was delegated the power to enact, and have exe- 
 cuted such laws for the local government of the colonists, as were 
 suitable to their condition and wants, conforming therein as near- 
 ly as practicable to the laws of England. In the course of time 
 these colonial governments assumed the shape of local self-sup- 
 porting governments, composed of a legislative assembly, elected 
 by qualified voters, and a governor, appointed by or through the 
 king's royal authority, and a local judiciary, and other officers to 
 carry on the governments. In this condition they were generally 
 found, when the dispute arose between them and the English gov- 
 ernment, on the subject of taxing America, by the English Parlia- 
 ment. During all this time, through the full period of a century, 
 neither the people, nor their officers, administering their govern- 
 ments, possessed the right of sovereignty. The people in the elec- 
 tion of their officers, and the officers in the exercise of their duties, 
 all acted under powers delegated to them to carry on the local 
 governments, that had been granted by the sovereign power in 
 England through the king by charters. England was generally- 
 satisfied with the benefit of a monopoly of the colonial trade, 
 established by the navigation laws, and the creation of a board of 
 trade, to effectually carry them out. The great expense incurred 
 in the Indian and French war in America, previous to 1765, in- 
 duced the parliament to deem it proper to levy a tax upon certain
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 57 
 
 articles, imported into the colonies, to be collected and applied, 
 not to the support of the colonial governments, but to be kept and 
 used as general revenue in the English treasury. 
 
 It was this tax, that the colonies objected to. ^To remonstrate 
 against it, their legislative assemblies appointed commissioners or 
 delegates to meet together, and act as a body, in making their re- 
 monstrance. The assemblage of persons thus convened was called 
 a Congress. The word Congress, as then and long afterwards used, 
 meant, according to its literal import, the coming together of the 
 agents of the colonies, and did not mean, as it would now be under- 
 stood, the assemblage of a legislative body in a government. The 
 delegates that convened in the Congress in September, 1774, at 
 Philadelphia, were separately by each colony commissioned, "with 
 authority and direction to meet, and consult together for the com- 
 mon welfare." That Congress in defining the political position of 
 British subjects in America, passed resolutions, declaring that 
 "from the necessity of the case, and in regard to the mutual 
 interests of both countries, they cheerfully consented to the oper- 
 ation of such acts of the British parliament as were bona fid.e 
 restrained to the regulation of their general commerce, for the 
 purpose of securing the commercial advantages of the whole 
 empire to the mother country, and the commercial benefits of its 
 respective members: excluding every idsa of taxation for raising a 
 revenue on the subjects in America without their consent." Thus 
 they acknowledged themselves to be subjects of the British em- 
 pire, but dissented only to the claim of parliament to tax them to 
 raise revenue for the empire, because they were not represented in 
 parliament, — because it would be a flagrant abuse of power, not 
 warranted by the fundamental principles of the English govern- 
 ment, that taxes, for general revenue, for the support of the gov- 
 ernment, were voluntary assessments, granted by the people, or 
 their representatives in parliament. As the colonists had not given 
 their consent to them by representatives in parliament (having 
 none there), nor by their representatives in their colonial legis- 
 latures, the imposition of such taxes upon them by the British 
 parliament would be forced exactions, which might be increased 
 to an extent that would impoverish them without any peaceable 
 remedy for their relief. 
 
 To submit to this would be a surrender of the measure of their 
 prosperity, and even that of the means of their livelihood, as a 
 people, to the discretionary will of a body of persons, foreign to 
 themselves, over whom they could have no control, who would be 
 interested in diminishing their own burdens, just in proportion as 
 they would increase the burdens upon the colonists. This Con- 
 gress, as a peaceful means of redress, sought to make the tax fruit- 
 less, by advising the colonists, as individuals, to personally refrain 
 from importing, purchasing, or using the articles, thus taxed. The
 
 58 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 voluntary compliance with this advice by the people as individuals, 
 with some aggravating circumstances, brought on the commence- 
 ment of hostilities and inaugurated the war near Boston, in Massa- 
 chusetts. In all this they acted as mere agents for the separate 
 colonies respectively represented by the delegates. 
 
 In this condition of affairs the delegates convened in Congress 
 in May, 1775, with increased powers conferred on them, for action 
 as well as consultation and advice. They were instructed to "con- 
 cert, agree upon, direct, order and prosecute such measures, as 
 they deemed most fit and proper, to obtain redress of American 
 grievances." Very soon after their meeting, they appointed Gen, 
 Washington commander in chief of the colonial forces, called 
 upon the respective colonies for troops, emitted bills of credit, 
 (called continental money), upon the faith of their payment by 
 the colonies. The period, between this meeting of Congress and 
 the 4th of July, 1776, may be denominated the transition period, 
 in regard to the location of sovereignty. 
 
 Very soon after hostilities commenced, the colonies commenced 
 to act independently in the control of their own public affairs, and 
 in their co-operative efforts under the advice and direction of their 
 agents in Congress. The absolute control thus assumed was pro- 
 visional; that is, dependent upon the future events, either of a 
 reconciliation with the mother country, that they still hoped for, 
 or of the forming of a more perfect government, if an honorable 
 pacification could not be effected. 
 
 During this period, Lord Howe appeared with a naval armanent 
 off the coast, and, on behalf of England, sought an interview first 
 with Washington, and afterwards, with three commissioners ap- 
 pointed by the Congress, who were Dr. Benj. Franklin, John 
 Adams and Edward Rutledge. But as he would not recognize 
 their official position, no negotiations for pacification were entered 
 into. After all hopes of peace had been abandoned. Congress 
 advised the colonies to take steps at once to organize such gov- 
 ernments, based upon the sovereignty of the people in each colony, as 
 were necessary for the independent action of each; and, in pursu- 
 ance to that advice, every one of them occupied that position on 
 or before June 1776; four of them, New Hampshire, South Caro- 
 lina, Virginia and New Jersey had, by delegates in conventions, 
 adopted State Constitutions, previous to the 4th of July, 1776, and 
 the others were taking steps that resulted in their doing it, except 
 Rhode Island, that, for a long time, carried on its government un- 
 der its royal charter, and all of them in fact were then acting as 
 independent governments internally, in defiance of the former 
 sovereign power of England. So that, when the Congress, on the 
 4th day of July, 1776, declared "that these United Colonies are, 
 and of right ought to be, free and independent States," they sim- 
 ply announced an existing fact, as their agents, and on their behalf.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 59 
 
 Their declaration did not make them so, as is sometimes said, 
 by any right of sovereignty, either possessed, or assumed, by the 
 Congress then making "The Declaration of Independence." 
 
 Ic forming State Constitutions, each one of the colonies declared 
 that "the people of this State have the sole and exclusive right of 
 governing themselves, as a free, sovereign and independent State," 
 some of them expressly and all of fhem by the use of terms, con- 
 veying the same meaning in substance. From this time until the 
 4th day of March, 1789, when the present United States Constitu- 
 tion went into effect, the right of sovereignty was in the people of 
 each State, as separate independent communities. Some embar- 
 rassment in the action of Congress having been experienced, from 
 the fact that the separate commissions of tha delegates were differ- 
 ently expressed, a necessity was felt for the adoption of an agree- 
 ment by all of the States, in which the authority, delegated by 
 each State, should be the same, and that larger, and more specific 
 powers should be granted to them. To accomplish this, the Con- 
 gress prepared "The Articles of Confederation" and submitted 
 them to the legislatures of each and all of the States in 1777, 
 which were finally adopted by all of the States on the ist day of 
 March, 1781. 
 
 This made no change of the status of the sovereignty of the 
 States whatever. For in the 2d Article it is declared, that "each 
 State retains its sovereignty, freedom and independence." (This 
 clause will be referred to again and be given entire.) Congress 
 having appointed commissioners for the purpose, a treaty of peace 
 was concluded in 1783, in which the freedom and independence 
 of the thirteen States, by name as New Hampshire, Massachusetts, 
 etc., were acknowledged. Congress continued to act under the 
 Articles of Confederation, just as it did in the main, when the 
 delegates had separate authorities given to them by each State. 
 The delegates representing the Colonies on the 4th of July, 1776, 
 continued to act for the States afterwards, without any commis- 
 sions, and the same delegates, repiesenting the States on the 1st 
 March, 1781, continued likewise to act under the Confederation. 
 On all important subjects, each State had one vote only. Neither 
 the Congresses, before or after the Federation, had, or assumed to 
 have, or to exercise any right of sovereign power, but only such 
 powers as had been delegated to them respectively. If at any 
 time they exceeded their authority in their action, as they proba- 
 bly did, when they, in effect, made General Washington Supreme 
 Dictator for a time, it was on the principle, that any agent might, 
 upon some pressing emergency, act in excess of his authority, un- 
 der the expectation that his principal would ratify, or knowingly 
 acquiese in such act. 
 
 The term delegates, and their act of representing their States 
 and not themselves in Congress, rebuts any possibility of a con-
 
 ,6o OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 elusion, that Congress had any inherent right of sovet ^jIs 
 Fortunately there is one of the Articles in the Confederatit t.^'. 
 makes a clear distinction, between the ri'g/i/ of sovereignty, "'.ja- 
 in the people of each of the States, and the powers of gov e .-..uu^ 
 action, delegated to the Congress by them. It is as follow^: "Art. 
 2. Each State retains its ssovereignty^ freedom, and independence, 
 and tv try power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this con- 
 federation, expressly delegated to the United States in Congress 
 assembled." ("The United States of America" was the name given 
 in Art. i to the Confederation.) That is, each State retains. its 
 sovereinty complete, but deles;ates certain powers, jurisdictions, 
 and rights to the United States in Congress, to be exercised by the 
 delegates of each and all of the States in Congress, in the mode 
 indicated in the Articles, for and on behalf of all of the States 
 united. 
 
 During the existence of the Federation, Virginia by an act of 
 its legislature, Dec. 20th, 1783, authorized the transfer of the 
 Northwestern territory to "the United States in Congress assembled, 
 for the benefit of said States." The deed of cession thus authorized 
 to be made by her delegates in Congress, Thomas Jefferson, Sam- 
 uel Hardy, Arthur Lee, and James Monroe, contains the expression 
 reciting the transfer to be made to "the United States in Congress 
 assembled, for the benefit of said States, Virginia included." 
 Showing that the Congress was made the agent or trustee for the 
 management of the territory ceded, for the benefit of the whole of 
 the States collectively. 
 
 Thus has it been shown that, up to the 4th of March, 1789, when 
 the present government went into operation, with Washington as 
 the President, all the powers of government, that had ever been 
 exercised, in any assembly, or agency whatever, for, or on behalf 
 of the people in America, were delegated powers, except only in 
 the exercise of the sovereignty of the people in each one of the 
 colonies, in the acts of forming their State Constitutions, by which 
 each one of them assumed to be a sovereign, free and independ- 
 ent State. 
 
 The word state, as then used, meant an association of people, 
 which embraced a sovereign power for its control, as a separate 
 nation, amongst the nations of the earth. England was spoken of 
 as a state, and likewise France, and other independent European 
 powers. It did not then have the meaning, often attributed to it 
 now in the United States, as being a subordinate body politic. 
 
 The powers delegated to the Congress, in the Articles of Con- 
 federation, were in the main only such as they could execute for 
 the States, in carrying on the war. As soon as the war was ended, 
 the Congress had but little to do within the scope of its powers. 
 It had no power to levy and collect taxes for the purpose of pay- 
 ing the debts, that had been incurred, or to defray its ordinary ex-
 
 OUR FEDERAL REIATJOJNS. 6l 
 
 Xh Indeed, to the extent of the powers that-eaabled it to act 
 ^y a it was a government of imperfect obligation, dependent 
 Con ^^ States to furnish the means necessary for its action. It 
 ^rotJ'^ ianger of a collapse, from the neglect of the States. This 
 caused delegates to be appointed, by the legislatures. of the several 
 States, with authority to meet fogether in convention, and revise, 
 and amend the Articles of Confederation, so as to make a more 
 perfect or efificient government for the union of the States 
 
 The Constitution of the United States was, by. the convention 
 agreed upon, and afterwards ratified by the people of each State 
 separately, through their delegates in convention assembled, in 
 each one of the States. Its ratification was an act of sovereignty, 
 performed by the people of each State, acting separately. All of 
 the States having done the same thing, the same powexS of govern- 
 ment were thereby delegated, by each and all of theno, to the de- 
 partments of a government "for the United States of America." 
 By this sovereign act of ratification, each one of the States with- 
 drew from its State government some powers that it had previous- 
 ly delegated to it, and from the United States of America as a con- 
 federation, those powers that had been delegated ito them, and 
 delegated them to the departments, legislative, executive and 
 judicial of the new government, then and thereby instituted, for 
 the same United States of America, that had formed the Confed- 
 eracy. 
 
 By this means each State, in the exercise of its sovereignty, had 
 delegated powers of government to two separate and distinct gov- 
 ernments, each of which should act directly on all of the people 
 of the State to the extent of the powers allotted to it in the division. 
 This ratification did not have the effect to impair ox destroy, in 
 whole or in part, the right of sovereignty of the people of each 
 State. In delegating to those persons and bodies, who should fill 
 the different departments of this government of the United States, 
 certain specified governing powers, the right of sovereignty was 
 not conferred upon it, any more than it was in the former shape of 
 the government of the United States, called a confederation. 
 Though the delegation to this was directly by the people of each 
 State, still, in both cases, it was equally but a delegation of powers, 
 which necessarily implied the continued existence. of a superior 
 power, that made the delegation. The granting of more enlarged 
 powers of government did not change the relation of the grantor 
 to the thing receiving the grant. The assumption, that the right 
 of sovereignty was conferred upon the federal government, would 
 contradict the American doctrine, that it exists and ^^'"ii:> alone 
 in the people; for it could not at the same time be in the people, 
 and in those persons and bodies of persons to whom governing 
 powers have been delegated. Here again, we see illustrated the 
 oft-repeated distinction, made in the previous governments in
 
 62 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 America, between the right of sovereignty retained and the powers 
 of government delegated. And this distinction would be equally 
 the same, whether it was made by the aggregate mass of people, 
 in the territory of all the States, or by the people of each State 
 separately, as it was in fact; and whether it was done by the one, 
 or by the other, the powers of government delegated, and the 
 nature of the government created, would be the same. All sorts 
 of delegation, representation, or deputation, whether thereby a 
 government, a corporation, or a mere personal agency is created, 
 are dependent upon some subsisting superior power, for their cre- 
 ation and continued existence. 
 
 It is contended by many persons that the people of each State, 
 in the act of ratifying the Constitution of the United States, lost a 
 part of their right of sovereignfy, as it before was possessed by 
 them, and merged it into an equal portion of the sovereignties of 
 each and all of the other States, and thereby, to the extent of th« 
 powers and objects of government specified in the Constitution of 
 the United States, all the people within the territory of all of the 
 States, by mutual agreement, formed themselves into one body 
 politic, as one people, one State, one nation, and it was from 
 them in their aggregate mass as one people, that the powers were 
 delegated, instituting the government of the United States. This 
 government could have been instituted with all of the power 
 granted to it, just as well, by each one retaining the right of sov- 
 ereignty, as was done when the United States, as a confederation, 
 was instituted only a few years previously, as by dividing the sov- 
 ereignty of each, if such a thing were possible to be done. There- 
 fore the division, if it really took place, was a useless and funda- 
 mental change in the sovereign right of each State, in a mode dif- 
 fering from all previous precedents and practice, in making gov- 
 ernments in America. In view of the previous precedents, it is 
 easy to understand how the people of a sovereign State could 
 grant powers to two governments, on different subjects, acting on 
 the same people in the States, just as they could divide the powers 
 of the State government into three distinct departments, legisla- 
 tive, executive, and judicial. But it may not be so easy to per- 
 ceive how a person in a State could be a unit in the sovereignty of 
 two associations of people, composed of different bodies of per- 
 sons or a unit in two half or fractional sovereignties. 
 
 The question is, did the ratification have such effect? Did each 
 of the thirteen States mutilate the sovereign body politic of each, 
 and, out of the part severed, fabricate another — the fourteenth 
 State, or nation, called the United States of America? Did they 
 intend to do such a thing, unheard of, and unknown in all history 
 of mankind, unnecessary, and destructive of their dearly cherished 
 absolute sovereign right ? To maintain the affirmative, reference
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 63 
 
 is made to the preamble of the Constitution, which reads as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 ^'■Preamble. — We, the people of the United States, in order to 
 form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tran- 
 quility, provide for the common defense, and promote the general 
 welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves, and our 
 posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
 States of America." 
 
 The preamble of an instrument has no intrinsic binding force as 
 a part of it, but may be used to throw light upon what may be of 
 doubtful import in terms used in the body of the instrument. But, 
 giving all the force that can be attributed to a preamble, it does 
 not establish the position contended for to the destruction of sep- 
 arate State sovereignty, when properly understood. The first arti- 
 cle in the Articles of Confederation is as follows : 
 
 " Art. I. The style of this Confederacy shall be " The United 
 States of America." And in the Declaration of Independence it 
 is said : " We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States 
 of America." When thus used it meant the American States 
 united; for they were declared, and all and each of them declared 
 themselves then to be sovereign, free and independent States, in 
 forming their Constitution, and acted accordingly. 
 
 I'hat government of the United States existed at the time the 
 Constitution, with the above recited preamble^ was framed by the 
 convention, and ratified by the people of each State, and indeed 
 some time afterwards, until the 4th of March, 1789, when the 
 present government was organized. The term, United States, 
 was sometimes used as the name of the government created by the 
 Constitution, as in the clause guaranteeing the States a republican 
 form of government; but that government was not in existence un-. 
 til the 4th of March, 1789. Now, if we put the words of the pre- 
 amble in the mouths of the people of each State, when they were 
 in the act of ratifying the Constitution in convention, and they 
 should say, "We, the people of the United States," would they be 
 understood to mean that they were the people of the then existing 
 United States, or the people of the United States, that was to be 
 the name of a government that might or might not at some future 
 time exist? They evidently designed to express that which was a 
 fact, then existing, when they in effett uttered the words. And it 
 is equally certain, that the delegates in the convention that framed 
 the Constitution, understood the expression in the same way. By 
 reference to Elliot's Debates, it will be seen that the preamble, 
 when adopted by the convention, read, "We, the people of the 
 States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts," etc. (naming the thir- 
 teen States), and that the committee of revision, whose ofhce was 
 merely literary, caused it to be altered, because some of the thir- 
 teen States might not ratify the Constitution, which proved to be
 
 l64 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 a true expectation, as to two of them, until after the government 
 was organized. Further, in the preamble it is said, "We," etc., 
 "do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States 
 of America," meaning for the States then united, subject, of caurse, 
 as provided elsewhere, that they ratified it, and to take effect, as 
 to any nine of them, if that many should ratify it. 
 
 The preamble says, "We, the people of the United States, to 
 form a more perfect union," etc. A more perfect union of the 
 States, than the union of States formed by the Confederation, 
 Union was the then usual and proper term to be used to connect 
 States, under a common form of government of delegated powers, 
 as was done before in the Articles of Confederation, but not to 
 connect people as individuals in a sovereign association, in mass, 
 nor was it so used in any of the State constitutions. That it was a 
 union between them as States is shown by expressions in the body 
 of the Constitution: "Art. 7. The ratification of the conventions 
 of nine States shall be sufficient for the establishment of this Con- 
 stitution between them." That is not by or over them as one peo- 
 ple, but between them as States. 
 
 "Art. 3. Sec. 3. Treason against the United States shall con- 
 sist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their ene- 
 mies, giving them aid and comfort." Why "only in levying war 
 against them?'''' Because treason is an offense against a sovereign 
 power, and that is the reason it did not say that levying war 
 against the government of the United States would be treason. 
 
 The federation, though a government, was a compact between 
 sovereign States in express terms. The people of the several 
 States reaiodeled their government, by granting the additional 
 powers, that would remedy its defects, and declared that if ratified 
 by nine States it would be "the establishment of this Constitution 
 between the States so ratifying the same." 
 
 The terms, in the preamble, having been explained, and 
 some of those in the body of the instrument having been referred 
 to, there are numerous facts, contemporaneous and subsequent, 
 that raise strong presumptions against the destruction of the right 
 of sovereignty in the States by the ratification of the Constitution. 
 
 Each State acting in its separate and sovereign capacity in del- 
 egating powers to create the federal government, ,as it had done to 
 create its State government, «there was no necessity for surrender- 
 ing any part of its sovereign power; and therefore, so radical a rev- 
 olution of its rights should not be presumed, eacept upon the 
 plainest evidence of it. Upon the supposition that so extraordi- 
 nary a change was made, is it not strange, that the wise and good 
 men, \^ho framed the Constitution, did not insert some clause that 
 wo aid have plainly developed the fact. Again, suppose the people 
 had understood, that they were forming a new political aggregated 
 association of all the people in the territory of the Union, so as to
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 65 
 
 constitute one people, — one State, would they have formed a gov- 
 emraent, organized as that provided in the Constitution? They 
 were thorough republicans, and believed in equal political rights, 
 and equal representation, and the right of majorities to control in 
 public affairs; and therefore, in forming a government by and for 
 the one people, it would be expected that these principles would 
 be found pervading it. Strange to say, that there is not one of 
 them, that is assured and made certain, in the organization and op- 
 erations of the government that was formed in reference to the 
 populution in the aggregate of the supposed one people. It is pos- 
 sible that minorities, and sometimes very small ones, may elect a 
 a President, make a treaty, appoint judges and military officers, 
 prevent a change of the Constitution, prevent the passage of laws, 
 prevent the admissioa of new States, require Congress to call a 
 convention to change the Constitution, or even change the Con- 
 stitution, and supposing the population of each State stood, when 
 the Constitution was ratified, as it did shortly after ia 1790, when 
 the census was taken, nine States, with a population of 1,390,000 
 could dissolve the old confederation, establish the new Constitu- 
 tion, and throw out of the Union four States, containing 1,700,000, 
 to-wit: Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia, if 
 each and all of the four failed to ratify the Constitution, they hav- 
 ing a majority of over 300,000 people. Those who framed the 
 Constitution and those who ratified it, must have been cognizant 
 of the possibility of such results, from the well-known disparity of 
 the population and extent of territory in the several States, which 
 must necessarily continue to exist. An examination of the cen- 
 sus, at different times, and the apportionment of representatives, 
 will verify the possibility of the results as stated. Its shape is fed- 
 eral in every respect and not national. In the convention that 
 framed the Constitution, all agreed in preserving the endangered 
 Union by making more efficient government, especially on the sub- 
 ject of regulating commerce, levying and collecHng taxes to defray 
 its own expenses, and the creation of a judiciary to enforce its 
 laws directly on and for the people, as State governments did. A 
 portion of the delegates sought to make it the representative of a 
 consolidated State, a nation, but the majority, desiring to preserve 
 its federal character, after a great struggle, rejected every word 
 that savored of nationality. 
 
 Those who advocated the ratification in the State conventions, 
 and in the press, were called federalists, not nationalists. Viewed 
 asja federal union between sovereign States, its structure and powers 
 are appropriate, with a reasonable addition of influence given to 
 the larger States in the popular branch of Congress, that has the 
 exclusive right to introduce bills for raising revenue. It elects the 
 President, and members of Congress, and amends the Constitution 
 by States. Viewed as the representative of one people in the ag-
 
 66 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 gregate, a nation, it is an outrage upon the principles of equal 
 political rights in all of its organism, and possible action, as pre- 
 scribed in the Constitution. There is another strong presumption 
 founded on the facts of the history of that period. Those people 
 from 1765 to 1776 were engaged in a painful and agitating contest 
 with the mother country, a sovereignty foreign to themselves in local- 
 ity, in regard to the right of parliament to tax them for general rev- 
 enue; then, after renouncing their allegiance, enduring an exhaust- 
 ing war for seven years to maintain their assumed State sover- 
 eignty, and then, in peace for five years more, cementing its bonds, 
 and priding in its possession, would they then abandon the absolute 
 sovereignty of Sfates, so acquired, enjoyed and cherished, and put 
 the power of controlling them irrevocably in the hands of any peo- 
 ple or government, beyond the limits of their respective territo- 
 ries? 
 
 Had the people of each State so soon forgotten that it was their 
 opposition to the assumption of the unlimited power of taxing 
 them by parliament that had brought on the war, which resulted 
 in their having to assert and maintain their State sovereignty, as 
 against the sovereign power that was previously over them? It 
 was not the want of representation that controlled them. It would 
 have done them no good from its smallness. They did not want 
 it, and if it had been tendered them, their opposition would have 
 existed with equal force. Would the people of a State knowingly 
 place themselves in the same position, substantially and practi- 
 cally, by irrevocably surrendering to another government the unlim- 
 ited power of taxation with no recourse from ruinuous oppression, 
 but the votes of its representatives in Congess, and a resort to arms 
 in lebellion against the sovereign power they had helped to create 
 over them? 
 
 How do these presumptions stand, founded on facts, as against 
 the baseless fabric of a deductive theory, that a nation was manu- 
 factured out of the mutilated fragments of the sovereignty of thir- 
 teen free and independent States, whose glorious achievement of 
 independence have received the plaudits of the lovers of liberty 
 throughout the earth, and will continue to do it in the great future, 
 as long as patriotism is regarded a virtue? 
 
 We may also refer to contemporaneous and subsequent construc- 
 tion and understanding with advantage. 
 
 New York and Rhode Island expressly reserved the right to re- 
 sume the powers delegated to the general government in the reso- 
 lutions of their conventions, ratifying the Constitution. Many of 
 the new States recognized and asserted the right of State sover- 
 eignty in forming their Constitutions. That of Ohio in 1802 con- 
 tains the following; "We, the people (in a certain territory de- 
 scribed, etc.), do ordain and establish the following Constitution, 
 or form of government, and do mutually agree with each other to
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 67 
 
 fprm ourselves into a free and independent State, by the name o^ 
 the State of Ohio." This needs no comment. The same words 
 were used in tlie Constitutions of Tennessee 1796, Louisiana, 1812, 
 Indiana, i8t6, Mississippi, 1817. Illinois, 1818, Alabama, 1819 
 Missouri, 1826, Maine, 1820, Michigan, 1835, Florida, 1838, Kansas, 
 1855, Iowa, 1857. 
 
 A more potent evidence of the recognition of State sovereignty 
 is to be found in the great influence it has had repeatedly in shap- 
 ing the action of the administration of the general government. 
 It was presented as a dernier resort for relief against unconstitu- 
 tional action in the resolutions of Virginia and Kentucky of 1798 
 and 1799, which changed the administration from the party, called 
 the Federalist party, into the hands of that called the Republican, 
 with Mr. Jefferson as President. And those resolutions were ap- 
 proved in the platform of the party generally dominant up to the 
 late civil war. 
 
 Before that Georgia had refused to recognize the right of the 
 Supreme Court of the United States to bind it by a judgment in 
 a suit, instituted against it, by a citizen of another State. That 
 caused Congress to take the proper steps for a change of the Con- 
 stitution on that subject, which resulted in the adoption of the 
 nth Amendment. 
 
 The refusal of the States of Massachusetts and Connecticut to 
 furnish their quota of troops in the war of 1812, and other meas- 
 ures looking to a probable resort to secession, if the war continued, 
 greatly weakened the efficiency of President Madison's administra- 
 tion, and probably hastened the eff"orts to make peace with Eng- 
 land. 
 
 In the struggle in Congress over the restriction of the spread of 
 slavery, upon the application of Missouri for admission into the 
 Union, the danger of bringing into requisition State sovereignty as 
 a mode of relief against the power of the majority, induced the 
 Missouri compromise of 1820. South Carolina, by preparing to 
 assert its right of sovereignty, in resisting the tariff measures in 
 1832-3, induced a compromise by which Congress provided for a 
 reduction to a revenue standard in nine years. 
 
 It was the leading influence in the slavery agitation that pro- 
 daced the compromise acts of 1850. 
 
 In all of these instances it acted as a check in preventing, or at 
 least modifying the excessive assumption of power by majorities, 
 and was effective in doing it in a considerable degre, when prob- 
 ably nothing else would have done it. It has been previously stated 
 that the right of sovereignty in a State or people may be destroyed 
 by force. It may be gradually impaired until it will be substan- 
 tially lost, by the aggressive assumption of another power, in con- 
 nection with the State, having been submitted to. Thus the legis- 
 lative and judicial action of the general government, and the sup-
 
 68 OUR" FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 porters of its increase of power, through a long series of yearsv 
 had exerted such an influence upon the minds of a majority of the 
 people in the United States, as to cause the right of the sovereign- 
 ty of the States- to be authoritatively denied, and disregarded prac- 
 tically for the first time in i860, and during the civil war. 
 
 The Southern States, in i860 and 1861, asserted, and put in exe- 
 cution their right of sovereignty by seceding from the Union. 
 That caused many good men to make efforts for a time to make 
 such a compromise as would secure the right of the minority, 
 which were deemed to have been jeopardized. And though many 
 statesmen in the North recognized the right, it was overwhelmed 
 and sunk out of view by the long continued agitation of the slav- 
 ery issue, by the idea of "preserving the life of the nation," by the* 
 announcement in terrorem of the "irrepressible conflict between 
 free and sliave labor, and that all of the States must be either free 
 or slave States," and by numerous other antagonisms. The war 
 and the surrender of the South, at the end of four years, were the 
 consequences.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 69 
 
 A LECTURE. 
 
 UPON THE CLOSE OF THE WAR AND THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE 
 SOUTHERN STATES BY PRESIDENT ANDREvV JOHNSON, AND PARTIC- 
 ULARLY ITS CONSUMMATION IN TEXAS. 
 
 The surrender of General Lee, being soon followed by that of 
 General Joe Johnston, and also by that of General Dick Taylor, 
 east of the Alississippi river, destroyed the hopes of separate inde- 
 pendence. There were conflicting opinions as to whether the 
 trans-Mississippi department should continue the struggle or not. 
 It was believed by some that if we would hold out, many of 
 the officers and soldiers east of the river would come to our aid, 
 and that our example would give encouragement to renew the 
 struggle east of the river. Others; however, regarded our defeat 
 as a mere matter of time. General Grant had shown it to be cer- 
 tainly practicable for two or three Northern soldiers to subdue one 
 Southern soldier, a problem that no other federal officer had solved 
 during the war. He had gop? about it systematically, and had 
 three times accomplished it, the first at Fort Donaldson, the second 
 at Vicksburg, and the third at Richmond. He had invariably 
 planned and fought for certain victory, by the simple process of 
 taking such time, and using such me«ins as were necessary. Nor 
 is it to be regarded as any little merit in generalship, that he re- 
 peatedly did it, considering the haste of the Northern mind to 
 ■'crush out the rebellion." Surely he would not fail in his fourth 
 attempt, which would have been to subdue the trans-Mississippi 
 department. He had learned his lesson too well for that. 
 
 Texas had not been scathed by the ravages of war. Her towns, 
 villages, houses and farms had not been laid desolate by fire. The 
 federals had never held, otherwise than temporarily, possession of 
 any part of her territory, which had been confined to the coast of 
 the gulf at Galveston and at Brownsville. Many of her sons had 
 fallen, with sickness and in battle, at a distance from their homes. 
 Her people, men, women and children, had labored and suffered 
 hardships and privations in body, and agony of mind, for four long 
 years. Their cause was lost; and when Gen. E. Kirby Smith sur- 
 rendered on May 27, 1865, the mass of people, officers, soldiers and 
 citizens, were generally prepared for it. Then ensued a scene not
 
 70 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 inaptly denominated, "the break up." The higher officers left 
 their commands, and the soldiers and officers of the line divided 
 out the teams, the quartermaster and commissary stores, and with 
 guns in their hands, departed for their respective homes. The 
 military posts in almost every town and village of the State were 
 sacked without restraint. The roads all over the country were 
 filled with men, by ttvos, by fives, by tens, by twenties, by fifties, 
 and by hundreds; some walking, others riding, but all without any 
 compulsory organization. Every house on the way was open to 
 them to supply their necessities and make them welcome, usually 
 without charge. For two or three weeks, this dreadful stream of 
 commotion and excitement passed in review, throughout the wide- 
 spread land. Strange as it may be, not a murder, robbery, out- 
 rage, or personal indignity of any serious character was heard of 
 anywhere. The only strife was amongst the soldiers about the di- 
 vision of the spoils, consisting of the public property; and that 
 was generally settled amicably; or very quietly by the force of 
 numbers without a conflict. It is impossible to portray on paper 
 the excitement, the despair, and the dread, all mingled in the feel- 
 ings of one who surveyed this scene. After the storm followed 
 the calm. For three months we had no officers of State, county or 
 town, and but few federal troops, who were for the most part trav- 
 eling in squads gathering up the public property that could be 
 found. There was but li;tle attention paid to labor or to business 
 of any kind, and there was a stagnation in traffic of all sorts. The 
 whole country reposed in despondency as to the past, and in silent 
 dread as to the future. The general gloom chained down the pas- 
 sions and vices of men, and rendered them harmless to each other 
 in the entire absence of legal restraint. A fellow-feeling of mis- 
 fortune drew out the kinder sympathies of our nature, which were 
 aided and fostered by the traditional and habitual respect for law 
 and order. But the trials of the people on this subject was not 
 yet over. For on the 19th day of June, 1865, Gen. G. Granger, of 
 the federal army, by proclamation at Galveston, took military pos- 
 session and command of Texas, and issued orders declaring "all 
 acts of the governor and legislature of Texas since the ordinance 
 of secession, illegitimate," and calling upon all Confederate and 
 State officers and soldiers to repair to certain places in the State 
 to be paroled. He also declared the negroes to be set free. 
 Again the roads were filled with traveling soldiers; and again they 
 and the citizens exhibited the same orderly conduct, and the ne- 
 groes generally, for that year, remained at their homes with their 
 former masters. 
 
 It was not until about the 25th of July that Gov. A. J. Hamilton 
 arrived in Texas to organize a civil government within the State, 
 and it was at least a month more before the various civil officers 
 were appointed and commenced the exercise of their duties. Dur-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 71 
 
 ing all this period the officers of the State did not assume to dis- 
 charge their duties as officers, because they had no assurance that 
 their acts would be recognized as legal by the military authorities, 
 or respected by the people. Indeed, it was generally understood, 
 that their authority as officers was wholly repudiated by the gov- 
 ernment of the United States. On the 25th day of July, 1863, Gov. 
 A. J. Hamilton, at Galveston, issued his proclamation announcing 
 to the people of Texas, that he had been appointed by President 
 Johnson provisional Governor for the State of Texas, for the pur- 
 pose of organizing a civil government therein. The question here 
 arises: By what authority did President Johnson undertake to or- 
 ganize a State government for Texas. His proclamation of the 17th 
 of June, 1865, appointing A. J. Hamilton "Provisional Governor of 
 the State of Texas" gives us the answer by assuming that the peo- 
 ple of Texas had been deprived of all civil government by the "re- 
 bellion," which had been waged by a portion of the people of the 
 United States against the properly constituted authorities thereof, 
 and that it was the duty of the United States to secure to the peo- 
 ple of Texas the enjoyment of a republican form of government, 
 and protect them against invasion and domestic violence; and that 
 it was his duty, as the chief executive officer, and as commander- 
 in-chief of the army, to cause the laws to be executed. 
 
 Under this view of the disorganized condition of the people of 
 Texas, and of the obligation of the government of the United States 
 to them, and of his duty and consequent power to direct and carry 
 out the performance of that obligation, he, in said proclamation, 
 directed the various officers of the federal government and heads of 
 departments to carry into effect the laws of the United States with- 
 in the State of Texas. This was done to impose on the people of 
 Texas their federal obligations which had been temporarily dis- 
 turbed, and to give to them the benefit of the direct action of the 
 laws of the United States for their protection as citizens of the 
 United States. And, as a full resumption of their federal relations 
 could not be accomplished in the entire absence of an organized 
 State government (none then existing in Texas), the President un- 
 dertook to provide means, and direct the mode of enabling the 
 loyal people of Texas to frame a constitution, and organize a State 
 government, whereby justice might be established, domestic tran- 
 quility restored, and loyal citizens be protected in all their rights 
 of life, liberty and property. Who were the loyal citizens that he 
 thus sought to enable to make and organize a State government in 
 Texas for their protection, as the finishing act in the renewal and 
 complete resumption of their federal relations? This question must 
 be answered by reference to a former proclamation issued by the 
 President on the 29th day of May, 1865, which offered amnesty and 
 pardon to all persons that had been engaged in the rebellion, with 
 certain specified exceptions, who would in good faith take and ob-
 
 72 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 serve an oath to henceforth faithfully support, protect and defend 
 the Constitution of the United States and the union of the States 
 thereunder, and to abide by and faithfully support all laws and 
 proclamations, which have been made during the existence of the 
 present rebellion, with reference to the emancipation of slaves. 
 This oath was designed to be, when taken, as it afterwards was by 
 the mass of the people, a solemn surrender of the issues of the war, 
 secession and slavery, and which when taken and observed in good 
 faith, was designed by the President to be a restoration of the citi- 
 zen to a state of loyalty to the government, and to such persons did 
 he design to entrust the power to reorganize State government in 
 Texas. It was obvious that if the persons who took this oath un- 
 dertook to revise and reform the Constitution of the State, the 
 future right of secession and right to hold slaves must be abandon- 
 ed in it, and thereby the professed object of the prosecution of the 
 war, on the part of the North, would be attained so far as Texas 
 was concerned. During the whole time of the war, the President 
 and Congress most carefully avoided recognizing the existence of 
 the Confederate government in any shape whatever, and persisted 
 in treating those engaged in hostility as disaffected individuals act- 
 ing under a "so-called" Confederate government, and who, by their 
 unlawful acts, were interrupting the execution of the laws of the 
 United States in the Southern States of the Union; and not as se- 
 ceded or even as revolted States, that had separated themselves 
 from the federal Union. 
 
 The government, in the most solemn form, had pioclaimed to 
 the world, that the object of the war was simply the preservation of 
 the Union. President Johnson had gone a step farther, in accor- 
 dance with the precedent set him by President Lincoln, and sought 
 to put an end to slavery, which had been the immediate cause of 
 the war; and by that means a recurrence of a similar difficulty 
 would be avoided on that ground. That view of the subject, as 
 the proper terms of pacification, is sanctioned by the practice and 
 usage of nations who have to go to war to settle impending diffi- 
 culties. 
 
 By what means, and in what mode, did President Johnson en- 
 able the people thus made loyal, as well as those who had remained 
 loyal, to organize a State government in Texas? First, by appoint- 
 ing A. J. Hamilton provisional governor of the State of Texas; 
 second, by making it his dnty, in the proclamation appointing him, 
 at the earliest practicable time to prescribe such rules and regula- 
 tions as may be necessary and proper for convening a convention 
 to be chosen by the loyal people, for the purpose of altering and 
 amending the Constitution, and to exercise such powers as may be 
 necessary to enable them to restore the State to its federal rela- 
 tions; thirdly, by prescribing that those should vote in the elec- 
 tion of delegates to the convention who were qualified voters by
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 73 
 
 the Constitution and laws of the State of Texas immediately be- 
 fore the date of the "so-called" secession, and who had taken the 
 amnesty oath; and that delegates should have the same qualifica- 
 tions, and fourthly, by recognizing the right of the people of Texas 
 as a State acting in convention, or through its State legislature af- 
 terwards to be assembled, to determine for itself the qualifications 
 of its voters and officers. The President not only acted under his 
 constitutional power to grant pardons, but also under an act of 
 Congress of 1862, the 13th section of which read as follows, to wit: 
 "The President of the United States is hereby authorized, at any 
 time hereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may 
 have participated in the existing rebellion in any State or part 
 thereof, pardon and amnesty, with such exceptions, at such lime, 
 and on such conditions, as he may deem expedient for the public 
 welfare." 
 
 The object in dwelling upon these proclamations is to deduce 
 from them the view of the President of the political status of Texas, 
 and his plan of reconstruction. 
 
 First. He regarded Texas as a State of the Union, with all the 
 rights of a State under the Constitution of the United States, un- 
 impaired by the war, and with a constitution and laws of her own; 
 not having the right to secede, and not therefore having in fact 
 seceded from the Union. 
 
 Second. He considered that Texas had no civil officers to exe- 
 cute her laws existing under her Constitution of 1845, as the result 
 of the participation of the mass of her people in erecting an un- 
 constitutional government (in 1861) in opposition and hostility to 
 the general government of the United States, and that both her 
 federal relations and internal administrations were suspended. 
 
 Third. That Texas could not resume her federal rela- 
 tions without her corporate powers, embodied in her subsisting 
 constitution and laws being put into activity by the election of of- 
 ficers and the reorganization of civil government. 
 
 Fourth. He considered that if the people of Texas were allowed 
 to retain the de facto government which they had at the close of 
 the war, or to organize another of their own accord, and according 
 to their own views, that they might do so without repudiating seces- 
 sion and slavery, and in that event the issues of the war would not 
 be surrendered by the people of Texas; and that therefore they 
 would be as free, so far as it relates to their constitutional obliga- 
 tions, to renew the strife, as they were to commence it before the 
 war. 
 
 Fifth. He considered that if any other power than the people of 
 Texas themselves, should institute a government for them, with the 
 rights of secession and slavery abandoned, and prescribe who 
 should vote and hold office in Texas, it would to that extent, abro- 
 gate her Constitution of 1845, ^^^ place Texas in a position of in-
 
 74 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 feriority as a State, so that she could not resume her federal rela- 
 tions and exist within the Union upon terms of equality with other 
 States. Without that state of equality the union of the States 
 could not be restored and exist, as it was contemplated to be by 
 the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 Sixth. He considered that the great mass of the citizens had 
 been guilty of treason against the government of the United States, 
 but that it was not practicable, if desirable, to attempt a prosecu- 
 tion of the great mass of them; because, if for no other reason, 
 the Constitution required them to be prosecuted within the federal 
 judicial district in which the alleged offense was committed. 
 
 Under these views, the President adopted the plan of holding 
 the people of Texas, (as well as those of other Southern States) in 
 military subjection by the army, and of offering amnesty and par- 
 don (with certain exceptions), upon their taking an oath which 
 should bind their consciences to a surrender of secession and sla- 
 very, as future rights not to be claimed by them; and when they 
 should become so bound, they might be trusted to revise and alter 
 the State constitution, and reorganize the State government in con- 
 formity to their oath-bound obligation, which, when thus volun- 
 tarily done, would enable the State to resume its federal relations 
 under a government of their own creation, as contemplated by the 
 Constitution of the United States; and at the same time, the ob- 
 ject of the war would be fully accomplished in the surrender of 
 the right of secession and slavery by the State itself; which would 
 then stand in harmony and on terms of political equality with the 
 other States of the Union. 
 
 President Johnson designed, by his plan of reconstruction, to 
 accomplish two leading objects, to-wit: To eradicate the causes 
 of disagreement in political sentiment, that had existed between 
 the South and North; and at the same time to reinstate and pre- 
 serve the Union as a Union of States, in accordance with the the- 
 ory of the Union Democracy, thereby checking what he consid- 
 ered the revolutionary tendency towards consolidation. 
 
 To carry out this plan, A. J. Hamilton was appointed provi- 
 sional governor of Texas, an office invented and named for the 
 purpose. On the 25th day of July, 1865, in Galveston, Governor 
 Hamilton issjed his proclamation "To the people of Texas," 
 indicating the steps to be taken, to wit : the appointment of per- 
 sons in the respective counties to administer the amnesty oath, 
 and to register the voters, preparatory to an election for delegates 
 to a convention; the appointment of State, district and county 
 officers, " there being no civil officers in the State;" the holding of 
 a convention, with powers to organize a "full and complete State 
 government," whose action should be submitted to the qualified 
 voters of the State. It was also therein announced that the gen- 
 eral laws and statutes of the State in force immediately before the
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 75 
 
 first day of February, 1861 (the date of the so-called ordinance 
 of secession), are to be respected and enforced. And all laws, or 
 pretended laws, acts or resolutions of any legislature, convention, 
 or pretended laws, acts or resolutions of any legislature, conven- 
 tion, or other authority, based upon a supposed dissolution of the 
 Union, or inconsistent with the idea of Texas being an integral 
 part of the United States government are inoperative and void, 
 and no longer to be respected or obeyed by the public, officers, or 
 citizens of the State; and the courts when established, will proceed 
 according to the laws, usages and forms existing immediately prior 
 to the said first day of February, 1S61, except in so far as they 
 may be affected by the emancipation of slaves in the State by au- 
 thority of the United States, or by other acts for the suppression of 
 the late rebellion." 
 
 Pursuant to a request of Gov. Hamilton at Galveston, a large 
 number of citizens of Texas, generally Union men, met him at 
 Austin, and gave him their assistance in selecting, and many of 
 them in accepting, the civil offices in the State. In many of the 
 Southern States, particularly in Mississippi and Alabama, rhe offi- 
 cers that had been elected by the people during the time of the 
 confederacy, except those in the executive departments, had been 
 generally retained upon their taking the amnesty oath and the or- 
 dinary oath of office. In Texas, however, very few were retained, 
 unless they were known to have been Union men during the war; 
 who seemed to have had a private knowledge of eaeh other exten- 
 sively over the State. There were some counties and districts, 
 however, where competent officers of Union proclivities could not 
 be found, or would not accept office; and in such cases, selections 
 were made from the ranks of the secessionists. A notable instance 
 of this was in the appointment of Richard Coke, of Waco, as dis- 
 trict judge, who accepted the office at the solicitation of both Union 
 men and secessionists. There was no appointment of justices of 
 the Supreme Court, and therefore their offices remained vacant. 
 
 During the summer and early part of the fall of 1865, the offices 
 were generally filled, and the courts were opened and held at the 
 times and places that they had been held at during the time of the 
 Confederacy, which was done under the proclamation of the gov- 
 ernor. 
 
 In the administration of law in the courts of that period, the acts 
 of the State Legislature relating to matters merely local within the 
 State, and not in violation of the Constitution of the United States 
 or directly or indirectly promotive of the objects of the civil war, 
 were carried out. 
 
 The governor levied and collected a tax to defray the expenses of 
 government as well as the convention to be held. 
 
 By a proclamation of the 15th of November, 1865, issued by the 
 governor, an election for delegates to a convention was held on the
 
 76 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 Sth day of January, iS66, just five years after the election for dele- 
 gates to the secession convention, that having been held on the Sth 
 day of January, 1861. They met in Austin on the 7th day of Feb- 
 ruary, 1866, and proceeded to the business before them. James 
 W. Throckmorton, of Collin county, was elected president of the 
 convention. Before the war he had been a secessionist in princi- 
 ple, though openly and strongly opposed to it as impolitic. He 
 was one of seven members of the convention in 1861, who voted 
 against secession. But when the die was cast, he expoused the 
 cause of his State, even during the session of the convention. He 
 exerted himself in the northwestern part of the State, which was 
 generally opposed to the movement, to harmonize public sentiment 
 into a cordial acquiscence, and had much influence in its accom- 
 plishment. He went into the army; was a major in a regiment, 
 did good service, and at the close of the war, he was in the service 
 of the State upon the frontier, with the rank of brigadier general. 
 Having been a prominent member of the legislature for several 
 years before the war, having been a strong Union man, and then 
 having rendered good service to the Southern cause during the 
 war, there seemed to be a general impression of his fitness to be a 
 prominent leader in the work of reconstructing the State under the 
 plan of President Johnson. His election, therefore, was received 
 with general approbation. 
 
 The work before this convention was of a most delicate and 
 arduous character, for three reasons: First, the subject of read- 
 justment instrinsically involved numerous difficult and perplexing 
 questions. Secondly, but little light was furnished as to what 
 would be required of the convention further than a renunciation of 
 slavery and the right of secession. Thirdly, the signs of a disa- 
 greement between the President and the Congress as a body had 
 already begun to appear; and the governor was regarded as in the 
 interest of the Congress, though an appointee of the President to 
 carry out his plan of reconstruction; and hence, whatever might be 
 done was, at best, a mere experiment. 
 
 The work that was done by the convention may be briefly con- 
 sidered under two heads: First, a series of ordinances passed 
 finally by that body, without submitting them to the people, the 
 object of which was to readjust the State internally and externally 
 to the new state of things then presented. Second, a revision and 
 amendment of the Constitution of 1845, which was still regarded 
 as in force, the amendments of which were submitted to the vote 
 of the people of the State for their approval or rejection. They 
 were afterwards approved by a vote of 28,119 ^^ favor, to 23,400 
 against them. 
 
 The important ordinances were these declaring that the ordi- 
 nance of secession is null and void, and renouncing the claim of 
 the right of the State to secede; declaring the war debt to be void
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 77 
 
 and preventing the Legislature from making provision for its pay- 
 ment; making valid the laws and acts of the officers of the State 
 since the ist of February, 1861, which were not in conflict with the 
 Constitution and laws of the United States, and making various 
 other provisions, the general effect of which was to cause the gov- 
 ernment of Texas during the war to be judicially regarded as a gov- 
 ernment de facto, without the necessity of proving that [fact, and 
 also declaring the slaves to have been set free within this State, by 
 the government of the United States by force of arms, and by the 
 amendment of the Constitution of the United States (then lately 
 adopted), and declaring their equality before the law ir» the enjoy- 
 ment of their rights of life, liberty and property, and allowing them 
 to be witnesses in all cases where one of their own race might be 
 a party. This ordinance was entitled "Freedmen," and was incor- 
 porated in the amended Constitution as Art. VIII, Sections i and 
 2, though it was not submitted; but, as the other ordinances, was 
 passed unconditionally. The amendments that were submitted 
 to the vote of the people, related mainly to but few subjects, to- 
 wit: a change in the mode of altering and amending the Constitu- 
 tion, providing for calling a conyention, releasing to grantees or 
 owners of the soil the interest of the State in mines and mineral 
 substances; enabling the Legislature to guarantee railroad bonds 
 under certain regulations and restrictions; enabling the counties 
 to tax themselves for subscriptions for railroad stock; defining and 
 appropriating a school fund for "the white scholastic inhabitants," 
 and providing that educational taxes collected from persons of 
 African descent should be devoted to the education of their chil- 
 dren; lengthening the terras of most of the officers of the State, 
 with an increase of their salary to compensate for the depreciation 
 of the United States currency in which they would be paid for 
 some time at least; and revising and reforming somewhat at length 
 the "judicial department." 
 
 The amendments to the judicial department were designed 
 mainly to give completeness to it as a whole. The number of 
 justices of the Supreme Court was increased to five, who should 
 elect a chief justice to preside, and any three of them should con- 
 stitute a quorum to do business, and extended their term of service 
 to ten years. 
 
 The district judges were to hold their offices for eight years. 
 The county court was given a civil and criminal jurisdiction over 
 minor offenses, and over debts not over five hundred dollars. The 
 Legislature was allowed to provide for criminal courts in cities. 
 The jurisdiction of the right of appeal from the several courts 
 were more particularly defined than previously, without any radi- 
 cal change. This Constitution left the government of the State 
 solely in the hands of the white race, by not giving to the freed- 
 men the right of suffrage, or the right to hold office. There was
 
 78 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 an effort to enfranchise them by the establishment of what was 
 then termed "impartial suffrage," — making the test of the right to 
 be, the capacity to read and write. It, however, was very weakly 
 supported, notwithstanding it was recommended by the provisional 
 governor. The great struggles were upon the ordinance disposing 
 of the ordinance of secession, and as to whether it should be de- 
 clared to be null and void (as an existing fact), or be declared to 
 have been void ab initio (as a principle); and upon the ordinance 
 rendering valid certain laws and acts of officers fixing the status of 
 the government during the war as a government de facto. Upon 
 the first of these questions the members were very equally divided, 
 with a small majority for declaring the ordinance of secession 
 simply null and void as a matter of fact. 
 
 Upon the second question there was a large majority in 
 favor of regarding the government during the war de facto. It was 
 a matter of the first importance to have this question determined 
 in this way by the political authority. It was upon this ordinance 
 chiefly (called the omnibus bill from its embracing a series of 
 measures), that the parties were exhibited, that had been forming 
 during the session of the convention. Those in favor of the ordi- 
 nance were the secessionists and moderate Union men, forming the 
 conservative party in the State. Those opposed to it were the ex- 
 treme Union men, forming the radical party, or, as they styled 
 themselves, the Union Republican party. The former were in favor 
 of President Johnson's plan of reconstruction strictly. The latter 
 assumed to support the "President and Congress" in reconstruct- 
 ing the State, but finally fell into the full support of Congress jn 
 opposition to the President's plan. 
 
 An election for State officers under the Constitution, as well as 
 a vote upon the amendments having been ordered to take place on 
 the fourth Monday in June, 1866, so as to complete the full organ- 
 ization of the State; and a meeting of the Legislature on the first 
 Monday in August thereafter, it was thought expedient by the 
 parties to hold caucuses and nominate candidates for the respect- 
 ive State offices. 
 
 Ex-Gov. Pease headed the union republican ticket, and James 
 W Throckmorton headed the conservative ticket, which was 
 elected by a very large majority. The gentlemen elected to the 
 bench of the Supreme Court, were George F. Moore, Stockton P. 
 Donley, Richard Coke, Geo. W. Smith and Asa M. Willie, and by 
 them Geo. F, Moore was chosen chief justice. They were all of 
 them good lawyers. Chief Justice Moore had been on the su- 
 preme bench during the war. The Legislature met on the first 
 Monday in August, and entered upon the business of passing such 
 laws as were deemed necessary to readapt the State to its changed 
 condition; elected two senators, and made provision for the elec- 
 tion of four representatives to the Congress of the United States,
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 79 
 
 who were elected during the succeeding fall, three of whom, to- 
 gether with the senators elect, presented themselves as representa- 
 tives of their State, to the Congress at Washington City at the ses- 
 sion in December thereafter. The senators elected were, Ex- 
 President David G. Burnet and Ex-Chief Justice O. M. Roberts; 
 the representatives were, Geo. W. Chilton, A. M. Branch, B. H. 
 Epperson and Clabe Herbert, none of whom were admitted to 
 seats in the Congress of the United States. 
 
 The freedom of the slaves made it incumb^t upon the Legis- 
 lature to endeavor to regulate the conduct and control of a large 
 body of persons, who had heretofore been provided for, taken care of 
 and governed for the most part by the owners. This had been one 
 reason that had induced the convention to confer criminal and 
 civil jurisdiction upon the county court. The Legislature regu- 
 lated the proceedings, of said court in the exercise of said jurisdic- 
 tion so as to have frequent terms. With the same object, an ap- 
 prentice law, a vagrant law, a labor law, and a law defining and 
 declaring the rigots of colored persons; a law defining persons of 
 color to be all those having one-eighth or more of African blood; 
 and a law requiring railroad companies to furnish a passenger car 
 for freedmen. (The labor act, however, was annulled by a mili- 
 tary order, and has not been enforced.) 
 
 To encourage immigration to the State, a pre-emption was 
 granted to settlers upon the public domain; and a resolution was 
 passed inviting capital and skilled labor. A law was passed 
 authorizing the records of the confederate courts within the State 
 to \)e transferred, so as to become records in the federal coyirts. 
 
 Having tn view the public improvements, acts were passed cre- 
 ating the office of State engineer; regulating the subject of rail- 
 roads by amendments and by new provisions; a joint resolution 
 was passed reviving the geological survey that had been suspended 
 during the war. There were also acts passed to collect arms and 
 other public property. A great many private acts were passed, 
 chartering companies for various purposes, including manufactur- 
 ing, mining, and educational companies. And a law was passed 
 to locate and establish two universities. There were various 
 amendments made to both the civil and criminal laws with a view 
 to improve their operation. The offices of the ^tate were gener- 
 ally filled, the courts were opened for business, and every part of 
 the State government was very soon in full operation under the 
 new Constitution. The United States re-established the mails and 
 postoffices, the federal courts, and revenue collections. The State 
 had done everything necessary to resume its federal relations that 
 was in the plan of the President. Nothing seemed to be wanting 
 but the reception of her Senators and Representatives into Con- 
 greas of the United States. Under these circumstances the people 
 of the State generally were much encouraged; went to work in all
 
 So OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 of the departments of industrial and professional life; and were 
 inspired with the hope of emerging from their pecuniary difficul- 
 ties and the general despondency consequent upon the fate of the 
 war. This prospect, however, had a drawback. From time to 
 time, while the policy of the President was thus being carried out, 
 the Congress passed acts which looked to a very different plan of 
 reconstruction. Under their slow progress and operation the plan 
 of the President was finally undermined and defeated, and the of- 
 cers that had been elected by the people, were turned out after 
 havtng served about one year, and their places were filled by mili- 
 tary authority. The Congressional plan was engrafted upon ani 
 supplanted that of the President.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 8l 
 
 AN ADDRESS. 
 
 [Drawn up by O. M. Roberts, exhibiting the history and the then 
 existing condition of Texas in regard to its Federal Relations, 
 with reasons why its delegation should be admitted to seats in 
 Congress, to which they had been elected in 1866; which being 
 signed by the members-elect then in Washington City, on the 
 loth day of January, 1867, was published in the Natioftal Intelli- 
 gencer, — the organ of President Johnson's administration — and 
 circulated over the United States. That was the only such ad- 
 dress that was ever published, as a sort of protest, by any of the 
 delegations of the Southern States, whose members had been ex- 
 cluded from Congress. It was a protest against being put under 
 military rule, as Congress was then preparing to do.] 
 
 To the Congress and People of the United States: 
 
 We, having been chosen to represent the State of Texas in the 
 Congress of the United States, and not having been admitted to 
 seats, take this mode of presenting the following facts and views 
 relating to her history, present condition, and Federal relations: 
 
 Anterior to the revolution of 1835 and 1836, Texas was a part of 
 Coahuila and Texas in the Republic of Mexico. By the intelli- 
 gence and valor of its citizens, prompted by an ardent love of free- 
 dom, it established a separate nationality, which was recognized 
 by the United States, and by the leading nations of Europe, and 
 which it maintained against the power of Mexico, and the ravages 
 of savage tribes for ten years, exercising the powers externally and 
 internally of a perfect sovereignty, — being a nation among nations. 
 Resting on the Gulf of Mexico for its outlet to the commerce and 
 intercourse of the world, spreading out over a vast and fertile ter- 
 ritory, yielding rich harvests of all the varied and valuable pro- 
 ductions of the temperatjC zone, she was an empire within herself, 
 self-sustaining, and capable of the highest material and intellect- 
 ual development; with all her interests anfl institutions combined 
 and. harmonized under a representative republic. 
 
 By annexation in 1845-6, she surrendered her separate national- 
 ity to become a State in the United States of America. It was 
 done by the almost unanimous voice of her people, without com-
 
 82 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 pulsion from any quarter, without any necessity, impending or 
 prospective, — the alternative being then presented to her of "an- 
 nexation to the United States," or "independence acknowledged by 
 Mexico and guaranteed by Great Britain and France." In that 
 act was exhibited an unselfishness, a devotion to American unity, 
 which challenges comparison with the memorable example of Vir- 
 ginia and other Southern Colonies fn the revolution of T776. Her 
 entrance into the Federal Union, while it caused a great influx of 
 population, and hastened prosperous development, entailed upon 
 her the political agitations common to h^r sister States. Her re- 
 moteness from the center of political power subjected her to mauy 
 disadvantages, among the most prominent of which was the want 
 of adequate protection against the continuous depredations of sav- 
 age tribes of Indians on her frontier, by whom thousands of her 
 people, — men, women, and children — were murdered or taken into 
 captivity, and vast amounts of their property stolen from time to 
 time. These shocking barbarities are now'being perpetrated, and, 
 within the last eighteen months, have caused the frontier to recede 
 from thirty to fifty miles along the whole border. 
 
 This has often made it necessary for the State to place a milita- 
 ry force of its own on the frontier at great expense, for which it 
 has never yet been fully reimbursed. In 1861, lexas, in conven- 
 tion, passed the ordinance of secession, and participated with 
 other sister States in the formation of the Southern Confederacy. 
 It was regarded as certain that six or seven of the Southern States 
 would secede. Texas had either to follow, or stand still. To stand 
 still was to be rent in twain by civil war at home. The State was 
 sectionally divided on the question, and nothing but a vote of the 
 people, promptly taken, and acquiesced in by the minority could 
 then save her from the horrors of a civil war, and make her peo- 
 ple a unit on one side or the other. Having thus made her decis- 
 ion, the mass of the people sustained the cause of the South during 
 the whole time of the war. Whatever wrongs and outrages may 
 have occurred as amongst themselves, this unity thus produced 
 saved the State from a hundredfold more, that would have occur- 
 red without it. Probably, too, it saved the country from the deso- 
 lation of fire and sword, that swept over other States. It also left 
 it possible, at the close to harmonize society, and adapt it to the 
 changed condition of public affairs, without the distraction of ir- 
 reconcilable feuds, engendered between neighbors and families 
 during the struggle. 
 
 The causes, which led to this great war between the two sec- 
 tions, had taken deep toot long before Texas entered the Union. 
 One class of thinkers believed that they saw in the language and 
 spirit of the Constitution of the United States a plain indication of 
 intention, on the part of its framers, that the government should 
 be shaped to the discouragement rather than the encouragement
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 83 
 
 and extension of the institution of slavery; while another class be- 
 lieved it was intended to protect and permit the spread of that in- 
 stitution. One class of thinkers believed that in the adoption of 
 the Constitution of the United States, the people of each State, 
 previously distinct, became merged and amassed into one people, 
 for certain purposes embraced within the scope and objects of that 
 Constitution, and to that extent lost a portion of their State sover- 
 eignty; whereas, another class thought that the people of each 
 State retained their exclusive identity as a sovereign State, and 
 could, therefore, withdraw the powers delegated to the general gov- 
 ernment by the State. For it was hardly ever questioned, but that 
 a sovereign power, — the people, — could "reform, alter or abolish" 
 their form of government. But the question was, who, for that 
 purpose, in reference to the general government, constituted tke 
 people. The Constitution, as it was thought, did not, in express 
 terms, settle either of these questions, — slavery or secession. Con- 
 struction, -anology, and the facts of history were resorted to for 
 their solution. The greatest intellects of the country, for more 
 than fifty years, had exhausted the arguments on both sides, and had 
 continually diverged the more the longer they debated them. 
 These different constructions necessarily led to radically different 
 results, in the scope and action of the government, and in the 
 modeling of society under it. One was adapted to the progressive 
 ideas of the North, the other to the stationary views of the South. 
 The weaker party sought to escape the consequence of the con- 
 struction of the stronger, by withdrawing from the Union, — not to 
 prevent the Northern States from retaining the government over 
 themselves with their own construction; but to insure its preserva- 
 tion as to the Southern States as they understood it. 
 
 This statement of these questions, that have been settled, is here 
 made for the purpose, and for the purpose only, of disrobing them 
 of numerous iritating adjuncts, and incidents of passion and preju- 
 dice; of inviting a liberal and charitable consideration for the 
 motives of the mass of those in Texas, who participated i i seces- 
 sion, and to facilitate a more ready comprehension of the reasons 
 why the minority, who did not want to secede so promptly ac- 
 quiesced in the decision of the majority;*by which the unity of the 
 people was secured and preserved. The war was brought on by 
 these questions and their surroundings. The South was over- 
 whelmed by a superior force. Measures of conciliation, pacifica- 
 tion, and readjustment, were set on foot by the President, which 
 were responded to, and acted on by the people of Texas by taking 
 the amnesty oath, by amending their Constitution, which was in 
 force previovs to 1861, acknowledging the supermacy of the Con- 
 stitution and laws of the United States, declaring the ordinance of 
 secession null and void, and renouncing the claim of the riglit of 
 the State to secede, declaring the slaves to have been freed, and
 
 84 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 preventing involuntary servitude except for crime within the limits 
 of the State, ordaining the full protection of the equal civil rights 
 and immunities of all persons, irrespective of color, and forbidding 
 the legislature forever thereafter from making any provision for the 
 payment of any debts of the State, or of the Confederate States, 
 contracted during the war. Under this amended Constitution the 
 officers of the State have been elected, supplanting those of the 
 provisional government, and are in the performance of their duties, 
 — the organization of the State government being as complete as 
 it ever was before the war, in full harmony with the Constitution 
 and laws of the United States, and commanding the respect, con- 
 fidence, and obedience of the great body of the people. The laws 
 of the United States are being executed within its limits, without 
 hindrance or resistance from the people or State authorities. The 
 federal army is on our frontier for protection. The federal judi- 
 eiary are performing their functions. The United States mails are 
 being carried all over the State. The navy is protecting our com- 
 merce. The officers of customs and internal revenue are doing 
 their duty, and the people are paying their duties and taxes, as in 
 other States. What more could be said of the Stales of New York 
 and Ohio, except that they have their senators and representatives 
 in Congress to speak for and represent the rights, interests, and 
 necessities of their States, and to defend their people from unjust 
 aspersions and misrepresentations, when necessary. 
 
 Texas was annexed or admitted into the Union by an act of Con- 
 gress (December, 1845), which has never been repealed, and she is 
 now performing the duties, and resting under the obligations of a 
 State in the Union, except that one of the departments of the gov- 
 ernment — the Congress — has not admitted its senators and repre- 
 sentatives elect to seats within their respective bodies. They are 
 left to learn the reasons of their non-admission, from the debates 
 and measures proposed in Congress, and from public discussions 
 upon the subject, rather than from any specific legislative action. 
 
 The adoption by a State of the amendment to the Constitution 
 proposed at the last session, was not expressly declared to be suffi- 
 cient to entitle it to representation, and that it was so intended is 
 now denied by leading members of great ability and influence. 
 Texas is charged with disloyalty in not doing it, while it is claimed 
 that she is not in a situation to have done so as being out of the 
 Union. Texas did not adopt it, because she believed its provis- 
 ions prejudicial to her best interest and dangerous to the public 
 good. But then she had no reliable and sufficient inducement to 
 aid in engrafting principles upon the government, which she did 
 not approve, and to make a sweeping disqualification of so many 
 of her useful citizens, as to make it almost amount to self-imposed 
 degredation. She may yield to such a fate if imposed by others, 
 or possibly under some species of duress, and it is to be hoped
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 85 
 
 that her people will do it, if they must, with the uncomplaining forti- 
 tude and unshrinking manhood that have characterized them in 
 every emergency. But is it not indeed asking too much of such a 
 people to do it themselves? 
 
 It is alleged to the prejudice of Texas, that she has elected 
 senators and representatives, who cannot take the test-oath. It is 
 taken as an evidence that her people are seeking to reward those 
 who were formerly prominent in opposing the government. That 
 it is believed is a misconception of the subject ; for with the very 
 slight prospect of getting seats, it could not have been regarded as 
 a very valuable reward. In times of great trial, dread and gloom 
 in the political horizon, the people are not likely to select men as 
 mere objects of reward, but far more likely, because they are rep- 
 resentatives in fact. The test-oath at most was regarded as a war 
 measure, and was supposed to be founded on the feeling (rather 
 than the principle), that "the preservation of the life of the nation 
 is a public duty, rising above the Constitution and the laws of the 
 United States." Such a proposition is not to be reasoned upon, 
 not being susceptible of argumentation. The feeling, upon which 
 it was founded, has been kept alive far beyond any conceivable 
 occasion for its exercise. If however it is assumed to be founded 
 on any part of the written constitution, it is persumed to be on that 
 clause, which makes each house the judge of the "qualifications'' 
 of its own members. If the term here quoted can be construed to 
 mean any thing, other than those prescribed for members in the 
 Constitution, then the judgment, as to general fitness of each house 
 of Congress becomes the standard of qualification, which could be 
 used to perpetuate their principles, after a majority of their electors 
 were opposed to them, and thereby make the agent superior to the 
 principal, which is destructive of representative republican govern- 
 ment. It is thought, however, that it was commonly believed that 
 if the State was allowed to be represented at all, the two houses 
 would not retain this rule of exclusion. 
 
 It is said that the people of Texas are disloyal and rebellious in 
 disposition still. If that were all, it would hardly in other 'times, 
 be held to be a good ground for excluding its representatives ; for 
 that would establish the precedent, that a majority in Congress 
 could exclude the delegation from a State, whose people, in their 
 judgment, were manifesting a rebellious and disloyal spirit,— which 
 might often be the case in times of high party rancor and strife. 
 But admitting that under the present pressure of disfavor, we have 
 to be judged by that rule, we beg it to be considered, that Texas 
 has no voice of her own in Congress to explai i or contradict 
 statements made about the condition and temper of her people. 
 Further, it must occur to any reflective mind, how readily the 
 general tone of sentiment in the states of Massachusetts and Illinois 
 as well as in Texas, might be wholly misunderstood, by consider-
 
 86 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 ing only the bad actions and idle expressions, here and there 
 scattered over a large country, and perhaps reported ex-parte, with 
 the exaggerations and coloring of prejudiced informers. Where do 
 members of Congress get their information? Not from the 
 messages of the President. Not from the reports of the general of 
 the army. Not from any published reports of the officers of the 
 judicary or revenue in Texas, Not from our patriotic and vigilant 
 Governor, or other State officers. It is but fair dealing to recollect 
 that there may be dissappointed men, and violent partisans, and 
 even good men, as well as those not falling under that class, who 
 are continually seeing things around them in a distorted light. 
 Besides, it is not to be disguised that there is a class of men in and 
 out of Texas, small though they maybe (in number) who seem to 
 be endeavoring to bring her people in as bad odor as po*Ssible be- 
 fore the public mind. In grave questions, involving the future 
 destiny of a great State, ordinary prudence would dictate a careful 
 examiuation into the facts, upon which national action is to be 
 based. 
 
 We respectfully solicit the most searching and extensive inquiry 
 as to the real facts on this subject. 
 
 As part of the representatives chosen by the State, we assert it as 
 our sincere belief that the great body of the people of Texas are 
 loyal to the government of the United States and now have the 
 most intense desire to obliterate all cause of animosity betwen the 
 sections, and to enter upon a social and material development, 
 that will redound to the power and stability of the whole Union. 
 What motive have they otherwise ? During the late struggle, they 
 looked to foreign powers for help. It came not. Disgust and 
 bitter estrangement followed disappointed hopes. An asylum was 
 searched for by many in Mexico, Brazil and other countries. 
 There they found and reported the evils in reality, they were seek- 
 ing to escape from in anticipation at home. They are looking to 
 no other land as their abode and that of their children. They 
 are entirely satisfied with the experiment of division, and are re- 
 signed to their losses and sacrifices. They aspire to arise from the 
 new standpoint, and to be part and parcel in the great progress of 
 their race on this continent. Texas will stand by the flag of the 
 United States against any nation on earth, and the descendants of 
 the heroes of San Jacinto will contest the palm on any field where 
 the country's foe may be met, with the descendants of the heroes of 
 Bunker Hill. 
 
 It is said that Northern men, "Southern loyalists" and negroes 
 are badly treated in Texas, and that the laws are so administered 
 as to furnish them no adequate protection. This ordinarily would 
 hardly be considered good ground for the non-admission of 
 members of Congress, being purely a matter of State jurisdiction. 
 But 30 far from this assertion being true, we are prepared from
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 87 
 
 personal experience and recent observation to assert that there are 
 thousands of Northern men and Southern loyalists now in Texas 
 who are no more the objects of insult and injury than any one else; 
 and for any offense committed against them they would, as it is 
 believed, find in the courts an ^impartial redres of them. The 
 judicary from the supreme bench down, so far as known to us, are 
 men of high character of intelligence, and integrity, independence 
 and impartiality, and would scorn to shrink from the discharge of 
 a duty from considerations of party or political opinion, as readily 
 «s they would in any other State or country. As to the negroes, it is 
 not to be expected that the prejudice against an inferior class 
 would be banished in a day or a year ; still in the main they are 
 treated humanely and justly by the whi;es, and when such has not 
 been the case, they have appealed, and are now constantly appeal- 
 ing to our own courts for redress and not in vain. 
 
 If society is allowed to adjust itself, as it new is certainly doing, 
 and will do, a public opinion will be formed for the protection of 
 the negro in every respect. When reports of personal injuries, 
 either to blacks or whites are heard, it should be borne in mind 
 that in the Southwest the people are more prone to personal 
 encounters than in the North ; that the country is sparsely settled 
 over a vast extent, and that from these and other such causes, the 
 laws punishing offenses of personal violence have never been as 
 rigidly and certainly executed as in the older States. This is not 
 peculiar to Texas. Nor is there any reason to believe, that the 
 laws are not as well executed there as they were before the war, or 
 that there are any more crimes of that character now being com- 
 mited than were usual before the war. The people of Texas, per- 
 suing their ordinary peaceful avocations, would doubtless be amaz- 
 ed at the exaggerated impressions produced in the North of their 
 alleged enormities against the weaker portion of their community. 
 It is a part of cowardice and not of bravery to concert or encourage 
 a systematic oppression of the weak. How can such a thing be 
 believd of such a people, — a people whose courage has added lustre 
 to the name of Texas, in every field where its flag has floated, from 
 the time of its birth as a nation to the present. Isolated instances 
 of wrong from impulse and passion will occur, and bad men will 
 here and there continue to do wrong no doubt. These are the 
 exceptions, not the rule. During several months after the close of 
 the war, a few negroes were killed in difl"erent parts of the State, 
 and other wrongs were committed by bad men, but to those who 
 understand the facts, it is matter of surprise, that there were not 
 ten times as many crimes committed as there were. Upon the 
 surrender of the forces east of the Missippi river, those west of it 
 regarding further efforts to maintain a separate independence futile, 
 with one accord broke up their camps and departed for their 
 homes, traversing the country in all directions with arms in hand,
 
 88 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, 
 
 and without the restraint of commanders. Several months after- 
 wards a nearly similar scene occurred by the soldiers going to 
 places to be paroled. In the meantime the negroes were declared 
 to be free by military order, many of whom left their homes, and 
 wandered about over the country. There were only a few military 
 posts established hundreds of miles apart. For three months there 
 was no civil officer, who knew that his interference to preserve 
 order would be tolerated by the federal authorities. During this 
 whole period of confusion and disorganization, there was a moral 
 restraint pervading the masses, which so reduced the amount of 
 crime below what might have been expected, as to present the 
 civilization of our people in a light of elevated grandeur, never 
 before contemplated of it. The truth is now, that all classes of 
 persons have gone to work in some avocation with a spirit and 
 energy redoubled by their losses, to improve their fortunes, and 
 to develop the resources of the country, directing their attention 
 more then ever before to factories, railroads, and whatever else 
 will tend to advance their industrial and social interests. In the 
 race of competition in these pursuits, previous differences will be 
 forgotten, passions and prejudice* will subside, all classes will 
 find their proper level, and general protection of each and all will 
 be commensurate with the common interest. 
 
 It is now proposed as a means of protecting "Southern loyalists," 
 Northern men, and negroes, and of reforming State governments 
 now existing, either directly or through territorirl governments, 
 to erect new State governments, based upon the suffrage of the 
 Southern loyalists, and negroes, and upon the disfranchisement 
 and disqualification from office of all those who adhered to and 
 aided in the "rebellion," exepting only those who may be relieved 
 from such disability by Congress. This plan is understood to be 
 proposed by some of the Southern loyalists themselves, and advocat- 
 ed by prominent members of Congress. 
 
 It presents an entirely new feature in our affairs, that rises above 
 the mere exclusion of our repreientatives from Congress. It 
 takes for granted, that the whole question of war and peace are 
 still open. That depends upon the stubborn facts in the past, and 
 no construction can now alter them, and warp the legitimate de- 
 ductions from them. What are they? The government took 
 measures to prevent the withdrawal of the Southern States, and by 
 the proclamations of the President, and by the resolutions of both 
 houses of Congress, and by diplomatic correspondence with other 
 powers, defined its object in carrying on the war to be for 
 the preservation ©f the Union, "with all of the dignity, equality 
 and rights of the States unimpared ;" and "not in any spirit of 
 oppression, nor for any purpose of conquest or subjugation." Such 
 an object, so declared, raised up hosts to fight the battle for the 
 Union, and stayed the hand of foreign powers. To carry it out
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 89 
 
 Congress afterwards authorized the President to extend amnesty 
 and pardon. 
 
 All of tiie authoritative acts of the general government during 
 the whole war, it is believed, spoke the same language, and under 
 and by that policy the war was brought to a successful close. It 
 was on that ground, and on that alone, that the right was claimed 
 to prosecute the war at all. It was on that ground, that the Con- 
 federate government would never be recognized, and therefore no 
 treaty was made with it at the surrender. The manifest intention, 
 with which an act is done, forms a part of the act itself, and gives 
 character to it. 
 
 Considering the objects of the war as here shown, and as made 
 known to the world, and acted on throughout, the surrender of the 
 Southern armies, and the subsequent acts of the people of the 
 States of the South, in response to the proclamations and orders of 
 the President, constitute in effect a pacification, upon terms as bind- 
 ing upon the good faith of the government, and upon the Southern 
 people, as though they had been stipulated in a treaty. This prop- 
 osition rests upon the basis, that the President had the power to 
 use the means which he did, and that the people in the Southern 
 States have, in good faith, complied with what was required or 
 expected of them. The soldiers of the Southern army surrendered 
 under the obligation to repair to their homes, and obey the laws 
 of the country. Under a law of Congress, giving the President 
 power under such terms and conditions as might meet his appro- 
 bation, he issued his proclomation tendering to the mass of the 
 people amnesty and pardon upon their taking an oath in effect 
 surrendering the issues of the war, secession and slavery. After- 
 wards, through the proclamations the President instituted pro- 
 visional governments, for the purpose of enabling the people of the 
 States, who had taken the oath, to reform the State governments, 
 and resume their federal relations as States in the Union. 
 
 Through this instrumentality, and for such purpose, that being 
 the consideration in part inducing them, the people of Texas 
 responded to the call for a convention, and in convention by 
 delegates assembled did make a political surrender of the questions 
 at issue in the war, and their incidents, as previously stated herein, 
 thereby binding not only those who had been bound by ihe amnesty 
 oath, but every one in the State, with their posterity after them. 
 
 Is it to be held as nothing, that a people, who had espoused 
 cherished principles ofgovernment, and had attested their sincerity 
 in a struggle in camp and field for four years, should by affirmative 
 action surrender them under the solemnity of oaths and constitu- 
 tions, and thereby dejjrive themselves of the privilege in conscience 
 and right, to revive them, should an opportunity in future present 
 itself? They did it in good faith, and did it not for the love of the 
 thing itself, but upon an obvious consideration, — to be enabled
 
 90 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 thereby to readjust their State government, and to restore their 
 federal relations in the Union. 
 
 The President had a right, we believe, to effect a complete 
 pacification upon such terms. Had it been regarded doubtful we 
 were in no situation to call it in question without great disadvantage 
 to us. It would have been denounced as evidence of an incorrigi- 
 bly rebellious spirit, if we had refused to take the amnesty oath, 
 or assemble in convention. But the President had the power, we 
 think, not that he is the government, any more than that Congress 
 or the federal judiciary is the government, for while all these 
 departments constitute the government, each one of them represents 
 and binds the government, when acting within the scope of its 
 authority. — the Congress to prescribe the rules of action, the Pres- 
 ident to execute them, and the judicary to construe and enforce 
 them, when brought within the scope of its jurisdiction. It is not 
 to be denied that the war was prosecuted on the theory of the 
 government, that a State had no right to secede, and that the 
 ordinances of secession were utterly void and of no effect. Under 
 no other view could force have been rightfully used to prevent 
 secession. Under this view the President needed no new rule, in 
 view of the declared objects of the war. He simply held the 
 Southern States in subjection to his military authority, until they 
 voluntary embraced the amnesty and pardon, which Congress had 
 authorized him to tender them, and conformed their State govern- 
 ments to the results of the war acquiesced in, the extension over 
 the country of federal authority in every department, military, 
 financial, postal and judicial. 
 
 Had the people of the Southern States been obstinate, and refused 
 to organize their State governments, and resume their Federal 
 relations, some legislation might have become necessary, or had 
 the Congress been in session, it might, or might not have prescrib- 
 ed some additional or different rules, for consumating the pacifi- 
 cation, and restoring the Federal relations of the States. But the 
 fact that the President accomplished it, without the necessity of 
 any additional law to aid or guide him, makes it equally binding 
 on all the departments of the government, as though each had 
 participated in it. 
 
 Texas, having in good faith performed everything required of 
 her, in the pacification, and resumption of federal relations, awaits 
 the result with patient solicitude. If the war was not really waged 
 in the "spirit of oppression and for the purpose of conquest and 
 subjugation" she may well hope that she has done enough to entitle 
 her to the "dignity, equality, and rights" of a State within the 
 Union. 
 
 This new project ignores or disregards all these considerations, 
 and seeks to make the government now, nearly two years after the 
 cessation of hostilities, and after the pacification has been long
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. pX 
 
 completed, and the Federal relatioHS all resumed, except rep- 
 resentation in Congress, adopt a new policy by treating us as a 
 subjugated people, without laws, without government, without State 
 boundaries, without public property of any kind, without social 
 organization, with our lives and property at the will of the con- 
 queror. 
 
 It is believed, and respectfully submitted that such a thing is 
 impossible without a perversion of facts as notorious as the war 
 itself, without a breach of faith to the brave soldiers, who conquer- 
 ed us to preserve the Union of the States, without a breach of faith 
 to the nations of Europe, who were assured that the objects of the 
 war wasonly to preserve the Union, and who under such assurance 
 saw us overwhelmed, and, should it be regarded as a matter of any 
 importance, without a breach of faith to the Southern people, who 
 surrendered their arms, and the principle at issue in the war, and 
 complied with what was necessary to secure peace and restore their 
 political relations, with a full knowledge of and in reference to the 
 avowed and notorious objects of the war on the part of the United 
 States. Should the government of the United States change its 
 whole policy on that subject, regarding the war as still progressing, 
 as it must do, and demand, either in express terms or in effect, of 
 the people of Texas such a surrender, — the most abject known to 
 war, — "a capitulation at will," Texas may and doubtless will have 
 to submit to it. But it should be known and declared to the world 
 to be a new surrender, that will cancel in conscience all of the 
 obligations assured in the one she has hitherto made. Before 
 breaking asunder such ties and plunging the whole cointry into 
 such confusion, distrust and dissatisfaction, as we fear must ensue, 
 let us most respectfully beg a patient and dispassionate examination 
 of the whole subject in all of its bearings and consequences. The 
 Constitution should be again unrolled, and clear and defindite ideas 
 fully grasped upon the momentous questions now pending. The 
 proposition presupposes that Texas is dead, politically defunct ! 
 Texas was carved out of the dominion of Mexico by the swords of 
 the patriots of '36, who gave it shape and form, and breathed into 
 into it the breath of life, and it became an organized body, and an 
 independent political society. Annexation did not destroy its 
 corporate existence an hour or a day. A temporary suspension of 
 her officers, and a substitution of others by the Provisional govern- 
 ment, with the same powers and duties as those displaced, and 
 whose acts were afterwards recognized by the convention, could 
 not destroy its corporate existence. Under the strongest theory of 
 the federal government, as expounded by such jurists as Story and 
 Webster, it has always been admitted, that a State on entering the 
 Union, retained a portion of its sovereiginty for the regulation of 
 its own local and domestic concerns, upon which its State govern- 
 ment is founded.
 
 92 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, 
 
 Those powers of the of the State of Texas, thus reserved, were 
 not in any way affected by loss or gain during or at the end of the 
 war, because the controversy was not about them, but about the 
 powers that had been delegated to the United States on anexation, 
 and as to whether they could, or should be withdrawn, and vested 
 in another confederacy for their exercise. 
 
 So equally on the doctrine that a State could secede rightfully 
 or wrongfully, the State government still existed, at the close of the 
 war, — though a different mode of r£adjustment of federal relations 
 might have been necessary. 
 
 Again, the use of the State government in hostility to the gen- 
 eral government does not of itself destroy the State government 
 any more when it fails than when it succeeds. The existence of a 
 government is a matter of fact, and not of legal fiction. Nothing 
 but the conquest and siihjugatioji, evidenced in some way, as being 
 intended and declared by the United States, and submitted to by 
 I'exas, could annihilate the State. That can hardly be assumed to 
 be the case. If Texas may now be demolished as a State, the 
 precedent is set, and the principle is established that the general 
 government may, for such acts as the Congress may deem sufficient 
 to have forfeited its political existence, set aside a State govern- 
 ment, and reduce it to a territory. 
 
 The danger of such a principle to republican freedom is above 
 description, and words will fail to express the dismay, horror, and 
 reckless despair of the people of Texas, if they should have the 
 misfortune to live to see the power of the United States used in 
 pulling down the venerated pillars, and in digging up the deeply 
 settled foundations of their State government, endeared to them by 
 its own beauty and merits, and enshrined in their hearts by a histo- 
 ry, and a name, of which her sons, whether in freedom or in bond- 
 age, will ever be proud. 
 
 As to the disfranchisement and disqualification of "rebels" in 
 Texas in this scheme, it is only necessary to bring to mind the uni- 
 versal truth, that love begets love, kindness begets kindness, gen- 
 erosity begets gratitude, and it cannot be pretended as yet, thaj 
 the people of Texas have advanced high enough in the sliding 
 scale of Christian civilization as to be above the murky atmosphere 
 of hate. Too many of us will fail to love those who may despite- 
 fully use us. It is the part of wisdom to act upon the fact, that this 
 is no mere insurrection or petty rebellion of a district, that was 
 contemplated in the Constitution to be punished by prosecutions 
 as therein prescribed. That is found impracticable, because it 
 was a great civil war of sections, embracing whole States, and the 
 stamina, intellectual and physical, of the great body of the people 
 in each of these States. 
 
 Why is it that the Irish will not adopt English civilization, and 
 pride of country? Because they hate England for its traditional op-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 93 
 
 pression of Ireland. Surely that lesson ought to be known with-' 
 out learning it by bitter experience in America. The way is still 
 open to keep us one people, rising out of this life and death strug- 
 gle, with common motives and aspirations for the prosperity and the 
 glory of the common country, and not bound by the fetters of cold 
 iron. 
 
 Christian charity and liberal statesmanship point the way. We 
 most earnestly desire their exercise toward our people. 
 
 They are in a tone of mind now to appreciate the necessity of 
 progress, so as to keep pace with the safe advances of the age, in 
 intellectual, social, material, and political development. Their 
 faces are already turned in that direction with the hope that a pow- 
 erful and magnanimous government will neither thrust them back 
 with its frowns and blows, nor drive them along with a blinding 
 rapidity. 
 
 Texas, having done what she deemed to have been her duty, and 
 still being willing to do it, leaves the responsibility of the future 
 upon those who have the power to shape the destinies of the 
 country. 
 
 Washington, January ist, 1867. O. M. Roberts, 
 
 D. G. Burnett, 
 Senators-elect from Texas. 
 B. H. Epperson, 
 Representative of 2d District. 
 
 A. M. Branch, 
 Representative of 3d District. 
 
 Geo. W. Chilton, 
 Representative of ist District. 
 
 Note. — This address was highly appreciated by the President 
 and members of the Cabinet, and received the general commenda- 
 tion of the Southern press, including that of Texas, but it had no 
 influence upon the Congress of the United States.
 
 94' OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 A P0BLIC LECTURE IN THE UNIVERSITY. 
 
 THE HISTORY, OBJECT AND EFFECT OF THE RECONSTRUCTION OF THE 
 ELEVEN SOUTHERN STATES BY THE CONGRESS OF THE UNITED 
 STATES — A REVOLUTION IN A TIME OF PEACE. 
 
 History is a recorded account of what the people are doing in a 
 country during any given period. What they are then doing, is 
 dependent upon the rules of action, prescribed or tacitly permitted 
 by the government. This does not include a time of yvar; for 
 wars have their own history, which is much the same in all ages. 
 Great national wars are stops in history, when the rules of action 
 in one period cease to prevail, and others commence to be en- 
 forced. The war may come to an end without completing the 
 revolution for which the war was commenced and carried on. In 
 that event the revolution in the rules of action must be completed 
 afterwards, by the political action of the government. Such was 
 the result of the great war between the American States. 
 
 The object of this discourse is to show how the revolution was 
 sought to be completed by the Congressional reconstruction of the 
 eleven Southern States, inaugurated in March, 1867, nearly two 
 years after the close of the war. 
 
 President Johnson's plan of reconstruction, which had been pre- 
 viously carried out, except only by the exclusion of the Southern 
 members of Congress, was based upon the views of the nature of 
 the government of the United States, and of its relation to the 
 States, that had long been entertained by some eminent statesmen, 
 which involved the idea of a divided sovereignty between the gen- 
 eral government and that of the several States ; each resting di- 
 rectly upon the sovereignty of the people; the general government 
 upon that of the whole of the people of all the States, and the 
 government of each State upon that of the people of each State, 
 constituting together as a whole, a compositive government, and 
 forming an indissoluble union of all, and, at the same time recog- 
 nizing sovereign reserved powers of the States, bound together 
 alone by the Constitution of the United States. It was exactly 
 under this view of the system of government, that President Buch- 
 anan contended (while the secession of the Southern States was 
 taking place), that a State had no right to secede, but that the Con-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 95 
 
 stitution of the United States did not invest the federal govern- 
 ment with the power to forcibly coerce a State, and make it pre- 
 serve its federal relations, when that State, acting by its constituted 
 authorities, had voluntarily withdrawn them. Others, however, 
 entertaining the same general view of the nature of the govern- 
 ment, thought that the Constitution did confer upon the general 
 government the power to coerce the people of a State by force, 
 however unanimous their action might be in sustaining the State 
 authorities in the effort to withdraw their federal relations. They 
 regarded the action of any convention or legislature, directed to 
 that end, as simply void, leaving the Constitution and laws of the 
 United States still locally in force, as though no such action had 
 been taken, and regarding those persons who might act by the 
 pretended authority of such convention or legislature, in prevent- 
 ing the laws of the United States from being enforced in such 
 States, as criminal offenders, and liable to punishment according 
 to the grade of their offenses. Those persons in such State, who 
 might not aid or take part in such conduct, would still be under the 
 protection of the Constitution and laws of the United States, enti- 
 tled to their full rights under them, as citizens of the United States, 
 and of course not liable to any punishment, or forfeiture of rights 
 or privileges. 
 
 All that could be necessary in such a case was to over-awe or 
 take forcible possesion of the insurgents, bringing them to trial for 
 their breaches of the criminal laws of the land, because the laws of 
 the United States are to be respected and obeyed, and thereby pre- 
 serve the Union. It was in this way that some statesmen before 
 the war believed the general government had the power under the 
 Constitution to preserve the Union. It was under this view, that 
 Mr. Lincoln, when he became president, undertook to preserve 
 the Union. It was under this view avowedly, that Congress voted 
 men and money to suppress the so-called rebellion. It was under 
 this view, that a desultory war with fire and sword, and the freedom 
 of the insurgent's slaves, were vindicated before the civilized world. 
 It was under this view alone, that it could be said, that the insur- 
 gents were endeavoring to destroy the government of the United 
 States. It was under this view, that President Lincoln, under an 
 act of Congress, offered amnesty and pardon to those who would 
 cease their hostility. It was under this view, that thousands of 
 Southern men would take no part in the war, that they could avoid. 
 It was under this view, that the Southern armies surrendered, and 
 their officers and soldiers were paroled. It was under this view, 
 that President Johnson issued his proclamation of amnesty and 
 pardon, freeing the mass of those who were engaged in the war on 
 the part of the South, from punishment and forfeiture for their al- 
 leged treasonable acts, upon such a condition as would secure the 
 repudiation of the right of secession, and of the rehnciuishment of
 
 g6 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 slavery on the part of the Southern States, in the readjustment of 
 their federal relations, withholding a pardon from the leaders and 
 some others, except upon special applications, some of whom, un- 
 der the same view, were actually prosecuted for treason, and others 
 had their property confiscated. 
 
 In such a struggle as America witnessed during four years, — 
 the first truly American war, — bearing a proportion to its grand 
 rivers and lakes, its great plains and mountain ranges, and its vast 
 outspread continent, embracing numerous States, teeming with 
 population, wealth and resources, and closing with one million of 
 federal soldiers in the field to arrest the insurgents, it would have 
 been astonishing, indeed, if the old ideas of government had not 
 been much expanded, and new ideas wrought out that had never 
 before been acted on, if even conceived by statesmen. Such was 
 the case, and we must have some information of them before we 
 can properly understand the congressional plan of reconstruction, 
 and the reasons of it. 
 
 The great new idea, soon matured and put into activity by the 
 war in the North, was that the whole of the people, in mass, of 
 the United States, as a body corporate, had a living organized 
 existence, founded upon a unity of race, styled the "life of the 
 nation," which was a principle of cement and union binding the 
 whole people together, underlying the Constitution, and above all 
 constitutions. The general government, aided by the Northern 
 States, acting through their governors and legislatures, and active- 
 ly sanctioned by the pulpit, and the press, assumed the high duty 
 of preserving the "life of the nation,"and everything they did, and 
 all the means that they used to accomplish that end, were sancti- 
 fied thereby. All those citizens, who opposed the war injthe North 
 were held up to infamy as its enemies. Some of them were im- 
 prisoned, and others banished, and opposing presses were silenced. 
 Its first great conquest was in cenquering Northern opposition, 
 and arousing and concentrating public opinion to the high resolve 
 of sinking the whole country in ruins, if necessary, in the effort to 
 preserve "the life of the nation." The first conquest being made 
 at home, the rest was more easy. Bounties by the general govern- 
 ment, by the States, by the counties, by cities, and by towns 
 (amounting in the aggregate, in some places, to eleven hundred 
 dollars), were given to buy up soldiers to fight the battles for 
 the preservation of "the life of the nation." To sustain the 
 currency, the treasury notes of the United States were made a 
 legal tender, the same as gold and silver. Bounties were given 
 to internal improvements on a grand scale. The expenditure of 
 a million of dollars per day was not regarded as extravagance. 
 Tariffs were raised to a height never before known (averaging 
 perhaps as much as 60 per cent upon the original cost of the 
 imported article). An internal revenue tax was levied upon most
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 97 
 
 of the products of the country. Three billions of public debt 
 were incurred. When the war closed the government was found 
 in the hands and under the influence of those, for the most part, 
 who were not interested to diminish the enormous expenditure, 
 but rather to find the means, as they did, of merely diverting it to 
 other purposes. 
 
 This will suffice to convey a slight view of the expansion of the 
 views of the statesmen, who were participating in the government 
 of the country, when the collapse of the Confederate government 
 took place, which caused them to mount still higher for a still 
 broader view of their duty, in giving direction to the great events 
 of the country. They had not provided for that event any plan in 
 accordance with their expanded views, and therefore none could 
 readily be agreed upon. One by one they began, though slowly, 
 to ascend to a higher point of political observation, drawing each 
 other up all the time, until finally they beheld dawning upon them 
 the vision (dreamed of only before) of the great consolidated re- 
 public based upon universal political equality, without distinction 
 of race or color, — the self-protective, self-developing empire of 
 America, with a central controlling head. With such a vision in 
 prospect, the plan promptly inaugurated by President Johnson, 
 during their period of hesitancy, seemed to them be be a lame ex- 
 pedient; that was halting, by traveling backwards upon the old- 
 fashioned contracted ideas, with which they had set out in the war 
 themselves, but not at all in harmony with the magnificent concep- 
 tions of the new era of progress that had dawned upon the coun- 
 try. 
 
 The leaders in Congress very soon perceived that they had an- 
 other war to flght, — this time a political wir. As before, the first 
 great conquest must be made at home; for the public opinion of 
 the North, and much less that of their coadjutors, the "Southern 
 loyalists," had not reached this grand conception, and had to be 
 drawn up to it by agitation. Much still had to be done. This re- 
 quired both delay and agitation. Delay was soon attained by ar- 
 raying Congress against the President, and keeping the Southern 
 members out of Congress. Agitation was kept up by a paper war 
 upon the South for years, after it had grounded its arms and sought 
 peace. We were represented still to be in a state of semi-rebel- 
 lion; and their coadjutors in the South, taking their cue, helped 
 them with reports of murders and seditious outrages, that enabled 
 them to keep up the delusion upon the Northern mind, that we 
 were actualy, in sentiment at least, in a semi-state of rebellion, and 
 were not to be trusted with any participation in the government, 
 and that there were no loyal people in the South, except the ne- 
 groes and the few white loyalists. Such the Northern people were 
 made to understand and believe was our true condition. 
 
 This was necessary to excuse or justify the extraordinary meas-
 
 pS OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 ures necessary to accomplish the object, sought to be attained. 
 That object was the absolute sovereignty of the government of the 
 United States, with the powers of the States subordinated to its ac- 
 tion, and subjected to its supervising control, to a degree never 
 before provided for, or exercised. To attain this object, it was 
 necessary to establish a universal citizenship and consequent al- 
 legiance to the government of the United States, to free the negroes 
 and secure them in equality of rights, and to place the general gov- 
 ernment in more complete supremacy over the States, so as to en- 
 able it to protect its citizens and others from any action of the 
 States, that it might deem to be violative of their rights. This re- 
 quired such amendments of the Constitution of the United States 
 as would negative the doctrine, previously held in the Northern 
 States, of a divided sovereignty between the States and the United 
 States, as well as that of State sovereignty, as held by the States in 
 the South. 
 
 The amendment of the Constitution in December, 1865, prohib- 
 iting slavery in the United States, and the protection of negroes by 
 troops stationed in the Southern States, left the negroes still with- 
 out the right of suffrage. The Supreme Court of the United States 
 had previously decided, in the Dred Scott case, that negroes were 
 not, and could not be made citizens of the United States. That 
 impediment to universal suffrage must be gotten rid of. In the 
 summer of 1866, after all of the Southern States had reorganized 
 under the plan of President Johnson, a convention, composed of 
 his political adherents, was held in Philadelphia, then styled "the 
 conservative convention," in which resolutions were passed approv- 
 ing his plan of reconstruction, and announcing the view, that if 
 Congress excluded the members-elect from the eleven Southern 
 States, it would not be a constitutional body. 
 
 The resolutions were presented to President Johnson by a com- 
 mittee, headed by Reverdy Johnson, Senator from Maryland, and 
 it was understood that they reflected the views of the President. 
 At once a movement was set on foot for the organization of an 
 army all over the Northern States, styled "the army of the Repub- 
 lic," to be in readiness, if necessary, to sustain the Congress as 
 against the President and his political adherents. This greatly 
 aided in arousing public sentiment in the North in favor of the 
 Congress, and when it met in December, 1866, it was given a for- 
 mal reception at the capitol by a great multitude of people, with 
 congratulatory speeches, and the display of flags, and other demon- 
 strations of rejoicing, more like the return of a victorious army 
 than the convening of a legislative body. It was then currently 
 estimated, that Congress was backed by a millon of troops, organ- 
 ized in the "Army of the Republic." 
 
 The Congress, then confident of its absolute power, poceeded to 
 remove the impediments in its way of accomplishing its objects.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 99 
 
 President Johnson was impeached, and tried for high crimes and 
 misdemeanors; and although the impeachment failed, he was ren- 
 dered powerless. In order that his plan of reconstruction might 
 be set aside, an act of Congress was passed (over the President's 
 veto), on March 2, 1S67, entitled, an act to provide for the more 
 efflcient[governmentof the rebel States, with a preamble as follows: 
 "Whereas, no legal State governments, or adequate protection for 
 life or property now exists in the rebel States of Virginia, North 
 Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, Louis- 
 iana, Florida, Texas, and Arkansas; and, whereas, it is neces- 
 sary that peace and good order should be enforced in said States, 
 until loyal and republican State governments can be legally estab- 
 lished; therefore, 
 
 "Be it enacted, etc., that said rebel States shall be divided into 
 military districts, and made subject to the military authority of 
 the United States, as hereinafter prescribed," etc. 
 
 There were five military districts, one of which was composed 
 of Louisiana and Texas, over which a general of the array was ap- 
 pointed, and assigned to duty, with a competent military force to 
 sustain him in the discharge of his duties. It was made his duty 
 to protect the rights of persons and property, suppress insurrec- 
 tion, disorder, and violence, and to punish, or cause to be punish- 
 ed, all disturbers of the public peace and criminals, 'and (it was 
 provided) to this end, he may allow all local civil tribunals to take 
 jurisdiction of and try offenders; or when, in his judgment, it may 
 be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have the power to 
 organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose," etc. 
 
 It was further provided, that until the people of the rebel States 
 shall be by law permitted representation in Congress, "any civil 
 governments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional 
 only, and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the 
 United States," etc. And further: "No person shall be eligible to 
 any office, under any such provisional government, who would be 
 disqualified from holding office, under the provisions of the third 
 article of said Constitutional amendment." The amendment re- 
 ferred to was the fourteenth, that had already been introduced in 
 Congress, and which in its third article "prohibited any person 
 from holding office, who had (personally) held an office in which 
 he was required to take an oath to support the Constitution of the 
 United States, and shall have engaged in insurrection and rebel- 
 lion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies 
 thereof." 
 
 By a supplementary act of the 19th of July, 1S67, the command- 
 ers of districts were authorized, at their discretion, to remove all 
 civil officers in the provisional governments, and to appoint others 
 to fill their places, and the removals and appointments of such 
 officers, that had been previously made, were confirmed.
 
 lOO OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 By thus reducing the Southern States to military dependencies, 
 with no representation in Congress, it would become easy to have 
 the fourteenth amendment adopted by the Northern States, in the 
 absence of the Southern States voting against it, which they would 
 have done and defeated its adoption, if they had been allowed to 
 vote on it. 
 
 The fourteenth amendment, though it was introduced in Con- 
 gress as a part of the plan of reconstruction, before the passage of 
 the law reducing the Southern States to the condition of territories 
 (in which it is referred to as a proposed amendment), was finally 
 recognized as part of the Constitution on the 26th of July, 1868. 
 Sections i and 5 of said amendment are as follows: 
 
 Art. 14, Sec. i. "All persons born or naturalized in the United 
 States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the 
 United States, and of the State wherein they reside. No State 
 shall make or enforce any law, which shall abridge the privileges 
 or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State 
 deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process 
 of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal 
 protection of the laws." 
 
 Sec. 5. "The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appro- 
 priate legislation, the provisions of this article." 
 
 The first sentence is intended to establish United States citi- 
 zenship with personal allegiance to its government; the second to 
 protect its citizens in their privileges and immunities from abridg- 
 ment by any law of a State; the third, to place the legislative and 
 judicial actions of the States, performed under their own constitu- 
 tions and laws, subject to the supervising control of the general 
 government. Section 5 changes the rule, originally prescribed in 
 article i, section 8, clause 19 of the Canstitution, for the exercise 
 of implied powers, from such as were "necessary and proper" to 
 stch as are "appropriate," — thereby leaving it in the discretion of 
 Congress to pass such laws as may be deemed appropriate, 
 whether "necessary" or not for the enforcement of the 14th 
 amendment. 
 
 This amendment was designed, doubtless upon full premedita- 
 tion, to place the government of the United States in the position 
 of the one great consolidated American republic, with subordinate 
 and auxiliary States, for such local administration as, from time to 
 time, it was not deemed expedient to be assumed by the superior 
 government; provided, however, such local administration shall 
 not abridge the privileges or immunities of the citizens of the 
 United States, and shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or 
 property without due process of law, nor deny to any person with- 
 in its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, — the superior 
 government assuming the incidental power to determine what ac-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. lOI 
 
 tion of the State authorities would constitute such deprivation and 
 denial. 
 
 This 14th amendment, together with the 13th, of December 18, 
 1865, freeing the negroes, and the 15th, of March 30, 1S70, con- 
 ferring the right to vote upon the negroes equally with the whites, 
 were designed to effect a complete revolution in the fundamental 
 structure of our system of federal and State governments. 
 
 Under the Constitution, as it was originally adopted, a person 
 was a citizen of the United States, only by being a citizen of a 
 State. There was such a thing as an interstate citizenship, by the 
 provision "that the citizens of each State shall be entitled to 
 all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." 
 This was in effect a mere treaty stipulation as between the States, 
 inserted in the Constitution. The Congress was given the power 
 "to establish a uniform rule of naturalization . . . throughout 
 the United States."' By this, foreigners would become citizens of 
 any of the States, in the same manner and on the same terms as 
 natives. There was no clause in the Constitution, defining 
 citizenship of the United States. Hence many officers in the 
 service of the United States, upon the breaking out of the war 
 between the States, regarded their primary allegiance due to their 
 own States ; and on the same principle, many Southern men, who 
 were opposed to secession, felt in conscience bound to support the 
 action of their States. President Davis, at the close of the war, 
 was indicted for treason to the United States. To make the 
 prosecution successful in a court of law, it was neccessary to 
 establish his allegiance to the government of the United States, by 
 some provision in the Constitution, under which, his acts in defense 
 of his State could be made treasonable. After a long confinement 
 the prosecution was dismissed by the federal court, over which 
 Chief Justice Chase of the Supreme Court presided. It can hard- 
 ly be presumed that it was done from any personal favor to him, 
 or from a want of a desire to make an example by his conviction, 
 if it had been thought to be certainly practicable. The trial by a 
 jury in a court of law might have reversed the judgment, rendered 
 in "the trial by battle." It was evidently thought by those in 
 authority, that it was better not to risk it. This first section of the 
 fourteenth amendment was most artfully devised to effect a radical 
 change of citizen allegiance, from this State to the government of 
 the United States, and to merge the sovereignty of all the States 
 into absolute sovereignty of the government of the United States. 
 This was a new concjuest over the people in the South, while they 
 were held in duress, three years after they had laid down their 
 arms and sought peace, — the subjugation of a powerless people as 
 upon a surrender and capitulation at will, that never was made by 
 their armies in the field, and which never was, and would not have 
 been imposed by the brave soldiers, who fought their battles, and
 
 I02 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 overpowered the South. It is even more than that; for it secures 
 the centralization of power in the general government, that may 
 ultimately destroy the reserved rights and liberties of the people 
 both North and South. These extraordinary measures were claim- 
 ed to have been adopted under that clause of the Constitution 
 which says: "The United States shall guarantee to every State in 
 this Union a republican form of government." So at least it was 
 held in the Supreme Court of the United States^ in the case of the 
 State of Texas vs. White and Chiles, decided in April, 1869, in 
 which it was said, "The power exercised by President Johnson 
 was, supposed, doubtless to be derived from his constitutional 
 functions as commander in chief." — "But the power to carry into 
 effect the clause of guaranty is primarily a legislative power and 
 resides in Congress." Notwithstanding this assumption, the theory 
 upon which the war was carried on by the Northern States was, 
 .that it was only necessary to suppress the opposing forces of the 
 Southern States to preserve the Union, and that those States were 
 still in the Union, as soon as they might peacefully resume their 
 Federal relations, to the United States. In the case referred to, it 
 was decided that the State of Texas was a State within the Union, 
 competent to bring a suit in the Supreme Court of the United States, 
 as a State, against White and Chiles on the 15th of February, 1867, 
 when Governor Throckmorton was Governor of the State, organiz- 
 ed under the President Johnson's reonstruction, with all of its 
 Federal relations resumed and in full operation, except only the 
 exclusion of its members of Congress, by the action of Congress 
 alone. The government of Texas at that time as organized under 
 the amended Constitution of 1866, was republican in form, by all 
 of the tests that had ever been applied to any of the States, North 
 or South. The fact that the negroes had been declared free, by 
 the amendment of 1865, and by the Texas amended Constitution 
 of 1866, without giving them the right to vote, was no ground for 
 assuming that the State government then was not republican in form,, 
 for free negroes had been excluded from voting in most if not in 
 all of the States pseviously. The true ground was not that which 
 was alleged in the preamble of the law of Congress of 
 March, 1867, that "no legal State government or adequate protec- 
 tion of life or property now exists in rebel State" (naming 
 eleven of them in the South). The government of Texas was being 
 administered under the Constitution of 1845, with such amend- 
 ments as were neccesary to adapt the State to its changed 
 condition in the Union, passed by the people through their 
 delegates in the convention of 1866, and approved by a vote of" 
 the qualified electors of the State, in which the previous claim 
 of the right of secession was distinctly renounced, and the laws, 
 both State and federal, were being enforced under Governor
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I03 
 
 Throckmorton's administration, as promptly, and efficiently as 
 they had ever been in Texas. 
 
 This renunciation of State sovereignty by the State was not sat- 
 isfactory to the advanced ideas of those in power, because it might 
 be resumed by the same power in the State that renounced it. 
 State sovereignty under which the right of secession was claimed, 
 must be utterly destroyed, so as to put it out of the power of the 
 people of the State to reassert or claim it by their own action. 
 Moreover, it was not loyal in its political organization, as its offi- 
 cers were not republicans, as its reconstruction was designed by 
 Congress they should be, which was meant by the addition of the 
 word "loyal," to the words in the guarantee clause "republican in 
 form," as expressed in the Constitution. The officers in the 
 Throckmorton administration were generally Democrats elected by 
 white voters alone. 
 
 Those were the leading reasons why it was necessary to demol- 
 ish the government in Texas, and those in the other Southern 
 States, erected and in peaceful operation as reconstructed by Pres- 
 ident Johnson, and to place them under military rule as subjugat- 
 ed territories. This fundamental revolution in the relation of the 
 States to the government of the United States could not be accom- 
 plished otherwise than by depriving the eleven Southern States 
 (then more than one-fourth of all the States), of all participation 
 in the government. The end sanctified the means in the view of 
 Congress. The way was thus made plain to adopt the fourteenth 
 amendment, that had been introduced in Congress in June, 1866, 
 which, though not adopted by the States still in the Union, and 
 declared a part of the Constitution, until July 28, 1868, was never- 
 theless, while still only a proposed amendment, made in force as 
 part of the law of reconstruction, passed over the President's veto 
 on March 2, 1867. 
 
 The first sentence in section i of the fourteenth amendment cre- 
 ated the citizenship to the United States. A person thus made a 
 citizen is thereby a unit in the aggregate mass of people, in all of 
 the States, that constitute ihe sovereignty on which the govern- 
 ment is based, and consequently he owes allegiance to that gov- 
 ernment. This was supplemented by the first part of the next sen- 
 tence that "no State shall make or enforce any law which shall 
 abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United 
 States." Though the Supreme Court has not defined the extent to 
 which this provision may be made to control the action of the 
 States, it certainly enables the general government to interpose its 
 ower to protect its citizens against the operation of any State law, 
 that it might deem an abridgment of their privileges and immuni- 
 ties. 
 
 The balance of the sentence extends its protection, still further, 
 to any person, whether a citizen or not, when it shall deem that a
 
 I04 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 State is acting so as to deprive him of life, liberty, or property, 
 without due process of law, or deny to any person within its juris- 
 diction the equal protection of the laws. This provision, for the 
 protection of life, liberty, and property, is contained in the Con- 
 stitution of the State of Texas, and its government is bound by it, 
 both in making and executing its laws. Still, its action, either leg- 
 islative or judicial, would not be final, but would be subject to re- 
 vision by the Supreme Court of the United States, at the descre- 
 tion of Congress to make it so. 
 
 The Constitution originally placed limitations upon the action 
 of the States, which were enforced by the supervision of the Su- 
 preme Court, such as relating to emitting bills of credit, making 
 anything but gold and silver a tender in payment of debts, passing 
 bills of attainder, expost facto laws, or laws impairing the obliga- 
 tions of contracts; also provisions requiring that the citizens of 
 each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of cit- 
 izens in the several States, and that full faith and credit shall be 
 given in each State to the public acts, records and judical pro- 
 ceedings of every other State, all of which limitations have been 
 liberally extended by construction. No one of them, or all of 
 them together, are calculated to thrust the supervision of the gen- 
 eral government so thoroughly into all of the internal operations 
 of the State government, as these provisions of the first and fifth 
 sections of the fourteenth amendment. To these also may be 
 added limitations upon the actions of the States by the construc- 
 tions placed upon the expressed and implied powers conferred 
 upon the Congress and other departments of the government, such 
 as the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports and excises, 
 to pay the debts, etc., to borrow money on the credit of the United 
 States, to regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the 
 several States, and with the Indian tribes, to establish postoffices 
 and post roads; and also the provision that the 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, sha.\\ be the supreme 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 not- 
 withstanding. This clause was construed by the Supreme Court 
 to establish the supremacy of all the measures adopted by the fed- 
 eral government to the extent, that all action of a State interfering 
 with them is void, although its action might be in accordance 
 with its own Constitution. 
 
 Formerly when a question was involved in any case originating 
 in a State court, if it was not removed into the federal court be- 
 fore trial, the revision of the Supreme Court was affected by a writ 
 of error to the court of last resort in the State after a final decision 
 of the case. That has been changed in criminal cases. The Con-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I05 
 
 gress in 1867, in anticipation of the adoption of the fourteenth 
 amendment, previously proposed in Congress, passed a law as part 
 of the reconstruction measures, authorizing the federal courts to 
 issue the writ of habeas corpus in any case where a person is in 
 custody by any State authority, wherein the imprisonment is in 
 violation of the Constitution, or of law, or of a treaty of the United 
 States, and the act of Congress in 1885 gave an appeal in such 
 case to the Supreme Court of the United States. After the issu- 
 ance of that writ, all proceedings taken by State authority were de- 
 clared to be null and void. 
 
 * 
 
 This remedy is obtained by the party presenting to a federal 
 court a sworn petition, stating the facts concerning the petitioner's 
 detention, and the writ must be granted, unless it appears from the 
 petition itself that the applicant is not entitled thereto. A refusal 
 to grant the writ of habeas corpus, upon the petition therefor, 
 makes a case subject to be appealed to the Supreme Court of the 
 United States. Under these provisions, a prosecution of any per- 
 son by a State, wherein a federal question may be claimed to be 
 applicable, may be arrested, and suspended for supervision by the 
 federal courts at any stage of the proceedings, from an arrest un- 
 der a warrant to a final conviction, both inclusive, which has been 
 practically demonstrated, as may be seen by reference to the Su- 
 preme Court reports. 
 
 By the fourteenth amendment the rights of magna charta are re- 
 established in the States by the Constitution of the United States, 
 to be enforced by the government of the United States, whenever, 
 in the opinion of the federal courts, the State government fails to 
 do it. In a case involving a law of a State, wherein the Supreme 
 Court of the State has already adjudged it to be constitutional, the 
 Supreme Court of the United States have held that it will follow 
 the decision of the Supreme Court of the State. But it may 
 some time happen, that the question has not been decided by the 
 Supreme Court of the State, in which event, the Supreme Court of 
 the United States must decide the question according to its own 
 judgment. Since the adoption of the fourteenth amendment, and 
 the statutes to enforce it, the Supreme Court of the United States 
 has been crowded with cases of both a civil and criminal nature, 
 which is likely to be increased rather than diminished in the fu- 
 ture. In very many of those cases relief was refused by the Su- 
 preme Court, which shows, that the facility of obtaining jurisdic- 
 tion in the federal court, when it is claimed, causes the action of 
 the State authorities to be suspended, as well where there is no 
 good ground for it, as when there is. If we should endeavor to 
 survey, in one comprehensive view, the numerous limitations upon 
 the actions of the State, and the various grounds for the supervis- 
 ion of their legislative and judicial action, which have been here- 
 in collected and referred to, we will be prepared to appreciate
 
 Io6 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 to what a subordinate condition the States have been reduced, 
 with the right of sovereignty annihilated, and they made powerless 
 to resist any aggression upon their supposed reserved rights, that 
 may be made by the general government in the exercise of its su- 
 premacy. 
 
 Reserved rights! Reserved rights of the States! These words 
 were of frequent use once. They are nearly obsolete now. It is 
 simply absurd to say that a State has reserved rights, when its ex- 
 ercise of them is subject to the control of another power, and when 
 it has no means of preventing that control. Limitation or restric- 
 tion, whether by express provision, or by implication, or by con- 
 struction, is control. Supervision, when relief from State action 
 is granted, or when it is not, is control. Indeed, this control by 
 limitation and by supervision now extends to every important sub- 
 ject of legislation, and judicial action in a State, relating to the 
 rights of persons and of property, in which it can be claimed that 
 a federal question is involved. The only protection that a State 
 has left for any right, is in the election of its members of Congress, 
 and of electors for President, except that which is furnished by the 
 decisions of the Supreme Court, in declaring laws of Congress un- 
 constitutional; or otherwise that the federal question presented is 
 not operative to control State action, and that body is itself a 
 creature of the President and the Senate. That court, though it 
 has often protected the remaining rights left to the States, acts on 
 the rule, that when it is doubtful whether a law of Congress is con- 
 stitutional or not, the law is maintained by its decision, which is 
 itself one of the means of increasing the power of the general gov- 
 ernment as against the States. How very small the protection to 
 the rights of the State is, derived from the privilege of electing its 
 members of Congress and Presidential electors, may be estimated, 
 when it is considered, that Texas is only one in a large num- 
 ber of States, that its peculiar interests and principles of govern- 
 ment are different from those in the majority of the States, and 
 that Congress is no longer a deliberative body, governed by argu- 
 ment and consultation, and by the free and consciencious decision 
 of each and all of its members, but is governed by party caucus re- 
 solves, determined outside of the halls of legislation. Under such 
 a mode of procedure a mere majority in caucus of one political 
 party may dictate measures, contrary to the judgment of the ma- 
 jority of all of the members of Congress, thereby making a minor- 
 ity government, and placing the good of the party above the good 
 of the country. 
 
 Having shown the object and effect of the reconstruction laws 
 and constitutional amendments, in increasing the subordinate con- 
 dition of the States, it remains to be shown how these measures 
 were carried out in Texas. 
 
 During the period of reconstruction, it was contemplated that
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I07 
 
 The State provisional governments should be administered, by loy- 
 al officers who could take the prescribed oath of office (common- 
 ly then called the iron-clad oath), and by military commissions, 
 acting as courts when deemed necessary. This was effected by 
 the powers given to the military commanders to remove those in 
 office and appoint others. This was done in Texas in the manner 
 as follows: 
 
 Headquarters, District of Texas, Galveston, April 15, 1867, by 
 special order No. 60 Maj. Gen'l Griffin forbade the election of 
 officers by the people. 
 
 At headquarters 5th military district, New Orleans, La., July 
 30, 1867, a special order No. 105 was issued by Major General P. 
 H. Sheridan, removing Governor Throckmorton as an impediment 
 to reconstruction, and appointing E. M. Pease Governor of Texas 
 in the provisional government. Major General Griffin, head- 
 quarters at Galveston, August 27, 1867, issued order No. 160, re- 
 moving S. Crosby, Commissioner of the General Land Office; W. 
 L. Robards, Comptroller: M. H. Royston, Treasurer; W. M. Wal- 
 ton, Attorney General. 
 
 Major General Griffin, on the loth day of September, 1867, is- 
 sued an order No. 169, removing the following judges of the Su- 
 preme Court from office "on account of their known hostility to 
 the general government," Geo. F. Moore, R. Coke, S. P. Donley, 
 A. H. Willie, Geo. W. Smith, and appointing in their places E. J. 
 Davis, C. Caldwell, Amos Morrill, Livingston Lindsey, and A. H. 
 Latimer. Very soon followed orders removing district judges in 
 many if not in most of the districts, county judges, sheriffs, clerks, 
 and other officers in the different counties, and appointing their 
 successors. 
 
 To men who had been reared and lived in a free country, to whom 
 constitutional government was endeared as the protection of that 
 which was worth living for, accustomed to be governed by officers 
 elected by the free choice of themselves as qualified voters, here 
 was an astounding and harrowing spectacle in Texas, — in Texas, 
 whose sons, by their valor and love of freedom, had added lustre 
 to the American fame, whose patriots and statesmen had snatched 
 freedom from the grasp of tyranny, and planted it in her broad do- 
 main, and afterwards added that broad domain, with all its grand 
 historic achievements and magnificent natural wealth, to the 
 American Union, a free, unbought tribute to Anglo-American unity 
 on this continent. That spectacle was the people's government, 
 peacefully erected and being peacefully administered, expiring 
 quickly in view of a drawn sword, and a substitute spoken into life 
 by a military officer. This substitute was composed of officers se- 
 lected because of their opposition or antagonism to the mass of 
 people they had to govern. This tragic act of power, exerted over 
 a disarmed and helpless people, will stand, in all future history, a
 
 Io8 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 monument commemorating the final end of all State sovereignty 
 in this country. 
 
 Such was the government imposed upon the people of Texas for 
 several years, to train them into the knowledge of how to establish 
 a loyal and republican government in Texas; that being the object 
 of it, as expressed in the reconstruction act of Congress of 1867. 
 
 These officers, not one of whom, perhaps, could have been 
 elected, had the mass of the people voted who were formerly qual- 
 ified voters, proceeded to administer the government by holding 
 the courts under the laws of the State. In this we had a most not- 
 able example of the incompetency of a government placed over a 
 people to govern them without their consent, and without the con- 
 fidence of the people to give it their cordial support, It was the 
 case of the government against the people, and the people grudg- 
 ingly submitting to what they could not help, with no feeling of re- 
 sponsibility for its acts, whether good or bad. 
 
 Military commissions were also instituted to try defendants for 
 alleged criminal offenses. They, in their proceedings, occupied a 
 sort of hybrid position, between a criminal court and a court 
 martial. Being composed of army officers, their want of legal 
 knowledge was somewhat compensated by their sense of honor and 
 gentlemanly deportment. The petty military officers in the freed- 
 man's bureau played the tyrant on a small scale, in the effort to 
 protect the negroes from outrages committed by the whites. To 
 all this may be added the fact that United States troops, — regi- 
 ments, companies, or sqaads — were stationed in different parts of 
 the State to sustain the government, and to hold the people in 
 duress to secure their submission to it, — a most unnecessary pre- 
 caution, as the people of Texas had already served an apprentice- 
 ship to submission. 
 
 Any attempt to point out the incidents connected with the ad- 
 ministration of such a government, must be deferred for the pres- 
 ent. The effect upon the minds of the people was a gloomy de- 
 spondency, and dread of evil, relieved only by a buoyant man- 
 hood, that inspired the hope for future relief. As time passed, 
 the commanding general, pursuant to the acts of reconstruction, 
 took steps to have a registration of legal voters. All persons who 
 had previously held office in the State and had afterwards partici- 
 pated in the so called "rebellion" in favor of the South, were ex- 
 cluded from registration. That, of course, disfranchised a large 
 body of persons, embracing leading citizens, from governors down 
 to the lowest officers who held office since annexation, most of 
 whom had participated, in some way, in the war in favor of the 
 South. That being completed, orders were issued in 1868 for the 
 election of delegates to the convention by the registered voters. 
 The convention was assembled at Austin, to form a Constitution, 
 on the ist day of June, 1868. Out of the forty-five delegates in
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I09 
 
 that convention, there were perhaps a half dozen men of.distinction, 
 who had been, and have since been known outside of their own 
 neighborhoods. Judge E. J. Davis was elected president of the 
 convention. It continued in session until the 21st of August, 1868, 
 when it adjourned. It reconvened on the 7th of December fol- 
 lowing, and adjourned finally on the 6th of February, 1869. ^^ 
 explanation of its continuance as a body, in and out of session, for 
 eight months, is to be found in the fact, that it was largely engaged 
 in legislation on numerous subjects. 
 
 No further reference will be made to the work of this conven- 
 tion, than what is necessary to show that the Constitution adopted 
 by it, and the succeeding government under it, were so shaped 
 as to continue the process of reconstruction inaugurated by the 
 Congress. The Constitution, by an "election declaration," was 
 submitted to the qualified and registered voters at an election to 
 be held on the first Monday in July, 1869, for its adoption or re- 
 jection; and, at the same time, said voters were to elect State and 
 county officers, the returns of said election to be made to the com- 
 manding general of the district, who should declare the result of 
 the election, and give certificates to the officers elected. The 
 Constitution repudiated the "heresies of nullification and seces- 
 sion," and provided that no person shall be allowed to vote or 
 hold office, who is or may be "disqualified by the Constitution of 
 United States, until such disqualification is removed by Congress; 
 made the term of service of the governor and other executive offi- 
 cers to be four years; made the offices of the attorney general, 
 judges of the supreme and district courts appointive by the gov- 
 ernor, with the confirmation of the Senate; the judges of the Su- 
 preme Court were to hold nine years, and those of the district 
 courts eight years; jurors were required to have the same qualifi- 
 cations as voters. Thereby most of the leading citizens were de- 
 barred from a participation in either making or executing the laws, 
 by which they were governed. It had been made, by the first re- 
 construction law of Congress, a prerequisite t<> the admission of 
 members of Congress, that the Legislature elected under the Con- 
 stitution, when approved by Congress, should adopt the fourteenth 
 amendment. The Constitution having been approved, the mem- 
 bers elected met in session at the capital, with E. J. Davis as gov- 
 ernor of the State, on the 8th day of February, 1870, and ratified the 
 fourteenth and fifteenth amendments to the Constitution, and elect- 
 ed Senators to Congress. 
 
 An act of Congress was passed on the joth day of March, 1870, 
 recognizing the action of the Legislature as being in compliance 
 with whiit had been required to entitle the Slate of Texas to repre- 
 sentation in Congress; and proceeded further (to make sure that 
 the State government should be organized, and continue to be 
 carried on in full accordance with its plan of reconstruction), to
 
 no OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 enact, that before any member of the Legislature of said State 
 shall take or resume his seat, or any officer of said State shall enter 
 upon the duties of his office, he shall take and subscribe, and file 
 in the office of the Secretary of State of Texas, for permanent pres- 
 ervation, an oath or affirmation in the following language: (then 
 follows the oath required of voters for registration). This oath 
 was required to be taken in thirty days after the passage of the 
 act, under penalty of forfeiture of office upon failure to do so. 
 
 So, as well might have been anticipated, the officers, for the 
 most part, in Governor Davis' administration, were in full sympa- 
 thy with the reconstruction measures, as evidenced by the regis- 
 trations and elections held under armed police guards, arrests 
 made by an armed police, officered and equipped as military com- 
 panies, the declaration of martial law, the wrongs committed by 
 incompetent and reckless officers, extravagant legislation, and 
 numerous other causes of disturbance and harassment of the peo- 
 ple. Such an excess of power must exhaust its fury in time, when 
 exerted upon a submissive population; and so it did, after nine 
 long years from the close of the war, during which time the peo- 
 ple were sorely drilled and disciplined in the way to make a loyal 
 republican government. If by loyal government it was meant a 
 politically republican government, the discipline in Texas failed 
 of its intended effect; for in the fall of 1873, after the disqualifica- 
 tion to vote and to hold office had been removed, the mass of the 
 people rushed to the polls and re-established the people's govern- 
 ment, with Richard Coke at its head, as governor, and soon the 
 favorites of the central power disappeared from the public stage 
 of action. 
 
 That was a Texas Democratic reconstruction. And now, in 
 1891, after its continuance for sixteen years in Texas, and in the 
 other Southern States, there is a powerful party in Congress, in a 
 desperate struggle to supplement the Congressional reconstruction 
 commenced in 1867, by the establishment of cloture (an English 
 importation), by which the caucus-constrained majority in either 
 house can close the debate upon any measure at discretion, with- 
 out allowing the minority to discuss it, for the enlightenment of 
 the public, and by that means to force the passage of the election 
 bill, the object of which is to take from the States the manage- 
 ment of the election of their own representatives in Congress, and 
 place it under the control of Congress. 
 
 That measure, if it becomes a law, will certainly complete the 
 Congressional reconstruction of the eleven Southern States, if any- 
 thing will do it. That is its object now; but its effect would be to 
 establish a central power, that can at pleasure destroy what little 
 is left in all of the States of independent local self government.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. Ill 
 
 A LECTURE. 
 
 supplementary to the preceding lectures upon president 
 Johnson's 
 struction. 
 
 Johnson's reconstruction, and the congressional recon- 
 
 The preceding lectures having treated mainly of the two recon- 
 structions of the Southern States, including Texas, the one by 
 President Johnson, and the other by the Congress of the United 
 States, there are numerous matters of interest that occurred in 
 Texas, between the 19th ef June, 1865, when Gen. G. Granger, of 
 the federal army, issued his proclamation at Galveston, taking 
 military possession and command of Texas, and the 8th day of 
 February, 1870, when the State government went into operation 
 under Governor E. J. Davis. 
 
 During all that period of time, federal troops were stationed in 
 nearly all of the counties in the State. In the large towns there 
 were regiments, or several companies of troops, and in small towns 
 squads of troops were stationed, all acting directly or indirectly 
 under a commanding general. 
 
 The objects of the military were to keep the people in subjec- 
 tion, and to secure the punishment of violators of the law. 
 
 As to the object first mentioned, there was no occasion or neces- 
 sity for any active effort on the part of the military, as the mass 
 of the people were anxious for peace, and the few disaffected per- 
 sons had no encouragement from the rest, to make any combined 
 resistance to the occupation and control of the country by the 
 federal troops. 
 
 The second object mentioned, the effort to secure the punish- 
 ment of violators of the law, — the military found opportunities of 
 exercising their authority in various ways. 
 
 A. J. Hamilton arrived in Texas in July, 1865, and having ap- 
 pointed civil officers of the State, except justices of the Supreme 
 Court, the different courts were regularly held (except the Supreme 
 Court), during the time he acted as provisional governor of the 
 State. The federal courts were also held. So also those courts, 
 as well as the Supreme Court of the Stale, were held during the 
 time that Jas. W. Throckmorton was governor, under the Consti-
 
 112 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 tution of 1866, by officers elected by the people, until they ceased 
 to be in office by the inauguration of the military government, 
 which took place during the months of July, August, and Septem- 
 ber, 1867, by the removal of those, who had been elected or ap- 
 pointed to office in the State, and the appointment of officers to 
 fill their places. 
 
 During this time, from the summer of 1865 to the fall of 1867, the 
 federal troops in Texas were actively engaged in making arrests of 
 persons accused of violations of the law, upon complaints usually 
 made by Southern loyalists, or by the negroes, and perhaps mostly 
 by the negroes. Indeed, the protection of the negroes seemed to 
 be the main object of their being quartered in this country. The 
 negroes resorted to them continually, as their protectors, which 
 had the effect to alienate them as a class from the whites, for 
 whom generally they had to labor for a support. Under the shield 
 of such protection, they met frequently in large assemblies, in 
 which speeches were made, complaining of how badly they had 
 been treated, and how they had left, or been turned off by their 
 former owners, with nothing for their support. The fact was noto- 
 rious that however well they had been treated, they left their 
 homes, and went to work for some one else, as soon as practicable, 
 — deeming not to regard themselves free until they had done it, 
 so that in a short time, very few persons had the same negroes em- 
 ployed, that they previously owned as slaves. It was curious to 
 witness their first efforts of acquiring the possession of property. 
 The first thing acquired by them generally was a dog, the next a 
 gun, and the next a horse, and then better clothes. Provisions to 
 live on amounted to nothing, just so that they could get something 
 that they could subsist on, with an occasional bottle of ardent 
 spirits. Though not all of them were intemperate. Their women, 
 boys, and girls attended their public gatherings, and their preach- 
 ers were their most influential leaders and speakers. In such 
 gatherings in a town, those of them that had horses would mount 
 them, and fill the streets in desultory parades. From the first, 
 they were encouraged by the countenance given them by the sol- 
 diery, and by the encouragement of camp-followers, and of other 
 white friends to assert their equality with the white people, which 
 was awkwardly and unnecessarily attempted by them in a way to 
 engender disturbance and conflict, which would result in a com- 
 plaint to the military, and the arrest of some one. This irregular 
 action might have subsided of itself in time, had not certain white 
 men systemized the process of antagonism, by establishing amongst 
 the negroes secret societies, then called "loyal leagues," in which 
 those whites participated. In these conclaves, held in secret, us- 
 ually in the night time, the negroes were taught that the'white peo- 
 ple were their enemies, and that they were in danger of being en- 
 slaved by them. Very soon the impression amongst them became
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. II3 
 
 prevalent, and wide-spread over the State, that they would be given 
 a portion of the wealth of the white people, as by their labor as 
 slaves it had been largely created for them. Finally it assumed 
 the shape, that each family was to be given at least forty acres of 
 land and a mule; and whether this was done or not, the expecta- 
 tion was general amongst them, that the government, that set them 
 free, would make some provision for them out of the property of 
 the white people. From their standpoint, it seemed to them just 
 and proper, that it should be done, and they confidently expected 
 it. So strong and universal did this become, that Gov. Hamilton 
 thought it necessary to issu^a proclamation, which was circulated 
 and read to them, in which he advised them to go to work, and 
 make and save property for themselves, and not to indulge in the 
 expectation that the government would give them any property, or 
 make any provision for them. Still the proclamation did not, for 
 a long time, have the effect to remove the delusion so deeply fixed 
 in their minds. 
 
 In detailing the events during these times, it will convey a more 
 distinct idea of them to give isolated ocurrences, as samples of 
 what must have often happened, under the influences theneperating. 
 For what occured at one time and place, was likely to occur at 
 others, or at least something similar to it. 
 
 A man residing with his family near Tyler, Texas, in the summer 
 of 1S66, hired a negro man and woman of middle age to work on 
 his farm. Upon the occasion of their getting leave to visit town 
 on a Saturday, which was a favorite day for their meeting in great 
 numbers in town, the negro woman, before starting, came into the 
 house, and addressing the lady of the house said: "Miss', I am 
 going to town to get my property, but I won't take your place, but 
 
 I will take the place of Mr. ," — it being the farm of one of 
 
 the neighbors. She left, being quite elated with the prospect. 
 
 Upon a certain Saturday about the same time, great numbers of 
 them congregated in Tyler, from different parts of the county, 
 evidently upon notice circulated for the purpose, some with wagons, 
 others on horseback, and others by walking, under an expectation 
 (as it was afterwards proved on a trial), that a division of property 
 for their benefit was to be made there that day. 
 
 Sometimes the common soldiers treated the negroes very rough- 
 ly, for which the negroes would rather make excuses than com- 
 plaints, although they were always anxious to run to the officers 
 with complaints against other white persons. An instance of this 
 occured in a town, where a negro man with his wife rented a little 
 house in an alley, and established a cake shop, when several 
 drunken soldiers entered their house, knocked the man down, run 
 him out of the house, and took or destroyed all his ginger-cakes. 
 His former owner hearing of it, called upon the negro the next day 
 to find out about the outrage, when the negro man could hardly
 
 114 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 be induce to tell anything about it. The reason was, they looked 
 upon the soldiers as privileged persons, that could do what they 
 pleased with both black and white people, and the soldiers, 
 especially when intoxicated, seemed to think and often acted upon 
 the same idea. This was the cause of numerous disturbances, and 
 some terrible tragedies. One of them ocurred in Tyler, where 
 there were four companies of federal troops stationed a mile south 
 of town, under the command of Lieut. Col. Montgomery. A 
 number of soldiers being in town drinking during the day upon one 
 occasion, when a young man, of the country, a Mr. Murray, who 
 had arisen to be a captain in the confederate service (a much 
 estemed only son of a poor widow), who had also been drinking, 
 though not drunk, got upon his horse and started home, when he 
 was met in the street by a drunken soldier, who took hold of his 
 bridle and asked him to get down and drink with him, which he 
 declined to do, and told the soldier to let go his bridle, and get 
 out of his way, which the soldier refused to do. Harsh words 
 passed between them, and the soldier hit him with a stick, upon 
 which the young man got down and cut the soldier badly with his 
 knife. The soldier fell upon the ground, and laid there. The 
 scene attracted a crowd of peple, soldiers and others. An officer 
 rashed up, and arresting the young man, hurried with him to the 
 jail, and put him in it. The Colonel promptly took the keys of the 
 jail, and placed a guard of soldiers at the door of it. The news of 
 the occurrence soon spread to the camp, and a crowd of soldiers 
 came running into town, and collected around the jail. They did 
 not break open the jail, dobtless because they were not prepared 
 with the necessary implements to do it. The next night they came 
 and broke into the jail took the young man out and bayoneted 
 and shot him to death in the jail yard. It appeared from the 
 result exhibited afterwards, that the soldier fell down from his 
 drunkeness, as well as from his injuries, and though at the time he 
 was supposed by the bystanders to be mortally wounded, he soon 
 recovered from his wounds. The colonel in command was fully 
 aware of the rage of the soldiers, and was informed of their threats, 
 still no proper steps were taken by him to prevent the murder of 
 the young man. If the citizens had collected and undertaken to 
 protect him in jail, it would have resulted in a deadly conflict of 
 which they were then fully satisfied from the hostile spirit manifest- 
 ed by the soldiers, and the apparent indifference of the officers. 
 Many of the citizens came to town upon hearing of the murder, 
 and though they said but little, their countenances spoke for them 
 loudly, and right then, if a few prominent citizens had taken the 
 lead, and passed the word around, a thousand trained ex-confederate 
 soldier might have been mustered in thirty six hours, and masacrep 
 the soldierss at night in their camp. Nothing but a knowledge of 
 the terrible consequence of such a thing upon the whole commu-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. II5 
 
 nity, and upon the State at large, prevented it from being done. 
 No effort was ever made by the officers, so far as known to the 
 citizens, to ferret out and punish the guilty soldiers. 
 
 It was generally on the public roads, streets, sidewalks and other 
 public places where the negroes assumed their newly acquired 
 equality with the whites, and very often it was done in a manner 
 that was an assumption of superiority, by failing to divide with the 
 whites in passing the roads, streets, and sidewalks. This was very 
 offensive to the whites — being so different from the former habits 
 of the negroes — and caused an increase of antagonism, resulting 
 sometimes in angry abuse, and even injuries inflicted on the ne- 
 groes. Notwithstanding this, it was a noticeable fact that there 
 was a large class of persons, especially those who had owned ne- 
 groes previously as slaves, to whom the negroes paid usually a re- 
 spectful deference, which being reciprocated, there was seldom 
 any trouble between them. It was very seldom that any negro 
 would enter any white man's private residence to manifest this as- 
 sumption of equality. A case of that kind was reported to have 
 taken place in a town in Texas. A negro man came into a lady's 
 sitting room or parlor, and took a seat in it, and, upon being or- 
 dered out, refused to go, saying he was as good as she was, and 
 that he had come to see her. She, of course, was shocked and 
 alarmed, but had presence of mind to make some excuse to go into 
 another room, from which she returned with a cocked pistol in 
 hand, and again ordered him out. He again refused, and she shot 
 him. 
 
 No other similar tragedy was heard ofabou; that time. During 
 the administration of Provisional Governor Hamilton there was a 
 class ot white men — being those who were opposed to the South- 
 ern side in the war — who made themselves very active in getting 
 up indictments against the secessionists for alleged offenses, charg- 
 ed to have been committed during the war. In such cases the 
 soldiers were employed in making arrests very often, or in aiding 
 the sheriffs to make them. Fortunately, very few trials of such 
 cases were had in the courts until after the judges and other offi- 
 cers had been elected under the administration of Governor 
 Throckmorton, by which most of those indicted were able to make 
 successful defenses. It happened also that complaints would be 
 made to the military officers, which caused such arrests to be 
 made of parties, who were kept in confinement by the military au- 
 thorities indefinitely, awaiting further action by the parties com- 
 plaining, in getting up prosecutions. It often happened that, as 
 nothing further would be done, these arrested parties would be left 
 on the hands of the military, who had no authority to try them, 
 and who after being detained for a time, would have to be dis- 
 charged. Thi^ became a subject of great annoyance to the mili-
 
 Il6 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 tary officers, which finally made them averse to detaining parties, 
 unless they were held under a charge by some legal authority. 
 
 When the members of the convention met at Austin on the 7th 
 of February, 1866, it was currently reported, that there were there 
 in the post commanded by Col. Reynolds, from one to two hundred 
 prisoners confined, who had in like manner been arrested and 
 detained, most of whom were never prosecuted in the courts. 
 They had been collected there from different parts, and some of 
 them, from distant counties in the State. At that time there 
 was a man, who had been indicted in western Texas for an 
 alleged offense during the war. An officer with a squad of 
 soldiers, under military orders, had been sent two hundred and 
 fifty miles, and arrested him and brought him to Austin at the 
 meeting of the convention. The officer having him in charge 
 sought to turn him over to the post, but as he had arrested 
 and broaght him under no capias or other legal authority, Col. 
 Reynolds would not receive him, and he was set at liberty, 
 and never was brought to trial on the charge. 
 
 The courts held by the officers appointed by Gov. Hamilton 
 did not generally have the confidence of the mass of the people, 
 of which they were well aware, and therefore there was but little 
 efficient government during that time. The courts held by the 
 officers selected under the administration of Gov. Throckmorton 
 while it lasted, were better sustained by the people, so that it began 
 to present the appearance of a regular civil government, and there 
 was much less interference in it by the military. 
 
 Shortly after the surrender, the federal courts were held, in 
 which much was done, affecting the interests of the people of the 
 State, which will be better understood by being presented later on 
 in a connected and sephrate consiileration. 
 
 There was one measure adopted in Gov. Throckmorton's ad- 
 ministration, by an act of Nov. 6th, 1866, that continued for a 
 number of years, which requires notice, because it was an experi- 
 ment then for the first time tried in this State, though it had long 
 been authorized by the Constitution. A law was passed establish- 
 ing a tax upon incomes. This required investigation of the private 
 affairs of persons to ascertain the annual profits of their business, 
 which^proved to be annoying and troublesome. In a new country 
 like Texas was, there were few persons who lived upon an income 
 derived from an investment in property. Nearly all of them, that 
 had property used it in connection with their own skill and labor 
 to earn a livlihood, and, when peacticable, an increase of property. 
 It might happen however, as it did in some instances, that there 
 would be a loss instead of an increase of property; for some 
 merchants, and others, who handled large amounts of property in 
 business, returned no income, meaning surplus increase, and conse- 
 quently paid no income tax. That tax was abandoned after it was
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 117 
 
 shown to be impracticable, because it was not adapted to our 
 condition. 
 
 During the existence of the military government, from the fall of 
 1867 to February, 1870, when the State government was inaugurated 
 under Gov. E. J. Davis, the departure from a regular administration 
 in public affairs, was much increased by the extraordinary meas- 
 ures that were adopted and enforced. Fortunately, perhaps, the 
 people of Texas had received considerable experience in submis- 
 sion to arbitrary military rule during the four years of the war, and 
 were consequently the better able to bear it when it was imposed 
 on them, by the power of the federal government. 
 
 The plan of government of the eleven Southern States, as prescrib- 
 ed by the reconstruction laws of Congress, passed from the 2d of 
 March to the 19th of July, 1867, was very similar to that which 
 is usually adopted by nations at war, when one of them subdues and 
 takes possession of a portion of the territory of the other, and 
 holds it subject temporarily, by allowing the laws of the 
 country to be enforced by its civil authorites, subject to such 
 control over the laws, and the civil officers, by the military 
 officers in command, as may be directed or permitted by the con- 
 quering nation. 
 
 This course is adopted because the ordinary administration of 
 a government should be carried on, and it would be impracticable 
 to suddenly institute a different system of laws to be administered 
 by a body of civil officers, differently organized and with different 
 powers and modes of action. 
 
 It was therefore provided in said acts of Congress, that "until 
 the people of said rebel States shall be by law admited to rep- 
 resentation in the Congress of the United States, any civil govern- 
 ments which may exist therein shall be deemed provisional only, 
 and in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the Unit- 
 ed States, at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede the 
 same." 
 
 It was further provided that "the commander of any district 
 named in said act shall have power, subject to the disapproval of 
 the general of the army of the United States, and to have effect till 
 disapproved, whenever in the opinion of such commander the 
 proper administration of said act shall require it, to suspend or 
 remove from office, or from the performance of official duties, and 
 the exercise of official powers, any officer or person, holding or 
 exercising, or professing to hold or exercise any civil or military 
 office or duty in such district, under any power, election, appoint- 
 ment, or authority derived from, or granted by, or claimed under 
 any so-called State or government thereof, or any municipal or 
 other division thereof, and upon such suspension or removal, such 
 commander, subject to the disapproval of the general as aforesaid, 
 shall have power to provide from time to time for the performance
 
 Il8 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 of said duties of such officer or person, so suspended or removed, 
 by the detail of some competent officer or soldier of the army, or 
 by the appointment of some other person to perform the same, and 
 to fill vacancies occasioned by death, resignation, or otherwise." 
 
 Thus provision was made for carrying on the civil government 
 for the execution of the laws of each of said States relating to rights 
 of person and property as pertaining to civil injuries. 
 
 In regard to public wrongs or criminal offenses it was provided 
 that the district commander "may allow civil tribunals to take 
 jurisdiction of and to try offenders, or, when in his judgment it 
 may be necessary for the trial of offenders, he shall have power to 
 organize military commissions or tribunals for that purpose; and 
 all interference under color of State authority with the exercise of 
 military authority under the act shall be null and void." 
 
 "AH persons put under military arrest by virtue of this act shall 
 be tried without unnecessary delay, and no cruel or unusual 
 punishment shall be inflicted, and no sentence of any military 
 commission or tribunal hereby authorized, affecting the life or 
 liberty of any person shall be executed until it is approved by the 
 officer in command of the district, and the laws and regulations 
 for the government of the army shall not be affected by this act, 
 except so far as they conflict with its provisions: Provided, no 
 sentence of death under the provision of this act shall be carried 
 into effect without the approval of the President." 
 
 Further it was provided that "no district commander, or member 
 of the board of registration, or any of the officers or appointees 
 acting under them shall be bound in his action by the opinion of 
 any civil officer of the United States." 
 
 Under these provisions criminal offenders might be tried in the 
 courts of the State, except when the jurisdiction was assumed to 
 try them by military commissions or tribunals, and when jurisdic- 
 tion was assumed by the military, it was not subject to any 
 control by the courts either of the State, or of the United 
 States. 
 
 Its power was made supreme, subject only to th€ district com- 
 mander, and the President. 
 
 The supreme, district, and other courts were held for the trial of 
 both civil and criminal cases at the times and places when and 
 where they were previously held during the administration of Gov. 
 Throckmorton. 
 
 The supreme courts were held by a chief justice and four 
 justices, as prescribed in the Constitution of 1866, and were 
 appointed, originally and from time to time as vacancies occurred, 
 by the general commanding the district composed of Louisiana and 
 Texas. 
 
 A very good view of the condition of Texas in regard to the work 
 of the judiciary, and its effect upon the country during the recon-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. II9 
 
 struction period, may be inferred from a statement of G.W. Paschal, 
 upon his return from Washington, where he had spent some time 
 on business after the war. 
 
 Having been appointed reporter of the supreme court he states, 
 in his preface to the 31st volume of Texas Reports: "When I re- 
 turned to my home in 186S, I found the convention in session, the 
 whole country under military rule, the business of the courts well 
 nigh suspended, three members of the supreme court serving in the 
 constitutional convention, the people in utter confusion as to the 
 landmarks of liberty, the great mass of the legal profession entirely 
 in the dark as to what had been the decisions for several years, 
 and, under the cry of ab initio, there was still greater uncertainty 
 as to what Constitution and statute laws the people were living 
 under." The reference here made to ab initio was the effort being 
 made in the convention to declare to be null and void all of 
 the acts of the State government during the war after'the date of 
 secession. 
 
 During the administration of Gov. Throckmorton the legislature 
 passed an act, entitled "An Act Regulating Contracts for Labor," 
 approved November i, tS66, the object of which doubtless was to 
 make available and give permanence to the labor of negroes, 
 who might enter into contracts with their employers. 
 
 This act was annulled by the order of the general in command 
 of the district, which act of assumed authority of the military over 
 the civil authority in the State was in January, 1S67, reported to 
 President Johnson by the representatives elect of Texas then in 
 Washington. No further action was taken, and the law was never 
 enforced. 
 
 Shortly previous to this, the said representatives had presented 
 to the President a representation and protest of Gov. Throckmorton 
 in relation to some outrages in Texas committed by the officers 
 and soldiers of the army. What was done about it was never heard 
 of afterwards. Preident Johnson was evidently anxious to prevent 
 the military authority from interference with the civil authority, 
 and from infringing upon the rights of the citizens, but it was 
 equally evident that he was powerless, while Mr. Stanton was 
 secretary of war, backed by General Grant commander in chief 
 of the army. 
 
 During the existence of the military government in Texas, the 
 subject of the most extensive annoyance to the people was the 
 establishment and action of the tribunal called the "Freedmen's 
 Bureau." The position of "Agent of the Bureau" was generally a 
 lieutenant or sergeant of the army, aided and supported by a squad 
 or company of soldiers. It was located in nearly every county- 
 seat of the counties in the State wherein there were any consider- 
 able number of negroes. It was purely military in its operations, 
 and had no connection with, and under no supervision of any civil
 
 I20 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 authority, although judges in all of the courts were appointed by 
 the general in command. There was no appeal from its action. 
 Its object was to protect the negroes by redressing all petty injuries 
 of a civil or criminal nature committed upon them by white persons, 
 but not to redress any injuries committed by negroes upon the 
 rights of white persons. Its judge to determine cases was the agent 
 of the Bureau, and its ministerial officers were the attending 
 soldiers. 
 
 The rule of decision was the judgment or discretion of the agent. 
 The punishment was fine or imprisonment, — one or both. The 
 negroes ran to these tribunals upon the occurrence of every real or 
 imagined infringement of their rights, and upon white persons be- 
 ing arrested upon their charges, the trial was prompt and summa- 
 ry, according to the humor, prejudice, or discretion of the agent 
 acting as judge. Where the agents were active in the discharge 
 of their duties, the people who had anything to do with negroes 
 were in constant danger of being taken before this extraordinary 
 tribunal. 
 
 In some places, however, the agents soon found that the com- 
 plaints were generally frivolous or prompted by bad motives, 
 and directed their efforts to making the negroes as well as the 
 whites behave themselves. This kind of arbitrary proceeding in 
 favor of the negro, had a powerful influence in encouraging them 
 to assert their equality with the whites, and their mode of mani- 
 festing it often assumed a superiority over the whites, that pro- 
 duced irritations and disturbances. For instance, in passing 
 white persons on the sidewalks, streets or roads, they would, to 
 show their equality, fail to divide the space in passing, as white 
 people ordinarily do. This same thing occurred in many other 
 ways, wherever negroes came in contact with white people in pub- 
 lic places. 
 
 Notwithstanding the influences continually operating to produce 
 antagonism between the races, there were some things settled be- 
 tween them relating to their intercourse. The whites conceded 
 equality before the law. The blacks conceded their inequality at 
 the white man's home, which prevented their attempting to force 
 a social intercourse with the whites. The point not settled was 
 the equality of the two races, when they met, or were together in 
 public places. Upon this point the antagonism was so extreme as 
 to engender almost continual disturbances, resulting in quarrels, 
 abuse, and physical conflict. It had increased from the time the 
 negroes were set free until the spring of 1868, when there prevailed, 
 in many parts, a most intense apprehension of a hostile outbreak 
 between the two races. Both races had arms and ammunition for 
 defense. White women were afraid for their husbands to leave 
 home at night. The matter was not openly discussed. It was an 
 oppressive dread, that was felt rather than spoken. Just then the
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 121 
 
 Kuklux appeared. No notice of its coming was heralded. As to 
 most persons, it was like some strange thing, that had suddenly 
 arisen out of the ground. In a village in Eastern Texas, about 
 ten o'clock at night, the profound silence of the place was broken 
 by the loud sound of a drum being beat in the graveyard at the 
 edge of the village. The sound at such a time, and in such a 
 place, aroused the attention of the citizens. Very soon there 
 emerged from the graveyard a company on horse back, — ghost 
 horses, and ghost riders in appearance, —and marched in military 
 array through the streets, performing accurately the maneuvres of 
 soldiers, in silence only occasionally broken by low gutteral tones 
 of voice. People looked out of their doors and windows at the 
 strange sight, — horses draped in white, robes with white flowing 
 shrowds and high caps on them. The negroes out visiting fled to 
 their homes, and when intercepted by the march, took refuge 
 under the houses, from which they escaped only after broad day- 
 light the next morning. One house, where it was known there 
 were negroes, was surrounded, when two or three of the riders dis- 
 mounted, and calling a negro man out to the well, set him to 
 drawing water. One of the riders, standing on the opposite side 
 of the well, drank (or appeared to the negro to drink) three buck- 
 ets of water, mumbling out a complaint of being very thirsty, not 
 having had a good drink since the battle at Mansfield. This 
 marching was kept up night after night, and was extended on the 
 roads into the country, where it was known there were negroes. 
 From the first ghost march from the grave yard, the point of con- 
 tention between the races was settled. Every negro, man, woman 
 or child, that met a white man or woman, divided, or gave the 
 whole of the sidewalk, street or road, and the salutation of the old 
 negroes was "good morning, massa," touching or lifting his hat 
 gracefully. The negroes knew very soon that it was white men 
 that were doing this, still the ghost-like appearance, and the mili- 
 tary display of such large companies, confounded and overawed 
 them. It struck them all over on their weak points, — their super- 
 stition, and their innate sense of inferiority to white people, when 
 brought in contact with them. 
 
 At that time there was a squad of fifteen or twenty soldiers, un- 
 der a sergeant, stationed in the village. When the marches took 
 place, they did not show their heads out of their (juarters. 
 
 The Kuklux occasionally committed some acts of violence, but 
 it was more pretended than real, for their object was to scare, and 
 not to hurt the negroes. 
 
 As soon as its object was accomplished, it disappeared as sud- 
 denly as it appeared at first. 
 
 It was a thing of the past for more than a year before the halls 
 of Congress were in tribulation about it. How it was conceived, 
 started, and spread, was a sealed secret to most persons, and es-
 
 122 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 pecially those prominent men, who had been in the habit of lead- 
 ing in public affairs. It was a ground swell, instinctively directed 
 to avert an impending catastrophy, — an internecine struggle be- 
 tween the two races, which was then upon the point of breaking 
 out. It was learned afterwards that it was started in Paduka, and 
 spread like wild-fire over the Southern States. 
 
 Although the tribunal of the Freedman's Bureau was in full and 
 active operation during the time the Kuklux were in service, no 
 actions of theirs in regard to the negroes were ever brought before 
 it, so far as heard from. Nor were there any prosecutions in the 
 courts arising out of their conduct. This is sufficient to show 
 what were the enormities of the Kuklux (about which Congress 
 was afterwards so greviously exercised) that were made to grow 
 into frightful proportions, as the news of them traveled to the 
 North. 
 
 Under the authority given by the reconstruction laws, as pre- 
 viously quoted, military commissions were instituted for the trial 
 of persons charged with felonies. Two of them were held in the 
 town of Jefferson, Texas, in 1869. The court was composed of 
 officers in the army, with a presiding officer, arid a judge advocate, 
 as prosecutor, and was conducted very much like a regular court 
 martial in the army. The prosecution was by written charges, and 
 specifications under them. The evidence of the witnesses was 
 written out, after being taken down in shorthand as the case pro- 
 gressed. Every word uttered by the court, the judge advocate, the 
 lawyers, and the witnesses, was thus made a part of the record in 
 the case, except the addresses of the counsel, permitted to be made 
 in writing and read to the commission, after the evidence was 
 closed. There was then stationed at Jefferson a body ot troops, 
 perhaps a regiment or more, in command of a brigadier general. 
 The general, upon such information as was satisfactory to himself, 
 ordered the arrest of the persons to be tried. The order was exe- 
 cuted by officers and soldiers in his command. Upon the arrest, 
 no order or charge was shown to the party arrested, and the cause 
 and Its nature could only be surmised before the party was brought 
 to trial. For safe keeping, the parties arrested were confined in 
 the stockade, until discharged, either on bail, or after trial. The 
 stockade was a structure about one hundred feet long and fifty 
 feet wide, located in an open space, not surrounded by trees or 
 houses. It was constructed by setting upon end logs about ten 
 feet high, close together, at the four sides, and placing on top of 
 them a narrow platform, for the walk of the soldier-guards, mus- 
 ket in hand, with orders not to allow the prisoners to approach the 
 wall thus made, under pain of being shot. Inside of this wall was 
 a double row of cells, placed near the middle of the longer way of 
 the enclosure, in which the prisoners were locked up at night. In 
 the daytime they were allowed to shelter themselves from the
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 1 23 
 
 hot sun of summer, as well as they could, under the shadow of 
 these low cells or withir. them, with scarcely a breath of air circu- 
 lating amongst them. At four o'clock in the evening, when some 
 of them were brought out to see their counsel, relations or friends, 
 their clothes were as wet as if they had come out of the Cypress 
 Bayou near by. 
 
 In the first one of the cases referred to, there were twenty-one 
 persons, including some leading citizens of Jefferson, charged with 
 murder, in a homicide in that town bya mob. The trial occupied 
 several months, and excited great interest there and elsewhere. 
 There were distinguished lawyers engaged in the defense, to-wit: 
 D. B. Culberson, Reuben Reaves, William Wright, and Campbell 
 (now recollected). It was managed with an ability corresponding 
 with the difficulty and importance of the case. 
 
 It could not be denied that there had been a mob of exasperated 
 citizens, and that a man was killed by them. There were many, 
 perhaps over a hundred, witnesses examined for the prosecution 
 and the defense. The difficulty may be imagined, in conducting 
 the defense, when it is considered that a witness, that would clear 
 one of the prisoners by proving an alibi, might implicate another 
 one. Therefore, witnesses only should be put on the stand for de- 
 fense, whose evidence would be in favor of one or more, and not 
 against the others. There were six of them sentenced to the pen- 
 itentiary, where they did not remain long before they were pardon- 
 ed out by the President. It was said that the sentence was a sur- 
 prise to the attorneys, because some of those found guilty had less 
 evidence against them than others, who were acquitted. During 
 the trial, one of the officers on the commission openly manifested 
 an inveterate prejudice against the prisoners. .It was so plain that 
 the others could not help seeing it. 
 
 Upon the opening of court one morning, Col. Campbell 
 
 arose, paper in hand, and asked that he might read it to the court 
 on behalf of himself and associates, acting for their clients, the 
 prisoners at the bar. Permission was granted, and he read it with 
 a deliberate and respectful tone of voice, clear and strong. 
 
 It was a charge of manifest and undue prejudice by one of the 
 judges against the prisoners, and a request that he be recused as 
 one of the judges in the trial of the case. Before he proceeded far 
 in the reading, the judge indicated abruptly left the body of the 
 court, and retired to the rear. 
 
 To one present, considering the surrounding circumstances of 
 the occasion, the boldness of the attempt, the splendid style of the 
 production, and its manly delivery in the reading, the profound in- 
 terest in the issue by all present, and the respectful attention of the 
 officers — the judges — it presented a grand display of the indepen- 
 dent assertion of just rights— a scene never to be forgotten. 
 
 The officer recused never sat on the commission again. He
 
 1^4 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 was a rude, vigorous old man, who had risen from the ranks by his 
 courage and long service, and most of the others were polished 
 gentlemen, who were disposed to give the prisoners a fair trial. It 
 was strongly suspected that they had been consulted, or had given 
 such intimations as encouraged the making the effort to recuse the 
 rude old officer. 
 
 The other case referred to was the prosecution of four men for 
 an assault with intent to murder three soldiers, in the court house 
 at Tyler, Smith county. They were shot by several persons while 
 acting as a guard for the agent of the Freedmen's Bureau at the 
 end of the trial of a young man, who had stricken a negro for hav- 
 ing rushed up against a young lady with whom he was walking the 
 evening before. 
 
 As there were several persons concerned in the shooting, the ef- 
 fort of the prosecution was to show that it was a conspiracy to kill 
 the agent and the soldiers. Immediately after their arrest the at- 
 torneys, in talking with the General, discovered what was intended 
 to be charged against them, and at once took steps to rebut the 
 conspiracy, and to show that it was, as to three of the four prison- 
 ers at least, a sudden and unexpected difficulty, in which they 
 were not criminally concerned. That precaution reduced the case 
 on trial to simply an assault with intent to murder. The counsel 
 for the defendants were Reuben Reaves (who was taken sick and 
 , so remained after the fourth day of the trial). Gen. J. H. Rogers, 
 Frank Hays, and O. M. Roberts. The trial lasted four weeks. 
 Over fifty witnesses were brought from a distance, mostly from 
 Tyler. There were many thrilling incidents during the trial. The 
 judge advocate was aided by the Bureau agent, who was a bold, 
 fearless man, who evidently had experience in petty trials in 
 courts, and was bent upon making out a case by any means, fair or 
 foul, that he could use. 
 
 His instruments were mainly the negro witnesse?, who told what 
 they saw and heard about the difficulty in a way that destroyed 
 most of their evidence. He brought with him from Tyler a young 
 white girl (at least that was her complexion), as a witness, who was 
 taken out of a bawdy house. She swore to a transparent false- 
 hood, and on cross-examination admitted that she was born a 
 slave of African descent. After the evidence was closed, written 
 arguments were read by the attorneys. The court rendered no 
 opinion, that was made known, but three prisoners were discharged 
 on the bail bonds, that had been given before the trial, and noth- 
 ing further was ever heard as to the determination in their cases. 
 
 The other prisoner was retained in custody until the State gov- 
 ernment was organized, when he was turned over to the civil au- 
 thority, and that was the end of the matter. It is but just to the 
 members of the commission to state that they were liberal and in- 
 dulgent to counsel in their efforts to develop the case, and after
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, 125 
 
 hearing the arguments of counsel, expressed privately their gratifi- 
 cation at the course pursued on the trial by the counsel, as well as 
 by the court. 
 
 There was a subject which, to counsel and parties engaged in 
 these trials, was oppressively painful, rarely experienced in ordi- 
 nary criminal courts. The members of the commission were known 
 to be military officers, not lawyers. There was a continual uncer- 
 tainty resting on the mind as to whether or not they could be made 
 to understand the principles of law, and mode of proceeding for a 
 proper adjudication of the case. In addition to that; if they 
 should err in either respect, or in their final judgment, there was 
 no appeal to another court, that may be better informed on the 
 subject. There may also be an apprehension that the result of the 
 case may be influenced by a military policy, unknown in the ordi- 
 nary criminal courts. 
 
 There were other commissions in Texas, but the instances given 
 will illustrate them sufficiently. They were professedly resorted 
 to as a mode of trying criminal offenses that occurred in such lo- 
 calities and under such circumstances as to induce the belief, that 
 the ordinary criminal courts of the State would not be competent 
 to inflict the proper punishments upon such persons as were at- 
 tempted to be prosecuted in them. Nor was this belief entirely un- 
 founded; for the population of Texas was then divided into two 
 distinct classes. One class was composed of the military officers, 
 from the highest to the lowest in rank in the district, the agents of 
 the Preedman's Bureau scattered over the country, the military 
 commissions, the judges of the different courts and the ministerial 
 officers appointed by the military commander, and subject to be 
 removed by him, the jurors in the courts being only those persons 
 who could take the 'iron clad" oath, the negroes as a body, and 
 the few Southern loyalists — white men. This included those per- 
 sons, who governed, and those who were the special objects of pro- 
 tection l;)y the government, as it was then carried on. 
 
 The other class consisted of the great body of white people, in- 
 cluding the men of personal influence, of high standing, and of the 
 property owners in the State, who had either participated in, or 
 sympathized with the Southern struggle for separate independence. 
 
 It was the case of the military government, with such instru- 
 ments and adjuncts, against the great mass of the white people. 
 The mass of white people were not in favor of such a government, 
 stood aloof from any participation in aid of it, and sought general- 
 ly to have nothing to do with it. When outrages were committed, 
 caused by the provocations, antagonisms, and arbitrary rule, that 
 then existed, those persons not concerned in them, simply stood 
 off, looked on as unconcerned spectators, and let the government 
 redress the wrongs if it could, with its organized instrumentalities. 
 
 For instance, in northeastern Texas, there was a small crowd of
 
 126 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 desperate men headed by a man by the name of Baker, who com- 
 mitted some depredations upon the soldiers, negroes and others of 
 that class, and another small crowd in northern Texas headed by 
 a man named Biggerstaff, did the same for a short time. As in the 
 mob at Jefferson, the difficulty at Tyler, and the action of the Ku- 
 klux, the mass of respectable white people, that were cognizant of 
 the origin of those things, knew that they arose directly or indirect- 
 ly out of the tyranny of the officers, or the bad conduct of the 
 negroes, or of some of their class-adherents, they did not feel it to 
 be incumbent on them to rush out voluntarily in aid of the gov- 
 erning authorities, that had, without their consent, been placed 
 over them. Upon the occasion of the difficulty at Tyler, wherein 
 three soldiers were shot by a little crowd, the district judge got on 
 his horse and fled out of the town, and all the rest of the civil offi- 
 cers sought places of safety, and left the Bureau agent with his 
 squad of soldiers to disperse the little crowd that shot, and not one 
 of them were ever arrested and tried in the courts on indictnjents. 
 The military officers, and the established courts not having either 
 the moral or physical support of the mass of the white people were 
 powerless to redress the wrongs that were committed. The most that 
 that they could do was to report exaggerated and ex parte accounts 
 of the occurrences to the provisional governor, and military com- 
 mander at Austin, who, not understanding the causes which led to 
 these disturbances, nor their narrow local extent, ignorantly and 
 falsely attributed them to a general spirit of disloyalty pervading 
 the State, as may be seen in their reports of the condition of the 
 country to the reconstruction convention in 1869. 
 
 Soon after the close of hostilities Judge Duval, having returned 
 
 from his visit to Washington during a part of the war, held the 
 
 federal courts in what was (strangely) called the Western District 
 
 of Texas at Tyler, Austin and Brownsville. At the first session at 
 
 Tyler the lawyers came into court to look after the cases, that had 
 
 laid over, as well as the new cases brought. The jurors, for the 
 
 grand and petit juries, were assembled in court on their seats. 
 
 Such a body of men ! — Who are they, and where were they found? 
 
 were the whispered inquires of the old lawyers, that had formerly 
 
 attiinded the court. But they could all take the "iron clad" oath, 
 
 and therefore were good jurors for that court. That court was held 
 
 there regularly from that time. Civil business was transacted 
 
 much in the usual way. No criminal cases of magnitude were 
 
 prosecuted in it. The cases most affecting the people were the 
 
 prosecutions for violations of the internal revenue laws pertaining 
 
 to the sale of liquors, cigars and tobacco, about which vendors of 
 
 those articles were at first very little informed^ Spies were sent 
 
 out, by whose order is unknown, to find out the violations, and 
 
 prosecutions were based on their evidence. At one time there 
 
 were seen defendants in attendance on that court from numerous
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I27 
 
 counties extending from Hill county in the west to Shelby county 
 in the east. Bnt the officers were very accomodating. If a defend- 
 ant, 'who was indicted for several violations, would confess guilty 
 of the lighter offense he could get off with fine and cost, amounting 
 from sixty five to eighty dollars. If on the other hand he was dis- 
 posed to defend the case, he would soon find that he might not 
 get a trial at that term of the court, and rather than come back to 
 the next term of the court, he would generally confess and pay out. 
 It was a profitable court to the officers. And indeed it is but just 
 to say, that the officers did not manifest a disposition to oppress 
 defendants as much as they had the power to do, in prosecuting 
 the criminal cases. 
 
 Many other matters pertaining the action of the government and 
 the conduct, and treatment of the people of the State, in other 
 parts of the State, were reported in the papers, and heard of other- 
 wise, similar to those which have been detailed. As stated before, 
 it was thought that a better idea concerning the condition of the 
 country could be conveyed by a representation of facts, known or 
 believed to be authentic, as samples of what occured, or was like- 
 ly to occur at other times and places, than to attempt a more 
 general, and therefore less specific view of the subject. 
 
 Amidst all the evils of such a government, if there was one benefit 
 that was confered upon the mass of the Texas people, it was in 
 teaching them the glorious blessing of living in a well regulated 
 civil government of their own choice and creation. 
 
 The government, that had been placed over them from 1865 to 
 1870, wds not the government of Texas by its own people (except 
 during the year of Gov. Throckmortons administratiation), but 
 the government of the United State, absolute, and military in 
 character, placed over the people in the territory of Texas, or in 
 other words, it was our federal relations being restored, through 
 the agonizing process of a military despotism, enforced by the 
 power of the United States over a disarmed and prostrate people, 
 long after hostilities had ceased, — a revolution completed in a 
 time of peace.
 
 128 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 CONSTITUTIONAL GOVERNMENT. 
 
 The DANGER TO GOVERNMENTS, FOUNDED ON WRITTEN CONSTITU- 
 TIONS, OF BEING GRADUALLY REVOLUTIONIZED BY THE CONSTRUC- 
 TION PLACED UPON THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSTITUTIONS BY 
 THOSE WHO ADMINISTER THE GOVERNMENTS. 
 
 [Public Lecture in the Texas University.] 
 
 This may be done by enlarging and extending "the powers con- 
 ferred by a liberal construction, based upon the supposed reason 
 and spirit of its provisions, so as to meet emergencies not antici- 
 pated and specifically provided for; — by using the powers granted 
 in such a manner as to accomplish objects incidentally, which 
 were not embraced in the Constitution, and could not, therefore, 
 be accomplished by direct action, and by not understanding the 
 true meaning of its provisions, as they were designed to be under- 
 stood by those who framed and adopted it, and thereby assuming 
 powers never intended to have been granted. 
 
 The government of the United States has grown to gigantic pro- 
 portions, reaching out in all directions. 
 
 The diversified objects to which its action is now devoted, would 
 seem to justity the conclusion that its chief business is to pro- 
 mote the private pecuniary interests of persons, of classes of per- 
 sons, and of corporations. Its greatest internal struggles are made, 
 in its efforts to adjust and distribute its favors, both direct and in- 
 direct. The necessary result of this has been to facilitate the 
 amassing capital in favored pursuits, which will inevitably engen- 
 der the conflict between capital and organized labor. When that 
 conflict reaches a crisis, and is settled, as it must be, then it may 
 well be feared that our republican institutions will be changed, 
 with a tendency either to anarchy or despotism, as the one or the 
 other may be dominant. 
 
 Now the question is, did this direction, which has been given to 
 the operations of the government, depend upon a proper construc- 
 tion of the provisions of the Constitution, in their application to 
 occurring events from time to time, or did it result from such con- 
 structions as have been mentioned, as being calculated to produce
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, 
 
 129 
 
 the change in the government from its original design, as prescrib- 
 ed in the Constitution? 
 
 This result, in the objects to which its action is devoted, has 
 been reached by a long series of measures, embracing the highest 
 and most extensive powers of government. It has acquired addi- 
 tional territory, and largely extended its dominion, by conquest, 
 and also by purchase, with money raised by transaction. It has 
 furnished the people with a paper currency, by chartering banks, 
 and by issuing treasury notes, and gold and silver certificates. It 
 has furnished the people with inland transportation by the charter 
 of and bounty to railroad companies. It has extended the field of 
 commercial operation for the benefit of merchants, by bounties in 
 money given to ship lines. It has given ship builders a bounty in- 
 directly, in the monopoly given to them in furnishing vessels for 
 the coast-wise trade. It has given a bounty in money to fisher 
 men for exporting salted fish. It has caused a fish commission to 
 breed and distribute fish of good quality throughout the country to 
 supply the people with more abundant and cheaper food. 
 
 It gives a bounty by indirect protection to manufacturers, which 
 is professedly intended to benefit the laborers employed, as well 
 as the capitalists, who engage in manufacture. It gives a bounty 
 by indirect protection to wool-growers and sugar planters. It has 
 an educational bureau to promote the education of the people. It 
 has a farming department to aid the farmers, horticulturists and 
 orchardists. It is promoting the interests of stockmen, by em- 
 ploying veterinary surgeons to find out the causes of the diseases 
 that kill their cattle and hogs. It applies money raised by taxa- 
 tion to give relief to sufferers from overflows of rivers, and epi- 
 demics within the States, and to establish quarantines to prevent 
 epidemics from entering the country, by which the lives of the 
 people will be endangered or destroyed. It promotes the intelli- 
 gence, literary and scientific knowledge, and industrial skill of the 
 people, by appropriating money in aid of great fairs, exhibited 
 both at home and abroad. Nor has it been neglectful of the good 
 morals and habits of the people, for it has taxed whiskey and to- 
 bacco an amount two or three times their merchantable values, to 
 discourage the use of them. It gives pensions to persons after 
 their services have terminated, both in the military and civil de- 
 partments, and (to their widows also) without that compensation 
 for the services rendered having been embraced in the contract of 
 employment. Diamonds and some other tasteful objects are al- 
 lowed to be imported under a comparatively low tariff, for the pur- 
 pose, as it may be supposed, to elevate the people to an ap|)recia- 
 tion of the refinements and magnificence of the people in Europe 
 and Asia. It has assumed the guardianship and education of the 
 Indians, with all of its expensive and complicated conseciuences. 
 It has proclaimed to the world what is called the Monroe doctrine,
 
 130 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 that no more monarchies, or greater monarchical influences are to 
 be established, or tolerated on the American continent, which im- 
 plies a right and a will to prevent them by the government of the 
 United States. Without further enumeration this incomplete list 
 may be closed by reference to its purchase of Alaska, in the Arctic 
 regions of North America, for the benefit of the whalers and fur 
 traders, and the expenditure of the people's money in aid of ex- 
 peditions to find the North pole for the purpose of — (I must be ex- 
 cused for not having inventive imagination sufficient to complete 
 this sentence). 
 
 All of these things may be admitted to be good of themselves, 
 and beneficial to the people of the United States; still the question 
 under consideration would not be settled. For just such 
 results have been accomplished in England by the action of its 
 government, which is an absolute sovereignty, with unlimited 
 powers to do any and every thing practicable to promote the 
 private, as well as public interests of its people, and to extend its 
 dominion, rule and influence. It might be difficult to discover a 
 great many things done by England for a century past to promote 
 the private material interests of its people, that the government of 
 the United States has not done, by the direct or indirect action, 
 for the same purpose notwithstanding it is not a sovereignty, does 
 not exercise any general absolutely sovereign powers, but was 
 created, exists, and acts by authority of governmental powers, 
 delegated to it by the people of the States, which powers, 
 with the object expressed or implied in them, are few in 
 number, and defined in the Constitution of the United States. 
 
 This assertion, as to the nature of the powers exercised by the 
 government of the United States, is based upon the American 
 theory of ®ur governments, both federal and State, that the people 
 are sovereign, and not the governments, which they have instituted 
 by the delegation of certain defined powers to be exercised by them, 
 as prescribed in the organic law, the written constitutions. The 
 people occupy the position of a principal, and the government 
 that of an agent, acting under a written power of attorney, which 
 specifies the powers to be exercised by the functionaries of each 
 department, and the objects, upon which the powers delegated are 
 to be exercised. That the powers granted the different depart- 
 ments of the government of the United States were limited, might 
 have been inferred, from the fact that they were delegated, and 
 specifically set forth, but to leave no doubt about that, an amend- 
 ment of the Constitution was very soon adopted, providing, that 
 "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, 
 nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respec- 
 tively, or to the people." The provisions relating to the organic 
 structure of the government, by division into three departments, 
 and those relating to restrictions upon the governments of the
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I3I 
 
 United States and of the States, may be passed over for the present, 
 as they have not contributed in any great degree to produce the 
 results pertaining to the private material interests of the people, 
 that have been partially enumerated. 
 
 To find that the powers, that have so contributed, are few in 
 number, reference may be had to those granted to the Congress 
 under, and by virtue of which, the legislative powers therein grant- 
 ed to it should be exercised. So far as they are necessary to be 
 refered to, they are the following: 
 
 Sec. 8. The Congress shall have the power, 
 
 1. To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imports and Excises to pay 
 the Debts, and provide for the Common Defense and general welfare 
 of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be 
 uniform throughout the United States. 
 
 2. To borrow Money on the credit of the United States. 
 
 3. To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the 
 several States, and with the Indian tribes. 
 
 4. To establish a uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform 
 Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies, throughout the United 
 States. 
 
 5. To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign 
 Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures. 
 
 6. To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the securities 
 of Current Coin of the United States. 
 
 7. To establish Post Offices and post Roads. 
 
 8. To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by secur- 
 ing, for limited Times, to Authors and Inventors, the exclusive 
 rights to their respective Writings and Discoveries. 
 
 9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court. 
 
 10. To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on 
 the high Seas, andjOffenses against the law of nations. 
 
 11. To declare War, grant letters of Marque and Reprisal, and 
 make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water. 
 
 T2. To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money 
 to that use shall be for a longer Term than two Years. 
 
 13. To provide and maintain a Navy. 
 
 14. To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of land 
 and naval Forces. 
 
 15. To provide for the calling forth of the Militia to execute the 
 Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection, and repel Invasions. 
 
 16. To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the Militia, 
 and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the 
 Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively 
 the appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the 
 Militia according to the Discipline prescribed by Congress. 
 
 17. To exercise exclusive Legislation in all cases whatsoever over 
 such District, etc., (referring to places for the seat of government,
 
 132 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, Dock Yards and other needful Buildings 
 ceded by the States). 
 
 It will be seen that the objects, upon which the powers are to be 
 excercised, are embraced in the specification of the powers them- 
 selves respectively, and are for the most part indicated by the 
 words commencing with capital letters written here, as they were 
 written in the original instrument, on file in the Secretary of State's 
 office. (S© certified by James Buchanan, when Secretary of State, 
 in 1846.) 
 
 The objects specified, in declaring the powers granted, were 
 exactly the things, and the only things intended to be accomplish- 
 ed by the execution of the powers respectively, which contained 
 their appropriate objects. It may be truly asserted that there is 
 not a single power granted to Congress, or to any department or 
 officer that does not contain in plain language, or by reasonable 
 and necessary inference, the specific object designed to be accom- 
 plished by the power specially granted. And this is, emphatically 
 the case as to each and every one granted to Congress. 
 
 The objects for legislative action are plainly expressed in the 
 powers that have been granted, but not so definitely with extent 
 and limits, as to prevent differences of opinion in the construction 
 necessary to determine what was actually meant by the expres- 
 sions used in regard to them. The terms used must be interpreted 
 in the light of the existing and antecedent circumstances, relating 
 to the objects, as they must have been known to those who adopt- 
 ed the Constitution, so far as it is practicable at all times subse- 
 quently to ascertain them. To appreciate this as a means of in- 
 terpretation it is only necessary to mention the words used, with- 
 out explanation of their meaning being defined, because it was 
 well understood by those who used them, such as taxes, imposts, 
 excises, debts, common defense, general welfare, commerce, 
 money, coin, postoffices and postroads, militia, courts, etc. Here 
 it will be seen that the purposes for which the powers are granted 
 are not fully expressed, but indicated by the use of terms from 
 which the purposes can certainly be infered. In the clause giv- 
 ing the power to coin money the purpose is not stated. But the 
 purpose for which money is coined was then well and universally 
 known to be to furnish to the people a circulating medium of fixed 
 value. That is a liberal though necessary implication in the con- 
 struction given to the clause. That liberal implicatien, however, 
 has a well defined limitation, from the use of the words "money" 
 and "coin," which requires the circulating medium to be coined 
 gold and silver, and not iron, steel, or precious stones or paper. 
 A like limitation must be applied to the other objects in all the 
 other general powers from the words used to indicate the objects. 
 
 The powers given "to lay and collect taxes," etc., "to proVide," 
 "to regulate," and the like, were indefinite us to the manner and
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I33 
 
 means to be used in the execution of the general powers, thus 
 granted for the objects specified, and opened a wide field of dis- 
 cretion to be exercised by Congress in that regard. For such gen- 
 eral grants of power would imply the incidental power to execute 
 them. To furnish a guide to this necessary implicption, another 
 clause was inserted in the Constitution as follows: 
 
 18. "To make all laws, whith shall be necessary and proper 
 for carrying into execution the foregoing powers and all other 
 powers vested by this Constitution in the government of the United 
 Slates, or in any department or officer thereof." 
 
 This clause, instead of enlarging the powers of Cougress, was 
 intended as a limitation and restriction of the broad, and indefi- 
 nite implication of powers, that would otherwise have arisen, in 
 the passage of laws, to carry out the other powers that are ex- 
 pressed in general terms, and confined Congress to the passage of 
 such laws only as were necessary and proper for carrying into ef- 
 fect those general powers vested in it, and in other departments, 
 and officers of the government. The general discretionary impli- 
 cation of power to execute other powers are therefore superseded 
 and abrogated, by this special grant with its limitation. What- 
 ever discretion is left, is in the determination of what laws would 
 be necessary and proper, to carry into execution the general pow- 
 ers — that is, what laws, in view of the nature and terms of the 
 grant of general powers, and of the objects to ba accomplished by 
 them respectfully, as indicated in the grants themselves, would rea- 
 sonably be needed and appropriate to affect the objects contem- 
 plated and expressed, and those only. All of the powers granted, 
 are granted only for the purpose of accomplishing the objects, ex- 
 pressed in connection with the grants of powers. The use of two 
 words of limitation "necessary" and "proper" must have been for 
 some useful purpose, having reference to the objects to be attain- 
 ed. Unde»- this provision it was made the duty of Congress, first 
 to determine exactly what was the particular object designed to be 
 accomplished, by any one of the general powers granted to Con- 
 gress, and with that object in view, and that alone; next, the law, 
 under the auxiliary clause, should be shaped so as to directly ef- 
 fect that particular object; with a single purpose to that end, and 
 no other, is a duty enjoined upon Congress, by the limitation, that 
 it shall be only such a law as would be necessary and proper. If 
 in any case any part of the law passed, under the auxiliary clause, 
 was not necessary to effect the exact object expressed in the gen- 
 eral power, it would be superfluous and unauthorized; and if it was 
 not proper to effect such object alone, but was so shaped as to ac- 
 complish and with a design to accomplish some other object in 
 addition to that expressed in the general power, thereby making it 
 accomplish two distinct objects, one direct, and the other inci- 
 dental, one expressed, and the other not expressed in the general
 
 134 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 power, then the law, so passed under this auxiliary power, would 
 be unauthorized to the extent to which it was shaped and used to 
 effect an object, not embraced in the Constitution. 
 
 If the main object accomplished was the one that was incidental 
 and not expressed, and the law was so shaped as to show the de- 
 sign to effect the incidental object mainly, it would be a flagrant 
 perversion of the powers granted, by which the objects of the gov- 
 ernmental action might be indefinitely extended to all objects, 
 limited only in their scope and diversity by the failure of adroit 
 ingenuity to devise the perversions. This may be illustrated by 
 reference to some of the general powers that have been quoted. 
 (Part of the 5th.) The power "to coin money, regulate the value 
 thereof," etc. 
 
 Money meant coined gold and silver. Its value as coin being 
 fixed, it would answer the purpose for which money is used. The 
 objects embraced in the provision are money and its value when 
 coined. The general power granted is to make money by coining 
 gold and silver, and to fix a value to the money that is ceined. 
 The use of the auxiliary power (clause 18 quoted), is to give au- 
 thority for the passage of such laws as may be necessary and prop- 
 er, to get charge of the gold and silver, establish a mint with its 
 implements, and working force, and indicate the denominations, 
 and the designs to be stamped thereon, and the values respectively of 
 the money to be coined, together with the disposition of it when 
 completed. If under the auxiliary power a law should be passed 
 authorizing paper or parchment to be stamped, and a value to be 
 fixed upon it as money, and requiring it to be used as money of 
 the value fixed upon it, it would certainly be a flagrant perversion 
 of the powers conferred on Congress in the clauses referred to (5 th 
 and i8th). This would follow from the words "money" and "coin" 
 as used, which would limit the powers of Congress in providing for 
 the people a circulating medium to the materials of gold and sil- 
 ver, coined into money. 
 
 Another general power is "To establish postoflBces and post 
 roads." Here again the purpose is indicated by words descriptive 
 of the necessary appurtenances, in carrying on the business con- 
 templated, which was the receiving, transporting, and delivery of 
 letters and other mail matter, for the convenience and benefit of 
 the people, who might send or receive such letters or mail matter. 
 This was the single and the only object of the grant of power, as 
 indicated by the use made then and previously of postoffices and 
 post roads. The words post roads were used to authorize the es- 
 tablishing of the routes between the postoffices, upon which the 
 mail was to be transported. The word roads would convey the 
 idea that the routes should be by the land, as doubtless was the 
 practice previously. When afterwards steamboats plied between 
 points in the country in which postofiices were established, it re-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 135 
 
 quired a liberal interpretation of the word roads to establish a 
 route as a post road on the water of streams and bays, navigated 
 by steamboats or other craft. Suppose it should be convenient 
 and beneficial to citizens of New York to send a few letters to Rio 
 Janeiro, a port in South America, Congress would have to indulge 
 in a most extravagant implication of power, in establishing a "post 
 road" in the ship's track in the Atlantic ocean, from a postoffice 
 established in the city of New York to a postoffice, or some sort of 
 substitute for it, in the city of Rio Janeiro. And suppose a ship 
 line should be employed to carry the mail on that route, by giving 
 in money a large bounty annually, amounting to hundreds of thou- 
 sands of dollars, entirely disproportioned (as $500 or perhaps five 
 thousand dollars to $1) to the value of the service rendered in car- 
 rying a few letters in the mail from one place to the other. The 
 objects of the bounty a?e to pay for carrying the mail (which is 
 comparatively a small consideration in the giving of it), and also 
 an increase and promotion of the trade between the two parts, that 
 being the leading abject in giving the bounty. It would enable the 
 ship line to force an increase of the trade by low freights, that 
 would not of themselves be an adequate compensation for the voy- 
 age — the deficiency in which would be supplemented with the 
 profit by the bounty money that it would get from the coffers of 
 the government, raised by taxing the people. This is not "regu- 
 lating commerce with foreign nations,'' but it is making trade at 
 the government's expense to benefit the merchants of New York in 
 their private pecuniary interests. 
 
 Here there are two distinct objects accomplished under the gen- 
 eral power "To establish postoffices and post roads;" the one di- 
 rect — to carry the mails, and the other indirect (badly disguised by 
 being not named in the contract) — to increase foreign trade. The 
 increase of foreign jrade is not mentioned as an object in any of 
 the powers; granted to Congress in the Constitution, nor can it be 
 made one, by the broadest implication, and the most liberal con- 
 struction, that can be indulged, in regard to any provision of the 
 Constitution, when properly understood. The laws passed and so 
 shaped with the design to increase foreign trade are therefore an 
 unwarranted perversion of the powers granted to Congress to es- 
 tablish postoffices and post roads. A similar perversion of this 
 power is plainly exhibited, by making postoftices broker establish- 
 ments, to transmit money from one person to another in different 
 localities, for compensation given to the government for service 
 performed, the same as is given to banks for similar service. 
 
 Let us examine the Constitution to see if you can find any pro- 
 vision in it that gives to Congress the power "To encourage 
 the manufacture of iron in the United States." Upon the 
 most exhaustive search, we will fail to find it by any sort of infer- 
 ential construction. We do find, however, in part of the Sec. 8,
 
 136 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 Art. I, the power "To lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and ex- 
 cises to pay the debts of the United States," etc. To carry this 
 general power into execution the auxiliary clause (18 of same Art. 
 and Sec.) must be called into requisition; which gives Congress 
 the additional power to pass such laws as shall be necessary and 
 proper for carrying into execution the foregoing general pow- 
 er; in order of course to accomplish the object for which the gen- 
 eral power is given, which is to pay the debts. Proceeding then to 
 execute this general power, Congress passes a law for laying and 
 collecting a duty (commonly called a tariff), of forty per cent, 
 upon all iron imported from foreign countries into the United 
 States, to be paid into the custom house for the use of the United 
 States, with which to pay its debts. That brings in a certain amount 
 for that purpose — say one million of dollars. But statesmen know, 
 and it is supposed, most of them would admit, that if a duty of 
 twenty per cent, instead of forty, were laid it would have brought 
 in double the amount of money, with which to pay the debts — say 
 two millions of dollars. If the object was to exercise the power in 
 the manner necessary and proper to pay the debts, why was not 
 the duty put at twenty per cent? The answer is, that Congress pur- 
 posely so exercised the auxiliary power as to embrace in their leg- 
 islative action in effect another power and object, not found in the 
 Constitution, which was the one, in vain searched for awhile ago, 
 — "To encourage the manufacture of iron in the United States," and 
 by which they give a bounty to the manufacturers of iron in this 
 country from three to five millions of dollars for every million of 
 dollars collected to pay the debts under the duty of forty per cent. 
 That amount, of from three to five millions of dollars, was paid to 
 the home manufacturers by our own people, who bought the iron. 
 
 If the duty had been only twenty per cent, our purchases would 
 have paid proportionately less for the iron bought by them, and 
 the government would have paid twice the amount towards its 
 debts. 
 
 It is hardly necessary to further point out that here there has 
 been two objects accomplished under pretense of executing one 
 power, one of which was to promote the private pecuniary interests 
 of a particular class of persons, which as an object, either express- 
 ed or implied, is not to be found in the power granted (Art. i, 
 sec. 8, clause i), nor in any other place in the Constitution. 
 
 Another mode of enlarging the powers granted to Congress may 
 be noticed. One of the clauses gives Congress the power: "10. To 
 define and punish Piracies and Felonies, committed on the Seas, 
 and Offences against the Law of Nations." 
 
 Piracy has been defined to be "robbery or forcible depredation 
 on the high seas, without lawful authority and done niamo furandi, 
 and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility." Those who 
 framed the Constitution doubtless well understood what piracy
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 173 
 
 was, and that it was an offense equalJy against, and punishable by 
 all civilized nations, as being against the law of nations. Several 
 statutes were passed by Congress at an early day on the subject, 
 and one in 1820 provided in subsctance, that if any citizen of the 
 United States, being of the crew af any foreign vessel, engaged in 
 the slave trade, or any person whatever being of the crew of any 
 vessel armed in whole or in part, or navigated for or in behalf of 
 any citizen of the United States, which was engaged in the slave 
 trade, should be adjudged a pirate, and on conviction, should 
 suffer death. This might well have been made a felony with the 
 same punihment, but it could not be made piracy, according to 
 the universal understanding of the ingredients of that offense at the 
 time the Constitution was adopted. The objection to the statute 
 is, not that the offense created by it was of less degree in turpitude, 
 but that the law was not responsive, and correspondent to the 
 grant of power to Congress to define and punish piracies, which in 
 a limited government, guided in its action by the terms of a written 
 Constitution, is a matter of first importance. Such a departure, 
 under the laudable impulse to deter persons from the commission 
 of what has become to be regarded as a^heinous offense against the 
 rights of mankind, makes a precedent, that, under similar impulses 
 on other subjects, may be followed by another and another, until 
 the guides for legislative action may become too little heeded in 
 legislation. 
 
 Another mode of obscuring the distinctive organic rules of 
 action may be in blending in laws upon the subject matters 
 peculiarly pertaining to the different departments of the govern- 
 ment; which may be illustrated by the law creating the tribunal 
 styled "The ('ourt of Claims," under the clause which gives 
 Congress the power: "9. To constitute Tribunals inferior to the 
 Supreme Court." 
 
 Without attempting to make a complete detailed statement of 
 the various subjects embraced in the jurisdiction of that tribunal 
 called a. court, it will suffice to say, that it exercises jurisdiction 
 in certain suits, brought by persons asserting claims against the 
 United States, founded on certain laws of Congress, or on contracts 
 express or implied with the government, claims of persons referred 
 to it by Congress, in which legislative relief is sought; and claims 
 refered to it by the heads of the Executive Departments, involving 
 disputed facts, or controverted questions of law, dependent upon 
 the amount in controversy, or the importance of the questions at 
 issue. 
 
 An appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States is allowed 
 on behalf of the United States, when the adjudication is adverse 
 to it, and on behalf of the applicant or plaintiff, where the amount 
 in controversy exceeds three thousand dollars, or where his claim 
 is forfeited to the United States by the judgment of the court.
 
 138 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 The right to sue in this court is not dependent upon citizenship of 
 the parties, or subject matter of the proceeding as it is prescribed 
 by the Constitution for the federal courts generally. It is therefore 
 a tribunal sui ge?teris. The cases, in which the United States 
 permits suits to be brought by persons against it, are pertinent to 
 the judical department of the government. The cases refered to it 
 by Congress are pertinent to the legislative department, the adju- 
 dication of which by the court must be designed to relieve the 
 committees from the labor and drudgery of investigating and 
 deciding upon the merits of the claims presented for legislative 
 relief, and the adjudications cannot be conclusively binding upon 
 Congress, any more than the well a considered report of the com- 
 mittee; otherwise than upon the supposition, that it can and will 
 submit its judgment of the merits of a claim to the judgment of 
 persons, who are not members of Congress, and have no constitu- 
 tional right to participate in their duties of legislation imposed on 
 them by the Constitution. The cases referred to that court by 
 the heads of the executive department of the government, 
 it is the constitutional duty of its officers to investigate and 
 decide according to their own judgment of the merits of the claims 
 unless indeed it is competent for Congress, the legislative depart- 
 ment, to provide a tribunal in the judical department to conclusive- 
 ly determine for and direct the executive officers how they shall 
 perform their sworn duties, in matters pertaining peculiarly to the 
 executive department of the government. 
 
 Upon certain contingencies also, the wisdom of the Supreme 
 Court of the United States, the head of the judiciary, may be 
 appeal^ for the correction of any error, that may be commited 
 by the decision of this court upon such matters pertaining 
 to the legislative and executive departments, as well as those 
 pertaining to the judicial department. 
 
 The government of the United States was divided into three 
 distinct and separate departments, so that the independent action 
 of each one of them upon the subjects assigned to each, within the 
 scope of its constitutional authority, would operate as a check upon 
 the other departments, in any violation of, or excess of power 
 assumed, under the Constitution by either one. This can be done 
 only by such action on the part of each one as will maintain and 
 strictly preserve the distinctive identity, as one separate part in the 
 system of government. It was founded also upon the assumption, 
 by those who devised and adopted it, that the offices in each 
 department would be filled by persons competent to investigate 
 and determine whatever of law or fact, however abstruse, diffuse, 
 and complicated, that might be involved in the performance of 
 their official duties, without any official advice, direction or com- 
 pulsion, from the officers of the other departments, — without 
 shirking from responsibility by the creation of boards, courts, or
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I39 
 
 commissions, instituted for the purpose; specimens of which we 
 have of late years had instances, — notably the returning boards 
 and also commission, partly composed of justices of the Supreme 
 Court, known vulgarly "as the commission of eight to seven," to 
 which was assigned the duty by Congress to investigate and deter- 
 mine for it, the question then presented to Congress to decide 
 under the Constitution and laws, as to who had been elected Pres- 
 ident of the United States. 
 
 This habitual practice of the courts in the States of issuing the 
 writs of mandamus and of injunction to judicially dictate to the 
 heads of the executive department what they shall and shall hot do 
 in the performance of their appropriate duties as executive offi- 
 cers, is on a par with the other things resorted to. 
 
 Such means adopted to aid or direct the persons, elected or ap- 
 pointed to fill the offices of the legislative or executive depart- 
 ments, by persons in the judicial department, or in boards, courts 
 and commissions, not provided for in the Constitution, is a glaring 
 recognition of the failure of the safe equipoise of the government, 
 moved along within its limited and bounded sphere of constitution- 
 al action by co-operative action of the three departments, legisla- 
 tive, executive and judicial; or if not that, it is indubitable evi- 
 dence that those who have administered those departments have 
 been unmindful, or have not duly appreciated the action in each 
 one, necessary to preserve distinctively their separate independ- 
 ence, and complete co-ordinateness, as was designed by the fram- 
 ers of the Constitution, and which was the boast of its admirers, 
 as the great American improvement in the science of government. 
 Speaking of departments, reminds me not to omit to refer to the 
 agricultural department, which we may expect to be established in 
 the regular course of events, judging from the progress agriculture 
 has made gradually with increasing favor during forty years, be- 
 ing engrafted upon the government, as one <»f its objects, to which 
 its power of collecting and expending money has been applied. 
 Its history is interestingly curious. Congress was given power 
 (8.) "To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by se- 
 curing for limited times, to authors and inventors, the exclusive 
 right to their respective writings and discoveries." The manner 
 in which the progress of science and the useful arts was to be pro- 
 moted is so specifically set out in this clause, that it would seem 
 to be difficult to imagine beforehand how it could be made sub- 
 serve the purpose of promoting agriculture also. A law was passed 
 in pursuance to it providing for whatever was necessary and proper 
 for carrying into execution the power granted, by having applica- 
 tions for discoveries examined and passed upon, patent rights 
 granted, and publications made in book form, and distributed, ex- 
 hibiting the models, and giving discriptions of the inventions that 
 were patented. After a while it was noticeable that those books
 
 I40 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 called "patent office reports" contained letters from farmers, 
 planters and gardeners, and occasionally scientific disquisitions 
 about raising crops and agriculture generally, and in the course of 
 time entire books, marked on the back "Agriculture," were distrib- 
 uted by members of Congress to the people, their constituents. 
 Seeds of grains, of the field and garden vegetables, of cotton, of 
 flowers, of bulbs, of plants, of vines, of shrubs and of trees, 
 both rare and common, were gathered up by the patent 
 officers from the four quarters of the world, and sent through 
 the postoffices free of charge to the people of the United 
 States. The business became so extensive and important by 
 its gradual growth, that it could no longer be sheltered under 
 the wing of patent office, and it was made a separate bureau, "The 
 Bureau of Agriculture.'' The business is still growing in propor- 
 tions and favor, and if it is an object to which the powers of the 
 government should be devoted in promoting the private pecuniary 
 interest of the people its relative importance compared to other 
 industrial products, would seem to require that it should be elevat- 
 ed into a separate department, with a secretary of agriculture; 
 and, as that is yet by far the greatest industrial interest in the 
 country, and as it is the substratum foundation of all the varied 
 material developments from which wealth and civilization ema- 
 nate, he should occupy the position of Premier in the cabinet of 
 the President. Nothing further need be said on this subject than 
 that the word agriculture is not contained in the Consritution of 
 the United States. 
 
 Enough has been said to render it obvious that some other pro- 
 visions, besides those that have been discussed, must be found in 
 the Constitution, whose construction by the many good, conscien- 
 tious, intelligent and patriotic citizens, who have participated in 
 the administration of the government, could possibly justify the ex- 
 ercise of the powers granted, so as to produce the various results 
 that have been adverted to. There must be provisions, that 
 have been understood to vest in the government a competency in 
 carrying on its administration, and in promoting the general and 
 special interests of the people, as fully in every respect as an abso- 
 lute sovereignty could, save and except only, so far as it is limited 
 and restricted in its objects, and powers of governmental action, 
 by the express restrictions and limitations of the Constitution. It 
 is to be presumed, that such provisions are to be found in the pre- 
 amble to the Constitution, and in the taxation clause, in both of 
 which the expression, "the general welfare," is used. The taxa- 
 tion clause reads as follows: "The Congress shall have power to 
 lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts, 
 and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the 
 United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform 
 throughout the United States."
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I4I 
 
 It has been before stated, that for every object, intended to be 
 accomplished by the government of the United States, as a limit- 
 ed government, there was expressed in the Constitution a delega- 
 tion of power to be used in the accomplishment of such object, 
 and no other object indirectly by the use of it. 
 
 The meaning, therefore, of this clause was and is, that Congress 
 shall have power to raise money to be expended in providing for 
 the "general welfare" of the United States as a government, by 
 carrying into execution all of the powers granted to Congress, and 
 all other powers vested by the Constitution in the government of 
 the United States, or in any department or officers thereof. 
 
 Or in other words, the "general welfare" of the United States 
 was to be attained as an object, which should result by the exer- 
 cise of the taxation power in the collection and expenditure of 
 money, in the execution of the powers, and those only which have 
 been delegated to the government as specified in the Constitution. 
 That this is the correct meaning of that expression is abundantly 
 evidenced by the meaning attached to it, when the Constitution 
 was adopted, and when previously it was used in the articles of 
 Confederation, and when it was used by the Congress, held from 
 the commencement to the end of the struggle of the colonies with 
 the mother country. 
 
 To effect the various objects by the government, which have 
 been adverted to, it must have been understood to mean, that 
 Congress could raise and expend money for any and all objects 
 and purposes whatever, that it should deem to be promotive of the 
 general welfare of \.\\q people of the United States, unless there was 
 to be found some clause of prohibition in the Constitution. 
 Or in other words, the general welfare of the United States was 
 understood to be tantamount to the general material and social 
 prosperity of the people of the whole country, in all of their in- 
 dustrial pursuits, and that Congress could constitutionally exercise 
 the powers granted to it in such a manner as to directly and indi- 
 rectly accomplish those general objects. For instance, laws could 
 be so passed in laying duties on impoitations as to indirectly give 
 substantial aid and protection to persons engaged in home manu- 
 factures of various sons, and thereby also give employment and 
 adequate remuneration to labor, and by the same sort of indirec- 
 tion the general trade of the country could be extended and en- 
 larged by laws passed to carry the mails by water to distant for- 
 eign countries, and as the promotion of agriculture would tend to 
 produce those general results, by enlarging the production of the 
 country, money could be expended to furnish the people, who fol- 
 lowed that business, with information, and other more substantial 
 aids, in protecting their employment of labor and capital in it. 
 
 That this could not have been the meaning of the term "general 
 welfare," as it was understood by those who framed and adopted
 
 142 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 the Constitution, will be made evident by ascertaining its frequent 
 use previously in the struggle with England, and its well estab- 
 lished meaning, when then used, and by a proper construction of 
 the taxation clause in which it is found, guided by the light of the 
 circumstances, and purpose attending its use previously; and by 
 reference to other clauses in the Constitution, which raise a vio- 
 lent presumption against any construction that such a meaning 
 could reasonably have been attached to it, when nsed in the Con- 
 stitution. 
 
 In the Congress of 1774, at Philadelphia, the delegates were 
 commissioned, by each of the colonies there and then represented, 
 by a written authority given to each of them, "to meet and consult 
 together for the common welfare." The common welfare then 
 consisted in seeking by argument and remonstrance, jointly made, 
 to procure from England the recognition of the political right of 
 each colony lO tax itself, and to induce England to desist from 
 claiming and exercising the right of taxing the colonies for the 
 general revenue of the kingdom. The term ''common welfare," 
 related to the political rights of each of the colonies, as a local 
 government, and to nothing else, for there was then nothing else 
 in issue. 
 
 The Congress that met in May, 1775, were given by the colonies 
 respectively additional authority to concert, agree upon, order 
 and prosecute measures for the same purpose. This increase of 
 authority was made necessary by the fact that hostilities had com- 
 menced near Boston. 
 
 Such was generally the tenor of the instructions of each of their 
 delegates, until the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, on 
 ist of March, 1781, — and during all that time the Congress was a 
 mere agency, acting first for the colonies, and then for the inde- 
 pendent sovereign States, into which the colonies had been con- 
 verted. Whatever Congress did, had reference to the public de- 
 fense, and to the general welfare of the associated local govern- 
 ments in respect to their political status, and not in reference to 
 their internal government, or to promote the private pecuniary in- 
 terest of their people. And the same may be said in regard to the 
 federation of the States, formed by the Articles of Confederation, 
 a draft of which was completed and submitted to the States the 
 15th of November, 1777, and adopted and put in operation March 
 I, 1781. The States did not, by those articles, confer upon the 
 Congress a single power authorizing it to do anything to promote 
 the private pecuniary interest of any person, or to encourage any 
 private pursuit or business. The Articles of Confederation read 
 as follows: 
 
 "Art. 3. The said States hereby enter into a firm league of 
 friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security 
 of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare, and bind
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, 143 
 
 themselves to assist each other against all force offered, or attacks 
 made upon them, or any of them, on account of religion, sover- 
 eignty, trade, or any other pretence whatever." 
 
 Here the words "general welfare" were used to express the con- 
 dition that the States would be in, if their joint power should suc- 
 ceed in preserving their political independence and power of self- 
 government, for which they were then struggling. 
 
 "Art. 8. All charges of war, and all other expenses that shall 
 be incurred for the common defense and general welfare, and al- 
 lowed by the United States in Congress assembled, shall be de- 
 frayed out of a common treasury, which shall be supplied by the 
 several States, in proportion to the value of all land within each 
 State," etc. 
 
 By the exercise of -wYizt powers could the general welfare of the 
 Confederation be accomplished? The answer is, by such powers 
 as had been delegated to it, — for it could rightfully exercise none 
 others. What objects could be accomplished by the federation as 
 a means of securing and maintaining the general welfare? The 
 answer is, that as the Articles of Confederation expressly indicate 
 the objects within its jurisdiction, it could apply the powers alone 
 which were delegated to it, to accomplish such objects, and none 
 others. And as the promotion of the private pecuniary interests 
 of individuals, or classes of individuals, were not indicated as ob- 
 jects to be promoted by it to secure the general welfare, it had no 
 powers given to it to be applied to accomplish such objects, and 
 therefore it never, while it existed as a government, attempted to 
 accomplish such objects by its action. 
 
 This history of the frequent use of the term "general welfare," 
 exhibits two important considerations in relation to it, to-wit: 
 
 First, that it had a fixed and definite meaning, as expressive of 
 the good condition, the successful operation, the general welfare 
 of the government, — the political safety and well-being of the 
 States united, first under the Continental Congress, and afterwards 
 under the Confederation. 
 
 Second, that the general welfare that was attainable at all, haa 
 to be attained by the exercise of such powers, and only by such 
 powers, as were delegated to the Continental Congress first, and 
 then afterwards to the federation. 
 
 It has been held in our highest courts, that a word, or an ex- 
 pression, that has been used in a constitution, in a statute, in a 
 deed, or in a written instrument of any kind, must be held, whe> 
 afterwards interpreted, to mean exactly what it meant at the time it 
 was so used. It is important to notice the fact that in 1787, when 
 the delegates were engaged in framing the Constitution, they were 
 then living under the Confederation, and had been appointed with 
 the express authority, by their respective States, to amend and re- 
 form the Articles of Confederation, so as to form a more efficient
 
 144 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 government. They must, therefore, have had a perfect knowledge 
 of the meaning of "the general welfare," as used in the Articles of 
 Confederation, and also of the powers intended to be exercised^ 
 and that had been exercised since March, 1781, by the Confedera- 
 tion, to attain to the condition of "general welfare" as an object. 
 The fact that they used the term "general welfare" in the Consti- 
 tution, that they then formed, in the same connection, that it had 
 been used in the Articles of Confederation raises a violent pre- 
 sumption, that they designed it to have the same meaning, and to 
 be attained in the same way. That connection was in the pream- 
 ble and taxation clause of the Constitution, just as it had been 
 used in the Articles of the Confederation, in the clause stating the 
 objects of the Confederation, and in the taxation clause. It is an 
 established rule of construction in courts, that where a word or 
 expression has been used in a constitution, or statute, which has 
 had its meaning defined by judicial interpretation, or by con- 
 temporaneous and continued action upon it, it will be presumed 
 to have the same meaning, when it is afterwards used in the same 
 connection, in the formation of a constitution, or in the enactment 
 of a law upon the ame subject, or in the enactment of the same 
 law, changed only in other provisions. The fact that the Consti- 
 tution provided for a government with more and greater powers 
 for the same Sf^tes in the Union, was no reason why the words 
 "general welfare" did not have the then usual and well-established 
 meaning, that it had in the Articles of Confederation, especially 
 as the Constitution provided for a limited government, with its 
 powers and objects especially enumerated, just as it was done in 
 creating the Confederation. There is an unanswerable objection 
 to the position, that the "general welfare" of the United States in- 
 cluded in its meaning the well-being of the people, in their paivate 
 pecuniary interests, as well as the well-being of the government of 
 the United States, in the administration of it by its departments 
 and officers. 
 
 For the laying and collecting of taxes of some kind, and the dis- 
 bursement of the money collected by the laws of Congress, em- 
 brace nearly everything that the government can do, either under 
 its delegated or under its assumed powers. There are, indeed, 
 very few objects of any kind, that the government has ever accom- 
 plished, that did not require for its accomplishment, the laying 
 and collecting of taxes of some kind, in some manner, or the ex- 
 penditure of money collected. It would have been useless, there- 
 fore, to have conferred upon Congress any other power than that 
 in the taxation clause, "to lay and collect taxes, imposts, duties, 
 and excises, to pay the debts, and to provide for the common de- 
 fense and general welfare of the United States." 
 
 And a part of this clause might have been omitted, for it would
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 145 
 
 have been providing for the general welfare "to pay the debts," 
 and also "to provide for the common defense." 
 
 It would have been for the general welfare of the United States 
 to collect and expend money to establish a navy, and to raise an 
 army, when needed, to establish post roads and postoffices, to 
 establish federal courts, to coin money, and to execute every other 
 power expressly or impliedly delegated to Congress or to any other 
 department or officer. 
 
 The Congress might also deem it to be for the general welfare 
 to collect and expend money to encourage agriculture, sheep rais- 
 ing for wool, the distribution and breeding of fish for food, the 
 healing of diseased domestic animals, the establishment of agri- 
 cultural and mechanical schools, and experimental stations, an 
 educational bureau, and an agricultural department; to increase 
 commerce by subsidizing ship lines, to send vessels in search of 
 the north pole, and numerous other such objects, stated in the 
 first part of this lecture, not provided for in the Constitution, 
 otherwise than by their being considered to be for the general wel- 
 fare, to aid in the establishment of factories in the country, which 
 could be effectually done by an indirection, as may be seen by an 
 examination of the law creating a tariff for their protection. By 
 the same sort of indirection, national banks are given a monopoly 
 in the banking business, by taxing State banks out of existence. 
 
 This limited and imperfect reference to what Congress has done 
 suggests the query, what is it that Congress can not do to provide 
 for the general welfare of the United States ? 
 
 Republicanism, a hundred yeare ago, was understood to be the 
 control of the whole body of the people in a country, by their 
 participation in the public affairs, relating to their government. 
 
 Democratic representative republics were then formed in Amer- 
 ica upon the theory, that by giving each man an equal voice in 
 the enacting and execution of the laws, by which he would be 
 governed, he would thereby be able to secure to himself equal 
 rights, and to protect himself from unequal burdens, by the action 
 of the government. 
 
 One hundred years experience has so far most signally failed to 
 verify the correctness of that theory. It has been found, that the 
 written Constitutions of a republic may be so construed, as to 
 make the government administered under it an instrument for dis- 
 tributing benefits to the few favored persons, and for imposing un- 
 equal and depressing burdens upon the great body of the people, 
 the same as it may be done, and most usually has been done, by 
 tyrannical monarchies.
 
 146 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 A PUBLIC LECTURE. 
 [Delivered in the University, 1887, by O. M. Roberts, Law Professor.} 
 
 On the Violations of the Right of Private Property by 
 American Governments, and Their Consequences. 
 
 Tfie right of private property consists in the free use and dispo- 
 sition of property by its owner, subject to the rule that it must be 
 so used or disposed of as not to infringe upon or impair the rights 
 of property or of the person of others. This related to the rule 
 as between individuals in" a community. It is subject to some 
 qualifications when applied to the relation between government 
 and the individual. This relation was not settled in England 
 until there had been numerous agitations and struggles between 
 the king and his subjects. The English people claimed certain 
 absolute rights as having been possessed by them immemorially, 
 which their monarchs frequently deprived them of. The barons 
 with their retainers took to arms^and wrested from King John the 
 concessions relating to those rights, so claimed, as are contained 
 in magna charta, in which he bound himself as their sovereign 
 that "no freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or dissized, or out- 
 lawed, or banished, or in any ways destroyed, nor will the king 
 pass upon him or commit him to prison unless by the judgment of 
 his peer or the law of the land." This did not assume to confer 
 rights upon the people, but was a recognition of their previous 
 existence, and a solemn pledge that they should not be violated. 
 This was with some addition confirmed by the charter of Henry 
 III., and for similar objects were procured the petition of right 
 and bill of rights afterward. Thus was, in the course of time, the 
 full recognition of the absolute rights of Englishmen established, 
 being their civil social rights, which commentators have designat- 
 ed as the rights ol personal security, the right of personal liberty 
 and the right of private property. 
 
 The American colonies claimed to have brought with them and 
 to have possessed ihe fundamental civil rights as subjects of the 
 British crown, and when they set up independent State govern- 
 ments by delegations of powers, conferred by the people of such 
 State as a sovereign power, they sought to secure these fundamen-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I47 
 
 tal rights from being violated by the government created by them 
 by numerous provisions in bills of rights, and in other provisions 
 in the Constitutions adopted by them. It is worthy of notice that 
 the English people sought to protect the fundamental rights 
 against any violation by the executive, the king, being willing to 
 hold them subject to the laws passed by parliament, and to the de- 
 cision of the courts; but the Americans sought to protect them 
 from violation by the legislature, as well as other departments. 
 
 The States in the formation of their government afterward 
 added another fundamental right, which is the right of full toler- 
 ation and freedom of religion. These rights of personal security, 
 personal liberty and freedom of religion, have generally been so 
 amply protected by laws and the decisions of courts in this coun- 
 try as to require no special consideration of them at present, not 
 being embraced in the objects of the discussion here. The ten- 
 ure of the private property of the individual is necessarily subject 
 to qualifications consequent upon ordinary and constitutional 
 action of the government, the instances of which will be enumer- 
 ated. 
 
 The private property of an individual may be taken from him 
 by the government of the State, directly or indirectly, for public 
 use upon compensation being made to him, by the right of emi- 
 nent domain. Over one league of land, being private property, 
 was taken by the State of Texas, upon which the seat of govern- 
 ment was located. The State takes the lands of individuals upon 
 which to establish public roads by authority given to counties and 
 railroad companies. It has been held, however, that only so much 
 as may be necessary for the specified public use can be thus taken, 
 and also that the property of one person cannot under this right 
 be taken for the purpose of bestowing it upon another for his pri- 
 vate benefit. So the government can take away property through 
 the powers given to the courts, when some other person than the 
 one possessed of it shows his right to it, or when it is done to re- 
 cover debts, damages, forfeitures, fines, penalties and taxes due 
 and unpaid. Such are the grounds upon which the government 
 can righfully by force take away the private property of an indi- 
 vidual without, and if necessary, contrary to his consent. 
 
 Upon none of these grounds has there been such an infringe- 
 ment of the right of property as to re(iuire comment, except that 
 of taxation, which will be specially referred to hereafter. Even a 
 cursory review of some of the acts af our government, federal and 
 State, will demonstrate that the fundamental right of property hat 
 not been respected in the same degree as in others with which i 
 has been classed. The breaches upon this right have been extend- 
 ed to producing inequalities both in the acquisition of property 
 and the tenures to it when ac(iuired, and even to indirectly and 
 purposely taking from one person and giving it to another for his
 
 148 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 private benefit. Our State Constitution sought to establish equal- 
 ity in the acquisition of it, by inhibiting monopolies expressly, 
 which is where the government confers upon a private individual 
 the exclusive right ro make profits by following a pursuit which is 
 ordinarily followed by other private individuals for profit. That 
 limitation is not imposed expressly upon the government of the 
 United States in its Constitution. 
 
 The State of Maryland passed a law imposing a tax upon the 
 branch of the bank of the United States. The Supreme Court 
 of the Unired States judged that law to be contrary to the 
 Constitution of the United States and laws thereof, and exempt- 
 ed it from taxes, though it was an institution carried on in 
 Maryland to make profit by and through the means invested in 
 it, being the private property of the corporator. Other banks 
 that may have been chartered by Maryland, and were doing the 
 same business for profit, had to pay the same taxes imposed 
 upon them. 
 
 I am not discussing the right or wrong of that decision, but 
 only seek to point out an instance of inequality in the acquisi- 
 tion and tenure to or terms of holding a similar sort of property 
 used for making profits by different individuals in Maryland, 
 produced by governmental action. Again, the federal govern- 
 ment established "national banks," which at present number, 
 perhaps over 2000 in the different States, and, as it is said 
 purposely, taxed all the other banks created by the States out 
 of existence. In other words, they had to close out and abandon 
 the business of banking because they would not make profits as 
 the national banks, could on account of the heavy tax imposed on 
 them that was not equally imposed on the national banks. Here 
 was a case of monopoly in banking and an inequality in the tenure 
 to private property, as between individuals in the same State pur- 
 suing the same business for private gain to the individual. Similar 
 results are produced by the States passing laws for private corpo- 
 rations, for private purposes for private gain, only in pursuits 
 equally followed by private individuals and partnership. 
 
 Under the laws creating them the members of the corporations 
 have their responsibility, and liability, in carrying on their busi- 
 ness, limited to the amount of the property invested and kept in 
 the business, whereas the responsibility and liability of the indi- 
 vidual, and of the members of the partnership engaged in the same 
 business exactly, and for the same purpose of private gain extends 
 to the whole of his or their property, whether it is engaged in that 
 business or not. Texas has now probably over one thousand such 
 private corporations, with a continued increase in number, as their 
 extra advantages conferred by the government become more and 
 better known. The members of such favored companies, in along 
 course of prosperous business, may store away by dividends hand-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, I49 
 
 some fortunes, which the sheriff dare not touch, when by reckless 
 speculation in their efforts, perhaps, to run down the competition 
 of individuals or partnerships in the same business the concern 
 bre.aks, and is found to be insolvent. Here the State has made a 
 pla'n difference, in the tenure of terms of holding private property, 
 between individuals of the State, pursuing the private business for 
 private gain. Though this consequence may attend all corpora- 
 tions, it can be justified only when it is created as a governmental 
 a^ncy, to accomplish a public purpose, though it may be pursued 
 for private benefit by the corporators, as in the case of a railroad 
 company incorporated by a law of the State, or a school or some 
 charitable institution. But in the case of a company for raising 
 cattle, for buying and selling lands, building houses and hundreds 
 of other private employments, it is perversion of the true objects of 
 an incorporation, to give them its advantages over other individu- 
 als following the pursuits. Under the government of the United 
 States its bonds and treasury notes, used as money, amounting to 
 many hundreds of millions of dollars in value, are exempt from tax- 
 ation by the States, though owned as private property by the citi- 
 zens of those States. This is, in effect, giving a bonus to the 
 amount of tax exempted to owners of them by just the increase in 
 value given to them by the government over the value of other 
 bonds and money in the hands of citizens that are taxed. 
 
 Passing over boiinties given to ship lines, ship building for our 
 coastwise trade, and to various other objects favored directly or in- 
 indirectly by the government in this country, both by legislation 
 and by the decisions of ^he courts, it may be well to consider at 
 once the subject of taxation, which has been used as the means for 
 the most flagrant violation of the most fundamental rights of pri- 
 vate property. It is said by Justice Cooley in his work on Con- 
 stitutional Limitations, that an unlimited power to make everything 
 lawful which the legislature might see fit to call taxation would be, 
 when plainly stated, an unlimited power to plunder the citizens. 
 This strong expression is but a common sense utterance in behalf 
 of the right of private property. In every government, therefore, 
 where there is any pretense to the claim of freedom from oppres- 
 sion there ought to be found some limitation to the right of taxa- 
 tion more potent than the mere discretion of the legislative body. 
 
 In the present Constitution of the State there is a limitation 
 plainly expressed as follows: "The legislature shall not have the 
 right to levy taxes or impose burdens upon the people, except to 
 raise revenue sufficient for the economical administration of the 
 government, in which may be included the following purposes : 
 The payment of interest on the public debt, the erection and re- 
 pair of public buildings, for the benefit of the sinking fund, for the 
 support of the public schools and the asylums, for the payment of 
 officers of the governmet, for the enforcement of (juarantine, and
 
 150 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 the protection of the frontier." And further it is provided, that 
 "the legislature shall have no power to make any grant, or 
 authorize the making of any grant of public money to any individ- 
 ual, association of individuals, municipal or any other corporation 
 whathever; provided, that this shall not be so construed as to 
 prevent the grant of aid in case of public calamity." And further, 
 "taxes shall be levied and collected by general laws and for public 
 purposes only." Those with other imitations upon the action of 
 the legislature, that might be quoted, point specifically to the object 
 of taxation as being to raise revenue with which to carry on the 
 government of the State. A tax so levied as to effect another and 
 different object under the pretense of raising such revenue, would 
 be a preversion of the powers of the legislature, and be a violation 
 of the spirit of the Constitution of the State. Such should be the 
 rule under any government of limited powers. While our Consti- 
 tution so clearly and specifically limited the power of taxation, 
 other provisions in it have unfortunately thrown widely open the 
 door for the creation of almost all sorts of private corporations for 
 private purposes. The power of taxation delegated to Congress is 
 contained in the Constitution of the United States in the words as 
 follows: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, 
 duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the 
 common defense and general welfare of the United States." The 
 United States was the name of the government then in existence 
 under the articles of confederation, and it was continued as the 
 name of the more perfect union created by the Constitution of the 
 United States. If this term "general welfare of the United States" 
 should be construed to mean welfare of the government of the 
 United States in all of its operations performed under and in 
 accordance with the powers delegated to it as expressed in the 
 Constitution, then it should be a plain limitation. The States 
 might well be supposed to have been willing to have granted the 
 power of tnxation to Congress. While it is diflBcult to believe that 
 under existing fear of an absolute power of taxation without limit, 
 which they had but lately gone through a desperate struggle to get 
 rid of, they should have intended to have conferred upon 
 Congress a power of taxation to provide for the general welfare of 
 the people in several States in reference to private pecuniary affairs 
 and industrial pursuits, still it has been believed, and Congress 
 has repeatedly acted and continues to act on it, thereby making 
 the government a paternal government for taking care of the 
 private interest of the people, according to discretion, as to what 
 measures would contribiute to the general welfare of the private 
 interests of the people. 
 
 The British parliament is limited only by the same discretion 
 in reference to the same objects, which is simply no constitutional 
 limitation at all of the power of taxation in either government.
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, 151 
 
 The promotion of the private interests of the people has been 
 effected in two modes of congressional action, directly by spend- 
 ing the people's money raised by taxation in bounties and other- 
 wise, and indirectly by levying and collecting duties on import. 
 Under one or the other mode Congress has promoted the private 
 interests of individuals and classes of individuals in their private 
 pursuits, from the largest to the smallest objects, and embracing in 
 extent almost the whole range of industries carried on in this country, 
 from helping merchants extend their foreign trade down to dairy- 
 men making butter, and so numerous and diversified are they that 
 an enumeration and explanation of them would fill a good sized 
 volume. A good survey of them would exhibit the most remark- 
 able and the most fertile inventive genius of the American people, 
 that has perhaps never before been displayed by any people, by 
 which they have been enabled, with only a few delegated powers 
 carefully specified and to them expressly limited in a written con- 
 stitution, to expand them by subtle constructions into a powerful 
 national goverment, capable of fostering the whole range of the 
 private interests and pursuits of the people, equally as extensive 
 and minute, and in the same manner as it has been done by the 
 monarchies of Europe with absolute unrestrained powers of pro- 
 moting the private interests and pursuits of the individuals, guided 
 and limited only by their discretion as to the means used in doing 
 it. Under this construction the true object of taxation — to raise 
 and collect revenue with which to defray the expenses of the 
 government — has often been lost sight of. It has been imposed in 
 a way to effect another object relating to the private interests of 
 individuals than to raise the revenue, and even sometimes in away 
 to prevent the raising of revenue, to enable private individuals to 
 make profits by it in their private pursuits. 
 
 A notable instance oi this is what is known as a tariff for the 
 protection of home manufacturerers. That was professedly invent- 
 ed to nurse those factories in their helpless infancy, eighty years 
 ago or more. It would seem to be useless now, after so long nurs- 
 ing, to ask when the infants will be able to stand alone, but as that 
 claim for favor might be barred by lapse of time, another has been 
 anounced, as we will see presently. For instance, a certain kind 
 of cloth is manufactured both in Europe and the United States, 
 Congress imposes a duty of loo per cent, upon its original cost in 
 Europe, and in passing through the custom-house at New York 
 the importer pays loo per cent, to get it. Twenty per cent, impos- 
 ed would, as it is known, raise greatly more revenue if that was 
 the object, and that 20 per cent, would itself be incidentaly a bonus 
 in the way of legitimate protection to the liome manufacturer in 
 the sale of his cloth. Then why impose 100 per cent.? The 
 answer is to give the home manufacturer 80 per cent, on the sale of 
 his cloth more than was necessary to raise revenue. Who pays to
 
 152 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 the home manufacturer this 80 per cent, more than necessary to 
 raise revenue? The answer is the consumer who buys it from him, 
 the price paid being 80 per cent, more than he could have bought 
 the cloth, whether it had been manufactured in Europe or America, 
 if a duty for revenue only had been imposed on it. This expla- 
 nation is sufficiently accurate for my present purpose, which is to 
 show that the government has purposely in this transaction in effect 
 taken money from one man, the consumer, and given it to another, 
 the American manufacturer. That is the practical fact, and the 
 object of doing it, whether right or wreng, constitutional or un- 
 constitutional, does not alter the practical fact, which presents a 
 clear case of flagrant violation of the right of private property by 
 the of government to the advantage of one individual and to the 
 disadvantage of another in reference to their private pecuniary 
 interests. 
 
 I will not stop to consider all the numerous things upon which a 
 tariff for protection is imposed. It is estimated that where the gov- 
 ernment gets $1 of revenue by it the home manufacturer gets $5 by 
 it, by selling five times as many such goods as are imported. How 
 much money does he make, when the government is annually rais- 
 ing hundreds of millions of dollars by duties so levied? Now, what 
 has been the consequence of this course of action? For more than 
 fifty years past, and even up to the present time, it has been open- 
 ly announced in the platforms of parties, in presidential messages, 
 and in speeches in Congress and elsewhere, that one of the main 
 objects of this protective tariff was to keep up the price of Ameri- 
 can labor above the price of pauper labor in Europe, or in other 
 words, it is a bonus paid by the consumer as well for the benefit 
 of the laborer as that of the capitalist for whom he works. This is 
 the lesson that the laborer has been taught from the highest author- 
 ity, and as the schoolmaster has been abroad in the land, he can 
 now understand it. He knows that the bonus in money in this case, 
 as well as in all other governmental advantages given, comes into 
 the hand of the capitalist, and the law makes no provision for him 
 to get his share of it, which he has so often and so eloquently been 
 told about. It has come to him through the discretion of the cap- 
 italist, if it comes at all, so far as the law is concerned. That is a 
 frail security for its coming, and therefore laborers are now, and 
 have been for some time past, putting their heads together to de- 
 vise a more potent means than discretion, by making it to depend 
 on the necessities and interests of the capitalists to make fair di- 
 vision of the favors of the government. It is only necessary for 
 laborers to look around and see that wherever and whenever large 
 capital is accumulated in the hands of a few persons, its owners 
 apply for some sort of favors to it from the government, by press- 
 ing into the lobbies of Congress, or of the legislatures of States, to 
 obtain it. Even the labor saving machinery, patented by the gov-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 153 
 
 ernment, falls into the hands of the capitalists for whom they 
 labor, diminishing their chances for employment, for a time, 
 at least. They see and have seen capitalists of all classes of inter- 
 ests, combining in different ways, to keep up prices and 
 to keep down the price of labor. They, seeing and feel- 
 ing the effects of such combinations, are now, and have been, 
 combining to protect the interests of labor, knowing that it is by 
 the use of their labor that profits can be made by capitalists. 
 Hence labor unions of various^sorts, and by different names, have 
 been formed all over the United States, and are still increasing, 
 perfecting the co-operative combinations. They, too, are prepar- 
 ing to apply to Congress and the legislatures for some government- 
 al advantages, at least for the defense of their peculiar interest, 
 against the mere discretion of capitalists who make profits out of 
 their work. All this effort is not so much because the wages of 
 labor are ordinarily inadequate or less than they were formerly as 
 because labor has no security and no advantages given to them by 
 the government, as they can see that accumulated capital has. 
 Thus capital and labor stand in direcf antagonism, each arrayed 
 in combinations all over the country. When the combustible ma- 
 terials are made ready for it, a little spark rnay make a great con- 
 flagration, as witnessed in the year A. D. 1886. The 'longshore- 
 men, who had been given the monopoly of labor on the wharves 
 at Galveston by a statute of the last legislature of Texas, strike for 
 higher wages in loading and unloading vessels, which was refused. 
 A man in Marshall is refused employment on the Texas and Paci- 
 fic railroad there; the Knights of Labor take the matter up for ad- 
 justment and apply their remedies without effect. 
 
 The struggle then goes to the Gould combination of railroads, 
 carrying it to Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois and on to the other 
 States, and other matters of controversy are brought in. Millions 
 worth of property is involved and endangered, hundreds of thou- 
 sands of laborers are excited to fever heat, private property is vio- 
 lently seized and the wheels of commerce are stopped, and even 
 personal violence and murder attend this desperate struggle; the 
 peace officers and militia of the States and the courts are called 
 into requisition for the protection of private property and to keep 
 the peace. 
 
 Amidst the fury of excitement the tendency of sentiment almost 
 unconsciously was aroused against all sorts of accumulated wealth 
 without taking time for discrimination between the necessary and 
 proper advantages given to public agencies, created by govern- 
 ment for public purposes, and those advantages that are neither 
 necessary nor proper. 
 
 The anarchists in Chicago, falsely supposing that this great 
 movement was being made in sympathy with their designs, broke 
 out into deeds of outrage and murder. Under this distressing con-
 
 154 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 fusion, it is not surprising that remedies should have been suggest- 
 ed without a calm consideration of the consequences to which 
 they wou2d lead. One of them is co-operation between capital and 
 labor. That is simply a partnership formed by mutual agreement 
 that the government can have nothing more to do with than with 
 other partnership business. 
 
 Another is for the government to own and run the railroads. If 
 the reason for that is to secuie to labor more adequate remunera- 
 tion than will be given by capitalists, the same reason would force 
 the government to own and carry on all other employments re- 
 quiring large numbers of laborers, such as factories, mining opera- 
 tions, iron works, etc. 
 
 We are not now prepared to contemplate the conditions and op- 
 erations of any government placed in such a position. The most 
 favorable remedy that has been proposed by statesmen, including 
 the conservative President, Grover Cleveland, is by arbitration, 
 provided for by the government. Four of the States — Iowa, Kan- 
 sas, Massachusetts and New York — have already made haste to 
 arbitrate the differences occurring between employers and their 
 employes. These laws provide for a board of arbitration, to which 
 the disputants may agree to submit their differences. In the first 
 three the board, after being selected by action of the parties, is 
 commissioned or licensed to act by a court of the State. 
 
 In New York the board is appointed by the governor for the 
 year. In Massachusetts the submission can only be made in case 
 the subject may not be made the subject of a civil suit 
 or bill in equity — that is, if the question is one of ju- 
 dicial cognizance, the parties must apply to the courts and 
 not to this board for settlement. In Iowa and Kansas the 
 award is simply final and conclusive on the parties in ordinary 
 cases, but when an award is made and accorded a specific sum of 
 money, the proper court may upon motion enter judgment there- 
 on; so that in those States the arbitration includes matters of debt 
 found to be due, which is of judicial cognizance, as in other cases 
 of arbitration, as that remedy is well known as a substitute for a 
 suit and trial in court recognized by all of the States. It is obvi- 
 ous, however, that in all of those States, the main object in pass- 
 ing these statutes is the same as that expressed in the statute of 
 Massachusetts, which is to provide an arbitration for such cases as 
 are not of judicial cognizance by a suit at law or by a bill in equi- 
 ty in a court having jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suits 
 or bin. The matters to be settled are such as where the employes 
 demand of their employers an increase of lo per cent, in their 
 wages, or the employers propose te reduce the wages of their em- 
 ployes lo per cent,, or increase the time or amount of labor on the 
 same wages, or where the employes demand that a laborer who has 
 been dismissed shall be taken back in the service of the employer
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 155 
 
 again, or where there shall be a disagreement about anything re- 
 lating to the employment where a change is sought by either side 
 and not acceded to by the other. They all contemplate the mak- 
 ing of an executory contract between the parties concerned, to be 
 by each of them performed in the future for an indefinite time. 
 The making of an executory contract between two persons about a 
 matter of private business is, and must be, discretionary on both 
 sides, and is therefore beyond and outside of any governmental 
 action whatever under the constitutional powers of our govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The parties may call in private assistance by reference to others 
 to help the discretionary adjustment of the contract between them, 
 but they have no right to call for any interposition of the govern- 
 ment, in any of its departments, to help them in adjustments, be- 
 cause no departments of our government are invested with any 
 powers which relate in any degree to the discretionary act of mak- 
 ing an executory contract by and between two persons about a 
 matter of private business. 
 
 The government may prescribe what shall be a valid contract or 
 what shall not, or how it shall be evidenced to be valid, or when a 
 contract is broken the proper remedy in court may be given, all of 
 which are rules of action, prescribed and contemplated; or pre- 
 suppose the discretionary action of the parties to have been pre- 
 viously exercised in making the contract without any interference, 
 hindrance or assistance of the government in the making of it. To 
 bring this subject to the test by a homely example, the legislature 
 has no right to swap horses for people, and it follows that it has no 
 right to pass a law authorizing the appointment of a horse jockey 
 to travel over the country to help people swap horses. 
 
 The judiciary department has no such right, nor has the execu- 
 tive department. The confusion of ideas is thrown around this 
 proposed remedy by misnaming it an arbitration. That is a mis- 
 nomer. An arbitration has been long known as one of the reme- 
 dies to redress a legal inquiry by the parties themselves, either 
 with or without the aid of a court. 
 
 The business of the arbitrators, like that of a court, is to inves- 
 tigate the antecedent facts and transactions of the parties in rela- 
 tion to the matter in dispute, and to draw their conclusions from 
 them, as to whether one of the parties has been deprived of a legal 
 right by the other, and if so, they make their award describing 
 what one of them should recover of the other, as a particular piece 
 of property, a debt or damages to a certain amount, jnst as it 
 would have been determined by the verdict of a jury, had the case 
 been brought into court by suit, and provision has been generally 
 made by law, to have the award made the judgment of a court, in 
 whatever court would have had jurisdiction of the subject matter, 
 that had been arbitrated. It is obvious, then, that the proposed
 
 156 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 remedy, so-called arbitration, has no analogy in substance, to the 
 old and favored remedy by arbitration, authorized by our laws. 
 The want of constitutional authority to provide such a remedy for 
 the adjustment of such matters of dispute, as have been previously 
 mentioned, may be illustrated further, by tracing out the effect ot 
 each step in its progress. Supposing the law to be passed as that 
 in Kansas, and the disputants to have selected their adjusters (so- 
 called arbitrators). It is made by the law the duty of the court to 
 issue them a license, or commission, to act, and when their award 
 is made and presented to have it recorded. 
 
 This being not a judicial proceeding, the court may refuse to 
 issue the license, and also refuse to have the award recorded in court 
 for the same reason. It has been held by the highest judicial au- 
 thority, that the legislative department can not make it obligatory 
 upon a court to do an act not judicial in its character, and re- 
 lating to a subject of which the court had no jurisdiction. But 
 suppose the court should humor the effort at pacification, and is- 
 sue the license and record the award, which is simply the adjusted 
 executory contract made by the parties, which is declared by the 
 law to be final and binding on the parties. 
 
 What legal effect is given to this contract by its being thus re- 
 corded in a court? The answer is, exactly the same, and no more 
 than if it had been written out on a sheet of paper, and stuck into 
 the pigeon-hole of some friendly lawyer's desk, who had it in his 
 custody for safe keeping. Still the legislature has gone through 
 the formality of passing an act prescribing particularly all the pro- 
 ceedings in the remedy, and the court has given it the sanction of 
 its authority, which holds out the delusive appearance that the 
 government has done something within its constitutional authority, 
 and may do more if necessary. 
 
 The great danger is, having started out on that line, emergen- 
 cies may arise that will require it to go further and still further, 
 until some of the dearest rights of the people may be impaired or 
 violated. It should be recollected, that in the transactions, which 
 induced the recommendation, and in some of the States, the adop- 
 tion of this new and extra governmental remedy, were involved the 
 right to private property, the right of personal security, and the 
 right of personal liberty — the fundamental civil rights upon which 
 our social organization is founded, The adoption of that extra 
 governmental remedy tends to lead off from and supercede the 
 proper remedies, that are within the constitutional power of the 
 government, which are the passage of other laws, if necessary, and 
 the enforcement of them for the protection of private property in 
 its possession and use, and the enforcement of personal security, 
 and personal liberty, as those rights may pertain to all of the per- 
 sons who are connected with this struggle between capital and la- 
 bor, and when all parties shall be made to understand by the con-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. I57 
 
 stitutional power of the government, exactly what their rights are, 
 that will be the best security that they will peaceably abide by 
 them. 
 
 If the government can not protect private property by such con- 
 stitutional means, then it is a sad failure as it is now organized, and 
 property will have to look to some other organization of govern- 
 ment for its protection, for in the end, property always has and al- 
 ways will protect itself, by fair means if it can, but by any means 
 if it must. It is a great power, backed by human selfishness, that 
 prefers any government that can and will protect it. But the State 
 of Texas, having given to railroad companies a large bonus in 
 lands and charters, with all of their advantages, including the right 
 to take the lands of persons for their track and right-of-way, upon 
 making compensation therefor, and also the monopoly of exclu- 
 sively using the roads constructed by them for transportation and 
 travel, with the right to charge therefor, has not the govern- 
 ment of this State some constitutional power to require the com- 
 panies to give a fair compensation to employees, whose labor is 
 necessary to carry on the business? The answer is not any more 
 right than to force laborers to work for what the State might stip- 
 ulate as being fair wages. 
 
 Fortunately, the relation between the State of Texas and its rail- 
 road companies, and the power of control, which the State has 
 over them, is not left to deductive construction, but is well defined 
 by laws under which they are constructed, and by the Constitution 
 of the State, adopted in 1876. In that instrument, it is provided 
 that railroads heretofore constructed, or that may hereafter be con- 
 structed, in this State, are declared public highways, and railroad 
 companies common carriers. 
 
 The legislature shall pass laws to correct abuses, and prevent 
 unjust discrimination and extortion in rates of freight and passen- 
 ger fares on the different railroads in this State; shall from time 
 to time pass laws re-establishing a reasonable maximum rate of 
 charges for the transportation of passengers and freight on said 
 railroads, and enforce all such laws by adequate penalties. 
 
 From this it is plain that the power of regulation by the State 
 has reference to the accommodation of the people in transporta- 
 tion and travel, and not to furnish labor to the employes of the 
 company, or give opportunity for labor on the roads, or to regulate 
 the wages of it; and even its constitutional mode of regulation, for 
 the objects contemplated is limited to the passing of laws for the 
 regulation, and to having such laws enforced by proper penalties, 
 which penalties can only be recovered by suits, or ])rosecutions in 
 the courts of the State, and from this it follows that it can not as- 
 sume the management of the roads in this State, by commission- 
 ers appointed to prescribe terms of transportation and fare in any 
 case whatsoever, for it has been often held, in our courts, that
 
 158 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 when a power to do a particular thing, in a specified way, has 
 been conferred on a body, and that body is expressly required to 
 perform it by its own action, it can not constitutionally depute the 
 power to do it to another body, created to act as a substitute for 
 it. This, then, is the tenure by which railroad companies have 
 and hold a right of private property in this State, in all of the ma- 
 terials of which their roads are constructed, upon the right-of-way, 
 and their rolling stock, and the gross proceeds in money, earned 
 by the running of their roads, all of which is as much their private 
 property as are the lands, farming stock and implements, and 
 money derived from the crops of any farmer in this State, and the 
 State has no more right of interference in the adjusting of the 
 wages of lab^Dr for railroad companies than for farmers in the 
 State. 
 
 Suppose, then, that labor unions should be formed to such an 
 extent as to dictate their own term.s as to the price of wages. They 
 have a right to do it if they can, provided their conduct in doing 
 it is peaceful, and they do not intimidate others, or commit vio- 
 lence upon the persons and private property, engaged in carrying 
 on railroads, or otherwise illegally interfere in the business of rail- 
 road companies. In that event, should it happen, it would simply 
 result in co-operation between capital and labor, with a division 
 of the profits, as agreed upon by the parties, just as a compromise 
 is effected between competing lines of railroads. If that should 
 fail to be practicable, the State would have to modify or change 
 the mode of providing transportation and travel for the people. 
 
 It will be time enough to consider how that could or would be 
 done when necessity for it arises. In the natural order of things, 
 all trade, including the wages of labor, was, and should be, gov- 
 erned by the rule of demand and supply. 
 
 That rule is not now satisfactory, and the cause why it is not, as 
 well as the cause why labor and capital are now arrayed in such 
 hostile antagonism, is readily traceable to the undue advantages 
 given by our government to accumulated capital in numerous 
 ways. It is hardly probable, or to be expected, that our govern- 
 ment can or will remove the causes that have brought evil times 
 upon us by a divorcement of government from all sorts of favorite- 
 ism, by an equal uniform ad valorem tariff on all imports, and by a 
 repeal of all laws, and a reversal of all decisions which confer un- 
 necessary governmental advantages on private property or indi- 
 viduals. 
 
 I fear the drift of the money power is driving it too strongly to 
 an unknown destination to be arrested now. Governments, in- 
 deed, rarely go backward to reform evils, hence a great burden of 
 responsibility is thrown upon the statesmen of the day, to steer the 
 ship of state safely through the conflicting elements that now beset 
 our organized social existence in this country. However, this
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 159 
 
 Struggle may progress in the future, or what may be the result of 
 forcing the State into action, it will be well that it should be kept 
 in mind, and acted on, that the preservation of our fundamental 
 civil rights is far more important to the well-being of a free people 
 than cheap goods, cheap freight and fare, and high wages for work, 
 and anything else connected with the private pursuits of individ- 
 uals that are subsidized by the action of the government. 
 
 [Note. — Since the delivery of this lecture, the Constitution of 
 Texas has been amended so as to authorize a railroad commis- 
 sion.
 
 l6o OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 A PUBLIC LECTURE. 
 
 f Delivered in the University, Dec, 1889, by O. M. Roberts, Law Professor. ] 
 
 THE HISTORY AND BURDEN OF TAXATION. 
 
 Taxes are contributions in money, imposed|upon'any individual 
 for the support of government. The purpose for which these 
 exactions are made depends upon the nature and objects for 
 which the government is instituted and carried on. In some 
 countries governments are organized to confer special privileges, 
 advantages, benefits and protection upon the favored few by im- 
 posing burdens upon the many. The disparity between the two 
 classes may become so great that the only consideration given by 
 the government to the mass of individuals for their contributions 
 in the shape of taxes is the right to live and to work. They are 
 protected in that right as necessary instruments in sustaining the 
 government, so administered to promote the prosperity, grandeur 
 and happiness of its fovorites. The necessary result of this is, 
 when the population becomes dense and the avenues of employ- 
 ment are all crowded, that the rich become richer and the poor 
 become poorer, until the very poor must^run the gauntlet through 
 life between the poorhouse and the prison. That condition of things, 
 approximately or in full maturity, is the criterion by which such a 
 government may be known, whatever may be its form, so called, 
 as surely as the tree is judged by its fruit. This state of things, 
 existing in a greater or less degree in the different countries of 
 Europe, has been for years past driving hundreds of thousands of 
 their people to the United States and to other parts of the world. 
 May not the vast accumulations of wealth here recently acquired 
 in the hands of the few, and the widespread murmurings and 
 discontent of the many, give warning to us that even in this free 
 country there may be malign influences at work strongly tending to 
 produce the same result ? It has been estimated that there have 
 been over twenty thousand strikes during the ten years last past, 
 and during that time the protection of nearly every material in- 
 terest has been sought by a separate combination of those 
 persoAs who are engaged in it, thereby exhibiting society, in 
 regard to its pecuniary condition, as divided into almost in-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. l6l 
 
 numerable contending antagonisms. This phase of society is 
 new in this country, and its origin and existence must be traced 
 to the management of public affairs on the subject of taxation 
 by our governments, so long continued as to inaugurate the 
 process of making the rich richer and the poor poorer. The 
 American doctrine originally was the very reverse of this, it 
 being that the government was instituted and existed for the 
 people, and not the people for the government. This doctrine 
 was established when the States dissolved their connection with 
 England and founded their governments upon the sovereignty of 
 the people in each State. The expressions used in their consti- 
 tutions, defining the relation between the government and the 
 people were different in different States, though intended to 
 anounce the same principle in effect. They were such as follows: 
 ".\11 power is inherent in the people; all free governments are 
 founded on their authority and instituted for their benefit." All 
 men are born equally free and independent, and have certain 
 natural, inherent, and inalienable rights, among which are those 
 of enjoying and defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing, 
 and protecting property, and ot pursuing and obtaining safety 
 and happiness." AH power residing originally in the people, 
 and being derived from them, the several officers of government 
 vested with authority, whether legislative, executive, or judical, 
 are their substitutes and agents, and are at all times account- 
 able to them." "No man or corporation, or association of men 
 have any other title to obtain advantages or peculiar or exclu- 
 sive privileges distinct from those of the community than what 
 arises from the consideration of services rendered to the public." 
 "Government is instituted for the common good; for the protec- 
 ton, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not 
 for the profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family or 
 any class of men. Each individual of the society has a right to 
 be protected by it in the enjoyment of hisjlife, liberty, and property 
 according to the standing law. He is obliged consequently to con- 
 tribiute his share to the expenses of this protection, to give his 
 personal service or an equivalent when necessary. But no part of 
 the property of an individual can with justice be taken from him 
 or applied to the public use without his own consent or that of the 
 representative body of the people." 
 
 Their constitutions did not confer upon their legislatures any 
 power to levy taxes, except that which was implied from the grant 
 of the power of legislation; nor, except in Maryland, did they con- 
 tain any express direction as to the mode of levying taxes, or as to 
 the kind of taxes to be levied. Doubtless reliance was i)laced upon 
 the announcement of the general principles in their bill of rights 
 as guides to their legislatures in justly imposing taxes upon the 
 people; as then representation and taxation would go hand in hand
 
 l62 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 and measures would be carried by majorites of themselves; and 
 those who should be selected to make and execute their laws were 
 their agents; and the equality of all men and the equal protection 
 of their rights of person and property were secured; and as govern- 
 ment could only demand from the individual an adequate com- 
 pensation for such protection, and could not impose burdens upon 
 one man or class of men for the private advantage or profit of 
 another man or class of men, the people of the several States had 
 a right to expect that the burden of taxation upon each person 
 would be made to correspond with the rights of person and property 
 protected for him by the government. In that event a poll tax 
 should be imposed upon every one and a tax upon his property in 
 proportion to its value, and an equitable occupation tax upon 
 persons in trade who might handle transient property that could 
 not be reached by an annual ad valorem tax. Such a system of 
 taxation would have been recognized as just by the great mass of 
 fair-minded men. Rulers of men of all kinds and everywhere, 
 whose rule is impartially just, will meet with a cordial acquiescense 
 and approbation from those whom they govern; whereas partiality, 
 favoritism, shown directly or indirectly to one class of men, and 
 prejudice and disfavor shown to another class, will inevitably, 
 sooner or later, engender antipathies, disgust, jealousies, discontent, 
 strife and injustice. 
 
 The people of those States in founding their government upon 
 the rule of even-handed justice as between man and man, controll- 
 ed by a majority ofthemselves, could hardly then anticipate that 
 the democratic majority could be manipulated so as to exer- 
 cise the most irresponsible and flagrant injustice over minorities, 
 and sometimes even over the great mass of the people, for the 
 special benefit of favorite classes of persons. They cou\d then 
 hardly anticipate that the agents whom they would put in power 
 to fill the offices, legislative, executive, and judical, might by their 
 combined co-operation construe their powers so as to pile prece- 
 dent on precedent in the assumption of powers not intended to be 
 granted to them, and to impose burdens upon the people by way 
 of taxes so imposed as to directly or indirectly accomplish objects 
 not empbraced in their constitutions. They may well be excused 
 for not having understood then what one hundred years of experi- 
 ence 3in free democratic government might have taught them, and 
 enabled them to have guarded their interests by specific directions, 
 restrictions, and limitations upon the power of taxation granted to 
 their governments. Texas has in the main carried out the just 
 principle by making the burdens of taxation upon the people cor- 
 respond with the protection of their rights of person and of prop- 
 erty. 
 
 Having established a democratic representative republic in 1836^ 
 the first direct tax imposed by its Congress was an ad valorem tax
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 163 
 
 of one-half of one per cent, on all real, personal, or mixed proper- 
 ty, a poll tax of one dollar, and tax on occupations proportioned 
 generally to the amount and character of their business; and in 
 levying duties upon imports the same rule was generally followed. 
 The law having been changed in 1840 by imposing specific taxes 
 on articles of personal property, it was determined by the conven- 
 tion of 1845 to establish permanently the mode of imposing taxes 
 by a provision in the Constitution of the State requiring all prop- 
 erty to be taxed according to its value, and authorizing the legis- 
 lature to lay an income tax, and to tax all persons pursuing any 
 occupation, trade, or profession, except that those following agri- 
 cultural and mechanical pursuits should not pay an occupation 
 tax. So thoroughly and universally has this ad valorem tax on 
 property been approved that it has furnished the principal means 
 to support the government of Texas for more than fifty years. 
 Having been adopted in the Constitution of 1845 it was continued 
 in those of 1861, 1866, 1869, and 1876, and if it had not met fully 
 the sense of justice of the people it would not have been continued 
 so long when there were so many opportunities for changing it. 
 
 This, then, is the verdict of the people of Texas, that as the ob- 
 ject of government is the protection of persons and property, a tax 
 upon persons and their property should be levied and collected 
 to support it. In our present State Constitution are found direc- 
 tions, restrictions, and limitations upon the power of taxation that 
 confine it strictly to taxes levied for the accomplishment of such 
 objects as are recognized by the Constitution as parts of the gov- 
 ernment of the State, and of no others. The only means left of 
 accomplishing objects indirectly is in the levying of such occupa- 
 tion taxes as either favor or discourage some particular pursuit, 
 which has seldom ever yet been practiced in this State to such an 
 extent as to have aroused disaffected combinations to evade or vi- 
 olently oppose the law. Such indireclions in using the power of 
 taxation to the injury of one class of pursuits or to the gratuitous 
 advantage of others are generally odious, and are fraught with evil 
 consequences to any government that persists in such a course of 
 action. The effort to produce moral results or material benefits to 
 the community indirectly by imposing high taxes upon particular 
 pursuits is seldom effective and is wrong in principle. Fortunate- 
 ly civilized society has other agencies to correct attendant evils 
 better than by placing the government in the position of being 
 an enemy to any one honestly pursuing an avocation permitted by 
 law. 
 
 The legislature is ])rohibited from directly or indirectly confer- 
 ring benefits upon particular pursuits or persons under the power 
 of taxation, because the C<mstituiion provides that "taxation shall 
 be equal and uniform," that "occupation taxes shall be e(|ual and 
 jniform upon the same class of subjects," and that "taxes shall be
 
 164 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 levied and collected by general laws and for public purposes 
 only." Exemptions from taxation may be made on property de- 
 voted to religious or educational purposes, and upon particular 
 persons only in cases of great public calamity by a vote of two- 
 thirds of both houses of the legislature. 
 
 Notwithstanding the equity and justice of this system of ad va- 
 lorem taxation upon property in principle, there may be a difficul- 
 ty in securing equality in its burdens upon different persons pro- 
 portionally by the mode provided for the assessment of taxes, 
 which should demand the utmost care and wisdom of the legisla- 
 ture to secure its perpetuation as a system of taxation in the State. 
 
 Indeed it would be more correct in principle for the State to 
 rely more than it does upon an ad valorem tax upon property in 
 collecting its revenues. For an occupation tax can be justified 
 only upon the ground of reaching transient property that cannot 
 be reached with facility by the mode of assessing permanent prop- 
 erty that is in the possession of its owner on the first of January 
 each year. The force of that ground is much weakened when it 
 is considered that in most occupation taxes their payment is made 
 in the first instance by those persons who are taxed, but is eventu- 
 ally paid by those persons who deal with them, and is therefore 
 often a tax upon the labor and industry of the persons who deal 
 with them. This is obvious in the case of an occupation tax im- 
 posed on merchants. 
 
 Permanent property is human labor, materialized into shape, 
 producing values in the way of profits. A very small portion of 
 those profits, taken as taxes, will support the government without 
 taxing the labor of those who are in the struggle to acquire it. In 
 a republic, it surely is the interest of the political organization to 
 facilitate the acquisition of property by the greatest number prac- 
 ticable in the association by honest labor, without placing any 
 drawback upon their laudable efforts. That can only be done by 
 making the property already acquired bear mainly the burden of 
 supporting the government. Certainly the greater the number of 
 permanent property holders in a State, the greater will be the 
 means of progress in civilization. The object of good government 
 should be to shape its taxes so as to promote that result. The 
 State has an inducement to rely mainly on taxation on property, 
 in view of the fact that the government of the United States levies 
 and collects its revenues, directly and indirectly, upon the labor 
 and industry of the people to a degree that excludes the State from 
 resorting to that source for the support of its government. 
 
 In order to exhibit plainly the fact that the government of the 
 United States has collected its revenue from the labor and indus- 
 try of the people, and the reason of it, it is necessary to refer to 
 the provisions in the Constitution relating to taxation, and the 
 construction of them, which has gradually led to an excessive in-
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 165 
 
 crease of revenue beyond the necessary support of the govern- 
 ment. 
 
 The government, under the Articles of Confederation, was sup- 
 ported by contributions from the States in proportion to the value 
 of the lands, and improvements thereon in each State. This show- 
 ed that its framers thought that the substantial property of the 
 country, which then consisted mainly in its real estate, was the 
 proper subject of taxation for the support of the government. It 
 might reasonably have been expected that the same principle 
 would have been adopted for the succeeding government, so soon 
 afterwards instituted by the adoption of the present Constitution 
 of the United States. That expectation, if entertained, has failed 
 of realization, by a provision being inserted in the Constitution 
 that "no capitation or other direct tax shall be laid unless in pro- 
 portion to the census." This has been held by the Supreme 
 Court to apply only to a poll tax and a tax on lands. And a fur- 
 ther provision was inserted that "representatives and direct taxes 
 shull be apportioned among the several States, which may be in- 
 cluded in this Union, accordiug to their respective numbers,'' etc. 
 
 In addition to the difficulty of fairly adjusting such a tax on 
 land, the want of correspondence between the number of people 
 and the value and amount of land in each State, such a tax would 
 be so unequal upon the citizens of different States, and consequent- 
 ly so unjust, that it has seldom been adopted as a means of sup- 
 porting the government, and has been abandoned when the emer- 
 gency no longer existed which caused its adoption. Congress, as 
 a permanent policy in raising revenues, has acted upon another 
 provision which declares that "the Congress shall have the power 
 to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises to pay the 
 debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of 
 the United States; but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be 
 uniform throughout the United States." 
 
 Thus, as it was designed that the federal government should 
 exercise only such powers as were delegated to it, it became 
 necessary to specify the power to lay and collect the different kind 
 of taxes, and to express the purposes for which that power was 
 granted. If by this clause it had been universally understood that 
 the general welfare of the United States (meaning the welfare of the 
 government of the United States) should be accomplished only 
 by the exercise of the powers delegated to it in such manner as to 
 effect only the objects specified in the powers delegated, and not 
 incidentally, other objects which were not specified, the taxation 
 under this provision would have been laid and collected with 
 direct reference only to what was necessary to support the govern- 
 ment. A construction in direct o^jposition to this has caused a 
 continual contention and political strife, and has led to all of the 
 extravagant expenditures from the meeting of the first Congress to
 
 1 66 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, 
 
 the present time. That construction is that the words "general 
 welfare of the United States" mean the general welfare of the people 
 of the United States in their material and pecuniary interests, and 
 in whatever else would contribute to the common good of the 
 country and the power of the gouernment, and that Congress could 
 rightfully exercise the powers delegated to it in such a manner as 
 would effect such objects indirectly as well as directly, in accord- 
 ance with its own judgment and discretion. 
 
 Similar in effect was the construction of this clause by Pres- 
 ident Monroe in his special veto message of May 4, 1822 — 
 thirty-three years after the organizaton of the government under 
 the Constitution, — in which he says that he has changed the view 
 which he was inclined to take of this clause in the more early 
 stage of the government. He proceeds to expound the construction 
 of it by dividing the clause into two parts, asserting that the first, 
 "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises," conferred 
 the power of taxation without any limit; and the second, "to pay 
 the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare 
 of the United States," conferred the power to appropriate the 
 money collected, not limited to the objects expressed in the other 
 powers granted to the government, and limited only by a sense of 
 duty on the part of the members of Congress ; and concluded by 
 saying : "My idea is that Congress have an unlimited power to 
 raise money, and that in its appropriation they have a discre- 
 tionary power restricted only by the duty to appropriate it to 
 purposes of common defense, and of general, not local, National 
 not State benefit." Of course every one will understand that the 
 discretion of Congress practically determines its duty. 
 
 Reference is here made to this construction of the power of 
 taxation and appropriation, because it is an epoch in the political 
 history of this country. It was an abandoment of the principles 
 of the Virginia resolutions of 1798 and 1799, under which he and 
 his two predecessors had been elected, by what was then called 
 the Republican party, in opposition to the federal party. After 
 referring to the action of the government in appropriating money 
 to build numerous roads by consent of the States through which 
 they passed, to facilitate travel through the country, and appro- 
 priating money for pensions, and for the relief of certain sufferers, 
 he explains the reason of his change of opinion about the power 
 under this clause by saying that it is "better to admit that the 
 construction given by these examples has been just and proper 
 than to deny that construction, and still practice-on it — to say one 
 thing and do another," He maintained that Congress had the 
 power to appropriate money for the construction of roads and 
 canals that would facilitate the operations of war and mail service, 
 and thereby promote the purposes of commerce and political in- 
 telligence, and bring into market the public lands, but denied that
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 167 
 
 any such control could be exercised over them by the federal 
 government as would interfere with the rights of the States. As he 
 regarded the bill objectionable on that ground he vetoed it. He 
 then took a broad view of the great advantages to the Union by a 
 general system of internal improvements by the general govern- 
 ment, which had become the more necessary by the acqusition of 
 Louisiana and Florida, and recommended an amendment of the 
 Constitution giving it the necessary power. At the next session 
 of Congress President Monroe approved an appropriation for a 
 general system of internal improvements, embracing surveys of 
 numerous routes for roads and canals, rivers and harbors. At the 
 same session he approved a law of Congress increasing the duties 
 on imports in a manner purposely to afford additional protection 
 to American manufactures. 
 
 The majorities in favor of the law were, in the Senate four, and 
 in the House five. In the vote on this bill there was a division 
 between the members of the North in favor of it, and of the South 
 against it, which has continued generally to exist up to the present 
 time. 
 
 The history of this period is important for two connected objects, 
 showing that duties were levied for protection with revenue as an 
 incident, and not as it was previously done from the time of the 
 first Congress, for revenue with protection as an incident; and as 
 showing that appropriations were made for a general system of 
 internal improvements, which opened the way for appropriations 
 for any and every other object that Congress might 
 deem to be for the general welfare, under the most liberal con- 
 struction of those terms, not confined to the objects embraced in 
 the express and implied powers of Congress. These measures 
 were approved and enlarged by the succeding administration of 
 President John Quincy Adams, which encouraged the manufactur- 
 ers of the Northern States to combine their efforts to increase 
 their protection by an increase of duties upon foreign 
 goods similar to those manufactured by them. For that 
 purpose they held a convention at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in 
 1827, and pased and sent a memorial to Congress urging an increase 
 of protection, which was complied with at the next session by 
 enacting the tariff of 1828 — a tariff which was afterward the subject 
 of a bitter controversy, and was styled in the South the tariff of 
 abominations. Before that time large amounts of taxes had been 
 collected by direct taxes on lands, and excises on the distillation 
 of liquors, on licenses, and stamps. These, however, were aban- 
 doned as soon as practicable as temporary expedients. And now, 
 after the adoption of the tariff of 1828, the manufacturers, constitut- 
 ing a powerful influence in the Northern States, were interested to 
 prevent any other mode of taxation for the support of the govern- 
 ment than by a tariff which would continue or increase their pro-
 
 l68 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 tection. For the same purpose also they were interested to favor 
 the appropriation of money for a general system of internal im- 
 provements, and for all other objects that the government could 
 be induced to foster. This influence has greatly aided in shaping 
 taxation by the government from that time to the present. Previous 
 events had tended to prepare the public mind for this liberal 
 construction of the powers of government by which these measures 
 were adopted. They were the assumption of the revolationary 
 debts of the States; the charter of a national bank, and its recharter 
 in 1816, approved by President Madison by a change of his opinion 
 in favor of it; the action of President Jefferson approving the 
 establishment of the Military Academy; his sending Lewis and 
 Clark to discover and claim Oregon on the Pacific Ocean; the 
 purchase by him of Louisiana for fifteen millions of dollars without 
 constitutional authority, for which act he sought a confirmation by 
 an amendment of the Constitution, which, however, was never 
 made; the recommendation by President Jefferson of an amend- 
 ment of the Constitution to establish roads, canals, and other 
 internal improvements; the war of 1812 with Great Britain, which 
 cost the United States one hundred millions of dollars; the pur- 
 chase of Florida for three millions of dollars; the assertion of 
 what was called the Monroe doctrine, which was a claim of right 
 on the part of the United States to interfere to prevent any further 
 occupation of American territory by the monarchial powers of 
 Europe; the Panama Mission; and the great increase of diplomatic 
 agents and officers of government. 
 
 These events, with a successful administration of the government 
 up to that time, inspired the minds of a large class of statesmen 
 with enlarged ideas of an imperial dominion over North America, 
 and a sort of fraternal protectorate over the whole continent of 
 America, which resulted in the remodeling of parties, and the 
 formation of a party in support of what was called "the American 
 System," which reached its successful recognition in the country 
 by the large appropriations for internal improvements of roads, 
 canals, rivers, and harbors, and the tariff of 1828 for the protection 
 of American manufacturers. Thus the policy fastened on the 
 country to permanently rely mainly on a tariff to supply the means 
 for the expenditures of the government, and the policy of making 
 large expenditures for internal improvements, bounties to ship 
 lines, the purchase of additional territory, the expenses of wars, 
 and numerous other objects have resulted in the necessary conse- 
 quence that such a tariff would have to be levied as would afford 
 protection to manufacturers; especially, when levied, as it has 
 uniformly been done, with specific reference to the protection of 
 such goods as were manufactured in the United States. 
 
 It is true that a few years afterwards, in 1S32, by the protest of 
 South Carolina and Georgia against the tariff of 1828, and the
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 169 
 
 threat and preparation of South Carolina to secede from the Union, 
 the Congress passed a compromise law, by which duties were to 
 be gradualy reduced until at the end often years they would be 
 fixed at twenty per cent. The compromise was made under the 
 announcement by the President that the power of the federal 
 government would be used to prevent secession by a State, which 
 from its general approval at the time put an end, perhaps forever, 
 to the interference of the action of a State in influencing the action 
 of Congress and the government, as it then did and had previous- 
 ly often done. This reduction soon disappeared by the continu- 
 ation of the policy thathad been inaugurated of making large appro- 
 priations for the grand objects that had been undertaken by the 
 government. It is but just to admit that the administrations whose 
 acts mainly contributed to establish these new powers in the 
 government were professedly controlled by the principles of the 
 Virginia Resolutions of 1798 and 1799, which repudiated federalism 
 and supplanted it with Jeffersonian republicanism. And this is a 
 most notable illustration of how men's minds and actions will be 
 changed when they are put in power and required to act in emer- 
 gencies. 
 
 Having shown how a protective tariff was permanently fastened 
 upon the country, and the influences tending to perpetuate it, it is 
 unnecessary to trace the legislation of Congress by which it has at 
 one time been reduced and at another time raised again, which 
 has repeatedly occurred. Its continued existence is amply evidenc- 
 ed by a constantly increasing investment of capital in manufactures 
 from the time the policy was inaugurated to the present time, and 
 by the great fortunes acquired by those engaged in them. 
 
 It is the policy of the government to-day, and there is no organiz- 
 ed body of statesmen that proposes to abandon it now or in the 
 near future. Both of the two great parties in the country are in 
 favor of so arranging the tariff as not to materially affect pre- 
 judicially the interests of capital and labor engaged in manu- 
 factories. That is an avowal of favor of protection as plainly as 
 though it were expressed. Both parties are in favor of modifying 
 the tariff so as to avoid the axcessive collection annually of over 
 fifty millions of dollars which is not needed to meet the annual 
 expenditures of the government. They differ simply about the 
 manner of doing it, and the plan proposed by either party sustains 
 the policy of protection. If protection is a positive good for the 
 wholy country there would seem to be no difficulty in getting rid 
 of this excess of fifty millions of revenue by increasing the duties 
 sufficiently to exclude the foreign importations that produce that 
 amount of revenue. But the fact that this surplus has been in- 
 creasing for several years past without that easy plan for getting 
 rid of it having been adopted might raise a doubt about the 
 principle of the more protection the more good to the country.
 
 lyo OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 One party seeks to accomplish that object by reducing the duties 
 on some articles of commerce and admitting other articles free of 
 duty. The other party, not agreeing to that, seeks to make a re- 
 duction upon the internal revenue and some other subjects. The 
 agonizing struggle by Congress over this unfortunate excess of the 
 revenue reminds one of the perplexing dilemma of the man who 
 had a ferocious animal by the ears and could neither hold on nor 
 let loose the angry beast without danger to himself. To show that 
 there has been a gradual increase in the tariff and of the appropri- 
 ations that made it necessary, reference may be made to statements 
 made in debates in Congress by distinguished statesmen. 
 
 The average annual receipts of the government for the decade 
 ending iSoo was $5,000,000; of that ending 1830, $19,000,000; of 
 that ending i860, $53,000,000; and of the eight years ending 1888, 
 estimated $365,000,000. It is stated that the foreign articles im- 
 ported amount to $723,000,000. A duty averaging 47 per cent, is 
 laid upon $479,000,000 worth of those articles, and $244,000,000 
 worth of them are admitted free. The tariff so laid is said to pro- 
 duce $225,900,000 of revenue, which added to the internal revenue 
 from whisky, tobacco, etc., amounts to over $50,000,000 more than 
 is necessary to pay the annual expenses of the government. 
 
 It is estimated that for every dollar of the whole of this revenue 
 that is received by the government there are five dollars paid for 
 similar goods to American manufacturers as a bounty for manufac- 
 turing similar goods in the United States. This is upon the sup- 
 position that the American manufacturer will sell his goods at the 
 same price that similar foreign goods can be sold for after the 
 average 47 per cent, duty has been added on them upon passing 
 through the custom house of the United States, and that he sells 
 five times as many as are imported. The effect of this, if this esti- 
 mate is correct, is to give a protection bounty to American manu- 
 facturers of over one billion of dollars by the tariff. Now suppose 
 this estimate of the protection bounty to the manufacturers to be 
 approximately correct, or even two or three times greater than a 
 correct estimate, it exhibits a most extraordinary state of things in 
 a country which boasts of being "the land of the free and the home 
 of the brave," in which there are over fifty millions of persons who 
 are consumers of manufactured goods who suffer themselves to be 
 taxed to furnish such a bounty to American manufacturers who by 
 the last census numbered only something over fourteen thousand 
 and now probably a thousand more. Had the three millions of 
 people in the American colonies in 1776 tamely submitted to be 
 taxed for general revenue by the British parliament it is not doing 
 that government justice to suppose that such a burden as this 
 would have been imposed by it upon the American people. There 
 is nothing in the history of that period to justify such a supposi- 
 tion. The expense of the civil war made it necessary to lay a tax
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 17I 
 
 upon property within the States, the manufacturers having lost 
 their customers in the South. They being restored to them after 
 the war, a return was made to the protective tariff and to internal 
 tax on whisky, tobacco, etc., which is itself a tax on labor and in- 
 dustry as well as the tariff is. 
 
 What is tfie significance of protection as a permanent policy of 
 the goyernment? It is, first, to furnish a home market for all goods 
 manufactured in the United States; and, second, to continue it 
 until the increase of manufacturers and their employes consume 
 all of the surplus products and raw materials of this country, in- 
 cluding that which is now exported to foreign markets. How long 
 will that take, when it is considered that there is about four times 
 as much capital invested and six times as many persons employed 
 in agricultural pursuits as there are in manufactures, the agricul- 
 tural exports now being over $500,000,000? If that result could 
 be attained in fifty years, with its enormous burden upon the labor 
 and industry of the people, during that time it would still require 
 a protective tariff to be maintained to enable the surplus manufac- 
 tured goods to be sold in foreign markets, if it be true that they 
 can not now and could not then be manufactured as cheaply here 
 as in Europe. For the United States must always export Ameri- 
 can production of some sort in return for such imports as can not 
 be or are not produced in this country. The only things that 
 could then reduce the tariff to the revenue standard would be pau- 
 per labor, as it is called, and an accumulation of capital in manu- 
 factures equal to or sufficient to cope with that possessed in Europe. 
 Should the day ever come that this country shall co^e to be class- 
 ed as a manufacturing country, as England is to-day, and the inde- 
 pendent agriculturist no longer holds the balance of power in the 
 government, it will be a day of mourning for the lost freedom and 
 equality of the people. Republicanism will be dead, for depen- 
 dent operatives, and larra renters, and trades people can not main- 
 tain it. It is useless to speculate upon such a contingency now 
 when the agricultural resources of this country are not half devel- 
 oped and will not be for many years in the future. 
 
 There are many subjects of interest connected with this policy 
 of protection, the discussion of which would occupy too much 
 space for a single discourse — such as the loss to national wealth 
 by a bounty to a pursuit that can not be profitably followed with- 
 out it; the unfixing the true standard of labor in the minds of the 
 people, which should always be demand and supply; its formation 
 of classes, struggling for more and more benefits the more they 
 get; its begetting the worship of Mammon as the greatest good in 
 human life; its encouragement of extravagant expenditures of the 
 pfople's money; the reason and effect of closing factories or put- 
 ting employes upon half time at work; why the operatives get no 
 share of the bounty earned by their lafior; why it is that protected
 
 172 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 goods can be sold in foreign markets for less than at home; the 
 demoralization of giving favors to the private business of individu- 
 als by the action of the government, engendering discontent and 
 disloyalty; and the controlling power of combined capital to di- 
 rect the course of taxation, so as to add to its profits. Pretermit- 
 ting all these, it may be of interest to ascertain and ftx as nearly 
 as practicable the real burden imposed upon the people by this 
 high protective tariff. I find it stated that by the census of 1880 
 there were in round numbers a population in the United States of 
 fifty millions, composed of ten millions of families, and revenue 
 collected of about four hundred millions of dollars, by which a 
 tax was imposed of about eight dollars per capita, and about forty 
 dollars per family. This general average estimate includes thou- 
 sands of persons, and even of families whose wealth enables them 
 to bear high taxes without any feeling of oppression. The large 
 class of people who are most affected are those who make a living 
 by their own work, either with or without property to aid them in 
 doing it, of whom there are from fifteen to twenty millions — about 
 eight millions being devoted to agricultural pursuits. At least one- 
 half of the articles that they have to buy annually for the use of 
 themselves and of their families, if they have them, are such things 
 as are embraced in the schedules of the tariff. An average tariff 
 of 47 per cent, on the articles thus purchased is in effect the same 
 as though the government should impose a tax upon them in 
 money equal to 47 per cent, of the value of the articles purchased. 
 The articles purchased are the products of the current labor de- 
 voted to the business in which such persons are engaged ; and 
 therefore the tariff takes from them in effect a tax upon their labor 
 performed in making the money to buy such articles. Though 
 there may be no means of ascertaining the exact burden imposed 
 upon this large class of persons, still it is evidently extremely 
 onerous from the well known fact that the great majority of this 
 laboring class spend annually nearly all of their hard earnings for 
 a bare support in humble respectability. 
 
 It is peculiarly oppressive upon the farming class, very few of 
 whom get any protection. The farmer pays a duty upon much of 
 the material that enters into the construction of his residence, and 
 other buildings, of his wagon, plows, and other farming imple- 
 ments, also upon the clothes, bedding, and other household and 
 kitchen furniture, and indeed upon almost everything necessary to 
 be used in a family in the most ordinary circumstances, excepting 
 bread and meat, and the vegetables and fruits of his farm. That 
 it is extremely oppressive upon the farmer is evidenced by the re- 
 markable depression of the farming interest at present. I have 
 seen it reported that in the ten Northwestern agricultural States 
 there are estimated to be farm mortgages to an amount largely 
 over two billions of dollars, and even ten millions of dollars in
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 173 
 
 Texas, notwithstanding our homestead protection. So depressed 
 has this business become of late years, that a farmer may own 
 enough good land to cultivate himself, with stock and implements 
 to work it, and make fair crops without being able to make but lit- 
 tle more, if any, than a bare support for himself and family, by the 
 hardest kind of work and close economy. Let the investigator go 
 where he will throughout Texas, and throughout all of the cotton 
 States, that make seven millions of bales of cotton, which is fur- 
 nished to the cotton mills of America and Europe; let him visit 
 the farm houses and farms, see the million and more of laborers — 
 white and black — that make that cotton; enquire into their mode 
 of life, their hard labor, and their financial condition, and he may 
 then be able to estimate, without fixing the respective amounts in 
 dollars and cents, that one-fourth, or one-fifth, or one-sixth, or at 
 least one-tenth of the money value of their labor, accordingly as 
 they may furnish themselves with the necessaries of life, is taken 
 from them by this protective tariff to add to the wealth of the com- 
 paratively few manufacturers far more than for the support of the 
 government. In former times a rural home was the pride of the 
 people of this country; a place of peace, independence, and plenty. 
 Now many who can, or must do it, are fleeing from the country, 
 and seeking employment in trade, or some other business, in towns 
 and cities, under the hope that easier and more profitable employ- 
 ments will better enable them to bear up under the tax imposed 
 upon their labor by the protective tariff of the United States, and 
 the tax upon their property, if they have any left, by their State. 
 
 Thus the great mass of people in this country, who have to work 
 for a livelihood, whose labor builds up the wealth, feeds the peo- 
 ple, and furnishes the raw material that generates the great com- 
 merce of this country, are placed in degraded disfavor by the 
 manner in which the taxes are levied upon their labor and industry, 
 instead of being levied upon the property and incomes of the rich, 
 and other property holders, who are living in ease, and often in 
 luxurious extravagance, relieved to a great extent from taxes to 
 support the government that protects their property. 
 
 Such a tax, imposed directly on each individual in dollars and 
 cents expressed, could not be collected without the aid of an 
 overwhelming military force, subjugating the people and reducing 
 them to hopeless slavery. 
 
 It must not be understood that this presentation of our condi- 
 tion in regard to taxation, inadequate as it may be, is designed as 
 a reflection upon the many distinguished and good men who are 
 the congressmen of to-day. They did not fix their position and 
 duties as legislators. That was done by their predecessors, rang- 
 ing through many years back, who fastened certain policies upon 
 the government of the country. Those of them who in late years 
 have entered Congress have simply dropped into a long-flowing
 
 174 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS. 
 
 current, that drifts them along in its settled course without the 
 power of arresting or diverting it otherwise than by years of 
 arduous efforts, if ever. They find themselves in an organized 
 body, acting as the delegated managers of the private pecuniary 
 interests of all the people as one great family, distributing benefits 
 to persons, to classes, and to sections of country, and imposing 
 burdens upou others according to policies long since inaugurated, 
 and now brought to full maturity of operation. 
 
 It assumes to take cognizance of and watchful care for all of 
 the private occupations and pursuits of individuals and classes, 
 and of the private and public welfare of all of the people from the 
 Atlantic to the Pacific oceans, and from the gulf to the great lakes, 
 not omiting an occassional concern about the fisheries of the 
 north and the operations at Nicaragua and Panama, as well as 
 upon the high seas and islands. The immense multiplicity of 
 subjects thus embraced furnishes continually some one or more 
 perplexing questions to be solved, as the negro problem, then 
 the railroad regulation, and now the trusts. These may pass 
 away in time, but the one perplexing question that stays — that 
 has staid with bitter strife for more than fifty years past, and 
 still says, and will not down, — is the protective tariff. The 
 Senate of the United States was made famous as one of the 
 most dignified bodies of modern times by the discussions of 
 great principles and measures of state by great men. We may 
 now behold the spectacle of grave senators representing States 
 of the Union in that body engaged in an earnest disputation or 
 consultation over the bounty to be given to the man who makes 
 gentlemen's and ladies' cuffs, and spool thread, and buttons 
 and brooms, and soap, and thousands of other things great and 
 small contained in the schedule of the tariff. What a descent 
 from their high position! "O temporal O mores!" And the 
 worst of it is that interested parties from all over the country 
 are continually besetting them to give them information how to do 
 it, presumable because they do not know how to doit themselves. 
 And it is safe to say that very few members of Congress ever 
 will know as long as the effort is made to adjust a different 
 duty upon three or four thousand different articles in the tariff 
 law. How long will this unjust contribution from muscle to money 
 continue? 
 
 It will continue until the American mind can be educated up to 
 the full understanding, if ever it can be, that the people in this 
 country of grand and exhaustless natural resources, in all of the 
 means of individual and national wealth, are capable of taking care 
 of themselves, and need not to be taken care of as the children of a 
 large family; and, if a tariff is continued, that the true province 
 of the federal government is to lay on ez// foreign importations one 
 uniform ad valorem tariff, just sufficient to defray the necessary
 
 OUR FEDERAL RELATIONS, 1 75 
 
 expenses of an economical republican government, which will lift 
 a great burden from the consumers and will still be ample pro- 
 tection for domestic manufacturers. The whole country would 
 then stand upon its own abundant resources for the advancement 
 of its own material prosperity, as it should do. 
 
 A just financial system being thus permanently established all 
 other things would adapt themselves to it. 
 
 Then members of of Congresss would no longer be elected as 
 advocates of a particular private interest! 
 
 Then the wrangle, wrangle over protection that has rung in the 
 people's ears for a half a century would cease! 
 
 The extravagant expenditure would lose the motive that has so 
 long prompted it! 
 
 Then the almighty dollar of to-day would lose its power to con- 
 trol elections! 
 
 And then the government — truly republican — being just to all 
 and giving special favors to none, would be the pride and blessing 
 of a patriotic people. 
 
 And better still, if the time should ever come when it shall be 
 seen and acted on, that the true principle in a republic is that the 
 labor materialized into permanent property shall be made to 
 support the government mainly if not entirely, and not the labor 
 itself in the effort of the acquisition of property, the vast majority 
 of people, the millions who reach maturity of manhood and woman- 
 hood, and who must commence their life-work for their own self- 
 elevation without property to assist them in it, would be encourag- 
 ed to improve their condition in life, with the knowledge that the 
 government did not impose any drawback upon their labor by tax- 
 ing the necessaries oflife. Had such a principle been acted on 
 during the past one hundred years in the United States there would 
 not have been so many millionaires, but its tendency would have 
 been to have exhibited a widespread general elevation of the great 
 mass of the peoi>4e, that would have made American citizenship 
 honored all over the enlightened world.
 
 UISTIVERSITy OF TEXAS. 
 
 PUBLIC LECTURE, BY PROF. O. M. ROBERTS. 
 
 THE USE AND MISUSE OF THE PRINCIPLE IN THE EXPRESSIONS : "ALL 
 MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL. THEY aRe ENDOWED BY THEIR CREA- 
 TOR WITH CERTAIN INALIENABLE RIGHTS; AMONG THESE ARE LIFE, 
 LIBERTY, AND THE PURSUIT OF HAPPINESS." 
 
 It has been said " that a people cannot escape their history." 
 That depends upon whether or not it has been faithfully recorded 
 for its transmission to future ages. Having lived during the occur- 
 rence of great public events in this country, I have felt it to be a 
 duty, in public lectures here, to set forth the facts pertaining to 
 them, with their results, as impartially as I can from a Southern 
 staadpoint, for the information of those of subsequent periods, who 
 could have no personal knowledge of them. 
 
 These two propositions asserted in the Declaration of Indepen- 
 dence, written by Thomas Jefferson, and adopted by the Conti- 
 nental Congress, on the 4th of July, 1776, may be seen to have a 
 proper relation to each other, by reversing the position in which 
 they are placed, so as to read: All men are endowed by their Cre- 
 ator with certain inalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, 
 and the pursuit of happiness; and that in respect to those rights, 
 they are created equal. 
 
 They were announced as a predicate for what immediately fol- 
 lows, which is, "that to secure these rights, governments are insti- 
 tuted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; 
 that whenever any government becomes destructive of these ends, 
 it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute 
 a new goverment, laying its foundation on such principles, and 
 organizing its powers in such forfti, as to them shall seem roost 
 likely to affect their safety and happiness." This connection 
 shows that the rights referred to are social rights, pertaining to 
 men as members of society, which are here claimed to be inalien- 
 able, because they are rights, upon the maintenance of which, 
 their existence and well-being as individuals depend. It is the 
 right that pertains to each individual, recognized by the law as the 
 right of self-defense in society. It is personal in the sense, that 
 each one can exercise it for himself. But it does not give him the
 
 right of defense of another person, except the aggression to be re- 
 sisted applies to both persons in some common cause. As in a 
 case where the government by its actions endangers the rights ot 
 the people, so as to be a common grievance. Then each person 
 may act with and for each and every other person in the associ- 
 ation, for the common self-defense of their rights held in common. 
 In discussing the application of this right, by which important 
 results have been accomplished, it is necessary to keep this dis- 
 tinction in the exercise of the right in view. It is in analogy to 
 this distinction that the law of nations does not allow the people 
 of one nation to interfere, for the correction of evils existing upon 
 the people of another nation, while they may exert themselves to 
 correct evils in their own nation. 
 
 Like the right of self-defense, which is universally recognized 
 as both a natural and legal right, its exercise is appropriate when, 
 and only when, the aggression upon it is made by some one who 
 has no right to make the aggression. When there is no aggression 
 upon a particular person, his right of self-defense is not required 
 to be exercised. Nor is it required or permitted to be exercised 
 by one person for the defense of another person, who does not oc- 
 cupy such a relation to him as gives him a legal right to do it, as 
 in the case of a parent's right to defend his child, which does not 
 equally apply to the defense of a stranger. Suppose a person 
 should undertake to defend a stranger, that he may deem to have 
 been unjustly aggressed upon by another, it is not upon this right 
 of self-defense that he would act, but it would be upon an assumed 
 right to be the champion defender of the right of another, that had 
 been endangered, upon some sentiment of humanity or of justice, 
 or as sometimes it is done, by one who is actuated by the selfish 
 motive to gain the approbation of others, as being a chivalric 
 suppressor of wrong generally. 
 
 True, our municipal law permits a person to defend a stranger 
 that is attacked in a manner that puts his life in immediate and 
 imminent danger, to the extent even of killing the assailant, when 
 the necessity for the interference is apparent. This is a right to 
 act which is given by the government, that is permissive and not 
 compulsory, and when practised it is the right of the government 
 being exercised by the individual. And so it is in any other case 
 in which one man is permitted to act in the defense of another by 
 the law of the land. Whatever may be the right or motive upon 
 which such act is performed by one person for another, it is not by 
 the right asserted to belong to all men in the Declaration of Inde- 
 pendence. 
 
 Having endeavored to convey a definite view of the nature of 
 the right asserted to have been endowed upon all men, it will be 
 proper to consider how it was intended to be be applied. An ex- 
 pression may be used in an instrument of any kind, which may be
 
 appropriate to the subject matter treated of, in the connection in 
 which it is found, which, as an isolated proposition, may not be 
 universally correct in evefy respect. 
 
 There may be expressions in the opinion of a judge in deciding 
 a case, which may be objectionable as abstract propositions, and 
 which, when applied to the facts and law of the case under con- 
 sideration, may have been used to reach a proper result, and be 
 appropriate in that respect. 
 
 The proper meaning to be attributed to such expressions, when 
 found in any instrument, must be arrived at by a consideration of 
 the general purpose of the instrument, in view of the circum- 
 stances, at the time and place, when and where they were made. 
 What, then, was the general purpose of making the Declaration of 
 Independence in which these expressions are found? During the 
 ten years preceding the adoption and publication of it on the 4th 
 day of July, 1776 by the Congress, there had been a co-operative 
 effort by the American colonies to induce the English government 
 to abandon its purpose of taxing the colonists to raise a revenue 
 to be devoted to the English treasury without th§ir consent. The 
 effort was by petition, remonstrance, and other pacific means, such 
 as subjects of the English government could appropriately resort 
 to for the redress of grievances. There was then no political con- 
 nection between the colonies. Their action was co-operative only 
 for the redress of a grievance which was common to each and all 
 of them, and their co-operation was to give greater force to their 
 complaints, than if presented singly by each colony. 
 
 The political connection of each colony was directly with the 
 English government, as the sovereign power over it. Whatever 
 powers of local government within its defined territorial limits it 
 had, were granted by a charter from the crown, and by the law of 
 parliament, regulating its trade and commerce. The reciprocal 
 obligation of allegiance and protection existed between the colo- 
 nists and the English government. It was in effect an English gov- 
 ernment established over English subjects, within a certain defined 
 territory in America. As is the case with all governments, it was 
 ostensibly established for the protection of life, liberty, and pursuit 
 of happiness of the people in the colony, who were governed by it. 
 Nothing had occurred to materially excite the apprehension of the 
 colonists, that any different purpose was designed by the ruling 
 power, until the English parliament had assumed the right to tax 
 the colonists, not to defray the expenses of the colonial govern- 
 ment, but to be added as general revenue to the English treasury, 
 to defray the expenses generally of the English governmenl. If the 
 colonists submitted to the right thus assumed, its exercise had no 
 limit, and their prosperity, and even livelihood depended upon the 
 will of a power, over which they could not possibly have any 
 control.
 
 England persisting in the claim of the right, sent troops to Amer- 
 ica to enforce it, which early in 1775 resulted in a hostile conflict 
 in one of the colonies, when each one of the colonies co-operated 
 with the others in resistance to the enforcement of the right by the 
 military forces. This was a defensive co-operation, which requir- 
 ed action in each of the colonies independent of, and in disregard 
 of the English rule, to the extent necessary to join in the common 
 cause of defense. This action was provisional, in anticipation of 
 a possible reconciliation upon honorable terms, which so contin- 
 ued until early in 1776, when all hopes of such a reconciliation had 
 to be abandoned. Then it was that Congress, composed of dele- 
 gates from all the colonies, advised the people in each one of the 
 colonies to take such action as would be a public and definite re- 
 nunciation of their connection with, and subjection to the English 
 government, which was by making a new social compact for an in- 
 dependent government of their own, based upon the sovereignty of 
 the whole body of the people of the colony. 
 
 The people of each and all of the colonies promptly acted on 
 this advice, and separately in each proceeded to form a republi- 
 can constitution (except Rhode Island), providing for a free and in- 
 dependent State; so that each one of them had assumed the abso- 
 lute control of their own public affairs before the date of the Dec- 
 laration of Independence. The Congress, with a knowledge of 
 that fact as an accomplished fact, made the declaration for and on 
 behalf of the thirteen States so already established. 
 
 The objects of the declaration were to give public notice of the 
 then existing facts, "That these 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;" and to state facts indicating the dissolu- 
 tion by the people of the colonies, and to announce the principles 
 upon which they had acted in forming independent governments of 
 their own respectively. 
 
 The facts, stated in vindication of the dissolution, exhibited the 
 conduct of England to be such as gave the people no assurance of 
 the protection of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, by 
 which they were absolved from their allegiance to the British 
 Crown, and being thus absolved, the people that belonged to each 
 colony had instituted a government based upon the equal right of 
 each person in the association to participate in its formation so as 
 to form a free and independent State. It is to be observed in all 
 this co-operative action the colonists acted on this principle of 
 self-defense, with which it was stated all men are endowed when 
 the right is attacked. It was self-defense of each one of the colo- 
 nists in each one of the colonies. The attack was upon the right 
 pertaining to all of them alike, which gave them a right to co-op-
 
 erate, in first seeking to avert it by pacific means, and, afterwards, 
 when the attack was sought to be enforced by military power, to 
 co-operate in a common defense of the right against a military 
 power. The assumption ot the power to tax at discretion and 
 without limit, necessarily included the power to jeopardize the 
 life, liberty, and well-being of every colonist in America, both as 
 an individual and as a member of a colonial association. Although 
 the force, that brought on hostilities, was exhibited in Massachu- 
 setts, the people in the other colonies were justified in co-operative 
 resistance for the protection of the right, that pertained to each 
 and all of them, and which could only be protected by joint co- 
 operation, and not by separate individual effort. Thus the right 
 of each one of the colonists became the joint right of all in a com- 
 mon defense of it. 
 
 The question maybe asked is this aright? 
 
 In view of the practical transactions then under consideration, 
 t* which it was intended to be applied, the proposition, that men 
 are endowed with the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pur- 
 suit of happiness, is correct. To appreciate this, we must consid- 
 er the relation between society and government, or between an as- 
 sociation of people bound together by some common tie, and the 
 established rules of action by which they are controlled in the as- 
 sociation. Man is prompted to live in association with his fellow- 
 man by the attributes of his nature, which instinctively demand 
 their exercise. Those which distinguish him as man amongst cre- 
 ated beings can only be exercised in society, and not in lonely iso- 
 lation. They force him to be gregarious, and join himself to oth- 
 ers. It is not from want or fear, as has been supposed. It is his 
 natural element. He does not come into society upon a judgment 
 of its advantages^ and surrender a portion of his natural rights 
 that he may enjoy the rest of them. It is not a question of calcu- 
 lation at all, for he is born in it, and lives in it as the position for 
 which he is fitted by his nature as man. Wherever and whenever 
 people are collected together in association their employments, 
 and the nature of them, are dependent upon their natural and ac- 
 quired attributes, and the physical objects by which they are sur- 
 rounded, in the locality inhabited by them, and by their standard 
 of civilization. Their rules of action individually and collectively 
 must be conformable and adapted to their employments, which re- 
 sults in government of some sort as a necessity. Such a govern- 
 ment is not a "necessary evil." It is a necessary benefaction and 
 blessing to harmonize the possibly conflicting elements in the as- 
 sociation, and to preserve the association itself in whatever progress 
 it may make in the ascending scale of civilization, in obedience to 
 and consequent upon the innate yearnings of man's attributes. 
 
 Hence it is that all combined associations, whether as families 
 or tribes in the primitive ages, or as more regularly organized as-
 
 6 
 
 sociations, when first instituted amongst men, and afterwards as 
 they advanced by a regular progression, until they arrived at the 
 complex ramifications in modern times, governments have existed 
 over all of them as a resultant concomitant. 
 
 All of its members are governed, the governors as well as the 
 governed. This applies even to an absolute monarchy, as well as 
 to a republic. The monarch governs his subjects, and they gov- 
 ern him. For if he prescribes and executes permanently rules of 
 action, that debase their manhood, and denies to them the rights 
 of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, he will not long re- 
 main their monarch; and a knowledge of that fact governs him. 
 Whether he or they create anarchy, it cannot live. It lives only 
 upon and during the continuance of its own throes, to be certainly 
 succeeded by government, in obedience to the controlling aspira- 
 tion of man to strive for the wellbeing of his race. In the physical 
 elements, the tornado is anarchy's prototype, in its origin, duration 
 and effects. However different, therefore, may be the form of 
 governments, and however different may be the modes of accom- 
 plishing it, the general object in the institution of government is, 
 as stated in the declaration, to secure those fundamental rights of 
 man. 
 
 When he has been born and reared up under it, or enters it by 
 naturalization, he does not yield up or alienate to the ruling 
 powers his rights to preserve his life, liberty, and pursuit of happi- 
 ness, by all the means that may practically be in his power, what- 
 ever may be the wrongful aggression by the government upon those 
 rights. If the aggression is remediable in the Bssociation, he may 
 use whatever pacific measures are furnished or permitted to him 
 by the government. If, however, the grievance complained of is 
 intolerable, and affects equally the great body of his fellow men in 
 the association, he, with them, has the right, when it is practica- 
 ble, to assert and maintain it, to alter or abolish the government. 
 Thus it was that "Washington lost the rebel's in the patriot's 
 name." The right equally exists whether the effort to maintain it 
 succeeds or fails. 
 
 It is evident that a man is not presumed to have made such an 
 alienation by being or becoming a subject or citizen of a govern- 
 ment. The question still remains, can he do it so as to irrevoca- 
 bly bind him? What! Can he alienate, that is, validly transfer 
 from himself the right to seek his own happiness? Can he alienate 
 from himself his liberty? Can he alienate from himself the right 
 of life, — the right to live? There is no consideration possibly ad- 
 equate for such a contract of transfer. It could only be made un- 
 der a dire duress, that would destroy his contracting capacity, and 
 in addition, it would be unconsciable, by whatever formalities it 
 might be attempted to be sanctioned. Upon each and all of these 
 grounds, it would not be irrevocably binding upon him.
 
 Shakespeare was not following his learning in law and ethics, 
 but was rather indulging in the privilege of a poetic fancy, when 
 he had his court to adjudge Shylock's debtor to pay his pound of 
 fiesh, in discharge of his contract. A man may forfeit his liberty 
 or his life, by his unlawful conduct, but that is giving it up on 
 compulsion, and not on contract, either express or implied. It is 
 not his act of bargaining away his right to his liberty or life. 
 
 Admitting that the colonists had good grounds for the exercise 
 of this right, in dissolving their political connection with England, 
 the circumstances were very favorable then to its employment, in 
 the erection of republican governments, founded upon sovereignty 
 of the people of each colony, creating an independent State. 
 
 They had long been free from the influences of the distinctions 
 in society, existing in monarchical countries. There was then no 
 order of nobility prevailing amongst them. The great body of the 
 people were farmers, living in their own homesteads. There were 
 then no large accumulations of wealth, sufficient to induce persons 
 to claim precedence on that account. There had not then arisen 
 up any great military chieftans to dictate upon what principles 
 the government should be reorganized. There were no large 
 cities to engender corrupting influences. There were no great 
 factories or mines to be filled with dependent employees. The 
 habits of personal equality and independence had been generally 
 developed from their condition. Though there were many men 
 of distinguished ability amongst them, that of itself was no cause 
 for political inequality in forming the government. There was, 
 therefore, no ground upon which to base a discrimination between 
 the people, in the performance of the work undertaken by them. 
 They had the advantages of long experience in local representa- 
 tive government, with but little interference from the sovereign 
 power in their public affairs. 
 
 Having renounced their allegiance to the sovereign power, it 
 was necessary to recognize auother sovereign power, upon which 
 to base their government. And in their condition, it was most 
 appropriate to recognize it as a right existing in the whole body of 
 the people in each colony. 
 
 The condition of things then generally existing in Amereca 
 were exactly such as were necessary to establish a government in 
 which the whole body of the people could participate in its forma- 
 tion and administration, and rendered it i)racticable to establish 
 for themselves true republican equality; which is where each indi- 
 vidual is allowed to promote his own self-elevation, by any lawful 
 pursuit, without any drawback or unequal burden being imposed 
 on him by the government for the benefit of others, except for the 
 public good, wherein he would be included equally with the othcr«. 
 
 When such a government would be carriedon for the protection 
 of person and property, there would be no great difficulty in ap-
 
 8 
 
 portioning the benefits and burdens equally, — approximately at 
 least. The difficulty of adjustment arises in the adoption of meas- 
 ures for the public good, which the political wisdom of the states- 
 men has seldom been able to surmount. As experience has shown, 
 this extravagant effort for the public good has infused into govern- 
 ments paternalisms, that create inequalities in benefits and burdens, 
 that may produce tyranny, the same as may be found in monarchies. 
 It refutes the theory upon which republics are founded, that by 
 giving each individual an equal voice in the creation and adminis- 
 tion of the government, he would be equally able to protect his 
 rights, and avert the imposition of unequal burdens. The public 
 good-claim often enables the majority to oppress the minority, and 
 that is not the worst of it, for it may enable the interested few to 
 so manipulate the government, as to oppress the great body of the 
 people for the enrichment of themselves. This public good, while 
 good in itself, when properly applied, is too often the bane of re- 
 publics, when it is disguised as the wolf in sheep's clothing. The 
 instances of such disguises, and their injurious effects, are now too 
 numerous, and too notorious to require that they should be here 
 specifically pointed out to an intelligent public. The boasted 
 claim of self-government has been verified to the extent of having 
 dispensed with the necessity of a hereditary peerage in this coun- 
 try. But self-government, under a written constitution, with its 
 powers and objects strictly adhered to, required much more than 
 the founding of governments upon the equality and inalienable 
 rights of all men, as asserted in the Declaration of Independence. 
 Even that great achievement may in time be attained, as we may 
 hope, when the great body of men in the organized association 
 shall have learned and acted on the principle, that the public good 
 may best be accomplished, by each one respecting the rights of 
 others equally as he respects his own. 
 
 This expression that "all men are created equal," is misapplied, 
 when it is understood to pertain to all races of mankind. The red 
 men of America, and the negroes of Africa have made but little 
 improvement in their condition socially during many centuries, 
 whereas the men of Europe in the same time have arisen from a 
 low to a high state of civilization. This difference cannot be at- 
 tributed entirely to the difference in the localities of the different 
 races. It must have been, to a considerable degree, attributable 
 to a difference in mental and physical organizations. The race in 
 Europe were endowed with a greater designing and inventive 
 capacity, that enabled them to add improvements upon the first 
 advancements upwards, from age to age, while the social condition 
 of the other races remained stationary, because they did not have 
 that capacity in the same degree. In addition to the difference in 
 the original endowment, it has greatly increased in the reproduc- 
 tion of the white race, during the different stages of its advance-
 
 Hient by the effect of heredity. It is not necessary to adopt the 
 whole of the Darwinian theory, to recognize the fact that the nat- 
 ural mental capacity of the white race has been gradually improved 
 by their increasing culture during many centuries. This progres- 
 sion has been produced as a general result, notwithstanding there 
 may have been particular instances, in which the improvement was 
 not exhibited. 
 
 Now, the interesting problem is, can the red and black'races, 
 with their natural mental and physical organization, be raised to 
 an equal standard with the white race, by education in schools, 
 the same as those attended by the white race. That they can is 
 as yet only a theoretical assumption, upon the belief of the historic 
 account of the original unity of the race of mankind. Rut is it 
 not more probable, that their peculiar natural organization has 
 been through many centuries, so permanently fixed upon them, 
 that no improvement which they can in time acquire, will prevent 
 them from ultimately disappearing before the power of the white 
 race? That is the inexorable law of races on this earth, however 
 lauduble may be the humanitarian efforts to change it, notwith- 
 standing the means and time of its accomplishment cannot now 
 be foreseen. This is the lesson taught by all history of the past. 
 
 It would be equally erroneous to apply this eciuality to the nat- 
 ural capacity of all the persons of the white race- It has been said 
 that the mind of a child is like a white sheet of paper, susceptible 
 of such impressions as may be made upon it by training and edu- 
 cation. Experience shows that there is an innate mental and 
 physical organization in most children, that indicates in what di- 
 rection the most improvement may be made by training and edu- 
 cation. Instead of universal sameness in natural organization, it 
 would be safer to affirm universal diversity, in that as in most other 
 work of nature. If all men were organized just alike, society 
 would present an aspect of stagnation, and improvements would 
 more likely result from accident than from design. It is this in- 
 equality in mental structure that has been the mainspring of civil- 
 ization throughout all ages of the past, and is now equally so. Its 
 starting point, in every step of the advance upwards, originated 
 from the designing power of some exceptional mind, by which the 
 objects of natjre have been made to do useful work, either to aid, 
 or as a substitute for the muscular power, that was before necessary 
 to do it. This may be illustrated by only a few examples. It may 
 well be imagined what a revolution was produced in social exist- 
 ence, by the construction and use of metalic instruments in works 
 of utility in peace and in war. The designing power of excej^tiorval 
 minds spread the sails upon the seas, and made the wind do the 
 work first done by the oarsraen, wliich marie commerce throughout 
 the world possible. The designing power of exceptional minds in- 
 creased the power of men, by organizing the Roman legion, that
 
 10 
 
 spread the Roman institutions, arts, learning, and language over a 
 large part of the world. In more modern times, the designing 
 power of exceptional minds created fire-arms the common use of 
 which disbanded the armies of subjects, that were spread all over 
 Europe by the Feudal system, and turned most of them over to the 
 arts of peace, and to the cultivation of their intellects, which was 
 facilitated by the invention of the printing press. Under its influ- 
 ence the civilized world advanced more, in all the ennobling appli- 
 ances of civilization, than it had done in four thousand years be- 
 fore that time. Men's minds arose above the settled forms of 
 social life, of government, of personal rights, and the great men of 
 Europe proclaimed with eloquence the principles ©f the new era of 
 human progress. The spirit of it was caught up by the English 
 colonists of America, which rendered it possible, a hundred years 
 ago, to establish for themselves republican governments. 
 
 Such a government as that which they erected, could not have 
 been established five hundred years before that time. The doctrine 
 that kings ruled by divine right had not then been exploded. The 
 rights oi Magna Charta was not and could not have been claimed 
 and secured from the English monarch by the maps of common 
 people. They were secured by the barons, who were themselves 
 so many petty monarchs. 
 
 Power and priest-craft manacled the minds and bodies of men. 
 The colonists were as much indebted to the new lights that had 
 dawned upon the minds of men, in the period of their revolution, 
 as upon the condition of their society, and their previous training 
 in local government. What shape will ultimately be given to 
 American society, and to our republican governments, by the de- 
 signing power of the exceptional minds of Watt and Morse, in mak- 
 ing steam and electricity do work for man, must engage the study 
 and efforts of philosophers and statesmen for many years to come. 
 
 Centralism in government, the erection of large cities, the growth 
 of corporate power, the increased conflict between labor and capi- 
 tal, the amassing of great individual wealth, the increased facilities 
 and importance of commerce, the general enlargement of the ob- 
 jects and the expenses of governments, are some of the results 
 which have already greatly taxed the powers of those in authority, 
 in efforts for their harmonious adjustment. 
 
 Carlisle, a distinguished Englishman, said, in speaking of the 
 Americans, that "Their republican governments were dependent 
 upon elbow-room, and a traditional respect for the constable." I 
 repeat this quaint saying of a great thinker merely to set other peo- 
 ple to thinking about where the present current of public affairs 
 is drifting to. 
 
 The equality and endowment of rights announced in the Decla- 
 ration of Independence were not intended to be applied to the In- 
 dians that were settled in some of the colonies. The poor red
 
 11 
 
 men, who once inhabited all this country, did not know how to 
 make powder, and guns, and plows, and from their order of civil- 
 zation had neither the inducement nor the power to make them, 
 and consequently most of them went west as white men advanced 
 from the east. A few scattered fragments of tribes were left, and 
 remained for many years, retaining their tribal state. They were 
 not colonists. They were no part of the associations of persons in 
 each colony, who were active in renouncing their allegiance to the 
 British crown, or in forming new governments. They were under 
 no such allegiance, and had none to throw off. They were no part 
 of the body of people in whom the sovereignty was vested. 
 
 For the same and greater reasons they were not intended to be 
 applied to the negroes, who were in most if not all of the colonies. 
 Because most of them were slaves belonging to their masters, who 
 had purchased them as property. They were not there by their 
 own consent as immigrants, but were brought there as slaves from 
 Africa. They constituted no part of the body politic. Slavery 
 was then recognized by the law of nations, the world over, except 
 where it was locally prohibited, as it is now. Where it was not lo- 
 cally prohibited, it did not require a law to be passed to legalize 
 it. It had existed in some shape long before the Christian era, 
 and afterwards all the time in Christian countries, and did then as 
 a just and rightful ownership of property. Not only Christian peo- 
 ple sanctioned it by the ownership of slaves, but they engaged in 
 the slave-trade, and the governments of all Christendom sanction- 
 ed it as lawful, except where it was locally prohibited. If they 
 had been treated as members in the association that were acting, 
 and for whose benefit the action was being taken, it would have 
 rendered white men unequal, just in proportion to the number of 
 slaves possessed by each one. The slaves were under duress of 
 imprisonment. The very existence of a republic is dependent 
 upon the freedom and independence of the members of the asso- 
 ciation that forms and administers it. If we will in contempla- 
 tion go back to that period, and take a survey of the condition of 
 things, and of the public sentiment on that subject, we will not be 
 surprised that slavery in the States was recognized in the Consti- 
 tution of the United States, by requiring the return of fugitive 
 slaves from one State to another, by limiting the time to iSo8, 
 when their importation could be prohibited, and by apportioning 
 the representation in Congress between the several Slates, so as to 
 add to the number of free persons three-fifths of the number of 
 slaves. This last provision was made upon a compromise, which 
 may not be regarded as being then unreasonable, when it is con- 
 sidered, that in many of the States a property qualification for vot- 
 ing was provided in their Constitutions, and that all of the States 
 except Massachusetts lecognized slaves as lawful property belong- 
 ing to their citizens at that time.
 
 12 
 
 Subsequent to that time, the misapplication of this equality and 
 natural endowment of rights to the negro race, long continued by the 
 Northern people, has produced the most extraordinary results per- 
 taining to this whole country. A proper discussion of this will re- 
 quire some explanatory considerations intimately connected 
 with it. 
 
 As the smoke of the great battles in the war between the States 
 has somewhat cleared away, and the results have so far been con- 
 sumated, we can with a more calm vision scan the past transac- 
 tions that led to it, and better appreciate their significance at the 
 time and place of their occurrence. 
 
 As events may cast their shadows before them, so subsequent 
 events, in a long train of them, may cast back a light upon their 
 connected antecedents, that will enable us more fully to compre- 
 hend their import, and the motives that promoted them. 
 
 The maintenance of slavery in civilized countries in all former 
 times has largely depended upon self-interest. Whenever there is 
 a sufficiency or redundancy of free labor to do the necessary work, 
 and land has become very valuable, so that rents are high, and the 
 price of slaves has become high, so that what they can produce 
 will not remunerate for the rent of the land, their maintenance and 
 the interest of the money for which they are purchased, slave la- 
 bor must become unprofitable, and will be abandoned. 
 
 The villains in England were slaves during many centuries. In 
 the time of Queen Elizabeth it was complained that there was a 
 redundancy of population. The villains were manumitted, or al- 
 lowed to purchase their freedom. Soon after peace was made 
 with England, immigrants following the course of commerce poured 
 into the Northern States, that largely added to the increasing labor 
 of their own population. 
 
 By this means the country was rapidly developed in the indus- 
 tries in which their slaves were employed, and very soon laws 
 were enacted looking to the extinction of slavery. In some of 
 those States, if not in most of them, the law provided that all per- 
 sons of the African race born after the passage of the law, should 
 be free after they arrived at the age of twenty-five. The continu- 
 ous flow of emigration from Europe rendered more and more the 
 usefulness of slave labor unnecessary to do the work of the country. 
 The condition of the people of the South, not having the same ad- 
 vantages from immigration, and slave labor being still in great de- 
 mand there, it was in the natural course of trade, especially after, 
 the prohibition of the slave trade in 1808, that the demand would 
 be supplied by purchasing the slaves in the Northern States, by 
 paying to their owners a reasonable compensation for them. This 
 was fair dealing, without any thought of wrong done by either 
 party, and was an advantage to the North in getting rid of most of 
 their slaves, that they did not need, and to the South in the in-
 
 13 
 
 crease of their labor for the development of their industries. Mr. 
 Clay, of Kentucky, a slave owner, was a member, and I believe 
 president, of an Emancipation Society, organized to send emanci- 
 pated negroes to Liberia, in Africa. This was before the slavery 
 agitation in the North had alarmed the Southern people in regard 
 to the safety of their property in slaves. He, some years before 
 the year i860, stated in a speech, that at about that year Kentucky 
 would be in a situation to free the slaves in that State. Why did 
 he say so? Obviously, because he calculated, that by that time 
 the increase of free labor, and the enhancement of the price of 
 land would render slave labor unprofitable in most parts of that 
 State. It is probable his prediction would have been verified, had 
 there been no exciting agitation of the subject of slavery. The 
 time when other States would have been in a similar condition, 
 would have depended much upon the character and value of and 
 demand for its productions, besides the sufficiency of free labor 
 and the high price of land. 
 
 Another subject, preparatory to a full understanding of why this 
 natural equality was applied to the negro race, must be considered. 
 That was, the difference in the material interests prevailing in the 
 North and in the South. The condition of things in the North 
 was adapted to merchandise, commerce, manufacture and ship- 
 ping, and regularly continued to become more so, from time to 
 time. That made it to the interest of the people to have the gen- 
 eral government shaped in its action to promote those interests, 
 by a liberal construction of the ("onstitution. 
 
 The condition of things in the South was favorable to agriculture 
 much more exclusively, which did not require to be promoted by 
 the action of the general government, and the people were in favor 
 of a strict construction, which would prevent the government 
 from being specially devoted to promote the material interests of 
 the North. This difference in material interests and political 
 views between the sections rapidly increased, and became more 
 distinct as time passed. During the first twelve years ot the ex- 
 istence of the government (from the 4th of March, 1789), its ad- 
 ministration was most favorable to Northern interests and political 
 views. 
 
 At the end of that time a great polttical revolution occurred, in 
 which parties were formed, the statesmen in the North being call- 
 ed federalists, and those in the South republicans, and which based 
 the action of the government generally upon a strict constrnction 
 of the Constitution most favorable to Southern interests, and this 
 continued uninterruptedly for twenty-four years. The struggle that 
 produced this change was of the most exciting and acrimonious 
 character, that fixed in the minds of the people of each party a set- 
 tled conviction of the right of each, according to the dictates of 
 the interest of each, which remained permanently, and continued
 
 14 
 
 the struggle indefinitely. This division of political sentiment was 
 not always confined to each section, but was generally so. The 
 federalists for a time seemed to be utterly overwhelmed. But such 
 was not the fact. They remained steadfast to their interests, and 
 were ever active in their support. Their cause was made personal 
 as well as political, and adherence to it was made a test of respect- 
 ability and intelligence to a great extent. The embargo establish- 
 ed in President Jefferson's administration, and the war with Eng- 
 land|iniPresident Madison's, nearly destroyed the foreign commerce 
 of the Northern States, which greatly intensified the opposition of 
 the people to the government. Statesmen, editors, and preachers 
 could hardly find words of description strong enough to express 
 the ruin of their section, by the action of the government, and in 
 the New England States they boldly advocated a separation, and 
 sent delegates to the Hartford convention evidently to prepare for 
 it conditionally. And in denouncing the government they indulg- 
 ed in the most virulent abuse of the Southern States for their sup- 
 port of it. They argued that the interests of the two sections were 
 too dissimilar to be capable of being promoted under the same gov- 
 ernment. If this disunion sentiment had spread more generally 
 over the Northern States, and the war had continued a year longer, 
 it is not at all improbable that a number of the Northern States 
 would have seceded from the Union. 
 
 During the administration of President John Quincy Adams 
 there was a radical change in the action of the government, by the 
 enactment of the protective tariff of 1828, and other measures 
 favorable to the interests of the Northern people, and prejudicial 
 to the interests of the Southern people. This aroused a most vio- 
 lent opposition to the action of the government in the Southern 
 States, which was most prominently exhibited in South Carolina 
 in 1832, by a preparation to secede from the Union. There were 
 great numbers of people in other Southern States, who took sides 
 with South Carolina, but not enough to put other States in the 
 same attitude. President Jackson's proclamation, that threatened 
 force to prevent the secession, brought a serious issue upon the 
 country, which called in requisition the patriotism of Congress to 
 settle it. It was done by the passage of a law which gradually re- 
 duced the tariff prospectively through a number of years, so as to 
 bring it to a revenue standard. This satisfied the South, but was 
 a progressive damage to the interests of the North, by which they 
 became again dissatisfied with the operation of the government. 
 Thus has it been shown repeatedly, that when the government was 
 shaped in its action to suit the material interests of one section, a 
 dissatisfaction would be produced in the other, that created a 
 strong disposition for a separation, though not extensive enough to 
 effect that object in any instance. 
 
 The ruling motive in each section in the effort to shape the gov-
 
 15 
 
 eminent to suit it in each instance, was self-interest. It takes a 
 very wise and impartial man to see any difference or conflict be- 
 tween his interest and the public good. It is equally so with po- 
 litical parties, with sections, and with nations. 
 
 This success, last mentioned of the Northern people, was partly 
 accidental from the election of John Quincey Adams president, 
 and it was short lived. They, therefore, prosecuted with more 
 vigor the measure that they had acted on, before and after the war 
 of 1812, to obtain a [controlling power in the government. This 
 was to exclude slavery from the territories, in order to increase 
 the number of free States. While this was the object aimed at by 
 the politicians, there had been long a growing sentiment of anti- 
 slavery amongst the people that was directed either to a seperation 
 of the Northern free States from the slave States, or to its gradual 
 extinction in the whole country, as one or the other might become 
 practicable. This sentiment was based upon the natural equality, 
 and inalienable rights of the negro race equally with the white 
 race. Both objects being sought tended towards the same general 
 result]of antagonism to the slave institution of the Southern States. 
 There were then a considerable number of them in New Jersey and 
 Delaware, and a few in each of the States of New York, Rhode Is- 
 land, Connecticut and Pennsylvania, as shown by the census. The 
 existence of them there did not prevent a common sentiment of 
 opposition to slavery in those States, as well as in other Northern 
 and Western free States. 
 
 As preparatory to some notice of the means used in this last 
 great and successful effort of the Northern people to shape the gov- 
 ernment for the promotion of their own interest, it is important to 
 bring to view the exact relations between the States as members of 
 the Union. In respect fo their internal regulations and domestic 
 institutions they were as foreign to each other as any two inde- 
 pendent nations. By the law of nations one State had no right to 
 interfere with another, or to allow their citizens to do it, to the in- 
 jury of the rights of persons or property of such other State. Any 
 such interference when allowed or encouraged to an extent amount- 
 ing to a serious grievance would be cause of war as between any 
 two independent nations. The several States, whether free or 
 slave States, in adopting the Constitution of the United States con- 
 tracted a much more intimate relation by assuming additional ob- 
 ligations, and sanctioning those referred to as being imposed by 
 the law of nations. What was meant in the preamble by the ex- 
 pression. "We the people of the United States in order to (amongst 
 other things) secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our 
 posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 
 States of America?" "We the people" then were neither the negroes 
 whether slaves or free persons. They constituted no part of the 
 people in whom the sovereignty had been vested in the States. At
 
 16 
 
 that time Massachusetts was a free State, and had a law which was 
 in force long afterwards, which made the marriage of white per- 
 sons with negroes, mulattoes and Indians void. A similar law ex- 
 isted in Virginia. In Maryland there was a punitory law on the 
 same subject. And in none of the States had the free negroes 
 been given privileges or rights equal to those given to white per- 
 sons. They were then, as they ever had been regarded, an abject 
 inferior race, and did not constitute a part of the people in a polit- 
 ical sense. The words "to secure the blessings of liberty to our- 
 selves and our posterity," surely did not refer to negroes or their 
 descendants. The negroes were not the persons referred to in the 
 clause of the Constitution, which reads: "The citizens of each 
 State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citi- 
 zens in the several States." So it was held by the court in Con- 
 necticut, and afterwards by the Supreme Court of the United 
 States. Ohio, a free State, in 1807 passed a law preventing free 
 negroes from settling in that State except upon giving bond of $500 
 conditioned for his good behavior, etc. The right to vote was 
 confined to free white men in the free States of Delaware, Illinois, 
 Indiana, Ohio, and Connecticut. This will suffice to show the 
 political status of the negro as to citizenship long after the adop- 
 tion of the Constitution, even in the free States. Abundant other 
 evidence of it might be shown. A still more pertinent provision, 
 establishing the relation between the States, in the nature of a 
 treaty stipulation between them individually as separate States, 
 reads 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, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall 
 be delivered upon claim of the party to whom such service or la- 
 bor may be due." The persons herein referred to were univer- 
 sally held to include negro slaves. What obligation did free 
 Massachusetts come under to the adjoining State of Connecticut 
 if a slave belonging to a person of the latter State escaped into 
 the territory of the former State, and was followed and claimed 
 by him? First it, as a State, all of its officers and people were 
 bound to recognize that the slave was the lawful property of the 
 said owner, upon his showing his right to the slave by the laws 
 of Connecticut, notwithstanding slavery had been abolished in 
 Massachusetts. Secondly, it was bound as a State to take such 
 active measures as were necessary to secure to the said owner the 
 delivery of his property. The obligation was not a negative one 
 to permit the owner to recapture the slave if he could. It was a 
 positive duty that required action on the State through its au- 
 
 After that, and even after the election of Abraham Lincoln, 
 the majority of the people of the United States were anxious to
 
 17 
 
 thorities to remove eVery obstacle that might be made by its own 
 citizens, so as to have its own officers acting for the State to de- 
 liver the slave to the owner. Ohio, a free State, was under the 
 same obligation to Kentucky, and so with all the other States to 
 each other. . 
 
 There i? another clause establishing the relation between the 
 States as follows: "A person charged in any State with treason, 
 felony or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found 
 in another State, shall, on demand of the executive authority of 
 the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to 
 the State having jurisdiction of the crime." 
 
 This requires every State to respect the right of every other 
 State to determine what facts within it shall constitute a felony 
 or other crime, and when a charge is made against a person who 
 has committed it and fled to another State other than the one 
 in which he was present and acting in the commission of it, and 
 he is found in such other State, that State, in which he is found 
 and demanded, has no right to refuse or fail to deliver him up, 
 because the facts charged would not be a crime in such other 
 State. 
 
 Every officer of every State and of the) United States take an 
 oath to perform the duties of his office according to the Constitu- 
 tion of the United States, which contains these provisions. 
 They, as expressly stated in the Constitution, constitute the su- 
 preme law of the land in every State, "anything in the Consti- 
 tution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." 
 
 They imposed an obligation more binding than a treaty by be- 
 ing a part of the Constitution of every State, — being part of that 
 of the United States. A State that was seriously injured by the 
 failure of another State to comply with these obligations, had no 
 recourse directly upon the sister State; for by the Constitution 
 one State cannot enter into any agreement or compact with an- 
 other State, nor enter into war against another State while being 
 in the same Union of States, and under the same Constitution. 
 That of itself should have added to the constitutional, a high 
 moral obligation for their faithful observance. 
 
 During President Washington's administration there was a 
 law passed by Congress to enforce the provision requiring the re- 
 turn of fugitive slaves, and another one in 1856, which were sus- 
 tained by the supreme court as constitutional. Very soon after 
 the Northern States had gotten rid of most of their slaves, the 
 .sentiment that slavery was a moral and political evil became 
 general if not universal, and that greatly aided in the efforts of 
 all sorts to shape the government to be conformable to the 
 Northern interests.
 
 18 
 
 In 1820 it manifested itself upon the admission of Missouri 
 into the Union. After an exciting struggle in Congress it was 
 admitted as a slave State by a compromise, in wi^ich it was agreed 
 that any States thereafter formed in territory north of 36}^ degrees 
 north latitude should only be admitted as free States, and those 
 south of said line should be admitted either as slave or free States 
 as might be determined by such States, This gave the North a 
 great advantage in the division of the territory. President Wash- 
 ington in his farewell address had advised strongly against sec- 
 tional divisions. JeflFerson, then still alive, in writing to a friend, 
 said that "he considered it the death knell to the Union;" that "a 
 geographical line, coinciding with a marked principle moral and 
 political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of 
 men, will never be obliterated, and every new irritation will make 
 it deeper and deeper." In this expression of regret, he evidently 
 referred to the moral principle, involved in the slavery question, 
 and to the political principle, involved in the promotion of mu- 
 tual interests, both of which were well calculated to arouse the 
 passions of men, on both sides of the geographical line, that had 
 been established. It resulted as he then feared it would. For 
 by the efforts of the Northern States all of the territories after- 
 wards were made free States, or held as free territory practically, 
 notwithstanding the law of Congress in 1850 permitted the slave 
 holders to carry their slaves into said territories, and there hold 
 them as lawful property, and the supreme court in 1856 decided 
 that Congress had no power to prevent it. 
 
 The moral principle referred to, which related to opposition to 
 slavery, though it had long been exerting its influence, became 
 more and more active continuousl}^ after the compromise in 1832 
 on the tariflf, by which the Northern material interests were not 
 promoted by the action of the government, as they had been dur- 
 ing the administration of John Quincey Adams. The effort to 
 acquire free territory created a large party called the Free Soil 
 party. A more extreme anti-slavery partj' were known as Abo- 
 litionists, whose professed principle of action was exhibited by 
 Joshua Giddings, who was the first man of that party elected to 
 Congress. At the Chicago convention he offered the following 
 resolution: 
 
 "That we solemnly reassert the self-evident truths, that all 
 men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, 
 among which are those of life, liberty and the pursuit of happi- 
 ness, that governments are instituted among men to secure the 
 enjoyment of these rights." In support of this he said, "I offer 
 this because our party was formed upon it. It grew upon it. It 
 has existed upon it.-— And when you leave out this truth you
 
 ]9 
 
 leave out the party." Tl^, at that time w^as an after- thought, 
 to hold forth one amongst a number of political principles for 
 their agitaticn of slavery in the South. And if it had been in 
 its origin a ground claimed for their action, it would have been 
 clearly a misapplication of the principle as it was intended, for it 
 would have been an assertion of it by one class of persons for the 
 benefit of another class, and not the right of self-defense. 
 
 By the joint influence of these two parties the Northern States 
 passed laws, which in effect prevented slave-holders from recap- 
 turing their slaves, that were decoyed, or voluntarily fled, to the 
 free States, by which the Southern people lost large numbers of 
 their slaves and slave propert}' in the border States was greatly 
 diminished in value. This was vindicated by Senator Sumner of 
 Massachusetts, in 1854. He said; "To the overthrow of the slave 
 power we are summoned by a double call, one political, and the 
 other philanthropic, first, to remove an oppressive tyranny from 
 the National government, and, secondly, to open the gates of 
 Emancipation in the slave States." In alluding to the law of 
 Congress to enforce the return of fugitive slaves' he said, "The 
 Fugitive Slave Bill, monstrous in cruelty, as in unconstitutional- 
 ity is a usurpation which must be opposed." This was the com- 
 mon sentiment of the leading men of the party, by which the 
 Northern States refused to take any active steps to comply with 
 their constitutional obligation for the return of the fugitive 
 slaves, and in effect nullified the law of Congress for that pur- 
 pose, which had been decided by the Supreme Court to be con- 
 stitutional. In obedience to this sentiment the governors of the 
 States of Ohio, New York and Maine refused to honor requisi- 
 tions for the return of persons, who had been indicted for steal- 
 ing slaves, upon the principle doubtless, that a human being was 
 not a subject of larceny, thereby violating the clause in the Con- 
 stitution, which required the return of criminals, that were in- 
 dicted for felonies according to the laws of the Southern States, 
 that had a right to determine what acts done within them amount- 
 ed to a felony. 
 
 Just in proportion to the agitation and influence of the opposi- 
 tion to slavery in the North, the people of the South became 
 more and more aroused in support of their peculiar interest, until 
 it pervaded all classes of persons, — those that had slaves, and 
 those who had none. It is not my purpose to rehearse the angry 
 altercations, or the opprobrious epithets uttered on each side 
 against the other. 
 
 Mr. vSeward put the issue before the Southern Senators in a 
 .speech in 1858, as follows: 
 
 "The interests of the white race demand the ultimate emanci-
 
 20 
 
 pation of all men. Whether that con^mmation shall be allowed 
 to take effect with needful and wise precautions against sudden 
 changes and disaster, or be hurried on by violence, is all that 
 remains for j^ou to decide." This was full notice served upon 
 the country of what was designed by the Republican part}'-, by 
 the statesman who did more than any one else to organize that 
 party, by the combination of other parties into the crusade against 
 slavery. 
 
 After that, and even after the election of Abraham L^incoln. 
 the majority of the people of the United States were anxious to 
 preserve the Union, if there could be any settlement of the ques- 
 tions at issue honorable to both sides, though the extreme parti- 
 sans on both sides preferred a dissolution of it. The effort to 
 accomplish the reconciliation came from the Southern side. 
 In the Congress of i860, Senator Crittenden, ot Kentucky, of- 
 fered a resolution to inaugurate an amendment to the Constitu- 
 tion to re-establish the line of 36)^2 degrees of north latitude, as 
 in the Missouri compromise, for a settlement. The legislatures 
 of Virginia and Kentucky approved it. It was offered again in 
 the Congress of 186 1, before the inauguration of President Lin- 
 coln. The vote on it stood eighteen for and twenty against it, — 
 the majority all being Republicans. Mr. Douglas, in his speech 
 in the Senate upon the subject, said: "The only difficulty in the 
 way of amicable settlement is with the Republican party." 
 
 The Legislatures of Virginia passed a resolution requesting all 
 the States of the Union to send delegates to a Congress to meet 
 in Washington on the 4th of February, 1861, to take into con- 
 sideration the affairs of the country, and devise some plan if 
 possible by which the Union under the Constitution would be 
 preserved, and harmony once more restored. In pursuance to 
 that call, delegates from sixteen Northern and five Southern 
 States appeared in the Peace Congress (as it was called), over 
 which Ex-President John Tyler presided. Senator Salmon 
 P. Chase, a leader in the Republican party, representing 
 Ohio, and who, as then expected, was shortl)^ afterwards 
 appointed Secretary of the Treasury, said in substance, ad- 
 dressing his discourse to the Southern delegates, that the 
 Northern States would not surrender their advantage from 
 the late election, which they considered was a sanction of 
 their principles; that they would not consent for slavery to be es- 
 tablished in the territories, and that they would not aid in the 
 return of fugitive slaves, and that the provision of the Constitu- 
 tion requiring them to do it was "a dead letter," and would not 
 be complied with. His only suggestion for a settlement was, 
 that if a master could prove his ownership of a fugitive slave,
 
 21 
 
 he should be paid for the value of his services from the national 
 treasury, and let the negro go free. This speech being backed by a 
 large majority of the delegates, destroyed all hopes of a settle- 
 ment. 
 
 The two efforts of the South for a settlement having thus failed, 
 nothing was left them but to live in the Union on terms of ine- 
 quality, or take steps to separate from it. 
 
 Mr. Webster, the great Union expounder of the Constitution, 
 had said in a speech in 185 1, "If the Northern States refuse wil- 
 fully and deliberately to carry into effect that part of the Consti- 
 tution which requires the restoration of slaves, the South would 
 no longer be bound to observe the compact. A bargain broken 
 on one side is broken on all sides." To Southern statesmen this 
 doctrine presented a possible means of protecting the institutions 
 of the South, and was generallj^ sanctioned 'bj' them in advocat- 
 ing the secession, which brought on the war, in which the South 
 was overwhelmed by superior means and numbers. 
 
 After the war commenced, and the Northern armies were filled 
 promptly under a resolution of Congress, giving a pledge to the 
 country, that the war was waged to preserve the Union, with 
 all the dignity, equality and rights of the States unimpaired, 
 " and not for the purpose of overthrowing or interfering with the 
 rights or established institutions of those States," the extreme 
 wing of the party urged the President to issue a proclamation 
 freeing the slaves. For a time he objected, saying, "I do not 
 want to issue a document, that the world will see must necessarily 
 be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet." Still 
 the abolition pressure was so strong that in a few days after- 
 wards the proclamation was issued in obedience to the principle 
 "that all men are created equal." At the close of the war. Presi- 
 dent Johnson reconstructed the Southern States upon their sur- 
 rendering what he deemed to have been the issues of the war, 
 to-wit : The freedom of the slaves, and the right of secession. 
 But being a new convert, he omitted or declined to recognize and 
 enforce the additional principle, that the negroes as well as the 
 whites were endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable 
 rights, which would secure their equality as citizens of the 
 United States. 
 
 To accomplish that object, there were two insurmountable 
 difficulties under his plan of reconstruction. First, it had been 
 previously decided by the Supreme Court, with six of the nine 
 judges agreeing to it, that Congress had no power under the 
 Constitution to naturalize a negro so as to make him a citizen on 
 an equality with white people. And secondly, if the members 
 elected to Congress from the eleven »Southern States, had been
 
 admitted to seats, a' jr in President Johnson's plan, 
 
 the 14th and 15*^' xits to the Constitution could not 
 
 have been passed 1 ,g the negroes on an equality with the 
 
 white people in the c ^ment of legal and political rights. 
 
 Therefore it became necessary to abolish the governments that 
 had been erected, in order to pass those two amendments, and 
 thereby, on the principle of the natural equality announced in 
 the Declaration of Independence, to introduce into the Republi- 
 can family of American citizenship, for whom alone, as white 
 people, that principle was originally intended, four millions of 
 negroes of African descent. And that object has been prosecuted 
 by the Northern States, not only to enforce a religious sentiment 
 but also as the means of shaping the general government to pro- 
 mote the peculiar material and pecuniary interests of the North- 
 ern people, to the great prejudice of those of the Southern people. 
 
 I have now traced the points of political history in this great 
 struggle between the different sections, North and South. But 
 to understand the animus of its origin and progress properly, we 
 must raise our view in seeking for a cause far above and more 
 potent than the mere political issues involved in it. 
 
 In doing so, we will find that it was a sentiment generated in 
 the North upon a conviction of right, and in the South a senti- 
 ment upon a conviction of wrong done to its people. History 
 shows us that men's passions are aroused to put forth greater 
 efforts upon a pervading sentiment, that takes possession of their 
 minds, than is ever produced by the exercise of judgment. 
 
 It may be started upon some prominent idea of human rights, 
 or of wrongs, or of religious enthusiasm, and grow and spread un- 
 til it becomes a controling sentiment, that sinks every other con- 
 sideration into comparative insignificance. Such a sentiment 
 animated the people of Europe in the Crusades. Such a senti- 
 ment animated the people of America in the war of independence. 
 
 In former times such cruelties had been inflicted in the punish- 
 ment of slaves and of criminals, in religious persecutions, and in 
 the African slave trade, as produced a revulsion of public senti- 
 ment before the end of the last century, which started a move- 
 ment in France, England and America in opposition to it, which 
 spread and increased, in varying intensity, and means of accom- 
 plishment, so as to embrace a large body of the people of the 
 Northern States. There being then no self-interest to oppose it, 
 and it being stimulated by extravagant stories of the cruelty of 
 Southern masters to their slaves, it was worked up into an irre- 
 sistible religious sentiment against slavery, which in the end 
 would admit of no compromise. In the Southern States, this 
 drift of sentiment met with the opposition of self-interest, that
 
 23 
 
 made them stand upon their constitutional rights, and just in 
 proportion as they were infringed upon, they became more de- 
 termined to maintain them, against the what they considered un- 
 just interference of others in their domestic relations. This in- 
 terference, by the agitation of slavery in the North and its con- 
 sequent results, aroused a sentiment of antagonism that finally 
 pervaded most of the people of all classes in the Southern States, 
 that fixed in their minds a high resolve to have their constitu- 
 tional rights secured in the Union, or failing in that, to withdraw 
 from the Union to control their own public affairs. When at last 
 the crisis arrived, the sentiment of both sections was inflamed to 
 a pitch of desperation, that forced them into conflict irrespective 
 of consequences. 
 
 It was really only after the close of the hostile struggle, that, 
 upon deliberate reflection, the principle "that all men are created 
 equal, and are endowed with inalienable rights," was fully acted 
 on to consummate a revolution in the government, much in excess 
 of the original designs of the federalists of the North.
 
 8 7 5)5
 
 ^ ♦- LIBRARY
 
 UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, LOS ANGELES 
 
 THE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY 
 
 This book is DUE on the last date stamped below 
 
 N0V8 
 
 AUG 1 iMo 
 
 m^^ ■ 
 
 i^-URL 
 
 JUH2 
 
 1 1951 » hj E C E I V Ep 
 
 1955 I MAIN LOAN DESK 
 
 MAY3e 1965 
 
 APR? 
 1 
 
 -AY 2 21955 
 
 DEC 5 I96tf 
 MAR 1 3 1961 
 
 HOM 2^ 
 
 DEC 1 ^ ^^^^^ 
 
 A,M 
 
 7lAl9!ld.lllii8]l|2'3l4 
 
 Form L-9 
 25?rt-2, '43(5205) 
 
 /^ai 
 
 '^ OCT 221968 
 
 OCT 2 1 1969 
 RENEWA 
 
 DK 101969 
 
 KENEWAL J/fN ICFWS 
 
 REC'D LO-URli . 
 
 CD 
 
 URL 
 
 
 P.M. 
 
 SI 6
 
 UCSn:'JHrR..,p-:,,^^LLI 
 
 BRARY FACILITY 
 
 AA 000 555 818