j¦i'

[YALE UL

THE REVOLIJTION OF 1860:

^puk Mmxu\ hx^ gtt ^kW^, 0i ^m f^tfe,

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JANTJAEY leth, 1861.

(%'\'^A\

^

TKCS! S,S!I>TCrBX,IC ZS IMTI'EIE.ISHI.A.BI.E.
SPEECH OP
HON. DANIEL E. SICKLES,
OF NEW YORK,
ON
THE STATE OF THE UNION,
DELIVERED IN
THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 16, 1861

The House being in the Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union —
Mr. SICKLES said :
Mr. Chairman:" It is impossible to survey the state of things which now
exists in this country, "without being impressed by the remarkable parallel dis
closed between the present relations of the North and South and the relations
which existed between the mother coui^jy and the colonies prior to the com
mencement of the revolutionary war. I think, sir, that it is not too much to say
that perhaps there is now more alienation of feeling, and more political antagon
ism between the different sections of this Confederacy, than prevailed between
the mother country and the colonies in 1774. We all know that the war of the
Revolution was not fought so much to escape actual oppression as for a principle ;
not so much to remove material grievances that we suffered as for general rights
which we asserted.
There is now very much of this same sort of conflict upon abstract questions.
But it is nevertheless true that millions of .the population of this country, with
an unanimity never before witnessed in our history, protest against what they
declare to be substantial grievances ; among these they include the deprivation of
essential rights in the Territories, the insecurity of their property, the disturbance
of their domestic tranquillity, — -spoliations countenanced by their associates in
the Confederacy, and insurrections among their slaves openly promoted in pulpits
and presses in the free States ! Several of the southern States are endeavoring to

escape these consequences by measures which, whether justly or wrongfully ini
tiated, beyond all doubt menace the dismemberment of this Confederacy, the
organization of one or more new governments within our present limits, and pos
sibly some change in the political control of this continent.
When the controversy began between England and the colonies, George III and
the Ministry inclined to measures of the most vigorous coercion. Anpther great
and gallant party, led by Chatham and- Burke, and counseled by our own Frank
lin, proposed conciliation and the recognition of the principles, abstract though
they might have been, which were asserted by the colonies. The advocates of
conciliation were overborne, and the partizans of force controlled Parliament.
Its polioy was pursued to the end, with what results history has recorded;
and in its perfect vindication of Burke and Chatham and Franklin, history com
mends to us, in this hour of trial, an impressive and apposite example. It is for
us to decide whether we will reject the counsel which this experience has devel
oped to us, or whether we will instead, imitate the policy of George III and
Lord North, which proved so fatal to the ambition of England.
The great fact whioh constitutes the crisis, is, that eight millions of our popula
tion are pervaded with the conviction of danger at home, of, insecurity at their
firesides, of assaults made and menaced upon their property ; the refusal of their
equal rights in the common Territories of the Union, acquired by the valor and
treasure of the whole nation. No matter, sir, for the purposes of the present
exigency, whether the grounds upon which this discontent is based, are entirely
well founded or not. That was well and wisely discussed last year. We have
now to deal with this extensive disaffection as a gigantic fact in our history and
position. I do not propose to-day to consider in detail the causes of this state of things ;
yet it may not be improper to advert to them in a general way. This revolution
began in November, 1860. It was initiated by a change in the principles of the
Government. In the election of Mr. Lincoln upon the doctrines avowed in the
Chicago platform, a majority of the people asserted the right and the power to
legislate in conflict with the fundamental law of the land, as embodied in the
Constitution and declared by the Supreme Court of the United States. The
assertion of that power, and placing the Government in the hands of an Execu
tive pledged to exercise it, was of itself a civil revolution, in the character and
form and essence of the Government. So much of the revolution was accom
plished in November. Let it be well understood that a revolution in a popular
G-overnment can be as well achieved through the ballot-box as by the bayonet.

3
The determination of a majority of the people to override well-ascertained and
essential constitutional rights is revolution in its most potential aspect.
The States of the Confederacy were thereby separated into two sections — one
dominant and the other subject. The North appropriated to itself the exclusive
right of settlement in the Territories, which are tbe common property of all the'
States. This exclusion ofthe slaveholders ofthe South from equal participation
in the right of emigration and colonization with tlieir property, is predicated upon
the avowed ground that to hold slaves is a sin which places a citizen under the
ban ofthe Federal Government; that this description of property is not entitled
to protection beyond the limits of the State in whioh it may be held; and that
the institution itself, though coeval with American civilization, and of unknown
antiquity, is a relic of barbarism; to the extinction of which the power and influ
ence of the Federal Government became pledged in the election of Mr. Lincoln.
The Government of the United States has become Puritan and prescriptive ;
it has eeased to be catholic and tolerant, as it was formed, and has continued
from the administration of Washington down to the election of Lincoln. The
vital element of our politioal system has ever beeu the equality of the States ;
and from this follows the consequent duty of non-interference with their local
institutions, and the equal right of every citizen in the Government and its
Territories. The essential characteristic of Puritanism is the employment of
the powers of Government to compel a uniform recognition of the opinions of
the majority, in all things. The Constitution of the United States imposes no
test upon the institutions of a State or Territory, except that they shall be repub
lican. It was designed for a Confederation, embracing every element of civiliza
tion, whioh could be developed under republican institutions. The triumph of
the Puritan element of the North, involves the probable destruction of the feder
ative principle of the Constitution, and the consolidation of the Government
under the absolute power ofa majority, whioh is one ofthe forms of despotism.
Such is the character of the revolution begun in November. It was peaceful
in form, I concede, but none the less comprehensive and radical. We are now
in the presence of the seoond phase of the revolution, whioh is the secession of
several ofthe States ofthe Confederacy. Secession, also, was avowed as a peace
ful remedy. It was intended as a remedy by means of whieh the aggrieved States
could, without conflict, escape the consequences of the revolution already in pro
gress, and after they had lost the means of protecting themselves within the Gov
ernraent. I do not propose, sir, to discuss the question of the right of secession.
It is too late for that. The_reserved rights of the States is familiar New York

doctrine. They were more insisted upon, perhaps, in our convention, whioh rati
fied tbe Constitution, beoause, of all the States, New York was the most reluctant
to yield its assent to the Union. Even in the oolonial times, long before the
devolution, we had occasion to consider this question in our controversy with
Vermont, where the right of a community to form an independent government
was successfully asserted, after a long struggle, in which, Ethan Allen won as
much distinction as he afterwards gained at Ticonderoga.*
I might, in passing, compare the remedy of secession with various constitu
tional remedies which are unquestioned, and whioh, perhaps, would be more
effectual for the redress of grievances. Take, for instance, sir, the remedy of
refusing supplies to the Government. Bver since the seventeenth century this
has been recognized as a constitutional proceeding. It has been occasionally and
successfully employed in English history to compel modifications of the British
, Constitution. It was employed to ameliorate the monarchical and aristocratical
elements ofthe Government and to secure larger powers to the people. Suppose
it were applied here ; suppose there was a sufiicient representation in both Houses
to make it effectual; suppose the Representatives from the southern States alone,
without including their friends among the northern Representatives, had deter
mined, in a body, to resort to every parliamentary resource to cut off supplies
from the Federal Government. Without supplies we all know that the Federal
Government would crumble to dust in a year ; it would be paralyzed from head
to foot ; it would be compelled to yield to any assailant. That remedy was not
resorted to, although Mr. Lincoln's party failed to elect a majority in either
House of Congress.
p. Another remedy conceded to be within the Constitution is retaliation. I mean

¦* The dispute bet"ween Vermont and Ne-w York, "which began in 1769, and continued
until 1790, is an instruotiTe passage in our political history, illustrating the relations of
the colonies to each other and to the Confederation. The independence of Vermont was
not recognized by Congress until she had successfully asserted and vindicated it agaiust
Great Britain, New York, and even Congress itself. It is difBcult to say whether one most
admires the address of her diplomatists, the courage of her military leaders, or the sturdy
virtue of the " Green Mountain Boys ;" but certain it is, that between her intrigues with
the British and her negotiations with Congress, her alliance with Massachusetts and her
mortal antagonism with New York, Vermont, after a long and eventful struggle, baffled
all her adversaries, established her independence as a sovereign State, and was duly ad
mitted into the Union upon an equal footing with New York, her old enemy, but evermore,
I trust, her good friend. (See Lippincott'a Cabinet Histories, Vermont, chaps. 3, 12, and
14, for the narrative of this controversy.)

retaliatory legislation as between the States; restrictions upon commerce and
trade and intercourse. Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, and other southern statesmen,
have devised and suggested such measures, the constitutionality of whioh is main
tained by the ablest jurists. A third remedy would have been the withdrawal
of all the southern Representatives in both branches of Congress. To illustrate
the effect of it : suppose the election of a President and Vice-President, had
devolved upon one or other of the two Hotises of Congress, and the Represent
atives of a sufiicient number of States, to prevent the formation of a constitutional-
quorum, had withdrawn : that would have rendered the constitutional election of a
President impossible, and the consequences to the Government of a failure to
choose an Executive, in the manner required by the Constitution, I need not stop
to elaborate.
A fourth alternative, so far as the territorial question is concerned, would have
been for ^he southern States to occupy, by immigration, such portions of the com
mon territory as they desired, and protect their slave property in the territory by
such force as might be necessary to repel interference. By the law of the land,
they would undoubtedly have had a right to defend their property by any amount
of force necessary to overcome any species of attack. This remedy would have
been what is called " fighting within the Union.'' I say, therefore, sir, in gen
eral terms, without amplifying these illustrations, that the remedy of secession
chosen by the aggrieved States, was perhaps the least effectual as a mode of con
straint upon the Government. It will remain to be considered, Mr. Chairman,
how far the plan of peaceable secession has been consistently carried out. It
will remain to be seen whether or no, the precipitate action of South Carolina and
other southern States and communities has not essentially changed the original
character of the secession movement. It will remain to be shown whether or no,
by their interference with the forts, arsenals, navy-yards, and the common
property of the Confederacy, they have not committed a fatal error in the devel
opment of their own policy, themselves initiating that resort to force and " coer
cion " which they have so wisely, and, as I think, so justly deprecated.
Before proceeding to that branch of the subject, I will allude, cursorily, to the
policy proposed by the dominant party in the northern States, in the present con
dition of affairs. With remarkable unanimity they insist upon the employment
of armies and fleets to compel the allegiance of unwilling States. If this policy
were just, it is impossible. To what end shall we make war upon a member of
the Union ? It could not be expected that the most successful prosecution of
hostilities would end in reconciliation. Shall we seek to subjugate the South,

and, obliterating the States, hold it as a mere province, by conquest ? This would
be repugnant to the theory of our Government, which has for its basis, States and
citizens, not dependencies or subjects. If the purpose of such a war be to
destroy the power of the antagonistic States, as foreign enemies, let me implore
you to wait for sufficient evidence of their hostility, and to be sure that you have
exhausted all the means of conciliation. But I utterly deny that the extremest
Federalist, at the time of the formation of the Constitution, ever tolerated the
idea that the Federal Government, through any of its instrumentalities, could
constrain the political action of any sovereign State, except by means of the judi
cial power of the Supreme Court. It will be sufficient, to make this statement
indisputable, to refer gentlemen to the exposition of the Constitution by Alexan
der Hamilton. The founder and leader of the Federal party developed in the
Federalist, cotemporaneously with the adoption of the Constitution, the most
pwerful argument that oould be framed against the power or the. utility of
employing coercion through the Federal Government upon a sovereign State.
He convinced our public men of that epoch, that this element in the Articles
of Coiifederation, made the Government of the Confederation impracticable
He established, by numerous examples from ancient and modern history,* that
whenever the controversies between associated States bad resulted in an appeal
to 'force, civil war and foreign intervention hastened the destruction of the ,
Confederation. Sir, we all know that the Amphyctionic league, one of the most perfect of the
|R,epublics that existed among the Grecian Coipmonwealths, was destroyed by an
'attempt to employ coercion upon one of its members. The people of th,e resisting
State — the Phocians — sought the alliance of Philip of Macedon. Ready and
eager to give it, he occupied the territory of the Republic with his armies, and
'settled the quarrel by annexing the principal States to Macedon. The Achaean
Confederacy, the last and best hope of ancient liberty, was destroyed by the in
tervention of Rome, on the appeal of one of the confederated States, which sought
this mode of escaping the coercion of the league. The passions of men are the

* To those who are disposed to follow this branch of the discussion, and especially to the
Republicans who meditate tbe subjugation of the seceding States, I commend the essays
from Nos. 15 to 20 of the Federalist, both inclusive. In denying this power to the Federal
Government, Madison and Hamilton fully concurred. They represented, in this opinion,
both of tbe great parties and all the leading public men of their time, in this country. Who
will look further for authoritative exposition of the principles and faculties of our Govern
ment?

same in all time. We have, at this epoch, a Philip of Macedon in Louis Napo
leon of France, with armies suoh as tho world has never before seen, eager for
employment ; with a Navy which would enable him to transfer these arms to our
shores, sooner than Philip of Macedon could have marched to Athens. Who can
, fail to see that an attempt to subjugate the States of the South by the Federal
Government would result in appeals for aid, for protection, for alliances, for com
mercial treaties, in any quarter where aid and succor could be found ? The
armies of Louis Napoleon and of Victoria, instead of the Congress of the United
States, would be made the arbiters of the issues arising out of the existing revo
lution. The confederated Governments of modern times equally illustrate the
same views. The more familiar instances are found in the history of the Ger
manic Confederation, the United Netherlands, and the Confederacy of Poland.
No instance more apposite can be cited than that furnished by our own struggle
for independence, which was not accomplished without the intervention of France.
Having adverted, sir, to the southern remedy, and also to the policy of the
dominant party in the northern States, I will allude to the advice of the conser
vative portion of the northern States. We recommend the recognition of all the
rights of the Soufh, without qualification ; the recognition of the equality of the
States; and non-interference with the institution of slavery wherever it exists, or
where it may be established with the consent of the people, in any of the new
States to be formed out of the common territory belonging to the Union. This
is the remedy of justice and conciliation.
Permit me, before I leave this general view of our situation, to advert to a
phrase which expresses, somewhat vaguely perhaps, a popular estimate of the
duty of the Government at this time. Everybody at the North calls for the
" enforcement of the laws." That would be, indeed, desirable. It is not less
the duty, perhaps, than a necessity of Government, because, without the enforce
ment of the laws. Government cannot be said to exist. But, sir, this suggestion
does not meet the existing state of things, because by the Constitution we can
only enforce our laws on persons, and by means of the magistracy. There are
no laws that we can enforce against a State, in arms. To bring individuals
within the regular jurisdiction of law, we must have courts and juries ;
and the Constitution expressly declares that we must deal with offenders in
the State where the crime is committed. You must have a grand jury there to
find indictments ; which you know you have not. You must have your courts
there, before which you will arraign offenders ; and you have no courts. You
must empanel a jury of citizens of the State where the offence was committed ;

8
and that you cannot do ; and if you could, if you had all this machinery, wbere
would you find in South Carolina, or Georgia, or Louisiana, or any of the insur
gent States, a jury that would bring in a verdict of guilty on an indictment for a
political offence, arising out of the present political troubles ?
Let us now return to the course of events at the South — for it is there our im
mediate danger is to be seen. Pending the consideration in Congress, of the
various measures proposed to restore peace and to re-establish the Government,
upon secure foundations of popular content, alarming events have recently oc
curred upon the southern coast. We are threatened with immediate hostilities,
while we are deliberating. Should a state of war intervene, as an incident of
seaession, provoked by the precipitate and unjustifiable action of the local author
ities in these States, all hope of any solution, other than such as the sword may
provide, must be abandoned. It is not yet time to dei-pair of some satisfactory
basis of adjustment being agreed npon in this Congress; although little, if any,
progress has yet been made in the work of reconciliation. It is, nevertheless,
beyond question, too soon for South Carolina, Louisiana, and their allies,
to assume to dictate to the United States the terms upon whioh the Confed
eracy is to be dismembered, and to seize upon the possessions of the Govern
ment which lie adjacent to their jurisdiction. The President has communicated
to Congress the recommendations which he has thought it his duty to make.
They are all that the South oould reasonably ask or hope to secure. This House
has ordered a committee of one from each State, to consider the suggestions of
the President, together with propositions which have been presented to the House
from the Representatives of many States. In another place, our colleagues in
Congress are occupied assiduously with the consideration ofthe subject, and espe
cially the plan of compromise proposed by a distinguished southern Senator. The
recent speech of another distinguished Senator, representing the Republican
party, and also, as rumor says, called to the highest position in the councils of
the next Administration, authorizes us to expect, before many days, a proposition
of honorable compromise from the Cabinet of Mr. Lincoln. Perhaps all these
hopes may be disappointed — all these labors unavailing. The grave, but welcome,
duty of pacificat-ion may, after all, unavoidably go over to our successors. Possi
bly, if our patriotism has all become provincial, reconciliation is impossible.
What, then, is to be done? What is the duty of this Administration and of
this Congress ? If we must abandon all hope from our own exertions, let us, at
least, hand over our trust intact, to tbe next Administration. If the next Ad
ministration, with a majority in both branches of Congress, fail, we must await
an appeal to the people. The Republican party oan save the Union now, by an
honorable compromise, acceptable to the border States. If this be withheld, al
though the Union may be yet dismembered, the Confederacy will be reconstructed
upon the ashes of the men who destroyed it. What is now to be done ? State
after State withdraws its Representatives from this Congress, and will soon accredit
them to the Congress of another confedsratiom. O".'' wisest men fear that no

9
compromise can be perfected in this Congress. The dominant party in the Legis
latures of most of the 'eastern, northern, and western States have indicated by
th^ir action that they will not make the concessions that are indispensable to
reunion. What, then, I repeat, becomes the duty of this Congress and of this
Administration ? I say, for one, that I believe that duty to be to preserve the
status quo; to maintain the Government; and, as a paramount duty, neither to
initiate nor to permit aggression.
But it is an essential condition of this polioy that the like purpose and the like
spirit shall animate our southern friends. It will never do, sir, for them to protest
against coercion, and, at the same moment, seize all tbe arms and arsenals and
forts and navy-yards and ships that may, through our forbearance, fall within
their power. This is not peaceful secession. These acts, whensoever or by
whomsoever done, are overt sots of war. And, sir, when sovereign States,
by their own deliberite acts, make war, they must not cry peace. When they
employ force, they cannot declaim against coercion. The jurisdiction of the
Federal Government in the State of South Carolina is one thing ; the right of
the Federal Government to jurisdiction and absolute eontrol. over its forts and
arsenals and ships-of-war and navy-yards is quite a different question. How
ever secession may, as a political remedy, extend to the territory of South Carolina,
or of Georgia, or of Virginia, it does not apply to territory -which, by their own
sovereign acts, they have indefeasibly ceded to the Government of the United
States. The repeal ofthe ordinance by which a State adopted the Constitution,
cannot undo an absolute cession of territory; all the territory thus acquired, with
the consent of the respective States, was purchased for a fair equivalent. The
sovereign authority of the Government of the United States, overall its territorial
possessions within the States, rests upon the unconditional and voluntary grant of
exclusive jurisdiction by the States in which it was previously vested ; these States,
each for itself, had the sovereign right to surrender this jurisdiction, or to reserve
it. Territory once ceded to us, by the act of the State, is relinquished forever,
and can only be regained with the consent of tbe Government of the United
States. I am arguing this question, Mr. Chairman, on the premises assumed by the
seceding States, and which they affirm to be indisputable. They were always
sovereign. The Constitution recognizes their sovereign right to grant, or refuse
to grant, to the United States, exclusive . j urisdiction over these fortified places.
They have made the grant absolutely and without condition. Now, sir, when- a
sovereign State, by its own act, whether by law, or by treaty, or by grant, cedes
unalterably a piece of territory, whether large or small, whether for a fortress, or
an arsenal, or a city, it is irrevocable, except with the consent of both parties— =-
the State and the Federal Government. No matter what changes a State may
have the right to make in its political condition, these can never retroact upon or
annul a cession of property, jurisdiction, or territorial control, made to another
sovereign State.

10
Now, there is the case, stated with whatever accuracy I can command, with
regard to the forts, arsenals, navy-yards, and public buildings, belonging to the
Government of the United States, which we hold in the St-ates. Let it be said, if
you please, that the Government is only a trustee. It is the trustee for thirty-
three States, not for one ; and no one of the States can seize the common property
of all, divest the trustee of control, and oust all the other associates of right, power,
and possession. Suoh a proposition is subversive of all the law of nations ; it is
monstrous in jurisprudence, in morals, and in politics. It is utterly untenable
and indefensible. I trust that this question will not be misunderstood by the
southern States. I hope they will not percipitate upon the General Government
the issue of war in defence of its incontestable right, and in the discharge of an
undoubted duty to hold each and eyery one of these fortified places, provided for
the common defence of this country. And, sir, it is there, and there alone, that,
at this time, the danger of a collision lies; it is upon this ikue that, if civil war is
begun, the first battle will be fought.
Sir, it would be difficult to imagine graver errors than have been committed in
the rash Seizure of these fortifications, and the appropriation of the public prop
erty. Remember that these attacks and these seizures have been made notwith
standing the solemn declaration by the President ofthe United States that he did
uot possess the right to employ, and should not attempt to use, coercion upon a
sovereign State. No State has been assailed or menaced ; no ship-of-war threatened
any of their harbors; no military force was sent within their borders; and there
fore it cannot be said that these seizures were made to secure the means of protection
against invasion. Remember the course of events. South Carolina called a conven
tion for the purpose of taking steps to secede from the Union. No interference from
any quarter hindered that measure. There was no interference from the Executive
or from Congress. The convention was held and the ordinance of secession
passed. No interference yet — none whatever. No naval force, or military force
was sent for any purpose of coercion. South Carolina organized and equipped
an army. There was yet no legislative or Executive interference on the part
of the General Government. The act of secession from its inception to its com
pletion was rendered as perfect as human agency could make it, and no coercion
was attempted by the executive or legislative departments of the Government.
Therefore, in no sense was South Carolina menaced..
What next ? South Carolina sent three commissioners here to treat for the
acquisition of the forts in the harbor of Charleston, and the public establish
ments belonging to the United States, within its boundaries. Pending negotia
tions, all the unprotected forts, the arsenal, and the public buildings, were taken
and occupied by the authorities of South Carolina. If they belonged to her,
why did she come here to negotiate for them ? If they did not belong to her,
to take them was an act of spoliation — an act of war. The commissioners, who

n 11
had evidently studied diplomacy in the school of Sir Lucius O'Trigger,* lost their
temper, and terminated their negotiation suddenly in a second note, whieh was
returned to them by the President, as impertinent. The transfer of sixty men
from one possession of the United States to another, as a measure of security for
themselves against the threats of a State in arms, seems to have been sufficient
to arouse the apprehensions not only of South Carolina, but of all the adjacent
States. The mere change of position of a handful of men, menaced with attack
from an army, was assumed to be a declaration of war by the Federal Government.
What next ? The forces of South Carolina assault and take Castle Pinckney
and Fort Moultrie. With all the pomp and circumstance of war, the battalions
of South Carolina, duly provided with scaling ladders, battle-axes, and pontoons,
march in grim array to the assault of these fertifications— the clear and indis
putable property and domain of the United States. Defended, or rather occu
pied, only by an omnibus load of laborers, the capture does not prove as difficult
in execution as it was reckless in conception. The palmetto flag is inaugurated
with blank cartridges, and the stars and stripes are transferred to Fort Sumter —
a strong place defended by a noble soldier — where neither the flag nor its defend
ers have been disturbed. Even yet, the President and Congress forbear to resort
to measures either of retaliation or of punishment, or even to recover possession
of the strongholds upon which an inexcusable trespass has been committed.
What next ? The fortifications in the vicinity of Georgia, Louisiana, and
Florida, are seized and held by the militia of those States, acting, it is under
stood, by the authority of the Governors of those States, although without the

* " Sir Lucius. Oh, faith ! I'm in the luck of it. I never could have found him in a
sweeter temper for my purpose— to be sure, I'm just cpme in the nick! Now to enter into
conversation with him, and to quarrel genteelly. \_Goes up to Captain Absolute.] With
regard to that matter, Captain, I must beg leave to differ iu opinion with you.
Capt. Absolute. Upon my word, then, you must be a very subtle disputant : because,
sir, I happened just then to be giving no opinion at all.
Sir Lucius. That's no reason. For give me leave to tell you, a man may think an un
truth, as well as speak one.
Capt. Abs. Very true, sir ; but if a m-a,n never utters his thoughts, I should think they
might stand a chance of escaping controversy.
Sir Lucms. Then, sir, you differ iu opinion with me ; which amounts to the same thing.
Capt. Abs. Hark'ee, Sir Ljioius, if I had not before knowu you to be a gentleman, upon
my soul, I should not have discovered it at this interview : for what you oan drive at,
unless you mean to quarrel with me, I cannot conceive !
Sir Lucius. I humbly thank you, sir, for the quickness of your apprehension. [5ow«ny.]
You have named the very thing I would be at.
Capt. Abs. Very well, sir; I shall certainly not balk your inclination. But I should be
glad you would please to explain your motives.
Sir Lucius. Pray, sir, be easy; the qmrrel is a very pretty quarrel, as it stands; we
should only spoil it by trying to explain it. * * ¦* So, no more ; but name your time
aud place." — The Rivals, act iv, scene iii. .

12
sanction of the people, expressed either in Legislatures or conventions. These
places are held by force, in contempt of the authority of the United States.
These are seditious proceedings ; they are insurrections against the Govern
ment, differing only from the lawless disturbances of the public peace by a mob,
in this : that they are of greater enormity, because perpetrated by men clothed
with color of authority, and holding responsible and respectable public stations.
And these offences against law and order, and the public peace and safety, are
suffered to pass by a lenient Government without punishment. The events of
the following week proved that forbearance was misconstrued into timidity, and
the indulgence extended to infatuation was made the shield to cover outrage with
impunity. What next? An unarmed vessel of commerce, chartered by the Government
as a transport ship, appears in the waters of Charleston, bearing despatches, pro
visions, and men to a place within the unquestionable jurisdiction of the Federal
Government of the United States. The American flag is flying at the masthead
of the Star of the West, and as she approaches the harbor, while in sight of the
fortifications belonging to this Government, the official character of the ship
being well known, the authorities of South Carolina, through their military forces,
opened a fire upon that defenceless ship, and compelled her to retire and abandon
the peaceful and legitimate mission in whioh she was engaged, Now, sir, that
was an act of war, unqualified war. Had such an offence been perpetrated by
any foreign Power, it would have roused every man in this nation ; it would
have elicited from every patriot in this House a loud and earnest protest, and an
appeal for all the measures necessary to repel the insult and avenge the wrong.
It was, sir, I repeat, an aot of naked, unmitigated war. Happily — thanks !
eternal thanks ! to the moderation and the noble magnanimity of Major Ander
son — it was not so treated by him. He remembered that it was done by his
fellow-countrymen; that it was done by men excited and misled by their passions,
and their own anomalous politioal condition. He paused, with cannon in position
and the torch lighted. He referred the transaction to his Government. ' Had
he employed the discretion vested in every commander of a fortress, when he
saw a ship, with his own flag floating over it, with defenceless men upon its
deck, fired upon without excuse or provocation, he would have been justified in
punishing this insult by laying Charleston in ashes; and had he done so, civiliza
tion would have approved the aot. No man, looking at the duty of Major Ander
son, and looking at the responsibility and obligation of his position, could have
censured the most signal vindication of the honor of the flag which his sword and
his life were pledged to maintain. It is another proof of the forbearance, not only
of the Government, but of the people, that the magnanimity of this gallant soldier,
is universally commended, and is known to be sanctioned without reserve by the
Administration. Yet the attack upon that ship was none the less an offence; it was
none the less an aot of war; it was none the less the initiation of a policy whieh, if
persisted in, must inevitably bring on the conflict which we all so much deprecate.

13
It; must result in the employment offeree to protect the rights and the property
and the honor of this country; and it must forever make impossible that recogni
tion ofa common destiny in a reunited Confederacy, whioh, from one end of the
land to the other, seems the only possible hope left to the patriot, in the
existing exigency. Sir, you could not — I have said it before, and I repeat
it now — you could not recruit a regiment that would ever mareh from the
frontier of New York into any southern State for the purpose of employing co
ercion upon its people in the exercise of their legitimate politioal rights. Never,
never ! But the men of New York would go in untold thousands anywhere to
protect the flag of their country, and to maintain its legitimate authority.
Here, then, I ask your attention once more to the great and cardinal distinc
tion between the employment of force upon a sovereign State to compel the
abandonment of proper measures within its legitimate jurisdiction to obtain a re
dress of grievances, or to secure independence; and the employment of force in
defence of the indisputable right and jurisdiction of the United States, where
that jurisdiction has been established irrevocably by the act of the seceding
State itself. When the Constitution was formed, it was proposed to allow the
General Government, without restriction, to acquire property in the States for
the erection of fortifications, and the establishment of arsenals, navy-yards, or
for any other military purpose. In the debates on that article, it was insisted
that, the power was too broad, and that it was necessary it should be limited by
the insertion of a clause making the consent of the several States indispensible
to the exercise of the power. Such a qualification was inserted, I think, upon
the motion of Mr. Gerry. In that form it was adopted unanimously, by the vote
of every State in the Confederacy. Accordingly, sir, the States where these
works of defence are located, have, in pursuance of that clause in the Constitu
tion, given their consent to the purchase of the property ; and have ceded for
ever, by their own sovereign will, exclusive jurisdiction to the Federal Govern
ment over all these fortified places.
It is well understood that the military plan of defences in this country has not
been considered with reference oiily to the protection of the locality where the
work may be placed, but it is a great national system of defence, in which all
these fortified places bear an important relation, not only to local security, but to
the common defence of the nation. Virginia pr New York, have an equal in
terest in Fort Pickens, whioh protects our squadron and commerce in the Gulf of
Mexico, or in Fortress Monroe, which protects the Capitol where we are legislat
ing; or in Fort Sumter, which is an equally important strategic position. New
York has interests no less than South Carolina, or Georgia, or Florida, in each
and all of these defences, and in the navy-yard and forts at Pensacola, which
have also been seized. The commercial interests of the North would be insecure if
their vast shipping in the Gulf trade had no protection from a squadron, which
would find support and a basis of operations at Pensacola. It is as essential to us
as Gibraltar is to the British fleet in the Mediterranean.

14
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's hour has expired. '
Several Members. We want to hear the conclusion of the gentleman's
argument ; and therefore move that his time be extended.
An extension of time was unanimously granted.
Mr. SICKLES. I thank the House.
To resume. I am strongly impressed, Mr Chairman, with the correctness of
the views I have presented, when I recur to the very eloquent and cogent argu
ment of the gentleman from Virginia, [Mr. Garnett.] In his observations
yesterday on the subject of blockades, he adverted to the possibility that the Fed
eral Government might blockade one or more of the southern ports, as a restrictive
measure, and one of a series of coercive proceedings ; and he admonished us, if
such an attempt were made, that England and France, unable to do without south
ern cotton, would interfere and compel us to open the southern ports. I main
tain that the argument whioh the gentleman addressed against blockades is the
most unanswerable reason which human wisdom oould frame against the surren
der of our forts. If it be possible for the contingency to happen, that the navies
of France and England are to be brought to our shores to interfere with the asser
tion of our jurisdiction, would it not be worse than madness for us to surrender the
fortified places, which alone would enable us to assert and maintain our indepen
dence ? Whatever may be our views upon the right of peaceable secession, what
ever we may anticipate as the future of this exigency, we yet have our political
position to maintain as a great commercial nation. The commercial element of
this oountry is in the North and West, and not in the South. The South must
always be essentially an agricultural community, and oan never be a military,
naval, or commercial Power.
We also have our paramount duty of self-defence to perform ; and these posts,
these fortified places and navy-yards, are indispensable for the protection of our
political position against the eventualities whioh secession will bring with it. These
fortified places are of a thousand times more importance with secession an accom
plished and irreversible fact, than if it had never been contemplated. There is no
probability of foreign intervention without secession. With the establishment
of a southern confederacy it is, perhaps, unavoidable. These considera
tions prove it to be our imperative duty to hold these places, under all circum
stances. This necessity should admonish the southern population, which I believe
sincerely desire to prevent war, that they oan never be permitted to hold possessions
which are necessary to maintain the integrity of this continent against foreign
intervention or control.
Our own statute-books are full of precedents to justify us in asserting more than
the right to hold these fortified places. In 1811-12, Congress, by the votes of
large majorities, in whioh southern men united, determined to take possession of
the oountry west of the Mississippi, and also of the Floridas. And this was be
oause their occupation was esssential to our political safety — to our territorial pro-

15
tection. The statesmen of the South are committed to the recognition of the right
and duty of this Government to hold any part of their territory, as a matter of
protective policy. Our own history is full of precedents for it. The history of
every free and great people furnishes precedents for similar measures of security.
The absolute rights of the nation coincide with its necessary and obvious policy.
Our duty is, then, plain and unalterable. We must maintain all our rights. No
foreign Power can. be permitted to intervene between the seceding States and this
Government, nor to exercise any protectorate over them, or to hold any of our
forts, or to occupy any portion of the territory hitherto within our limits.
The interests of civilization, the obligations of international law, and the pros
perity of European trade and commerce, forbid the hostile intervention of any
European Power in a controversy between the General Government and the south
ern States. Yet it is a fact, of which we must not be unmindful, that the Gov
ernments of Europe are in the hands of aristocracies, jealous of our progress, and
fearful of the influence of our success upon their own political system. The Cabi
nets of France and England would be inclined to seek any opportunity whioh might
be legitimately afforded to them, to promote the dismemberment of our Confed
eracy. Lord Palmerston, in his well-known antipathy to this country, only
represents the real sentiments of the governing class in England. The intimate
relations which, in earlier times, existed between France and America, are traditions
whioh Louis Napoleon has taken no pains to remember or preserve. That one
or the other would desire to form an alliance with a southern confederacy, is
beyond a doubt. It might be difficult to unite both of these Powers in such a
scheme of polioy. And it would remain for our diplomatists to avail themselves
of the jealousy whioh exists between England and France, to detach one or the
other from a hostile combination against us ; and thus employ the power of one to
prevent the intervention of either.
And here let me enter my protest, as an American, against the inference whieh
so many will be prompt to accept from the possible dismemberment of the Con
federacy, that republican institutions have failed. It is not so. When suoh an
event shall happen, it will prove only that our Union of States embraced an anta
gonistical element which oould not co-exist with a purely republican theory of
labor. This element, so far from originating with the Republic, was inherited
from Spain and France and England, and by them ingrafted upon our primitive
social, and political organization. The present controversy has not arisen out of
any defeot in our form of Government, nor does it furnish the least proof that
the institutions which have contributed so much to our signal advancement in
civilization and power, are not equally adapted to promote the same results in one,
two, or three independent confederacies, embracing a homogeneous population
and congenial interests. If anything were needed to show that the disaffection in
the southern States finds no origin in a distrust of the adaptation of the free
institutions to their peciiliar condition, it is to be seen in the fact that none of
them propose to make any radical change in their State constitutions or laws ;

l(i
and with common accord, they all suggest the existing Constitution of the United
States as the basis of the contemplated southern confederation. It is not difficult,
I acknowledge, to foresee the ultimate changes which probable events might
render unavoidable in the institutions of a southern confederacy composed ex
clusively of slaveholding States. The necessity of large standing armies, the
exigencies of defence and internal security, would hasten its tendencies towards
consolidation; the independence ofthe States would be merged; universal suffrage
would soon be abandoned ; and the Government would, in the end, yield to the con
trol of an aristocracy, partly military, but mainly directed by the small class in
whom would be united the possession of all the capital and all the labor. What
ever may be the issue of existing complications, the Republic of the United
States is imperishable. It will survive all the dangers which now assail it. It
will vindicate the faith in humanity upon whioh it reposes. It will fulfill its
destiny in ¦ the development of an ameliorated system of institutions and laws,
which recognize the equality of all the citizens composing the Commonwealth.
It is my prayer to our Father, that these disastrous events may go no further;
that the day-spring from on high may visit us, and guide our feet into the way
of peace. But whatever may be the issue of events — whether, happily, by con
ciliation and justice to the South, we may find an honorable and fraternal solutioil
of our difficulties. Or whether, unhappily, we blindly drift into alienation, war,
and irrevocable separation—the great commercial interests of this country
require, the destiny of American civilization demands, that the political and
territorial control of this continent, from the, mouth of the Hudson to the
mouth of the Mississippi, from the Atlantic to the Pacific seas, shall remain
where it now is — in the hands of the Government of the United States. In
all the partisan issues between the South and the Republican party, the people
of the eity of New York are with the South ; but when the South makes an
untenable issue with our country, when the flag of the Union is insulted,
when the fortified places provided for the common defence are assaulted and
seized, when the South abandons its northern friends for English and French
alliances, then the loyal and patriotic population of that imperial city are
unanimous for the Union.

McGill & Witherow, Printers, Wasliington, D. 0.