Showing posts with label Disunion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Disunion. Show all posts

Saturday, March 9, 2024

Daniel Webster to Mr. F. S. Lathrop & Others, November 14, 1850

Boston, November 14, 1850.

GENTLEMEN,—I am under great obligations for the letter received from you, expressing your approbation of the sentiments contained in my letter to the Union meeting at Castle Garden.

The longer I live, the more warmly am I attached to the happy form of government under which we live. It is certain that, at the present time, there is a spirit abroad which seeks industriously to undermine that government. This, of course, will be denied, and denied by those whose constant effort is to inspire the North with haterd towards the South, and the South with hatred toward the North; and it is time for all true patriots to make a united effort, in which I shall most cordially join, not only to resist open schemes of disunion, but to eradicate its spirit from the public mind.

I have the honor to be, gentlemen, with great regard, your obliged fellow-citizen and humble servant,

DAN'L WEBSTER.

TO MESSRS. F. S. LATHROP, CHAS. G. CARLETON, PETER S. DUNEE, GENARD HALLOCK, Committee, New York.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 404

Thursday, March 7, 2024

Senator John C. Calhoun to James H. Hammond,* February 14, 1849

Washington 14th Feb. 1849

MY DEAR SIR, I have no copy with me of your letter, refered to in the enclosed, and know not where one can be got except from yourself. If you have a spare copy, I would be obliged to you for enclosing it to me, and to return the letter of Mr Jackson with it.

I enclosed you a copy of our Address, which I hope you have received, and that it meets your approbation. I trust it will do something to Unite the South, and to prepare our people to meet and repel effectually and forever the aggressions of the North. Already the stand taken here and in Virginia, N. C. our State and Florida has made a deep impression on the North. Missouri is about to take a firm and decided stand and Kentucky will, I learn, put down effectually the attempt in favor of emancipation proposed to be made in the Convention to be held this year in that State. It is said, there will not be three members of the body in favour of it. But this and all other favourable symptoms, so far from relaxing, ought to add new energy to our efforts. Now is the time to vindicate our rights. We ought rather than to yield an inch, take any alternative, even if it should be disunion, and I trust that such will be the determination of the South.
_______________

* Original lent by Mr. E. S. Hammond.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 762-3

Wednesday, February 21, 2024

Congressman Horace Mann, August 18, 1850

AUG. 18, 1850.

. . We are now debating the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill in the House. It is quite uncertain when any one of the exciting questions will be taken up. On those questions, the old parties are greatly divided; and many members act upon their own judgment, or with reference to the wishes of their constituents at home. There is a party, however, which is determined to support the Administration, without further inquiry. The truth is, the slave-power of the South and the money-power of the North have struck hands. The one threatens the Union: the other yields, professing to be in fear of disunion, but really for the purpose of obtaining the profits of trade and of getting a new tariff. The whole mercantile press of Boston is under the influence of this power. They either come out decidedly, and denounce every thing and everybody that stands in the way of getting more money, at what ever sacrifice of human liberty, like the "Courier," "Advertiser," and "Post," or like the other papers, the "Traveller," the "Mercantile Journal," &c., they maintain silence on the subject while the enemy is at work. The "Courier" is the most spiteful and virulent against me. They cannot reason me down; so they try to ridicule me down. They copy from the "Springfield Republican."

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 315-6

Thursday, February 15, 2024

Senator John C. Calhoun to John H. Means,* April 13, 1849

Fort Hill 13th April 1849.

MY DEAR SIR, I am glad to learn by your letter and from other Sources, that a meeting is to be held next month in Columbia, to be composed of delegates from the different Commitees of correspondence. I regard it as a step of much importance and responsibility.

You ask my opinion as to the course the Meeting should take. Before I give it, I deem it due to candour and the occasion to State, that I am of the impression that the time is near at hand when the South will have to chose between disunion, and submission. I think so, because I see little prospect of arresting the aggression of the North. If anything can do it, it would be for the South to present with an unbroken front to the North the alternative of dissolving the partnership or of ceasing on their part to violate our rights and to disregard the stipulations of the Constitution in our favour; and that too without delay. I say without delay; for it may be well doubted whether the alienation between the two sections has not already gone too far to save the Union; but, if it has not, there can be none that it soon will, if not prevented by some prompt and decisive measure. It has been long on the increase and is now more rapidly increasing than ever. The prospect is as things now stand, that before four years have elapsed, the Union will be divided into two great hostile sectional parties.

But it will be impossible to present such a front, except by means of a Convention of the Southern States. That, and that only could speak for the whole, and present authoritatively to the North the alternative, which to choose. If such a presentation should fail to save the Union, by arresting the aggression of the North and causing our rights and the stipulations of the Constitution in our favour to be respected, it would afford proof conclusive that it could not be saved, and that nothing was left us, but to save ourselves. Having done all we could to save the Union, we would then stand justified before God and man to dissolve a partnership which had proved inconsistent with our safety, and, of course, distructive of the object which mainly induced us to enter into it. Viewed in this light, a Convention of the South is an indispensible means to discharge a great duty we owe to our partners in the Union; that is, to warn them in the most solemn manner that if they do not desist from aggression, and cease to disregard our rights and the stipulations of the Constitution, the duty we owe to ourselves and our posterity would compel us to dissolve forever the partnership with them. But should its warning voice fail to save the Union, it would in that case prove the most efficient of all means for saving ourselves. It would give us the great advantage of enjoying the conscious feeling of having done all we could to save it and thereby free us from all responsibility in reference to it, while it would afford the most efficient means of United and prompt action, and thereby of meeting the momentous occasion without confusion or disorder, and with certainty of success.

Thus thinking, my opinion is that the great object to be aimed at by the Meeting is to adopt measures to prepare the way for a Convention of the Southern States. What they should be the Meeting can best decide. It seems to me, however, that the organization of our own and the other Southern States is an indispensible step and for that and other purposes there ought to be an able Committee appointed having its center in Charleston, or Columbia, and vested with power to take such steps as may be deemed necessary to carry into effect that and the other measures which may be adopted by the Meeting.

I agree with you as to a non intercourse with the North in commerce and trade. Passing over the objection that it would be below the dignity of the occasion, it would be neither prudent nor efficient, most certainly as preceeding the meeting of a Southern Convention.
_______________

* From a draft in Calhoun's handwriting. John H. Means was an active secessionist, was chosen governor of South Carolina the next year, and was killed, a Confederate colonel, at the second battle of Bull Run.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 764-6

Saturday, January 27, 2024

Andrew Jackson’s Proclamation Regarding the Nullifying Laws of South Carolina, December 10, 1832

PROCLAMATION,

BY ANDREW JACKSON, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

TUESDAY, DECEMBER 10, 1832.

Whereas a convention, assembled in the State of South Carolina, have passed an ordinance, by which they declare, "that the several acts and parts of acts of the Congress of the United States, purporting to be laws for the imposing of duties and imposts on the importation of foreign commodities, and now having actual operation and effect within the United States, and, more especially" two acts for the same purposes, passed on the twenty-ninth of May, 1828, and on the fourteenth of July, 1832, "are unauthorized by the Constitution of the United States, and violate the true meaning and intent thereof, and are null and void, and no law," nor binding on the citizens of that State or its officers: and, by the said ordinance, it is further declared to be unlawful for any of the constituted authorities of the State, or of the United States, to enforce the payment of the duties imposed by the said acts within the same State, and that it is the duty of the legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to give full effect to the said ordinance:

And, whereas, by the said ordinance, it is further ordained, that in no case of law or equity, decided in the courts of said State, wherein shall be drawn in question the validity of the said ordinance, or of the acts of the legislature that may be passed to give it effect, or of the said laws of the United States, no appeal shall be allowed to the Supreme Court of the United States, nor shall any copy of the record be permitted or allowed for that purpose; and that any person attempting to take such appeal, shall be punished as for a contempt of court:

And, finally, the said ordinance declares that the people of South Carolina will maintain the said ordinance at every hazard; and that they will consider the passage of any act by Congress, abolishing or closing the ports of said State, or otherwise obstructing the free ingress or egress of vessels to and from the said ports, or any other act of the Federal Government to coerce the State, shut up her ports, destroy or harass her commerce, or to enforce the said acts, otherwise than through the civil tribunals of the country, as inconsistent with the longer continuance of South Carolina in the Union; and that the people of the said State will thenceforth hold themselves absolved from all further obligation to maintain or preserve their political connection with the people of the other States, and will, forth with, proceed to organize a separate government, and do all other acts and things which sovereign and independent States may of right do:

And, whereas, the said ordinance prescribes to the people of South Carolina a course of conduct, in direct violation of their duty, as citizens of the United States, contrary to the laws of their country, subversive of its Constitution, and having for its object the destruction of the Union—that Union, which, coeval with our political existence, led our fathers, without any other ties to unite them, than those of patriotism and a common cause, through a sanguinary struggle to a glorious independence-that sacred Union, hitherto inviolate, which, perfected by our happy Constitution, has brought us, by the favor of Heaven, to a State of prosperity at home and high consideration abroad, rarely, if ever, equalled in the history of nations. To preserve this bond of our political existence from destruction, to maintain, inviolate, this state of national honor and prosperity, and to justify the confidence my fellow-citizens have reposed in me, I, ANDREW JACKSON, President of the United States, have thought proper to issue this, my PROCLAMATION, stating my views of the Constitution and laws, applicable to the measures adopted by the Convention of South Carolina, and to the reasons they have put forth to sustain them, declaring the course which duty will require me to pursue, and, appealing to the understanding and patriotism of the people, warn them of the consequences that must inevitably result from an observance of the dictates of the convention.

Strict duty would require of me nothing more than the exercise of those powers with which I am now, or may hereafter be invested, for preserving the peace of the Union, and for the execution of the laws. But the imposing aspect which opposition has assumed in this case, by clothing itself with State Authority, and the deep interest which the people of the United States must all feel, in preventing a resort to stronger measures, while there is a hope that any thing will be yielded to reasoning and remonstrance, perhaps demand, and will certainly justify, a full exposition to South Carolina and the nation, of the views I entertain of this important question, as well as a distinct enunciation of the course which my sense of duty will require me to pursue.

The ordinance is founded, not on the indefeasible right of resisting acts which are plainly unconstitutional, and too oppressive to be endured, but on the strange position that any one State may not only declare an Act of Congress void, but prohibit its execution—that they may do this consistently with the Constitution—that the true construction of that instrument permits a State to retain its place in the Union, and yet be bound by no other of its laws than those it may chose to consider as constitutional. It is true, they add, that, to justify this abrogation of a law, it must be palpably contrary to the Constitution; but it is evident that, to give the right of resisting laws of that description, coupled with the uncontrolled right to decide what laws deserve that character, is to give the power of resisting all laws. For, as by the theory, there is no appeal, the reasons alleged by the State, good or bad, must prevail. If it should be said that public opinion is a sufficient check against the abuse of this power, it may asked why it is not deemed a sufficient guard against the passage of an unconstitutional Act by Congress. There is, however, a restraint in this last case, which makes the assumed power of a State more indefensible, and which does not exist in the other. There are two appeals from an unconstitutional act passed by Congress one to the judiciary, the other to the people and the States. There is no appeal from the State decision in theory: and the practical illustration shows that the courts are closed against an application to review it, both judges and jurors being sworn to decide in its favor, But reasoning on this subject is superfluous when our social compact in express terms declares, that the laws of the United States, its Constitution, and treaties made under it, are the Supreme Law of the Land: and, for greater caution, adds, “that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." And it may be asserted, without fear of refutation, that no federative government could exist without a similar provision. Look for a moment to the consequence. If South Carolina considers the revenue laws unconstitutional, and has a right to prevent their execution in the port of Charleston, there would be a clear constitutional objection to their collection in every other port, and no revenue could be collected any where; for all imposts must be equal. It is no answer to repeat that an unconstitutional law is no law, so long as the question of its legality is to be decided by the State itself; for every law operating injuriously upon any local interest will be perhaps thought, and certainly represented, as unconstitutional, and, as has been shown, there is no appeal.

If this doctrine had been established at an earlier day, the Union would have been dissolved in its infancy. The excise law in Pennsylvania, the embargo and non-intercourse law in the eastern States, the carriage tax in Virginia, were all deemed unconstitutional, and were more unequal in their operation than any of the laws now complained of; but, fortunately, none of those States discovered that they had the right now claimed by South Carolina. The war into which we were forced, to support the dignity of the nation and the rights of our citizens, might have ended in defeat and disgrace, instead of victory and honor, if the States, who supposed it a ruinous and unconstitutional measure, had thought they possessed the right of nullifying the act by which it was declared, and denying supplies for its prosecution. Hardly and unequally as those measures bore upon several members of the Union, to the legislatures of none did this efficient and peaceable remedy, as it is called, suggest itself. The discovery of this important feature in our Constitution was reserved to the present day. To the statesmen of South Carolina belongs the invention, and upon the citizens of that State will unfortunately fall the evils of reducing it to practice.

If the doctrine of a State veto upon the laws of the Union carries with it internal evidence of its impracticable absurdity, our constitutional history will also afford abundant proof that it would have been repudiated with indignation, had it been proposed to form a feature in our government.

In our colonial State, although dependent on another power, we very early considered ourselves as connected by common interest with each other. Leagues were formed for common defence, and before the Declaration of Independence, we were known in our aggregate character as THE UNITED COLONIES OF AMERICA. That decisive and important step was taken jointly. We declared ourselves a nation by a joint, not by several acts; and when the terms of our confederation were reduced to form, it was in that of a solemn league of several States, by which they agreed that they would, collectively, form one nation for the purpose of conducting some certain domestic concerns, and all foreign relations. In the instrument forming that Union, is found an article which declares that "every State shall abide by the determinations of Congress on all questions which by that confederation should be submitted to them."

Under the confederation, then, no State could legally annul a decision of the Congress, or refuse to submit to its execution; but no provision was made to enforce these decisions. Congress made requisitions, but they were not complied with. The government could not operate on individuals. They had no judiciary, no means of collecting revenue.

But the defects of the confederation need not be detailed. Under its operation, we could scarcely be called a nation. We had neither prosperity at home nor consideration abroad. This state of things could not be endured, and our present happy Constitution was formed; but formed in vain, if this fatal doctrine prevails. It was formed for important objects that are announced in the preamble made in the name and by the authority of the people of the United States, whose delegates framed, and whose conventions approved it. The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest, is "to from a more perfect Union" Now, is it possible that, even if there were no express provision giving supremacy to the Constitution and Laws of the United States over those of the States, it can be conceived, that an instrument made for the purpose of "forming a more perfect Union" than that of the confederation, could be so constructed by the assembled wisdom of our country as to substitute for that confederation a form of government dependent for its existence on the local interest, the party spirit of a State, or of a prevailing faction in a State? Every man of plain unsophisticated understanding, who hears the question, will give such an answer as will preserve the Union. Metaphysical subtlety, in pursuit of an impracticable theory, could alone have devised one that is calculated to destroy it.

I consider, then, the power to annual a law of the United States, assumed by one State, INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE EXISTENCE OF THE UNION, CONTRADICTED EXPRESSLY BY THE LETTER OF THE CONSTITUTION, UNAUTHORIZED BY ITS SPIRIT, INCONSISTENT WITH EVERY PRINCIPLE ON WHICH IT WAS FOUNDED, AND DESTRUCTIVE OF THE GREAT OBJECT FOR WHICH IT WAS FORMED.

After this general view of the leading principle, we must examine the particular application of it which is made in the ordinance.

The preamble rests its justification on these grounds: It assumes, as a fact, that the obnoxious laws, although they purport to be laws for raising revenue, were, in reality, intended for the protection of manufactures, which purpose it asserts to be unconstitutional—that the operation of these laws is unequal—that the amount raised by them is greater than is required by the wants of the government—and, finally, that the proceeds are to be applied to objects unauthorized by the Constitution. These are the only causes alleged to justify an open opposition to the laws of the country, and a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt should be made to enforce them. The first virtually acknowledges that the law in question was passed under a power expressly given by the Constitution, to lay and collect imposts; but its constitutionality is drawn in question from the motives of those who passed it. However apparent this purpose may be in the present case, nothing can be more dangerous than to admit the position that an unconstitutional purpose, entertained by the members who assent to a law enacted under a constitutional power, shall make that law void; for how is that purpose to be ascertained? Who is to make the scrutiny? How often may bad purposes be falsely imputed? in how many cases are they concealed by false professions? in how many is no declaration of motive made? Admit this doctrine, and you give to the States an uncontrolled right to decide, and every law may be annulled under this pretext. If, therefore, the absurd and dangerous doctrine should be admitted, that a State may annul an unconstitutional law, or one that it deems such, it will not apply to the present case.

The next objection is, that the laws in question operate unequally. This objection may be made with truth, to every law that has been or can be passed. The wisdom of man never yet contrived a system of taxation that would operate with perfect equality. If the unequal operation of a law makes it unconstitutional, and if all laws of that description may be abrogated by any State for that cause, then indeed is the Federal Constitution unworthy of the slightest effort for its preservation. We have hitherto relied on it as the perpetual bond of our Union.

We have received it as the work of the assembled wisdom of the nation, have trusted to it as to the sheet anchor of our safety, in the stormy times of conflict with a foreign or domestic foe. We have looked to it with sacred awe, as the palladium of our liberties; and, with all the solemnities of religion, have pledged to each other, our lives and fortunes here, and our hopes of happiness hereafter, in its defence and support. Were we mistaken, my countrymen, in attaching this importance to the Constitution of our country? Was our devotion paid to the wretched, inefficient, clumsy contrivance, which this new doctrine would make it? Did we pledge ourselves to the support of an airy nothing—a bubble that must be blown away by the first breath of disaffection? Was this self-destroying, visionary theory, the work of the profound statesmen, the exalted patriots, to whom the task of constitutional reform was entrusted? Did the name of Washington sanction, did the States deliberately ratify, such an anomaly in the history of fundamental legislation? No. We were not mistaken! The letter of this great instrument is free from this radical fault: its language directly contradicts the imputation: its spirit—its evident intent, contradicts it. No, we did not err! Our Constitution does not contain the absurdity of giving power to make laws, and another power to resist them. The sages, whose memory will always be reverenced, have given us a practical, and, as they hoped, a permanent constitutional compact. The father of his country did not affix his revered name to so palpable and absurdity. Nor did the States, when they severally ratified it, do so under the impression that a veto on the laws of the United States was reserved to them, or that they could exercise it by application. Search the debates in all their conventions—examine the speeches of the most zealous opposers of federal authority—look at the amendments that were proposed. They are all silent—not a syllable uttered, not a vote given, not a motion made to correct the explicit supremacy given to the laws of the Union over those of the States—or to show that implication, as is now contended, could defeat it. No, we have not erred! The Constitution is still the object of our reverence, the bond of our Union, our defence in danger, the source of our prosperity in peace. It shall descend, as we have received it, uncorrupted by sophistical construction, to our posterity; and the sacrifices of local interests, of State prejudices, of personal animosities, that were made to bring it into existence, will again be patriotically offered for its support.

The two remaining objections, made by the ordinance to these laws, are, that the sums intended to be raised by them are greater than are required, and that the proceeds will be unconstitutionally employed. The Constitution has given expressly to Congress the right of raising revenue, and of determining the sum the public exigencies will require. The States have no control over the exercise of this right, other than that which results from the power of changing the representatives who abuse it, and thus procure redress.

Congress may, undoubtedly, abuse this discretionary power, but the same may be said of others with which they are vested. Yet the discretion must exist somewhere. The Constitution has given it to the representatives of the people, checked by the representatives of the States, and by the executive power. The South Carolina construction gives it to the legislature or the convention of a single State, where neither the people of the different States, nor the States in their separate capacity, nor the Chief Magistrate, elected by the people, have any representation. Which is the most discreet disposition of the power? I do not ask you, fellow-citizens, which is the constitutional disposition—that instrument speaks a language not to be misunderstood. But if you were assembled in general convention, which would you think the safest depository of this discretionary power, in the last resort? Would you add a clause, giving it to each of the States; or would you sanction the wise provisions already made by your Constitution? If this should be the result of your deliberations, when providing for the future, are you—can you be—ready to risk all that we hold dear, to establish, for a temporary and a local purpose, that which you must acknowledge to be destructive, and even absurd, as a general provision? Carry out the consequences of this right vested in the different States, and you must perceive that the crisis your conduct presents at this day, would recur whenever any law of the United States displeased any of the States, and that we should soon cease to be a nation.

The ordinance, with the same knowledge of the future that characterizes a former objection, tells you that the proceeds of the tax will be unconstitutionally applied. If this could be ascertained with certainty, the objection would, with more propriety, be reserved for the law so applying the proceeds, but surely cannot be urged against the laws levying the duty.

These are the allegations contained in the ordinance. Examine them seriously, my fellow-citizens—judge for yourselves. I appeal to you to determine whether they are so clear, so convincing, as to leave no doubt of their correctness: and even if you should come to this conclusion, how far they justify the reckless, destructive course, which you are directed to pursue. Review these objections, and the conclusions drawn from them, once more. What are they? Every law, then, for raising revenue, according to the South Carolina ordinance, may be rightfully annulled, unless it be so framed as no law ever will or can be framed. Congress have a right to pass laws for raising revenue, and each State has a right to oppose their execution—two rights directly opposed to each other; and yet is this absurdity supposed to be contained in an instrument drawn for the express purpose of avoiding collisions between the States and the General Government, by an assembly of the most enlightened statesmen and purest patriots ever embodied for a similar purpose.

In vain have these sages declared that Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises—in vain have they provided that they shall have power to pass laws which shall be necessary and proper to carry those powers into execution; that those laws and that Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land; and that the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding." In vain have the people of the several States solemnly sanctioned these provisions, made them their paramount law, and individually sworn to support them whenever they were called on to execute any office. Vain provisions! ineffectual restrictions! vile profanation of oaths! miserable mockery of legislation! If a bare majority of the voters in any one State may, on a real or supposed knowledge of the intent with which a law has been passed, declare themselves free from its operation—say here it gives too little, there too much, and operates unequally—here it suffers articles to be free that ought to be taxed, there it taxes those that ought to be free—in this case the proceeds are intended to be applied to purposes which we do not approve—in that the amount raised is more than is wanted. Congress, it is true, are invested by the Constitution with the right of deciding these questions according to their sound discretion. Congress is composed of the representatives of all the States and of all the people of all the States; but we, part of the people of one State, to whom the Constitution has given no power on the subject, from whom it has expressly taken it away—we, who have solemnly agreed that this Constitution shall be our law—we, most of whom have sworn to support it—we, now abrogate this law, and swear, and force others to swear, that it shall not be obeyed—and we do this, not because Congress have no right to pass such laws; this we do not allege; but because they have passed them with improper views. They are unconstitutional from the motives of those who passed them, which we can never with certainty know, from their unequal operation; although it is impossible from the nature of things that they should be equal—and from the disposition which we presume may be made of their proceeds, although that disposition has not been declared. This is the plain meaning of the ordinance in relation to laws which it abrogates for alleged unconstitutionality. But it does not stop there. It repeals, in express terms, an important part of the Constitution itself, and of laws passed to give it effect, which have never been alleged to be unconstitutional. The Constitution declares that the judicial powers of the United States extend to cases arising under the laws of the United States, and that such laws, the Constitution and treaties shall be paramount to the State constitutions and laws. The judiciary act prescribes the mode by which the case may be brought before a court of the United States, by appeal, when a State tribunal shall decide against this provision of the Constitution. The ordinance declares there shall be no appeal; makes the State law paramount to the Constitution and laws of the United States; forces judges and jurors to swear that they will disregard their provisions; and even makes it penal in a suitor to attempt relief by appeal. It further declares that it shall not be lawful for the authorities of the United States, or of that State, to enforce the payment of duties imposed by the revenue laws within its limits.

Here is a law of the United States, not even pretended to be unconstitutional, repealed by the authority of a small majority of the voters of a single State. Here is a provision of the Constitution which is solemnly abrogated by the same authority.

On such expositions and reasonings, the ordinance grounds not only an assertion of the right to annul the laws of which it complains, but to enforce it by a threat of seceding from the Union, if any attempt is made to execute them.

This right to secede is deduced from the nature of the Constitution, which, they say, is a compact between sovereign States, who have preserved their whole sovereignty, and, therefore, are subject to no superior; that, because they made the compact, they can break it when, in their opinion, it has been departed from by the other States. Fallacious as this course of reasoning is, it enlists State pride, and finds advocates in the honest prejudices of those who have not studied the nature of our government sufficiently to see the radical error on which it rests.

The people of the United States formed the Constitution, acting through the State Legislatures in making the compact, to meet and discuss its provisions, and acting in separate conventions when they ratified those provisions; but the terms used in its construction, show it to be a government in which the people of all the States collectively are represented. We are ONE PEOPLE in the choice of the President and Vice President. Here the States have no other agency than to direct the mode in which the votes shall be given. The candidates having the majority of all the votes, are chosen. The electors of a majority of States may have given their votes for one candidate, and yet another may be chosen. The People, then, and not the States, are represented in the executive branch.

In the House of Representatives there is this difference, that the people of one State do not, as in the case of President and Vice President, all vote for the same officers. The people of all the States do not vote for all the members, each State electing only its own representatives. But this creates no material distinction. When chosen, they are all representatives of the United States, not representatives of the particular State from which they come. They are paid by the United States, not by the State; nor are they accountable to it for any act done in the performance of their legislative functions; and, however they may in practice, as it is their duty to do, consult and prefer the interests of their particular constituents when they come in conflict with any other partial or local interest, yet it is their first and highest duty, as representatives of the United States, to promote the general good.

The Constitution of the United States, then, forms a government, not a league; and whether it be formed by compact between the States, or in any other manner, its character is the same. It is a government in which all the people are represented, which operates directly on the people individually, not upon the States: they retained all the power they did not grant. But each State having expressly parted with so many powers as to constitute, jointly with the other States a single nation, cannot from that period possess any right to secede, because such secession does not break a league, but destroys the unity of a nation; and any injury to that unity is not only a breach which would result from the contravention of a compact, but it is an offence against the whole Union. To say that any State may at pleasure secede from the Union, is to say that the United States are not a nation; because it would be a solecism to contend that any part of a nation might dissolve its connexion with the other parts, to their injury or ruin, without committing any offence. Secession, like any other revolutionary act, may be morally justified by the extremity of oppression; but to call it a constitutional right is confounding the meaning of terms; and can only be done through gross error, or to deceive those who are willing to assert a right, but would pause before they made a revolution, or incur the penalties consequent on a failure.

Because the Union was formed by a compact, it is said the parties to that compact may, when they feel themselves aggrieved, depart from it: but it is precisely because it is a compact that they cannot. A compact is an agreement or binding obligation. It may, by its terms, have a sanction or penalty for its breach, or it may not. If it contains no sanction, it may be broken with no other consequence than moral guilt: if it have a sanction, then the breach incurs the designated or implied penalty. A league between independent nations, generally, has no sanction other than a moral one; or, if it should contain a penalty, as there is no common superior, it cannot be enforced. A government, on the contrary, always has a sanction, expressed or implied; and, in our case, it is both necessarily implied and expressly given. An attempt by force of arms to destroy a government, is an offence, by whatever means the constitutional compact may have been formed; and such government has the right, by the law of self defence, to pass acts for punishing the offender, unless that right is modified, restrained, or resumed, by the constitutional act. In our system, although it is modified in the case of treason, yet authority is expressly given to pass all laws necessary to carry its powers into effect, and under this grant provision has been made for punishing acts which obstruct the due administration of the laws.

It would seem superfluous to add any thing to show the nature of that union which connects us; but as erroneous opinions on this subject are the foundation of doctrines the most destructive to our peace, I must give some further development to my views on this subject. No one, fellow-citizens, has a higher reverence for the reserved rights of the States, than the magistrate who now addresses you. No one would make greater personal sacrifices, or official exertions, to defend them from violation; but equal care must be taken to prevent on their part an improper interference with, or resumption of, the rights they have vested in the nation. The line has not been so distinctly drawn as to avoid doubts in some cases of the exercise of power. Men of the best intentions and soundest views may differ in their construction of some parts of the Constitution: but there are others on which dispassionate reflection can leave no doubt. Of this nature appears to be the assumed right of secession. It rests, as we have seen, on the alleged, undivided sovereignty of the States, and on their having formed in this sovereign capacity a compact which is called the Constitution, from which, because they made it, they have the right to secede. Both of these positions are erroneous, and some of the arguments to prove them so have been anticipated.

The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty. The right to make treaties, declare war, levy taxes, exercise exclusive judicial and legislative powers, were all of them functions of sovereign power. The States, then, for all these important purposes, were no longer sovereign. The allegiance of their citizens was transferred, in the first instance, to the government of the United States—they became American citizens, and owed obedience to the Constitution of the United States, and to laws made in conformity with the powers it vested in Congress. This last position has not been, and cannot be denied. How then can that State be said to be sovereign and independent, whose citizens owe obedience to laws not made by it, and whose magistrates are sworn to disregard those laws, when they come in conflict with those passed by another? What shows conclusively that the States cannot be said to have reserved an undivided sovereignty, is, that they expressly ceded the right to punish treason—not treason against their separate power—but treason against the United States. Treason is an offence against sovereignty, and sovereignty must reside with the power to punish it. But the reserved rights of the States are not less sacred, because they have for their common interest made the General Government the depository of these powers. The unity of our political character (as has been shown for another purpose) commenced with its very existence. Under the royal government, we had no separate character our opposition to its oppression began as UNITED COLONIES. We were the UNITED STATES under the confederation, and the name was perpetuated, and the union rendered more perfect, by the Federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation. Treaties and alliances were made in the name of all. Troops were raised for the joint defence. How, then, with all these proofs, that under all changes of our position we had, for designated purposes and with defined powers, created national governments—how is it, that the most perfect of those several modes of union should now be considered as a mere league, that may be dissolved at pleasure? It is from an abuse of terms. Compact is used as synonymous with league, although the true term is not employed, because it would at once show the fallacy of the reasoning. It would not do to say that our Constitution was only a league; but, it is labored to prove it a compact, (which in one sense it is,) and then to argue that as a league is a compact, every compact between nations must of course be a league, and that from such an engagement every sovereign power has a right to recede. But it has been shown, that in this sense the States are not sovereign, and that even if they were, and the National Constitution had been formed by compact, there would be no right in any one State to exonerate itself from its obligations.

So obvious are the reasons which forbid this secession, that it is necessary only to allude to them. The Union was formed for the benefit of all. It was produced by mutual sacrifices of interests and opinions. Can those sacrifices be recalled? Can the States who magnanimously surrendered their title to the territories of the west, recall the grant? Will the inhabitants of the inland States agree to pay the duties that may be imposed without their assent by those on the Atlantic or the Gulf, for their own benefit? Shall there be a free port in one State, and onerous duties in another? No one believes that any right exists in a single State to involve all the others in these and countless other evils, contrary to the engagements solemnly made. Every one must see that the other States, in self-defence, must oppose at all hazards.

These are the alternatives that are presented by the Convention: a repeal of all the acts for raising revenue, leaving the government without the means of support; or an acquiescence in the dissolution of the Union by the secession of one of its members. When the first was proposed, it was known that it could not be listened to for a moment. It was known if force was applied to oppose the execution of the laws, that it must be repelled by force—that Congress could not, without involving itself in disgrace, and the country in ruin, accede to the proposition; and yet, if this is not done in a given day, or if any attempt is made to execute the laws, the State is, by the ordinance, declared to be out of the Union. The majority of a convention assembled for the purpose have dictated these terms, or rather this rejection of all terms, in the name of the people of South Carolina, It is true that the Governor of the State speaks of the submission of their grievances to a convention of all the States; which, he says, they "sincerely and anxiously seek and desire." Yet this obvious and constitutional mode of obtaining the sense of the other States on the construction of the federal compact, and amending it, if necessary, has never been attempted by those who have urged the State on this destructive measure. The State might have proposed the call for a general convention to the other States; and Congress, if a sufficient number of them concurred, must have called it. But the first magistrate of South Carolina, when he expressed a hope that, "on a review by Congress and the functionaries of the General Government of the merits of the controversy," such a convention will be accorded to them, must have known that neither Congress nor any functionary of the General Government has authority to call such a convention, unless it be demanded by two-thirds of the States. This suggestion, then, is another instance of the reckless inattention to the provisions of the Constitution with which this crisis has been madly hurried on; or of the attempt to persuade the people that a constitutional remedy had been sought and refused. If the Legislature of South Carolina "anxiously desire" a general convention to consider their complaints, why have they not made application for it in the way the Constitution points out? The assertion that they "earnestly seek" it, is completely negatived by the omission.

This, then, is the position in which we stand. A small majority of the citizens of one State in the Union have elected delegates to a State convention: that convention has ordained that all the revenue, laws of the United States, must be repealed, or that they are no longer a member of the Union. The Governor of that State has recommended to the Legislature the raising of an army to carry the secession into effect, and that he may be empowered to give clearances to vessels in the name of the State. No act of violent opposition to the laws has yet been committed, but such a state of things is hourly apprehended, and it is the intent of this instrument to PROCLAIM not only that the duty imposed on me by the Constitution "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed," shall be performed to the extent of the powers already vested in me by law, or of such other as the wisdom of Congress shall devise and entrust to me for that purpose; but to warn the citizens of South Carolina, who have been deluded into an opposition to the laws, of the danger they will incur by obedience to the illegal and disorganizing ordinance of the convention—to exhort those who have refused to support it to persevere in their determination to uphold the Constitution and laws of their country, and to point out to all, the perilous situation in which the good people of that State have been led—and that the course they are urged to pursue is one of ruin and disgrace to the very State whose rights they affect to support.

Fellow-citizens of my native State!—Let me not only admonish you, as the first magistrate of our common country, not to incur the penalty of its laws, but use the influence that a father would over his children, whom he saw rushing to certain ruin. In that paternal language, with that paternal feeling, let me tell you, my countrymen, that you are deluded by men who are either deceived themselves, or wish to deceive you, Mark under what pretences you have been led on to the brink of insurrection and treason, on which you stand! First, a diminution of the value of your staple commodity, lowered by over production in other quarters, and the consequent diminution in the value of your lands, were the sole effect of the tariff laws. The effect of those laws are confessedly injurious, but the evil was greatly exaggerated by the unfounded theory you were taught to believe, that its burdens were in proportion to your exports, not to your consumption of imported articles. Your pride was roused by the assertion that a submission to those laws was a state of vassalage, and that resistance to them was equal, in patriotic merit, to the opposition our fathers offered to the oppressive laws of Great Britain. You were told that this opposition might be peaceably—might be constitutionally made—that you might enjoy all the advantages of the Union and bear none of its burdens.

Eloquent appeals to your passions, to your state pride, to your native courage, to your sense of real injury, were used to prepare you for the period when the mask which concealed the hideous features of DISUNION should be taken off, It fell, and you were made to look with complacency on objects which, not long since, you would have regarded with horror. Look back at the arts which have brought you to this state—look forward to the consequences to which it must inevitably lead. Look back to what was first told you, as an inducement to enter into this dangerous course. The great political truth was repeated to you, that you had the revolutionary right of resisting all laws that were palpably unconstitutional, and intolerably oppressive—it was added that the right to nullify a law rested on the same principle, but that it was a peaceable remedy! This character which was given to it, made you receive, with too much confidence, the assertions that were made of the unconstitutionality of the law, and its oppressive effects. Mark, my fellow-citizens, that, by the admission of your leaders, the unconstitutionality must be palpable, or it will not justify either resistance or nullification! What is the meaning of the word palpable, in the sense in which it is here used?—that which is apparent to every one; that which no man of ordinary intellect will fail to perceive. Is the unconstitutionality of these laws of that description? Let those among your leaders who once approved and advocated the principle of protective duties, answer the question; and let them choose whether they will be considered as incapable, then, of perceiving that which must have been apparent to every man of common understanding, or as imposing upon your confidence, and endeavoring to mislead you now.

In either case, they are unsafe guides in the perilous path they urge you to tread. Ponder well on this circumstance, and you will know how to appreciate the exaggerated language they address to you. They are not champions of liberty, emulating the fame of our revolutionary fathers; nor are you an oppressed people, contending, as they repeat to you, against worse than colonial vassalage. You are free members of a flourishing and happy Union. There is no settled design to oppress you. You have indeed felt the unequal operation of laws which may have been unwisely, not unconstitutionally passed: but that inequality must necessarily be removed. At the very moment when you were madly urged on the unfortunate course you have begun, a change in public opinion had commenced. The nearly approaching payment of the public debt, and the consequent necessity of a diminution of duties, had already produced a considerable reduction, and that too on some articles of general consumption in your State. The importance of this change was understood, and you were authoritatively told, that no further alleviation of their burdens was to be expected, at the very time when the condition of the country imperiously demanded such a modification of the duties, as should reduce them to a just and equitable scale. But, as if apprehensive of the effect of this change, in allaying your discontents, you were precipitated into the fearful state in which you now find yourselves.

I have urged you to look back to the means that were used to hurry you on to the position you have now assumed; and forward to the consequences it will produce. Something more is necessary. Contemplate the condition of that country of which you still form an important part! Consider its government, uniting in one bond of common interests and general protection, so many different States; giving to all their inhabitants the proud title of AMERICAN CITIZENS; protecting their commerce, securing their literature and their arts, facilitating their intercommunication, defending their frontiers, and making their name respected in the remotest parts of the earth! Consider the extent of its territory, its increasing and happy population, its advance in arts, which render life agreeable, and the sciences, which elevate the mind! See education spreading the lights of religion, humanity, and general information into every cottage in the wide extent of our Territories and States! Behold it as the asylum where the wretched and the oppressed find a refuge and a support! Look on this picture of happiness and honor, and say WE, TOO, ARE CITIZENS OF AMERICA; Carolina is one of these proud States: her arms have defended, her best blood has cemented this happy Union! And then add, if you can, without horror and remorse, this happy Union we will dissolve this picture of peace and prosperity we will deface this free intercourse we will interrupt—these fertile fields we will deluge with blood—the protection of that glorious flag we renounce—the very names of Americans we discard. And for what, mistaken men!—for what do you throw away these inestimable blessings—for what would you exchange your share in the advantages and honor of the Union? For the dream of a separate independence—a dream interrupted by bloody conflicts with your neighbors, and a vile dependence on a foreign power. If your leaders could succeed in establishing a separation, what would be your situation? Are you united at home—are you free from the apprehension of civil discord, with all its fearful consequences? Do our neighboring republics, every day suffering some new revolution or contending with some new insurrection—do they excite your envy? But the dictates of a high duty oblige me solemnly to announce, that you cannot succeed.

The laws of the United States must be executed. I have no discretionary power on the subject—my duty is emphatically pronounced in the Constitution. Those who told you that you might peaceably prevent their execution, deceived you they could not have been deceived themselves. They know that a forcible opposition could alone prevent the execution of the laws, and they know that such opposition must be repelled. Their object is disunion; but be not deceived by names; disunion by armed force, is TREASON. Are you really ready to incur its guilt? If you are, on the heads of the instigators of the act be the dreadful consequences—on their heads be the dishonor, but on yours may fall the punishment—on your unhappy State will inevitably fall all the evils of the conflict you force upon the government of your country. It cannot accede to the mad project of disunion of which you would be the first victims—its first magistrate cannot, if he would, avoid the performance of his duty—the consequence must be fearful for you, distressing to your fellow-citizens here, and to the friends of good government throughout the world. Its enemies have beheld our prosperity with a vexation they could not conceal—it was a standing refutation of their slavish doctrines, and they will point to our discord with the triumph of malignant joy. It is yet in your power to disappoint them. There is yet time to show that the descendants of the Pinckneys, the Sumpters, the Rutledges, and of the thousand other names which adorn the pages of your revolutionary history, will not abandon that Union, to support which so many of them fought and bled and died. I adjure you, as you honor their memory as you love the cause of freedom, to which they dedicated their lives—as you prize the peace of your country, the lives of its best citizens, and your own fair fame, to retrace your steps. Snatch from the archives of your State the disorganizing edict of its convention—bid its members to re-assemble and promulgate the decided expressions of your will to remain in the path which alone can conduct you to safety, prosperity and honor—tell them that, compared to disunion, all other evils are light, because that brings with it an accumulation of all—declare that you will never take the field unless the star spangled banner of your country shall float over you that you will not be stigmatized when dead, and dishonored and scorned while you live, as the authors of the first attack on the Constitution of your country! Its destroyers you cannot be. You may disturb its peace—you may interrupt the course of its prosperity—you may cloud its reputation for stability—but its tranquility will be restored, its prosperity will return, and the stain upon its national character will be transferred, and remain an eternal blot on the memory of those who caused the disorder.

Fellow-citizens of the United States! The threat of unhallowed disunion the names of those, once respected, by whom it is uttered—the array of military force to support it—denote the approach of a crisis in our affairs on which the continuance of our unexampled prosperity, our political existence, and perhaps that of all free governments, may depend. The conjunction demanded a free, a full, and explicit enunciation, not only of my intentions but of my principles of action; and as the claim was asserted of a right by a State to annul the laws of the Union and even to secede from it at pleasure, a frank exposition of my opinions in relation to the origin and form of our government, and the construction I give to the instrument by which it was created, seemed to be proper. Having the fullest confidence in the justness of the legal and constitutional opinion of my duties which has been expressed, I rely with equal confidence on your undivided support in my determination to execute the laws—to preserve the Union by all constitutional means—to arrest, if possible, by moderate but firm measures, the necessity of a recourse to force; and, if it be the will of Heaven that the recurrence of its primeval curse on man for the shedding of a brother's blood should fall upon our land, that it be not called down by any offensive act on the part of the United States.

Fellow citizens! The momentous case is before you. On your undivided support of your government depends the decision of the great question it involves, whether your sacred Union will be preserved, and the blessings it se cures to us as one people shall be perpetuated. No one can doubt that the unanimity with which that decision will be expressed, will be such as to inspire new confidence in republican institutions, and that the prudence, the wisdom and the courage which it will bring to their defence, will transmit them unimpaired and invigorated to our children.

May the Great Ruler of nations grant that the signal blessings with which He has favored ours, may not, by the madness of party or personal ambition, be disregarded and lost: and may His wise Providence bring those who have produced this crisis, to see the folly, before they feel the misery of civil strife: and inspire a returning veneration for that Union which, if we may dare to penetrate His designs, He has chosen as the only means of attaining the high destinies to which we may reasonably aspire.

In testimony whereof, I have caused the seal of the United States to be hereunto affixed, having signed the same with my hand.

Done at the city of Washington this 10th day of December, in the year of our Lord, one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two, and of the Independence of the United States the fifty-seventh.

ANDREW JACKSON.
By the President:
        EDW. LIVINGSTON, Secretary of State.

SOURCES: Jonathan Phillips, Editor, Messages of the Presidents of the United States, from the Formation of the General Government, Down to the Close of the Administration of President Van Buren; Concluding with the Inaugural Address of President William H. Harrison, p. 499-512; The Statutes at Large and Treaties, of the United States of America, From December 3, 1855 to March 3, 1859, and Proclamations since 1791, Volume 11 (1856-1857), 34th and 35th Congress. U.S. Statutes at Large, Volume 11 (1856-1857), p. 771-81

 

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Senator Daniel S. Dickinson to Democratic Members of the New York Legislature, January 20, 1851

WASHINGTON, January 20, 1851.

GENTLEMEN—I thank you most sincerely for your esteemed favor of the 5th ultimo, which I had the pleasure to receive a few days since. Next to the pleasing consciousness of having sought with earnestness and fidelity to discharge a public trust, involving the dearest rights and interests of the country, and of an honored constituency, is the approval of those in whose friendship we confide, and whose opinions we respect.

You are pleased to speak of my public course in terms of gratifying commendation. The period of nearly seven years' service which has been allotted me in the United States Senate, is, in the importance of its events, without its parallel in the history of the government. Questions of the highest magnitude, and such as must affect for good or evil, through future generations, the destiny of our country and the institutions we hope to perpetuate, have pressed upon each other for consideration and action. In all this, I have endeavored to do nothing that should prejudice, disturb or mar our political or social structure, but to contribute, regardless of personal consequences, the best energies of my life, to preserve it erect and entire, in all the beauty of its proportions. Time and truth will show with what fidelity and what success. For the present, I can only say, that a careful review of my own share in the disposition of all the great questions which have engaged the public mind during my senatorial term, approves to my own judgment the conclusions I have adopted and the course I have pursued; and in all such cases, I would not, were the occasion to be repeated, cancel a single act or reverse a single position. But I am proud to declare that I would give to the same policy which has governed my public conduct such additional force as a more enlarged experience and a better acquaintance with public affairs would enable me to command.

I need not bring to your attention by historical detail the incidents and events and the legislation of the period to which I allude. They are familiar to you, and the country cannot be unmindful of them. They embrace, among others, the annexation of Texas, the settlement of the Oregon question, the war with Mexico, the acquisition of vast and valuable territory, and, finally, the great measures of adjustment, which happily, in my judgment, brought a long and angry controversy to a wise and patriotic conclusion, at the last session of Congress. The struggles by which they were decided, and the perseverance with which sectional animosities were fostered, will stand out hereafter upon the history of the country as a most signal proof of the inveteracy of partisan hatred, and the disregard of the welfare of the country, the integrity of the constitution, and the promptings of the democratic faith, with which personal aims or political resentments can be pursued. That the policy and measures so loudly decried have triumphed, and are daily gaining strength and approval in every section of the confederacy, is owing to the inherent patriotism and national attachments of the American people, and to the firmness and devotion of their representatives. If in some of the States such representatives have been visited with obloquy and denunciation by partisan vindictiveness, and been rewarded for their exertions by desertion and sacrifice through malign influences, sinister efforts, and questionable combinations, it should be remembered that it is not the first and probably will not be the last instance where such has been the fortune of those who have labored for the public good; but it should cause no regret to such as are conscious of having discharged with fearless alacrity the responsibilities of their station, for they know that time will rectify the error and impartial history vindicate the truth.

In our own State the progress of events has certainly been marked with features replete with instruction. The results of the late election, which placed the democratic party in the minority, to which you refer, were the legitimate fruits of an effort to harmonize by conventional arrangement hostile and conflicting elements, and should have been unexpected by no one. It is notorious that the arrangement, termed a union, between those who had steadfastly adhered to the principles and candidates, State and national, of the democratic party, and those who for years had separated from and assailed both, was carried out, as I had no doubt it would be, in most of the assembly districts where true democrats, supposed to coincide in my own avowed views upon the leading questions of the day, were in nomination, by deliberately defeating their election by open and declared opposition in some instances, disguised but not less active hostility in others, and by predetermination and concert in all. I regard all this as a flattering compliment to the integrity of my public course, for having early and uniformly advocated principles now admitted to be just by almost common consent and upheld by the patriotic of all parties, and for having resisted at all times and upon all occasions a dangerous element of agitation, with which the harmony and integrity of our country have been so seriously threatened; an agitation which, without having served a single worthy, just, or humane purpose, has prostrated the democratic party in our State and in the nation, has filled our land with contention and bitterness, and shaken the very foundation of the Union itself. The history of the late election furnishes an earnest of what is in reserve and may be expected from this harmonious political element by all who stand by the constitution and the Union, and refuse to subscribe to the modern dogma, and as illustrative of the beauties and benefits of attempting to mingle in harmonious concert the friends of constitutional democracy and the adherents of a spurious abolitionism.

I have never sought, or expected, or desired the support of those whose vocation is sectional agitation, and who live and move and have their being in assailing the rights and interests of any of the sovereign States of this confederacy. I have poured no libations to the Moloch of political abolitionism. I have offered no sacrifices upon its polluted altar. I neither enjoy nor covet the confidence of its votaries, either lineal or collateral, and feel more honored by their denunciations than I should by their encomiums. I have not united with them in planting, and am entitled to no share of their fruits. I am proud to enjoy, with other democrats avowing like opinions with myself, the hostility of all recusants who, finding themselves abandoned in their unprofitable experiment of secession and disunion, were anxious to avail themselves of the forms of union to seat themselves again with the democracy of the State, that they might control results for the benefit of their partisans where they could, and defeat democratic nominees where they could not.

The democratic party is essentially national in its organization, in the State as in the Union. The history of its triumphs bears no record of its treaties with those hostile to its own catholic creed, under any pretence however specious, or under any name however euphonious; nor has it consented to lay aside or conceal its own cherished principles, or adopt shades of such as it was wont to repudiate, that it might swell its train of followers and secure the spoils of office. In all its functions, attributes, and characteristics, it is co-extensive with the Union, and it should not be less in its action and in the views and aims of those who are admitted to its membership. It cannot be otherwise, without derogating from its true attitude, or departing from all the great principles by which, since the organization of the government, it has been guided. If it shall be made by those who temporarily govern its action in the State to minister by any act, or by any prudential omissions to discharge its whole duty to the constitution and to the cause it has upheld for half a century, that it may pander for votes to the morbid spirit of abolitionism and retain those in its organization who are hostile to all it holds most sacred, it will be degraded from its former elevation, and can no more secure the confidence of the honest masses than it will deserve it. For one, I will neither by word nor decd, or even by silence, contribute to any such course. If the democratic party is to be abolitionized in whole or in part, either in its doctrines or its associations; if it is to be so far demoralized that it may not declare its own principles, or must adopt sectional heresies; if acts passed in a benign and patriotic spirit to quiet agitation, the offspring of demagogues and fanatics, and to protect the Union itself from threatened invasion, must be repealed; if a law enacted not only in accordance with the spirit of the constitution, but to carry out one of its plainest provisions, is to be nullified so far as State legislation can nullify it, let who will favor or acquiesce in it, I will not; and it will be regarded by all true democrats as at war with every dictate of good government, the obligations of law, and the supremacy of the constitution.

I am deeply sensible of my obligations to the true democracy of the State. I acknowledge with pride the cordial support which they, companions in many campaigns, have afforded me, and you, my kind friends, in particular. To all such, in the State and beyond it, I tender my warmest thanks, and unite with them in sincere wishes for the welfare of our common Union. A few days will close my public service. Had it been my fortune to leave the Senate before the great questions which have so long and so deeply agitated the country had been fully, and, as I think, rightly passed upon, it would have occasioned me serious regret; but since I was permitted to bear a part in their adjustment, so far as it could be accomplished by legislation, and they now stand for decision before the tribunal of public opinion, I shall return to my private pursuits with far more gratification than I left them. As the Legislature is composed, there is no prospect whatever of the election of myself or any other democrat, and having no desire under such circumstances to be a candidate, I trust my friends will do me the favor not to present my name.

With kind consideration and regard for each of you, I am

Your sincere friend and fellow-citizen,
D. S. DICKINSON.

To the Hon. Messrs. MICHAEL DOUGHERTY, ALBERT A. THOMPSON, HENRY J. ALLEN, ELI PERRY, JAIRUS FRENCH, CHARLES ROBINSON, EGBERT T. SMITH, JACOB SICKLES, Wм. F. RUSSELL, MILTON BARNES, A. L. LAWYER, HENRY KINSLEY, WILLIAM BOWNE, WORTHINGRON Wright.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 459-64

Friday, January 19, 2024

Daniel Webster to Peter. Harvey, Tuesday, September 10, 1850

Tuesday, two o'clock. September 10, 1850.

MY DEAR SIR,—You have heard how all things have gone, so far. I confess I feel relieved. Since the 7th of March, there has not been an hour in which I have not felt a "crushing" weight of anxiety and responsibility. I have gone to sleep at night, and waked in the morning with the same feeling of eating care. And I have set down to no breakfast or dinner to which I have brought an unconcerned and easy mind. It is over. My part is acted, and I am satisfied. The rest I leave to stronger bodies and fresher minds. My annual cold is now heavy upon me, weakening my body, and depressing my spirits. It has yet a fortnight to run; and perhaps will sink me lower than it did, when strong excitement enabled me to withstand it. I have lost a good deal of flesh, and you will think me thin and haggard. I have had little sleep, not four hours a night, on an average for the whole six months. Now I mean to grow stupid and lazy, and, if I can get rid of my catarrh, to eat and drink like an Alderman.

It is a day of rejoicing here, such as I never witnessed. The face of every thing seems changed. You would suppose nobody had ever thought of disunion. All say, they always meant to stand by the Union to the last.

Boston, ever true and glorious Boston, has helped us immensely. Mr. Eliot's triumphant election awakened entirely new hopes. Up to that period, they had no hopes of the North. I never knew an election, by its mere character of an election, on certain principles, produce half so much effect. He is quite a lion here. He is decided, straightforward, without any shadow of turning. It ran through the whole city, on Friday after the main vote had been taken, that Mr. Eliot said, "Now we have trodden Satan under our feet." I mention this, only to show with how much eagerness every thing is listened to, that a sound northern man says against abolitionism and all the other "isms."

Pray remember me to Mr. T. B. Curtis, Mr. Mills, Mr. Haven, and other friends. There is a host of them I shall never cease to love. Boston forever.

My eyes allow me to write only about one hour a day.

I hope to see the State House and the Common, and the Steeple on the old South, two days after Congress adjourns. Among others, remember me kindly to Fearing.

Yours truly,
D. WEBSTER.

P. S. I look to hear from you to-morrow morning.

SOURCE: Fletcher Webster, Editor, The Private Correspondence of Daniel Webster, Vol. 2, p. 385-6

Tuesday, October 24, 2023

Congressman Albert G. Brown’s Speech on the Admission of California, June 13, 1850

On the 13th of June, 1850, in the House of Representatives, an amendment to the bill admitting California was rejected, to the effect that thereafter it should not constitute an objection to the admission of a state lying south of the Missouri Compromise line that her constitution tolerated slavery. Mr. BROWN, of Mississippi, renewed the amendment, pro forma, and said:

 I LONG since made up my mind that I would introduce no proposition of my own, nor vote for any other man's proposition, which did not give ample justice to my section. My determination was not formed without consideration. The whole ground had been duly examined, and my judgment was based on a solemn conviction, that no proposition which did not inflict positive injury on the South had the least chance of favor in this House. If I had ever been brought to doubt the correctness of this judgment, the vote just taken would have convinced me beyond all dispute that I was right.

Day by day our ears are filled with the cry of "compromise!" "adjustment!!" We have been invoked time and again to come forward and settle this angry dispute, on terms equitable and just to all sections of the confederacy. We have been admonished, in high-sounding phraseology, that to the people of the states, when forming their constitutions, belonged the duty and the right of settling for themselves the question of slavery or no slavery. Some, we have been told, fanatical and violent, would repudiate this doctrine; but the great body of the moderate men of the North, of all parties, we have been assured, had planted themselves on this broad, republican platform. Now, sir, what have we seen? The question has been taken on a proposition declaring that it shall hereafter be no objection to the admission of a state lying south of 36° 30′ that her constitution tolerated or prohibited slavery, and this proposition has been voted down-voted down, sir, by a strictly sectional division-all the southern members voting for it, and all the northern members, with but one honorable exception, voting against it.

Mr. HARRIS, of Illinois. Three or four.

Mr. BROWN. I saw but one—Mr. McClernand. There may have been three or four. It may have been that five or six threw up their hats and cried "God save the country!"

Mr. BISSELL. I was not in my seat. I should have voted for it with great pleasure.

Mr. HARRIS, of Illinois. I voted for it.

Mr. BROWN. It may be that five or six voted for the proposition. But what of that? Where was the great body of the northern members, Whigs and Democrats? They were just where I have always predicted they would be when it came to voting. They were found repudiating the very doctrine on which they ask us to admit California—the doctrine of self-government in regard to slavery.

There could be no mistaking the intention of this vote. The gentleman from Kentucky [Mr. Marshall], in a speech of marked emphasis, had called on the South to cease debating, and let us have a vote—a vote which should test the question, whether northern members were prepared to assert the doctrine, that under no circumstances should any other slaveholding state enter this Union. The debate did cease in obedience to that appeal, the vote was taken, and the result is before us. And now, sir, in reference to that result I have a word to say. It explodes at one dash, the hollow-hearted and hypocritical pretension that this question was to be left to the people, when they came to form their respective constitutions. It verifies what I have said here and elsewhere, that this doctrine was a miserable cheat, an infamous imposition, a gross fraud upon the South. If the people, as in the case of California, make an anti-slavery constitution, the doctrine is applied and the state is admitted; but if any other state shall offer a pro-slavery constitution, we are given by this vote distinctly to understand, that such state, her constitution, and this doctrine, will all be trampled under foot together.

I want my constituents and the country to see to what end we are to come at last. The bold stand is taken by this vote that not another slave state is to be admitted, no odds what her constitution may say.

I take ground with the eloquent gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Toombs], and now declare, that if this is to become the ruling principle of the North—if we are thus to crouch at the footstool of power—if we are to be brought down from our high position as equals to become your dependants-if we are to live for ever at your mercy, rejoicing in your smiles and shrinking from your frown—if indeed, sir, it has come to this, that the Union is to be used for these accursed purposes, then, sir, by the God of my fathers, I am against the Union; and so help me Heaven, I will dedicate the remnant of my life to its dissolution.

Men may talk of adjustments, letters may be written, speeches may be made, newspapers printed to glorify the Union—but, sir, if this is the Union you would glorify, it is base-born slander to say the South is for it. If we are to have a Union of equals, it will for ever rest upon all our hearts and all our hands—it will be eternal. But if it is to be a Union of the tyrant and the serf, a Union of the monarch and the menial, a Union of the vulture and the lamb, then, sir, I warn gentlemen it will be a Union of perpetual strife. Say what you will, write what you will, speak what you will, think what you will, the South will wage eternal warfare upon such a Union. We will invoke with one voice the vengeance of Heaven upon such a Union—we will pray unceasingly to the God of our deliverance that he will send us a bolt from heaven to shiver the chain which thus binds us to tyranny and oppression.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 190-2

Sunday, August 6, 2023

Congressman Charles S. Morehead to Senator John J. Crittenden, March 31, 1850

[Continued from Congressman Charles S. Morehead to SenatorJohn J. Crittenden, March 30, 1850.]

March 31st. Not finishing my letter last night, I have to add this morning the news, which you will no doubt hear long before this reaches you, of Mr. Calhoun's death. He died this morning at eight o'clock. I do not yet clearly see what effect his death is to have on political events. He was firmly and, I suppose, honestly persuaded that the Union ought to be dissolved. I understand that he has prepared a paper showing that the only salvation of the South is by disunion. It is said to be a very strong and dangerous argument, placing the whole matter upon the ground that there can be no security for our property by any other possible or attainable means, and that the South has all the elements of unbounded prosperity without the Union; while with it it is fast assuming a mere provincial character, impoverishing itself to aggrandize the North. I do not, of course, know that this rumor is true, but I believe it is. This was the purport of a conversation he held with Mr. Toombs a few days ago. He told him he would not live this session out, and that he must leave to younger men the task of carrying out his views. A pamphlet has recently been published in Virginia calculated to do much mischief. It is an argument for disunion with an array of pretended facts, which, if true, or if not shown to be unfounded, I think would produce a very great effect. Mr. Clay told me that he thought it the most dangerous pamphlet he ever read.

Our Northern friends are blind, absolutely blind, to the real dangers by which we are surrounded. They don't want to believe that there is any danger, and in general they treat the whole matter as mere bravado and as scarcely worth notice. I concur this far with them, that it is utterly impossible formally to dissolve this Union, and it never will be dissolved by any convention or by any declaration of independence. The dissolution must precede these things if it ever does take place. The fear I entertain is of the establishment of mere sectional parties, and the commencement of a system of retaliatory local or State legislation. You may have seen that this has been already recommended by the governor of Virginia. If the slave question should not be settled, there is scarcely a Southern State that will not pass laws to prevent the sale of Northern products by retail in its limits. The decision of the Supreme Court, in the case of Brown vs. Maryland, declaring the unconstitutionality of taxing the imports of another State, contains some dictum of the right of a State to tax such imports after they have become incorporated with the property of the State. The whole proceeding would doubtless be a violation of the spirit, if not the letter, of the Constitution. But what is it that men will not do when smarting under real or imaginary grievances? You may think that I am inclined to be gloomy, but I do most solemnly believe that disunion will ensue, and that more speedily than any man now has any idea of, if there should be a failure of an amicable settlement. You cannot be surprised, then, that my whole heart and soul are engaged in the effort to bring this about. I feel as you do about the Union, as I know that Kentucky does, and it must be preserved at the sacrifice of all past party ties. I am perfectly sure, from the most mature and calm consideration, that there is but one way of doing this. The North must give up its apparently determined purpose of making this general government assume an attitude of hostility to slavery. We cannot prevent individual agitation and fanaticism, but I think we have the undoubted right to ask that a common government shall not, in its action, become hostile to the property of a large portion of its own citizens.

Mr. Clay sent for old Mr. Ritchie, and had a long and confidential conversation with him upon this subject. The tone of the Union is evidently changed since that time. You may have noticed that he speaks much oftener in favor of union than he did. This is not generally known, and of course I do not wish it spoken of as coming from me. I have written you a long letter, which may occupy some of your dull moments at Frankfort. I wrote to your new Secretary of State some time ago, which he has never answered. I hope in the enjoyment of his new honors he has not forgotten his old friends.

I remain very truly and sincerely your friend,
C. S. MOREHEAD.

SOURCE: Ann Mary Butler Crittenden Coleman, Editor, The Life of John J. Crittenden: With Selections from His Correspondence and Speeches, Vol. 1, p. 363-4

Sunday, July 16, 2023

Senator John C. Calhoun to Anna Maria Calhoun Clemson,* December 31, 1849

Washington, 31st Decr, 1849.

MY DEAR DAUGHTER: Not long after my arrival here I wrote to Mr. Clemson and, among other things, requested him to say I would write to you shortly. I hope he received my letter.

If I have not written to you as frequently as formerly, be assured that it has not been caused by any abatement of affection towards you. It is to be attributed simply to the fact that I have been overburthened with writing—a species of labor, which you know, I have ever been especially averse to. I wrote during the recess between 400 and 500 pages of foolscap, besides carrying on an extensive correspondence, which I could not avoid. Under so heavy a pressure I left the correspondence with you almost exclusively to your Mother, Cornelia and your brothers. The two former, I know, have been very punctual and full in their communications.

Since my arrival here I have allotted most of my spare time to preparing my manuscript for the press. The discourse, or disquisition, (for I have not yet named it) on Government is finished, and is now copying. It is preliminary to the discourse on the Constitution and Government of the United States. That is much more voluminous. The rough draft is finished. I propose to devote my spare time during the session to preparing it, also, for the press, and hope to have it done and copied before Congress adjourns. I do not know whether I shall put it to press as soon as finished, or not; but I wish to have it off my hands and ready for publication whenever I shall judge it advisable to publish. I trust when published they will do me no discredit, and that they will do much to explode errors and cast light on the subjects of which they treat.

I am truly happy to learn that you are all well, and that the children are growing so finely. They must be a source of great happiness to you. I know not any employment more useful and honorable than that of a wife and a mother superintending her household and the education of her children. By education I mean something far beyond what is to be derived from books. I feel assured that you ́are discharging faithfully these duties and trust you will find your reward in the character and conduct of your two very promising children when they come to act their part in life.

Your Mother and sister have, I suppose, informed you that the portraits to which you referred in your letter to me were long since received and that they are greatly admired. I think them excellent—good likenesses and well painted. Many think Calhoun's is the best likeness; but I find it difficult to decide which is the best

I am glad to learn that the same hand that painted yours and the children's has succeeded so well in executing the likeness of myself. I understood from Mr. Henry Gourdin that he had made arrangements to get a portrait of me painted by the Artist who painted you, and that it would be in Washington this winter. I had supposed it was the likeness to which you referred, but conclude that it is another taken by the same artist.

The question between North and South is daily becoming more and more menacing. It is difficult to say where it is to end. The South is more roused and united than I ever knew it to be; and I trust that we shall persist in our resistance until the restoration of all our rights, or disunion, one or the other, is the consequence. We have borne the wrongs and the insults of the North long enough. It is time they should cease.

My health continues as good as I could expect at my time of life. All were well when I last heard from home. Give my love to Mr. Clemson and the children.

_______________

* The text of this letter is derived from a copy kindly furnished by Mr. Hugh Calhoun Middleton, of Augusta.

SOURCE: J. Franklin Jameson, Editor, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1899, Volume II, Calhoun’s Correspondence: Fourth Annual Report of the Historical Manuscripts Commission, Correspondence of John C. Calhoun, p. 776-8