Executive Office,
Jan. 28, 1861.
To Hon. Jas. Harlan, Jas. W. Grimes, Samuel R. Curtis and
Wm. Vandever:
Gentlemen:—You
will find herewith a paper requesting you, if you consider it advisable, to
attend a meeting of the commissioners of the different States at Washington
City on the 4th of February next. I wish you to be guided wholly by your own
discretion as to your attendance.
I confess the whole thing strikes me unfavorably. The very
early day named renders it impossible for the distant States to select and send
commissioners, and also it is liable to the construction I that it was the
intention to force action both upon the meeting and upon Congress before the
4th of March next and without proper time for deliberation. Again the fact that
the basis of adjustment proposed in the resolutions is one that all the free
States rejected by an overwhelming majority at the presidential election (the
votes for Lincoln and Douglass being all against it) indicate that either in
expectation that the free Stases shall stultify and degrade themselves or a
purpose by the failure of the commissioners to agree upon terms of adjustment
to afford excuse and justification to those who are already determined to leave
the Union. You upon the ground can judge of these things more correctly than I
can here.
Should you find the meeting disposed to act in earnest for
the preservation of the Union without seeking the degradation of any of the
States for that end permit me to make a few suggestions.
The true policy for every good citizen to pursue is to set
his face like a flint against secession, to call it by its true name — treason —
to use his influence in all legitimate ways to put it down; strictly and
cordially to obey the laws and to stand by the government in all lawful measures
it may adopt for the preservation of the Union, and to trust to the people and
the constituted authorities to correct under the present constitution, and
errors that may have been committed or any evils or wrongs that have been
suffered.
But if compromise must be the order of the day then that
compromise should not be a concession by one side of all the other side demands
and of all for which the conceding side has been contending. In other words the
North must not be expected to yield all the South asks, all the North has
contended for and won. and then call that compromise. That is not compromise and
would not bring peace. Such “compromise” would not become dry on the parchment
on which it would be written before “agitation” for its repeal would have commenced.
A compromise that would restore good feeling must not degrade either side. Let
me suggest how in my opinion this can be done. Restore the Missouri compromise
line to the territory we got from France. We all agreed to that once and can,
without degradation do so again.
The repeal of that line brought on our present troubles; its
restoration ought to go far to remove them. As to New Mexico and Utah leave
them under the laws passed for their government in 1850 — the so-called
compromise of that year. We all stood there once and can do so again without
degradation. This settles the question of slavery in all our present
territories. As to future acquisitions say we can't make any. We thus avoid the
slavery question in future. We have enough territory for our expansion for a
century and let the men of that day make another to suit themselves. It says
merely we prefer our Union as it is to conquest that may endanger it. The
fugitive slave law was made by the South. The reason of its non-existence is
its severity. It is in direct antagonism to the public sentiment of the people
among whom it is to be executed. If something were done to modify it so as to
require the alleged fugitive to be taken before the officer of the court of the
county from which he has alleged to have tied and there have a trial if he
demand it, in my opinion the law would be much more effective than it is.
The personal liberty laws arc the acts of the States that
have them and I doubt not would be repealed when the present excitement dies
away. Iowa never has had nor does she want one.
Very respectfully,
SAMUEL J. KIRKWOOD.
SOURCE: Henry Warren Lathrop, The Life and Times of
Samuel J. Kirkwood, Iowa's War Governor, p. 109-11
No comments:
Post a Comment