Views of Ex-President Tyler on the National Crisis.
To the Editor of the
Whig:
I have been often urged to give my views to the public on the present great crisis of American affairs. I have abstained from doing so for reasons entirely satisfactory to myself—one of the most controlling of which was, that I could not regard with becoming composure the dissolution of that Confederacy in the service of which so great a portion of my life had been passed, and which I had been accustomed to contemplate in a spirit of the truest devotion. Nor did I believe that any thing that I could say would produce the slightest effect upon the public mind. My public life had long since terminated, and the shadow which, sooner or later, falls on all men, and shuts them out from sight had settled upon me. To the younger Athlete, who were in charge of the public trusts and enjoyed its confidence, I was well inclined to leave the task of adjusting existing difficulties, in the hope and trust that a Union so full of glories and so copious in blessings, would survive the trials which threaten it. In the meantime the high toned and gallant State of South Carolina, one of the Old Thirteen, has seen cause to withdraw from the Union, and it is said that her example is to be followed unless sectional differences are adjusted by the cotton States first, and sooner or later by all the slaveholding States. In view of this state of things, and seeing also that all efforts at adjustment have so far failed, I no longer withhold the expression of my opinions on the leading topics of the day.
The enquiry which presents itself, in advance of all others, is as to the effects which follow upon the withdrawal of so many states from the Union as those constituting an entire section of the country. In what condition does that withdrawal leave the remaining States and even the government itself? This enquiry is of the greatest interest and should therefore be made with all possible deliberation. It can do no less than resolve itself into the question as to the nature and character of the government itself. If it be a consolidated government, and the States merely its provinces, then those provinces or States or by whatever other name thy may be called, can make no resistance to its authority, however despotic, which would not be considered rebellious and treasonable. The States would occupy the same position, and none other, to the government of the United States, that each county or town occupies to the government of a state. The uprising of a county against the State would be unqualified rebellion and all concerned in it would be guilty of high treason. These are the inevitable results which arise out of a consolidated government. No matter what the magnitude of the evil complained of, no redress is left but out and out rebellion, and each and all engaged in such rebellion have entered into it with halters round their necks, to be used, unless the rebellion prove successful, by the consolidated government at its will and pleasure. It is idle, in this view of the question, to attempt to draw a distinction between a State in rebellion and any portion of the people of that State. The reasoning applies quite as forcibly to the whole community as to a part of it. No organized condition of the community can justify or excuse the revolt, and war may be made on all alike. Nor will it do to attempt a distinction between a Government like ours, where powers are granted and powers reserved, and an absolute despotism.—The same supreme domination would exist in the enforcement of the granted powers, as where nothing had been reserved and all given.—Whatever the obstruction interposed the authority would be given to remove it—if by individuals, they might be put to the sword—if by a State, it might be crushed. Is there no softening down the asperity of these conclusions? I am asked. I see no mode of doing so. Again, I may be asked, does not the constitution provide within itself some mode by which grievances, when too heavy to be borne, may be redressed? The Constitution professes to do so; but what chance is there of the remedies being available against an immovable sectional majority? Even now, an appeal to that mode of redress has been made in vain.—Every expedient has been resorted to, to obtain constitutional amendment in redress of grievances, through the action of Congress; but there stands that sectional majority, immovable or fixed, or only moving to make matters worse by suggestion the mere pretence of amendments which pass away in the moment of utterance.
No, if the Government be consolidated to the extent of the powers, it is supreme, and resistance to its mandates is treason. But, it is asked, cannot the Supreme Court, the sworn interpreter of the Constitution, give redress for violated rights? That august tribunal should ever be entitled to all respect; but in a sectional conflict, such as that which exists, its decisions, however solemnly delivered, carry no force along with them. Who, of the Northern sectional party, acknowledges the binding force of its decision recently pronounced in the Dred Scott case?—The venerable men who compose that Court, are of advanced age—as they drop off the state of actions. Mr. Lincoln will take care to supply their place, with men who would stand ready to reverse their decisions, and mock at them as of no binding authority. No, if the Government be a consolidated one, if its edicts, uttered by a sectional majority, are to be regarded as supreme, then those edicts are the decrees of fate, and submission of States and people is all that is left. From being considered the proudest and noblest structure of human liberty, it degenerates into the vilest instrument of tyranny and oppression. As indispensably necessary to arrive at the above conclusions as to the nature of the government, its advocates contend that it arose out of the popular will, and not from separate State action. It is only necessary to say that that position was entirely over-ruled, as long ago as 1800, by the decided voice of the American people, and only momentarily revived by Gen. Jackson’s proclamation, (a paper which contradicted all the expressed opinions of his previous and subsequent life,) avowedly written by one who still lingered among the ruins and fragments of antiquated ideas. It is contradicted by the name given the Government in baptism. The Federal Government it was called then, and as the Federal Government it is known to the world; and any dictionary will tell us that the name pertains only to a league—to a compact or political partnership among States. The Federal Legislature is known as a Congress, a term only used to indicate an assemblage of sovereigns; and that Federal Legislature is composed, especially in the Senate, of the representatives of the States equal in rights, and equal in power. There, the smallest State has a voice as potential as the largest. When the articles of confederation ceased to exist, they were succeeded by the present confederation—an improvement, as it was thought, upon the old one. But I abstain from going any further into this subject. I find the whole argument already perfected in the preamble to the resolutions recently adopted by thepeople of Botetourt, drawn by as clear a judicial intellect as is to be found either in the State of Virginia or out of it. In that preamble Judge Allen presents a synopsis of the history of the origin of our institutions, so briefly, yet so lucidly, as to have concluded the argument. It challenges an answer from any quarter. I wish it could be printed, and circulated until it was to be found in the hands of every man in the country.
The facts of history cannot be overcome, and those facts all bespeak the Confederative Republic, founded in a compact to which States were parties. No State thought, that in adopting it, it was imposing fetters upon its limbs, which, however galling, could never be broken. Some States, Virginia one of them, more cautions than the rest, accompanied their ratification with a declaration of the right to resume the powers granted for the peace of all and happiness of all, upon their being abused; and the pregnant fact that General Washington, the President of the General Convention, in his valedictory to the people, admonished them to avoid sectional divisions as the bane of the Union, bespeaks on his part a serious apprehension that the Union would fall asunder, not by any treasonable conduct on the part of his contrymen, surely, but the withdrawal of the States, legitimately and properly. Nor is there sufficient force to countervail the inductions drawn by Judge Allen in the Botetourt preamble, from the too great facility which would exist in overthrowing the Government. The right to secede should rather be regarded as a means of giving it perpetuity; as the acknowledged existence of such right would operate to restrain the conduct of majorities and officials. Secession would never be resorted to for the slight and insufficient causes, nor until after a long course of forbearance. Nothing is more difficult that to bring about a revolution or change of government. Take, in illustration, the calamity which is now impending over us. For thirty years some of the evils complained of by the South, have been existing, and have been increasing in magnitude, until they have culminated from abuse of the most rancorous kind, in Congress and out of Congress, in the pulpit and out of the pulpit, in short, everywhere, and in every conceivable shape, into a systematic sectional form and overruling organization. In the meantime, the Southern people have reasoned, expostulated and protested. So did they in the days preceding the revolution, but their expostulations had quite as well not have been uttered. So, in these latter days. In 1836, I remember to have received, through the Governor of the States of Virginia, a series of resolutions, which had been adopted by the Legislature, addressed to the Northern States, complaining of wrongs perpetrated towards her and her sisters of the South, by people of those States. I presented them, in due time, to the Senate; but, although those resolutions emanated from a State that had never inflicted intentional wrong on any co State, and which had laid down an empire as a rich offering on the alter of Union, they were wholly disregarded. So far from arresting the evils complained of, those evils have been continually increasing, until she and her sister States of the South are not only denounced in the most opprobrious terms, but participation in the benefits of the common territories are denied her and them, and the now-to-be-regarded as authoritative declarations is thundered in their ears, that an “irrepressible conflict” exists between the free and the slave States, which can only be quieted by “making all free, or all slave.” Can the bonds of that Union be so easily broken which have stood such assaults for so many years? Oh! no, there is no danger that any State will too promptly assert its rights and liberties, and privileges. The danger is the other way—the failure promptly to vindicate them may lead to their loss forever. In short, which is most to be desired, a government liable to no peaceful change, under the control of an arbitrary and despotic sectional majority, which proposes to accomplish, by an act of Congress, what others accomplish by sword, or one held in check by an efficient popular veto? The lover of justice and liberty can have no difficulty in deciding. Nor is there the least force in the arguments drawn from the case of the secession of a State recently acquired, either by purchase of conquest. If Texas, for example, seeks admission into the union, she does so to enjoy the blessings of its liberty in security, upon an equal footing with the original States. A few years only elapse, and, instead of equality, she finds herself, by a sectional majority, trampled upon, and in place of enjoying the equal privileges which lead her to desire annexation, she is put under ban along with the entire section to which she belongs. If she seceded singly, the Government might possible insist upon an enumeration for outlays and expenditures; but in justice, that would be all that should be done. Let the Southern States be treated as they were for the first half century of the existence of the Union, and, my life upon it, there would be no secession or talk of secession; nay, let the majority section furnish now sufficient guarantees—guarantees rendered more urgently necessary by reason of the out-spoken words of the leaders, and the danger which threatens our institutions will pass away, and a brighter and more propitious sun than we have yet seen will shine above the horizon. To deny such guarantees may serve very well to advance the wickedly ambitions purposes of political libertines, but augur to all others of us naught by the deepest woe. What then are the consequences resulting from the act of secession—first, to the seceding States—secondly, to the remaining States and Government?
1. Most assuredly it would be better that the full adjustment of the responsibilities to which each member of the political partnership is liable, as well as all the rights and interests of each resulting therefrom, should be adjusted, prior to the act of separation. No State can justly avoid the assumption of its portion of the public debt, or of its fair share of all the responsibilities which have been contracted by the Government during its continuance in the Union; while, on the other hand, its title to its fair share in the public property, in whatever it may consist, would be equally clear. But as this cannot be done in the present state of Public opinion, the State can do no more that express its readiness fairly and honestly to act upon all its obligations. The act of withdrawal re-invests it with all the powers which it conferred on the agent. Government restores to it all the grants of land made by itself for public purposes; in a word, clothes it with all the powers and attributes and rights of sovereignty which can attach to a sovereign and independent power. Its trade and commerce are under its exclusive control, and revenues collected in its ports are subject to its own orders.
How would the remaining members and the Government itself be affected? If the union of States under a political compact may be likened to that of a mercantile partnership, the question would readily enough be answered. The withdrawal of a single member would break up the concern, and call for a settlement of all its affairs. If the remaining members chose to continue the business, it would be as a new firm, although they might still preserve the original name. The dissolution of the old firm would be quite as complete, although its re-establishment would not be so difficult, by the withdrawal of one member, as if dissolved by united consent. If it undertook to contract in the name of the old partnership, its efforts would be of no avail; if it drew a check on any bank, the check would not be honored. In a word, the functions of the association would have entirely—except so far as would be necessary to wind up the concern—ceased to exist. By a parity of reasoning, similar results would transpire in regard to the compact of Union. Sound policy would dictate to the remaining States an immediate re-construction of the Government. This might be done by tacit consent, or by more formal action, and only a moment of time might elapse between the dissolution of the old, and the re-establishment of the new, advancing from the secession of one member to that of all members of an entire section and still advancing to the secession or withdrawal of an additional number, until only one or two remained attached to the old order of things in a legal point of view. The case finds its illustration, not inaptly, in the establishment of the Constitution under which, thus far, we of the States that have not yet seceded, by tacit consent, since the withdrawal of South Carolina agree still to live. In that case this Constitution was adopted by eleven States, while North Carolina and Rhode Island rejected it, and clung to the old articles of confederation which has been declared perpetual, in plain and unmistakable characters upon its face.
No one doubts but that North Carolina and Rhode Island might have continued the perpetual Union established, or more properly proclaimed, by that first compact; and that they had just cause to complain of the co States for having dissolved it without their consent. But we are enquiring into legal rights and responsibilities of seceding and non seceding members. What if North Carolina and Rhode Island had set up a claim to the Government and all its appendages? What if they had gone on with Congress, established the Treasury board, called upon the eleven seceding States to pay up their installments as required under the perpetual articles of Confederation, which were not to be altered but by unanimous consent; and if disobeyed, had issued their orders to the army, and navy to seize upon the forts and attack those towns and cities of the rebellious seceders—what would the anti-secessionists of this day have said of it?—Would the soldiers have manned the forts?—Would the officers of the navy have laid in ashes the cities? If the non secession of two States could not preserve the Government of the first Constitution, what number is necessary to preserve that Constitution which was engrafted on it? Will a majority do so?—and why? Less than a majority would scarcely attempt it; and why not as well as a majority, in point of right? The secession of one State paralyses the finances—what will that of eight do? What of fifteen, with the sure prospect of other changes threatened and in embryo?—What capitalists will make venture of the earnings of a life-time in so rickety a concern? A re-constructed Confederation, based on ample guarantees, would, on the contrary, command public confidence after being one in motion.—The best way is for these who have the power to act like rational men, and to resolve that the Constitution shall be carried out in good faith; that the emissaries from Exeter Hall, and their confreres in the United States shall be silenced and justice be done to all, and equality be measured out to all. No American citizen but should feel indignant at this insolent interference of Englishmen in our affairs.—If the scheme of Southern emancipation is to be concocted, if a new constitution is to be formed for the South it must be drawn upon foreign soil. If a raid takes place in Virginia, under a lunatic leader, an Englishman, in some way or other must have his hand in it. I submit to the people of the North, whether they have so far parted with all their Americanism, as to tolerate such interference with their unoffending brethren? But I return to the train of my reflections.
It is to be regretted that there should exist so great an instability of public opinion, in regard to the origin and character of the government. If, for example, Massachusetts as in the time of non-intercourse and embargo, or at a still later period, when Texas annexation was the leading topic of the day—take umbrage at the proceeding—no state evinces more fiery zeal in favor of the idea of a Federal league.—She hesitates not to take the strongest position in regard to her own sovereignty. In the case of Texas she set the example of action secession—not by proclamation, it is true, issued by a convention of her people; but by legislative resolution, which announced, as a fact accomplished, her withdrawal from the Union. In the event of the consummation of that measure. Now she is so full of indignation at the withdrawal of South Carolina, if the newspapers speak truly, that she is overflowing with passion, and promises to contribute from 7,000 to 100,000 men to punish South Carolina, for having follower her own example. It is high time that Judge Allen’s preamble should be in the hands of the people. Today it is your bull that gores my ox—to-morrow the thing is reversed. Conquer the south! Suppose such as thing accomplished, and the Northern States invested with supreme rule. What great good will they have achieved for themselves? Instead of looking with delight on fields under industrious culture—on a country teaming with abundance—on ships freighted with the rich productions which regulated the exchanges of the world, and pour into the Northern lap almost fabulous wealth—they would gaze only on burning embers and smoking columns—and the wreaths which would encircle their brows would not be the evergreens that patriot heroes wear, but parched and withered leaves which would burn into their brains. All this, too, would have had its origin in a busy-bodiness—an interference with those people’s affairs which, in private or public life, never fails to produce disturbance and ill-will. If Virginia undertook to control and regulate the domestic affairs of Massachusetts, a day would not pass before the thunders, as in the days of yore, would begin to roll and the lightnings to flash from Faneuil Hall. Can Massachusetts expect anything less from Virginia? Let the states adopt the truly wise rule of attending to their own business and letting their neighbors alone—of fulfilling all their political obligations, and of doing equal justice to all their compeers—and future generations will rise up and call them blessed. Did it ever enter into the head of any man who voted for the adoption of the Constitution that one section of the country would assume the task of supervisors over the laws and morals of another? and, its domestic institutions being precisely the same as when the compact of Union was entered into, that a later day the dominant section would make them the pretext for excluding the minority of section from an equal participation in the Territories which might at any time be acquired? Pretty business, truly, that the men of this day shall esteem themselves more moral than their father; that Seward should be set up as a purer and better man than George Washington, and that Mr. Lincoln would be regarded as the only truly immaculate President of the U. States.
It would, indeed, be a retrograde movement if any State should be constrained by force to remain in a Union which it abhorred. In this matter, one might take a lesson from what is passing in the world. Italy, after the enthrallment of ages, is admitted to the ballot box, and her States claim and exercise the privilege of selecting the condition of their own future. And, while this is passing and that, too, with the approbation of all Europe, we are to take a step backward into the dark ages, and carry into practice the exploded doctrine of absolutism in Government. If we cannot live together, let us part in peace. By doing so we shall at least save something of the old feeling. It is true, the South will be under the necessity of adopting a rigid system of passports and police, which may prevent the perfect freedom of intercourse which, except in notorious cases now exists. But that is no more than other countries have to do, and is entirely protective in its character without being hostile. If necessary, a treaty, offensive and defensive, may be received, and much that now exists may be preserved. Pursue a different course, and all may be lost. Strange, indeed that odious discriminations should be drawn between equals in a common concern. Such was my opinion in 1820, in the discussion on the Missouri question, and such will it ever remain. The talented editors of the “National Intelligencer,” gave me an enviable position in certain able articles, written by them in the Summer of Fall of 1859. They speak of me as being the only member of Congress, at that day, who in debate, denied to Congress the right to prohibit slavery in the Territories. I stood there then, and I stand there now, not as in my early life alone in debate—but now in my age, sustained as I believe, by the concurrent opinions of a majority of the people of the United States, and leaning on the decision of the Supreme Court as on a staff which no rage of faction can weaken, no convulsion, however serious, can break. Could the able editors have deciphered the thoughts of my inmost heart, they would have found me opposed to congressional interference in this behalf with the Territories, for other reasons. Even passing over the impolicy of such interference, it was in its best view useless, God’s own law of climate had regulated the matter; and let the children of earthly wisdom act as they may. It will still continue to do it. The man who would talk of cultivating the rice and cotton fields, and sugar plantations of the South with free labor, denies to himself the light of observation and experience. Look to the West India Islands—no part of the Globe makes a louder outcry for labor, or offers higher wages than they do, and yet the tide of immigration from Europe sweeps by them in a vast current, which is arrested in its course only by a more Northern and healthy clime. Asia and Africa have to be resorted to for laborers, while the Caucasian of Europe flees as from a pestilence, the rays of a burning sun, and becomes the cultivator of the cereals, or turns to herdsman amid the snows of the North. There is but one element that can change, and that but to a limited degree, this law of climate, and that is the price of labor. I need not, therefore draw the picture of what would be the condition of the slave States, looking to the regular increase of the black population in forty years, under the edict formally announced by the leaders of the Northern dominant party of “no more slave States!” It cannot be contemplated by any Southern man with absolute composure.
I will not despair of the good sense of my countrymen. The hope will linger with me to the last that there is enough wisdom and patriotism among us to adjust these difficulties, although I frankly confess my doubts and fears. The minority States can do but little more than suggest—the majority States hold in their hands the fate of the Union. I would by no means, have Virginia to linger by the wayside. On the Contrary, I would have her prompt and decisive in her action—she cannot be too prompt or decisive. Before her Convention can meet full developments of one sort or the other will have been made. She should place herself in position—her destiny, for good or for ill, is with the South. She was the flagship of the Revolution; and borrowing an expression from a recent production of one of her most gifted sons, she should have “Springs upon her cables and her broad-side to.”
If I may be permitted to make a suggestion, it would be, that the Legislature, without delay, and without the interference with its call of convention, might inaugurate a meeting of the border States of Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee and Missouri, slave states; and New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois and Iowa, free States, through two Commissioners from each, to arrange, if possible, a programme of adjustment, to be submitted to the other States as conclusive of the whole matter.
Should they agree, I think their recommendation would be followed by the other States, and incorporated into the Constitution and placed on the footing of an unalterable compact. Surely no States can be more deeply interested in the work of restoring the country to quiet and harmony. If they cannot agree, then it may safely be concluded that the restoration of peace and concord has become impossible. I would have an early day appointed for the meeting of the commissioners; so that Virginia, when she holds her convention, may be in full possession of the result.
Even if a failure to agree should occur, I would still have the Southern States, as a dernier resort, upon assembling in Convention, and after having incorporated in the present Constitution, guarantees going not one iota beyond that strict justice and the security of the South requires, adopt the Constitution of the United States as it now is, and give a broad invitation to the other States to enter our Union with the old flag flying over one and all. When this is done, I would say, in conclusion, to all my countrymen, rally back to the Constitution, thus invigorated and strengthened; and let there, for all time to come, be written on every heart, as a motto—that under all circumstances, and every condition of things, there is but one post of safety, and that is to stand by the Constitution.
JOHN TYLER.
No comments:
Post a Comment