Speech Of Congressman Albert G. Brown in the Unites States House of Representatives on the Southern Movement and Mississippi Politics, March 14, 1852

It is not my purpose, Mr. Chairman, to address the House at all in reference to the bill now before it. I propose, in the opening of my remarks, to take a brief retrospect of the rise, progress, and fall, of the southern movement. It is very well known, sir, not only to the members of Congress, but to the whole country, that the continued action of the northern people, and of the Northern States, upon the subject of the domestic relations existing in the South, between the master and the slave, had at one time wrought up the southern mind to a very high degree of exasperation. Apprehensions were freely expressed, and doubtless generally entertained, that some great disaster was likely to befall the country, growing out of this excitement. In this state of public feeling, during the Thirtieth Congress, a gentleman, then a representative from one of the districts in the state of New York [Mr. Gott], introduced a resolution, preceded by what the southern members believed to be a most insulting preamble. This preamble, insulting though it certainly was, did not propose any legislative action. The resolution directed a very simple, but a very important inquiry to be made. It directed the committee for the District of Columbia, to inquire into the expediency of abolishing the slave trade in this District. The passage of this resolution gave offence to the whole southern delegation, and they commenced, at once, manifesting their hostility to this movement in a manner not to be misunderstood.

A distinguished gentleman in the other branch of the legislature, from my own state, and now its governor, came, as the older members of Congress know very well, into this House and solicited members of Congress to sign their names to a call for a meeting of southern senators and representatives. In obedience to this call, a meeting assembled in the Senate Chamber, over which a venerable senator from the state of Kentucky [Governor Metcalfe] was called to preside. Here, sir, I date the rise of the southern movement. From this point it commenced its progress. But for this movement, I undertake to say, the southern Democracy was not responsible. That meeting was a joint assemblage of the southern Whigs and of the southern Democrats. There were Whigs who absented themselves; and there were Democrats who absented themselves; but the southern delegation in Congress generally, and without reference to party, was responsible for the meeting and for its proceedings. That meeting put forth an address to the southern people, written, as it is said, and I have no doubt correctly, by the late venerable and distinguished senator from South Carolina [Mr. Calhoun]. It was such a paper as was intended to produce, as it certainly did produce, a most profound sensation upon the southern mind. Upon my return to Mississippi, I found a very high degree of excitement an excitement not confined to the Democrats, but pervading all parties, Whigs as well as Democrats. A proposition had already been made, and was then being actively urged, for a convention of our state—a popular convention to take into consideration the relations then subsisting between the North and the South, growing out of the institution of domestic slavery. A number of gentlemen, of both political parties, published a call to the people, inviting them to assemble in convention. This call was the first advance step of the southern movement, and for it, both Whigs and Democrats in my state were alike responsible. In obedience to it, the people, without reference to party, assembled in primary meetings and appointed delegates to a state convention, and, in every instance, the delegates to that convention were appointed of equal numbers, Whigs and Democrats. The convention assembled in the month of October, 1849.

This, sir, was the second step in the progress of the southern movement. Up to this period neither party could claim the exclusive credit, and up to this time it was all credit—there was no debit. That convention put forth another address to the people of Mississippi, and from that address I propose just in this connection to read a very short extract. For this address, bear you in mind, both the Whig and the Democratic parties of Mississippi were responsible, so far as they could be made responsible by their delegates in convention. It bore the honored signatures of leading Democrats and leading Whigs. It was a document which bore the signature of a very distinguished member of the UNION party, now high in the confidence of the administration, and its representative as chief consul on the Island of Cuba—Judge Sharkey. After disclosing to the people what had been done and what was proposed for the future, Judge, now Consul, Sharkey and his associates said:—

“Besides and beyond a popular convention of the Southern States with the view and the hope of arresting the cause of aggression, and if not practicable, then to concentrate the South in will, understanding, and action, the convention of Mississippi suggested, as the possible ultimate resort, the call by the legislature of the assailed states, or still some more solemn conventions—such as should be regularly elected by the people of those states to deliberate, speak, and act with all the sovereign power of the people. Should, in the result, such conventions be called and meet, they may lead to a like regularly—constituted convention of all the assailed states, to provide in the last resort for their separate welfare by the formation of a compact and an union that will afford protection to their liberties and their rights.”

Now, that is the language for which I say all parties in Mississippi were responsible. It is the emanation of a convention composed equally of Whigs and of Democrats, or as they are now called of State-Rights men and Union men. The very head and front of the Union party in Mississippi, was the president of the convention, which put forth that address—the very head and front of the Union party in Mississippi attached his name to that sentiment and published it to the people of Mississippi—“to provide in the last resort for their separate welfare.” How could this be done else than by a separation from the Northern States? How could it could be done else than by secession or revolution—by breaking up the government? True, it was to be done in the last resort; and pray, have we ever spoken of secession except as the last resort—the final alternative? But now I find this language brought into the House of Representatives by my honorable colleague [Mr. Wilcox], and held up here with an attempt to hold the party to which I belong responsible for it. History, sir, must be known to him, at least the history of our own state, and if he has read that history, he knows that the Honorable William L. Sharkey, the appointee of Millard Fillmore as consul to the city of Havana, was among those who put forth this address—put his signature to this language, and endorsed it to the people of Mississippi. To this point the southern movement progressed. This Mississippi convention advised the convention of the Southern States. Virginia responded to that call, so did Georgia and Alabama, and Louisiana, and Arkansas, and Texas. Ay, even Tennessee came in, slowly and reluctantly, it is true, but still she comes

Mr. POLK. To save the republic.

Mr. BROWN. Yes, sir, Tennessee went into the Nashville Convention to save the republic, and so did Mississippi.

Mr. SCURRY. If the gentleman will permit me to interrupt him.

Mr. BROWN. Very briefly.

Mr. SCURRY. The gentleman who attended from Texas did so against the large majority of the district which he represented. A majority of that district voted directly and flatly against the convention.

Mr. BROWN. Well, I am not going to inquire how delegates came to be there. I speak of history as it is. Texas was represented in the convention, whether by her authority I do not know, and what is more, at this time I do not care. It is not material. The Nashville Convention, in obedience to this call, and in pursuance of these proceedings, assembled. This was another step in the progress of the southern movement. Up to this time, if there was any strenuous objection to it anywhere, I, at least, was not aware of it. Here and there an exception may have been found—here and there a newspaper editor might be found to oppose it; but the great mass of the southern politicians—as far as I could judge of the southern people—Whigs and Democrats were for it. They were for it without distinction as to party. The convention assembled. It elected Honorable William L. Sharkey, of my own state—the head and front of Mississippi UNIONISM—to preside over its deliberations. He did preside. That convention put forth an address to the people, followed by a series of resolutions, asserting certain propositions upon which the southern people ought to insist. Still, sir, there was no formidable objection either to the convention, or to what it said or did. The progress of the movement still seemed to be onward. Soon afterwards the compromise measures began to attract attention in the country and in Congress. A feeling of trepidation seemed to steal over senators and representatives. Here and there an old advocate of the Nashville Convention—one who had looked to it as the source from which a panacea was to come for all wounds and bruises and putrifying sores, gradually fell off. I might call names, if I did not wish to avoid involving myself in a discussion with too many gentlemen at the same time. With the falling off of these early and sturdy advocates, commenced the decline of the southern movement and with the passage of the compromise, I mark the first distinct evidence of its decay.

In November, 1850, after the compromise measures had passed, a Union convention, the first ever held to my knowledge in the United States—certainly the first ever held in my own state—was assembled at the city of Jackson, the seat of government of Mississippi. It was not a Southern-Rights convention; it was not a State-Rights convention; it was not a Whig convention; it was not a Democratic convention; it was a UNION convention, so it was called, and so it assembled. It was in advance of any other political organization in the state of Mississippi, or any other state, growing, so far as I know, out of the compromise. It rose as if from the ashes of the southern movement in Mississippi. It was made up of the consistent few who opposed, and of the greater number who seceded from the southern movement. With the assemblage of this convention in Mississippi, I date the downfall of the southern movement in that state; a fall which was rapidly succeeded by its downfall elsewhere. Virginia determined to acquiesce in the measures of the compromise; Georgia acquiesced; Alabama and the other states in the South followed suit, or were silent. To the Union convention of Mississippi belongs the credit, if credit it be, of striking the first fatal blow at the southern movement. From this moment it rapidly declined. The movement I regard as dead. It died at the hands of its early friends—its fathers. It is now very dead; and if I were called upon to write its epitaph, I would inscribe upon the stone that marked its burial place, Requiescat in pace. I will not make merry over the tomb of an old friend. I loved this movement. I believed it was, in its day, full of patriotism, full of devotion to the best interests of the country, and eminently calculated to preserve the Union, because it was eminently calculated to preserve the rights of the states within the Union. But it has passed away. A witty friend, in speaking of its buoyant rise, its rapid progress, and its early decay, described it as being like Billy Pringle's pig:

"When it lived, it lived in clover,

And when it died, it died all over."

[Laughter.]

When those who had been chiefly instrumental in getting up this movement abandoned it, could we be made longer responsible for it? They brought it into being, and by their hands it fell; and now they turn upon us, denounce it as a monster, and charge its sole paternity on us. We assume our due share of the responsibility, and they shall take theirs.

The Southern movement was, I repeat, the joint work of both parties acting together. This is history. If there was any rivalry, it was as to which party was entitled to the most credit. There was in this movement a fusion of parties. But upon all the old issues each party maintained its separate organization. And when the Southern movement was abandoned, each was free to resume its original position.

The Whigs did not return to their position. They halted by the wayside, and, by the aid of a few Democrats, formed the Union party. It was a party not demanded by the exigencies of the hour; but called into existence to subserve the views of particular men. This brings me to consider the present organization of parties in my state.

My colleague [Mr. Wilcox] the other day, in what I considered rather bad taste—although I certainly shall not undertake to lecture him upon matters of taste—spoke of a bare minority—of almost a majority of the people of our state, as attempting to SNEAK BACK into the Democratic ranks. That was the language employed. In speaking of the State-Rights men of 1832, after their separation from General Jackson, he said:

“They stood aloof from the party, in armed neutrality, in the only state where they had a majority; and in states where they were in the minority, generally acted with the Whig party in opposition to the Democrats. They did not, after their defeat, attempt to sneak back into the Democratic party under the style of old-line Democrats, as the secessionists of the present day are attempting to do.”

Now I shall undertake to demonstrate that the State-Rights party of Mississippi were never out of the ranks of the Democratic party, and that by no act of theirs have they ever put themselves beyond the pale of that party; and therefore there was no occasion for them to march back, even with banners flying, and much less for them to "sneak back," in the language of my colleague. Who were they that put themselves first out of the pale of the Democratic party? It was my colleague and his associates. In November, 1850, they assembled together in what they certainly did not call a Democratic convention. They assembled in a Union convention, and passed what they were pleased to term Union resolutions. They formed a Union organization, independent of the Democratic party, and equally independent of the Whig party. They did more than that. They chose, as the especial organ of that party—the particular mouth—piece of that political organization, the leading Whig organ at the seat of government. I ask if it is not so? It is true they took down the name of the paper. It was called the "Southron." That title no longer suited their purpose, and they called it the "Flag of the Union." But they left the old Whig editor to conduct it. True it is that they associated with him a so—called Union Democrat. And it is equally true that the old-line Whig and the newline Democrat yet conduct that journal. From this point, the unhappy controversy which has continued in Mississippi, took its progress. The Democratic party became divided. But there can be no difficulty in deciding who kept up the old organization. The newspaper press of the state gives always a pretty clear indication as to how parties stand. If there is one single, solitary Whig paper in the state of Mississippi that has not kept the Union flag flying at its masthead from the opening of the contest down to this hour, I ask my colleague to say which one it is. If there was a Democratic paper in the state of one year's standing that did not take the State-Rights side, with but a single exception, the Columbus Democrat, and keep it, I do not know where it is to be found. Who seems from these facts to have been getting out of the Democratic party—my colleague, who is sustained by the Whig press, or I, who have been and am yet sustained by the Democratic press?

More than this. The Union party called a convention in April, 1851. It was to be, by the terms of the call, a Union convention—mark you, it was not a Democratic convention, it was not a Whig convention, but it was a Union convention. What did it do? Did it nominate Democrats for office? It made four nominations, and two of them were Democrats by name, and two of them were open and avowed Whigs. It did not assemble as a Democratic convention. It did not sit as a Democratic convention. It did not make Democratic nominations. It nominated two Whigs and two Democrats, and my colleague voted the ticket thus nominated. Who was it, let me ask, that, following after strange gods, thus put himself outside the Democratic party; and who is he that, in coming back, will have occasion to sneak into the ranks?

The State-Rights party, or the Democratic State-Rights party, as it is termed in our state, assembled in convention in June. What did they do? They made their nominations, and they selected their nominees from the old-line Democracy. General John A. Quitman was made our standard-bearer. I was surprised the other day to hear my colleague going back to 1824 and 1828, to find the evidence of Quitman's want of fidelity to true Democratic principles. Something has been said about a statute of limitation. Whether the late distinguished nominee of the Democracy of Mississippi requires a statute of limitation, I certainly do not know. If he voted for John Quincy Adams in 1824 and 1828, and has since seen the error of his way, where is the Democrat who will not forgive him? Where is the Mississippi Democrat who has not forgiven him? But we have his own word for saying, that he did not vote for John Quincy Adams in 1824. He did not vote for him in 1828. He was always a State-Rights man of the strictest sect; and upon the issuing of General Jackson's proclamation against South Carolina, he, like hundreds and thousands of others who had been always faithful to the standard of the old hero, abandoned him; and they returned to him in their own good time. But if it be so grave an offence in the Democrats of Mississippi to have nominated a gentleman who voted (allowing the charge of my friend to be true) for John Quincy Adams in 1824, and again in 1828, what shall my friend say of Governor Foote? He claims to be a better Democrat than anybody else; and yet he held the only office that he ever did hold at the hands of the people in Mississippi, until he was elected governor, from the Whigs of the county of Hinds, and that so late as 1838-'9. Yes; my friend forgot that, in 1838, Governor Foote run as a Whig, was elected as a Whig, and served as a Whig in our legislature. So upon the score of consistency, I think, allowing my friend's statements to be true, we stand quite as well as he does. And I submit to my colleague whether it is not a little too late for him, or for his friend, the governor of the I was going to say Union party, but he is governor of the state by the constitution—to complain of Governor Quitman's want of Democracy. Did not both you and Governor Foote vote for Quitman for governor in 1849? Did not Governor Foote put forth, or aid in putting forth, a pamphlet, in this city, urging the claims of this same John A. Quitman for the Vice-Presidency? Yes, sir, so late as 1848 he recommended him as a man worthy of trust, to the whole Democracy of the Union. Yet my friend lays charges against his political orthodoxy, dated as far back as 1824 and 1828—twenty years beyond the time when he received the endorsement of Governor Foote and nearly one-third of the whole Democracy of the Union; twenty-one years beyond the time when he received the endorsement of Mississippi for governor, and my friend's vote for the same office. If the endorsement of the National Democracy in 1848—if the endorsement of the Mississippi Democracy in 1849—if the endorsement of Governor Foote, and of my colleague also, may be relied on, I think Quitman can pass muster. He is sound.

Our nominees were all Democrats. We run them as Democrats—as State-Rights Democrats—against the Union ticket, composed of two Whigs and two Democrats. We were beaten. And what has happened since the election? Who is it that has gone out of the Democratic party? The legislature assembled the new governor was inaugurated. What was almost his first act? It was to appoint an adjutant-general. It was an important appointment—the most important in his gift. Did he appoint a Union Democrat? No, not he. Did he appoint a Secession Democrat, as my friend calls them? No, not at all; but he appointed a Whig. That was his first important appointment as governor, and he dismissed a Democrat to make it. What did his "faithful Union legislature" do? It did not send him back to the Senate, that is clear. I will tell you what it did. There was an old and venerable Democrat superintending the penitentiary. It was a mere ministerial office, filled by a man who had confessedly discharged his duties with ability and integrity, and to the entire satisfaction of everybody. He was turned out by the Union legislature, and a Whig put in his place. A gentleman who had discharged for a series of years the duties of clerk of the same establishment, with fidelity, and to the entire satisfaction of every one, was also dismissed, and a Whig put in his place. A Whig sergeant-at-arms was elected. Places were given to other Whigs over the heads of Democrats. The patronage of the state, so far as the governor and legislature could control it, has been given to the Whigs; and so far as the executive advertising has been concerned, it has, with scarcely an exception, been given to the Whig press. I ask if this looks like Democracy? Two vacancies existed in the United States Senate. How were they filled? With Democrats, did you say—old, long-tried, and consistent Democrats? Were they sent here to represent the Union men of Mississippi? No, sir. One Democrat and one Whig were returned. If these things show that my colleague, and his associates in Mississippi, have been faithful to the Democratic party, why, then, I must confess I have grown strangely wild in my opinions of political fidelity. What think our friends from other states ? "Can things like these o'ercome them like a summer cloud, and not excite their wonder?" Is it consistent with Democratic usage to organize under the style of the Union party? Is it compatible with party fidelity to nominate and elect bitter enemies of the party? Is it a part of the tactics of the Democratic party to dismiss Democrats and put Whigs in their places? Ought the patronage of a Democratic government to be given exclusively to the Whig press? And, finally, ought a Democratic legislature to elect a Whig United States senator? These are questions raised by my friend, and his party. I ask the National Democracy to answer them.

My colleague calls us constantly through his speech, the secessionists and disunionists of Mississippi. This is a kind of political slang used in a party canvass with effect, but it is entirely out of place here. A member of Congress ought to use terms that apply to a given state of facts—that have some relation to justice. My friend says what he, perhaps, said so often in the heat of the canvass, that he almost got to think it was true that we went into the contest with secession and disunion inscribed upon our banners. Why, no such thing is true. My friend must have seen that inscription through a distempered imagination—through some extraordinary perversion of his mental vision. There was no such inscription on our banner. The Democratic party of Mississippi asserted the abstract right of a state to secede from this Union. They entertain that opinion now; and at all proper times and upon all proper occasions, they will maintain it. We believe, in the language of the Kentucky resolutions, "that where there is no common arbiter, each party to a compact is to judge of the infractions of the compact, and of the mode and measure of redress."

The state, we say, "is to be the judge of infractions of the compact, and of the mode and measure of redress." If, in the language of the Kentucky resolutions, the state believed that the compact has been violated, she, and she alone, has the right to judge, so far as she herself is concerned, of that infraction, and the mode and measure of its redress. I desire to ask my colleague if he does not endorse the Kentucky resolutions, and whether the whole Union party of Mississippi does not endorse them? If he will say to us, by authority of his party, that they repudiate these resolutions, I will guaranty that they sink so low, as a political party, that, though you sounded for them with a hundred fathom lead line, a voice would still come booming up from this mighty deep, proclaiming, "no bottom here."

I desire to submit this proposition to my colleague. He says, that because we assert the right of secession, therefore we are secessionists. Non constat. He asserts the right of revolution. Let me ask my friend, Do you consider yourself as a revolutionist? If I am to be denounced as a secessionist because I assert the right to secede, may I not turn upon my assailant and say to him, You are not a revolutionist, because you assert the right of revolution?

But, sir, this new Union organization—this party which claims first to be the Whig party par excellence, and then to be the Democratic party par excellence—to what sort of sentiments does it hold? Ask my friend here [Mr. Wilcox], in the presence of our colleague of the Senate [Mr. Brooke], who has lately arrived in this city, "Gentlemen, what are your opinions on the subject of the currency?" My friend would doubtless say something about hard-money, and gold and silver; but our colleague in the Senate would tell us that he believes in paper money, and banks. Suppose the two gentlemen should be asked what they thought on the subject of protection? My friend here would commence lecturing you about free-trade; but his colleague in the Senate would begin to tell us how much protection we want. And it would be thus in regard to distribution, internal improvements by the federal government, the Sub-treasury, and upon all other party questions. If you ask them what they are for, they tell you they are for the Union. But as to what political measures they propose to carry out, they do not at all agree, even among themselves.

Why, sir, if I may be allowed, in this high council-place, to indulge in an anecdote, I think I can tell one illustrative of the position of this Union party, and especially the Union party of my own state. There was an old gentleman who kept what was called the "Union Hotel." A traveller rode up and inquired whether he could have breakfast. The landlord said, "What will you have?" "Well," said he, "I'll take broiled chicken and coffee. "I don't keep them." "Let me have beefsteak and boiled eggs, then." "I don't keep them." "Well," said the traveller, "never mind; give me something to eat." "I don't keep anything to eat." "Then," said the traveller, getting a little out of patience, "feed my horse; give him some oats." "I don't keep oats." "Then give him a little hay.' "I don't keep hay." "Well, give him something to eat." "I don't keep anything for horses to eat." [Laughter.] "Then what the devil do you keep?" "I keep the Union Hotel." [Renewed laughter.] So with this Union party. They are for the Union, and they are for nothing else. They are for that to which nobody is opposed. They are constantly trying to save the Union, and are making a great outcry about it, when, in fact, nobody has sought or is seeking to destroy it. They keep the Union Hotel, but they don't keep anything else.

Now, sir, to come a step further in the progress of Mississippi politics. As soon as the election in our state resulted adversely to my friends and to myself, we, as a matter of course, abandoned the issue upon which it had been conducted. We gave up a contest in which we had been beaten. But we did not change our opinions as to the soundness of the principle. It was a contest for the maintenance of a particular state principle, or state policy. We were overthrown by a majority of the people of our own state, and consequently we gave up the issue. Immediately afterwards, by the usual authority and in the usual way, there was a notice inserted in the leading Democratic papers of the state, calling upon the Democratic party, without reference to new state issues, and without reference to past disputes, to assemble in convention for the purpose of appointing delegates to attend the Baltimore National Democratic Convention. This was in November, 1851. Almost immediately afterwards, the Union party called a Union convention, which assembled on the first Monday in January last. It was represented by about thirty-six delegates, from twelve or fourteen counties. On the 8th of the same month, the Democratic Convention proper, assembled, represented by some two hundred or more delegates, from fifty-five counties. Our convention was called as a Democratic convention. It assembled as a Democratic convention. It deliberated as a Democratic convention. It appointed delegates to the Baltimore Convention as a Democratic convention. It appointed Democratic electors. It represented emphatically the Democracy of Mississippi. Having been beaten on the issues of state policy, I repeat, we gave them up. We so publicly announced; and when we met in convention on the 8th of January, it was as Democrats on the old issues.

How was it with the Union Convention? Was that a Democratic convention? Was there any such pretence? No, sir; it assembled as a Union convention—a Union meeting to appoint delegates to attend a Democratic National Convention. Why, what an idea! What right had such a meeting to appoint delegates to a Democratic National Convention? If the Union party, calling themselves Democrats, may appoint delegates to the National Democratic Convention, why may not the Free Democracy of Ohio, typified in the person of the gentleman across the way [Mr. Giddings], do the same thing? They claim to be Democrats and have organized the Free Democracy; and why may not they send their representation to the Democratic convention? Suppose the Free-Soil Democrats get up an organization, why may not they send delegates too? and why may not every other faction and political organization have its representatives there? No, sir; if there is to be a Union party, let there be a Union Convention. If certain gentlemen have become so etherealized that the Democratic organization does not suit them, let them stay out of the Democratic Convention. When they put on the proper badge—when they take down the Union flag, and run up the old Democratic banner, I am for hailing them as brothers for forgetting the past, and looking only to the future. They need not sneak back. We will open the door, and let them in. "To err, is human; to forgive, divine."

Mr. CHASTAIN (interrupting). I wish to ask the gentleman from Mississippi if the platform of the Nashville Convention did not repudiate the idea of having anything to do with either of the national conventions—the Whig or the Democratic?

Mr. BROWN. For that convention, the Whig party and the Democratic party, as I said before, were alike responsible. The Union party, composed, as it is, of Whigs and Democrats, must take their part of the responsibility for it. Was not Judge Sharkey, a Whig and your President's appointee to Havana, responsible? Was he not president of the convention, and is he not a Union leader? Did not Governor Foote have a hand in it? Did not Mr. Clemens take his share of responsibility? Did not almost all the prominent, leading Union Democrats of the South have a part in that convention? I want to know if these gentlemen may slip out and leave us to hold the sack? The State-Rights Democrats of Mississippi, as such, never endorsed the recommendation to which the gentleman alludes; and, therefore, we no more than others are responsible for it. If the Union Whigs and Union Democrats will stand by the recommendation, they may fairly expect us to do so too; but it is a very pretty business for us to make a joint promise, and then allow them to break it, and require us to hold on to it. No, sir. "A contract broken on one side, is a contract broken on all sides."

Mr. MOORE of Louisiana (interrupting). The gentleman from Mississippi mentioned the state of Louisiana in connection with the Nashville Convention. I wish merely to state this fact, that a law was introduced into the legislature of Louisiana authorizing the people to send delegates to that convention, but it failed. I do not believe a single man went from the state of Louisiana to that convention who was authorized by the people to go there.

Mr. BROWN. I cannot stop for these interruptions, as I find that my time is fast running out. Now, what did the Democratic party of Mississippi mean when they assembled in convention and appointed delegates to the Baltimore National Convention? They meant, sir, to go into that convention in good faith, and to act in good faith. We do not believe the Democratic party is going to come up to our standard of State-Rights, but we know they will come nearer up to it than the Whig party; and we therefore intend to go into the Democratic Convention, with an honest purpose to support its nominees. We trust you to make us fair and just nominations; and if you do, we intend to support them. If I am asked who the State-Rights Democrats of Mississippi would sustain for the presidency, I will answer, they will sustain any good, honest, long-tried, and faithful member of the Democratic party, who has never practised a fraud upon them.

I can tell you this, that in going into that convention, the Democracy of Mississippi will not ask from it an endorsement of their peculiar notions—if, indeed, they be peculiar—on the subject of State-Rights.

Mr. CHASTAIN (interrupting). Let me ask the gentleman if he would vote for Mr. Cass?

Mr. BROWN. If I were to answer that question, I might be asked by other gentlemen whether I would vote for this man or that man. I do not choose to engage in any controversy about men.

Sir, I was saying that we shall not ask at the hands of the Baltimore Convention an endorsement of our peculiar views on the subject of State-Rights—if, indeed, these views be peculiar. We shall ask in the name of the State-Rights party no place upon the national ticket—neither at its head nor at its tail. And when we have aided you on to victory, as we expect to do, we shall ask no part of the spoils, for we are not of the spoil-loving school.

What we ask is this: that when we have planted a great principle, which we intend to nourish, and, as far as we have the power, protect, you shall not put the heel of the National Democracy upon it to crush it. We ask that you shall not insult us in your convention, either by offering us as the nominee a man who has denounced us as traitors to our country, or by passing any resolutions which shall thus denounce us in words or by implication. Leave us free from taunt and insult; give us a fair Democratic nomination, and we will march up to it like men, and we will be, where we have always been in our Democratic struggles, not in the rear, but in the advance column. We will bear you on to victory; and when victory has been achieved, you may take the spoils and divide them among yourselves. We want no office. Will the Union party give this pledge? Of course they will not, for they are committed against your nominees in advance, unless certain demands of theirs shall be complied with—and among them is the ostracism of the State-Rights men. They propose to read out the great body of the Southern Democrats, and then I suppose make up the deficiency with Whigs. When the National Democracy relies on Whig votes to elect its President, it had better "hang its harp upon the willow."

The State-Rights Democrats will never be found sneaking into any party. We ask nothing of our national brethren. If we support the nominees, as we expect to do, it will be done, not for pay, but as a labor of love—love for old party associations; love of principles, which we hope are not yet quite extinct, and which, we are slow to believe, will be extinguished at Baltimore. If we fail to support the nominees, it will be because they are such as ought not to have been made.

We make no professions of love for the Union. Let our acts speak. We have stood by the Constitution and by the rights of the states, as defined by our fathers. If this be enmity to the Union, then have we been its enemies. We have not made constant proclamation of our devotion to the Union, because we have seen no attempt to destroy it, and have therefore seen no necessity for defending it. The danger is not that the states will secede from the Union, but rather that the Union will absorb the reserved rights of the states, and consolidate them as one state. Against this danger we have raised our warning voice. It has not been heeded; and if disaster befall us from this quarter, we at least are not to blame.

Laudation of the Union is a cheap commodity. It is found on the tongue of every demagogue in the country. I by no means say that all who laud the Union are demagogues; but I do say that there is not a demagogue in the Union who does not laud it. It is the bone and sinew, the soul and body of all their speeches. With them, empty shouts for the Union, the glorious Union, are a passport to favor; and beyond the point of carrying a popular election, they have no ideas of patriotism, and care not a fig for the ultimate triumph of our federative system.

Mr. Chairman, there are many other things to which I should have been very glad to make allusion, but I am admonished that my time is so nearly out, that I can have no opportunity to take up another point. I shall be happy, however, in the few moments that remain of my time, to answer any questions that gentlemen may desire to submit. I supposed, from the disposition manifested by gentlemen a few moments ago to interrogate me, that I should necessarily be compelled to answer some questions, or seem to shrink from the responsibility of doing so. I therefore hurried on to the conclusion of what I deemed it absolutely necessary to say, for the purpose of answering those questions. I am now ready.

After a moment's pause, Mr. B. continued: Gentlemen seem not disposed to press their inquiries, and my time being almost out, I resume my seat.

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, pp. 261-72

Congressman Horace Mann, July 13, 1851

WASHINGTON, July 13, 1851.

A Virginian told me yesterday that he saw I kept preaching; and, upon my evincing some curiosity to know what he meant, he said he heard a discourse from me the day before, — Sunday; all which, being at last interpreted, meant that he had heard a street temperance-lecturer read my Letter to the Worcester Temperance Convention, to a large audience which he had collected. I see the letter itself is in Monday's "Commonwealth."

I was glad to see in some paper yesterday a letter from Gen. Scott to Gen. Jackson, declining a challenge for a duel which the latter had sent him. It was well written, saying at the end that he, Gen. Jackson, could probably gratify his feelings by calling him, Scott, coward, &c., till after the next war; meaning thereby, that, in another war, he would have an opportunity to vindicate his courage, &c.

The general impression here is that Mr. Webster cares nothing for the Whig party, but will accept a nomination from any body of men not too contemptible to be noticed.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 350

Another Chair.

J. D. Meese, of Osseo, Hillsdale County, Mich., has sent, in charge of W. W. Murphy, an unique rustic chair to the Republican Convention. It is composed of thirty-four varieties of timber, representing thirty-three full-grown States and one in embryo. In deference to the memory of two great statesmen—Clay and Jackson—he has place two species of wood in it, ash for Kentucky and hickory for Tennessee, and for Kansas the weeping willow. He has so arranged the whole that they represent, as near as may be, the Union.

SOURCE: “Another Chair,” The Press and Tribune, Chicago, Illinois, Wednesday, May 16, 1860, p. 4, col. 6

Congressman Horace Mann to E. W. Clap, February 10, 1851

WASHINGTON, Feb. 10, 1851.

E. W. CLAP, ESQ.

MY DEAR SIR, — . . . I was glad to hear from you, and should be much obliged for a more detailed account of proceedings at home. Things are looking bad for freedom there, and worse here. There never was a greater effort on the part of any Administration — not even in the most imperious days of Jackson or Polk to subdue all opposition, by fears or by rewards, than at present. Webster is as corrupt a politician as ever lived. What is the chance of Sumner's success? . . .

Yours very truly,

HORACE MANN.

SOURCE: Mary Tyler Peabody Mann, Life of Horace Mann, p. 346-7

Diary of Henry Greville: Wednesday, February 20, 1861

London.—I came here yesterday for the levee to-day. I found a letter from Naples from Lady Holland written before the fall of Gaeta, giving a satisfactory account of the state of affairs there. They are beginning public works and various improvements to the town.

From Paris they write that the King of Naples excites the warmest interest there in all classes, and that the army and navy are all in his favour, and he is looked upon as ‘le digne petit fils de Henri IV.,’ and it is fervently hoped that Victor Emmanuel and Garibaldi may go together to the infernal regions—so differently do people look on things on opposite sides of the Channel.

The Italian Parliament was opened by Victor Emmanuel in person on Monday. His speech was

very adroit, and in some degree reassuring to the friends of peace.

The American Secession seems to be almost accomplished, and any compromise to be more and more hopeless. A letter received from Fanny Kemble a short time ago (January 17) says:

I think the secesssion of the Southern States sooner or later inevitable, and I devoutly hope that the cowards on all sides will not be able to poultice up the festering sore which must break out again, and will only have gangrened the whole body of this nation still deeper. Matters have gone so far with South Carolina, that she has seceded-firing upon United States vessels entering Charlestown Harbour is a very pretty intimation of their animus, and it is, moreover, the avowed object of the Southern politicians to embroil some portion of the Slave States so thoroughly with the Federal Government, that all compromise shall be impossible, and that the Southern States least inclined to secede (and there are many, all the border ones, whose interest is decidedly opposed to secession), shall be compelled, as a point of honour, to throw in their lot with the seceders against the North. The election of Lincoln is really and truly a mere pretext; the match that has fired the train long ago prepared for exploding. When I first came to this country, it was convulsed with the threatened secession of South Carolina on the tariff question. Old Andrew Jackson was President then, and compelled her to adhere to her allegiance; but in a letter to a friend he wrote that the South was bent upon a separation, and sooner or later would accomplish it upon one pretext or another; he even foretold it would be on that of the slavery question.

‘The fact is, the Southern States see and feel very bitterly the immense preponderance of wealth, activity, industry, intelligence, and prosperity of the North. They neither see nor believe what is the truth, that slavery, and nothing else, is the cause of their inferiority in all these particulars, and are now acting upon the insane belief that separation from the bond (which alone preserves them in their present state of comparative safety and prosperity) of the Union will turn the scale of national importance in their favour. Meantime they are rushing into an abyss of danger and difficulty—they are on the very verge of civil war. All good men throughout the country look with grief and horror upon the mad career on which they are entering. In the North, many would give up almost everything to avert the horrors of bloodshed on the land, by the hands of Americans fighting against each other. In the South, a majority would willingly endure anything rather than such a result, but they are panic-stricken under a fierce and inexorable reign of terror by which the infatuated men bent upon dividing the country compel them to join the Southern movement. It is hideous and piteous to see the gulf of ruin dug by their own folly and wickedness under the towering fabric of that material prosperity with which, even as it were yesterday, they amazed the world! For my own part, I believe it is not only inevitable, but desirable, that the South should separate from the North. Slave-holding produces a peculiar character which has nothing in common with a Christian republic founded by Englishmen of the eighteenth century.

The Southerners are fond of calling themselves the Chivalry of the South, and verily they are as ignorant, insolent, barbarous, and brutal as any ironclad robbers of the middle ages. They are, in fact, a remnant of feudalism and barbarism, maintaining itself with infinite difficulty by the side of the talent and most powerful development of commercial civilisation. I believe the fellowship to be henceforth impossible; I hope to God it will prove so, for then the Slave States will hasten down into a state of social and political degradation, such that the whole population will abandon them; they will become a wilderness of fertile land, peopled with black savages; the northern men will then reconquer them, and for ever abolish slavery on the continent! This is my theory.'

SOURCE: Alice Countess of Stratford, Leaves from the Diary of Henry Greville: 1857-1861, p. 350-3

Diary of Musician David Lane, June 14, 1863

We are still in the harbor at Memphis awaiting orders. Eight hundred and fifty wounded men were brought to this place yesterday from Vicksburg. Grant is still hammering away at that seemingly impregnable fortress. The weather is extremely hot, which renders our situation, huddled together as we are, very uncomfortable. Yesterday we steamed up the river about a mile to a fine grove, and all went on shore while the crew gave the old boat a thorough cleaning. This morning our surgeon ordered us all on shore as a "sanitary measure." We marched off by companies, each company going where it chose, but to different points. We went to Court House Square and disbanded. It was like being transferred from a gloomy prison to "smiling fields and shady groves.” The square contains about five acres; is enclosed by an iron fence; is thickly set with trees of different varieties the brave old oak, with its spreading branches and delicious shade; the gorgeous magnolia, the tree of paradise; the orange and lemon, with an almost endless variety of evergreens. Near the center of the square is a bust of General Jackson, cut in marble.

On one side of the pedestal is inscribed those memorable words of that grand old patriot: "The Federal Union; it Must Be Preserved." I noticed the word "Federal" was partly obliterated, and inquired the cause. A citizen told me it was done by a Rebel Colonel at the beginning of the war; that his men, still cherishing some regard for the hero of New Orleans, took him outside the city and shot him. At four o'clock we were marched on board our prison ship.

SOURCE: David Lane, A Soldier's Diary: The Story of a Volunteer, 1862-1865, p. 48-9

Senator Daniel S. Dickinson to Mr. Rogers, March 25, 1855

BINGHAMPTON, March 25, 1855.

MY DEAR ROGERS—

*                    *                    *                    *                    *

I am aware that many papers have suggested my name in connection with the Presidency, and some have actually placed it at mast-head. Upon the subject you are already aware of my views. Really and truly, I desire never to be again called from the quiet of my home to discharge a public trust. The times have become degenerate—the spirit of office-seeking, base and execrable in the extreme, and the tone of public morals more than questionable. The public treasury and public domain are regarded the lawful booty of political cormorants. Whoever administers the government for the next term, if he does no more than his reasonable duty, will dearly earn both his emoluments and honors, for he will have much to do, above and beyond subserving the grovelling purposes of mere party.

He will have to arrest the demoralizing system of public plunder which has become a part of the fashion of the times; and he will have to fight over, remember that, the great battle of the Constitution which has been recently surrendered. He will have to displace political Peter Funks, professional office-seekers and holders, and fill their places with honest men. It will require the iron will, the stern integrity, and the moral courage of a Jackson. If it is not done, the country will be ruined. If it is done, he who does it will be persecuted "to strange cities." It is a labor of love I by no means covet, nor shall I envy him who is selected to discharge it.

*                    *                    *                    *                    *

Mrs. Dickinson and daughter unite in kind regards to your self and Mrs. Rogers.

Sincerely yours,

D. S. DICKINSON.

SOURCE: John R. Dickinson, Editor, Speeches, Correspondence, Etc., of the Late Daniel S. Dickinson of New York, Vol. 2, p. 485-6

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