James K. Polk* to Jefferson Davis, May 19, 1847

(From Vicksburg Weekly Whig, October 20, 1847.)

Washington City, May 19, 1847.

My Dear Sir:—The Secretary of War will transmit to you, a commission as Brigadier General of the United States Army. The Brigade which you will command, will consist of volunteers called out to serve during the war with Mexico. It gives me sincere pleasure to confer this important command upon you. Your distinguished gallantry and military skill while leading the noble regiment under your command, and especially in the battles of Monterey and Buena Vista, eminently entitle you to it. I hope that the severe wound which you received at the latter place, may soon be healed, and that your country may have the benefit of your valuable services, at the head of your new command.

I am very faithfully, your friend,

JAMES K. POLK.

To Brigadier-General Jefferson Davis, U. S. Army, in Mexico.

_______________

*Polk, James Knox (1795-1849), eleventh President of the United States, was born in Mecklenburg county, North Carolina, November 2, 1795, graduated from the University of North Carolina in 1818, removed to Tennessee, studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1820, and began practice in Columbia, Tenn. He served in the Tennessee House of Representatives 1823-1825; was a member of the national House of Representatives, 1825-1839; Speaker, 1835-1839; and Governor of Tennessee 1839-1841. He was President of the United States, 1845-1849. During his administration the annexation of Texas (1845) involved the country in aggressive war against Mexico (May, 1846-September, 1847) which resulted in the acquisition of California and other cessions from Mexico. A dispute with the British government about the boundary of Oregon was settled by the Treaty with Great Britain signed June 15, 1846. President Polk retired from office in March, and died at Nashville, Tenn., June 15, 1849.

SOURCE: Dunbar Rowland, Editor, Jefferson Davis, Constitutionalist: His Letters, Papers and Speeches, Volume 1, p. 73

Albert G. Brown’s Speech on Millard Fillmore’s Message Concerning the Texas Boundary, August 8, 1850

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, AUGUST 8, 1850, ON PRESIDENT FILLMORE'S MESSAGE CONCERNING THE TEXAN BOUNDARY.

MR. BROWN said:—When the President's message was read at the clerk's desk on Wednesday, it struck me as the most extraordinary paper which had ever emanated from an American President. I have since read it carefully, and my first impressions have been strengthened and confirmed.

The document is extraordinary for its bold assumptions; extraordinary for its suppression of historical truth; extraordinary for its war-like tone; and still more extraordinary for its supercilious defiance of southern sentiment.

The President assumes that to be true which covers the whole ground in controversy, and to do this he has been driven to the necessity of suppressing every material fact; and having thus laid the basis of the message, he proceeds to tell us what are the means at his disposal for maintaining his positions; and winds up with a distinct threat, that if there is not implicit obedience to his will, these means will be employed to insure the obedience which he exacts.

Kings and despots have thus talked to their subjects and their slaves, but this is the first instance when the servant of a free people, just tossed by accident into a place of power, has turned upon his masters, and threatened them with fire and sword if they dared to murmur against his imperial will.

The President sits down to address his first important message to Congress, and, as if forgetful of his position, and mistaking this for a military, instead of a civil government, he tells us he is commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states when called into actual service. He next proceeds to inform us that all necessary legislation has been had to enable him to call this vast military and naval power into action. No further interposition of Congress is asked for or desired. His duties are plain, and his means clear and ample, and we are told with emphasis, that he intends to enforce obedience to his decrees.

A stranger, who knew nothing of our institutions, might well have supposed, from the reading of the message, that the President was a military despot; and to have seen him striding into the House of Representatives with a drawn sword, pointing first to the army, and then to the navy, and then to the militia, one, by a very slight transition, might have supposed himself in the presence of Oliver Cromwell, instead of Millard Fillmore. Why, sir, this redoubtable military hero, who "never set a squadron in the field, nor does the division of a battle know more than a spinster," talks as flippantly to Congress and the people about commanding the army and navy and militia of the United States, as if he were a conquering hero addressing his captives, instead of a civil magistrate making his first obeisance to his superiors.

Am I to be told by the friends of the President, that no threat was implied in his late insolent and insulting message—that he did not mean to threaten or menace Texas or the South, by the language employed in that paper? Then why inform us that he is commander-in-chief of the naval and military power of the government? Why buckle on his armor? Why present himself here panoplied, as if for war, if his mission was one of peace? Was it necessary for the information of Congress, or of the country, that the President should tell us that he is the constitutional commander-in-chief of the army and navy? Why tell us with so much of precise detail, what laws were in force amplifying his powers under the Constitution, if he did not mean to intimidate us? Why, sir, did he inform us that his duty was plain, and his authority clear and ample, if he did not mean to close the argument, and rely upon the sword? The whole scope and purpose of the message is clear and palpable. It was intended to drive Texas and the South into meek submission to the executive will. Instead of entering into a calm and statesman-like review of the matters in controversy, he leaps at one bound to his conclusions—asserts at once that Texas has no rightful claim to the territory in dispute. He plants his foot, brandishes his sword, and, in true Furioso style, declares that

"Whoso dares his boots displace,

Shall meet Bombastes face to face."

Well, sir, we shall see how successful this display of military power on the part of the illustrious "commander-in-chief of the army and navy" will be in bringing the South to a humiliating surrender.

If there be any one here or elsewhere, Mr. Chairman, who supposes that the President has acted properly in this matter, let me speak to him calmly. Is there an instance on record where a friendly power has gone with arms in his hands to treat with another friendly power? Texas is not only a friendly power, but she is a state of this Union, allied to us by every tie, political, social, and religious, which can bind one people to another. Her chief magistrate has witnessed with pain and sorrow, an attempt on the part of this government to wrest from his state a portion of her territory. He thinks the President may not be cognisant of these transactions. He knows it is being done without authority of law; and what course does he take? He writes to the President a respectful note, informing him, in substance, that an officer of the army, stationed in Santa Fé, had interposed adversely to the authority of Texas, and was fomenting discord, and exciting the inhabitants to rebellion. He made a respectful inquiry, as to whether this officer was acting in obedience to the will or wishes of the President. Now, sir, how was this inquiry answered? Did the President make a respectful answer to a respectful inquiry? No, sir. He goes off in a blaze of military fire; points to his military trappings—"Here is my army, here is my navy, and there is the militia; my mind is made up; I do approve of the conduct of my civil and military governor in Santa Fé; and if you attempt to displace him, or question his authority, war, war, war to the knife, will be the consequence.” Such, sir, is my reading of the President's message. Was there ever such a beginning to a friendly negotiation? Suppose Great Britian had sent a military force to take possession of our northeastern territory or of Oregon, and the British officer in command had issued his proclamation calling the inhabitants together to make and establish a government adverse to the United States, and in total disregard of her claim; suppose that, on seeing this, the President of the United States had addressed a respectful inquiry to the British government, to know if this proceeding was approved; and then, sir, suppose the British Minister had replied, "Her majesty has so many ships of the line, so many war-steamers. Her military resources are thus and so. She approves of the conduct of her officer in Oregon or in Maine. Her duty is plain, and her means ample for maintaining the authority she has assumed." What, let me ask you, men and patriots, would have been thought of conduct like this? Would the American President have dared to outrage the sentiment of his country by pocketing such an insult, and then proceeding with the negotiation? If he had, is there one man in all this broad land who would not, with his last gasp, have heaped curses and imprecations upon his head? And shall this government force an insult upon Texas, a sister of the confederacy, which she would not and dare not take from any power on God's earth?

I know not what course Texas may think it her duty to take in this emergency. But, sir, if she strike for her honor—if she strike for her altars and her firesides if she strike for liberty and law, I warn her oppressors that she will not strike alone.

But, Mr. Chairman, I have said that the President has virtually taken this question of the disputed boundary between Texas and the United States out of the hands of Congress, and has assumed, by an executive pronunciamiento, to settle the whole matter adversely to Texas; and I will show that he means this, if he means anything.

As for anything which appears in the message, Texas never had a shadow of claim to any part of the country in dispute. The President is particular in stating that the country was a part of New Mexico prior to the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and recites at full length the fifth, eighth, and ninth articles of that treaty, to show that the country belongs to the United States, and that he is bound to protect it by military power. But he wholly omits to say anything of the grounds on which Texas bases her claim; not one word of her revolutionary rights; nothing of her treaties with Mexico; not a syllable about her boundary as defined in her constitution of 1836; no reference to the negotiations which led to her annexation; nothing of the opinions of his predecessors and their cabinets, recognising the rights of Texas within the boundary as prescribed by her constitution; and lastly, no mention of the crowning act of annexation—the resolutions of March 1, 1845, by which the star of her existence was blotted out and her political institutions buried in those of the United States.

If Mr. Fillmore had thought it worth his while to look into these matters, he would have found his duty not quite so plain, nor the obligation quite so imperative to use the naval and military power of this government to crush Texas, if she dared to assert her rightful claim to the country in dispute.

I commend the history of this transaction to the President and his advisers before they commence hanging the Texans for treason. Perhaps it may be found that Texas acquired some rights by her revolution and by her treaty with Santa Anna. It may turn out that she placed the evidence of her rights on record in the enduring form of a written constitution. It may appear that these rights were recognised by every department of this government in its negotiations and debates on the. treaty of annexation. It will most certainly appear that these rights were solemnly recognised by this government in the final consummation of that treaty. By the resolutions of annexation, approved March 1, 1845, it was provided, among other things, that all that part of Texas lying south of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, should be admitted into the Union with or without slavery as the people might elect; and in all that part lying north of the said parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes, slavery should be prohibited. Now, sir, what does this language mean, and why was it employed? Texas, as we all know, had defined her boundaries; she fixed her western limits on the Rio Grande, from its mouth to its source, and she extended her northern limits to the parallel of 42°. Hence, when she asked admission into the Union, there was no dispute between her and the United States as to where her boundaries were. She presented herself with fixed boundaries, and we took her as she was. By a solemn compact, as binding in its forms as a treaty between nations could make it, and as plain in its terms as our language could express it, we accepted her, and shaped her policy through all after time on the subject of slavery. Her territory north of 36° 30' was to be free, and all south of that line was to be slave territory. Such was the contract between Texas and the United States—the only contracting parties. Texas presented herself bounded on the west by the Rio Grande and on the north by the 42d parallel, and we took her as she presented herself. We had either to do this or not take her at all. All the debates, all the negotiations, all that was written or said on the subject pending the treaty of annexation, shows that this was the understanding of both parties. True, there was an outstanding dispute between Texas and Mexico about the separate or independent existence of Texas. Mexico denied the nationality of Texas. The United States admitted it; and treated with her as a sovereign. Mark you, Mexico did not dispute with Texas about a boundary, but about her separate national independence. We admitted Texas, by a treaty entered into between her and the United States, into the Union of these states, and we undertook to defend, to protect and maintain her against Mexico. We did this in good faith—we went to war with Mexico. That war resulted in Mexico giving up all the territory that lay within the limits of Texas, as defined by herself, and in her ceding other vast tracts of country to the United States. Now, sir, what do we hear? Why, that certain territory within her constitutional limits at the period of annexation, never did belong to Texas; but that it was an integral part of Mexico. And though we assumed to say how much of it should be free and how much slave territory, it was in truth and in fact foreign territory. By what right did the American Congress undertake to say that so much of Mexican territory as lay north of 36° should be free, and all below that slave territory? Congress undertook no such thing. We all thought then, as I think now, that the country belonged to Texas; and we consulted with no one else—contracted with no one else in regard to it.

The President has with great care traced out the line between the United States and Mexico, as defined in the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and has dwelt on the fifth, eighth, and ninth articles of that treaty with great apparent unction, as sustaining his position of hostility to Texas. Sir, what had Texas to do with that treaty? What matters it with Texas as to what contract the United States may have made with Mexico? Time was, when Texas was a sovereignty among the nations of the earth; we so acknowledged her; we contracted with her in that capacity—what she demands to-day is, that you fulfil the contract made with her. She is no party to your contract with Mexico; she demands good faith in the execution of that contract by which you obtained her sovereignty, and agreed to protect her against Mexico; she protests against your protecting her against Mexico, and dismembering her yourself.

When, Mr. Chairman, the President was telling us what were his duties under our treaty with Mexico, I pray you, was it not his duty to have told us what were his duties under the treaty with Texas? And when he was dwelling with so much delight upon the three articles of the treaty of Hidalgo, as the law which he was going to enforce with fire and sword, was it not worth his while to have made some passing notice of the treaty of 1845 with Texas? Or has it come to this, that a Free-Soil President feels under no obligations to execute a contract with a slave state? I suppose, with true Catholic instincts, he does not feel bound to keep faith with heretics.

Santa Fé, the country where Lieutenant-General Fillmore is going to halt his grand army, and through which, I suppose, Commodore Fillmore may be expected to sail with his naval fleet, lies not only south of the northern boundary of Texas-that is, 42° north latitude—but it is in fact south of the compromise line of 36° 30' by many miles. Not only has the President, in setting aside the legal boundary of Texas, as defined in her constitution and recognised by this government in various forms, outraged her rights, and covered at one sweep every inch of ground in dispute between the United States and Texas, but he has gone further, much further; he has established, or attempted to establish, a principle which threatens the very existence of Texas as a separate state.

What says the President? That he is bound, by the highest official obligations, to protect the Mexican inhabitants of Santa Fé or New Mexico, as he is pleased to call it, against the authority of Texas. He has announced, that if Texas attempts to assert her authority in that country, and to punish those who commit overt acts of treason against her, he will resist her with the whole naval and military power of the government. Bear in mind, that this country is within her limits, as defined by her constitution of 1836, and within the limits of the slave portion of this territory, as defined by the resolutions of annexation. Now, where does the President look for his authority thus to resist the authority of Texas? Not, sir, to the treaty of annexation, but to the treaty with Mexico, and to the eighth and ninth articles of that treaty. He finds here that Mexicans residing in the territory ceded to the United States by Mexico, shall be protected in their lives, liberty, property, and religion. Planting himself on these stipulations, he announces his fixed determination to defend the Mexican inhabitants against the authority of Texas. The treaty with Mexico is the only law for his government in this regard. He wholly discards and treats with contempt the treaty with Texas. He looks to but one boundary—that established by the Mexican treaty. He looks to but acquisition, and that the acquisition from Mexico. Now, sir, what is this boundary? and what this acquisition? The boundary is the Rio Grande to the southern limit of New Mexico, thence to the Gila river, and to the Pacific. The acquisition embraces all the territory lying between Louisiana and Arkansas and the Indian territory, on the one side, and this Mexican boundary on the other. We must recollect that Mexico never recognised the independence of Texas; and when we treated with her, we treated for California and New Mexico, and Texas from the Louisiana line to the Rio Grande. The President does not respect the line of Texas, as defined in her constitution and recognised by the resolution of annexation. He kicks this line out of his way, and has announced his intention to be governed alone by the treaty of Hidalgo. He says he will resist Texan authority below the line of forty-two degrees; aye, he will resist it below thirty-six and a half degrees. I know of no other line. The President admits in his message that he does not know where the true boundary is. Then it becomes a matter of interesting inquiry where his authority is going to stop. If the only boundary known to any law as existing between the United States and Texas, is disregarded, and the President is resolved to protect all Mexicans living on territory ceded to the United States by Mexico, and it is true, as we have seen, that Texas was as much а cession, so far as the treaty of Hidalgo is concerned, as New Mexico and California; and if the President is going to protect Mexicans against the authority of Texas in Santa Fé,—I should like to know how much further down he is going to extend his protecting care. Will he go down to Austin? Will he punish as far down as Houston? May Mexicans expect the shield of his protecting care in Galveston? Is the authority of Texas everywhere to fall before the triumphant march of this most valiant hero-this commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States? It might economize blood, sir, if this conquering chief would only deign to fix a boundary—put up a sign-post at the point where he intends to stop hanging and chopping off heads.

Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for true and genuine heroism; but I confess myself rather restive in the presence of the bastard progeny which this slavery agitation has brought forth. When we were threatened with thirty-nine western regiments, I grew impatient; when we were threatened with ten thousand Kentuckians, led on by the great compromiser, I felt still more provoked; but when Millard Fillmore mounts his Pegasus, and attempts to drive over us with the whole naval and military power of the nation, I cannot think or speak with patience. When Jackson threatened, there was dignity in the threat. When Taylor threatened, it was not quite contemptible; but for Millard Fillmore, a mere come-by-chance—a poor little kite, who has fallen by accident into the eagle's nest—when he attempts to play the hero, and to threaten the South, one scarcely knows what limit to fix to contempt and scorn. If these feelings have a deeper depth in the human soul, let the upstart hero, not yet warm in the seat of accidental honor, know and feel that he has reached that deeper depth in the heart of every true and faithful son of the yet proud and independent South.

What, Mr. Chairman, is the meaning of all this? Why does the President disregard the most solemn obligations? Why, sir, does he manifest so much of impatience to wrest successfully from Texas that which is so justly her own, and which she never can surrender without dishonor? And why, sir, independent of all considerations of justice and national faith, are we of the South bound to make common cause with Texas? Because, sir, you and I, and every other southern man, know that the question of slavery lies at the bottom of all these movements. That question out of the way, and the President and his cabinet, and his friends on this floor, would not care a single rush whether Santa Fé was in Texas or New Mexico. That question out of the way, and we should have no disputing about this country. The treaty obligations between the United States and Texas would be faithfully maintained, and harmony would be restored in twenty-four hours. Is it not melancholy, is it not alarming to every true patriot, to see that this war upon a section, this eternal and never-ending assailment of the South, has not only warped the judgment of the best and purest men of the North, but has so far influenced the action of the President of the United States, that he not only does not execute a treaty for the advantage of slavery, but, in dereliction of the plainest dictates of duty, absolutely refuses to do so? Can any man look at this state of things and not see the frightful end we are approaching? What was the manifest duty of the President, and in this conjuncture of our affairs—admitting that he thought, as I certainly do not, that there was reasonable grounds of dispute as to the true boundary of Texas? Was it not,

sir, to have occupied the country peaceably and quietly until the question was settled—taking no advantage to himself, and giving none to the other party? I hear a voice say, That is just what he did. Not so, sir. His predecessor, General Taylor, found a military government there, and he allowed that military government to foment disloyalty to Texas, and to take incipient steps for throwing off the authority of Texas. The acting President goes further, and not only approves this conduct, but gives us to understand that he means to maintain it by force of arms. The President knows full well that if the rebels against Texas throw off her authority and establish an anti-slavery constitution, a free-soil majority here stand ready to admit her into the Union as a state. It is said that the President never threatened to use military power until Texas had first threatened. We all know, Mr. Chairman, on what state of facts the movements of Texas have been based. We all know that Texas acquiesced in your sending a military establishment to Santa Fe, under an assurance that it was not to be used against her claim, or to her prejudice; and we all know that this same military power in the hands of the President was used to subvert the authority and trample under foot the rights of Texas. Thus it was, sir, when Texas saw herself, by means like these, driven from her rightful possession, that she first spoke of force. But even then, sir, she asked respectfully what was meant by all these proceedings, and whether the President approved them; and we have already seen in what spirit that civil inquiry was responded to. Texas would be unfaithful to her past history if she feared to assert her rights, or faltered in maintaining them against whatever odds.

In what attitude, Mr. Chairman, does the northern Democracy present itself on the question of the Texas boundary? It is within your recollection, that in the memorable political contest of 1844, Texas was inscribed on all our banners; and from the loud huzzas that went up continually, I thought it was inscribed on all our hearts. Mr. Van Buren was discarded, and Mr. Clay crippled in the affections of his friends on account of their mutual hostility to the project of annexation. Mr. Polk was nominated and elected on the issue. The measure was consummated in compliance with the people's mandate. War ensued, and the people turned out en masse to prosecute it to a successful termination. The first blood was shed between the Nueces and the Rio Grande; and the Democracy voted on their oaths that it was American blood shed on American soil. You defended the President through the whole of the war, always maintaining that the Texas we acquired, was Texas according to the constitution of 1836; Texas as she presented herself, and as she was accepted under the resolution of annexation. Now, where are you? Will you vote to-day as you voted in 1844? Will you vote to-day as you continued to vote through the whole of the Mexican war? And if not, why? I can understand a northern Whig who votes against the claim of Texas. He belongs to a party who was opposed to annexation; opposed to the war; opposed to the acquisition of additional territory; opposed to everything that you and I were for. But how you can oppose this claim, recognised as it has been in every form, supported as it has been by you and me through all its various forms and phases, I must confess myself at fault to understand.

There is one other matter to which I must advert. It is become quite too common of late, for certain political censors, in and out of Congress, to speak of southern men who demand justice for the South, as ultras; and if we persist in our demands, and can neither be bribed or brow-beaten into acquiescence with northern wrongs, the next step is, to whistle us down the winds as disunionists and traitors. It is not, sir, because I fear the effects of charges like these on the minds of my constituents that I now speak. They have known me for many long years; I have served them here and elsewhere; and if there is any earthly power to persuade them that I am a disunionist or a traitor to my country, I would scorn to receive office at their hands. I allude to charges like this, that I may hold them up to public scorn and reprobation. The miserable reptiles who sting the South while they nestle in her bosom, are the authors of these base calumnies. Sooner or later they will be spurned as the veriest spaniels who ever crouched at the footstool of power. I fancy, sir, that there is perfect harmony of sentiment between my constituents and myself on the subjects which now divide the North and the South. We are southerners and go for the Constitution, and the Union subordinate to the Constitution. Give us the Constitution as it was administered from the day of its formation to 1819, and we are satisfied. Up to that time Congress never assumed to interfere with the relation of master and servant. It extended over all, and gave to all equal protection; give it to us to-day in the same spirit, and we are satisfied. Less than this we will not accept. You ask us to love the Constitution, to revere the Union, and to honor the glorious banner of the stars and stripes. Excuse me, gentlemen; but I must say to you, in all candor, that the day has gone by when I and my people can cherish a superstitious reverence for mere names. Give us a Constitution strong enough to shield us all in the same degree, and we will love it. Give us a Union capacious enough to receive us all as equals, and we will revere it. Give us a banner that is broad enough to cover us as a nation of brothers, and we will honor it. But if you offer us a broken constitution—one that can only shield northern people and northern property—we will spurn it. If you offer us a union so contracted that only half the states can stand up as equals, we will reject it; and if you offer us a banner that covers your people and your property, and leaves ours to the perils of piracy and plunder, we will trample it under our feet. We came into this Union as equals, and we will remain in it as equals. We demand equal laws and equal justice. We demand the protection of the Constitution for ourselves, our lives, and our property. Wherever we may be, we demand that the national flag, wherever it may wave, on the land or on the seas, shall give shelter and security to our property and ourselves. These are our demands: will you comply with them? You have the power to grant or refuse them. Grant them, and our feelings of harmony and brotherhood will be restored. These evidences of decay that we witness all around us will vanish, and a strong, healthy, vigorous national prosperity will spring up. I shall not predict the consequences of your refusal; they are so plain that “a wayfaring man though a fool" cannot mistake them. They exhibit themselves in a thousand different forms—in the divisions of our churches, in the estrangement of family ties, in jealousies between the North and the South, in the gradual but certain withdrawal of all confidence and fellowship between the people of the two great sections. Where is the patriot heart that has not throbbed with the deepest anxiety as from day to day the growth and progress of these things has become more apparent? I will not dwell upon a theme so full of melancholy; but allow me to add, in conclusion, I sincerely hope your conduct may not force us in the end to say, We once were brothers, but you have become our enemies and we are yours.

SOURCE: M. W. Cluskey, Editor, Speeches, Messages, and Other Writings of the Hon. Albert G. Brown, A Senator in Congress from the State of Mississippi, p. 200-8

Senator John C. Calhoun: The Address of the Southern Delegates in Congress to their Constituents, January 15, 1849

We, whose names are hereunto annexed, address you in discharge of what we believe to be a solemn duty, on the most important subject ever presented for your consideration. We allude to the conflict between the two great sections of the Union, growing out of a difference of feeling and opinion in reference to the relation existing between the two races, the European and African, which inhabit the southern section, and the acts of aggression and encroachment to which it has led.

The conflict commenced not long after the acknowledgment of our independence, and has gradually increased until it has arrayed the great body of the North against the South on this most vital subject. In the progress of this conflict, aggression has followed aggression, and encroachment encroachment, until they have reached a point when a regard for your peace and safety will not permit us to remain longer silent. The object of this address is to give you a clear, correct, but brief account of the whole series of aggression and encroachments on your rights, with a statement of the dangers to which they expose you. Our object in making it is not to cause excitement, but to put you in full possession of all the facts and circumstances necessary to a full and just conception of a deep-seated disease, which threatens great danger to you and the whole body politic. We act on the impression, that in a popular government like ours, a true conception of the actual character and state of a disease is indispensable to effecting a cure.

We have made it a joint address, because we believe that the magnitude of the subject required that it should assume the most impressive and solemn form.

Not to go further back, the difference of opinion and feeling in reference to the relation between the two races, disclosed itself in the Convention that framed the Constitution, and constituted one of the greatest difficulties in forming it. After many efforts, it was overcome by a compromise, which provided in the first place, that representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the States according to their respective numbers; and that, in ascertaining the number of each, five slaves shall be estimated as three. In the next, that slaves escaping into States where slavery does not exist, shall not be discharged from servitude, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom their labor or service is due. In the third place, that Congress shall not prohibit the importation of slaves before the year 1808; but a tax not exceeding ten dollars may be imposed on each imported. And finally, that no capitation or direct tax shall be laid, but in proportion to federal numbers; and that no amendment of the Constitution, prior to 1808, shall affect this provision, nor that relating to the importation of slaves.

So satisfactory were these provisions, that the second, relative to the delivering up of fugitive slaves, was adopted unanimously, and all the rest, except the third, relative to the importation of slaves until 1808, with almost equal unanimity. They recognize the existence of slavery, and make a specific provision for its protection where it was supposed to be the most exposed. They go further, and incorporate it, as an important element, in determining the relative weight of the several States in the Government of the Union, and the respective burden they should bear in laying capitation and direct taxes. It was well understood at the time, that without them the Constitution would not have been adopted by the Southern States, and of course that they constituted elements so essential to the system that it never would have existed without them. The Northern States, knowing all this, ratified the Constitution, thereby pledging their faith, that faith has been kept and that pledge redeemed we shall next proceed to show.

With few exceptions of no great importance, the South had no cause to complain prior to the year 1819—a year, it is to be feared, destined to mark a train of events, bringing with them many, and great, and fatal disasters, on the country and its institutions. With it commenced the agitating debate on the question of the admission of Missouri into the Union. We shall pass by for the present this question, and others of the same kind, directly growing out of it, and shall proceed to consider the effects of that spirit of discord, which it roused up between the two sections. It first disclosed itself in the North, by hostility to that portion of the Constitution which provides for the delivering up of fugitive slaves. In its progress it led to the adoption of hostile acts, intended to render it of non-effect, and with so much success that it may be regarded now as practically expunged from the Constitution. How this has been effected will be next explained.

After a careful examination, truth constrains us to say, that it has been by a clear and palpable evasion of the Constitution. It is impossible for any provision to be more free from ambiguity or doubt. It is in the following words: "No person held to service, or labor, in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another State, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due." All is clear. There is not an uncertain or equivocal word to be found in the whole provision. What shall not be done, and what shall be done, are fully and explicitly set forth. The former provides that the fugitive slave shall not be discharged from his servitude by any law or regulation of the State wherein he is found; and the latter, that he shall be delivered up on claim of his owner.

We do not deem it necessary to undertake to refute the sophistry and subterfuges by which so plain a provision of the Constitution has been evaded, and, in effect, annulled. It constitutes an essential part of the constitutional compact, and of course of the supreme law of the land. As such it is binding on all, the Federal and State Governments, the States and the individuals composing them. The sacred obligation of compact, and the solemn injunction of the supreme law, which legislators and judges, both Federal and State, are bound by oath to support, all unite to enforce its fulfilment, according to its plain meaning and true intent. What that meaning and intent are, there was no diversity of opinion in the better days of the Republic, prior to 1819. Congress, State Legislatures, State and Federal Judges and Magistrates, and people, all spontaneously placed the same interpretation on it. During that period none interposed impediments in the way of the owner seeking to recover his fugitive slave; nor did any deny his right to have every proper facility to enforce his claim to have him delivered up. It was then nearly as easy to recover one found in a Northern State, as one found in a neighboring Southern State. But this has passed away, and the provision is defunct, except perhaps in two States.¹

When we take into consideration the importance and clearness of this provision, the evasion by which it has been set aside may fairly be regarded as one of the most fatal blows ever received by the South and the Union. This cannot be more concisely and correctly stated, than it has been by two of the learned judges of the Supreme Court of the United States. In one of his decisions² Judge Story said: "Historically it is well known that the object of this clause was to secure to the citizens of the slaveholding States the complete right and title of ownership in their slaves, as property, in every State of the Union, into which they might escape, from the State wherein they were held in servitude." "The full recognition of this right and title was indispensable to the security of this species of property, in all the slaveholding States, and, indeed, was so vital to the preservation of their interests and institutions, that it cannot be doubted, that it constituted a fundamental article without the adoption of which the Union would not have been formed. Its true design was to guard against the doctrines and principles prevalent in the non-slaveholding States, by preventing them from intermeddling with, or restricting, or abolishing the rights of the owners of slaves."

Again: "The clause was therefore of the last importance to the safety and security of the Southern States, and could not be surrendered by them without endangering their whole property in slaves. The clause was accordingly adopted in the Constitution by the unanimous consent of the framers of it—a proof at once of its intrinsic and practical necessity."

Again: "The clause manifestly contemplates the existence of a positive unqualified right on the part of the owner of the slave, which no State law or regulation can in any way regulate, control, qualify, or restrain."

The opinion of the other learned judges was not less emphatic as to the importance of this provision and the unquestionable right of the South under it. Judge Baldwin, in charging the jury, said:³ "If there are any rights of property which can be enforced, if one citizen have any rights of property which are inviolable under the protection of the supreme law of the State, and the Union, they are those which have been set at nought by some of these defendants. As the owner of property, which he had a perfect right to possess, protect, and take away—as a citizen of a sister State, entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens of any other States—Mr. Johnson stands before you on ground which cannot be taken from under him—it is the same ground on which the Government itself is based. If the defendants can be justified, we have no longer law or government." Again, after referring more particularly to the provision for delivering up fugitive slaves, he said: "Thus you see, that the foundations of the Government are laid, and rest on the right of property in slaves. The whole structure must fall by disturbing the corner-stone."

These are grave and solemn and admonitory words, from a high source. They confirm all for which the South has ever contended, as to the clearness, importance, and fundamental character of this provision, and the disastrous consequences which would inevitably follow from its violation. But in spite of these solemn warnings, the violation, then commenced, and which they were intended to rebuke, has been full and perfectly consummated. The citizens of the South, in their attempt to recover their slaves, now meet, instead of aid and co-operation, resistance in every form; resistance from hostile acts of legislation, intended to baffle and defeat their claims by all sorts of devices, and by interposing every description of impediment—resistance from judges and magisrates—and finally, when all these fail, from mobs, composed of whites and blacks, which, by threats or force, rescue the fugitive slave from the possession of his rightful owner. The attempt to recover a slave, in most of the Northern States, cannot now be made without the hazard of insult, heavy pecuniary loss, imprisonment, and even of life itself. Already has a worthy citizen of Maryland lost his life⁴ in making an attempt to enforce his claim to a fugitive slave under this provision.

But a provision of the Constitution may be violated indirectly as well as directly; by doing an act in its nature inconsistent with that which is enjoined to be done. Of the form of violation, there is a striking instance connected with the provision under consideration. We allude to secret combinations which are believed to exist in many of the Northern States, whose object is to entice, decoy, entrap, inveigle, and seduce slaves to escape from their owners, and to pass them secretly and rapidly, by means organized for the purpose, into Canada, where they will be beyond the reach of the provision. That to entice a slave, by whatever artifice, to abscond from his owner, into a non-slaveholding State, with the intention to place him beyond the reach of the provision, or prevent his recovery, by concealment or otherwise, is as completely repugnant to it, as its open violation would be, is too clear to admit of doubt or to require illustration. And yet, as repugnant as these combinations are to the true intent of the provision, it is believed, that, with the above exception, not one of the States, within whose limits they exist, has adopted any measure to suppress them, or to punish those by whose agency the object for which they were formed is carried into execution. On the contrary, they have looked on, and witnessed with indifference, if not with secret approbation, a great number of slaves enticed from their owners, and placed beyond the possibility of recovery, to the great annoyance and heavy pecuniary loss of the bordering Southern States.

When we take into consideration the great importance of this provision, the absence of all uncertainty as to its true meaning and intent, the many guards by which it is surrounded to protect and enforce it, and then reflect how completely the object for which it was inserted in the Constitution is defeated by these two-fold infractions, we doubt, taking all together, whether a more flagrant breach of faith is to be found on record. We know the language we have used is strong, but it is not less true than strong.

There remains to be noticed another class of aggressive acts of a kindred character, but which instead of striking at an express and specific provision of the Constitution, aims directly at destroying the relation between the two races at the South, by means subversive in their tendency of one of the ends for which the Constitution was established. We refer to the systematic agitation of the question by the Abolitionists, which, commencing about 1835, is still continued in all possible forms. Their avowed intention is to bring about a state of things that will force emancipation on the South. To unite the North in fixed hostility to slavery in the South, and to excite discontent among the slaves with their condition, are among the means employed to effect it. With a view to bring about the former, every means are resorted to in order to render the South, and the relation between the two races there, odious and hateful to the North. For this purpose societies and newspapers are everywhere established, debating clubs opened, lecturers employed, pamphlets and other publications, pictures and petitions to Congress, resorted to, and directed to that single point, regardless of truth or decency; while the circulation of incendiary publications in the South, the agitation of the subject of abolition in Congress, and the employment of emissaries are relied on to excite discontent among the slaves. This agitation, and the use of these means, have been continued with more or less activity for a series of years, not without doing much towards effecting the object intended. We regard both object and means to be aggressive and dangerous to the rights of the South, and subversive, as stated, of one of the ends for which the Constitution was established. Slavery is a domestic institution. It belongs to the States, each for itself to decide, whether it shall be established or not; and if it be established, whether it should be abolished or not. Such being the clear and unquestionable right of the States, it follows necessarily that it would be a flagrant act of aggression on a State, destructive of its rights, and subversive of its independence, for the Federal Government, or one or more States, or their people, to undertake to force on it the emancipation of its slaves. But it is a sound maxim in politics, as well as law and morals, that no one has a right to do that indirectly which he cannot do directly, and it may be added with equal truth, to aid, or abet, or countenance another in doing it. And yet the Abolitionists of the North, openly avowing their intention, and resorting to the most efficient means for the purpose, have been attempting to bring about a state of things to force the Southern States to emancipate their slaves, without any act on the part of any Northern State to arrest or suppress the means by which they propose to accomplish it. They have been permitted to pursue their object and to use whatever means they please, if without aid or countenance, also without resistance or disapprobation. What gives a deeper shade to the whole affair, is the fact, that one of the means to effect their object, that of exciting discontent among our slaves, tends directly to subvert what its preamble declares to be one of the ends for which the Constitution was ordained and established: "to insure domestic tranquillity," and that in the only way in which domestic tranquillity is likely ever to be disturbed in the South. Certain it is, that an agitation so systematic—having such an object in view, and sought to be carried into execution by such means—would, between independent nations, constitute just cause of remonstrance by the party against which the aggression was directed, and if not heeded, an appeal to arms for redress. Such being the case where an aggression of the kind takes place among independent nations, how much more aggravated must it be between confederated States, where the Union precludes an appeal to arms, while it affords a medium through which it can operate with vastly increased force and effect? That it would be perverted to such a use, never entered into the imagination of the generation which formed and adopted the Constitution, and, if it had been supposed it would, it is certain that the South never would have adopted it.

We now return to the question of the admission of Missouri into the Union, and shall proceed to give a brief sketch of the occurrences connected with it, and the consequences to which it has directly led. In the latter part of 1819, the then territory of Missouri applied to Congress, in the usual form, for leave to form a State Constitution and Government, in order to be admitted into the Union. A bill was reported for the purpose, with the usual provisions in such cases. Amendments were offered, having for their object to make it a condition of her admission, that her Constitution should have a provision to prohibit slavery. This brought on the agitating debate, which, with the effects that followed, has done so much to alienate the South and North, and endanger our political institutions. Those who objected to the amendments, rested their opposition on the high grounds of the right of self-government. They claimed that a territory, having reached the period when it is proper for it to form a Constitution and Government for itself, becomes fully vested with all the rights of self-government; and that even the condition imposed on it by the Federal Constitution, relates not to the formation of its Constitution and Government, but its admission into the Union. For that purpose, it provides as a condition, that the Government must be Republican.

They claimed that Congress has no right to add to this condition, and that to assume it would be tantamount to the assumption of the right to make its entire Constitution and Government; as no limitation could be imposed, as to the extent of the right, if it be admitted that it exists at all. Those who supported the amendment denied these grounds, and claimed the right of Congress to impose, at discretion, what conditions it pleased. In this agitating debate, the two sections stood arrayed against each other; the South in favor of the bill without amendment, and the North opposed to it without it. The debate and agitation continued until the session was well advanced; but it became apparent, towards its close, that the people of Missouri were fixed and resolved in their opposition to the proposed condition, and that they would certainly reject it, and adopt a Constitution without it, should the bill pass with the condition. Such being the case, it required no great effort of mind to perceive, that Missouri, once in possession of a Constitution and Government, not simply on paper, but with legislators elected, and officers appointed, to carry them into effect, the grave questions would be presented, whether she was of right a Territory or State; and, if the latter, whether Congress had the right, and, if the right, the power, to abrogate her Constitution, disperse her legislature, and to remand her back to the territorial condition. These were great, and, under the circumstances, fearful questions—too fearful to be met by those who had raised the agitation. From that time the only question was, how to escape from the difficulty. Fortunately, a means was afforded. A Compromise (as it was called) was offered, based on the terms, that the North should cease to oppose the admission of Missouri on the grounds for which the South contended, and that the provisions of the Ordinance of 1787, for the government of the Northwestern Territory, should be applied to all the territory acquired by the United States from France under the treaty of Louisiana lying North of 36° 30', except the portion lying in the State of Missouri. The Northern members embraced it; and although not originating with them, adopted it as their own. It was forced through Congress by the almost united votes of the North, against a minority consisting almost entirely of members from the Southern States.

Such was the termination of this, the first conflict, under the Constitution, between the two sections, in reference to slavery in connection with the territories. Many hailed it as a permanent and final adjustment that would prevent the recurrence of similar conflicts; but others, less sanguine, took the opposite and more gloomy view, regarding it as the precursor of a train of events which might rend the Union asunder, and prostrate our political system. One of these was the experienced and sagacious Jefferson. Thus far, time would seem to favor his forebodings. May a returning sense of justice and a protecting Providence, avert their final fulfilment.

For many years the subject of slavery in reference to the territories ceased to agitate the country. Indications, however, connected with the question of annexing Texas, showed clearly that it was ready to break out again, with redoubled violence, on some future occasion. The difference in the case of Texas was adjusted by extending the Missouri compromise line of 36° 30', from its terminus, on the western boundary of the Louisiana purchase, to the western boundary of Texas. The agitation again ceased for a short period.

The war with Mexico soon followed, and that terminated in the acquisition of New Mexico and Upper California, embracing an area equal to about one half of the entire valley of the Mississippi. If to this we add the portion of Oregon acknowledged to be ours by the recent treaty with England, our whole territory on the Pacific and west of the Rocky Mountains will be found to be in extent but little less than that vast valley. The near prospect of so great an addition rekindled the excitement between the North and South in reference to slavery in its connection with the territories, which has become, since those on the Pacific were acquired, more universal and intense than ever.

The effects have been to widen the difference between the two sections, and to give a more determined and hostile character to their conflict. The North no longer respects the Missouri compromise line, although adopted by their almost unanimous vote. Instead of compromise, they avow that their determination is to exclude slavery from all the territories of the United States, acquired, or to be acquired; and, of course, to prevent the citizens of the Southern States from emigrating with their property in slaves into any of them. Their object, they allege, is to prevent the extension of slavery, and ours to extend it, thus making the issue between them and us to be the naked question, shall slavery be extended or not? We do not deem it necessary, looking to the object of this address, to examine the question so fully discussed at the last session, whether Congress has the right to exclude the citizens of the South from immigrating with their property into territories belonging to the confederated States of the Union. What we propose in this connection is, to make a few remarks on what the North alleges, erroneously, to be the issue between us and them.

So far from maintaining the doctrine, which the issue implies, we hold that the Federal Government has no right to extend or restrict slavery, no more than to establish or abolish it; nor has it any right whatever to distinguish between the domestic institutions of one State, or section, and another, in order to favor the one and discourage the other. As the federal representative of each and all the States, it is bound to deal out, within the sphere of its powers, equal and exact justice and favor to all. To act otherwise, to undertake to discriminate between the domestic institutions of one and another, would be to act in total subversion of the end for which it was established—to be the common protector and guardian of all. Entertaining these opinions, we ask not, as the North alleges we do, for the extension of slavery. That would make a discrimination in our favor, as unjust and unconstitutional as the discrimination they ask against us in their favor. It is not for them, nor for the Federal Government to determine, whether our domestic institution is good or bad; or whether it should be repressed or preserved. It belongs to us, and us only, to decide such questions. What then we do insist on, is, not to extend slavery, but that we shall not be prohibited from immigrating with our property, into the Territories of the United States, because we are slaveholders; or, in other words, that we shall not on that account be disfranchised of a privilege possessed by all others, citizens and foreigners, without discrimination as to character, profession, or color. All, whether savage, barbarian, or civilized, may freely enter and remain, we only being excluded.

We rest our claim, not only on the high grounds above stated, but also on the solid foundation of right, justice, and equality. The territories immediately in controversy—New Mexico and California—were acquired by the common sacrifice and efforts of all the States, towards which the South contributed far more than her full share of men,⁵ to say nothing of money, and is, of course, on every principle of right, justice, fairness, and equality, entitled to participate fully in the benefits to be derived from their acquisition. But as impregnable as is this ground, there is another not. less so. Ours is a Federal Government—a Government in which not individuals, but States, as distinct sovereign communities, are the constituents. To them, as members of the Federal Union, the territories belong; and they are hence declared to be territories belonging to the United States. The States, then, are the joint owners. Now it is conceded by all writers on the subject, that in all such Governments their members are all equal—equal in rights and equal in dignity. They also concede that this equality constitutes the basis of such Government, and that it cannot be destroyed without changing their nature and character. To deprive, then, the Southern States and their citizens of their full share in territories declared to belong to them, in common with the other States, would be in derogation of the equality belonging to them as members of a Federal Union, and sink them, from being equals, into a subordinate and dependent condition. Such are the solid and impregnable grounds on which we rest our demand to an equal participation in the territories.

But as solid and impregnable as they are in the eyes of justice and reason, they oppose a feeble resistance to a majority, determined to engross the whole. At the last session of Congress, a bill was passed, establishing a territorial government for Oregon, excluding slavery therefrom. The President gave his sanction to the bill, and sent a special message to Congress assigning his reasons for doing so. These reasons presupposed that the Missouri compromise was to be, and would be, extended west of the Rocky Mountains, to the Pacific Ocean. And the President intimated his intention in his message to veto any future bill that should restrict slavery south of the line of that compromise. Assuming it to have been the purpose and intention of the North to extend the Missouri compromise line as above indicated, the passage of the Oregon bill could only be regarded as evincing the acquiescence of the South in that line. But the developments of the present session of Congress have made it manifest to all, that no such purpose or intention now exists with the North to any considerable extent. Of the truth of this, we have ample evidence in what has occurred already in the House of Representatives, where the popular feelings are soonest and most intensely felt.

Although Congress has been in session but little more than one month, a greater number of measures of an aggressive character have been introduced, and they more aggravated and dangerous, than have been for years before. And what clearly discloses whence they take their origin, is the fact, that they all relate to the territorial aspect of the subject of slavery, or some other of a nature and character intimately connected with it.

The first of this series of aggressions is a resolution introduced by a member from Massachusetts, the object of which is to repeal all acts which recognize the existence of slavery, or authorize the selling and disposing of slaves in this District. On question of leave to bring in a bill, the votes stood 69 for and 82 against leave. The next was a resolution offered by a member from Ohio, instructing the Committee on Territories to report forthwith bills for excluding slavery from California and New Mexico.⁶ It passed by a vote of 107 to 80. That was followed by a bill introduced by another member from Ohio, to take the votes of the inhabitants of this District, on the question whether slavery within its limits should be abolished.

The bill provided, according to the admission of the mover, that free negroes and slaves should vote. On the question to lay the bill on the table, the votes stood, for 106, against 79. To this succeeded the resolution of a member from New York, in the following words:

"Whereas the traffic now prosecuted in this metropolis of the Republic in human beings, as chattels, is contrary to natural justice and the fundamental principles of our political system, and is notoriously a reproach to our country, throughout Christendom, and a serious hinderance to the progress of republican liberty among the nations of the earth. Therefore,

 

"Resolved, That the Committee for the District of Columbia be instructed to report a bill, as soon as practicable, prohibiting the slave trade in said District."

On the question of adopting the resolution, the votes stood 98 for, and 88 against. He was followed by a member from Illinois, who offered a resolution for abolishing slavery in the Territories, and all places where Congress has exclusive powers of legislation, that is, in all forts, magazines, arsenals, dockyards, and other needful buildings, purchased by Congress with the consent of the Legislature of the State.

This resolution was passed over under the rules of the House without being put to vote.

The votes in favor of all these measures were confined to the members from the Northern States. True, there are some patriotic members from that section who voted against all of them, and whose high sense of justice is duly appreciated; who in the progress of the aggressions upon the South have, by their votes, sustained the guaranties of the Constitution, and of whom we regret to say many have been sacrificed at home by their patriotic course.

We have now brought to a close a narrative of the series of acts of aggression and encroachment, connected with the subject of this address, including those that are consummated and those still in progress. They are numerous, great, and dangerous, and threaten with destruction the greatest and most vital of all the interests and institutions of the South. Indeed, it may be doubted whether there is a single provision, stipulation, or guaranty of the Constitution, intended for the security of the South, that has not been rendered almost perfectly nugatory. It may even be made a serious question, whether the encroachments already made, without the aid of any other, would not, if permitted to operate unchecked, end in emancipation, and that at no distant day. But be that as it may, it hardly admits of a doubt that, if the aggressions already commenced in the House, and now in progress, should be consummated, such in the end would certainly be the consequence.

Little, in truth, would be left to be done after we have been excluded from all the territories, including those to be hereafter acquired; after slavery is abolished in this District and in the numerous places dispersed all over the South, where Congress has the exclusive right of legislation, and after the other measures proposed are consummated. Every outpost and barrier would be carried, and nothing would be left but to finish the work of abolition at pleasure in the States themselves. This District, and all places over which Congress has exclusive power of legislation, would be asylums for fugitive slaves, where, as soon as they placed their feet, they would become, according to the doctrines of our Northern assailants, free, unless there should be some positive enactments to prevent it.

Under such a state of things the probability is, that emancipation would soon follow, without any final act to abolish slavery. The depressing effects of such measures on the white race at the South, and the hope they would create in the black of a speedy emancipation, would produce a state of feeling inconsistent with the much longer continuance of the existing relations between the two. But be that as it may, it is certain, if emancipation did not follow, as a matter of course, the final act in the States would not be long delayed. The want of constitutional power would oppose a feeble resistance. The great body of the North is united against our peculiar institution. Many believe it to be sinful, and the residue, with inconsiderable exceptions, believe it to be wrong. Such being the case, it would indicate a very superficial knowledge of human nature, to think that, after aiming at abolition, systematically, for so many years, and pursuing it with such unscrupulous disregard of law and Constitution, that the fanatics who have led the way and forced the great body of the North to follow them, would, when the finishing stroke only remained to be given, voluntarily suspend it, or permit any constitutional scruples or considerations of justice to arrest it. To these may be added an aggression, though not yet commenced, long meditated and threatened to prohibit what the abolitionists call the internal slave trade, meaning thereby the transfer of slaves from one State to another, from whatever motive done, or however effected. Their object would seem to be to render them worthless by crowding them together where they are, and thus hasten the work of emancipation. There is reason for believing that it will soon follow those now in progress, unless, indeed, some decisive step should be taken in the mean time to arrest the whole.

The question then is, Will the measures of aggression proposed in the House be adopted?

They may not, and probably will not be this session. But when we take into consideration, that there is a majority now in favor of one of them, and a strong minority in favor of the other, so far as the sense of the House has been taken; that there will be in all probability a considerable increase in the next Congress of the vote in favor of them, and that it will be largely increased in the next succeeding Congress under the census to be taken next year, it amounts almost to a certainty that they will be adopted, unless some decisive measure is taken in advance to prevent it.

But, if even these conclusions should prove erroneous—if fanaticism and the love of power should, contrary to their nature, for once respect constitutional barriers, or if the calculations of policy should retard the adoption of these measures, or even defeat them altogether, there would be still left one certain way to accomplish their object, if the determination avowed by the North to monopolize all the territories, to the exclusion of the South, should be carried into effect. That of itself would, at no distant day, add to the North a sufficient number of States to give her three fourths of the whole; when, under the color of an amendment of the Constitution, she would emancipate our slaves, however opposed it might be to its true intent.

Thus, under every aspect, the result is certain, if aggression be not promptly and decidedly met. How it is to be met, it is for you to decide.

Such then being the case, it would be to insult you to suppose you could hesitate. To destroy the existing relation between the free and servile races at the South would lead to consequences unparalleled in history. They cannot be separated, and cannot live together in peace, or harmony, or to their mutual advantage, except in their present relation. Under any other, wretchedness, and misery, and desolation would overspread the whole South. The example of the British West Indies, as blighting as emancipation has proved to them, furnishes a very faint picture of the calamities it would bring on the South. The circumstances under which it would take place with us, would be entirely different from those which took place with them, and calculated to lead to far more disastrous results. There the Government of the parent country emancipated slaves in her colonial possessions—a Government rich and powerful, and actuated by views of policy (mistaken as they turned out to be), rather than fanaticism. It was besides, disposed to act justly towards the owners, even in the act of emancipating their slaves, and to protect and foster them afterwards. It accordingly appropriated nearly $100,000,000 as a compensation to them for their losses under the act, which sum, although it turned out to be far short of the amount, was thought at the time to be liberal. Since the emancipation, it has kept up a sufficient military and naval force to keep the blacks in awe, and a number of magistrates, and constables, and other civil officers, to keep order in the towns and on plantations, and enforce respect to their former owners. To a considerable extent these have served as a substitute for the police formerly kept on the plantations by the owners and their overseers, and to preserve the social and political superiority of the white race. But, notwithstanding all this, the British West India possessions are ruined, impoverished, miserable, wretched, and destined probably to be abandoned to the black race.

Very different would be the circumstances under which emancipation would take place with us. If it ever should be effected, it will be through the agency of the Federal Government, controlled by the dominant power of the Northern States of the Confederacy, against the resistance and struggle of the Southern. It can then only be effected by the prostration of the white race; and that would necessarily engender the bitterest feelings of hostility between them and the North. But the reverse would be the case between the blacks of the South and the people of the North. Owing their emancipation to them, they would regard them as friends, guardians, and patrons, and centre, accordingly, all their sympathy in them. The people of the North would not fail to reciprocate and to favor them, instead of the whites. Under the influence of such feelings, and impelled by fanaticism and love of power, they would not stop at emancipation. Another step would be taken—to raise them to a political and social equality with their former owners, by giving them the right of voting and holding public offices under the Federal Government. We see the first step toward it in the bill already alluded to—to vest the free blacks and slaves with the right to vote on the question of emancipation in this District. But when once raised to an equality, they would become the fast political associates of the North, acting and voting with them on all questions, and by this political union between them, holding the white race at the South in complete subjection. The blacks, and the profligate whites that might unite with them, would become the principal recipients of federal offices and patronage, and would, in consequence, be raised above the whites of the South in the political and social scale. We would, in a word, change conditions with them—a degradation greater than has ever yet fallen to the lot of a free and enlightened people, and one from which we could not escape, should emancipation take place (which it certainly will if not prevented), but by fleeing the homes of ourselves and ancestors, and by abandoning our country to our former slaves, to become the permanent abode of disorder, anarchy, poverty, misery, and wretchedness.

With such a prospect before us, the gravest and most solemn question that ever claimed the attention of a people is presented for your consideration: What is to be done to prevent it? It is a question belonging to you to decide. All we propose is, to give you our opinion.

We, then, are of the opinion that the first and indispensable step, without which nothing can be done, and with which every thing may be, is to be united among yourselves, on this great and most vital question. The want of union and concert in reference to it has brought the South, the Union, and our system of government to their present perilous condition. Instead of placing it above all others, it has been made subordinate, not only to mere questions of policy, but to the preservation of party ties and ensuring of party success. As high as we hold a due respect for these, we hold them subordinate to that and other questions involving our safety and happiness. Until they are so held by the South, the North will not believe that you are in earnest in opposition to their encroachments, and they will continue to follow, one after another, until the work of abolition is finished. To convince them that you are, you must prove by your acts that you hold all other questions subordinate to it. If you become united, and prove yourselves in earnest, the North will be brought to a pause, and to a calculation of consequences; and that may lead to a change of measures, and the adoption of a course of policy that may quietly and peaceably terminate this long conflict between the two sections. If it should not, nothing would remain for you but to stand up immovably in defence of rights, involving your all—your property, prosperity, equality, liberty, and safety.

As the assailed, you would stand justified by all laws, human and divine, in repelling a blow so dangerous, without looking to consequences, and to resort to all means necessary for that purpose. Your assailants, and not you, would be responsible for consequences.

Entertaining these opinions, we earnestly entreat you to be united, and for that purpose adopt all necessary measures. Beyond this, we think it would not be proper to go at present.

We hope, if you should unite with any thing like unanimity, it may of itself apply a remedy to this deep-seated and dangerous disease; but, if such should not be the case, the time will then have come for you to decide what course to adopt.

R. M. T. HUNTER,Virginia.

JAMES M. MASON, “

ARCHIBALD ATKINSON, “

THOMAS H. BAYLY, “

R. L. T. BEALE, “

HENRY BEDINGER, “

THOMAS S. BOCOCK, “

WILLIAM G. BROWN, “

R. K. MEADE, “

R. A. THOMPSON, “

J. R. J. DANIEL, North Carolina.

A. W. VENABLE, N. Carolina.

A. P. BUTLER, South Carolina.

 J. C. CALHOUN, “

ARMISTEAD BURT, “

I. E. HOLMES, “

R. B. RHETT, “

R. F. SIMPSON, “

D. WALLACE, “

J. A. WOODWARD, “

H. V. JOHNSON, Georgia.

ALFRED IVERSON, “

HUGH A. HARALSON, “

DAVID L. YULEE, Florida.

S. U. DOWNS, Louisiana.

J. H. HARMANSON, “

EMILE LA SERE, “

I. E. MORSE, “

T. PILSBURY, Texas.

DAVID S. KAUFMAN, “

SOLON BORLAND, Arkansas.

J. K. SEBASTIAN, “

R. W. JOHNSON, “

HOPKINS L. TURNEY, Tennessee.

F. P. STANTON, “

D. R. ATCHISON, Missouri.

WILLIAM R. KING, Alabama.

B. FITZBATRICK, “

JOHN GAYLE, “

F. W. BOWDON, “

S. W. HARRIS, “

S. W. INGE, “

JEFFERSON DAVIS, Mississippi.

HENRY S. FOOTE, “

P. W. TOMPKINS, “

A. G. BROWN, “

W. S. FEATHERSTON, “

JACOB THOMPSON, “

P. S. Since this address was prepared a motion to reconsider Mr. GOTT's resolutions has passed the House of Representatives, and they are now the subject of further proceedings.

_______________

¹ Indiana and Illinois.

² The case of Prigg vs. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

³ The case of Johnson vs. Tompkins and others.

⁴ Mr. Kennedy, of Hagerstown, Maryland.

⁵ Being nearly two on the part of the South to one on the part of the North. But taking into consideration that the population of the North is two thirds greater than the South, the latter has furnished more than three times her due proportion of volunteers.

Total number of volunteers from the South—Regiments	33
Battalions	14
Companies	120
Total number of volunteers from the South,	45,640
Total number of volunteers from the North-Regiments	22
Battalions	2
Companies	12
Total number of volunteers from the North,	23,084

⁶ Since reported to the House.

SOURCES: Richard Crallé, Editor, The Works of John C. Calhoun: Volume VI: Reports and Public Letters of John C. Calhoun, p. 290-313; James Stryker, Editor, The American Quarterly Register and Magazine, Volume 3, No. 1, p. 276-87; The American Review: A Whig Journal, Devoted to Politics and Literature, New Series Vol. III.—Whole Vol. IX, No. XV March 1849, p. 313 for the date of the address.