GENTLEMEN say they
deprecate discussion on the subject of slavery. My judgment approves it. We
have gone too far to recede without an adjustment of our difficulties. Better
far that this agitation should never have commenced. But when wrong has been
perpetrated on one side and resented on the other, an adjustment in some form
is indispensable. It is better so than to leave the thorn of discord thus
planted, to rankle and fester, and finally to produce a never-healing sore. We
need attempt no such useless task as that of disguising from ourselves, our
constituents, and in truth the world at large, that ill blood has been
engendered, that we are losing our mutual attachment, that we are daily
becoming more and more estranged, that the fibres of the great cord which
unites us as one people are giving way, and that we are fast verging to
ultimate and final disruption. I hold no communion with the spurious patriotism
which closes its eyes to the dangers which visit us, and with a loud voice,
sing hosannas to the Union; such patriotism will not save the Union, it is
destructive of the Union. Open wide your eyes and look these dangers full in
the face, and with strong arms and stout hearts assault them, vanquish them,
and on the field of your triumph erect an altar sacred to the cause of liberty,
and on that altar offer as a willing sacrifice this accursed demon of discord.
Do this, and we are safe; refuse, and these dangers will thicken, these misty
elements will grow darker and blacker as days roll on. The storm which now
lingers will burst, and the genius of dissolution will preside where the Union
now is.
I am for discussion,
for an interchange of sentiments. Let there be no wrangling about small
grievances, but with an elevated patriotism—a patriotism high as our noble
mountains, and broad as the Union itself—let us come to the consideration of
the difficulties and dangers which beset us.
In all matters of
dispute it is important to consider who committed the first wrong; until this
is done, no satisfactory basis of an adjustment can be established.
The Union is divided
in sentiment upon a great question, by a geographical line. The North is
opposed to slavery, and the South is in favor of it. The North is for
abolishing it, the South is for maintaining it. The North is for confining it
within it in its present limits, where they fancy it will languish, and
languishing, will die. The South is for leaving it unrestrained to go wherever
(within our limits) it may be invited by soil, climate, and population. These
issues and their necessary incidents have brought the two ends of the Union
into their present perilous position—a position from which one or the other
must recede, or a conflict, dangerous to liberty and fatal to the Union, will
certainly ensue.
Who is at fault, or
rather who was first in fault in this fraternal quarrel? We were the owners of
slaves; we bought them from your fathers. We never sought to make slaveholders
of you, nor to force slavery upon you. When you emancipated the remnant of your
slaves, we did not interpose. Content to enjoy the fruits of our industry at
home, within our own limits, we never sought to intrude upon your domestic
quiet. Not so with you. For twenty years or more, you have not ceased to
disturb our peace. We have appealed in vain to your forbearance. Not only have
you disregarded these appeals, but every appeal has been followed by some new
act of outrage and aggression. We have in vain pointed to our domicils, and
begged that you would respect the feelings of their inmates. You have
threatened them with conflagration. When we have pointed to our wives and our
sleeping infants, and in their names besought your forbearance, you have
spurned our entreaties and mocked the fears of these sacred pledges of our
love. Long years of outrage upon our feelings and disregard of our rights have
awakened in every southern heart a feeling of stern resistance. Think what you
will, say what you will, perpetrate again and again if you will, these acts of
lawless tyranny; the day and the hour is at hand when every southern son will
rise in rebellion, when every tongue will say, Give us justice or give us
death.
I repeat, we have
never sought to disturb your quiet. We have forborne to retaliate your wrongs.
Content to await a returning sense of justice, we have submitted. That sense of
justice, we fear, never will return, and submission is no longer a virtue. We
owe it to you, to ourselves, to our common country, to the friends of freedom
throughout the world, to warn you that we intend to submit no longer.
Gentlemen tell us
they do not believe the South is in earnest. They believe we will still submit.
Let me warn them to put away that delusion. It is fatal to the cause of peace.
If the North embrace it the Union is gone. It is treason to encourage a hope of
submission. Tell the truth, speak out boldly, go home and tell your people the
issue is made up; they must now choose between non-interference with southern
rights on the one side, and a dissolution of the Union on the other. Tell them
the South asks nothing from their bounty, but only asks their forbearance.
The specious
arguments by which you cover up your unauthorized attempts to drive us from the
territories may deceive the unwary, but an enlightened public sentiment will not
fail to detect its fallacy, and posterity will award you the credit of
destroying the Union in a lawless effort to seize the spoils of a victory won
by other hearts and hands than yours. Territory now free must remain free, say
you. Who gave you the right to speak thus oracularly? Is this an acquisition of
your own, or is it a thing obtained by the joint effort of us all? I have been
told that the United States acquired the territory from Mexico, and that the
Congress, speaking for the United States, must dispose of it. Technically
speaking, the United States did make the acquisition; but what is the United
States? a mere agent for the states, holding for them certain political powers
in trust, to be exercised for their mutual benefit, and among these is the
power to declare war and make peace. In the exercise of these powers the
territory was acquired, and for whom? Not certainly for the agent, but for the
principal. Not for the United States, but the states.
Who fought the
battles, who won the victories which resulted in the acquisition? The people of
the United States? Certainly not. There is no such thing as the people of the
United States. They can perform no act—have in fact no political existence. Do
the people of the United States elect this Congress? No; we are elected by
states—most of us by districts in states. The states elect senators, and the
President is himself elected by state electoral colleges, and not by the people
of the United States. There is no such political body as the people of the United
States; they can do nothing, have done nothing, have in fact no existence. When
the war with Mexico began, on whom did the President call? Not, certainly, on
the people of the United States, but on the people of the states by states, and
by states they responded, by states they made their contributions to the grand
army; and whatever was acquired, was of necessity acquired for the states, each
having an equal interest; and the United States, as agent, trustee, or general
repository of the common fund, is bound to do equal and exact justice to all
the parties interested.
The army was created
and supported by thirty sovereignties allied together. These sovereignties
acted through a common head for the common defence and general welfare of all.
But it does not follow that such head may rightfully appropriate the award of
the conflict to fifteen of the allies, leaving nothing to the remaining
fifteen. Sovereigns are equal; there is no such thing as great or small
sovereigns, or, to speak more correctly, sovereigns of great and small degree.
They are equals, except when by conventional agreement that equality is
destroyed. No such agreement has been made between the sovereigns composing our
confederacy. Hence, Delaware is equal to New York, and the fifteen southern
states are equal to the fifteen northern states. It follows that the fifteen
sovereignties of the North cannot exclude the fifteen sovereignties of the
South from an equal participation in, and control over, the joint acquisition
or property of all. Nor can the common agent, the United States, hearken to the
voice of the fifteen northern in preference to those of the fifteen southern
allies. So long as one of the sovereigns in alliance protests against a common
disposition of what belongs to all and to each one in an equal degree, no
disposition can be rightfully made. The strong may take by force from the weak,
but in such case power gives the right. The North may take from the South in
this way, unless perchance it should turn out in the course of the conflict
that the South is the stronger party, in which case it would be our right to
take from you.
Without pursuing
this course of reasoning, unprofitable as I feel it must be, I come at once to
the conclusion, that we of Mississippi have the same right to go into the
territories with our slave property as you of New York have to go there with
your personal estate of whatever kind. And if you deny us this right, we will
resist your authority, and to the last extremity. You affect to think us not in
earnest in this declaration. Look at the attitude of the South; hear her voice
as it comes up from her bench, her bar, her legislative halls, and, above all,
from her people. Sir, there is not a hamlet in the South from which you will
not hear the voice of stern resistance to your lawless mandate. Our men will
write it on their shields, our women will teach little children to lisp it with
their earliest breath. I invoke your forbearance on this question. Ask
yourselves if it is right to exasperate eight millions of people upon an
abstraction; a matter to us of substance and of life, but to you the merest
shadow of an abstraction. Is it likely, let me ask, that the Union can survive
the shock which must ensue if you drive eight millions of people to madness and
desperation? Look, sir, to the position of Virginia, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, and the glorious old state of South Carolina; listen to the
warning voice of these, and all the Southern States, as they come to us upon
every breeze that sweeps from the South, and tell me if we are not sporting
above a volcano. Oh! gentlemen, pause, I beseech you, in this mad career. The
South cannot, will not, DARE not submit to your demand. The consequences to her
are terrible beyond description; to you forbearance would be a virtue—virtue
adorned with love, truth, justice, and patriotism. To some men I can make no
appeal. I appeal not to the gentleman from Ohio. He, like Peter the Hermit,
feels himself under some religious obligation to lead on this crusade. I make
no appeal to the putative father of the Wilmot proviso; like Ephraim, he is
joined to his idols—I will let him alone. But to sound men, to patriotic and
just men, I do make a solemn appeal that they array themselves on the side of
the Constitution, and save the Union. When the fatal step is taken it will be
too late to repent the folly of this hour. When the deed is done, and the fatal
consequences have fallen upon us, it will be vain, idle, worse than folly to
deprecate the evil councils which now prevail. Now, now is the time for good
men to do their duty. Let those who desire to save the Constitution and the
Union come out from among the wicked and array themselves on the side of
justice. And here in this hall, erected by our fathers and dedicated to liberty
and law, we will make new vows, enter into new covenants to stand together and
fight the demon of discord until death shall summon us to another and better
world.
You think that
slavery is a great evil. Very well, think so; but keep your thoughts to yourselves.
If it be an evil, it is our evil; if it be a curse, it is our curse. We are not
seeking to force it upon you; we intend to keep it ourselves. If you do not
wish to come in contact with this crying evil, stay where you are, it will
never pursue you.
For myself, I regard
slavery as a great moral, social, political, and religious blessing—a blessing
to the slave, and a blessing to the master. This is my opinion. I do not seek
to propagate it. It does not concern me whether you think so or not. I have seen
more of slavery than you, know more about it; and my opinions are, I think,
worth more than yours. Slavery, African slavery, was, as I religiously believe,
planted in this country through the providence of God; and he, in his own good
time, will take it away. Civilization dawned in Africa. The Christian religion
was preached to the African race before its votaries carried it to other lands.
Africa had the glad tidings of the Saviour long before his divine mission was
revealed to us. And where is she now? Centuries have passed away, and all
traces of Christianity, every vestige of civilization, have departed from that
degraded and benighted land—a race of cannibals, roasting, eating men as we do
swine and cattle. Resisting with fire and sword all efforts of Christian
ministers to lift them from the deep degradation, they perseveringly worship
idols and graven images, and run continually after false gods. Look at the
condition of this people, and contrast it with the worst condition of the same
race in this country, and tell me if the eye of fancy, in its utmost stretch,
can measure the elevation at which the Southern slave stands above the African
in his native jungle? And yet philanthropy, double distilled, extra refined
philanthropy, bewails in piteous accents the fallen condition of the poor
slave. The negro race in the South have been civilized; many of them
evangelized. Some are pure Christians; all have been improved in their moral,
social, and religious condition. And who shall undertake to say it was not
within the providence of their Creator to transplant them to our soil for wise,
beneficent, and holy purposes?
It is no part of my
purpose to discuss this proposition. The subject, in this view of it, belongs
rather to the pulpit than to the halls of legislation.
It may seem to those
not familiar with the state of public sentiment North and South, and the
dangerous issues to which it is conducting us, out of time and out of place for
us to discuss the value of the Union. I am not afraid of the consequences of
such a discussion. It is a discussion not to be coveted, but one which the
times and tempers of men have forced upon us. It is useless to deny that the
Union is in danger. To discuss its value is to ascertain its worth. When we
shall have done this, we can better decide how great a sacrifice we can afford
to make to secure its perpetuity.
We of the South have
ever been the fast friends of the Union. We have been so from an earnest
attachment to its founders, and from a feeling of elevated patriotism, a
patriotism which rises above all grovelling thoughts, and entwines itself about
our country, and our whole country. We have made, and are now making day by
day, greater sacrifices to uphold and maintain the Union in all its purity and
dignity, than all the other parts of the country. Drop for a moment the
sacrifice of feeling; forget the galling insults you are habitually heaping
upon us, and let us look to other sacrifices. We export annually, in rice,
cotton, and tobacco, the peculiar products of our soil, more than seventy-five
millions of dollars in value. Your whole national exports do but a little
exceed one hundred and forty millions of dollars. These articles of southern
export are the support of your immense carrying trade, and of all your flourishing
and profitable commerce; and these do not include the sugar of Louisiana,
Texas, and Florida, nor do I estimate the cotton, rice, and tobacco consumed in
the United States. If all these were embraced, our exports could not fall short
of one hundred and twenty millions of dollars. I need not add, that as a
separate, independent confederacy we should have the heaviest agricultural
export of any people on the face of the earth; and that our wealth would in a
short time be commensurate with our immense exports, no reasonable man can
doubt. In the Union, our exports become the common trading fund of the nation,
and the profits go into the general coffers. We know all this; and more, we
know how much we contribute to the support of the Government, and we know too
how little we get back. It gives me no pleasure to discuss questions like this,
but a solemn duty I will not forego, from any mawkish, sentimental devotion to
the Union. It is right that we fully understand one another. You think the
South is not in earnest. Now, this opinion is based upon one of two hypotheses,
either that we are too much devoted to the Union to run the hazard of its
dissolution by a manly vindication of our rights; or else that we are afraid to
encounter the perils of a dissolution. That we have loved the Union is most
true. That our affections entwine themselves about it, and are reluctant to
give it up, is also true. But our affection is no ordinary plant. Nourish it,
and it will grow in the poorest soil. Neglect it, or trample upon it, and it
will perish in the richest fields. I will not recount the story of our wrongs.
I but ask you, can such wrongs ever be the handmaids of love, of that mutual
and earnest, devoted love, which stood godfather when the infant Union was
baptized, and without whose fostering care it cannot, will not, must not
survive? Throw an impartial eye over the history of the last twenty years, and
answer me if there is anything there which challenges our devotion? Who does
not know that time after time we have turned away in sorrow from your
oppressions, and yet have come back clinging to the Union, and proclaiming that
"with all her faults we loved her still." And you expect us to do so
now again and again; you expect us to return, and, on bended knees, crave your
forbearance. No, you do not; you cannot think so meanly of us. There is nothing
in our past history which justifies the conclusion that we will thus abase
ourselves. You know how much a high-toned people ought to bear; and you know
full well that we have borne to the last extremity. You know that we ought not
to submit any longer. There is not a man of lofty soul among you all, who in
his secret heart does not feel that we ought not to submit. If you fancy that
our devotion to the Union will keep us in the Union, you are mistaken. Our love
for the Union ceases with the justice of the Union. We cannot love oppression,
nor hug tyranny to our bosoms.
Have we any reason
to fear a dissolution of the Union? Look at the question dispassionately, and
answer to yourselves the important inquiry, Can anything be expected from the
fears of the southern people? Do not deceive yourselves—look at things as they
really are. For myself, I can say with a clear conscience, we do not fear it;
we are not appalled at the prospect before us; we deprecate disunion, but we do
not fear it; we know our position too well for that. Whilst you have been
heaping outrage upon outrage, adding insult to insult, our people have been
calmly calculating the value of the Union. The question has been considered in
all its bearings, and our minds are made up. The point has been designated
beyond which we will not submit. We will not, because submission beyond that
point involves consequences to us more terrible than disunion. It involves the
fearful consequences of sectional degradation. We have not been slow in
manifesting our devotion to the Union. In all our national conflicts we have
obeyed the dictates of duty, the behests of patriotism. Our money has gone
freely. The lives of our people have been freely given up. Their blood has
washed many a blot from the national escutcheon. We have loved the Union, and
we love it yet; but not for this, or a thousand such Unions, will we suffer
dishonor at your hands.
I tell you candidly,
we have calculated the value of the Union. Your injustice has driven us to it.
Your oppression justifies me to-day in discussing the value of the Union, and I
do so freely and fearlessly. Your press, your people, and your pulpit, may
denounce this as treason; be it so. You may sing hosannas to the Union—it is
well. British lords called it treason in our fathers when they resisted British
tyranny. British orators were eloquent in their eulogiums on the British crown[.]
Our fathers felt the oppression, they saw the hand that aimed the blow, and
they resolved to resist. The result is before the world. We will resist, and
trust to God and our own stout hearts for the consequences.
The South afraid of
dissolving the Union?—why should we fear? What is there to alarm us or awaken
our apprehensions? Are we not able to maintain ourselves? Shall eight millions
of freemen, with more than one hundred millions of annual exports, fear to take
their position among the nations of the earth? With our cotton, sugar, rice,
and tobacco, products of a southern soil, yielding us annually more than a
hundred millions of dollars, need we fear the frowns of the world? You tell us
all the world is against us on the slavery question. We know more of this than
you; fanaticism in the Old World, like fanaticism at home, assails our domestic
relations, but we know how much British commerce and British labor depend for
subsistence on our cotton, to feel at all startled by your threats of British
power. Massachusetts looms will yield a smaller profit, and British looms will stop
when you stop the supply of southern cotton. When the looms stop, labor will
stop, ships will stop, commerce will stop, bread will stop. Build yourselves no
castles in the air. Picture to your minds no such halcyon visions as that Great
Britain will meddle with our slaves. She made an experiment in the West Indies
in freeing negroes. It cost her one hundred millions of pounds sterling, and
crippled her commerce to more than three times that amount, and now her
emancipated blacks are relapsing into a state of barbarism. By the united
verdict of every British statesman the experiment was a signal failure,
injurious to the negro and detrimental to the kingdom. England will not
interfere with southern slaves. Our cotton bags are our bonds of peace.
Have we anything to
fear from you in the event of dissolution? A little gasconade, and sometimes a
threat or two, altogether out of place on so grave an issue as this, are
resorted to on your part. As to there being any conflict of arms growing out of
a dissolution, I have not thought it at all probable. You complain of your
association with slaves in the Union. We propose to take them out of the Union—to
dissolve the unpleasant association. Will you seek a battle-field to renew,
amid blood and carnage, this loathsome association? I take it for granted that
you will not. But if you should, we point you to the record of the past, and
warn you, by its blood-stained pages, that we shall be ready to meet you. When
you leave your homes in New England, or in the great West, on this mission of
love—this crusade against the South; when you come to take slavery to your
bosoms, and to subdue eight millions of southern people, I warn you to make all
things ready. Kiss your wives, bid your children a long farewell, make peace
with your God; for I warn you that you may never return.
I repeat, we
deprecate disunion. Devoted to the Constitution—reverencing the Union—holding
in sacred remembrance the names, the deeds, and the glories of our common and
illustrious ancestry—there is no ordinary ill to which we would not bow sooner
than dissolve the political association of these states. If there was any point
short of absolute ruin to ourselves and desolation to our country, at which
these aggressive measures would certainly stop, we would say at once, go to
that point and give us peace. But we know full well, that when all is obtained
that you now ask, the cormorant appetite for power and plunder will not be
satisfied. The tiger may be driven from his prey, but when once he dips his
tongue in blood, he will not relinquish his victim without a struggle.
I warn gentlemen, if
they persist in their present course of policy, that the sin of disunion is on
their heads—not ours. If a man assaults me, and I strike in self-defence, I am
no violator of the public peace. If one attacks me with such fury as to
jeopardize my life, and I slay him in the conflict, I am no murderer. If you
attempt to force upon us sectional desolation and—what to us is infinitely
worse—sectional degradation, we will resist you; and if in the conflict of
resistance the Union is dissolved, we are not responsible. If any man charges
me with harboring sentiments of disunion, he is greatly mistaken. If he says
that I prefer disunion to sectional and social degradation, he does me no more
than justice.
Does any man desire
to know at what time and for what cause I would dissolve the Union, I will tell
him: At the first moment after you consummate your first act of aggression upon
slave property, I would declare the Union dissolved; and for this reason: such
an act, perpetrated after the warning we have given you, would evince a settled
purpose to interpose your authority in the management of our domestic affairs,
thug degrading us from our rightful position as equals to a state of dependence
and subordination. Do not mistake me; I do not say that such an act would, per
se, justify disunion; I do not say that our exclusion from the territories
would alone justify it; I do not say that the destruction of the slave trade in
the District of Columbia, nor even its abolition here, nor yet the prohibition
of the slave trade among the states, would justify it. It may be, that not one,
nor two, nor all of these combined would justify disunion. These are but the
initiative steps—they lead you on to the mastery over us, and you shall not
take these steps. The man must have studied the history of our revolt against
the power of Britain to but little purpose who supposes that the throwing a few
boxes of tea into the water in Boston harbor produced, or had any material
influence in producing, the mighty conflict of arms which ensued. Does any man
suppose that the stamp act and its kindred measures produced the revolution?
They produced a solemn conviction on the minds of our fathers that Britain was
determined to oppress and degrade the colonies. This conviction prepared a
heroic people for resistance; and the otherwise trivial incident of throwing
the tea overboard supplied the occasion for manifesting that state of public
sentiment. I warn gentlemen by the history of these transactions, not to
outrage the patience of a patriotic people, nor yet, like the British king and
parliament, to spurn our entreaties, and turn a deaf ear to our prayers for
justice.
Before the first
fatal step is taken, remember that we have interests involved which we cannot
relinquish; rights which it were better to die with than live without. The
direct pecuniary interest involved in this issue is not less than twenty
hundred millions of dollars, and yet the loss of this will be the least of the
calamities which you are entailing upon us. Our country is to be made desolate.
We are to be driven from our homes—the homes hallowed by all the sacred
associations of family and friends. We are to be sent, like a people accursed
of God, to wander through the land, homeless, houseless, and friendless; or,
what is ten thousand times worse than these, than all, remain in a country now
prosperous and happy, and see ourselves, our wives and children, degraded to a
social position with the black race. These, these are the frightful, terrible
consequences you would entail upon us. Picture to yourselves Hungary, resisting
the powers of Austria and Russia; and if Hungary, which had never tasted
liberty, could make such stout resistance, what may you not anticipate from
eight millions of southrons made desperate by your aggression? I tell you, sir,
sooner than submit we would dissolve a thousand such unions as this. Sooner
than allow our slaves to become our masters, we would lay waste our country
with fire and sword, and with our broken spears dig for ourselves honorable
graves.
You tell us, sir,
there is no intention of pushing us to extremities like these. I do not doubt
the sincerity of gentlemen who make this avowal. If there was fixedness in
their positions I would believe them, I would trust them. If members of
Congress were to the political what stars are to the planetary system, I would
take their solemn—and, I hope, sincere—declarations, and be satisfied. I should
feel secure. But a few days, a brief space, and you will pass away, and your
places will be filled by men more hostile than you, as you are more hostile
than your predecessors, and the next who come after your successors will be
more hostile than they. Look to the Senate—the conservative branch of the
government. Already there are senators from the mighty states of New York and
Ohio, who repudiate the Constitution. One [Mr. Chase, of Ohio] says the
Constitution is a nullity as regards slavery, and another [Mr. Seward, of New
York] declares that slavery can and will be abolished, and that you and he will
do it. He tells us how this to be done. He, too, repudiates the constitutional
obligation, and says that slavery rests for its security on public sentiment,
and that public sentiment must and will destroy it. These are fearful
declarations, coming from that quarter. They evince a settled purpose to pursue
these aggressive movements to the last terrible extremity; and yet, sir, we are
asked to fold our arms and listen to the syren song that all your ills will
soon be o'er.
And now, Mr.
Chairman, before the sands of my brief hour have quite run out, let me turn for
a moment to the late recent and extraordinary movements in the territory of
California,—movements fraught with incalculable mischief, and, if not arrested,
destined to entail calamities the most terrible upon this country. I am told
that the late administration is in some degree responsible for these movements.
I know not if this be true. I hope it is not. Indeed, I have authority for
saying it is not. Certainly no evidence has been advanced that the statement is
true. But I care not who prompted the anomalous state of things now existing in
California. At whatever time, and by whomsoever done, it has been without
precedent, against the voice of the people's representatives, in derogation of
the Constitution of the United States, and intended to rob the Southern States
of their just and rightful possessions. Viewing the transaction in this light,
and without stopping to inquire whose it was, I denounce it as unwise,
unpatriotic, sectional in its tendencies, insulting to the South, and in the
last degree despicable.
Twelve short months ago
it was thought necessary to invoke the authority of Congress for the people of
California to form a state constitution. The present Secretary of the Navy,
then a member of this House, did, on the 7th day of February, 1849, introduce a
bill for that purpose. The first section declared "that the Congress doth
consent that a new state may be erected out of the territory ceded to the
United States," &c. (See Congressional Globe, 2 Sess. 30 Con. p. 477.)
Whether the
honorable Secretary, as a member of the cabinet, advised and consented to the
late extraordinary proceedings in California, I pretend not to know. I do know
that he bitterly inveighed against General Cass, in 1848, for a supposed
intimation that the people of the territories might settle the slavery question
for themselves, and chiefly on the ground that it was a monstrous outrage to
allow aliens and foreigners to snatch from the South territory won by the valor
of her troops. I know that he introduced the bill to which I have adverted, and
urged its passage in a speech which was said to have given him his position in
the cabinet. He certainly thought at that time, that the consent of Congress
was necessary to the formation of a state government in California. The bill
itself, to say nothing of the speech, assigned one pregnant reason for this
thought, for by its second section it declared "that the foregoing consent
is given upon the following reservations and conditions: First, that the United
States hereby unconditionally reserves to the federal government all right of
property in the public lands."
It was then thought
a matter of some moment to reserve to the parties in interest, their right of
property in the soil. But the progressive spirit of the President and cabinet
has gone far beyond such idle whims, and "the introduction of California
into the Union as a sovereign state is earnestly recommended," without
reservation of any kind, save alone that her constitution shall conform to the Constitution
of the United States. If any one here knows the secrets of the cabinet
councils, he can best inform us whether Mr. Secretary Preston thought it worth
his while to intimate to the President and his associates that the formation of
an independent government in California would of necessity vest in such
government the right of property in the soil, and that her incorporation into
the Union without reservation, would be to surrender the right of eminent
domain. It would disclose an interesting piece of cabinet history to ascertain
whether so trivial a matter ever engrossed the thoughts of that most august
body-the President and his constitutional advisers.
It is amusing to see
with how much cunning the author of the late special message endeavors to
divide the responsibility of this nefarious proceeding with the late
administration. Several times in the message it is broadly hinted that
President Polk took the initiative in this business. This may be so. I have
seen no evidence of it, and do not believe it; but whether true or false, it
does not render the transaction less odious or more worthy of support. The
President himself seems to think it too much for one administration to bear,
and, therefore, strives to divide its responsibility with his distinguished
Democratic predecessor. I commend his discretion, more than his generosity. It
is discreet in him to shake off as much of the odium of this thing as possible.
If it had been a worthy action, I doubt if he would not have appropriated the
honors of it entirely to himself.
The President sees,
as well as you or I, that there is a fearful accountability ahead, and he cries
out in time, "Polk was to blame—I only followed up what he began." I
would to God he were as willing to carry out all of Polk's unfinished plans.
Is there nothing
wrong, let me ask the friends of the President, in this thing of the Executive
of his own volition, and upon his own responsibility—establishing a state
government over the territory of the United States, and that too after Congress
had been invoked and had refused her consent to the establishment of such a
government? I have seen the time when if this thing had been done, the nation
would have reverberated with the eloquent burst of patriotic indignation from
gentlemen on the other side. General Jackson was charged with taking the responsibility,
but he never assumed responsibility like this.
The manner of doing
this thing is still more extraordinary than the thing itself. General Riley, a
military commander, charged with the execution of certain necessary civil
functions, is made the man of power in this business. That officer, on the 3d
day of June, 1849, issued his proclamation, a paper at once novel and bold. His
object is to make a new state, and he commences thus:
"Congress
having failed at its recent session
to provide a new government for this country, the undersigned would call
attention to the means which he deems best," &c., &c.
Yes, sir, there it
is. Congress having failed to give government to California, General Riley
notifies the inhabitants that he has taken matters into his own hands; that he
will give them a government, and that HE will authorize them to make a state
for themselves. He does this, too, because Congress had refused.
I must do General
Riley the justice to say he is not wholly an usurper in this business. He
declares to the world in this same proclamation (a document by the way drawn up
with acumen and legal precision), that the course indicated by him "is
advised by the President and the Secretaries of State and of War," and he
(General Riley) solemnly affirms that his acts are "fully authorized by
law." I hope the General did not understand that Mr. Secretary Preston's
bill was the law that "fully authorized" his acts. There might be a
difficulty in sustaining the opinion on that basis, inasmuch as the bill did
not pass Congress.
There are stranger
things than these in this Riley proclamation "advised by the President,
and Secretaries Clayton and Crawford." The General not only sets forth
circumstantially what is to be done, but he designates the persons who are to
do the things which he bids to be done. Hear him:
"Every
free male citizen of the United States and of Upper California, 21 years of age, will be entitled to the right of
suffrage. All citizens of Lower
California who have been forced to come into this territory on account of
having rendered assistance to the American troops during the recent war with
Mexico, should also be allowed to vote in the district where they actually
reside," &c.
Now, sir, I humbly
ask who gave the President and his cabinet the right to "advise" this
military commander by one sweeping proclamation to admit the "free male
citizens of Upper California," and "ALL the citizens of Lower California,"
(then in the country, under certain circumstances,) to the right of voting? In
so important a matter as forming a state constitution, which was to affect
important interests within the territory, and still more important interests
without the territory, it would have been at least respectful to his southern
constituents, if the President had confined the voting to white people; but all
free males of Upper California, and ALL from Lower California, whether bond or
free, were fully authorized to vote. Shame, shame upon the man who, in the
midst of our struggles for blood-bought rights, thus coolly submits them to the
arbitrament of such a people.
I have been speaking
of what the President expressly authorized. He, by his agent, General Riley, in
terms, authorized these people of whom I have been speaking to vote. They did
vote; they were voted for; some of them had seats in the so-called California
Convention. But the gross wrong—the palpable outrage—did not stop here. We all
know the President knows that everybody voted. The whole heterogeneous mass of
Mexicans, and foreign adventurers, and interlopers voted; and yet, the
President, without one word of comment or caution touching these strange
events, calmly recommends the progeny of this strange convention to the
favorable consideration of Congress. If I had not ceased to be amazed at the
conduct of the present President of the United States, I should indeed wonder
what singular infatuation had possessed the old man's brain when he made that
recommendation. Can it be that he has not read the treaty with Mexico, or the
laws of his own country on the subject of naturalizing foreigners, that he thus
recommends the admission of a state into the Union, with a constitution formed
mainly by persons who were strangers to our laws, and who, by our laws and by
the treaty, were not citizens, and consequently had no right of suffrage? Look
you, sir, to the treaty with Mexico. In its 8th article it is declared:
"That Mexicans who shall prefer to remain in the territory may either
retain the rights and title of Mexican citizens or acquire those of citizens of
the United States." They shall make their election in one year after the
treaty is ratified. "And those who shall remain in the territory after the
expiration of that year without having declared their intention to retain the
character of Mexicans, shall be considered to have ELECTED to become citizens
of the United States."
Mexicans remaining
in the territory after twelve months "shall be considered to have elected
to become citizens of the United States;" but who shall make them
citizens? This question is fully answered by the ninth article of this treaty.
We have seen that Mexicans may acquire the rights of citizens of the United
States, and that under certain circumstances they are deemed to have elected to
become citizens, &c. Read the ninth article of the treaty: "Mexicans
who, in the territories aforesaid, shall not preserve the character of citizens
of the Mexican Republic, conformably with what is stipulated in the preceding
article, shall be incorporated into the Union of the United States, and be ADMITTED
at the proper time (to be judged of by the Congress of the United States) to
the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States according to
the principles of the Constitution."
Here we have it.
They are "to be incorporated into
the Union, and be admitted at the proper time, to be judged of by Congress, to
the enjoyment of all the rights of citizens of the United States."
Where did the President get his authority to dispense with these articles,
these solemn stipulations of the treaty? By what right does he extend to these
people that dearest privilege of an American freeman, the right of suffrage? By
what authority does he confer the power to hold office, to sit in a convention,
and to trample under foot the rights of the southern people? The late
Administration had something to do with making this treaty, and they provided
that these people, at a proper time, to be judged of by Congress, should enjoy
all these rights. Congress has not judged in the matter. Congress has done
nothing. Congress has refused to act, and the President tells these people to
vote, to accept office, to make a state constitution, to elect governors,
secretaries, auditors, members of Congress, &c., &c. And when they have
done as he bid them, he "earnestly recommends their acts to the favorable
consideration of Congress." And this is the President who was going to act
according to the laws and the Constitution, and abstain from all interference
with the duties of Congress. O tempora! O mores!
[Here the hammer
fell, and Mr. BROWN gave notice that he would append the unfinished remarks to
his printed speech.]
The present
President of the United States delights in doing in all things like Washington.
In his annual message he alludes no less than three times, with evident
self-complacency, to supposed similitudes between his acts and those of the
illustrious Father of his Country.
In the earlier
history of the republic, and in the time of Washington's presidency, a case
bearing close resemblance to the one under discussion was presented for his
consideration. How closely the second Washington copies the precedent of the
first may be gathered from the history of the transaction. That history has
been briefly sketched by a distinguished, eloquent, and aged friend of President
Taylor. I read from a pamphlet by George Poindexter:
Shortly
after the cession by North Carolina of the south-western territory, certain
influential individuals, anxious to hasten the formation of an independent
state government within the ceded territory, induced the inhabitants to call a
convention and frame a state constitution, to which they gave the name of the
State of Franklin. This proceeding met the unhesitating frowns and
disapprobation of the Father of his Country—the illustrious Washington—who
caused it to be instantly suppressed, and in lieu of this factitious state
government, a territorial government was extended to the inhabitants by
Congress, under which they lived and prospered for many years."
If the first
President, the great, the good, the illustrious Washington, would not listen to
the proposition of the Franklanders, citizens as they were of the United
States, for admission into the Union, under the circumstances attending their
application, I ask how the present President shall justify his proceeding, in
first prompting the free male citizens of Upper California, all the people of
Lower California, and in fact the interlopers and adventurers from all the
nations of the earth, now upon our territory, to form a state constitution, and
ask admission into our Union? And now when this constitution, the creation of
such a conglomerate mass, is about to be presented, let the friends of the
President justify, if they can, his "earnest recommendation that it may
receive the favorable consideration of Congress."
Frankland was not
admitted as a state, but a territorial government was given to the country
under the name of Tennessee. As a territory these people again applied for
admission, and again their application was rejected. I read from Poindexter's
pamphlet the history of this second application:
"Subsequent
to these transactions, the inhabitants of the south-western territory having
increased, as it was believed, to a sufficient number to entitle them to become
one of the states of the Union, the territorial legislature directed a census
to be taken under the authority of an act passed by that body. This census
having been so taken, exhibited a number of free inhabitants exceeding 60,000—being
a greater number than was required by the ordinance of 1787 to admit them into
the Union; and on the 28th of November, 1795, the governor being authorized
thereto by law, issued his proclamation requiring the inhabitants of the
several counties of the territory to choose persons to represent them in
convention, for the purpose of forming a constitution or permanent form of
government. This body so chosen, met in convention on the 11th January, 1796,
and adopted a constitution, in which they declared the people of that part of
said territory which was ceded by North Carolina, to be a free and independent
state, by the name of the State of Tennessee. Without entering into minute
details of all the proceedings which took place in relation to this
constitution, it will be sufficient for my present purpose to refer to the Senate
Journal of the first session of the fourth Congress, to which that constitution
was submitted for the reception and approbation of Congress. In the report of
the committee of the Senate, to whom this constitution was referred, it will be
seen that this act of the territorial authorities was deemed premature and
irregular; that the census ordered to be taken of the inhabitants was in many
respects deficient in detail, and more especially that the enumeration of the
inhabitants must, by the Constitution, be made by Congress; that this rule
applied to the original states of the Union, and as their rights as members of
the Union are affected by the admission of new states, the same principle which
enjoins the census of their inhabitants to be taken under the authority of
Congress, equally requires the enumeration of the inhabitants of any new state,
laid out by Congress in like manner, should be made under their authority. This
rule, the committee are of opinion, left Congress without discretion on this
point. The committee therefore reported, that the inhabitants of that part of
the territory south of Ohio, ceded by North Carolina, are not at this time
entitled to be received as a new state into the Union. This example is drawn
from the action of Congress during the administration of Washington, and will
serve to show you, sir, the great caution with which, under the administration
of that illustrious individual, the state was admitted into the Union."
In the purer and
better days of the republic it was thought necessary to consult Congress as to
the disposition to be made of the territory belonging to the United States, and
our fathers thought it necessary to show a decent regard to the demands of the
Constitution, in admitting new states into the Union. But in these latter days,
when soldiers become statesmen, without study, and men intuitively understand
the Constitution, the old-fashioned notions of Washington and his compatriots
are treated with scorn, and we are given to understand that the soldier-President
can make new states without the aid of Congress, and in defiance of the
Constitution. Whether the people will submit to this highhanded proceeding I do
not know; but for my single self I am prepared to say, that "live or die,
sink or swim, survive or perish," I will oppose it "at all hazards
and to the last extremity."
What, Mr. Chairman,
is to be the effect of admitting California into the Union as a state?
Independent, sir, of all the objections I have been pointing out, it will
effectually unhinge that sectional balance which has so long and happily
existed between the two ends of the Union, and at once give to the North that
dangerous preponderance in the Senate, which ambitious polititions have so
earnestly desired. The admission of one such state as California, opens the way
for, and renders easy the admission of another. The President already prompts
New Mexico to a like course. The two will reach out their hands to a third, and
they to a fourth, fifth, and sixth. Thus precedent follows. precedent, with
locomotive velocity and power, until the North has the two-thirds required to
change the Constitution. WHEN THIS IS DONE THE CONSTITUTION WILL BE CHANGED.
That public opinion, to which Senator SEWARD so significantly alludes, will be
seen, and its power will be felt—universal emancipation will become your
rallying cry. We see this. It is clearly set forth in all your movements. The
sun at noonday is not more visible than is this startling danger. Its presence
does arouse our fears and set our thoughts in motion. It comes with giant
strides and under the auspices of a southern President, but we will meet it,
and we will vanquish it. The time for action is almost come. It is well for us
to arrange the order of battle. I have listened, and will again listen with
patience and pleasure, to the plans of our southern friends. My own opinion is
this: that we should resist the introduction of California as a state, and
resist it successfully; resist it by our votes first, and lastly by other
means. We can, at least, force an adjournment without her admission. This being
done, we are safe. The Southern States, in convention at Nashville, will devise
means for vindicating their rights. I do not know what these means will be, but
I know what they may be, and with propriety and safety. They may be to carry
slaves into all of southern California, as the property of sovereign states,
and there hold them, as we have a right to do; and if molested, defend them, as
is both our right and duty.
We ask you to give
us our rights by NON-INTERVENTION; if you refuse, I am for taking them by ARMED
OCCUPATION.
