In the Convention, March 13, 1861.
EX-PRESIDENT TYLER.—I
am about to make, Mr. President, a very bold and daring adventure. The
condition of my health might very well justify me to this convention in
withholding from it any remarks upon the interesting subjects which were
discussed yesterday. But, sir, I am acting under an impulse of duty—an impulse
which I always obey, and which I shall attempt to carry out on the present
occasion.
Mr. President, an
aged man who had retired from the pursuits of busy life, surrounded by those
comforts which should most properly surround one whose life had been spent in
the
public service—with
prattlers at his knee and a light illuminating his household for ever beaming
around him—was startled from his quietude and repose by a voice which came from
the legislative halls of his native State, admonishing him of danger to the
country, and making a requisition for all of energy that still remained with
him, either physical or mental, in the effort to rescue that country from the imminent
peril that threatened it. It was the voice of Virginia, appealing, sir, to a
son, who, from the early morning of manhood, she had nurtured and petted, even
as a fond mother does her first born infant. At the age of twenty-one, having
scarcely put on the toga virilis, he
entered the public service of the State, cheered on his way by the approving
smiles of those who had elected him a member of the Legislature; and his
presence there was greeted by his brother members with an almost affectionate
cordiality. The pathway of his life was lighted up by gracious smiles which he
was continually receiving. Without anything of the spirit of boastfulness,
which would ill become me, I might say that that aged man had sounded, in the
language of Cardinal Wolsey, "all the shoals and depths of honor."
The highest public stations which the State of Virginia held in her gift she
had conferred upon him.
When I left the
government, sixteen years ago, sir, it had not entered into my contemplation
that I should ever afterwards appear in a public assembly. I left that
government prosperous and happy. The voice which startled me in my retirement
told me of feud, and discontent, and discord; of a tearing in twain of that
beautiful flag which had floated so triumphantly over us in the days that had
gone by, which I had never looked upon but my heart had throbbed with an
emotion it is impossible for me to give utterance to. The Father of his Country
had left behind an admonition to his children to avoid sectional feuds, but
those feuds had arisen and had progressed until they had culminated into
disunion. I had seen their beginning, sir, thirty years before, when the dark
cloud which now overspreads the hemisphere just rose above the horizon, no
bigger than a man's hand. It was the cloud of Abolitionism. Washington, looking
to the probable contingency that has now arisen, warned us against sectionalism
and sectional parties. With the tongue and the pen of an inspired prophet, he
foretold what has befallen us. From the school-room where the youthful mind was
impressed with doctrines in one section inimical to those of another; from the
pulpit where traduction and abuse have been leveled at the very memories of the
great dead who assisted to build up what was but yesterday a glorious government,
desecrating the very altar itself, and pronouncing against us anathema and
violent vituperation, bidding us "go forth from the communion table; you
are miserable slaveholders, and we cannot partake with you in the feast of
peace and religion." Such the anathema. And when all is made ready—the
masses excited and stirred up with an undefinable love of human liberty—the
politician, regardless of his country, and intent only upon his own elevation,
steps forth upon the stage to control those masses and lead them to the
disastrous point of sectionalism and separation.
Where is that Union
now which we once so much loved? Where its beautiful flag, which waved over a
land of wealth, of grandeur, and of beauty? Wrong, abuse, contumely,
unconstitutional acts, looking to a higher law than the Constitution, thus
setting men free from their obligations to society, have cut the ship of state
loose from her moorings; and here she is, drifting without helm or compass amid
rocks and whirlpools, her fragments floating in every direction—one part has
gone South, while other parts, moored for this moment, will probably at the
next, break loose from their insecure anchorage. I grieve over this state of
things by day and by night. When I think of the manner in which all this has
been brought about by a race of hungry, artful Catilines, who have misled the
Northern mind solely for their own aggrandizement, my blood becomes so heated
in my veins as to scald and burn them in its rapid flow.
I was told that in
this hour of the country's danger my services were needed, and under the
resolutions of the Legislature of Virginia, which I will very briefly advert to
as containing my letter of instructions, I resolved, at peril to myself and at
every possible personal inconvenience, to venture upon the task which my native
State had imposed upon me. I have not felt myself at liberty to wander or
depart from those instructions. One of them I will read:
"Whereas,
it is the deliberate opinion of the General Assembly of Virginia that unless
the unhappy controversy which now divides the States of this confederacy shall
be satisfactorily adjusted, a permanent dissolution of the Union is inevitable,
and the General Assembly, representing the wishes of the people of the
Commonwealth, is desirous of employing every reasonable means to avert so dire
a calamity, and determined to make a final effort to restore the Union and the
Constitution in the spirit in which they were established by the fathers of the
Republic."
An effort was to be
made to restore the Union: not to enter into a sort of bargain, embracing only
the Border States; not merely to enter into a covenant with those who have
brought about this state of things through misleading the public mind of the
North; nor yet to consult the interests of Virginia exclusively in any
arrangement which might be made to restore the
Constitution and the Union of the States but to bring back, if possible,
the cotton States, thereby to restore the Union to what it was; to have the
glorious old flag floating over one and all; to make the name of an American
citizen, which had won respect in every part of the world, again a word of
passport and of honor, as it had been before.
What could have
carried me to Washington but the debt of gratitude which I felt I owed my State
and my fellow-countrymen, and the deep solicitude which I experienced in this
hour of the nation's peril? I confess to an additional motive of a personal
character. If ever there lived a man ambitious of winning that true glory which
can alone arise from the fulfillment of the whole duty of a patriot—that man
now addresses you. I aspired to the glory of aiding to settle this controversy.
I had worn the honors of office through each grade to the highest. I had been
surrounded by the echoes of applause in the course of my journey through life;
but to encircle my brow, Mr. President, with the wreath to be won by the
restoration of this Union in all its plenitude, perfect as it was before the
severance, would have been to me the proud crowning act of my life. That was
the feeling that inspired my heart. You saw my address upon taking the chair of
the convention. Mr. President, I can speak of it without vanity and without
impropriety. You all saw it. Did it please you? Was it of a character to draw around
Virginia the sympathies of her co-States? That was my sole object in uttering
it.
I had hoped, in the
manner of consultation, and from the spirit evinced at the opening of the Conference,
that we were likely to accomplish the great object of Virginia had in view.
Massachusetts came up and her daughter, Maine, along with her. We had all New
England, and all the border States, until we reached Michigan. A voice could
not be heard on the Pacific coast; it was uttered too late to reach California
and Oregon in time—I wish, with all my heart they had been there. New York soon
joined us.—But I found that many had come with no olive branch in their
hands—nay, more—that with them the feeling of fraternity seemed to be gone.
They had nothing to give—nothing to yield. The Constitution was enough for
them. New York with her potent voice, would not yield one iota—not an “I”
dotted nor a “T” crossed. “The Constitution must be maintained—we have nothing
more to grant.” Such was, in substance, her language.
Notwithstanding all
these discouragements, we went to work; and no man had more faithful colleagues
than myself. We worked together and we tried every possible expedient to
overrule this state of things. It was soon perfectly obvious that without a
close approach to unanimity on the part of the Convention, no measures
originated by us would be of any avail. Here you have a measure passed by a
minority of that Convention—a measure which was defeated by a majority the
night before, but which was afterwards passed by a minority, upon a
reconsideration the next day, of nine to eight. The majority which passed it
being a minority of the States represented in the Convention, of what value and
consequence, then, is it? Why, sir, the gentlemen now in power have not yet
recognized the sovereignty of the Southern States, and probably do not intend
to recognize it.—I do not know, however, what they mean. If they could be
lifted up to a lofty eminence of policy, I would say to them recognize it at
once—go into co-partnership—not upon the restoration of the old Union, if that
cannot be and which may have become impossible—but by originating a commercial
treaty and forming an offensive and defensive alliance, secure to yourselves
all that is left of the old Confederacy—even its remains would be valuable. But
there is no feeling of this kind exhibited.
But to pursue the
course of remark from which I have been diverted. What are you to do with this
Peace Conference proposition?—What can you do with it? Do you propose as this
Convention has the right to do, to send it forth to your sister States for
ratification?—Why, sir, here is a majority of all the States that were in that
Convention, already opposed to it. How are you to get it ratified? How can you
ever get it ratified? Have you made your calculations? Taking out seven cotton
states, do you know that it would take every remaining State in the Union to
ratify such a measure? Two-thirds must recommend and three fourths are
necessary to ratify it before you can incorporate it into the Constitution. The
negative of one State defeats it. Of what possible use is it then? or why
expend our breath or time about it? Congress, to whom it has been submitted,
has not approved it.
My friend said the
other day, in the speech to which I listened with so much interest, and in
which he made so able an exposition of his side of the question, that Congress
does not recommend it, because they are the old hacks of politics; they were
elected before these things occurred. We had the young hacks of politics in our
Convention; [laughter] new men—some who had never appeared before in political
bodies—and yet they stand as if under
paralysis. I tell you nothing but the naked truth—we could not get them to move
one inch.
Now, sir, how came
you to get this Peace Conference proposition? I have already told you. It
seems, however, that it was through my agency that the Virginia vote was lost
for it. Even my friend, the editor of the “National Intelligencer,” leaves an
inference open, unintentionally on his part, I am sure, by which I am to be
assailed for the casting of the Virginia vote. I know Col. Seaton very well; I
have known him from the year 1816, when I entered the House of Representatives,
and a more respectable gentleman there is not in the country. As I said, even
he leaves the conclusion to be inferentially drawn, that I have been the
instrument of preventing Virginia from voting for these propositions.
This project of the Peace Conference is made
up, as you have already seen, of seven sections. I happened to be the presiding
officer of the body. The question came up in the first instance, after the
amendment of all the sections on the adoption of the entire proposition.
Gentlemen called for a division of the question and demanded that the question
should be taken by sections. The subject of course was divided and the vote
taken by sections. Each separate section was adopted. My friend, Mr. SEDDON,
then moved that there should be a vote taken upon the entire proposition. Judge
BROCKENBROUGH had voted against the first section, thus throwing the vote of
Virginia against it—and there we stood. He had voted against two of the other
sections unanimously. A motion was made, as I have said, by Mr. SEDDON, that
the vote should be taken afterwards upon it as an entirety. I expressed a
doubtful opinion upon the subject, and earnestly urged the Convention to take
an appeal from my decision. I said it appeared to me that the adoption of each
separate section by the vote of the convention amounted to the adoption of the
entire project. I asked an appeal. My
friend, Mr. SEDDON, would not take it—I called upon the Convention to take an
appeal. I reiterated my doubts about it. There rose up an almost, if not an
unanimous assent to the decision of the Chair. I still further reflected upon
the question and again expressed my doubts to the Convention, and asked for its
distinct decision upon the point. The Convention reiterated, by unanimous
declaration of approval, coming up from every part and all over the chamber,
its previous approval. That decision was given in the face of this fact, that
Judge BROCKENBROUGH had just voted with Mr. SEDDON and myself against that 1st
section. I had not the slightest idea—and in this statement I am perfectly
satisfied that I shall be endorsed by Mr. SEDDON himself—that Judge
BROCKENBROUGH looked to it as an entirety, or would have voted for it as an
entirety. I certainly entertained no such opinion and was only informed of my
presumed mistake upon hearing from him, through his letter to myself and Judge
SUMMERS, which has been submitted to this convention. And now, sir, after full
reflection upon the question decided by me, I would submit that question to
your own decision, Mr. President, or that of any other parliamentarian.
I will, now, Mr.
President, proceed to discus, as briefly and as rapidly as I can, the article
itself, and every section of the article which has been proposed to your
consideration, and which was made the subject of the elaborate investigation of
my friend from Kanawha, (Mr. SUMMERS) yesterday.
Let us look at these
sections. There can be no desire on the part of anybody to be deceived
concerning them.
The views taken by
my friend yesterday are, as I understand, concurred in by our distinguished
colleague, Mr. RIVES, for whom I entertain sentiments of the highest respect
and with whom I have always been on familiar terms. Our acquaintance began,
sir, at old William and Mary, and our friendship, I am sure, will only
terminate with our lives. Both Mr. RIVES and the gentleman from Kanawha, who
addressed the Convention yesterday, took different views from myself as to the true
character of these propositions. But my exalted respect from my two
distinguished colleagues cannot lead me to doubt at all the simplicity, and at
the same time the absolute irrefutability of the construction which I give to
the first section of the article. I have not been able to bring myself to the
adoption of their conclusions, which reflection but serves to rivet me in the
conviction that they have fallen, unintentionally I doubt not, into a great
error. I enter, without further delay, on an analysis of the first section.
It reads:
“In
all the Present territory of the United states, North of parallel 36 deg. 30
min. of North Latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment for a crime
is prohibited.”
There is no
misunderstanding that provision. North of this line the prohibition of slavery
is plainly and emphatically expressed.
Come to the
South-side and let us see what this article means? I quote from this section
again:
“In
all the present territory south of that line, the status of persons held to service or labor shall not be changed.”
What does that mean?
I recollect that when that provision was under examination before the Peace
Conference a proposition was made to introduce the word legal before status. An
eminent gentleman, whose name it is not necessary for me to mention, rose and
said: “Why it is not necessary to introduce that word ‘legal,’ for when you
talk of status you talk of legal status.” And, it is my duty to tell it sir, he
went on still further, and with a candor which did him honor, declared that the
whole interpretation of the section was that it was the status which was fixed by the Mexican law of emancipation which had
been proclaimed by the Mexican Government years before the acquisition of the
territory by the United States; and he maintained that the law of New Mexico
was the status of free soil. Why,
sir, he ignored the idea that a territory could either prohibit or introduce
slavery within its limits. I thanked him for his explanation afterwards. I went
to him and said: “You have at all events established your character as an
honest and frank man.” I cannot refer more particularly to him than to say that
he is a prominent and leading man in his party.
Mr. WISE.—Will the
gentleman allow me to interrupt him? I want to know the name of the gentleman
to whom he refers? Was it or was it not a member of the Cabinet from Ohio of
the name of Chase?
Mr. TYLER—Well, sir,
that is what the lawyers call a question direct, and I have some doubt about my
right to answer it, although I am perfectly satisfied that the gentleman
himself would have no objection to my doing so. There was a question under
consideration in the Conference as to disclosing what transpired there. How far
the veil of secrecy was removed I really do not remember—the journal has not
yet reached me, if it ever does. I have but followed the example set me by my
friend yesterday. I am only saying what was said, but have given no names. It
is not necessary to mention the name. All that I have a right to say is, that
he is a prominent and leading man. Well, sir, can you doubt the correctness of
his interpretation? Remember, that shortly after the Mexican revolution a
general emancipation of slaves took place in Mexico. You acquired New Mexico by
the treaty of Guadeloupe Hidalgo, growing out of the Mexican war. You acquired
it while still resting under Mexican emancipation and under the ordinance
declaring that slavery shall not exist there, and that it was forever to be
abolished. It is true that they retained a sort of slavery. They retained among
them what is called “peonage.” It is a cruel bondage, a terrible bondage; a
bondage of sinews and muscle which no one of our slaves has to endure. Well,
sir, can you come to any other interpretation than that which the gentleman to
whom I have referred has given? Why, sir, you had yesterday a statute which was
passed by the Territorial Legislature of New Mexico, read to you by Mr.
SUMMERS. If the statute is the status of slavery over that territory, then all
the subsequent part of this provision of this first section becomes null and
void. It is of no consequence at all—it only tends to confusion. Mark how the
section reads:
“Nor
shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or
prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union into
said Territory, nor to impair the right arising from the said relation; but the same shall be subject to judicial cognizance
in the Federal Courts according to the course of the common law.”
What have you to do
with the common law or its course? The statute of the Territorial Government is
full and ample. It gave you a right which are of themselves sufficient. The
Statute is full of remedies; it recognized your rights; and you want the common
law—take care, sir—take care, Mr. President, of the meshes which may encircle
your feet. Mark you which have given up the statutes of New Mexico—Congress can
make no provision for the protection of slavery in the Territory, nor can the
Territorial Legislature, but the Mexican law is there, and the moment you go
there you are under the Mexican law of emancipation. The statute of New Mexico
has become a nullity. The common law is to abrogate a nullity. The common law
is to abrogate the statute, which at its greatest stretch of interpretation can
only cover the twenty-four slaves already there. What is the condition of the
bondsman who accompanies you to that Territory? Congress is prohibited from
preventing your journey to the Territory with your slaves, nor can the
Territorial Legislature hinder you. But what becomes of him after he gets
there? He stands upon free soil—he is there surrounded with all the panoply of
the Mexican code of emancipation. Does the common law aid you?—Do its remedies
offer you any security? At the most, you have a law suit upon your hands; and
that is all you have got. When you come into court for security you will have
applied to your case this same decision rendered by Lord Mansfield in the
Somerset case which was referred to by the gentleman from Kanawha (Mr.
SUMMERS.) This case grew out of the attachment of a slave on the soil of
England, where, in the language of Curran, “the chains of the slave fall from
around him and he stands redeemed, regenerated, and disenthralled by the genius
of universal emancipation.”
This language I have
often repeated when a boy—I used to delight in its euphonious tones. It swelled
like a mountain torrent upon the ear; it kindled the fancy into a perfect blaze
and filled one with that delight which the eloquence of the Irishman in its
brightest strain, can alone produce. So it is in New Mexico. “The altar and the
god fall together in the dust,” and you rely upon the common law to restore
them, and to invest your property with sanctity and protection. You appeal to
Lord Mansfield’s authority. He tells you the moment you touch the soil of New
Mexico with your slave, his slavery is at an end, and he is a free man. It is
true that at a later day Lord Stowell assumed a position antagonistic to Lord
Mansfield on this subject—He decided in the Gracie case, that Lord Mansfield
was wrong. How then do you stand? You are asked to ignore the statute which
recognizes your rights in the New Mexican territory and to appeal to the common
law, where the decision will, in all probability, be governed by this decision
of Lord Mansfield. Thus you have two of the most eminent jurists of England
differing upon your title to your bondsman. You come to Washington to seek a
settled opinion upon the subject and you go to the great Senators consultum.
You listen to Mr. Benjamin, and he throws around you the panoply of the common
law. He guarantees protection for your negro wherever he goes. Even he,
however, staggers somewhat in doubt when he touches free soil, as in
Pennsylvania. He is met, however, by two distinguished gentleman, Mr. Fessenden
and Mr. Collamer—men of high eminence and talents, and as distinguished as Mr.
Benjamin—with large and comprehensive views upon ever other subject than this
cramping subject of slavery; they are in conflict with Mr. Benjamin’s views,
having a majority of two to one in their favor among their brother Senators.
If, leaving Washington, you go to Chicago, you encounter a pronuniamento there,
which ignores your whole claim to any refuge or protection either under the
common or territorial law.
Let us see what it
is. Here is the Constitution of the “higher law” party; and this Constitution
is proclaimed from the house tops; made the Shibboleth of political faith;
engraved upon the standard of the free soil party of the North. And what does
it say. I will read the eighth article of the Chicago platform:
“That
the normal condition of all the territory of the United States, is that of
freedom. That as our Republican Fathers when they abolished slavery in our
national territory, ordained that no person should be deprived of life, liberty
or property without the process of law, it becomes our duty, by legislation,
whenever such legislation is necessary, to maintain this provision of the
Constitution against all attempts to violate it. And we deny the authority of Congress or a Territorial Legislature or
of any individuals to give legal existence to slavery in any Territory of the
United States.”
There it is, Sir.
There it is—the overruling first of the great dominant party of the United
States; and yet you rest in regard to this thing upon the poor provision of
this first section of the Peace Conference article.
Sir, that is not
all. Who is to decide this question of common law which arises in your
territory? Where can you fly for refuge, for succor, or for security? You go to
the Federal Judge. Whose Federal Judge, sir? Of our appointing? No, sir. No,
this expounder of your rights is to be a Federal Judge appointed by Mr.
Lincoln.
Nor is that all.
Your whole granted territory, these pretended grants to you which like the
apples of the Dead Sea melt away at the very moment that you get them in your
grasp, are to be employed and held not only under the decision of the Chicago
platform and the just interpretation of the section which I read, but, when you
come to Congress, the great tribunal of the nation, and make your appeal
there—the appeal of only seven—poor seven—what
do your opponents count against you? Nineteen to seven! All the world to
nothing. You are at their mercy, you have nothing to hope for.
But sir, (it was
said the other day that you did not want any more territory.) This was said by
some gentleman in debate whose name I cannot now call to mind. You seven no not want any more territory—not
a foot more! Make yourselves easy upon that subject; (you have territory, but
it is territory in the moon,) which you cannot reach, even if it have a better
foundation than Sancho Panza had to his government. Our good friends of the
north take care to head you off, sir; they give you no chance to get there.
Look at the 3rd section.
That 3rd
section denies you the right “of transit in or through any State or territory.”
My friend announces himself a State-rights
man, and I should be very happy indeed to receive him as one of my own
fraternity, as the advocate of the resolutions of the ’98-99. He told us that
this was but an attribute of State power, the non-permission on the part of
these States to carry our property in transit through them; and them my
honorable friend sent down a perfect avalanche of persons upon us, and asked:
Have we not a right to prevent that avalanche from passing through our
territory? Sir, Every day, every hour, every moment of every day, the mechanics
of the North are passing on to the south and are taking their machinery with
them of every character and description; but we poor seven, we miserable starvelings
of the once great Confederacy are to be denied the poor privilege of passing
with our property in transit through one of these States. Of what advantage,
then, to us is the territory of Arizona and the beautiful Mesilla Valley? How
are we to get to them?
Suppose we start off
upon our journey from Richmond. You are resolved to take up your residence in
Arizona or in the Mesilla Valley. How are you to get there? If you go by sea,
you have to double the stormy Cape before you reach the gulf of California. You
will scarcely encounter a voyage of so much peril and danger. You prefer to go
by some other route, the route by land. How are you to accomplish it? By this 3rd
section you cannot pass through the States and territories. The soil of Ohio
you must not foot upon. You may pass down the beautiful Ohio and go on dancing
upon the waves of the Great Father of Waters—the Mississippi. But what will you
do when you get to Louisiana which is now out of the Union? Is she going to
permit this avalanche upon her? Will she permit you to reach the gulf of
Mexico? This, of course, must depend entirely upon her discretion. And when you
have passed into the Gulf of Mexico, how get across Texas? Attempt it in
another direction. You are headed off by Kansas, the Indian Territory and
Arkansas. And this is true, whether you begin your journey from Richmond or St.
Louis. These fair and beautiful valleys, for such they undoubtedly are tempt
you, but you without permission from others. And there you are, with a
capacious domain with grants of land claimed in the sovereign capacity and
attribute of the old Commonwealth of Virginia, and yet so fenced and hedged in
by these provisions that nothing of these possessions which you ought to enjoy,
but which your masters tell you you shall not enjoy, is left to you in any practical
sense.
But sir, we were
told that we wanted no more land; that we have plenty of land to fill up for
one hundred years to come. I did not expect to hear this upon this floor. I do not
know the gentleman who uttered the remark. Want no more land! Content to remain
but seven States in the vast collection of Northern States! Want no expansion!
No more power than they will grant you! They are nineteen now, while you are
but seven; and let me tell you, sir, that before this administration goes
out—or within two years afterwards, these nineteen States will have swollen up
to twenty-seven. It will be twenty-seven to seven. Where is the glory of
Virginia then? Want no more land! Your inhabitants, when the emigrate, are to
be driven to the old settled States of the South, there to be forced to give
from thirty to one hundred dollars an acre for land. The Government lands, at
one dollar and twenty-five cents an acre, are to be denied them. You may go
into Texas, it is true, but you could not, probably, get land there for one
dollar and twenty-five cents an acre.
I think it is a hard
case to tell me what if I shall be obliged to emigrate with my large family in
pursuit of a more extensive home, that I must give all the earnings of my life
for the purchase of a few acres of land in South Carolina, or one of the
neighboring cotton States. I cannot go into the Southern regions which can
produce the cotton, the rice, the indigo, and am practically excluded from all
the benefits of our new grants through the operation of the several causes to
which I have referred.
Well, sir, after
what is here said of this state of things, it is not for me to complain of it.
I never complain of any gentleman for his opinion. Upon that subject the
gentleman has a right to his opinion, and I have a right to mine; we differ;
that is all, and there the matter ends. Sir, my friend yesterday said something
upon the subject of future acquisition of Territory. I do not know who it can
be that we should differ so widely upon that question. Now, which I look to
your instructions from the General Assembly of Virginia, I find this language:
“Resolved,
That in the opinion of the General Assembly of Virginia, the propositions
embraced in the resolutions presented to the Senate of the United States, by the
Hon. Jno. J. Crittenden, so much modified as that the first article proposed as
an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, shall apply to all the
territory of the United States now held, or hereafter to be acquired, south of
latitude 36 deg. 30 min., and provide that slavery of the African race shall be
effectually protected, if necessary, as property therein, during the
continuance of the Territorial Government; and the fourth article shall secure
to the owners of slaves the right of transit with their slaves between and
through the non-slave-holding States and Territories, constitute the basis of
such an adjustment of the happy controversy which now divides the States of
this Confederacy, as would be accepted by the people of this commonwealth.”
I consider it in the
light of a positive instruction, to stipulate for future acquired territory.
And why not, sir? If the question is to be settled, why not settle it
altogether? My honorable friend (Mr. Summers) Thinks it bet to let the future
take care of itself.
Mr. SUMMERS.—Did I
understand the gentleman from Charles City, that he intends to impute to me the
sentiment that I am against the future acquisition of territory?
EX-PRESIDENT
TYLER. No; except that you abandon it in
the project.
Mr. SUMMERS. The gentleman himself will bear me witness
that I, with himself and the other Commissioners—that we all sustained the
Crittenden propositions. My argument yesterday was, that having lost the
Crittenden proposition, I took that of the Peace Conference.
EX-PRESIDENT
TYLER. I beg the gentleman to be
perfectly assured that I did not mean to impute to him any sentiments which he
did not entertain. I take his explanation. We all voted for the Crittenden
propositions.
Now, Mr. President,
let us see for what we all voted, and for what the majority of the commissioners voted. I have already descanted upon
the first section. You see that it is all wrapped up in ambiguity. It leads to
doubt, at least as to its true import. Instead of healing up the discontents of
the country it widens them. Now take Mr. Crittenden’s first section. Let us see
how the fair and manly proposition of my honorable friend from Kentucky, aged
now, a student at William and Mary College when I was there as a Grammar-boy,
in approval of whose patriotism I voted with the greatest pleasure yesterday,
and I will repeat that the vote just as often as you ask me, for I know how
indefatigable he has been in his efforts to secure the adoption of measures
which would settle the pending difficulties and restore peace to country. My
friend (Mr. SUMMERS) apologized for Congress for not recommending the Peace
Conference plan because there were only three days left to Congress of its
session.
I wish him to
remember that Mr. Crittenden had struggled and struggled, for months, by night
and by day, to carry out this plan; that he was in all sorts of association,
soliciting here, and urging there, taking into his counsel, as we were told,
Mr. Seward, and aided by Mr. Douglas—asking everybody whom he could get into
his counsel, and missing all the means he could employ, likely at all to
accelerate and forward his purpose; and yet it could not be effected. No sir,
his hopes led him on until all hope was wrecked. My honorable friend, Mr.
SUMMERS, if I understood him, said this Peace Conference proposition was better
than Mr. Crittenden’s project; that it was more full, more comprehensive, more
complete; that you obtained more in it than in Mr. Crittenden’s—at all events,
that it was quite equal to it. Did I understand you so, sir?
Mr. SUMMERS—My
position was, that taken as a whole it was an equivalent to the Crittenden
proposition, and in several particulars, in my judgment in advance of it.
EX-PRESIDENT
TYLER.—Then sir, you perceived that the argument which I advance is correct,
that this project was equivalent to Crittenden’s; but there were only three
days in which it could struggle before Congress. The Crittenden proposition was
its prototype—this, the Jupiter out of whose head Minerva sprung, had long been
under consideration, but had been urged in all its forms, had been pressed in
every imaginable manner by my honorable friend from Kentucky (Mr. Crittenden,)
with whom I had the honor of serving in the Senate of the United States, and
elsewhere, who was for a short time in my Cabinet, and whose loss I regretted
upon his voluntary retirement—and there never has been any interruption of our
friendship at least, on my part, and will not be until death shall take away
either him or me. Now, Mr. President, put this project of Mr. Crittenden beside
that of the Peace Conference. Look at them, placed side by side and judge which
is the more just, clear comprehensive and patriotic of the two. Here are the
first section of the Peace Conference proposition, and the first article of the
Crittenden proposition:
1st
Sec. Peace Conference Proposition.
“SECION
1. In all the present territory of the
United States north of the parallel of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes of
north latitude, involuntary servitude, except in punishment of crime is
prohibited. In all the present territory south of that line the status of
persons held to service or labor, as it now exists, shall not be changed. Nor
shall any law be passed by Congress or the Territorial Legislature to hinder or
prevent the taking of such persons from any of the States of this Union to said
Territory, nor to impair the lights arising from said relation. But the same
shall be subject to judicial cognizance in the Federal courts, according to the
course of the common law. When any Territory north or south of said line, with
such boundary as Congress may prescribe, shall contain a population equal to
that required for a member of Congress, it shall, if its form of government be
Republican, be admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the original
States, with or without involuntary servitude, as the Constitution of such
State may provide."
_______________
1st
Article Crittenden Proposition.
“ARTICLE
1. In all the territory of the United States now held or hereafter to be
acquired, situate north of latitude thirty-six degrees thirty minutes, slavery
or involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime, is prohibited,
while such territory shall remain under territorial government. In all the
territory south of said line of latitude, slavery of the African race is hereby
recognized as existing, and shall not be interfered with by Congress, but shall
be protected as property by all the departments of the territorial government
during its continuance. And when any territory, north or south of said line,
within such boundaries as Congress may prescribe, shall contain the population
requisite for a member of Congress according to the then Federal ratio of
representation of the people of the United States, it shall, if its form of
government be republican, be admitted into the Union, on an equal footing with
the original States, with or without slavery, as the constitution of such new
State may provide.”
There you have the
comparison, or more properly contrast, before you. In Mr. Crittenden’s
programme things are called by their right names. There is no wrapping up, no
concealment of intention—all is fair and plain. It is so exceedingly simple and
explicit that no child can misinterpret it. You may run and read as you run,
and yet it will still be plain and palpable. Like it author, sir, plain;
distinguished for his urbanity, with his heart in his hand, his tongue not
given, as Talleyrand declared his to be, “to use words to conceal his ideas,”
but given to utter words of truth, of power and force. This Peace Conference
proposition: palters with us in a double sense, “keeps the promise to the ear,
but breaks it to the hope.”
This (the Crittenden
proposition) tells us of our rights. African slavery is ours. It is to be
protected. The Legislatures of the Territories shall protect it,
notwithstanding the Chicago platform. Why, sir, let him who can judge choose
between that and this. “The counterfeit presentment of two” minds. Those who
accept this Peace Conference proposition would find themselves in the dilemma
in which Hamlet’s mother was when she cast aside her “precedent lord” and
married with “the cut purse of the Empire and the rule.” No, sir, there can be
no mistaking it. Now my friend, (Mr. SUMMERS,) thinks that upon the subject of
the Territories, he has accomplished a great good by the second section. I do
not by any means which to deny, but that the principle upon which he acts ought
to be consecrated. The Principle is a lofty one. It is the principle of
concurrent majorities. Sir, it is the very principle which will save us. The
only principle that can restore this Union which we have lost. If we can have a
concurrent majority on all public questions, my deliberate opinion is that all
will be safe; majorities to concur before either section can harass or disturb
the other. In the crisis of legislation I do not care about dual Presidents,
but concurrent majorities are essential. But what does this concurrent majority
accomplish when applied solely to territory? Why it give to the seven States a
great power, provided that there is anything for the power to act upon. But
there lies the rub.
Now look at the
North. What of territory remains for them? It has reached the Fraser River. It
is in dispute about the island of San Juan, under a treaty with Great Britain.
With its foot planted upon the estuary which divides Vancouver’s Island from
the main land, it has got to its ultima thule of territorial—nothing lies
beyond but the British Fur company possessions, or what may be called company
possessions, or what may be called the Nova Zembla of the Russian-Czar, lying
in the lap of perpetual winter, wrapped up in furs against frost and ice. They
will not go there I’m sure.
Does it look to
Canada? My friend told us there was a wire-worker in our Peace Conference, who
talked to him about Canada, New Brunswick, and so on. A wire-Worker! Well, sir,
there were a good many wire-workers. But this fellow had his wire broken before
he could spin it. I saw some notice of a movement of annexation on the part of
Canada to New England, a short time ago. The Canadians and the New Brunswickans
said “No, we won’t go a step in that direction; we want none of their isms;
they are pervading the who county with their isms; they have their isms of all
sorts and descriptions that ever entered into the imagination of man; we prefer
to chant our national anthem of ‘God save the Queen;’ she affords us
protection, she nurtures us and she raises us, and if we are driven into a
Confederacy, why we stretch from the extreme waters which was our shores, to
the extreme waters of the Pacific, we embrace all this hunting country.” How
can the North obtain it? How is this wire-worker
to get it? Why, sir, the British colonies would not come if they could.
And who does not
know all about the Anglo-saxon race? Did ever any Anglo-saxon man or woman part
with one single foot of ground they had obtained, without full consideration?
Why, the race is noted as a race of land-mongers. Of all nations in the world
Great Britain is the last to surrender one single inch of territory belonging
to her anywhere on the face of the earth. Queen Victoria and her sceptre must
have passed away, the lion rampant will be no longer the symbol of England,
before she will surrender to the United States or to any other power those
possessions on this continent.
But my friend
supposed that our Northern friends would come down in hordes and take
possession of Central America, unless we had this check upon them. Dear me!
Sir, the law of climate as applicable to races, forbids this. A man of
Caucasian race pledged to go and work under a burning sun? Why, these dreamers
of the North seemingly know nothing of the influence of climate. They talk of
your cotton fields, of your burning sun, it is true. They estimate well the
wealth that comes up from these sources. They talk of it, and they talk of free
labor. Now I beg to know, while the burning sun is upon the West-India Island,
the lands, the richest in the world, and although a so called free-soil (under emancipation
acts) exists there, and although labor commands the highest prices and a
greater demand for it exists than anywhere else, why is it that the vast tide
of emigration which rolls in from Europe makes no halt there, but passes on
until it reaches a high Northern latitude, where the Caucasian is found
enacting the part of herdsman or engaged in the cultivation of the cereals?
Where he flourishes, the African
perishes. Child of the sun, the last luxuriates under tropical heat; creature
of a Northern latitude, the Caucasian man perishes where the African
flourishes; and so he of Africa’s sultry
land drags out a brief wretched existence where the white man becomes vigorous
and strong, and attains the full perfection of mental and physical development.
Such is the law of climate and that law negatives the supposition indulged in
by the gentleman from Kanawha.
You rarely ever find
the Caucasian day laborer in South America, and if an exception presents
itself, he is a stranger in a strange land. And no guard against this imaginary
acquisition of territory, on the part of the North, you require concurrent
majorities which effectually precludes all hope of acquisition on your own
part. You must have a majority of nineteen States now, soon to be thirty-six; and
a majority of your own Senators which you would readily obtain, and from those
majorities make up the two-thirds before you can get Cuba, or the West India
Islands, or any one foot of additional territory.
I wish to allude to
one man, in this connection, who you knew, and who I knew well for the greater
portion of my life. I looked upon him almost as the atlas upon which not only
his party, but, in some degree, his country rested. I knew him in the Senate of
the United States, when my solitary vote was given against the Force Bill,
during General Jackson's time. He stepped forth on that occasion like a
patriot, to heal the discontents of his country and to cicatrize its wounds. It
was Henry Clay, sir. I take pleasure in pronouncing his name in this connection.
There were afterwards political feuds between us, but it was his loss and not
mine. He threw off the hand that would have supported him. He forfeited the
assistance of a friend who admired and esteemed him to the close of his life,
one who has no hesitation in saying now, as I said upon a recent occasion, that
he deserves a monument lofty as the mountains, enduring as the skies, for his
great measure of pacification, his famous tariff compromise, which gave peace
to the country and bade the raging elements be still.
Well, sir, I am a
disciple of his, to some extent, on the subject of the African race. He did not
limit his view to the then confines of the United States. He looked from
Maryland, Virginia and the other border States in the direction of the West
India Islands, or central America, with the idea that the slave population
might ultimately find their outlet in that direction. And yet, in my firm
belief, you cannot acquire a foot of land under this provision of the Peace
Conference, for it effectually closes the door further expansion on the part of
the South. The only way in which you have heretofore acquired territory has
been by a great party in the free States coming to the aid of the South. You
could have acquired it in no other way. Louisiana and Florida were obtained in
that way. New England opposed them, as she opposes now everything that pertains
to the interests of the South, or tends to give it political strength. In like
manner, she opposed the acquisition of Texas; and yet it was through the medium
of a controlling majority, made up of Northern and Southern votes, that we
obtained the acquisition of that country.
Mr. SHEFFEY.—I move,
sir that the Convention do now adjourn, and I hope it will be the pleasure of
the convention to extend the courtesy of the floor tomorrow to the
distinguished gentleman who as addressed us.
The Convention
adjourned.
MARCH 14th,
1861.
Ex President TYLER
resumed his remarks and said:
Mr. President, I am
deeply grateful, sir, to the members of the Convention for the kind indulgence
of which they granted me yesterday. I found much difficulty in causing the views
which I address to the Convention yesterday, to be heard, because of a great
deficiency in my voice. I feel similarly circumstanced this morning. A voice
which has heretofore never failed, has become subdued by severe and continued
cold, until it has lost most of its distinctness and compass.
But I make no
apology for the circumstances under which I appear before you. I am in the
discharge of a great public duty; and in the discharge of that duty I suffer no
impediment arising from my own personal infirmities to stand in the way.
On yesterday I
dissected, as far as I could, the first section of the article proposed by the
“Peace Conference,” I find, however, that I omitted a fact which has much
bearing upon the case.
In the course of our
proceedings at Washington, and looking to some safe guarantee of protection
against the influence of propogandism through the officers of the Territory, I
deemed it proper to offer the amendment which I hold in my hand. I will read it
with the consent of the Convention:
“All
appointments to office in the Territories lying North of the line 36 deg. 30
min. as well before as after the establishment of Territorial governments in and
over the same or any part thereof, shall be made upon the recommendations of a
majority of the Senators representing at the time the non-slaveholding States.
And in like manner, all appointments to office in the territories which may lie
South of said line 36 deg. 30 min. shall be made upon the recommendation of a
majority of the Senators representing at the time of the slave-holding States.
But nothing in this article shall be construed to restrain the President of the
United States from removing, for actual incompetency or misdemeanor in office,
and any person thus appointed, and appointing a temporary agent, to be
continued in office until the majority of Senators as aforesaid may present a
new recommendation, or from filling any vacancy which may occur during the
recess of the Senate, such appointment to continue ad interim. And to insure, on the part of the Senators, the
selection of the most trustworthy agents, it is hereby directed that all the
Senators, the selection of the most trustworthy agents, it is hereby directed
that all the net proceeds arising from the sale of the public lands, shall be
distributed annually among the several States, according to the combined ratio
of representation and taxation; but the distribution aforesaid may be suspended
by Congress in case of actual war with a foreign nation, or imminent peril
thereof.”
That proposition I
submitted, and by the courtesy of the Convention—and no body was ever more
courteous that it was to me—the ten minutes’ rule, which had been proclaimed as
the limit of debate, was immediately suspended, it being understood that I
intended to discuss the propositions, and my own time was allowed me, to take
what range and latitude of debate I might deem necessary. I accordingly entered
into an explanation of the proposition in all its parts and bearings. I
maintained that some security was necessary against the influence which the
President, through his patronage, might exercise in the Territories. It was
even without such intention natural that the President should bestow the
emoluments of office on those who held opinions corresponding with his own. The
propagandism of anti-slavery sentiment would inevitable proceed from the
Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and the long list of other officers to be appointed
by Mr. Lincoln to these Territories. I sought to guard against this by the proposition
to amend, so as to give substantially to the majority of Senators on each side
of the line 36 degrees and 30 minutes forever the virtual appointment of
officers in the territories lying respectively North and South of that line. I
stated in that Assembly a fact which it is not out of place to repeat here,
that sixteen years ago, when I left the government, we had reduced the public
expenditures from thirty-two millions to
twenty-four millions per annum.—And yet we have in no degree impaired
the efficiency of the public service, but had added to our naval defence the
Home Squadron; had enlarged the basis of our military operations; had increased
the strength, and the efficiency of the army—and manned our fortifications and
all at the low rate of expenditure mentioned. Within this short period of
sixteen years, which has since elapsed, we find these expenditures swollen up,
of 60, 70, 80,000,000—I know not what in fact. I cannot account for the fact
expenditure. Nor does the evil stop with the expenditures from the Treasury.
The public lands, that great source of public credit in times of embarrassment,
are spoliated on with a merciless prodigality—land-grants, homestead bills and
railroad donations, all combined, seem to threaten an extinction of all public
interest in the preservation of this great inheritance. It was time, I thought
to interpose with that great remedial measure of distributing the proceeds of
the public lands equally among the States, according to the ratio of
representation and taxation. But, furthermore, in the division of territory,
there had been given to the Northern States fully four-fifths of the territory
of the United States. The remaining fifth being on our side of the line, I
sought to equalize, to some extent, the division, by making each state a
participant in the proceeds of the sales of the whole of the lands.
But above all, Mr.
President, I desired to restrain that wild spirit of propagandism which I know
would inevitably influence those who would be appointed to offices in the
territory under the new administration. I knew that the man who was in the
Presidential office would appoint his own friends to office. It was natural
that Mr. Lincoln should do so, and I took for granted that the Chicago platform
would be the Constitution of every man of them. I regarded the rejection of
this proposition as a vital objection to that first section, and my friend near
me (Mr. Summers), and the whole delegation from Virginia, came up as one man
and voted for it. They gave me their cordial support, and yet what vote do you
suppose we obtained for it? Plain, rational, just as it seemed to be and really
was-what sort of vote do you suppose we got for it? There were five States
voting for it, and all the rest against it! It would not do to restrain Mr.
Lincoln in the giving of his patronage; they wanted to give him full sway. I
was told by some, we will vote for your proposition in 1865, but we cannot vote
for it now. Yes, sir, they would vote for it after the mischief will have been
done-after the propagandists shall have accomplished their purposes. The
Chicago platform will then have received its practical interpretation, and been
carried into full effect. I repeat, that my colleagues came up to the spirit of
the proposition which I offered, and Virginia was a unit in favor of it; and I
would now have it incorporated in any project that may be offered to this
convention.
Sir, I shall now
endeavor to hurry on as fast as I can with my commentaries upon the remaining
sections.
The third section,
if you examine it, will be found to be deprived of its principal value by the
adoption by two-thirds of both houses of Congress of the Corwin amendment. Why
that amendment has not been submitted to us, for our consideration, I do not
know. The section secures us against the abolition of slavery in the District
of Columbia, and in places under the exclusive jurisdiction of Congress, within
States and Territories, where slavery exists. My friened thinks that we gain
much by the succeeding clause of the section which gives us the right to
transport out slaves by sea or river, to touch at ports, shores or landings,
and of landing in case of distress. I cannot place the same high value upon it
that he does. This right stats so under the international law—that law which is
co-extensive in its operation with the civilized world—no country, however
powerful, can violate it without incurring universal odium and denunciation.
How was it in the case of the Creole, which we settled under the Ashburton
treaty? You recollect that the Creole sailed from this port with a cargo of
slaves for a Southern State. Her crew rose up against her officers, took
possession of the ship and carried her into Nassau, New Providence, where the
slaves were taken from the ship by the populace and all set free. We made a
demand of Great Britain, charged that she had violated the rights of
hospitality, and the comity that exists between nations. The amende honorable was made by Lord
Ashburton in his negotiations with us at Washington. The Executive would have
accepted no result which had not embraced an honorable adjustment of the
principle involved in the case of the Creole.
So that you perceive
that this is not a new thing. It is no more than the confirmation of a
principle in the international code by a Constitutional enactment. Unhappy
state of things, truly, when a principle of comity and good feeling, observed
by all nations in their intercourse with each other is, in order to be
recognized as obligatory by confederates, to be incorporated as a guarantee in
the fundamental law. How lamentably deplorable is that state of things which
renders it necessary.
In regard to the
last cause of this section, which my friend (Mr. SUMMERS,) laid so much stress
upon. We have simply caught a Tartar. I do not know that it would not be
fortunate if the whole measure was rejected in order to get rid of this. I
think no objection was made to it, and being urged by one of our own members,
we all voted for it. I allude to the final clause of the section, which
declares that Congress shall not authorize any high rate of taxation on persons held to labor or
service than on land.
I remember to have
heard an anecdote which is somewhat illustrative of the great sagacity and
aptitude for business of our Northern associates. It occurred upon the meeting
of the first Congress. Patrick Henry and Richard Henry Lee opened the session
in terms of impressive eloquence. Samuel Adams, that illustrious man who is
recognized as one of the most pure, noble and patriotic statesmen of the
glorious age in which he lived, is reported to have said to one of his
colleagues: “we have no business her, let us go home: these people will settle
this thing without us.
But, the Congress
went shortly afterwards to work, and something else than eloquence was
required. Astute and quick perception were necessary to carry out the political
problems of the day—and practical results were only to be attained by that
practical good sense, the nurseling of experience and observation—and Adams
very soon approached his colleague with the remark, “we had as well stay where
we are.” They understood this thing very well. Sagacious, keen, intellectual,
the Northern men are capable of doing their work in the best way and after the
best manner, and I fear they have by silent acquiescence, don so in this
instance to our disadvantage.
I confess to the
fact that I did consider the provision a valuable one when I voted for it. But,
sir, subsequent reflection and consideration has greatly unsettled my opinion
concerning it, and I find, upon examination, the whole case was decided as long
ago as 1793, by the Supreme Court.
In the case of
Hylton, plaintiff in error, vs. the
United States, a decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of the United
States, from which I extract the following language:
“The
great object of the Constitution was, to give to Congress a power to lay taxes
adequate to the exigencies of government; but they were to observe two rules in
imposing them, namely, the rule of uniformity, when they laid duties, imposts
or excises; and the rule of apportionment according to the Census, when they
laid a direct tax.”
“A
general power is given to congress to lay and collect taxes of every kind or
nature without any restraint, except only on exports; but two rules are
prescribed for their government, namely, uniformity, and apportionment; three
kinds of taxes, to wit: duties, imposts and excises by the first rule, and
capitation or other direct taxes, by the second rule.”
“The
Constitution evidently contemplates no
taxes as direct taxes, but only such as Congress could lay in proportion to the Census.—The rule of apportionment is only to be adopted in such cases where it can reasonably apply; and the subject taxed, must ever determine the
application of the rule.”
Patterson, justice,
said: “I never entertained a doubt that the principal, I will not say the only
object that the framers of the Constitution contemplated as falling within the
rule of apportionment, where a capitation
tax and a tax on land. Local considerations, and particular circumstances
and relative situations of the States, naturally lead to this view of the
subject. “The provision was made in favor
of the Southern States. They
possessed a large number of slaves; they had extensive tracts of territory,
thinly settled, and not very productive. A majority of the States had but few slaves,
and several of them a limited territory, well settled and in a high state of
cultivation. The Southern States, if no provision had been introduced in the
Constitution, would have been wholly at the mercy of the other States.
Congress, in such case, might tax slaves, at discretion, or arbitrarily, and
land in every part of the Union after the same rate or measure, so much a head
in the first instance, and so much an acre in the second. To guard them against
imposition in these particulars, was the reason of introducing the clause in
the Constitution, which directs that representatives and direct taxes shall be
apportioned among the States, according to their respective numbers. He argued,
further, that the rule of apportionment
was not to be preferred to the rule of uniformity;
but the former was to be applied only where the Constitution imperatively
requires it to be applied, to wit, to ‘capitation or other direct taxes,’ and
where it would reasonably apply. He
considered it radically a wrong rule, and asks, ‘why should slaves, who are a
species of property, be represented more than any other property?’”
In that opinion all
the judges concurred, save one, who gave no opinion.
Well, it has
occurred to me that, inasmuch as the apportionment is to be made according to
taxation and representation combined, we have by that clause subjected
ourselves to a capitation tax upon the head of every slave, when it should only
apply to every three out of five. I think I am sustained in that position by
this decision.
Again, sir, we find
in the case of Loughborough vs. Blake, 5 Wheaton, 317, the following language
by Judge Marshall:
It was under these
clauses, to reconcile and expound them, that the decisions of the supreme court
referred to, were made. Federal taxation, it is shown, consists of two classes
of taxes:
1st. Direct; supposed to be capitation and
land tax alone. And,
2d. Indirect taxes, embracing duties,
imposts and excises. And,
1st. The first are
always to be apportioned with
representatives among the several States, according to their respective numbers
of described persons; and among these
are three-fifths of the slaves; and no direct tax can ever be laid, unless in
proportion to this census thus described to be enumerated; and,
2d. The second,
consisting of duties, imposts and excises, are always to be “uniform throughout the United States;”
and,
3d. Congress may or
may not tax the territories, as included under the first clause of section 8th,
in the United States, but not necessarily included among the “several states,” in the apportionment
required by the 3d clause of section 2d; but if Congress, or power derived from
congress, does tax the territories as
well as States, it must be done by
one of the two rules above, of apportionment or uniformity. And,
4th. If slaves, or “other persons,” in States or
territories, are taxed by Congress or its authority, it must be done under the
clauses apportioning representatives and capitation or other direct taxes,
taxes upon persons being capitation
and direct taxes throughout the United States.
Mr. SUMMERS.—I don’t
desire at all to interrupt the argument at this point, or to occupy the floor
further than to call attention to the fact, which my distinguished friend from
Charles City, Mr. TYLER, will readily call to mind, that the minority report
submitted by Mr. SEDDON, from the Committee of States, which prepared business
for the Convention and of which the Committee our excellent friend Mr. SEDDON
was the Virginia member, proposed the Crittenden propositions with certain emendations
and additions, and among other modifications of the Crittenden proposition,
this same feature is contained as proposed in the minority report of our
colleague. It is annexed to the 4th article of the Crittenden
proposition:—
“And
in imposing direct taxes pursuant to the Constitution, Congress shall have no
power to impose on slaves a higher rate of tax than on land, according to their
just value.”
Mr. SUMMERS.—When
that was submitted by our colleague as a substitute for the report of the
Committee, the Virginia Commission voted for it as a unit.
I merely call the
attention of my distinguished friend to the fact, that it was considered not
only by us, but by all the southern men, as a most vital and important
amendment to the Crittenden project.
Mr. TYLER.—I am
perfectly aware of the facts states by my honorable friend. They are all
correct. We concurred in the adoption of that section with that addendum. I
frankly confess the fact before the Convention, and here I express my regret at
our having fallen into this error.
I used, moreover,
the words that we had “caught a Tartar” by the adoption of this clause which
was recommended to us by the circumstances adverted to my honorable friend—but
I renounced my own error the moment I became convinced of it.
I am hurrying
rapidly through my task of dissecting the various sections of this article; and
now I come to the 4th section. If gentlemen will look at it, they
will find probably no objection to it, because it merely re-affirms what exists
now in the Constitution.
The 5th section we
voted against, unanimously. That, as you may remember, declares that,
“The
Foreign slave trade is hereby prohibited; and it shall be the duty of Congress
to pass laws to prevent the importation of slaves, coolies, or persons held to
service or labor, into the United States and the Territories, from places
beyond the limits thereof.”
My Friend, Mr.
SUMMERS, has made the best apology for that section that could be made, in the
address that he delivered. But against it, Virginia stood as a unit. And why?
We look to the
probable arrival of a period when the independence of the Southern Confederacy
will be recognized by the whole country. Whether we might have a separate
Confederacy along side of us, made up of other States, or whether we could
belong to the Confederacy whose seat of Government is at Montgomery or not, was
not the question.
We contended and
voted against the proposition of the grounds that a prohibition being made by
the government to which we now belong, in regard to the inter States slave
trade from that quarter, would have the effect of producing a similar interdict
on the part of that government at a future day, and in that way a demand upon
us for supplies of labor would altogether cease. I remember the time that
Virginia prevented the introduction of slaves within her borders by statute
from other States, and I also remember that similar prohibitions soon
afterwards followed from most if not all of the Southern States, as retaliatory
on us. Such a policy would be again resorted to by this Southern confederacy,
when it shall come to be recognized, in case this provision was enforced; and
the result would be to put a stop to the profitable drain of this species of
property. It was a desire to avert this result, and not the remotest wish to
reopen the African slave trade, that induced us to vote against this section.
So far as the reopening of the African slave trade is concerned, I protest
against it. I believe there is no man now in Virginia who is in favor of the
restoration of that trade. I protest against it with all my heart, with all my
strength. I would not suffer it to be reopened by any State, either in this
Union, or of the American Hemisphere, if it depended upon my voice to prevent
it. I should deny my own paternity if I failed to do so. My venerated father
made the continuance of that trade to 1808 one of his leading objections to the
adoption of the present Constitution of the United States in the Convention
which gave to that instrument the ratification of Virginia. I adopt his views
and shall endorse them so long as life shall last.
The 6th Section is
merely a re-confirmation, if I may be allowed such an expression, of certain
sections of the Constitution as it is.
And now I come to
the last or 7th section, which I shall dispose of in very few words:
“Congress
shall provide by law that the United States shall pay to the owner the full
value of his fugitive from the labor, in all cases where the marshal or other
officer, whose duty it was to arrest such fugitive, was prevented from so doing
by violence or intimidation from mobs or riotous assemblages, or when, after
arrest, such fugitive was rescued by
like violence or intimidation, and the owner thereby deprived of the
same; and Congress shall provide by law for securing to the citizens of each
State the privileges and immunities of the several States.”
It might be
sufficient to say that we were united against that provision. I had hoped that
it would require no explanation at my hands. It received an explanation at the
hands of my honorable colleague, in which I could not concur. I felt that the
explanation was rather in contravention of the views I entertained, and
therefore I begged him to urge the objections which he had had to the section
when we voted unitedly against it. It was considered by some of us at least
that that section was, in effect, the initiation of a course of emancipation
throughout the extensive borders of the slave States; that there would be every
inducement on the part of the slave to cross the border, and every inducement
for mobs to assemble and prevent the arrest of the fugitive, or to secure his
escape. The master himself would be less in earnest to recover possession of
the fugitive, as he had to be paid for him by the Government. Nay, the Marshal
himself—I should have but little confidence in marshals of Mr. Lincoln’s
appointment—might wink at the whole proceeding, and thus a great Pandora’s box
would be opened all along the border. Instead of such a provision as this quieting
agitation it would re-open it. But, strong as these objections occurred to me
to be, our chief position, as I understood it, was leveled at the last clause.
Under the Constitution, when a citizen travels abroad from his own State, he
should enjoy the rights, privileges and immunities which are enjoyed by the
citizen of the State to which he goes. That provision is broad enough,
capacious enough and covers the whole ground. It wants no legislation to
enforce it. But Congress is to be invested with full discretionary power to
legislate upon this subject. In Massachusetts, if I am not deceived, and in
some other States, they proclaim that a portion of their so called citizens,
are of the African race. They are admitted to an equality with the whites at
the polls.—Being professedly citizens of that State why sir, the toils might be
thrown over us without our being aware of it through an act of Congress.
Congress might legislate them even into seats in that body, and you might have
Fred. Douglass occupying a seat there. He is one of their leading men, one of
their principal orators upon all the disturbing questions connected with the
slave interest of the country. He is ever thrusting himself into everything.
The last time I heard of him he was at Faneuil Hall, attempting to address some
assemblage held there. Faneuil Hall that glorious hall, consecrated to freedom
, and around whose altars their fathers and our fathers have so often knelt
together—to be desecrated by the ravings of a run-a-way slave! I could not
tolerate for a moment the idea of putting my honorable friend (Mr. SUMMERS)—and
I trust that some day he will be clothed with a higher representative power,
either at Washington or Montgomery—down by the side of Fred. Douglass, in the
Senate of the United States, Cheek by jowl, and in fellowship with him as his
fellow Citizen. “Give me some civet, good apothecary, to sweeten my
imagination.”
Now, Mr. President,
what do you make of this thing? Let us see what is left of it. I have
demonstrated, that so far as grants of the public land are concerned, it is a
mere myth—a gossamer of the air—something that fades before you as a
will-o’-the-wisp; that vanishes into thin air, so that you cannot lay your hand
upon it.
As to the first
section, therefore, it is of no consequence at all. That is my deliberate
judgment. Your committee of twenty-one will have it under their consideration.
The first section, then, is worthless. The second I demonstrated to be
injurious, as preventing the acquisition of any new territory. The third is
Corwin’s amendment, which has passed the two Houses of Congress; and whatever
remains of it is, in my deliberate judgment, not compensated for by the negation
of the right of transit through the States. The fourth section is already
provided for in the Constitution of the United States. The fifth and seventh
were voted against unanimously by the Virginia Commissioners. What remains of
the article then? Why, it is all gone, dissipated, according to the
interpretation I put upon it. It was, in truth, but a phantom from the first.
Since it introduces
nothing which is tangible and of value, that should have been provided for,
what is omitted by it? I will recapitulate, very briefly, what it has omitted:
First. Lands all
gone and none to be acquired.
Second. No right of
transit.
Third. No rendition
of fugitives from justice.
A negro kills his
master in Virginia, and flees into Ohio; Governor Dennison turns over his
volumes, and he cannot find, with the aid of all his spectacles, that in the
State of Ohio a slave killing his master can be punished as for a crime. One of
John Brown’s raid flees to Iowa. A requisition is made upon the Governor for
the man who has violated your own homestead, and who has dared to tread with
impious footstep upon Virginia soil. You make a demand upon the Governor for
him; but the authority cannot be found in the bond which authorizes his
restoration. Like the Jew Shylock, he cannot find it stipulated in the bond,
and the murderer and the incendiary goes free.
Fourth. No repeal of
personal liberty bills demanded.
Let me here do
justice to the gallant little State of Rhode Island; prompt in the execution of
her duty, the very instant there was a requisition of the kind made upon her by
the public voice, she repealed her personal liberty bill. Has she been followed
by Massachusetts? Will the exultant party in New Hampshire that is now living
more loftily its banner of victory than ever before, be likely to follow the
example of Rhode Island? Will they make any concession? especially when they
have again triumphed, and by a larger majority that heretofore?
What else?
Fifth. No security
against under-ground-railroads.
Mr. President, have
you not been struck with the perfect silence which has prevailed on the part of
these under ground railroads of late? We have not heard of a single passenger
over that route since the present agitation commenced, and since South Carolina
first entered upon her course of separation. It seems to be abandoned. What
inference do you draw from that circumstance? That the whole matter is under
the management and control of the leaders—under their dictation and constant
control. If they put it in motion, it is in motion. If they bid it stand still,
it stands still. You have heard nothing of it now for months, but you may
expect developments from it bye and bye.
Sixth. No restraint
upon the circulation of Helper’s book or pamphlets through the Post office.
Can you restrain
their circulation, in the absence of any provision, through the Post Office?
New men are in power. Their friends and allies are clothed with the investiture
of office. But I will not stop to discuss that matter further.
The whole of this project is the work of a minority.
Congress repudiates it through non-action. It was presented to that body for
ratification or rather for recommendation to the States. The Premier looked at
it closely. The Premier of this Administration, which has been installed in
office by blast of trumpet and roll of drum—this Administration that has come
stealthily in by night into the Presidential chair which was filled by a
Washington, and which, under some vague pretence of hidden assassins lurking in
ambush, surrounds itself with a guard of armed men—the Premier of this Administration,
I say, glanced at it, and what does he propose? After midnight conferences with
our friends, pretendedly inclining to compromise and settle it, why he proposes
a National Convention.
“Will
you walk into my parlor, said the spider to the fly; it is the prettiest parlor
that you ever did spy.”
[Laughter.]
That is exactly the
parlor in which you are invited to walk. Go into it and the fate of the poor
fly is yours.
Now, Mr. President,
I want seriously to know of this convention, what are you going to do? You
cannot stand still. That is not possible. Events are moving too rapidly around
you. The times are pregnant with signs. Even if you were disposed to take a
little more slumber, you cannot fold your arms and sleep soundly. You must do
something. And what is that something? On One day there comes fort a smile from
the White House; but, lo! the next day it is chased away with a frown. On one
day we hear that Fort Sumter is to be abandoned—the next that the Star of the
West with supplies is already to sail from New York for some point on the
Southern coast. I would fain hope that the news is authentic that Fort Sumter
is to be evacuated and that gallant man, Major Anderson, is to be relieved from
a condition which becomes more desperate every day. A fine gallant boy, the son
of an esteemed and respected friend of mine, whom I have known for many years,
and whose father was familiar with my father—our present Minister to Brazil—is
now shut up in that fort. I know that he is prepared to die in the discharge of
his duty. He would not be a Virginian if he were not. But his father is 2,000
miles away, representing his government in a foreign court. I thought I would
wait upon President Buchanan, and try to interest him in behalf of Major
Anderson and those under his command. I urged the impossibility of sending
relief—I saw no change for a successful defence. I represented to him, in the
mildest terms I could, the condition of that noble boy. I adverted to the state
of the garrison; that there were only seventy-odd people to man the guns; that
after all this vaunting about the strength of the fort, there were no more than
enough soldiers to man six guns, and the ability would fail event to man them,
after a few days of conflict. Why not, then, relieve and discharge the
garrison? They are ready to perish in the defence of their duty—why let them
perish? Why shall your robes be stained with the blood of your officers, when
you have but a few days more to remain in office. The reply in substance was
“duty.” I could not feel it—I could not comprehend it—but there it was. I was
rejoiced when I understood that the present occupant of the Presidential Chair
had decided to abandon the fort. He can do nothing else. He is in a
straight-jacket; he cannot throw in supplies, neither can he retain a
possession of the fort much longer. But I do not altogether like the appearance
of the news of this morning—yesterday the dove was let loose from its cage in
evidence that bitter waters were subsiding—today the hawk is unhooded and flies
on rapid wing to overtake the dove. I trust yet that there will be good sense
enough on the part of the Administration to induce an evacuation of that
fortress as well as others, without a conflict of arms.
There are many
things that look alarming. The Star of the West and Daniel Webster are at New
York with supplies, ready to sail for the Southern coast. And a newspaper
paragraph announces that announces that General Scott has been studying out a
plan by which Fort Sumter can be reinforced. This paragraph I do not altogether
credit, because I do not believe that the old war-worn chieftain, although he
may have lost some of the chivalric spirit which formerly illustrated his
character and his fame, has yet gone to that desperate extremity of trying by
shift and cunning to accomplish what noble-hearted men will ever try to
accomplish only by direct action. Mr. President, I wish not only that Fort
Sumter and Fort Pickens might be abandoned, but that the President would lift
himself up to a higher and loftier pinnacle of statesmanship and at once yield
to the propriety of a recognition of the Southern Confederacy. A commercial
treaty and a treaty of alliance offensive and defensive with them, would save
much of the Union under which we have all lived so long and happily. If all
cannot be saved, save as much as can be saved, even of the fragments; for every
fragment will be a gem glorious and priceless. But I fear that this policy is
not to be their policy. Italy can rise up from the thralldom of centuries and
win the bright coronet of free government. The Iron crown of Austria may be
removed from the brow of its wearer to do honor to Hungary. But Mr. Lincoln
recognizes no such principle as lying at the base of American institutions, as
the right of the people of any of these states to seek their happiness under
any other government than that inaugurated by himself, of a sectional majority.
Hence the Pacific and Mediterranean fleets are, it is said, ordered home, to
cluster about our coast! Hence, the whole border, stretching off California, is
to be left exposed to the attacks of the savages, by withdrawing from it the
two thousand fife hundred regular troops. Rumor speaks of a portion of these
troops being stationed at Washington as a strategic point. If it be accurate, I
shall regard it as “bearding the lion in his den, the Douglas in his hall.” It
looks like a strategic operation to coerce Virginia, and keep you under
subjection and control.—Virginia is the bright star that now fixes the
attention of the country. Every eye is turned to her. I fear that the game is
to hold Virginia in thralldom, if possible. If it can be done by the practice
of chicanery and smiles, she will be kept in her present attitude of inaction.
Depend upon it, all means will be resorted to accomplish this object. Troops
may be concentrated in considerable numbers at Fort Washington and Fortress
Monroe. In that event what will be the condition of Alexandria and
Richmond—Fort Washington upon the Potomac, garrisoned—and not a barrel of flour
not a hogshead of tobacco, no article of commerce, can float by without being
under the range of its guns. If Fortress Monroe is to be garrisoned by 5,000
men, as speculation has sometimes intimated, the trade of Richmond—that trade
which floats down the James, the York, the Rappahannock, and other rivers of
the Commonwealth, is essentially blocked out from the ocean by a ship of war
stationed in the Bay, to co-operate with the Fort. Look at it, I pray you, and
let your action here anticipate, and as far as it can avail, guard against the
state of things which may soon exist.
What else presents
itself to you? There is a hint give you from a quarter which speaks almost in
tones of thunder. What means the resignation of those, as it were cabinet
officer of the army? These aids and chief officers, including the
adjutant-general of the army? Why do they resign the fat emoluments of their
offices? Why are they seeking employment elsewhere? I put it to your own
sagacity to say, for there must be something of distrust and a want of
confidence, when these things happen. I repeat the question, what will you do?
What is Virginia to do in this state of things? This I know she cannot do in
safety: She cannot rest upon any inefficient measure. Mark you, how things have
gone. I trust I shall be pardoned by the Convention for the feeble and tedious
manner in which I am exhibiting my views upon this great question. I feel that
I am surrounded by a band of brothers. We are to speak our sentiments freely to
each other. In that spirit I ask you, what sort of guarantees will Virginia
require? Mere reiterations of constitutional enactments which already exist? No
sir, that will be of but small avail. For 50 years in the history of the
government, you had a positive guarantee of powers—you could not be injured—no
sectional party could disturb you, because you had an equal balance of power in
the Senate. There you had a check. For a long course of time, which a slave
State was introduced, a free State was also introduced, and that state of
things continued until recently. You exhausted your land. You had no longer any
slave States to bring in; and now you are out numbered. The whole power of the
Government is against you; and you have no check. You must, therefore, have
guarantees of power. You effect but little by mere declarations, whether in the
form of resolutions or amendments. Against such a power as that which has been
growing up for 30 years, and swelling in magnitude from almost nothing, until
it has grown up into a sectional magnitude to control the destinies of the
country—how can you restore your safety? To guard against sectional majorities,
are you going to trust to a piece of parchment? In the language of the great
orator, whose portrait adorns the hall of this Convention, John Randolph, you
had as well pierce the parchment with bayonets, and burn it, as to trust your
rights to a merely declaratory provision. Majorities are despotic. I had rather
be governed by King One than by King Numbers, with sectional conflicts and antagonism
between us. King One will look to my interest along with the interest of all his
subjects; but King Majority, when sectional, looks to its own interests, and
nothing else. Why, sir, your parchment would not be worth anything for positive
protection. Rise up, then, in the dignity of your manhood. If you will delay
still—if you are desirous to try still farther experiments—go forth with a
strong hand, I pray you, such as Virginia ought to exhibit.—Why, sir, my
friend, (Mr. SUMMERS, gave us a glowing picture of the exposure along the line
of our borders to inroads for the abduction of the slaves. Such inroads cannot,
in any state of the future, exceed what has occurred in the past. I have a
friend upon this floor, a member of this Convention, (Gen. JACKSON, from Wood,)
who, years ago, informed me of the sweeping loss which, along with others, he
had sustained in this particular. More vigilance will be exerted in this behalf
than in a time of profound tranquility, and by that alone property will be
rendered more secure. If driven to secession, Virginia should introduce a rigid
passport system to be executed by a vigilant police, and in that,, security
will be found.
I have heard others
express fears of inroads, and border forays. Let me tell all such, that the
Alleghany Eagle soars with as strong a wing and gazes with as unwinking an eye
upon the sun as any similar bird from any other eyrie. If you fear those across
the border, they also fear you. Yield not one inch in taking your position,
whatever it may be.—That is the way to maintain your rights.—Sir, the slave
States have, it is true, two thousand miles of border, but so have the free
States. Their Cities and farms are quite as much exposed as are ours. The large
cities are chiefly on their side. If Wheeling is in danger, so also is
Pittsburg. Cincinnati is opposite to Newport. Do you think that those Ohio
people are going to endanger Cincinnati, by making in inroad upon Newport? What
are either side to gain by inroads? No, sir, it is to the interests of the
borderers to keep the peace, and men are apt to pursue their interests. I have
but little fear from that quarter. Mr. President, my policy stretches still
farther than to the slave states. I want the government of the whole Union,
sir; and you can acquire it if you pursue a wise and determined appendage to a
Northern Confederacy. You cannot fasten her to the North, and what is there to
induce Pennsylvania to remain? I have great hope of change in the politics of Pennsylvania.
Sir, I heard a voice from New York last night. It was mellifluous, powerful,
truthful. I know not whether the gentleman who uttered those sentiments be
present in my hearing, the Hon. John Cochrane, of New York, (Yes, said some
one, he is present,) if he is let me tell him that his own great imperial city
of New York cannot stay where she is.—The South is her natural ally, and she
must come with us.
And now what result
may be anticipated? I say to you here, play your part properly; open your eyes
and take a full expansive survey of all the circumstances that surround you.
What will you have done if you get three or four of the free States and all the
slave States go with you? What becomes of Mr. Lincoln’s General Government? Why
you constitute a majority of the whole number of States; and if a majority of
the whole number of States; and if a majority power means anything, it means
that you are entitled to the scepter and the crown. The Government becomes
yours almost decidedly. And I don’t despair of this result. All I say is that
if my friends desire time, in the name of peace let them take time; let them
take what time they may please, so that it be reasonable time. My constituents
I know are in motion. They are composed of the old Whig Party five to one. They
sent me her almost without consulting me. They have chosen to confer upon me
the mantle of their representative in this Convention, and voted five to one
against a reference to them of what we should do there. I feel it to have been
a great honor. They are in motion, sir. You cannot keep the Virginia spirit
down. And you cannot preserve any nomenclature of party in these times. He who
attempts to establish a party for mere party victory and will find himself in a
very miserable minority.
Well, sir, if you
cannot act with those whose sentiments you consider extreme, do as my friend
from Kanawha (Mr. SUMMERS,) told you. Let Virginia act for herself. Let your
wise-heads lay down your ultimatum. Let that ultimatum consist of ample and
full protection. Then send it to all the free States, saying “Here is our
ultimatum; if you do not take that, we go out, we cannot longer continue with
you.” It is not possible for us to remain at rest; we must do something.
Mr. President, that
is the view I entertain upon this subject. Sir, about the Western part of
Virginia I have not the slightest apprehension. There is a glory in the West
that cannot fade away. It was there, at the dawn of the Revolution, that the
first great victory was obtained, in advance of the fight at Bunker Hill. My
friend alluded in glowing terms to the west There it was that your men of
former times battled for the rights of your eminent domain. Point Pleasant is a
marked place in history. A little higher up you vanquished the French and
Indian legions, and drove them from Pittsburg, which afterwards Pennsylvania
got from you under mistake in the survey. That is the whole secret of it. According
to right, if that line had been run properly you would have got Pittsburg. What
are the difficulties now in comparison with what they were then? Then there was
a wilderness to settle; there were no habitations to be seen; it was a country
uninhabited except by the roving savage. Cornstalk, the Indian chief, ruled the
land, and was master of that region. It became necessary to extend your sway
and your dominion; and your gallant Lewis and others of the West, trans-montane
and cis-montane united, and you accomplished victory and glory in face of
difficulties of immense magnitude.
Ex-Governor WISE.—(Interrupting)—And
the battles of the North West.
Mr. TYLER.—Yes, sir,
under the gallant Clark, and at an after day by the brave Kentuckians. But I am
speaking exclusively of Virginia. Now, Gentlemen, here you stand in the mist of
these evils. I fear that a dangerous and insidious policy is about to surround
us. The patronage of the Administration begins to be distributed. Who is to be
sent as representative to Spain? A man who is everywhere reproaching us,
Cassius M. Clay. He is to go to Spain. Clay to acquire Cuba? Don’t dream about
it. Sir, you will never get Cuba under this Administration. Cassius M. Clay, a
perfect fanatic on the subject of slave property, is sent to Spain. Well, a
better appointment is made in the representative of the Government to Mexico,
Mr. Thomas Corwin. I have a very high respect for that gentleman. I think he is
a more liberal man than the other in his views, and he is a man of high talent.
Who is to go to England, who to France, and who to the other Courts of Europe,
we know not yet. These will doubtless be of those who will be welcomed in
Exeter Hall, and delight to put forth long tirades against us. These are the
sort of men likely to be appointed to represent the United States in foreign
courts, whose chief office and pleasure it will be to defame and abuse us upon
the theatre of Europe. O, Sir, great events depend upon every moment of our
lives. “There was a Brutus once that would have braved the very devil to keep
his state in Rome, as proudly as a king.” And so it was once with old Virginia.
Is she going to sneak about in order to obtain possible terms by which she is
to keep in with the North? Or does she mean to stand upon the great platform of
her rights? Does she mean to claim in her own behalf the application of her
great magna charter to hold sacred her property under all circumstances and at
all hazards? That is the Virginia that I have been born in and that I have been
living in. I have traveled over her lofty Western mountains. I have wandered
over those hills where slumber remains of Morgan, that gallant leader of the
Rifles in many a had fought field; and among those hills you will find the
graves of the gallant and the brave. My home is in sight of Jamestown, there
our ancestors four years in advance of the British Parliament adopted the great
petition of right which lies at the foundation of public liberty. The
non-observance of the principles of that petition of right cost the head of one
sovereign and the expulsion of another. I wander amid their graves and ponder
beside their tombs. I find myself in Williamsburg, and the memories of the past
cluster all around me. The Voice of Henry is heard from amid the ruins of the
old capitol, and the dying echoes of the last cannon reverberate from the
plains of Yorktown. In triumphant array our victorious hosts pass before me,
and my eyes become riveted upon them and the tattered banner which those of
Virginia proudly bear. It is the prototype of that which floats over this
deliberative hall.
There they are, all
of them. By the example of these illustrious men, I stand up for our rights as
the only way to vindicate them.—Watchman, what time of the night? The hour has
almost struck. Put down your ultimatum, and don’t stop there. Go a little
further. You have already reported and anti-coercion bill. Let it be strong;
let there be no sort of reserve upon its face. Let it say to these gentlemen in
Washington as King Canute said to the waters of the great deep, “thus far, and
no farther.” Arrest their warlike movements, if possible. Go a step further.
Insist upon the observance of the statu
quo precisely as it is. Not an additional man to garrison Fortress Monroe;
not another to Harper’s Ferry; not another to Fort Washington; not another at
the city of Washington. Do that, and you will do right. Then you can give time,
reasonable time, for action on your ultimatum. Revolutions never go backward.
Ponder on this, and be ready.
I have heard much
abuse heaped on South Carolina. Now, preliminary to any remarks which I shall
make upon that subject, I want merely to say that I am not in correspondence with
any politicians upon the face of the globe. A newspaper, the New York “Times,”
in a scurrilous article calling me traitor because I would not vote for this
Peace Congress Proposition, accused me of being the mere attorney of South
Carolina and the Government at Montgomery. Sir, I only mean to say that I never
received a communication from either place, except by telegraph in reply to one
dispatched from almost under the eye of the then President of the United
States, with a view to preserve peace between the constants. I wrote no letter at all. My whole
correspondence, limited as it is, is in another direction, and very much is
confined to the North. I delight to correspond with the men of high talents,
and the noble men of Massachusetts—for there are noble men there.—There is no
man in the Union that I respect more highly than Edward Everett. I correspond
with him occasionally—not on political subjects, but in the ordinary course of
familiar correspondence. There is another whom I would like very much to make
my correspondent, and that is Robert Winthrop of Massachusetts. There is but
one more man in the wide world outside of my own family, that I have as a
correspondent, and that is Dr. Sprague, of Albany, the venerable Presbyterian
divine, the most distinguished man of his order in America. The New York “Times”
could hardly, with all its knowledge of alchemy, extract treason out of this.
Now, sir, much has
been said against South Carolina. Well, look upon the other hand, if you please
that she might have been more patient
and waited for the co-operation of her sister States, may be admitted. I have thought
that the cotton States had better have retained their Senators and
Representatives in their seats at Washington. Sir, they had in their hands a
great power—the power of control over the public expenditures. They were in a majority
in both houses in Congress, and they were destined to hold that majority for
two years if they chose. All of us, who are familiar with history, know that
the great instrument for saving public liberty against the licentiousness of
the monarch in England, has been the control over the appropriations, the right
to withhold appropriations. Sir, according to my conception, although I may be
mistaken, they had this control in their hands and they threw it away. If I had
been one of that majority, and my voice might have been heard, I would have
begged and supplicated the cotton States to have held on to their position; and
I would not have voted one dollar to Mr. Lincoln’s administration for the army
and navy until he had come up to the high duties of statesmanship, and given
such guarantees to the South as were necessary for their protection. I would
have done as the Republican party did in the case of Kansas. But they threw
away the game. So, at least I though. But it was for them to decide; and I no
longer complain.
Now, I hold to the
opinion that this consultation of the border slave States will amount to
nothing. But put forth your ultimatum, sir; let it be, as I have said, strong
and decisive, full of guarantees of security, and I don’t know what may be the
effect of it if you can get it adopted.
I am not prepared to say that with these guarantees of protection, the seceded
States of the south will not come back.
Well, Mr. President,
what labor, what expenditure of means ought to be made to place in your power
so glorious and so magnificent a result, as the restoration of the Union?
Sir, you cannot do
without the cotton States. It is idle to talk of it. You must have the cotton
States, if they can on proper terms be brought back. If those States to-morrow
were put up at market overt, and you invited to the place of bidding; the
nations of the earth, Russia, wrapped up in her furs, would be there; England
with argosies freighted with treasure would be there; France would come with
her imperial crown—and what price would be bid for them, it would puzzle
arithmetic to determine. What would be the price to be paid down for them?
Would you count it by millions? Or would you go up to billions and trillions?
Why, look at it. The Foundation of all the exchanges of the world, the commerce
of the world proceeds chiefly from them.
Go to the Exchanges
of the world and you see that they are all regulated by cotton. Go to the North—why
the whole North is covered over with glittering gems through the cotton trade.
And yet it is to be thrown away because of your conception that South Carolina
guarantees which cost nothing, to reclaim so great a treasure. Why cannot the
free States, if they really design you no harm, give the necessary guarantees
to secure you? I fear that they desire disunion. Disunion is to them the high
road to office; and I fear that many of their politicians would rather “rule in
hell than serve in Heaven.” South Carolina was a glorious star in the
firmament, and I want her to shine there again in all her brightness and glory.
Who has forgotten her Marion, her Pickens, and her Sumter? Who has forgotten—even
the boys at their school have learned it—who has forgotten King’s Mountain and
its glory? Sir, I remember an incident connected with King’s mountain.—When
traveling in the railroad cars, I fell in with Mr. Bancroft, the historian. “I
am just from King’s Mountain,” he said, “they have had a great celebration
there, and I have been delighted beyond measure. I went over with William C.
Preston, I accompanied him in his carriage upon that occasion. Stricken down as
he was in the flower of his life, there was enough of intellect still to
coruscate into jewels everything around him, magnificent in its splendor,
brilliant in everything that related to him. There he was. They called upon him
for a speech; and even there, amidst that decrepitude, broken down as he was by
paralysis, a stranger at his home by the severance of his domestic ties, which
he lamented and mourned over ‘like a deer,’ he found his way to the heart of
every human being who heard him.” That was what Mr. Bancroft said.
Well, sir, you are
going to throw up this.—Gems so bright as your cotton interest you are going to
discard. Whither are you going? You have to choose your association. Will you
find it among the icebergs of the North or the cotton fields of the South? What
will you gain by going North? Will you jeopardize for an association with the
North your great interest arising under your domestic institutions? That
interest is worth $300,000,000.—Decide upon association with the North, and you
reduce it two-thirds in value. Nor is that all—a still more evil day will befall
you.—Brennus may not be yet in the capitol, but he will soon be there, and the
sword will be thrown into the scale to weigh against our liberties, and there
will be no Camillus to expel him.
Sir, I am done. I
know that I have presented my views to you most feebly. I have presented them,
however, with all the frankness with which one Virginian should talk to another
upon this great occasion. You have much more wisdom that I possess. I look with
fear and trembling, to some extent, at the condition of my country. But I do
not want to see Virginia united—I which to see her carrying her head as she
carried it in former times—The time was, when she did not fear. I have entire
confidence that her proud crest will yet be seen waiving in the great
procession of States that go up to the temple to make their vows to maintain
their liberties, “peaceably if they can, forcibly if they must.” Sir, I am
done.
SOURCES: Lyon
Gardiner Tyler, The Letters and Times of the Tylers, Volume 2, p.
598-600, 607; Charles William Kent, Literary Editor, Library
of Southern Literature, Volume
12, p. 5551-5554; “The Virginia State Convention. Speech of Ex-President
Tyler,” Richmond Enquirer, Richmond,
Virginia, Saturday Morning, March 30, 1861, pp. 1 & 4; John Robert Irelan, The Republic, Or, A History of the United
States of America in the Administrations, From the Monarchic Colonial Days to
the Present Times, Vol. 10, p. 176-7, 395-7; William Flewellen Samford, Letter of William F. Samford, Esq. of
Alabama, to Governor Wise, p. 21; George Henkle Reese, Editor, Proceedings of the Virginia State Convention
of 1861, February 13-May 1, Vol. 1, p. 660-81
